RESEARCH ARTICLE

Needs and gaps in the conservation of wild plant geneticresources for food and agriculture in Romania

Maria-Mihaela Antofie

Received: 18 February 2014 / Accepted: 17 May 2014

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract A list of 300 wild plant species for

medicinal and food use, published in 1991 by Const-

antin Dragulescu, is analysed to evaluate the needs for

in situ conservation of endangered plant genetic

resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The

study considers the survey of the International Union

for Conservation of Nature Red List, the Appendix of

Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species, the Annex I of the Plant Treaty, the data base

of the Gene Bank Suceava, scientific publications (i.e.

the Red List for vascular plants in Romania published

in 2009 and The Romanian Flora published in 1977)

and the current regulatory framework. Based on the

results of this analysis it can be concluded that at least

four PGRFA are not officially protected in the wild in

Romania, such as: Barbarea lepuznica (critically

endangered and confined to a single one protected

area), Barbarea stricta (critically endangered, not

protected in any of the current protected areas in

Romania), Crambe maritima (endangered, identified

in two protected areas) and Lepidium graminifolium

(critically endangered, not protected in any of the

current protected areas in Romania). The results of this

study may be used for improving the conservation

management of PGRFA based on an integrated

approach when different political commitments

regarding the biodiversity conservation are addressed.

Keywords Conservation measures � Endangered

plant species � In situ � PGRFA � Protected areas �Regulatory framework � Romania

Introduction

Biodiversity conservation depends on many factors

and Soran and collaborators (2000) considered as very

important to have in the national data base complete

and correct information from the field. Still, the

evolution in status of conservation of species and their

habitats is highly dependent on the coherency of the

regulatory framework working for implementing

appropriate conservation measures (Rands et al.

2010). A fast up-dating system regarding the evalu-

ation of the status of conservation of species and

habitats is required to be implemented by countries in

order to apply the best practices in supporting

conservation and sustainable use (Swanson 1995).

Romania has a high biodiversity reflected in the

diversity of species and habitat (Schmitt and Rakosy

2007). In response to political commitments taken

under the convention on biological diversity (CBD)

and other related treaties the first National Strategy for

Biodiversity and Action Plan (NBSAP) was officially

adopted in the beginning of 2014 (Decision 1081/2013).

M.-M. Antofie (&)

Department of Agricultural Sciences and Environment

Protection, ‘‘Lucian Blaga’’ University of Sibiu,

5-7 Ion Ratiu Str., 550012 Sibiu, Romania

e-mail: mihaela_antofie@yahoo.com

123

Genet Resour Crop Evol

DOI 10.1007/s10722-014-0134-1

After 2007 Romania joined the Natura 2000 network of

protected areas of the European Union for ensuring

in situ conservation and sustainable use of species and

habitats.

It is recognized today that biodiversity is supporting

food security and the regulatory framework for nature

conservation must adapt conservation measures

accordingly (Thrupp 2000; FAO 2010). It is also

recognized that increasing demands for food or feed

will require intelligent and integrated solutions at the

local level because otherwise severe impacts on

biodiversity may occur in the absence of appropriate

management measures (Chappell and LaValle 2011;

Tscharntke et al. 2012; Frison and Demers 2014). A

recent study provides evidences of change in the

general use of 52 commodities in national food

supplies worldwide over the past 50 years (Khoury

et al. 2014), which support the reports that the decrease

in crops diversity is dangerous for future of mankind

(Hammer and Khoshbakht 2010). Furthermore, con-

sidering the current trends regarding gene bank

accessions and market value (FAO 2011; Padulosi

and Dulloo 2012) it may support the idea of increasing

the general pressure on biodiversity (Phalan et al.

2011) and this raises serious concerns about the

sustainability of feeding the world today and in the

future (Frison 2006; Raschke and Cheema 2008;

Padulosi et al. 2011).

However, it is proved that aside from domestic

crops the wild plant genetic resources for food and

agriculture (PGRFA) are valuable to local communi-

ties (Padulosi 2012). Still, little attention has been paid

to investigating wild plant species in ensuring their

proper conservation and sustainable use in their native

habitats as part of the whole biodiversity taking into

account that it represents the genetic pool humankind

accessed during millennia. Therefore, a careful atten-

tion should be paid for the investigation of these

species and further for developing and enforcing tools

and methods for their appropriate conservation and

sustainable use (Cottier 1998; Esquinas-Alcazar 2005).

The scope of this article is to evaluate the existence

of conservation measures for protected areas such as

the sites of community interest (SCI) as part of the

European Union Natura 2000 network for the most

threatened PGRFA among the 300 wild plant species

described as having a potential use as food in Romania

and listed in 1991 by Professor Constantin Dragulescu

(Dragulescu 1991). As a consequence, the entire list of

300 wild plant species was evaluated against interna-

tional lists of species belonging to the IUCN Red List

of Threatened Species (IUCN 2013), the Appendix of

Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the

Annex I of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic

resources for Food and Agriculture or Plant Treaty

(Plant Treaty). Thus, the IUCN Red List is the

international tool for recognizing the status of the

conservation of the species worldwide, the Appendix

of the CITES lists the threatened species for which

derogations should be adopted for trade purposes at

the international level and the Annex I of the Plant

Treaty lists PGRFA at the genus and species level. At

the national level from scientific point of view and in

the national context the list of 300 wild plant species

was evaluated against the present Red List for vascular

plants in Romania (Dihoru and Negrean 2009),

Romanian Flora (Beldie 1977), and relevant scientific

literature in order to evaluate the consistency of data

between science and the existing regulatory frame-

work at the national level. The assessment against the

data base of the Gene Bank Suceava was made for

revealing the existence of ex situ conservation pro-

grammes for the surveyed plant genetic resources

recognized as PGRFA.

Material and methods

The analysis of status of conservation of wild plant

species against scientific literature. The list of 300

wild plant species published in 1991 by Professor

Constantin Dragulescu, as a botanist in the University

Lucian Blaga from Sibiu, is used in this model

analysis, for evaluating the status of conservation by

taking into account the old Romanian Flora published

in 1977 by Beldie, the current Red List for vascular

plants (Dihoru and Negrean in 2009) and current

scientific literature. Among these sources only the

Romanian Flora published 37 years ago is officially

recognized by the current regulatory framework in our

country through the Decree 273/1950.

The analysis of wild plant species against interna-

tional lists of species was realized against the Data

Base of International Union for Conservation of

Nature (IUCN), the Annex I of the International

Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and

Agriculture or Plant Treaty (Plant Treaty) and

Genet Resour Crop Evol

123

Appendix of the Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora

(CITES).

The analysis of the official recognized status of

conservation of wild plant species in the national

context was realized against the Decree 273/1950

supporting the validity of the Romanian Flora, the

Ordinance 57/2007 regarding the regime of natural

protected areas, the conservation of natural habitats,

wild flora and fauna and approved by the Law 49/2011

and the Ministerial Order 1964/2007 regarding the

establishment of natural protected areas of community

importance as part of the European ecological network

Natura 2000, with further changes and completeness.

The latest regulatory act also lists the need for in situ

conservation measures development regarding wild

species and habitats of community interest. For

revealing ex situ conservation programmes the data

base of Gene Bank Suceava was consulted. This gene

bank is the national focal point for the Plant Treaty in

supporting the ex situ conservation of PGRFA at the

national level.

Results

Wild plant species analysis against international data

base, scientific literature and current regulatory

framework In 1991 Professor Constantin Dragulescu

published the first list of 300 wild plant species for

Romania. In this book he described their traditional

use (e.g. history in use, harvesting, preparing and

preserving). Dragulescu concluded that only 70 of the

300 wild plant species are still in use today as food

source in the rural area (i.e. 23.33 % of the 300)

grounding a massive traditional knowledge erosion

process (Dragulescu 1992). The list was recon-

firmed and enlarged later for 600 wild plant species

(Dragulescu 2008). This study is revealing for the first

time in Romania the tight connection between wild

plant species and local traditional knowledge (TK)

associated to the species and habitats in rural

areas. For this study the entire list of 300 species

was analysed for their recognition in different

list of species at national and international levels

(Table 1).

Analysis against the IUCN data base (2014) Based

on the survey results consulting the IUCN data base,

evaluations have been published for 17 of the 300

analyzed wild plant species. Thus, according to these

results one species is Endangered—EN worldwide

(Barbarea lepuznica), two are Data Deficient—DD

(Allium rotudum and Lactuca perennis) and 14 have

been evaluated as Least Concerned—LC (e.g. Acorus

calamus, Alisma plantago-aquatica, Amygdalus nana,

Armoracia rusticana, Arnica montana, Juniperus

communis, Marsilea quadrifolia, Pinus cembra, Quer-

cus robur, Sagittaria sagittifolia Trapa natans, Trifo-

lium pratense, Typha angustifolia and Typha latifolia).

As the evaluation of the status of conservation of the

species is also made at the national level these results

will be discussed later based on the Romanian Red List

for higher plants (Dihoru and Negrean 2009) and other

scientific evidences.

Analysis against the list of crops covered by

Annex I of the Plant Treaty A total of 38 PGRFA of

the 300 wild plant species, are officially listed at the

genus level into the Annex I of the Plant Treaty

being recognized at the Food and Agriculture

Organization (FAO) level as important for food

security worldwide. Among these, as food crops, are

mentioned the following 30 species: Armoracia rust-

icana, Asparagus officinalis, B. lepuznica, Barbarea

stricta, Barbarea vulgaris, Brassica elongata, Brassica

juncea, Brassica nigra, Camelina sativa, Crambe

maritima, Crambe tataria, Daucus carota, Diplotaxis

tenuifolia, Eruca sativa, Fragaria moschata, Fragaria

vesca, Fragaria viridis, Helianthus tuberosus, Lathyrus

sylvestris, Lathyrus tuberosus, Lepidium draba,

Lepidium graminifolium, Lepidium latifolium, Lepidium

virginicum, Malus sylvestris, Raphanus raphanistrum,

Rorippa amphibian, Sinapis alba, Sinapis arvensis and

Solanum nigrum. Aside these from other five PGRFA

which are listed in the Plant Treaty as grass forages,

such as: Trifolium pratense, Trifolium repens, Lathyrus

hirsutus, Medicago sativa and Melilotus officinalis.

Three other wild plant species which are significant

for feed use in Romania, are listed at the genus level

but not at the species level in the Annex I of the Plant

Treaty, namely: Agropyron repens, Atriplex hortensis

and Atriplex littoralis.

The assessment of the Gene Bank Suceava data

base revealed that only 9 landraces belonging to 6

PGRFA (e.g. Apium graveolens, Atriplex hortensis,

Daucus carota, Plantago lanceolata, Ruta graveolens

and Sinapis alba) of the 300 plant species of Romanian

origin are included for the programme of ex situ

conservation (Table 2). Among these only two are

Genet Resour Crop Evol

123

Table 1 The survey of the 300 wild plant species (Dragulescu 1991) against the list of species of the IUCN Red List, CITES, Plant

Treaty, the national regulatory framework, Romanian flora as nature monuments and the current Red List of higher plants in Romania

Crt.

No

Species name IUCN

Red List

category

Appendix

of the

CITES

Annex I

the Plant

Treaty

Emergency

Governmental

Ordinance 57/2007

Romania

Flora

(Beldie

1977)

Red List for vascular

plants (Dihoru and

Negrean 2009)

1. Acer platanoides L. - - - - - -

2. Acer pseudoplatanus

L.

- - - - - -

3. Achillea millefolium L. - - - - - -

4. Achillea ptarmica L. - - - - - -

5. Acorus calamus L. LC - - - - -

6. Aegopodium

podagraria L.

- - - - - -

7. Agropyron repens (L.)

P.Beauv.

- - ? - - -

8. Alisma plantago-

aquatica L.

LC - - - - -

9. Alliaria officinalis

Andrz. ex DC.

- - - - - -

10. Allium rotundum All. DD - - - - -

11. Allium ursinum L. - - - - - -

12. Allium victorialis L. - - - - - -

13. Allium vineale L. - - - - - -

14. Amaranthus

angustifolius Lam.

- - - - - -

15. Amaranthus

hypochondriacus L

- - - - - -

16. Amaranthus lividus L. - - - - - -

17. Amygdalus nana L. LC - - - R -

18. Angelica archangelica

L.

- - - - M -

19. Angelica sylvestris L. - - - - - -

20. Anthoxanthum

odoratum L.

- - - - - -

21. Anthriscus sylvestris

(L.) Hoffm.

- - - - - -

22. Apium graveolens L. - - - - - -

23. Arctostaphylos uva-

ursi (L.) Spreng.

- - - ? M VU

24. Armoracia rusticana

P. Gaertn., B. Mey.

et Scherb.

LC - ? - - -

25. Arnica montana L. LC - - ? - -

26. Artemisia absinthium

L.

- - - - - -

27. Artemisia pontica L. - - - - - -

28. Artemisia vulgaris L. - - - - - -

29. Asparagus officinalis

L.

- - ? - - -

30. Asperula odorata L. - - - - - -

Genet Resour Crop Evol

123

Table 1 continued

Crt.

No

Species name IUCN

Red List

category

Appendix

of the

CITES

Annex I

the Plant

Treaty

Emergency

Governmental

Ordinance 57/2007

Romania

Flora

(Beldie

1977)

Red List for vascular

plants (Dihoru and

Negrean 2009)

31. Atriplex hortensis L. - - ? - - -

32. Atriplex littoralis L. - - ? - - -

33. Barbarea lepuznica

Nyar.

EN - ? - - CR

34. Barbarea stricta

Andrz.

- - ? - - CR

35. Barbarea vulgaris

W.T. Aiton

- - ? - - -

36. Behen vulgaris

Moench

- - - - - -

37. Bellis perennis L. - - - - - -

38. Berberis vulgaris L. - - - - - -

39. Betula pendula Roth - - - - - -

40. Borago officinalis L. - - - - - -

41. Brassica elongata

Ehrh.

- - ? - - -

42. Brassica juncea (L.)

Czern.

- - ? - - -

43. Brassica nigra (L.)

W.D.J. Koch

- - ? - - -

44. Bunias orientalis L. - - - - - -

45. Bunium

bulbocastanum L.

- - - - - -

46. Butomus umbellatus L. - - - - - -

47. Calluna vulgaris (L.)

Hull

- - - - - -

48. Caltha palustris L. - - - - - -

49. Calystegia sepium (L.)

R.Br.

- - - - - -

50. Camelina sativa (L.)

Crantz

- - ? - - -

51. Campanula

rapunculus L.

- - - - - -

52. Capsella bursa-

pastoris (L.) Medik.

- - - - - -

53. Cardamine amara L. - - - - - -

54. Cardamine bulbifera

Crantz

- - - - - -

55. Cardamine hirsuta L. - - - - - -

56. Cardamine pratensis

L.

- - - - - -

57. Carlina acaulis L. - - - - - -

58. Carum carvi L. - - - - - -

59. Castanea sativa Mill. - - - - - -

60. Cerinthe glabra Mill. - - - - R -

Genet Resour Crop Evol

123

Table 1 continued

Crt.

No

Species name IUCN

Red List

category

Appendix

of the

CITES

Annex I

the Plant

Treaty

Emergency

Governmental

Ordinance 57/2007

Romania

Flora

(Beldie

1977)

Red List for vascular

plants (Dihoru and

Negrean 2009)

61. Chaerophyllum

bulbosum L.

- - - - - -

62. Chenopodium album

L.

- - - - - -

63. Chenopodium bonus-

henricus L.

- - - - - -

64. Chenopodium foliosum

Asch.

- - - - - -

65. Chenopodium rubrum

L.

- - - - - -

66. Chrysanthemum

leucanthemum L.

- - - - - -

67. Cichorium intybus L. - - - - - -

68. Cirsium oleraceum

Scop.

- - - - - -

69. Cirsium rivulare

(Jacq.) All.

- - - - - -

70. Clematis vitalba L. - - - - - -

71. Conioselinum

tataricum Hoffm.

- - - - - -

72. Conringia orientalis

(L.) Dumort.

- - - - - -

73. Cornus mas L. - - - - - -

74. Cornus sanguinea L. - - - - - -

75. Coronopus

procumbens Gilib.

- - - - - -

76. Corylus avellana L. - - - - - -

77. Corylus colurna L. - - - - R -

78. Crambe maritima L. - - ? - - EN

79. Crambe tataria

Sebeok

- - ? ? R -

80. Crataegus monogyna

Jacq.

- - - - - -

81. Crataegus oxyacantha

L.

- - - - - -

82. Crocus variegatus

Hoppe et Hornsch.

- - - - - -

83. Cucubalus baccifer L. - - - - - -

84. Cynoglossum

officinale L.

- - - - - -

85. Daucus carota L. - - ? - - -

86. Diplotaxis tenuifolia

(L.) DC.

- - ? - - -

87. Echium vulgare L. - - - - - -

88. Empetrum nigrum L. - - - - R -

Genet Resour Crop Evol

123

Table 1 continued

Crt.

No

Species name IUCN

Red List

category

Appendix

of the

CITES

Annex I

the Plant

Treaty

Emergency

Governmental

Ordinance 57/2007

Romania

Flora

(Beldie

1977)

Red List for vascular

plants (Dihoru and

Negrean 2009)

89. Epilobium

angustifolium L.

- - - - - -

90. Epilobium roseum

(Schreb.) Schreb.

- - - - - -

91. Equisetum arvense L. - - - - - -

92. Erica spiculifolia

Salisb.

- - - - - -

93. Eruca sativa Mill. - - ? - - -

94. Eryngium campestre

L.

- - - - - -

95. Eryngium maritimum

L.

- - - - - VU

96. Fagus sylvatica L. - - - - -

97. Filipendula ulmaria

(L.) Maxim.

- - - - - -

98. Filipendula vulgaris

Moench

- - - - - -

99. Fragaria moschata

Duchesne

- - ? - - -

100. Fragaria vesca L. - - ? - - -

101. Fragaria viridis

Weston

- - ? - - -

102. Fraxinus excelsior L. - - - - - -

103. Galega officinalis L. - - - - - -

104. Galinsoga parviflora

Cav.

- - - - - -

105. Galium aparine L. - - - - - -

106. Genista tinctoria L. - - - - - -

107. Gentiana lutea L. - - - ? M -

108. Gentiana punctata L. - - - - - -

109. Geum urbanum L. - - - - - -

110. Glaux maritima L. - - - - - CR

111. Glechoma hederacea

L.

- - - - - -

112. Glyceria fluitans R.Br. - - - - - CR

113. Glycyrrhiza echinata

L.

- - - - - -

114. Glycyrrhiza glabra L. - - - - - CR

115. Gypsophila

paniculata L.

- - - - - -

116. Helianthus tuberosus

L.

- - ? - - -

117. Heracleum

sphondylium L.

- - - - - -

118. Hesperis tristis L. - - - - - -

Genet Resour Crop Evol

123

Table 1 continued

Crt.

No

Species name IUCN

Red List

category

Appendix

of the

CITES

Annex I

the Plant

Treaty

Emergency

Governmental

Ordinance 57/2007

Romania

Flora

(Beldie

1977)

Red List for vascular

plants (Dihoru and

Negrean 2009)

119. Hierochloe australis

Roem. et Schult.

- - - - - -

120. Hierochloe odorata

(L.) P. Beauv.

- - - - - -

121. Hippophae

rhamnoides L.

- - - - - -

122. Humulus lupulus L. - - - - - -

123. Hypericum

perforatum L.

- - - - - -

124. Hypochaeris radicata

L.

- - - - - -

125. Juniperus communis

L.

LR/LC - - - - -

126. Juniperus communis

L. var. alpina Gaudin

- - - - - -

127. Lactuca perennis L. DD - - - - -

128. Lamium album L. - - - - - -

129. Lamium purpureum L. - - - - - -

130. Lapsana communis L. - - - - - -

131. Lathyrus hirsutus L. - - ? - - -

132. Lathyrus sylvestris L. - - ? - - -

133. Lathyrus tuberosus L. - - ? - - -

134. Lepidium draba L. - - ? - - -

135. Lepidium

graminifolium L.

- - ? - R CR

136. Lepidium latifolium L. - - ? - R -

137. Lepidium virginicum

L.

- - ? - - -

138. Ligusticum mutellina

(L.) Crantz

- - - - - -

139. Lilium martagon L. - - - - - -

140. Luzula campestris (L.)

DC.

- - - - - -

141. Malus sylvestris (L.)

Mill.

- - ? - - -

142. Malva crispa L. - - - - - -

143. Malva neglecta Wallr. - - - - - -

144. Malva pusilla Sm. - - - - - -

145. Malva sylvestris L. - - - - - -

146. Marrubium vulgare L. - - - - - -

147. Marsilea quadrifolia

L.

LC - - ? - -

148. Matricaria

chamomilla L.

- - - - - -

Genet Resour Crop Evol

123

Table 1 continued

Crt.

No

Species name IUCN

Red List

category

Appendix

of the

CITES

Annex I

the Plant

Treaty

Emergency

Governmental

Ordinance 57/2007

Romania

Flora

(Beldie

1977)

Red List for vascular

plants (Dihoru and

Negrean 2009)

149. Matteuccia

struthiopteris (L.)

Tod.

- - - - - -

150. Medicago sativa L. - - ? - -

151. Melilotus officinalis

Lam.

- - ? - - -

152. Melissa officinalis L. - - - - - -

153. Melittis

melissophyllum L.

- - - - - -

154. Mentha arvensis L. - - - - - -

155. Mentha longifolia (L.)

Huds.

- - - - - -

156. Mentha pulegium L. - - - - - -

157. Menyanthes trifoliata

L.

- - - - - -

158. Mercurialis annua L. - - - - - -

159. Monotropa hypopitys

L.

- - - - - -

160. Myricaria germanica

Desv.

- - - - - -

161. Nasturtium officinale

W.T.Aiton

- - - - - -

162. Nuphar lutea (L.) Sm. - - - - - -

163. Nymphaea alba L. - - - - M -

164. Oenothera biennis L. - - - - - -

165. Ononis hircina Jacq. - - - - - -

166. Onopordum

acanthium L.

- - - - - -

167. Orchis mascula (L.) L. - ? - ? - -

168. Orchis militaris L. - ? - ? - -

169. Orchis morio L. - ? - ? - -

170. Orchis purpurea Huds. - ? - ? - -

171. Origanum vulgare L. - - - - - -

172. Ornithogalum

flavescens Jacq.

- - - - - -

173. Oxalis acetosella L. - - - - - -

174. Oxycoccus

quadripetala Gilib.

- - - - - -

175. Oxyria digyna Hill - - - - - -

176. Pastinaca sativa L. - - - - - -

177. Peplis portula L. - - - - - -

178. Petasites hybridus (L.)

G. Gaertn., B. Mey.

et Scherb.

- - - - - -

179. Phragmites communis

Trin.

- - - - - -

Genet Resour Crop Evol

123

Table 1 continued

Crt.

No

Species name IUCN

Red List

category

Appendix

of the

CITES

Annex I

the Plant

Treaty

Emergency

Governmental

Ordinance 57/2007

Romania

Flora

(Beldie

1977)

Red List for vascular

plants (Dihoru and

Negrean 2009)

180. Physalis alkekengi L. - - - - - -

181. Phyteuma spicatum L. - - - - - -

182. Pimpinella saxifraga

L.

- - - - - -

183. Pinus cembra L. LC - - - M -

184. Plantago lanceolata L. - - - - - -

185. Plantago major L. - - - - - -

186. Plantago media L. - - - - - -

187. Polygonum hydropiper

L.

- - - - - -

188. Polygonum undulatum

P. J. Bergius

- - - - R LR

189. Polypodium vulgare L. - - - - - -

190. Portulaca oleracea L. - - - - - -

191. Potentilla anserina L. - - - - - -

192. Primula officinalis

Hill.

- - - - - -

193. Prunella grandiflora

(L.) Jacq.

- - - - - -

194. Prunella vulgaris L. - - - - - -

195. Prunus avium (L.) L. - - - - - -

196. Prunus cerasus L. - - - - - -

197. Prunus fruticosa Pall. - - - - - -

198. Prunus mahaleb L. - - - - - -

199. Prunus padus L. - - - - - -

200. Prunus spinosa L. - - - - - -

201. Pteridium aquilinum

(L.) Kuhn

- - - - - -

202. Pyrus pyraster (L.)

Burgsd.

- - - - - -

203. Quercus petraea

(Matt.) Liebl.

- - - - - -

204. Quercus robur L. LC - - - - -

205. Ranunculus ficaria L. - - ? - - -

206. Raphanus

raphanistrum L.

- - ? - - -

207. Rhododendron

kotschyi Simonk.

- - - - M -

208. Ribes grossularia L. - - - - - -

209. Ribes nigrum L. - - - - - -

210. Ribes rubrum L. - - - - - -

211. Robinia pseudoacacia

L.

- - - - - -

212. Rorippa amphibia

Besser

- - ? - - -

Genet Resour Crop Evol

123

Table 1 continued

Crt.

No

Species name IUCN

Red List

category

Appendix

of the

CITES

Annex I

the Plant

Treaty

Emergency

Governmental

Ordinance 57/2007

Romania

Flora

(Beldie

1977)

Red List for vascular

plants (Dihoru and

Negrean 2009)

213. Rosa arvensis Huds. - - - - - -

214. Rosa canina L. - - - - - -

215. Rosa dumalis Bechst. - - - - - -

216. Rosa pendulina L. - - - - - -

217. Rosa tomentosa Sm. - - - - - -

218. Rubus caesius L. - - - - - -

219. Rubus fruticosus L. - - - - - -

220. Rubus idaeus L. - - - - - -

221. Rubus plicatus Weihe

et Nees

- - - - - -

222. Rubus suberectus

Hook.

- - - - - -

223. Rubus sulcatus Vest ex

Tratt.

- - - - - -

224. Rumex acetosa L. - - - - - -

225. Rumex acetosella L. - - - - - -

226. Rumex alpinus L. - - - - - -

227. Rumex crispus L. - - - - - -

228. Rumex patientia L. - - - - - -

229. Rumex scutatus L. - - - - - -

230. Ruscus aculeatus L. - - - ? R -

231. Ruta graveolens L. - - - - - -

232. Sagittaria sagittifolia

L.

LC - - - - -

233. Salicornia herbacea L. - - - - - -

234. Salvia austriaca

K. Koch

- - - - - -

235. Salvia pratensis L. - - - - - -

236. Salvia sclarea L. - - - - - EN

237. Sambucus ebulus L. - - - - - -

238. Sambucus nigra L. - - - - - -

239. Sambucus racemosa L. - - - - - -

240. Sanguisorba minor

Scop.

- - - - - -

241. Sanguisorba officinalis

L.

- - - - - -

242. Scandix pecten-veneris

L.

- - - - R VU

243. Scolymus hispanicus

L.

- - - - - VU

244. Sedum acre L. - - - - - -

245. Sedum album L. - - - - - -

246. Sedum maximum Suter - - - - - -

247. Sedum reflexum L. - - - - - -

Genet Resour Crop Evol

123

Table 1 continued

Crt.

No

Species name IUCN

Red List

category

Appendix

of the

CITES

Annex I

the Plant

Treaty

Emergency

Governmental

Ordinance 57/2007

Romania

Flora

(Beldie

1977)

Red List for vascular

plants (Dihoru and

Negrean 2009)

248. Sedum sexangulare L. - - - - - -

249. Sempervivum heuffelii

Schott

- - - - - -

250. Sempervivum

montanum L.

- - - - - -

251. Sempervivum

soboliferum Sims

- - - - - -

252. Sinapis alba L. - - ? - - -

253. Sinapis arvensis L. - - ? - - -

254. Sisymbrium sophia L. - - - - - -

255. Sium erectum Huds. - - - - - -

256. Solanum nigrum L. - - ? - - -

257. Sonchus oleraceus L. - - - - - -

258. Sorbus aria (L.)

Crantz

- - - - - -

259. Sorbus aucuparia L. - - - - - -

260. Sorbus

chamaemespilus

Crantz

- - - - - EN

261. Sorbus domestica L. - - - - - -

262. Sorbus mougeotii

Soy.-Will. et Godr.

- - - - - -

263. Sorbus torminalis (L.)

Crantz

- - - - - -

264. Stachys palustris L. - - - - - -

265. Staphylea pinnata L. - - - - - -

266. Symphytum officinale

L.

- - - - - -

267. Tamus communis L. - - - - - -

268. Tanacetum vulgare L. - - - - - -

269. Taraxacum officinale

F.H.Wigg.

- - - - - -

270. Thymus comosus

Heuff. ex Griseb. et

Schenk

- - - - - -

271. Thymus dacicus

Borbas

- - - - - -

272. Thymus pulegioides L. - - - - - -

273. Tilia cordata Mill. - - - - - -

274. Tilia platyphyllos

Scop.

- - - - - -

275. Tilia tomentosa

Moench

- - - - - -

276. Tragopogon

porrifolius L.

- - - - - -

Genet Resour Crop Evol

123

listed into the Annex I of Plant Treaty (e.g. Daucus

carota and Sinapis alba).

Analysis against the CITES Among the 300 plant

species there are at least four orchids species (Orchis

mascula, O. militaris, O. morio and O. purpurea) of

medicinal importance which have restrictions to trade

over the national borders. These four orchids’ species are

not yet listed into the IUCN Data Base for Red List. From

scientific point of view at the national level these species

are considered either endangered (Rotar et al. 2012) either

not endangered (Dihoru and Negrean 2009) and further

supported by other European studies for the later such as

for O. purpurea, O. mascula (Jacquemyn et al. 2010), O.

morio (Sarateanu et al. 2009) and O. militaris (Akeroyd

and Page 2011). It is significant to underline that these

species have not been also considered as endangered in

the Romanian Flora (Beldie 1977) which further support

the scientific results of Dihoru and Negrean.

Table 1 continued

Crt.

No

Species name IUCN

Red List

category

Appendix

of the

CITES

Annex I

the Plant

Treaty

Emergency

Governmental

Ordinance 57/2007

Romania

Flora

(Beldie

1977)

Red List for vascular

plants (Dihoru and

Negrean 2009)

277. Tragopogon pratensis

L.

- - - - - -

278. Trapa natans L. LC - - - - -

279. Trifolium pratense L. LC - ? - - -

280. Trifolium repens L. - - ? - - -

281. Triglochin maritima L. - - - - - -

282. Tussilago farfara L. - - - - - -

283. Typha angustifolia L. LC - - - - -

284. Typha latifolia L. LC - - - - -

285. Urtica dioica L. - - - - - -

286. Urtica urens L. - - - - - -

287. Vaccinium

gaultherioides Bigel.

- - - - - -

288. Vaccinium myrtillus L. - - - - - -

289. Vaccinium vitis-idaea

L.

- - - - - -

290. Valerianella carinata

Loisel.

- - - - - -

291. Valerianella eriocarpa

Desv.

- - - - - -

292. Valerianella locusta

(L.) Laterr.

- - - - - -

293. Veronica beccabunga

L.

- - - - - -

294. Viburnum opulus L. - - - - - -

295. Viola alba Besser - - - - - -

296. Viola collina Besser - - - - - -

297. Viola mirabilis L. - - - - - -

298. Viola odorata L. - - - - - -

299. Viola suavis Fisch. ex

Ginq.

- - - - - -

300. Viola sylvestris Lam. - - - - - -

EN endangered; DD data deficient; LCLeast concerned; M Nature Monument; R Rare; VU vulnerable

Genet Resour Crop Evol

123

Analysis against the national list for nature mon-

uments Based on the Romanian Flora, nature monu-

ments were defined as endangered or rare species or

exemplars of historical importance. The results of this

survey revealed that at least 17 wild plant species are

still declared as nature monuments, such as: 6 as

endangered (Angelica archangelica, Arctostaphylos

uva-ursi, Gentiana lutea, Nymphaea alba, Rhododen-

dron kotschyi and Pinus cembra) and 11 as rare

species (Amygdalus nana, Calluna vulgaris, Corylus

colurna Cerinthe glabra, Crambe tataria, Empetrum

nigrum, Lepidium latifolium, Lepidium graminifolium

Lilium martagon, Ruscus aculeatus and Scandix

pecten-veneris). Based on this publication some wild

plant species and evaluated as rare are considered as

non-toxic medicinal plants (e.g. Angelica archangel-

ica, Arctostaphylos uva-ursi and Gentiana lutea) or

important for food such as Crambe tataria, Lepidium

graminifolium and Lepidium latifolium.

Analysis against the Romanian Red List for higher

plant species The list of 300 wild plant species

was analysed against the Red List of higher plants

(Dihoru and Negrean 2009) which is not yet officially

recognized within the national regulatory framework.

Based on this analysis it was revealed that 14 are

considered as threatened species at the national level

based on the IUCN criteria such as: Arctostaphylos uva-

ursi, B. lepuznica, Barbarea stricta, Crambe maritima,

Eryngium maritimum, Glaux maritima, Glyceria flui-

tans, Glycyrrhiza glabra, Lepidium graminifolium,

Polygonum alpinum, Salvia sclarea, Scandix pecten-

veneris, Scolymus hispanicus and Sorbus chamaemes-

pilus. Considering scientific evidences, the authors rate

B. lepuznica as critically endangered at the national

level due to its restrained habitat and also supported by

the IUCN Data Base of Red List. Moreover, taking into

consideration that the species is also listed in Annex I of

the Plant Treaty it is considered that there is an urgent

requirement that a management plan should be devel-

oped at the national level for its conservation and

sustainable use based on the requirements of the Plant

Treaty. In the same situation, only recognized at the

national level are other three PGRFA such as: Barbarea

stricta (critically endangered) Crambe maritima

(endangered) and Lepidium graminifolium (critically

endangered).

Analysis regarding the official recognition of

threatened wild plant species after 2007 in Romania

According to the provisions of Annex no. 3 of the

Emergency Governmental Ordinance 57/2007(Ordi-

nance 57/2007), and establishing the regulatory

framework for Natura 2000, two wild plant species

require the designation of protected areas such as:

Crambe tataria and Marsilea quadrifolia also listed in

the Annex II of the Habitats Directive (1992). These

species are considered as being under strict protection

for the European Union based on the provisions of

Annex no. 4 of the Ordinance.

In this regard based on the Ministerial Order 1964/

2007 provisions for Crambe tataria there have been

officially designated at least 21 protected areas as part

of the European Natura 2000 such as: ROSCI0040

Coasta Lunii, ROSCI0079 (Fanatele de pe Dealul

Corhan—Sabed), ROSCI0080 (Fanaturile de la Glo-

deni), ROSCI0081 (Fanetele seculare Frumoasa),

ROSCI0082 (Fanetele seculare Ponoare), ROSCI0093

(Insulele Stepice sura Mica—Slimnic), ROSCI0099

(Lacul stiucilor—Sic—Puini—Bont ida), RO-

SCI0151 (Padurea Garboavele), ROSCI0171 (Padurea

si pajistile de la Marzesti), ROSCI0187 (Pajistile

lui Suciu), ROSCI0211 (Podisul Secaselor),

ROSCI0227 (Sighisoara—Tarnava Mare), ROSCI0238

(Suatu -Cojocna—Crairat), ROSCI0265 (Valea lui

David), ROSCI0272 (Vulcanii Noroiosi de la Paclele

Mari si Paclele Mici), ROSCI0286 (Colinele Elanului),

ROSCI0295 (Dealurile Clujului Est), ROSCI

0331 (Pajistile Balda—Frata—Mihesu de Campie),

ROSCI0333 (Pajistile Samael—Milas- Urmenis),

ROSCI0399 (Suharau—Darabani), ROSCI0408 (Zau

de Campie).

For Marsilea quadrifolia, based on the same Order

1964/2007, 19 protected areas have been officially

Table 2 The survey of the 300 wild plant species (Dragulescu

1991) against the data base of the Gene Bank Suceava accessed

in 25 April, 2014)

Registration no. Scientific name County of origin

in Romania

SVGB-18599 Apium graveolens L. BT—Botosani

SVGB-15160 Atriplex hortensis L. AB—Alba

SVGB-18109 Daucus carota L. AR—Arad

SVGB-18105 Daucus carota L. HR—Harghita

SVGB-17058 Daucus carota L. SV—Suceava

SVGB-10344 Plantago lanceolata L. IF—Ilfov

SVGB-10355 Ruta graveolens L. IF—Ilfov

SVGB-10338 Sinapis alba L. DJ—Dolj

SVGB-14929 Sinapis alba L. SV—Suceava

Genet Resour Crop Evol

123

designated in 2007 such as: ROSCI0012 (Brat ul

Macin), ROSCI0019 (Calimani—Gurghiu), RO-

SCI0020 (Campia Careiului), ROSCI0021 (Campia

Ierului), ROSCI0025 (Cefa), ROSCI0039 (Ciuperce-

ni-Desa), ROSCI0043 (Comana), ROSCI0045 (Cori-

dorul Jiului) ROSCI0048 (Crisul Alb), ROSCI0050

(Crisul Repede amonte de Oradea), ROSCI0064

(Defileul Muresului), ROSCI0065 (Delta Dunarii),

ROSCI0068 (Diosig), ROSCI0109 (Lunca Timis

ului), ROSCI0206 (Portile de Fier), ROSCI0213 (Raul

Prut), ROSCI0225 (Scrovistea), ROSCI00 350 (Lunca

Teuzului), ROSCI0259 (Valea Calmatuiului).

Furthermore, based on the provisions of the Annex

no. 5A of the Ordinance 57/2007, other three plant

species require management plans adoption such as:

Arnica montana, Gentiana lutea and Ruscus aculeatus

which will be discussed below.

Arnica montana is today signalled, based on the

Order 1964/2007, in the following 23 protected areas:

ROSCI0002 (Apuseni), ROSCI0013 (Bucegi), RO-

SCI0015 (Buila-Vaturarita), ROSCI0019 (Calimani

Giurgiu), ROSCI0024 (Ceahlau), ROSCI0038 (Ciu-

cas), ROSCI0046 (Cozia), ROSCI0074 (Fagetul Cluj-

ului- Valea Morii), ROSCI0085 (Frumoasa),

ROSCI0087 (Gradistea Muncelului—Cioclovina),

ROSCI0089 (Gutai—Creasta Cocosului), RO-

SCI0119 (Muntele Mare), ROSCI0122 (Muntii

Fagaras), ROSCI0125 (Muntii Rodnei), ROSCI0126

(Muntii tarcu), ROSCI0227 (Sighisoara—Tarnava

Mare), ROSCI0233 (Somesul Rece), ROSCI0256

(Turbaria Ruginosu Zagon), ROSCI0260 (Valea Cep-

elor), ROSCI0262 (Valea Iadei), ROSCI0263 (Valea

Ierii), ROSCI0270 (Vanatori Neamt), ROSCI0381

(Raul Targului—Argesel—Rausor).

Gentiana lutea, based on the Order 1964/2007, is

protected into the following protected areas: RO-

SCI0013 (Bucegi), ROSCI0027 (Cheile Bicazului-

Hasmas), ROSCI0122 (Muntii Fagaras), ROSCI0229

(Siriu) where officially it is characterized as rare,

endangered or vulnerable.

Ruscus aculeatus is mentioned into 11 protected

areas, based on the Order 1964/2007, such as:

ROSCI0002 (Apuseni), ROSCI0032 (Cheile Rudar-

iei), ROSCI0042 (Codru Moma), ROSCI0043 (Co-

mana), ROSCI0062 (Defileul Crisului Repede—

Padurea Craiului), ROSCI0069 (Domogled—Valea

Cernei), ROSCI0162 (Muntii tarcu), ROSCI0129

(Nordul Gorjului de Vest), ROSCI0172 (Padurea si

Valea Canaraua Fetii—Iortmac), ROSCI0173

(Padurea Starmina), ROSCI0226 (Semenic—Cheile

Caras ului).

The assessment of the Gene Bank Suceava data

base revealed that only 9 landraces belonging to 6

PGRFA (e.g. Apium graveolens, Atriplex hortensis,

Daucus carota, Plantago lanceolata, Ruta graveolens,

Sinapis alba and Sinapis alba) of the 300 plant species

of Romanian origin are included for the programme of

ex situ conservation (Table 2).

Discussions

Considering the traditional interlinks between local

communities and the analysed wild plant species for

their use in the Romanian cousin or traditional

medicine, they should be treated as part of the

traditional knowledge (Dragulescu 1992) for in situ

conservation and sustainable use. The continuing

traditional use of these species depends considerably

on the socio-economic vulnerabilities and local will-

ingness, being in the end the result of a societal choice

(Tisdell et al. 2006). And also, for applying appropri-

ate in situ conservation measures for species under

threat it become obviously that based on the potential

traditional use each species should benefit from

specific conservation measures related to local com-

munities where they are accessed and used. Under

these conditions it becomes significant to further

develop tools and methods for assessing the TK

associated to the species and habitats and their use

based on the provisions of Art. 8 j. of the CBD.

Furthermore, for assessing the status of conservation

of PGRFA as it is stated into the provisions of Art. 5 of

the Plant Treaty, it will be a very complex task for the

contracting Parties when starting inventories in tradi-

tional local communities. The process will be more

complex if into these inventories enters wild species

and habitats (Berkes et al. 2000).

In the international context Barbarea lepuznica is

the single PGRFA listed as critical endangered into the

IUCN Data Base for Red List requiring the imple-

mentation of conservation measures for the county of

origin and also considered as endangered in the

Romanian Red list (Dihoru and Negrean 2009;

Strajeru and Stevanovic 2011). Such measures should

cover both conservation and sustainable use of the

species for supporting food security as it is already

listed at the genus level into the Annex I of the Plant

Genet Resour Crop Evol

123

Treaty. It is significant to mention that B. lepuzinca

was not considered as a Nature Monument in 1977 due

to the incertitude of species determination (Beldie

1977). This species is confined today in a single one

protected area (i.e. ROSCI0217: Retezat), considered

for the category entitled other rare species. In this

case, it is almost impossible to fully ensure in situ

conservation of the species if no specific conservation

and sustainable use measures will be developed.

Furthermore, based on Dihoru and Negrean (2009)

in the same situation are three other PGRFA such as:

Barbarea stricta (critically endangered—which is not

identified in any protected area), Crambe maritima

(endangered—identified for two protected areas: RO-

SCI0065 Delta Dunarii and ROSCI0073 Dunele

Marine de la Agigea) and Lepidium graminifolium

(critically endangered and nature monument—which

is not protected in any of the current protected areas).

Continuing this assessment based on the regulatory

framework adopted after 2007 it appears that there is a

need to develop in situ management measures at the

national level for only two wild plant species (e.g.

Crambe tataria and Marsilea quadrifolia) which are

considered as being under strict protection for the

European Union level based on the provisions of

Annex no. 4 of the Ordinance 57/2007. As it was

already mentioned C. tataria was also declared as a

nature monument plant species (Beldie 1977). Based

on the recent evaluation into the Sub-Pannonic Steppe

grassland habitat type it is considered rather as a

weedy species, further supporting the need for national

evaluation of the species (Seffer et al. 2012). Still, the

authors recommend the further development of man-

agement plans without any considerations regarding

the traditional knowledge conservation. A highly

documented scientific paper published for Hungary

revealed the significance for food traditional use of

local communities for C. tataria (Denes et al. 2012).

The species is also listed at the genus level into Annex

I of the Plant Treaty and the development of in situ

conservation measures within the above mentioned

protected areas should also refer to this potential use.

Considering recent scientific results for M. quadrifolia

belonging to aquatic flora of Danube Delta, which

support the evidence that now it is becoming rarer in

its natural habitat, it should be listed at the endangered

level based on the IUCN methodology (Ciocarlan

2011). In this case is no current scientific analysis

regarding the traditional knowledge related to the

conservation and sustainable use into its own natural

habitat.

The red list of Dihoru and Negrean (2009) is further

supported by a series of research studies for the

following species: Arctostaphylos uva-ursi (Harrison

et al. 2006). Barbarea lepuznica (Strajeru and Steva-

novic 2011), Crambe tataria, Glaux maritima and

Sorbus chamaemespilus (Witkowski et al. 2003),

Crambe maritima and Eryngium maritimum (Fagaras

et al. 2006) and Glyceria fluitans (Lacatos 2011).

Further analyses based on the current regulatory

framework revealed the official recognition granted to

the conservation of other three wild species: Arnica

montana, Gentiana lutea and Ruscus aculeatus. Based

on recent studies A. montana’s habitat is threatened

mainly due to land use change from the traditional way

(Stoie and Rotar 2011) further supporting the need to

develop management plans into the 23 protected areas

which should include in situ conservation measures

also for the conservation of traditional knowledge

related to species and their habitats. Today the status

of conservation of G. lutea is not considered as being

threatened from scientific point of view and new

investigation in the field should be realized (Dihoru

and Negrean 2009). Recently it was published a

scientific paper regarding the best management mea-

sures for in situ conservation of R. aculeatus (Chi-

riches 2013) as a wild species but without mentioning

the potential for food use. In these three cases it is

advisable to access the traditional knowledge related

to the conservation and sustainable use of species in

line with the provisions of art 8 j. of the CBD. Under

the same regulatory framework a special importance

should be granted to Arctostaphylos uva-ursi another

plant genetic resource also listed into the Ordinance

57/2007.

Based on the scientific evidences revealed by the

Red List for vascular plants (Dihoru and Negrean

2009) and unrecognized for the threats on their status

of conservation due to the current regulatory frame-

work, there still remains the following nine species:

Barbarea. lepuznica, HB. stricta, Crambe maritima,

Eryngium maritimum, Glaux maritima, Glyceria flu-

itans, Glycyrrhiza glabra, Scolymus hispanicus and

Sorbus chamaemespilus. Among these at the interna-

tional level the first three species are also regulated for

ex situ conservation under the Plant Treaty. According

to the current regulatory framework in our country

they are regulated exclusively under the CBD further

Genet Resour Crop Evol

123

supporting the need for institutional cooperation

between the national focal points for the CBD and

the Plant Treaty in developing appropriate in situ

conservation measures. Moreover, the above men-

tioned species are not under the objective of ex situ

conservation of the Gene Bank Suceava based on the

consultation process of the national data base.

At organization level, in terms of capacity building,

within the Romanian Academy works the National

Commission on Nature Monuments Protection oper-

ates as a scientific advisory body officially designated

for the Ministry of Environment based on the Ordi-

nance 57/2007. The same Commission was estab-

lished based on the Decree 273/1950. Thus, it is

advisable that the list for nature monuments published

in 1977 to be repealed or reassessed based on the

present scientific published evidences.

The regulatory framework should be developed in a

more flexible way in order to ensure the quick up-

dating of plant genetic resources status of conservation

based on scientific evidences through a validating

process conducted by the National Commission on

Nature Monuments Protection. In this regard, under

specific consideration there are still eight plant species

listed as Nature Monuments which are not officially

recognized as being endangered at the national level

such as: Amygdalus nana, Angelica archangelica,

Cerinthe glabra, Corylus colurna, Lepidium latifoli-

um, Nymphaea alba, Pinus cembra and Rhododendron

kotschyi increasing the difficulty of the task of the

Nature Monuments Commission for taking decisions.

Among these, L. latifolium is regulated at the inter-

national level under the Plant Treaty and Rhododen-

dron kotschyi is signalled as important only in two

protected areas (i.e. ROSCI0128 Nordul Gorjului de

Est and ROSCI0188—Parang). In this regard, the

future regulatory framework should include clear

guidelines, methodologies and standards to be applied

for evaluating and up-dating the status of conservation

of threatened species.

Based on this study of the 300 wild plant species

some are endangered and others are recognized for

their invasiveness capacity e.g. Agropyron repens and

Bunias orientalis (Gesinski and Ratynska 2011). At

present, the current regulatory framework does not

includes requirements for evaluating these species

based on their potential use for food and/or feed in

order to further develop the best measures for their

in situ conservation and sustainable use.

Conclusions

In Romania, a series wild plant species of food

importance according to the Plant Treaty are threa-

tened, based on scientific evidences, and through the

analysis of the current regulatory framework for

biodiversity conservation it appears that they are not

officially protected. The in situ improvement to their

status of conservation largely depends on the proper

functioning of the regulatory framework in line with

current political commitments taken under interna-

tional treaties for nature conservation. In Romania

today two parallel regulatory frameworks exist: an old

one functioning since 1950 which maintains in force

the Romanian Flora (Beldie 1977), and the new

regulatory framework developed and approved after

2007 which is supports mainly the species of European

interest. As a major gap in the current regulatory

framework it can be mentioned the fact that the red

listing methodology is not yet officially accepted as a

dynamic process (Purvis et al. 2000). Once accepted

this should be frequently up-dating to avoiding issues

regarding the proper protection of threatened species

based on a study published by the chairman of the

Commission on Nature Monuments Protection

belonging to the Romanian Academy (Munteanu

2010).

Species such as Barbarea lepuznica, important as a

PGRFA, is not protected under the current European

regulatory framework or within Romania, despite it

being globally recognized as critically endangered in

the IUCN Data Base and the scientific evidences from

Romania (Dihoru and Negrean 2009; Coldea et al.

2009). The species is identified in the Red List for

habitats located in: Retezat, Borascu and Piule

Mountains (Dihoru and Negrean 2009) and it is listed

in the category entitled other rare species in a single

one protected area (ROSCI0217 Retezat) for a small

habitat. In the same situations are three other PGRFA:

Barbarea stricta, Crambe maritima and Lepidium

graminifolium. In the case of these four PGRFA,

in situ conservation measures should be developed at

the national level for their proper conservation and

sustainable use. Moreover, a balanced management

plan should also include ex situ conservation measures

with the involvement and support of the Gene Bank

Suceava, for ensuring the best management measures

of the conservation of these endangered wild plant

species.

Genet Resour Crop Evol

123

Acknowledgments The author is expressing her gratitude to

Professor Karl Hammer for scientific advices and review of this

article. The research was funded by the Research Centre for

Agriculture and Environment Protection of the University

Lucian Blaga from Sibiu.

References

Akeroyd JR, Page JN (2011) Conservation of high nature value

(HNV) grassland in a farmed landscape in Transylvania,

Romania. Contributii Botanice XLVI 57–71:46

Beldie A (1977) Flora Romaniei: determinator ilustrat al

plantelor vasculare. Vol I-XIII. Editura Academiei Re-

publicii Socialiste Romania

Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2000) Rediscovery of traditional

ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol Appl

10(5):1251–1262

Chappell MJ, LaValle LA (2011) Food security and biodiver-

sity: can we have both? An agroecological analysis. Agric

Hum Values 28(1):3–26

Chiriches T (2013) Aspects regarding the management of forest

from Timis County that are hosting threatened, endangered

or endemic species, and are not included in protected areas.

J Hortic For Biotechnol 17(2):307–320

Ciocarlan V (2011) Vascular flora of the Danube Delta. An

Stiint Univ Al I Cuza Iasi Sect II a. Biol Veg 57(1), 41–64

Coldea G, Stoica IA, Puscas M, Ursu T, Oprea A (2009) Alpine–

subalpine species richness of the Romanian Carpathians

and the current conservation status of rare species. Biodi-

vers Conserv 18(6):1441–1458

Cottier T (1998) The protection of genetic resources and tradi-

tional knowledge: towards more specific rights and obli-

gations in world trade law. J Int Econ Law 1(4):555–584

Decision 1081/2013 for the adoption of the NBSAP 2014-2020

(Hotararea nr. 1081/2013 privind aprobarea Strategiei

nationale si a Planului de actiune pentru conservarea bio-

diversitatii 2014-2020) Monitorul Oficial, Partea I nr. 55

din 22.01.2014

Decree 237/1950 for protecting nature monuments (Decret nr.

237 din 18 octombrie 1950 pentru ocrotirea monumentelor

naturii din Republica Populara Romana) Buletinul Oficial

nr. 93 18 Oct 1950

Denes A, Papp N, Babai D, Czucz B, Molnar Z (2012) Wild

plants used for food by Hungarian ethnic groups living in

the Carpathian Basin. Acta Soc Bot Pol 81(4):381–396

Dihoru G, Negrean G (2009) Cartea rosie a plantelor vasculare

din Romania. Ed. Academiei Romane, Bucuresti, p 630

Directive Habitas (1992) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21

May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of

wild fauna and flora. Brussels, Belgium

Dragulescu C (1991) Plantele alimentare din flora spontana a

Romaniei, Edit. Sport-turism Bucuresti, p 192

Dragulescu C (1992) Plantele medicinal-alimentare din flora

spontana. Edit. Ceres Bucuresti, p 112. ISBN:973-40-0206-6

Dragulescu C (2008) Plante comestibile din Romania. Edit.

Alma Mater Sibiu, p 234

Esquinas-Alcazar J (2005) Protecting crop genetic diversity for

food security: political, ethical and technical challenges.

Nat Rev Genet 6(12):946–953

Fagaras M, Bercu R, Jianu L (2006).The reasons in favour of

setting up a new natural reserve in the black sea shore area

between north and south Eforie (Constanta County). In:

Nature conservation. Springer Berlin, pp 90–97

FAO (2010) Second report on the state of the world’s plant

genetic resources for food and agriculture. Commission on

Genetic Resources and Agriculture. FAO, Rome, Italy

FAO (2011) Food prices remain high despite higher output

[press release]; ww.fao.org/newsroom/EN/news/2008/

1000845/index.html. C/45/17, 2011, Report on the deci-

sions, Geneva http://www.upov.int/edocs/mdocs/upov/en/

c_45/c_45_17.pdf

Frison EA (2006) Biodiversity and livelihoods. In: Bala Ravi S,

Hoeschle-Zeledon I, Swaminathan MS, Frison E (eds)

Hunger and poverty: the role of biodiversity. Report on an

International Consultation on the Role of Biodiversity in

Achieving the UN Millennium Development Goal of

Freedom from Hunger and Poverty. Chennai, India,

pp 18–19 April 2005

Frison EA, Demers N (2014) Building a global plant genetic

resources system. In: Genomics of plant genetic resources.

Springer, Netherlands, pp 3–25

Gesinski K, Ratynska H (2011) Phytocoenotic description of

habitats occupied by Hierochloe repens (Host) Simonkai: a

new species for the flora of Bydgoszcz. Plant Divers Evol

129(1):59–70

Gene Bank Suceava Data Base: http://www.svgene bank.ro/

svgbform.asp Accessed 25 April 2014

Hammer K, Khoshbakht K (2010) Agricultural and horticultural

biodiversity in plant families with an emphasis on biodiver-

sity management and climate change. Environ Sci 7(3):55–62

Harrison PA, Berry PM, Butt N, New M (2006) Modelling

climate change impacts on species’ distributions at the

European scale: implications for conservation policy.

Environ Sci Policy 9(2):116–128

IUCN (2013) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version

2013.2.\www.iucnredlist.org[. 12 Feb 2014

Jacquemyn H, Brys R, Jongejans E (2010) Seed limitation

restricts population growth in shaded populations of a

perennial woodland orchid. Ecology 91(1):119–129

Khoury CK, Bjorkman AD, Dempewolf H, Ramirez-Villegas J,

Guarino L, Jarvis A, Rieseberg LH, Struik PC, (2014)

Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the

implications for food security. PNAS 111(11):4001–4006

Lacatos LM (2011) Description and presentation of some rare

associations from Lazarenilor Hills (North-West Roma-

nia). Study case Association Najadetum Minoris. Annals of

the University of Oradea, Geography Series/Analele Uni-

versitatii din Oradea, Seria Geografie, 21(1):76–83

Munteanu D (2010) Probleme de metodologie a conservarii

biodiversitatii, cu referire particulara la speciale animale

(Methodological issues on biodiversity conservation

emphasising animal species). Romanian Academy, Oc-

rotirea Naturii, pp 11–30

Order 1964/2007 regarding the establishment of natural pro-

tected areas of community importance as part of the

European ecological network Natura 2000 (Romanian)

published in Monitorul Oficial, Partea I nr. 98 din

07.02.2008

Ordinance 57/2007 regarding the protected area regime, the

conservation of natural habitats and wild species of flora

Genet Resour Crop Evol

123

and fauna, 2007, (Ordonanta de urgenta nr. 57/2007 priv-

ind regimul ariilor naturale protejate, conservarea habitat-

elor naturale, a florei si faunei salbatice) Monitorul Oficial,

Partea I nr. 442 din 29 iunie 2007, aprobata cu modificari si

completari prin Legea nr. 49/2011, publicata in Monitorul

Oficial al Romaniei, Partea I, nr. 262 din 7 aprilie 2011

http://www.mmediu.ro/legislatie/acte_normative/protectia_

naturii/biodiversitate/57-49.pdf

Padulosi S (2012) A new international collaborative effort on

traditional crops, climate change and on-farm conservation.

In Padulosi S, Bergamini N, Lawrence T (eds) On farm

conservation of neglected and underutilized species: status,

trends and novel approaches to cope with climate change:

proceedings of an international conference, Frankfurt,

14-16 June, 2011. Bioversity International, Rome, pp 7–23

Padulosi S, Dulloo E (2012) Towards a viable system for mon-

itoring agrobiodiversity on-farm: a proposed new approach

for Red Listing of cultivated plant species. In: Padulosi S,

Bergamini N, Lawrence T (eds) On farm conservation of

neglected and underutilized species: status, trends and

novel approaches to cope with climate change: proceedings

of an international conference, Frankfurt, 14–16 June, 2011.

Bioversity International, Rome, pp 171–197

Padulosi S, Heywood V, Hunter D, Jarvis A (2011) Underuti-

lized species and climate change: current status and out-

look. In: Yadav SS, Redden RJ, Hatfield JL (eds) Crop

adaptation to climate change. Blackwell Publishing Ltd,

UK, pp 507–521

Phalan B, Balmford A, Green RE, Scharlemann JP (2011)

Minimising the harm to biodiversity of producing more

food globally. Food Policy 36:S62–S71

Plant Treaty (2004) \http://www.planttreaty.org/[. 21 Nov

2013

Purvis A, Gittleman JL, Cowlishaw G, Mace GM (2000) Pre-

dicting extinction risk in declining species. Proc R Soc

Lond Series B Biol Sci 267(1456):1947–1952

Rands MR, Adams WM, Bennun L, Butchart SH, Clements A,

Coomes D, Entwistle A, Hodge I, Kapos V, Scharlemann

JPW, Sutherland WJ, Vira B (2010) Biodiversity conserva-

tion: challenges beyond 2010. Science 329(5997):1298–1303

Raschke V, Cheema B (2008) Colonisation, the New World

Order, and the eradication of traditional food habits in East

Africa: historical perspective on the nutrition transition.

Public Health Nutr 11(7):662–674

Rotar A, Simon L, Urdea P, Voiculescu M (2012) A study of

institutional stakeholders’ views on biodiversity in

Romania. Carpathians J Earth Environ Sci 7(12):219–230

Sarateanu V, Moisuc A, Butnariu M, Cotuna O (2009) Plant

biodiversity and pastoral value of two permanent grass-

lands from tarcului Mountains (Caras-Severin County,

western Romania). In: Proceeding of the 15th meeting of

the FAO CIHEAM Mountain Pastures Network p 113

Schmitt T, Rakosy L (2007) Changes of traditional agrarian

landscapes and their conservation implications: a case

study of butterflies in Romania. Divers Distrib 13(6):

855–862

Seffer J, Sefferova V, Badarau S, Page N, Popa R, Transilvania

FA (2012) Conservation Action Plan: http://www.fundatia-

adept.org/bin/file/STIPA%20CAP%20EN%20FINAL.pdf

Soran V, Biro J, Moldovan O, Ardelean A (2000) Conservation

of biodiversity in Romania. Biodivers Conserv 9(8):

1187–1198

Stoie A, Rotar I (2011) Floristic composition, interspecific

relationship and productivity during 2006, in the meadows

with Arnica montana L., from Garda de Sus (Apuseni

Mountains). Romanian J Grassl Forage Crops, (3), 81. http://

www.ropaj.org/index_htm_files/Romanian%20Journal%

203.pdf#page=82

Strajeru S, Stevanovic V (2011) Barbarea lepuznica. In: IUCN

2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version

2013.2.\www.iucnredlist.org[. 12 Feb 2014

Swanson TM (1995) The international regulation of biodiversity

decline: optimal policy and evolutionary product. Biodi-

versity loss: economic and ecological issues, 225–259

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

of Wild Fauna and Flora: CITES, 1975\http://www.cites.

org/eng/disc/species.php/[. 13 Feb 2014

The Convention on Biological Diversity: http://www.cbd.int/

convention/

Thrupp LA (2000) Linking agricultural biodiversity and food

security: the valuable role of agrobiodiversity for sustain-

able agriculture. Int Aff 76(2):283–297

Tisdell C, Wilson C, Swarna Nantha H (2006) Public choice of

species for the ‘Ark’: phylogenetic similarity and preferred

wildlife species for survival. J Nat Conserv 14(2):97–105

Tscharntke T, Clough Y, Wanger TC, Jackson L, Motzke I,

Perfecto I, Vandermeer J, Whitbread A (2012) Global food

security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agri-

cultural intensification. Biol Conserv 151(1):53–59

Witkowski ZJ, Krol W, Solarz W (2003) Carpathian list of

endangered species. WWF and Institute of Nature Con-

servation, Polish Academy of Sciences, Vienna-Krakow

Genet Resour Crop Evol

123