Monitoring CWR diversity

What is plant population monitoring and why it is important to monitor CWR populations?

Monitoring of plant populations is the systematic collection of data over time to detect changes, to determine the direction of those changes and to measure their magnitude (Iriondo et al. 2008). The monitoring of CWR populations and the habitats in which they occur has specific objectives:

To provide data for modelling population trends.
To assess trends in population size and structure and to detect changes that may indicate demographically unstable populations.
To assess trends in population genetic diversity.
To determine the outcomes of management actions on populations and to guide management decisions (Iriondo et al. 2008).

The management and monitoring cycle (from Maxted et al. 2016)

CWR can be monitored at different levels: (a) monitoring of specific target CWR populations conserved in situ (either informally or within formal genetic reserves) (addressed in this section), (b) monitoring of ex situ conserved accessions (addressed here), and (c) monitoring of higher level indicators of CWR conservation (see Monitoring CWR conservation implementation).

The aim of in situ genetic conservation of CWR populations is normally to maintain the original levels of genetic diversity in the target populations and to ensure the viability of the populations from a demographic, genetic and ecological perspective. However, where the original status of a conserved population is not at its optimum, or when the population has experienced a catastrophic event, the objectives may concentrate more on achieving specific targets regarding population size, structure and genetic diversity. Therefore, CWR populations need to be monitored regularly to assess any short-term and longer-term changes that could potentially lead to genetic erosion, or even species extinction (see Figure on the right). This information can then be used to help evaluate the effectiveness of management strategies in achieving the initial objectives, and it can also be used to provide supporting evidence to justify maintaining or modifying current management practices (Ringold et al. 1996).

The objectives of the monitoring to be undertaken, and the questions that need to be answered, will determine the appropriate method to use (i.e. whether demographic, ecological, anthropogenic and/or genetic data should be collected to monitor populations). Collection of demographic data is perhaps the most commonly used method for monitoring plant populations. However, in the absence of this type of data, ecological data can be collected in its place to infer population trends. Monitoring using ecological data identifies changes in the physical environment that shape the target CWR population and that affect the dynamics and composition of the living communities with which it is associated. Overall, a combined approach, using demographic, ecological and anthropogenic parameters, is desirable. In this way, the target species is monitored directly, but also the biotic and abiotic conditions and the human activities that might contribute to changes in population dynamics are examined and taken into account. Genetic diversity monitoring programmes may also be carried out. However, given that this type of monitoring requires staff with specific skills, specialized equipment and/or higher financial resources, it is recommended that it is only performed if needed, i.e. to answer very specific questions regarding population health and persistence in nature.

The table below provides an overview of these monitoring methods. For each method it outlines its main strengths and constraints, the representativeness of the sampling, its replicability and its sustainability in terms of long-term monitoring programmes.

Comparison of methods for monitoring of CWR populations.

In all cases, an efficient monitoring method for CWR populations or habitats should be reliable (will not lead to false conclusions), powerful (sensitive enough to detect changes) and robust (measurement techniques provide data that are independent of the technique used) (Brady et al. 1993). Finally, a monitoring programme should be able to distinguish between the significant biological changes that negatively impact target population health and normal seasonal variations that need not trigger changes in management.

TOOLKIT MENU

Monitoring CWR conservation implementation
Monitoring CWR conservation implementation

The implementation of CWR conservation actions should be monitored to ensure that CWR diversity is properly conserved and available for utilization.

The CBD Strategic Plan (CBD 2010) developed the concept of SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Timely) objectives. They highlight the need for monitoring outcomes that include time-series data to be analyzed against key performance indicators to evaluate success in achieving a strategic goal. SMART objectives also help towards identifying potential intermediate actions that can be implemented to achieve conservation goals. Additionally, in 2011, the Second Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (FAO 2011) was agreed by the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture at its 13^th Regular Session. Its objective is “to review existing indicators and identify or develop higher-order indicators, which could be in the form of an index that could enable stakeholders at all levels to effectively monitor the implementation of Second Global Plan of Action for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture” (CGRFA-13/11/Report, paragraph 98). In 2012, a technical consultation was held in Madrid, which generated “revised draft indicators for monitoring the implementation of the Second Global Plan of Action for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture” (FAO 2011).

For CWR, these indicators were focused on in situ conservation:
Number of CWR surveyed/inventoried.
Number of in situ CWR conservation and management actions with government support.
Number of conservation areas with management plans addressing CWR.
Number of CWR actively managed in situ.
Higher-order indicators, mostly related to ex situ conservation, were also identified for CWR as follows:
Number of threatened crop germplasm accessions.
Number of CWR surveyed/inventoried.
Number of accessions resulting from collecting missions in the reporting country.
Percentage/number of target taxa where a collecting gap exists.
Number of taxa conserved ex situ under medium- or long-term conditions.
Number of accessions, with documentation, conserved ex situ under medium- or long-term conditions.
Number of accessions with safety duplicates.
Number of accessions in need of regeneration.
Percentage of accessions in need of regeneration.
Number of accessions in a collection compared to the number of traits characterized.
Number of accessions distributed from collections.
These indicators are well defined, easily measurable, the necessary data is readily attainable, the data relates clearly with the goal and they can periodically be assessed to provide a time-series comparison. When implemented by national PGR programmes, countries can check their compliance with international conventions/treaties, assess their conservation efficiency and specifically meet the country’s obligation on CWR data reporting to the Second Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (FAO 2011). It should however, be noted that these indicators are relatively new, and tried and tested methodologies are not yet available.
Major actors involved in a monitoring programme
Major actors involved in a monitoring programme

Monitoring CWR populations in the West Bank, Palestinian Territories. (Photo: Nigel Maxted)

In a CWR monitoring programme, different expertise are needed at various stages:
Conservation managers/scientists are needed to design and implement the monitoring scheme, as well as to perform the analysis of monitoring data and to decide on changes in population management based on the results.
Statisticians are needed to help design the monitoring plan, taking into consideration the statistical tests needed in the data analysis.
Staff of conservation areas are needed who are able to identify target species in the field and are trained in the field monitoring methodologies to collect data throughout the monitoring period.
Source: Maxted et al. (2016)

The Interactive Toolkit for Crop Wild Relative Conservation Planning was developed within the framework of the SADC CWR project www.cropwildrelatives.org/sadc-cwr-project (2014-2016),
which was co-funded by the European Union and implemented through ACP-EU Co-operation Programme in Science and Technology (S&T II) by the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States.
Grant agreement no FED/2013/330-210.

Monitoring CWR diversity

Monitoring CWR conservation implementation

Major actors involved in a monitoring programme