Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T05:49:38.834Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Making the case for plant diversity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2010

Paul Smith*
Affiliation:
Seed Conservation Department, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Wakehurst Place, Ardingly, West Sussex, RH17 6TN, UK
John Dickie
Affiliation:
Seed Conservation Department, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Wakehurst Place, Ardingly, West Sussex, RH17 6TN, UK
Simon Linington
Affiliation:
Seed Conservation Department, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Wakehurst Place, Ardingly, West Sussex, RH17 6TN, UK
Robin Probert
Affiliation:
Seed Conservation Department, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Wakehurst Place, Ardingly, West Sussex, RH17 6TN, UK
Michael Way
Affiliation:
Seed Conservation Department, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Wakehurst Place, Ardingly, West Sussex, RH17 6TN, UK
*
*Correspondence Email: [email protected]

Abstract

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment estimates that between 60,000 and 100,000 plant species are threatened with extinction–equivalent to around one-quarter of the total number of known plant species. Why should we care? There are a number of reasons. The first is that these plants may be useful to us in unknown ways. Secondly, ecology has taught us that resilience is found in diversity. Thirdly, we should be saving plant species from extinction because we can–there is no technological reason why any plant species should become extinct. Where we can't protect and manage plant diversity in situ, we should be employing ex situ conservation techniques, ranging from seed banks to habitat restoration. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment describes such interventions as ‘techno-gardening’. This is not an abstract concept–it is already a reality in the majority of man-managed landscapes. In this context the perception of ex situ conservation as simply a back-up strategy for in situ conservation is mistaken. We are all involved in ex situ conservation to some degree, from cultivating our back gardens, to farming, to management of protected areas. Ex situ conservation should be seen as a complementary approach to in situ conservation and on the same spectrum. Kew's Millennium Seed Bank Partnership, comprising more than 120 plant science institutions in 50 countries, epitomizes this philosophy in action. We work actively on every seed collection we bank, finding out how useful it is and how we can grow it to enable human innovation, adaptation and resilience. Challenges remain at the policy level; for example, the need to factor-in the value of natural capital to development decision making, and better defining a role for public-sector science. At the technical level, also, there is much to do. Perhaps the greatest technical challenges relate to the restoration and management of complex, self-sustaining habitats or species assemblages. If we are to techno-garden effectively, in order to maintain ecosystem services and sustain biodiversity, then a multidisciplinary approach will be required. Many plant science institutions have recognized this and are becoming engaged increasingly in restoration activities and in situ management. Ultimately, humanity's ability to innovate and adapt is dependent on our having access to the full range of plant species and the alleles they contain.

Type
Research Opinion
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acquaah, G. (2007) Principles of plant genetics and breeding. Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Bharucha, Z. and Pretty, J. (2010) The roles and values of wild foods in agricultural systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365, 29132926.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernadez-Cornejo, J. (2004) The seed industry in US agriculture. Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 786. Washington, DC, USDA/ERS.Google Scholar
Grivetti, L.E. and Ogle, B.M. (2000) Value of traditional foods in meeting macro- and micronutrient needs: the wild plant connection. Nutrition Research Reviews 13, 3146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hardwick, K.A., Fiedler, P., Lee, L.C., Pavlik, B., Hobbs, R., Aronson, J., Bidartondo, M., Black, E., Coates, D., Daws, M.I., Dixon, K., Elliott, S., Ewing, K., Gann, G., Gibbons, D., Gratzfeld, J., Hamilton, M., Hardman, D., Harris, J., Holmes, P.M., Mabberley, D., Mackenzie, A., Magdalena, C., Marrs, R., Mills, A, Nic Lughadha, E., Ramsay, M., Smith, P., Taylor, N., Trivedi, C., Way, M., Whaley, O. and Hopper, S.D. (2010) The role of botanic gardens in the science and practice of ecological restoration. Conservation Biology, in press.Google Scholar
Leopold, A. (1953) Round river. New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. Washington, DC, World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Oldfield, S., Lusty, C. and MacKinven, A. (1998) The world list of threatened trees. Cambridge, UK, World Conservation Press.Google Scholar
Paton, A.J., Brummitt, N., Govaerts, R., Harman, K., Hinchcliffe, S., Allkin, B. and Nic Lughadha, E. (2008) Towards target 1 of the global strategy for plant conservation: a working list of all known plant species – progress and prospects. Taxon 57, 110.Google Scholar
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Global biodiversity outlook 3. 94 pp. Montreal, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.Google Scholar
TEEB (2009) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for policy makers. Available athttp://www.teebweb.org/ForPolicymakers/tabid/1019/Default.aspx (accessed 28 October 2010).Google Scholar