Department of Science, University of Roma Tre, Viale Guglielmo Marconi 446, Roma, 00146, Italy.
School of Natural Sciences and Psychology, Liverpool John Moores University, James Parsons Building, Byrom Street, Liverpool, L3 3AF, U.K.
Conserv Biol. 2020 Apr;34(2):303-313. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13391. Epub 2019 Sep 19.
The alarming current and predicted species extinction rates have galvanized conservationists in their efforts to avoid future biodiversity losses, but for species extinct in the wild, few options exist. We posed the questions, can these species be restored, and, if so, what role can ex situ plant collections (i.e., botanic gardens, germplasm banks, herbaria) play in the recovery of plant genetic diversity? We reviewed the relevant literature to assess the feasibility of recovering lost plant genetic diversity with using ex situ material and the probability of survival of subsequent translocations. Thirteen attempts to recover species extinct in the wild were found, most of which used material preserved in botanic gardens (12) and seed banks (2). One case of a locally extirpated population was recovered from herbarium material. Eight (60%) of these cases were successful or partially successful translocations of the focal species or population; the other 5 failed or it was too early to determine the outcome. Limiting factors of the use of ex situ source material for the restoration of plant genetic diversity in the wild include the scarcity of source material, low viability and reduced longevity of the material, low genetic variation, lack of evolution (especially for material stored in germplasm banks and herbaria), and socioeconomic factors. However, modern collecting practices present opportunities for plant conservation, such as improved collecting protocols and improved cultivation and storage conditions. Our findings suggest that all types of ex situ collections may contribute effectively to plant species conservation if their use is informed by a thorough understanding of the aforementioned problems. We conclude that the recovery of plant species currently classified as extinct in the wild is not 100% successful, and the possibility of successful reintroduction should not be used to justify insufficient in situ conservation.
当前和预测的物种灭绝率令人震惊,这促使保护主义者加紧努力,避免未来的生物多样性丧失,但对于野外灭绝的物种,几乎没有选择。我们提出了这些问题:这些物种能否恢复?如果可以,那么异地植物收集(即植物园、种质库、标本馆)在恢复植物遗传多样性方面可以发挥什么作用?我们回顾了相关文献,以评估利用异地材料恢复失去的植物遗传多样性的可行性,以及随后移植的生存概率。我们发现了 13 次试图恢复野外灭绝物种的尝试,其中大多数使用了保存在植物园(12 次)和种子库(2 次)中的材料。从标本材料中恢复了一个局部灭绝的种群。这些案例中有 8 个(60%)是焦点物种或种群的成功或部分成功的移植;其他 5 个失败,或者还为时过早,无法确定结果。异地来源材料在恢复野生植物遗传多样性方面的应用受到多种因素的限制,包括来源材料的稀缺性、材料的生存能力和寿命降低、遗传变异性低、缺乏进化(特别是对于保存在种质库和标本馆的材料)以及社会经济因素。然而,现代采集实践为植物保护提供了机会,例如改进的采集协议以及改善的栽培和储存条件。我们的研究结果表明,如果充分了解上述问题,所有类型的异地收集都可以有效地为植物物种保护做出贡献。我们的结论是,目前被归类为野外灭绝的植物物种的恢复并非 100%成功,成功再引入的可能性不应该被用来证明原位保护不足。