High priority taxa

Following taxa (1 out of 6) were found to be high priority taxa to collect:

  • L. culinaris subsp. tomentosus

See the priorities list here

Identified gaps for Lens genepool

(see downloads)

We found data for 3 wild species and 3 infraspecific taxa, accounting to a total of 6 taxa. These different taxa are classified as follows, according to their closeness to the cropped species L. culinaris subsp. culinaris using Singh and Jauhar (2005) as follows:

Primary genepool
Secondary genepool
Tertiary genepool
L. culinaris subsp. culinaris cultivars and landraces
L. ervoides
L. lamottei
L. culinaris subsp. tomentosus
L. nigricans
L. culinaris subsp. odemensis
L. culinaris subsp. orientalis

The analysis dataset (download) contained 606 observations, with 157 (26%) being herbarium specimens and 449 (74%) being genebank accessions. The average number of total samples per taxon was 101 (standard deviation of 93), indicating that available data is fairly limited and it is also concentrated in certain taxa (i.e. L. nigricans, L. ervoides, L. culinaris subsp. orientalis). Other taxa such as L. culinaris subsp. tomentosus (4), and L. lamottei (12) present a very limited sampling and/or data availability and thus they need further characterization and sampling to be able to develop a reliable ecogeographic evaluation on them. Taxon L. culinaris subsp. odemensis is showing however a relatively higher data availability, which results in a better characterization of the species and thus evaluation of genebank accessions representativity.

The gap analysis of the Lens genepool found that there is 1 taxon (L. culinaris subsp. tomentosus) that is either underrepresented in genebanks out of the 6 taxa under analysis and this taxa was therefore flagged as high priority species. Species L. nigricans was found to be relatively underrepresented and thus flagged as a medium priority species, while species L. lamottei was flagged as a low priority species as it is better conserved ex-situ. Taxa L. culinaris subsp. orientalis, L. culinaris subsp. odemensis and L. ervoides were found to be adequately conserved and thus flagged as species that require no further conservation efforts.

Potential sampling richness

GE View in Google Earth

Lens high priority taxa were found to be distributed along the coasts of the Mediterranean sea, reaching the north of France.

Potential sampling zones

GE View in Google Earth

Brief description of data used in the analysis

Lens is believed to be originated in the Near East arc and Asia Minor. The table below shows the number of records (herbarium, germplasm, total) used per species for the Eleusine genepool gap analysis.

Genebank accessions
Herbarium samples
Lens culinaris subsp. tomentosus
Lens lamottei
Lens nigricans
Lens culinaris subsp. odemensis
Lens culinaris subsp. orientalis
Lens ervoides

Species’ taxonomy was reviewed using the GRIN taxonomical review. After cross-checking and correcting both synonyms and orthography of the species’ names, a thorough georeferencing process is carried out to obtain a spatially explicit database containing as many records as possible for each species. After this, records outside continental boundaries were deleted and a final dataset was produced for analyses.

These are the 29 different collections from which data were readily available:

  1. Aranzadi Zientzi Elkartea
  2. Bundesamt fuer Naturschutz / Netzwerk Phytodiversitaet Deutschland
  3. CeDoc de Biodiversitat Vegetal: BCN-Cormophyta
  4. CIBIO, Alicante:ABH-GBIF
  5. Dpto de Botánica, Ecología y Fisiología Vegetal (herbario_cofc). Facultad de Ciencias. Universidad de Córdoba
  6. EURISCO, The European Genetic Resources Search Catalogue
  7. Herbario de la Universidad de Salamanca: SALA
  8. Herbario de la Universidad de Sevilla, SEV
  9. Herbario de la Universidad de Sevilla, SEV-Historico
  10. Herbarium Willing
  11. Herbarium WU
  12. Institut Botanic de Barcelona, BC
  13. Instituto Pirenaico de Ecología-CSIC: Herbarium JACA
  14. Inventaire national du Patrimoine naturel (INPN)
  15. IPK Genebank
  16. Jardín Botánico de Córdoba: Herbarium COA
  17. Jardi Botanic de Valencia: VAL
  18. Lund Botanical Museum (LD)
  19. Observations du Conservatoire botanique national du Bassin parisien.
  20. Real Jardin Botanico (Madrid), Vascular Plant Herbarium (MA)
  21. SANT herbarium vascular plants collection
  22. seeds collected during expeditions, traditional culitvars and landraces are included
  23. The System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER)
  24. United States National Plant Germplasm System Collection
  25. Universidad de Almería, HUAL
  26. Universidad de Extremadura, UNEX
  27. Universidad de Granada, Herbario: GDA
  28. Universidad de Málaga: MGC-Cormof
  29. Universidad de Oviedo. Departamento de Biología de Organismos y Sistemas: FCO


Climatic niche model for L. culinaris var. odemensis
Climatic niche model for L. culinaris var. orientalis
Climatic niche model for L. ervoides
Climatic niche model for L. lamottei
Climatic niche model for L. nigricans
Predicted species richness under current climatic conditions
Predicted species richness under future climatic conditions
Changes on predicted species richness due to climate change
Sampling density (200km cell size) for germplasm accessions
Sampling density (200km cell size) for herbarium samples
Conservation priorities list for Lens genepool
Dataset used for this analysis

back to top


One Comment to “Lens genepool”

  1. Jose Piggin says:

    How do you conclude that L. lamottei is ‘better conserved ex situ’ (and thus “low priority”) than L. nigricans which you have called “medium priority” – when your table shows only 8 genebank accessions of L. lamottei compared with 62 of L. nigricans?
    Obviously the usefulness of your work will depend on the numbers (and locations) of herbaria and genebanks surveyed, and the accuracy of taxon identification of their collections. At ICARDA for instance, of the 10 accessions of L. lamottei germplasm listed, there are two from Turkey which were originally collected as L.nigricans (and were in the database under that name for a while) but could well turn out to be L. culinaris subsp odemensis rather than L. lamottei. Taxonomic work is like that – there are always ‘problem’ cases and changing opinions! They will be grown this year to be (finally I hope) identified. The level of misidentification (and non-identification) of accessions/specimens in genebanks and herbaria could be quite high. I have read estimates of between 15-35 % I have examined the Lens collection (>440) at Kew recently (not accessible online) and found not all to be correctly identified – nevertheless, herbarium specimens can tell you much about plant distributions. Did you know for instance that Lens ervoides is found in Ethiopoia and Uganda as well?

Leave your Comment

| Log in