home > cwr > Vicia genepool

High priority taxa

Following taxa (4 out of 12) were found to be high priority taxa to collect:

  • V. eristalioides
  • V. hyaeniscyamus
  • V. kalakhensis
  • V. serratifolia

See the priorities list here

Identified gaps for Vicia genepool

(see downloads)

We found data for 8 wild Vicia species (V. bithynica, V. eristalioides, V. galilaea, V. hyaeniscyamus, V. johannis, V. kalakhensis, V. narbonensis, V. serratifolia), and 4 infraspecific taxa (V. faba subsp. faba, V. faba subsp. faba var. equina, V. faba subsp. faba var. faba, V. faba subsp. faba var. minor), accounting to a total of 12 taxa for analysis. We have classified faba bean related taxa using Maxted and Kell (2009) wild relatives classification, which suggest the following:

Primary wild relatives
Secondary wild relatives
Tertiary wild relatives
V. faba
There is no G2 for V. faba
V. kalakhensis
V. faba subsp. paucijuga
V. johannis
V. faba subsp. faba
V. johannis var. ecirrhosa
V. faba subsp. faba var. minor
V. johannis var. procumbens
V. faba subsp. faba var. equina
V. johannis var. johannis
V. faba subsp. faba var. faba cultivars and races
V. galilaea
V. galilaea var. galilaea
V. galilaea var. faboidea
V. serratifolia
V. narbonensis
V. narbonensis var. salmonea
V. narbonensis var. jordanica
V. narbonensis var. affinis
V. narbonensis var. aegyptiaca
V. narbonensis var. narbonensis
V. hyaeniscyamus
More distantly V. bithynica and V. eristalioides

The analysis dataset (download) contained 1,641 observations, with 950 (58%) being herbarium specimens and 691 (42%) being genebank accessions. The average number of total samples per taxon was 136 (standard deviation of 226), indicating that available data is relatively abundant, although it is concentrated in certain taxa (i.e. V. bithynica [622], V. narbonensis [599], V. faba subsp. faba var. faba [172]). Other taxa such as V. eristalioides (2), V. kalakhensis (7), V. hyaeniscyamus (11), along with others, present a very limited sampling and/or data availability and thus need further characterization and sampling for assessing a reliable ecogeographic evaluation on them.

The gap analysis of the Vicia genepool showed that there are 4 taxa that are either underrepresented or not represented in any way in genebanks out of the 12 taxa under analysis and these taxa were therefore flagged as high priority species. Two of these taxa presented only 10 or less data points (sum of herbarium and germplasm) indicating that these species in particular need to be further collected (i.e. V. eristalioides, V. kalakhensis). Species V. bithynica was flagged as medium priority species as they appear to be not conserved enough. Species V. galilaea, V. faba subsp. faba var. minor, V. johannis, and V. narbonensis were found to be relatively well conserved, so they don’t require a further conservation action, along with V. faba subsp. faba var. faba, V. faba subsp. faba var. equina and V. faba subsp. faba, which were found as being very well represented ex-situ.

Potential sampling richness

GE View in Google Earth

Potential sampling zones

GE View in Google Earth

V. serratifolia (high priority taxa) was found to be distributed in northern France and the border region between Germany, Austria and Poland. Zones in the maps above are those in which the species is likely to exist and no genebank accessions have been collected.

Brief description of data used in the analysis

The table below shows the number of records (herbarium, germplasm, total) used per species for the Eleusine genepool gap analysis.

Species
Genebank accessions
Herbarium samples
Total
Vicia eristalioides
2
0
2
Vicia hyaeniscyamus
11
0
11
Vicia kalakhensis
7
0
7
Vicia serratifolia
0
18
18
Vicia faba subsp. faba var. minor
28
0
28
Vicia galilaea
5
8
13
Vicia johannis
60
0
60
Vicia narbonensis
261
338
599
Vicia bithynica
37
585
622
Vicia faba subsp. faba
56
1
57
Vicia faba subsp. faba var. equina
52
0
52
Vicia faba subsp. faba var. faba
172
0
172

Species’ taxonomy was reviewed using Maxted and Kell (2009) as a first stage, the GRIN taxonomical review in second place. 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 30 different collections from which data were readily available:

  1. Aranzadi Zientzi Elkartea
  2. Botanical Society of the British Isles - Vascular Plants Database
  3. Bundesamt fuer Naturschutz / Netzwerk Phytodiversitaet Deutschland
  4. Departamento de Biolog. Veg. II, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad Complutense, Madrid: MAF
  5. Dirección General de Investigación, Desarrollo Tecnológico e Innovación de la Junta de Extremadura(DGIDTI): HSS
  6. EUNIS
  7. EURISCO, The European Genetic Resources Search Catalogue
  8. Herbario de la Universidad de Salamanca: SALA
  9. Herbarium of Oskarshamn (OHN)
  10. Herbarium Universitat Ulm
  11. Herbarium Willing
  12. Hortus Botanicus Sollerensis Herbarium (FBonaf+¿)
  13. IPK Genebank
  14. Israel Nature and Parks Authority
  15. Jardín Botánico de Córdoba: Herbarium COA
  16. Jardi Botanic de Valencia: VAL
  17. Justus-Liebig-Universitat Giessen
  18. Lund Botanical Museum (LD)
  19. Observations du Conservatoire botanique national du Bassin parisien.
  20. Real Jardin Botanico (Madrid), Vascular Plant Herbarium (MA)
  21. SysTax
  22. Take a Pride in Fife Environmental Information Centre - Records for Fife from TAPIF EIC
  23. The System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER)
  24. United States National Plant Germplasm System Collection
  25. Universidad de Extremadura, UNEX
  26. Universidad de Málaga: MGC-Cormof
  27. Universidad de Oviedo. Departamento de Biología de Organismos y Sistemas: FCO
  28. Universidad del País Vasco/EHU, Bilbao: Herbario BIO
  29. Universitat de Girona: HGI-Cormophyta
  30. USDA PLANTS Database

Downloads

Climatic niche model for V. bithynica
Climatic niche model for V. faba subsp. faba
Climatic niche model for V. faba subsp. faba var. equina
Climatic niche model for V. faba subsp. faba var. faba
Climatic niche model for V. faba subsp. faba var. minor
Climatic niche model for V. galilaea
Climatic niche model for V. johannis
Climatic niche model for V. narbonensis
Vicia potential collecting zones
Vicia potential collecting richness zones
Predicted species richness under current climatic conditions
Predicted species richness under future climatic conditions (year 2050, scenario SRES-A2a)
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 Vicia genepool
Dataset used for this analysis

back to top

 

2 Comments to “Vicia genepool”

  1. Dirk Enneking says:
    5 November 2009 at 5:08 AM

    There is something seriously wrong with this analysis. I think the problem is that only data with geographic co-ordinates were used. Eurisco lists 27 accessions of Vicia serratifolia, so there are some samples in genebanks ie. IPK Gatersleben. It might also be worthwhile to check for the other 130 species or so that are described for the genus. Vicia articulata Hornem. wild germplasm should be high on the priority list!

    Reply
  2. Nora says:
    6 November 2009 at 11:41 AM

    Dear Dirk,

    Many thanks for your feedback, this kind of interaction with experts is what we seek with the website. In fact for this analysis, as it is based in GIS we are using data with geographic co-ordinates. For all cases, data without co-ordinates but with good locality description is georeferenced, assuring us to increase the amount of data to be used in the analysis. Unfortunately, some data lack co-ordinates and locality description, therefore they won’t be taken into account for the process, as they won’t provide useful information at the geographic nor environmental level.

    For all the gap analysis we chose cropped accessions and wild relative species to the crop, hence, as you can see we did not work with the whole genus as it is the case in Vicia.

    Some data on the species selected is not publicly available, so additional resources could provide more information to allow us to re-assess this gap analysis and improve the results shown before.

    Please fell free to contact us whether you would like to contribute with more feedback (genebank or herbarium data, and or taxonomical issues). We are working on the improvement of results based on more new data.

    Reply

Leave your Comment

| Log in