Leif Schulman & Mari Miranto: Living Collections and Ex Situ Conservation FINNISH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, BOTANIC GARDEN Living Collections of Botanic Gardens as a Means of Ex Situ Conservation - A Case Study on African Violets Leif Schulman and Mari Miranto

Leif Schulman & Mari Miranto: Living Collections and Ex Situ Conservation FINNISH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, BOTANIC GARDEN Premises up to 50 % of plant spp. endangered in situ conservation is the norm, but... GSPC target VIII ex situ conservation: seed banks, but also living collections of BGs advantages and disadvantages have been brought up

Leif Schulman & Mari Miranto: Living Collections and Ex Situ Conservation FINNISH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, BOTANIC GARDEN  - already existing resource - high species diversity: 80,000 out of 300,000 - multiple use: research, education, public outreach, recreation pros and cons of live collections in ex situ conservation:

Leif Schulman & Mari Miranto: Living Collections and Ex Situ Conservation FINNISH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, BOTANIC GARDEN  - already existing resource- expensive maintenance - high species diversity: 80,000 out of 300,000 - low genetic diversity: few accessions, many clones - multiple use: research, education, public outreach, recreation - curatorial problems: poor record keeping, poor origin data, misidentifications - genetic integrity at risk (garden origins, hybridisation) - long-term security uncertain pros and cons of live collections in ex situ conservation:

Leif Schulman & Mari Miranto: Living Collections and Ex Situ Conservation FINNISH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, BOTANIC GARDEN...premises up to 50 % of plant spp. endangered in situ conservation is the norm, but... GSPC target VIII ex situ conservation: seed banks, but also living collections of BGs advantages and disadvantages have been brought up BUT: hardly any analyses made!

Leif Schulman & Mari Miranto: Living Collections and Ex Situ Conservation FINNISH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, BOTANIC GARDEN Aims to evaluate and develop methods of evaluation to answer the following questions: 1.is species diversity high but genetic diversity low? 2.do curatorial problems weaken live collections in ex situ conservation? 3.is maintenance possible? 4.is genetic integrity at risk? 5.is multiple use a reality?

Leif Schulman & Mari Miranto: Living Collections and Ex Situ Conservation FINNISH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, BOTANIC GARDEN Material & Methods African violets (Saintpaulia H. Wendl.)

Leif Schulman & Mari Miranto: Living Collections and Ex Situ Conservation FINNISH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, BOTANIC GARDEN Material & Methods S. grotei S. diplotricha

Leif Schulman & Mari Miranto: Living Collections and Ex Situ Conservation FINNISH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, BOTANIC GARDEN Material & Methods African violets (Saintpaulia H. Wendl.) 4 of 5 most important Saintpaulia collections: UPP, ED, MEI, HKI study of collections and collection databases cross-check of accession data assessment of quality of origin data evaluation of maintenance & display

Leif Schulman & Mari Miranto: Living Collections and Ex Situ Conservation FINNISH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, BOTANIC GARDEN Preliminary results 1. Is species diversity high? –of 30 known taxa, 27 existed in the studied gardens (+ one as seeds)  YES!

Leif Schulman & Mari Miranto: Living Collections and Ex Situ Conservation FINNISH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, BOTANIC GARDEN Preliminary results 2. Is genetic diversity low? –number of accessions per sp. per garden varied: 1 – 33 –recommended minimum is 50 (-100) –total number of accessions: 183 –recommended minimum would be 1,500  YES! BUT: –clonal accessions only few

Leif Schulman & Mari Miranto: Living Collections and Ex Situ Conservation FINNISH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, BOTANIC GARDEN Preliminary results no. of wild accessions share of uniques HKI8376 % UPP2627 % MEI3583 % ED3982 %

Leif Schulman & Mari Miranto: Living Collections and Ex Situ Conservation FINNISH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, BOTANIC GARDEN Preliminary results 3. Do curatorial problems weaken live collections in ex situ conservation? –2 misidentifactions among 183 accessions –26 accessions lacked data on origin, 3 had only ”wild-collected”, all others at least region of origin –HKI had ”some confusions”, ED had one, others none  NO!

Leif Schulman & Mari Miranto: Living Collections and Ex Situ Conservation FINNISH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, BOTANIC GARDEN Preliminary results 4. Genetic itegrity at risk? –mostly wild-collected accessions: human- induced hybrids not possible –origin data mostly good we developed a nominal scale with 5 quality ranks

Leif Schulman & Mari Miranto: Living Collections and Ex Situ Conservation FINNISH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, BOTANIC GARDEN CLASS 1: the exact collection site, down to the level of population/stand, can be found on the basis of the information, e.g.: –Kenya, Kilifi District, Kacharoni, 0328 S, E, 85 m, lithophyte on limestone rocks, in shade of riverine forest. Coll. B. Bytebier , coll. number 107. CLASS 2: the collection site can be found, but exact population/stand cannot be verified on the basis of the information, e.g.: –Tanzania, Morogoro, Nguru Mts., Kanga F.R., 1100 m. Coll. T. Pocs. CLASS 3: the region, district, or mountain area of the collection site known, e.g.: –Tanzania, Lushoto District, East Usambara Mts. Coll. S. Mather, coll. number 2. CLASS 4: accession registered as collected from the wild, but site data lacking, e.g.: –Tanzania. Coll. S. Mather. CLASS 5: no origin data, but accession can be determined as a certain species (i.e., not a cultivar)

Leif Schulman & Mari Miranto: Living Collections and Ex Situ Conservation FINNISH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, BOTANIC GARDEN Preliminary results 4. Genetic itegrity at risk? –mostly wild-collected accessions –origin data mostly good we developed a nominal scale with 5 quality ranks variation of rank 1-5, but mean rank 2.1 CLASS 2: the collection site can be found, but exact population/stand cannot be verified on the basis of the information

Leif Schulman & Mari Miranto: Living Collections and Ex Situ Conservation FINNISH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, BOTANIC GARDEN Preliminary results 4. Genetic itegrity at risk? –mostly wild-collected accessions –origin data mostly good we developed a nominal scale with 5 quality ranks variation of rank 1-5, but mean rank 2.1 –Saintpaulia easy to propagate from cuttings  NO!

Leif Schulman & Mari Miranto: Living Collections and Ex Situ Conservation FINNISH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, BOTANIC GARDEN Preliminary results 5. Is maintenance possible? –one pot needs 121 cm 2 –30 taxa  50 pots  121 cm 2 = c. 18 m 2 –not susceptible to pests, easy to grow –fallen & rooting leaves, and spontaneous seedlings a small problem  YES!

Leif Schulman & Mari Miranto: Living Collections and Ex Situ Conservation FINNISH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, BOTANIC GARDEN Preliminary results 6. Is multiple use a reality? –showy display in HKI –research in HKI and ED –additional info on conservation nowhere  NO!

Leif Schulman & Mari Miranto: Living Collections and Ex Situ Conservation FINNISH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, BOTANIC GARDEN Conclusions 1.Expected drawbacks not too severe, except for lack of genetic diversity. 2.Expected benefits partly true, partly not. 3.Results probably depend on plant group. 4.Spatial requirements can be solved through networking.

Leif Schulman & Mari Miranto: Living Collections and Ex Situ Conservation FINNISH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, BOTANIC GARDEN

Conclusions 5.The evaluation methods used are a good base, but phylogenetics and population genetics would refine the results. and 6.Analyses of the real value of live collections should be continued and collections developed according to results

Leif Schulman & Mari Miranto: Living Collections and Ex Situ Conservation FINNISH MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY, BOTANIC GARDEN Thank you!