Wich indicators for monitoring genetic diversity ? a case study of common wheat cultivated in France during the 20th century
genetic diversity of wheat cultivated in France during the 20th century
Geographical coverage
| Geographical scale of the assessment | National |
|---|---|
| Country or countries covered | Metropolitan France |
| Any other necessary information or explanation for identifying the location of the assessment, including site or region name |
Assessment done at 2 scales : * national scale (France) * 'departement' (French administrative territories) scale In order to include most of the French wheat cultivation area. |
Geographical scale of the assessment
National
Country or countries covered
Metropolitan France
Any other necessary information or explanation for identifying the location of the assessment, including site or region name
Assessment done at 2 scales : * national scale (France) * 'departement' (French administrative territories) scale
In order to include most of the French wheat cultivation area.
Conceptual framework, methodology and scope
Assessment objectives
Objectives : * to build a dashboard for in situ genetic diversity of cultivated plant * to assess several aspects of genetic diversity of cultivated wheat from the farest in the past until now * to link genetic diversity variations with historical events concerning wheat breeding
Mandate for the assessment
Following national and international recommandations (CDB, FAO and French national strategy for biodiversity), this work aimed at filling the lack of in situ genetic diversity assessment of cultivated species. Collection and other ex situ genetic diversity assessments are quite well-known, but nothing comparable seems available on in situ side.
Conceptual framework and/or methodology used for the assessment
Unknown
URL or copy of conceptual framework developed or adapted
http://www.fondationbiodiversite.fr/les-programmes-frb/synthese-sur-les-indicateurs-de-biodiversite-cultivee
System(s) assessed
- Cultivated/Agricultural land
Species groups assessed
triticum aestivum
Ecosystem services/functions assessed
Provisioning
- Genetic resources
Regulating
Supporting Services/Functions
- Primary production
Cultural Services
Scope of assessment includes
Drivers of change in systems and services
Yes
Impacts of change in services on human well-being
No
Options for responding/interventions to the trends observed
No
Explicit consideration of the role of biodiversity in the systems and services covered by the assessment
Yes
Timing of the assessment
Year assessment started
Pre 2000
Year assessment finished
2006
If ongoing, year assessment is anticipated to finish
Periodicity of assessment
One off
Assessment outputs
Communication materials (e.g. brochure, presentations, posters, audio-visual media)
4 pages brochure - French version
4pages-ble.pdf
4 pages brochure - UK version
FRB_Etude_blu00E9_UKlight.pdf
Journal publications
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X12001641
Training materials
Other documents/outputs
Tools and processes
Tools and approaches used in the assessment
- Geospatial analysis
- Indicators
Process used for stakeholder engagement in the assessment process and which component
Stakeholders have been engaged only for data and knowledge providing.
Key stakeholder groups engaged
Breeders
The number of people directly involved in the assessment process
Less than 10
Incorporation of scientific and other types of knowledge
- Scientific information only
- Resource experts (e.g. foresters etc)
- Traditional/local knowledge
- Citizen science
Supporting documentation for specific approaches, methodology or criteria developed and/or used to integrate knowledge systems into the assessment
The methodology is described in the following article : http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X12001641
Assessment reports peer reviewed
Yes
Data
Accessibility of data used in assessment
Data is still in use by the research team. Data should be available after second peer-reviewed article.
Policy impact
Impacts the assessment has had on policy and/or decision making, as evidenced through policy references and actions
This work has been proposed to fullfill governemental needs for agricultural indicators, espcially through the French national observatory for biodiversity (http://indicateurs-biodiversite.naturefrance.fr/), and the FRB's project 'ECOSCOPE' (http://www.fondationbiodiversite.fr/programmes-phares/ecoscope).
Independent or other review on policy impact of the assessment
No
Lessons learnt for future assessments from these reviews
The need for a complete set of indicators on a specific question. A dash-board with several indicators allows more detailed evaluation of the driving forces explaining the observed variations.
Capacity building
Capacity building needs identified during the assessment
The assessment requires : * population genetic skills * breeding and history of breeding knowledge * identification of historical data sources
Actions taken by the assessment to build capacity
Network and sharing experiences, Sharing of data/repatriation of data, Communication and awareness raising
How have gaps in capacity been communicated to the different stakeholders
Capacity were built by integrating skilled researchers on population genetics and agriculture history.
Knowledge generation
Gaps in knowledge identified from the assessment
- Gaps in oldest data sources : specially on in situ inventories of cultivated varieties
- Gaps in knowledge of in situ genetic diversity of wheat landraces
How gaps in knowledge have been communicated to the different stakeholders
These gaps have been integrated in order not to overestimate oldest indicators values. It leads to the fact that observed loss of diversity may be wider in reality.
