In February of this year, the influential journal Nature Plants published a short article calling for a change in the definition of the IUCN Red List category of Extinct in the Wild (EW).

BGCI briefing December 2019

Sarah Dalrymple, Liverpool John Moores University

In February of this year, the influential journal Nature Plants published a short article calling for a change in the definition of the IUCN Red List category of Extinct in the Wild (EW). The call intended to put ex situ seed banking facilities on an equal footing with zoos, aquaria and living collections in botanic gardens (Dalrymple and Abeli 2019). The article authors, Sarah Dalrymple and Thomas Abeli, noticed that seed banks had been omitted from Red Listing protocols and that discrepancies existed in the treatment of seeds in IUCN guidance documents depending on whether the seeds were in situ or part of ex situ seed collections. The IUCN Red List Committee, led by Jonathan Hutton, enacted the recommendation in August; these can be seen on page 81 of the Red List Guidelines and are reproduced below.

“[Extinct in the Wild] can also be applied when plant or fungal taxa are represented only by viable propagules (e.g. seeds or spores) inadequate storage facilities, if effective protocols have been developed for the taxon to ensure there is the potential for these propagules to develop into viable reproductive offspring and to undertake species recovery in situ.”

The change was necessary because previously, EW might only be applied to plants in living collections and not those held in seed banks. Although this is a short addition to the Red List Guidelines, it will mean improved provision for species that are only known to exist as seeds and might have otherwise been classed as Extinct (EX). In some cases, it could mean that species need reclassification, but this should lead to more appropriate management when the species become eligible for conservation programmes rather than being consigned to extinction. Red List Trainers and others with experience in Red List assessments will immediately spot the potential difficulties in applying the new guidelines because it relies on defining “adequate storage facilities” and judging if in situ species recovery through conservation translocations might be feasible. However, the article authors recommend compliance with the Millennium Seed Bank Partnership coordinated by Kew protocols as a minimum threshold for proving the ‘adequacy’ of storage facilities, and working with partners to decide whether in situ recovery is possible from existing seed accessions (see below for possible contacts and resources).

Ultimately, the recommendations of the Nature Plants paper are intended to benefit threatened plants and facilitate their restoration to in situ habitat. But in the short-term, the action of the Red List Committee is an affirmation of the great advances that seed banks have made in recent years, and recognition of their crucial role in mitigating against anthropogenic extinctions.

Endnote

The authors are keen to monitor the impact of the Red List amendment and individuals with a link to any implicated species are encouraged to contact Sarah Dalrymple by email (s.e.dalrymple@ljmu.ac.uk). Requests for a copy of the original article can also be directed to Sarah.

Links

• Nature Plants article
• The full Red List Guidelines
• IUCN Conservation Translocation Specialist Group
• CPC Best Plant Conservation Practices to Support Species Survival in the Wild
• Millenium Seed Bank Partnership coordinated by Kew