1. Evaluating the living wealth of botanic gardens: a necessity for maintaining our own ideals National Botanic Garden of Belgium (NBGB) Dave Aplin, Responsible for Science and Horticulture [Glasshouse Collections] david.aplin@br.fgov.bedavid.aplin@br.fgov.be

2. Ignoring this procedure will weaken of the word ‘Botanic’ in our institutes’ names and reduce our effectiveness. Evaluating the living wealth of botanic gardens: a necessity for maintaining our own ideals IntroductionCollections at MeiseEvaluationCase studiesConclusions Plant collections in botanic gardens are extremely varied. Decades of plant acquisitions reflect research and personal interests, of which many may be redundant. Regular, critical evaluation of living collections should be an increasingly important activity, to meet the current demands of our gardens etc. This is especially true in space-limited areas.

3. The NBGB is not unlike other gardens of similar age. Areas are reaching capacity while increasing costs impinge on collection management. Maintaining our own ideals: the art of practising what we preach IntroductionCollections at MeiseEvaluationCase studiesConclusions Botanic gardens increasingly required to justify their existence to fund-raising bodies, trustees and the public. Plant collections at the NBGB began over a century ago. Currently, 17,000 taxa are curated with the indoor collection alone boasting c.10,000 taxa.

4. Living Collection statistics: an overview of the collections at Meise IntroductionCollections at MeiseEvaluationCase studiesConclusions number of:indoors outdoors total plants28,280 ------ ------ accessions13,643 11,467 25,051 taxa 9,862 7,533 17,216 species 7,787 4,923 12,710 genera 2,120 1,367 3,170 families 277 232 338 percentage (accessions): verified & id: 37% from wild: 22% cites taxa accessions 3,037 44 3,081(12%) cultivar accessions 1,374 2,467 3,841(15%)

5. Meise’s ‘big five’ IntroductionCollections at MeiseEvaluationCase studiesConclusions Living Collection statistics: largest familiestaxaaccessions % v. & id. % wild Cactaceae1642243019% 11% Orchidaceae1057188548% 31% Liliaceae 716114629% 16% Crassulaceae 700 91235% 12% Asteraceae 529 663 39% 27% Rubiaceae (11th) 294 46124% 63%

6. Evaluating a Living Collection: some preconditions to consider IntroductionCollections at MeiseEvaluationCase studiesConclusions A thorough evaluation will take an enormous amount of time and effort involving a range of stakeholders. Its benefits, however, should be clear. Pre-requisites to evaluation: The institute should have a Collection Policy. Few collection statistics have been published. General guidelines for targets are difficult to determine. The RBG Edinburgh [Sibbaldia, 1, 2, 3] offers a notable exception. Quantitative statistics are the quickest and easiest way to obtain an insight into a collection. However, it must be followed by qualitative analysis. Collection data is stored in a database. Confidence in that data. Data can be extracted to provide a range of holdings statistics.

7. An increase in botanical wealth will enable an increase in ‘botanical performance’ And thus contributing to: Evaluating a Living Collection: IntroductionCollections at MeiseEvaluationCase studiesConclusions The main purposes of an evaluation process is to increase the botanical value of our holdings and to aid ex situ conservation. supporting targets and legislation CBD GSPC European Community Biodiversity Strategy The European Plant Conservation Strategy The Biodiversity Strategy of the European Union

8. an insight into the collections IntroductionCollections at MeiseEvaluationCase studiesConclusions Evaluation at differing scales: Evaluating a collection is a huge task. There are countless institute-specific ways this may be done. ‘most’ and ‘least’ important plants overview of all plant families a specific family a genus

9. our ‘most’ and ‘least’ important plants IntroductionCollections at MeiseEvaluationCase studiesConclusions Evaluation - case study one: Criteria: Number: % of collection IUCN 1997 (taxa) 641 3.7% IUCN 2001 (taxa) 656 3.8% Cultivars (accessions) 3,841 15% Cultivars (plants [indoors])3,323 12% Ornamental plants made way for research specimens in the glasshouses CITES 1 (taxa) 199 <1% CITES 2 (taxa) 2,884 12% recalcitrant taxa ?,??? ??%

10. identifying our most vulnerable families IntroductionCollections at MeiseEvaluationCase studiesConclusions Evaluation - case study two:

11. identifying our most vulnerable taxa IntroductionCollections at MeiseEvaluationCase studiesConclusions Evaluation - case study two:

12. identifying our most vulnerable taxa IntroductionCollections at MeiseEvaluationCase studiesConclusions Evaluation - case study two: 8%

13. Evaluation - case study three: a prickly dilemma Collections at MeiseConclusionsCase studiesEvaluationIntroduction genera taxa accessions % v. & id. % wild Cactaceae 200 1642 2430 19% 11%  c. 800 accessions require taxonomic updates and c. 2,000 plants need new labelling.  Taxonomic updates are normally done on the basis of correct identification. But only 1 in every 5 has been examined.  Currently, the Cactaceae take up 4 collection glasshouses and a large public display house. No recent research conducted.  Yet, the majority of the plants reside in CITES 1 & 2, but only 11% are wild collected.

14. Evaluation - case study four: in need of a Gasteria guru Collections at MeiseConclusionsCase studiesEvaluationIntroduction representation on the benches species accessions plants % v. & id. % wild Gasteria 56 115 246 0.6% = 1 16.7%  According to Van Jaarsveld (1994), only 16 species of Gasteria exist, these comprised of many synonyms.  Only 1 accession is verified. So updating taxonomic updates also involves a verification process which is difficult for a genus that exhibits great morphological plasticity.  We seriously have to consider the ‘value’ and purposes of this ‘collection’ to our institute before taking any action.

15. Ex-situ conservation: Introduction 1 Collections at MeiseEvaluationCase Studies Ex-situ cons.Conclusions acknowledgments potentially, our most valuable contribution... Ex situ conservation The fact these two words are married is fundemental to: Target 8: GSPC Article 9: CBD

16. Ex-situ conservation: Introduction 1 Collections at MeiseEvaluationCase Studies Ex-situ cons.Conclusions acknowledgments potentially, our most valuable contribution... Evaluation process will free-up room and labour that could be used for ex situ conservation. Although seed banks are extremely useful, they do not represent the solution to ex situ conservation in isolation. Not all seeds can be stored. Difficulties may arise that hamper the successful cultivation of germinated plants. The botanical community therefore needs to enter dialogue with all relevant stakeholders and consider potential protocols for best practice techniques. Initially concentrate on our own, threatened, European flora.

17. Ex-situ conservation: Introduction 1 Collections at MeiseEvaluationCase Studies Ex-situ cons.Conclusions acknowledgments getting Europe’s house in order... 2 – 3,000 species are threatened on our continent. 800 facing global extinction. Need for a quantitative as well as a qualitative gap analysis of the each threatened species status in botanic gardens. Implementation of IPEN will significantly aid the traceability of specific accessions and enable us to see more clearly duplications in genetic material between gardens.

18. Evaluating the living wealth of botanic gardens: a necessity for maintaining our own ideals IntroductionCollections at MeiseEvaluationCase studiesConclusions Concluding remarks acknowledgments We believe that evaluation is an important part of curation management. The result of such an undertaking will strengthen the word ‘BOTANIC’ in our institutes’ names. Failure to do so will result in a large percentage of holdings having no more botanical value than plants from a local garden centre - “Stamp collections”. As we look towards 2010 and beyond, it is vital that each and every garden represented here today practices what we preach. Time has come for an International Coordinated Action, to place living collections at the heart of legitimate ex situ conservation.

19. Evaluating the living wealth of botanic gardens: a necessity for maintaining our own ideals Collections at MeiseEvaluationCase studiesConclusions Dave Aplin, Responsible for Science and Horticulture [Glasshouse Collections] david.aplin@br.fgov.bedavid.aplin@br.fgov.be Introduction Acknowledgments Thierry Vanderborght – for complex data retrieval from in-house database LIVCOL Acknowledgments Visit us at: www.botanicgarden.be Viviane Leyman, Gert Ausloos, Jan Rammeloo and Delegates of Eurogard, 2006 – for informative discussions