Category: Threats

It’s clear genebanks around the world are having a hard time. The poster child just at the moment is Pavlovsk, of course. But we’ve heard lately that Australia’s genebanks are also threatened. And we’ve also been following a similar situation over the past several months at Wellesbourne in the UK. Why is this happening? As chance would have it, I think a couple of recent posts here may hold some clues.

I think, for example, that our failure in the genetic resources conservation community to quantify — or at least communicate — costs properly is not, er, helping. And we still have a long way to go in facilitating the process of getting conserved material where it is most needed. So, maybe we’ve also seen in the past few days the answer to genebank funding. But that doesn’t mean we can ease up on getting our costs straight, and getting our material known and out there, which among other things means sorting out Genebank Database Hell.

Well, there’s another thing. We do also need to admit to ourselves that maybe, just maybe, not all genebanks are necessary. I hope Pavlovsk, the Australian genebanks and Wellesbourne survive and thrive. It will set a bad precedent if they go under, a very bad precedent, and in any case a genebank is more than just brick, mortar and seeds. It’s people and expertise, and we should fight for them. But if it’s not to be, I hope at least the unique material they have been conserving so diligently for so long makes its way speedily and safely to some other home, where its long-term conservation and availability will perhaps be better ensured.

Over at Vaviblog, Jeremy has a post explaining why Pavlovsk is not unique. Alas, it’s because it’s by no means the only genebank that’s in trouble.

Wellesbourne and Brogdale, the UK’s national collections of vegetable and fruit diversity, have both been through the wringer lately. On October 1 Wellesbourne and the Genetic Resources Unit were officially absorbed into the new Crop Centre at Warwick University. The UK’s national vegetable collection is probably safe, for the time being, but the future of the breeding work that used to be carried out at Wellesbourne, and the many lines resulting from various crosses, is by no means clear. Brogdale too has been placed under new management, and parts of the collection duplicated at other sites where they may be safe, but it’s long-term future too is by no means assured. One could cite many other examples where national collections, built up and maintained thanks to government, are also subject to government’s budgetary whims.

We’ve blogged about the Wellesbourne situation before, and we’ll continue to keep an eye on developments. One hopes that the decision-making process will be a little more transparent than at Pavlovsk, and of course for a positive result in both cases.

Thanks to Tatyana Livshultz, we have a translation of the interview with the members of the expert scientific commission that was appointed by the Russian Government Department of Economic Development to examine and report on the living collections at the Pavlovsk Experimental Station.

Here’s Tatyana’s summary of the main findings:

1) The station holds extremely valuable (from scientific, agronomic, and historical perspective) living collections particularly the stone fruits (which was assembled beginning 80-85 years ago by the Vavilov Institute) and currants (which is a younger collection).

2) Some of these collections (particularly the stone fruit) are in very bad condition (old trees at risk of death) and need urgently to be renewed (re-grafted, re-propagated); others (e.g. the currants) are relatively well-maintained. The brambles are overgrown by grasses.

3) The collection has not been well-documented or well-maintained. They recommend a change of management/administration at the Pavlovsk Experiment Station, and additional resources made available for maintenance and repropagation of the collection.

4) They recommend that the station be maintained. The 13 hectares where the fruit collections are currently planted must be maintained, an additional 20 hectares are needed to renew and re-propagate the collection while maintaining the original plantings. Additional areas that do not hold collections (e.g. a wetland) or are currently planted with field crops (grains or potatoes) are identified as unnecessary to protect and may be developed.

5) The commission recommends against moving the fruit collection, considered too risky (too great a risk of loss of accessions).

Well, that sounds pretty hopeful to me. ¹