Pavlovsk is not alone

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.

Featured: Protected areas

Nigel sort of agrees with Dave on the usefulness of protected areas:

Dave is interestingly provocative and I have a lot of sympathy with his frustration which I at least in part share!

But you just know there’s a “but…” coming up. And indeed there is. In spades. Read the whole thing. Then have your say.

Oh, and there’s more on this discussion here, from Danny and Jeremy.

Featured: Conservation

Peter Matthews attempts to mediate between agriculture and nature:

I think if the nature-conservation ethic could extend further into agricultural landscapes, then there would be more room to extend the development-ethic into natural landscapes. Lets say 20% for nature, 60% for nature and us, and 20% just for us? What are we aiming for, if we have any aims?

So, let’s all hear it for the Satoyama Initiative and “socio-ecological production landscapes”?

Climate change winners and losers in Europe: the story so far

A recent paper in Agricultural Systems looks at what’s happened to the potential yields of eight crops (winter wheat, spring barley, maize, winter rapeseed, potato, sugar beet, pulses and sunflower) in Europe from 1976 to 2005. Italy and central and eastern Europe have been the big losers (left), probably due to higher temperature increases, sometimes in combination with lower radiation values.

And the British Islands have been the big winners (right), due to to longer period during which temperature is optimum for CO2 assimilation, sometimes in combination with higher radiation levels. That, of course, cannot last forever, though.