Presentation at TDWG 2009 in montpellier on the value of geographic coordinates for exploring agricultural biodiversity patterns, and influencing conservation policy.

1. Value of a coordinate: geographic analysis of agricultural biodiversity Andy Jarvis, Julian Ramirez, Nora Castañeda, Samy Gaiji, Luigi Guarino, Hector Tobón, and Daniel Amariles

2. Contents Why crop wild relatives? How a coordinate can help us complete the collections Cleaning coordinate data Needs from standards

3. Wild relatives of crops Includeboth progenitor species and closelyrelatedspecies of cultivatedcrops Faba beans – 0 wild relatives Potato – 172 wild relativespecies Increasinglyuseful in breeding, especiallyforbioticresistance

4. Wild relative species A. batizocoi - 12 germplasm accessions A. cardenasii - 17 germplasm accessions A. diogoi - 5 germplasm accessions Florunner, with no root-knot nematode resistance COAN, with population density of root-knot nematodes >90% less than in Florunner

5. Gap Analysis: Strategiestofilltheholes in ourseedcollections

6. The Gap Analysisroadmap Taxonomy review Data gathering Georeferentiaton Environmental data gathering Gap Analysis process Final recommendations

9. Total number of herbariumspecimens and germplasmaccessionsavailableforeachmajorcrop wild relativegenepoolthroughthe GBIF portal

10. Environmental coverage

11. HERBARIUM GERMPLASM

12. NO GERMPLASM DEFICIENT GERMPLASM

13. POTENTIAL RICHNESS RARE ENVIRONMENTS

14. Which species, and where

15. Wild Vigna collecting priorities Spatial analysis on current conserved materials *Gaps* in current collections Definition and prioritisation of collecting areas 8 100x100km cells to complete collections of 23 wild Vigna priority species

16. Richness in collecting zones at genepool level

17. Predictedchange in speciesrichnessto 2050.

20. 18 known registers of the plant prior to this work

21. 2 germplasm accessions conserved in the USDA

22. GIS used to target field collections

23. 6 new collections of C. flexuosum

24. 160 seeds conserved ex situOBJECTIVE: Locate and collect germplasm of this species in Paraguay

25. Behind all this Data Quality

26. The GBIF database: status of the data The database holds 177,887,193 occurrences Plantae occurrences are 44,706,505 (25,13%) 33,340,000 (74.5%) have coordinates How many of them are correct, and reliable? How many new georreferences could we get? CURRENT STATUS OF THE Plantae RECORDS

27. The GBIF database: status of the data How to make the terrestrial data reliable enough? Verify coordinates at different levels Are the records where they say they are? Are the records inside land areas (for terrestrial plant species only) Are all the records within the environmental niche of the taxon? Correct wrong references Add coordinates to those that do not have Cross-check with curators and feedback to the database

28. Using a random sample of 950.000 occurrences with coordinates

29. Are the records where they say they are?: country-level verification Records with null country: 58.051  6,11% of total Records with incorrect country: 6.918  0,72% of total Total excluded by country 64.969  6,83% of total Records mostly located in country boundaries Inaccuracies in coordinates

31. Not so bad at all… stats 44’706.505 plant records 33’340.008 (74,57%) with coordinates From those 88.5% are geographically correct at two levels 6.8% have null or incorrect country (incl. sea plant species) 4.7% are near the coasts but not in-land Summary of errors or misrepresented data

32. RESULTING DATABASE TOTAL EVALUATED RECORDS: 950.000 Good records: 840.449  88.47% of total

33. Next steps It now takes 27 minutes to verify 950,000 records, 177million would be 83 hours (3 ½ days) Identify terrestrial plant species and separate them from sea species Use a georreferencing algorithm to: Correct wrong references Incorporate new location data to those with NULLlat,lon Interpret 2nd & 3rd-level administrative boundaries and use them too Implement environmental cross-checking (outliers)

34. Geo-referencing: BioGeomancer http://bg.berkeley.edu/

35. Conclusions A coordinate can tell us a lot, and answer a number of interesting research questions, solve a lot of problems Agricultural world sadly behind the mainstream biodiversity world Data not online, not available Databases not connected Quality of coordinate data is critical: We need the concept of precision included We need fields such as location descriptions, and administrative 2nd and 3rd level descriptions for georeferencing We need effective two way communications for verifying, correcting and assigning coordinates from nodes to indexes and vice-versa Economy of scale

36. a.jarvis@cgiar.org