This document summarizes Mauricio Parra Quijano's presentation on the Ecogeographic Land Characterization (ELC) approach for conservation planning of crop wild relatives. The presentation covered using ELC maps to identify gaps in ex situ conservation collections and representativeness of protected areas for in situ conservation. Case studies demonstrated optimizing germplasm collecting, defining ecogeographical core collections, evaluating protected area networks, and prioritizing regions for on-farm conservation. The presentation concluded with perspectives on improving the ELC map approach, such as including climate change and anthropic/biotic data, and developing the tool to allow customization and qualitative variables.

1. The ELC approach
in the context of CWR conservation planning: Case studies and perspectives
Mauricio Parra Quijano
Ecogeographic land characterization for CWR diversity and gap analysis
Training workshop
26–27 February 2014, Room UG08, Learning Centre, University of Birmingham

2. ELC and species knowledge
The many different environments/
adaptive scenarios where the
species occur… and
Which of them are
frequent or rare for
the target species

3. Conservation planning - ex situ
Ex situ
ELC MAPS
Representativeness
Are there gaps?
Big size
Collections?
Scarce
Resources?
Optimized
Collecting
Germplasm
Core
Collections
(rationalization)
Other
(sites to
germplasm
Multiplication
/regeneration,
FIGS)

4. Conservation planning - in situ
In situ
On farm
Protected areas
Representativeness
/complementarity
ELC
category
richness
(area and
populations)
Representativeness
/complementarity
Evaluation of
current
P.A. networks
conservation
Evaluation of
current
projects
New P.A.
to be
included
Genetic
Reserves
Establishment
ELC
category
richness
(area and
populations)
Prioritization
of new regions/
communities
where to focus
efforts

5. Study cases
Optimized germplasm collecting

6. Study cases
Optimized germplasm collecting
Optimized collecting
activities for two forage
wild species in Argentina
Trichloris crinita and T.
Pluriflora (Poaceae)
Image from Marinoni et al., in press

7. Study cases
Ecogeographic core collections
Comparison between phenotypic and
Ecogeographical core collections
(spanish bean collection)

8. Study cases
Ecogeographical
representativeness of
protected areas network
for some groups of
prioritized CWR species
(~200 species)
In Spain
Evaluation of current PA for an effective CWR protection

9. Study cases
Genetic reserves

10. Study cases
Prioritization of zones/ farm communities to focus on on-farm conservation efforts
Image from Tapia et al., in press

11. Perspectives – ELC map approach
 Include biotic and anthropic data – if possible, and know how to interpret those
results
 Adapt/create some improved methods to select ecogeographical variables
(objective approach)
 Introduce climate change aspects – modeled/projected ecogeographical data.
 Introduce other methods to determine the optimal number of groups
.
.
.

12. Perspectives – “ELC mapas” tool
 Cover all the countries and regions (continents and subcontinents)
 Facilitate the analysis of administrative units below country level (specially
for big countries), providing sub-national ecogeographical information.
 Allow the user to enter and use their own ecogeographical variables
 Create an application or tool that allows to select the variables that should
be selected (objectively)
 Introduce qualitative variables (i.e. soil type, vegetation)
 Include new components (anthropic/biotic)

13. Thank you