It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The impact of climate change is causing challenges for the agricultural production and food systems. More nutritious and climate resilient crop varieties are required, but lack of available and accessible trait diversity is limiting crop improvement. Crop wild relatives (CWR) are the wild cousins of cultivated crops and a vast resource of genetic diversity for breeding new, higher yielding, climate change tolerant crop varieties, but they are under-conserved (particularly in situ), largely unavailable and therefore underutilized. Here we apply species distribution modelling, climate change projections and geographic analyses to 1261 CWR species from 167 major crop genepools to explore key geographical areas for CWR in situ conservation worldwide. We identify 150 sites where 65.7% of the CWR species identified can be conserved for future use.
Holly Vincent et al. use species distribution modeling, climate change projections, and geographical analyses of more than 1200 crop wild relatives, identifying 150 key conservation areas most effective in preserving genetic diversity of crop wild relatives.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details


1 University of Birmingham, School of Biosciences, Birmingham, UK (GRID:grid.6572.6) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7486)
2 International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, Rabat, Morocco (GRID:grid.6572.6)
3 University of Birmingham, School of Biosciences, Birmingham, UK (GRID:grid.6572.6) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7486); International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Cali, Colombia (GRID:grid.418348.2) (ISNI:0000 0001 0943 556X); Global Crop Diversity Trust, Bonn, Germany (GRID:grid.418348.2)
4 Global Crop Diversity Trust, Bonn, Germany (GRID:grid.418348.2)
5 Bioversity International, Maccarese (Fiumicino), Roma, Italy (GRID:grid.425219.9) (ISNI:0000 0004 0411 7847)
6 Global Crop Diversity Trust, Bonn, Germany (GRID:grid.425219.9)
7 Moore Center for Science, Conservation International, Arlington, USA (GRID:grid.421477.3) (ISNI:0000 0004 0639 1575); Arizona State University, Center for Biodiversity Outcomes, Tempe, USA (GRID:grid.215654.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 2151 2636)
8 Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Plant Production and Protection Division, Rome, Italy (GRID:grid.420153.1) (ISNI:0000 0004 1937 0300)
9 FAO, Secretariat of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Rome, Italy (GRID:grid.420153.1) (ISNI:0000 0004 1937 0300)