Conservation Gaps in Traditional Vegetables Native to Europe and Fennoscandia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting, well-written and sound manuscript.

The following aspects should be addressed by the authors:

L64-65: We stillwanted to liked to review Fennoscandia with a focus on vegetables,… - editing required!

L66-67: We include both annuals, biennials and perennials.

‘both’ does not fit here; better to eliminate it.

L69: (Asparagus officinalis L.) – please use italics!

L74: genbanks – please change to ‘genebanks’

L102-107: We used the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) [28] and Mossberg and Stenberg [29] for this and excluded Barbarea praecox R. Br. (winter cress), Valeriana locusta (L.) Betoke (lamb's lettuce), Mentha cardica Gerard ex Baker (Scotch mint), Sedum reflexum L. (Jenny stone crop), Bunium bulbocastanum L., Portulaca oleracea L. (common purslane), and Rumex alpinus L. (Alpine dock). We also removed hybrids as Mentha × piperita L. and Mentha × rotundifolia (L.) Huds.

Please explain on which basis these species were removed from the analysis.

L119: The Global Gateway to Genetic Resources www.genesys-pgr.org [30] was applied….

This portal is better known as Genesys or GENESYS and the latter name is subsequently used in the text. Hence, it is suggested to add this abbreviation in this sentence. GENESYS, the Global Gateway to…

L141-142: Finally, we reduced the possible effects of sampling bias and spatial autocorrelation by creating a grid of 5 arc-min and randomly sample one presence point per grid cell.

This should most likely read: …. and randomly sampled one presence point per grid cell.

L217-218: For the analysis of the state of in-situ conservation, the four metrics were calculated based on the extent of representation of the range of each species within officially recognized protected areas.

Limiting the analysis of in situ conservation to officially recognized protected areas may constitute only a fraction of the biodiversity found in situ. This should be clarified in the text.

In situ conservation involves the maintenance of the genetic variation making up PGRFA in the location where it is encountered naturally, either in the wild or within a traditional farming or domestic situation. While existing nature reserves or national parks are designed for the purpose of in situ conservation, this is normally targeted at animal species, habitats or ecosystems rather than specific PGRFA. Few have as their primary goal the conservation of plant species, let alone plant genetic resources.

L232-236: Taxa were then categorized, with high priority for further conservation action assigned when Final Conservation Score < 25, medium priority (MP) where 25 ≤ Final Conservation Score < 50, low priority (LP) where 50 ≤ Final Conservation Score < 75, and sufficiently conserved species whose Final Conservation Score ≥ 75 [19].

While the classification scores for high priority for further conservation and sufficiently conserved species are clear, the indicated scores for medium and low conservation priority are somehow indicated in a confusing way. Should this not read: …., medium priority (MP) with Final Conservation Score ranging from ≥ 25 to < 50, low priority (LP) with Final Conservation Score ranging from ≥ 50 to < 75, ….?

L281-283: A total number of around 39,541 accessions were found in GENESYS for the targeted 35 vegetables and of these 5968 where classified as wild (including wild/natural and semi-wild/semi natural).

Change ‘where’ to ‘were’.

L288-292: The meaning of the numbers presented in brackets is not clear and should be explained in the heading of the Table.

L376-377: In Fennoscandia, the plant has most likely been introduced and is naturalized but rare, and most of these populations in the southern landscapes.

Last part of the sentence is incomplete – most of these populations are found in the southern Landscapes.

L383-385: Garden lovage is was described as naturalized in Sweden in the 18th century but is also introduced to Fennoscandia.

Garden lovage was described…. – delete ‘is’

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Thank you for this concrete feedback. We have edited the manuscript according to your suggestions and also included changes requested by the second reviewer and from the editorial office. All changes are made with the Track Changes function in Word.

L64-65: We still wanted to liked to review Fennoscandia with a focus on vegetables,… - editing required!

Done, we added a space and deleted “liked to”

L66-67: We include both annuals, biennials and perennials. ‘both’ does not fit here; better to eliminate it.

Done.

L69: (Asparagus officinalis L.) – please use italics!

Done

L74: genbanks – please change to ‘genebanks’

Done

L102-107: We used the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) [28] and Mossberg and Stenberg [29] for this and excluded Barbarea praecox R. Br. (winter cress), Valeriana locusta (L.) Betoke (lamb's lettuce), Mentha cardica Gerard ex Baker (Scotch mint), Sedum reflexum L. (Jenny stone crop), Bunium bulbocastanum L., Portulaca oleracea L. (common purslane), and Rumex alpinus L. (Alpine dock). We also removed hybrids as Mentha × piperita L. and Mentha × rotundifolia (L.) Huds.

Please explain on which basis these species were removed from the analysis.

We specified the reason for removing the mentioned species as follows: “We excluded Barbarea praecox R. Br. (winter cress), Valeriana locusta (L.) Betoke (lamb's lettuce), Mentha cardica Gerard ex Baker (Scotch mint), Sedum reflexum L. (Jenny stone crop), Bunium bulbocastanum L. (black zira), Portulaca oleracea L. (common purslane), and Rumex alpinus L. (Alpine dock) as they are not found in Fennoscandia. We also removed hybrids as Mentha × piperita L. and Mentha × rotundifolia (L.) Huds. due to taxonomic uncertainties in the wild populations of these hybrids.”

L119: The Global Gateway to Genetic Resources www.genesys-pgr.org [30] was applied….

This portal is better known as Genesys or GENESYS and the latter name is subsequently used in the text. Hence, it is suggested to add this abbreviation in this sentence. GENESYS, the Global Gateway to…

We changed according to the suggestion: “We surveyed the global ex-situ genebank holdings using GENESYS, The Global Gateway to Genetic Resources [30].

L141-142: Finally, we reduced the possible effects of sampling bias and spatial autocorrelation by creating a grid of 5 arc-min and randomly sample one presence point per grid cell.

This should most likely read: …. and randomly sampled one presence point per grid cell.

We have changed the whole section. Now we say: “For the data cleaning and filtering we applied the following criteria: (i) remove occurrences with missing geographical coordinates, or outside the reported administrative boundaries [33]; (ii) remove locations reported to be collected before 1960 to match with the baseline climate; (iii) remove locations from country centroids or with no decimals as it is a sign that these points were only taken at country level and had low precision; (iv) re-assign coordinates located in coastal waters to its nearest location in the coastline using a 10 arc-min buffer; (v) remove duplicated records within the same grid cell at a 5 arc-min resolution [34].”

L217-218: For the analysis of the state of in-situ conservation, the four metrics were calculated based on the extent of representation of the range of each species within officially recognized protected areas.

Limiting the analysis of in situ conservation to officially recognized protected areas may constitute only a fraction of the biodiversity found in situ. This should be clarified in the text.

In situ conservation involves the maintenance of the genetic variation making up PGRFA in the location where it is encountered naturally, either in the wild or within a traditional farming or domestic situation. While existing nature reserves or national parks are designed for the purpose of in situ conservation, this is normally targeted at animal species, habitats or ecosystems rather than specific PGRFA. Few have as their primary goal the conservation of plant species, let alone plant genetic resources.

Thank you for this comment. We added a paragraph in the M&M section saying: “In-situ conservation maintain genetic variation in its natural environments. The current system with nature reserves and national parks tend to focus on habitats or ecosystems rather than specific plant genetic resources. However, plant genetic resources may be found here but also found outside protected areas. Thus, we should be aware of limiting the analysis of in-situ conservation to officially recognized protected areas may constitute only a fraction of the biodiversity found in-situ”

L232-236: Taxa were then categorized, with high priority for further conservation action assigned when Final Conservation Score < 25, medium priority (MP) where 25 ≤ Final Conservation Score < 50, low priority (LP) where 50 ≤ Final Conservation Score < 75, and sufficiently conserved species whose Final Conservation Score ≥ 75 [19].

While the classification scores for high priority for further conservation and sufficiently conserved species are clear, the indicated scores for medium and low conservation priority are somehow indicated in a confusing way. Should this not read: …., medium priority (MP) with Final Conservation Score ranging from ≥ 25 to < 50, low priority (LP) with Final Conservation Score ranging from ≥ 50 to < 75, ….?

We changed the sentence to: “As applied by Khoury et al. [19], we categorized the Final Conservation Score in priority for further conservation accordingly: (i) Taxa were then categorized, with high priority for further conservation when scoring action assigned when Final Conservation Score < 25; (ii) , medium priority when scoring ≥ 25 to < 50; (MP) where 25 ≤ Final Conservation Score < 50, low priority  when scoring ≥ 50 to < 75; and (iv) sufficiently conserved when scoring (LP) where 50 ≤ Final Conservation Score < 75, and sufficiently conserved species whose Final Conservation Score ≥ 75 [19].”

L281-283: A total number of around 39,541 accessions were found in GENESYS for the targeted 35 vegetables and of these 5968 where classified as wild (including wild/natural and semi-wild/semi natural).

Change ‘where’ to ‘were’.

Done, we also removed “around” (as the number is quite exact).

L288-292: The meaning of the numbers presented in brackets is not clear and should be explained in the heading of the Table.

We added into the table caption “In brackets are the number of georeferenced accessions.”

L376-377: In Fennoscandia, the plant has most likely been introduced and is naturalized but rare, and most of these populations in the southern landscapes.

Last part of the sentence is incomplete – most of these populations are found in the southern Landscapes.

Done, we added “are found” into the sentence.

L383-385: Garden lovage is was described as naturalized in Sweden in the 18th century but is also introduced to Fennoscandia.

Garden lovage was described…. – delete ‘is’

Done

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have presented a very well researched, written, and illustrated manuscript that has great significance within the respective domain.

Given the broad use of many of their vegetable species, it would however be important to include a wider selection fo literature, especially from the Eastern fringes of Europe, including the Caucasus and Turkey.

The work of authors like Pieroni, Soukand, Dogan etc. etc. concentrates especially on food species - and in many cases exactly the species the authors have worked on. Thus, in order to present more complete data, the authors need to expand their literature search, in particularly in the field of ethnobotanical studies.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

The authors have presented a very well researched, written, and illustrated manuscript that has great significance within the respective domain.

Given the broad use of many of their vegetable species, it would however be important to include a wider selection of literature, especially from the Eastern fringes of Europe, including the Caucasus and Turkey. The work of authors like Pieroni, Soukand, Dogan etc. etc. concentrates especially on food species - and in many cases exactly the species the authors have worked on. Thus, in order to present more complete data, the authors need to expand their literature search, in particularly in the field of ethnobotanical studies.

Thank you for this comment. We have edited the manuscript according to your suggestions and also included changes requested by the first reviewer and from the editorial office. All changes are made with the Track Changes function in Word.

Most of all, we met your comments explicitly by including a more thorough discussion on traditional plant including more ethnobotanical references. We included your suggested authors’ work. Thank you again for those suggestions. We were not aware of these works (perhaps as we are not ethnobotanist), although we had some Scandinavian ethnobotany references. We ended the discussion on connecting traditional knowledge to in-situ conservation.

“Ethnobotanical studies are relevant for the conservation of plant genetic resources. Around the world, wild plants have important roles. Plants are necessary, being used as food and medicine, but also for lots of other purposes. For Fennoscandia the work of Høeg [12] is especially valuable for compiling traditional plant use knowledge. For the eastern and southern parts of Europe the works of Pieroni, Soukand, and Dogan are important [82-86]. Luczaj et al. [87] gave an overview of the changes in the contemporary use of wild food plants in Europe using examples from Poland, Italy, Spain, Estonia and Sweden. A general decline in use and knowledge has been identified across Europe. Our concern is that such lack of knowledge may lead to lack of care. Habitat destructions are more likely to find place when knowledge is lacking. Indigenous people had ways to secure plant populations. They also used a wide range of species (Tanaka 1976; Rivera & Obón 1991). To start using our bio-cultural heritage is positive, as shown in the New Nordic Cuisine [13]. However, over-exploitation is a risk factor if wild species are commercialized without being put into agricultural production or a proper sustainable harvesting regime. Independent on today’s situation, conservation of genetic resources is important for future generations.”

The new ethnobotanical references we included were:

[82] Pieroni, A., Giusti, M. E., de Pasquale, C., Lenzarini, C., Censorii, E., Gonzáles-Tejero, M. R., Sánchez-Rojas, C. P., Ramiro-Gutiérrez, J. M., Skoula, M., Johnson, C., Sarpaki, A., Della, A., Paraskeva-Hadijchambi, D., Hadjichambis, A., Hmamouchi, M., El-Jorhi, S., El-Demerdash, M., El-Zayat, M., Al-Shahaby, O., Houmani, Z., … Scherazed, M. (2006). Circum-Mediterranean cultural heritage and medicinal plant uses in traditional animal healthcare: a field survey in eight selected areas within the RUBIA project. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 2, 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-2-16

[83] Pieroni, A. (2008). Local plant resources in the ethnobotany of Theth, a village in the Northern Albanian Alps. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 55, 1197–1214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-008-9320-3

[84] Dogan, Y., Baslar, S., Ay, G., Mert, H.H (2004). The use of wild edible plants in western and central Anatolia (Turkey). Economic Botany 58, 684–690. https://doi.org/10.1663/0013-0001(2004)058[0684:TUOWEP]2.0.CO;2

[85] Dogan, Y., Nedelcheva, A. M., and Yarci, C. (2009). Plant Taxa Used as Brooms in Several Southeast European and West Asian Countries. Natura Croatica 17(3): 193–206.

[86] Andreas CH. Hadjichambis, Demetra Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, Athena Della, Maria Elena Giusti, Caterina De Pasquale, Cinzia Lenzarini, Elena Censorii, Maria Reyes Gonzales-Tejero, Cristina Patricia Sanchez-Rojas, Jose M. Ramiro-Gutierrez, Melpomeni Skoula, Chris Johnson, Anaya Sarpaki, Mohamed Hmamouchi, Said Jorhi, Mohamed El-Demerdash, Mustafa El-Zayat & Andrea Pieroni (2008) Wild and semi-domesticated food plant consumption in seven circum-Mediterranean areas, International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 59:5, 383-414, DOI: 10.1080/09637480701566495

[87] Sõukand, R., Kalle, R. (2011). Change in medical plant use in Estonian ethnomedicine: A historical comparison between 1888 and 1994, Journal of Ethnopharmacology 135 (29, 251-260.

[88] Luczaj L., Pieroni A., Tardio J., Pardo-de-Santayana M., Soukand R., Svanberg I., Kalle R. (2012). Wild food plant use in 21 st century Europe, the disappearance of old traditions and the search for new cuisines involving wild edibles Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae 81 (4): 359-370.

[89] Tanaka T. Tanaka's cyclopaedia of edible plants of the world. Keigaku, Tokyo 1976

[90] Rivera D, Obón C, Heinrich M, Inocencio C, Verde A, Fajardo J. Gathered Mediterranean food plants—ethnobotanical investigations and historical development. In: Heinrich M, Müler WE, Galli C, editors. Local Mediterranean food plants and nutraceuticals. Forum Nutr Basel Karger 2006; 59: 18–74.

Due to these inputs, we have broaden our target focus. In the abstract, we changed a sentence and now say: “The current study analyzed 35 vegetables with a European region of diversity with the effort to map the conservation status in Fennoscandia and beyond.”

In the end of the abstract, we changed one sentence to “Our contribution has been to give a fundament for conservation priorities among the identified vegetables species native to Fennoscandia.”

Furthermore, in the introduction sections, we broadened our target by saying:

“The current study aims at producing new insight into traditional Fennoscandian vegetables and their conservation status. We wanted to identify priority species and priority areas for germplasm collection missions, this to safeguard diversity with a focus on Fennoscandia and beyond”.

We also changed the Table 1 caption: “Targeted Fennoscandian traditional vegetables with a European-Siberian region of diversity.”