Establishing conservation priorities for crop wild relatives.
B. V. Ford‐Lloyd, Shelagh Kell, Nigel Maxted
Abstract
B. V. Ford‐Lloyd, Shelagh Kell, Nigel Maxted
Abstract
The problem with trying to prioritize a large number of crop wild relatives (CWR) species is the lack of universal data sets for the prioritizing factors that could be applied to all species. Without such data sets, effective prioritization of all CWR cannot take place; however, prioritization is required now. This CWR prioritization is discussed in this chapter. Specifically, the CWR Catalogue and the need for prioritization, criteria for immediate prioritization, prioritization using geographical unit occurrence as a proxy for threat, and prioritization with simple use criteria for socio-economic value are examined.
OpenAlex reports 23 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
The problem with trying to prioritize a large number of crop wild relatives (CWR) species is the lack of universal data sets for the prioritizing factors that could be applied to all species. Without such data sets, effective prioritization of all CWR cannot take place; however, prioritization is required now. This CWR prioritization is discussed in this chapter. Specifically, the CWR Catalogue and the need for prioritization, criteria for immediate prioritization, prioritization using geographical unit occurrence as a proxy for threat, and prioritization with simple use criteria for socio-economic value are examined.
Key concepts: Prioritization, Proxy (statistics), Unit (ring theory), Geography, Environmental resource management, Crop, Environmental planning, Computer science