Publications
NIBIOs employees contribute to several hundred scientific articles and research reports every year. You can browse or search in our collection which contains references and links to these publications as well as other research and dissemination activities. The collection is continously updated with new and historical material.
2019
Authors
Arne Stensvand Aruppillai Suthaparan Belachew Asalf Tadesse Ranjana Pathak Hans Ragnar Gislerød Knut Asbjørn Solhaug Pål Johan From Rodrigo B. Onofre Natalia A. Peres William Turechek Andrew Bierman Lance Cadle-Davidson David M. GadouryAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Arne Stensvand Aruppillai Suthaparan Belachew Asalf Tadesse Ranjana Pathak Hans Ragnar Gislerød Knut Asbjørn Solhaug Pål Johan From Rodrigo B. Onofre Natalia A. Peres William Turechek Andrew Bierman Mark Rea Lance Cadle-Davidson David M. GadouryAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Heli Fitzgerald Anna Palmé Åsmund Asdal Dag Terje Filip Endresen Elina Kiviharju Birgitte Lund Morten Rasmussen Hjörtur Thorbjörnsson Jens WeibullAbstract
Crop wild relatives (CWR) can provide one solution to future challenges on food security, sustainable agriculture and adaptation to climate change. Diversity found in CWR can be essential for adapting crops to these new demands. Since the need to improve in situ conservation of CWR has been recognized by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2010) and the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (2011–2020), it is important to develop ways to safeguard these important genetic resources. The Nordic flora includes many species related to food, forage and other crop groups, but little has been done to systematically secure these important wild resources. A Nordic regional approach to CWR conservation planning provided opportunities to network, find synergies, share knowledge, plan the conservation and give policy inputs on a regional level. A comprehensive CWR checklist for the Nordic region was generated and then prioritized by socio-economic value and utilization potential. Nordic CWR checklist was formed of 2553 taxa related to crop plants. Out of these, 114 taxa including 83 species were prioritized representing vegetable, cereal, fruit, berry, nut and forage crop groups. The in situ conservation planning of the priority CWR included ecogeographic and complementarity analyses to identify a potential network of genetic reserve sites in the region. Altogether 971,633 occurrence records of the priority species were analysed. A minimum number of sites within and outside existing conservation areas were identified that had the potential to support a maximum number of target species of maximum intraspecific diversity.
Authors
Anna Palme Heli Fitzgerald Jens Weibull Kristina Bjureke Kaija Eisto Dag Terje Filip Endresen Jenny Hagenblad Marko Hyvärinen Elina Kiviharju Birgitte Lund Morten Rasmussen Hjörtur ÞorbjörnssonAbstract
The report summarizes results from a cooperation among all the Nordic countries during the period 2015 – 2019 (two projects). The work has focused on the conservation of Crop Wild Relatives (CWR), i.e. wild plant species closely related to crops. They are of special importance to humanity since traits of potential value for food security and climate change adaptation can be transferred from CWR into crops. The projects represent the first joint action on the Nordic level regarding in situ conservation of CWR. Substantial progress has been made regarding CWR conservation planning, including development of a Nordic CWR checklist and identification of suitable sites for CWR conservation. A set of recommended future actions was developed, with the most important one being initiation of active in situ conservation of CWR in all Nordic countries.
Authors
Pablo González-Moreno Lorenzo Lazzaro Montserrat Vilà Cristina Preda Tim Adriaens Sven Bacher Giuseppe Brundu Gordon H. Copp Franz Essl Emili Garcia-Berthou Stelios Katsanevakis Toril Loennechen Moen Frances E. Lucy Wolfgang Nentwig Helen E. Roy Greta Srėbalienė Venche Talgø Sonia Vanderhoeven Ana Andjelković Kęstutis Arbačiauskas Marie-Anne Auger-Rozenberg Mi-Jung Bae Michel Bariche Pieter Boets Mário Boieiro Paulo Alexandre Borges João Canning-Clode Frederico Cardigos Niki Chartosia Elizabeth Joanne Cottier-Cook Fabio Crocetta Bram D'hondt Bruno Foggi Swen Follak Belinda Gallardo Øivind Gammelmo Sylvaine Giakoumi Claudia Giuliani Guillaume Fried Lucija Šerić Jelaska Jonathan M. Jeschke Miquel Jover Alejandro Juárez-Escario Stefanos Kalogirou Aleksandra Kočić Eleni Kytinou Ciaran Laverty Vanessa Lozano Alberto Maceda-Veiga Elizabete Marchante Hélia Marchante Angeliki F. Martinou Sandro Meyer Dan Michin Ana Montero-Castaño Maria Cristina Morais Carmen Morales-Rodriguez Nadia Muhthassim Zoltán Á. Nagy Nikica Ogris Huseyin Onen Jan Pergl Riikka Puntila Wolfgang Rabitsch Triya Tessa Ramburn Carla Rego Fabian Reichenbach Carmen Romeralo Wolf-Christian Saul Gritta Schrader Rory Sheehan Predrag Simonović Marius Skolka António Onofre Soares Leif Sundheim Ali Serhan Tarkan Rumen Tomov Elena Tricarico Konstantinos Tsiamis Ahmet Uludağ Johan van Valkenburg Hugo Verreycken Anna Maria Vettraino Lluís Vilar Øystein Wiig Johanna Witzell Andrea Zanetta Marc KenisAbstract
Standardized tools are needed to identify and prioritize the most harmful non-native species (NNS). A plethora of assessment protocols have been developed to evaluate the current and potential impacts of non-native species, but consistency among them has received limited attention. To estimate the consistency across impact assessment protocols, 89 specialists in biological invasions used 11 protocols to screen 57 NNS (2614 assessments). We tested if the consistency in the impact scoring across assessors, quantified as the coefficient of variation (CV), was dependent on the characteristics of the protocol, the taxonomic group and the expertise of the assessor. Mean CV across assessors was 40%, with a maximum of 223%. CV was lower for protocols with a low number of score levels, which demanded high levels of expertise, and when the assessors had greater expertise on the assessed species. The similarity among protocols with respect to the final scores was higher when the protocols considered the same impact types. We conclude that all protocols led to considerable inconsistency among assessors. In order to improve consistency, we highlight the importance of selecting assessors with high expertise, providing clear guidelines and adequate training but also deriving final decisions collaboratively by consensus.
Abstract
S. 47 i . https://www.iufro.org/fileadmin/material/publications/proceedings-archive/20209-ctre-proceedings-19.pdf