Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40892161›Full record

ArticleBotanical studies2025

Identification of hotspots of crop wild relatives in Germany to promote their in situ conservation in a network of genetic reserves.

Maria Bönisch, Vera Senße, Thomas Engst, Alica Sander, Diethart Matthies, Eckhard Jedicke, Nadine Bernhardt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Botanical studies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Maria BönischInstitute for Resistance Research and Stress Tolerance, Julius Kühn-Institut (JKI) - Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Quedlinburg, Germany. maria.boenisch@julius-kuehn.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4075-6606
Vera SenßeDepartment of Agriculture, Ecotrophology and Landscape Development, Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Bernburg, Germany.
Thomas EngstDepartment of Agriculture, Ecotrophology and Landscape Development, Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Bernburg, Germany.
Alica SanderDepartment of Agriculture, Ecotrophology and Landscape Development, Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Bernburg, Germany.
Diethart MatthiesPlant Ecology and Geobotany, Department of Biology, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Germany.
Eckhard JedickeDepartment of Landscape Planning & Nature Conservation, Hochschule Geisenheim University, Geisenheim, Germany.
Nadine BernhardtInstitute for Resistance Research and Stress Tolerance, Julius Kühn-Institut (JKI) - Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Quedlinburg, Germany. nadine.bernhardt@julius-kuehn.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0716-6284

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCrop wild relatives (CWR) represent a valuable resource for ensuring food security. Although they are negatively affected by the loss of habitats due to climate change and land use change, they are underrepresented in conservation programmes. The establishment of genetic reserve (GR) networks has been put forward as an approach to protect CWR. The objective of this study was to identify CWR hotspots in Germany, which are suitable candidates for the establishment of GRs. CWR observation data were collected on a national scale from various sources and a hotspot analysis was performed to identify potential GR sites. A number of these sites were visited and the plant species occurring were recorded.

results76 GR candidate sites were identified. The sites are distributed across the biogeographic regions of Germany and could conserve 73% of all CWR and 85% of the CWR that were assigned a conservation priority for Germany. Our on-site surveys for 27 GR candidates found discrepancies between the species records available and the species currently occurring.

conclusionsWe propose five hectares as an appropriate size for GRs, as such an area can be monitored and the number of stakeholders involved is usually low. The discrepancies concerning species records highlight the need for more frequent, regular nationwide CWR monitoring as a prerequisite for their conservation. Our results further suggest that GRs should also be set up outside of protected areas to protect CWR efficiently.

Indexed as

Genetic resourcesHotspot analysisPlants for food and agricultureSpecies inventory

Identifiers

PMID40892161
PMCPMC12405085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.