Using a large-scale Andropogoneae genomics project to inform conservation efforts

Research in the time of COVID-19

To accomplish field collections for this project, we sourced material from the wild, from silica-dried tissue, and from herbaria; all of which involve acquiring extensive geospatial data, cleaning taxonomic information, collaborating with land managers, and travel (and don’t forget the permits!) Based on observations in our field work, many Andropogoneae exist in rare, fragile, and keystone habitats. When the global pandemic blocked additional collecting and lab work, we explored additional purposes for the Andropogoneae distribution dataset (over 1,000 different species), with the hope that it could contribute to the conservation of their biodiversity.

Preliminary assessments

Some widespread species of Andropogoneae exist on several continents, but the tribe also includes many species with narrow distributions that may be specialists for particular ecological conditions. These species may in fact be rare or threatened; so while they serve a functional purpose for the PanAnd project in terms of germplasm diversity, they may also be important candidates for preliminary conservation assessments. With detailed locality information, morphological and taxonomic expertise, we are working to apply our cumulative knowledge of Andropogoneae (all 1,100+ species) to global and regional biodiversity conservation goals and to identify potentially threatened species. Currently, there are 74 IUCN-assessed species. Undergoing official assessments for the remaining 1,000+ species would be no small feat.

Questions:

Can we use the current available information on Andropogoneae to make any determinations relating to conservation?

Can we determine if Andropogoneae species are able to

• undergo IUCN conservation assessments?

• facilitate setting conservation priorities by providing preliminary analyses; if so, where can this information go?

• develop or tighten batch assessment pipelines?

The Kellogg Lab cannot perform a thorough IUCN Red List assessment; can the information gained from this pandemic project still contribute? Is there a repository or network of information where we can “hand off” these preliminary analyses?

Workflow:

• Reconcile species list and address synonymy issues (very time consuming)

• Access species distributions

• Run distribution data into ConR to calculate IUCN criteria EOO (extent of occurrence) and AOO (area of occupancy)

• Validate automated batch analyses with manual GeoCAT entries

• Determine species that are Least Concern and therefore not currently needing assessment or further investigation

• Create priority list for possible Threatened species, and suggestions for moving forward in setting up protections

Species range & conservation analyses tools

We use both manual (GeoCAT) and automated (ConR, RBIEN) tools commonly used in conservation assessments that adhere to the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List assessment criteria, using the data available from major botanical databases Tropicos, GBIF, and BIEN. Because of the Andropogoneae’s long species list, complicated taxonomy, and wide distributions, benefits and limitations of the various tools allowed us to test the potential for increasing throughput in preliminary conservation analyses.

We found consolidated botanical databases with automated taxonomic cleaning (RBIEN) provided the most inclusive species ranges; and while the manual online tool GeoCAT (one species at a time) was user-friendly, accurate, and efficient, automated ConR allowed for batch processing - although it had its own technical limitations with widespread species. Another efficiency-limiting factor is the complicated taxonomy of Andropogoneae, which required extensive synonymy and invalid name reconciliation.