Principle - Ecological Integrity

Criterion- Genetic Diversity

Indicator - Implementation of an in situ/ex situ genetic conservation strategy for commercial and endangered forest vegetation species.

Box B: Definition:

Genetic diversity is the assortment of genes that have arisen in Canada’s native species through generations of migration and selection, and have enabled those species to adapt to their native environment. This element describes the genetic diversity of forest plants (mostly trees) in Canada and the activities conserving that diversity. In situ (on-site) conservation of genetic diversity is provided by parks and other protected areas, genetic and ecological conservation areas, reserved stands and planned natural regeneration. Ex situ (off-site) conservation measures include germplasm banks, seed orchards, clonal archives (produced by grafting or other means of asexual propagation), provenance tests and arboreta.

Box D: Applicability to Different Landowners. Explain any differences:

This indicator is more applicable to the large (major) landowners. Small landowners could contribute to an existing gene conservation strategy but could not be expected to develop and implement a strategy themselves if one does not presently exist. There is an implied need in this indicator for collaborative, coordinated efforts. Each land management agency or entity in a region or jurisdiction should contribute toward one jointly developed strategy for each species in question.

Box E: Overlap:

None

Notes:

Gene conservation strategies could be implemented at a variety of scales but the most logical and effective scale is regional.

Notes:

The indicator has limited use as a diagnostic or predictive tool. The presence or absence of gene conservation strategies is an indirect and very imprecise measure of the genetic state of the forest.

There is a diagnostic component in that the indicator tells us whether efforts are underway to conserve the genetic diversity of a given species. It does not say anything about the state of the species or populations however. It also has some predictive use in that the likelihood of a species continuing to lose genetic diversity can be predicted with some degree of confidence on the basis of whether or not conservation efforts are underway.

Notes:

This indicator is different from most other biological ones in that it is measuring management intent rather than biological state. It says nothing about the state of the forest itself. Instead there is the assumption of a link between the actions of the forest manager who implements a gene conservation strategy and the fact of conservation of genetic diversity. No direction is implied concerning the composition of the strategy. It could be a complex, well-researched and documented strategy or a very brief and hastily developed strategy. Each would receive equal weight in assessing the indicator. There is no standard for gene conservation strategies.

Box I: Underlying Concepts:

Genetic diversity is fundamental for populations of forest dwelling organisms to be able to adapt to changing environmental conditions, and as such, it underlies species as well as ecosystem diversity. Simple, practical measures can conserve genetic diversity where it occurs naturally and

in ex situ settings, such as seed banks and seed orchards. Governments and industry are applying some of these measures, but coordinated forest genetic conservation strategies are not yet in place, either nationally or provincially.

There are several assumptions underlying this indicator. First, it is assumed that by ensuring that gene conservation strategies are in place, for commercially important and endangered species, the important genetic issues will be covered. This implies that all species that are neither commercial nor endangered do not require attention at the genetic level. A second implication is that gene conservation strategies will be all-encompassing and will drive the research that is necessary to understand the genetic issues.

Box J: Relevance to Sustainable/Unsustainable Management:

There is no question that maintenance of genetic diversity is relevant to sustainable management. The CCFM 1997 technical Report notes that:

"The genetic diversity of Canada’s forests is truly an inheritance from previous generations, and we are responsible for passing it on unimpaired to future generations. Conserving genetic diversity is key to ensuring that species retain their capacity to evolve and adapt to change. It sustains the productive capacity and resilience of forest ecosystems, and it can be viewed as the fundamental basis of the diversity of all species and the ecosystems of which they are a part.

Sustainable forest management requires a commitment by forest agencies to conserve locally or regionally adapted populations of Canada’s major commercial tree species using a combination of in situ and ex situ approaches. It also requires special conservation measures for rare and endangered vegetation species. "

The indicator itself has limited applicability to sustainable forest management. It is an indicator of what management is doing but does not provide information about the actual genetic state of forest species.

This indicator says nothing about the majority of species that are neither commercially important nor endangered. Species are given "endangered" status only when the species is in serious trouble. Species in various risk categories should be included in gene conservation strategy development.

As well, there is a built-in assumption that the implementation of a strategy would cover off concerns about high grading, seed source transfer, or low genetic diversity in plantations. A gene conservation strategy may or may not address any of these. Strategies may vary greatly from country to country and among agencies within countries.

Box K: Measurement Methods:

This is not really applicable to this indicator because there is no "measurement" involved.

Box L: Data Required:

Data requirements: list of commercial and endangered forest vegetation species. This data is readily available. Assessing the indicator requires determining whether there are gene conservation strategies for each of the species and whether they are being implemented.

The easiest way to do this is to contact a local forest geneticist.

Box M: Data Used for the North American Test:

For the Boise test, I talked with two forest geneticists, Dr. Lauren Fins and Dr. Mary Francis Mahalovitch, who work in the State and are familiar with the forest-related genetics work conducted in the State. They listed the commercially important tree species and informed me that there are no tree species recognized as endangered, though there is at least one species at risk within the study area. They told me that there are no formalized gene conservation strategies in place for any tree species.

Box N: Example Results:

There are no gene conservation strategies implemented for commercial or endangered forest tree species in the study area. Thus results are negative implying that the genetic management is unsustainable.

Box O: Assessing the Practicality:

The indicator is very easy and inexpensive.

Box P: Assessing the Information Value :

The indicator does provide some useful information but the interpretation of the results is not clear. Results for the Boise study area are negative for the only pre-existing measure of genetic sustainability. The lack of formalized gene conservation strategies in this region does not mean that (1) any species is at risk, or that (2) components of a gene conservation strategy are not in place (without the name). In fact, in Idaho, many pieces of responsible genetic management are safeguarded. For example, the seed transfer rules for plantation establishment are complex and detailed on the basis of local adaptability studies. The one tree species that is known to be at risk in the study area, while not the subject of a formalized gene conservation strategy, has been studied, and is being monitored. Care is taken to avoid high grading in all partial cutting operations. With the exception of fire effects, the management practices match the silvical requirements of most of the native tree species.

Box Q: Overall assessment:

Rejected.

Though the indicator has some strengths in its apparent ease of measurement and interpretation, the information is actually very weak for reasons stated above.

Box R: Did you rewrite or revise to a new indicator. If so what?

Three new genetics indicators were written V2, V3, V4.

Box S: References

• Canadian biodiversity strategy. 1994. Report of the biodiversity working group. 52p.
• Ecological Stratification Working Group. 1995. A national ecological framework for Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research; Environment Canada, State of the Environment Directorate, Ecozone Analysis Branch, Ottawa–Hull. (Report and national map at 1:7 500 000 scale)
• Lowe, J.J.; Power, K.; Marson, M. 1996. Canada’s forest inventory 1991: Summary by terrestrial ecozones and ecoregions. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific orestry Centre, Victoria, B.C. Inf. Rep. BC-X-364E.

Please record your notes on evaluating the indicator here.

The indicator lacks the depth it should have to be "the" genetic indicator. I am uncomfortable with the only genetic indicator being as indirect and insensitive as this one is. The genetic condition could be sustainable with a negative result or conversely, unsustainable with a positive result. This must be combined with some measure of the genetic condition itself to be a good indicator.

The CCFM document writers seemed uncomfortable with this one as well. The document discusses the indicator as if it applied to all species at risk, mentioning "rare" species and "threatened" species, but these are not included in the wording of the indicator. As well the indicator includes all forest vegetation, but the CCFM 1997 Technical Report only discusses trees. The Technical Report also discusses elements of in situ or ex situ gene conservation strategies, but the indicator itself seems to be a yes or no.

Genetic diversity is a difficult criterion to measure, though it is a vital component of biodiversity. The indicator was written as it is, in recognition of the difficulty of actually measuring genetic diversity for any number of species.

Gaps: there are problems in Idaho; for example though seed transfer guidelines are good, according to a local geneticist, there is a history of lodgepole pine being planted off site. Seed sources are planted in areas where they are not adapted. In some of the partial cutting, concern has been expressed by a local geneticist about high-grading, potentially degrading the genetic quality of the population.

Components identified by Namkoong et al. For genetic indicators:

- level of genetic diversity

• directional changes in gene frequency
• mating systems

Under conditions of natural forest management, plantation management

Specific issues – High-grading

Maintenance of/ use of local well adapted seed sources for artificial as well as

natural regeneration.

Sufficient diversity in plantations.

For sustainability, plantations must be capable of self perpetuation, i.e. locally adapted seed sources, sufficient diversity.

"Natural" forest management – adequate seed sources must be maintained to ensure that species do not "drop out"; high-grading must be specifically avoided, particularly for early successional forest tree species.

Rare species or populations must be protected/maintained or restored. Not just endangered ones. (should be covered under the in situ/ex situ indicator)

Questions – is there, in the current set of indicators, a measure of high-grading? Is there adequate attention paid to maintenance of genetic diversity? Is there any recognition that plantation forestry is a factor, or do we assume that it cannot be sustainable?

Additions:

Scientifically based seed transfer rules or seed orchard zones are utilized in planting programs.

In all partial cutting operations, high grading is avoided.