The Library

CWRML: representing crop wild relative conservation and use data in XML

Tools

Moore, Jonathan D., Kelly, Shelagh P., Iriondo, Jose M., Ford-Lloyd , Brian V. and Maxted, Nigel. (2008) CWRML: representing crop wild relative conservation and use data in XML. BMC Bioinformatics, Vol.9 (No.116). ISSN 1471-2105

Preview

PDF
WRAP_Moore_CWRML.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (296Kb)

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-9-116

Abstract

Background
Crop wild relatives are wild species that are closely related to crops. They are valuable as potential gene donors for crop improvement and may help to ensure food security for the future. However, they are becoming increasingly threatened in the wild and are inadequately conserved, both in situ and ex situ. Information about the conservation status and utilisation potential of crop wild relatives is diverse and dispersed, and no single agreed standard exists for representing such information; yet, this information is vital to ensure these species are effectively conserved and utilised. The European Community-funded project, European Crop Wild Relative Diversity Assessment and Conservation Forum, determined the minimum information requirements for the conservation and utilisation of crop wild relatives and created the Crop Wild Relative Information System, incorporating an eXtensible Markup Language (XML) schema to aid data sharing and exchange.

Results
Crop Wild Relative Markup Language (CWRML) was developed to represent the data necessary for crop wild relative conservation and ensure that they can be effectively utilised for crop improvement. The schema partitions data into taxon-, site-, and population-specific elements, to allow for integration with other more general conservation biology schemata which may emerge as accepted standards in the future. These elements are composed of sub-elements, which are structured in order to facilitate the use of the schema in a variety of crop wild relative conservation and use contexts. Pre-existing standards for data representation in conservation biology were reviewed and incorporated into the schema as restrictions on element data contents, where appropriate.

Conclusion
CWRML provides a flexible data communication format for representing in situ and ex situ conservation status of individual taxa as well as their utilisation potential. The development of the schema highlights a number of instances where additional standards-development may be valuable, particularly with regard to the representation of population-specific data and utilisation potential. As crop wild relatives are intrinsically no different to other wild plant species there is potential for the inclusion of CWRML data elements in the emerging standards for representation of biodiversity data.

Item Type:

Journal Article

Subjects:

S Agriculture > SB Plant culture

Divisions:

Faculty of Science > Life Sciences (2010- ) > Warwick HRI (2004-2010)

Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):

Crops, Wild plants, edible, Conservation biology

Journal or Publication Title:

BMC Bioinformatics

Publisher:

BioMed Central Ltd.

ISSN:

1471-2105

Official Date:

25 February 2008

Dates:

Date	Event
25 February 2008	Published

Volume:

Vol.9

Number:

No.116

Identification Number:

10.1186/1471-2105-9-116

Status:

Peer Reviewed

Access rights to Published version:

Open Access

Funder:

Fifth Framework Programme (European Commission) (FP5)

References:

1. Maxted N, Kell SP, Ford-Lloyd BV: Crop Wild Relative Conservation
and Use: Establishing the Context. In Crop Wild Relative
Conservation and Use Edited by: Maxted N, Ford-Lloyd BV, Kell SP, Iriondo
J, Dulloo E, Turok J. Wallingford, CABI Publishing; 2008:3-30.
2. Maxted N, Ford-Lloyd BV, Hawkes JG: Complementary Conservation
Strategies. In Plant genetic conservation: the in situ approach
Edited by: Maxted N, Ford-Lloyd BV, Hawkes JG. London, Chapman
& Hall; 1997:20-55.
3. FAO: World agriculture towards 2015–2030 summary
report. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations 2002.
4. Hajjar R, Hodgkin T: The use of wild relatives in crop improvement:
A survey of developments over the last 20 years.
Euphytica 2007, 156:1-13.
5. Prescott-Allen R, Prescott Allen C: Genes from the wild: using wild
genetic resources for food and raw materials London, Earthscan Publications;
1983.
6. Hoyt E: Conserving the wild relatives of crops Rome and Gland, IBPGR,
IUCN, WWF; 1988.
7. Maxted N, van Slageren MW, Rihan J: Ecogeographic surveys. In
Collecting plant genetic diversity: technical guidelines Edited by: Guarino
L, Ramanatha Rao V, Reid R. Wallingford, CAB International;
1995:255-286.
8. Heywood V, Casa A, Ford-Lloyd B, Kell S, Maxted N: Conservation
and sustainable use of crop wild relatives. Agriculture, Ecosystems
and Environment 2007, 121:245-255.
9. Kell SP, Knüpffer H, Jury SL, Ford-Lloyd BV, Maxted N: Crops and
wild relatives of the Euro-Mediterranean region: making and
using a conservation catalogue. In Crop Wild Relative Conservation
and Use Edited by: Maxted N, Ford-Lloyd BV, Kell SP, Iriondo J, Dulloo
E, Turok J. Wallingford, CABI Publishing; 2008:69-109.
10. Achard F, Vaysseix G, Barillot E: XML, bioinformatics and data
integration. Bioinformatics Review 2001, 17(2):115-125.
11. Taxonomic Databases Working Group: Darwin Core 2
[http://www.tdwg.org/activities/darwincore/]
12. Task Group on Access to Biological Collection Data: ABCD
Schema [http://www.bgbm.org/TDWG/CODATA/Schema/
default.htm]
13. Graham CH, Ferrier S, Huettman F, Moritz C, Peterson AT: New
developments in museum-based informatics and applications
in biodiversity analysis. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2004,
19(9):497-503.
14. Guralnick R, Neufeld D: Challenges building online GIS services
to support global biodiversity mapping and analysis: lessons
from the mountain and plains database and informatics
project. Biodiversity Informatics 2005, 2:56-69.
15. Homepage for the Taxonomic Databases Working Group
[http://www.tdwg.org]
16. Distributed Generic Information Retrieval (DiGIR) [http://
digir.net/]
17. BioCASE: A Biological Collection Access Service for Europe
[http://www.biocase.org/]
18. Wiki for the TDWG Access Protocol for Information
Retrieval (TAPIR) Protocol [http://wiki.tdwg.org/twiki/bin/view/
TAPIR/]
19. European Crop Wild Relative Diversity Assessment and
Conservation Forum homepage [http://www.pgrforum.org]
20. Crop Wild Relative Information System (CWRIS) [http://
www.pgrforum.org/cwris/cwris.asp]
21. Kell SP, Moore JD, Iriondo JM, Scholten MA, Ford-Lloyd BV, Maxted
N: CWRIS: an information management system to aid crop
wild relative conservation and sustainable use. In Crop Wild
Relative Conservation and Use Edited by: Maxted N, Ford-Lloyd BV, Kell
SP, Iriondo J, Dulloo E, Turok J. Wallingford, CABI Publishing;
2008:471-491.
22. IUCN: Habitats Authority File [http://intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/
doc/SSC/RedList/AuthorityF/habitats.rtf]
23. IUCN: Threats authority file [http://intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/
doc/SSC/RedList/AuthorityF/threats.rtf]
24. IUCN: Conservation actions authority file [http://
www.redlist.org/info/conservation_actions.html]
25. IUCN SSC – Species Survival Commission: Species Information
Service [http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/our_work/sis.htm]
26. IUCN: 2001 Categories and Criteria (version 3.1) [http://
www.redlist.org/info/categories_criteria2001.html]
27. Taxonomic Concept Transfer Schema [http://www.tdwg.org/
standards/117/]
28. TDWG: Economic Botany Data Collection Standard [http:/
/www.kew.org/tdwguses/rptLevel1_2States.htm]
29. Scholten MA, Kell SP, Maxted N, Ford-Lloyd BV: Economic Botany
Standards for Crop Wild Relatives. Presentation given at PGR
Forum Workshop 5, Genetic Erosion and Genetic Pollution Assessment
Methodologies. Terçeira Island, Portugal . September 8–11 2004
30. Ford-Lloyd BV, Maxted N: Genetic Conservation Information
Management. In Plant genetic conservation: the in situ approach Edited
by: Maxted N, Ford-Lloyd BV, Hawkes JG. London, Chapman & Hall;
1997:284-309.
31. Maxted N, Ford-Lloyd BV, Jury SL, Kell SP, Scholten MA: Towards a
definition of a crop wild relative. Biodiversity and Conservation
2006, 15(8):2673-2685.
32. Raunkiaer C: Life forms of plants and statistical plant geography Oxford
University Press, Oxford; 1934.
33. FAO: FAO/Unesco Soil Map of the World, Revised legend, with corrections
and updates. World Soil Resources Report 60, Rome, FAO 1988. Reprinted
with updates as Technical Paper 20 Wageningen, Netherlands, ISRIC;
1997.
34. European Nature Information System (EUNIS): Habitat
types [http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats-code-browser.jsp]
35. Harlan JR, de Wet JMJ: Towards a rational classification of cultivated
plants. Taxon 1971, 20:509-517.
36. Braun-Blanquet J: Pflanzensoziologie Wien, Springer; 1927.
37. Moss H, Guarino L: Gathering and recording data in the field.
In Collecting plant genetic diversity: technical guidelines Edited by: Guarino
L, Ramanatha Rao V, Reid R. Wallingford, CAB International;
1995:367-417.
38. OASIS: Proceedings of the Biodiversity Conservation Standards Workshop
Gland, Switzerland; 2007.
39. Stolton S, Maxted N, Ford-Lloyd B, Kell SP, Dudley N: Food Stores:
Using Protected Areas to Secure Crop Genetic Diversity Gland, Switzerland,
WWF Arguments for protection series; 2006.
40. Lane A: A Global Initiative to Conserve Crop Wild Relatives
In Situ. BGjournal 2005, 2:2.
41. Raymond RH: Crop wild relatives Rome, Italy, Bioversity International;
2006.