IJRES 4 (2017) 1-12 ISSN 2059-1977

In situ and ex situ conservation: Complementary

approaches for maintaining biodiversity
Haileab Zegeye
Department of Biology, Faculty of Natural and Computational Sciences, Debre Tabor University, P. O. Box 272,
Debre Tabor, Ethiopia. E-mail: haileabzegeye@fastmail.fm; haileabzt@yahoo.com.

Article History ABSTRACT

Received 30 October, 2016 This review highlights the threats to biodiversity and the conservation methods
Received in revised form 09
from a global perspective. Biodiversity includes a number of different levels of
December, 2016
Accepted 12 December, 2016 variation in the natural world. It can be measured at various levels. The most
commonly used measures of biological diversity are genetic diversity, species
Keywords: diversity and ecosystem diversity. At spatial scales, biodiversity can be
Biodiversity, measured as alpha diversity, beta diversity, gamma diversity and delta diversity.
Conservation, Biodiversity also includes cultural diversity (biocultural diversity). Biodiversity
Sustainable use, has environmental, cultural, social, economic, medicinal, scientific, educational
Threats. and aesthetic values. However, biodiversity is being lost at an alarming rate due
to natural and more importantly anthropogenic factors. The threats to
biodiversity are agricultural expansion, overexploitation, urbanization and
industrialization, pollution, fire incidence, exotic species, genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) and global climate change, which are all driven by human
population growth. The conservation of biodiversity is achieved by two
approaches – in situ and ex situ. In order to ensure the maintenance of
biodiversity, there is a need to employ complementary in situ and ex situ
conservation. There is also a need to prioritize ecosystems, species and
populations for conservation actions. Moreover, promotion of indigenous
resource management systems and practices, involvement of local people in
conservation planning and endeavours, development of appropriate benefit-
sharing mechanisms, awareness creation, promotion of the involvement of all
relevant stakeholders and provision of adequate human, financial and physical
resources for conservation efforts are important measures that should be taken
in order to ensure the conservation, management and sustainable use of
Article Type: biodiversity. Above all, biodiversity conservation requires a multidisciplinary
Review approach, and needs to be a continuous endeavour.
©2017 BluePen Journals Ltd. All rights reserved

INTRODUCTION

The Earth holds a vast diversity of living organisms
(plants, animals, microorganisms) and an immense
variety of ecosystems. Biological diversity or biodiversity
is the variability among living organisms from all sources
including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic
ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they
are part; this includes diversity within species, between
species and of ecosystems (CBD, 1992). Biodiversity
includes a number of different levels of variation in the
natural world. The most commonly used measures of
biological diversity are genetic diversity, species diversity
and ecosystem diversity. These three main components
of biodiversity are inextricably interlinked.
Genetic diversity is the variation in the genetic makeup
of organisms (nucleotides, genes, chromosomes). It
refers to the genetic variability between species and
within species (that is, the genetic variation between
individuals within populations and between populations

within species). In a broader sense, genetic diversity
exists at various taxonomic levels such as subspecies,
species, genera, families, orders, phyla, kingdoms and
domains. Species diversity is the diversity of species in a
given area. Species diversity contains two quite distinct
concepts – richness and evenness (Krebs, 1989; Begon
et al., 1996; Barnes et al., 1998). Species richness refers
to the number of species in a given area. It is the most
fundamental component and commonly used measure of
biological diversity. Species evenness or equitability is
the relative abundance of species in an area. Relative
abundance can be measured by number of individuals,
cover, biomass, productivity, or any measure that
quantifies the importance of the species. Ecosystem
diversity is the diversity of ecosystems in an area. It
refers to the variety of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
Biodiversity is dynamic; it varies in space and time. At
spatial scales, biodiversity can be measured as alpha
diversity, beta diversity, gamma diversity and delta
diversity (Bisby, 1995; Rosenzweig, 1995; Ricklefs and
Miller, 2000; Lomolino et al., 2006). Alpha diversity (local
diversity) is the diversity of species at local spatial scales.
It refers to the number of species in a single site or
habitat (WCMC, 1992; Rosenzweig, 1995; Ricklefs and
Miller, 2000), or the number of species occurring within
an area of a given size (Bisby, 1995). It is a measure of
within-area diversity. Beta diversity, also known as
species turnover or differentiation diversity, is the degree
of change in species composition across a region or
landscape along major environmental gradients such as
latitudinal, altitudinal and ecological gradients (WCMC,
1992; Bisby, 1995). It is a measure of the difference in
diversity from one habitat or area to the next. Beta
diversity is a measure of between-area diversity. Gamma
diversity (regional diversity) is the species diversity at
regional spatial scales. It is the total number of species in
all habitats within a region (Rosenzweig, 1995; Ricklefs
and Miller, 2000). Like alpha diversity, gamma diversity is
also a measure of within-area diversity. However, it most
often refers to overall diversity within a large region
(Bisby, 1995). Delta diversity is the degree of change in
species composition between large geographical areas
(Lomolino et al., 2006). Like beta diversity, delta diversity
is between-area diversity.
Biodiversity also includes the human dimension and
this aspect of biodiversity is referred to as cultural
diversity (Heywood and Baste, 1995), or more recently
biocultural diversity (Loh and Harmon, 2014). Most
biodiversity and landscapes are the products of nature
and culture. There are innumerable interactions between
humans and biodiversity. Indeed, humans interact with all
levels of biodiversity. The different cultural dimensions in
various parts of the world have played a major role in the
conservation, management and sustainable use of
biodiversity.
Biodiversity is unevenly distributed on Earth. In fact,
Int. J. Res. Environ. Stud. 2
this is associated with the uneven distribution of
environmental factors, human population and disturbance
regimes. As a result, some areas are rich in biodiversity
while others are poor. Those areas with spectacularly
high species diversity and endemism have been
regarded as biodiversity hotspots (Myers et al., 2000;
Gaston, 2010; Laurance, 2010). Myers et al. (2000)
identified 25 biodiversity hotspots worldwide, which they
proposed for conservation priorities. These have been
revisited, and today there are 34 biodiversity hotspots in
the world.
Biodiversity has environmental, cultural, social,
economic, medicinal, scientific, educational and aesthetic
values. Ecosystems provide diverse goods and services:
repository of genetic resources; soil formation and
fertility; erosion control; nutrient cycling; hydrological
cycle regulation; drought and flood mitigation; watershed
protection; carbon sequestration; climate regulation;
siltation prevention; pollination and seed dispersal; pest
and disease control; pollution control; products (food,
medicines, fodder, wood, fibers, etc.); and recreation
(Troy and Bagstad, 2009; Gaston, 2010; Sekercioglu,
2010; FAO, 2014). As such, biodiversity has fundamental
importance in maintaining environmental stability and
improving human wellbeing.
THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY
The world human population is increasing at a faster rate.
The world population reached about 7.4 billion by 2015,
and is projected to reach about 11.2 billion by 2100
(Ortiz-Ospina and Roser, 2016). More people means
more resources are depleted, more land is developed,
and more pollution is created. The demand for resources
rises with increasing human population. Human
population growth causes changes in land and water use
patterns, which directly or indirectly affect biodiversity.
Habitat destruction and overexploitation of resources are
associated with increase in human population, and
constitute a major threat to biodiversity (Mooney et al.,
1995a). Overexploitation causes loss of populations,
species and ecosystems. Human population growth and
the increasing consumption of natural resources are the
main forces driving the global transformation of the
biosphere (Heywood and Baste, 1995). Human use of
resources has led to simplification of ecological systems
and reduction in biodiversity. The highest rate of human
population growth on Earth prevails in Sub-Saharan
Africa, and the region is plagued by overexploitation of
natural resources (Ricklefs and Miller, 2000).
Globally, humans (Homo sapiens) are the dominant
species influencing biodiversity. The influence of humans
on the Earth’s biological systems is increasing
exponentially (Heywood and Baste, 1995). The world’s
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems have been so
Zegeye 3
significantly modified by human activities. The increased
human interference has resulted in destruction of the
environment and, consequently, disruption of evolu-
tionary and ecological processes. Tropical regions, which
harbor the greatest species diversity and are the richest
centres of endemism and thereby possess many
biodiversity hotspots, are manifesting the highest rates of
habitat loss (Laurance, 2010; Sodhi and Ehrlich, 2010).
2
Tropical forests are disappearing at up to 130,000 km
per year (Laurance, 2010). The Atlantic forests of Brazil
and rainforests of West Africa, both of which are
examples of biodiversity hotspots, have been severely
reduced and degraded. The most rapid decline in
biodiversity is now happening in the tropics, the part of
the world with the greatest diversity (Loh and Harmon,
2014).
As a result of heedless human actions, biodiversity is
being lost at an alarming rate (Heywood and Baste, 1995;
Jeffries, 1997; Engels and Engelmann, 2002). There is a
rapidly accelerating loss of populations, species and
ecosystems. The vast majority of populations and
species of plants and animals are in decline, and many
are already extinct. For instance, of the known 400,000 or
so higher plant species, 148,000 (37 %) are threatened
(Pimm and Jenkins, 2010). Escalating human population
growth and consumption of resources have precipitated
an extinction crisis – the “six mass extinction,” which is
comparable to past extinction events such as the
Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction 65 million years ago
that wiped out all the dinosaurs (Sodhi and Ehrlich,
2010). They pointed out that unlike the previous
extinction events, which were attributed to natural
catastrophes including volcanic eruptions, meteorite
impact and global cooling, the current mass extinction is
exclusively humanity’s fault. Recent and current rates of
extinction are 100 times faster than the background rate,
while future rates may be 1,000 times faster (Pimm and
Jenkins, 2010).
The Earth has been taking care of us while most of us
admit that we have not been too kind to our planet
recently. Human damage to the Earth is wide in scope.
The threats to biodiversity (that is, drivers of biodiversity
loss) are agricultural expansion, overexploitation,
urbanization and industrialization, pollution, fire
incidence, exotic species, GMOs and global climate
change.
Agricultural expansion
Globally, agriculture is the biggest cause of habitat
destruction (Barlow and Tzotzos, 1995; Laurance, 2010).
The soil on farmlands has been eroded away or paved
over, and farmers increasingly are forced to turn to
marginal lands to grow more food. There is agricultural
expansion into ecologically fragile areas. Agricultural
expansion (farmland expansion, overgrazing) has
resulted in the conversion of forests, woodlands,
savannahs, grasslands and wetlands into farming and
grazing lands. The increased demand for agricultural
lands has caused habitat loss and fragmentation, and
consequently reduction in biodiversity. Overgrazing has
resulted in severe degradation of rangelands and bush
encroachment (Mooney et al., 1995a). Therefore, it is
important to take measures that reduce agricultural
expansion into natural ecosystems.
Overexploitation
Biodiversity is under heavy threat from anthropogenic
overexploitation. In an increasingly human-dominated
world, where most of us seem oblivious to the liquidation
of Earth’s natural resource capital, exploitation of
biological populations has become one of the most
important threats to the persistence of global biodiversity
(Peres, 2010). Humans assess the surface of the Earth
and even probe into the inner strata to remove resources
for use, which is unsustainable. The economies of both
developing and developed nations still depend heavily on
primary extractive industries, such as logging, hunting
and fishing. Human exploitation of biological commodities
involves resource extraction from the land, freshwater
bodies or oceans, so that wild plants, animals or their
products are used for a wide variety of purposes ranging
from food to medicines, fuel, shelter, fiber, construction
materials, household and garden items, pets and
cosmetics. Overexploitation occurs when the harvest rate
of any given population exceeds its natural replacement
rate, either through reproduction alone in closed
populations or through both reproduction and immigration
from other populations.
Many species are relatively insensitive to harvesting,
remaining abundant under relatively high rates of offtake,
whereas others can be driven to local extinction by even
the lightest levels of offtake (Peres, 2010). A number of
species are threatened by unsustainable logging in forest
regions, overhunting of wildlife in many terrestrial
ecosystems, overfishing in aquatic ecosystems, or many
other forms of unsustainable extraction. Humans are
depleting the Earth’s biodiversity at a faster rate than
before and thereby depriving future generations.
Urbanization and industrialization
Urbanization, industrial development and road construc-
tion affect biodiversity. The loss of habitat due to
development of infrastructure causes reduction in
biodiversity. Urbanization results in loss of natural
vegetation and thereby decline in wildlife. An important
consequence of urbanization is the increased demand on

food production to feed the urban population. Further
more, urban areas are the major sources of pollutants
(McNeely et al., 1995).
Pollution
Discharge of domestic and industrial wastes and unwise
use of agricultural chemicals (fertilizers, insecticides,
pesticides, herbicides) have caused pollution of air, water
and soil. As a result of discharge of wastes from heavily
populated and industrialized areas, the nutrient content of
marine and other aquatic ecosystems has increased
significantly (Mooney et al., 1995a). The increased
nutrient load has caused changes in their physical,
chemical and biological properties. Pollution reduces or
eliminates populations of sensitive species (Kaya and
Raynal, 2001). The negative impacts of pollution on
biotas can be considerable (McNeely et al., 1995).
Wildfires
Fire is both an ecological and anthropogenic factor. Fire
has both positive and negative impacts on the
environment. Many species in fire-prone ecosystems are
not only fire-tolerant, but depend on fire to complete their
life cycles and to retain a competitive edge in their
environment. The benefits of fire to the species include
increased resource availability associated with the
destruction of both living and dead biomass, nutrient-rich
ash, high light conditions, and seed germination. For
instance, the seeds of Acacia species and other legumes
are stimulated to germinate by fire. On the other hand,
there are fire-sensitive species and ecosystems. Fire has
caused great devastation of ecosystems in various parts
of the world, for example, Australia. In recent years,
climate change has increased the risk of fire. The effects
of fire on biodiversity have been highlighted by Bowman
and Murphy (2010).
Exotic species
Exotic species are species that are introduced to an area
outside their normal range through intentional or
unintentional human assistance (Hawksworth and Kalin-
Arroyo, 1995). Exotic species are also known as alien
species, introduced species and non-native species.
Most exotic species are harmless or beneficial in their
new environments. However, some exotic species
become invasive and disrupt the functioning of
ecosystems. Not all introduced species become invasive,
however (Simberloff, 2010). Many plant species
introduced as ornamentals persist in gardens with human
assistance but cannot establish in less modified habitats.
Int. J. Res. Environ. Stud. 4
Here it is important to note that native species can also
become invasive.
Exotic species disrupt evolutionary and ecological
processes. They often have major impacts on native
species and ecosystems, and may be considered
ecological disasters (McNeely et al., 1995; Mooney et al.,
1995b). Exotic species compete aggressively for local
resources and affect the growth and reproduction of
native species.
Ecosystems with relatively low species richness such
as island and temperate ecosystems are vulnerable to
introduced species. Introduced species can be disastrous
to island flora and fauna. Hawaiian Islands have lost
more than half of their original endemic species due to
introduced plants and animals (IUCN/UNEP, 1986). For
the Hawaiian Islands, almost 50% of the plant species,
40% of birds, most freshwater fishes, and 25% of insects
are introduced (Simberloff, 2010). Islands of Africa like
Mauritius, Reunion and Rodrigues have suffered from a
devastating wave of extinctions in historic times, much of
which can be attributed to introduced species (IUCN,
1990).
The introduction of new species into aquatic
ecosystems, especially freshwater ecosystems, can
produce considerable effects (Mooney et al., 1995b). For
example, the introduction of the Nile perch (Lates
niloticus) into Lake Victoria has severely affected the
Lake’s entire fishery (Ricklefs and Miller, 2000). It was a
purposeful introduction for subsistence and sports fishing,
and has become a great disaster.
Many exotic species have significant impacts on the
environment, economy and human health. Invasive alien
species cause myriad sorts of conservation problems.
Therefore, there is a need for a careful assessment of
past experiences to provide general, scientifically based
policies and guidelines about species introductions,
taking into account ecological and economic considera-
tions.
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
Biotechnology has wide applications in agriculture,
health, industry and the environment. Biotechnology
provides a variety of applications for understanding of
biodiversity. It has also become important for
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
However, modern biotechnology can affect biodiversity in
various ways. GMOs that result from genetic engineering
may have adverse impacts on biodiversity and human
health (Barlow and Tzotzos, 1995). GMOs affect
evolutionary and ecological processes. The splicing of
genes into other organisms from unrelated species
causes genetic pollution (Barlow and Tzotzos, 1995).
Furthermore, the transgene may transfer to other related
species, and this can have significant impacts on the
Zegeye 5
genetic makeup of the species (McNeely et al., 1995).
GMOs may become weeds, competitors of native
species, produce pathogenic or toxic agents, or disrupt
energy flow and nutrient cycling. Enhanced ability of
GMOs to invade natural habitats may lead to loss of
populations and species, thereby reducing biodiversity.
Furthermore, the widespread monoculture of genetically
improved crops leads to replacement of traditional crop
varieties and landraces and presents a potential threat to
agrobiodiversity.
Therefore, there is a need for appropriate safeguards to
ensure safe applications of biotechnology. The use and
release of GMOs require appropriate policy, regulation,
management, control and monitoring in order to ensure
adequate safety regarding the potential impacts on the
environment and human health. It requires risk
assessment. Risk reduction is achieved mainly by
confinement (Barlow and Tzotzos, 1995). Past
experience with GMOs is often a good guide for best
management and practice.
Global climate change
The Earth’s climate is rapidly changing as a result of
increases in the concentrations of greenhouse gases
(GHGs) in the atmosphere mainly caused by human
activities, particularly burning of fossil fuels, agriculture,
deforestation and other land use changes (Wigley, 1999;
Stern, 2006; IPCC, 2007). Since 1900, the global
average surface temperature has risen by 0.76°C (IPCC,
2007; Deeb et al., 2011). The Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) asserts that continued
emissions of GHGs at or above the current rates would
cause an increase in the global average surface
temperature by 1.8 to 4.0°C by 2100 (IPCC, 2007). On
the other hand, precipitation has showed different spatial
and temporal patterns (increases or decreases) in
different regions of the world.
Global climate change is one of the greatest challenges
the world is facing today. Climate change has led to sea
level rise (due to melting of ice and glaciers and
expansion of sea water resulting from rising
temperatures), changes in global precipitation patterns,
increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather
events (droughts, floods, heat waves, cold snaps,
storms/hurricanes, etc.), shifts in the distribution of
species and ecosystems, expansion of desertification,
increased intensity and frequency of wildfires, decline in
or loss of biodiversity, increased environmental pollution,
decline in agricultural production and productivity, water
scarcity, increased incidence of pests and diseases, and
human migration and conflict. There are observed and
expected impacts of climate change.
Climate change is quickly emerging as a key issue in
the battle to preserve biodiversity. Human-induced
climate change will significantly threaten levels of
biodiversity with concerns over the subsequent loss of
genetic resources and ecosystem goods and services. It
brings complex changes in species composition and
interactions, and may result in a significant reduction in
biodiversity (Heywood and Baste, 1995; Mooney et al.,
1995a; Ricklefs and Miller, 2000). Ecosystems are
vulnerable to climate change with the risk of extinction of
certain species.
The most recent models based on a temperature rise of
2-3°C over the next 100 years suggest that up to 50% of
the 400,000 or so higher plant species will be threatened
with extinction (Bramwell, 2007). Prediction models have
shown that the humid tropical ecosystems will be under
severe threat from climate change. The wet tropical
forests of the Amazon Basin will all but disappear with
huge losses of biodiversity (Nobre, 2004). The tropical
forests of West and Central Africa will be seriously
affected and that between 50 and 80% of species will
have their range severely reduced, many to the point of
extinction (Lovett et al., 2005). The impact of climate
change on biodiversity of the tropical rainforests of
northern Queensland, Australia is likely to be very serious
and could be catastrophic under some scenarios; many
species of plants and animals are at highly increased risk
of extinction (Krockenberger et al., 2004). All boreal
ecosystems are vulnerable to climate change, and boreal
forests in particular could decline if climatic conditions
become significantly warmer or drier (Laurance, 2010).
Climate change models also predict that there will be
drastic, rapid and chaotic shifts in the distribution of
species and habitats across the globe (Pritchard and
Harrop, 2010). For instance, the Quiver tree (Aloe
dichotoma) – the iconic desert species – is undergoing
population collapse in the northern part of its geographic
range, in Namibia, and active expansion in the cooler
southern parts, in Namaqualand (Foden, 2002).
Therefore, there is a need to take an urgent action to
protect biodiversity from the threats of climate change.
Steps to mitigate and adapt to new and often dramatic
climatic conditions are being widely debated and
encouraged by politicians and the media. Environmen-
talism is fashionable but still the value of maintaining
biodiversity is not given the attention it deserves.
CONSERVATION APPROACHES
There are several methods for conservation of
biodiversity. The different conservation methods can be
broadly divided into two approaches – in situ and ex situ.
In situ (on-site) conservation is the conservation of
genetic resources within the natural ecosystem in which
they occur, while ex situ (off-site) conservation is the
conservation of genetic resources outside the natural
ecosystem in which they occur. Each of in situ and ex situ
 Int. J. Res. Environ. Stud. 6

Most effective
Single use wildland ____ Scientific reserves/strict nature reserves
management

In situ Multiple use ____ National parks, natural monuments,

wildland managed nature reserves, protected
management landscapes, resource reserves,
anthropological reserves, multiple use
management areas

Areas other than ____ Converted land managed for genetic

wildlands diversity

Whole organism ____ Botanical gardens, zoos

Ex situ
Organism parts ____ Sperm, egg and embryo banks; organ
banks; seed and pollen banks;
genebanks; tissue culture
Least effective
Figure 1. The roles of in situ and ex situ conservation.
Source: Whitmore (1990).

conservation can be subdivided as shown in Figure 1.
In situ and ex situ conservation are mutually reinforcing
and complementary approaches (Miller et al., 1995;
Jeffries, 1997; Wolf, 1999; Wyse Jackson and
Sutherland, 2000; Pritchard and Harrop, 2010). In order
to ensure the conservation of the widest possible range
of biodiversity and minimize the risk of genetic erosion,
the various conservation methods should be combined in
an integrated approach (that is, integrated biodiversity
conservation). Indeed, there is no universal method that
can cover all conservation purposes. The development of
complementary conservation strategies in which different
conservation approaches and methods are being
combined helps to achieve the most stable and cost-
effective conservation effort for a given genepool under
locally prevailing conditions (Wyse Jackson, 1998). Here
it is important to note that both in situ and ex situ
conservation have merits and demerits. Furthermore, the
costs, risks and research needs of ex situ conservation
are significantly higher than that of in situ conservation.
Due to the complexity of biodiversity, rapid loss of
biodiversity, and increased realization of the importance
of undertaking cost-effective programmes, developing
realistic and viable strategies and setting priorities for
effective conservation and management of genetic
resources will always be necessary (IPGRI, 1993; Miller
et al., 1995; Kigomo, 1999; Wolf, 1999; Coates and
Atkins, 2001; Engels and Engelmann, 2002). There is a
need for identification of action priorities both in
geographical space and biological importance (Jarvis et
al., 2002). Indeed, the choice of suitable conservation
methods depends on the objectives of the envisaged
genetic conservation and the ecological requirements of
the species in question. Conservation is a dynamic
process, and requires continuous evaluation based on
emerging issues and newly acquired research findings.
Zegeye 7
In situ conservation
In situ conservation maintains species in dynamic
relationships with the habitat and allows gene flow and
geographical distribution (Edwards and Kelbessa, 1999).
Ecosystems, species and populations are dynamic; they
are variable in space and time. In situ conservation
allows evolutionary and ecological processes to take
place and promotes genetic variability and adaptability of
species to changing environmental conditions. Therefore,
the conservation of biodiversity is best achieved in
natural ecosystems (WCMC, 1992; Heywood and Baste,
1995). The in situ conservation approach allows the
conservation of a large amount of genetic diversity,
species diversity and ecosystem diversity in a very
extensive and cost-effective manner (Wolf, 1999). The
costs, risks and research needs of in situ conservation
are generally low. However, in situ conservation is not
feasible in areas with high environmental and human
pressures. The reconciliation of the conservation
activities with immediate and basic human needs, for
example, for agricultural land, is often difficult. Species or
populations conserved in situ may be susceptible to
calamities or deliberate damages (for example, fire)
depending on the level of disturbance. As such, in situ
conservation is not feasible for threatened species due to
escalating human pressure. Moreover, in situ
conservation may be impaired by lack of direct influence
due to ownership. In situ conservation methods include
the different protected area systems, and on-farm
conservation in which cultivated plants and domesticated
animals are conserved in the agroecosystems where they
have been developed and utilized.
Protected area systems
Biodiversity conservation is most often achieved by
establishment and management of protected areas.
Protected areas are geographically delineated areas that
are designated or regulated and managed to achieve
specific conservation objectives (Miller et al., 1995).
Protected areas should have sufficient size that can allow
the maintenance of a given ecosystem or species (IUCN,
1990; Jeffries, 1997; Wolf, 1999). In addition, there is a
need to have protected area systems that are
representative of major landforms and ecosystems.
Protected areas play a great role in the conservation of
biodiversity. They have environmental, social, economic,
scientific, educational and aesthetic values. There are
different forms of protected areas based upon
management objectives (for details refer to IUCN, 1992;
WCMC, 1992; Hawksworth, 1995; Miller et al., 1995).
The sustainability of in situ conservation in protected
areas depends on the long-term protection and effective-
ness of management (IUCN, 1990, 1992; Miller et al.,
1995; Jeffries, 1997; Wolf, 1999). It is necessary to
provide adequate human and financial resources in order
to ensure the effectiveness of protected areas for
maintaining biodiversity. In addition, the development and
management of protected areas needs the participation
of the local people in making decisions and undertaking
conservation measures. The conservation of biodiversity
in protected areas requires the generation of appropriate
incentives from international, regional and national
agencies for resource users both in and around the
protected areas. It is important to provide incentives of
various forms (for example, tax breaks, subsidies) for the
local people in order to ensure the sustainability of
protected areas. There is a need to have appropriate
mechanisms for sharing benefits that are generated from
the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity
within protected areas. For instance, in Cameroon and
Zimbabwe, the involvement of local people in
conservation activities and sharing of benefits derived
from the protected areas have been found most effective
(Jeffries, 1997). However, in many African countries,
protected areas have failed to meet their conservation
objectives mainly because of the exclusion of local
people from participation and lack of appropriate
mechanisms to provide incentives (Jeffries, 1997;
Zegeye, 2004).
In many developing countries with rich tropical
biodiversity, government agencies responsible for the
management of protected areas lack the necessary
technical capacity to stem biodiversity loss effectively
(Rao and Ginsberg, 2010). Managers of protected areas
often have limited access to the vast and dynamic body
of knowledge and tools in conservation science. There is
an urgent and critical need to transfer the advances in
conservation science to individuals and institutions in
biodiversity-rich countries.
On-farm conservation
On-farm conservation is the conservation of crops and
their wild relatives, livestock, and the agroecosystems in
which they occur. Agroecosystems include homegardens,
crop fields, agroforestry systems, fallow fields and
grazing lands. Agricultural biodiversity, or agrobiodiver-
sity, is that component of biodiversity that contributes to
food and agricultural production. In situ conservation on-
farm is important for maintenance of agrobiodiversity.
Indigenous resource management systems and
agricultural practices play an important role in the
maintenance and diversification of domesticated plants
and animals (McNeely et al., 1995). Low-input agricultural
systems are important sources and custodians of
agrobiodiversity. Farmers and pastoralists maintain a
tremendous diversity of crop and livestock varieties
around the world. Indigenous knowledge, skills and

practices of farmers play an important role in the
conservation and management of agricultural bio-
diversity. They are better options for building the scientific
basis of in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity on-farm
(Deribe et al., 2002). For instance, the farmers’
indigenous knowledge and practices in germplasm
selection, storage and exchange are major elements in
the conservation of agricultural biodiversity through
community genebanks.
The expansion of large-scale/modern agricultural
systems, in which relatively a few improved varieties
have replaced many farmers’ varieties, has caused
erosion of agricultural biodiversity. Therefore, there is a
need for basing the rural development strategy on
traditional farming systems, knowledge and agro-
ecological techniques in order to ensure the maintenance
and continual use of the diverse genetic resources
associated with traditional agricultural systems (Miller et
al., 1995). Farmer-based on-farm conservation of agro-
biodiversity has been found a more successful approach.
Ex situ conservation
If in situ conservation is not feasible due to various
reasons, threatened species can only be conserved ex
situ (Jeffries, 1997; Wolf, 1999). Moreover, ex situ
conservation serves as a source of material for research
and ecosystem restoration. However, ex situ conser-
vation interrupts evolutionary and ecological processes
and limits genetic variability and adaptability of species to
changing environmental conditions. Furthermore, the
costs, risks and research needs of ex situ conservation
are significantly higher than that of in situ conservation.
Ex situ conservation methods include botanic gardens
and arboreta, zoos, field genebanks and genebanks.
Botanic gardens
Botanic gardens are institutions holding documented
collections of living plants for the purposes of scientific
research, conservation, display and education (Wyse
Jackson, 1999). Botanic gardens have played a vital role
in the conservation of the world’s plant diversity. Many of
the world’s threatened plant species are represented in
their living collections or seedbanks which collectively
provide an insurance policy supporting the maintenance
of global biodiversity (Waylen, 2006). In fact, botanic
gardens have a strong focus on wild species which are
endangered in their natural habitat (Heywood, 1999;
Wyse Jackson, 1998). In more recent years, some
botanic gardens started to accept new responsibilities
and were designed to be broadly based botanical
resource centres (Wyse Jackson, 1998). They have been
and still are ideal institutions for managing wild species
Int. J. Res. Environ. Stud. 8
genebanks with the aim of preserving rare and
threatened plants and making the material available for
research. In addition, many botanic gardens are involved
in the conservation of plants of importance for food and
agriculture, as well as those used for many other
economic purposes.
Botanic gardens worldwide maintain approximately
80,000 species as living plants (nearly 30% of the known
vascular plant species of the world) represented by more
than 4 million living accessions (individual plant
collections), and keep 250,000 seedbank accessions
(Hawksworth, 1995; Wyse Jackson, 1999). Many botanic
gardens around the world have developed effective
seedbanks for conserving germplasm of wild plant
species. Perhaps the most important one to date is the
Millennium Seed Bank (MSB) at the Royal Botanic
Gardens, Kew, UK, a major investment for the long-term
future of plant diversity (Smith et al., 2007). The two
principal aims of the project are to: i) collect and conserve
the world’s wild seed-bearing flora; and ii) develop
bilateral research, training and capacity-building
relationships worldwide in order to support and advance
the seed conservation effort. The emphasis is on
threatened and endemic species. A reserve of
germplasm of wild plants will be vital for reintroduction of
threatened species and restoration of ecosystems.
Germplasm banks will also be a source of plants and
genetic diversity for the development of new crops and
for the adaptation of old ones, for medicinal plants, and
other uses. If, as currently predicted, large numbers of
species do become extinct in the wild, then the world’s
seedbanks will become the only source to human kind of
those species and their germplasm in the future
(Bramwell, 2007).
Botanic gardens, in cooperation with other bodies, are
increasingly involved in the in situ conservation of plant
resources (Hawksworth, 1995; Heywood, 1999; Wyse
Jackson and Sutherland, 2000; Bramwell, 2007). They
are involved in habitat management and restoration, plant
reintroduction, control of invasive species and environ-
mental education. For instance, the Central Siberian
Botanical Garden, Novosibirsk, Russia is working with the
managers of strictly protected scientific reserves to assist
in management and restoration of rare and endangered
species for their own region. The Gladstone Tondoon
Botanic Gardens, Queensland, Australia are collaborating
with the Queensland National Park and Wildlife Service
to manage and restore degraded areas of the forest. The
Aburi Botanical Garden, Aburi, Ghana is involved in
complementary activities, such as promotion of some
traditional medicinal plant management systems,
management of protected areas and habitat restoration.
Botanic gardens worldwide are also ideally placed to
raise awareness on the values of and threats to forests.
Over 400 botanic gardens worldwide manage areas of
natural vegetation or have natural areas within their
Zegeye 9
boundaries (Wyse Jackson and Sutherland, 2000). For
example, the Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden, Brazil has
an in situ conservation area of forest which is contiguous
with the National Park of Tijuca in the Atlantic Rainforest
– one of the world’s biodiversity hotspots (Guedes-Bruni
and Pereira, 2008). All the National Botanical Gardens
(NBGs) in South Africa conserve an area of natural
vegetation (Willis and Morkel, 2008). Botanic gardens
can be directed towards promoting integrated biodiversity
conservation, combining and utilizing ex situ and in situ
techniques (Wyse Jackson and Sutherland, 2000).
Therefore, ex situ and in situ conservation are merging in
the world’s botanic gardens.
Botanic gardens are living laboratories. They undertake
and promote scientific research on plants in particular
and biological diversity in general. The research areas
include botany, taxonomy/systematics, ecology, horti-
culture, plant breeding, evolutionary biology, conservation
biology, population genetics, molecular biology,
biotechnology, invasive species biology and control,
climate change and environmental education. Many
botanic gardens maintain extensive collections and
undertake research on useful plants of actual or potential
value for agriculture, healthcare, horticulture, forestry,
habitat management and restoration, amenity and many
other purposes. However, most botanic gardens do not
have sufficient human, financial and physical resources
to be able to achieve much effective conservation and
research into biodiversity. Therefore, there is a need to
provide the necessary resources so that botanic gardens
play important roles in the assessment and conservation
of biodiversity.
Zoos
Zoos have become increasingly important in the
conservation of threatened wildlife. They are also
important for educational and recreational purposes.
However, zoos generally are poorly developed and lack
adequate funding. Therefore, there is a need for
providing adequate human, financial and physical
resources so that zoos can play an important role in the
conservation of threatened wild animals.
Field genebanks
Field genebanks are important for conservation of plant
species that do not produce seeds and propagate
vegetatively or produce the so-called recalcitrant seeds
(seeds which cannot be stored at low temperature).
Usually these difficult-to-conserve species can be
maintained as living collections in field genebanks. On
the other hand, conservation in field genebanks requires
sound information on the ecological requirements of the
species in question. It needs area of sufficient size and
site conditions similar to that of the original population but
with a lower environmental load or pressure (Wolf, 1999).
Genebanks
Genebanks are important for the conservation of
germplasm or genetic material. Germplasms that can be
stored in genebanks include seeds, pollen, spores,
semen (sperms), eggs, embryos, cells and tissues. More
recently, DNA sequences are also being kept in
specialized banks (Smith et al., 2007). In any case,
representative sampling is necessary. Approximately 6
million accessions of plants are maintained in genebanks
worldwide (Engels and Engelmann, 2002; Frison et al.,
2002). Germplasm conserved in genebanks serves for
research and restoration purposes.
In vitro conservation methods (storage of germplasm in
laboratory conditions) such as tissue culture storage
(micropropagation, that is, in slow growth condition) and
cryopreservation (storage of germplasm in dormant state)
are important for preservation of germplasm.
Cryopreservation of biological material using liquid
nitrogen (-196°C) has a good potential for long-term
storage of germplasm (Santos and Stushnoff, 2002).
Increasingly, the difficult-to-conserve species are being
maintained as in vitro collections.
Based on their storage behaviour, seeds are
categorized into three groups – orthodox, intermediate
and recalcitrant. Orthodox seeds are seeds which can
withstand conventional storage conditions (5% moisture
content and -20°C) without viability loss, while recalcitrant
seeds are seeds which cannot be stored below 20%
moisture content and 0°C (Balcha, 1999; Allem, 2002;
Santos and Stushnoff, 2002). Generally, recalcitrant
seeds do not show dormancy because they are in
continuous growth, that is, there is no resting period.
Seeds are generally used for long-term storage of plant
germplasm provided they are orthodox seeds (about 90%
of plant species). Storage of orthodox seeds is not a high
technology procedure. Seeds need to be dried down to 5-
7% moisture content and then stored in a cold room,
usually at 4°C for short-term storage or -20°C for long-
term storage (Smith et al., 2007). The drying stage is
particularly critical because if a seed is not dry when
frozen, it will be killed.
Many countries lack the resources and technologies to
maintain germplasm in genebanks. Therefore, there is a
need for regional and international collaboration for
sharing of human, financial and physical resources and
technology development. The key areas where
collaboration in germplasm management should be
encouraged are: germplasm collection, documentation,
conservation, characterization, evaluation and rege-
neration; exchange of germplasm and information;

identification of core collections (representative samples
of accessions); and research and training.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Biodiversity includes a number of different levels of
variation in the natural world. It can be measured at
various levels. The most commonly used measures of
biological diversity are genetic diversity, species diversity
and ecosystem diversity. At spatial scales, biodiversity
can be measured as alpha diversity, beta diversity,
gamma diversity and delta diversity. Biodiversity also
includes cultural diversity (biocultural diversity). Bio-
diversity has environmental, cultural, social, economic,
medicinal, scientific, educational and aesthetic values.
However, biodiversity is being lost at an alarming rate
due to natural and more importantly anthropogenic
factors. The threats to biodiversity are agricultural
expansion, overexploitation, urbanization and industria-
lization, pollution, fire incidence, exotic species, GMOs
and global climate change, which are all driven by human
population growth.
The conservation of biodiversity is achieved by two
approaches – in situ and ex situ. In order to ensure the
maintenance of biodiversity, there is a need to employ
complementary in situ and ex situ conservation. There is
also a need to prioritize ecosystems, species and
populations for conservation actions. Moreover, promo-
tion of indigenous resource management systems and
practices, involvement of local people in conservation
planning and endeavours, development of appropriate
benefit-sharing mechanisms, awareness creation,
promotion of the involvement of all relevant stakeholders
and provision of adequate human, financial and physical
resources for conservation efforts are important mea-
sures that should be taken in order to ensure the
conservation, management and sustainable use of
biodiversity. Above all, biodiversity conservation requires
a multidisciplinary approach, and needs to be a
continuous endeavour.
Therefore, in order to ensure the maintenance of
biodiversity, the following recommendations are
forwarded:
 It is necessary to curb human population growth, which
is the major driving force for environmental and socio-
economic problems;
 There is a need to take urgent actions to protect
biodiversity from the threats including climate change;
 In order to ensure the maintenance of biodiversity,
there is a need to employ complementary in situ and ex
situ conservation;
 Scientists, policymakers, local communities, academic
institutions, conservation organizations, practitioners
and all other relevant stakeholders around the world
Int. J. Res. Environ. Stud. 10
need to work closely for conserving biodiversity and
improving human wellbeing.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the National Herbarium (ETH) of the
Addis Ababa University, Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute
(EBI), Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR)
and the National Archives and Library Agency (NALA) of
the Ministry of Culture and Tourism (MoCT) for allowing
me to use their library. I also thank my relatives, friends
and colleagues for their help and encouragement during
the writeup of the review. The anonymous reviewers are
greatly acknowledged for their valuable comments.
REFERENCES
Allem A. C. (2002). State of conservation and utilization of wild manihot
genetic resources and biodiversity. Plant Gene. Resour. Newslett.
131:16-22.
Balcha G. (1999). Status of forest seed research in Ethiopia:
Consequences for development of forest genetic resources
conservation strategy. In: Edwards S., Demissie A., Bekele T. and
Haase G (eds.). Proceedings of the National Workshop on Forest
Genetic Resources Conservation: Principles, Strategies and Actions.
IBCR and GTZ, Addis Ababa. Pp. 73-82.
Barlow B. A. & Tzotzos G. T. (1995). Biotechnology. In: Heywood V. H.
(ed.), Global Biodiversity Assessment. UNEP, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge. Pp. 671-710.
Barnes B. V., Zak D. R., Denton S. R. & Spurr S. H. (1998). Forest
Ecology (4th Ed.), New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Begon M., Harper J. L. & Townsend C. R. (1996). Ecology: Individuals,
populations and communities (3rd Ed.), Oxford: Blackwell Science.
Bisby F. A. (1995). Characterization of biodiversity. In: Heywood V. H.
(ed.). Global biodiversity assessment. UNEP, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge. Pp. 21-106.
Bowman D. M. J. S. & Murphy B. P. (2010). Fire and biodiversity. In:
Sodhi NS and Ehrlich PR (eds.). Conservation biology for all. Oxford
University Press, New York. Pp. 163-180.
Bramwell D. (2007). The response of botanic gardens to climate
change. BG Journal. 4(2):3-8.
Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD, (1992). Convention on
biological diversity, United Nations.
Coates D. J. & Atkins K. A. (2001). Priority setting and the conservation
of western Australia’s diverse and endemic flora. Biol. Conserv.
97(2):251-263.
Deeb A., French A., Heiss J., Jabbour J., LaRochelle D., Levintanus A,
Kontorov A., .Markku R., Martinez G. S., McKeown R., Paus N.,
Pecoud A., Pénisson G., Puig D., Retana V., Scrieciu S., Strecker M.,
Vachatimanont V., Witte B. & Yamada N. (2011). Climate change
starter’s Guidebook, Paris: UNESCO/UNEP.
Deribe S., Asfaw Z., Teshome A. & Demissew S. (2002). Management
of agrobiodiversity in the Borkena watershed, South Welo/Ethiopia:
farmers allocate crops/landraces to farm types. Ethiopian J. Biol. Sci.
1(1):13-36.
Edwards S. & Kelbessa E. (1999). Indicators to determine the level of
threat to tree species. In: Edwards S., Demissie A., Bekele T. and
Haase G. (eds.). Proceedings of the National Workshop on Forest
Genetic Resources Conservation: Principles, Strategies and Actions.
IBCR and GTZ, Addis Ababa. Pp. 101-133.
Engels J. M. M. & Engelmann F. (2002). Botanic gardens and
agricultural genebanks: Building on complementary strengths for
more effective global conservation of plant genetic resources. Plant
Gene. Resour. Newslett. 131:49-54.
Zegeye 11
Foden W. B. (2002). Mortality of Aloe dichotoma (the Quiver Tree) in
the succulent karoo, South Africa – Are the effects of climate change
already apparent? MSc Thesis, Cape Town: University of Cape
Town.
Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO, (2014). State of the world’s
forests: Enhancing the socioeconomic benefits of forests, Rome:
FAO.
Frison E. A., Mitteau M. & Sharrock S. (2002). Sharing responsibilities
for ex situ germplasm management. Plant Gene. Resour. Newslett.
131:7-15.
Gaston K. J. (2010). Biodiversiy. In: Sodhi N. S. & Ehrlich P. R. (eds.).
Conservation biology for all. Oxford University Press, New York. Pp.
27-44.
Guedes-Bruni R. R. & Pereira T. S. (2008). Research on biodiversity
and conservation of the Atlantic rainforest at Rio de Janeiro Botanical
Garden. BG Journal. 5(1):20-24.
Hawksworth D. L. & Kalin-Arroyo M. T. (1995). Magnitude and
distribution of biodiversity. In: Heywood V. H. (ed.). Global
biodiversity assessment. UNEP, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge. Pp. 107-191.
Hawksworth D. L. (1995). The resource base for biodiversity
assessments. In: Heywood V. H. (ed.), Global biodiversity
assessment. UNEP, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pp.
545-605.
Heywood V. H. & Baste I. (1995). Introduction. In: Heywood V. H. (ed.),
Global biodiversity assessment. UNEP, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge. Pp. 1-19.
Heywood V. H. (1999). The role of botanic gardens in ex situ
conservation of agrobiodiversity. In: Gass T., Frese L., Begemann F.
and Lipman L. (compilers). Proceedings of the European symposium
on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. International
Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), Rome. Pp. 102-107.
IPCC (2007). Climate change 2007: Synthesis report, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
IPGRI (1993). Diversity for development: The strategy of the
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome: IPGRI.
IUCN (1990). Biodiversity in sub-Saharan Africa and its islands:
Conservation, management and sustainable utilization. Occasional
papers of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 6, Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN.
IUCN (1992). Protected areas of the world: A review of national systems
– Vol. 3: Afrotropical, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.
IUCN/UNEP (1986). Managing protected areas in the tropics. Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN.
Jarvis A., Guarino L., Williams D., Williams K., Vargas I. & Hyman G.
(2002). Spatial analysis of wild peanut distributions and the
implications for plant genetic resources conservation. Plant Gene.
Resour. Newslett. 131:29-35.
Jeffries M. J. (1997). Biodiversity and conservation, London: Routledge.
Kaya Z. & Raynal D. J. (2001). Biodiversity and conservation of Turkish
forests. Biol. Conserv. 97(2):131-141.
Kigomo B. N. (1999). Considerations and procedure for priority setting
in a national forest genetic resources conservation and management
programme. In: Edwards S., Demissie A., Bekele T. and Haase G.
(eds.). Proceedings of the national workshop on forest genetic
resources conservation: Principles, strategies and actions. IBCR and
GTZ, Addis Ababa. Pp. 134-149.
Krebs C. J. (1989). Ecological methodology, New York: Harper Collins
Publishers.
Krockenberger A. K., Kitching R. L. & Turton S. M. (eds.) (2004).
Environmental crisis, climate change and terrestrial biodiversity in
Queensland. Report 28, Rainforest CRC, Cairns, Australia: James
Cook University.
Laurance W. F. (2010). Habitat destruction: Death by a thousand cuts.
In: Sodhi N. S. and Ehrlich P. R. (eds.). Conservation biology for all.
Oxford University Press, New York. Pp. 73-87.
Loh J. & Harmon D. (2014). Biocultural diversity: Threatened species,
endangered languages. A report, Zeist: WWF Netherlands.
Lomolino M. V., Riddle B. R. & Brown J. H. (2006). Biogeography (3rd
Ed.), Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.
Lovett J. C., Midgley J. F. & Barnard P. (2005). Climate change and
ecology in Africa. Afr. J. Ecol. 43:167-169.
McNeely J. A., Gadgil M., Leveque C., Podach C. & Redford K. (1995).
Human influences on biodiversity. In: Heywood V. H. (ed.), Global
biodiversity assessment. UNEP, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge. Pp. 711-821.
Miller K., Allegretti M. A., Johnson N. & Jonsson B. (1995). Measures
for conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of its
components. In: Heywood V. H. (ed.), Global biodiversity
assessment. UNEP, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pp.
915-1061.
Mooney H. A., Lubchenco J., Dirzo R. & Sala O. E. (1995a). Biodiversity
and ecosystem functioning: Basic principles. In: Heywood V. H. (ed.),
Global biodiversity assessment. UNEP, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge. Pp. 275-325.
Mooney H. A., Lubchenco J., Dirzo R. & Sala O. E. (1995b). Biodiversity
and ecosystem functioning: Ecosystem analyses. In: Heywood V. H.
(ed.), Global biodiversity assessment. UNEP, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge. Pp. 327-352.
Myers N., Mittermeier R. A., Mittermeier C. G., da Fonseca G. A. B. &
Kent J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities.
Nature. 403:853-858.
Nobre C. A. (2004). Climate change scenarios and impacts on the
biomes of South America. Available online at:
http://www.aiaccproject.org/meetings/Buenos_Aires/Nobre.
Ortiz-Ospina E. & Roser M. (2016). World population growth – Our
world in data. Available online at: https://ourworldindata.org/world-
population-growth/.
Peres C. A. (2010). Overexploitation. In: Sodhi N. S. and Ehrlich P. R.
(eds.). Conservation biology for all. Oxford University Press, New
York. Pp. 107-130.
Pimm S. L. & Jenkins C. N. (2010). Extinctions and the practice of
preventing them. In: Sodhi N. S. and Ehrlich P. R. (eds.).
Conservation biology for all. Oxford University Press, New York. Pp.
181-198.
Pritchard D. J. & Harrop S. R. (2010). A re-evaluation of the role of ex
situ conservation in the face of climate change. BG Journal. 7(1):3-6.
Rao M. & Ginsberg J. (2010). From conservation theory to practice:
Crossing the divide. In: Sodhi N. S. and Ehrlich P. R. (eds.).
Conservation biology for all. Oxford University Press, New York. Pp.
284-312.
Ricklefs R. E. & Miller G. L. (2000). Ecology (4th Ed.), New York: W. H.
Freeman and Company.
Rosenzweig M. L. (1995). Species diversity in space and time,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Santos I. R. & Stushnoff C. (2002). Cryopreservation of embryonic axes
of Citrus species by encapsulation-dehydration. Plant Gene. Resour.
Newslett. 131:36-41.
Sekercioglu C. H. (2010). Ecosystem services and functions. In: Sodhi
N. S. and Ehrlich P. R. (eds.). Conservation biology for all. Oxford
University Press, New York. Pp. 45-72.
Simberloff D. (2010). Invasive species. In: Sodhi N. S. and Ehrlich P. R.
(eds.). Conservation biology for all. Oxford University Press, New
York. Pp. 131-154.
Smith P. P., Trivedi C., Cochrane A., Crawford A. & Way M. (2007). The
millennium seed bank project delivering Target 8 of the global
strategy for plant conservation. BG Journal. 4(2):9-12.
Sodhi N. S. & Ehrlich P. R. (2010). Introduction. In: Sodhi N. S. and
Ehrlich P. R. (eds.). Conservation biology for all. Oxford University
Press, New York. Pp. 1-6.
Stern N. (2006). Stern review: The economics of climate change,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Troy A. & Bagstad K. (2009). Estimating ecosystem services in
Southern Ontario. A report, pleasanton: Spatial Informatics Group
(SIG).
Waylen K. (2006). Botanic gardens: Using biodiversity to improve
human well-being. Richmond, UK: Botanic Gardens Conservation
International.
WCMC (1992). Global biodiversity: Status of the earth’s living
resources. A report compiled by the World Conservation Monitoring

Centre (WCMC), London: Chapman and Hall.
Whitmore T. C. (1990). An introduction to tropical rain forests, Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Wigley T. M. L. (1999). The science of climate change: Global and U.S.
perspective, Arlington, Virginia: Pew Centre in Global Climate
Change.
Willis C. & Morkel A. (2008). National botanical gardens: South Africa’s
urban conservation refuges. BG Journal. 5(2):4-7.
Wolf H. (1999). Methods and strategies for the conservation of forest
genetic resources. In: Edwards S., Demissie A., Bekele T. and Haase
G. (eds.), Proceedings of the national workshop on forest genetic
resources conservation: Principles, strategies and actions. IBCR and
GTZ, Addis Ababa. Pp. 83-100.
Int. J. Res. Environ. Stud. 12
Wyse Jackson P. S. & Sutherland L. A. (2000). international agenda for
botanic gardens in conservation, UK: Botanic Gardens Conservation
International (BGCI).
Wyse Jackson P. S. (1998). Botanic gardens: A revolution in progress.
World Conservation (IUCN) 2/98:14-15.
Wyse Jackson P. S. (1999). Experimentation on a large scale – An
analysis of the holdings and resources of botanic gardens.
BGCNews. 3(3):27-30.
Zegeye H. (2004). Diversity, regeneration status and socio-economic
importance of the vegetation in the Islands of Lake Ziway, South-
central Ethiopia, MSc Thesis, Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University.