To learn more about the map elements, please download the "Pan-European strategy for genetic conservation of forest trees"
This distribution map has been developed by the European Commission Joint Research Centre (partly based on the EUFORGEN map) and released under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0)
Caudullo, G., Welk, E., San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., 2017. Chorological maps for the main European woody species. Data in Brief 12, 662-666. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2017.05.007
The following experts have contributed to the development of the EUFORGEN distribution maps:
Fazia Krouchi (Algeria), Hasmik Ghalachyan (Armenia), Thomas Geburek (Austria), Berthold Heinze (Austria), Rudi Litschauer (Austria), Rudolf Litschauer (Austria), Michael Mengl (Austria), Ferdinand Müller (Austria), Franz Starlinger (Austria), Valida Ali-zade (Azerbaijan), Vahid Djalal Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Karen Cox (Belgium), Bart De Cuyper (Belgium), Olivier Desteucq (Belgium), Patrick Mertens (Belgium), Jos Van Slycken (Belgium), An Vanden Broeck (Belgium), Kristine Vander Mijnsbrugge (Belgium), Dalibor Ballian (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Alexander H. Alexandrov (Bulgaria), Alexander Delkov (Bulgaria), Ivanova Denitsa Pandeva (Bulgaria), Peter Zhelev Stoyanov (Bulgaria), Joso Gracan (Croatia), Marilena Idzojtic (Croatia), Mladen Ivankovic (Croatia), Željka Ivanović (Croatia), Davorin Kajba (Croatia), Hrvoje Marjanovic (Croatia), Sanja Peric (Croatia), Andreas Christou (Cyprus), Xenophon Hadjikyriacou (Cyprus), Václav Buriánek (Czech Republic), Jan Chládek (Czech Republic), Josef Frýdl (Czech Republic), Petr Novotný (Czech Republic), Martin Slovacek (Czech Republic), Zdenek Špišek (Czech Republic), Karel Vancura (Czech Republic), Ulrik Bräuner (Denmark), Bjerne Ditlevsen (Denmark), Jon Kehlet Hansen (Denmark), Jan Svejgaard Jensen (Denmark), Kalev Jðgiste (Estonia), Tiit Maaten (Estonia), Raul Pihu (Estonia), Ülo Tamm (Estonia), Arvo Tullus (Estonia), Aivo Vares (Estonia), Teijo Nikkanen (Finland), Sanna Paanukoski (Finland), Mari Rusanen (Finland), Pekka Vakkari (Finland), Leena Yrjänä (Finland), Daniel Cambon (France), Eric Collin (France), Alexis Ducousso (France), Bruno Fady (France), François Lefèvre (France), Brigitte Musch (France), Sylvie Oddou-Muratorio (France), Luc E. Pâques (France), Julien Saudubray (France), Marc Villar (France), Vlatko Andonovski (FYR Macedonia), Dragi Pop-Stojanov (FYR Macedonia), Merab Machavariani (Georgia), Irina Tvauri (Georgia), Alexander Urushadze (Georgia), Bernd Degen (Germany), Jochen Kleinschmit (Germany), Armin König (Germany), Armin König (Germany), Volker Schneck (Germany), Richard Stephan (Germany), H. H. Kausch-Blecken Von Schmeling (Germany), Georg von Wühlisch (Germany), Iris Wagner (Germany), Heino Wolf (Germany), Paraskevi Alizoti (Greece), Filippos Aravanopoulos (Greece), Andreas Drouzas (Greece), Despina Paitaridou (Greece), Aristotelis C. Papageorgiou (Greece), Kostas Thanos (Greece), Sándor Bordács (Hungary), Csaba Mátyás (Hungary), László Nagy (Hungary), Thröstur Eysteinsson (Iceland), Adalsteinn Sigurgeirsson (Iceland), Halldór Sverrisson (Iceland), John Fennessy (Ireland), Ellen O'Connor (Ireland), Fulvio Ducci (Italy), Silvia Fineschi (Italy), Bartolomeo Schirone (Italy), Marco Cosimo Simeone (Italy), Giovanni Giuseppe Vendramin (Italy), Lorenzo Vietto (Italy), Janis Birgelis (Latvia), Virgilijus Baliuckas (Lithuania), Kestutis Cesnavicius (Lithuania), Darius Danusevicius (Lithuania), Valmantas Kundrotas (Lithuania), Alfas Pliûra (Lithuania), Darius Raudonius (Lithuania), Robert du Fays (Luxembourg), Myriam Heuertz (Luxembourg), Claude Parini (Luxembourg), Fred Trossen (Luxembourg), Frank Wolter (Luxembourg), Joseph Buhagiar (Malta), Eman Calleja (Malta), Ion Palancean (Moldova), Dragos Postolache (Moldova), Gheorghe Postolache (Moldova), Hassan Sbay (Morocco), Tor Myking (Norway), Tore Skrøppa (Norway), Anna Gugala (Poland), Jan Kowalczyk (Poland), Czeslaw Koziol (Poland), Jan Matras (Poland), Zbigniew Sobierajski (Poland), Maria Helena Almeida (Portugal), Filipe Costa e Silva (Portugal), Luís Reis (Portugal), Maria Carolina Varela (Portugal), Ioan Blada (Romania), Alexandru-Lucian Curtu (Romania), Lucian Dinca (Romania), Georgeta Mihai (Romania), Mihai Olaru (Romania), Gheorghe Parnuta (Romania), Natalia Demidova (Russian Federation), Mikhail V. Pridnya (Russian Federation), Andrey Prokazin (Russian Federation), Srdjan Bojovic (Serbia) , Vasilije Isajev (Serbia), Saša Orlovic (Serbia), Rudolf Bruchánik (Slovakia), Roman Longauer (Slovakia), Ladislav Paule (Slovakia), Gregor Bozič (Slovenia), Robert Brus (Slovenia), Katarina Celič (Slovenia), Hojka Kraigher (Slovenia), Andrej Verlič (Slovenia), Marjana Westergren (Slovenia), Ricardo Alía (Spain), Josefa Fernández-López (Spain), Luis Gil Sanchez (Spain), Pablo Gonzalez Goicoechea (Spain), Santiago C. González-Martínez (Spain), Sonia Martin Albertos (Spain), Eduardo Notivol Paino (Spain), María Arantxa Prada (Spain), Alvaro Soto de Viana (Spain), Lennart Ackzell (Sweden), Jonas Bergquist (Sweden), Sanna Black-Samuelsson (Sweden), Jonas Cedergren (Sweden), Gösta Eriksson (Sweden), Markus Bolliger (Switzerland), Felix Gugerli (Switzerland), Rolf Holderegger (Switzerland), Peter Rotach (Switzerland), Marcus Ulber (Switzerland), Sven M.G. de Vries (The Netherlands), Khouja Mohamed Larbi (Tunisia), Murat Alan (Turkey), Gaye Kandemir (Turkey), Gursel Karagöz (Turkey), Zeki Kaya (Turkey), Hasan Özer (Turkey), Hacer Semerci (Turkey), Ferit Toplu (Turkey), Mykola M. Vedmid (Ukraine), Roman T. Volosyanchuk (Ukraine), Stuart A'Hara (United Kingdom), Joan Cottrell (United Kingdom), Colin Edwards (United Kingdom), Michael Frankis (United Kingdom), Jason Hubert (United Kingdom), Karen Russell (United Kingdom), C.J.A. Samuel (United Kingdom).
Status of Picea abies conservation in Europe
Norway spruce shows high levels of heterozygosity and genetic variability, with greater variation within populations than between them (Skrøppa, 2003; Maghuly et al., 2006). In some populations, only as little as 1% of genetic diversity is between populations (Radu et al., 2014). Norway spruce typically shows lows levels of genetic differentiation even at large geographic scales (Stojnić et al., 2019). Norway spruce populations typically show little evidence of genetic bottlenecks (Stojnić et al., 2019).
Norway spruce shows some geographical trends in genetic diversity across its range and at local levels (Radu et al., 2014). However, there is no evidence of isolation by distance in Norway spruce populations and genetic and geographic distances are not correlated (Radu et al., 2014; Stojnić et al., 2019). It has been observed that Norway spruce populations at high elevation have more genetic variation than populations at lower elevations (Maghuly et al., 2006). Lower genetic diversity and allelic richness in lower altitude populations may be the result of greater human intervention (Radu et al., 2014). However, some studies show no variation in genetic diversity of Norway spruce in relation to altitude (Radu et al., 2014). Low genetic differentiation may be a result of various factors, such as Norway spruce’s outcrossing rate, reproductive system, and high rate of pollen-mediated gene flow (Stojnić et al., 2019).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
Norway spruce survived the last glacial maximum in several refugia and colonized Europe through different routes, creating some genetic structuring of variation in the species (Stojnić et al., 2019). Populations in Serbia, the Alps, and northern Carpathians are closely related, implying a common origin (Stojnić et al., 2019). Origins from different glacial refugia may explain why some differentiation between populations is observed and why central European provenances appear to have less genetic diversity than Eastern European and Scandinavian populations (Skrøppa, 2003). Populations in Romania and Serbia likely have high genetic diversity because multiple glacial refugia existed here (Radu et al., 2014; Stojnić et al., 2019).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
Widespread cultivation has spread Norway spruce beyond its natural range and changed many natural forests into artificial ones, potentially threatening native genotypes and reducing genetic diversity. Norway spruce populations have experienced damage and reduced yields where maladapted provenances have been planted (Skrøppa, 2003). Climate change, fragmentation of previously continuous forest areas, and bark beetle have also caused severe forest declines in Norway spruce. This has reduced the species’ popularity in reforestation projects, especially as the trees’ response to global warming is uncertain (Skrøppa, 2003). Forest fires and other stress factors also threaten Norway spruce in southern Europe droughts (Stojnić et al., 2019).
In situ conservation of Norway spruce and establishment of gene reserve forests should be actively managed according to silvicultural practices to ensure natural regeneration takes place (Skrøppa, 2003). Establishment of genetic conservation units (GCUs) should cover multiple environmental zones to ensure the maximum amount of genetic diversity is captured. This is the rationale behind the suggestion that another GCU should be established in Serbia (Stojnić et al., 2019). Gene reserve forests should cover areas of at least 100 ha, but networks of smaller gene reserve forests can also serve the same purpose where the species occurs on small areas (Skrøppa, 2003). Ex situ conservation may also be necessary for threatened populations that cannot be maintained at their original site (Skrøppa, 2003; Stojnić et al., 2019).
Marginal Norway spruce populations, such as those in the south, may contain unique genetic traits due to adaptation to local conditions. As such, it is important to conserve these populations because their diversity could be used to secure and stabilize more northerly populations through assisted gene flow (Stojnić et al., 2019). However, in assisted gene flow or reforestation efforts the origin of reproductive material should be known, and its adaptive properties should be site appropriate (Skrøppa, 2003).
Monocultures of even-aged homogeneous Norway spruce are most at threat from drought, strong wind, and insect infestations, experiencing high mortality from disturbances. As such, management of nature reserve stands should avoid these conditions, encouraging species and age mixing (Stojnić et al., 2019).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2024.
Genetic Characterisation of Picea abies and its GCUs
Availability of FRM
FOREMATIS
Picea abies - Technical guidelines for genetic conservation and use for Norway spruce
Publication Year: 2003Genetic conservation of P. abies is done by proper use of reforestation materials and by specific in situ and ex situ conservation activities. In reforestation, the minimum requirement should be that the origin of the reproductive material is known, and its adaptive properties should be appropriate for the ecological conditions at the regeneration site. A system for the control of reproductive materials should be established and recommendations for proper use of different materials should be developed. The OECD Scheme and EU regulations provide basic definitions of different categories of reproductive materials. The P. abies seed samples of recommended seed lots for practical reforestation should be harvested in years with abundant flowering and seed production and be stored in sufficient amounts in seed banks.
In situ conservation of P. abies is often successfully done in protected areas. In several countries, however, protected areas alone do not fulfil the actual needs and requirements for the conservation of genetic resources of forest trees. There may therefore be a need for gene reserve forests, established in natural stands and managed according to silvicultural practice, such as thinning and harvesting, ensuring the potential for successful regeneration. The objective is to maintain the potential for continuous future evolution of the population. It has been suggested that gene reserve forests should cover areas of at least 100 ha, but smaller areas can also serve the purpose. Such forests may consist of a mixture of different species, if that is their natural species composition. In areas where P. abies is not a native species, it may be desirable to conserve the genetic variation of well-adapted “landraces” in gene reserve forests.
Establishment of ex situ conservation plantations of P. abies may be necessary in order to conserve the genetic variability of threatened populations that cannot be maintained at the original site. The objective will be to establish a new population that maintains as much as possible of the original genetic variability and allows for long-term adaptation to the local conditions at the planting site. It can be established by planting of seedlings, but also by direct sowing or vegetative propagules. Sizes of 2–5 ha are generally recommended.
Specific genotypes of P. abies are conserved ex situ as vegetative propagules, in most cases as grafts, in clone banks or clonal archives. Several replicates should be made of each clone to reduce the risk of loss due to fire and other disasters. Clonal archives are static gene conservation units, with no natural regeneration intended in the plantation. They often contain members of breeding populations that are characterized genetically and are used to provide scions to be grafted in seed orchards or to make controlled crosses. All populations belonging to a breeding programme, such as seed orchards and progeny tests, are important gene conservation units as they contain materials with known genetic properties that can be used to generate new populations with known adaptive and wood-production characteristics. Breeding populations organized in a system of multiple populations at different sites have particular value for conserving genetic variability both within and between populations.
Field experiments with provenances, families and clones of P. abies have provided important genetic information for both breeding and conservation activities. Although such trials were not designed with gene conservation in mind, they are important reservoirs of characterized genetic variability and should be managed and maintained as long as possible and be considered part of a national conservation strategy.
Any type of forest reproductive material of P. abies (seeds, pollen, vegetative parts) can be conserved in genebanks. This will be a complementary method to the ex situ and in situ plantations, and will, apart from genetic changes due to loss of viability, conserve the original genetic structures.
Technical guidelines for genetic conservation of Norway spruce
Picea abies Network: Report of the first meeting
Conifers Network: Report of the first meeting
Picea abies Network: Report of the second meeting
Conifers Network: Report of the fourth meeting
Conifers Network: Report of the second and third meeting
Contacts of experts
NA
Further reading
Steffenrem, A., Kvaalen, H., Høibø, O.A., Edvardsen, Ø.M., and Skrøppa, T. 2009. Genetic variation of wood quality traits and relationships with growth in Picea abies. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 24(1): 15–27.
Tollefsrud, M.M., Sønstebø, J.H., Brochmann, C., Johnsen, Ø., Skrøppa, T., and Vendramin, G.G. 2009. Combined analysis of nuclear and mitochondrial markers provide new insight into the genetic structure of North European Picea abies. Heredity, 102(6): 549–562.
References
Maghuly, F., Pinsker, W., Praznik, W., and Fluch, S. 2006. Genetic diversity in managed subpopulations of Norway spruce [Picea abies (L.) Karst.]. Forest Ecology and Management, 222(1–3): 266–271.
Radu, R.G., Curtu, L.A., Spârchez, G., and Şofletea, N. 2014. Genetic diversity of Norway spruce [Picea abies (L.) Karst.] in Romanian Carpathians. Annals of Forest Research, 57(1): 19–29.
Skrøppa, T. 2003. EUFORGEN Technical Guidelines for genetic conservation and use for Norway spruce (Picea abies). Rome, International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. 6 pages.
Stojnić, S., Avramidou, E.V., Fussi, B., Westergren, M., Orlović, S., Matović, B., Trudić, B., Kraigher, H., Aravanopoulos, F.A., and Konnert, M. 2019. Assessment of genetic diversity and population genetic structure of Norway Spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karsten) at its southern lineage in Europe. Implications for conservation of forest genetic resources. Forests, 10(3): 258. https://doi.org/10.3390/f10030258
See details
Designed by Newtvision
