Using Multiple Factor Analysis to Compare Expert Opinions with Conservation Assessment Results for the Wild Relatives of Oat (Avena sativa L.) and Pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Huth).

The ex situ conservation ‘gap analysis’ methodology for crop wild relatives (CWR) (Ramírez-Villegas et al., 2010) compares the taxonomic, geographic, and environmental representativeness of genebank collections of wild species against their potential distribution models, in order to estimate the completeness of genetic diversity held in germplasm collections. Such an analysis also elucidates priority species and geographic regions for further collecting. Comparing the gap analysis results with the opinion of experts with experience in the fields of botany, genetic resources, and conservation is an important step to evaluate the performance of the methodology applied, particularly for under-studied species with sparse occurrence data. A challenge lies in interpreting the results of expert opinion, particularly where multiple experts disagree. In order to shed further light on the usefulness of expert opinion in evaluating quantitative and spatial results, we used a multiple factor analysis (MFA) in order to identify key commonalities, and created an index system that can serve as an indicator of the accuracy of gap analysis results. We used the wild relatives of two important crops, oat and pigeonpea, as case studies, with 5 experts evaluating at total of 23 CWR taxa. The MFA analysis was shown to validate agreement between gap analysis results and expert opinion, as well as to identify species with strong disagreement that are in need of improvements to the analyses in order to be resolved.

Ramírez-Villegas J., C. Khoury, A. Jarvis, D.G. Debouck, and L. Guarino. 2010. A gap analysis methodology for collecting crop genepools: a case study with Phaseolus beans. PLoS ONE 5(10):e1349.