The role of Alpine botanical gardens in integrating germplasm bank collections and mission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Societal Impact Statement This study underscores the vital role of Alpine botanical gardens (ABGs) in safeguarding Europe's alpine biodiversity amid climate change and habitat loss. By acting as living laboratories and reservoirs of plant genetic resources, ABGs bridge ex situ and in situ conservation, supporting ecosystem resilience and informing restoration strategies. Our findings reveal significant opportunities for ABGs to collaborate with germplasm banks, enhance genetic diversity in collections, and refine propagation protocols. Strengthening these integrative networks not only preserves unique alpine flora but also provides adaptive tools for conservation policies and sustainable land management in mountain regions facing rapid environmental change. Summary The Alps are one of Europe's most diverse ecosystems, but their biodiversity is threatened by climate change, habitat loss, and land‐use changes. Alpine botanical gardens (ABGs) play a crucial role in preserving plant diversity in this region. This study evaluates 14 ABGs across the Alps to assess their effectiveness in preserving the region's flora, with a particular aim to investigate how ABGs can integrate with and strengthen the conservation mission of germplasm banks. We assess representation of alpine flora in the living collections of these 14 ABGs relative to the 5797 taxa of the flora of the Alps, noting cases cultivated at the infraspecific level and examining the overlap of these collections with global germplasm banks. Our findings show that 32% of the 5797 taxa of the flora of the Alps are represented in ABGs, with some species cultivated at the infraspecific level, reflecting both ecological specializations and the expertise of ABG curators. Notably, ABGs contribute significantly to ex situ conservation, although gaps exist in certain taxonomic families and species, especially endemic and policy taxa. Many species in the living collections of ABGs are still missing from global germplasm banks. These findings highlight an opportunity for these gardens to strengthen conservation by contributing seeds and helping to grow species that are difficult to propagate, including narrow endemics. Collaboration with germplasm banks could address existing gaps in genetic diversity, with ABGs acting as field‐based experimental stations to refine propagation techniques. Overall, the importance of ABGs in both ex situ and in situ conservation strategies is underscored, urging stronger collaborations with research facilities and improved propagation protocols to optimize the conservation of alpine plants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".