Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Seed banking not an option for many threatened plants

The Global Strategy for Plant Conservation requires 75% of threatened plant species conserved ex situ by 2020. Currently, ex situ conservation focuses on conventional seed banking, yet this method is unsuitable for many threatened species. The 75% target is unattainable without urgent investment into alternative techniques.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: The likely proportions of seed storage behaviours across different plant lists.
Fig. 2: The likely proportions of recalcitrant species on different plant lists in relation to the estimated proportion of the list made up of trees from tropical moist forest and mangrove habitats.


  1. Li, D.-Z. & Pritchard, H. W. Trends Plant Sci. 14, 614–621 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. The targets 2011–2020. Convention on Biological Diversity (2011).

  3. Mounce, R., Smith, P. & Brockington, S. Nat. Plants 3, 795–802 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Potter, K. M. et al. New Forest. 48, 153–180 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Teixido, A. L. et al. Biodivers. Conserv. 26, 703–716 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. O’Donnell, K. & Sharrock, S. Plant Diversity 39, 373–378 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sommerville, K. D. et al. Aust. J. Bot. 65, 609–624 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hay, F. R. & Probert, R. J. Conserv. Physiol. 1, cot030 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wyse, S. V. & Dickie, J. B. J. Ecol. 105, 1082–1093 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tweddle, J. C., Dickie, J. B., Baskin, C. C. & Baskin, J. M. J. Ecol. 91, 294–304 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wyse, S. V. & Dickie, J. B. Ann. Bot. 121, 71–83 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Beech, E., Rivers, M., Oldfield, S. & Smith, P. P. J. Sustain. Forest. 36, 454–489 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Crawford, A. D., Steadman, K. J., Plummer, J. A., Cochrane, A. & Probert, R. J. Aust. J. Bot. 55, 18–29 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fant, J. B. et al. Am. J. Bot. 103, 1541–1543 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ballesteros, D. & Pence, V. C. CryoLetters 38, 278–289 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Walters, C. Planta 242, 397–406 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Olson, D. M. et al. Bioscience 51, 933–938 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, is part funded by Grant in Aid from the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



SVW undertook the analyses; SVW, JBD and KJW wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah V. Wyse.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wyse, S.V., Dickie, J.B. & Willis, K.J. Seed banking not an option for many threatened plants. Nature Plants 4, 848–850 (2018).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing