Credit:
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, Giovanni; Welk, Erik; San-Miguel-Ayanz, Jesús (2017). Chorological maps and data for the main European woody species. figshare. Collection. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.2918528
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).
The common pear has high genetic diversity across its range, reflecting its long history of cultivation and wide environmental adaptation. Studies also show high polymorphism and heterozygosity, particularly within European cultivars and wild relatives (Wolko et al., 2010; Draga et al., 2023). Most genetic variation (around 98%) occurs within populations, a pattern typical of outbreeding species (Draga et al., 2023).
Individual studies have identified significant genetic diversity in local varieties in Hungary and parts of the former Yugoslavia (Gasi et al., 2013; Kocsisné et al., 2020). Wild populations, especially in the Caucasus and Eastern Europe, have unique alleles and high levels of heterozygosity, suggesting their importance as reservoirs of genetic variation (Kocsisné et al., 2020). Local landraces in Italy, Hungary, and Tunisia also show considerable diversity, including unique genotypes and occasional synonymy between cultivars (Draga et al., 2023).
Although common pear shows low morphological differentiation and high cross-compatibility between species, genetic studies reveal evidence of outbreeding and introgression with wild relatives like wild pear (Pyrus pyraster), particularly in overlapping habitats (Wolko et al., 2010). Cultivated forms are primarily diploid or triploid, maintaining substantial variability useful for breeding and conservation (Draga et al., 2023).
Genetic studies on the common pear reveal a weak correlation between genetic and geographic distribution suggesting extensive gene flow and human-mediated exchange of cultivars. Cluster analyses often show low genetic differentiation among cultivated varieties (Kocsisné et al., 2020). Studies show no clear or significant genetic clusters among cultivars, indicating a high degree of admixture within the species (Kocsisné et al., 2020).
However, some studies identify multiple genetic clusters that reflect historical domestication routes, migration patterns, and local adaptation rather than strict geographic separation (Kocsisné et al., 2020). Genetic similarity does not correlate with geographic origin, suggesting that traditional breeding and trade have blurred regional distinctions (Draga et al., 2023).
Pollen of common pear is insect dispersed with most cultivars being self-incompatible. Seeds are animal dispersed. However, the widespread cultivation of common pear means humans are the main method of dispersal and grafting is common.
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2025.
The common pear is one of the world’s most important temperate fruit crops, valued for its high nutritional and economic significance. It has been cultivated for over 3 000 years and is now grown in more than 50 countries, particularly across Europe and Asia (Wolko et al., 2010; Draga et al., 2023). Major European producers include Italy, Spain, Belgium, and the Netherlands, with Italy being the largest producer in the EU and home to hundreds of local varieties (Kocsisné et al., 2020; Draga et al., 2023).
Human cultivation has played a key role in shaping the species’ genetic diversity and distribution. Intensive breeding has favoured traits such as fruit quality, disease resistance, and climate adaptation. This has increased the prevalence of a limited number of elite cultivars and may have narrowed the genetic base of commercial pears (Draga et al., 2023). Local varieties such as those in Bosnia and Herzegovina often harbour unique genetic diversity, distinct from international cultivars, offering potential for future breeding and conservation efforts (Gasi et al., 2013).
The long history of hybridization and human selection has made pear taxonomy complex, blurring taxonomic boundaries and promoting gene flow (Wolko et al., 2010).
With renewed attention on developing improved cultivars to cope with climate change, conserving traditional and wild germplasm is increasingly important to maintain genetic resilience (Sehic et al., 2012).
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2025.
The common pear is not considered under major threat due to its wide cultivation, global distribution, and broad genetic base. However, the progressive replacement of traditional and locally managed varieties with high-yielding, uniform commercial cultivars has led to a decline in the heterogeneity of pear germplasm (Draga et al., 2023). Wild populations, such as those in the Caucasus and Eastern Europe have unique genetic diversity and high heterozygosity, but these are underrepresented in ex situ gene banks, making them vulnerable to habitat loss and genetic erosion (Kocsisné et al., 2020). While the species itself is secure, the genetic resources that contribute to its long-term adaptability and breeding potential are increasingly at risk. Research and conservation efforts have also been heavily biased towards the species’ commercial value, focusing on cultivar improvement rather than understanding or preserving wild and traditional genetic variation (Gasi et al., 2013).
Conservation programmes in several regions, such as Italy and Türkiye, already use both in situ and ex situ strategies to safeguard the full extent of pear genetic diversity (Draga et al., 2023). Clonal gene banks are maintained in many countries to preserve germplasm; however, correct identification and management of cultivars are crucial to prevent costly duplications and ensure genetic integrity (Sehic et al., 2012). More research is needed to understand the conservation genetics of common pear, apart from its horticultural and commercial uses, to secure its long-term evolutionary potential and adaptability.
The bibliographic review was conducted by James Chaplin of the EUFORGEN Secretariat in August 2025.
Further reading
Claessen, H., Keulemans, W., Van de Poel, B., and De Storme, N. 2019. Finding a compatible partner: Self-incompatibility in European pear (Pyrus communis); molecular control, genetic determination, and impact on fertilization and fruit set. Frontiers in Plant Science, 10: 407. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00407
Queiroz, Á., Bagoin Guimarães, J., Sánchez, C., Simões, F., Maia de Sousa, R., Viegas, W., and Veloso, M.M. 2019. Genetic diversity and structure of the Portuguese pear (Pyrus communis L.) germplasm. Sustainability, 11(19): 5340. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195340
Volk, G.M., Richards, C.M., Henk, A.D., Reilley, A.A., Bassil, N.V., and Postman, J.D. 2006. Diversity of wild Pyrus communis based on microsatellite analyses. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 131(3): 408–417.
References
Draga, S., Palumbo, F., Miracolo Barbagiovanni, I., Pati, F., and Barcaccia, G. 2023. Management of genetic erosion: The (successful) case study of the pear (Pyrus communis L.) germplasm of the Lazio region (Italy). Frontiers in Plant Science, 13: 1099420. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.1099420
Gasi, F., Kurtovic, M., Kalamujic, B., Pojskic, N., Grahic, J., Kaiser, C., and Meland, M. 2013. Assessment of European pear (Pyrus communis L.) genetic resources in Bosnia and Herzegovina using microsatellite markers. Scientia Horticulturae, 157: 74–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2013.04.017
Kocsisné, G.M., Bolla, D., Anhalt-Brüderl, U.C., Forneck, A., Taller, J., and Kocsis, L. 2020. Genetic diversity and similarity of pear (Pyrus communis L.) cultivars in Central Europe revealed by SSR markers. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 67(7): 1755–1763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-020-00937-0
Sehic, J., Garkava-Gustavsson, L., Fernández-Fernández, F., and Nybom, H. 2012. Genetic diversity in a collection of European pear (Pyrus communis) cultivars determined with SSR markers chosen by ECPGR. Scientia Horticulturae, 145: 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2012.07.023
Wolko, Ł., Antkowiak, W., Lenartowicz, E., and Bocianowski, J. 2010. Genetic diversity of European pear cultivars (Pyrus communis L.) and wild pear (Pyrus pyraster (L.) Burgsd.) inferred from microsatellite markers analysis. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 57(6): 801–806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-010-9587-z
If you notice any error in the contents of this species page, please contact euforgen@efi.int