Tricky stuff, extinction rates

There’s a BBC radio programme called More or Less that I like a lot, mostly because it takes the trouble to think about things. A new series has just started, and I was thrilled to see that the programme was going to tackle extinction rates. Not anything as simple as extinction rates for crop seeds, or agricultural biodiversity in general (which is always 75%), but the biggie, the global extinction rate for (wild) species. All power to them, they really did try, at the same time having some fun with some of the more inane pronouncements on the topic. But I must say, even knowing a bit about the topic, I found it really hard to follow.

Not sure how widely available the programme will be, or for how long, so if it isn’t at the BBC, you can also find the relevant bits here.

And to repeat what the programme said, just because we don’t accurately know what the rates of extinction are, doesn’t mean that the loss is unimportant. Except that, really, it would be nice to know the birth rate of new bacterial biodiversity.

An open letter to open up EU seed laws

There’s an open letter floating around that is addressed to Members of the European Parliament and to a variety of EU Commissioners for this that and the other. The intent is to advocate for opening up the EU legislation on the Marketing of Seed and Plant Propagating Material, in order to:

[M]ake it more respectful towards the environment, consumers’ expectations and the needs of small actors in the seed chain.

No argument from us on that score. Indeed, we’ve always found the one-size-fits-all approach of the EU suitable only for the largest. Why varieties must be certified, when simple consumer-protection laws are enough to protect against sharp practice, remains a mystery. The letter appeals to everything, from freedom of choice via reduced use of pesticides to an improved environment, better conservation, and more rural jobs.

It’s a good effort, and most welcome, even if it is probably doomed to failure. The sad part is that the list of signatories is completely dominated by the usual suspects. It’s almost as if the heavy hitters who are so keen on agricultural biodiversity for developing countries (and we all know who they are) see no common cause with what’s happening in their own back garden.

Organizations and individuals have until 2 May to sign up.

US government blames maize yield losses on Southern Corn Leaf Blight

Our friend Jacob’s Google-fu is stronger than mine. He found this annotated graph of maize yields in the US.

See how they’ve claimed that blight reduced yields by 18% in 1970? That would be the Southern Corn Leaf Blight that wasn’t a problem, and the yield loss wasn’t caused by lack of genetic diversity.

Well, of course, the government would say that, wouldn’t they, after shelling out all that money on plant breeding and stuff …

Blight is right: genetic uniformity was to blame

The Southern Corn Leaf Blight epidemic that struck the US in 1970 is usually seen as a canonical example of the dangers of genetic uniformity. I use it that way myself, often. Certainly yield losses in 1970 seemed very high, higher than the average 12% “expected from all diseases of corn”. But could we all be wrong? A commenter thinks so.

[W]as it a major problem? Over twenty years ago I gave a seminar at CIMMYT. I had prepared a slide showing the year on year average yield increase ((I don’t know whether he really means year on year increase; somehow, I doubt it. What would be the point?)) in maize in the USA for about 70 years‚ but leaving off the actual years. … I challenged the audience to identify the blight year (1970). Nobody could. … Try this on colleagues and students.

I did, and it is true, 1970 does not look all that extraordinary against the trend.

A more interesting graph is this one, in which the rising trend in average yield is removed from the actual yield each year.

Now 1970 is a little more visible, though I agree it still doesn’t look catastrophic. I mean, compare that with 1988 and 1993. There is one huge difference. In 1988 drought was widespread, while in 1993 floods devastated many farms and yields in the northwest corn belt. Weather in 1970 was just fine, thank you. Weather is clearly a very important factor in annual yields, and it interacts with pests and diseases in complex ways, but it seems pretty clear that the yield loss of 1970, while not as drastic as in other years, was certainly not the result of wayward weather.

The commenter asked “are we making too much of a fuss about the Leaf Blight”? I don’t think so, obviously, so I asked Professor Darrel Good, of the University of Illinois. He knows more about maize yields than almost anyone (and is responsible for the graphs above). He said:

I have not seen any specific analysis of 1970, but am pretty sure that the decline in corn yield was in fact attributed to the outbreak of southern corn leaf blight. Hard to quantify that impact relative to weather. It is a similar phenomenon as the aphid damage to the soybean crop of 2003. ((A pest recently arrived in the US from the soybean’s native China, and a rabbit hole I am not now going to explore.)) These rare events are not captured in our models.

In some respects, pests and diseases are as unpredictable as weather. In industrialized agriculture, genetic diversity within a crop is unlikely to provide much protection against the vagaries of weather. ((Subsistence agriculture is almost certainly different.)) But genetic diversity definitely can protect against unpredictable pests and diseases, not just in maize, and not just against Southern Corn Blight.

Nibbles: Book, Watermelon, Pests & Diseases, Lime juice disinfectant, Seed laws, Bibliography