Underselling breeding, and conservation

Crops with massive … importance, clear biological upside, and real demand for better genetics — but a system where breeding remains small, underfunded, and structurally difficult to scale.

What crops, you ask? “Opportunity crops,” perhaps? Fonio, say, Bambara groundnut, or any nnumber of African leafy vegetables. Those would have been good guesses, but actually I cheated, so no. The word hidden by the ellipsis is actually “economic,” and the quote comes from a Reddit post on coffee breeding. 1

That of course makes the observation even more amazing. As the Reddit poster goes on to point out:

We’ve built a ~$100B global industry that depends on plant genetics… while seemingly allocating only a negligible fraction of that value to actually improving those genetics.

And, I would add, allocating an even more negligible fraction to conserving those genetics (despite the fact that there’s a pretty solid strategy for how to do that). Which goes for opportunity crops too.

Rare today, relevant tomorrow: new lessons from a really old barley experiment

I was vaguely aware of the Composite Cross II (CCII) long-term experiment with barley, not least because of a Brainfood entry a couple of years ago. But I didn’t know a whole lot about it, so when a link to a recent thesis by Jill Marzolino at UC Riverside referencing it popped up in my feeds, I decided to look into it a bit more.

Harry Harlan and Mary Martini set up the experiment way back in 1929, in an effort to come up with barley varieties better adapted to the Californian environment. They started out with 28 diverse barley varieties from all over the world, made all possible crosses among them (though in only one direction), bulked together all the seeds they got, and planted a random sample of the mixture at Davis, California. The next year, they harvested the resulting crop, and sowed a sample of the seeds they obtained again in the same place.

And so on, for decades. Researchers following in the footsteps of Harlan and Martini planted 5,000-20,000 seeds year after year and left them to it, for 58 generations, saving a sample of the harvest along the way. This is called a composite cross population, or sometimes a composite hybrid mixture. When used in crop improvement, the process is sometimes referred to as evolutionary plant breeding, and has been proposed as a useful strategy for adapting crops to climate change.

Anyway, in the days of DNA sequencing, you can also see how CCII is an incredible resource for just trying to figure out how — and how fast — evolution works.

The paper I referenced in Brainfood in 2024 did just that. In Natural selection drives emergent genetic homogeneity in a century-scale experiment with barley, the authors showed that natural selection pretty quickly and drastically narrowed the genetic diversity of the original diverse population, affecting especially genes regulating the timing of flowering and reproduction. That basically allowed the plants to avoid drought. Yield also doubled, though that was less than plant breeders were able to achieve over the same period.

The thesis that caught my eye today is entitled Uncovering the Genetic Basis of Local Adaptation With Long-Term Evolution Experiments in Barley, and comes from the same lab. Dr Marzolino also looked at flowering time, but the chapter that really struck me was the one on “genetic rescue.” She found that when she planted the CCII at a different site, in Bozeman, some genetic variants that had been incredibly rare at Davis suddenly exploded in frequency. In her words:

This result indicates that very rare maladapted types persist in the CCII. It is not clear how they are maintained, but perhaps fluctuating environmental conditions from year to year alter the fitness of these types enough for them to persist… It remains unclear how long these rare types can be maintained in a population. Maintenance of rare types could be critical for the longer term survival of many plant species in a changing world.

Something for genebank managers to ponder. The normal practice is to regenerate genebank accessions under environmental conditions which are as close to ideal for the particular germplasm in question as possible, in order to ensure a good harvest of high quality seeds. But this result suggests it might actually be worth considering occasionally subjecting sub-samples to a few regeneration cycles in a contrasting environment. Might that not rescue some interesting — not to mention useful — genes?

Brainfood: Clonal crops edition

Uprooting crop diversity

Moving house is never any fun, but it’s particularly tricky for collections of crop diversity. You have to get the new facilities all ready, hundreds or even thousands of seed packets or test tubes or indeed live plants need to be kept safe and sound during the process, and then re-established in their new digs, and possibly new people may need to be hired and trained. Safe to say, you probably want to avoid relocating genebanks unless absolutely necessary, which is why it’s not all that common.

Surprising then to come across two examples within a few days.

The Domaine de Vassal grapevine collection in France 2 is being moved to save it from the encroaching waters of the Mediterranean. Or maybe it was a problem with the lease? Anyway, it’s been in the works for at least 10 years, but it does seem to be finally happening. Despite, ahem, some reservations.

The rub with the new proposed site is that only a portion of its soil is sand-based. The collection is destined for a hillside of limestone-clay soils where the vines would be grafted onto rootstock.

“A heresy!” Deiss protested, saying grafting compromises the authenticity of the vines.

In contrast, USDA’s National Soybean Germplasm Collection on the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign campus 3 was supposed to be relocated in fiscal 2026, that was stopped by various stakeholders, but the whole thing is back on the agenda for fiscal 2027. The issue seems to be where the collection can be conserved most cost-effectively, but there may also be a bit of local politics involved as well. Predictably, I suppose.

“Having that vast collection so accessible to U. of I. researchers directly benefits Illinois farmers,” said Abigail Peterson, director of agronomy for the Illinois Soybean Association. “Whether it’s a new disease or soy oleic, I think the germplasm collection is the only avenue to explore and develop new traits. It’s just a huge tool in our toolbox.”

Good luck to the people involved in both cases. Whatever happens, I’m sure we all hope the collections remain safe and available for the long term.