Assisting crop wild relatives

You may remember my recent nibble on assisted migration. I also sent the link to the CropWildRelatives discussion group, which elicited this response from Nigel Maxted at the University of Birmingham:

This is indeed an interesting question. My first reaction was that it was a purely academic exercise that will do little to benefit overall biodiversity and probably could not be applied for a wide range of species even if this were economically and practically feasible. It might even do harm because government might use research like this to play down the impact of climate change and avoid the necessity of taking harsh economic decisions. This may well be the case, but for the key 500-700 globally important CWR I do think this is the sort of research we should enacting now. These critical 500-700 species will be so vital to future food security, not least to combating climate change itself, that we need to ensure that they are allowed to continue evolving in situ in the changing environment and make doubly sure we have these species’ genetic diversity adequately conserved ex situ. The research need not focus on the entire 500-700 CWR but could be passed through a modeled climate change impact filter first to identify those species most likely to be impacted in the short term and most likely to be successful in transposition. Perhaps as a community the time is right to systematically address this issue.

Economic downturn means agrobiodiversity upturn?

Two pieces on what the recession is doing to agriculture in dear old Blighty. Putting it back in the hands of the people, it seems, in the form of revitalized allotments and community supported farming. It will be interesting to see what these trends will mean for agricultural biodiversity, if anyone is monitoring that is. One would think they should lead to increased diversity — of practices, crops and varieties. Thanks to Danny for the tips.

Nibbles: Easter Island, Quail, Kimchi, Assisted migration, Solar, Training materials, Ancient wine squared, Economics, Wild food

The lactose reflux problem

Stephen J. Gould said that “there’s been no biological change in humans for 40,000 or 50,000 years.” Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending beg to differ and, in “The 10,000 Year Explosion,” point to evidence for a recent acceleration in human evolution (e.g. lactose intolerance) ((Fans of the Coen brothers will recognize the title of this post as a kind of a quote from one of their films, and will indulge me. Others, not, on both counts. So be it.)) and blame it on agriculture. Not everyone agrees. I can’t help finding the idea of the end of genetic change somewhat preposterous, a priori. ((Culture doesn’t replace genetic change, “culture constrains genetic changes.”)) But one must find data. Check out the interview with Cochran at 2blowhards. ((It’s in several parts, and some of the internet buzz on the book is rounded up in this installment.)) What all this means to us here, of course, is that when we assess variation in the nutritional value of agrobiodiversity, we need to remember that that value may differ among human individuals and populations.

Professional Plant Breeders for Tomorrow

The International Centre for Plant Breeding Education and Research (ICPBER) at the University of Western Australia (UWA) provides advanced education and research in plant breeding to enhance the world’s future supply of plant-based food, fibre and industrial raw materials in an era of changing climates.

ICPBER has only recently started work (August 2008), so it may be too early to tell what strategic directions it will take, but I hope it will cover both conventional and biotech approaches, and live up to its name by addressing the needs of all regions and crops. Will it compete with, say, similar Africa-based initiatives? I suspect there’s enough room — enough need — for both. Anyway, good to see it link up with the Global Partnership Initiative for Plant Breeding Capacity Building (GIPB). That should minimize the chances of duplication of efforts.