- Early Peruvians didn’t brush their teeth. On the plus side, they had a tasty, varied diet.
- Mangrove rice farming in West Africa: The Book.
- “Could it be that vegetables are the new meat?“
- Wild relative rescues barleys threatened by Russian pests.
- Gates supports McKnight supports poor farmers.
- Vavilov does Formosa.
- Ethiopian Commodity Exchange gets to grips with coffee. Starbucks unavailable for comment.
Nibbles: String, Lake District, Apples, Biochar, Display, Firs, Sweet potato, Rice, Bison
- Lots of agrobiodiversity in one little piece of Neolithic string.
- Traditional cow breed saves plant saves rare moth. The elusive agrobiodiversity win-win-win?
- Centenarian arboreal agrobiodiversity artfully pruned.
- Burning agrobiodiversity. But in a good way. And for a good cause.
- Plant parts create Yuletide fantasy.
- Speaking of Yuletide, Christmas trees need diversity too. And Michigan State is there.
- Sure, it’s impressive, but is it a potato?
- Farming on the edge … of a large reservoir. Life has its ups and downs.
- Aristotle on bison faeces. Yes, that Aristotle.
Induced mutations? Nein danke.
We briefly nibbled SciDev.Net’s take on a press release from the International Atomic Energy Authority, advocating “Nuclear Science for Food Security”. It’s an old story; bombard seeds with radioactivity to induce more mutations, from which breeders can select wonderful new varieties. But as a correspondent reminds us:
There’s really nothing inherently wrong with it. Because it’s a totally random, “shotgun†approach to generating new variations, it lacks the benefits of natural selection to sort out not only what’s viable, but also what’s somehow well-adapted to growing in the environment and have other desirable traits.
Radio-induced mutagenesis was a popular technique decades ago, and some improved varieties were produced as a result. But I think that a much more logical approach would be to more fully assess and exploit the vast amount of extant diversity currently languishing unstudied in genebanks and farmers’ field, material that has already passed through the filter of many centuries, if not millennia, of natural and human selection. Radio-induced mutation is really just a shot in the dark. Better to focus more attention on the existing crop diversity that has yet to be exhaustively collected, characterized or evaluated, before resorting to such an aleatory approach.
Do you agree? Is inducing extra mutations — by chemistry, radioactivity, whatever — a good way to generate more diversity for breeders (and farmers?) to select from. Or should we focus on understanding the diversity we already have? It isn’t binary, of course, but I wonder where the balance should be?
Go forth and grow halophytes
That seems to be the plea Jelte Rozema and Timothy Flowers make in a Science paper that’s just out. ((It’s behind a paywall, but you can read other people’s take on it at Mongabay and Wired.)) But, frankly, I found the paper disappointing, not least because it is short on clear recommendations. For example, what is one to make of this?
Because salt resistance has already evolved in halophytes, domestication of these plants is an approach that should be considered. However, as occurred with traditional crops such as rice, wheat, corn, and potatoes, domestication of wild halophytic plant species is needed to convert them into viable crops with high yields. Such a process can begin by screening collections for the most productive genotypes.
Are they telling us that domestication of new species is a more profitable approach than trying to breed salinity-tolerance into existing crops? I think so, in which case it would be an interesting view, but I’m not altogether sure that’s in fact the point they’re making. It could have been better phrased. I mean those first two sentences could be summarized as
Domestication of halophytes should be considered. However, domestication of wild halophytes is needed.
Not sure how the editors at Science let that one by. There was also no explicit reference in the paper to the International Centre for Biosaline Agriculture and its genebank. Or to the possible role of crop wild relatives in breeding for salinity tolerance. All around, an opportunity missed.
Darwin in London
By Jacob van Etten
As the anniversaries of Darwin’s birth year (1809) and his Origin of Species (published in 1859) approach, London’s Natural History Museum has an exhibition on the great man. It takes you through his life and discoveries, paying equal attention to biography and biology. The exhibition opens with two mockingbird specimens, explaining their role in Darwin’s discovery of evolution. The famous finches are there, too, but apparently they played a less important role in the formation of Darwin’s theory. The most impressive part, I found, were the original letters exhibited, including a famous letter from his wife Emma, about religion, at the bottom of which Charles noted that he had cried about it for hours. The exhibition closes with a section on past and present responses to evolution theory.
Of course, I expected some stuff on agrobiodiversity. Darwin wrote a two-volume book on it, after all, The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication. Darwin used variation in domesticated animals and plants as a model for what happens in the wild. I wasn’t disappointed. The exhibition mentions dogs, horses and cabbages. It shows specimens of all the races of pigeons Darwin kept around Down House. Knowing Darwin’s hair style, I was surprised to learn that his London barber was an important source of information on domesticated biodiversity.
I’m not the only one who liked the exhibition. The lady at the bookshop said that the responses thus far had been very positive. It is on until 19 April 2009.