Modern soybeans cheated by lousy fixers

Ah, synchronicity. While Luigi was fleetingly confused about rhizobia and other bacterial symbionts of pigeonpeas, I was pondering one of the more interesting blog posts — and papers — I have read in a long time, also about rhizobia. Those are the bacteria that “infect” leguminous plants, forming nodules on the roots. In the nodules the bacteria “fix” nitrogen gas, from the air, into a form plants can use. In exchange, as it were, the plants supply the bacteria with a safe home and some of the food the plants have photosynthesized. Some rhizobia do a better job than others, and many are completely useless at fixing nitrogen. Better yet, the plants know, and send more food to the nodules fixing the most nitrogen.

Now, the tricky part.

Modern agriculture does not usually apply nitrogen to leguminous crops. But there can be considerable carry-over from the preceding crop. So, two possibilities arise. Maybe soybeans no longer respond to better nitrogen-fixing bacteria by sending more food their way, because they don’t really need the nitrogen. Or maybe more soil nitrogen means that the plant can afford to starve out all but the very best nitrogen fixers.

But why am I repeating all this? You cannot possibly do better than head over to Ford Denison’s blog, where he does a much better job than me of explaining the significance of his results. The paper is also discussed in Nature News.

Spoiler (aka don’t bother me with the details): modern varieties do very poorly when inoculated with a mixture of good and bad nitrogen fixers. It is as if they simply cannot tell the difference and feed both equally.

Stunning new idea: If modern varieties tolerate low quality rhizobia, then low quality rhizobia are going to proliferate in the soil, doing nobody any good. So why not deliberately breed legume crops to impose very strict sanctions against poorly-performing rhizobia strains? Long term this would enrich the soil with top-notch fixers.

Seeds are not enough

An article in the NY Times tells a frustrating tale of agrobiodiversity use: stunning use by researchers, followed by disappointing use by farmers. It’s the story of Nerica ((The piece has been picked up elsewhere. The Economist’s Free Exchange blog also comments on it.)) — New Rice for Africa. This is a family of varieties derived in the 90s from a biotechnological breakthrough, the hybridization of African and Asian rice. ((Don’t get me wrong, these are not transgenics, though molecular methods were used to overcome the huge challenge of interspecific hybridization.)) Combining “the toughness of O. glaberrima with the productivity of O. sativa,” Nerica varieties have:

– Higher yields (by 50% without fertilizer, and 200% with).
– Earlier maturity (by 30-50 days).
– Resistance to local stresses.
– Higher protein content (by 2%).

A great example of researchers really unleashing the potential of genetic diversity. And one that has been rightly widely recognized. So why have the resulting varieties “spread to only a tiny fraction of the land in West Africa where they could help millions of farming families escape poverty”? It hasn’t been for want of trying:

To quickly move the NERICA technology into farmers’ hands, WARDA and its partners have adopted farmer-participatory approaches, such as the Participatory Varietal Selection (PVS) and community-based seed production systems (CBSS).

The NY Times piece suggests that the reason for Nerica’s disappointing use by farmers comes down to infrastructure. The seeds — even information about them — are not getting to the farmers that need them, and the harvest finds it hard to get to market. That’s because there are few seed companies, roads are bad, telecommunications poor, credit not available. The article also suggests that yield of Nerica has been known to decrease over time “because the new seed was not pure.”

It is undeniable that seed systems could be strengthened in Africa, and that doing so would improve the lot of smallholders. But I don’t know. Farmers are not stupid. They know how to select material for next year’s sowing, and they exchange seeds all the time, often over large distances. Their lives depend on it. Is there something else holding Nerica back? Or maybe it’s just too soon to be expecting miracles of adoption?

Creating and curing obesity

Better late than never, I guess. I’ve only just realized that the September issue of Scientific American was entitled Feast and Famine, and juxtaposed the ironic twin killer trends of hunger and obesity. Most of the material is unfortunately behind a paywall, but I have borrowed a hardcopy from a colleague and will be reading through it in the near future. If you’ve already done so and have any comments on what the various high-profile authors involved say about agrobiodiversity, let us know. One commentator has said:

This issue of Scientific American tells us there’s money to be made by creating and then curing obesity. That’s what the science approach to obesity is about and what the prevention-based approach is up against. ((I’ve borrowed my title from this article.))

Do you agree with this take?