Yes, yet another thematic trifecta. I swear I don’t go out looking for these, they just pop up every once in a while. CABI’s excellent blog had a piece today about CABI’s own fungal genetic resources collection and its value as a source of useful compounds. It includes Fleming’s original penicillin-producing strain so it does have form in that regard. Then Seeds Aside has a post on variation among olive varieties in a gene for an allergenic protein found on the pollen grain. And finally, over at the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, a thumbnail sketch of the redoubtable Phebe Lankester, who wrote extensively on both botany and health — and occasionally on the link between the two — in the latter part of the 19th century. ((Ann B. Shteir. (2004) “Lankester, Phebe (1825–1900).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press. [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/58526, accessed 10 April 2008].))
Nibbles: Alabama genebank, sunflower, fruit dispersal, IAASTD
- Seed bank saves Alabama heirloom varieties, y’all.
- Retrotransposons go wild in sunflower. Kansas to the rescue.
- Avocados and gomphotheres. Apples and bears. Welcome back, Evil Fruit Lord!
- More about the IAASTD and its paradigm shift thing.
Nibbles: Bananas, health, IAASTD, Israeli genebank
- IITA blankets Ghana with micro-propagated bananas. How many varieties?
- Hey, yesterday was Biodiversity and World Health Day. Who knew? (Agriculture not relevant.)
- IAASTD says agriculture needs “…a new paradigm…” Discuss.
- Israeli genebank has to fight for cash. Jeremy comments: alert the media.
Yams in New Caledonia
Danny has just sent me this great old postcard from New Caledonia: “Preparations for a family celebration.” You can see how central yams are to Kanak culture. In 2004 the Kanak Traditional Senate established a Conservatoire de l’Igname. I never visited it, but I saw photos of it when a couple of the people responsible, including a senator, came to our regional plant genetic resources network meeting in Fiji a couple of years ago, and it looked great. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to have much of an online presence. Yet.
Classifying conservation actions
An article in PLoS Biology recently suggested that IUCN should change the classification system it uses for protected areas (PAs). ((Change the IUCN Protected Area Categories to Reflect Biodiversity Outcomes Boitani L, Cowling RM, Dublin HT, Mace GM, Parrish J, et al. PLoS Biology Vol. 6, No. 3, e66 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060066.)) Currently reflecting management intent (e.g. “National Park: managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation”), the idea would be for the new categories to rather “be based on the quality and quantity of the contribution of each PA to conservation of biodiversity (and associated sociocultural values).” So: actual result, rather than intent; and “what ” and “how much” rather than “how.” Seems like a pretty good idea. And it also seems like the concept could be applied not just to protected areas, but to conservation actions in general. That would spell the doom of the tired old in situ/ex situ dichotomy. Not a minute too soon, as far as I’m concerned.