Gaps galore in collards collections

Quick follow-up to my post a few days ago on the recent study of the origin of the collard greens grown in the Moroccan oases of the Draa and Ziz valleys.

Ethnobotanists Bronwen Powell and Abderrahim Ouarghidi used historical texts, linguistics, and Indigenous knowledge in their investigation, but of course it’s also possible to use genetics to figure out where the plants may have came from. Especially as there are plenty of accessions labelled Brassica oleracea var. acephala in the genebanks that share their data on Genesys — just over 1500 in fact.

Alas, that might in practice turn out to be tricky, though, due to the somewhat — ahem — skewed geographic distribution of the accessions in question. The yellow circles in the map below show the approximate locations of those oases on the edge of the Sahara.

Still worth trying, in my view, but really more than anything this should be an encouragement to do some more collecting. Or get more genebanks on Genesys. Or identify more B. oleracea accessions to variety level. Or…

What else has been collected in the Draa and Ziz valleys or thereabouts? Surprisingly little, mainly wheat, barley, chickpea, faba bean and alfalfa. The general location of the valleys is now shown by white squares.

Incidentally, the. map below is where ChatGPT thinks collards are grown around he world. I really have no idea how accurate it is. I hope someone will tell us.

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

Brainfood: Animal diversity edition

We need diverse farms, and genebanks can help

A LinkedIn post by CGIAR stalwart Dr Carlo Fadda convinced me I should give a bit more exposure to a recent paper than the brief Brainfood entry I wrote about it a few weeks ago. The paper is Long-term agricultural diversification increases financial profitability, biodiversity, and ecosystem services: a second-order meta-analysis. Its authors are Estelle Raveloaritiana and Thomas Cherico Wanger, and it was published in Nature Communications this past January.

In that Brainfood, I tried to bring together in a logical thread various studies on different aspects of farm diversity and its benefits. In particular, its effects on diet diversity, and hence health outcomes.

But better diets and human health are not the only pluses of diverse farms, and the paper in question in fact suggests that intercropping, organic farming, and other diversification strategies also increase incomes, biodiversity, pollination, soil quality, and carbon sequestration significantly over 20 years. With, importantly, no downward hit on crop yields. So going diverse — organic, if you will — has many advantages that are not overall associated with a yield tradeoff. And that’s from a meta-analysis of 184 meta-analyses and 120 years of data, so it’s a pretty robust result.

As Dr Fadda points out in his excellent summary of the paper, good evidence that diverse — including agrobiodiverse — farms are good for farmers, consumers and the planet is clearly there. The challenge is to find the institutional will to act on it.

I’d like to add that genebanks around the world are ready, willing and able to do just that. It’s literally their job, or at least a big part of it. I hope they are given the chance — and the resources — to do it.