Equator prize winners bank on biodiversity

The five winners of the United Nations Development Programme Equator Prize shared US$1.5 million and something else: biodiversity. Of the five, three depend squarely on biodiversity, one is managing a natural resource more effectively, and one educates people about biodiversity.

The village of Andavadoaka in Madagascar was among the winners, honoured for demonstrating how it managed an octopus fishery so that it can provide sustainable long-term benefits.

In Kenya, the Shompole Community Trust won for conserving the country’s vast and scenic grasslands and savannah as part of a profit-making ecotourism venture for the local Masai people.

In Guatemala, the women of Alimentos Nutri-Naturales won the prize for reinstating the Maya nut as a staple source of nutrition and this conserving the nut forests in the buffer zone next to a biosphere reserve.

The women of Isabela Island’s “Blue Fish” Association, who work within the World Heritage-listed Galapagos Islands in Ecuador, were rewarded for marketing a local delicacy – tuna smoked with guava wood – as a way to promote the alternative use of marine resources and control invasive plant species.

The other winner, Shidulai Swarnivar Sangstha, uses riverboat-based educational resource centres throughout the Ganges River delta in Bangladesh to deliver information to locals about sustainable agricultural practices and market prices.

Not surprising, really. But it would be nice to know more, and that information is proving hard to find. If any of the winners or their colleagues happen to read this, point us to a source for your story, please.

People power

Here’s another potpourri, this one centred on local people’s perceptions of agricultural biodiversity. From the journal Livestock Science comes a paper looking at how traditional livestock keepers in Uganda select breeding bulls and cows among Ankole longhorn cattle. Another paper, this one from Crop Protection, discusses how Ethiopian farmers rank sorghum varieties with regard to their resistance to storage pests, and indeed what they do about such pests. And finally, from The Hindu newspaper, news of an initiative, to be launched on the International Day for Biological Diversity by the Kerala State Biodiversity Board, for a “people’s movement” to “prepare a database of all living organisms and traditional knowledge systems” in Kerala. The initiative is part of the state’s draft biodiversity strategy and action plan, which apparently includes consideration of agricultural biodiversity.

Orange bananas

Over at Bioversity International’s news pages there’s an interview with West African scientists who are trying to develop orange-fleshed bananas to tackle vitamin A deficiency.

LATER: The Bioversity link has disappeared, but I’ve replaced it with one from New Agriculturist that’s much the same.

Wheat “blends” out-perform monocultures

This is astonishing. Luigi said that a dominant meta-narrative in our circles is that selection and breeding displace diversity. Another is that well-bred monocultures improve yields. There’s always been an opposing point of view, most closely associated with the name of Professor Martin Wolfe. Now no less a leviathan than the United States Department of Agriculture seems to agree.

In a ground-breaking experiment, USDA scientist Christina Cowger made mixtures — blends — of two or more wheat varieties and planted them in experimental plots in North Carolina. The results?

The blends outyielded the pure varieties by an average of 2.3 bushels per acre. … That’s a 3.2-percent yield advantage. Blends and pure varieties did not differ in test weight or quality across environments, and blends were either beneficial or neutral with respect to diseases.

Blends are also more stable from year to year, a fact that may be behind farmers taking matters into their own hands: 10 to 15 per cent of the wheat area of Kansas and Washington states was planted to mixtures over the past four years.

I’m looking forward to seeing the full published paper.