- Jeremy probes into wild asses at Vaviblog.
- Mapping the evolution of pathogens. And in kinda related news…
- The European oyster needs diversity. Well, natch.
- The tree forests of Yunnan, and, concidentally, the story of how the secret of their product got out.
- The Kaçkar Mountains at Yusufeli, northeast Turkey are in trouble. Any crop wild relatives there, among the bears and other charismatic megafauna?
- Speaking of Turkey, here’s how to make one of its delicacies. But hey, if you don’t have vine leaves, you can use this.
- Having fun with yams.
- Drori does pollen.
- FAO’s Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture (MICCA) Project. Any agrobiodiversity-related stuff? Need to explore…
- “…conserving species may only require specific activities, such as collect and distributing seeds.”
- African school feeding programme uses “local” products. What would Paarlberg say? You can find out here, if you have 90 minutes to spare.
- British boffins breed self-shearing sheep. No, really.
Restoration is germplasm use too
It is well known that plant populations do best when they grow close to where they originally came from. A myriad reciprocal transplant experiments going back decades attests to the power of local adaptation. But how close is close? The question is of very real practical importance if you’re trying to restore a habitat. By definition, the local population is gone. What is the maximum distance you should be willing to go to collect material to re-establish it?
Three hundred kilometers is the answer given in a paper just out in Ecological Applications. ((Travis, S., & Grace, J. (2010). Predicting performance for ecological restoration: a case study using Spartina alterniflora Ecological Applications, 20 (1), 192-204 DOI: 10.1890/08-1443.1)) There’s also a discussion over at Conservation Maven. The authors worked on the salt marsh grass Spartina alterniflora, which is commonly used in ecological restoration of wetlands in North America. They collected germplasm at 23 sites from Texas to Maine, genotyped them using neutral markers, and then grew them all in a “common garden” experiment in Louisiana, where they measured in various ways how well each population did. The control was a population just across a canal from the experimental site.
It turned out that clone diameter, number of stems and number of inflorescences at the experimental site, as well as genetic distance, were all significantly affected by measures of the geographic distance between the source and the experimental site. For populations up to about 300km away along the coast, performance in the common garden was similar to the control. Go further, and the source populations do not do as well where they are planted.
The authors make quite specific recommendations for restoration. Use material from at least three populations within 300km of the restoration site, and 100km if you want material that is not only maximally locally adapted but also not significantly genetically different from the original population at the restoration site.
Now, I don’t know how widely applicable these recommendations might be. I don’t know the restoration literature at all. A cursory look revealed a fairly well-developed theoretical framework, the “restoration gene pool concept.” Which has been used to develop a decision support tool.
As I say, I don’t know much about restoration. So I don’t know to what extent this sort of thing has been applied to crop wild relatives. To me, “use” of crop wild relative germplasm means use in breeding. But that is clearly very narrow thinking, and I should be ashamed of myself.
Nibbles: Truffles, Botanicals, Cell phones, Child nutrition, Chocolate, Georgia
- Truffle genome (about to be) sequenced. Pigs unimpressed.
- Lunar influence on botanicals. Fascinating.
- Cell phones for germplasm documentation and taxonomic identification.
- Video of John Hoddinott of IFPRI discussing award-winning Lancet article on the effects of child nutrition on adult income.
- Climate-ready cacao, anyone?
- GEF agrobiodiversity project in Georgia a success story. See why.
Tributes to Bob Rhoades
Ashamed of the brevity of our note on the passing of Prof. Robert Rhoades a few days back, I welcome this opportunity of giving more prominence to comments on that post from a couple of friends of his.
From Cary:
Bob Rhoades was a wonderful man who made a tremendous contribution to our field. He was indeed a great teacher, advisor and researcher. In addition to what is mentioned in the short article above, let me note that he worked for a number of years at CIP, and was the author of another memorable National Geographic article, “The Incredible Potato.” He also co-founded the Southern Seed Legacy with his wife, Prof. Virginia Nazarea, who is also a very prominent figure in crop diversity. Personally, I treasure the times I spent with Bob at his farm outside Athens, and a trip we made on the back-roads through Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina, visiting seed savers and conservationist along the way.
And from Pablo:
I am so saddened to hear that Bob Roades died. He was perhaps the first social scientist to systematically document, improve and extend farmer’s knowledge about agricultural biodiversity. His modest and warm approach in the field, his gentle humour, and sharp intellect earned him the respect of farmers everywhere he worked. As anthropologists we are proud of the pathbreaking work that Bob did, charting the way so that many others could also contribute. Bob loved speaking about his farm in Georgia, his Oklahoma roots, his marriage to Virginia. His generosity and ideas keep him dear to me. My condolences to Virginia and his family.
Robert Rhoades RIP
Robert E. Rhoades is dead. He was a pioneer of agricultural anthropology and wrote extensively on conservation of agrobiodiversity, especially how local people do it. His 1991 National Geographic piece The World’s Food Supply at Risk is a classic.