- IUCN publishes “Biocultural Diversity Conservation, a Global Sourcebook.”
- And here’s an example of the application of the above, I suppose.
- UNEP looks to boost organic farming in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.
- Why don’t they just import organics from West Africa, like the rest of Europe?
- Wired does history of ag in Amazonia.
Nibbles: Peach genome, P, Marine protected areas
- Size isn’t everything, genome edition.
- Nutrient efficiency of agriculture, phosphorus edition.
- Win-wins, fisheries edition.
Towards the establishment of genetic reserves for crop wild relatives and landraces in Europe
The ECPGR In situ and On-farm Conservation Network Coordinating Group and others are organizing a symposium entitled “Towards the establishment of genetic reserves for crop wild relatives and landraces in Europe” at the University of Madeira, Funchal (Portugal), from 13-16 September 2010.
Conservation biologists, protected area managers and experts from the agrobiodiversity sector engaged in the management and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture are welcome to attend the symposium.
Interested? You can find out more on the website of the Centre for Macaronesian Studies of the University of Madeira, one of the co-organizers.
Nibbles: Asses, Mapping pathogens, Oysters, Tea, Turkish biodiversity hotspot, Dolmades and sage, Yams festival, Pollen video, Agriculture and mitigation, Rarity, School feeding, Sheep
- 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.