Domesticating horsegram

The indefatigable Dorian Fuller has been even less fatigable than usual lately, with a couple of papers in the past few weeks on the history of the horsegram, Macrotyloma uniflorum. The first is a general review of the geographical, linguistic and archaeological evidence for the origins of the crop. They point to a long history in India and at least two separate domestications there.

Fig. 7. Map of distribution of wild populations of horsegram based upon data from Table 5 (and Table S4), and including M. sar-garhwalensis.

The second is a much deeper dive into the history of domestication, using high resolution x-ray computed tomography with a synchrotron to measure non-destructively the decrease in seed coat thickness with time in archaeological remains of domesticated material. A thin seed coat is thought to be related to loss of dormancy, and hence part of the domestication syndrome. It had been suggested that rare non-dormant variants might have been selected during domestication, but the evidence from horsegram is that even the thick-coated, and therefore presumably still dormant, material was domesticated.

Which is all very interesting, but what I want to leave you with is a little quiz. Given that Kersting’s groundnut is now also in Macrotyloma, as M. geocarpum (Harms) Maréchal & Baudet, how many other con-generic species can you think of that were domesticated on separate continents? Apart from the two Oryza species, of course.

Nibbles: Dwarf rice, Ricestoration, Tarostoration, Biorepositories, Sustainable coffee, Cactus wars, Goaty portraits, Spandrels, Potato genebank, Forests and nutrition

Nibbles: Visionary edition

Roundup on food composition, biodiversity and nutrition

FAO is leading global food composition activities since its beginning and has published several regional food composition tables. Since 1999, FAO is operating its food composition activities through INFOODS, the International Network of Food Data Systems, aiming to improve the quality, availability, reliability and use of food composition data. This fruitful collaboration has led to many instrumental standards, tools, databases and publications in the field of food composition, and more recently also on biodiversity. These public goods assist countries to generate, manage and use food composition data for different purposes. In collaboration with the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA) several documents on biodiversity and nutrition were elaborated, the most important being the Voluntary Guidelines for Mainstreaming Biodiversity into Policies, Programmes and National and Regional Plans of Action on Nutrition. This collaboration laid the foundation to more incorporation of nutrition into agriculture. The new tool ‘Nutrient Productivity Scale’, which combines yield, food composition and human nutrient requirements, may foster the inclusion of nutrition considerations into agriculture. The presentation will guide through all achievements over the last 15 and more years of food composition, biodiversity and part of nutrition-sensitive agriculture, its links within and outside FAO and will provide some food for thoughts for the future of food composition in FAO.

The presentation is online, and is well worth listening to in full.

The bit about the “Nutrient productivity scale” sounds a lot like something we talked about here some time back, and starts about 40 minutes in.

Nibbles: Citrus conservation, Amazon civilizations, Agricultural adaptation, Farming First, Communicating impact, Church forests, Food Forever Initiative