The revenge of characterization data

It is a truth universally acknowledged that characterization data are useless to breeders. Well, universally acknowledged by breeders anyway. Morphological data are all well and good for genebank curators looking for duplicates and old-fashioned taxonomists, they say. But what we need is evaluation data, and lots of it.

As usual, I exaggerate; for effect, as usual. But I think it would certainly be true to say that detailed morphological descriptions of germplasm are not the highest priority thing breeders want out of genetic resources databases. That would probably be information on resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses.

And yet a paper just out in Euphytica shows that the former can be clues to the latter. A team at IRRI 1 looked at the susceptibility of rice to sheath blight, an important disease throughout rice-growing areas, especially under intensive systems. 2 They measured how 200 accessions did when inoculated with Rhizoctonia solani in the field. So far, so conventional.

But because the accessions were very carefully chosen (out of a total of over 100,000 in the IRRI genebank), the team, which included the genebank manager, were able to estimate to what extent differences in disease intensity were due to plant and canopy architecture — in other words, morphology — and how much to genetic susceptibility.

The accessions tested were selected to represent contrasting morphologies (based on leaf length, leaf angle and number of tillers, typical characterization descriptors), different phenologies (number of days to 80% flowering) and all the major varietal groups (indica, aus, aromatic, temperate, japonica and tropical japonica). It turned out that the lowest levels of disease intensity were found on a particular morpho-phenological group, and that this effect of morphology on disease intensity was much greater than any effect of genetic group, although the aus varietal group was markedly superior to the others.

The authors therefore recommend that breeders looking for sources of reduced susceptibility to sheath blight will find it most efficient to select taller accessions with wider leaves. Let us see what the breeders think. I’ll post this on GIPB and report back if there’s any reaction.

CIAT and climate change and blogging

“Using blogs and new media to tell the story of climate change and adaptation”, did you say? Let CIAT show you how. On the same day, their multifarious blogs sport a post on the new climate change book on the block, “Crop Adaptation to Climate Change,” from Wiley, to which they have contributed massively. And also a handy summary of the CGIAR Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security Research Program’s “Mapping hotspots of climate change and food insecurity in the global tropics,” CIAT being the lead centre in CCAFS. There’s also a press release on the hotspots report. However, if the word “hotspots” conjures up visions of the possibility of precisely and reasonably narrowly targeted interventions, beware. In this game, as in many, I suppose, it really does all depend. This below is as good a candidate for the money map as any. But you really do have to read the whole thing, and look at all the maps. And there’s a lot of them. They’ll all be available as Google Earth files soon, right guys?

LATER: And they make it into Time!

Brainfood: Cabbages, Crops in Darfur, Sowing dates, People and biodiversity, Honeybees, Rhizobium, Figs, Urban ag, Wild olives, Ancient textiles, Ducks, Wheat introgression, Food citizenship, Crop models, Trifolium, Variety choice

Nibbles: Genebank, Sweet wheat, Participatory Research, Land “grab”, Yampah, Vegetables, Tea, Chilling, Rainforest products, Asses, Climate proofing, Natural products