- The Australian paradox: A substantial decline in sugars intake over the same timeframe that overweight and obesity have increased. Wait … there’s an Australian paradox too?
- Phytophthora blight of Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]: An updating review of biology, pathogenicity and disease management. The wild relatives are sources of resistance, but that won’t be enough.
- Effects of crop mixtures on chocolate spot development on faba bean grown in mediterranean climates. Intercropping with cereals reduces the disease.
- Combining high biodiversity with high yields in tropical agroforests. It can be done, for smallholder cacao in Indonesia.
- And elsewhere … Cost benefit and livelihood impacts of agroforestry in Bangladesh. An entire book.
- Resource concentration dilutes a key pest in indigenous potato agriculture. Monocropping can be sustainable. Via.
- Community versus single-species distribution models for British plants. Overall, better stick with the single species kind, but it was worth a try.
- Quantitative trait loci for salinity tolerance in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). They exist, and there are markers.
- Climate, competition and connectivity affect future migration and ranges of European trees. Well, doh.
- Quantifying carbon storage for tea plantations in China. All the tea in China…sequesters a lot of C. But plant type doesn’t count for much.
Plant traits analyzed globally
When we talk about plant traits here we are usually referring to things like characterization and evaluation descriptors, and how they vary within crops. But there’s an ambitious initiative underway to document “the morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical, and phenological characteristics of plants and their organs” — some 1500 of them — across the world’s entire wild flora. It’s called TRY, and it is described in a new paper in Climate Change Biology. 1 It works by bringing together existing datasets in a data warehouse, like this:
I think the caption to this diagram (Fig. 1 in the paper) is worth quoting in full, as it may give some ideas to people developing similar systems more aimed at agrobiodiversity, like Genesys.
The TRY process of data sharing. Researcher C contributes plant trait data to TRY (1) and becomes a member of the TRY consortium (2). The data are transferred to the Staging Area, where they are extracted and imported, dimensionally and taxonomically cleaned, checked for consistency against all other similar trait entries and complemented with covariates from external databases (3; Tax = taxonomic databases, IPNI/TROPICOS accessed via TaxonScrubber (Boyle 2006), Clim = climate databases, e.g. CRU, Geo = geographic databases). Cleaned and complemented data are transferred to the Data Repository (4). If researcher C wants to retain full ownership, the data are labelled accordingly. Otherwise they obtain the status ‘freely available within TRY’. Researcher C can request her/his own data – now cleaned and complemented – at any time (5). If she/he has contributed a minimum amount of data (currently >500 entries), she/he automatically is entitled to request data other than her/his own from TRY. In order to receive data she/he has to submit a short proposal explaining the project rationale and the data requirements to the TRY steering committee (6). Upon acceptance (7) the proposal is published on the Intranet of the TRY website (title on the public domain) and the data management automatically identifies the potential data contributors affected by the request. Researcher C then contacts the contributors who have to grant permission to use the data and to indicate whether they request co-authorship in turn (8). All this is handled via standard e-mails and forms. The permitted data are then provided to researcher C (9), who is entitled to carry out and publish the data analysis (10). To make trait data also available to vegetation modellers (e.g. modeller E) – one of the pioneering motivations of the TRY initiative – modellers are also allowed to directly submit proposals (11) without prior data submission provided the data are to be used for model parameter estimation and evaluation. We encourage contributors to change the status of their data from ‘own’ to ‘free’ (12) as they have successfully contributed to publications. With consent of contributors this part of the database is being made publicly available without restriction. So far look-up tables for several qualitative traits (see Table 2) have been published on the website of the TRY initiative (http://www.try-db.org). Meta-data are also provided without restriction (13).
How far has it worked?
As of 31.03.2011 the TRY data repository contains 2.88 million trait entries for 69,000 plant species, accompanied by 3.0 million ancillary data entries15. About 2.8 million of the trait entries have been measured in natural environment, less then 100.000 in experimental conditions (e.g. glasshouse, climate or open top chambers).
Here’s the distribution of the 3458 geo-referenced sites where leaf nitrogen content per dry mass was measured. The grey areas are places where the various species on which the measurements were made can be found, according to GBIF. Not exactly global coverage just yet, but not bad. Interestingly, an analysis of the data available thus far showed that though most of the variation in most traits was at the species level, up to 40% was intraspecific.
Coincidentally (or maybe not?) there’s also a paper just out in New Phytologist which looks at the global distribution of a particular class of plant traits, those associated with resistance to herbivores. There’s no reference to TRY in the paper, but a couple of the same people are involved, and I think this is one of the datasets that have been contributed to the warehouse. 2
We worked at 75 study sites, distributed from 74.5°N to 51.5°S… Sites were selected to sample the dominant vegetation types at a wide range of latitudes… [T]he primary criterion [for site selection] was that the levels of herbivory, disturbance regime and plant community composition should be relatively natural (i.e. as close as possible to those with which the plant traits we are measuring are thought to have evolved). At each site, we sampled the four most abundant species…
The key finding was that despite the long-held belief that tropical plants are in general more resistant to herbivory than those from temperate climes, there is actually little evidence of this in the data. If anything, the trend is in the opposite direction. I wonder whether that will hold within species (or genepools) as well as across them.
Nibbles: Languages, Bats, Climate change, Bioinformatics, Wild Garlic
- Bioinformatics techniques applied to languages.
- Bats are agrobiodiversity too.
- “Biodiversity is under severe threat from climate change, but we need to be careful that we don’t give a false impression of what our confidence is.” Attribution to climate change easy at global level; at local, not so much.
- Problems with bioinformatics? BioStar is a site for asking, answering and discussing bioinformatics questions.
- A wild garlic festival in Wales this Saturday.
Nibbles: SEARICE, R&D, Sustainable intensification, Biofortification, Chillies, Safe movement, Mangoes, Weeds, Berries, Blueberries, Cerrado
- SEARICE explains its approach to seed sovereignty and farmer participation.
- Nature on IFPRI’s report on agricultural R&D in Africa. Not pretty.
- Resilience Science on the UN Special Rapporteur’s sustainable intensification thing.
- The Gates Foundation is on a nutritional roll; most of yesterday’s posts are available from this round-up.
- New Mexico gets all protectionist about its chillies.
- IITA explains how it provides healthy germplasm. Various different interesting stories in there, stick with it.
- Farmer conservation power in India.
- How to control invasive species. Eat more weeds.
- Presentation on Trends in global nutrition and health: Local fruits and their potential importance for nutrition and health as seen at Pavlovsk berry meeting.
- Speaking of berries…
- The cerrado (and its crop wild relatives) is in trouble. We talked about this, weren’t you paying attention?
New insights into barley domestication
We asked one of the co-authors, Ian Dawson, who’s an old friend, to briefly summarize for us a paper just out in New Phytologist on the domestication of barley. Here is his contribution. Thanks a lot, Ian, and keep ’em coming…
The power of new technologies to explore crop evolution is illustrated by a just released paper by Russell and co-workers 3 that explores barley domestication in the Fertile Crescent, a key region in the development of farming. From assessing a collection of more than 1,000 genetically mapped, genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in geographically-matched landrace and wild barley accessions from Jordan and Syria, genetic contact between the two categories was evident, suggesting hybridisation may be a mechanism for the continued adaptation of landraces in the region under climate change. In addition, statistically significant chromosome-level differences in diversity between barley types were observed around genes known to be involved in the evolution of cultivars, indicating regions of the genome that may be subject to selection and therefore of interest in future crop breeding. For example, a significant reduction in diversity in landrace barley –- which suggests a genetic bottleneck during domestication –- was observed around the brittle rachis genes, recessive characters which result in grains remaining longer on plants after maturation, allowing efficient harvest of cultivated compared to wild barley. Jordan and southern Syria, compared to the north of Syria, was supported by SNP data as a more likely origin of domesticated barley, suggesting limited locations for the original development of the cultivated crop. Such studies, which exploit novel and rapidly developing genotyping methods, provide great scope for also exploring the evolution of other crops of both historical and current importance, especially when combined with matched geographic sampling of wild and cultivated material.

