Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog
Agrobiodiversity is crops, livestock, foodways, microbes, pollinators, wild relatives …
Ah, but only confusingly, and to downplay their current usefulness:
Wild relatives of crops could be better suited to harsher climes, but efforts to collect and breed such crops are just beginning.
The rest of the article tells you why Africa needs GMOs.
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.
An epidemic of Fusarium head blight swept through the United states between 1998 and 2000, costing the wheat industry an estimated US$ 2.7 billion. That’s right: billion.
Salvation came from Chinese and Japanese landraces, especially a Chinese wheat called Sumai 3. To prepare for the inevitable mutation of the fungus, scientists at the USDA have broadened their search for resistance. They examined 87 Asian varieties of wheat, many of them old landraces, and found good levels of resistance in 26 of them. Better yet, some of the resistance genes seem to be different from the ones derived from Sumai 3, which means that they might offer protection against different varieties of the fungus.
Just knowing that various resistance genes exist, and having markers to select more resistant crosses from breeding efforts means that future outbreaks can probably be more effectively dealt with, which is reassuring. More to the point, for our purposes, this research raises again the question: how can anyone doubt the value of genebanks? Just one disease cost just one country US$2.7 billion over three years. Genebank accessions contain the solutions. Do you really need to know the cost of every accession to decide whether genebanks are worthwhile?
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.