Wild cassava genetics used to document past changes in vegetation

ResearchBlogging.orgWas southern French Guiana always forested, a refugium for forest species, or was it dominated by more open vegetation during drier, glacial times? A recent paper in Molecular Ecology tries to decide between these competing hypothesis, and the interesting thing for us at the Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog is that it does so through a genetic study of a crop wild relative. ((DUPUTIÉ, A., DELÊTRE, M., DE GRANVILLE, J., & MCKEY, D. (2009). Population genetics of Manihot esculenta ssp. flabellifolia gives insight into past distribution of xeric vegetation in a postulated forest refugium area in northern Amazonia. Molecular Ecology, 18 (13), 2897-2907. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04231.x.))

Manihot esculenta ssp. flabellifolia is the closest wild relative of cassava. It is “distributed on an arc partly encircling the Amazon basin, from eastern Bolivia and Peru eastward to northeastern Brazil, northward to the Guianas and then westward to Venezuela.” Its habitat is the transition zone between forest and cerrado in the south, and open environments such as savannas and rocky outcrops in the north. In French Guiana, which was the focus of the study, it is found both in the coastal strip, and on isolated granitic outcrops (inselbergs) in the forested south, with a large gap in between.

Seven microsatellite loci were used to investigate the genetic relationships among 14 populations, 4 from inselbergs and the rest from the coast. The results are pretty easily summarized. First, the inselberg populations were very similar to each other. Second, they were quite different as a group from the coastal populations. Finally, the coastal populations were highly differentiated among themselves.

So, what do these results tell us about the past vegetation history of the region? One conclusion was that the coastal populations (which incidentally, in contrast to the inselberg populations, showed some evidence of introgression from the crop) are relatively recent, and arrived from savannas to the west through a series of bottlenecks, rather than from the south. As for the southern inselberg populations, given the limited range of pollen and seed flow, they seem to be the remnants of a formerly more extensive, fairly homogeneous population. ((Conservation question: Does that mean that seed of the 4 inselberg populations could be bulked and kept as a single accession? Answers on a postcard, please.)) That suggests that southern French Guiana was drier and had a more open vegetation before the Late Glacial Maximum 10,000 years ago. There was probably a forest refugium in the central part of the country, but not in the south.

Assuming, of course, that the adaptation of the species hasn’t changed much along the way. It remains to be seen whether the same pattern will be found in other taxa. Perhaps other species of agrobiodiversity interest will be investigated in the same way.

Anthropologists and geneticists see the origin of agriculture in different ways

Dorian Fuller has answered Paul Gepts’ comment on Dorian’s post at The Archaeobotanist on the multiple origin of agriculture, which I originally blogged about a few days ago. Let’s remind ourselves of the argument.

This was Dorian’s parting statement on the original post:

…agriculture, like modern human behaviour, was not a one time great invention, but the product of social and environmental circumstances to which human groups with the same cognitive potential responded in parallel ways.

Paul Gepts countered with this:

As a geneticist, I am somewhat surprised that the issue of parallel inventions of agriculture is still an issue… biochemical and molecular data also show distinct, and likely, independent domestication in different geographical areas, not among only among different crops, but also within a crop gene pool.

And now Dorian again:

My sense is that most of the genetics community has shifted towards seeing multiple areas of independent origin, but within archaeology there is still a penchant for reducing historical complexities to as few origins as possible — often focusing on where more archaeological research has taken place rather than considering other forms of evidence (biogeography, genetics) that should encourage us to take up research in the less-explored or unexplored areas.

Read the full exchange.

Nibbles: Urban bees, Borlaug, Cotton, Income, Mammals, Human disease, Caribou, Chestnut, IRRI

  • Nibbles: Drought resistant rice, Bees, Bison, Coffee in Kenya, Cassava in Africa, Pigeon pea, Chickens in Uganda, Green ranching in the Amazon, Climate change, Dates, Museums and DNA, Organic, Ecology meet

    “It was serendipity that we had the seeds lying around”

    Our title is evolutionary geneticist Arthur Weis to journalist Carl Zimmer on the topic of an experiment he and colleagues at UC Irvine carried out a few years ago where they compared those seeds — that had been “lying around” in the intervening few years in a cool, dry place — with seeds of the same species newly collected from the same sites. The result of the experiment was that…

    …[t]he newer plants grew to smaller sizes, produced fewer flowers, and, most dramatically, produced those flowers eight days earlier in the spring. The changing climate had, in other words, driven the field mustard plants to evolve over just a few years.

    The point of Zimmer’s article is that evolution can take place over short periods of time, and that because of climate change “life will undergo an evolutionary explosion.” ((We’ve blogged about this before.)) What Zimmer doesn’t say is that we have about 6.5 million similar samples of seeds in the world’s crop genebanks, and not by serendipity. Some date back decades. There would be a great research programme in comparing the genetic makeup of those samples with newer samples. Assuming that the populations are still there. And that there is enough documentation associated with the samples to find their original collecting sites.

    A final thought. The assumptions behind the ecological niche modeling work which has been proliferating of late to predict changes in distributions, for example of crop wild relatives, is that the species don’t move or evolve fast enough to keep pace with climate change. They may well in fact evolve, adapt and survive, and that would certainly be a good thing. But helping them do that through in situ protection should not be an argument for downplaying the complementary importance of ex situ conservation. After all, with the kind of selection pressures likely to be involved, populations are very likely to be significantly genetically narrower in the future. Whether the species adapts or not, we’ll still need to collect seeds and store them in genebanks if we are to have available for use as much as possible of the genetic diversity that is currently — just — still in the field.