Agricultural Biodiversity Weblog

August 7, 2015August 7, 2015

The impact pathways of international genebanks

This analysis does not attempt, in any manner, to undermine the significance of the exotic germplasm material received by India during the course of time, irrespective of the source. India is a recipient of a large amount of germplasm over the period of time from multiple donors including CG genebanks and other national genebanks.

That, you may possibly remember, is from a paper on the flow of genebank material out of India. Our commentary on that paper also brought into play a compilation of data by researchers at Bioversity which quantified the movement of germplasm from India and other countries not only outwards into the CGIAR genebanks, but also in the other direction. This turned out to be just as extensive. But, of course, national programmes like India’s do not just benefit from the CGIAR genebanks through the direct access they have to the material they conserve. They also benefit from the crop improvement programmes of CGIAR centres, which churn out breeding lines and varieties using the raw materials found in their genebanks, and make them freely available to national breeders.

We actually saw an example of that recently when India published a list of drought and flood resistant varieties of various crops that had just been released. Through the magic of Wheat Atlas, and some expert knowledge, for both of which we’re very grateful, we can actually work out the contribution of, say, CIMMYT, to the wheat varieties on that list. Here it is, at a first, rough approximation:

Along the same lines, a recent blog post from IRRI says that

Seventy percent of all varieties released in the Philippines were strongly linked with IRRI between 1985 and 2009.

I’m sure India, and the Philippines, would agree that those international genebanks, and the crop improvement programmes they feed, are well worth having. Maybe even worth paying for.

August 6, 2015August 6, 2015

Tourism and conservation

The Convention on Biological Diversity has just published its User’s Manual on the CBD Guidelines on Biodiversity and Tourism Development. It seems very thorough, as far as it goes — but does it go far enough? In particular, what about tourism offers based on agricultural biodiversity? This is what the guide says about how tourism could help achieve the Aichi Targets:

It has been shown that effective tourism planning and actions can contribute to achieving at least 12 of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets contained in the [Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020]. For some Targets (5, 8, 9, 10 and 12) this is primarily about greater control and management to reduce damage to biodiversity from tourism. For others (1, 11, 15, 18, and 20) this is about pursuing the positive contribution of tourism to biodiversity awareness, protected areas, habitat restoration, community engagement, and resource mobilization. A further dimension is the better integration of biodiversity and sustainability into development policies and business models that include tourism, thereby supporting Aichi Targets 2 and 4.

But what about Target 13? Remember that?

By 2020, the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and of wild relatives, including other socio-economically as well as culturally valuable species, is maintained, and strategies have been developed and implemented for minimizing genetic erosion and safeguarding their genetic diversity.

Surely agritourism is potentially just as valuable a tool for conserving biodiversity as trekking in protected areas. Shouldn’t the user’s manual, and indeed the guidelines, address the needs of this sector, or at least recognize that it exists? It seems that the CBD has trouble thinking of agricultural landscapes as harbouring biodiversity worthy of being conserved — and visited.

August 5, 2015August 6, 2015

Frozen fruits

A recent Nibble describing work in South Dakota to extend ever northward the range of the grape, including using wild relatives to breed new cold-tolerant varieties, brought back childhood memories for one of our readers:

Hansen was a proponent of stretching agriculture for the harsh northern environments. My grandparents lived in northern South Dakota and hence Hansen was one of the horticultural heroes from my childhood.

Hansen is — or was — Dr Niels Hansen, “South Dakota’s Great Plant Pioneer.” He sounds a fascinating character:

Already in his senior year as an undergraduate in 1887, N.E. Hansen was writing to his father, “There is both money and honor to be gained by someone who succeeds in bringing out fruits, better than old ones.” The money seemed to elude Hansen, though – he never got wealthy from his work as a plant breeder. But he did win honor, and he cultivated it carefully.

As chance would have it, there was another article on a northern fruit yesterday, this time the blueberry. That also has a long history of breeding in the Great Plains, though it all really started in New Jersey, of all places, as the article describes. Perhaps not surprisingly, though, the blueberry has expanded more southwards than northwards recently.

No word on whether macadamia is next for the cold treatment.

August 5, 2015August 6, 2015

Phenological diversity for nutrition

A recent blog post by the World Agroforestry Centre described their idea of a phenologically varied “fruit tree portfolio” to provide nutrition throughout the year. In Machakos, Kenya, where the portfolio is being tested out, these would be the species involved, a mixture of the local and the exotic:

A nice idea, and it reminded me that you can also do something similar by exploiting within-species diversity in seasonality. The example I know best comes from Diane Ragone’s work on breadfruit. This is from a presentation she gave recently at USAID.

Planting multiple varieties carefully chosen from each of these different groups means you can count on having some fruit throughout the year, most years. Great to have diversity at multiple levels to play around with.

August 5, 2015August 5, 2015

Agrobiodiversity illustrated then and now

There really is nothing like photos of agricultural biodiversity to set the pulse racing. Well, at least in our weird little corner of cyberspace. It’s been crazy over on Twitter and Facebook, what with frenzied sharing of, and commenting on, a couple of stories about, of all things, watermelons. Well, it is summer, I guess: they don’t call it the silly season for nothing.

To recap for those who do not follow us on other media, ¹ people seem to have really been impressed by the photos which accompanied a story on the sequencing of the watermelon genome. Although it dates back to three years ago, for some reason it resurfaced again last week.

Flesh diversity from undomesticated to domesticated watermelon. These watermelon plants were grown at Syngenta Woodland station in CA.

It may well have been resurrected because of a Vox.com story on how James Nienhuis, a horticulture professor at the University of Wisconsin, is using Renaissance paintings of watermelons and other produce to illustrate the changes that have been wrought by modern plant breeding. The story was later taken up by others, and bounced around a lot. And all long before National Watermelon Day. And also before the AoB post on watermelon origins.

Well, let me add to the hysteria. Courtesy of my friend Dr Yawooz Adham, here’s another fantastic agrobiodiversity photo, of tomatoes this time.

11806841_837035336415287_1712742186_o

The farmer’s name is Shiek Jamally Karbanchi ² and he lives in a village near the town of Chamchamal, between Kirkuk and Sulaymaniyah in Iraqi Kurdistan. He tends 22 different tomato varieties, and is clearly incredibly proud of them. Though I’m pretty sure he doesn’t charge Euros 20 each for them. I don’t know if they’re all commercial varieties or whether there’s a few local heirlooms in there, but either way it’s damn impressive.