Home Gardens & In Situ Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources in Farming Systems; Gardening Guidebook

Proceedings of the Second International Home Gardens
Workshop, 17–19 July 2001, Witzenhausen, Federal Republic of Germany
J.W. Watson and P.B. Eyzaguirre, editors
Home gardens and
in situ conservation of
plant genetic resources
in farming systems
<www.futureharvest.org>
IPGRI is
a Future Harvest Centre
supported by the
Consultative Group on
International Agricultural
Research (CGIAR)
Deutsche
Gesellschaft für
Technische
Zusammenarbeit
(GTZ) GmbH

Proceedings of the Second International Home Gardens
Workshop, 17–19 July 2001, Witzenhausen, Federal Republic of Germany
J.W. Watson and P.B. Eyzaguirre, editors
Home gardens and
in situ conservation of
plant genetic resources
in farming systems

The International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) is an autonomous international scientific organization,
supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). IPGRI’s mandate is to
advance the conservation and use of genetic diversity for the well-being of present and future generations. IPGRI’s
headquarters is based in Maccarese, near Rome, Italy, with offices in another 19 countries worldwide. The Institute
operates through three programmes: (1) the Plant Genetic Resources Programme, (2) the CGIAR Genetic Resources
Support Programme and (3) the International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain (INIBAP).
The international status of IPGRI is conferred under an Establishment Agreement which, by January 2001, had
been signed and ratified by the Governments of Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso,
Cameroon, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt,
Greece, Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco,
Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Slovakia, Sudan, Switzerland, Syria,
Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda and Ukraine.
In 2000 financial support for the Research Agenda of IPGRI was provided by the Governments of Armenia,
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
F.R. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel,
Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia (F.Y.R.), Malta, Mexico, the Netherlands,
Norway, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, the UK and the USA and by the African Development Bank (AfDB), Asian
Development Bank (ADB), Center for Development Research (ZEF), Center for Forestry Research (CIFOR), Centre
de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD), Centro Agronómico
Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza, Costa Rica (CATIE), Common Fund for Commodities (CFC), Technical Centre
for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA), European Environmental Agency, European Union, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Food and Fertilizer Technology Center for the Asia and
Pacific Region (FFTC), Future Harvest, Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR), Instituto Colombiano para
el Desarollo de la Cienca y la Technología (COLCIENCIAS), Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission
(CICAD), International Association for the Promotion of Cooperation with Scientists from the New Independent
States of the former Soviet Union (INTAS), International Development Research Centre (IDRC), International
Foundation for Science (IFS), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), International Service for
National Agricultural Research (ISNAR), Japan International Research Centre for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS),
National Geographic Society, Natural Resources Institute (NRI), Programme on Participatory Research and Gender
Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation (PGRA), Regional Fund for Agricultural
Technology (FONTAGRO), Rockefeller Foundation, Taiwan Banana Research Institute (TBRI), Technova, United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP), UNDP Global Environment Facility (UNDP-GEF), United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), UNEP Global Environment Facility (UNEP-GEF), United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA), Vlaamse Vereiniging voor Ontwikkelingssasamenwerking en Technische Bijstand (VVOB) and
the World Bank.
The geographical designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IPGRI or the CGIAR concerning the legal status of any country,
territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Similarly, the
views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations.
Mention of a proprietary name does not constitute endorsement of the product and is given only for information.
Citation:
Watson, J.W. and P.B. Eyzaguirre, editors. 2002. Proceedings of the Second International Home Gardens Workshop:
Contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources in farming systems, 17–19 July
2001, Witzenhausen, Federal Republic of Germany. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome.
ISBN 92-9043-517-8
IPGRI
Via dei Tre Denari 472/a
00057 Maccarese (Fiumicino)
Rome, Italy
© International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, 2002
ii HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

Contents
Acknowledgements v
Foreword vi
Introduction
Opening remarks 1
G. Fischbeck
Home gardens—a genetic resources perspective 3
J. Engels
Home gardens agrobiodiversity: an overview across regions 10
P.B. Eyzaguirre and J. Watson
Technical contributions
Home gardens and the maintenance of genetic diversity 14
T. Hodgkin
Documentation of plant genetic resources in home gardens 19
H. Knüpffer
Contributions of home gardens to our knowledge on cultivated plant species:
the Mansfeld approach 27
K. Hammer
Characterizing genetic diversity of home garden crop species: 34
some examples from the Americas
M. Hoogendijk and D. Williams
Contributions of home gardens agrobiodiversity to development, nutrition and livelihoods 41
P.B. Eyzaguirre and M. Fernandez
Project reports
Contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources 42
in farming systems—Cuban component
L. Castiñeiras, Z. Fundora Mayor, T. Shagarodsky, V. Moreno, O. Barrios,
L. Fernández and R. Cristóbal
Contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation 56
in traditional farming systems—Guatemalan component
J. M. Leiva, C. Azurdia, W. Ovando, E. López and H. Ayala
Home gardens and in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity—Venezuelan component 73
C. Quiroz, M. Gutiérrez, , D. Rodríguez, D. Pérez, J. Ynfante, J. Gámez, T. Pérez de Fernandez,
A. Marques and W. Pacheco
Contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic resources 83
in farming systems in Ghana
S.O. Bennett-Lartey, G.S. Ayernor, C.M. Markwei, I.K. Asante, D.K. Abbiw, S.K. Boateng,
V. M. Anchirinah and P. Ekpe
Role of home gardens in the conservation of plant genetic resources in Vietnam 97
L.N. Trinh, N.T.N. Hue, N.N. De, N. V. Minh and P.T. Chu
CONTENTS iii

Case studies
Home gardens in Nepal: status and scope for research and development 105
P. Shrestha, R. Gautam, R.B. Rana and B. Sthapit
Home gardens in Ethiopia: some observations and generalizations 125
Z. Asfaw
Home gardens in the Upper Citarum Watershed, West Java: a challenge for in situ 140
conservation of plant genetic resources
O.S. Abdoellah, Parikesit, B. Gunawan and H.Y. Hadikusumah
Working group reports
Plant genetic resources conservation in home gardens: ecosystems and key species 148
Group A
In situ conservation strategies for home gardens as components 151
of complementary conservation and use strategies for plant genetic resources
Group B
Documentation and measurement of genetic diversity in home gardens 155
Group C
Mainstreaming contributions from the project: follow-up actions and
priorities for future work on managing home gardens’ agrobiodiversity for development
Group A 156
Group B 158
Group C 161
Poster presentations
Temperate home gardens of small alpine farmers in Eastern Tyrol (Austria): 163
their value for maintaining and enhancing biodiversity
B. Vogl-Lukasser and C R. Vogl
Mansfeld’s Encyclopedia and Database on Agricultural and Horticultural Crops 165
J. Ochsmann, H. Knüpffer, N. Biermann and K. Bachmann
The home garden database and information system—technical aspects 168
V. Afanasyev, J. Ochsmann and H. Knüpffer
Home gardens in Kerala as an efficient agroecosystem for conservation 169
and sustainable management of biodiversity
K. Pushkaran
Ethnobotany of genetic resources in Germany—diversity in city gardens 171
of immigrants
Th. Gladis
Summary and recommendations
Conclusions 175
P.B. Eyzaguirre
Appendix I. Workshop Agenda 176
Appendix II. List of Participants 179
iv HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
Acknowledgements
The Home Gardens Workshop documented in these Proceedings was made possible by the
conceptual guidance, financial and logistical support of the German Foundation for International
Development (DSE). In particular, Eckard Hehne, Wolfgang Zimmermann, Theda Kirchner, and
Waltraude Michaelis should be singled out for their contributions in assuring the high quality and
partnership that was achieved at this event. DSE was first involved in identifying home garden
agrobiodiversity as an important issue for in situ conservation at an earlier workshop in Bonn in 1995
and we are grateful for their long-term support. In addition, the contributions of the University of
Kassel, Witzenhausen and of the International Centre for Advanced Training at Witzenhausen
(IBZW) to the organization of the Workshop are duly acknowledged. We are grateful that our research
partners and scientists from several institutions in Germany and around the world were able to
participate; their contributions greatly enriched the discussion. We also thank the team that produced
this volume, in particular Annie Huie for compiling the manuscript. The funding for the research
phase of the Home Gardens Project was provided by the Federal Ministry for Economic Co-Operation
and Development (BMZ) through the Deutche Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)
and implemented by the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI).

vi HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR
Foreword
The roots of this Home Gardens Workshop go back to at an earlier meeting organized by the
German Foundation for International Development (DSE) and its Food and Agriculture Development
Centre (ZEL) in Bonn, Germany in 1995 to identify priority issues for conservation and use of plant
genetic resources in developing countries. IPGRI and various German partners considered a range of
problems that developing countries face in managing and conserving plant genetic resources. The
meeting also suggested priorities and strategies to increase the contribution of agrobiodiversity and
genetic resources to food security and economic development of the rural poor and established a joint
priority research agenda. Home gardens, a globally distributed system managed by rural households
to maintain and utilise plant diversity, were highlighted as an important system for in situ
conservation strategies. Focusing on home gardens was also an opportunity to show how
agrobiodiversity contributes to better livelihoods for the rural poor and increases productivity in
ecosystems.
In 1998, the priorities established at the aforementioned DSE in situ workshop were put into
practice in partnership with genetic resources scientists and institutions in developing countries with
the support of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ)
through GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit). A three-year IPGRI research
project on agrobiodiversity in home gardens has been implemented in partnership with national
plant genetic resources programmes in five countries: Ghana, Vietnam, Guatemala, Cuba and
Venezuela. The Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK-Gatersleben) has served as
the partner German institution working in the areas of genetic resources documentation and
characterization.
The results of the Home Garden Project presented in these Workshop Proceedings contribute
to national and global strategies for including home gardens as a distinct and important component
of in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity. The national and comparative studies have also begun to
establish a clear link between home garden diversity and household livelihoods and food security.
IPGRI will continue to build the global research partnerships that provide national programmes and
local organizations with the tools to include genetic resources management at the household and
ecosystem levels in national biodiversity conservation and development strategies and policies. We
thank the many institutions, communities, and individuals that have contributed to the research on
home gardens genetic resources and Germany for its financial support of the Workshop and the
research activities.
Geoffrey Hawtin, PhD
Director General, IPGRI

INTRODUCTION 1
Introduction
Opening remarks
Gerhard Fischbeck
Emeritus Professor of Plant Breeding, University of Munich-Weihenstephan
The purpose of this international workshop is to address the topic ‘Contribution of Home Gardens to
the In Situ Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources in Farming Systems’. As a former university
professor of Agronomy and Plant Breeding and one of the early Board members of IBPGR (now
IPGRI), I have been interested and engaged in plant genetic resources work for quite some time.
Many of the readers will know about, or may even have participated in, the ‘Fourth International
FAO Conference on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture’ that was held in Leipzig in
1996. At this occasion, the status of plant genetic resources was reviewed on a worldwide basis and
significant gaps, inherent risks, and tremendous costs became clearly apparent, confounding a
conservation strategy mainly focused on ex situ gene bank conservation of plant genetic resources. It
was not difficult to conclude that opportunities for in situ conservation of plant genetic resources
deserved much more interest than they had received before; even more so, since the erosion of genetic
diversity in cultivated plants did not proceed with the speed and intensity that had been feared
during the early phases of the Green Revolution. Apparently, there are structures and/or conditions
in developing countries that support the maintenance of diversity within traditional crop species
depending on the needs and preferences of rural communities. Inevitably, such forms of in situ
conservation contain dynamic possibilities for genetic change. Such elements may result in adaptive
changes in gene frequencies without much danger of loss of genetic diversity; these may even contain
positive aspects from a breeders view. In contrast, depending on the size and structure of the
population as well as differences in the mating and propagation system for a species, it is also possible
that genetic drift will occur, which can result in sizable losses in genetic diversity from the original
gene pool.
IPGRI and GTZ were among the first research and donor organizations to initiate a pilot project to
study the role of home gardens in genetic diversity conservation, and I am very glad to serve as
chairman to this Second International Home Gardens Workshop, convened to derive conclusions
from the preceding three-year research project. Besides delegations from the five countries
participating directly in the project, the attendance of colleagues from at least 10 more countries
demonstrates the increasing worldwide interest in assessing home garden diversity. Experts from
IPGRI, IPK Gatersleben and the University of Kassel are also attending, among which I want to
mention personally Prof. Hammer, who pioneered the scientific interest in home gardens. The
combination of country research partners, home garden experts from around the world, and
representatives from international research and development institutions will hopefully provide
opportunities for broad-based discussions.
This workshop intends to concentrate more on technical than on scientific questions. Within a
frame of more general lectures related to principles of in situ conservation and home garden
characteristics, the first objective of this workshop is to provide a summary of the Home Gardens
Project results obtained by the five participating countries during their three-year research phase.
These results form the experimental basis upon which any of the other objectives of the workshop
need to be based.
The second objective still concentrates on the individual country results but, in addition, calls for the
country teams to elucidate from their results in situ conservation issues and to present ideas for
management systems that suit conservation purposes.
Results and ideas from country reports together with principles demonstrated in the framework
lectures will form the basis for the third objective: to provide guidelines for extended efforts in the

2 HOME GARDENS AND IN SITU CONSERVATION OF PGR
utilization of home garden potential for in situ conservation. This objective will be achieved with
inputs from all participants and aims at formulating project follow-up actions and more general
recommendations that include relevant ties with the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD).
To this end, several working groups have been formed to discuss major issues and conclusions, as
well as to formulate proposals for follow-up actions that will hopefully emanate from this workshop.
In this way, the publication of the proceedings of this workshop may form a milestone in expanding
the interest in home gardens and increasing their utilization for in situ conservation.

Home gardens—a genetic resources perspective
Jan Engels
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy
Introduction
The importance of home gardens in the production of food, medicine and other useful products for
human beings is widely recognized; consequently, regular attempts to improve the productivity of
this widespread agro-ecosystem have usually been initiated with specific objectives in mind. The
importance of the contribution of home gardens to the improvement of the nutritional status of rural
and urban families and the increase of vegetable production in the tropics are two examples of
previous home garden research. The realization that this ‘farming’ system is also an important
reservoir of unique genetic diversity has more recently led to initiatives to study this system more
carefully in order to obtain a better understanding of the role of home gardens in the management
and conservation of genetic diversity in situ.
This overview paper is intended to assess how different aspects related to genetic diversity
management may contribute to or have an influence on the in situ conservation of agro-biodiversity
in home gardens from a genetic resources perspective. However, before starting this assessment it
would be advantageous to provide some information on the general ‘philosophical’ context in which
this home garden research is being implemented at IPGRI.
IPGRI’s mandate is “To advance the conservation and use of genetic diversity for the well-being of present
and future generations” which places IPGRI’s programmatic work clearly in the development context.
This aspect is further underlined in its mission statement: “To encourage, support and undertake activities
to improve the management of genetic resources worldwide so as to help eradicate poverty, increase food security
and protect the environment. IPGRI focuses on the conservation and use of genetic resources important to
developing countries and has an explicit commitment to specific crops” (IPGRI 1999).
Conservation efforts can only be based on a sustainable footing if and when the targeted genetic
diversity is utilized. Therefore, it can be concluded that it is not only important to understand the
genetic diversity as such, but also its role in agro-ecosystems as well as the role and function of human
beings in the management of genetic diversity. Only a holistic research approach, actively involving
all the relevant ‘stakeholders’ in a participatory manner and examining all components of the
agroecosystem that influence diversity management will lead to meaningful results.
Closely related to the agroecosystem approach, it will be important to place the conservation in a
wider context in order to achieve a sustainable conservation effort; all possible options and methods
available should be considered to conserve the genetic diversity within the home garden agro-
ecosystem. Good links with national conservation programmes will be as important as a close
collaboration with other supporting research activities in the country or region, incorporating
disciplines such as plant taxonomy, plant breeding, nutrition, socio-economic and policy aspects.
Through a better understanding of the role of farmers and their families as the producers of garden
products, it will be possible to improve the management of genetic diversity in home gardens,
resulting in a better and more sustainable production combined with the maintenance of a high level
of genetic diversity. Targeted and well-planned ‘interventions’ from the outside, i.e. the introduction
of new crops, improved varieties and/or of specific characteristics that are missing in a given home
garden system can further strengthen the importance of this production system and allow a natural
link between conservation and development.
In the following, the different approaches to conservation will be examined followed by a brief
treatment of ways and means to encourage an increase of genetic diversity within home gardens.
Than we will have a closer look at the important aspects of home gardens from a plant genetic
resources perspective and, finally draw a few conclusions.
INTRODUCTION 3

Approaches to conservation
Agroecosystem approach
Home gardens can be regarded as microenvironments within the agroecosystem that preserve the
function and resilience of the larger ecosystem. It is important to think of these microenvironments in
the aggregate when determining optimum conservation units for a conservation strategy, for instance
when selecting gardens, deciding on the number to be included in a conservation strategy,
determining population sizes of plant species, etc.
Home gardens as an ecosystem contain multiple levels of diversity, including cultural, genetic and
agronomic diversity. They are valued for different reasons, for instance: one can distinguish an
intrinsic value related to its aesthetic value, religious value, etc.; an ecosystem value as mentioned
before; and a value in its contribution to livelihoods. Closely related to these different types of value
is the fact that genetic diversity managed by people has a close and direct linkage with the cultural
diversity. Therefore, while purposefully conserving one aspect of diversity, it is impossible to avoid
considering the others. One important element of this genetic diversity–cultural complex is the
indigenous knowledge that is entirely interwoven with these two components. It is an integral and
essential part of the genetic diversity, and consequently, the diversity can only be used as a genetic
resource if both the biological and the information/knowledge components are available.
From a genetic and agronomic diversity point of view, it is often the strong influence of human
beings managing the gardens that leads to increased diversity. As will be discussed below, home
gardens are important centers of experimentation, plant introduction, and crop improvement as well
as refuges for unique genetic diversity. The latter diversity exists at the “ecosystem” level (i.e. the
wider ecological environment within a geographic region in which individual gardens exist), the
species level and within species levels. It is especially the genetic diversity in the two last levels that
is of interest for conservation efforts.
Holistic conservation approach
In broad terms, one can divide genetic conservation into two approaches. One approach deals with
genetic diversity occurring in its natural environment, e.g. the plant, animal and microbial diversity
in natural habitats and the crop, animal and wild relatives in farmers’ fields and their surroundings.
This form of conservation is called in situ. The other approach, the most common method for plant
genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA), is to collect the genetic diversity from its natural
surrounding or from research programmes and store the seed, vegetative parts or even the entire
plant in a man-made infrastructure, i.e. a genebank. This way of conserving genetic diversity is called
ex situ conservation.
In view of the fact that each of these broad conservation approaches mentioned above can be
subdivided into more specific methods, largely developed to deal with the specific biological
requirements of the material to be conserved, it will be important to carefully consider these
requirements in order to choose the most suitable ones. Besides the fact that each of these methods is
suitable for specific types of biological material, they possess also other strengths and weaknesses that
one needs to consider when conserving genetic resources. These considerations may include the
duration of the conservation exercise, the access to the conserved material, administrative and
political issues, questions of ownership and sovereignty, among other questions. Therefore, when
searching for the best method, it will be relatively easy to see how two or more methods should be
used in combination in order to fit these variables and, thus, to provide for the most effective and
efficient conservation strategy. The right combination of conservation methods can significantly
increase the total genetic diversity conserved, its security, accessibility, and cost-efficiency. In selecting
the appropriate conservation methods it is important to take a holistic view of the overall objectives
of the conservation effort and to place it in a wider context, whenever possible, as part of a
development process.

While the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) emphasizes the in situ approach to
conservation, it views both in situ and ex situ conservation as complementary. In the case of both plant
and animal genetic resources for food and agriculture, ex situ conservation has been the customary
practice to date. Germplasm collections are maintained in genebanks and are, thus, readily accessible
for use in plant and animal improvement programmes. This perspective has now broadened to take
account of the role of in situ conservation, which allows the process of crop evolution and adaptation
to continue.
In situ and ex situ methods are thus increasingly viewed as mutually supportive options available
for conserving different elements of a given genepool to include traditional and modern crop varieties
as well as animal breeds, wild relatives and genetic stocks. Selection of the appropriate method
should be based on a range of criteria, including: the biological nature of the species in question; the
practicality and feasibility of the particular method chosen (which depends on the availability of the
necessary infrastructure and the necessary human and financial resources); and the efficiency, cost-
effectiveness and security afforded by its application. In many instances, the development of
appropriate complementary conservation strategies requires further research to define the criteria,
refine the method and test its application for a range of genepools and situations. An important aspect
to consider in linking in situ and ex situ components in the conservation strategy is the dynamic nature
of the former and the static, but potentially more secure approach, of the latter.
In the case of crop plants, selection of the appropriate ex situ method (seed, pollen, in vitro, field,
DNA conservation) will depend largely on the biological nature of the germplasm material. Wherever
possible, preference is given to the storage of orthodox seeds under low temperature and seed
moisture content regimes as this method is best researched, easy to apply and relatively cheap. If the
species in question does not produce orthodox seeds or is propagated vegetatively, the material can
be maintained either in field genebanks or as tissue in reagents tubes, i.e. in vitro. Alternatively, pollen
can also be considered for storage. Such ex situ efforts can be complemented by approaches such as
on-farm management of the valuable genetic diversity inherent in traditional crop varieties and
landraces and in situ conservation of their wild relatives in protected areas. Engels and Wood (1999)
provide more details of the individual methods, including the pros and cons.
Thus, with growing recognition that sustainable and adequate conservation of the world’s genetic
resources cannot be achieved through any single approach or method, complementary strategies are
increasingly being adopted by conservation programmes around the world. Moreover, in recognition
that lasting conservation efforts of any kind can only be achieved through the active participation of
all stakeholders, both national and international conservation efforts are increasingly being integrated
into broader development objectives and processes. Details of organizational and institutional aspects
of conservation activities at the national and international level can be found in Spillane et al. (1999).
Linking conservation with development
In complementary conservation, it is important to give due consideration to the utilization of the
germplasm conserved, either by the household using the resource as the foundation for food
production, or by the plant breeder in improvement efforts. It will be important that home garden
material is made available for research as a basis for the improvement process. Therefore, establishing
links between local communities that depend on home gardens and the formal research and
conservation system is an essential pre-condition for increasing the benefits of managing diversity
within home gardens.
Another related aspect is the establishment of linkages with extension services, as part of a wider
collaboration between home garden farmers on the one side and the research and conservation
systems on the other. Such a link will be essential to the research community, providing the means to
inform them of the needs and problems that occur at the grassroots level; it would also be essential to
the home gardeners themselves because they might benefit more directly from new developments in
the agricultural sector that are being disseminated by the extension service.
INTRODUCTION 5

Another dimension of linking the home garden community with the outer world is the
involvement of the public and private sectors as well as civil society in the conservation and
development projects. This will ensure that the aforementioned needs of home garden owners can be
voiced, and that influence can be asserted where and when it is necessary on their behalf.
Encouraging/facilitating the increase of genetic diversity
To maintain genetic diversity at the species and within species level, it is important to continue the
process of evolution through farmer selection within crop diversity to obtain suitable types under the
prevailing conditions, ensuring the crop’s ability to adapt to changing conditions or requirements. It
is also widely accepted that genetic diversity within a farming system provides more crop stability in
terms of yield security and encourages more sustainable production methods, because the
dependency on outside-farm inputs is much lower. Therefore, especially in marginal environments
where the predictability of growing conditions is low, the use of more genetic diversity tends to be
beneficial to the people. It is assumed that this very situation is also applicable to home garden
production.
However, in order to ensure the long-term and broad-based suitability of the genetic diversity
management and conservation practices in home gardens, it will be indispensable to create awareness
of the role and importance of genetic diversity in production systems as well as in crop evolution at
large. In particular, the relationship between crop evolution and the role of the individual is important
to understand.
In order to further strengthen the genetic base of the crops grown and bred within the gardens, it
is important to facilitate access to species and varietal diversity in communities, introducing specific
characteristics in particular crops according to the local needs. A close link with the national genetic
resources programme will be beneficial.
Organizing diversity fairs and demonstration plots are two of many more approaches that will
facilitate the creation of awareness and the exchange of genetic diversity and management/use
practices among the owners of individual gardens. A related activity is the creation of opportunities
to market the produce of the gardens in order to generate additional income for gardening
households.
Important aspects of home gardens
from a plant genetic resource perspective
Plant domestication
Plant domestication most likely began around the dwellings of human settlements. The immediate
area around the homestead offers increased availability of water, better soil fertility due to organic
waste inputs, and easier protection of the crop against animals (Harlan, 1975). Facilitated by the close
interaction between humans and plants within a home garden setting, many new crops have been
developed in home gardens. This process continues, especially in parts of the world where there is
still ample plant diversity available and where a ‘natural’ link between gardens and nature exist.
Very diverse selection pressures, such as significant differences in micro-environments and a
continuous flow of germplasm between gardens, affect the evolution of crop species, especially of
vegetables and other minor crops. Human selection of plant diversity within the genepool is one of
the driving forces of crop evolution, a process that is being fueled by the availability and creation of
genetic variability.
As the process of plant domestication and crop evolution is ongoing it can be expected that
continuously new germplasm will develop. Consequently, home gardens contain unique and rare
genetic diversity that has evolved or be developed locally and that is of interest not only to the
developers but also to the conservationists within a given country as well as internationally.

Plant introduction and distribution centre
Home gardens can collectively be regarded as informal ‘plant introduction and distribution’
centers, and the permanent contacts between gardens—facilitated through the strong links between
gardens, families, and local markets—as well as the great diversity in individual gardens lead to
continuous germplasm and information exchange among them. These activities are of critical
importance for plant domestication and crop evolution and also give rise to a dynamic situation in
which new and unique genetic diversity can evolve.
Wherever the home garden is linked to a farm it has been regularly observed that the home
garden plays the role of a nursery where seedlings and plantlets are produced for transplanting,
diseased plants are nurtured, and vegetatively propagated material is multiplied.
Experimentation centre
Closely linked to some of the aforementioned points the garden is also a place for experimentation and
even fundamental research. The ground breaking genetic research of the monk Gregor Mendel during
the 19th century in the Tjech Republic was done in the home garden of the monastery and resulted in
the formulation of the genetic laws that, among other advances, greatly facilitated plant breeding!
Experimentation with growing new species and varieties is a well-known aspect of home gardens
and is in fact an important contribution to crop improvement and evolution. Human curiosity is an
important factor that stimulates experimentation and encourages rare plants to be introduced,
grown and used. Information sharing on plant production increases the efficiency of
experimentation and builds on experiences of others.
Important production centre
Home gardens are the logical production system for crop plants that are eaten fresh, used on a daily
basis, consumed only in small quantities, or that need specific attention such as vegetables, spices
and herbs, medicinal plants. Species such as minor fruits, root and tubers, ornamentals and others
also fall into this category. The types of crops grown and the closeness of the garden to the house and
kitchen assure that home gardens contribute significantly to food security, especially because they
are an important source of micro-nutrients and vitamins, and therefore play a critical role in the
nutritional balance of the human diet.
From a plant genetic resources perspective, it is obvious that that the home garden is an important
location for the cultivation of so-called neglected and underutilized species (neglected from a
research perspective and underutilized from a broader economic perspective). Such species have so
far not received much attention from conservationists, botanists and agronomists, and they are
significantly under-represented in genebanks. Therefore, integrating home gardens into a national
conservation strategy would most likely lead to increased research, better conservation and to a
strengthened basis for the improvement of these species.
Refuge for genetic diversity
As already mentioned, home gardens are a ‘window’ for introduction of, and experimentation with,
genetic diversity. Consequently, they harbour significant amounts of genetic diversity, partly unique
and sometimes rare. This diversity exists both at the species and within species (or varietal) level and
tends to be greater in tropical gardens. In order to provide a possibility for comparison, the author
counted the species and varietal diversity in the home garden of a friend in the central part of
Germany (i.e. Heidelberg). A total of 12 crop/species groups and 105 species and varieties were
counted in an area of approximately 750 square meters. From my own observations in Central
America, East Asia and southern Ethiopia it can be concluded that the genetic diversity at the variety
level within a garden is relatively limited but between gardens within a local community this
diversity is high or very high. In contrast, the diversity at the species level in temperate gardens is
relatively high within a garden and more limited between gardens within a given community.
INTRODUCTION 7

Therefore, when planning a conservation strategy it is important to duly consider these aspects.
Sometimes the site of the house itself is selected based on the presence of particular wild tropical
fruit trees, so the home garden then becomes a refuge for them. It was observed in Central America
that in several instances the location of the house was determined by the presence of one or more
wanted fruit trees in the forest not only for its fruits but also for shade. Therefore, in areas with
relatively recent human settlement, matured fruit trees of indigenous species frequently represent
the original genotypes of a naturally distributed and usually non-domesticated species.
Home gardens and cultural heritage
As previously mentioned, there exists a close relationship between a home garden and the culture of
the surrounding community, and in fact the two are completely interwoven. One very striking aspect,
related to the traditions of a family as part of a larger community, is the key role of women in
managing the garden and utilizing its produce, either in her own kitchen or by selling it in the market.
Strong links can be observed between culinary and botanic diversity, and a good understanding
of both aspects is important to proper conservation management. The inclusion of women in the
conservation strategy is obvious and needs to be given due attention during the preparatory and
implementation phases.
Another dimension of the close relationship between house, garden and family is the role the
home garden plays in terms of security. The garden is frequently part of the protected area around
the homestead, which often includes a fence in order to keep children and livestock in and others
out, thus also protecting genetic diversity.
Linking home gardens to research or extension
The absence of formal or informal links between the home gardens on the one side and the national
research and extension service on the other does not allow this important production system to
benefit from the outcome of research or from the services of the extension system. Furthermore, the
problems encountered within home gardens are neither addressed by public- or private-sector-
funded research nor is the production of food in any way reflected in the national statistics. This
situation leads to a continued neglect of the home gardens, excluding them from national or regional
conservation efforts, and requiring due attention and improvement.
Another consequence of this situation is that, without information on home gardens and links to
the national system, they can’t be a factor in the development or implementation of new legislation
or policy, a situation that could easily result in laws and policies that are not beneficial for the home
garden system. One example of a possible negative consequence is the introduction of plant variety
protection law in many developing countries that typically results in national seed laws that are
rather restrictive to the flow of seed and planting material. For instance, in Europe it is not
permissible to exchange bigger quantities of seed or planting material when the material is not
registered as a protected variety. The latter can only be done when the material is sufficiently
uniform, stable and distinct as well as having a proven use value. These requirements can hardly be
achieved for the small numbers of plants that are grown in gardens and that will not be
commercialized. Therefore, such a policy could have a negative impact on the flow of germplasm
and, thus, possibly undermine the home garden system.
Linkages with the marketplace
The market place plays an important social and economic role in many rural areas of the world.
Within the context of home gardens and from a genetic diversity perspective, the marketplace is
crucial in facilitating the exchange of germplasm among the members of a community as well as
between communities. We have already seen how important such exchange is for crop evolution and
improvement as well as for the continued and sustainable production of food in the home gardens,
even if the exchange of genetic diversity may be restricted to the local market. The market can also

be an important entrance point for new crops or varieties and, in this way, can link the individual
garden to a larger network.
Another aspect of the marketplace is the opportunity to sell or barter the surplus produce of the
garden, thus generating additional income for the family. The fact that women typically market the
surplus produce has the advantage that the exchange of genetic diversity is driven by the needs of
the housewife and, consequently, may reflect important needs such as food security. Furthermore,
the additional income will more likely benefit the family and/or contribute to a more balanced diet
(Talukder et al. 2000); therefore, the agrobiodiversity present in home gardens has important
development as well as conservation contributions.
Conclusions
Home gardens are an important production system of food and other essential products, harbouring
unique and sometimes rare genetic diversity of our crop plants and some of their wild relatives. In
addition, as centers of experimentation, species domestication, crop improvement as well as of plant
introduction and exchange they deserve the highest possible attention in genetic resource
conservation and use programmes.
• Home gardens provide a unique opportunity to clearly explain and demonstrate the
importance of genetic diversity for crop improvement and evolution as well as the relevance
of linking conservation of agro-biodiversity with development.
• Home gardens are an important agro-ecosystem that provides national programmes and
IPGRI with unique opportunities to study conservation efforts in a holistic sense, in
particular to develop complementary conservation strategies.
• It is important to link conservation efforts in home gardens with national programmes and,
thus, allow the necessary integration of the home garden system in the national research and
extension system.
• More targeted research support is needed to utilize the opportunities that home gardens
offer to food security and agro-biodiversity conservation.
References
Engels, J.M.M. and D. Wood. 1999. Conservation of agrobiodiversity. Pp. 355–385 in Agrobiodiversity:
Characterization, Utilization, and Management (Wood and Lenne, eds.). CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
Harlan, J.R. 1975. Crops and man. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
IPGRI, 1999. Diversity for development. The new strategy of the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute.
IPGRI, Rome, Italy.
Spillane, C., J. Engels, H. Fassil, L. Withers and D. Cooper. 1999. Strengthening national programmes for plant
genetic resources for food and agriculture: planning and coordination. Issues in Genetic Resources no. 8.
IPGRI, Rome, Italy.
Talukder, A., L. Kiess, N. Huq, S. de Pee, I. Darnton-Hill and M.W. Bloem. 2000. Food and Nutrition Bulletin
21(2):165-172.
INTRODUCTION 9

Home gardens and agrobiodiversity: an overview across regions
Pablo Eyzaguirre and Jessica Watson
Biodiversity conservation and development in home gardens
Home gardens are microenvironments containing high levels of species and genetic diversity within
larger farming systems. These gardens are not only important sources of food, fodder, fuel, medicines,
spices, construction materials and income in many countries around the world, but are also important
for in situ conservation of a wide range of plant genetic resources. Home gardens are dynamic
systems; their structure, composition, and species and cultivar diversity are influenced by changes in
the socioeconomic circumstances and cultural values of the households that maintain these gardens.
Understanding the factors and decision-making patterns that affect the management of home gardens
is crucial for including home gardens as a strategic component of in situ conservation of
agrobiodiversity.
The conservation of agrobiodiversity is inseparable from the sustainable use of plant genetic
resources in agriculture. Thus agrobiodiversity conservation is both a goal and a means to secure the
livelihoods and well being of farming communities in poorer regions of the developing world. Home
gardens are clear examples of diversity rich production systems that serve both a development and a
conservation function. In order to strengthen this link between biodiversity conservation and
development, IPGRI received the support of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation
and Development (BMZ) through GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit) to
carry out a three-year research project on plant genetic resources in home gardens. This project has
been implemented in partnership with national plant genetic resources programmes in five countries,
Ghana, Vietnam, Guatemala, Cuba, and Venezuela. The Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant
Research (IPK-Gatersleben) has served as the partner German institution working in the areas of
genetic resources documentation and characterization. Based on the results that are emerging, the
project is providing a framework for including home gardens as a distinct and important component
of in situ conservation of agrobiodiversity. The case studies have also begun to establish a clear link
between home garden diversity and household livelihoods and food security.
The chapters that follow contain important research findings that should also be assessed in a
development perspective. This is particularly important in light of the project’s overall goal, to
“promote the development of tropical farming communities through the conservation and use of
diversity in home gardens”. In light of this goal, several research objectives were elaborated and
agreed at the First International Home gardens and Agrobiodiversity Workshop in Cali, Colombia, in
September of 1999. These research objectives are to:
• document genetic diversity in home gardens and the ecological, socio-cultural, and economic
factors that govern its distribution and maintenance
• develop methods to include home garden systems in national agrobiodiversity strategies and
programmes
• develop strategies for home gardens linked to ecosystem conservation, livelihoods, and cultural
values.
The results of the studies have clearly met the first two objectives and as the project moves towards
completion, several activities are planned with policy-makers, communities and other development
and conservation agencies to mainstream the results of the studies into national conservation and
development programmes. In order to assess how the various national studies have addressed the
objectives, this presentation reviews the coordinated steps that were carried out across the five
countries.

Sampling home gardens and key species
The first step was to establish a common set of sampling procedures to assess how much crop and
tree diversity home gardens maintain and what would be the best ways to monitor this diversity as
part of national strategies for agrobiodiversity conservation. The key factor in the analysis was to
consider the home garden as a niche or sub-system within a larger agro-ecosystem. No single
garden or even type of garden could be considered as a conservation unit without referring first to
the larger farm and ecosystem in which it is located. The sampling strategy was also designed to
look at the dynamics of home garden systems within and among ecosystems. In each country a set
of sites were selected to reflect the farming systems and ecologies of the more important
agroecological zones that also contained significant biological diversity. These sites then were
surveyed to select a sample of home gardens for monitoring and in-depth study. The following
points were applied in identifying the sites and sample sizes.
• Sites selected reflect major agroecological zones (AEZ) in each country.
• Broad site survey of home garden diversity to identify ‘typical’ gardens per AEZ.
• Unrepresentative (newly established or commercial vegetable plots) gardens eliminated.
• Key informants help select representative gardens.
• Final selected sample per site n=30–50 gardens covers essential biodiversity in home gardens.
Some species were present in most home gardens within a country and even across countries
and regions—peppers, taro or sweet potato, banana and papaya. For these there were unique
varieties found in home gardens and in several cases the home garden serves as the germplasm
bank or source for planting material or where new types are developed and introduced. These ‘key
home garden species’ merited in-depth genetic diversity study. In order to select the key home
garden species with high diversity the following selection criteria were applied:
• the species has unique varieties found in home gardens
• there are significant levels of varietal diversity of the species
• households attach sociocultural importance to the species
• the species is economically important both for consumption and/or sale.
The species were then characterized using agromorphological traits and descriptors, as well as
ethnobotanical diversity indicators based on farmers’ local taxonomy and local germplasm
management systems. In some cases the national teams were able to use DNA markers to measure the
genetic diversity of one key species in the home garden and compare it with the diversity that has
been already measured and maintained in ex situ genebanks. Genetic diversity in key species is linked
to unique uses even for crops that are widely distributed and present both in large stands or fields
and in home gardens. For example, Vietnamese home gardens were an important source of banana
diversity even though banana is also an important commercial and plantation crop. The home garden
cultivars were distinctive and used for special purposes such as dried and pickled bananas for
medicinal uses, and green bananas used ceremonially (Tet shrine).
The key species in home gardens of the five countries are listed below. The number of farmer
varieties is being evaluated to confirm their uniqueness.
Vietnam
• Pomelo (9–14 varieties per ecosystem): Do, Thanh tra, Bien Hoa, Chum, Bi, Ngot, Oi, Nam roi,
Hong, DHNN1, Phuc trach, Chua, Son, Dao.
• Banana (Musa spp.) (9–12 varieties): Xiem, Su, Gia, Hot, Cau, Samp, Tieu, Ta qua, Do, Ngu, Lan,
Chua.
• Luffa (Luffa cylindrical) (6 varieties): Trau, Huong, Khia, Dai, Den, Tay.
• Taro (Colocasia esculenta) (8–17 varieries): So, Sap, Tim, Ngua, Nuoc, Cao, Ngot, Mung.
INTRODUCTION 11

Ghana
• Yam: Dioscorea alata (4), rotundata (15), praehensilis (1), cayenensis (1), bulbifera (2), dumetorum (1),
esculenta (1), burkiliana (1), one wild species
• Plantain: Musa spp. 15 local varieties
• Pearl Millet: Pennisetum glaucumi 3–4 varieties
Guatemala
• Zapote/Sapota (Pouteria sapota).
• Chillies (Capsicum spp.).
• Huisquil/Chayote (Sechium edule).
Cuba
• Lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus): 16 agro-morphological descriptors, 3 cultivated groups, 1 wild.
• Zapote (Pouteria sapota): 11 AMI, no clear varieties.
• Chilli (Capsicum): frutescens (10–18), chinense (7–11), annuum (5–10).
Venezuela
• Papaya (Carica papaya): 5.
• Avocado (Persea americana): 18, with more variety in size and shape than ex situ
• Chilli (Capsicum sp.): 11.
• Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris): 14, with disease resistance found in 2–3.
Conservation value of home gardens
The case studies analysed the various ways that home gardens contribute to biodiversity, at the
ecosystem, species and genetic levels. At the ecosystem level, the home garden provides a complex
microenvironment that links more complex natural ecosystems with agricultural systems. It has been
noted that home gardens mimic the natural structure of forest systems, with the crucial difference that
nearly all the species found in a home garden are used. Thus a valuable conservation role for home
gardens is as a sustainable use system within or around protected forest areas. This function was well
studied and confirmed in Cuba, and could apply to other countries where natural forests are
important sources of income and are also being threatened with overexploitation of outright
conversion. Biodiversity conservation in home gardens can be linked to protected areas very
successfully according to these studies.
Home gardens are often the focal point of a household’s social interactions within the family and
with visitors. One of the important functions that home gardens perform is to keep knowledge of
varieties and uses of diversity alive from generation to generation. In home gardens children and
visitors can learn from the family experts in different types of diversity and its uses. These can be
nutritional, commercial, aesthetic, and spiritual. Home gardens in all the countries served as refuges
for the ‘heirloom crop varieties’ that were valued and maintained in the family but had little place in
commercial markets. Households were also able to exchange their home garden varieties as part of
the social visits. Sharing and exchanging plant genetic resources are common features of visits
between households.
In several countries and ecosystems the home garden was where germplasm from the wild was
brought under cultivation. This complex ecosystem close to the house where plants can be closely
observed and managed makes it a convenient site for traditional plant experimentation and
domestication. For some of the root crops such as taro and yams, ruderal material from the wild is
continually brought under cultivation in home gardens to renew the vigour of the germplasm for
planting in larger fields. Some home garden species that exist in both cultivated and uncultivated
forms are also income earners. The study in Guatemala focused attention on loroco (Fernaldia
pandurata), a wild species that is also cultivated and widely commercialized as a vegetable for use in

tamales, the production being almost entirely from home gardens. Similarly varieties of eggplants
and peppers appear in both cultivated and uncultivated forms in home gardens.
Ecosystem services that home gardens provide to the larger agricultural systems and the health
and well being of the household were often noted in the interviews with farmers. The home gardens
provided protected and enriched environments for varieties that may have been more susceptible to
biotic and abiotic stresses in the fields. Among the services they provided were soil enrichment,
improved water retention, a habitat for pollinators. Home gardens are a good example of how
humans cause niche differentiation that can increase the total productivity of agroecosystems.
The five national studies were able to bring the diversity analyses at the different levels together
and link it to development actions and policy. This forms the basis of in situ conservation strategies
that give prominence to the contribution of home gardens. The specific elements for implementing
that strategy are first, to identify those species and varieties that are best conserved in home garden
based on the following features:
• Occurring only in gardens.
• Being replaced by improved varieties.
• Undergoing process of domestication.
• Wild species or variety whose environment is threatened.
• Identify possible links to ex situ conservation in genebanks particularly for rare crop varieties.
In situ conservation in genebanks as several of the studies described.
The second element in that strategy is to develop a sampling and monitoring strategy for genetic
resources that are typical and mainly found in home gardens. Several of the countries were able to
identify empirically the optimal number of gardens and their linkages to each other and surrounding
ecosystems as the basis for a monitoring strategy that is cost effective and builds upon the existing
institutions in both nature conservation, local community development and agricultural research and
extension. These low cost sampling approaches are best suited to the conditions of tropical
developing countries. In addition, links to ex situ conservation programmes in genebanks were
particularly valuable in targeting the varieties and zones where home gardens complement in situ
conservation in crop fields and in genebanks.
The role of formal genetic resources programmes in the work of in situ conservation was variable
across countries. It was clear however that home garden biodiversity could benefit from formal links
to genetic resource conservation programmes. Home gardens are increasingly institutionalized in
Cuba as the key element in the national in situ conservation strategy. In Vietnam, the focus on home
gardens has helped to further a growing understanding of the complementarity between ex situ and
in situ conservation in Vietnam. In Guatemala, home gardens agrobiodiversity is best maintained and
developed as part of a broad based strategy linking to community development associations and
NGOs. In Ghana, building policy support and public awareness of agrobiodiversity and the need to
conserve it was achieved by linking home gardens to traditional foods and income opportunities for
rural households. In Venezuela, the conucos, or home garden can be closely linked to growing support
for traditional foods and ecological agriculture. In sum, the home garden proved to be a natural and
easy way to focus attention on the role of agrobiodiversity in food security and healthy environments.
Because the garden is close to home, we were able to bring these agrobiodiversity issues to people’s
attention in a humane and understandable way.
INTRODUCTION 13

Technical contributions
Home gardens and the maintenance of genetic diversity
Toby Hodgkin
Summary
Home gardens contribute to the conservation of biodiversity at the ecosystem, species and within
species levels. They provide complex, multi-layered environments in which farmers can maintain large
numbers of useful plant species over many years. They may also provide a basis for the maintenance in
situ of significant amounts of intra-specific (genetic) diversity of useful plant species.
The maintenance of genetic diversity in home gardens will depend on farmer management, the
environmental characteristics of the garden and species biology. The amount and distribution of the
genetic diversity of different characters (e.g. agromorphological, biochemical or molecular), within and
between gardens, will also vary with the characters measured and the ways in which each is affected by
farmer management, environment and species biology. Understanding the ways in which farmers
manage planting materials, maintain identifiable populations and varieties, and exchange or mix
materials will be especially important to analysing and understanding observed patterns of diversity.
From a conservation perspective, key concerns of those investigating the maintenance of genetic
diversity in home gardens have included the small population sizes maintained by farmers, the
relatively high levels of selection intensity that may be practiced and the vulnerability of individual
garden populations to random events causing loss of whole populations. Determining the contribution
that home gardens can make to in situ conservation requires an understanding of the amount and
distribution of genetic diversity of different species in home gardens and of the ways in which selection,
gene flow and other processes affect its maintenance over time. This understanding needs to be
integrated with an analysis of farmer management practices and of the needs and objectives of the home
garden owners.
Introduction
Home gardens have characteristics that present particular challenges and opportunities for those
interested in the maintenance of genetic diversity within production systems. They are complex,
multi-storeyed environments with very high species diversity and a wide range of very varied
ecological micro-niches (Eyzaguirre, this volume). They are clearly important targets for agro-
ecosystem conservation, in that they provide a wide range of ecological benefits and services and a
valuable set of products for the rural poor. They are also important in the conservation of useful plant
species since they contain very large numbers of species which are often absent or disappearing from
other production systems (e.g. Phaseolus lunatus in Cuba, Castineiras et al. this volume) or have yet to
be introduced to agriculture (e.g. Fernaldia pandurata in Guatemala, J. M. Leiva et al. this volume).
The role of home gardens in the conservation of within species variation (genetic diversity) is less
obvious. Population sizes of most home garden crops are extremely small, varying from a few
individuals to, at most, a few hundred plants. The materials are often ephemeral, frequently being lost
by the owners and having to be reintroduced. These, and other factors, would seem to mitigate
against home gardens playing a significant part in conservation of intra-specific diversity. In this
paper, I hope to provide an overview of some of the issues involved in determining the role of home
gardens in conserving crop diversity from a genetic diversity perspective.
Conservation and production
Crop diversity is maintained in home gardens when it meets producers’ needs. It may be maintained
over long periods, and in this sense, it may be said to be conserved in situ. However, conservation is

rarely (if ever) the actual objective. Farmers who maintain diversity do so because they find it useful.
Thus, any evaluation of in situ conservation of crop diversity in home gardens has to place the desired
conservation objectives (the amount of diversity maintained, the duration of maintenance etc.) in the
context of farmers’ production objectives.
Three groups of interacting factors will affect the maintenance of crop genetic diversity in home
gardens: the biological characteristics of the crops; the way in which farmers manage the production
and reproduction of the material; and, the way in which environmental factors affect crop production.
Reproductive biology, and the way in which planting material is maintained, will be among the most
significant biological characteristics. Outbreeders and inbreeders often have markedly different
amounts of diversity in local cultivars, with hotspots of high diversity in some inbreeders (Schoen and
Brown 1991). The patterns of diversity distribution are also usually very different, as is also the case
for clonally propagated crops such as Musa or taro. Farmer management determines what is sown,
what planted, the size of the population and what is saved for future seed. Farmers provide the major
sources for the effects of selection and gene flow on diversity. The environment provides another
major source of the effects of selection. Temperature, moisture availability, day length, biotic and
abiotic stresses will all have an impact of gene frequency and on the nature and amount of diversity
maintained within a crop population.
In trying to determine how home gardens can best contribute to conservation, it is necessary to
understand the ways in which environment, crop biology and farmer management are affecting the
extent and distribution of genetic diversity. This involves determining what diversity is maintained
by farmers, where and when it is maintained, and how and by whom. It also involves exploring why
farmers choose to maintain the cultivars they do, in the ways that they do. The next sections of this
paper consider some aspects of determining the amount, distribution and maintenance of diversity
that are particularly relevant to home gardens.
The amount of genetic diversity
There is a range of different approaches to describing the amount of genetic diversity present in a crop
in a home garden or group of home gardens. Whichever methods are used, the three most important
features that are measured are the richness, evenness and distinctness of the characteristics. Richness
is a measure of the number of different types, while evenness describes their distribution within and
between the different populations (cultivars, home gardens, areas etc.). Distinctness provides useful
additional information on how different the types are and can be particularly important for assessing
whether some populations or areas have unique types.
Richness, evenness and distinctness can, with suitable adjustments, be measured using almost any
characters, which seem to be biologically or genetically meaningful. A first approach might be simply
to record the numbers of local cultivars and the extent to which the same ones occur in different home
gardens. Further studies might determine differences with respect to important morphological traits
(e.g. seed colour, root flesh colour, plant height) or performance traits (yield, stress or disease
resistance etc.). The trouble with agromorphological measures is often that their expression depends,
at least in part, on the environment and that they do not provide a completely accurate picture of
genetic differences. For this reason, studies of biochemical differences (isozymes) can be useful or
molecular markers can be used (see also Frankel et al. 1995, Karp et al. 1997, Jarvis et al. 2000).
Numbers and identities of local cultivars present in home gardens provide an obvious starting
point to determining the amount of diversity. However, some caution may be needed in analysing
such data. The names given by farmers may be different for the same local cultivar or the same for
different cultivars. This has been demonstrated in specific farming situations but similar information
for home gardens is lacking. It may be more difficult to obtain a clear classification of local cultivars
and their identities in home garden production systems than it is in other farming systems. Sizes of
populations are much smaller and cultivar identity may be more personalized or more casual. There
TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 15

is evidence from farming situations that, even when names differ, farmers recognize the same
important distinguishing attributes between local cultivars. In such cases, these characters can be
used to establish identities and determine numbers and patterns of distribution of local cultivars,
providing that the analysis frameworks developed for traditional farming situations are valid for
home garden systems.
Analysis of many morphological and performance related traits is frequently used to determine
variation in home garden materials and to compare local cultivars from different gardens,
communities or areas. For some traits, which show little variation with environment, it may be
possible to do this, using measures taken in home gardens. In other cases, trials on a single site will
be needed and collection of planting material will be required. This may be difficult for some crops
such as taro where only one or two plants of each type are maintained in any garden. Where
quantitative traits are analysed (time to flower, height) measures such as coefficient of variation will
give an estimate of richness. Using multivariate statistics it may be possible to detect quite distinct
patterns of variation and combinations of traits in specific areas or communities, which can
significantly help understanding how evenness and distinctness are expressed in the crop.
Molecular markers are increasingly used to investigate genetic diversity distribution and they are
increasingly replacing the use of isozymes (although the latter remain useful, functional and
inexpensive). Molecular markers such as RAPDs can give inconsistent results (Karp et al. 1997) while
other approaches (AFLPs, microsatellites) require more investment or more expertise. However, they
may be especially useful when only small amounts of material can be obtained and they certainly give
very substantial amounts of information on patterns of neutral diversity.
The information obtained in this way can begin to answer some important conservation related
questions. If all farmers or communities maintain the same diversity, it may be less important, which
ones continue to grow local cultivars while if some have unique varieties their continued interest in
these cultivars may be very important. Information on gene flow can indicate that there is significant
exchange of materials between farmers and communities and that we have a meta-population of the
crop. This would indicate that the small size in any one garden is not necessarily a conservation
constraint. In contrast, evidence of genetic drift or of significant bottlenecks in some local materials
may suggest that they are very vulnerable and may need additional ex situ conservation measures or
multiplication.
The distribution of diversity
In analysing diversity, the way it is distributed - between local cultivars, between cultivars in different
gardens, between communities and areas—is as important as the simple description of the amount of
diversity. Again, the information can come from local cultivar numbers and identities,
agromorphological characters or molecular markers. It can also be linked with ways of analysing
geographical information such as DIVA (Hijmans et al. 2001).
One important question is the extent to which local cultivars in home gardens, or the genetic
characters they possess are unique. Does the same variation exist in the wild? Or in other production
systems? Thus, a semi-cultivated tree species such as sapote may occur also in the wild but the types
maintained in home gardens may have unique flavour, maturity or yield traits. Since the species is
unlikely to be maintained on any scale in ex situ collections, home gardens may be the only reasonable
way of maintaining the traits and diversity found. Similarly, the types of Capsicum maintained in
home gardens may be quite different from those grown for commercial production and provide
unique flavour, quality, season or other characteristics. Answering these questions will require that
the diversity found in home gardens is compared with that found from other sources such as samples
from the wild or ex situ collections.
The way in which diversity is partitioned within and between home gardens, communities or
areas, provides the necessary information for determining not only where diversity is maintained but
also who maintains it and how. Do certain farmers or certain areas tend to maintain higher levels of

diversity and if so why? Because of their production environment, or for other reasons? The answers
to these questions are important for the information they can give on the ways in which conservation
particular objectives might be achieved. They can help identify unique diversity and the reasons it
continues to exist in some home gardens. This can lead to identifying measures to promote
maintenance or situations where continued in situ maintenance is unlikely.
Preliminary evidence suggests that there are substantial differences in distribution of crops. Thus,
home gardens can often maintain many more local cultivars of some crops than might be found in
larger scale production systems (e.g. Capsicum) or can maintain specific types that are not grown on
a larger scale. Some crops such as lima bean in Cuba or sponge gourd in Nepal are only grown in
home gardens and are unique to that production system. However, there is much less information on
how these differences are reflected in terms of genetic diversity. Whether the alleles and traits in home
garden populations are very substantially different or whether they also occur in other production
systems but at different frequencies or in different combinations.
In understanding the patterns of diversity found in home garden cultivars it may be important to
understand why specific local cultivars are being grown in the garden. Is it for convenience? Because
it is new? Because it won’t grow anywhere else? The answers to these questions will affect both the
amounts and types of diversity found.
The maintenance of diversity
From a conservation perspective, the population sizes of a local cultivar in a home garden are usually
well below that which would be desirable. Even for the most important crops there will seldom be
more than a few hundred plants, even of a relatively important legume, and often population sizes
will be below 10. There are two interacting elements that need to be explored—the way in which
farmers maintain such small populations and the genetic implications of the small populations
themselves
Most farmers are likely to save their own seed or planting material over longer or shorter periods.
Since populations are small, this is likely to be a fairly unstable process and seasons in which
particular types can no longer be maintained are likely to occur quite frequently. However, there have
certainly been situations where farmers have maintained special types for many decades and some of
the crops are themselves very long lived.
While short maintenance periods may appear to make the conservation of material very unstable
this may not be the case. It depends on the way farmers meet their needs for new or replacement
materials and the extent to which communities or even regions maintain a common range of materials
that are exchanged or passed on. The information that is needed to determine whether this is the case
can come from a variety of sources.
The processes of maintenance and the genetic consequences of different practices have not been
studied to any great extent. Some kind of selection process will be involved in choosing what plants
will provide future planting material. A very substantial reduction in population size may also occur.
The planting material will usually be stored in some way and may lose viability during this process.
It may be mixed with materials from other sources so as to permit gene flow to occur.
Conclusions
Home gardens seem to provide environments in which part of the genetic diversity of many crop
species can be maintained. The important questions that need to be answered from a conservation
perspective relate to the amount and character of that diversity and to the ways in which it changes
over time. Answering these questions requires the planned investigation of the amount and
distribution of genetic diversity. Analysis of richness, evenness and distinctness can provide
information both on the amount and distribution of diversity present and on the portion that is
unique to local home gardens. Ideally these studies will include information from both

agromorphological characters and molecular markers but even a study of the number and
distribution of cultivars can provide useful information.
Together with information on the amount and distribution of diversity, it will be increasingly
important to try and understand the genetic consequences of the maintenance procedures used by
farmers. This will provide the necessary information on the significance of random or stochastic
events in the maintenance of local populations and cultivars. It will also allow us to determine what
are the genetic diversity consequences of the small apparent size of most home garden populations
and whether we are in fact dealing with meta-populations of some type.
Home gardens are dynamic production systems in which farmers probably make changes every
season that affect the cultivars grown, the sizes of populations and the characteristics of the materials.
Their contribution to conservation is dynamic and ensures the maintenance of adapted materials,
which provide direct benefits to the owners and to the users of home garden products. The genetic
diversity maintained is part of this contribution and can also make a further contribution to wider
conservation objectives.
References
Frankel, O. H., A.H.D. Brown and J.J. Burdon. 1995. The Conservation of Plant Biodiversity. Cambridge
University Press, UK.
Hijmans, R.J., L. Guarino, M. Cruz and E. Rojas, E. 2001. GIS software for PGR research: 1. DIVA-GIS. Plant
Genetic Resources Newsletter 127:15-19.
Jarvis, D.I., L. Myer, H. Klemick, L. Guarino, M. Smale, A.H.D, Brown, M. Sadiki, B. Sthapit and T. Hodgkin.
2000. A Training Guide for In Situ Conservation On-farm. IPGRI, Rome, Italy.
Karp, A., S. Kresovich, K.V. Bhat, W.G. Ayad and T. Hodgkin. 1997. Molecular tools in plant genetic resources
conservation: a guide to the technologies. IPGRI Technical Bulletin No. 2. IPGRI, Rome, Italy.
Schoen, D.J. and A.H.D. Brown. 1991. Intraspecific variation in population gene diversity and effective
population size correlates with the mating system. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 88:4494-97.

Documentation of plant genetic resources in home gardens
Helmut Knüpffer
Genebank Department, Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK),
Gatersleben, Germany
Introduction
Home gardens often contain a significant part of the crop plant biodiversity in tropical countries.
Compared to other agricultural or horticultural ecosystems, home gardens are very species-rich, and
they are an ecosystem well suited for in situ conservation of plant genetic resources (cf., e.g. Esquivel
and Hammer 1992, 1994). There is often no clear border between wild plants and cultivated plants.
The IPGRI project ‘The contribution of home gardens to in situ conservation of plant genetic
resources in farming systems’ is aimed at investigating the possible role of home gardens in
preserving plant genetic resources and at producing an overview of the inter- and infraspecific
diversity of cultivated plants in five selected tropical countries, namely, Cuba, Ghana, Guatemala,
Venezuela and Vietnam, as an example for the situation in the tropics worldwide. National teams
were investigating the species cultivated in selected home gardens in selected regions of these
countries. One of the aims was to compile species lists of the countries involved, cross-referenced with
available information on the taxonomy, vernacular names, distribution, uses and other aspects of the
species.
The Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK) in Gatersleben, Germany, started to
develop a database for the cultivated plant species diversity data compiled by the national project
teams. The ‘Database for Checklists of Cultivated Plants’ (Knüpffer 1992, Knüpffer and Hammer 1999,
Hammer et al. 2000) was taken as the basis for the documentation system development. This system
and its present situation are described in the present paper.
Background
Following the Rio Conference in 1992, in situ conservation began to receive increasing attention. It
became obvious that documentation of PGR in in situ agroecosystems needed new approaches, and
IPGRI soon declared its readiness to take a lead in this field: “Meeting the information needs of in situ
conservation work will require a substantial programme to consider both what information is needed
and how it can best be maintained and used” (Iwanaga 1995). In 1995, information systems for in situ
conservation did not exist (Stützel 1995). The concepts had thus to be developed on the basis of ex situ
collection documentation systems, but additional descriptors would need to be developed. Brockhaus
and Oetmann (1996) proposed a system of descriptors for in situ conservation of plant genetic
resources, based on a comparison with ex situ descriptors.
A number of actual approaches to document in situ conservation are reported by Jarvis and
Hodgkin (1998). In Appendix II of this report, various data collecting forms are reproduced which can
be used as a basis for developing such a descriptor list. An IPGRI workshop (Laliberté et al. 2000, pp.
61–63) addressed the need for descriptors for the documentation of on-farm conservation and
management.
Thormann et al. (1999) divided the information necessary for the development of conservation
strategies for wild plant species into four categories, which apply also for the conservation of PGR in
home gardens:
1. species information including taxonomy, biology, conservation, distribution and use
2. size and type of protected areas
3. physical environment of species’ distribution areas
4. organizations and resource people.

In the database for the home garden project, we deal only with the first category of information.
Data sources for species-related information are usually organized in the form of species checklists for
various purposes (e.g. Hammer 1990) or databases with the scientific name as primary entry point.
For the conservation of PGR in home gardens, correctly determined species are an indispensable
prerequisite and a key to relevant information from other sources. As Thormann et al. (1999) point out,
“using the correct taxonomic name is essential to obtain appropriate information on a species”. They
list a number of Internet sources of different scope with species-related information. The ‘Species
2000’ checklist of “all known species of plants” and other organisms, and the previous edition of the
‘Mansfeld’ (Schultze-Motel 1986) covering cultivated plant species worldwide are explicitly
mentioned. Other sources for cultivated plants information are the taxonomic database of the USDA
Genetic Resources Information Network (GRIN, http://www.ars-grin.gov/npgs/searchgrin.html) or
its printed version (Wiersema and León 1999). Such sources need to be used to verify the correct
scientific name, synonyms, vernacular names and species authors. For correctly documenting species,
authors and taxonomic literature references, standards have been published for authors (Brummitt
and Powell 1992), journal abbreviations (Lawrence et al. 1968, Bridson and Smith 1991) and books
(Stafley and Cowan 1976 et seq.).
Thormann et al. (1999) note that although a variety of information sources is available for ex situ
collections, “information on on-farm and in situ conservation is not as readily available and other
research tools have to be used such as bibliographic research and contact with relevant
organizations” (cf. also Brockhaus and Oetmann 1996). One of the few published examples of in situ
conservation documentation systems is the system SICOIS developed by the Cuban genebank
within the frame of the home garden project (Alonso et al. 2000). Besides taxon- and accession-
related information, this system is also designed to accommodate anthropological and site-related
information.
With regard to the plant uses, Thormann et al. (1999) state: “Taking account of the use aspects of
plants can contribute to finding the most appropriate way to conserve a particular species
(conservation through use), and a number of sources for such information are mentioned. For
cultivated plants, and particularly those in home gardens, Wiersema and León (1999), the
‘Mansfeld’ (Hanelt and IPK 2001) and the corresponding database (http://mansfeld.ipk-
gatersleben.de), and various checklists of cultivated plants (e.g. Esquivel et al. 1992 for Cuba) are
such sources.
Thormann et al. (1999) also compiled a list of information sources for in situ conservation with
emphasis on on-line sources accessible via the Internet. They provide a number of links useful for
the documentation of PGR conservation in home gardens.
Documentation of plant genetic resources collecting
Documenting plant genetic resources in home gardens is very similar to collecting plant genetic
resources in home gardens (especially if it is part of a multi-crop collecting mission; cf. Hammer et
al. 1995); the major difference being that plant material is not actually collected. Various
publications exist which describe aspects of recording and documenting information during
collecting missions, and much of this information can be applied for the home garden
documentation as well if the term ‘collecting’ is replaced by ‘survey’ or ‘exploration’. A number of
relevant reviews can be found in Guarino et al. (1995).
Perry and Bettencourt (1995) suggest that before conducting a collecting mission, information
should be gathered well in advance about existing material of the target species in ex situ
germplasm collections. It is necessary to get “general information on any relevant past collecting
mission”, and any past survey of home gardens, correspondingly. Collecting reports are usually
found in journal publications, less frequently they can be derived from germplasm databases. An
overview of published information on the natural and human environment, with a view on
germplasm collecting, was given by Auricht et al. (1995). The need of correct taxonomic

identification is stressed by Maxted and Crust (1995), and tools to this aim are described.
Bibliographic databases relevant for plant collectors have been reviewed by Dearing and Guarino
(1995). The methodology for eco-geographical surveys described by Maxted et al. (1995) can also be
applied for species diversity surveys in home gardens. Moss and Guarino (1995) provide
information on the data items to be collected in the field, and the methods and equipment to be
applied. The overview includes data categories related to collecting, sample identification
(botanical determination), collecting site data, etc.
Software for data recording on a notebook computer during collecting missions, such as Q-
Collector (Clennett 1999) or the ‘IPGRI Collecting Form Management System’ (Toll 1995) could also
be adapted to the needs of inventorying species occurring in particular home gardens. This would
lead to a standardised approach in recording data, and the research team would be reminded to
collect as complete as possible information with regard to the descriptors agreed upon in advance.
These software tools are aimed at avoiding typing errors, and they have the advantage that the
survey information is already computerised at the time when the team returns to its headquarter.
After the field work, the information gathered needs to be processed (Toll 1995). The basic
procedures to be followed do also apply to home garden inventory data:
1. sorting and checking the forms (data collection sheets)
2. completing the forms
3. adding information from reference sources
4. checking the botanical names and local words (e.g. vernacular names recorded)
5. computerization of the data.
Objectives of the home garden database
The main aim is to develop a web-searchable database documenting the species and infraspecific
diversity found in selected home gardens of the five countries involved. It is not intended to
include anthropological or site-related information at the present stage. The project database will
be based on, and linked to the existing database for checklists of cultivated plants (Knüpffer and
Hammer, 1999) and the Mansfeld Database which provides information on the taxonomy,
nomenclature, common names in many languages, the distribution and uses of 6100 cultivated
plant species world-wide.
The database for checklists of cultivated plants (Knüpffer and Hammer 1999) which has been
developed by IPK since 1988 (Esquivel et al. 1989, Knüpffer et al. 1990) is the basis for the home
garden project database. It contains the same data elements as the projected home garden database.
Database for checklists of cultivated plants
The checklist database was initially developed with the aim to collect information about
cultivated plant species in various countries, and to produce manuscripts for country-specific
species checklists. A summary of the present contents, including also the data from the home
garden project registered so far, is given in Tables 1 and 2.
Table 1. Number of species per country in the database for checklists of cultivated plants
Country Number of species Publication
Cuba 1 029 Esquivel et al. (1992)
Korea 605 Hoang et al. (1997)
East Asia (China, Japan, Korea) 996 in preparation
Albania 433 in preparation
Italy 665 Hammer et al. (1992) for South Italy and Sicily;
Hammer et al. (1999) for Central and North Italy;
Sardinia in preparation
Vietnam 461 in preparation (home garden project)

Table 2. Summary of contents of the database for checklists of cultivated plants (as of mid 2001)
Total Cuba S. Italy C. and N. Italy Sardinia Korea E. Asia Albania Vietnam
(1992) (1992) (1999) (in prep.) (1997) (in prep.) (in prep.) (in prep.)
Taxa 2507 1,044 540 568 375 605 998 433 473
Species 2396 1,029 521 550 364 578 910 418 461
Genera 1077 531 298 327 247 378 531 255 309
Families 180 117 86 92 80 111 142 82 96
Synonyms 1468 729 348 344 250 497 684 225 173
Vernacular
names 18886 1669 2981 10802 2420 714 2904 264 464
References 716 198 309 341 265 32 66 6 73
For references of published checklists, see Table 1. Figures for countries ‘in preparation’ are still incomplete.
The following information items are included in the checklists database:
• taxonomy and nomenclature (accepted names and synonyms, including authors and place of
publication, plant family)
• vernacular names, including indication of the language or dialect
• geographical information (distribution, own observations, collections)
• plant uses and plant parts used (abbreviated)
• narrative text (information on the history, diversity, breeding, wild relatives, taxonomic and
nomenclatural remarks, etc.)
• editorial notes (information for the compilers of the database, not intended for publication),
• literature references.
For the plant uses and the plant parts used, a list of abbreviations was developed. This will be
harmonized with the ‘Economic Botany Standard’ (Cook 1995, currently under revision) of the
International Working Group on Taxonomic Databases (TDWG).
Information sources for the home gardens database
Sources of information are mainly the project reports provided by the national teams, but published (e.g.
Nguyen et al. 1995, Le and Nguyen 1999, Hodel et al. 1997 for Vietnam; Esquivel et al. 1992 for Cuba) and
unpublished reports (e.g. Roose 2001 for Vietnam) as well as electronically available data are also taken
into account. During the compilation, the scientific plant names provided by the national teams will be
verified and standardized using cross-references to other databases and sources.
Information included
For each species the home gardens database will include:
1. Taxonomy and nomenclature information (accepted name, authors and place of publication,
important synonyms, plant family).
2. Ethnobotanical information (vernacular names in local languages, possibly including dialects;
multiple plant uses and plant parts used).
3. References to the sources of information (e.g. project reports, publications).
4. HTML documents providing details on the infraspecific variation of selected crops (e.g. cultivar
groups, farmers’ varieties, their principal uses, morphological description).
5. Images (colour photographs or slides) of plants.
6. Links to relevant other databases that provide additional information about the species, e.g. the
Mansfeld database.
Information on items (1) to (5) above has to be provided by the project partners. The taxonomy and
nomenclature will be verified and complemented by IPK and its co-operators. IPK will also establish
links and cross-references with other relevant databases that provide additional information about
the species.

It was agreed at the final project workshop that detailed data, such as ‘which species occurs in
which home garden’, and the exact locations of the home gardens (e.g. GIS coordinates, country
maps with home garden locations), would not be made freely accessible on-line. This sensitive
information should not be released to the public without consent of the people concerned, first the
owners of the respective gardens, and second the national teams. The national teams should decide
themselves whether they publish such information in scientific journals or newsletters, besides the
project reports.
Operation of the home gardens database
The collation of data from reports from the participating countries, and data entry and editing is
being done locally at IPK, whereas the database will be searchable from any site with Internet access.
It is planned to fully integrate the home gardens database in the IPK germplasm documentation
system, sharing the taxonomic information (taxonomic core) with other in-house databases (e.g. the
IPK germplasm accessions database, the Mansfeld database; cf. scheme in Ochsmann et al., these
proceedings).
Expected outputs
The main product of the database will be an inventory of the cultivated plant species in home
gardens of the five countries in Africa, South East Asia, and tropical America. The second product is
a web-searchable database on cultivated plant species in these home gardens. For a few key species
selected by the national teams and the project management, information about the infraspecific
diversity will be linked to the database entries for the respective species.
Present situation
For the purpose of the project, the checklists database has been re-designed and re-programmed in
order to accommodate the information from the home garden project countries. A prototype of a
web-searchable database was developed (cf. Afanasyev et al., these proceedings). Data entry has
started for Vietnam, based on available reports.
Country reports from the project have been investigated with respect to information relevant for
the database. It is intended to complete the data entry, including the taxonomic verification, for the
country species lists within the project period. This needs to be accomplished in permanent
communication with the project partners.
The Web database prototype needs to be improved, and the database be linked to the Mansfeld
database. Several representatives from associated project partner countries (e.g. Ethiopia and Nepal)
expressed their interest that their data be included in the database. All data on scientific names need
to be verified by taxonomists, to ensure consistency of naming across the whole database.
Conclusions and outlook
Country-specific in-depth investigations such as those carried out in the present IPGRI project on
home gardens, are known to add information about cultivated plant species not formerly included
in worldwide enumerations of agricultural and horticultural crops such as the new ‘Mansfeld’
(Hanelt and IPK 2001). This has recently been demonstrated by Hammer (these proceedings) even
for such a well-studied country as Cuba (Esquivel et al. 1992).
As a result of the work within the project, it was realized that the documentation component of
the project was under-funded. It would have been desirable to have a full-time scientist position
available during the whole project period, for the database development (including the re-
programming of the existing database, the establishment and testing of the web database), the
coordination of the documentation aspects, and the communication with the project teams, the
project management and the taxonomists, as well as for cross-linking with other sources. Neither the
development of a standardized descriptor list for the whole home garden project, nor its

Home Gardens & In Situ Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources in Farming Systems; Gardening Guidebook

Home Gardens & In Situ Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources in Farming Systems; Gardening Guidebook

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Home Gardens & In Situ Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources in Farming Systems; Gardening Guidebook

Similar to Home Gardens & In Situ Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources in Farming Systems; Gardening Guidebook (20)

More from School Vegetable Gardening - Victory Gardens

More from School Vegetable Gardening - Victory Gardens (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Home Gardens & In Situ Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources in Farming Systems; Gardening Guidebook