Presentation on global and national CWR projects for spatial methods group, Wageningen, December 2011

1. The ecogeographic distribution of crop
wild relatives: implications for
conservation and use
Initial Steps
Colin Khoury c.khoury@cgiar.org colin.khoury@wur.nl

2. Feeding the Future
Source: Dery P. and Anderson B. 2007. Peak Phosphorus. Available online at http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2882

3. Feeding the Future
Predicted changes in total production (per cent) in SSA from
climate change in 2046–2065 relative to 1961–2000. The median
predicted impact is shown as solid line, while the box shows the
25–75 percentile range. Whiskers extend to the 5 and 95
percentile
Source: Schlenker W and Lobell D. B. 2010. Robust negative impacts of climate Distributions of average (summer) temperature for 20th century (blue),
change on African agriculture. Environmental Research Letters 5, no. 1: 014010.
and climate model projections for 2080-2100 (red) (y=number of
Source: Battisti, D.S., 2009. personal communication
summers, x=departure from long-term 20th century mean)

4. The Challenge
How can the world produce more food, under more
challenging conditions, with less energy, on at most the same
amount of land, in a more ecologically sustainable manner?

5. Sources of Cereal Production Growth (2000-2050)
2.5
Untitled 1 Yield Improvement Area Change
2
Percent per year
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
E AP pe
d
A sia N
A AC S SA
E L
elo ut
h M
D ev So
EAP: East Asia and the Pacific; MENA: Middle East and North Africa; LAC: Latin America and
the Caribbean; SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa
Source: Hubert et al. 2010. The Future of Food: Scenarios for 2050. Crop Sci 50.

6. CWR of Rice
Source: Brar D.S. (2010). What are the main bottlenecks to the use of CWR in breeding? How can they be overcome? Presentation for ‘Adapting Agriculture to Climate
Change: The Need for Crop Wild Relatives’, Bellagio, 7-9 September 2010.

7. The Evolution of Wheat
Source: Payne T and Braun H (2010) Presentation for ‘Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change: The Need for Crop Wild Relatives’, Bellagio, 7-9 September 2010. Data
from Evolution of Wheat, Wheat Genetics Resource Center, KSU.

8. CWR and Genetic Diversity
Source: McCouch S (2010) Is there convincing evidence that we are more likely to find traits for dealing with climate change in crop wild relatives (CWR) than in the
cultivated gene pool? Presentation for ‘Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change: The Need for Crop Wild Relatives’, Bellagio, 7-9 September 2010. Data from Tanksley and
McCouch (1997) Science 277.

9. Pest and Disease Resistance from CWR
Musa acuminata- black sigatoka resistance
Manihot glaziovii-
cassava mosaic disease
Aegilops tauschii- (CMD) resistance
hessian fly
resistance
Source: Okogbenin E (2010) The Use and Challenges of CWR in Breeding. Presentation for ‘Adapting Agriculture to Climate
Change: The Need for Crop Wild Relatives’, Bellagio, 7-9 September 2010.

10. Disease Resistance from CWR of Rice
tungro virus tolerant
Source: Brar D.S. (2010). What are the main bottlenecks to the use of CWR in breeding? How can they be overcome? Presentation for ‘Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change: The Need for Crop
Wild Relatives’, Bellagio, 7-9 September 2010.

11. Don’t Judge a Book by its Cover!
(a) Lycopersicon hirsutum, a wild species
that does not turn red upon ripening.
(b) Left- fruit of a modern processing tomato
cultivar. Right- fruit from a breeding line in
which a QTL for increased pigment has been
transferred from L. hirsutum
(c) Top left- wild tomato L. pimpinellifolium.
Top right- fruit of a modern processing
tomato cultivar. Bottom- fruit of a
backcrossed breeding line of the modern
processing tomato, with QTL for increased
fruit size from L. pimpinellifolium
Source: Okogbenin E (2010) The Use and Challenges of CWR in Breeding. Presentation for ‘Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change: The Need for Crop Wild Relatives’,
Bellagio, 7-9 September 2010. Data from Tanksley and McCouch (1997) Science 277.

12. Threats to CWR In Situ 2055
Source: Jarvis, A., Ferguson, M., Williams, D., Guarino, L., Jones, P., Stalker, H.,Valls, J., Pittman, R., Simpson, C. & Bramel, P. 2003. Biogeography of Wild Arachis: Assessing Conservation Status and Setting Future Priorities. Crop Science 43, 1100-1108.
Source:Valls J F M (2010) What specific changes in the current way genebanks and breeders to business and interact will be necessary to increase use of Crop Wild Relatives? Presentation for ‘Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change: The Need
for Crop Wild Relatives’, Bellagio, 7-9 September 2010. Photo adapted from Tollefson J (2010) Nature 466: 554-556.

13. Impacts of Climate Change on Crop Wild Relatives
Arachis (peanut, groundnut)- wild species distributions
Change in area Predicted state
Arachis species
of distribution (%) in 2055
batizocoi -100 Extinct
cardenasii -100 Extinct
correntina -100 Extinct
decora -100 Extinct
diogoi -100 Extinct
duranensis -91 Threatened
glandulifera -17 Stable
helodes -100 Extinct
hoehnii -100 Extinct
k empff-mercadoi -69 Near-Threatened
k uhlmannii -100 Extinct
magna -100 Extinct
microsperma -100 Extinct
palustris -100 Extinct
praecox -100 Extinct
stenosperma -86 Threatened
villosa -51 Near-Threatened
Source: Jarvis, A., Ferguson, M., Williams, D., Guarino, L., Jones, P., Stalker, H.,Valls, J., Pittman, R., Simpson, C. & Bramel, P. 2003. Biogeography of Wild Arachis: Assessing
Conservation Status and Setting Future Priorities. Crop Science 43, 1100-1108.

14. Impacts of Climate Change on Crop Wild Relatives
Jarvis
et
al.
(2008)
By
2055,
16-­‐22%
of
Arachis,
Solanum
and
Vigna
CWR
will
be
exCnct
Liva
et
al
(2009).
By
2060,
40
of
69
protected
areas
would
no
longer
have
the
right
climate
to
support
currently
exisCng
populaCons
of
all
8
Mexican
cucurbit
CWR
Thuiller
(2005)-­‐
By
2080,
50%
of
1350
studied
plant
species
would
be
vulnerable
or
threatened
by
climate
change

15. Gaps in the Ex Situ Conservation of CWR
Accessions Species
wild
2%
represented (>10 accessions)
28%
under or unrepresented
cultivated 72%
98%
Of 85 taxa in Phaseolus,
Of est. 260,000 total accessions,
35 not represented in genebanks and
4,453 wild accessions
26 have <10 accessions
Source: Ramírez-Villegas J, Khoury C, Jarvis A, Debouck DG, and Guarino L (2010). A Gap Analysis Methodology for Collecting Crop Genepools: a Case Study with Phaseolus Bean. PLoS ONE
5(10): e13497. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013497; FAO WIEWS 2009

16. Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change
Collecting, Protecting and Preparing Crop Wild Relatives
Biodiversity Conservation
Agricultural Development
Climate Change Adaptation
Food Security

17. Project Timeline

18. Priority Genepools and Taxa
Crop Taxa
Alfalfa (Medicago) 13
Apple 12
Apple
Bambara Groundnut 27 Alfalfa
Banana 31
Wheat
Barley 2 Bambara Groundnut
Bean (Phaseolus) 37
Carrot 27 Vetch
Chickpea 4
Sweet Potato
Cowpea 12 Banana
Eggplant 32 Sunflower
Faba Bean 1
Finger Millet 4 Rye Sorghum Barley
Grasspea 12
Rice
Lentil 4
Oat 12 Bean
Pea 9
Pearl Millet 4
Pigeon Pea 8 Chickpea
Potato 83
Cowpea
Rice 19 Potato
Rye 4 Eggplant
Sorghum 5 Pea Grasspea
Sunflower 11 Oat
Pigeon Pea Finger Millet
Sweet Potato 14
Vetch 9 Pearl Millet Lentil Faba Bean
Wheat 55
Total 451

19. CWR Research Methodology
Produce taxon database Analyze State
of Ex Situ
Conservation
Perform gap analysis
Pilot Pre-
Prioritize collecting sites breeding and
Evaluation
Produce collecting guides
Coordinate with national partners and experts
Collect

20. Research: Gap Analysis
Source: Ramírez-Villegas J, Khoury C, Jarvis A, Debouck DG, and Guarino L (2010). A Gap Analysis Methodology for Collecting Crop Genepools: a Case Study with Phaseolus Bean. PLoS ONE 5(10):
e13497. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013497

21. Collecting Guides
Source: Smith P. (2010). Prioritizing crop wild relatives for collection, long term storage and use. Presentation for ‘Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change: The Need for Crop Wild Relatives’, Bellagio, 7-9
September 2010.

22. Research: State of Ex Situ Conservation of CWR in
Genebanks
Source: Smith P. (2010). Prioritizing crop wild relatives for collection, long term storage and use. Presentation for ‘Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change: The Need for Crop Wild Relatives’, Bellagio, 7-9
September 2010.

23. Collecting
Source: Smith P. (2010). Prioritizing crop wild relatives for collection, long term storage and use. Presentation for ‘Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change: The Need for Crop Wild Relatives’, Bellagio, 7-9
September 2010.

24. Trust and Kew MSB Partnerships

25. Conservation
Photos: ICRISAT 2009; IRRI 2009; Mari Tefre; Global Crop Diversity Trust

26. Groundnut Breeding with CWR
Source:Valls J F M (2010) What specific changes in the current way genebanks and breeders to business and interact will be necessary to increase use of Crop Wild Relatives? Presentation for ‘Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change: The Need
for Crop Wild Relatives’, Bellagio, 7-9 September 2010. Photo adapted from Tollefson J (2010) Nature 466: 554-556.

27. CWR Pre-Breeding and Evaluation
Figure out what diversity is present Pick the most diversity
Choose maximum diversity set for
Determine appropriate genomics tools breeding
Determine genetic diversity (Genotyping) In select cases, pick accessions with
Use other data as well
"It's a bit like crossing a house cat with a wildcat...You interest
known genes of don't
automatically get a big docile pussycat. What you get is a lot of
wildness that you probably don't want Iying on your sofa."
Figure out if its good Cross, cross, cross
Evaluate crosses for traits of interest Breed CWR set with appropriate
(Phenotyping), specifically for climate modern varieties
change (i.e. heat tolerance, drought Backcross to head toward modern
tolerance, salt tolerance, etc.) varieties
Make it available
Release to breeding programs
integrate in information systems
Source: Rhoades, Robert E. “The World’s Food Supply at Risk,” National Geographic (April 1991), 74-105.

28. Information Systems
Source: http://www.genesys-pgr.org/.

29. Priority Crops and Genepools
Agropyron Colocasia Ipomoea Pistacia
Allium Corylus Isatis Pisum (incl. Vavilovia)
Ananas Crambe Juglans Prunus
Arachis Cucumis Lablab Pyrus
Raphanus (incl.
Armoracia Cucurbita Lactuca
Raphanobrassica)
Artocarpus Cynara Lathyrus Ribes
Asparagus Daucus Lens Rorippa
Avena Digitaria Lepidium Saccarhum
Barbarea Dioscorea Lupinus Secale
Bertholletia Diplotaxis Malus Sesamum
Beta Echinochloa Mangifera Setaria
Brassica Elaeis Manihot Sinapis
Cajanus Elettaria Medicago Solanum (incl. Lycopersicon)
Camellia Eleusine Musa (incl. Ensete) Sorghum
Capsicum Elymus Olea Spinacia
Carica Eruca Oryza Theobroma
Triticum (incl. Triticosecale,
Carthamnus Ficus Panicum
Aegilops, others)
Chenopodium Fragaria (incl. as Potentilla) Pennisetum Vicia
Cicer Glycine Persea Vigna
Citrullus Gossypium Phaseolus Vitellaria
Citrus (incl. Fortunella and
Helianthus Phoenix Vitis
Poncirus)
Cocos Hordeum Pimenta Xanthosoma
Coffea Ilex Piper Zea (incl. Tripsacum)
https://nacms.co.uk/croptrust/

30. Research: Gap Analysis
Gather taxonomic Gather occurrence
Georeferencing
data data
Make collecting Determine gaps in Model
recommendations collections distributions
Source: concept and images from Jarvis et al. 2009.Value of a Coordinate: geographic analysis of agricultural biodiversity. Presentation for Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG), November 2009.

31. Occurrence data sources
GBIF- 44.7 million plant occurrences
Data quality- 840,449 (88.5%) out of 950,000 records good quality

32. Occurrence data sources
But there are gaps
Source: Castaneda N (2011)

33. Occurrence data sources
•
Online data- eg GBIF, Genesys
•
Directly from researchers- eg Phaseolus, Solanum, Oryza
•
Herbarium and genebank databases
•
Published literature
•
Herbarium visits- more than 15,000 photos taken at NY, PH, US, MO, CAS,
UC, WAG. Still gathering data from Kew, BM, E, P, Leiden, Portugal, Spain,
others
Taxon occurrence database will eventually contain ca. 3
million geo-referenced records
Data gaps- China, India, South-east Asia, Central Asia

34. Geo-referencing

35. Gap analysis
Source: Ramírez-Villegas J, Khoury C, Jarvis A, Debouck DG, and Guarino L (2010). A Gap Analysis Methodology for Collecting Crop Genepools: a Case Study with Phaseolus Bean. PLoS ONE
5(10): e13497. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013497;

36. Gap analysis- different gaps

37. Gap analysis- gross representation
Source: Ramírez-Villegas J, Khoury C, Jarvis A, Debouck DG, and Guarino L (2010). A Gap Analysis Methodology for Collecting Crop Genepools: a Case Study with Phaseolus Bean. PLoS ONE
5(10): e13497. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013497;

38. Gap analysis- modeling distributions
Source: Ramírez-Villegas J, Khoury C, Jarvis A, Debouck DG, and Guarino L (2010). A Gap Analysis Methodology for Collecting Crop Genepools: a Case Study with Phaseolus Bean. PLoS ONE
5(10): e13497. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013497;

39. Gap analysis- geographic gaps
Source: Ramírez-Villegas J, Khoury C, Jarvis A, Debouck DG, and Guarino L (2010). A Gap Analysis Methodology for Collecting Crop Genepools: a Case Study with Phaseolus Bean. PLoS ONE
5(10): e13497. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013497;

40. Gap analysis- climatic gaps
Source: Ramírez-Villegas J, Khoury C, Jarvis A, Debouck DG, and Guarino L (2010). A Gap Analysis Methodology for Collecting Crop Genepools: a Case Study with Phaseolus Bean. PLoS ONE
5(10): e13497. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013497;

41. Gap analysis- results
Species Sampling (%) Coverage (%) Distribution (%) Outlier (%) Rarity Score
albiviolaceus 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
amabilis 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
chacoensis 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
diversifolius 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
elongatus 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
fraternus 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
laxiflorus 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
micranthus 10.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
mollis 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
nitensis 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
opacus 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
pachycarpus 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
texensis 10.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
trifidus 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
xolocotzii 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
anisophyllus 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
oaxa canus 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
pauper 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
plagiocylix 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
rosei 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
sonorensis 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
falciformis 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
marechalii 6.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
rotundatu s 6.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
salicifolius 3.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
altimontanus 7.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
esquincensis 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
novoleonensis 5.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
tenellus 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00 parvifolius 4.5 2.2 5.0 N/A 10.0 4.50
albiflorus 10.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
filiformis 1.6 5.6 6.7 0.0 9.9 4.66
macrolepis 8.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
reticulatus 2.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
maculatus 2.2 4.4 8.0 1.0 9.1 4.89
jaliscanus 1.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00 talamancensis 1.1 10.0 4.0 2.0 7.1 4.97
macvaughii 3.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00 leptostachyus 2.9 6.5 6.7 0.0 9.9 5.32
magnilobatus 3.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00 glabellus 5.3 6.0 4.0 N/A 10.0 5.60
venosus 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00 pachyrrhizoides 8.8 6.5 2.9 0.0 6.7 5.77
carteri 7.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
costaricensis 2.3 10.0 6.0 1.1 8.0 5.96
formosus 0.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00
polymorphus 2.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00 coccineus 4.8 8.1 5.7 0.0 9.7 6.06
esperanzae 8.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00 oligospermus 3.4 10.0 5.0 10.0 9.5 6.51
perplexus 1.3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00 hintonii 7.7 4.3 7.5 N/A 10.0 6.86
polystachios 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.45 microcarpus 5.9 8.6 6.7 0.0 9.8 6.86
amblyosepalus 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 10.0 1.00 acutifolius 6.4 8.3 8.0 0.0 9.9 7.30
nelsonii 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A 10. 0 1.00
pluriflorus 1.4 1.3 2.5 N/A 10.0 2.56
augusti 7.4 10.0 4.3 10.0 9.5 7.49
pedicellatus 0.9 2.7 3.3 0.0 9.5 2.56 neglectus 5.3 10.0 6.7 N/A 10.0 7.60
angustissimus 0.5 1.2 6.7 0.6 6.1 2.83 vulgaris 8.7 9.9 5.4 3.8 7.4 7.76
grayanus 5.2 2.0 4.0 0.0 7.5 3.72 dumosus 5.3 10.0 8.6 6.0 8.8 7.89
parvulus 1.3 5.0 5.0 0.0 8.6 3.82
xanthotrichus 8.4 10.0 5.7 10.0 9.0 8.19
tuerckheimii 1.5 10.0 0.0 0.0 8.2 3.86
chiapasanus 9.0 9.5 7.5 N/A 10.0 8.80
pauciflorus 0.2 4.0 6.7 N/A 10.0 4.27
lunatus 3.9 3.3 5.6 3.9 8.9 4.47 zimapanensis 8.8 10.0 10.0 N/A 10.0 9.63
Source: Ramírez-Villegas J, Khoury C, Jarvis A, Debouck DG, and Guarino L (2010). A Gap Analysis Methodology for Collecting Crop Genepools: a Case Study with Phaseolus Bean. PLoS ONE
5(10): e13497. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013497;

42. Gap analysis- results
Source: Ramírez-Villegas J, Khoury C, Jarvis A, Debouck DG, and Guarino L (2010). A Gap Analysis Methodology for Collecting Crop Genepools: a Case Study with Phaseolus Bean. PLoS ONE
5(10): e13497. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013497; FAO WIEWS 2009

43. Gap analysis- validating results
man versus the machine
Source: Ramírez-Villegas J, Khoury C, Jarvis A, Debouck DG, and Guarino L (2010). A Gap Analysis Methodology for Collecting Crop Genepools: a Case Study with Phaseolus Bean. PLoS ONE
5(10): e13497. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013497; FAO WIEWS 2009

44. Gap analysis- results for African Vigna
complementarity analysis
Source: Jarvis A. 2009.

45. Gap analysis- results for wild tomatoes
Source: Castaneda N (2011)

46. Gap analysis- results for 12 genepools
Source: Jarvis A., Ramirez J. 2009. personal communication

47. Gap Analysis Website
http://gisweb.ciat.cgiar.org/GapAnalysis/
the future- automated, iterative results
Source: Jarvis et al. 2009.Value of a Coordinate: geographic analysis of agricultural biodiversity. Presentation for Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG), November 2009.

48. Predicted change in taxon richness in 2050

49. Will we find what we are looking for?
CWR of millet have unique climatic
adaptations potentially relevant
for crop improvement
Low evidence of potential
traits for adapting wheat
crops to climate change

50. Will we find what we are
looking for?
Low but statistically significant
correlation between pairwise
difference in climate and
morphological, agronomical and
molecular traits
Climate at collection point could
also be a rapid means of
screening for diversity in a
collection

51. Toward a US National Strategy for the Conservation of
Crop Wild Relatives

52. Strategy Flowchart

53. National Inventory
•
Inventory includes a wide range of
utilized and potentially useful taxa,
including both native and naturalized taxa
occurring in the US
o
Taxa directly used for food, fiber,
forage, medicine, ornamental, and
restoration purposes
o
CWR taxa
•
Inventory currently lists over 3,000 taxa

54. Taxonomic Priorities-
what taxa are likely to be most useful?
•
A rational, effective strategy requires prioritization of taxa based
upon their potential use value in contributing to breeding and
therefore to crop production.
•
This focuses the priorities on those genepools of major crops with
active breeding programs
•
Primary focus on food crops, but also forage, medicinal, ornamental,
etc.
•
Gather data on major crops globally (FAOSTAT, published
literature, ITPGRFA)
•
Prioritize the list (Priority 1, Priority 2)
•
Identify genera in genepools of priority crops
•
Results: 242 World’s Top Crops (268 genera)
o
101 crops (119 genera) in Priority 1
o
141 crops (149 genera) in Priority 2
•
This list includes all the most important agricultural crops around
the world by a number of measures, and covers all crops listed in
FAOSTAT for US production and food supply, with virtually all

55. Priorities for the US
•
Apply World’s Top Crops list to the national inventory
and to GRIN taxonomy to derive a priority list of
CWR occurring in the US
•
Review inventory and add a few additional genepools
to priorities- brome (Bromus), Cuphea, groundcherry
(Physalis), St. John’s Wort (Hypericum), liquorice
(Glycyrrhiza), pitanga (Eugenia), and Echinacea to
Priority 2 CWR
•
sugar maple (Acer saccharum), wild rice (Zizania spp.),
medicinal species of Echinacea, pine nut species of
Pinus, pecan (Carya illinoinensis, jojoba (Simmondsia
chinensis) and the alcohol/sugar taxa of Agave- utilized
taxa were added to Priority 1, as iconic wild species
crops occurring in the US

56. Priorities for the US
•
2,014 taxa of 159 priority genera occur in the US
o
905 taxa of 74 Priority 1 genera
o
1,108 taxa of 85 Priority 2 genera.
•
Important crops with rich native genepools include
Allium (onion), Cucurbita (squash), Fragaria
(strawberry), Helianthus (sunflower), Ipomoea (sweet
potato), Lactuca (lettuce), Phaseolus (bean), Prunus
(cherry, almond, peach), Ribes (currant), Rubus
(raspberry), Saccharum (sugar cane),Vaccinium
(blueberry, cranberry), and Vitis (grape), among others.

57. Priorities for the US
•
National Strategy will focus on Priority 1 genepools. This focus includes the richest
genepools of native diversity occurring in the US that have the potential to contribute to
crop improvement, and also attempts to cover the major wild species directly utilized for
food or medicine.
•
Closely related taxa (generally GP1/2), plus any additional taxa known to be of use to crop
breeding, will be subjected to a full gap analysis for identification of collecting priorities, and
for in situ conservation considerations.
•
Given these parameters, the major effort will focus on ca. 250-300 taxa.
•
Distantly related taxa (GP3)- a superficial gap analysis will identify taxa not conserved ex
situ by at least a few populations, and prioritize these for additional collecting. Generally no
in situ analysis for Genepool 3 taxa.
•
Non-native populations of taxa will generally not be considered within the analysis, aside
from particular populations of interest to the breeding community. Any taxa identified as
rare or threatened will be given particular attention in conservation recommendations.

58. Next Steps
•
Expert revision of priority
genepools- inputs requested for
forming a final list of the priority
crop genepools to be researched,
deadline end November.
•
http://cwroftheus.wordpress.com/

59. Research Directions
Prioritizing CWR populations for conservation and use, based on potential use value
Are CWR potentially useful for adaptation to climate change? Who, Where, how and why?
Ecogeographic characterization of taxa through GIS- how can GIS complement morphological and molecular data in
discerning closely related CWR?
How robust are genetic reserves in protected areas (in situ conservation) under projected climate change?
What are the global patterns of distribution of richness of CWR? Why are they distributed as they are? How
well is that richness conserved ex situ? What are the constraints to filling the gaps?
How well conserved are crop genepools with an emphasis on use value?
What are the differences between different crop genepools in population biology that should be taken into
consideration with the question of adequate conservation of the genetic diversity within the genepool?
What can the global patterns of CWR diversity tell us about why certain related plants were domesticated, and
not others? What does these patterns tell us about the domestication process and history of domestication?
How does the distribution of the CWR of the world’s major crops create interdependence in agriculture and breeding?

60. Centers of Origin of Selected Crops

61. Interdependence of Genetic Resources in Crops
= % food energy supply from crops not = % food energy supply from crops
indigenous to country indigenous to country
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
a
ea
es
da
a
q
a
go
ba
a
y
a
er
s
a
te
an
ri
pi
gu
bi
di
in
a
ig
in
in
an
Ir
u
on
e
io
om
In
ta
h
m
ra
C
ig
N
pp
u
C
h
w
C
S
G
er
N
a
Et
ol
ili
R
of
ed
ic
ew
G
C
h
N
it
ic
P
N
n
bl
U
a
u
u
ep
ap
R
P
Source: adapted from Flores Palacios F. 1998. Contribution to the Estimation of Countries’ Interdependence in the Area of Plant Genetic Resources. Rep.
7, Rev. 1, UN Food. Agric. Org. Comm. Genet. Resour. Food Agric., Rome, Italy. taken from Fowler C. and Hodgkin T. 2004. Plant Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture: Assessing Global Availability. Annu Rev Environ Resour 29: 10.1-10.37.