CWR global and US presentation Wag 2011

923 views

Published on

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

Published in: Science, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
923
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
334
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

CWR global and US presentation Wag 2011

  1. 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. 2. Feeding the FutureSource: Dery P. and Anderson B. 2007. Peak Phosphorus. Available online at http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2882
  3. 3. Feeding the FuturePredicted changes in total production (per cent) in SSA fromclimate change in 2046–2065 relative to 1961–2000. The medianpredicted impact is shown as solid line, while the box shows the25–75 percentile range. Whiskers extend to the 5 and 95percentileSource: 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 ofSource: Battisti, D.S., 2009. personal communication summers, x=departure from long-term 20th century mean)
  4. 4. The Challenge How can the world produce more food, under morechallenging conditions, with less energy, on at most the same amount of land, in a more ecologically sustainable manner?
  5. 5. Sources of Cereal Production Growth (2000-2050) 2.5 Untitled 1 Yield Improvement Area Change 2Percent 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. 6. CWR of RiceSource: 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 ClimateChange: The Need for Crop Wild Relatives’, Bellagio, 7-9 September 2010.
  7. 7. The Evolution of WheatSource: Payne T and Braun H (2010) Presentation for ‘Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change: The Need for Crop Wild Relatives’, Bellagio, 7-9 September 2010. Datafrom Evolution of Wheat, Wheat Genetics Resource Center, KSU.
  8. 8. CWR and Genetic DiversitySource: 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 thecultivated gene pool? Presentation for ‘Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change: The Need for Crop Wild Relatives’, Bellagio, 7-9 September 2010. Data from Tanksley andMcCouch (1997) Science 277.
  9. 9. Pest and Disease Resistance from CWR Musa acuminata- black sigatoka resistance Manihot glaziovii- cassava mosaic disease Aegilops tauschii- (CMD) resistance hessian fly resistanceSource: Okogbenin E (2010) The Use and Challenges of CWR in Breeding. Presentation for ‘Adapting Agriculture to ClimateChange: The Need for Crop Wild Relatives’, Bellagio, 7-9 September 2010.
  10. 10. Disease Resistance from CWR of Rice tungro virus tolerantSource: 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 CropWild Relatives’, Bellagio, 7-9 September 2010.
  11. 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. pimpinellifoliumSource: 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. 12. Threats to CWR In Situ 2055Source: 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 Needfor Crop Wild Relatives’, Bellagio, 7-9 September 2010. Photo adapted from Tollefson J (2010) Nature 466: 554-556.
  13. 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-ThreatenedSource: 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: AssessingConservation Status and Setting Future Priorities. Crop Science 43, 1100-1108.
  14. 14. Impacts of Climate Change on Crop Wild RelativesJarvis  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  CWRThuiller  (2005)-­‐  By  2080,  50%  of  1350  studied  plant  species   would  be  vulnerable  or  threatened    by  climate  change
  15. 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 accessionsSource: 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 ONE5(10): e13497. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013497; FAO WIEWS 2009
  16. 16. Adapting Agriculture to Climate ChangeCollecting, Protecting and Preparing Crop Wild Relatives Biodiversity Conservation Agricultural Development Climate Change Adaptation Food Security
  17. 17. Project Timeline
  18. 18. Priority Genepools and TaxaCrop TaxaAlfalfa (Medicago) 13Apple 12 AppleBambara Groundnut 27 AlfalfaBanana 31 WheatBarley 2 Bambara GroundnutBean (Phaseolus) 37Carrot 27 VetchChickpea 4 Sweet PotatoCowpea 12 BananaEggplant 32 SunflowerFaba Bean 1Finger Millet 4 Rye Sorghum BarleyGrasspea 12 RiceLentil 4Oat 12 BeanPea 9Pearl Millet 4Pigeon Pea 8 ChickpeaPotato 83 CowpeaRice 19 PotatoRye 4 EggplantSorghum 5 Pea GrasspeaSunflower 11 Oat Pigeon Pea Finger MilletSweet Potato 14Vetch 9 Pearl Millet Lentil Faba BeanWheat 55 Total 451
  19. 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 guidesCoordinate with national partners and experts Collect
  20. 20. Research: Gap AnalysisSource: 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. 21. Collecting GuidesSource: 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, 7-9September 2010.
  22. 22. Research: State of Ex Situ Conservation of CWR in GenebanksSource: 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, 7-9September 2010.
  23. 23. CollectingSource: 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, 7-9September 2010.
  24. 24. Trust and Kew MSB Partnerships
  25. 25. ConservationPhotos: ICRISAT 2009; IRRI 2009; Mari Tefre; Global Crop Diversity Trust
  26. 26. Groundnut Breeding with CWRSource: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 Needfor Crop Wild Relatives’, Bellagio, 7-9 September 2010. Photo adapted from Tollefson J (2010) Nature 466: 554-556.
  27. 27. CWR Pre-Breeding and EvaluationFigure 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 "Its a bit like crossing a house cat with a wildcat...You interest known genes of dont automatically get a big docile pussycat. What you get is a lot of wildness that you probably dont 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 systemsSource: Rhoades, Robert E. “The World’s Food Supply at Risk,” National Geographic (April 1991), 74-105.
  28. 28. Information SystemsSource: http://www.genesys-pgr.org/.
  29. 29. Priority Crops and GenepoolsAgropyron Colocasia Ipomoea PistaciaAllium Corylus Isatis Pisum (incl. Vavilovia)Ananas Crambe Juglans PrunusArachis Cucumis Lablab Pyrus Raphanus (incl.Armoracia Cucurbita Lactuca Raphanobrassica)Artocarpus Cynara Lathyrus RibesAsparagus Daucus Lens RorippaAvena Digitaria Lepidium SaccarhumBarbarea Dioscorea Lupinus SecaleBertholletia Diplotaxis Malus SesamumBeta Echinochloa Mangifera SetariaBrassica Elaeis Manihot SinapisCajanus Elettaria Medicago Solanum (incl. Lycopersicon)Camellia Eleusine Musa (incl. Ensete) SorghumCapsicum Elymus Olea SpinaciaCarica Eruca Oryza Theobroma Triticum (incl. Triticosecale,Carthamnus Ficus Panicum Aegilops, others)Chenopodium Fragaria (incl. as Potentilla) Pennisetum ViciaCicer Glycine Persea VignaCitrullus Gossypium Phaseolus VitellariaCitrus (incl. Fortunella and Helianthus Phoenix VitisPoncirus)Cocos Hordeum Pimenta XanthosomaCoffea Ilex Piper Zea (incl. Tripsacum) https://nacms.co.uk/croptrust/
  30. 30. Research: Gap Analysis Gather taxonomic Gather occurrence Georeferencing data data Make collecting Determine gaps in Model recommendations collections distributionsSource: 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. 31. Occurrence data sources GBIF- 44.7 million plant occurrencesData quality- 840,449 (88.5%) out of 950,000 records good quality
  32. 32. Occurrence data sources But there are gapsSource: Castaneda N (2011)
  33. 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. 34. Geo-referencing
  35. 35. Gap analysisSource: 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 ONE5(10): e13497. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013497;
  36. 36. Gap analysis- different gaps
  37. 37. Gap analysis- gross representationSource: 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 ONE5(10): e13497. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013497;
  38. 38. Gap analysis- modeling distributionsSource: 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 ONE5(10): e13497. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013497;
  39. 39. Gap analysis- geographic gapsSource: 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 ONE5(10): e13497. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013497;
  40. 40. Gap analysis- climatic gapsSource: 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 ONE5(10): e13497. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013497;
  41. 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 9.63Source: 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 ONE5(10): e13497. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013497;
  42. 42. Gap analysis- resultsSource: 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 ONE5(10): e13497. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013497; FAO WIEWS 2009
  43. 43. Gap analysis- validating results man versus the machineSource: 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 ONE5(10): e13497. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013497; FAO WIEWS 2009
  44. 44. Gap analysis- results for African Vigna complementarity analysisSource: Jarvis A. 2009.
  45. 45. Gap analysis- results for wild tomatoesSource: Castaneda N (2011)
  46. 46. Gap analysis- results for 12 genepoolsSource: Jarvis A., Ramirez J. 2009. personal communication
  47. 47. Gap Analysis Website http://gisweb.ciat.cgiar.org/GapAnalysis/ the future- automated, iterative resultsSource: Jarvis et al. 2009.Value of a Coordinate: geographic analysis of agricultural biodiversity. Presentation for Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG), November 2009.
  48. 48. Predicted change in taxon richness in 2050
  49. 49. Will we find what we are looking for? CWR of millet have unique climatic adaptations potentially relevant for crop improvementLow evidence of potential traits for adapting wheat crops to climate change
  50. 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. 51. Toward a US National Strategy for the Conservation of Crop Wild Relatives
  52. 52. Strategy Flowchart
  53. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 59. Research DirectionsPrioritizing CWR populations for conservation and use, based on potential use valueAre 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 indiscerning 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? Howwell 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 intoconsideration 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, andnot 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. 60. Centers of Origin of Selected Crops
  61. 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 PSource: 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.

×