Plant genetic resources and climate change


Published on

Presentation made on the 15th November 2010 in New Delhi, India in the office of NBPGR by Andy Jarvis.

Published in: Technology, News & Politics
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Plant genetic resources and climate change

  1. 1. © Neil Palmer (CIAT)<br />Plant genetic resource: Threats and opportunities arising from climate change<br />Andy Jarvis, Julián Ramírez, Nora Castañeda, Nigel Maxted, Robert Hijmans and Jacob Van Etten <br />
  2. 2. Content<br />Some background on climate change and what it means for agriculture<br />Focus on crop wild relatives: threats and opportunities<br />The CGIAR-ESSP lead Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security global program of research<br />Concluding remarks<br />
  3. 3. Climate change is not new…but is accelerating<br />
  4. 4. Global Climate Models (GCMs)<br />21 global climate models in the world, based on atmospheric sciences, chemistry, biology, and a touch of astrology<br />Run from the past to present to calibrate, then into the future<br />Run using different emissions scenarios<br />
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
  7. 7. Temperatures rise….<br />
  8. 8. Changes in rainfall…<br />
  9. 9. The Impacts on Crop Suitability<br />
  10. 10. Empirical evidence of serious problems in the US<br /><ul><li>In many cases, roughly 6-10% yield loss per degree
  11. 11. For example, US maize, soy, cotton yields fall rapidly when exposed to temperatures >30˚C</li></ul>Schlenker and Roberts 2009 PNAS<br />
  12. 12. Average change in suitability for all crops in 2050s<br />
  13. 13. Impacts of climate change to food security<br />Lobell et al. looked at impacts of climate change on food security<br />Cassava clearly highlighted as suffering least among many staples<br />Particular opportunities as an alternative crop for southern Africa<br />
  14. 14. Crop wild relatives - Thefoundation of agriculture<br />
  15. 15. Wild relatives of crops<br />Includeboth progenitor species and closelyrelatedspecies of cultivatedcrops<br />Faba beans – 0 wild relatives<br />Potato – 172 wild relativespecies<br />Increasinglyuseful in breeding, especiallyforbioticresistance<br />
  16. 16. Photos from Jose Valls, CENARGEN<br />
  17. 17. Why conserve CWR diversity?<br />Use!!<br />234 papers cited<br />Maxted and Kell, 2009<br />Use: 39% pest resistance; 17% abiotic stress; 13% yield increase <br />Citations: 2% <1970; 13% 1970s; 15% 1980s; 32% 1990s; 38% >1999<br />
  18. 18. Wild relative species<br />A. batizocoi - 12 germplasm accessions<br />A. cardenasii - 17 germplasm accessions <br />A. diogoi - 5 germplasm accessions<br />Florunner, with no root-knot nematode resistance<br />COAN, with population density of root-knot nematodes >90% less than in Florunner<br />
  19. 19. Grassy stunt virus in rice<br />Resistance from Oryzanivaragenes<br />(Barclay 2004)<br />Potato late blight<br />Resistance from Solanumdemissun<br />and S. stoloniferum<br />National potato council (2003)<br />
  20. 20. Nevo and Chen 2010<br />Adaptation to abiotic stress<br />
  21. 21. Quality traits<br />
  22. 22. Post harvest deterioration - Cassava<br />Courtesy of Emmanuel Okogbenin<br />
  23. 23. Why conserve CWR Diversity?<br />Value as wild plant species in natural ecosystems<br />Value of CWR as actual or potential gene donors:<br />US$340 million a year in US (Prescott-Allen and Prescott Allen, 1986)<br />$20 billion toward increased crop yields per year in the United States and $115 billion worldwide (Pimentel et al., 1997)<br />US$10 billion annually in global wholesale farm values (Phillips and Meilleur, 1998)<br /><ul><li>Individual examples of use:
  24. 24. Lycopersicon chmielewskii sweetening tomato US $ 5-8million per year (Iltis, 1988)
  25. 25. Various CWR of wheat provide disease resistance to wheat and US benefits by US $ 50m per year (Witt, 1985)</li></ul>Courtesy of Nigel Maxted<br />
  26. 26. Threats<br />
  27. 27. Impact of climate change on CWR<br />Assessment of shifts in distribution range under climate change<br />Wild potatoes<br />Wild African Vigna<br />Wild peanuts<br />
  28. 28.
  29. 29. Latitudinal and Elevational Shifts<br />Peanuts<br />Shift south and upwards<br />
  30. 30. Latitudinal and Elevational Shifts<br />Potatoes<br />Shift upwards<br />
  31. 31. Summary Impacts<br />16-22% (depending on migration scenario) of these species predicted to go extinct <br />Most species losing over 50% of their range size<br />Wild peanuts were the most affected group, with 24 to 31 of 51 species projected to go extinct <br />For wild potato, 7 to 13 of 108 species were predicted to go extinct<br />
  32. 32. Wild relative species<br />A. batizocoi - 12 germplasm accessions<br />A. cardenasii - 17 germplasm accessions <br />A. diogoi - 5 germplasm accessions<br />Florunner, with no root-knot nematode resistance<br />COAN, with population density of root-knot nematodes >90% less than in Florunner<br />
  33. 33. Impact of Climate Change – Wild Peanuts<br />
  34. 34. More immediate threats….<br />
  35. 35. Concentration of the natural distributiononthearea of mostintensivecattle-raising and cropproductionactivity in Brazil has notbeen a seriousproblem, in thepast, forpreservation of local wild species of Arachis, buttheadvance of themodern, mechanizedagriculture, in thelastfewdecades, and speciallythe use of herbicideshaveimposedseverepressureon wild populations. Thisisalso true for Eastern Bolivia, wheremanyspecies of sectionArachisoccur. <br />Adapted from Nature, v.466, p.554-556, 2010<br />Slide provided by Jose Valls, CENARGEN<br />
  36. 36. Slide provided by Jose Valls, CENARGEN<br />
  37. 37. © Neil Palmer (CIAT)<br />Howwellconserved are crop wild relatives?Gap Analysis<br />
  38. 38. Why Gap Analysis?<br />Tool to assess crop and crop wild relative genetic and geographical diversity<br />Allows detecting incomplete species collections as well as defining which species should be collected and where these collections should be focused<br />Assesses the current extent at which the ex situ conservation system is correctly holding the genetic diversity of a particular genepool<br />
  39. 39. To know what you don’t have, you first need to know what you do have<br />
  40. 40. The visible global system<br />
  41. 41. The Gap Analysis process<br /><ul><li>Identifyinggaps</li></ul>Proxy for:<br /><ul><li> Diversity
  42. 42. Possibly biotic traits</li></ul>Proxy for:<br /><ul><li> Range of traits</li></ul>Proxy for:<br /><ul><li> Abiotic traits</li></li></ul><li>An example in Phaseolus <br />
  43. 43. Herbarium versus germplasm: Geographic<br />
  44. 44. Herbarium versus germplasm: Taxon<br />
  45. 45. Conserved ex situ richness versus potential<br />
  46. 46. Priorities: Geographic and taxonomic<br />
  47. 47. Gap Analysis<br /><ul><li></li></li></ul><li>Taxon-level and genepool level priorities<br />
  48. 48. Wild Vigna collecting priorities<br />Spatial analysis on current conserved materials<br />*Gaps* in current collections<br />Definition and prioritisation of collecting areas<br />8 100x100km cells to complete collections of 23 wild Vigna priority species<br />
  49. 49. Exploration and ex-situ conservation of Capsicum flexuosum<br /><ul><li>Uncommon species of wild chilli, found in Paraguay and Argentina
  50. 50. 18 known registers of the plant
  51. 51. 2 germplasm accessions conserved in the USDA
  52. 52. Genetically unknown
  53. 53. Found in an area undergoing high levels of habitat loss</li></li></ul><li>Capsicum flexuosum - FloraMap<br />
  54. 54. Habitat: Forest Margins<br />
  55. 55. Road Access<br />
  56. 56. Priority Areas for Collection<br />
  57. 57. Results<br /><ul><li> One plant found with few seeds, where previous herbarium record
  58. 58. First accession conserved ex situ </li></ul>1998<br /><ul><li> 1 plant found, with few seeds</li></ul>2001<br />Using GIS model<br /><ul><li> 6 new collections of C. flexuosum
  59. 59. 160 seeds conserved ex situ</li></ul>2002<br />
  60. 60. Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security: A major new global program to rise to the challenge<br />
  61. 61. Improved<br />Environmental<br />Benefits<br />Improved<br />Livelihoods<br />Improved<br />Food Security<br />Trade-offs and synergies<br /> Climate Variability and Change<br />Current agricultural,<br />NRM & food systems<br />1. Adaptation for confronting climate risk<br />2. Adaptation for progressive climate change<br />3. Mitigation for reducing GHG emissions, enhancing carbon-storage and reducing poverty<br />4. Diagnosis and vulnerability assessment for making strategic choices<br />Adapted agricultural,<br />NRM & food systems<br />
  62. 62. Major research questions to be addressed:<br />What priority genepools for climate change adaptation are threatened, and how can they be conserved to ensure their continuing availability?<br />How do cultural practices exploit this diversity and how can farmers’ knowledge be used to help identify landraces and crop varieties suited for specific climatic conditions?<br />How can access to crop diversity local farmers be facilitated through enhanced seed systems or other mechanisms?<br />How does on farm crop diversity in production systems contribute to maintaining productivity in the face of progressive climate change and increased variability in climate?<br />
  63. 63. Conclusions<br />Major challenges from climate change: can agriculture stand up to a 2 degree warmer world?<br />Plant genetic resources threatened by climate change, but also a key element of the solution<br />Crop wild relative use on the increase, but poorly conserved ex situ and under threat in situ<br />Need for a major collecting effort to fill gaps, and explore novel genetic approaches to further stimulate their use<br />
  64. 64.<br />