interdependence among countries in plant genetic resources and crop wild relatives of the united...
TRANSCRIPT
Interdependence among countries in plant genetic resourcesand
Crop wild relatives of the United States
Colin K. Khoury
National Genetic Resources Advisory Council (NGRAC) MeetingApril 21 2016
University of GeorgiaGriffin, Georgia
Some early genetic resource introducers to the U.S.
“The greatest service which can be rendered to any country is to add a useful plant to its culture; especially a bread grain. next in value to bread is oil” Thomas Jefferson, 1800
U.S. seed distributions 1862-1897
Period Number of seed packages
Average number of seed packages
per year1862-1869 6,597,979 824,747
1870-1879 12,894,336 1,289,434
1880-1889 34,951,232 3,495,123
1890-1897 81,561,998 10,195,250
Seed package distributions by the U.S. Government to farmers
Fowler (1994) Unnatural Selection. Gordon and Breach, Amsterdam.
1897 – the biggest year in U.S. plant germplasm distribution history: 20,368,724 packages mailed
Examples of farmer driven crop development in the U.S.: 7000 varieties of apples developed the 1800s
135 significant wheat varieties grown in Ohio in 18591362 varieties of strawberry in New York by 1925
David Cavagnaro
http://www.bioenergyconsult.com/introduction-to-pome/
Increasing challenges to food production
Neil Palmer/CIAT
Energy Bulletin 2007http://www.greenberg-art.com/
1961
Diets are changing
Khoury et al. (2014) PNAS 111(11): 4001-4006
Khoury et al. (2014) PNAS 111(11): 4001-4006
1985
Diets are changing
2009
Khoury et al. (2014) PNAS 111(11): 4001-4006
Diets are changing
Khoury et al. (2014) PNAS 111(11): 4001-4006
Diets worldwide are becoming more similar*
*for crops measured in FAO food supply data
• Major cereals, tubers and sugar- centerpiece and still growing in importance• Oil crops, especially
soybean and palm oil- major increases• Regional cereals,
tubers, and oils- marginalizing • Local crops also
declining
Changing relative contribution of crops to diets
Khoury and Jarvis (2014) CIAT Policy Brief 18.
U.S. dietary change 1961 to 2009
Khoury et al. (2014) PNAS 111(11): 4001-4006
Calories Fat
• Calories:+ soybean (134%), other sweeteners (271%), maize (51%), barley (5%), rice (152%), peanut (22%), alcoholic beverages (27%), rape and mustard (1815%)- wheat (-6%), sugar (-43%), other vegetables (-25%), beans (-29%)
• Protein:+ peanut (+38%), maize (+30%), rice (+169%)- other vegetables (-23%), beans (-20%)
• Fat:+ soybean (+111%), maize (+102%), rape and mustard (+3708%), peanut (10%), olives (+267%), cocoa beans (112%), sunflower (+535%)- cottonseed oil (-80%), coconut (-68%)
U.S. dietary change 1961 to 2009
Khoury et al. (2014) PNAS 111(11): 4001-4006
David Cavagnaro
Conservation and access are critically important
Castañeda-Álvarez et al. (2016) Nature Plants 2(4): 16022
http://www.fao.org/wiews-archive/img/gbanks130.jpg
David Cavagnaro
• Direct measures of exchange of plant genetic resources among countries are not comprehensively available • Plant Treaty MLS should help fill this data gap in
coming years• Use of germplasm is often proprietary
information, especially in the private sector• The economic, social, and food and nutrition
security benefits derived from production of crop varieties have not been well documented
Challenges in quantifying interdependence among countries in plant genetic resources
(i.e., our excuses)
David Cavagnaro
• CGIAR and USDA NPGS distributions show increasing international transfers over time• Increasing use of breeding materials from diverse
geographic backgrounds in the development of modern cultivars of major cereal and grain legumes• Most of the biggest producers of major crops are
not in the centers of diversity of the crops, e.g.: • Wheat: China, India, USA, Russian Federation, France and
Canada • Maize: USA, China, Germany, France, Brazil, and Argentina• Soybean: USA, Brazil, Argentina and India• Potato: China, India, Russian Federation, Ukraine, USA (FAOSTAT
2015)
Evidence for increasing use of exotic genetic resources
(i.e., what we do know)
Khoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
Interdependence is central to the Plant Treaty
• “Alarmed by the continuing erosion of these resources”
• “Cognizant that plant genetic resources for food and agriculture are a common concern of all countries, in that all countries depend very largely on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture that originated elsewhere”
• “Recognizing that, in the exercise of their sovereign rights over their plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, states may mutually benefit from the creation of an effective multilateral system for facilitated access to a negotiated selection of these resources and for the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from their use”
http://www.planttreaty.org/
Flores-Palacios X. (1998) Background Study Paper No. 7, Rev. 1. (Rome: FAO).
Estimating interdependence in plant genetic resources
Khoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
“Primary regions of diversity” of crops
International Potato Center (CIP)
High diversity in primary regions
David Cavagnaro
Primary regions of diversity of major crops
Khoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
Primary regions of diversity of crops produced and/or consumed by the U.S.
Primary region of diversity of crops
Production quantity (tonnes)
Production quantity (%)
Harvested area (ha)
Harvested area (%)
Production value
(current million USD)
Production value (%)
Calories (kcal/
capita/ day)
Calories (%)
Protein (g/
capita/ day)
Protein (%)
Fat (g/ capita/
day) Fat (%)
Food weight
(g/ capita/
day)
Food weight
(%)
North America 10,906,985 0.7% 1,210,253 0.6% 8,645.9 2.6% 40.7 0.6% 0.4 0.4% 1.6 1.2% 42.7 1.2%Central America and
Mexico440,916,58
5 27.3%40,191,87
9 20.4% 70,298.0 21.0% 226.0 3.3% 4.3 4.5% 10.7 8.1% 69.3 1.9%
Caribbean 13,744,297 0.8% 3,766,020 1.9% 1,820.1 0.5% 24.0 0.4% 0.1 0.1% 2.5 1.9% 5.3 0.1%
Andes 34,470,536 2.1% 1,312,551 0.7% 17,980.4 5.4% 135.0 2.0% 5.1 5.3% 0.5 0.4% 268.3 7.2%
Tropical South America 17,528,874 1.1% 4,316,086 2.2% 3,920.8 1.2% 111.7 1.7% 3.3 3.5% 9.0 6.8% 48.7 1.3%
Temperate South America 1,292,593 0.1% 23,273 0.0% 2,260.0 0.7% 0.0 0.0% 0.1 0.1% 0.0 0.0% 1.0 0.0%
West Africa 21,890,391 1.4% 3,466,355 1.8% 4,910.2 1.5% 90.3 1.3% 2.5 2.7% 0.3 0.2% 33.7 0.9%
Central Africa 20,637,054 1.3% 3,300,015 1.7% 4,465.4 1.3% 90.3 1.3% 2.5 2.7% 0.3 0.2% 33.7 0.9%
East Africa 25,852,211 1.6% 6,284,486 3.2% 3,262.5 1.0% 64.7 1.0% 1.5 1.6% 5.2 3.9% 21.7 0.6%
Southern Africa 27,431,824 1.7% 6,027,565 3.1% 3,950.4 1.2% 30.0 0.4% 0.5 0.5% 2.4 1.8% 5.3 0.1%
Northwest Europe 37,186,740 2.3% 1,368,202 0.7% 12,113.8 3.6% 338.7 5.0% 0.9 0.9% 0.4 0.3% 152.0 4.1%
Southwest Europe 40,642,785 2.5% 1,768,832 0.9% 14,285.9 4.3% 390.7 5.8% 0.4 0.4% 7.7 5.8% 151.0 4.1%
Northeast Europe 37,186,740 2.3% 1,368,202 0.7% 12,113.8 3.6% 338.7 5.0% 0.9 0.9% 0.4 0.3% 152.0 4.1%
Southeast Europe 42,769,582 2.6% 2,031,089 1.0% 16,692.7 5.0% 390.7 5.8% 0.4 0.4% 7.7 5.8% 151.0 4.1%South and East Mediterranean
106,135,285 6.6%
22,627,839 11.5% 29,342.1 8.8% 1096.7 16.2% 20.8 21.9% 10.4 7.8% 577.7 15.6%
West Asia267,977,64
3 16.6%30,723,52
3 15.6% 31,153.8 9.3% 767.0 11.3% 21.3 22.4% 5.7 4.3% 520.7 14.0%
Central Asia261,673,53
4 16.2%29,701,36
4 15.1% 28,450.9 8.5% 726.3 10.7% 20.5 21.6% 3.0 2.3% 533.3 14.4%
South Asia 40,038,995 2.5% 2,208,900 1.1% 8,708.2 2.6% 410.3 6.1% 2.2 2.3% 1.2 0.9% 158.0 4.3%
East Asia126,519,11
8 7.8%33,192,75
8 16.9% 51,406.4 15.3% 662.0 9.8% 2.4 2.5% 58.5 43.9% 283.7 7.7%
Southeast Asia 40,702,420 2.5% 1,927,681 1.0% 7,909.2 2.4% 401.7 5.9% 1.7 1.8% 1.1 0.8% 142.7 3.8%
Tropical Pacific Region 1,031,687 0.1% 36,220 0.0% 406.5 0.1% 9.0 0.1% 0.0 0.0% 0.9 0.7% 5.3 0.1%
Not Specified 1,103,124 0.1% 91,050 0.0% 1,064.1 0.3% 419.7 6.2% 3.3 3.5% 3.5 2.6% 349.0 9.4%
Khoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
Primary regions of diversity of crops produced by the U.S.
Khoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
Primary regions of diversity of crops produced by the U.S.
Khoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
Primary regions of diversity of crops consumed by the U.S.
Khoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
Primary regions of diversity of crops consumed by the U.S.
Khoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
Khoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
Calories
Australia and New Zealand
Indian Ocean Islands
The primary regions of diversity of major crops
Khoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
Khoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
Calories
Khoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
Calories
Khoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
Calories
Khoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
Calories
Khoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
Calories
Khoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
Calories
Khoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
Calories
Khoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
Calories
Khoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
Calories
Khoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
Calories
Calories
Global interconnectedness with regard to primary
regions of diversity of crops important in food supplies
Khoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
U.S. national agricultural production: 98.7% ± 1.1 of production quantity is foreign crops 98.8% ± 1.1 of harvested area 94.9% ± 1.1 of production value
Production quantity
Degree of production per country of “foreign” crops
Khoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
Global average of national agricultural production: 71.0% ± 1.8 of production quantity is foreign crops 64.0% ± 2.2 of harvested area72.9% ± 1.9 of production value
Calories
Degree of consumption per country of “foreign” crops
U.S. national food supply: 89.9% ± 4.1 of calories are from foreign crops94.7% ± 2.1 of protein 96.4% ± 0.9 of fat84.2% ± 5.5 of food weightKhoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
Global average of national food supplies: 65.8% ± 1.8 of calories are from foreign crops 66.6% ± 2.1 of protein 73.7% ± 1.6 of fat 68.7% ± 1.4 of food weight
Use of “foreign” crops has increased over time
Production systemsFood supplies
Khoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
Use of “foreign” crops is associated with diverse diets and agricultural production
systemsProduction systemsFood supplies
Khoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
Use of “foreign” crops is associated with GDP
Production systemsFood supplies
Khoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
David Cavagnaro
• Formal seed system development varies among countries• Breeding capacity varies among countries• Decreasing national public sector and increasing
international private sector• Crop genetic diversity is also distributed outside
of primary regions:• Secondary regions and beyond• Genebanks• *but note, the increasing use of crop wild relatives and
their relatively low representation in genebanks still connect us to primary regions for wild genetic resources
Limitations and caveats to our estimates
Distributions of crop wild relatives that are highly under-represented in the world’s
genebanks
Castañeda-Álvarez et al. (2016) Nature Plants 2(4): 16022
Origins of accessions and recipients of samples distributed by NPGS
Regional origins and recipients of 3 million accessions distributed by the USDA NPGS, 2005-2015
Plant genetic resource distributions by major germplasm distributors
Genebank
Average number of samples
distributed per year
USDA NPGS, USA 304,249CGIAR*
(International) 44,669
IPK, Germany 28,529
AGG, Australia 8,911
CGN, Netherlands 6,512
AAFC, Canada 3,452
JIC, UK 797*no CIMMYT data, and doesn’t include distributions to CG breeding programs
Distributions (backups) in Svalbard Global Seed Vault not included for any genebank
Regional origins and recipients of the 400,000 accessions distributed on average per year by the USDA NPGS, CGIAR, IPK, AGG, CGN, AAFC, and JIC
Origins of accessions and recipients of samples distributed by major germplasm distributors
worldwide
David Cavagnaro
• The world is interconnected with regard to primary regions of diversity of crops important in national production and national food supplies, and is becoming more so over time• Primary regions are still directly relevant at least for crop wild relatives
• Broad use of “foreign” crops and extensive interconnectedness among countries worldwide bolsters the arguments:• For considering the genetic resources of important food crops as public
goods which should be openly available to all• Exchange should be as politically straightforward and financially low cost as
possible • Native traits, at the least, should not be privatized
• For recognizing historical contributions to the diversity in our food systems by protecting farmers’ rights to choose what varieties they maintain and exchange
• For international collaboration on conservation, availability and access to genetic diversity of important food crops
• The U.S. is a major provider and U.S. users are major beneficiaries of plant genetic resources distributed by genebanks
Interdependence: key messages
Importance of crops and their coverage in the Plant Treaty MLS
Khoury et al. (2015) ITPGRFA Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
• Total global production of crops not in Annex 1:• 41.0% of production
quantity • 27.0% of harvested area• 41.2% of production
value
• Global aggregate food supplies not in Annex 1:• 28.7% of calories• 19.0% of protein• 61.0% of fat • 43.4% of food weight
Blue: covered in Annex 1Red: not covered in Annex 1
Crop wild relatives
of the United StatesGreg Baute
Crop wild relatives in the news
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300
CWR in global development targets
“By 2020 maintain genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants, farmed and domesticated animals and their related wild species, including through soundly managed and diversified seed and plant banks at national, regional and international levels, and ensure access to and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge as internationally agreed”
United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
Target 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote
sustainable agriculture
https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/
CWR in global conservation targets
“By 2020, the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and of wild relatives, including other socio-economically as well as culturally valuable species, is maintained, and strategies have been developed and implemented for minimizing genetic erosion and safeguarding their genetic diversity.”
Convention on Biological DiversityStrategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020
Aichi Biodiversity Targets
Crop wild relatives are valuable
Western corn rootworm resistance
from Tripsacum dactyloides
Salinity tolerance from Helianthus paradoxus
Uses worldwide: • pest and disease
resistance 56% • abiotic stress tolerance
13%• quality improvement 11%• yield increase 10%• husbandry improvement
6% cytoplasmic male sterility and fertility restorers 4% (Maxted & Kell 2009)
Taxon Trait Taxon Trait
Corylus americana Eastern filbert blight resistance and other traits
Juglans major Rootstock for high pH soil
Helianthus anomalus Fertility restoration genes Juglans microcarpa Rootstock for high pH soil
Helianthus argophyllus Downy mildew resistance Juglans nigra Anthracnose resistance
Helianthus bolanderi Genetic stock Malus fusca Graftstock
Helianthus debilis Powdery mildew resistance Prunus andersonii Graftstock
Helianthus deserticola Downy mildew resistance Prunus pumila Graftstock
Helianthus divaricatus Broomrape resistance Prunus rivularis Graftstock
Helianthus giganteus Fertility restoration genes Ribes nigrum Pest and disease resistance. Other useful agronomic traits.
Helianthus grosseserratus Broomrape resistance Ribes uva-crispa Gall mite resistance
Helianthus hirsutus Fertility restoration genes Solanum stoloniferum Late blight resistance
Helianthus maximilianii Broomrape resistance Tripsacum dactyloides Corn leaf blight resistance
Helianthus neglectus Fertility restoration genes Vitis acerifolia Graftstock
Helianthus paradoxus Salt tolerance Vitis aestivalis Graftstock
Helianthus pauciflorus Cytoplasmic male sterility Vitis cinerea Graftstock
Helianthus petiolaris Verticillium resistance Vitis cinerea var. helleri Graftstock
Helianthus praecox Downy mildew, rust, verticillium wilt and broomrape resistance
Vitis labrusca Cold tolerance
Helianthus resinosus Fertility restoration genes Vitis monticola Graftstock
Helianthus strumosus Fertility restoration genes Vitis mustangensis Graftstock
Helianthus tuberosus Broomrape resistance Vitis riparia Phylloxera vitifoliae resistance
Hordeum bulbosum Powdery mildew resistance Vitis rupestris Phylloxera vitifoliae resistance
Juglans californica Graftstock Vitis vulpina Graftstock
Juglans hindsii Vigorous rootstock
Agronomic traits in U.S. CWR
Khoury et al. (2013) Crop Science 53(4): 1496.
2055
CWR are threatened
Jarvis et al. 2008 Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 126: 13-23.
1950-2000
58
Wild Pecos sunflower Helianthus paradoxusWild squash Cucurbita okeechobeensis subsp.
okeechobeensis
Scrub plum Prunus geniculataTexas wild rice Zizania texana
Including at home
Gather occurrence
data
Make collecting
recommendations
Model distributions
Process data
Determine gaps in
collections
TaxonomicGeographicEcological
Choose species or
area
CWR gap analysis method
Crop genepool (bean, potato,
etc.)NationalGlobal
Inventory of CWR of the U.S.• Inventory includes a wide
range of utilized and potentially useful taxa, including both native and naturalized species occurring in the U.S.
• List peer reviewed by U.S. researchers, curators, breeders
• Inventory contains over 4,600 taxa
• CWR related to major crops prioritized, along with U.S. iconic wild crops (e.g. sugar maple, wild rice, pecan)
• 250 closely related, native taxa related to 38 crops = highest priorityKhoury et al. (2013) Crop Science 53(4): 1496.
raspberry 8ribes 27squash pepo 3star anise 1strawberry 8sugar maple 3sunflower 35sweet potato 9tepary bean 2vanilla 2walnut 5wild rice 5
Associated crop
Number of
CWRapricot 2beet 3blackberry 36blueberry 17cherry 2chestnut 3chives 1cotton 3cranberry 2fig 1garlic 1grape 28guava 1hazelnut 3lettuce 9lingonberry 3maize 3mate 5peach 10pecan 9pepper 1persimmon 2pistachio 1plum 17potato 1ramp 1
Highest priority U.S. CWR (native close relatives of important food
crops)
Khoury et al. (2013) Crop Science 53(4): 1496.
Distributions of priority CWR in the U.S.
Distributions of priority CWR in the U.S.
Distributions of priority CWR in the U.S.
Blac
kber
rySu
nflow
erGr
ape
Ribe
sBl
uebe
rry
Plum
Peac
hLe
ttuce
Peca
nSw
eet p
otat
oRa
spbe
rry
Stra
wber
ryM
ate
Waln
utW
ild ri
ceSq
uash
pep
oCo
tton
Beet
Ches
tnut
Haze
lnut
Lingo
nber
ryM
aize
Suga
r map
leTe
pary
bea
nAp
ricot
Cher
ryCr
anbe
rry
Pers
imm
onVa
nilla
Pota
toCh
ives
FigGa
rlic
Guav
aPe
pper
Pista
chio
Ram
pSt
ar an
ise
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Further collecting priorities for priority CWR in the U.S.
Further collecting priorities for priority CWR in the U.S.
Further collecting priorities for priority CWR in the U.S.
• 219 species related to 36 crops are high priority for collecting • Collecting gaps in all 50 states + D.C.
State# of HPS with gaps
New York 87Virginia 85
Tennessee 82Texas 82North
Carolina 80West
Virginia 80Pennsylvani
a 78Ohio 77
Illinois 75Georgia 74
New Jersey 74Indiana 73
Arkansas 72Kentucky 72Maryland 72
Massachusetts 72
Missouri 72South
Carolina 72Florida 69
Alabama 68
Number of high priority species for collecting, per state
Further collecting priorities for priority CWR in the U.S.
China
TurkeyUSA
SpainIndia Ira
nIta
ly
GreeceFrance
Indonesia
MexicoBrazil
Russian Federation
Morocco
Algeria
Pakistan
Portugal
Peru
Ukraine
Azerbaija
n
Thailand
Malaysia
Armenia
BulgariaJapan
Afghanistan
Myanmar
Syrian Arab Republic
Australia
Israel
Romania
Turkmenistan
Tunisia
Viet Nam
AlbaniaNepal
Hungary
Georgia Iraq
Lebanon0
20
40
60
80
100
120 Number of high priority species (HPS) needing collect-ing per country
The U.S. is a global hotspot for under-represented CWR of major food crops
Castañeda-Álvarez et al. (2016) Nature Plants 2(4): 16022
Ongoing CWR-related plant explorations in the U.S.
USDA-ARS Plant Exploration Program • fills gaps in the NPGS• recent explorations for CWR
of potato, quinoa, sunflower, bean, sweet potato, and squash
BLM Seeds of Success• collection of US native plant
materials for restoration • seeds incorporated into the
NPGS for conservation and distribution
Wild potato, Arizona
Wild sunflower, Louisiana
Photo: J. Bamberg
Photo: K.A. Williams
Monongahela National Forest,
WV
George Washington National Forest, VA
http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/news/cranberry/index.shtml
Wild cranberry Vaccinium
macrocarpon
USDA CWR collaborative conservation projects
• The U.S. has a lot of CWR, and large gaps in conservation• To do:
• Comprehensive gap analysis ex situ and in situ• Establish partnerships across and beyond agencies• Conserve and make available CWR of important crops
• Our goal is comprehensive conservation nationally, and to provide an example for other countries to meet their goals:• Comprehensive and easily accessed information on CWR species,
their distributions, occurrences, and conservation status• Broad diversity of CWR secured in situ and ex situ• Germplasm of CWR readily available to global community of plant
breeders and scientists• National strategy for long-term conservation of U.S. CWR
established and activated, involving broad partnerships across federal and state agencies, tribal nations, NGOs, and beyond
Crop wild relatives: our goals and steps forward
Greg Baute
Dietary diversity:
Khoury et al. (2014) Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the implications for food security. PNAS 111(11): 4001-4006.
Khoury & Jarvis (2014) The Changing Composition of the Global Diet: Implications for CGIAR Research. CIAT Policy Brief No. 18.
Interdependence:
Khoury et al. (2015) Estimation of Countries’ Interdependence in Plant Genetic Resources Provisioning National Food Supplies and Production Systems. International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Research Study 8 (Rome: FAO).
Khoury et al. (2015) Where our Food Crops Come from: A new estimation of countries’ interdependence in plant genetic resources. CIAT Policy Brief No. 25.
Crop wild relatives:
Castañeda-Álvarez et al. (2016) Global conservation priorities for crop wild relatives. Nature Plants 2(4): 16022.
Khoury et al.(2013) An inventory of crop wild relatives of the United States. Crop Science 53(4): 1496.
Thank [email protected] | [email protected]