interdependence among countries in plant genetic resources and crop wild relatives of the united...

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


“Primary regions of diversity” of crops

International Potato Center (CIP)

High diversity in primary regions

David Cavagnaro

Primary regions of diversity of major crops


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%


Primary regions of diversity of crops produced by the U.S.


Primary regions of diversity of crops consumed by the U.S.



Calories

Australia and New Zealand

Indian Ocean Islands

The primary regions of diversity of major crops



Calories

Calories

Global interconnectedness with regard to primary

regions of diversity of crops important in food supplies


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


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


Use of “foreign” crops is associated with diverse diets and agricultural production

systemsProduction systemsFood supplies


Use of “foreign” crops is associated with GDP

Production systemsFood supplies


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


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


• 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.

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.

• 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


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


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]