Monitoring of In-Situ Diversity - potato in its center of origin as a model for other RTB’s
-
Upload
rtb-cgiar-research-program-on-roots-tubers-and-bananas -
Category
Science
-
view
101 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Monitoring of In-Situ Diversity - potato in its center of origin as a model for other RTB’s
Monitoring of In-Situ Diversity - potato in its center of origin as a model for
other RTB’sFlor Rodriguez, Stef de Haan, Severin Polreich, Ehsan Dulloo, Michael Abberton, Clair Hershey, Hâna Chair and Nicolas Roux
RTB Annual Review and Planning Meeting
September 29th, 2014
Outline
• Background
• Potato in situ conservation
• Levels of monitoring
• Opportunities for other RTB
• Conclusions
About In-Situ Conservation
R&D oriented in-situ conservation: Projects (NGO, NARI, Universities) Aimed to support farmer conservation
R&D components: Seed system interventions ICM interventions Cultural reaffirmation Value chains with diversity Education programs Etc.
Farmer-driven in-situ conservation: What farmers do Historical phenomenon Embedded within livelihood strategies
Role: Food security & diversity Prestige and social value Income generation Pleasure & satisfaction Etc.
Ex-situ conservation:• Genebanks• Botanical gardens • In-vitro, cryopreservation, cold store, …• Etc.
= interface
Rationale for Long Term-Monitoring
Most on-farm conservation projects do not allow for systematic comparison of loss or enrichment because:
• Lack of historical data does not allows for timeline comparison
• There is little agreement on methods and metrics to be used for baseline research + monitoring
• Researchers still think short-term with a lack of attention to benchmark site selection and accessible databases
What is the Chirapaq Ñan Initiative?
A network for the long-term monitoring of in-situ conserved potato genetic diversity in light of socio- environmental change
Total diversity Relative diversity Spatial diversity Threats to conservation Collective knowledge
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Boyacá n.a.
Jujuy 65
La Paz 100
(70-400)
Chiloe200
Cauca n.a.
Nariño n.a.
Chimborazo 60
(15-190)
Huánuco 340
(90-350)
Huancavelica 270
(90-500)
Cusco 300
(40-600)
HotspotsLandracesWild potatoes
1. Total Diversity
Characterization and Documentation
Principal Coordinate Analysis
Apurimac (red): 187Huancavelica (green): 439Ref Set samples (black): 741
CHA3x
ADG4x
STN2x
JUZ3x
AJH
CUR5x
TBR
Apurimac (%)
Huancavelica (%)
Diploid 24.6 22.3
Triploid 16.0 24.6
Tetraploid 57.3 50.4
Pentaploid 2.1 2.7
Factorial analysis by DARwin 5.0
of in-situ conserved potato landraces compared toan ex-situ composite reference set(year 1 out of min. 3 years of baseline research per site)
2. Relative Diversity – Cultivar Sampling
A random harvest of 200 plants per plot was evaluated to record the variety content of the field
Several workshops were carried out to define a master list of local (vernacular) names and synonyms
2. Relative Diversity
Region Cultivar category
N Very scarce
Scarce Un-common Common Abundant
Huancavelica Native-floury 174 100 11 18 28 17
Native-bitter 13 1 2 3 4 3
Improved 12 3 0 1 5 3
Apurimac Native-floury 172 82 16 23 32 18
Native-bitter 11 0 2 4 3 2
Improved 6 0 1 2 1 2
Region Cultivar category
N Very Few Households
Few Households
Many Households
Most Households
Huancavelica Native-floury 174 69 50 39 16
Native-bitter 13 2 7 3 1
Improved 12 1 4 5 2
Apurimac Native-floury 172 71 47 39 0
Native-bitter 11 5 3 2 1
Improved 6 0 3 3 15
Relative cultivar frecuency (%)
Overall cultivar frecuency (%)
3. Spatial Diversity
Area by landrace (example Apurimac hotspot, 180 households, 727 fields)
BITTER LANDRACE (n=11)
FLOURY LANDRACE (n=172)
Landrace Area m2 % Landrace Area m2 %Yurac Sunchus 13160.1 61.8 Suhuallulla 44105.8 18.2Waña 3756.1 17.6 Michi Sencca 16602.3 6.8Sipa Waña 1468.9 6.9 Puka Suhuallulla 16590.9 6.8Azul Waña 1212.2 5.7 Puca Suso 15831.4 6.5Waña Blanca 1110.6 5.2 Ccompis 12059.5 5.0Yana Waccrillo 377.3 1.8 Suso 8050.1 3.3Waña Linle 153.4 0.7 Linli 7415.2 3.1Waña Azul 23.1 0.1 Puca Ñawi 7099.5 2.9Yana Waña 22.0 0.1 Peruanita 6814.0 2.8Wana Quilla 5.0 0.0 Yurac Suso 5994.9 2.5Yurac Waña 2.0 0.0 Paccos 5525.5 2.3Total 21290.6 100.0 Salamanca 5322.9 2.2
Yana Suso 4656.4 1.9BRED VARIETIES
(n=6)Sipa 4296.7 1.8
Variety Area m2 % Puka Huayro 4078.6 1.7
Canchan 5162.5 54.5 Waman Uma 3100.6 1.3
Chasca 3164.0 33.4 Yurac Suhuallulla 2957.1 1.2Cica 755.9 8.0 Waca Ñawi 2948.8 1.2Negra andina 192.8 2.0 Ccallwa 2877.0 1.2Mariva 127.0 1.3 Allqa Risco 2875.4 1.2Yungay 64.7 0.7 Pasña 2680.6 1.1Total 9466.7 100.0 Lercay 2473.7 1.0
Huancucho 2350.9 1.0Calaucucha 2251.1 0.9Yurac Ccompis 2244.1 0.9Muro Huayro 2042.7 0.8Yana Suhuallulla 1949.8 0.8Qulluna 1949.3 0.8Ccachun Waccachi 1869.9 0.8Asno Ccorota 1861.6 0.8Wayru 1699.4 0.7Checchico 1658.8 0.7
4. Threats to Conservation
Premnotrypes spp. Phytopthora infestans
Mining Out of season frost
5. Collective Knowledge
Curricula building with CK
Educational Videogames
Ecosystem services: different way to look at
Nutritional value of Black and White Chuño
Economic Botany 64(3):217-234
Process*Cultivar Effect Sliced by Process
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Fresco HV_Blanco HV_Negro PU_Blanco PU_Negro
Zn
(m
g/k
g,D
W)
Azul_Ganchillo
Ccompis
Pinaza
Puqya
Process*Cultivar Effect Sliced by Process
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Fresco HV_Blanco HV_Negro PU_Blanco PU_Negro
Ca
(m
g/k
g,D
W)
Azul_Ganchillo
Ccompis
Pinaza
Puqya
Process*Cultivar Effect Sliced by Process
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Fresco HV_Blanco HV_Negro PU_Blanco PU_Negro
Fe
(mg
/kg
,DW
)
Azul_Ganchillo
Ccompis
Pinaza
Puqya
Zn
Ca
Fe X XX
Mean dietary coverage compared to recommended requirements Period of Abundance Period of Relative Scarcity
Coverage byTotal Diet (%)
Coverage by Potato (%)
Coverage byTotal Diet (%)
Coverage by Potato(%)
Women(n=76)
Children(n=75)
Women(n=76)
Children(n=75)
Women(n=77)
Children(n=78)
Women(n=77)
Children(n=78)
Energy 88.7 84.0 38.6 29.2 87.3 85.6 28.7 23.0
Protein 96.4 183.9 38.2 57.8 104.5 193.0 28.0 43.7
Iron (mb) 59.6 88.2 13.1 16.8 71.8 118.7 9.9 13.6
Iron (lb) 29.5 40.4 6.5 7.7 35.5 54.4 4.9 6.2
Zinc (mb) 152.0 62.4 45.2 15.9 170.4 87.3 39.2 14.8
Zinc (lb) 76.0 29.6 22.6 7.5 85.2 41.6 19.6 7.0
Calcium 38.2 36.6 6.2 3.2 42.3 46.0 5.5 3.3
Source: Nutrition surveys, mb = medium bioavailability; lb = low bioavailability
77
95
59
69
15
38
44
22
7
35
19
8
23
5
37
31
85
62
45
71
88
61
81
91
0 20 40 60 80 100
Libertadores
Dos de Mayo
Villa Hermosa
Pucara
Pongos
Allato
Libertadores
Dos de Mayo
Villa Hermosa
Pucara
Pongos
AllatoA
bu
nd
anc
eS
ca
rcit
y
Native Improved Chuño
Importance of the intake of 3 groups of potatoes by community, period of inquiry
87
87
67
51
21
37
41
32
19
64
20
8
13
12
33
49
79
63
49
58
72
31
80
91
0 20 40 60 80 100
Libertadores
Dos de Mayo
Villa Hermosa
Pucara
Pongos
Allato
Libertadores
Dos de Mayo
Villa Hermosa
Pucara
Pongos
Allato
Ab
un
dan
ce
Sca
rcit
y
Native ImprovedWomen Children
632732584461687789523642982733
13481007
g/day
Food Security
Nutritional status of children aged 6-36 months44% chronic malnutrition N=220
Survey on the Perception of Food InsecurityN=154
HAZ per ageC
hil
dre
n %
Short stature Risk Normal
6-12 mo. N=31
12-18 mo. N=35
18-24 mo. N=35
24-36 mo. N=70
Fa
mil
ies
%
Food security
Mild Food insecurity
Moderately Food
insecurity
Severe Food
insecurity
Linking CSR to ABS
International Expert Meeting
Basic principles: Replicability Representativeness Effectiveness (costs) Sustainability Scale (local to regional) Practical application Fast - applied methods In-depth - quantitative methods
Baseline researchTimeline research
Flagship / Activity Cluster
Global network of RTB in-situ
conservation monitoring
sites
1. Monitoring system of LR
& CWR diversity and associated knowledge
2. Best practices for
in-situ conservation management
3. Ecosystem services
baseline for RTB staples
4. Complementar
y ex- and
in-situ conservation
5. Functional policies and
incentive systems
Workshop Nov. 11-13, 2013.
Peer reviewed proposal submitted May 2014.
Basic shared metrics defined (monitoring).
All CRP-RTB partners are part (5 total).
• = potato (CIP)• = sweet potato (CIP) • = taro / yam (CIRAD) • = yam (IITA) • = bananas (Bioversity) • = cassava (CIAT)
•
••• • •
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
Initial Benchmark Sites(overlap with RTB richness)
Concluding remarks
Systematic long-term monitoring is anticipated to provide robust intelligence about landrace conservation status.
Baseline research will allow for future time series comparison, genetic gap analysis and spatial distribution mapping.
Model can be expanded to other crops and regions. A global network for systematic monitoring?
Participation of custodian farmers, NGO’s, governments and indigenous organizations is key.
In-situ conservation = collaboration with custodian farmers to detect /develop new traits.
Acknowledgment
CADEP-JMAINAF
UPEA
Grupo Yanapai
HOPE-PeruRTB