Presentation at RTB Annual Review and Planning Meeting (Entebbe, Uganda, 29 Sep-3 Oct 2014)

1. Monitoring of In-Situ Diversity - potato
in its center of origin as a model for
other RTB’s
Flor 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

2. Outline
• Background
• Potato in situ conservation
• Levels of monitoring
• Opportunities for other RTB
• Conclusions

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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.
La Paz
100
(70-400)
Jujuy
65
Chiloe
200
Cauca
n.a.
Nariño
n.a.
Chimborazo
60
(15-190)
Huánuco
340
(90-350)
Huancavelica
270
(90-500)
Cusco
300
(40-600)
Hotspots
Landraces
Wild potatoes

6. 1. Total Diversity

7. Characterization and Documentation

8. Principal Coordinate Analysis
of in-situ conserved potato landraces compared to
an ex-situ composite reference set
(year 1 out of min. 3 years of baseline research per site)
Apurimac (red): 187
Huancavelica (green): 439
Ref Set samples (black): 741
CHA
3x
ADG
4x
STN
2x
TBR
JUZ
3x
AJH
CUR
5x
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

10. 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

11. 2. Relative Diversity
Relative cultivar frecuency (%)
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
Overall cultivar frecuency (%)
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

12. 3. Spatial Diversity

13. 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 18.2
Waña 3756.1 17.6 Michi Sencca 16602.3 6.8
Sipa Waña 1468.9 6.9 Puka Suhuallulla 16590.9 6.8
Azul Waña 1212.2 5.7 Puca Suso 15831.4 6.5
Waña Blanca 1110.6 5.2 Ccompis 12059.5 5.0
Yana Waccrillo 377.3 1.8 Suso 8050.1 3.3
Waña Linle 153.4 0.7 Linli 7415.2 3.1
Waña Azul 23.1 0.1 Puca Ñawi 7099.5 2.9
Yana Waña 22.0 0.1 Peruanita 6814.0 2.8
Wana Quilla 5.0 0.0 Yurac Suso 5994.9 2.5
Yurac Waña 2.0 0.0 Paccos 5525.5 2.3
Total 21290.6 100.0 Salamanca 5322.9 2.2
Yana Suso 4656.4 1.9
BRED 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 1.2
Cica 755.9 8.0 Waca Ñawi 2948.8 1.2
Negra andina 192.8 2.0 Ccallwa 2877.0 1.2
Mariva 127.0 1.3 Allqa Risco 2875.4 1.2
Yungay 64.7 0.7 Pasña 2680.6 1.1
Total 9466.7 100.0 Lercay 2473.7 1.0
Huancucho 2350.9 1.0
Calaucucha 2251.1 0.9
Yurac Ccompis 2244.1 0.9
Muro Huayro 2042.7 0.8
Yana Suhuallulla 1949.8 0.8
Qulluna 1949.3 0.8

14. 4. Threats to Conservation
Mining Out of season frost
Premnotrypes spp. Phytopthora infestans

15. 5. Collective Knowledge

16. Curricula building with CK
Educational Videogames

17. Ecosystem services: different way to look at

18. Nutritional value of Black and White Chuño
Economic Botany 64(3):217-234
Process*Cultivar Effect Sliced by Process
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Fresco HV_Blanco HV_Negro PU_Blanco PU_Negro
Zn (mg/kg,DW)
Azul_Ganchillo
Ccompis
Pinaza
Puqya
Process*Cultivar Effect Sliced by Process
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Fresco HV_Blanco HV_Negro PU_Blanco PU_Negro
Ca (mg/kg,DW)
Azul_Ganchillo
Ccompis
Pinaza
Puqya
Process*Cultivar Effect Sliced by Process
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Fresco HV_Blanco HV_Negro PU_Blanco PU_Negro
Fe (mg/kg,DW)
Azul_Ganchillo
Ccompis
Pinaza
Puqya
Zn
Ca
X X X Fe

19. Importance of the intake of 3 groups of potatoes by community, period of inquiry
69
77
91
88
95
59
19
22
15
44
35
38
8
7
31
23
5
37
81
71
85
61
45
62
0 20 40 60 80 100
87
41
32
49
Allato
Pongos
Pucara
Villa Hermosa
Dos de Mayo
Libertadores
Allato
Pongos
Pucara
Villa Hermosa
Dos de Mayo
g/day
632
732
584
461
687
789
523
642
982
733
1348
1007
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)
Allato
Pongos
Pucara
Villa Hermosa
Dos de Mayo
Libertadores
Allato
Pongos
Pucara
Villa Hermosa
Dos de Mayo
Libertadores
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
Abundance Scarcity
Native Improved Chuño
87
67
51
21
37
19
64
20
8
12
13
33
49
79
63
58
72
31
80
91
0 20 40 60 80 100
Libertadores
Abundance Scarcity
Native Improved
Women Children

20. Food Security
Nutritional status of
children aged 6-36 months
44% chronic malnutrition
N=220
Survey on the Perception
of Food Insecurity
N=154
HAZ per age
Children %
Short stature Risk Normal
6-12 mo. N=31
12-18 mo. N=35
18-24 mo. N=35
24-36 mo. N=70
Families %
Food
security
Mild Food
insecurity
Moderately
Food
insecurity
Severe
Food
insecurity

21. Linking CSR to ABS

22. International Expert Meeting
Baseline research
Timeline research
Basic principles:
 Replicability
 Representativeness
 Effectiveness (costs)
 Sustainability
 Scale (local to regional)
 Practical application
 Fast - applied methods
 In-depth - quantitative methods

23. Flagship / Activity Cluster
1. Monitoring
system of LR
& CWR
diversity and
associated
knowledge
Global
network of
RTB in-situ
conservation
monitoring
sites
2. Best
practices for
in-situ
conservation
management
3. Ecosystem
services
baseline for
RTB staples
4.
5. Functional
policies and
incentive
Complementar
y ex- and
in-situ
conservation
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).

24. Initial Benchmark Sites
(overlap with RTB richness)
• = potato (CIP)
• = sweet potato (CIP)
• = taro / yam (CIRAD)
• = yam (IITA)
• = bananas (Bioversity)
• = cassava (CIAT)
• • •
• •
•
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•

25. 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.

26. Acknowledgment
RTB HOPE-Peru
INAF CADEP-JMA
UPEA
Grupo Yanapai