At the Oxford Biodiversity Institute Symposium on 2-3 October 2013, Bioversity International Programme Leader Ehsan Dulloo presented on the importance of genetic diversity for building resilience for crops. Learn more: http://www.bioversityinternational.org/research-portfolio/conservation-of-crop-diversity/

1. The role of genetic diversity for building
resilience for food security
Ehsan Dulloo PhD., Mary Thompson, Bioversity International
University of Oxford, UK, 2-3 October 2013

2. 2
Bioversity International is a
research-for-development
organization seeking solutions
to global issues through the
use and conservation of
agricultural and forest
biodiversity.

3. What is agricultural biodiversity (ABD)?
Variety of animals, plants and microorganisms that are used directly or
indirectly for food and agriculture including crops, livestock, forestry and
fisheries. Also farmers’ knowledge and experience regarding this diversity and
it’s management.
Global biodiversity
Biodiversity affected by
agriculture
Agricultural
biodiversity
ABD: a significant subset of global biodiversity

4. • ABD as a socio-ecological system (SES)
• Resilience property of SES
• Genetic diversity in ABD will increase the ability for food
systems to adapt and transform in the face of global
changes and shocks
• Maintain genetic health of species, breeds and varieties
across landscape
• Supports ability of farmers to respond to shocks market
fluctuations, natural disasters and global climate change
Agricultural biodiversity and resilience

5. Why is genetic
variation important?
• Maintain adaptive potential
of species/populations and
the fitness of individuals to
help ensure their survival
• “Evosystems services”
perspective (Faith et al, 2010)
• High genetic diversity =
increased future options for
food security

6. Global concern about the loss of genetic diversity
(both ex situ collections and in situ populations)
• International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
“Alarmed by the continuing erosion of these resources” [i.e. PGRFA]
• Global Plan of Action on Conservation and Sustainable Use of Plant Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture
“Genetic erosion is reported to continue many regions of the world and the genetic vulnerability of crops has further
increased”.
• Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020
Aichi Target 13: 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.
No clear (rather conflicting) evidence of actual loss of
diversity is occurring overall (van de Wouw et al. 2009)

7. Baseline studies
• Genetic erosion of coffee genetic resources in field collection
(Madagascar, Ethiopia, Costa Rica)
• Genetic erosion in coconut (South Asia), pearl millet
(Rajasthan), soybean (China)
• Spatial analysis of molecular data: Cherimoya in the Andes
• Genetic Erosion of Cassava in the Peruvian Amazon
• Decline in the numbers of local rice varieties in China from 46,000
in the 1950s to slightly more than 1,000 in 2006 (Secretariat of the
CBD, 2010); similar statistics are available for India and Vietnam

8. Genetic erosion in pearl millet
• Rapid survey using participatory approach with 459
farmers across 174 villages in 14 pearl millet growing
districts in Rajasthan Province of India in 2002
• ICRISAT collecting database were used for the
identification of the survey sites; three zones were
identified:
• 25- 75% replacement by high yielding varieties
• Analysis indicated genetic erosion of land races based on:
• Low yield of landraces
• Promotion of high yielding varieties
• Changing cropping patterns
• No organized seed system for landraces
• Market preference for HYV

9. No change in diversity – case of pearl millet and
sorghum in Niger - Bezançon et al. 2009
Many local varieties of
millets and sorghum in
Niger were replaced by
improved ones, but
overall diversity of pearl
millet and sorghum
varieties has not
changed between 1976
and 2003 in the terms of
varietal names and DNA
markers (Bezançon et al.
2009)
2003
1976 50-55 days
55-60 days
60-65 days
65-70 days
70-75 days
75-80 days
80+ days

10. Based on these studies :
• It is clear that genetic
erosion is of concern but
evidence is still lacking
about:
– rate of loss
– variation among
crops, situations
– economic implications
• Monitoring changes in
genetic diversity and
analyzing causes of change
is still needed

11. Challenges in understanding trends in genetic
diversity
“You can’t manage what you don’t measure”
(Peter Drucker)
There is no global, harmonized observation system for delivering
regular, timely data on agricultural biodiversity change
Different organizations and projects adopt diverse measurements, with
some important biodiversity dimensions, such as genetic diversity, often
missing
Only limited information available regarding actual threat status
Conventional monitoring efforts, where they exist at all:
• subject to ad hoc approaches that lack rigorous survey and sampling approaches
• do not systematically involve the participation of local-level actors
• usually based on collections instead of direct observations in the field

12. Current measurements and indicators (crops)
• Primarily focus on ex situ genebanks
– Do not measure state or trends of diversity at
the genetic level in real world agroecosystems
• FAO indicators – monitoring progress of the
implementation of second Global Plan of Action.
66 indicators covering 4 main areas viz.
– In situ conservation and management (12
indicators)
– Ex situ conservation (12 indicators)
– Sustainable use (22 indicators)
– Building institutional and human capacities (20
indicators)

13. • No. of species
• No. of accessions within collections
• Geographical origin of accessions
BIP: Ex situ collection indicator
Principle: Accessions entering the collection can be characterized for their originality
Index: An integrative function reflecting the collection’s
enrichment
Any new accessions entering the collection at a given time is
compared to the accessions already present:
• Is it a new species?
• Does it come from a new area?
The more original it is, the more weight it is given. The weight
is based on a log function so that it decreases when a
species is well represented.
Enrichment Index of ex situ crop collections as an indicator on the status and
trend of crop genetic diversity

14. Indicators for in
situ diversity
• In situ measurements have
been lacking in their
capacity to encompass a
sufficient breadth of genetic
diversity characteristics
• Number of varieties
• Diversity Indices- Shannon,
Simpson, Pielou’s, Nei,
• None of these combine the
study of allelic diversity and
a concern on evenness of
the spatial distribution of
alleles

15. Global indicators: Significant traditional variety diversity continues to be
managed by small scale farmers in the developing world.
Jarvis et al., 2009 PNAS
Hungary, Mexico, Peru
• -LN(1-Farm evenness)
•0.0 •0.5 •1.0 •1.5 •2.0
•LNFarmrichness •0.0
•0.5
•1.0
•1.5
•2.0
A
B
2-3
2-3
39-89
4-20
5-14
1-2
4-5
9-74
Morocco, Ethiopia
1-2
4-12
1-2
5-27
4-5
15-28
Burkina faso
Nepal and Vietnam
Peru
Community Richness
House Hold richness
Richness = 9
Evenness A > B
2-3
9-18
Uzbekistan
3-5
6-19
Leading the collaboration of
>60 institutes world wide

16. • HT Integrated Indicator- Bonneuil et al. (2012)
– Varietal richness, Spatial evenness; Effect of between-variety genetic
diversity; Within- variety genetic diversity
• Tested against a historical dataset on bread wheat varieties
dating back to 1978: Allelic diversity; Acreage share of each variety;
Contribution of within variety diversity to total genetic diversity
• More varieties (the varietal richness factor) can mean less
diversity when
(i) their genetic structure is more similar (the effect of between-variety
genetic diversity), or
(ii) when more diverse landraces are replaced by many homogeneous
lines (the effect of within-variety genetic diversity) or
(iii) when one or a few varieties become hegemonic in the landscape
(the spatial evenness effect)
A New Integrated indicator

17. Indicators for Resilience in SEPLs: Development and
Field Testing

18. • Measuring community’s capacity to adapt to change while maintaining biodiversity.
Four categories comprising 20 indicators on:
• Ecosystems protection and the maintenance of biodiversity
• Agricultural biodiversity
• Knowledge, learning and innovation
• Social equity and infrastructure
• Developing strategies for
• Conserving biodiversity at various scales (from genetic to landscape level)
• Sustaining evolution and adaptation processes that maintain and generate diversity
• Empowering local communities and strengthening their role as innovators and
custodians of biodiversity
Socio-ecological resilience indicators

19. Linking initiatives
to genomic
observatories and
networks
• CGIAR Research Programs
established research sites
upon which to build future
networks
• Examples from the forestry
sector
– EVOLTREE: Network of
Intensive Study Sites (ISS)
– EUFORGEN and EUFGIS
– CRP 6 Sentinel Landscapes

20. High Priority
locations identified in
SSA:
• finger millet
(Burundi, DRC,
Ethiopia, Kenya,
Rwanda and
Uganda),
• pearl millet
(Sudan),
• garden peas
(Ethiopia) cowpea
in several
countries
Priority Areas for Crop Wild Relatives
Global priority genetic reserve locations for wild
relatives of 12 food crops

21. • Genetic diversity is important for building resilience for crops
and landscape level- sustaining evolutionary processes
• Global concerns of genetic erosion- conflicting evidences
• Challenges in genetic monitoring
• Much has been done in the past to document genetic
diversity across a whole range of scale –ex situ, in situ, on
farm, production landscape, forest gene conservation units
• Opportunities for expanding genomic network to cover
agrobiodiversity sites
• Contribute to Strategic plan for Biodiversity - Aichi target 13
Take home message

22. www.bioversityinternational.org
Thank you