5. “any genetic material of plant
origin of actual or potential value
for food and agriculture”
FAO, 2009
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2009. International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture. , p.68.
6. Parientes
silvestres de
Especies cultivos
cultivadas
Variedades
Arvenses locales
(landraces)
Cultivares
Stock
modernos y
genético
obsoletos
Líneas de
mejoramiento
7. 17 días de inmersión
Material usado: Landrace (FR13A)
8. Seguridad alimentaria
Desarrollo económico
Base para agricultura más sostenible
Fuente de variación genética
Extensión de la base genética de los cultivos
Incorporación de caracteres de interés (e.g.
rendimiento, calidad, tolerancia/resistencia a
stress biótico o abiótico)
15. Crop Wild Relatives (CWR) may serve as source of novel
traits, as most of them have not experienced strong
selective pressures and they share a common ancestry
with crops, easing the use of their genes in traditional
breeding and biotechnology when required (Dale 1992).
Dale, P.J., 1992. Spread of Engineered Genes to Wild Relatives. Plant physiology, 100, pp.13-15.
16.
17. Usos confirmados
Mejoramiento de calidad
Aumento de rendimientos
Caracteres nutricionales
Tolerancia a plagas
Tolerancia a enfermedades
Adaptación a sequía
Adaptación a salinidad
Patrones de injerto
19. Why Crop Wild Relatives?
Hajjar, R. & Hodgkin, T. 2007. The use of wild relatives in crop improvement: a survey of developments over the last 20
years. Euphytica 156(1-2): 1-13
22. Reservas genéticas activas
(conservación in situ)
• Triticum spp. en Ammiad, Israel
• Aegilops spp. en Ceylanpinar, Turquía
• Zea perennis en Sierra de Manantlán, México
• Citrus, Oryza, Alocasia en Ngoc Hoi, Vietnam
• Solanum spp. en Pisac Cusco, Perú
23. Otras iniciativas
• “Crop Wild Relatives Project”
• GEF, UNEP, Bioversity International
• Armenia, Bolivia, Madagascar, Sri Lanka y
Uzbekistán
• http://www.cropwildrelatives.org
30. Variations in the Earth’s surface temperature. 1000 to 2100
There’s no point in
looking for the effects of
climate change here!
When this
is going to
happen
Maunder minimum. Little Ice Age. Ice fairs on the Thames
31. Escenario: migración ilimitada
Jarvis, a, Lane, a & Hijmans, R., 2008. The effect of climate change on crop wild relatives. Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment, 126(1-2), pp.13-23. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167880908000133 [Accessed
March 16, 2011].
32. Escenario: no-migración
Jarvis, a, Lane, a & Hijmans, R., 2008. The effect of climate change on crop wild relatives. Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment, 126(1-2), pp.13-23. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167880908000133 [Accessed
March 16, 2011].
33. • 16-22% del total de especies en riesgo de
extinción
• Mayoría de las especies pierden por lo menos
50% de su nicho ambiental
• Nichos ambientales altamente fragmentados
• Arachis: 24-31 (de 51 spp) extintas, reducción 85-
94% en área
• Solanum: 20 ( de 108 spp) extintas, reducción 38-
69%
• Vigna: 2 (de 48 spp) extintas, reducción 65%
34. Sampled Red List Index for Plants
• 20% de las plantas en riesgo de extinción
• Actividad humana responsable del 81% de
todas las amenazas identificadas
http://threatenedplants.myspecies.info/
36. Overview
Gather taxonomic Gather occurrence
Georeferencing
data data
Make collecting Determine gaps in Model
recommendations collections distributions
Source: concept and images from Jarvis et al. 2009. Value of a Coordinate: geographic analysis of agricultural biodiversity. Presentation for Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG), November 2009.
38. Methodology
2. Determination 3. Potential
1. Determination
of sampling distribution
of target taxa
deficiencies models
6. Rarity based on 5. Determination 4. Geographic
environmental of environmental coverage
variables gaps assessment
7. Determination 8. Prioritization of
of priority of geographic areas
collecting for collecting
Ramírez et al., 2010 38
39. HPS MPS LPS NFCR
No Further
High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority
Conservation is
Species Species Species
Required
Final priority Final priority Final priority
Final priority
score- between 0- score- between score- between
score- between
3 3.01-5 5.01-7.5
7.51-10
40. Methodology
Prioritization results: Phaseolus case (Ramírez-Villegas et al., 2010)
(A) Zones where gaps in ex situ collections for multiple high priority taxa overlap, (B) modelling
uncertainties as standard deviations among high priority modelled taxa
Ramírez-Villegas, J., Khoury, C., Jarvis, A., Debouck, D. and Guarino, L. 2010. A gap analysis methodology for collecting crop genepools: a case study with
phaseolus beans. PLoS one 5(10)
41. Our work
• Data cwr database holding c.a. 4 million
records
– Sources: public available databases (i.e.:
GBIF, Genesys, Conabio, CRIA), collaborations with
experts (i.e. David Spooner, Nigel Maxted), visits
to major herbaria (i.e.:
Harvard, Kew, Edinburgh, Madrid)
• Website www.cwrdiversity.org