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