This document discusses crop wild relatives and the importance of their genetic resources. It notes that crop wild relatives can serve as a source of novel traits for crop improvement. They share a common ancestry with crops and their genes can be used in traditional breeding. However, many crop wild relatives face threats from climate change and land use changes. The document presents a methodology for analyzing gaps in crop wild relative collections. This involves determining priority taxa, sampling deficiencies, potential distributions, environmental coverage and gaps. The approach aims to prioritize geographic areas for further collecting of crop wild relatives.

1. Análisis de vacios en Parientes
Silvestres
Nora Patricia Castañeda-Álvarez
Foto: Luigi Guarino, Global Crop Diversity Trust

2. Los parientes silvestres
de los cultivos

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. Importancia Recursos Genéticos
 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)

17. Usos de los parientes
silvestres

18. 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.

20. 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

21. Usos potenciales
 Tolerancia a salinidad
 Tolerancia a sequía
 Tolerancia a heladas
 Tolerancia a inundaciones

22. 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

23. Estado de
conservación

24. Conservación Conservación
ex situ in situ

25. 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

26. Otras iniciativas
• “Crop Wild Relatives Project”
• GEF, UNEP, Bioversity International
• Armenia, Bolivia, Madagascar, Sri Lanka y
Uzbekistán
• http://www.cropwildrelatives.org

28. PGRRI - Ghana
WARDA - Benin

30. Amenazas: cambio
climático y cambios en
el uso de la tierra

33. 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

34. 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].

35. 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].

36. • 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%

37. 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/

38. Análisis de vacios

39. 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.

40. Our approach
Environmental
dimension
Geographic Taxonomic
dimension dimension
Ramírez et al., 2010 40

41. 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 41

42. 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

43. 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)

44. 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

47. Datasets - herbarium

48. Datasets -germplasm

49. Genepool Scientific Name
Avena Avena sativa
Cajanus Cajanus cajan
Cicer Cicer arietinum
Daucus Daucus carota
Eleusine Eleusine coracana
Helianthus Helianthus annuus
NFCR Hordeum Hordeum vulgare
5%
Ipomoea Ipomoea batatas
MPS
Lathyrus Lathyrus sativus
14%
Lens Lens culinaris
Malus Malus domestica
Medicago Medicago sativa
Musa Musa acuminata and M.
balbisiana
LPS Rice Oryza glaberrima and O. sativa
19% HPS Pennisetum Pennisetum glaucum
62% Lima bean Phaseolus lunatus
Bean Phaseolus vulgaris
Pisum Pisum sativum
Secale Secale cereal
Eggplant Solanum melongena
Potato Solanum tuberosum*
Sorghum Sorghum bicolor
Triticum Triticum aestivum
Faba bean Vicia faba
Vetch Vicia sativa
403 taxones analizados
Bambara Vigna subterranea
Cowpea Vigna unguiculata

52. Gracias!
http://www.cwrdiversity.org/
n.p.castaneda@cgiar.org