PARTICIPATORY PLANT BREED

THE PARTICIPATORY PLANT BREED


It is widely recognized that conventional plant breeding has been more beneficial to farmers in high-potential environments or those who can profitably modify their environment to suit new cultivars, than to the poorest farmers who cannot afford to modify their environment through the application of additional inputs and cannot risk the replacement of their traditional, well known and reliable varieties. As a consequence, low yields, crop failures, malnutrition, famine, and eventually poverty still affect a large proportion of humanity. 
participatory plant breeding toolkit
 Participatory plant breeding (PPB) is seen by several scientists as a way to overcome the limitations of conventional breeding by offering farmers the possibility to choose, in their own environment, which varieties suit better their needs and conditions. PPB exploits the potential gains of breeding for specific adaptation through decentralized selection, defined as selection in the target environment, and is the ultimate conceptual consequence of a positive interpretation of phenotype  environment interactions. The paper describes a model of PPB developed by The International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas and used successfully in several countries in West Asia and North Africa. Genetic variability is generated by breeders, selection is conducted jointly by breeders, farmers, and extension specialists in a number of target environments, and the best selections are used in further cycles of recombination and selection. Technically, the process is similar to conventional breeding, with three main differences. Testing and selection take place on-farm rather than on-station, key decisions are taken jointly by farmers and the breeder, and the process can be independently implemented at a large number of locations. The model also incorporates seed production. Farmers handle the initial phases, multiplying promising breeding material in village-based seed production systems.

 The PPB model is flexible; it can generate populations, pure lines, and eventually mixtures of pure lines in self-pollinated crops; as well as hybrids, populations, and synthetics in cross-pollinated crops. PPB has several advantages. New varieties reach the release phase much faster than in conventional breeding, and are better suited to farmers’ needs and willingness to invest in inputs and management. Release and seed multiplication activities concentrate on varieties known to be farmer-acceptable. These advantages are particularly relevant to developing countries where large investments in plant breeding have not yielded returns, and many “improved” varieties developed through conventional breeding are not adopted by farmers. PPB also ensures that biodiversity is maintained or increased because different varieties are selected at different locations. In addition to the economical benefits, participatory research has a number of psychological, moral, and ethical benefits, which are the consequence of a progressive empowerment of the farmers’ communities; these benefits affect sectors of their life beyond the agricultural aspects. In conclusion, PPB, as a case of demand driven research, gives voice to farmers, including those who have been traditionally the most marginalized such as the women, and elevates local knowledge to the role of science.


KEYWORDS:-

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the several hundreds farmers and research staff of the various countries who made this work possible and the donors who support participatory plant breeding at ICARDA: the OPEC Fund for International Development, the Governments of Italy and Denmark, der Bundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit (BMZ, Germany), the International Development Research Center (IDRC, Canada), the System Wide Program on Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (SWP PRGA), and the Water and Food Challenge Program of the CGIAR.
REFERENCES:-
  1. pation in common bean genotype evaluation: the case of eastern Ethiopia. Exp Agric 33:399–408
  3. Morris ML, Tripp R, Dankyi AA (1999) Adoption and impacts of improved maize production technology: a case study of the g
  4. Annicchiarico P, Bellah F, Chiari T (2005) Defining subregions and estimating benefits for a specific-adaptation strategy by breeding programs: a case study. Crop Sci 45:1741–1749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Annicchiarico P, Bellah F, Chiari T (2006) Repeatable genotype x location interaction and its exploitation by conventional and GIS-based cultivar recommendation for durum wheat in Algeria. Eur J Agron 24:70–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashby JA, Lilja N (2004) Participatory research: does it work? Evidence from participatory plant breeding. In: New directions for a diverse planet: proceedings of the 4th international crop science congress. Brisbane, Australia, 26 September–1 October 2004. www.cropscience.org.auGoogle Scholar
  7. Ceccarelli S (1989) Wide adaptation. How wide? Euphytica 40:197–205Google Scholar
  8. Ceccarelli S (1996) Positive interpretation of genotype by environment interactions in relation to sustainability and biodiversity. In: Cooper M, Hammers GL (eds) Plant adaptation and crop improvement. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, ICRISAT, Andra Pradesh, India, IRRI, Manila, Philippines, pp 467–486Google Scholar
  9. Ceccarelli S, Grando S (1997) Increasing the efficiency of breeding through farmer participation. In: Ethics and equity in conservation and use of genetic resources for sustainable food security. Proceeding of a workshop to develop guidelines for the CGIAR, 21–25 April 1997, Foz de Iguacu, Brazil. IPGRI, Rome, Italy, pp 116–121Google Scholar
  10. Ceccarelli S, Grando S, Tutwiler R, Baha J, Martini AM, Salahieh H, Goodchild A, Michael M (2000) A methodological study on participatory barley breeding. I. Selection phase. Euphytica 111:91–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ceccarelli S, Grando S, Amri A, Asaad FA, Benbelkacem A, Harrabi M, Maatougui M, Mekni MS, Mimoun H, El Einen RA, Felah M, El Sayed AF, Shreidi AS, Yahyaoui A (2001) Decentralized and participatory plant breeding for marginal environments. In: Cooper D, Hodgink T, Spillane C (eds) Broadening the genetic base of crop production. CAB International, pp 115–135Google Scholar
  12. Ceccarelli S, Grando S (2002) Plant breeding with farmers requires testing the assumptions of conventional plant breeding: lessons from the ICARDA barley program. In: David DAC, Soleri D (eds) Farmers, scientists and plant breeding: integrating knowledge and practice. CAB I Publishing International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK, pp 297–332Google Scholar
  13. Ceccarelli S, Grando S, Singh M, Michael M, Shikho A, Al Issa M, Al Saleh A, Kaleonjy G, Al Ghanem SM, Al Hasan AL, Dalla H, Basha S, Basha T (2003) A methodological study on participatory barley breeding. II. Response to selection. Euphytica 133:185–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ceccarelli S, Grando S (2005) Decentralized-participatory plant breeding pg 145–156. In: Tuberosa R, Phillips RL, Gale M (eds) In the wake of the double helix: from the green revolution to the gene revolution. ©2005 Avenue media, Bologna, Italy, pp 145–156Google Scholar
  15. Fukuda W, Saad N (2001) Participatory research in cassava Breeding with farmers in Northeastern Brazil. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA), Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura, Cruz das Almas, BR, p 44Google Scholar
  16. Lilja N, Aw-Hasaan A (2002) Benefits and costs of participatory barley breeding in Syria. In: A background paper to a poster presented at the 25th international conference of IAAE, Durban, South Africa, 16–22 August 2003Google Scholar
  17. Mangione D, Senni S, Puccioni M, Grando S, Ceccarelli S (2006) The cost of participatory barley breeding. Euphytica 150:289–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mekbib F (1997) Farmer partici
  19. hana grains development project. Economics Program Paper 99-01. México, D.F.: CIMMYTGoogle Scholar
  20. Schnell FW (1982) A synoptic study of the methods and categories of plant breeding. Zeitshrift für Pflanzenzüchtung 89:1–18Google Scholar
  21. Simmonds NW (1991) Selection for local adaptation in a plant breeding programme. Theor Appl Genet 82:363–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Singh M, Malhotra RS, Ceccarelli S, Sarker A, Grando S, Erskine W (2003) Spatial variability models to improve dryland field trials. Exp Agric 39:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Soleri D, Cleveland DA, Smith SE, Ceccarelli S, Grando S, Rana RB, Rijal D, Labrada HR (2002) Understanding farmers’ knowledge as the basis for collaboration with plant breeders: methodological development and examples from ongoing research in Mexico, Syria, Cuba and Nepal. In: Cleveland DA, Soleri D (eds) Farmers, scientists and plant breeding: integrating knowledge and practice. CAB I Publishing International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK, pp 19–60Google Scholar
  24. Weikai Y, Hunt LA, Qinglai Sheng, Szlavnics Z (2000) Cultivar evaluation and mega-environment investigation based on the GGE biplot. Crop Sci 40:597–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar



Comments

Post a Comment