Skip to main content
Log in

Diversity and adaptation in rice varieties under static (ex situ) and dynamic (in situ) management

  • Published:
Euphytica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study compares genebank-conserved and farmer managed populations of the same farmers' varieties of rice. Seven varieties that had been collected twice, in the early 1980s and in 1991, were recollected in 1997 after having been grown continuously in farmers' fields. Since the first genebank collection, rice cultivation in the Meking delta has been intensified with a rather abrupt switch from single to double cropping, more use of chemical fertilisers, improved water management, and more market oriented production. Many farmers' varieties have been maintained as a second crop but with a considerably delayed planting time compared to previous practice. In this experiment, the ex situ materials represent adaptation to pre-intensification conditions while the in situ populations have been exposed to the intensive production system for a number of years. The materials were tested in the wet season of 1997 under current farmers' management practices in an on-farm field experiment within the area where the varieties originated. Agronomic, stress resistance and morphological traits and variation at 7 isozyme loci were observed in the field or laboratory. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Principal Component Analyses (PCA) were used to study differences in agronomic and morphological traits between ex and in situ populations. Isozyme variation was analyzed by Nei's diversity indices and Wright's F-statistics. Farmer-managed populations showed a general trend of later flowering and maturity time, more uniformity of grain quality, lower frequency of undesired off-types, and reduced drought stress tolerance compared with corresponding ex situ populations. There were no significant differences in grain yield or tolerance to biotic stresses. Allelic frequencies of isozymes showed no consistent differences that could be related to changes of the farming system. These results are interpreted as an adaptation to the changed farming system and include natural and farmers' selection for maturity time (all varieties are photoperiodic)and market standards. The poorer drought tolerance may reflect the fact that such stress was common before intensification but is not normally a factor under the current water management regime. For in situconservation strategies this case sheds some light on the survival of allelic diversity vs. adaptedness. Isozyme data indicate maintenance of allelic diversity. Adaptedness, however, is at risk under on-farm conservation. Natural and intentional selection will normally not remain constant over time. Consequent genetic changes include loss of adaptation to past conditions and building up of adaptation to new. In this case such changes have happened surprisingly fast. However, changes are limited to adaptation to factors of the environment and to market-relevant quality traits. Yield seems to be unaffected. Considering needs for crop improvement this case has kept the materials `updated' with respect to adaptation and unchanged with respect to yield potential.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allard, R.W., 1988. Genetic change associated with the evolution of adaptedness in cultivated plantsand their wild progenitors. J Hered 79: 225–238.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Allard, R.W., 1990. The genetics of host-pathogencoevolution: Implications for genetic resource conservation. J Hered 81: 1–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bellon, M.R., 1997. On-farmconservation as a process: An analysis of its components. In: Sperling, L. & M. Loevinsohn (Eds.), Using Diversity, Enhancing and Maintaining Genetic Resources On-Farm. Proc of a workshop held on 19–21 June 1995, New Delhi, India. International Development Research Center.

  • Bellon, M.R., J.L. Pham & M.T. Jackson, 1997. Genetic conservation:a role for rice farmers. In: N. Maxted, B.V. Ford-Lloyd & J.G. Hawkes (Eds.), Plant Conservation: the in situ Approach, pp. 263–289. Chapmann and Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A.H.D., 2000. The genetic structure of crop landraces andthe challenge to conserve them in situ on farms. In: S.B. Brush (Ed.), GENES in the FIELD. On-Farm Conservation of Crop Diversity, Chapter 2, pp. 19–48. Lewis Publishers, IDRC and IPGRI.

  • Brown, A.H.D. & D.R. Marshall, 1995. Abasic sampling strategy: Theory and practice. In: L. Guarino, V. Ramanatha & R. Reid (Eds.), Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity, ppl. 75–91. Cabi, Technical Guidelines.

  • Brush, S.B., 1995. In situ conservation of landraces in centers ofcrop diversity. Crop Sci 35: 346–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dempsey, G.J., 1996. In Situ Conservation of Crops and TheirRelatives: A Review of Current Status and Prospects for Wheat and Maize. CIMMYT, Natural Resource Group, Paper 96–08.

  • FAO, 1998. The state of the world's plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. FAO, Rome.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friis-Hansen, E., 1999. Tanzania's forgotten farmers. Seedling, 16, 4 December 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaszmann, J.C., B.G. de los Reyes & Kush, 1988. Electrophoretic variation of isozymes of plumules of rice (Oryza sativa L.). A key to the identification of 76 alleles at 24 loci. IRRI, Los Banos, Laguna, Philippines.

    Google Scholar 

  • IRRI, 1988. Standardevaluation systems for rice. 3rd ed.

  • Jana, S. & B.S. Khangura, 1986. Conservation and diversity in bulkpopulations of barley. Euphytica 35: 761–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasuga, M., Q. Liu, S. Miura, K. Yamaguchi-Shinozaki & K. Shinozaki, 1999. Improving plant drought, salt and freezing tolerance by gene transfer of a single stress-inducible transcription factor. Nature Biotech 17: 287–291.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Le Boulc'h, V., J.L. David, P. Brabant & C. de Vallavieille-Pope, 1994. Dynamic conservation of variability: Responses of wheat populations to different selective forces including powdery mildew. Genet Sel Evol 26(suppl. 1): 221–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pasteur, N. & G. Pasteur, 1988. Practicalisozyme genetics. Ellis Horwood Limited, Publisher Chichester, Halsted Press: A division of JOHN WILEY & SONS, New York - Chichester - Brisbane - Toronto, pp. 62–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soleri, D. & S.E. Smith, 1995. Morphological andphenological comparisons of two hopi maize varieties conserved in situ and ex situ. Economic Bot 49(1): 56–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suliman, K.M. & R.W. Allard, 1991. Grain yield of composite cross populations of barley: Effects of naturalselection. Crop Sci 31: 705–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suneson, C.A., 1956. An evolutionary plant breeding method. AgronJ: 188–191.

  • Swofford, D.L. & R.B. Selander, 1989. BIOSYS-1, version 1.7. A programme packagereleased by the University of Illinois, Urbana, USA.

  • Vaughan, D.A. & T.T. Chang, 1992. In situ conservation of ricegenetic resources. Economic Bot 46(4): 368–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S., 1978. Evolution and the Genetics ofPopulations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tin, H., Berg, T. & Bjørnstad, Å. Diversity and adaptation in rice varieties under static (ex situ) and dynamic (in situ) management. Euphytica 122, 491–502 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017544406975

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017544406975

Navigation