Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution

, Volume 54, Issue 4, pp 823–835 | Cite as

Trade-offs between on-farm varietal diversity and highly client-oriented breeding — a case study of upland rice in India

Original Paper


On-farm varietal diversity is now highest in marginal agricultural environments because, unlike the case in more favourable areas, modern varieties have not been a sufficiently attractive option for farmers to replace their landraces. However, the continued survival of landraces on farm is dependent on the continuing failure of plant breeding to provide better alternatives. Highly client-oriented breeding can produce suitable modern varieties for areas that were dominated by landraces. We examine here the case of the adoption of two upland rice varieties in three states in eastern India, Jharkhand, West Bengal and Orissa, where our surveys had confirmed low adoption of modern varieties in the upland ecosystem. The two new upland varieties were readily accepted by farmers who rapidly adopted them on large proportions of their land. On-farm diversity is maintained by the need to trade-off among varieties but once a variety with overall superiority was found this incentive was removed. The new varieties from the client-oriented breeding did not have weaknesses that farmers had to trade-off against their landraces so they were more likely to replace them. They also replaced older modern varieties. Farmers had previously maintained them along with landraces because they had to trade-off the higher yield of Kalinga III against the more stable yield of landraces or the higher yield of Vandana against the higher gain quality of the landraces. Only mean count per household could be used to test the significance of the differences between individual years. In all states, this revealed a significant reduction in landrace diversity with the adopting farmers when the addition of the two new varieties was not considered. Trends across years for mean varietal count, total count and Shannon–Wiener index showed a significant decline in Orissa, irrespective of whether the two new varieties were included in the analysis or not. In Jharkhand there was a significant decline only for mean count when the new varieties were not included. In Orissa, it was possible to test if rare landraces were as readily replaced as more common ones. Landrace replacement was unmitigated by increasing rarity yet the most rare landraces have the highest priority for genetic conservation. Some landraces were completely replaced by the farmers in the sample despite a diverse variety portfolio being a risk-reducing strategy in a region where there is a high risk of crop failure. There was little environmental heterogeneity in the marginal, drought-prone areas to slow this decline. The new varieties had an impact on the farming system because sometimes farmers brought additional upland into cultivation. They also introduced these varieties into more favourable, medium land. The strategy of releasing two new upland varieties met with some success in maintaining diversity.


Client-oriented breeding (COB) Diversity Landraces Oryza sativa Participatory plant breeding (PPB) Upland rice 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alvarez N, Garine E, Khasah S, Dounias E, Hossaert-McKey M, McKey D (2005) Farmers’ practices, manipulations dynamics, and conservation of agricultural biodiversity on-farm: a case study of sorghum among the Duupa in sub-sahelian Cameroon. Biol Cons 121:533–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bajracharya J, Steele KA, Jarvis DI, Sthapit BR, Witcombe JR (2006) Rice landrace diversity in Nepal: variability of agro-morphological traits and SSR markers in landraces from a high-altitude site. Field Crops Res 95:327–335Google Scholar
  3. Bellon MR, Brush SB (1994) Keepers of maize in Chiapas, Mexico. Econ Bot 48:196–209Google Scholar
  4. Berg T (1995) Devolution of plant breeding. In: Sperling L, Loevinsohn M (eds) Using diversity: enhancing and maintaining genetic resources on-farm. Proceedings of a workshop held on 19–21 June 1995, New Delhi, India. International Development Research Centre, New Delhi, pp 116–126Google Scholar
  5. Boonvanno K, Watanasit S, Permkam S (2000) Butterfly diversity at Ton Nga-Chang wildlife sanctuary, Songkhla Province, Southern Thailand. Sci Asia 26:105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourai VA, Choudhary A, Misra M (2002) Participatory crop improvement in Eastern India: a preliminary impact assessment. PSP Annual Report, 2002. Section I: Introduction and General Overview, Research Outcomes, pp 25–33.
  7. Brush SB (1995) In situ conservation of landraces in centres of crop diversity. Crop Sci 35:346–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brush SB, Meng E (1998) Farmers’ valuation and conservation of crop genetic resources. Genet Resour Crop Evol 45:139–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Busch L, Lacy WB, Burkhardt J (1989) Ethical and policy issues. In: Knutson L, Stoner AK (eds) Biotic diversity and germplasm global imperatives. Invited papers presented at a symposium held 9–11 May 1988, at Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, Maryland. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 43–62Google Scholar
  10. Cromwell E, Almekinders C (2000) The impact of seed supply interventions on the use of crop genetic diversity. In: Almekinders C, De Boef W (eds) Encouraging diversity. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, pp 223–226Google Scholar
  11. Everson RE (1993) Genetic resources: assessing economic value. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Economics, Yale University, New Haven, ConnecticutGoogle Scholar
  12. Friis-Hansen E (2000) Farmers’ management and use of crop genetic diversity in Tanzania. In: Almekinders C, De Boef W (eds) Encouraging diversity. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, pp 66–71Google Scholar
  13. Gauchan D, Smale M, Chaudhary P (2005) Market-based incentives for conserving diversity on farms: the use of rice landraces in Central Tarai, Nepal. Genet Resour Crop Evol 52:293–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. GVT (Gramin Vikas Trust) (2003) Final Report for the Survey Sponsored by Centre for Arid Zone Studies, University of Wales, Bangor, UK. GVT, Ranchi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  15. IPGRI (1996) In: Eyzaguirre P, Iwanaga M (eds) Proceedings of the IDRC/IPGRI Workshop on Participatory Plant Breeding, 28–30 July International Agricultural Research Centre, Wageningen. IPGRI, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  16. Joshi KD, Witcombe JR (2003) The impact of participatory plant breeding (PPB) on landrace diversity: a case study for high-altitude rice in Nepal. Euphytica 134:117–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krebs CJ (1999) Ecological methodology, 2nd edn. Addison-Welsey Educational Publishers Inc., CA, USA, 581ppGoogle Scholar
  18. Lohar DP, Rana RB (1998) The dichotomy of crop diversity management issues in subsistence and commercial hill farming systems in Nepal. In: Pratap T, Sthapit B (eds) Managing agrobiodiversity — farmers’ changing perspectives and institutional responses in the Hindu-Kush-Himalayan region. International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), Kathmandu, Nepal and International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), Rome, pp␣183–197Google Scholar
  19. Rosenzweig MR, Stark O (1989) Consumption smoothing, migration, and marriage: evidence from rural India. J␣Pol Econ 97:905–926Google Scholar
  20. Sirabanchongkran A, Yimyam N, Boonma W, Rerkasem K (2004) Varietal turnover and seed exchange: implications for conservation of rice genetic diversity on-farm. Intl Rice Res Newslett (IRRN) 29:12–13Google Scholar
  21. Smale M, Heisey PW, Leather MD (1995) Maize of the ancestors and modern varieties: the microeconomics of high yielding variety adoption in Malawi. Econ Dev Cult Change 43:351–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1973) Statistical methods, 6th edn. Iowa State University Press, Iowa, USA, 593ppGoogle Scholar
  23. Sthapit BR, Joshi KD, Witcombe JR (1996) Farmer participatory crop improvement. III. Participatory plant breeding. A case study for high altitude rice in Nepal. Expl Agric 32:479–496Google Scholar
  24. Teshome A, Baum DR, Fahrig L, Torrance JK, Arnason JT, Lambert JD (1997) Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] landrace variation and classification in North Shewa and South Welo, Ethiopia. Euphytica 97:255–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Virk DS, Bourai VA, Choudhary A, Misra M, Witcombe JR (2003a) Participatory crop improvement in Eastern India: an impact assessment. PSP Annual Report, 2003. Section I: Introduction and General Overview, Research Outcomes, pp 19–28.
  26. Virk DS, Singh DN, Kumar R, Prasad SC, Gangwar JS, Witcombe JR (2003b) Collaborative and consultative participatory plant breeding of rice for the rainfed uplands of eastern India. Euphytica 132:95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Witcombe JR (1999) Do farmer-participatory methods apply more to high potential areas than to marginal ones? Outlook Agric 28:43–49Google Scholar
  28. Witcombe JR (2001) The impact of decentralised and participatory plant breeding on the genetic base of crops. In: Cooper HD, Spillane C, Hodgkin T (eds) Broadening the genetic base of crop production. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, Oxon, UK, pp 407–417Google Scholar
  29. Witcombe JR, Virk DS (2001) Number of crosses and population size for participatory and classical plant breeding. Euphytica 122:451–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Witcombe JR, Joshi A, Joshi KD, Sthapit BR (1996) Farmer participatory crop improvement. I. Varietal selection and breeding methods and their impact on biodiversity. Expl Agric 32:445–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Witcombe JR, Joshi KD, Gyawali S, Musa A, Johanssen C, Virk DS, Sthapit BR (2005) Participatory plant breeding is better described as highly client-oriented plant breeding. I. Four indicators of client-orientation in plant breeding. Expl Agric 41:299–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CAZS Natural ResourcesUniversity of WalesBangorUK

Personalised recommendations