Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Centres of Crop Diversity and/or Origin, Genetically Modified Crops and Implications for Plant Genetic Resources Conservation

  • Published:
Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The concept of centres of crop diversity and/or origin of agriculture is briefly reviewed. The conservation status of crop genetic resources, either ex situ or in situ, cultivated or wild, has been assessed for species of the Central American and Mexican centre, demonstrating that that region is indeed one of the important centres of crop diversity for human kind. Furthermore, biotechnological developments with regard to the creation and spread of genetically modified crops have been analyzed. The likelihood of unintentional introgression of genetically modified traits into conventional seed lots, crops as well as into germplasm collections have been assessed. Related biosafety measures as well as the possible implications of intellectual property rights on transgenic crops and/or genes are being discussed vis-a-vis the possible implications they might have for germplasm management. The Central American crop genetic resources situation has been used as a “case study” to illustrate the potential impact of the spreading of GM varieties on the genetic diversity in genebanks and farmers’ fields and the need for effective and efficient conservation efforts. Conservation management strategies and practices are being proposed of mitigate the potential negative impact of GM crops on the conservation efforts.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AGNET 2002. Federal Court judges unanimously dismiss appeal in Schmeiser vs. Monsanto Canada Inc. patent infringement case. http://archives.foodsafetynetwork.ca/agnet/2002/9-2002/agnet_september_5-2.htm.

  • Alvarez-Morales A. 2000. México: ensuring environmental safety while benefiting from biotechnology. In: Persley G.J. and Lantin M.M. (eds), Agricultural Biotechnology and the Poor: Proceedings of an International ConferenceWashington, D.C., 21–22 October 1999. Consultative Group on International Agricultural ResearchWashington, D.C., pp. 90–96.

  • Anonymous 2004. ISTA Proficiency Tests on GMO Testing. Official Newsletter of the WANA Seed Network. No. 26, January 2004, pp. 5–6.

  • APEC 2003. General Statement and Draft Conclusions of an APEC Conference on Agricultural Biotechnology Crops in Centres of Origin. Sub-Group on ResearchDevelopment and Extension of Agricultural Biotechnology, November 5–7, 2003, pp. 9.

  • Arunachalam V. 1999. Conservation, genetic erosion and early warning system: key issues. In: Serwinski J. and Faberova I. (eds), Proceedings of the Technical Meeting on the Methodology of the FAO World Information and Early Warning System on Plant Genetic Resources. 21–23 June 1999. Food and Agriculture Organizaition of the United Nations, PragueCzech Republic.

  • M.W. Bevan, R.B. Flavell and M.D. Chilton, A chimaeric antibiotic resistance gene as a selectable marker for plant cell transformation. Nature 304 (1983) 184-187

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • BGCI Online 2005. Botanic Gardens Conservation International – The Gateway to the World's Botanic Gardens. http://www.bgci.org.uk/accessed March 2005.

  • Braun R. and Ammann K. 2002. Biodiversity: the impact of biotechnology. Gene Conserv. Issue No. 6, Nov./Dec. 2002 80–105. (electronic journal: http://www.geneconserve.pro.br/artigo_13.htm.).

  • A. de Candolle, Lórigine des plantes cultivées. Paris: Bailliere (1883).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook R.J. 2000. Science-based risk assessment for the approval and use of plants in agricultural and other environments. In: Persley G.J. and Lantin M.M. (eds), Agricultural Biotechnology and the Poor: Proceedings of an International ConferenceWashington, D.C., 21–22 October 1999. Consultative Group on International Agricultural ResearchWashington, D.C., pp. 123–130.

  • Debouck D.G. 1986. Primary diversification of Phaseolus in the Americas: three centres? FAO/IBPGR Plant Genet. Res. Newslett. 67: 2–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • EarthTrends 2003. Country Profiles – Biodiversity and Protected Areas.: http://earthtrends.wri.org/country_profiles/index.cfm?theme=7, accessed March 2005.

  • J.M.M. Engels, Genetic Resources, Their Conservation and Use in Potato Breeding [In Dutch]. The Netherlands: Wageningen Agricultural University (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  • A Guide to Effective Management of Germplasm Collections. RomeItaly: IPGRI (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • Eshbaugh, Peppers: history and exploitation of a serendipitous new crop discovery. In: J. Janick and J.E. Simon (eds.) New crops. New York: Wiley (1993) pp. 132-139

    Google Scholar 

  • The Status of the World's Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome: FAO (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Fladung, O. Nowitzki, B. Ziegenhagen and K. Sandeep, Vegetative and generative dispersal capacity of field released transgenic aspen trees. Trees: Struct. Funct. 17 (2003) 412-416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R.T. Fraley, S.G. Rogers, R.B. Horsch, P.R. Sanders, J.S. Flick, S.P. Adams, M.L. Bittner, L.A. Brand, C.L. Fink, J.S. Fry, G.R. Galluppi, S.B. Goldberg, N.L. Hoffmann and S.C. Woo, Expression of bacterial genes in plant cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 80 (1983) 4803-4807

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • L.F. Friesen, A.G. Nelson and R.C. van Acker, Evidence of contamination of pedigreed canola (Brassica napus) seedlots in western Canada with genetically engineered herbicide resistance traits. Agron. J. 95 (2003) 1342-1347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • P. Gepts, T.C. Osborn, K Rashka and F.A. Bliss, Phaseolin-protein variability in wild forms and landraces of the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.): evidence for multiple centres of domestication. Econ. Bot. 40 (1986) 451-468

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • GRAIN 1996. The biotech battle over the golden crop. Seedling (newsletter of Genetic Resources Action International), October 1996.

  • GRPC 2004. Report of the Workshop on ‘Technical issues associated with the development of CGIAR policies to address the possibility of adventitious presence of transgenes in CGIAR ex situ collections’ available at the URL: http://www.ipgri.cgiar.org/Policy/GMOWorkshop/.

  • M.D. Halfhill, R.J. Millwood, P.L. Raymer and C.N. Stewart Jr., Bt-transgenic oilseed rape hybridization with its weedy relativeBrassica rapa. Environ. Biosafety Res. 1 (2002) 19-28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • E. Hernandez, Genetic resources of primitive varieties of Mesoamerica Zea spp., Phaseolus spp, Capsicum spp. and Cucurbita spp.. In: O.H. Frankel (ed.) 1973. Survey of crop genetic resources in their centres of diversity. Rome: FAO (1973) pp. 76-86

    Google Scholar 

  • L. Herrera-Estrella, A. Depicker, M. van Montagu and J. Schell, Expression of chimaeric genes transfered into plant cells using a Ti-plasmid-derived vector. Nature 303 (1983) 209-213

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Informe-Resumen de un taller del Grupo Interagencial IICAOIRSACATIE para la revisión de: Propuesta de Marco Regulatorio tipo (MRT) sobre OVMs para uso agropecuario en Centroamérica; Hacia una Estrategia Regional en AgrobiotecnologíaIniciativa de Fortalecimiento de Capacidades Institucionales en bioseguridad en Centroamérica. Costa Rica: San José (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • On farm management of crop genetic diversity and the Convention on Biological Diversity's programme of work on agricultural biodiversity. Montreal, Canada: CBD (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • C. James, Preview: Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 2003. IthacaNY: ISAAA (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • B. Johnson, Genetically modified crops and other organisms: implications for agricultural sustainability and biodiversity. In: G.J. Persley and M.M. Lantin (eds.) 2000 Agricultural Biotechnology and the Poor: Proceedings of an International ConferenceWashington, D.C., 21–22 October 1999. Washington, D.C.: Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (2000) pp. 131-138

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee M. and Lau E. 2003. Biotech seeds shipped in error. The Sacramento Bee, Friday, December 19, 2003.

  • J. León, Botánica de los cultivos tropicales. IICA2000: Costa Rica (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Leskien and M. Flitner, Intellectual Property Rights and Plant Genetic Resources: Options for a Sui Generis System. RomeItaly: International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • B.A. Meilleur and T. Hodgkin, In situ conservation of crop wild relatives: status and trends. Biodiv. Conserv. 13 (2004) 663-684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • F. Meurrens, J. Degreef, O.J. Rocha and J.P. Baudoin, Demography study in micro-conservation sites with a view to maintain in situ wild Lima beans (Phaseolus lunatus L.) in the Central Valley of Costa Rica. FAO/IPGRI Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 128 (2001) 45-50

    Google Scholar 

  • T.R. Mikkelsen, B. Andersen and R.B. Jørgensen, The risk of crop transgene spread. Nature 380 (1996) 31

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • N. Murai, D.W. Sutton, M.G. Murray, J.L. Slightom, D.J. Merlo, N.A. Reichert, C. Sengupta-Gopalan, C.A. Stock, R.F. Barker, J.D. Kemp and T.C. Hall, Phaseolin gene from bean is expressed after transfer to sunflower via tumor-inducing plasmid vectors. Science 222 (1983) 476-482

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • R. Ortega-Paczka, Genetic erosion in Mexico. In: J. Serwinski and I. Faberova (eds.) Proceedings of the Technical Meeting on the Methodology of the FAO World Information and Early Warning System on Plant Genetic Resources, 21–23 June 1999. PragueCzech Republic: Food and Agriculture Organizaition of the United Nations (1999) pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • G.J. Persley, Agricultural Biotechnology and the Poor: Proethean Science. In: G.J. Persley and M.M. Lantin (eds.) 2000. Agricultural Biotechnology and the Poor: Proceedings of an International ConferenceWashington, D.C., 21–22 October 1999. Washington, D.C.: Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (2000) pp. 3-21

    Google Scholar 

  • B. Pickersgill, Relationships between weedy and cultivated forms in some species of chili peppers (genus Capsicum). Evolution 25 (1971) 683-691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D.L. Richer, Intellectual Property Protection: Who Needs It?. In: G.J. Persley and M.M. Lantin (eds.) 2000 Agricultural Biotechnology and the Poor: Proceedings of an International ConferenceWashington, D.C., 21–22 October 1999. Washington, D.C.: Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (2000) pp. 203-208

    Google Scholar 

  • R.L. Saade and S. Montes Hernández, Cucurbits (Cucurbita spp.).. In: J.E. Hernándo Bermejo and J. León (eds.) Neglected Crops: 1492 from a Different Perspective. RomeItaly: FAO (1994) pp. 63-77

    Google Scholar 

  • Gene flow among maize landraces, improved maize varieties, and teosinte: implications for transgenic maize. Mexico: CIMMYT (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • SGRP 2003. Booklet of CGIAR centre policy instruments, guidelines and statements on genetic resources, biotechnology and intellectual property rights. Version II. System-wide Genetic Resources Programme SGRP.

  • C.N. Stewart Jr., M.D. Halfhill and S.I. Warwick, Transgene introgression from genetically modified crops to their wild relatives. Nat. Rev. 4 (2003) 806-817

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • N.I. Vavilov, Studies on the origin of cultivated plants. Leningrad: Inst. Appl. Bot. Plant Breed (1926).

    Google Scholar 

  • F. Yamin, Intellectual property rights, biotechnology and food security. Brighton, Sussex BN1 9REEngland: Institute of Development Studies (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  • A.C. Zeven and J.M.J. de Wet, Dictionary of Cultivated Plants and their Regions of Diversity; Excluding Ornamentals, Forest Trees and Lower Plants. Wageningen, Netherlands: CAPD (1982).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IPGRI, Rome, Italy

    J. M. M. Engels & I. Thormann

  2. CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica

    A. W. Ebert

  3. IPGRI, Cali, Colombia

    M. C. de Vicente

Authors
  1. J. M. M. Engels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. W. Ebert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. I. Thormann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. C. de Vicente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. M. M. Engels.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Engels, J.M.M., Ebert, A.W., Thormann, I. et al. Centres of Crop Diversity and/or Origin, Genetically Modified Crops and Implications for Plant Genetic Resources Conservation. Genet Resour Crop Evol 53, 1675–1688 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-005-1215-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-005-1215-y

Key words

Search

Navigation