Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 133–142

Monophyletic vs. polyphyletic origin of the crops on which agriculture was founded in the Near East

  • Daniel Zohary
Article

Abstract

The following comparisons between crops and their closely related wild relatives provide clues for discriminating between monophyletic and polyphyletic origins under domestication: (i) Presence or absence of patterns indicative of founder effects in the cultivated genepool, compared to the amount of variation present in its wild progenitor. (ii) Uniformity or lack of uniformity (within a crop) in genes governing principal domestication traits (traits that were automatically selected for once the wild progenitor was introduced into cultivation). (iii) Species diversity: The number of closely related (congeneric) wild species with similar potential for domestication, native to the area under consideration; and how many of them entered cultivation. The present paper evaluates the information available on the eight crops that founded Neolithic agriculture in the Near East; and arrives at the conclusion that emmer wheat Triticum turgidum L. subsp. dicoccum Schúbler, einkorn wheat T. monococcum L., pea Pisum sativum L., and lentil Lens culinaris Medik. were very likely taken into cultivation only once or – at most – a very few times. Also chickpea Cicer arietinum L., bitter vetch Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd., and flax Linum usitatissimum L. seem to have been domesticated in a similar way, but the evidence concerning them is much scarcer. Only for barley Hordeum vulgare L. are there indications that it has been domesticated more than once – but again only a very few times.

mode of domestication cultivated plants Near East 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ben-Ze'ev, N. & D. Zohary, 1973. Species relationships in the genus Pisum L. Israel Journal of Botany 22: 73–91.Google Scholar
  2. Blumler, M.K., 1992. Independent inventionism and recent genetic evidence on plant domestication. Economic Botany 46: 98–111.Google Scholar
  3. Butler, A., 1989. Cryptic anatomical characters as evidence of early cultivation in the grain legumes (pulses). In: Harris, D.R. & G.C. Hillman (Eds), Foraging and farming: the evolution of plant exploitation, pp. 390–407, Unwin Hyman, London.Google Scholar
  4. Clegg, M.T., A.H.D. Brown & P.R. Whitfeld, 1984. Chloroplast DNA diversity in wild and cultivated barley: implication for genetic conservation. Genetical Research 43: 339–343.Google Scholar
  5. Diamond, J., 1997. Location, location, location: the first farmers. Science 278: 1243–1244.Google Scholar
  6. Doebley, J., 1990. Molecular evidence and the evolution of maize. In: Bretting, P.K. (Ed), New perspectives on the origin and evolution of New World domesticated plants. Supplement to Economic Botany, 44: 6–28.Google Scholar
  7. Dvorak, J., P.E. Mc Guire & B. Cassidi, 1988. Apparent sources of the A genome of wheat inferred from polymorphism in abundance and restriction fragment length of repeated nucleotid sequences. Genome 30: 680–689.Google Scholar
  8. Fukuyama, T., R. Takahashi & J. Hayashi, 1982. Genetic studies on the induced six-rowed mutants in barley. Berichte Ohara Institut fúr Landwirtscaft und Biologie, Okayama University, 18: 99–113.Google Scholar
  9. Gepts, P. & D.G. Debouck, 1991. Origin, domestication and evolution of the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). In: van Schoonhoven, A. & O. Voysest (Eds), Common beans: research for crop improvement, pp. 7–53, CAB International, Wallingford.Google Scholar
  10. Heun, M., R. Schäfer-Pregl, D. Klawan, R. Castagna, M. Accerbi, B. Borghi & F. Salamini, 1997. Site of einkorn domestication identified by DNA fingerprinting. Science 278: 1312–1314.Google Scholar
  11. Hockett, E.A. & R.A. Nilan. 1985. Genetics. In: Rasmusson, D.C. (Ed), Barley. pp. 187–230. American Society of Agronomy, Madison.Google Scholar
  12. Kaul, M.L.H., 1988. Male sterility in the higher plants. Monographs in Theoretical and Applied Genetics No.10. Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  13. Ladizinsky, G., 1985. The genetics of hard seed coat in the genus Lens. Euphytica 34: 539–543.Google Scholar
  14. Ladizinsky, G. & A. Adler, 1976. Genetic relationships among the annual species of Cicer L. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 48: 196–203.Google Scholar
  15. Ladizinsky, G., D. Braun, D. Goshen, & F.J. Muehlbauer, 1984. The biological species in the genus Lens L. Botanical Gazette 145: 253–261.Google Scholar
  16. Love, H.H. & W.T. Craig, 1924. The Genetic relation between Triticum dicoccum dicoccoides and a similar morphological type produced synthetically. Journal of Agriculture Research 28: 515–519.Google Scholar
  17. Maesen, L.J.G. van der, 1972. Cicer L., a monograph of the genus, with special reference to the chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), its ecology and cultivation. Agricultural University Wageningen, communication No. 72/10.Google Scholar
  18. Maesen, L.J.G. van der, 1987. Origin, history and taxonomy of chickpea. In: Saxsana, M.C. & K.B. Singh (Eds), The chickpea. pp. 11–34. CAB International, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  19. Mayr, E., 1942. Systematics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Miller, T.E., 1987. Systematics and evolution. In: Lupton, F.G.H. (Ed), Wheat breading. pp. 1–30. Chapman and Hill, London.Google Scholar
  21. Neale, D.B., M.A. Saghai-Maroof, R.W. Allard, Q. Zhang & R.A. Jorgensen, 1988. Chloroplast DNA diversity in populations of wild and cultivated barley. Genetics 120: 1105–1110.Google Scholar
  22. Palmer, J.D., R.A. Jorgensen & W.F. Thompson, 1985. Chloroplast DNA variation and evolution in Pisum: patterns of change and phylogenetic analysis. Genetics 109: 195–213.Google Scholar
  23. Sharma, H.G. & J.G. Waines, 1980. Inheritance of tough rachis in crosses of Triticum monococcum and T. boeoticum. Journal of Heredity 71: 214–216.Google Scholar
  24. Smartt, J., 1990. Grain legumes: evolution and genetic resources. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  25. Takahashi, R., 1964. Further studies on the phylogenetic differentiation of cultivated barley. Barley Genetics 1: 19–26. Proceedings of the 1st international barley genetics symposium,Wageningen.Google Scholar
  26. Takahashi, R., 1972. Non-brittle rachis 1 and Non-brittle rachis 2. Barley Genetics Newsletter 2: 181–2.Google Scholar
  27. Waines, J.G., 1996. Molecular characterization of the einkorn wheat. In: Padulosi S., K. Hammer & J. Heller (Eds), Hulled Wheats. pp. 193–197. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome.Google Scholar
  28. Waines, J.G. & D. Barnhart, 1992. Biosystematic research in Aegilops and Triticum. Hereditas 116: 207–212.Google Scholar
  29. Werker, E., I. Marbach & A.M. Mayer, 1979. Relation between the anatomy of the testa, water permeability and presence of phenolics in the genus Pisum. Annals of Botany 43: 765–71.Google Scholar
  30. Zeist, W. van, K. Wasylikowa & K.-H. Behre, 1991. Progress in Old World palaeoethnobotany. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  31. Zohary, D., 1989. Domestication of the Southwest Asian Neolithic crop assemblage of cereals pulses and flax: the evidence from the living plants. In: Harris, D.R. & G.C. Hillman (Eds), Foraging and farming: the evolution of plants exploitation. pp. 355–375. Unwin Hyman, London.Google Scholar
  32. Zohary, D., 1996. The mode of domestication of the founder crops of Southwest Asian agriculture. In: Harris, D.R. (Ed). The origins and spread of agriculture and pastoralism in Eurasia. pp. 142–158 University College London Press, London.Google Scholar
  33. Zohary, D. & M. Hopf, 1993. Domestication of plants in the Old World (2nd edition). Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Zohary
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Evolution, Systematics and EcologyThe Hebrew UniversityJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations