- Phylogenetics and evolution of Digitaria grasses, including cereal crops fonio, raishan and Polish millet. The history of wild Digitaria goes back 2–6 million years.
- Biogeography of Crop Progenitors and Wild Plant Resources in the Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene of West Asia, 14.7–8.3 ka. This is what the distribution of crop wild relatives looked like in West Asia 10 thousand years ago or thereabouts. No Digitaria, but plenty of other stuff.
- Ancient use and long-distance transport of the Four Corners Potato (Solanum jamesii) across the Colorado Plateau: Implications for early stages of domestication. At roughly the same time, a couple continents and an ocean over, a local potato species was being processed outside its rage. Was it cultivated? Do the math.
- State formation across cultures and the role of grain, intensive agriculture, taxation and writing. And a few thousand years later, there were domesticated grains, states, and taxes. In that order. Do the math.
- The Archaeology of Olive Oil Production in Roman and Pre-Roman Italy. Pretty sure the Romans had a state and taxes. They also had domesticated olives.
- Wines of Fire and Earth: Exploring the Volcanic Terroirs of the Canary Islands – a Case Study. No Romans on the Canaries, but plenty of vines.
- Black Death Land Abandonment Drove European Diversity Losses. The Romans and their successors, with their cereals, olives and grapes, were surprisingly good for landscape floristic diversity. The Black Death, not so much.
- The decades-old fantasy of enhancing pigeonpea productivity. Well that’s a bit of a letdown after a 6 million year journey.
- Past, present and future of local crop evolution. That’s because we needed Indigenous people and local communities to show us the way.
These seeds are from the government, and they’re here to help you
In his recent paper in Plant Genetic Resources, Reimagining the Role of National Genebanks: Purposes, Priorities, and Programs, Cary Fowler offers a refreshingly blunt intervention for the world’s national genebanks.
The paper suggests a radical pivot: stop acting like dusty museums and start acting like high-energy dating agencies for seeds. Fowler argues that for many small, underfunded facilities, the traditional “Fort Knox” model of long-term conservation is a trap. If you can’t store seeds properly and you aren’t sharing your stash, you aren’t a guardian: you’re a threat. His solution?
Instead of waiting for breeders to call, who don’t exist anyway for a lot of “minor” crops, genebanks should be putting diversity directly into the hands of farmers. Fowler invokes the “inventive art” of 19th-century American agriculture, where the government functioned like a giant postal seed-swapping club. He envisions modern genebanks acquiring diversity, screening it, and sending out cleverly selected landraces and cultivars for farmers to try out in their own fields.
It’s a bold call to move from the passive “save it for a rainy day” mentality to an active “let’s see what grows in the rain” strategy. The future of diversity isn’t just in the freezer; it’s in the mail, at least for many underfunded national genebanks and so-called “opportunity crops.” Brave new world. But it does all assume the rest of the system is functioning — and is funded — properly…
Brainfood: Restoration edition
- Addressing critiques refines global estimates of reforestation potential for climate change mitigation. Better mapping shows there is less land available for reforestation than we thought, and there are limited opportunities for providing multiple benefits. Still, that’s an area the size of Mexico, and worth trying to get it right.
- Genomic approaches to accelerate American chestnut restoration. The American chestnut people seem to be getting it right.
- A native seed bank is restoring land in Canada’s north. Native people — and their genebanks — can help you get it right.
- Controlled Pollination and Reproductive Strategies in Coconut: A Framework for Farmer-Led Breeding, Seednut Production, and In Situ Conservation. Farmers can be helped to get it right.
- Dehulling the secret of the germination of crop wild relatives of Cenchrus, Digitaria, Echinochloa, Setaria and Urochloa. You need information on germination breaking to get it right. In the US Midwest, for example.
- How can Brazilian legislation on native seeds advance based on good practices of restoration in other countries? Not to mention the right policies.
A home for genebank training at last?
Long-time readers will know that I regularly try to roundup training opportunities in crop diversity conservation, basically because nobody else does it. Well, maybe I can stop doing that now.
Yes, it’s true, the Crop Trust has launched a Genebank Academy, which aggregates information on online training courses. Have they missed some? Let me know.
And completeness compels me to add that there is also a Landscape Academy. Though unfortunately none of the courses seem to feature genebanks. But then, I’m not sure that any of the genebank courses featured landscapes.
LATER: Ok, but where to put the course Seed Systems, Crop Conservation and Genetic Diversity in December 2026?
Crowdsourcing crop diversity, and information
A couple of crowd-sourcing initiatives caught my eye.
First, the good people at the COUSIN project want to expand genebank collections of wild relatives of wheat, barley, lettuce, brassica, and peas in Europe. And they have a pretty good idea where the collecting needs to be done. Think you can help? Check out the call for proposals.
And from a bit further south comes a plea on LinkedIn from Chris Jones of the ILRI genebank. He needs help getting stuff out of the genebank rather than into it.
As part of the ‘low-methane forages’ project, funded by the Gates Foundation and the Bezos Earth Fund, we have been screening the methane emission intensity of a range of forage accessions, in vitro, from the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) genebank. The aim is to screen approximately 10% of the accessions held in our genebank and, to date, we have assessed 155 herbaceous legumes towards this goal, including several of our lablab accessions. From these, we have identified two accessions of interest. The methane emission intensity of accession #14447 was 27.7 ml/g total digestible dry matter (TDDM), 43% lower than the highest ten legumes measured so far, and methane emission intensity of accession #14458 was 33.8 ml/g TDDM, 30% lower. So, assuming that similar differences in methane emission intensity are realised in vivo (and that is no guarantee), the preferred candidate seems obvious. However, in our field plots #14458 produced 60% more biomass than #14447, which was an ‘average’ yielder. This higher level of production should be attractive to farmers who currently struggle to incorporate much in the way of legumes in their feed rations. So, which one would you prioritise?
I’ve added the links to the Genesys entries for the accessions in questions for people who want a bit more data to base their decision on. You can provide your input on Chris’ post, or right here and I promise to pass it on.