Landrace discussion thread.

[Worth1]

I would like to present this thread that is dedicated to Landrace discussion.

I dont have time to have any input at this time as I am in the middle of draining my water heater so I can pick it up and set it on a new platform.

Good day and have a good time discussing the much debated subject of Landrace vegetables.

Worth

[Fred Hempel]

We might as well start with some definitions:

The Free Dictionary botany an ancient or primitive cultivated variety of a crop plant

Oxford Dictionary botany: a local cultivar or animal breed that has been improved by traditional agricultural methods.

Collins Dictionary (botany) an ancient or primitive cultivated variety of a crop plant

Harlan, J. R., Science, 1975, 174, 468–474 “Landrace populations are often highly variable in appearance, but they are each identifiable morphologically and have a certain genetic integrity. Farmers usually give them local names. A landrace has particular properties or characteristics. Some are considered early maturing and some late. Each has a reputation for adaptation to particular soil types according to the traditional peasant soil classifications, e.g. heavy or light, warm or cold, dry or wet, strong or weak. They also may be classified according to expected usage; among cereals, different landraces are used for flour, for porridge, for 'bulgur', and for malt to make beer, etc. All components of the [plant] population are adapted to local climatic conditions, cultural practices, and disease and pests."[2]
"But most important, they are genetically diverse. They are balanced populations – variable, in equilibrium with both environment and pathogens and genetically dynamic".

Zeven, A. C. (1998). "Landraces: A review of definitions and classifications". Euphytica 104 (2): 127–139. "An autochthonous landrace is a variety with a high capacity to tolerate biotic and abiotic stress, resulting in a high yield stability and an intermediate yield level under a low input agricultural system."[4]

Joseph (Tomatovillian on Homegrown Goodness board) Here's my attempt at a definition for landrace:
A landrace is a food crop with lots of genetic diversity which contributes to it's ability to survive new pests, new diseases, or changes in cultural practices or in the environment.
In the case of mostly self-pollinating plants like peppers, tomatoes, beans, wheat, and peas a landrace may be thought of as many distinct varieties growing side by side.
In the case of out-crossing plants like cantaloupe, squash, or corn, a land-race can be thought of as an open pollinated population with tremendous genetic diversity. Many of the seeds in an out-crossing land-race end up being unique F1 hybrids.

Defining and identifying crop landraces Tania Carolina Camacho Villa, Nigel Maxted, Maria Scholten, Brian Ford-Lloyd. Pl. Genet. Resources (2005) 3(03):373 - 384.
The working definition proposed is as follows: ‘a landrace is a dynamic population(s) of a cultivated plant that has historical origin, distinct identity and lacks formal crop improvement, as well as often being genetically diverse, locally adapted and associated with traditional farming systems’.

Science Magazine A crop cultivar or animal breed that evolved with and has been genetically improved by traditional agriculturalists, but has not been influenced by modern breeding practices

Vetelainen, Negri and Maxted (2009) European landraces: on-farm conservation, management and use. Isbn 9290438053 The On-Farm Conservation Group on Genetic Resources defined it as follows: A landrace of a seed propagated crop is a variable population which is identifiable and usually has a local name. It lacks “formal” crop improvement, is characterized by a specific adaptation to the environmental conditions of the area of cultivation (tolerant to the biotic and abiotic stresses of that area) and is closely associated with the uses, knowledge, habits, dialects and celebrations of the people who developed and continue to grow it.

[Cole_Robbie]

Is there a consensus definition of the term? What's the difference between saving your own seeds from the best plants and "land race gardening?"

edit: Fred and I were posting at the same time. I didn't see his post when I typed mine.

[Fred Hempel]

Cole Robbie,

We are thinking along the same lines: We should probably start out with at least trying to understand the history of term usage, before we argue about what it "should" mean.

There doesn't seem to be a universally accepted definition, although there do seem to be common themes in the definitions floating around.

1. It is a population with genetic diversity

2. It is a population associated with, and growing in, a particular place. And it has a "history" in that place.

3. It is generally assumed to be adapted to it's growing conditions (biotic, abiotic and human-related).

There are other themes that are common, but perhaps problematic:

1. They are ancient.

Frankly, I do not like when certain peoples or practices are termed "ancient". Landraces are not pieces in a museum. And frankly, Native Americans, Laplanders, etc. etc. are as modern as any of us.

2. They are primitive.

How can you call any existing crop "primitive"? If it exists today, and if people have been cultivating it, it is as modern as anything else out there! Sure landrace crops are not true-breeding, and they may not be common in monoculture agriculture, but calling them primitive reflects cultural arrogance.

3. They have not been "formally improved", or influenced by "modern breeding".

Again, I think these assumptions are culturally arrogant. What is the definition of "formally"? Is it limited to white guys in laboratories and ag research stations?

[Doug9345]

Looking for a definition I ran across an article where landrace definitions are discussed for thirteen pages.http://www.semencespaysannes.org/bdf...hytica1998.pdf
It's well work reading for any one that has even a passing interest in the term landrace.
The definitions below are all from there.
International Code for Nomenclature for
Cultivated Plants – ICNCP

The term landrace is not mentioned in the ICNCP (Trehane, 1995). The item landrace cannot be included in the term cultivar as the cultivar is described as ‘a taxon that had been selected for a particular attribute
or combination of attributes, and that is clearly distinct, uniform and stable in its characteristics and that, when propagated by appropriate means, retains those characteristics.’ As already stated no, or only limited, human selection is carried out to maintain a landrace, it may clearly be distinct from other landraces, but repeated cultivation especially under other circumstances, often results in a different appearance of the landrace. Hence, a landrace is not uniform and stable, and thus is different from a cultivar.

The definition below is the same one that Fred Hempel gave with the exception of the end lines which I have made red. I think the time element is important.

Harlan (1975) continues: ‘Landraces have a certain genetic integrity. They are recognizable morphologically; farmers have names for them and different landraces are understood to differ in adaptation to soil type, time of seeding, date of maturity, height, nutritive value, use and other properties. Most important, they are genetically diverse. Such balanced populations – variable, in equilibrium with both environment

and pathogens, and genetically dynamic – are our heritage from past generations of cultivators. They are the result of millennia of natural and artificial selections and are the basic resources upon which future plant breeding must depend.’ (end of quotation)

There are many different definitions there, but many have a commonality to them.


All of them list genetic diversity both with in and between landraces, that they are adapted to local conditions, and that natural selection plays a part in their characteristics. What none of them insist upon is that they be out breeding, inbreeding or a mix of clonal plants. Many have a time element to the definition either explicit or implied. Some allow a degree of human selection.

[Doug9345]

I crossed with Fred. The messed up editting function really slows down posting long posts.

[Fred Hempel]

I really like Joseph's definition.

It captures the essence of what is generally accepted about landraces (genetic diversity, association with a place, and probable adaptation) and can be clearly defined.

It is a useful definition that describes the general characteristics of the populations in question, without a bunch of assumptions having to be made about the precise roles of humans (as selectors, or ignorers), the "primitiveness" of the population (and it's stewards) and or whether or not "modern" techniques have been used.

[Doug9345]

Originally Posted by Fred Hempel

Cole Robbie,


There are other themes that are common, but perhaps problematic:

1. They are ancient.

Frankly, I do not like when certain peoples or practices are termed "ancient". Landraces are not pieces in a museum. And frankly, Native Americans, Laplanders, etc. etc. are as modern as any of us.

2. They are primitive.

How can you call any existing crop "primitive"? If it exists today, and if people have been cultivating it, it is as modern as anything else out there! Sure landrace crops are not true-breeding, and they may not be common in monoculture agriculture, but calling them primitive reflects cultural arrogance.

3. They have not been "formally improved", or influenced by "modern breeding".

Again, I think these assumptions are culturally arrogant. What is the definition of "formally"? Is it limited to white guys in laboratories and ag research stations?

I agree that those are poor choices for words. Some of the terms come from prior eras where little attention was given to cultural sensitivity and it's time to lose them.

Even with ancient being the wrong term I still think that time of existence is important. They are identifiable over long periods of times may be a better concept.

They are primitive only in the sense that the populations are preceived less modified from the wild populations than cultivars are. This is only so if uniformity in some set of characteristics can be deemed more advanced than uniformity on some other set.

If the growers choose plants by any other means than some version of eenie-meenie-miney-mo the they are in fact using formal breeding techniques.

[Doug9345]

Fred you do not believe time in existence is important in the definition?

[Fusion_power]

I have no problem with the concept of a "landrace" crop plant. I have huge problems with "landrace" tomatoes because tomatoes are heavy inbreeders. Given an open population of tomato seed, growing them in a specific environment and selecting the best performing plants for 20 years will seriously reduce genetic variability. This narrowing of the genetic base happens in outbreeders like corn, but not as constrictive as with inbreeders like tomato. In other words, I don't think there are any serious tomato landraces around. I don't count recently created amalgamations where somebody got seed of several varieties and started growing and selecting. The only exception I see to this would be where a tomato breeder takes on the task of breeding a landrace by increasing genetic diversity to a level that can't occur when tomatoes reproduce naturally.

[Fred Hempel]

Doug,

I know landraces are assumed to be less modified from (or less-related to) wild populations, but I don't think this is necessarily true. If people have been selecting traits for generations (just not bothering to make true-breeding lines) they may be just as "far" from wild populations.

And what about all those "modern" cultivars of tomatoes that have been derived crosses to tomato relatives carrying disease resistance genes -- surely they are closer to wild tomatoes, compared to some landrace in Italy grown for 200 years without any wild relatives around.

I think that time is a very problematic trait to use.

I also think that what Joseph is doing with many crops, and what I am doing with squash (starting from many favorites, and developing diverse lines that tend towards certain traits, but retain significant diversity) creates landraces that may well be as diverse as ones from villages in Italy, Ethiopia or Peru.

I guess what I am saying is that "age" is a difficult criterion when all of our populations are extant "living" populations. I guess I also think that if you start to use an "age of isolation" criterion, you are going to lose alot of supposed "ancient" populations that have had new gene flow into them, on purpose or otherwise.

I am all for describing the history of a landrace, but I think ruling out populations that Joseph and I are working on is kind of arbitrary, and opens cans of worms.

We have genetically diverse populations that are selected, but not to uniformity. They are associated with a "place" (our farms) and I don't know about Joseph, but many of my practices are quite "primitive".

[joseph]

Thanks Worth & Fred.

I have blogged extensively about Landrace Gardening for Mother Earth News Magazine. My photo is on page 7 of the Dec/Jan issue that is currently on newsstands. If I had known that "landrace" would have been so controversial I might have chosen a synonym such as "Creole Gardening". Oh well, I make choices and live with the consequences.

Originally Posted by Cole_Robbie

What's the difference between saving your own seeds from the best plants and "land race gardening?"

I would say that saving your own seeds and keeping them "pure" is definitely not landrace gardening.

In my opinion saving your own seeds and allowing them to freely cross pollinate with other varieties and not trying to keep pure strains is the essence of landrace gardening. By utilizing survival-of-the-fittest and farmer-selection varieties become adapted to the local growing conditions and the farmer's habits. That local adaptation requires genetic diversity... A single highly inbred cultivar that is carefully isolated and purified will always remain a single highly inbred cultivar.

A landrace to me implies gene flow, both into the population and within the population. I get astonished sometimes when people start preserving ancient landraces in a gene bank... Or start preserving them as heirlooms by isolating them from the rest of the world and treating them as "pure" strains. To me, landraces are about change and the movement of genetics, not about a static state. A prime example would be "Cherokee Squaw" corn. When it grew in the original Indian villages it was a dynamic landrace population. Genes were constantly entering the fields and constantly being mixed up and swapped around. Then a pilgrim got hold of the seed from one farmer in one village and turned it into a variety. And great efforts are put into preventing any stray pollen from entering the corn patch.... I would claim that the Cherokee Squaw corn growing in the ancestral villages is tremendously different than the Cherokee Squaw cultivar that has been grown as an inbred for however many hundreds of years now. If Cherokee Squaw was originally grown in 100 villages there would have been a different strain for every village, and probably for every field, with the ratios of different genes varying depending on changes in the soil, and the elevation, and the weeds, and the tilt of the land, and the bugs, and the habits of the farmers. A long winded way of saying that I think that people that are preserving heirlooms by careful isolation are also not practicing landrace gardening.

I believe that a landrace can be created in as little as one growing season. Spinach worked that way for me. It was trivial to see which varieties thrived for me and which failed miserably. Because spinach is a 100% outcrossing crop the genes were instantly mixed.

I have been working towards a watermelon landrace for 5 generations with a few years of work before that by my collaborators. They are so far out of their native habitat in my garden that it's been a very slow process finding gene combinations that lead to a seed lot that I can say is truly locally adapted. 99% of the seeds that I originally planted failed to produce fruit. Last year I harvested a couple bushel of watermelons, so I'm making progress.

This growing season I will be starting to attempt to create a more robust landrace of tomatoes. I feel like one of the key components of that landrace will be to return the tomatoes to their natural state of being promiscuously pollinating. That will greatly increase the opportunities for survival-of-the-fittest and farmer directed selection. [Currently only about 25% of my tomatoes per year are new hybrids or segregates. The rest are the same old inbreds or new named cultivars that I am trialing for the first time.] Trialing new varieties in the next row over from a landrace is a great way to constantly refresh the genepool. Another component of adding robustness to my tomato landrace will be to reintroduce genes that were lost during domestication. That will involve crosses with wild relatives.

[Fred Hempel]

I tend to agree with you. I only claim to be working with, and perpetuating, my own landraces of squash.

Originally Posted by Fusion_power

I have no problem with the concept of a "landrace" crop plant. I have huge problems with "landrace" tomatoes because tomatoes are heavy inbreeders. Given an open population of tomato seed, growing them in a specific environment and selecting the best performing plants for 20 years will seriously reduce genetic variability. This narrowing of the genetic base happens in outbreeders like corn, but not as constrictive as with inbreeders like tomato. In other words, I don't think there are any serious tomato landraces around. I don't count recently created amalgamations where somebody got seed of several varieties and started growing and selecting. The only exception I see to this would be where a tomato breeder takes on the task of breeding a landrace by increasing genetic diversity to a level that can't occur when tomatoes reproduce naturally.

[Fred Hempel]

I get astonished sometimes when people start preserving ancient landraces in a gene bank... Or start preserving them as heirlooms by isolating them from the rest of the world and treating them as "pure" strains. To me, landraces are about change and the movement of genetics, not about a static state.

Exactly. I think functional genetic diversity should be a much more important part of the landrace definition, compared to age, primitiveness and/or who has been growing (or ignoring) them.

[joseph]

von Rümker (1908), who stated for cereal varieties, that landraces
are varieties, which [...] were grown since time immemorial

For me, that's about 45 years. That doesn't even get me to heirloom status. For my grandkids "time immemorial" is a few years. For my grandmother it's around 5 minutes. For my father it's somewhere in-between.