Key Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors: Methodologies for the Assessment of 22 Crops Adriana Alercia Bioversity International is an independent international scientific organization that seeks to improve the well-being of present and future generations of people by enhancing conservation and the deployment of agricultural biodiversity on farms and in forests. It is one of 15 centres supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), an association of public and private members who support efforts to mobilize cutting-edge science to reduce hunger and poverty, improve human nutrition and health, and protect the environment. Bioversity has its headquarters in Maccarese, near Rome, Italy, with offices in more than 20 other countries worldwide. The organization operates through four programmes: Diversity for Livelihoods, Understanding and Managing Biodiversity, Global Partnerships, and Commodities for Livelihoods. The international status of Bioversity is conferred under an Establishment Agreement which, by January 2010, had been signed by the Governments of Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Slovakia, Sudan, Switzerland, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda and Ukraine. Financial support for Bioversity’s research is provided by more than 150 donors, including governments, private foundations and international organizations. For details of donors and research activities please see Bioversity’s Annual Reports, which are available in printed form on request from bioversity-publications@cgiar.org or from Bioversity’s Web site (www.bioversityinternational.org). The geographical designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of Bioversity or the CGIAR concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Similarly, the views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations. Mention of a proprietary name does not constitute endorsement of the product and is given only for information. Citation: Alercia A. 2011. Key Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors: Methodologies for the Assessment of 22 Crops. Bioversity International, Rome, Italy. Cover photo: Courtesy of Danny Hunter, Bioversity International; Marleni Ramirez, Bioversity International and Grahame Jackson ISBN 978-92-9043-874-8 Bioversity International Via dei Tre Denari, 472/a 00057 Maccarese Rome, Italy © Bioversity International, 2011 Bioversity International is the operating name of the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI). Contents Acknowledgements i Preface ii INTRODUCTION iii 1. Banana 1 2. Barley 27 3. Bean 42 4. Breadfruit 72 5. Cassava 92 6. Chickpea 118 7. Coconut 145 8. Cowpea 163 9. Faba bean 188 10. Finger millet 216 11. Grass pea 239 12. Lentil 256 13. Maize 280 14. Pearl millet 314 15. Pigeonpea 345 16. Potato 369 17. Rice 397 18. Sorghum 425 19. Sweet potato 480 20. Taro 525 21. Wheat 549 22. Yam 566 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of the strategic sets of ‘key access and utilization descriptors for crops’. We would like to thank particularly, the Global Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust) for their financial support. Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leaders and Core Advisory Groups from the CGIAR Centres, USDA, ECPGR and National Programmes for providing valuable scientific direction and to all the reviewers who participated in the surveys for their advice. Special thanks are due to the various consultants working at different stages of the production process, namely: Clara Ines Quinteros, Teresa Borelli, Nadia Bergamini, Pepita Verbeek, Francesca Ercolani, Olga Spellman, Silvina Gesumaria, Barbara Rae and Ana Laura Cerutti. Adriana Alercia coordinated and managed the entire production of this document and provided technical and scientific advice. Ms Nora Capozio prepared the cover and Ana Laura Cerutti prepared the layout. Particular thanks go to Michael Mackay for offering encouragement and advice throughout the preparation of this publication PREFACE Bioversity International, with the financial support of the Global Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust) has led the development of strategic key sets of characterization and evaluation descriptors for 22 crops included in Annex I of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA). These strategic sets of data standards are designed to facilitate access to and utilization of plant genetic resources information. Together with passport information, descriptors are critical to the effective sharing of evaluation data and to the efficient use of plant genetic resources. Passport, characterization and evaluation descriptors are included on the GENESYS portal, to facilitate access to information and promote the utilization of germplasm accessions. Along with the definitions of key sets of data standards, which are also available on Bioversity’s web site, the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base, the CGIAR System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) and EURISCO web sites, the project also documented the standard development process, the outcome being detailed methodologies for each crop. This activity involved the participation of over 500 crop experts from more than 200 research organizations and 85 different countries. We hope that this document will contribute to stimulating additional characterization and evaluation activities and promote information sharing, with the ultimate outcome being more efficient management and use of plant genetic resources. INTRODUCTION Bioversity has produced Key access and utilization data standards for 22 of the crops in Annex I of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA). The crops covered are, banana, barley, bean, breadfruit, cassava, chickpea, coconut, cowpea, faba bean, finger millet, grass pea, lentil, maize, pearl millet, pigeonpea, potato, rice, sorghum, sweet potato, taro, wheat and yam. These guidelines provide the background information and objectives and give insights into the structure and elements of the methodologies developed by Bioversity to devise the crop-specific standards. They include specific methodologies for each crop and serve as a reference guide to develop further standards. Each methodology describes the development process for each key set of descriptors. The methodologies build on work previously carried out by Bioversity International and other initiatives such as the Review of characterization standards and strategies for seven crops accomplished as part of the SGRP Global Public Goods 2 (GPG2) project carried out by the System-wide Genetic Resources Programme (SGRP) of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Further input came from the Crop Strategies funded by the Trust developed by communities of crop experts often facilitated by a CGIAR centre. The following steps underpinned each of the key sets, and are described in more detail in each specific crop methodology: 1. Information collection and reference documents Information for the definition of the key sets was collected and compiled from individual crop descriptor lists published by Bioversity and then compared with similar definitions developed by other organizations such as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), other centres of the CGIAR, and the characteristics proposed in the respective Crop Strategies. When necessary (e.g. breadfruit), other sources of information such as pre-existing descriptor lists from other internationally recognized organizations were used. Draft minimum lists were sent out to crop experts for validation, in order to assure the relevance and wide applicability of the standards. Outputs from the SGRP Global Public Goods 2 (GPG2) project were taken into account for the following crops: banana, chickpea, maize, pigeonpea, potato, rice and sorghum. Special attention was given to the inclusion of characters and traits relevant to biotic and abiotic stresses of particular importance in the context of climate change, such as drought, high temperatures and pests and diseases. These are expected to intensify under climate change, and are listed in the Evaluation Award Scheme on ‘Enhancing the Value of Crop Diversity,’ funded by the Global Crop Diversity Trust. In addition, internet searches were carried out on a crop-by-crop basis, looking for the most up-to-date information on crop characteristics and traits. In the process of defining the first priority lists for each crop, Core Advisory Groups (CAG) and survey participants were asked to use the following criteria to select and prioritize characteristics and traits: • Initial strategic set • Global impact • Importance for germplasm utilization • Data availability • True economic damage and wide geographical occurrence (for biotic and abiotic stresses) 2. Preparing list of crop experts The lists of experts were drawn from a directory of professionals who had been involved in either the development or the review of existing Bioversity descriptors. In addition, new names were drawn from lists of experts who have taken part in crop-specific consultations for the preparation of the Crop Strategies. Particular care was taken to include experts representing CGIAR Centres, USDA, the European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources (ECPGR) and UPOV, and a variety of organizations and different geographical regions. The List of Experts consisted of: (a) a Core Advisory Group composed of five experts, with at least one acting as Crop Leader and the rest acting as an Advisory Group, each representing an organization as listed above; and (b) at least 20 reviewers or stakeholders for each crop. 3. Survey preparation and distribution A draft survey was prepared listing the descriptors as approved in consultation with the Crop Leader. The approved draft list was sent to the identified experts, who were asked to select characteristics and traits according to the given criteria and also to consider efficient and effective utilization methods that would continue to evolve over time and thus be applicable beyond an extensive germplasm documentation system. Deadlines were set for each crop and reminders sent out one week before the deadline and also on the deadline date. Extending the deadline to accommodate further feedback was always considered. 4. Survey analysis Results were analysed and descriptors ranked by their average rating and importance. Survey results were then sent to the crop leader who, according to the rating results, decided which characteristics should be included in the final draft. This was then shared with the members of the Core Advisory Group for final validation. The following documents, sharing information on the survey and its results, were prepared and sent to the Crop Leader for approval: • Survey introduction • Proposed descriptors to be included • List of Core Group members and reviewers • Summary table of survey results, highlighting the descriptors (with the highest rating) identified by survey participants • List of additional characteristics and traits not included in the survey and suggested by reviewers. 5. Definition of the final List and Dissemination Once the Crop Leader had confirmed the key set, the team shared the results with the CAG to validate the final list for publication. The final lists were converted into suitable electronic formats and shared with EURISCO, the USDA Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN), the CGIAR System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER), the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and the developers and data providers of GENESYS, a global accession level information portal. Additionally, final standards in PDF file format were sent to Bioversity Library, the ECPGR Secretariat and the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base for publication on the internet. Methodology for the definition of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for banana (Musa spp.) Information collection and preparation of the Minimum Descriptor List (MDL) Information for the definition of a MDL for banana was drawn from the publication: ‘Descriptors for Banana (Musa spp.)’ (IPGRI/INIBAP/CIRAD 1996) and from the Addendum to the publication. The list was compared to descriptors highlighted as most important in the CGIAR SGRP Global Public Goods 2 (GPG2) 4.2.1.1 Activity, and with those for which data were available. Results were subsequently integrated and harmonized with descriptors suggested in the: ‘Global Conservation Strategy for Musa (Banana and Plantain)’ (INIBAP, 2006), particularly with regards to the inclusion of evaluation traits such as important pests and diseases. Descriptors that were awarded funds for further research by the Global Crop Diversity Trust 2008 Award Scheme ‘Enhancing the Value of Crop Diversity in a World of Climate Change’ (EAS) were also included. It should be noted, however, that the definition of a Key List for this crop presented a number of challenges, mostly due to the fact that the list of most important descriptors mentioned both in ‘Descriptors for Banana (Musa spp.)’ (IPGRI/ INIBAP/CIRAD 1996) and its Addendum, as well as those resulting from the CGIAR SGRP GPG2 exercise, was significantly longer than that of other crops (64 compared to an average of 20). For this reason the Crop Leader and the Core Advisory Group took longer than usual to reach a balanced consensus on this issue, ultimately delaying the production of expected results. Preparation of the List of Experts Overall, 65 scientists were identified, coming from 40 countries and 45 different organizations. Reviewers were selected from centres of excellence for banana research and breeding such as USDA, ARS, the ‘Centre Africain de Recherches sur Bananiers et Plantains’ (CARBAP) and the Indian National Research Centre for Banana (NRCB) (see Annex I). Scientists included in the list were some of the original reviewers of ‘Descriptors for Banana (Musa spp.)’ (IPGRI/INIBAP/CIRAD 1996), as well as participants in crop-specific consultations for the definition of the ‘Global Conservation Strategy for Musa’ (Banana and Plantain) (INIBAP, 2006). Experts who submitted their comments to the CGIAR SGRP GPG2 exercise were also included, as well as researchers that were awarded funds for further research by the Trust 2008 Evaluation Award Scheme. Following consultations with Nicolas Roux, and Stéphanie Channeliere from the Bioversity International office in Montpellier, the list was reduced dramatically to 25 key experts. Survey preparation and distribution To assist in the selection of a “reduced” set of traits, a comparison table was prepared to visually identify “Most important” descriptors recurring in (i) the Minimum List in the original ‘Descriptors for Banana (Musa spp.) (IPGRI- INIBAP/CIRAD, 1996), in (ii) the results of the CGIAR SGRP GPG2 4.2.1.1 exercise, (iii) in the ‘Global Conservation Strategy for Musa (INIBAP, 2006)’ and resulting from consultations with the Bioversity office in Montpellier. This comparison exercise (visible in Annex II) subsequently led to the definition of a tentative list of key descriptors (see Annex III) that was submitted to the Montpellier office for endorsement on 12th December 2008. On 16th December the Crop Leader submitted the list of key traits to be shared among the group of experts for comments (see Annex IV). The initial eight descriptors were already validated by a group of international experts and included as reference. After lengthy discussions with Bioversity staff held during the Annual Planning week at Bioversity Headquarters in February 2009, it was felt that there was no need to include the minimum characterization descriptors since they had been already validated during the CGIAR SGRP GPG2 exercise and the subsequent meeting held in India in September 2008. Therefore, a new subgroup of scientists consisting of 16 members was defined (see Annex V). As result of a further refinement of this list by the Crop Leader and his colleagues in the Montpellier office, 25 experts coming from 16 countries and 18 different organizations were identified (see Annex VI). Of particular note, the key set for banana is the unique crop – out of the 22 – lacking a proper survey since following instructions from the focal point, Nicolas Roux, experts were consulted through email to validate the final list of evaluation descriptors (see Annex VII). Setting consultation deadlines Following the decision of the Crop Leader, the survey was done through an email consultation sent out on 6th March 2009 with deadline on 20th March and, therefore a reminder was sent out on 16th March. Because of the lack of responses the deadline was postponed to 30th March 2009 and on 26th March a second reminder was sent to the experts that had not participated in the consultation until that date, to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained. Consultation analysis and refinement of Minimum list Of the 25 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 12 coming from nine countries recorded their comments using the email consultation (see Annex VIII). Results from the consultation were analysed and descriptors were ranked by percentage of importance. To avoid any possible mistake in preparing the results of the survey, calculating percentages and rating averages, the responses were manually inserted in the SurveyMonkey system, making possible to obtain detailed statistical information about the consultation results (see Annex IX). Open-ended responses were also analysed and presented in Annex X. A summary of results and the revised list were then sent to the Crop Leader for final approval on 8th May 2009. As result of further consultation between the Crop Leader and Musa Bioversity experts, a revised and final Minimum List was approved in June 2009 (see Annex XI). Once the core subset of characterization and evaluation standards for banana was finalised, data were transformed into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN- Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA first, and subsequently into GENESYS, linking national, regional and international genebank databases in support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also provided to the CGIAR System- wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER), to EURISCO, to the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and to the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base partners. Acknowledgement Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of the initial strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for lentil genetic resources’, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial support. Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leader, Dr Nicolas Roux who provided scientific direction. Ms Adriana Alercia provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process. Annex I – List of experts identified for participation to the survey for the definition of a minimum set of descriptors for Banana (December, 2008) Role Name Organization Country Crop Leader Roux, Nicolas Bioversity International France Core Group Arnaud, Elizabeth Bioversity International France Core Group Channelière, Stephanie Bioversity International France Core Group Fondi, Emmanuel Ndakwe Centre Africain de recherches sur bananiers et plantains Cameroon Core Group Goenaga, Ricardo ARS/USDA USA Core Group/EAS Subbaraya, Uma National Research Centre for Banana (NRCB) India Core Group Van den Bergh, Inge Bioversity International France Core Group Vézina, Anne Bioversity International France Crop Strategy Expert Bakhiet, Salah ARC - Agricultural Research Corporation Sudan Crop Strategy Expert Bolaños Benavides, Martha Marina Corporacíon Colombiana de Investigacíon Agropecuaria (CORPOICA-Armenia) Colombia Crop Strategy Expert Chen, Chi-Hon Taiwan Banana Research Institute (TBRI) Taiwan Crop Strategy Expert Chen, Houbin South China Agricultural University China Crop Strategy Expert/DL Daniells, Jeff Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries, Johnstone Research Station, Australia Crop Strategy Expert De Oliveira e Silva, Sebastiao EMBRAPA Brasil Crop Strategy Expert de Zoysa, I. J. Plant Genetic Resource Centre - Horticultural Crop Research and Development Institute (PGRC-HORDI) Sri Lanka Crop Strategy Expert Fraser, Connie Agricultural Research Council - Institute for Tropical and SubTropical Crops cultivar development South Africa Crop Strategy Expert Gonzales Diaz, Lianet Instituto de Investigaciones en Viandas Tropicales (INIVIT) Cuba Role Name Organization Country Crop Strategy Expert Gonzalez, Miguel Corporación Bananera Nacional S.A. (CORBANA-LA RITA) Costa Rica Crop Strategy Expert Hamill, Sharon Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries, Maroochy Research Station, Australia Crop Strategy Expert (GPG2) Herradura, Lorna Davao National Crop Research and Development Center Philippines Crop Strategy Expert Hoque, Md. Abdul BARI - Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute Banglades h Crop Strategy Expert Jamaluddin, Hawa Horticulture Research Centre Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI) Malaysia Crop Strategy Expert/DL Jenny, Christophe CIRAD Guadeloup e Crop Strategy Expert Kambuou, Rose National Agricultural Research Institute Papua New Guinea Crop Strategy Expert Kouassi, Koffi Simplice Centre National de Recherche Agronomique (CNRA) Cote d'Ivoire Crop Strategy Expert Mouketo, Ferdinand Centre de Recherche Agronomique de Loudima (CRAL) Congo Crop Strategy Expert Ngezahayo, F. Institut de recherches agronomiques et zootechnique Burundi Crop Strategy Expert Nhi, Ho Huu Vietnam Agricultural Science Institute Vietnam Crop Strategy Expert Nsabimana, Antoine KIST - Kigali Institute of Science and Technology Rwanda Crop Strategy Expert Nsemwa, Lebai T.H. ARDI - Ministry of Agriculture Food security and cooperatives Tanzania Crop Strategy Expert Onyango, Margaret University of Hawai at Manoa Hawaii Crop Strategy Expert Paofa, Janet NARI, Laloki Papua New Guinea Role Name Organization Country Crop Strategy Expert Rivera Canales, José Mauricio Fundación Hondureña de Investigación Agrícola (FHIA) Honduras Crop Strategy Expert Sutanto, Agus Indonesian Fruit Research Institute Indonesia Crop Strategy Expert Taylor, Mary Regional Germplasm Centre, Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) Fiji Crop Strategy Expert (GPG2) Tenkouano, Abdou IITA Nigeria Crop Strategy Expert/DL Tomekpe, Kodjo Centre africain de recherches sur bananiers et plantains Cameroon Crop Strategy Expert Tushemereirwe, W. National Agricultural Research Organization Uganda Crop Strategy Expert/DL/SRG Van den Houwe, Ines INIBAP Transit Center (ITC) Belgium Crop Strategy Expert Xu, Lin Bing Guangdong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Pomology Institute, China GPG2 Byabachwezi, Mgenzi Maruku Agriculture Research and Development Inst. Tanzania ISHS Churchill, Alice Federal Plant Soil and Nutrition Lab USA ISHS De Beer, Zacharias Christiaan ITSC - ARC BPIU South Africa GPG2 De Langhe, Edmond TAG expert Belgium GPG2 Dolezel, Jaroslav Institute of Experimental Botany, Czech Republique Czech Republic GPG2 Draye, Xavier Université Catholique de Louvain Belgium GPG2 Heslop-Harrison, Pat University of Leicester UK GPG2 Kema, Gert University of Wageningen The Netherland s GPG2 Rheka, A Division of Fruit crops, IIHR, Karnataka India ISHS Smith, Mike QDPI - Maroochy Research Station Australia Reviewer (DL) Carreel, Françoise CIRAD / UMR BGPI France Role Name Organization Country Reviewer (DL) Delvaux, Bruno CUL - Catholic University of Leuven Belgium Reviewer (DL) Evers, Guy FAO Italy Reviewer (DL) GPG2 Galán Saúco, Victor ICIA - Instituto Canario de Investigaciones Agrarias Spain Reviewer (DL) Goenaga, Ricardo ARS/USDA USA Reviewer (DL) Israeli, Yair Jordan Valley Banana Experiment Station Jordan Reviewer (DL) GPG2 Karamura, Deborah Bioversity International Uganda Reviewer (DL) Lahav, Emmanuel Akko Experiment Station Israel Reviewer (DL) Lavigne, Christian CIRAD FLHOR - PRAM France Reviewer (DL) Lescot, Thierry CIRAD France Reviewer (DL) Ortiz, Rodomiro CIMMYT Mexico Reviewer (DL) Perrier, Xavier CIRAD France New Pocasangre, Luis Bioversity International Costa Rica Reviewer (DL) Rosales, Franklin E. Bioversity International Costa Rica Reviewer (DL) GPG2 Swennen, Rony CUL - Catholic University of Leuven Belgium Annex II – Summary comparison table weighing up important descriptors for Banana drawn from a number of sources1. Descriptor Descr no. Min List IPGRI- INIBAP/CIRA D 1996 GP G2 GPG2 Data avail Crop Strate gy EAS Most import. Montpel lier Pseudostem height [m] (6.2.1) * * * Pigmentation of the underlying pseudostem (6.2.6) * * * Blotches at the petiole base (6.3.1) * * * Petiole canal leaf III (6.3.3) * * * Petiole margins (6.3.4) * * Petiole margin colour (6.3.6) * * Edge of petiole margin (6.3.7) * * Colour of cigar leaf dorsal surface (6.3.22) * * Bunch position (6.4.6) * * * Bunch shape (6.4.7) * * Rachis position (6.4.12) * * * Rachis appearance (6.4.13) * * * Male bud shape (6.4.15) * * * Male bud size [cm] (6.4.16) * * Bract base shape (6.5.1) * * Bract apex shape (6.5.2) * * * Bract imbrication (6.5.3) * * * Colour of the bract internal face (6.5.5) * * * Bract behaviour before falling (6.5.12) * * * Compound tepal basic colour (6.6.2) * * * Lobe colour of compound tepal (6.6.4) * * * Descriptor Descr no. Min List IPGRI- INIBAP/CIRA D 1996 GP G2 GPG2 Data avail Crop Strate gy EAS Most import. Montpel lier Anther colour (6.6.13) * * Dominant colour of male flower (6.6.24) * * Number of fruits on second hand (6.7.2) * * * Fruit length [cm] (6.7.3) * * * Fruit shape (longitudinal curvature) (6.7.4) * * * Fruit apex (6.7.6) * * * Remains of flower relicts at fruit apex (6.7.7) * * Fruit pedicel length [mm] (6.7.8) * * Fusion of pedicels (6.7.11) * * Plant crop cycle [d] (7.4) * * * * Bunch weight [kg] (7.9) * * * * Number of hands (7.10) * * * * Drought (8.2) * * * * * Resistance to Black Leaf streak/Black Sigatoka (Mycosphaerella fijiensis) (9.1.2) * * * * * Resistance to Fusarium Wilt /Panama disease (Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cubense) (9.1.3) * * * * * Burrowing nematode (Radopholus similis) (9.2.1) * * * * 1Descriptors for Banana (Musa spp.) (IPGRI/INIBAP/CIRAD 1996) and Addendum, from the GPG2 4.2.1.1 exercise, from the Global Conservation Strategy for Musa (the Trust, 2006), from those descriptors that were granted funding for further research by the Global Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust) through the 2008 EAS awards and from consultations with the Bioversity Office in Montpellier (December 2008) Annex III – Tentative list of descriptors for Musa submitted on 12 December 2008 to the Bioversity Office in Montpellier for comments and for further resizing First Priority 1. Pseudostem height [m] 2. Pigmentation of the underlying pseudostem 3. Blotches at the petiole base 4. Petiole canal leaf III 5. Bunch position 6. Rachis position 7. Rachis appearance 8. Male bud shape 9. Bract apex shape 10. Bract imbrication 11. Colour of the bract internal face 12. Bract behaviour before falling 13. Compound tepal basic colour 14. Lobe colour of compound tepal 15. Number of fruits on second hand 16. Fruit length [cm] 17. Fruit shape (longitudinal curvature) 18. Fruit apex 19. Plant crop cycle [d] 20. Bunch weight [kg] 21. Number of hands 22. Drought 23. Resistance to Black Leaf streak/Black Sigatoka (Mycosphaerella fijiensis) 24. Resistance to Fusarium Wilt /Panama disease (Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cubense) 25. Burrowing nematode (Radopholus similis) 2nd Priority 26. Petiole margins 27. Petiole margin colour 28. Edge of petiole margin 29. Colour of cigar leaf dorsal surface 30. Bunch shape 31. Male bud size [cm] 32. Bract base shape 33. Anther colour 34. Dominant colour of male flower 35. Remains of flower relicts at fruit apex 36. Fruit pedicel length [mm] 37. Fusion of pedicels Annex IV – Key set of traits for Musa sent by the Bioversity Office in Montpellier on 16 December 2008 to be shared with the CAG. Descriptors already validated are highlighted in yellow 1. Bunch weight [kg] 2. Number of hands 3. Plant crop cycle [d] 4. Pseudostem height [cm] 5. Drought 6. Black Leaf Streaks (Black Sigatoka) 7. Fusarium wilt (Panama disease) 8. Burrowing nematode (Radopholus similis) 9. Number of fruits 10. Fruit length [cm] 11. Fruit weight [g] 12. Number of living (functional) leaves at flowering 13. Number of living (functional) leaves at harvest 14. Planting to shooting 15. Pseudostem girth [cm] 16. Height of following ratoon [cm] 17. Ratoon crop cycle [d] 18. Flooding 19. High temperature 20. Low temperature 21. Mineral deficiencies 22. Winds 23. Yellow Sigatoka 24. Bugtok /Moko 25. Root lesion nematode (Pratylenchus coffeae) 26. Weevil borer (Cosmopolites sordidus) 27. Meloidogyne sp. (Nematodes) 28. Helicotylenchus multicinctus (Nematodes) Annex V - List of experts identified for participation to the on line consultation for the validation of a key set of evaluation traits for Musa (12th February 2009) Name Organization Country Roux, Nicolas Bioversity International France Fondi, Emmanuel Ndakwe Centre Africain de recherches sur bananiers et plantains Cameroon Subbaraya, Uma National Research Centre for Banana (NRCB) India Goenaga, Ricardo ARS/USDA USA De Beer, Zacharias Christiaan ITSC - ARC BPIU South Africa Chen, Chi-Hon Taiwan Banana Research Institute (TBRI) Taiwan De Oliveira e Silva, Sebastiao EMBRAPA Brasil Gonzalez, Miguel Corporación Bananera Nacional S.A. (CORBANA-LA RITA) Costa Rica Herradura, Lorna Davao National Crop Research and Development Center Philippines Ngezahayo, F. Institut de recherches agronomiques et zootechnique Burundi Jenny, Christophe CIRAD Guadeloupe Karamura, Deborah Bioversity International Uganda Byabachwezi, Mgenzi Maruku Agriculture Research and Development Inst. Tanzania De Langhe, Edmond TAG expert Belgium Heslop-Harrison, Pat University of Leicester UK Kema, Gert University of Wageningen The Netherlands Rheka, A Division of Fruit crops, IIHR, Karnataka India Annex VI – List of experts invited to participate in the email consultation for the validation of a Key set of evaluation traits for Musa (6th March 2009) Role Name Organization Country Crop Leader Roux, Nicolas Bioversity International France Aguilar, Juan Fernando Fundación Hondureña de Investigación Agrícola (FHIA) Honduras Coto, Julio Cesar Fundación Hondureña de Investigación Agrícola (FHIA) Honduras Daniells, Jeff Department of Plant Industry & Fisheries (DPI&F) Australia dela Cruz, Felipe Institute of Plant Breeding, College of Agriculture, University of the Philippines (UPLB-IPB) Philippines Fondi, Emmanuel Ndakwe Centre Africain de recherches sur bananiers et plantains Cameroon Herradura, Lorna Davao National Crop Research and Development Center Philippines Horry, Jean Pierre CIRAD France Jenny, Christophe CIRAD Guadeloupe Kambuou, Rosa National Agricultural Research Institute (NARI) Papua New Guinea Karamura, Deborah Bioversity International Uganda Lorenzen, Jim International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Uganda Mustaffa, MM National Research Centre for Banana India National Banana Research Programme NARO-NBRP Uganda Ngezahayo, Ferdinand. Institut de recherches agronomiques et zootechnique Burundi Pocasangre, Luis Bioversity International Costa Rica Rivera, Mauricio Fundación Hondureña de Investigación Agrícola (FHIA) Honduras Sandoval, Jorge Corporación Bananera Nacional Costa Rica Smith, Mike K QDPI - Maroochy Research Station Australia Subbaraya, Uma National Research Centre for Banana (NRCB) India Sutanto, Agus Indonesian Tropical Fruit Research Institute (ITFRI) Indonesia Taylor, Mary Regional Germplasm Centre, Secretariat of the Pacific Community Fiji Tomekpe, Kodjo Centre africain de recherches sur bananiers et plantains (CARBAP) Cameroon Van Nghiem, Nguyen Fruit and Vegetable Research Institute Vietnam Role Name Organization Country Vilarinhos, Alberto D. National Cassava & Tropical Fruits Research Center Brazil Vroh, Bi Irie International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Nigeria Annex VII – Email consultation and its attachment submitted on 6 March 2009 by the Bioversity Office in Montpellier to share with the identified experts Da: Roux, Nicolas (Bioversity-France) Inviato: ven 06/03/2009 19.04 A: Christophe Jenny; Julio Cesar Coto; fondien@yahoo.com; (vila@cnpmf.embrapa.br); Jim Lorenzen; Bi Irie Vroh (B.Vroh@cgiar.org); Binita Uma Subbaraya (umabinit@yahoo.co.in); Jorge Sandoval (jsandoval@corbana.co.cr); ferdinand ngezahayo; Jeff Daniells (Jeff.Daniells@dpi.qld.gov.au); Jean-Pierre Horry; Juan Fernando Aguilar (jaguilar@fhia.org.hn); Mauricio Rivera; Kodjo TOMEKPE; nrcbdirector@sancharnet.in; Mike K Smith (Mike.Smith@dpi.qld.gov.au); LORNA HERRADURA; Felipe dela Cruz; 'Mary Taylor'; Rosa.kambuou@nari.org.pg; National Banana Research Programme; nghiemvrq@yahoo.com; bagusutanto_02@yahoo.com Cc: Borelli, Teresa (Bioversity); Alercia, Adriana (Bioversity); Vezina, Anne (Bioversity-France); Ruas, Max (Bioversity-France); Channeliere, Stéphanie (Bioversity-France); Karamura, Deborah (Bioversity-Uganda); Molina, Agustin (Bioversity-Philippines); Pocasangre, Luis (Bioversity-Costa Rica) Oggetto: selection of Descriptors for GIGA Dear Colleagues, I am seeking your assistance to achieve an important goal raised by a number of the global strategies for the conservation and utilization of various important crop species (see http://www.croptrust.org/main/strategies.php?itemid=82) supported by The Global Crop Diversity Trust. To achieve the goals raised by the Trust strategies we need to select a key set of strategic descriptors for Musa that will become the basis of the Global Information system on Germplasm Accessions (GIGA) in support of the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA. Completing the survey (see attachment) should not take more than 10 minutes of your valuable time. I acknowledge that you might have previously contributed your expertise to similar initiatives, however I want to emphasize that this survey is important and quite different in that it has a focus on practical utilization. Your knowledge and experience in Musa will be invaluable in helping us identify this initial, strategic set of descriptors that should assist researchers to more easily utilize accessions held in crop diversity collections and that will have the maximum impact on identifying traits important to crop production. The survey is divided into two sections. The first section presents 8 descriptors that have already been agreed upon and recently validated by Musa experts. The aim of this exercise is to build upon this initial set, and to select a number of additional traits that fall within the objectives outlined above. Please consider the following factors when selecting key traits: • Importance for germplasm utilization • Initial strategic set • Global impact • Data availability • For abiotic and biotic stresses, true economic damage and wide geographical occurrence Please send us your respond within the next 2 weeks (i.e. by 20th March) If you require any additional clarification please do not hesitate to contact my colleagues at Bioversity, Teresa Borelli (T.Borelli@cgiar.org) and Adriana Alercia (A.Alercia@cgiar.org) or myself. Best wishes, Nicolas Nicolas Roux, PhD Genomics and Genetic Resources, Coordinator Commodities for Livelihoods Programme Bioversity International Parc Scientifique Agropolis II 34397 Montpellier Cedex 5, France Tel.: (+33) 467.61.99.46 / 1302 Fax: (+33) 467.61.03.34 Skype: nroux_inibap Email: n.roux@cgiar.org www.bioversityinternational.org Email consultation attachment: Key access and utilization descriptors for Banana genetic resources This list consists of an initial GIGA Project set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for Banana utilization. This key set of strategic descriptors, which should be significant at the global level as much as possible, along with passport data, will become the basis of the global accession level information system. This is an initial set that will facilitate access to and utilization of Musa accessions held in genebanks and does not exclude addition of more descriptors if data are available at a later date. Based on the comprehensive list of ‘Descriptors for Banana (Musa spp.)’ (IPGRI-INIBAP, CIRAD, 1996), this strategic set was developed building on previous initiatives such as the SGRP Global Public Goods exercise (GPG2); consultations held during the TAG Meetings held in June 2006 and october, 2008. Finally it was discussed and validated by Bioversity Staff based at Montpellier in consultation with a Core Advisory Group led by Nicolas Roux from Bioversity International. Biotic and abiotic stresses included in the list were chosen because of their cosmopolitan nature and global impact, since they have wide geographic occurrence and cause true economic damage. The second set of descriptors corresponds to the ‘minimum descriptors’ for characterization developed by the TAG panel over the years. Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in “Descriptors for Banana (Musa spp.)”, ( http://bananas.bioversityinternational.org/content/view/26/53/lang,en/). Please tick the descriptors you feel are essential to fulfill the objectives outlined in the message joined to this survey. Pseudostem height [m] (6.2.1) Fruit length [cm] (6.7.3) Plant crop cycle [d] (7.4) Bunch weight [kg] (7.9) Number of hands (7.10) Susceptibility to drought (8.2) Resistance to Black Sigatoka (Mycosphaerella fijiensis) (9.1.2) Resistance to Fusarium Wilt (Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cubense) (9.1.3) Burrowing nematode (Radopholus similis) (9.2.1) Pigmentation of the underlying pseudostem (6.2.6) Blotches at the petiole base (6.3.1) Petiole canal leaf III (6.3.3) Petiole margins (6.3.4) Petiole margin colour (6.3.6) Edge of petiole margin (6.3.7) Colour of cigar leaf dorsal surface (6.3.22) Bunch position (6.4.6) Bunch shape (6.4.7) Rachis position (6.4.12) Rachis appearance (6.4.13) Male bud shape (6.4.15) Male bud size [cm] (6.4.16) Bract base shape (6.5.1) Bract apex shape (6.5.2) Bract imbrication (6.5.3) Colour of the bract internal face (6.5.5) Bract behaviour before falling (6.5.12) Compound tepal basic colour (6.6.2) Lobe colour of compound tepal (6.6.4) Anther colour (6.6.13) Dominant colour of male flower (6.6.24) Number of fruits on second hand (6.7.2) Fruit shape (longitudinal curvature) (6.7.4) Fruit apex (6.7.6) Remains of flower relicts at fruit apex (6.7.7) Fruit pedicel length [mm] (6.7.8) Fusion of pedicels (6.7.11) CONTRIBUTOR [your name] Annex VIII – Respondents to the email consultation for the definition of a Key set of descriptors for Musa sent on 6th March 2009 Name Organization Country Coto, Julio Cesar Fundacion Hondurena de Investigation Agricola (FHIA) Honduras Fondi, Emmanuel Centre Africain de Recherches sur bananiers et plantains Cameroun Subbaraya Uma Binita National Research Centre for Banana (NRCB) India Lorenzen, Jim International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Uganda Nabatanzi, Harriet International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Uganda Nyine, Moses International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Uganda Daniells, Jeff Dept of Plant Industry & Fisheries (DPI&F) Australia Ngezahayo, Ferdinand Institut de recherches agronomiques et zootechnique Burundi Rivera, Mauricio Fundacion Hondurena de Investigation Agricola (FHIA) Honduras Kambuou, Rosa National Agricultural Research Institute (NARI) Papua New Guinea Sutanto, Agus Indonesian Tropical Fruit Research Institute (ITFRI) Indonesia Karamura, Deborah Bioversity International Uganda Annex IX – Musa summary survey results ranked by rating average Answer Options (n=12) Rating Average Bunch shape (6.4.7) 3.25 Fruit shape (longitudinal curvature) (6.7.4) 3.25 Remains of flower relicts at fruit apex (6.7.7) 3.25 Pigmentation of the underlying pseudostem (6.2.6) 3.00 Fruit apex (6.7.6) 3.00 Bunch position (6.4.6) 2.75 Rachis position (6.4.12) 2.50 Rachis appearance (6.4.13) 2.50 Male bud shape (6.4.15) 2.50 Bract imbrication (6.5.3) 2.50 Petiole canal leaf III (6.3.3) 2.25 Petiole margin colour (6.3.6) 2.25 Petiole margins (6.3.4) 2.00 Colour of the bract internal face (6.5.5) 2.00 Bract behaviour before falling (6.5.12) 2.00 Lobe colour of compound tepal (6.6.4) 2.00 Anther colour (6.6.13) 2.00 Fruit pedicel length [mm] (6.7.8) 2.00 Number of fruits on second hand (6.7.2) 1.92 Colour of cigar leaf dorsal surface (6.3.22) 1.75 Bract apex shape (6.5.2) 1.75 Dominant colour of male flower (6.6.24) 1.75 Fusion of pedicels (6.7.11) 1.75 Blotches at the petiole base (6.3.1) 1.50 Edge of petiole margin (6.3.7) 1.50 Male bud size [cm] (6.4.16) 1.50 Compound tepal basic colour (6.6.2) 1.50 Bract base shape (6.5.1) 0.75 Annex X – Musa email consultation open-ended responses Descriptors to be added Coto Julio Cesar Fondi Emmanuel Ndakwe Subbaraya Uma Rivera Mauricio Karamura Deborah Sutanto Agus Kambuou Rosa Ngezahayo Ferdinand N. time selected Weevil borer (Cosmopolites sordidus) (9.2.4) * * * * 4 Peduncle hairiness (6.4.5) * * * * 4 Predominant taste (6.7.22) * * * * 4 Blotches on leaves of water suckers (6.3.23) * * * 3 Fruit diameter [cm] 7.13 * * * 3 Leaf habit 6.1.1 (Identification of ploidy) * * * 3 Peduncle length (6.4.1) * * * 3 Bunch appearance (6.4.8) * * * 3 Arrangement of ovules (6.6.26) (Identification of acuminata or balbisiana) * * * 3 Pulp colour at maturity (6.7.19) * * * 3 Number of fruits per hand (7.11) * * 2 Pseudostem girth [cm] (7.7) * * 2 Number of functional leaves at flowering (7.15) * * 2 Transverse section of fruit (ploidy identification) (6.7.5) * * 2 Mature fruit peel (6.7.13) * * 2 Fruits fall from hands (6.7.20) * * 2 Descriptors to be added Coto Julio Cesar Fondi Emmanuel Ndakwe Subbaraya Uma Rivera Mauricio Karamura Deborah Sutanto Agus Kambuou Rosa Ngezahayo Ferdinand N. time selected Presence of seed with source of pollen (6.7.23) * * 2 Fruit weight [g] (7.14) * * 2 Pseudostem colour (6.2.3) * * 2 Number of functional leaves at harvest (7.16) * 1 Seed surface (6.7.24) * 1 Seed shape (6.7.25) * 1 Colour of free tepal (6.6.6) * 1 Number of suckers (6.2.9) * 1 Development of suckers (6.2.10) * 1 Flesh texture 6.7.21 * 1 Pollen vitality [%] (6.6.15) * 1 Rachis length * 1 Leaf consistency (ploidy) * 1 Susceptibility to BBTV (banana bunch top virus) * 1 Dry matter content * 1 Carbohydrate content * 1 Crispness * 1 Flour quality * 1 Annex XI – Musa final Key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors with descriptors states and Contributors validated by the Crop Leader in June 2009 Pseudostem height [m] (6.2.1) 1 <2 m 2 2.1 to 2.9 m 3 >3 m Peduncle hairiness (6.4.5) 1 Hairless 2 Slightly hairy 3 Very hairy, short hairs (similar to velvet touch) 4 Very hairy, long hairs (>2 mm) Bunch position (6.4.6) 1 Hanging vertically 2 Slightly angled 3 Hanging at angle 45° 4 Horizontal 5 Erect Bunch shape (6.4.7) 1 Cylindrical 2 Truncated cone shape 3 Asymmetric - Bunch axis is nearly straight 4 With a curve in the bunch axis 5 Spiral Number of fruits on second hand (6.7.2) 1 <12 2 13-16 3 >17 Fruit length [cm] (6.7.3) 1 <15 cm 2 16- 20 cm 3 21- 25 cm 4 26- 30 cm 5 >31 cm Fruit shape (longitudinal curvature) (6.7.4) 1 Straight (or slightly curved) 2 Straight in the distal part 3 Curved (sharp curve) 4 Curved in 'S' shape (double curvature) Fruit apex (6.7.6) 1 Pointed 2 Lengthily pointed 3 Blunt-tipped 4 Bottle-necked 5 Rounded Remains of flower relicts at fruit apex (6.7.7) 1 Without any floral relicts 2 Persistent style 3 Base of the style prominent 4 Persistent style and staminode Predominant taste (6.7.22) 1 Astringent (like cooking banana) 2 Mild, slightly tasty or tasteless 3 Sweet (like Cavendish) 4 Sugary (like ‘Pisang Mas’) 5 Sweet and acidic (apple like) 99 Other (specify) Plant crop cycle [d] (7.4) From planting to harvest Bunch weight [kg] (7.9) Bunch stalk (peduncle) is cut above the first hand at the level of the last scar and immediately below the last hand Number of hands (7.10) Susceptibility to drought (8.2) Resistance to black sigatoka (Mycosphaerella fijiensis) (9.1.2) Resistance to fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense) (9.1.3) Specify VCG group if known Resistance to burrowing nematode (Radopholus similis) (9.2.1) Resistance to weevil borer (Cosmopolites sordidus) (9.2.4) Contributors Nicolas Roux, Bioversity International, France Stephanie Channelière, Bioversity International, France Australia Jeff Daniells, Dept of Plant Industry & Fisheries (DPI&F) Burundi Ferdinand Ngezahayo, Institut de recherches agronomiques et zootechnique Cameroun Emmanuel Fondi, Centre Africain de Recherches sur bananiers et plantains Honduras Julio Cesar Coto, Fundación Hondureña de Investigación Agrícola (FHIA) Mauricio Rivera, Fundación Hondureña de Investigación Agrícola (FHIA) India Uma Binita Subbaraya, National Research Centre for Banana (NRCB) Indonesia Agus Sutanto, Indonesian Tropical Fruit Research Institute (ITFRI) Papua New Guinea Rosa Kambuou, National Agricultural Research Institute (NARI) Uganda Deborah Karamura, Bioversity International Jim Lorenzen, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Harriet Nabatanzi, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Moses Nyine, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Methodology for the definition of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) Information collection and preparation of a Minimum Descriptor List (MDL) Information for the definition of a key set of descriptors for barley was drawn from the publication “Descriptors for barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)” (IPGRI, 1994). The list was subsequently integrated and harmonized with descriptors suggested during the Crop Strategy meetings for the ex-situ conservation of barley, held respectively in Tunis, Tunisia (September, 2007) and Alexandria, Egypt (April, 2008). Descriptors that were awarded funds for further research by the Global Crop Diversity Trust 2008 Award Scheme ‘Enhancing the Value of Crop Diversity in a World of Climate Change’ (EAS), particularly traits with regard to the inclusion of characters and traits relevant to biotic and abiotic stresses for barley in the context of climate change. The initial key set of priority descriptors for barley to be sent out for comments, was selected and prepared by the Crop leader, Michael Mackay. Preparing List of Experts Experts were drawn from crop-specific consultations for the definition of the Crop Strategy for the ex-situ conservation of barley genetic resources, held respectively in Tunis, Tunisia (September, 2007) and Alexandria, Egypt (April, 2008). ECPGR experts on barley were also included to cover a representative group of geographical locations. Reviewers from the 1994 descriptors list were excluded due to their outdated contact information. Overall, 28 experts were identified, from 26 countries and 27 different organizations (see Annex I). Out of these, the Group Leader (Michael Mackay) selected a Core Advisory Group (CAG) consisting of 17 experts from the major centres of excellence for barley research and breeding to assist in the definition of a minimum set of descriptors for this crop. Core Group members were drawn from prestigious academic and scientific organizations including Montana State University, the John Innes Centre, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), the Universities of Adelaide, Saskatchewan, Okayama, the Universidad de la República del Uruguay as well as the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Also included were the Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK), N.I. Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry (VIR), the Institute of Biology - University of Latvia, the Agricultural Research Institute Kromeriz, Ltd. and the Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Survey preparation and distribution In place of the survey, an informal letter was sent out to the 17 experts identified by Michael Mackay, (see Annex II), requesting their comments on the identified minimum set of characterization and evaluation descriptors of barley accessions to facilitate their use by researchers and asked to make any suggestions regarding any characterization and/or evaluation descriptors that were found to be relevant yet missing from the proposed Minimum List. Comments received by ten experts coming from seven countries were collected in a summary table (see Annex III), analysed and harmonised with the original descriptors list. This exercise led to the definition of a revised key set of descriptors for barley (Annex IV), which was shared among the CAG on 4 November 2008, for validation and final comments. Input received from experts was again compiled into a comparison table (see Annex V), analysed and harmonised with the original descriptors list in consultation with the Crop Leader. This exercise led to the definition of the final key set of descriptors for barley (see Annex VI). Afterwards a final key set was prepared adding descriptor states and contributors (see Annex VII). Once the core subset of characterization and evaluation standards for barley was finalised, data were transformed into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN-Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA first, and subsequently into GENESYS, linking national, regional and international genebank databases in support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also shared with the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER), the germplasm information exchange network of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and its partners, EURISCO, the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base. Acknowledgement Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for barley genetic resources’, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial support. Annex I – List of experts identified for participation to the definition of a minimum set of descriptors for barley Role Name Organization Country Core Group (Trust) Ambrose, Michael John Innes Centre UK Core Group (IBGS) Blake, Tom Montana State University USA Core Group (IBGS) Castro, Ariel Universidad de la República Uruguay Core Group (IBGS) Eglinton, Jason University of Adelaide Australia Core Group (IBGS) Harvey, Bryan University of Saskatchewan Canada Core Group Knüpffer, Helmut Leibniz institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK) Germany Core Group Konopka, Jan ICARDA Syria Core Group (IBGS) Kovaleva, Olga VIR, Dept. of Oat, Rye, Barley Russia Core Group (EPCGR) Rashal, Isaak Institute of Biology - University of Latvia Latvia Core Group (Trust) Sato, Kazuhiro Research Institute for Bioresources - Okayama University Japan Core Group (IBGS) Spunar, Jaroslav Agricultural Research Institute Kromeriz, Ltd. Czech Republic Core Group Valkoun, Jan Scientific Consultant Czech Republic Core Group (Trust) von Bothmer, Roland LTJ Faculty - Swedish Univ. Agric Sciences Sweden Core Group (IBGS) Wang, Junmei Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences P.R.China Core Group Basudeb Sarkar ICARDA Syria Core Group Flavio Capettini ICARDA Syria Core Group Ahmed Amri ICARDA Syria Survey (IBGS) Abo El-Enein, Rashad NVRSRP - Agricultural Research Centre Egypt Survey (Trust) Elfelah, Mouldi INRAT _ IRESA Tunisia Survey (Trust) Gómez, Luz Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina Peru Survey (Trust/IBGS) Grando, Stefania ICARDA Syria Role Name Organization Country Survey (Trust) Iorczewski, Edson Embrapa – Brazilian Corporation for Agricultural Research Brazil Survey (ECPGR) Jahoor, Ahmed Copenhagen University - Dept of Agricultural Sciences Denmark Survey (ECPGR) Maçãs, Benvindo Martins Estação Nacional de Melhoramento de Plantas Portugal Survey (IBGS) Manninen, Outi MTT Agrifood Research Finland Finland Survey (ECPGR) Molina Cano, José Luis IRTA Spain Survey (Trust) Mozafari, Javad National Plant Gene-Bank, Seed &Plant Improvement Institute Iran Survey (Trust) Ouabou, Hassan INRA - Morocco Morocco Survey (Trust) Ryabchoun, Victor K. Yuryev Institute of Plant Production - National Centre for PGR of Ukraine Ukraine Survey (Trust) Woldesemayat, Adugna Institute of Biodiversity Conservation Ethiopia Annex II – Email sent by M. Mackay on August 19, 2008 to the experts of the Core Group Subject: Key descriptors for access and utilization of barley genetic resources Dear Colleague, Firstly, please accept my greetings in my new role at Bioversity International. Secondly, this request for your assistance is aimed at identifying some key descriptors that will assist researchers to utilize barley germplasm. These key descriptors, along with passport data, will become the foundation information to be made available to researchers in a global accession level information system. This system will provide access to some 2.5 million accessions (not all barley!) held in important genebanks worldwide. I have identified a ‘short’ list of characterization descriptors below, as well as a longer list. The short list is, in my opinion, fundamental in categorizing accessions and should be helpful to utilization. The evaluation traits are those for which the Global Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust) has awarded grants to various organizations to undertake evaluation. The numbers in parentheses following the descriptors refer to the original descriptor numbers contained in the “Descriptors for Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)” (IPGRI, 1994). So, I am seeking your opinion/comment on the short list of characterization descriptors and evaluation traits as being applicable to the objectives I have outlined above. If we can agree on these key descriptors, Bioversity will include them as those barley descriptors to be available for searching in the global system. Your contribution/comment, by 12 September 2008, will certainly be much appreciated and acknowledged in the global system. Should you require any further assistance, please don’t hesitate to contact me by email. Sincerely, Michael Mackay Proposed Minimum/Key Characterization Descriptor List • Growth class (seasonality) (7.1.1) • Row number/lateral florets (7.2.3) • Spike density (7.2.4) • Lemma awn/hood (7.2.6) • Kernel covering (7.3.1) • Lemma colour (7.3.3) • Aleurone colour (7.3.5) Proposed Evaluation Trait List: The Trust has awarded grants for the evaluation of these traits: • Protein content (8.1.1) • Tolerance to heat stress (9.2) • Tolerance to drought (9.3) • Tolerance to salinity (9.6) • Susceptibility to powdery mildew (Erysiphe graminis f.sp. hordei) (10.2.4) • Susceptibility to scald (Rhynchosporium secalis) (10.2.5) • Susceptibility to Net blotch (Pyrenophora teres) (10.2.7) Long List of Characterization Descriptors. • Growth class (seasonality) (7.1.1) • Plant height [cm] (7.1.3) • Stem pigmentation (immature) (7.1.4) • Row number/lateral florets (7.2.3) • Spike density (7.2.4) • Lemma awn/hood (7.2.6) • Lemma awn barbs (7.2.7) • Glume colour (7.2.9) • Length of rachilla hairs (7.2.12) • Kernel covering (7.3.1) • Lemma colour (7.3.3) • Aleurone colour (7.3.5) • 1000-kernel weight [g] (7.3.6) • Specific gravity (Test Weight) [kg m3] (8.1.3) • Susceptibility to Brown rust, Dwarf leaf rust (Puccinia hordei) (10.2.3) Annex III – Comments on initial key set of descriptors for barley sent out on 19 August 2008 Descriptor no. Descriptor name Bryan Harvey (Canada) Kazuhiro Sato (Japan) Jason Eglington (Australia) Tom Blake (USA) Roland Von Bothmer (Sweden) Basudeb Sarkarn (ICARDA) Syria Flavio Cappetini (ICARDA) Syria Ahmed Amri (ICARDA) Syria Jan Konopka Syria 7.1.1 Growth class (seasonality) OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK 7.1.3 Plant height Of limited value OK Plant height would be useful if expressed relative to a well characterized control variety. OK OK (Transfer to short list) OK (Transfer to short list) OK OK OK 7.1.4 Stem pigmentation (immature) OK, but subject to environmental effects especially temperature OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK 7.2.3 Row number/lateral florets OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK 7.2.4 Spike density Can be very subjective outside of the extremes. (Delete?) OK OK OK OK OK Delete OK OK 7.2.6 Lemma awn/hood OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK 7.2.7 Lemma awn barbs OK OK OK OK OK OK Use in Minimum List OK OK 7.2.9 Glume colour OK, but limited value OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK 7.2.12 Length of rachilla hairs OK OK OK OK OK OK Use in Minimum List OK OK 7.3.1 Kernel covering OK. Presumably this means hull adherence since all kernels are covered on the plant but some thresh free. OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK 7.3.3 Lemma colour OK OK OK OK OK OK OK Use in Minimum List OK 7.3.5 Aleurone colour OK but can be very difficult to score. (Delete) OK OK OK OK OK OK OK Data is collected for all other traits except this one (Delete?) 7.3.6 1000-kernel weight [g] OK Do not have enough samples to measure 1000-kw (Delete?) OK OK OK Use in Minimum List OK OK OK 8.1.1 Protein content Waste of time because of the huge environmental effect (Delete) Will protein content be measured by Kjeldahl? This is laborious. Also the character is quantative and not very reliable. It is nice if you evaluate this but need a good control. (Delete) Environmental effects on grain protein are difficult to manage (delete) OK Tricky (delete) OK OK OK OK 8.1.3 Specific gravity (Test weight) [kg m3] OK Use in short list Do not have enough samples to measure test weight (Delete?) OK OK OK Use in short list OK OK OK 9.2 Tolerance to heat stress It all depends on the method of measurement. If we can get a real measure of these traits it would be very valuable. I am sceptical however since I have found that materials claiming resistance to these stresses do not turn out to be so when we test them here. (Delete) No problems of heat, drought, salinity in Japan and do not have any data on that (Delete) Salinity/drought/heat stress tolerance results are too variable between environments/researchers (Delete) OK OK OK OK OK OK 9.3 Tolerance to drought Same as 9.2 (Delete) Same as 9.2 (Delete) Same as 9.2 (Delete) OK OK OK OK OK OK Descriptor no. Descriptor name Bryan Harvey (Canada) Kazuhiro Sato (Japan) Jason Eglington (Australia) Tom Blake (USA) Roland Von Bothmer (Sweden) Basudeb Sarkarn (ICARDA) Syria Flavio Cappetini (ICARDA) Syria Ahmed Amri (ICARDA) Syria Jan Konopka Syria 9.6 Tolerance to salinity Same as 9.2. What kind of salinity and at what stage? (Delete) Same as 9.2 (Delete) Same as 9.2 (Delete) OK OK OK OK OK OK 10.2.3 Susceptibility to Brown Rust, Dwarf leaf rust (Puccinia hordei) Wheat stem rust, Septoria, spot blotch and Fusarium are all more important to us. (Delete) No rust diseases in Japan, but serious BaYMV occurrence. (Delete) OK OK OK OK OK OK OK 10.2.4 Susceptibility to powdery mildew (Erysiphe graminis f.sp. hordei) Not a disease of concern on the great plains of North America (delete) OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK 10.2.5 Susceptibility to scald (Rhynchosporium secalis) OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK 10.2.7 Susceptibility to Net blotch (Pyrenophora teres) This should be split into the two types Two types of net blotch (spot type, net type) and the resistances are different. Net blotch should be split into spot form and net form OK Other comments Add: grain color; earliness (heading time, Add: early growth habit; basic vegetative phase (BVP) and photoperiod sensitivity Add: market uses of barley Add: Plant height; Days to flowering; 1000 kernel weight for characterization; Susceptibility to spot blotch (Bipolaris sorokiniana); Susceptibility to yellow rust (Puccinia striiformis f.sp. hordei); Russian wheat aphid (Diuraphis noxia); Fusarium head blight (Fusarium graminearum) Suggests removing Spike Density from the minimum list and including the Length of rachilla hairs (7.2.12) and Lemma awn barbs (smooth/rough). Add: awn length, awn color and lemma awn barbs (smooth vs rough). For evaluation descriptors, we can add reaction to barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV), to stripe disease (Helmintosporium gramineum) and yellow and leaf rusts. Also quality factors (alpha amylase, Bita Glucane) to dermine the use as malting feed or food. Annex IV – Revised initial set of first priority descriptors for barley utilization Growth class (seasonality) (7.1.1) Plant height [cm] (7.1.3) Row number/lateral florets (7.2.3) Lemma awn/hood (7.2.6) Lemma awn barbs (7.2.7) Kernel covering (7.3.1) Lemma colour (7.3.3) Susceptibility to Yellow rust (Puccinia striiformis) (10.2.1) Susceptibility to Powdery mildew (Erysiphe graminis f.sp. hordei) (10.2.4) Susceptibility to scald (Rhynchosporium secalis) (10.2.5) Susceptibility to Net blotch (Pyrenophora teres) (10.2.7) Susceptibility to Spot blotch (Cochliobolus sativus) (10.2.8) Annex V – Comments received on revised initial set of first priority descriptors for barley utilization Desc no. Descriptor name Basudeb Sarkar (ICARDA) Flavio Capettini (ICARDA) Bryan Harvey (University Saskatchewan) 7.1.1 Growth class (seasonality) OK OK OK 7.1.3 Plant height OK OK OK 7.2.3 Row number/lateral florets OK OK OK 7.2.6 Lemma awn/hood OK OK OK 7.2.7 Lemma awn barbs OK OK OK 7.3.1 Kernel covering OK OK OK 7.3.3 Lemma colour OK OK OK 10.2.1 Susceptibility to Yellow rust (Puccinia striiformis) OK OK See comments below 10.2.4 Susceptibility to Powdery mildew (Erysiphe graminis f.sp. hordei) OK OK See comments below 10.2.5 Susceptibility to scald (Rhynchosporium secalis) OK OK See comments below 10.2.7 Susceptibility to Net blotch (Pyrenophora teres) OK OK See comments below 10.2.8 Susceptibility to Spot blotch (Cochliobolus sativus) OK OK See comments below Other comments Suggests including susceptibility/tolerance to drought. Increasingly important traits as we head towards climate change. Insists on rachilla hairs and endosperm color For the disease information to be useful it would help if the specific gene was identified or the races for which the resistance applies. Annex VI – Final key access and utilization descriptors for barley genetic resources, defined on 19 November 2008 Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in ‘Descriptors for barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)’ (IPGRI, 1994). 1. Growth class (seasonality) (7.1.1) 2. Plant height [cm] (7.1.3) 3. Row number/lateral florets (7.2.3) 4. Lemma awn/hood (7.2.6) 5. Lemma awn barbs (7.2.7) 6. Length of rachilla hairs (7.2.12) 7. Kernel covering (7.3.1) 8. Lemma colour (7.3.3) 9. Aleurone colour (7.3.5) 10. Susceptibility to drought (9.3) 11. Susceptibility to Yellow rust (Puccinia striiformis f.sp. hordei) (10.2.1) 12. Susceptibility to Powdery mildew (Erysiphe graminis f.sp. hordei) (10.2.4) 13. Susceptibility to Scald (Rhynchosporium secalis) (10.2.5) 14. Susceptibility to Net blotch (Pyrenophora teres) (10.2.7) 15. Susceptibility to Spot blotch (Cochliobolus sativus) (10.2.8) Annex VII – Final key set of descriptors for barley genetic resources Key access and utilization descriptors for barley genetic resources This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for barley utilization. This key set of strategic descriptors, together with passport data, will become the basis for the global accession level information portal (GENESYS) being developed by the Bioversity-led project, Global Information on Germplasm Accessions (GIGA). It will facilitate access to and utilization of barley accessions held in genebanks and does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently become available. Based on the comprehensive list of ‘Descriptors for barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)’ (IPGRI, 1994), the strategic set, listed below with the original descriptor states, was developed in consultation with a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Michael Mackay of Bioversity International. Biotic and abiotic stresses included in the list were chosen because of their wide geographic occurrence and significant economic impact. The numbers indicated in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptor numbers as published in ‘Descriptors for Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)’ (IPGRI, 1994). Growth class (seasonality) (7.1.1) 1 Winter 2 Facultative (intermediate) 3 Spring Plant height [cm] (7.1.3) At maturity, measured from the ground level to the top of spike excluding awns Row number/lateral florets (7.2.3) 1 Two rowed, large or small sterile lateral florets 2 Two rowed, deficient 3 Irregular, variable lateral floret development 4 Six rowed, awnless or awnleted lateral florets 5 Six rowed, long awns on lateral florets 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Lemma awn/hood (7.2.6) 1 Awnless 2 Awnleted 3 Awned 4 Sessile hoods 5 Elevated hoods Lemma awn barbs (7.2.7) 3 Smooth (few barbs at tip) 5 Intermediate (small barbs on upper half) 7 Rough Length of rachilla hairs (7.2.12) 1 Short 2 Long Kernel covering (7.3.1) Whether or not the lemma and palea adhere to the caryopsis 1 Naked grain 2 Semi-covered grain 3 Covered grain Lemma colour (7.3.3) 1 Amber (= normal) 2 Tan/red 3 Purple 4 Black/grey 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Aleurone colour (7.3.5) (Although this trait is difficult to observe, it is used for market type classification in several countries) 1 White 2 Blue Susceptibility to drought (9.3) Susceptibility to Yellow rust (Puccinia striiformis f.sp. hordei) (10.2.1) Susceptibility to Powdery mildew (Erysiphe graminis f.sp. hordei) (10.2.4) Susceptibility to Scald (Rynchosporium secalis) (10.2.5) Susceptibility to Net blotch (Pyrenophora teres) (10.2.7) Susceptibility to Spot blotch (Cochliobolus sativus) (10.2.8) Notes Any additional information may be specified here, particularly that referring to the category ‘Other’ present in some of the descriptors above. CONTRIBUTORS Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who contributed to the development of this strategic set of key access and utilization descriptors for barley genetic resources. The following Bioversity staff contributed to this exercise: Michael Mackay, who provided scientific direction, and Adriana Alercia, who provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process. Core Advisory Group Michael Mackay, Bioversity International, Italy Ahmed Amri, ICARDA, Syria Tom Blake, Montana State University, USA Flavio Capettini, ICARDA, Syria Jason Eglington, University of Adelaide, Australia Bryan Harvey, University of Saskatchewan, Canada Jan Konopka, ICARDA, Syria Basudeb Sarkar, ICARDA, Syria Kazuhiro Sato, Okayama University, Japan Jan Valkoun, Czech Republic Roland Von Bothmer, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden Methodology for the definition of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Information collection and preparation of a Minimum Descriptor List (MDL) Information for the definition of a key set of descriptors for bean was based on the comprehensive ‘Phaseolus vulgaris Descriptors’ published by IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1982. The list was subsequently compared and harmonised, wherever possible, with minimum descriptors listed in ‘Descriptors for PHASEOLUS’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN), UPOV technical guidelines for French Bean (2005), ‘Handbook on evaluation of Phaseolus Germplasm’ (PHASELIEU, 2001) and ‘Standard System for the Evaluation of Bean Germplasm’ (CIAT, 1987). An excel table was prepared comparing descriptors mentioned in each publication and then it was shared with the Crop Leader, who selected the key set of descriptors to be included in the survey (see Annex I). Preparation of the List of Experts Being the original IBPGR publication too old, the list of experts was drawn from the website of the European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources (ECPGR), and from the PHASELIEU project. Additionally, experts were identified from The World Information and Early Warning System (WIEWS) and from partners to the Phaseomics Global Initiative. Dr Daniel Debouck from the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Crop Leader for this exercise, was asked to examine the list and to make any additions or deletions he saw pertinent. He was also invited to select experts to join the Core Advisory Group for the definition of an initial key set of descriptors for bean. Overall 59 experts were identified, coming from 34 countries and 49 different organizations. The Core Advisory Group originally consisted of six experts coming from internationally recognized organizations such as USDA-ARS, CIAT, the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), the Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria (INIA) and the Misión Biológica de Galicia- CSIC – Phaselieu project and would be led by Dr Daniel Debouck (see Annex II). Survey preparation and distribution A draft survey on Phaseolus was prepared listing the descriptors as agreed after consultations with the Crop Leader (see Annex III). Once approved, the final version was uploaded into the SurveyMonkey application on internet (see Annex IV). On 20th March 2009 an email invitation with the link to the survey was sent to the identified experts. They were invited to rate the importance of the proposed characterization and evaluation descriptors for this crop and also encouraged to mention any additional trait that was found to be relevant yet missing from the proposed Minimum List, along with a substantiated justification for its inclusion. The survey deadline was set at 15th April 2009. A first reminder was sent out on 6th April 2009 and a second one on 14th April to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained. Survey analysis and refinement of Minimum List Of the 59 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 25 coming from 15 countries and 22 different organizations recorded their comments using the online survey (see Annex V), four of them members of the Core Advisory Group. Results from the survey were analysed and descriptors ranked by rating average and percentage importance (see Annex VI). The summary of the survey, together with a report containing comments received by the participants (see Annex VII) was sent to the Crop Leader for further consultation and to help select a reduced set of key traits. As a way to implement the final list and to avoid any misinterpretation of some traits, Dr Debouck proposed to introduce digital images for some descriptors as seed colour, shape, pattern, and Phaseolin type. Adriana Alercia discussed the feasibility of this proposal with the developer of the Global Information Portal and an agreement was found for this inclusion once data would become available. Afterwards a final key set was prepared adding descriptor states and then was sent again to Dr Debouck for his further validation (see Annex VIII). The final validated document, approved also by the Core Advisory Group, and including all the contributors (see Annex IX), was proofread by an external editor and sent to the Bioversity Publication Unit for layout and online publication processes. Furthermore, the publication was shared with ECPGR Secretariat; the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base partners. Additionally, data were converted into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN-Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA first and subsequently into the global accession level information portal, linking national, regional and international genebank databases in support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also provided to the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) and to EURISCO. Acknowledgement Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for bean genetic resources’, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial support. Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leader, Dr Daniel Debouck, for his valuable scientific direction. Ms Adriana Alercia provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process. Annex I – Summary comparison table weighing up important descriptors for bean drawn from different sourcesi IBPGR Desc. no. IBPGR Descriptor name IBPGR 1982 UPOV Descriptors USDA/ARS/GRIN Daniel Debouck selected 3/11/08 Phaselieu Desriptors list Revised key set Debouck 21/11/08 SSE CIAT 1987 4.1.1 Leaflet length [cm] * 4.1.2 Plant type * * * * * * ** 4.2.1 Node number on main stem from base to first inflorescence * * 4.2.2 Days to 50% flowering * * * * * * ** 4.2.3 Flower buds per inflorescence * 4.2.4 Flower - Colour of standard (combined with vein) * * * * * * 4.2.5 Flower - Colour of wings * * * * * * 4.2.6 Pod colour (combined with pattern) * * * * * * 4.2.7 Pod length (to be deleted from key set) * * * * 4.2.8 Pod cross-section * * 4.2.9 Pod curvature * 4.2.10 Pod suture string (to be deleted from key set) * * * * 4.2.11 Pod colour at physiological maturity * * 4.2.12 Pod wall fibre * * 4.2.13 Locules per pod * * 4.3.1 Seed coat patterns * * * * * * ** 4.3.2 Seed coat darker colour * * * * ** 4.3.3 Seed coat lighter colour * * * * ** IBPGR Desc. no. IBPGR Descriptor name IBPGR 1982 UPOV Descriptors USDA/ARS/GRIN Daniel Debouck selected 3/11/08 Phaselieu Desriptors list Revised key set Debouck 21/11/08 SSE CIAT 1987 4.3.4 Brilliance of seed * * ** 4.3.5 Seed shape (Digital image) * * * * * 6.1.1 Hypocotyl length [cm] * 6.1.2 Hypocotyl pigmentation (to be deleted from key set) * * * 6.1.3 Emerging cotyledon colour * * 6.1.4 Leaf colour of chlorophyll * * 6.1.5 Leaf colour of anthocyanin * 6.1.6 Leaf shape * * * 6.1.7 Days to 90% pod maturity * * * 6.1.8 Leaf persistence * 6.1.9 Plant height [cm] (to be deleted from key set) * * 6.1.10 Stem diameter [mm] * 6.1.11 Stem lodging * 6.1.12 Node number at harvest * 6.2.1 Flower bud size * 6.2.2 Size of flower bracteole * 6.2.3 Shape of flower bracteole * 6.2.4 Flower bracteole/calyx length relation * 6.2.5 Flower calyx/bracteole colour * 6.2.6 Flower wing opening * IBPGR Desc. no. IBPGR Descriptor name IBPGR 1982 UPOV Descriptors USDA/ARS/GRIN Daniel Debouck selected 3/11/08 Phaselieu Desriptors list Revised key set Debouck 21/11/08 SSE CIAT 1987 6.2.7 Flower style protrusion * 6.2.8 Racemes per plant * 6.2.9 Inflorescence length [mm] * 6.2.10 Pedicel length [mm] * 6.2.11 Duration of flowering * * * 6.2.12 Position of pods * * * ** 6.2.13 Pod width [mm] * 6.2.14 Pod beak length [mm] * * 6.2.15 Pod beak position * 6.2.16 Pod beak orientation * 6.2.17 Dry pod colour * 6.2.18 Pods per plant * * 6.3.1 Seeds per pod * * 6.3.2 Apparent seed veining * 6.3.3 100-Seed weight [g] (changed) * * * * * (100-seed weight) * ** 6.3.4 Seed volume [cm3] * 6.3.5 Seed dimensions [mm] * 6.3.5.1 Seed length [mm] * * 6.3.5.2 Seed width [mm] * * 6.3.5.3 Seed height [mm] * * IBPGR Desc. no. IBPGR Descriptor name IBPGR 1982 UPOV Descriptors USDA/ARS/GRIN Daniel Debouck selected 3/11/08 Phaselieu Desriptors list Revised key set Debouck 21/11/08 SSE CIAT 1987 6.3.6 Percentage seed protein [%] * 6.3.7 Percentage seed protein of a check variety * 7.1 Low temperature * * 7.2 High temperature * 7.3 Drought * * * 7.4 High Humidity * 7.5 Salinity * 7.6 Soil acidity (Low available phosphorous level) * * 8.1.1 Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say) (Bruchids) * * * ** 8.1.2 Apion godmani (Bean pod weevil) (to be deleted) * * * 8.1.3 Aphis spp. (Aphids) * * 8.1.4 Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) (Whitefly) * 8.1.5 Caliothrips braziliensis (Thrips) * 8.1.6 Cerotoma spp. (Leaf-feeding insects) * * 8.1.7 Diabrotica spp. (Leaf-feeding insects) * * 8.1.8 Empoasca kraemeri (Leafhopper) * * * * * ** 8.1.9 Heliothis spp. (Pod borer) * 8.1.10 Maruca testulalis (Gey.) (Pod borer) * 8.1.11 Zabrotes subfasciatus (Bruchids) * * * ** IBPGR Desc. no. IBPGR Descriptor name IBPGR 1982 UPOV Descriptors USDA/ARS/GRIN Daniel Debouck selected 3/11/08 Phaselieu Desriptors list Revised key set Debouck 21/11/08 SSE CIAT 1987 8.1.12 Epinotia spp. * 8.1.13 Hedilepta indicata * 8.1.14 Meloidogyne spp. * 8.1.15 Pratylenchus spp. * 8.1.16 Polyphagot arsonemus latus (Tarsonomid mites) * * White spider mite 8.1.17 Tetranychus spp. (Spider mites) * * 8.1.18 Slugs * 8.2.1 Alternaria spp. (Alternaria leaf and pod spot) * * 8.2.2 Ascochyta spp. (Ascochyta leaf spot) (to be confirmed) * * * ** 8.2.3 Botrytis cinerea Pers. ex Fr. (Grey mold) * * 8.2.4 Cercospora spp. (Cercospora leaf spot) * * 8.2.5 Colletotrichum lindemethianum (Anthracnose) * * * * ** 8.2.6 Diaporthe spp. (Diaporthe pod blight) * * 8.2.7 Erysiphe polygoni DC ex Merat. (Powdery mildew) * * 8.2.8 Fusarium spp. (Root rot) * * (Fusarium wilt?) * 8.2.9 Macrophomina phaseoli (Maubl.) (Ashy stem blight) * * * ** Charcoal rot 8.2.10 Phoesisariopsis griseola (Ferraris) (Angular leaf spot) * * IBPGR Desc. no. IBPGR Descriptor name IBPGR 1982 UPOV Descriptors USDA/ARS/GRIN Daniel Debouck selected 3/11/08 Phaselieu Desriptors list Revised key set Debouck 21/11/08 SSE CIAT 1987 8.2.11 Phytophthora phaseoli (Thaxter) (Downy mildew) * 8.2.12 Pseudocercosporella albida (Matta & Balliard) (White leaf spot) * * ** 8.2.13 Pythium spp. (Root rot) * * ** 8.2.14 Rhizoctonia spp. (Root rot) * * ** 8.2.15 Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary (White mold) * * * 8.2.16 Thanatephorus cucumeris (Frank) Dark (Web blight) * * 8.2.17 Uromyces phaseoli (Pers.) Winter (Rust) * * * ** 8.3.1 Corynebacterium flaccumfaciens (Hedges) Dowson (Bacterial wilt) * * 8.3.2 Pseudomonas phaseolicola (Halo blight) * * * * * ** 8.3.3 Pseudomonas syringae van Hall (Bacterial brown spot) * * 8.3.4 Pseudomonas tabaci (Wolf & Foster) Stevens (Wildfire) * 8.3.5 Xanthomonas phaseoli (E.F. Sm.) Dowson (Bacterial blight) * * * * * ** 8.4.1 Alfalfa mosaic virus * 8.4.2 Bean chlorotic mottle virus * 8.4.3 Bean common mosaic virus (BCMV) * * * * * * 8.4.4 Bean curly dwarf mosaic virus * 8.4.5 Bean golden mosaic virus * 8.4.6 Bean rugose mosaic virus * IBPGR Desc. no. IBPGR Descriptor name IBPGR 1982 UPOV Descriptors USDA/ARS/GRIN Daniel Debouck selected 3/11/08 Phaselieu Desriptors list Revised key set Debouck 21/11/08 SSE CIAT 1987 8.4.7 Bean southern mosaic virus * 8.4.8 Bean summer death * 8.4.9 Bean yellow mosaic virus * * 8.4.10 Bean yellow stipple virus * 8.4.11 Cucumber mosaic virus * 8.4.12 Curly top virus * 8.4.13 Euphorbia mosaic virus * 8.4.14 Mycoplasma diseases * 8.4.15 Red node (tobacco streak virus) * 8.4.16 Rhynchosia mosaic virus * 8.4.17 Tomato spotted wilt virus * New descriptor User category (dry bean, snap bean, green seed, green frozen seed, popping beans) * Days to 50% physiological maturity * Growth habit * Vegetative adaptation (vigour) * Nodulation with Rhizobium spp. * Mycovellosiella phaseoli (= Ramularia phaseoli) (Floury leaf spot) * Cercospora castellanii (= Cvanderysti) (Gray leaf spot) * Phomasp. (Phoma red blight) * IBPGR Desc. no. IBPGR Descriptor name IBPGR 1982 UPOV Descriptors USDA/ARS/GRIN Daniel Debouck selected 3/11/08 Phaselieu Desriptors list Revised key set Debouck 21/11/08 SSE CIAT 1987 Chaetoseptoria wellmani(Round leaf spot) * Entyloma petuniae (Entyloma leaf smut) * Thielaviopsis basicola (Black root rot) * Sclerotium rolfsii (Southern blight) * Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. phaseoli (Fusarium wilt) * Ophiomyia spp. (Bean flies) * i ‘Phaseolus vulgaris Descriptors’ (IBPGR 1982), UPOV Technical guidelines for French Bean (2005), ‘Descriptors for PHASEOLUS’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN), ‘Handbook on evaluation of Phaseolus Germplasm’ (PHASELIEU, 2001), ‘Standard System for the Evaluation of Bean Germplasm’ (CIAT, 1987), traits selected and validated by Dr Debouck (CIAT). Annex II – List of experts identified to participate to the survey Role Name Organization Country Crop Leader Debouck, Daniel CIAT Colombia CAG De la Cuadra, Celia INIA - ECPGR Spain CAG De Ron, Antonio M. Misión Biológica de Galicia - CSIC - Phaselieu Spain CAG Duc, Gerard INRA (ECPGR) France CAG Santalla, Marta Misión Biológica de Galicia - CSIC - Phaselieu Spain CAG Voysest, Oswaldo CIAT Colombia CAG Welsh, Molly ARS/USDA USA ECPGR Bettencourt, Eliseu Italy ECPGR Buravtseva, T. VIR Russia ECPGR Carravedo Fantova, Miguel Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Zaragoza Spain ECPGR Dotlacil, Ladislav Crop Research Institute Czech Republic ECPGR Hornakova, Olga SCPV Slovenia ECPGR Horvath, Lajos Hungary ECPGR Kainz, Wolfgang Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES) Austria ECPGR Kleijer, Geert Swiss Commission for the Conservation of Cultivated Plants Switzerland ECPGR Lazanyi, Janos Debreceni Egyetem (AMTC) Hungary ECPGR Lengauer, Doris LVZ Weis Austria ECPGR Manoah, Myra Agricultural Research Organization (ARO) Israel Role Name Organization Country ECPGR Ottosson, Fredrik Nordgen Sweden ECPGR Quagliotti, Luciana Turin University Italy ECPGR Russkikh, Ivan Belarusian State University Belorussia ECPGR Ryabchoun, Victor K. Ukraine ECPGR Rev suggd by Knuppfer Schmidt Baerbel IPK Germany ECPGR Vanderborght, Thierry National Botanical Garden Belgium ECPGR Vorderwuelbecke, Birgit Arche Noah Austria Phaseomics Aguilar, Orlando Mario IBBM, Universidad Nacional de La Plata Argentina Phaseomics Antoun, Hani Laval University Canada Phaseomics Atkins, Craig A. CLIMA - University of Western Australia Australia Phaseomics Beebe, Stephen CIAT Colombia Phaseomics Bett, Kirstin E Department of Plant Sciences - University of Saskatchewan Canada Phaseomics Camargo, Luis E. A. ESALQ - University of Sao Paolo Brazil Phaseomics Covarrubias Robles, Alejandra Alicia Departamento de Biologia Molecular de Plantas, Istituto UNAM Mexico Phaseomics Onzere, Nelson Amugune Department of Botany University of Nairobi Kenya Phaseomics Schröder, Eduardo C. Department of Agronomy and Soils, University of Puerto Rico Puerto Rico Phaseomics Sparvoli, Francesca IBBA - CNR Italy Role Name Organization Country Phaseomics Terryn, Nancy IPBO Belgium Phaseomics Vance, Carroll P. University of Minnesota - USDA/ARS USA Phaseomics Volckaert, Guido Catholic University of Leuven Belgium WIEWS Benedikova Research Institute of Plant Production Piestany Slovakia WIEWS Feyt, Henri CIRAD France WIEWS Fundora, Z. Banco de Germoplasma Cuba WIEWS Graner, A. IPK Germany WIEWS Hýbl, Miroslav AGRITEC, Research, Breeding and Services Ltd. Czech Republic WIEWS Lawrence, Peter Australian Plant Genetic Resource Information Service Australia WIEWS Maliro, M. Bunda College of Agriculture Malawi WIEWS Mario Lobo CORPOICA Colombia WIEWS Muthamia, Zachary National Genebank of Kenya, Crop Plant Genetic Resources Centre, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute Kenya WIEWS Podyma, W. Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute Poland WIEWS Salazar, E. Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, Centro Regional de Investigación La Platina Chile WIEWS Stoyanova, S. Institute for Plant Genetic Resources "K.Malkov" Bulgaria WIEWS Veloso, MM INIAP Portugal New Reviewer Acosta, Jorge INIFAP Mexico New Reviewer Araya, Carlos Manuel Escuela de Ciencias Agrarias. Universidad Nacional. Costa Rica Role Name Organization Country New Reviewer Buruchara, Robin CIAT - Africa Uganda New Reviewer Hernández F., Juan Carlos Instituto Nacional de Innovación y Trasferencia en Tecnológica Agropecuaria Costa Rica New Reviewer Kelly, James Michigan State University USA New Reviewer Mwale, V.M. Bunda College of Agriculture University of Malawi (Germplasm Directory) Malawi New Reviewer Xuxiao, Zong CAAS China New Reviewer Xuzhen, Cheng CAAS China Annex III - Characterization and Evaluation traits validated by Dr Daniel Debouck on 20th March 2009 and used for the survey 1. Plant growth habit (4.1.2) 2. Days from sowing to 50% flowering (4.2.2) 3. Colour of standard flowers (4.2.4) 4. Colour of flower wings (4.2.5) 5. Pod colour (4.2.6) 6. Seed coat patterns (4.3.1) 7. Seed shape (4.3.5) 8. Days to 90% pod maturity (6.1.7) 9. Duration of flowering (6.2.11) 10. 100-seed weight [g] 11. Bruchids (Acanthoscelides obtectus) (8.1.1) 12. Leafhopper (Empoasca kraemeri) (8.1.8) 13. Bruchids (Zabrotes subfasciatus) (8.1.11) 14. Ascochyta leaf spot (Ascochyta spp.) (8.2.2) 15. Ascochyta blight (Phoma exigua var. diversispora Boerema) 16. Anthracnose (Colletotrichum lindemuthianum) (8.2.5) 17. Ashy stem blight (Macrophomina phaseolina) (8.2.9) 18. Halo blight (Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola) (8.3.2) 19. Bacterial blight (Xanthomonas campestris pv. phaseoli) (8.3.5) 20. Bean common mosaic virus (BCMV) (8.4.3) 21. User category (dry bean, snap bean, green seed, popping beans) 22. Phaseolin type Annex IV – Survey to choose a key set of descriptors for bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) W E L C O M E Welcome to the survey for the selection of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors to support an international information system to enhance the utilization of germplasm held in genebanks. Your knowledge and experience are being sought to select this initial ‘key set of descriptors’ of Bean accessions to identify traits important to crop production and to facilitate their u s e by researchers. Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 1 5 t h A p r i l 2 0 0 9 . This key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors will be made available through a global facility for identifying sets of accessions for evaluation and use. For characterization, the aim is a key set of maximally differentiating traits that provide the most impact in discriminating between accessions. For evaluation, the aim is to focus on a few important traits for production, such as those related to biotic stresses of cosmopolitan nature. The list presented here has been refined under the scientific direction of Dr. Daniel Debouck, from CIAT. This survey consists of two parts: PART I: Lists important characterization descriptors for Bean. Based on your experience, please rate the descriptors according to their importance in identifying accessions. It also allows you to indicate if any essential descriptor that can contribute to its use is missing from the minimum list presented. PART II: Lists important evaluation descriptors for Bean. Please, rate these traits in order of importance at the global level. It also allows you to indicate if any essential trait for production is missing from the minimum list presented or indicate any that may not be very significant to global production. We thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in selecting this initial, key set of descriptors. P l e a s e a l l o w u s t o a c k n o w l e d g e y o u r c o n t r i b u t i o n b y c o m p l e t i n g y o u r f u l l c o n t a c t d e t a i l s b e l o w : N a m e : O r g a n iz a t io n : A d d r e s s : C i t y / T o w n : S t a t e / P r o v in c e : Z I P / P o s t a lC o d e : C o u n t r y : E m a i l A d d r e s s P A R T I : C h a r a c t e r iz a t io n d e s c r ip t o r s These traits enable easy and quick discrimination between phenotypes. They are generally highly heritable, can be easily seen by the eye and are equally expressed in all environments. *Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in the ‘Pha s eolus v ulga r is Descriptors’ (IBPGR, 1982). Not important Important Very important Plant growth habit (4.1.2) j/ j/ j/ Days from sowing to 50% flowering (4.2.2) j/ j/ j/ Colour of standard flowers (4.2.4) j/ j/ j/ Colour of flower wings (4.2.5) j/ j/ j/ Pod colour (4.2.6) j/ j/ j/ Seed coat patterns (4.3.1) j/ j/ j/ Seed shape (4.3.5) j/ j/ j/ I f y o u c o n s i d e r t h a t a n e s s e n t i a l t r a i t i s m i s s i n g f r o m t h i s l i s t , p l e a s e i n d i c a t e i t h e r e a l o n g w i t h a s u b s t a n t i a t e d j u s t i f i c a t i o n . P A R T I I : E v a lu a t io n d e s c r ip t o r s These descriptors include characters such as biotic stresses. They are the most interesting traits in crop improvement. Please consider the following factors relating to the trait when making your final decision: (i) Global impact, (ii) Initial strategic set, (iii) Importance for germplasm utilization, (iv) Data availability, (v) True economic damage and (vi) Wide geographical occurrence. Not important Important Very important Days to 90% pod maturity (6.1.7) j/ j/ j/ Duration of flowering (6.2.11) j/ j/ j/ 100-seed weight [g] j/ j/ j/ Bruchids (Aca nthos celides obtectus) (8.1.1) j/ j/ j/ Leafhopper (E m poa s ca k ra em eri) (8.1.8) j/ j/ j/ Bruchids (Z a brotes s ubfa s cia tus) (8.1.11) j/ j/ j/ Ascochyta leaf spot (As cochy ta spp.) (8.2.2) j/ j/ j/ Ascochyta bligth (Phom a ex igua var. divers is pora Boerema) j/ j/ j/ Anthracnose (C olletotr ichum lindem uthia num ) (8.2.5) j/ j/ j/ Ashy stem blight (Ma crophom ina pha s eolina) (8.2.9) j/ j/ j/ Halo blight (Ps eudom ona s s y r inga e pv. pha s eolicola) (8.3.2) j/ j/ j/ Bacterial blight (X a nthom ona s ca m pes tr is pv. pha s eoli) (8.3.5) j/ j/ j/ Bean common mosaic virus (BCMV) (8.4.3) j/ j/ j/ User category (dry beans, snap beans, green seed, and popping beans) j/ j/ j/ Phaseolin type j/ j/ j/ I f y o u c o n s i d e r t h a t a n e s s e n t i a l t r a i t i m p o r t a n t f o r c r o p i m p r o v e m e n t a n d p r o d u c t i o n i s m i s s i n g f r o m t h i s l i s t , o r , i f a n y o f t h e d e s c r i p t o r s l i s t e d i s n o t c l e a r l y u s e f u l t o p r o m o t e u t i l i z a t i o n , p l e a s e i n d i c a t e i t h e r e a l o n g w i t h a s u b s t a n t i a t e d j u s t i f i c a t i o n . N O T E : P l e a s e r e m e m b e r , t h i s l i s t i s t h e s t a r t i n g p o i n t a n d w i l l g r o w o v e r t i m e , a s r e q u i r e d . Annex V – Respondents to the survey for the definition of a key set of descriptors for bean Role Name Organization Country CAG De Ron, Antonio M. MBG-CSIC Spain CAG Santalla Ferradas, Marta CSIC Spain CAG Voysest Voysest, Oswaldo CIAT (retired) USA CAG Welsh, Molly USDA/ARS/WRPIS USA Phaseomics Aguilar, Mario O. IBBM, Facultad Ciencias Exactas, Universidad Nacional de La Plata Argentina Reviewer Dillon, Sally Primary Indistries and Fisheries Australia ECPGR Kainz, Wolfgang Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety Austria ECPGR Lengauer, Doris FA 10 B, Versuchsstation für Spezialkulturen Austria ECPGR Vorderwülbecke, Birgit Arche Noah Austria ECPGR Vanderborght, Thierry National Botanic Garden of Belgium Belgium Reviewer Zong, Xuxiao Institute of Crop Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences China Phaseomics Beebe, Stephen CIAT Colombia Reviewrer suggested by Knuppfer, Helmut Schmidt, Bäerbel IPK Genbank Germany Reviewer Rana, JC National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources India ECPGR Bettencourt, Eliseu Italy Phaseomics Sparvoli, Francesca IBBA-CNR Italy Phaseomics Covarrubias, Alejandra A. Instituto de Biotecnologia-UNAM Mexico Reviewer Veloso, Maria Manuela INRB/INIA Portugal WIEWS Benedikova, Daniela Plant Production Research Centre -Piestany Slovak Republic ECPGR Ottosson, Fredrik Nordic Genetic Resource Center Sweden Reviewer Beaver, James University of Puerto Rico USA Reviewer Kelly, James D. Michigan State University USA Reviewer Osorno, Juan M. North Dakota State University USA Reviewer Urrea, Carlos A. University of Nebraska-Lincoln USA Reviewer Pastor-Corrales (Talo), Marcial A. USDA-ARS, SGIL USA Annex VI – Descriptors proposed in the survey ranked by rating average and by percentage of importance Descriptor Rating Average Descriptor % Importance (Very important) Characterization Characterization Plant growth habit (4.1.2) 4.92 Plant growth habit (4.1.2) 96.0 Seed coat patterns (4.3.1) 4.92 Seed coat patterns (4.3.1) 95.8 Seed shape (4.3.5) 4.52 Seed shape (4.3.5) 76.0 Colour of standard flowers (4.2.4) 3.64 Colour of standard flowers (4.2.4) 56.0 Days from sowing to 50% flowering (4.2.2) 3.56 Colour of flower wings (4.2.5) 41.7 Colour of flower wings (4.2.5) 3.21 Days from sowing to 50% flowering (4.2.2) 40.0 Pod colour (4.2.6) 3.13 Pod colour (4.2.6) 37.5 Evaluation Evaluation 100-seed weight [g] 4.52 100-seed weight [g] 76.2 Bean common mosaic virus (BCMV) (8.4.3) 4.25 Bean common mosaic virus (BCMV) (8.4.3) 70.0 User category (dry beans, snap beans, green seed, and popping beans) 4.19 User category (dry beans, snap beans, green seed, and popping beans) 66.7 Anthracnose (Colletotrichum lindemuthianum) (8.2.5) 4.00 Anthracnose (Colletotrichum lindemuthianum) (8.2.5) 57.1 Bacterial blight (Xanthomonas campestris pv. phaseoli) (8.3.5) 3.90 Bacterial blight (Xanthomonas campestris pv. phaseoli) (8.3.5) 52.4 Days to 90% pod maturity (6.1.7) 3.86 Days to 90% pod maturity (6.1.7) 50.0 Bruchids (Acanthoscelides obtectus) (8.1.1) 3.47 Phaseolin type 36.4 Phaseolin type 3.32 Halo blight (Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola) (8.3.2) 35.0 Bruchids (Zabrotes subfasciatus) (8.1.11) 3.25 Bruchids (Acanthoscelides obtectus) (8.1.1) 31.6 Halo blight (Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola) (8.3.2) 3.25 Bruchids (Zabrotes subfasciatus) (8.1.11) 20.0 Duration of flowering (6.2.11) 2.95 Ascochyta bligth (Phoma exigua var. diversispora Boerema) 20.0 Leafhopper (Empoasca kraemeri) (8.1.8) 2.70 Duration of flowering (6.2.11) 19.0 Ashy stem blight (Macrophomina phaseolina) (8.2.9) 2.60 Leafhopper (Empoasca kraemeri) (8.1.8) 15.0 Ascochyta bligth (Phoma exigua var. diversispora Boerema) 2.50 Ascochyta leaf spot (Ascochyta spp.) (8.2.2) 10.0 Ascochyta leaf spot (Ascochyta spp.) (8.2.2) 2.45 Ashy stem blight (Macrophomina phaseolina) (8.2.9) 10.0 Annex VII - Additional descriptors proposed in the bean survey Bean Descriptors Name of Expert N times selected Vanderborg ht, Thierry Osorno, Juan M. Kainz, Wolfgang Marcial A., Pastor- Corrales (Talo) Voysest Voysest, Oswaldo Beebe, Stephe n Beaver , James Urrea, Carlos A. Kelly, Jame s D. Veloso, Maria Manuela Additional characterization descriptors Photoperiod sensitivity: Simple to evaluate (yes or no), stable across environments, and very important for breeding and introgression. 1 X Pod curvature (4.2.9) 1 X Pod suture strings (4.2.10) 1 X Seed colour 4 X X X X Growth period. In the Andes for a farmer having a bean of 200 days is like having a bean a cow; they provide food (green pods, green beans and dry beans) for almost the whole year. Other type of farmers on the contrary look for early maturing beans. 1 X Days from sowing to 90% physiological maturity. The earlier the better to avoid early frost. 1 X Additional evaluation descriptors Plant Height (6.1.9) 1 X Lodging (6.1.11) 1 X Seed size. (6.3.5) In some market classes (greta northern), the larger the better. 1 X Drought (7.3) 2 X X Seed-protein content 1 X Soil constraints (low soil P and N) probably result in the greatest yield losses. 1 X Soil acidity (7.6) 1 X Aluminum toxicity 1 X Nutritional value 1 X Angular leaf spot (8.2.10) 3 X X X White Mold (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum) (8.2.15) 2 X X Bean Rust (8.2.17) 4 X X X X Bean Golden Mosaic (8.4.5) 3 X X X Cucumber Mosaic Virus (CMV) (8.4.11) 1 X Root rot (Phytopthora, Fusarium, Phytium) are very limiting diseases. 2 X X Bean common mosaic necrosis virus (BCMNV) 1 X Annex VIII – Final Key set including descriptor states sent to Dr Debouck for validation on 31st July 2009 Characterization User category 1 Dry beans 2 Snap beans 3 Green seed 4 Popping beans Plant growth habit (4.1.2) 1 Determinate bush 2 Indeterminate bush 3 Indeterminate prostrate or vining but not climbing 4 Indeterminate climbing 5 Mixed Seed colour Seed coat patterns (4.3.1) 0 Absent 1 Constant mottled (marmoratus) 2 Striped (striatus) 3 Rhomboid spotted (rhomboidius) 4 Speckled (punctatus) 5 Circular mottling (circumdatus in P. coccineus & vulgaris x coccineus (hybrid) 6 Marginal colour pattern (marginatus) 7 Broad striped (zebrinus) 8 Bicolor 9 Spotted bicolour 10 Pattern around hilum (face) 99 Other (specify in descriptor Notes) Seed coat darker colour (4.3.2) When both darker and lighter colours occur the paler is always genetically related to the darker colour by a difference in a single enzyme. 1 Black 2 Brown, pale to dark 3 Maroon 4 Grey, brownish to greenish 5 Yellow to greenish yellow 6 Pale-cream to buff 7 Pure white 8 Whitish 9 White, purple tinged 10 Chlorophyll green 11 Green to olive 12 Red 13 Pink 14 Purple 99 Other (specify in descriptor Notes) Seed coat lighter colour (4.3.3) When both darker and lighter colours occur, the paler is always genetically related to the darker colour by a difference in a single enzyme. Choose from states of descriptor 4.3.2 Brilliance of seed (4.3.4) 3 Matt 5 Medium 7 Shiny Seed shape (4.3.5) Taken from middle of pod 1 Round 2 Oval 3 Square 4 Kidney shaped 5 Rectangular 100-seed weight [g] (6.3.3) Weight of 100 seeds to the first decimal place at moisture content of 12-14% Colour of standard flower (4.2.4) In freshly opened flowers; the colours of freshly opened flowers are highly changeable after opening 1 White 2 Green 3 Lilac 4 White with lilac edge 5 White with red stripes 6 Dark lilac with purple outer edge 7 Dark lilac with purplish spots 8 Carmine red 9 Purple 99 Other (specify in descriptor Notes) Days from sowing to 50% flowering (4.2.2) Number of days from sowing to stage where 50% of plants have set flowers Colour of flower wings (4.2.5) In freshly opened flowers 1 White 2 Green 3 Lilac 4 White with carmine stripes 5 Strongly veined in red to dark lilac 6 Plain red to dark lilac 7 Lilac with dark lilac veins 8 Purple 99 Other specify in descriptor Notes) Days to 90% pod maturity (6.1.7) Numbers of days from emergence until 90% of pods are mature Pod colour (4.2.6) From fully expanded immature pod 1 Dark purple 2 Carmine red 3 Purple stripe on green 4 Carmine stripe on green 5 Pale red stripe on green 6 Dark pink (rose) 7 Normal green 8 Shiny green 9 Dull green to silver grey 10 Golden or deep yellow 11 Pale yellow to white 99 Other specify in descriptor Notes) Evaluation Phaseolin type Drought (7.3) Bean common mosaic virus (BCMV) (8.4.3) Anthracnose (Colletotrichum lindemuthianum) (8.2.5) Bacterial blight (Xanthomonas campestris pv. phaseoli) (8.3.5) Bruchids (Acanthoscelides obtectus) (8.1.1) Bruchids (Zabrotes subfasciatus) (8.1.11) Halo blight (Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola) (8.3.2) Annex IX – Final Key access and utilization descriptors for bean genetic resources PLANT DATA Use category (4.1.X) 1 Dry beans 2 Snap beans 3 Green shelled seed 4 Popping beans Plant growth habit (4.1.2) 1 Determinate bush 2 Indeterminate bush 3 Indeterminate prostrate or vining but not climbing 4 Indeterminate climbing 5 Determinate climbing 6 Mixture Days from sowing to 50% flowering (4.2.2) Number of days from sowing to stage where 50% of plants have set flowers Colour of flower standard (banner) (4.2.4) In freshly opened flowers; the colours of freshly opened flowers are highly changeable after opening 1 White 2 Green 3 Lilac 4 White with lilac edge 5 White with red stripes 6 Dark lilac with purple outer edge 7 Dark lilac with purplish spots 8 Carmine red 9 Purple 99 Other (specify in descriptor Notes) Colour of flower wings (4.2.5) In freshly opened flowers 1 White 2 Green 3 Lilac 4 White with carmine stripes 5 Strongly veined in red to dark lilac 6 Plain red to dark lilac 7 Lilac with dark lilac veins 8 Purple 99 Other (specify in descriptor Notes) Pod colour (4.2.6) From fully expanded immature pod 1 Dark purple 2 Carmine red 3 Purple stripe on green 4 Carmine stripe on green 5 Pale red stripe on green 6 Dark pink (rose) 7 Normal green 8 Shiny green 9 Dull green to silver grey 10 Golden or deep yellow 11 Pale yellow to white 99 Other (specify in descriptor Notes) Days to 90% pod maturity (6.1.7) Numbers of days from emergence until 90% of pods are mature SEED COLOUR Seed coat patterns (4.3.1) 0 Absent 1 Mottled 2 Striped 3 Speckled 4 Spotted 5 Blotched 99 Other (specify in descriptor Notes) Seed coat colour1 The list of the principal colours is listed below. If the seed has more than one colour the secondary and tertiary colours are also recorded using the same colour codes as for the primary colour. (4.3.2) 1 White 2 Cream 3 Yellow 4 Brown 5 Pink 6 Red 7 Purple 8 Black 99 Other (specify in descriptor Notes) Brilliance of seed (4.3.4) 3 Dull 5 Medium 7 Shiny 1 For mixed material separate the variants and name them accordingly by a letter after the accession number Seed shape (4.3.5) Taken from middle of pod 1 Round 2 Oval 3 Cuboid 4 Kidney shaped 5 Markedly truncate 100-seed weight [g] (6.3.3) Weight of 100 seeds to the first decimal place at moisture content of 12-14% Phaseolin type2 The phaseolin types should be indicated by a letter e.g. T, C, S, as it has been indicated in specialized publications such as Toro O, CH Ocampo & DG Debouck. 2007. Phaseolin: variability and reference materials in wild and cultivated common bean. Annu. Rept. Bean Improvement Coop. (USA) 50: 69-70. Once the phaseolin type has been indicated by a conventional letter, then a digital image of the gel with the particular accession under study can be added. (6.3.X) ABIOTIC STRESSES Drought (7.3) BIOTIC STRESSES Bruchids (Acanthoscelides obtectus) (8.1.1) Bruchids (Zabrotes subfasciatus) (8.1.11) Anthracnose (Colletotrichum lindemuthianum) (8.2.5) Halo blight (Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola) (8.3.2) Bacterial blight (Xanthomonas campestris pv. phaseoli) (8.3.5) Bean common mosaic virus (BCMV) (8.4.3) NOTES Any additional information may be specified here, particularly that referring to the category ‘99=Other’ present in some of the descriptors above. 2 Brown JWS, Y Ma, FA Bliss & TC Hall. 1981. ‘Genetic variation in the subunits of globulin-1 storage protein in French bean’. Theor. Appl. Genet. 59: 83-88 CONTRIBUTORS CORE ADVISORY GROUP Daniel Debouck, Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Colombia Antonio M. De Ron, Misión Biológica de Galicia, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (MBG-CSIC), Spain Marta Santalla Ferradas, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Spain Oswaldo Voysest Voysest (retired), Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), USA Molly Welsh, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, (USDA/ARS/WRPIS), USA REVIEWERS Argentina O. Mario Aguilar, Instituto de Biotecnología y Biología Molecular (IBBM), Facultad Ciencias Exactas, Universidad Nacional de La Plata Australia Sally Dillon, Primary Industries and Fisheries Austria Wolfgang Kainz, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES) Doris Lengauer, FA 10 B, Versuchsstation für Spezialkulturen Birgit Vorderwülbecke, ARCHE NOAH Belgium Thierry Vanderborght, National Botanic Garden of Belgium China Zong Xuxiao, Institute of Crop Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS) Colombia Stephen Beebe, Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) Germany Baerbel Schmidt, Genebank Department, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK) India JC Rana, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) Italy Eliseu Bettencourt Francesca Sparvoli, Istituto di Biologia e Biotecnologia Agraria, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (IBBA-CNR) Mexico Alejandra A. Covarrubias, Instituto de Biotecnologia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) Portugal Maria Manuela Veloso, Instituto Nacional de Recursos Biológicos, Instituto Nacional de Investigação Agrária (INRB/INIA) Slovak Republic Daniela Benedikova, Plant Production Research Centre – Piestany Sweden Fredrik Ottosson, Nordic Genetic Resource Center USA James Beaver, University of Puerto Rico James D. Kelly, Michigan State University Juan M. Osorno, North Dakota State University Marcial A. Pastor-Corrales (Talo), United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, (USDA-ARS, SGIL) Carlos A. Urrea, University of Nebraska – Lincoln Methodology for the definition of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis) Information collection and preparation of a Minimum Descriptor List (MDL) Since Bioversity has not published a Descriptors List for breadfruit, information for the definition of a MDL for this crop was drawn from the publication “Ragone, Diane. Breadfruit. Artocarpus altilis (Parkinson) Fosberg. Promoting the conservation and use of underutilized and neglected crops. 10.” (IPK and IPGRI, 1997) and integrated with information on morphological descriptors mentioned in the website of the National Tropical Botanical Gardens (NTBG). The list was subsequently harmonized with descriptors suggested in the “Breadfruit Conservation Strategy“(the Trust, 2007), particularly with regards to the inclusion of evaluation traits such as yield, fruit quality and important pests and diseases for this crop. Preparing List of Experts The list of experts was prepared taking into account the list of participants to crop- specific consultations for the definition of the “Breadfruit Conservation Strategy“(the Trust, 2007), as well as participants to the Regional Workshop on Conservation and Sustainable Use of Breadfruit Genetic Resources in the Pacific held in Fiji in 2002. Breadfruit experts included in the publication “Ragone D. 2008. Regeneration Guidelines: Breadfruit.” (CGIAR System- wide Genetic Resource Programme), were also included in the Core Advisory Group. Overall, 56 experts were identified, coming from 29 countries and 44 different organizations (Annex I). Out of these, a Group Leader (Diane Ragone) and a Core Advisory group consisting of five experts was selected to assist in the definition of a key set of descriptors. Experts forming the Core Advisory group were drawn from internationally recognised organizations such as USDA/ARS, the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) and the Nature Conservancy (TNC) Micronesia Program. Survey preparation and distribution The draft descriptors list was submitted to Dr. Diane Ragone for initial validation, but since the NTBG team was still carrying out the characterization of breadfruit accessions and was unable to make a substantiated decision on the Minimum list it was decided that a draft list (37 characterization descriptors and seven evaluation descriptors) would be sent out to identified experts for comments, to collect initial thoughts on key breadfruit descriptors recognised by other experts in different geographical areas. 56 experts were identified for survey participation, coming from 29 countries and representing 41 different organizations. The survey was uploaded into the Survey Monkey application on the internet and an email invitation sent out to experts on 14 October 2008. A link to the Survey was provided to experts, who were invited to rate the importance of the proposed characterization and evaluation descriptors for this crop. Experts were also encouraged to mention any additional trait(s) that was/were found to be relevant yet missing from the proposed List, along with a substantiated justification for its/their inclusion. The survey deadline was set at 31 October 2008. A reminder was sent out on the 22nd of October to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained. Survey analysis and refinement of Minimum List Of the 56 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 15 recorded their comments using the online survey (see Annex II). Results from the Survey were analysed and descriptors ranked by rating average and percentage of importance (Annex III). A comparison table was prepared weighing up descriptors rated as very important by experts, against (i) descriptors mentioned in the NTBG website and further revised by Diane Ragone on 7 October 2008 (ii) those mentioned in the USDA/ARS descriptor list and (iii) evaluation traits mentioned in the Breadfruit Conservation Strategy (the Trust, 2007). The list was submitted to Diane Ragone on 11 December 2008 for endorsement and to help select a reduced set of key traits for this crop. She replied on 20 December. Her selection is recorded in the comparison table in Annex IV. The selected key set of traits (see Annex V), was compiled into a Word document and sent to the Core Advisory Group (CAG) for validation on 23 December 2008. At the same time Diane Ragone was contacted for advice on the formulation of descriptor states for the chosen key set of traits. Feedback was received from Diane Ragone with descriptor states on 30 December, the list was amended and sent back to Diane Ragone for final approval on 19 February 2009. Her feedback was received on the same day with comments and implemented changes. Comments received by the experts were collected, analysed and harmonised with the original descriptors list. This exercise led to the definition of the final key set of descriptors for breadfruit (Annex VI). The final version was shared, through an email sent out on 5 March 2009 (Annex VII), with the experts that contributed to the selection of the final key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for breadfruit. Deadline for further comments was set on 13 March 2009. Comments received were included in the final key set and on 16 March 2009 the list was definitely approved by Dr Ragone, and finalized for publication (Annex VIII). On 18th March the final list was sent to the Publications Unit for editing and layout. Once the core subset of characterization and evaluation standards for breadfruit was finalised, data were transformed into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN-Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA, and into GENESYS, linking national, regional and international genebank databases in support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). It was also shared with EURISCO, the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology, the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) and with the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base. Acknowledgement Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for breadfruit genetic resources’, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial support. Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leader, Dr Diane Ragone for providing valuable scientific direction. Ms Adriana Alercia provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process. Annex I – List of experts identified for participation to the Survey for the definition of a minimum set of descriptors for breadfruit Role Name Institution Country Crop Leader Ragone, Diane National Tropical Botanical Garden Hawaii CAG Zee, Francis ARS/USDA USA CAG Jackson, Grahame CAG/(SRG) Coronel, Roberto Philippines CAG/ (SRG) Raynor, Bill Nature Conservancy (TNC) Micronesia Program Micronesia CAG/Crop Strategy Taylor, Mary Centre for Pacific Crops & Trees, Secretariat of the Pacific Community Fiji Strategy Expert Baccus -Taylor, Gail University of the West Indies West Indies Strategy Expert Beyer, Richard Food Science Consulting Fiji Strategy Expert Biaukula, Kalisito Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forests Fiji Strategy Expert Bulai, Sairusi Forests & Trees Programme, SPC Land Resources Division Fiji Strategy Expert Conner, Nicholas Department of Environment and Conservation Australia Strategy Expert Englberger, Lois Island Food Community of Pohnpei Federated States of Micronesia Strategy Expert Gbèhounou, Gualbert Laboratoire de Défense des Cultures/Institut National des Recherches Agricoles du Bénin Benin Strategy Expert Goebel, Roger Centre for Wet Tropics Agriculture, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries Australia Strategy Expert Golden, Kerith D University of the West Indies Jamaica Strategy Expert Halafihi, Manaia Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Fisheries Tonga Strategy Expert Kete, Tevita Centre for Pacific Crops & Trees, SPC Land Resources Division Fiji Strategy Expert Kumar, Sant Nature’s Way Co-operative (Fiji) Ltd. Fiji Strategy Expert Lebegin, Stéphane Institut Agronomique néo- Caledonien New Caledonia Strategy Expert Lorens, Adelino Agriculture, Office of Economic Affairs, Pohnpei State Government Federated States of Micronesia Role Name Institution Country Strategy Expert Maerere, Amon Department of Crop Science & Production, Sokoine University of Agriculture Tanzania Strategy Expert Masamdu, Roy SPC Land Resources Division Fiji Strategy Expert Masau, Reapi CePaCT, Centre for Pacific Crops & Trees, SPC Land Resources Division Fiji Strategy Expert Medagoda, Indrani Fruit Division, Horticultural Crop Research & Development Institute Sri Lanka Strategy Expert Montenegro Ilaoa, Emily American Samoa Community College, Community and Natural Resources American Samoa Strategy Expert Moustache, Mermedah Crop Development and Promotion Division, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Seychelles Strategy Expert Nauluvula, Poasa Sigatoka Research Station, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forests (MAF) Fiji Strategy Expert Navarro, Muriel Vanuatu Agricultural Research and Technical Centre (VARTC) Vanuatu Strategy Expert Nelson-Quartey, Flora Christine Crops Research Institute (CSIR) Ghana Strategy Expert Omobuwajo, Taiwo O. Department of Food Science & Technology, Obafemi Awolowo University Nigeria Strategy Expert Padolina, Cenon SPC Forests & Trees Programme Fiji Strategy Expert Pillai, Aremogam Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forests Fiji Strategy Expert Prasad, Mere Bitu Koronivia Research Station, MAF Fiji Strategy Expert Quartermain, Alan University of Vudal Papua New Guinea Strategy Expert Redfern, Takena Agriculture Division, Ministry of Environment, Lands & Agricultural Development Republic of Kiribati Strategy Expert Roberts-Nkrumah, Laura B. Department of Food Production, University of the West Indies Trinidad & Tobago Strategy Expert Rouse-Miller, Judy Department of Life Sciences, University of the West Indies Trinidad & Tobago Strategy Expert Sankat, Clement K. Faculty of Engineering, University of the West Indies Trinidad & Tobago Strategy Expert Sisifa, Aleki SPC Land Resources Division Fiji Strategy Expert Tirimaidoka, Luke Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forests Fiji Strategy Expert Tuia, Valerie Centre for Pacific Crops & Trees, SPC Land Resources Division Fiji Role Name Institution Country Strategy Expert Tuivavalagi, Philip Crops Development, Commercial & Export, Ministry of Agriculture Samoa Strategy Expert Vave, Uatea Extension, Ministry of Natural Resources Tuvalua Strategy Expert Wiseman, James DigitalMedia Hawaii/Pacific USA Strategy Expert Woodend, John EU-ACP Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA) The Netherlands Regional Workshop Bule Lehi, Frazer Department of Agriculture & Rural Development Vanuatu Regional Workshop Francisco, Herman Bureau of Agriculture Ministry of Resources & Development Palau Regional Workshop Galo, Jean Ministry of Agriculture & Lands Solomon Islands Regional Workshop Kabu, Roselyn Planting Materials Network Solomon Islands Regional Workshop Natake, Tearimawa Ministry of Environmental, Lands and Agricultural Development Republic of Kiribati Regional Workshop Samuelu, Laisene Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries & Meteorology Samoa Regional Workshop Taufatofua, Pita Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry Tonga Regional Workshop Thomson, Lex Secretariat of the Pacific Community New Caledonia Regional Workshop Veseaga, Punapa Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Niue Regional Workshop Wigmore, William Ministry of Agriculture Department of Resources & Development Cook Islands Regional Workshop Wright, Jacqui (formerly at ACIAR) Australia Expert Eyog-Matig, Oscar Bioversity Benin Expert Arze, Jose' CATIE Costa Rica Expert Lobo Arias, Mario CORPOICA Colombia Expert Castiñeiras, Leonor INIFAT Cuba Expert Azurdia, Cesar Guatemala Expert Espitia, Miguel Universidad de Cordoba Colombia Expert Astorga, Carlos Annex II – Respondents to the Survey for the definition of a key set of descriptors for breadfruit sent on 14th October 2008 Name Organization Country Ragone, Diane National Tropical Botanical Garden Hawaii, USA Jackson, Grahame Australia Amagloh, Flora CSIR-Crops Research Institute Ghana Baccus-Taylor, Gail University of the West Indies Trinidad & Tobago Englberger, Lois Island Food Community of Pohnpei Federated States of Micronesia Gbehounou, Gualbert National Agricultural Research Institute (INRAB) Republic of Benin Golden, Kerith Basic Medical Sciences UWI, Mona Jamaica Ilaoa, Emily M. ASCC-CNR (Land Grant Program) American Samoa Julie, Lewis MInistry of Environment, Natural Resources & Transport Seychelles Raynor, Bill The Nature Conservancy Federated States of Micronesia Redfern, Takena Ministry of Environment, Lands & Agricultural Development Kiribati Roberts-Nkrumah, Laura B. The University of the West Indies Trinidad and Tobago Saena Tuia, Valerie Secretariat of the Pacific Community Fiji Lebegin, Stéphane Institut Agronomique néo-Calédonien New Caledonia Taufatofua, Pita Farmer Tonga Taylor, Mary Secretariat of the Pacific Community Fiji Zee, Francis USDA/ARS, PBARC USA Annex III – Descriptors proposed in the Survey ranked by rating average and by percentage importance Descriptor Rating Average Descriptor % Importance (Very important) NUTRITIONAL COMPONENTS 4.86 NUTRITIONAL COMPONENTS 92.86 SALINITY TOLERANCE 4.69 SEED NUMBER 91.67 FRUIT YIELD 4.57 SALINITY TOLERANCE 84.62 FRUIT QUALITY 4.43 FRUIT FLESH COLOUR 78.57 FRUIT ROTS (Phytophtora, etc.) 4.38 FRUIT YIELD 78.57 TRUNK ROT DISEASE (Phellinus noxius) 3.92 DEGREE OF LEAF DISSECTION 72.73 CERCOSPORA LEAF SPOT 3.08 FRUIT QUALITY 71.43 SEED NUMBER 2.83 FRUIT ROTS (Phytophtora, etc.) 69.23 FRUIT FLESH COLOUR 2.57 FRUIT SKIN TEXTURE 64.29 DEGREE OF LEAF DISSECTION 2.36 LEAF LOBE NUMBER 64.29 FRUIT SKIN TEXTURE 2.29 FRUIT SHAPE 57.14 LEAF LOBE NUMBER 2.14 MALE FLOWER LENGTH 54.55 FRUIT SHAPE 2.07 MALE FLOWER WIDTH 54.55 LEAF LENGTH 1.92 LEAF SURFACE TEXTURE 50.00 LEAF WIDTH 1.92 LEAF LENGTH 46.15 MALE FLOWER LENGTH 1.91 LEAF WIDTH 46.15 MALE FLOWER WIDTH 1.91 TRUNK ROT DISEASE (Phellinus noxius) 46.15 LEAF SURFACE TEXTURE 1.83 SHAPE OF APICAL LEAF LOBE 45.45 PRESENCE/ABSENCE OF LEAF HAIRS 1.69 PRESENCE/ABSENCE OF LEAF HAIRS 38.46 FRUIT DIAMETER 1.64 CERCOSPORA LEAF SPOT 38.46 SHAPE OF APICAL LEAF LOBE 1.64 SEED WEIGHT 36.36 SEED WEIGHT 1.55 SEED DIAMETER 36.36 SEED DIAMETER 1.55 FRUIT DIAMETER 35.71 FRUIT WEIGHT 1.50 FRUIT WEIGHT 35.71 FRUIT STALK LENGTH 1.46 SEED SHAPE 33.33 FRUIT LENGTH 1.43 FRUIT STALK LENGTH 30.77 SEED SHAPE 1.42 FRUIT LENGTH 28.57 FRUIT SKIN COLOUR 1.36 FRUIT SKIN COLOUR 28.57 CORE DIAMETER OF FRUIT 1.33 LEAF VEIN COLOUR 27.27 LEAF VEIN COLOUR 1.27 CORE DIAMETER OF FRUIT 25.00 CORE LENGTH OF FRUIT 1.25 CORE LENGTH OF FRUIT 25.00 LEAF COLOUR 1.25 LEAF COLOUR 25.00 LEAF MARGIN 1.25 LEAF MARGIN 25.00 SEED LENGTH 1.25 SEED LENGTH 25.00 SHAPE OF LEAF BASE 1.18 FRUIT LATEX AMOUNT 21.43 FRUIT STALK INSERTION 1.15 SHAPE OF LEAF BASE 18.18 FRUIT LATEX AMOUNT 1.14 SEED COAT COLOUR 18.18 SEED COAT COLOUR 1.09 FRUIT LATEX COLOUR 16.67 FRUIT LATEX COLOUR 1.00 FRUIT STALK INSERTION 15.38 LEAF HAIR LOCATION 1.00 LEAF HAIR LOCATION 9.09 FRUIT PEDUNCLE COLLAR 0.92 LEAF HAIRS COLOUR 9.09 LEAF HAIRS COLOUR 0.73 LEAF HAIRS LENGTH 9.09 LEAF HAIRS LENGTH 0.64 FRUIT PEDUNCLE COLLAR 8.33 LEAF HAIRS ORIENTATION 0.45 LEAF HAIRS ORIENTATION 0.00 Annex IV – Comparison table revised by Diane Ragone on 20 December 2008. Selected key traits for breadfruit by the NTBG scientist are recorded in the last column Descriptor NTGB Revis ed by Diane Rago ne Survey response by % importance ARS USDA Crop Strategy Key descriptors by DR 19/12/08 Average core diameter of fruit * * Average core length of fruit * * Fruit flesh colour ** * ** * Male flower length ** * * * Male flower width ** * * * Male flower length & width * Fruit diameter * * * Fruit length * * * Fruit shape ** * ** * * Fruit weight * * * * Scabbing of fruit sections * Latex amount * * * Latex colour * * Shape of apical leaf lobe * * Shape of leaf base * * Leaf colour * * * Presence/absenc e of leaf hair * * * Leaf length * * * Leaf margin * * * Descriptor NTGB Revis ed by Diane Rago ne Survey response by % importance ARS USDA Crop Strategy Key descriptors by DR 19/12/08 Leaf shape * * * Leaf surface texture ** * ** * * Leaf flexibility * Leaf vein colour * * * Leaf width * * * Degree of leaf dissection ** * ** * * Leaf lobe number ** * ** * * Collar neck/shape * * Fruit peduncle (stalk) diameter * * Fruit peduncle (stalk) length * * * Peduncle (stalk) insertion * * * Presence/absenc e of seeds * * Seed number ** * ** * Seed coat colour * * * Seed diameter * * * Seed length * * * Seed shape * * * Seed weight * * * Fruit skin colour * * * Fruit skin texture ** * ** * * Nutritional components ** * ** * * Salinity tolerance ** * ** * * Fruit yield ** * ** * * Descriptor NTGB Revis ed by Diane Rago ne Survey response by % importance ARS USDA Crop Strategy Key descriptors by DR 19/12/08 Susceptibility to Trunk Rot disease (Phellinus noxius) * * * * * Susceptibility to Fruit Rots (Phytophtora, etc.) ** * ** * Susceptibility to Cercospora leaf spot * * * Fruit quality ** * ** Drought tolerance (NEW) * * Size of tree (NEW) * Shape of tree (NEW) * Fruiting time/time of maturity (NEW) * * Susceptibility to mealy bugs * Annex V – Key set of priority descriptors for breadfruit as revised by Diane Ragone on 23 December 2008 and sent to CAG for validation 1. Fruit weight 2. Fruit shape 3. Fruit skin texture 4. Leaf lobe number 5. Degree of leaf dissection 6. Leaf surface texture 7. Seed number 8. Male flower length & width 9. Nutritional components (Vitamins, Phosphorous, iron, etc.) 10. Fruit yield 11. Fruit rots Phytophthora, Colletotrichum (anthracnose); Rhizopus (soft rot) 12. Trunk rot disease (Phellinus noxius) 13. Susceptibility to mealy bugs 14. Salinity tolerance 15. Drought tolerance 16. Fruiting time/time of maturity Annex VI – Key access and utilization descriptors for breadfruit genetic resources with descriptor states as defined by Dr Diane Ragone on 24 February 2009 Fruit weight [kg] Record the average weight of at least three fruits Fruit shape Observe three fruits at least, and record which shape best describe them 1 Spherical 2 Broad ovoid 3 Oval 4 Oblong 5 Ellipsoid 6 Heart-shaped 7 Irregular Fruit skin texture 1 Smooth 2 Irregularly raised, flattened sections 3 Sandpapery 4 Pebbly 5 Spiky with hard raised centre point 6 Spiny with pointed flexible tip Leaf lobe number Record the average number of lobes of five leaves Degree of leaf dissection Observe five leaves and record the predominant degree of dissection 1 Leaf entire (no dissection) 2 Leaf dissected slightly on upper half 3 Leaf moderately dissected on upper half 4 Entire leaf moderately deeply dissected 5 Leaf deeply dissected 6 Leaf deeply dissected with wide spaces between lobes Leaf surface texture Observe five leaves and record the texture that best describes them 1 Glossy 2 Dull Seed number Record the average seed number of three fruits Male flower length [cm] Record the average of five male inflorescences Male flower width [cm] Record the average of five male inflorescences Fruiting time/time of maturity Indicate which category listed below best describes the maturity time, and record the actual month when mature fruits are on the tree and harvestable 3 Early 5 Medium 7 Late Month [MM] Nutritional components Indicate the most significant component 1 Vitamin 2 Potassium 3 Iron 4 Carbohydrate 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor, 10) Fruit yield Record the actual count of fruits on tree and/or harvested. If resources are not available, the following codes could be used 3 Low 5 Medium 7 High Biotic stress susceptibility Fruit rot (Phytophthora sp.) Anthracnose (Colletotrichum sp.) Soft rot (Rhizopus sp.) Trunk rot (Phellinus noxius) Mealybug (Icerya aegyptiaca) Abiotic stress susceptibility Salinity Drought Annex VII – Email to breadfruit experts to share final version of the Breadfruit descriptors sent on 5 March 2009 From: Alercia, Adriana (Bioversity) Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 2:20 PM To: 'ragone@ntbg.org'; 'francis.zee@ars.usda.gov'; 'gjackson@zip.com.au'; 'braynor@tnc.org'; 'maryt@spc.int'; 'recoronel1939@yahoo.com'; gbaccust@eng.uwi.tt; nutrition@mail.fm; ldcstrig@bow.intnet.bj; kerith.golden@uwimona.edu.jm; kerrigold@cwjamaica.com; lebegin@iac.nc; emily_ilaoa@yahoo.com; pgr@seychelles.net; floraamagloh@yahoo.com; macktaken79@yahoo.com; lroberts-nkrumah@fsa.uwi.tt; valeriet@spc.int; pttofua@yahoo.com.au Cc: Bergamini, Nadia (Bioversity) Subject: RE: Key access and utilization descriptors for Breadfruit genetic resources - FINAL LIST Dear Breadfruit experts, You will be pleased to know that we have reached the final phase and have defined the Key access and utilization descriptors for Breadfruit genetic resources. I would like to thank you all for contributing to the development of this List, particularly to Dr Diane Ragone, who provided scientific direction and to Grahame Jackson for his substantial contribution. We have implemented and harmonized almost all comments received from you on 'essential' descriptors descriptors, as this is just the first step in an evolving process. As a brief reminder, the purpose of the exercise was to identify some key descriptors that will assist researchers to more effectively utilize breadfruit germplasm. These key descriptors, along with passport data, will become the foundation information to be made available to researchers in a global accession level information system. Now, we wish to share this final version with you, please find it herewith attached. This List will go now to editing and layout processes and will be sent to relevant experts for its uploading in GRIN- Global and ALIS (Accession Level Information System). We hope that this Key strategic set will become an important standard for breadfruit genetic resources documentation, since it is the result of a review of many years of fieldwork by scientists and field practitioners, like you. As you will see from the 'Contributors' section, your valuable contribution, that has certainly been much appreciated, is acknowledged. Best regards, Adriana Annex VIII – Final Key access and utilization descriptors for Breadfruit genetic resources as defined on 16 March 2009 Key access and utilization descriptors for breadfruit genetic resources This list consists of an initial Global Information on Germplasm Accessions (GIGA) Project set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for breadfruit. It contains those, which, along with passport data, will become the basis of a global information system for this crop, and facilitate access to and utilization of breadfruit held in genebanks. It does not exclude other descriptors at a later date. The list is based on the publication “Ragone, Diane. Breadfruit. Artocarpus altilis (Parkinson) Fosberg. Promoting the conservation and use of underutilized and neglected crops. 10” (IPK and IPGRI, 1997), with additional descriptors drawn from work at the National Tropical Botanical Gardens (NTBG). The list was subsequently integrated with evaluation traits, such as yield, fruit quality and reaction to important pests and diseases, as suggested in the “Breadfruit Conservation Strategy“(the Trust, 2007). The list was harmonized, wherever possible, with descriptors developed by USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program. Germplasm Resources Information Network - (GRIN). Biotic and abiotic stresses are included in the list. They have been chosen because of their cosmopolitan nature and global impact, since they have wide geographic occurrence and cause economic damage. The key set of access and utilization descriptors was defined in consultation with a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr Diane Ragone from the NTBG, and is listed below with the descriptor states. Fruit weight [kg] Record the average weight of at least three fruits Fruit shape Observe three fruits at least, and record which shape best describe them 1 Spherical 2 Broad ovoid 3 Oval 4 Oblong 5 Ellipsoid 6 Heart-shaped 7 Irregular Fruit skin texture 1 Smooth 2 Irregularly raised, flattened sections 3 Sandpapery 4 Pebbly 5 Spiky with hard raised centre point 6 Spiny with pointed flexible tip Fruit flesh colour 1 White 2 Cream 3 Light yellow 4 Yellow 5 Dark yellow Leaf lobe number Record the average number of lobes of five leaves Degree of leaf dissection Observe five leaves and record the predominant degree of dissection 1 Leaf entire (no dissection) 2 Leaf dissected slightly on upper half 3 Leaf moderately dissected on upper half 4 Entire leaf moderately deeply dissected 5 Leaf deeply dissected 6 Leaf deeply dissected with wide spaces between lobes Leaf surface texture Observe five leaves and record the texture that best describes them 1 Glossy 2 Dull Seed number Record the average seed number of three fruits Male flower length [cm] Record the average of five male inflorescences Male flower width [cm] Record the average of five male inflorescences Fruiting time/time of maturity Indicate which category listed below best describes the maturity time, and record the actual month when mature fruits are on the tree and harvestable 3 Early 5 Medium 7 Late Month [MM] Nutritional components Indicate the most significant component 1 Vitamin 2 Potassium 3 Iron 4 Carbohydrate 5 Carotenoid content 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Fruit yield Record the actual count of fruits on tree and/or harvested. If resources are not available, the following codes could be used 3 Low 5 Medium 7 High Biotic stress susceptibility Fruit rot (Phytophthora sp.) Anthracnose (Colletotrichum sp.) Soft rot (Rhizopus sp.) Trunk rot (Phellinus noxius) Mealybug (Icerya aegyptiaca) Abiotic stress susceptibility Salinity Drought Notes Specify here any additional information particularly that referring to the category ‘99=Other’ present in some of the descriptors above. CONTRIBUTORS Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who contributed to the definition of this strategic set of Descriptors for Breadfruit, particularly to Dr D. Ragone who provided scientific direction. Adriana Alercia provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process. Core Advisory Group Diane Ragone, National Tropical Botanical Garden, Hawaii, USA Grahame Jackson, 24 Alt Street, Queens Park, NSW 2022, Australia Bill Raynor, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Federated States of Micronesia Mary Taylor, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Fiji Francis Zee, USDA,ARS, PBARC, USA Reviewers American Samoa Emily M. Ilaoa, American Samoa Community College (ASCC)-Community and Natural Resources (CNR) (Land Grant Program) Benin Gualbert Gbèhounou, National Agricultural Research Institute (INRAB) Federated States of Micronesia Lois Englberger, Island Food Community of Pohnpei Fiji Valerie Saena Tuia, Secretariat of the Pacific Community Ghana Flora Amagloh, Crops Research Institute (CSIR) Jamaica Kerith Golden, Basic Medical Sciences UWI New Caledonia Stéphane Lebegin, Institut Agronomique néo-Calédonien Republic of Kiribati Takena Redfern, Ministry of Environment, Lands & Agricultural Development Seychelles Julie Lewis, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources & Transport Tonga Pita Taufatofua, Farmer Trinidad and Tobago Laura B. Roberts-Nkrumah, University of the West Indies Gail Baccus-Taylor, University of the West Indies Methodology for the definition of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for cassava (Manihot esculenta) Information collection and preparation of a Minimum Descriptor List (MDL) Information for the definition of a MDL for cassava was drawn from Genetic Resources for cassava and wild relatives (IBPGR, 1983 - Appendix VII), which was modified following advice from Dr. Daniel Debouck from CIAT, Colombia. The list included in the publication was further compared with the List of cassava descriptors published by EMBRAPA (June, 1998) and integrated and harmonized with descriptors suggested during the Manihot Genetic Resources meeting held in Cali, Colombia, from 30 April to 2 May 2008. Important evaluation traits, such as pests and diseases and abiotic stresses, were added to the original descriptors list. Preparing List of Experts Since the original draft was too old, the list of experts was drawn from the list of reviewers to the draft version of “Descriptors for Cassava”. Participants to the Manihot Genetic Resources meeting described above were also included as experts in the Survey. Overall, 37 experts were identified, coming from nine countries and 17 different organizations. Out of these, a Group Leader (Daniel Debouck) and a Core Advisory group (CAG) consisting of nine experts (see Annex I) was selected to assist in the definition of a minimum set of descriptors for Cassava. Experts forming the CAG were selected from centres of excellence for cassava research and breeding such as EMBRAPA, IITA, CIAT, Cornell University, INIA, INIVIT, the Khon Kaen Field Crop Research Centre and the National Root Crop Research Institute. Survey preparation and distribution – 1st phase A draft survey on cassava was prepared listing the descriptors as approved by consultations with the Crop Leader. Once approved, the final draft of the survey was uploaded into the Survey Monkey application on the internet and an email invitation sent out to the list of identified experts on 10 April 2008. A link to the Survey was provided to experts, who were invited to rate the importance of the proposed characterization and evaluation descriptors (81 descriptors) for this crop. Experts were also encouraged to mention any additional trait that was found to be relevant yet missing from the proposed list of descriptors, along with a substantiated justification for its inclusion. The survey deadline was set at 29th of April 2008. A reminder was sent out on the 22nd of April to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained. (See Annex II). Survey analysis – 1st phase Of the 40 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 26, coming from seven countries, recorded their comments using the online survey (see Annex III). At the same time the descriptors list was circulated among participants to the “Mini- Workshop on Minimum Cassava Descriptors” held on the 2nd of May 2008 in Cali, Colombia within the above-mentioned Manihot Genetic Resources meeting. Survey 2nd phase Responses obtained from the survey were harmonized with comments received during the mini-workshop. Results from the Survey were analysed and descriptors ranked by rating average and percentage of importance (see Annex IV). The first 24 descriptors of the ranking exercise were selected as the traits to be included in the final draft of the Minimum descriptor list, which was subsequently circulated by email for comments among the Crop leader (Daniel Debouck) and the nine experts composing the CAG on 23 July 2008. Of these, four replied with comments (see Annex V) that were streamlined and harmonised to create a new Minimum List (see Annex VI). A summary of results and the revised list were then sent to the Crop Leader for final approval on 6 October 2008, who in turn consulted with the CAG again on 10 October for the finalization of the minimum list. A question arose regarding the inclusion of “Resistance to Salinity” in the Minimum List. The CAG was contacted once more on 20 November to confirm the rating of salinity. Five members of the CAG responded, confirming that “salinity” did not meet the criteria for a "very important" descriptor, based on the fact that it is not broadly important across the world. Thus, in consultation with the crop leader, salinity was removed from the Minimum List. Furthermore, Dr. John Beeching, from the Department of Biology & Biochemistry of the University of Bath, was contacted to ensure that the standard method for determining post-harvest physiological deterioration (PPD) developed by Wheatley and quoted in the final key set of descriptors for Cassava was adequate and up-to-date. Dr. Beeching replied that it was indeed suitable since it is the most versatile, economic and rapid method for assessing PPD to date. The revised and final Minimum list was approved on 7 November 2008 and is presented in Annex VII. Afterwards a final key set was prepared adding descriptor states and contributors (see Annex VIII). Once the core subset of characterization and evaluation standards for cassava was finalised, data were transformed into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN- Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA, and subsequently into GENESYS, linking national, regional and international genebank databases in support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files will also be used for the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER), the germplasm information exchange network of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and EURISCO. The final publications were also shared with the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base and the Generation Challenge Programme (CGP) Ontology partners. Acknowledgement Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for cassava genetic resources’, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial support. Special thanks go to Drs. Daniel Debouck and Xavier Scheldeman for providing valuable scientific direction and to Adriana Alercia for guiding the entire production process. Annex I – List of experts identified for participation to the Survey for the definition of a minimum set of descriptors for cassava Role Name Organization Country Crop leader Debouck, Daniel CIAT Colombia Core Group Cunha Alves, Alfredo Augusto EMBRAPA/CNPMF Brazil Core Group Dumet, Dominique IITA Nigeria Core Group Eke-Okoro, O.N. National Root Crops Research Institute Nigeria Core Group Hershey, Clair Cornell University USA Core Group Hunter, Danny Bioversity International Italy Core Group Morante, Nelson CIAT Colombia Core Group Ríos Lobo, Llermé INIA Peru Core Group Rodríguez Morales, Sergio J. INIVIT Cuba Core Group Sarawat, Peaingpen Khon Kaen Field Crop Research Center Thailand Core Group Scheldeman, Xavier Bioversity International Colombia Manihot Workshop Carvalho, Luiz EMBRAPA - Cenargen Brazil Manihot Workshop Ceballos, Hernan CIAT Colombia Manihot Workshop Cuervo, Maritza CIAT Colombia Manihot Workshop Fukuda, Wania EMBRAPA/CNPMF Brazil Manihot Workshop Ilona, Paul IITA Nigeria Manihot Workshop Mafla, Graciela CIAT Colombia Manihot Workshop Ocampo Nahar, César Humberto CIAT Colombia New Aranzales, Ericson CIAT Colombia Role Name Organization Country New Beeching, John University of Bath UK New Boonseng, Opas Rayong Field Crops Research Center Thailand New Calle Calle, Fernando CIAT Colombia New Dias, Miguel EMBRAPA Brazil New Dixon, Alfred IITA Nigeria New Fregene, Martin CIAT Colombia New Howeler, Reinhardt CIAT Thailand New Hurtado, Paula CIAT Colombia New Iglesias, Carlos Weaver Popcorn Company USA New Kulayasilapin, Pinit Prachinburi Field Crop Experiment Station Thailand New Lemos de Carvalho, Paulo Cesar Universidade Federal do Reconcavo da Bahia Brazil New Limsila, Atchara Rayong Field Crops Research Center Thailand New Lopez Montes, Antonio CORPOICA - Corporacion Centro de Investigaciones Agropecuarias Colombia New Malipan, Anon Lopburi Service Center for Crops and Production Thailand New Mejia, Kember Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonia peruana Peru New Nassar, Nagib Universidad de Brasilia Brazil New Oyatomi, Olaniyi Ajewole IITA Nigeria New Pérez, Juan Carlos CIAT Colombia New Pinedo, Julio Universidad Nacional de la Amazonía peruana (UNAP) Peru New Sias Costa, Ivo Roberto EMBRAPA - Cenargen Brazil New Silva Santos, Vanderlei EMBRAPA/CENARGEN Brazil New Villagomez Castillo, Vidal Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina Peru Annex II – Minimum set of Descriptors for cassava - Survey to Crop Expert Group WELCOME Welcome to the survey to participate in the definition of a minimum set of characterization and evaluation descriptors to support the global system of information on germplasm conservation and use. You have been identified as an expert on Cassava, hence our request to help us in the identification of the Cassava minimum set of descriptors. The objective of this activity is to identify those descriptors that are essential to be recorded as they represent those traits that the users of germplasm are looking for. They have been taken from a draft revision of Descriptor List for Cassava (Manihot esculenta) [1] produced in 2000, and following scientific advice from Dr Daniel Debouck (CIAT). That is, for characterization, we should be aiming at a minimum set of maximally differentiating traits for the identification of the crop. For evaluation, we aim for a minimum set of characters important for breeders (e.g. yield, protein content, stem chlorophyll content, Fusarium, drought). It is hoped that a minimum set of characterization and evaluation data, available for most ex situ conserved material, will allow a better comparability between genebanks which should facilitate the identification of interesting material and an increased use of conserved material. An enhanced use of the conserved germplasm will allow an easier and better justification of the costs involved in ex situ conservation. This survey should not take longer than 15 minutes. Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The Deadline for this survey is June 30. We thank you in advance for investing your time to provide us your input into the development of this minimum set. This survey consists of three parts: - PART I (listed as 2 and 3): Deals with the selection of the most important characterization and evaluation descriptors out of the Draft “Descriptors for Cassava as developed in 2000 and Descriptores de Yuca p157-179. - PART II (listed as 4): Is an open question which allows you to indicate those standards that are missing in the minimum current list and which measurement/determination would promote the use of the material. - PART III (listed as 5): We would ask you to provide some additional contacts (emails) of persons which you consider as experts in Cassava and which could help to validate the final list of minimum descriptors. [1] IBPGR. 1983. Appendix VII of Genetic Resources of Cassava and Wild relatives. 2. PART I: Characterization Descriptors These enable an easy and quick discrimination between phenotypes. They are generally highly heritable, can be easily seen by the eye and are equally expressed in all environments. 1. Please rate the importance of the following Plant Descriptors related to VEGETATIVE characters for the identification of the crop. NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 1. Plant height (cm) NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 2. Plant type NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 3. Stem colour NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 4. Growth habit of young stem NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 5. Number of branching levels NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 6. Branching angle NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 7. Height of the first apical branch (cm) NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 8. Number of weeks from planting to first apical branching NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 9. Colour of unexpanded apical leaves NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 10. Colour of first fully expanded leaf NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 11. Number of leaf lobes NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 12. Shape of central lobe NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 13. Length of central lobe (cm) NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 14. Width of central lobe (cm) NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 15. Leaf vein colour NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 16. Petiole length NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 17. Petiole colour NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 18. Distribution of anthocyanin pigmentation in petiole NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 19. Angle of petiole insertion NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 20. Prominence of leaf scars NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 21. Pubescence of young leaves NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 22. Length of stipules NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 23. Margin of stipules NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 24. Storage root surface colour NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 25. Storage root pulp colour NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 26. Hydrocyanic acid content (HCN)(mg/kg) NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 27. Storage root peduncle NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 28. Storage root shape NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 29. Storage root constrictions NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 30. Roots growth attitude NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 31. Storage root surface texture NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 32. Storage root length NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 33. Storage root diameter NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 34. Colour of outer surface of storage root cortex NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 2. Please rate the importance of the following Plant Descriptors related to INFLORESCENCE and FRUIT characters for the identification of the crop. NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 1. Absence/presence of flowers NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 2. Colour of sepals NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 3. Colour of disc NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 4. Colour of stigma NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 5. Colour of ovary NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 6. Colour of anthers NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 7. Length of sepal (mm) NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 8. Width of sepal (mm) NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 9. Absence/presence of female flowers without staminoids NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 10. Absence/presence of pollen NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 11. Absence/presence of fruit set NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 12. Length of fruit capsule (mm) NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 13. Diameter of fruit capsule (mm) NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 14. Texture of fruit exocarp NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 3. Please rate the importance of the following Plant Descriptors related to SEED characters for the identification of the crop. NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 1. 100-Seed weight NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 2. Main colour of seed NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 3. Secondary colour of seed NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 4. Colour of seed caruncle NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important Minimum set of Descriptors for cassava - Survey to Crop Expert Group 3. PART I: Evaluation Descriptors This type of descriptors includes characters such as yield, agronomic performance, stress susceptibilities and biochemical and cytological traits. They are the most interesting traits in crop improvement. 1. Please rate the importance of the following plant descriptors related to vegetative characters for the current breeding programmes and for the foreseeable future. NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 1. Germination of stakes (%) NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 2. Initial vigour NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 3. Number of weeks from planting to second apical branching NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 4. Total fresh weight of foliage and stems per plant (FW kg) NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 5. Total fresh weight of storage roots per plant (FW kg) NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 6. Storage root dry matter percentage (DM, %) NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 7. Fibre content (%) NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 8. Number of storage roots per plant NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 9. Ease of root periderm (outer skin) removal NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 10.Ease of root cortex (inner skin) removal NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 11.Amount of rotted storage roots per plant NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 12.Commercial roots (%) NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 13.Post-harvest deterioration NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 14.Harvest index NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 15.Earliness proportion NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 2. Please rate the importance of the following Abiotic Stress Susceptibility Descriptors FOR THE CURRENT BREEDING PROGRAMME AND FOR THE FORESSEABLE FUTURE. NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 1. Reaction to low temperature NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 2. Reaction to high temperature NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 3. Reaction to drought NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 4. Reaction to high soil moisture NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 5. Reaction to low ambient relative humidity NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 6. Reaction to soil salinity NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 7. Reaction to low pH NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 8. Reaction to low phosphorous NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 3. Please rate the importance of the following Biotic Stress Susceptibilities FOR THE CURRENT BREEDING PROGRAMME AND FOR THE FORESSEABLE FUTURE. NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 1. Cassava bacterial blight NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 2. Cassava common mosaic virus disease (CMVD) NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 3. African cassava mosaic virus NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 4. Cassava frog skin disease NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 5. Cassava mites NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 6. Whiteflies NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important 4. PART II: Additional Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors Which additional characterization and evaluation standards do you consider essential to be included in the list of minimum standards above to promote the use of ex situ conserved material. 1. Please add any CHARACTERIZATION DESCRIPTOR you consider essential for the identification of the crop that is missing and indicate how the descriptor should be recorded, the conditions under which the observation is made (i.e. growth stage, sample selection, specific parts to be measured, etc.) and provide the unit of measurement/scales of values, when relevant. 2. Please add any EVALUATION DESCRIPTOR you consider essential for crop improvement that is missing and indicate how the descriptor should be recorded, the conditions under which the observation is made (i.e. growth stage, sample selection, specific parts to be measured, etc.) and provide the unit of measurement/scales of values, when relevant. Annex III – Respondents to the survey for the selection of a Minimum Set of Descriptors for Cassava Name Organization Country Boonseng, Opas Rayong Field Crops Research Center Thailand Calle Calle, Fernando CIAT Colombia Carvalho, Luiz EMBRAPA - Cenargen Brazil Ceballos, Hernan CIAT Colombia Cuervo, Maritza CIAT Colombia Cunha Alves, Alfredo Augusto EMBRAPA/CNPMF Brazil Debouck, Daniel CIAT Colombia Dumet, Dominique IITA Nigeria Eke-Okoro, O.N. National Root Crops Research Institute Nigeria Fukuda, Wania EMBRAPA/CNPMF Brazil Hershey, Clair Cornell University USA Howeler, Reinhardt CIAT Thailand Hurtado, Paula CIAT Colombia Iglesias, Carlos Weaver Popcorn Company USA Ilona, Paul IITA Nigeria Kulayasilapin, Pinit Prachinburi Field Crop Experiment Station Thailand Mafla, Graciela CIAT Colombia Name Organization Country Malipan, Anon Lopburi Service Center for Crops and Production Thailand Mejia, Kember Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonia peruana Peru Morante, Nelson CIAT Colombia Ocampo Nahar, César Humberto CIAT Colombia Oyatomi, Olaniyi Ajewole IITA Nigeria Ríos Lobos, Llermé INIA Peru Rodríguez Morales, Sergio J. INIVIT Cuba Sarawat, Peaingpen Khon Kaen Field Crop Research Center Thailand Sias Costa, Ivo Roberto EMBRAPA - Cenargen Brazil Annex IV – Descriptors ranked by rating average and by percentage importance Ranked by rating average = The Rating Average is a weighted average per column. Each rating scale choice (column header) is assigned a value from left to right starting at "1". A sum is made of the weighted values of the no. of respondents who picked the rating Very Important. Then the Weighted Value Calculation is divided by the Sum of Respondents. For more info http://www.surveymonkey.com/HelpCenter/Answer.aspx?HelpID=89 Ranked by % importance = Percentage importance was calculated by multiplying the no. of people that considered the descriptor very important by 100, and dividing the result by the no. of experts that took part in the survey (i.e.21) N.B. Descriptors followed by an asterisk (*) in the second table show that they have either decreased or increased in importance when rating average is used as reference. Ranked by rating average Ranked by % importance No Descriptor name Rating average Descriptor name % Importan ce 1 Storage root pulp colour 2,9 Storage root pulp colour 95,2 2 African cassava mosaic virus 2,7 African cassava mosaic virus 81,0 3 Storage root dry matter percentage (DM, %) 2,7 Storage root dry matter percentage (DM, %) 81,0 4 Storage root surface colour 2,6 Storage root surface colour 76,2 5 Reaction to drought 2,4 Reaction to drought 71,4 6 Cassava bacterial blight 2,4 Cassava bacterial blight 66,7 7 Germination of stakes (%) 2,4 Germination of stakes (%) 66,7 8 Total fresh weight of storage roots per plant (FW kg) 2,4 Total fresh weight of storage roots per plant (FW kg) 66,7 9 Whiteflies 2,2 Whiteflies 57,1 10 Absence/presence of flowers 2,1 Absence/presence of flowers 57,1 11 Cassava common mosaic virus disease (CMVD) 2,1 Cassava common mosaic virus disease (CMVD) 57,1 12 Harvest index 2,1 Harvest index 57,1 13 Initial vigour 2,1 Initial vigour* 52,4 14 Stem colour 2,0 Stem colour 57,1 15 Colour of first fully expanded leaf 2,0 Colour of first fully expanded leaf* 52,4 16 Hydrocyanic acid content (HCN)(mg/kg) 2,0 Hydrocyanic acid content (HCN)(mg/kg)* 52,4 17 Colour of unexpanded apical leaves* 2,0 Colour of unexpanded apical leaves* 57,1 18 Pubescence of young leaves 2,0 Pubescence of young leaves 52,4 19 Petiole colour 1,9 Petiole colour 52,4 20 Reaction to high soil moisture 1,9 Reaction to high soil moisture 47,6 21 Cassava mites 1,9 Cassava mites 42,9 22 Post-harvest deterioration 1,9 Post-harvest deterioration 42,9 23 Reaction to soil salinity 1,8 Reaction to soil salinity* 38,1 24 Number of storage roots per plant 1,8 Number of storage roots per plant* 38,1 25 Reaction to low pH 1,8 Reaction to low pH* 38,1 26 Earliness proportion 1,8 Earliness proportion* 42,9 27 Cassava frog skin disease 1,8 Cassava frog skin disease* 42,9 28 Absence/presence of pollen 1,7 Absence/presence of pollen* 47,6 29 Colour of outer surface of storage root cortex 1,7 Colour of outer surface of storage root cortex* 42,9 30 Shape of central lobe 1,7 Shape of central lobe 42,9 32 Growth habit of young stem 1,7 Growth habit of young stem 42,9 33 Total fresh weight of foliage and stems per plant (FW kg) 1,7 Total fresh weight of foliage and stems per plant (FW kg) 38,1 34 Absence/presence of fruit set 1,6 Absence/presence of fruit set 38,1 35 100-Seed weight 1,6 100-Seed weight 38,1 Annex V – CAG responses to the identified set of Minimum descriptors for cassava, following the ranking exercise Name Organization Country Characterization descriptors to be added Characterization descriptors to be deleted Evaluation descriptors to be added Evaluation descriptors to be deleted Debouck, Daniel CIAT Colombia -Germination of stakes -Initial Vigour Eke- Okoro, O.N. National Root Crops Research Institute Nigeria • Distribution of Anthocyanin Pigmentation • Angle of branching • Total fresh weight of storage roots per plant (FW kg) – Marketable and Unmarketable • Storage root size • Reaction to salinity • Reaction to low temperatures • Reaction to low soil moisture Hershey, Claire Cornell University USA • Color of internal surface of stem epidermis • Color of stem sub-epidermis • Shape of central lobe -Germination of stakes - Weight of roots - Absence/presence of flowers - HCN • Reaction to local soil constraints (specify) • Reaction to locally important pests and diseases (specify)," • Locally important quality traits (eg. poundability, farinha trait) Move Total fresh wt of storage roots: Germination of stakes; HCN content to Evaluation Traits Ríos Lobos, Llermé INIA Peru • Colour of inner surface of storage root cortex • Colour of flower disc • Shape of central leaf lobe • Storage root peduncle • Storage root shape • Texture of storage root surface * Suggests listing descriptors from 22 to 26 under a single descriptor (Susceptibility to diseases) • Colour of first fully expanded apical leaf • Pubescence of young leaves List under a single descriptor "Susceptibility to diseases (specify)"• African cassava mosaic virus (ACMV) • Cassava bacterial blight • Cassava common mosaic virus (CsCMV) • Cassava mites • Cassava frog skin disease (FSD) • Whiteflies • Post-harvest deterioration Annex VI – Identified key set of descriptors from the Survey Characterization descriptors 1. Storage root pulp colour 2. Storage root surface colour 3. Germination of stakes (%) 4. Total fresh weight of storage roots per plant (FW kg) 5. Absence/presence of flowers 6. Stem colour 7. Colour of first fully expanded leaf 8. Hydrocyanic acid content (HCN)(mg/kg) 9. Colour of unexpanded apical leaves 10. Pubescence of young leaves 11. Petiole colour 12. Colour of outer surface of storage root cortex Evaluation descriptors 13. Storage root dry matter percentage (DM, %) 14. Harvest index 15. Initial vigour 16. Post-harvest deterioration 17. Reaction to drought 18. Reaction to high soil moisture 19. African cassava mosaic virus (ACMV) 20. Cassava bacterial blight 21. Cassava common mosaic virus (CsCMV) 22. Cassava mites 23. Cassava frog skin disease (FSD) 24. Whiteflies Annex VII – Final validated key set of descriptors for access and utilization of cassava genetic resources Characterization descriptors 1. Storage root pulp colour 2. Storage root surface colour 3. Stem colour 4. Colour of first fully expanded leaf 5. Shape of central lobe 6. Colour of unexpanded apical leaves 7. Pubescence of young leaves 8. Petiole colour 9. Colour of outer surface of storage root cortex Evaluation descriptors 10. Storage root dry matter percentage (DM %) 11. Total fresh weight of storage roots per plant (FW kg) 12. Hydrocyanic acid content (HCN)(mg/kg) 13. Harvest index 14. Post-harvest deterioration 15. Reaction to drought 16. Reaction to high soil moisture 17. African cassava mosaic virus (ACMV) 18. Cassava bacterial blight 19. Cassava common mosaic virus (CsCMV) 20. Cassava mites 21. Cassava frog skin disease (FSD) 22. Whiteflies 23. Cassava Brown Streak Virus (CBSD) Annex VIII – Final key set of descriptors for cassava genetic resources obtained after validation Key access and utilization descriptors for cassava genetic resources This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for cassava utilization. This key set of strategic descriptors, together with passport data, will become the basis for the global accession level information portal (GENESYS) being developed by the Bioversity-led project, Global Information on Germplasm Accessions (GIGA). It will facilitate access to and utilization of cassava accessions held in genebanks and does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently become available. Based on the comprehensive list of descriptors contained in ‘Genetic Resources for cassava and wild relatives’ (IBPGR, 1983, Appendix VII), this strategic set, listed below with the original descriptor states, was developed in consultation with cassava experts worldwide, and further refined by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr Daniel Debouck of CIAT. Biotic and abiotic stresses included in the list were chosen because of their wide geographic occurrence and significant economic impact. Storage root pulp colour Observed immediately after being cut open 1 White or cream 2 Yellow 3 Pink 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Storage root surface colour 1 White 2 Cream 3 Light brown 4 Dark brown 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Stem colour Observed between 50–100 cm from ground level 1 Silver green 2 Light brown or orange 3 Dark brown 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Colour of first fully expanded leaf 3 Light green 5 Dark green 7 Green–purple 9 Purple Shape of central lobe 1 Oblanceolate 2 Linear 3 Elliptic 4 Pandurate (obovate with pair of basal lobes) 5 Lanceolate 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Colour of unexpanded apical leaves 3 Light green 5 Dark green 7 Green–purple 9 Purple 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Pubescence of young leaves Newly formed leaves in the transitional stage 3 Sparse 5 Intermediate 7 Dense Petiole colour 1 Light green 2 Dark green 3 Green–purple 4 Purple 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Colour of outer surface of storage root cortex 1 White or cream 2 Yellow 3 Pink 4 Purple 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Storage root dry matter percentage (DM %) Total fresh weight of storage roots per plant (FW kg) Recorded on 10 plants Hydrocyanic acid content (HCN) [mg/kg] 3 Low (sweet) 7 High (bitter) Harvest index Fresh storage root weight (5)/total plant weight (4 + 5) Post-harvest deterioration Qualitative evaluation of physiological deterioration1 3 Low 5 Medium 7 High Reaction to drought (7.3) Reaction to high soil moisture (7.4) African Cassava Mosaic Virus (ACMV) Cassava Bacterial Blight (CBB) Cassava Common Mosaic Virus (CsCMV) Cassava mites Cassava Frogskin Disease (CFSD) Whiteflies Cassava Brown Streak Virus Disease (CBSD) Notes Any additional information may be specified here, particularly that referring to the category ‘Other’ present in some of the descriptors above. 1 Use quantitative method described by Wheatley C. et al. (1985), Post-harvest deterioration of cassava roots, in Cock JH and Reyes JA, editors, Cassava: Research, Production and Utilization. UNDP-CIAT, Cali, Colombia, pp 655–671. Or specify method used in the NOTES descriptor. CONTRIBUTORS Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who contributed to the development of this strategic set of key access and utilization descriptors for cassava, and in particular to the participants in the ‘Mini-Workshop on Minimum Cassava Descriptors’ held on 2 May 2008 in Cali, Colombia. Special thanks go to Drs. Daniel Debouck and Xavier Sheldeman for providing scientific direction, and to Adriana Alercia for providing technical expertise and guiding the entire production process. Core Advisory Group Daniel Debouck, CIAT, Colombia Alfredo Augusto Cunha Alves, EMBRAPA, Brazil Dominique Dumet, IITA, Nigeria O.N. Eke-Okoro, National Root Crops Research Institute, Nigeria Clair Hershey, Cornell University, USA Danny Hunter, Bioversity International, Italy Nelson Morante, CIAT, Colombia Llermé Ríos Lobo, INIA, Peru Sergio J. Rodríguez Morales, INIVIT, Cuba Peaingpen Sarawat, Khon Kaen Field Crop Research Centre, Thailand Xavier Scheldeman, Bioversity, Colombia Reviewers Brazil Luiz Carvalho, EMBRAPA Miguel Dias, EMBRAPA/CPAA Wania Fukuda, EMBRAPA Paulo Cesar Lemos de Carvalho, Universidade Federal do Reconcavo da Bahia Nagib Nassar, Universidad de Brasilia Ivo Roberto Sias Costa, EMBRAPA/CENARGEN Vanderlei Silva Santos, EMBRAPA/CNPMF Colombia Fernando Calle Calle, CIAT Hernan Ceballos, CIAT Maritza Cuervo, CIAT Paula Hurtado, CIAT Graciela Mafla, CIAT César Humberto Ocampo Nahar, CIAT Nigeria Alfred Dixon, IITA Paul Ilona, IITA Olaniyi Ajewole Oyatomi, IITA Peru Kember Mejia, Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonía peruana Julio Pinedo, Universidad Nacional de la Amazonía peruana (UNAP) Vidal Villagomez Castillo, Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina Thailand Opas Boonseng, Rayong Field Crops Research Centre Reinhardt Howeler, CIAT Pinit Kulayasilapin, Prachinburi Field Crop Experiment Station Atchara Limsila, Rayong Field Crops Research Centre Anon Malipan, Lopburi Service Centre for Crops and Production United Kingdom John Beeching, Department of Biology & Biochemistry, University of Bath USA Carlos Iglesias, Weaver Popcorn Company Methodology for the definition of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Information collection and preparation of the Minimum Descriptor List (MDL) Information for the definition of a MDL for chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) was drawn from the publication ‘Descriptors for Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)’ (IBPGR/ICRISAT/ICARDA, 1993). A comparison table was prepared comparing these descriptors to important descriptors mentioned in the draft document ‘Global Strategy for the Ex Situ Conservation of Chickpea (Cicer L.)’ (the Trust, December 2008); and to descriptors that were awarded funds for further research by the Global Crop Diversity Trust 2008 Award Scheme ‘Enhancing the Value of Crop Diversity in a World of Climate Change’ (EAS). These were further weighed against Descriptors for CHICKPEA (USDA, ARS, GRIN); ‘Guidelines for the conduct of tests for Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability’ (UPOV, 2005) and important descriptors resulting from the SGRP Global Public Goods, Phase 2 (GPG2), Activity 4.2.1.1. Particular attention was given to those descriptors for which data were available. Descriptors were integrated and harmonized to produce an initial minimum set to be submitted to the Crop Leader for approval. During a crop-specific consultation held at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), India in June 2009, a minimum and a long list covering diagnosis and breeding traits were discussed (see Annex I). From the comparison table discussed during the meeting, a list of descriptors which were considered important for utilization were included in the key set of descriptors, that would be proposed through the survey. Preparation of the List of Experts The list of experts was prepared using various sources. It includes experts drawn from the original descriptor list and participants in crop-specific consultations for the definition of the ‘Global Strategy for the Ex Situ Conservation of Chickpea (Cicer L.)’ (the Trust, December 2008). The list was further integrated with experts from the ECPGR Network, from the Trust Evaluation Awards Scheme (EAS) and the Status Regeneration Guidelines, as well as experts drawn from FAO WIEWS, Directory of Germplasm collections, and those identified during the crop-specific meeting held at NBPGR. An internet search was also performed to integrate this list and obtain the greatest number of comments. Jan Konopka, from the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), was first contacted to supply names of experts who could be involved in this exercise and review the comparison table. ICARDA experts proposed were Ken Street, Amri Ahmed, Malhotra Rajendra and Mohammed Imtiaz and were invited to act as the Crop Advisory Group (CAG). During her visit to India, the coordinator of the exercise, Ms Adriana Alercia collaborated with renown expert, M.C. Kharkwal of IARI Genetics (India) and in consultation with Prem N. Mathur, it was agreed that he would act as Crop Leader together with M. Imtiaz (ICARDA, Syria). Overall, 54 experts were identified, coming from 22 countries and 38 different organizations (see Annex II). Out of these, Mohammed Imtiaz (ICARDA) and M.C. Kharkwal (IARI) were selected as Crop Leaders and a Core Advisory Group consisting of 10 experts was identified to assist in the definition of a minimum set of descriptors, which was subsequently circulated for validation among the wider group of experts. Survey preparation and distribution A draft survey on chickpea was prepared listing the descriptors as approved by consultations with the Crop Leaders and the CAG (see Annex III). Once approved, the final draft of the survey was uploaded into the SurveyMonkey application on the internet (see Annex IV) and sent out to the list of identified experts in July 2009. Experts were invited to validate the initial ‘Minimum set of descriptors’ of chickpea accessions to facilitate their use by researchers and asked to make any suggestions regarding any characterization and/or evaluation descriptors that were found to be relevant yet missing from the proposed Minimum List. The survey deadline was set at 20 August 2009. A reminder was sent out before the deadline to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained. Survey analysis and refinement of the Minimum List Of the 54 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 32 from 16 countries and 21 organizations recorded their comments using the online survey (see Annex V). Results from the consultation were analyzed and descriptors were ranked by rating average and percentage of importance (see Annex VI). Descriptors having a wide consensus amongst experts were highlighted in bold typeface. These summary results listed by ranking and percentage of responses of the survey, together with a report containing comments as open-ended questions received from the participants (see Annex VII) were sent to the Core Advisory Group inviting experts to select descriptors that should be included in the Minimum List by indicating them with an ‘X’ in the relevant column. Advice provided by Dr Imtiaz was followed along with the CAG survey responses and survey percentage results, because other Core Advisory members, although participating to the survey, did not answer in spite of the reminders. As a result, a first final list was defined and subsequently proposed to members of the CAG for their validation and comments (see Annex VIII). Many replies were received and sparked off an interesting debate, which was summarized listing the discussed descriptors, along with relevant comments (see Annex IX), and sent again to the Core Advisory Group. In early April 2009, the first priority set for utilization, with the addition of a few more descriptors and one descriptor for deletion, as suggested by the CAG and approved by the Crop Leaders, was again shared with the CAG for further refinement and their final approval (see Annex X). Dr Hari D. Upahdyaya of the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT, India) was added as Crop Leader due to the substantial scientific advice provided during the last phase. Definition of a final key set of descriptors for chickpea The final key set approved by the Crop Leaders and the CAG, including all the contributors (see Annex XI), was proofread by an external editor and sent to the Bioversity Publications Unit for layout and on-line publication processes. Furthermore, the publication was shared with the ECPGR Secretariat; the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base partners. Additionally, data were converted into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN-Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA, and into the global accession level information portal (GENESYS). The Excel files were also disseminated to the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) and to EURISCO. Acknowledgement Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who contributed to the development of the strategic set of key access and utilization descriptors for chickpea genetic resources, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial support. Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leaders, Mohammed Imtiaz, M.C. Kharkwal and Dr H. Updadhyaya for providing valuable scientific direction. Ms Adriana Alercia provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process. Annex I – Comparison table weighing up important descriptors for chickpea drawn from different sources¹ Desc. no. Descriptor name IBPGR/ ICRISAT/ ICARDA 1993 (1) Evaluation Awards (2) Strategy (3) UPOV (4) USDA (5) GPG2 Imp traits (6) GPG2 Top 10 (7) Data avail. ICRISAT (8) Long List (9) NBPGR 09 MIN (GR utilization) (10) ICARDA (Imtiaz) MIN x use (11) 4.1.1 Plant pigmentation * * * * * * 4.1.2 Plant hairiness * * 4.1.3 Leaf type * * * * * * 4.1.4 Number of leaflets per leaf * * * * 4.2.1 Days to 50% flowering * * (80%) * * * * * * * 4.2.2 Days to maturity * * * * * * * * 4.2.3 Number of seeds per pod * * * * * * * * * 4.2.4 Flower colour * * * * * * 4.2.5 Number of flowers and pods per peduncle * * * * * * 4.2.6 Pod length [mm] * * * * 4.2.7 Pod dehiscence * * To be deleted. Not important and difficult 4.2.8 Number of pods per plant * * * * * * * * 4.3.1 Seed shape * * * * * * 4.3.2 Seed testa texture * * * * 4.3.3 Seed colour * * * * * * * 4.3.4 Absence/presence of minute black dots * * * 4.3.5 100-Seed weight [g] * * (not 100) * * * * * * * 6.1.1 Growth habit * * * * * * * 6.1.2 Leaflet length [mm] * * * 6.1.3 Leaf area [cm2] * Redundant, to be deleted since there is leaf length 6.1.4 Number of branches * * To be deleted 6.1.4.1 Number of primary branches * * * * * * 6.1.4.2 Number of secondary branches * * * * 6.1.4.3 Apical primary * * * To be deleted 6.1.4.4 Apical secondary * To be deleted 6.1.4.5 Tertiary * * To be deleted 6.1.5 Plant canopy height (at maturity) * * * * * * * * * 6.1.6 Plant canopy width [cm] * * * * To be deleted 6.2.1 Flower duration * * To be deleted and difficult to record 6.2.2 Yield * 6.2.2.1 Biological yield per plant [g] * * * * 6.2.2.2 Grain yield per plant [g] * * * * * * * 6.3.1.1 Protein content [% DW] * * * * * * 6.3.1.2 Dhal milling [%] * * 6.3.1.3 Cooking time * * 6.3.1.4 Cookability of dry seeds * * Delete 7.1 Reactions to low Temperature * * 7.1.1 Seedling emergence * * 7.1.2 Susceptibility to cold (whole plant) * * * Delete * 7.1.3 Frost damage * * * * * 7.2 Reactions to high temperature (Heat) * * * * * * 7.3 Reactions to Aluminium toxicity * * 7.4 Reaction to low Iron * * * 7.5 Reaction to drought * * * * * * * * * 7.6 Reaction to low seedbed moisture conditions * Delete New Reaction to salt stress * * 7.7 Reaction to Alkaline soils * Delete 8.1.1 Alternaria alternata (Fr.) Kiessler (Alternaria blight) * * * 8.1.2 Ascochyta rabiei (Pass.) Labr. (Ascochyta blight) * * * * * * * * * 8.1.3 Botrytis cinerea Pers. ex Fr. (Grey mould) * * * * * * 8.1.4 Fusarium oxysporum Schlecht. (Fusarium wilt) * * * * * * * * * 8.1.5 Phytophthora megasperma Drechs. (Phytophthora blight) * * * * 8.1.6 Uromyces ciceris-arietini (Grogn.) Jacz & Beyer (Rust) * * 8.2.1 Pythium ultimum Trow. (Damping off) * * * 8.2.2 Stemphylium sarciniforme (Cav.) Wilts. (Stemphylium blight) * * 8.2.3 Xanthomonas cassiae Kulkarni et al. (Seedling rot) * * * 8.3.1 Fusarium solani (Mart.) Sacc. (Root rot) * * * * * * 8.3.2 Operculella padwickii Kheswalla (Foot rot) * * 8.3.3 Rhizoctonia bataticola (Taub.) Butler (Dry root rot) * * * * 8.3.4 Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary (Stem rot) * * * 8.3.5 Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc. (Collar rot) * * * * * 8.4.1 Bean (pea) leafroll virus (Luteovirus) (Chickpea stunt) * * * * 8.5.1 Metopina ciceri Disney (Nodule damaging flies) * * 8.5.2 Agrotis ipsilon Hufnagel. etc. (Cutworm) * * 8.5.3 Liriomyza cicerina (Rondani) (Leaf miner) * * * * * 8.5.4 Aphis craccivora (Koch) (Aphids) * * 8.6.1 Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Pod borer) * * * * * 8.7.1 Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) (Storage bruchid beetle) * * 8.8.1 Meloidogyne incognita; M.javanica; M. aritiellia (Rootknot nematode) * * * * 8.8.2 Pratylenchus thornei; P. zeae Graham (Root lesion nematode) * * * 8.8.3 Heterodera ciceri (Vovlas, Greco and Di Vito) (Cyst nematode) * * * * Nitrogen fixing ability * Amino Acid content * Not required Seed size * * * * Salinity tolerance/Stress to soil salinity * * Already added Stress to Zinc * * * Colletotrichum blight * * ¹ (1) ‘Descriptors for Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)’ (IBPGR, ICRISAT and ICARDA, 1993); (2) Evaluation Award Scheme 2008 (EAS); (3) Global Strategy for the Ex Situ Conservation of Chickpea (Cicer L.), Draft, July 2008; (4) UPOV technical guidelines for Chick-Pea (2005); (5) ‘Descriptors for CHICKPEA’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN); (6) Important traits from the GPG2 exercise; (7) Top ten traits from the GPG2 exercise; (8) ‘Core Collection of Chickpea as a Means to Enhance Utilization of Genetic Resources in Crop Improvement’ (ICRISAT); (9) Long list of traits identified during the crop-specific meeting at NBPGR (June 2009); (10) Minimum list of traits identified during the crop-specific meeting at NBPGR (June 2009); (11) Dr Imtiaz’s choice of descriptors. Annex II – List of experts identified to participate in the survey Role/Source Name Organization Country Crop Leader (suggested by Ken Street) Imtiaz, Mohammed ICARDA Syria Crop Leader Kharkwal, M.C. Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI, Genetics) India CAG Boulineau, Francois GEVES (UPOV) France CAG Coyne, Clare USDA, ARS. Washington State University USA CAG (contact from ENEA chickpea congress) Crinò, Paola ENEA Italy CAG Dua, Ram Prakash NBPGR (Under utilized plants division) India CAG Duc, Gérard INRA (ECPGR) France CAG (suggested at ontology workshop) Gaur, P. ICRISAT India CAG Haque, Mamtazul Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute Bangladesh CAG (suggested by H. Knüpffer, IPK) Kotter, Matthias IPK Genebank Department Leibniz Institute Germany CAG Malhotra, Rajinder ICARDA Syria CAG Updadhyaya, H. ICRISAT India Internet Abbo, Shahal Hebrew University of Jerusalem Israel Crop Strategy Abdelguerfi, Aissa Institut National Agronomique (INA) Algeria SINGER survey Amri, Ahmed Head GRU (ICARDA) Syria WIEWS Benediková, Daniela Research Institute of Plant Production Piestany Slovak Republic Internet Berger, Jens D. CSIRO Plant Industry Australia Internet (Plant pathologist) Buchwaldt, Lone Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canada Internet Bulyntsev, Sergey Curator Chickpea VIR Russian Federation Internet Chaturvedi, S.K. Indian Institute for Pulses Research India Internet (Plant pathologist) Chen, Weidong ARS/USDA USA Journal Croser, Janine Centres for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture (CLIMA) Australia Contact from ENEA chickpea congress De la Rosa, Lucia INIA Spain Internet Diederichsen, Axel Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canada NBPGR Dwivedi, Narendra Kumar NBPGR (Regional Station - Jodhpur) India WIEWS Fundora, Z. Banco de Germplasma Cuba Directory of Germplasm (Nutritionist) Garzon-Tiznado, J.A. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agrícolas Mexico WIEWS Hýbl, Miroslav Agritech Czech Republic Internet (Plant pathologist) Jiménez-Díaz, Rafael M. IAS-CSIC Spain Internet (Plant geneticist) Kahl, Gunter Plant Molecular Biology, Biozentrum Germany Internet Khan, Tanveer Western Australian Department of Agriculture and Food, Dryland Research Institute Australia Reviewer Kumar, J. IARI, Genetics India Reviewer Mishra, S.K. NBPGR India Internet McMurray, Larn South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) Australia Purdue website Mohamed, Ali I. Virginia State University USA Directory of Germplasm Moreno, Maria T. Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo Agrario Alameda del Obispo Spain Internet (Plant pathologist) Muehlbauer, Frederick J. USDA/ARS Washington State University USA NBPGR (Project Coordinator) Nizar, M Abdul NBPGR India Internet Pandey, R.L. Indira Gandhi Agricultural University India ECPGR Pereira, Maria da Graça Estação Nacional de Melhoramento de Plantas Portugal Directory of Germplasm Pratibha, Brahmi NBPGR India Crop Strategy Redden, Bob Department of Primary Industries Victoria Australia SINGER Survey (Genebank data manager) Reddy, M. Thimma ICRISAT India ICRISAT Sharma, Kiran ICRISAT (Principal scientist chickpea genetic engineering) India ICRISAT Legumes pathology Sharma, Mamta ICRISAT India Reviewer Sharma, S.K. ICAR, NBPGR India Journal Siddique, K.H.M. Institute of Agriculture- University of Western Australia Australia Purdue website Slinkard, Al University of Saskatchewan Canada Crop Strategy/WIEWS Tan, Ayfer Aegean Agricultural Research Institute (AARI) Turkey Internet Toker, Cengiz Department of Field Crops, Faculty of Agriculture, Akdeniz University Turkey Internet Van der Maesen, L.J.G. Wageningen Agricultural University The Netherlands Internet (Plant pathologist) Vovlas, Nicola Istituto per la Protezione delle Piante, C.N.R. Italy SRG/WIEWS Yadav, Shyam S. Retired Papua New Guinea EAS/Crop Strategy Zahoor, Ahmad Pakistan Agricultural Research Council Pakistan Annex III - First priority set of descriptors for chickpea identified by Dr Imtiaz in July 2009, to be inserted in the survey 1. Plant pigmentation (4.1.1) 2. Leaf type (4.1.3) 3. Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) 4. Days to maturity (4.2.2) 5. Number of seeds per pod (4.2.3) 6. Flower colour (4.2.4) 7. Number of flowers and pods per peduncle (4.2.5) 8. Number of pods per plant (4.2.8) 9. Seed shape (4.3.1) 10. Seed colour (4.3.3) 11. 100-Seed weight [g] (4.3.5) 12. Seed size (4.3.X) 13. Growth habit (6.1.1) 14. Number of primary branches (6.1.4.1) 15. Plant canopy height (at maturity) (6.1.5) 16. Biological yield per plant [g] (6.2.2.1) 17. Grain yield per plant [g] (6.2.2.2) 18. Protein content [% DW] (6.3.1.1) 19. Susceptibility to cold (whole plant) (7.1.2) 20. Frost damage (7.1.3) 21. Stress to Zinc (7.X) 22. Reactions to high temperature (Heat) (7.2) 23. Reaction to drought (7.5) 24. Reaction to salt stress (7.X) 25. Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta rabiei) (8.1.2) 26. Grey mould (Botrytis cinerea) (8.1.3) 27. Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum) (8.1.4) 28. Phytophthora blight (Phytophthora megasperma) (8.1.5) 29. Seedling rot (Xanthomonas cassiae) (8.2.3) 30. Root rot (Fusarium solani) (8.3.1) 31. Dry root rot (Rhizoctonia bataticola) (8.3.3) 32. Stem rot (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum) (8.3.4) 33. Collar rot (Sclerotium rolfsii) (8.3.5) 34. Chickpea stunt (Bean (pea) leafroll virus) (8.4.1) 35. Leaf miner (Liriomyza cicerina) (8.5.3) 36. Pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera) (8.6.1) 37. Rootknot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita; (8.8.1) M. javanica; M. aritiellia) 38. Root lesion nematode (Pratylenchus thornei; P. zeae) (8.8.2) 39. Cyst nematode (Heterodera ciceri) (8.8.3) Annex IV – Survey to choose a key set of descriptors for chickpea utilization WELCOME Welcome to the survey for the selection of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for chickpea to support an international information system to enhance the utilization of germplasm held in genebanks. Your knowledge and experience are being sought to define an initial ‘key set’ of descriptors that identify traits important to crop production and facilitate the use of accessions. Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 20 August 2009. This key set of descriptors will be made available through a global portal for identifying sets of accessions for evaluation and use. For characterization, the aim is a key set of maximally differentiating traits that provide the most impact in discriminating between accessions. For evaluation, the aim is to focus on a few important traits for production, such as those related to abiotic or biotic stresses of cosmopolitan nature. This survey consists of two parts: - PART I: Characterization descriptors. - PART II: Evaluation descriptors. We thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in selecting the set of descriptors. * Please allow us to acknowledge your contribution by completing your full contact details below: Name: Position: Organization: Country: Email: PART I: Characterization descriptors These traits enable easy and quick discrimination between phenotypes. They are generally highly heritable, can be easily seen by the eye and are equally expressed in all environments. Based on your experience, please rate the descriptors according to their importance. It also allows you to indicate if any essential descriptor that can contribute to its use is missing from the minimum list presented. *Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in the IBPGR/ICRISAT/ICARDA publication ‘Descriptors for Chickpea’ (1993). *Descriptors with numbers ending in ‘X’ are new descriptors that were added during the revision of the original publication. Not important Important Very important Plant pigmentation (4.1.1) Leaf type (4.1.3) Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) Days to maturity (4.2.2) Number of seeds per pod (4.2.3) Flower colour (4.2.4) Number of flowers and pods per peduncle (4.2.5) Number of pods per plant (4.2.8) Seed shape (4.3.1) Seed colour (4.3.3) 100-Seed weight [g] (4.3.5) Seed size (4.3.X) n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n  If you consider that an essential trait is missing from this list, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. PART II: Evaluation descriptors These descriptors include characters such as biotic and abiotic stresses. They are the most interesting traits in crop improvement. Please consider the following factors relating to the trait when making your final decision: (i) Global impact, (ii) Initial strategic set, (iii) Importance for germplasm utilization, (iv) Data availability, (v) True economic damage and (vi) Wide geographical occurrence. Please, rate these traits in order of importance at the global level. It also allows you to indicate if any essential trait for production is missing from the minimum list presented or indicate any that may not be very significant to global production. Not Important Important Very important Growth habit (6.1.1) Number of primary branches (6.1.4.1) Plant height (at maturity) (6.1.5) Biological yield per plant [g] (6.2.2.1) Grain yield per plant [g] (6.2.2.2) Protein content [% DW] (6.3.1.1) Susceptibility to cold (whole plant) (7.1.2) Frost damage (7.1.3) Stress to Zinc (7.X) Reactions to high temperature (Heat) (7.2) Reaction to drought (7.5) Reaction to salt stress (7.X) Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta rabiei) (8.1.2) Grey mould (Botrytis cinerea) (8.1.3) Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum) (8.1.4) Phytophthora blight (Phytophthora megasperma) (8.1.5) Seedling rot (Xanthomonas cassiae) (8.2.3) Root rot (Fusarium solani) (8.3.1) Dry root rot (Rhizoctonia bataticola) (8.3.3) Stem rot (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum) (8.3.4) Collar rot (Sclerotium rolfsii) (8.3.5) Chickpea stunt (Bean (pea) leafroll virus) (8.4.1) Leaf miner (Liriomyza cicerina) (8.5.3) Pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera) (8.6.1) Rootknot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita; M. javanica; M. aritiellia) (8.8.1) Root lesion nematode (Pratylenchus thornei; P. zeae) (8.8.2) Cyst nematode (Heterodera ciceri) (8.8.3) n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n  n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n  n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n  n n If you consider that an essential trait important for crop improvement and production is missing from the list above, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. Annex V – List of respondents to the survey Role Name Position Organization Country Crop Leader Kharkwal, M.C. Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI, Genetics) India Crop Leader Imtiaz, Muhammad International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) Syria CAG Bharadwaj, C. Senior Scientist Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) India CAG Boulineau, François Directeur d'unité Groupe d'Etude et de contrôle des Variétés et des Semences (GEVES) France CAG Coyne, Clarice J. Curator/Geneticist United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) USA CAG Crinò, Paola Scientist Agenzia nazionale per le nuove tecnologie, l’energia e lo sviluppo economico sostenibile (ENEA) Italy CAG Dua, R.P. Principal Scientist and Coordinator AICRP (UUC) National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) India CAG Haque, Mamtazul Chief Scientific Officer Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute Bangladesh CAG Lohwasser, Ulrike Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK) Department of Genebank, Research Group Resources Genetics and Reproduction Germany CAG Pandravada, S.R. Senior Scientist National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), Regional Station, Hyderabad India CAG Upadhyaya, Hari D. Principal Scientist and Head Gene Bank International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) India Reviewer Abbo, Shahal Lecturer Hebrew University of Jerusalem Israel Reviewer Antalíková, Gabriela Curator of Chickpea Plant Production Research Centre, Research Institute of Plant Production (PPRC, RIPP) Piešťany Slovak Republic Reviewer Diederichsen, Axel Curator Plant Gene Resources of Canada, Agriculture and Agri- Food Canada Canada Reviewer Garzón-Tiznado, José Antonio Researcher- Professor Universidad Autónoma De Sinaloa Mexico Reviewer Gowda, C.L.L. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) India Reviewer Jiménez-Díaz, Rafael M. Professor of Plant Pathology University of Córdoba Spain Reviewer Khan, Tanveer Principal Research Officer Department of Agriculture and Food Australia Reviewer Kumar, Jitendra Principal scientist Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) India Reviewer Mishra, S.K. Head, Germplasm Evaluation Division National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) India Reviewer Muehlbauer, Fred Research Geneticist (retired) United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) USA Reviewer Redden, Bob Curator, Australian Temperate Field Crops Collection Department of Primary Industries Victoria Australia Reviewer Reddy, M. Thimma Scientific Associate International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) India Reviewer Shagarodsky Scull, Tomás Researcher and curator of chickpea collection Instituto de Investigaciones Fundamentales en la Agricultura Tropical (INIFAT) Cuba Reviewer Sharma, Mamta Scientist International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) India Reviewer Sharma, Shivali International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) India Reviewer Siddique, Kadambot Professor and Director The University of Western Australia Australia Reviewer Singh, Sube International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) India Reviewer Taran, Bunyamin Chickpea Breeder/Assist. prof Crop Development Centre, University of Saskatchewan Canada Reviewer van der Maesen, L.J.G. Prof. of Plant Taxonomy Wageningen University The Netherlands Reviewer Yadav, Shyam Singh Ex. Principal Chickpea Breeder Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) India Reviewer Zahoor, Ahmad Senior Director National Agricultural Research Centre (NARC) Pakistan Annex VI – List of descriptors proposed in the survey, ranked by rating average and percentage of importance, and sent to the Core Advisory Group for their selection Descriptor Rating Average Your selection Descriptor % Important % Very important Characterization Characterization 100-Seed weight [g] (4.3.5) 4.75 100-Seed weight [g] (4.3.5) 12.5% (3) 87.5% (21) Days to maturity (4.2.2) 4.50 Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) 12.5% (3) 79.2% (19) Seed colour (4.3.3) 4.50 Days to maturity (4.2.2) 25.0% (6) 75.0% (18) Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) 4.33 Seed colour (4.3.3) 25.0% (6) 75.0% (18) Seed shape (4.3.1) 3.96 Seed shape (4.3.1) 20.8% (5) 66.7% (16) Flower colour (4.2.4) 3.71 Flower colour (4.2.4) 33.3% (8) 54.2% (13) Seed size (4.3.X) 3.63 Seed size (4.3.X) 37.5% (9) 50.0% (12) Number of seeds per pod (4.2.3) 3.42 Number of pods per plant (4.2.8) 16.7% (4) 50.0% (12) Number of flowers and pods per peduncle (4.2.5) 3.13 Number of seeds per pod (4.2.3) 37.5% (9) 45.8% (11) Plant pigmentation (4.1.1) 3.00 Number of flowers and pods per peduncle (4.2.5) 41.7% (10) 37.5% (9) Number of pods per plant (4.2.8) 3.00 Plant pigmentation (4.1.1) 56.5% (13) 26.1% (6) Leaf type (4.1.3) 2.83 Leaf type (4.1.3) 66.7% (16) 16.7% (4) Evaluation Evaluation Reaction to drought (7.5) 4.43 Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta rabiei) (8.1.2) 8.3% (2) 83.3% (20) Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta rabiei) 4.42 Reaction to drought (7.5) 17.4% (4) 78.3% (18) Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum) (8.1.4) 4.38 Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum) (8.1.4) 20.8% (5) 75.0% (18) Growth habit (6.1.1) 4.25 Grain yield per plant [g] (6.2.2.2) 16.7% (4) 75.0% (18) Grain yield per plant [g] (6.2.2.2) 4.25 Pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera) (8.6.1) 20.8% (5) 70.8% (17) Pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera) (8.6.1) 4.17 Growth habit (6.1.1) 37.5% (9) 62.5% (15) Reaction to salt stress (7.X) 3.74 Reaction to salt stress (7.X) 30.4% (7) 56.5% (13) Plant height (at maturity) (6.1.5) 3.63 Grey mould (Botrytis cinerea) (8.1.3) 29.2% (7) 54.2% (13) Reactions to high temperature (Heat) (7.2) 3.63 Protein content [% DW] (6.3.1.1) 41.7% (10) 45.8% (11) Grey mould (Botrytis cinerea) (8.1.3) 3.58 Plant height (at maturity) (6.1.5) 58.3% (14) 37.5% (9) Protein content [% DW] (6.3.1.1) 3.54 Reactions to high temperature (Heat) (7.2) 58.3% (14) 37.5% (9) Dry root rot (Rhizoctonia bataticola) (8.3.3) 3.38 Dry root rot (Rhizoctonia bataticola) (8.3.3) 50.0% (12) 37.5% (9) Root rot (Fusarium solani) (8.3.1) 3.29 Susceptibility to cold (whole plant) (7.1.2) 45.8% (11) 37.5% (9) Susceptibility to cold (whole plant) (7.1.2) 3.25 Biological yield per plant [g] (6.2.2.1) 37.5% (9) 37.5% (9) Rootknot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita; M. javanica; M. aritiellia) (8.8.1) 3.13 Root rot (Fusarium solani) (8.3.1) 54.2% (13) 33.3% (8) Biological yield per plant [g] (6.2.2.1) 3.00 Number of primary branches (6.1.4.1) 50.0% (12) 29.2% (7) Stem rot (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum) (8.3.4) 3.00 Frost damage (7.1.3) 50.0% (12) 29.2% (7) Collar rot (Sclerotium rolfsii) (8.3.5) 3.00 Chickpea stunt (Bean (pea) leafroll virus) (8.4.1) 41.7% (10) 29.2% (7) Number of primary branches (6.1.4.1) 2.96 Collar rot (Sclerotium rolfsii) (8.3.5) 56.5% (13) 26.1% (6) Frost damage (7.1.3) 2.96 Rootknot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita; M. javanica; M. aritiellia) (8.8.1) 62.5% (15) 25.0% (6) Chickpea stunt (Bean (pea) leafroll virus) (8.4.1) 2.71 Stem rot (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum) (8.3.4) 58.3% (14) 25.0% (6) Seedling rot (Xanthomonas cassiae) (8.2.3) 2.68 Phytophthora blight (Phytophthora megasperma) (8.1.5) 52.2% (12) 21.7% (5) Root lesion nematode (Pratylenchus thornei; P. zeae) (8.8.2) 2.68 Seedling rot (Xanthomonas cassiae) (8.2.3) 59.1% (13) 18.2% (4) Phytophthora blight (Phytophthora megasperma) (8.1.5) 2.65 Root lesion nematode (Pratylenchus thornei; P. zeae) (8.8.2) 59.1% (13) 18.2% (4) Leaf miner (Liriomyza cicerina) (8.5.3) 2.61 Cyst nematode (Heterodera ciceri) (8.8.3) 54.2% (13) 16.7% (4) Cyst nematode (Heterodera ciceri) (8.8.3) 2.46 Leaf miner (Liriomyza cicerina) (8.5.3) 65.2% (15) 13.0% (3) Stress to Zinc (7.X) 1.54 Stress to Zinc (7.X) 37.5% (9) 8.3% (2) Annex VII – Additional descriptors included in the open-ended section of the survey Chickpea Descriptor Name of expert N. times selected B. Redden (Dep. of Primary Industries Victoria, Australia) J. Kumar (IARI, India) R.P. Dua (NBPGR, India) A. Diederichsen (Agriculture and Agri- Food Canada) S.S. Yadav (IARI, India) P. Crinò (ENEA, Italy) T. Shagarodsky Scull (INIFAT, Cuba) G. Antalíková (PPRC- RIPP Piešťany, Slovakia) Additional characterization traits (VI= Very Important) VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI Plant hairiness (4.1.2), wide diversity of major types: none, pubescent, very hairy 1 X Testa texture (4.3.2) is very important to differentiate the genotypes with respect to seed surface 3 X Seed roughness (smooth, rough, tuberculated) X X Seed type like rough seeded, smooth seeded may be included Cotyledon colour in mature seeds (green- olive; orange-red; or yellow. An important and stable trait 1 X Weight of seed per plant (g) X Number of seed per plant X Additional evaluation traits Resistant to store pests particularly the Bruchids 1 X Lodging should be rated 1 X In our case the most important pests in Cuba are Heliothis virescens and Spodoptera spp. 1 X Comments: Quality traits and anti-nutritional traits may be identified and included. This crop need worldwide attention on these traits for human consumption X The importance of each pathogen depends on the environment where chickpea is grown X Plant pigmentation should be clarified e.g. foliage pigment or stem pigment etc. Some varieties are dark green and some are light green colour like kabuli types are light green and desi types are dark green colour X Annex VIII – First list of descriptors for chickpea drawn from Dr Imtiaz’s selection, from the survey and CAG’s feedback, and sent to the Core Advisory Group for validation First priority set of descriptors for chickpea 1. Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) 2. Days to maturity (4.2.2) 3. Number of seeds per pod (4.2.3) 4. Flower colour (4.2.4) 5. Number of pods per plant (4.2.8) 6. Seed shape (4.3.1) 7. Seed colour (4.3.3) 8. 100-Seed weight [g] (4.3.5) 9. Seed size (4.3.X) 10. Growth habit (6.1.1) 11. Grain yield per plant [g] (6.2.2.2) 12. Protein content [%DW] (6.3.1.1) 13. Reaction to drought (7.5) 14. Reaction to salt stress (7.X) 15. Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta rabiei) (8.1.2) 16. Grey mould (Botrytis cinerea) (8.1.3) 17. Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum) (8.1.4) 18. Pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera) (8.6.1) Additional trait suggested: 19. Testa texture (4.3.2) Annex IX – Attachment containing summary background information about the debate on some additional descriptors suggested and submitted to CAG CHICKPEA 1. Plant height: - Important for mechanical harvesting; - No descriptor is included to quantify the accessions especially in terms of growth parameters which are also important phenotypic indicators of the productivity of a genotype to some extent; - It is necessary as a key descriptor; - Indicated as most important descriptor for breeding in GPG2 results (managed by ICRISAT); - Survey rating (n=24): Plant height (at maturity) (6.1.5) Not important 4.2% (1) Important 58.3% (14) Very important 37.5% (9) 3.63 24 2. Testa texture: - Very important to differentiate the genotypes with respect to seed surface; - Seed roughness (smooth, rough, tuberculated); - It is necessary as a key descriptor - Survey rating: Not rated since not included in the survey, but suggested as additional descriptor by 5 experts; - Indicated as most important descriptor for diagnosis in GPG2 results (managed by ICRISAT). 3. Number of primary branches: - Important phenotypic indicator of the productivity of a genotype, to some extent; - Indicated as most important descriptor for breeding in GPG2 results (managed by ICRISAT); - Survey rating (n=24): Number of primary branches (6.1.4.1) Not important 20.8% (5) Important 50.0% (12) Very important 29.2% (7) 2.96 24 4. Leaf Type - Suggested by ICARDA and NPBGR scientists; - Indicated as most important descriptor for breeding in GPG2 activity (managed by ICRISAT); - It is not so important because most of the cultivated chickpeas are multipinnate; - Survey rating (n=24): Leaf type (4.1.3) Not important 16.7% (4) Important 66.7% (16) Very important 16.7% (4) 2.83 24 ANNEX X – Chickpea descriptors list proposed to the CAG (10/2) n=24 (Blue face= added; Red face= deleted) Plant pigmentation (4.1.1) Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) Days to maturity (4.2.2) Number of seeds per pod (4.2.3) Flower colour (4.2.4) Number of pods per plant (4.2.8) Seed shape (4.3.1) Testa texture (4.3.2) Seed colour (4.3.3) 100-Seed weight [g] (4.3.5) Seed size (4.3.X) – TO BE DELETED: 100-seed weight is conveniently used as a measure of seed size and therefore the latter could be deleted. Growth habit (6.1.1) Number of primary branches (6.1.4.1) Plant height (at maturity) (6.1.5) Grain yield per plant [g] (6.2.2.2) Protein content [%DW] (6.3.1.1) Reaction to drought (7.5) Reaction to salt stress (7.X) Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta rabiei) (8.1.2) Grey mould (Botrytis cinerea) (8.1.3) Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum) (8.1.4) Pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera) (8.6.1) ANNEX XI – Final key set of descriptors for chickpea genetic resources Key access and utilization descriptors for chickpea genetic resources This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genetic resources utilization. This strategic set of descriptors, together with passport data, will become the basis for the global accession level information portal being developed by Bioversity International with the financial support of the Global Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust). It will facilitate access to and utilization of chickpea accessions held in genebanks and does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently become available. Based on the comprehensive list ‘Descriptors for Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)’ published by ICRISAT, ICARDA and IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1993, the list builds on the results of the SGRP Global Public Goods Activity 4.2.1.1, particularly with regard to those descriptors highlighted as the most important diagnostic and breeding traits. It was subsequently compared and harmonized with a number of sources such as the UPOV technical guidelines for Chick-Pea (2005), ‘Descriptors for CHICKPEA’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN), ‘Core Collection of Chickpea as a Means to Enhance Utilization of Genetic Resources in Crop Improvement’ (ICRISAT-website), ‘Global Strategy for the Ex situ Conservation of Chickpea (Cicer L.)’ (the Trust, 2008), as well as with those descriptors that were awarded funds for further research by the Trust in 2008 Evaluation Awards Scheme (EAS). This list was further refined during a meeting held at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR, India) in June 2009. Several scientists from NBPGR and the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) participated. A worldwide distribution of experts was involved in an online survey to define a first priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize chickpea genetic resources. This key set was afterwards validated by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr M. Imtiaz of the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Dr M.C. Kharkwal of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) and Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya of the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). Biotic and abiotic stresses included in the list were chosen because of their wide geographic occurrence and significant economic impact at a global level. Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptor numbers listed in the 1993 publication. Descriptors with numbers ending in ‘letters’ are either modified or are new descriptors that were added during the development of the list below. PLANT DATA Stem/foliage pigmentation (4.1.1) Observed before flowering. Indicate whether the pigmentation is on stems or leaves in the descriptors Notes 1 No anthocyanin (light green) 3 No anthocyanin (green) 5 Low anthocyanin (partly light purple) 7 High anthocyanin (predominantly purple) 9 Highly purple Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) Number of days from sowing (or first rain sufficient for germination under rainfed conditions) until 50% of the plants have started to flower Days to maturity (4.2.2) Number of days from sowing (or first rain sufficient for germination under rainfed conditions) until 90% of the pods have matured and turned yellow Number of seeds per pod (4.2.3) Average number of 10 pods each from five representative plants. At maturity Flower colour (4.2.4) In most cases pink and blue flowers have veins of a darker shade in the flag, while the tip of the keel is also darker. The classes are ranges rather than only the shades of the reference colours. Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) colour codes are given in parentheses beside descriptor states 1 Blue (violet-blue group 97B) 2 Light blue (violet-blue group 97C) 3 Dark pink (red-purple group 64D) 4 Pink (red-purple group 63D) 5 Light pink (red-purple group 69C) 6 White (white group 155D) 7 White-pink striped (white group 155D, red-purple group 63D) Number of pods per plant (4.2.8) Average number of pods taken from five representative plants. At maturity Seed shape (4.3.1) 1 Angular, ram’s head (most desi cultivars) 2 Irregular rounded, owl’s head (most kabuli cultivars) 3 Pea-shaped, smooth round (intermediate types) Seed testa texture (4.3.2) 1 Rough (pea-shaped) 2 Smooth 3 Tuberculated (sticky surface) Seed colour (4.3.3) Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) colour codes are given in parentheses beside descriptor states 1 Black (black group 202A, 202B; brown group 200A) 2 Brown (greyed-orange group 177B) 3 Light brown (greyed-orange group 177C) 4 Dark brown (greyed-orange group 177A) 5 Reddish brown (greyed-orange group 166C) 6 Greyish brown (brown group 200D) 7 Salmon brown (greyed-orange group 165C) 8 Grey (greyed-green group 196A) 9 Brown beige (greyed-orange group 173D) 10 Beige (greyed-orange group 165D) 11 Yellow (greyed-orange group 164B) 12 Light yellow (greyed-orange group 164C) 13 Yellow brown (greyed-orange group 165C) 14 Orange yellow (greyed-orange group 168D) 15 Orange (greyed-orange group 168C) 16 Yellow beige (orange-white group 159C) 17 Ivory white (orange-white group 159C) 18 Green (greyed-green group 191A; grey group 201A; greyed-orange group 166B) 19 Light green (greyed-green group 193B) 20 Variegated 21 Black brown mosaic (black group 202A; greyed-orange group 177E) 100-seed weight [g] (4.3.5) Measured at 10% (air-dry) moisture content Growth habit (6.1.1) The angle of the branches from the vertical axis at the pod filling stage 1 Prostrate (branches flat on the ground, >80°) 2 Spreading (61-80° from vertical) 3 Semi-spreading (26-60° from vertical) 4 Semi-erect (16-25° from vertical) 5 Erect (0-15° from vertical) Number of primary branches (6.1.4.1) Average number of basal primary branches per plant taken from five representative plants Plant canopy height [cm] (6.1.5) Average canopy height of five representative plants. Recorded at maturity Seed yield per plant [kg ha-1] (6.2.2.2) Seed protein content [% DW] (6.3.1.1) Whole seed crude protein using the dye-binding method or automatic protein analyzer ABIOTIC STRESSES Reaction to drought (7.5) Reaction to salinity (7.X) BIOTIC STRESSES Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta rabiei) (8.1.2) Grey mould (Botrytis cinerea) (8.1.3) Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri) (8.1.4) Pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera) (8.6.1) NOTES Any additional information may be specified here, particularly that referring to the category ‘99=Other’ present in some of the descriptors above. CONTRIBUTORS Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of this strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for chickpea genetic resources’, and in particular to Dr M. Imtiaz (ICARDA), Dr M.C. Kharkwal (IARI) and Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya (ICRISAT) for providing valuable scientific direction. Ms Adriana Alercia (Bioversity International) provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process. CORE ADVISORY GROUP Muhammad Imtiaz, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Syria M.C. Kharkwal, Division of Genetics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), India Hari D. Upadhyaya, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India C. Bharadwaj, Division of Genetics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), India François Boulineau, Groupe d'Etude et de contrôle des Variétés et des Semences (GEVES), France Clarice J. Coyne, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA, ARS), USA Paola Crinò, Agenzia nazionale per le nuove tecnologie, l’energia e lo sviluppo economico sostenibile (ENEA), Italy R.P. Dua, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), India Matthias Kotter, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK), Germany Ulrike Lohwasser, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK) Department of Genebank, Research Group Resources Genetics and Reproduction, Germany S.R. Pandravada, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), Regional Station, Hyderabad, India REVIEWERS Australia Tanveer Khan, Department of Agriculture and Food Bob Redden, Department of Primary Industries Victoria Kadambot Siddique, The University of Western Australia Bangladesh Mamtazul Haque, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute Canada Axel Diederichsen, Plant Gene Resources of Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Bunyamin Taran, Crop Development Centre, University of Saskatchewan Cuba Tomás Shagarodsky Scull, Instituto de Investigaciones Fundamentales en la Agricultura Tropical (INIFAT) India C.L.L. Gowda, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Jitendra Kumar, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) S.K. Mishra, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) M. Thimma Reddy, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Mamta Sharma, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Shivali Sharma, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Sube Singh, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Shyam Singh Yadav, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) Israel Shahal Abbo, Hebrew University of Jerusalem Mexico José Antonio Garzón-Tiznado, Universidad Autónoma De Sinaloa Pakistan Ahmad Zahoor, National Agricultural Research Centre (NARC) Slovak Republic Gabriela Antalíková, Plant Production Research Centre, Research Institute of Plant Production (PPRC, RIPP) Piešťany Spain Rafael M. Jiménez-Díaz, University of Córdoba The Netherlands L.J.G. van der Maesen, Wageningen University USA Fred Muehlbauer, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA, ARS) Methodology for the definition of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) Information collection and preparation of a Minimum Descriptor List (MDL) Information for the definition of a MDL for coconut was drawn from the publication ‘Descriptors for Coconut’ (IPGRI, 1995) and from the ‘Minimum List of Descriptors for Coconut’ (Bioversity, 2007). The original lists were compared to characteristics and traits suggested in the ‘Global Conservation Strategy for Cocos nucifera’ (the Trust, 2008) and to the outcomes of the survey carried out in 2007 among coconut experts for the definition of the minimum set of descriptors for this crop. Important evaluation traits, such as main pests and diseases for coconut, were added to the minimum list, including traits that were awarded funds for further research by the Global Crop Diversity Trust 2008 Award Scheme, ‘Enhancing the Value of Crop Diversity in a World of Climate Change’ (EAS). Preparing List of Experts Experts were drawn from crop-specific consultations for the definition of the ‘Global Conservation Strategy for Cocos nucifera’ (the Trust, 2008) and from the original Bioversity publication. Overall, 47 experts were identified, coming from 23 countries and 29 different organizations (see Annex I). Out of these a Core Advisory Group consisting of six experts was selected to assist in the definition of a key set of descriptors for coconut utilization. Members of the Core Advisory Group were selected from important organizations and research centres focusing on coconut conservation, such as the Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement (CIRAD) and the Philippine Coconut Authority. Survey preparation and distribution The ‘Minimum List of Descriptors for Coconut’ (Bioversity, 2007) was compared to descriptors suggested in the ‘Global Conservation Strategy for Cocos nucifera’ (the Trust, 2008) and to results from the consultation carried out in July 2008 for the definition of essential evaluation descriptors for this crop. Since the Minimum List published in 2007 already contained characterization and evaluation traits agreed upon by internationally recognized coconut experts, it was decided that the survey should refer to the ‘Minimum List of Descriptors for Coconut ‘(Bioversity, 2007), and seek expert advice only on the important biotic and abiotic stresses in the context of climate change, such as resistance to main pests and diseases (see Annex II). The survey would additionally include comments received from Dr. M. Dollet (CIRAD) on biotic stresses and from Dr. A. Prades (CIRAD) on descriptors included in sections 15 to 18. Consensus on this decision was sought from Maria Luz George (Bioversity) and Chantal Hamelin (CIRAD). Once approved, the final text was uploaded into the SurveyMonkey web application (see Annex III) and sent out on 24th February 2009 to the list of identified experts. They were invited to rate the list of biotic and abiotic stresses provided, and asked to suggest important evaluation descriptors that were found to be relevant yet missing from the proposed Minimum List. The survey deadline was set at 20th March. A reminder was sent out on 10th March and a second reminder was sent on 16th March to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained. Survey analysis Of the 47 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 20, coming from 15 countries, recorded their comments using the online survey (see Annex IV). Results from the survey were analyzed and descriptors ranked by rating average and percentage of importance (see Annex V). The summary of the survey, together with a report containing comments received by the participants (see Annex VI) was sent to the Core Advisory Group for further consultation and to help select a reduced set of key traits for this crop. CIRAD scientists, after analyzing the results of the survey, proposed six key traits for biotic and abiotic stresses affecting coconut (see Annex VII). These identified traits, together with characterization and evaluation data already defined in the ‘Minimum List of Descriptors for Coconut’ (Bioversity, 2007), were grouped together (see Annex VIII) to create a new document compliant with the Germplasm Information on Genebank Accessions project terms of reference. Once the core subset of characterization and evaluation standards for Coconut was finalised, data were transformed into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN- Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA, to EURISCO and into the Global Accession Level Information Portal (GENESYS), linking national, regional and international genebank databases in support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also provided to the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER), the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base, and the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology partners. Acknowledgement Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who contributed to the development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for coconut genetic resources’, and in particular to the valuable scientific direction provided by CIRAD scientists. Special recognition goes to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial support. Ms Adriana Alercia provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process. Annex I – List of experts identified for participation to the survey for the definition of a key set of evaluation descriptors for Coconut Role Name Organization Country Core Group George, Maria Luz Bioversity International Malaysia Core Group Hamelin, Chantal CIRAD France Core Group Baudouin, Luc CIRAD France Core Group Harries, Hugh C. Consultant UK Core Group Labouisse, Jean- Pierre CIRAD France Core Group (EAS) Perera, A.A. Lalith Coconut Research Institute (CRI) Sri Lanka Core Group Santos, Gerardo A. PCA Philippines Crop Strategy Expert Faure, M. Cocoa & Coconut Insitute of PNG Papua New Guinea Crop Strategy Expert Jayasekara, C. Coconut Research Insitute Sri Lanka Crop Strategy Expert Rajagopal, V. India Central Plantation Crops Research Institute (CPCRI) India Crop Strategy Expert Rillo, E. Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA-ARC) Philippines Crop Strategy Expert/Review er (MDL) Konan Konan, Jean Louis Centre Nationale de Recherche Agronomique (CNRA) Ivory Coast Crop Strategy Expert/Review er (MDL) Kullaya, Alois Mikocheni Agricultural Reserach Institute (MARI) Tanzania Crop Strategy Expert/Review er (MDL) Novarianto, Hengky Indonesian Coconut and Palmae Research Institute (ICOPRI) Mapanget Indonesia Reviewer (MDL) Alfiler, Ambrosio Raul Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) Albay Research Center, Banao Guinobatan, Albay Philippines Reviewer (MDL) Aragao, Wilson Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária Centro de Pesquisa Agropecuária dos Tabuleiros Costeiros (EMBRAPA/CPATC) Av Beira Mar, 3250, Aracaju/SE Brazil Reviewer (MDL) Carpio, Carlos Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) Albay Research Center, Banao Guinobatan, Albay Elliptical Rd, Diliman, Quezon City Philippines Reviewer (MDL) Castillo Gonzalez, Ramon Artemio Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP) Mexico Reviewer (MDL) Chellapa, Jayabose Central Plantation Crops Research Institute (CPCRI) India Reviewer (MDL) Engelmann, Florent Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD) France Reviewer (MDL) Halafihi, Mana'ia Ministry of Agriculture and Food Forests and Fisheries Tonga Role Name Organization Country Reviewer (MDL) Hua, Chen Coconut Research Institute Chinese Academy of Tropical Agriculture Sciences (CRI-CATAS) China Reviewer (MDL) Islam, Nazirul Bangladesh Agricultural Research Inst (BARI) Banglades h Reviewer (MDL) Jerard Bosco, B. Augustine Central Plantation Crops Research Institute (CPCRI) India Reviewer (MDL) Kete, Tevita N. Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) Fiji Reviewer (MDL) Khaleque Mian, Md Abdul Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding Banglades h Reviewer (MDL) Kumar, Vijendra Wainigata Research Station Ministry of Agriculture, Sugar and Land Resettlement Fiji Reviewer (MDL) Le Thuy, Nguyen Thi Oil Plant Institute of Vietnam (OPI) Vietnam Reviewer (MDL) Liangqiu, Chen Coconut Research Institute Chinese Academy of Tropical Agriculture Sciences (CRI-CATAS) China Reviewer (MDL) Longxiang, Tang Coconut Research Institute Chinese Academy of Tropical Agriculture Sciences (CRI-CATAS) China Reviewer (MDL) Manohar, Erlene Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) Philippines Reviewer (MDL) Mooleedhar, Vish Research Division Ministry of Agriculture Central Experiment Station Trinidad & Tobago Reviewer (MDL) Nair, Velayudhan Central Plantation Crops Research Institute (CPCRI) India Reviewer (MDL) Nampoothiri, Unnikrishnan K. M S Swaminathan Research Foundation India Reviewer (MDL) Nipah, Joseph O. Oil Palm Research Institute (OPRI) Ghana Reviewer (MDL) Niral, V. Central Plantation Crops Research Institute (CPCRI) India Reviewer (MDL) Odewale, Joshua O. Nigerian Inst for Oil Palm Research (NIFOR) Nigeria Reviewer (MDL) Okolo, Edmund Nigerian Institute for Oil Palm Research Nigeria Reviewer (MDL) Ovasuru, Tore Kokonas Industri Koporesan (KIK) Papua New Guinea Reviewer (MDL) Perera, Chandrika Coconut Research Institute (CRI) Sri Lanka Reviewer (MDL) Rivera, Ramon Philippine Coconut Authority Zamboanga Research Center (PCA-ZRC) Philippines Reviewer (MDL) Sileye, Tiata Vanuatu Agriculture and Technical Center (VARTC) Republic of Vanuatu Reviewer (MDL) Solangi, Abdul Hameed Plant Genetic Resources Conservation and Management Pakistan Reviewer (MDL) Thomas, G. Central Plantation Crops Research Institute (CPCRI) India Role Name Organization Country Reviewer (MDL) Tuivavalagi, Philip Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Samoa (MAF) Samoa Reviewer (MDL) Wai Fong, W. Au Department of Agriculture (DOA) Malaysia Reviewer (MDL) Zhiguo, Dong Coconut Research Institute Chinese Academy of Tropical Agriculture Sciences (CRI-CATAS) China Annex II – Key traits relating to biotic and abiotic stresses affecting Coconut proposed in the survey sent out on 24th February 2009 Biotic stress susceptibility Bud rot (Phytophthora spp.) (8.1.2) Stem bleeding (Ceratocystis paradoxa; Chalara paradoxa) (8.1.9) Lixa pequena (Catacauma torrendiella) (8.1.11) Queima das folhas (Botryodiplodia theobromae) (8.1.12) Lixa grande (Coccostroma palmicola) (8.1.13) Coconut foliar decay virus (CFDV) (8.2.1) Coconut cadang-cadang viroid (CCCVd) (8.2.2) Red ring nematode (Bursaphelenchus cocophilus) (8.4.1) Hartrot (Phytomonas sp.) (8.5.1) Kerala root wilt (8.6.1) Kalimantan wilt Lethal yellowing* Coconut hispine beetle (Brontispa longissima) (8.6.1) Rhinoceros beetle (Oryctes rhinoceros) (8.7.34) Abiotic stress susceptibility Reaction to salinity (7.1) Reaction to waterlogging (7.2) Reaction to drought (7.3) Reaction to low temperature (7.4) Reaction to mineral deficiencies (7.5) Reaction to mineral toxicitie (7.6) Reaction to pH (7.7) * Also called in other countries as Cape Saint Paul Wilt Disease (CSPW), Kaincopé Disease, Awka Disease, Kribi Disease, Lethal Disease Annex III – Survey for the selection of key traits relating to biotic and abiotic stresses affecting Coconut WELCOME Welcome to the survey for the selection of a key set of evaluation traits relating to biotic and abiotic stresses affecting Cocos nucifera. This survey should take no longer than 15 minutes. Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 20 March 2009. Information for the definition of this key set was drawn from the publication “Descriptors for Coconut” (IPGRI, 1995), and builds on work carried out by Bioversity in 2007, in collaboration with CIRAD and other international organizations, for the definition of a key set of morphometric descriptors for categorizing accessions and leading to the effective utilization of Coconut germplasm. Today your knowledge and experience are being sought to select an additional set of descriptors related to important biotic and abiotic stresses for this crop. A number of these have been identified by the Global Crop Diversity Trust as requiring further research into their importance. The survey consists of two parts: PART I: Lists important biotic stresses for Cocos nucifera. You are kindly asked to rate these stresses in order of global impact. You may also indicate any essential descriptor that you believe is missing from the list and that can contribute to the effective use of Coconut germplasm. PART II: Lists important abiotic stresses for Cocos nucifera. You are kindly asked to rate these stresses in order of importance at the global level. You may also indicate any essential descriptor that you believe is missing from the list and that can contribute to the effective use of Coconut germplasm. Thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in this exercise. P l e a s e a l l o w u s t o a c k n o w l e d g e y o u r c o n t r i b u t i o n b y c o m p l e t i n g y o u r f u l l c o n t a c t d e t a i l s b e l o w : N a m e : P o s i t i o n : I n s t i t u t e : A d d r e s s : C i t y / T o w n : C o u n t r y : E m a i l : P h o n e : F a x : P A R T I : S u s c e p t ib i l i t y t o b io t ic s t r e s s e s Please rate the importance of the following traits relating to susceptibility to BIOTIC stresses, bearing in mind current breeding programmes and future production and use of Coconut germplasm at the global level. * N u m b e r s i n p a r e n t h e s e s o n t h e r i g h t - h a n d s i d e a r e t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g d e s c r i p t o r s n u m b e r s a s p u b l i s h e d i n t h e I P G R I p u b l i c a t i o n ‘ D e s c r i p t o r s f o r C o c o n u t ’ ( 1 9 9 5 ) . Not important Important Very important BUD ROT (Phytophthora spp.) (8.1.2) j/ j/ j/ KALIMANTAN WILT j/ j/ j/ STEM BLEEDING (Ceratocystis paradoxa; Chalara paradoxa) (8.1.9) j/ j/ j/ LIXA PEQUENA (Catacauma torrendiella) (8.1.11) j/ j/ j/ QUEIMA DAS FOLHAS (Botryodiplodia theobromae) (8.1.12) j/ j/ j/ LIXA GRANDE (Coccostroma palmicola) (8.1.13) j/ j/ j/ COCONUT FOLIAR DECAY VIRUS (CFDV) (8.2.1) j/ j/ j/ COCONUT CADANG-CADANG VIROID (CCCVd) (8.2.2) j/ j/ j/ RED RING NEMATODE (Bursaphelenchus cocophilus) (8.4.1) j/ j/ j/ HARTROT (Phytomonas sp.) (8.5.1) j/ j/ j/ KERALA ROOT WILT (8.6.1) j/ j/ j/ LETHAL YELLOWING* (8.6.1) j/ j/ j/ COCONUT HISPINE BEETLE (Brontispa longissima Gestro) (8.7.29) j/ j/ j/ RHINOCEROS BEETLE (Oryctes rhinoceros) (8.7.34) j/ j/ j/ *Also known, in other countries, as Cape Saint Paul Wilt Disease (CSPW), Kaincopé Disease, Awka Disease, Kribi Disease, Lethal Disease. I f y o u c o n s i d e r t h a t a n e s s e n t i a l t r a i t i s m i s s i n g f r o m t h i s l i s t , o r , i f a n y o f t h e d e s c r i p t o r s l i s t e d i s n o t c l e a r l y u s e f u l t o p r o m o t e u t i l i z a t i o n , p l e a s e i n d i c a t e i t h e r e a l o n g w i t h a s u b s t a n t i a t e d j u s t i f i c a t i o n . P A R T I I : S u s c e p t i b i l i t y t o a b io t ic s t r e s s e s Please rate the importance of the following traits relating to susceptibility to ABIOTIC stresses, bearing in mind current breeding programmes and future production and use of Coconut germplasm at the global level. * N u m b e r s i n p a r e n t h e s e s o n t h e r i g h t - h a n d s i d e a r e t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g d e s c r i p t o r s n u m b e r s a s p u b l i s h e d i n t h e I P G R I p u b l i c a t i o n ‘ D e s c r i p t o r s f o r C o c o n u t ’ ( 1 9 9 5 ) . Not Important Important Very important SALINITY (7.1) j/ j/ j/ WATERLOGGING (7.2) j/ j/ j/ DROUGHT (7.3) j/ j/ j/ LOW TEMPERATURE (7.4) j/ j/ j/ MINERAL DEFICIENCIES (7.5) j/ j/ j/ MINERAL TOXICITIES (7.6) j/ j/ j/ PH (7.7) j/ j/ j/ / I f y o u c o n s i d e r t h a t a n e s s e n t i a l t r a i t i s m i s s i n g f r o m t h i s l i s t , o r , i f a n y o f t h e d e s c r i p t o r s l i s t e d i s n o t c l e a r l y u s e f u l t o p r o m o t e u t i l i z a t i o n , p l e a s e i n d i c a t e i t h e r e a l o n g w i t h a s u b s t a n t i a t e d j u s t i f i c a t i o n . NOTE: Please remember, this list is the starting point and will grow over time, as required. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. Annex IV – Respondents to the survey Role Name Organization Country Crop Leader George, Maria Luz C. Bioversity International Malaysia Core Group (MDL) Baudouin, Luc CIRAD France Core Group (MDL) Harries, Hugh C. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew UK Core Group (MDL) Labouisse, Jean- Pierre CIRAD France Core Group (MDL) Santos Alora, Gerardo PCA Philippines Crop Strategy Expert/Reviewer (MDL) Novarianto, Hengky Indonesian Coconut and Palmae Research Institute Indonesia Reviewer (MDL) Castillo Gonzalez, Ramon Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales Agricolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP) Mexico Reviewer (MDL) Chellapa, Jayabose Central Plantation Crops Research Institute India Reviewer (MDL) Halafihi, Mana'ia Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Forests and Fisheries Tonga Reviewer (MDL) Jerard, Augustine B. Central Plantation Crops Research Institute (CPCRI) India Reviewer (MDL) Longxiang, Tang Coconut Research Institute of Chinese Academy of Tropical Agriculture Sciences (CRICATAS) China Reviewer (MDL) Nazirul, Islam Horticulture Research Centrer Bangladesh Reviewer (MDL) Niral, V. C.P.C.R.I India Reviewer (MDL) Odewale, Joshua Olusesan Nigerian Inst for Oil Palm Research (NIFOR) Nigeria Reviewer (MDL) Perera, S. A. C. N. Coconut Research Institute of Sri Lanka Sri Lanka Reviewer (MDL) Rivera, Limosinero Ramon Philippine Coconut Authority- Zamboanga Research Center Philippines Reviewer (MDL) Sileye, Tiata VARTC Vanuatu Reviewer (MDL) Solangi, Abdul Hameed Coastal Agricultural Research station, PARC Pakistan Reviewer (MDL) Tevita, Kete N. Secretariat of the Pacific Community Fiji Reviewer (MDL) Zhiguo, Dong Coconut Research Institute China Annex V – Descriptors listed in the Coconut survey ranked by rating average and by percentage of importance Descriptor Rating Average Descriptor % Importance (Very important) Susceptibility to biotic stresses Susceptibility to biotic stresses LETHAL YELLOWING* (8.6.1) 4.11 LETHAL YELLOWING* (8.6.1) 72.2 COCONUT FOLIAR DECAY VIRUS (CFDV) (8.2.1) 3.65 BUD ROT (Phytophthora spp.) (8.1.2) 47.1 BUD ROT (Phytophthora spp.) (8.1.2) 3.59 RHINOCEROS BEETLE (Oryctes rhinoceros) (8.7.34) 42.1 RHINOCEROS BEETLE (Oryctes rhinoceros) (8.7.34) 3.37 COCONUT FOLIAR DECAY VIRUS (CFDV) (8.2.1) 41.2 COCONUT CADANG-CADANG VIROID (CCCVd) (8.2.2) 2.81 COCONUT CADANG-CADANG VIROID (CCCVd) (8.2.2) 37.5 COCONUT HISPINE BEETLE (Brontispa longissima Gestro) (8.7.29) 2.60 KERALA ROOT WILT (8.6.1) 33.3 KERALA ROOT WILT (8.6.1) 2.47 RED RING NEMATODE (Bursaphelenchus cocophilus) (8.4.1) 31.3 STEM BLEEDING (Ceratocystis paradoxa; Chalara paradoxa) (8.1.9) 2.44 COCONUT HISPINE BEETLE (Brontispa longissima Gestro) (8.7.29) 25.0 RED RING NEMATODE (Bursaphelenchus cocophilus) (8.4.1) 2.31 STEM BLEEDING (Ceratocystis paradoxa; Chalara paradoxa) (8.1.9) 18.8 HARTROT (Phytomonas sp.) (8.5.1) 2.13 KALIMANTAN WILT 12.5 KALIMANTAN WILT 1.94 HARTROT (Phytomonas sp.) (8.5.1) 12.5 LIXA PEQUENA (Catacauma torrendiella) (8.1.11) 1.21 LIXA PEQUENA (Catacauma torrendiella) (8.1.11) 7.1 QUEIMA DAS FOLHAS (Botryodiplodia theobromae) (8.1.12) 1.13 QUEIMA DAS FOLHAS (Botryodiplodia theobromae) (8.1.12) 6.7 LIXA GRANDE (Coccostroma palmicola) (8.1.13) 1.07 LIXA GRANDE (Coccostroma palmicola) (8.1.13) 0.0 Susceptibility to abiotic stresses Susceptibility to abiotic stresses DROUGHT (7.3) 4.50 DROUGHT (7.3) 75.0 WATERLOGGING (7.2) 3.28 MINERAL DEFICIENCIES (7.5) 31.6 MINERAL DEFICIENCIES (7.5) 3.00 WATERLOGGING (7.2) 22.2 PH (7.7) 2.82 LOW TEMPERATURE (7.4) 21.1 LOW TEMPERATURE (7.4) 2.79 MINERAL TOXICITIES (7.6) 18.8 MINERAL TOXICITIES (7.6) 2.63 PH (7.7) 17.6 SALINITY (7.1) 2.00 SALINITY (7.1) 16.7 Annex VI – Additional descriptors proposed in the Coconut survey results Coconut Descriptor Name of expert Chellapa, J. Labouisse, J-P Harries, H.C. Halafih i, M. Rivera, Ramon L. Jerard Bosco, B. Augustine Ramon Castillo, Gonzalez Odewale, Joshua O. Baudou in, Luc Nazirul Islam, Md. Red weevil of coconut (Opisina arenosella) X Palm weevil (Rhyncophorus spp.) X X Stick insects (Graeffea crouani) X Fruit mite (Eriopyhes/Aceria) For a substantiated justification, see Hewitt, W.B. & L. Chiarappa, L. (eds) (1977) Plant Health and Quarantine Problems Arising in International Genetic Resources Transfer; pp. 125-136. CBC Press Cleveland, USA. X X We have Socorro wilt in the Philippines although very localized. X Pre mature nut fall, this usually happens in Nigeria from six months of fruit development to the eleventh month. It can reduce fruit production to abou10% X Monocot weeds usually traps over 75% of nutrient that ought to be available to the coconut and can reduce production by more than 50%. X Fruit bug (Amblypelta & Pseudotheraptus) X Red palm mite (Raoelia Indica) X Coconut mite (E. guerreronis) cause 80% surface area are damaged, accompanied by great distortion and reduction in nut size, Yield reduces up to 80% X Resistance to strong winds (Cyclone). Windstorm tolerance - see Marty, G., le Guen, V. & Fournial, T.(1986) Cyclone effects on coconut plantations in Vanuatu. Oleagineux 41 (2) 268-269. X X X X Annex VII – Coconut Key set of evaluation descriptors validated by CIRAD scientists after SurveyMonkey analysis on 16th April 2009 Biotic Bud rot (Phytophthora spp.) (8.1.2) Lethal yellowing (8.6.1) Coconut foliar decay virus (CFDV) (8.2.1) Rhinoceros beetle (Oryctes rhinoceros) (8.7.34) Abiotic Drought (7.3) Resistance to strong winds (7.X) Annex VIII - Key access and utilization descriptors for Coconut genetic resources and Contributors PLANT DATA Stem morphology Measurements should be done at six and ten years after planting Stem girth at 20 cm above soil level [cm] (4.5.1) Stem girth at 1.5 m height [cm] (4.5.2) Stem height [cm] (4.5.4) Measured from ground to oldest green leaf Date [YYYYMMDD] (4.5.4.1) Height [cm] (4.5.4.2) Height between 11 leaf scars (ten internodes) [cm] (4.5.9) Measure starting from 1.5 m from ground surface Inflorescence traits Pollination behaviour (1.14) 1 Predominantly self-pollinated (generally dwarf varieties) 2 Intermediate 3 Predominantly out-crossing (generally tall varieties) Number of female flowers (4.8.13) Number of spikelets (4.8.X) Fruit Fruit colour of immature fruit (4.9.3) 1 Yellow 2 Yellow-red (Pale orange) 3 Red-yellow (Orange) 4 Red 5 Red-green (Copper) 6 Green-red (Bronze) 7 Green 8 Green-yellow (Pale-green) 9 Yellow-green (Greenish yellow) 10 Red-yellow-green (Brown) Fruit polar section shape (4.9.10) 1 Round 2 Egg-shaped 3 Pear-shaped 4 Elliptic Nut (fruit without husk) appearance and shape (4.9.15) 1 Pointed 2 Ovoid 3 Almost round 4 Oblate Fruit component analysis (FCA) Fruit weight [g] (4.10.1) Whole fruit Husk weight [g] (4.10.Xa) Nut weight [g] (4.10.2) Fruit without husk Shell weight [g] (4.10.4) Nut without water and without endosperm Water weight [g] (4.10.Xb) Endosperm weight [g] (4.10.Xc) Endosperm thickness [mm] (4.11.1) Measured on the equator of the nut Yield Date observations began [YYYYMMDD] (4.12.1) Date observations ended [YYYYMMDD] (4.12.2) Number of bunches per palm per year (4.12.4) Number of fruits harvested per palm per year (4.12.5) Copra weight per nut [g] (4.12.7) Calculated as: copra (g) = dry endosperm (g) * 100/94 Dry meat oil content [%] (4.13.1) Based on weight of oil extracted/total dry weight of the sample × 100 (Soxhlet Method to be used) Abiotic stresses Drought (7.3) Strong winds (7.X) Coded on a 1-9 resistance scale, as follows: 1 Very low 3 Low 5 Intermediate 7 High 9 Very high Biotic stresses Bud rot (Phytophthora spp.) (8.1.2) Coconut foliar decay virus (CFDV) (8.2.1) Lethal yellowing (8.6.1) Rhinoceros beetle (Oryctes rhinoceros) (8.7.34) Notes Any additional information may be specified here, including possible deviations from the Stantech Manual methods. CONTRIBUTORS Core Advisory Group Luc Baudouin, Centre de Cooperation Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Developpement (CIRAD), France Maria Luz George, Bioversity International, Malaysia Chantal Hamelin, CIRAD, France Hugh C. Harries, UK Jean-Pierre Labouisse, CIRAD, France Gerardo Santos Alora, PCA, Philippines Reviewers Bangladesh Islam Nazirul, Horticulture Research Centre China Tang Longxiang, Coconut Research Institute Dong Zhiguo, Coconut Research Institute Fiji Kete Tevita, Secretariat of the Pacific Community France Michel Dollet, CIRAD Alexia Prades, CIRAD India Augustine Jerard Bosco, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute Jayabose Chellapa, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute V. Niral, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute Indonesia Hengky Novarianto, Indonesian Coconut and Palm Research Institute Mexico Ramon Artemio Castillo Gonzalez, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agricolas y Pecuarias Nigeria Joshua Odewale, Nigerian Institute for Oil Palm Research Pakistan Abdul Hameed Solangi, Coastal Agricultural Research Station Philippines Ramon Rivera Limosinero, Philippine Coconut Authority-Zamboanga Research Centre Sri Lanka Chandrika Perera, Coconut Research Institute Tonga Mana’ia Halafihi, Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Forests and Fisheries Vanuatu Tiata Sileye, Agriculture and Technical Centrer Methodology for the definition of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] Information collection and preparation of the Minimum Descriptor List (MDL) Information for the definition of a Minimum Descriptor List for cowpea was based on the publication ‘Descriptors for Cowpea’ published by IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1983. The comprehensive descriptors list included in this publication was compared to characteristics and traits mentioned in a number of other sources such as Descriptors for VIGNA (USDA, ARS, GRIN), Descriptors for Characterization and Evaluation of Cowpea (National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences, NIAS, Genebank of Japan) as well as those drawn from the article ‘Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] core collection defined by geographical, agronomical and botanical descriptors’ (V. Mahalakshmi, Q. Ng, M. Lawson and R. Ortiz, Plant Genetic Resources: Characterization and Utilization, Vol. 5, Issue 3, pp. 113-119, NIAB, 2007). An Excel table was prepared comparing descriptors mentioned in each list. The table was then refined during a crop-specific meeting held at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) in India in June 2009, that involved several scientists from NBPGR and the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI). The consultation resulted in the definition of a preliminary key set of descriptors for cowpea (see Annex I). Preparation of the List of Experts As the original publication was too old to be used for this purpose, the List of Experts was prepared taking into account different sources such as the European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources (ECPGR) Vigna Database website maintained by the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), the World Vegetable Center in Taiwan (AVRDC), the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), FAO WIEWS Directory of Germplasm Holdings, SINGER and the Network for the Genetic Improvement of Cowpea for Africa (NGICA), as well as the Vigna Crop Germplasm committee from the USDA ARS-GRIN. The relevant participants in the Conference on Biotechnology, Breeding and Seed Systems for African Crops, organized by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Instituto de Investigação Agrária de Moçambique (IIAM), held in March 2007, were also added to the list that was then refined during the crop-specific meeting held at NBPGR in June 2009. Overall, 63 experts, from 28 countries and 37 different organizations, were listed (see Annex II). Out of these, Dr Dominique Dumet (IITA) and Dr S.K. Mishra (NBPGR) were identified as Crop Leaders and were asked to review the list and add/delete names as they saw fit or pertinent. They were also asked to select experts to join the Core Advisory Group, for the definition of an initial key set of descriptors for cowpea. During the last phase of development of the key list, Dr Dumet communicated that she felt it more appropriate to be replaced by Christian Fatokun from IITA as Crop Leader for this crop. Survey preparation and distribution Due to the tight timeframe of the project and Dr Dumet only being available for the last phase of the definition of the key set, the initial list was further refined during the crop- specific consultation meeting held at NBPGR, India in June 2009, involving several scientists from NBPGR and the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI). Dr Mishra accepted to be the Crop Leader and other experts at the NBPGR crop-specific consultation participated in the discussions. They were asked to refine the list of experts already identified and to go through the initial list drawn from the comparison table. A worldwide distribution of experts was involved in an online survey to define a first priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize cowpea genetic resources. This key set was afterwards validated by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr S.K. Mishra of NBPGR and Dr Christian Fatokun of IITA. The survey on Vigna spp., proposing the Minimum List of Descriptors (see Annex III) as approved at NBPGR, was uploaded into the SurveyMonkey application on the Internet (see Annex IV) and an email invitation was sent out to the list of selected experts on 2 July 2009 providing them with the link to access the Survey. They were invited to rate the importance of the proposed characterization and evaluation descriptors for this crop and were also encouraged to mention any additional trait that was found to be relevant yet missing from the proposed Minimum List, along with a substantiated justification for its inclusion. The survey deadline was set at 30 July 2009. A first reminder was sent out on 17 July 2009 and a second on 29 July 2009 to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained. Survey analysis and refinement of the Minimum List Of the 63 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 23 from 13 countries and 17 organizations recorded their comments using the online survey (see Annex V). Results from the survey were analyzed and descriptors were ranked by rating average and percentage of importance (see Annex VI). An email consultation was carried out among members of the CAG asking them to validate the descriptors resulting from the survey as ‘most important’ (see Annex VII). Descriptors having a wide consensus amongst the experts were highlighted in blue bold face. These summary results of the survey, together with a report containing comments received by the participants (see Annex VIII), were sent to the Core Advisory Group inviting experts to select descriptors that should be included in the minimum list by indicating them with an ‘X’ in the relevant column. A first draft of the key set for cowpea, including relevant descriptor states and methods, was produced and submitted to the Crop Leaders and to the CAG for final validation (see Annex IX). Their advice was also requested for the inclusion of ‘Days to pod maturity’ and the definition of the descriptor states of the ‘Seed coat colour’ descriptor. Comments received were included and harmonized, wherever possible, with the final version and were shared for final validation, through email, with the experts who contributed to the selection of the final key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for cowpea. The deadline for validation was set for 12 February 2010. An important issue was raised by one of the members of the CAG who strongly suggested the addition of the descriptor ‘Testa texture’ to the final list because the rating obtained from the survey was the same as ‘Eye colour’. He also requested to rename the descriptor ‘Plant growth habit’ with ‘Plant architecture’. After a consultation with CAG members regarding this issue, all the inputs received were collected and shared with the Crop Leaders (Dr Fatoukun and Dr Mishra) for their final decision. Definition of a final key set of descriptors for cowpea The final document approved by the Crop Leaders and CAG, including all the descriptor states and contributors (see Annex X), was tagged for layout, edited by a freelance editor and sent to the Bioversity Publications Unit for layout and on-line publication processes. Furthermore, the publication was shared with the ECPGR Secretariat; the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base partners. Additionally, data were converted into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN-Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA and into the global accession level information portal (GENESYS), linking national, regional and international genebank databases in support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also provided to the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) and to EURISCO. Acknowledgement Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for cowpea genetic resources’, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial support. Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leaders, Dr Christian Fatokun from IITA, Nigeria and Dr S.K. Mishra from NBPGR, India, for providing valuable scientific direction. Ms Adriana Alercia provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process. Annex I – Summary comparison table weighing up important descriptors for cowpea drawn from different sources¹ Descr. No. Descriptors for Vigna spp. (cowpea) IBPGR 1983 (1) USDA (2) IITA, 2006 (3) NIAS (4) NBPGR Long (5) NBPGR Min_09 (5) 4.1.1 Growth habit * * * * * * 4.1.2 Growth pattern * * 4.1.3 Twining tendency * * * 4.1.4 Plant pigmentation * * * * 4.1.5 Terminal leaflet shape * * * (difficult) 4.1.6 Plant hairiness * * * 4.2.1 Days to 50% flowering * * * * * 4.2.2 Raceme position * * * 4.2.3 Days to first mature pods * * * Delete 4.2.4 Pod attachment to peduncle * * * 4.2.5 Immature pod pigmentation * * * * * 4.2.6 Pod curvature of mature pods * * 4.2.7 Pod length [cm] * * * but [mm] * * * (cm is ok) 4.2.8 Number of locules per pod * * * * 4.3.1 Seed shape * * * 4.3.2 Testa texture * * * * * 4.3.3 Eye pattern * * * * 4.3.4 Eye colour * * * * * * 4.3.5 100 Seed weight [g] * * 25% * 100 but in [g] * * 6.1.1 Hypocotyl length [mm] * * 6.1.2 Leaf colour * * 6.1.3 Leaf marking * * 6.1.4 Terminal leaflet length [mm] * * * 6.1.5 Terminal leaflet width [mm] * * * 6.1.6 Leaf texture * * 6.1.7 Stipule length [mm] * * 6.1.8 Stipule width [mm] * * 6.1.9 Number of main branches * * * * * 6.1.10 Number of nodes on main stem * * * * 6.1.11 Plant early vigour * * * 6.1.12 Leaf-stem ratio * * 6.1.13 Percentage dry weight * Not required 6.1.14 Green matter yield per plant [g] * * 6.1.15 Capacity for re-growth * * 6.1.16 In vitro dry matter digestibility * * 6.2.1 Flowering pigment pattern * * Delete (see flower colour) 6.2.2 Flower colour * * * * * 6.2.3 Flower standard length [mm] * * 6.2.4 Calyx lobe length [mm] * * 6.2.5 Duration of flowering * Delete 6.2.6 Number of racemes per plant * * 6.2.7 Peduncle length [mm] * *(important for harvesting) * 6.2.8 Number of pods per peduncle * * * * * 6.2.9 Number of pods per plant * * 6.2.10 Pod width [cm] * * but [mm] * Delete 6.2.11 Pod wall thickness * Difficult to measure 6.2.12 Pod colour * * (dry) * * 6.3.1 Seed length [mm] * * (but size) * * 6.3.2 Seed width [mm] * * (but size) * (but size) * 6.3.3 Seed thickness [mm] * * * 6.3.4 Seed crowding * * * 6.3.5 Splitting of testa * * 6.3.6 Attachment of testa * * 6.3.7 Percentage seed protein * * * 7.1 Low temperature * Not required 7.2 High temperature * * 7.3 Drought * * * 7.4 High soil moisture * * 8.1.1 Coried bugs * * 8.1.2 Striped bean weevil (Alcidodes leucogrammus) * * * 8.1.3 Cowpea aphid (Aphis craccivora) * * * * 8.1.4 Pea aphid (Aphis fabae) * * 8.1.5 Cowpea storage weevil (Callosobruchus chinensis) * * 8.1.6 Cowpea curculio (Chalcodermus aeneus) * * 8.1.7 Beetle (Chrysolagria spp.) * * 8.1.8 Pod borer (Cydia ptychora) * * 8.1.9 Leaf hoppers (Empoasca Kerri) * * 8.1.10 Epilachna beetles (Epilachna spp.) * * 8.1.11 Lima bean pod borer (Etiella zinckenella) * * 8.1.12 African bollworm (Heliothis armigera) * * 8.1.13 Beetle (Lagria villosa) * * 8.1.14 Legume pod borer (Maruca testulalis) * * 8.1.15 Adzuki pod borer (Matsumuraeses phaseoli) * * 8.1.16 Striped foliage beetle (Medythia quaterna) * * 8.1.17 Flower thrips (Megalurothrips sjostedti) * * 8.1.18 Blister beetle (Mylabris spp.) * * * 8.1.19 Green stink bug (Nezara viridula) * * 8.1.20 Foliage beetles (Ootheca bennigseni Ootheca mutabilis) * * 8.1.21 Pod weevil (Piezotrachelus varius) * * 8.1.22 Foliage thrips (Sericothrips occipitalis) * * 8.1.23 Egyptian leaf worm (Spodoptera littoalis) * * 8.2.1 Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta phaseolorum Sacc.) * * 8.2.2 Cercospora leaf spot (Cercospora cruenta Sacc.) * * * * 8.2.3 Lamb’s tail pod tot (Choanephora spp.) * * 8.2.4 Brown blotch (Colletotrichum truncatum (Schw.) Andrus & Moore) * * 8.2.5 Anthracnose (Collectrichum, Lindemuthianum) * * 8.2.6 Target leaf spot (Corynespora cassiicola) * * 8.2.7 Scab (Elsinoë phaseoli Jenkins) * * 8.2.8 Powdery mildew (Erysiphe polygoni DC) * * * 8.2.9 Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum Shlect) * * * 8.2.10 Fusarium collar and stem rot (Fusarium solani (Mart) Appel & Wollenw) * * 8.2.11 Pink rust (Phakosora pachyrizi Syd.) * * 8.2.12 Phytophtora stem rot (Phytophthora cactorum (Leb. & Cohn) Schroet) * * 8.2.13 Leaf smut (Protomycopsis phaseoli) * * 8.2.14 Pythium stem rot (Pythium aphanidermatum (Edson) Fritz.) * * 8.2.15 Seedling mortality (Pythium aphanidermatum (Edson) Fritz.) * * 8.2.16 Seedling mortality (Rhizoctonia solani Kuehn) * * 8.2.17 Web blight (Rhizoctonia solani Kuehn) * * 8.2.18 Sclerotium stem rot (Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc.) * * 8.2.19 Septoria leaf spot (Septonia vignae, Septoraia vignicola) * * 8.2.20 False rust (Synchytrium dolichi) * * 8.2.21 Brown rust (Uromyces appendiculatus) * * 8.2.22 Veticillium wilt (Verticillium albo-atrum Reinke & Berth) * * 8.3.1 Bacterial light and canker (Xanthomonas vignicola Burkh.) * * 8.4.1 Cowpea aphid-borne mosaic * * * 8.4.2 Cowpea banding mosaic * * 8.4.3 Cowpea chloritic mottle cowpea golden mosaic * * * 8.4.4 Cowpea golden mosaic * * 8.4.5 Cowpea mild mottle * * 8.4.6 Cowpea mottle * * 8.4.7 Cowpea ringspot * * 8.4.8 Cowpea (severe) mosaic * * * 8.4.9 Cowpea (yellow) mosaic * * * * 8.4.10 Cucumber mosaic * * * 8.4.11 Southern bean mosaic * * 8.4.12 Sunn-hemp mosaic * * New Plant height at maturity (Average of 5 plants) [cm] * * * New Pod position * * * New Seed coat colour * * * * New Cotyledon colour * * * Hillum ring colour * Not required New Colour of mottles on seed coat * * ¹ (1) ‘Descriptors for Cowpea’ (IBPGR, now Bioversity International, in 1983); (2) Descriptors for VIGNA (USDA, ARS, GRIN); (3) ’Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] core collection defined by geographical, agronomical and botanical descriptors’ (V. Mahalakshmi, Q. Ng, M. Lawson and R. Ortiz Plant Genetic Resources: Characterization and Utilization, Vol. 5, Issue 3, pp. 113-119, NIAB, 2007); (4) Descriptors for Characterization and Evaluation of Cowpea (National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences, NIAS, Genebank of Japan); (5) Long and Minimum list of descriptors identified by participants in the crop-specific meeting held at the NBPGR in June 2009. Annex II – List of experts identified to participate in the survey SOURCE ROLE NAME ORGANIZATION COUNTRY SINGER survey Crop Leader Dumet, Dominique IITA Nigeria NBPGR 09 Crop Leader Mishra, S.K. NBPGR India NGICA website CAG Boukar, Ousmane IITA Nigeria Replied instead of Lopes (Germplasm collection) CAG Damasceno e Silva, Kaesel Jackson EMBRAPA Brazil NGICA website CAG Fatokun, Christian IITA Nigeria Chair Vigna Crop Germplasm committee CAG Fery, Richard USDA/ARS USA Replied instead of Kotter (WIEWS) CAG Lohwasser, Ulrike Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK) Germany Germplasm collection CAG Morris, Brad USDA/ARS USA UPOV P. Button CAG Niwa, Yuji UPOV Japan UPOV P. Button CAG Yuasa, Mitsuo UPOV Japan Participant conference 2007 Reviewer Arinaitwe, Abel Makerere University Uganda WIEWS Director General Arnaldo, Adolfo Instituto de Investigaciones Fundamentales en Agricultura Tropical (INIFAT) Cuba NGICA website Cowpea entomologist Baoua, Ibrahim INRAN Niger NBPGR 2009 Reviewer Bharadwaj, C IARI, Genetics India IITA website Boahen, Stephen IITA Mozambique NGICA website Reviewer Bressan, Ray A. Purdue University USA ECPGR Reviewer Burlayaeva, Marina VIR Vavilov Institute Russian Federation NGICA website Reviewer Campos, Francisco A.P. Federal University of Cerará Brazil ECPGR Reviewer De la Cuadra, Celia INIA Madrid Spain Also in bean survey Reviewer De Ron, Antonio M. Misión Biológica de Galicia - CSIC - Phaselieu Spain Germplasm collection Reviewer Debouck, Daniel G. CIAT Colombia WIEWS Reviewer Dillon, Sally Australian Tropical Crops & Forages Genetic Resources Centre Australia NBPGR 2009 Reviewer Dua, Ram Prakash NBPGR India NGICA website Reviewer Ehlers, Jeff University of California Riverside USA IITA website Coordinator, Legumes for Livelihoods Project Graner, Andreas IPK Germany USDA website Reviewer Harrison, Howard USDA/ARS USA WIEWS Reviewer Jenks, Matthew Purdue University USA USDA website Research Agronomist Kainz, Wolfgang AGES Austria NBPGR 2009 Reviewer Kharkwal, M.C. IARI, Genetics India NBPGR 2009 Reviewer Kumar, J. IARI, Genetics India NGICA website Reviewer Kyeong-ho, Chung AVRDC Taiwan ECPGR Reviewer Lawrence, Peter Australian Tropical Crops &Forage Genetic Res. Centre Australia AVRDC contacts Legume researcher Mabutha, Obert Ministry of Agriculture Botswana Germplasm collection Reviewer Mahajan, R.K. NBPGR India Germplasm collection Reviewer Mamadou Touré, IER, Cinzana Station, Segou Mali ECPGR Reviewer Manoah, Myra Israel Gene Bank for Agricultural Crops, Agricultural Research Organisation, Volacni Center Israel NGICA website Reviewer Moar, William Auburn University USA NGICA website Plant breeder Mohammad F. Ishiyaku Ahmadu Bello University Nigeria ICRISAT website Reviewer Monyo, Emmanuel ICRISAT Malawi ICRISAT website Breeder Moutari, Adamou INRAN Niamey NGICA website Reviewer Murdock, Larry Purdue University USA Jefferson website Director of programs Myers Rob Jefferson Agriculture Institute USA NGICA website Reviewer Ndiaga Cisse ISRA/CNRA Senegal Suggested by ECPGR Coordinator Director General Negri, Valeria University of Perugia Italy NGICA website Reviewer Nwalozie, Marcel CORAF Senegal Suggested by ECPGR Coordinator Reviewer Obreza, Matija IITA Nigeria NGICA website Reviewer Pandravada, S.R. NBPGR India SINGER survey Genebank data manager Rai, Mathura IIVR, Varanasi India NBPGR 2009 Reviewer Raje, R.S. IARI, Genetics India NBPGR 2009 Reviewer Rana, J.C. NBPGR India NBPGR website Reviewer Roberts, Philip A. University of California Riverside USA NGICA website Reviewer Singh, Bir. B. Retired Nigeria NGICA website Reviewer Sithole-Niang, Idah University of Zimbabwe Zimbabwe AVRDC contacts Cowpea Breeder Srinivasan Ramasamy AVRDC Taiwan NGICA Network Reviewer Stavropoulos, Nikolaos NAGREF Greece AVRDC contacts Entomologist Tamo, Manuele IITA Benin ECPGR Reviewer Terry, Eugene AATF c/o ILRI Kenya IITA website Legume entomologist Thies, Judy USDA/ARS USA ICRISAT Cowpea breeder Upadhyaya, Hari D ICRISAT India NGICA website Plant pathologist Van Vugt, Daniel IITA Malawi USDA website Research Plant Pathologist Vanderborght, Thierry National Botanic Garden Belgium ICRISAT Reviewer Widders, Irvin E. Bean/cowpea CRSP USA IITA website Legume Agronomist Zong Xuxiao ICGR-CAAS China Annex III – Set of descriptors for cowpea as included in the survey (June 2009) obtained during the crop consultation meeting held at NBPGR 1. Growth habit (4.1.1) 2. Plant pigmentation (4.1.4) 3. Plant hairiness (4.1.6) 4. Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) 5. Immature pod pigmentation (4.2.5) 6. Pod length [cm] (4.2.7) 7. Testa texture (4.3.2) 8. Eye colour (4.3.4) 9. 100 Seed weight [g] (4.3.5) 10. Number of main branches (6.1.9) 11. Flower colour (6.2.2) 12. Peduncle length [mm] (6.2.7) 13. Number of pods per peduncle (6.2.8) 14. Pod colour (6.2.12) 15. Seed coat colour 16. Cotyledon colour 17. Percentage seed protein (6.3.7) 18. Drought (7.3) 19. Striped bean weevil (Alcidodes leucogrammus) (8.1.2) 20. Blister beetle (Mylabris spp.) (8.1.18) 21. Cercospora leaf spot (Cercospora cruenta) (8.2.2) 22. Powdery mildew (Erysiphe polygoni) (8.2.8) 23. Cowpea (yellow) mosaic (8.4.9) Annex IV – Survey to choose a key set of descriptors for cowpea utilization Welcome to the survey for the selection of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for cowpea to support an international information system to enhance the utilization of germplasm held in genebanks. Your knowledge and experience are being sought to define an initial key set ’ of descriptors that identify traits important to crop production and facilitate the use of accessions by researchers. Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 30 July 2009 This key set of descriptors will be made available through a global portal for identifying sets of accessions for evaluation and use. For characterization, the aim is a key set of maximally differentiating traits that provide the most impact in discriminating between accessions. For evaluation, the aim is to focus on a few important traits for production, such as those related to abiotic or biotic stresses of cosmopolitan nature. This survey consists of two parts: - PART I: Characterization descriptors. - PART II: Evaluation descriptors. We thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in selecting the set of descriptors. Please allow us to acknowledge your contribution by completing your full contact details below: WELCOME * Name: Position: Organization: Country: Email Address: These traits enable easy and quick discrimination between phenotypes. They are generally highly heritable, can be easily seen by the eye and are equally expressed in all environments. Based on your experience, please select descriptors that provide the most impact in discriminating between accessions. It also allows you to indicate if any essential descriptor that can contribute to its use is missing from the minimum list presented. If you consider that an essential trait is missing from this list, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. PART I: Characterization descriptors *Numbers in parentheses on the right - hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in the IBPGR publication 'Descriptors for Cowpea' (1983). Not important Important Very important Growth habit (4.1.1) n/ n/ n/ Plant pigmentation (4.1.4) n/ n/ n/ Plant hairiness (4.1.6) n/ n/ n/ Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) n/ n/ n/ Immature pod pigmentation (4.2.5) n/ n/ n/ Pod length [cm] (4.2.7) n/ n/ n/ Testa texture (4.3.2) n/ n/ n/ Eye colour (4.3.4) n/ n/ n/ 100 Seed weight [g] (4.3.5) n/ n/ n/ These descriptors include characters such as biotic stresses. They are the most interesting traits in crop improvement. Please consider the following factors relating to the trait when making your final decision: (i) Global impact, (ii) Initial strategic set, (iii) Importance for germplasm utilization, (iv) Data availability, (v) True economic damage and (vi) Wide geographical occurrence. Please, rate these traits in order of importance at the global level. It also allows you to indicate if any essential trait for production is missing from the minimum list presented or indicate any that may not be very significant to global production. If you consider that an essential trait important for crop improvement and production is missing from this list, or, if any of the descriptors listed is not clearly useful to promote utilization, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. PART II: Evaluation descriptors Not important Important Very important Number of main branches (6.1.9) n/ n/ n/ Flower colour (6.2.2) n/ n/ n/ Peduncle length [mm] (6.2.7) n/ n/ n/ Number of pods per peduncle (6.2.8) n/ n/ n/ Pod colour (6.2.12) n/ n/ n/ Seed coat colour n/ n/ n/ Cotyledon colour n/ n/ n/ Percentage seed protein (6.3.7) n/ n/ n/ Drought (7.3) n/ n/ n/ Striped bean weevil ( Alcidodes leucogrammus ) (8.1.2) n/ n/ n/ Blister beetle ( Mylabris spp.) (8.1.18) n/ n/ n/ Cercospora leaf spot ( Cercospora cruenta ) (8.2.2) n/ n/ n/ Powdery mildew ( Erysiphe polygoni ) (8.2.8) n/ n/ n/ Cowpea (yellow) mosaic (8.4.9) n/ n/ n/ NOTE: Please remember, this list is the starting point and will grow over time, as required. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. Annex V – List of respondents to the survey and contributing through email ROLE NAME POSITION ORGANIZATION Country Crop Leader [New (ex-CAG)] Fatokun, C.A. Plant Breeder International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Nigeria Crop Leader Mishra, S.K. National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) India CAG (New) Boukar, Ousmane Cowpea breeder International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Nigeria CAG Damasceno e Silva, Kaesel Jackson Researcher Center of Agriculture Research of MidNorth - Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA) Brazil CAG Fery, Richard L. Supervisory Research Geneticist/Res earch Leader United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA- ARS), US Vegetable Laboratory USA CAG Lohwasser, Ulrike Genebank Taxonomist Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research Germany CAG Niwa, Yuji Examiner Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Japan Reviewer Adeleke, Remi International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Nigeria Reviewer Bharadwaj, C. Senior Scientist (Breeding) Division of Genetics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (IARI-ICAR) India Reviewer Burlyaeva, Marina Vigna Collections Curator N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry (VIR) Russian Federation Reviewer Cisse, Ndiaga Plant Breeder Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles (ISRA) Senegal Reviewer De Ron, Antonio M. Research Professor Plant Genetic Resources Misión Biológica de Galicia, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (MBG-CSIC) Spain Reviewer Dillon, Sally Research Scientist Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries Australia Reviewer Dumet, Dominique Head of the Genetic Resources Center International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Nigeria Reviewer Ehlers, Jeffrey Research Specialist University of California, Riverside USA Reviewer Ishiyaku, Mohammad Faguji Head Cowpea Breeding Unit Institute for Agricultural Research, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria Nigeria Reviewer Kainz, Wolfgang Curator Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES) Austria Reviewer Myers, Robert Director of Programs Jefferson Institute USA Reviewer Negri, Valeria Professor Applied Biology Department, University of Perugia Italy Reviewer Pandravada, S.R. Senior Scientist National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), Regional Station, Hyderabd India Reviewer Pederson, Gary Research Leader United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA- ARS), Plant Genetic Resources Conservation Unit USA Reviewer Rana, J.C. Principal Scientist National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), Regional Station, Phagli, Shimla India Reviewer Srinivasan, R. Entomologist Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center (AVRDC-The World Vegetable Center) Taiwan Annex VI – Survey summary results ranked by rating and percentage of importance Descriptor Rating Average Descriptor % Importance (important) % Importance (Very important) Characterization Characterization Pod length [cm] (4.2.7) 4.43 Pod length [cm] (4.2.7) 28.6% (6) 71.4% (15) Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) 4.33 100 Seed weight [g] (4.3.5) 23.8% (5) 71.4% (15) 100 Seed weight [g] (4.3.5) 4.29 Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) 33.3% (7) 66.7% (14) Growth habit (4.1.1) 4.10 Growth habit (4.1.1) 33.3% (7) 61.9% (13) Testa texture (4.3.2) 3.14 Eye colour (4.3.4) 33.3% (7) 42.9% (9) Eye colour (4.3.4) 3.14 Testa texture (4.3.2) 57.1% (12) 28.6% (6) Immature pod pigmentation (4.2.5) 2.90 Plant hairiness (4.1.6) 23.8% (5) 28.6% (6) Plant pigmentation (4.1.4) 2.20 Immature pod pigmentation (4.2.5) 57.1% (12) 23.8% (5) Plant hairiness (4.1.6) 2.14 Plant pigmentation (4.1.4) 40.0% (8) 20.0% (4) Evaluation Evaluation Seed coat colour 4.35 Seed coat colour 20.0% (4) 75.0% (15) Number of pods per peduncle (6.2.8) 4.00 Number of pods per peduncle (6.2.8) 38.1% (8) 57.1% (12) Percentage seed protein (6.3.7) 3.75 Drought (7.3) 42.9% (9) 47.6% (10) Drought (7.3) 3.67 Pod colour (6.2.12) 38.1% (8) 47.6% (10) Pod colour (6.2.12) 3.52 Percentage seed protein (6.3.7) 50.0% (10) 45.0% (9) Cowpea (yellow) mosaic (8.4.9) 3.35 Flower colour (6.2.2) 35.0% (7) 45.0% (9) Flower colour (6.2.2) 3.30 Cowpea (yellow) mosaic (8.4.9) 45.0% (9) 40.0% (8) Cercospora leaf spot (Cercospora cruenta) (8.2.2) 2.95 Cercospora leaf spot (Cercospora cruenta) (8.2.2) 63.2% (12) 21.1% (4) Powdery mildew (Erysiphe polygoni) (8.2.8) 2.84 Striped bean weevil (Alcidodes leucogrammus) (8.1.2) 31.6% (6) 21.1% (4) Number of main branches (6.1.9) 2.76 Peduncle length [mm] (6.2.7) 42.9% (9) 19.0% (4) Peduncle length [mm] (6.2.7) 2.24 Powdery mildew (Erysiphe polygoni) (8.2.8) 68.4% (13) 15.8% (3) Blister beetle (Mylabris spp.) (8.1.18) 2.21 Blister beetle (Mylabris spp.) (8.1.18) 47.4% (9) 15.8% (3) Striped bean weevil (Alcidodes leucogrammus) (8.1.2) 2.00 Cotyledon colour 35.0% (7) 15.0% (3) Cotyledon colour 1.80 Number of main branches (6.1.9) 76.2% (16) 9.5% (2) Annex VII – List of descriptors proposed in the survey ranked by rating average sent to the Crop Leaders for validation Descriptor Your selection Rating Average Characterization Pod length [cm] (4.2.7) 4.43 Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) 4.33 100 Seed weight [g] (4.3.5) 4.29 Growth habit (4.1.1) 4.10 Testa texture (4.3.2) 3.14 Eye colour (4.3.4) 3.14 Immature pod pigmentation (4.2.5) 2.90 Plant pigmentation (4.1.4) 2.20 Plant hairiness (4.1.6) 2.14 Evaluation Seed coat colour 4.35 Number of pods per peduncle (6.2.8) 4.00 Percentage seed protein (6.3.7) 3.75 Drought (7.3) 3.67 Pod colour (6.2.12) 3.52 Cowpea (yellow) mosaic (8.4.9) 3.35 Flower colour (6.2.2) 3.30 Cercospora leaf spot (Cercospora cruenta) (8.2.2) 2.95 Powdery mildew (Erysiphe polygoni) (8.2.8) 2.84 Number of main branches (6.1.9) 2.76 Peduncle length [mm] (6.2.7) 2.24 Blister beetle (Mylabris spp.) (8.1.18) 2.21 Striped bean weevil (Alcidodes leucogrammus) (8.1.2) 2.00 Cotyledon colour 1.80 Annex VIII – Additional descriptors included in the open-ended section of the survey Cowpea descriptor Name of expert Additional traits N. times selected Burlyaev a (Vavilov Inst. Russian Federati on) Srinivas an (AVRDC -The World Vegetab le Center, Taiwan) Kaesel Jackson D. (EMBRA PA, Brazil) Rana (NBPGR, India) Ehlers (Univ. of Californ ia, Riversid e, USA) Kai nz (AG ES, Aus tria) Faguji Ishiyaku (Inst. Agric. Res., Ahmadu Bello Univ., Nigeria) Dumet (IITA, Nigeria ) Boukar (IITA, Nigeria) Cisse (ISRA, Senegal) Myers (Jefferson Institute, USA) Immature pod -presence of membrane (absent, medium, profuse) 1 X Immature pod - presence of fibre (absent, medium, abundant) 1 X Sugar content of immature pods 1 X Stem - length 1 X Seed shape (4.3.1) 1 X Average Seeds per pod 2 X (For grain seeds/pod is important and for vegetable pod length and fibre content matters) X Peduncle position-above canopy or within. (This clearly and rapidly distinguish accessions) 1 X Eye shape 1 X Early, medium or late maturing 2 X X Days to 95% maturity to help identify the accessions as early, medium or late Leaf Shape 1 X Pod dehiscence (after maturity) (weak, medium, strong) 2 X X Harvestability - how easy is it to harvest the variety? Related to that is lodging resistance. Pod curvature (4.2.6) 1 X Internodes length 1 X Hypocotyl length (6.1.1) 1 X Epicotyl length 1 X Cooking ability (very poor, medium, very good) 1 X The seed quality has also been considered, mainly for the minerals contents like zinc and iron. 1 X For fodder types foliage quantity is important 1 X Cowpea storage weevil (Callosobruchus spp.) (8.1.5) 2 X X Pod borer (Maruca vitrata) (8.1.8) 1 X Bean aphid (Aphis craccivora) (8.1.3) 4 X X X X Cowpea aphid-borne mosaic (8.4.1) 3 X X X Flower thrips (Megalurothrips usitatus) (8.1.17) 3 X X X Cucumber mosaic (8.4.10) 3 X X X Brown blotch (Colletotricum truncatum) (8.2.4) 1 X Thanatephorus cucumeris 1 X Resistance to root-knot nematodes 1 X Bacterial blight 3 X X X Striga 1 X Alectra 2 X X Scab (Sphaceloma sp) 1 X COMMENTS We consider flower colour, pod colour, seed coat colour as characterization desciptors that also are very important as evaluation descriptors X Annex IX – Key access and utilization descriptors for cowpea sent to CAG for validation PLANT DATA Growth habit (4.1.1) Evaluated in the 6th week after sowing 1 Acute erect (branches form acute angles with main stem) 2 Erect (branching angle less acute than above) 3 Semi-erect (branches perpendicular to main stem, but do not touch the ground) 4 Intermediate (lower branches touch the ground) 5 Semi-prostrate (main stem reaches 20 or more centimetres) 6 Prostrate (plants flat on ground; branches spread several metres) 7 Climbing Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) Number of days from sowing until 50% of the plants have begun to flower. Recorded for plants with the same sowing date at the same location each year Pod length [cm] (4.2.7) Average length of the 10 longest mature pods from 10 randomly selected plants Days to pod maturity (4.2.X) Number of days from sowing to when 95% of the plants have mature pods Eye colour (4.3.4) 0 Eye absent (white, cream) 1 Brown splash or gray 2 Tan brown 3 Red 4 Green 5 Blue to black 6 Blue to black spots or mottle 7 Speckled (even distribution of fine speckling) 8 Mottled (dark brown pigment typically absent around hilum) 9 Mottled and speckled (Victor) 99 Other (specify in the descriptor Notes) 100-Seed weight [g] (4.3.5) Weight of 100 seeds with 12% moisture content Seed coat colour (4.3.X) Flower colour (6.2.2) 1 White 2 Violet 3 Mauve-pink 99 Other (specify in the descriptor Notes) Number of pods per peduncle (6.2.8) Recorded under total insect control. Average number of 10 randomly selected peduncles Pod colour (6.2.12) Of mature pod 1 Pale tan or straw 2 Dark tan 3 Dark brown 4 Black or dark purple 99 Other (specify in the descriptor Notes) Seed protein [%] (6.3.7) ABIOTIC STRESSES Drought (7.3) BIOTIC STRESSES Cowpea (yellow) mosaic virus (CPMV) (8.4.9) NOTES Any additional information may be specified here, particularly that referring to the category ‘99=Other’ present in some of the descriptors above. Annex X – Final key set of descriptors for cowpea genetic resources obtained after validation Key access and utilization descriptors for cowpea genetic resources This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) genetic resources utilization. This strategic set of descriptors, together with passport data, will become the basis for the global accession level information portal being developed by Bioversity International with the financial support of the Global Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust). It will facilitate access to and utilization of cowpea accessions held in genebanks and does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently become available. Based on the comprehensive list ‘Descriptors for Cowpea’ published by IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1983, the list was subsequently compared with a number of sources such as ‘Descriptors for VIGNA’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN), ‘Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] core collection defined by geographical, agronomical and botanical descriptors’1 A worldwide distribution of experts was involved in an online survey to define a first priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize cowpea genetic resources. This key set was afterwards validated by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr S.K. Mishra of NBPGR and Dr Christian Fatokun of IITA. (IITA, 2006), and ‘Descriptors for Characterization and Evaluation of Cowpea’ (National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences, Genebank of Japan). The initial list was further refined during a crop- specific consultation meeting held at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR, India). It involved several scientists from NBPGR and the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI). Biotic and abiotic stresses included in the list were chosen because of their wide geographic occurrence and significant economic impact at a global level. Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptor numbers listed in the 1983 publication. Descriptors with numbers ending in ‘letters’ are either modified or are new descriptors that were added during the development of the list below. PLANT DATA Growth habit (4.1.1) Evaluated in the 6th week after sowing 1 Acute erect (branches form acute angles with main stem) 2 Erect (branching angle less acute than above) 3 Semi-erect (branches perpendicular to main stem, but do not touch the ground) 4 Intermediate (lower branches touch the ground) 5 Semi-prostrate (main stem reaches 20 or more centimetres) 6 Prostrate (plants flat on ground; branches spread several metres) 7 Climbing 1 V. Mahalakshmi, Q. Ng, M. Lawson and R. Ortiz, Plant Genetic Resources: Characterization and Utilization, Vol. 5, Issue 3, pp.113- 119, NIAB, 2007 Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) Number of days from sowing until 50% of the plants have begun to flower. Recorded for plants with the same sowing date at the same location each year Pod length [cm] (4.2.7) Average length of the 10 longest mature pods from 10 randomly selected plants Days to pod maturity (4.2.X) Number of days from sowing to when 95% of the plants have mature pods Testa texture (4.3.2) 1 Smooth 3 Smooth to rough 5 Rough (fine reticulation) 7 Rough to wrinkled 9 Wrinkled (coarse folds on the testa) Eye colour (4.3.4) 0 Eye absent (white, cream) 1 Brown splash or gray 2 Tan brown 3 Red 4 Green 5 Blue to black 6 Blue to black spots or mottle 7 Speckled (even distribution of fine speckling) 8 Mottled (dark brown pigment typically absent around hilum) 9 Mottled and speckled 99 Other (specify in the descriptor Notes) 100-Seed weight [g] (4.3.5) Weight of 100 seeds with 12% moisture content Seed coat colour (4.3.X) Recorded at maturity 1 White 2 Cream 3 Brown 4 Red 5 Purple 6 Black 99 Other (i.e. ‘yellow’ or ‘blue’, specify in the descriptor Notes) Flower colour (6.2.2) 1 White 2 Violet 3 Mauve-pink 99 Other (specify in the descriptor Notes) Number of pods per peduncle (6.2.8) Recorded under total insect control. Average number of 10 randomly selected peduncles Pod colour (6.2.12) Of mature pod 1 Pale tan or straw 2 Dark tan 3 Dark brown 4 Black or dark purple 99 Other (specify in the descriptor Notes) Seed protein content [%] (6.3.7) ABIOTIC STRESSES Drought (7.3) BIOTIC STRESSES Cowpea (yellow) mosaic virus (CPMV) (8.4.9) NOTES Any additional information may be specified here, particularly that referring to the category ‘99=Other’ present in some of the descriptors above. CONTRIBUTORS Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of this strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for cowpea genetic resources’, and in particular to Dr Christian Fatokun and Dr S.K. Mishra for providing valuable scientific direction. Adriana Alercia provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process. CORE ADVISORY GROUP S.K. Mishra, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), India Christian Fatokun, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Nigeria Ousmane Boukar, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Nigeria Kaesel Jackson Damasceno e Silva, Center of Agriculture Research of MidNorth, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA), Brazil Richard L. Fery, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS), US Vegetable Laboratory, USA Ulrike Lohwasser, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research, Germany Yuji Niwa, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan REVIEWERS Australia Sally Dillon, Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries Austria Wolfgang Kainz, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES) India C. Bharadwaj, Division of Genetics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (IARI-ICAR) S.R. Pandravada, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), Regional Station, Hyderabd J.C. Rana, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), Regional Station, Phagli, Shimla Italy Valeria Negri, Applied Biology Department, University of Perugia Nigeria Remi Adeleke, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Dominique Dumet, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Mohammad Faguji Ishiyaku, Institute for Agricultural Research, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria Russian Federation Marina Burlyaeva, N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry (VIR) Senegal Ndiaga Cisse, Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles (ISRA) Spain Antonio M. De Ron, Misión Biológica de Galicia, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (MBG- CSIC) Taiwan R. Srinivasan, Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center (AVRDC-The World Vegetable Center) USA Jeffrey Ehlers, University of California, Riverside Robert Myers, Jefferson Institute Gary Pederson, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS), Plant Genetic Resources Conservation Unit Methodology for the definition of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for faba bean (Vicia faba) Information collection and preparation of the Minimum Descriptor List (MDL) Information for the definition of a MDL for faba bean was drawn from ‘Faba Bean Descriptors’ (IBPGR/ICARDA, 1985). Descriptors were discussed with Dr. Ken Street from ICARDA, who agreed to be Crop Leader for this exercise. The comprehensive descriptors list included in this publication was compared with essential descriptors listed in the ‘Descriptors for Faba bean’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN); UPOV technical guidelines for Broad Bean; Minimal descriptors of Faba Bean from NBPGR, and the traits in need of further research identified in the Draft ‘Global Strategy for the Ex Situ Conservation of Faba Bean’ (the Trust, March, 2009), since the final version of this document was not available at that time but its draft was at an advanced stage (see Annex I). Preparation of the List of Experts Being the original publication too old to be used for this purpose, collaboration was sought from scientists included in the European Database for Vicia faba (ECPGR), particularly from the ECPGR Grain Legumes Working Group, and from participants to the Global Collaborative Ex-situ Conservation Strategies for Food Legumes held in Aleppo, Syria, from 19th to 22nd February 2007. The expert list was further compiled by querying the FAO WIEWS Directory of germplasm collections for Vicia. Overall, 80 experts were identified, coming from 50 countries and 67 different organizations. Among them, a Crop Leader (Ken Street) was selected who, consequently, chose a Core Advisory Group consisting of eight experts to assist in the definition of a Minimum set of descriptors for this crop (see Annex II). Survey preparation and distribution A draft survey on Faba Bean was prepared listing the descriptors as approved by consultations with the Crop Leader (see Annex III). Once approved, the final version of the survey was uploaded into the SurveyMonkey application on the internet. On 24th March 2009 an email invitation to the survey was sent out to the list of identified experts, who were invited to rate the importance of the proposed characterization and evaluation descriptors (41 descriptors) for this crop (see Annex IV). Experts were also encouraged to mention any additional trait that was found to be relevant yet missing from the proposed minimum list, along with a substantiated justification for its inclusion. The survey deadline was set at 20th April 2009. A first reminder was sent out on 7th April and a second one on 16th April to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained. Survey analysis and refinement of Minimum List Of the 80 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise 21, coming from 16 countries and 17 organizations, recorded their comments using the SurveyMonkey consultation (see Annex V). Results from the survey were analysed and descriptors ranked by rating average and percentage of importance (see Annex VI). The summary results of the survey conducted with the SurveyMonkey tool, together with a report containing comments received by the participants (see Annex VII) was sent to the Crop Leader for his validation. His revised list was subsequently shared with the Core Advisory Group on 25th May 2009 to settle the definition of the key set of descriptors for this crop (see Annex VIII). The Core Advisory Group agreed on the final minimum set (see Annex IX).These identified set of characterization and evaluation traits were grouped together to create a new document compliant with the project terms of reference. Once the core subset of characterization and evaluation standards for Faba Bean was finalised, descriptor states were integrated into the list (see Annex X). The final document, including all contributors (see Annex XI), was proofread and sent to the Publication Unit for layout and on-line publication processes. The final publication was also shared with ECPGR partners and was uploaded in the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base. Furthermore, data were converted into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN-Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA and into GENESYS, linking national, regional and international genebank databases in support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also provided to the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) and to EURISCO. Acknowledgement Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for faba bean genetic resources’, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial support. Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leader, Dr ken Street (ICARDA) for providing valuable scientific direction. Annex I: - Summary comparison table for important descriptors for Faba Bean drawn from a number of sources1 Descr. no. Descriptors for Vicia faba (Broad bean or Faba bean) IBPGR 1985 USDA KEN STREET (selection) UPOV STRATEGY (the Trust) NBPGR 4.1.1 Growth habit * * * * * 4.1.6 Plant height [cm] * * * * * 4.3.3 100-seed weight [g] * * * * * 4.1.4 Basal node branching * * * * 4.2.3 Flower ground colour * * * * 4.1.5 Higher node branching * * * 4.3.5 Hilum colour * * * * 4.2.4 Intensity of streaks * * 6.1.3 Leaflet number * * * 6.1.2 Leaflet shape * * * 4.1.3 Leaflet size * * * 4.3.1 Ovules per pod * * * Plant width * 4.2.9 Pod colour * * * * 4.2.6 Pod angle * * * 6.2.4 Pod distribution * * 4.2.10 Pod length [cm] * * [mm] * * * 4.2.7 Pod shape * * * * 6.2.5 Pod shatter * * * 4.2.8 Pod surface * * Pod width [mm] * * * Descr. no. Descriptors for Vicia faba (Broad bean or Faba bean) IBPGR 1985 USDA KEN STREET (selection) UPOV STRATEGY (the Trust) NBPGR 6.2.3 Pods per node * * * 4.3.4 Seed ground colour (Testa colour) * * * * * 4.3.6 Seed shape * * * * Seed size * 4.3.2 Seeds per pod * * * * Stem branching * 4.1.7 Stem colour * * 4.1.2 Stem pigmentation * * * 4.2.5 Wing petal colour * * * * * 4.2.1 Days to flower * * * * * * 4.2.2 Pod maturity * * * * 6.3.6 Seed yield [g/m2] * * [kg/ha] 6.1.1 Stipule spot pigmentation * 6.1.4 Stem thickness (cm) * * * 6.1.5 Resistance to lodging * * 6.2.1 Number of flowers per inflorescence * * * * 6.2.2 Height of lowest pod-bearing node at harvest [cm] * 6.2.6 Male fertility * 6.2.7 Autofertility * 6.3.1 Testa pattern * 6.3.2 Protein content [%] * * 6.3.3 Sulphur amino acids (per 16 g N) * * 6.3.4 Vicine and convicine content * * Descr. no. Descriptors for Vicia faba (Broad bean or Faba bean) IBPGR 1985 USDA KEN STREET (selection) UPOV STRATEGY (the Trust) NBPGR 6.3.5 Cooking time * * 7.1.1 Winter kill * 7.1.2 Low temperature damage * 7.2 High temperature * * * 7.3 Drought * 7.4 High soil moisture * 7.5 Salinity (Tolerance) * * 8.1.1 Aphids (Aphis spp. ) * * 8.1.2 Leaf weevils (Sitona spp. ) * * 8.1.3 Leaf miners (Liriomyza spp ) * * * 8.1.4 Stem borers (Lixus spp ) * * 8.1.5 Seed weevils (Bruchus spp. ) * * 8.1.6 Stem nematodes (Ditylenchus diosaci ) * * 8.1.7 Broomrape (Orobanche crenata ) 8.1.7 * * * 8.2.1 Chocolate spot (Bortrytis fabae) 8.2.1 * * * 8.2.2. Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta fabae ) 8.2.2 * * * 8.2.3 Leaf spot (Alternaria spp. ) 8.2.3 * 8.2.4 Rust ( Uromyces fabae) * 8.2.5 Powder mildew (Erysiphe polygoni ) * 8.2.6 Root rot complex (Rhizoctonia spp ) * * 8.2.7 Root rot complex (Fusarium spp ) * 8.2.8 Stem rot (Sclerotinia ) * * 8.2.9 Other (specify in the NOTES descriptor, 11 ) * Descr. no. Descriptors for Vicia faba (Broad bean or Faba bean) IBPGR 1985 USDA KEN STREET (selection) UPOV STRATEGY (the Trust) NBPGR 8.4.1 Alfalfa mosaic virus (AMV) * 8.4.2 Bean leaf roll virus (BLRV) * 8.4.3 Bean yellow mosaic virus (BYMV) * * 8.4.4 Pea enation mosaic virus (PEMV) * 8.4.5 Broad bean true mosaic virus (BBTMV=EAMV) * * 8.4.6 Broad bean stain virus (BBSV) * Independent vascular system * Tolerance to chilly conditions * Tolerance to frost (ex low temp) * * Plant: number of stems (including tillers more than half the length of the main stem * Leaflet: length (basal pair of leaflet at secondary node) * Leaflet width (basal pair of leaflet at secondary node) * Leaflet: position of maximum width (basal pair of leaflet at secondary node * Wing: melanin spot * Wing: colour of melanin spot * Standard: anthocyanin colouration * 1 ‘Faba Bean Descriptors’ (IBPGR/ICARDA, 1985); ‘Descriptors for Faba bean’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN); UPOV thecnical guidelines for Broad Bean; ‘Minimal descriptors of Faba Bean’ from NBPGR; traits in need of further research identified in the Draft ‘Global Strategy for the Ex Situ Conservation of Faba Bean’ [Global Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust), March, 2009] and descriptors suggested by Ken Street Annex II – List of experts identified for participation to the survey for the definition of a minimum set of descriptors for Faba Bean Role Name Organization Country Crop Leader (SRG) Street, Ken ICARDA Syria ECPGR/Crop Strategy Ambrose, Mike John Innes Centre UK Core Group Duc, Gerard INRA (ECPGR) France Core Group Maalouf, Fouad ICARDA Syria Core Group Malhotra, Rajendra ICARDA Syria Core Group Mathur, Prem Bioversity India Core Group Robertson, Larry USDA USA Core Group Sarker, Ashutosh ICARDA Syria Crop Strategy/WIEWS Redden, Bob Australian Temperate Field Crops Collection Australia ECPGR Angelova, Siyka Institute for Plant Genetic Resources "K. Malkov" (IPGR) Bulgaria ECPGR Atikyilmaz, Nüket responded to survey (Lerzan Aykas) Aegean Agricultural Research Institute (AARI) Turkey ECPGR Babayeva, Sevda compiled survey (Almas Asadova) Genetic Resources Institute of Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences Azerbaijan ECPGR Baudoin, Jean Pierre Faculté universitaire des Sciences agronomiques de Gembloux Belgium ECPGR Bogusas, Romas Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture Lithuania ECPGR Canko, Agim Centre of Agricultural Technology Transfer Fushe-Kruje Albania ECPGR Carboni, Andrea CRA - CIN Italy ECPGR Cenusa, Maria Institutul de Cercetare Dezvoltare Pentru Legumicultura si Floricultura Vidra Romania ECPGR Dimov, Zoran University Ss. Cyril and Methodius Macedonia (FYR) ECPGR Doherty, Gerry Potato Centre - Department of Agriculture and Food Ireland ECPGR Duarte, Isabel Maria Estação Nacional de Melhoramento de Plantas Portugal Role Name Organization Country ECPGR/Crop Strategy Holly, László Research Centre for Agrobotany Hungary ECPGR Hovinen, Simo Boreal Plant Breeding Ltd. Finland ECPGR/WIEWS Hýbl, Miroslav AGRITEC Ltd. Sumperk Czech Republic ECPGR Iliadis, Costantinos NAGREF - Fodder Crops and Pasture Institute Greece ECPGR/WIEWS Kik, Chris Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands (CGN) The Netherlands ECPGR Korakhashvili, Avtandil Agrarian State University of Georgia Georgia ECPGR Kristian Thorup-Kristensen Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Aarhus Denmark ECPGR Mechtler, Klemens AGES - Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety Austria ECPGR Meglic, Vladimir Crop and Seed Science Department - Agricultural Institute of Slovenia Slovenia ECPGR Mendel, Lubomir Research Institute of Plant Production - Slovak Agricultural Research Centre Slovakia ECPGR Pallides, Andreas Agricultural Research Institute Cyprus ECPGR Ruge-Wehling, Brigitte Julius Kühn-Institute (JKI) Germany ECPGR Semergyan, Suren Scientific Centre of Agriculture and Plant Protection Armenia ECPGR Sudaric, Aleksandra Agricultural Institute Osijek Croatia ECPGR Swiecicki, Wojciech Institute of Plant Genetics Poland ECPGR Vasic, Mirjana Institute of Field and Vegetable Crops Novi Sad Serbia ECPGR/Crop Strategy Vishnyakova, Margarita A. N.I. Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry (VIR) Russia ECPGR Yadav, Shyam Singh Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) India Crop Strategy Abdelguerfi, A. Institut National Agronomique (INA) Algeria Crop Strategy/WIEWS Abdi, Adugna Institute of Biodiversity Conservation and Research (IBCR) Ethiopia Crop Strategy Acuña, Hernan INIA CARI Chile Crop Strategy Buchwaldt, Lone Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canada Crop Strategy de los Mozos Pascual, Marcelino Banco de Germoplasma, Centro de Investigacion Agraria de Albaladejito Spain Crop Strategy Della, Athena Agricultural Research Insitute Cyprus Crop Strategy Diederichsen, Axel Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canada Role Name Organization Country Crop Strategy El-Hawary, Mohamed Ibrahim National Gene Bank of Egypt Egypt Crop Strategy Furman, Bonnie J. ARS/USDA USA Crop Strategy/WIEWS Galasso, Incoronata CNR Italy Crop Strategy Gowda, C.L.L. ICRISAT India Crop Strategy Horváth, Lajos Institute for Agrobotany Hungary Crop Strategy Jamal, Majd GCSAR - Ministry of Agric & Agrarian Reform Syria Crop Strategy Moal, Sharif Plant Genetic Resources Unit Crop Improv - Ministry of Agriculture Afghanistan Crop Strategy Monreal, Álvaro Ramos Consejeria de Agricultura Ganadería Spain Crop Strategy Pandey, R.L. Dept Plant Breeding and Genetics I. Gandhi Agric. Univ India Crop Strategy Ryabchoun, Victor K. National Centre for PGR of Ukraine Ukraine Crop Strategy Sharma, S.K. ICAR, NBPGR India Crop Strategy Srivastava, Surendra Nepal Agricultural Research Nepal Crop Strategy Suso, María José Instituto de Agricultura Sostenible (CSIC) Spain Crop Strategy/WIEWS Tan, Ayfer Aegean Agricultural Research Institute (AARI) Turkey Crop Strategy Valkoun, Jan ICARDA Syria Crop Strategy Van Ginkel, Maarten Department of Primary Industries Horsham Australia Crop Strategy Veloso, Maria Manuela Departamento de Recursos Genéticos e Melhoramento, Estação Agronómica Nacional Portugal Crop Strategy Welsh, Molly Phaseolus Germplasm Collection - USDA/ARS USA Crop Strategy Xuxiao, Zong Institute of Crop Germplasm Resources, CAAS China WIEWS (Graner, A. he is the Director) forwared message to Helmut Knuepffer and Matthias Kotter Genebank, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research Germany WIEWS Jean Hanson ILRI Ethiopia WIEWS Podyma, W. Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute Poland WIEWS Shepherd, D. School of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton UK WIEWS Stoyanova, S. Institute for Plant Genetic Resources "K.Malkov" Bulgaria WIEWS Australian Medicago Genetic Resources Centre Australia Role Name Organization Country WIEWS Centro de Investigaciones Fitoecogenéticas de Pairumani Bolivia WIEWS Embrapa Recursos Genéticos e Biotecnologia Brazil WIEWS Departamento Nacional de Recursos Fitogenéticos y Biotecnología Ecuador WIEWS National Genebank of Kenya, Crop Plant Genetic Resources Centre (KARI) Kenya WIEWS Estación Experimental Agraria Illpa Peru WIEWS Suceava Genebank Romania WIEWS Plant Breeding Station Slovakia WIEWS Nordic Genetic Resource Center Sweden New Reviewer Wolfgang Link Department of Crop sciences, University of Göttingen Germany New Reviewer Curator collection Faba bean Sergey Bulyntsev Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry Russia Annex III – Faba bean characterization and evaluation descriptors revised by Ken Street and proposed in the survey sent out on 24th March 2009 CHARACTERIZATION • Growth habit (4.1.1) • Leaflet size (4.1.3) • Branching from basal nodes (4.1.4) • Branching from higher nodes (4.1.5) • Plant height [cm] (4.1.6) • Days to flowering (4.2.1) • Days to maturity (4.2.2) • Flower ground colour (4.2.3) • Wing petal colour (4.2.5) • Pod shape (4.2.7) • Pod colour at maturity (4.2.9) • Pod length [cm] (4.2.10) • Number of seeds per pod (4.3.2) • 100 seed weight [g] (4.3.3) • Ground colour of testa (seed coat) (4.3.4) • Hilum colour (4.3.5) • Seed shape (4.3.6) EVALUATION • Stem thickness [cm] (6.1.4) • Resistance to lodging (6.1.5) • Number of flowers per inflorescence (6.2.1) • Number of pods per node (6.2.3) • Pod shattering (6.2.5) • Sulphur amino acids (per 16 g N) (6.3.3) • Cooking time (6.3.5) • Independent vascular system • Tolerance to high temperature (7.2) (Indicate if observed at the juvenile, vegetative, flowering, pod set or grain filling phase) • Tolerance to chilly conditions (Observed at the flowering stage) • Tolerance to frost (Observed at the flowering stage) • Salinity (7.5) • Aphids (Aphis spp.) (8.1.1) · Leaf weevils (Sitona spp.) (8.1.2) · Leaf miners (Liriomyza spp.) (8.1.3) · Stem borers (Lixus spp.) (8.1.4) · Seed weevils (Bruchus spp.) (8.1.5) · Stem nematodes (Ditylenchus dipsaci) (8.1.6) · Broomrape (Orobanche crenata) (8.1.7) · Chocolate spot (Bortrytis fabae) (8.2.1) · Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta fabae) (8.2.2) · Root rot complex (Rhizoctonia spp) (8.2.6) · Stem rot (Sclerotinia spp.) (8.2.8) · Bean yellow mosaic (BYMV) (8.4.3) Annex IV – Survey to choose a key set of Descriptors for Faba bean (Vicia faba) WELCOME Welcome to the survey for the selection of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors to support an international information system to enhance the utilization of germplasm held in genebanks. Your knowledge and experience are being sought to select this initial ‘key set of descriptors’ of Vicia faba accessions to identify traits important to crop production and to facilitate their use by researchers. Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 20th April 2009. This key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors will be made available through a global facility for identifying sets of accessions for evaluation and use. For characterization, the aim is a key set of maximally differentiating traits that provide the most impact in discriminating between accessions. For evaluation, the aim is to focus on a few important traits for production, such as tolerance to an important disease or salinity. The list presented here has been drawn from the IBPGR publication ‘Faba Bean Descriptors’ (1985) and, further revised in consultation with Dr. Kenneth Street from ICARDA. This survey consists of two parts: - PART I: Lists the most important characterization descriptors for Faba bean. Based on your experience, please rate the descriptors according to their importance in identifying accessions. It also allows you to indicate if any essential descriptor that can contribute to its use is missing from the minimum list presented. - PART II: Lists important evaluation descriptors for Faba bean. Please, rate these traits in order of importance at the global level. It also allows you to indicate if any essential trait for production is missing from the minimum list presented or indicate any that may not be very significant to global production. We thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in selecting this initial, key set of descriptors. * Please allow us to acknowledge your contribution by completing your full contact details below: Name: Position: Organization: Address: City/Town: Country: Email: PART I: Characterization descriptors These traits enable easy and quick discrimination between phenotypes. They are generally highly heritable, can be easily seen by the eye and are equally expressed in all environments. *Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in the IBPGR publication ‘Faba Bean Descriptors’ (1985). Not important Important Very important Growth habit (4.1.1) j j j Leaflet size (4.1.3) j j j Branching from basal nodes (4.1.4) j j j Branching from higher nodes (4.1.5) j j j Plant height [cm] (4.1.6) j j j Days to flowering (4.2.1) j j j Days to pod maturity (4.2.2) j j j Flower ground colour (4.2.3) j j j Wing petal colour (4.2.5) j j j Pod shape (4.2.7) j j j Pod colour at maturity (4.2.9) j j j Pod length [cm] (4.2.10) j j j 100 seed weight [g] (4.3.3) j j j Ground colour of testa (seed coat) (4.3.4) j j j Hilum colour (4.3.5) j j j Seed shape (4.3.6) j j j If you consider that an essential trait is missing from this list, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. PART II: Evaluation descriptors These descriptors include characters such as pod shattering, biotic and abiotic stresses. They are the most interesting traits in crop improvement. Please consider the following factors relating to the trait when making your final decision: (i) Global impact, (ii) Initial strategic set, (iii) Importance for germplasm utilization, (iv) Data availability, (v) True economic damage and (vi) Wide geographical occurrence. Not Important Important Very important Stem thickness [cm] (6.1.4) j j j Resistance to lodging (6.1.5) j j j Number of flowers per inflorescence (6.2.1) j j j Number of pods per node (6.2.3) j j j Pod shattering (6.2.5) j j j Sulphur amino acids (per 16 g N) (6.3.3) j j j Cooking time (6.3.5) j j j Independent vascular system j j j Tolerance to high temperature (7.2) j j j Tolerance to chilly conditions j j j Tolerance to frost j j j Tolerance to salinity (7.5) j j j Aphids (Aphis spp.) (8.1.1) j j j Leaf weevils (Sitona spp.) (8.1.2) j j j Leaf miners (Liriomyza spp.) (8.1.3) j j j Stem borers (Lixus spp.) (8.1.4) j j j Seed weevils (Bruchus spp.) (8.1.5) j j j Stem nematodes (Ditylenchus dipsaci) (8.1.6) j j j Broomrape (Orobanche crenata) (8.1.7) j j j Chocolate spot (Botrytis fabae) (8.2.1) j j j Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta fabae) (8.2.2) j j j Root rot complex (Rhizoctonia spp.) (8.2.6) j j j Stem rot (Sclerotinia spp.) (8.2.8) j j j Bean yellow mosaic (BYMV) (8.4.3) j j j If you consider that an essential trait important for crop improvement and production is missing from this list, or, if any of the descriptors listed is not clearly useful to promote utilization, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. NOTE: Please remember, this list is the starting point and will grow over time, as required. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. Annex V – Respondents to the survey consultation for the definition of a Key set of descriptors for faba bean Role Name Organization Country Crop leader Street, Kenneth ICARDA Syria CAG Maalouf, Fouad ICARDA Syria CAG Duc, Gérard INRA France CAG Robertson, Larry USDA-ARS USA CAG MATHUR, P. N. Bioversity International India CAG Redden, Robert (Bob) Department of Primary Industries Victoria Australia Reviewer Asadova, Almas Genetic Resources Institute of Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences Azerbaijan Reviewer Aykas, Lerzan Aegean Agricultural Research Institute Turkey Reviewer Bulyntsev, Sergey Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry Russia Reviewer Carboni, Andrea CRA-CIN Italy Reviewer Claure, E. Tito Pairumani's Phytoecogenetical Research center Bolivia Reviewer Diederichsen, Axel Plant Gene Resources of Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canada Reviewer Duarte, Isabel INRB/INIA Portugal Reviewer Furman, Bonnie J. USDA/ARS USA Reviewer Link, Wolfgang University of Göttingen Germany Reviewer Lohwasser, Ulrike Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research Germany Reviewer Srinivasan, Kalyani NBPGR India Reviewer Suso, María José Instituto de Agricultura Sostenible (CSIC) Spain Reviewer Veloso, Maria Manuela INRB/INIA Portugal Reviewer Xuxiao, Zong Institute of Crop Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences China Reviewer Srinivasan, Kalyani NBPGR India Annex VI – Descriptors listed in the Faba Bean survey ranked by rating average and by percentage of importance Descriptor Stree t's select ion Rating Avera ge Descriptor % Importan ce (importa nt) % Importan ce (Very importan t) 100 seed weight [g] (4.3.3) 4.70 100 seed weight [g] (4.3.3) 15.0 (3) 85.0 (17) Days to flowering (4.2.1) 4.40 Days to flowering (4.2.1) 30.0 (6) 70.0 (14) Plant height [cm] (4.1.6) 4.20 Pod shattering (6.2.5) 26.3 (5) 63.2 (12) Days to pod maturity (4.2.2) 4.16 Plant height [cm] (4.1.6) 40.0 (8) 60.0 (12) Pod shattering (6.2.5) 3.95 Resistance to lodging (6.1.5) 30.0 (6) 60.0 (12) Ground colour of testa (seed coat) (4.3.4) 3.94 Days to pod maturity (4.2.2) 42.1 (8) 57.9 (11) Resistance to lodging (6.1.5) 3.90 Flower ground colour (4.2.3) 26.3 (5) 57.9 (11) Pod length [cm] (4.2.10) 3.89 Chocolate spot (Botrytis fabae) (8.2.1) 26.3 (5) 57.9 (11) Seed weevils (Bruchus spp.) (8.1.5) 3.78 Ground colour of testa (seed coat) (4.3.4) 38.9 (7) 55.6 (10) Flower ground colour (4.2.3) 3.68 Seed weevils (Bruchus spp.) (8.1.5) 33.3 (6) 55.6 (10) Number of seeds per pod (4.3.2) 3.68 Aphids (Aphis spp.) (8.1.1) 30.0 (6) 55.0 (11) Chocolate spot (Botrytis fabae) (8.2.1) 3.68 Pod length [cm] (4.2.10) 42.1 (8) 52.6 (10) Seed shape (4.3.6) 3.65 Tolerance to frost 31.6 (6) 52.6 (10) Aphids (Aphis spp.) (8.1.1) 3.65 Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta fabae) (8.2.2) 31.6 (6) 52.6 (10) Tolerance to frost 3.58 Tolerance to salinity (7.5) 27.8 (5) 50.0 (9) Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta fabae) (8.2.2) 3.58 Growth habit (4.1.1) 35.0 (7) 50.0 (10) Growth habit (4.1.1) 3.55 Number of pods per node (6.2.3) 36.8 (7) 47.4 (9) Number of pods per node (6.2.3) 3.47 Wing petal colour (4.2.5) 35.0 (7) 45.0 (9) Tolerance to salinity (7.5) 3.33 Number of seeds per pod (4.3.2) 52.6 (10) 42.1 (8) Bean yellow mosaic (BYMV) (8.4.3) 3.32 Tolerance to high temperature (7.2) 36.8 (7) 42.1 (8) Wing petal colour (4.2.5) 3.30 Tolerance to chilly conditions 31.6 (6) 42.1 (8) Descriptor Stree t's select ion Rating Avera ge Descriptor % Importan ce (importa nt) % Importan ce (Very importan t) Leaf miners (Liriomyza spp.) (8.1.3) 3.26 Stem rot (Sclerotinia spp.) (8.2.8) 36.8 (7) 42.1 (8) Number of flowers per inflorescence (6.2.1) 3.25 Hilum colour (4.3.5) 40.0 (8) 40.0 (8) Tolerance to high temperature (7.2) 3.21 Seed shape (4.3.6) 55.0 (11) 40.0 (8) Stem rot (Sclerotinia spp.) (8.2.8) 3.21 Leaf weevils (Sitona spp.) (8.1.2) 40.0 (8) 40.0 (8) Hilum colour (4.3.5) 3.20 Broomrape (Orobanche crenata) (8.1.7) 15.0 (3) 40.0 (8) Leaf weevils (Sitona spp.) (8.1.2) 3.20 Root rot complex (Rhizoctonia spp.) (8.2.6) 38.9 (7) 38.9 (7) Branching from basal nodes (4.1.4) 3.11 Branching from basal nodes (4.1.4) 42.1 (8) 36.8 (7) Root rot complex (Rhizoctonia spp.) (8.2.6) 3.11 Leaf miners (Liriomyza spp.) (8.1.3) 47.4 (9) 36.8 (7) Pod shape (4.2.7) 3.10 Pod shape (4.2.7) 45.0 (9) 35.0 (7) Tolerance to chilly conditions 3.05 Number of flowers per inflorescence (6.2.1) 50.0 (10) 35.0 (7) Stem borers (Lixus spp.) (8.1.4) 2.89 Bean yellow mosaic (BYMV) (8.4.3) 57.9 (11) 31.6 (6) Stem nematodes (Ditylenchus dipsaci) (8.1.6) 2.74 Stem borers (Lixus spp.) (8.1.4) 50.0 (9) 27.8 (5) Leaflet size (4.1.3) 2.71 Stem nematodes (Ditylenchus dipsaci) (8.1.6) 47.4 (9) 26.3 (5) Pod colour at maturity (4.2.9) 2.47 Pod colour at maturity (4.2.9) 47.4 (9) 21.1 (4) Broomrape (Orobanche crenata) (8.1.7) 2.45 Branching from higher nodes (4.1.5) 44.4 (8) 16.7 (3) Stem thickness [cm] (6.1.4) 2.30 Sulphur amino acids (per 16 g N) (6.3.3) 36.8 (7) 15.8 (3) Branching from higher nodes (4.1.5) 2.17 Leaflet size (4.1.3) 66.7 (14) 14.3 (3) Cooking time (6.3.5) 2.00 Stem thickness [cm] (6.1.4) 60.0 (12) 10.0 (2) Sulphur amino acids (per 16 g N) (6.3.3) 1.89 Cooking time (6.3.5) 57.9 (11) 5.3 (1) Independent vascular system 1.84 Independent vascular system 52.6 (10) 5.3 (1) Annex VII – Additional characterization and evaluation descriptors proposed in the Faba Bean survey results Faba Bean descriptor Name of expert Redden, Bob Asadova, Almas. Duc, Gérard. Diederichsen, Axel. Link, Wolfgang Maalouf, Fouad. Srinivasan, Kalyani. Claure, Tito E. Additional characterization descriptor N. of times selected Very imp. Very imp. Very imp. Very imp. Very imp. Very imp. Very imp. Very imp. Mean canopy height quicker to measure once for whole plot, than separate plant heights, and of equal utility 1 X Number of pods per plant 1 X Number of pods per nodes 1 X Number of flowers per raceme: Important for yield potential 1 X Number of flower per nodes: is associated with yield and with the level of outcrossing rate 1 X Number of leaflets per leaf 2 X X Early plant vigour 1 X Leaflet shape 1 X Stem pigmentation 1 X Seed coat colour (Seed colour, because dark colours are not liked by the farmers and also by consumers.) 2 X X Pod width 1 X COMMENTS remark about leaflet size, shape, number /leaf and colour: certainly with genotypic differences but there is a need for calibration of records X Faba Bean descriptor Name of expert Redden, Bob Asadova, Almas. Duc, Gérard. Diederichsen, Axel. Link, Wolfgang Maalouf, Fouad. Srinivasan, Kalyani. Claure, Tito E. Additional evaluation descriptor N. of times selected Very imp. Very imp. Very imp. Very imp. Very imp. Very imp. Very imp. Very imp. Importance of bruchids inversely related to seed storage hygeine and quality of storage. Susceptibility to any pest / disease should be noted whever infection occassionally significant 1 X Remark: The root rot complex may also involve Fusarium spp in some case. 1 X Self Fertility: Important for breeding and germplasm conservation. 1 X It is rather methionine and cysteine content than all amino acids. 1 X Vicine and Convicine content % 2 X X Protein content % 1 X FBYNV: very important because they damage the crop in all Mediterranean area. There is a need to find sources for resistance 1 X Annex VIII - First priority descriptors for Faba Bean (Vicia faba) sent to CAG on 26th May 2009 drawn from survey results and validated by Ken Street 1. Growth habit (4.1.1) 2. Plant height [cm] (4.1.6) 3. Days to flowering (4.2.1) 4. Days to pod maturity (4.2.2) 5. Flower ground colour (4.2.3) 6. Wing petal colour (4.2.5) 7. Pod length [cm] (4.2.10) 8. Number of seeds per pod (4.3.2) 9. 100 seed weight [g] (4.3.3) 10. Ground colour of testa (seed coat) (4.3.4) 11. Seed shape (4.3.6) 12. Resistance to lodging (6.1.5) 13. Number of pods per node (6.2.3) 14. Pod shattering (6.2.5) 15. Tolerance to high temperature (7.2) 16. Tolerance to salinity (7.5) 17. Tolerance to chilly conditions 18. Tolerance to frost 19. Aphids (Aphis spp.) (8.1.1) 20. Seed weevils (Bruchus spp.) (8.1.5) 21. Chocolate spot (Botrytis fabae) (8.2.1) 22. Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta fabae) (8.2.2) 23. Stem rot (Sclerotinia spp.) (8.2.8) Annex IX – Final list of descriptors compiled after consultation with the Core Advisory Group showing descriptors added (in green) and removed (in red) 1. Growth habit (4.1.1) 2. Branching from basal nodes (4.1.4) 3. Plant height [cm] (4.1.6) 4. Days to flowering (4.2.1) 5. Days to pod maturity (4.2.2) 6. Flower ground colour (4.2.3) 7. Wing petal colour (4.2.5) 8. Pod angle/attitude at maturity (4.2.6) 9. Pod length [cm] (4.2.10) 10. Number of seeds per pod (4.3.2) 11. 100 seed weight [g] (4.3.3) 12. Ground colour of testa (seed coat) (4.3.4) 13. Seed shape (4.3.6) 14. Resistance to lodging (6.1.5) 15. Number of pods per node (6.2.3) 16. Pod shattering (6.2.5) 17. Tolerance to high temperature (7.2) 18. Tolerance to salinity (7.5) 19. Tolerance to frost 20. Aphids (Aphis spp.) (8.1.1) 21. Seed weevils (Bruchus spp.) (8.1.5) 22. Chocolate spot (Botrytis fabae) (8.2.1) 23. Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta fabae) (8.2.2) 24. Rust (Uromyces fabae) (8.2.4) 25. Stem rot (Sclerotinia spp.) (8.2.8) 26. Number of flower per nodes 27. Faba Bean Yellow Mosaic Virus (FBYM) Tolerance for chilly conditions Annex X – Final list with descriptor states Growth habit (4.1.1) 1 Determinate, i.e. stems with terminal inflorescence 2 Semi-determinate, i.e. without terminal inflorescence 3 Indeterminate Branching from basal nodes (4.1.4) Mean number of branches (to the nearest whole number) per plant taken from five representative plants in late flowering stage Plant height [cm] (4.1.6) Measured at near maturity from ground to the tip of the plant. Average of 10 plants Days to flowering (4.2.1) Number of days from sowing until 50% of plants have flowered. However, in dry land areas where planting occurs in dry soils, it is counted from the first day of rainfall or irrigation which is sufficient for germination Days to pod maturity (4.2.2) Number of days from sowing until 90% of the pods have dried. See 4.2.1 for planting in dry soils Flower ground colour (4.2.3) Ground colour of standard petal (flag) 1 White 2 Violet 3 Dark brown 4 Light brown 5 Pink 6 Red 7 Yellow 99 Other (i.e. ‘mixed’, specify in the Notes descriptor) Wing petal colour (4.2.5) 1 Uniformly white 2 Uniformly coloured 3 Spotted 99 Other (i.e. ‘mixed’, specify in the Notes descriptor) Pod angle/attitude at maturity (4.2.6) 1 Erect 2 Horizontal 3 Pendent 99 Other (i.e. ‘mixed’, specify in the Notes descriptor) Pod length [cm] (4.2.10) Mean of five dry pods Number of seeds per pod (4.3.2) Mean of five dry pods 100-seed weight [g] (4.3.3) Ground colour of testa (seed coat) (4.3.4) Observed immediately after harvest (within one month after harvest) 1 Black 2 Dark brown 3 Light brown 4 Light green 5 Dark green 6 Red 7 Violet 8 Yellow 9 White 10 Grey 99 Other (i.e. ‘mixed’, specify in the Notes descriptor) Seed shape (4.3.6) 1 Flattened 2 Angular 3 Round 99 Other (i.e. ‘mixed’, specify the Notes descriptor) Resistance to lodging (6.1.5) 3 Low 5 Medium 7 High Number of pods per node (6.2.3) Mean number of pods on the second pod-bearing node of five plants Pod shattering (6.2.5) 0 Non-shattering (wrinkled-pod type) 1 Shattering Number of flowers per node (6.2.X) ABIOTIC STRESSES High temperature (7.2) Salinity (7.5) Frost (7.X) BIOTIC STRESSES Aphids (Aphis spp.) (8.1.1) Seed weevils (Bruchus spp.) (8.1.5) Chocolate spot (Botrytis fabae) (8.2.1) Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta fabae) (8.2.2) Rust (Uromyces fabae) (8.2.4) Stem rot (Sclerotinia spp.) (8.2.8) Faba Bean Yellow Mosaic Virus (FBYM) (8.4.X) ANNE XI - List of contributors Core Advisory Group Kenneth Street, ICARDA, Syria Gérard Duc, INRA, France Fouad Maalouf, ICARDA, Syria P. N. Mathur, Bioversity International, India Robert Redden, Department of Primary Industries Victoria, Australia Larry Robertson, USDA-ARS, USA Reviewers Algeria A. Abdelguerfi, ENSA Azerbaijan Almas Asadova, Genetic Resources Institute of Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences Bolivia Tito E. Claure, Pairumani's Phytoecogenetical Research Center Canada Axel Diederichsen, Plant Gene Resources of Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada China Zong Xuxiao, Institute of Crop Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences Germany Wolfgang Link, University of Göttingen Ulrike Lohwasser, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research India Kalyani Srinivasan, NBPGR Italy Andrea Carboni, CRA-CIN Portugal Isabel Duarte, INRB/INIA Maria Manuela Veloso, INRB/INIA Russia Sergey Bulyntsev, Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry Spain María José Suso, Instituto de Agricultura Sostenible (CSIC) Turkey Lerzan Aykas, Aegean Agricultural Research Institute USA Bonnie J. Furman, USDA-ARS Methodology for the definition of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for finger millet [Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn] Information collection and preparation of the Minimum Descriptor List (MDL) Information for the definition of a Minimum Descriptor List for finger millet [Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn] was based on the publication ‘Descriptors for Finger Millet’ published by IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1985. Since the relevant Crop strategy for finger millet was not available at the time of development of this key set, the ‘Regional strategy for the ex situ conservation of plant genetic resources in Eastern Africa’ (Global Crop Diversity Trust, 2006), was analyzed particularly with regard to evaluation traits such as susceptibility to important biotic and abiotic stresses. This comprehensive descriptors list was then compared with essential traits listed in ‘Descriptors for GRASS-WARMSEASON’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN); ‘Morphological diversity in finger millet germplasm introduced from Southern and Eastern Africa’ [(H.D. Upadhyaya, C.L.L. Gowda and V. Gopal Reddy) SAT eJournal, ICRISAT, Vol. 3, Issue 1, December 2007]; ‘Descriptors for Characterization and Evaluation of Finger millet’ [National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences (NIAS); Genebank of Japan], and with ‘Phenotypic Diversity of Ethiopian Finger Millet [Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn] in Relation to Geographical Regions as an Aid to Germplasm Collection and Conservation Strategy’ [(Kebere Bezaweletaw, Prapa Sripichitt, Wasana Wongyai and Vipa Hongtrakul) Kasetsart Journal (Natural Science), 41:7-16, 2007]. An excel table was prepared comparing traits listed in the above mentioned sources. The table was shared with the Crop Leader and then discussed with participants in the crop-specific meeting held in June 2009 at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), and involving experts from the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), All India Coordinated Millet Project (AICMP), NBPGR Headquarters and Shimla Research Station (see Annex I). During the meeting, characterization and evaluation traits important for finger millet were identified and a key set agreed upon. A comparison table containing only the Minimum List of characterization and evaluation descriptors was compiled to assist the Crop Leader in the selection of the list of traits to be proposed in the on-line survey (see Annex II). Preparation of the List of Experts The List of Experts was prepared taking into account the participants involved in crop- specific consultations for the definition of the ‘Regional strategy for the ex situ conservation of plant genetic resources in Eastern Africa’ (the Trust, 2006). Scientists present in the Sorghum & Millet directory of the Interactive Resource Center (IRC) website and some experts involved in the McKnight Foundation Collaborative Crop Research Program project were also included in the list. Additional reviewers were selected from among authors of relevant articles for this crop, such as the one on Ethiopian finger millet used for preparing the minimum list. Overall 66 experts from 24 countries and 42 different organizations were identified (see Annex III). Out of these, a Crop Leader, Dr A. Seetharam from All India Coordinated Research Projects (AICRP) on Small millets, and a Core Advisory Group (CAG), consisting of six experts, were selected to assist in the definition of a minimum set of descriptors for this crop. Members of the CAG were chosen from world renowned organizations such as International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), NBPGR, and from experts involved in the AICRPs on Small millets Project. Survey preparation and distribution A draft survey on Eleusine Coracana was prepared following consultations with the Crop Leader and finger millet experts during the crop-specific meeting held at NBPGR. At the meeting a proposal was made to include both Long and Minimum Lists of Descriptors in the survey considering that, according to the Memorandum of Understanding between Bioversity International and ICAR, lists of traditional descriptors should be revised for five crops, including finger millet. However, because of the complexity and length of the survey text, the coordinator of this activity decided to include only the minimum set of traits defined during the meeting. This was done after the participants had already agreed on the Long List, thus solely the Minimum List needed a wider validation (see Annex IV). Once approved, the final draft of the survey was uploaded into the SurveyMonkey application on internet. An email with the link to the survey was sent to scientists identified in the List of Experts on 23 June 2009 inviting them to validate the initial Minimum set of descriptors of Eleusine coracana accessions to promote the utilization of finger millet germplasm (see Annex V). Experts were also encouraged to mention any additional trait that was found to be relevant yet missing from the proposed list, along with a substantiated justification for its inclusion. The survey deadline was set at 23 July 2009, therefore, a first reminder was sent out on 7 July 2009 and a second one on 17 July 2009. By popular demand the deadline was extended to 6 August 2009 to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained. Survey analysis and refinement of the Minimum List Of the 66 experts identified and involved in the exercise, 22 from 13 countries and 18 different organizations recorded their comments using the online survey (see Annex VI). Among them, there were the Crop Leader and seven members of the Core Advisory Group (CAG). Results from the survey were analyzed and descriptors ranked by rating average and percentage of importance (see Annex VII). The summary results of the survey together with a report containing comments received by the participants (see Annex VIII) were sent to the Crop Leader and to the Core Advisory Group for further consultation and to help select a reduced set of key traits. In order to reach a wider consensus on the final key set of traits, additional members were added to the CAG at this stage. All feedback received from advisory members and reviewers was compared and harmonized, where possible (see Annex IX). This exercise led to a first draft of the key set for finger millet that was submitted to the Crop Leader and the Core Advisory Group again for final validation. Of particular note, no descriptors concerning abiotic stresses were included in the key set since none of the CAG selected “Soil salinity” (7.5) (the only abiotic stress proposed), as “Very Important” and because of its low rating. Definition of a final key set of descriptors for finger millet The final document approved by the Crop Leader and CAG, including all the contributors (see Annex X), was proofread by an external editor and sent to the Bioversity Publications Unit for layout and on-line publication processes. Furthermore, the publication was shared with the ECPGR Secretariat; the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base partners. Additionally, data were converted into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN-Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA first, and subsequently into the Global Accession Level Information Portal (GENESYS), linking national, regional and international genebank databases in support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also provided to the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) and to EURISCO. Acknowledgement Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of this strategic set of key access and utilization descriptors for finger millet genetic resources, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial support. Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leader, Dr A. Seetharam from AICRP Small millets (India), for providing valuable scientific direction. Ms Adriana Alercia provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process. Annex I – Comparison table weighing up important descriptors for finger millet drawn from different sourcesi ii Bioversity Descriptors IBPGR 1985 (1) USDA (2) ICRISAT (3) NIAS (4) Ethiopian finger m. article (5) Long List (6) Min + Data Avail (6) Growth [plant] habit 4.1.1 (Seedling stage) * * * * Plant height [cm] 4.1.2 * * * * * * Culm branching 4.1.3 * * Plant pigmentation 4.1.4 * * * * Productive tillers (NUMBER) 4.2.1 * * * * Days to flowering 4.2.2 * * * * * Ear exsertion [mm] 4.2.3 (n/n) Ear shape 4.2.4 * * * * * Ear size 4.2.5 (see finger l W) * Finger branching 4.2.6 * * * Discontinuity of spikelets on finger 4.2.7 * * Finger length [mm] 4.2.8 * * * * Finger width [mm] 4.2.9 * * Glume length [mm] 4.2.10 * * Spikelet shattering 4.2.11 N/N Number of grains per spikelet 4.2.12 * * * Grain covering 4.2.13 * * Grain colour 4.3.1 * * * * * * Culm thickness [mm] 6.1.1 * * * Leaf number 6.1.2 * * * Leaf sheat length [mm] 6.1.3 Leaf sheat width [mm] 6.1.4 Leaf blade length [cm] 6.1.5 Leaf blade width [cm] 6.1.6 Stomatal frequency 6.1.7 Blade length of flag leaf [cm] 6.1.8 * * * Blade width of flag leaf [cm] 6.1.9 * * Lodging susceptibility 6.1.10 * * Green fodder yield 6.1.11 * * * * Peduncle length [cm] 6.2.1 * * Finger number 6.2.2 * * * Spikelet density 6.2.3 * * Days to maturity 6.2.4 * * * * Synchrony of ear maturity 6.2.5 * * Grain shape 6.3.1 * * * Grain surface 6.3.2 * * * Grain uniformity 6.3.3 * * Pericarp persistence after threshing 6.3.4 * * * * 1000 grain weight [g] 6.3.5 * * * * Grain yield per plant [g] 6.3.6 * * * * Grain yield potential 6.3.7 Malting quality 6.3.8 * * * Protein content [%] 6.3.9 * * * Lysine content [%] 6.3.10 * * Methionine content [%] 6.3.11 * * Mineral content [%] 6.3.12 * * Calcium content [%] 6.3.12 * * * Low temperature 7.1 High temperature 7.2 Drought 7.3 * * High soil moisture 7.4 Soil salinity 7.5 * * * Shoot flies (Atherigona spp.) 8.1.1 * * White grubs (Holotrichia spp.) 8.1.2 * * Armyworms (Mythimna spp.) 8.1.3 * * Hairy caterpillars (Amsacta albistriga (Walk), Estigmene lactinea G.) 8.1.4 * * Bollworms (Heliothis armigera (Hub.)) 8.1.5 * * Stem borers (Busseola spp. - Chilo spp. - Sesamia spp.) 8.1.6 * * * Aphids (Hysteroneura setariae (Thomas) - Rhopalosiphum maidis (Fitch) - Tetraneura spp.) 8.1.7 * * Earhead caterpillars (Cacoecia spp. - Cryptoblades spp. - Eublemma spp. - Stenachroia elongella Hamps) 8.1.8 * * Beetles (Epicauta spp. - Epilachna similis (Thunb.) - Monolepta signata O.) 8.1.9 * * Earhead bugs (Calocoris angustatus (Leth.) - Dolycoris indicus (Slal.) - Menida Histrio (Fabr.) - Nezara viridula L.) 8.1.10 * * Midges (Contarinia spp.) 8.1.11 * * Weevils (Myllocerus spp. - Nematocerus spp.) 8.1.12 * * Grain moth (Sitotroga cerealella (Oliv.)) 8.1.13 * * Grasshoppers 8.1.14 * * Locusts 8.1.15 Birds 8.1.16 * Blast on foliage 8.2.1 * * * * Blast on neck 8.2.2 * * * * Blast on finger 8.2.3 * * * * Foot rots 8.2.4 * * Wilts 8.2.5 * * Leaf spots (Cercospora spp. - Collectotrichum graminicola (Ces.) Wilson - Drechslera rostratum (Drechs.) - Richard & Fraser) = (Exserohilum rostratum Drechs. - Phyllachora eleusines Speg.) 8.2.6 * * * Downy mildews (Sclerophthora macrospora (Sacc.) Thirum., Shaw & Naras.) 8.2.7 * * Smuts (Melanosichium eleusinis (Kulk.) Mundk. & Thirum.) 8.2.8 * * Grain molds (Curvularia lunata (Walk.) Bold.) 8.2.9 * * i (1) ‘Descriptors for Finger Millet’ (IBPGR, 1985); (2) ‘Descriptors for GRASS-WARMSEASON’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN); (3) ‘Morphological diversity in finger millet germplasm introduced from Southern and Eastern Africa’ [(HD Upadhyaya, CLL Gowda and V Gopal Reddy) SAT eJournal, ICRISAT, Vol. 3, Issue 1, December 2007]; (4) ‘Descriptors for Characterization and Evaluation of Finger millet’ [National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences (NIAS), Genebank of Japan]; (5) ‘Phenotypic Diversity of Ethiopian Finger Millet [Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn] in Relation to Geographical Regions as an Aid to Germplasm Collection and Conservation Strategy’ [(Kebere Bezaweletaw, Prapa Sripichitt, Wasana Wongyai and Vipa Hongtrakul) Kasetsart Journal (Natural Science) 41:7 – 16, 2007]; (6) Long and Minimum list of descriptors identified by participants in the crop-specific meeting held at the NBPGR in June 2009. ii Descriptors highlighted in yellow are the Minimum key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for genetic resources utilization; descriptors highlighted in red are descriptors for deletion. Annex II – Comparison table for a Minimum List of characterization and evaluation descriptors sent to the Crop Leader on 10 June 2009 Descriptors for finger millet (Eleusine coracana) IBPGR 1985 USDA ICRISAT NIAS Ethiopian finger millet article in C&E (Data Available) Plant height [cm] 4.1.2 * * * * * Plant pigmentation 4.1.4 * * * Productive tillers (NUMBER) 4.2.1 * * * Days to flowering 4.2.2 * * * * Ear shape 4.2.4 * * * * Finger branching 4.2.6 * * Finger length [mm] 4.2.8 * * * Number of grains per spikelet 4.2.12 * * Grain colour 4.3.1 * * * * * Leaf number 6.1.2 * * Green fodder yield 6.1.11 * * * Finger number 6.2.2 * * Days to maturity 6.2.4 * * * 1000 grain weight [g] 6.3.5 * * * Grain yield per plant [g] 6.3.6 * * * Malting quality 6.3.8 * * Protein content [%] 6.3.9 * * Calcium content [%] 6.3.12 * * Soil salinity 7.5 * * Stem borers (Busseola spp. - Chilo spp. - Sesamia spp.) 8.1.6 * * Blast on foliage 8.2.1 * * * Blast on neck 8.2.2 * * * Blast on finger 8.2.3 * * * Leaf spots (Cercospora spp. - Collectotrichum graminicola (Ces.) Wilson) - Drechslera rostratum (Drechs. - Richard & Fraser ) = Exserohilum rostratum Drechs.) - Phyllachora eleusines Speg. ) 8.2.6 * * Annex III – Experts identified to participate to the online survey ROLE NAME ORGANIZATION COUNTRY Crop Leader Seetharam, A. Ex-Project Coordinator, AICRP on Small millets India CAG Baniya, B.K. NARC (Retired) Nepal New CAG Bramel, Paula IITA Nigeria CAG suggested ontology workshop Hash, C. Tom ICRISAT India New CAG Lohwasser, Ulrike Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK) Germany CAG Rana, J.C. NBPGR, Regional Station, Phagli, Shimla India New CAG Updhyaya, Hari D. ICRISAT India Syngenta internet Abraha, Negusse NARI Eritrea Syngenta internet Ageru, Asfaw Adugna Melkassa Agricultural Research Center Ethiopia Syngenta internet Ahmadou, Issaka INRAN Niger Reviewer Bandyopadhyay, Ranajit IITA Nigeria Comparative Genomics Bennetzen's Lab Bennetzen, Jeffrey Lynn Department of Genetics, University of Georgia USA Article internet 11 Bezaweletaw, Kebere Awassa Agric. Research Center Ethiopia Syngenta internet Bidinger, F.R. ICRISAT India Syngenta internet Bonamigo, Luiz Sementes Brazil Syngenta internet Buntin, G. David UGA USA Reviewer Chee, Peng UGA USA Reviewer Chen, Chengci Montana State University USA Syngenta internet Clerget, Benoit ICRISAT Mali Reviewer Cohn, Donna Hampshire College USA Syngenta internet Degu, Erenso Melkassa Agricultural Research Center Ethiopia Collaborative Crop Research Program Devos, Katrien Martha University of Georgia (UGA) USA Article internet 22 Dida, M. Mathews Maseno University Kenya Reviewer Elfadil, Adam Ag Research Corporation Sudan 1 Article internet 1: Kasetsart J. (Nat. Sci.) 41:7-16 (2007), Phenotypic Diversity of Ethiopian Finger Millet [Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn] in Relation to Geographical Regions as an Aid to Germplasm Collection and Conservation Strategy Kebere Bezaweletaw1, Prapa Sripichitt2. 2 Article internet 2: Population Structure and Diversity in Finger Millet Germplasm. WIEWS Ellis, David National Center for Genetic Resources Preservation (NCGRP) USA Reviewer Endale, Dinku USDA, GA USA Reviewer Erbaugh, Mark Ohio State University USA Syngenta internet Ferreira, Alves Sementes Brazil Syngenta internet Fite, Geleta Dept of Agricultural Research Botswana Reviewer Fofana, Amadou ISRA-CRZ Senegal Syngenta internet Franca Neto, Jose EMBRAPA Brazil Syngenta internet Habindavyi, Esperance ISABU Burundi Syngenta internet Harinarayana, Gollapudi Ganga Kaveri Seeds India Reviewer (no longer CAG) Harrison Dunn , Melanie L. ARS-USDA, GA USA Reviewer Haussmann, Bettina ICRISAT Niger Syngenta internet Hernandez Alatorre, Jose Antonio INIFAP Mexico Collaborative Crop Research Program Hittalmani, Shailaja University of Agriculture sciences Bangalore (UASB) India Reviewer (no longer CAG) Jayarame, Gowda AICRP on Small millets India Reviewer Kamuntu, Seperatus Ukiriguru Mwanza Agricultural Research Institute Tanzania Reviewer (no longer CAG) Khairwal, I.S. AICPMIP India Reviewer Kumar, Anand AERC Canada Germplasm Collection (2003) Lawrence, Peter Australian Tropical Crops & Forages Genetic Resources Centre Australia Collaborative Crop Research Program Leong, Sally University of Wisconsin USA NBPGR meeting June 2009 Mahajan, R.K. NBPGR India Reviewer Mativavarira, Munyaradzi Crop Breeding Institute Zimbabwe Reviewer Maloo, S.R. MPUAT, Udaipur, Rajasthan India NBPGR Expert meeting 2009 Mishra, S.K. NBPGR India Reviewer Ni, Xinzhi USDA, GA USA Syngenta internet Nutsugah, Stephen SARI Ghana Syngenta internet Oduori, Chrispus O.A. KARI Kenya Syngenta internet Rai, K.N. ICRISAT India Syngenta internet Rattunde, Fred ICRISAT Mali SINGER Survey (Genebank data manager) Reddy, Thimma ICRISAT India Syngenta internet Reddy, V. Gopal ICRISAT India Reviewer Rooney, Lloyd TAMU USA Syngenta internet Sanogo, Moussa IER Mali Suggested by H. Knüpffer Schmidt, Barbel IPK Genebank Dept Germany Syngenta internet Sharma, Y.K. Agric Research Station India Article internet 11 Sripichitt, Prapa Kasetsart University Thailand Pearl millet breeder Sy, Ousmane Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles (ISRA) Senegal Syngenta internet Tesso, Tesfaye Melkassa Agricultural Research Center Ethiopia Syngenta internet Traore, Hamidou INERA-CREAF Burkina Faso NBPGR June visit 2009 Verma, V.D. NBPGR Regional Station, Phagli, Shimla India Syngenta internet Weltzien Rattunde, Eva ICRISAT Mali Reviewer Xuxiao, Zong Institute of Crop Germplasm Resources, CAAS China Syngenta internet Yadav, Om Parkash CAZRI India WIEWS Institute of Biodiversity Conservation Ethiopia KARI Website National Genebank of Kenya, Crop Plant Genetic Resources Centre - Muguga KARI-NGBK Kenya KARI Website Agricultural Research Centre - Katumani KARI-Katumani Kenya 1 Article internet 1: Kasetsart J. (Nat. Sci.) 41:7-16 (2007), Phenotypic Diversity of Ethiopian Finger Millet [Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn] in Relation to Geographical Regions as an Aid to Germplasm Collection and Conservation Strategy Kebere Bezaweletaw1, Prapa Sripichitt2. Annex IV – Key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for finger millet (Eleusine coracana) validated at the crop-specific meeting held at NBPGR in June 2009 and used for the online survey Plant height [cm] 4.1.2 * Plant pigmentation 4.1.4 * Productive tillers (NUMBER) 4.2.1 * Days to flowering 4.2.2 * Ear shape 4.2.4 * Finger branching 4.2.6 * Finger length [mm] 4.2.8 * Number of grains per spikelet 4.2.12 * Grain colour 4.3.1 * Leaf number 6.1.2 * Green fodder yield 6.1.11 * Finger number 6.2.2 * Days to maturity 6.2.4 * 1000 grain weight [g] 6.3.5 * Grain yield per plant [g] 6.3.6 * Malting quality 6.3.8 * Protein content [%] 6.3.9 * Calcium content [%] 6.3.12 * Soil salinity 7.5 * Stem borers (Busseola spp. - Chilo spp. - Sesamia spp.) 8.1.6 * Blast on foliage 8.2.1 * Blast on neck 8.2.2 * Blast on finger 8.2.3 * Leaf spots (Cercospora spp., Collectotrichum graminicola, Drechslera rostratum, * Exserohilum rostratum, Phyllachora eleusines) 8.2.6 Annex V – Online survey to choose a key set of descriptors for finger millet utilization WELCOME Welcome to the survey for the selection of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for finger millet to support an international information system to enhance the utilization of germplasm held in genebanks. Your knowledge and experience are being sought to define an initial ‘key set’ of descriptors that identify traits important to crop production and facilitate the use of accessions by researchers. Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 23 July 2009. This key set of descriptors will be made available through a global portal for identifying sets of accessions for evaluation and use. For characterization, the aim is a key set of maximally differentiating traits that provide the most impact in discriminating between accessions. For evaluation, the aim is to focus on a few important traits for production, such as those related to abiotic or biotic stresses of cosmopolitan nature. By selecting descriptors as 'very important', you are helping us define the key set that will be instrumental for assisting researchers to more easily utilize finger millet accessions. This survey consists of two parts: - PART I: Characterization descriptors. - PART II: Evaluation descriptors. We thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in selecting the set of descriptors. * Please allow us to acknowledge your contribution by completing your full contact details below: Name: Position: Organization: Country: Email: PART I: Characterization descriptors These traits enable easy and quick discrimination between phenotypes. They are generally highly heritable, can be easily seen by the eye and are equally expressed in all environments. Based on your experience, please rate the descriptors according to their importance. It also allows you to indicate if any essential descriptor that can contribute to its use is missing from the minimum list presented. *Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in the IBPGR publication 'Descriptors for Finger millet' (1985). Not important Important Very important Plant height [cm] (4.1.2) Plant pigmentation (4.1.4) Productive tillers (4.2.1) Days to flowering (4.2.2) Ear shape (4.2.4) Finger branching (4.2.6) Finger length [mm] (4.2.8) Number of grains per spikelet (4.2.12) Grain colour (4.3.1) If you consider that an essential trait is missing from this list, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. PART II: Evaluation descriptors These descriptors include characters such as grain yield and biotic and abiotic stresses. They are the most interesting traits in crop improvement. Please consider the following factors relating to the trait when making your final decision: (i) Global impact, (ii) Initial strategic set, (iii) Importance for germplasm utilization, (iv) Data availability, (v) True economic damage and (vi) Wide geographical occurrence. Please, rate these traits in order of importance at the global level. It also allows you to indicate if any essential trait for production is missing from the minimum list presented or indicate any that may not be very significant to global production. Not Important Important Very important Leaf number (6.1.2) Green fodder yield (6.1.11) Finger number (6.2.2) Days to maturity (6.2.4) 1000-grain weight [g] (6.3.5) Grain yield per plant [g] (6.3.6) Malting quality (6.3.8) Grain protein content [%] (6.3.9) Calcium content [%] (6.3.13) Soil salinity (7.5) Stem borers (Busseola spp. - Chilo spp. - Sesamia spp. ) (8.1.6) Blast on foliage (8.2.1) Blast on neck (8.2.2) Blast on finger (8.2.3) Leaf spots (Cercospora spp. - Collectotrichum graminicola - Drechslera rostratum = Exserohilum rostratum - Phyllachora eleusines) (8.2.6) If you consider that an essential trait important for crop improvement and production is missing from the list above, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. NOTE: Please remember, this list is the starting point and will grow over time, as required. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. Annex VI – Respondents to the online survey ROLE NAME POSITION ORGANIZATION COUNTRY Crop Leader Seetharam, A. Ex-Project Coordinator All India Coordinated Research Project (AICRP) - Small millets India CAG Baniya, Bimal Kumar Principal Scientist Retired NARC Nepal CAG Bramel, Paula DDG-R4D IITA Nigeria CAG Hash, C. Tom ICRISAT India CAG Lohwasser, Ulrike Genebank Taxonomist Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research Germany CAG Mathur, Prem Bioversity International India CAG Rana, J.C. Principal Scientist National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) Regional Station India CAG Upadhyaya, Hari D. Principal Scientist and Head, Gene Bank ICRISAT India Reviewer Asfaw Adugna Plant Breeder Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) Ethiopia Reviewer Ashok, Kumar Principal Scientist NBPGR India Reviewer Dida, Mathews M. Senior Lecturer Maseno University Kenya Reviewer Dillon, Sally Research Scientist Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries Australia Reviewer Elfadil Mukhtar Adam Scientist Agricultural Research Corporation Sudan Reviewer Habindavyi, Espérance Researcher Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Burundi Burundi Reviewer Hittalmani, Shailaja Professor and Head University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore India Reviewer Kamuntu, Seperatus P. Agricultural Research Officer Lake Zone Agricultural Research Institute and Development (LZARDI) Ukiriguru Mwanza Tanzania Reviewer Kumar, K. Anand Research Lead AERC Inc. Canada Reviewer Mare, Marco Millets Breeder Crop Breeding Institute (C.B.I) Zimbabwe Reviewer Oduori, C. Senior Research Officer Kenya Agricultural Research Institute Kenya Reviewer Reddy, M. Thimma Scientific Associate ICRISAT India Reviewer Sy, Ousmane Pearl millet breeder Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles (ISRA) Senegal Reviewer Taye, Tadesse Sorghum and Millet research coordinator Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) Ethiopia Annex VII – Survey results ranked by rating average and percentage of importance Descriptor Rating Average Descriptor Important (%) Very important (%) Characterization Characterization Days to flowering (4.2.2) 4.58 Days to flowering (4.2.2) 21.10% 78.90% Grain colour (4.3.1) 4.40 Grain colour (4.3.1) 30.00% 70.00% Ear shape (4.2.4) 4.30 Plant height [cm] (4.1.2) 25.00% 70.00% Plant height [cm] (4.1.2) 4.25 Finger length [mm] (4.2.8) 25.00% 70.00% Finger length [mm] (4.2.8) 4.25 Ear shape (4.2.4) 35.00% 65.00% Productive tillers (4.2.1) 4.05 Finger branching (4.2.6) 25.00% 65.00% Finger branching (4.2.6) 4.00 Productive tillers (4.2.1) 35.00% 60.00% Plant pigmentation (4.1.4) 3.40 Number of grains per spikelet (4.2.12) 45.00% 40.00% Number of grains per spikelet (4.2.12) 3.35 Plant pigmentation (4.1.4) 55.00% 35.00% Evaluation Evaluation 1000-grain weight [g] (6.3.5) 4.40 Finger number (6.2.2) 20.00% 75.00% Finger number (6.2.2) 4.35 1000-grain weight [g] (6.3.5) 30.00% 70.00% Grain protein content [%] (6.3.9) 4.20 Grain protein content [%] (6.3.9) 40.00% 60.00% Grain yield per plant [g] (6.3.6) 4.00 Grain yield per plant [g] (6.3.6) 36.80% 57.90% Days to maturity (6.2.4) 3.95 Days to maturity (6.2.4) 40.00% 55.00% Blast on finger (8.2.3) 3.95 Blast on finger (8.2.3) 40.00% 55.00% Green fodder yield (6.1.11) 3.84 Calcium content [%] (6.3.13) 30.00% 55.00% Calcium content [%] (6.3.13) 3.65 Blast on foliage (8.2.1) 45.00% 45.00% Blast on foliage (8.2.1) 3.60 Green fodder yield (6.1.11) 57.90% 42.10% Malting quality (6.3.8) 3.50 Malting quality (6.3.8) 50.00% 40.00% Blast on neck (8.2.2) 3.50 Blast on neck (8.2.2) 50.00% 40.00% Stem borers (Busseola spp. - Chilo spp. - Sesamia spp. ) (8.1.6) 3.15 Stem borers (Busseola spp. - Chilo spp. - Sesamia spp. ) (8.1.6) 55.00% 30.00% Leaf number (6.1.2) 2.89 Leaf spots (Cercospora spp. - Collectotrichum graminicola - Drechslera rostratum = Exserohilum rostratum - Phyllachora eleusines) (8.2.6) 60.00% 20.00% Soil salinity (7.5) 2.85 Soil salinity (7.5) 70.00% 15.00% Leaf spots (Cercospora spp. - Collectotrichum graminicola - Drechslera rostratum = Exserohilum rostratum - Phyllachora eleusines) (8.2.6) 2.80 Leaf number (6.1.2) 78.90% 10.50% Annex VIII – Additional traits proposed in the survey Finger millet descriptor Name of expert Additional characterization traits N. times proposed Ousmane Sy Marco Mare Asfaw Adugna Elfadil Mukhtar Adam J.C. Rana Hari D. Upadhyaya C. Oduori Bimal Kumar Baniya Shailaja Hittalmani Size of the grain is very important, bigger the grain size, more likely is the variety for most farmers 2 X X Panicle exsertion 1 X Threshability of grains is also an important trait which farmers consider while making selection 1 X Plant aspect score 1 X Overall agronomic desirability of the accessions as observed visually 1 X Additional evaluation traits Dry matter weight, this is very important for farmers who needs fodder for animals 1 X Head compacity is important, if the head is compact, there is possibility of hiding insects 1 X Number of fingers 1 X Finger width 1 X Finger characteristic: this will help the extent of diseases susceptibility and insect infestation 1 X Striga support Shootfly at seedling stage 1 X Cooking and keeping quality 1 X Annex IX – Summary results table sent to the Crop Leader and the CAG for validation Descriptor Your selection Rating Average Characterization Days to flowering (4.2.2) 4.58 Grain colour (4.3.1) 4.40 Ear shape (4.2.4) 4.30 Plant height [cm] (4.1.2) 4.25 Finger length [mm] (4.2.8) 4.25 Productive tillers (4.2.1) 4.05 Finger branching (4.2.6) 4.00 Plant pigmentation (4.1.4) 3.40 Number of grains per spikelet (4.2.12) 3.35 Evaluation 1000-grain weight [g] (6.3.5) 4.40 Finger number (6.2.2) 4.35 Grain protein content [%] (6.3.9) 4.20 Grain yield per plant [g] (6.3.6) 4.00 Days to maturity (6.2.4) 3.95 Blast on finger (8.2.3) 3.95 Green fodder yield (6.1.11) 3.84 Calcium content [%] (6.3.13) 3.65 Blast on foliage (8.2.1) 3.60 Malting quality (6.3.8) 3.50 Blast on neck (8.2.2) 3.50 Stem borers (Busseola spp. - Chilo spp. - Sesamia spp.) (8.1.6) 3.15 Leaf number (6.1.2) 2.89 Soil salinity (7.5) 2.85 Leaf spots (Cercospora spp. - Collectotrichum graminicola - Drechslera rostratum = Exserohilum rostratum - Phyllachora eleusines) (8.2.6) 2.80 Annex X – Final key set of descriptors for finger millet genetic resources Key access and utilization descriptors for finger millet genetic resources This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for finger millet genetic resources utilization. This strategic set of descriptors, together with passport data, will become the basis for the global accession level information portal being developed by Bioversity International with the financial support of the Global Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust). It will facilitate access to and utilization of finger millet accessions held in genebanks and does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently become available. Based on the comprehensive list ‘Descriptors for Finger millet’ published by IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1985, the list was subsequently compared with a number of sources such as ‘Descriptors for GRASS-WARMSEASON’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN), ‘Morphological diversity in finger millet germplasm introduced from Southern and Eastern Africa’ (SAT eJournal, ICRISAT, Vol. 3, Issue 1, December 2007), ‘Descriptors for Characterization and Evaluation of Finger millet (National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences, Genebank of Japan), ‘Phenotypic Diversity of Ethiopian Finger Millet [Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn] in Relation to Geographical Regions as an Aid to Germplasm Collection and Conservation Strategy’ (Kasetsart Journal, Natural Science, 41:7-16, 2007). The initial list was further refined during a crop-specific consultation meeting held at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR, India) in June 2009. It involved several scientists from NBPGR, the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) and the All India Coordinated Research Project on Small Millets (AICRP-Small Millets). A worldwide distribution of experts was involved in an online survey to define a first priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize finger millet genetic resources. This key set was afterwards validated by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr A. Seetharam, Ex-Project Coordinator, All India Coordinated Research Project on Small Millets. Biotic stresses included in the list were chosen because of their wide geographic occurrence and significant economic impact at a global level. Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptor numbers listed in the 1985 publication. PLANT DATA Plant height [cm] (4.1.2) From ground level to the tip of inflorescence (ear). At dough stage Plant pigmentation (4.1.4) At flowering 0 Not pigmented 1 Pigmented Productive tillers (4.2.1) Number of basal tillers which bear mature ears Days to flowering (4.2.2) From sowing to stage when ears have emerged from 50% of main tillers Ear shape (4.2.4) At dough stage 1 Droopy (fingers lax and drooping) 2 Open (fingers straight) 3 Semi-compact (tops of fingers curved) 4 Compact (fingers incurved) 5 Fist-like (fingers very incurved) Finger branching (4.2.6) At dough stage 0 Absent 1 Present Finger length [mm] (4.2.8) From base to the tip of longest spike (finger) on main tiller. At dough stage Number of grains per spikelet (4.2.12) At maturity 3 Low (4 grains) 5 Intermediate (6 grains) 7 High (8 grains) Grain colour (4.3.1) Post-harvest 1 White 2 Light brown 3 Copper-brown 4 Purple-brown 99 Other (specify in descriptor Notes) Green fodder yield (6.1.11) Consider tillering, height, leafiness, bulk and senescence. At maturity Finger number (6.2.2) On main ear. At dough stage Days to maturity (6.2.4) From sowing to stage when 50% of main tillers have mature ears 1000-grain weight [g] (6.3.5) Grain yield per plant [g] (6.3.6) Mean of five plants, post-harvest Grain protein content [DW %] (6.3.9) Percentage of dry grain weight Calcium content [DW %] (6.3.13) Percentage of dry grain weight BIOTIC STRESSES Stem borers (Busseola spp.; Chilo spp.; Sesamia spp.) (8.1.6) Blast on foliage (Pyricularia sp.) (8.2.1) At 30 days Blast on neck (Pyricularia sp.) (8.2.2) At maturity Blast on finger (Pyricularia sp.) (8.2.3) At maturity NOTES Any additional information may be specified here, particularly that referring to the category ‘99=Other’ present in some of the descriptors above. CONTRIBUTORS Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of this strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for finger millet genetic resources’, and in particular to Dr A. Seetharam for providing valuable scientific direction. Ms Adriana Alercia provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process. CORE ADVISORY GROUP A. Seetharam, Ex-Project Coordinator, All India Coordinated Research Project on Small Millets, India Bimal Kumar Baniya, Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), Nepal Paula Bramel, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Nigeria Tom C. Hash, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India Ulrike Lohwasser, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research, Germany Prem Mathur, Bioversity International, India J.C. Rana, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), Regional Station, Phagli, Shimla, India Hari D. Upadhyaya, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India REVIEWERS Australia Sally Dillon, Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries Burundi Espérance Habindavyi, Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Burundi Canada K. Anand Kumar, Agriculture Environmental Renewal Canada (AERC) Inc. Ethiopia Asfaw Adugna, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) Taye Tadesse, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) India Ashok Kumar, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) Hittalmani Shailaja, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore M. Thimma Reddy, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Kenya Mathews M. Dida, Maseno University C. Oduori, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute Senegal Ousmane Sy, Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles (ISRA) Sudan Adam Mukhtar Elfadil, Agricultural Research Corporation Tanzania Seperatus P. Kamuntu, Lake Zone Agricultural Research and Development Institute (LZARDI) Zimbabwe Marco Mare, Crop Breeding Institute (CBI) Methodology for the definition of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for grass pea (Lathyrus spp.) Information collection and preparation of a Minimum Descriptor List (MDL) Information for the definition of a MDL for Lathyrus was drawn from the publication Descriptors for Lathyrus spp. (IPGRI, 2000). The list derived from this publication was subsequently integrated and harmonized with descriptors suggested in the ‘Crop Strategy for the ex-situ conservation of Lathyrus’ (the Trust, 2007), particularly with regards to the inclusion of evaluation traits such as susceptibility to important biotic and abiotic stresses for grass pea. Preparing List of Experts A list of experts was prepared taking into account the list of original reviewers involved in the publication ‘Descriptors for Lathyrus spp.’ (IPGRI, 2000), as well as experts taking part in crop-specific consultations for the definition of the ‘Crop Strategy for the ex-situ conservation of Lathyrus (the Trust, 2007). Experts belonging to the Lathyrus Germplasm Collections Directory were also included. Overall, the list was composed of 60 experts, coming from 31 countries and 51 different organizations (see Annex II). Out of these, a Group Leader (Dr Prem N. Mathur) and a Core Advisory group consisting of five experts was selected to assist in the definition of a minimum set of descriptors for this crop, which was subsequently circulated for validation among a wider group of experts. Experts forming the CAG were selected from world renowned organizations such as ICARDA, the Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research, the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, the Indira Ghandi Agricultural University, the Department of Agriculture and Food of Western Australia and crop-specific networks such as the ECPGR. Survey preparation and distribution A draft survey on Lathyrus was prepared following consultations with the Crop Leader and the CAG at the beginning of July 2008. Once approved, the final draft of the survey was uploaded into the Survey Monkey application on the internet and an email invitation sent out to experts. A link to the Survey was provided to experts, who were invited to validate the initial ‘Minimum set of descriptors’ of Lathyrus accessions to promote its utilization (see Annex I). Experts were also encouraged to mention any additional trait(s) that was (were) found to be relevant yet missing from the proposed List, along with a substantiated justification for its (their) inclusion. The survey deadline was set at 28 July 2008. A reminder was sent out on the 22 July to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained. Survey analysis Of the 60 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise (see Annex II), 14, coming from 11 countries, recorded their comments using the online survey (see Annex III). Comments received were harmonised and sent to the Crop Leader for further refinement. Dr. Ken Street from ICARDA, also provided essential input for the refinement of the minimum list. The revised minimum list, together with descriptor states for each descriptor was sent to the CAG for final approval on 28 October 2008, requesting that final comments be submitted to the Coordinator by 7 November. The final minimum list, approved by the Crop Leader and the CAG, is presented in Annex IV. Afterwards a final key set was prepared adding descriptor states and contributors (see Annex V). Once the core subset of characterization and evaluation standards for grass pea was finalised, data were transformed into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN- Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA, and into GENESYS, linking national, regional and international genebank databases in support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also shared with the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER), the germplasm information exchange network of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and EURISCO. Acknowledgement Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for Lathyrus genetic resources’, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial support. Annex I – Survey to choose a Minimum set of Descriptors for Grass Pea (Lathyrus spp.) 1. WELCOME Welcome to the survey for the selection of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors to support an international system of information to enhance the utilization of germplasm held in genebanks. Your knowledge and experience is requested to validate this initial ‘Minimum set of descriptors’ of Lathyrus accessions to facilitate their use by researchers. This key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors will be made available through a global facility for identifying sets of accessions for evaluation and use. For characterization, the aim is a small set of maximally differentiating traits that provide the most impact in discriminating between accessions and, sometimes, may be also relevant to choosing accessions for evaluation. For example, plant height may be indicative in identifying tolerance to lodging. For evaluation, the aim is to focus on a few important traits for production, such as resistance/tolerance to an important disease or some aspect of product quality. This initial set of characterization and evaluation data will constitute the basis of an international facility for researchers to identify the sets of accessions more likely to contain the genetic variation they require for their specific crop improvement programmes. The list presented here has been drawn from the IPGRI publication “Descriptors for Lathyrus spp.”(2000), and adopted by the Trust Crop Strategy Meeting for the ex-situ conservation of Lathyrus (2007). This survey should take no longer than 15 minutes. Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is JULY 28TH 2008. We thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in validating this initial, key set of descriptors. This survey consists of two parts: - PART I: Lists important characterization descriptors for Lathyrus. It also allows you to indicate if any essential descriptor that can contribute to its use is missing from the minimum list presented. - PART II: Lists important evaluation descriptors for Lathyrus. It also allows you to indicate if any essential trait for production is missing from the minimum list presented or indicate any that may not be very significant to global production. Please allow us to acknowledge your contribution by completing your full contact details below: Name Position Institute Address City/Town Country Email Phone Fax 2. Part I: Characterization descriptors Characterization descriptors* are those that permit accessions to be easily described and categorized into groups. They are generally highly heritable, can be easily seen by the eye and are expressed equally in all environments. *Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in the Bioversity publication ‘Descriptors for Lathyrus spp., 2000’. PLANT GROWTH HABIT (7.1.6) Recorded at the beginning of the flowering period 1 Prostrate 2 Spreading 3 Semi-erect 4 Erect SEEDLING VIGOUR (7.1.3) Recorded 20 days after emergence 3 Poor 5 Intermediate 7 Vigorous PLANT HEIGHT [cm] (7.2.1) Height of plant at physiological maturity measured from ground to the tip of the longest branch NUMBER OF PRIMARY BRANCHES (7.3.2) Counted at first pod maturity (only pod-bearing branches) ROOT NODULATION AT FULL BLOOMING STAGE (7.4.2) 0 No nodules 3 Low 5 Intermediate 7 High DAYS TO 50% FLOWERING [d] (7.6.2) Number of days from sowing to stage when 50% of plants have begun to flower in a row DAYS TO MATURITY [d] (7.6.4) From sowing to when 80% of plants have mature pods FLOWER COLOUR (7.6.12) Score on fresh, open flowers for score standard, wing and keel colours separately 1 White 2 White blue 3 Blue 4 Grey 5 Light yellow 6 Yellow 7 Pink 8 Orange 9 Red 10 Violet-blue 11 Violet NUMBER OF PODS PER PLANT (7.7.2) Mean number of pods. Recorded from randomly selected plants at physiological maturity NUMBER OF SEEDS PER POD (7.7.16) Mean number of seeds counted on randomly selected pods. Recorded at physiological maturity. POD DEHISCENCE (7.7.17) Scored one week after maturity 0 No shattering 3 Low shattering 5 Medium shattering 7 High shattering SEED COAT COLOUR (7.8.3) 1 Greyed-white 2 Yellow-white 3 Grey 4 Brown 5 Yellow-green 6 Pink 7 Red-purple 8 Black 9 Grey mottled 99 Other (specify in descriptor) 100-SEED WEIGHT [g] (7.8.10) Weight of 100 randomly selected mature seeds at 8-10% (air-dry) seed moisture content. If you consider that an essential trait for the identification of the crop to promote its use is missing from this list, please add it here along with a substantiated justification. 4.PART II: Evaluation Descriptors This type of descriptor includes those traits of significant importance to sustainable production, including abiotic and biotic stresses. In this case we want to target a few key evaluation traits for which we can initially collect data. This list is the starting point and would grow over time. HARVEST INDEX [%] (8.1.6) Ratio of total grain to total biological yield taken from randomly selected plants in a row B-N-OXALYL-L-A, B-DIAMINOPROPIONIC ACID (ODAP) CONTENT [%] (8.2.4) Estimate ODAP content in dry seed and any other plant part (specify such as dry cotyledons, dry embryo, etc.) SEED CRUDE PROTEIN CONTENT [g/100g DW] (8.2.1) SUSCEPTIBILITY TO BEAN APHIDS (Aphis craccivora) (10.1.1) SUSCEPTIBILITY TO POD BORERS (Etiella zinckenella) (10.1.2) SUSCEPTIBILITY TO JASSIDS SUSCEPTIBILITY TO POWDERY MILDEW (Erysiphe polygoni f.sp. pisi) (10.3.1) SUSCEPTIBILITY TO DOWNY MILDEW (Peronospora lathyri – palustris) 10.3.2) SUSCEPTIBILITY TO BROOMRAPE (Orobanche spp.) If you consider that an essential trait important for crop improvement and production is missing from this list, or, if any of the descriptors listed is not clearly useful to promote utilization, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. * Could you please indicate if you think the key descriptors chosen are suitable for the stated purpose? Could you please indicate if you think the key descriptors chosen are suitable for the stated purpose? Yes No NOTE: Please remember, this list is the starting point and will grow over time, as required. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. Annex II - List of experts identified for participation to the Survey for the definition of a minimum set of descriptors for Lathyrus Role Name Organization Country Crop leader Mathur, P.N. Bioversity International Office for South Asia India Core Group Haque, Mamtazul Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute Bangladesh Core Group Sarker, Ashutosh ICARDA South East Asia Office India Core Group/Reviewer DL Pandey R.L. Indira Gandhi Agricultural University India Core group/Reviewers DL Hanbury, C.D. Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia Australia Core group/Reviewers DL Lohwasser, Ulrike Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (ECPGR) Germany SRG Muehlbauer, F.J. USDA USA Reviewers Desc List Benková, Michaela Research Institute for Plant Production Slovakia Republic Reviewers Desc List Combes, Daniel IBEAS (ECPGR) France Reviewers Desc List De la Cuadra, Celia Centro de Recursos Fitogenéticos “La Canaleja” Spain Reviewers Desc List De la Rosa, Lucia Centro de Recursos Fitogenéticos “La Canaleja” Spain Reviewers Desc List Frese, L. Federal Centre for Breeding Germany Reviewers Desc List/SRG Hanson, Jean ILRI Ethiopia Reviewers Desc List Islam, Obaidual Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute Bangladesh Reviewers Desc List Lambein, Fernand Faculty of Medicine, University of Ghent Belgium Reviewers Desc List Linington, Simon Seed Conservation Section, Royal Botanical Gardens United Kingdom Reviewers Desc List Olegovna Burlyaeva, Marina N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry (VIR) Russia Reviewers Desc List Poulsen, Gert B. Nordic Genebank Sweden Reviewers Desc List Sharma, R.N. Indira Gandhi Agricultural University India Reviewers Desc List Smoliková, Marta Research Institute for Fodder Plants Ltd. Czech Republic Role Name Organization Country Reviewers Desc List Valkoun, Jan Czech Republic Strategy Expert * Australian Medicago Genetic Resources Centre Australia Strategy Expert * Genetic Resources Centre Bangladesh Agricultural Research Centre Bangladesh Strategy Expert * Institute for Plant Genetic Resources Bulgaria Strategy Expert * Biodiversity Conservation and Research Institute Ethiopia Strategy Expert * Department of Plant Breeding, Indian Institute of Pulses Research India Strategy Expert * Dept. of Botany, Institute of Life Science, Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem Israel Strategy Expert * Agricultural Research Council Nepal Strategy Expert * Sector de Pastagens e Forragens Dept Past., Forrag., Proteaginosas Portugal Strategy Expert * Servicio de Investigacion Agraria Junta de Castilla y Leon Spain Strategy Expert * General Commission for Scientific Agricultural Research Syria Strategy Expert * Ustimovskaya Experimental Station for Plant Cultivation Ukraine Strategy Expert Abdelguerfi, A. Institut National Agronomique (INA) Algeria Strategy Expert Abdi, Adugna Institute of Biodiversity Conservation and Research (IBCR) Ethiopia Strategy Expert Acuña, Hernan Centro Regional de Investigación Quilamapu, Inia Chile Strategy Expert Ambrose, Mike John Innes Centre United Kingdom Strategy Expert Diederichsen, Axel Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canada Strategy Expert De los Mozos Pascual, Marcelino Banco de Germoplasma, Centro de Investigacion Agraria de Albaladejito Spain Strategy Expert Della, Athena Agricultural Research Insitute Cyprus Strategy Expert El-Hawary, Mohamed Ibrahim National Gene Bank of Egypt Egypt Strategy Expert Furman, Bonnie J. ARS/USDA USA Role Name Organization Country Strategy Expert Galasso, Incoronata CNR Italy Strategy Expert Gowda, C.L.L. ICRISAT Strategy Expert Holly, László National Institute for Agricultural Quality Control Research Centre for Agrobotany Hungary Strategy Expert Horváth, Lajos Institute for Agrobotany Hungary Strategy Expert Jamal, Majd GCSAR - Ministry of Agric & Agrarian Reform Syria Strategy Expert Moal, Sharif Plant Genetic Resources Unit Crop Improv - Ministry of Agriculture Afghanistan Strategy Expert Monreal, Álvaro Ramos Consejeria de Agricultura Ganadería Spain Strategy Expert Redden, Bob Australian Temperate Field Crops Collection Australia Strategy Expert Ryabchoun, Victor K. National Centre for PGR of Ukraine Ukraine Strategy Expert Sharma, S.K. ICAR India Strategy Expert Srivastava, Surendra Nepal Agricultural Research Nepal Strategy Expert Suso, María José Instituto de Agricultura Sostenible (CSIC) Spain Strategy Expert Tan, Ayfer Aegean Agricultural Research Institute (AARI) Turkey Strategy Expert Van Ginkel, Maarten Department of Primary Industries Horsham Australia Strategy Expert Veloso, Maria Manuela Departamento de Recursos Genéticos e Melhoramento, Estação Agronómica Nacional Portugal Strategy Expert Vishnakovaya, Margarita N.I. Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry (VIR) Russia Strategy Expert Welsh, Molly Phaseolus Germplasm Collection - USDA/ARS USA Strategy Expert Xuxiao, Zong Institute of Crop Germplasm Resources, CAAS China Strategy Expert Zahoor, Ahmad Institute of Agribiotechnology & Genetic Resources Pakistan Expert Alexanian, Sergey N.I. Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry (VIR) Annex III – Survey responses and suggested additions/deletions to the identified set of Minimum descriptors for Lathyrus Name Organization Country Characterization descriptors to be added Character ization descripto rs to be deleted Evaluation descriptors to be added Evaluation descriptors to be deleted Do you think the key descriptors chosen are suitable for the stated purpose? Yes/No Abdelguerfi, A. INA Algeria * * * * Yes De La Rosa, L. INIA Spain Height to the first pod; Seed shape * Susceptibility to Bruchus sp. and Fusarium sp. * Yes De los Mozos Pascual, M. Centro de Investigación Agraria de Albaladejito Spain * * Straw crude protein content; Susceptibility to Bruchids * Yes Diederichsen, A. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canada * * * * Yes Hanbury, Colin Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia Australi a * * Susceptibility to Helicoverpa spp. larvae attack; Alfalfa mosaic virus (AMV), bean yellow mosaic virus (BYMV) and pea seed-borne mosaic virus (PSbMV). * Yes Haque, Md. Mamtazul Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute Banglad esh Leaf tendril; hypocotyle and epicotyle color * Days to 1st flowering; pod length and seed yield * Yes Lohwasser, Ulrike Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research German y * * * * Yes Mathur, P.N. BIOVERSITY INTERNATIONA L India * * * * Yes Redden, Bob Department of Primary Industries Victoria Australi a * * Anthocynin on leaf; Immature pod colour Root nodulation Yes Name Organization Country Characterization descriptors to be added Character ization descripto rs to be deleted Evaluation descriptors to be added Evaluation descriptors to be deleted Do you think the key descriptors chosen are suitable for the stated purpose? Sharma, R.N. Indira Gandhi Agricultural University India Seedling vigour (7.1.3) to be recoreded in accordance with seed index (100 seed wt.); Pod colour and pods/peduncle * Yes Valkoun, Jan Czech Republi c * * * * Yes Vishnyakova, Margarita Vavilov Institute of Plant Breeding Russia * * Ascochyta orobi Sacc. and A. lathyri * Yes Welsh, Molly USDA-ARS WA * * * * Yes Xuxiao, Zong CAAS China Date of first flowering; Ecological habitat; Fresh biomass; Dry biomass * Soluble solid matter content of sprouts (without cotyledon) for vegetable purposes; Vc content, protein content, sugar content and other soluble solid matter content in total (for vegetable purpose) * Yes Annex IV – Agreed key set of descriptors approved by the Crop Leader and the Core Advisory Group on 25/10/2008 Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in the Bioversity publication ‘Descriptors for Lathyrus spp., 2000’. Seedling vigour (7.1.3) Plant growth habit (7.1.6) Plant height [cm] (7.2.1) Number of primary branches (7.3.2) Days to 50% flowering [d] (7.6.2) Days to maturity [d] (7.6.4) Flower colour (7.6.12) Pod bearing position [cm] (height to first pod) (7.6.19) Number of pods per plant (7.7.2) Number of seeds per pod (7.7.16) Pod dehiscence (7.7.17) Seed coat colour (7.8.3) 100-seed weight [g] (7.8.10) Harvest index [%] (8.1.6) Seed crude protein content [g/100g DW] (8.2.1) β-N-Oxalyl-L-α, β-Diaminopropionic Acid (ODAP) content [%] (8.2.4) Susceptibility to bean aphids (Aphis craccivora) (10.1.1) Susceptibility to pod borers (Etiella zinckenella) (10.1.2) Susceptibility to Bruchids (Bruchus sp.) (10.1.4) Susceptibility to Jassids (10.1.5) Susceptibility to Powdery mildew (Erysiphe polygoni f.sp. pisi) (10.3.1) Susceptibility to Downy mildew (Peronospora lathyri – palustris) (10.3.2) Susceptibility to Broomrape (Orobanche spp.) (10.X.1) Annex V – Final key set of descriptors for Lathyrus genetic resources obtained after validation Key access and utilization descriptors for Lathyrus spp. genetic resources This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for Lathyrus utilization. This key set of strategic descriptors, together with passport data, will become the basis for the global accession level information portal (GENESYS) being developed by the Bioversity-led project, Global Information on Germplasm Accessions (GIGA). It will facilitate access to and utilization of Lathyrus accessions held in genebanks, and does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently become available. Based on the comprehensive list of ‘Descriptors for Lathyrus spp.’ (IPGRI, 2000), the set was developed in consultation with Lathyrus experts worldwide, and further refined by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr Prem Mathur of Bioversity International. Biotic and abiotic stresses included in the list were chosen because of their cosmopolitan nature, wide geographical occurrence and significant economic impact. The numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptor numbers as published in ‘Descriptors for Lathyrus spp.’ (IPGRI, 2000). Descriptors with numbers ending in ‘X’ are new descriptors that were added during the revision of the original publication. Seedling vigour (7.1.3) Recorded 20 days after emergence 3 Poor 5 Intermediate 7 Vigorous Plant growth habit (7.1.6) Recorded at the beginning of flowering period 1 Prostrate 2 Spreading 3 Semi-erect 4 Erect Plant height [cm] (7.2.1) Height of plant at physiological maturity measured from ground to the tip of the longest branch Number of primary branches (7.3.2) Counted at first pod maturity (only pod-bearing branches) Days to 50% flowering [d] (7.6.2) Number of days from sowing to stage when 50% of plants have begun to flower in a row Days to maturity [d] (7.6.4) From sowing to when 80% of plants have mature pods Flower colour (7.6.12) Score on fresh, open flowers for score standard, wing and keel colours separately 1 White 2 White blue 3 Blue 4 Grey 5 Light yellow 6 Yellow 7 Pink 8 Orange 9 Red 10 Violet–blue 11 Violet 99 Other (specify in descriptor Notes) Pod-bearing position [cm] (7.6.19) Recorded as height to the lowest pod Number of pods per plant (7.7.2) Mean number of pods. Recorded from randomly selected plants at physiological maturity. Number of seeds per pod (7.7.16) Mean number of seeds counted on randomly selected pods. Recorded at physiological maturity. Pod dehiscence (7.7.17) Scored one week after maturity 0 No shattering 3 Low shattering 5 Medium shattering 7 High shattering Seed coat colour (7.8.3) 1 Greyed–white 2 Yellow–white 3 Grey 4 Brown 5 Yellow–green 6 Pink 7 Red–purple 8 Black 9 Grey mottled 10 Green mottled 99 Other (specify in descriptor Notes) 100-seed weight [g] (7.8.10) Weight of 100 randomly selected mature seeds at 8–10% (air-dry) seed moisture content Harvest index [%] (8.1.6) Ratio of total grain to total biological yield taken from randomly selected plants in a row Seed crude protein content [g/100 g DW] (8.2.1) β-N-Oxalyl-L-α, β-Diaminopropionic Acid (ODAP) content [%] (8.2.4) Estimate ODAP content in dry seeds and any other plant part (specify, such as dry cotyledons, dry embryo, etc.) Susceptibility to Bean aphids (Aphis craccivora) (10.1.1) Susceptibility to Pod borers (Etiella zinckenella) (10.1.2) Susceptibility to Bruchids (Bruchus spp.) (10.1.4) Susceptibility to Jassids (10.1.X) Susceptibility to Powdery mildew (Erysiphe polygoni f.sp. pisi) (10.3.1) Susceptibility to Downy mildew (Peronospora lathyri-palustris) (10.3.2) Susceptibility to Broomrape (Orobanche spp.) (10.X.X) Notes Any additional information may be specified here, particularly that referring to the category ‘Other’ present in some of the descriptors above. CONTRIBUTORS Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who contributed to the development of this strategic set of key access and utilization descriptors for Lathyrus genetic resources. The following Bioversity staff contributed to this exercise: Michael Mackay, who provided scientific direction, and Adriana Alercia, who provided technical expertise and guided the whole production process. Special thanks go to Prem Mathur for his scientific advice and guidance on this crop. Core Advisory Group Prem Mathur, Bioversity International, Italy Colin Hanbury, Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia Mamtazul Haque, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Bangladesh Ulrike Lohwasser, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research, Germany (ECPGR) R.L. Pandey, Indira Gandhi Agricultural University, India Kenneth Street, ICARDA, Syria Reviewers Algeria Aïssa Abdelguerfi, Institut National Agronomique (INA) Australia Bob Redden, Australian Temperate Field Crops Collection, Department of Primary Industries Canada Axel Diederichsen, Plant Gene Resources of Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada China Zong Xuxiao, Institute of Crop Sciences, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences Czech Republic Jan Valkoun India R.N. Sharma, Indira Gandhi Agricultural University Russia Margarita Vishnyakova, Vavilov Institute of Plant Breeding Spain Lucia de la Rosa, Centro de Recursos Fitogenéticos – INIA Marcelino de los Mozos Pascual, Centro de Investigación Agraria de Albaladejito USA Molly Welsh, USDA-ARS Methodology for the definition of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for lentil (Lens Miller) Information collection and preparation of the Minimum Descriptor List (MDL) Information for the definition of a Minimum Descriptor List for lentil (Lens Miller) was drawn from the publication ‘Lentil Descriptors’ published by ICARDA and IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1985. The list derived from this publication was subsequently integrated and harmonized with descriptors suggested in the ‘Global Strategy for the Ex-Situ Conservation of Lentil (Lens Miller)’ (the Trust, 2008), particularly with regard to the inclusion of characters and traits relevant to abiotic and biotic stresses for lentil of particular importance in the context of climate change. The comprehensive descriptors list included in this publication was compared with essential descriptors listed in Descriptors for LENTIL (USDA, ARS, GRIN, 1998); UPOV Technical Guidelines for Lentil (2003) and with descriptors listed in the article ‘Methodology to establish a composite collection: case study in lentil‘ (Plant Genetic Resources, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 2-12, NIAB, 2006) by Bonnie J. Furman, ICARDA, 2005, as well as with those descriptors that were awarded funds for further research by the Trust in the Evaluation Awards Scheme (EAS) 2008. An Excel table was prepared comparing descriptors mentioned in each list, and then shared with experts participating in a crop- specific meeting held in India in June 2009 at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR). The consultation, which involved several experts from NBPGR and the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), resulted in the definition of a preliminary key set of descriptors for lentil (see Annex I). Preparation of the List of Experts As the List of Experts involved in the publication ‘Lentil Descriptors’ (IBPGR and ICARDA, 1985) was too old, the experts taking part in the definition of the ‘Global Strategy for the Ex-Situ Conservation of Lentil (Lens Miller)’ (the Trust, 2008), who also participated to a survey sent out on 20 April 2006, were included. Participants of the Global Collaborative Ex situ Conservation Strategies for Food Legumes in Aleppo, Syria, in February 2007 and the experts belonging to the ‘Lentil Germplasm Collections Directory’ were also considered. The databases of FAO WIEWS, ECPGR Lens, developed by the Aegean Agricultural Research Institute (AARI), Turkey, as well as that of the Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture (CLIMA) offered a number of relevant names. A further source of experts was the list of participants in the ‘First South Asian Travelling Workshop on Food Legumes in India’ that took place in March 2008, attended by over 30 experts from India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan, obtained through the ICARDA website. Additional names of experts were found in the websites of relevant organizations such as the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI), the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) and the Center for New Crops & Plant Products (Purdue University) and some relevant contacts obtained at the ENEA Chickpea congress held at the University of La Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy in 2009. Crop Leaders and members of the Core Advisory Group were identified during a crop-specific meeting held at NBPGR in June 2009 chaired by Ms Adriana Alercia. Overall, the list was composed of 64 experts, from 30 countries and 41 different organizations. Additionally, the invitation was sent to other nine relevant institutions, without addressing it to specific scientists (see Annex II). Out of these, two Crop Leaders, Ashutosh Sarker (ICARDA, Syria) and Shashi K. Mishra (NBPGR, India) and a Core Advisory Group (CAG) consisting of nine experts, selected from world renowned organizations, were identified to assist in the definition of a key set of descriptors for this crop, which was subsequently circulated for validation among a wider group of experts. Survey preparation and distribution A draft survey on lentil was prepared at the beginning of June 2009, including the first priority minimum set (see Annex III) obtained following consultations with the Crop Leaders and the CAG. Once approved, the final draft of the survey was uploaded into the SurveyMonkey application on the internet (see Annex IV). An email invitation, containing the link to access to the survey, was sent out to experts on 29 July 2009, inviting them to validate the initial ‘Minimum set of descriptors’ of lentil accessions to promote the utilization of germplasm. Experts were also encouraged to mention any additional relevant traits missing from the proposed list, along with a substantiated justification for their inclusion. The survey deadline was set at the 10 September 2009. A reminder was sent out on the 2 September 2009 to experts who had not yet responded. By popular demand the deadline was extended to 18 September 2009 to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained. Survey analysis and refinement of the Minimum List Of the 64 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 21 from 13 countries recorded their comments using the online survey (see Annex V). Results from the survey were analyzed and descriptors were ranked by rating average and percentage of importance (see Annex VI). The summary results of the survey together with a report containing comments received by the participants (see Annex VII) were sent to the Core Advisory Group asking them to indicate descriptors that should be included in the final list. Descriptors selected were compared in order to reach a ‘First priority set of descriptors’ (see Annex VIII) that was presented to the Core Advisory Group for their approval. The list was amended accordingly with comments received from experts, taking into account survey results and selections. Of particular note was that the descriptors ‘Rust’ and ‘Number of pods per plant’ were included by popular demand, and ‘Stemphylium spp.’ was added as a causal organism for blight. The Coordinator sent an email to one of the Crop Leaders explaining that two out of the five descriptors suggested by him would not be added because of their rating resulted relatively low and none of the members of the Core Advisory Group had selected them. The revised minimum list (see Annex IX), including all contributors, descriptor states and methods for each descriptor, was sent to the whole group of participants in the exercise for their final validation on 16 February 2010. Dr Ashutosh Sarker was asked to advice on the use of the proper unit of measurement for the descriptor ‘Seed yield per plant’. Definition of a final key set of descriptors for lentil The final document approved (see Annex X), was proofread by an external editor and sent to the Bioversity Publication Unit for layout and on-line publication processes. Furthermore, the publication was shared with the ECPGR Secretariat; the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base partners. Additionally, data were converted into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN-Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA and subsequently into the global accession level information portal (GENESYS), linking national, regional and international genebank databases in support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also provided to the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) and to EURISCO. Acknowledgement Bioversity is grateful to all scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for lentil genetic resources’, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial support. Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leaders, Dr Ashutosh Sarker (ICARDA, Syria) and Dr Shashi K. Mishra (NBPGR, India) for providing valuable scientific direction. Annex I – Summary comparison table weighing up important descriptors for lentil drawn from different sourcesi ICARDA /IBPGR Descr. number Descriptor name IBPGR/ ICARDA 1985 (1) UPOV 2003 Most imp. (2) ARS_ USDA (3) EAS (4) ICARDA article (5) Strategy (6) LONG NBPGR (7) MIN- NBPGR (7) ICARDA Sarker’s selectio n New Plant growth habit * * * * * 4.1.1 Anthocyanin colour in the hypocotyl * *(?) *(?) * * * 4.1.2 Plant pubescence * * * * * * 4.1.3 Leaflet size * * * * 4.1.4 Plant height [cm] (at maturity stage) * *at flowering * * * * * * 4.1.5 Tendrilness (present/absent) * * * * * * 4.2.1 Days to 50% flowering [d] * * * * * * * * 4.2.2 Days to maturity [d] * * * * * * * 4.2.3 Flower ground colour * * * * * * * 4.2.4 Pod pigmentation * * * * * * * 4.3.1 Number of seeds per pod * * * * * * 4.3.2 100-seed weight [g] * * (DW) * * * * * * 4.3.3 Ground colour of seed testa * * * * * * 4.3.4 Pattern of seed testa * * * * * 4.3.5 Colour of pattern on seed testa * * * * * 4.3.6 Cotyledon colour * * * * * * * 6.1.1 Lodging susceptibility * * * * 6.1.2 Biological yield per plant [g] * * * * 6.2.1 Number of pods per peduncle * * (pods) * * * * * New Harvest index * * * * 6.2.2 Height of lowest pod [cm] * * * * * 6.2.3 Pod shedding * * * * * 6.2.4 Pod dehiscence * * * * * 6.3.1 Seed yield per plant [g] * * * * * * * 6.3.2 Seed Protein content [%] * * * * 6.3.3 Methionine and other sulphur containing amino acids [mg/g N] * * New Seed iron content * New Seed zinc content * 6.3.4 Seed cooking time * * * * 7.1 Low temperature * * Not required * 7.1.1 Winter kill * Not required 7.1.2 Frost tolerance * * * 7.2 High temperature * * * * 7.3 Drought * * * * * * 7.4 High soil moisture * * * 7.5 Salinity * * * * 8.1.1 Aphids (Aphis craccivora Koch) * * * 8.1.2 Weevils (Sitona spp.) * * * 8.1.3 Weevils (Bruchus spp.) * * * 8.1.4 Pod borers (Etiella zinckenella Treit.) * * 8.2.1 Rust (Uromyces fabae (Pers.) de Bary) * * * * * * 8.2.2 Blight (Ascochyta spp.) * * * * * 8.2.3 Vascular wilts (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lentis Gordon) * * * * * 8.2.4 Downy mildew (Peronospora lentis Gaum.) * * * * 8.5 Parasitic weeds (Orobanche spp.) * * * * New Dry seed width [mm] * * * * New Dry seed profile in longitudinal cross-section * * * * New Resistance to Anthracnose * * * New Seed shape * * * * * New Stem pigmentation * * New Leaflet shape * New Stemphylium blight (Stemphylium botryosum) * New Dry root rot (Rhizoctonia solani Kuhn) * New Collar rot (Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc.) * New Stem rot (Sclerotinia sclerotium (Lib.) de Bary) * New Powdery mildew (Erysiphe polygoni D.C.) * New Bean leaf roll virus * New Bean yellow mosaic virus * New Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.) * New Dodder (Cuscuta campestris) * New Thrips (Kakothrips robustus) * Pod length * Seed weight already included i (1) ‘Lentil Descriptors’ (IBPGR and ICARDA, 1985); (2) UPOV technical guidelines for LENTIL (2003); (3) Descriptors for Lentil (USDA, ARS, GRIN, 1998); (4) Evaluation Awards Scheme (EAS) by the Trust in 2008; (5) The article ‘Methodology to establish a composite collection: case study in lentil’ (Plant Genetic Resources 4(1); 2-12, NIAB, 2006) by Bonnie J. Furman, ICARDA, 2005; (6) ‘Global Strategy for the Ex-Situ Conservation of Lentil (Lens Miller)’ (the Trust, 2008); (7) Crop specific meeting held in India (June, 2009) involving experts from the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) and the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI). Annex II – List of experts identified to participate in the survey ROLE/SOURCE NAME INSTITUTION COUNTRY Crop Leader Sarker, Ashutosh ICARDA Syria Crop Leader Mishra, S.K. NBPGR India CAG/ECPGR (suggested by ECPGR Coordinator) Alexanian, Sergei N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry (VIR) Russian Federation CAG/UPOV Boulineau, Francois GEVES France CAG Coyne, Clare USDA/ARS USA CAG Dua, Ram Prakash NBPGR (Underutilized plants division) India CAG Gowda, C.L.L. ICRISAT India CAG (suggested by H. Knüpffer) Kotter, Matthias Genebank, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK) Germany CAG/ECPGR (suggested by ECPGR Coordinator) Latorre, Fernando Centro Nacional de Recursos Fitogenéticos CRF - INIA Spain CAG Muehlbauer, F.J. USDA/ARS USA CAG/NBPGR Rana, J.C. NBPGR, Regional station, Shimla India Crop Strategy Expert Abdelguerfi, A. Institut National Agronomique (INA) Algeria Crop Strategy Expert Abdi, Adugna Institute of Biodiversity Conservation and Research (IBCR) Ethiopia Crop Strategy Expert Acuña, Hernan Centro Regional de Investigación Quilamapu, INIA Chile Crop Strategy Expert Ahmed, Ibrahim Biodiversity Conservation and Research Institute Ethiopia WIEWS Al Faiz, Chaouki Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) Morocco SINGER survey Amri, Ahmed GRU (ICARDA) Syria ECPGR (suggested by ECPGR Coordinator) Atikyilmaz, Nuket Aegean Agricultural Research Institute (AARI) Turkey Crop Strategy Expert Azizur, Rahman Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI) Bangladesh WIEWS Benediková, Daniela Research Institute of Plant Production Piešt’any Slovak Republic Crop Strategy Expert Buchwaldt, Lone Plant Gene Res of Canada and Agri-Food Canada Purdue website Carr, Patrick M. North Dakota University USA Contact ENEA Chickpea congress Crinò, Paola ENEA Italy Contact ENEA Chickpea congress De la Rosa, Lucía INIA Spain Crop Strategy Expert Della, Athena Agricultural Research Institute Cyprus Crop Strategy Expert Diederichsen, Axel Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canada Crop Strategy Expert Docho, Shamov Institute for Plant Genetic Resources Bulgaria Purdue website Edwarson, Steven North Dakota Barley Council USA Crop Strategy Expert El-Hawary, Mohamed Ibrahim National Gene Bank of Egypt Egypt Crop Strategy Expert Furman, Bonnie J. ARS/USDA USA Crop Strategy Expert Galasso, Incoronata CNR (National Research Council) Italy Crop Strategy Expert Holly, László National Institute for Agricultural Quality Control -Research Centre for Agrobotany Hungary Crop Strategy Expert Horváth, Lajos Institute for Agrobotany Hungary Crop Strategy Expert Jamal, Majd GCSAR - Ministry of Agric & Agrarian Reform Syria CLIMA website Khan, Tanveer CLIMA Australia SARDI website Maqbool, Ahmad South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) Australia SARDI website Mc Murray, Larry SARDI Australia WIEWS Miren Edurne Aguiriano Labandibar Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria. Centro de Recursos Fitogenéticos Spain Crop Strategy Expert Moal, Sharif Plant Genetic Resources Unit Crop Improvement, Ministry of Agriculture Afghanistan Purdue website Mohamed, Ali I. Virginia State University USA Crop Strategy Expert Monreal, Álvaro Ramos Consejeria de Agricultura Ganadería Spain CLIMA website Oliver, Richard CLIMA Australia Crop Strategy Expert Pandey, R.L. Indira Ghandi University India ECPGR (suggested by ECPGR Coordinator) Pignone, Domenico Istituto di Genetica Vegetale, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche Italy WIEWS Podyma, W. Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute Poland Suggested by Tanveer Pritchard, Ian CLIMA Australia Crop Strategy Expert/WIEWS Redden, Bob Australian Temperate Field Crops Collection Australia Crop Strategy Expert/WIEWS Ryabchoun, Victor K. National Centre for PGR of Ukraine Ukraine ECPGR Salazar, E. Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, Centro Regional de Investigación La Platina Chile WIEWS Sheperd, D. School of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton UK Purdue website Slinkard, Al University of Saskatchewan Canada Crop Strategy Expert Srivastava, Surendra Nepal Agricultural Research Nepal WIEWS Stoyanova, S. Institute for Plant Genetic Resources "K. Malkov" Bulgaria Crop Strategy Expert Suso, María José Instituto de Agricultura Sostenible (CSIC) Spain CLIMA website Sweetingham, Mark CLIMA Australia Crop Strategy Expert Tan, Ayfer Aegean Agricultural Research Institute (AARI) Turkey ICGL Upadhyaya, Hari D. ICRISAT India Crop Strategy Expert Van Ginkel, Maarten ICARDA Syria ICGL Vandenberg, Albert University of Saskatchewan Canada Crop Strategy Expert/WIEWS Veloso, Maria Manuela Departamento de Recursos Genéticos e Melhoramento, Estação Agronómica Nacional Portugal Crop Strategy Expert Xuxiao, Zong Institute of Crop Germplasm Resources, CAAS China Internet Yadav, Nawal Kishore NGLRP, Rampur Nepal Lentil Collection Curator Yankov, Ivan N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry (VIR) Russian Federation Crop Strategy Expert/WIEWS Zahoor, Ahmad Institute of Agribiotechnology & Genetic Resources Pakistan Crop Strategy/WIEWS Australian Medicago Genetic Resources Centre Australia Crop Strategy Department of Plant Breeding, Indian Institute of Pulses Research India Crop Strategy Dept. of Botany, Institute of Life Science, Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem Israel WIEWS Agricultural Research Centre Libya Crop Strategy Agricultural Research Council Nepal Crop Strategy Sector de Pastagens e Forragens Dept Past., Forrag., Proteaginosas Portugal Crop Strategy Servicio de Investigación Agraria Junta de Castilla y Leon Spain Crop Strategy General Commission for Scientific Agricultural Research Syria Crop Strategy Ustimovskaya Experimental Station for Plant Cultivation Ukraine Annex III – First lentil key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors included in the survey (July 2009). Drawn from Sarker’s (ICARDA) selection in the comparison table and then revised 1. Plant growth habit 2. Anthocyanin colour in the hypocotyl (4.1.1) 3. Plant pubescence (4.1.2) 4. Leaflet size (4.1.3) 5. Plant height [cm] (at maturity stage) (4.1.4) 6. Tendrilness (present/absent) (4.1.5) 7. Days to 50% flowering [d] (4.2.1) 8. Days to 90% maturity [d] (4.2.2) 9. Flower ground colour (4.2.3) 10. Pod pigmentation (4.2.4) 11. Number of seeds per pod (4.3.1) 12. 100-seed weight [g] (4.3.2) 13. Seed shape 14. Dry seed width [mm] 15. Dry seed profile in longitudinal cross-section 16. Ground colour of seed testa (4.3.3) 17. Pattern of seed testa (4.3.4) 18. Colour of pattern on seed testa (4.3.5) 19. Cotyledon colour (4.3.6) 20. Lodging susceptibility (6.1.1) 21. Biological yield per plant [g] (6.1.2) 22. Number of pods per peduncle (6.2.1) 23. Harvest index 24. Height of lowest pod [cm] (6.2.2) 25. Pod shedding (6.2.3) 26. Pod dehiscence (6.2.4) 27. Seed yield per plant [g] (6.3.1) 28. Seed protein content [%] (6.3.2) 29. Seed iron content [%] 30. Seed zinc content [%] 31. Seed cooking time (6.3.4) 32. Low temperature (7.1) 33. Frost tolerance (7.1.2) 34. High temperature (7.2) 35. Drought (7.3) 36. High soil moisture (7.4) 37. Salinity (7.5) 38. Aphids (Aphis craccivora) (8.1.1) 39. Weevils (Sitona spp.) (8.1.2) 40. Weevils (Bruchus spp.) (8.1.3) 41. Rust (Uromyces fabae) (8.2.1) 42. Blight (Ascochyta spp.) (8.2.2) 43. Stemphylium blight (Stemphylium botryosum) 44. Vascular wilts (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lentis) (8.2.3) 45. Downy mildew (Peronospora lentis) (8.2.4) 46. Parasitic weeds (Orobanche spp.) (8.5) 47. Dry root rot (Rhizoctonia solani) 48. Collar rot (Sclerotium rolfsii) 49. Stem rot (Sclerotinia sclerotium) 50. Powdery mildew (Erysiphe polygoni) 51. Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.) 52. Dodder (Cuscuta campestris) 53. Thrips (Kakothrips robustus) 54. Bean leaf roll virus 55. Bean yellow mosaic virus Annex IV – Survey to choose a key set of descriptors for lentil utilization WELCOME Welcome to the survey for the selection of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for Lentil to support an international information system to enhance the utilization of germplasm held in genebanks. Your knowledge and experience are being sought to define an initial ‘key set’ of descriptors that identify traits important to crop production and facilitate the use of accessions by researchers. Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 10 September 2009. This key set of descriptors will be made available through a global portal for identifying sets of accessions for evaluation and use. This survey consists of two parts: - PART I: Characterization descriptors - PART II: Evaluation descriptors We thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in selecting the set of descriptors. * Please allow us to acknowledge your contribution by completing your full contact details below: Name: Position: Organization: Country: Email: PART I: Characterization descriptors These traits enable easy and quick discrimination between phenotypes. They are generally highly heritable, can be easily seen by the eye and are equally expressed in all environments. Based on your experience, please select descriptors that provide the most impact in discriminating between accessions. It also allows you to indicate if any essential descriptor that can contribute to its use is missing from the minimum list presented. *Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in the IBPGR/ICARDA publication ‘Lentil Descriptors’ (1985). Very important Important Not important Plant growth habit ○ ○ ○ Anthocyanin colour in the hypocotyl (4.1.1) ○ ○ ○ Plant pubescence (4.1.2) ○ ○ ○ Leaflet size (4.1.3) ○ ○ ○ Plant height [cm] (at maturity stage) (4.1.4) ○ ○ ○ Tendrilness (present/absent) (4.1.5) ○ ○ ○ Days to 50% flowering [d] (4.2.1) ○ ○ ○ Days to 90% maturity [d] (4.2.2) ○ ○ ○ Flower ground colour (4.2.3) ○ ○ ○ Pod pigmentation (4.2.4) ○ ○ ○ Number of seeds per pod (4.3.1) ○ ○ ○ 100-seed weight [g] (4.3.2) ○ ○ ○ Seed shape ○ ○ ○ Dry seed width [mm] ○ ○ ○ Dry seed profile in longitudinal cross-section ○ ○ ○ Ground colour of seed testa (4.3.3) ○ ○ ○ Pattern of seed testa (4.3.4) ○ ○ ○ Colour of pattern on seed testa (4.3.5) ○ ○ ○ Cotyledon colour (4.3.6) ○ ○ ○ If you consider that an essential trait is missing from this list, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. PART II: Evaluation descriptors These descriptors include characters such as abiotic and biotic stresses. They are the most interesting traits in crop improvement. Please consider the following factors relating to the trait when making your final decision: (i) Global impact, (ii) Initial strategic set, (iii) Importance for germplasm utilization, (iv) Data availability, (v) True economic damage and (vi) Wide geographical occurrence. Please, rate these traits in order of importance at the global level. It also allows you to indicate if any essential trait for production is missing from the minimum list presented or indicate any that may not be very significant to global production. Very important Important Not Important Lodging susceptibility (6.1.1) ○ ○ ○ Biological yield per plant [g] (6.1.2) ○ ○ ○ Number of pods per peduncle (6.2.1) ○ ○ ○ Harvest index ○ ○ ○ Height of lowest pod [cm] (6.2.2) ○ ○ ○ Pod shedding (6.2.3) ○ ○ ○ Pod dehiscence (6.2.4) ○ ○ ○ Seed yield per plant [g] (6.3.1) ○ ○ ○ Seed protein content [%] (6.3.2) ○ ○ ○ Seed iron content [%] ○ ○ ○ Seed zinc content [%] ○ ○ ○ Seed cooking time (6.3.4) ○ ○ ○ Low temperature (7.1) ○ ○ ○ Frost tolerance (7.1.2) ○ ○ ○ High temperature (7.2) ○ ○ ○ Drought (7.3) ○ ○ ○ High soil moisture (7.4) ○ ○ ○ Salinity (7.5) ○ ○ ○ Aphids (Aphis craccivora) (8.1.1) ○ ○ ○ Weevils (Sitona spp.) (8.1.2) ○ ○ ○ Weevils (Bruchus spp.) (8.1.3) ○ ○ ○ Rust (Uromyces fabae) (8.2.1) ○ ○ ○ Blight (Ascochyta spp.) (8.2.2) ○ ○ ○ Stemphylium blight (Stemphylium botryosum) ○ ○ ○ Vascular wilts (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lentis) (8.2.3) ○ ○ ○ Downy mildew (Peronospora lentis) (8.2.4) ○ ○ ○ Parasitic weeds (Orobanche spp.) (8.5) ○ ○ ○ Dry root rot (Rhizoctonia solani) ○ ○ ○ Collar rot (Sclerotium rolfsii) ○ ○ ○ Stem rot (Sclerotinia sclerotium) ○ ○ ○ Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.) ○ ○ ○ Powdery mildew (Erysiphe polygoni) ○ ○ ○ Dodder (Cuscuta campestris) ○ ○ ○ Thrips (Kakothrips robustus) ○ ○ ○ Bean leaf roll virus ○ ○ ○ Bean yellow mosaic virus ○ ○ ○ If you consider that an essential trait important for crop improvement and production is missing from this list, or, if any of the descriptors listed is not clearly useful to promote utilization, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. NOTE: Please remember, this list is the starting point and will grow over time, as required. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION Annex V – List of respondents to the survey ROLE NAME POSITION ORGANIZATION COUNTRY Crop Leader Mishra, S.K. Head of Germplasm Evaluation Division National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) India Crop Leader Sarker, Ashutosh Regional Coordinator for South Asia and Food Legume Breeder International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) India CAG Agrawal, Shiv Kumar Lentil Breeder International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) Syria CAG de la Rosa, Lucía Researcher Centro de Recursos Fitogenéticos, Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA) Spain CAG Lohwasser, Ulrike Genebank taxonomist Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK) Germany CAG Rana, J.C. Principal Scientist National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) India Reviewer Ahmad, M. Principal Scientist South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) Australia Reviewer Ahmad, Zahoor Senior Director, crop sciences National Agricultural Research Centre (NARC) Pakistan Reviewer Atikyilmaz, Nuket Governmental organization Aegean Agricultural Research Institute (AARI) Turkey Reviewer Benkova, Michaela Research Worker Plant Production Research Centre Piešt’any Slovak Republic Reviewer Boulineau, François Directeur d'unité Groupe d'Etude et de contrôle des Variétés et des Semences (GEVES), International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) France Reviewer Caminero Saldaña, Constantino Legume breeder Instituto Tecnológico Agrario de Castilla y León Spain Reviewer Dua, R.P. Network Coordinator (UUC) National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) India Reviewer Furman, Bonnie J. Curator/Lead Scientist United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) USA Reviewer Holly, László National Coordinator Research Centre for Agrobotany, Central Agriculture Office (RCA, CAO) Hungary Reviewer Laghetti, Gaetano Senior Researcher CNR (National Research Council) Italy Reviewer Redden, Bob Curator, Australian Temperate Field Crops Collection Department of Primary Industries Victoria Australia Reviewer Solanki, R.K. Scientist Indian Institute of Pulses Research - Kanpur India Reviewer Street, Kenneth Legume germplasm curator International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) Syria Reviewer Suso, María José Tenure scientist Instituto de Agricultura Sostenible, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) Spain Reviewer Xuxiao, Zong Prof. & PhD. Institute of Crop Sciences, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences China Annex VI – List of descriptors proposed in the survey ranked by rating average sent to the Core Advisory Group for their selection Descriptor Your Selection Rating Average Characterization 100-seed weight [g] (4.3.2) 4.89 Plant height [cm] (at maturity stage) (4.1.4) 4.65 Ground colour of seed testa (4.3.3) 4.41 Plant growth habit 4.28 Days to 90% maturity [d] (4.2.2) 4.28 Days to 50% flowering [d] (4.2.1) 4.00 Cotyledon colour (4.3.6) 3.83 Number of seeds per pod (4.3.1) 3.78 Colour of pattern on seed testa (4.3.5) 3.06 Flower ground colour (4.2.3) 2.94 Dry seed width [mm] 2.89 Pattern of seed testa (4.3.4) 2.83 Pod pigmentation (4.2.4) 2.78 Tendrilness (present/absent) (4.1.5) 2.71 Seed shape 2.67 Anthocyanin colour in the hypocotyl (4.1.1) 2.56 Leaflet size (4.1.3) 2.47 Plant pubescence (4.1.2) 2.39 Dry seed profile in longitudinal cross-section 1.72 Evaluation Seed yield per plant [g] (6.3.1) 4.32 Drought (7.3) 4.32 Pod shedding (6.2.3) 4.21 Frost tolerance (7.1.2) 4.21 Biological yield per plant [g] (6.1.2) 4.05 Lodging susceptibility (6.1.1) 3.95 Pod dehiscence (6.2.4) 3.94 Harvest index 3.68 Vascular wilts (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lentis) (8.2.3) 3.63 Height of lowest pod [cm] (6.2.2) 3.58 Seed protein content [%] (6.3.2) 3.58 High temperature (7.2) 3.58 Blight (Ascochyta spp.) (8.2.2) 3.53 Number of pods per peduncle (6.2.1) 3.42 Rust (Uromyces fabae) (8.2.1) 3.33 Salinity (7.5) 3.11 Low temperature (7.1) 3.05 Aphids (Aphis craccivora) (8.1.1) 2.79 Seed cooking time (6.3.4) 2.58 High soil moisture (7.4) 2.58 Weevils (Sitona spp.) (8.1.2) 2.58 Weevils (Bruchus spp.) (8.1.3) 2.58 Stem rot (Sclerotinia sclerotium) 2.26 Stemphylium blight (Stemphylium botryosum) 2.21 Dry root rot (Rhizoctonia solani) 2.11 Seed iron content [%] 2.05 Seed zinc content [%] 1.89 Downy mildew (Peronospora lentis) (8.2.4) 1.89 Collar rot (Sclerotium rolfsii) 1.89 Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.) 1.79 Parasitic weeds (Orobanche spp.) (8.5) 1.78 Powdery mildew (Erysiphe polygoni) 1.74 Bean leaf roll virus 1.74 Bean yellow mosaic virus 1.63 Thrips (Kakothrips robustus) 1.17 Dodder (Cuscuta campestris) 0.63 Annex VII – Additional traits proposed in the survey Lentil descriptor Name of expert Additional traits N. of times selected M. Ahmad (SARDI, Australia) R.K. Solanki (Indian Inst. Pulses Res., India) U. Lohwasser (Leibniz Inst. Plant Gen. Crop Plant Res., Germany) C. Caminero Saldaña (Inst.Tecn. Agr. Castilla y León, Spain) L. Holly (RCA CAO, Hungary) L. De la Rosa (INIA, Spain) Number of pods per plant is a key factor in determining the yield potential of any lentil accession/line. There are large differences in pod number per plant within each species of the genus Lens therefore, in my view, pod number per plant must be included here. 1 X Leaf colour (Justification: In dark green leaves black aphid incidence was found to be more as compared to light green). 1 X Primary leaflet shape or leaflet length/width ratio appears to be a rather stable character. 1 X Seed type/race: macrosperma and microsperma. 1 X Extention of seed ornamentation. 1 X Branching, number of basal branch. As far as we know, branching capability is quite important not just because this character determines yield diferential expression, but also becasue it is involved in the time needed to get complete soil coverage, which is important in weed competition and herbicide costs. 1 X Comments In Germany the last diseases no problem but maybe for other regions. X I am not really sure about plant height must be consider as really highly heritable. It is true that not strong GxE interaction exists when compared genotypes clearly different for this trait, but when this difference is weak, GxE becomes important, so may be better to include Plant height in the evaluation descriptor set. X Annex VIII – First priority set of descriptors for lentil utilization resulting from the survey sent to the Core Advisory Group for their approval 1. Plant height [cm] (at maturity stage) (4.1.4) 2. Plant growth habit (4.1.X) 3. Days to 50% flowering [d] (4.2.1) 4. Days to 90% maturity [d] (4.2.2) 5. Number of seeds per pod (4.3.1) 6. 100-seed weight [g] (4.3.2) 7. Ground colour of seed testa (4.3.3) 8. Cotyledon colour (4.3.6) 9. Lodging susceptibility (6.1.1) 10. Biological yield per plant [g] (6.1.2) 11. Harvest index (6.1.X) 12. Number of pods per peduncle (6.2.1) 13. Height of lowest pod [cm] (6.2.2) 14. Pod shedding (6.2.3) 15. Pod dehiscence (6.2.4) 16. Seed yield per plant [g] (6.3.1) 17. Frost tolerance (7.1.2) 18. Drought (7.3) 19. Blight (Ascochyta spp.) (8.2.2) 20. Vascular wilts (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lentis) (8.2.3) Annex IX – List of descriptors for lentil utilization amended as per inputs suggested by the Core Advisory Group and included in the key set sent to the whole group of experts for their final validation Plant height [cm] (at maturity stage) (4.1.4) Plant growth habit (4.1.X) Days to 50% flowering [d] (4.2.1) Days to physiological maturity [d] (4.2.2) Number of seeds per pod (4.3.1) 100-seed weight [g] (4.3.2) Ground colour of seed testa (4.3.3) Pattern of seed testa (4.3.4) Cotyledon colour (4.3.6) Lodging susceptibility (6.1.1) Biological yield per plant [g] (6.1.2) Harvest index (6.1.X) Number of pods per peduncle (6.2.1) Height of lowest pod [cm] (6.2.2) Pod shedding (6.2.3) Pod dehiscence (6.2.4) Number of pods per plant (6.2.X) Seed yield per plant [g] (6.3.1) Frost (7.1.2) Drought (7.3) Rust (Uromyces fabae) (8.2.1) Blight (Ascochyta spp.; Stemphyilium spp.) (8.2.2) Vascular wilts (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lentis) (8.2.3) Annex X – Final key set of descriptors for lentil genetic resources Key access and utilization descriptors for lentil genetic resources This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for lentil genetic resources utilization. This strategic set of descriptors, together with passport data, will become the basis for the global accession level information portal being developed by Bioversity International with the financial support of the Global Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust). It will facilitate access to and utilization of lentil accessions held in genebanks and does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently become available. Based on the comprehensive list ‘Lentil Descriptors’ published by ICARDA and IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1985, the list was subsequently compared with a number of sources such as ‘UPOV technical guidelines for Lentil’ (2003); ‘Descriptors for LENTIL’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN); ‘Methodology to establish a composite collection: case study in lentil’1 A worldwide distribution of experts was involved in an online survey to define a first priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize lentil genetic resources. This key set was afterwards validated by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr Ashutosh Sarker (ICARDA) and Dr Shashi K. Mishra (NBPGR). (ICARDA, 2005); ‘Global Strategy for the Ex Situ Conservation of Lentil (Lens Miller)’ (the Trust, 2008); as well as with those descriptors that were awarded funds for further research by the Trust in 2008 Evaluation Awards Scheme (EAS). The initial list was further refined during a crop-specific consultation meeting held at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR, India) in June 2009. It involved several scientists from NBPGR and the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI). Biotic and abiotic stresses included in the list were chosen because of their wide geographic occurrence and significant economic impact at a global level. Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptor numbers listed in the 1985 publication. Descriptors with numbers ending in ‘letters’ are either modified or are new descriptors that were added during the development of the list below. PLANT DATA Plant height [cm] (4.1.4) Height of plant measured from the ground to the tip of the extended foliage, at maturity. Average height of 10 plants Plant growth habit (4.1.X) Observed after flowering 1 Prostrate 2 Semi-prostrate 3 Intermediate 4 Upright 5 Erect 99 Other (i.e. ‘mixed’, specify in the descriptor Notes) 1 Bonnie J. Furman, Plant Genetic Resources, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 2-12, NIAB, 2006 Days to 50% flowering [d] (4.2.1) Number of days from sowing until 50% of the plants are in flower. However, in dry land areas when planting in dry soils, it is counted from the first day of rainfall or irrigation, which is sufficient for germination Days to physiological maturity [d] (4.2.2) Number of days from sowing until 90% of the pods are golden brown. See 4.2.1 for planting in dry soils Number of seeds per pod (4.3.1) Average number of seeds of 10 dry pods 100-seed weight [g] (4.3.2) Average weight of two samples of 100 randomly chosen seeds Ground colour of seed testa (4.3.3) To be observed on seeds less than three months old 1 Green 2 Grey 3 Brown 4 Black 5 Pink Pattern of seed testa (4.3.4) 0 Absent 1 Dotted 2 Spotted 3 Marbled 4 Complex (any combination of 1, 2 and 3) Cotyledon colour (4.3.6) To be observed on seeds less than three months old 1 Yellow 2 Orange-red 3 Olive-green Lodging susceptibility (6.1.1) Scored at maturity (see 4.2.2) on a scale 1-9 0 None (all plants standing) 3 Low 5 Medium 7 High Biological yield per plant [g] (6.1.2) Yield of dried mature plants after pulling Harvest index [%] (6.1.X) Number of pods per peduncle (6.2.1) Maximum number of pods per peduncle on 10 representative plants Height of lowest pod [cm] (6.2.2) Estimate of the average height above ground of the lowest pod on unlodged plants at harvest Pod shedding (6.2.3) Scored after or during harvesting one week after maturity (see 4.2.2) on a scale 1-9 0 None 3 Low 5 Medium 7 High Pod dehiscence (6.2.4) Scored one week after maturity on a scale 1-9 0 None 3 Low 5 Medium 7 High Number of pods per plant (6.2.X) Average number of pods. Recorded from randomly selected plants at physiological maturity Seed yield per plant [g/plant] (6.3.1) Yield of seed after drying ABIOTIC STRESSES Frost (7.1.2) Drought (7.3) BIOTIC STRESSES Rust (Uromyces fabae) (8.2.1) Blight (Ascochyta spp., Stemphylium spp.) (8.2.2) Vascular wilts (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lentis) (8.2.3) CONTRIBUTORS Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of this strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for lentil genetic resources’, and in particular to Dr A. Sarker (ICARDA, Syria) and Dr S.K. Mishra (NBPGR, India) for providing valuable scientific direction. Ms Adriana Alercia (Bioversity International) provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process. CORE ADVISORY GROUP A. Sarker, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Syria S.K. Mishra, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), India Kumar Shiv Agrawal, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Syria Lucía De la Rosa, Centro de Recursos Fitogenéticos, Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA), Spain Ulrike Lohwasser, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research, Germany J.C. Rana, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), India REVIEWERS Australia Maqbool Ahmad, South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) Bob Redden, Department of Primary Industries Victoria China Zong Xuxiao, Institute of Crop Sciences, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences France François Boulineau, Groupe d'Etude et de contrôle des Variétés et des Semences (GEVES) Hungary László Holly, Agriculture Research Centre for Agrobotany, Central Agriculture Office (RCA, CAO) India R.P. Dua, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) R.K. Solanki, Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur Italy Gaetano Laghetti, National Research Council Pakistan Zahoor Ahmad, National Agricultural Research Centre (NARC) Slovak Republic Michaela Benkova, Plant Production Research Centre Piešt’any Spain Constantino Caminero Saldaña, Instituto Tecnológico Agrario de Castilla y León María José Suso, Instituto de Agricultura Sostenible, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) Syria Kenneth Street, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) Turkey Nuket Atikyilmaz, Aegean Agricultural Research Institute USA Bonnie J. Furman, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA- ARS) Methodology for the definition of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for maize (Zea mays L.) Information collection and preparation of the Minimum Descriptor List (MDL) Information for the definition of a Minimum Descriptor List for maize (Zea mays L.) was based on the publication ‘Descriptors for Maize’ (CIMMYT/IBPGR 1991). The original list contained therein was then weighed against descriptors mentioned in a number of other sources such as UPOV technical guidelines for Maize (1994); Descriptors for MAIZE (USDA, ARS, GRIN); the ‘Global Strategy for the Ex situ Conservation and Utilization of Maize Germplasm’ (the Trust, 2007); Dr Suketoshi Taba’s poster presented at the meeting held at the Sociedad Mexicana de Fitogenética (SOMEFI) in September 2008; ‘Descriptors for Characterization and Evaluation of Maize’ (National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences, Genebank of Japan), as well as with those descriptors that were awarded funds for further research by the Global Crop Diversity Trust in the 2008 Evaluation Awards Scheme (EAS). The initial list also builds on the results of the SGRP Global Public Goods Activity 4.2.1.1, with special attention to breeding traits. The initial list was further refined during a crop-specific consultation meeting held in June 2009 at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) in India, with the participation of several scientists from NBPGR and the valuable contribution of Dr Sain Dass of the Directorate of Maize Research, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). As result of this exercise, and to assist in the selection of a “reduced” set of traits, a comparison table was prepared to visually identify “most important” descriptors recurring in the above mentioned sources (see Annex I). Preparation of the List of Experts The List of Experts was compiled including participants involved in crop-specific consultations for the definition of the ‘Global Strategy for the Ex situ Conservation and Utilization of Maize Germplasm’ (the Trust, 2007). The list was further integrated with experts from the Global Maize Program within the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), from the European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources (ECPGR), and with contributors to the publication of ‘Regeneration guidelines: Maize’ (S. Taba, S. Twumasi-Afriyie, SGRP/the Trust, 2008). Reviewers from the 1991 descriptors list were excluded due to their outdated contact information. Overall, 80 experts were selected, from 41 countries and 44 different organizations. Out of these, Dr Suketoshi Taba (CIMMYT) was identified as Crop Leader. After consultation with Dr Taba, the Core Advisory Group (CAG), consisting of seven experts was selected to assist in the definition of a key set of descriptors (see Annex II). Survey preparation and distribution From the comparison table submitted to Dr Taba, a first list of descriptors was identified and sent to him again for endorsement on 1 June 2009 (see Annex III). The Crop Leader replied with comments and amendments on the same day. The validated list (see Annex IV) was consequently used for preparing a draft survey on maize. After Dr Taba’s approval, the final version of the survey was uploaded into the SurveyMonkey application on internet (see Annex V) and sent out to the list of identified experts on 2 June 2009. Participants were invited to validate this initial key set of descriptors of maize accessions to facilitate their use by researchers and asked to make suggestions regarding any characterization or evaluation descriptors that were found to be relevant yet missing from the proposed Minimum List. The survey deadline was set at 30 June 2009. A first reminder was sent out on 16 June 2009 and a second one on 25 June 2009 to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained. Survey analysis and refinement of the Minimum List Of the 80 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 36 experts from 23 countries and 26 organizations recorded their comments using the online survey (see Annex VI). Results from the survey were analyzed and descriptors were ranked by rating average and percentage of importance (see Annex VII). The summary results of the survey together with a report containing comments and additional descriptors suggested for inclusion in the key set received from the participants (see Annex VIII) were sent to the Crop Leader in order to reach a consensus on the final list. Dr Taba’s feedback was shared with Dr Dass on 30 September 2009 for his additional approval (see Annex IX). A first draft of the key set for maize containing relevant descriptor states was then produced and submitted to the Crop Leader and to the CAG for final validation (see Annex X). Definition of a final key set of descriptors for maize The final document approved by the Crop Leader and CAG (see Annex XI), was proofread by an external editor and sent to the Bioversity Publications Unit for layout and on-line publication processes. Furthermore, the publication was shared with the ECPGR Secretariat; the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base partners. Additionally, data were converted into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN-Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA and subsequently into the global accession level information portal (GENESYS), linking national, regional and international genebank databases in support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also provided to the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) and to EURISCO. Acknowledgement Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for maize genetic resources’, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial support. Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leader, Dr Suketoshi Taba (CIMMYT, Mexico) and to Dr Sain Dass for providing valuable scientific direction. Ms Adriana Alercia provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process. Annex I – Summary comparison table weighing up important descriptors for maize drawn from different sourcesi CIMMYT/ IBPGR Desc. no. CIMMYT/IBPGR Descriptor name CIMMYT/ IBPGR 1991 UPOV ARS-USDA Evaluation Awards Maize Strategy Taba’s Poster GPG2 (Taba’s selection) Breeding traits (GPG2) NIAS 4.1.1 Days to 50% tasseling (male flowering) * * * * 4.1.2 Days to 50% silking (female flowering) (5.1) * * * * * 4.1.3 Days to ear leaf senescence in 50% of the plants * * * 4.1.4 Plant height [cm] (5.2) * * * * * 4.1.5 Ear height [cm] (5.4) * * * * 4.1.6 Foliage (total leaf surface) * * 4.1.7 Number of leaves above the uppermost ear including ear leaf * * 4.1.8 Tillering index * * * * 4.1.9 Stem colour * * 4.1.10 Root lodging [%] * * * * (not %) 4.1.11 Stalk lodging [%] * * * * (not %) 4.1.12 Sheath pubescence * * 4.1.13 Tassel type * * 4.2.1 Ear Husk cover * * 4.2.2 Ear damage * * 4.2.3 Ear kernel row arrangement * * * 4.2.4 Number of ear kernel rows * * * * * 4.3.1 Kernel type/Type of grain * * * * * 4.3.2 Kernel colour/Colour of top of grain * * * * * 4.3.3 1000 kernel weight [g] * * * * 100 6.2.2 Ear length [cm] * * * * * * 6.2.4 Ear diameter [cm] * * * * * 6.2.10 Shape of uppermost ear * * * 6.3.1 Kernel length [mm] * * * 6.3.2 Kernel width [mm] * * * 7.5 Drought * * * 8.1.1 Diplodia maydis; Gibberella zeae; Fusarium moniliforme (Ear rot, stalk rot) * * * * 8.1.2 Puccinia sorghi; Puccinia polysora (Southern Rust) * * * * * 8.1.3 Peronosclerospora spp.; Sclerophthora spp. (Downy mildew) * * * * 8.2.1 Corn stunt spiroplasma (CSS) (Corn stunt) * * * 8.3.2 Chilo spp. (Borer) * * * 8.3.6 Sesamia spp. (Borer) * * * * Grain yield * * 6.1.1 Total number of leaves per plant * * 6.1.2 Leaf length [cm] * * 6.1.3 Leaf width [cm] * * 6.1.4 Leaf venation index * 6.1.5 Leaf orientation * 6.1.6 Presence of leaf ligule * 6.1.7 Root volume * 6.1.8 Tassel length [cm] * * * 6.1.9 Tassel peduncle length [cm] * 6.1.10 Tassel branching space [cm] * 6.1.11 Number of primary branches on tassel * * 6.1.12 Number of secondary branches on tassel * 6.1.13 Number of tertiary branches on tassel * 6.1.14 Tassel size * 6.1.15 Growing Degree Units (GDU) to 50% female flowering * 6.1.16 GDU to 50% male flowering * 6.1.17 Stay green * 6.2.1 Prolificacy index of ears * 6.2.3 Ear peduncle length [cm] * 6.2.5 Cob diameter [cm] * 6.2.6 Ear rachis diameter [cm] * 6.2.7 Number of ear bracts * 6.2.8 Number of kernels per row * 6.2.9 Cob colour * * * * 6.2.11 Grain shedding of ear [%] * 6.3.3 Kernel thickness [mm] * 6.3.4 Shape of upper surface of kernel * * 6.3.5 Kernel pericarp colour * * 6.3.6 Kernel aleurone colour * * (combined with pattern) * 6.3.7 Kernel endosperm colour * * * 7.1 Low temperature * * * 7.2 Frost damage susceptibility * 7.3 Aluminium toxicity * * 7.4 Low Nitrogen * 8.1.4 Helminthosporium maydis; Helminthosporium turcicum (Leaf blight - Southern Corn) * * * * 8.1.5 Ustilago maydis (Smut) * * * * 8.1.6 Sphacelotheca reiliana (Tassel smut) * 8.1.7 Phyllachora maydis (Tar spot) * 8.2.2 Corn streak virus (CSV) (Corn streak) * 8.2.3 Maize fine stripe virus (MRFV) (Fine striping disease) * 8.2.4 Maize bushy stunt mycoplasma (MBSD) (Maize bushy stunt) * * 8.2.5 Maize dwarf mosaic virus (MDM) (Maize dwarf virus) * * * 8.3.1 Busseola spp. (Borer) * * 8.3.3 Diatrea spp. (Borer) * * 8.3.4 Heliothis zea; Heliothis armigera (Ear worm) * * 8.3.5 Ostrinia spp. (Borer) * * * * 8.3.7 Spodoptera spp. (Armyworm) * * * 8.3.8 Diabrotica spp. (Root worm) * * 8.3.9 Sitophilus spp. (Weevil) * * 8.3.10 Prostephanus (Grain borer) * * Kernel yield and fodder yield * Phaeosphaeria leaf spot (PLS) (Phaeosphaeria maydis; Phoma maydis) * Combining ability (How well it crosses among varieties) * Maize streak virus * Resistance to Striga hermontica * Ratio of ear leaf senescence and days to silking * Ear quality (1-5) * Ratio grain yield and grain moisture at harvest [%] * Selection index * Fertility * Field germination * Adaptation * Kernel * Seed moisture * Agronomic scale * Race class * i ‘Descriptors for Maize’ (CIMMYT/IBPGR 1991); UPOV technical guidelines for Maize; ’Descriptors for MAIZE’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN); Recommendations for further research under the Evaluation Award Scheme (EAS); ‘Global Strategy for the Ex situ Conservation and Utilization of Maize Germplasm’ (the Trust, 2007); Dr Taba’s poster presented at the meeting held at SOMEFI in September 2008; Dr Taba’s choice of descriptors within the ones identified in the SGRP Global Public Goods Activity 4.2.1.1 (GPG2, 2008); results of the GPG2 for the breeding traits exercise; ‘Descriptors for Characterization and Evaluation of Maize’ (National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences, Genebank of Japan). Annex II – List of experts identified to participate to the survey ROLE NAME ORGANIZATION COUNTRY Crop Leader Taba, Suketoshi CIMMYT Mexico CAG Dass, Sain Director (Directorate of Maize Research) India CAG Grau, Michael Genebank Dept Leibniz Institute (IPK) Germany CAG Guiard, Joël GEVES (UPOV) France CAG Muthamia, Zachary K. Kenya Agricultural Research Inst. Nat. Genebank of Kenya Kenya CAG Payne, Thomas CIMMYT Mexico CAG Satyavathi, C. Tara Indian Agricultural Research Institute India CAG Sharma, Shyam Kumar NBPGR India Global Maize Program Afriyie, Twumasi Strafford CIMMYT Ethiopia Crop Strategy Expert Ahmad, Zahoor Plant Genetic Resources Programme Nat. Agric. Res. Center Pakistan Crop Strategy Expert Antohe, Ion Agricultural Research and Development Institute Romania Crop Strategy Expert Aragón Cuevas, Flavio INIFAP - Oaxaca Mexico Global Maize Program Araus Ortega, José Luis CIMMYT Mexico Global Maize Program Atlin, Gary CIMMYT Mexico ECPGR Barata da Silva, Ana Maria Banco Portugues de Germoplasma Vegetal (BPGV) Portugal Crop Strategy Expert Bas, Noor Centre for Genetic Resources, The Netherlands The Netherlands Crop Strategy Expert Benediková, Daniela Gene Bank, Research Inst. of Plant Production Slovak Republic Global Maize Program Beyene, Yoseph CIMMYT Kenya Maize project INRA Boerner, Andreas IPK, Genebank Dept, Leibniz Institute Germany Crop Strategy Expert Budiarti, Sri Gajatri ICABIO GRAD Indonesia Crop Strategy Expert Cesar Tapia/Alvaro Monteros INIAP-DENAREF Ecuador Crop Strategy Expert Chura Chuquija, Julián Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina Peru Crop Strategy Expert Chytilova, Vera RICP Prague-Ruzyne Czech Republic Crop Strategy Expert Condon, Federico INIA Uruguay Global Maize Program Diallo, Alpha O. CIMMYT Kenya Crop Strategy Expert Dumet, Dominique IITA Nigeria Maize project INRA Evgenidis, Georgios National Agricultural Research Foundation (NAGREF) Greece Crop Strategy Expert Ferrer, Marcelo Edmundo INTA Argentina Crop Strategy Expert Firat, A. Ertug Aegean Agricultural Research Institute (AARI) Turkey Global Maize Program Friesen, Dennis CIMMYT Ethiopia Crop Strategy Expert Fuentes López, Mario Roberto Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnología Agrícolas (ICTA) Guatemala ECPGR Gogas, D. Cereal Institute - National Agricultural Research Foundation Greece Crop Strategy Expert Guzman, Lorena Centro de Invest. Fitoecogenéticas de Pairumani Bolivia Crop Strategy Expert Has, Ioan Agricultural Research and Station TURDA Romania Crop Strategy Expert Hernández Casillas, Juan Manuel INIFAP - Mexico Mexico Crop Strategy Expert Jampatong, Sansern National Corn and Sorghum Research Center, Kasetsart University Thailand Crop Strategy Expert Kainz, Wolfgang AGES Austria Global Maize Program Kanampiu, Fred CIMMYT Kenya Reviewer Kaul, Jyoti Directorate of Maize Research India Reviewer Kumar, Ashok NBPGR India Crop Strategy Expert Kuz'myshyna, Natalia NCPGRU Ukraine Crop Strategy Expert Lawrence, Peter Australian Tropical Crops & Forages Germplasm Collection Australia Crop Strategy Expert Lu, Xinxiong CAAS China Global Maize Program MacRobert, John CIMMYT Zimbabwe Global Maize Program Magorokosho, Cosmos CIMMYT Zimbabwe Global Maize Program Mahuku, George CIMMYT Mexico Global Maize Program Makumbi, Dan CIMMYT Kenya Maize Collection Curator Matveeva, Galina N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry (VIR) Russian Federation Maize Breeder Menkir, Abebe IITA Nigeria Maize Researcher Mironova, Maria N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry (VIR) Russian Federation Reviewer Mishra, S.K. NBPGR India ECPGR Moreno Gonzales, Jesus Centro Investigaciones Agrarias de Mabegondo Spain ECPGR/ Maize DB Motto, Mario Unità di ricerca per la maiscoltura Italy Global Maize Program Mugo, Stephen CIMMYT Kenya Crop Strategy Expert Murariu, Danela Suceava Genebank Romania Global Maize Program Narro, Luis Alberto CIMMYT Colombia Crop Strategy Expert Navas Arboleda, Alejandro Alberto CORPOICA Colombia Crop Strategy Expert Noldin, Orlando J. CRA Paraguay Maize project INRA Ordas, Amando Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC) Spain Crop Strategy Expert/ECPGR Ordás, Armando Misión Biológica de Galicia (CSIC) Spain New Reviewer Ortiz, Rodomiro CIMMYT Mexico Global Maize Program Ortíz-Ferrara, Guillermo CIMMYT, South Asia Regional Office Nepal Global Maize Program Palacios, Natalia CIMMYT Mexico Global Maize Program Pixley, Kevin CIMMYT Mexico Reviewer Rana, J.C. NBPGR, Regional station, Shimla India Maize project INRA Ruaud, Pierre Limagrain Group France Crop Strategy Expert Salazar Suazo, Erika Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias Chile Crop Strategy Expert Segovia, Victor INIA - CENIAP Venezuela Global Maize Program Setimela, Peter CIMMYT Zimbabwe Crop Strategy Expert Sevilla-Panizo, Ricardo Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina Peru Crop Strategy Expert/ECPGR Srinivasan, Kalyani National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources India Crop Strategy Expert/ECPGR Stehno, Zdenek Research Institute of Crop Production of Prague Czech Republic EAS expert/Crop Strategy Teixeira, Flavia Franca EMBRAPA Brazil ECPGR Visser, Bert Centre for Genetic Resources, The Netherlands (CGN) The Netherlands Global Maize Program Vivek, Bindiganavile CIMMYT Zimbabwe Crop Strategy Expert/ECPGR Wedelsbäck Bladh, Katarina Nordic Gene Bank Sweden Global Maize Program Zaidi, Pervez H. Asian Regional Maize Program, CIMMYT India Crop Strategy Expert/ECPGR Zanetto, Anne INRA France Crop Strategy Expert/ECPGR Zurab, Jinjik Hadze Georgia Annex III – First list of characterization and evaluation descriptors for maize submitted to the Crop Leader on 1 June 2009 1. Days to 50% tasseling (male flowering) 2. Days to 50% silking (female flowering) 3. Days to ear leaf senescence in 50% of the plants 4. Plant height [cm] 5. Ear height [cm] 6. Foliage (total leaf surface) 7. Number of leaves above the uppermost ear including ear leaf 8. Tillering index 9. Stem colour 10. Root lodging [%] 11. Stalk lodging [%] 12. Sheath pubescence 13. Tassel type 14. Ear Husk cover 15. Ear damage 16. Ear kernel row arrangement 17. Number of ear kernel rows 18. Kernel type/Type of grain 19. Kernel colour/Colour of top of grain 20. 1000 kernel weight [g] 21. Ear length [cm] 22. Ear diameter [cm] 23. Shape of uppermost ear 24. Kernel length [mm] 25. Kernel width [mm] 26. Grain yield 27. Drought 28. Diplodia maydis; Gibberella zeae; Fusarium moniliforme (Ear rot, stalk rot) 29. Puccinia sorghi; Puccinia polysora (Southern Rust) 30. Peronosclerospora spp.; Sclerophthora spp. (Downy mildew) 31. Corn stunt spiroplasma (CSS) (Corn stunt) 32. Chilo spp. (Borer) 33. Sesamia spp. (Borer) Annex IV – Initial key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for maize validated by the Crop Leader on 1 June 2009, uploaded to the SurveyMonkey 1. Days to 50% tasseling (male flowering) 2. Days to 50% silking (female flowering) 3. Days to ear leaf senescence in 50% of the plants 4. Plant height [cm] 5. Ear height [cm] 6. Foliage (total leaf surface) (rating) 7. Number of leaves above the uppermost ear including ear leaf 8. Tillering index 9. Stem colour 10. Root lodging [%] 11. Stalk lodging [%] 13. Tassel type 14. Ear Husk cover 15. Ear damage (rating) or ear quality 17. Number of ear kernel rows 18. Kernel type/Type of grain 19. Kernel colour/Colour of top of grain 20. 1000 kernel weight [g] 21. Ear length [cm] 22. Ear diameter [cm] 23. Shape of uppermost ear 24. Kernel length [mm] 25. Kernel width [mm] 26. Drought 27. Diplodia maydis; Gibberella zeae; Fusarium moniliforme (Ear rot, stalk rot) 28. Puccinia sorghi (common rust in temperate and highland environments); Puccinia polysora (Southern Rust in tropics) 29. Bipolaris maydis, syn. Helminthosporium maydis (Maydis leaf blight); Exserohilum turcicum, syn. Helminthosporium turcicum (Turcicum leaf blight) 30. Peronosclerospora spp.; Sclerophthora spp. (Downy mildew) 31. Corn Stunt Spiroplasma (CSS) (Corn stunt) 32. Chilo spp. (Borer) 33. Sesamia spp. (Borer) 34. Grain yield Annex V – Survey to choose a key set of descriptors for maize (Zea mays L.) WELCOME Welcome to the survey for the selection of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors to support an international information system to enhance the utilization of germplasm held in genebanks. Your knowledge and experience are being sought to select this initial ‘key set of descriptors’ of maize accessions to identify traits important to crop production and to facilitate their use by researchers. Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 30 June 2009. This key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors will be made available through a global facility for identifying sets of accessions for evaluation and use. For characterization, the aim is a key set of maximally differentiating traits that provide the most impact in discriminating between accessions. For evaluation, the aim is to focus on a few important traits for production, such as those related to biotic stresses of cosmopolitan nature. The list presented here has been refined under the scientific direction of Dr Suketoshi Taba (CIMMYT). This survey consists of two parts: - PART I: Lists important characterization descriptors for maize. Based on your experience, please rate the descriptors according to their importance in identifying accessions. It also allows you to indicate if any essential descriptor that can contribute to its use is missing from the minimum list presented. - PART II: Lists important evaluation descriptors for maize. Please, rate these traits in order of importance at the global level. It also allows you to indicate if any essential trait for production is missing from the minimum list presented or indicate any that may not be very significant to global production. We thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in selecting this initial, key set of descriptors. Please allow us to acknowledge your contribution by completing your full contact details below: Name: Position: Organization: Country: Email: PART I: Characterization descriptors These traits enable easy and quick discrimination between phenotypes. They are generally highly heritable, can be easily seen by the eye and are equally expressed in all environments. *Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in the CIMMYT/IBPGR publication ‘Descriptors for Maize (Zea mays L.)’ (1991). Not important Important Very important Days to 50% tasseling (male flowering) (4.1.1) Days to 50% silking (female flowering) (4.1.2) Days to ear leaf senescence in 50% of the plants (4.1.3) Plant height [cm] (4.1.4) Ear height [cm] (4.1.5) Foliage (total leaf surface) (rating) (4.1.6) Number of leaves above the uppermost ear including ear leaf (4.1.7) Tillering index (4.1.8) Stem colour (4.1.9) Root lodging [%] (4.1.10) Stalk lodging [%] (4.1.11) Tassel type (4.1.13) Ear Husk cover (4.2.1) Ear damage (rating) or ear quality (4.2.2) Number of ear kernel rows (4.2.4) Kernel type/Type of grain (4.3.1) Kernel colour/Colour of top of grain (4.3.2) 1000 kernel weight [g] (4.3.3) If you consider that an essential trait is missing from this list, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. PART II: Evaluation descriptors These descriptors include characters such as grain yield and biotic stresses. They are the most interesting traits in crop improvement. Please consider the following factors relating to the trait when making your final decision: (i) Global impact, (ii) Initial strategic set, (iii) Importance for germplasm utilization, (iv) Data availability, (v) True economic damage and (vi) Wide geographical occurrence. Not important Important Very important Ear length [cm] (6.2.2) Ear diameter [cm] (6.2.4) Shape of uppermost ear (6.2.10) Kernel length [mm] (6.3.1) Kernel width [mm] (6.3.2) Grain yield Drought (7.5) Ear rot, stalk rot (Diplodia maydis; Gibberella zeae; Fusarium moniliforme) (8.1.1) Common rust in temperate and highland environments (Puccinia sorghi); Southern Rust in tropics (Puccinia polysora) (8.1.2) Downy mildew (Peronosclerospora spp.; Sclerophthora spp.) (8.1.3) Maydis leaf blight (Bipolaris maydis, syn. Helminthosporium maydis) Turcicum leaf blight (Exserohilum turcicum, syn. Helminthosporium turcicum) (8.1.4) Corn stunt (Corn stunt spiroplasma (CSS)) (8.2.1) Borer (Chilo spp.) (8.2.3) Borer (Sesamia spp.) (8.3.6) If you consider that an essential trait important for crop improvement and production is missing from this list, or, if any of the descriptors listed is not clearly useful to promote utilization, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. NOTE: Please remember, this list is the starting point and will grow over time, as required. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. Annex VI – List of respondents to the survey ROLE NAME ORGANIZATION COUNTRY Crop Leader Taba, Suketoshi CIMMYT Mexico CAG Dass, Sain Directorate of Maize Research India CAG Guiard, Joël GEVES France CAG Payne, Thomas CIMMYT Mexico CAG Tara Satyavathi, C. Indian Agricultural Research Institute India Reviewer Adeleke, R.A. IITA IBADAN Nigeria Reviewer Antohe, Ion NARDI Romania Reviewer Aragón Cuevas, Flavio INIFAP Mexico Reviewer Barata, Ana Maria INRB/BPGV Portugal Reviewer Beyene, Yoseph CIMMYT Kenya Reviewer Börner, Andreas Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK) Germany Reviewer Dillon, Sally Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries Australia Reviewer Erdal, Sekip BATEM (Bati Akdeniz Agricultural Resarch Institute) Turkey Reviewer Evgenidis, G. NAGREF-Cereal Institute Greece Reviewer Ferrer, Marcelo Edmundo INTA (Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria) Argentina Reviewer Fuentes, Mario OID Guatemala Reviewer Jampatong, Sansern National Corn and Sorghum Research Center Thailand Reviewer Johnson, Scott S. Pegasus Genetics; CRD Advisors USA Reviewer Kainz, Wolfgang AGES Austria Reviewer Kaul, Jyoti Directorate of Maize Research India Reviewer Kumar, Ashok NBPGR India Reviewer Kuz'myshyna, Natalia National Centre for Plant Genetic Resources of Ukraine Ukraine Reviewer MacRobert, John CIMMYT Zimbabwe Reviewer Magorokosho, Cosmos CIMMYT Zimbabwe Reviewer Mahuku, George CIMMYT Mexico Reviewer Matveeva, Galina N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry (VIR) Russian Federation Reviewer Murariu, Danela Suceava Genebank Romania Reviewer Narro, Luis CIMMYT Peru Reviewer Ordas, Amando Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC) Spain Reviewer Ortiz, Rodomiro CIMMYT Mexico Reviewer Pixley, Kevin CIMMYT Mexico Reviewer Rana, J.C. National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources Regional Station India Reviewer Ruaud, Pierre Limagrain Group France Reviewer Salazar Suazo, Erika INIA (Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias) Chile Reviewer Teixeira, Flavia França EMBRAPA Maize and Sorghum Brazil Reviewer Tracy, William University of Wisconsin-Madison USA Reviewer Zaidi, P.H. CIMMYT India Annex VII – List of descriptors proposed in the survey ranked by rating average and evaluation descriptors ranked by percentage of importance sent to the Crop Leader for validation Descriptor Rating Average Dr Taba’s selection Characterization Kernel type/Type of grain (4.3.1) 4.26 Days to 50% tasseling (male flowering) (4.1.1) 4.00 Days to 50% silking (female flowering) (4.1.2) 3.97 Kernel colour/Colour of top of grain (4.3.2) 3.88 Number of ear kernel rows (4.2.4) 3.73 Ear height [cm] (4.1.5) 3.56 1000 kernel weight [g] (4.3.3) 3.44 Plant height [cm] (4.1.4) 3.38 Tassel type (4.1.13) 3.38 Ear Husk cover (4.2.1) 3.18 Stalk lodging [%] (4.1.11) 3.03 Ear damage (rating) or ear quality (4.2.2) 2.88 Root lodging [%] (4.1.10) 2.88 Tillering index (4.1.8) 2.41 Number of leaves above the uppermost ear including ear leaf (4.1.7) 2.38 Stem colour (4.1.9) 2.24 Days to ear leaf senescence in 50% of the plants (4.1.3) 2.06 Foliage (rating of total leaf surface) (4.1.6) 1.78 Evaluation Ear rot, stalk rot (Diplodia maydis; Gibberella zeae; Fusarium moniliforme) (8.1.1) 4.23 Grain yield 4.13 Drought (7.5) 3.94 Maydis leaf blight (Bipolaris maydis, syn. Helminthosporium maydis); Turcicum leaf blight (Exserohilum turcicum, syn. Helminthosporium turcicum) (8.1.4) 3.90 Common rust in temperate and highland environments (Puccinia sorghi); Southern Rust in tropics (Puccinia polysora) (8.1.2) 3.77 Ear length [cm] (6.2.2) 3.65 Borer (Sesamia spp.) (8.3.6) 3.50 Downy mildew (Peronosclerospora spp.; Sclerophthora spp.) (8.1.3) 3.48 Borer (Chilo spp.) (8.3.2) 3.37 Kernel length [mm] (6.3.1) 3.26 Ear diameter [cm] (6.2.4) 3.13 Corn stunt (Corn Stunt Spiroplasma (CSS)) (8.2.1) 3.00 Kernel width [mm] (6.3.2) 2.94 Shape of uppermost ear (6.2.10) 1.97 Descriptor Important Very important Evaluation Grain yield 35.5% 61.3% Ear rot, stalk rot (Diplodia maydis; Gibberella zeae; Fusarium moniliforme) (8.1.1) 38.7% 61.3% Drought (7.5) 45.2% 51.6% Maydis leaf blight (Bipolaris maydis, syn. Helminthosporium maydis); Turcicum leaf blight (Exserohilum turcicum, syn.; Helminthosporium turcicum) (8.1.4) 54.8% 45.2% Ear length [cm] (6.2.2) 51.6% 41.9% Kernel length [mm] (6.3.1) 38.7% 41.9% Common rust in temperate and highland environments (Puccinia sorghi); Southern Rust in tropics (Puccinia polysora) (8.1.2) 61.3% 38.7% Downy mildew (Peronosclerospora spp.; Sclerophthora spp.) (8.1.3) 51.6% 38.7% Borer (Sesamia spp.) (8.3.6) 50.0% 40.0% Ear diameter [cm] (6.2.4) 45.2% 35.5% Kernel width [mm] (6.3.2) 38.7% 35.5% Borer (Chilo spp.) (8.3.2) 56.7% 33.3% Corn stunt (Corn stunt spiroplasma (CSS)) (8.2.1) 50.0% 30.0% Shape of uppermost ear (6.2.10) 54.8% 6.5% Annex VIII – Additional descriptors included in the open-ended section of the survey Additional descriptors Name of expert No. times proposed M.E. Ferrer G. Mahuku P.H. Zaidi J. MacRobert D. Muriaru N. Kuz'myshy na S. Dass S.S. Johns on J. Guiard M. Fuentes I. Antohe F. França Teixeira W. Kainz S. Jampato ng P. Ruaud E. Salazar Suazo K. Pixley Additional characterization traits Total number of leaves per plant 1 X Largo y ancho de la hoja de la mazorca superior 1 X Anthesis-sliking interval (=Days to 50% silking - Days to 50% Anthesis) 1 X Hairiness of leaves 1 X Hairiness of stalks 1 X Stalk colour at harvest 1 X Wrap leafiness ear 1 X Consistence ear cover 1 X Height of fastening of an upper productive cprn-cob, cm 1 X Stalk, diameter above earcorn 2 X X Height of main stalk, cm 1 X Leaf angle 1 X Leaf Anthocyanin of sheath 1 X Tassel: Anthocyanin coloration at the base of glume 2 X X Tassel: Anthocyanin coloration of anthers 3 X X X Tassel: Density of spikelets 1 X Tassel: Attitude of lateral branches 2 X X Attitude of leaves 1 X Ear: Anthocyanin colouration of silks 3 X X X Ear diameter 1 X Grain Type 2 X X Ear: Anthocyanin colouration of glumes of cob 3 X X X Ear: Shape: (conical, cylindrical) 1 X Kernel row arrangement 1 X Kernel: Shape – shrunken, round, toothed or flat 1 X Leaf colour 1 X Anthocyanin coloration of brace roots indirect information on resistance to some pests 1 X Number of ears per plant 1 X COMMENTS Days to flower and senescence should be expressed in growing degree days, not in days. X General remark: the recent revision of UPOV test guidelines on Maize includes all the characteristics with a good discrimination power, those with an asterisk are really the best ones X I think a rating of root and/or stalk lodging is much too environment-dependent to be very useful X Additional evaluation traits Leaf width (6.1.3) 3 X X X Instead of Foliage rating I would suggest Leaf length [cm] 1 X Venation Index (6.1.4) 1 X Tassel branching space (6.1.10) 1 X Number of tassel primary ramifications (6.1.11) 1 X Rachis diameter (6.2.6) 1 X Ustilago Maydis 1 X Gray leaf spot (Cercospora zea- maydis) 2 X X Maize streak virus (MSV) 2 X X Low temperature - it is very important for northern extremity of maize crops. This descriptor gives the opportunity to identify accessions which can be used in the breeding program for precocity. 1 X Salt tolerance 1 X Tolerance to low Nitrogen 1 X Earliness at flowering and at harvest time 1 X Type of endosperme 1 X Lodging resistance 1 X Digestibility of entire plant for silage type 1 X Heterotic pattern 1 X Grain disease (micotoxin) 1 X Corn root worm (Diabrotica) 1 X European corn borer (Ostrinia) 1 X Corn ear worm (Helicoverpa) 1 X Fall armyworm (Spodoptera) 1 X Grain nutritional components 1 X Provitamin A 1 X Content oil 1 X Content cell wall digestibility 1 X Endosperm creaminess 1 X Pericarp softness 1 X S. No. Characteristics States 1. (+) Leaf: Angle between blade and stem (on leaf just above upper ear) Small (<45°) Wide (>45°) 2 (+) Leaf: Attitude of blade (on leaf just above upper ear) Straight Drooping 3. (S) Stem: Anthocyanin colouration of brace roots) Absent Present 4. (*) Tassel: Time of anthesis (on middle third of main axis, 50 % of plants) Very early (<45 days) Early (45-50 days) Medium (50-55 days) Late (>55 days) 5. (+)(S) Tassel: Anthocyanin colouration of glumes excluding base (in middle third of main axis) Absent Present 6. (S) Tassel: Anthocyanin colouration of glumes excluding base (in middle third of main axis) Absent Present 7. (S) Tassel: Anthocyanin colouration of anthers (in middle third of mairr axis on fresh anthers) Absent Present 8 Tassel: Density of spikelets (in middle third of main axis) Sparse Dense 9. (*) (+) Tassel: Angle between main axis and lateral branches Narrow (< 45°) Wide (> 45°) 10. (*)(+) Tassel: Attitude of lateral branches (in lower third of tassel) Straight Curved Strongly curved 11 Ear: Time of silk emergence (50% plants) Very early (<48 days) Early (48-53 days) Medium (53-58 days) Late (>58 days) 12. (*) Ear: Anthocyanin colouration of silks (on day of emergency) Absent Present 13 Leaf: Anthocyanin colouration of sheath (below the ear) Absent Present 14 Tassel: Length of main axis above lowest side branch Short (<20 cm) Medium (20-30 cm) Long (> 30 cm) 15.1 (*) Inbred lines only: Plant : Length (up to flag leaf) Short (<120 cm) Medium (120-150 cm) Long (>150 cm) 15.2 (*) Hybrids and open pollinated varieties only: Plant : Length (up to flag leaf) Short (<150 cm) Medium (150-180 cm) Long (181-210 cm) Very long (>210 cm) 16 Plant: Ear placement Low Medium High 17 Leaf: Width of blade (leaf of upper ear) Narrow (<8 cm) Medium (8-9 cm) High ( >9 cm) 18. (*) Ear: Length without husk Short (<10 cm) Medium (10-15 cm) Long (>15 cm) 19 Ear: Diameter without husk (in middle) Small (<4 cm) Medium (4-5 cm) Large (>5 cm) 20. (+) Ear: Shape Conical Conico-cylinderical Cylindrical 21 Ear: Number of rows of grains Few ( < 8) Medium (10-12) Many (>14) 22. (*) Ear: Type of grain (in middle third of ear) Flint Semi flint/ Semi dent Dent 23. (*) Ear: Colour of top of grain White White with cap Yellow Yellow with cap Orange Red Other (specify) 24. (*) Ear: Anthocyanin colouration of glumes of cob White Light purple Dark purple 25. (+) Kernel: Row arrangement (middle of ear) Straight Spiral Irregular 26 Kernel: Poppiness Absent Present 27 Kernel: Sweetness Absent Present 28 Kernel: Waxiness Absent Present 29 Kernel: Opaqueness Absent Present 30. (+) Kernel: Shape Shrunken Round Indented Toothed Pointed 31 Kernel: 1000 kernel weight) Very small (<100g) Small (100-200 g) Medium (200-300 g) Large (>300 g) X Annex IX – Dr Taba’s comments on the survey results shared with Dr Dass on 30 September 2009 Descriptor Rating Average Dr Taba’s selection Characterization Kernel type/Type of grain (4.3.1) 4.26 x Days to 50% tasseling (male flowering) (4.1.1) 4.00 x Days to 50% silking (female flowering) (4.1.2) 3.97 x Kernel colour/Colour of top of grain ( ) 3.88 x Number of ear kernel rows (4.2.4) 3.73 x Ear height [cm] (4.1.5) 3.56 x 1000 kernel weight [g] (4.3.3) 3.44 x Plant height [cm] (4.1.4) 3.38 x Tassel type (4.1.13) 3.38 x Ear Husk cover (4.2.1) 3.18 x Stalk lodging [%] (4.1.11) 3.03 x Ear damage (rating) or ear quality (4.2.2) 2.88 X This is rating of kernel health for most part and uniformity of ears. There is no trait to indicate plant health among chosen minimum descriptors. At least this can be included. Root lodging [%] (4.1.10) 2.88 X This trait is to indicate root strength and standability. Tillering index (4.1.8) 2.41 This is rather confined to Mexican highland and northern flint races. If genebank does not have these germplasm, this is less interest. Number of leaves above the uppermost ear including ear leaf (4.1.7) 2.38 X This is again more racial traits: most improved materials have a little difference. I still think this is worth while, as plant efficiency indicated by the trait to some extent. Stem colour (4.1.9) 2.24 This is again specific interest, as a large part of germplasm does not have coloured stems, except in CIMMYT where Mexican landraces often have coloured stems. Days to ear leaf senescence in 50% of the plants (4.1.3) 2.06 X (this is not popular in the survey, but there is no data to indicate plant adaptation and health at characterization, this is a reason I use in CIMMYT. This is one of the best parameters to differentiate accessions in general performance in selection index). The ratio of leaf senescence and days to silk is very good indicator for grain filling period. Foliage (rating of total leaf surface) (4.1.6) 1.78 Again, this is a racial trait for most part, indicating large broad leaf and leaf numbers> Forage maize may be indicative of high rating of this trait. So location specific. CIMMYT will need it anyway. It also indicates a general plant structure in combination with plant height and ear height. Descriptor Rating Average Dr Taba’s selection Evaluation Ear rot, stalk rot (Diplodia maydis; Gibberella zeae; Fusarium moniliforme) (8.1.1) 4.23 x Grain yield 4.13 x Drought (7.5) 3.94 x Maydis leaf blight (Bipolaris maydis, syn. Helminthosporium maydis); Turcicum leaf blight (Exserohilum turcicum, syn. Helminthosporium turcicum) (8.1.4) 3.90 x Common rust in temperate and highland environments (Puccinia sorghi); Southern Rust in tropics (Puccinia polysora) (8.1.2) 3.77 x Ear length [cm] (6.2.2) 3.65 x Borer (Sesamia spp.) (8.3.6) 3.50 x Downy mildew (Peronosclerospora spp.; Sclerophthora spp.) (8.1.3) 3.48 x Borer (Chilo spp.) (8.3.2) 3.37 x Kernel length [mm] (6.3.1) 3.26 x Ear diameter [cm] (6.2.4) 3.13 x Corn stunt (Corn stunt spiroplasma (CSS)) (8.2.1) 3.00 x Kernel width [mm] (6.3.2) 2.94 x Shape of uppermost ear (6.2.10) 1.97 X This is a racial trait and a bit of heterotic pattern of inbreds. I would think this is still some indication of kernel arrangement, kernel numbers, cob formation. Conico and cylindrical send a message to a good corn breeder as to heterotic pattern how he uses in parent if no other information is available. Now it is testcross bases, that everyone assumes cylindrical ears. Shelling cylindrical ears are seen normally that was very minimum, I suppose. Evaluation does not include test crosses in this case, I will keep it. Annex X – Key access and utilization descriptors for maize sent to the Crop Leader and CAG for validationi PLANT DATA Days to tasseling (male flowering) (4.1.1) Number of days from sowing to when 50% of the plants have shed pollen Days to silking (female flowering) (4.1.2) Number of days from sowing to when silks have emerged on 50% of the plants Days to ear leaf senescence (4.1.3) Number of days from sowing to when 50% of the plants have a dry ear leaf Plant height [cm] (4.1.4) From ground level to the base of the tassel. After milk stage Ear height [cm] (4.1.5) From ground level to the node bearing the uppermost ear. After milk stage Foliage rating (4.1.6) (Rating of total leaf surface) Number of leaves above the uppermost ear including ear leaf (4.1.7) Counted on at least 20 representative plants. After milk stage Root lodging [%] (4.1.10) Percentage of plants root-lodged. (This trait indicates root strength and standability). Two weeks before harvest Stalk lodging (4.1.11) Percentage of plants stalk-lodged. Two weeks before harvest Tassel type (4.1.13) At milk stage 1 Primary 2 Primary-secondary 3 Primary-secondary-tertiary Ear husk cover (4.2.1) 3 Poor 5 Intermediate 7 Good Ear damage (4.2.2) (Rating of kernel health). Amount of ear damage caused by ear rot and/or insects, etc. 0 None 3 Little 7 Severe Number of kernel rows (4.2.4) Count number of kernel rows in the central part of the uppermost ear Kernel type (4.3.1) Indicate up to three kernel types in the order of frequency 1 Floury 2 Semi-floury (morocho), with an external layer of hard endosperm 3 Dent 4 Semi-dent, intermediate between dent and flint but closer to dent 5 Semi-flint, flint with a soft cap 6 Flint 7 Pop 8 Sweet 9 Opaque 2/QPM 10 Tunicate 11 Waxy Kernel colour (top of grain) (4.3.2) Indicate up to three colours in the order of frequency 1 White 2 Yellow 3 Purple 4 Variegated 5 Brown 6 Orange 7 Mottled 8 White cap 9 Red 1000-kernel weight [g] (4.3.3) Adjusted to 10% moisture content Ear length [cm] (6.2.2) Ear diameter [cm] (6.2.4) Measured at the central part of the uppermost ear Shape of uppermost ear (6.2.10) 1 Cylindrical 2 Cylindrical-conical 3 Conical 4 Round Kernel length [mm] (6.3.1) Average of 10 consecutive kernels from one row in the middle of the uppermost ear, measured with a calliper Kernel width [mm] (6.3.2) Measured on the same 10 kernels as 6.3.1 Grain yield (6.3.X) ABIOTIC STRESSES Drought (7.5) Reflected in seed yield relative to control BIOTIC STRESSES Ear rot, stalk rot (Diplodia maydis, Gibberella zeae, Fusarium moniliforme) (8.1.1) Common rust in temperate and highland environments (Puccinia sorghi) (8.1.2a) Southern rust in tropics (Puccinia polysora) (8.1.2b) Downy mildew (Peronosclerospora spp.; Sclerophthora spp.) (8.1.3) Maydis leaf blight (Bipolaris maydis syn. Helminthosporium maydis) (8.1.4a) Turcicum leaf blight (Exserohilum turcicum, syn. Helminthosporium turcicum) (8.1.4b) Corn stunt (Corn stunt spiroplasma (CSS) (8.2.1) Borer (Chilo spp.) (8.3.2) Borer (Sesamia spp.) (8.3.6) Ear: Anthocyanin colouration of silks (on day of emergency) Absent Present Ear: Anthocyanin colouration of glumes of cob (White, Light purple, Dark purple) 6.1.3 Leaf width [cm] i Descriptors highlighted in light blue are new or modified; Descriptors highlighted in yellow were proposed by participants in the survey Annex XI – Final key set of descriptors for maize genetic resources Key access and utilization descriptors for maize genetic resources This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for maize utilization. This strategic set of descriptors, together with passport data, will become the basis for the global accession level information portal being developed by Bioversity International with the financial support of the Global Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust). It will facilitate access to and utilization of maize accessions held in genebanks and does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently become available. Based on the comprehensive list ‘Descriptors for Maize’ published by CIMMYT and IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1991, the list was subsequently compared with a number of sources such as UPOV technical guidelines for Maize (1994), ‘Descriptors for MAIZE’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN), ‘Global Strategy for the Ex situ Conservation and Utilization of Maize Germplasm’ (the Trust, 2007), Dr Taba’s poster presented at the meeting held at the Sociedad Mexicana de Fitogenética (SOMEFI) in September 2008, ‘Descriptors for Characterization and Evaluation of Maize’ (National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences, Genebank of Japan), as well as with those descriptors that were awarded funds for further research by the Trust in 2008 Evaluation Awards Scheme (EAS). The initial list also builds on the results of the SGRP Global Public Goods Activity 4.2.1.1, with special attention to breeding traits. It was further refined during a meeting held at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR, India) in June 2009. It involved several scientists from NBPGR and the valuable contribution of Dr Sain Dass of the Directorate of Maize Research, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). A worldwide distribution of experts was involved in an online survey to define a first priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize maize genetic resources. This key set was afterwards validated by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr Suketoshi Taba of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT). Biotic and abiotic stresses included in the list were chosen because of their wide geographic occurrence and significant economic impact at a global level. Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptor numbers listed in the 1991 publication. Descriptors with numbers ending in ‘letters’ are either modified or new descriptors that were added during the development of the list below. PLANT DATA Days to tasseling (male flowering) (4.1.1) Number of days from sowing to when 50% of the plants have shed pollen Days to silking (female flowering) (4.1.2) Number of days from sowing to when silks have emerged on 50% of the plants Days to ear leaf senescence (4.1.3) Number of days from sowing to when 50% of the plants have a dry ear leaf Plant height [cm] (4.1.4) From ground level to the base of the tassel. After milk stage Ear height [cm] (4.1.5) From ground level to the node bearing the uppermost ear. After milk stage Foliage rating (4.1.6) Rating of total leaf surface Number of leaves above the uppermost ear including ear leaf (4.1.7) Counted on at least 20 representative plants. After milk stage Root lodging [%] (4.1.10) Percentage of plants root-lodged. This trait indicates root strength and standability. Two weeks before harvest Stalk lodging [%] (4.1.11) Percentage of plants stalk-lodged. Two weeks before harvest Tassel type (4.1.13) At milk stage 1 Primary 2 Primary-secondary 3 Primary-secondary-tertiary Ear husk cover (4.2.1) 3 Poor 5 Intermediate 7 Good Ear damage (4.2.2) Rating of kernel health. Amount of ear damage caused by ear rot and/or insects, etc. 0 None 3 Little 7 Severe Number of kernel rows (4.2.4) Count number of kernel rows in the central part of the uppermost ear Kernel type (4.3.1) Indicate up to three kernel types in order of frequency 1 Floury 2 Semi-floury (morocho), with an external layer of hard endosperm 3 Dent 4 Semi-dent, intermediate between dent and flint but closer to dent 5 Semi-flint, flint with a soft cap 6 Flint 7 Pop 8 Sweet 9 Opaque 2/QPM 10 Tunicate 11 Waxy Kernel colour (top of grain) (4.3.2) Indicate up to three colours in order of frequency 1 White 2 Yellow 3 Purple 4 Variegated 5 Brown 6 Orange 7 Mottled 8 White cap 9 Red 1000-kernel weight [g] (4.3.3) Adjusted to 10% moisture content Ear length [cm] (6.2.2) Ear diameter [cm] (6.2.4) Measured at the central part of the uppermost ear Shape of uppermost ear (6.2.10) 1 Cylindrical 2 Cylindrical-conical 3 Conical 4 Round Kernel length [mm] (6.3.1) Average of 10 consecutive kernels from one row in the middle of the uppermost ear, measured with a calliper Kernel width [mm] (6.3.2) Measured on the same 10 kernels as 6.3.1 Grain yield (6.3.X) ABIOTIC STRESSES Drought (7.5) Reflected in seed yield relative to control BIOTIC STRESSES Ear rot, stalk rot (Diplodia maydis, Gibberella zeae, Fusarium moniliforme) (8.1.1) Common rust in temperate and highland environments (Puccinia sorghi) (8.1.2a) Southern rust in tropics (Puccinia polysora) (8.1.2b) Downy mildew (Peronosclerospora spp., Sclerophthora spp.) (8.1.3) Maydis leaf blight (Bipolaris maydis syn., Helminthosporium maydis) (8.1.4a) Turcicum leaf blight (Exserohilum turcicum syn., Helminthosporium turcicum) (8.1.4b) Corn stunt (Corn stunt spiroplasma) (CSS) (8.2.1) Borer (Chilo spp.) (8.3.2) Borer (Sesamia spp.) (8.3.6) CONTRIBUTORS Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of this strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for maize genetic resources’, and in particular to Dr Suketoshi Taba (CIMMYT, Mexico) for providing scientific direction. Ms Adriana Alercia (Bioversity International) provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process. CORE ADVISORY GROUP Suketoshi Taba, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Mexico Sain Dass, Directorate of Maize Research, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), India Joël Guiard, Groupe d’Etude et de Controle de Varietes et des Semences (GEVES), France Thomas Payne, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Mexico C. Tara Satyavathi, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, India REVIEWERS Argentina Marcelo Edmundo Ferrer, Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA) Australia Sally Dillon, Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries Austria Wolfgang Kainz, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES) Brazil Flavia França Teixeira, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa Maize and Sorghum) Chile Erika Salazar Suazo, Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIA) France Pierre Ruaud, Limagrain Group Germany Andreas Börner, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK) Greece G. Evgenidis, National Agricultural Research Foundation, Cereal Institute (NAGREF) Guatemala Mario Fuentes, Organización Integral de Desarrollo (OID) India Jyoti Kaul, Directorate of Maize Research, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) Ashok Kumar, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) J.C. Rana, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources Regional Station, Phagli, Shimla (NBPGR) P.H. Zaidi, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) Kenya Yoseph Beyene, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) Mexico Flavio Aragón Cuevas, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP) George Mahuku, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) Rodomiro Ortiz, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) Kevin Pixley, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) Nigeria R.A. Adeleke, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan Peru Luis Narro, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) Portugal Ana Maria Barata, Instituto Nacional de Recursos Biológicos, Banco Português de Germoplasma Vegetal (INRB/BPGV) Romania Ion Antohe, National Agricultural Research and Development Institute (NARDI) Danela Murariu, Suceava Genebank Russian Federation Galina Matveeva, N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry (VIR) Spain Amando Ordas, Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC) Thailand Sansern Jampatong, National Corn and Sorghum Research Center Turkey Sekip Erdal, Bati Akdeniz Agricultural Research Institute (BATEM) Ukraine Natalia Kuz'myshyna, National Centre for Plant Genetic Resources of Ukraine USA Scott S. Johnson, Pegasus Genetics, CRD Advisors William Tracy, University of Wisconsin-Madison Zimbabwe John MacRobert, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) Cosmos Magorokosho, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) Methodology for the definition of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.] Information collection and preparation of the Minimum Descriptor List (MDL) Information for the definition of a Minimum Descriptor List for pearl millet was based on the publication ‘Descriptors for Pearl Millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.]’ published by ICRISAT and IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1993. The comprehensive descriptors list included in this publication was compared with descriptors listed in Descriptors for PMILLET (USDA, ARS, GRIN); ‘Establishment of a pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.] core collection based on geographical distribution and quantitative traits’ [Euphytica (2007) 155:35–45]; ‘Pearl millet germplasm at ICRISAT genebank – status and impact’ (ICRISAT, Vol. 3, Issue 1, 2007); Guidelines for the conduct of tests for Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability on Pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.) (PPV & FRA, 2007), and with the traits that were awarded funds for further research by the Global Crop Diversity Trust through the Evaluation Award Scheme (the Trust, 2008). The list was then refined during a crop-specific consultation meeting held in June 2009 at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) in India, following the advice of scientists from NBPGR, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) and the All India Coordinated Research Project on Pearl Millet (AICRP-Pearl Millet). To assist in the selection of a “reduced” set of traits, a comparison table was prepared to visually identify the “most important” descriptors recurring in the above mentioned sources (see Annex I). Preparation of the List of Experts The List of Experts was compiled including experts involved in various crop-specific consultations on millets, representatives of the world major pearl millet collections, plant pathologists and breeders. Overall, 52 experts were selected, coming from 12 countries and 34 different organizations (see Annex II). Out of these, Dr Prem Mathur from Bioversity International was identified as Crop Leader and further to the crop-specific meeting held at NBPGR in June 2009, Dr I.S. Khairwal (AICRP- Pearl Millet) was also identified as Crop Leader. In the final stages of the exercise, Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya from ICRISAT provided valuable advice on the definition of the final key set. A Core Advisory Group, consisting of various experts from different organizations was selected to assist in the definition of a minimum set of descriptors, which was subsequently circulated for validation among a wider group of scientists. Survey preparation and distribution During the crop-specific meeting held at the NBPGR in June 2009, the comparison table was analyzed and an initial key set of characterization and evaluation traits was selected (see Annex III). The agreed list, compiled under the scientific guidance of Dr Mathur and Dr Khairwal, was consequently used to prepare a draft survey on pearl millet. Moreover, participants in the meeting were requested to identify – in addition to the key set of descriptors for pearl millet utilization – further descriptors that were considered important for describing and utilizing genetic resources, yet judged ‘not essential’. This longer list of descriptors would have contributed to the full characterization and evaluation of pearl millet, to be included in an eventual revised (traditional) list of descriptors for this crop. The final version of the key set was uploaded into the SurveyMonkey application on internet and sent out to the list of identified experts on 26 June 2006 (see Annex IV). Participants were invited to validate this initial key set of descriptors of pearl millet accessions to facilitate their use by breeders and asked to make suggestions regarding any characterization or evaluation descriptors that were found to be very important yet missing from the proposed Minimum List. The survey deadline was set at 28 July 2009, therefore a first reminder was sent out on 14 July 2009 and a second on 24 July 2009 to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained. Survey analysis and refinement of the Minimum List Of the 52 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 25 experts from 16 different organizations and nine countries recorded their comments using the online survey, nine of whom were members of the CAG (see Annex V). Results from the consultation were analyzed and descriptors were ranked by rating average and percentage of importance (see Annex VI). The summary results of the survey together with a report containing comments recorded by the participants (see Annexes VII and VIII) were sent to the Crop Leaders and to the CAG. In order to reach a wider consensus on the final key set of traits, additional members were added to the CAG at this stage. All feedback received from advisory members was compared and harmonized, where possible (see Annex IX). This exercise led to a first draft of the key set for pearl millet that was submitted to the Crop Leaders for final validation (see Annex X). Particularly noteworthy is a comment from one of the Crop Leaders underlining that although drought was considered important in the context of climate change, pearl millet has normally been grown as a rain fed crop. Therefore, he felt that even if the character was important, the possibility genebank curators of screening a large number of collections against drought may not be viable. However, since most of the Core Advisory Group members recommended it, it was decided to include this trait in the list. The same applied to ‘Blast’, an additional abiotic stress suggested during the survey by many experts from different countries. Definition of a final key set of descriptors for pearl millet The approved document, including all the contributors (see Annex XI), was proofread by an external editor and sent to the Bioversity Publications Unit for layout and on-line publication. The publication was later shared with the European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources (ECPGR) Secretariat; the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base partners. Additionally, data were converted into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN-Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA, and subsequently into the global accession level information portal (GENESYS), linking national, regional and international genebank databases in support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also provided to the CGIAR System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) and to EURISCO. Acknowledgement Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for pearl millet genetic resources’, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial support. Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leaders, Dr I.S. Khairwal (AICRP- Pearl Millet), Dr Prem Mathur (Bioversity International) and Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya (ICRISAT) for providing valuable scientific direction. Ms Adriana Alercia provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process. Annex I - Summary comparison table weighing up important descriptors for pearl millet drawn from different sourcesi ii Bioversity Descr. no. Descriptor name IBPGR/ ICRISAT 1993 (1) UPOV, PPV & FRA, 2007 (2) USDA (3) EAS (4) ICRISAT 2007 (data avail AR) AICPM too (5) IITA collection- Bhattacharjee 2006 (6) LONG (NBPGR) (7) MIN (NBPGR) (8) 4.1.1 Plant height [cm] * * excluding spike * * * * * 4.1.2 Stem diameter [mm] * * * 4.1.3 Early vigour * * * 4.1.4 Tillering attitude * * 4.1.5 Total number of tillers * * * 4.1.6 Number of productive tillers * * * * * * 4.1.7 Number of nodal tillers * * * * 4.1.8 Plant aspect * * 4.1.9 Lodging susceptibility * * * 4.1.10 Green fodder yield potential * * * 4.2.1 Spike shape * * * * panicle * * 4.2.2 Spikelet shattering/threshing * 4.2.3 Bristle length * * * * * 4.2.4 Days to 50% flowering * * not 50% * * * * 4.2.5 Sensitivity to photoperiod * * * * 4.2.6 Flowering range * 4.2.7 Synchrony of ear maturity * * panicle * * 4.2.8 Restoration response * * 4.2.9 Ear exsertion type * * panicle exsertion * spike * * 4.2.10 Ear exsertion distance [cm] * 4.3.1 Spike length [cm] * * * * panicle * * * 4.3.2 Spike thickness [mm] * * * * panicle * * * 4.3.3 Spike density * * * Spikelet * * 4.4.1 Seed colour (change to grain) * * * * * * 4.4.2 Seed covering * * 4.4.3 Seed shape * * * * * * 4.4.4 Seed weight per spike [g] * 4.4.5 1000 Seed weight [g] * * * * * * 4.4.6 Seed volume [cm3] * 4.4.7 Endosperm texture * * * 4.4.8 Yellow endosperm (rename to colour of endosperm) * * * New Green fodder yield per plant [kg] * * 4.4.9 Yield potential (rename to seed Grain yield per plant in g) * * * * 6.1.1 Leaf length [cm] * * * * 6.1.2 Leaf width [mm] * * * * 6.1.3 Leaf attitude * * 6.1.4 Leaf colour * * 6.1.5 Sheath length [cm] * * 6.1.6 Sheath pigmentation * * 6.1.7 Blade pigmentation * * 6.1.8 Sheath pubescence * * 4th leaf * 6.1.9 Senescence * * 6.1.10 Separation [cm] * 6.1.11 Number of leaves (rename to nodes) * * * 6.1.12 Stem internode length [cm] * * * 6.1.13 Stalk juiciness * * Sweet stalk * 6.1.14 Juice quality * 6.1.15 Node pigmentation * * * 6.1.16 Internode pigmentation * * * 6.1.17 Node pubescence * * * 6.1.18 Internode pubescence * * 6.2.1 Rachis diameter [mm] * 6.2.2 Rachis pubescence * * 6.2.3 Rachis tip * * 6.2.4 Involucre stalk length [mm] * 6.2.5 Number of fertile spikelets per involucres * 6.2.6 Bristle colour * * * 6.2.7 Bristle ornamentation * * 6.2.8 Mono-aristation length * 6.2.9 Poly-aristation density * * 6.2.10 Spikelet glume colour * * * * 6.2.11 Anther colour * * * * 6.2.12 Stigma pigmentation * * 6.2.13 Florets per spikelet * * 6.3.1 Seed apex shape * 6.3.2 Seed surface * * 6.3.3 Protein content [% DW] * * * 6.3.4 Lysine content [% DW] * * 6.3.5 Methionine content [% DW] * * 6.3.6 Tryptophane content [% DW] * * 7.1 Reaction to drought * ** * * 7.2 Reaction to salinity * * * 8.1.1 Downy mildew (Sderospora graminicola (Sacc. Schroet.)) * * * * 8.1.2 Rust (Puccinia penniseti Zimm.) * * * * 8.2.1 Ergot (Claviceps fusiformis Lov.) * * * 8.2.2 Smut (Tolyposporium penicillariae Bref.) * * * * 8.3.1 Witchweed (Striga asiatica (L.) O. Kuntze Striga hermonthica Benth.) * * * * 8.4.1 White grub (Holotrichia spp., Apogonia sp.) * * 8.4.2 Wire worm (Gonocephalum spp.) * ? 8.4.3 Root aphid (Stibaropus minor Fabr.) * 8.5.1 Pearl millet shoot fly (Atherigona approximata Malloch) * * 8.5.2 Pearl millet stem borer (Coniesta (Acigona) ignefusalis Hmps.) * * 8.5.3 Spotted stem borer (Chilo partellus Swin.) * * 8.5.4 Hairy caterpillars (Amsacta sp.) * * 8.5.5 Locust (Locusta migratoria migratorioides L.) * i (1) ‘Descriptors for Pearl Millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) r. Br.]’ (IBPGR/ICRISAT 1993); (2) ‘Guidelines for the conduct of tests for Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability. (Pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.))’ (PPV & FRA, 2007); (3) ‘Descriptors for PMILLET (USDA, ARS, GRIN)’; (4) Evaluation Award Scheme 2008 (EAS); (5) ‘Pearl millet germplasm at ICRISAT genebank – status and impact’ (ICRISAT, Vol. 3, Issue 1, 2007); (6) ‘Establishment of a pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.] core collection based on geographical distribution and quantitative traits’ (Euphytica (2007) 155:35–45); (7) Long list of traits identified during the crop-specific meeting at NBPGR (June 2009); (8) Minimum list of traits identified during the crop- specific meeting at NBPGR (June 2009). ii Descriptors highlighted in yellow are those identified to be proposed in the online survey 8.5.6 Grasshopper (Hieroglyphus sp. Oedaleus senegalensis Krauss) * * 8.5.7 Desert locust (Schistocerea gregaria Forsk.) * 8.5.8 Corn leaf aphid (Rhopalosiphum maidis Fitch) * 8.5.9 Oriental armyworm (Mythimna separata Wlk.) * * 8.5.10 African armyworm (Spodoptera exempta Wlk.) * * 8.5.11 Fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda J.E. Smith) * * 8.5.12 Cutworm (Agrotis sp.) * 8.6.1 Head caterpillars (Helicoverpa armigera Hb. Cryptoblabes midiella Mill. Eublemim spp.) * * 8.6.2 Pearl millet head caterpillars (Heliocheilus (Raghuva) albipunctella) * * 8.6.3 Blister beeTles (Mylabris pustulata Thunb. Psallydolytta sp.) * 8.6.4 Pachnoda spp. * 8.6.5 Pearl millet midge (Geromyia penniseti Felt) * * 8.6.6 Head bug (Calocoris angustatus Leth.) * * 8.6.7 Cotton stainer (Dysdercus sp.) * 8.6.8 Thrips (Haplothrips sp. Thrips sp.) * * 8.6.9 Scarabaeid beetle (Rhinyptia infuscata Burin.) * Annex II – List of Experts identified to participate in the survey for the definition of a minimum set of descriptors for pearl millet ROLE NAME ORGANIZATION COUNTRY Crop Leader Khairwal, I.S. AICRP-Pearl Millet India Crop Leader Mathur, Prem Bioversity India CAG Bhattacharjee, Ranjana IITA Nigeria CAG/NBPGR meeting June 2009 Gowda, Jayarame AICRP on Small millets, UAS, GKVK, Bangalore India CAG Gupta, Suresh ICRISAT India CAG Harrison-Dunn, Melanie ARS/USDA USA CAG ontology workshop Hash, C. Tom ICRISAT India CAG/Core group EAS Haussmann, Bettina I.G. ICRISAT Niger CAG/Core group Pacheco, Luis UPOV Brasil CAG Satyavathi, Tara C. IARI, Genetics India CAG Rai, K.N. ICRISAT India CAG Reddy, K.N. ICRISAT India CAG/NBPGR meeting June 2009 Seetharam, A. AICRP on Small millets, UAS, GKVK, Bangalore India CAG Unnikrishnan, K.V. IARI, Genetics India West Africa Community of Practice (CoP WAF) participant Aminou, Ali FUMA Gaskya Niger Pearl millet planning Workshop Oct-2002 Angarawai, Ignatius Ijantiku Millet research- Lake Chad Research Institute Nigeria Intsormil team Atokple, I. Inoussa Savanna Agric. Res. Inst. Ghana Contact sent by Franca Neto, Jose Bonamigo Luiz Adriana Seed Company Brazil West Africa Community of Practice (CoP WAF) participant Boye, Tahirou ICRISAT Niger Core collection Bramel, Paula J. IITA India IRC contacts Chopra, Kuldip Raj Biostadt MHseeds Ltd India IRC contacts Franca Neto, José EMBRAPA Brazil (INTSORMIL CRSP) Gebeyehu, Geremew Nazret Research Center Ethiopia Pearl millet breeder Gonda, Jada INRAN Niger IRC contacts Gopal, B. Zuari Seeds Ltd India IRC contacts Gupta, Suresh Advantaindia Seed Company India IRC contacts Jyalekha, A.K. Bayer Bioscience/Proagro Seeds India IRC contacts Katrien, Devos UGA USA Reviewer Kumar, Ashok NBPGR India Collection and evaluation of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) germplasm from the arid regions of Tunisia (2008) Loumerem, M. Institut des Régions Arides Tunisia IRC contacts Mahala, R.S. Pioneer Overseas India Reviewer Mishra NBPGR India IRC contacts Naik, Sunil Emergent Genetics India Nouri, Maman INRAN Niger Ousseini, Boubacar Farmer representative Niger IRC contacts Pareek, Satish Pioneer Overseas India IRC contacts Parzies, Heiko Univ. of Hohenheim Germany West Africa Community of Practice (CoP WAF) participant Rattunde, Fred ICRISAT Mali SINGER Survey (Genebank data manager) Reddy, M. Thimma ICRISAT India IRC contacts Sankar Kaveri Seed Co India (INTSORMIL CRSP) Sanogo, Moussa Daouda CRRA de Niono, Programme Mil Mali Suggested by H. Knüpffer Schmidt, Baerbel IPK-Genebank Dept Germany IRC contacts Shelke, G.V. Ankur Seeds India Singh, B.B. IARI, Genetics India West Africa Community of Practice (CoP WAF) participant Souley, Soumana INRAN Niger Pearl millet breeder Sy, Ousmane Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles (ISRA) Senegal Intsormil team Taonda, S.J. Baptiste INERA Burkina Faso IRC contacts Thakur, Ram ICRISAT India ICRISAT Upadhyaya, Hari D. ICRISAT India Collection and evaluation of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) germplasm from the arid regions of Tunisia (2008) Van Damme, P. UGent-FBSE Belgium Verma, V.D. NBPGR Regional Station, Phagli, Shimla India IRC contacts Warathe, Shailendra Syngenta India India IRC contacts Wilson, Jeff USDA, GA USA IRC contacts Xinzhi, Ni USDA, GA USA Annex III – Initial minimum key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for pearl millet identified during the crop-specific meeting held at NBPGR in June 2009 Plant height [cm] (4.1.1) Early vigour (4.1.3) Number of productive tillers (4.1.6) Lodging susceptibility (4.1.9) Green fodder yield per plant [kg] (4.1.10) Spike shape (4.2.1) Bristle length (4.2.3) Days to 50% flowering (4.2.4) Sensitivity to photoperiod (4.2.5) Synchrony of ear maturity (4.2.7) Ear exsertion type (4.2.9) Spike length [cm] (4.3.1) Spike thickness [mm] (4.3.2) Spike density (4.3.3) Grain colour (4.4.1) Seed shape (4.4.3) 1000-seed weight [g] (4.4.5) Seed grain yield per plant [g] (4.4.9) Leaf length [cm] (6.1.1) Leaf width [mm] (6.1.2) Number of nodes (6.1.11) Stem internode length [cm] (6.1.12) Spikelet glume colour (6.2.10) Anther colour (6.2.11) Reaction to drought (7.1) Downy mildew (Sderospora graminicola) (8.1.1) Rust (Puccinia penniseti) (8.1.2) Smut (Tolyposporium penicillariae) (8.2.2) Witchweed (Striga asiatica; Striga hermonthica) (8.3.1) Annex IV – Survey to choose a key set of descriptors for pearl millet utilization WELCOME Welcome to the survey for the selection of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for pearl millet to support an international information system to enhance the utilization of germplasm held in genebanks. Your knowledge and experience are being sought to define an initial ‘key set’ of descriptors that identify traits important to crop production and facilitate the use of accessions by researchers. Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 28 July 2009. This key set of descriptors will be made available through a global portal for identifying sets of accessions for evaluation and use. For characterization, the aim is a key set of maximally differentiating traits that provide the most impact in discriminating between accessions. For evaluation, the aim is to focus on a few important traits for production, such as those related to abiotic or biotic stresses of cosmopolitan nature. By selecting descriptors as 'very important', you are helping us define the key set that will be instrumental for assisting researchers to more easily utilize Pearl millet accessions. This survey consists of two parts: - PART I: Characterization descriptors - PART II: Evaluation descriptors We thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in selecting the set of descriptors. *Please allow us to acknowledge your contribution by completing your full contact details below: Name: Position: Organization: Country: Email: PART I: Characterization descriptors These traits enable easy and quick discrimination between phenotypes. They are generally highly heritable, can be easily seen by the eye and are equally expressed in all environments. Based on your experience, please select descriptors that provide the most impact in discriminating between accessions. It also allows you to indicate if any essential descriptor that can contribute to its use is missing from the minimum list presented. *Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in the IBPGR/ICRISAT publication 'Descriptors for Pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.]' (1993). Not important Important Very important Plant height [cm] (4.1.1) Early vigour (4.1.3) Number of productive tillers (4.1.6) Lodging susceptibility (4.1.9) Green fodder yield per plant [kg] (4.1.10) Spike shape (4.2.1) Bristle length (4.2.3) Days to 50% flowering (4.2.4) Sensitivity to photoperiod (4.2.5) Synchrony of ear maturity (4.2.7) Ear exsertion type (4.2.9) Spike length [cm] (4.3.1) Spike thickness [mm] (4.3.2) Spike density (4.3.3) Grain colour (4.4.1) Seed shape (4.4.3) 1000-seed weight [g] (4.4.5) Seed grain yield per plant [g] (4.4.9) If you consider that an essential trait is missing from this list, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. PART II: Evaluation descriptors These descriptors include characters such as biotic and abiotic stresses. They are the most interesting traits in crop improvement. Please consider the following factors relating to the trait when making your final decision: (i) Global impact, (ii) Initial strategic set, (iii) Importance for germplasm utilization, (iv) Data availability, (v) True economic damage and (vi) Wide geographical occurrence. Please, rate these traits in order of importance at the global level. It also allows you to indicate if any essential trait for production is missing from the minimum list presented or indicate any that may not be very significant to global production. Not Important Important Very important Leaf length [cm] (6.1.1) Leaf width [mm] (6.1.2) Number of nodes (6.1.11) Stem internode length [cm] (6.1.12) Spikelet glume colour (6.2.10) Anther colour (6.2.11) Reaction to drought (7.1) Downy mildew (Sderospora graminicola) (8.1.1) Rust (Puccinia penniseti) (8.1.2) Smut (Tolyposporium penicillariae) (8.2.2) Witchweed (Striga asiatica; Striga hermonthica) (8.3.1) If you consider that an essential trait important for crop improvement and production is missing from the list above, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. NOTE: Please remember, this list is the starting point and will grow over time, as required. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. Annex V – Survey respondents Role Name Organization Country Crop Leader Khairwal, I.S. AICRP-Pearl Millet India Crop Leader Mathur, Prem Bioversity India Crop Leader Upadhyaya, Hari D. ICRISAT India CAG Gupta, S.K. ICRISAT India CAG Harrison-Dunn, Melanie USDA, NPGS USA CAG Hash, C. Tom ICRISAT India CAG Haussmann, Bettina I.G. ICRISAT Niger CAG Pacheco, Luís Gustavo Asp Ministry of Agriculture Brazil CAG Rai, K.N. ICRISAT India CAG Reddy, Narismha K. ICRISAT India CAG Seetharam, A. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) India CAG Tara Satyavathi, C. Indian Agricultural Research Institute India Reviewer Asfaw Adugna EIAR Ethiopia Reviewer Gopal, B. Zuari Seeds Limited India Reviewer Jayalekha, A.K. Bayer Bioscience Pvt Ltd India Reviewer Lohwasser, Ulrike Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research Germany Reviewer Loumerem, Mohamed Institut des Régions Arides-Tunisia Tunisia Reviewer Mare, Marco Crop Breeding Institute (C.B.I.) Zimbabwe Reviewer Ni, Xinzhi USDA-ARS USA Reviewer Parzies, Heiko K. University of Hohenheim, Inst. of Plant Breeding Germany Reviewer Reddy, M. Thimma ICRISAT India Reviewer Sy, Ousmane ISRA (Institut sénégalais de recherches agricoles) Senegal Reviewer Thakur, R.P. ICRISAT India Reviewer Warathe, Shailendra Syngenta India Ltd. India Reviewer Wilson, Jeffrey P. USDA-ARS USA Annex VI – Survey results ranked by rating average and percentage of importance Descriptor Rating Average Descriptor % Importance (important) % Importance (very important) Characterization Characterization Days to 50% flowering (4.2.4) 4.62 Days to 50% flowering (4.2.4) 19.0% (4) 81.0% (17) Spike length [cm] (4.3.1) 4.50 Spike length [cm] (4.3.1) 25.0% (5) 75.0% (15) Grain colour (4.4.1) 4.33 Grain colour (4.4.1) 33.3% (7) 66.7% (14) Plant height [cm] (4.1.1) 4.24 1000-seed weight [g] (4.4.5) 28.6% (6) 66.7% (14) 1000-seed weight [g] (4.4.5) 4.19 Plant height [cm] (4.1.1) 38.1% (8) 61.9% (13) Spike thickness [mm] (4.3.2) 4.06 Seed grain yield per plant [g] (4.4.9) 23.8% (5) 61.9% (13) Spike density (4.3.3) 4.00 Spike thickness [mm] (4.3.2) 33.3% (6) 61.1% (11) Number of productive tillers (4.1.6) 3.90 Number of productive tillers (4.1.6) 30.0% (6) 60.0% (12) Seed grain yield per plant [g] (4.4.9) 3.81 Spike density (4.3.3) 36.8% (7) 57.9% (11) Green fodder yield per plant [kg] (4.1.10) 3.38 Green fodder yield per plant [kg] (4.1.10) 33.3% (7) 47.6% (10) Spike shape (4.2.1) 3.37 Spike shape (4.2.1) 42.1% (8) 42.1% (8) Ear exsertion type (4.2.9) 3.32 Sensitivity to photoperiod (4.2.5) 40.0% (8) 40.0% (8) Sensitivity to photoperiod (4.2.5) 3.20 Lodging susceptibility (4.1.9) 35.0% (7) 35.0% (7) Seed shape (4.4.3) 3.06 Ear exsertion type (4.2.9) 57.9% (11) 31.6% (6) Lodging susceptibility (4.1.9) 2.80 Seed shape (4.4.3) 55.6% (10) 27.8% (5) Bristle length (4.2.3) 2.68 Synchrony of ear maturity (4.2.7) 45.0% (9) 25.0% (5) Synchrony of ear maturity (4.2.7) 2.60 Early vigour (4.1.3) 47.4% (9) 21.1% (4) Early vigour (4.1.3) 2.47 Bristle length (4.2.3) 63.2% (12) 15.8% (3) Evaluation Evaluation Downy mildew (Sderospora graminicola) (8.1.1) 4.35 Downy mildew (Sderospora graminicola) (8.1.1) 20.0% (4) 75.0% (15) Reaction to drought (7.1) 3.68 Reaction to drought (7.1) 26.3% (5) 57.9% (11) Rust (Puccinia penniseti) (8.1.2) 3.45 Smut (Tolyposporium penicillariae) (8.2.2) 55.0% (11) 35.0% (7) Smut (Tolyposporium penicillariae) (8.2.2) 3.40 Witchweed (Striga asiatica; Striga hermonthica) (8.3.1) 50.0% (10) 35.0% (7) Witchweed (Striga asiatica; Striga hermonthica) (8.3.1) 3.25 Anther colour (6.2.11) 21.1% (4) 31.6% (6) Leaf length [cm] (6.1.1) 2.21 Rust (Puccinia penniseti) (8.1.2) 65.0% (13) 30.0% (6) Leaf width [mm] (6.1.2) 2.21 Stem internode length [cm] (6.1.12) 27.8% (5) 22.2% (4) Anther colour (6.2.11) 2.21 Number of nodes (6.1.11) 36.8% (7) 21.1% (4) Number of nodes (6.1.11) 2.16 Leaf length [cm] (6.1.1) 47.4% (9) 15.8% (3) Stem internode length [cm] (6.1.12) 1.94 Leaf width [mm] (6.1.2) 47.4% (9) 15.8% (3) Spikelet glume colour (6.2.10) 1.89 Spikelet glume colour (6.2.10) 36.8% (7)` 15.8% (3) Annex VII – Additional descriptors and comments proposed in the open-ended section of the survey Additional descriptors Name of expert N. times proposed M. Harris on- Dunne B. Gopal M. Loumerem A. Adugna B. Haussmann R.P. Thakur S.K. Gupta; K.N. Rai O. Sy A.K. Jayalekha C.T. Hash J. Wilson H.K. Parzies L.G. Pacheco A. Seethara m H.D. Upadhy aya Characterization traits Pigmentation on leaf/node which may sometimes indicate a seedling marker to identify the accession at seedling stage. 3 X X Node pigmentation (6.1.15) I think there is correlation between node pigmentation and juice quality X Bristle colour (6.2.6) 1 X Days to 100% flowering it is better than flowering range (4.2.6) is needed by plant breeder. 1 X Seed covering (4.4.2). 1 X The grain volumetric weight (g/cm³) is an important trait for African farmers who sell the grain in volume units (and not kg units). A high volumetric weight is appreciated, as this will also yield more flour. 1 X Instead of green fodder yield (which would be a destructive measure) I would prefer dry stover weight (g/m²) as indicator of fodder plant types. 2 X X Dry fodder yield is more important than green fodder yield, and is not that much more complicated to assess- requiring in addition only fresh and oven-dry weights of a subsample to determine the dry matter fraction of the green fodder Spike tip sterility: Absent, Present 2 X Spike bristle: Absent, Present 2 X Node pubescence 1 X Agronomical appreciation (farmers and technicians) 2 X A general agronomic or farmer preference score, possibly given by farmers (separately for women and men) during a participatory evaluation. X Endosperm texture: Texture of endosperm visually scored on a 1- 9 scale. 1 = Highly corneous and 9 = Highly starchy. 3 X High starch: nowada ys distillerie s and brewers are looking for such traits in millet X Number of nodal tillers (4.1.7) 1 X Total number of tillers (4.1.5) Strongly related to the fodder yield 1 X Evaluation traits Reaction to blast as it is emerging as an important biotic stress in certain parts of India. 6 X X X Blast/Le af spot (Pyricula ria grisea)- damage s foliage X Reaction to Blast: Increase d incidenc e of this disease in India, the major cultivato r of pearl millet X High Iron and Zinc: much sought after trait to check nutrient malnutrition in rural households 2 X Susceptibility to chinch bugs has been a problem for me in the southeastern United States when regenerating material for germplasm increase. The chinch bugs produce severe damage greatly affecting crop yield. Because of geographical limitation of this problem at present, it most likely does not warrant inclusion on this list. However, I wanted to bring this problem to your attention in the case chinch bugs become problematic in other countries/areas in the future. 1 X Leaf colour (6.1.4) 1 X Presence or absence of awn is important 1 X Adaptation to low soil fertility (eg low-P soils in West Africa) 1 X Responsiveness to fertilizer application are further traits of high interest to farmers 1 X Stemborer resistance is very important, e.g. in Nigeria 1 X Headminer resistance can be very important, depending on the region of interest 1 X Reaction to head caterpillar (8.6.1) 1 X Susceptibility to flower-damaging insects (e.g. cantarides) can be very important, depending on the 1 X region of interest Rust (Puccinia substriata var. indica) 1 X Smut (Moesziomyces penicillariae) 1 X Stay green trait after maturity: important trait to identify forage type genotypes under moisture stress conditions 2 X Reaction to salinity tolerance: very important trait as the soils of central Asia are saline and pearl millet is finding niche area there 3 X X Reaction to salinity Seedling: leaf sheath: anthocyanin coloration of base 1 X Leaf sheath: pubescence 1 X Culm: anthocyanin coloration of internode 1 X Culm: diameter 1 X Glume: anthocyanin coloration (excluding tips) 1 X Ergot is an important disease of pearl millet in some areas 3 X Ergot (Clavice ps fusiformi s)- infects panicles, replaces grains with sclerotia and produce s mycotoxi ns- X X Ergot (Clavice ps fusiformi s Loveless ) (8.2.1). Occurs widely Shoot fly is the only major pest of pearl millet in tropics 1 X Grain quality descriptors such as seed oil content might be useful 1 X Protein content [% DW] (6.3.3) 2 X (Grain quality descriptors such as protein content might be useful) X Seed protein content (%) COMMENTS Reaction to drought is too general - what type of drought do we mean here? X Number of leaves ((6.1.11) not number of nodes - mistake) X Annex VIII – Summary results sent to the Crop Leaders and CAG for validation Descriptor Rating Average Your selection Characterization Days to 50% flowering (4.2.4) 4.62 Spike length [cm] (4.3.1) 4.50 Grain colour (4.4.1) 4.33 Plant height [cm] (4.1.1) 4.24 1000-seed weight [g] (4.4.5) 4.19 Spike thickness [mm] (4.3.2) 4.06 Spike density (4.3.3) 4.00 Number of productive tillers (4.1.6) 3.90 Seed grain yield per plant [g OR g/cm3?] (4.4.9) 3.81 DRY fodder yield per plant [kg] (4.1.10) 3.38 Spike shape (4.2.1) 3.37 Ear exsertion type (4.2.9) 3.32 Sensitivity to photoperiod (4.2.5) 3.20 Seed shape (4.4.3) 3.06 Lodging susceptibility (4.1.9) 2.80 Bristle length (4.2.3) 2.68 Synchrony of ear maturity (4.2.7) 2.60 Early vigour (4.1.3) 2.47 Evaluation Downy mildew (Sderospora graminicola) (8.1.1) 4.35 Reaction to drought (7.1) 3.68 Rust (Puccinia penniseti) (8.1.2) 3.45 Smut (Tolyposporium penicillariae) (8.2.2) 3.40 Witchweed (Striga asiatica; Striga hermonthica) (8.3.1) 3.25 Leaf length [cm] (6.1.1) 2.21 Leaf width [mm] (6.1.2) 2.21 Anther colour (6.2.11) 2.21 Number of nodes (6.1.11) 2.16 Stem internode length [cm] (6.1.12) 1.94 Spikelet glume colour (6.2.10) 1.89 Annex IX – Replies received from Crop Leaders and CAG on the survey results Pearl millet descriptor Name of Expert Rating Average I.S. Khairwal B. Haussmann T.C. Satyavathi C.T. Hash A. Seetharam M. Harrison Dunn H.D. Upadhyaya P. Mathur Characterization Days to 50% flowering (4.2.4) 4.62 X X X X X X X Spike length [cm] (4.3.1) 4.50 X X X X X X X Grain colour (4.4.1) 4.33 X X X X X X Plant height [cm] (4.1.1) 4.24 X X X X X X 1000-seed weight [g] (4.4.5) 4.19 X X X X X X X X Spike thickness [mm] (4.3.2) 4.06 X X X X X X Spike density (4.3.3) 4.00 X X X X X Number of productive tillers (4.1.6) 3.90 X X X X X X X Seed grain yield per plant [g] (4.4.9) 3.81 X X X X X X X Green fodder yield per plant [kg] (4.1.10) 3.38 X X X X X X X Spike shape (4.2.1) 3.37 X Ear exsertion type (4.2.9) 3.32 X Sensitivity to photoperiod (4.2.5) 3.20 X X X Seed shape (4.4.3) 3.06 X Lodging susceptibility (4.1.9) 2.80 X Bristle length (4.2.3) 2.68 X X Synchrony of ear maturity (4.2.7) 2.60 X Early vigour (4.1.3) 2.47 X Evaluation Downy mildew (Sderospora graminicola) (8.1.1) 4.35 X X X X X X X Reaction to drought (7.1) 3.68 X X X X Rust (Puccinia penniseti) (8.1.2) 3.45 X X Smut (Tolyposporium penicillariae) (8.2.2) 3.40 X X X Witchweed (Striga asiatica; Striga hermonthica) (8.3.1) 3.25 X Leaf length [cm] (6.1.1) 2.21 Leaf width [mm] (6.1.2) 2.21 Anther colour (6.2.11) 2.21 Number of nodes (6.1.11) 2.16 Stem internode length [cm] (6.1.12) 1.94 Spikelet glume colour (6.2.10) 1.89 Additional traits Blast X X X X Ergot X NB. Descriptors highlighted in yellow are those that received a wide consensus amongst experts (according to rating averages and feedback received from CAG) and were submitted to the Crop Leaders. Annex X – Draft of the key access and utilization descriptors for pearl millet sent to the Crop Leaders for final validation PLANT DATA Plant height [cm] (4.1.1) From the ground level to the tip of the spike. At dough stage Number of productive tillers (4.1.6) Number of spikes which bear seed at dough stage. Spikes younger than the dough stage are not counted Green fodder yield per plant [kg] (4.1.10) At flowering Days to 50% flowering (4.2.4) Number of days from field emergence to when 50% of plants flower. Stigma emergence on the main spike is considered as flowering Spike length [cm] (4.3.1) At dough stage Spike thickness [mm] (4.3.2) Maximum diameter of the spike, excluding bristles. At dough stage Spike density (4.3.3) At maturity 3 Loose 5 Intermediate 7 Compact Grain colour (4.4.1) After threshing. Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) colour codes are given in parentheses beside descriptor states 1 Ivory (yellow-white group 158A) 2 Cream (orange-white group 159A) 3 Yellow (yellow group 8C) 4 Grey (grey group 201) 5 Deep grey (black group 202B) 6 Grey brown (brown group 199) 7 Brown (brown group 200) 8 Purple (purple group 79B) 9 Purplish black 10 A mixture of white and grey grains (on the same spike) 1000-seed weight [g] (4.4.5) At 12% moisture content Grain yield per plant [g] (4.4.9) ABIOTIC STRESSES Reaction to drought (7.1) BIOTIC STRESSES Downy mildew (Sclerospora graminicola) (8.1.1) Blast (Pyricularia grisea) (8.1.X) Annex XI – Final key set for characterization and evaluation of pearl millet genetic resources including descriptor states and contributors Key access and utilization descriptors for pearl millet genetic resources This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for pearl millet genetic resources utilization. This strategic set of descriptors, together with passport data, will become the basis for the global accession level information portal being developed by Bioversity International with the financial support of the Global Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust). It will facilitate access to and utilization of pearl millet accessions held in genebanks and does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently become available. Based on the comprehensive list ‘Descriptors for Pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.]’ published by ICRISAT and IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1993, the list was subsequently compared with a number of sources such as ‘Descriptors for PMILLET’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN), ‘Establishment of a pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.] core collection based on geographical distribution and quantitative traits’ (Euphytica (2007) 155:35–45), ‘Pearl millet germplasm at ICRISAT genebank – status and impact’ (ICRISAT, Vol. 3, Issue 1., 2007), ‘Guidelines for the Conduct of Test for Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability on Pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.)’ (PPV & FRA, 2007), as well as with those descriptors that were awarded funds for further research by the Global Crop Diversity Trust in 2008 Evaluation Award Scheme (EAS). The initial list was further refined during a crop-specific consultation meeting held at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR, India) in June 2009. It involved several scientists from the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) and All India Coordinated Research Project on Pearl Millet (AICRP-Pearl Millet). A worldwide distribution of experts was involved in an online survey to define a first priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize pearl millet genetic resources. This key set was afterwards validated by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr Prem Mathur of Bioversity International, Dr I. S. Khairwal, Project Coordinator, AICRP- Pearl Millet and Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya of International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). Biotic and abiotic stresses included in the list were chosen because of their wide geographic occurrence and significant economic impact at a global level. Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptor numbers listed in the 1993 publication. Descriptors with numbers ending in ‘letters’ are either modified or new descriptors that were added during the development of the list below. PLANT DATA Plant height [cm] (4.1.1) From the ground level to the tip of the spike. At dough stage Number of productive tillers (4.1.6) Number of spikes which bear seed at dough stage. Spikes younger than the dough stage are not counted Green fodder yield per plant [kg] (4.1.10) At flowering Days to 50% flowering (4.2.4) Number of days from field emergence to when 50% of plants flower. Stigma emergence on the main spike is considered as flowering Spike length [cm] (4.3.1) At dough stage Spike thickness [mm] (4.3.2) Maximum diameter of the spike, excluding bristles. At dough stage Spike density (4.3.3) At maturity 3 Loose 5 Intermediate 7 Compact Grain colour (4.4.1) After threshing. Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) colour codes are given in parentheses beside descriptor states 1 Ivory (yellow-white group 158A) 2 Cream (orange-white group 159A) 3 Yellow (yellow group 8C) 4 Grey (grey group 201) 5 Deep grey (black group 202B) 6 Grey brown (brown group 199) 7 Brown (brown group 200) 8 Purple (purple group 79B) 9 Purplish black 10 A mixture of white and grey grains (on the same spike) 1000-seed weight [g] (4.4.5) At 12% moisture content Grain yield per plant [g] (4.4.9) ABIOTIC STRESSES Reaction to drought (7.1) BIOTIC STRESSES Downy mildew (Sclerospora graminicola) (8.1.1) Blast (Pyricularia grisea) (8.1.X) CONTRIBUTORS Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of this strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for pearl millet genetic resources’, and in particular to Dr I.S. Khairwal (AICRP-Pearl Millet), Dr Prem Mathur (Bioversity International) and Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya (ICRISAT) for providing valuable scientific direction. Adriana Alercia provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process. CORE ADVISORY GROUP Prem Mathur, Bioversity International, India I.S. Khairwal, All India Coordinated Research Project on Pearl Millet (AICRP-Pearl Millet), India Hari D. Upadhyaya, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India S.K. Gupta, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India Melanie Harrison-Dunn, United States Department of Agriculture, National Plant Germplasm System (USDA, NPGS), USA Tom C. Hash, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India Bettina I.G. Haussmann, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Niger Luís Gustavo Asp Pacheco, Ministry of Agriculture, Brazil K.N. Rai, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India K. Narismha Reddy, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India A. Seetharam, Ex-Project Coordinator, All India Coordinated Research Project on Small Millets, India C. Tara Satyavathi, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), India REVIEWERS Ethiopia Asfaw Adugna, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) Germany Ulrike Lohwasser, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research Heiko K. Parzies, University of Hohenheim, Institute of Plant Breeding India B. Gopal, Zuari Seeds Limited A.K. Jayalekha, Bayer Bioscience Pvt. Ltd. M. Thimma Reddy, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) R.P. Thakur, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Shailendra Warathe, Syngenta India Ltd. Senegal Ousmane Sy, Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles (ISRA) Tunisia Mohamed Loumerem, Institut des Régions Arides USA Xinzhi Ni, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) Jeffrey P. Wilson, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA- ARS) Zimbabwe Marco Mare, Crop Breeding Institute (CBI) Methodology for the definition of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.] Information collection and preparation of the Minimum Descriptor List (MDL) Information for the definition of a Minimum Descriptor List for pigeonpea was drawn from the publication ‘Descriptors for Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]’ published by IBPGR (now Bioversity International) and ICRISAT in 1993. A table was prepared comparing the descriptors listed in the above publication to important traits mentioned in the ‘Development of a Strategy for the Global Conservation of Pigeonpea Genetic Resources’ (August 2006) and to those used in ICRISAT to identify accessions. Furthermore, these were weighed against Descriptors for PIGEON-PEA (USDA, ARS, GRIN) and important traits resulting from the SGRP GPG2 exercise. The list was further discussed and refined during a crop-specific consultation meeting held in India in June 2009, at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR). The consultation, which involved several experts from NBPGR and the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), chaired by Adriana Alercia, resulted in the definition of a preliminary key set of descriptors for pigeonpea to be included in the survey for review (see Annex I). The long list of descriptors was also revised during the consultation meeting. Preparation of the List of Experts The List of Experts was prepared including experts drawn from the list of participants in the crop- specific consultations for the definition of the ‘Development of a Strategy for the Global Conservation of Pigeonpea Genetic Resources’ (August 2006). It was then integrated with the names of experts found in pigeonpea websites such as the NBPGR website, FAO WIEWS and the Purdue University website. An internet search was also performed to integrate this list and to obtain the greatest number of experts. The List of Experts was further refined during the crop- specific meeting held at NBPGR in June 2009. Overall, 51 experts were identified, from 17 countries and 29 different organizations. Out of these, Dr Ram Prakash Dua (NBPGR, India) and Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya (International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics-ICRISAT, India) were selected as Crop Leaders and a Core Advisory Group (CAG) consisting of 11 experts was identified to assist in the definition of a key set of descriptors. In order to reach a wider group of experts, ten organizations were added to the established list, inviting the relevant expert within the organization to participate (see Annex II). Survey preparation and distribution A draft survey of pigeonpea was prepared listing the descriptors as approved by consultations with the Core Advisory Group. Once the list was refined (see Annex III), during the meeting at NBPGR in June 2009, the final draft of the survey was uploaded into the SurveyMonkey application on the internet (see Annex IV). On 22 July 2009 an invitation email with the link to the survey was sent to the list of identified experts. They were invited to validate this initial ‘Minimum set of descriptors’ of pigeonpea accessions to facilitate their use by researchers and asked to make suggestions regarding any characterization or evaluation descriptors that were found to be relevant yet missing from the proposed Minimum List. The survey deadline was set at 31 August 2009. A first reminder was sent out on the 31 July 2009, a second on the 27 August 2009 and a third one the same day of the deadline, to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained. Survey analysis and refinement of Minimum List Of the 51 experts identified and involved in the exercise, 20 experts from 7 countries and 13 organizations recorded their comments using the online survey (see Annex V). Results from the survey were analyzed and descriptors were ranked by rating average and percentage of importance (see Annex VI). The summary results of the survey together with a report containing comments received by the participants (see Annex VII) were sent to the Core Advisory Group asking them to select the descriptors that should be included in the final list. Feedback received by the experts was harmonized and integrated to compile an initial list of important traits. A first draft of the key set for pigeonpea, containing the aforesaid descriptors, with relevant methods and states, references and the complete list of contributors, was submitted to the CAG for their approval (see Annex VIII). Due to the inconsistency of comments sent by experts regarding the descriptors ‘Base colour of flower (4.2.5)’, ‘Pod colour (4.2.11)’ and ‘Protein content (6.2.1)’, it became necessary to ask Crop Leaders to advice on the inclusion of these traits. It was agreed to follow Dr Hari Upadhyaya’s advice to keep in the key set the trait ‘Protein content’ as a large variation (13-31%) has been observed for this trait and pigeonpea, as a pulse crop, is being grown mainly for this purpose. It was also agreed to leave off the list the other two descriptors that have therefore been excluded. Dr Hari Upadhyaya also made us aware of the names of two experts who had given their contribution along with him. Definition of a final key set of descriptors for pigeonpea The final document approved by the Crop Leaders and the CAG including all the contributors (see Annex IX), was proofread by an external editor and sent to the Bioversity Publications Unit for layout and on-line publication processes. Furthermore, the publication was shared with the ECPGR Secretariat; the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base partners. Additionally, data were converted into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN-Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA, and subsequently into the global accession level information portal (GENESYS), linking national, regional and international genebank databases in support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also provided to the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) and to EURISCO. Acknowledgement Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for pigeonpea genetic resources’, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial support. Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leaders, Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya from ICRISAT, India and Dr Ram Prakash Dua from NBPGR, India, for providing valuable scientific direction. Ms Adriana Alercia provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process. Annex I – Comparison table for the definition of a minimum set of descriptors for pigeonpea drawn from different sourcesi Desc. no. Descriptor name IBPGR/ ICRISAT (a) GPG2 (b) Strategy (c) USDA /ARS (d) ICRISAT Accession identifiers (e) Long (NBPGR) (f) Min (NBPGR) (f) 4.1.1 Growth habit * * * * * 4.1.2 Plant height [cm] * * * * * * 4.1.3 Plant stand * Delete 4.1.4 Number of branches * Delete 4.1.4.1 Number of primary branches * * * * * 4.1.4.2 Number of secondary branches * * * * * 4.1.4.3 Number of tertiary branches * * * * * 4.1.5 Stem colour * * * * 4.1.6 Stem thickness [mm] * * * 4.1.7 Leaf size [cm2] * * Delete 4.1.8 Leaflet shape * * * * 4.1.9 Leaf hairiness (lower surface of the leaves) * * * * 4.2.1 Days to 50% flowering * * * * * * 4.2.2 Duration of flowering * Delete 4.2.3 Early vigour * * * 4.2.4 Days to 75% maturity * * * * * 4.2.5 Base colour of flower * * * * (flower colour) * * 4.2.6 Second flower colour * * * 4.2.7 Pattern of streaks * * * * 4.2.8 Flowering pattern * * * * * 4.2.9 Raceme number * * * * 4.2.10 Seeds per pod * * * * * * 4.2.11 Pod colour * * * * New Pod stripes colour * * 4.2.12 Pod form * * * * 4.2.13 Pod hairiness * * * * 4.2.14 Pod bearing length [cm] * * * * * 4.3.1 Seed colour pattern * * * * 4.3.2 Base colour of seed * * * * * 4.3.3 Seed secondary colour * * * * 4.3.4 Seed eye colour * * * 4.3.5 Seed eye width * * Delete 4.3.6 Seed shape * * * 4.3.7 Hilum * * * 4.3.8 100-seed weight [g] * * * * * 6.1 Seed yield per plant [g] * * * * * 6.1.1 Harvest index * * * * * 6.1.2 Shelling percentage [%] * * * * * 6.2.1 Protein content [%] * * * * * 6.2.2 Dhal milling [%] * * 6.2.3 Cooking time * * 6.2.4 Cookability of dry seeds * Delete 7.1 Reaction to low temperature * * 7.2 Reaction to high temperatures * * 7.3 Reaction to drought * * 7.4 Reaction to excess soil moisture * * 7.5 Reaction to soil salinity * * * * 7.6 Reaction to soil acidity * * 8.1.1 Grapholita critica (Leaf tier) * * 8.1.2 Megalurothrips usitatus (Flower thrips) * * 8.1.3 Mylabris pustulata (Flower beetle) * * 8.1.4 lndozocladius asperulus (Bud weevil) * * 8.1.5 Clavigralla gibbosa; Nezara viridul; Anoplocnemis spp. (Pod-sucking bug) * * 8.1.6 Helicoverpa armigera; Etiella zinckenella; Maruca testulalis (Legume pod borer) * * * * * 8.1.7 Lampides boeticus (L.); Catochrysops strabo (Blue butterfly) * * 8.1.8 Melanagromyza obtusa (Mall.) (Podfly) * * * * * 8.1.9 Exelastis atomosa (Wals.) (Plume moth) * * 8.1.10 Callosobruchus chinensis (L.) (Bruchid) * * * 8.1.11 Otinotus oneratus W. (Cow bugs) * * 8.1.12 Empoasca kerri Pruthi (Jassids) * * 8.1.13 Tanaostigmodes caianinae LaSalle (Pod wasp) * * * * 8.2.1 Phytophthora drechsleri f.sp. caiani (Phytophthora blight) * * * * 8.2.2 Rhizoctonia bataticola; Macrophomina phaseolina (Dry root rot) * * 8.2.3 Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc. (Collar rot) * * 8.2.4 Alternaria alternata (Alternaria blight) * * 8.2.5 Cercospora cajan; Mycovellosiella caiani (Cercospora leaf spot) * * 8.2.6 Oidiopsis taurica; Leveillula taurica (Powdery mildew) * * 8.2.7 Fusarium udum, F. oxysporum f.sp. udum (Wilt) * * * * (Wilt field) (wilt pot) * * 8.3.1 Xanthomonas campestris pv. cajani (Bacterial leaf spot and stem canker) * * 8.4.1 Sterility mosaic virus (SMV) * * * * * 8.4.2 Witches' broom (Mycoplasma) * * 8.4.3 Yellow mosaic virus (YMV) * * 8.5.1 Heterodera cajani Koshy (Cyst nematode) * * 8.5.2 Meloidogyne incognita (Root knot nematode) * * 8.5.3 Rotylenchus reniformis (Reniform nematode) * * Pod length (cm) * * * * * Pod number (Number of pods per plant) * * * * Plant width * Not required i (a) ‘Descriptors for Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]’ (IBPGR and ICRISAT, 1993); (b) Important traits resulting from the GPG2 exercise; (c) ‘Development of a Strategy for the Global Conservation of Pigeonpea Genetic Resources’ (August 2006); (d) ‘Descriptors for PIGEON-PEA’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN); (e) Traits used in ICRISAT to identify accessions; (f) Long and Minimum List of descriptors identified by participants in the crop-specific meeting held at NBPGR in June 2009. Annex II – List of experts identified to participate in the survey ROLE NAME ORGANIZATION COUNTRY Crop Leader Upadhyaya, Hari D. ICRISAT India Crop Leader Dua, Ram Prakash NBPGR India CAG Bharadwaj, C. IARI India CAG Debouk, Daniel CIAT Colombia CAG Gowda, M. Byre University of Agricultural Sciences India CAG suggested by H. Knüpffer Kotter, Matthias IPK Genebank Dept. Leibniz Institute Germany CAG Crop Strategy Lawrence, Peter Australian Tropical Crops Genetic Resources Australia CAG Lobo Burle, Marília EMBRAPA Brazil CAG Pieretti, Isabelle CIRAD France CAG Ontology workshop Rai, K.N. ICRISAT India CAG Raje, R.S. IARI India CAG Rao, Srinivas C. ARS/USDA USA CAG Saxena, K. ICRISAT India Crop Strategy Aung, Toe Department of Agricultural Research – CARI Myanmar Purdue website Bhardwaj, Harbans L. Virginia State University USA Internet Bing Bing (Engle) Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center (AVRDC) Taiwan NBPGR website Bisht, Ishwari Singh NBPGR India WIEWS Blartey, S. Plant Genetic Resources Research Institute Ghana Purdue website Ching, Alejandro Northwest Missouri State University USA Crop Strategy Dharmaraj, P.S. Agricultural Research Station India Crop Strategy Graner, Andreas Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK) Germany Crop Strategy Gupta, S. ICAR India Crop Strategy Kaloki, Peter ICRISAT Kenya Internet de Lima Nechet, Kátia EMBRAPA Brazil Crop Strategy Madhavi Latha, K. (GT Crop improvement) ICRISAT India Crop Strategy Majumder, N.D. Indian Institute of Pulses Research (IIPR) India NBPGR website Mishra, S.K. NBPGR India Crop Strategy Mligo, Joseph K. Ilonga Agricultural Research Institute Tanzania Crop Strategy Murthi, Anishetty N. Retired Senior Officer - Seed & Plant Genetic Resources (FAO) India Crop Strategy Nadarajan, N. Department of Pulses - Center for Plant Breeding and Genetics India NBPGR (Project coordinator) Nizar, M. Abdul NBPGR India Crop Strategy Pathmanathan Umaharan University of West Indies, St. Augustine Trinidad & Tobago Crop Strategy Rao, S.K. Jawaharlal Nehru Agricultural Univ. India Crop Strategy Reddy, K.N. (GT Crop improvement) ICRISAT India Crop Strategy Reddy L.J. (GT Crop improvement) ICRISAT India Crop Strategy Reddy, V.G. (GT Crop improvement) ICRISAT India Crop Strategy Roy, S.K. Pulses & Oilseeds Research Station India Crop Strategy Salas, Manuel J. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agricola (INIA) Venezuela Crop Strategy Sastry, D.V.S.S.R. (GT Crop improvement) ICRISAT India ICRISAT Legumes pathology Sharma, Matma ICRISAT India Crop Strategy Sharma, S.K. NBPGR India Crop Strategy Siambi, Moses ICRISAT Malawi Crop Strategy Singh, A.K. NBPGR India Crop Strategy Singh, Bir IITA Nigeria Crop Strategy Singh, D.P. GB Pant University of Agril. & Technology India Crop Strategy Singh, Sube (GT Crop improvement) ICRISAT India ICRISAT Pigeonpea Breeding Srivatsava, Rakesh K. ICRISAT India Crop Strategy Tikle, A.N. AICRPP, RAK College of Agriculture India Internet Van der Maesen, L.J.G. Wageningen Agricultural University The Netherlands Crop Strategy Verma, B.N. Zambia Seed Company Zambia Crop Strategy Wanjari, K.B. Department of Botany India Crop Strategy Dean Facultad de Agronomia, Universidad de Zuila Venezuela Crop Strategy Director Crops and Horticulture Research Nepal Agriculture Research council Nepal Crop Strategy Director Agricultural Research Organization Israel Crop Strategy Director Plant Genetic Resources Research Institute Ghana Crop Strategy Director of Research Serere Agricultural & Animal Production Research Institute (SAARI) Uganda WIEWS ILRI Ethiopia WIEWS CENARGEN-EMBRAPA Brasil WIEWS Chitedze Agricultural Research Station Malawi WIEWS Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad de Panamá Panama WIEWS Institute of Plant Breeding, University of the Philippines, Los Baños College Philippines Annex III – Set of descriptors for pigeonpea as included in the survey (July 2009) 1. Growth habit 4.1.1 2. Plant height [cm] 4.1.2 3. Number of primary branches 4.1.4.1 4. Number of secondary branches 4.1.4.2 5. Number of tertiary branches 4.1.4.3 6. Stem colour 4.1.5 7. Leaflet shape 4.1.8 8. Leaf hairiness (lower surface of the leaves) 4.1.9 9. Days to 50% flowering 4.2.1 10. Days to 75% maturity 4.2.4 11. Base colour of flower 4.2.5 12. Second flower colour 4.2.6 13. Pattern of streaks 4.2.7 14. Flowering pattern 4.2.8 15. Seeds per pod 4.2.10 16. Pod number (Number of pods per plant) New 17. Pod colour 4.2.11 18. Pod stripes colour New 19. Pod form 4.2.12 20. Pod bearing length [cm] 4.2.14 21. Pod length [cm] New 22. Seed colour pattern 4.3.1 23. Base colour of seed 4.3.2 24. 100-seed weight [g] 4.3.8 25. Seed yield per plant [g] 6.1 26. Harvest index 6.1.1 27. Shelling percentage [%] 6.1.2 28. Protein content [%] 6.2.1 29. Reaction to soil salinity 7.5 30. Helicoverpa armigera; Etiella zinckenella; Maruca testulalis 8.1.6 (Legume pod borer) 31. Melanagromyza obtusa (Podfly) 8.1.8 32. Callosobruchus chinensis (Bruchid) 8.1.10 33. Tanaostigmodes caianinae (Pod wasp) 8.1.13 34. Phytophthora drechsleri f.sp. caiani (Phytophthora blight) 8.2.1 35. Fusarium udum (Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. udum) (Wilt) 8.2.7 36. Sterility mosaic virus (SMV) 8.4.1 Annex IV – Survey to choose a key set of descriptors for pigeonpea utilization WELCOME Welcome to the survey for the selection of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for pigeonpea to support an international information system to enhance the utilization of germplasm held in genebanks. Your knowledge and experience are being sought to define an initial ‘key set’ of descriptors that identify traits important to crop production and facilitate the use of accessions by researchers. Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 31 August 2009. This key set of descriptors will be made available through a global portal for identifying sets of accessions for evaluation and use. This survey consists of two parts: - PART I: Characterization descriptors - PART II: Evaluation descriptors We thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in selecting the set of descriptors. * Please allow us to acknowledge your contribution by completing your full contact details below: Name: Position: Organization: Country: Email: PART I: Characterization descriptors These traits enable easy and quick discrimination between phenotypes. They are generally highly heritable, can be easily seen by the eye and are equally expressed in all environments. Based on your experience, please select descriptors that provide the most impact in discriminating between accessions. It also allows you to indicate if any essential descriptor that can contribute to its use is missing from the minimum list presented. *Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in the IBPGR/ICRISAT publication ‘Descriptors for Pigeonpea’ (1993). Very important Important Not important Growth habit (4.1.1) Plant height [cm] (4.1.2) Number of primary branches (4.1.4.1) Number of secondary branches (4.1.4.2) Number of tertiary branches (4.1.4.3) Stem colour (4.1.5) Leaflet shape (4.1.8) Leaf hairiness (lower surface of the leaves) (4.1.9) Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) Days to 75% maturity (4.2.4) Base colour of flower (4.2.5) Second flower colour (4.2.6) Pattern of streaks (4.2.7) Flowering pattern (4.2.8) Seeds per pod (4.2.10) Pod number (Number of pods per plant) Pod colour (4.2.11) Pod stripes colour Pod form (4.2.12) Pod bearing length [cm] (4.2.14) Pod length [cm] Seed colour pattern (4.3.1) Base colour of seed (4.3.2) 100-seed weight [g] (4.3.8) n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n  If you consider that an essential trait is missing from this list, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. PART II: Evaluation descriptors These descriptors include characters such as yield and biotic stresses. They are the most interesting traits in crop improvement. Please consider the following factors relating to the trait when making your final decision: (i) Global impact, (ii) Initial strategic set, (iii) Importance for germplasm utilization, (iv) Data availability, (v) True economic damage and (vi) Wide geographical occurrence. Please, rate these traits in order of importance at the global level. It also allows you to indicate if any essential trait for production is missing from the minimum list presented or indicate any that may not be very significant to global production. Very important Important Not Important Seed yield per plant [g] (6.1) Harvest index (6.1.1) Shelling percentage [%] (6.1.2) Protein content [%] (6.2.1) Reaction to soil salinity (7.5) Helicoverpa armigera; Etiella zinckenella; Maruca testulalis (Legume pod borer) (8.1.6) Melanagromyza obtusa (Pod fly) (8.1.8) Callosobruchus chinensis (Bruchid) (8.1.10) Tanaostigmodes caianinae (Pod wasp) (8.1.13) Phytophthora drechsleri f.sp. caiani (Phytophthora blight) (8.2.1) Fusarium udum, (F. oxysporum f.sp. udum) (Wilt) (8.2.7) Sterility mosaic virus (SMV) (8.4.1) n n n n n n  n n n n  n n n n n n n n  n n n n  n n n n n n n n  n n n n  n n  If you consider that an essential trait important for crop improvement and production is missing from this list, or, if any of the descriptors listed is not clearly useful to promote utilization, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. Annex V – List of respondents to the survey ROLE NAME POSITION ORGANIZATION COUNTRY Crop Leader Dua, Ram Prakash Network coordinator (UUC) National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) India Crop Leader Upadhyaya, Hari D. Principal Scientist and Head, Genebank International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) India CAG Bharadwaj, C. Senior Scientist (Plant Breeding) Division of Genetics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) India CAG Burle, Marília Lobo Researcher/Legume Curator Embrapa Recursos Genéticos e Biotecnologia Brazil CAG Gowda, M. Byre Principal Scientist University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore India CAG Lohwasser, Ulrike Genebank Taxonomist Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research Germany CAG Raje, R.S. Senior scientist, Pigeonpea Division of Genetics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) India CAG Saxena, K.B. Principal Scientist International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) India Reviewer Bhardwaj, Harbans Professor Virginia State University USA Reviewer Bisht, I.S. Principal Scientist & Professor, PGR National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), Pusa Campus, New Delhi India Reviewer Myint, Aye Aye Head of PGR Section Department of Agricultural Research, Central Agricultural Research Institute (CARI) Myanmar Reviewer Reddy, K.N. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) India Reviewer Sastry, D.V.S.S.R. Lead Scientific Officer International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) India Reviewer Sharma, Mamta Scientist International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) India Reviewer Sharma, Shivali International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) India Reviewer Srivastava, Rakesh K. Scientist International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) India Reviewer Tikle, Ashok Senior Scientist Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Agricultural University, Gwalior India Reviewer van der Maesen, L.J.G. Professor of Plant Taxonomy (em.) Wageningen University The Netherlands Reviewer Verma, B.N. Research and Production Director Zambia Seed Co. Ltd. Zambia Reviewer Wanjari, K.B. Head, Dept of Agricultural Botany, Dr. P.D.K.V., AKOLA, Maharashtra Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Agricultural University India Annex VI – List of descriptors proposed in the survey ranked by rating average and sent to the Core Advisory Group for their selection Descriptor Your selection Rating Average Characterization Growth habit (4.1.1) 4.78 100-seed weight [g] (4.3.8) 4.78 Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) 4.65 Days to 75% maturity (4.2.4) 4.33 Seeds per pod (4.2.10) 4.28 Seed colour pattern (4.3.1) 4.22 Number of primary branches (4.1.4.1) 4.06 Plant height [cm] (4.1.2) 4 Base colour of seed (4.3.2) 3.94 Pod colour (4.2.11) 3.72 Pod number (Number of pods per plant) 3.67 Base colour of flower (4.2.5) 3.61 Pod length [cm] 3.56 Flowering pattern (4.2.8) 3.44 Number of secondary branches (4.1.4.2) 3.19 Stem colour (4.1.5) 2.89 Second flower colour (4.2.6) 2.83 Pod stripes colour 2.83 Pod form (4.2.12) 2.83 Pod bearing length [cm] (4.2.14) 2.81 Pattern of streaks (4.2.7) 2.65 Leaflet shape (4.1.8) 2.41 Leaf hairiness (lower surface of the leaves) (4.1.9) 2.29 Number of tertiary branches (4.1.4.3) 2 Evaluation Helicoverpa armigera; Etiella zinckenella; Maruca testulalis (Legume pod borer) (8.1.6) 4.53 Fusarium udum (F. oxysporum f.sp.udum) (Wilt) (8.2.7) 4.5 Sterility mosaic virus (SMV) (8.4.1) 4.41 Seed yield per plant [g] (6.1) 4.33 Phytophthora drechsleri f.sp. caiani (Phytophthora blight) (8.2.1) 4.13 Callosobruchus chinensis (Bruchid) (8.1.10) 3.88 Melanagromyza obtusa (Pod fly) (8.1.8) 3.69 Protein content [%] (6.2.1) 3.56 Harvest index (6.1.1) 3.39 Reaction to soil salinity (7.5) 2.88 Shelling percentage [%] (6.1.2) 2.65 Tanaostigmodes caianinae (Pod wasp) (8.1.13) 1.69 Annex VII – Additional descriptors included in the open-ended section of the survey Pigeonpea descriptor Name of expert Additional traits N. times selec ted D.V.S. S.R. Sastry (ICRIS AT, India) R.S. Raje (Div. of Geneti cs, IARI, India) K.B. Wanjari (Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Agric. Univ., Maharashtra, India) Ashok Tikle (RVS Agric. Univ., Gwalior, India) Hari D. Upadhyay a (ICRISAT, India) Aye Aye Myint (Dep. Agric. Research - CARI, Myanmar) R.P.Dua (NBPGR, India) K. B. Saxena (ICRISAT, India) Seedling vigor 2 X X Early vigour Broadness of pod against narrow pod may be important for identification and characterization (Pod length) 1 X Branching pattern: Depending on angle of primary branches to the main stem actual plant type can be classed as erect, semi-erect or spreading while growth habit only classifies as determinate semi- determinate or indeterminate 1 X Plant stand 1 X Stem thickness [mm] (4.1.6). related to agro forestry and fodder 1 X Duration of flowering 1 X Seed secondary colour (4.6.3) 1 X Seed eye colour (4.3.4) 1 X Seed eye width (4.3.5) 1 X Seed shape (4.3.6) 2 X X Seed shape (4.3.6) is important Hilum (4.3.7) 2 X X Presence /absence of hilum (4.3.7) is important Photo period sensitivity--It is very important as to determines flowering, maturity, height, no.of pods etc. Planting of sensitive types nears shortest day will have a telescopic effect on overall phenology of the plant and consequently a different agronomy is needed to optimize yield 2 X X Water logging tolerance is becoming important in pigeonpea 3 X X Tolerance to water logged condition X Water logging is becoming an important constraint. However not much information is available. Split Dal recovery in milling 1 X Quality parameters of split Dal (Cotyledons of matured grains) are important traits for future crop improvement. 1 X Drought tolerance: Major crop area of pigeonpea is rainfed throughout the world. The terminal drought affects the pigeonpea yield and it has become an essential criterion for assessment 3 X X Reaction to drought (7.3) X Reaction to drought Reaction to excess soil moisture (7.4) 2 X X Reaction to low temperature (7.1) 1 X Reaction to high temperatures (7.2) 1 X Reaction to soil acidity (7.6) 1 X Yellow mosaic virus (YMV) 1 X Alternaira blight (Alternaria alternate (Fr.) Keissler) (8.2.4) 1 X Another important parameter may be considered is adaptation to intercropping as most pigeonpea are grown under intercrops. 1 X Annex VIII – Initial key access and utilization descriptors for pigeonpea sent to the Core Advisory Group for validation Key access and utilization descriptors for pigeonpea genetic resources This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L. Millsp.) genetic resources utilization. This strategic set of descriptors, together with passport data, will become the basis for the global accession level information portal being developed by Bioversity International with the financial support of the Global Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust). It will facilitate access to and utilization of pigeonpea accessions held in genebanks and does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently become available. Based on the comprehensive list ‘Descriptors for Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]’ published by ICRISAT and IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1993, the list builds on the results of the SGRP Global Public Goods Activity 4.2.1.1. It was subsequently compared and harmonized with a number of sources such as ‘Descriptors for PIGEON-PEA’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN); ‘Development of a Strategy for the Global Conservation of Pigeonpea Genetic Resources’ (the Trust, 2006); as well as with traits provided by the Department of Agricultural Research (DAR) the former CARI from Myanmar. It was further refined during a meeting held at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR, India) in June 2009 that involved several scientists from NBPGR and the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI). A worldwide distribution of experts was involved in an online survey to define a first priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize pigeonpea genetic resources. This key set was afterwards validated by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya of International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) and Dr Ram Prakash Dua of NBPGR. Biotic and abiotic stresses included in the list were chosen because of their wide geographic occurrence and significant economic impact at a global level. Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptor numbers listed in the 1993 publication. Descriptors with numbers ending in ‘letters’ are either modified or new descriptors that were added during the development of the list below. Growth habit (4.1.1) 1 Erect and compact 2 Semi-spreading 3 Spreading 4 Trailing Plant height [cm] (4.1.2) At maturity Number of primary branches (4.1.4.1) Number of secondary branches (4.1.4.2) Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) From sowing or first irrigation/rainfall to when 50% of plants flower Days to 75% maturity (4.2.4) From sowing or first irrigation/rainfall to 75% maturity Base colour of flower (4.2.5) Main colour of the petals. Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) colour codes are given in parentheses beside descriptor states 1 Ivory (green-yellow group 1) 2 Light yellow (yellow group 6D) 3 Yellow (yellow-orange group 14A) 4 Orange-yellow (orange-red group 31A) Flowering pattern (4.2.8) 1 Determinate 2 Semi-determinate 3 Indeterminate Seeds per pod (4.2.10) Average number of seeds of 10 randomly selected pods from three randomly selected plants in a row Pod colour (4.2.11) Main colour of the pod. Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) colour codes are given in parentheses beside descriptor states 1 Green (yellow-green group 144A) 2 Purple (greyed-purple group 183A) 3 Mixed, green and purple 4 Dark purple (greyed-purple group 187A) Pod bearing length [cm] (4.2.14) Distance between lowest and topmost pod on the plant Pod number (4.2.a) Number of pods per plant Pod length [cm] (4.2.b) Maximum average length of 10 randomly selected mature pods. Recorded at physiological maturity Seed colour pattern (4.3.1) 1 Plain 2 Mottled 3 Speckled 4 Mottled and speckled 5 Ringed Base colour of seed (4.3.2) Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) colour codes are given in parentheses beside descriptor states 1 White (yellow-white group 158C) 2 Cream (greyed-white group 156C) 3 Orange (greyed-orange group 163B) 4 Light brown (yellow-orange group 22C) 5 Reddish-brown (reddish-brown group 200D) 6 Light grey (grey-brown group 199B) 7 Grey (greyed-green group 197A) 8 Purple (greyed-purple group 187A) 9 Dark purple (black group 202A) 10 Dark grey (black group 202B) 100-seed weight [g] (4.3.8) Estimated from a random sample taken from total row yield Seed yield per plant [g] (6.1) Harvest index (6.1.1) Ratio of total grain yield and total biological yield taken from three randomly selected plants in a row Shelling percentage [%] (6.1.2) Calculated from seed-pod ratio of three randomly selected plants in a row Protein content [%] (6.2.1) Whole seed crude protein percentage based on dry weight using the dye-binding method or automatic protein analyzer ABIOTIC STRESSES Reaction to drought (7.3) Reaction to excess soil moisture (7.4) Reaction to soil salinity (7.5) Reaction to water logging (7.c) BIOTIC STRESSES Legume pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera; Etiella zinckenella; Maruca testulalis) (8.1.6) Pod fly (Melanagromyza obtusa) (8.1.8) Bruchids (Callosobruchus chinensis) (8.1.10) Phytophthora blight (Phytophthora drechsleri f. sp. cajani) (8.2.1) Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum f.sp.udum) (8.2.7) Sterility mosaic virus (SMV) (8.4.1) Annex IX – Final key set of descriptors for pigeonpea genetic resources Key access and utilization descriptors for pigeonpea genetic resources This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.] genetic resources utilization. This strategic set of descriptors, together with passport data, will become the basis for the global accession level information portal being developed by Bioversity International with the financial support of the Global Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust). It will facilitate access to and utilization of pigeonpea accessions held in genebanks and does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently become available. Based on the comprehensive list ‘Descriptors for Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]’ published by ICRISAT and IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1993, the list builds on the results of the SGRP Global Public Goods Activity 4.2.1.1 and was subsequently compared and harmonized with a number of sources such as ‘Descriptors for PIGEON-PEA’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN); as well as ‘Development of a Strategy for the Global Conservation of Pigeonpea Genetic Resources’ (the Trust, 2006). It was further refined during a meeting held at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR, India) in June 2009 that involved several scientists from NBPGR and the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI). A worldwide distribution of experts was involved in an online survey to define a first priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize pigeonpea genetic resources. Survey results were afterwards analyzed and validated by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya of the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) and Dr Ram Prakash Dua of the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR). Biotic and abiotic stresses included in the list were chosen because of their wide geographic occurrence and significant economic impact at a global level. Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptor numbers listed in the 1993 publication. Descriptors with numbers ending in ‘letters’ are either modified or are new descriptors that were added during the development of the list below. PLANT DATA Growth habit (4.1.1) 1 Erect and compact 2 Semi-spreading 3 Spreading 4 Trailing Plant height [cm] (4.1.2) At maturity Number of primary branches (4.1.4.1) Number of primary branches per plant Number of secondary branches (4.1.4.2) Number of secondary branches per plant Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) From sowing or first irrigation/rainfall until 50% of plants flower Days to 75% maturity (4.2.4) From sowing or first irrigation/rainfall to 75% maturity Flowering pattern (4.2.8) 1 Determinate 2 Semi-determinate 3 Indeterminate Seeds per pod (4.2.10) Average number of seeds of 10 randomly selected pods from three randomly selected plants in a row Pod bearing length [cm] (4.2.14) Distance between lowest and topmost pod on the plant Pod number (4.2.a) Number of pods per plant. Recorded at maturity Pod length [cm] (4.2.b) Maximum average length of 10 randomly selected mature pods. Recorded at physiological maturity Seed colour pattern (4.3.1) 1 Plain 2 Mottled 3 Speckled 4 Mottled and speckled 5 Ringed Seed base colour (4.3.2) Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) colour codes are given in parentheses beside descriptor states 1 White (yellow-white group 158C) 2 Cream (greyed-white group 156C) 3 Orange (greyed-orange group 163B) 4 Light brown (yellow-orange group 22C) 5 Reddish-brown (reddish-brown group 200D) 6 Light grey (grey-brown group 199B) 7 Grey (greyed-green group 197A) 8 Purple (greyed-purple group 187A) 9 Dark purple (black group 202A) 10 Dark grey (black group 202B) 100-seed weight [g] (4.3.8) Weight of air dried (10% moisture) seeds estimated from a random sample taken from total row yield Seed yield per plant [g] (6.1) Average seed yield of three randomly selected plants Harvest index (6.1.1) Ratio of total seed yield and total biological yield taken from three randomly selected plants in a row Shelling percentage [%] (6.1.2) Calculated from seed-pod ratio of three randomly selected plants in a row Seed protein content [%] (6.2.1) Whole seed crude protein percentage based on dry weight using the dye-binding method or automatic protein analyzer ABIOTIC STRESSES Reaction to drought (7.3) Reaction to excess soil moisture (7.4) Reaction to soil salinity (7.5) Reaction to water logging (7.c) BIOTIC STRESSES Legume pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera; Etiella zinckenella; Maruca testulalis) (8.1.6) Pod fly (Melanagromyza obtusa) (8.1.8) Bruchids (Callosobruchus chinensis) (8.1.10) Phytophthora blight (Phytophthora drechsleri f.sp. cajani) (8.2.1) Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. udum) (8.2.7) Sterility mosaic virus (SMV) (8.4.1) CONTRIBUTORS Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of this strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for pigeonpea genetic resources’, and in particular to Dr Hari D. (ICRISAT) and Dr Ram Prakash Dua (NBPGR) for providing valuable scientific direction. Ms Adriana Alercia (Bioversity International) provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process. CORE ADVISORY GROUP Hari D. Upadhyaya, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India Ram Prakash Dua, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) C. Bharadwaj, Division of Genetics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), India Marília Lobo Burle, Embrapa Recursos Genéticos e Biotecnologia, Brazil M. Byre Gowda, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, India Ulrike Lohwasser, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK), Germany R.S. Raje, Division of Genetics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), India K.B. Saxena, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India REVIEWERS India I.S. Bisht, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), Pusa Campus K.N. Reddy, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) D.V.S.S.R. Sastry, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Mamta Sharma, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Shivali Sharma, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Rakesh K. Srivastava, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Ashok Tikle, Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Agricultural University, Gwalior K.B. Wanjari, Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Agricultural University Myanmar Aye Aye Myint, Department of Agricultural Research (DAR), the former CARI The Netherlands L.J.G. van der Maesen, Wageningen University USA Harbans Bhardwaj, Virginia State University Zambia B.N. Verma, Zambia Seed Co. Ltd. Methodology for the definition of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for potato (Solanum tuberosum) Information collection and preparation of the Minimum Descriptor List (MDL) Information for the definition of a Minimum Descriptor List for potato (Solanum tuberosum) was drawn from the publication ‘Descriptors for the Cultivated Potato’ (IBPGR, 1977). The original list was compared to descriptors utilized by the International Potato Center (CIP) for the morphological characterization of potatoes and contained in ‘Characterization – Cultivated potato minimum descriptor list’ (CIP, 1994) and the CIP Morphological guide ‘Guía para las Caracterizaciones Morfológicas Básicas en Colecciones de Papas Nativas’ (René Gómez, CIP, 2000). Results from the comparison were harmonized with the outcomes of the CGIAR SGRP Global Public Goods 2 (GPG2) Activity 4.2.1.1 on selected crops (2008). The list was further refined after a meeting held on 24 November 2008 at Bioversity Headquarters in Rome, between Dr David Tay (identified Crop Leader) and Ms Adriana Alercia. In particular, evaluation traits (such as important pests and diseases for cultivated potato, tuber quality and other agronomic characteristics) and data availability for selected descriptors were considered a priority (see Annex I) and were included in the descriptor list. Preparation of the List of Experts Experts were drawn from participants in the crop-specific consultations for the definition of the ‘Global Strategy for the Ex situ Conservation of Potato’ (the Trust, July, 2006). Reviewers from the 1977 descriptors list were excluded due to their outdated contact information. Overall, 41 experts from 26 countries and 29 different organizations were identified. Out of these, Dr David Tay was identified as Crop Leader and, following his inputs, a Core Advisory Group (CAG) consisting of seven experts was selected to assist in the definition of a key set of descriptors for this crop. Members of the CAG were chosen amongst specialists and experts working for world renowned academic and scientific institutions such as USDA/ARS, the International Potato Center (CIP), the Instituto de Producción y Sanidad Vegetal, Universidad Austral de Chile and Wageningen University (see Annex II). Survey preparation and distribution Due to the tight timeframe of the project it was decided to contact Dr David Tay from CIP and ask him for relevant results of the CGIAR SGRP GPG2 activity on potato. The initial set of descriptors for cultivated potato revised and finalized by Dr Tay on 24 November 2008 (see Annex III) was used to prepare the online consultation through the SurveyMonkey web application. An email invitation to the survey was sent out on 17 March 2009 to the identified List of Experts. They were invited to rate the list of characterization and evaluation descriptors provided, and asked to suggest important descriptors that were found to be relevant yet missing from the proposed Minimum List (see Annex IV). The survey deadline was set at 5 April 2009. A first reminder was sent out on 27 March 2009 and a second one was sent on 2 April 2009. By popular demand, the deadline was extended to 16 April 2009 to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained. Survey analysis and refinement of the Minimum List Of the 41 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 14 from 12 countries and 12 organizations recorded their comments using the online survey (see Annex V). Results from the survey were analyzed and descriptors ranked by rating average and percentage of importance (see Annex VI). The summary results of the survey together with a report containing comments received by the participants (see Annex VII) were sent to the Crop Leader, Dr Tay. He, subsequently, shared them with his colleagues Dr René Gómez, Dr Alberto Salas and Dr Merideth Bonierbale for the final validation (see Annex VIII). Definition of a final key set of descriptors for potato Once the core subset of characterization and evaluation standards for this crop was approved, descriptor states were integrated into the list (see Annex IX). The final document, including also all the contributors names (see Annex X), was proofread and sent to the Bioversity International Publication Unit for layout and on-line publication processes. Furthermore, the final publication was shared with the European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources (ECPGR); the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base. Additionally, data were converted into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN-Global genebank data management system being developed by USDA and into the global accession level information portal (GENESYS), linking national, regional and international genebank databases in support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also provided to the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) and to EURISCO. After the publication was released, and during the Roots and Tubers Conference held at CIP in November 2009, attended by Ms Adriana Alercia, discussions were held on the final key set publication on cultivated potato and the next CIP crop, sweet potato with Drs David Tay, Rene Gomez and Alberto Salas, the last two experts being potato curators of cultivated and wild potato respectively. CIP experts realized after the release of the publication that a few amendments were required for potato concerning colours. Therefore, the document was amended accordingly and republished in 2010 (see Annex XI). Acknowledgement Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for cultivated potato genetic resources’, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial support. Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leader, Dr David Tay (CIP, Peru) for providing valuable scientific direction. Annex I – Comparison table for the definition of an initial set of descriptors for cultivated potato drawn from a number of sources1 Descriptor name Descr. no. CIP- IBPGR 1977 CIP Desc 1994 CIP data through GPG2 CIP Morpho Guide CIP Key List revised by D. Tay CIP data available 1s t P rio rit y D e sc rip to rs Ploidy level 3.1.2 * * * Predominant tuber skin colour 3.2.1 (*) * * * * * Intensity of predominant tuber skin colour 3.2.1b * * * * * Secondary tuber skin colour 3.2.2 (*) * * * * * Distribution of secondary skin tuber colour 3.2.3 (*) * * * * * Predominant tuber flesh colour 3.2.5 (*) * * * * * Secondary tuber flesh colour 3.2.6 (*) * * * * * Tuber outline (shape) 3.2.8 * * * * * Odd tuber shapes 3.2.9 * * * * To be confirmed Depth of eyes 3.2.10 (*) * * * * * Stem pigmentation 3.3.4 * * * * * Stem wing shape 3.3.6 * * * * * Lateral leaflet numbers 3.4.1b * * * * * Interjected leaflet number in the rachis among lateral leaflets 3.4.1c * * * * * Flowering degree 3.5.14 (*) * * * * * Plant Growth Habit 3.6.1 * * * * * Foliar blight (Phytophtora) 6.1.1 * To be confirmed Susceptibility to drought 5.2 * Partly Susceptibility to salinity * To be confirmed High tuber yield * * To be confirmed 2n d Pr io rit y De s cr ip to rs Calyx pigmentation 3.5.1 * * * Corolla shape 3.5.3 * * * Predominant flower colour 3.5.4 * * * Intensity of predominant flower colour 3.5.4b * * * Secondary flower colour 3.5.5 * * * Distribution of secondary flower colour 3.5.6 * * * Pistil pigmentation 3.5.10 * * * Pedicel pigmentation * * * Eyes per tuber 3.2.11 (*) Tuber skin type 3.2.4 (*) Distribution of secondary tuber flesh colour 3.2.7 (*) * * Predominant sprout colour 3.3.1 * * Secondary sprout colour 3.3.2 * * Type of leaf dissection 3.4.1 * * No. of interjected leaflets on the petiolules (combined with 3.4.1) * * Duration of flowering 3.5.16 (*) Seed set 3.5.24 (*) Pollen production 3.5.9 (*) Tuber set 4.4.1 (*) Tuber size 4.4.2 (*) Tuber defects - Crack 4.4.3.1 (*) Tuber defects - Secondary growth 4.4.3.2 (*) O th er de sc rip to rs Tuber defects - Hollow heart 4.4.3.3 (*) Tuber defects - Internal necrosis 4.4.3.4 (*) Tuber defects - Lenticels 4.4.3.5 (*) Uniformity of tuber size 4.4.4 (*) * Stolon length 4.4.5 (*) Foliar blight 6.1.1 (*) * Wilt 6.1.2 (*) * Tuber disease 6.1.3 (*) * Bacterial disease 6.2 (*) * Viral disease 6.3 (*) * Nematode 6.4 (*) * Tuber dry matter content 7.1 * * Tuber total N content (%) 7.2 (*) Tuber protein content * * Relative nutritive value * Total tuber Glyco-Alkaloid content (TGA) * Short duration * Anther pigmentation * * Distribution of secondary sprout colour * * Fruit colour * * Fruit shape * * Fruit Maturity * N.B. Descriptor numbers were drawn from the publication ‘Descriptors for the Cultivated Potato’ (IBPGR, 1977). Asterisks (*) following the descriptor numbers denote descriptors selected as 'highly important' in the same publication (i.e. 1977). Lowercase letters following descriptor numbers denote revised/new descriptors. ________________________________________ 1 ‘Descriptors for the Cultivated Potato’ (IBPGR, 1977); ‘Potato Descriptors for a minimum characterization of potato collections’ (CIP, 1994); the outcomes of the SGRP Global Public Goods 2 (GPG2) activity 4.2.1.1.1 (2008); the CIP Morphological guide ‘Guía para las Caracterizaciones Morfológicas Básicas en Colecciones de Papas Nativas’ (René Gómez, CIP, 2000); outcomes of the meeting held on 24 November 2008 at Bioversity Headquarters between David Tay (identified Crop Leader) and Adriana Alercia (Bioversity, Rome) and CIP data availability. Annex II - List of Experts identified for the survey for the definition of a key set of descriptors for cultivated potato ROLE NAME ORGANIZATION COUNTRY Crop Leader Tay, David International Potato Center (CIP) Peru CAG Arbizu, Carlos International Potato Center (CIP) Peru CAG Bamberg, John USDA, ARS Potato Introduction Project USA CAG Contreras, Andrés M. Instituto de Producción y Sanidad Vegetal, Universidad Austral de Chile Chile CAG Gómez, René International Potato Center (CIP) Peru CAG Hoekstra, Roel Centre for Genetic Resources, Wageningen University The Netherlands CAG Hunter, Danny Bioversity International Italy CAG Salas, Alberto International Potato Center (CIP) Peru Strategy (the Trust) Allaby, Ricky Potato Research Center, Agriculture and Agri- Food Canada Canada Strategy (the Trust) Bodea, Dimitru answered Silvia Strajeru Genebank of Suceava Romania Strategy (the Trust) Bradshaw, John Commonwealth Potato Collection, SCRI United Kingdom Strategy (the Trust) Cadima, Ximena Fundación PROINPA Bolivia Strategy (the Trust) Carnegie, Stuart SASA United Kingdom Strategy (the Trust) Chujoy, Enrique International Potato Center (CIP) Peru Strategy (the Trust) Clausen, Andrea Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA) Argentina Strategy (the Trust) Cuevas Sanchez, Jesus A. Banco Nacional de Germoplasma Veget, Dep. de Fitotecnia, Univ. Aut. de Chapingo Mexico Reviewer suggested by Helmut Knüpffer (IPK) Dehmer, Klaus Genebank Department, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK) Germany Strategy (the Trust) Dolnicar, Peter Biotechniska fakulteta Slovenia Strategy (the Trust) Domkárová, Jaroslava Potato Research Institute Czech Republic Strategy (the Trust) Dos Santos, Fausto Francisco Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Hortalizas (CNPH), EMBRAPA Brazil Strategy (the Trust) Ellissèche, Daniel INRA, Amélioration de la Pomme de Terre France Strategy (the Trust) Espinoza, Alejandro INIFAP Mexico Strategy (the Trust) Gonzales, Lourdes Centro de Investigación Agropec. del Estado de Merida, INIA Venezuela Strategy (the Trust) Griffin, Dennis Teagasc Ireland Strategy (the Trust) Herrera, Rosario International Potato Center (CIP) Peru Strategy (the Trust) Hosaka, Kazuyoshi Faculty of Agriculture, Kobe University Japan Strategy (the Trust) Kaiyun, Xie Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science (IVFCAAS) China Strategy (the Trust) Kiru, Stepan N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry (VIR) Potato Collection Russian Federation Strategy (the Trust) Monteros, Alvaro INIAP-DENAREF Ecuador Strategy (the Trust) Moreno, Dilmer Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria (Corpoica), Centro de Investigación Tibaitatá Colombia Strategy (the Trust) Okuno, Kazutoshi Graduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences. University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Japan Strategy (the Trust) Orrillo, Matilde International Potato Center (CIP) Peru Strategy (the Trust) Panta, Ana International Potato Center (CIP) Peru Strategy (the Trust) Podgajetskiy, Anatoly A. Institute for Potato Production Ukrainian Academy of Agric. Sciences Ukraine Reviewer suggested by Lewosz Prof Kostiw, Michal Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute Poland Reviewer suggested by Bradshaw Ramsay, Gavin Commonwealth Potato Collection, SCRI United Kingdom Strategy (the Trust) Reynoso, Daniel International Potato Center (CIP) Peru Strategy (the Trust) Rios, Domingo Centro de Conservación de la biodiversidad Agrícola de Tenerife Spain Strategy (the Trust) Roca, William International Potato Center (CIP) Peru Strategy (the Trust) Rossel, Genoveva International Potato Center (CIP) Peru Strategy (the Trust) Simon, Reinhard International Potato Center (CIP) Peru Annex III – Set of descriptors for cultivated potato validated by Dr David Tay on 24 November 2008 and information on data availability in CIP IBPGR Data available at CIP 1. Ploidy level (3.1.2) Yes 2. Predominant tuber skin colour (3.2.1) Yes 3. Intensity of predominant tuber skin colour (3.2.1b) Yes 4. Secondary tuber skin colour (3.2.2) Yes 5. Distribution of secondary skin tuber colour (3.2.3) Yes 6. Predominant tuber flesh colour (3.2.5) Yes 7. Secondary tuber flesh colour (3.2.6) Yes 8. Tuber outline (shape) (3.2.8) Yes 9. Odd tuber shapes (3.2.9) To be confirmed1 10. Depth of eyes (3.2.10) Yes 11. Stem pigmentation (3.3.4) Yes 12. Stem wing shape (3.3.6) Yes 13. Lateral leaflet numbers (3.4.1b) Yes 14. Interjected leaflet number in the rachis among lateral leaflets (3.4.1c) Yes 15. Flowering degree (3.5.14) Yes 16. Plant growth habit (3.6.1) Yes 17. High tuber yield - To be confirmed1 18. Foliar blight (Phytophtora) (6.1.1) To be confirmed1 19. Susceptibility to drought (5.2) To be confirmed1 20. Susceptibility to salinity - To be confirmed1 Descriptors as included in the survey 1st priority key descriptors 1. Ploidy level (3.1.2) 2. Predominant tuber skin colour (3.2.1) 3. Intensity of predominant tuber skin colour (3.2.1b) 4. Secondary tuber skin colour (3.2.2) 5. Distribution of secondary skin tuber colour (3.2.3) 6. Predominant tuber flesh colour (3.2.5) 7. Secondary tuber flesh colour (3.2.6) 8. Tuber outline (shape) (3.2.8) 9. Odd tuber shapes (3.2.9) 10. Depth of eyes (3.2.10) 11. Stem pigmentation (3.3.4) 12. Stem wing shape (3.3.6) 13. Lateral leaflet numbers (3.4.1b) 14. Interjected leaflet number in the rachis among lateral leaflets (3.4.1c) 15. Flowering degree (3.5.14) 16. Plant growth habit (3.6.1) 17. High tuber yield 18. Foliar blight (Phytophtora) (6.1.1) 19. Susceptibility to drought (5.2) 20. Susceptibility to salinity 1 Traits were to be confirmed by Dr Tay at a later stage. Annex IV – Survey to choose a key set of descriptors for cultivated potato (17 March 2009) WELCOME Welcome to the survey for the selection of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors to support an international information system to enhance the utilization of germplasm held in genebanks. Your knowledge and experience are being sought to select this initial ‘key set of descriptors’ of Potato accessions to identify traits important to crop production and to facilitate their use by researchers. Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 5 April 2009. This key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors will be made available through a global facility for identifying sets of accessions for evaluation and use. For characterization, the aim is a key set of maximally differentiating traits that provide the most impact in discriminating between accessions. For evaluation, the aim is to focus on a few important traits for production, such as resistance to an important disease or yield. The list presented here has been drawn from a number of sources such as: ‘Descriptors for Cultivated potato’ (IBPGR/CIP, 1977), ‘Descriptores de la Papa’ (CIP, 1994) and ‘Guía para las Caracterizaciones Morfológicas Básicas en Colecciones de Papas Nativas’ (René Gómez, CIP, 2000) and further harmonized with the results from the GPG2 Activity 4.2.1.1 (Potato descriptors CIP-GPG2), under the scientific direction of Dr David Tay from CIP. This survey consists of two parts: - PART I: Lists important characterization descriptors for Potato. Based on your experience, please rate the descriptors according to their importance in identifying accessions. It also allows you to indicate if any essential descriptor that can contribute to its use is missing from the minimum list presented. - PART II: Lists important evaluation descriptors for Potato. Please, rate these traits in order of importance at the global level. It also allows you to indicate if any essential trait for production is missing from the minimum list presented or indicate any that may not be very significant to global production. We thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in selecting this initial, key set of descriptors. Please allow us to acknowledge your contribution by completing your full contact details below: Name: Organization: Address 1: City/Town: State/Province: ZIP/Postal Code: Country: Email Address: PART I: Characterization descriptors These traits enable easy and quick discrimination between phenotypes. They are generally highly heritable, can be easily seen by the eye and are equally expressed in all environments. *Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in the CIP-IBPGR publication ‘Descriptors for the Cultivated Potato’ (1977), those having an additional letter have been drawn form ‘Guía para las Caracterizaciones Morfológicas Básicas en Colecciones de Papas Nativas’ (René Gómez, CIP, 2000). Please rate the following descriptors based on their importance in describing and categorizing accessions. Not important Important Very important Ploidy level (3.1.2) Predominant tuber skin colour (3.2.1) Intensity of predominant tuber skin colour (3.2.1b) Secondary tuber skin colour (3.2.2) Distribution of secondary skin tuber colour (3.2.3) Predominant tuber flesh colour (3.2.5) Secondary tuber flesh colour (3.2.6) Tuber outline (shape) (3.2.8) Odd tuber shapes (3.2.9) Depth of eyes (3.2.10) Stem pigmentation (3.3.4) Stem wing shape (3.3.6) Lateral leaflet numbers (3.4.1b) Interjected leaflet number in the rachis among lateral leaflets (3.4.1c) Flowering degree (3.5.14) Plant growth habit (3.6.1) If you consider that an essential trait is missing from this list, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. PART II: Evaluation descriptors These descriptors include characters such as yield, biotic and abiotic stresses. They are the most interesting traits in crop improvement. Please rate the following evaluation traits, bearing in mind current breeding programmes and future production and use of Cultivated potato germplasm at the global level. Not Important Important Very important High tuber yield Foliar blight (Phytophtora) Susceptibility to drought (5.2) Susceptibility to salinity If you consider that an essential trait important for crop improvement and production is missing from this list, or, if any of the descriptors listed is not clearly useful to promote utilization, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. NOTE: Please remember, this list is the starting point and will grow over time, as required. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. Annex V – Respondents to the survey ROLE NAME ORGANIZATION COUNTRY CAG (Strategy, the Trust) Bamberg, John US Potato Genebank USA CAG (Strategy, the Trust) Hoekstra, Roel CGN The Netherlands CAG (Bioversity) Hunter, Danny Bioversity International Italy CAG (Strategy, the Trust) Salas, Alberto International Potato Centre (CIP) Peru Strategy (the Trust) Arbizu, Carlos International Potato Centre (CIP) Peru Strategy (the Trust) Carnegie, Stuart SASA United Kingdom Has replied on behalf of: Ellissèche, Daniel Chauvin, Jean- Eric INRA France Strategy (the Trust) Chujoy, Enrique International Potato Centre (CIP) Peru Reviewer suggested by Helmut Knüpffer (IPK) Dehmer, Klaus J. IPK / GLKS Germany Strategy (the Trust) Dílmer Moreno-Mendoza, José Corpoica Colombia Strategy (the Trust) Dolničar, Peter Agricultural Institute of Slovenia Slovenia Strategy (the Trust) Domkářová, Jaroslava Potato Research Institute Havlíčkův Brod Czech Republic Strategy (the Trust) Kiru, Stepan Vavilov Institute of plant Industry, (VIR) Russian Federation Strategy (the Trust) Ríos Mesa, Domingo Centro de Conservación de la Biodiversidad Agrícola de Tenerife Spain Annex VI – Descriptors proposed in the survey ranked by rating average and by percentage of importance Descriptor Rating Average Descriptor % Importance (important) % Importance (Very important) Predominant tuber skin colour (3.2.1) 4.64 Predominant tuber skin colour (3.2.1) 0.0 92.9 Predominant tuber flesh colour (3.2.5) 4.21 Predominant tuber flesh colour (3.2.5) 21.4 71.4 Ploidy level (3.1.2) 3.86 Tuber outline (shape) (3.2.8) 7.1 71.4 Depth of eyes (3.2.10) 3.62 Ploidy level (3.1.2) 21.4 64.3 Secondary tuber skin colour (3.2.2) 3.50 Depth of eyes (3.2.10) 30.8 53.8 Tuber outline (shape) (3.2.8) 3.49 Secondary tuber skin colour (3.2.2) 57.1 35.7 Plant growth habit (3.6.1) 3.31 Odd tuber shapes (3.2.9) 46.2 30.8 Flowering degree (3.5.14) 3.23 Lateral leaflet numbers (3.4.1b) 35.7 28.6 Secondary tuber flesh colour (3.2.6) 3.21 Flowering degree (3.5.14) 69.2 23.1 Distribution of secondary skin tuber colour (3.2.3) 3.00 Distribution of secondary skin tuber colour (3.2.3) 64.3 21.4 Odd tuber shapes (3.2.9) 2.92 Secondary tuber flesh colour (3.2.6) 71.4 21.4 Lateral leaflet numbers (3.4.1b) 2.50 Plant growth habit (3.6.1) 84.6 15.4 Stem pigmentation (3.3.4) 2.00 Stem pigmentation (3.3.4) 53.8 7.7 Intensity of predominant tuber skin colour (3.2.1b) 1.93 Stem wing shape (3.3.6) 21.4 7.1 Interjected leaflet number in the rachis among lateral 1.64 Interjected leaflet number in the rachis among lateral 42.9 7.1 Stem wing shape (3.3.6) 1.00 Intensity of predominant tuber skin colour (3.2.1b) 64.3 0.0 Foliar blight (Phytophtora) 4.71 Foliar blight (Phytophtora) 14.3 85.7 Susceptibility to drought (5.2) 3.86 High tuber yield 50.0 42.9 High tuber yield 3.64 Susceptibility to drought (5.2) 57.1 42.9 Susceptibility to salinity 3.00 Susceptibility to salinity 64.3 21.4 Annex VII - Additional descriptors included in the open-ended section of the survey Cultivated potato descriptor Name of expert Additional characterization descriptor N. of times selected Enrique Chujoy Carlos Arbizu Alberto Salas Domingo Ríos Mesa Stuart Carnegie Klaus J. Dehmer Flower colour 5 X X X X X Tuber sprout colour. Sprout colour can be described simply and used to group phenotypes before planting. 3 X X X Tuber sprout shape 2 X X Corolla shape 2 X X Terminal leaflets 1 X Primary lateral leaflets 1 X Calix colour 1 X Number of eyes per tuber 1 X Plant maturity is a key characteristic in differentiating and managing varieties in a collection. Varieties tend to be grouped and harvested according to maturity. 1 X Distribution of secondary tuber flesh colour 1 X Cultivated potato descriptor Name of expert Additional evaluation descriptor N. of times selected Enrique Chujoy Carlos Arbizu Alberto Salas Stepan Kiru Stuart Carnegie José Dílmer Moreno- Mendoza Klaus J. Dehmer, Tuber yield stability 1 X Susceptibility to main viruses (PVX, PVY, PLRV) 1 X Earliness Adaptation to latitude and altitude 2 X X Wart resistance - is most important in the case of recommendation for breeding as valuable source 1 X Susceptibility to potato cancer 1 X COMMENT: While the assessment of varieties to disease is desirable, it needs to borne in mind that this can change with time and this is particularly pertinent to late blight. The development of new genotypes of Phytophthora infestans in Europe has meant that a variety's response can vary depending on the genotype of pathogen with which it is challenged. X COMMENT: I think High tuber yield of commercial sizes is very important for Andean varieties. X Annex VIII – Survey results for first priority descriptors of cultivated potato validated by Dr Tay and his colleagues at CIP (July 2009) Ploidy level (3.1.2) Predominant tuber skin colour (3.2.1) Intensity of predominant tuber skin colour (3.2.1a) Secondary tuber skin colour (3.2.2) Distribution of secondary skin tuber colour (3.2.3) Predominant tuber flesh colour (3.2.5) Secondary tuber flesh colour (3.2.6) Tuber outline (shape) (3.2.8) Odd tuber shapes (3.2.9) Depth of eyes (3.2.10) Tuber sprout colour (3.3.1) Stem pigmentation (3.3.4) Stem wing shape (3.3.6) Lateral leaflet numbers (3.4.1b) Interjected leaflet number in the rachis among lateral leaflets (3.4.1c) Flower colour (3.5.4) Flowering degree (3.5.14) Plant growth habit (3.6.1) Drought (5.2) Soil salinity (5.d) Foliar blight (Phytophtora) (6.1.1.1) High tuber yield (7.e) Annex IX – Final list of characterization and evaluation standards for cultivated potato including descriptor states PLANT DATA Ploidy level (3.1.2) Count of the zygotic (2n) number of chromosomes Predominant tuber skin colour (3.2.1) Code indicating the colour which covers most of the surface of the tuber, expressed as: 1 White-cream 2 Yellow 3 Orange 4 Brownish 5 Pink 6 Red 7 Purplish-red 8 Purple 9 Dark purple-black (Blackish) Intensity of predominant tuber skin colour (3.2.1a) 1 Light 2 Intermediate 3 Intense Secondary tuber skin colour (3.2.2) Code describing a secondary colour on the surface of the tuber, expressed as: 0 Absent 1 White-cream 2 Yellow 3 Orange 4 Brownish 5 Pink 6 Red 7 Purplish-black 8 Purple 9 Dark purple-black (Blackish) Distribution of secondary tuber skin colour (3.2.3) Code representing the pattern of distribution of the secondary colour on the surface of the tuber, expressed as: 0 Absent 1 Eyes – when the secondary colour is confined to the eyes only 2 Eyebrows – when the secondary colour is present in the eyebrows only 3 Splashed – when the secondary colour is confined to areas around the eyes 4 Scattered – when the secondary colour is distributed at random in one or more areas around the tuber 5 Spectacled – when areas around the eyes do not show secondary colour and the reminder of the tuber is pigmented 6 Stippled – when the surface of the tuber is more or less uniform covered with spots 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Predominant tuber flesh colour (3.2.5) Code indicating the flesh colour present in most of the tuber, expressed as: 1 White 2 Cream 3 Yellow-cream 4 Yellow 5 Red 6 Violet 7 Purple 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Secondary tuber flesh colour (3.2.6) Code representing a secondary flesh colour in the tuber, expressed as: 0 Absent 1 White 2 Cream 3 Yellow-cream 4 Yellow 5 Red 6 Violet 7 Purple 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Tuber outline (shape) (3.2.8) Code describing the tuber outline, expressed as: 1 Compressed (oblate) – major axis is the shortest axis 2 Round – an almost circular outline 3 Ovate – an outline resembling an egg. The broadest part is within 1/3 of the distance from the stolon end 4 Obovate – an outline which is inversely ovate and broadest within 1/3 of the distance from the apical end (rose or eye end) 5 Elliptic – an outline showing the same breadth when measured at equal distance from both the stolon and apical ends. The outline is slightly acute at each end 6 Oblong – an almost rectangular outline with the sides nearly parallel but the corners are rounded. The length/breadth ratio should not be more than 3/2 7 Long-oblong – an oblong outline with a length/breadth ratio closer to 2/1 8 Elongate – a long rectangular outline with a length/breadth ratio equal to or more than 3/1 Odd tuber shapes (3.2.9) Code representing those variants of tuber shape which cannot be described under tuber outline shape. It is expressed as follows: 0 Absent 1 Flattened – when the length of a transverse section, at any point of the tuber, is more than three times longer than its breadth 2 Clavate – resembling an elongated club, thickened at one end 3 Reniform – shaped like a kidney 4 Fusiform – spindle-shaped, tapering gradually at both ends 5 Falcate – curved or shaped like a sickle or horseshoe 6 Spiral – long and coiled 7 Digitate – resembling a hand or a fist 8 Concertina-shaped – resembling a concertina 9 Tuberosed – covered with few or many small lumps and tubers. It includes those shaped like a pineapple, a cluster of grapes, and raised internodes Depth of tuber eyes (3.2.10) Code indicating the depth of the eyes in the tuber, expressed as: 1 Protruding 2 Shallow 3 Medium 4 Deep 5 Very deep Tuber sprout colour (3.3.1) Code describing the colour which covers most of the surface of the sprout, expressed as: 1 White-green 2 Pink 3 Red 4 Violet 5 Purple 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Stem pigmentation (3.3.4) Code indicating the colour of the stems, expressed as: 1 Green only 2 Red-brown only 3 Purple only 4 Cream with some red-brown 5 Cream with purple 6 Red-brown with some green 7 Purple with some green 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Stem wing shape (3.3.6) Code for the presence and shape of the stem wing, expressed as: 0 Absent 1 Straight 2 Undulate 3 Dentate Lateral leaflet numbers (3.4.1a) 0 Absent 1 One pair 2 Two pairs 3 Three pairs 4 Four pairs 5 Five pairs 6 Six pairs 7 Seven or more pairs Interjected leaflets number in the rachis among lateral leaflets (3.4.1b) 0 Absent 1 One pair 2 Two pairs 3 Three pairs 4 Four or more pairs Flower colour (3.5.4) Code indicating the colour present in most of the corolla, expressed as: 1 White 2 Light red 3 Intense red 4 Light blue 5 Intense blue 6 Light purple 7 Intense purple 8 Yellow Flowering degree (3.5.14) Code describing the degree of flowering which should be recorded at the peak of the flowering period, expressed as: 0 No buds 1 Bud abortion 3 Scarce flowering 5 Moderate flowering 7 Profuse flowering Plant growth habit (3.6.1) Code indicating the type of growth habit at the beginning of flowering of the accession expressed as: 1 Erect 2 Semi-erect 3 Decumbent, when the stems trail on the ground but they rise at the apex 4 Prostrate, when the stems trail on the ground 5 Semi-rosette 6 Rosette, when all or most leaves arranged at the base of the stem are close to the soil surface High tuber yield (7.a) ABIOTIC STRESSES Drought (5.2) The method of evaluating is in the process of being defined and the following descriptor states are expected to be used: 1 Very low or no visible sign of susceptibility (Highly tolerant) 3 Low (Tolerant) 5 Intermediate (or slightly tolerant) 7 High (Non-tolerant) Soil salinity (5.a) BIOTIC STRESSES Foliar blight (Phytophthora spp.) (6.1.1.1) NOTES Any additional information may be specified here, particularly that referring to the category ‘Other’ present in some of the descriptors above. Annex X – List of contributors CORE ADVISORY GROUP David Tay, International Potato Center (CIP), Peru Carlos Arbizu, International Potato Center (CIP), Peru John Bamberg, US Potato Genebank, USA René Gómez, International Potato Center (CIP), Peru Roel Hoekstra, CGN, The Netherlands Danny Hunter, Bioversity International, Italy Alberto Salas, International Potato Center (CIP), Peru REVIEWERS Colombia José Dílmer Moreno-Mendoza, Corpoica Czech Republic Jaroslava Domkárová, Potato Research Institute Havlíkuv Brod France Jean-Eric Chauvin, INRA Germany Klaus J. Dehmer, IPK/GLKS Peru Merideth Bonierbale, International Potato Center (CIP) Enrique Chujoy, International Potato Center (CIP) Russian Federation Stepan Kiru, N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry (VIR) Slovenia Peter Dolničar, Agricultural Institute of Slovenia Spain Domingo Ríos Mesa, Centro de Conservación de la Biodiversidad Agrícola de Tenerife United Kingdom Stuart Carnegie, SASA Annex XI – Final key access and utilization descriptors for cultivated potato genetic resources, revised and republished in 2010 Key access and utilization descriptors for cultivated potato genetic resources This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for cultivated potato utilization. This strategic set of descriptors, together with passport data, will become the basis for the global accession level information portal being developed by Bioversity International with the financial support of the Global Crop Diversity Trust. It will facilitate access to and utilization of cultivated potato accessions held in genebanks and does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently become available. Based on the comprehensive ‘Descriptors for the Cultivated Potato’ published by the International Potato Center (CIP) and IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1977, the list was subsequently compared and harmonized, wherever possible, with minimum descriptors listed in ‘Descriptores de la Papa’ (CIP, 1994), with the ‘Guía para las Caracterizaciones Morfológicas Básicas en Colecciones de Papas Nativas’ (René Gómez, CIP, 2000), and with those for which data were available. It also builds on the SGRP Global Public Goods (GPG2) activity. This minimal set defines a first priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize cultivated potato genetic resources. A worldwide distribution of experts involved in an online survey was assured and the list was afterwards validated by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr David Tay of CIP. Biotic and abiotic stresses included in the list were chosen because of their wide geographic occurrence and significant economic impact at a global level. Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptor numbers listed in the 1977 descriptors. Descriptors with numbers ending in ‘letters’ are new descriptors that were added during the development of the list below. PLANT DATA Ploidy level (3.1.2) Count of the zygotic (2n) number of chromosomes Predominant tuber skin colour (3.2.1) Code indicating the colour which covers most of the surface of the tuber, expressed as: 1 White-cream 2 Yellow 3 Orange 4 Brownish 5 Pink 6 Red 7 Purplish-red 8 Purple 9 Blackish Intensity of predominant tuber skin colour (3.2.1a) 1 Light 2 Intermediate 3 Intense Secondary tuber skin colour (3.2.2) Code describing a secondary colour on the surface of the tuber, expressed as: 0 Absent 1 White-cream 2 Yellow 3 Orange 4 Brownish 5 Pink 6 Red 7 Purplish-red 8 Purple 9 Blackish Distribution of secondary tuber skin colour (3.2.3) Code representing the pattern of distribution of the secondary colour on the surface of the tuber, expressed as: 0 Absent 1 Eyes – when the secondary colour is confined to the eyes only 2 Eyebrows – when the secondary colour is present in the eyebrows only or includes eyes 3 Splashed – when the secondary colour is confined to areas around the eyes or includes eyes and eyebrows 4 Scattered – when the secondary colour is distributed at random in one or more areas around the tuber 5 Spectacled – when areas around the eyes do not show secondary colour and the reminder of the tuber is pigmented 6 Stippled – when the surface of the tuber is more or less uniform covered with spots 7 Few spots 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Predominant tuber flesh colour (3.2.5) Code indicating the flesh colour present in most of the tuber, expressed as: 1 White 2 Cream 3 Yellow-cream 4 Yellow 5 Red 6 Violet 7 Purple 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Secondary tuber flesh colour (3.2.6) Code representing a secondary flesh colour in the tuber, expressed as: 0 Absent 1 White 2 Cream 3 Yellow-cream 4 Yellow 5 Red 6 Violet 7 Purple 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Tuber outline (shape) (3.2.8) Code describing the tuber outline, expressed as: 1 Compressed (oblate) – major axis is the shortest axis 2 Round – an almost circular outline 3 Ovate – an outline resembling an egg. The broadest part is within 1/3 of the distance from the stolon end 4 Obovate – an outline which is inversely ovate and broadest within 1/3 of the distance from the apical end (rose or eye end) 5 Elliptic – an outline showing the same breadth when measured at equal distance from both the stolon and apical ends. The outline is slightly acute at each end 6 Oblong – an almost rectangular outline with the sides nearly parallel but the corners are rounded. The length/breadth ratio should not be more than 3/2 7 Long-Oblong – an oblong outline with a length/breadth ratio closer to 2/1 8 Elongate – a long rectangular outline with a length/breadth ratio equal to or more than 3/1 Odd tuber shapes (3.2.9) Code representing those variants of tuber shape which cannot be described under tuber outline shape. It is expressed as follows: 0 Absent 1 Flattened – when the length of a transverse section, at any point of the tuber, is more than three times longer than its breadth 2 Clavate – resembling an elongated club, thickened at one end 3 Reniform – shaped like a kidney 4 Fusiform – spindle-shaped, tapering gradually at both ends 5 Falcate – curved or shaped like a sickle or horseshoe 6 Spiral – long and coiled 7 Digitate – resembling a hand or a fist 8 Concertina-shaped – resembling a concertina 9 Tuberosed – covered with few or many small lumps and tubers. It includes those shaped like a pineapple, a cluster of grapes, and raised internodes Depth of tuber eyes (3.2.10) Code indicating the depth of the eyes in the tuber, expressed as: 3 Shallow 5 Medium 7 Deep 9 Very deep Tuber sprout colour (3.3.1) Code describing the colour which covers most of the surface of the sprout, expressed as: 1 White-cream 2 Yellow 3 Pink 4 Red 5 Violet 6 Purple 7 Blackish 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Stem pigmentation (3.3.4) Code indicating the colour of the stems, expressed as: 1 Green 2 Cream with some red-brown 3 Cream with purple 4 Red-brown with some green 5 Purple with some green 6 Red-brown 7 Purple 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Stem wing shape (3.3.6) Code for the presence and shape of the stem wing, expressed as: 0 Absent 1 Straight 2 Undulate 3 Dentate Lateral leaflet numbers (3.4.1a) 0 Absent 1 One pair 2 Two pairs 3 Three pairs 4 Four pairs 5 Five pairs 6 Six pairs 7 Seven or more pairs Interjected leaflets number in the rachis among lateral leaflets (3.4.1b) 0 Absent 1 One pair 2 Two pairs 3 Three pairs 4 Four or more pairs Flower colour (3.5.4) Code indicating the colour present in most of the corolla, expressed as: 1 White/cream/yellow 2 Pink 3 Red 4 Light blue 5 Blue 6 Purple 7 Violet Flowering degree (3.5.14) Code describing the degree of flowering which should be recorded at the peak of the flowering period, expressed as: 0 No buds 1 Bud abortion 3 Scarce flowering 5 Moderate flowering 7 Profuse flowering Plant growth habit (3.6.1) Code indicating the type of growth habit at the beginning of flowering of the accession expressed as: 1 Erect 2 Semi-erect 3 Decumbent, when the stems trail on the ground but they rise at the apex 4 Prostrate, when the stems trail on the ground 5 Semi-rosette 6 Rosette, when all or most leaves arranged at the base of the stem are close to the soil surface High tuber yield (7.a) ABIOTIC STRESSES Drought (5.2) The method of evaluating is in the process of being defined and the following descriptor states are expected to be used: 1 Very low or no visible sign of susceptibility (Highly tolerant) 3 Low (Tolerant) 5 Intermediate (or Slightly tolerant) 7 High (Non-tolerant) Soil salinity (5.a) BIOTIC STRESSES Foliar blight (Phytophthora spp.) (6.1.1.1) NOTES Any additional information may be specified here, particularly that referring to the category ‘Other’ present in some of the descriptors above. CONTRIBUTORS Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of this strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors of cultivated potato genetic resources’, and in particular to Dr David Tay (CIP, Peru) who provided scientific direction. Ms Adriana Alercia provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process. CORE ADVISORY GROUP David Tay, International Potato Center (CIP), Peru Carlos Arbizu, International Potato Center (CIP), Peru John Bamberg, US Potato Genebank, USA René Gómez, International Potato Center (CIP), Peru Roel Hoekstra, CGN, the Netherlands Danny Hunter, Bioversity International, Italy Alberto Salas, International Potato Center (CIP), Peru REVIEWERS Colombia José Dílmer Moreno-Mendoza, Corpoica Czech Republic Jaroslava Domkárová, Potato Research Institute Havlíkuv Brod France Jean-Eric Chauvin, INRA Germany Klaus J. Dehmer, IPK/GLKS Peru Merideth Bonierbale, International Potato Center (CIP) Enrique Chujoy, International Potato Center (CIP) Russian Federation Stepan Kiru, N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry (VIR) Slovenia Peter Dolničar, Agricultural Institute of Slovenia Spain Domingo Ríos Mesa, Centro de Conservación de la Biodiversidad Agrícola de Tenerife United Kingdom Stuart Carnegie, SASA Methodology for the definition of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for rice (Oryza spp.) Information collection and preparation of a Minimum Descriptor List (MDL) Information for the definition of a MDL for Rice was based on the publication ‘Descriptors for wild and cultivated Rice (Oryza spp.)’ (Bioversity International, IRRI and WARDA, 2007). The list derived from this publication was compared to important descriptors mentioned in a number of sources such as UPOV technical guidelines (2004); ‘Standard Evaluation System for Rice’ (IRRI, 2002); ‘Descriptor for RICE’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN), and relevant descriptors resulting from activity 4.2.1.1 of the SGRP Global Public Goods Phase 2 (GPG2), submitted by IRRI and WARDA. Results from the comparison exercise were subsequently integrated and harmonized with those that were awarded funds for further research by the Global Crop Diversity Trust Evaluation Award Scheme, 2008 (see Annex I). On 20th March 2009 this first Minimum set of descriptors was further discussed with Dr Ruaraidh Sackville Hamilton from the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) who provided scientific direction for the publication of ‘Descriptors for wild and cultivated Rice (Oryza spp.)’. It was agreed to build on the Minimum List of Descriptors for rice which contained characterization descriptors, adding traits important to crop production under the scientific guidance of Dr Ed Redoña, Global Rice Coordinator at the International Network for Genetic Evaluation for Rice (INGER). Preparation of the List of Experts The list of experts was prepared taking into account reviewers involved in the publication ‘Descriptors for wild and cultivated Rice (Oryza spp.)’ as well as participants to the Expert Consultation Meeting that was held at IRRI, Philippines, in December 2007 to discuss a preliminary draft of the ‘Global Strategy for the Ex-situ conservation of Rice’. Overall the list was composed of 79 experts, coming from 28 countries and 51 different organizations (see Annex II). Out of these, a Crop Leader, Edilberto D. Redoña, and a Core Advisory Group (CAG) consisting of seven experts were selected to assist in the definition of a minimum set of descriptors for this crop. Members of the CAG were selected from world renowned organizations and research centres focusing on rice conservation such as IRRI, International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), National Bureau Of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), and INGER. Survey preparation and distribution A draft of the survey was proposed to the Crop Leader on 8 May 2009 and subsequently the final revised version (see Annex III) was uploaded into the SurveyMonkey application on internet. On 11 May an email invitation, containing the link to the survey, was sent out to the identified experts who were invited to validate the initial ‘Minimum set of descriptors’ of rice accessions to promote the utilization of germplasm. Participants were also encouraged to mention any additional traits that were found to be relevant yet missing from the proposed list, along with a substantiated justification for their inclusion. The already approved and published list of highly discriminating Bioversity, IRRI and WARDA descriptors for rice was inserted in the survey for reference (see Annex IV). The survey deadline was set at 12 June, a first reminder was sent out on 26 May and a second one on 5 June 2009 to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained. Survey analysis and refinement of the Minimum List Of the 79 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 28, coming from 16 countries and 23 organizations recorded their comments using the online survey; six of them members of the CAG (see Annex V). Results from the survey were analyzed and descriptors ranked by rating average and percentage of importance (see Annex VI). The survey summary results together with a report containing open-ended responds received by the participants (see Annex VII) were shared with the Crop Leader for validation on 4 August 2009. His comments (see Annex VIII) were harmonized and sent again to Dr Redoña for further refinement. The revised minimum list was then sent to the CAG for final approval on 30 September 2009 (see Annex IX). The approved document, including descriptor states and all the contributors (see Annex X), was proofread by an external editor and sent to the Bioversity Publication Unit for layout and online publication processes. Furthermore, the publication was shared with ECPGR Secretariat; the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base partners. Additionally, data were converted into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN-Global genebank data- management system being developed by USDA and into the global accession level information portal (GENESYS), linking national, regional and international genebank databases in support of the Conservation and Use of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also provided to the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) and to EURISCO. Acknowledgement Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for rice genetic resources’, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial support. Special thanks go to Dr Edilberto Redoña for his valuable scientific contribution. Annex I – Comparison table for the definition of a Key set of traits for Rice drawn from a number of sourcesi Bioversity descriptor no. Bioversity descriptor name Bioversity-IRRI-WARDA UPOV USDA, ARS, GRIN SES EAS IRRI GPG2 WARDA GPG2 Data available (*) considered important (**) Bioversity MDL 7.2.3 Main heading * * 7.3.11 Auricle: colour * * * (page 32) * 7.3.22 Flag leaf: attitude (early observation) * * * (page 39) * 7.3.25 Culm: length * * * (page 34) * 7.3.28 Culm: anthocyanin colouration on the nodes * * 7.3.29 Culm: underlying node colour * * (page 33) 7.3.34 Flag leaf: attitude (late observation) * * 7.4.2 Stigma: colour * * * (page 38) * 7.4.6 Lemma: colour of apiculus (early observation) * * 7.4.9 Awns distribution * * * * (page 33) * 7.4.18 Panicle: length * * * (page 36) * ** 7.4.19 Panicle: attitude of main axis * * * (page 36) * 7.4.20 Panicle: attitude of branches (Plant type USDA - Panicle type) * * * * (page 37) * 7.5.4 Lemma and palea: pubescence * * * * (page 36) 7.5.10 Sterile lemma: length * * (page 37) * 7.5.11 Longer sterile lemma length * 7.5.13 Sterile lemma: colour * * * (page 37) * 7.5.20 Caryopsis: length * * * 7.5.22 Caryopsis: shape (grain shape) * * * 7.5.23 Caryopsis: pericarp colour (Bran colour USDA?) * * 8.1.2 Caryopsis scent * * (page 37) Other descriptors 4.6 Seedling vigour * 7.2.2.1 Days from seeding to flowering ** 7.2.2.2 Days to first heading (Flowering date) * 7.2.4 Maturity * * * 7.2.4.1 Days from seeding to maturity ** 7.2.3.1 Days to main heading * 7.3.18 Leaf blade length [cm] * * * 7.3.19 Leaf blade width [cm] * * ** 7.3.27 Culm: diameter at basal internode [mm] * 7.3.7 Leaf blade intensity of green colour (colour) * 7.3.8 Leaf blade attitude (leaf angle) * Bioversity descriptor no. Bioversity descriptor name Bioversity-IRRI-WARDA UPOV USDA, ARS, GRIN SES EAS IRRI GPG2 WARDA GPG2 Data available (*) considered important (**) 7.3.9 Leaf blade pubescence * 7.4.1 % Pollen sterility/fertility at anthesis (Male sterility) * * * 7.4.17 Panicle number per plant * * 7.4.21 Panicle: secondary branching * * 7.4.22 Panicle: exsertion * 7.4.5 Lemma and palea colour * * * 7.4.8 Awns presence (Awning) * 7.5.15 Grain length [mm] ** 7.5.16 Grain width [mm] * * * 7.5.18 Grain: 100-grain weight [g] * 7.5.2 Panicle threshability * * 7.5.8 Lemma: colour of apiculus * 8.1.1 Lemma: phenol reaction * 8.1.10 Elongation ratio * * * 8.1.3 Endosperm amylose content [%] * * 8.1.4 (?) Alkali spreading value ? * 8.1.5 Gelatinization Temperature by Differential Scanning * 8.1.6 Gel consistency * 8.1.7 Brown rice protein content [% DW] * 8.1.8 Lysine content [% DW] * 8.1.9 Parboiling loss [% DW] * 9.1 Cold [IS-75] * * * 9.2 Heat [IS-76] * * * 9.3 Drought [IS-80] * * * 9.4 Alkali injury and salt injury [IS-70-71] * * * 9.5 Iron toxicity [IS-72] * * * 9.6 Phosphorus deficiency [IS-73] * 9.7 Zinc deficiency [IS-74] * * 9.8 Flood or submergence [IS-86] * * * 10.1 Diseases * * 10.1.1 Leaf blast (Magnaporthe grisea) * * * * 10.1.2 Panicle blast (Magnaporthe grisea) * * * * 10.1.3 Brown spot (Cochliobolus miyabeanus) * 10.1.5 Bacterial leaf streak (Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzicola) * * 10.2 Diseases caused by viruses and MLOs [IS-36] * * 10.2.1 Rice grassy stunt (RGSV1 and RGSV2) * * 10.2.4 Rice Yellow Mottle Virus * Bioversity descriptor no. Bioversity descriptor name Bioversity-IRRI-WARDA UPOV USDA, ARS, GRIN SES EAS IRRI GPG2 WARDA GPG2 Data available (*) considered important (**) 10.3 Insects * * 10.3.1 Brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens) * * 10.3.5 Stem borers * * * 10.3.6 Leaf folder (Cnaphalocrocis medinalis) * * 10.3.7 Gall midge (Orseolia oryzae) * * 12.2 Gelatinisation Temperature * * 12.3 Fragrance * 13.1 Chromosome number * 13.2 Ploidy level * 13.3 Other cytological characters * % Seed sterility/fertility * Diurnal duration of anthesis * DNA profiles using SSR markers * Duration of flowering period * Fertile tillering ability * Grain weight of 1000 grains or rough rice [g] * (10 and 100) * Grain yield per plant * (page 45) * * Kernel width * Phenotypic acceptability * (page 7) * * Panicle number per m2 * Plant height [cm] * * * * * Rice tungro bacilliform virus * * Sheath blight (Rhizoctonia solani) (Thanatephorus cucumeris) * * Straighthead * Tillering ability ** Time of day of flowering (start/end) * i ‘Descriptors for wild and cultivated Rice (Oryza spp.)’ (Bioversity International, IRRI and WARDA, 2007), UPOV technical guidelines (2004), ‘Standard Evaluation System for Rice (SES)’ (IRRI, 2002), ‘Descriptors for RICE’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN), Evaluation Awards Scheme (EAS), descriptors submitted by IRRI and WARDA to the GPG2 project. Annex II - Experts identified to take part to the survey Role Name Organization Country Crop Leader Redoña, Edilberto D. IRRI Philippines CAG Borromeo, Teresita UPLB Philippines CAG Khin Than, Nwe Rice Department Myanmar CAG Martínez, César CIAT Colombia CAG Salaices, Luis Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Spain CAG Sharma, S.K. NBPGR India CAG Shobha, Rani Directorate of Rice Research India CAG Tang, Shenxiang China National Rice Research Institute China Reviewer Alias, Ismail Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute Malaysia Reviewer Almazan, Socorro IRRI Philippines Reviewer Amron, Azuan MARDI Malaysia Reviewer Anishetty, Murthi FAO/CGIAR India Reviewer Apanich, Nathathai National Genebank of Thailand Thailand Reviewer Attiogbevi-Somado, Eklou WARDA Benin Reviewer Banaticla, Maria Celeste IRRI Philippines Reviewer Bockelman, Harold E. ARS/USDA USA Reviewer Bounphanousay, Chay ARC Genebank Lao PDR Reviewer Buu, Bui Chi Director, Institute of Agricultural Science of South Vietnam (IAS) Viet Nam Reviewer Catibog, Noel PCARRD Philippines Reviewer Chanphengxay, Monthathip NAFRI Lao PDR Reviewer Da Silva Mariante, Arthur EMBRAPA Brazil Reviewer Ennamul, Haque Bangladesh Rice Research Institute Bangladesh Reviewer Faberova, Iva Research Institute of Crop Production Czech Republic Reviewer Faylon, Patricio S. PCARRD Philippines Reviewer Ferreira, Marcio Elias Embrapa Brazil Reviewer Fesenko, Maria VIR WEB SITE Russia Reviewer Fitzgerald, Melissa IRRI Philippines Reviewer Gatot Irianto, M.S., Ir. H. Sumarjo IAARD Indonesia Reviewer Gosalvitra, Prasert Rice Dept Thailand Reviewer Haron, Sharif MARDI Malaysia Reviewer Harun-ur-Rashid, M. Bangladesh Agricultural Research Center (BARC) Bangladesh Reviewer Htut Oo, U Tin Dept of Agricultural Planning Myanmar Role Name Organization Country Reviewer Ilao, Susan Sandra L. PCARRD Philippines Reviewer Javier, Edwin IRRI Philippines Reviewer Khan, Inayatullah Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock Pakistan Reviewer Kim, Je-Kyu National Institute for Crop Science (NICS) Korea Reviewer Kim, Tae-San RDA Korea Reviewer Kouang, Douangsila National Agriculture and Food Research Institute Lao PDR Reviewer Kudagamage, Chandrasiri Dept Agricolture Sri Lanka Reviewer Kumashiro, Takashi JIRCAS Japan Reviewer Lal Karna, Parashuram Nepal Agricultural Research Council Nepal Reviewer Lewin, Laurie Rice CRC Australia Reviewer Mal, Bhag Bioversity India Reviewer Misra Lal, Sah Nepal Agricultural Research Council Nepal Reviewer Mozafari, Javad NPGB Iran Reviewer Muhammad, Akram Pakistan Agricultural Reseach Council Pakistan Reviewer Myung Chul Lee National Agrodiversity Center Korea Reviewer Nafisah. Afif Indonesian Center for Rice Research Indonesia Reviewer Naredo, Elizabeth IRRI Philippines Reviewer Lang, Nguyen Thi Cuu Long Rice Research Institute Vietnam Reviewer Nimal, Dissanayake Rice Research Institute Sri Lanka Reviewer Okuno, Kazutoshi Laboratory of Plant Genetics & Breeding Science, Graduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences Japan Reviewer Orapin, Watanesk Rice Department Thailand Reviewer Ouk, Makara Cambodian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (CARDI Cambodia Reviewer Padolina, Thelma PhilRice Philippines Reviewer S.R.Pandravada NBPGR Regional Station, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500 030, Andhra Pradesh India Reviewer Rai, Mangala ICAR India Role Name Organization Country Reviewer Ramanantsoanirina, Alain FOFIFA/CENRADERU Madagascar Reviewer Rana, J.C. NBPGR India Reviewer Reaño, Renato IRRI Philippines Reviewer Romanova, Olga VIR Russia Reviewer Romero, G. PhilRice Philippines Reviewer Sanni, Kayode WARDA Benin Reviewer Sanwidi, Abdoulaye WARDA Benin Reviewer Sarom, Men Cambodian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (CARDI) Cambodia Reviewer Shihua, Cheng China National Rice Research Institute China Reviewer N. Shobha Rani Directorate of Rice Research India Reviewer Shumin, Wang Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS) China Reviewer Sie, Moussa WARDA Benin Reviewer Silitonga, Tiur Sudiati ICABGRRD Bogor Indonesia Reviewer Tchamba, Albert WARDA Benin Reviewer Tia, Daniel WARDA Benin Reviewer Torre do Vale, Carla IIAM Mozambique Reviewer Viraktamath, B.C. Hyderabad Directorate of Rice Research (DRR) India Reviewer Wambugu, Peter NGBK Kenya Reviewer Orapin Watanesk Bureau of Rice Research and Development Thailand Reviewer Yang, Sae-Jun National Institute of Crop Science, RDA Korea Reviewer Yeon-Gyu, Kim National Institute for Crop Science (NICS) Korea Reviewer Zain, Hj. Abdullah Md University Malaysia Terengganu Malaysia Annex III - Evaluation descriptors for Rice selected by Dr Redoña on 5 May 2009 Plant height [cm] Endosperm amylose content [%] 8.1.3 Cold [IS-75] 9.1 Heat [IS-76] 9.2 Drought [IS-80] 9.3 Alkali injury and salt injury [IS-70-71] 9.4 Flood or submergence [IS-86] 9.8 Phenotypic acceptability Leaf blast (Magnaporthe grisea) 10.1.1 Brown spot (Cochliobolus miyabeanus) 10.1.3 Bacterial leaf streak (Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzicola) 10.1.5 Rice Yellow Mottle Virus 10.2.4 Sheath blight (Rhizoctonia solani) (Thanatephorus cucumeris) 10.2.6 Brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens) 10.3.1 Stem borers 10.3.5 Gall midge (Orseolia oryzae) 10.3.7 Rice tungro bacilliform virus Annex IV - Survey to choose a key set of descriptors for Rice Welcome to the survey for the selection of a first priority set of evaluation descriptors of Rice to support an international information system to enhance the utilization of germplasm held in genebanks. Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 12 th June 2009 The key set, along with the List of highly discriminating Bioversity IRRI descriptors for rice (Annex I, Bioversity/IRRI/WARDA, 2007), which can be found in Part I, will be made available through a global facility for identifying sets of accessions for evaluation and use, and does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently become available. The list presented here has been drawn from the Bioversity/IRRI/WARDA publication Descriptors for wild and cultivated Rice ’(Oryza spp.)’ (2007), and further harmonized with results from the GPG2 Activity 4.2.1.1; with descriptors that were awarded funds for further research by the Global Crop Diversity Trust 2008 Award Scheme; with UPOV technical guidelines for rice (2004), wherever possible; and with the IRRI publication ’Standard Evaluation System for Rice (SES)’ (2002), under the scientific direction of Dr. Edilberto Redoña (IRRI). This survey consists of two parts: - PART I: Lists the most important characterization descriptors for Rice, validated and published in ’Descriptors for wild and cultivated Rice (Oryza spp.)’ Bioversity/IRRI/WARDA (2007). They are reported here only for reference. - PART II: Lists important evaluation descriptors for Rice. Please, rate these traits in order of importance at the global level, their wide geographic occurrence and significant economic impact. It also allows you to indicate if any essential trait for production is missing from the minimum list presented or indicate any that may not be very significant to global production. We thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in selecting this key set of descriptors. * Please allow us to acknowledge your contribution by completing your full contact details below: Name: Position: Organization: Country: Email: Lemma: colour of apiculus (early observation) (7.4.6) List of highly discriminating Bioversity -IRRI descriptors for rice (Annex I, Bioversity/IRRI/WARDA, 2007), already validated and only for reference. PART I: Characterization descriptors *Numbers on the right - hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in the Bioversity/IRRI/WARDA publication ‘Descriptors for Rice ( Oryza spp.) ’ (2007). Main heading (7.2.3) Auricle: colour (7.3.11) Flag leaf: attitude (early observation) (7.3.22) Culm: length (7.3.25) Culm: anthocyanin colouration on the nodes (7.3.28) Culm: underlying node colour (7.3.29) Flag leaf: attitude (late observation) (7.3.34) Stigma: colour (7.4.2) Awns distribution (7.4.9) Panicle: length (7.4.18) Panicle: attitude of main axis (7.4.19) Panicle: attitude of branches (7.4.20) Lemma and palea: pubescence (7.5.4) Sterile lemma: length (7.5.10) Longer sterile lemma length (7.5.11) Sterile lemma: colour (7.5.13) Caryopsis: length (7.5.20) Caryopsis: shape (7.5.22) Caryopsis: pericarp colour (7.5.23) Caryopsis scent (8.1.2) These descriptors include characters such as endosperm amylose content, biotic and abiotic stresses. They are the most interesting traits in crop improvement. Please consider the following factors relating to the trait when making your final decision: (i) Global impact, (ii) Initial strategic set, (iii) Importance for germplasm utilization, (iv) Data availability, (v) True economic damage and (vi) Wide geographical occurrence. If you consider that an essential trait important for crop improvement and production is missing from this list, or, if any of the descriptors listed is not clearly useful to promote utilization, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. PART II: Evaluation descriptors Not Important Important Very important Endosperm amylose content [%] (8.1.3) n n n Cold (9.1) n n n Heat (9.2) n n n Drought (9.3) n n n Alkali injury and salt injury (9.4) n n n Flood or submergence (9.8) n n n Phenotypic acceptability n n n Leaf blast ( Magnaporthe grisea ) (10.1.1) n n n Brown spot ( Cochliobolus miyabeanus ) (10.1.3) n n n Bacterial leaf streak ( Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzicola) (10.1.5) n n n Rice Yellow Mottle Virus (10.2.4) n n n Sheath blight ( Rhizoctonia solani ) ( Thanatephorus cucumeris ) (10.2.6) n n n Brown planthopper ( Nilaparvata lugens ) (10.3.1) n n n Stem borers (10.3.5) n n n Gall midge ( Orseolia oryzae ) (10.3.7) n n n Rice tungro bacilliform virus n n n Plant height [cm] n n n NOTE: Please remember, this list is the starting point and will grow over time, as required. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. Annex V – Respondents to the survey Role Name Organization Country CAG Borromeo, Teresita H University of the Philippines Los Baños Philippines CAG Khin Than Nwe Rice Division, Department of Agricultural Research Myanmar CAG Martinez, Cesar P. CIAT Colombia CAG Salaices, Luis Oficina Española De Variedades Vegetales SPAIN CAG Shobha Rani, N. Directorate of Rice Research India CAG Tang, Shengxiang China National Rice Research Institute China Reviewer Almazan, Ma. Socorro R. IRRI Philippines Reviewer Anishetty, Murthi India Reviewer Catibog, Noel A. PCARRD Philippines Reviewer Faberova, Iva Crop Research Institute Prague Czech Republic Reviewer Haque, Enamul A K G Md. Bangladesh Rice Research Institute Bangladesh Reviewer Lang, Nguyen Thi Cuulong delta rice research Insitute Vietnam Reviewer Dr Lewin, Laurie NSW Department of Primary Industries Australia Reviewer Myung Chul Lee National Agrodiversity Center Republic of Korea Reviewer Nafisah, Afif Indonesian Centre for Rice Research Indonesia Reviewer Natarajan, Sivaraj NBPGR India Reviewer Padolina, Thelma F. PhilRice Philippines Reviewer Pandey, Manish Kumar Directorate of Rice Research India Reviewer Pandravada, S.R. NBPGR Regional Station, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500 030, Andhra Pradesh. India Reviewer Ramanantsoanirina, Alain FOFIFA/CENRADERU Madagascar Reviewer Rana, J C National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources Regional Station India Reviewer Reaño, Renato A. TTC-GRC IRRI Philippines Reviewer Romanova, Olga VIR Russia Reviewer Site Noorzuraini Binti Abd Rahman MARDI Malaysia Reviewer Susanto, Untung Indonesian Center for Rice Research Indonesia Reviewer Watanesk, Orapin Bureau of Rice Research and Development Thailand Reviewer Yang, Sae-Jun Natl' Institute of Crop Science, RDA Republic of Korea Reviewer Zain, Abdullah Md University Malaysia Terengganu Malaysia Annex VI - Survey results ranked by rating average and sent to Dr Redoña for validation Answer Options Rating Average Dr. Redoña’s selection Leaf blast (Magnaporthe grisea) (10.1.1) 4.35 Endosperm amylose content [%] (8.1.3) 4.33 Brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens) (10.3.1) 4.33 Drought (9.3) 4.19 Flood or submergence (9.8) 4.07 Sheath blight (Rhizoctonia solani) (Thanatephorus cucumeris) (10.2.6) 4.04 Phenotypic acceptability 3.81 Plant height [cm] 3.74 Heat (9.2) 3.63 Alkali injury and salt injury (9.4) 3.54 Rice tungro bacilliform virus 3.52 Bacterial leaf streak (Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzicola) (10.1.5) 3.50 Stem borers (10.3.5) 3.48 Cold (9.1) 3.41 Gall midge (Orseolia oryzae) (10.3.7) 3.00 Brown spot (Cochliobolus miyabeanus) (10.1.3) 2.77 Rice Yellow Mottle Virus (10.2.4) 2.36 Annex VII - Additional descriptors proposed in the open-ended responds section of the survey Additional descriptors N. of times propose d Shobh a Rani Pandra vada Watan esk Marti nez Roma nova Raman antsoa nirina Than Nwe Tang Laurie Lewin Reaño Nafisah Padol ina Susa nto Anish etty Rana Plant stature, considering yield potential 1 X Growth duration, considering crop index 1 X Basal leaf sheath colour 1 X Panicle exertion 3 X X X Leaf pubescence of blade surface 1 X Leaf anthocynin colouration of auricles 1 X Ligule shape and colour 1 X Awn colour 1 X Gelatinization temperature 1 X Gel consistency 1 X Grain chalkiness. 1 X Degree of germination of grains on standing 1 X Performance under aerobic conditions 1 X Glume and glume tip colour 1 X Presence of ornamentation/ striations/ lines on glumes 1 X Rice leaffolder 1 X Bacterial leaf blight 3 X X X Ragged stunt 1 X Seedling rot 1 X Additional descriptors N. of times propose d Shobh a Rani Pandra vada Watan esk Marti nez Roma nova Raman antsoa nirina Than Nwe Tang Laurie Lewin Reaño Nafisah Padol ina Susa nto Anish etty Rana Grain quality in terms of high milling recovery and endosperm translucency is very important for rice trade 1 X Grain aroma 2 X X Grain shape 4 X X X X Grain size 1 X Grain appearance 1 X Kernel length X Sead coat colour (Kernel colour) 1 X Neck and leaf blast resistance is very important 1 X Pyricularia oryzae Cav. (this is known as leaf and neck blast) 1 X Lodging (function of soil fertility for tall plant) but related to yield threshability or shatering 3 X X X Threshability 1 X Initial heading 1 X Main heading 1 X 1000 grain weight 2 X X Additional descriptors N. of times propose d Shobh a Rani Pandra vada Watan esk Marti nez Roma nova Raman antsoa nirina Than Nwe Tang Laurie Lewin Reaño Nafisah Padol ina Susa nto Anish etty Rana Photoperiod sensitive (strong,weak, non), which is very important character especially for temperate zone rice area 1 X Number of spikelets per panicle 1 X Number of panicles per hill. 1 X Viviparity 1 X Annex VIII - Comments on survey results received from Dr Redoña on 2nd September 2009 Answer Options Rating Average Dr. Redoña’s selection Leaf blast (Magnaporthe grisea) (10.1.1) 4.35 OK Endosperm amylose content [%] (8.1.3) 4.33 OK Brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens) (10.3.1) 4.33 OK Drought (9.3) 4.19 OK Flood or submergence (9.8) 4.07 OK Sheath blight (Rhizoctonia solani) (Thanatephorus cucumeris) (10.2.6) 4.04 OK but no strong source or resistance to this disease so most would be susceptible Phenotypic acceptability 3.81 OK Plant height [cm] 3.74 OK Heat (9.2) 3.63 OK Alkali injury and salt injury (9.4) 3.54 OK Rice tungro bacilliform virus 3.52 OK Bacterial leaf streak (Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzicola) (10.1.5) 3.50 OK Stem borers (10.3.5) 3.48 OK Cold (9.1) 3.41 OK Gall midge (Orseolia oryzae) (10.3.7) 3.00 Limited in occurrence to South Asian countries only Brown spot (Cochliobolus miyabeanus) (10.1.3) 2.77 OK; emerging disease Rice Yellow Mottle Virus (10.2.4) 2.36 Limited in occurrence to Africa Annex IX - First priority set of descriptors for rice resulting from the survey shared with the Core Advisory Group for final validation on 30th September 2009i Endosperm amylose content [%] (8.1.3) Phenotypic acceptability [IS-10] (8.1.a) Cold [IS-75] (9.1) Heat [IS-76] (9.2) Drought [IS-80] (9.3) Alkali injury and salt injury [IS-70-71] (9.4) Flood or submergence [IS-86] (9.8) Leaf blast (Magnaporthe grisea) [IS-30] (10.1.1) Brown spot (Cochliobolus miyabeanus) [IS-32] (10.1.3) Bacterial leaf streak (Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzicola) [IS-33] (10.1.5) Bacterial blight (Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae) [IS-35] (10.1.7) Rice tungro bacilliform virus (RTBV) [RTD] (10.2.a) Sheath blight (Thanatephorus cucumeris) [IS-37] (10.2.6) Brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens) [IS60] (10.3.1) Stem borers (Chilo suppressalis) [IS-63] (10.3.5) Annex X - Final list of characterization and evaluation descriptors for Rice including descriptor states and Contributors PLANT DATA Main heading (7.2.3) Date on which 80% of the plants are heading. It is specified either as the number of days from effective seeding date to main heading date or as effective seeding date and main heading date Auricle: colour (7.3.11) Stage: late vegetative (IRRI) 0 0 Absent (no auricles) 1 011 Whitish 2 062 Yellowish green 3 080 Purple 4 081 Light purple 5 084 Purple lines Flag leaf: attitude (early observation) (7.3.22) Measured near the collar. Angle of attachment between the flag leaf blade and the main panicle axis. Record the average of five samples. Stage: cultivated species at anthesis; wild species seven days after anthesis 1 Erect 3 Semi-erect (intermediate) 5 Horizontal 7 Descending Plant: height [cm] [IS-5] (7.3.25a) Use actual measurement in cm from soil surface to the tip of the tallest panicle (awns excluded). For height measurements at other growth stages, specify the stage. Record in whole numbers (do not use decimals). Stage: after flowering to maturity. Alternatively, they can be coded as follows: 1 Semidwarf (lowland: less than 110 cm; upland: less than 90 cm) 5 Intermediate (lowland: 110–130 cm; upland: 90–125 cm) 9 Tall (lowland: more than 130 cm; upland: more than 125 cm) Culm: length [cm] (7.3.25) Measured from ground level to the base of the panicle. Record the average of five actual measurements, to the nearest cm. Stage: cultivated species after flowering to maturity; wild species seven days after anthesis. Alternatively, cultivated species can be coded as follows: 1 Very short (<50 cm) 2 Very short to short (51–70 cm) 3 Short (71–90 cm) 4 Short to intermediate (91–105 cm) 5 Intermediate (106–120 cm) 6 Intermediate to long (121–140 cm) 7 Long (141–155 cm) 8 Long to very long (156–180 cm) 9 Very long (>180 cm) Culm: anthocyanin colouration on nodes (7.3.28) The presence and distribution of purple colour from anthocyanin, observed on the outer surface of the nodes on the culm. Stage: after flowering to near maturity (IRRI) 0 0 Absent 1 080 Purple 2 081 Light purple 3 084 Purple lines Culm: underlying node colour (7.3.29) The underlying colour of the outer surface of the nodes on the culm, ignoring any anthocyanin colouration. Stage: after flowering to near maturity (IRRI) 0 0 No underlying colour visible due to anthocyanin 1 041 Light gold 2 060 Green Flag leaf: attitude (late observation) (7.3.34) (Cultivated species) Observed near the collar. Angle of attachment between the flag leaf blade and the main panicle axis. Record the average of five samples. Stage: maturity 1 Erect 3 Semi-erect 5 Horizontal 7 Descending Stigma: colour (7.4.2) Observed at anthesis (between 0900 and 1400) using a hand lens (IRRI) 1 010 White 2 061 Light green 3 030 Yellow 4 081 Light purple 5 080 Purple Lemma: colour of apiculus (early observation) (7.4.6) Stage: cultivated species after anthesis to hard dough stage (pre-ripening stage); wild species at anthesis (IRRI) 1 010 White 2 020 Straw 3 052 Brown (tawny) 4 060 Green 5 070 Red 6 071 Red apex 7 080 Purple 8 087 Purple apex 9 100 Black Awns: distribution (7.4.9) (Cultivated species) The presence and distribution of awns along the panicle. Stage: flowering to maturity 0 None (awnless) 1 Tip only 2 Upper quarter only 3 Upper half only 4 Upper three-quarters only 5 Whole length Panicle: length [cm] (7.4.18) (Wild species) Length of main axis of panicle measured from the panicle base to the tip. Record the average of five representative plants. Stage: seven days after anthesis or upon full panicle exsertion Panicle: attitude of main axis (7.4.19) Stage: near maturity 1 Upright 2 Semi-upright 3 Slightly drooping 4 Strongly drooping Panicle: attitude of branches (7.4.20) The compactness of the panicle, classified according to its mode of branching, angle of primary branches, and spikelet density. Stage: cultivated species near maturity; wild species seven days after anthesis 1 Erect (compact panicle) 3 Semi-erect (semi-compact panicle) 5 Spreading (open panicle) 7 Horizontal 9 Drooping Panicle: exsertion (7.4.22) Extent to which the panicle is exserted above the flag leaf sheath. Stage: near maturity 1 Enclosed (panicle is partly or entirely enclosed within the leaf sheath of the flag leaf blade) 3 Partly exserted (panicle base is slightly beneath the collar of the flag leaf blade) 5 Just exserted (panicle base coincides with the collar of the flag leaf blade) 7 Moderately well exserted (panicle base is above the collar of the flag leaf blade) 9 Well exserted (panicle base appears well above the collar of the flag leaf blade) Lemma and palea: pubescence (7.5.4) Visual assessment of the presence and distribution of mature grains using a hand lens 1 Glabrous 2 Hairs on lemma keel 3 Hairs on upper portion 4 Short hairs 5 Long hairs (velvety) Sterile lemma: length [mm] (7.5.10) Record the average length of five spikelets. For spikelets with symmetrical sterile lemmas (i.e. sterile length the same on both sides), record the length here. For spikelets with asymmetrical sterile lemmas (i.e. sterile lemma on one side longer than that on the other), record here only the length of the shorter sterile lemma (see 7.5.11 for the longer sterile lemma). May be coded as: 3 Short 5 Medium 7 Long 9 Extra long Longer sterile lemma: length [mm] (7.5.11) (Only for spikelets with asymmetrical sterile lemmas) Record the average length of the longer sterile lemma on five spikelets. May be coded as: 3 Short 5 Medium 7 Long 9 Extra long Sterile lemma: colour (7.5.13) Observe five representative plants (IRRI) 1 020 Straw 2 040 Gold 3 070 Red 4 080 Purple Caryopsis: length [mm] (7.5.20) Caryopsis: shape (7.5.22) 1 Round 2 Semi-round 3 Half spindle-shaped 4 Spindle-shaped 5 Long spindle-shaped Caryopsis: pericarp colour (7.5.23) (IRRI) 1 010 White 2 051 Light brown 3 055 Speckled brown 4 050 Brown 5 070 Red 6 088 Variable purple 7 080 Purple Caryopsis: scent (8.1.2) From cooked kernel. Use freshly harvested grain. A molecular marker for fragrance is described in Section 12.3, Fragrance of ‘Descriptors for wild and cultivated Rice (Oryza spp.)’ 0 Non-scented 1 Lightly scented 2 Scented Endosperm amylose content [%] (8.1.3) Amylose content of all cultivars of low amylose and many of intermediate amylose is sensitive to high temperatures during grain-filling. Molecular markers for classifying amylose are listed in Section 12.1, Amylose content of ‘Descriptors for wild and cultivated Rice (Oryza spp.)’ 0 Waxy-glutinous (<3) 1 Very low (~9) 3 Low (~17) 5 Intermediate (~20) 7 High (~23) 9 Very high (>25) Phenotypic acceptability [IS-10] (8.1.a) Breeding objectives for each location vary. The score should reflect the overall acceptability of the variety in the location where it is being grown. Stage: maturity 1 Excellent 3 Good 5 Fair 7 Poor 9 Unacceptable ABIOTIC STRESSES Cold [IS-75] (9.1) Heat [IS-76] (9.2) Drought [IS-80] (9.3) Alkali injury and salt injury [IS-70-71] (9.4) Flood or submergence [IS-86] (9.8) BIOTIC STRESSES Leaf blast (Magnaporthe grisea) [IS-30] (10.1.1) Brown spot (Cochliobolus miyabeanus) [IS-32] (10.1.3) Bacterial leaf streak (Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzicola) [IS-33] (10.1.5) Bacterial blight (Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae) [IS-35] (10.1.7) Sheath blight (Thanatephorus cucumeris) [IS-37] (10.2.6) Rice tungro bacilliform virus (RTBV) [IS-36] (10.2.a) Brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens) [IS-60] (10.3.1) Stem borer (Chilo suppressalis) [IS-63] (10.3.5) CONTRIBUTORS CORE ADVISORY GROUP Edilberto D. Redoña, International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Philippines Teresita H. Borromeo, University of the Philippines Los Baños, Philippines Cesar P. Martinez, Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Colombia Khin Than Nwe, Department of Agricultural Research, Myanmar Luis Salaices, Oficina Española de Variedades Vegetales, Spain N. Shobha Rani, Directorate of Rice Research, India Shengxiang Tang, China National Rice Research Institute, China REVIEWERS Australia Laurie Lewin, NSW Department of Primary Industries Bangladesh A. K. G. Md. Enamul Haque, Bangladesh Rice Research Institute Czech Republic Iva Faberova, Crop Research Institute, Prague India Narasimha Murthi Anishetty Manish Kumar Pandey, Directorate of Rice Research S. R. Pandravada, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) J. C. Rana, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) Natarajan Sivaraj, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) Indonesia Afif Nafisah, Indonesian Center for Rice Research Untung Susanto, Indonesian Center for Rice Research Madagascar Alain Ramanantsoanirina, Centre National de la Recherche Applique au Développement Rurale (FOFIFA/CENRADERU) Malaysia Site Noorzuraini Binti Abd Rahman, Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI) Abdullah Md Zain, University Malaysia Terengganu Philippines Ma. Socorro R. Almazan, International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) Noel A. Catibog, Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development (PCARRD) Thelma F. Padolina, Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) Renato A. Reaño, Genetic Resources Center, International Rice Research Institute (TTC-GRC, IRRI) Republic of Korea Myung Chul Lee, National Agrodiversity Center Sae-Jun Yang, National Institute of Crop Science (RDA) Russia Olga Romanova, N. I. Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry (VIR) Thailand Orapin Watanesk, Bureau of Rice Research and Development Vietnam Nguyen Thi Lang, Cuulong Delta Rice Research Institute Methodology for the definition of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] Information collection and preparation of the Minimum Descriptor List (MDL) Information for the definition of a Minimum Descriptor List for sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] was drawn from the publication ‘Descriptors for Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]’ (IBPGR and ICRISAT, 1993). The list was compared with descriptors highlighted as most important in the SGRP Global Public Goods, Phase 2 (GPG2) activity 4.2.1.1. A summary report on SGRP GPG2 data received can be found in Annex I. Results were subsequently integrated and harmonized with descriptors suggested in the ‘Guidelines for the Conduct of Tests for Distinctness, Homogeneity and Stability’ on Sorghum bicolor (L.) (International Union for the Protection of new Varieties of Plants, UPOV, 1989); the list of Descriptors for SORGHUM (USDA, ARS, GRIN); ‘Characterization of ICRISAT-bred Sorghum Hybrid Parents’ (Set I) (International Sorghum and Millets Newsletter, No. 47, Special issue, ICRISAT 2006). The list was then weighed against the ‘Revised Descriptors for Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]’ (IPGRI and ICRISAT, 2007), that was developed by a Committee formed at the Expert Consultation Meeting for Developing a Strategy for the Global Conservation of Sorghum Genetic Resources, held at ICRISAT, Patancheru, India March 2007, supported by the Global Crop Diversity Trust and ICRISAT. The comparison table obtained from all of the above documents and publications was further discussed during a crop-specific meeting held at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), in India in June 2009. During this meeting, a minimum and a long list were selected, the latter serving as a basis for the revision of the conventional list of sorghum descriptors. The resulting list of descriptors was also compared with the list of traits provided by the National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences (NIAS) (see Annex II). Preparation of the List of Experts Experts included in the list were some of the participants in crop-specific consultations for the definition of the ‘Strategy for the Global Ex Situ Conservation of Sorghum Genetic Diversity (the Trust, 2007), representatives of the world’s major sorghum collections, plant pathologists and breeders, besides experts that took part in the crop-specific consultation held in NBPGR, India. Overall, 74 experts were identified, coming from 24 countries and 45 different organizations (see Annex III). Out of these, Dr Jeff Dahlberg (United Sorghum Checkoff Program, USA) was identified as Crop Leader and a Core Advisory Group (CAG) consisting of 12 experts was selected to assist in the definition of a minimum set of descriptors, which was subsequently circulated for validation among a wider group of experts. Survey preparation and distribution The comparison table was submitted to members of the Core Advisory Group to assist them in the selection of a preliminary reduced set of traits. Dr Jeff Dahlberg, Crop Leader, selected traits to be included in the conventional long list and identified the key traits for the minimum set, while the selection of Dr Robert Henzell (Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries, Australia), a member of the CAG, focused only on the importance of traits for breeders. Feedback from NBPGR was also taken into consideration while harmonizing the list to be included in the survey. The aim of the survey was twofold: (i) to define a key set of descriptors for the utilization of sorghum genetic resources and (ii) to revise/validate the conventional list, as originally requested by Dr Dahlberg and Dr Henzell. In order to achieve this result, the survey was divided in two parts. The first part consisted of defining an ‘Initial minimum key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors important for utilization’ that focused mainly on the essential key traits. The second part included ‘Other descriptors important for describing, discriminating and utilizing sorghum genetic resources’ which would be included in the revised version of the updated conventional list, but not preventing the inclusion of some of them in the high priority list, provided they were well rated. A list of descriptors, drawn from the comparison table to be included in the survey was submitted to the experts and subsequently endorsed by them (see Annex IV). A draft survey on sorghum was prepared listing the descriptors validated by the experts. Once approved, the final draft of the survey was uploaded into the SurveyMonkey application (see Annex V) on the internet and sent out to the list of identified experts on 21 September 2009. The survey deadline was set at 23 October 2009. A first reminder was sent out on the 6 October 2009 and a second one on 19 October 2009 to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained. Survey analysis and refinement of the Minimum List Out of the 74 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 39 from 15 countries and 26 organizations participated in this exercise (see Annex VI). Of the 39 respondents, 36 recorded their comments using the online survey whilst three additional experts participated during the second phase providing their advice on the survey outcomes. Results from the consultation were analyzed and descriptors were ranked by rating average and percentage of importance (see Annex VII). Descriptors having a wide consensus amongst experts were highlighted in yellow. These summary results of the survey were sent to the Core Advisory Group inviting experts to select descriptors that should be included in the key set by indicating them with an ‘X’ in the relevant column. Other descriptors, such as ‘Race (1.5.5)’ and ‘Group name (1.5.6)’ that belong to Passport data, had been added to the key set because considered extremely important for understanding the type of material and making relevant selections. After lengthy discussions concerning the definition of descriptors’ names, methods and states chosen for the minimum priority set for sorghum, a first draft was compiled and shared with the Core Advisory Group for their approval on 11 March 2010 (see Annex VIII). The list resulting from these consultations was shared with all of the scientists (see Annex IX). They were asked to validate the key set, making them aware about the need to select traits and characteristics of a cosmopolitan nature and wide geographical coverage. Further comments received from ICRISAT were included and harmonized wherever possible with the final version. Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya (ICRISAT, India) was added as Crop Leader due to the substantial scientific advice provided. Unfortunately, advice provided by Dr M. Elangovan of the Directorate of Sorghum Research (formerly National Research Centre for Sorghum), India could not be implemented during this first phase because consultations were already closed, but they will be included in a second round. Before implementing any change/addition/deletion to the agreed list (i.e. including new sizes, new colours, etc.), the list should be shared with the whole community, led by the Crop Leaders, to reach the right consensus amongst countries in order to obtain ‘international’ status. This exercise is therefore just the first step of an evolving process, so there will be opportunities in the near future to implement further additions, after they have been widely agreed. Definition of a final key set of descriptors for sorghum The final document approved by the whole group of experts, including all the descriptor states and contributors (see Annex X), was edited and proofread by an external editor and afterwards laid out and sent to the Bioversity Publications Unit for on-line publication processes. Additionally, the publication was shared with ECPGR; the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base partners. Furthermore, data were converted into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN-Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA, and into the global accession level information portal (GENESYS), linking national, regional and international genebank databases in support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also provided to the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) and to EURISCO. Acknowledgement Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for sorghum genetic resources’, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial support. Particular recognition goes to Drs Jeff Dahlberg, Bob Henzell and Hari D. Upadhyaya for providing valuable scientific direction. Annex I – Summary report on sorghum data from the SGRP Global Public Goods, Phase 2 (GPG2) exercise 4.2.1.1 Within the framework of Component 1 of the GIGA Project (‘Development of characterization and evaluation data standards for 22 target crops’), data provided by Hari D. Upadhyaya (ICRISAT, India) on sorghum, resulting from the GPG2 4.2.1.1 exercise, was analyzed to identify a key set of descriptors for this crop. The following factors will be considered when selecting key traits: 1. Global impact 2. Initial strategic set 3. Importance for germplasm utilization 4. Data availability 5. True economic damage 6. Wide geographical occurrence Data received from ICRISAT were compared to the descriptors list for sorghum, drawn from ‘Descriptors for Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench.]’ (IBPGR/ICRISAT, 1993). Unfortunately, no important descriptors were mentioned in the ‘Strategy for the global Ex-situ conservation of Sorghum genetic diversity’ (the Trust, 2007), to be able to perform a comparison. The list was ultimately composed of the descriptors highlighted as most important on a 1-5 scale by ICRISAT (where 1 = most important). Diagnostic traits (1), breeding traits (3) and diagnostic/breeding traits (5) were included. Numbers in parentheses on the right hand side are the original descriptor numbers drawn from the publication ‘Descriptors for Sorghum’ (IBPGR/ICRISAT, 1993). 1. Plant height (5) (4.1.1) 2. Plant colour (1) (4.1.2) 3. Waxy bloom (1) (4.1.6) 4. Days to flowering (5) (4.2.1) 5. Inflorescence compactness and shape (5) (4.2.2) 6. Grain covering (1) (4.2.4) 7. Seed colour (5) (4.3.1) 8. Grain lustre (5) (4.3.2) 9. 100-seed weight (5) (4.3.3) 10. Grain number per panicle (5) (4.3.4) 11. Grain sub-coat (1) (4.3.5) 12. Endosperm texture (1) (4.3.8) 13. Inflorescence exsertion (5) (6.2.4) 14. Inflorescence length [cm] (5) (6.2.5) 15. Inflorescence width [cm] (5) (6.2.6) 16. Seed threshability [%] (3) (6.3.2) 17. Sorghum shoot fly (3) (8.1.1) 18. Spotted stem borer (3) (8.1.2) 19. Sorghum midge (3) (8.1.5) 20. Earhead bug (3) (8.1.6) 21. Sugarcane aphid (3) (8.1.13) 22. Anthracnose (8.2.3) 23. Grain moulds (3) (8.2.4) 24. Leaf blight (3) (8.2.5) 25. Downy mildew (3) (8.2.11) 26. Rust (3) (8.2.13) 27. Ergot (3) (8.2.15) 28. Striga (3) (8.5.1) Remarks: From the documents received: 1. Some descriptors are not rated (e.g. stalk juiciness, juice flavour, awns, shattering, quality traits and abiotic stresses). 2. No reply was received to questions 3a and 3b respectively “Are the above (1-28) descriptors adequate?”; “If not, list the additional descriptors for characterization”. 3. No answer was provided to question 4 “List the 15 most important descriptors for characterization and evaluation (based on their value in research and breeding), in order of preference, which includes existing descriptors along with suggested new descriptors. (If you wish list can be shorter or exceed 15)”. 4. No answer was received to question 5 “What are the specific breeding traits (grain quality, agronomic, biotic and abiotic traits) for which evaluation was done and to how many accessions?”. 5. There is no indication on whether data are available for these traits. Annex II – Comparison table weighing up important descriptors for sorghum drawn from different sources1 2 Descr. no. Descriptor name IBPGR/ ICRISAT 1993 (a) UPOV (1989) (b) ARS_U SDA (c) GPG2 (most imp =1) (d) ICRISAT DUS 2006 (e) Breeding traits (GPG2) (d) NBPGR (f) Dahlberg Henzell NIAS Genebank (g) 4.1.1 Plant height [cm] * * * * * B B B 4.1.2 Plant colour * * * L B B 4.1.3 Stalk juiciness * * B L B 4.1.4 Juice flavour * B L 4.1.5 Leaf midrib colour * * * * B B B 4.1.6 Waxy bloom * * * L B 4.2.1 Days to 50% flowering * * * B B B * 4.2.2 Inflorescence compactness and shape * * * * * B B B * 4.2.3 Glume colour * * * * B B B 4.2.4 Grain covering * * * B B B * 4.2.5 Awns * * L B 4.2.6 Shattering * * L B B 4.3.1 Grain colour * * * * * B B B * 4.3.2 Grain lustre * * L L 4.3.3 1000-seed weight [g] * * B L B 4.3.5 Pigmented testa (Grain sub-coat) * * EXCL B 4.3.6 Grain plumpness * * L L B 4.3.7 Grain form * * L B B 4.3.8 Endosperm texture * * * L B B 4.3.9 Endosperm colour * * L B B 4.3.10 Endosperm type * * L B B 6.1.1 Seedling vigour * * L L 6.1.2 Lodging susceptibility * * Exclude: not a genetic trait B B 6.1.3 Senescence rating * B L B-This is a very important trait - make sure it is clear that this is a post- anthesis drought resistance trait see 6.1.5 in Jeff's descriptor table RGH 6.2.1 Photosensitivity * * L L B 6.2.2 Number of flowering stems per plant * EXCL L 6.2.3 Synchrony of flowering * EXCL L L 6.2.4 Inflorescence exsertion * * * L B B 6.2.5 Inflorescence length [cm] * * * B B B * 6.2.6 Inflorescence width (head) [cm] * * B L B 6.2.7 Restoration response (Milo source) * L L B 6.2.8 Male sterile cytoplasm system * L L 6.3.1 Grain hardness [kg] * EXCL L 6.3.2 Threshability [%] * * L L B 6.3.3 Grain weathering susceptibility * * ?? L Low heritabili ty 7.1 Reaction to low temperature * * L L B 7.2 Reaction to high temperature * * L L B 7.3 Reaction to drought * * B L B 7.4 Reaction to high soil moisture * L L 7.5 Reaction to salinity * * L L B 7.6 Reaction to soil acidity * * L L B 8.1.1 Sorghum shoot fly (Atherigona soccata) * * * B L B 8.1.2 Spotted stem borer (Chilo partellus) * * * B L B 8.1.3 Maize stalk borer (Busseola fusca) * B L L Pink Stem Borer (Sesamia inferens) * L L L Pink Borer (Africa) (Sesamia calamistis) * L L L 8.1.4 Sugarcane borer, Stem borer (Diatraea saccharalis) * L L L Lesser Cornstalk Borer (Elasmopalpus lignosellus) L L 8.1.5 Sorghum midge (Stenodiplosis sorghicola) * * * B L B 8.1.6 Earhead bug (Calocoris angustatus; Eurystylus immaculatus) * * L L 8.1.7 Corn earworm (Heliothis zea) * EXCLUD E L 8.1.8 African bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) * EXCLUD E L 8.1.9 Armyworms (Spodoptera spp.) * * (FAW) ? L 8.1.10 Oriental armyworms (Mythimna separata) * ? L 8.1.11 Greenbug (Schizaphis graminum) * * ? L B Shoot Bug (Peregrinus maidis) (Ashmead) L L Spittel Bug (Poophilus costalis) L L Sap-sucking Bug (Dolycoris indicus) L L 8.1.12 Corn leaf aphid (Rhopalosiphum maidis) * EXCLUD E L 8.1.13 White sugarcane aphid (Melanaphis sacchari) * * * L L 8.1.14 Chinch bug (Blissus leucopterus) * L L 8.1.15 White grubs (Phyllophaga crinita; Schizonycha spp., Holotrichia spp.) * EXCL L 8.1.16 Sorghum web worm (Nola sorghella) * L L Earhead web worm (Nola analis; Cryptoblabes gnidiella) L L 8.1.17 Web worm (Stenachroia elongella; Eublemma spp.) * EXCL L 8.1.18 Sorghum mite (Oligonychus indicus) * EXCL L 8.1.19 Banks grass mite (Oligonychus pratensis) * L L 8.1.20 Grasshopper (Oedaleus senegalensis) * EXCL L 8.1.21 Locusts (Locusta migratoria) * EXCL L 8.1.22 Birds * EXCL L Cutworms L L Wireworms L L Southern corn rootworm (Diabrotica undecimpuncta) L L 8.2.1 Rough leaf spot (Ascochyta sorghi) * L L 8.2.2 Grey leaf spot (Cercospora sorghi) * * L L B Ladder leaf spot (Cercospora fusimaculans) B L B 8.2.3 Anthracnose (Colletotrichum graminicola) * * * * B L B 8.2.4 Grain moulds (Curvularia lunata; Fusarium spp.) * * * B L B 8.2.5 Leaf blight (Exserohilum turcicum; Setosphaeria turcica; Helminthosporium turcicum) * * * B L B 8.2.6 Target leaf spot (Bipolaris sorghicola) * EXCL L 8.2.7 Oval leaf spot (Ramulispora sorghicola) * EXCL L 8.2.8 Tar spot (Phyllachora sacchari) * EXCL L 8.2.9 Zonate leaf spot (Gloeocercospora sorghi) * * L L B 8.2.10 Charcoal rot (Macrophomina phaseolina) * * B L B Fusarium root and stalk rot, Head blight (Fusarium spp.) L L B 8.2.11 Downy mildew (Peronosclerospora sorghi) * * * * B L B 8.2.12 Black dot grain mould (Phoma insidiosa) * EXCL L 8.2.13 Rust (Puccinia purpurea) * * * L L B 8.2.14 Sooty stripe (Ramulispora sorghi) * EXCL L 8.2.15 Ergot (Sphacelia sorghi, Claviceps africana) * * * L L B 8.2.16 Smut (Sphacelotheca spp.) * L L 8.2.19 Long smut (Tolyposporium ehrenbergii, Sporisorium cruentum) * L L 8.3.1 Bacterial leaf stripe (Pseudomonas andropogoni) (E.F.Sm.) Stapp. * L L B 8.3.2 Bacterial leaf spot (Pseudomonas syringae) * L L B 8.3.3 Bacterial leaf streak (Xanthomonas campestris) * L L B 8.4.1 Maize dwarf mosaic virus (MDMV) * EXCL L 8.4.2 Sugarcane mosaic virus (SCMV) * * EXCL L 8.4.3 Johnsongrass mosaic virus (JsGMV) * EXCL L 8.4.4 Maize stripe virus (MStV) * EXCL L 8.4.5 Maize mosaic virus (MMV) * EXCL L 8.5.1 Witchweed (Striga asiatica; Striga densiflora; Striga hermonthica) * * * Imp x Africa L Sorghum yellow banding virus (SYBV) * EXCL L Number of basal tillers per plant * EXCL B * Glume pubescence * L B Grain shape * B L B Mesocarp thickness * EXCL B Nodal tiller * EXCL L Pericarp colour (red, white and lemon yellow) * B Spreader * EXCL B Maturity group (early, medium, late) * EXCL L Grain yield potential * * (grain yeild) EXCL B B Grain nutrient content (fat, phosphorous, starch, sucrose, dry matter) * EXCL L Aluminum toxicity * EXCL L Manganese toxicity * EXCL L Fodder yield * L L Desirability Rating EXCL B B Intensifier gene EXCL L Coleoptile color EXCL L Peduncle breakage EXCL L Pollen shed EXCL L B Red-headed Hairy Caterpillar (Amsacta albistriga) L L Flea Beetle (Several species, Chrysomelidae) L L Grey Leaf Weevil (Myllocerus subfasciatus) L L Sugarcane Rootstock Weevil (Anacentrinus deplanatus) L L Blister Beetle (Calocoris angustatus) L L Bacterial Leaf Blight (Acidovorax avenae) L L Bacterial top and Stalk rot (Erwinia chrysanthemi) L L Yellow Leaf Blotch (Pseudomonas sp.) L L Seedling Diseases (Various genus: Pythium spp., Fusarium spp., Aspergillus spp., Rhizoctonia spp., Phoma spp.) L L Crazy Top (Sclerophthora macrospora) L L Pokkah Boeng (Gibberella intermedia) L L Milo Disease (Periconia circinata) (L. Mangin) Sacc. L L Pythium Root Rot (Pythium spp.) L L Acremonium Wilt (Acremonium strictum) L L Banded Leaf and Sheath Blight (Rhizoctonia solani) Kühn L L Southern Sclerotial Rot (Sclerotium rolfsii) Sacc. L L Storage moulds (Several Genus: Aspergillus spp., Penicillium spp., Alternaria spp., Fusarium spp.) L L Maize chlorotic dwarf virus (MCDV) L L Sorghum chlorotic spot virus (SgCSV) L L Peanut clump virus (PCV) L L Sorghum stunt mosaic virus (SSMV) L L Maize rough dwarf virus (MRDV) L L Mal de Rio Cuarto virus (MRCV) L L Fiji disease virus (FDV) L L Maize streak virus (MSV) L L Yellow Sorghum Stunt (YSS) L L Stunt Nematodes (Tylenchorhynchus spp.) L L Root-Lesion Nematodes (Pratylenchus spp.) L L Root-Knot Nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.) L L Culm length * Grain weight per panicle * Panicle type * Date of maturity * Diameter of culm * Leaf length * Leaf width * 1 (a) ‘Descriptors for Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]’ (IBPGR and ICRISAT, 1993); (b) ‘Guidelines for the Conduct of Tests for Distinctness, Homogeneity and Stability’ on Sorghum bicolor (L.) (International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, UPOV, 1989); (c) ‘Descriptors for SORGHUM’ (USDA-ARS-GRIN); (d) Descriptors highlighted as most important in the GPG2 4.2.1.1 exercise and breeding traits; (e) ‘Characterization of ICRISAT-bred Sorghum Hybrid Parents’ (Set I) (International Sorghum and Millets Newsletter, No. 47, Special issue, ICRISAT 2006); (f) A minimum and a long list selected during a crop specific meeting held at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), in India in June 2009; (g) Traits provided by the National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences (NIAS), Japan. 2 L = Long list; B= Both lists (Minimum and Long); and EXCL = exclude from both lists. Annex III - List of experts identified to participate in the survey for the definition of a minimum set of descriptors for sorghum Role Name Organization Country Crop Leader (Crop Strategy Expert) Dahlberg, Jeff United Sorghum Checkoff Program (USCP) USA CAG (Crop Strategy Expert) Chantereau, Jacques CIRAD France CAG (UPOV) Guiard, Joël GEVES France CAG (Suggested at ontology workshop) Hash, C. Tom ICRISAT India CAG (Crop Strategy Expert) Henzell, R.G. Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries Australia CAG Khairwal, I.S. AICPMIP India CAG (Bioversity) Mathur, Prem Bioversity International, Office for South Asia India CAG (Suggested by Jeff ahlberg/Added later) Miller, Fred MMR Genetics USA CAG (Crop Strategy Expert) Pederson, Gary A. ARS/USDA USA CAG/NBPGR Prandavada S.R. NBPGR India CAG (Crop Strategy Expert) Seetharam, A. Emeritus Scientist, AICRP on Small millets, Bangalore India CAG (Crop Strategy Expert) Seetharama, N. Directorate of Sorghum Research (formerly National Research Centre for Sorghum) India CAG (Crop Strategy Expert) Updadhyaya, Hari D. ICRISAT India Syngenta Foundation, Sorghum Breeder Aboubacar, Touré Institut d'Economie Rurale (IER) Bamako Mali Major collections Aragón Cuevas, Flavio INIFAP - Banco de Germoplasma de Oaxaca Mexico New Aruna, C. National Research Centre for Sorghum (NRCS) India Syngenta Foundation finger millet survey Adugna, Asfaw Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) Ethiopia NBPGR meeting Ashok, Kumar NBPGR India Crop Strategy Expert Atoyebi, J. National Centre for Genetic Resources and Biotechnology Nigeria Syngenta Foundation Bandyopadhyay, Ranajit IITA Nigeria Crop Strategy Expert Beyene, M. Institute of Biodiversity Conservation Ethiopia Crop Strategy Expert Borikar, S.T. Marathwada Agricultural University India Syngenta Foundation Borrell, Andrew Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries Australia Sorghum breeding Intsormil Coulibaly, S.B. Institut d'Economie Rurale (IER) Mali Syngenta Foundation Ebiyau, Johnie SAARI Uganda Crop Strategy Expert/Forwarded to Awdelkarim El Tahir, I.M. Agricultural Research Corporation Sudan Plant pathologist (specialized in sorghum) Erpelding, John E. ARS/USDA USA Major collections Franzone, Pascual INTA Argentina Syngenta Foundation Glaszmann, Jean- Christophe CIRAD France Crop Strategy Expert Gowda, C.L.L. ICRISAT India Revised descriptors Grenier, Cecile Purdue University USA Syngenta Foundation finger millet survey Habindavyi, Espérance Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Burundi Burundi Syngenta Foundation Hamid, Adam M. Ali Sudan Ag Res & Tech Corp Sudan Syngenta Foundation Jordan, David DPI&F Australia NBPGR meeting Jyoti, Kaul Directorate of Maize Research India Crop Strategy Expert Kamatar, M.Y. Sorghum Improvement Project - University of Agricultural Sciences India McKnight Foundation Collaborative Crop Research Program Kapran, Issoufou INRAN Niger Major collections Kawase, Makoto National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences Japan NIAS website Kazutoshi Okuno NIAS genebanK Japan Syngenta Foundation Kwame Offei, Sam University of Ghana Ghana Syngenta Foundation Li, Yu Institute of Crop Sciences (CAAS) China Suggested by Marilia Burle/Added later Lira, Mário de Andrade Instituto Agronômico de Pernambuco (IPA) Brazil Syngenta Foundation Magalhaes, Jurandir EMBRAPA Brazil Suggested by Marilia Burle/Added later Martins Netto, Déa Alécia EMBRAPA Brazil NBPGR meeting Mishra, S.K. NBPGR India Major collections/ Forwarded to Romanova Mitrofanova, Olga P. N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry (VIR) Russian Federation Syngenta Foundation Muller, Neil Pacific Seeds, Advanta Seeds Australia Reviewer Muthamia, Zachary K. National Genebank of Kenya (KARI) Kenya Syngenta Foundation Muuka, Ferdinand Zambia ARS Zambia Syngenta Foundation Ochanda, James BECA, ILRI Kenya Syngenta Foundation Senior Scientist, pearl millet survey Parzies, Heiko K. University of Hohenheim, Inst. of Plant Breeding Germany Sorghum & Millet Crop Germplams Committee Pedersen, Jeff ARS/USDA USA Crop Strategy Expert Ping, Lu Institute of Crop Sciences (CAAS) China Major collections Ramirez, Dolores, A. Institute of Plant Breeding/ULPB Philippines SRG Rao, Kameswara International Center for Biosaline Agriculture (ICBA) India Syngenta Foundation Collaborative Crop Research programme (website) Rattunde, Fred ICRISAT Mali Crop Strategy Expert Reddy, Belum ICRISAT India Crop Strategy Expert Reddy, M. Thimma ICRISAT India Crop Strategy Expert Rosenow, Darrell Texas Agricultural Experiment Station USA NBPGR meeting Sain, Dass Directorate of Maize Research India Syngenta Foundation Schaffert, Robert EMBRAPA Brazil Suggested by H. Knüpffer Schmidt, Barbel IPK, Gatersleben - Genebank Dept Germany Crop Strategy Expert Sharma, H.C. ICRISAT India Crop Strategy Expert Sharma, S.K. NBPGR India EVIGEZ Information system Stehno, Zdenek Crop Research Institute (CRI) Dept Gene Bank Czech Republic Syngenta Foundation Sorghum and Millet research coordinator, finger millet survey Tadesse, Taye Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research Ethiopia Reviewer (NBPGR meeting) Tara Satyavathi, C. Indian Agricultural Research Institute India Crop Strategy Expert Thakur, R.P. ICRISAT India Reviewer (NBPGR meeting) Unnikrishnan, K.V. Indian Agricultural Research Institute India Crop Strategy Expert Vadez, V. ICRISAT India Crop Strategy Expert Wang, Shumin Institute of Crop Sciences (CAAS) China Syngenta Foundation Wanyera, Nelson SAARI Uganda Crop Strategy Expert Weltzien, Eva ICRISAT India Syngenta Foundation Program Director CRSP Yohe, John M. Int Sorghum/millet program USA Annex IV – List of descriptors, drawn from the comparison table, to be included in the survey, approved by the experts after consultations (bold face= to be included in the first section; normal face= to be included in the second section) 1. Plant height [cm] 4.1.1 2. Plant colour 4.1.2 3. Stalk juiciness 4.1.3 4. Juice flavour 4.1.4 5. Leaf midrib colour 4.1.5 6. Waxy bloom 4.1.6 7. Number of basal tillers per plant 8. Nodal tillering 9. Grain yield 10. Fodder yield 11. Desirability rating (total plant) 12. Days to 50% flowering 4.2.1 13. Inflorescence compactness and shape 4.2.2 14. Glume colour 4.2.3 15. Grain covering 4.2.4 16. Awns 4.2.5 17. Glume pubescence 18. Shattering 4.2.6 19. Grain colour 4.3.1 20. Grain luster 4.3.2 21. Seed shape 22. 100-seed weight [g] 4.3.3 23. Genotypic pericarp colour 24. Pigmented testa (Grain sub-coat) 4.3.5 25. Grain plumpness 4.3.6 26. Intensifier gene 27. Grain form 4.3.7 28. Mesocarp thickness 29. Endosperm texture 4.3.8 30. Endosperm colour 4.3.9 31. Absence/presence of spreader gene 32. Endosperm type 4.3.10 33. Coleoptile color 34. Seedling vigour 6.1.1 35. Lodging susceptibility 6.1.2 36. Senescence rating 6.1.3 37. Peduncle breakage 38. Photosensitivity 6.2.1 39. Number of flowering stems per plant 6.2.2 40. Pollen shed 41. Synchrony of flowering 6.2.3 42. Inflorescence exsertion 6.2.4 43. Inflorescence length [cm] 6.2.5 44. Inflorescence width (head) [cm] 6.2.6 45. Restoration response (Milo source) 6.2.7 46. Male sterile cytoplasm system 6.2.8 47. Grain hardness [kg] 6.3.1 48. Threshability [%] 6.3.2 49. Grain weathering susceptibility 6.3.3 50. Grain Nutrient content (fat, phosphorous, starch, sucrose, dry matter) 51. Mineral toxicity (Aluminium, Manganese) 52. Reaction to low temperature 7.1 53. Reaction to high temperature 7.2 54. Reaction to drought 7.3 55. Reaction to high soil moisture 7.4 56. Reaction to salinity 7.5 57. Reaction to soil acidity 7.6 58. Sorghum shoot fly (Atherigona soccata) 8.1.1 59. Spotted stem borer (Chilo partellus) 8.1.2 60. Maize stalk borer (Busseola fusca) 8.1.3 61. Pink Stem Borer (Sesamia inferens) 62. Pink Borer (Africa) (Sesamia calamistis) 63. Sugarcane borer, Stem borer (Diatraea saccharalis) 8.1.4 64. Lesser Cornstalk Borer (Elasmopalpus lignosellus) 65. Sorghum midge (Stenodiplosis sorghicola) 8.1.5 66. Earhead bug (Calocoris angustatus) 8.1.6 67. African head bug Eurystylus immaculatus) 68. Corn earworm (Heliothis zea) 8.1.7 69. African bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) 8.1.8 70. Armyworms (Spodoptera spp.) 8.1.9 71. Oriental armyworms (Mythimna separata) 8.1.10 72. Greenbug (Schizaphis graminum) 8.1.11 73. Shoot Bug (Peregrinus maidis) 74. Spittel Bug (Poophilus costalis) 75. Sap-sucking Bug (Dolycoris indicus) 76. Corn leaf aphid (Rhopalosiphum maidis) 8.1.12 77. White sugarcane aphid (Melanaphis sacchari) 8.1.13 78. Chinch bug (Blissus leucopterus) 8.1.14 79. White grubs (Phyllophaga crinita; Schizonycha spp., Holotrichia spp.) 8.1.15 80. Sorghum web worm (Nola sorghella) 8.1.16 81. Earhead web worm (Nola analis; Cryptoblabes gnidiella) 82. Web worm (Stenachroia elongella; Eublemma spp.) 8.1.17 83. Sorghum mite (Oligonychus indicus) 8.1.18 84. Banks grass mite (Oligonychus pratensis) 8.1.19 85. Grasshopper (Oedaleus senegalensis) 8.1.20 86. Locusts (Locusta migratoria) 8.1.21 87. Birds 8.1.22 88. Red-headed Hairy Caterpillar (Amsacta albistriga) 89. Flea Beetle 90. Grey Leaf Weevil (Myllocerus subfasciatus) 91. Sugarcane Rootstock Weevil (Anacentrinus deplanatus) 92. Cutworms 93. Wireworms 94. Southern corn rootworm (Diabrotica undecimpuncta) 95. Rough leaf spot (Ascochyta sorghi) 8.2.1 96. Grey leaf spot (Cercospora sorghi) 8.2.2 97. Ladder leaf spot (Cercospora fusimaculans) 98. Anthracnose (Colletotrichum graminicola) 8.2.3 99. Grain molds (Curvularia lunata; Fusarium spp.) 8.2.4 100. Leaf blight (Exserohilum turcicum; Setosphaeria turcica; 8.2.5 Helminthosporium turcicum) 101. Target leaf spot (Bipolaris sorghicola) 8.2.6 102. Oval leaf spot (Ramulispora sorghicola) 8.2.7 103. Tar spot (Phyllachora sacchari) 8.2.8 104. Zonate leaf spot (Gloeocercospora sorghi) 8.2.9 105. Charcoal rot (Macrophomina phaseolina) 8.2.10 106. Fusarium root and stalk rot; Head blight (Fusarium spp.) 107. Pokkah Boeng (Gibberella intermedia) 108. Downy mildew (Peronosclerospora sorghi) 8.2.11 109. Crazy Top (Sclerophthora macrospora) 110. Black dot grain mold (Phoma insidiosa) 8.2.12 111. Rust (Puccinia purpurea) 8.2.13 112. Sooty stripe (Ramulispora sorghi) 8.2.14 113. Ergot (Sphacelia sorghi, Claviceps africana) 8.2.15 114. Smut (Sphacelotheca spp.) 8.2.16 115. Long smut (Tolyposporium ehrenbergii, Sporisorium cruentum) 8.2.19 116. Pythium Root rot (Pythium spp.) 117. Southern sclerotial rot (Sclerotium rolfsii) 118. Banded Leaf and Sheath Blight (Rhizoctonia solani) 119. Acremonium Wilt (Acremonium strictum) 120. Milo Disease (Periconia circinata) 121. Bacterial leaf stripe (Pseudomonas andropogoni) 8.3.1 122. Bacterial leaf spot (Pseudomonas syringae) 8.3.2 123. Yellow leaf blotch (Pseudomonas sp.) 124. Bacterial leaf streak (Xanthomonas campestris) 8.3.3 125. Bacterial leaf blight (Acidovorax avenae) 126. Bacterial top and stalk rot (Erwinia chrysanthemi) 127. Maize dwarf mosaic virus (MDMV) 8.4.1 128. Sugarcane mosaic virus (SCMV) 8.4.2 129. Johnsongrass mosaic virus (JsGMV) 8.4.3 130. Maize stripe virus (MStV) 8.4.4 131. Maize mosaic virus (MMV) 8.4.5 132. Maize rough dwarf virus (MRDV) 133. Maize chlorotic dwarf virus (MCDV) 134. Maize streak virus (MSV) 135. Sorghum chlorotic spot virus (SgCSV) 136. Peanut clump virus (PCV) 137. Sorghum stunt mosaic virus (SSMV) 138. Mal de Rio Cuarto virus (MRCV) 139. Fiji disease virus (FDV) 140. Yellow Sorghum Stunt (YSS) 141. Sorghum yellow banding virus (SYBV) 142. Witchweed (Striga asiatica; Striga densiflora; Striga hermonthica) 8.5.1 143. Stunt nematode (Tylenchorhynchus spp.) 144. Root-lesion nematode (Pratylenchus spp.) 145. Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.) Annex V – Survey to choose a key set of descriptors for sorghum utilization WELCOME Welcome to the survey for the selection of a minimum set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for sorghum to support an international information system to enhance the utilization of germplasm held in genebanks. Your knowledge and experience are being sought to select this initial minimum ‘key set of descriptors’ to identify traits important to crop production and to facilitate their use by researchers. This set will be made available through a global portal for identifying sets of accessions for evaluation and use. Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 23 October 2009. This initial minimum list of descriptors should be relevant to describing, and especially utilizing germplasm. It is hoped that a priority set of data, available for most ex situ conserved material, will allow a better comparability between genebanks which should facilitate the identification of interesting material and an increased use of conserved material. This survey also allows you to indicate other descriptors considered important for describing and discriminating between accessions. This survey consists of two parts: - PART I: Initial minimum key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors important for sorghum utilization - PART II: Other traits important for describing, discriminating and utilizing sorghum genetic resources We thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in selecting the set of descriptors. * Please allow us to acknowledge your contribution by completing your full contact details below: Name: Position: Organization: Country: Email: PART I: Initial minimum key set of C&E descriptors important for sorghum utilization This initial key set has been defined following advice from NBPGR scientists and further refined by Jeff Dhalberg and Bob Henzell. Please select these traits in order of importance bearing in mind the following factors: • Importance for germplasm utilization • Initial strategic set • Global impact • Data availability • For abiotic and biotic stresses, true economic damage and wide geographical occurrence *Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in the IBPGR/ICRISAT publication ‘Descriptors for Sorghum’ [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench], 1993. Very important Important Not important Plant height [cm] (4.1.1) Plant colour (4.1.2) Leaf midrib colour (4.1.5) Grain yield Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) Inflorescence compactness and shape (4.2.2) Glume colour (4.2.3) Grain covering (4.2.4) Shattering (4.2.6) Grain colour (4.3.1) 100-seed weight [g] (4.3.3) Endosperm texture (4.3.8) Lodging susceptibility (6.1.2) Inflorescence exsertion (6.2.4) Inflorescence length [cm] (6.2.5) Reaction to drought (7.3) Sorghum shoot fly (Atherigona soccata) (8.1.1) Spotted stem borer (Chilo partellus) (8.1.2) Sorghum midge (Stenodiplosis sorghicola) (8.1.5) White sugarcane aphid (Melanaphis sacchari) (8.1.13) Anthracnose (Colletotrichum graminicola) (8.2.3) Grain molds (Curvularia lunata; Fusarium spp.) (8.2.4) Charcoal rot (Macrophomina phaseolina) (8.2.10) Downy mildew (Peronosclerospora sorghi) (8.2.11) n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n PART II: Other traits important for describing, discriminating and utilizing sorghum genetic resources Please rate these characteristics and traits in order of importance in describing, discriminating and utilizing sorghum accessions. By selecting descriptors here you are contributing to the next revision of the Characterization and Evaluation categories of the conventional sorghum list of descriptors. Very important Important Not Important Stalk juiciness (4.1.3) Juice flavour (4.1.4) Waxy bloom (4.1.6) Number of basal tillers per plant Nodal tillering Fodder yield Desirability rating (total plant) Awns (4.2.5) Glume pubescence Grain lustre (4.3.2) Seed shape Genotypic pericarp colour Pigmented testa (Grain sub-coat) (4.3.5) Grain plumpness (4.3.6) Intensifier gene Grain form (4.3.7) Mesocarp thickness Endosperm colour (4.3.9) Absence/presence of spreader gene Endosperm type (4.3.10) Coleoptile color Seedling vigour (6.1.1) Senescence rating (6.1.3) Peduncle breakage Photosensitivity (6.2.1) Number of flowering stems per plant (6.2.2) Pollen shed Synchrony of flowering (6.2.3) Inflorescence width (head) [cm] (6.2.6) Restoration response (Milo source) (6.2.7) Male sterile cytoplasm system (6.2.8) n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n Grain hardness [kg] (6.3.1) Threshability [%] (6.3.2) Grain weathering susceptibility (6.3.3) Grain Nutrient content (fat, phosphorous, starch, sucrose, dry matter) Mineral toxicity (Aluminium, Manganese) Reaction to low temperature (7.1) Reaction to high temperature (7.2) Reaction to high soil moisture (7.4) Reaction to salinity (7.5) Reaction to soil acidity (7.6) Maize stalk borer (Busseola fusca) (8.1.3) Pink stem borer (Sesamia inferens) Pink borer (Africa) (Sesamia calamistis) Sugarcane borer, Stem borer (Diatraea saccharalis) (8.1.4) Lesser cornstalk borer (Elasmopalpus lignosellus) Earhead bug (Calocoris angustatus) (8.1.6) African head bug (Eurystylus immaculatus) Corn earworm (Heliothis zea) (8.1.7) African bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) (8.1.8) Armyworms (Spodoptera spp.) (8.1.9) Oriental armyworms (Mythimna separata) (8.1.10) Greenbug (Schizaphis graminum) (8.1.11) Shoot bug (Peregrinus maidis) Spittel bug (Poophilus costalis) Sap-sucking bug (Dolycoris indicus) Corn leaf aphid (Rhopalosiphum maidis) (8.1.12) Chinch bug (Blissus leucopterus) (8.1.14) White grubs (Phyllophaga crinita; Schizonycha spp., Holotrichia spp.) (8.1.15) Sorghum web worm (Nola sorghella) (8.1.16) Earhead web worm (Nola analis; Cryptoblabes gnidiella) Web worm (Stenachroia elongella; Eublemma spp.) (8.1.17) Sorghum mite (Oligonychus indicus) (8.1.18) Banks' grass mite (Oligonychus pratensis) (8.1.19) Grasshopper (Oedaleus senegalensis) (8.1.20) Locusts (Locusta migratoria) (8.1.21) Birds (8.1.22) Red-headed hairy caterpillar (Amsacta albistriga) Flea beetle Grey leaf weevil (Myllocerus subfasciatus) n n n n  n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n  n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n  n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n  n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n  n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n  n n n n n n n n n n n Sugarcane rootstock weevil (Anacentrinus deplanatus) Cutworms Wireworms Southern corn rootworm (Diabrotica undecimpuncta) Rough leaf spot (Ascochyta sorghi) (8.2.1) Grey leaf spot (Cercospora sorghi) (8.2.2) Ladder leaf spot (Cercospora fusimaculans) Leaf blight (Exserohilum turcicum; Setosphaeria turcica; Helminthosporium turcicum) (8.2.5) Target leaf spot (Bipolaris sorghicola) (8.2.6) Oval leaf spot (Ramulispora sorghicola) (8.2.7) Tar spot (Phyllachora sacchari) (8.2.8) Zonate leaf spot (Gloeocercospora sorghi) (8.2.9) Fusarium root and stalk rot; Head blight (Fusarium spp.) Pokkah boeng (Gibberella intermedia) Crazy top (Sclerophthora macrospora) Black dot grain mold (Phoma insidiosa) (8.2.12) Rust (Puccinia purpurea) (8.2.13) Sooty stripe (Ramulispora sorghi) (8.2.14) Ergot (Sphacelia sorghi, Claviceps africana) (8.2.15) Smut (Sphacelotheca spp.) (8.2.16) Long smut (Tolyposporium ehrenbergii, Sporisorium cruentum) (8.2.19) Pythium root rot (Pythium spp.) Southern sclerotial rot (Sclerotium rolfsii) Banded leaf and sheath blight (Rhizoctonia solani) Acremonium wilt (Acremonium strictum) Milo disease (Periconia circinata) Bacterial leaf stripe (Pseudomonas andropogoni) (8.3.1) Bacterial leaf spot (Pseudomonas syringae) (8.3.2) Yellow leaf blotch (Pseudomonas sp.) Bacterial leaf streak (Xanthomonas campestris) (8.3.3) Bacterial leaf blight (Acidovorax avenae) Bacterial top and stalk rot (Erwinia chrysanthemi) Maize dwarf mosaic virus (MDMV) (8.4.1) Sugarcane mosaic virus (SCMV) (8.4.2) Johnsongrass mosaic virus (JsGMV) (8.4.3) Maize stripe virus (MStV) (8.4.4) Maize mosaic virus (MMV) (8.4.5) Maize rough dwarf virus (MRDV) Maize chlorotic dwarf virus (MCDV) n n n n n n n n  n n n n n n n n n n n n n  n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n  n n n n n n n n n n n n n  n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n  n n n n n n n n n n n n n  n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n  Maize streak virus (MSV) Sorghum chlorotic spot virus (SgCSV) Peanut clump virus (PCV) Sorghum stunt mosaic virus (SSMV) Mal de Rio Cuarto virus (MRCV) Fiji disease virus (FDV) Yellow Sorghum stunt (YSS) Sorghum yellow banding virus (SYBV) Witchweed (Striga asiatica; Striga densiflora; Striga hermonthica) (8.5.1) Stunt nematode (Tylenchorhynchus spp.) Root-lesion nematode (Pratylenchus spp.) Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.) n n If you consider that an important characteristic for describing or discriminating among accessions is missing from this list, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION.  If you consider that an essential trait important for crop improvement and production is missing from this list, or, if any of the descriptors listed is not clearly useful to promote utilization, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. NOTE: Please remember, this list is the starting point and will grow over time, as required. Annex VI – List of respondents to the survey Role Name Position Organization Country Crop Leader Dahlberg, Jeff Research Director United Sorghum Checkoff Program USA Crop Leader Upadhyaya, Hari D. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) India CAG Guiard, Joël Directeur adjoint Groupe d'Etude et de contrôle des Variétés et des Semences (GEVES) France CAG Hash, C. Tom International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) India CAG Henzell, R.G. Sorghum plant breeder (retired) Queensland Department of Primary Industries Australia CAG Lira, Mario Instituto Agronômico de Pernambuco (IPA) Brazil CAG Mathur, Prem Bioversity International India CAG Miller, Frederick R. Research Director/ Senior Breeder MMR Genetics USA CAG Pandravada, S.R. Senior Scientist National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), Regional Station, Hyderabad India CAG Pederson, Gary A. Research Leader United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA, ARS), Plant Genetic Resources Conservation Unit USA CAG Seetharam, A. Emeritus Scientist Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) India CAG Seetharama, N. Director Directorate of Sorghum Research (formerly National Research Centre for Sorghum) India Reviewer Adugna, Asfaw Researcher/pl ant breeder Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) Ethiopia Reviewer Ashok, Kumar Principal Scientist National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) India Reviewer Awadelkarim, A. Ahmed Researcher Agricultural Research Cooperation Sudan Reviewer Bandyopadhyay, Ranajit Plant pathologist International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Nigeria Reviewer Borikar, S.T. Director of Research (Retd.) Marathwada Agricultural University India Reviewer Coulibaly, Sidi Bekaye Sorghum breeder Institut d'Economie Rurale Mali Reviewer Elangovan, M. Senior Scientist Directorate of Sorghum Research (DSR) India Reviewer Erpelding, John Research Geneticist United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA, ARS) USA Reviewer Habindavyi, Espérance Researcher/Br eeder Institute of Agricultural Research - Burundi (ISABU) Burundi Reviewer Jordan, David Principal Plant Breeder Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries Australia Reviewer Kawase, Makoto National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences (NIAS) Japan Reviewer Magalhaes, Jurandir Embrapa Maize and Sorghum Brazil Reviewer Okuizumi, Hisato Chief researcher National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences (NIAS) Japan Reviewer Parzies, Heiko K. Research Officer University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart Germany Reviewer Pedersen, Jeff Research Geneticist United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA, ARS) USA Reviewer Ping, Lu Institute of Crop Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS) China P.R. Reviewer Rao, N. Kameswara Scientist International Center for Biosaline Agriculture UAE Reviewer Reddy, Belum V.S. Principal Scientist International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) India Reviewer Reddy, Gopal, V. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) India Reviewer Satyavathi, Tara Senior Scientist Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) India Reviewer Sharma, H.C. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) India Reviewer Sharma, Shivali International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) India Reviewer Schmidt, Baerbel Curator for Vegetables Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK), Gatersleben Germany Reviewer Stehno, Zdenek Head of genebank Crop Research Institute Czech Republic Reviewer Tadesse, Taye National Sorghum Research Coordinator Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) Ethiopia Reviewer Thakur, R.P. Principal Scientist (Cereals Path) International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) India Reviewer Vadez, Vincent Principal Scientist International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) India Annex VII – List of descriptors proposed in the survey ranked by rating average and percentage of importance, sent to the Core Advisory Group for their selection in order to choose an initial key set of sorghum descriptorsi Part 1. Key set descriptors for sorghum Answered questions= 32 Skipped questions= 1 Survey results Your selection Rating Average Very important Important Not important Response Count Race (1.5.5) Group name (1.5.6) Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) 5.63 87.5% (28) 12.5% (4) 0% (0) 32 Plant height [cm] (4.1.1) 5.44 81.3% (26) 18.8% (6) 0% (0) 32 Grain yield 5.32 77.4% (24) 22.6% (7) 0% (0) 31 Grain colour (4.3.1) 5.16 71.9% (23) 28.1% (9) 0% (0) 32 100-seed weight [g] (4.3.3) 5.03 67.7% (21) 32.3% (10) 0% (0) 31 Reaction to drought (7.3) 4.97 71.9% (23) 21.9% (7) 6.3% (2) 32 Inflorescence compactness and shape (4.2.2) 4.69 59.4% (19) 37.5% (12) 3.1% (1) 32 Shattering (4.2.6) 4.6 56.7% (17) 40.0% (12) 3.3% (1) 30 Inflorescence length [cm] (6.2.5) 4.45 51.6% (16) 45.2% (14) 3.2% (1) 31 Sorghum shoot fly (Atherigona soccata) (8.1.1) 4.35 51.6% (16) 41.9% (13) 6.5% (2) 31 Grain moulds (Curvularia lunata; Fusarium spp.) (8.2.4) 4.26 48.4% (15) 45.2% (14) 6.5% (2) 31 Lodging susceptibility (6.1.2) 4.16 45.2% (14) 48.4% (15) 6.5% (2) 31 Spotted stem borer (Chilo partellus) (8.1.2) 4.1 46.7% (14) 43.3% (13) 10.0% (3) 30 Anthracnose (Colletotrichum graminicola) (8.2.3) 4.06 45.2% (14) 45.2% (14) 9.7% (3) 31 Endosperm texture (4.3.8) 3.87 38.7% (12) 51.6% (16) 9.7% (3) 31 Inflorescence exsertion (6.2.4) 3.87 38.7% (12) 51.6% (16) 9.7% (3) 31 Grain covering (4.2.4) 3.77 38.7% (12) 48.4% (15) 12.9% (4) 31 Sorghum midge (Stenodiplosis sorghicola) (8.1.5) 3.77 32.3% (10) 61.3% (19) 6.5% (2) 31 Downy mildew (Peronosclerospora sorghi) (8.2.11) 3.58 25.8% (8) 67.7% (21) 6.5% (2) 31 Charcoal rot (Macrophomina phaseolina) (8.2.10) 3.3 20.0% (6) 70.0% (21) 10.0% (3) 30 Leaf midrib colour (4.1.5) 3.19 18.8% (6) 68.8% (22) 12.5% (4) 32 Glume colour (4.2.3) 3 21.9% (7) 56.3% (18) 21.9% (7) 32 White sugarcane aphid (Melanaphis sacchari) (8.1.13) 3 19.4% (6) 61.3% (19) 19.4% (6) 31 Plant colour (4.1.2) 2.63 9.4% (3) 68.8% (22) 21.9% (7) 32 Part 2. Other traits important for describing and utilizing sorghum Answered question= 29 Skipped question= 4 Survey results Your selection Rating Average Very important Important Not Important Response Count Photosensitivity (6.2.1) 5.35 82.1% (23) 14.3% (4) 3.6% (1) 28 Fodder yield 4.93 71.4% (20) 21.4% (6) 7.1% (2) 28 Stalk juiciness (4.1.3) 4.71 57.1% (16) 42.9% (12) 0% (0) 28 Male sterile cytoplasm system (6.2.8) 4.67 66.7% (18) 22.2% (6) 11.1% (3) 27 Synchrony of flowering (6.2.3) 4.50 57.7% (15) 34.6% (9) 7.7% (2) 26 Restoration response (Milo source) (6.2.7) 4.11 55.6% (15) 25.9% (7) 18.5% (5) 27 Desirability rating (total plant) 4.00 51.9% (14) 29.6% (8) 18.5% (5) 27 Threshability [%] (6.3.2) 4.00 40.7% (11) 51.9% (14) 7.4% (2) 27 Reaction to high temperature (7.2) 4.00 48.1% (13) 37.0% (10) 14.8% (4) 27 Endosperm type (4.3.10) 3.92 42.3% (11) 46.2% (12) 11.5% (3) 26 Seedling vigour (6.1.1) 3.92 53.8% (14) 23.1% (6) 23.1% (6) 26 Genotypic pericarp colour 3.86 42.9% (12) 42.9% (12) 14.3% (4) 28 Grain Nutrient content (fat, phosphorous, starch, sucrose, dry matter) 3.69 34.6% (9) 53.8% (14) 11.5% (3) 26 Reaction to low temperature (7.1) 3.69 46.2% (12) 30.8% (8) 23.1% (6) 26 Senescence rating (6.1.3) 3.67 40.7% (11) 40.7% (11) 18.5% (5) 27 Grain hardness [kg] (6.3.1) 3.67 37.0% (10) 48.1% (13) 14.8% (4) 27 Pigmented testa (Grain sub-coat) (4.3.5) 3.64 39.3% (11) 42.9% (12) 17.9% (5) 28 Grain weathering susceptibility (6.3.3) 3.58 34.6% (9) 50.0% (13) 15.4% (4) 26 Seed shape 3.54 28.6% (8) 60.7% (17) 10.7% (3) 28 Pollen shed 3.48 40.0% (10) 36.0% (9) 24.0% (6) 25 Grain form (4.3.7) 3.44 33.3% (9) 48.1% (13) 18.5% (5) 27 Endosperm colour (4.3.9) 3.44 40.7% (11) 33.3% (9) 25.9% (7) 27 Grain plumpness (4.3.6) 3.43 28.6% (8) 57.1% (16) 14.3% (4) 28 Mineral toxicity (Aluminium, Manganese) 3.43 32.1% (9) 50.0% (14) 18.5% (5) 28 Leaf blight (Exserohilum turcicum; Setosphaeria turcica; Helminthosporium turcicum) (8.2.5) 3.38 29.2% (7) 54.2% (13) 16.7% (4) 24 Ergot (Sphacelia sorghi; Claviceps africana) (8.2.15) 3.38 29.2% (7) 54.2% (13) 16.7% (4) 24 Birds (8.1.22) 3.36 44.0% (11) 24.0% (6) 32.0% (8) 25 Number of basal tillers per plant 3.32 32.1% (9) 46.4% (13) 21.4% (6) 28 Grain lustre (4.3.2) 3.32 25.0% (7) 60.7% (17) 14.3% (4) 28 Rust (Puccinia purpurea) (8.2.13) 3.26 30.4% (7) 47.8% (11) 21.7% (5) 23 Witchweed (Striga asiatica; Striga densiflora; Striga hermonthica) (8.5.1) 3.13 37.5% (9) 29.2% (7) 33.3% (8) 24 Reaction to salinity (7.5) 3.11 29.6% (8) 44.4% (12) 25.9% (7) 27 Number of flowering stems per plant (6.2.2) 3.00 24.0% (6) 52.0% (13) 24.0% (6) 25 Reaction to soil acidity (7.6) 3.00 25.9% (7) 48.1% (13) 25.9% (7) 27 Smut (Sphacelotheca spp.) (8.2.16) 3.00 25.0% (6) 50.0% (12) 25.0% (6) 24 Inflorescence width (head) [cm] (6.2.6) 2.88 26.9% (7) 12.3% (11) 30.8% (8) 26 Grey leaf spot (Cercospora sorghi) (8.2.2) 2.87 21.7% (5) 52.2% (12) 26.1% (6) 23 Awns (4.2.5) 2.79 27.6% (8) 37.9% (11) 34.5% (10) 29 Long smut (Tolyposporium ehrenbergii, Sporisorium cruentum) (8.2.19) 2.75 20.8% (5) 50.0% (12) 29.2% (7) 24 Corn leaf aphid (Rhopalosiphum maidis) (8.1.12) 2.74 26.1% (6) 39.1% (9) 34.8% (8) 23 Maize stripe virus (MStV) (8.4.4) 2.74 34.8% (8) 21.7% (5) 43.5% (10) 23 Intensifier gene 2.65 11.5% (3) 65.4% (17) 23.1% (6) 26 Fusarium root and stalk rot; Head blight (Fusarium spp.) 2.63 25.0% (6) 37.5% (9) 37.5% (9) 24 Greenbug (Schizaphis graminum) (8.1.11) 2.61 30.4% (7) 26.1% (6) 43.5% (10) 23 Peduncle breakage 2.54 15.4% (4) 53.8% (14) 30.8% (8) 26 Reaction to high soil moisture (7.4) 2.52 20.0% (5) 44.0% (11) 36.0% (9) 25 Zonate leaf spot (Gloeocercospora sorghi) (8.2.9) 2.48 17.4% (4) 47.8% (11) 34.8% (8) 23 Waxy bloom (4.1.6) 2.46 14.3% (4) 53.6% (15) 32.1% (9) 28 Mesocarp thickness 2.42 19.2% (5) 42.3% (11) 38.5% (10) 26 Absence/presence of spreader gene 2.42 15.4% (4) 50.0% (13) 34.6% (9) 26 Earhead bug (Calocoris angustatus) (8.1.6) 2.35 21.7% (5) 34.8% (8) 43.5% (10) 23 Maize dwarf mosaic virus (MDMV) (8.4.1) 2.35 17.4% (4) 43.5% (10) 39.1% (9) 23 Black dot grain mold (Phoma insidiosa) (8.2.12) 2.32 22.7% (5) 31.8% (7) 45.5% (10) 22 Shoot bug (Peregrinus maidis) 2.25 16.7% (4) 41.7% (10) 41.7% (10) 24 Sugarcane mosaic virus (SCMV) (8.4.2) 2.25 12.5% (3) 50.0% (12) 37.5% (9) 24 Sooty stripe (Ramulispora sorghi) (8.2.14) 2.22 17.4% (4) 39.1% (9) 43.5% (10) 23 Bacterial leaf stripe (Pseudomonas andropogoni) (8.3.1) 2.22 17.4% (4) 39.1% (9) 43.5% (10) 23 Maize stalk borer (Busseola fusca) (8.1.3) 2.19 15.4% (4) 42.3% (11) 42.3% (11) 26 Nodal tillering 2.14 14.3% (4) 42.9% (12) 42.9% (12) 28 Banded leaf and sheath blight (Rhizoctonia solani) 2.09 17.4% (4) 34.8% (8) 47.8% (11) 23 Maize mosaic virus (MMV) (8.4.5) 2.09 17.4% (4) 34.8% (8) 47.8% (11) 23 African head bug (Eurystylus immaculatus) 2.05 18.2% (4) 31.8% (7) 50.0% (11) 22 Glume pubescence 2.04 10.7% (3) 46.4% (13) 42.9% (12) 28 Sugarcane borer, Stem borer (Diatraea saccharalis) (8.1.4) 2.00 16.7% (4) 33.3% (8) 50.0% (12) 24 Armyworms (Spodoptera spp.) (8.1.9) 1.96 13.0% (3) 39.1% (9) 47.8% (11) 23 Bacterial leaf spot (Pseudomonas syringae) (8.3.2) 1.96 21.7% (5) 21.7% (5) 56.5% (13) 23 Pink borer (Africa) (Sesamia calamistis) 1.92 16.0% (4) 32.0% (8) 52.0% (13) 25 Coleoptile colour 1.88 12.5% (3) 37.5% (9) 50.0% (12) 24 Pink stem borer (Sesamia inferens) 1.88 12.5% (3) 37.5% (9) 50.0% (12) 24 African bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) (8.1.7) 1.83 13.0% (3) 34.8% (8) 52.2% (12) 23 Sorghum mite (Oligonychus indicus) (8.1.18) 1.83 21.7% (5) 17.4% (4) 60.9% (14) 23 Rough leaf spot (Ascochyta sorghi) (8.2.1) 1.83 8.7% (2) 43.5% (10) 47.8% (11) 23 Pythium root rot (Pythium spp.) 1.83 8.7% (2) 43.5% (10) 47.8% (11) 23 Juice flavour (4.1.4) 1.82 10.7% (3) 39.3% (11) 50.0% (14) 28 Ladder leaf spot (Cercospora fusimaculans) 1.77 18.2% (4) 22.7% (5) 59.1% (13) 22 Bacterial leaf streak (Xanthomonas campestris) (8.3.3) 1.75 12.5% (3) 33.3% (8) 54.2% (13) 24 Bacterial leaf blight (Acidovorax avenae) 1.75 12.5% (3) 33.3% (8) 54.2% (13) 24 Corn earworm (Heliothis zea) (8.1.8) 1.70 8.7% (2) 39.1% (9) 52.2% (12) 23 Target leaf spot (Bipolaris sorghicola) (8.2.6) 1.70 8.7% (2) 39.1% (9) 52.2% (12) 23 Chinch bug (Blissus leucopterus) (8.1.14) 1.64 13.6% (3) 27.3% (6) 59.1% (13) 22 Locusts (Locusta migratoria) (8.1.21) 1.63 12.5% (3) 29.2% (7) 58.3% (14) 24 Web worm (Stenachroia elongella; Eublemma spp.) (8.1.17) 1.57 13.0% (3) 26.1% (6) 60.9% (14) 23 Acremonium wilt (Acremonium strictum) 1.57 8.7% (2) 34.8% (8) 56.5% (13) 23 Sorghum chlorotic spot virus (SgCSV) 1.57 17.4% (4) 17.4% (4) 65.2% (15) 23 Stunt nematode (Tylenchorhynchus spp.) 1.57 8.7% (2) 34.8% (8) 56.5% (13) 23 White grubs (Phyllophaga crinita; Schizonycha spp., Holotrichia spp.) (8.1.15) 1.50 9.1% (2) 31.8% (7) 59.1% (13) 22 Cutworms 1.50 12.5% (3) 25.0% (6) 62.5% (15) 24 Maize chlorotic dwarf virus (MCDV) 1.50 13.6% (3) 22.7% (5) 63.6% (14) 22 Sorghum stunt mosaic virus (SSMV) 1.50 13.6% (3) 22.7% (5) 63.6% (14) 22 Oriental armyworms (Mythimna separata) (8.1.10) 1.43 8.7% (2) 30.4% (7) 60.9% (14) 23 Sorghum web worm (Nola sorghella) (8.1.16) 1.43 8.7% (2) 30.4% (7) 60.9% (14) 23 Earhead web worm (Nola analis; Cryptoblabes gnidiella) 1.43 8.7% (2) 30.4% (7) 60.9% (14) 23 Oval leaf spot (Ramulispora sorghicola) (8.2.7) 1.43 8.7% (2) 30.4% (7) 60.9% (14) 23 Pokkah boeng (Gibberella intermedia) 1.43 4.3% (1) 39.1% (9) 56.5% (13) 23 Crazy top (Sclerophthora macrospora) 1.43 8.7% (2) 30.4% (7) 60.9% (14) 23 Southern sclerotial rot (Sclerotium rolfsii) 1.43 8.7% (2) 30.4% (7) 60.9% (14) 23 Milo disease (Periconia circinata) 1.43 8.7% (2) 30.4% (7) 60.9% (14) 23 Yellow leaf blotch (Pseudomonas sp.) 1.43 13.0% (3) 21.7% (5) 65.2% (15) 23 Johnsongrass mosaic virus (JsGMV) (8.4.3) 1.43 4.3% (1) 39.1% (9) 56.5% (13) 23 Root-lesion nematode (Pratylenchus spp.) 1.43 8.7% (2) 30.4% (7) 60.9% (14) 23 Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.) 1.43 8.7% (2) 30.4% (7) 60.9% (14) 23 Lesser cornstalk borer (Elasmopalpus lignosellus) 1.38 12.5% (3) 20.8% (5) 66.7% (16) 24 Flea beetle 1.36 9.1% (2) 27.3% (6) 63.6% (14) 22 Maize streak virus (MSV) 1.36 13.6% (3) 18.2% (4) 68.2% (15) 22 Sorghum yellow banding virus (SYBV) 1.36 9.1% (2) 27.3% (6) 63.6% (14) 22 Spittel bug (Poophilus costalis) 1.30 8.7% (2) 26.1% (6) 65.2% (15) 23 Sap-sucking bug (Dolycoris indicus) 1.30 13.0% (3) 17.4% (4) 69.6% (16) 23 Banks grass mite (Oligonychus pratensis) (8.1.19) 1.30 8.7% (2) 26.1% (6) 65.2% (15) 23 Grey leaf weevil (Myllocerus subfasciatus) 1.30 13.0% (3) 17.4% (4) 69.6% (16) 23 Sugarcane rootstock weevil (Anacentrinus deplanatus) 1.30 8.7% (2) 26.1% (6) 65.2% (15) 23 Wireworms 1.30 8.7% (2) 26.1% (6) 65.2% (15) 23 Red-headed hairy caterpillar (Amsacta albistriga) 1.25 8.3% (2) 25.0% (6) 66.7% (16) 24 Southern corn rootworm (Diabrotica undecimpuncta) 1.23 13.6% (3) 13.6% (3) 72.7% (16) 22 Grasshopper (Oedaleus senegalensis) (8.1.20) 1.17 8.7% (2) 21.7% (5) 69.6% (16) 23 Tar spot (Phyllachora sacchari) (8.2.8) 1.17 4.3% (1) 30.4% (7) 65.2% (15) 23 Bacterial top and stalk rot (Erwinia chrysanthemi) 1.17 8.7% (2) 21.7% (5) 69.6% (16) 23 Maize rough dwarf virus (MRDV) 1.17 8.7% (2) 21.7% (5) 69.6% (16) 23 Yellow sorghum stunt (YSS) 1.17 8.7% (2) 21.7% (5) 69.6% (16) 23 Peanut clump virus (PCV) 1.04 4.3% (1) 26.1% (6) 69.6% (16) 23 Fiji disease virus (FDV) 0.82 4.5% (1) 17.4% (4) 77.3% (17) 22 Mal de Rio Cuarto virus (MRCV) 0.78 4.3% (1) 18.2% (4) 78.3% (18) 23 i Descriptors highlighted in yellow are those that received a wide consensus amongst the experts. Annex VIII – First draft for the minimum priority set of descriptors for sorghum submitted to the CAG Key set of descriptors PLANT DATA Race (1.5.5) Group name (1.5.6) Plant height [cm] (4.1.1) Stalk juiciness (4.1.3) Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) Planting date [YYYYMMDD] Flowering behaviour Inflorescence compactness and shape (4.2.2) Grain covering (4.2.4) Shattering (4.2.6) Grain yield Fodder yield Desirability rating (total plant) Grain colour (4.3.1) Genotypic pericarp colour 100-seed weight [g] (4.3.3) Pigmented testa (Grain sub-coat) (4.3.5) Endosperm texture (4.3.8) Pollen shed Seedling vigour (6.1.1) Lodging susceptibility (6.1.2) Senescence rating (6.1.3) Photosensitivity (6.2.1) Inflorescence exertion (6.2.4) Inflorescence length [cm] (6.2.5) Restoration response (Milo source) (6.2.7) Male sterile cytoplasm system (6.2.8) ABIOTIC STRESSES Reaction to low temperature (7.1) Pollen susceptibility Seedling susceptibility Reproductive susceptibility Reaction to drought (7.3) Pre-anthesis drought reaction Post-anthesis drought reaction (stay-green ability) BIOTIC STRESSES Sorghum shoot fly (Atherigona soccata) (8.1.1) Spotted stem borer (Chilo partellus) (8.1.2) Sorghum midge (Stenodiplosis sorghicola) (8.1.5) Anthracnose (Colletotrichum graminicola) (8.2.3) Grain moulds (Curvularia lunata; Fusarium spp.) (8.2.4) Annex IX – First draft of the key access and utilization descriptors for sorghum Key access and utilization descriptors for sorghum genetic resources This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for sorghum genetic resources utilization. This strategic set of descriptors, together with passport data, will become the basis for the global accession level information portal being developed by Bioversity International with the financial support of the Global Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust). It will facilitate access to and utilization of sorghum accessions held in genebanks and does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently become available. Based on the comprehensive list ‘Descriptors for Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]’ published by ICRISAT and IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1993, the list was subsequently compared with a number of sources such as ‘UPOV technical guidelines for Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.)’ (1989); ‘Descriptors for SORGHUM’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN); ‘Characterization of ICRISAT-Bred Sorghum Hybrid Parents (Set I)’1 (ICRISAT, 2006); as well as the list of traits provided by National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences (NIAS). The initial list also builds on the results of the SGRP Global Public Goods Activity 4.2.1.1 led by Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya (ICRISAT), particularly with regard to those descriptors highlighted as having the most important diagnostic and breeding traits and also to the Descriptors Draft for Sorghum, as revised by a Committee formed at the Expert Consultation Meeting for Developing a Strategy for the Global Conservation of Sorghum Genetic Resources held at ICRISAT in 2007. The initial list was further refined during a crop-specific consultation meeting held at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR, India) in June 2009. A worldwide distribution of experts was involved in an online survey to define a first priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize sorghum genetic resources. This key set was afterwards validated by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr Jeff Dahlberg of the United Sorghum Checkoff Program, and included leading sorghum organizations such as ICRISAT, NBPGR, USDA and the Directorate of Sorghum Research (formerly National Research Centre for Sorghum), amongst others. Biotic and abiotic stresses included in the list were chosen because of their wide geographic occurrence and significant economic impact at a global level. Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptor numbers listed in the 1993 publication. Descriptors with numbers ending in ‘letters’ are either modified or are new descriptors that were added during the development of the list below. 1 International Sorghum and Millets Newsletter, No. 47, Special issue Race and Group name (1.5.5/6) (As per Dahlberg, 2000) 1 Bicolor 10 Bicolor 11 Dochna 12 Nervosum 13 Nervosum-kaoliang 14 Nervosum-broomcorn 15 Sudanense 2 Guinea 20 Guineense 21 Conspicuum 22 Margaritiferum 23 Roxburghii 3 Caudatum 30 Caudatum 31 Caudatum-nigricans 32 Nigricans 33 Sumac 34 Nigricans-feterita 35 Dobbs 36 Caudatum-kaura 37 Zerazera 4 Kafir 40 Caffrorum 5 Durra 50 Durra 51 Nandyal 52 Cernuum 6 Guinea-bicolor 60 Guinea-bicolor 61 Dochna-honey 62 Dochna-roxburghii 7 Caudatum-bicolor 70 Caudatum-bicolor 71 Caudatum-dochna 72 Nigricans-bicolor 73 Dochna-nigricans 8 Kafir-bicolor 80 Bicolor-kafir 81 Caffrorum-bicolor 82 Dochna-kafir 9 Durra-bicolor 90 Durra-bicolor 91 Dochna-durra 92 Durra-dochna 93 Subglabrescens 94 Subglabrescens-milo 95 Milo-kaura 10 Guinea-caudatum 100 Caudatum-guineense 101 Nigricans-guineense 11 Guinea-kafir 110 Caffrorum-roxburghii 111 Roxburghii-shallu 12 Guinea-durra 120 Durra-roxburghii 121 Membraneceum 122 Durra-membranaceum 13 Kafir-caudatum 130 Caudatum-kafir 131 Caffrorum-birdproof 132 Caffrorum-darso 133 Caffrorum-feterita 14 Durra-caudatum 140 Caudatum-durra 141 Nigricans-durra 142 Durra-nigricans 143 Durra-feterita/Kaura 15 Kafir-durra 150 Durra-kafir 151 Caffrorum-durra 16 Perennial wild 160 S. halepense 161 S. propinquum 17 Annual wild 170 S. bicolor subsp. drummondii 18 S. bicolor subsp. verticilliforum 180 verticilliforum 181 arundinaceum 182 virgatum 183 aethiopicum 19 Unclassified 20 Breeding material 200 Unclassified 21 Mixed Plant height [cm] (4.1.1) From ground (base of plant) to tip of panicle at 50% flowering. Mean of 10 randomly selected plants Stalk juiciness (4.1.3) 0 Not juicy 1 Slightly juicy 3 Juicy Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) From planting date to when 50% of the plants have started flowering Planting date [YYYYMMDD] (5.4) When planting is done (if moisture is sufficient) or when irrigation is done after planting Flowering behaviour If grown under long days 0 Absent 3 Early 7 Late Inflorescence compactness and shape (4.2.2) 1 Very lax panicle (typical of wild sorghums) 2 Very loose erect primary branches 3 Very loose drooping primary branches 4 Loose erect primary branches 5 Loose drooping primary branches 6 Semi-loose erect primary branches 7 Semi-loose drooping primary branches 8 Semi-compact elliptic 9 Semi-compact rectangular 10 Compact elliptic 11 Compact oval 12 Half broom corn 13 Broomcorn 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Grain covering (4.2.4) Amount of grain covered by glumes at maturity. Involuted grain is found when the grain has completely twisted inside of the glumes and is fully exposed, such as in the race Guinea 1 25% grain covered 2 50% grain covered 3 75% grain covered 4 Grain fully covered 5 Glumes longer than grain 6 Involuted Shattering (4.2.6) Observed at maturity 3 Low 5 Intermediate 7 High Grain yield (6.3.b) Overall estimation of the grain yield for the accession based upon the particular growing conditions that the accession was accessed in 3 Low 5 Medium 7 High Fodder yield 3 Low 5 Medium 7 High Desirability rating (6.1.4) Overall agronomic desirability (use and yield potential) of the total plant as observed visually 3 Poor 5 Medium 7 Good Grain colour (4.3.1) Phenotypic colour of the grain 1 White 2 Chalky white 3 Grey 4 Red 5 Light red 6 Yellow 7 Bronze 8 Brown 9 Black 10 Purple 11 Variegated 12 Mixed Genotypic pericarp colour Genetically, there are three pericarp colours in sorghum 1 White (R-yy or rryy) 2 Lemon Yellow (rrY-) 3 Red (R-Y-) 100-seed weight [g] (4.3.3) Measured at 12% moisture content Pigmented testa (Grain sub-coat) (4.3.5) Tannins are not present without the presence of a pigmented testa 0 Absent (b1b1b2b2 or B1-b2b2 or b1b1B2-) 1 Present (B1-B2-) Endosperm texture (4.3.8) 1 Completely corneous 3 Mostly corneous 5 Intermediate-partly corneous 7 Mostly starchy (floury) 9 Completely starchy (floury) Pollen shed Visual score (early morning) when the panicle is lightly tapped. Observed at 50% flowering. Mean of five randomly selected plants 3 Low 5 Intermediate 7 High Seedling vigour (6.1.1) Observed 15 days after emergence 3 Low 5 Intermediate 7 High Lodging susceptibility (6.1.2) Indicate if root or stalk 3 Low 5 Intermediate 7 High Senescence rating [%] (6.1.3) Death of leaves and stalk at grain maturity 1 Very slightly senescent (10%) 3 Slightly senescent (25%) 5 Intermediate (about half of leaves dead) (50%) 7 Mostly senescent (75%) 9 Completely senescent (leaves and stalk dead) Photosensitivity (6.2.1) Recorded on the basis of rainy season (long days): post-rainy season (short days) ratios of plant height (4.1.1) and days to flowering (4.2.1) above 1 Insensitive 2 Partially sensitive 3 Very sensitive Inflorescence exsertion (6.2.4) 1 Slightly exserted (<2 cm but ligule of flag leaf definitively below inflorescence base) 2 Exserted (2-10 cm between ligule and inflorescence base) 3 Well-exserted (>10 cm between ligule and inflorescence base) 4 Peduncle recurved (inflorescence below ligule and clearly exposed splitting the leaf sheath) Inflorescence length [cm] (6.2.5) From base of inflorescence (head) to tip. Mean of five randomly selected plants Restoration response (Milo source) (6.2.7) The reaction of the F1 plant when a male sterile (A line) is pollinated with the accession 1 Maintainer 2 Partial maintainer/restorer 3 Restorer Male sterile cytoplasm system (6.2.8) There are four major distinct cytoplasmic-genetic systems 1 A1 2 A2 3 A3 4 A4 5 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) ABIOTIC STRESSES Reaction to low temperature (7.1) Pollen susceptibility (7.1.a) Measured as reduction in pollen production at low temperatures (10ºC to 15ºC) Seedling susceptibility (7.1.1) Measured as reduction in seed germination at low temperatures (10ºC to 15ºC) Reproductive susceptibility (7.1.2) Measured as reduction in seed set at low temperatures (10ºC to 15ºC) Reaction to drought (7.3) Pre-anthesis drought reaction (7.3.a) Measured as plants stressed prior to flowering. Plant symptoms include leaf rolling, leaf erectness, leaf bleaching, leaf firing, delayed flowering, poor panicle exsertion, saddle effect, panicle/floret blasting, and reduced panicle size. Ratings may be on individual symptoms or a combination of symptoms Post-anthesis drought reaction (stay-green ability) (7.3.b) Measured as plants stressed post-flowering. Plant symptoms include premature leaf and plant death, stalk collapse and lodging, charcoal rot (Macrophomina phaseolina) infestation, and reduced seed size BIOTIC STRESSES Sorghum shoot fly (Atherigona soccata) (8.1.1) Spotted stem borer (Chilo partellus) (8.1.2) Sorghum midge (Stenodiplosis sorghicola) (8.1.5) Anthracnose (Colletotrichum graminicola) (8.2.3) Grain moulds (Curvularia lunata; Fusarium spp.) (8.2.4) NOTES Any additional information may be specified here, particularly that referring to the category ‘99=Other’ present in some of the descriptors above. CONTRIBUTORS Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of this strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for sorghum genetic resources’, and in particular to Dr Jeff Dahlberg (United Sorghum Checkoff Program, USA) for providing valuable scientific direction. Adriana Alercia (Bioversity International) provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process. The valuable substantial scientific advice provided by ICRISAT scientists is gratefully acknowledged. CORE ADVISORY GROUP Jeff Dahlberg, United Sorghum Checkoff Program, USA Joël Guiard, Groupe d'Etude et de contrôle des Variétés et des Semences (GEVES), France C. Tom Hash, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India R.G. Henzell, Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Australia Mario A. Lira, Agricultural Research Institute of Pernambuco (IPA), Brazil Prem Mathur, Bioversity International, India Frederick R. Miller, MMR Genetics L.L.C., USA S.R. Pandravada, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), Regional Station, Hyderabad, India Gary A. Pederson, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA, ARS), Plant Genetic Resources Conservation Unit, USA A. Seetharam, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), India N. Seetharama, Directorate of Sorghum Research (formerly National Research Centre for Sorghum), India Hari D. Upadhyaya, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India REVIEWERS Australia David Jordan, Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries Brazil Jurandir Magalhaes, Embrapa Maize and Sorghum Burundi Espérance Habindavyi, Institute of Agricultural Research - Burundi (ISABU) China P. R. Lu Ping, Institute of Crop Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS) Czech Republic Zdenek Stehno, Crop Research Institute Ethiopia Asfaw Adugna, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) Taye Tadesse, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) Germany Heiko K. Parzies, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart Baerbel Schmidt, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK), Gatersleben India Kumar Ashok, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) S.T. Borikar, Marathwada Agricultural University M. Elangovan, Directorate of Sorghum Research (DSR) Belum V.S. Reddy, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) M. Thimma Reddy, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) V. Gopal Reddy, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) H.C. Sharma, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India Shivali Sharma, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India Tara Satyavathi, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) R.P. Thakur, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Vincent Vadez, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Japan Makoto Kawase, National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences (NIAS) Hisato Okuizumi, National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences (NIAS) Mali Sidi Bekaye Coulibaly, Institut d'Economie Rurale Nigeria Ranajit Bandyopadhyay, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Sudan A. Ahmed Awadelkarim, Agricultural Research Cooperation United Arab Emirates N. Kameswara Rao, International Center for Biosaline Agriculture USA John Erpelding, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA, ARS) Jeff Pedersen, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA, ARS) Annex X – Final key set of descriptors for sorghum genetic resources obtained after validation Key access and utilization descriptors for sorghum genetic resources This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] genetic resources utilization. This strategic set of descriptors, together with passport data, will become the basis for the global accession level information portal being developed by Bioversity International with the financial support of the Global Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust). It will facilitate access to and utilization of sorghum accessions held in genebanks and does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently become available. Based on the comprehensive list ‘Descriptors for Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]’ published by ICRISAT and IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1993, the list was subsequently compared with a number of sources such as ‘UPOV technical guidelines for Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.)’ (1989); ‘Descriptors for SORGHUM’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN); ‘Characterization of ICRISAT-Bred Sorghum Hybrid Parents (Set I)’1 (ICRISAT, 2006); as well as the list of traits provided by the National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences (NIAS). The initial list also builds on the results of the SGRP Global Public Goods Activity 4.2.1.1 led by Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya (ICRISAT), particularly with regard to those descriptors highlighted as having the most important diagnostic and breeding traits, and also to the Descriptors Draft for sorghum, which was revised by a Committee formed at the Expert Consultation Meeting for Developing a Strategy for the Global Conservation of Sorghum Genetic Resources held at ICRISAT in 2007. The initial list was further refined during a crop-specific consultation meeting held at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR, India) in June 2009. A worldwide distribution of experts was involved in an online survey to define a first priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize sorghum genetic resources. This key set was afterwards validated by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr Jeff Dahlberg of the United Sorghum Checkoff Program and Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya of the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), together with leading sorghum organizations such as NBPGR, USDA and the Directorate of Sorghum Research (formerly National Research Centre for Sorghum), amongst others. Biotic and abiotic stresses included in the list were chosen because of their wide geographic occurrence and significant economic impact at a global level. Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptor numbers listed in the 1993 publication. Descriptors with numbers ending in ‘letters’ are either modified or are new descriptors that were added during the development of the list below. 1 International Sorghum and Millets Newsletter, No. 47, Special issue Race and Group name (1.5.5/6) (As per Dahlberg, 2000) 1 Bicolor 10 Bicolor 11 Dochna 12 Nervosum 13 Nervosum-kaoliang 14 Nervosum-broomcorn 15 Sudanense 2 Guinea 20 Guineense 21 Conspicuum 22 Margaritiferum 23 Roxburghii 3 Caudatum 30 Caudatum 31 Caudatum-nigricans 32 Nigricans 33 Sumac 34 Nigricans-feterita 35 Dobbs 36 Caudatum-kaura 37 Zerazera 4 Kafir 40 Caffrorum 5 Durra 50 Durra 51 Nandyal 52 Cernuum 6 Guinea-bicolor 60 Guinea-bicolor 61 Dochna-honey 62 Dochna-roxburghii 7 Caudatum-bicolor 70 Caudatum-bicolor 71 Caudatum-dochna 72 Nigricans-bicolor 73 Dochna-nigricans 8 Kafir-bicolor 80 Bicolor-kafir 81 Caffrorum-bicolor 82 Dochna-kafir 9 Durra-bicolor 90 Durra-bicolor 91 Dochna-durra 92 Durra-dochna 93 Subglabrescens 94 Subglabrescens-milo 95 Milo-kaura 10 Guinea-caudatum 100 Caudatum-guineense 101 Nigricans-guineense 11 Guinea-kafir 110 Caffrorum-roxburghii 111 Roxburghii-shallu 12 Guinea-durra 120 Durra-roxburghii 121 Membraneceum 122 Durra-membranaceum 13 Kafir-caudatum 130 Caudatum-kafir 131 Caffrorum-birdproof 132 Caffrorum-darso 133 Caffrorum-feterita 14 Durra-caudatum 140 Caudatum-durra 141 Nigricans-durra 142 Durra-nigricans 143 Durra-feterita/Kaura 15 Kafir-durra 150 Durra-kafir 151 Caffrorum-durra 16 Perennial wild 160 S. halepense 161 S. propinquum 17 Annual wild 170 S. bicolor subsp. drummondii 18 S. bicolor subsp. verticilliforum 180 verticilliforum 181 arundinaceum 182 virgatum 183 aethiopicum 19 Unclassified 20 Breeding material 200 Unclassified 21 Mixed Plant height [cm] (4.1.1) From the ground (base of plant) to the tip of the panicle at 50% flowering. Mean of 10 randomly selected plants Stalk juiciness (4.1.3) 0 Not juicy 1 Slightly juicy 3 Juicy Fodder yield (4.1.a) 3 Low 5 Medium 7 High Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) From planting date until 50% of the plants have started flowering Planting date [YYYYMMDD] (5.4) When planting is done (if moisture is sufficient) or when irrigation is done after planting Flowering behaviour (4.2.a) If grown under long days 0 Absent 3 Early 7 Late Inflorescence compactness and shape (4.2.2) 1 Very lax panicle (typical of wild sorghums) 2 Very loose erect primary branches 3 Very loose drooping primary branches 4 Loose erect primary branches 5 Loose drooping primary branches 6 Semi-loose erect primary branches 7 Semi-loose drooping primary branches 8 Semi-compact elliptic 9 Semi-compact oval 10 Compact elliptic 11 Compact oval 12 Half broom corn 13 Broomcorn 99 Other (specify in the descriptor Notes) Grain covering (4.2.4) Amount of grain covered by glumes at maturity. Involuted grain is found when the grain has completely twisted inside of the glumes and is fully exposed such as in the Guinea race 1 25% grain covered 2 50% grain covered 3 75% grain covered 4 Grain fully covered 5 Glumes longer than grain 6 Involuted Shattering (4.2.6) Observed at maturity 3 Low 5 Intermediate 7 High Grain colour (4.3.1) Phenotypic colour of the grain 1 White 2 Chalky white 3 Straw 4 Grey 5 Light red 6 Red 7 Yellow 8 Light brown 9 Brown 10 Black 11 Purple 12 Variegated (when streaks of red or white appear in the grain) 13 Reddish brown 14 Mixed (when there are mixed grain colours in the grain) 100-seed weight [g] (4.3.3) Measured at 12% moisture content Pigmented testa (Grain sub-coat) (4.3.5) Tannins are not present without the presence of a pigmented testa 0 Absent (b1b1b2b2 or B1-b2b2 or b1b1B2-) 1 Present (B1-B2-) Endosperm texture (4.3.8) 1 Completely corneous 2 Mostly corneous 3 Intermediate-partly corneous 4 Mostly starchy (floury) 5 Completely starchy (floury) Genotypic pericarp colour (4.3.a) Genetically, there are three pericarp colours in sorghum 1 White (R-yy or rryy) 2 Lemon Yellow (rrY-) 3 Red (R-Y-) Seedling vigour (6.1.1) Observed 15 days after emergence 3 Low 5 Intermediate 7 High Lodging susceptibility (6.1.2) Indicate if root or stalk 3 Low 5 Intermediate 7 High Senescence rating [%] (6.1.3) Death of leaves and stalk at grain maturity 1 Very slightly senescent (10%) 3 Slightly senescent (25%) 5 Intermediate (about half of leaves dead) (50%) 7 Mostly senescent (75%) 9 Completely senescent (leaves and stalk dead) Desirability rating (6.1.4) Overall agronomic desirability (use and yield potential) of the total plant as observed visually 1 Very good 2 Good 3 Average 4 Poor 5 Very poor Photosensitivity (6.2.1) Recorded on the basis of rainy season (long days): post-rainy season (short days) ratios of plant height (4.1.1) and days to flowering (4.2.1) above 1 Insensitive 2 Partially sensitive 3 Very sensitive Inflorescence exsertion (6.2.4) 1 Slightly exserted (<2 cm but ligule of flag leaf definitively below inflorescence base) 2 Exserted (2-10 cm between ligule and inflorescence base) 3 Well-exserted (>10 cm between ligule and inflorescence base) 4 Peduncle recurved (inflorescence below ligule and clearly exposed splitting the leaf sheath) Inflorescence length [cm] (6.2.5) From base of inflorescence (head) to tip. Mean of five randomly selected plants Restoration response (Milo source) (6.2.7) The reaction of the F1 plant when a male sterile (A line) is pollinated with the accession 1 Maintainer 2 Partial maintainer/restorer 3 Restorer Male sterile cytoplasm system (6.2.8) There are four major distinct cytoplasmic-genetic systems 1 A1 2 A2 3 A3 4 A4 5 Other (specify in the descriptor Notes) Pollen shed (6.2.a) Visual score (early morning) when the panicle is lightly tapped. Observed at 50% flowering. Mean of five randomly selected plants 3 Low 5 Intermediate 7 High Grain yield (6.3.a) Overall estimation of the grain yield for the accession based upon the particular growing conditions in which it was accessed 3 Low 5 Medium 7 High ABIOTIC STRESSES Reaction to low temperature (7.1) Pollen susceptibility (7.1.a) Measured as reduction in pollen production at low temperatures (10ºC to 15ºC) Seedling susceptibility (7.1.1) Measured as reduction in seed germination at low temperatures (10ºC to 15ºC) Reproductive susceptibility (7.1.2) Measured as reduction in seed set at low temperatures (10ºC to 15ºC) Reaction to drought (7.3) Pre-anthesis drought reaction (7.3.a) Measured as plants stressed prior to flowering. Plant symptoms include leaf rolling, leaf erectness, leaf bleaching, leaf firing, delayed flowering, poor panicle exsertion, saddle effect, panicle/floret blasting, and reduced panicle size. Ratings may be on individual symptoms or a combination of symptoms Post-anthesis drought reaction (stay-green ability) (7.3.b) Measured as plants stressed post-flowering. Plant symptoms include premature leaf and plant death, stalk collapse and lodging, charcoal rot (Macrophomina phaseolina) infestation, and reduced seed size BIOTIC STRESSES Sorghum shoot fly (Atherigona soccata) (8.1.1) Spotted stem borer (Chilo partellus) (8.1.2) Sorghum midge (Stenodiplosis sorghicola) (8.1.5) Anthracnose (Colletotrichum graminicola) (8.2.3) Grain moulds (Curvularia lunata; Fusarium spp.) (8.2.4) NOTES Any additional information may be specified here, particularly that referring to the category ‘99=Other’ present in some of the descriptors above. CONTRIBUTORS Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of this strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for sorghum genetic resources’, and in particular to Dr Jeff Dahlberg (United Sorghum Checkoff Program, USA) and Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya (ICRISAT, India) for providing valuable scientific direction. Adriana Alercia (Bioversity Interntional) provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process. The valuable substantial scientific advice provided by ICRISAT scientists is gratefully acknowledged. CORE ADVISORY GROUP Jeff Dahlberg, United Sorghum Checkoff Program, USA Hari D. Upadhyaya, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India Joël Guiard, Groupe d'Etude et de contrôle des Variétés et des Semences (GEVES), France C. Tom Hash, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India R.G. Henzell, Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Australia Mario A. Lira, Agricultural Research Institute of Pernambuco (IPA), Brazil Prem Mathur, Bioversity International, India Frederick R. Miller, MMR Genetics L.L.C., USA S.R. Pandravada, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), Regional Station, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, India Gary A. Pederson, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA, ARS), Plant Genetic Resources Conservation Unit, USA A. Seetharam, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), India N. Seetharama, Directorate of Sorghum Research (formerly National Research Centre for Sorghum), India REVIEWERS Australia David Jordan, Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries Brazil Jurandir Magalhaes, Embrapa Maize and Sorghum Burundi Espérance Habindavyi, Institute of Agricultural Research - Burundi (ISABU) China P. R. Lu Ping, Institute of Crop Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS) Czech Republic Zdenek Stehno, Crop Research Institute Ethiopia Asfaw Adugna, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) Taye Tadesse, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) Germany Heiko K. Parzies, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart Baerbel Schmidt, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK), Gatersleben India Kumar Ashok, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) S.T. Borikar, Marathwada Agricultural University (MAU) M. Elangovan, Directorate of Sorghum Research (DSR) Belum V.S. Reddy, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) V. Gopal Reddy, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) H.C. Sharma, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Shivali Sharma, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Tara Satyavathi, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) R.P. Thakur, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Vincent Vadez, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Japan Makoto Kawase, National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences (NIAS) Hisato Okuizumi, National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences (NIAS) Mali Sidi Bekaye Coulibaly, Institut d'Economie Rurale Nigeria Ranajit Bandyopadhyay, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Sudan A. Ahmed Awadelkarim, Agricultural Research Cooperation The United Arab Emirates N. Kameswara Rao, International Center for Biosaline Agriculture USA John Erpelding, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA, ARS) Jeff Pedersen, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA, ARS) Methodology for the definition of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for sweet potato [Ipomoea batatas] Information collection and preparation of the Minimum Descriptor List (MDL) Information for the definition of a Minimum Descriptor List for sweet potato [Ipomoea batatas] was drawn from the publication ‘Descriptors for Sweet Potato’ [CIP, AVRDC, IBPGR (now Bioversity International), 1991]. The original list was compared to descriptors mentioned in a number of documents, namely: 1. Main output of the Germplasm Characterization National Workshop held from January 24-26, 2006 at the Philippines Root Crop Research and Training Center (PhilRootcrops) in Leyte, central Philippines; 2. Basic list of descriptors for sweet potato, drawn from Guarino, L and Jackson, GVH ‘Describing and documenting root crops in the South Pacific’. Suva, Fiji, 1986. FAO. RAS/83/001, Field document 12; 3. ‘Global Strategy for Ex-situ Conservation of Sweetpotato Genetic Resources’, (the Trust, 2007); 4. Descriptors that were awarded funds for further research by the Global Crop Diversity Trust 2008 Award Scheme ‘Enhancing the Value of Crop Diversity in a World of Climate Change’ (EAS); 5. Criteria for evaluating sweet potato cultivars drawn from the Report on the ACIAR sweet potato workshop, held in Madang, Papua New Guinea from 28-29 June 2006; 6. Important descriptors mentioned in the CIP website; 7. ‘Descriptors for Characterization and Evaluation of Sweet potato’ (National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences, NIAS, Genebank of Japan); 8. ‘Descriptors for SWEETPOTATO’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN). Evaluation traits such as important pests and diseases for sweet potato, tuber quality and other agronomic characteristics were included. An Excel summary table was prepared comparing traits listed in all of the above mentioned sources (see Annex I). Preparation of the List of Experts Experts were drawn from the ‘Global Strategy for Ex-situ Conservation of Sweetpotato Genetic Resources’ (the Trust, 2007) and from the participants’ list of the ACIAR sweet potato workshop, held in Madang, Papua New Guinea from 28–29 June 2006. The list was further integrated with names of participants in the Symposium of the International Society for Tropical Root Crops (ISTRC), held in Peru on 2-6 November 2009 and with two additional expert names, suggested by EMBRAPA (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, Brazil), who are the curators of the EMBRAPA genebank. Reviewers from the 1991 descriptors list were excluded due to their outdated contact information. Overall, 77 experts were identified, from 27 countries and 42 different organizations. Out of these, two Crop Leaders, Genoveva Rossel and David Tay [both from the International Potato Centre (CIP), Peru] and a Core Advisory Group consisting of 10 experts (see Annex II) were selected to assist in the definition of a minimum set of descriptors for this crop. Core Advisory Group members were drawn from prestigious academic and scientific organizations including the International Potato Centre (CIP), the Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA), and the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA, ARS). Survey preparation and distribution On 26 November 2008 a letter was sent out to the Crop Leaders, along with the comparison table described above (Annex I), to help define a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for sweet potato utilization. A reminder requesting the revised list was sent to CIP on 30 March 2009. In order to accelerate the process, the comparison table with an additional column, where CIP experts could indicate their selection, was sent by email on 28 July 2009. Two further reminders were sent on 2 September 2009 and 15 October 2009, after which Dr Tay sent back the comparison table with CIP’experts input. The table included many descriptors (39) only related to characterization data. It was suggested to refine their selection of characteristics and concentrate on the most important abiotic and biotic stresses, taking into account their cosmopolitan nature, wide geographical coverage and significant economical impact. Because of the tight timeframe, and wanting to take advantage of the Symposium of the International Society for Tropical Root Crops (ISTRC), being held in November 2009, the Coordinator of Component 1, Ms Adriana Alercia (Bioversity International) travelled to Peru to meet with experts and discuss the draft list that would be included in the survey. During the meeting, a detailed workplan was defined listing steps to be followed and relevant deadlines. Crop Leaders were also contacted by telephone and, on 31 January 2010, they provided their selection for an initial key set of evaluation and characterization descriptors for sweet potato to be included in the online survey (see Annex III). A draft survey on sweet potato was therefore prepared listing the descriptors approved by consultations with Dr Genoveva Rossel. The final draft of the survey was uploaded into the SurveyMonkey application and sent out to the list of identified experts on 5 April 2010. Experts were invited to validate this initial ‘Key set of descriptors’ of sweet potato accessions to facilitate their use by researchers, and asked to make suggestions regarding any additional characterization and/or evaluation traits yet missing from the proposed List (see Annex IV). The deadline for the survey was set at 2 March 2010. A first reminder was sent out on 19 February 2010 and a second one on 25 February 2010, to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained. Survey analysis and refinement of the Minimum List Of the 77 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 27 from 15 countries and 18 organizations recorded their comments using the online survey (see Annex V). Results from the survey were analyzed and descriptors were ranked by rating average and percentage of importance (see Annex VI). The summary results of the survey together with a report containing comments received by the participants (see Annex VII) were sent to the Core Advisory Group asking them to select those descriptors they considered essential for the minimum key set. The feedback received was collated in the comparison table resulting from the survey (rating and percentages) and sent to the Crop Leaders. They were asked to validate or select traits from the list to define a priority list of descriptors that would be shared and approved by the whole group of experts. Following the advice of Drs Rossel and Tay, it was decided that the final set of descriptors would be composed of the complete list of descriptors proposed in the survey (see Annex VIII). A first draft of the final document listing the above set was produced including relevant descriptor states and all the contributors and was submitted to Crop Leaders for final validation (see Annex IX). It was further refined by adding five descriptors as Dr Rossel strongly suggested them, indicating that they were extremely useful for sweet potato. These additional traits are listed below: Ground cover (4.1.3) Vine internode length (4.1.4.1) Vine internode diameter (4.1.4.2) Storage root surface defects (4.2.2) Storage root cortex thickness (4.2.3) Definition of a final key set of descriptors for sweet potato The final document was shared with the whole group of experts, including all the descriptor states and contributors (see Annex X). Six out of nine members of the Core Advisory Group, validated the list with the exception of Dr Grahame Jackson who raised a number of issues regarding: 1. storage root colours (viruses may alter the colours giving much paler colours of B carotene varieties); 2. doubts on the validity of certain descriptors to be included, such as petiole length, vine tip pubescence, mature leaf size and in particular root surface defects (4.2.2) as viruses, especially feathery mottle strains, produce root symptoms; 3. the inclusion of SP chlorotic stunt virus since it is often latent, and 4. naming the weevil species. The Coordinator of Component 1, Ms Adriana Alercia, sent Dr Jackson's comments together with the following information to the Crop Leaders asking them for make a final decision in this regard. Petiole length, mature leaf size and Vine tip pubescence: According to the comparison table available in Annex I, these characteristics are included also in the Guarino and Jackson publication, as well as listed in USDA, ARS descriptors and in NIAB’s List. With regard to storage root colours, again there are two drawn from Guarino and Jackson publication, but generally all of them are well ranked according to the survey responses. The species name should be included for weevil. After consulting with the Crop Leaders, changes were implemented and the key set was edited and laid out. It was then sent to the Bioversity Publications Unit for on-line publication process. Furthermore, the publication was shared with the ECPGR Secretariat; the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base partners. Additionally, data were converted into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN-Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA and into the Germplasm Information on Genebank Accessions global portal (GENESYS), linking national, regional and international genebank databases in support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also provided to the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) and to EURISCO. Acknowledgement Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of the strategic key set of descriptors for sweet potato, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial support. Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leaders, Dr Genoveva Rossel and Dr David Tay from CIP (Peru), as well as to Dr Grahame Jackson (Australia) for providing valuable scientific direction during the development of the Key access and utilization descriptors for sweet potato. Annex I – Summary comparison table weighing up important descriptors for sweet potato drawn from different sourcesi Desc. no. Descriptor name CIP/ AVRDC/ IBPGR 1991 (a) CIP- UPWAR D 2006 (b) MDL G. Jackson/ L. Guarino (c) Crop Strategy 2007 (d) EAS (e) ACIAR sweet potato worksho p 2006 (f) Important descriptors mentioned in the CIP website (g) NIAS (h) ARS-GRIN (i) 4.1.1 Twining * * * * 4.1.2 Plant type * * * * 4.1.3 Ground cover * * (Vine growth rate?) 4.1.4 Vine internode * 4.1.4.1 Vine internode length * * * * 4.1.4.2 Vine internode diameter * * 4.1.5 Vine pigmentation * * * 4.1.5.1 Predominant vine colour * * 4.1.5.2 Secondary vine colour * * * 4.1.6 Vine tip pubescence * * * * * 4.1.7 Mature leaf shape * * * 4.1.7.1 General outline of leaf * * * 4.1.7.2 Leaf lobe type * * * 4.1.7.3 Leaf lobe number * * * 4.1.7.4 Shape of central leaf lobe * * 4.1.8 Mature leaf size * * * * Breadth of leaf [cm] * 4.1.9 Abaxial leaf vein pigmentation * * * * * 4.1.10 Foliage colour * 4.1.10.1 Mature leaf colour * * * 4.1.10.2 Immature leaf colour * * * * * 4.1.11 Petiole length * * * * 4.1.12 Petiole pigmentation * * * * 4.2.1 Storage root shape * * * * 4.2.2 Storage root surface defects * * 4.2.3 Storage root cortex thickness * * 4.2.4 Storage root skin colour * * * * 4.2.4.1 Predominant storage root skin colour * * * 4.2.4.2 Intensity of predominant storage root skin colour * * * 4.2.4.3 Secondary storage root skin colour * * * 4.2.5 Storage root flesh colour * * * * 4.2.5.1 Predominant storage root flesh colour * * * * 4.2.5.2 Secondary storage root flesh colour * * * * 4.2.5.3 Distribution of secondary storage root flesh colour * * * 4.3.1 Flowering habit * * 4.3.2 Flower colour * * * * 4.3.3 Flower size * 4.3.3.1 Flower length [cm] * * * * 4.3.3.2 Flower width [cm] * * * * 4.3.4 Shape of limb * * 4.3.5 Equality of sepal length * * * * 4.3.6 Number of sepal veins * * 4.3.7 Sepal shape * * * * 4.3.8 Sepal apex * * * * 4.3.9 Sepal pubescence * * 4.3.10 Sepal colour * * 4.3.11 Colour of stigma * * 4.3.12 Colour of style * * * 4.3.13 Stigma exertion * * * 4.3.14 Seed capsule set * * 6.1.1 Storage root formation * 6.1.2 Storage root stalk * 6.1.3 Number of storage roots per plant * * * Weight of storage roots * 6.1.4 Variability of storage root shape * * * 6.1.5 Variability of storage root size * * * 6.1.6 Storage root cracking * * * 6.1.7 Latex production in storage roots * 6.1.8 Oxidation in storage roots * 6.2 Quality characters * 6.2.1 Storage root dry matter content [%] * * * 6.2.2 Storage root nitrogen content [%] * * 6.2.3 Storage root crude fibre [% fresh weight] * * * 6.2.4 Storage root starch content [% dry weight] * * 6.2.5 Storage root total alcohol soluble sugar content [%] * 6.2.6 Storage root carotene content [mg/100g fresh weight] * * * 6.2.7 Keeping quality of stored storage roots * * * 6.2.8 Sprouting ability * * * 6.2.9 Boiled storage root * 6.2.9.1 Consistency of boiled storage root * 6.2.9.2 Undesirable colour of boiled storage root * 6.2.9.3 Texture of boiled storage root flesh * * 6.2.9.4 Sweetness of boiled storage root flesh * * 7.1 Reaction to drought * * * 7.2 Reaction to flooding * 7.3 Reaction to heat * 7.4 Reaction to salinity * * * 7.5 Reaction to shade * 7.6 Reaction to soil pH below 5.0 * 7.7 Reaction to high soil temperature * 8.1 Insects * 8.1.1 Cylas spp. (Sweet potato weevil) * * * * * 8.1.2 Euscepes postfasciatus Fairmaire (West Indian sweet potato weevil) * * 8.1.3 Alcidodes sp. (Sweet potato weevils) * 8.1.4 Conoderus sp. (Sweet potato wire worms) * * 8.1.5 Melanotus spp. (Wire worms) * 8.1.6 Chaetocnema confinis Crotch (Sweet potato flea beetle) * * 8.1.7 Systena sp. (Flea beetles) * 8.1.8 Typophorus sp. (Sweet potato leaf beetles) * 8.1.9 Diabrotica sp., Aspidomorpha sp., Calasposoma dauricum Mennerheim (Beetles or rootworms) * * 8.1.10 Phyllophaga sp., Plectris aliena Chapin (Grubworm) * * 8.1.11 Agrius cingulatus Fabricius (Hornworm); Acraea acerata (Defoliating caterpillar) * * 8.1.12 Aphis gossypii Glov.; Myzus persicae Sulzer (Aphids) * 8.1.13 Bemisia tabaci Gennadius (Sweet potato whytefly) * 8.1.14 Herse convolvuli L. (Sweet potato moth) * 8.1.15 Bedellia sommulentella Zellar; Brachmia macroscopa Meyrick; Prodenia litura F. (Moth) * 8.1.16 Omphisa anastomasalis Guernee (Sweet potato stem borer) * 8.2 Nematodes * * 8.2.1 Meloidogyne spp. (Root-knot nematode) * * * 8.2.2 Rotylenchulus reniformis Linford and Oliveira (Reniform nematode) * 8.2.3 Belonolaimus sp. (Sting nematode) * 8.2.4 Ditylenchus sp. (Brown ring rot) * 8.2.5 Pratylenchus coffeae (Zimmermann) Goodey (Root lesion nematode) * * 8.3 Fungi * 8.3.1 Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. batatas (Fusarium wilt or stem rot) * * * 8.3.2 Fusarium oxysporum Schlect. (Fusarium surface rot) * * 8.3.3 Fusarium solani (Mart.) Appel & Wr. (Fusarium root rot) * * * 8.3.4 Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc. (Sclerotial blight and circular spot) * 8.3.5 Ceratocystis fimbriata Ell. & Halst (Black rot) * * * 8.3.6 Monilochaetes infuscans Ell. & Halst. ex. Harter (Scurf) * 8.3.7 Rhizopus stolonifer (Ehr. ex. Fr.) (Lind.) (Soft rot) * * 8.3.8 Diplodia gossypina (Cke.) (Java black rot) * * 8.3.9 Diaporthe batatatis Harter & Field (Diaporthe dry rot) * * 8.3.10 Elsinoe batatas (Saw.) Viegas & Jenkins (Scab or spot anthracnose) * * 8.3.11 Phyllosticta batatas (Thuem.) Cbe.; Cercospora batatae Zimm; Septoria bataticola Taub. (Leaf spot) * 8.3.12 Albugo ipomoeae-panduratae (Schw.) Swing. (White rust) * 8.3.13 Plenodomus destruens Harter (Foot rot) * * 8.3.14 Macrophomina phaseoli (Maubl.) Ashby (Charcoal rot) * * 8.4 Bacteria * 8.4.1 Streptomyces ipomoea (Person & W.T. Martin) (Pox or soil rot) * * * 8.4.2 Erwinia chrysanthemi Dupes (Bacterial stem and root rot) * * * 8.4.3 Pseudomonas solanacearum C.F. Smith (Bacterial wilt) * * 8.5 Viruses * 8.5.1 Sweetpotato Feathery Mottle Virus (SPFMV) * * 8.5.2 Mild mottle virus (SPMMV) * 8.5.3 Vein mottle virus (SPVMV) * 8.5.4 Sweet potato virus disease (SPVD complex) * * 8.6 Mycoplasma * 8.6.1 Witches broom * Sweet potato stem blight (Alternaria sp.) * * Sweet potato chlorotic stunt virus (SPCSV) * High protein * Flavour * Earliness (time to maturity of storage roots) * Development of tubers on the runners or at the base * i (a) ‘Descriptors for Sweet Potato’ (CIP, AVRDC, IBPGR, 1991); (b) Main output of the Germplasm Characterization National Workshop held from 24-26 January 2006, at the Philippines Root Crop Research and Training Center (PhilRootcrops) in Leyte, central Philippines; (c) Basic list of descriptors for Sweet Potato, drawn from Guarino, L. and Jackson, G.V.H. ’Describing and documenting root crops in the South Pacific’. Suva, Fiji, 1986. FAO. RAS/83/001, Field document 12; (d) ‘Global Strategy for Ex-situ Conservation of Sweetpotato Genetic Resources’ (the Trust, 2007); (e) Descriptors that were awarded funds for further research by the Global Crop Diversity Trust 2008 Award Scheme ‘Enhancing the Value of Crop Diversity in a World of Climate Change’ (EAS); (f) Criteria for evaluating sweet potato cultivars drawn from the Report on the ACIAR sweet potato workshop, held in held in Madang, Papua New Guinea 28–29 June 2006; (g) Important descriptors mentioned in the CIP website; (h) ‘Descriptors for Characterization and Evaluation of Sweet potato’ (National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences, NIAS, Genebank of Japan); (i) ‘Descriptors for SWEETPOTATO’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN). Annex II – List of experts identified to participate to the survey Role Name Organization Country Crop Leader Rossel, Genoveva CIP Peru Crop Leader Tay, David CIP Peru CAG/UPOV Choi, Keun-Jin UPOV Republic of Korea CAG Hunter, Danny Bioversity International Italy CAG Jackson, Grahame Australia CAG Jarret, Robert ARS/USDA USA CAG (EAS) Panta, Ana CIP Peru CAG (the Trust expert) Rao, Ramanatha Bioversity International India CAG (the Trust expert) Roca, Willy CIP Peru CAG (EAS) de Ronde, Kobie Vegetable and Ornamental Plant Institute (ARC) South Africa CAG/Curator of Roots and Tubers in Embrapa Cenargen Sias Costa, Ivo EMBRAPA Brazil CAG/Curator of Embrapa’s Sweet Potato Gene Bank Suita de Castro, Luis Antônio EMBRAPA Brazil Crop Strategy Expert Andrade, Maria Isabel International Potato Center (CIP), International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Mozambique Symposium ISTRC Agili, Sammy CIP Kenya Symposium ISTRC Akoroda, Malachy University of Ibadan Nigeria Crop Strategy Expert Apa, Annamarie National Highlands Sweet Potato Collection - (NARI) Papua New Guinea Crop Strategy Expert Borromeo, Teresita H. University of the Philippines Los Baños, Crop Science Cluster Philippines Crop Strategy Expert Bosco de Carvalho, Joao EMBRAPA Hortalicas Brazil ACIAR workshop 2006 Bourke, Mike Australian National University, Canberra Australia Crop Strategy Expert Campilan, Dindo CIP-UPWARD Philippines Crop Strategy Expert Castillo, Gelia CIP-UPWARD Philippines ACIAR workshop 2006 Chambers, Barbara Australian National University, Canberra Australia ACIAR workshop 2006 Chang, Christie University of New England Australia Symposium ISTRC Chipungu, Felistus Bvumbwe Research Station Malawi ACIAR workshop 2006 Coleman, Eric Sweet Potato Pest and Disease Project, QDPI Australia Crop Strategy Expert de Chavez, Hidelisa CIP-UPWARD Philippines Reviewer Ezeta, Fernando CIP Indonesia Crop Strategy Expert Gonzales, Ines Northern Philippines Rootcrop Research and Training Center Philippines Symposium ISTRC Gruneberg, Wolfgang CIP Peru ACIAR workshop 2006 Harwood, Tracy Australian National University, Canberra Australia ACIAR workshop 2006 Hombuhanje, Freddy World Vision Papua New Guinea Crop Strategy Expert Hompanera, Norma R. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, Instituto de Recursos Biológicos, CIRN Argentina ACIAR workshop 2006 Hughes, Mike Sweet Potato Ppest and Ddisease Pproject, QDPI Australia ACIAR workshop 2006 Ivahupa, Sharryl World Vision Papua New Guinea Crop Strategy Expert Kapinga, Regina Emilian CIP Uganda ACIAR workshop 2006 Kapis, Joseph World Vision Papua New Guinea ACIAR workshop 2006 Kata, Joseph World Vision Papua New Guinea ACIAR workshop 2006 Katapa, Peter WWF Australia ACIAR workshop 2006 Kirchhof, Gunnar University of Queensland Australia Crop Strategy Expert Kumagai Toru NICS - NARO Japan Crop Strategy Expert Kuoko, Stephen Sebastiani Horticulture Research Institute Horti-Tengeru Tanzania Suggested at ISTRC Lebot, Vincent CIRAD France Crop Strategy Expert Lee, Joon-Seol NICS Mokpo Experimental St. Republic of Korea Crop Strategy Expert Li, Hongmin Xuzhou Sweet Potato Research Center China ACIAR workshop 2006 Lim, TK ACIAR, Canberra Australia ACIAR workshop 2006 Liripu, Greg Fresh Produce Development Agency Papua New Guinea ACIAR workshop 2006 Maltby, John Sweet Potato Pest And Disease Project, QDPI Australia Reviewer Manguiat, Proceso H. University of the Philippines Los Baños Philippines Crop Strategy Expert Mariscal, Algerico Philippine Root Crops Research and Training Center (Philrootcrops) Philippines Symposium ISTRC Maziya-Dixon, Bussie IITA Nigeria ACIAR workshop 2006 Menz, Ken ACIAR, Canberra Australia Crop Strategy Expert Milián Jiménez, Marilys Diley INIVIT Cuba Geneflow 2009 Morales, Francisco CIAT Colombia Crop Strategy Expert Mwanga, Robert O.M. NARO Uganda Symposium ISTRC Nandwani, Dilip Northern Marianas College Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Crop Strategy Expert Naskar, S.K. Central Tuber Crops Research Institute (ICAR) India ACIAR workshop 2006 Okpul, Tom PNG University of Technology Papua New Guinea Symposium ISTRC Olojede, Adeyemi Olujide National Root Crops Research Institute, Umudike Nigeria ACIAR workshop 2006 Ontiri, Enoch WWF Papua New Guinea Symposium ISTRC Pandey, Suman Kumar Central Potato Research Institute India Crop Strategy Expert Randrianaivoarivony, Jean Marc FIFAMANOR Madagascar Crop Strategy Expert Reynoso, Daniel National Institute of Agricultural Research (INIA) Peru Suggested at ISTRC Roskruge, Nick Massey University New Zealand Suggested at ISTRC Roullier, Caroline Centre d'Ecologie Functionelle et Evolutive France Symposium ISTRC Sartie, Alieu IITA Nigeria ACIAR workshop 2006 Setiawan, Asep CIP Indonesia Symposium ISTRC Sharma, Kamal IITA Nigeria ACIAR workshop 2006 Sharp, Timothy Australian National University, Canberra Australia ACIAR workshop 2006 Spriggs, John Australian National University, Canberra Australia Symposium ISTRC Sreekanth, Attaluri CIP India internet Tairo, Fred Mikocheni Agricultural Research Institute Tanzania Crop Strategy Expert Tang, Jun Xuzhou Sweet Potato Research Center China Crop Strategy Expert Van Kien, Nguyen Plant Genetic Resources Center, Vietnam Agricultural Science Institute Vietnam ACIAR workshop 2006 Wright, Jacqui ACIAR, Port Moresby Australia Suggested at ISTRC Xie, Kaiyun CIP, Liaison Office, Beijing China Crop Strategy Expert Yakub, Muhammod Jusuf Indonesian Legumes and Tuber Crops Research Institute (ILTRI) Indonesia Annex III – Initial key set of evaluation and characterization descriptors for sweet potato validated by the Crop Leaders (G. Rossel and D. Tay) to be uploaded in the survey DESCRIPTOR NAME 1. Twining (ability) (4.1.1) 2. Plant growth habit (type) (4.1.2) 3. Predominant vine colour (4.1.5.1) 4. Secondary vine colour (4.1.5.2) 5. Vine tip pubescence (4.1.6) 6. General outline of leaf (4.1.7.1) 7. Leaf lobes type (4.1.7.2) 8. Leaf lobe number (4.1.7.3) 9. Shape of central leaf lobe (4.1.7.4) 10. Mature leaf size (4.1.8) 11. Abaxial leaf vein pigmentation (4.1.9) 12. Mature leaf colour (4.1.10.1) 13. Immature leaf colour (4.1.10.2) 14. Petiole length (4.1.11) 15. Petiole pigmentation (4.1.12) 16. Storage root shape (4.2.1) 17. Predominant storage root skin colour (4.2.4.1) 18. Intensity of predominant storage root skin colour (4.2.4.2) 19. Secondary storage root skin colour (4.2.4.3) 20. Predominant storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.1) 21. Secondary storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.2) 22. Distribution of secondary storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.3) QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS 23. Storage root dry matter content [%] (6.2.1) 24. Storage root nitrogen content [%] (6.2.2) 25. Storage root starch content [% DW] (6.2.4) 26. Storage root total alcohol soluble sugar content [%] (6.2.5) 27. Storage root carotene content [mg/100g FW] (6.2.6) 28. Consistency of boiled storage root (6.2.9.1) 29. Texture of boiled storage root flesh (6.2.9.3) ABIOTIC STRESS 30. Reaction to drought (7.1) 31. Reaction to flooding (7.2) 32. Reaction to heat (7.3) 33. Reaction to salinity (7.4) BIOTIC STRESS 34. Sweet potato weevil (Cylas spp.) (8.1.1) 35. Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.) (8.2.1) 36. Fusarium wilt or stem rot (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. batatas) (8.3.1) 37. Black rot (Ceratocystis fimbriata) (8.3.5) 38. Java black rot (Diplodia gossypina) (8.3.8) 39. Scab or spot anthracnose (Elsinoe batatas) (8.3.10) 40. Charcoal rot (Macrophomina phaseoli) (8.3.14) 41. Bacterial stem and root rot (Erwinia chrysanthemi) (8.4.2) 42. Sweet potato virus disease (SPVD complex) (8.5.4) 43. Sweet potato chlorotic stunt virus (SPCSV) Annex IV – Survey to choose a key set of Descriptors for Sweet potato utilization WELCOME Welcome to the survey for the selection of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for sweet potato utilization to support an international information system to enhance the utilization of germplasm held in genebanks. Your knowledge and experience are being sought to define an initial ‘key set’ of descriptors that identify traits important to crop production and facilitate the use of accessions by researchers. Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 2 March 2010. This key set of descriptors will be made available through a global portal for identifying sets of accessions for evaluation and use. This survey consists of two parts: - PART I: Characterization descriptors. - PART II: Evaluation descriptors. We thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in selecting the set of descriptors. * Please allow us to acknowledge your contribution by completing your full contact details below: Name: Position: Organization: Country: Email: Survey to choose a key set of Descriptors for Sweet potato These traits enable easy and quick discrimination between phenotypes. They are generally highly heritable, can be easily seen by the eye and are equally expressed in all environments. Based on your experience, please select descriptors that provide the most impact in discriminating between accessions. It also allows you to indicate if any essential descriptor that can contribute to its use is missing from the minimum list presented. PART I: Characterization descriptors *Numbers in parentheses on the right - hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in the CIP/AVRDC/IBPGR publication ‘Descriptors for Sweet potato ’ (1991). Very important Important Not important Twining (ability) (4.1.1) n n n Plant growth habit (type) (4.1.2) n n n Predominant vine colour (4.1.5.1) n n n Secondary vine colour (4.1.5.2) n n n Vine tip pubescence (4.1.6) n n n General outline of leaf (4.1.7.1) n n n Leaf lobes type (4.1.7.2) n n n Leaf lobe number (4.1.7.3) n n n Shape of central leaf lobe (4.1.7.4) n n n Mature leaf size (4.1.8) n n n Abaxial leaf vein pigmentation (4.1.9) n n n Mature leaf colour (4.1.10.1) n n n Immature leaf colour (4.1.10.2) n n n Petiole length (4.1.11) n n n Petiole pigmentation (4.1.12) n n n Storage root shape (4.2.1) n n n Predominant storage root skin colour (4.2.4.1) n n n Intensity of predominant storage root skin colour (4.2.4.2) n n n Secondary storage root skin colour (4.2.4.3) n n n Predominant storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.1) n n n Secondary storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.2) n n n Distribution of secondary storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.3) n n n If you consider that an essential trait is missing from this list, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. 5 Survey to choose a key set of Descriptors for Sweet potato These descriptors include characters such as abiotic and biotic stresses. They are the most interesting traits in crop improvement. Please consider the following factors relating to the trait when making your final decision: (i) Global impact, (ii) Initial strategic set, (iii) Importance for germplasm utilization, (iv) Data availability, (v) True economic damage, and (vi) Wide geographical occurrence. Please, rate these traits in order of importance at the global level. It also allows you to indicate if any essential trait for crop production is missing from the minimum list presented or indicate any that may not be very significant to global production. PART II: Evaluation descriptors Very important Important Not Important Storage root dry matter content [%] (6.2.1) n n n Storage root nitrogen content [%] (6.2.2) n n n Storage root starch content [% DW] (6.2.4) n n n Storage root total alcohol soluble sugar content [%] (6.2.5) n n n Storage root carotene content [mg/100g FW] (6.2.6) n n n Consistency of boiled storage root (6.2.9.1) n n n Texture of boiled storage root flesh (6.2.9.3) n n n Reaction to drought (7.1) n n n Reaction to flooding (7.2) n n n Reaction to heat (7.3) n n n Reaction to salinity (7.4) n n n Sweet potato weevil ( Cylas spp.) (8.1.1) n n n Root- knot nematode ( Meloidogyne spp.) (8.2.1) n n n Fusarium wilt or stem rot ( Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. batatas) (8.3.1) n n n Black rot ( Ceratocystis fimbriata ) (8.3.5) n n n Java black rot ( Diplodia gossypina ) (8.3.8) n n n Scab or spot anthracnose ( Elsinoe batatas ) (8.3.10) n n n Charcoal rot ( Macrophomina phaseoli ) (8.3.14) n n n Bacterial stem and root rot ( Erwinia chrysanthemi ) (8.4.2) n n n Sweet potato virus disease (SPDV complex) (8.5.4) n n n Sweet potato Chlorotic Stunt Virus (SPCSV) n n n If you consider that an essential trait important for crop improvement and production is missing from this list, or, if any of the descriptors listed is not clearly useful to promote utilization, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. 5 6 Annex V – List of respondents to the survey Role Name Position Organization Country Crop Leader Rossel, Genoveva CIP Peru Crop Leader Tay, David CIP Peru CAG Hunter, Danny Project Scientist Bioversity International Italy CAG Jackson, Grahame Australia CAG Jarret, Robert Curator USDA USA CAG Panta, Ana In vitro Genbank Curator CIP Peru CAG Rao, Ramanatha Honorary Research Fellow Bioversity International India CAG Sias Costa, Ivo Roberto EMBRAPA Brazil CAG Suita de Castro, Luis Antônio EMBRAPA Brazil Reviewer Agili Makanginya, Sammy Sweet potato breeder International Potato Center Kenya Reviewer Akoroda, Malachy Scientific Advisor Sweetpotato Promotion Group Nigeria Reviewer Arizio, Carla Marcela Investigadora INTA Argentina Reviewer Borromeo, Teresita H. Professor and Head, PGR Division University of the Philippines Los Baños Philippines Reviewer Cao, Qinghe Division leader Xuzhou Sweet Potato Research Centre China Reviewer de Chavez, Hidelisa Network Affiliate CIP-UPWARD Philippines Reviewer Chipungu, Felistus Chief Sweet potato breeder Department of Agricultural Research Services Malawi Reviewer Campilan, Dindo Regional Leader - South, West and Central Asia CIP India Reviewer Hughes, Michael Extension Agronomist Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI), Queensland – Primary Industries and Fisheries Australia Reviewer Kapis, Joseph Area Manager - Madang Program World Vision Papua New Guinea Reviewer Kirchhof, Gunnar Senior research fellow University of Queensland Australia Reviewer Manguiat, Proceso H. Researcher University of the Philippines Los Baños Philippines Reviewer Mariscal, Algerico M. Professor/Plant Breeder Philippine Root Crop Research and Training Center (PhilRootcrops) Philippines Reviewer Naskar, S.K. Director Central Tuber Crops Research Institute India Reviewer Okpul, Tom Lecturer PNG University of Technology Papua New Guinea Reviewer Sebastiani, Stephen Kuoko Principal agric research officer Horticulture Research Institute (HORTI Tengeru) Tanzania Reviewer Xie, Kaiyun Liaison scientist CIP, Liaison Office China China Reviewer Yakub, Muhammad Jusuf Sweetpotato breeder and cuarator Indonesian Legumes and Tuber Crops Research Institute Indonesia Annex VI – List of descriptors proposed in the survey ranked by rating average and percentage of importance, sent to the Core Advisory Group for their selectioni Descriptor Rating Average Your selection Descriptor % Importance (very important) % Importance (important) Characterization Characterization Predominant storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.1) 4.91 Predominant storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.1) 95.5% (21) 4.5% (1) Predominant storage root skin colour (4.2.4.1) 4.45 Predominant storage root skin colour (4.2.4.1) 72.7% (16) 27.3% (6) Storage root shape (4.2.1) 4.32 Storage root shape (4.2.1) 72.7% (16) 22.7% (5) Plant growth habit (type) (4.1.2) 4.00 Plant growth habit (type) (4.1.2) 57.1% (12) 38.1% (8) General outline of leaf (4.1.7.1) 3.95 General outline of leaf (4.1.7.1) 54.5% (12) 40.9% (9) Secondary storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.2) 3.86 Secondary storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.2) 50.0% (11) 45.5% (10) Leaf lobes type (4.1.7.2) 3.32 Leaf lobes type (4.1.7.2) 50.0% (11) 27.3% (6) Distribution of secondary storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.3) 3.29 Predominant vine colour (4.1.5.1) 47.6% (10) 19.0% (4) Mature leaf colour (4.1.10.1) 3.09 Distribution of secondary storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.3) 42.9% (9) 38.1% (8) Predominant vine colour (4.1.5.1) 2.95 Abaxial leaf vein pigmentation (4.1.9) 36.4% (8) 22.7% (5) Leaf lobe number (4.1.7.3) 2.73 Petiole pigmentation (4.1.12) 36.4% (8) 22.7% (5) Intensity of predominant storage root skin colour (4.2.4.2) 2.73 Immature leaf colour (4.1.10.2) 36.4% (8) 18.2% (4) Secondary storage root skin colour (4.2.4.3) 2.59 Mature leaf colour (4.1.10.1) 31.8% (7) 50.0% (11) Abaxial leaf vein pigmentation (4.1.9) 2.50 Leaf lobe number (4.1.7.3) 27.3% (6) 45.5% (10) Petiole pigmentation (4.1.12) 2.50 Shape of central leaf lobe (4.1.7.4) 27.3% (6) 36.4% (8) Shape of central leaf lobe (4.1.7.4) 2.45 Twining (ability) (4.1.1) 20.0% (4) 45.0% (9) Immature leaf colour (4.1.10.2) 2.36 Vine tip pubescence (4.1.6) 19.0% (4) 42.9% (9) Twining (ability) (4.1.1) 2.35 Secondary vine colour (4.1.5.2) 19.0% (4) 28.6% (6) Vine tip pubescence (4.1.6) 2.24 Mature leaf size (4.1.8) 18.2% (4) 36.4% (8) Mature leaf size (4.1.8) 2 Intensity of predominant storage root skin colour (4.2.4.2) 13.6% (3) 68.2% (15) Secondary vine colour (4.1.5.2) 1.81 Secondary storage root skin colour (4.2.4.3) 13.6% (3) 63.6% (14) Petiole length (4.1.11) 1.50 Petiole length (4.1.11) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (11) i Descriptors highlighted in yellow are those that received a wide consensus amongst the experts. List of descriptors proposed in the survey ranked by rating average and percentage of importance, sent to the Core Advisory Group for their selectioni Descriptor Rating Average Your selection Descriptor % Importance (Very important) % Importance (important) Evaluation Evaluation Storage root dry matter content [%] (6.2.1) 4.74 Storage root dry matter content [%] (6.2.1) 87.0% (20) 13.0% (3) Sweet potato virus disease (SPVD complex) (8.5.4) 4.52 Sweet potato virus disease (SPVD complex) (8.5.4) 82.6% (19) 13.0% (3) Sweet potato weevil (Cylas spp.) (8.1.1) 4.35 Sweet potato weevil (Cylas spp.) (8.1.1) 73.9% (17) 21.7% (5) Storage root carotene content [mg/100g FW] (6.2.6) 4.26 Storage root carotene content [mg/100g FW] (6.2.6) 69.6% (16) 26.1% (6) Reaction to drought (7.1) 4.13 Storage root starch content [% DW] (6.2.4) 65.2% (15) 26.1% (6) Reaction to salinity (7.4) 4.13 Reaction to drought (7.1) 56.5% (13) 43.5% (10) Storage root starch content [% DW] (6.2.4) 4.04 Reaction to salinity (7.4) 56.5% (13) 43.5% (10) Scab or spot anthracnose (Elsinoe batatas) (8.3.10) 3.83 Sweet potato chlorotic stunt virus (SPCSV) 52.2% (12) 39.1% (9) Sweet potato chlorotic stunt virus (SPCSV) 3.78 Scab or spot anthracnose (Elsinoe batatas) (8.3.10) 47.8% (11) 47.8% (11) Reaction to flooding (7.2) 3.57 Reaction to flooding (7.2) 47.8% (11) 39.1% (9) Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.) (8.2.1) 3.52 Texture of boiled storage root flesh (6.2.9.3) 43.5% (10) 43.5% (10) Texture of boiled storage root flesh (6.2.9.3) 3.48 Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.) (8.2.1) 39.1% (9) 52.2% (12) Fusarium wilt or stem rot (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. batatas) (8.3.1) 3.43 Consistency of boiled storage root (6.2.9.1) 39.1% (9) 47.8% (11) Consistency of boiled storage root (6.2.9.1) 3.39 Fusarium wilt or stem rot (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. batatas) (8.3.1) 34.8% (8) 56.5% (13) Reaction to heat (7.3) 3.22 Reaction to heat (7.3) 30.4% (7) 56.5% (13) Black rot (Ceratocystis fimbriata) (8.3.5) 3.17 Storage root total alcohol soluble sugar content [%] (6.2.5) 30.4% (7) 47.8% (11) Bacterial stem and root rot (Erwinia chrysanthemi) (8.4.2) 3.05 Bacterial stem and root rot (Erwinia chrysanthemi) (8.4.2) 22.7% (5) 63.6% (14) Storage root total alcohol soluble sugar content [%] (6.2.5) 2.96 Charcoal rot (Macrophomina phaseoli) (8.3.14) 22.7% (5) 59.1% (13) Java black rot (Diplodia gossypina) (8.3.8) 2.96 Black rot (Ceratocystis fimbriata) (8.3.5) 21.7% (5) 69.6% (16) Charcoal rot (Macrophomina phaseoli) (8.3.14) 2.91 Java black rot (Diplodia gossypina) (8.3.8) 17.4% (4) 69.6% (16) Storage root nitrogen content [%] (6.2.2) 2.43 Storage root nitrogen content [%] (6.2.2) 17.4% (4) 52.2% (12) i Descriptors highlighted in yellow are those that received a wide consensus amongst the experts. Annex VII – Additional descriptors included in the open-ended section of the survey Sweet potato descriptor Name of expert Panta, Ana (CIP, Peru) Chipungu, F. (Dept. of Agric. Res. Services, Malawi) Hughes, M. (Dept. of Employment Economic Development and Innovation, Australia) Cao, Qinghe (Xuzhou Sweet Potato Research Centre, China) Naskar, S.K. (Central Tuber Crops Research Institute, India) Agili Makanginya, S. (CIP, Kenya) Yakub, M. Jusuf (Indonesian Legume and Tuber Crops Research Institute, Indonesia) Jackson, G.* (Australia) Additional traits Root length X Root size X Post harvest strorage period for storage roots. In Papua New Guinea, sweet potato is grown in the highlands, packed & driven to Lae, then shipped to Port Moresby for resale. This probably takes at least 1 week in less than ideal conditions. Varieties being grown for this market are now being selected to some degree on their postharvest shelf-lives X Sweet potato stem nematode X Sweet potato feathery mottle virus (SFMV) 2 X X Reaction to Begomovirus/Sweet potato leaf viruses 2 X X Storage root formation- closed cluster, open, cluster, dispersed, very dispersed- can be used to discriminate varieties in the field X Adaptation to environment - Temperate, Cool tropical, Warm tropical and Hot tropical - Exchange of germplasm across regions is on the increase, hence need to include this description X Storage root anthocyanin (mg/100g wb) X Vitamin C content (% wb) X Vine thickness X Too many descriptors for leaf, general outline of leaf may be all that is required, it is difficult to distinguish between some of those states X Weevil may be of interest, but I doubt that there are varieties resistant to C. formicarius X Comments Most of these descriptors are of little interest X *varieties do differ consistently on their vine thickness. Luigi Guarino and I chose Thin and Thick, not wanting to measure it. Not easy. Also, there seem to be too many descriptors for leaf, and I wonder if they are all necessary. The general outline of leaf may be all that is required. And for 4.1.7.1, it is difficult to distinguish between some of those states. I have done away with leaf lobe type and number in the selections above. It's just too complicated! If we go back to the fig of Yen 1984 of the leaves then shape, lobe number and dissection are all recorded in one. *I find most of these descriptors of little interest. They would never be ones that I would use before advising introductions; they seem to be for commercial user rather than household use. Weevil may be of interest, but I doubt that there are varieties resistant to C. formicarius, although IITA bred some resistant to the weevil of Africa years ago. Scab is the only one that I would rate very important. I presume that the pathogens listed are important somewhere globally - I have not come across many of them, so I can't say. None except nematode, scab and SPDV seem to be important globally, but I may be wrong. Annex VIII – Table comparing the CAG’s selection and the rating and percentages obtained in the survey. Crop Leaders Drs G. Rossel and D. Tay approved the complete list of descriptors proposed in the survey for inclusion in the final key set Sweet potato descriptor Rating Average % Very important N=23 % Important S. Costa (EMBRAPA) G. Jackson (Australia) R. Rao (India) D. Hunter (Bioversity International) Total G. Rossel and D. Tay (CIP) Characterization Predominant storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.1) 4.91 95.5% (21) 4.5% (1) X X X X 4 Yes Predominant storage root skin colour (4.2.4.1) 4.45 72.7% (16) 27.3% (6) X X X X 4 Yes Storage root shape (4.2.1) 4.32 72.7% (16) 22.7% (5) X X X X 4 Yes Plant growth habit (type) (4.1.2) 4.00 57.1% (12) 38.1% (8) X X X X 4 Yes General outline of leaf (4.1.7.1) 3.95 54.5% (12) 40.9% (9) X X X 3 Yes Secondary storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.2) 3.86 50.0% (11) 45.5% (10) X X X X 4 Yes Leaf lobes type (4.1.7.2) 3.32 50.0% (11) 27.3% (6) X X X X 4 Yes Distribution of secondary storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.3) 3.29 42.9% (9) 38.1% (8) X 1 Yes Mature leaf colour (4.1.10.1) 3.09 31.8% (7) 50.0% (11) X 1 Yes Predominant vine colour (4.1.5.1) 2.95 47.6% (10) 19.0% (4) X X X X 4 Yes Leaf lobe number (4.1.7.3) 2.73 27.3% (6) 45.5% (10) X 1 Yes Intensity of predominant storage root skin colour (4.2.4.2) 2.73 13.6% (3) 68.2% (15) 0 Yes Secondary storage root skin colour (4.2.4.3) 2.59 13.6% (3) 63.6% (14) 0 Yes Abaxial leaf vein pigmentation (4.1.9) 2.50 36.4% (8) 22.7% (5) X 1 Yes Petiole pigmentation (4.1.12) 2.50 36.4% (8) 22.7% (5) X X X 3 Yes Shape of central leaf lobe (4.1.7.4) 2.45 27.3% (6) 36.4% (8) 0 Yes Immature leaf colour (4.1.10.2) 2.36 36.4% (8) 18.2% (4) 0 Yes Twining (ability) (4.1.1) 2.35 20.0% (4) 45.0% (9) 0 Yes Vine tip pubescence (4.1.6) 2.24 19.0% (4) 42.9% (9) X 1 Yes Mature leaf size (4.1.8) 2 18.2% (4) 36.4% (8) 0 Yes Secondary vine colour (4.1.5.2) 1.81 13.6% (3) 63.6% (14) 0 Yes Petiole length (4.1.11) 1.50 0.0% (0) 50.0% (11) 0 Yes Evaluation Storage root dry matter content [%] (6.2.1) 4.74 87.0% (20) 13.0% (3) X X X X 4 Yes Sweet potato virus disease (SPDV complex) (8.5.4) 4.52 82.6% (19) 13.0% (3) X X X X 4 Yes Sweet potato weevil (Cylas spp.) (8.1.1) 4.35 73.9% (17) 21.7% (5) X X X X 4 Yes Storage root carotene content [mg/100g FW] (6.2.6) 4.26 69.6% (16) 26.1% (6) X X X X 4 Yes Reaction to drought (7.1) 4.13 56.5% (13) 43.5% (10) X X X X 4 Yes Reaction to salinity (7.4) 4.13 56.5% (13) 43.5% (10) X 1 Yes Storage root starch content [% DW] (6.2.4) 4.04 65.2% (15) 26.1% (6) X X X X 4 Yes Scab or spot anthracnose (Elsinoe batatas) (8.3.10) 3.83 47.8% (11) 47.8% (11) X X X X 4 Yes Sweet potato Chlorotic Stunt Virus (SPCSV) 3.78 52.2% (12) 39.1% (9) X X X 3 Yes Reaction to flooding (7.2) 3.57 47.8% (11) 39.1% (9) X 1 Yes Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.) (8.2.1) 3.52 39.1% (9) 52.2% (12) X 1 Yes Texture of boiled storage root flesh (6.2.9.3) 3.48 43.5% (10) 43.5% (10) X 1 Yes Fusarium wilt or stem rot (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. batatas) (8.3.1) 3.43 34.8% (8) 56.5% (13) 0 Yes Consistency of boiled storage root (6.2.9.1) 3.39 39.1% (9) 47.8% (11) 0 Yes Reaction to heat (7.3) 3.22 30.4% (7) 56.5% (13) X 1 Yes Black rot (Ceratocystis fimbriata) (8.3.5) 3.17 21.7% (5) 69.6% (16) 0 Yes Bacterial stem and root rot (Erwinia chrysanthemi) (8.4.2) 3.05 22.7% (5) 63.6% (14) 0 Yes Storage root total alcohol soluble sugar content [%] (6.2.5) 2.96 30.4% (7) 47.8% (11) 0 Yes Java black rot (Diplodia gossypina) (8.3.8) 2.96 17.4% (4) 69.6% (16) 0 Yes Charcoal rot (Macrophomina phaseoli) (8.3.14) 2.91 22.7% (5) 59.1% (13) 0 Yes Storage root nitrogen content [%] (6.2.2) 2.43 17.4% (4) 52.2% (12) 0 Yes Comments from G. Jackson There are not many leaf characters chosen, and this may be a worry. Of those that MAY be useful are the following 2: - there does not seem to be clear consensus on these, with very important and not important with similar scores! Abaxial leaf vein pigmentation (4.1.9) (1 green; 2 half or less of main vein purple; 3 purple spotting; 4 pale purple; 5 all purple); Petiole pigmentation (4.1.12) (1 green; 2 moderately purple; 3 purple) X 1 Not sure that you would want dry matter and starch; dry matter is a good indicator of starch content X 1 I doubt that Chlorotic stunt virus can be detected unless it's in a complex, usually with feathery mottle; unless you do molecular tests of course - not really a useful descriptor X 1 I would think that reaction to viruses specifically and all other pathogens (except scab) is best left for evaluation locally. X 1 No idea about texture of boiled roots; is this a constant characterisitic? X 1 Annex IX – First draft of the key access and utilization descriptors for sweet potato sent to Crop Leaders and the CAG for validation Key access and utilization descriptors for sweet potato genetic resources This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) genetic resources utilization. This strategic set of descriptors, together with passport data, will become the basis for the global accession level information portal being developed by Bioversity International with the financial support of the Global Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust). It will facilitate access to and utilization of sweet potato accessions held in genebanks and does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently become available. Based on the comprehensive list ‘Descriptors for Sweet potato’ published by the International Potato Center (CIP), the Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center (AVRDC) and IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1991, the list was subsequently compared with a number of sources1. A worldwide distribution of experts was involved in an online survey to define a first priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize sweet potato genetic resources. This key set was afterwards validated by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr Genoveva Rossel and Dr David Tay of CIP. Biotic and abiotic stresses included in the list were chosen because of their wide geographic occurrence and significant economic impact at a global level. Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptor numbers listed in the 1991 publication. Descriptors with numbers ending in ‘letters’ are either modified or are new descriptors that were added during the development of the list below. 1 (a) Main output of the Germplasm Characterization National Workshop held on 24-26 January 2006, at the Philippines Root Crop Research and Training Center (PhilRootcrops) in Leyte, Central Philippines; (b) Basic list of descriptors for Sweet Potato, drawn from Guarino, L. and Jackson, G.V.H. ‘Describing and documenting root crops in the South Pacific’. Suva, Fiji, 1986. FAO. RAS/83/001, Field document 12; (c) ‘Global Strategy for Ex-Situ Conservation of Sweetpotato Genetic Resources’ (the Trust, 2007); (d) Descriptors that were awarded funds for further research by the Trust in 2008 Evaluation Awards Scheme (EAS); (e) Criteria for evaluating sweet potato cultivars drawn from the Report on the ACIAR sweet potato workshop, held in Madang, Papua New Guinea on 28-29 June 2006; (f) Important descriptors mentioned in the CIP website; (g) ‘Descriptors for Characterization and Evaluation of Sweet potato’ (National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences, Genebank of Japan); (h) ‘Descriptors for SWEETPOTATO’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN). PLANT DATA Twining (ability) (4.1.1) Ability of vines to climb adjacent stakes placed in those accessions showing twining characteristics 0 Non-twining 3 Slightly twining 5 Moderately twining 7 Twining 9 Very twining Plant growth habit (type) (4.1.2) Length of the main vines 3 Erect (<75cm) 5 Semi-erect (75-150 cm) 7 Spreading (151-250 cm) 9 Extremely spreading (>250 cm) Predominant vine colour (4.1.5.1) 1 Green 3 Green with few purple spots 4 Green with many purple spots 5 Green with many dark purple spots 6 Mostly purple 7 Mostly dark purple 8 Totally purple 9 Totally dark purple Secondary vine colour (4.1.5.2) 0 Absent 1 Green base 2 Green tip 3 Green nodes 4 Purple base 5 Purple tip 6 Purple nodes 7 Other (specify in the descriptor Notes) Vine tip pubescence (4.1.6) Degree of hairiness of immature leaves recorded at the apex of the vines 0 Absent 3 Sparse 5 Moderate 7 Heavy General outline of the leaf (4.1.7.1) 1 Rounded 2 Reniform (kidney-shaped) 3 Cordate (heart-shaped) 4 Triangular 5 Hastate (trilobular and spear-shaped with the basal lobes more or less divergent) 6 Lobed 7 Almost divided Leaf lobes type (4.1.7.2) 0 No lateral lobes (entire) 1 Very slight (teeth) 3 Slight 5 Moderate 7 Deep 9 Very deep Leaf lobe number (4.1.7.3) Most leaves of sweet potatoes have two basal lobes and they should not be counted. Record the predominant number of lateral and central leaf lobes observed on the leaves located in the middle section of the vine. Generally sweet potatoes have 1, 3, 5, 7 or 9 leaf lobes. If the leaf has no lateral lobes but shows a central tooth this number is 1. If the apical portion of the leaf is rounded this number is 0 Shape of central leaf lobe (4.1.7.4) 0 Absent 1 Toothed 2 Triangular 3 Semi-circular 4 Semi-elliptic 5 Elliptic 6 Lanceolate 7 Oblanceolate 8 Linear (broad) 9 Linear (narrow) Mature leaf size (4.1.8) Length from the basal lobes to the tip of the leaves. Record the average expression of at least three leaves located in the middle section of the vine 3 Small (<8 cm) 5 Medium (8-15 cm) 7 Large (16-25 cm) 9 Very large (>25 cm) Abaxial leaf vein pigmentation (4.1.9) Describe the most frequent expression of the distribution of anthocyanin (purple) pigmentation shown in the veins of the lower surface of the leaves 1 Yellow 2 Green 3 Purple spot in the base of main rib 4 Purple spots in several veins 5 Main rib partially purple 6 Main rib mostly or totally purple 7 All veins partially purple 8 All veins mostly or totally purple 9 Lower surface and veins totally purple Mature leaf colour (4.1.10.1) 1 Yellow-green 2 Green 3 Green with purple edge 4 Greyish-green (due to heavy pubescence) 5 Green with purple veins on upper surface 6 Slightly purple 7 Mostly purple 8 Green upper, purple lower 9 Purple both surfaces Immature leaf colour (4.1.10.2) 1 Yellow-green 2 Green 3 Green with purple edge 4 Greyish-green (due to heavy pubescence) 5 Green with purple veins on upper surface 6 Slightly purple 7 Mostly purple 8 Green upper, purple lower 9 Purple both surfaces Petiole length (4.1.11) Average petiole length, from the base to the insertion with the blade, of at least three leaves in the middle portion of a main vine 1 Very short (<10 cm) 3 Short (10-20 cm) 5 Intermediate (21-30 cm) 7 Long (31-40 cm) 9 Very long (>40 cm) Petiole pigmentation (4.1.12) Distribution of anthocyanin (purple) pigmentation in the petioles of leaves. Indicate the most predominant colour first 1 Green 2 Green with purple near stem 3 Green with purple near leaf 4 Green with purple at both ends 5 Green with purple spots throughout petiole 6 Green with purple stripes 7 Purple with green near leaf 8 Some petioles purple, others green 9 Totally or mostly purple Storage root shape (4.2.1) Storage root outline shown in longitudinal section 1 Round – almost a circular outline with a length to breadth (L/B) ratio of about 1:1 2 Round elliptic – a slightly circular outline with acute ends. L/B ratio not more than 2:1 3 Elliptic – symmetrical outline with about the maximum breadth at equal distance from both ends which are slightly acute. L/B ratio not more than 3:1 4 Ovate – outline resembling the longitudinal section of an egg. The broadest part is at the distal end (i.e. away from the root stalk) 5 Obovate – inversely ovate outline. The broadest part is at the proximal end (i.e. close to the root stalk) 6 Oblong – almost rectangular outline with sides nearly parallel and corners rounded. L/B ratio about 2:1 7 Long oblong – oblong outline with a L/B ratio of more than 3:1 8 Long elliptic – elliptic outline with a L/B ratio of more than 3:1 9 Long irregular or curved Predominant storage root skin colour (4.2.4.1) 1 White 2 Cream 3 Yellow 4 Orange 5 Brownish orange 6 Pink 7 Red 8 Purple-red 9 Dark purple Intensity of predominant storage root skin colour (4.2.4.2) 1 Pale 2 Intermediate 3 Dark Secondary storage root skin colour (4.2.4.3) 0 Absent 1 White 2 Cream 3 Yellow 4 Orange 5 Brownish orange 6 Pink 8 Purple-red 9 Dark purple Predominant storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.1) 1 White 2 Cream 3 Dark cream 4 Pale yellow 5 Dark yellow 6 Pale orange 7 Intermediate orange 8 Dark orange 9 Strongly pigmented with anthocyanins Secondary storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.2) 0 Absent 1 White 2 Cream 3 Yellow 4 Orange 5 Pink 6 Red 7 Purple-red 8 Purple 9 Dark purple Distribution of secondary storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.3) 0 Absent 1 Narrow ring in cortex 2 Broad ring in cortex 3 Scattered spots in flesh 4 Narrow ring in flesh 5 Broad ring in flesh 6 Ring and other areas in flesh 7 In longitudinal sections 8 Covering most of the flesh 9 Covering all flesh Storage root dry matter content [%] (6.2.1) Storage root nitrogen content [%] (6.2.2) Use the Kjeldahl Method Storage root starch content [% DW] (6.2.4) Storage root total alcohol soluble sugar content [%] (6.2.5) The phenol-sulphuric method is suggested Storage root carotene content [mg/100g FW] (6.2.6) Consistency of boiled storage root (6.2.9.1) 1 Watery 2 Extremely soft 3 Very soft 4 Soft 5 Slightly hard 6 Moderately hard 7 Hard 8 Very hard 9 Very hard and non-cooked Texture of boiled storage root flesh (6.2.9.3) 1 Dry 3 Somewhat dry 5 Intermediate 7 Moist 9 Very moist ABIOTIC STRESSES Reaction to drought (7.1) Observe after 6 weeks without irrigation or rainfall in a soil without subsurface water and in a season of high evaporation (4-6 mm per day) Reaction to flooding (7.2) Late season flooding during storage root formation. The environmental conditions could consist of about 2 weeks’ flooding (water-saturated soil) in a heavy soil Reaction to heat (7.3) Hot season with night temperatures of more than 22°C. The yield comparisons could be versus yields obtained under cooler conditions Reaction to salinity (7.4) In a soil with salinity levels of more than 8 mmhos/cm. The yield comparisons could be versus yields obtained in soils with less than 2 mmhos/cm BIOTIC STRESSES Sweet potato weevil (Cylas spp.) (8.1.1) Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.) (8.2.1) Fusarium wilt or stem rot (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. batatas) (8.3.1) Black rot (Ceratocystis fimbriata) (8.3.5) Java black rot (Diplodia gossypina) (8.3.8) Scab or spot anthracnose (Elsinoe batatas) (8.3.10) Charcoal rot (Macrophomina phaseoli) (8.3.14) Bacterial stem and root rot (Erwinia chrysanthemi) (8.4.2) Sweet potato virus disease (SPVD complex) (8.5.4) Sweet potato chlorotic stunt vrus (SPCSV) (8.5.X) NOTES Any additional information may be specified here, particularly that referring to the category ‘99=Other’ present in some of the descriptors above. CONTRIBUTORS Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of this strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for sweet potato genetic resources’, and in particular to Dr D. Tay and Dr G. Rossel of the International Potato Centre (CIP) for providing valuable scientific direction. Adriana Alercia provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process. CORE ADVISORY GROUP Genoveva Rossel, International Potato Centre (CIP), Peru David Tay, International Potato Centre (CIP), Peru Danny Hunter, Bioversity International, Italy Grahame Jackson, Australia Robert Jarret, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA, ARS), USA Ana Panta, International Potato Centre (CIP), Peru Ramanatha Rao, Bioversity International, India Ivo Sias Costa, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA), Brazil REVIEWERS Argentina Carla Marcela Arizio, Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA) Australia Michael Hughes, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI), Queensland – Primary Industries and Fisheries Gunnar Kirchhof, University of Queensland China Qinghe Cao, Xuzhou Sweet Potato Research Centre Kaiyun Xie, International Potato Center (CIP), Liaison Office China Kenya Sammy Agili Makanginya, International Potato Center (CIP) India Dindo Campilan, International Potato Center (CIP) S.K. Naskar, Central Tuber Crops Research Institute Indonesia Muhammad Jusuf Yakub, Indonesian Legumes and Tuber Crops Research Institute Malawi Felistus Chipungu, Department of Agricultural Research Services Nigeria Malachy Akoroda, Sweetpotato Promotion Group Papua New Guinea Joseph Kapis, World Vision Tom Okpul, Papua New Guinea University of Technology Philippines Teresita H. Borromeo, University of the Philippines Los Baños Hidelisa de Chavez, International Potato Center (CIP-UPWARD) Proceso H. Manguiat, University of the Philippines Los Baños Algerico M. Mariscal, Philippines Root Crop Research and Training Center (PhilRootcrops) Tanzania Stephen Kuoko Sebastiani, Horticulture Research Institute (HORTI Tengeru) Annex X – Final key set for sweet potato genetic resources obtained after validation Key access and utilization descriptors for sweet potato genetic resources This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) genetic resources utilization. This strategic set of descriptors, together with passport data, will become the basis for the global accession level information portal being developed by Bioversity International with the financial support of the Global Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust). It will facilitate access to and utilization of sweet potato accessions held in genebanks and does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently become available. Based on the comprehensive list ‘Descriptors for Sweet potato’ published by the International Potato Center (CIP), the Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center (AVRDC) and IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1991, the list was subsequently compared with a number of sources1. A worldwide distribution of experts was involved in an online survey to define a first priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize sweet potato genetic resources. This key set was afterwards validated by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr David Tay and Dr Genoveva Rossel of CIP. Biotic and abiotic stresses included in the list were chosen because of their wide geographical occurrence and significant economic impact at a global level. Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptor numbers listed in the 1991 publication. Descriptors with numbers ending in ‘letters’ are either modified or are new descriptors that were added during the development of the list below. 1 (a) Main output of the Germplasm Characterization National Workshop held on January 24-26, at the Philippine Root Crop Research and Training Center (PhilRootcrops) in Leyte, Central Philippines (b) Basic list of descriptors for Sweet Potato, drawn from Guarino, L. and Jackson, G.V.H. ‘Describing and documenting root crops in the South Pacific’. Suva, Fiji, 1986. FAO. RAS/83/001, Field document 12 (c) ‘Global Strategy for Ex-Situ Conservation of Sweet potato Genetic Resources’ (Trust, 2007) (d) Descriptors that were awarded funds for further research by the Trust in 2008 Evaluation Awards Scheme (EAS); (e) Criteria for evaluating sweet potato cultivars drawn from the Report on the ACIAR sweet potato workshop, held in Madang, Papua New Guinea on 28-29 June 2006 (f) Important descriptors mentioned in the CIP website (g) ‘Descriptors for Characterization and Evaluation of Sweet potato’ (National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences, Genebank of Japan) (h) ‘Descriptors for SWEETPOTATO’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN) PLANT DATA Twining (ability) (4.1.1) Ability of vines to climb adjacent stakes placed in those accessions showing twining characteristics 0 Non-twining 3 Slightly twining 5 Moderately twining 7 Twining 9 Very twining Plant growth habit (type) (4.1.2) Length of the main vines 3 Erect (<75cm) 5 Semi-erect (75-150 cm) 7 Spreading (151-250 cm) 9 Extremely spreading (>250 cm) Ground cover (4.1.3) Estimated percentage of ground cover recorded 35-40 days after planting 3 Low (<50%) 5 Medium (50-74%) 7 High (75-90%) 9 Total (>90%) Vine internode length (4.1.4.1) Average length of at least three internodes located in the middle section of the vine 1 Very short (<3 cm) 3 Short (3-5 cm) 5 Intermediate (6-9 cm) 7 Long (10-12 cm) 9 Very long (>12 cm) Vine internode diameter (4.1.4.2) Average diameter of at least three internodes located in the middle section of the vine 1 Very thin (<4 mm) 3 Thin (4-6 mm) 5 Intermediate (7-9 mm) 7 Thick (10-12 mm) 9 Very thick (>12 mm) Predominant vine colour (4.1.5.1) 1 Green 2 Green with few purple spots 3 Green with many purple spots 4 Green with many dark purple spots 5 Mostly purple 6 Mostly dark purple 7 Totally purple 8 Totally dark purple Secondary vine colour (4.1.5.2) 0 Absent 1 Green base 2 Green tip 3 Green nodes 4 Purple base 5 Purple tip 6 Purple nodes 99 Other (specify in the descriptor Notes) Vine tip pubescence (4.1.6) Degree of hairiness of immature leaves recorded at the apex of the vines 0 Absent 3 Sparse 5 Moderate 7 Dense General outline of the leaf (4.1.7.1) 1 Rounded 2 Reniform (kidney-shaped) 3 Cordate (heart-shaped) 4 Triangular 5 Hastate (trilobular and spear-shaped with the basal lobes more or less divergent) 6 Lobed 7 Almost divided Leaf lobes type (4.1.7.2) 0 No lateral lobes (entire) 1 Very slight (teeth) 3 Slight 5 Moderate 7 Deep 9 Very deep Leaf lobe number (4.1.7.3) Most leaves of sweet potatoes have two basal lobes and they should not be counted. Record the predominant number of lateral and central leaf lobes observed on the leaves located in the middle section of the vine. Generally sweet potatoes have 1, 3, 5, 7 or 9 leaf lobes. If the leaf has no lateral lobes but shows a central tooth this number is 1. If the apical portion of the leaf is rounded this number is 0 Shape of central leaf lobe (4.1.7.4) 0 Absent 1 Toothed 2 Triangular 3 Semi-circular 4 Semi-elliptic 5 Elliptic 6 Lanceolate 7 Oblanceolate 8 Linear (broad) 9 Linear (narrow) Mature leaf size (4.1.8) Length from the basal lobes to the tip of the leaves. Record the average expression of at least three leaves located in the middle section of the vine 3 Small (<8 cm) 5 Medium (8-15 cm) 7 Large (16-25 cm) 9 Very large (>25 cm) Abaxial leaf vein pigmentation (4.1.9) Describe the most frequent expression of the distribution of anthocyanin (purple) pigmentation shown in the veins of the lower surface of leaves 1 Yellow 2 Green 3 Purple spot in the base of main rib 4 Purple spots in several veins 5 Main rib partially purple 6 Main rib mostly or totally purple 7 All veins partially purple 8 All veins mostly or totally purple 9 Lower surface and veins totally purple Mature leaf colour (4.1.10.1) 1 Yellow-green 2 Green 3 Green with purple edge 4 Greyish-green (due to dense pubescence) 5 Green with purple veins on upper surface 6 Slightly purple 7 Mostly purple 8 Green upper surface, purple lower surface 9 Purple on both surfaces Immature leaf colour (4.1.10.2) 1 Yellow-green 2 Green 3 Green with purple edge 4 Greyish-green (due to dense pubescence) 5 Green with purple veins on upper surface 6 Slightly purple 7 Mostly purple 8 Green upper surface, purple lower surface 9 Purple on both surfaces Petiole length (4.1.11) Average petiole length, from the base to the insertion with the blade, of at least three leaves in the middle portion of a main vine 1 Very short (<10 cm) 3 Short (10-20 cm) 5 Intermediate (21-30 cm) 7 Long (31-40 cm) 9 Very long (>40 cm) Petiole pigmentation (4.1.12) Distribution of anthocyanin (purple) pigmentation in the petioles of leaves. Indicate the most predominant colour first 1 Green 2 Green with purple near stem 3 Green with purple near leaf 4 Green with purple at both ends 5 Green with purple spots throughout petiole 6 Green with purple stripes 7 Purple with green near leaf 8 Some petioles purple, some others green 9 Totally or mostly purple Storage root shape (4.2.1) Storage root outline shown in longitudinal section 1 Round – almost a circular outline with a length to breadth (L/B) ratio of about 1:1 2 Round elliptic – a slightly circular outline with acute ends. L/B ratio not more than 2:1 3 Elliptic – symmetrical outline with about the maximum breadth at equal distance from both ends which are slightly acute. L/B ratio not more than 3:1 4 Ovate – outline resembling the longitudinal section of an egg. The broadest part is at the distal end (i.e. away from the root stalk) 5 Obovate – inversely ovate outline. The broadest part is at the proximal end (i.e. close to the root stalk) 6 Oblong – almost rectangular outline with sides nearly parallel and corners rounded. L/B ratio about 2:1 7 Long oblong – oblong outline with a L/B ratio of more than 3:1 8 Long elliptic – elliptic outline with a L/B ratio of more than 3:1 9 Long irregular or curved Storage root surface defects (4.2.2) 0 Absent 1 Alligator-like skin 2 Veins 3 Shallow horizontal constrictions 4 Deep horizontal constrictions 5 Shallow longitudinal grooves 6 Deep longitudinal grooves 7 Deep constrictions and deep grooves 99 Other (specify in the descriptor Notes) Storage root cortex thickness (4.2.3) 1 Very thin (<1 mm) 3 Thin (1-2 mm) 5 Intermediate (2-3 mm) 7 Thick (3-4 mm) 9 Very thick (>4 mm) Predominant storage root skin colour (4.2.4.1) 1 White 2 Cream 3 Yellow 4 Orange 5 Brownish orange 6 Pink 7 Red 8 Purple-red 9 Dark purple Intensity of predominant storage root skin colour (4.2.4.2) 1 Pale 2 Intermediate 3 Dark Secondary storage root skin colour (4.2.4.3) 0 Absent 1 White 2 Cream 3 Yellow 4 Orange 5 Brownish orange 6 Pink 7 Red 8 Purple-red 9 Dark purple Predominant storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.1) 1 White 2 Cream 3 Dark cream 4 Pale yellow 5 Dark yellow 6 Pale orange 7 Intermediate orange 8 Dark orange 9 Strongly pigmented with anthocyanins Secondary storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.2) 0 Absent 1 White 2 Cream 3 Yellow 4 Orange 5 Pink 6 Red 7 Purple-red 8 Purple 9 Dark purple Distribution of secondary storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.3) 0 Absent 1 Narrow ring in cortex 2 Broad ring in cortex 3 Scattered spots in flesh 4 Narrow ring in flesh 5 Broad ring in flesh 6 Ring and other areas in flesh 7 In longitudinal sections 8 Covering most of the flesh 9 Covering all flesh Storage root dry matter content [%] (6.2.1) Storage root nitrogen content [%] (6.2.2) Use the Kjeldahl Method Storage root starch content [% DW] (6.2.4) Storage root total alcohol soluble sugar content [%] (6.2.5) The phenol-sulphuric method is suggested Storage root carotene content [mg/100g FW] (6.2.6) Consistency of boiled storage root (6.2.9.1) 1 Watery 2 Extremely soft 3 Very soft 4 Soft 5 Slightly hard 6 Moderately hard 7 Hard 8 Very hard 9 Very hard and non-cooked Texture of boiled storage root flesh (6.2.9.3) 1 Dry 3 Somewhat dry 5 Intermediate 7 Moist 9 Very moist ABIOTIC STRESSES Reaction to drought (7.1) Observed after six weeks without irrigation or rainfall in a soil without subsurface water and in a season of high evaporation (4-6 mm per day) Reaction to flooding (7.2) Late season flooding during storage root formation. The environmental conditions could consist of about two weeks’ flooding (water-saturated soil) in a heavy soil Reaction to heat (7.3) Hot season with night temperatures of more than 22°C. The yield comparisons could be versus yields obtained under cooler conditions Reaction to salinity (7.4) In a soil with salinity levels of more than 8 mmhos/cm. The yield comparisons could be versus yields obtained in soils with less than 2 mmhos/cm BIOTIC STRESSES Sweet potato weevil (Cylas spp.) (8.1.1) Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.) (8.2.1) Fusarium wilt or stem rot (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. batatas) (8.3.1) Black rot (Ceratocystis fimbriata) (8.3.5) Java black rot (Diplodia gossypina) (8.3.8) Scab or spot anthracnose (Elsinoe batatas) (8.3.10) Charcoal rot (Macrophomina phaseoli) (8.3.14) Bacterial stem and root rot (Erwinia chrysanthemi) (8.4.2) Sweet potato virus disease (SPVD complex) (8.5.4) Sweet potato chlorotic stunt virus (SPCSV) (8.5.X) NOTES Any additional information may be specified here, particularly that referring to the category ‘99=Other’ present in some of the descriptors above. CONTRIBUTORS Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of this strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for sweet potato genetic resources’, and in particular to Dr D. Tay and Dr G. Rossel of the International Potato Centre (CIP) for providing valuable scientific direction. Adriana Alercia provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process. CORE ADVISORY GROUP Genoveva Rossel, International Potato Centre (CIP), Peru David Tay, International Potato Centre (CIP), Peru Danny Hunter, Bioversity International, Italy Grahame Jackson, Australia Robert Jarret, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA, ARS), USA Ana Panta, International Potato Centre (CIP), Peru Ramanatha Rao, Bioversity International, India Ivo Sias Costa, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA), Brazil Luis Antônio Suita de Castro, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA), Brazil REVIEWERS Argentina Carla Marcela Arizio, Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA) Australia Michael Hughes, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI), Queensland – Primary Industries and Fisheries Gunnar Kirchhof, University of Queensland China Qinghe Cao, Xuzhou Sweet Potato Research Centre Kaiyun Xie, International Potato Center (CIP), Liaison Office China Kenya Sammy Agili Makanginya, International Potato Center (CIP) India Dindo Campilan, International Potato Center (CIP) S.K. Naskar, Central Tuber Crops Research Institute Indonesia Muhammad Jusuf Yakub, Indonesian Legumes and Tuber Crops Research Institute Malawi Felistus Chipungu, Department of Agricultural Research Services Nigeria Malachy Akoroda, Sweetpotato Promotion Group Papua New Guinea Joseph Kapis, World Vision Tom Okpul, Papua New Guinea University of Technology Philippines Teresita H. Borromeo, University of the Philippines Los Baños Hidelisa de Chavez, International Potato Center (CIP-UPWARD) Proceso H. Manguiat, University of the Philippines Los Baños Algerico M. Mariscal, Philippines Root Crop Research and Training Center (PhilRootcrops) Tanzania Stephen Kuoko Sebastiani, Horticulture Research Institute (HORTI Tengeru) Methodology for the definition of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for taro (Colocasia esculenta) Information collection and preparation of a Minimum Descriptor List (MDL) Information for the definition of a strategic key set for Taro was drawn from the publication ‘Descriptors for Taro (Colocasia esculenta)’ (IPGRI, 1999), subsequently integrated and harmonized with descriptors suggested in the draft document ‘Edible Aroid Conservation Strategy’ being developed by the Global Crop Diversity Trust. Important evaluation traits, such as main pests and diseases and abiotic stresses, were added to the original descriptors lists, including traits that were awarded funds for further research by the Global Crop Diversity Trust 2008 Award Scheme ‘Enhancing the Value of Crop Diversity in a World of Climate Change’ (EAS). Preparing List of Experts The list of experts was prepared taking into account the list of original reviewers engaged in the publication of ‘Descriptors for Taro’ (IPGRI, 1999), as well as experts taking part in crop-specific consultations for the definition of the draft document ‘Edible Aroid Conservation Strategy’. Overall, 90 experts were identified, coming from 55 countries and 77 different organizations. Out of these, a Crop Leader (Danny Hunter) and a Core Advisory group consisting of six experts (See Annex I) were selected to assist in the definition of a minimum set of descriptors, which was later circulated for validation among the wider group of experts. Members of the CAG were selected amongst in-house specialists and experts working for world renowned institutions such as USDA/ARS, CIRAD, the Secretariat of the Pacific Community and the University of Maribor, Slovenia. Survey preparation and distribution A draft survey on Taro was prepared listing the descriptors as approved by consultations with the Crop Leader and the CAG. Once approved, the final draft of the survey was uploaded into the Survey Monkey application on the internet and sent out to the list of identified experts. A link was provided to experts who were invited to comment on the suitability of this initial ‘Minimum set of descriptors’ of Taro accessions in fostering the use of taro germplasm. Experts were also encouraged to specify any additional trait(s) that were found to be relevant yet missing from the proposed Minimum List, along with a substantiated justification for their inclusion. Email invitations to respond to the survey were sent out on the 28th of July 2008 and the survey deadline set at the 29th of August 2008. A reminder was sent out on the 22nd of August to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained (see Annex II). Survey analysis and refinement of the Minimum List Of the 90 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 13, coming from 11 countries, recorded their comments using the online survey. Their inputs were summarized in a comparison table and comments weighed against each other (see Annex III). As part of the refinement process, further sources of information on Taro descriptors were analyzed, namely: • Guarino, L. & Jackson, G. (1986). Strengthening plant protection and root crops development in the South Pacific. FAO. RAS/83/001. Field document 12 • Lebot, V. et al. (2004). Characterisation of taro (Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott genetic resources in Southeast Asia and Oceania. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 51: 381-392. Descriptors highlighted as important in these papers were harmonised as far as possible with comments received from Taro experts during the survey, with the Minimum List of descriptors published in Descriptors for Taro (IPGRI, 1999) and with evaluation traits for which the Trust awarded grants to various organizations to undertake evaluation on. Special attention was given to descriptors for which data are available. Suggested changes were further discussed with Danny Hunter, Bioversity’s root crop expert and the refined Minimum List sent out once again to the CAG group on 26 September 2008 for validation and finalization. Six out of seven CAG members submitted their comments. Definition of a Final key set of Descriptors for Taro Comments received were compared to IPGRI’s original Minimum List and to comments received during the survey using a comparison table (see Annex IV). Results obtained were further discussed with the Crop leader Danny Hunter for final approval. The final Minimum List (see Annex V) was approved on 17 October and published in December 2008 (see Annex VI). Once the core subset of characterization and evaluation standards for Taro was finalized, data were transformed into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN- Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA, and subsequently into GENESYS, linking national, regional and international genebank databases in support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The files were also shared with SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base, the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology, the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) and with EURISCO. Acknowledgement Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for taro genetic resources’, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial support. Annex I - List of experts identified for participation to the Survey for the definition of a minimum set of descriptors for Taro Role Name Organization Country Crop Leader Hunter, Danny Bioversity Italy Core Group Jackson, Graeme Australia Core Group Ayala-Silva, Tomas USDA-ARS National Germplasm Repository USA Core Group Ivancic, Anton Faculty of Agriculture, University of Maribor Slovenia Core Group Lebot, Vincent CIRAD Vanuatu Core Group Ramanatha, Rao V.R. Bioversity (HF) India Core Group Taylor, Mary SPC Fiji TaroGen expert Harding, Rob University of Queensland Australia TaroGen expert Singh, Davinder University of Sydney Australia Crop Strategy Expert Akonaay, Herman B. National Plant Genetic Resources Centre (TPRI) Tanzania Crop Strategy Expert Akoroda, Malachy IITA Nigeria Crop Strategy Expert Autar, Moti Koronivia Research Station Fiji Crop Strategy Expert Baniya, B.K. Nepal Agricultural Research Council Nepal Crop Strategy Expert Baramburiye, Juven Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Burundi (ISABU) Burundi Crop Strategy Expert Bennett-Lartey, Samuel Institute of Plant genetic Resources Ghana Crop Strategy Expert Bosques Vega, Angel Estación Experimental Agricola de Isabela Puerto Rico Crop Strategy Expert Cadima, Ximena PROINPA Brazil Crop Strategy Expert Castiñeiras, Leonor Instituto de Investigaciones Fundamentales en Agriculturea Tropical (INIFAT) Cuba Crop Strategy Expert Davidson, Campbell NORGEN Canada Role Name Organization Country Crop Strategy Expert Del Rosario, Aurora Palau Community College R&D Station Palau Crop Strategy Expert Edison, S . CTCRI India Crop Strategy Expert Embaye, Kassahun Institute of BiodiversityConservation and Research Ethiopia Crop Strategy Expert Englberger, Konrad SPC Federate d States of Micronesi a Crop Strategy Expert Ferraren, Dilberto O. Philippine Root Crops Research and Training Centre (PRCRTC) Philippine s Crop Strategy Expert Gonçalves, Eduardo Botanical Gardens of the Universidade Católica de Brasília Brazil Crop Strategy Expert Gumedze, T. Department of Agricultural Research Swazilan d Crop Strategy Expert Herscovitch, Claire Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney Australia Crop Strategy Expert Höfte, Monica University of Ghent Belgium Crop Strategy Expert Iosefa, Tolo University of the South Pacific Samoa Crop Strategy Expert Islam, Obaidul M. Plant Genetic Resources Centre, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council Banglade sh Crop Strategy Expert Jusuf, Muhammed Research Institute for Legume and Tuber Crops Indonesia Crop Strategy Expert Ke, Weidong Wuhan Vegetable Research Institute China Crop Strategy Expert Kusena, Kudzai National Genebank of Zimbabwe Zimbabw e Crop Strategy Expert Lamine, Doumbouya Mohamed National Gene Bank Guinea Crop Strategy Expert Lawrence, Janet CARDI Jamaica Crop Strategy Expert Lezar, Andre National Plant Genetic Resources Centre South Africa Role Name Organization Country Crop Strategy Expert Liyange, A. Plant Genetic Resources Centre Sri Lanka Crop Strategy Expert Loots, Sonja National Botanical Research Institute Namibia Crop Strategy Expert Lupupa, Thandie SADC Plant Genetic Resources Centre (SPGRC) Zambia Crop Strategy Expert Mahdere, Amanuel PGR & Agronomy, Department of Agricultural Research & HRD Eritrea Crop Strategy Expert Marceau, Farant INRA Guadaloupe Crop Strategy Expert Marischal, Algerico Philippine Root Crops Research and Training Centre (PRCRTC) Philippine s Crop Strategy Expert Mbanaso, Ada National Root Crops Research Institute Nigeria Crop Strategy Expert Milian, Marilys Instituto de Investigaciones de Viandas Tropicales Cuba Crop Strategy Expert Moçambique, Pedro Antonio Centro Nacional De Recursos Fitogeneticos Angola Crop Strategy Expert Mohloboli, M. Department of Agricultural Research Lesotho Crop Strategy Expert Morales, Sergio Rodríguez Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones de Viandas Tropicales (INIVIT) Cuba Crop Strategy Expert Munisse, Paulino IIAM - Instituto de Investigacao Agraria de Mozambique Mozambi que Crop Strategy Expert Munyuli, Theodore National Centre for Research in Natural Sciences CRSN-LWIRO DR Congo Crop Strategy Expert Mutaganda, Amini Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Rwanda (ISAR), Rwanda Crop Strategy Expert Mwila, G. Zambia NPGRC Zambia Crop Strategy Expert Nahimana, Melchior Institut de Recherche Agronomique et Zootechnique (IRAZ) Burundi Crop Strategy Expert Nsapato, Lucius Chitedze Research Station Malawi Crop Strategy Expert Ofentse, Ounce NPGRC Botswana Role Name Organization Country Crop Strategy Expert Ofentse, Tlhaloganyo O. DAR Botswana Crop Strategy Expert Ofori, Kwadwo University of Ghana Ghana Crop Strategy Expert Ortiz, Carlos University of Puerto Rico Puerto Rico Crop Strategy Expert Prana, Made LIPI Indonesia Crop Strategy Expert Premathilaka, A. Horticultural Crop research Development Institute Sri Lanka Crop Strategy Expert Pungulani, Lawrent Malawi Plant Genetic Resources Centre Malawi Crop Strategy Expert Ramanantosoarina, Allain SRR FOFIFA Madagas car Crop Strategy Expert Reyes Castro, Guillermo National Agrarian University Nicaragu a Crop Strategy Expert Rios Lobo, Llerme INIEA Peru Crop Strategy Expert Robin, Gregory ISTRC Jamaica Crop Strategy Expert Saborio, Francisco Universidad de Costa Rica Costa Rica Crop Strategy Expert Sagoe, Regina Ghana Crop Strategy Expert Sharma, S.K. National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources India Crop Strategy Expert Shirata, Kazuto National Center for Seeds & Seedlings Japan Crop Strategy Expert Tshewang, Ugygen National Biodiversity Programme, Ministry of Agriculture, Bhutan Crop Strategy Expert Vargas, Clemente Estación Experimental Pucallpa - Ucayali, INIEA Peru Crop Strategy Expert Varin, Didier Centre des Tubercules Tropicaux New Caledoni a Role Name Organization Country Crop Strategy Expert Verma, Virendra Mohan MPPRC Federate d States of Micronesi a Crop Strategy Expert Villavicencio, Maria Lea National Plant Genetic Resources Laboratory, Institute of Plant Breeding-Crop Science Cluster Philippine s Crop Strategy Expert Wasswa, John Mulumba Entebbe Botanical Gardens Uganda Crop Strategy Expert Wetzel, Magaly INPA Brazil Crop Strategy Expert Wigmore, William & Poeschko, Maja MAF Cook Islands Crop Strategy Expert Xande, Alain INRA Guadaloupe Reviewer (MDL) Fullerton, Bob NZODA/Hort-research New Zealand Reviewer (MDL) Greenough, Diana R. ADAP Plant Diagnostic/ Research Lab, Northern Marianas College Reviewer (MDL) Hay, Alistair formerly Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney Australia Reviewer (MDL) Kambuou, Rosa NARI Dry Lowlands Program Papua New Guinea Reviewer (MDL) Konishi, Tatsuo Tokyo University of Agriculture Japan Reviewer (MDL) Matthews, Peter National Museum of Ethnology Japan Reviewer (MDL) Okpul, Tom University of Queensland Australia Reviewer (MDL) Paofa, Janet NARI, Laloki Papua New Guinea Reviewer (MDL) Risimeri, Jimmy NARI, Laloki Papua New Guinea Reviewer (MDL) Sauerborn, Joachim University of Hohenheim Germany Reviewer (MDL) Sivan, Param Taro Genetic Resources Project (SPC) Fiji Reviewer (MDL) Takayanagi, Kenji Institute of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Tsukuba Japan Reviewer (MDL) Velayudhan, K.C. National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (ICAR) India Reviewer (MDL) Yoshino, Hiromichi Faculty of Agriculture, Okayama University Japan Annex II – Survey to choose a Minimum set of Descriptors for Taro (Colocasia esculenta) WELCOME Welcome to the survey for the selection of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors to support an international system of information to enhance the utilization of germplasm held in genebanks. Your knowledge and experience is requested to validate this initial ‘Minimum set of descriptors’ of Taro accessions to facilitate their use by researchers. This key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors will be made available through a global facility for identifying sets of accessions for evaluation and use. For characterization, the aim is a small set of maximally differentiating traits that provide the most impact in discriminating between accessions and, sometimes, may be also relevant to choosing accessions for evaluation. For evaluation, the aim is to focus on a few important traits for production, such as tolerance to drought or salinity stress. This initial set of characterization and evaluation data will constitute the basis of an international facility for researchers to identify the sets of accessions more likely to contain the genetic variation they require for their specific crop improvement programmes. The list presented here has been drawn from the IPGRI publication “Descriptors for Taro” (1999) and, as discussed during the Trust Crop Strategy Meeting for the ex-situ conservation for edible aroids (2007), while morphological information has been documented, more work is needed for agronomic evaluations. This survey should take no longer than 15 minutes. Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is August the 29th 2008. We thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in validating this initial, key set of descriptors. This survey consists of two parts: PART I: Lists important characterization descriptors for Taro. It also allows you to indicate if any essential descriptor that can contribute to its use is missing from the minimum list presented. PART II: Lists important evaluation descriptors for Taro. It also allows you to indicate if any essential trait for production is missing from the minimum list presented or indicate any that may not be very significant to global production. 2. PART I: Characterization descriptors Characterization descriptors* are those that permit accessions to be easily described and categorized into groups. They are generally highly heritable, can be easily seen by the eye and are expressed equally in all environments. *Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in the Bioversity publication ‘Descriptors for Taro’ (1999). NUMBER OF STOLONS (Side shoots) (7.1.3) 0 None 1 1 – 5 2 6 – 10 3 11 – 20 4 >20 LEAF BLADE COLOUR (7.2.4) Observed on fully expanded and mature leaves 1 Whitish 2 Yellow or yellow green 3 Green 4 Dark green 5 Pink 6 Red 7 Purple 8 Blackish (violet-blue) LEAF LAMINA LENGTH/WIDTH RATIO (7.2.7) Recorded at maximum width and length of leaf lamina excluding petiole LEAF VEIN MAIN COLOUR (7.2.11) Observe the upper side of the leaf blade, beyond junction 1 Whitish 2 Yellow 3 Orange 4 Green 5 Pink 6 Red 7 Brownish 8 Purple VEIN PATTERN (7.2.12) Shape of pigmentation on veins on leaf lower surface 1 V pattern (in a ‘V’ space) 2 I pattern (in an ‘I’ shape) 3 Y pattern (in a ‘Y’ shape) 4 Y pattern and extending to secondary veins PETIOLE/LAMINA LENGTH RATIO (7.2.13) PETIOLE COLOUR (7.2.14) 1 Whitish 2 Yellow 3 Orange 4 Light green 5 Green 6 Red 7 Brown 8 Purple PETIOLE COLOUR OF TOP THIRD (7.2.14.1) Same colours as 7.2.14 PETIOLE COLOUR OF MIDDLE THIRD (7.2.14.2) Same colours as 7.2.14 PETIOLE COLOUR OF BASAL THIRD (7.2.14.3) Same colours as 7.2.14 FLOWER FORMATION (7.3.1) 0 Absent 1 Rarely flowering (less than 10% of plants flowering) 2 Flowering (more than 10% of plants flowering) CORM BRANCHING (7.5.3) 0 Unbranched 1 Branched CORM SHAPE (7.5.4) 1 Conical 2 Round 3 Cylindrical 4 Elliptical 5 Dumb-bell 6 Elongated 7 Flat and multifaced 8 Clustered 9 Hammer-shaped CORM FLESH COLOUR OF CENTRAL PART (7.5.7) 1 White 2 Yellow 3 Orange 4 Pink 5 Red 6 Red-purple 7 Purple CORM FLESH FIBRE COLOUR (7.5.8) 1 White 2 Light yellow 3 Yellow or orange 4 Red 5 Brown 6 Purple If you consider that an essential trait for the identification of the crop to promote its use is missing from this list, please add it here along with a substantiated justification. 4. PART II: Evaluation Descriptors This type of descriptor includes those traits of significant importance to sustainable production, including abiotic and biotic stresses. In this case we want to target a few key evaluation traits for which we can initially collect data. This list is the starting point and would grow over time. DRY MATTER CONTENT OF CORMS AT SHORT STORAGE [mg/100g, DM] (8.1.2) Less than 1 week CORM ACRIDITY [mg/100 g, DM] (8.1.5) 1 Very low ≤ 50 mg 2 Low 51 – 100 mg 3 Intermediate 101-300 mg 4 High > 300 mg PALATABILITY (8.1.7) Taste panel test 3 Bad 5 Fair 7 Good REACTION TO HIGH TEMPERATURE (9.1) Scored under natural conditions during the hot season REACTION TO DROUGHT (9.2) Scored under natural conditions during day period for at least four weeks REACTION TO SOIL SALINITY (9.4) BEETLES (Papuana spp.) (10.1.1) TARO LEAF BLIGHT (Phytophthora colocasiae) (10.2.1) PYTHIUM ROOT ROT (Pythium spp.) (10.2.2) VIRUSES (Please specify below, i.e. Dasheen mosaic virus (DsMV); Colocasia bobone disease virus). If you consider that an essential trait important for crop improvement and production is missing from this list, or, if any of the descriptors listed is not clearly useful to promote utilization, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. Could you please indicate if you think the key descriptors chosen are suitable for the stated purpose? Could you please indicate if you think the key descrip Yes No NOTE: Please remember, this list is the starting point and will grow over time, as required. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOU tors chosen are suitable for the stated purpose? R PARTICIPATION. Annex III – Summary of comments received from Survey for the definition of a key set of descriptors for Taro Name Characterization descriptors to be added Characterization descriptors to be deleted Evaluation descriptors to be added Evaluation descriptors to be deleted Do you think the key descriptors chosen are suitable for the stated purpose? Yes/No Ayala-Silva, Tomas * * * * Yes Ferraren, Dilberto O. Petiole stripe (7.2.15) * * Corm acridity Yes Iosefa, Tolo Petiole junction pattern (7.2.8); Petiole junction colour (7.2.9) Plant maturity (earliness); Reaction to waterlogging Yes Ivancic, Anton Number of suckers; Leaf blade margin Vein pattern; Flower formation * Reaction to salinity; Resistance to Beetles No Matthews, Peter *Absolute measurements should be recorded, not ratios Corm shape to be combined with branching habit; Shapes to be recorded in 3D; Basal ring colour * Mouth feel; Reactions to temperature salinity, and drought need to be clarified more. *More detail in reaction to pests Corm acridity No Mbanaso, Egbichi N.A. * * * * * Okpul, Tom *Replace no. of stolons with stolon formation * * * Yes Ortiz, C. E. * * * * Yes Rao, Ramanatha V. Critical descriptors: No. of stolons, leaf blade colour, leaf vein main colour, corm shape, corm flesh colour Corm flesh fibre colour Critical descriptors: Dry matter content, corm acridity, palatability, Taro leaf blight Reaction to temperature, drought, salinity; resistance to Beetles and to Pythium root rot Yes Reyes Castro, G. * * * * Yes Ríos Lobo, Llermé Important descriptors: Petiole junction colour; No. of corms per plant; Corm size; Corm skin colour; Corm weight per plant; Corm yield Leaf colour; Leaf vein main colour * * * Yes Villavicencio, Maria Lea H. Hairiness of corms * * * Yes Weidong, Ke *Petiole junction colour * Consistency of cooked corms or cormels Yes Annex IV - Table comparing all inputs received from the Expert Survey and from CAG consultations. Comments were weighed against descriptors mentioned in Descriptors for Taro (IPGRI, 1999) and evaluation descriptors that have been granted evaluation awards by the Trust Descriptor name Desc. no. Biove rsity Lebot Jackson/ Guarino Ferraren Iosefa Ivancic Matthews Okpul Rao Rios Lobo Villavic encio Weidong Taylor O r i g i n a l M D L p r o p o s e d b y B i o v e r s i t y Number of stolons (Side shoots) (7.1.3) * Stolon formati on Stolon formation ** Replac e with Stolon formati on * Leaf blade colour (7.2.4) * * * * * Leaf lamina length/width ratio (7.2.7) * * Delete Leaf vein main colour (7.2.11) * * * Vein pattern (7.2.12) * ** Delete Petiole/lamina length ratio (7.2.13) * * Delete Petiole colour (7.2.14) * * * Petiole colour of top third (7.2.14.1) * * ** Petiole colour of middle third (7.2.14.2) * * Petiole colour of basal third (7.2.14.3) * ** Flower formation (7.3.1) * * * * Delete Corm branching (7.5.3) * Corm shape (7.5.4) * * (combi ned with corm branch ing) * * (combine with corm branchin g) * Corm flesh colour of central part (7.5.7) * * ** * Descriptor name Desc. no. Biove rsity Lebot Jackson/ Guarino Ferraren Iosefa Ivancic Matthews Okpul Rao Rios Lobo Villavic encio Weidong Taylor Corm flesh fibre colour (7.5.8) * * Del ete Dry matter content of corms at short storage (8.1.2) * * Corm acridity (8.1.5) * See art. Problem evaluatin g trait Delete * Corm Palatability (8.1.7) * * * Reaction to high temperature (9.1) * * (record with altitude) * Reaction to drought (EAS) (9.2) * * (to be clarified) Reaction to soil salinity (EAS) (9.4) * * (to be clarified ) * (to be clarified) Resistance to Beetles (Papuana spp.) (10.1.1) * * (to be clarified ) * Resistance to Taro Leaf Blight (Phytophthora colocasiae) (10.2.1) * * * * Resistance to Pythium root rot (Pythium spp.) (10.2.2) * * Resistance to viruses (Please specify) * * * (more detail) ** = data available EAS = Evaluation Awards granted by the Trust Descriptor name Desc. no. Biove rsity Lebot Jackson/ Guarino Ferraren Iosefa Ivancic Matthews Okpul Rao Rios Lobo Villavi cencio Weidong Taylor A d d i t i o n a l d e s c r i p t o r s Plant height (7.1.2) * No. of suckers (7.1.4) * * Leaf base shape (7.2.1) * Sap colour of leaf blade tip (7.2.10) ** Petiole stripe (7.2.15) Petiole stripe colour (7.2.15.1) * * Petiole basal-ring colour (7.2.16) ** * (important ) Leaf sheath colour (7.2.19) ** Predominant position/orientation of leaf lamina surface (7.2.2) * ** Leaf blade margin (7.2.3) * * Very importa nt Variegation of lamina (7.2.4.1) * ** Leaf blade margin colour (7.2.5) * Petiole junction pattern (7.2.8) ** * Petiole junction colour (7.2.9) * ** * * * Corm weight (7.5.5) * * Corm cortex colour (7.5.6) * Plant maturity (earliness) (8.3.1) * * Altitude * Botanical variety * Corm Hairiness * Corm size * Descriptor name Desc. no. Biove rsity Lebot Jackson/ Guarino Ferraren Iosefa Ivancic Matthews Okpul Rao Rios Lobo Villavi cencio Weidong Taylor Corm yield * Germplasm type (2.13) * Growing conditions (2.17.15) * Growth habit * Mouth feel (Consistency of cooked corms) * * Number of corms per plant * Reaction to waterlogging * Resistance to Corm rot disease (Hirschmaniella miticausa) * Sinus * Taro large and small bacilliform virus diseases * Ratio of sheath length/total petiole length (7.2.18) * Beta Carotene content * (linked to flesh colour ) Annex V – Key set of descriptors for Taro (Colocasia esculenta) as defined by survey analysis, consultations with Core Advisory Group composed of world- recognised Taro experts and in-house discussion with Bioversity root crop experts Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in the publication ‘Descriptors for Taro (Colocasia esculenta)’ (IPGRI, 1999). 1. Number of stolons (side shoots) (7.1.3) 2. Number of suckers (7.1.4) 3. Leaf blade colour (7.2.4) 4. Petiole junction colour (7.2.9) 5. Leaf vein main colour (7.2.11) 6. Petiole colour (7.2.14) 7. Petiole basal-ring colour (7.2.16) 8. Flower formation (7.3.1) 9. Corm branching (7.5.3) 10. Corm shape (7.5.4) 11. Corm flesh colour of central part (7.5.7) 12. Dry matter content of corms at short storage [mg/100g DM] (8.1.2) 13. Corm acridity [mg/100 g DM] (8.1.5) 14. Palatability (8.1.7) 15. Plant maturity (earliness) (8.3.1) 16. Reaction to drought (9.2) 17. Reaction to soil salinity (9.4) 18. Resistance to Taro leaf blight (Phytophthora colocasiae) (10.2.1) Annex VI – Final key set of descriptors for taro genetic resources Key access and utilization descriptors for taro genetic resources This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for taro utilization. This key set of strategic descriptors, together with passport data, will become the basis for the global accession-level information system being developed by the Bioversity-led project, Global Information on Germplasm Accessions (GIGA). It will facilitate access to and utilization of taro accessions held in genebanks, and does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently become available. Based on the comprehensive list of ‘Descriptors for Taro (Colocasia esculenta)’ (IPGRI, 1999), this minimal set, listed below with the original descriptor states, was developed in consultation with taro experts worldwide, and further refined by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr Danny Hunter of Bioversity International. Biotic and abiotic stresses included in the list were chosen because of their wide geographic occurrence and significant economic impact. The numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in the publication ‘Descriptors for Taro (Colocasia esculenta)’ (IPGRI, 1999). Number of stolons (side shoots) (7.1.3) 0 None 1 1–5 2 6–10 3 11–20 4 >20 Number of suckers (direct shoot) (7.1.4) 0 Absent 1 1–5 2 6–10 3 11–20 4 >20 Leaf blade colour (7.2.4) Observed on fully expanded and mature leaves 1 Whitish 2 Yellow or yellow green 3 Green 4 Dark green 5 Pink 6 Red 7 Purple 8 Blackish (violet–blue) 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Petiole junction colour (7.2.9) Observed on the upper side 0 Absent 1 Yellow 2 Green 3 Red 4 Purple 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Leaf main vein colour (7.2.11) Observe the upper side of leaf blade, beyond junction 1 Whitish 2 Yellow 3 Orange 4 Green 5 Pink 6 Red 7 Brownish 8 Purple 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Petiole colour (7.2.14) Colour of top third (7.2.14.1) 1 Whitish 2 Yellow 3 Orange 4 Light green 5 Green 6 Red 7 Brown 8 Purple 99 Other (e.g. ‘bronze’, black; specify in the Notes descriptor) Colour of middle third (7.2.14.2) Same colours as for 7.2.14.1 Colour of basal third (7.2.14.3) Same colours as for 7.2.14.1 Petiole basal-ring colour (7.2.16) 1 White 2 Green (yellow green) 3 Pink 4 Red 5 Purple 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Flower formation (7.3.1) 0 Absent 1 Rarely flowering (less than 10% of plants flowering) 2 Flowering (more than 10%1 of plants flowering) 1 10% is considered to be the level of frequent flowering. Corm branching (7.5.3) 0 Unbranched 1 Branched Corm shape (7.5.4) 1 Conical 2 Round 3 Cylindrical 4 Elliptical 5 Dumb-bell 6 Elongated 7 Flat and multifaced 8 Clustered 9 Hammer-shaped 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Corm flesh colour of central part (7.5.7) 1 White 2 Yellow 3 Orange 4 Pink 5 Red 6 Red–purple 7 Purple 99 Other (e.g. if colour is not uniform—blotches of lighter or darker pigmentation— specify in Notes descriptor) Dry matter content of corms [mg/100 g DM] (8.1.2) At short storage (<1 week) Corm acridity [mg/100 g DM] (8.1.5) 1 Very low ≤50 mg 2 Low 51–100 mg 3 Intermediate 101–300 mg 4 High >300 mg Palatability (8.1.7) Taste panel test 3 Bad 5 Fair 7 Good Plant maturity (earliness) (8.3.1) 1 Very early (<4 months) 2 Early (4 to 6 months) 3 Intermediate (6 to 8 months) 4 Late (8 to 10 months) 5 Very late (>10 months) 6 Undetermined growth (wild types) Reaction to drought (9.2) Scored under natural conditions during day period for at least four weeks Reaction to soil salinity (9.4) Stress susceptibility to Taro leaf blight (Phytophthora colocasiae) (10.2.1) Notes Any additional information may be specified here, particularly that referring to the category ‘Other’ present in some of the descriptors above. CONTRIBUTORS Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who contributed to the development of this strategic set of key access and utilization descriptors for taro genetic resources. The following Bioversity staff contributed to this exercise: Danny Hunter, who provided scientific direction, and Adriana Alercia who provided technical expertise and guided the whole production process. CORE ADVISORY GROUP Danny Hunter, Bioversity International, Italy Tomas Ayala-Silva, USDA-ARS National Germplasm Repository, USA Anton Ivancic, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Maribor, Slovenia Grahame Jackson, Australia Vincent Lebot, CIRAD, Vanuatu V. Ramanatha Rao, Bioversity, India Mary Taylor, SPC, Fiji REVIEWERS China Ke Weidong, Wuhan Vegetable Research Institute Japan Peter Matthews, National Museum of Ethnology Nicaragua Guillermo Reyes Castro, Universidad Nacional Agraria Nigeria Egbichi Nnenna Adaoha Mbanaso, National Root Crops Research Institute Papua New Guinea Tom Okpul, PNG University of Technology Peru Llermé Rios Lobo, INIEA Philippines Dilberto O. Ferraren, Philippine Root Crops Research and Training Centre (PRCRTC) Maria Lea Villavicencio, National Plant Genetic Resources Laboratory, Institute of Plant Breeding-Crop Science Cluster Samoa Tolo Iosefa, University of the South Pacific USA Carlos Ortiz, University of Puerto Rico Methodology for the definition of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for wheat (Triticum spp.) Information collection and preparation of the initial set of Descriptor List Information for the definition of a key set of descriptors and traits for Wheat was drawn from the publication “Revised Descriptor List for Wheat (Triticum spp.)” (IBPGR, 1985). The list was subsequently integrated and harmonized with descriptors suggested in the Crop Strategy for the ex-situ conservation of Triticale Genetic Resources (the Trust 2007), and with descriptors being funded for further research by the Global Crop Diversity Trust 2008 Award Scheme ‘Enhancing the Value of Crop Diversity in a World of Climate Change’ (EAS). Preparing List of Experts Experts were drawn from participants to the crop-specific consultations for the definition of the Crop Strategy for the ex-situ conservation of Triticale Genetic Resources, and from those taking part in the 11th Wheat Genetic Symposium (Brisbane, August 2008). Reviewers from the 1985 descriptors list were excluded due to the outdated nature of their contact information. Overall, 63 experts were identified, coming from 16 countries and 40 different organizations. Out of these, the Group Leader (Michael Mackay) selected a Core Advisory group (CAG) consisting of 15 experts to assist in the definition of a minimum set of descriptors. Core Group members were chosen among experts from institutes and organizations at the forefront in wheat breeding and research, namely USDA/ARS, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, ICARDA, CIMMYT, the Research Institute of Crop Production, the John Innes Centre, the N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry, the Wheat Genetics and Genomics Resource Centre, the Department of Primary Industries NSW, the University of Zurich and the Komugi Network of Japan. Survey preparation and distribution As a preliminary step, on 19 August 2008, Michael Mackay sent out an email to a select number of wheat experts (see Annex I) explaining the important goal raised by a number of the global strategies for the conservation and utilization of various important crop species supported by the Global Crop Diversity Trust. Their purpose was to identify a limited set of characterization and evaluation descriptors to provide users with options for accessing and identifying candidate wheat accessions for further evaluation/utilization. In his email (see Annex II) he provided a ‘short’ list of characterization descriptors and evaluation traits requesting experts to provide their feedback and comments on the suitability of those traits for the purpose outlined above (see Annex III). Comments received were analysed (see Annex IV) and a revised key set of descriptors was prepared to be shared among participants to the 11th International Wheat Genetics Symposium held in Brisbane, Australia, in August 2008. During the Wheat Plant Genetic Resources Workshop held during the Symposium, on 26 August 2008, Michael Mackay presented the revised key set of descriptors for wheat to about 50 participants who discussed the proposed list and provided their input. On return to Bioversity Headquarter, comments received by email and during the meeting were harmonized to produce a revised key set of descriptors to be further discussed with the CAG prior to final selection of the ‘roll-out’ descriptors. Thus, in place of a survey, an informal letter was sent out to the 15 experts forming the CAG on 29 October 2008 (see Annex V). CAG members were invited to submit their comments and/or validate the final key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors of Wheat accessions. Comments received were collected in a summary table (see Annex VI), analyzed and harmonized with the original descriptors list. This exercise led to the definition of the final key set of descriptors for wheat (Annex VII). Afterwards a final key set was prepared adding descriptor states and contributors and validated again by Michael Mackay (see Annex VIII). Once the core subset of characterization and evaluation standards for Wheat was finalized, data were transformed into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN-Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA and into GENESYS, linking national, regional and international genebank databases in support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also shared with the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) and EURISCO. Acknowledgement Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for wheat genetic resources’, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial support. Annex I – Core Group of experts identified for participation to the definition of a key set of descriptors for Wheat Role Name Organization Country Core Group Bockelman, Harold E. USDA/ARS National Small Grains Research Facility USA Core Group (IWGS) Clarke, John Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canada Core Group (IWGS) Dotlacil, Ladislav Research Institute of Crop Production Czech Republic Core Group (the Trust/IWGS) Endo, Takashi R. Graduate School of Agriculture (JPN Komugi Network) Japan Core Group Faberova, Iva Research Institute of Crop Production (RICP) Czech Republic Core Group (the Trust) Gill, Bikram S. Wheat Genetics and Genomics Resource Center (WGGRC) USA Core Group (IWGS) Grimes, Greg Department of Primary Industries NSW Australia Core Group (IWGS) Keller, Beat University of Zurich Switzerland Core Group (the Trust) Mitrofanova, Olga P. N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry Russia Core Group (IWGS) Ogbonnaya, Francis ICARDA Syria Core Group Payne, Thomas CIMMYT Mexico Core Group Braun, Hans CIMMYT Mexico Core Group Singh, Ravi CIMMYT Mexico Core Group (the Trust) Snape, John John Innes Centre (JIC) United Kingdom Core Group Zonghu, He National Centre for Wheat Research and Engineering China Annex II – Email sent by Michael Mackay to selected group of Wheat experts on 19 August 2008 Dear Colleague, Firstly, please accept my greetings in my new role at Bioversity International. Secondly, this request for your assistance is aimed at identifying some key descriptors that will assist researchers to utilize wheat germplasm. These key descriptors, along with passport data, will become the foundation information to be made available to researchers in a global accession level information system. This system will provide access to some 2.5 million accessions (not all wheat!) held in important genebanks worldwide. I have identified a ‘short’ list of characterization descriptors and evaluation traits below, as well as a longer list. The short list is, in my opinion, fundamental in categorizing accessions and should be helpful to utilization, while the longer lists are provided for reference. The short list of evaluation traits represents those for which the Global Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust) has awarded grants to various organizations to undertake evaluation; hence there will be results and data available from this work in due course. The numbers in parentheses following the descriptors refer to the original descriptor numbers contained in the “Revised Descriptor List for Wheat (Triticum spp.)” (IBPGR, 1985). So, I am seeking your opinion/comment on the short list of characterization descriptors and evaluation traits as being applicable to the objectives I have outlined above. For those of you who will be present at the 11th International Wheat Genetics Symposium (Brisbane 24-29 August) I intend to present these lists at the Wheat Plant Genetic Resources Workshop on Tuesday 26th August and seek comment / agreement from the wider audience that will be present. If you won’t be present at the IWGS, could I ask you to please send your comment/suggestions to Teresa Borelli (T.Borelli@CGIAR.ORG) by 12 September? The agreed key descriptors will be included as those wheat descriptors to be initially available for searching in the global system when it is deployed in 2010. Your contribution will be much appreciated and, later, acknowledged in the global system. Should you require any further assistance, please don’t hesitate to contact one of my colleagues, Adriana (A.Alercia@CGIAR.ORG) and Teresa (T.Borelli@CGIAR.ORG), or myself by email. Sincerely, Michael Mackay Annex III – First attempt at a ‘short’ list of characterization and evaluation descriptors for Wheat, sent out by email to Core Advisory Group on 19/08/08 Proposed Minimum/Key Descriptor List Growth class (seasonality) (4.1.1) Spike density (4.2.2) Awnedness (4.2.3) Glume colour (4.2.4) Glume hairiness (4.2.5) Seed colour (4.3.1) Proposed Key Evaluation Trait List: Pre-harvest sprouting tendency (6.3.1) Protein content (6.3.3) Tolerance to drought (7.4) Tolerance to salinity (7.7) Susceptibility to Hessian fly (Mayetiola destructor) (8.1.2) Susceptibility to Stem Rust (Puccinia graminis) (8.2.2) Susceptibility to Powdery mildew (Erysiphe graminis f.sp. hordei) (8.2.4) Susceptibility to Glume blotch (Septoria nodorum) (8.2.5) Susceptibility to Russian wheat aphid (Diuraphis noxia) Susceptibility to Sunn pest Annex IV – Comments on proposed key set of Descriptor List for Wheat sent out on 19 August 2008. Descriptor numbers with an asterisk (*) are considered 1st priority descriptors Descriptor no. Descriptor name Thomas Payne (CIMMYT) Bockelman, Harold E. (USDA/ARS) Hans Braun 4.1.1* Growth class (seasonality) 4.1.2 Plant height Reduced height (Rht) genes if known 4.2.2* Spike density 4.2.3* Awnedness 4.2.4* Glume colour 4.2.5* Glume hairiness 4.3.1* Seed colour 6.3.1* Pre-harvest sprouting tendency Note: Presumably only for white grained materials? 6.3.3* Protein content Wonders about value of this trait, since it is easily manipulated in breeding Relative to what? - Dependent on environment; 12% protein means nothing 7.4* Tolerance to drought Wonders about value of this trait, since it is extremely difficult to quantify Not sure how you measure this - in what environment? 7.7* Tolerance to salinity How accurate will this screening be? What is the reference? 8.1.2* Susceptibility to Hessian fly (Mayetiola destructor) Against which biotype? Descriptor no. Descriptor name Thomas Payne (CIMMYT) Bockelman, Harold E. (USDA/ARS) Hans Braun 8.2.2* Susceptibility to Stem Rust (Puccinia graminis) Note: Until virulence is wider spread, this may be difficult to usefully screen. Without adequate virulence, some locations may record mostly resistant types. Why stem rust only? Susceptibility/resista nce means nothing without knowing races/genes. This info could be very misleading without additional info. 8.2.4 Susceptibility to Powdery mildew (Erysiphe graminis f.sp. hordei) [tritici ?] Not sure why; reaction to Yellow Rust and Leaf Rust would be more useful to the developing world 8.2.5* Susceptibility to Glume blotch (Septoria nodorum) Worldwide Septoria tritici much more important! * Susceptibility to Russian wheat aphid (Diuraphis noxia) I believe more than a dozen resistance genes have been identified for RWA. Are more sources required? * Susceptibility to Sunn pest Has genetic resistance been identified? Further comments Thomas Payne (CIMMYT): May consider also including: • Grain micronutrient content (Iron, Zinc) for those cooperators working with HarvestPlus • Winter survival (=winter kill) important for winter wheat environments • Aphid damage [postulated to be increasingly important with warmer climates] • Helminthosporium sativum [particularly important for hotter environments, e.g. Eastern Gangetic Plains, Bangladesh] • Septoria tritici, as it is very important in Mediterranean countries, perhaps more so for durum • Plant height, as an indicator of semi-dwarf (“modern”), etc. [either in cm or relative to a check]. Easy and routinely measured. • Phenology, as days to heading and/or anthesis. Again, easy and routinely measured. • Breeders are often asked for high industrial quality materials. I’ve never been asked for this type of material. I suspect genebanks have the “reputation” for holding materials with poor industrial quality. I wonder if we could redress this issue by including traits such as HMW-Glu, HMW-Gli or easily determined NIR quality traits? Also, yellow berry and pigmentation may be included for durums. Need to find traits that are easily measured, and meaningful. Response to vernalization - vrn genes if known Hans Braun: * Response to light - ppd genes if known Protein quality Glu/gli HMG bands - easy to measure (could use existing data sets from Australia); 1B/1R data (existing data sets available); If you want to increase use by breeders than the info should be supported where possible by gene info - rust resistance, hessian fly, Russian Wheat Aphid - Should add info on diseases for which large collections were screened for, e.g. fusarium head blight, helminthosporium leaf blight, nematodes, root rots. Protein quality not protein content - latter highly dependent on environment. Better Gli / Glu / genes and High molecular weight (HMW); presence of translocations, etc. Thousand kernel wt (TKW) if seed size expressed relative to known check Annex V – Email sent by Michael Mackay to selected group of Wheat experts on 29 October 2008 Subject: GIGA Project wheat descriptors - final phase Dear members of the Wheat Core Advisory Group, Many thanks to those of you who provided feedback for defining the initial GIGA (Global Information on Germplasm Accessions) Project set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for Wheat utilization prior to the 11th IWGS in August. At the IWGS I conducted a wheat plant genetic resources workshop where about 50 participants discussed the initial list of descriptors I circulated and had their various inputs, which together with any suggestions you made, have brought us to the final phase in choosing this initial set. In order to validate the revised initial list (see below), your final comment is sought. In the initial rollout of GIGA we need to develop a model system whereby information that is helpful to germplasm users in identifying candidate accessions (from up to 500,000 accessions in the case of wheat), for research and pre-breeding purposes, we only want to focus on a small number of descriptors that will be useful for this purpose. This will not exclude other descriptors from being added at a later date. Based on the feedback received we have identified descriptors and traits considered as the '1st priority' and listed them below. Some additional descriptors which people raised as of interest I have listed as ‘2nd priority’ and we will include these in the GIGA project if at all possible. As previously mentioned, this is the first step in an evolving process and later on we will be able to include additional descriptors, based on feedback from users and on availability of data. This first set of GIGA descriptors, along with passport data, will become the basis of the global accession level information system that will facilitate access and use of wheat germplasm. Could you please have a final look at the list and forward any questions or suggested modifications to my colleague, Adriana Alercia A.Alercia@cgiar.org by the end of next week (Friday November 7th). Thanks again to all of you for your valuable contribution in this process and look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Michael ________________________________________________________________ 1st Priority - Revised initial set of descriptors for Wheat utilization: • Growth class (seasonality) (4.1.1) • Spike density (4.2.2) • Awnedness (4.2.3) • Glume colour (4.2.4) • Glume hairiness (4.2.5) • Seed colour (4.3.1) • Tolerance to drought (7.4) • Tolerance to salinity (7.7) • Susceptibility to Stem Rust (Puccinia graminis) (8.2.2) 2nd Priority - Descriptors to be included if possible or in a second phase: • Plant height (4.1.2) • Days to flower (4.2.1) • Percentage protein content (6.3.3) • Hessian fly (Mayetiola destructor) (8.1.2) • Powdery mildew (Erysiphe graminis) (8.2.4) • Glume blotch (Septoria nodorum) (8.2.5) • Susceptibility to Russian wheat aphid (Diuraphis noxia) • Susceptibility to Sunn pest (Eurygaster spp.) Annex VI – Comments received from CAG to final key set of descriptors sent out for validation on 29/10/2008 1st Priority - Revised initial set of descriptors for Wheat utilization Desc no. Descriptor name Hans Braun/Thomas Payne (CIMMYT) Mike Ambrose/John Snape (JIC) Bikram Gill (WGGRC) He Zhonghu (NCWRE) 4.1.1 Growth class (seasonality) OK OK OK 4.2.2 Spike density OK OK - but suggests replacing by seeds per spikelet and number of seeds per spike OK 4.2.3 Awnedness OK OK OK 4.2.4 Glume colour OK OK OK 4.2.5 Glume hairiness OK OK OK 4.3.1 Seed colour OK OK OK 7.4 Tolerance to drought Not sure how you measure this - in what environment? Not deliverable across collections Doubtful on obtaining data for this trait Agrees with Gill 7.7 Tolerance to salinity How accurate will this screening be? what is reference? Not deliverable across collections Doubtful on obtaining data for this trait Agrees with Gill 8.2.2 Susceptibility to Stem Rust (Puccinia graminis) Why stem rust only? susceptibility / resistance means nothing without knowing races / genes. This info could be very misleading without additional info. Not deliverable across collections Doubtful on obtaining data for this trait Agrees with Gill 2nd Priority - Descriptors to be included if possible or in a second phase 4.1.2 Plant height Reduced height (Rht) genes if known Move to 1st list Move to 1st list Agrees with Gill 4.2.1 Days to flower Move to 1st list Move to 1st list Suggests changing to heading dates and maturity Desc no. Descriptor name Hans Braun/Thomas Payne (CIMMYT) Mike Ambrose/John Snape (JIC) Bikram Gill (WGGRC) He Zhonghu (NCWRE) 6.3.3 Percentage protein content Relative to what? - Dependent on environment; 12% protein means nothing. Highly dependent on E. Protein quality Glu/gli HMG bands - easy to measure (could use existing data sets from Australia) - Protein quality not protein content - latter highly dependent on environment. Better Gli / Glu / genes and (High molecular weight) HMW; presence of translocations, etc 8.1.2 Hessian fly (Mayetiola destructor) Against which biotype? 8.2.4 Powdery mildew (Erysiphe graminis) Not sure why; reaction to Yellow Rust and Leaf Rust would be more useful to the developing world 8.2.5 Glume blotch (Septoria nodorum) Worldwide Septoria tritici much more important! Susceptibility to Russian wheat aphid (Diuraphis noxia) Susceptibility to Sunn pest (Eurygaster spp.) Other comments If you want to increase use by breeders than the info should be supported where possible by gene info - rust resistance, hessian fly, RWA - Should add info on diseases for which large collections were screened for, e.g. Fusarium head blight, Helminthosporium leaf blight, nematodes, root rots. . TKW if seed size expressed relative to known check Suggests dividing the 1st priority list into 2 groups: 1) Traits of high heritability 2) Complex traits of high importance (see email of 4 Nov) and including plant height and flowering time in key set Suggests adding a descriptor each for biotic and abiotic stresses and then have an options for specifying which one Overall agrees with comments by Gill.Suggests adding leaf rust and yellow rust; Wheat type: winter, spring Annex VII – Final key access and utilization descriptors for Wheat genetic resources, defined on 25 November 2008 Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in ‘’Revised Descriptor List for Wheat (Triticum spp.)” (IBPGR, 1985). 1. Growth class (seasonality) (4.1.1) 2. Plant height [cm] (4.1.2) 3. Days to flower (4.2.1) 4. Spike density (4.2.2) 5. Awnedness (4.2.3) 6. Glume colour (4.2.4) 7. Glume hairiness (4.2.5) 8. Seed colour (4.3.1) 9. Tolerance to drought (7.4) 10. Tolerance to salinity (7.7) 11. Susceptibility to Stem Rust (Puccinia graminis) (8.2.2) Annex VIII – Final key set of descriptors for wheat genetic resources validated by Michael Mackay Key access and utilization descriptors for wheat genetic resources This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for wheat utilization. This key set of strategic descriptors, together with passport data, will become the basis for the global accession-level information system being developed by the Bioversity-led project, Global Information on Germplasm Accessions (GIGA). It will facilitate access to and utilization of wheat accessions held in genebanks and does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently become available. Based on the comprehensive ‘Revised Descriptor List for Wheat (Triticum spp.)’ (IBPGR, 1985), this set, listed below with the original descriptor states, was developed in consultation with a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Michael Mackay of Bioversity International. Biotic and abiotic stresses included in the list were chosen because of their wide geographic occurrence and significant economic impact. The numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in the ‘Revised Descriptor List for Wheat (Triticum spp.)’ (IBPGR, 1985). Growth class (seasonality) (4.1.1) 1 Winter 2 Facultative (intermediate) 3 Spring Plant height [cm] (4.1.2) Height of plant at maturity, measured in cm from ground to top of spike, excluding awns Days to flower (4.2.1) Counted as days from sowing to 50% of plants in flower. However, when planting in dry soils in dryland areas it is counted from the first day of rainfall or irrigation which is sufficient for germination Spike density (4.2.2) A visual measure of the density of a spike measured on a 1-9 scale (N.B. spike density is not the same as spike shape.) 1 Very lax 3 Lax 5 Intermediate 7 Dense 9 Very dense Awnedness (4.2.3) 0 Awnless 3 Awnletted (short awns) 7 Awned (conspicuous awns) Glume colour (4.2.4) Observed on the outer glume 1 White 2 Red to brown 3 Purple to black Glume hairiness (4.2.5) Measured on outer side of sterile glume 0 Absent 3 Low 7 High Seed colour1 (4.3.1) 1 White 2 Red 3 Purple Tolerance to drought (7.4) Coded on a 1-9 scale, where: 3 Low susceptibility 5 Medium susceptibility 9 High susceptibility Tolerance to salinity (7.7) Coded on a 1-9 scale, where: 3 Low susceptibility 5 Medium susceptibility 9 High susceptibility Susceptibility to stem rust (Puccinia graminis) (8.2.2) Coded on a 1-9 scale, where: 3 Low susceptibility 5 Medium susceptibility 9 High susceptibility Notes Any additional information may be specified here, particularly that referring to the category ‘Other’ present in some of the descriptors above. 1 If this is difficult to decide then the sodium hydroxide test can be used. Place grains in a petri-dish and add 25 ml of a 5% solution of NaOH for 60-90 minutes. Original red grains will be dark brownish orange, and white grains will be straw yellow CONTRIBUTORS Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who contributed to the development of this strategic set of key access and utilization descriptors for wheat genetic resources, and in particular to the participants in the Wheat Plant Genetic Resources Workshop organised during the 11th International Wheat Genetics Symposium held in Brisbane, Australia, in August 2008. The following Bioversity staff contributed to this exercise: Michael Mackay, who provided scientific direction, and Adriana Alercia, who provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process. CORE ADVISORY GROUP Michael Mackay, Bioversity International, Italy Mike Ambrose, John Innes Centre (JIC), United Kingdom Harold E. Bockelmann, USDA/ARS, USA Hans Braun, CIMMYT, Mexico Ladislav Dotlacil, Research Institute of Crop Production, Czech Republic Bikram Gill, Wheat Genetics and Genomics Resource Centre (WGGRC), USA Greg Grimes, Department of Primary Industries New South Wales, Australia Beat Keller, University of Zurich, Switzerland Francis Ogbonnaya, ICARDA, Syria Thomas Payne, CIMMYT, Mexico John Snape, John Innes Centre (JIC), United Kingdom He Zhonghu, National Centre for Wheat Research and Engineering, China Methodology for the definition of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for yam (Dioscorea spp.) Information collection and preparation of a Minimum Descriptor List (MDL) Information for the definition of a MDL for Yam was based on the publication ‘Descriptors for Yam’ (Dioscorea spp.) (IPGRI/IITA, 1997). The original list contained therein was compared to descriptors mentioned in a number of documents, namely: 1. Basic list of descriptors for Yam (Dioscorea alata) from ‘Describing and documenting Root Crops in the South Pacific’ (Guarino L. and Jackson G, 1986. RAS/83/001. Field Document 12). 2. Basic list of descriptors for Yam (Dioscorea esculenta) from ‘Describing and documenting Root Crops in the South Pacific’ (Guarino L. and Jackson G, 1986. RAS/83/001. Field Document 12). 3. Traits that were awarded funds for further research by the Global Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust) 2008 Award Scheme ‘Enhancing the Value of Crop Diversity in a World of Climate Change’ (EAS). 4. ‘Development of a West African yam Dioscorea spp. core collection’ (Mahalakshmi V. et al., 2007, in Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 54: 1817–1825) 5. ‘Genetic relationships between Dioscorea alata L. cultivars’ (Lebot V. et al. 1998, in Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 45: 499–509) 6. ‘Morphological variability of greater yam (Dioscorea alata L.) in Malaysia’ (Sayed M. Zain Hasan et al., 2008 in Plant Genetic Resources: Characterization and Utilization 6(1); 52–61) 7. Selection of the descriptors done by Danny Hunter (Bioversity). Evaluation traits such as important pests and diseases for Yam, tuber quality and other agronomic characteristics were included. The Comparison table is presented in Annex I. Preparation of List of Experts The list of experts was compiled including authors and contributors of the above mentioned IPGRI/IITA publication; experts that were listed in the Standard Regeneration Guidelines as focal points for Yam, researchers that had been awarded funds for further research on this crop by the Trust 2008 Award Scheme: ‘Enhancing the Value of Crop Diversity in a World of Climate Change’ (EAS) and experts from the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) centres. In addition some reviewers were drawn from the Taro and Cassava lists of experts participating to the development of the key access and utilization descriptors for those crops. Overall 43 experts were identified coming from 25 countries and 31 different organizations. Although Dr Dominique Dumet at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) was initially invited to be the Crop Leader and she suggested to appoint her colleague Dr Ranjana Bhattacharjee instead, since she was working for IITA genebank and had a long experience in crop characterization. Dr Bhattacharjee accepted the invitation but felt necessary to seek further advice in order to achieve a wider geographical coverage in the definition of biotic and abiotic stresses for Yam. Therefore, Danny Hunter (Bioversity) was sought to lead this crop considering his wide expertise on root and tuber crops. The Core Advisory Group (CAG), consisting of five experts, was also selected to assist in the definition of a minimum set of descriptors for this crop. Core Group members were chosen from prestigious academic and scientific organizations including the National Root Crops Research Institute, the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), L'Institut de Recherché pour le Développement (IRD) and the Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD) (See Annex III). Survey preparation and distribution On 2nd December 2008 Dr Bhattacharjee was contacted to ask advice on a first comparison table. She expressed the need of further inputs from other experts. Thus Danny Hunter was asked to act as Crop Leader too considering his wide experience on this crop. An initial key set was prepared based on descriptors that recurrently appear across species and across different information sources plus on those identified by Danny Hunter. On 2nd March 2009 the revised comparison table, the initial key set of descriptors further refined by Dr Hunter and the tentative list of experts (see Annex II) were sent to Dr Bhattacharjee. A draft survey, listing the descriptors approved by the Crop Leaders (see Annex IV), was prepared and sent to them for their validation. Once approved, the final draft of the survey was uploaded into the SurveyMonkey application on internet and sent out on 24th March 2009 to the list of identified experts (see Annex V). They were invited to validate this initial ‘Minimum set of descriptors’ of Yam accessions to facilitate their use by researchers. Furthermore, they were asked to make suggestions regarding any characterization and/or evaluation descriptors that were found to be relevant yet missing from the proposed Minimum List. The survey deadline was set at 20th April 2009. A reminder was sent out on 7th April and a second one on 16th April to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained. Survey analysis and refinement of Minimum List Of the 43 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 18 coming from 10 countries and 13 organizations recorded their comments using the online survey (Annex VI). Results from the survey were analyzed and descriptors ranked by rating average and percentage of importance (Annex VII). The summary results of the survey together with a report containing open-ended responses received by the participants (see Annex VIII) were shared with Danny Hunter, Ranjana Bhattacharjee and the members of the Core Advisory Group in order to reach a consensus on the final list. Comments received from Dr Perla Hammon (Institut de Recherché pour le Développement) were streamlined and harmonised with Dr Bhattacharjee’s ones to define a Minimum List (see Annex IX). Approval of the final List was sought with Danny Hunter on 9th July 2009 (Annex X). Afterwards a final key set was prepared adding descriptor states and then discussed and validated again by Danny Hunter on 30th September 2009. The final document, including all the contributors (see Annex XI), was proofread by an external Editor and sent to the Publication Unit for layout and on-line publication processes. Furthermore, the publication was shared with the European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources (ECPGR) Secretariat; the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base partners. Additionally, data were converted into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN-Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA and into the global accession level information portal (GENESYS), linking national, regional and international genebank databases in support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also provided to the System- wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) of the CGIAR and to EURISCO. Acknowledgement Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for yam genetic resources’, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial support. Annex I – Comparison table for the definition of a Key set of traits for Yam* IPGRI/II TAi Descrip tor. no. IPGRI/IITAi Descriptor name IPGRI /IITAi IPGRI /IITAi IPGRI/ IITAi IPGRI /IITAi IPGRI/ IITAi IPGRI/ IITAi D. ala ta (1) D. esculen ta (2) EAS (3) IIT A arti cle (4) D. alata (5) D. alata Morph o article (6) (**=mos t importa nt) Descr iptors refine d by D. Hunte r (7) D. escul enta D. alata D. bulbif era D. num mular ia D. cayen ensis- rotun data D. penta phylla 7.1.1 Number of days to emergence ** 7.1.2 Stem length at 20d after emergence ** 7.1.4 Young stem colour * * * * * * * * 7.1.7 Young stem wing colour * * 7.1.10 Young stem - Absence/presence of coloured spots at spine base * 7.1.17 Mature stem - number of stems per plant * 7.1.18 Mature stem colour * * * * * * * 7.1.20 Mature stem branching * 7.1.21 Mature stem diameter [cm] * * 7.1.22 Mature stem cross- section shape at base * 7.1.23 Internode length [cm] * 7.1.24 Mature stem absence/presence of waxiness * 7.1.26 Mature stem wing size * * 7.1.27 Mature stem wing colour * * * 7.1.28 Mature stem absence/presence of ridges * * 7.1.29 Mature stem - hairiness * IPGRI/II TAi Descrip tor. no. IPGRI/IITAi Descriptor name IPGRI /IITAi IPGRI /IITAi IPGRI/ IITAi IPGRI /IITAi IPGRI/ IITAi IPGRI/ IITAi D. ala ta (1) D. esculen ta (2) EAS (3) IIT A arti cle (4) D. alata (5) D. alata Morph o article (6) (**=mos t importa nt) Descr iptors refine d by D. Hunte r (7) D. escul enta D. alata D. bulbif era D. num mular ia D. cayen ensis- rotun data D. penta phylla 7.1.32 Mature stem absence/presence of scale leaves * 7.1.34 Spines on stem base (2.4.6, 2.4.7) * * * * * * 7.1.35 Spines on stem above base * * * (?) 7.1.36 Mature stem spine position * 7.1.37 Mature stem spine shape * 7.1.38 Mature stem spine length * 7.1.39 Mature stem absence/presence of coalescent spines * 7.1.40 Mature stem colour of spot at spine base * 7.2.1 First leaf emergence (2.5.1) * 7.2.3 Young leaf colour * * * * * * * 7.2.4 Young leaf margin colour * * * * * 7.2.5 Young leaf vein colour * * * 7.2.6 Young leaf petiole colour * * * * * * 7.2.7 Young leaf petiole wing colour * * 7.2.9 Mature leaf - Position of leaves ** 7.2.12 Mature leaf - leaf type * * 7.2.13 Mature leaf - number of leaflets in compound leaf * 7.2.14 Mature leaf - colour * IPGRI/II TAi Descrip tor. no. IPGRI/IITAi Descriptor name IPGRI /IITAi IPGRI /IITAi IPGRI/ IITAi IPGRI /IITAi IPGRI/ IITAi IPGRI/ IITAi D. ala ta (1) D. esculen ta (2) EAS (3) IIT A arti cle (4) D. alata (5) D. alata Morph o article (6) (**=mos t importa nt) Descr iptors refine d by D. Hunte r (7) D. escul enta D. alata D. bulbif era D. num mular ia D. cayen ensis- rotun data D. penta phylla 7.2.15 Mature leaf colour * * * * * * * * 7.2.16 Mature leaf vein colour (upper surface) * * * * * * * ** * 7.2.17 Mature leaf vein colour (lower surface) * * * ** 7.2.18 Mature leaf margin colour * * * * 7.2.21 Waxiness of upper/lower surface * 7.2.22 Mature leaf - shape * ** 7.2.24 Mature leaf - undulation of leaf * * 7.2.25 Mature leaf - distance between lobes * 7.2.26 Mature leaf - upward folding of leaf along main vein * 7.2.27 Mature leaf - downward arching of leaf along main vein * 7.2.28 Mature leaf - upward folding of leaf lobe to form a cup * 7.2.29 Mature leaf - downward arching of leaf lobes * 7.2.30 Mature leaf - measurement * (Leng th to width ratio (matu re leaf)) ** IPGRI/II TAi Descrip tor. no. IPGRI/IITAi Descriptor name IPGRI /IITAi IPGRI /IITAi IPGRI/ IITAi IPGRI /IITAi IPGRI/ IITAi IPGRI/ IITAi D. ala ta (1) D. esculen ta (2) EAS (3) IIT A arti cle (4) D. alata (5) D. alata Morph o article (6) (**=mos t importa nt) Descr iptors refine d by D. Hunte r (7) D. escul enta D. alata D. bulbif era D. num mular ia D. cayen ensis- rotun data D. penta phylla 7.2.31 Mature leaf - position of the widest part of the leaf * 7.2.32 Mature leaf - tip length * * 7.2.33 Mature leaf tip colour * * 7.2.34 Mature leaf petiole length * * * 7.2.37 Mature leaf petiole colour * * * * * * * (combi ned with leaf junctio n colour) * ** * 7.2.38 Mature leaf petiole wing colour * * 7.2.39 Mature leaf spininess of petiole * 7.3.1 Flowering * 7.3.3 Sex * * 7.3.11 Flower colour * 7.4.1 Fruit formation * 7.5.1 Absence/presence of aerial tuber * * * * 7.5.2 Aerial tuber shape * ** 7.5.3 Aerial tuber diameter * * * 7.5.4 Aerial tuber skin colour * ** 7.5.5 Aerial tuber surface texture * 7.5.6 Absence/presence of bumps on aerial tuber * IPGRI/II TAi Descrip tor. no. IPGRI/IITAi Descriptor name IPGRI /IITAi IPGRI /IITAi IPGRI/ IITAi IPGRI /IITAi IPGRI/ IITAi IPGRI/ IITAi D. ala ta (1) D. esculen ta (2) EAS (3) IIT A arti cle (4) D. alata (5) D. alata Morph o article (6) (**=mos t importa nt) Descr iptors refine d by D. Hunte r (7) D. escul enta D. alata D. bulbif era D. num mular ia D. cayen ensis- rotun data D. penta phylla 7.5.7 Aerial tuber skin thickness * 7.5.8 Aerial tuber flesh colour * * 7.6.2 Maturity (tubers) after emergence (2.3.2) * * 7.6.5 Relationship of tuber * 7.6.6 Absence presence of corms * 7.6.7 Corm size * 7.6.8 Corm ability to be separated from tuber * 7.6.11 Spininess of roots * * 7.6.12 Absence/presence of anchor roots * 7.6.14 Tuber shape * * * * * * * * * * 7.6.15 Tendency of tuber to branch * * 7.6.17 Tuber length * * ** * 7.6.18 Tuber width [cm] * ** 7.6.19 Roots on the tuber surface * * 7.6.19 .1 Spiny roots on the tuber * 7.6.20 Place of roots on the tuber * 7.6.21 Prickly appearance of the tuber * 7.6.24 Absence/presence of cracks on the tuber surface * IPGRI/II TAi Descrip tor. no. IPGRI/IITAi Descriptor name IPGRI /IITAi IPGRI /IITAi IPGRI/ IITAi IPGRI /IITAi IPGRI/ IITAi IPGRI/ IITAi D. ala ta (1) D. esculen ta (2) EAS (3) IIT A arti cle (4) D. alata (5) D. alata Morph o article (6) (**=mos t importa nt) Descr iptors refine d by D. Hunte r (7) D. escul enta D. alata D. bulbif era D. num mular ia D. cayen ensis- rotun data D. penta phylla 7.6.25 Tuber skin thickness * 7.6.26 Tuber skin colour (beneath the bark) * * * 7.6.29 Skin colour at head of the tuber * * 7.6.30 Flesh colour at central transverse cross-section * * * * * * ** * 7.6.31 Flesh colour of lower part of tuber * * 7.6.32 Uniformity of flesh colour in cross- section * 7.6.34 Time for flesh oxidation after cutting * 7.6.38 Weight of tuber (g) * 8.1.2 Total weight of harvested tubers [kg] * * 8.3.9 Texture of cooked tuber * 8.3.15 Overall assessment of cooked tuber * 8.3.13 Bitterness of cooked (aerial tuber) * 9.4 Reaction to high soil moisture * 9.5 Reaction to high salinity * 10.1.1 .4 Yam mosaic potyvirus (YMV) * * * IPGRI/II TAi Descrip tor. no. IPGRI/IITAi Descriptor name IPGRI /IITAi IPGRI /IITAi IPGRI/ IITAi IPGRI /IITAi IPGRI/ IITAi IPGRI/ IITAi D. ala ta (1) D. esculen ta (2) EAS (3) IIT A arti cle (4) D. alata (5) D. alata Morph o article (6) (**=mos t importa nt) Descr iptors refine d by D. Hunte r (7) D. escul enta D. alata D. bulbif era D. num mular ia D. cayen ensis- rotun data D. penta phylla 10.1.2 Anthracnose susceptibility * * * * 10.1.3 Fusarium spp. (2.12.3) * (Yam tuber rot disease Fusarium oxysporu m) * 10.2.3 .2 Pratylenchus coffeae * 10.2.7 Yam beetle damage on leaves * (Resistan ce to Yam beetle) 10.2.8 Yam beetle damage on tubers * (Resistan ce to Yam beetle) * Stay-green ability * * Stem wing undulation * 8.1.1 Number of tubers per plant * i IPGRI/IITA. 1997. Descriptors for Yam (Dioscorea spp.). International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria/International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy * For number reference see section: ‘Information collection and preparation of a Minimum Descriptor List (MDL)’ Annex II – Tentative list of experts sent to Dr. Bhattacharjee for validation Role Name Organization Country Crop Leader Danny Hunter Bhattacharjee, Ranjana IITA Nigeria Core Group (EAS) Eke-Okoro, O.N. National Root Crops Research Institute Nigeria Core Group Jackson, Grahame V.H. Australia Core Group Mary Taylor Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) Fiji Core Group (SRG) Hamon, Perla IRD France Core Group Lebot, Vincent CIRAD Vanuatu (SRG) O'Hair, Stephen K. University of Florida - Tropical Research. & Education. Center USA (SRG) Dansi, Alexandre National Biotechnology Laboratory, University of Abomey-Calavi Benin Reviewer (DL) Carpena, Azucena L. University of the Philippines Los Baños, Crop Science Cluster Philippines Reviewer (DL) Kurup, G.T Reviewer (DL) Nayar, N.M. Reviewer (DL) Swee Lian, Tan Reviewer (DL) Mamicpic, Noel G. Philippines Reviewer (DL) Quat Ng, N. Reviewer (DL) Pedralli, Gilberto Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto Brazil Reviewer (DL) Rashid, Mohammad M. Reviewer (DL) Silitonga, Sudiaty T. Reviewer (DL) Supatanakul, Winia Reviewer (DL) Hazekamp, Tom Reviewer (from Internet) Dumont, Roland CIRAD (?) France Reviewer (from Internet) Vernier, Philippe Reviewer (from Internet) *Zoundjihèkpon, Jeanne Université d'Abomey- Calavi Benin Reviewer (from Internet) Bill Cable Samoa Reviewer (from Internet) Sayed, M. Zain Hasan Technology University of Malaysia Malaysia Reviewer (from Internet) Norizan, Mohamad Technology University of Malaysia Malaysia Reviewer (from Internet) Johan Hurter Lowveld National Botanical Garden South Africa Reviewer (from Internet) Narina, Satya S S Virginia State University USA Annex III – Identified experts to take part to the on-line survey Role Name Organization Country Crop Leader Hunter, Danny Bioversity Italy Crop Leader Bhattacharjee, Ranjana IITA Nigeria CAG (EAS) Ekeokoro, O.N. National Root Crops Research Institute Nigeria CAG Grahame, Jackson V.H. Australia CAG (SRG) Hamon, Perla IRD France CAG Lebot, Vincent CIRAD Vanuatu CAG Taylor, Mary Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) Fiji Reviewer Cable, William Dept Agricolture Samoa Crop Strategy Expert (Taro) Cadima, Ximena PROINPA Brazil Core Group Cassava Cunha Alves, Alfredo Augusto EMBRAPA/CNPMF Brazil (SRG) Dansi, Alexandre National Biotechnology Laboratory, University of Abomey-Calavi Benin Core Group cultivated potato David, Tay International Potato Centre (CIP) Peru Reviewer de Oliveira Ademar P. Brazilian Society for Horticoltural Science Brasil Reviewer (DL) Asiedu, Robert IITA Nigeria Reviewer Keller, Joachim IPK Germany Reviewer (DL) Mignouna, Hodeba D. AATF Kenya Reviewer (DL) Otoo, Emmanuel Crops Research Institute Ghana Strategy expert (Taro) Ferraren, Dilberto O. Philippine Root Crop Research and Training Center (PhilRootcrops) Philippines Manihot Workshop (Cassava) Fukuda, Wania EMBRAPA/CNPMF Brazil Reviewer (DL) Yam Physiologist Kikuno, Hidehiko IITA Nigeria Reviewer Linh Chi, Vu Plant Resources Center Viet Nam Role Name Organization Country Core Group Cassava Llerme Rios, Lobos INIA Peru Reviewer Manguiat, Proceso H. University of the Philippines Los Baños Philippines Strategy expert (Taro) Mbanaso, Egbichi Nnenna Adaoha National Root Crops Research Institute, Umudike Nigeria Suggested by Bioversity Colombia Milian, Marylis INIVIT (Instituto de Viandas Tropicales) Cuba Reviewer (DL) Nayar, N.M. University of kerala India Reviewer (Taro) Okpul, Tom PNG University of Technology Papua New Guinea Strategy expert (Taro) Ortiz, Carlos E. University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez USA Reviewer Richards, Paul Wageningen University Netherlands Reviewer Struik, Paul C. Wageningen University Netherlands Strategy expert (Taro) Reyes Castro, Guillermo Universidad Nacional Agraria Nicaragua Reviewer Satya, Narina S S Virginia State University USA Reviewer (Cassava expert) Sias Costa, Ivo Roberto EMBRAPA - Cenargen Brazil Reviewer (DL) Silitonga, Sudiaty T. Center of Agricultural Biotechnology and Genetic Resources Research and Development (ICABIOGRRAD) Indonesia Suggested by Bioversity Colombia Soto, Andrès Àlvarez UNIVERSIDAD DE CORDOBA Colombia Reviewer (DL) Swee Lian, Tan Malaysia Agric. Research and Development Institute (MARDI) Malaysia Strategy expert (Taro) Tolo, Iosefa University of the South Pacific Samoa Core Group Taro SRG V. Rao, Ramanatha Bioversity India India Reviewer Vernier, Philippe CIRAD France Strategy expert (Taro) Villavicencio, Maria Lea H. Institute of Plant Breeding-Crop Science Cluster Philippines Strategy expert (Taro) Weidong, Ke Wuhan Vegetable Research Institute China Reviewer Zannou, Afio Universite d'Abomey-Calavi Benin Reviewer Zoundjihèkpon, Jeanne Université d'Abomey-Calavi Benin Annex IV – Initial key set of descriptors for access and utilization of Yam, revised by Dr Hunter (2nd March 2009) and agreed by Dr Bhattacharjee (20th March 2009) 1. Young stem colour (7.1.4) 2. Mature stem colour (7.1.18) 3. Spines on stem base (7.1.34) 4. Young leaf colour (7.2.3) 5. Young leaf margin colour (7.2.4) 6. Young leaf petiole colour (7.2.6) 7. Mature leaf colour (7.2.15) 8. Mature leaf vein colour (upper surface) (7.2.16) 9. Mature leaf petiole colour (7.2.37) 10. Maturity (tubers) after emergence (7.6.2) 11. Tuber shape (7.6.14) 12. Tuber length (7.6.17) 13. Flesh colour at central transverse cross-section (2.10.11) (7.6.30) 14. Total weight of harvested tubers [kg] (8.1.2) 15. Overall assessment of cooked tuber (8.3.15) 16. Yam mosaic potyvirus (YMV) (10.1.1.4) 17. Anthracnose susceptibility (10.1.2) 18. Fusarium spp. (10.1.3) 19. Yam beetle damage on tubers (10.2.8) 20. Pratylenchus coffeae (10.2.3.2) 21. Stay-green ability 22. Reaction to high soil moisture (9.4) 23. Reaction to high salinity (9.5) Annex V – Survey to choose a key set of Descriptors for Yam (Dioscorea spp.) WELCOME Welcome to the survey for the selection of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors to support an international information system to enhance the utilization of germplasm held in genebanks. Your knowledge and experience are being sought to select this initial ‘key set of descriptors’ of Yam accessions to identify traits important to crop production and to facilitate their use by researchers. Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 20th April 2009. This key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors will be made available through a global facility for identifying sets of accessions for evaluation and use. For characterization, the aim is a key set of maximally differentiating traits that provide the most impact in discriminating between accessions. For evaluation, the aim is to focus on a few important traits for production, such as tolerance to an important disease or salinity. The list presented here has been drawn from the IPGRI/IITA publication ‘Descriptors for Yam (Dioscorea spp.)’ (1997) and, further refined under the scientific direction of Ranjana Bhattacharjee (IITA) and Danny Hunter (Bioversity). This survey consists of two parts: PART I: Lists important characterization descriptors for Yam. Based on your experience, please rate the descriptors according to their importance in identifying accessions. It also allows you to indicate if any essential descriptor that can contribute to its use is missing from the minimum list presented. PART II: Lists important evaluation descriptors for Yam. Please, rate these traits in order of importance at the global level. It also allows you to indicate if any essential trait for production is missing from the minimum list presented or indicate any that may not be very significant to global production. We thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in selecting this initial, key set of descriptors. Please allow us to acknowledge your contribution by completing your full contact details below: Name: Organization: Address 1: City/Town: State/Province: ZIP/Postal Code: Country: Email Address PART I: Characterization descriptors These traits enable easy and quick discrimination between phenotypes. They are generally highly heritable, can be easily seen by the eye and are equally expressed in all environments. *Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in the IPGRI/IITA publication ‘Descriptors for Yam (Dioscorea spp.)’ (1997). Not important Important Very important Young stem colour (7.1.4) j j j Mature stem colour (7.1.18) j j j Spines on stem base (7.1.34) j j j Young leaf colour (7.2.3) j j j Young leaf margin colour (7.2.4) j j j Young leaf petiole colour (7.2.6) j j j Mature leaf colour (7.2.15) j j j Mature leaf vein colour (upper surface) (7.2.16) j j j Mature leaf petiole colour (7.2.37) j j j Maturity (tubers) after emergence (7.6.2) j j j Tuber shape (7.6.14) j j j Tuber length (7.6.17) j j j Flesh colour at central transverse cross-section (7.6.30) j j j If you consider that an essential trait is missing from this list, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. PART II: Evaluation descriptors These descriptors include characters such as yield, biotic and abiotic stresses. They are the most interesting traits in crop improvement. Please consider the following factors relating to the trait when making your final decision: (i) Global impact, (ii) Initial strategic set, (iii) Importance for germplasm utilization, (iv) Data availability, (v) True economic damage and (vi) Wide geographical occurrence. Not important Important Very important Total weight of harvested tubers [kg] (8.1.2) j j j Overall assessment of cooked tuber (8.3.15) j j j Stay-green ability j j j Reaction to high soil moisture (9.4) j j j Reaction to high salinity (9.5) j j j Yam mosaic potyvirus (YMV) (10.1.1.4) j j j Anthracnose susceptibility (10.1.2) j j j Fusarium spp. (10.1.3) j j j Pratylenchus coffeae (10.2.3.2) j j j Yam beetle damage on tubers (10.2.9) j j j If you consider that an essential trait important for crop improvement and production is missing from this list, or, if any of the descriptors listed is not clearly useful to promote utilization, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification. NOTE: Please remember, this list is the starting point and will grow over time, as required. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. Annex VI – Respondents to the survey Name Organization Country Abraham. K Central Tuber Crops research Institute India Bhattacharjee, Ranjana IITA Nigeria Dansi A. Alexandre University of Abomey-Calavi Benin Dr Ekeokoro, O N National Root Crops Research Institute Nigeria Hamon, Perla IRD France Kikuno, Hidehiko IITA Nigeria Linh Chi, Vu Plant Resources Center Viet Nam Manguiat, Proceso H. University of the Philippines Los Baños Philippines Mbanaso, E.N.A. National Root Crops Research Institute Nigeria Narina, S. Satya Virginia State University USA Nayar, NM Kerala University India Okpul, Tom Papua New Guinea University of Technology Australia Otoo, Emmanuel CSIR-Crops Research Institute Ghana Rao, Ramanatha Bioversity India Sheela, M.N. Central Tuber Crops Research Institute India Swee-Lian Tan Malaysian Agri R&D Institute (MARDI) Malaysia Vernier, Philippe CIRAD France Zannou, Afio Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques, Université d'Abomey-Calavi Benin Annex VII – Descriptors proposed in the survey ranked by rating average and by percentage importance Descriptor Rating Average Descriptor % Importance (important) % Importanc e (Very important) Overall assessment of cooked tuber (8.3.15) 4.53 Tuber shape (7.6.14) 16.7 (3) 77.8 (14) Anthracnose susceptibility (10.1.2) 4.53 Overall assessment of cooked tuber (8.3.15) 23.5 (4) 76.5 (13) Flesh colour at central transverse cross-section (7.6.30) 4.44 Anthracnose susceptibility (10.1.2) 23.5 (4) 76.5 (13) Tuber shape (7.6.14) 4.39 Flesh colour at central transverse cross-section (7.6.30) 27.8 (5) 72.2 (13) Yam mosaic potyvirus (YMV) (10.1.1.4) 4.18 Yam mosaic potyvirus (YMV) (10.1.1.4) 41.2 (7) 58.8 (10) Fusarium spp. (10.1.3) 3.94 Fusarium spp. (10.1.3) 37.5 (6) 56.3 (9) Total weight of harvested tubers [kg] (8.1.2) 3.88 Young stem colour (7.1.4) 27.8 (5) 55.6 (10) Mature stem colour (7.1.18) 3.83 Young leaf colour (7.2.3) 27.8 (5) 55.6 (10) Tuber length (7.6.17) 3.71 Tuber length (7.6.17) 35.3 (6) 52.9 (9) Spines on stem base (7.1.34) 3.67 Total weight of harvested tubers [kg] (8.1.2) 41.2 (7) 52.9 (9) Yam beetle damage on tubers (10.2.9) 3.65 Mature stem colour (7.1.18) 44.4 (8) 50.0 (9) Young stem colour (7.1.4) 3.61 Spines on stem base (7.1.34) 38.9 (7) 50.0 (9) Young leaf colour (7.2.3) 3.61 Stay-green ability 26.7 (4) 46.7 (7) Pratylenchus coffeae (10.2.3.2) 3.60 Young leaf petiole colour (7.2.6) 38.9 (7) 44.4 (8) Reaction to high soil moisture (9.4) 3.50 Yam beetle damage on tubers (10.2.9) 52.9 (9) 41.2 (7) Mature leaf petiole colour (7.2.37) 3.44 Pratylenchus coffeae (10.2.3.2) 53.3 (8) 40.0 (6) Young leaf petiole colour (7.2.6) 3.39 Mature leaf petiole colour (7.2.37) 50.0 (9) 38.9 (7) Stay-green ability 3.13 Maturity (tubers) after emergence (7.6.2) 33.3 (6) 38.9 (7) Mature leaf vein colour (upper surface) (7.2.16) 3.00 Reaction to high soil moisture (9.4) 57.1 (8) 35.7 (5) Maturity (tubers) after emergence (7.6.2) 2.94 Reaction to high salinity (9.5) 53.3 (8) 26.7 (4) Reaction to high salinity (9.5) 2.93 Young leaf margin colour (7.2.4) 50.0 (8) 25.0 (4) Mature leaf colour (7.2.15) 2.78 Mature leaf colour (7.2.15) 55.6 (10) 22.2 (4) Young leaf margin colour (7.2.4) 2.75 Mature leaf vein colour (upper surface) (7.2.16) 68.8 (11) 18.8 (3) Annex VIII - Additional descriptors included in the Open-ended section of the survey Yam Descriptor Name of expert Additional Descriptor N. times selecte d Okpul, Tom Narina, S. Satya Hamon, Perla Rao, Ramana tha Dansi A. Alexand re Abraham. K Sheela, M.N Kikuno, Hidehik o Leaf shape, it is very discriminant for some varieties of D. cayenensis-D.rotundata 2 X X Average number of tubers may be added. it is a varietal character. "mean number of tubers at harvest" for those having more than one tuber) for relative description of the inherent level of variation. 2 X X Grainy or uniform look of cross section of tuber gives an idea about the cooked appearance and taste. It may be included. Texture of inside of tuber at central transverse cross-section 2 X X Appearance of cooked tuber is important 1 X Browning of cut surface is important. Browining of tubers at central transverse cross-section 2 X X Preharvest infestation due to fungal- insect association (this is based on the tuber damage experienced in the field--The tubers were attacked by an unknown fungi and followed by (insect) larval invasion before harvest, when we tested the larvae in the lab, we found that they belong to Dipterae ...So My guess flies are also damaging the tubers heavily in Local agroclimatic regions of Kovvur (The place where I was working on Tuber Improvement previously),Andhra Pradesh, India. This damage has economical impact as the farmers in that region faced severe loss, not even have tubers for next year planting. It should be taken into concideration, and We need to include this trait important for crop improvement and production globally. 1 X Complex tuber length can be dependant on the nature of the soil and the kind of preparation of the soil before planting 1 X Number of tubers per mound: very important for D. rotundata 1 X Post harvest storage: very important 1 X Tolerence of the tuber seeds to drought after planting: this is the major reason given by farmers for abandoning landraces in the arid zone of the north west of Benin. 1 X Uniform flesh colour may be added as a descriptor 1 X Dried flesh colour Important 1 X Rather than reaction to high soil moisture, reaction to drought may be added 1 X hairiness of tuber may be added 1 X Grainiiness Tuber cortex colour : Important 1 X Texture of epidermides of tubers 1 X Drymatter Nematode incidence 1 X Scale insect damage Aerial tuber production 1 X Viscosity of tuber 1 X COMMENT: Descriptor 8.1.2. Considering the varying number of tubers that can be harvested per hill from the different species of yams, I would like to suggest the use of "mean weight of tubers at harvest" 1 X COMMENT: Young leaf margin colour is not important for D. cayenenesis-D. rotundata but maybe could be for other cultivated species of Oceania or Asia. 1 X COMMENT: Mature leaf vein colour is not important for D. cayenenesis-D. rotundata but maybe could be for other cultivated species of Oceania or Asia 1 X COMMENT: I cannot give any comment on, Reaction to high soil moisture or salinity, Fusarium spp. and Pratylenchus coffeae. 1 X COMMENT: Anthracnose susceptibility is very important for D. alata while Yam mosaic potyvirus is for D. cayenensis-D. rotundata complex. 1 X COMMENT: Is total weight harvewsted per plant? 1 X COMMENT:1.mature stem colour varies in base and upper portions of stem. they may be separately recorded 1 X COMMENT: 2. mature leaf petiole will have colouration in petiole base, middle and top distinctly, usually base and top are of same colour. So petiole colour may be recorded as entire or partial 1 X Annex IX – Comments on survey results received from Dr Perla Hamon (CAG) and Dr Bhattacharjee Descriptor Rating Average Perla Hamon Ranjana Bhattacharjee Overall assessment of cooked tuber (8.3.15) 4.53 B Selected Anthracnose susceptibility (10.1.2) 4.53 B Selected Flesh colour at central transverse cross- section (7.6.30) 4.44 B/I Tuber shape (7.6.14) 4.39 I Selected Yam mosaic potyvirus (YMV) (10.1.1.4) 4.18 B Selected Fusarium spp. (10.1.3) 3.94 B Selected Total weight of harvested tubers [kg] (8.1.2) 3.88 B Mature stem colour (7.1.18) 3.83 Tuber length (7.6.17) 3.71 Selected Spines on stem base (7.1.34) 3.67 I Yam beetle damage on tubers (10.2.9) 3.65 B Young stem colour (7.1.4) 3.61 Young leaf colour (7.2.3) 3.61 I Pratylenchus coffeae (10.2.3.2) 3.60 B Reaction to high soil moisture (9.4) 3.50 B Mature leaf petiole colour (7.2.37) 3.44 Young leaf petiole colour (7.2.6) 3.39 Stay-green ability 3.13 Selected Mature leaf vein colour (upper surface) (7.2.16) 3.00 Maturity (tubers) after emergence (7.6.2) 2.94 Selected Reaction to high salinity (9.5) 2.93 B Mature leaf colour (7.2.15) 2.78 I Young leaf margin colour (7.2.4) 2.75 Leaf shape (7.2.22) I Spine shape (7.1.37) I Spine colour I Branching (7.1.20) I Total number of harvested tubers (8.1.1) B I: Identification B: Breading Annex X – Final key set of descriptors for Yam (Dioscorea spp.) as defined by survey analysis, consultations with Core Advisory Group and approved by Dr Hunter Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in the publication Descriptors for Yam (Dioscorea spp. ) (IPGRI/IITA 1997). 1. Spines on stem base (7.1.34) 2. Tuber shape (7.6.14) 3. Tuber length (7.6.17) 4. Flesh colour at central transverse cross-section (7.6.30) 5. Total weight of harvested tubers [kg] (8.1.2) 6. Overall assessment of cooked tuber (8.3.15) 7. Stay-green ability (8.3.X) 8. Reaction to high soil moisture (9.4) 9. Yam mosaic potyvirus (YMV) (10.1.1.4) 10. Anthracnose susceptibility (10.1.2) 11. Fusarium spp. (10.1.3) 12. Pratylenchus coffeae (10.2.3.2) 13. Yam beetle damage on tubers (10.2.9) Annex XI - Final list of characterization and evaluation standards for Yam including descriptor states and Contributors PLANT DATA Spines on stem base (7.1.34) 3 Few 7 Many Tuber shape (7.6.14) 1 Round 2 Oval 3 Oval-oblong 4 Cylindrical 5 Flattened 6 Irregular 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Tuber length (7.6.17) 1 ≤20 cm 2 21–40 cm 3 ≥41 cm Flesh colour at central transverse cross-section (7.6.30) 1 White 2 Yellowish white or off-white 3 Yellow 4 Orange 5 Light purple 6 Purple 7 Purple with white 8 White with purple 9 Outer purple/inner yellowish 99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor) Total weight of harvested tubers [kg] (8.1.2) Calculated on ten plants per accession. At harvest Overall assessment of cooked tuber (8.3.15) 3 Low 5 Intermediate 7 High Stay-green ability (8.3.X) Retention of green colour at maturity ABIOTIC STRESSES Reaction to high soil moisture (9.4) BIOTIC STRESSES Yam mosaic potyvirus (YMV) (10.1.1.4) Anthracnose susceptibility (10.1.2) Fusarium spp. (10.1.3) Pratylenchus coffeae (10.2.3.2) Yam beetle damage on tubers (10.2.9) NOTES Any additional information may be specified here, particularly that referring to the category ‘Other’ present in some of the descriptors above. CONTRIBUTORS CORE ADVISORY GROUP Danny Hunter, Bioversity International, Italy Ranjana Bhattacharjee, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Nigeria O. N. Ekeokoro, National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI), Nigeria Perla Hamon, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), France REVIEWERS Benin A. Alexandre Dansi, Université d'Abomey-Calavi Afio Zannou, Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques, Université d'Abomey-Calavi France Philippe Vernier, Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD) Ghana Emmanuel Otoo, CSIR-Crops Research Institute India K. Abraham, Central Tuber Crops Research Institute (CTCRI) N. M. Nayar, Kerala University R. Rao, Bioversity International M. N. Sheela, Central Tuber Crops Research Institute (CTCRI) Malaysia Tan Swee-Lian, Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI) Nigeria Hidehiko Kikuno, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) E. N. A. Mbanaso, National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI) Papua New Guinea Tom Okpul, Papua New Guinea University of Technology Philippines Proceso H. Manguiat, University of the Philippines Los Baños USA Narina S. Satya, Virginia State University Viet Nam Vu Linh Chi, Plant Resources Center ISBN-978-92-9043-874-8 IPGRI and INIBAP operate under the name Bioversity International Supported by the CGIAR