Generation Challenge Programme
GCP website		Integrated Breeding
IBP website		Sunset Blog
Sunset blog		   Connect with us GCP on Facebook GCP on Twitter GCP on LinkedIn Subscribe to GCP Newsletter Subscribe to GCP RSS feeds

Lively Leon: a never-grow-old researcher, and his biological rebirths

 Comparative genomics in cereals, Genomics, Maize, Researchers, Sorghum  No Responses »
Aug 272014
 
Leon Kochian

Leon Kochian

“By being involved with GCP, I’ve had more opportunities to travel to the developing world and witness the problems that local farmers in these countries are facing, as well as to meet with the local researchers who are trying to overcome these problems. It has made me appreciate that these  researchers also need the capacity to sustainably deal with agricultural problems once the project money starts to dry up.” – Leon Kochian (pictured), Professor, Cornell University, USA; and Director of Robert W Holley Center for Agriculture and Health, United States Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service. Also Product Delivery Leader for GCP’s Comparative Genomics Research Initiative.

Bright and early beginnings in biology
For as long as Leon Kochian can remember, he’d always wanted to be a biologist.

“I remember my second-grade teacher reading a story to us about the white cliffs of Dover and thinking to myself ‘They’re white because they’re covered in the prehistoric remains of dead protozoan’,”’ says Leon with a chuckle. “Yes, I was a weird kid and that sort of stuff [biology] has always interested me.”

Having completed a Bachelor’s Degree in Botany at the University of California, Berkeley, and a PhD in Plant Physiology at the University of California, Davis (both in USA), Leon joined the United States Department of Agriculture based at Cornell University.

For 30 years, he has combined lecturing and supervising duties at Cornell, with his quest to understand the genetic and physiological mechanisms that allow some cereals to tolerate acidic soils.

The GCP model has always attracted me, particularly its focus on making an impact on farmers’ lives… I had already been a successful researcher having published more than 250 papers, but I felt little of that had made any real impact on the world.”

Identifying genes and breeding tolerant crops for African farmers
Leon and Cornell University have been involved with GCP since the Programme’s inception in 2004, playing a lead role in GCP’s Comparative Genomics Research Initiative, of which Leon is the Product Delivery Coordinator. Cornell University is a member of the GCP Consortium, with Leon as Cornell’s representative in the GCP Consortium Committee.

“The GCP model has always attracted me, particularly its focus on making an impact on farmers’ lives,” says Leon, who has been a Principal Investigator for several Comparative Genomics Research Initiative projects. “I had already been a successful researcher having published more than 250 papers, but I felt little of that had made any real impact on the world.”

During the first phase of the project, Leon led a team comprising of researchers from Cornell, EMBRAPA in Brazil and Moi University in Kenya.

In the foreground, left to right, Leon, Jura and Sam in a maize field in Kenya.

Leon (left) with project colleagues, Jurandir Magalhães (EMBRAPA) and Sam Gudu (Moi University) in a maize field in Kenya in May 2010.

“We had been working for many years with both EMBRAPA and Moi University to identify the genes associated with aluminium tolerance in sorghum and maize and saw the potential to apply our research and expand it to explore other cereals such as rice and wheat,” explains Leon.

During GCP Phase I (2004–2008), the team successfully identified and cloned the major sorghum aluminium tolerance gene (AltSB). In Phase II (2009–2014), they are working towards breeding aluminium-tolerant sorghum lines for sub-Saharan Africa as well as applying what they have learnt to discover similar genes in rice and maize.

“Aluminium toxicity is a problem all over the world, but more so in Africa, as most farmers don’t have the money to manage it,” says Leon “These new aluminium-tolerant crops will improve African farmers’ yields, and, in turn, improve their quality of life.”

It’s like match.com for collaborative research and will hopefully foster greater collaboration between the two continents.”

Insights, connections and matchmaking
According to Leon, the funding from GCP has been very beneficial in making significant research progress on the projects he’s been involved with so far, and he is also quick to note the unexpected and very welcome non-monetary benefits from being involved with GCP.

“By being involved with GCP, I’ve had more opportunities to travel to the developing world and witness the problems that local farmers in these countries are facing, as well as to meet with the local researchers who are trying to overcome these problems. It has made me appreciate that these  researchers also need the capacity to sustainably deal with agricultural problems once the project money starts to dry up.”

Working with GCP, Leon has designed and run workshops to train African scientists on molecular breeding techniques and hosted several postgraduate researchers at Cornell. He is now working with GCP collaborators to develop a database that will help African scientists find potential collaborators in USA and the rest of the Americas. “It’s like match.com for collaborative research and will hopefully foster greater collaboration between the two continents,” says Leon.

Research is such a fun and social experience! … I still love getting into the lab and discovering new things. I’ve also learnt to enjoy being the old guy in the lab!”

Growing greyer, growing wiser
Leon says his passion for biology and research is steadfast and has not waned through the years. Although he doesn’t get to do much of the hands-on work these days, it still remains the most enjoyable part of his job. “Research is such a fun and social experience! I still love getting into the lab and discovering new things. I’ve also learnt to enjoy being the old guy in the lab! Just watching and helping young researchers grow and develop their skills is really rewarding. Each of the 13 PhD students I’ve supervised is like one of my kids and I still keep in touch with all of them, as I do with my own PhD supervisor, 30 years on!”

Having recently celebrated his 60th birthday, Leon has no plans on slowing down anytime soon. “I’m currently Director of the Robert W Holley Center for Agriculture and Health, lecturing undergraduate and postgraduate students, supervising two PhD students and sitting on several boards, all the while trying to find time to write papers and do some research. It’s hard work but I enjoy it.”

The three faces of Leon: (1) in the lab in Cornell; (2) in the field courtesy of USDA-ARS; and, (3) delivering opening remarks as Director of the Robert W Holley Center

The three faces of Leon: (1) in the lab in Cornell; (2) in the field, courtesy of USDA–ARS; and, (3) delivering opening remarks as Director of the Robert W Holley Center.

Leon tries to impart this philosophy to his students, believing scientists need to enjoy what they are doing, work hard at it, be flexible and creative, and, most importantly, not have ‘fear of failure’. “I don’t care how smart you are. If you’re not willing to work really hard and learn to improve yourself, then you’re not going to succeed.”

With regard to his GCP projects soon coming to a close when GCP sunsets in December 2014, Leon hopes he and team will succeed in meeting all their goals, but even if they don’t, he’s sure they’ll continue the research and try to discover more about aluminium tolerance. More power to them!

Leon’s slides, with links to more supplementary material after the slides

Links

Science enlists nature and collaboration to ‘neutralise’ acidic soils

 Africa, Asia, Comparative genomics in cereals, Genomics, Latin America, Maize, Rice, Sorghum  No Responses »
Jul 232014
 

 

DNA spiral

DNA spiral

Crop researchers including plant breeders across five continents are collaborating on several GCP projects to develop local varieties of sorghum, maize and rice, which can withstand phosphorus deficiency and aluminium toxicity – two of the most widespread constraints leading to poor crop productivity in acidic soils. These soils account for nearly half the world’s arable soils, with the problem particularly pronounced in the tropics, where few smallholder farmers can afford the costly farm inputs to mitigate the problems. Fortunately, science has a solution, working with nature and the plants’ own defences, and capitalising on cereal ‘family history’ from 65 million years ago. Read on in this riveting story related by scientists, that will carry you from USA to Africa and Asia with a critical stopover in Brazil and back again, so ….

… welcome to Brazil, where there is more going than the 2014 football World Cup! Turning from sports to matters cerebral and science, drive six hours northwest from Rio de Janeiro and you’ll arrive in Sete Lagoas, nerve centre of the EMBRAPA Maize and Sorghum Research Centre. EMBRAPA stands for Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária  ‒  in  English, the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation.

Jura_w

Jurandir Magalhães

Jurandir Magalhães (pictured), or Jura as he prefers to be called, is a cereal molecular geneticist and principal scientist who’s been at EMBRAPA since 2002.

“EMBRAPA develops projects and research to produce, adapt and diffuse knowledge and technologies in maize and sorghum production by the efficient and rational use of natural resources,” Jura explains.

Such business is also GCP’s bread and butter. So when in 2004, Jura and his former PhD supervisor at Cornell University, Leon Kochian, submitted their first GCP project proposal to clone a major aluminium tolerance gene in sorghum they had been searching for, GCP approved the proposal.

“We were already in the process of cloning the AltSB gene,” remembers Jura, “So when this opportunity came along from GCP, we thought it would provide us with the appropriate conditions to carry this out and complete the work.”

Cloning the AltSB gene would prove to be one of the first steps in GCP’s foundation sorghum and maize projects, both of which seek to provide farmers in the developing world with crops that will not only survive but thrive in the acidic soils that make up more than half of the world’s arable soils (see map below).

More than half of world’s potentially arable soils are highly acidic.

More than half of world’s potentially arable soils are highly acidic.

… identifying the AltSB gene was a significant achievement which brought the project closer to their final objective, which is to breed aluminium-tolerant crops that will improve yields in harsh environments, in turn improving the quality of life for farmers.”

A star is born: identifying and cloning AltSB
For 30 years, Leon Kochian (pictured below) has combined lecturing and supervising duties at Cornell University and the United States Department of Agriculture, with his quest to understand the genetic and physiological mechanisms behind the ability of some cereals to withstand acidic soils. Leon is also the Product Delivery Coordinator for GCP’s Comparative Genomics Research Initiative.

Leon Kochian

Leon Kochian

Aluminium toxicity is associated with acidic soils and is the primary limitation on crop production for more than 30 percent of farmland in Southeast Asia and Latin America, and approximately 20 percent in East Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and North America. Aluminium ions damage roots and impair their growth and function. This results in reduced nutrient and water uptake, which in turn depresses yield.

“These effects can be limited by applying lime to increase the soil’s pH. However, this isn’t a viable option for farmers in developing countries,” says Leon, who was the Principal Investigator for the premier AltSB project and is currently involved in several off-shoot projects.

Working on the understanding that grasses like barley and wheat use membrane transporters to insulate themselves against subsoil aluminium, Leon and Jura searched for a similar transporter in sorghum varieties that were known to tolerate aluminium.

“In wheat, when aluminium levels are high, these membrane transporters prompt organic acid release from the tip of the root,” explains Leon. “The organic acid binds with the aluminium ion, preventing it from entering the root. We found that in certain sorghum varieties, AltSB is the gene that encodes a specialised organic acid transport protein – SbMATE*  –  which mediates the release of citric acid. From cloning the gene, we found it is highly expressed in aluminium-tolerant sorghum varieties. We also found that the expression increases the longer the plant is exposed to high levels of aluminium.”

[*Editor’s note: different from the gene with the same name, hence not in italics]

Leon says identifying the AltSB gene and then cloning it was a significant achievement and it brought the project closer to their final objective, which he says is “to breed aluminium-tolerant crops that will improve yields in harsh environments, in turn improving the quality of life for farmers.”

This research was long and intensive, but it set a firm foundation for the work in GCP Phase II, which seeks to use what we have learnt in the laboratory and apply it to breed crops that are tolerant to biotic or abiotic stress such as aluminium toxicity and phosphorus deficiency.”

Comparative genomics: finding similar genes in different crops
Wheat, maize, sorghum and rice are all part of the Poaceae (grasses) family, evolving from a common grass ancestor 65 million years ago. Over this time they have become very different from each other. However, at a genetic level they still have a lot in common.

Over the last 20 years, genetic researchers all over the world have been mapping these cereals’ genomes. These maps are now being used by geneticists and plant breeders to identify similarities and differences between the genes of different cereal species. This process is termed comparative genomics and is a fundamental research theme for GCP research as part of its second phase.

rajeev-varshney_1332450938

Rajeev Varshney

“The objective during GCP Phase I was to study the genomes of important crops and identify genes conferring resistance or tolerance to biotic or abiotic stresses,” says Rajeev Varshney (pictured), Director, Center of Excellence in Genomics and Principal Scientist in applied genomics at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). “This research was long and intensive, but it set a firm foundation for the work in GCP Phase II, which seeks to use what we have learnt in the laboratory and apply it to breed crops that are tolerant to biotic or abiotic stress such as aluminium toxicity and phosphorus deficiency.”

Until August 2013, Rajeev had oversight on GCP’s comparative genomics research projects on aluminium tolerance and phosphorus deficiency is sorghum, maize and rice, as part of his GCP role as Leader of the Comparative and Applied Genomics Theme.

“Phosphorus deficiency and aluminium toxicity are soil problems that typically coincide in acidic soils,” says Rajeev. “They are two of the most critical constraints responsible for low crop productivity on acid soils worldwide. These projects are combining the aluminium tolerance work done by EMBRAPA and Cornell University with the phosphorus efficiency work done by IRRI [International Rice Research Institute] and JIRCAS [Japan International Research Centre for Agricultural Sciences] to first identify and validate similar aluminium-tolerance and phosphorus-efficient genes in sorghum, maize and rice, and then, secondly, breed crops with these combined improvements.”

These collaborations are really exciting! They make it possible to answer questions that we could not answer ourselves, or that we would have overlooked, were it not for the partnerships.”

When AltSB met Pup1…
Having spent more than a decade identifying and cloning AltSB, Jura and Leon have recently turned their attention to identifying and cloning the genes responsible for phosphorus efficiency in sorghum. Luckily, they weren’t starting from scratch this time, as another GCP project on the other side of the world was well on the way to identifying a phosphorus-efficiency gene in rice.

Led by Matthias Wissuwa at JIRCAS and Sigrid Heuer at IRRI, the Asian base GCP project had identified a gene locus, which encoded a particular protein kinase that allowed varieties with this gene to grow successfully in low-phosphorous conditions. They termed the region of the rice genome where this gene resides as ‘phosphorus uptake 1’ or Pup1 as it is commonly referred to in short.

“In phosphorus-poor soils, this protein kinase instructs the plant to grow larger, longer roots, which are able to forage through more soil to absorb and store more nutrients,” explains Sigrid. “By having a larger root surface area, plants can explore a greater area in the soil and find more phosphorus than usual. It’s like having a larger sponge to absorb more water!”

Read more about the mechanics of Pup-1 and the evolution of the project.

Jura and Leon are working on the same theory as IRRI and JIRCAS, that larger and longer roots enhance phosphorus efficiency. They are identifying sorghum with these traits, using comparative genomics to identify a locus similar to Pup1 in these low-phosphorus-tolerant varieties, and then verify whether the genes at this locus are responsible for the trait.

“So far, the results are promising and we have evidence that Pup1 homologues may underlie a major QTL for phosphorous uptake in sorghum,” says Jura who is leading the project to identify and validate Pup1 and other phosphorus-efficiency QTLs in sorghum.  QTL stands for ‘quantitative trait locus’ which refers to stretches of DNA containing ‒ or linked to ‒ the genes responsible for a quantitative trait  “What we have to do now is to see if this carries over in the field, leading to enhanced phosphorus uptake and grain yield in low-phosphorus soils,” he adds.

Jura and Leon are also returning the favour to IRRI and JIRCAS and are collaborating with both institutes to identify and clone in rice similar genes to the AltSB gene in sorghum.

“These collaborations are really exciting! They make it possible to answer questions that we could not answer ourselves, or that we would have overlooked, were it not for the partnerships,” says Sigrid.

To make a difference in rural development, to truly contribute to improved food security through crop improvement and incomes for poor farmers, we knew that capacity development had to be a continuing cornerstone in our strategy.”

Building capacity in Africa
In GCP Phase II which is more application oriented, projects must have objectives that deliver products and build capacity in developing-world breeding programmes.

Jean-Marcel Ribaut

Jean-Marcel Ribaut

“The thought behind the latter requirement is that GCP is not going to be around after 2014 so we need to facilitate these country breeding programmes to take ownership of the science and products so they can continue it locally,” says Jean-Marcel Ribaut, GCP Director (pictured). “To make a difference in rural development, to truly contribute to improved food security through crop improvement and incomes for poor farmers, we knew that capacity development had to be a continuing cornerstone in our strategy.”

Back to Brazil: Jura says this requirement is not uncommon for EMBRAPA projects as the Brazilian government seeks to become a world leader in science and agriculture. “Before GCP started, we had been working with African partners for five to six years through the McKnight Project. It was great when GCP came along as we were able to continue these collaborations.”

Samuel Gudu

Samuel Gudu

One collaboration Jura was most pleased to continue was with his colleague and friend, Sam Gudu (pictured), from Moi University, Kenya. Sam has been collaborating with Jura and Leon on several GCP projects and is the only African Principal Investigator in the Comparative Genomics Research Initiative.

“Our relationship with EMBRAPA and Cornell University has been very fruitful,” says Sam. “We wouldn’t have been able to do as much as we have done without these collaborations or without our other international collaborators at IRRI, JIRCAS, ICRISAT or Niger’s National Institute of Agricultural Research [INRAN].”

Sam is currently working on several projects with these partners looking at validating the genes underlying major aluminium-tolerance and phosphorus-efficiency traits in local sorghum and maize varieties in Kenya, as well as establishing a molecular breeding programme.

“The molecular-marker work has been very interesting. We have selected the best phosphorus-efficient lines from Brazil and Kenya, and have crossed them with local varieties to produce several really good hybrids which we are currently field-testing in Kenya,” explains Sam. “Learning and using these new breeding techniques will enable us to select for and breed new varieties faster.”

Sam is also grateful to both EMBRAPA and Cornell University for hosting several PhD students as part of the project. “This has been a significant outcome as these PhD students are returning to Kenya with a far greater understanding of molecular breeding which they are sharing with us to advance our national breeding programme.”

We’ve used the knowledge that Jura’s and Leon’s AltSB projects have produced to discover and validate similar genes in maize…We identified Kenyan lines carrying the superior allele of ZmMATE …This work will also improve our understanding of what other mechanisms may be working in the Brazilian lines too.” 

‘Everyone’ benefits! Applying the AltSB gene to maize
Claudia Guimarães (pictured) is a maize geneticist at EMBRAPA. But unlike Jura, her interest lies in maize.

Claudia

Claudia Guimarães

Working on the same comparative genomics principle used to identify Pup1 in sorghum, Claudia has been leading a GCP project replicating the sorghum aluminium tolerance work in maize.

“We’ve used the knowledge that Jura’s and Leon’s AltSBprojects have produced to discover and validate similar genes in maize,” explains Claudia. “From our mapping work we identified ZmMATE as the gene underlying a major aluminium tolerance QTL in maize. It has a similar sequence as the gene found in sorghum and it encodes a similar protein membrane transporter that is responsible for citrate extradition.”

A maize field at EMBRAPA. Maize on the left is aluminum-tolerant while the maize on the right is not.

A maize field at EMBRAPA. Maize on the left is aluminium-tolerant while the maize on the right is not.

Using molecular markers, Claudia and her team of researchers from EMBRAPA, Cornell University and Moi University have developed near-isogenic lines from Brazilian and Kenyan maize varieties that show aluminium tolerance, with ZmMATE present. From preliminary field tests, the Brazilian lines have had improved yields in acidic soils.

“We identified a few Kenyan lines carrying the superior allele of ZmMATE that can be used as donors to develop maize varieties with improved aluminium tolerance,” says Claudia.  “This work will also improve our understanding of what other mechanisms may be working in the Brazilian lines too.”

What has pleased Jura and other Principal Investigators the most is the leadership that African partners have taken in GCP projects.

Cherry on the cereal cake
With GCP coming to an end in December 2014, Jura is hopeful that his and other offshoot projects dealing with aluminium tolerance and phosphorus efficiency will deliver on what they set out to do.

“For me, the cherry on the cake for the aluminium-tolerance projects would be if we show that AltSB improves tolerance in acidic soils in Africa. If everything goes well, I think this will be possible as we have already developed molecular markers for AltSB.”

What has pleased Jura and other Principal Investigators the most is the leadership that African partners have taken in GCP projects.

“This has been a credit to them and all those involved to help build their capacity and encourage them to take the lead. I feel this will help sustain the projects into the future and one day help these developing countries produce varieties of sorghum and maize for their farmers that are able to yield just as well in acidic soils as they do in non-acidic soils.”

In the foreground, left to right, Leon, Jura and Sam in a maize field in Kenya.

In the foreground, left to right, Leon, Jura and Sam in a maize field at the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), Kitale, in May 2010. They are examining crosses between Kenyan and Brazilian maize germplasm.

Links

 

 

A chat with the Chief

 Closing GCP, GCP, History  No Responses »
Jul 082012
 

Inside GCP today

Do a deep dive with Jean-Marcel into GCP’s ‘engine room’. What makes the Programme work? How is it structured and governed? For a geographically dispersed Programme with multi-institutional teams, what’s the trick that keeps the different parts moving and well-oiled to maintain forward motion and minimise friction? Get acquainted (and hopefully ‘infected’) with the ‘GCP Spirit’…

Jean-Marcel Ribaut (pictured) is the GCP Director. His work involves coordinating the research activities and overseeing finances, ensuring that at the end of the day that the overall Programme objectives are met. This means much multitasking, a great asset in running a multi-institutional partnership-based Programme. Jean-Marcel comes from a research background, although the research team he led while at CIMMYT was nothing the size of GCP…

…we’ve moved from exploration to application…underpinned by services and capacity building. To make a difference in rural development, to truly contribute to improved food security through crop improvement and incomes for poor farmers, we knew that building capacity had to be a cornerstone in our strategy.”

How long have you been GCP Director?
Since 2005. My first two years were a steep learning curve!

The GCP tagline – ‘Partnerships in modern crop breeding for food security’  – what does this mean for you?
GCP is a very dynamic Programme. The kind of research that we were doing in 2005 is quite different from what we are doing today. As we implement our strategy, we’ve moved from exploration to application. We therefore revised our tagline to match this evolution, with the Programme now focussing much more on modern crop breeding and related aspects. We had naturally started by looking for diversity in the alleles, then evolved to gene discovery and developing supporting tools and markers alongside capacity building. Now, our focus is on application – using this diversity, markers and tools to progress to the next level, and boost the genetic gains for our nine key crops in challenging environments.

This application is underpinned by a service component through our Integrated Breeding Platform, as well as a strong capacity-building component for both human resources and infrastructure.

To make a difference in rural development, to truly contribute to improved food security through crop improvement and incomes for poor farmers, we knew that building capacity had to be a cornerstone in our strategy.

We take an integrated approach … exploring new avenues but exercising due caution …we are not promoting molecular breeding as the magic bullet and only solution – it’s an additional useful tool for arriving at educated breeding decisions.

One of our objectives was to bridge the gap between upstream and downstream research in the teams we brought together. While we did have some failures where groups worked together for the project duration alone and didn’t continue their collaboration, we have had other cases where the teams we forged then have not only grown but also continued to work together – with or without us.”

Why is GCP’s work important?
Through our Research Initiatives, we focus on several crops, with relatively limited funding for each of them compared, say, to other much larger crop-specific initiatives supported for example by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. So,  we operate on a proof-of-concept model: our goal is to demonstrate the use of new technologies and the application of out-of- the-box strategies which – if proven effective – will be funded and expanded by other agencies, including governments.

We take an integrated approach to problem-solving, exploring new avenues but exercising due caution while so doing. For example, for modern crop breeding which is our current focus, we are not promoting molecular breeding as the magic bullet and only solution – it’s an additional useful tool for arriving at educated breeding decisions.

…more than half our projects are led by scientists in developing countries

…The ‘GCP Spirit’ is visible and palpable: you can recognise people working with us have a spirit that is typical of the Programme.”

For you, what have been the major outcomes of the Programme so far?
Seeing developing-country partners come to the fore, and take the reins of project leadership. During Phase I, most project leaders were from CGIAR and advanced research institutes. However, over time, there has been a major shift and we are proud that today, more than half our projects are led by scientists in developing countries. They’ve moved from the position of implementers to the role of leaders, while CGIAR Centres and universities have taken a back seat, being more in a supporting role as mentors or tutors.

We have created this amazing chain of people, stretching  from the labs to the fields. This ‘human’ component is a terrific living asset, but it is also very difficult to scientifically quantify. Perhaps the best way I can describe it is as a ‘GCP Spirit’ created by the researchers we work with. The Programme’s ‘environment’ is friendly, open to sharing and is marked by a strong sense of community and ‘belonging’. The ‘GCP Spirit’ is visible and palpable: you can recognise people working with us have a spirit that is typical of the Programme.

One of our objectives was to bridge the gap between upstream and downstream research in the teams we brought together. While we did have some failures where groups worked together for the project duration alone and didn’t continue their collaboration, we have had other cases where the teams we forged then have not only grown but also continued to work together – with or without us.

A number of the partnerships we’ve forged have had a win–win outcome for players at opposite ends of the research–development spectrum. For example, academia tends to place a high premium on publications and theory, and relatively lower value on application and the real-world context. GCP provides a window for academics to apply their expertise, which benefits developing-country partners.

GCP’s relationship with project ppartners goes beyond funding. We are not just giving money; we are engaged in partnership with our project teams. We in management consult with them, interact and grapple over the technical issues with them in candour, and we toast and celebrate the successes together. I see our management style as fairly ‘paternal’, particularly for projects led by scientists from developing countries, but paternal in the positive sense of wanting to see these groups of people succeed, and us helping them to do so.

If a research site needs a pump for fieldwork, we work with a local or international consultant who will visit the partner and evaluate their needs, advise them on what type of pump they need, as well as other infrastructure they’ll need for the whole system to be sustainable. We’ll then provide training on how to use the pump most effectively.

It’s an investment in the people as much as in the products they are working on because we are trying to change the system of how science within partnerships is conducted and supported, as much as we are trying tap genetic diversity and breed resilient crops for the developing world.

Our successes have only been possible because of our ‘slim’ structure and the structural support we have enjoyed. With governance and advisory roles vested in an Executive Board and Consortium Committee, and with CIMMYT providing us with a legal and administrative home, we have minimal overheads and much flexibility. This agility has allowed us to adjust rapidly to changes when needed than, say, a classic research institute which would – quite rightly – have more rigid and elaborate obligatory steps, over a much longer time horizon.

…advocacy, persuasion and presenting a compelling business case are all necessary ingredients. Because we cannot be ‘directive’ with our partners in the manner their own institutes can be since they don’t ‘belong’ to us, we need to demonstrate success and convince people to adopt new business models.

How will GCP ensure sustainability?
Through our project Delivery Plans which link up a chain of users of our research products, and our Transition Strategy which shows how our research activities are embedded in the new CGIAR Research Programmes. We also hope to see our nascent communities of practice confer a sense of ownership to community members, and therefore sustainability. All that is on the ‘systematic’ and ‘documentation’ side of things.

Even more compelling is something I mentioned earlier, on the ‘organic’ and community side of things. Although it is completely outside our control, so to speak, it is wonderful to see that some of the partnerships we brought together have acquired a life of their own, and the teams we constituted are working together in other areas that have nothing to do with their GCP projects.

What are some of the lessons learnt so far?
The first one was focus. It’s very difficult to coordinate too many tasks, carried out by too many partners. Midstream in 2008, we had to review the way we were working and change course.

People management is the other. Cultivating relationships with people is critical. The trick is in balancing: by being cordial and friendly managers, we perhaps erode some of our authority over some of our project partners!

Another big lesson is that if it’s not working, don’t push it. Learn the lesson, cut your losses, and move on. Two main lessons have come from both our research and service aspects. For research, we invested in a massive fingerprinting exercise to characterise reference sets for all our 18 mandate crops at the time. [Editor’s note: A ‘reference set’ is a sub-sample of existing germplasm collections that facilitates and enables access to existing crop diversity for desired traits, such as drought tolerance or resistance to disease or pests]

The results were not great, the documentation was poor, and it was very difficult reconciling the different datasets from the work. We ended up incurring extra costs for genotyping, to salvage the investment. Then for building the Integrated Breeding Platform, we’d initially involved all major actors in developing the ‘middleware’ – the ‘invisible’ part that links the tools, services and resources IBP provides to breeders, with the respective crop databases. This did not work, and we subcontracted the work to an external service provider.

In both cases, we erred on the side of inclusiveness since we wanted to have all the players on board, and to also facilitate their capacity-building-by-engagement. We have learnt the need to strike a balance between inclusiveness and capacity building on the one hand, and outsourcing to get the job done on the other.

Then there is behaviour change – changing people’s mindsets to adopt technology, since people tend to be naturally conservative. We’ve learnt that developing the tools and techniques is the easy part. The human component – changing how people do business, getting them to adopt a corporative and cooperative over an institutional focus – is a real challenge, and needs to be strongly demand-driven with clear short-term benefits.

Data management and quality control, their documentation, publication and sharing continue to dog us and it’s probably the greatest challenge, although not unique to GCP.

Finally, advocacy, persuasion and presenting a compelling business case are all necessary ingredients. Because we cannot be ‘directive’ with our partners in the manner their own institutes can be since they don’t ‘belong’ to us, we need to demonstrate success and convince people to adopt new business models.

What is the most enjoyable aspect of your position at GCP?
More than one, actually.

We enable people, research teams and institutes to grow, thrive and stand on their own, and this is deeply gratifying; it is very rewarding to see people from developing countries growing and becoming leaders.

Working on different crops, with different partners, in different circumstances, and of different capacities is highly stimulating and brings a lot of diversity. My job is anything but boring!

I also appreciate being sheltered from the administrative burden our multi-institutional approach carries. The administrative load is ably borne by CIMMYT. This allows me to dedicate more of my time to supporting our research partnerships, institutional relationships and services to researchers.

I work with a small and dedicated team. As you can imagine, things are not always rosy, since a small team also means we operate in a ‘tight’ space and occasionally knock knuckles, and we also come from different cultures, but all these work to the good. This cultural diversity is actually a big plus, bringing a broader array of perspectives to the table. And the benefit of the ‘tight’ space is that, when there is a task to be done, the team spirit is incredible – everyone in the group, from management to office assistants, apply themselves to the task at hand. This is a fantastic experience!

Beyond the management and staff group, there is also the real GCP that is out there, which is highly stimulating, and I will end by sharing an excerpt from the external mid-term review report:

“Perhaps the most important value of GCP thus far, is the opportunities it has provided for people of diverse backgrounds to think collectively about solutions to complex problems, and, in the process, to learn from one another.”

Related blogposts

GCP website

External links

 

 

 

Bird’s eye view from the Board

 Closing GCP, GCP, History  No Responses »
Jul 042012
 

The GCP community, its labours and joys

If tools and resources are not put to use, then we labour in vain...GCP contributes to food security by providing breeders with integrated tools, techniques and services to speed up the selection cycle, be this by conventional or molecular breeding. GCP focuses on developing new materials and new techniques and delivering these, and the appropriate breeding tools, technologies and services, to breeders. I think GCP has been one of the most successful builders of research and development partnerships.

The Board’s focus is now on auditing the Programme, and mapping a strategy to sustain its successful partnerships and systems, so that these can continue to deliver products and capacity to the developing world.”

Seatbelts on please! Time to take a tour with Andrew, for an ‘aerial’ view of GCP from the very  ‘top’.

Please meet Andrew Bennett (pictured), the Chair of GCP’s Executive Board. Among other responsibilities, he is also President of the Tropical Agricultural Association, UK, chairs the SciDev.Net Board, and previously chaired the CIFOR Board. He was formerly Executive Director of the Syngenta Foundation and Director of Rural Livelihoods and Environment at the Department for International Development (DFID, UK) where he was responsible for professional advice on policy and programmes on livelihoods, natural resources, environment, sustainable development and research. Andrew has worked on development programmes in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Pacific and the Caribbean.

Today, Andrew shares his perspectives on GCP’s work, its impact, the challenges, the community GCP has built, and the role of the Board. Please read on…

When was the GCP Board established, and what is its profile and role?
The Board was set up in mid-2008 towards the end of the first phase of the Programme. A review recommended that there be a fully independent Board, comprising people who had no conflict of interest with the Programme to facilitate decision-making.

Board members have between them a wide variety of skills and backgrounds, ranging from expertise in molecular biology to development assistance, socioeconomics, academia, finance, governance and change management.

We are committed to the role that can be played by science in development, and to the Programme. We have offered advice and helped the Programme’s Consortium Committee and management refocus the Programme. By all accounts, they seem happy with how things have evolved.

Because GCP is hosted by CIMMYT, the Board does not have to deal with any policy issues. That is the responsibility of the Consortium Committee. Our role is more to provide advice and to help with decision-making and implementation, which is great as we’ve been able to focus on the Programme’s science and people.

How long have you been involved with GCP?
Since the Board was established in 2008.

What does the GCP tagline – ‘Partnerships in modern crop breeding for food security’ – mean for you?
It means that all our undertakings are geared towards producing crop varieties that are tolerant to a range of environments, as well as being socially acceptable and appealing to farmers and markets.

How do you upgrade the planting material farmers have by fortifying it to combat the biotic and abiotic stresses? Half the challenge is breeding and selecting good material, and the other half is ensuring delivery of tools to breeders and new planting materials to farmers.

So GCP focuses on developing new materials and new techniques and delivering these, and the appropriate breeding tools, technologies and services, to breeders.

Why is GCP’s work important, and what does it mean for food security?
People who are food-secure have access to adequate food at all times to maintain healthy active lives. There are two sides to making this happen – access and availability.

GCP is increasing the number of varieties and lines tolerant to the conditions farmers are facing. What we cannot do is put money in the hands of poor people. If we supply people with the means to produce sustainable and healthy crops, they will have the means to produce food for themselves, and a means of making an income.

GCP contributes to food security by providing breeders with integrated tools, techniques and services to speed up the selection cycle, be this by conventional or molecular breeding.

For you, what have been the major outcomes of GCP so far?
GCP has shown that it is possible to form very productive partnerships across CGIAR institutes and advanced research establishments and those countries that have less scientific capacity. I think it has been one of the most successful builders of research and development partnerships. GCP has also shown public researchers can work very well with the private sector. The public sector has the means to build a lot of capacity.

I think GCP has demonstrated that it is possible to establish molecular breeding programmes in those parts of the world that do not have well-developed scientific infrastructure.

Just a little bit of money – relatively speaking of course – clear vision, and good leadership, can go very far, and produce tremendous benefits and progress.

GCP has also identified the constraints that we have to work within – the challenge of phenotyping and restrictions on the movement of genetic material to other parts of the world. GCP has paid particular attention to intellectual property [IP] because the information and materials GCP produces must remain in the public domain. IP in the international arena within which the Programme operates must span potentially conflicting national legislation regimes. It is a very complex area.

‘Challenge’ is in GCP’s name. What are the major challenges that the Programme has so far overcome?
Quite a number and more could be on the horizon. GCP has overcome some of these challenges. They include the problem of poor-quality phenotyping. This has been addressed through a comprehensive capacity-building programme, including laboratory and field infrastructure, and the training of research support staff in the developing-country field sites where GCP projects are being implemented.

Another challenge was focusing the Programme. At the start, the Programme was spread too thin, spanning too many crops and partners, but these have been progressively narrowed down in Phase II.

This narrowing is no mean feat in the public sector. In the private sector, you start with, say, a hundred projects, then after six months you halve them. After a year, you are down to 10 projects and you put all your resources into making those 10 ‘winners’ work. In the public sector, you keep the entire hundred going for three years, then you look for funding to keep them all running for another cycle. It’s a different culture: the private sector is product-oriented, while some aspects of the public sector emphasise contributing to the growth of knowledge and information, and to building or maintaining relationships, without necessarily asking about their usefulness and benefits to society.

The Board’s focus is now on auditing the Programme and mapping a strategy to sustain its successful partnerships and systems, so that these can continue to deliver products and capacity to the developing world.”

What are the future challenges that the Programme must overcome to remain sustainable?
There are many GCP activities that can be integrated into the new CGIAR Research Programmes. However, there may be other activities such as capacity building and IP management which – at this point in time – appear somewhat less easy to integrate into the new CGIAR Research Programmes.

There is also a danger – not unique to GCP but with all aid-assisted programmes – that when the money ends, everything will disappear into the archives. We have to make sure that doesn’t happen in this instance.

The Board’s focus is now on auditing the Programme and mapping a strategy to sustain its successful partnerships and systems, so that these can continue to deliver products and capacity to the developing world.

What are some of the lessons learnt so far?
GCP was born at a time when we thought molecular biology could solve all our problems quickly and efficiently. What I think we are finding is that molecular tools –while extremely useful – cannot entirely replace understanding the agronomy and phenotypic activities. Molecular biology alone is not a panacea or silver bullet for crop breeding; but it is a valuable tool.

Then there is capacity building: molecular breeding is a tool that you can only use if you have the capacity. Many parts of the world will require a lot of capacity building and support to be able to use the tools. GCP and its Integrated Breeding Platform can make a modest contribution to meeting this need through the proof-of-concept GCP Research Initiatives for selected crops and countries and establishing communities of practice.

If tools and resources are not put to use, then we labour in vain.

What has been the most enjoyable aspect of your position with GCP?
Without a doubt, attending the General Research Meetings has been the most enjoyable, meeting scientists from a wide range of institutes, backgrounds and countries.

These scientists come together because they share the same interests and a common goal. There’s a lively buzz of conversation. It is good to hear about what they are doing, what their aspirations are, and to learn from the knowledge and posters they bring to the meeting.

You don’t have to be a cutting-edge scientist to listen to these people whose enthusiasm is palpable. They are passionate, have a strong sense of community, enjoy what they are doing, and are just as keen to share this knowledge and enthusiasm. It’s all highly infectious!

Relevant links

Generation next for plant breeding

 Closing GCP, GCP, History  No Responses »
Jul 012012
 

A shared vision

What is GCP all about and why is its work important? Why was GCP created? Read recollections from key people involved in GCP’s conceptualisation, and find out how realisation of the shared vision continues today. Featuring candid conversations with Masa Iwanaga, former Director General, CIMMYT; Dave Hoisington, Consortium Committee Chair; Andrew Bennett, Executive Board member; and Jean-Marcel Ribaut, GCP Director.

When was the last time you went to your local shop to buy something only to be told they’ve run out of it? How did you react? Like most of us, did you question how they could have run out – after all, isn’t it their business to adequately supply the demand?

Most likely you just went to another store. But what if there wasn’t another store around that had your product, or worse, there was actually a national shortage of your product? This is the reality that faces not just those after the latest iPad, but billions of people who just want something, anything, to eat.

With less productive land on which to grow crops, a more variable climate and more extreme weather events, farmers across all continents are struggling to produce crops, let alone increase yields to meet an ever-growing demand.

This scenario has continually raised its ugly head over the last 200 years as the world’s population has grown exponentially and shifted to urban surroundings. If not for the Green Revolution, inspired by the late Norman Borlaug’s agricultural development research within the Office of Special Studies in Mexico (now the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, more commonly known as CIMMYT, its Spanish acronym), the world population would have already suffered losses into the billions.

Even so, food insecurity is still recognised as a global challenge by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). While there is debate over the cause for such insecurity, the advances of agricultural technology born from a Mexican-flavoured research programme are once again coming to the fore to meet the challenge.

Genebanks are not limited to conservation but are also a source of new alleles for crop improvement.

The genies in the genebank
Seedbank collections serve as insurance against unanticipated future threats to food security, the degradation of our environment and the loss of plant biodiversity.

But that is not all: the banks are not limited to conservation but are also a source of new alleles for crop improvement. The temperature-controlled CGIAR genebanks are a veritable treasure trove for plant breeding. Over the past four decades, their curators have scoured the planet, collecting, categorising and conserving more than 650,000 samples of crop, forage and agroforestry genetic resources, held in trust on behalf of humanity.

One such temperature-controlled genebank is located just outside the sweltering Mexico City: the CIMMYT genebank holds more than 150,000 unique samples of wheat and its relatives from more than 100 countries – said to be the largest collection of a single crop.

While genebank ‘stocks’ have always been open to plant breeders, it wasn’t until 2002 that CGIAR researchers embarked on a more structured and systematic approach using modern technologies to tap their breeding potential, thereby elevating the genebanks beyond their traditional collection and conservation role. Prior to that, far-sighted individual pioneering researchers had been studying (termed ‘screening’ in breeder-speak) the stocks for solutions to breeding problems and to improve crops, but the turning point for a concerted ‘institutional’ effort, would come in the early noughties.

By studying the genes of wild versions of, let’s say, wheat, researchers can find genes that could help cultivated wheat to better battle drought.

The dawn of a new generation
One of these researchers was Dave Hoisington (pictured), then with CIMMYT, and now Chair of GCP’s Consortium Committee, and ICRISAT’s Director of Research. Dave worked with the then newly appointed CIMMYT Director General, Masa Iwanaga, and helped draft a joint proposal with other institutes to CGIAR to form a Challenge Programme that could use the recent advances in molecular biology to harness their rich global stocks of crop genetic resources to create and provide a new generation of plants to meet farmers’ needs. This successfully gave rise to the CGIAR Generation Challenge Programme.

“GCP’s first task was to go in and identify the genetic wealth held within the CGIAR banks,” says Dave.

“To do this, we wanted to use the most recent molecular tools, like molecular markers, to help scan the genomes and discover genes in species related to crops of interest that could help increase yield.”

Let’s use an analogy from a familiar medium – text: think of this story you are now reading as the plant’s genome, its words as its genes and a molecular marker as a text highlighter. You can use different markers to highlight different keywords in this story. Once you can see these keywords, you can then study them in more detail, and, in the case of genes, see what they control in the plant, and how they affect its different aspects.

Photo: JIRCASBy studying the genes of wild versions of, let’s say, wheat, researchers can find genes that could help cultivated wheat to better battle drought.

“At that time, we recognised that a Centre like CIMMYT could no longer undertake this tremendously complex task on its own,” recounts Masa (pictured).”We needed to work within a programme that could concentrate on the task and that rallied together various CGIAR Centres as well as research institutes outside CGIAR, especially in developing countries.”

Partnerships with spirit
Partnerships have always been a key ingredient to success. At the same time, they have led to the downfall of many projects.

Back in the early noughties, CGIAR recognised their business model and research system were not actively fostering partnerships between their different research Centres as much as they should have been, nor were they vigorously encouraging Centres to seek collaboration outside CGIAR.

This was one of the fundamental reasons for establishing the Challenge Programmes, says Jean-Marcel Ribaut (pictured), who, in his role as GCP Director, has been credited by the Board and Committee for the significant time he has taken to broker, nurture and manage GCP’s partnerships.

“One of our major outputs has been the human assets,” says Jean-Marcel with great pride. “We have created this amazing chain of people from the lab to the field.”

In fact, GCPs greatest asset – its ‘crown jewel’ – is its network of people and the capacity the Programme provides them with to buttress all the hard work, particularly in countries where the end products (crops) will be of most benefit.

…the GCP Spirit’ … is visible and palpable: you can recognise people working with us have a spirit that is typical of the Programme.”

“To make a difference in rural development, to truly contribute to improved food security through crop improvement and income for poor farmers, we knew we had to build capacity in these areas,” observes Jean-Marcel.

“I see our management style as fairly ‘paternal’, in the positive sense of wanting to see these groups of people succeed, and us helping them to do so. If a research site needs a pump for fieldwork, we work with a local or international consultant who will visit the partner and evaluate their needs, advise them on what type of pump they need, as well as other infrastructure they’ll need for the whole system to be sustainable. We’ll then provide training on how to use the pump most effectively. It’s an investment in the people as much as in the products they are working on because we are trying to change the system of how science within partnerships is conducted and supported, as much as we are trying tap genetic diversity and breed resilient crops for the developing world.”

We were attracted to GCP because of its strong facilitating role, which offered considerable support to addressing the bottlenecks associated with research programmes that researchers and CGIAR identified.”

This support and change have been major selling points for potential partners who have resonated with what Jean-Marcel calls ‘the GCP Spirit’ – partners open to sharing their skills, tools and knowledge, willing to sacrifice their views and leadership and, most importantly, support one another.

“It is visible and palpable: you can recognise people working with us have a spirit that is typical of the Programme,” says Jean-Marcel.

Funders like the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) are attracted to, and impressed by, GCP’s approach as an honest and impartial ‘broker’.

“We were attracted to GCP because of its strong facilitating role, which offered considerable support to addressing the bottlenecks associated with research programmes that researchers and CGIAR identified,” says Carmen Thönnissen (pictured), Senior Advisor at SDC.

“GCP is also in line with SDC’s internal guidelines on Green Biotechnology, where it is our aim not to support single-donor initiatives but to work in larger programmes that have a clear focus on strengthening the national partner capacities too.”

At the beginning, most project leaders were from developed nations and CGIAR Centres. … now more than half of our projects are led by scientists in developing countries.”

A structured revolution within an evolution: aiming for products and sustainable change
GCP was designed in two phases over its 10-year life. The first was about the research and using genetic plant breeding techniques. The second and current phase focuses more on accessing modern breeding technologies and building capacity in developing countries to do the research for themselves.

Within nine years, GCP has produced useful tools and products from its studies of genetic resources.
These products have contributed to advancing knowledge, and will continue to do so into the future, particularly in plant breeding.

“At the very beginning, most project leaders were from established universities and institutes  in developed nations, and CGIAR Centres. However, over time there has been a major shift and now we are proud that more than half of our projects are led by scientists in developing countries,” says Jean-Marcel. “They’ve moved from the position of implementers to the role of leaders, while the CGIAR Centres and institutes in developed countries have evolved more into mentors and teachers. We hope this empowerment will allow national programmes to grow and establish themselves to be sustainable when the funding dries up.”

Challenges within the Challenge Programme
All this talk about spirit, collaboration and partnerships does make it sound as if GCP has found the winning formula, but Jean-Marcel is quick to counter such notions, and there have been constant course corrections in charting the Programme’s path. “If anything, our strength comes from recognising our weaknesses, acknowledging that we don’t have it all worked out, and embracing change where it is needed.”

A mid-term external review was conducted in 2008 to audit the Programme’s weaknesses, strengths and lessons learnt from both. This review resulted in some governance reforming, bringing about the Consortium Committee and an independent Executive Board.

“It’s a major improvement that we have an independent Board, allowing for focus, and without any conflict of interest. I think they are doing a great job,” says Jean-Marcel. “They are monitoring and evaluating what we are doing, providing plenty of feedback and ideas on how to move forward, and contributing a lot to the success of the Programme.”

The Board’s focus now turns to auditing the Programme and mapping a strategy to sustain its successful partnerships and systems, so they can continue to deliver products and capacity to the developing world.

Bird’s eye view from the Board
With more than 45 years of experience in international development and disaster management and, having worked in development programmes in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Pacific and the Caribbean, Andrew Bennett (pictured) was a perfect candidate for the Board Chair.

“We are committed to the role that can be played by science in development, and to the Programme,” says Andrew. “We have offered advice and helped the Programme’s Consortium Committee and management refocus the Programme. By all accounts, they seem happy with how things have evolved.”

Advice and helping aren’t normally the words associated with how a Board works but, like so much of the GCP family, this isn’t a classical board.

Andrew explains “Because GCP is hosted by CIMMYT, the Board does not have to deal with any policy issues. That is the responsibility of the Consortium Committee. Our role is more to provide advice and to help with decision-making and implementation, which is great as we’ve been able to focus on the Programme’s science and people.”

That focus now turns to auditing the Programme and mapping a strategy to sustain its successful partnerships and systems, so they can continue to deliver products and capacity to the developing world.

Turning sunset to sunrise
With only two-and-a-half years left to run, Jean-Marcel and his team are working just as passionately on sustaining the partnerships, projects and outputs that GCP has created.

“We knew we weren’t going to be around forever, so we had a plan from early on to hand over the managerial reins to other institutes, including CGIAR,” says Jean-Marcel, with the slight affliction of a parent helping their child move out of home.

“We have begun integrating projects into the CGIAR Research Programmes (CRPs) which we hope will allow them to continue to grow and work effectively towards the goals set.”

At the same time, the Management Team, Committee and Board are all busy auditing the successes and failures of the Programme to quantify the achievements of what has been termed as one of the CGIAR’s more successful Challenge Programmes, and on how to make GCP products freely accessible to other research institutes and programmes.

Relevant links

Links to external websites

 

Chickpea research in India – Getting to the root of the matter to enhance drought tolerance

 Asia, Chickpeas, Crop breeding, Legumes  No Responses »
Jun 272012
 

India is the world’s largest producer and consumer of chickpea, accounting for more than a third (66 percent) of world production.

The Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) and the Indian Institute of Pulses Research (IIPR) are collaborating with the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) on marker-assisted backcrossing (MABC), to improve chickpeas for drought tolerance.

This complementary activity in the Tropical Legumes I project (TLI) Phase II is being funded by the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India.

Dr N Nadrajan (pictured left), IIPR Director, adds “We have been trained on the breeding tools offered by the Integrated Breeding Platform, including data management, and on electronic data collection using a handheld device.”

Shailesh Tripathi (pictured right) is a Senior Scientist working on chickpea breeding at IARI. “During Phase I of TLI, ICRISAT and its partners identified a root-trait QTL region which confers drought tolerance in chickpeas, and the markers by which to transfer this QTL region. By evaluating the chickpea reference set, ICRISAT and its partners in Africa identified about 40 lines for drought tolerance, and these lines are being used in Phase II of the project,” says Shailesh. [Editor’s note: A ‘reference set’ is a sub-sample of existing germplasm collections that facilitates and enables access to existing crop diversity for desired traits, such as drought tolerance or resistance to disease or pests]

“Through GCP, we have benefitted from training in molecular breeding. The benefits of this go beyond this project,” he adds.

The Indian scientists are using MABC as well as marker-assisted recurrent selection (MARS) in Phase II, applying genomic resources that came from Phase I of the project.

“Our goal is to obtain lines with good root traits for drought tolerance,” says Shailesh, realistically adding that “Variety release will take time, but the good news is that we already have the pre-release materials to identify donors for specific traits, like root biomass.”

Progress in chickpea research in Africa and Asia

Related links

cheap ghd australia