|
NEWSLETTER Articles
Report of a Working Group on Wheat.
Second Meeting,
22-24 September 2005, La Rochelle, France
[PDF file 776KB]
(published in the same volume of: Report of a Cereals Network. First meeting, 3-5 July 2003, Yerevan, Armenia)
Priorities for Phase VII, agreed in July 2003
The European Wheat Database
Wheat
Working Group members
Wheat
Meetings & Reports
Internet Catalogue of Wheat Pedigree (genes and identified alleles)
|
Background information
Following an ECPGR ad hoc meeting on wheat held in Paris, France,
in May 1996, the ECPGR Working Group on Wheat was officially established by the
ECPGR Steering
Committee in July 1998. The Working Group met for the first time in Prague, Czech Republic, November
2001.
The Group met in a parallel session with the other Cereals Network Working Groups, during the First Cereals
Network meeting, held in Yerevan, Armenia, 3-5 July 2003.
A second meeting of the Working Group on Wheat was held in La Rochelle, France, 15-17 September 2005.
The European Wheat Database (EWDB)
The European Wheat
Database (EWDB) structure was initially developed in September 1996. The database was first
made publicly available in June 1998. At present the EWDB consists of 132 000 records, which is
an estimated 56% of all wheat accessions conserved in Europe.
Since 2001 the following workplan has been fulfilled:
Harmonization of the data into the MCPDv2 format and conversion data
Delivery of missing data by the WG members to the Central Database
Supply of characterization data for the 6 descriptors as agreed at the last meeting of the Wheat
WG (Prague, Nov. 2001): awnedness, grain colour, glume colour, glume hairiness, spike density,
plant height
The future tasks include:
To fill the gaps in the list of passport data by downloading wheat data from the EURISCO Database
To fill the gaps in the list of characterization data
Data analysis of the EWDB
A first analysis of the EWDB focused on the search for unique material,
since this represents the most valuable part of the collections and should be safely conserved as
well as safety-duplicated.
The search was made focusing on the field "Accession name". Out of a total of 108 229 accessions
documented in the EWDB, 29 414 (27%) records of accessions received from collecting missions
(with no accession name) are believed to be mainly unique samples. A group of 11 750 different names
were recorded for 43 735 accessions (41%). This group can therefore be expected to include many
duplicates.
Finally, 35 070 accessions (32%) were preliminarily identified as unique material (accessions
recorded as being present only once in the entire European collection).
Characterization and evaluation
The Group acknowledged that morphological characterization of the
accessions was necessary during regeneration by the genebank, to be carried out possibly in
collaborative projects.
The evaluation work should be done in collaborative projects with breeders as users of the genetic
resources.
Characterization and evaluation data increase the value of every collection and database. Due to
the large amount of accessions conserved, every genebank should focus on its unique accessions, as
identified by the DB manager.
Sharing of responsibilities
The Working Group agreed on the principle of establishing a
decentralized wheat collection, whereby every country takes responsibility for the long-term
conservation of a sub-set of the collection.
A list of the unique accessions held by each genebank was distributed to the WG members, after
analyzing the EWDB. The wild relatives were not included in this list.
The group agreed that every genebank should take the responsibility of its own unique accessions
and should also formally take a commitment for conservation, as a first step to increase task
sharing.
As a second step, duplicates could be tracked and handled in a rational way, i.e. responsibility
could be assigned for the conservation of Most Original Samples (MOSs).
Safety-duplication
Bilateral arrangements for safety-duplication of wheat accessions are
currently in place between the Netherlands and Germany, The Netherlands and UK, Switzerland and
Germany, Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Every genebank is considered responsible to provide safety-duplication for its own collection. At
the same time it is recommended to establish a quality system to carefully monitor viability, such
as according to ISO 9000.
In situ / On-farm conservation
It was considered that in situ conservation of cereal wild
relatives is only relevant for a very few countries.
On the other hand, there is an increasing interest for on-farm conservation. Examples were quoted
from Austria, France, Germany and Switzerland, mostly by private associations, with support by the
governments.
The Group felt that on-farm conservation of wheat can be an activity where genebanks have a role
to play and that this would be positive for conservation of diversity.
For more information or comments:
Please contact the Chair of the Working Group:
Mr Geert Kleijer [click here]
and
Vice-Chair: Ms Iva Faberová [click here]
|
IPGRI and INIBAP
operate under the name Bioversity International.