Tải bản đầy đủ - 0trang
VI. Documentation of Genetic Resources
EVALUATION OF GENETIC RESOURCES IN CEREALS
and effort would be saved if a lengthy description of the method and
intervals used for recording each character is avoided. The IBPGR has
been convening small working groups of scientists for the purpose of
arriving at an internationally agreed upon list of descriptors for describing
information for wheat (IBPGR, 1985) and barley (IBPGR, 1982). However,
experience has shown that it is too time-consuming to record observations
on all descriptors mentioned in the descriptor lists, as the method of
recording and the selection of characters are very much dictated by the
region and the needs of local breeders at each institution concerned. It is
also necessary to set out data in a standard format using a generally agreed
upon series of descriptors and descriptor states for the crop. In this way
the data can be entered into computers, retrieved, and exchanged among
institutions with the least possible confusion and optimum efficiency
For the purpose of utilization, systematic analysis and description of
samples is useful in both distinguishing between populations and identifying duplicates, as well as in providing information on the extent of
variation within a given germplasm collection. It is axiomatic that the more
documentation on a collection, the greater the chance of its rational utilization. Information from the site where a particular sample was collected
may be extremely important. For instance, at ICARDA, germplasm that is
described as having a short maturity period receives immediate attention
of the breeders as this trait is very useful to escape drought and high
temperatures during grain filling in the dry areas. Therefore, information
recorded by germplasm collectors at site would be very valuable later
when the samples are evaluated.
Peeters (1988) studied statistically a large barley germplasm collection
at Cambridge and reported that despite extensive collecting activity in
recent years and subsequent exchange between countries, combinations
of characters have remained substantially different in germplasm by country gene pool. Material from the United States now contains more variability in toto than material from any other country. Subsequently, Peeters
and Martinelli (1989) used hierarchical cluster analysis to classify entries
from this collection according to their degree of similarity and concluded
that this statistical analysis procedure could be used as a tool to classify
entries to their respective gene pools even when no passport data are
Often those responsible for entering data recorded at a collecting site
into a computer data base believe that lengthy descriptive notes made at
the collection site, for example, notes on disease observations or peculiarities of the habitat, are not relevant and hence should be omitted. Nothing
could be more erroneous. Although it is recommended that passport data
A. B. DAMANlA
must not be encumbered with vast amounts of morphologicaldescriptions,
it should certainly contain disease and habitat data and, more importantly,
comments from the farmers as to the useful features that distinguish their
material from the rest.
Inadequate passport data very often inhibit effective utilization of collected germplasm. It has been repeatedly pointed out to collectors and
genebank managers that passport data divulge extremely valuable and in
many cases the only available information on the ecological adaptation of
an accession and hence no effort should be spared to fill this important gap
in documentation of germplasm (Frankel, 1987).
Systematic description of samples for discrete traits has been limited to
cataloging the phenotypic variation because of constraints in relating genotype with phenotype. Quantitative morphoagronomic traits are also
currently used in characterization. These traits are controlled by several
genes, each contributing a small effect that is quite often blurred by the
environment. Consequently, the correlation between genotype and phenotype is obscured.
Certain evaluation studies have used ranking as a method of describing
results of economically important traits such as yield. This ranking may
change from one site to another for some quantitative characters such as
plant height and days to heading (Damania, 1983). Such unstable characters cannot be adequately described when studied at a single location.
Thus, the concept of multilocation testing becomes imperative.
We cannot commit ourselves to hard and fast rules regarding the selection of a representative sample, but it must be stressed that an evaluation
that partially covers the total variability can only be of limited value at
best. That is, if raw data are misinterpreted or incorrectly fed into the main
data base, self-consistency is lost and the entire task becomes futile.
Unfortunately, not all the samples assembled in our genebanks were collected with the aim of preserving genetic variability of populations in
danger of extinction. On the contrary, several genetic resources collecting
expeditions were targeted to filling certain gaps, such as finding resistant
lines to specific stresses or studying relationships between wild and cultivated species. Therefore, genetic material from such expeditions represents only a fraction of the existing variability present in a particular area.
This being so, it can provide useful genes for current breeding goals, but
may be inadequate for tomorrow’s needs (Porceddu, 1976).
The major collections of wheat and Barley now contain several thousand accessions. Such numbers may be too large for detailed evaluation.
In response to this, there is a recent trend toward developing “core
collections,” which are subsets upon which detailed evaluation work may
EVALUATION OF GENETIC RESOURCES IN CEREALS
be concentrated (Brown, 1989). The remainder of the large collection
constitutes a reserve still maintained in storage and available when a
desired trait cannot be found in the core (Chapman, 1989).
The ability of genetic resources managers to respond to requests from
breeders for material depends very much on the adequate description of
the accessions and the ability to query the information in a computerized
data base. Hitherto, insufficient emphasis has been placed on recording
passport data, and their absence is a major constraint to curators in assessing the range of variability in their collections and in identifying gaps
VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Genetically uniform cultivars are employed by cereal farmers in the
major cereal-producing countries of the world. Because plant breeding is
essentially a process for exploitation of genetic variability, breeders could
also examine means of conserving already existing genetically variable
germplasm as well as creating new varieties. Mak and Harvey (1982) have
described the composite cross technique that creates, as well as exploits,
genetic variability, using the USDA barley world collection as a model.
This may be one of the ways to proceed for other cereal crops.
When precise objectives of evaluation are known at the outset, the task
becomes relatively simple. In the case of most wild and primitive forms,
evaluation aims to reveal potentially useful variability for direct use in the
breeding programs. This may necessitate initial characterization in
nurseries and cataloging of passport information, followed by a more
detailed field study in collaboration with the end-users of the germplasm.
Inferences regarding geographical variability, even on the basis of evaluation of a world collection, cannot be considered truly representative as
they represent findings based on the composition of a collection that may
be comprehensive for some regions and deficient for others. Furthermore,
variability studies based on collections made several years ago may not
accurately reflect the variability to be found at present in the same area. It
is presumed that, after observation of dramatic degradation of the environment and genetic erosion, there would be considerable decline in variability if not extinction of indigenous germplasm in several previously generich regions in the world (Hawkes, 1981). The utilization of germplasm
collections in crop improvement for the major cereals has revealed the
A. B. DAMANIA
1. The use of exotic germplasm. The successful use of landraces and
wild species in cereal improvement has been more extensive in the developed countries, which lack indigenous germplasm, than in the less developed countries. In recent years the International Agriculture Research
Centers (IARC) have contributed substantially to generation and distribution of improved adapted germplasm with genes from landraces and wild
forms to the national programs and other institutions, as the germplasm
developed for more favorable environments has not succeeded in the dry
2. Constraints to the use of exotic germplasm. Many plant breeders
were reluctant to devote a greater part of their resources for the exploitation of landraces and wild species in the past. This was because the
potential value of these germplasms for the stressed environments was not
fully appreciated. However, in recent years, varieties targeted for lowinput, rain-fed agricultural systems possess genes from adapted landraces
and even direct usage of selections of the best lines isolated from landraces
have been recommended for release.
3. Support for plant genetic resources programs. Extensive use of landraces, primitive forms, and wild species will be more tenable for harsh
environments when the process of conservation, evaluation, documentation, and exchange of germplasm is strengthened and adequately funded.
Donor countries and international agencies could increase support for
utilization of indigenous landraces and primitive forms in the recently
established breeding programs of the developing world.
4. Use of computers and statistical program packages. Computer programs designed for analyzing a large quantity of evaluation data have
greatly reduced the time and effort needed for arriving at tangible results.
This in turn has led to the publication ofgermplasm catalogs, which have
facilitated dissemination of information on genetic resources collections to
actual users, allowing for greater utilization of the services rendered by
genebanks. However, breeders prefer to receive a short list of accessions
with specific traits to choose from rather than large genetic resources
Electrophoretic techniques that permit rapid mass screening of samples
are increasingly recognized as powerful research tools for the study of
genetic variations in populations. A wider application of gel electrophoresis in the evaluation of plant genetic resources is expected. The use
of restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLP) for evaluating genetic diversity has been described (Bernatsky and Tanksley, 1989), and is
the best available means for detecting differences at the DNA level on
samples of reasonable size. It would be useful if such techniques were
utilized to a greater extent than at present on genetic resources collections.
EVALUATION OF GENETIC RESOURCES IN CEREALS
The breeding objectives of the developed countries, mostly located in
favorable environments, are different from those of the West Asia and
North Africa region. The advanced breeding programs in the former
countries began utilizing exotic landraces about 100 years ago and have
fully exploited them, so they no longer seek variability but only single
genes from the wild relatives and grasses of the tertiary gene pool. The
breeding objectives for West Asia and North Africa, on the other hand, are
to develop varieties adapted to withstand harsh environments and low
inputs. Hence, selections from landraces and crosses with wild and pnmitive forms are undertaken to produce well-adapted germplasm for targeted
In recent years, world collections of cereals have been evaluated by
many scientists working in different countries who were searching for
economically useful genes or gene combinations. Confidence has been
expressed that such materials are a usable source of breeding stocks,
although they still require thorough assessment. Large-scale evaluation, if
carried out thoroughly, is an expensive, arduous, and time-consuming
process. Therefore, it is imperative to carefully select the traits that one
wishes to evaluate in consultation with the breeders. Further, not all
material in a collection may be of immediate interest. Priorities need to be
discussed and selection of the traits made on the basis of their importance
to the actual user. Such a procedure will assure optimal utilization of
physical facilities, manpower, and financial resources. Finally, breeding
objectives change, sometimes rapidly, and hence evaluation needs to be
adaptive to a certain extent to succeed.
The author thanks Drs. W. Erskine, S. Ceccarelli, and J . Valkoun for their comments and
suggestions on a draft of this review and the Government of ltaly for financial support.
Alkamper, von J. 1974. Z. Acker. Pfianzenbau 140, 184-198.
Allard, R. W. 1970. I n “Genetic Resources in Plants-Their Exploration and Conservation”
(0.H. Frankel and E. Bennett, eds.), pp. 97-108. IBP/Blackwell, London.
Allard, R. W., Kahler, A. L., and Weir, B. S. 1970. In “Proceedings of Second International
Barley Genetic Symposium” (R. A. Nilan, ed.), pp. 1-13. Washington State Univ.
Asins, M. J., and Carbonell, E. A. 1986. Theor. Appl. Gener. 72,551-558.
Avivi, L. 1978. In “Proceedings of Fifth International Wheat Genetics Symposium” (S.
Ramunajam, ed.), pp. 372-380. ICAR, New Delhi.
Avivi, L. 1979. Genet. Agric. 4, 27-38.
Bakhteyev, F. Kh. 1979. Z . Pjianzenzuechr. 83,211-221.
A. B. DAMANIA
Bekele, E. 1984. Hereditas 100, 131-154.
Bernatsky, R., and Tanksley, S. D. 1989. In “The Use of Plant Genetic Resources” (A. H. D.
Brown, 0. H. Frankel, D. R. Marshall, and J. T. Williams, eds.), pp. 353-362. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
Blum, A., Sinmena, B., Golan, G., and Mayer, J . 1987. Plant Breed. 99,226-233.
Bowden, W. M. 1959. Can. J . Bot. 37,657-684.
Brown, A. H. D. 1978. Theor. Appl. Genet. 52, 145-157.
Brown, A. H. D. 1989. In “The Use of Plant Genetic Resources” (A. H. D. Brown, 0. H.
Frankel, D. R. Marshall, and J. T. Williams, eds.), pp. 136-156. Cambridge Univ. Press,
Brown, A. H. D., Frankel, 0. H., Marshall, D. R., and Williams, J. T. (eds.). 1989. “The Use
of Plant Genetic Resources”. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
Burt, R. L., Pengelly, B. C., and Williams, W. T. 1980. Agro-Ecosystems 6, 119-127.
Ceccarelli, S., and Grando, S. 1987. Genet. Agric. 41, 131-142.
Ceccarelli, S., Grando, S., and van Leur, J. G. 1987. Euphytica 36,389-405.
Chang, T. T. 1985. Iowa State J . Res. 59,379-397.
Chapman, C. 1989. In “IBPGRTraining Courses: Lecture Series 2. Scientific Management of
Germplasm: Characterization, Evaluation and Enhancement” (H. T. Stalker and C.
Chapman, eds.), pp. 55-63. IBPGR, Rome.
Chennaveeraiah, M. S. 1960. Acta Horti. Gotob. 23, 85-178.
Cole, E. W., Fullington, J . G., and Kasarda, D. D. 1981. Theor. Appl. Genet. 60, 17-30.
Cox, T. S., Harrel, L. G., Lubbers, E. L., and Amri, A. 1989. Annu. Wheat Newsln. 35,
Croston, R. P., and Williams, J. T. 1981. “A World Survey of Wheat Genetic Resources.”
Damania, A. B. 1983. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Birmingham, Birmingham, U.K.
Damania, A. B. 1985. Indian J . Genet. 45, 213-220.
Damania, A. B., and Porceddu, E . 1981. Plant Genet. Resour. Newsl. 48,2-3.
Damania, A. B., and Somaroo, B. H. 1988. Rachis, 7,54-56.
Damania, A. B., and Srivastava, J. P. 1989. I n “Proceedings of the Third International
Symposium on Genetic Aspects of Plant Mineral Nutrition” (N. El-Bassam and B. C.
Loughman, eds.), pp. 425-430. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Damania, A. B., Porceddu, E., and Jackson, M. T. 1983. Euphyrica 32,877-883.
Damania, A. B., Jackson, M. T., and Porceddu, E. 1985.2. Pj7anzenzuecht. 94, 13-24.
Damania, A. B., Tahir, M., and Somaroo, B. H. 1988. In “Proceedings of the Seventh
International Wheat Genetics Symposium” (T. E. Miller and R. M. D. Koebner, eds.),
pp. 937-941. IPSR, Cambridge.
De Pace, C., Porceddu, E., and Blanco, A. 1978. In “Proceedings of the Fifth International Wheat Genetics Symposium” (S. Ramunajam, ed.), pp. 680-694. ICAR, New
Dhaliwal, H. S., Gill, K. S., Singh, P. J., Multani, D. S . , and Singh, B. 1986. Crop Improu. 16,
Dominici, L., Grottanelli, A , , Tomassini, C., Lafiandra, D., Porceddu, E., and Damania,
A. B. 1988. Rachis 7,34-36.
Ehdaie, B., and Waines, J. G. 1989. Euphyrica 41, 183-190.
Elliot F. C., 1957. J. Hered. 48,77-81.
Erskine, W., and Williams, J. T. 1980. Plant Genet. Resour. Newsl. 41, 19-33.
Feldman, M., and Sears, E. R. 1981. Sci. Am. 244,98-109.
Ford-Lloyd, B. V. 1978. In “Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources” ( J . G. Hughes, ed.),
pp. 42-45. Univ. of Aston, Birmingham, U.K.
Frankel, 0. H. 1987. IBPGR Southeast Asia Newsl. 11, 13.
EVALUATION O F GENETIC RESOURCES IN CEREALS
Frankel, 0. H., and Bennett, E. (eds.), 1970. “Genetic Resources in Plants-Their Exploration and Conservation.” IBPIBIackwell, London.
Frankel, 0. H., and Hawkes, J. G. (eds.), 1975a. “Crop Genetic Resources for Today and
Tomorrow.” Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
Frankel, 0. H., and Hawkes, J. G. 1975b. I n “Crop Genetic Resource for Today and
Tomorrow” (0.H . Frankel and J. G. Hawkes, eds.), pp. 1-1 I. Cambridge Univ. Press,
Freeman, G. H., and Dowker, B. D. 1973. Heredity 30,97-109.
Frost, S . , Holm, G., and Asker, S. 1975. Heriditas 79, 133-142.
Gabriel, K. R., and Sokal, R. R. 1969. Sysr. Zool. 18,259-278.
Gerechter-Amitai, Z. K., and Stubbs, R. W. 1970. Euphyrica 19, 12-21.
Gill, B. S., Raupp, W. J., Wilson, D. L., Gill, K. S., and Howell, K. D. 1989. Annu. Wheat
Newsl. 35, 138-139.
Grando, S.. Falistocco, E., and Ceccarelli, S. 1985. Genet. Agric. 39,65-76.
Hallauer, A. R., and Miranda, J. B. 1981. “Quantitative Genetics in Maize Breeding.” Iowa
State Univ. Press, Ames, Iowa.
Harlan, J. R. 1975. Science 188,618-621.
Harlan, J. R. 1976. Crop Sci. 16,329-333.
Harlan, J. R. 1979. In “Evolution of Crop Plants” (N. W. Simmonds, ed.), pp. 93-98.
Harlan, J. R. 1984. In “Crop Genetic Resources: Conservation and Evaluation” ( J . W. H.
Holden and J. T. Williams, eds.), pp. 212-222. Allen and Unwin, London.
Hawkes, J. G. 1971. Outlook Agric. 6,248-253.
Hawkes, J. G. 1977. Euphytica 26,615-621.
Hawkes, J. G. 1981. I n “Plant Breeding 11” (K. J. Frey, ed.), pp. 57-83. Iowa State Univ.
Press, Ames, Iowa.
Hawkes, J. G. 1983. “The Diversity of Crop Plants.” Harvard Univ. Press, Camridge,
Hawkes, J. G. 1985. I n “Proceedings of Eucarpia Genetic Resources Section. International
Symposium on Evaluation for the Better Use of Genetic Resources Materials” (V.
Rogalewicz, ed.), pp. 69-77. Research Institute of Plant Production, Prague.
Hillel, J., Feldman, M. W., and Simchen, G. 1973. Heredity 30, 141-167.
Holden, J. H. W., and Williams, J. T. (eds.). 1984. “Crop Genetic Resources, Conservation
and Evaluation.” Allen and Unwin, London.
IBPGR 1982. “Descriptors of Barley.” IBPGR/FAO, Rome.
IBPGR 1985. “Revised Descriptors List for Wheat (Triticum spp.).” IBPGR/CEC, Rome.
Jain, S. K. 1975. In “Crop Genetic Resources for Today and Tomorrow” (0.H. Frankel and
J. G. Hawkes, eds.), pp. 15-36. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
Jain, S. K., Qualset, C. O., Bhatt, G. M., and Wu, K. K. 1975. Crop Sci. 15,700-704.
Jana, S . , and Pietrzak, L. N . 1988. Genetics 119,981-990.
Jana, S . , Srivastava, J. P., and Gautam, P. L . 1983. I n “Proceedings of the Sixth International Wheat Genetics Symposium” (S. Sakamoto, ed.), pp. 137-141. Kyoto Univ.,
Jana, S., Pietrzak, L. N., Morris, M. I., Srivastava, J. P., Holwerda, B. C., and Thai, K. M.
1987. I n “Proceedings of the V International Barley Genetics Symposium,” (S. Yasuda
and T. Konishi, eds.), pp. 63-73. Institute for Agricultural and Biological Sciences,
Kihara, H., Yamashita, K., and Tanaka, M. 1965. In “Cultivated Plants and Their Relatives”
(K. Yamashita, ed.), pp. 1-118, Kyoto Univ., Kyoto.
Kimber, G., and Feldman, M. 1987. “Wild Wheat-An Introduction.” Univ. of Missouri,
A. B. DAMANIA
Kobrehel, K., and Gautier, M. F. 1973. In “Genetics and Breeding of Durum Wheat” ( G . T.
Scarascia-Mugnozza, ed.), pp. 527-536. Univ. of Bari, Ban, Italy.
Konarev, V. G., Gavnlyuk, I. P., Gubareva, N. K., and Peneva, T. I. 1979. Cereal Chem. 56,
Konzak, C. F., Behre, T., Davis, M. A., and Sadam, M. 1973. In “Genetics and Breeding of
Durum Wheat” (G. T. Scarascia-Mugnozza, ed.), pp. 179. Univ. of Ban, Ban, Italy.
Kosina, R., 1980. Z. Pfanzenzuecht. 85,294-307.
Lagudah, E. S., Flood, R. G., and Halloran, G. M. 1987. Euphytica 36,3-9.
Lange, W., and Balkema-Boomstra, A. G. 1988. In “Cereal Breeding Related to Integrated
Cereal Production” (M. L. Jornaand L. A. J . Slootmaker, eds.), pp. 157-478. Eucarpia,
Lawrence, J. M., Day, K. M., Huey, E., and Lee, B. 1958. Cereal Chem. 35, 169-179.
Lewontin, R. C. 1974. “The Genetic Basis of Evolutinary Change.” Columbia Univ. Press,
Mak, C., and Harvey, B. L. 1982. Euphytica 31,85-92.
Maliani, C., and Bianchi, A. 1979. Genet. Agric. 33, 1-14.
Mansur-Vergara, L., Konzak, C. F., Gerechter-Amitai, Z. K., Grama, A., and Blum, A.
1986. Theor. Appl. Genet. 72,296-301.
Mengesha, M. 1975. In “Crop Genetic Resources for Today and Tomorrow” (0.H. Frankel
and J. G. Hawkes, eds.), pp. 449-453. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
Moms, R., and Sears, E. R. 1967. In “Wheat and Wheat Improvement” (K. S. Quinesberry
and L. P. Reitz, eds.), pp. 19-87. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin.
Murphy, P. J., and Witcombe, J. R. 1981. In “Proceedings of FAO/UNEP/IBPGRTechnical
Conference on Crop Genetic Resources.” IBPGR, Rome.
Murphy, P. J., and Witcombe, J. R. 1986. Theor. Appl. Genet. 71,730-735.
Negassa, M. 1985a. Hereditas 102, 123-138.
Negassa, M. 1985b. Hereditas 102, 139-150.
Negassa, M. 1986. Plant Breed. 97, 147-162.
Nevo, E., and Payne, P. I. 1987. Theor. Appl. Genet. 74,827-836.
Nevo, E., Zohary, Brown, A. H. D., and Haber, M. 1979. Euolution 33,815-833.
Nevo, E., Golenberg, E., and Beiles, A. 1982. Theor. Appl. Genet. 62,241-254.
Nevo, E., Beiles, A., and Kaplan, D. 1988. Heredity 61,31-45.
O’Toole, J . C., and Bland, W. L. 1987. Adu. Agron. 41,91-145.
Peeters, J. P. 1988. Theor. Appl. Genet. 76, 17-24.
Peeters, J. P., and Martinelli, J. A. 1989. Theor. Appl. Genet. 78, 42-48.
Plucknett, D. L., Smith, N. J. H., Williams, J. T., and Anishetty, N. M. 1983. Science 220,
Pogna, N., Lafiandra, D., Feillet, P., and Autran, J. C. 1988. J . Cereal Sci. 7,211-214.
Porceddu, E. 1976. Z. Pfanzenzeucht. 77,314-329.
Porceddu, E., and Penino, P. 1973. Plant Genet. Resour. Newsl. 30,33-36.
Porceddu, E., and Scarascia-Mugnopzza, G. T. 1983. In “Proceedings of the Sixth International Wheat Genetics Symposium” (S. Sakamoto, ed.), pp. 241-252. Kyoto Univ.,
Porceddu, E., Perrino, P., and Olita, G. 1973. In “Genetics and Breeding of Durum Wheat”
(G. T. Scarascia-Mugnozza, ed.), pp. 181-200. Univ. of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Poyarkova, H. 1988. Euphytica 38, 11-23.
Pun, Y. P., and Qualset, C. 0. 1978. Phyton 36,41-51.
Qualset, C. 0. 1975. In “Crop Genetic Resources for Today and Tomorrow” (0.H. Frankel
and J. G. Hawkes, eds.), pp. 81-96. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
Qualset, C. O., and Pun, Y. P. 1973. In “Genetics and Breeding of Durum Wheat” ( G . T.
Scarascia-Mugnozza, ed.), pp. 165-178. Univ. of Bari, Bari, Italy.
EVALUATION O F GENETIC RESOURCES IN CEREALS
Reed, C. A. 1969. In “The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals” (P. J.
Ucko and G. W. Dimbleby, eds.), pp. 361-380. Duckworth, London.
Renfrew, J. M. 1969. I n “The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals” (P. J.
Ucko and G. W. Dimbleby, eds.), pp. 149-172. Duckworth, London.
Riley, R., Chapman, V., and Johnson, R. 1968. Nature (London) 217,383-384.
Robertson, B. M., Waines, J. G., and Gill, B. S. 1979. Crop Sci. 19,843-847.
Robinson, P. J., Burt, R. L., and Williams, W. T. 1980. Agro-Ecosystems 6, I 1 1-1 18.
Rogalewicz, V. (ed.). 1985. “Proceedings of the Eucarpia Genetic Resources Section. International Symposium on Evaluation for the Better Use of Genetic Resources Materials.”
Research Institute of Plant Production, Prague.
Sakamoto, S., and Fukui, K. 1972. Kyoto Univ.Afr. Stud. 7, 181-225.
Sharma, H. C., Waines. J. G., and Foster, K. W. 1981. Crop Sci. 21,555-559.
Shevchuk, T. 1973. Plant Genet. Resour. Newsl. 29,2-6.
Smillie, R. M., and Nott, R. 1982. Plant Physiol. 70, 1049-1054.
Somaroo, B. H., Adham, Y. J., and Mekni, M. S. 1986. “Barley Germplasm Catalog I ,
1986.” ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria.
Somaroo, B. H., Abiad. G. F.. Humeid, B. 0.. and Srivastava, J. P. 1988. “Barley
Germplasm Catalog 11, 1988.” ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria.
Spagnoletti Zeuli, P. L., and Qualset, C. 0. 1987. Crop Sci. 27,235-241.
Srivastava, J. P., and Damania, A. B. 1989. In “The Use of Plant Genetic Resources”, (A. H.
D. Brown, 0. H. Frankel, D. R. Marshall, and J. T. Williams, eds.), pp. 88-104.
Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
Srivastava, J. P., Damania, A. B., and Percetti. L. 1988. I n “Proceedings of the Seventh
International Wheat Genetics Symposium” (T. E. Miller and R. M. D. Koebner, eds.),
pp. 153-158. IPSR, Cambridge.
Takahashi, R., Hayashi. J., Yasuda, S., and Hiura, U. 1965. In “Cultivated Plants andTheir
Relatives” (K. Yamashita. ed.), pp. 141-168. Kyoto Univ., Kyoto.
Tani, Y., and Sakamoto, S. 1987. In “Domesticated Plants and Animals of the Southwest
Eurasian Agro-Pastoral Culture Complex” (S. Sakamoto, ed.). pp. 47-69. Kyoto Univ.,
Tolbert, D. M., Qualset, C. O., Jain, S. K., and Craddock, J. C. 1979. Crop Sci. 19,789-794.
Vallega, V., and Waines, J . G. 1987. Theor. Appl. Genet. 74,706-710.
van Leur, J. A. G., Ceccarelli, S., and Grando, S. 1989. Plant Breed. 103,324-335.
Vavilov, N. I . 1926. Bull. Appl. Bot. Plant Breed. 16, 1-245.
Vavilov, N. I. 1932. Bull. Appl. Bot. Plant Breed. Leningrad, Suppl. N o . 55.
Vogel, K. P., Johnson, V. A., and Mattern, P. J. 1973. Agric. Exp. Sin., Univ. of Nebraska,
Coll. Agric. Res. Bull. 258.
Waines, J. G., 1983. In “Proceedings of the Sixth International Wheat Genetics Symposium”
( S . Sakamoto, ed.), pp. 115-122. Kyoto Univ., Kyoto.
Waines, J. G., Ehdaie, B., and Barnhart, D. 1987. Genome 29,41-46.
Ward, D. J. 1962. USDA Tech. Bull. 1276, United States Government Printing Office,
Weltzien, E. 1982a. Plant Genet. Resour. Newsl. 52, 5-6.
Weltzien, E. 1982b. Rachis 1,6-7.
Williams, J. T. 1989. I n “The Use of Plant Genetic Resources” (A. H. D. Brown, 0. H.
Frankel, D. R. Marshall, and J. T. Williams, eds.), pp. 235-244. Cambridge Univ. Press,
Williams, W. T., Burt, R. L., Pengelly, B. C., and Robinson, P. J. 1980. Agro-Ecosystems 6,
Witcombe, J. R. 1975. Euphytica 24,431-434.
Yamashita, K. 1980. Z. Pjanzenzuecht. 84, 122-132.
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
ADVANCES IN AGRONOMY, VOL. 44
MODELING CROP ROOT GROWTH
Betty Klepper and R. W. Rickman
United States Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service
Columbia Plateau Conservation Research Center
Pendleton, Oregon 97801
I . Introduction
11. Early Models
111. Desirable Model Features
1v. Model Components
A. Root Classification
B. Root Growth Parameters for Modeling
C. Root-Soil Relationships in Growth
D. Root-Soil Relationships in Uptake Functions
V. Some Existing Root Growth and Function Models
VI. Limitations to Development of Root Growth Models
Many crop growth models that quantify plant uptake of water and
solutes from soils require a quantitative description of the root system and
its location in the soil profile. They require information like root length
density distribution with depth and changes in that distribution over time.
To sample the soil-root system and measure its properties over time in the
growing season is labor-intensive. Therefore it is useful to have models
that relate the generation of new root material and the decay of old roots to
plant properties and to soil conditions at various profile depths. Furthermore, root growth and death models are needed for use in calculating
fluxes of carbohydrates into below-ground organs for the detailed, physiologically based crop growth models presently being built. Such information as numbers and locations of root meristems, elongating zones, and
aging zones, with their associated rates of water and nutrient uptake and
their suites of exudates, are needed for interfacing to models that will
eventually be written to describe rhizosphere microbial dynamics and