Diversity of farmer-named fababean varieties in Morocco:a scientific basis for in situconservation

M. Sadiki,1L. Belqadi,1M. Mahdi,2D. Jarvis3

1 Hassan II Institute of Agronomy and Veterinary Medicine, Rabat, Morocco (IAV)

2 Ecole National d'Agriculture, Meknès, Morocco (ENA)

3 International Plant Genetic Resources, Rome Italy (IPGRI).

Understanding the system in order to take conservation and development actions

In situ conservation has been advocated as an approach to maintain the genetic diversity of the faba bean crop in Morocco

• WHAT, WHERE, WHEN: The amount and distribution of genetic diversity maintained by farmers over time and space

• HOW: The processes used to maintain genetic diversity on-farm

• WHO: The people who maintain genetic diversity on-farm and who make decisions

• WHY: The factors that influence farmer decision making to maintain diversity

Understanding the system in order to take conservation and development actions

What information is needed to answer these questions?

The scale or unit of data collection may not be the unit of analysis or the unit or level of conservation.

and at what scale(s)?

One answerFormulate specific hypotheses, together with specific actions to be taken when the hypothesis is proven false and other specific actions to be taken when the hypothesis is proven true.

Question:How do we move from descriptive information to information that points us towards conservation and development actions?

Farmers’ named cultivars are clearly genetically different

The amount and distribution of genetic diversity on-farm:

If False:

• Can not depend on farmer names as the unit for conservation

If True

• Depending on the genetic structure and extent of the truth (how much the degree of difference), decisions can be made to conserve landraces

• Can establish genetic relationships between varieties

Crop – Faba Bean (Vicia faba L.)

Precise origin of vicia faba L. is unclear

Morocc

o

SITE and Samples

Taounate and Taza Provinces(Rif Mountains)

Crop – Faba Bean (Vicia faba L.)

Reproduction system

Partialially cross-pollinated:

intermediate beween strict autogamous and allogamous

Average crosspollination rate ~ 50 %Variation between 4 to 89 %

Crop – Faba Bean (Vicia faba L.)Crop usage

• Early stage pods • Green seed

As vegetables As component in various dishes

• Dry grains

Human consumption 60 % Animal feed 40%

As complementary ground product

Crop – Faba Bean (Vicia faba L.)

Very low use of certified seed

Certified seed < 2%

Local cultivars

non certified seed 98%

Origin of seed

Own seed produced : 76 %Exchange with neighbours: 13 %

Bought at the weekly local market: 10 %

Understanding the genetic structure and level of genetic distinctiveness of the units farmers name and manage is the first step in quantifying the amount and distribution of genetic diversity maintained on farm

The amount and distribution of genetic diversity on-farm:

Identification of farmer named varieties and Farmer unit of diversity management (FUD)

• Surveys, investigations with farmers, and plant collection

• On-farm trials and on-station experiments

Survey and investigation with farmers based on participatory approach

184 farms, 15 villages, 5 communities, 284 sub-populations or seed lots (samples)

Investigations with women farmers:

• Hand seeding• Weeding• Harvesting: fresh pods, dry seed• Seed cleaning and storing• Cooking• Grinding for animal feeding

22 different farmer cultivars or types were distinguished by farmers.

Results- faba bean types or varieties

Name Seed size (mg/seed)

Pod length

Number of seed per pod

Seed color Pod shape

Foul Sbaï labiade, Large Long 7 Light yellow FlattenedFoul Sbaï Sdassi, Large Long 6 to 7 Brown FlattenedFoul Roumi Large Long 6 to 7 Brown FlattenedLakbir Lahmar Large Long 6 to 7 Brown FlattenedR’baï Labiade Large Medium 4 to 5 Light yellow FlattenedRbaï Laghlid, Large Medium 4 to 5 Brown FlattenedKhmassi Laghlide Large Medium 4 to 5 Brown FlattenedLaghlide Labiade Beldi Large Short 3 Light yellow FlattenedLaghlide Beldi Large Short 3 Dark Brown FlattenedMoutouassate Labiad, Medium (0.8-1.5) Medium 4 to 5 Light yellow FlattenedFoul Beldi Medium (0.8-1.5) Medium 4 to 5 Light yellow FlattenedMoutouassate Labiad, Medium (0.8-1.5) Medium 4 to 5 Light yellow CylindricalFoul Beldi Medium (0.8-1.5) Medium 4 to 5 Light yellow CylindricalMoutouassate, Medium (0.8-1.5) Medium 4 to 5 Brown FlattenedFoul Beldi Khal Medium (0.8-1.5) Medium 4 to 5 Brown FlattenedMoutouassate Labiad, Medium (0.8-1.5) Medium 4 to 5 Brown CylindricalFoul Beldi Khal Medium (0.8-1.5) Medium 4 to 5 Brown CylindricalBeldi Lakhdar Medium (0.8-1.5) Medium 4 to 5 Green FlattenedLocal A Medium (0.8-1.5) Short 3 Gray clear FlattenedLocal B Medium (0.8-1.5) Short 3 Gray clear CylindricalLocal C Medium (0.8-1.5) Short 3 Dark (brown) FlattenedLocal D Medium (0.8-1.5) Short 3 Green IntermediateLocal E Medium (0.8-1.5) Short 3 Violet FlattenedRguigue Labiade, Small (<0.8) Short 3 Gray clear CylindricalFouila Beldia, Small (<0.8) Short 3 Gray clear CylindricalFilt Small (<0.8) Short 3 Gray clear CylindricalRguigue, Small (<0.8) Short 3 Brown CylindricalFoul Sghir Lahmar Small (<0.8) Short 3 Brown CylindricalFilt Small (<0.8) Short 3 Brown CylindricalBaldia khadra Small (<0.8) Short 3 Green CylindricalFoul Bouzid Small (<0.8) Short 3 Violet Cylindrical

Results- faba bean types or varieties

Same traits different names

Same name different traits

Types A, B, C, D, Ehad generic name ‘local’ but no specific names

However were recognized as different units of diversity by farmers by a set of common traits

• There was only partial consistence for varieties names as not all names were consistent across farmers, while other times more than one name corresponded to the same types.

Results-consistency of farmers’ naming system

• Generic names such as “local” were used by farmers to indicate the origin of the variety, whereas specific names usually related to morphology, uses, adaptation and yield component.

Results – Farmers descriptors between and within types

• Within each type farmers asserted that there were variations among seed lots grown by different farmers.

• Cultivars and/or types were differentiated by farmers based on seed characteristics, plant morphology as well as cooking ability and taste.

Description criteria Traits Names

Trait values Distinction between types

Distinction Within types

Percent farmers

Morphology • Seed shape Flattened; Round; Mixed X 54 • Seed color Black; Dark brown; Violet; Yellow; Mixed X 100 • Hilum color Black ; Colorless; Mixed X X • Seed size Large; Medium; Small X 100 Production • Pod shape Cylindrical; Flattened X 75 • Pod length Long; Medium; Short X 95 • Number of seeds per

pod 7-8; 5-6; 3-4; 3 X 100

Cycle cultural • Precocity (Time to

flowering) Early; Late X 49

• Precocity (Time to harvest)

Early; Late X 46

Adaptation • Resistance to diseases

and pathogens Tolerant; Susceptible X 67

• Tolerance to drought Tolerant; Susceptible X 71 Utilization • Part used Fresh pods or grains; Dry grains X X 89 • Consumption Human Consumption; Animal feed X 56 • Cooking ability Tayyab (ease of cooking); hard to cook 16 • Destination Sold at Market; Home consumption X 21

Results – Farmers descriptors between and within types

184 farms

• 10 of the 22 described types were grown on station and on farm

On-farm and on-station characterization

Type 1013.1Rguigue Labiade

Type 94.2Local A

Type 82.8Moutouassate Lou Lkhal

Type 78.9Foul Beldi Khal

Type 64.2Moutouassate Labiad Beldi

Type 58.0Moutouassate Labiad

Type 45.2Laghlide Beldi

Type 38.0Rbaï Laghlid

Type 26.1Lakbir Lahmar

Type 1 5.9Foul Sbaï Sdassi

Code of typesPercentage of farmers (184 farmers)

Type names

• 7 sub-populations or seed lots per type were included (giving a total of 70 sub-populations characterized)

Trait Code in the analysis Plant growth (Vegetative phase) • Plant density PD • Growth habit (erect, semi erect, prostrate, semi prostrate) GH • Height of the plant at maturity (cm) H • Nodulation Scoring (1-5 scale visual score of nodule mass) NM • Number of leaves on the primary stem at flowering time NLP • Number of stems per plant at flowering time NSP • Stem color SC Plant cycle • Date of emergence DEM • Date of beginning of flowering DBF • Date of end of flowering DEF • Date of flowering (50 % plants with flowers) DF • Date of beginning of pod formation DBP • Date of 50 % pods formation DFP • Date end of pod formation DEP • Date of maturity DM • Flower color FC Plant fertility • Number of seeds per pod NSP • Weight of seeds per plant (g) ASW • Number of fertile stems at harvest NFS • Number of nodes bearing pods at harvest NNP • Number of full pods per plant at harvest NFP • Number of pods per node on the primary stem at maturity NPN Yield components • Number of pods per plant at harvest NPP • Average length (cm) of pods per plant at harvest PLP • Average number of seeds per pod at harvest NSP • Average seed weight (g/seed based on 5 randomly chosen pods) at harvest ASW • Height of the plant (cm) at maturity HPL • Seed yield per plant (g) SYP • Seed coat color SC • Seed Shape SS • Hilum color HC • Pod shape PS

Agromorphological traits measured

• randomised incomplete blocks with three replications,• random seed sample of each accession was grown in a five-row plot, • thirty random plants from the 3 central rows were evaluated for the

descriptors

On station characterization

• samples were grown in comparative trials on-farm • farmers asked about traits used to distinguish

varieties

On-farm characterization

Women farmers visiting the trials

Scatter diagram of the positions of the accessions belonging to 10 types on the first two axes of the canonical discriminant analysis performed on morphological traits measured for 2 years (1999 and 2000) at SOGETA, Ain Dick.

CAN 2 (18.9%)|

5 + C| C B| CC C B BBB| B| B A AA

0 + TA

A| H | H HHH H D D FF

0 + H X D D F DE FFF F EEE

| JJ I I D EE | J J I Y I I I G| J I G G| G G G

-5 +-+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+--10 -5 0 5 10 15

CAN 1 (78.6 %)(NOTE: 10 obs hidden.)

Results

Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA)

based on agromorphological traits resulted in grouping the 70 accessions in 10 clusters named A to J

T, X,Y = checks

Results

Number of observations and percent classified into each variety type based on posterior probability of membership (Pr(j|X) = exp(-.5 D²j (X)) / SUMk exp(-.5 Dk ² (X)).

1009.69.69.69.69.68.29.69.611.09.6Percent707777767787Total

10085.714.30000000076100000000Type 10

10014.385.70000000071600000000Type 9

10000100000000070070000000Type 8

10000010000000070007000000Type 7

10000001000000070000700000Type 6

1000000085.70014.3070000060010Type 5

10000000010000070000007000Type 4

10000000001000070000000700Type 3

10000000000100070000000070Type 2

10000000000010070000000007Type 1

TotalJIHGFEDCBACODE

Results

Results

• Only 3 sub-populations out of the 70 subpopulations of farmers units were not classified into their types (as determined by morphological characterisation.

• The classification based on the combination of these traits (factorial disciminant function) agreed with the original classification (based on farmers descriptions/traits) in 92 % of the cases.

Conclusion

There is only partial consistency of names across types grown by farmers in the 15 villages,

however,

There is very good consistence at the level of morphological characterisation of traits with the farmers’ concept of describing the varieties by their own set of traits.

Conclusion

Farmer names for faba bean cultivars can be partially depended on for conservation action plans

A better unit for conservation planning may be an associations of farmer names for faba beans cultivars that share the same set of farmer descriptors

Sets of traits used by farmers to distinguish varieties can be used to establish genetic relationships between varieties

Understanding farmers’ criteria for naming varieties

• Quantifies the amount and distribution of genetic diversity maintained on farm

• Provides the foundation for understanding farmer management of diversity

• Supplies the basis for using diversity directly, supporting seed supply, participatory breeding, and crop improvement

Why is understanding the genetic structure and distinctiveness of the units farmers manage important for agricultural development?