[For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see the Forum website.
Note, participants are assumed to be speaking on their own behalf, unless they state otherwise.]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: 27 March 2007 09:49
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 53: Use of microorganisms in abiotic stress management

This is Dr. B. Venkateswarlu, India, again. Following a request by a participant for more information on the 2nd part of my previous message (nr. 42), I can add that the following is our approach on the use of microorganisms in abiotic stress management:

Though soil microorganisms are generally known to be involved in nutrient transformations, their role in improving the fitness of plants to stress situations is coming to light. The well-known examples are Paenibacillus Polymyxa and Pantoa agglomerans, bacteria which improve soil aggregation in the rhizosphere due to production of exopolysaccharides (EPS) and thereby improve water status in the Rhizosphere soil. There are other organisms too which have this ability being investigated, mostly in the Bacillus genus. The role of mycorrhiza in improving drought tolerance of plants is well known. The current approaches are to manipulate the cropping systems in such a way that one of the crops in the sequence may be highly mycorrhizal dependent so that naturally the arbuscular mycorrhizae (AM) population in the field increases substantially without any inoculation and subsequent crops benefits from better colonization and also improved tolerance to mild to moderate levels of soil moisture deficits. Ultimately, we need simple low cost approaches based on microbes, which small farmers in developing countries can adopt. Microbial approach of stress management is also an ideal component of organic production systems in tropical areas.

Dr. B. Venkateswarlu,
Head and Principal Scientist
Division of Crop Sciences
Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA)
Santoshnagar, Saidabad P.O.
Hyderabad - 500 059
A.P.
India
Telefax +91-40-24535336
e-mail: vbandi (at) crida.ernet.in vbandi_1953 (at) yahoo.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: 27 March 2007 10:06
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 54: Re: Wastewater treatment in agriculture

I am Dr. S. Seshadri, associated with the Shri AMM Murugappa Chettiar Research Center (MCRC), Chennai, India.

I find the topic interesting but wonder how to link biotechnology and water scarcity. I could read the mails written by people on the use of genetically modified plants for drought tolerance. I find these are nothing but enrouting the agricultural community to a greater problems. Nobody knows the consequences on the happening especially GMOs.

I would be happy if scientists look for alternatives through benign technologies in agriculture.

Dr. S. Seshadri
Director
Shri AMM Murugappa Chettiar Research Center (MCRC)
Tarmani
Chennai 600113
India
Ph: 91-44-22430937
Fax: 91-44-22430369
tsvisesh (at) yahoo.co.in
web: www.amm-mcrc.org

[This message is relevant to a couple of the kinds of messages listed in Section 6 of the Background Document that we wished to see discussed in the conference i.e. "A number of major strategies have been briefly described for coping with water scarcity (Section 3). Compared to them, how important is improving the efficiency of water use in crops through biotechnology in developing countries?" or "How important are biotechnology tools compared to conventional breeding for improving the efficiency of water use in crops in developing countries". However, note that biotechnology, as defined in this FAO Biotechnology Forum is not synonymous with GMOs and includes use of marker assisted selection, of microorganisms in wastewater treatment and as biofertilisers etc. (see Introduction section of the background document for more details)...Moderator].

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: 27 March 2007 14:01
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 55: Drought resistance - No molecular mapping

This message from Dr Hubert Dulieu, Emeritus Professor of Plant Genetics and Population Genetics, University of Burgundy, France. My initial experience was in agriculture engineering in tropical regions. During 28 years, I was interested by plant genetics, mutagenesis, molecular polymorphism, and finally by genomics of endomycorrhizal fungi.

Many messages in the conference concern the problem of using agricultural techniques protecting the soil. This is really important in regions where the scarcity of water becomes crucial. Of course, these practices are to be strongly encouraged. The subject for debate here is however the biotechnologies, as pointed out by the moderator.

My message refers only to messages on the problem of selecting drought resistant varieties of many food plants when almost no molecular mapping is available.

Plant breeding can be made with or without the help of molecular markers (see Message 2, by N. Manikanda Boopathi; Messages 14 and 25, by P.K. Gupta; Messages 18 and 23, by P. Sathish Kumar; Message 34, by Edo Lin; Message 35, by Janaki Krishna). The physiological adaptation of metapopulations of many species to water stress must have required thousands of years of adaptive evolution. Our goal is to assemble within cultivars, natural characters which seem highly polygenic, because there are several functions and biochemical pathways used by ecotypes adapted to dry conditions.

Quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping and marker-assisted selection (MAS) can reduce the number of individuals under selection, while the number of generations required to incorporate genes in reconstructed new varieties, with yield just maintained, remains high, due to the complexity of the adaptation. However, important programs are to be pursued in crops where molecular mapping is well advanced, as in rice cultivars adapted to dry lands (Message 40, by Baboucarr Manneh).

I doubt, however, that the large number of species used for human food in arid and semi-arid regions can be rapidly improved with the help of molecular mapping. We have no time nor financial support to achieve the goal by this way (see Message 43, by Mojisola Edema). I think then that the first step should be to define a global strategy for rapidly selecting varieties able to survive and produce yield. In three or four points, this involves:

1. Choosing a physiological character which can be easily measured on a large number of accessions. As an example, the ability to rapidly regulate the stomata closure on leaf fragments submitted to artificial water stress.
2. Obtaining data on the genetic diversity of the character within the species. This illustrates the importance of germplasm collections which must be recognized as our common heritage (see Message 37, by Ahmed Abdel-Mawgood).
3. If the character chosen is simple and highly dominant (unexpected case!), F1 can be performed and the back-cross generations can then be submitted to selection, using the test.
4. If the character is highly polygenic (there are several evolutionary strategies and several pathways), high numbers of F2 individuals must be submitted to the test and to field trials. The number is not a limiting factor. (In many cases of species that are important for survival of local populations, molecular testing as a criteria of QTL selection seems to me source of errors by losses of unexpected selectable genotypes and seems unrealistic by lack of mapping data).

Biotechnology must then be developed mainly around the fine phenotypic characterization of the variability more than by intensive use of molecular markers. This approach implies research of advanced systems able to measure the physiological state of the plant, then requires more physiologists than geneticists. If you define the criteria, you will be able to select what you want!

There have been no messages in the conference concerning the enlargement of variability by mutagenesis: large M2 populations can be screened at a low cost with a test-system detecting fine differences among individuals; this method must not be forgotten.

I appreciated particularly Messages 45 (by Eugene Agbicodo) and 48 (R. Chandra Babu) who seem to be on the same line as myself.

Prof. Hubert Dulieu,
Emeritus Professor of Plant Genetics and Population Genetics,
University of Burgundy,
France
hubert.dulieu (at) wanadoo.fr

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: 27 March 2007 14:55
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 56: Alternatives to genetic modification in solving water scarcity

I'm Friderike Oehler, former soil scientist (see message 8), now working on biosafety.

I would like to congratulate Dr. S. Seshadri (Message 54) on his very good explanation of alternatives to genetic modification with regard to solving water scarcity. I fully agree with Dr. S. Seshadri in this point of view. I strongly believe that genetic modification is an extremely expensive means to deal with the problem of water scarcity. Genetically modified (GM) crops are unlikely to be affordable by small-scale farmers in developing countries where water scarcity is most important. At the same time, the attempt of introducing GM crops on a large scale risks displacing many native plants which are well adapted to the dry regions. There is definitely no point in planting rice in the desert! If the same amount of effort and resources that is spent on the development of GM plants for drought resistance were to be spent on developing alternative solutions (selection of suitable plants/ mulching/ water saving irrigation systems/ use of beneficial microorganisms) and fighting water mismanagement, the issue of water scarcity would improve considerably with most people feeling more comfortable with it than with the production of GM foods, which still encounter market restrictions.

Friderike Oehler
Plant Protection Service (AGPP), B605b
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00153 Rome
Italy
Phone +39 06 570 55545
Web Sites: http://www.ipfsaph.org ; http://www.fao.org
e-mail: Friderike.Oehler (at) fao.org