We must mine the biodiversity in seed banks to help to overcome food shortages, urge Susan McCouch and colleagues.

Humanity depends on fewer than a dozen of the approximately 300,000 species of flowering plants for 80% of its caloric intake. And we capitalize on only a fraction of the genetic diversity that resides within each of these species. This is not enough to support our food system in the future. Food availability must double in the next 25 years to keep pace with population and income growth around the world. Already, food-production systems are precarious in the face of intensifying demand, climate change, soil degradation and water and land shortages.

The International Center for Tropical Agriculture in Colombia holds 65,000 crop samples from 141 countries. Image: CARLOS ORTEGA/EPA/CORBIS

Farmers have saved the seeds of hundreds of crop species and hundreds of thousands of 'primitive' varieties (local domesticates called landraces), as well as the wild relatives of crop species and modern varieties no longer in use. These are stored in more than 1,700 gene banks worldwide. Maintaining the 11 international gene-bank collections alone costs about US$18 million a year.

The biodiversity stored in gene banks fuels advances in plant breeding, generates billions of dollars in profits, and saves many lives. For example, crossbreeding a single wild species of rice, Oryza nivara, which was found after screening more than 6,000 seed-bank accessions, has provided protection against grassy stunt virus disease in almost all tropical rice varieties in Asia for the past 36 years1. During the green revolution, high-yielding rice and wheat varieties turned India into a net food exporter. By 1997, the world economy had accrued annual benefits of approximately $115 billion from the use of crop wild relatives2 as sources of environmental resilience and resistance to pests and diseases.

The time is ripe for an effort to harness the full power of biodiversity to feed the world. Plant scientists must efficiently and systematically domesticate new crops and increase the productivity and sustainability of current crop-production systems.

Why does plant breeding need a boost? Because new, high-yielding seeds that are adapted for future conditions are a cornerstone of sustainable, intensified food production3. Since the mid-1990s, progress in conventional plant breeding has slowed, despite the phenomenal yield gains of the past. Part of the reason is that only the tip of the biodiversity iceberg has been explored and used4.

Crop wild relatives, landrace varieties and previously undomesticated wild species represent sources of new variation for agriculture. Such plants have survived repeated and extreme environmental challenges, yet their resilience and adaptive capacity remain largely untapped and poorly understood. A wealth of genetic information has been left behind throughout the history of plant domestication and scientific crop improvement. It must now be deployed.

Plant breeders often worry that using wild species or landrace varieties is too risky, scientifically and economically. It took 20 years and 34,000 attempts to cross a domesticated rice variety with a distantly related, highly salt-tolerant wild relative from India before fertile offspring were obtained5. It will now take at least 4–5 years of breeding to eliminate unwanted wild characters to generate a new high-yielding, salt-tolerant rice variety (see go.nature.com/knztl5). That is too long for most plant-breeding programmes, especially in the private sector.

Insufficient genetic and phenotypic information about most of the holdings in gene banks makes plant breeders even more reluctant. Politics has also created obstacles. The Convention on Biological Diversity (see go.nature.com/njehon) is an international treaty that, although vital for consolidating efforts to conserve the diversity of life on Earth, has created significant barriers to the sharing of genetic material, including of domesticated plants and their wild relatives4.

Happily, things are changing. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture6 (ITPGRFA), negotiated in 2004, now governs access to crop diversity. It mandates that a portion of any monetary benefits derived from the commercialization of products from gene-bank materials is put into a fund that supports conservation and sustainable use of crop genetic resources.

On the technical front, we are now able use a plant's genetic make-up to predict its agronomic potential and traits. Plant breeders commonly use genetic markers to identify individual plants carrying specific genes for disease and pest resistance or stress tolerance, without ever exposing the plants to the relevant agents. Breeders can use genome-wide approaches to eliminate 70–80% of individuals in any generation without having to invest in laborious multi-environment field testing.

Three steps

How should we begin to mine biodiversity for food security? A logical first step is to obtain a sample of sequence information from the genomes of all non-duplicate plant samples in the world's gene banks that are available under the terms and conditions of the ITPGRFA — perhaps up to 2 million. This 'fingerprint' for each plant will serve as the basis for assessing genetic relationships, and will make it possible to systematically select subsets of material for in-depth investigations. Sequencing costs are plummeting, making such an effort feasible.

Sequence data provide a genomic 'parts list' that can help to decipher mechanisms that enable plants to adapt to myriad environments, and can guide our remodelling of cropping systems for the future. Linking sequence data with conventional 'passport information' about collection locality and original environment should call attention to the genetic potential of many hidden crop resources.

Second, we must analyse the phenotypes of gene-bank accessions to evaluate their traits and overall performance. This is the most intellectually challenging, complex, costly and time-consuming stage. We cannot hope to evaluate all gene-bank accessions in all relevant environments, even with the advent of high-throughput phenotyping technologies. Using sequence data in combination with phenotypic, geographical and ecological information will enable researchers to target field experiments strategically and to develop models that can predict plant performance. This will make plant breeding faster, more efficient and cheaper.

“The research community must pay attention to the development of locally adapted varieties.”

Assessing the breeding potential of unfamiliar plant materials typically requires them to be crossed with modern, 'elite' varieties. Their offspring are then evaluated in environments of interest to farmers and breeders, over several years. Often, the genetics of high-performing offspring can be traced back to DNA inherited from wild or landrace donors that are agriculturally less productive. For example, the wild tomato species Solanum pennellii was used to double commercial tomato yields under a wide range of growing conditions7, and the wild rice species Oryza rufipogon increased yields of elite varieties of rice by more than 25% (ref. 8). Thus, useful genetic traits are moved across the breeding barrier, expanding the genetic diversity of domesticated plants and opening up new opportunities for environmental resilience and future gains in quality and yield4.

A third key step is to create an internationally accessible informatics infrastructure to catalogue the diversity in the world's seed collections. This would link seeds and genetic stocks directly to passport, genomic and phenotypic information9, thereby engaging the creativity of geneticists and breeders and fuelling plant improvement for years to come. This requires an unprecedented effortin data management and sharing. Today, seed data are typically recorded and managed by different people, such as gene-bank curators, agronomists and breeders, often in different institutions and in different database systems.

But it is doable. The Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) — an online network that facilitates open access to “information about the occurrence of organisms” — provides a good example of such an infrastructure and has changed how biodiversity is studied. But the GBIF does not currently handle the complex genomic data necessary for our efforts.

Most importantly, results from genomics and agronomic research must be connected to the communities that are creating new varieties of crops. An international network of scientists in both the public and the private sectors must work together to provide seeds and plants to farmers and commercial plant breeders for further crossing and testing in different environments. The research community must pay specific attention to the development of locally adapted varieties that meet the needs of the world's poorest farmers.

How much would such a systematic, concerted, collaborative global effort to feed the future cost? We estimate around $200 million annually. This seems like great value, given that as a society we have spent $3 billion on sequencing the human genome, $9 billion on constructing CERN's Large Hadron Collider near Geneva in Switzerland (plus about $1 billion a year in running costs) and can spend up to $180 million on a single fighter jet.

After all, as the ecologist Charles Godfray put it: “If we fail on food, we fail on everything”.

References

  1. 1.

    et al. Gene Banks and the World's Food (Princeton Univ. Press, 1987).

  2. 2.

    et al. BioScience 47, 747–757 (1997).

  3. 3.

    et al. Science 327, 812–818 (2010).

  4. 4.

    & Science 277, 1063–1066 (1997).

  5. 5.

    et al. Rice Genet. Newsl. 11, 78–79 (1994).

  6. 6.

    Food and Agriculture Organization. International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (FAO, 2009); available at .

  7. 7.

    & PLoS Biol. 2, e245 (2004).

  8. 8.

    et al. Mol. Breed. 32, 101–120 (2013).

  9. 9.

    PLoS Biol. 11, e1001595 (2013).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Susan McCouch is professor of plant breeding and genetics and of plant biology at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

    • Susan McCouch
  2. On behalf of attendees and organizers of the Crop Wild Relative Genomics meeting held in Asilomar, California, in December 2012. See Supplementary Information for full author list.

    • Susan McCouch
  3. Gregory J. Baute and Loren Rieseberg University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

    • Gregory J. Baute
    •  & Loren Rieseberg
  4. James Bradeen University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.

    • James Bradeen
  5. Paula Bramel, Hannes Dempewolf, Luigi Guarino, Charlotte Lusty and Jane Toll Global Crop Diversity Trust, Bonn, Germany.

    • Paula Bramel
    • , Hannes Dempewolf
    • , Luigi Guarino
    • , Charlotte Lusty
    •  & Jane Toll
  6. Peter K. Bretting United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Beltsville, Maryland, USA.

    • Peter K. Bretting
  7. Edward Buckler United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); and Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.

    • Edward Buckler
  8. John M. Burke and Scott Jackson University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA.

    • John M. Burke
    •  & Scott Jackson
  9. David Charest Genome BC, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

    • David Charest
  10. Sylvie Cloutier Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Manitoba Winnipeg, Canada.

    • Sylvie Cloutier
  11. Glenn Cole Pioneer, Woodland, California, USA.

    • Glenn Cole
  12. Michael Dingkuhn Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement (CIRAD), France; and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Los Baños, the Philippines.

    • Michael Dingkuhn
  13. Catherine Feuillet Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Clermont-Ferrand, France.

    • Catherine Feuillet
  14. Paul Gepts and Jeffrey Ross-Ibarra University of California at Davis, Davis, California, USA.

    • Paul Gepts
    •  & Jeffrey Ross-Ibarra
  15. Dario Grattapaglia and Jose Valls Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA), Brazil.

    • Dario Grattapaglia
    •  & Jose Valls
  16. Sandra Knapp Natural History Museum, London, UK.

    • Sandra Knapp
  17. Peter Langridge Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics (ACPFG), Adelaide, Australia.

    • Peter Langridge
  18. Amy Lawton-Rauh Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina, USA.

    • Amy Lawton-Rauh
  19. Qui Lijua Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China.

    • Qui Lijua
  20. Todd Michael Monsanto Company, Creve Coeur Missouri, USA.

    • Todd Michael
  21. Sean Myles Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.

    • Sean Myles
  22. Ken Naito and Norihiko Tomooka National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences, Tsukuba, Japan.

    • Ken Naito
    •  & Norihiko Tomooka
  23. Randall L. Nelson United States Department of Agriculture (USDA); and the University of Illinois, Urbana Illinois, USA.

    • Randall L. Nelson
  24. Reno Pontarollo Genome Prairie, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.

    • Reno Pontarollo
  25. Christopher M. Richards Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado; and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.

    • Christopher M. Richards
  26. Steve Rounsley DowAgro, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.

    • Steve Rounsley
  27. Ruaraidh Sackville Hamilton International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Los Baños, the Philippines.

    • Ruaraidh Sackville Hamilton
  28. Ulrich Schurr Forschungszentrum Jülich, Jülich, Germany.

    • Ulrich Schurr
  29. Nils Stein Leibniz-Institut für Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung (IPK), Gatersleben, Germany.

    • Nils Stein
  30. Esther van der Knaap Ohio State University, Wooster, Ohio, USA.

    • Esther van der Knaap
  31. David van Tassel Land Institute, Salina, Kansas, USA.

    • David van Tassel
  32. Rajeev K. Varshney International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, India.

    • Rajeev K. Varshney
  33. Judson Ward Driscoll's, Watsonville, California, USA.

    • Judson Ward
  34. Robbie Waugh James Hutton Institute, Dundee, UK.

    • Robbie Waugh
  35. Peter Wenzl International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), El Batán, Mexico.

    • Peter Wenzl
  36. Daniel Zamir Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, Israel.

    • Daniel Zamir

Authors

  1. Search for Susan McCouch in:

  2. Search for Gregory J. Baute in:

  3. Search for James Bradeen in:

  4. Search for Paula Bramel in:

  5. Search for Peter K. Bretting in:

  6. Search for Edward Buckler in:

  7. Search for John M. Burke in:

  8. Search for David Charest in:

  9. Search for Sylvie Cloutier in:

  10. Search for Glenn Cole in:

  11. Search for Hannes Dempewolf in:

  12. Search for Michael Dingkuhn in:

  13. Search for Catherine Feuillet in:

  14. Search for Paul Gepts in:

  15. Search for Dario Grattapaglia in:

  16. Search for Luigi Guarino in:

  17. Search for Scott Jackson in:

  18. Search for Sandra Knapp in:

  19. Search for Peter Langridge in:

  20. Search for Amy Lawton-Rauh in:

  21. Search for Qui Lijua in:

  22. Search for Charlotte Lusty in:

  23. Search for Todd Michael in:

  24. Search for Sean Myles in:

  25. Search for Ken Naito in:

  26. Search for Randall L. Nelson in:

  27. Search for Reno Pontarollo in:

  28. Search for Christopher M. Richards in:

  29. Search for Loren Rieseberg in:

  30. Search for Jeffrey Ross-Ibarra in:

  31. Search for Steve Rounsley in:

  32. Search for Ruaraidh Sackville Hamilton in:

  33. Search for Ulrich Schurr in:

  34. Search for Nils Stein in:

  35. Search for Norihiko Tomooka in:

  36. Search for Esther van der Knaap in:

  37. Search for David van Tassel in:

  38. Search for Jane Toll in:

  39. Search for Jose Valls in:

  40. Search for Rajeev K. Varshney in:

  41. Search for Judson Ward in:

  42. Search for Robbie Waugh in:

  43. Search for Peter Wenzl in:

  44. Search for Daniel Zamir in:

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan McCouch.

Supplementary information

About this article

Publication history

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/499023a

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Newsletter Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing