Creating landraces for diversity or for adaptation?

[Juergen (Juergen ML)]

Dear fellow gardeners,

Today I am starting the discussion that I promised when I introduced myself.

I said that we should create landraces to increase the diversity of our crops and not to adapt them.

I think, diversity is the basis.

Adaptation to external conditions and (artificial, human) selection are only possible on the basis of diversity.

That is why we should focus on diversity and ask ourselves how we can (again) create more new diversity.

To do this, it is not enough to cross a few old and new varieties that still exist.

We should create new diversity - just as “nature” has done for millions of years and our ancestors did for 10,000 years.

In my next blog post I will deal with evolution and its driving force, “natural selection”.

I believe that natural selection does not select the “fittest/best” (as artificial selection does and as Darwin saw it and all evolutionary biologists after him see it), but that natural selection selects all “suitable” ones, all those which are able to reproduce.

In this way, natural selection created the diversity of living beings we saw on our planet today.

In order to create new and more diversity within our crops, we should transfer this type of natural selection back to our gardens and act as our ancestors did for 10,000 years.

For 10,000 years, all “usable” plants were used and propagated - and we should do that again. We should not (only) use (and propagate) the best plants and fruits (in our view), but all usable ones - and thus concentrate on creating new/more diversity…

…adaptation takes over the “nature” of our gardens…

What do you think?

[JinTX (J. Youngman)]

@Juergen

natural selection selects all “suitable” ones, all those who are able to reproduce

Would this not be selection of the fittest? Anything fit enough to survive and reproduce is selected for. The more selection pressure, the more ‘fitness’ required.

I think everything you are describing is what everyone is doing other than the lack of human selection after increasing the diversity.
We can achieve more diversity through selection. If we leave all selection to nature we will end up with something adapted to wild conditions. We already have the wild populations to include in our landraces.
I would prefer to have a large selection of sizes, textures, flavors, etc. vs having traits like bitterness or a grainy texture.

[AbrahamPalma]

I think that you have to consider all the wilderness around your crops. They may or may not succeed if the right/wrong plants are/aren’t nearby. If you go for evolving a full ecosystem yourself, then you need to grow not only a grex, but the seeds of your whole environment, plus as much as microbs you can get. The easy way is just doing your work around what you like best, and let Nature take care of the rest. She will naturally add more diversity and develop new seeds without any input in our side.

If we focus on diversity of edibles, then there are two types of diversity: more edible species and more varieties of a same species.
More varieties is already what we are pursuing with adaptation gardening: a mix of constantly evolving varieties.
More species could be achieved if we work with ‘barely edible species’ of our climate zone, and also by trying to adapt edible species from other climates.

For example, I could try to work with plantago major. It’s currently an edible weed, but it’s flavour isn’t great. Maybe I could use adaptation gardening for developing a mix of varieties with better flavour and texture. I read about this being done with portulaca oleracea and dandelions.
Or I could try to adapt a mango tree for draught tolerance (I think this is already being done by farmers), so I can grow easy mangoes.

[isabelle (Harlé)]

Hello Juergen,

I am wondering why you seem to oppose diversity and adaption here in this forum. My understanding is that “landrace gardennig” or “adaptation gardening” is seeking adaptability through diversity .
A grex year 1 is a mix of as much diversity as you can assemble and it is the first stage of landracing.
A landrace year 2, 3 is the initial mix in which the diversity has been augmented by any crosses obtained in year 1 , which crosses contain the potential for even further diversification.
Only at a later stage do we (sometimes, not always) apply some level of selection, (taste, earliness, etc…) but we remain carefull to maintain enough diversity for further evolution of the mix.

Now it is true that the very fact of growing things in our gardens produces some level of adaptation to our practices, our soils, our climates. To my opinion, it is not to be opposed to diversity . It is intermingled with diversity.

I would be happy to read your own understanding of landrace gardening.

[JinTX (J. Youngman)]

@isabelle

A grex year 1 is a mix of as much diversity as you can assemble and it is the first stage of landracing.
A landrace year 2, 3 is the initial mix in which the diversity has been augmented by any crosses obtained in year 1 , which crosses contain the potential for even further diversification.

And in addition to this, we are all trading these diverse mixes with each other, spreading those expanded genetics to different growing conditions.
This creates maximum diversity by allowing all the genetic traits a chance to flourish in whichever climate they are best adapted instead of potentially being lost to the selection pressures of the original growers conditions.

[AdelePoe]

I think the distinction between growing crops to increase the diversity of available genetics vs growing crops to adapt them to local growing conditions (which include both natural effects and human intervention) is splitting hairs at a philosophical level that does not actually translate into practice. The genetic diversity must first be present in order to select for the varieties adapted to a specific growing situation. So of course we all seek that diversity. But while growing specifically to maintain the genetic diversity within a certain crop might be a noble enterprise, accepting less than optimum production in the name of diversity will not feed a hungry world. In my growing conditions, (central Nebraska, USA, -20F/-28C average winter low, extreme temperature fluctuations, rainfall varying between drought and deluge, pretty good soil) I am honestly not going to bother with the preservation of genetic diversity required in other conditions. Those who live there will do that.

[Juergen (Juergen ML)]

Thanks, LinTX, for your thoughts! I think they are showing some common (mis)understandings. So I am glad, I can maybe clarify respectively explain them:

1. there is a difference between “fittest” and “fit enough”; this difference is in my opinion the crucial difference between artificial and natural selection. Artificial selection (breeding!) is minimizing diversity, while natural selection is maximizing it.
2. there ist no selection pressure at all. When you (we humans) think the conditions are harder (more dry, more cold), for plants and animals the conditions are just different. If a plant or animal can stand the conditions and can reproduce, it will survive (reproduction is plus, not reproducing is minus; no rating)…
3. I did not say, that we should let “Nature” select our crops; I said, we should select our crops like “Nature”. We should propagate all “usable” plants; if a plant has bitter fruit or grainy texture it is not usable.

I plead for increasing diversity; otherwise we are using only existing diversity (existing traits) albeit in new combinations

[Hugo (Hugo Morvan)]

@Juergen

We should not (only) use (and propagate) the best plants and fruits (in our view), but all usable ones - and thus concentrate on creating new/more diversity…

I believe quite a lot of us do this. Personally I am happy if plants will grow and reproduce freely. I’m not obsessing about my human taste. That can come in a later stage. Or other people can do that when they receive my diverse seeds. Both can exist side by side.

Do I understand correctly what you mean? Or do I miss a point you’re making?

I’ve met a Peruvian at the Antibes fair he had lots of crazy looking fava beans. He told me they originate here in Europe, but we have more diversity in Peru now, because we’re always looking for it and cherish it…
Later I learned it’s in their tradition to optimize diversity even if it’s less usable for us.

In permaculture there are many differing tastes of how to do it as there are in religion.
Shaking things up can be refreshing.

[JinTX (J. Youngman)]

@Juergen

there is a difference between “fittest” and “fit enough”; this difference is in my opinion the crucial difference between artificial and natural selection. Artificial selection (breeding!) is minimizing diversity, while natural selection is maximizing it.

I think you are using a different definition of “fittest” than what is meant by “survival of the fittest”, or there may be some confusion in translation here. “Fit enough” is natural selection.
Nature selects within whatever selection pressures are present and anything “fit enough” to successfully reproduce would be the “fittest” selected. Darwin was working on small islands with very limited resources which meant high selection pressure due to competition for those available resources.

What would you define as “artificial selection”? Hand pollination?

[JinTX (J. Youngman)]

@Juergen

there ist no selection pressure at all. When you (we humans) think the conditions are harder (more dry, more cold), for plants and animals the conditions are just different. If a plant or animal can stand the conditions and can reproduce, it will survive (reproduction is plus, not reproducing is minus; no rating)…

If those are not selection pressures then why are some plants or animals surviving those conditions while others are not?
Those different conditions are putting pressure on the gene pool and selecting the fittest by remove the individuals who did not survive to reproduce.

[JinTX (J. Youngman)]

@Juergen

I did not say, that we should let “Nature” select our crops; I said, we should select our crops like “Nature”. We should propagate all “usable” plants; if a plant has bitter fruit or grainy texture it is not usable

Again, this sounds like what most here are working on.
I’m not understanding the difference in what you are suggesting we should change.

[Juergen (Juergen ML)]

Dear Abraham, thanks for your input!

@AbrahamPalma

If we focus on diversity of edibles, then there are two types of diversity: more edible species and more varieties of a same species.

I think you hit the point. There is a third type of diversity I am pleading for: diversity of individuals, the maximum of diversity.

If you want to breed a special variety for your conditions or with special treats you need seeds with maximum diversity, best from your neighbor; but that’s breeding… minimizing diversity.

Someone has to do the job to maximize diversity - for breeders or for adapters to local conditions - or just for unknown climate changes…

[Juergen (Juergen ML)]

Thanks, Isabelle, for discussing!

Adaptation means minimizing diversity. If you put a diverse mix of plants into a new climate (like JinTX is suggesting in his following comment), some plants will not survive - so, the diversity of the original mix gets reduced.
That’s the same with breeding, if you select some plants with special treats from the original mix.

So, adaptation and breeding don’t produce new diversity.

Only if you grow the surviving plants a lot of years without selecting only the “best” (the wanted), there is a chance that new mutations will appear (mutations will happen in every generation without showing themselves) and bring new treats to your population you have never thought about before.

Hardly anyone can imagine how diverse the former (original) landraces had been after 10.000 years of selecting only the “usable” plants (and not the “best”, like the breeders did after the year 1800).

My understaning of landrace gardening is to increase diversity and keep it at a maximum…

[Juergen (Juergen ML)]

Thanks Adele for pointing out this very important point!

@AdelePoe

But while growing specifically to maintain the genetic diversity within a certain crop might be a noble enterprise, accepting less than optimum production in the name of diversity will not feed a hungry world.

Increasing diversity should be the business of the whole society (the whole mankind), not (only) the business of some people on a private basis.

My intention (with this discussion and my future blog posts) is to point out the importance of diversity (the diversity of different individuals) for adaptation (to future climate changes) and breeding of varieties which will feed the world under new (unknown) conditions.

For that we need more and new diversity, not only new combinations of (still) existing diversity…

[Juergen (Juergen ML)]

Thanks, Hugo, I think, you got it totally right!

[Juergen (Juergen ML)]

Yes, that’s right, I am using a different definition of Natural selection. Darwin took over the definition of Artificial selection for Natural selection. But artificial selection is reducing diversity. Evolution shows that diversity got increased over time and so Darwin’s definition couldn’t be right.

If you select all organisms which are able to reproduce (and not only the “fittest/best”) you will get much more organisms which will survive and reproduce - you will get more diversity…

[Juergen (Juergen ML)]

If you call the effect of different conditions “selection pressure”, than I agree.

@JinTX

Those different conditions are putting pressure on the gene pool and selecting the fittest by remove the individuals who did not survive to reproduce.

Here I disagree: The “fittest” does mean “only the fittest” , at the end only one individual, the fittest.
But if you say “all that are fit enough”, then much more individuals may survive and reproduce. That’s important for diversity…

[Juergen (Juergen ML)]

I want to point out the difference between Adapting/Breeding and Maintaining/Increasing diversity (for future adapting and breeding)…

[isabelle (Harlé)]

@Juergen

Adaptation means minimizing diversity. If you put a diverse mix of plants into a new climate (like JinTX is suggesting in his following comment), some plants will not survive - so, the diversity of the original mix gets reduced.

Hello Juergen,
I disagree on this specific point that adapting does not necessarily mean MINIMIZING diversity. It may or may not mean reducing diversity by a fraction, in some cases, but it all depends on whether or not you added SELECTION on top of ADAPTATION.

Example : I have inherited an extraordinary wheat population that initially (a decade or txo ago) was assembled with 2000 accessions of breadwheat and crossings.
The mix I got is an evolution of this original mix, with maybe more diversity, maybe less, because the change of climate probabely elinimated some of the accessions, while the pursuit of “population” sowings created new evolutions, new crosses or new epigenetic expressions. Nobody can say for sure if the successive adaptations to new lands, climates and practices have reduced or increased the diversity of the popuation. This is why it is called an “evolutionary population”.

When I sowed one kilo in autumn, only survived those able to stand a winter in my region. When I sowed one kilo in spring, only survived those capable of thriving on a short season. I now have two subpopulations with different traits. But did I reduce the diversity with this practice ?

I am afraid you may be confusing adaptation with SELECTION, that is what modern agriculture is doing and I think we all agree this is leading to a dead end. But this is not what we are practicing here.

[JinTX (J. Youngman)]

@Juergen

Here I disagree: The “fittest” does mean “only the fittest” , at the end only one individual, the fittest.
But if you say “all that are fit enough”, then much more individuals may survive and reproduce. That’s important for diversity…

If you believe survival of the fittest means only a single individual or species can survive to reproduction then you are greatly misunderstanding Darwin’s meaning.

The specific example of a population competing for limited resources in an environment such as an island it is sometimes true that the fittest may be reduced to a few individuals, but once that selection has taken place those selected individuals with whatever advantageous trait allowed their survival grow a new population eventually becoming more diverse and the cycle continues. This is a bottleneck and temporary reduction in diversity but also the creation of a new variety or with enough time a new species.
When these same events occur outside of an isolated island environment it is still survival if the fittest it is just happening at an exponential scale and on a much slower time frame.