Hubbry Logo
Crop diversityCrop diversityMain
Open search
Crop diversity
Community hub
Crop diversity
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Crop diversity
Crop diversity
Crop diversity
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Crop diversity or crop biodiversity is the variety and variability of crops, plants used in agriculture, including their genetic and phenotypic characteristics. It is a subset of a specific element of agricultural biodiversity. Over the past 50 years, there has been a major decline in two components of crop diversity; genetic diversity within each crop and the number of species commonly grown.

Crop diversity loss threatens global food security, as the world's human population depends on a diminishing number of varieties of a diminishing number of crop species. Crops are increasingly grown in monoculture, meaning that if, as in the historic Great Famine of Ireland, a single disease overcomes a variety's resistance, it may destroy an entire harvest, or as in the case of the 'Gros Michel' banana, may cause the commercial extinction of an entire variety. With the help of seed banks, international organizations are working to preserve crop diversity.

Biodiversity loss

[edit]
Geographic hotspots of distributions of crop wild relatives not represented in genebanks

The loss of biodiversity is considered one of today’s most serious environmental concerns by the Food and Agriculture Organization.[1][2] If current trends persist, as many as half of all plant species could face extinction.[3] Some 6% of wild relatives of cereal crops such as wheat, maize, rice, and sorghum are under threat, as are 18% of legumes (Fabaceae), the wild relatives of beans, peas and lentils, and 13% of species within the botanical family (Solanaceae) that includes potato, tomato, eggplant (aubergine), and peppers (Capsicum).[4]

Within-crop diversity

[edit]
Within-crop diversity: maize cobs of differing colours

Within-crop diversity, a specific crop can result from various growing conditions, for example a crop growing in nutrient-poor soil is likely to have stunted growth than a crop growing in more fertile soil. The availability of water, soil pH level, and temperature similarly influence crop growth.[5]

Traditional mixed crop (polyculture) cultivation of cacao and banana, Trinidad, 1903

In addition, diversity of a harvested plant can be the result of genetic differences: a crop may have genes conferring early maturity or disease resistance.[5] Modern plant breeders develop new crop varieties to meet specific conditions. A new variety might, for example, be higher yielding, more disease resistant or have a longer shelf life than the varieties from which it was bred. The practical use of crop diversity goes back to early agricultural methods of crop rotation and fallow fields, where planting and harvesting one type of crop on a plot of land one year, and planting a different crop on that same plot the next year. This takes advantage of differences in a plant's nutrient needs, but more importantly reduces the buildup of pathogens.[6]

Both farmers and scientists must continually draw on the irreplaceable resource of genetic diversity to ensure productive harvests. While genetic variability provides farmers with plants that have a higher resilience to pests and diseases and allows scientists access to a more diverse genome than can be found in highly selected crops.[7] The breeding of high performing crops steadily reduces genetic diversity as desirable traits are selected, and undesirable traits are removed. Farmers can increase within-crop diversity to some extent by planting mixtures of crop varieties.[8]

Ecological effects

[edit]
Biodiverse agroecosystem: traditional potato harvesting high in the Andes, Manco Kapac Province, Bolivia, 2012

Agricultural ecosystems function effectively as self-regulating systems provided they have sufficient biodiversity of plants and animals. Apart from producing food, fuel, and fibre, agroecosystem functions include recycling nutrients, maintaining soil fertility, regulating microclimate, regulating water flow, controlling pests, and detoxification of waste products.[5]

However, modern agriculture seriously reduces biodiversity. Traditional systems maintain diversity within a crop species, such as in the Andes mountains where up to 50 varieties of potato are grown.[5] Strategies to raise genetic diversity can involve planting mixtures of crop varieties.[5]

Genetic diversity of crops can be used to help protect the environment. Crop varieties that are resistant to pests and diseases can reduce the need for application of harmful pesticides.[7]

Economic impact

[edit]

Agriculture is the economic foundation of most countries, and for developing countries a likely source of economic growth. Growth in agriculture can benefit the rural poor, though it does not always do so. Profits from crops can increase from higher value crops, better marketing, value-adding activities such as processing, or expanded access for the public to markets.[9] Profits can also decrease through reduced demand or increased production. Crop diversity can protect against crop failure, and can also offer higher returns.[10][11]

Despite efforts to quantify them, the financial values of crop diversity sources remain entirely uncertain.[12]

Disease threats

[edit]
Loss of low-diversity crop to a single disease: the Great Famine, caused by the oomycete Phytophthora infestans. Starvation followed, as illustrated by James Mahony, 1847
Wheat stem rust is evolving new, virulent strains, threatening many low-diversity cultivars.

Along with insect pests, disease is a major cause of crop loss. [13] Wild species have a range of genetic variability that allows some individuals to survive should a disturbance occur. In agriculture, resistance through variability is compromised, since genetically uniform seeds are planted under uniform conditions. Monocultural agriculture thus causes low crop diversity, especially when the seeds are mass-produced or when plants (such as grafted fruit trees and banana plants) are cloned. A single pest or disease could threaten a whole crop due to this uniformity ("genetic erosion").[14] A well-known historic case was the Great Famine of Ireland of 1845-1847, where a vital crop with low diversity was destroyed by a single fungus. Another example is when a disease caused by a fungus affected the monocultured 1970 US corn crop, causing a loss of over one billion dollars in production.[15]

A danger to agriculture is wheat rust, a pathogenic fungus causing reddish patches, coloured by its spores. A virulent form of the wheat disease, stem rust, strain Ug99, spread from Africa across to the Arabian Peninsula by 2007.[16] In field trials in Kenya, more than 85% of wheat samples, including major cultivars, were susceptible,[16] implying that higher crop diversity was required. The Nobel laureate Norman Borlaug argued for action to ensure global food security.[17]

Low-diversity crop variety destroyed: the 'Gros Michel' banana was commercially destroyed by Panama disease, caused by the fungus Fusarium oxysporum (illustrated).

Reports from Burundi and Angola warn of a threat to food security caused by the African Cassava Mosaic Virus (ACMD).[18] ACMD is responsible for the loss of a million tons of cassava each year.[19] CMD is prevalent in all the main cassava-growing areas in the Great Lakes region of east Africa, causing between 20 and 90 percent crop losses in the Congo.[20] The FAO emergency relief and rehabilitation program is assisting vulnerable returnee populations in the African Great Lakes Region through mass propagation and distribution of CMD resistant or highly tolerant cassava.[21]

A well known occurrence of disease susceptibility in crops lacking diversity concerns the 'Gros Michel', a seedless banana that saw world marketing in the 1940s. As the market demand became high for this particular cultivar, growers and farmers began to use the Gros Michel banana almost exclusively. Genetically, these bananas are clones, and because of this lack of genetic diversity, are all susceptible to a single fungus, Fusarium oxysporum (Panama disease); large areas of the crop were destroyed by the fungus in the 1950s.[22] 'Gros Michel' has been replaced by the current main banana on the market, the 'Cavendish', which in turn is (2015) at risk of total loss to a strain of the same fungus, 'Tropical Race 4'.[23]

Such threats can be countered by strategies such as planting multi-line cultivars and cultivar mixes, in the hope that some of the cultivars will be resistant to any individual outbreak of disease.[24]

Organizations and technologies

[edit]

The implications of crop diversity are at both local and world levels. Global organizations that aim to support diversity include Bioversity International (formerly known as International Plant Genetic Resources Institute), the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, the Borlaug Global Rust Initiative, and the International Network for Improvement of Banana and Plantain. Members of the United Nations, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development 2002 at Johannesburg, said that crop diversity is in danger of being lost if measures are not taken.[1]

Six bean varieties at a gene bank

The Global Crop Diversity Trust is an independent international organisation which exists to ensure the conservation and availability of crop diversity for food security worldwide. It was established through a partnership between the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and CGIAR acting through Bioversity International.[25] The CGIAR is a consortium of international agriculture research centers (IARC) and others that each conduct research on and preserve germplasm from a particular crop or animal species. The genebanks of CGIAR centers hold some of the world's largest off site collections of plant genetic resources in trust for the world community. Collectively, the CGIAR genebanks contain more than 778,000 accessions of more than 3,000 crop, forage, and agroforestry species.[26] The collection includes farmers' varieties and improved varieties and, in substantial measure, the wild species from which those varieties were created.[3] National germplasm storage centers include the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Center for Genetic Resources Preservation, India's National Bureau of Animal Genetic Resources, the Taiwan Livestock Research Institute, and the proposed Australian Network of Plant Genetic Resource Centers.[27][28][29][30]

Plants in the International Center for Tropical Agriculture's gene bank, Colombia

The World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Conservation Union (IUCN) are non-profit organizations that provide funding and other support to off site and on site conservation efforts. The wise use of crop genetic diversity in plant breeding and genetic modification can also contribute significantly to protecting the biodiversity in crops. Crop varieties can be genetically modified to resist specific pests and diseases. For example, a gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) produces a natural insecticide toxin. Genes from Bt can be inserted into crop plants to make them capable of producing an insecticidal toxin and therefore a resistance to certain pests. Bt corn (maize) can however adversely affect non-target insects closely related to the target pest, as with the monarch butterfly.[31]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Crop diversity

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Crop diversity denotes the variation in genetic, phenotypic, and ecological traits among domesticated crops, their cultivars, landraces, and wild relatives, which collectively underpin agricultural adaptability and productivity. This diversity manifests at multiple levels, from sequences to assemblages, enabling to address challenges such as yield enhancement, nutritional improvement, and tolerance to environmental stresses including , , and pathogens. Empirical studies underscore its foundational role in sustaining systems, as facilitates the development of resilient varieties capable of withstanding biotic threats and climatic variability. Historically, crop diversity has driven agricultural advancements, yet modern intensification—characterized by reliance on few high-yielding monocultures—has precipitated measurable erosion, with over 86% of longitudinal analyses documenting declines in varietal richness and across major staples like , , and . Such losses heighten systemic risks, exemplified by increased susceptibility to epidemics, as uniform plantings amplify the spread of pests and diseases when novel resistances are absent. Conservation efforts, including ex situ genebanks preserving millions of accessions and protections in biodiversity hotspots like the Mediterranean Basin and , seek to counter this trend by safeguarding wild relatives that harbor untapped alleles for future breeding. Notable achievements in harnessing crop diversity include the integration of wild traits into elite lines, yielding breakthroughs in disease resistance—such as tolerance in —and nutritional fortification, though debates persist over the pace of versus replenishment through breeding and . Prioritizing empirical metrics over institutional narratives reveals that while genebanks mitigate immediate losses, ongoing field-level homogenization, driven by economic incentives for uniformity, demands causal interventions like diversified rotations to restore and long-term yield security.

Fundamentals

Definition and Conceptual Framework

Crop diversity denotes the range of cultivated for agricultural production, encompassing both interspecific variation (different crop ) and intraspecific variation (genetic and phenotypic differences within ). This variability includes traits such as morphology, , and reproductive characteristics that influence to environmental conditions, pest resistance, and yield stability. The concept integrates elements of agrobiodiversity, focusing on domesticated rather than wild , though wild relatives contribute to the genetic pool available for breeding. Empirical assessments quantify this diversity through metrics like allelic richness, heterozygosity, and , which reveal the underlying genetic structure supporting long-term agricultural viability. Conceptually, crop diversity operates within a framework informed by and ecological principles, where serves as raw material for selection pressures—natural or human-driven—to generate resilient varieties. This framework posits that diversified crop portfolios mitigate systemic risks, such as uniform susceptibility to pathogens, by distributing vulnerabilities across heterogeneous populations rather than concentrating them in monocultures. Diversification at the level complements by incorporating complementary functional traits, enhancing overall system productivity and stability under variable conditions. In measurement terms, frameworks distinguish between (within-site variation) and (between-site differences), enabling targeted conservation strategies that prioritize underrepresented variants.

Historical Development of Crop Diversity

The domestication of crops marked the onset of reduced compared to wild progenitors, beginning approximately 12,000 years ago in the with species such as and , and independently in regions like , the , and . This process involved human selection for traits like non-shattering seeds and larger fruits, which fixed beneficial alleles but diminished overall variability as populations adapted to cultivation. By around 4000 BCE, major staple crops including , , and had been domesticated across these centers, forming the basis of early agricultural societies. In the early , Russian botanist identified eight primary centers of crop origin and diversity—such as the Chinese center for and soybeans, and the Andean center for potatoes and —based on expeditions collecting over 200,000 seed samples, revealing hotspots where wild relatives and landraces exhibited high shaped by millennia of farmer selection. These landraces, developed through localized breeding in diverse agroecosystems, preserved adaptive traits against pests, diseases, and environmental stresses, sustaining agricultural productivity prior to modern intensification. The 19th and 20th centuries saw accelerated erosion of this diversity due to the rise of formal and practices, with the of the 1960s–1980s exacerbating losses through widespread adoption of high-yielding, genetically uniform varieties like semi-dwarf and , which prioritized yield over resilience and contributed to an estimated 75% decline in global crop since 1900. Empirical data from genebank collections indicate annual losses of 1–2% in crop genetic resources during this period, driven by replacement of heterogeneous fields with elite cultivars ill-suited to marginal environments. This narrowing heightened vulnerability, as evidenced by events like the 1970 , which devastated U.S. yields due to reliance on a single trait.

Current Global Status

Over 6,000 plant species are cultivated globally for food, though fewer than 200 contribute significantly to production, with just nine species—, , , potatoes, soybeans, , oil palm fruit, , and —accounting for 66% of total crop output. Among cereals, , , and comprise 91% of global production as of 2023. These concentrations reflect a reliance on a narrow set of staples, where , , soybeans, and occupy over 50% of global cropland. Ex situ conservation efforts mitigate some risks, with approximately 7 million accessions of crop genetic resources held in genebanks worldwide as of recent estimates. Trends indicate a complex picture: while on-farm crop diversity has generally declined due to agricultural intensification and land-use changes, species-level richness in production has increased in most countries. Analysis of FAO data from 1961 to 2017 across 165 countries shows crop richness rising in 151 nations at an average rate of 0.8 species per year, with changes accelerating around 1983 and stabilizing by the mid-1990s. Evenness, however, exhibited mixed patterns, declining in 97 countries and increasing in 88, alongside global homogenization as national crop portfolios grew more similar. Within-species genetic diversity faces erosion, particularly for landraces, with 86% of studies documenting declines over the past century, often from replacement by uniform modern cultivars. Modern cultivars show 68% of studies reporting reduced diversity, though some increases occur via breeding from genebank materials post-1960s; crop wild relatives have declined in 91% of cases. The oft-cited claim of 75% global crop diversity loss from 1900 to 2000, originating from FAO narratives, lacks strong empirical backing and stems from extrapolated regional estimates rather than comprehensive data. Threats persist, including invasive species, pests, and overexploitation, varying regionally—e.g., deforestation in Asia and intensification in Europe.

Major Crop Families and Their Diversity Profiles

The Poaceae family, comprising grasses and including staple cereals such as rice (Oryza sativa), maize (Zea mays), wheat (Triticum aestivum), barley (Hordeum vulgare), and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), dominates global crop production by providing over 50% of human caloric intake. Genetic diversity within Poaceae crops has been intensively studied, with crop wild relatives (CWR) offering critical reservoirs for traits including disease resistance and drought tolerance, as evidenced by ex situ conservation efforts targeting these species. Despite breeding for uniformity, thousands of landraces and wild accessions are maintained in genebanks, though intraspecific variation remains vulnerable to erosion from intensive monoculture. The Fabaceae family, or legumes, encompasses approximately 19,000 species across 650 genera, with cultivated crops like soybean (Glycine max), common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), pea (Pisum sativum), and chickpea (Cicer arietinum) contributing significantly to protein supply and soil nitrogen fixation. Diversity profiles in Fabaceae highlight extensive varietal richness, particularly in beans with over 40,000 accessions documented globally, reflecting adaptations to diverse agroecological zones. CWR surveys underscore the family's role in enhancing resilience, with genetic resources prioritized for traits like pest resistance amid ongoing collection efforts. Solanaceae crops, including (Solanum tuberosum), (Solanum lycopersicum), pepper (Capsicum annuum), and (Solanum melongena), represent key vegetable and tuber sources, with the family comprising about 2,700 in 99 genera. is pronounced in potatoes, where over 4,000 native varieties persist in the , contrasted by narrower commercial cultivars; tomato evolution shows rapid diversification in fruit traits like color and size. Collaborative projects emphasize sharing Solanaceae to bolster breeding for yield and stress tolerance. Brassicaceae, featuring Brassica oleracea derivatives such as , , , and , exemplifies morphological diversity from a single progenitor domesticated around 2,500 years ago. Genetic studies reveal structured variation across cultivars, with markers indicating population differentiation tied to breeding histories. Conservation efforts target to counter constraints like genetic bottlenecks, supporting traits for nutritional enhancement and disease resistance.

Genetic and Varietal Dimensions

Within-Crop Genetic Variation

Within-crop genetic variation refers to the intraspecific differences in alleles, genotypes, and phenotypes among individuals, populations, and varieties of a single , serving as the primary reservoir for breeding improved cultivars adapted to diverse conditions. This variation arises from historical , , and human-mediated selection, enabling crops to exhibit traits such as varying maturity times, nutritional profiles, and stress responses. Empirical studies demonstrate that higher intraspecific correlates with enhanced population resilience, including reduced yield variability and better suppression of pests and pathogens. Quantifying within-crop genetic variation typically involves molecular markers, with over 30 types available, including simple sequence repeats (SSRs) and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which assess metrics like polymorphic information content (PIC), observed heterozygosity (Ho), and expected heterozygosity (He). For example, in (Zea mays), tropical landraces maintain elevated levels of due to their origin in centers of , with He values often exceeding 0.6 in SSR-based analyses, contrasting with narrower diversity in elite temperate inbred lines. Similarly, rice (Oryza sativa) exhibits significant intraspecific variation across its indica and japonica subgroups, underpinning adaptations to flooding and drought, though modern hybrid breeding has intensified concerns over in some regions. Despite these benefits, modern focused on high-yield varieties has occasionally reduced within-crop genetic bases, as selection for uniformity diminishes rare alleles essential for long-term adaptability. However, counter-trends exist; in U.S. (Triticum aestivum), varietal diversity increased over the , driven by systematic incorporation of diverse via coefficient-of-parentage analyses, enhancing overall genetic distances among cultivars. Conservation efforts, including genebank collections, aim to preserve this variation, with assessments revealing that intraspecific diversity supports services like stable productivity under biotic stresses. Ongoing monitoring using genomic tools is critical to mitigate erosion, as quantified losses in diversity have been documented in intensively farmed systems since the mid-20th century.

Role of Landraces and Wild Relatives

Landraces represent cultivated populations of crop species that have evolved under farmer selection in specific agroecological niches, exhibiting and to local biotic and abiotic conditions. These varieties serve as primary reservoirs of intraspecific diversity, providing breeders with alleles for traits such as yield stability under stress and resistance to regional pests, which are often diminished in modern uniform cultivars. from reciprocal transplant trials confirms their local ; for instance, landraces showed declining fitness metrics, including survival and reproduction, with increasing environmental distance from native sites, underscoring their tuned responsiveness to site-specific factors like and . Crop wild relatives, comprising undomesticated taxonomically proximate to domesticated , harbor novel genetic variants particularly valuable for into breeding lines, as domestication bottlenecks have narrowed the genetic base of cultivated forms. These relatives contribute alleles conferring tolerance to extreme conditions, such as , , and pathogens, which are underrepresented in elite . In cereal breeding, wild relatives have supplied transformative traits; wheat's stem rust resistance derives from Aegilops tauschii, while rice blast resistance traces to , enabling sustained productivity amid evolving threats. Similarly, wild species have imparted nematode resistance and fruit quality enhancements to tomatoes, demonstrating the causal link between wild-derived alleles and improved varietal performance under field stress. The integration of landraces and wild relatives into breeding pipelines via hybridization and selection expands adaptability, countering vulnerabilities from reliance on narrow genetic pools. Landraces, through their equilibrium of heterozygosity and heterogeneity, sustain evolutionary potential under variable farming practices, while wild relatives offer orthogonal diversity for targeted trait mining, as evidenced by their role in developing hybrids with enhanced tolerance in and tubers. This dual sourcing underpins resilient , with documented yield gains in stress-prone regions attributable to such genetic augmentation.

Benefits and Empirical Advantages

Resilience to Biotic and Abiotic Stresses

Crop genetic diversity enhances resilience to biotic stresses such as pests and diseases by providing a broader pool of resistance alleles, which can be deployed through breeding or maintained in varietal mixtures. Intraspecific cultivar mixtures have been shown to reduce disease severity and increase relative yields under biotic pressure, with meta-analyses indicating stronger benefits in the presence of pathogens compared to monocultures. For instance, mixtures suppress pest outbreaks and dampen pathogen transmission by diluting susceptible hosts and promoting ecological interactions that limit spread. Specific examples illustrate this resilience: in , genes introgressed from relatives have conferred resistance to stripe rust, , and leaf rust via , mitigating widespread losses from pathogens like Ug99 races that devastated uniform varieties. Similarly, in and , from landraces and progenitors has enabled pyramiding of multiple resistance genes against bacterial , blast, rot, and , reducing vulnerability in monoculture-dominated systems. These interventions demonstrate how tapping undomesticated diversity counters the with pathogens, where uniform crops rapidly lose effectiveness against adapted strains. For abiotic stresses including , , and , crop diversity fosters tolerance through intraspecific variation that buffers yield stability, as diverse genotypes exhibit differential responses allowing compensatory performance under variable conditions. Meta-analyses of mixtures report yield increases of 2.2% overall, with amplified stability against variability and abiotic factors like scarcity, attributable to response diversity where tolerant varieties sustain production during extremes. Landraces and wild relatives serve as reservoirs for traits such as in or heat acclimation in , enabling breeding of varieties that maintain yields under stress; for example, intraspecific variation in wild emmer has been linked to enhanced heat stress tolerance via physiological plasticity. Empirical studies further confirm that higher crop diversity at landscape scales mitigates production losses from droughts and high temperatures, particularly in regions with limited .

Contributions to Yield, Nutrition, and Food Security

Crop genetic diversity enables breeders to select and combine traits that enhance overall yield potential, as plant breeding relies on variation to maximize productivity under varying conditions. Empirical meta-analyses of cultivar mixtures demonstrate an average yield increase of 2.2% compared to monocultures, with greater gains in mixtures involving more cultivars due to complementary resource use and reduced biotic pressures. In rotation systems, diversifying beyond continuous cropping has boosted fertilized corn yields by 29% and grain sorghum by 20% over two-year cycles, attributed to improved soil health and nutrient cycling. Crop wild relatives contribute key alleles for yield improvement; for instance, their integration has historically provided genes enhancing resilience and productivity in major staples like wheat and rice. Within-crop variation and further stabilize yields against environmental fluctuations. Long-term field data show that diversified cropping systems, including pulses, consistently produce higher grain yields with lower year-to-year variability, as measured by coefficients of variation reduced by up to 15% in multi-year trials. Landscape-level diversity, such as heterogeneous , correlates with greater yield stability influenced by climatic factors, where increased crop heterogeneity buffers against droughts and extremes observed from 1981 to 2020 datasets. These effects stem from genetic bases that confer tolerance to stresses, allowing sustained output without proportional input escalations. Agrobiodiversity supports nutritional quality by broadening the spectrum of micronutrients and macronutrients available in food systems. Diverse crop varieties and species in agroecosystems provide essential vitamins, minerals, and bioactive compounds absent or limited in uniform cultivars; for example, traditional landraces of and beans in Mexican subsistence systems contribute to balanced diets rich in protein and antioxidants. Studies link higher on-farm richness to improved dietary diversity scores, with agrobiodiversity accounting for nearly 50% of variation in preschool children's nutrient intake in rural settings. Wild relatives often harbor superior nutritional profiles, such as elevated iron or content, which breeders introgress to fortify staple crops against deficiencies prevalent in monoculture-dominated diets. In terms of , crop diversity mitigates risks from shocks, ensuring reliable supply chains. Systems with elevated exhibit reduced yield failure probabilities—down 12.4% in cotton-based intercrops—and lower environmental impacts per unit output, as evidenced by global analyses projecting enhanced stability under variability. By fostering resilience to pests, diseases, and weather extremes, diverse portfolios prevent widespread losses, as seen in historical dependencies on wild relative traits averting famines through bred resistances. Overall, maintaining varietal and underpins global calorie and protein provision, with agrobiodiversity directly supporting by diversifying production bases beyond a few dominant crops.

Challenges and Empirical Risks

Genetic Erosion and Its Quantified Extent

refers to the accelerated loss of within crop species, occurring primarily through the replacement of diverse landraces and traditional varieties with fewer, genetically uniform modern cultivars optimized for yield and uniformity. This process diminishes intra-specific variation at the varietal, population, and allelic levels, driven by factors such as the Green Revolution's emphasis on high-yielding hybrids, market preferences for , intensification of [agriculture](/page/Agriculture], climate change, intensive industrial farming, deforestation, land degradation, pests, and diseases. Globally, the extent of this erosion is substantial, with reliance on a few staple crops (e.g., rice, maize, wheat) contributing to 75-90% loss of plant genetic diversity over the past century, as farmers abandoned thousands of locally adapted varieties in favor of a narrow set of uniform, high-yielding types. This figure encompasses the disappearance of diverse landraces across major crops, reducing the pool of alleles available for to changing conditions. For instance, in cultivation in , around 16,000 traditional varieties have been largely supplanted by a handful of modern strains. Similarly, analyses of historical records indicate that over 90% of pre-industrial crop varieties are no longer commercially available or maintained on farms. In specific crops, erosion rates vary but confirm the trend. For maize in its Mexican center of origin, farm-level varietal richness has declined steadily, with studies documenting reduced diversity metrics like average varieties per farm from the mid-20th century onward. In the United States, agricultural belt analyses from 2008 to 2016 revealed a collapse in spatial crop diversity, correlating with fewer varieties dominating larger monocultural areas. Recent FAO assessments further quantify ongoing losses, noting that more than 40% of surveyed plant species—including key crops—are absent from their historical cultivation or natural ranges, with about one-third of tree species threatened. Climate change particularly threatens diversity at low latitudes, with projections indicating reduced crop diversity on 52-56% of global cropland under 2-3°C warming. These trends exacerbate micronutrient deficiencies and hidden hunger, threaten livelihoods for smallholders, and heighten overall food system vulnerability.
These examples highlight how erosion metrics, such as changes in allelic richness or F-statistics from genetic markers, reveal not just varietal loss but deeper genomic simplification, increasing long-term vulnerabilities. While some academic sources debate precise measurement challenges due to incomplete baseline data from pre-1900 eras, empirical farm surveys and genebank inventories consistently affirm the scale of diversity reduction.

Vulnerabilities in Monoculture Systems

Monoculture systems, characterized by the extensive cultivation of genetically uniform crop varieties across large areas, exhibit heightened susceptibility to biotic stresses such as pests and . The uniformity facilitates rapid pathogen spread, as a single virulent strain can infect vast expanses without natural barriers from diverse or companion species. Reliance on a few staple crops further reduces resilience to pests, diseases, and climate shocks. For instance, the 1970 epidemic, caused by Bipolaris maydis race T, devastated U.S. corn production because over 70% of hybrids relied on the vulnerable male sterile , resulting in approximately 15-16% national yield losses equivalent to 710 million bushels. This event underscored how genetic homogeneity amplifies epidemic potential, with losses estimated at $1 billion in 1970 dollars. Historical precedents further illustrate these risks. The Irish Potato Famine of 1845-1852, triggered by , exploited the near-monoculture reliance on the susceptible 'Lumper' potato variety, leading to crop failures that caused about 1 million deaths and the emigration of another million, reducing Ireland's population by 20-25%. Lack of varietal diversity prevented any significant recovery within affected fields, as the pathogen overwhelmed the uniform host population. Similarly, the Ug99 strain of stem rust (Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici), first identified in in 1999, poses an ongoing threat to global wheat production; it overcomes resistances in many elite varieties, with susceptible crops facing potential total yield losses in unmanaged outbreaks. In regions like and the , where wheat monocultures prevail, Ug99 has already caused significant localized devastation, highlighting the peril of deploying uniform varieties without diversified resistance genes. Beyond biotic threats, monocultures accelerate abiotic vulnerabilities, including depletion and . Continuous cropping of the same exhausts specific nutrients—such as and in monocultures—while diminishing and microbial diversity, which compromises long-term . Studies comparing to systems demonstrate reduced carbon and aggregate stability in the former, increasing rates by up to 10-fold under intensive . This degradation heightens sensitivity to droughts and floods, as uniform systems fail to stabilize or access varied sources effectively. Empirical data from long-term field trials indicate that fields exhibit 20-30% lower resilience to stress compared to diversified systems, amplifying yield volatility in variable climates. Overall, these interconnected vulnerabilities underscore the causal link between reduced crop diversity and systemic instability in food production.

Management and Enhancement Strategies

Conventional and Marker-Assisted Breeding

Conventional breeding encompasses hybridization, selection, and mutation induction to recombine from diverse sources such as landraces and wild relatives into adapted cultivars, thereby utilizing and perpetuating crop for traits like yield and stress tolerance. This method has historically driven major advances, including the development of semi-dwarf varieties during the of the 1960s, which incorporated alleles from diverse progenitors to boost global yields by over 20% without proportionally eroding varietal diversity in breeding programs. Breeders systematically evaluate phenotypic traits across generations, selecting superior progeny to maintain broad genetic bases, as evidenced by ongoing incorporation of wild relative germplasm in programs for and improvement. Marker-assisted selection (MAS) augments conventional breeding by employing DNA markers linked to quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for indirect trait selection, enabling precise of alleles from exotic or sources while minimizing linkage drag and accelerating cycles from 10-12 years to 5-7 years. Empirical studies demonstrate MAS doubles breeding efficiency compared to phenotypic selection alone, as seen in where markers facilitated high-oleic acid lines commercialized in the early , enhancing nutritional profiles through targeted diversity utilization. In , MAS pyramided submergence tolerance (Sub1) and bacterial blight resistance (Xa21) genes from into elite varieties like Swarna-Sub1, released in 2009, which preserved genetic novelty while improving resilience in flood-prone regions across Asia. These approaches collectively counteract by systematically tapping underutilized diversity; for instance, MAS in has enabled stacking stem rust resistance genes (Sr genes) from diverse Aegilops species, yielding varieties deployed since 2010 that broaden the resistance against evolving pathogens. However, success hinges on comprehensive to avoid unintended diversity loss, with indicating that integrated conventional-MAS pipelines retain higher heterozygosity in early generations than pure phenotypic methods. Limitations include marker-trait decay over generations, necessitating recurrent validation, yet overall, these techniques empirically expand effective population sizes in breeding , supporting sustained crop adaptability.

Biotechnology Innovations Including GM and CRISPR

Biotechnology innovations, particularly genetic modification (GM) and , have introduced targeted genetic changes to enhance crop traits, enabling the integration of beneficial alleles into diverse genetic backgrounds without extensive crossbreeding that could erode unique varietal characteristics. GM crops, which involve the insertion of transgenes often from distant species, were first commercialized with the in 1994, engineered for delayed ripening via antisense polygalacturonidase expression. Subsequent developments focused on agronomic traits, such as herbicide tolerance in (introduced 1996) and insect resistance via (Bt) toxin genes in and , leading to global adoption on 190.4 million hectares across 29 countries by 2019, primarily in , , and . These modifications have empirically boosted yields by an average of 21% through reduced pest and improved , allowing farmers to maintain cultivation of regionally adapted varieties that might otherwise succumb to stresses, thereby supporting functional diversity in production systems. In the context of crop diversity, GM technologies facilitate the stacking of resilience traits onto diverse landraces or elite lines, mitigating by making marginal genetic resources commercially viable; for instance, adoption in incorporated local varieties, preserving varietal multiplicity while enhancing yields and reducing applications by 37% on average. Empirical meta-analyses indicate that GM herbicide-tolerant crops promote conservation tillage, which preserves soil microbial diversity and indirectly aids wild relative habitats, countering vulnerabilities without evidence of widespread transgene-driven homogenization in commercial seed stocks. However, critics cite potential risks, though field studies show limited into wild populations and no verified attributable to GM traits in major crops. CRISPR-Cas9, adapted from bacterial immune systems and first applied to plants around 2013, offers precise, non-transgenic editing by inducing targeted double-strand breaks repaired via or , enabling multiplexed modifications without foreign DNA integration. Key applications include editing for enhanced yield via OsNramp5 knockout to reduce accumulation (2014) and for increased content through phytoene synthase upregulation, demonstrating potential to recapitulate natural mutations lost in . In , CRISPR has conferred resistance to powdery mildew by deleting susceptibility genes like TaMLO, allowing retention of diverse haplotypes in breeding programs. Regulatory frameworks , under USDA-APHIS SECURE Rule (2020), exempt many CRISPR-edited crops lacking novel proteins from oversight if they could arise naturally, accelerating approvals; for example, a high-oleic was deregulated in 2020. Relative to traditional GM, CRISPR enhances crop diversity by facilitating de novo variation in elite cultivars or wild relatives, bypassing linkage drag from wide crosses and enabling rapid deployment of alleles for abiotic stresses like in via ARGOS8 promoter editing, which increased yield under water-limited conditions by 5-10% in field trials. Peer-reviewed assessments highlight CRISPR's in accelerating of wild relative traits, such as submergence tolerance from into , preserving genetic reservoirs against erosion while addressing yield gaps. Empirical data from edited crops show no off-target effects dominating edited loci after validation, supporting scalable diversity augmentation without the regulatory hurdles of transgenic GM. Challenges persist in delivery efficiency for polyploids and potential pleiotropic effects, but successes in over 20 underscore biotechnology's capacity to bolster allelic diversity amid climate pressures.

Conservation Approaches: Ex Situ and In Situ

Ex situ conservation involves the storage of crop genetic resources outside their natural habitats, primarily in genebanks that maintain seeds, tubers, or vegetative propagules under controlled conditions such as cold storage or . Globally, approximately 7.4 million accessions representing over 16,500 plant are conserved in more than 1,750 genebanks, with major collections held by institutions like the centers, which manage around 750,000 accessions of over 3,000 . These facilities enable long-term preservation without ongoing evolutionary pressures, facilitating access for breeding programs; for instance, the serves as a secure backup, holding over 1.2 million seed samples as of 2023. However, ex situ collections can exhibit reduced over time compared to source populations, with studies on crops like common bean showing losses in rare alleles and heterozygosity due to sampling bottlenecks during collection and regeneration. In situ conservation preserves crop diversity within natural ecosystems or agricultural fields, allowing continued adaptation through and , particularly for crop wild relatives (CWR). This approach includes protected areas such as national parks and genetic reserves, where CWR populations evolve in response to environmental pressures; modeling of 1,261 CWR taxa from 167 crop genepools identifies priority hotspots like the Mediterranean Basin and for establishing such reserves to capture underrepresented diversity. On-farm in situ efforts involve farmers maintaining landraces alongside modern varieties, supporting dynamic genetic processes but facing risks from habitat loss and agricultural intensification. In the United States, for example, passive in situ protection covers many CWR in existing protected lands, though only about 70% of assessed CWR taxa are adequately represented, highlighting gaps that necessitate targeted reserves. The two strategies are complementary, as ex situ provides a static resilient to immediate threats like pests or events, while in sustains adaptive potential and captures ongoing not viable for seed storage, such as vegetatively propagated crops. Empirical comparisons, such as in red clover, reveal minimal genetic shifts in both approaches over short terms, but long-term in maintenance better preserves population structure and rare variants essential for future breeding against emerging stresses. Integrated efforts, including gap analyses, recommend prioritizing ex situ for orthodox seeds and in for wild populations in hotspots to minimize erosion, with global initiatives like those under the emphasizing duplication across methods for redundancy. Challenges persist, including underrepresentation of CWR in genebanks (e.g., only 57% with adequate accessions) and the need for monitoring in sites to counter fragmentation.

Economic and Policy Contexts

Market Dynamics and Incentives

The global agricultural market is dominated by a small number of staple , with just 10 —such as , , , potatoes, soybeans, , , oil palm, sugar beet, and —accounting for 83% of harvested food calories and 63% of global crop harvested areas as of recent assessments. This concentration arises from economic incentives favoring high-yield, uniform varieties suited to large-scale mechanized farming and global supply chains, where reduce per-unit costs and enable competitive pricing in commodity markets. systems, incentivized by these dynamics, streamline production inputs like fertilizers, pesticides, and machinery, maximizing short-term profits for farmers and agribusinesses despite long-term risks to and resilience. Seed industry consolidation further entrenches low crop diversity, as mergers among major firms—such as those involving , , , and —have resulted in four companies controlling over 50% of the proprietary market by the early 2020s, limiting in breeding diverse varieties and prioritizing patented hybrids that require annual purchases. This structure discourages farmer-saved and open-pollinated varieties, which historically supported diversity, while protections on traits like resistance channel R&D toward uniform, high-input crops rather than regionally adapted landraces. A 2023 USDA analysis highlighted how such consolidation restricts access to diverse , increases seed costs, and fosters genetic narrowing, with proprietary restrictions impeding public breeding programs that could enhance varietal options. Government subsidies amplify these market biases toward uniformity; in the United States, federal crop insurance and direct payments, which totaled over $20 billion annually in the 2010s, disproportionately support commodity crops like corn and soybeans, correlating with reduced on-farm crop diversification as farmers allocate land to subsidized monocultures for risk mitigation and income stability. Similar patterns emerge globally, where policy-induced specialization—such as national grain subsidies in China—promotes mono-cropping of staples, overriding market signals for diversity unless offset by targeted incentives like seed subsidies for legumes. While niche markets for organic, heirloom, or specialty crops offer premiums—evidenced by diversified systems yielding comparable or higher net returns in meta-analyses when accounting for risk diversification— these represent under 5% of global production value, insufficient to counter the scale advantages of dominant crops. Emerging incentives for diversity, such as payments for ecosystem services or biodiversity credits, aim to internalize external benefits like resilience but remain marginal; for instance, analyses indicate that scaling such market-based instruments could align with conservation goals, yet implementation lags due to measurement challenges and skepticism over long-term viability. Overall, current dynamics prioritize yield maximization and cost efficiency over genetic breadth, contributing to an estimated 75% loss of crop diversity since the early , as industrial incentives eclipse the latent value of varietal insurance against shocks.

International Agreements and Recent Global Efforts

The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), adopted by the (FAO) Conference on November 3, 2001, and entering into force on June 29, 2004, constitutes the primary multilateral framework addressing for and (PGRFA). Its core objectives encompass the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA, alongside the fair and equitable sharing of benefits derived from their utilization, recognizing the interdependence of nations in maintaining these resources essential for global . The Treaty establishes a Multilateral System (MLS) of facilitated access to 64 key crops and forages listed in Annex I—such as , , , and potatoes—governed by Standard Material Transfer Agreements (SMTAs) that enable breeders and researchers to access materials for and purposes while imposing benefit-sharing obligations, including payments upon commercialization. As of 2024, the ITPGRFA counts 150 contracting parties, which have collectively facilitated over 6 million SMTAs since the MLS's operationalization in 2006, supporting exchanges critical for breeding resilient varieties. Complementing the ITPGRFA, the FAO's Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, initially adopted at the Fourth International Technical Conference on PGRFA in Leipzig in 1996 and revised in 2014, outlines 18 priority activities across in situ conservation, ex situ collection, and sustainable use, with estimated global implementation costs exceeding $5.6 billion annually. This non-binding instrument fosters international cooperation, including through the Funding Strategy for the Implementation of the Global Plan, which mobilizes resources for genebank maintenance and characterization efforts. The Plan aligns with the ITPGRFA by emphasizing empirical monitoring of genetic erosion, where data from national reports indicate that only 20-30% of PGRFA accessions in some developing countries are adequately characterized or evaluated as of the latest assessments. Recent global efforts have intensified implementation amid documented declines in crop diversity, with FAO's 2025 The State of the World's Forest Genetic Resources and The State of the World's for Food and Agriculture reports—drawing from 128 countries—revealing losses in intra-specific diversity for major crops like and , prompting calls for accelerated and in situ safeguards. The ITPGRFA's Benefit-Sharing Fund, operational since 2009, has allocated over $28 million by 2023 for 160 projects in 80 countries, focusing on pre-breeding and capacity-building in low-income regions to counter vulnerabilities exposed by events like the 2022 outbreaks. Concurrently, the Tenth Session of the ITPGRFA in 2023 advanced a funding strategy targeting $117 million annually by 2030 for MLS enhancements, including digital tools for tracking DSI (digital sequence information) under ongoing negotiations with the to resolve access disputes without impeding innovation. Initiatives like the Crop Trust's Global Crop Conservation Strategies, updated through 2025, prioritize 29 key crops, integrating empirical data on wild relatives to bolster resilience against projected 20-30% yield losses from climate stressors by mid-century. These efforts underscore a causal emphasis on diversified pools, evidenced by partnerships securing 1.3 million accessions in international genebanks as of 2024.

Debates and Controversies

Monoculture Efficiency vs. Diversity Mandates

Monocultures facilitate the use of specialized machinery, uniform inputs, and optimized management practices, resulting in higher per- yields and lower production costs compared to diverse systems. For major cereals like , U.S. average yields rose from approximately 2 metric tons per in the to over 11 metric tons per by 2023, driven by hybrid varieties and practices enabling precise agronomic interventions. This efficiency stems from , where large-scale uniformity reduces labor and input variability, allowing farmers to achieve profit margins unattainable in fragmented diverse plots. Economic analyses indicate that systems minimize fertilizer diversity needs and streamline harvesting, contributing to global food supply increases that supported from 2.5 billion in 1950 to over 8 billion today. Crop diversity mandates, often embedded in environmental policies, require farmers to cultivate multiple species or varieties to enhance resilience and ecosystem services, but these can impose economic trade-offs. Under the European Union's greening measures introduced in 2015, farms over 10 hectares must diversify with at least two or three crops, aiming to boost on-farm ; however, compliance has been linked to increased operational complexity and variable productivity impacts. In regions with such policies, large-scale operations face income reductions from diversification, as specialization in high-value monocrops yields higher returns, while small farms may see marginal stability gains without proportional output boosts. Meta-analyses of organic systems, which frequently incorporate mandated diversity elements like rotations and , reveal yield gaps of 19-25% below conventional baselines across global datasets, with and perennials showing smaller deficits but staples like grains exhibiting larger penalties. The debate centers on whether diversity mandates justify potential productivity losses amid rising global food demands, with proponents arguing for long-term mitigation against pests and variability, while critics highlight that managed s—via rotations, pesticides, and —achieve comparable stability at higher yields without coercion. U.S. subsidies have historically incentivized specialization in commodities like corn and soy, correlating with decreased diversity but sustained output growth; reversing this through mandates could elevate , as diversified systems often underperform economically in staple production. Empirical reviews of trials indicate frequent overyielding in total biomass but rarely in marketable crop-specific outputs, underscoring that efficiency gains from outweigh unmandated diversity in calorie-dense . Sources advocating mandates, often from environmental NGOs or -oriented academia, may overemphasize ecological benefits while understating verified yield penalties documented in peer-reviewed agronomic meta-analyses.

Intellectual Property Rights vs. Open Access Claims

Intellectual property rights (IPR) in crop genetic resources, including plant variety protection under the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) and utility patents on , aim to incentivize investment in breeding and by granting exclusive rights to developers for typically 20 years. Proponents argue that such protections have empirically boosted innovation, with U.S. data showing increased novel plant variety registrations and crop yields following expanded IPR in the and , alongside higher expenditures by seed companies. For instance, patent protection correlated with a rise in growth from 1.7% annually pre-1980 to higher rates post-IPR strengthening, though it also concentrated among a few firms, potentially raising seed prices for farmers. Opposing open access claims emphasize farmers' to save, exchange, and sell farm-saved seed, rooted in customary practices that maintain crop diversity, particularly in developing countries where smallholders contribute significantly to varietal . The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), adopted in and ratified by 150 countries as of 2023, establishes a multilateral system facilitating access to genetic resources of 64 key crops under standard material transfer agreements (SMTAs), with benefit-sharing mechanisms to fund conservation and breeding in the global South. Critics of strong IPR, including groups, contend that UPOV 1991's restrictions on farmers' privilege—limiting seed saving to non-commercial use and excluding exchange—conflict with ITPGRFA Article 9 on farmers' , potentially eroding on-farm diversity as commercial hybrids displace landraces. Empirical studies suggest IPR enclosures may hinder public breeding and restrict genetic resource flows, with "thickets" blocking on gene-edited crops despite their potential for diversity-enhancing traits. The tension manifests in international forums, where UPOV members (78 as of 2023) often overlap with ITPGRFA parties, yet debates persist over coherence; for example, a FAO symposium highlighted unresolved conflicts, with NGOs arguing UPOV prioritizes breeders' monopoly over farmers' participatory rights, contributing to a 75% loss in since the per FAO estimates. Emerging models like open-source initiatives, launched in in 2017 and the U.S. via the Open Source Alliance, seek to balance incentives by waiving downstream IPR claims, fostering collaborative breeding while preserving access; surveys of farmer-innovators show for such open models driven by and goals over proprietary controls. Despite these, IPR enforcement has led to market consolidation—four firms controlling over 60% of global by 2020—raising dependency risks for , though defenders note it sustains R&D pipelines for resilient varieties amid climate challenges.

References

  1. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/15/5/603
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4624815/
  3. https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/csc2.20377
  4. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.17733
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7241271/
  6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320721004845
  7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK599658/
  8. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001716
  9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332220300889
  10. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2205771120
  11. https://www.interesjournals.org/articles/crop-diversity-a-review-of-its-importance-conservation-and-challenges-100209.html
  12. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00122-015-2585-y
  13. https://www.croptrust.org/mission-1/why-we-need-crop-diversity/
  14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1360138515001983
  15. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334023648_Conceptual_Framework_for_Crop_Diversity_Concepts_and_Measurement
  16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9376740/
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2939243/
  18. https://www.croptrust.org/news-events/news/nikolai-vavilov-the-father-of-genebanks/
  19. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04253.x
  20. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0912953109
  21. https://e360.yale.edu/features/a-look-inside-the-global-movement-to-revive-food-diversity
  22. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X97000387
  23. https://www.kew.org/read-and-watch/back-to-the-future-green-revolution
  24. https://www.fao.org/interactive/state-of-biodiversity-for-food-agriculture/en/
  25. https://www.fao.org/statistics/highlights-archive/highlights-detail/agricultural-production-statistics-2010-2023/en
  26. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-99728-5
  27. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ppp3.10570
  28. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2024.1393140/full
  29. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/11/1/94
  30. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10722-024-02100-5
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6817337/
  32. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07352689.2014.897904
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9261279/
  34. https://cipotato.org/cip_projects/sharing-genetic-diversity-solanaceous-food-crops/
  35. https://www.psu.edu/news/eberly-college-science/story/new-tomato-potato-family-tree-shows-fruit-color-and-size-evolved
  36. https://botanistinthekitchen.blog/2012/11/05/the-extraordinary-diversity-of-brassica-oleracea/
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631069116000251
  38. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2023.1220134/full
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4383386/
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9859222/
  41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/intraspecific-variation
  42. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35087-7
  43. https://ges.research.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/nph.17733-Denise-Costich.pdf
  44. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/320518/files/Chai%2520et%2520al%25202022%2520UMN%2520--%2520Scientific%2520Selection-A%2520Century%2520of%2520Increasing%2520Crop%2520Varietal%2520Diversity%2520in%2520US%2520Wheat.pdf
  45. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2017.00145/full
  46. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/61116
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9108319/
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9861506/
  49. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167779921001979
  50. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2022.1008904/full
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10975389/
  52. https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/10/7/1267
  53. https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eap.1629
  54. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/61/3/183/238071
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11798995/
  56. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369127224_Crop_diversity_buffers_the_impact_of_droughts_and_high_temperatures_on_food_production
  57. https://www.eajournals.org/wp-content/uploads/Genetic-Diversity-and-Its-Impact-in-Enhancement-of-Crop-Plants.pdf
  58. https://cropwatch.unl.edu/2021/more-diverse-crop-rotations-improve-yield-yield-stability-and-soil-health/
  59. https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/agj2.20162
  60. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.70179
  61. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21683565.2018.1530326
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5332258/
  63. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2022.886162/full
  64. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1161030124000662
  65. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982221009118
  66. https://alliancebioversityciat.org/stories/crop-wild-relatives-key-asset-sustainable-agriculture
  67. http://courseresources.mit.usf.edu/sgs/ph6934/webpages/CC/module_5/read/Linking_agricultural_biodiversity_Linking_agricultural_biodiversity_thrupp.pdf
  68. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/plant-genetic-resources/article/genetic-erosion-in-crops-concept-research-results-and-challenges/21260D7D924DEA9F27327C6C0B22E84C
  69. https://www.fao.org/4/y5609e/y5609e02.htm
  70. https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2021/10/26/Crop-diversity-underpins-food-security-Scientists-flag-enormous-diversity-loss/
  71. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1407033111
  72. https://silvis.forest.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/379/2021/02/gcb.15396.pdf
  73. https://www.seedworld.com/europe/2025/04/08/fao-reports-highlight-the-need-to-protect-the-genetic-diversity-of-our-plants-and-forests/
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12018264/
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6050182/
  76. https://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/10.1094/PHYTO-03-24-0105-PER
  77. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.171.3976.1113
  78. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/the-relevance-of-evolution/agriculture/monoculture-and-the-irish-potato-famine-cases-of-missing-genetic-variation/
  79. https://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/10.1094/PHYTO-01-15-0030-FI
  80. https://www.ars.usda.gov/midwest-area/stpaul/cereal-disease-lab/docs/ug99-emerging-virulent-stem-rust-races/
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8838759/
  82. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376521787_Effect_of_Mono_Cropping_on_Soil_Health_and_Fertility_Management_for_Sustainable_Agriculture_Practices_A
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6434984/
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2610170/
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2442525/
  86. https://biolres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40659-024-00562-6
  87. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2022.1076094/full
  88. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331631414_Marker_Assisted_Selection_in_Comparison_to_Conventional_Plant_Breeding_Review_Article
  89. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00122-018-3266-4
  90. https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/science-and-history-gmos-and-other-food-modification-processes
  91. https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/16/
  92. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4218791/
  93. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5790416/
  94. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51574389_Impact_of_GM_crops_on_biodiversity
  95. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10916045/
  96. https://crispr-gene-editing-regs-tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org/united-states-crops-food/
  97. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2018.00985/full
  98. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2024.1478398/full
  99. https://www.fao.org/4/i1500e/i1500e03.pdf
  100. https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2135/cropsci2017.01.0014
  101. https://www.croptrust.org/what-we-do/projects/genebank-platform/
  102. https://report.croptrust.org/2023/our-work/svalbard-global-seed-vault-turns-15/
  103. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10709-010-9485-5
  104. https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=349431
  105. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-019-0372-z
  106. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9303585/
  107. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2007029117
  108. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10722-020-01017-z
  109. https://www.notulaebotanicae.ro/index.php/nbha/article/view/4878
  110. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10445542/
  111. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2205768119
  112. https://www.wri.org/insights/crop-expansion-food-security-trends
  113. https://geopard.tech/blog/monoculture-in-agriculture-advantages-and-disadvantages/
  114. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800916000021
  115. https://www.foodandpower.net/latest/usda-seeds-report-3-23
  116. https://www.seedworld.com/us/2025/01/08/seed-diversity-in-the-consolidation-age/
  117. https://www.gcsu.edu/sites/files/page-assets/node-1756/attachments/do-farm-subsidies-affect-crop-diversification-chadwick-oneal.pdf
  118. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800921002421
  119. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800922002579
  120. https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/crop-production-global-market-report
  121. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/scaling-up-biodiversity-positive-incentives_19b859ce-en/full-report/designing-effective-policy-mixes_edaa28a2.html
  122. https://ambiochar.com/the-seed-industry-unveiled-what-thrives/
  123. https://www.fao.org/plant-treaty/en
  124. https://www.fao.org/newsroom/detail/the-genetic-diversity-of-our-plants-and-forests-is-at-risk--new-fao-reports-warn/en
  125. https://www.wto.org/library/events/event_resources/agri_2409202415/627_1821.pdf
  126. https://www.croptrust.org/what-we-do/projects/mainstreaming-the-global-crop-conservation-strategies/
  127. https://www.croptrust.org/news-events/news/crop-diversity-drives-global-security/
  128. https://eos.com/blog/monoculture-farming/
  129. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2452263524000168
  130. https://projects.research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/en/horizon-magazine/rise-and-fall-monoculture-farming
  131. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800925001983
  132. https://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/agricultural-diversification-practice-and-policy/
  133. https://academic.oup.com/erae/advance-article/doi/10.1093/erae/jbaf016/8133794
  134. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11069
  135. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25621333/
  136. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2664.12334
  137. https://csanr.wsu.edu/monoculture-vs-polyculture-part-i/
  138. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308521X23001373
  139. https://www.upov.int/en/plant-variety-protection/learn/faqs
  140. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2023/august/expanded-intellectual-property-protections-for-crop-seeds-increase-innovation-and-market-power-for-companies
  141. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/moscona/files/fi_nov2022_compressed.pdf
  142. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21665095.2024.2357095
  143. https://www.fao.org/plant-treaty/overview/en/
  144. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/5ecaf48c-965f-4050-9163-789ad750b634/content
  145. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ppp3.10397
  146. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5414820/
  147. https://viacampesina.org/en/2016/11/upov-must-respect-farmers-rights/
  148. https://www.upov.int/edocs/mdocs/upov/en/upov_itpgrfa_sym_ge_16/upov_itpgrfa_sym_ge_16_ppt_6.pdf
  149. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6759460/
  150. https://seedalliance.org/publications/a-guide-to-seed-intellectual-property-rights/
  151. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2916&context=etd
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.