Hubbry Logo
LandraceLandraceMain
Open search
Landrace
Community hub
Landrace
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Landrace
Landrace
Landrace
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Aerial roots of a maize landrace, Sierra Mixe corn, grown in nitrogen-depleted soils in the Sierra Mixe, known for aerial roots with a bacterial gel that contributes substantially to the plant's nitrogen supply[1]

A landrace is a domesticated, locally adapted, often traditional variety of a species of animal or plant that has developed over time, through adaptation to its natural and cultural environment of agriculture and pastoralism, and due to isolation from other populations of the species. Landraces are distinct from cultivars and from standard breeds.

A significant proportion of farmers around the world grow landrace crops,[2] and most plant landraces are associated with traditional agricultural systems.[3] Landraces of many crops have probably been grown for millennia.[4] Increasing reliance upon modern plant cultivars that are bred to be uniform has led to a reduction in biodiversity,[5][6][7] because most of the genetic diversity of domesticated plant species lies in landraces and other traditionally used varieties.[6] Some farmers using scientifically improved varieties also continue to raise landraces for agronomic reasons that include better adaptation to the local environment, lower fertilizer requirements, lower cost, and better disease resistance. Cultural and market preferences for landraces include culinary uses and product attributes such as texture, color, or ease of use.[5][6]

Plant landraces have been the subject of more academic research, and the majority of academic literature about landraces is focused on botany in agriculture, not animal husbandry. Animal landraces are distinct from ancestral wild species of modern animal stock, and are also distinct from separate species or subspecies derived from the same ancestor as modern domestic stock. Not all landraces derive from wild or ancient animal stock; in some cases, notably dogs and horses, domestic animals have escaped in sufficient numbers in an area to breed feral populations that form new landraces through evolutionary pressure.

Characteristics

[edit]

There are differences between authoritative sources on the specific criteria which describe landraces, although there is broad consensus about the existence and utility of the classification. Individual criteria may be weighted differently depending on a given source's focus (e.g., governmental regulation, biological sciences, agribusiness, anthropology and culture, environmental conservation, pet-keeping and -breeding, etc.). Additionally, not all cultivars agreed to be landraces exhibit every characteristic of a landrace.[3] General features that characterize a landrace may include:

A basket of landrace snap melons Cucumis melo subspecies agrestis, cultivar group Momordica from Pemba town, northern Mozambique. The landrace incorporates different colours and patterns of the fruit surface and is the only melon cultivar group in northern Mozambique.[citation needed]
  • It is morphologically distinctive and identifiable (i.e., has particular and recognizable characteristics or properties),[3][8] yet remains "dynamic".[3]
  • It is genetically adapted to,[3][9] and has a reputation for being able to withstand, the conditions of the local environment, including climate, disease and pests, even cultural practices.[8]
  • It is not the product of formal (governmental, organizational, or private) breeding programs,[9] and may lack systematic selection, development and improvement by breeders.[2][10][3]
  • It is maintained and fostered less deliberately than a standardized breed, with its genetic isolation principally a matter of geography acting upon whatever animals that happened to be brought by humans to a given area.[10]
  • It has a historical origin in a specific geographic area,[3] will usually have its own local name(s),[9][8] and will often be classified according to intended purpose.[8]
  • Where yield (e.g. of a grain or fruit crop) can be measured, a landrace will show high stability of yield, even under adverse conditions, but a moderate yield level, even under carefully managed conditions.[4]
  • At the level of genetic testing, its heredity will show a degree of integrity,[8] but still some genetic heterogeneity[9] (i.e. genetic diversity).[3][11]

Terminology

[edit]
See also: Breed, Cultivar, and Ecotype
Look up landrace in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Landrace literally means 'country-breed' (German: Landrasse)[12] and close cognates of it are found in various Germanic languages. The first known reference to the role of landraces as genetic resources was made in 1890 at an agriculture and forestry congress in Vienna, Austria. The term was first defined by Kurt von Rümker in 1908,[4] and more clearly described in 1909 by U. J. Mansholt, who wrote that landraces have more stable characteristics and better resistance to adverse conditions, but have lower production capacity than cultivars, and are apt to change genetically when moved to another environment.[4] Hans Kiessling added in 1912 that a landrace is a mixture of phenotypic forms despite relative outward uniformity, and a great adaptability to its natural and human environment.[4]

The word landrace entered non-academic English in the early 1930s, by way of the Danish Landrace pig, a particular breed of lop-eared swine.[12] Many other languages do not use separate terms, like landrace and breed, but instead rely on extended description to convey such distinctions. Spanish is one such language.[citation needed]

Geneticist D. Phillip Sponenberg described animal breeds within these classes: the landrace, the standardized breed, modern "type" breeds, industrial strains, and feral populations. He describes landraces as an early stage of breed development, created by a combination of founder effect, isolation, and environmental pressures. Human selection for production goals is also typical of landraces.[13]

As discussed in more detail in breed, that term itself has several definitions from various scientific and animal husbandry perspectives. Some of those senses of breed relate to the concept of landraces. A Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) guideline defines landrace and landrace breed as "a breed that has largely developed through adaptation to the natural environment and traditional production system in which it has been raised."[14] This is in contrast to its definition of a standardized breed: "a breed of livestock that was developed according to a strict programme of genetic isolation and formal artificial selection to achieve a particular phenotype."

In various domestic species (including pigs, goats, sheep and geese) some standardized breeds include "Landrace" in their names, but do not meet widely used definitions of landraces. For example, the British Landrace pig is a standardized breed, derived from earlier breeds with "Landrace" names.[15]

Farmers' variety, usually applied to local cultivars, or seen as intermediate between a landrace and a cultivar,[16] may also include landraces when referring to plant varieties not subjected to formal breeding programs.[9]

Autochthonous and allochthonous landraces

[edit]

A landrace native to, or produced for a long time within the agricultural system in which it is found is referred to as an autochthonous landrace, while a more recently introduced one is termed an allochthonous landrace.[4][3][17]

Within academic agronomy, the term autochthonous landrace is sometimes used with a more technical, productivity-related definition, synthesized by A. C. Zeven from previous definitions beginning with Mansholt's: "an autochthonous landrace is a variety with a high capacity to tolerate biotic and abiotic stress, resulting in a high yield stability and an intermediate yield level under a low input agricultural system."[4]

The terms autochthonous and allochthonous are most often applied to plants, with animals more often being referred to as indigenous or native. Examples of references in sources to long-term local landraces of livestock include constructions such as "indigenous landraces of sheep",[18] and "Leicester Longwool sheep were bred to the native landraces of the region".[19] Some usage of autochthonous does occur in reference to livestock, e.g. "autochthonous races of cattle such as the Asturian mountain cattle – Ratina and Casina – and Tudanca cattle."[20]

Biodiversity and conservation

[edit]
A morphologically diverse group of fruit from the Zapallo Plomo landrace of Cucurbita maxima squash

A significant proportion of farmers around the world grow landrace crops.[2] However, as industrialized agriculture spreads, cultivars, which are selectively bred for high yield, rapid growth, disease and drought resistance, and other commercial production values, are supplanting landraces, putting more and more of them at risk of extinction.[citation needed]

In 1927 at the International Agricultural Congress, organized by the predecessor of the FAO, an extensive discussion was held on the need to conserve landraces. A recommendation that members organize nation-by-nation landrace conservation did not succeed in leading to widespread conservation efforts.[4]

Landraces are often free from many intellectual property and other regulatory encumbrances. However, in some jurisdictions, a focus on their production may result in missing out on some benefits afforded to producers of genetically selected and homogenous organisms, including breeders' rights legislation, easier availability of loans and other business services, even the right to share seed or stock with others, depending on how favorable the laws in the area are to high-yield agribusiness interests.[6]

As Regine Andersen of the Fridtjof Nansen Institute (Norway) and the Farmers' Rights Project puts it, "Agricultural biodiversity is being eroded. This trend is putting at risk the ability of future generations to feed themselves. In order to reverse the trend, new policies must be implemented worldwide. The irony of the matter is that the poorest farmers are the stewards of genetic diversity."[6] Protecting farmer interests and protecting biodiversity is at the heart of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (the "Plant Treaty" for short), under the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), though its concerns are not exclusively limited to landraces.[6]

Landraces played a basic role in the development of the standardized breeds but are today threatened by the market success of the standardized breeds. In developing countries, landraces still play an important role, especially in traditional production systems.[14] Specimens within an animal landrace tend to be genetically similar, though more diverse than members of a standardized or formal breed.[10]

Carosello and Barattiere, Italian landraces of Cucumis melo whose fruits are eaten unripe

In situ and ex situ landrace conservation

[edit]

Two approaches have been used to conserve plant landraces:[7][21]

  • in situ where the landrace is grown and conserved by farmers on farms.
  • ex situ where the landrace is conserved in an artificial environment such as a gene-bank, using controls such as laminated packets kept frozen at −18 °C (0 °F).

As the amount of agricultural land dedicated to growing landrace crops declines, such as in the example of wheat landraces in the Fertile Crescent, landraces can become extinct in cultivation. Therefore ex situ landrace conservation practices are considered a way to avoid losing the genetic diversity completely. Research published in 2020 suggested that existing ways of cataloging diversity within ex situ genebanks fall short of cataloging the appropriate information for landrace crops.[21]

An in situ conservation effort to save the Berrettina di Lungavilla squash landrace made use of participatory plant breeding practices in order to incorporate the local community into the work.[22]

Preserving cereal landraces

[edit]

Preservation efforts for cereal strains are ongoing including in situ and in online-searchable germplasm collections (seed banks), coordinated by Biodiversity International and the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB, UK).[2] However, more may need to be done, because plant genetic variety, the source of crop health and seed quality, depends on a diversity of landraces and other traditionally used varieties.[6] Efforts (as of 2008) were mostly focused on Iberia, the Balkans, and European Russia, and dominated by species from mountainous areas.[2] Despite their incompleteness, these efforts have been described as "crucial in preventing the extinction of many of these local ecotypes".[2]

An agricultural study published in 2008 showed that landrace cereal crops began to decline in Europe in the 19th century such that cereal landraces "have largely fallen out of use" in Europe.[2] Landrace cultivation in central and northwest Europe was almost eradicated by the early 20th century, due to economic pressure to grow improved, modern cultivars.[23] While many in the region are already extinct,[2] some have survived by being passed from generation to generation,[2] and have also been revived by enthusiasts outside Europe to preserve European agriculture and food culture elsewhere.[2] These survivals are usually for specific uses, such as thatch, and traditional European cuisine and craft beer brewing.[2]

Plants

[edit]

Plant landrace development

[edit]
See also: Plant breeding § Evolutionary plant breeding

The label landrace includes regional cultigens that are genetically heterogeneous, but with enough characteristics in common to permit their recognition as a group. These characteristics are used by farmers to manage diversity and purity within landraces.[24]

In some cultures, the development of new landraces is typically limited to members of specific social groups, such as women or shaman. Maintaining existing landraces, like developing new landraces, requires that farmers be able to identify crop-specific characteristics and that those characteristics are passed on to following generations.[24]

Over time, the process of identifying the distinguishing characteristic or features of a new landrace is reinforced by cultivation processes; for example, descendants of a plant that is notably drought tolerant may become iteratively more so through selective breeding as farmers regard it as better for dry areas and prioritize planting it in those locations. This is one way in which farming systems can develop a portfolio of landraces over time that have specific ecological niches and uses.[24]

Conversely, modern cultivars can also be developed into a landrace over time when farmers save seed and practice selective breeding.[9]

Although landraces are often discussed once they have become endemic to a particular geographical region, landraces have always been moved over long and short distances. Some landraces can adapt to various environments, while others only thrive within specific conditions. Self-fertilizing and vegetatively populated species adapt by changing the frequencies of phenotypes. Outbreeding crops absorb new genotypes through intentional and unintentional hybridization, or through mutation.[4]

A clear example of vegetal landrace would consist in the diverse adaptations of wheat to differential artificial selection constraints.[25]

Cultivars developed from landraces

[edit]

Members of a landrace variety, selected for uniformity with regards to a unique feature over a period of time, can be developed into a farmers' variety or cultivar.[16] Traits from landraces are valuable for incorporation into elite lines.[26] Crop disease resistance genes from landraces can provide eternally-needed resistances to more widely-used, modern varieties.[26]

Examples of plant landraces

[edit]

Beans

[edit]
Name Species Origin Description
Caparrona bean[27] Phaseolus vulgaris Monzón, Spain Also known by the name of Caparrona de Monzón, characterized by highly productive plants with white beans that have a brown pattern around the hilum, medium brilliance, and oval shape. The Caparrona bean is usually used as a dry bean but can also be eaten as a green bean.[28]
Ganxet bean[27]

Carrots

[edit]
Name Species Origin Description
Carota di Polignano Daucus carota Polignano, Italy Multicolored roots from yellow to purple[27][29]

Maize

[edit]
Name Species Origin Description
Sierra Mixe corn Zea mays Sierra Mixe Tall with aerial roots that secrete mucus which is known to support nitrogen-fixing bacteria[1]

Okra

[edit]
Name Species Origin Description
Khandahar Pendi Abelmoschus esculentus Afghanistan Has green, red, pink, or white pods that have a variety of shapes and sizes.[30]

Peas

[edit]
Name Species Origin Description
Maruti Cajanus cajan[16]

Peppers

[edit]
Name Species Origin Description
Cacho de cabra Capsicum annuum Maule region of Chile Considered to be the most popular in the region of Maule[31]
Chileno negro Capsicum baccatum Maule region of Chile[31]
Chimayó pepper Chimayó, New Mexico Considered the most well known of the New Mexico chile landraces[32]
Santo Domingo Pueblo chili Santo Domingo Pueblo An early-maturing landrace from the pueblo that served as a headquarters for Spanish colonial missions as well as a key location of resistance against the Spanish settlers in the 1600s.[32]

Rice

[edit]
Name Species Origin Description
Jumli Marshi Nepal A cold-tolerant and popular rice landrace grown in mountain ecosystems. An evolutionary plant breeding program was used to increase its resistance to blast disease while maintaining landrace diversity.[33]
Kalanamak rice[27]

Squash

[edit]
Name Species Origin Description
Berrettina di Lungavilla Cucurbita maxima Po river floodplain, Italy From the Po floodplain in Northern Italy that nearly went extinct[22]
Cappello da prete[27]
Plato kuum, cmejen kuum, calabacita kuum, xplato, 'kuum Likely Cucurbita moschata Yucatán, Mexico Squash with 'pepita menuda' (Spanish) meaning 'thin seeds' Known as the 'little sister' to Cucurbita moschata Xnuk kuum. Xplato (Mayan-Spanish) literally translates to flat plate. Used for making a sweet called calabaza melada.[34]
Candy roaster[27] Cucurbita maxima Southern Appalachia Developed by the Cherokee people. A United States Department of Agriculture accession in 1960 notes that Candy Roasters had been grown for more than 100 years as of that date.[35] It is variable in size and shape with more than 40 distinct forms according to one authority.[36] Candy roasters consistently feature fine-textured orange flesh, while varying in size (from 10 lbs to more than 250 lbs); shape (including round, cylindrical, teardrop, and blocky); and color (pink, tan, green, blue, gray, and orange).[37]
Lakota squash Cucurbita maxima Nebraska Developed from a squash landrace grown by Native Americans living along the Missouri Valley along with germplasm from Hubbard squash or a similar cultivar[38]
Nanticoke squash[27] Cucurbita maxima Maryland and Delaware Cultivated by the Nanticoke (or Kuskarawaok) people, one of the southernmost groups in the Algonquin language family, who lived in the area now known as Maryland and Delaware during the American colonial period when Cucurbita maxima arrived in North America. The wide diversity of the fruit reflects the genetic diversity of the landrace.[30]
Seminole Pumpkin[27] Cucurbita moschata Florida A landrace originally cultivated by the Seminole people of what is now Florida. Naturalists recorded Seminole pumpkins hanging from trees in the 18th century.[39][40]

Tomatillo

[edit]
Name Species Origin Description
Acorazado, Acorazonado, Queen of Malinalco, Reina de Malinalco Physalis ixocarpa Malinalco The name translates as "heart shaped", reflecting morphology which has also been described as "pointed or torpedo shaped", which is unusual for a tomatillo. The tomatillos taste fruity and sweet.[41]

Tomatoes

[edit]
Name Species Origin Description
Coeur de bue tomato[42]
Corborino tomato[42]
Lucariello tomato[42]
San Marzano tomato[42] Solanum lycopersicum Campania, Italy

Wheat

[edit]
Name Species Origin Description
Arndeto[27]
Aybo[27]
Enat gebs[27]
Kurkure[27]
Loko[27]
Meher gebs[27]
Mengesha[27]
Nechita[27]
Sene gebs[27]
Set-Akuri[27]
Temej[27]
Tikur gebs[27]

Animals

[edit]

Animal landrace development

[edit]

Some standardized animal breeds originate from attempts to make landraces more consistent through selective breeding, and a landrace may become a more formal breed with the creation of a breed registry or publication of a breed standard. In such a case, one may think of the landrace as a "stage" in breed development. However, in other cases, formalizing a landrace may result in the genetic resource of a landrace being lost through crossbreeding.[10]

While many landrace animals are associated with farming, other domestic animals have been put to use as modes of transportation, as companion animals, for sporting purposes, and for other non-farming uses, so their geographic distribution may differ. For example, horse landraces are less common because human use of them for transport has meant that they have moved with people more commonly and constantly than most other domestic animals, reducing the incidence of populations locally genetically isolated for extensive periods of time.[10]

Examples of animal landraces

[edit]

Cats

[edit]

Many standardized breeds have rather recently (within a century or less) been derived from landraces. Examples, often called natural breeds, include Arabian Mau, Egyptian Mau, Korat, Kurilian Bobtail, Maine Coon, Manx, Norwegian Forest Cat, Siberian, and Siamese.

In some cases, such as the Turkish Angora and Turkish Van breeds and their possible derivation from the Van cat landrace, the relationships are not entirely clear.

Name Species Origin Description
Cyprus
Aegean
Domestic long-haired
Domestic short-haired
Kellas
Sokoke
Thai Thailand The ancestor of the Siamese cat breed, among many others.
Van cat Turkey The Van cat of modern-day Turkey is a landrace of symbolic and (disputed) cultural value to Turks, Armenians and Kurds.

Cattle

[edit]
Name Species Origin Description
Icelandic cattle Iceland As a population dating from the era of Icelandic settlement they are likely the oldest cattle landrace in Europe, owing to their genetic isolation for most of that time.[43]
Yakutian cattle Sakha Republic, Russian Federation Noted as the northernmost cattle landrace, and the most genetically dissimilar to other cattle.[44][45] This group of cattle may represent a fourth Aurochs domestication event (and a third event among Bos taurus–type aurochs) and may have diverged from the Near East group some 35,000 years ago.[46] Yakutian cattle are the last remaining native Turano-Mongolian cattle breed in Siberia,[44] and one of only a few pure Turano-Mongolian breeds remaining worldwide.[45] Studies of DNA markers on autosomes show a high genetic distinctiveness and point to a long-term genetic isolation from other breeds; geographic isolation beyond the normal northern limit of the species range can be assumed to be the cause.[47][48]

Dogs

[edit]

Dog landraces and the selectively bred dog breeds that follow breed standards vary widely depending on their origins and purpose.[49] Landraces are distinguished from dog breeds which have breed standards, breed clubs and registries.[50]

Landrace dogs have more variety in their appearance than do standardized dog breeds.[50] An example of a dog landrace with a related standardized breed with a similar name is the collie. The Scotch Collie is a landrace, while the Rough Collie and the Border Collie are standardized breeds. They can be very different in appearance, though the Rough Collie in particular was developed from the Scotch Collie by inbreeding to fix certain highly desired traits. In contrast to the landrace, in the various standardized Collie breeds, purebred individuals closely match a breed-standard appearance but might have lost other useful characteristics and have developed undesirable traits linked to inbreeding.[51]

The ancient landrace dogs of the Fertile Crescent that led to the Saluki breed excels in running down game across open tracts of hot desert, but conformation-bred individuals of the breed are not necessarily able to chase and catch desert hares.[citation needed]

Name Species Origin Description
Africanis Southern Africa Dogs that migrated with Bantu tribes into Southern Africa. The dogs were free to mate amongst themselves without any selective breeding.
Carolina Dog or Yellow Dog United States Developed from dogs originally from Asia[52] this landrace has been the basis of the Carolina Dog standardized breed.
Scotch Collie Scotland The Rough Collie was bred from the Scotch Collie landrace.[51]
St. John's water dog Newfoundland, Canada Served as the foundational stock for a number of purpose-bred dogs, such as the Labrador Retriever, Chesapeake Bay Retriever, Cape Shore Water Dog, and Newfoundland.
Saluki Fertile Crescent

Goats

[edit]

Some standardized breeds that are derived from landraces include the Dutch Landrace, Swedish Landrace and Finnish Landrace goats. The Danish Landrace is a modern mix of three different breeds, one of which was a "Landrace"-named breed.

Name Species Origin Description
British primitive goat British Isles Dates to the Neolithic era and possibly has existed as feral herds continuously since that time.
Icelandic goat Iceland Can be dated to the Icelandic Age of Settlement and the population is presumed to have been genetically isolated for nearly the entirety of that time period
Spanish goat Spain This landrace survives in larger numbers in the American South as the "brush goat" or "scrub goat", among other names than in Spain.

Sheep

[edit]
Name Species Origin Description
Barbados Blackbelly Barbados
Icelandic sheep Iceland
Shetland sheep Shetland Isles, Scotland
Spælsau sheep Norway Dates to the Iron Age
Welsh mountain sheep Wales

Horses

[edit]

The wild progenitor of the domestic horse is extinct.[10] It is rare for landraces among domestic horses to remain isolated, due to human use of horses for transportation, thus causing horses to move from one local population to another.

The heavy 'draft' type of domestic horse, developed in Europe, has differentiated into many separate landraces or breeds.[citation needed] Examples of horse landraces also include insular populations in Greece and Indonesia, and, on a broader scale, New World populations derived from the founder stock of Colonial Spanish horse.[10]

The Yakutian and Mongolian Horses of Asia have "unimproved" characteristics.[53]

Name Species Origin Description
Icelandic horse[10] Iceland
Newfoundland pony Newfoundland
Shetland pony Shetland

Pigs

[edit]

The standardized swine breeds named "Landrace" are often not actually landraces or derived from landraces. The Danish Landrace pig breed, pedigreed in 1896 from an actual local landrace, is the principal ancestor of the American Landrace (1930s). In this way, the Swedish Landrace is derived from the Danish and from other Scandinavian breeds, as is the British Landrace breed.

Name Species Origin Description
Baudin pig Kangaroo Island, South Australia Once a feral landrace, it is now extinct in the wild.
Mulefoot pig[10] The Mulefoot pig originated as a landrace, but has been standardized since the early 1900s.
Lindröd pig Skåne, Sweden The breed originates from a population at Skånes Djurpark, that was found on Linderödsåsen in the 1950s. It is thought to be the last remaining population of an older breed of pigs kept in the deciduous forests of southern Sweden.[54]

Chicken

[edit]
Name Species Origin Description
Danish hen Denmark
Icelandic chicken Iceland
Jærhøns Norway
Swedish flower hen Sweden
Shetland hen Scotland

Ducks

[edit]
Name Species Origin Description
Swedish Blue duck Sweden A modern breed of the same name is derived from the landrace.

Geese

[edit]

Many standardized goose breeds named "Landrace", e.g. the Twente Landrace goose, are not actually true landraces, but may be derived from them.

Name Species Origin Description
Pilgrim goose New England This landrace is associated with the Mayflower Pilgrims of Plymouth Colony, and has also been standardised as a formal breed since 1939. It is thought to descend from western European stock dating of the 17th century.[55]

Rabbits

[edit]
Name Species Origin Description
Gotland rabbit Gotland This landrace is subject to conservation efforts.
Mellerud rabbit Sweden This landrace is subject to conservation efforts.

See also

[edit]
See also: Category:Dog landraces

References

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

Landrace

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A landrace is a domesticated variety of or animal that has evolved over generations in a specific ecogeographical , developing locally adapted traits through , farmer preferences, and minimal human intervention, resulting in high rather than the uniformity of formally bred cultivars or breeds. Unlike standardized breeds, which undergo directed artificial selection for fixed phenotypes, landraces maintain broad that confers resilience to environmental stresses, pests, and diseases, making them critical reservoirs for crop improvement and . Examples include traditional crop varieties like Italian ecotypes of squash and melons, which exhibit adaptations to regional soils and without reliance on modern inputs. Landraces face threats from agricultural intensification and hybridization with commercial strains, underscoring their value in preserving adaptive genetic material amid climate variability and biotic pressures. In plant agriculture, landraces represent intermediate forms between wild progenitors and elite cultivars, shaped by recurrent cycles of sowing, harvesting, and reselection in low-input systems, which foster polygenic adaptations superior to those engineered in laboratories for uniform yield. For animals, such as heritage pig or dog populations, landraces similarly embody ecotype-specific vigor, with heterozygosity enabling survival in marginal habitats where inbred breeds falter. Their defining characteristics—genetic variability, phenotypic plasticity, and absence of pedigree registration—position landraces as foundational to domestication histories, yet often undervalued in favor of high-output hybrids that risk genetic erosion. Conservation efforts emphasize in situ maintenance to harness this latent diversity for breeding resilient varieties against evolving pathogens and erratic weather, countering the vulnerabilities exposed in monoculture-dependent systems.

Definition and Characteristics

Core Definition and Distinctions

A landrace constitutes a dynamic, genetically heterogeneous of a domesticated or animal adapted to a specific geographic or through prolonged exposure to local environmental pressures and informal human selection practices, rather than controlled breeding. These populations emerge from traditional or husbandry, where farmers or herders retain diverse individuals exhibiting superior fitness in , resulting in conspicuous intra- and inter-population variation that buffers against biotic and abiotic stresses. Empirical studies, such as reciprocal transplant experiments with (Zea mays) landraces, demonstrate this local , where native populations outperform non-local ones in yield and metrics under habitat-specific conditions like altitude or levels. Landraces differ fundamentally from formal cultivars in plants or standardized breeds in animals, which arise from deliberate, often laboratory-assisted selection for uniformity, yield maximization, or aesthetic traits, frequently at the expense of genetic diversity. Cultivars, registered under the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, emphasize phenotypic consistency via clonal propagation or hybrid vigor, whereas landraces maintain polymorphism through open pollination or unmanaged mating, preserving adaptive alleles without pedigree tracking. In animals, landraces contrast with breeds by lacking closed registries or conformational standards imposed by kennel clubs or breed associations; for instance, porcine landraces like the Ossabaw hog exhibit broad morphological variability tied to foraging in semi-feral island conditions, unlike the uniform Large White breed selected for intensive confinement. They are also distinct from wild progenitors or feral populations, as landraces bear hallmarks of domestication—such as reduced in or docility in animals—while retaining evolutionary openness absent in fully escapes, which revert toward wild phenotypes without sustained human influence. This heterogeneity equips landraces as reservoirs of allelic diversity for resilience, as evidenced by highland variants showing convergent genomic signatures for cold tolerance across independent origins.

Genetic and Phenotypic Traits

Landraces are distinguished by their high , which arises from minimal artificial selection and ongoing within local populations, resulting in a broad allelic base compared to modern inbred varieties. This diversity is evidenced by elevated heterozygosity and polymorphism levels, as observed in landraces where extensive exploitation has revealed untapped genetic resources for traits like yield and stress tolerance. Genetic studies of landraces demonstrate structured variation, with core collections preserving unique alleles associated with adaptation to regional edaphic and climatic conditions. Phenotypically, landraces exhibit substantial intra- and inter-population variation in traits such as morphology, , and productivity, reflecting local selective pressures rather than uniformity. For instance, European maize landraces show diverse ear and plant architectures adapted to varying latitudes and altitudes, with phenotypic evaluations confirming correlations between genetic markers and adaptive traits like flowering time and kernel hardness. In chickpea landraces from historic collections, phenotyping alongside highlights variation in seed size, pod morphology, and resistance, underscoring their role as reservoirs for polygenic local adaptations. This genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity enables landraces to maintain resilience against environmental stressors, with studies in and revealing heritable traits for and nutrient efficiency that outperform some elite lines under marginal conditions. However, such variability often translates to lower mean yields under optimized management compared to hybridized cultivars, a attributable to the retention of deleterious alleles in diverse populations.

Mechanisms of Local Adaptation

Local adaptation in landraces arises primarily through acting on heritable variation, favoring genotypes that confer higher fitness in specific environmental conditions such as altitude, , temperature regimes, and pressures. In reciprocal transplant experiments with landraces from highland and lowland regions of , highland populations exhibited 20-30% higher survival and yield when grown in their native high-altitude habitats compared to lowland counterparts, demonstrating genotype-by-environment interactions driven by selection for traits like cold tolerance and shorter growing seasons. Similar patterns occur in other crop landraces, where divergent selection pressures maintain phenotypic differences, such as resistance in varieties from arid African regions or tolerance in landraces from Andean highlands. These adaptations often rely on standing genetic variation rather than de novo mutations, as evidenced by genome-wide association studies identifying shared alleles across independently adapted populations. Human-mediated selection complements natural processes by imposing artificial selection for traits aligned with local agricultural practices and needs, including harvest timing, storage quality, and resistance to regional pests. Farmers unconsciously select for these attributes through and replanting from successful harvests, as seen in traditional management of landraces in the Mediterranean, where ongoing selection has preserved alleles for nutrient efficiency and yield stability under variable rainfall. In animal landraces, such as heritage breeds in isolated European valleys, herders have selected for traits like efficiency in marginal pastures and resilience, resulting in genetic signatures of recent positive selection at loci related to and fat metabolism. This dual selection—natural and anthropogenic—operates over generations, with human intervention accelerating adaptation to managed environments while refines responses to uncontrolled biotic and abiotic stressors. Genetic mechanisms underlying these adaptations frequently involve polygenic traits controlled by multiple quantitative trait loci (QTLs), where small-effect accumulate under selection, as opposed to single major genes. In highland landraces, convergent to low temperatures has been linked to parallel changes in for biosynthesis and flowering time, with allele frequencies diverging predictably along environmental gradients. is typically limited by geographic isolation or cultural practices restricting seed/animal exchange, preserving local allele frequencies against homogenizing migration; however, occasional from wild relatives can introduce novel adaptive variants. in small, founder populations of landraces can fix locally beneficial alleles stochastically, but empirical studies indicate selection dominates, as neutral models fail to explain observed fitness differences. Epistatic interactions among loci further fine-tune , landraces to exploit niche combinations of environmental cues not replicable in uniform breeding programs.

Historical Origins

Early Domestication Events

The domestication of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) into the domestic dog (Canis familiaris) represents the earliest documented event, with ancient DNA and archaeological evidence supporting an initial divergence between 15,000 and 40,000 years ago among Eurasian hunter-gatherer populations, predating sedentary agriculture. This process likely arose from commensal scavenging around human camps, followed by selective breeding for traits like reduced aggression and enhanced social bonding, as evidenced by cranial morphology changes in fossils from sites like Bonn-Oberkassel in Germany (dated ~14,700 years ago). In the of the , plant commenced around 11,000 years ago during the early , coinciding with the retreat of the Pleistocene glaciers and the period (ca. 10,500–9,500 BCE). Key species included einkorn wheat (Triticum monococcum), emmer wheat (T. dicoccum), and (Hordeum vulgare), with archaeobotanical remains from sites like and Abu Hureyra showing non-shattering rachises—genetic traits fixed through human selection for harvest efficiency—emerging gradually over millennia rather than abruptly. such as lentils (Lens culinaris) and peas (Pisum sativum) followed, supported by increased and intensified wild harvesting that shifted wild progenitors' evolutionary pressures toward domesticated forms. Concurrently, animal domestication in the same region targeted herd species, with goats (Capra aegagrus) managed by ~10,500 BCE at sites like in , evidenced by age-at-death profiles indicating selective culling for meat and milk rather than hunting. Sheep (Ovis orientalis) domestication occurred shortly after, around 10,000 BCE, while aurochs (Bos primigenius) were domesticated into by ~9,000 BCE, as shown by analyses tracing lineages to distinct Near Eastern wild populations. These events, driven by climatic stabilization and population pressures, laid the genetic foundations for subsequent landrace diversification through local and .

Evolution Under Human and Natural Selection

Landraces emerge as distinct varieties following initial domestication events, shaped by the interplay of artificial selection imposed by humans and driven by local environmental pressures. In the early phases of domestication, humans exerted strong for key agronomic traits, such as non-shattering seed heads in cereals or reduced bitterness in tubers, facilitating and . This process, occurring over —e.g., domestication in the around 10,000 years ago—transitioned wild progenitors into proto-crops capable of sustained cultivation. Subsequent evolution into landraces involved weaker, ongoing artificial selection for locally preferred qualities like yield under traditional farming or palatability, often through and informal breeding by farmers. Natural selection further differentiates landraces by favoring genotypes resilient to site-specific challenges, including composition, variability, pests, and pathogens, over periods spanning hundreds to thousands of years. For instance, in landraces collected across temporal gradients in , genomic scans reveal signatures of to abiotic stresses like and flooding, alongside human-mediated traits such as photoperiod sensitivity for synchronized harvesting. Isolation in rural populations with limited —due to geographic barriers or cultural practices—amplifies this divergence, preserving heterozygosity while purging maladaptive alleles. In animals, such as heritage or sheep breeds, acts on traits like hardiness to scarcity or resistance, complementing human choices for traits like quality or maternal instincts. This co-evolutionary dynamic results in landraces exhibiting higher adaptive potential than modern inbred varieties, as evidenced by their retention of standing for responses to fluctuating conditions. Empirical studies confirm that while artificial selection narrows genetic bases for uniformity, counterbalances this by promoting heterogeneity suited to microhabitats, as seen in century-scale shifts toward homogeneity in some crops yet persistent local adaptations. Over time, migration via or exchange introduces novel alleles, but predominant stasis in traditional systems fosters the stable, evolved profiles characteristic of landraces.

Terminology and Classification

Standard Definitions

A landrace is commonly defined in agricultural and biological contexts as a locally adapted variety of a domesticated or animal that has developed over time through and informal human management, rather than through systematic breeding programs. This definition emphasizes and evolutionary dynamism within a specific ecogeographical , where populations maintain distinct identities tied to historical origins and environmental pressures. For cultivated , a widely cited describes a landrace as "a dynamic population(s) of a cultivated that has historical origin, distinct identity and lacks formal improvement, as well as often being genetically heterogeneous and with the capacity to evolve." In literature, landraces are distinguished from modern cultivars by their lack of and reliance on open-pollination or natural reproduction, resulting in populations that exhibit high intra-varietal diversity adapted to local , , and pest conditions. This adaptation occurs without artificial selection for uniform traits, preserving alleles that confer resilience, such as in landraces from arid regions. For animal landraces, definitions parallel those for plants, portraying them as populations shaped by geographic isolation and functional selection for traits like hardiness or productivity in low-input systems, as seen in traditional or sheep breeds. These definitions underscore landraces' role as repositories of , evolved under causal forces of natural and anthropogenic selection, rather than engineered uniformity. Empirical studies validate this through observations of higher heterozygosity and local fitness in landraces compared to inbred modern lines. Variations in terminology arise from disciplinary focus—botanical sources stress , while zoological ones highlight breed-like adaptation—but core elements of locality, informality, and heterogeneity remain consistent across peer-reviewed accounts.

Autochthonous vs. Allochthonous Landraces

Autochthonous landraces are those that have evolved and persisted within their native geographic and agricultural systems over extended periods, typically centuries or millennia, through continuous farmer selection and environmental pressures specific to that locale. This long-term development results in varieties highly attuned to local soil, climate, and pest conditions, often originating near centers of . For instance, Tuxpeño maize from the region in exemplifies an autochthonous landrace, shaped by indigenous farming practices without significant external genetic influx. Such landraces exhibit reflecting cumulative adaptations, as defined by Zeven (1998), where prolonged cultivation in the same farming system fosters equilibrium between , selection, and drift. In contrast, allochthonous landraces arise from the relatively recent introduction of crop varieties or progenitor populations from distant regions, followed by to the new environment via farmer-mediated selection. These may be classified as primary allochthonous if derived from wild or semi-domesticated forms brought to a novel area, or secondary if stemming from established landraces of foreign origin. An example is (runner bean) in , introduced from its American center of origin and subsequently localized through cultivation. Allochthonous types often retain traces of their exogenous genetic background while acquiring partial local , potentially introducing novel alleles beneficial for breeding but with less entrenched resilience to endemic stresses compared to autochthonous counterparts. The distinction carries implications for conservation and utilization: autochthonous landraces are prioritized for preserving irreplaceable local adaptations and hotspots, whereas allochthonous ones highlight dynamic in historical , complicating pure categorization due to undocumented migrations and hybridization. Empirical genomic studies underscore this, revealing that apparent autochthony can mask ancient introductions, urging assessments based on genetic structure rather than solely historical records. Nonetheless, both types underscore landraces' role as dynamic populations under human-natural selection, with autochthonous forms often embodying deeper co-evolutionary histories. The term landrace is distinct from related concepts such as , which denotes wild populations adapted to local environments through without human cultivation, whereas landraces emerge under and management. Similarly, refers to uniform, stabilized varieties developed via intentional breeding to meet regulatory standards like those of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), contrasting with the and ongoing characteristic of landraces. varieties overlap as unselected landraces preserved over generations with limited external , often valued for historical continuity rather than active adaptation. The concept originated with K. von Rümker's 1908 introduction of the term in a German agricultural journal, framing landraces as varieties evolved locally without deliberate selection for systematic and practical use. Early refinements extended to by E. Mayr in 1937, emphasizing geographic isolation and adaptation. By 1998, A.C. Zeven formalized plant-specific definitions, distinguishing autochthonous landraces—long-term local adaptations resilient to environmental variability and —from allochthonous ones introduced externally but potentially acclimating over time. Subsequent works, including Villa et al. (2005) and Negri et al. (2009), shifted focus from static, traditional origins to farmer-maintained diversity irrespective of breeding methods. Contemporary understandings, informed by genomic evidence of dynamic and (e.g., from hybrids), view landraces as evolving entities shaped by , cultural practices, and even modern tools like molecular markers, challenging preservationist notions of immutability. This evolution reflects broader insights into as a continuum, where landraces bridge wild progenitors and elite cultivars, retaining adaptive potential amid agricultural intensification since the mid-20th century.

Scientific Foundations

Genetic Heterogeneity and Diversity

Landraces are defined by their genetic heterogeneity, encompassing dynamic populations with substantial intra-varietal variation in alleles and genotypes, which contrasts sharply with the genetic uniformity imposed by modern breeding practices that prioritize elite lines for yield stability and mechanization. This heterogeneity manifests as elevated polymorphism levels within populations, enabling resilience to fluctuating environmental stresses, pests, and diseases through standing genetic variation rather than reliance on singular adaptive traits. Empirical assessments, such as those using SNP genotyping in tomato, demonstrate that landraces retain higher heterozygosity and nucleotide diversity than derived cultivars, reflecting minimal artificial selection bottlenecks. Quantitative genetic studies across crops underscore this diversity; for example, in , genome-wide analyses reveal landraces possessing broader allelic diversity and lower genetic differentiation (G_ST values around 0.12) compared to cultivars (G_ST ≈ 0.17), indicative of higher and less structured populations in landraces. Similarly, landraces exhibit geographically patterned heterogeneity, with multiple ancestral contributions traceable via whole-genome sequencing, preserving adaptive variants lost in homogenized breeding programs. In , agro-morphological and trait evaluations confirm inherent within-landrace variability, with heterogeneous accessions outperforming uniform ones in nutrient content and yield components under diverse conditions. This genetic mosaic extends to landraces, where populations like indigenous breeds display elevated within-breed heterozygosity—often 20-30% higher than commercial lines—supporting traits such as disease resistance and environmental tolerance, as evidenced by pedigree and analyses. Overall, such diversity, quantified through metrics like expected heterozygosity (H_e > 0.6 in many crop landraces versus <0.4 in s), positions landraces as critical reservoirs for polygenic , though ongoing erosion from cultivar displacement necessitates targeted conservation.

Evolutionary Processes and Causal Factors

Landraces arise from the coevolutionary interplay of natural and artificial selection pressures on genetically variable populations, supplemented by , recombination, and limited . Natural selection favors alleles conferring fitness advantages in specific local environments, such as tolerance to abiotic stresses like or temperature extremes and biotic factors including pathogens and pests, leading to heterogeneous adaptations across populations. In crop centers of diversity, such as Mexican highlands for , this process manifests in clinal variations along environmental gradients, where selection shifts frequencies to optimize traits like flowering time under varying and altitude. Artificial selection by farmers, through practices like and replanting of preferred phenotypes, reinforces local adaptations while introducing human-defined criteria such as yield stability, palatability, and ease of harvest, often acting in concert with but occasionally imposing trade-offs, as seen in prioritized short-term productivity over resilience to emerging stresses. This farmer-mediated process maintains elevated compared to modern cultivars by tolerating variability that supports ongoing , though formal seed systems can disrupt it by standardizing populations. Gene flow, primarily via seed exchange networks and occasional hybridization with wild relatives or introduced varieties, counteracts in smallholder systems by replenishing variation, yet geographic and cultural isolation limits excessive admixture, preserving population-specific traits. Causal factors include environmental heterogeneity driving divergent selection, management practices shaping artificial pressures, and intrinsic like polygenic trait control, which enable polyvalent responses to co-evolutionary challenges from hosts, pathogens, and climate shifts. provides short-term buffering, but sustained adaptation hinges on heritable variation avoiding negative genetic correlations that could hinder evolutionary responses to directional changes like warming.

Empirical Evidence of Adaptation

Reciprocal transplant experiments provide direct of local adaptation in landraces by comparing performance of populations grown in their native versus foreign environments. In a 2022 study on landraces from , researchers conducted reciprocal transplants across an elevational gradient spanning 1,000 to 3,200 meters, finding that local landraces exhibited significantly higher fitness, including 20-30% greater survival rates and production when grown at their origin sites compared to non-local counterparts, with home-site advantages strongest at higher elevations where environmental heterogeneity is pronounced. Similar patterns emerged in landraces from , where multi-location field trials across diverse agroecologies from 2018-2020 demonstrated that locally adapted varieties resisted diseases like anthracnose and more effectively, yielding up to 25% higher grain output under site-specific stresses than introduced lines. Field trials on marginal soils further substantiate through enhanced resource acquisition and stress tolerance. For instance, ancient landraces from the , tested in 2018 alkaline sandy field conditions, acquired 2-3 times more efficiently than modern cultivars, leading to 40-50% greater and yield despite low , an outcome linked to architecture and mycorrhizal associations evolved under chronic nutrient limitation. In bread landraces evaluated in 2021-2022 low-input trials across European sites, indigenous varieties maintained stable yields (averaging 4-5 tons/ha) under reduced fertilization and regimes, outperforming elite cultivars by 15-20% in protein content and resistance, reflecting historical selection for abiotic and biotic resilience. Genomic analyses corroborate phenotypic evidence by identifying loci under selection tied to environmental variables. A 2024 study on European landraces revealed clines correlating with and gradients, with outlier genes enriched for and flowering time pathways, explaining 10-15% of adaptive divergence via whole-genome sequencing of 1,000+ accessions. In , environmental association mapping of 753 landraces in 2025 identified polygenic scores for local to aridity and , validated by predictive modeling that improved yield forecasts by 12% in climate-variable simulations. These findings, drawn from high-density , highlight causal genetic mechanisms rather than mere drift, though can dilute signals in some populations.

Biodiversity Value and Conservation

Role in Maintaining Genetic Resources

Landraces serve as dynamic repositories of genetic diversity in crop species, harboring alleles for traits such as disease resistance, tolerance, and nutritional quality that are often absent or diminished in modern elite cultivars. Unlike uniform hybrid varieties, landraces maintain high levels of heterozygosity and polymorphism due to their development under diverse, low-input farming conditions, thereby counteracting from intensive breeding practices that prioritize yield over variability. This diversity is essential for long-term agricultural resilience, as landraces encapsulate adaptations honed over centuries of natural and farmer-mediated selection in specific agroecological niches. In programs, landraces have been instrumental in introducing novel genetic material to enhance performance; for instance, landraces from regions like the and have supplied quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for improved yield stability and stress tolerance, enabling the development of varieties that outperform predecessors in diverse environments. Similarly, cereal landraces, including those of and , provide genes for biotic resistances, such as to rusts and Fusarium head blight, and abiotic tolerances like and , with studies documenting their use in over 20% of recent stress-adaptive breeding efforts in major staples. These contributions underscore landraces' role not merely as static archives but as active sources for , where targeted crosses and genomic selection amplify their utility in addressing emerging challenges like climate variability. Conservation efforts leverage landraces to sustain global genetic resources, with ex situ collections in genebanks—such as the over 800,000 accessions held by institutions like the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center—preserving landrace variants against , while on-farm maintenance allows ongoing with local pathogens and climates. This dual approach mitigates the loss of approximately 75% of crop genetic diversity since the mid-20th century, driven by the dominance of high-yielding hybrids, ensuring a broad allelic base for future innovations in . Empirical assessments confirm that landrace-derived populations exhibit 1.5 to 2 times greater allelic richness than derived modern lines, validating their prioritization in strategies.

In Situ and Ex Situ Strategies

In situ conservation of landraces involves maintaining through ongoing cultivation by farmers in their original agroecosystems, allowing continued adaptation via and human management. This approach preserves dynamic evolutionary processes, including responses to local environmental pressures such as pests, diseases, and climate variability, which static storage cannot replicate. Empirical studies, such as those on common bean () landraces, demonstrate that strategies sustain higher levels of adaptive alleles compared to isolated ex situ samples, though they require supportive policies to counter risks like varietal replacement by uniform hybrids. For instance, in centers of like the for potatoes or for enset, farmer-led propagation has maintained hundreds of landraces, with surveys showing 20-50% of fields dedicated to diverse varieties for risk buffering against crop failure. Challenges include socio-economic pressures, with abandonment rates exceeding 10% annually in some regions due to market incentives favoring high-yield monocultures. Ex situ conservation, conversely, entails off-site storage in gene banks, seed vaults, or botanical gardens, where landrace accessions are preserved as dormant samples under controlled conditions to safeguard against immediate threats like habitat loss. Globally, over 7.4 million accessions, including landraces, are held in more than 1,750 , with coverage for 25 major crops averaging 56% completeness for landrace groups as of 2022, though varying widely—e.g., 89% for hulled versus under 20% for some tropical fruits. Institutions like the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) store wheat landraces regenerated every 10-20 years to maintain viability above 85%, providing access to traits like derived from historical varieties. Limitations include during regeneration and incomplete representation, as only 54% of crop wild relatives and landraces in some assessments have sufficient duplicates for redundancy. Complementary integration of both strategies is advocated by organizations like the (FAO), which in 2019 issued voluntary guidelines emphasizing as primary for ongoing adaptation while using ex situ for backups, targeting at least two secure duplicates per landrace. Evidence from red clover trials shows minimal between in situ fields and ex situ regenerations over five years, supporting hybrid approaches that enhance overall resilience, though gaps persist: only 40% of taxa in protected areas for in situ and 8% with robust ex situ collections exceeding 50 accessions. Effective implementation demands incentives like subsidies for custodian farmers and standardized protocols to bridge the two, as standalone in situ efforts falter without ex situ safety nets amid accelerating climate shifts.

Challenges in Cereal and Other Crop Preservation

Genetic erosion represents a primary challenge in the preservation of landraces, characterized by the accelerated loss of within farmer fields due to the widespread replacement of diverse landraces with genetically uniform modern cultivars. Empirical syntheses of over 100 years of indicate that more than 96% of studies document temporal changes in , with over 86% evidencing declines, particularly in landraces of staples like , , and . In 's center of origin in , longitudinal field surveys from the 1980s to 2010s revealed significant , with landrace populations contracting by up to 60% in some areas as farmers shifted to hybrid varieties for higher yields under intensified . This diminishes adaptive traits such as and pest resistance, which are unevenly distributed across landrace populations. Replacement by improved cultivars, driven by the Green Revolution's emphasis on yield maximization since the , exacerbates in cereals, as smallholder farmers prioritize short-term productivity over long-term diversity maintenance. In regions like the , assessments of and landraces show on-farm diversity declining by 20-30% over two decades, correlated with the adoption of uniform varieties from national breeding programs that overlook local adaptations. Lack of economic incentives further compounds this, as market premiums for landrace grains remain negligible compared to subsidized hybrids, leading to abandonment of traditional systems. and overexploitation, including excessive harvesting and grazing on marginal lands where landraces persist, accelerate the process, with studies estimating annual losses of 1-2% in global hotspots. Climate change poses an additional threat by disrupting the co-evolutionary fit between landraces and local environments, prompting shifts away from varieties adapted to historical conditions. Projections from FAO analyses suggest that rising temperatures and erratic precipitation could drive further erosion, with landraces in centers of diversity facing up to 20% additional diversity loss by 2050 without intervention, as seen in preliminary data from fields in . For other crops, such as and root vegetables, similar dynamics prevail but are intensified by shorter generation times and higher susceptibility to pests; for instance, landraces in the exhibit genetic narrowing from viral pressures and varietal displacement, mirroring patterns but with faster rates due to vegetative propagation vulnerabilities. Contamination risks from pollen flow of , though not directly eroding landraces, undermine by eroding farmer confidence in purity, particularly in cross-pollinating like . Preservation efforts face institutional hurdles, including insufficient integration of molecular characterization to track rates, with many genebanks holding incomplete representations of landrace variability. frameworks often favor ex situ storage over on-farm maintenance, yet empirical underscore that strategies are essential for dynamic , though they falter without supportive for farmer incentives. In cereals, where uniformity in breeding pipelines has narrowed the genetic base since the , reversing requires causal interventions like diversified seed systems, but adoption lags due to entrenched agricultural paradigms prioritizing monocultures.

Role in Modern Agriculture

Contributions to Breeding and Cultivar Development

Landraces provide essential for breeding programs, supplying alleles for pest and resistance, , and efficiency that have been eroded in narrowly selected modern through repeated and hybridization. This diversity arises from landraces' heterogeneous populations, shaped by local selection pressures over generations, enabling breeders to introgress adaptive traits via or genomic tools. Empirical studies confirm landraces exhibit higher allelic richness than lines; for example, landraces display greater polymorphism for stress-related loci compared to advanced breeding materials. In , landraces have directly contributed to cultivars with improved yield stability and biotic resistance, with breeders utilizing their meta-populations—formed through farmer exchanges since antiquity—to counter vulnerabilities in uniform varieties. landraces, such as those from , have supplied genetic donors for hybrid development, where seven accessions yielded comparably to checks across diverse environments in trials conducted through 2025, enhancing without yield penalties. Similarly, landraces reintroduce lost diversity for net blotch resistance, with varying gene effect sizes identified via , allowing targeted pyramiding into commercial lines. These incorporations have boosted abiotic tolerance, as landraces contribute genes for efficient uptake, documented in field evaluations showing 10-20% better performance under low-fertility soils. Animal landraces similarly bolster breeding by restoring robustness lost in high-production breeds; for instance, traditional pig and sheep landraces provide alleles for disease resistance and foraging efficiency, integrated into programs to mitigate in commercial herds. Their high variability supports crossbreeding for environmental adaptability, as seen in efforts to hybridize indigenous landraces with exotics, yielding offspring with 15-25% higher survival rates in marginal pastures per FAO-documented trials. Overall, landraces' role extends to pre-breeding pipelines, where genomic selection on diverse pools accelerates trait fixation, though challenges persist in linkage drag from undesirable traits.

Comparisons with Hybrids and GM Varieties

Landraces possess higher levels of than hybrid varieties, which are selectively bred for uniformity and targeted traits such as yield potential, leading to narrower genetic bases in hybrids that limit their evolutionary adaptability. This diversity in landraces arises from ongoing natural and farmer-mediated selection, enabling populations to maintain heterogeneous traits suited to variable local conditions, whereas hybrids rely on first-generation for vigor that diminishes in subsequent plantings, necessitating annual seed repurchase from breeders. In adaptation to abiotic stresses, landraces often outperform hybrids in marginal or fluctuating environments; for instance, empirical assessments in show landraces exhibiting greater and yield consistency compared to elite hybrids under water-limited scenarios. Hybrids, optimized for high-input monocultures, demonstrate superior performance in uniform, favorable conditions due to hybrid vigor, but their stability declines in heterogeneous fields where landraces' intra-population variability buffers against environmental shocks, as evidenced by farmer surveys reporting 62% preference for landraces' reliability in local stressors like . Productivity comparisons reveal hybrids generally surpassing landraces in average yield under controlled, irrigated systems—for example, commercial hybrids outyield landraces by leveraging heterotic effects—yet landraces provide more consistent output in low-input or adverse settings, reducing vulnerability to biotic and abiotic failures. This stability stems from landraces' capacity for ongoing adaptation via and selection, contrasting hybrids' static performance post-F1 generation. Genetically modified (GM) varieties, engineered for precise traits like pest resistance or herbicide tolerance, achieve yield gains in specific contexts, such as increased maize productivity under higher rainfall, but often require complementary agronomic inputs that heighten farmer dependency and environmental costs. Unlike landraces' broad-spectrum resilience derived from polygenic adaptations, GM crops target monogenic traits, potentially amplifying yields by 10-20% in Bt or herbicide-tolerant maize but risking transgene escape into landrace gene pools via cross-pollination, which could homogenize diversity and introduce unintended fitness costs. Empirical monitoring in maize centers like Mexico highlights detection challenges and gene flow risks, underscoring landraces' role as biodiversity reservoirs vulnerable to GM contamination.
AspectLandracesHybridsGM Varieties
Genetic DiversityHigh, heterogeneous populations enabling local Low, uniform for trait fixationLow, focused on inserted transgenes amid elite backgrounds
Yield PotentialStable but lower in optimal conditions; superior in stressHigh via in F1, declines thereafterElevated for targeted traits (e.g., +13% in GM maize), input-dependent
Stress ResilienceBroad tolerance to , pests via evolved variabilityCondition-specific; less stable in marginsTrait-specific (e.g., Bt for insects); potential for escape risks
SustainabilityLow-input, seed-saving viable; preserves agrobiodiversityInput-reliant; annual repurchase requiredReduces certain pesticides but risks to wild/landrace relatives
Data drawn from multi-crop syntheses, with exemplars showing hybrids/GM yields 20-50% above landraces in high-fertility trials but converging under stress. Landraces thus complement hybrids and GM by supplying novel alleles for , mitigating uniformity-driven vulnerabilities in breeding programs.

Economic Impacts and Productivity Data

Landraces typically yield lower grain outputs than modern hybrid varieties under high-input, favorable conditions, reflecting their to local stresses rather than maximized productivity in uniform environments. For instance, in , modern varieties have demonstrated yields up to 56% higher than landraces under optimal management. Similarly, in bread trials conducted in from 2013 to 2015 under low-input , landraces averaged 1.55 to 2.65 tons per , compared to 3.24 tons per for commercial cultivars. However, landraces exhibit greater yield stability and reduced performance penalties under abiotic stresses like or in organic systems; landraces showed only a 22.5% yield drop in organic conditions versus 45% for modern varieties. These productivity differences carry direct economic implications, as landraces often require fewer external such as fertilizers and pesticides, lowering production costs for resource-constrained farmers. In and studies across and , landraces matched or exceeded modern varieties' yields under , enabling sustained output without investments. For smallholders, this translates to risk buffering against market and volatility; in Chinese rice systems, 62% of farmers favored landraces for reliable yields over modern varieties, which boosted output but rarely increased due to higher and input expenses (only 4% reported gains). landraces, in particular, support subsistence outside global commodity chains, mitigating labor and capital constraints. Indirectly, landraces underpin long-term economic gains through breeding contributions, with traits like disease resistance and stress tolerance incorporated into high-yielding cultivars during events such as the , which displaced landraces but amplified global productivity via semi-dwarf and hybrid . In developing regions, landraces persist on substantial acreage—40% of , 15% of , and 10% of areas as of the —sustaining local economies via diverse outputs for , , and niche markets, though their erosion risks future innovation rents. Empirical valuations of these genetic resources highlight producer and consumer welfare benefits from diversity-driven yield advances, estimated in billions annually, though farmers rarely capture full value from conserved traits.
CropLandrace Yield (t/ha)Modern Yield (t/ha)ConditionsLocation/Study Context
1.55–2.653.24Low-input/organic, 2013–2015 trials
Variable (stress-stable)Up to 56% higherOptimal vs. stress, reviews
Stable under variabilityHigher but input-dependentFarmer surveys, market-oriented fields

Controversies and Debates

Preservation vs. Modernization Trade-offs

The replacement of landraces with modern hybrid varieties has driven substantial yield gains in major crops, such as a 25%–30% increase in productivity in compared to traditional open-pollinated varieties, enabling expanded food production to support . These improvements stem from effects in hybrids, which enhance vigor, uniformity, and resistance to specific pests or diseases through targeted breeding, facilitating mechanized farming and reducing labor costs. However, this modernization process often results in the displacement of landraces, contributing to as farmers prioritize higher-yielding cultivars over locally adapted populations. Preservation of landraces counters this by safeguarding , which empirical studies link to enhanced resilience against abiotic stresses like , , and , as well as biotic threats from pests and pathogens that may evolve under . For instance, certain landraces in stress-prone environments have demonstrated yields comparable to or exceeding those of hybrids under water-limited conditions, underscoring their value as buffers against yield volatility. Yet, economic incentives favor modernization, with smallholder farmers often abandoning landraces due to lower short-term and market premiums for hybrids, exacerbating on-farm diversity loss documented in regions like Mexico's maize centers. Debates persist on the severity of these trade-offs, with some analyses arguing that is overstated or mitigated by modern breeding practices that incorporate landrace traits into elite , stabilizing diversity within commercial cultivars rather than causing net decline. Critics of preservation efforts highlight opportunity costs, noting that conserving low-yield landraces on productive lands diverts resources from intensification needed to meet global food demands projected to rise 50% by 2050. Proponents counter that over-reliance on narrow genetic bases in modern varieties heightens systemic risks, as evidenced by historical vulnerabilities like the 1970 U.S. corn , and advocate hybrid strategies integrating landrace conservation with breeding to balance productivity and adaptability. Empirical assessments of on-farm projects reveal variable success, where trade-offs between maintenance and livelihood improvements depend on policy support for seed systems and .

GMO Integration and Contamination Risks

Unintended gene flow from genetically modified (GM) crops to landraces occurs primarily through cross-pollination in outcrossing species or seed admixture during storage and planting, leading to the integration of transgenes into landrace populations. In crops like maize, which exhibit high outcrossing rates of up to 10-20% within fields, pollen dispersal can extend kilometers, facilitating transgene escape even without direct planting of GM varieties nearby. This process challenges the genetic integrity of landraces, which rely on their distinct, locally adapted allele combinations for resilience traits such as drought tolerance or pest resistance. Empirical evidence of such contamination is documented in maize landraces from Mexico, a center of crop origin where transgenic maize has not been commercially approved for cultivation. A 2001 study detected the CaMV 35S promoter and Bt CryI endotoxin sequences in landraces sampled from Oaxaca in 2000, indicating introgression likely from imported GM grain used as food or seed. Follow-up analyses confirmed transgenes in some populations, though detection rates varied (0-5% in certain fields), with challenges including low transgene frequencies, degradation of DNA in stored samples, and methodological sensitivities in PCR assays. Similar gene flow has been observed in other crops, such as rice to wild relatives via pollen, and cotton where GM varieties contaminate non-GM germplasm through cross-pollination. The risks to landrace conservation include potential erosion of non-transgenic , as integrated may spread if they confer fitness advantages (e.g., resistance) or persist neutrally, complicating ex situ preservation efforts where pure accessions are needed for breeding. In evolutionary terms, transgene frequencies in landrace populations can fluctuate based on selection pressures; for instance, without ongoing exposure or advantage, they may decline over generations, but repeated contamination events sustain presence. Critics argue that such integration undermines the value of landraces as reservoirs of unmodified diversity, particularly in hotspots, while proponents note that documented cases remain low and manageable with isolation distances or temporal staggering of planting. However, in regions with overlapping cultivation of GM imports and landraces, like Mexico's high valleys, empirical data show persistent detection risks, prompting calls for stricter import controls to prevent adventitious presence. Mitigation strategies, such as buffer zones (e.g., 200-600 meters for ), certified non-GM systems, and monitoring protocols, have been proposed but face implementation barriers in smallholder farming systems prevalent in landrace cultivation areas. Peer-reviewed assessments emphasize that while is inevitable in compatible sympatric populations, the ecological consequences depend on traits; no widespread evidence exists of transgene-driven fitness catastrophes in landraces, but the underscores monitoring in centers of diversity to safeguard irreplaceable genetic resources.

Policy, Legislation, and Farmers' Rights Issues

The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), adopted in 2001 and entering into force in 2004, establishes Farmers' Rights under Article 9 to recognize the contributions of farmers, particularly in developing and maintaining such as landraces. These rights include the protection of , participation in national decision-making on genetic resources, and, crucially, the ability to save, use, exchange, and sell farm-saved seed or propagating material, subject to national laws and without limiting breeders' rights. National governments bear the responsibility for implementing these provisions, though realization remains uneven, with limited legal enforceability and ongoing debates over balancing them against commercial seed interests. The (CBD), signed in 1992, complements these efforts by promoting the conservation and sustainable use of , including agricultural landraces as components of under Article 8(j) for and Article 15 for access and benefit-sharing. Policies derived from the CBD encourage on-farm conservation of landraces to prevent erosion, with decisions like COP16/20 in 2024 emphasizing their role in crop diversification. However, implementation often lacks specificity for landraces, prioritizing broader targets over targeted farmers' protections. Tensions arise with the UPOV Convention, particularly its 1991 revision, which strengthens breeders' rights by restricting farmers' privileges to replant protected varieties, prohibiting the exchange or sale of farm-saved seed, and limiting reuse to non-commercial purposes under optional exceptions. This framework, ratified by over 70 countries as of 2023, is criticized for undermining traditional landrace maintenance in smallholder systems, where seed saving and exchange are foundational, potentially favoring multinational seed companies over indigenous practices. Critics argue it creates uncertainty for farmers distinguishing protected from unprotected materials, while proponents claim it incentivizes innovation without fully eroding customary rights. Nationally, policies vary: some countries, such as those in under ITPGRFA obligations, pursue voluntary registration of farmers' varieties and landraces to enable public support for conservation without full IP restrictions, as outlined in FAO guidelines. In contrast, adoption of UPOV 1991-compliant laws in regions like has sparked resistance, with organizations advocating for exemptions to preserve seed sovereignty. As of 2024, only a few nations have dedicated landrace , highlighting gaps where farmers' rights to maintain genetic resources clash with trade agreements pushing IP harmonization.

Plant Landraces

Developmental Processes in Plants

Plant landraces emerge as genetically heterogeneous populations derived from domesticated progenitors, evolving under localized ecogeographical conditions through a combination of , farmer-mediated artificial selection, and . This process begins with initial events, where cultivation selects for traits such as non-shattering seeds or reduced , transitioning into early landrace forms adapted to specific agroecosystems. Over generations, these populations maintain high intra-varietal diversity, comprising breeding lines, hybrid segregates, and variants that buffer against environmental stresses like or pests. Natural selection drives adaptation by favoring genotypes resilient to local abiotic factors (e.g., , variability) and biotic pressures (e.g., pathogens, herbivores), resulting in ecotypic differentiation within the population. Concurrently, artificial selection by farmers reinforces this through recurrent harvesting and replanting of preferred phenotypes, such as yield stability or taste, without formal breeding protocols, thereby preserving polymorphism essential for ongoing evolution. , via seed exchange among communities or unintentional crossing with wild or weedy relatives, introduces novel alleles, countering and enabling rapid response to changing conditions. Mutation and sexual recombination further contribute to genetic variation, with outcrossing prevalent in many crop species (e.g., allogamous maize or wheat), sustaining the heterogeneous structure that distinguishes landraces from uniform modern cultivars. This co-evolutionary dynamic—integrating farmer practices with ecological forces—yields landraces as stable yet plastic entities, historically developed over centuries in centers of diversity like the Fertile Crescent for wheat or Mesoamerica for maize. Empirical studies confirm that such processes enhance resilience, as evidenced by landrace tolerance to stresses exceeding that of inbred lines in field trials. Unlike directed breeding, landrace development lacks pedigree tracking, relying instead on population-level selection that accumulates adaptive polygenic traits.

Key Examples Across Crop Categories

Landraces of crops exemplify adaptation to diverse agroecological niches through farmer selection and natural processes. In (Triticum spp.), Turkish landraces predominate in durum types, with approximately 60% exhibiting the hordeiforme morphotype suited to semi-arid conditions, as documented in surveys of southeastern . Ethiopian durum landraces persist due to their alignment with local culinary preferences and socio-cultural practices, preserving traits like specific qualities for traditional breads. (Oryza sativa) landraces, particularly indica subtypes, display morphological hallmarks such as heights exceeding 110 cm, elongated grains, and photoperiod sensitivity, enabling cultivation in flood-prone Asian lowlands. Examples include Indian varieties like Valiya Chennel and Thanga , valued for and aroma precursors. (Zea mays) landraces from , such as Tehua and Comiteco, reveal from historical farmer exchanges, conferring resilience to variable rainfall and soils in highland regions. (Sorghum bicolor) landraces from eastern , including Ethiopian types like Lequa and Shulkit, exhibit compact panicles and early maturity adapted to short rainy seasons. Legume landraces highlight diversity in seed traits and habits tailored to systems. Common bean () landraces, such as Caparrona from Spain's Monzón region, feature flattened pods and speckled seeds with moderate yields under low-input conditions, reflecting centuries of selection for local diets. Italian examples like Piattella Pisana maintain growth and seeds, preserving nutritional profiles superior in mineral content to modern hybrids. Root and tuber crop landraces underscore high intraspecific variation for stress tolerance. Andean potato (Solanum spp.) landraces, encompassing over 3,000 distinct types historically managed in Peru and Bolivia, demonstrate heterogeneous tuber shapes and colors enabling adaptation to altitude gradients and frost. Peruvian accessions from Pasco, such as those screened for drought, yield viable tubers under water deficits through deep rooting and dormancy traits. These varieties support community food security via dynamic on-farm propagation, with repatriated collections showing multi-year survival rates above 70% in highland plots.
Vegetable and fruit landraces often retain wild-like vigor for marginal soils. In cucurbits, landraces like zapallo plomo from Andean produce heavy, storable fruits with diverse rind patterns, adapted to short growing seasons via photoperiod insensitivity.

Animal Landraces

Developmental Processes in Animals

Animal landraces emerge from domestic animal populations subjected to localized evolutionary pressures over extended periods, typically centuries, without the structured pedigree breeding characteristic of modern breeds. These processes begin with a founder effect, where a small initial group of animals establishes a genetic baseline influenced by the limited alleles present in the founding stock. Geographic isolation then restricts gene flow from external populations, enabling the accumulation of region-specific genetic variants through drift and selection. Natural selection plays a central role by favoring alleles that enhance fitness to local environmental challenges, such as extremes, available , , and endemic pathogens. For instance, in like sheep and , genomic scans reveal selection signatures in genes associated with to high-altitude hypoxia or heat stress, reflecting differential and in harsh conditions. This results in landraces exhibiting consistent functional traits—such as hardiness, efficiency, or resistance—despite phenotypic variability exceeding that of standardized breeds. Human-mediated artificial selection, often informal and opportunistic, further shapes landraces as farmers preferentially retain animals excelling in utility traits like production, quality, or draft power suited to subsistence needs. In the case of Dutch Landrace pigs, regional breeding associations from the mid-20th century maintained distinct lines through such practices, fostering admixture from limited external sources (e.g., German, Danish, and later Norwegian influences) while preserving adaptive diversity until commercial mergers homogenized genetics. Unlike intensive modern selection, this process avoids bottlenecks, retaining heterozygosity that buffers against changing conditions. Limited , when it occurs, introduces beneficial variation but is typically curtailed by barriers like mountains or cultural practices, preventing dilution of local adaptations. Over generations, these combined forces—founder effects, isolation, and artificial selection—yield populations genetically distinct from progenitors, with elevated diversity metrics (e.g., expected heterozygosity often 10-20% higher than in elite breeds) that underpin resilience. In dogs, analogous processes distinguish landraces from contrived breeds, emphasizing survival over aesthetic fixation.

Key Examples Across Livestock Categories

In cattle, Icelandic cattle exemplify a landrace adapted to subarctic environments, descending from Viking-era imports to Iceland around 874 CE, with traits including compact size, thick winter coat, and efficient feed conversion on poor pastures, enabling survival in isolation without crossbreeding until modern times. Yakutian cattle from Siberia demonstrate extreme cold tolerance, with origins tracing to 17th-century Russian imports, featuring dense pelage, short legs for snow navigation, and metabolic adaptations for low-energy diets during prolonged winters averaging -50°C. In subtropical regions, Florida Cracker cattle, developed from Spanish imports in the 16th century, show heat resistance, parasite tolerance, and ability to thrive on wiregrass forage without supplemental feed, maintaining genetic purity through natural selection in Florida's wetlands until the 20th century. For sheep, from Scotland's Islands form a landrace shaped by 4,000 years of isolation, characterized by small stature (ewes averaging 30-40 kg), multiple births (up to five lambs), and dual-purpose -meat production suited to windy, nutrient-poor moorlands with minimal shelter needs. Gute sheep, native to Sweden's Island, evolved as a landrace over millennia from prehistoric stock, exhibiting polled variants, coarse for insulation, and foraging efficiency on rocky terrain, with populations recovering from near-extinction in the to emphasize preservation. parallel cattle adaptations in the same region, with fat tail storage for energy reserves, strong flocking behavior against predators, and yielding up to 300g annually per ewe despite harsh volcanic soils. Pig landraces include the hog from Georgia's barrier islands, derived from Spanish swine introduced in the , featuring small size (boars 90-120 kg), lard-type fat deposition for caloric efficiency, and omnivorous on acorns and roots, with high disease resistance from feral isolation. Norwegian Landrace pigs, predating modern selection, originated in fjord valleys with adaptations like hardy constitution for outdoor rearing, strong maternal instincts, and litter sizes of 10-12 piglets, suited to variable Scandinavian climates without intensive inputs. Goat examples feature the Dutch Landrace, documented since the 17th century in the , with long-haired coats for cold tolerance, polled or horned morphs, and dairy yields of 300-500 liters annually from browse-heavy diets in marginal lands, preserved through cultural isolation until population bottlenecks in the 20th century reduced numbers to under 2,000. Swedish Landrace goats, varying in black, brown, or white hues with long hair, adapted to forested Nordic environments via efficient and kidding rates of 1.5-2 per doe, maintaining genetic diversity despite low modern populations. Horses include the pony from England's region, a landrace refined over 4,000 years with prehistoric roots, boasting thick "toig" mane and tail for weather resistance, sure-footedness on , and thriftiness on gorse-heather , with minimal adult height of 11-12 hands supporting pack work in rugged terrain. Icelandic horses, imported in the , developed the unique tölting gait for energy-efficient travel, robust build against wind and rain, and parasite resistance from closed breeding laws since 982 CE prohibiting new imports. In , Finnish Landrace chickens trace to medieval imports, exhibiting diverse lineages with hens weighing 0.9-2.5 kg and high production (150-200/year) under free-range conditions, alongside for resistance and to long winters with supplemental . Danish Landrace , known since the , feature variable and body types suited to outdoor scavenging, with prolific laying and brooding instincts preserving local amid industrialization.

References

  1. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2017.00145/full
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5296298/
  3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/landrace
  4. https://colostate.pressbooks.pub/cropwildrelatives/chapter/from-wild-species-to-landraces-and-cultivars/
  5. https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/edible/vegetables/vgen/what-does-landrace-mean.htm
  6. https://irishseedsavers.ie/2024/06/19/landraces-key-to-on-farm-diversity/
  7. https://ucanr.edu/blog/under-solano-sun/article/landrace-crops-home-garden-adapted-and-tasty-new-varieties
  8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/landrace
  9. https://givinggroundseeds.com/blogs/news/what-is-a-landrace
  10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/landrace
  11. https://tcpermaculture.com/site/2014/07/26/landrace-breed-benefits/
  12. https://homesteadontherange.com/2017/05/09/what-is-a-landrace-breed/
  13. https://1000islandsmastergardeners.ca/2022/07/18/landrace-gardening/
  14. https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/PGR/PubPGR/ResourceBook/B.1.pdf
  15. https://www.nap.edu/read/1583/chapter/8
  16. https://cleveland.faculty.es.ucsb.edu/CV/2000abiofmwk.pdf
  17. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9108319/
  18. https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-are-the-differences-between-germplasm-accession-genotype-and-population-and-also-between-heirloom-and-landrace
  19. https://drwakefield.com/news-and-views/whats-the-difference-between-a-cultivar-selection-and-a-variety/
  20. https://permies.com/t/82982/words-landrace-variety-cultivar
  21. https://www.academia.edu/57493311/Landraces_and_Crop_Genetic_Improvement
  22. https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/38/9/3567/6255756
  23. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057234
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10856940/
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11201045/
  26. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-05087-5
  27. https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/66/12/3477/525347
  28. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.06.07.597898v3.full.pdf
  29. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/9/4/51
  30. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-024-02514-5
  31. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28228769/
  32. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ppp3.10521
  33. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314650048_Local_Adaptation_in_Plants
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3352380/
  35. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2406832121
  36. https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-019-0724-7
  37. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2020.00103/full
  38. https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/wolves-to-woofs-the-story-of-our-oldest-companions.html
  39. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/659307
  40. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0801317105
  41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982223005171
  42. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1323964111
  43. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982219306232
  44. https://thericejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12284-023-00633-4
  45. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2017.00125/full
  46. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adl0038
  47. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/plant-genetic-resources/article/defining-and-identifying-crop-landraces/B5E85113F2C2FB22E658AEFF287191BF
  48. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231861642_Defining_and_identifying_crop_landraces
  49. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/61116
  50. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/landrace
  51. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/landrace
  52. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10297092/
  53. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226569135_Landraces_and_folk_varieties_A_conceptual_reappraisal_of_terminology
  54. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.17733
  55. https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-14-835
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6629082/
  57. https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-015-0712-3
  58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037842902300374X
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4624815/
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3352508/
  61. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.70490
  62. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jph.70065
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6526322/
  64. https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/12/13/2561
  65. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12003830/
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9859222/
  67. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07682-9
  68. https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/10/7/1267
  69. https://www.croptrust.org/news-events/opinions/landrace-conservation-offers-hope-in-race-to-collect-crop-diversity/
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10975389/
  71. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20835753/
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11986960/
  73. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320722000131
  74. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-022-01144-8
  75. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Geographic-hotspots-for-further-collection-for-the-ex-situ-conservation-of-crop-landrace_fig4_360481900
  76. https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2135/cropsci2017.01.0014
  77. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10722-025-02337-8
  78. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/11d9a76a-6789-4acc-b846-58d340b21aca/content
  79. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2023.1233838/full
  80. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34515358/
  81. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1407033111
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7929664/
  83. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2024.1336876/full
  84. https://www.iatp.org/files/Strategies_for_the_Conservation_of_Plant_Genet.htm
  85. https://www.fao.org/3/i1500e/i1500e16.pdf
  86. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1512188717300106
  87. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9122826/
  88. https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/publications/44121/17448_eib2c_1_.pdf?v=57586
  89. https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/50600000/products-wheat/AAJ-Wheat%2520Landraces.pdf
  90. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666154325006684
  91. https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/csc2.70088
  92. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1360138515002605
  93. https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-015-2345-z
  94. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41437-021-00423-y
  95. https://ngenpub.com/index.php/ngai/article/view/ngai1212
  96. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-food-systems/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2025.1504922/full
  97. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/8/2834
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10202092/
  99. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC212689/
  100. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/2/1722
  101. https://www.ogm.org/sites/ogm.org/files/uploads/files/rapports/carpenter-impacts-of-gm-crops-on-biodiversity.pdf
  102. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10531-017-1471-0
  103. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00288233.2022.2141273
  104. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10347258/
  105. https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/publications/44121/17448_eib2c_1_.pdf
  106. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12303640/
  107. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2729414/
  108. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395025421_THE_IMPORTANCE_OF_LANDRACES_IN_THE_PRESENT_CONTEXT_OF_CLIMATE_CHANGE_IN_INDIA_A_REVIEW
  109. https://www.ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/publications/43960/52685_eib139.pdf
  110. https://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0718-58392015000100002
  111. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-food-systems/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2021.628537/full
  112. https://www.academia.edu/99253625/Genetic_erosion_by_modern_plant_breeding_fact_or_fiction
  113. https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/4/9/pgaf251/8245250
  114. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326932144_More_than_Yield_Ecosystem_Services_of_Traditional_versus_Modern_Crop_Varieties_Revisited
  115. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14735903.2014.986363
  116. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5033179/
  117. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8912564/
  118. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3001031/
  119. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S073497500900113X
  120. https://www.aloki.hu/pdf/1705_1119111208.pdf
  121. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167880907001624
  122. https://civileats.com/2023/02/23/the-field-report-mexico-corn-us-pressure-gm-glyphosate-ban-bees-pesticides-climate-pledges/
  123. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21665095.2024.2357095
  124. https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-16/cop-16-dec-20-en.pdf
  125. https://grain.org/en/article/5314-upov-91-and-other-seed-laws-a-basic-primer-on-how-companies-intend-to-control-and-monopolise-seeds
  126. https://www.apbrebes.org/sites/default/files/2024-12/Apbrebes_UPOV-War-against-Farmers_EN_241202_fin.pdf
  127. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/b6653a06-e249-4ccd-a225-385d7cef799c/content
  128. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10722-023-01824-0
  129. https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstreams/f516eff7-4439-465b-bb0d-cc2fc4e3ea78/download
  130. https://www.nap.edu/read/1583/chapter/3
  131. https://www.nap.edu/read/2116/chapter/2
  132. https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2135/cropsci2016.03.0192
  133. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3828656/
  134. https://aatcc.peerjournals.net/rice-landraces-as-a-source-of-valuable-traits-for-future-rice-breeding/
  135. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2017.00045/full
  136. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10722-023-01604-w
  137. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2018.01440/full
  138. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/2/6/837
  139. https://cabiagbio.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s43170-021-00065-4
  140. https://www.mdpi.com/2037-0164/14/4/85
  141. https://www.croptrust.org/news-events/news/revival-and-survival-of-repatriated-potato-landraces-in-the-andes/
  142. https://fleetfiretimbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/landraces.pdf
  143. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4094609/
  144. https://gsejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12711-019-0502-6
  145. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123945860000068
  146. https://www.reddit.com/r/Awwducational/comments/72l68o/shetland_sheep_are_an_example_of_a_landracea/
  147. https://breeds.okstate.edu/sheep/gute-sheep.html
  148. https://www.thepigsite.com/focus/advertiser/3659/the-different-breeds-of-swine-british-landrace-british-landrace-pig-breed-landrace-gilts-sows-and-boars
  149. https://breeds.okstate.edu/goats/swedish-landrace-goats.html
  150. http://breedingback.blogspot.com/2017/10/wild-horse-series-ptii-konik-exmoor-and.html
  151. https://www.newfoundlandponies.org/what-makes-a-landrace-breed.html
  152. https://www.nordgen.org/our-work/farm-animals/nordic-native-breeds/finnish-landrace-chicken/
  153. https://orgprints.org/id/eprint/7196/1/7196.rtf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.