Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:42:06.531Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perennial grain crops: A synthesis of ecology and plant breeding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2007

L.R. DeHaan ,
D.L. Van Tassel  and
T.S. Cox
L.R. DeHaan*
Affiliation:
The Land Institute, 2440 E. Water Well Road, Salina, KS 67401, USA.
D.L. Van Tassel
Affiliation:
The Land Institute, 2440 E. Water Well Road, Salina, KS 67401, USA.
T.S. Cox
Affiliation:
The Land Institute, 2440 E. Water Well Road, Salina, KS 67401, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: dehaan@landinstitute.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Perennial grain crops would address many agricultural problems, including soil erosion, nutrient loss and pesticide contamination. Doubts about the possibility of perennial grain crops rest upon two assumptions: (1) that the relationship between yield and longevity is a fixed function that cannot be influenced by selection, mutation or environmental changes; and (2) that yield and longevity trade off in a bivariate manner to the exclusion of all other traits. These assumptions are consistent with the phenotypic trade-off model, but recent research suggests that a quantitative genetic model is a more appropriate approach to trade-offs. In the quantitative genetic model, environmental and genetic changes can result in increases in two traits simultaneously even when a trade-off, or negative correlation, exists between the two traits. Empirical evidence that the trade-off between perenniality and reproductive allocation is not fixed comes from wild, herbaceous perennials that can produce more than 2000 kg seed ha−1 in the temperate zone, and herbaceous perennial crops that produce on average 8900 kg fruit ha−1 in the tropics. Ecological literature suggests that most perennials produce small amounts of seed relative to their vegetative growth not as a physiological absolute, but rather as a result of natural selection in a stable, competitive environment favoring longevity. By selecting strongly for seed yield in a population of perennial plants, the plant breeder can likely achieve that which is rare in nature—a high seed-yielding perennial plant. The same general methodologies that have allowed annual grain breeders to increase grain yield and push many combinations of negatively correlated traits to levels of expression not seen in nature are available to the perennial grain breeder. Perennial grain breeders are integrating ecological principles and traditional plant breeding methods in their efforts to develop perennial grain wheat (Triticum spp.), sorghum (Sorghum spp.), sunflower (Helianthus spp.), Illinois bundleflower (Desmanthus illinoensis) and rice (Oryza spp.).

Keywords

trade-offcarbon allocationperennialitylife historyplant domestication
Type
Research Article
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 5 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Glover, J.D. 2005. The necessity and possibility of perennial grain crops. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 20: 1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Cox, T.S., Bender, M.H., Picone, C., Van Tassel, D.L., Holland, J.H., Brummer, E.C., Zoeller, B.E., Paterson, A.H., and Jackson, W. 2002. Breeding perennial grain crops. Critical Reviews in Plant Science 21: 59–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3Tilman, D., Fargione, J., Wolff, B., D'Antonio, C., Dobson, A., Howarth, R., Schindler, D., Schlesinger, W.H., Simberloff, D., and Swackhamer, D. 2001. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 292: 281–284CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Gantzer, C.J., Anderson, S.H., Thompson, A.L., and Brown, J.R. 1990. Estimating soil erosion after 100 years of cropping on Sanborn Field. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 45: 641–644Google Scholar
5Dinnes, D.L., Karlen, D.L., Jaynes, D.B., Kaspar, T.C., Hatfield, J.L., Colvin, T.S., and Cambaradella, C.A. 2002. Nitrogen management strategies to reduce nitrate leaching in tile-drained Midwestern soils. Agronomy Journal 94: 153–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6Randall, G.W., Huggins, D.R., Russelle, M.P., Fuchs, D.J., Nelson, W.W., and Anderson, J.L. 1997. Nitrate losses through subsurface tile drainage in conservation reserve program, alfalfa, and row crop systems. Journal of Environmental Quality 26: 1240–1247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Huggins, D.R., Randall, G.W., and Russelle, M.P. 2001. Subsurface drain losses of water and nitrate following conversion of perennials to row crops. Agronomy Journal 93: 477–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Silvertown, J., and Dodd, M. 1996. Comparing plants and connecting traits. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 351: 1233–1239Google Scholar
9Wagoner, P. 1990. Perennial grain development: Past efforts and potential for the future. Critical Reviews in Plant Science 9: 381–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Roff, D.A., Mostowy, S., and Fairbairn, D.J. 2002. The evolution of trade-offs: Testing predictions on response to selection and environmental variation. Evolution 56: 84–95Google ScholarPubMed
11Roff, D.A., and Gelinas, M.B. 2003. Phenotypic plasticity and the evolution of trade-offs: the quantitative genetics of resource allocation in the wing dimorphic cricket, Gryllus firmus. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 16: 55–63CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12Scheinost, P., Lammer, D., Cai, X., Murray, T.D., and Jones, S.S. 2001. Perennial wheat: a sustainable cropping system for the Pacific Northwest. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 16: 147–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13Sheaffer, C.C., and Marten, G.C. 1991. Kura clover forage yield, forage quality, and stand dynamics. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 71: 1169–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Field, C.B. 2001. Sharing the garden. Science 294: 2490–2491CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Sheaffer, C.C., Cash, D., Ehlke, N.J., Henning, J.C., Jewett, J.G., Johnson, K.D., Peterson, M.A., Smith, M., Hansen, J.L., and Viands, D.R. 1998. Entry×environment interactions for alfalfa forage quality. Agronomy Journal 90: 774–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Sheaffer, C.C., Orf, J.H., Devine, T.E., and Jewett, J.G. 2001. Yield and quality of forage soybean. Agronomy Journal 93: 99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Kulakow, P.A., Benson, L.L., and Vail, J.G. 1990. Prospects for domesticating Illinois bundleflower. In: Janick, J. and simon, J.E. (eds). Advances in New Crops. Timber Press, Portland. p. 168–171Google Scholar
18Adjei, M.B., and Pitman, W.D. 1993. Response of Desmanthus to clipping on a phosphatic clay mine-spoil. Tropical Grasslands 27: 94–99Google Scholar
19Jackson, W., and Jackson, L.L. 1999. Developing high seed yielding perennial polycultures as a mimic of mid-grass prairie. In: Lefroy, E.C., Hobbs, R.J., O'Connor, M.H., Pate, J.S. (eds). Agriculture as a Mimic of Natural Systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands1–37Google Scholar
2020FAOSTAT data. 2004. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations http://apps.fao.org/faostat/collections?version=ext &hasbulk=0&subset=agriculture (verified 24 January 2005).Google Scholar
21Gadgil, M., and Solbrig, O.T. 1972. The concept of r - and K -selection: Evidence from wild flowers and some theoretical considerations. The American Naturalist 106: 14–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22Harper, J.L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. Academic Press, London, UK.Google Scholar
23Garnier, E., and Laurent, G. 1994. Leaf anatomy, specific mass and water content in congeneric annual and perennial grass species. New Phytologist 128: 725–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24Abrahamson, W.G., Anderson, S.S., and McCrea, K.D. 1991. Clonal integration: Nutrient sharing between sister ramets of Solidago altissima (Compositae). American Journal of Botany 78: 1508–1514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25Meyer, G.A. 1993. Effects of herbivorous insects and soil fertility on reproduction of goldenrod. Ecology 74: 1117–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26Young, T.P., and Augspurger, C.K. 1991. Ecology and evolution of long-lived semelparous plants. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 6: 285–289CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27Wilson, M.F. 1983. Plant Reproductive Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
28Crone, E.E. 2001. Is survivorship a better fitness surrogate than fecundity. Evolution 55: 2611–2614Google ScholarPubMed
29Sano, Y., and Morishima, H. 1982. Variation in resource allocation and adaptive strategy of a wild rice, Oryza perennis Moench. Botanical Gazette 143: 518–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30Brancourt-Hulmel, M., Doussinault, G., Lecomte, C., Berard, P., Buanec, B.L., and Trottet, M. 2003. Genetic improvement of agronomic traits of winter wheat cultivars released in France from 1946 to 1992. Crop Science 43: 37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31Reynolds, M.P., Rajaram, S., and Sayre, K.D. 1999. Physiological and genetic changes of irrigated wheat in the post-Green Revolution period and approaches for meeting projected global demand. Crop Science 39: 1611–1621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32Tollenaar, M., and Wu, J. 1999. Yield improvement in temperate maize is attributable to greater stress tolerance. Crop Science 39: 1597–1604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33Paterson, A.H., Schertz, K.F., Lin, Y.R., Liu, S.C., and Chang, Y.L. 1995. The weediness of wild plants: molecular analysis of genes influencing dispersal and persistence of johnsongrass, Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 92: 6127–6131CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34Falconer, D.S. and Mackay, T.F.C. 1996. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Prentice Hall Harlow, UKGoogle Scholar
35Loffler, C.M., Busch, R.H., and Wiersma, J.V. 1983. Recurrent selection for grain protein percentage in hard red spring wheat. Crop Science 23: 1097–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36Burton, J.W., and Brim, C.A. 1981. Recurrent selection in soybeans. III. Selection for increased percent oil in seeds. Crop Science 21: 31–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37Knowles, R.P., Cooke, D.A., and Buglass, E. 1970. Breeding for seed yield and seed quality in smooth bromegrass, Bromus inermis Leyss. Crop Science 10: 539–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38Casler, M.D., Berg, C.C., Carlson, I.T., and Sleper, D.A. 1997. Convergent–divergent selection for seed production and forage traits in orchardgrass: III. Correlated responses for forage traits. Crop Science 37: 1059–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39Wilkins, P.W., and Humphreys, M.O. 2003. Progress in breeding perennial forage grasses for temperate agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Science 140: 129–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40Wright, S. 1988. Surfaces of selective value revisited. American Naturalist 131: 115–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41Lack, D. 1954. The Natural Regulation of Animal Numbers. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
42Czesak, M.E., and Fox, C.W. 2003. Evolutionary ecology of egg size and number in a seed beetle: genetic trade-off differs between environments. Evolution 57: 1121–1132Google Scholar
43Thomas, H., Thomas, H.M., and Ougham, H. 2000. Annuality, perenniality and cell death. Journal of Experimental Botany 51: 1781–1788CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
44Cheplick, G.P. 1995. Life history trade-offs in Amphibromus scabrivalvis (Poaceae): Allocation to clonal growth, storage, and cleistogamous reproduction. American Journal of Botany 83: 621–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45Warembourg, F.R., and Estelrich, H.D. 2001. Plant phenology and soil fertility effects on below-ground carbon allocation for an annual (Bromus madritensis) and a perennial (Bromus erectus) grass species. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 33: 1291–1303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46Coley, P.D., Bryant, J.P., and Chapin, F.S. 1985. Resource availability and plant herbivore defense. Science 230: 895–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47Tilman, D. 1988. Plant Strategies and the Dynamics and Structure of Plant Communities. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
48Donald, C.M. 1968. The breeding of crop ideotypes. Euphytica 17: 385–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49Shroyer, J.P., and Cox, T.S. 1993. Productivity and adaptive capacity of winter wheat landraces and modern cultivars under low-fertility conditions. Euphytica 70: 27–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50Tilman, D. 1990. Constraints and trade-offs: toward a predictive theory of competition and succession. Oikos 58: 3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51Weaver, J.E. 1968. Prairie Plants and their Environment. University of Nebraska Press, LincolnGoogle Scholar
52Marshall, D.L., Levin, D.A., and Fowler, N.L. 1985. Plasticity in yield components in response to fruit predation and date of fruit initiation in three species of Sesbania (Leguminosae). Journal of Ecology 73: 71–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53Piper, J.K., and Kulakow, P.A. 1994. Seed yield and biomass allocation in Sorghum bicolor and F1 and backcross generations of S. bicolo r× S. halepense hybrids. Canadian Journal of Botany 72: 468–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54Cox, T.S., Picone, C., and Jackson, W. 2004. Research priorities in natural systems agriculture. Journal of Crop Production 12: 511–531Google Scholar
55Sacks, E.J., Roxas, J.P., Sta. Cruz, M.T. 2003. Developing perennial upland rice I: Field performance of Oryza sativa / O. rufipogon F1, F4 and BC1 F4 progeny. Crop Science 43: 120–128Google Scholar