Ecology and Development Series No. 10, 2003 - ZEF

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Current state of knowledgeseeded plants and clonal material (Maxted et al., 1997). Field gene banks are commonlyused for such plants as coffee, cocoa, rubber, coconut, mango, banana, cassava, sweetpotato, and yam. The advantages of field gene banks are that the material is easilyaccessible for utilization, and that evaluations can be undertaken while the material is beingconserved. The disadvantages are that the material is restricted in terms of genetic diversity,is susceptible to pests, disease and vandalism, and involves large areas of land.Since the early 1960s, several individuals and organizations have made efforts tocollect, conserve and utilize coffee germplasm (Meyer 1965; FAO 1968; IAR 1986;Berthaud and Charrier 1988). The FAO Coffee Mission collected germplasm from most ofthe coffee-growing areas of Ethiopia, while Meyer’s collections were only from southwestand central Ethiopia. ORSTOM also collected coffee germplasms from wild populations inthe forests of SW Ethiopia (Berthaud and Charrier 1988), following the FAO mission. TheEthiopian National Coffee Collection Program (ENCCP) continued to collect coffeegermplasm from all over the country, including areas that were not covered by othergermplasm collection missions (IAR 1986). Accessions of germplasm collected up to noware found in different field gene banks around the world and within Ethiopia (Table 2.1).Table 2.1. Major Coffea arabica field genebank collectionsCountry Institute Total numberof accessionsBrazil a Centro Nacional de Recursos Geneticos 275Colombia a Centro Nationale de Investigaciones de Cafe´ Pedro 886Uribe MejiaCosta Rica a Centro Agronomico Tropicale de Investigacion y 1498EnseñanzaCôte d’Ivoire a ORSTOM-Institut français de recherché scientifique 1787pour le development en coopération (CATIE)Ethiopia b Institute of Biodiversity Conservation and Research 4500Ethiopia c Jimma Research Station 679India a Central Coffee Research Institute, Kamataka 329Kenya a Coffee Research Foundation 592Madagascar a Recherche Agricole a Madagascar 329Tanzania a Tanzanian Agricultural Research Organization 42USA a US Department of Agriculture 292Sources: a: Dulloo et al. 1998; b: IBCR database until February 2001; c: IAR 198623
Current state of knowledgeThe largest collection of coffee accessions is found in Ethiopia under the auspicesof the Institute of Biodiversity Conservation and Research (IBCR). The current number ofstored accessions is about 4,500 and more are added every year. In addition, the JimmaAgricultural Research Center of the Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (EARO)maintains about 600 coffee types and 700 random selections of lines that show varyingresistance to the coffee berry disease (IAR 1986; Demel et al. 1998).2.4.2 In situ conservation methodsVery little progress has been made in the development of the scientific principles needed toevaluate in situ genetic conservation and to monitor respective activities, despite itsgrowing popularity and relative importance. This conservation method is still at its infancyand much more has to be done for success. However, given the nature of occurrence ofplant genetic diversity, three main methods of in situ conservation can be recognized(Maxted et al. 1997): conservation in "gene reserves", on-farm and in homegardens.Gene reserve conservationThis involves the location, designation, management and monitoring of genetic diversity ina particular, natural habitat. This method is the most appropriate for the bulk of wildspecies, whether closely or distantly related to crop plants. It permits multiple speciesconservation in a single reserve. The disadvantages are that the conserved material is notimmediately available for agricultural exploitation and, if the management regime isminimal, little characterization or evaluation data may be available. In the latter case, thereserve management may often be unaware of the genetic diversity of species that shouldbe conserved or even of the complete floristic composition of the reserve.Despite the development of the ex situ conservation methods described above, insitu conservation still remains an important element of the overall strategy for the long-termconservation of the Coffea gene pool. However, no gene reserves exist that have been setup specifically for the conservation of the wild gene pool of Coffea (Dulloo et al. 1998).There was a plan to establish ‘natural parks’ in three administrative regions of Ethiopia forthe in situ conservation of Coffea arabica, namely: Kaffa, Illubabor and Bale (Melaku and24
Page 1: Ecology and Development Series No.
Page 4 and 5: Wäldern weist im Wesentlichen zwei
Page 6 and 7: 4.4 Discussion ....................
Page 8 and 9: General introduction1 GENERAL INTRO
Page 10 and 11: General introductionoutbreaks and e
Page 12 and 13: General introductionunfavorable cha
Page 14 and 15: General introductionand their patte
Page 16 and 17: Current state of knowledge2 STATE O
Page 18 and 19: Current state of knowledgeThe studi
Page 20 and 21: Current state of knowledgemore prom
Page 22 and 23: Current state of knowledge2.2 Taxon
Page 24 and 25: Current state of knowledgekapakata,
Page 26 and 27: Current state of knowledgecultivars
Page 28 and 29: Current state of knowledgehomegarde
Page 32 and 33: Current state of knowledgeHailu, un
Page 34 and 35: Current state of knowledgeraces are
Page 36 and 37: Description of the study area and s
Page 42 and 43: Floristic analysis of the undisturb
Page 74 and 75: Impacts of human use on the forest
Page 80 and 81:
Impacts of human use on the forest
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Conservation of the wild Coffea ara
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Conclusions and recommendations7 CO
Page 134 and 135:
Conclusions and recommendations3. R
Page 136 and 137:
ReferencesBatisse M. 1986 Developin
Page 138 and 139:
ReferencesDavis A.P. and Rokotonaso
Page 140 and 141:
ReferencesESRI. 1996. ArcView GIS:
Page 142 and 143:
ReferencesIUCN 1992. Protected Area
Page 144 and 145:
ReferencesMesfin Ameha and Bayetta
Page 146 and 147:
ReferencesSmith R.F. 1985. A histor
Page 148 and 149:
ReferencesVan Jaarsveld A.S., Freit
Page 150 and 151:
Appendices9 APPENDICESAppendix 1 Li
Page 152 and 153:
AppendicesD. repandum (Vahl) DC, [H
Page 154 and 155:
AppendicesSapotaceaeAningeria altis
Page 156 and 157:
AppendicesAppendix 3 Families of va
Page 158 and 159:
AppendicesAppendix 5. ANOVA tables:
Page 160 and 161:
AppendicesAppendix 7 Height class d
Page 162 and 163:
AppendicesGFUNDFOR OLSFOR SF-NEW SF
Page 164 and 165:
AppendicesAppendix 10. List of loca
Page 166 and 167:
AppendicesNumber Family name Scient
Page 168 and 169:
AppendicesNumber Family name Scient
Page 170 and 171:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI am very grateful
show all

Ecology and Development Series No. 10, 2003 - ZEF

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?