My Account: Log In | Join | Renew
Search
Author
Title
Vol.
Issue
Year
1st Page

Abstract

 

This article in CS

  1. Vol. 43 No. 3, p. 1100-1108
     
    Received: Apr 25, 2002
    Published: May, 2003


    * Corresponding author(s): a.jarvis@cgiar.org
 View
 Download
 Alerts
 Permissions
 Share

doi:10.2135/cropsci2003.1100

Biogeography of Wild Arachis

  1. Andy Jarvis *ac,
  2. Morag E. Fergusonb,
  3. David E. Williamsa,
  4. Luigi Guarinoa,
  5. Peter G. Jonesc,
  6. H. Tom Stalkerd,
  7. Jose F. M. Vallse,
  8. Roy N. Pittmanf,
  9. Charles E. Simpsong and
  10. Paula Bramelb
  1. a International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), AA 6713, Cali, Colombia
    c Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), AA6713, Cali, Colombia
    b International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Andhra Pradesh, India
    d North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
    e EMBRAPA Genetic Resources and Biotechnology, Brasilia, Brazil, CNPq Fellowship
    f USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Griffin, GA, USA
    g Texas Agric. Exp. Station, Texas A&M Univ., Stephenville, TX, USA

Abstract

The conservation status of wild Arachis spp. is not well characterized for its maintenance and possible future exploitation for the improvement of cultivated peanut, Arachis hypogaea L. Our objectives were to use 2175 georeferenced observations of wild peanut (Arachis spp.) to assess the conservation status of the genus and to prioritize biologically and geographically future conservation actions. Species distribution predictions were made on the basis of 36 climate variables, and these data were synthesized with land-use data to map the potential distribution of each species, and hence the species richness of the whole genus, excluding A. hypogea hotspots of species richness were found in Mato Grosso around Cuiabá and Campo Grande in Brazil and around the Serra Geral de Goias, northeast of Brasilia. The current state of in situ conservation areas poorly represents wild peanut, with only 48 of the 2175 observations from National Parks. Several species were identified as being under threat of extinction. These included A. archeri Krapov. & W.C. Gregory, A. setinervosa Krapov. & W.C. Gregory, A. marginata Gardner, A. hatschbachii Krapov. & W.C. Gregory, A. appressipila Krapov. & W.C. Gregory, A. villosa Benth., A. cryptopotamica Krapov. & W.C. Gregory, A. helodes Martius ex Krapov. & Rigoni, A. magna W.C. Gregory & C.E. Simpson, and A. gracilis Krapov. & W.C. Gregory (identification based on highly restricted ranges and land-use pressures); and A. ipaënsis Krapov. & W.C. Gregory, A. cruziana Krapov., W.C. Gregory & C.E. Simpson, A. williamsii Krapov. & W.C. Gregory, A. martii Handro, A. pietrarellii Krapov. & W.C. Gregory, A. vallsii Krapov. & W.C. Gregory, and A. monticola Krapov. & Rigoni (identification based on insufficient observations and land-use pressures). It is suggested that ex situ conservation efforts should focus on the area around Pedro Gomes (300 km southeast of Cuiabá), 170 km south along the planned road from Cuiabá to Corumbá, and around San José de Chiquitos in Bolivia, where some of the species adapted to lower temperatures may be found.

  Please view the pdf by using the Full Text (PDF) link under 'View' to the left.

Copyright © 2003. Crop Science Society of AmericaPublished in Crop Sci.43:1100–1108.