This makes me wonder, since most of the world’s food supply is from cultivated grains, as opposed to wild ones, and since yields have been increasing thanks to selective breeding programs, fertilizer use, and better farming practices, where’s the problem?
From the University of Haifa, Wild cereals threatened by global warming:
Wheats and barleys are the staple food for humans and animal feed around the world, and their wild progenitors have undergone genetic changes over the last 28 years that imply a risk for crop improvement and food production, reveals a new study. “The earliness in flowering time and genetic changes that are taking place in these important progenitor wild cereals, most likely due to global warming, can negatively affect the wild progenitors. These changes could thereby indirectly deteriorate food production,” says Prof. Eviatar Nevo of the Insitute of Evolution at the University of Haifa who directed the study.
Wheats are the universal cereals of Old World agriculture.The progenitors, wild emmer wheat and wild barley, which originated in the Near East, provide the genetic basis for ameliorating wheat and barley cultivars, which as earlier studies have shown, are themselves under constant genetic erosion and increasing susceptibility to environmental stresses.
The new study set out to examine whether the wild cereal progenitors are undergoing evolutionary changes due to climate change that would impact future food production. It was was headed by Prof. Nevo, along with Dr. Yong-Bi Fu from Canada, and Drs.Beiles, Pavlicek and Tavasi, and Miss Khalifa from the University of Haifa’s Institute of Evolution, and recently published in the prestigious scientific journal “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences” (PNAS).
Ten wild emmer wheat and ten wild barley populations from different climates and habitats across Israel were sampled first in 1980 and then again at the same sites in 2008 and grown in a common greenhouse. The results indicated that over the relatively short period of 28 years, all 20 wild cereal populations examined, without exception, showed a dramatic change in flowering time. All populations sampled in 2008 flowered, on average, about 10 days earlier than those sampled in 1980. “These cereal progenitors are adapting their time of flowering to escape the heat,” Prof. Nevo explains. The study also found that the genetic diversity of the 2008 sample is for the most part significantly reduced, but some new drought-adapted variants appeared that could be used for crop improvement. “The ongoing global warming in Israel is the only likely factor that could have caused earliness in flowering and genetic turnover across the range of wild cereals in Israel. This indicates that they are under environmental stress which may erode their future survival,” says Prof. Nevo. “Multiple effects of the global warming phenomenon have been observed in many species of plants and animals,” he adds. “But this study is pioneering in showing its infuence on flowering and genetic changes in wild cereals. These changes threaten the best genetic resource for crop improvement and thereby may damage food production.”
A number of species did show positive adaptive changes resulting from global warming, such as earliness in flowering or migration into cooler regions. “But overall,” says Prof. Nevo, “the genetic resources of these critical wild cereals are undergoing rapid erosion – and cannot be dismissed as a concern for future generations. Wild emmer wheat is the world’s most important genetic resource for wheat improvement, and it is up to us to preserve it. We are utilizing our gene bank at the Institute of Evolution for transforming genes of interest to the crop. However, a much more extensive effort needs to be made to keep the natural populations thriving, by preventing urbanization and global warming from eliminating them”.
[UPDATE] I trust Anthony won’t mind my expanding on this a bit.
Man, I hate garbage studies like this. I go to look at the temperatures they are using. Of course it’s paywalled, but the Supplementary Online Information (SOI) is here. Figure S4 in the SOI shows the temperatures that they used.
There are several strange things about this figure. One is that the title says “Fig. S4. The mean annual temperatures over nine stations in Israel (Source: Goldreich 2010),” but the left axis says “Mean (min temp.) deg.”. Which is it? Well, I went to look at the GISS data, and near as I can tell … it’s neither. Here’s what GISS has for Jerusalem, versus what they say:
Note that the temperatures according to GISS are about two degrees cooler than according to Nevo et al. Also, GISS never heard of most of those sites, and has very, very different values for the sites in common, with different years missing and much less data. For example, the R2 between their Jerusalem data and the GISS data shown above is a pathetic 0.25 … Why? I haven’t a clue.
Shabby, shabby work. Their figures don’t even agree with themselves, much less with external data.
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That or taking advantage of the longer growing season. 1980, of course, was the last “local minimum” when the PDO flipped positive.
I’m not clear how preventing urbanization keeps populations thriving. In the US, suburbia is not good terrain for wild grains. Perhaps he meant to reduce the urban population without increasing it elsewhere. A new dimension to the climate change wars….
“most likely due to global warming,”
If I had made such an assertion and left it dangling unsupported, as Prof. Nevo has done above, I would have been sent packing from my PhD defence. Or from any of the journals to which I submitted work for publication. This kind of assertion, however, runs rampant in the climate meme department, and is the major difference I see in ‘science’ over the last twenty years or so. What makes it “most likely”? The answer to that question is completely absent, and, unfortunately the most central to the issue, yet Nevo escapes through the back door without the slightest hint of an explanation. I honestly can’t figure out how people get away with stuff like this…yes, pal review, yadda yadda, but how??
OMG. Occam & I say the likely cause of earlier flowering is a genetic trigger that responds to warmth and other correlates of the start of growing season. Some funding agency(cies) has (have) FAR too much money to burn (probably rushing to spend everything before budget y/e).
Flimsy, pathetic junk in print.
This article is ridiculous. To suggest that global warming is now wiping out ancient grains misses a glaring point – The climate is always changing from glacial to interglacial periods and any species that can’t adapt to these changes would have disappeared a long time ago. So how did these grains get to be ancient? Obviously by adapting! Earlier flowering is a perfect adaption to the warmer climate that ended a decade ago. No doubt the next 28 years will reveal a return to late flowering which will panic a new crop of pseudo scientists all over again.
So, we have an example of plants in a narrow geographic region adapting (evolving?) to weather patterns (and arguably, changing climatic conditions) and the Institute of Evolution is worried about genes not remaining static? Did they compare historical gene differences from other warm periods or do they assume that these plants have not evolved or their evolution has ceased? If wild grain genetic material were that important, I’m sure folks would be cultivating it and storing the seeds.
So if we are to understand things correctly, a very small change in temperature has led to flowering times 10 days earlier over ~30 years? Perhaps this may be a reaction to changes in the comparative frequencies in sunlight such as the changes in ultra-violet. Surely, the fact that these changes have been so fast though is more likely to be epigenetic than genetic? 30 years is only 30 generations which unless there was a mass ‘die off’ would not appear to allow a large genetic change.
The interesting thing about GMO wheat is that they may be worse than the original ones for our health. http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/saturated-fat/wheat-belly/ For people with heart disease or/and diabetes, wheat flour based foods are the worst ones to eat…
PNAS must have had need of page filler. calling this research?
every plant in my garden changes time of sprouting yearly, the overnight temps and rain etc all have a bearing.
the heat claim will take a beating right now.
snow in Damascus lebanon etc gore must be nearby?
and funny how the GM green revolution crowd forced farmers to ditch their OLD heritage grains to grow hybrid hidependency fertiliser etc crops.
so they lost heaps of seriously good genetic stock for the greed of corporations.
and now those same companies TAKE natural hardy adapted grains to tinker and claim as their own.
I’d say this study is on par with the one that suggests man will get smaller as a result of global warming.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/23/they-shrink-horses-dont-they/
And my reaction today is the same as it was then:
Really?
To all above, except Ian W., who gets it, there is no need or justification to invoke “adapting” or “evolving”. An internal trigger, as I posted above, that responds to regionally relevant clues and cues is far more parsimonious and likely.
If anything, evolutionary pressure is currently reinforcing the survival value of that trigger.
Where is Lysenko when you need him?
Here in Falkirk my snowdrops have flowered about a week later than four years ago, and it has been milder this winter than the last two.
Maybe they are reacting to the weather.
Or the climate.
Or the rainfall.
Where can I apply to for a research grant?
I don’t see the warming in Israel*, Eliat:
http://climate.unur.com/ghcn-v2/622/40199-zoomed.png
Y-axis is 10-60°C
*Maybe it’s the tele-connected ‘Global Warming’ that is causing the effects they see. /sarc
“which as earlier studies have shown, are themselves under constant genetic erosion and increasing susceptibility to environmental stresses.”
Yet they have survived several million years worth of glacial to interglacial climaticc shifts.
“These changes could thereby indirectly deteriorate food production” is my favorite line. “Could”, “may” , ” most likely due too”, are all over this article. Just one more example of how anyone can make money if you do any “research” on global warming
Everyone has brought up great points so far. This isn’t a science paper, it’s an op/ed piece.
Israel is an awfully small region to select for a study on grain, and what about cross pollination with non native modern species? How do you find a pristine sample that hasn’t been modified by monsanto? This article speaks of “genetic erosion” but offers no proof, instead just launches into blooming times, a natural process unlinked to genetic damage……….This article is rubbish on many different levels. It’s a page 4e column filler in a local paper.
“Ten wild emmer wheat and ten wild barley populations from different climates and habitats across Israel were sampled first in 1980 and then again at the same sites in 2008 and grown in a common greenhouse.”
what about the grains still in the “wild”
Brian H says:
February 26, 2012 at 5:41 am
“To all above, except Ian W., who gets it, there is no need or justification to invoke “adapting” or “evolving”. An internal trigger, as I posted above, that responds to regionally relevant clues and cues is far more parsimonious and likely. ”
Yes. The plant species have survived warm periods before. They have
genetic programminggenetic programs to handle that and activate it when needed.Prof. Nevo writes “most likely due to global warming”
Shades of Tom Lehrer’s Vatican Rag. “First you get down on your knees,…………and Genuflec, Genuflec, Genuflec, Gebuflec.”
As a scientist who has been a reviewer for major publications, I would have rejected this paper for a variety of reasons. Poor science, poor writing. ‘Nuff said.
I’m confused, the press release says some of the species undergo genetic erosion and a loss of genetic diversity. But the release doesn’t say how they found out. Did they sequence the genomes of the specimen? Did they check for epigenetic changes (methylation pattern)?
One can make statistics fit their own way of thinking. Here in Northern Indiana or Southwest Michigan, one can look at any number of growing seasons the last 30 years where crops flowered late. Rainfall, as well as late spring frost are to blame. And even during periods of warmer weather during the planting season farmers many times are late getting their crops planted due to rains.
But the Upper Mississippi Valley isn’t the world. Perhaps we could look at the flowering of hop plants in Washington or the Hallertauer region of Bavaria. But, then again things like sunlight and precipitation can affect how quickly hop plants grow.
Finally, hybrid drought resistant grains grow very well under hot, dry conditions. But, all it takes is one severe late spring frost to destroy thousands of acres of wheat and barley fields. A cool, damps summer could also reduce their yields by as much as 30%.
This calls for another study. 😉
What happened during previous warm periods (MWP for instance)? That which is happening now is not unprecedented. ie. If the grains are undergoing a genetic change due to global warming, the same thing probably happened during the MWP. If it didn’t, then we can’t blame any changes on warming per se.
What we do know is that genes move between domesticated plants and wild plants. If wild plants are undergoing rapid genetic change, it is likely that it is because of the local density of domestic grain.Wild Crop Relatives – Genomic and Breeding Resources: Oilseeds By Chittaranjan Kole
JP:
Not only those points you make, but also soil trace elemental composition grossly determines outcomes. For example, boron deficiency in soil, which is not replenished by fallowing or supplementation, will greatly influence yields. Essential elements such as magnesium are also rate limiting and influence growth and yield. There is no effort in the paper to assess total composition of soils to isolate these many variables. Not that they could, BTW. What happens when you have more variables than equations? As we have seen with the warm-earthers, very creative storytelling—nothing else.
Next we can mention co-existing organisms, beneficial and maleficent, such as nematodes and bacteria, that are parasitic, or symbiotic, or synergistic (e.g. nitrogen-fixing bacteria).
Next, I can imagine polar bears evolving wings so they can fly away from ice-free areas to Antarctica! I can imagine it, therefore it is possible! This is what I call iPod-Google Think.
US Corn and Wheat prices going back to 1850 – nominal and real adjusted for CPI.
Wars have an influence, the Russian crop failures of the early 1970s cause a large increase, sometimes irrational exuberance takes over the market. Otherwise, technology is slowly driving the cost down in real inflation-adjusted terms. Not really much of a climate effect, maybe the 1930s.
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/1465/cornwheatnominalprices1.png
http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/6817/cornwheatrealprices1850.png