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.
I guess the climate has always been the same, at least since these species of wild grains first appeared?
He lost this case as soon as he introduced the “green house”.
The real problem is that humans shouldn’t be eating wheat.
http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/
Now, if we can use all that extra grain, and raise a bunch of healthy livestock (I know, grass fed cow is best), maybe we can convert the world to a healthy animal fat and protein diet.
The author of Wheat Belly isn’t the only one saying we shouldn’t be eating wheat. Wheat and rice are beginning to cause horrible problems in India. Times of India
To argue about the findings of this study is to miss the point. Thirty years ago when i was in University there was a great deal of concern in some circles regarding the loss of wild grains. However, there was no support for research in the area, hence no money. This is an old cause, looking to cash in on the global warming bonanza, just like two thirds of the (previously) orphan scientific fields of study. All they added to the 30 year old concern were the words ‘global warming’.
I was at the local university a while back and was amused and dismayed to find uncoming lectures on topics from psychology to biology and aboriginal studies (humanities?), all related to global warminging in one way or another. I suppose it should be no surprise. With an ever increasing population of clueless grad students struggling to find theses, global warming is like a catch-all for the uninspired. A catch-all with tons of money no less!
Comparing one years crop (1980) with another years (2008) has nothing to do with global warming or even representive of the local climate. One years crop is affected by weather during the growing season that year and has very little to do with anything else. Comparing samples between 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 would give very different results depending on the weather affecting the crop. Then to speculate global warming will wipe out crops based on just 2 different years cherry picked from one country, is just science at it’s worse.
Bob says:
February 26, 2012 at 5:20 am
…..”If wild grain genetic material were that important, I’m sure folks would be cultivating it and storing the seeds.
======================
Just as an FYI, someone already thought of that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault
“The Svalbard Global Seed Vault (Norwegian: Svalbard globale frøhvelv) is a secure seedbank located on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen near the town of Longyearbyen in the remote Arctic Svalbard archipelago, about 1,300 kilometres (810 mi) from the North Pole.[1] The facility preserves a wide variety of plant seeds in an underground cavern………………”
Absolutely right, Canuckland! I wonder where the strong defense of EVOLUTION is by many scientists who subscribe to it? Such folks can’t accept the reality of evolution, apparently. With constant interference in the mechanisims of evolution to “correct” what EVOLVES, no matter what the state of the climate, man dooms himself. When will the press begin to challenge the “possibilities” of the AGW propogandizers of every stripe, including SO CALLED CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, as to the fallacy of their conclusions, which they openly state as “most likely…”, or “may…”, or “could…”, “is estimated…”?
john s says:
February 26, 2012 at 9:32 am
“All they added to the 30 year old concern were the words ‘global warming’.”
Very well explained here.
these guys don’t seem to realize just how big wheat is. wheat makes coal look puny in the railroad world. and most “civilians” don’t realize just how big or important it is because it is shipped in cars and trucks that are covered so they don’t know just what is moving.
having lived in “wheat country” for the formative years of my life i would speculate that if a shorter growing cycle is being deliberately bred into the various wheats its’ to reduce the exposure to hail damage.
C
I have a cherry tree. It was planted in 1987. In 1993, it flowered for the first time. Now it flowers about 7 to 10 days earlier than it first did. It certainly doesn’t look environmentally stressed: it’s still growing vigorously, flowering profusely and has plentiful foliage with what appear to my untrained eye to be healthy leaves.
Auckland (NZ) is too far south to grow viable banana trees. They will grow, but up to a couple of decades ago, they tended to be stunted and set very little fruit. Although I’m not a trained botanist, I’ve always regarded these characteristics to be because the plant was environmentally stressed.
In recent years, I have noticed banana trees growing more vigorously to much greater heights and setting much more fruit. Admittedly, the bananas are still small, but they are now edible. Is this environmental stress?
Perhaps my cherry tree’s earlier flowering is because it can? We certainly haven’t had any late hard frosts over the last decade … which would stress it. Perhaps the greater growth of the banana palms and their improved setting of fruit is because they can.
Perhaps plants maintain their own timetables by responding to light, CO2 and temperature changes? Perhaps this global warming is actually good for plants.
Domestic wheat has a larger genome than humans. There’re lots of tricks hidden in there!
I’ve added an update to the head post.
w.
““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. ” [capitals, mine]
These are blithering idiots! They have no right to claim to know anything about plants!
Higher CO2 makes many plants more temperature tolerant and able to grow and bloom earlier than otherwise. In addition, they are more efficient with water and nutrient utilization!
The fact that they focus single-mindedly on global warming indicates to me either a poor education and lack of mature thinking, or a political agenda—they tied it to global warming and supported the agenda, so more funding please.
In the UK, flowering plants have been flowering 2 weeks earlier than previously and, as the temperature has not changed from the time when they bloomed “normally,” the only change is in the CO2 supply. Duh!
The authors seem to suggest that a constant input of original genetic material is needed for good crops. Since, when? Are our corn crops going to disappear if Zea mays disappeared? I think not—it’s not like they are quantum-entangled or such.
They also, as has been alluded to above, seem to think that gene pools are static. So, shall we ask where they gained their education in molecular biology, population genetics, and genetic drift? Maybe they only read the first chapter and decided they had enough buzz words to suit them.
I live in a similar climate to Israel (Perth Western Australia, we are perhaps 2C to 3C warmer than TA), and have what we call grass verges along two sides of my house.
I can tell you categorically that water availability is what determines when grasses grow in this climate. Temperatures have little effect.
If the study’s finding of earlier flowering is sound then I would look at changes in water availability, specifically groundwater availability. I know Israel draws a lot of groundwater from wells.
Why couldn’t it be that the increased atmospheric CO₂ is making them sprout faster? If it is making plants grow faster at other stages, why not at the germination stage? Why wouldn’t the extra plant food signal to the seed it’s a good time to start sprouting, even if it is still slightly cooler than the same time of year in 1980 when there was less atmospheric plant food?
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. ”
I agree, and a rather startling error from an ‘Institute of Evolution’.
The grasses would have evolved a very long time ago to respond to climactic changes over a number of seasons by flowering earlier or later.
Indeed, the speed with which they do this and the range of flowering times would be an interesting indicator of past climate variation.
higley7 said @ur momisugly February 26, 2012 at 1:11 pm
ROFL! Interesting that you chose Zea mays for your example — it’s er… anthropogenic. I wonder if the alarmists would be fighting tooth and nail to prevent its use were it developed today, rather than thousands of years ago.
Philip Bradley says:
February 26, 2012 at 1:32 pm
The presence of betaine in grasses would be an indicator also — of colder conditions. While originally extracted from beets (hence its name) this substance confers cold resistance. We have used the extract here in Tasmania to confer frost resistance in buckwheat and other crops. All muck and mystery and unscientific according to some around here just because it wasn’t a synthetic from Monsanto, but there you go.
The term ‘genetic erosion’ means what? Have they lost some chromosomes or something? Note the elision of A Bad Thing (erosion) with ‘genetic’ to create A Scary Concept.
As PPs have said, where is the evidence that they have identified meaningful changes to the genomes of these plants over 30 years? And if they did identify them, where is the causation trail that leads to rising temperatures as the sole cause (assuming the temperatures did rise significantly, which is also debatable).
This is not a study; it’s a colander.
johanna said @ur momisugly February 26, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Respectfully disagree. They appear to have flushed any useful information down the drain, rather than retaining it; an inverse colander perhaps?
The term ‘genetic erosion’ means what?
It means loss of genetic diversity.
I agree about the new scary term, replacing a widely used and perfectly acceptable, but not scary enough, existing term.
I think I’ll coin the term ‘Gramscian Science’ to describe this.
Philip Bradley said @ur momisugly February 26, 2012 at 2:49 pm
And that loss is usually taken to mean the displacement of heirloom varieties by modern hybrids, not loss of genes in a particular strain.
Care to explain what you mean by ‘Gramscian Science’? That went rather over my head… What on earth have chickpeas to do with this?
Lettuce assume that this paper is correct: That certain “genes” have been (selectively advanced and retarded) due to changes in the earth’s global (average) temperature (but only as measured at this one location.)
Then, since temperature HAVE increased since the mid-1850’s, these “researchers” MUST establish that
(1) the changes noted are solely and uniquely due to changes in temperture and NOT due to those measured changes in CO2, water, humidity, night time high temperature/low temperatures,mid-day high/low temperatures changes, fertilizer, and cloud cover/humidity that have occurred since 1850 at that location ….
(2) the(rate of) changes supposedly discovered STOPPED occurring when temperature stopped increasing in 2000. Further, since these “researchers” supposedly detected a change in genetic structure was caused by a change in temperature, then the rate of change in those genetic changes must track temperature (since 1850 – or their baseline). That is, did the changes slow when temps dropped between 1940 and 1970? Did the rate increase between 1915 and 1940?
Or did they just find a single change? And then extrapolate that single change to global warming?