PDF file: Annual Report 2002/2003 - Scottish Crop Research Institute

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Barley Crop Development 19 Riggs, T.J. & Hayter, A.M. (1975) A study of the inheritance and inter-relationships of some agronomically important characters in spring barley. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 46, 257-264. 20 Ramsay, L., Macaulay, M., Ivanissevich, S.D., MacLean, K., Cardle, L., Fuller, J., Edwards, K.J., Tuvesson S., Morgante, M., Massari, A., Maestri, E., Marmiroli, N., Sjakste, T., Ganal, M., Powell, W. & Waugh, R. (2000). A simple sequence repeat-based linkage map of barley. Genetics 157, 1997-2005. 21 Ellis, R.P., Forster,B.P., Gordon, D.C., Handley, L.L., Keith, R.P., Lawrence, P., Meyer, R., Powell, W., Robinson, D., Scrimgeour, C.M., Young, G. & Thomas, W.T.B. (2002). Phenotype/genotype associations for yield and salt tolerance in a barley mapping population segregating for two dwarfing genes. Journal of Experimental Botany 53, 1163-1176. 22 SCRI unpublished data. 23 Russell, J.R., Ellis, R.P., Thomas, W.T.B., Waugh, R., Provan, J, Booth, A., Fuller, J., Lawrence, P., Young, G. & Powell, W. (2000). A retrospective analysis of spring barley germplasm development from 'foundation genotypes' to currently successful cultivars. Molecular Breeding 6, 553-568. 24 Stølen, O. & Andersen, S. (1978). Inheritance of tolerance to low soil pH in barley. Hereditas 88, 101-105. 25 Raman, H., Moroni, J.S., Sato, K., Read, B.J. & Scott, B.J. (2003). Identification of AFLP and microsatellite markers linked with an aluminium tolerance gene in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Theoretical and Applied Genetics 105, 458-464. 26 Giles, R.J., McConnell, G. & Fyfe, J.L. (1974). The frequency of crossing in a composite cross grown in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 83, 447-450. 27 Brown, A.D.H., Zohary, D. & Nevo, E. (1978). Outcrossing rates and heterozygosity in natural populations of Hordeum spontaneum Koch in Israel. Heredity 41, 49-62. 28 De Vries, H. (1900). Das Spaltungsgesetz der bastarde. Berichte der deutschen botanischen Gesellschaft 18, 83-90. 29 http://www.aspall.co.uk/history_aspall.htm 30 Ellis, R.P. (1987). Breeding for malting quality in barley. Aspects of Applied Biology 15, Cereal Quality pp 529-540. 31 Whitmore, E.T. & Sparrow, D.H.B. (1957). Laboratory micromalting techniques. Journal of the Institute of Brewing 63, 397-398. 32 Ellis, R.P., McNicol, J.W., Baird, E., Booth, A., Lawrence, P., Thomas, B. & Powell, W. (1997). The use of AFLPs to examine genetic relatedness in barley. Molecular Breeding 3, 359-369. 33 Simmonds, N.W. (1968). Report by the Director. Annual Report of the Scottish Plant Breeding Station, p12. 34 Ellis, R.P. (1986). Spring barley cultivars bred at the Scottish Crop Research Institute. Crop Research (Hort. Res.) 26, 57-77. 35 Swanston, J.S., Thomas, W.T.B., Powell, W., Young, G.R., Lawrence, P.E., Ramsay, L. & Waugh, R. (1999) Using molecular markers to determine barleys most suitable for malt whisky distilling. Molecular Breeding 5, 103-109. 36 Cook, R., Mccaig, N., Mcmillan, J.M.B. & Lumsden, W.B. (1990). Ethyl carbamate formation in grain-based spirits. 3. The primary source. Journal of the Institute of Brewing 96, 233-244. 37 Brown, J., Ellis, R.P., Thomas, W.T.B. & Swanston, J.S. (1981). Early generation selection for yield in plant breeding. Barley Genetics IV. Proceedings of the Fourth International Barley Genetics Symposium, Edinburgh, 1981, pp 84-89. 38 Robinson, D.L., Kershaw, C.D. & Ellis, R.P. (1988). An investigation of two-dimensional yield variability in breeders’ small plot trials. Journal of agricultural Science, Cambridge 111, 419-426. 39 Talbot, M., & England, F. J. W. (1984). A comparison of cereal variety performance in National List and Plant Breeders' trials. Journal of the National Institute of Agricultural Botany. 16, 499-505. 40 Patterson, H.D. & Hunter, E.A. (1983). The efficiency of incomplete block designs in National List and Recommended List cereal variety trials. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge. 101, 427-433. 41 Powell,W, Caligari, P.D.S., Thomas, W.T.B. & Jinks, J.L. (1985a). The Effects of Major Genes on Quantitatively Varying Characters in Barley .2. the Denso and Daylength Response Loci: Heredity, 54, 349-352. 42 Powell,W., Ellis, R.P. & Thomas, W.T.B. (1990). The Effects of Major Genes on Quantitatively Varying Characters in Barley .3. the 2 Row 6 Row Locus (V-V). Heredity 65, 259-264. 43 Thomas, W. T. B., Powell, W. & Swanston, J.S. (1991). The Effects of Major Genes on Quantitatively Varying Characters in Barley 4. The Gpert and Denso Loci and Quality Characters. Heredity 66, 381-389. 44 Ellis, R.P. & Kirby, E.J.M. (1980). A comparison of spring barley grown in England and Scotland. 2 Yield and its components. Journal of agricultural Science, Cambridge, 95, 111-115. 45 Russell, G. & Ellis, R.P. (1988). The Relationship Between Leaf Canopy Development and Yield of Barley: Annals of Applied Biology. 113, 357-374. 46 Russell, G., Ellis, R.P., Brown, J., Milbourn & G.M., Hayter, A.M. (1982). The Development and Yield of Autumn-Sown and Spring-Sown Barley in South East Scotland. Annals of Applied Biology. 100, 167-178. 47 Ellis, R.P., Thomas & W.T.B., Swanston, J.S. (2000). The use of mapped SSRs to examine the historical changes in barley germplasm in Europe. Barley Genetics VIII, Vol II: 8-10. 48 NIAB (2000). UK Recommended Lists of Cereals. 49 Foroughi-Wehr, B. & Friedt, W. (1984). Rapid production of recombinant barley yellow mosaic-virus resistant hordeum-vulgare lines by anther culture. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 67: 377- 382 50 Thomas, W.T.B. (2003). Prospect for molecular breeding of barley. Annals of Applied Biology. 142, 1-12. 51 r.raymond@cgiar.org 82
GM herbicide-tolerant crops Some personal remarks on the Farm Scale Evaluations of GMHT crops G.R. Squire The continued increase in the yield of crops during the 20 th century was not without effect on other organisms of the field. The move from spring-sown to autumn-sown cereals in the 1970s had claimed a large fraction of the annual solar energy, while the increase in number, type and broadening specificity of herbicides had even further reduced variety and abundance in the primary producers. By the late 1990s, many informed commentators felt things had gone too far. Long-term resident species were being lost from vicecounties and animals high in the food chain were declining. Definitive experimental evidence relating cause to effect was difficult to collect at the landscapescale, but the consensus was that too many fields had become much degraded as biological systems 1, 2 , to the extent that continued depletion of diversity must lead to major loss of function in soils. The ecological debate in the 1990s was about rehabilitating and sustaining the functioning of fields with whatever form of cropping was used. At this time, seed companies notified their intent to commercialise GM herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) crops in the UK. The response had ethical and geopolitical as well as ecological overtones 3 . Arguments on ecological benefit or harm centred on change in pesticide profile, the effect of the GMHT package - the crop variety and herbicide – on the declining, in-field biodiversity and the movement of GM traits into other plants. Purely ecological concerns were raised by English Nature, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and concerned ecologists, who felt GMHT cropping used during the ‘breaks’ between cereals might be a step too far. The break crops, of which oilseed rape was the most widespread, gave probably the last general opportunity for broadleaved weeds to regenerate their populations, which in turn diversified the food web and sustained functions beyond those of the crop plants. In response to these calls, the UK government, through what was to become Defra, asked for tenders for research to examine the effect on farmland biodiversity of GMHT cropping. SCRI joined the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) and Rothamsted Research as a bidding consortium. We won and began work in April 1999. The research consortium had to maintain its independence as part of a larger grouping of farmers, seed and agrochemical companies, a Steering Committee and government departments 4, 5 . Methods and experimental design No ecological studies of harm and benefit had been done at a large scale in countries where GMHT had already been grown, but plot-scale comparisons in the UK and overseas all pointed to very small or negligible ecological effects of plants having the GM herbicide-tolerant trait itself 6 . Any ecological impact would likely be through the package of the GM plant and a herbicide (glyphosate or glufosinate ammonium) which was able to target larger and more mature weeds growing when the crop was well developed. It could kill the weeds other herbicides could not reach. It was essential to compare this package with the existing, widespread form of cropping. The comparison was therefore between GMHT cropping as recommended by the manufacturers and the conventional ways of growing the beet, maize or oilseed rape 6 . The experiment was unique in that it would work with the variability among sites and years and not try to constrain it. Having argued that experimenters should be more prepared to relax the boundaries of their system 7 , here was a chance to for me work with a group that expressly wished to probe an open system, not just some of its parts in isolation. The greatest challenge nevertheless was whether the comparison could be made successfully - whether a consistent shift, or absence of one, in populations or biological mass could be detected above the noise of weather and the general unpredictability of arable cropping. In the first year, 1999, an extensive review, re-analysis of past data and collection of specific new information led us to propose a split-field experimental design and the need to repeat the comparison at 60-75 sites to detect an effect above the noise 8 . The statisticians Joe Perry and Peter Rothery led this phase of the work, but the whole team was convinced. The design withstood scrutiny by the Steering Committee and was eventually formalised and made public through the Defra web site. It became the target of anyone with a case against GM field trials. You would share a public debate with a partizan or political activist, who would 83
Page 1 and 2:
Scottish Crop Research Institute ®
Page 3 and 4:
The Scottish Crop Research Institut
Page 5 and 6:
Contents Biomathematics and Statist
Page 7 and 8:
Introduction upon the Commissioner
Page 9 and 10:
Introduction ® Scottish Crop Resea
Page 11 and 12:
Report of the Director John R. Hill
Page 13 and 14:
Director’s Report tion from dismi
Page 15 and 16:
Director’s Report paper A revised
Page 17 and 18:
Director’s Report and the relatio
Page 19 and 20:
Director’s Report Member States A
Page 21 and 22:
Director’s Report US subsidies fr
Page 23 and 24:
Director’s Report regions of the
Page 25 and 26:
Director’s Report of silver and m
Page 27 and 28:
Director’s Report tions. Obscenel
Page 29 and 30:
Director’s Report participation.
Page 31 and 32: Director’s Report heads of state
Page 33 and 34: Director’s Report Philippines (2.
Page 35 and 36: Director’s Report Food Aid Famine
Page 37 and 38: Director’s Report adoption of unh
Page 39 and 40: Director’s Report economy propose
Page 41 and 42: Director’s Report (herbicides, in
Page 43 and 44: Director’s Report by a combinatio
Page 45 and 46: Director’s Report mended a study
Page 47 and 48: Director’s Report notes, bulletin
Page 49 and 50: Director’s Report research instit
Page 51 and 52: Director’s Report Ireland. Also i
Page 53 and 54: Director’s Report tats, most nota
Page 55 and 56: Director’s Report shares of total
Page 57 and 58: Director’s Report tonnes in 1999.
Page 59 and 60: Director’s Report Relative Import
Page 61 and 62: Director’s Report cheap food-stuf
Page 63 and 64: Director’s Report culturally-rela
Page 65 and 66: Director’s Report on large parts
Page 67 and 68: Director’s Report minimum input s
Page 69 and 70: Director’s Report organic farming
Page 71 and 72: Viruses - evolving organisms ? Viru
Page 73 and 74: Viruses - evolving organisms ? CLCu
Page 75 and 76: Viruses - evolving organisms ? a) b
Page 77 and 78: Barley Crop Development formation o
Page 79 and 80: Barley Crop Development Year Total
Page 81: Barley Crop Development on a year t
Page 85 and 86: GM herbicide-tolerant crops and som
Page 87 and 88: GM herbicide-tolerant crops mitted
Page 89 and 90: GM herbicide-tolerant crops 12 Squi
Page 91 and 92: Mechanisms & Processes Peronospora
Page 93 and 94: Mechanisms & Processes Proteomic an
Page 95 and 96: Mechanisms & Processes High-through
Page 97 and 98: Mechanisms & Processes Studying pla
Page 99 and 100: Mechanisms & Processes Phytoene pea
Page 101 and 102: Mechanisms & Processes New discover
Page 103 and 104: Mechanisms & Processes in these cel
Page 105 and 106: Mechanisms & Processes d). This dat
Page 107 and 108: Genes to Products ic enzymes (use o
Page 109 and 110: Genes to Products Carotenogenesis i
Page 111 and 112: Genes to Products accumulation in s
Page 113 and 114: Genes to Products Retrotransposons
Page 115 and 116: SH43 SL03 SH44 SH12 B20 SL22 B47 B0
Page 117 and 118: Management of genes and organisms i
Page 119 and 120: Environment Functional diversity in
Page 121 and 122: Environment Plant root biomechanics
Page 123 and 124: Environment Microbial and microfaun
Page 125 and 126: Environment The role and importance
Page 127 and 128: Environment duced from barley mixtu
Page 129 and 130: Environment IOBC GMO Guidelines Pro
Page 131 and 132: Environment Mathematical modelling
Page 133 and 134:
Biomathematics and Statistics Scotl
Page 135 and 136:
Research services Analytical facili
Page 137 and 138:
Research services Division of Finan
Page 139 and 140:
Research services Information Techn
Page 141 and 142:
Research services Estate, Glasshous
Page 143 and 144:
Research services Engineering and M
Page 145 and 146:
Research services MRS will: strengt
Page 147 and 148:
Research services Health and Safety
Page 149 and 150:
Publications Blok, V.C. 2002. Progr
Page 151 and 152:
Publications Phenotype/genotype ass
Page 153 and 154:
Publications for virus-transmitting
Page 155 and 156:
Publications Muckenschnabel, I., Go
Page 157 and 158:
Publications rich grassland. Procee
Page 159 and 160:
Publications Woodford, J.A.T., Fent
Page 161 and 162:
Statement of health & safety policy
Page 163 and 164:
The Governing Body The Governing Bo
Page 165 and 166:
The Governing Body development and
Page 167 and 168:
Staff Theme 2 - Genes to Products T
Page 169 and 170:
Staff Division of Finance and Admin
Page 171 and 172:
Staff Resignations Name Unit Band M
Page 173 and 174:
Staff Editorial Duties Name Positio
Page 175 and 176:
Staff Name Position Committee or Or
Page 177 and 178:
SCRI Research Programme 2002-2003 S
Page 179 and 180:
Research Projects SCR/587/02 SCR/58
Page 181 and 182:
Meteorological Records D. Petrie &
Page 183:
List of Abbreviations AAB ACRE ADAS
show all

PDF file: Annual Report 2002/2003 - Scottish Crop Research Institute

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?