Download PDF (6215 kb) - Bioversity International

ii 

ECP/GR FORAGES WORKING GROUP 

The International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) is an autonomous international 

scientific organization, supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural 

Research (CGIAR). IPGRI's mandate is to advance the conservation and use of plant genetic 

resources for the benefit of present and future generations. IPGRI's headquarters is based in 

Rome, Italy, with offices in another 14 countries worldwide. It operates through three 

programmes: (1) the Plant Genetic Resources Programme, (2) the CGIAR Genetic Resources 

Support Programme, and (3) the International Network for the Improvement of Banana and 

Plantain (INIBAP). The international status of IPGRI is conferred under an Establishment 

Agreement which, by January 1998, had been signed and ratified by the Governments of 

Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, 

Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Greece, 

Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, 

Morocco, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Slovakia, Sudan, 

Switzerland, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda and Ukraine. 

The European Cooperative Programme for Crop Genetic Resources Networks (ECP/GR) is a 

collaborative programme among most European countries aimed at ensuring the long-term 

conservation and facilitating the increased utilization of plant genetic resources in Europe. The 

Programme, which is entirely financed by the participating countries and is coordinated by 

IPGRI, is overseen by a Steering Committee (previously Technical Consultative Committee, 

TCC) composed of National Coordinators nominated by the participating countries and a 

number of relevant international bodies. The Programme operates through ten broadly focused 

networks in which activities are carried out through a number of permanent working groups or 

through ad hoc actions. The ECP/GR networks deal with either groups of crops (cereals, 

forages, vegetables, grain legumes, fruit, minor crops, industrial crops and potato) or general 

themes related to plant genetic resources (documentation and information, in situ and on-farm 

conservation, technical cooperation). Members of the working groups and other scientists from 

participating countries carry out an agreed workplan with their own resources as inputs in kind 

to the Programme. 

The geographical designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication 

do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IPGRI or the CGIAR 

concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning 

the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Similarly, the views expressed are those of the 

authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of these participating organizations. 

Cover: Bee visiting alfalfa flowers. Courtesy Dr L. Mazza, CONASE (Consorzio Nazionale 

Sementi), Ravenna, Italy. 

Citation: Maggioni, L., P. Marum, R. Sackville Hamilton, I. Thomas, T. Gass and E. Lipman, 

compilers. 1998. Report of a Working Group on Forages. Sixth meeting, 6-8 March 1997, 

Beitostølen, Norway. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy. 

ISBN 92-9043-379-5 

IPGRI 

Via delle Sette Chiese 142 

00145 Rome 

Italy 

© International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, 1998

Contents 

Part I. Discussion and Recommendations 

CONTENTS iii 

Introduction 1 

Welcoming Address (E. Thörn) 1 

Presentation of participants 1 

Information on ECP/GR (L. Maggioni) 1 

Chairperson's Report 2 

The European Central Forages Databases (updating and opportunities for 

standardization) 4 

Status reports from the database managers 4 

Mechanisms for updating 7 

Opportunities for standardization 7 

Recommendations 8 

Status of national collections 9 

Reports from countries not included in the previous Working Group report 9 

Duplication in forages collections 11 

On the identification of duplicate accessions 11 

Safety-duplication of genebank accessions in Europe 11 

Sharing of responsibilities 12 

Sharing of responsibilities for the conservation and use of 

French forage genetic resources 12 

The European Forage Collection 12 

Standards for regeneration 17 

Guidelines for the regeneration of accessions in seed collections of the 

main perennial forage grasses and legumes of temperate grasslands 17 

The Lolium Core Collection 18 

Current status of the Core Collection 18 

Isozyme studies 19 

Project applications to the European Commisssion 20 

Council Regulation (EC) 1467/94 on the conservation, characterization, 

collection and utilization of genetic resources in agriculture 20 

Recommendations 20 

Collecting activities 22 

Research activities 22 

Reports of ongoing or concluded research activities 22 

Future research activities 25 

Recent international developments in PGR-related issues 26 

Conclusion 27 

Part II. Presented papers 28 

European Central Forages Databases 28 

The European Agropyron database 28 

The European Arrhenatherum and Trisetum Databases 29 

The European Central Lathyrus spp. Database 31 

The European Central Perennial Medicago Database 32 

The European Poa Database 33 

The European Bromus, Trifolium pratense and other perennial forages databases 37 

The European Trifolium alexandrinum and T. resupinatum databases 41 

The European Vicia database 42 

The European Dactylis and Festuca databases 46

iv 


The European databases of Medicago spp. (annual species) and 

Trifolium subterraneum 60 

The European Phleum, Phalaris and Agrostis databases 64 

The European Lolium and Trifolium repens databases 67 

The European database on 'other Vicieae' 67 

Status of National Collections 68 

Collecting and evaluation of wild and cultivated local germplasm 

of forages in Cyprus 

Demetrios Droushiotis 68 

Status of the national forages collections in Greece 

Thomas Vaitsis 73 

Genetic resources of perennial grasses and legumes in Lithuania 

N. Lemeziené 77 

Current status of CGN forages collection 

J. Loek M. van Soest and Harm Dijkstra 78 

Forages national collections in Poland 

G. Žurek and W. Podyma 81 

Status of forage collections in Slovakia 

J. Drobná 84 

Forage crops genetic resources in F.R. Yugoslavia 

Zorica Tomić 88 

Duplications in forages collections 92 

On the identification of duplicate accessions 

E. Willner, N.R. Sackville Hamilton and H. Knüpffer 92 

Safety-duplication of germplasm collections in Europe 

Lorenzo Maggioni and Thomas Gass 96 

Standards for regeneration 103 

The regeneration of accessions in seed collections of the main perennial forage 

grasses and legumes of temperate grasslands: background considerations 

N.R. Sackville Hamilton 103 

Collecting activities 109 

Forage collecting activities in Bulgaria, 1995-96 

Siyka Angelova 109 

Forage collecting activities in the Czech Republic, 1995-96 

Magdalena Sevcíková 110 

Collecting activities in Germany, 1995-96 

Evelin Willner 111 

Collecting grass genetic resources in Hungary 

Lajos Horváth and An Ghesquiere 112 

Collecting of semi-natural and wild ecotypes in Lithuania 

Nijole Lemeziené 114 

Forages collecting activities in Poland, 1995-96 

G. Žurek, J. Schmidt , P. Hauptvogel , W. Podyma and W. Majtkowski 116 

Collecting missions in Portugal, 1995-96 

Manuel Tavares de Sousa 120 

Collecting missions in the Russian Federation, 1995-96 

Vladimir Chapurin 121 

Collecting activities in Slovakia, 1994-96 

Jarmila Drobná 122 

Collecting activities in Spain 

Francisco González López 123 

Collecting activities in Turkey, 1995-96 

Cafer Olcayto Sabanci 124 

Recent collecting activities at IGER, Aberystwyth (United Kingdom) 

Ian D. Thomas 125

CONTENTS v 

Collecting activites in F.R. Yugoslavia 

Zorica Tomić 126 

Research activities 127 

Austria: Recultivation of alpine areas with seed of alpine plants 

B. Krautzer 127 

Germany: A knowledge base for disease resistance of selected 

cultivated plant species 

Hartmut Kegler, Dieter Spaar and Evelin Willner 131 

Greece: Breeding for drought resistance, persistence and forage productivity 

Thomas Vaitsis 142 

Italy: RAPD fingerprints as a tool for characterizing the genetic 

background of lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) landraces 

V. Negri, G. Barcaccia , L. Russi , S. Tavoletti , A. Pellicoro and M. Falcinelli 

Turkey: Evaluation of common vetch collections 

Cafer Olcayto Sabanci 150 

United Kingdom: Research at IGER on in situ conservation of botanical 

diversity in agricultural grasslands 

N.R. Sackville Hamilton 157 

Appendix I. Forage Passport Descriptors 158 

Appendix II. Towards a protocol for designating primary holders of accessions 162 

N.R. Sackville Hamilton 

Appendix III. Guidelines for the regeneration of accessions in seed collections 

of the main perennial forage grasses and legumes of temperate grasslands 167 

N.R. Sackville Hamilton, K.H. Chorlton and I.D. Thomas 

Appendix IV. Summary of germplasm holdings 184 

Petter Marum, Ian D. Thomas and Merja Veteläinen 

Appendix V. Survey on safety-duplication capacities 190 

Appendix VI. Acronyms and abbreviations 191 

Appendix VII. List of Participants 192 

143

Part I. Discussion and Recommendations 

Introduction 

EUROPEAN CENTRAL FORAGES DATABASES 1 

Welcoming Address 

Eva Thörn, director of the Nordic Gene Bank (NGB), welcomed the participants to the 

beautiful country of Norway. She said that it was a pleasure for the Nordic Gene Bank to be 

associated with the organization of the meeting. NGB as a regional genebank strongly 

supports the regional work of IPGRI and is willing to do what it can to strengthen and widen 

the network. NGB, a common institute for Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, 

has almost 20 years of experience in regional activities. The aim of the genebank is to 

conserve material of Nordic origin and of importance to agriculture and horticulture and to 

promote the utilization of the conserved material. The concept is based on close collaboration 

with Nordic plant breeders and researchers organized in crop-related working groups. These 

people are supporting the staff with expertise and practical work with the conserved 

material. Eva Thörn stressed the importance of the people in their own working groups as 

well as the participants in the ECP/GR network. She said that although the participants are 

spread all over Europe in different environments and different organizations, all have a 

common task and a common goal: to conserve plant genetic resources for food and 

agriculture for future needs and to see that the conserved material will be used in a 

sustainable manner for future generations. She encouraged the participants to bring back all 

the commitments and recommendations which will be made during the meeting to their 

colleagues as well as to policy-makers, and to encourage plant breeders to actively take part 

in the important work of conservation and utilization of plant genetic resources (PGR) in a 

sustainable way. She underlined the importance of a good system for information and 

documentation designed according to the needs of the users of PGR. She also said that it 

must be kept in mind that PGR as such have no value until they are used by someone for a 

specific reason. She expressed her sincere hope that the world community will be able to 

make such agreements that plant genetic resources will be freely available and preferably 

also free of charge in the future and stressed that all participants could contribute to that 

process. Finally she wished the participants interesting and fruitful discussions during their 

stay in Norway. 

Presentation of participants 

Petter Marum welcomed the members attending and those corresponding to the Forages 

Working Group meeting for the first time. He asked all the participants to briefly introduce 

themselves. The apologies of Vincent Connolly from Ireland, who was not able to attend, 

were transmitted to the Group. It was noted that many contributions were received from 

other members unable to attend. 

Information on ECP/GR 

Lorenzo Maggioni introduced himself as the new ECP/GR Coordinator. He welcomed the 

participants on behalf of IPGRI and thanked P. Marum for the excellent organization of the 

meeting. He also thanked E. Thörn for her encouraging and appropriate opening words, and 

then informed the participants, a number of whom were present for the first time at an 

ECP/GR meeting, of the changes in the structure and mode of operation of the Programme, 

as decided in the meeting of the Technical Consultative Committee (TCC) in Nitra, Slovakia, 

in September 1995. He described the new structure of the Programme which is composed of 

crop-specific networks and thematic networks and illustrated the type of activities carried 

out within each of these. He summarized the most recent ECP/GR events, such as the 

Documentation meeting in Budapest (October 1996) and the participation of non-EU

2 


countries in EU-funded projects (EC 1467/94), such as the project on Potato genetic 

resources. The existence of a Web site for ECP/GR was mentioned, as well as the ongoing 

preparation of a prototype for the Internet Information Platform under the ECP/GR 

umbrella. 1 This will be the framework to interconnect and provide on-line access to the 

European Central Crop Databases. The imminence of the end of Phase V of ECP/GR (at the 

end of 1998), was mentioned, emphasizing the need to formulate recommendations for the 

future of the Forages Working Group to the Steering Committee. 

Demetrios Droushiotis and Loek van Soest suggested that the Forages Working Group might benefit 

from being split into two or more Forages Working Groups, for example on temperate forages and 

Mediterranean forages. There was a discussion on the relative merits of splitting or remaining as one 

Group. The majority conclusion was that the Working Group would overall gain more benefit from 

remaining as one Group. 

Chairperson's Report 

Petter Marum 

The Norwegian Crop Research Institute, Heggenes, Norway 

Since the fifth meeting of the Working Group, held in Hissar, Bulgaria, in March-April 1995, 

the following activities have been carried out: 

European forage databases 

Changes in responsibility 

In the last 2 years there have been several changes in responsibility for the different 

databases. The Trifolium pratense database was transferred from RAC, Changins, Switzerland 

to the Institute for Agrobotany in Tápiószele, Hungary. The database for annual Lolium was 

transferred from CNR, Bari, Italy to IGER, Aberystwyth, UK. The Phalaris database was 

transferred from CNR, Bari, Italy to the Nordic Gene Bank, Sweden. The Poa database was 

transferred from FAL, Braunschweig, Germany to the IPK branch Station at Malchow, 

Germany, and the Dactylis and Festuca databases were transferred from IHAR Radzików, 

Poland to the Botanical Garden of IHAR at Bydgoszcz, Poland. 

New databases 

New databases have been developed or are under development for Agrostis at NGB, Sweden, 

for Agropyron at IPGR, Bulgaria, and one for 'other perennial forage legumes' (Anthyllis, 

Melilotus, Lotus and Onobrychis) at the Institute for Agrobotany in Hungary. 

Updating 

During the last 2 years most of the databases have been updated. Reports about the 

updating will be given later during this meeting. 

Searching for unduplicated material 

During the last meeting in Bulgaria it was recommended to develop a computer programme 

to search for unduplicated material. It turned out to be more difficult than anticipated to 

develop such a programme that would do a good job for the European forage databases. 

1 The European Information Platform on Crop Genetic Resources is now available at 

http://www.cgiar.org/ecpgr/platform


EGDS-ECP/GR Workshop on Central Crop Databases 

Many of the European forage database managers attended the joint EGDS-ECP/GR 

workshop on Central Crop Databases held in Budapest in October 1996. Among the topics 

discussed were the role of Central Crop Databases (CCDBs), the inclusion of evaluation data 

in CCDBs, the standardization of CCDBs, the role of the database managers, and the 

facilitation of access to CCDBs. 

The workshop adopted a slightly revised version of a multicrop passport descriptors list 

proposed by FAO and IPGRI. 

To make the CCDBs widely accessible it was decided to establish an Internet-based 

information platform. 

The question was raised why the forages are split into so many databases, even within 

some genera. It should be recommended that in the future, any change would go in the 

direction of merging rather than splitting databases. 

European Phleum Database 

After the recommendations of the EGDS-ECP/GR Workshop, the Phleum database was put 

on the Internet in a searchable form in November 1996 at the NGB. This was the first 

ECP/GR database to be put on-line in a searchable form. Agrostis, Phalaris and Poa databases 

will follow soon. 

Lolium perenne Core Collection 

The Lolium perenne core collection was established at 16 locations in the spring of 1995, and at 

two locations in 1996, in a total of 17 countries. Ruaraidh Sackville Hamilton and Ian D. 

Thomas elaborated the protocol for scoring the plants based on the discussions in our 

previous meeting in Bulgaria. Dirk Reheul made the protocol for the quality analysis. Five 

countries will do the quality analysis. Thirty-eight accessions were analyzed for isozymes by 

François Balfourier. 

EU projects on genetic resources (EC 1467/94) 

Three project proposals were submitted to the EU, one on Medicago, one on Lolium and 

Festuca, and one on Vicieae. The proposal on Lolium and Festuca was coordinated by 

Ruaraidh Sackville Hamilton, the proposal on Medicago was coordinated by Vincent 

Gensollen and the proposal on Vicieae by Frank Bisby. None of the proposals was successful 

or resubmitted in the following second call for proposals in 1996. A new call for proposals is 

expected to be announced in 1998. 2 

Mid-term progress report 

A mid-term report was distributed to all members of the Working Group in July 1996, 

providing summaries of activities implemented since the previous meeting of the Working 

Group. 

2 The Third call for proposals for the Community programme on the conservation, characterization, 

collection and utilization of genetic resources in agriculture was published on 9 April 1998 (closing 

date for proposal submission 9 July 1998).

4 


The European Central Forages Databases (updating and opportunities 

for standardization) 

Representatives from the countries hosting the ECP/GR Forages Databases presented an 

update of the status of these databases. Since the last meeting of the Working Group, 

updating has proceeded for several of these. 

Status reports from the database managers 

(for more detailed information, see also Part II) 

IPGR, Sadovo, Bulgaria - Agropyron spp. 

Siyka Angelova reported on the Agropyron database, maintained at IPGR, Plovdiv, Bulgaria. 

The database, on dBaseIII software, currently contains data received from the IPK-Genebank, 

Gatersleben, Germany (78 wild, semi-natural) and IPGR, Sadovo, Bulgaria (27 advanced 

cultivars and 29 wild, semi-natural). The database manager is currently collecting 

information to further update the database. 

She recommended that her colleagues send her the data available, especially from countries with big 

collections, such as the Russian Federation, Poland and Greece. 

OSEVA PRO Ltd., Czech Republic - Arrhenatherum elatius and Trisetum flavescens 

Magdalena Sevcíková reported on the Arrhenatherum elatius and Trisetum flavescens 

databases, maintained at OSEVA PRO Ltd., Grassland Research Station, Zubrí, Czech 

Republic. Updating started in 1996, with requests for data sent to 15 institutes. Replies were 

received from eight institutes, and their data were entered in the database, which now 

includes passport data of 148 accessions. The software used is FoxPro 2.5. 

IBEAS, Pau, France - Lathyrus spp. 

François Balfourier presented a report received from Daniel Combes on the European 

Database for Lathyrus maintained at IBEAS, Pau, France, containing about 4000 accessions. It 

includes four wild or semi-wild perennial species: Lathyrus latifolius L., L. tuberosus L., 

L. heterophyllus L. and L. sylvestris L., and two annual species: L. sativus L. (cultivated grass 

pea) and L. cicera L., probable wild ancestor of L. sativus. The database was established in 

1985 and is updated approximately every year. Passport descriptors used are those 

indicated by IPGRI, and were modified according to IPGRI/FAO Multicrop Passport 

Descriptors. The database is accessible through the Internet, on the site of Pau University 

(http://www.univ-pau.fr). 

Mr Combes was thanked for sending a comprehensive report and for his proactive interaction with the 

Working Group. 

INRA-GEVES, Surgères, France - Medicago (perennial species) 

François Balfourier reported on the perennial Medicago databases, maintained at 

INRA/GEVES, France. A catalogue was published in 1995 by France, with the support of 

ECP/GR. It contains about 2900 accessions from 13 countries. 

The data file is currently being transformed into a database with a normal structure, 

which will also include accessions from other species of fodder crops from the French 

national collection. This work is supported by the French Agriculture Ministry. The 

software used is Access. The database will allow a better search for duplicated accessions. 

Owners of accessions can then be contacted to decide whether it is necessary to withdraw 

certain accessions. Regarding the completeness of descriptors, institutes which collaborate 

with the perennial Medicago database could send any available informations. If possible, this 

should be done in accordance with the mechanism for updating the European central forages 

databases.


IPK, Malchow, Germany - Poa spp. 

Evelin Willner reported on the Poa database maintained since 1995 at the IPK-Genebank, 

Malchow station, Germany, where it was transferred from FAL Braunschweig, in connection 

with the retirement of Dr Seidewitz, and according to a decision of the ECP/GR Forages 

Working Group in 1995. Letters requesting Poa passport data updates were sent to 26 

institutions in 19 countries holding relevant germplasm. The accessions in the database are 

reported to originate from 42 different countries, with more than 50% from Poland. Data 

received from contributors were transformed into a unique format, based on earlier 

recommendations of the ECP/GR Forages Working Group ('Guide to ECP/GR Forages 

Databases,' 1991) and on the FAO/IPGRI 'Multicrop Passport Descriptors' (draft version, 

January 1997). 

The authors of the database are highly interested in receiving Poa data from other institutions who, for 

different reasons, could not send their updates in time. Data should be sent to E. Willner or 

H. Knüpffer by Email or on diskettes, preferably in the form of .dbf files (dBase or FoxPro) or .xls 

(Excel) files. ASCII files are also welcome. There is not, as yet, any possibility to import databases 

created in the format of Microsoft Access. Information about available evaluation data is also 

welcome. The database will be made accessible via Internet in 1997, thanks to a collaboration between 

IPK and ZADI. 3 

Institute for Agrobotany, Tápiószele, Hungary - Bromus, Trifolium pratense and other 

perennial legume forage species 

Lajos Horváth reported on the Bromus, Trifolium pratense and other perennial legume forage 

species databases, maintained at the Institute of Agrobotany (RCA), Tápiószele, Hungary. 

According to the decision of the fifth meeting of the Working Group, the Trifolium pratense 

database was transferred from Switzerland to the RCA, after it had been updated by the 

Swiss coordinator in 1995. The database contains passport data of 1901 accessions, belonging 

to 19 collaborating institutes. The duplicates within this database are marked with the same 

ECP number. The European Bromus Database has been updated during this period, and its 

structure is also renewed. The new database contains the passport data of 583 Bromus 

accessions, but duplicates are not included in it. 4 The fifth meeting also decided on the 

establishment of the 'Other Perennial Forage Legumes Database', which would compile the 

passport data of the European Anthyllis, Onobrychis, Lotus and Melilotus collections. IPGRI 

supplied the addresses of 45 possible collaborators. Until the reporting time 10 institutions 

had answered the request, and the new database contains 88 Anthyllis, 323 Melilotus, 677 

Lotus and 348 Onobrychis accessions. Their total number is 1316. The three databases are 

available in dBaseIV format. 

ARO, Bet Dagan, Israel - Trifolium alexandrinum and T. resupinatum 

Information on the database, maintained at ARO, Bet Dagan, Israel was not received before 

this meeting. 

CNR, Bari, Italy - Vicia spp. 

(Information extracted from a report prepared by the database manager, Pietro Perrino, in 

October 1996). The Central Database for Vicia contains 5520 accessions. A little more than 

40% of the accessions are stored in the Bari genebank. The other 60% are stored in nine other 

genebanks. The number of known species in the database is nearly 80. 

3 The database was uploaded in June 1997 at http://www.dainet.de/genres/eccdb/poa/poa.htm 

4 The Bromus database is now available on the Internet at 

http://www.ngb.se/Databases/ECP/Bromus

6 


IHAR, Bydgoszcz, Poland - Dactylis and Festuca 

Petter Marum presented a report received from Wlodzimierz Majtkowski on the Dactylis and 

Festuca databases, maintained at IHAR, Bydgoszcz, Poland. The databases were updated in 

1997. Information was received from 23 institutes. The Dactylis database contains 8700 

accessions in 10 taxa from 14 institutes. Most of the accessions belong to the species Dactylis 

glomerata L. (98.5%). Of all accessions, 89.5% were classified as ecotypes and 6.7% as 

advanced cultivars and breeders' lines. Among the advanced cultivars and breeding lines, 

44% were duplicated in one or more genebanks. The Festuca database contains 7366 

accessions in 27 taxa from 17 institutes. Most of the accessions belong to the species Festuca 

pratensis Huds. (71%), Festuca arundinacea Schreb. (18%) and Festuca rubra L. (5%). A total of 

82.8% of the accessions were classified as ecotypes and 14% as advanced cultivars and 

breeders' lines. Among the advanced cultivars and breeding lines, 55% were duplicated in 

one or more genebanks. 5 

The compiler of the database, Grzegor Żurek, recommends to update the database once every year, to 

add identification of duplicates to future activities, to collect information about other European 

species, and to standardize the taxonomy of the genus Festuca. 

Mr Majtkowski was thanked for sending his accurate report and for his good example of effective 

interaction as a corresponding Working Group member. 

INIA, Badajoz, Spain - Trifolium subterraneum and annual Medicago 

Francisco Gonzalez Lopez reported on the Trifolium subterraneum and annual Medicago 

databases, maintained at the Servicio de Investigación y Desarrollo Tecnológico (SIA), Spain. 

Updates were received from IPGR, Sadovo, Bulgaria, BAL, Braunschweig, Germany and the 

Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, UK. These were included in the databases. Data are recorded 

in dBaseIII and Access v. 2.0. The T. subterraneum database contains 3077 records, while the 

Medicago database contains 1776 records. All data are freely available. 

IGER, Aberystwyth, UK - Lolium and Trifolium repens 

Ian Thomas reported on the Lolium and Trifolium repens databases maintained at IGER, 

Aberystwyth, UK using Microsoft Access v. 7.0. A common record description is used for 

both databases based on the IBPGR Descriptor List for Forages (1985) with modifications to 

accommodate all contributed data. At the end of 1995 all institutes identified by IPGRI as 

holding genetic resources of Lolium and T. repens were contacted and during 1996 the 

databases underwent a significant update. New or revised data sets were received from 15 

Institutes and the new (1997) databases contain 8417 records for 25 species or subspecies of 

Lolium and 1285 records for five species or subspecies of T. repens. Also received was the 

database on annual Lolium from Bari, Italy, although this has yet to be incorporated into the 

main Lolium database. 

Some institutes which supplied data for the old databases (pre-1995) did not reply to the 

request for new information. Rather than erroneously transfer obsolete records their data 

has not been included in the new databases. These institutes will be contacted during 1997 

to ascertain the status of their data. 

IGER would welcome any further information to help make the databases as complete as 

possible. Data may be sent by Email or on diskette, preferably in Access, dBase or Excel 

format. It should be clearly indicated whether they are New records, Modifications to 

existing records or records to be Deleted from the database. 

An attempt was made to identify duplicated/unduplicated accessions. However, the 

outcome was not very satisfactory and it was decided to postpone the exercise pending 

further discussions. 

5 The databases are now available on the Internet at http://www.ngb.se/Databases/ECP/Dactylis; 

http://www.ngb.se/Databases/ECP/Festuca


The new databases will be available during 1997 for downloading from the IGER World 

Wide Web site. 6 They can also be made available on CD-ROM. Smaller subsets of the data in 

response to specific ad hoc requests may be available on floppy disk or by Email. 

University of Southampton, UK - other Vicieae 

Ruaraidh Sackville Hamilton indicated that the database has not been updated and remains 

in the same state as reported at the previous meeting in Bulgaria. This situation is due to 

lack of funds for personnel to work on the database. 

Nordic Gene Bank, Alnarp, Sweden - Phleum, Agrostis and Phalaris 

Merja Veteläinen reported on the Phleum, Agrostis and Phalaris databases, maintained at the 

Nordic Gene Bank, Alnarp, Sweden. The updating of Phleum, Phalaris and Agrostis databases 

started in 1995 and is still ongoing. Information of some of the largest collections is not yet 

included in the central databases. The database management system is dBase for Windows. 

The Phleum database is already available on Internet and the Phalaris and Agrostis databases 

will also be published on the Internet during 1997. 7 Databases can be delivered on diskettes 

upon request. The Phleum database contains information from 19 institutes and for about 

4200 accessions. In the Phalaris database information from eight institutions and 231 

accessions is included. In both databases duplications and other gaps will be screened in the 

database and this information will be delivered to the respective institutions. The Agrostis 

database includes passport data from eight institutions and 271 accessions. The database 

will be managed as the other central forage databases at the Nordic Gene Bank. 

Since several mistakes were found among the data received from contributors, these will be sent to the 

original database managers to make appropriate corrections. This exercise of correction is considered 

to require 1 year before being completed. 

Mechanisms for updating 

Ian Thomas presented an overview of updating mechanisms in Central Crop Databases. 

Institutes presenting data for inclusion in a Central Crop Database are not always aware of the 

difficulties encountered by the CCDB manager in incorporating the new data set into the main 

database. Using the Lolium CCDB as an example, this presentation discusses problems 

encountered in obtaining, reconciling and interpreting new data. It also covers the use of 

coded data fields and the automatic validation of data. Finally the question of unique 

accession names is addressed and a suggestion made to help avoid future problems. 

Opportunities for standardization 

Petter Marum introduced a discussion on the possibility for further standardization of the 

forages databases. In a former meeting of the Working Group on Forages in 1985, a 

standardized format for the forages databases was adopted. In 1997 most of the databases 

had a different structure. These differences make updating of the databases difficult. A 

standardized format would make the updating of the databases easier. Petter Marum 

presented a suggested descriptor list based on the FAO/IPGRI Multicrop Passport 

Descriptors and the main descriptors used today in the different forages databases. He 

suggested standardizing the data to the agreed structure before it is sent to the database 

managers. He also noted the large variability in the environmental descriptors used in 

IPGRI's descriptor lists, even within the forages, and suggested that a definitive IPGRI 

Multicrop Environmental Descriptor list would be of great advantage. 

6 

At time of printing of the report the Lolium database is now loaded on the NGB server at 

http://www/ngb.se/Databases/ECP/Lolium 

7 

At time of printing of the report these databases are available respectively at 

http://www.ngb.se/Databases/ECP/Phleum 

http://www.ngb.se/Databases/ECP/Phalaris 

http://www.ngb.se/Databases/ECP/Agrostis

8 


Recommendations 

• To facilitate the centralization of data from genebanks into the Central Forages Databases, the 

Working Group members should actively contact the genebanks in their own country from which 

data are missing or incomplete, unless the reason for the delay is due to acknowledged lack of 

resources or temporary unavailability of the data. 

• The Working Group members have an important role to play, as representatives of the Forages 

genetic resources community of their country, to raise the awareness of relevant national 

authorities, to the importance of the national commitment to inputs in kind to European 

Cooperation, such as the management of Central Crop Databases, the improvement of data about 

collections and the supply of these data to the CCDBs. 

• The usefulness of data is not necessarily linked to the availability of seeds. Environmental and 

geographical data can help in the definition of gaps in the collection. Therefore the Working Group 

recommends that data be sent to the Central Forages Database Manager even in the case of 

unavailability of the respective seeds. 

• The Working Group agreed on the adoption of the FAO/IPGRI Multicrop Descriptors List 

recommended during the EGDS-ECP/GR Workshop in Budapest, October 1996. 8 It also agreed on 

the addition of a few other descriptors as suggested by P. Marum. These will be listed with letters 

(A to M), to distinguish them from the Multicrop Descriptors. Apart from descriptors A 

(Collector's name), B (Breeding institute) and C (Breeding method), they are mainly 

environmental descriptors (D to I). Also a character on seed availability (J) and two characters 

related to the European Forage Collection (K and L) were added. Character M (Date of safetyduplication) 

was included in the FAO WIEWS Descriptors list. In addition, the ECP/GR 

Working Group on Forages allows for a subdivision of the descriptor 14 of the Multicrop 

Descriptors list: Status of sample, code 1 (wild): 1A for “natural ecotype” and 1B for “semi-natural 

ecotype”. The complete 'Forages Passport Descriptors List', as agreed by the Working Group on 

Forages, is reported in Appendix I. 

• The Working Group agreed that the supplier of the data to the central database manager should 

standardize the data in conformity with the adopted format and ensure the complete accuracy of the 

data, including procedures for formal validation before they are sent. 

• The Working Group agreed that the adopted 'Forages Passport Descriptors List' will be the 

standard format for minimum data exchange; other types of data, such as further passport data, 

and characterization and evaluation data are welcome. The Working Group recognizes that 

complete coverage of descriptors for old data will not be requested. 

• The Working Group considered that the FAO/IPGRI Multicrop Descriptors List was a good basis 

for harmonization, but a similar standardization should be carried out by IPGRI for a Multicrop 

Environmental Descriptors List 

• The Working Group welcomes FAO's offer to revise the list of Institute codes. 

8 Lipman, E., M.W.M. Jongen, Th.J.L. van Hintum, T. Gass and L. Maggioni, compilers. 1997. Central 

Crop Databases: Tools for Plant Genetic Resources Management. International Plant Genetic 

Resources Institute, Rome, Italy/CGN, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Status of national collections 


Petter Marum reported on the results of a questionnaire to the Working Group members 

regarding the number of accessions, storage conditions, the number of accessions in urgent 

need of regeneration, number of accessions regenerated every year, and availability. He 

presented in a summarized form the information received. In total there were 97 872 

accessions. On average 45% of the accessions are stored under long-term conditions and 42% 

under medium-term conditions. Twenty-seven percent of the accessions with available 

information were in urgent need of regeneration 

The Working Group recommended establishment of a small subgroup consisting of Petter Marum, 

Merja Veteläinen and Ian D. Thomas, to update the summaries with data that were not available 

before the meeting. The update will be sent to all participants for validation before it is entered into 

the final report (Appendix IV of present report). 

Reports from countries not included in the previous Working Group report 

Information regarding National Collections not included in the previous report was made 

available during this meeting for the following countries (see also Part II). 

Lithuania 

Nijole Lemeziene reported on the status of the national collection of perennial grasses and 

legumes in Lithuania. The collection, held at the Lithuanian Agricultural Institute, Dotnuva, 

consists of semi-natural and wild ecotypes, old varieties, registered varieties and valuable 

breeding material. The greatest attention is given to the most important species for 

Lithuanian agriculture, that is Medicago sativa L., Onobrychis sativa Scop., Trifolium pratense L., 

Trifolium repens L., Dactylis glomerata L., Festuca pratensis Huds., Festuca rubra L., Lolium 

perenne L., Phleum pratense L. and Poa pratensis L. 

The Netherlands 

Loek J. M. van Soest presented the status of the forages collections maintained at CGN, 

Wageningen, consisting of 465 accessions of eight different species: Lolium perenne L., 

L. multiflorum Lam., L. × hybridum Hausskn., Phleum pratense L., P. bertolonii DC., Dactylis 

glomerata L., Trifolium pratense L. and T. repens L. The accessions of the different forage 

species are documented for passport data in GENIS, the CGN information system, based on 

the database management system ORACLE. So far no characterization/evaluation data of 

the forage collections are included in GENIS. Activities planned for the next 5 years include 

broadening the collection, particularly with original Dutch material; collecting activities (CIS 

countries, e.g. Uzbekistan), regeneration of about 300 accessions, updating of passport data 

and inclusion of evaluation data. 

Slovakia 

Jarmila Drobná presented the status of the forages collections of Slovakia. Institutions 

dealing with forage genetic resources and/or related activities include the Research Institute 

of Plant Production (RIPP) in Piešt'any, national coordination centre (674 forage accessions); 

the Plant Breeding Station Levočské Lúky (1666 accessions) and the Plant Breeding Station 

Horná Streda (337 accessions); the Grassland and Mountain Agriculture Research Institute 

Banská Bystrica; LEGUMEN, a production and commercial company, Piešt'any (Lathyrus 

spp. 106 accessions); the Slovak University of Agriculture, Nitra (Lotus spp.)

10 


F.R. Yugoslavia 

Zorica Tomić presented the status of the forages collections of F.R. Yugoslavia. The 

collection of genetic resources of forage crops of legumes and perennial grasses is part of 

breeding and prebreeding research conducted at the Agricultural Research Institute, Novi 

Sad, on Medicago sativa L., and at the Center for Forage Crops, Kruševac, on Trifolium repens 

L., T. hybridum L., T. pratense L. and perennial grasses. Because of high reduction in viability 

of some accessions, a part of the active collection of the Genebank was multiplied last year in 

the Forage Crops Center in Kruševac and the regenerated seed will be forwarded to the 

Genebank of Yugoslavia.

Duplication in forages collections 

(see also full papers in Part II) 



At the Fifth meeting of the ECP/GR Working Group on Forages in Bulgaria (1995), a 

subgroup was formed to develop a protocol for identifying duplicates. The subgroup 

presented a protocol covering only the first step in the expensive, painstaking procedure of 

identifying duplicates with sufficient precision to permit their elimination. 

The report defines historical duplicates (originated from the same original collected or 

bred material without undergoing deliberate selection by breeders) and biological duplicates 

(accessions which have been demonstrated to have the same genetic composition). 

Distinction is also made between Possible Historical Duplicates (PHDs) (with identical or 

'matching' passport data) and Confirmed Historical Duplicates (CHDs). 

Owing to time and costs constraints in the confirmation of historical duplicates and 

identification of biological duplicates, emphasis is set on preliminary identification of PHDs, 

and on the identification of accessions that are demonstrably unique, particularly those that 

are no longer stored in their country of origin. 

The report introduces a simple protocol for partial identification of PHDs using only 

limited fields from the passport data, which achieves the same objective of assigning 

accessions to primary holders but with relative little investment of time and resources. A 

suggested protocol is presented in Appendix II. 

Safety-duplication of genebank accessions in Europe 

L. Maggioni introduced a discussion about the concept of safety-duplication – that is, the 

duplication of an accession for safety reasons. He mentioned how safety-duplication is 

essential for ensuring a sound conservation, with a minimized risk of losses and that this is 

also beneficial for the rationalization of collections, since accessions that are safely duplicated 

once do not need to be conserved as multiple duplicates in many places. As important 

criteria for safety, he quoted the adoption of international standards for long-term 

conservation as well as the need to establish formal agreements for safety-duplication. Such 

agreements, preferably undertaken between different countries, would strengthen the 

mutual trust and the sharing of responsibilities. The formality of the agreements would 

ensure official recognition to the safety-duplication and also that any emergency situation 

could be dealt with according to procedures planned in advance. L. Maggioni mentioned the 

example of the recommendation of the External Review of the CGIAR genebank operations 

to establish international agreements for safety-duplication. He showed the information 

available on the safety-duplication status within the Forages Working Group and asked the 

Group to forward information in order to fill the gaps. The Memorandum of Understanding 

between the Nordic Gene Bank and the Institute of Biology, Latvia, was presented as an 

example of a safety-duplication agreement with a 'black box' type of arrangement. He also 

mentioned the recent decisions of the Brassica Working Group, which acknowledged the 

cost-effectiveness of the 'black box' arrangement and recommended that genebank managers 

inform the Bras-EDB and the ECP/GR Coordinator about safety-duplication. The decisions 

of the Secale Group, where a more elaborate commitment was taken to safety-duplicate all 

the accessions defined as belonging to a Secale European Collection, were illustrated as a 

possible reference for a similar choice to be considered by the Forages Working Group.

12 


Sharing of responsibilities 

Sharing of responsibilities for the conservation and use of 

French forage genetic resources 

François Balfourier presented the French decentralized system of genetic resources 

management. The approach taken in France was to have a network of voluntary partners to 

collectively manage a set of resources. A national structure, the BRG (Bureau des Ressources 

Génétiques = Genetic Resources Board) is in charge of the coordination of activities relating 

to animal, plant and microbial genetic resources. 

For forage crops species, the genetic resources network is constituted of different research 

stations of public institutes (INRA, GEVES) and private companies (ACVF). Information 

concerning the status of the different collections are given in IPGRI's 'Directory of European 

Institutions Holding Crop Genetic Resources Collections', 4th edition (1995). 

A National Charter has been written, with BRG, to define the objectives of the partners in 

the network, the obligations of each and the method of operation of the network. In 

particular the Charter defines: 

• what accessions could be introduced in the French collection in accordance with 

international recommendations on genetic resources 

• how to manage accessions (conservation, multiplication, distribution, etc.). 

Work is underway to establish the national collection and a specific database for all 

fodder crop species. The quality status of the national French collection can be considered as 

that of the collection held by the GEVES station at Le Magneraud (Surgères) as described in 

the above IPGRI publication. 

The European Forage Collection 

The following text results from a discussion of the Working Group of an initial draft prepared by 

Petter Marum on the basis of the recommendations of the ad hoc Group on Secale. 9 The text was 

then modified by a task force including P. Marum, F. Balfourier, L. van Soest, R. Sackville Hamilton 

and T. Gass, and resubmitted to the Working Group for approval. 

Introduction and recommendation 

The objectives of the European Cooperative Programme for Crop Genetic Resources 

Networks (ECP/GR) include ensuring the safe long-term conservation and promoting the 

exchange and utilization. At the establishment of the ECP/GR in 1980, it was recommended 

that forage genetic resources be given high priority by the Programme. This led to the 

creation of the Working Group on Forages. This Group has proven to be a valuable forum 

for the discussion of specific constraints facing the collection holder of forage species, the 

exchange of germplasm, the planning of collaborative collecting activities, the development 

of joint research projects, the sharing of research results and other relevant information, and 

the organization of scientific exchange and training activities. Regularly status reports of 

conservation activities in the respective ECP/GR member countries are being presented to 

the Group and workplans established to address identified problems. A number of Central 

Crop Databases (CCDBs), maintained by participating institutions as inputs in kind, provide 

a regional overview of the resources maintained in the different genebanks. Besides the 

reports of the Working Group meetings, these databases constitute the principal interface of 

the Group with potential users of the germplasm. They allow the rapid location of 

germplasm which can be selected on the basis of passport data and in a few cases 

characterization data. The CCDBs also form a useful basis for the Group to address issues 

9 Gass, T., W. Podyma, J. Puchalski and S.A. Eberhart. 1998. Challenges in rye germplasm 

conservation. Proceedings of an International Conference ‘Crops Germplasm Conservation with 

Special Emphasis on Rye’ and an ECP/GR Workshop 2-6 July 1996, Warsaw/Konstancin-Jeziorna, 

Poland. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy.


such as the need for further collecting, prioritizing for safety-duplication of germplasm, the 

development of core collections, etc. 

Today, genebanks in the 30 ECP/GR countries conserve a total of about 97 000 accessions 

of forage species, of which approximately 65% have already been recorded in European 

Central Crop Databases (see relevant sections of the present report; Report of the Budapest 

documentation meeting, Oct. 1996). 10 These countries are heavily interdependent with 

regard to forages genetic resources. Europe has a long history and tradition of collaboration 

and free germplasm exchange. This has allowed significant progress to be made, in 

particular in rapidly raising the frequency of quantitative traits in breeding collections. The 

increasing privatization of breeding activities in the region is seen as potentially driving 

breeders to address short-term rather than long-term goals, resulting, inter alia, in neglecting 

the conservation of genetic resources. Furthermore, the exchange of germplasm and 

collaboration among breeders could be strongly reduced, bringing about a narrowing of the 

genetic basis of commercial varieties and ultimately an increased vulnerability of crops. 

Recognizing 

• that the long-term conservation of genetic resources and making these available to 

users is predominantly a public sector responsibility, 

• that a restriction of access to genetic resources among European countries would 

seriously impede the efforts of breeders, 

• that economic constraints call for a clear prioritization of genebank activities, 

• that no single country in Europe can, on its own, conserve all the forage genetic 

resources, and 

• that the Preparatory Meeting for Europe (Nitra, Slovakia, September 1995) and the 

Global Plan of Action (GPA) adopted in Leipzig, Germany (June 1996) call on ECP/GR 

to play a key role in facilitating the implementation of the GPA for the European 

region, 

the Working Group recommends the establishment of a decentralized European Forage 

Collection comprising the forage accessions that European genebanks would agree to 

maintain on behalf of all member countries of ECP/GR. 

Objectives 

The objectives of establishing this collection would be: 

• to formalize the sharing of responsibilities for the conservation of European forage 

genetic resources 

• to ensure the safe conservation of these accessions 

• to ensure the continued access to these accessions to all ECP/GR countries 

• to make information about the forage genetic resources available to the users through 

adequate forms of documentation (e.g. Central Crop Databases, European Internet 

Information Platform on Crop Genetic Resources, published reports of Working Group 

meetings, etc.) 

• to promote an intensive exchange of germplasm 

• to enhance the use of forage genetic resources 

• to reduce the workload for each country and allow a more effective conservation 

10 Lipman, E., M.W.M. Jongen, Th.J.L. van Hintum, T. Gass and L. Maggioni, compilers. 1997. Central 


Resources Institute, Rome, Italy/CGN, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

14 


• to contribute towards the development of a multilateral system of benefit-sharing 

mechanism (since benefits such as the sharing of germplasm, the collaboration in 

research projects and collecting missions, and the sharing of opportunities for training 

and scientific exchange are available to any bona fide user in member countries through 

the participation of either a corresponding or an attending member in the Working 

Group) 

• to contribute towards countries' efforts to implement the CBD. 

Scope of the European Forages Collection 

The European Forages Collection would include wild and cultivated species: 

• of the following genera: 

Agrostis 

Agropyron 

Arrhenatherum 

Bromus 

Dactylis 

Festuca 

Lathyrus 

Lolium 

Lotus 

Medicago 

Phalaris 

Phleum 

Poa 

Trifolium 

Trisetum 

Vicia 

• of the following types: 

- cultivated varieties in current use and newly developed varieties 

- obsolete varieties 

- primitive varieties or landraces 

- wild populations 

- breeding material (if well documented and at the discretion of the breeder). 

• of the following status: 

- material for which distribution is not restricted 

- material of indigenous origin (bred or collected) 

- material collected or obtained from other countries if the safe conservation of or 

access to this material is unsure. 

The inclusion in the collection of registered varieties is useful as these provide valuable 

traits for breeding. In many countries, however, access to this material requires prior 

informed consent from breeders. 

Workplan for the establishment of the European Forage Collection 

1. The database managers for the different species would suggest a genebank as the 

'primary collection' for each original accession. This would be the first step of a close 

interaction between database manager, genebank and the respective national programme 

for PGR to determine the 'home' of the accession, frequently this would be the country in 

which the accession was collected or bred (a discussion paper on this subject is included 

in Appendix II). 

2. National commitment would be sought for long-time conservation and to provide access 

to the accessions. It is understood that this responsibility would imply a 

custodianship, and would not be meant to have any implication of 'ownership'. 

3. National programmes would be requested to provide to the respective database manager 

a list of accessions for which the country would accept to take long-term conservation 

responsibility on behalf of the ECP/GR countries. A copy of this list would be deposited 

with the ECP/GR Coordinator. 

4. Database managers would record the institute that holds the 'primary collection' in the 

European database for that accession under the descriptor 'Holder of primary collection'.

Responsibilities 


The primary collection would: 

• Ensure that the material is maintained under long-term conditions in compliance with 

international standards (references: FAO/IPGRI Genebank Standards 1994, Guidelines for 

the regeneration of accessions in seed collections of the main perennial forage grasses and 

legumes of temperate grasslands, this report, Appendix III). 

• Ensure that an appropriate safety-duplicate is deposited in a genebank preferably within 

another ECP/GR country and that relevant information about this safety-duplication is 

provided to the respective European Forage Database Manager (ref. Forages Passport 

Descriptors list, Appendix I). 

• Respond in reasonable time to germplasm requests. In the case of a shortage of seeds the 

requesting party may exceptionally be asked to participate in its multiplication. Requests 

which are clearly counter to the spirit of the present initiative (e.g. requests for most 

accessions in a collection) can be referred to the Working Group on Forages for arbitration. 

• Provide unrestricted access to the declared accessions to bona fide users from ECP/GR 

Member Countries (exemption is made for registered varieties, see above) and ensure 

through the use of Material Transfer Agreements that receiving parties do the same. 

• Endeavour to give high priority to the adequate characterization, evaluation and 

documentation of accessions which are part of the European Forages Collection. 

• In the case of an impossibility to honour the commitment for long-term conservation, 

inform the respective European Forage Database Manager and actively seek a new 

'primary collection', willing to maintain the material. 

• If a new host genebank cannot be found, maintain the material under long-term condition 

for at least another 2 years. 

The European Forage Database Manager would: 

• Facilitate the repatriation of material by distributing relevant information about 

accessions conserved in foreign countries. 

• Update the database every 1-2 years and make it available to the collection holders. 

• Effect changes to the database when informed by the collection holders. 

• Rapidly forward to the 'primary collection' any requests for seed. 

• Provide the collection holders and the Working Group with information about the degree 

of safety-duplication of the collections. 

• Analyze the database and advise the Working Group with regard to duplication or gaps 

in the collections, establishment of core collections, planning of collecting missions, etc. 

The genebank hosting safety-duplicates would: 

• Maintain a sufficient quantity of the safety-duplicated material in long-term storage 

conditions in compliance with international standards and under 'black-box arrangement' 

(see Appendix II). 

• Not distribute the material. 

• Clearly designate as safety-duplicate the accessions provided for this purpose and not 

include them on index seminae/distribution lists. 

• Immediately notify the 'primary collection' in case of any problem with the safetyduplicate. 

• Not carry out viability tests. 

• Not regenerate the safety-duplicated material.

16 


The ECP/GR Forages Working Group 

• This Group is composed of representatives of each country who are nominated by the 

respective National Coordinators and participate in the Group either as Attending or 

Corresponding Members. Institutions which participate as observers to ECP/GR are also 

invited to nominate representatives to the Working Group (e.g. ASSINSEL, FAO, etc.). 

• The Working Group would have the technical oversight over the European Forages 

Collection. It would address issues such as quality standards and if necessary control 

their implementation. 

• It would endeavour to establish the necessary links with potential users of the genetic 

resources through mechanisms such as core collections, evaluation networks, etc. 

• In collaboration with the ECP/GR Coordinator, the Chair of the Working Group would 

report on an annual basis to the ECP/GR Steering Committee on the status of the 

European Forages Collection, the central databases and the progress in implementing the 

Working Group's Workplan.


Standards for regeneration 

The following background information was presented by R. Sackville Hamilton together with draft 

standards for the regeneration of perennial forage species. It was agreed that a subgroup composed of 

R. Sackville Hamilton, P. Marum and L. Maggioni would revise this draft further and circulate it to 

the Group before publication in the present report. 

Guidelines for the regeneration of accessions in seed collections of the 

main perennial forage grasses and legumes of temperate grasslands 

The main protocol is presented as Appendix III. This section is a summary of the paper 

presenting further background details (full text, page 103). 

Decisions for regeneration protocols represent a compromise between maximizing the 

number of accessions that can be regenerated each year within available resources, and 

maximizing the genetic integrity of accessions. An important element of the regeneration 

protocol is based on the interaction between base and active collections as recommended in 

the Genebank Standards (FAO/IPGRI 1994). The impact of loss of genetic integrity on the 

distinctness of accessions was a second major consideration in developing the protocol. 

There are three primary causes of loss of genetic integrity: drift, selection (natural and 

artificial, conscious and unconscious), and contamination with alien genes (through alien 

pollen, alien seed, alien plants, or even through incorrectly identifying and labelling 

accessions). Most perennial forage grasses and legumes are obligate outbreeders, and so 

display high genetic variance within populations, high potential for genetic changes by drift 

and selection during regeneration, and present a high risk for cross-pollination between 

regeneration plots if they are not adequately isolated. There is also a high risk for 

contamination with alien plants, seed and pollen, and exceptionally high variation in 

fecundity between plants in a single population, with a corresponding potential for rapid 

genetic changes in response to selection pressures. The recommended conditions for 

prevention of contamination with alien pollen are more stringent than currently used by 

some genebanks. This reflects not only the adverse impact of contamination on genetic 

integrity, but also a more cautious interpretation of the literature on pollen flow. Examples 

of studies of contamination rates found in Lolium perenne and Melilotus show that insect 

pollinators fly as far as they need to find a flower but no further. They express preferences 

for the type of flower they visit, so the most effective barrier crop will have flowers identical 

to the plot being regenerated.

18 


The Lolium Core Collection 

Current status of the Core Collection 

The current status of evaluating the core collection was presented by P. Marum in relation to 

objectives remaining to be achieved. 

Objectives 

Objectives for the coming year are to assemble all available data, analyze it statistically and 

publish in refereed papers. Emphasis of the analysis will be on interpreting G×E interactions 

for evaluation data in terms of adaptive variation among populations. This will require 

comprehensive data on the environments of (a) the original collecting sites and (b) the 

evaluation sites, in addition to the evaluation data. 

Collecting site data 

Passport data on 232 accessions (of these 162 had sufficient seed available for inclusion in the 

Core Collection Trial), considered by the participating institutes to represent the variation 

available in their countries, were collated in an Access database. The database contains 

information in the following groups: Expedition Details, Location Details, Sampling Details, 

Site Description, Management Details, Soil Details and General/Donation Details. The 

record description of the database was presented with a summary of the database contents 

showing the percentage of each descriptor containing data. 

Most of the descriptors are well under 100% populated. This can be expected in many 

cases, e.g. site and management descriptors. However other descriptors such as Accession 

Status, Latitude, Longitude and Altitude should be available for all collecting sites and 

participants are requested to ensure that all available data have been presented for inclusion 

in the passport database. 

The database is available from IGER, Aberystwyth in Access or Excel format. 

Evaluation site data 

Some sites have already presented data for inclusion. To make the database as complete as 

possible, Institutes are requested to provide the following information: 

• Site 

Latitude, longitude, altitude 

• Weather 

Rainfall (mm); temperature (°C) - soil (10 cm), minimum air, maximum air, grass 

minimum; humidity - dry bulb, wet bulb (°C), or relative humidity (%); wind speed - 

maximum gust speed (m/s), total wind run (km); net radiation (MJ/m). 

If possible, daily observations over the time period of the trial should be supplied, 

particularly for temperature, to enable analysis of heading date in terms of cumulative 

degree-days. 

• Soil 

Soil analyses performed to date show considerable variation between evaluation sites. 

To standardize the data, participants are requested to send soil samples (about 500 g) 

to IGER, Aberystwyth where they will be analyzed for NA, K, P, Mg, Ca and pH. 

Evaluation data 

Evaluation data have been supplied by 11 institutes on disk or by Email. Formats which 

have been used are Access, Excel, dBase and Lotus 1-2-3. Any institute which has data 

available should send it to IGER, Aberystwyth.


Isozyme studies 

In France, isozyme studies were performed on a sample of the European Lolium core 

collection. So far, 38 populations (3 from Belgium, 3 from Switzerland, 3 from Ireland, 2 

from The Netherlands, 1 from Norway, 1 from Czech Republic and 25 from France) have 

been analyzed with two starch gels and two different buffer systems. This permitted us to 

observe 12 readable loci. Another study on 120 other European populations gives an idea of 

the genetic structuration of the diversity and the interest of carrying on such a study on the 

European Lolium core collection. 

Depending on funds available, France proposes to perform analyses on a subsample of 

the European Lolium core collection, in order to draw maps of allelic distribution by means of 

geostatistical analyses using both agronomic and isozyme results. 

As most of the diversity is found within a population, it will be necessary to analyze 

about 75 plants/population to observe allelic frequencies with good accuracy. For example, 

the analysis of a subset of 80 populations requests about 12 man-months of labour (two 

populations per week).

20 


Project applications to the European Commisssion 

Council Regulation (EC) 1467/94 on the conservation, characterization, 

collection and utilization of genetic resources in agriculture 

Thomas Gass introduced the subject by providing a brief overview of the EU genetic 

resources programme, its background, underlying principles and the activities carried out to 

date. He summarized the outcomes of the first two calls for proposals following which a 

total of 12 projects on plant genetic resources have been selected for funding by the 

European Commission. Shortly after its initiation this programme has already suffered 

serious financial constraints, leading to the postponing of a third call for proposals to 

possibly 1998. 11 T. Gass noted that some of the requirements for project proposals were 

implicit rather than explicit and that uncertainty prevails on a number of issues such as the 

optimal number of partners and the involvement of private sector and NGOs. The 

participation of institutions from non-EU countries is currently being facilitated for six of the 

12 above-mentioned projects. In the case of two projects, institutions from non-EU countries 

were included as official partners in the project, albeit not requesting any funding from the 

European Commission. Participation of NGOs and a strong orientation toward direct 

utilization and private sector interests seem to be favourable traits in project proposals. 

Furthermore, it is expected that the projects should address as directly as possible the 

objectives of the current Common Agricultural Policy (e.g. extensification of agriculture, 

providing alternatives in crops, contributing towards solving environmental problems, etc.). 

T. Gass concluded by saying that although the amount of funding provided through this 

programme is highly insufficient to allow any sustainable conservation activities at the EU 

level, Groups that have been succesful in proposing projects have so far benefited from these. 

The additional money and the commitment to report to the European Commission on the 

achieved progress have provided additional motivation to accomplish agreed workplans. 

He encouraged the Group to revise and resubmit the proposals which had been unsuccessful 

in previous calls (i.e. the Lolium and Festuca project coordinated by IGER, the Medicago 

project coordinated by GEVES-INRA and the Vicieae project coordinated by the University 

of Southampton). 

A discussion followed regarding the scope, the number of participants and the possible 

re-orientation of the above-mentioned projects. 


The Working Group agreed that the previous project on Lolium and Festuca would be revised to 

focus only on Lolium, and to provide more outputs which are of direct relevance to germplasm users 

such as breeders. Opportunities for associating private breeders with the project (either directly or 

through letters of recommendation) will be investigated. The offer of D. Reheul (Belgium) to 

coordinate this new proposal was welcomed by the Group. The following participants expressed an 

interest in participating in the project as designated partners: F. Lassacher (Austria), F. Balfourier 

(France), P. Marum (NGB), B. Boller (Switzerland), R. Sackville Hamilton (UK), E. Willner 

(Germany). The following wished to be involved as complementary partners: M. Sevcíková, 

Grassland Research Station Zubrí (Czech Republic), V. Negri (Italy), T. Vaitsis (Greece), L. Horváth 

(Hungary), Z. Tomić (F.R. Yugoslavia) and possibly M. Tavares de Sousa (Portugal). The 

participation of CGN, The Netherlands as designated partner will be confirmed. 

F. Balfourier agreed to enquire whether GEVES/INRA would be interested in coordinating a 

resubmission of the Medicago project. The following participants expressed interest in participating 

as designated partners: V. Negri (Italy), T. Vaitsis (Greece), D. Droushiotis (Cyprus), and possibly 

11 The Third call for proposals for the Community programme on the conservation, characterization, 

collection and utilization of genetic resources in agriculture was published on 9 April 1998 (closing 

date for proposal submission 9 July 1998).


M. Tavares de Sousa (Portugal), the Research Institute of Plant Production (Czech Republic), 

Piešt'any (Slovakia) and AARI, Izmir (Turkey). The Research Institute for Fodder Crops Troubsko, 

Czech Republic (J. Nedelnik) wished to be involved as complementary partner. 

R. Sackville Hamilton will contact Frank Bisby, University of Southampton 12 with regard to the 

possible resubmission of the Vicieae project and provide this information to the Chair for distribution 

to interested members of the Group (Bulgaria, Cyprus and Turkey are interested in participation). 

BAL, Irdning (Austria) will consider the planning of a project for the in situ conservation of 

forages in marginal and mountainous areas , to be submitted to the EU. The Working Group gave 

its strong support to the implementation of this idea in collaboration with NGB, Italy and Bulgaria. 

12 Now University of Reading, see p. 69.

22 


Collecting activities 

The following countries reported on their collecting activities: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech 

Republic, Germany, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Slovakia, 

Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and F.R. Yugoslavia. The full reports are given in Part II, 

Presented papers, section Collecting activities. 

Research activities 

Reports of ongoing or concluded research activities 

(see also Part II) 

Austria - Recultivation of alpine areas with seed of alpine plants 

Summer and winter tourism and the associated interventions, together with natural erosion, 

cause severe damages in the Alps every year. The recultivation of such areas is very 

difficult. The use of seed of lowland species, not really adapted to the climatic conditions, is 

expensive and not satisfying. To obtain a permanent green cover, a well-adapted vegetation 

of alpine plants is required. At BAL Gumpenstein the suitability of 12 alpine species of wellchosen 

grasses and Leguminosae (Festuca nigrescens (Lam.) Asch. et Ev., F. pseudodura Steud., 

F. supina Schur, F. violacea Gand. s.stv., Phleum alpinum L.emend. Gaudin, P. hirsutum Honck., 

Poa alpina L., Trifolium badium Schreb., T. pratense L. subsp. nivale Arc.) were tested for 

commercial seed production in low altitudes. Seed properties and the 1000-seed weight are 

described. The germinative capacity increased after cultivation and was equal to related 

lowland species. The seed productivity for most of the alpine grasses was surprisingly high. 

Some provenances of Poa alpina and Festuca nigrescens showed an annual yield of more than 

1000 kg/ha. Contrary to a widespread view the research results clearly showed that seed 

multiplication of those 12 species in lowland regions is possible. In the last 5 years, many 

recultivation trials in alpine areas have been undertaken with this material. The results 

emphasize the value and the possibilities of the use of alpine seed mixtures for permanent 

recultivation in alpine areas. 

Czech Republic 

• The following joint research projects are coordinated by the Research Institute for Plant 

Production, Prague: 

- National programme for the conservation and utilization of the plant genepool. 

- Mapping, gathering and conservation of landraces and wild species related to cultivated 

crops in the Czech Republic and bordering European regions. 

Other research projects are coordinated as follows: 

• Research Institute for Fodder Crops in Troubsko 

- Use of forage crops and other species in farming and landscaping. 

- New crops for cultivation in marginal areas and their energetic and industrial use. 

- Collecting of and research on clovers genetic resources. 

• Grassland Research Station in Zubrí 

- Selection and evaluation of wild grass species suitable for the enhancing of biodiversity 

of perennial grass swards. 

- Creation of regional collections of wild grasses and herbaceous plant populations for the 

restoration of flower grassland.


Germany - A knowledge base for disease resistance of selected cultivated plant species 

A knowledge base reviewing the current knowledge on disease resistance of plant species 

investigated in the genebank branch station North (Malchow) of IPK-Gatersleben was set up. 

More than 350 publications on disease resistance of the last 25 years were considered, 

concerning 116 host-pathogen combinations of Brassica napus L. var. oleifera, Dactylis 

glomerata L., Festuca arundinacea Schreb., F. pratensis Huds., F. rubra L., Lolium perenne L., 

Medicago sativa L., Phleum pratense L., Poa pratensis L., Trifolium pratense L. and T. repens L. 

Sixteen priorities are taken into consideration such as resistant genotypes, methods of 

checking resistance, genetics of resistance and breeding for resistance. The knowledge base 

can be made topical and complete continuously and can be searched and used throughout 

the IPK genebank branch station Malchow. Seed samples can be requested from the 

genebank in Malchow. In the near future this information will be recorded on the Internet 

with the support of ZADI/IGR, Bonn. 

Greece - Breeding for drought resistance, persistence and forage productivity 

• Breeding of Medicago sativa L. (alfalfa) was in the first priorities of the research conducted 

during the last 15 years. Samples collected in different regions were evaluated in the field 

and great variability was found. The best plants were selected to create new populations, 

clones and synthetic varieties. Traditional alfalfa varieties and modern bred varieties, 

indigenous or introduced, were screened and the best were tested in contrasting 

environments under or without irrigation. The semidormant Greek varieties Dolichi, 

Hyliki, Hypati and Florina proved to be the most persistent and the most productive 

varieties under or without irrigation. Cheronia, a nondormant Greek variety, was also a 

good producer, but only under irrigation. 

• Medicago arborea L. is a drought-resistant shrub, suitable for marginal rocky soil 

reclamation in Mediterranean dry-hot conditions. The collection of indigenous 

germplasm was completed, including a total of 38 accessions. A mass selection variety 

named Naxos has been registered on the national list of varieties and a large number of 

clones and lines have been produced by selection for drought and cold resistance, 

leafiness and forage production. 

• Dactylis glomerata L., Festuca arundinacea Schreb., Lolium perenne L. (cocksfoot, tall fescue 

and perennial ryegrass): wild and bred populations were given a preliminary evaluation 

under irrigation or rain-fed conditions in individual plants or in dense sowing for heading 

time, drought resistance, persistence and forage production. Large variability was found 

for all characteristics within and between populations and was used in further breeding 

work of the wild indigenous germplasm, aimed at creating more productive and more 

persistent varieties, better adapted to dry-hot conditions. The productivity of Greek 

varieties, tested in Central Greece, was similar to that of foreign varieties under irrigation, 

while it was much higher under rain-fed conditions. Metsovo tall fescue and Olympion 

ryegrass are both suitable for use all over Greece under irrigation or under rain-fed 

conditions in cool regions. Perrevia cocksfoot could be grown well under rain-fed 

conditions even in the dry-hot southeastern Greece. 

Italy - RAPD fingerprints as a tool for characterizing the genetic background of 

Medicago sativa L. germplasm 

Lucerne is the most important forage legume crop in Italy. This study was conducted to 

assess the suitability of RAPD markers in detecting the genetic variability among and within 

lucerne landraces from central Italy. In a first experiment genetic variability estimations 

based on bulked plant DNA samples were assessed in 16 landraces from the Marche region; 

in a second experiment genetic variability estimations based on single-plant DNA samples 

were assessed in six landraces from the Tuscany, Umbria, Abruzzi and Lazio regions. Most 

landraces from Marche were found to share a common genetic background and to have a 

limited genetic variation within population, whereas landraces from the other regions

24 


showed greater between- and within-population genetic variation. RAPD markers appeared 

to be a useful tool in describing the genetic background of landraces, although plant DNA 

bulking procedures underestimated the level of genomic diversity, especially within lucerne 

accessions. Single-plant analysis has to be considered essential in detecting the level of 

genetic variability within lucerne landraces. Bulked DNA analysis could be used as a first 

approach in screening large germplasm collections (1) with the purpose of identifying a core 

collection, (2) when there is urgency for regeneration and not enough resources and (3) when 

suitable populations need to be selected for breeding programmes. 

Slovakia - Research activities relevant to forage genetic resources (RIPP) 

• Cytogenetic characterization of genetic resources 

Computer construction of caryotypes and ideotypes (Š. Masár). 

• Cytogenetics of Medicago and Trifolium 

Production and identification of distant hybrids in alfalfa. 

Production and identification of autotetraploids in red clover (A. Mištinová). 

• Characterization of selected species of Agropyron, Aegilops, and Elymus genera 

Characterization and utilization for interspecific hybridization (V. Šudyová). 

• Phytopathological tests 

Testing GR of alfalfa for resistance to Ditylenchus dipsaci, Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. 

insitiosum, Verticillium alboatrum Reinle et Berth., Fusarium Lk. spp. (V. Gubiš). 

Testing GR of red clover for resistance to Fusarium subsp. (B. Vanco). 

• Looking for genotypes resistant to abiotic factors 

Testing alfalfa genotypes resistant to salinity, low pH, and increased aluminium content 

(P. Hauptvogel). 

Collecting Rhizobium strains mostly from red and white clovers and alfalfa (T. Krupová). 

• Dynamic model of alfalfa variety maintenance 

Selection of initial populations and detection of initial level of genetic variability (M. 

Uzík). 

• Recurrent selection for somatic embryogenesis response in alfalfa commercial cultivars, 

preparing highly-regenerative germplasm and genetic transformation of plants via 

Agrobacterium tumefaciens (E.F. Smith et Townsend) Conn -mediated gene delivery (J. 

Farago). 

Turkey - Evaluation of common vetch collections 

Common vetch (Vicia sativa L.) (119 accessions) collected from different regions of Turkey 

were analyzed for 13 characters. There were significant differences among populations for 

all characters studied. Four principal components were found to express 62.7% of the total 

variation. Pod dimensions and seed weight per plant came out as the major sources of 

diversity. Main stem length, 1000-seed weight and hay yield per plant had the largest 

variances. 

United Kingdom - Research at IGER on in situ conservation of botanical diversity in 

agricultural grasslands 

The influence of a range of managements (fertilizing, grazing, cutting) on botanical diversity 

in different types of grassland is compared and their effects are measured on productivity, 

species diversity and soil status. The selected management regimes correspond to traditional 

local farming practices, intensive management, and alternative low-input systems. 

Different types of grassland differ in their potential to increase species diversity following 

the implementation of more environmentally sensitive management regimes. When 

grasslands cannot respond quickly to improved management, consideration is given to 

artificially reintroducing species that have been lost. Projects in progress at IGER are 

determining optimal procedures for introducing seed and the importance of using locally 

provenanced seed is assessed.


Re-establishment of hedges in field margins is being promoted as a valuable component 

of in situ conservation of biodiversity within agricultural landscapes, mainly with 

commercially available hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna Jacq.) of eastern European origin. 

However, studies show that local races are superior in terms of adaptation to UK winters, 

development of a high-quality dense hedge structure, and thorniness, and therefore superior 

both in terms of habitat quality for wildlife, and in their effectiveness as a barrier to sheep 

and cattle. Discussions are in progress with seed companies to promote awareness of the 

benefits of using local races. 

Finally, there is particular concern over the genetic integrity of species that have evolved 

as dominant or subdominant components of grasslands but have now become rare, existing 

only as small isolated populations, with the risk that the remnant populations will become 

too inbred. IGER addresses this problem through a project assessing geneflow between 

model populations of Lotus monomorphic for different isozyme marker alleles and sown in 

various spatial arrangements. 

Future research activities 

The following plans for collecting and research activities to be carried out in the near future 

were announced: 

Bulgaria 

Activities at IPGR, Sadovo, will be put forward in three directions: (1) definition of measures 

for the conservation of forage species, (2) plans for in situ conservation, and (3) plans for 

linkage between agricultural needs and plant genetic resources conservation. 

Cyprus 

The Agriculture Research Institute, Nicosia, collected Medicago, Avena and Hordeum species 

within the country and started the evaluation. 

Greece 

A new national research project started in 1997 on the breeding of perennial legumes and 

grasses under rain-fed conditions. Another research project is planned to start next season in 

cooperation with Cyprus to supplement the previous collections and to continue the 

preliminary evaluation of some annual and perennial forage species. 

Germany 

A 2-year programme for the primary evaluation of 800 Lolium perenne accessions collected in 

Malchow and Braunschweig will be carried out at IPK, Malchow/Poel starting in Spring 

1997, in collaboration with German breeders and institutes. Subsequently selected material 

will go through a second evaluation step and data will be entered in the database. Results 

will be reported during the next meeting of the Working Group on Forages. 

Nordic Countries 

NGB is planning to elaborate projects for the in situ conservation of forages. 

Turkey 

An expedition to collect forage legumes will be made to northern Turkey. A research project 

for the evaluation of cold tolerance in Vicia villosa has recently started at AARI, Menemen.

26 


Recent international developments in PGR-related issues 

Thomas Gass presented international negotiations and conferences held since the begining of 

1995 which are of particular relevance to ECP/GR. These include: 

• The Regional Preparatory Meeting for Europe (Nitra, Slovakia, September 1995) held in 

conjunction with a meeting of the ECP/GR Steering Committee. The former 

recommended, inter alia, the establishment of a multilateral agreement including all PGR 

for food and agriculture and ensuring unrestricted access to the resources to all members 

to the agreement. The Regional Meeting also welcomed the broadening of the structure of 

ECP/GR and recommended that the programme be considered as the platform for 

implementation of the Global Plan of Action (see below) for Europe. 

• The Revision of the International Undertaking (IU) by the FAO Commission for Genetic 

Resources for Food and Agriculture (Rome, Italy, in June 1995, November 1995, April 

1996, December 1996). These negotiations are advancing very slowly with main issues of 

disagreement including the sharing of benefits, farmers' rights, and financial 

commitments. A relative progress is being made in defining the scope of a possible 

multilateral system. More practical outputs of the FAO Global System on PGRFA include 

the International codes of conduct for plant germplasm collecting and transfer and the 

preparation of guidelines on regeneration. 

• The Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD/COPIII) 

(Buenos Aires, November 1996) paid particular attention to agricultural biodiversity and 

welcomed the Global Plan of Action adopted in Leipzig (see below). It encouraged the 

FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture to rapidly conclude its 

revision of the International Undertaking which could eventually become a protocol 

under the Convention on Biological Diversity. 

• The International Technical Conference on PGR for Food and Agriculture (Leipzig, June 

1996) was probably the single most important international event for the plant genetic 

resources community. Its principal output, the Global Plan of Action for the Conservation 

and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture contains 

20 Priority Activities providing a useful basis for the development of national strategies 

for conservation, funding, etc. Most relevant Priority Activities (PA) for the ECP/GR 

Forages Working Group include: 

∗ Surveying and inventorying PGRFA (PA 1) 

∗ Supporting on-farm management and improvement of PGRFA (PA 2) 

∗ Promoting in situ conservation of wild crop relatives and wild plants for food 

production (PA 4) 

∗ Sustaining existing ex situ collections (PA 5) 

∗ Regenerating threatened ex situ accessions (PA 6) 

∗ Supporting planned and targeted collecting (PA 7) 

∗ Expanding the characterization, evaluation and number of core collections to 

facilitate use (PA 9) 

∗ Increasing genetic enhancement and base-broadening efforts (PA 10). 

The consequences of the GPA for ECP/GR will be given much attention in the formulation 

of a draft strategy, workplans and budgets for the forthcoming Phase VI of ECP/GR.

Conclusion 


During the morning of 8 March the participants had the opportunity to visit the facilities of 

the Løken Research Station. 

The Section 'Discussion and Recommendations' of the report was presented to the 

participants and adopted after some corrections. A task force consisting of Petter Marum, 

Ruaraidh Sackville Hamilton and Lorenzo Maggioni will finalize the Guidelines for the 

regeneration of accessions in seed collections of the main perennial forage grasses and 

legumes of temperate grasslands (Appendix III) while a second task force consisting of Petter 

Marum, Merja Veteläinen and Ian Thomas will finalize the Summary of germplasm holdings 

(Appendix IV). The participants agreed to supply missing information about Safetyduplication 

capacities to L. Maggioni for inclusion in the report (Appendix V). 

NGB and Sackville Hamilton will revise and finalize the Protocol for designating primary 

holders of accessions (Appendix II) by the end of June 1997. Both Appendixes II and III will 

be circulated to the Group before printing of the report. 13 

The participants strongly recommend to the Steering Committee that Phase VI of 

ECP/GR be implemented and that this include the contribution of the Forages Working 

Group. The Group also strongly recommends that the system with a full-time Coordinator 

be continued or even strengthened. 

The Group welcomes the rapid progress made during Phase V, which was achieved 

thanks to the appointment of a full-time Coordinator. 

Petter Marum was elected Chairperson of the Group until the end of next meeting. 

The next meeting was programmed tentatively for the first semester of 1999. However, 

this date may be affected by the initiation of Phase VI of ECP/GR. 

13 Appendix II and Appendix III were not circulated to the entire Group before printing, to avoid 

further delay of the publication of the present report. These documents remain the responsibility of 

the authors. However, relevant comments raised by the Group during the meeting, and 

subsequently by the specific task forces, were taken in due consideration by the authors.

28 


Part II. Presented papers 

European Central Forages Databases 

The following reports are from the ECP/GR Central Crop Database managers. Note that the 

databases are ordered by country of the host institute; when full contact details are not given, 

please refer to Appendix VII. 

European Central Forages Databases 

The European Agropyron database 

The European Arrhenatherum and Trisetum Databases 

The European Central Lathyrus spp. Database 

The European Central Perennial Medicago Database 

The European Poa Database 

The European Bromus, Trifolium pratense and other perennial forages databases 

The European Trifolium alexandrinum and T. resupinatum databases 

The European Vicia database 

The European Dactylis and Festuca databases 

The European databases of Medicago spp. (annual species) and Trifolium subterraneum 

The European Phleum, Phalaris and Agrostis databases 

The European Lolium and Trifolium repens databases 

The European database on 'other Vicieae' 

The European Agropyron database 

Manager: Siyka Angelova 

Institute for Introduction and Plant Genetic Resources, Sadovo, Bulgaria 

Institute Advanced cultivars Landraces Wild, semi-natural 

BGRIPGR 27 – 29 

DEUIPK – – 78 

Updating 

Collecting of information about Agropyron spp. is in progress. Since October 1996 (meeting 

of the Forages Working Group at the EGDS-ECP/GR workshop on Central Crop Databases), 

documentation has been received from the IPK-Genebank, Gatersleben, Germany and from 

IPGR, Sadovo, Bulgaria.

The European Arrhenatherum and Trisetum Databases 


Manager: Magdalena Sevcíková 

Oseva PRO Ltd., Grassland Research Station, Zubrí, Czech Republic 

Establishment of the database: 1991 

Only data from two institutes in Hungary and former Czechoslovakia were recorded 

manually. 

Updating: 1996 

Requests for data were sent to 15 European institutes holding genetic resources of 

Arrhenatherum and Trisetum. Up to now eight institutes have responded. Data have been 

computerized. 

Software: FoxPro 2.5. 

Database content: passport data for 148 accessions. 

Table 1. The European Arrhenatherum and Trisetum accessions classified by contributing 

institute † 

Number of accessions 

Advanced 

cultivars 

Ecotypes (wild, 

semi-natural) Status unrecorded 

Institute Arrh. Trisetum Total Arrh. Triset. Arrh. Triset. Arrh. Triset. 

CZE082 18 9 27 12 4 6 5 – – 

DEU001 1 6 7 – 6 1 – – – 

DEU146 15 3 18 3 1 – – 12 2 

GBR004 5 1 6 – – 3 1 2 – 

GBR016 1 1 2 1 1 – – – – 

HUN003 42 0 42 3 – 39 – – – 

SVN019 1 0 1 1 – – – – – 

SVK012 25 20 45 14 2 11 18 – – 

Total 108 40 148 34 14 60 24 14 2 

† FAO's institution codes are available from the European Information Platform for Crop Genetic Resources at 

http://www.cgiar.org/ecpgr/platform

30 


Table 2. Completeness of descriptors 

Field % of accessions with data 

Accession details ECP number 0 

Institute 100 

Accession number 99.3 

Accession status 90.5 

Genus 100 

Species 100 

Subtaxa 0.7 

Country of origin 87.2 

Donation details Donor's code 32.4 

Donor's number 9.5 

Donation year 35.8 

Collection details Collection number 16.7 

Collector's code 10.7 

Collection date (day, month, year) 47.6 - 50.0 - 50.0 

Geographical subregion 41.7 

Administrative region 1.2 

Collection site 50.0 

Latitude (deg, min, sec, suffix) 4.8, 4.8, 2.4, 4.8 

Longitude (deg, min, sec, suffix) 4.8, 4.8, 2.4, 4.8 

Altitude 25.0 

Aspect 9.5 

Slope 0 

Regional relief 0 

General habit 13.1 

Grassland management 11.9 

Collection comment 16.7 

Breeder's details Breeder's code 31.2 

Cultivar name 100 

Pedigree 20.8 

Breeder's comment 6.2 

Seed availability 37.8 

Update year 100

The European Central Lathyrus spp. Database 

Manager: Daniel Combes 

IBEAS, University of Pau, France 

URL: http://www.univ-pau.fr 


As mentioned in the last joint ECP/GR workshop in Budapest, the Lathyrus database in Pau 

contains about 4000 accessions. It includes four wild or semi-wild perennial species – 

L. heterophyllus, L. latifolius, L. sylvestris and L. tuberosus – and two annual species – L. sativus 

(grass pea), which is cultivated, and L. cicera, which is assumed to be one of the wild 

ancestors of L. sativus. 

The database was established in 1985 after a meeting on Lathyrus held in Pau. It is 

updated regularly (every year approximately). Countries of origin of the accessions are 

mostly European, but include North Africa, Middle East, Ethiopia and India. About 40 

countries are represented. 

Descriptors are the passport descriptors indicated by IPGRI. They have been modified as 

suggested in Budapest to provide information on genus (in Pau, until then, it did not seem 

useful, as only Lathyrus is concerned) and on species (until then we did not mention it, as the 

database is subdivided species by species). But as the objective is now a multicrop passport 

database, we completely agreed with this modification. 

The database has been recently enriched with data on Spanish accessions, kindly 

provided by Dr Isaura Martin (Madrid) after the Budapest meeting. The sofwares used in 

Pau are both FoxPro and Access. The database is freely available upon request, on floppy 

disk or paper. 

It is also freely accessible through Internet, on the Web site of the University of Pau (see 

above) pointing on 'Recherche' then on 'Biologie'. It is not yet really user-friendly, but in a 

few weeks it will be set under Oracle and so this drawback should be abolished. It is also 

accessible through Dirk Enneking's CLIMA site (Australia) with whom we are cooperating. 

One important point has not really been dealt with: looking for duplicates. In fact, as we 

are mostly working with wild species, real duplicates should be rare. A few populations 

from the Pau region (Pyrénées mountains) have been collected more than once (mostly 

twice) in different years. But, as they are natural cross-pollinated populations, the different 

samples are almost certainly genetically different, especially since population sizes are 

generally big (100 or more) and we have generally not paid attention to which individuals 

have been sampled. So the fact that different accessions have the same descriptors data does 

not mean that they are real duplicates and we may have difficulties in asserting it.

32 


The European Central Perennial Medicago Database 

Manager: Vincent Gensollen 

GEVES La Valette, Montpellier, France 

A catalogue was published in 1995 by France, with the support of ECP/GR. It contains 

about 2900 accessions from 13 countries. At present, the data file is being transformed into a 

database with a normal structure. 

This database will also include accessions from other species of fodder crops from the 

French national collection. This work is done with the support of the French Ministry of 

Agriculture. The software used is Access. 

The database will allow better searching for duplicated accessions. The owner of the 

accessions can then be contacted to decide whether it is necessary to withdraw certain 

accessions. 

Regarding the completeness of descriptors, institutes which collaborate for the perennial 

Medicago database could send us any available information. If possible, this should be done 

in accordance with the mechanism for updating the European central forages databases.

The European Poa Database 14 


Manager: Evelin Willner 

IPK-Genebank, Aussenstelle Malchow, Malchow/Poel, Germany 

URL: http://www.dainet.de/genres/eccdb/poa/poa.htm 

In the European Catalogue of Poa, 12 institutes from nine countries with a total of 2636 

accessions are listed (Table 1), as a result of the recent updating of the European Poa 

Database. Letters requesting Poa passport data were sent to 26 institutions in 19 countries 

holding relevant germplasm. 

Until 1995, the European Poa database was maintained by Dr L. Seidewitz at BGRC 

Braunschweig. In connection with his retirement, and according to a decision of the 

ECP/GR Forages Working Group in 1995, the responsibility for maintaining and updating 

the Poa database was transferred to the Genebank for Oil and Forage Crops in 

Malchow/Poel, which is part of IPK's genebank. Dr Seidewitz sent a copy of the database 

and some updates which he had received but not yet incorporated, to Malchow in 1995. The 

former Poa Database arrived in a text format, where fields were delimited by '$ '. 

Data from institutions which had sent updates later were excluded from the 1995 

database. The remaining data (belonging to institutions from which no updates were 

received) were retained and transformed into the new structure. 

Other data received from contributing institutions (updates and/or new contributors) 

arrived in different formats, mainly .dbf (dBase or FoxPro), .xls (Excel) or ASCII files of 

various structures. They were transformed into a unique format, which was developed 

based on earlier recommendations of the ECP/GR Forages Working Group (Guide to 

ECP/GR Forages Databases; 1991) and the IPGRI Multicrop Passport Descriptors (Draft of 

January 1997). The actual descriptors included in the new Poa database were chosen 

according to the descriptors present in the data files of contributors. Some of the original 

fields were put together into one resulting field, for example, different fields describing 

different aspects of the habitat of the collecting site. Information which could not easily be 

assigned to any field from the proposed structure was put into a 'Remarks' field. 

No attempt was made to standardize names of institutions which appear mainly in the 

fields 'Donor', 'Breeding Institute' or 'Collecting Institute'. The variety of formats and the 

level of detail of this kind of information in the original data files was so big that it seemed 

impossible to standardize such acronyms in the time available. A new version of the FAO 

list of institute acronyms (author: J. Serwinski) was not yet available. In addition, often the 

information about such institutions is incomplete (e.g. only the name of a person, or the 

town, without further details), and such incomplete data cannot be linked to any existing list 

of addresses. Often even the institute providing such data will not be able to give more 

complete information. 

Neither was it possible to standardize the scientific names. Only the spelling of scientific 

names was standardized, and authors were added in cases where the same name appeared 

with and without author in the database. In cases where the name appeared only without 

author, no attempt was made to identify the author. This could be done later. The 

accessions included in the database belong to 27 different species, the most frequent being 

Poa pratensis with 2376 accessions, followed by P. bulbosa (68) and P. nemoralis (35). 

14 Report by H. Knüpffer (IPK-Genebank, Gatersleben), S. Harrer (ZADI/IGR, Bonn), and E. Willner.

Table 1. Overview of the European Poa Database (H. Knüpffer and E. Willner) 

Institute ECP/GR Database Data received (formats, structures, etc.) Number of accessions 

Country acronym Numbers, range Remarks 1995 1997 

BEL CLOGRVP 1-29 29 records from the 1995 Poa DB (no update received) 29 29 

CHE RAC 95-154 60 recs. received via E-mail 17 60 

CZE ZUBRI 2173-2391 219 recs. received in 1995; update received very 

97 219 

file: Ldsctbls.doc 

recently, not yet included in the database 

DEU BGRC 2392-2526 135 recs. received end of 1996 115 135 

GAT 2094-2137 44 recs. 42 44 

DEU IPKM 1607-2093 487 recs. – 487 

GBR RBGK 2138-2172 103 recs. received as Excel file – 103 

GBR IGER 2527-2629 35 recs. received as text file 19 35 

HUN RCA 30-81 52 recs. from the 1995 Poa DB (no update received) 52 52 

POL IHAR 155-1606 1452 recs. received in 1995 (no recent update) 792 1452 

ROM SUCEAVA 2630-2636 7 recs. received as printout – 7 

TUR ARARI 82-94 13 recs. received as printout 7 13 

Total 1170 2636


Table 2. Number of accessions per species 

Poa species No. of accessions Poa species No. of accessions 

alpina L. 9 fibrifera 1 

altaica Trin. 1 iberica 1 

ampla Merr. 2 lanuginosa 1 

angustifolia L. 9 ligularis 6 

annua L. 4 nemoralis L. 35 

arctica R. Br. 1 palustris L. 22 

asperiflora 1 pamirica 1 

badensis Haenke 3 pannonica 1 

binata Nees. 6 pratensis L. 2376 

bulbosa L. 68 remota Forselles 5 

caesia Smith 2 Poa sp. 26 

caespitosa Spreng. 2 subcaerulea 1 

chaixii Vill. 6 supina Schrad. 1 

compressa L. 22 trivialis L. 23 

Table 3. Poa Database: overview of accessions by status of sample (H. Knüpffer and E. 

Willner) 

Advanced Primitive Semi-natural 

cultivars, bree- cultivars, (ecotypes) or wild Unknown, other 

Genebank der's lines (5, 4) landraces (3) material (1, 2) (empty, 6, 7) 

BELCLOGRVP 2 27 

CHERAC 60 

CZEZUBRI 155 61 3 

DEUBGRC 59 1 11 64 

DEUGAT 8 36 

DEUIPKM 220 9 258 

GBRIGER 57 1 33 12 

GBRRBGK 35 

HUNRCA 30 22 

POLIHAR 61 1297 94 

ROMSUCEAVA 7 

TURARARI 7 6 

Total 562 1326 245 503 

Total for all accessions: 2636 

Ten species are represented by only one accession each. Twenty-six accessions that came 

without a species designation are designed as 'Poa sp.' For an overview of the species and 

their frequencies in the database, see Table 2. 

The accessions in the database are reported to originate from 42 different countries. More 

than 50% of the accessions (1409 accessions) originate from Poland, followed by 210 from 

former GDR, 115 from the Netherlands and 104 from Germany. Eleven countries are 

represented by one accession each. Only 172 accessions came without information about 

country of origin. 

Table 3 gives a survey about the status of the samples (according to FAO/IPGRI 

Multicrop Passport Descriptors). 

The 'Guide' of 1991 distinguishes three parts in forage crop databases: (1) Advanced 

cultivars and breeders' lines, (2) Primitive cultivars and landraces, and (3) Semi-natural 

(ecotypes) or wild material. The numbers given in Table 3 are the descriptor numbers 

according to the 'Guide'. The descriptors for these parts of the databases are mainly 

overlapping. Therefore, it was decided to compile only one single Poa database, from which 

the sub-databases can be created if necessary. Since not all contributors provided 

information about the status of samples, there would have been a certain part of the database 

which could not be classified in any of these three parts.

36 


A first investigation of the compiled database shows that there are 658 named accessions 

with a total of 400 different accession names (if upper and lower case letters considered 

identical). Table 4 shows the most frequent accession names (four or more accessions). It 

can be seen that the most frequent 'duplicates' are not real accession names, such as 'P. 

pratensis' and 'Dikorastuschaja' which means 'wild growing' in Russian. A total of 274 named 

accessions seem to be 'unique' accessions (without matching accessions by accession name). 

A draft printout of all accessions with accession names was circulated during the Working 

Group meeting. 

The database is available as a computer printout or as .dbf files on diskettes. In a few 

weeks (by end of March 1997), the database will be accessible on the Internet. This will be 

done in cooperation between IPK (Gatersleben and Malchow) and ZADI/IGR, Bonn. 15 

The authors of the database are highly interested in receiving Poa data from other 

institutions who could, for different reasons, not yet send their updates in time. Data should 

be sent to E. Willner or H. Knüpffer by Email or on diskettes, preferably in the form of .dbf 

(dBase or FoxPro) or .xls (Excel) files. ASCII files are also welcome. We do not have (yet) the 

possibility to import databases created in the format of Microsoft Access. 

Information about available evaluation data is also welcome. 

Table 4. Most frequent accession names in the Poa database 

Accession name No. of accessions 

P. pratensis L. 45 

Dikorastuschaja 12 

Skrzeszowicka 9 

Primo 6 

Merion 5 

Roznovska 5 

Alicja 4 

Baron 4 

Barzan 4 

Bristol 4 

Campus 4 

Cello 4 

Fylking 4 

Golf 4 

Kimono 4 

Monopoly 4 

Mosa 4 

15 The database is now available on-line at http://www.dainet.de/genres/eccdb/poa/poa.htm

The European Bromus, Trifolium pratense and other 

perennial forages databases 

Manager: Lajos Horváth 

Institute for Agrobotany, Tápiószele, Hungary 


The Institute for Agrobotany (RCA) has reported about the current status of three databases. 

According to the decision of the fifth meeting of the Working Group, the Trifolium pratense 

database was transferred from Switzerland to the RCA, after it had been updated by the 

Swiss coordinator in 1995. The database contains the passport data of 1901 accessions 

belonging to 19 collaborating institutes. The duplicates within this database are marked with 

the same ECP number. 

The European Bromus Database has been updated during this period, and its structure is 

also renewed. The new database contains the passport data of 583 Bromus accessions, but 

duplicates are not included in it. 

The fifth meeting also decided on the establishment of the Other Perennial Forage 

Legumes Database, which would compile the passport data of the European Anthyllis, 

Onobrychis, Lotus and Melilotus collections. IPGRI supplied the addresses of 45 possible 

collaborators. Up to the reporting time 10 institutions had answered the RCA call letter, and 

the new database contains 88 Anthyllis, 323 Melilotus, 677 Lotus and 348 Onobrychis 

accessions. Their total number is 1316. 

The three databases are available in dBaseIV format. 

The European Bromus Database 

URL http://www.ngb.se/Databases/ECP/Bromus 

Last updating: 1996-97 

Twelve requesting letters were sent to the possible partners in August 1996 and we had 

received five responses by February 1997. 

When From where Form 

16 Sept 1996 Institute of Crop Science, Federal Research 

Centre for Agriculture,.Braunschweig, Germany 

Email (DBF) 

5 Sept 1996 Polish Gene Bank, Poland Email (DBF) 

4 Oct 1996 Aegean Research Institute, Menemen, Turkey Letter 

Nov 1996 Royal Botanic Garden, Kew Diskette 

4 Feb 1997 IPK, Gatersleben, Germany Diskette 

Acronyms of the 10 participating institutes in the Bromus database: 

DEUBGRC DEUGAT 

FRAINRAMAG FRAINRALUS 

GBRRBG GRCFCPI 

HUNRCA ITAIDG 

POLBYDG TURARARI

38 


Table 1. The completeness of the European Bromus Database 

Field name Number of records % complete 

ECP_NUMBER 583 100.00 

COORD_GBAN 583 100.00 

SPECIES 583 100.00 

GB_DESIGN 583 100.00 

ACC_NUMBER 565 96.91 

ASSOC_NUMB 228 39.11 

DONOR_INST 393 67.41 

COLLECTOR 183 31.39 

DONOR_NUMB 82 14.07 

ACC_NAME 52 8.92 

AVAILABIL 253 43.40 

DON_COUNTR 249 42.71 

ORIG_COUNT 291 49.91 

ACQUI_YEAR 354 60.72 

GEO_SITUAT 74 12.69 

LOCALITY 125 21.44 

NAT_HABITA 235 40.31 

COLL_SITE 122 20.93 

LATITUDE 176 30.19 

LONGITUDE 171 29.33

The European Trifolium pratense Database 

Last updating: 1995 

Acronyms of the 19 participating institutes: 

BELCLOGRVP BGRIIRG BGRIIPR 

CHEFAP CHERAC CSKPIEST 

CSKTROUBSK DDRGAT DEUBGRC 

FRAINRAGEVES GBRRBG GRCFCPI 

HUNRCA ITAIDG ITAIMGV 

NGB NLDCGN POLIHAR 

TURARARI 


Table 2. Completeness of the European Trifolium pratense Database 

Field name Number of records % complete 

ECP_NUMBER 1901 100.00 

ACCESSION 1895 99.68 

NAME_OF_AC 1347 70.86 

ORIGIN_COU 1784 93.85 

DONOR_COUN 1397 73.49 

GENEBANK_D 1901 100.00 

DONOR_NUMB 169 8.89 

DONOR_INST 707 37.19 

ACCESSION_ 1901 100.00 

BREEDING_M 237 12.47 

COLLECTING 520 27.35 

COLLECTING 576 30.30 

BREEDER_MA 370 19.46 

PLOIDY_LEV 637 33.51 

SEED_AVAIL 1222 64.28 

SUBTAXA 89 4.68 

PROVINCE_S 463 24.36 

LOCATION 629 33.09 

LONGI_TUDE 694 36.51 

LATI_TUDE 694 36.51 

ALTI_TUDE 400 21.04 

COLLECT-_T 669 35.19

40 


Compiling of the Other Perennial Forages Legumes Database 

We sent 45 requesting letters to the probable collaborators in May 1996. The responses 

received are listed below: 

Athyllis 

When 

1996 

From where 

Form Total 

13 June Braunschweig, 

Germany 

diskettes, (DBF) 0 1 1 19 21 

3 July Royal Botanic Garden 

Kew, West Sussex, UK 

diskettes, (ASCII) 40 29 88 26 183 

4 July RICP, Praha, Czech 

Republic 

diskettes (DBF) 4 46 34 4 88 

11 July SAVE (Safeguard for letter, 2 new 0 0 0 0 0 

Agricultural Varieties in 

Europe) 

addresses 

15 July Centro de Recursos diskettes (DBF), 0 0 12 4 16 

Fitogenéticos, Madrid, 

Spain 

1 new address 

17 July The Hebrew University 

of Jerusalem, Israel 

letter 0 0 0 0 0 

9 Aug Pro Specie Rara, St. letter, 4 new 0 0 0 0 0 

Gallen, Switzerland addresses 

12 Aug Agricultural Research 

Organization, Bet 

Dagan, Israel 

diskettes, (TXT) 0 208 75 26 309 

1 Oct Istituto di Miglioramento 

Genetico Vegetale, 

Perugia, Italy 

letter 27 0 201 120 348 

17 Dec 

1997 

IPK-Gatersleben, 

Germany 

diskettes, (DBF) 13 33 55 54 155 

3 March RCA, Hungary 4 6 346 148 504 

3 March Total 88 323 677 348 1316 

Melilotus 

Lotus 

Onobrychis


The European Trifolium alexandrinum and T. resupinatum databases 

Manager: Noa Diwan 

The Israeli Gene Bank for Agricultural Crops, Volcani Center 

50250 Bet Dagan 

Israel 

Tel: (972-3)9683490 

Fax: (972-3)9669642 

Email: diwan@netvision.net.il

Table 1. List of descriptors used and % of accessions documented for Vicia spp. (V. faba not included) 

Descriptors List Part I Descriptors List Part II 

% % % 

Genus Genus 100 Genus Genus Genus Genus 

Species Species 85 Accnum Accession number Accnum Accession Number 

Accnum Accession Number 100 Othnum Other numbers 13 Designat Designation 2 

Subspe Subspecies 10 Collnum Collection number 12 Othdesig Other Designation 1.8 

Cultivar Cultivar 22 Georeg Geographic Region 18 Seqgb Seqgb 3.5 

Convar Convarietas 4 Locsit Local Situation 16 Cridref Cridref 1.4 

Varietas Varietas 7 Prov Province 18 Farmname Farmer’s name 1.4 

Locname Local name 9 Ordistr Origin District 17 Brdcomp Breeding company 1.3 

Selev Selection level 3 Orlocal Origin Locality 10 Brdmeth Breeding method 1.1 

Seedav Seed Available 4 Countcoll Country Collected 3 Pedigree Pedigree 5.0 

Genebank Genebank 100 Collexp Collector Expedition 2 Growhab Grow habitat 1.1 

Sigla Sigla 100 Collinst Collecting Institute 18 Nathab Nature of habitat 1.4 

Orcount Country of Origin 54 Datacoll Data Collected 2 Status Status of sample 14 

Donor Donor 86 Othobs Other Observation 6 Enduranc Endurance 5 

Sigdon Sigla Donor 86 Genebank Genebank Locmod Local modern 13 

Doid Donor Identification 47 Sigla Sigla Origin Origin 34 

Doco Donor Country 78 Genebank Genebank 

Breinst Breeding Institute 6 Sigla Sigla 

Table 2. Contents of the Vicia Database (excluding V. faba) 

Total no of Wild Landraces/ 

Contents (%) 

Breeding/ 

Accessions of 

Country 

Institution accessions species local varieties inbred lines Unknown local origin 

Italy ITAIDG 2643 54.0 48.5 0 51.5 36.1 

Israel ISRIGB 123 23.6 4.6 0 95.4 0 

Poland POLIHAR 66 0 3.9 0 96.1 0 

Turkey TURARARI 739 48.3 0 0 0 0 

Great Britain GBRRBG 79 60.8 0 0 0 2.6 

Cyprus CYPARI 81 18.5 100.0 0 0 0 

Germany DEUBGRC 170 40.6 7.2 0 92.8 14.8 

Czechoslovakia CSKRUZYNE 277 24.9 89.9 0 10.1 18.1 

Greece GRCFCPI 629 100.0 17.9 0 82.1 0 

Bulgaria BGRIIPR 713 48.2 27.6 0 72.4 52.9 

Total 5520 

file: Ldsctbls.doc

file: Ldsctbls.doc

42 


The European Vicia database 16 

Manager: Pietro Perrino 

Istituto del Germoplasma (IDG) 

Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche 

Via G. Amendola 165/A 

70126 Bari 

Italy 

Tel: +39-80 558 36 08 

Fax: +39-80 558 75 66 

Email: germpp04@area.ba.cnr.it 

General information 

Date of establishment of the database: 1992 

Last update: 1994 

Frequency of updating: annual 

Software: SAS 

Number of participating countries: 10 

Number of participating institutions: 10 

Total number of accessions recorded: 5520 

List of descriptors used and completeness of data (Table 1) 

The total number of descriptors is 44. Because of the heterogeneity of the documentation 

provided from the different genebanks, in previous meetings it was suggested and agreed to 

divide descriptors in three Parts. In Part I it was decided to group descriptors of the 

passport data, those for which the percentage of accessions documented was relatively high 

and some of those for which it was thought that there would not have been lack of 

information. In Part II and Part III, besides some descriptors, like genus, accession number, 

genebank, etc., which had to be reconfirmed for identification needs, it was decided to list 

the rest of the descriptors which were documented with less and less frequency. 

All accessions have genus, accession number and name of institution (genebank). The 

descriptors species and donor are documented only for 85 and 86% of the accessions, 

respectively. About 78, 54 and 47% of the accessions are documented respectively for the 

following descriptors: donor country, country of origin and donor identification. For most 

of the other important descriptors (19) the percentage of documented accessions is very low: 

from nearly 1 to 22%. The origin (site of collecting) is known only for 34% of the accessions. 

Contents of the database (Table 2) 

A little more than 40% of the accessions are stored in the Bari genebank. The other 60% is 

stored in the other nine genebanks. It was not possible to provide information about the 

number of inbred lines and about the number of accessions mantained in other collections. 

In the first case it may be because there are no inbred lines or alternatively the Manager has 

no information and this may explain why the percentage of accessions about which there is 

no information (unknown) is high. In the second case lack of information is clearly due to 

the fact that corresponding numbers of the same accessions were never provided to the 

central database. The percentage of landraces/local varieties includes also local names, 

cultivars, etc. Since in some countries even wild species have a local name, 

16 Compiled from information received at the Joint EGDS-ECP/GR Workshop on Central Crop 

Databases, Budapest, Hungary, 13-19 October 1996.

44 


the sum of the percentages of wild species and that of the next column (% landraces/local 

varieties) is not 100%. In compiling the table for percentage of unknown accessions, the 

percentage of accessions without any name or indication about landrace, local variety, local 

name, etc. must be understood. In fact the sum of the percentages refering to landraces, etc. 

and that of unkown is equal to 100%. It is surprising to note that in the collections of Israel, 

Poland, Turkey, Cyprus and Greece there are no local accessions. About this information 

one can make two hypotheses. The first and the most probable is that the information 

(descriptor) was not provided and the second, but unlikely, is that there are no accessions of 

local origin. This second hypothesis may be accepted for some countries, but not at all for 

Israel, Turkey, etc. 

Other relevant information 

The database has been created using the SAS system (Statistical Analysis System) and is 

stored at the Main Frame c/o High Studies and Advanced Technology (CSATA- 

TECHNOPOLIS) of Valenzano, Bari, Italy. 

At the moment access to the database is possible only by mail and Email requests. 

Information may be provided by normal mail, Email, on hard copy and floppy disk. There is 

not yet computerized registration of users of the database. The most frequent users of the 

database are research centres and seed companies. The most frequent questions asked by the 

users concern yield, resistance to certain diseases and adaptability to certain environments. 

List of species and/or subspecies of Vicia 

The number of known species in the database is nearly 80. Since it seems that 15% of the 

accessions of the database lack this descriptor and since it is probable that the missing 

information may be related to the difficulty of classification and/or identification of some 

species, one may argue that the number of species present in the genebanks and hence in the 

database may be higher than 80. 

Going through the list of species (Table 3) of Vicia present in the database and comparing 

it with that of the European flora one can note that there are several species not represented 

in the database and therefore not collected and stored in the listed genebanks. 

Acronyms used: 

ITAIDG Germplasm Institute, Via G. Amendola 165/A, 70126 Bari, Italy 

ISRIGB Israel Gene Bank for Agricultural Crops, Volcani Center, PO Box 6, 50- 

250 Bet Dagan, Israel 

POLIHAR Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute, Radzików, 05 870 Blonie, 

Poland 

TURARARI Aegean Regional Agricultural Research Institute, PO Box 9, Menemen 

Izmir, Turkey 

GBRRBG Royal Botanic Garden Kew, Wakehurst Place, Ardingly, Haywards Heath 

West Sussex RH17 6TN, United Kingdom 

CYPARI Agricultural Research Institute, PO Box 2016, Nicosia, Cyprus 

DEUBGRC Institute für Pflanzenbau und Pflanzenzuchtung (FAL), Bundesallee 50, 

3000 Braunschweig, Germany 

CSKRUZYNE Research Institute of Plant Production, 161 06, Prague 6-Ruzyn, 

Czechoslovakia 

GRCFCPI Fodder Crops and Pastures Institute, Larissa, Greece 

BGRIIPR Institute for Plant Genetic Resources, 4122 Sadovo, Plovdiv district, 

Bulgaria


Table 3. Vicia species and number of accessions 

No. of 

No. of 

Species 

access. Species 

access. 

amoena 2 michauxii Sprengel 2 

amorensis 1 microphylla d'Urv. 1 

amphicarpa Dorthes 4 monantha Retz 8 

anatolica Turril 1 narbonensis L. 94 

angustifolia L. 27 neglecta 2 

articulata Hornem. 12 noeana Reuter ex. Boiss. 3 

atropurpurea Desf. 42 obovata 1 

benghalensis L. 16 ochroleuca Teu. 1 

biennis L. 3 onobrychioides L. 2 

bithynica (L.) L. 32 orobus DC. 2 

caesarea 3 pannonica Crautz 89 

calcarata Desf. 8 pannonica Cran. 16 

cassubica L. 3 peregrina L. 59 

cordata Wulfen ex Hoppe 64 pilosa 1 

cracca L. 41 pisiformis L. 3 

cretica Boiss. & Heldr. 3 platisperma 1 

dalmatica A. Kerner 3 pseudorobus 2 

dasycarpa Ten. 82 pubescens (DC.) Link 2 

disperma DC. 6 pyrenaica 1 

dumetorum L. 2 sativa L. 2626 

eriocarpa Hausskn. 4 sativa + benghalensis 1 

ervilia (L.) Willd. 249 sativa + cordata 5 

gigantea 1 sativa + grandiflora 1 

grandiflora Scop. 10 sativa + macrocarpa 1 

hayastana 68 sativa + nigra 6 

hirsuta (L.) S.F. Gray 6 semiglabra 2 

hyaeniscyamus Mout. 1 sepium L. 22 

hybrida L. 46 sicula (Rafin.)Guss. 3 

hirsuta (L.) Gray 18 spp. 15 

incana Gouan 3 sylvatica L. 3 

incisa M. Bieb. 2 tenuifolia Roth. 6 

incisaeformis 3 tenuissima (Bieb.) Schinz & Thell. 7 

johannis (Popov) H. Schäfer 12 tetrasperma (L.) Schreb. 9 

lathyroides L. 6 unijuga 2 

lutea L. 74 vicioides 1 

macrocarpa (Moris) Arcangeli 6 villosa 128 

megalotropis 1 villosa Roth. 53 

melanops Sibth. & Smith 10 villosa + eriocarpa 1 

meyeri 1 villosa + microphylla 1

46 


The European Dactylis and Festuca databases 

Manager: Grzegorz Žurek 

Botanical Garden, Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute (IHAR) 

Bydgoszcz, Poland 

URL: http://www.ngb.se/Databases/ECP/Dactylis 

URL: http://www.ngb.se/Databases/ECP/Festuca 

Introduction 

Central Crop Databases combine the data available for one crop from local documentation 

systems into one central database and make the combined data sets available to the 

contributors and to others (van Hintum 1994). Central Databases are the key tool for the 

management of collections by the crop-specific working groups as well as for individual 

curators (Lipman et al. 1996). They are also helpful in promoting the utilization of genetic 

resources and the regional coordination of conservation activities (IPGRI 1995). 

The databases of the forage grasses Dactylis spp. and Festuca spp. were updated for the 

last time in 1987. Since then no further work has been done on the databases. During the 

fifth meeting of the Working Group on Forages (Hissar, Bulgaria, 1995) it was decided that a 

new update of these databases would be prepared by the staff of the Botanical Garden of the 

Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute in Bydgoszcz, Poland (Gass et al. 1995). 

According to an agreement between IPGRI and the Botanical Garden of IHAR, US$3790 were 

assigned for hardware improvement in the Botanical Garden. 

Materials and methods 

The structure of the database was prepared according to recommendations of IBPGR (Tyler 

et al. 1985) and is similar to the structures of the European Catalogue of Phleum sp. and the 

European Catalogue of Medicago perennial species (INRA/GEVES 1995). See formats used in 

Annex 1. 

From the 'Directory of Institutions Holding Crop Genetic Resources Collections' (Frison 

and Serwiński 1995) 48 foreign institutions were recognized as potential owners of data on 

Dactylis and Festuca collections (Table 1). The proposed structure of the database was then 

distributed to all institutions mentioned in Table 1. 

Database management softwares used were dBaseIII, FoxPro and Excel. Accepted 

sources for taxonomic descriptions were 'Flora Europaea' vol. 5 (Tutin et al. 1980) for 

European species and 'Poaceae URSS' (Tzvelev 1976) for non-European species. 

Results 

A total of 23 positive responses was received (including Polish institutions). Five were 

unable to transfer their data and 22 did not respond. Data were prepared both on disks in 

the proposed structure, and on hard copies. After compilation of the databases for both 

genera a total of 16 066 accessions was identified (7366 for Festuca and 8700 for Dactylis).


Table 1. European institutions holding collections of Dactylis and Festuca and their replies 

No. Inst. code Acronym ECPAcronym Person and Institution Resp. † 

1 BEL087 Dr L.A. Dutilleux 

Conservatoire Botanique de Ressources 

Genetiques de Wallonie 

1 rue Fievez 

B-1470, Genappe 

Yes 

Tel: (32-2)6332025 

2 BGR001 IPGR BGRIIPR Dr Ivan Lozanov 

Institute of Plant Introduction and Genetic 

Resources 'K. Malkov' 

4122, Sadovo, District Plovdiv 

Tel: (359-32)393118/2221 

Telex: 44444 IPGR BG 

Fax: (359-32)270270(post) 

3 CHE001 RAC CHERAC Station Federale de Recherches 

Agronomiques de Changins 

Route de Duillier - BP 254 

CH-1260, Nyon 

Tel: (41-22)3634722 

Telex: 419975 

Fax: (41-22)3621325 

4 CZE079 PRUHON CSKPRUHON Ing. J. Dostal 

Research Institute of Ornamental Gardening 

Pruhonice 

252 43, Pruhonice 

Tel: (42-2)67750027 

Telex: 123 320 VUOZ C 

Fax: (42-2)67750023 

Email: adm@vuoz.cz 

5 CZE082 ZUBRI CSKZUBRI OSEVA PRO Ltd. Grassland Research Station 

756 54 

Zubri 

Tel: (42-651)583195/6 

Telex: 529 32 TRAVA C 

Fax: (42-651)583197 

6 DEU001 BGRC DEUBGRC Institute of Crop Science, Federal Research 

Center for Agricult.(FAL) 

Bundesallee 50 

38116, Braunschweig 

Tel: (49-531)596307/5961 

Fax: (49-531)596365 

7 ESP009 CSICMBG ESPCSICMBG Biological Mission of Galicia 

Apartado de Correos, 28 

36080, Pontevedra 

Tel: (34-86)854800 

Fax: (34-86)841362 

8 ESP119 CIAMLCO Centro de Investigaciones Agrarias de 

Mabegondo 

Apartado 10 

15080, La Coruna 

Tel: (34-81)673000 

Telex: 86021 INIA E 

Fax: (34-81)673656 

Email: valenzu@siagal.inia.es 

9 FRA051 GEVES FRAINRAMAG Annick Le Blanck 

Unite experimentale du Magneraud GEVES 

Saint Pierre-d'Amilly - BP 52 

F-17700, Surgeres 

Tel: (33)46683000 

Telex: 790737 F 

Fax: (33)46683087 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes

48 



10 GBR004 RBG GBRRBG Seed Bank, Seed Conservation Sect., Royal 

Botanic Gardens, Kew 

Wakehurst Place, Ardingly 

Haywards Heath, W.Sussex RH17 6TN 

Tel: (44-181)3325000 

Telex: 296694 KEWGAR G 

Fax: (44-181)3325069 

Email: CGI702 

Yes 

11 ITA015 PERUG ITAPERUG Dr M. Falcinelli 

Istituto di Miglioramento Genetico Vegetale, 

Universita di Perugia 

Borgo XX Giugno 74 

I-06122, Perugia 

Tel: (39-75)5856206 

Fax: (39-75)5856224 

Email: imgvsas@ipguniv.unipg.it 

Yes 

12 ITA034 ITALONIGO Dr F. Bozzo 

Inst. of Plant Breeding and Agric. Research 

"Nazareno Strampelli" 

Via Marconi 1 

I-36045, Lonigo (VI) 

Tel: (39-444)830088 

Fax: (39-444)835540 

Yes 

13 NLD037 CGN/CPRO NLDCGN Centre for Genetic Resources, the 

Yes 

-DLO 

Netherlands (CGN) 

Droevendaalsesteeg 1 - PO Box 16 

6700 AA, Wageningen 

Tel: (31-8370)77045/77001 

Fax: (31-8370)18094 

Email: CGN@CPRO.AGRO.NL 

14 NOR019 VOLBU State Agricultural Experimental Station Loken 

N-2940, Heggenes 

Tel: (47)61340205 

Fax: (47)61340665 

Yes 

15 POL003 IHAR POLIHAR Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute 

05-870 

Blonie, Radzikow near Warsaw 

Tel: (48-2)7252611 

Telex: 812914 IHAR PL 

Fax: (48-2)7254714 

Yes 

16 POL022 BYDG POLBYDG Botanical Garden of Plant Breeding and 

Acclimatization Institute 

Jezdziecka 5 

85-687, Bydgoszcz 

Tel: (48-52)721407 

Fax: (48-52)224454 

Yes 

17 PRT084 ENMP Ing. J.P.Goncalves Carneiro 

Sector de Pastagens e Forragens Dept Past., 

Forrag., Proteaginosas 

Apartado 6 

7351, Elvas Codex 

Tel: (351-68)622844 

Telex: 40189 ENMP P 

Fax: (351-68)629295 

Yes 

18 ROM003 ICPCP ROMBRASOV Grassland Research Institute 

Str. Cucului, 5 

2200, Brasov 

Tel: (40-92)142232 

Fax: (40-68)142119 

Yes 

19 ROM007 A. Raibuh 

Genebank of Suceava 

Bulevardul 1 Decembrie 1918 nr.17 

5800, Suceava, Judetul Suceava 

Tel: (40-30)227087 

Telex: (987)23296 

Fax: (40-30)227087 

Yes



20 SVK012 SLOVOSIVO Plant Breeding Station 

Levocske Luky 

054 01, Levoca 

Tel: (42-965)27771 

Yes 

21 SVN019 AISLJ YUGAISLJ Dept. of Field Crops & Seed Prod., 

Agricultural Institute of Slovenia 

Hacquetova 2, PO Box 53 

61109, Ljubljana 

Tel: (386-61)1375375 

Fax: (386-61)1375413 

Yes 

22 SWE002 NGB SWENGB Mr Morten Hulden 

Nordic Gene Bank 

PO Box 41 

S-230 53, Alnarp 

Tel: (46-40)461790 

Telex: 32717 NGB S 

Fax: (46-40)462188 

Email: nordgen@ngb.se 

Yes 

23 TUR001 AARI TURARARI Dr Ayfer Tan 

Plant Genetic Resources Dept., Aegean 

Agricultural Research Inst. 

PO Box 9, Menemen 

35661, Izmir 

Tel: (90-232)8461009 

Telex: 51293 AARI Tr 

Fax: (90-232)8461107 

Yes 

24 BEL004 RVP BELCLOGRVP D. Reheul 

Government Plant Breeding Station 

Burg. Van Gansberghelaan 109 

B-9820, Merelbeke (Lemberge) 

Tel: (32-9)2521981 

Fax: (32-9)2521150 

No 

25 DEU007 STEIN DEUSTEIN Saatzucht Steinach GmbH 

Wittelsbacher Str. 15 

94377, Steinach ueber Straubing 

Tel: (49-9428)8715 

Telex: 65569 

Fax: (49-9428)8648 

No 

26 GRC006 FCPI GRCFCPI Constantin Iliadis 

Fodder Crops and Pastures Institute 

Theophrastou St.1, PO Box 1262 

411 10, Larissa 

Tel: (30-41)239711 

Fax: (30-41)232827 

No 

27 LTU001 LIA Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture 

LT-5051 

Dotnuva-Akademija, Kedainiai Dist. 

Tel: (370-57)37289 

Fax: (370-57)56996 

No 

28 PRT001 BPGV - PRTNUMI Ing. Violeta Rolim Nunes Lopes 

No 

DRAEDM 

Banco Portugues de Germoplasma Vegetal 

(BPGV) 

Quinta dos Peoes - Gualtar 

4700, Braga 

Tel: (351-53)676758 

Telex: 33506 NUMI P 

Fax: (351-53)677328 

29 ALB011 S. Karadumi 

Forest and Pasture Research Inst. 

Tirana 

0 

30 DEU012 BHERSF DEUBHERSF K. Reinhardt 

Agricultural Research Institute 

Eichhof 

36251, Bad Hersfeld 

Tel: (49-6621)92280 

Fax: (49-6621)51921 

0

50 



31 DEU146 IPK DDRGAT Dr H. Knuepffer 

Genebank, Inst. for Plant Genetics and Crop 

Plant Research (IPK) 

Corrensstrasse 3 

06466, Gatersleben 

Tel: (49-39482)5280 

Telex: 351868 ipk d 

Fax: (49-39482)5155 

0 

32 DEU189 BORNVEG DDRBORNVEG N. Kronseder 

Saatzucht Steinach GmbH Station Bornhof 

Klockower Strasse 11 

17219, Bornhof-Bocksee 

Tel: (49-39921)228/29/31 

Fax: (49-39921)234 

0 

33 DEU358 IPK Dr P. Hanelt 

Dept. of Taxonomy, Inst. for Plant Gen. and 

Crop Plant Research (IPK) 

Corrensstrasse 3 

06466, Gatersleben 

Tel: (49-39482)5272 

Telex: IPK 351868 

Fax: (49-39482)280 

0 

34 DEU366 ILFU Inst. for Agricultural Research 

Merseburger Str. 41 

06112, Halle/Saale 

Tel: (49-345)120216 

Fax: (49-345)50094-30 

0 

35 ESP022 INIAFOR ESPFORMADR Gregorio Montero 

Centro de Investigaciones Forestales / INIA 

Autov. Noroeste, km 7.5, Apdo 8111 

28080, Madrid 

Tel: (34-1)3476854 

Fax: (34-1)3572293 

0 

36 FIN020 Dr Voitto Koskenmaki 

Boreal Plant Breeding 

Myllytie 8 

FIN-31600, Jokioinen 

Tel: (358-16)41871 

Fax: (358-16)4187715 

0 

37 FRA001 INRA- FRAINRALUS Claude Mousset 

0 

POITOU 

Station d'Amelioration des Plantes 

Fourrageres, INRA 

F-86600, Lusignan 

Tel: (33)49556000 

Telex: INRALUS 791191 F 

Fax: (33)49556044 

38 FRA040 INRA- FRAINRACLF Dr Francois Balfourier 

0 

CLERMON 

Station d'Amelioration des Plantes, INRA 

Domaine de Crouelle 

F-63039, Clermont-Ferrand Cedex 

Tel: (33)73624000 

Telex: 392207 F 

Fax: (33)73624453 

39 GBR016 WPBS- GBRWPBS Mr Ian D. Thomas 

0 

IGER 

Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Inst.of 

Grassland and Environ. Res 

Plas Gogerddan 

Aberystwyth, Dyfed SY23 3EB 

Tel: (44-1970)828255 

Fax: (44-1970)828357 

Email: HAMILTONS@AFRC.AC.UK



40 GRC005 GGB GRCGGB A. Zamanis 

Greek Genebank, Agric. Res. Center of 

Makedonia and Thraki, NAGREF 

PO Box 312 

570 01, Thermi - Thessaloniki 

Tel: (30-31)471544/471439 

Fax: (30-31)471209 

0 

41 HUN053 PUAK-IA Prof. Istvan Ecker 

Pannon University of Agriculture, Institute of 

Agronomy 

Deak F. u. 16 

H-8361, Keszthely 

Tel: (36-82)11140 

Telex: 35-242 

Fax: (36-82)19105 

0 

42 IRL001 AFT IRLAFT V. Connolly 

Oak Park Research Centre, Nat. Centre for 

Arable Crops Res. 

Teagasc, Carlow 

Tel: (353-503)70200 

Telex: 60610 AFTO EI 

Fax: (353-503)42423 

0 

43 ITA004 IDG ITAIDG Dr Giulio Scippa 

Istituto del Germoplasma, Consiglio Nazionale 

d. Richerche 

Via G. Amendola 165/A 

I-70126, Bari 

Tel: (39-80)5583400/463 

Fax: (39-80)5587566 

Email: RICERCA@VM.CSATA.IT 

0 

44 LTU003 Dr G. Almantas 

Voke Branch of the Lithuanian Institute of 

Agriculture 

LT-4002, Traku Voke, Vilnius reg. 

Tel: (370-2)629775 

Fax: (37-2)629775 

0 

45 NLD015 ZWAANW NLDZWAANW G.Y. Berthe 

Limagrain Genetics B.V. 

Stationsstraat, 124 - PO Box 2 

9679 ZG, Scheemda 

Tel: (31-5979)1233 

Telex: 53146 

Fax: (31-5979)3030 

0 

46 PRT025 UTAD Prof. H. Guedes-Pinto 

Dept. de Genetica e Biotecnologia, Univ. Trasos-Montes 

e Alto Douro 

Apartado 202 

5001, Vila Real Codex 

Tel: (351-59)320501 

Telex: 24436 

Fax: (351-59)74480 

0 

47 ROM002 ICPCPT ROMICCPT Dr Doc. A.V. Vranceanu 

Genetic Resources Dep. – Research Inst. for 

Cereals and Ind. Crops 

R-8264, Fundulea, Judetul Calarasi 

Tel: (40-1)6150805 

Fax: (40-1)3110722 

0 

48 RUS001 VIR SUNWIR Dr S.M. Alexanian 

N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant 

Industry 

Bolshaya Morskaja Street 42-44 

190000, St. Petersburg 

Tel: (7-812)3144848/19901 

Telex: 121414 ALEX SU 

Fax: (7-812)3118762 

Email: vir@glas.apc.org 

0

52 



49 SVK022 SEMEX SVKPOTVOR Dr Anna Jakabova 

Research and Breeding Institute of 

Ornamental Plants 

916 25, Potvorice 

Tel: (42-834)97131 

Fax: (42-834)97260 

0 

50 SWE013 DFBBAL SWEDFBBAL Lars Bjork 

Dept. Horticultural Plant Breeding, Swedish 

Univ. of Agric. Sciences 

Fjalkestadsvagen 123-1 

S-291 94, Kristianstad 

Tel: (46-44)75041/75042 

Fax: (46-44)75049 

Email: balsgard@hvf.slu.se 

0 

† 

Response: YES = data were transferred to Botanical Garden; NO = donor is unable to transfer data; 0 = no 

response. 

Genus Dactylis 

In total, 10 taxa were identified in this genus (see Table 2). Most accessions belong to the 

most popular species Dactylis glomerata L. (98.8%), and they are wild ecotypes and landraces 

(88.5%). 

Only 81.7% of all accessions are original (i.e. accessions collected and conserved in the 

same country) (Table 3). Most of them are ecotypes (87.6% of all accessions from Format 3). 

More than 21% of advanced cultivars and breeders' lines are also original accessions but, on 

the other hand, 44.9% of them are duplicated in one or more genebanks. 

Regarding the storage of original accessions, four groups of genebanks can be 

distinguished: 

• storing only (100%) original accessions – genebanks from Spain, Italy, Slovenia, 

Sweden and Turkey, 

• storing mainly (79-95.7%) original accessions – genebanks from Bulgaria, Germany, 

Spain, Poland, Portugal and Romania, 

• storing both original and foreign accessions (near 50% of original accessions) – 

genebanks from Switzerland and the Netherlands; 

• storing mainly foreign accessions (less than 50% of original) – genebanks from Czech 

Republic, France, United Kingdom, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. 

Genus Festuca 

In four basic formats 27 taxa were recognized, and in the botanical gardens collections next 

42 taxa from the European flora as well as 21 from Asiatic flora were also recognized (Tables 

4 and 5). Most of the accessions recorded in the Catalogue were ecotypes and landraces 

(82.8%) from two species: Festuca pratensis (71% of all accessions) and Festuca arundinacea 

(17.9% of all accessions). Other species were Festuca rubra s.l. (4.9%), Festuca rubra subsp. 

rubra (1.63%), Festuca nigrescens [= F. rubra subsp. fallax] (1.33%) and Festuca ovina (0.98%). 

Only a few accessions per taxon were recorded for other fescue species.


Table 2. List of identified species of the genus Dactylis and number of accessions in each format 

Species name, authority, comments 

FORMAT 1 

FORMAT 2 

FORMAT 3 

FORMAT 4 

Total % 

glomerata L. 587 146 7686 175 8594 98.78 

glomerata L. subsp. aschersoniana (Graebner) Thell. 

(Syn.= D. polygama Horvatovszky) 

3 3 0.03 

glomerata L. subsp. glomerata 63 63 0.72 

glomerata L. subsp. himalayensis Domin 1 1 0.01 

glomerata L. subsp. hispanica (Roth) Nyman 17 17 0.20 

glomerata L. subsp. ibizenzis Stebbins & Zohary 4 4 0.05 

glomerata L. subsp. maritima [taxon not recognized] 3 3 0.03 

glomerata L. subsp. parthiana [taxon not recognized] 1 1 0.01 

glomerata L. subsp. phyllose [taxon not recognized] 1 1 0.01 

marina Borill. 13 13 0.15 

Total number of accessions 587 149 7789 175 8700 100.00 

In formats: 6.7% 1.7% 89.5% 2.0% 100.0% 

Less than 70% are original accessions. Most of the original accessions were recorded in 

Format 3 (80.5%) and Format 2 (94.9%) (Table 6). 

As for Dactylis, four groups of genebanks are identified according to the storage of 

original accessions: 

• storing only (100%) original accessions – genebanks from Spain, Italy, Slovenia, 

Sweden and Turkey; 

• storing mainly (85-86%) original accessions – genebanks from Germany, Poland, 

Romania; 

• storing both original and foreign accessions (near 50% of original accessions) – 

genebank from Poland; 

• storing mainly foreign accessions (less than 50% of original) – genebanks from 

Bulgaria, Czech Republic (2 genebanks), Switzerland, France, United Kingdom, 

Romania and Slovakia. 

The percentage of duplicated accessions of advanced cultivars and breeders' lines exceeds 

55%. 


1. To improve future action in updating of the European Catalogues of Dactylis and Festuca 

it is necessary to update each year or as quickly as data increase. 

2. Identification of duplicates should be added to future activities. 

3. It is essential to collect information about other European species of the above genus. The 

genus Festuca contains an estimated 450 species (Aiken and Darbyshire 1990). More than 

170 species are listed in 'Flora Europea' (Tutin et al. 1980). It means that in the above 

Catalogue only 44.7% of all European species were noted. 

4. There is a great need to standardize taxonomy, especially in the genus Festuca. For 

example in the case of Festuca rubra one accession could have different taxonomic names 

and all of them are correct. For example: Festuca rubra L. = Festuca rubra L. subsp. fallax 

(Thuill.) Hayek = Festuca rubra L. var. commutata Gaudin. = Festuca nigrescens Lam. The 

last name is correct according to 'Flora Europaea'. It should be strongly recommended to 

use the mentioned source of taxonomic descriptions.

Table 3. Accessions from the genus Dactylis by genebank and format 

FORMAT 1 FORMAT 2 FORMAT 3 FORMAT 4 Total 

Genebank No. of access. No. of access. No. of access. No. of access. by gene- Total original 

code Total Original Total Original Total Original Total Original banks accessions % 

BGROO1 33 6 119 119 8 7 7 167 132 79.0 

CHEOO1 11 6 11 6 54.5 

CZEO82 128 19 2 130 19 14.6 

DEUOO1 112 9 669 660 781 669 85.7 

ESPOO9 4 333 326 337 326 96.7 

ESP119 1 1 22 22 23 23 100.0 

FRAO51 57 190 68 247 68 27.5 

GBROO4 58 12 7 65 12 18.5 

ITAO34 1 1 1 1 100.0 

NLDO37 28 15 28 15 53.6 

POLOO3 28 2 1 29 2 6.9 

POLO22 102 47 5827 5148 134 5 6063 5200 85.8 

PRTO84 7 136 136 1 144 136 94.4 

ROMOO3 32 17 17 49 17 34.7 

ROMOO7 3 3 25 23 19 19 47 45 95.7 

SVKO12 48 1 111 13 159 14 8.8 

SVNO19 1 1 27 27 28 28 100.0 

SWEOO2 34 34 177 177 211 211 100.0 

TUROO1 180 180 180 180 100.0 

Total no. access. 587 124 150 142 7786 6818 177 20 8700 7104 81.7 

In formats: 21.1% 94.7% 87.6% 11.3% 

Total number of duplicates = 264 from 587 accessions in Format 1. It is 44,9% of all accessions from above format. 

File: NatTbls2.doc


Table 4. List of identified species of the genus Festuca and number of accessions in each format 

No. Species name, authority, comments 

FORMAT 1 

FORMAT 2 

FORMAT 3 

FORMAT 4 

Total % 

1 alpina Suter. 17 2 19 0.26 

2 altissima 1 1 0.01 

3 arundinacea Schreb. 279 898 139 1316 17.87 

4 cinerea Vill. 3 3 0.04 

5 drymeja Mert. & Koch. 1 1 0.01 

6 gigantea (L.) Vill. 2 8 10 0.14 

7 heterophylla Lam. 2 1 1 2 6 0.08 

8 indigesta Boiss. 1 1 0.01 

9 lemanii Bast. ( = F. longifolia auct. non. Thuill) 30 2 32 0.43 

10 longifolia Thuill. ( = F. caesia Sm.) 1 1 0.01 

11 nigrescens Lam. (= F. rubra L. subsp. fallax 

(Thuill.) Hayek, F. rubra L. var. comutata 

Gaudin.) 

98 98 1.33 

12 nipicola [species name not recognized in 

accessible sources of taxonomic terms] 

1 1 0.01 

13 ovina L. 29 43 72 0.98 

14 paniculata (L.) Schinz & Thell. 1 1 0.01 

15 petraea Guthnick et Seub. 1 1 0.01 

16 pratensis Huds. subsp. pratensis (?) (= F. elatior 

L. taxonomic name by data donor) 

9 9 0.12 

17 pratensis Hudson 330 10 4856 35 5231 71.03 

18 pseudovina Hackel ex. Wiseb 2 2 0.03 

19 rubra L. (subspecies not specified) 104 9 234 12 359 4.88 

20 rubra L. subsp. rubra (= F. rubra subsp. vulgaris 

(Gaudin) Hayek) 

105 15 120 1.63 

21 scariosa (Lag.) Ascherson & Graebner 1 1 0.01 

22 sibirica Hack. ex Boiss. [species not from 

European flora] 

1 1 0.01 

23 tenuifolia Sibth. (= F. capillata Lam, F. ovina L. 

subsp. tenuifolia (Sibth.) Peterm) 

2 2 0.03 

24 trachyphylla (Hackel) Krajina 3 1 4 0.05 

25 trichophylla (Ducros ex Gaudin) K. Richter (= F. 

rubra L. subsp. trichophylla Ducros ex Gaudin) 

46 6 52 0.71 

26 vaginata Waldst. & Kit. ex Willd. 1 1 0.01 

27 valesiaca Schleicher ex Gaudin 2 2 4 0.05 

28 not recognized 1 14 15 0.20 

Total number of accessions in each format: 1036 39 6100 189 7364 100 

Percentage: 14.1 0.5 82.8 2.6 100.0

56 


Table 5. Festuca species in botanical gardens collections 

No. Genus, species, subspecies, authorities 

I. Taxonomy according to 'Flora Europea' Vol. 5 

29 airoides Lam. 

30 amethystina L. 

31 amethystina L. subsp. orientalis (donor name: F. inarmata Schur.) 

32 ampla Hack. 

33 arvernensis Augier, Kerguelen & Markgr.- Dannenb. 

34 borderi (Hackel) K.Richter 

35 bosniaca Kummer et Sendtner 

36 brigantina (Markgr.-Dannenb.) Markr.-Dannenb. 

37 capillata Lam. 

38 carpatica F.G.Dietr. 

39 circummediterranea Patzke 

40 costei (St-Yves) Markgr.-Dannenb. 

41 cretacea T.Popov & Proskorj. 

42 curvula Gaudin subsp. curvula 

43 curvula Gaudin subsp. cagiriensis (Timb.-Lagr.) Markgr.-Dannen. (donor name: F. cagiriensis Timb.-Lagr.) 

44 dimorpha Guss. 

45 durandii Clauson 

46 durissima (Hackel) Kerguelen 

47 durissima (Hackel) Kerguelen subsp. bellettii Hackel 

48 duvalii (St-Yves) Stohr 

49 elegans Boiss. (donor name: F. elegans Nogfuera) 

50 eskia Ramond ex DC. 

51 gautieri (Hackel) K.Richter (former name: F. scoparia Kermer) 

52 glauca Vill. 

53 halleri All. (donor name: F. halleri Augier (Olden)) 

54 henriquesi Hackel (donor name: F. henriquesii Alef.) 

55 herivieri Patzke 

56 juncifolia St-Amans 

57 koritnicensis Vetter ex Hayek 

58 pallens Host. 

59 polesica Zapal. 

60 pseudeskia Boiss 

61 pulchella Schard. 

62 pumila Vill 

63 rupicarpina (Hackel) A.Kerner 

64 rupicola Heuff. 

65 rupicola subsp. rupicola Heuff. (donor name: F. sulcata Hack.) 

66 stricta Host. 

67 tatrae (Czako) Degen 

68 varia Haenke 

69 varia Haenke subsp. brachystachys Ekel. 

70 violacea Schleich. ex Gaudin 

II. Non-European species, taxonomy according to 'Poaceae Urss' (Tzvelev 1976) 

1 dolichophylla J. et Preslii 

2 duriotagana Kerguelen 

3 extremadura Sylvanes 

4 extremorientalis Ohwi 

5 filiformis (Ankart) Pourr 

6 jampetii St. Yves 

7 kirilovii Bast. 

8 liviensis Verguin 

9 longifolia Auquier 

10 magellanica Lamb. 

11 mairei St. Yves 

12 mathewsii Cheesem 

13 patrae Rodrig. 

14 punctoria Ronald 

15 rubi Voldavik 

16 rusca Vavil. 

17 scirpifolia Kunth. 

18 semilusitanica Tr. Poldens 

19 sibirica Hack. 

20 skvortsovii E.Alexeev 

21 tuberulosa Norman

Table 6. Accessions from the genus Festuca by genebank and format 

FORMAT 1 † 

FORMAT 2 FORMAT 3 FORMAT 4 

No. of access. No. of access. No. of access. No. of access. Total by Total original 

Total Original Total Original Total Original Total Original genebank accessions % 

BGROO1 13 14 27 0 

CHEOO1 37 18 37 18 48.6 

CZEO79 3 3 0 

CZEO82 316 19 1 2 2 319 21 6.6 

DEUOO1 132 40 529 527 661 567 85.8 

ESP119 22 22 22 22 100.0 

FRAO51 59 116 46 175 46 26.3 

GBROO4 75 23 3 78 23 29.5 

ITAO34 1 1 1 1 100.0 

POLOO3 134 17 106 106 240 123 51.3 

POLO22 110 17 4097 3729 159 8 4366 3754 86.0 

ROMOO3 93 9 320 71 1 1 414 81 19.6 

ROMOO7 2 2 38 37 35 35 13 87 74 85.1 

SVKO12 98 8 491 65 589 73 12.4 

SVNO19 3 3 3 3 100.0 

SWEOO2 72 72 242 242 314 314 100.0 

TUROO1 28 28 28 28 100.0 

Total no. 

access. 

1036 188 39 37 6100 4914 190 9 7366 5148 69.9 

In formats 18.1% 94.9% 80.5% 4.7% 

† 

In Format 1 (varieties and breeder's lines) only 564 accessions are unique. Fourteen accessions were recorded with wrong species name and 472 are duplicates of above 

578 accessions. Percentage of duplicated accessions: 55.8%. 

File: NatTbls2.doc

58 


Annex 1. Structure of the computerized inventory of forage grasses collections in the Botanical 

Garden of IHAR in Bydgoszcz 

Format 1. Location (*) and passport data [one set of data for each plot] 

Number of field * 

Number of row * 

Number in row * 

Number of plot * 

Replication number 

Number of accession 

Genus, species 

Subspecies 

Name of variety 

Accession status 

Breeder name 

Breeding method 

Collection date 

Location of collection 

Province/region 

Country of origin 

Habitat specification: 

Grassland type 

Plant community 

Management data (grazed or abandoned etc.) 

Site specification (pH, soil type, N, P 2 O 5 , K 2 O, Mg, Ca, etc.) 

Elevation 

Longitude 

Latitude 

Aspect 

Slope 

Donor name 

Donor country 

Format 2. Management data [one set of data for each field] 

Date of planting into the field collection 

Fertilization doses (in kg per ha) before planting: 

N 

P 2 O 5 

K 2 O 

Organic fertilization (in kg per ha) before planting 

Forecrop (species or mixture) 

Fertilization doses (in kg per ha) during vegetation of plants 

N 

P 2 O 5 

K 2 O 

Herbicide (optional, in case of heavy weed cover): 

Name or names, doses per ha, date of application 

Cutting frequency (number of cuts and dates of cutting) 

Other manipulation (specify) 

Format 3. Evaluation data - data collected in metric units, then transferred into a 1-9 scale [one set 

of data for each plot] 

Number of plants per plot 

Uniformity (1-9 scale) 

Percentage of vernals (heading at the year of sowing) 

Mean heading date (expressed as number of days from 01.04.) 

Growth habit (expressed as tiller angle) 

Height of plants at heading phase (cm) 

Length of flag leaf (cm) 

Width of flag leaf (mm) 

Length of inflorescence (cm) 

Seed harvest date 

Seed yield (after cleaning and drying procedures - in grams per plot) 

Germination 

Other (notes depend on species)


References 

Aiken, S.G. and S.J. Darbyshire. 1990. Fescue grasses of Canada. Canadian Gov. Publ. 

Frison, E. and J. Serwiński, editors. 1995. Directory of European Institutions Holding Plant Genetic 

Resources. Fourth edition. Vols. 1 and 2. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, 

Italy. 

Gass, T., R. Sackville Hamilton, K. Kolshus and E. Frison, editors. 1995. Report of a working group on 

forages. Fifth meeting, 31 March-2 April 1995, Hissar, Bulgaria. ECP/GR, IPGRI, Rome, Italy. 

INRA/GEVES. 1995. European Catalogue of Medicago perennial species. GEVES, Guyancourt, France. 

Lipman, E., M.W.M. Jongen, Th.J.L. van Hintum, T. Gass and L. Maggioni, compilers. 1996. Central 


Resources Institute, Rome, Italy/CGN, Wageningen, the Netherlands. 

van Hintum, Th.J.L. 1994. Scenarios for plant genetic resources documentation network. Pp. 43-47 in 

Report of the First Technical Meeting of Focal Points for Documentation in East European 

Genebanks (M.W.M Jongen and Th.J.L. van Hintum, eds.). CGN, Wageningen, the Netherlands. 

IPGRI. 1995. In defence of diversity. Focus on Europe. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, 

Rome, Italy. 

Tutin, T.G., V.H. Heywood, N.A. Burges, D.M. Moore, D.H. Valentine, S.M. Walters and D.A. Webb. 

1980. Flora Europaea. Vol. 5. Cambridge Univ. Press. 

Tyler, B.F., I.D. Hayes and W. Ellis Davies. 1985. Descriptor List for Forage Grasses. IBPGR, Rome, 

Italy. 

Tzvelev, N.N. 1976. Poaceae URSS. Editio „NAUKA”, Leningrad, USSR.

60 


The European databases of Medicago spp. (annual species) and Trifolium 

subterraneum 

Manager: Francisco González López 

Servicio de Investigación y Desarrollo Tecnológico, Badajoz, Spain 

Updating 

At the fifth ECP/GR Forages Working Group Meeting held in April 1995, our commitment 

was to update and publish the Medicago (annual species) and Trifolium subterraneum 

European Catalogues by the end of 1996. 

We requested updates of the databases from all the seed bank Institutions holding 

collections or accessions of medics or T. subterraneum (Table 1). Data were received from the 

following: 

BGRIIPGR Institute of Introduction and Plant Genetic 

Resources "K. Malkov", Sadovo, District 

Plovdiv, Bulgaria 

DEUBGRC Institute of Crops Science, Federal Research 

Center of Agriculture, Braunschweig, 

Germany 

GBRRBG Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Haywards 

Heath, W. Sussex, United Kingdom 

GBRWPBS Institute of Grassland and Environment, 

Aberystwyth, United Kingdom 

ITAPERUG Istituto di Miglioramiento Genetico Vegetale, 

Univ. Perugia, Italy 

The database needs to be 

converted to a compatible 

version 

The database is being 

computerized at this 

moment 

Except for the last two institutes, the database is updated and only needs the search for 

duplicates and the edition of the new catalogue. Our task has been hindered because of staff 

departure. 

Software 

All the data are recorded in dBaseIII and Access v. 2.0. 

Databases contents 

The Trifolium subterraneum database contains 3077 records (Tables 2 and 3) and the Medicago 

database contains 1776 records (Tables 4 and 5). 

Databases availability 

All data are freely available to any institution upon request.


Table 1. Institutes holding databases with accessions of Trifolium subterraneum and 

Medicago (annual species) 

Institute code Institute acronym City, State Country name 

BGR 001 BGRIIPGR Sadovo Bulgaria 

DEU 001 DEUBGRC Braunschweig Germany 

DEU 146 DDRGAT Gatersleben Germany 

FRA 056 FRAINRAMPG Mauguio France 

GBR 004 GBRRBG Haywards Heath United Kingdom 

GBR 016 GBRWPBS Aberystwyth United Kingdom 

GRC 005 GRCGGB Thessaloniki Greece 

GRC 006 GRCFCPI Larissa Greece 

HUN 003 HUNRCA Tápiószele Hungary 

ISR 002 ISRIGB Bet Dagan Israel 

ISR 006 ISRHUJ Jerusalem Israel 

ITA 004 ITAIDG Bari Italy 

ITA 015 ITAPERUG Perugia Italy 

PRT 005 PRTENMP Elvas Portugal 

RUS 001 SUNWIR St. Petersburg Russian Federation 

TUR 001 TURARARI Izmir Turkey 

UKR 003 – Kiev Region Ukraine 

UKR 020 – Vinnitsa Ukraine 

Suggestions 

In some of the databases received, the Institute name is not written within the file. Please 

write it down with the address and person responsible. 

In the Medicago Catalogue published in 1988, the ECP number of each accession was 

assigned by species. In a genus like Medicago, which includes many species, this number 

leads to confusion. We think that it would be better to assign the ECP by order, under the 

field "Medicago List". Would it be possible to change the ECP number of the old catalogue 

(1988) for the order number in the new catalogue, explaining this in the introductory 

chapter? 

Table 2. European Trifolium subterraneum Database accessions classified by contributing 

Institute 

Institute Advanced 

cultivars 

Breeders' 

lines 

Status 

unrecorded; 

named 

accession 

Semi-natural, 

ecotypes 

Wild 

Status 

unrecorded; 

unnamed 

accession 

Total 

AUSCSIRO 1 1 – – 26 – 28 

BGRIIPGR 13 – – – – 4 17 

DDRGAT 5 – – – – – 5 

DEUBGRC 28 – – 403 – – 431 

ESPINIALO 35 115 5 – 2249 18 2422 

GRCFCPI 11 – – – – – 11 

ITAIDG – – – – – 10 10 

ITAIMGV – – – – – 2 2 

TURARARI – – – – 12 – 12 

USAPIO 1 5 – – 133 – 139 

Total 94 121 5 403 2420 34 163077

62 


Table 3. European Trifolium subterraneum Database accessions classified by country of origin 

Origin country Advanced 

cultivars 

Breeders' 

lines 

Status 

unrecorded; 

named 

accession 

Semi-natural, 

ecotypes 

Wild 

Status 

unrecorded; 

unnamed 

accession 

Australia 47 8 4 1 – – 60 

Bulgaria – – 4 – – – 4 

Cyprus – – – – 18 – 18 

Algeria – – – – 11 – 11 

Spain 7 90 – – 1605 14 1716 

France – – – – 42 – 42 

Greece 1 6 – – 75 – 82 

Israel – 1 – – 1 – 2 

Italy – 1 – – 60 2 63 

Morocco – 2 – 373 52 – 427 

Portugal – 6 – 6 213 – 225 

Tunisia – 2 – – 44 3 49 

Turkey – – – – 6 – 6 

Unknown 39 5 – 23 292 15 375 

Total 94 121 8 403 2420 34 3080 

Table 4. European Medicago Database (annual species) accessions classified by contributing 

Institute 

Institute Advanced 

cultivars 

Breeders' 

lines 

Status. 

unrecorded; 

named 

accession 

Seminatural, 

ecotypes 

Wild 

Status 

unrecorded; 

unnamed 

accession 

Total 

AUSCSIRO – – – – 18 – 18 

DDRGAT 1 – 2 – 79 – 82 

DEUBGRC 1 – 1 370 – – 372 

ESPINIALO 13 2 1 – 480 11 507 

GBRRBG – – – – 95 – 95 

GRCFCPI 1 – 2 – 26 – 29 

ISRIGB – – – – 349 – 349 

ITAIDG – – – – 14 – 14 

ITAIMGV – – – – 2 – 2 

ITAPERUG – – – 122 – – 122 

TURARARI – – – – 186 – 186 

Total 16 2 6 492 1249 11 1776 

Total


Table 5. European Medicago Database (annual species) accessions classified by country of 

origin 

Origin 

country 

Advanced 

cultivars 

Breeders' 

lines 

Status 

unrecorded; 

named 

accession 

Seminatural, 

ecotypes 

Wild 

Status 

unrecorded; 

unnamed 

accession 

Australia 7 1 – – 4 4 16 

Bulgaria – – 9 – 7 – 16 

Cyprus 2 – – – 170 – 172 

Algeria – – – – – – – 

Spain – – – – 194 – 194 

France – – – – 7 – 7 

Greece – – 1 – 115 – 116 

Israel – – 1 – 356 – 357 

Italy – – – – 24 – 24 

Morocco – – – 370 6 – 376 

Portugal – – – – 57 – 57 

Tunisia – – – – 2 – 2 

Turkey – – – – 191 – 191 

Unknown 7 1 – 122 116 7 253 

Total 16 2 11 492 1249 11 1781 

Total

64 


The European Phleum, Phalaris and Agrostis databases 

Manager: Merja Vetelainen 

Nordic Gene Bank, Alnarp, Sweden 

Updating 

Updating of the Phleum, Phalaris and Agrostis databases started in 1995 and is still ongoing. 

Information of some of the largest collections is not yet included in the central databases. 

Computerization 

The database management system is dBase for Windows. 

Availability of the databases 

These three databases are available on the Internet and they can also be delivered on 

diskettes upon request. 

Phleum database 

URL: http://www.ngb.se/Databases/ECP/Phleum 

The database contains information from 19 institutes and for 4268 accessions. In Table 1 

accessions are classified by contributing institute and accession type. In Table 2 they are 

classified by country of origin and in Table 3 by taxa. Duplications and other gaps will be 

screened in the database and this information will be delivered to the respective institutions. 

Table 1. Accessions classified by contributing institute (Phleum spp.) 

Advanced Breeders' Primitive Semi-natural 

Institute cultivar lines cultivar ecotype Wild Unrecorded Total 

BELCLOGRVP 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 

BGRIIPR 7 0 1 0 0 1 9 

CZEZUBRI 102 11 0 0 0 0 113 

DEUBGRC 69 4 0 459 42 46 620 

DEUGAT 12 0 1 0 5 6 24 

FRAINRAMAG 28 0 0 0 0 0 28 

GBRRBG 0 0 0 0 71 0 71 

GBRWPBS 52 1 45 1 30 1 130 

GRCFCPI 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 

HUNRCA 78 0 0 0 10 20 108 

IRLAFT 0 0 0 0 32 0 32 

ITAIDG 0 0 0 0 13 0 13 

ITAPERUG 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 

POLIHAR 3 0 0 0 2529 0 2532 

REGNGB 44 4 23 0 346 0 417 

ROMGBSV 0 0 21 13 0 0 34 

SLOVOSIVO 32 1 0 0 33 22 88 

SVN019 1 0 0 0 5 0 6 

TURARARI 0 0 0 0 21 0 21 

Total 429 21 91 474 3137 116 4268


Table 2. Accessions classified by country of origin (Phleum spp.) 

Country of Advanced Breeders' Primitive Semi-natural 

origin cultivar lines cultivar ecotype Wild Unrecorded Total 

Not 

registered 

77 2 50 1 181 62 325 

BEL 5 0 0 1 13 0 19 

BGR 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 

CAN 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 

CHE 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 

CHN 0 0 3 0 0 3 3 

CSK 7 11 0 0 3 0 21 

DDR 3 0 1 0 4 3 10 

DEU 30 0 1 458 201 47 736 

DNK 36 0 4 0 15 5 56 

ESP 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 

FIN 16 5 1 0 144 1 166 

FRA 10 0 0 0 21 3 35 

GBR 35 0 1 0 17 2 54 

GBW 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 

GRC 0 0 0 0 11 0 20 

HUN 39 0 0 0 17 3 59 

IRL 0 0 0 0 34 0 34 

ISL 3 1 0 0 0 0 4 

ITA 3 0 0 0 30 11 44 

JPN 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 

NLD 60 1 0 0 2 0 63 

NOR 20 0 17 0 167 18 205 

NZL 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

POL 14 0 0 0 2133 8 2155 

PRT 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 

ROM 2 0 12 13 3 12 30 

RUS 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

SUN 2 0 0 0 29 2 33 

SVK 3 0 0 0 2 11 18 

SVN 1 0 0 0 5 0 6 

SWE 26 1 1 0 77 1 105 

TUR 0 0 0 0 21 0 21 

USA 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 

YUG 5 0 0 0 2 0 7 

Total 429 21 91 474 3137 193 4268 

Phalaris database 

URL: http://www.ngb.se/Databases/ECP/Phalaris 

In the database, information from 8 institutions and 231 accessions is included. As for the 

Phleum database, duplications and other defects will be screened in the database and this 

information will be delivered to the respective institutions. 

Agrostis database 

URL: http://www.ngb.se/Databases/ECP/Agrostis 

The Agrostis database includes passport data from 8 institutions and 271 accessions. The 

database will be managed as the other central databases at the Nordic Gene Bank.

66 


Table 3. Accessions classified by taxa (Phleum spp.) 

Institute alpinum 

arenarium 

graecum 

hirsutum 

montanum 

paniculatum 

phleoides 

pratense 

serrulatum 

subulatum 

Not 

recorded 

Total 

BELCLOGRVP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 

BGRIIPR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 9 

CZEZUBRI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 113 0 0 0 113 

DEUBGRC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 620 0 0 0 620 

DEUGAT 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 20 0 0 0 24 

FRAINRAMAG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 28 

GBRRBG 6 12 1 3 5 0 7 34 0 3 0 71 

GBRWPBS 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 125 1 0 0 130 

GRCFCPI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 

HUNRCA 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 102 0 0 0 108 

IRLAFT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 32 

ITAIDG 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 10 13 

ITAPERUG 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 

POLIHAR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2532 0 0 0 2532 

REGNGB 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 399 0 0 0 417 

ROMGBSV 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 32 0 0 1 34 

SLOVOSIVO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 0 0 5 88 

SVN019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 6 

TURARARI 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 0 0 14 21 

Total 37 13 1 3 6 1 19 4144 1 4 39 4268

The European Lolium and Trifolium repens databases 


Manager: Ian D. Thomas 

Inst. of Grassland and Plant Environmental Research (IGER) 

Aberystwyth, UK 

(see Part I, p. 6) 

The European database on 'other Vicieae' 

Manager: Frank A. Bisby 

Dept. Botany, School of Plant Sciences 

University of Reading 

PO Box 221 

Reading RG62AS 

United Kingdom 

Tel: (44-118)9318160/6437 

Fax: (44-118)9753676 

Email: f.a.bisby@reading.ac.uk 

(see Part I, p. 7)

68 


Status of National Collections 

Collecting and evaluation of wild and cultivated local germplasm of 

forages in Cyprus 

Demetrios Droushiotis 

Agricultural Research Institute (ARI), Nicosia, Cyprus 

Introduction 

At the Cyprus Agricultural Research Institute research work is carried out on collecting, 

conservation and evaluation/utilization of native, wild and cultivated forage and 

pasture crops. Forage taxa are described in the Flora of Cyprus (Meikle 1977, 1985). 

The number of taxa (sp. + spp.) of the following forage genera recorded to occur in 

Cyprus is given in parentheses (Della 1998): Trifolium L. (32), Medicago L. (20), Vicia L. 

(20), Pisum L. (2), Lolium L. (5), Dactylis L. (1), Festuca L. (1), Bromus L. (17), Poa L. (8), 

Phleum L. (1), Oryzopsis Michx. (2), Cynodon L. (1), Hordeum L. (8), Phalaris L. (5). 

One of the priorities of the genetic resources programme of the ARI is to collect, 

conserve and evaluate most of the forage germplasm of both legumes and cereals, with 

emphasis on cultivated species for which there is a danger of genetic erosion or even 

extinction, since old varieties are replaced by new ones (Della 1994, 1997). 

Collecting done in Cyprus 

In the past, several attempts have been made by local and foreign scientists to collect 

and screen germplasm of forage crops. During 1951, 1963, 1967 and 1970 extensive 

collections of Cyprus medics and trifolium species were made by the Western 

Australian Department of Agriculture (WADA). The germplasm was evaluated in 

Australia (Bailay and Gayfer 1968) and a new variety – 'Cyprus barrel medic' – was 

released for use by the farmers (Crawford 1963). In 1975 Cyprus agreed to cooperate 

with the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR) through the ARI. 

Since then the following collections of forages have been made (Table 1). 

Table 1. Forages collecting activities in Cyprus (Della 1994, 1997) 

Year Scientific name Collecting organization(s) No. of access. 

1978 Hordeum vulgare L. IBPGR/ARI 26 

1984 Lathyrus ochrus L. ARI/IBPGR/ICARDA 12 

1984 Lathyrus sativum L. ARI/IBPGR/ICARDA 19 

1984 Pisum sativum L. ARI/IBPGR/ICARDA 6 

1984 Vicia ervilia L., wild ARI/IBPGR/ICARDA 15 

1984 Vicia sativa L. ARI/IBPGR/ICARDA 67 

1984 Medicago sativa L. ARI/IBPGR/ICARDA 29 

1987 Medicago species (annual), wild WADA/ARI 41 

1988 Wild forages IBPGR/ARI 100 

1993 Grasses (wild) ARI 73 

Also in 1995 an agreement was signed between the Cyprus Agricultural Research 

Institute and the FAO Regional Office for the Near East which partially financed the 

collecting and evaluation of the most important forage crops. Hence eight visits were 

organized around Cyprus during spring 1995 to locate the crops, determine the time of 

maturity of each at the various locations and to collect the mature seed. The

STATUS OF NATIONAL COLLECTIONS 69 

species/accessions collected were: Vicia sp. (16), Avena sp. (13), Lolium sp. (6) and 

Trifolium sp. (2). 

The seed of each accession was sown in autumn 1995 at the Saittas experimental 

farm for multiplication. Observations were taken during the growing season on the 

performance of the crops. The seed was harvested in spring and replicated trials were 

established in autumn 1996 for those species/accessions whose seed was sufficient. 

There is no Rhizobium collection in Cyprus. However, the biological nitrogen fixation 

using introduced Rhizobium has been studied at the ARI in cooperation with ICARDA. 

Results have shown that, in Cyprus, legumes such as common vetch, faba beans, ochrus 

and medics that respond to Rhizobium leguminosarum and R. meliloti can fix up to 80% of 

their nitrogen requirements without inoculation. Other legumes, however, such as 

chickpea, peanut, soyabean and field bean, which respond to other Rhizobium species, 

have nodulation problems and inoculation is needed to ensure good biological nitrogen 

fixation. In rotation studies in the rain-fed areas of Cyprus it was found that the 

inclusion of common vetch, which fixes nitrogen, results in higher protein output. Also, 

grain yield from subsequent cereal crops was higher even though receiving less 

nitrogen fertilizer (Papastylianou 1986) compared with a continuous cereal production 

system. 

Genetic conservation 

Ex situ 

All the collected forage germplasm is stored in the CYPARI Genebank under controlled 

conditions (0-4 o C and 50% RH). Germplasm is hermetically sealed in laminated foil 

packets. Top priority on genetic conservation is given to the cultivated forage legumes, 

most of which have already been collected, as mentioned earlier. The collected forage 

species were also sent to ICARDA (Syria) and Bari (Italy) for storage and evaluation 

(Della 1994, 1997). Collecting of wild forages has started and will continue at a slower 

pace since these species are less endangered than the cultivated ones. Priority is given 

mainly to barley, lolium, vetches, peas, medics, clovers and lucerne. 

In situ 

No direct measures have been taken until now by the Government of Cyprus for 

conserving the wild relatives of the most important cultivated forage crops such as 

Lolium spp., Hordeum spp., Avena spp., Vicia spp., Medicago spp., Trifolium spp., Lathyrus 

spp. and others in their natural habitat. In situ conservation of these species for the time 

being is rather unlikely. 

Screening/utilization of collected germplasm 

Since 1970 great emphasis has been given in Cyprus on the use of genetic resources for 

improving field crops. 

Vicia sativa (common vetch) 

In the early 1970s seeds of Vicia sativa local populations were evaluated for several years 

and it was observed that the variety 'Local' was a mixture of different types of seed size, 

seed shape and seed colour. As a result of a purification programme carried out at the 

ARI, a selection with uniform seeds of large size was recommended for release 

(Agricultural Research Institute 1972-77). The forage yield of this line was not higher 

than that of the mother variety, but its uniform seed type satisfies the seed market.

70 


Annual Medicago species 

In 1951, 1963, 1967 and 1970 Australian scientists collected medic and trifolium 

germplasm that was used in their programmes. As a result of those collections a new 

variety, namely 'Cyprus barrel medic', was released to Australian farmers (Crawford 

1963). The advantages of this variety were its earliness and resistance to drought. 

A main seed-collecting tour in July 1986 organized by the Western Australian 

Department of Agriculture and covering all the occupied area of Cyprus, yielded 91 

accessions of various Medicago species. These accessions, together with 113 other 

accessions collected in 1967, mostly from the occupied area, are listed in Table 2. 

Table 2. Distribution of medics and trifolium species collected during two collecting tours 

in Cyprus (1967, 1986) 

Species Rainfall (mm) Altitude (m) Occurrence (%) 

Medicago blancheana Boiss. 300-400 305 0.97 

Medicago constricta Durieu 400-450 300-670 1.94 

Medicago disciformis DC. 400-500 5-305 1.45 

Medicago doliata Carmign. 350-500 3-20 0.97 

Medicago intertexta (L.) Miller 350-400 60-305 1.45 

Medicago laciniata (L.) Miller 500 175 0.49 

Medicago littoralis Rohde ex Loisel 250-580 1-400 18.93 

Medicago marina L. 500 30 0.49 

Medicago murex Willd. 450 300 0.49 

Medicago orbicularis (L.) Bartal 250-500 6-305 4.37 

Medicago polymorpha L. 250-450 300 1.94 

Medicago rigidula (L.) All. 450 300 0.49 

Medicago scutellata (L.) All. 300-500 50-300 3.40 

Medicago truncatula Gaertner 250-650 3-400 48.54 

Medicago turbinata (L.) All. 250-900 30-1210 5.34 

Trifolium angustifolium L. 500-600 10-200 3.40 

Trifolium cherleri L. 375-600 2-250 1.94 

Trifolium purpureum Loisel. 500-550 8-250 3.40 

The seeds of the above accessions were sent to ARI by WADA and were evaluated. 

The evaluation involved herbage yield, winter growth, protein content, digestibility, 

plant height and characteristics related to persistence, such as flowering time and seed 

yield. A more complete evaluation is in progress at WADA. A minor collecting tour 

covering the free areas of Cyprus was made in 1987 again, in cooperation with WADA. 

This tour yielded 41 accessions of various Medicago and Trifolium species. The seed of 

this collection is stored in the CYPARI Genebank and at the moment there is no 

programme in progress at the ARI to evaluate annual medics. 

However, it is interesting to note that testing of medics either selected from local 

populations or introduced from Australia or ICARDA was not successful whether 

medics were used in rotation with cereals on arable land, or for pasture improvement 

on marginal land. The main reasons for that failure were (a) the extremely slow growth 

of medics during the winter (December-February) resulting in severe weed competition 

and late availability of forage for grazing, (b) the much lower dry matter yield 

compared with that of other legumes (common vetch and Lana vetch) and barley, and 

(c) the unsatisfactory regeneration of medics for establishing a good pasture stand in the 

following season.


Medicago sativa (lucerne) 

Lucerne is considered to be the most nutritious and profitable perennial forage crop 

grown in Cyprus. Since the results from the introduction and testing of new varieties 

were disappointing it was decided in 1984 to select populations belonging to the 'Local' 

variety from farmers' fields with the aim to select the most productive ones. There were 

29 populations evaluated in replicated trials for 4 years. The results showed that, 

among the various locally selected populations, there were large differences in the 

various parameters examined. The dry matter yield over the whole experimental 

period (May 1985 - December 1988) ranged from 68 to 116 t/ha while herbage yield of 

the control (variety 'Local') was 108 t/ha. 

It appears, therefore, that selection of local germplasm holds more promise in the 

search for improved material than the introduction of foreign varieties (Droushiotis 

1994). 

Hordeum spontaneum (wild barley) 

Observations in Cyprus have shown that wild barley behaves as a pasture crop 

(Hadjichristodoulou 1988), and it was thought that with proper management it may be 

used for pasture development. Wild barley, Hordeum spontaneum and H. agriocrithon 

(natural outcrosses of H. spontaneum with H. vulgare) are found in abundance in the 

WANA region and are distinguished from H. vulgare by a brittle rachis, shrunken 

kernels and other seed-dispersing mechanisms. Owing to these characteristics both 

species of wild barley are able to regenerate naturally, except where overgrazing is 

practised. In addition, wild barley also has a certain level of seed dormancy. About 

20% of the seeds do not germinate in the first year, but do so in the following year, thus 

safeguarding the survival of the species. The nitrogen concentration of the wild barleys 

at the grazing stage is 3-5%. Taking advantage of the pasture characteristics of wild 

barleys, Hadjichristodoulou (1990, 1995b) established pastures in Cyprus to test the 

performance of these crops and their crosses with H. vulgare under grazing conditions. 

In those trials it was shown that there were no adverse effects on crop growth when the 

herbage was grazed by sheep two or three times from mid-December to mid-April 

depending on weather conditions, particularly rainfall. However, by the end of April 

the crop must be left to produce seed. After seed maturity the dry herbage can also be 

grazed (July). By applying this procedure, reseeding is not required in the following 

years. Since barley is not a nitrogen-fixing crop, ample amounts of nitrogen fertilizer 

are necessary for maximizing forage production. Research work is now under way to 

study the possibility of using mixtures of barley with either medics or with Vicia 

amphicarpa, so that the legume component will provide mainly the nitrogen and the 

cereal the herbage production. 

Genes of wild barley were also used to produce grain barley varieties tolerant to heat 

and drought stress (Hadjichristodoulou 1992, 1993, 1995a). 

References 

Agricultural Research Institute (1972-77). Annual Report for 1971-76, Nicosia. 

Bailay, E.T. and N.B. Gayfer. 1968. The History and characteristics of Troodos and Olympus Rose 

Clover. Western Australia Department of Agriculture. Bulletin No. 3593 (Reprinted from the 

J. Agric. of Western Australia 9(8) 1968). 

Crawford, E.J. 1963. Early Cyprus barrel medic. Department of Agriculture, South Australia. 

Leaflet No. 3725. (Reprinted from the J. Agric. 1963). 

Della, A. 1998. The Cyprus Flora in Checklist Format. Native or Naturalized Cultivated, 

Endemics, Rarities, Additions. (in press) 

Della, A. 1994. Cyprus Genetic Diversity; Conservation, Evaluation and Utilization. Paper 

presented at the West Asia and North Africa Plant Genetic Resources Committee Workshop, 

3-7 October, 1994, Larnaka, Cyprus.

72 


Della, A. 1997. Collecting, Conserving and Evaluating Plant Genetic Resources in Cyprus. 

Miscellaneous Reports 65. Agricultural Research Institute. Nicosia. 

Droushiotis, D.N. 1994. Evaluation of local populations and introduced varieties of Lucerne. 

Technical Bulletin 157. Agricultural Research Institute, Nicosia. 

Hadjichristodoulou, A. 1988. The use of Hordeum spontaneum to breed barley for grain and self 

regenerating pasture. Pp. 195-199 in Cereal Breeding Related to Integrated Cereal Production. 

Pudoc, Wageningen, the Netherlands. 

Hadjichristodoulou, A. 1990. Self regenerating pasture barley. Rachis 9(2):13-17. 

Hadjichristodoulou, A. 1992. A new domestication of the "wild" brittle rachis gene of barley. 

Plant Genet. Resour. Newsl. 90:46. 

Hadjichristodoulou, A. 1993. The use of wild barley in crosses for grain production. Euphytica 

69:211-218. 

Hadjichristodoulou, A. 1995a. Evaluation of barley landraces and selections from natural 

outcrosses of H. vulgare ssp. spontaneum with ssp. vulgare for breeding in semi-arid areas. 

Genet. Resour. and Crop Evolution 42(1):83-89. 

Hadjichristodoulou, A. 1995b. Self-reseeding pasture barley for Mediterranean drylands. Exp. 

Agric. 31(3):361-370. 

Meikle, R.D. 1977. Flora of Cyprus. Vol. I. Bentham-Moxon Trust, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 

UK. 

Meikle, R.D. 1985. Flora of Cyprus. Vol. II:833-1969. Bentham-Moxon Trust, Royal Botanic 

Gardens, Kew, UK. 

Papastylianou, J. 1986. The role of legumes in agricultural production in Cyprus. Proceedings of 

a workshop on Nitrogen Fixation by Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture, 14-17 April 

1986. ICARDA, Syria.

Status of the national forages collections in Greece 


Thomas Vaitsis 

NAGREF/ Central Greece Agricultural Research Center, Larissa, Greece 

Two Institutes hold forages collections in Greece: the Macedonia-Thraki Agricultural 

Research Center, Greek Gene Bank (MTARC/GGB) in Thessaloniki and the Central 

Greece Agricultural Research Center, Fodder Crops and Pastures Institute 

(CGARC/FCPI) in Larissa. Both these Institutes are affiliated with the National 

Agricultural Research Foundation (NAGREF), a primary state-funded legal entity of 

the Ministry of Agriculture. 

CGARC/FCPI has a national responsibility for fodder crop and pasture 

improvement. Breeding forage species is the main job. On the other hand collecting 

and maintenance of forage germplasm is a subsequent task, to support plant 

breeding. Collecting activities resulted in a considerable forage collection including 

2683 accessions as shown in Tables 1 and 2. A large number (1991) of these accessions 

is stored in tin boxes in natural room conditions. Almost all material is currently 

documented only for passport data using the characters of the standard collecting 

form of FAO/IBPGR. Computerization of the passport data of the accessions in 

Larissa is in progress and will be concluded by the end of 1997. Only a limited 

number of accessions has undergone regeneration, characterization and preliminary 

evaluation. 

Owing to lack of funds and staffing, progress on forage germplasm collection 

activities has not been up to our expectations. 

MTARC/GGB has a national responsibility for plant genetic resources. Mediumterm 

(0 to +5ºC) and long-term (–18 to –21ºC) storage facilities have a capacity of 

80 m³ and can hold approximately 10 000 samples (Table 3). GGB maintains, in 

medium-term conditions, 1168 seed samples of forages accessions (Table 1). Most of 

the accessions kept in Thessaloniki were collected or created by CGARC/FCPI and 

donated to GGB. All this material is documented and fully computerized in a 

database using dBaseIV. 

Lolium perenne core collection 

Owing to the absolute lack of funds and personnel available for genetic resources 

only the populations from Greece, Bulgaria, Italy, France and Spain have been 

included in our Lolium core collection trial. Varieties 'Ariïn' and 'Olympion' have 

been included as control varieties. Young seedlings were transplanted in the field in 

March 1996. Heading tendency and drought damage in the sowing year have been 

scored. Winter damage and winter bulk in the first year after establishment have 

been scored also, in mid-February 1997. All plots were cut and fertilized 1 March 

1997. Collected data have not been analyzed yet, because of the lack of resources 

mentioned above.

74 


Table 1. Forages collections in Greece 

Genus 1. Larissa 

Number of accessions 

2. Thessaloniki 3. Total † 

Medicago 533 118 573 

Trifolium 463 356 553 

Dactylis 175 150 252 

Festuca 160 41 183 

Lolium 138 74 182 

Phleum 2 12 12 

Vicieae 480 107 578 

Others 40 310 350 

Total 1991 1168 2683 

† 

Not the sum of columns 1 and 2 but the number of unique accessions per genus. 

Table 2. Details on forages collections in Greece 

Advanced 

Wild or semi- Breeders' 

Genus and species 

cultivars Landraces natural lines Total 

Agropyron canicum (L.) 

Beauv. 

– – 1 – 1 

Agropyron elongatum (Host.) 

Beauv. 

– 2 2 – 4 

Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. – – 2 – 2 

Agropyron spp. – – 16 – 16 

Aristella bromoides (L.) Bertol. – – 4 – 4 

Brachypodium spp. – – 8 – 8 

Briza media L. – – 1 – 1 

Dactylis glomerata L. 25 – 157 70 252 

Ervum ervilia L. – 12 – – 12 

Festuca arundinacea Schreb. 30 – 34 110 174 

Festuca ovina L. – – 2 – 2 

Festuca spp. – – 7 – 7 

Hedysarum coronarium L. 1 – – 2 3 

Hordeum bulbosum L. – – 25 – 25 

Hordeum spontaneum – – 50 – 50 

Hordeum vulgare L. 31 26 1 – 58 

Lathyrus cicera L. 4 ? – ? 20 

Lathyrus ochrus (L.) DC. in 

Lam. & DC. 

– ? – ? 17 

Lathyrus sativus L. – ? – ? 20 

Lathyrus spp. – ? – ? 8 

Lolium perenne L. 24 – 57 80 161 

Lolium spp. 4 – 16 – 20 

Lolium temulentum L. – – 1 – 1 

Lotus spp. 1 2 19 – 22 

Lupinus albus L. – 3 – – 3 

Lupinus angustifolius L. – – 70 – 70 

Lupinus luteus L. – – 1 – 1 

Lupinus spp. – – 2 – 2 

Medicago arborea L. 2 – 36 55 93 

Medicago coronata (L.) Bartal. – – 1 – 1 

Medicago falcata (L.) 

Arcangeli 

– – 5 – 5 

Medicago lupulina L. – – 6 – 6 

Medicago minima (L.) Bartal. – – 1 – 1 

Medicago orbicularis (L.) 

Bartal. 

– – 48 15 63 

Medicago sativa L. 101 30 3 200 334 

Medicago spp. – – 70 – 70


Advanced 

Wild or semi- Breeders' 

Genus and species 

cultivars Landraces natural lines Total 

Melilotus alba Medicus – – 4 – 4 

Melilotus spp. – – 5 – 5 

Onobrychis spp. 1 – 3 11 15 

Oryzopsis spp. – – 15 – 15 

Phacelia tanacetifolia Benth. 1 – – – 1 

Phalaris tuberosa L. – – 8 3 11 

Phleum pratense L. – – 2 – 2 

Phleum spp. – – 10 – 10 

Poterium sanguisorba 1 – 12 – 13 

Poterium spp. – – 2 – 2 

Sorghum sudanense (Piper) 10 – – – 10 

Stapf 

Trifolium alexandrinum L. 11 4 55 20 90 

Trifolium angustifolium L. – – 1 – 1 

Trifolium arvense L. – – 9 – 9 

Trifolium aureum Pollich – – 2 – 2 

Trifolium campestre Schreb. – – 13 – 13 

Trifolium cherleri L. – – 13 – 13 

Trifolium dubium Sibth. – – 1 – 1 

Trifolium echinatum Bieb. – – 1 – 1 

Trifolium fragiferum L. 1 1 3 – 5 

Trifolium hirtum All. 5 2 23 – 30 

Trifolium hybridum L. 5 2 1 – 8 

Trifolium incarnatum L. 3 1 5 – 9 

Trifolium obscurum Savi – – 5 – 5 

Trifolium pratense L. 35 7 57 20 119 

Trifolium repens L. 15 3 74 15 107 

Trifolium resupinatum L. 8 3 9 15 35 

Trifolium scabrum L. – – 9 – 9 

Trifolium spp. – – 64 – 64 

Trifolium spumosum L. – – 3 – 3 

Trifolium stellatum L. – – 4 – 4 

Trifolium striatum L. – – 2 – 2 

Trifolium subterraneun L. 7 3 3 – 13 

Trifolium tomentosum L. – – 2 – 2 

Trifolium vesiculosum Savi 2 1 5 – 8 

Trigonella foenum–graecum L. 1 1 – – 2 

Trigonella spp. – – 2 – 2 

Vicia sativa 6 ? 2 ? 500 † 

Vicia spp. – – 1 – 1 

Total 335 103 1076 616 2683 

† Of the total 500 accessions, the number of landraces and breeders' lines has not yet been 

determined.

76 


Table 3. Quality status of national forages collections in Greece 

Institute Type of accession 

Medicago (incl. shrubs) 

No. of 

access. 

Storage 

conditions 

Accessions 

need urgent 

regeneration 

(%) 

No. access. 

regenerated/ 

year 

Availability 

(%) 

NAGREF/ Advanced cultivars 103 Room temp. 40 20 

CGARC-FCPI, Landraces 30 Room temp. 25 20 

Larissa Semi-natural 40 Room temp. 10 10 

Wild species 90 Room temp. 40 ? 

Breeders' lines 270 Room temp. 10 0 

NAGREF/GGB, Advanced cultivars 2 100% Mterm † 

0 0 100 

Thessaloniki Landraces 8 100% Mterm 0 0 50 

Semi-natural 5 100% Mterm ? ? ? 

Wild species 103 100% Mterm ? ? ? 

Trifolium 

NAGREF/ Advanced cultivars 92 Room temp. 40 ? 30 

CGARC-FCPI, Landraces 27 Room temp. 50 ? 30 

Larissa Wild species 274 Room temp. 40 ? 10 

Breeders' lines 70 Room temp. 20 ? 0 

NAGREF/GGB, Advanced cultivars 12 100% Mterm 0 0 100 

Thessaloniki Landraces 17 100% Mterm ? ? ? 


Dactylis 

NAGREF/ Advanced cultivars 25 Room temp. 75 ? IOU 

CGARC-FCPI, Wild species 80 Room temp. 80 ? 5 

Larissa Breeders' lines 70 Room temp. 20 ? 0 

NAGGER/GAB, 

Thessaloniki 


Festuca 




NAGREF/GGB, 

Thessaloniki 


Lolium 




NAGREF/GGB, 

Thessaloniki 


Phleum 

NAGREF/ 

CGARC-FCPI, 

Larissa 

NAGREF/GGB, 

Thessaloniki 

Vicieae 

Advanced cultivars 2 Room temp. ? ? ? 


NAGREF/ 

CGARC-FCPI, 

Advanced cultivars 10 Room temp. 0 0 100 

Larissa Other types ‡ 

470 Room temp. ? ? ? 

NAGREF/GGB, Advanced cultivars 9 100% Mterm 0 0 100 

Thessaloniki Landraces 95 100% Mterm ? ? ? 


† 

Mterm = medium-term storage. 

‡ 

Mainly Breeders' lines and Landraces. Most of this material has not been regenerated since 1982.


Genetic resources of perennial grasses and legumes in Lithuania 

N. Lemeziené 

Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture, Kedainiai, Lithuania 

Conservation priorities 

The conservation of perennial grasses and legumes is a continuous process and 

should cover areas of activity such as collecting, evaluation and characterization of 

plant genetic resources in the field, regeneration, documentation of samples and 

other issues (Tyler 1987). 

In Lithuania this programme is still in its initial phase: estimation of priorities to 

determine what breeding material and wild species should be collected and stored in 

the genebank. 

Genetic resources of perennial grasses and legumes consist of the following main 

groups in Lithuania. 

Registered varieties and valuable breeding material 

A list of Lithuanian varieties which in the near future have to be described and 

placed in the genebank storage was established. Twenty-eight varieties of the most 

important species of grasses and legumes were named, which had a status of 

registered varieties or were excluded from registration. For example such varieties as 

'Pievis' and 'Perlas' (timothy), 'Rausviai' (alsike clover), 'Velyviai' (red clover) have 

been tested in state variety testing trials but have never been registered. In spite of 

that, all these varieties have to be placed in the genebank for storage. 

All the breeding material developed through the use of seeds of Lithuanian and 

foreign origin was attached to the Lithuanian breeding material. This breeding 

material should be sufficiently evaluated (for example in productivity trials), stable, 

uniform and have at least one agronomically valuable characteristic to be accepted 

for storage. Therefore the inventory of our old seed samples was undertaken to check 

the seed viability of the samples and the coverage of the related information. If seed 

viability is decreased or if a sample is insufficiently described, it should be 

regenerated. 

Semi-natural and wild ecotypes. 

(see section on Collecting activities, page 109) 

References 

Tyler, B.F. (ed.). 1987. Collection, characterization and utilization of genetic resources of 

temperate forage grass and clover. IBPGR Training Courses: Lecture Series 1. International 

Board for Plant Genetic Resources, Rome.

78 


Current status of CGN forages collection 

J. Loek M. van Soest and Harm Dijkstra 

Centre for Plant Breeding and Reproduction Research (CPRO-DLO), Centre for 

Genetic Resources The Netherlands (CGN), Wageningen, the Netherlands 

The collection 

The forages collection consists of 465 accessions of eight different species (Table 1). 

The grass species were mainly received from the former Foundation of Agricultural 

Plant Breeding and some private breeding firms (van Soest and Boukema 1995). The 

pasture legumes were mainly collected by CGN in the Netherlands from 1985 to 1986 

(van Soest and Dijkstra 1986). In the next few years, CGN will broaden the collection 

with original Dutch material of Lolium perenne L., Dactylis glomerata L., Festuca 

pratensis Huds., Phleum pratense L. and Trifolium repens L. In 1997, a joint plant 

exploration mission is planned to Uzbekistan in cooperation with VIR (St. 

Petersburg) and IGR of Uzbekistan. This mission will also collect some forages 

including grasses. 17 

Table 1. Forages collection of CGN 

No. of 

No. of 

Grasses 

samples Legumes 

samples 

Lolium perenne L. 126 Trifolium pratense L. 140 

Lolium multiflorum Lam. 67 Trifolium repens L. 1 

Lolium x hybridum Hausskn. 1 

Phleum pratense L. 96 

Phleum bertolonii DC. 6 

Dactylis glomerata L. 28 

Total 324 141 

Grasses 

The collection mainly includes material of economically important forage grasses of 

northwest Europe. The genus Lolium, including perennial and Italian ryegrass, is 

with 194 accessions the most important group (Table 1). The Lolium perenne collection 

will be extended with about 100 accessions, mainly cultivars developed in the 

Netherlands. The Phleum collection includes two species and was recently enlarged 

with more than 60 mainly old Dutch cultivars and presently consists of 102 

accessions. The small collection of Dactylis glomerata L. (28) will be soon enlarged to 

approximately 50 accessions, mainly old cultivars from The Netherlands. 

Besides Dutch cultivars the forage grass collection includes several ecotypes 

collected in the Netherlands, Czech Republic, Turkey, United Kingdom, Hungary 

and several other European countries. 

In the near future old Dutch cultivars of Phleum pratensis and Festuca pratensis 

Huds. will be included in the collection. It is expected that around the year 2000 the 

forage grasses collection of CGN will be enlarged with some 250 new accessions of 

different grass species and will consist of approximately 715 accessions. After the 

enlargement, the collection will include a broad variation of material produced in 

Dutch breeding programmes from 1935 to 1990. 

17 A collecting expedition to Uzbekistan was completed in August 1997. Details can be 

requested from L. van Soest.


Forage legumes 

This collection consists of 140 accessions of red clover (Trifolium pratense) and one of 

white clover (T. repens). During the first meeting of the ECP/GR Working Group on 

Forages held in 1984 in Larissa, Greece, several West European countries were 

requested to collect material of red clover. In most countries red clover cultivation 

has seriously declined over the past 30 years and this may result in extinction of this 

fodder crop. In the Netherlands red clover cultivation had virtually disappeared 

since 1975 and a rescue operation started in 1985 (van Soest and Dijkstra 1986). In 

1985 and 1986 collecting trips were organized in all 11 provinces of The Netherlands 

(Fig. 1) and 126 accessions were collected. Sampling was particularly conducted 

along roadsides and occasionally in meadows. Seed balls were normally collected 

from 50 to 100 plants. Areas where red clover cultivation was of some importance in 

the past were more intensively sampled, taking into account that escapes of former 

cultivation could be collected. 

Besides the collected ecotypes, another 16 red clover accessions, including 

cultivars, landraces and tetraploid breeding lines, are present in the collection. Four 

old Dutch landraces ('Groninger', 'Roosendaalse', 'Gendringse' and 'Rode 

Maasklaver') are included in the Trifolium pratense collection. The only accession of 

white clover is the 'Vermont' polyploid. 

The forage legume collection will be enlarged with some old Dutch cultivars of 

T. repens. 

It should be mentioned here that the grain legume collection of CGN, with the 

species Pisum sativum, Vicia faba and Lupinus spp., also includes some forage types. 

Regeneration 

All forage crops are regenerated in field plots, isolated in rye fields. The distance 

between the plots is at least 50 meters. Material that needs vernalisation is kept in 

unheated greenhouses during the winter. After sowing, during the end of the 

summer, some 50 plants are planted in the isolation plots in April of the following 

year. To prevent lodging, the grasses have to be staked. Harvest of the seeds is 

carried out in July/August. 

Documentation 

Except the newly introduced 60 accessions of Lolium multiflorum, the 465 accessions 

of the different forage species are documented for passport data in GENIS, the CGN 

information system, based on the database management system ORACLE (van 

Hintum 1987). However, the passport data of some of the grass ecotypes from 

different European countries are incomplete. 

So far no characterization/evaluation data of the forage collections are included in 

GENIS. 

Storage 

After the seeds have been dried to a moisture content of approximately 5%, they are 

packed in laminated aluminium foil bags and stored at –20ºC for long-term storage. 

The users' samples are, however, stored at medium-term storage conditions of 4ºC. 

Utilization 

Since 1988 some 150 accessions of different forage crops have been distributed to 

users in the Netherlands and abroad. Both for grasses and legumes, users are 

supplied with 100 seeds and, on request, with information about the material.

80 


Fig. 1. Collecting sites of T. pratense, sampled in the Netherlands in 1985 and 1986. 

Future activities 

The activities planned for the next 5 years can be summarized as follows: 

• to broaden the forage collection particularly with original Dutch material, it is 

foreseen that in the next 5 years the collection will be enlarged to 

approximately 900 accessions 

• to collect forages in some CIS countries such as Uzbekistan 

• to regenerate some 300 accessions 

• to update the passport data 

• to obtain evaluation data from users and to include the information in GENIS. 

References 

van Hintum, Th.J.L. 1987. GENIS: A fourth generation information system for the database 

management of genebanks. Plant Genet. Resour. Newsl. 75/76:13-15. 

van Soest, L.J.M. and H. Dijkstra. 1986. Red clover collecting in The Netherlands. Internal 

report CGN/SVP. 

van Soest, L.J.M. and I.W. Boukema (eds.). 1995. Diversiteit in de Nederlandse Genenbank 

[Diversity in the genebank of The Netherlands] CPRO-DLO/CGN, Wageningen, The 

Netherlands.

Forages national collections in Poland 


I. Status of the national collection of forage grasses at the Plant Breeding and 

Acclimatization Institute, Poland 

G. Žurek 1 and W. Podyma 2 

1 

Botanical Garden, Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute (IHAR), 

Bydgoszcz, Poland 

2 

Centre for Plant Genetic Resources, Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute, 

(IHAR), Radzików, Poland 

Type of accession 

Advanced cultivars Status Wild or Total per 

Genus, species 

and breeders' lines unknown semi-natural species 

Agrostis alba Auct. 4 4 

Agrostis tenuis Sibth. 11 11 

Alopecurus pratensis L. 2 2 

Bromus inermis Leysser 91 3 94 

Dactylis glomerata L. 5401 128 97 5626 

Festuca arundinacea Schreb. 711 130 36 877 

Festuca heterophylla Lam. 1 1 

Festuca ovina L. 3 3 

Festuca pratensis Huds. 3396 32 78 3506 

Festuca rubra L. 39 20 59 

Lolium x hybridum Hausskn. 8 8 

Lolium multiflorum Lam. 23 23 

Lolium multiflorum Lam. var. 

westervoldicum 

5 5 

Lolium perenne L. 2100 55 112 2267 

Phalaris canariensis L. 1 1 

Phleum pratense L. 2340 87 2427 

Poa compressa L. 1 1 

Poa palustris L. 4 4 

Poa pratensis L. 1238 208 49 1495 

Total by type of accession 15316 553 545 16414 

For the whole collection: availability is 100%; storage conditions are long term. 

Statistically significant decreases of seed viability were observed in some 

accessions harvested in 1977-82. The estimated amount of accessions with strong 

regeneration need is close to 10% of the whole collection.

82 


II. Computerized inventory of the field collections of forages held in the 

Botanical Garden of the Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute in 

Bydgoszcz 

G. Žurek 

Botanical Garden, Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute (IHAR), Bydgoszcz, 

Poland 

Introduction 

In 1972 one of the biggest European grass collections was established in the Botanical 

Garden of the Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute in Bydgoszcz to 

undertake conservation of forage grasses genetic resources. Since then nearly 20 000 

accessions were collected, evaluated and gathered in the form of seed samples. Large 

numbers of data require simple, quick and precise processing. The most effective 

way to do so is to establish a computerized inventory of the living forage grasses 

collection as it was decided during the fifth meeting of the Working Group on 

Forages (Gass et al. 1995). 


The database structure is partly similar to the structure used in European Catalogues 

of Dactylis and Festuca. The basic software for data input is dBaseIII+ and the whole 

inventory works on Excel. The following steps of data input were accepted: 

• 1st step: reception of seed or plant accession (input of all available passport 

data) 

• 2nd step: plantation data (date of sowing, date of planting into the field) 

• 3rd step: plot location data (number of field, number of row, number of plot in 

row) 

• 4rd step: field management data (fertilization before and after plantation) 

• 5th step: evaluation data (data from evaluation protocol) 

• 6th step: seed data (day of harvest, drying procedure specification, seed 

weight, germination percentage in year of harvest). 

For each of the above steps a separate sheet (or database structure) was prepared 

to enable all staff members of the Botanical Garden to perform simple and clear data 

input. Input sheets/databases for steps 1, 3, 5 and 6 were prepared for each 

accession, while for steps 2 and 4, only one per field. After completion of the required 

data, all are entered in the computerized inventory. 

Results 

Numerous location, passport, management and evaluation data were gathered 

during 1996. For three fields planted in 1994, 1995 and 1996 a total number of 2875 

plots for 1058 accessions was described (Table 1). Evaluation data will be completed 

for the above accessions during 1997, 1998 and 1999, respectively. 

A total of 19 species was identified. Additional accessions of Festuca sp., Koeleria 

sp., Poa sp. and the Agropyron group still require taxonomic identification. 


1. It is essential to add other grasses collection (i.e. species for ornamental and 

recultivation purposes) existing in the Botanical Garden of IHAR to the 

computerized inventory.


Table 1. Accessions documented in 1996 in the Computerized Inventory of Forage 

Collections held in the Botanical Garden of IHAR in Bydgoszcz 

Planting year Total no. 

1994 1995 1996 of accessions 

No. Genus Species Ecot. Var. Ecot. Var. Ecot. Var. Ecot. Var. 

1 Agrostis alba 1 1 0 

2 Agrostis stolonifera 18 3 2 23 0 

3 Agrostis tenuis 8 4 8 4 

4 Agropyron sp. 22 22 0 

5 Dactylis glomerata 32 2 49 1 81 3 

6 Dactylis aschersoniana 2 2 0 

7 Deschampsia cespitosa 29 2 29 52 110 2 

8 Deschampsia flexuosa 2 2 0 

9 Deschampsia media 2 2 0 

10 Deschampsia wibeliana 2 2 0 

11 Festuca arundinacea 22 3 12 1 14 4 48 8 

12 Festuca pratensis 10 1 16 1 22 3 48 5 

13 Festuca rubra 55 9 33 2 29 3 117 14 

14 Festuca sp. 3 103 1 106 1 

15 Koeleria sp. 21 33 29 83 0 

16 Lolium perenne 49 5 16 11 16 12 81 28 

17 Lolium multifl. Fest. 

4 0 4 

× 

arund.'Perun' 

18 Phleum pratense 18 1 33 2 51 3 

19 Poa compressa 8 8 16 0 

20 Poa nemoralis 4 1 4 1 8 2 

21 Poa palustris 4 1 5 0 

22 Poa pratensis 70 10 43 3 29 5 142 18 

23 Poa sp. 4 4 0 

24 Other species 4 4 0 

Total: 327 32 215 20 424 40 966 92 

2. The inventory should have user-friendly functions for people with rather low 

computer skills. 

3. Frequent updating of the above inventory is necessary for effective data 

processing. 

References 

Gass, T., R. Sackville Hamilton, K. Kolshus and E. Frison, editors. 1995. Report of a working 

group on forages. Fifth meeting, 31 March-2 April 1995. Hissar, Bulgaria. European 

Cooperative Programme for Crop Genetic Resources Networks (ECP/GR). International 

Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy.

84 


Status of forage collections in Slovakia 

J. Drobná 

Research Institute of Plant Production, Piešt'any, Slovakia 

In Slovakia, attention to collecting, evaluation, and maintenance of plant genetic 

resources (PGR) has been paid since 1951 in specialized research and breeding 

centres. Collecting and study of forage crop genetic resources started in the Research 

Institute of Plant Production (RIPP) in Piešt'any in 1961. 

In spite of a long tradition and the need to solve the problems of crop genepools, 

the united National Programme for PGR, part of the Czech and Slovak Programme, 

was created and financed only in 1992. 

Simultaneously, with the formation of the Slovak Republic as an independent 

state in 1993, conditions were created for the realization of the Slovak Republic 

National Programme oriented toward collecting, study and maintenance of PGR. 

Preparation and implementation of the PGR Programme are financed and supported 

by the Ministry of Agriculture. 

At present, collections are maintained in a decentralized mode, the function of 

coordination centre being performed by RIPP Piešt'any. Nineteen institutions are 

involved. The collections contain more than 16 000 samples, including duplicates. In 

1996 a new genebank started its operation in Piešt'any. It will ensure the maintenance 

of the information system and of PGR seed samples for all institutions holding PGR 

collections. 

Slovak institutions dealing with forage genetic resources 

and/or related activities 

1. Research Institute of Plant Production 

Piešt'any, Bratislavská 122, 921 01 Piešt'any 

Tel. 421-838 722 311, 722 326; Fax 421-838 726 306 

Email vurv@bb.sanet.sk 

Staff/Position 

Dr Timotej Miština, Director 

Dr František Debre, PGR Coordinator, Head of PGR Dept. 

Dr Jarmila Drobná, Curator, Forages 

General activities 

Collecting, conservation, documentation, evaluation, and distribution of PGR. 

Maintenance of collection 

In glass containers with twist 

Long-term storage of seeds at –18ºC 

Medium-term storage of seeds at 0ºC. 

Duplication sites 

Not duplicated. In the future, material will be safety-duplicated in the Czech Gene 

Bank in Prague-Ruzyně. 

Availability of genetic resources 

Available in limited quantities on exchange basis. 

Evaluation status 

Characterization and evaluation according to the national descriptor lists. 

Documentation status 

Passport data and some descriptive data in ISGZS under Fox Pro.


No. of 

No. of 

Species 

accessions Species 

accessions 

Medicago sativa L. 212 Lotus corniculatus L. 42 

Medicago falcata (L.) 

Arcangeli 

20 Lotus uliginosus Schkuhr 2 

Medicago × varia Martyn 5 Astragalus cicer L. 12 

Medicago lupulina L. 7 Onobrychis viciifolia Scop. 23 

Trifolium pratense L. 178 Anthyllis vulneraria L. 7 

Trifolium repens L. 80 Melilotus officinalis (L.) Pallas 5 

Trifolium hybridum 8 Melilotus alba Medicus 11 

Trifolium medium L. 3 Melilotus dentata (Waldst. & Kit.) 

Pers. 

1 

Trifolium aureum Pollich. 4 Coronilla varia L. 1 

Trifolium arvense L. 2 Lathyrus sativus L. 27 

Trifolium dubium Sibth. 1 Lupinus spp. 22 

Trifolium fragiferum L. 1 Total 674 

2. Plant Breeding Station Levočské Lúky 

Breeding station, state enterprise, 054 01 Levoča 

Tel. 421-965 427 771; Fax 421-965 427 771 


Dr Vojtech Schwartz, Director 

Dr Mária Lorková, Curator 


Collecting, evaluating, documentation, maintenance of genetic resources of 

grasses and utilization in breeding. 

Maintenance of collection 

Medium-term storage. 


Not duplicated. 


Available in limited quantity (about 35%). 


Characterization and evaluation according to available descriptors and ongoing 

for breeding. 


Passport data in ISGZS under FoxPro and some descriptive data. 

No. of 

No. of 

Species 

accessions Species 

accessions 

Dactylis glomerata L. 197 Poa pratensis L. 195 

Lolium x hybridum Lam. 12 Poa spp. 29 

Lolium multiflorum Lam. 32 Agrostis spp. 79 

Lolium perenne L. 228 Alopecurus pratensis L. 16 

Phleum pratense L. 89 Arrenatherum elatius (L.) L. & C. 

Presl 

24 

Phleum spp. 7 Bromus spp. 1 

Festuca arundinacea Schreb. 38 Cynosurus cristatus L. 10 

Festuca ovina L. 43 Deschampsia caespitosa (L.) 26 

Beauv. 

Festuca pratensis Huds. 536 Trisetum flavescens (L.) Beauv. 23 

Festuca rubra L. 71 Other 12 

Festuca spp. 8 Total 1666

86 


3. Plant Breeding Station Horná Streda 

Breeding station, state enterprise, 916 24 Horná Streda 

Tel. 421-834 972 21; Fax 421-834 971 67 


Dr Peter Markech, Director 

Dr Marta Lazarčíková, Dr Miroslav Vavák, Curator, Vicia sativa 

Dr Miroslav Vavák, Curator, Faba vulgaris 

Dr Zdenìk Slaměna, Dr Jozef Štefanka, Curator, Pisum sativum 


Collecting, evaluation, documentation, maintenance of genetic resources of 

legumes and utilization in breeding. 

Maintenance and collection 

Medium-term storage. 


Not duplicated. 


Available in limited quantity (about 40 %). 


Evaluation according to available descriptors and ongoing for breeding. 


Manual passport and some descriptive data. 

Species No. of accessions 

Vicia sativa 123 

Faba vulgaris 111 

Pisum sativum subsp. sativum conv. speciosum. 103 

Total 337 

4. Grassland and Mountain Agriculture Research Institute Banská Bystrica 

Mláde?žnícka 36, 974 21 Banská Bystrica 

Tel. 421-88 732 541; Fax 421-88 732 544 


Dr Stanislav Knotek, Director 

Dr Norbert Gáborčík, Curator 


Collecting and maintenance of ecotypes of forages. 

5. LEGUMEN, production and commercial company, Piešt'any 

Jozefská 14, 921 01 Piešt'any 

Tel. 421 - 838 215 23 


Dr L'ubomír Pastucha, Director 


Collecting, maintenance, and breeding of legumes. 


Lathyrus sativus 103 

Lathyrus ochrus 2 

Lathyrus tuberosus 1 

Total 106


6. Slovak University of Agriculture, Nitra 

Dept. of Genetics and Breeding, Trieda A. Hlinku 2, 949 67 Nitra 


Dr Ján Brindza, Coordinator 


Collecting and maintenance of ecotypes of Lotus spp. and evaluation on 

chromosome level.

88 


Forage crops genetic resources in F.R. Yugoslavia 

Zorica Tomić 

Agricultural Research Institute 'Serbia', Forage Crops Centre Kruševac, F.R. 

Yugoslavia 

Yugoslavia is situated between 41°25 and 46°11 N latitude and between 18°26 and 

23°01 E longitude. It covers an area of 102 173 km 2 , with a population of 

approximately 11 million people. About 50% of the total area is above 500 m asl 

while 15% is above 1000 m asl. The country is mainly mountainous with two 

separate basins, Panonian and Adriatic, and two mountain zones, West and East. 

Yugoslavia is covered by more than 6 million ha of agricultural land with 60% 

lowland and 21% pastures. Forage crops on lowland cover very small areas. 

Our country is an exceptionally rich source of natural autochthonous genetic 

resources. This is due to its complex and specific geographical position. It belongs to 

the Mediterranean basin, which is one of the centres of genetic diversity for a number 

of plant species. Many cultivated forage crops have their relatives in autochthonous 

natural meadow communities. All those species show, more or less, a high level of 

diversity and represent important genetic resources. 

Yugoslavia presents a high level of biodiversity and genetic variability. All plant 

species from temperate and subtropical climate can be grown successfully. As a 

result of the successful work of the Institutes dealing with the breeding and 

introduction of foreign cultivars, Yugoslavia possesses rich cultivars of almost all 

cultivated species. The research work of the Institutes was especially successful with 

the crops of highest economic importance (maize, wheat, sunflower, sugarbeet). 

According to the figures of the Federal Commission for the registration of new 

cultivars, 1055 cultivars with different properties from over 190 cultivated species 

were registered. From all those species 63 cultivars have been selected, including 23 

legumes, 14 perennial grasses, 11 annual legumes and 15 other forage cultivars. So 

far 917 cultivars of 81 species have been introduced from abroad and released for 

production, including 44 cultivars of legumes and 54 cultivars of perennial grasses. 

The research work on breeding is carried out at the Institute of Agriculture, Novi 

Sad; the Agricultural Research Institute 'Serbia', Belgrade; the Forage Crops Center, 

Kruševac; the Center for Agricultural and Technological Research, Zaječar; the 

Agricultural Faculties of Belgrade and Novi Sad; and the Institute of Agriculture, 

Podgrorica. 

Best results in breeding of forage crops have been achieved in creating cultivars of 

lucerne, forage beans, sorghum millet and Sudan grass. Less work was dedicated to 

the breeding of red clover and birdsfoot trefoil, although these two species are most 

commonly utilized. Fairly modest results have been achieved in the breeding of 

perennial grasses, in spite of the excellent potential of production and resistance to 

diseases and pests of autochthonous species. 

The Forage Crops Center in Kruševac is one among eight specialized Centers 

where work on plant breeding, agronomy, utilization and seed production of forage 

crops was the basic occupation for more than 40 years. 

To date, 26 cultivars have been bred: 12 cultivars of legumes (5 lucerne, 5 red 

clover, l white clover, 1 birdsfoot trefoil), 12 of perennial grasses (3 cocksfoot, 2 tall 

fescue, 2 red fescue, 2 Italian ryegrass, 1 meadow fescue, 1 timothy grass and 1 tall 

oatgrass), and 1 cultivar of stock beet. Two cultivars of grasses and two of legumes 

are being currently tested at the Federal Commission.


Work on the conservation, collecting and utilization of genetic resources of plant 

and animal species was part of breeding research that has already been conducted on 

some species. 

In 1987 the national policy of ex-Yugoslavia adopted the unique programme 

establishing the Gene Bank of Yugoslavia. The construction of the Gene Bank started 

in Belgrade and it is expected to maintain all material from the Institutes that 

coordinated the work on individual species during the previous breeding periods. 

However, after 1992, during the period of economic sanctions, scientific research 

in Serbia and Montenegro managed to maintain some degree of activity. The 

conservation and utilization of genetic variability is, however, not possible without a 

national programme as a strategic, high-priority project. Last year the Federal 

Institute for plant and animal genetic resources within the Federal Ministry of 

Agriculture was founded. It covers all activities on genetic resources in Yugoslavia. 

The construction of the building for the Gene Bank of Yugoslavia will be completed. 

The unique strategic project, which is to be initiated this year, includes collecting, 

conserving and characterization of accessions of all plant and animal species of 

genetic resources in Yugoslavia. 

The size of the collection of genetic resources of forage crops, legumes and 

perennial grasses is presented in Table 1. 

Table 1. Status of the National Collections – Gene 

Bank of Yugoslavia (Agricultural Research Institute 

'Serbia', Forage Crops Center Kruševac) 

Species ‡ 

No. of accessions 

Agrostis gigantea Roth. 16 

Agrostis stolonifera L. 34 

Agrostis capillaris L. 35 

Lolium perenne L. 10 


Trifolium repens L. 49 

Trifolium hybridum L. 6 

Trifolium pratense L. 19 

Medicago sativa L. 63 

‡ 

For all species: Type of accessions = wild species; 

Storage conditions = long term; Availability = 100%. 

The collection is part of breeding and prebreeding research at the Agricultural 

Research Institute in Novi Sad (63 accessions of Medicago sativa) and at the Center for 

forage crops Kruševac (49 accessions of Trifolium repens, 6 Trifolium hybridum, 19 

Trifolium pratense; perennial grasses: 16 Agrostis gigantea, 34 Agrostis stolonifera, 35 

Agrostis capillaris, 10 Lolium perenne and 5 Dactylis glomerata). Work on germplasm 

collections for the Gene Bank of Yugoslavia was carried out in the period 1989-92 

according to the Descriptor list for forage grasses, CEC/IBPGR 1985. The work 

included the identification of passport data, collecting data, characterization and 

preliminary evaluation, multiplication and conservation of samples. 

Collecting of autochthonous populations of perennial grasses and legumes was 

carried out in more than 100 most important localities of the Serbian flora. The 

characterization included the most important properties: collecting source, status of 

samples, characterization and preliminary evaluation: site data, plant data; 

vegetative characteristics: tillering capacity of juvenile plants, vegetative growth 

habit, leaf width, estimates of herbage yield, winter damage; inflorescence; tendency 

to form inflorescences, time of 50% inflorescence emergence, uniformity of time of 

inflorescence emergence, habitat at ear emergence, abundance of inflorescences; site

90 


data; further evaluation, vegetative; total seasonal yield; inflorescence; mean date of 

inflorescence emergence, leaf width (reproductive), leaf length (reproductive), length 

of longest culm + inflorescence, seasonal inflorescence production; stress 

susceptibility; low temperatures, high temperatures, drought, high soil moisture; 

pest and disease susceptibility; pests, fungi, bacteria, viruses and chromosome 

number. 

Because of high reduction in some accessions, a part of the active collection of the 

Gene Bank was multiplied last year in the Forage Crops Center in Kruševac. The 

regenerated seed will be forwarded to the Gene Bank of Yugoslavia. 

The strategic project on forage crops that should start this year will be based on 

new expeditions and collecting of forage crop species which are important for 

selection. In phytocenoses appearing on large areas of our country, geographic 

position and climatic conditions resulted in the appearance of large number of 

associations of different types, from valley, hilly and mountainous to high mountain 

areas. 

In more than 50 plant associations examined, the number of species varies from 19 

in association Caricetum acutiformis-ripariae to 178 in association Ononido- 

Arrhenatheretum elatior. The greatest number of associations in floristic composition 

appears with 60-80 species. The largest areas in Yugoslavia are covered with exactly 

those associations which have about 70 species, and they are: Festucetum valesiacae, 

Danthonietum calycinae, Agostio-Danthonietum calycinae, Agrostio-Chrysopogonetum 

grylli and Nardetum strictae - sensu lato. 

In the floristic composition of the mentioned phytocenoses two families are 

interesting as the initial material in breeding of forage crops, the Fabaceae and 

Poaceae. 

• In the Serbian flora the family Fabaceae has 34 genera among which the most 

interesting are Trifolium with 50 species, Vicia 27, Medicago 11, with a great 

variability of subspecies, varieties and forms, and the genus Lotus with 4 

species. 

• In the family Poaceae there are 70 genera among which Phleum with 8 species, 

Poa 17, Agrostis 6, Lolium 5, Bromus 14, Festuca 21 and Dactylis with 3 species 

are of greatest interest. 

The natural ecosystems of meadows and pasture in our country are still 

conserved. Associations are well developed with stable floristic composition which is 

confirmed by a large number of species. Such a wide floristic diversity shows the 

great potential of genetic variability. Very little potential is being used, which makes 

a good basis for forming a very rich Gene Bank. This potential will be utilized not 

only by our breeders, but also by ECP/GR. 

Finally, our work will in the future depend not only on our wishes but also on 

how the European Cooperative Programme will accept and involve us in their 

research and work. 

Reference 

Tyler, B.F., J.D. Hayes and W. Ellis Davies (eds.). 1985. Descriptor list for forage grasses. 

AGPG:IBPGR/85/72. Commission of European Communities, Brussels, 

Belgium/International Board for Plant Genetic Resources, Rome, Italy. 

Additional reading 

Tomić, Z. 1993. Collecting the native populations and their improvement in selection. Pp. 45- 

46 in Proceedings of the International Symposium of Grassland Resources, Hunehot, 

China.


Tomić, Z. 1994. Cytogenetic and Taxonomic Identification of the Species of the Genus Agrostis 

L. represented in the flora of Serbia. Review of Research Work at the Faculty of 

Agriculture 39(2):41-54. 

Tomić, Z. and R. Mladenović. 1995. Perennial Grass Seed Production in some mountain 

region of Serbia. Pp. 346-350 in Proceedings of the Third International Herbage seed 

conference, Halle, Germany. 

Tomić, Z., I. Ralević, G. Šurlan-Momirović and M. Stošić. 1994. Dry matter production of 

perennial grasses of different species and their cultivars. Review of Research Work at the 

Faculty of Agriculture 39(1):113-120. 

Tomić, Z., S. Mrfat-Vukelić, G. Šurlan-Momirović, O. Krstić, J Popović and M. Stošić. 1995. 

Selection of the early maturing Cockfoot (Dactylis glomerata L.) Variety Kruševačka rana. 

Review of Research Work at the Faculty of Agriculture 40(1):79-83. 

Tomić Z., G. Šurlan-Momirović and S. Ostojić. 1996. Inbreeding I 1 generation of some 

populations in genus Agrostis L. chosen to perspective amenity grasses. Pp. 31-32 in 

EUCARPIA, Fodder crops and amenity grasses section, 20 th meeting, 7-10 October, 

Radzików, Poland. 

Tomić Z., G. Šurlan-Momirović, I. Ralević, S. Mrfat-Vukelić and S. Ostojić. 1996. Genetic 

variability with some populations of the genus Agrostis L. Pp. 317-320 in Proceedings. of 

the 16 th EGF Meeting, Grado, Italy.

92 


Duplications in forages collections 


E. Willner 1 , N.R. Sackville Hamilton 2 and H. Knüpffer 3 

1 

IPK - Genbank, Aussenstelle Malchow, Malchow/Poel, Germany 

2 

Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research (IGER), Plas Gogerddan, 

Aberystwyth, United Kingdom 

3 

IPK - Genbank, Gatersleben, Germany 

Introduction 

At the fifth meeting of the ECP/GR Working Group on Forages in Bulgaria (31 

March-2 April 1995), a subgroup was formed to develop a protocol for identifying 

duplicate, or at least unduplicated, accessions. The objective is to identify 

demonstrably unique accessions that are now held only outside their country of 

origin, so that primary responsibility for their conservation could be assigned. This 

document presents the conclusions of the subgroup. 

We stress that the objective is not to enable rationalization of collections by 

eliminating duplicates. Although it may seem pedantic to distinguish between 

identifying duplicate accessions and identifying unique accessions, in fact it is 

probable that the vast majority of the world's genebank accessions lie between the 

two states, as we do not have sufficient information to identify accessions 

unequivocally either as duplicate or as unique, so that 'not demonstrably unique' is 

quite different from 'duplicate'. The protocol presented here covers only the first step 

in the expensive, painstaking procedure of identifying duplicates with sufficient 

precision to permit their elimination. 

Historical and biological duplicates 

We distinguish between historical duplicates and biological duplicates. Two 

accessions are historical duplicates if they originated from the same original collected 

or bred material without undergoing deliberate selection by breeders. They are 

biological duplicates if they have been demonstrated to have the same genetic 

composition. Identification of historical duplicates should not normally depend on 

characterization and evaluation data (except to confirm historical duplicity as 

discussed below), and relies primarily on passport data. Conversely, identification of 

biological duplicates requires the most comprehensive possible set of 

characterization and evaluation data. 

Knüpffer (1989) and van Hintum and Knüpffer (1995) have developed a more 

comprehensive terminology based on the degree of similarity between accessions, 

and have considered the consequences for rationalization of collections. However, 

for the purposes of this document the simpler classification is retained, because of the 

resulting distinction in the roles of passport and characterization data in seeking 

duplicates. 

Historical duplicates may be biologically distinct. During their different 

regeneration histories, since becoming two accessions they will have undergone 

different genetic drift; they may have been subjected to different natural selection; 

one or both may have been contaminated with alien pollen or seed; one or both may 

even have been incorrectly labelled and so be totally unrelated. They may even have 

diverged through genetic drift during the initial subsampling to generate two

DUPLICATIONS IN FORAGES COLLECTIONS 93 

accessions from one. Biologically distinct accessions should both be maintained in a 

collection even if they are historically duplicates. 

Conversely, biological duplicates may be historically distinct, at least within the 

history of their conservation in genebanks. For example, different collectors may 

have collected from the same site, or several samples may have been taken from a 

region of uniform populations. For maximum efficiency of conservation, identified 

biological duplicates should be pooled, not maintained in a genebank, regardless of 

whether they are historically duplicate. 

Therefore biological duplication, not historical duplication, is the only acceptable 

criterion for rationalizing collections by eliminating (pooling) duplicates. 

We also distinguish between Possible Historical Duplicates (PHDs) and 

Confirmed Historical Duplicates (CHDs). Two accessions are considered PHDs if 

they have identical passport data, or they are at least 'matching' in some sense. 

Identity of passport data is not sufficient to confirm historical duplication. Mistakes 

in labelling bags and plots, in interpretation of data supplied, or in data entry can 

cause the same passport data to be associated with different accessions, and true 

historical duplicates to have different passport data. Indeed it may be impossible to 

confirm historical duplication. Detailed tracing of their histories will not detect all 

errors. Testing whether they are biological duplicates can be suggestive: major 

qualitative differences between the two accessions would indicate they are not 

historical duplicates but one or both have been mistakenly labelled, whereas smaller 

quantitative or zero differences would suggest probable historical duplication. 

Identification of biological duplicates is itself costly and time-consuming, 

particularly as it involves more than conventional characterization for the following 

reasons: 

1. Resource limitations restrict conventional characterization and evaluation trials 

to a small number of characteristics, and it is probable that most accessions 

that look similar on the basis of these characteristics do actually differ in other 

characteristics. Since the need for long-term conservation of genetic resources 

arises from the need to satisfy unknown future demands for unknown genes, 

it would not be appropriate to identify accessions as biological duplicates 

unless they are shown to be identical for many more characteristics than 

measured usually. A wide range of morphological, physiological, biochemical 

and molecular characters should be used. 

2. The usual approach in statistical analysis, which is to accept that two accessions 

are the same unless there is strong evidence (usually with 95% certainty) to the 

contrary, is not appropriate for genetic resources collections: rather, we need 

more positive evidence that they are the same before accepting them as the 

same. 

3. Most trials need only detect major differences and so need only low replication. 

To decide whether two accessions are biological duplicates requires higher 

sensitivity and therefore higher replication than normal characterization trials. 

Thus identification of biological duplicates requires considerably more detailed, 

painstaking characterization than is usually undertaken, and is considered 

prohibitively expensive. 

Scope of the exercise 

The above discussion demonstrates that to confirm historical duplication and to 

identify biological duplicates is extremely laborious and expensive, and would 

require a major research programme for each crop. On the other hand, preliminary 

identification of PHDs is more achievable.

94 


It must be stressed that, corresponding to this limitation, the overall objective is 

not to seek to eliminate duplicate accessions, but rather to identify those accessions 

that are demonstrably unique. Since primary responsibility for the maintenance of an 

accession lies with the genebank in the country of origin of that accession unless it no 

longer exists in that country, the most important and urgent output of the exercise 

will be identification of unique accessions that are no longer stored in their country 

of origin and, in particular, demonstrably unique accessions that are held only 

outside their country of origin. 

However, where funds are very restricted this could be used to reduce the current 

costs of maintaining collections by relegating one of each PHD pair to long-term 

storage only, where it is 'mothballed' for future use. 

Principles underlying identification of PHDs 

Ideally, all genebanks would maintain full and correct passport data in the same 

database format and transfer it electronically on donating seed. Then passport data 

of all PHDs could be identical. In practice, their passport data are usually not 

identical. 

It is not the purpose of this document to analyze fully what has happened, nor to 

recommend a protocol for distributing and maintaining passport data. However, to 

establish a protocol for identifying PHDs, it is necessary to develop criteria for 

deciding when two sets of passport data 'match' even though they are not identical. 

To do so we must consider the various ways in which differences could arise in the 

passport data of PHDs, as follows. 

The donor may have: 

• corrected or added new passport data since making the donation, or 

• failed to supply the donee with all passport data when donating the accession. 

The donee may have: 

• had to modify passport data to conform with the data format of his own 

database 

• corrected obvious spelling or grammatical errors 

• failed to enter all supplied passport data on his database 

• translated to another language, possibly including translation of names 

• changed the passport data to conform to his own standards for transliterating, 

abbreviating words, conventions for entering location data 

• made unintentional mistakes in data entry. A relatively low error rate may be 

expected in parts of text fields, where linguistic rules for spelling enable a 

certain amount of self-validation. This does not apply to entire text fields, and 

higher error rates occur in punctuation, spacing, names, abbreviations, and 

words with alternative spellings (e.g. American vs. British spellings). The 

same higher error rate occurs in coded and numeric fields. 

Various procedures can facilitate detection of some of these differences, defining 

'matched' accessions even where passport data are not identical. These include lists 

of synonyms, differences between spelling conventions, differences between 

transliteration conventions, and cross-referencing similarities of different fields. 

However, given the limited value of identifying PHDs in terms of rationalizing 

collections, it is proposed that we do not even develop a full protocol for identifying 

PHDs. Instead, we propose a still simpler protocol for partial identification of PHDs 

using only limited fields from the passport data, which achieves the same objective


of assigning accessions to primary holders but with relatively little investment of 

time and resources. A suggested protocol is presented in Appendix II of this report. 

References 

Knüpffer, H. 1989. Identification of duplicates in the European Barley database. Pp. 22-43 in 

Report of a Working Group on Barley (Third meeting). European Cooperative Programme 

for the Conservation and Exchange of Crop Genetic Resources. International Board for 

Plant Genetic Resources, Rome. 

van Hintum, Th.J.L. and H. Knüpffer. 1995. Duplication within and between germplasm 

collections. 1. Identification of duplication on the basis of passport data. Genet. Resour. 

and Crop Evol. 42:127-133.

96 


Safety-duplication of germplasm collections in Europe 

Lorenzo Maggioni and Thomas Gass 

International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy 

Introduction 

Duplication of accessions for safety reasons is an essential component of rational 

germplasm management. If safety-duplication is undertaken effectively, it insures 

against loss from natural disasters, neglect, human error and civil strife (IPGRI 1995, 

1997). For the period between 1981 and 1995, the genebanks of the CGIAR report 66 

cases where germplasm was restored to a total of 38 countries (SGRP 1996). The Seeds 

of Hope project in Rwanda (Scowcroft 1996) and the restoration of rice germplasm in 

Monrovia, Liberia emphasize the value of restoring lost germplasm as part of 

international efforts to recover agricultural research capacity and agricultural systems 

in war-torn countries (Richards and Ruivenkamp 1997). In Europe, the restoration of 

Albanian forages collections, which were recently lost, will depend on the extent to 

which Albanian material had been duplicated outside the country. 

Safety-duplication has received attention during a recent external review of the 

CGIAR genebank operations (SGRP 1996). The resulting Recommendation 13 reads as 

follows: 

"Centres should give high priority to the regeneration and multiplication of 

accessions that have not yet been duplicated off-site and all germplasm 

designated under the FAO/CGIAR Agreements should be placed for 

safety-duplication in off-site genebanks as soon as possible" 

According to the Report on the State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources for Food 

and Agriculture, prepared for the International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic 

Resources (Leipzig, Germany, June 1996), 85% of the countries submitting Country 

Reports stated that their collections were only partially or not at all safety-duplicated. 

Lack of data on individual accessions is currently preventing a comprehensive 

assessment of the degree of safety-duplication or redundancy between collections (FAO 

1996a). Consequently, the FAO Global Plan of Action acknowledges the importance of 

replicating and storing conserved material in long-term facilities, as part of the strategy 

to sustain existing ex situ collections. A recommendation is also made that country 

formalize agreements to safeguard diversity in ex situ collections in conformity with 

applicable international agreements, since this would allow countries wishing to do so 

to place collections in secure facilities outside their boundaries (FAO 1996b). This 

recommendation is particularly relevant to some smaller countries in which full-fledged 

ex situ conservation operations may not be feasible. 

Rationalization and safety-duplication of European collections 

An important objective of the Priority Activity 5 of the GPA (Sustaining existing ex situ 

collections) is to increase the efficiency of conservation activities and to reduce 

unnecessary duplication of efforts (FAO 1996b). Sharing of responsibilities for the 

conservation of strategically important resources requires a great deal of confidence 

between partners. Europe is a region with large differences between countries and a 

history including numerous conflicts. Nevertheless, the past collaboration within the 

European Programme for Crop Genetic resources Networks (ECP/GR), the recent 

geopolitical changes in Europe, the interdependence between countries and the 

financial difficulties of genebanks throughout the region would be conducive to the


development of a more comprehensive system for sharing conservation responsibilities 

for PGRFA within the region. 

Generally, the level of duplication existing within and especially between genebanks 

in Europe is considered relatively high. Besides safety-duplication, such duplication 

results from exchanges between genebanks, acquisitions of the same accession, joint 

collecting missions, repeated incorporation of an accession into the same collection, 

erroneous identification, etc. (Knüpffer et al. 1997). Duplication occurring within a 

collection, if not specifically for safety reasons, is generally undetected and undesirable. 

The resulting increase in the cost of maintenance and evaluation unnecessarily draws 

upon the genebanks' scarce resources. Although the undesired and undocumented 

duplication of collections in Europe is high, many valuable accessions such as landraces 

and wild relatives of crops have never been safety-duplicated. 

The identification of duplicates in a collection is a complex exercise. It first requires 

the definition of what will be considered as an undesirable duplicate as opposed to 

what is considered as unique. Detecting the duplicates then involves various steps of 

passport data analysis followed by verification through morphological and/or 

molecular techniques (Knüpffer et al. 1997). Although laborious, this exercise ultimately 

contributes to a more rational management of germplasm by reducing redundancies 

and, in some cases, by identifying the most original sample among a set of duplicates. 

This rationalization exercise is obviously more effective if coordinated throughout 

the existing collections of one or more regions. International efforts can then be directed 

to the evaluation and utilization of the most original accessions, independently from 

their storage location. With this in mind, a comprehensive exercise is currently being 

undertaken within the frame of ECP/GR to update and then analyze the European 

Central Crop Databases (Gass et al. 1997). 

The Steering Committee of ECP/GR and a number of ECP/GR Working Groups 

have begun to develop the concept of an origin-based sharing of conservation 

responsibilities known as European Collections. This concept is analogous to the 

decentralized national collections being developed in Spain and France. Such a system 

of sharing responsibilities is not intended to preempt on the negotiations by the FAO 

Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture leading to a revised 

International Undertaking on PGRFA nor is it intended to determine the ownership of 

accessions or germplasm collections. Rather it would promote a regional trusteeship of 

genebanks over collections and allow national programmes to more effectively 

prioritize their conservation effort. The regional trusteeship could be extended to a 

global trusteeship if the relevant international negotiations evolve accordingly. 

A key element of the proposed system is confidence among countries regarding: 

• the quality of conservation and regeneration procedures applied to germplasm 

conserved under the Trusteeship Agreements, and 

• the access to germplasm maintained under these agreements. 

Both of these elements depend to a very large extent on goodwill and on 

transparency of procedures. ECP/GR could provide a "safety net" to these concerns: 

(1) by establishing a task force or committee which would peer-review collections in 

genebanks having accepted trusteeship responsibility, and (2) by ensuring that safetyduplicates 

of designated material are maintained in a country other then the one where 

the original genebank is located. 

Prioritizing safety-duplication 

It may not be possible that a genebank implement all at once the safety-duplication of 

all its accessions, if this operation has previously been neglected. Although all the 

accessions worth conserving should be safety-duplicated, it may be necessary to follow

98 


a scale of priorities. In establishing this scale of priorities the genebank or the national 

programme give consideration to a number of elements: 

• known existence or not of duplicates in other genebanks/countries 

• the potential value of the material as determined by the data associated with 

each accession, such as the occurrence of proven or likely sources of resistance 

and other valuable traits 

• the origin of the accession, assuming that each country has the primary 

responsibility for conserving material originating (collected, bred or selected) on 

its territory 

• the origin of the accession, assuming that the genebank/country wishes to 

contribute towards holding in trust material originating from another country 

where the safekeeping or access is uncertain. 

Making safety-duplication safe 

When safety-duplication is based on a bilateral agreement between two genebanks or 

between two countries, the storage conditions and other quality criteria are usually 

mentioned in the agreement signed by the parties. At the regional level, however, 

safety-duplication is generally monitored on the basis of statements made by genebank 

curators and is rarely assessed against jointly agreed quality standards. 

The following criteria are suggested as elements of an effective safety-duplication 

arrangement. 

Long-term storage conditions 

Since the safety-duplicate should 'outlive' the original accession, it should be stored 

under conditions allowing at least the same duration and quality as the original 

collection. The event prompting the replacement of the safety-duplicate would in this 

case be the loss of viability and consequent regeneration of the original sample. 

International standards for conservation of seed collections have been published by 

FAO/IPGRI (1994). 

Off-site duplication outside the country 

While this is not an obligation, it is an important criterion if the original collection is 

seen as an integral part of the international and multilateral effort to conserve genetic 

resources. Duplication outside the country constitutes a warranty against disruptions 

which might occur to the genetic resources programme at the national level. Beyond 

institution-related disruptions, most countries in Europe have experienced civil strife or 

war during the past 50 years – a rather short time perspective when dealing with 

conservation of plant genetic resources. Moreover, important benefits can accrue from 

the collaboration and mutual trust that is implied in the exchange of services between 

countries to mutually conserve safety-duplicates of valuable collections. 

Duplication under formal agreement 

Formal agreements for safety-duplication create longer lasting frameworks for 

cooperation between the concerned genebanks or national programmes. In this way, 

standards for conservation can be defined and responsibilities clearly assigned. The 

agreement allows a registration of the information for the public and the international 

community. This is also useful for the institutions undertaking the agreement as it 

clarifies their respective mandates and facilitates a longer-term commitment to 

honoring the agreement. 

A bilateral agreement, recently established between the Nordic Gene Bank (NGB) 

and the Institute of Biology (IB), Salaspilis, Latvia is given in Annex 1. This agreement 

places all the responsibility for appropriate management of the accessions on to the


owner of the seed (IB). The NGB makes storage space available for the duplicated seed 

and covers the cost of conserving it under long-term conditions. Relevant accessionrelated 

data are also safety-duplicated under the same agreement. The 'black box' 

arrangement implies that the seed and related data will not be used or distributed, but 

simply stocked for safety reasons. The owner (IB) maintains complete juridical control 

of the 'black box'. The requirement of 6 months' notice before any change can be made 

to the agreement makes it possible to find alternative solutions in case the two parties 

decide to denounce their commitment. The safety-duplicates stored under black box 

agreement are not listed as part of the germplasm holdings or the index seminum of the 

hosting genebank. 

Safety-duplication in the Forages Working Group 

The issue of safety-duplication of collections of forage species was addressed by the 

ECP/GR Forages Working Group in its early stages (IBPGR 1989) . During its fourth 

meeting it was recommended that database officers identify apparently unduplicated 

accessions and then contact curators of these accessions, inviting them to start effective 

duplication by sending as many accessions as seem practical to another long-term 

storage of their choice (IBPGR 1993). 

Members of the Working Group have since regularly reported on the safetyduplication 

status of the collections in their country. To date the level of documented 

safety-duplication is still extremely low (Table 1). This is due to: 

• the assumption that unintended duplication needs to be identified before safetyduplication 

is undertaken 

• the assumption that exchange of germplasm and sharing of material among 

partners after a collecting mission constitute sufficient guarantee that the genetic 

diversity is also conserved in another genebank 

• the lack of awareness of the simplicity and low level of cost of 'black box' 

duplication arrangements 

• uncertainty among genebanks with regard to the highly politicized international 

negotiations on PGR access and sharing of benefits. 

A number of European genebanks have expressed willingness to host safetyduplicates 

of forages collections (see Appendix V of this report). 

Conclusion 

Although duplication of collections for safety reasons is an essential element of an 

effective conservation strategy, European genebanks have to date given low priority to 

this activity. While a number of reasons can be mentioned to explain this situation, the 

increased awareness and utilization of 'black box' arrangements will probably facilitate 

more rapid progress in the future. 

When applied along with standard long-term conservation conditions, duplication 

in a different country from the original collection, and under formal agreement, the 

'black box' arrangements will contribute to strengthened collaboration and enhanced 

mutual trust. Such measures also play an important role in a multilateral system of 

decentralized "European collections" such as the one currently being discussed within 

the frame of ECP/GR.

100 


Table 1. Level of safety-duplication of forages collections as reported in the ECP/GR 

Forages Working Group meetings 

Belgium 55 Lolium accessions sent to RAC, Changins, Switzerland. 

Bulgaria The collections have not been safety-duplicated. 

Cyprus Accessions of forage legumes have been safety-duplicated at ICARDA, Syria 

and Bari, Italy. 

Czech Republic Accessions of grasses have not been safety-duplicated under long-term 

conditions. Approximately 30% of accessions of legumes have been safetyduplicated. 

France Safety-duplication is undertaken within the country. 

Germany The collections have not been safety-duplicated 

Netherlands Safety-duplication is being carried when accessions are regenerated. Full 

safety-duplication is expected to be reached by the year 2000. 

Nordic Countries 62 accessions of different forage species have been safety-duplicated in the 

Svalbard Islands and NGB is formally accepting safety-duplicates from Latvia 

and Lithuania. 

Slovakia No safety-duplication has been undertaken yet. A reciprocal safety-duplication 

agreement with RICP, Prague, Czech Republic is in preparation. 

Spain The forages collections are partly duplicated within and outside the country 

(Australia, USA). 

Switzerland RAC, Changins has sent 10 accessions of Dactylis glomerata, 19 of Festuca 

pratensis and 10 of Festuca arundinacea for safety-duplication to R.v.P., 

Merelbeke, Belgium. 

Turkey Safety-duplication is done within the country, at the Field Crops Central 

Research Institute, Ankara, Turkey. 

UK All IGER collections have been safety-duplicated within the country. 

References 

FAO. 1996a. Report on the State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources for Food and 

Agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. 

FAO. 1996b. Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant 

Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the 

United Nations, Rome, Italy. 

FAO/IPGRI. Genebank Standards. 1994. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations/International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy. 

Gass, T., E. Lipman and L. Maggioni. 1997. The role of central crop databases in the European 

Cooperative Programme for Crop Genetic Resources Networks (ECP/GR). Pp. 20-25 in 

Central Crop Databases: Tools for Plant Genetic Resources Management (E. Lipman, M.W.M. 

Jongen, Th.J.L. van Hintum, T. Gass and L. Maggioni, compilers). IPGRI, Rome, Italy/CGN, 

Wageningen, The Netherlands. 

IBPGR. 1989. Report of a Working Group on Forage (Third meeting). European Cooperative 

Programme for the Conservation and Exchange of Crop Genetic Resources. International 

Board for Plant Genetic Resources, Rome, Italy. 

IBPGR. 1993. Report of the Fourth meeting of the ECP/GR Forages Working Group. European 

Cooperative Programme for Crop Genetic Resources Networks. International Board for Plant 

Genetic Resources, Rome, Italy. 

IPGRI. 1995. Geneflow 1995. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy. 

IPGRI. 1997. Geneflow 1997. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy. 

Knüpffer, H., L. Frese and M. W. M. Jongen. 1997. Using Central Crop Databases: searching for 

duplicates and gaps. Pp. 59-68 in Central Crop Databases: Tools for Plant Genetic Resources 

Management (E. Lipman, M.W.M. Jongen, Th.J.L. van Hintum, T. Gass and L. Maggioni, 

compilers). IPGRI, Rome, Italy/CGN, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 

Richards, P. and G. Ruivenkamp. 1997. Seeds and survival: Crop genetic resources in war and 

reconstruction in Africa. IPGRI, Rome, Italy. 

Scowcroft, W.R. 1996. Seeds of Hope. Completion report for AusAID and World Vision, 

Australia. 

SGRP. 1996. Report of the internally commissioned external review of the CGIAR genebank 

operations. IPGRI, Rome, Italy.

Annex 1. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 


This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into and executed by the 

Nordic Gene Bank (hereinafter referred to as NGB) and the Institute of Biology 

(hereinafter referred to as IB). 

I. Purpose 

The purpose of this MOU is to establish, within the framework of the Nordic-Baltic 

cooperation and in connection to the NGB base collection, a Safety Duplicate 

Collection (hereinafter referred to as SDC) of seed material of agricultural and 

horticultural crops originating in Latvia, having obtained the status ACCEPTED in 

the base collection of the IB. 

II. Statement of common interest 

The NGB (Alnarp, Sweden) is a Nordic institute under the auspices of the Nordic 

Council of Ministers with the regional mandate to conserve ex situ, on a medium to 

long-term basis, genetic material of agricultural and horticultural crops particularly 

adapted to Nordic conditions. 

The IB is a research institute which co-ordinates conservation of agricultural and 

horticultural crops in Latvia as well as managing active, or short- to medium-term, 

collections of seed material stored ex situ. 

III. Statements of the agreement 

i. Of relevance for NGB: 

§1 NGB accepts the responsibility of conserving ex situ under long-term 

conditions, as a 'black box' arrangement within the storage facilities at Alnarp, 

a SDC to be delivered by the IB. 

§2 The SDC will be stored in accordance with standard NGB procedures. 

§3 NGB will not use or distribute any seed material to third party from this SDC 

without a written consent of the IB. 

§4 The cost of conserving this SDC will be covered by sources adrninistered by 

NGB. 

§5 In a situation of emergency all measures will be taken by NGB to maintain the 

safe storage of the deposited material. 

§6 In case of accidents or any other event that may inflict upon the viability, 

germinability, or availability of the deposited seed, NGB will not be liable to 

pay any damages to the IB.

102 


ii. Of relevance for the IB: 

§7 The IB is responsible for all seed management activities (threshing, drying, 

packing, germination tests, etc.). 

§8 The IB accepts to deliver a recornmended number of 5000 high quality seeds 

per accession to be included in the SDC. All shipments shall be accompanied 

with a Phytosanitary Certificate issued by the Plant Quarantine Service in the 

country of the IB. 

§9 The IB further accepts the responsibility of supplying NGB with a safety 

duplicate of computerized passport and relevant management data pertaining 

to each stored accession. 

§10 Decisions regarding the inclusion or removal of accessions from the SDC will be 

taken by the IB within the scope defined in Section I. Purpose. 

iii. Of relevance for both: 

§11 The material deposited in the SDC at Alnarp is the property of the sovereign 

State of Latvia. 

§12 Upon notice, the IB has the right to inspect the SDC at any suitable time. 

§13 This MOU may be modified or discontinued at the request of either party. 

§14 Requests for termination or any change to the MOU shall be submitted to the 

other party for consideration not less than six (6) months prior to the desired 

effective date of termination. 

§15 This MOU has indefinite duration, but shall be reviewed once every five (5) 

years for relevancy. 

Signed: Alnarp, 8 January 1997 Salaspils, January 1997 

The Director The Director 

Nordic Gene Bank Institute of Biology 

Currently: Eva Thorn Currently: Gunars Andrusaitis

Standards for regeneration 

STANDARDS FOR REGENERATION 103 

The regeneration of accessions in seed collections of the main perennial 

forage grasses and legumes of temperate grasslands: background 

considerations 


Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research (IGER), Aberystwyth, UK 

The main protocol for regeneration is presented at Appendix III of this report. It does 

not cover annual forage grasses and legumes, or apomicts such as some Poa spp., for 

which no protocol is currently available. The protocol is based on the Decision Guide 

for Regeneration (Sackville Hamilton and Chorlton 1997), which should be referred 

to for additional discussion. This section presents some further background details. 

Decisions for regeneration protocols represent a compromise between maximizing 

the number of accessions that can be regenerated each year within available 

resources, and maximizing the genetic integrity of accessions. The large backlog of 

accessions in need of regeneration, currently being experienced by most genebanks, 

suggests a need to relax the stringency of regeneration procedures in order to 

increase regeneration capacity. However, this will cause a more rapid deterioration 

of genetic integrity. If stringency is relaxed too far in the attempt to regenerate all 

accessions as rapidly as possible, the total diversity conserved may be less than if 

fewer accessions are regenerated under more stringent conditions. Such excessive 

relaxation of stringency is unacceptable. 

An important element of the regeneration protocol is based on the interaction 

between base and active collections as recommended in FAO/IPGRI Genebank 

Standards (1994). The base and active collections need not be physically distinct 

entities, and indeed it has been argued (Linnington and Smith 1987) that they should 

not be. Nevertheless in the majority of genebanks they are kept as distinct collections 

under different conditions. The regeneration protocol therefore assumes that they are 

physically distinct: it will be necessary to revise the protocol in the future if genebank 

standards are revised to keep base and active collections as a single entity. 

According to the above Genebank Standards, the base collection should be 

maintained under optimal conditions for long-term storage, primarily for 

conservation. It should not be used for distributing seed. Enough seed should be 

stored in the base collection to ensure that there is always sufficient quantity to meet 

demands for its use, so that seed in the base collection should need regeneration only 

when it loses viability. 

Seed stocks in the active collection should be replenished from seed stored in the 

base collection. Preferably this should always be the case, but according to Genebank 

Standards an acceptable alternative is to replenish stocks from remnant seed in the 

active collection for up to three out of every four regeneration cycles. Given the 

inevitably high rate of loss of genetic integrity of forage species, this 'acceptable 

alternative' is here regarded as unacceptable. These recommendations have the dual 

advantage of (a) preventing the accumulation of losses of genetic integrity in the 

active collection through successive regeneration cycles, and (b) ensuring that the 

most critical regeneration cycles for conserving genetic integrity (i.e. regenerating the 

base collection) are limited to one every 100 years (for most forage species) or so. 

The second major consideration in developing the regeneration protocol was the 

impact of loss of genetic integrity on the distinctness of accessions. There are three

104 


primary causes of loss of genetic integrity: drift, selection (natural and artificial, 

conscious and unconscious), and contamination with alien genes (through alien 

pollen, alien seed, alien plants, or even through incorrectly identifying and labelling 

accessions). 

Drift tends to increase the distinctness of accessions. Provided random drift is 

independent of initial population mean, the expected genetic variance among 

accessions after regeneration is the sum of their genetic variance before regeneration 

and the variance due to drift. In addition, drift is greatest when population size is 

small, which tends to reduce genetic variance within accessions and thus further 

increase the apparent distinctness of accessions. 

In contrast, convergent selection in a uniform regeneration environment reduces 

not only the distinctness of accessions but also the genetic variance within accessions. 

Contamination further reduces distinctness of accessions. The combined action of 

convergent selection and contamination together is worse than the sum of their 

effects, and potentially can eliminate all diversity between accessions. Therefore, drift 

is considered relatively unimportant compared with selection and contamination. 

Wherever this requires a compromise, decisions have been made that minimize the 

effects of selection and contamination even where this means allowing drift to 

increase. 

Most perennial forage grasses and legumes are obligate outbreeders, and so 

display high genetic variance within populations, high potential for genetic changes 

by drift and selection during regeneration, and present a high risk for crosspollination 

between regeneration plots if they are not adequately isolated. In 

addition, many of them are conspecific with wild or feral species that may persist 

naturally on the paths and other habitats in and around regeneration plots, and so 

present risks for contamination with alien plants, seed and pollen. In addition, they 

are long-lived clonally propagated perennials: such species typically display 

exceptionally high variation in fecundity between plants in a single population 

(Fig. 1). High variation in fecundity implies a corresponding potential for rapid 

genetic changes in response to selection pressures. All of these factors combine to 

make the perennial temperate forages present a greater challenge for regeneration 

than any other crop group. The regeneration protocol reflects this in the 

recommended high stringency of regeneration conditions. 

Manual pollination would be ideal for the maintenance of genetic integrity of 

these species. However, because of the small seed size of most of the species and the 

large numbers of seed required, this labour-intensive option is not considered 

appropriate in relation to the resources available. 

The recommended conditions for prevention of contamination with alien pollen 

are more stringent than currently used by some genebanks. This reflects not only the 

adverse impact of contamination on genetic integrity, but also a more cautious 

interpretation of the literature on pollen flow. 

The majority of literature on pollen flow describes unidirectional flow from one 

source of alien pollen to a receptor plot. In a regeneration field, most plots are 

surrounded on all sides by potential sources of alien pollen. Contamination rates at a 

given distance from sources of contamination should be expressed as all-directional 

contamination rates, i.e. the unidirectional contamination rate multiplied by the 

circumference of the circle. This means real contamination rates are not only higher 

than usually described, but also decrease less with distance.

108 


References 

FAO/IPGRI. 1994. Genebank Standards. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United 

Nations, Rome/International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome. 

Giddings, G.D., N.R. Sackville Hamilton and M.D. Hayward. 1997. The release of genetically 

modified grasses. 2: The influence of wind direction on pollen dispersal. Theor. Appl. 

Genet. 94(8):1007-1014. 

Goplen, B.P., D.A. Cooke and P. Pankiw. 1972. Effects of isolation distance on contamination 

in sweetclover. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52:517-524. 

Linnington, S. and R.D. Smith. 1987. Deferred regeneration. A manpower-efficient technique 

for germplasm conservation. Plant Genet. Resour. Newsl. 70:2-12. 

Sackville Hamilton, N.R. and K.H. Chorlton. 1997. Regeneration of accessions in seed 

collections: a decision guide. IPGRI/FAO Handbooks for Genebanks 5. IPGRI, Rome, 

Italy.

Collecting activities 

Forage collecting activities in Bulgaria, 1995-96 

Siyka Angelova 

Institute for Introduction and Plant Genetic Resources, Sadovo, Bulgaria 

Year Region Type of sward Collected species 

1995 Northern 

Bulgaria: 

Stara planina, 

Danube plain, 

Dobrudja, 

North Black Sea 

1996 Rhodopi 

mountain 

eastern/mid, 

Besaparski hills, 

Strandja 

mountain 

natural pastures 

and meadows, 

forests, pathways, 

seaside 

natural meadows 

and pastures, 

pathways 

COLLECTING ACTIVITIES 109 

Lolium perenne L. 

Dactylis glomerata L. 

Agropyron pectinatum (Bieb.) Beauv. 

A. cristatum Auct. 

A. brandzae PantEu & Solacolu 

Medicago falcata (L.) Arcangeli 

Trifolium repens L. 

Trigonella coerulea (L.) Ser. 

Onobrychis arenaria (Kit.) DC. 

Vicia lutea L. 

V. narbonensis L. 

all grass species 

Vicia incisa M. Bieb. 

V. hybrida L. 

Medicago rhodopea Velen. 

Onobrychis degenii Dörfl. 

Trifolium constantinopolitanum Ser. 

No of 

items 

11 

4 

3 

2 

1 

4 

6 

2 

4 

3 

2 

48 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1

110 


Forage collecting activities in the Czech Republic, 1995-96 

Magdalena Sevcíková 

Grassland Research Station, Zubrí, Czech Republic 

Number of collected accessions 

Year Region Grasses Legumes Meadow dicots Participation 

1995 Ceske stredohori 149 4 GRS Zubri 

1995 S Moravia 246 144 RIFC Troubsko 

1995 Krkonose 201 56 47 GB Prague 

RIFC Troubsko 

GRS Zubri 

1996 NE and SE Moravia 62 2 GRS Zubri 

2 Japanese Institutes 

1996 S Moravia 137 85 RIFC Troubsko 

1996 Orlicke hory 134 60 38 IHAR Radzikow 

GB Prague 

RIFC Troubsko 

GRS Zubri

Collecting activities in Germany, 1995-96 

Evelin Willner 

IPK-Genebank, Aussenstelle Malchow, Malchow/Poel, Germany 


1995: 

We collected in Germany in the Altmarkregion at old grassland sites (pastures or meadows), 

where we could find ecotypes, mainly of the following species: 

Species Number of accessions 


Festuca pratensis Huds. 23 


Phleum pratense L. 19 

Poa pratensis L. 16 

other species 170 

Total 309 

We sampled mainly clone plants; less frequently, seeds. 

In 1996 and 1997 we evaluated this material (primary evaluation); after that we will 

multiply the valuable genotypes. So we will have next year seeds for delivery to users and 

some information for our database. 

1996: collecting mission in Croatia 

A scientific collecting mission for plant genetic resources was undertaken in collaboration 

with the Croatian genebank (Agricultural University of Zagreb) and the Arche Noah (society 

of maintenance of crop plant diversity) of Austria. 

From 17 September to 1 October 1996 we collected in four different areas (two mountain 

regions, two levels) of north and east Croatia: 

I. Zumberak (400-500 m asl) 

II. Slavonien (80-150 m asl) 

III. Lonsko Polje (0-80 m asl) 

IV. Zagorje (150-400 m asl) 

With help from local experts and thanks to the good preparation and organization of Ms. 

Papes-Mokos, we collected old cultivars, landraces or wild materials (438 accessions) of 

several crop plants: 

Cereals 43 

Vegetables 128 

Legumes 98 

Spices 43 

Fodder crops (legumes, grasses) 71 

Other crops 55 

All plant samples will be reproduced in Austria (except grasses) and Germany (in 

Malchow: grasses: in Gatersleben: cereals, legumes, vegetables, spices and others) and a 

smaller part of cereals, vegetables and legumes also in the Croatian genebank.

112 


Collecting grass genetic resources in Hungary 

Lajos Horváth 1 and An Ghesquiere 2 

1 

Institute for Agrobotany, Tápiószele, Hungary 

2 Dept. Plant Genetics and Breeding (DvP), Melle, Belgium 

The social and economic changes in the beginning of the 1990s had some radical effects on 

the Hungarian agriculture, and among them a significant decline in the animal husbandry 

production, the number of livestock – including cattle and sheep – decreasing radically too. 

These circumstances resulted in very considerable changes in the former ecosystem of the 

Hungarian pastures and meadows. 

Up to the end of the last decade the practical culture of the Hungarian grasslands had 

been characterized by heavy use or even overgrazing or overmowing. Because of the rapid 

decrease in the number of livestock this situation changed greatly and a lot of grasslands 

remained unused year after year. There is no doubt that the lack of grazing or mowing 

causes irreversible changes within the cultivated plant association of these territories and 

those elements which have the best adaptation to intensive use disappear from the plant 

community. Realizing the direct danger of the genetic erosion, the Institute for Agrobotany 

organized some collecting expeditions in recent years, to rescue the still-available remains of 

these endangered grass genetic resources. The most important are the two international 

collecting trips, undertaken jointly with DSV (Germany) and RvP, Merelbeke (Belgium) in 

1992 and in 1996. Table 1 summarizes the results of these two trips. The number of accessions 

is distributed over the different species found during these collecting trips in East Hungary. 

Changes in the occurrence of the most important species are shown in Table 2. Although 

the collecting sites were not the same within the surveyed countryside in the two collecting 

years, on an average an obvious decrease can be observed in the frequency of the more 

valuable forage grasses. After regenerating and testing the accessions, the material will be 

available to interested persons.


Table 1. Number of grass accessions (by species) collected in East 

Hungary in 1992 (31 collecting sites) and in 1996 (36 collecting sites) by 

RCA (Institute for Agrobotany, Tápiószele, Hungary) 

Species collected 1992 1996 

Agrostis alba auct. non L. 1 8 

Agropyron pectinatum (M.B.) P.B. 0 1 

Alopecurus pratensis L. 15 7 

Aegilops cylindrica Host 0 3 

Anthoxanthum odoratum L. 1 1 

Arrhenatherum elatius (L.) P.Beauv. 3 3 

Beckmannia eruciformis (L.) Host 1 2 

Briza media L. 1 2 

Bromus inermis Leyss. 1 10 

Dactylis glomerata L. 24 18 

Festuca arundinacea Schreb. 6 8 

Festuca pratensis Huds. 16 9 

Festuca pseudovina Hack. ex Wiesb. 6 5 

Festuca rubra L. 1 10 

Festuca sulcata (Hack.) Nym. 1 0 

Festuca sp. 41 24 

Festuca vaginata W. et K. ex Willd. 1 0 

Holcus sp. 0 3 

Hordeum hystrix Roth 1 0 

Koeleria cristata (L.) Pers. 3 2 

Koeleria sp. 0 7 

Lolium perenne L. 30 17 

Melica ciliata L. 0 1 

Phleum pratense L. 2 4 

Poa pratensis L. 42 36 

Poa sp. 0 3 

Poa trivialis L. 0 1 

Puccinellia distans (L.) Parl. 0 1 

Puccinellia limosa (Schur.) Holm. 0 5 

Pholiorus pannonicus (Host) Trin. 0 2 

Thypoides arundinacea (L.) Dum 6 5 

Total accessions 203 198 

Table 2. Changes in the occurrence of the most important grass species 

1992 † 

1996 ‡ 

Species Total occur- Frequency Total occur- Frequency 

rences (total/31 sites) rences (total/36 sites) 

Alopecurus pratensis L. 15 0.48 7 0.19 

Bromus inermis Leyss. 1 0.03 10 0.28 

Dactylis glomerata L. 24 0.77 18 0.50 

Festuca pratensis Huds. 16 0.52 9 0.25 

Lolium perenne L. 30 0.97 14 0.39 

Poa pratensis L. 42 1.35 36 1.00 

† 31 collecting sites. 

‡ 36 collecting sites.

114 


Collecting of semi-natural and wild ecotypes in Lithuania 

Nijole Lemeziené 

Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture, Kedainiai, Lithuania 

It is possible to find about 122 species of grasses and 155 species of legumes in Lithuania 

(Anonymous 1963, 1971). But not all these species have good forage and turf characteristics. 

The plant breeder J. Šedys made some rational proposals for collecting different wild species 

of perennial grasses and legumes (Šedys 1995). In support of these proposals in 1996 a longterm 

programme was prepared (Table 1). According to this programme we are going to 

collect 54 species of perennial grasses. All these species will be divided into three different 

groups according to their importance for Lithuanian agriculture. 

• First group: species of a major commercial importance for Lithuania (species involved in 

the breeding programmes), marked by '1' in Table 1. They are: Medicago sativa L., 

Onobrychis sativa Scop., Trifolium pratense L., Trifolium repens L. Dactylis glomerata L., 

Phleum pratense L., Poa pratense L. These species have to be collected in all natural habitats 

without any restrictions. 

• Second group: species not involved in the breeding process, but widely enough spread in 

Lithuania (marked by '2'). These are: Lotus corniculatus L., Trifolium hybridum L., Trifolium 

medium Crufb., Alopecurus pratensis L., Festuca arundinacea Schreb. etc. 

• Third group: sparsely spread species (marked by '3'). The wild ecotypes of the second 

and especially the third group of species will be collected to a lesser extent. 

According to the programme, duties have been shared between different institutions: the 

Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture (LIA), the Botanical Institute (BI), the Lithuanian 

University of Agriculture (LUA). For example, plant breeders (nine persons) of the LIA are 

responsible for collecting all wild species of perennial grasses and legumes and for the 

evaluation of species which are involved in the breeding process. A scientist from the 

Institute of Botany is responsible for collecting and evaluation of legumes, and a geneticist 

from the University of Agriculture for the evaluation of rare species of perennial grasses. 

Over the period 1994-96 four expeditions were arranged in the northern and middle part 

of Lithuania for collecting wild ecotypes. A total of 328 wild ecotypes of perennial grasses 

and legumes were collected (Table 2). 

References 

Anonymous. 1963. Lietuvos TSR flora, II t., Vilnius. 

Anonymous. 1971. Lietuvos TSR flora IV t., Vilnius. 

Šedys, J. 1995. Ka pripazinsime naudingaisiais augalais, “Zemés ukis”. Nr. 12.


Table 1. The conservation programme of genetic resources of forage grasses and legumes in 

Lithuania 

Legumes Importance † 

Grasses Importance † 

Anthyllis vulneraria L. 3 Agrostis stolonifera L. 3 

Coronilla varia L. 2 Agrostis tenuis 2 

Lathyrus montanus Bernh. 3 Alopecurus pratensis L. 2 

Lathyrus niger (L.) Bernh. 3 Anthoxanthum odoratum L. 3 

Lathyrus pratensis L. 3 Arrhenatherum elatius (L.) J.&C. 

Presl 

3 

Lotus corniculatus L. 2 Beckmannia eruciformis(l) Host 3 

Lotus uliginosus Schkuhr 3 Bromus erectus Huds. 3 

Medicago sativa L. 1 Cynosurus cristatus L. 3 

Medicago falcata(L.) 

Arcangeli 

2 Dactylis glomerata L. 1 

Medicago lupulina L. 3 Elymus arenarius L. 3 

Melilotus alba Medicus 2 Festuca arundinacea Schreb. 2 

Melilotus officinalis (L.) 

Pallas 

3 Festuca gigantea (L.) Vill. 2 

Onobrychis sativa Lam. 1 Festuca ovina L. s.s. 2 

Onobrychis arenaria 

(Kit.)DC. 

3 Festuca pratensis Huds. 1 

Trifolium pratense L. 1 Festuca rubra L. 1 

Trifolium repens L. 1 Lolium perenne L. 1 

Trifolium hybridum L. 2 Phleum arenarium L. 3 

Trifolium elegans (Savi) 

Ascherson & Graebner 

3 Phleum phleoides(.) Karsten 3 

Trifolium lupinaster L. 3 Phleum pratense L. 1 

Trifolium medium L. 3 Phleum pratense L. subsp. 

nodosum (L.) Peterm. pro parte 

3 

Trifolium rubens L. 3 Poa angustifolia (L.) Hayek 3 

Vicia cassubica L. 3 Poa longifolia Trin. 3 

Vicia cracca L. 2 Poa nemoralis L. 3 

Vicia villosa Roth. 3 Poa palustris L. 3 

Poa pratensis L. 1 

Poa trivialis L. 3 

Trisetum flavescens (L.) Beauv. 3 

Trisetum sibiricum 3 

† 

1 = species of major commercial importance; 2 = species of less commercial importance; 3 = rare 

species. 

Table 2. Collecting activities in Lithuania, 1994-96 

Year Region Forages/Turf plants Ex situ collection 

1994 Northern part Forage/turf grasses 

20 


10 

1995 Northern part Forage/turf grasses 

185 


65 

1996 Middle part Forage/turf grasses 

125 


23

116 


Forages collecting activities in Poland, 1995-96 

G. Žurek 1 , J. Schmidt 1 , P. Hauptvogel 2 , W. Podyma 3 and W. Majtkowski 1 

1 

Botanical Garden, Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute (IHAR), Bydgoszcz, 

Poland 

2 

Research Institute of Plant Production, (RIPP), Piešt'any, Slovakia 

3 

Centre for Plant Genetic Resources, Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute, (IHAR), 

Radzików, Poland 

Introduction 

An ecotype is an organism whose physical structure has over time recorded local 

environmental conditions; these records are genetically fixed. Plant ecotypes record the local 

elevation, latitude, temperature extremes, precipitation, soil fertility, type and moisture, 

sun/shade conditions, etc. Ecotypes are biological realities known for 116 years in Europe 

and widely used in breeding. 

Collecting wild ecotypes and further evaluation, conservation and utilization are the main 

topics of interest of numerous genebanks worldwide. 

In the scope of the cooperation between the Centre for Plant Genetic Resources of IHAR 

(Radzików, Poland), the Botanical Garden of IHAR (Bydgoszcz, Poland) and the Research 

Institute of Plant Production (RIPP, Piešt'any, Slovakia) two collecting missions were 

organized in 1995 in the West Carpathian mountains – Western Tatras, High Tatras, Bielsko 

Tatras, Pieniny and Gorce Mountains, and one mission in 1996 in Ukraine and Slovakia. 

Additionally, staff of the Botanical Garden of IHAR undertook collecting in the southern 

region of Poland (Słowiński National Park). In total, 664 wild ecotypes of forage species 

were collected and prepared for further examination during the implementation of the 

theme 'Gathering and evaluation of selected grass species with particular consideration of 

ecotypes' and within the scope of the project 'Collecting, study and conservation of 

cultivated plants genepool'. 

Results 

Seed samples as well as plants were collected from meadows, pastures, rocks, touristic 

routes, field borders, roadsides, farmers' gardens, fields, roads and wastelands abandoned 

for 15-20 years. 

In this collecting expedition, named 'Tatry 1995', the following physico-geographical 

regions were examined: 

West Tatra Mountains – Zuberec, Zverovka, Chlebnice, Huty, Tichá dolina, Kôprová 

dolina, Piekelnik, Podszkle 

High Tatra Mountains – Štrba, Spišska Teplica, Klčov, Dreveník, Hodkovce, Huncovce, 

Wielki Staw, Morskie Oko, Zakopane, Dolina Strążyska, Dolina Malejłąki, Grzeşe, Długi 

Upłaz, Dolina Chochołowska, Skalnaté Pleso, Veľká Svišťovka, Tatranská Polianka, 

Velická dolina 

Podhale – Rzepiska, Niedzica, Zapszanka 

Pieniny Mountains – Bańków Gronik, Polana Wyrobek, Trzy Korony, Majerz, 

Krościenko, Sromowce Niżne, Tylmanova Rzeka, Ochotnica 

Belianske Tatry – Javorina, Zadné Meďodoly, Kopské Sedlo, Monkova dolina 

Gorce Mountains – Jaworzynka, Przysłop, Polana Chyzikowa, Polana Gorc Kamienicki, 

Polana świnkówka.


In 1996 collecting missions were carried out in the following regions: 

Czech Republic – Orlické Hory (Nevator, Nová Ves, Olešnice, Polom, Rovenské Šediviny, 

Šerlich, Třechovská Louka, Zelenka) 

Ukraine – the Carpathian Region (Bila Cerkva, Jasenija, Kvasy, Nyžne Solotvina, Rachiv, 

Solotvvyna, Cerkivna, Derevac, Jamna, Lipa, Lužki, Vyškiv) 

Slovakia – mountain regions: Bralo, Bukovce, Jalová, Korejovce, Krajná Porúbka, Rumina, 

Šemetkovce, Stakčínska Roztoka, Topola, Ubla 

Poland, northern part – Baltic coast (Słowiński National Reserve) – Będzimierz, 

Chocielewko, Czerwieniec, Człochow, Czołpino, Gardenia Wielka, Izbica, Kamienica – 

Młyn, Kluki Lotki, Pobłocie, Rekowo Lęborskie, Retowo, Rowy 

Poland, Kłodzka Valley – Batorów, Gołańcz, Jarkow, Jeleniów, Jerzkowice Wielkie, Kulin, 

Pasterka, Sawanna. 

Conclusions 

The gathering of rare grass species as well as rare ecotypes (i.e. from extreme site conditions) 

is the most important goal of collecting missions and conservation of genetic resources. 

Grass ecotypes from collecting expeditions are a rich source of initial materials for 

different breeding and research studies.

118 


Table 1. Collecting activities of the Centre for Plant Genetic Resources, 

IHAR, Radzików, Poland 

Collecting year 

Genus, species 1995 1996 Total per species 

Agropyron repens (L.) Beauv. 0 1 1 

Agropyron sp. 1 0 1 

Agrostis alba Auct. 1 3 4 

Agrostis canina L. 2 0 2 

Agrostis capillaris Leers. 0 1 1 

Agrostis sp. 1 0 1 

Agrostis stolonifera L. 3 0 3 

Agrostis tenuis Sibth. 7 6 13 

Alopecurus pratensis L. 9 7 16 

Alopecurus sp. 1 0 1 

Anthyllis vulneraria L. 2 1 3 

Arrhenatherum elatius (L.) J.&C. Presl 7 2 9 


Bromus sp. 1 1 2 

Calamagrostis villosa (Chaix) J.F. Gmelin 0 1 1 

Calamagrostis epigeios (L.) Roth 0 1 1 

Cynosurus cristatus L. 5 5 10 

Dactylis glomerata L. 15 19 34 

Deschampsia cespitosa (L.) Beauv. 4 8 12 

Festuca capillata Lam. 0 1 1 

Festuca gigantea (L.) Vill. 3 0 3 

Festuca ovina L.s.s.. 4 2 6 

Festuca pratensis Huds. 13 21 34 


Festuca sp. 2 0 2 

Holcus mollis L. 0 1 1 

Lathyrus pratensis L. 1 0 1 

Lolium multiflorum Lam. 0 1 1 

Lolium perenne L. 6 11 17 

Lotus corniculatus L. 11 6 17 

Medicago falcata (L.) Arcangeli 2 3 5 

Medicago lupulina L. 3 6 9 

Nardus stricta L. 1 0 1 

Phalaris arundinacea L. 0 1 1 

Phleum nodosum Auct. 2 0 2 


Phleum sp. 3 2 5 

Poa compressa L. 1 2 3 

Poa nemoralis L. 2 2 4 

Poa palustris L. 3 2 5 

Poa pratensis L. 14 14 28 

Poa sp. 1 2 3 

Poa trivialis L. 0 1 1 

Trifolium alpestre L. 1 0 1 

Trifolium aureum Pollich 1 1 2 

Trifolium hybridum L. 5 1 6 

Trifolium medium L. 1 2 3 

Trifolium pratense L. 13 8 21 

Trifolium repens L. 16 1 17 

Trisetum flavescens (L.) Beauv. 8 1 9 

Total per year 199 179 377


Table 2. Collecting activities of the Botanical Garden of IHAR, Bydgoszcz, Poland 

Collecting year 

Genus, species 1995 1996 Total per species 

Agrostis alba Auct. 1 1 2 

Agrostis canina L. 1 0 1 

Agrostis rupestris All. 1 0 1 

Agrostis stolonifera L. 0 2 2 

Agrostis tenuis Sibth. 6 2 8 

Aira praecox L. 0 2 2 

Alopecurus geniculatus L. 0 1 1 

Alopecurus pratensis L. 1 8 9 

Ammophila arenaria (L.) Link 0 1 1 

Anthoxanthum alpinum A. et D. Löve 1 0 1 

Anthoxanthum odoratum L. 0 2 2 

Apera spica-venti (L.) Beauv. 0 2 2 

Arrhenatherum elatius (L.) J.& C. Presl. 0 7 7 

Brachypodium pinnatum (L.) Beauv. 1 0 1 

Briza media L. 3 0 3 


Bromus mollis L. 0 2 2 

Calamagrostis arundinacea (L.) Roth 1 1 2 

Calamagrostis canescens (Weber) Roth 0 2 2 

Calamagrostis epigeios (L.) Roth 1 0 1 

Calamagrostis neglecta auct., non (Ehrh.) P. Beauv. 0 1 1 

Calamagrostis varia (Schrader) Host 2 0 2 

Calamagrostis villosa (Chaix) J.F. Gmelin 3 0 3 

Calamagrostis sp. 0 1 1 

Cynosurus cristatus L. 5 3 8 

Dactylis glomerata L. 11 11 22 

Deschampsia cespitosa (L.) Beauv. 12 6 18 

Deschampsia flexuosa (L.) Trin. 2 5 7 

Elymus arenarius L. 0 1 1 

Festuca arundinacea Schreb. 2 6 8 

Festuca capillata Auct. 0 2 2 

Festuca gigantea (L.) Vill. 1 0 1 

Festuca glauca Lam. 1 0 1 

Festuca ovina L. s.s. 0 1 1 

Festuca picta Kit. 1 0 1 

Festuca pratensis Huds. 12 4 16 


Festuca sylvatica (Pollich.) Vill. 1 0 1 

Festuca supina Schur 5 0 5 

Glyceria aquatica Wahlenb. 0 2 2 

Glyceria fluitans (L.) R. Br. 1 1 2 

Glyceria plicata (Fries) Fries 0 1 1 

Helictotrichon versicolor (Vill.) Pilger 1 0 1 

Holcus lanatus L. 0 4 4 

Holcus mollis L. 1 2 3 

Lolium perenne L. 3 12 15 

Melica transsilvanica Schur 1 0 1 

Melica uniflora Retz 0 1 1 

Milium effusum L. 0 2 2 

Oreochloa disticha (Wulfen) Link 1 0 1 

Phalaris arundinacea L. 0 12 12 

Phleum alpinum L. 2 0 2 

Phleum nodosum Auct. 0 2 2 


Poa alpina L. 1 0 1 

Poa alpina L. subsp. vivipara (L.) Arcang. 1 0 1 

Poa annua L. 1 0 1 

Poa compressa L. 0 1 1 

Poa palustris L. 0 23 23 

Poa pratensis L. 14 0 14 

Sesleria tatrae (Degen) Deyl 1 0 1 

Sieglingia decumbens (L.) Bernh. 3 2 5 

Trisetum alpestre L. 2 0 2 

Trisetum flavescens (L.) Beauv. 1 0 1 

Total per year 121 165 286

120 


Collecting missions in Portugal, 1995-96 

Manuel Tavares de Sousa 

Estação Nacional de Melhoramento de Plantas, Elvas, Portugal 

National Plant Breeding Station 

Curators: João Paulo Carneiro and Luis Fortunato 

One collecting mission in the central region, on calcareous soils, to collect annual medics: 135 

accessions of annual medics of several species were collected, mainly Medicago polymorpha L., 

M. murex Willd., M. scutellata (L.) All., M. doliata Carmign., etc. 

Experimental Station (DRAEM), Braga 

Violeta Rolim and her team work on Lolium breeding. The following accessions were 

collected: 

1995 



Lolium multiflorum Lam. 17 


Ornithopus compressus L. 30 

Ornithopus sativus Brot. 6 

Medicago spp. (annual) 8 

Trifolium sp. 3 

Avena sp. 15 

Secale cereale L. 2 

1996 


Lolium multiflorum Lam. 4 

Hordeum sp. 6 


Ornithopus sativus Brot. 1 

Medicago spp. (annual) 14 

Trifolium subterraneum L. 4 

Trifolium pratense L. 3 

Trifolium spp. 3 

Avena sativa 13

Collecting missions in the Russian Federation, 1995-96 


Vladimir Chapurin 

N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry (VIR), St Petersburg, Russian Federation 

The Vavilov Institute, St Petersburg, organized in 1995 and 1996 collecting missions in 

Uzbekistan, Kazakstan, Ukraine and along the river Volga. During these missions 982 

accessions were collected, of which 327 were forage crops, such as red clovers, white clovers, 

alfalfa, timothy and others. 

Each accession was split in two samples and one was left in the country of origin. 

Vegetables accessions were multiplied and sent to Seed Savers Exchange, Iowa, USA.

122 


Collecting activities in Slovakia, 1994-96 

Jarmila Drobná 

Research Institute of Plant Production, Piešt'any, Slovakia 

Year Region No. of items 

1994 Central Slovakia 37 (Fabaceae) 

(PLA Muránska planina) † 

76 (Poaceae) 

1995 Northern Slovakia and 754 

(in collaboration with IHAR Southern Poland 

(including cereals, fodder 

Radzikow) 

(Tatra National Park in 

Slovakia and in Poland; 

NP Pieniny, NP Gorcze, etc.) 

crops, grain legumes, etc.) 

1996 Western and Central Slovakia 

(PLA Malé Karpaty, 

PLA Biele Karpaty, 

PLA Stráovské vrchy, etc.) 

Collaboration of Slovakia, 

Poland, Ukraine 

† PLA = Protected Landscape Areas. 

43 (Fabaceae) 

23 (Poaceae) 

Central Slovakia 54 (Fabaceae) 

(PLA Pol'ana, 

Krupinská planina, etc.) 

64 (Poaceae) 

Eastern Slovakia 

(PLA Východné Karpaty) 

and Eastern Ukraine 

179 (Fabaceae) 

105 (Poaceae)

Collecting activities in Spain 

Francisco González López 

Servicio de Investigación y Desarollo Tecnológico, Badajoz, Spain 


During 1995 the Servicio de Investigación y Desarrollo Tecnológico carried out a mission to 

collect annual pasture legumes in degraded areas of the southwest of Badajoz and southeast 

of Caceres (Extremadura region). The species and number of accessions collected were as 

follows: 


Trifolium subterraneum L. 23 

Trifolium glomeratum L. 23 

Trifolium campestre Schreb. 1 

Trifolium cherleri L. 16 


Medicago polymorpha L. 18 

M. pelecinus 8 

Astragalus cymbicarpos Brot. 2 

Trifolium striatum L. 11 

Medicago maculata Sibth. 4 

Medicago minima (L.) Bartal. 1 

Medicago orbicularis (L.) Bartal. 1 

Medicago doliata Carmign. 2 

Trifolium stellatum L. 3 

Trifolium angustifolium L. 1 

S. vermiculata 3 

Total 139

124 


Collecting activities in Turkey, 1995-96 

Cafer Olcayto Sabanci 

Aegean Agricultural Research Institute, Menemen, Izmir, Turkey 

Joint expeditions were organized with the Cooperative Research Center for Legumes in 

Mediterranean Agriculture (CLIMA). 

• In 1995, 804 accessions (14 genera, 79 species) were collected in northwest Turkey, 

consisting of 387 Trifolium, 297 Vicia, 95 Lathyrus and 25 other forage legume species. 

• In 1996, two separate collecting trips were made to the Mediterranean and inner parts of 

the Aegean Region, collecting a total of 1227 accessions belonging to 18 genera and 102 

species as follows: 

Genus No. of accessions 

Trifolium 577 

Medicago 276 

Vicia 189 

Lathyrus 50 

Trigonella 23 

Coronilla 21 

Lotus 14 

Onobrychis 14 

Others 63 

Total 1227


Recent collecting activities at IGER, Aberystwyth (United Kingdom) 

Ian D. Thomas 

Institute of Grassland and Plant Environmental Research (IGER), Aberystwyth, UK 

1995: Portugal 

Joint Collecting mission principally with Universidade de Tras-os-Montes, Universidade de 

Coimbra and ENMP, Elvas. 

Principal species collected were Lolium perenne L. and Trifolium repens L. 

The objectives of the mission were to collect a large range of genetic diversity in the target 

species by sampling from a broad selection of locations, habitats and management systems 

and at the same time to ascertain the extent to which the target species were present in the 

extreme southwest of continental Europe. 

1996: United Kingdom 

Joint collecting mission in collaboration with IGFRI (Indian Grassland and Forage Research 

Institute), Jhansi, India. 

Principal species collected were Lolium perenne, Trifolium repens and Festuca gigantea. The 

Genetic Resources Unit at IGER has always been aware of the under-representation of UK 

accessions in its genebank. As part of our collaborative activities with IGFRI we were able to 

undertake a number of short UK collecting missions. 

The main target areas were established, low-input hay meadows in Environmentally 

Sensitive Areas (ESAs). 

The following areas were sampled: 

Southwest England 

Somerset Levels Flood meadows 

Mendip Hills Grazing pastures on limestone 

North England 

Pennine Dales Reputedly highest hay meadows in England 

Mid East Wales Low-intensity hay meadows.

126 


Collecting activites in F.R. Yugoslavia 

Zorica Tomić 

Forage Crops Research Centre, Agricultural Research Institute “Serbia”, Kruševac, F.R. 

Yugoslavia 

The collecting of autochthonous populations of perennial grasses and legumes was carried 

out in more than 100 of the most important localities of Serbian flora. The strategic project 

that should start this year will be based on new expeditions and collecting of forage crop 

species which are important for selection.

Research activities 

Austria: Recultivation of alpine areas with seed of alpine plants 

RESEARCH ACTIVITIES 127 

B. Krautzer 

Federal Research Institute for Agriculture in Alpine Regions, Department of Forage Crops, 

Gumpenstein, Irdning, Austria 

Introduction 

Every year, millions of tourists visit our Alps. This causes a lot of different interventions to 

build up the infrastructure of summer and winter tourism. These activities and the 

increasing problem of natural erosion are responsible for thousands of square kilometres of 

damaged areas all over the Alps. The main problem of recultivation in high altitudes is not 

so much the sensitivity of these areas but the adequate replacement of the destroyed 

autochthonous vegetation (Lichtenegger 1994). Up to now only commercial varieties of 

grasses and legumes for the use of our grassland farmers have been available. Those 

lowland species do not really tolerate the conditions in high altitudes. To achieve a 

permanent green cover, many expensive measures have to be taken such as regular 

fertilizing, overseeding and cutting. If these measures are neglected, the vegetation 

disappears in a few years, and erosion and other problems can follow. To get a closed sward, 

a vegetation is required that is adapted to the site as much as possible. Only the use of 

alpine species in the form of vegetative material (Grabherr 1995) or seed (Krautzer 1993) will 

lead to a satisfactory solution. Of the different methods available, the use of seeds of alpine 

species would be the cheapest way to revegetate patches in high mountains. 

Material and methods 

In a field experiment in St. Martin near Gumpenstein, the suitability of 41 alpine species of 

well-chosen grasses, Leguminosae and other herbs was tested for commercial seed 

production in low altitudes. The seed properties and the seed quality (germinative capacity, 

seed weight) were analyzed, following the preconditions of the International Seed Testing 

Association (ISTA 1985). The demands for field preparation, maintenance and cultivation as 

well as the seed productivity were analyzed in field experiments. From each species, a 

number of different provenances were tested. The following species were suitable for 

commercial seed production: 

Festuca nigrescens (Lam). Asch. et Ev. 

Festuca pseudodura Steud. 

Festuca supina Schur 

Festuca violacea Gand. s.stv. 

Phleum alpinum L. emend. Gaudin 

Phleum hirsutum Honck. 

Poa alpina L. 

Trifolium badium Schreb. 

Trifolium pratense L. subsp. nivale Arc.

128 


Results and conclusions 

Up to now, most of the analyzed species did not have great importance. For most of them, it 

was the first time that some data about the seed properties have been obtained. Table 1 

shows a summarized description of the seed of the nine selected species. The results 

between the provenances of the species differed considerably. For this reason, the table 

shows the most frequent ranges for length, width and thickness. 

Table 1. Length, width, thickness and colour of the seeds of the species (Krautzer 1995) 

Length Width Thickness 

Species 

(mm) (mm) (mm) Colour Shape 

Festuca nigrescens 3.5-6.0 0.5-1.0 0.5-0.8 light brown longish, one side 

sharpened 

Festuca 

3.5-5.0 0.8-1.2 0.5-0.8 light brown longish, one side 

pseudodura 

sharpened 

Festuca supina 2.5-3.5 0.5-0.9 0.5-0.9 light brown longish, one side 

sharpened 

Festuca violacea 2.0-4.0 0.6-1.0 0.6-1.0 yellow-brown longish, one side 

sharpened 

Phleum alpinum 1.5-3.0 0.6-1.0 0.6-1.0 grey to light brown ovoid 

Phleum hirsutum 2.0-3.0 0.5-0.9 0.5-0.9 yellow-brown to brown 

Poa alpina 2.0-4.0 0.6-1.0 0.6-1.0 light brown 

Trifolium badium 1.4-1.8 1.0-1.4 0.4-0.8 green to yellow ovoid-oval 

Trifolium nivale 1.0-2.3 0.8-1.5 0.5-1.0 yellow to violet heart-shaped 

The thousand-seed weight (TSW) was ascertained before and after cultivation. The weight 

of cultivated and wild species showed a great variation from 15% (Festuca nigrescens) to 45% 

(Poa alpina) between the provenances. On average, the TSW increased after cultivation. 

Table 2 shows the average TSW of 10 to 25 samples of the nine chosen species after 

cultivation. Great diversity and variability could also be observed in connection with the 

germinative capacity of alpine plants. Seeds of plants collected in their natural location 

showed very different results from year to year, depending on the provenance, the 

harvesting date and the climatic conditions over the year. After cultivation, the germinative 

capacity (GC) increased on a level of 15-30%. In commercial production, the water supply 

and different diseases can have an important effect on GC. The worst average value for GC 

was 73% for Phleum hirsutum , the best 92% for Festuca nigrescens and Poa alpina. A further 

reason for the increasing GC could also be a selection of fast-germinating individuals. 

The TSW and the GC showed a very close connection. Higher TSW always leads to a 

higher GC in percentages (Flüeler 1992). The explanation could be that in commercial seed 

production the plants have much better growing conditions (growing space, nutrients, 

competition). This leads to stronger, healthier plants with higher TSW and GC. In 

comparison with commercially produced low-altitude species, the alpine plants showed an 

equal seed quality after cultivation. 

The field experiments showed high demands of the chosen species for field preparation, 

maintenance and cultivation. Drilling and underseed under summer barley proved to be 

optimal for most of the species. The seed demand for sowing was between 8 and 20 kg/ha 

and was 20% above the seed demand for comparable lowland species. Establishment dates 

after the beginning of July resulted in unsatisfactory seed yields. In comparison with 

lowland species, alpine plants develop very slowly and show very poor competitiveness 

against weeds and fungal diseases.


Table 2. Thousand-seed weight (TSW), germinative capacity (GC) and seed yield 

TSW GC Seed yield (kg/ha) 

Species average (g) average (%) Year 1 Year 2 Average of 2 years 

Festuca nigrescens 0.900 92 771 302 537 

Festuca pseudodura 0.811 86 512 118 315 

Festuca violacea 0.374 85 421 143 282 

Festuca supina 0.512 89 167 247 207 

Phleum alpinum 0.470 77 71 27 49 

Phleum hirsutum 0.344 73 78 160 119 

Poa alpina 0.490 92 681 110 396 

Trifolium badium 0.759 86 98 – – 

Trifolium nivale 1.372 83 136 – – 

The productivity of most of the species was surprisingly high. Table 2 shows the average 

yield of all locations of the discussed species. With the exception of Phleum alpinum and 

Phleum hirsutum, all alpine grasses showed a yield of more than 200 kg/ha in an average of 

two harvesting years. Some locations of Festuca nigrescens and Poa alpina showed a yield of 

more than 1000 kg/ha in the first harvesting year. The plants of the alpine clovers Trifolium 

badium and Trifolium nivale died after the first harvest and showed an average yield of 98 and 

136 kg/ha. Improvement of the production technique and an adaptation of the best 

locations to contemporaneous ripening and low susceptibility to diseases will lead to further 

progress in the seed multiplication of those species. Contrary to a widespread view, the 

research results clearly showed that seed multiplication of the nine analyzed species in 

lowland regions is possible, from both biological and commercial points of view. 

Using seeds of the presented alpine species, well-adapted seed mixtures for almost all 

locations and altitudes of our Alps can be determined. Table 3 shows the most important 

characteristics of the species for recultivation in alpine areas. Mixtures for all different 

demands on climate, soil, water content as well as on the further use (skiing areas, protection 

against erosion, recovery after technical interferences, alpine pastures, etc.) can be put together. 

Most of the species are spread all over the Alps, some (Festuca pseudodura, F. supina, F. violacea) 

only partially. To avoid floral falsification the species should only be used in areas of their 

natural range. In the last 5 years, a lot of recultivation trials in alpine areas have been made, 

using the discussed material. The results clearly showed the value and the possibilities of the 

use of alpine seed mixtures for permanent recultivation (Wittmann and Rücker 1995). 

What would be the size of the market for alpine seed mixtures? In Austria, an area of 

about 1000 to 1500 ha has to be recultivated every year in altitudes above 1600 m. All over 

Europe, the area can be estimated as a minimum of 3000 ha. An amount of more than 300 

tonnes of alpine seeds would be needed. In the last 3 years, commercial seed production of 

alpine plants has been established in Carinthia, in the southern part of Austria. Currently, 

Festuca nigrescens, Festuca pseudodura, Festuca violacea, Phleum hirsutum and Poa alpina are 

produced on an area of 13 ha. Up to now, the user's acceptance of the higher product prices 

is very low. To achieve a widespread use of alpine mixtures for ecological recultivation in 

alpine areas, a government-enforced obligation to use them would be useful.

130 


[AustrTbl3.doc] – landscape 

References 

Flüeler, F. 1992. Experimentelle Untersuchungen über Keimung und Etablierung von alpinen Leguminosen. 

Veröffentlichungen des Geobotanischen Institutes der ETH Zürich, Stiftung Rübel, Heft 110, 149S. 

Grabherr, G. 1995. Renaturierung von natürlichen und künstlichen Erosionsflächen in den Hochalpen. Ber. 

d. Reinh.-Tüxen-Ges. 7:37-46. 

International Seed Testing Association. 1985. Internationale Vorschriften für die Prüfung von Saatgut. Seed 

Sci. Technol. 13, Suppl. 1:3-241. 

Krautzer, B. 1993. Hochlagenbegrünung mit Alpinsaatgut am Beispiel Lawinensteinabfahrt. Motor im Schnee 

24/1:48-50. 

Krautzer, B. 1995. Untersuchungen zur Samenvermehrbarkeit alpiner Pflanzen. BAL Gumpenstein, Heft 24, 

76S. 

Lichtenegger, E. 1994. Hochlagenbegrünung mit Alpinsaatgut. Der Förderungsdienst 42:125-131. 

Wittmann, H. and T.H. Rücker. 1995. Über eine neue Methode der Hochlagenbegrünung. Carinthia II, 

53.Sonderheft :134-137.

Table 3. Important characteristics of the species for recultivation in alpine areas 

Vegetation stage Soil material H2O content Susceptibility to: 

Species Montane Subalp. Alpine Siliceous Calcareous Dry Moist Fertilizing Cutting Grazing 

Festuca nigrescens + + + + + + (+) + + + 

Festuca pseudodura – (+) + + (–) + (–) (+) – (+) 

Festuca supina – + + + (–) + (–) (+) (–) + 

Festuca violacea (+) + + (+) + + (+) + + (–) 

Phleum alpinum (+) + + + (+) (+) + + + + 

Phleum hirsutum (+) + + (–) + + (–) + + + 

Poa alpina (+) + + (+) + + (+) + + + 

Trifolium badium (+) + + + + + + (+) + + 

Trifolium nivale – + + + (+) (+) + (+) + + 

+ = very good, (+) = good, (–) = bad, – = very bad.


Germany: A knowledge base for disease resistance of selected cultivated 

plant species 18 

Hartmut Kegler 1 , Dieter Spaar ² and Evelin Willner ³ 

1 

Bäckerstieg 11, Aschersleben, Germany 

2 

Berliner Organisation für Agrar- und Ernährungswirtschaft GmbH, Berlin, Germany 

3 

IPK-Genbank, Aussenstelle Nord Malchow, Malchow/Poel, Germany 

A knowledge base (Table 1) was set up that reviews the current knowledge on disease 

resistance of plant species investigated in the genebank of the Institute of Plant Genetics and 

Crop Plant Research (IPK) Gatersleben, branch station North, Malchow. Over 350 

publications on disease resistance of the last 25 years were considered, concerning 116 hostpathogen 

combinations of Brassica napus L. var. oleifera, Dactylis glomerata L., Festuca 

arundinacea Schreb., F. pratensis Huds., F. rubra L., Lolium perenne L., Medicago sativa L., Phleum 

pratense L., Poa pratensis L., Trifolium pratense L. and T. repens L (see Table 2). Sixteen priority 

subject matters are taken into consideration, such as resistant genotypes, methods of 

checking resistance, genetics of resistance and breeding for resistance (see Tables 1 and 3). 

The knowledge base can be made topical and complete continuously and can be searched 

and used generally in the IPK-Genebank branch station Malchow (see Table 4). Through the 

accession number, a seed sample of the desired species and cultivar can be requested from 

the genebank branch station Malchow. 

In the near future this information will be recorded on the Internet with the support of 

ZADI/IGR, Bonn. 

Table 1. Key words of the knowledge base (main subjects recorded) 

1 susceptibility 

2 interference 

3 correlation 

4 pathogenicity (pathotypes) 

5 resistant genotypes 

6 resistance (general) 

7 assessment of resistance pests 

8 genetics of resistance 

9 character of resistance 

10 physiology of resistance 

11 resistance test 

12 resistance type (extract) 

13 resistance breeding 

14 stress 

15 resistance to vectors or pests 

16 virulence 

18 A related article has been published in German in 1997 under the title: Ein Sachspeicher zur 

Krankheitsresistenz bei ausgewählten Kulturpflanzen-Arten. Arch. Phytopath. Pflanz. 31:121-132.

Table 2. Overview of the major subjects of disease resistance recorded 

No. of literature Main subjects (see Table 1: Keywords) 

Crop plant Disease agent references 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 

Brassica napus turnip mosaic potyvirus 2 x x x 

Leptosphaeria maculans 2 x x 

Plasmodiophora brassicae 1 x 

Brassica napus var. cauliflower mosaic caulimo-virus 3 x x x x 

oleifera turnip mosaic potyvirus 4 x x x 

turnip yellows luteovirus 1 x x x 

radish mosaic virus 1 x x 

various viruses 1 x 

Albugo candida 3 x x x 

Alternaria brassicae 4 x x x x x 

Erysiphe cruciferarum 3 x x x 

Fusarium spp. 1 x 

Leptosphaeria maculans 55 x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Peronospora parasitica 3 x x x x x 

Plasmodiophora brassicae 9 x x x x x x x 

Pyrenopeziza brassicae 3 x x x x 

Rhizoctonia solani 2 x x x x x 

Sclerotinia sclerotiorum 8 x x x x x x 

Verticillium dahliae 5 x x x x x 

Dactylis glomerata barley yellow dwarf luteovirus 1 x 

cocksfoot mottle sobemovirus 6 x x x x x 

cocksfoot mild mosaic virus 1 x 

Erysiphe graminis 2 x x 

Fusarium nivale 1 x 

Puccinia graminis 5 x x x 

Puccinia striiformis f. sp. dactylidis 1 x 

Rhynchosporium orthosporum 3 x x x 

Stagonospora arenaria 5 x x x x 

Typhula ishikariensis 4 x x x x 

Typhula incarnata 

Graminelle nigrifrons 1 x 

Festuca arundinacea (Acremonium coenophialum) 2 x x 

Res_get2.doc



Puccinia coronata corda var. 

coronata 

1 x x 

Puccinia graminis ssp. graminicola 2 x x 

Rhizoctonia solani 2 x x 

Festuca pratensis Drechslera sorokiniana 1 x 

Puccinia coronata 3 x x x x x 

Festuca rubra Gaeumannomyces graminis 1 x 

Lolium perenne barley yellow dwarf luteovirus 4 x x x 

ryegrass mosaic potyvirus 7 x x x x 

Xanthomonas campestris p.v. 

graminis 

1 x 

Drechslers siccans 1 x 

Puccinia coronata 3 x x x x 

Puccinia coronata ssp. lolii 1 x 

Puccinia coronata ssp. tritici 1 x 

Puccinia graminis 1 x x 

Puccinia graminis ssp. graminicola 1 x x 

Rhizoctonia solani 1 x 

(Listronotus bonariensis) 2 x 

Medicago sativa alfalfamosaic alfamovirus 3 x x x 

Corynebacterium michiganense 

pv. insidiosum 

9 x x x x x x 

Colletotrichum destructivum 1 x 

Colletotrichum trifolii 14 x x x x x x x 

Corticum rolfsii 2 x x x 

Fusarium avenaceum 

Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. 

medicaginis 

Fusarium solani 

1 x x x x x 

Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. 

medicaginis 

22 x x x x x x x 

Leptospaerolina trifolii 2 x x x x x 

Phoma medicaginis 1 x 

Res_get2.doc



Phytophthora megasperma f. sp. 

medicaginis 

23 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Pseudopeziza medicaginis 4 x x x 

Pythium ultimum 1 x 

Sclerotinia trifoliorum 2 x x x x x x 

Stagonospora meliloti 1 x x 

Stemphylium botryosum 2 x x x x 

Uromyces striatus var. medicaginis 2 x x x x x x x 

Verticullium alba-atrum 31 x x x x x x x x x x x x 

Aphids 1 x x 

Nematodes 1 x 

Phleum pratense Cladosporium phlei 1 x 

Puccinia graminis f. sp. phleipratensis 

1 x 

Sclerotinia borealis 

Typhula ishikariensis 


Fusarium nivale 

2 x x x x 

Poa pratensis Drechslera triseptata 

Erysiphe graminis 

1 x 

Puccinia brachypodii 1 x x 

Puccinia graminis 1 x x 

Puccinia Poarum 

Puccinia striiformis 

1 x 

Sclerotinia homoeocarpa 1 x 

NO2 1 x 

Trifolium pratense bean yellow mosaic potyvirus 

bean yellow mosaic potyvirus 

5 x x x x x x 

alfalfamosaic alfamovirus 

red clover vein mosaic carlavirus 

pea top necrosis virus 

1 x x x 



1 x 

Res_get2.doc



Fusarium oxysporum 1 x x 


White clover mosaic potexvirus 1 x x 

Erysiphe gramninis 2 x 


Fusarium oxysporum 5 x x x x x x 


Fusarium roseum avenaceum 1 x x x x 

Fusarium spp. 2 x x x x 

Kabatielle caulivora 2 x x x 

Pseudopeziza trifolii 1 x 

Sclerotinia trifoliorum 8 x x x x x 

Sclerotinia sclerotiorum 1 x x 

Sclerotinia trifoliorum 

Sclerotinia minor 

Sclerotinia trifoliorum 1 x 

Erysiphe polygoni 

Stemphylium sarcinae-forme 1 x 

Uromyces trifolii var. fallens 1 x x x x 

Aphanomyces euteiches 2 x x x x x x 

Trifolium repens alfafa mosaic alfamovirus 1 x 

white clover mosaic virus 

alfalfa mosaic alfamovirus 

clover yellow vein potyvirus 2 x x 

peanut stunt cucumovirus 

peanut stunt cucumovirus 1 x 

Cymadothea trifolii 

Pseudopeziza trifolii 1 x 

Phytophthora claudestina 1 x 

Res_get2.doc

Table 3. Example of information recorded in the knowledge base: disease resistance 

Genus Species Pathogen Keyword Statement Literature 

Brassica napus var. oleifera turnip mosaic resistant several plants of cultivar 'Rafal' were Walsh, J.A. and J.A. Tomlinson. 

potyvirus 

genotypes immune; this character will be hereditary; 1985. Virus diseases of oilseed 

all tested common cultivars were 

rape. 35th Ann. Rep. 1984 

susceptible 

Nation. Veget. Res. Sta. 

Wellesbourne :92 

Medicago sativa Corynebacterium resistance Genepool MSA contained 1 dominant Viands, D.R. and D.K. Barnes. 

michiganense pv. genetic 

gene (BW1) for resistance; in absence of 1980. Inheritance of resistance 

insidiosum 

other R-genes will be classified plants of to bacteria wilt in two alfalfa 

genotype BW1 ... as resistant, plants of genepools: qualitative analysis. 

genotype BW1 ... as susceptible; MSA 

contained probable 2 further R-genes 

(BW2, BW3) with additive, but minor 

effects; MSB contained R-alleles BW2 

and BW3, but not BW1 

Crop Sci. 20:48-54 

Phleum pratense Sclerotinia borealis, resistance P. pratense is more resistant to both Matsumoto, N. and T. Sato. 1983. 

Typhula ishikariensis stress, 

pathogens and more tolerant to frost as Factors involved in the 

correlation Lolium perenne; cultivars with winter resistance of timothy and 

hardiness of P. p. are more resistant to perennial ryegrass to Sclerotinia 

both pathogens as cultivars with not so borealis and Typhula 

good winter hardiness; T. i.-resistance is ishikariensis. Res. Bull. 

increased with further growth 

Hokkaido Nat. Agric. Exp. Sta. 

136:23-30 

res_get3.doc

Table 4. Overview of resistant genotypes of different host-pathogen combinations 

Resistant genotypes 

Crop plant Pathogen 

Name (Accessions number) * 

Brassica napus turnip mosaic potyvirus Calder (CR 776), Sensation (CR 917), Vogesa, Line 165, Mocomber 

Leptosphaeria maculans 

Plasmodiophora brassicae 

Tina 

Brassica napus var. cauliflower mosaic caulimovirus no immunity 

oleifera turnip mosaic potyvirus Double Zero, Rafal (CR 870) (individual plants), Samo (CR 902) 

turnip yellows luteovirus R 54 

radish mosaic virus Jet-Neuf (CR 662), Lirama (CR 722), Licondor, Mytnitskij 2 (CR 778), Blagodatnyij, 

Salamander (CR 901) 

various viruses Erra (CR 318), Rangi (CR 873), Sv 73/15796 

Albugo candida Regent (CR 881) 

Alter brassicae CSR-142, RC-781, Tower (CR 1025) 

Erysiphe cruciferarum Eurol, Falcon, Samourai 

Fusarium spp. Korina (CR 676), Librador (CR 695), Jet-Neuf (CR 662) 

Leptosphaeria maculans 

Balko, BOH-1592, BOH 1693, Beryl (CR 180), Brink (CR 267), Crésor (CR 288), Darmor (CR 

(phoma lingam) 

294), Doral (CR 301), Doublo, Elvira (CR 311), Hungry Gap (CR 647), 

Idol (CR 241), Jet-Neuf (CR 662), Jupiter (CR 664), Juno (CR 2016), Kid (CR 671, Leo, Libritta 

(CR 698), Lipora, Lirajet (CR 719), Libravo (CR 697), MAH-1291, Mar (CR 755), OKEG 8, 

Polo, POH 285 (CR 853), Rafal (CR 870), Rapora (CR 876), R 18, R 51, Rothwell 82/3, Sinus 

(CR 921), Tamara (CR 1009), Wesro, Zollerngold (CR 955) 

Peronospora parasitica Cresor (CR 288), Synra (CR 1007) 

Plasmodiophora brassicae OAC Triton (CR 1027), SV 8525952, SV 8525953 

Rhizoctonia solani Midas- selected breeding lines (CR 775) 

Sclerotinia sclerotiorum Doral (CR 301), Girita (CR 580), Librador (CR 695), Lirana, Marian, Perle (CR 841), Seegold, 

Wilhelmsburger Sator Otofte (CR 905) 

Verticillium dahliae BOH 1582, Liradette, Norde (CR 799), NPZ Rapora (CR 876), NPZ 17674, WW 766, 3059/88, 

3581/88 

Dactylis glomerata barley yellow dwarf luteovirus 

cocksfoot mottle sobemovirus 

cocksfoot mild mosaic virus 

Aberystwyth S26 (GR 964), Cambria (GR 709), Okamidori (GR 930) 

Erysiphe graminis 


Dorisa, Welta (GR 1009) 

res_get4.doc




Puccinia graminis Klon 58-65 

Puccinia striiformis f. sp. dactylidis some breeding lines 

Rhynchosporium orthosporum 

Stagonospora arenaria 

Baraula (GR 696), Dactimo (GR 719), Dora (GR 734), Gambria, Kay (GR 852), Rosa (GR 959), 

Sylvan (GR 985) 



Graminella nigrifrons 

Dora (GR 734), Giresum, Montpellier 

Festuca arundinacea (Acremonium coenophialum) 

Puccinia coronata corda vap. 

coronata 

Puccinia graminis ssp. graminicola Melik (Sektionen), AU-Triumpf, Demeter (GR 1346), Mozark, Penno, Southern Cross 

Rhizoctonia solani Kentucky-31 (GR 1378) 

Festuca pratensis Drechslera sorokiniana Cosmos (GR 1697), Merbeem (GR 1941), Bundy (GR 1688), Belimo (GR 1680), 

Mana (GR 1937), Prefest (GR 1979) 

Puccinia coronata Bodroghalmi, Köröslodangi, Csorodai, Vadnai 

Festuca rubra Gaeumannomyces graminis var. 

avenae 

Lolium perenne barley yellow dwarf luteovirus Ellet selected breeding lines (GR 2751), Premo (GR 3115) 

ryegrass mosaic potyvirus Endura (GR 2755), Mascot (GR 3026), R1, R2, S23 (GR 3152) 

Xanthomonas graminis pv. 

graminis 

RAH 286 

Drechslera siccans Belford, Danny (GR 2730), Rally (GR 3126), Solen (GR 3172), Sommora (GR 3173), 

Variant (GR 2783) 

Puccinia coronata Lihersa (GR 2944), Limes (GR 2952), Liperry (GR 2958), Lisabelle (GR 2964) 

Puccinia coronata ssp. lolii Grasslands Niu (GR 2782), Kangoroo Valley (GR 2912, 2913) 

Puccinia coronata ssp. tritici Wimenera, Graslands Ruanui (GR 2783) 

Puccinia graminis tetraploid varieties 

Puccinia graminis ssp. graminicola Birdy II, Linn (GR 2953) 

Rhizoctonia solani 

Listronotus bonariensis 

Jorand 

Medicago sativa alfalfa mosaic alfamovirus Apica 

res_get4.doc




Corynebacterium michiganense pv. 

insidiosum 

Spredor (LE 823), Stamm 354 

Colletotrichum destructivum varieties from Ontario 

Colletotrichum trifolii Arc (LE 420), Aquarius, Hunter River (LE 561), Saranac AR, Siro Peruvian 

Corticum rolfsii Aikei No. 4, Moapa 

Fusarium avenaceum NY 9129, NY 9130 (selected breeding lines) 

Fusarium oxysporum Agate (LE 389), Moapa 69 (LE 687), Narragansett (LE 698), Voris A 77 (LE 897) 

Fusarium solani Adalfo, Apollo, Glacier (LE 549), Irognosis, Luxin (LE 610), Maris Sabilt, Prima, Ramsey (LE 779), 

Ranger (LE 781), Roamer (LE 787), Titan (LE 863), Verneul, Victoria, Björn Gibridnyi Pozdnespelyi, 

Kvarta, Ottawa, Rüttinova, Start 

Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. Algonquin (LE 402), Anchor (LE 408), Angus (LE 410), Beaver (LE 435), Cimarron, Drylander (LE 

medicaginis 

504), Derby (LE 492), Irognosis, Lada (LE 592), Luxin Sarvashi (LE 610), Maris Sabilt, NCMP 9, 

NCMP 11, NCMP 13, Nuggett (LE 709), Nutiva, OC 66, Ranger (LE 781), Saranac, Severnaja 

Gibridna (LE 808), Spredor (LE 823), Titan (LE 863), Veko (LE 885) 

Leptosphaerolina trifolii 

Phoma medicaginis 

Europe (selected breeding lines) (LE 520) 

Phytophthora megasperma f. sp. Agate (LE 389), Apollo II, Hayden, Hunter River (LE 561), Lanhontan, NAPB 0310, Nevada Synthetic 

medicaginis 

XX, Oneida (LE 717), Sequel, Trifecta, Vernal (LE 889) 

Pseudopeziza medicaginis 

Pythium ultimum 

Ci 930-75, Duke (LE 508), Ludigo (LE 604), Mavarick, Roamer (LE 787), Orchesenie (LE 721), 

Palava (LE 729), Quik, Szarvasi 4 (LE 842), Trumpetor (LE 870, Vencor (LE 882) 

Sclerotinia trifoliorum Flamanda, 5472 

Stagonospora meliloti 

Stemphylium botryosum 

UC 129 A, UC 129 B (selected breeding lines) 

Uromyces striatus var. medicaginis Pioneer 572, Valador 

Verticillium alboatrum AC Blue J, Apollo II, Barrier, Endure, Excalibur, Glacier (LE 549), Hybride de Grecy, Klon 1079, 

Maris Kabul (LE 628), Maris Phoenix (LE 629), NAPB 108, NAPB 110, Oneida (LE 717), Pioneer 

5444, Resis (LE 784), Sabilt (LE 795), Trumpetor (LE 870), Verneuil (LE 890), Vertibenda (LE 892), 

Vertus (LE 893), Vela (LE 885), VW 34-2, WL 5, WL 316 (LE 919) 

Aphids C 3 Composite 

Nematodes Nematol (LE 705) 

Phleum pratense Cladosporium phlei Heidemij (GR 3864), Kitanu, Senpoku GR 4021) 

res_get4.doc


Puccinia graminis f. sp. phlei 

pratensis 




Sclerotinia borealis 



Engmo (GR 3837) 

Poa pratensis Erysiphe graminis 

Drechslera triseptata 

Puccinia brachypodii Sydsport (GR 4568) 

Puccinia graminis Bonnieblue, Galaxy, Glade (GR 4370), Fanfare, Majestic, Nugget (GR 4498), 

Sydsport (GR 4568) 

Puccinia poarum diverse varieties 

Puccinia striiformis Geronimo 

Sclerotinia homoeocarpa Adelphi (GR 4282), Geary, Park (GR 4510), So. Dakota Certified, Ventage 

NO2 Arina 

Trifolium pratense bean yellow mosaic potyvirus 


Do 4, Fanny (LE 1401), Fox (LE 1408), Kvarta (LE 1490), R 104, Radegast (LE 1610), 

Start (LE 1673), Strugi, N1-17, SE 41, SE 44 

alfafa mosaic alfamovirus 


pea top necrosis virus 



Dollard (LE 1389), Florex (LE 1406), Kvarta (LE 1490), Napoca Tetra (LE 1536), Do-DT 1 

Fusarium oxysporum 


selected breeding lines 

white clover mosaic potexvirus selected breeding lines 



Celtic (LE 1363), Elbo (LE 1395), Daehrfeldt Prima IV, Hunsballe (LE 1490), 

Lakeland (LE 1491), Moravsky, HeraPajbjerg, Orbit (LE 1560), Øtofte III 

Fusarium oxysporum 


Bjursele (LE 1258), Kolstad, Matrai, Redquin, Renova (LE 1622), Do-5, HZ-III, HZ-IV 

Fusarium roseum avenaceum selected breeding lines 

res_get4.doc




Fusarium spp. selected breeding lines 

Kabatielle caulivora Eitan 

Pseudopeziza trifolii Elezovskij, Luzhskij, Pechorski, Tikhvinskij 

Sclerotinia sclerotiorum Albatros (LE 1236), Diper (LE 1386), Gera Paiberg, Hermes (LE 1432), Justin, Kustrask, Merkur (LE 

1514), Moskovskij (LE 1526), Noe (LE 1546), Oktjabr, Polly (LE 1589), 

Rea (LE 1614), Resistenta (LE 1624), Severodvinsky, Shultune, Stendski rannespelyj, Tamara, 

Tammisto (LE 1687), Tetri Lossum (LE 1703), Ultuna (LE 1744), Ulva (LE 1745), 

Venessa (LE 1752),HG 1102 (LE 1434), SVA 066, WWR 52 

Sclerotinia sclerotiorum 


Sclerotinia minor 

tetraploid varieties 



tetraploid varieties 

Stemphylium sarcinaeforme selected breeding lines 

Uromyces trifolii var. fallens Pl 210370 (clone) 

Aphanomyces euteiches selected breeding lines 

Trifolium repens alfafa mosaic alfamovirus 

white clover mosaic virus 

alfalfo mosaic alfamivirus 

Graslands Pitau (LE 2043), Kent Wlit White, NFG Gigant (LE 1434) 

clover yellow vein potyvirus 


SRVR-Herkünfte 


Cymadothea trifolii 

selected breeding lines 

Pseudopeziza trifolii selected breeding lines 

Phytophthora claudestino Daliak, Dinminup, Karridale, Larisa, Trikala 

*seed samples of desired species and cultivars can be requested through the accession number from the genebank branch station Malchow 

res_get4.doc

142 


Greece: Breeding for drought resistance, persistence and forage productivity 

Thomas Vaitsis 

NAGREF/ Central Greece Agricultural Research Center, Larissa, Greece 

Medicago sativa L. 

Medicago sativa (alfalfa) is the most important forage crop in Greece grown in pure stands 

under irrigation or under rain-fed conditions. Breeding alfalfa was in the first priorities of the 

research conducted by GARC/FCPI during the last 15 years. Seed samples of alfalfa 

spontaneous plants have been harvested from different regions to complete the germplasm 

collection kept in Larissa. Individual plants of alfalfa populations have been evaluated in the 

field, under rain-fed conditions. A great variability was found and the best plants were 

selected to create new populations, clones and synthetic varieties. Traditional alfalfa varieties 

and modern bred varieties, indigenous or introduced, were screened in Larissa. The best of 

them were tested in a network of experiments in more than four sites in contrasted 

environments under or without irrigation. The semidormant Greek varieties Dolichi, Hyliki, 

Hypati and Florina proved to be the most persistent and the most productive varieties under 

or without irrigation. Cheronia, a nondormant Greek variety, also proved to be a good 

producer, but only under irrigation. 

Medicago arborea L. 

Medicago arborea is a drought-resistant shrub, suitable for marginal rocky soil reclamation in 

Mediterranean dry-hot conditions. A collection of M. arborea indigenous germplasm was 

completed in recent years, which contains 38 accessions. A mass selection variety named 

Naxos has been registered to the national list of varieties and a large number of clones and 

lines have been produced by selection for drought and cold resistance, leafiness and forage 

production. 

Dactylis glomerata L., Festuca arundinacea Schreb., Lolium perenne L. 

Cocksfoot, tall fescue and ryegrass are three of the most important cool-season perennial 

grasses in natural pastures in Greece, although they are less known as crops. No Greek 

perennial grass variety was available until the last years. Foreign varieties have been proven 

to be poor producers under Greek dry-hot conditions. A project of collecting wild 

indigenous germplasm was started in 1977. Wild and bred populations were given 

preliminary evaluation under irrigated or under rain-fed conditions, as individual plants or 

in dense sowing, for heading time, drought resistance, persistence and forage production. 

Large variability was found in all characteristics within and between populations. The 

existing variability of the wild indigenous germplasm has been used in further breeding 

work, aimed at creating more productive and more persistent varieties, better adapted to 

dry-hot conditions. The productivity of Greek varieties, tested in Central Greece, was similar 

to that of foreign varieties under irrigation, while it was much higher under rain-fed 

conditions. Metsovo tall fescue and Olympion ryegrass are both suitable for use all over 

Greece under irrigation, or under rain-fed conditions in cool regions. Perrevia cocksfoot 

could be grown well under rain-fed conditions even in the dry-hot southeastern Greece.


Italy: RAPD fingerprints as a tool for characterizing the genetic background of 

lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) landraces 

V. Negri 1 , G. Barcaccia 1 , L. Russi 1 , S. Tavoletti 2 , A. Pellicoro 2 and M. Falcinelli 1 

1 

Istituto di Miglioramento Genetico Vegetale, Università degli Studi di Perugia, Italy 

2 Dipartimento di Biotecnologie Agrarie ed Ambientali, Università degli Studi di Ancona, 

Italy 

Introduction 

In Italy cultivated lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) is grown on about 1 million hectares and 

represents the most important leguminous forage crop. In 1995 the Italian National Register 

of Varieties included 107 cultivars and 14 landraces. In the same year, governmental 

regulations established that, to meet EC regulations, landraces will definitely be removed 

from the Register by the year 2002, despite their large use by farmers (70% of the seed 

market). Thus, there is a real risk of loss of adapted materials if research institutions do not 

take care of collecting and conserving this germplasm and, at the same time, evaluate it for 

agronomic traits and genomic variability. In future the improvement of lucerne will depend 

on the existence and nature of genetic diversity available for manipulation. 

The genetic diversity present in lucerne populations has been largely detected by 

isozymes (Quiros and Morgan 1981) and RFLP markers (Brummer et al. 1991; Kidwell et al. 

1994). 

This study was conducted to assess suitability of RAPD markers in detecting the genetic 

variability among and within lucerne landraces from central Italy. In a first experiment, 

genetic variability estimations were based on bulked DNA samples; in a second experiment, 

on single plant DNA samples. 


Experiment 1 

As a sample of the available germplasm present in the Marche region, 16 landraces were 

evaluated (Fig. 1). The Italian varieties 'Equipe' and 'Itaca' and the registered Italian 

landraces 'Romagnola' and 'Marchigiana' were used as controls in the RAPD analysis. 

A hundred seeds from each accession were sown in jiffy pots in February 1995 and 

plantlets were grown in the greenhouse during the spring. Apical leaves were collected from 

4-week-old plants, and total genomic DNA was isolated from six-bulked plants (using one 

leaflet per plant) following the procedures described by Edwards et al. (1991) and Barcaccia 

and Rosellini (1996). After washing with 75% ethanol and vacuum-drying, the purified DNA 

was redissolved in 1/3 X TE buffer (Sambrook et al. 1989). Spectrophotometric estimation 

(DU650 Spectrophotometer, Beckman) was used to quantify the amount of genomic DNA 

and evaluate its purity. 

Each population was represented by six bulks (on the whole, 36 plants per population): 

individual plants 1 to 6, 7 to 12, 13 to 18, 19 to 24, 25 to 30 and 31 to 36 constituted DNA 

bulks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively. 

Five 10mer nucleotide primers (P1 ATCCACTGCA; P2 GGTCGCAGGC; 

P3 CCTTGACGCA; P4 GGACCCTTAC; P5 CTCACCGTCC; Operon Technologies, Inc.) 

selected in previous investigations on the basis of their ability to find homologous binding 

sites among lucerne genomic templates (Barcaccia et al. 1994) were used to perform 

Polymerase Chain Reactions according to Barcaccia (1994). 

Banding profiles of DNA bulks were recorded by assigning a number to each 

polymorphic amplification product identified by comparing sample lanes to 100 bp DNA 

ladders. Only intense RAPD bands ranging in size from 0.3 to 2.2 kb were included in the 

analysis. Each amplification product was scored as 1 for presence and 0 for absence. The 

Genetic Similarity Estimate (GSE) was calculated in all possible pairwise comparisons

146 


In the second experiment, 21 RAPD markers (an average of seven markers per primer) 

were scored in all landraces. Markers specific to a landrace were not detected, and four 

different RAPD markers were monomorphic within a single landrace. On the whole, five 

amplification products were highly conserved among landraces, being shared by from 88.5 

to 99.7% of individuals. Most of the amplification products were highly polymorphic, 

showing presence/absence frequencies rather balanced among landraces. 

The mean GSE between pairwise comparisons of different landraces ranged from 0.688 

(L'Aquila-Casalina) to 0.769 (Grosseto-C. Pieve). 

The dendrogram from mean GSEs clustered five landraces into one distinct group 

showing a single branch point with more than 73% of genetic similarity. Within such group, 

C. Pieve, Grosseto and Gubbio on one side, and L'Aquila and Latina on the other side 

formed two different subgroups, each having more than 76% of genetic similarity (Fig. 3). 

These preliminary results seem to indicate that five out of six landraces share a large part of 

the genomic traits, while Casalina is characterized by the presence of a certain amount of 

unique germplasm. 

The results of the cluster analysis were in agreement with those from discriminant analysis, 

where the centroids were plotted according to functions 1 and 2 (Fig. 4). Using 16 out of 21 

RAPD markers scored, five discriminant functions were found, all highly significant with the 

first three functions, accounting for as much as 89% of the total variation. Function 1 

maximally separated the group Grosseto, Gubbio and C. Pieve from Latina and L'Aquila; the 

best predictors for discriminating these two groups were P5(1) and P6(5). Function 2 

maximally separated Casalina from the rest of landraces and the best predictor was P6(3). 

The mean GSEs within landraces ranged from 0.690 (Casalina) to 0.777 (Grosseto). The 

clustering of individuals belonging to Casalina highlighted also three distinct subgroups 

with a genetic similarity varying between 60% and 75% (Fig. 5). 

Discussion 

RAPD markers appear to be a useful tool for describing the genetic background of lucerne 

landraces since their use does not require prior DNA sequence information, they are not 

affected by developmental stages or environmental conditions, they are quick and cheaper 

than other molecular markers. 

In lucerne RAPD markers obtained from plant DNA bulks of several plants seemed to be 

an efficient method for quickly assaying the between-accessions variability as in experiment 

1, while the within-accession variability was better estimated by using DNA from single 

plants as in experiment 2. In fact, the bulking procedure used underestimates the level of 

within-accession genomic diversity when most amplification products are conserved and 

polymorphic fragments occur at low frequencies as in the material examined. More primers 

could be evaluated to detect other discriminant RAPD markers and increase the precision of 

the genetic variability estimates. 

Nevertheless, the use of bulked DNA samples could be used as a first approach in 

screening large germplasm collections: (a) with the purpose of identifying a core collection, 

(b) when there is urgency for regeneration and not enough resources, and (c) when suitable 

populations need to be selected for breeding programmes. 

Landraces from central Italy could be effectively used as germplasm sources in breeding 

programmes aimed at the constitution of lucerne varieties since they show dry matter yields 

significantly higher than cultivars present on the market (Russi and Falcinelli 1997; Veronesi 

et al. 1994, 1997). Choosing among landraces of similar productivity but with different 

adaptation to find the basic material with which to start the breeding programmes could be 

assisted by molecular analysis. 

The necessity of replacing landraces with improved cultivars to meet EC regulations 

jeopardizes this precious germplasm with the risk of extinction if research institutions will 

not collect and conserve such important germplasm sources.


Fig. 3. Dendrogram (UPGMA method) relative to GSEs for landraces from Tuscany, Umbria, Lazio 

and Abruzzi (exp. 2). 

Fig. 4. Centroids of six landraces from Tuscany, Umbria, Lazio and Abruzzi plotted according to the 

first two discriminant functions (exp. 2). 

Acknowledgements 

Research was supported by the Italian Ministry of Agriculture, Special Project 

"Foraggicoltura prativa" (Director Prof. P. Rotili). The authors wish to thank the colleagues of 

Ente di Sviluppo Agricolo nelle Marche, Istituto Sperimentale per le Colture Foraggere di 

Lodi and Isea Sementi for providing part of the materials utilized in the present research.


References 

Barcaccia, G. 1994. Development, comparability and potential applications of RAPD markers in the 

genus Medicago. J. Genet. Breed. 48:161-168. 

Barcaccia, G. and D. Rosellini. 1996. A quick method for the isolation of plant DNA suitable for RAPD 

analysis. J. Genet. Breed. 51:177-180. 

Barcaccia, G., S. Tavoletti, M. Pezzotti, M. Falcinelli and F. Veronesi. 1994. Fingerprinting of alfalfa 

meiotic mutants using RAPD markers. Euphytica (1-2):19-25. 

Brummer, E.C., G. Kochert and J.H. Bouton. 1991. RFLP variation in diploid and tetraploid alfalfa. 

Theor. Appl. Genet. 83:89-96. 

Dice, L.R. 1945. Measures of the amount of ecological association between species. Ecology 26:297-302. 

Edwards, K., C. Johnstone and C. Thompson. 1991. A simple and rapid method for the preparation of 

plant genomic DNA for PCR analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 19:1349. 

Kidwell, K.K., D.F. Austin and T.C. Osborn. 1994. RFLP evaluation of nine accessions representing the 

original germplasm sources of North American alfalfa cultivars. Crop Sci. 34:230-236. 

Quiros, C.F. and K. Morgan. 1981. Peroxidase and leucino-aminopeptidase in diploid Medicago species 

closely related to alfalfa: multiple gene loci, multiple allelism, and linkage. Theor. Appl. Genet. 

60:221-228. 

Rohlf, F.J. 1992. Numerical taxonomy and multivariate analysis system. Applied Biostatistics, Inc., 

New York. 

Russi, L. and M. Falcinelli. 1997. Characterization and agronomic value of Italian landraces of lucerne 

(Medicago sativa). J. Agric. Sci. 129(Part 3):267-277. 

Sambrook, J., E.F. Fritsch and T. Maniatis. 1989. Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual. 2nd edn. 

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, New York. 

Veronesi, F., M. Falcinelli, G. Barcaccia, R. Papa, S. Tavoletti and A. Pellicoro. 1997. Caratterizzazione 

di popolazioni marchigiane di erba medica mediante marcatori molecolari. Sementi Elette 43:19-24. 

Veronesi, F., M. Mariani, M. Falcinelli, L. Russi and A. Falaschini. 1994. Quality and quantity 

performance of lucerne materials in relationship to their possible use for dehidration. Pp. 197-203 

in Proceedings of the 19th Eucarpia Fodder Crop Section Meeting, 5-8 October 1994, Brugge, 

Belgium.

150 


Turkey: Evaluation of common vetch collections 


Aegean Agricultural Research Institute, Izmir, Turkey 

Abstract 

Common vetch (Vicia sativa L.) – 119 accessions – collected from different regions of Turkey 

was analyzed for 13 characters. There were significant differences among populations for all 

characters studied. Six principal components were found to express 76% of the total 

variation. Pod dimensions and seed weight per plant were the major sources of diversity. 

Main stem length, 1000-seed weight and hay yield per plant had the largest variances. 

Introduction 

Common vetch (Vicia sativa L.) is widely grown in Turkey. There are some high-yielding 

varieties, but not extensively in use. The landraces or old varieties which have some good 

characters apart from yield are still being planted in many parts of the country. Additionally, 

Turkey is the domestication centre of vetches (Harlan 1971). AARI (Aegean Agricultural 

Research Institute) is the coordination centre of countrywide plant genetic resources 

activities. As for other plant species, seeds of forages including a great number of common 

vetch accessions have been collected and maintained in the genebank. Beside conservation of 

the seeds, multiplication, regeneration and evaluation studies are conducted in coordination 

with the national forage crops breeding project. 

It has been reported that numerical techniques and methods can be effectively used to 

evaluate a certain number of populations (Veronesi and Falcinelli 1988). Some researchers 

reported that these techniques could also be applied to different plant species (Goodman 

1968; Seiler and Staffort 1985). 

The objectives of this study were to specify the characteristics of common vetch 

populations collected from different regions of Turkey, to find out the relationships among 

characters, and to classify the populations for the characters studied. 


Common vetch populations (119 accessions) collected from different regions of Turkey were 

grown at AARI in 1993, and evaluated for 13 characters. The number of accessions was 29, 

57, 11 and 22 from central, west, east and south regions, respectively (Fig. 1). Observations 

and measurements were carried out on 10 plants chosen randomly. The characters were as 

follows : 

Plant height (cm) Pod length (cm) 

Main stem length (cm) Pod width (cm) 

Number of leaves per main stem Number of seeds per pod 

Number of leaflets per leaf 1000-seed weight (g) 

Petiole length (cm) Seed weight per plant (g) 

Peduncle length (cm) Dry matter weight per plant (g) 

Morphological characters were recorded at 25% flowering stage which is the optimum 

time for herbage yield (Soya et al. 1988). Earliness was scored by dividing the populations 

into five groups according to 25% flowering stage with a scale ranging from 1 (very early) to 

5 (very late). 

Each character studied was analyzed, and statistical parameters such as mean, minimum 

and maximum values, variance and standard deviation were calculated. Relationships 

among characters were identified and populations were classified by using Principal 

Component Analysis.

Fig. 1. Distribution of common vetch collections in Turkey. 


Results and discussion 

There were significant differences among populations for all characters studied. Statistical 

parameters are presented in Table 1. The largest variances were found for main stem length 

ranging from 6.8 to 116.0 cm, for 1000-seed weight from 17.2 to 74.7 g, and for dry matter 

weight per plant from 13 to 94 g. Plant height and seed weight per plant also had a certain 

amount of variation while pod dimensions, number of leaflets per leaf and seeds per pod 

were observed as having the least variances. 

Figures 2 to 6 show frequency distributions of the characters studied. Plant height ranged 

from 28 to 60.2 cm with a mean value of 43.1 cm, whereas most populations (69%) were 

between 40 and 49 cm. Each region was represented in a similar manner for plant height 

close to the mean value (35-49 cm). There were only 10 populations (0.8%) shorter than 35 

cm, and 3 populations taller than 54 cm collected from western and central regions (Fig. 2). 

Earliness is an important trait for common vetch production in western and southern 

regions, especially in the rotation system with cotton. The percentage of early populations, 

scored as 1 or 2, was 23% of all accessions (Fig. 3), most of them belonging to the west. Late 

populations were found to occur in every regions. 

Table 1. Statistical parameters for 13 characters in common vetch populations 

Character Mean Min. Max. Variance Standard deviation 

Plant height (cm) 43.1 28.0 60.2 37.60 6.13 

Main stem length (cm) 55.7 6.8 116.0 918.55 30.30 

No. of leaves per main stem 15.3 11.4 22.5 4.37 2.09 

No. of leaflets per leaf 14.0 10.2 16.0 0.97 0.98 

Petiole length (cm) 6.2 3.4 11.1 2.84 1.68 

Peduncle length (cm) 2.9 1.8 5.3 0.52 0.72 

Earliness 3.5 1.0 5.0 1.62 1.27 

Pod length (cm) 4.8 3.1 6.3 0.21 0.46 

Pod width (cm) 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.01 0.06 

No. of seeds per pod 7.5 6.0 10.0 0.57 0.76 

1000-seed weight (g) 46.1 17.2 74.4 129.03 11.36 

Seed weight per plant (g) 16.1 1.8 40.0 57.13 7.56 

Dry matter weight per plant (g) 35.9 13.0 94.0 254.20 15.94

152 


45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

number of accessions 

25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-60 

plant height 

Fig. 2. Frequency distribution of plant height (cm). 


1 2 3 4 5 

earliness 

Fig. 3. Frequency distribution of earliness (1=very early, 5=very late). 


6 7 8 9 10 

seeds/pod 

Fig. 4. Frequency distribution of number of seeds per pod. 

south 

east 

west 

central 

south 

east 

west 

central 

south 

east 

west 

central


Eighty-five percent of populations were observed to have 7 or 8 seeds per pod 

representing every region (Fig. 4). Populations with 9 and 10 seeds per pod (9%) came from 

the west and south regions. Few populations produced fewer than 7 seeds per pod. 

The pattern of 1000-seed weight showed a normal distribution with an average value of 

46.1 g, ranging from 17.2 to 74.4 g (Fig. 5). The most prominent group of populations (40%) 

was between 40 and 49 g. 

Seed weight per plant varied between 1.8 and 40 g with an average of 16.1. Only three 

populations produced seeds greater than 30 g (Fig. 6). 

50 

45 

40 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 


10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 

1000-seed weight 

Fig. 5. Frequency distribution of 1000-seed weight (g). 


5-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 

seed weight per plant 

Fig. 6. Frequency distribution of seed weight per plant (g). 

south 

east 

west 

central 

south 

east 

west 

central 

Table 2 shows the simple correlation coefficients between the characters. Plant height 

positively correlated with main stem length, number of leaves on main stem, number of 

leaflets per leaf, peduncle length and earliness. Main stem length had a significant 

correlation with only number of leaves on main stem (r=0.64) among morphological 

characters.

Table 2. Correlation coefficients between 13 characters † in common vetch populations 

plh msl nms nll ptl pcl ear pdl pdw nsp tsw swp 

msl 0.25 ** – 

nms 0.51 *** 0.64 *** – 

nll 0.25 ** 0.14 0.34 *** – 

ptl –0.14 0.08 –0.04 –0.02 – 

pcl 0.25 ** 0.04 0.30 ** 0.23 ** 0.15 – 

ear 0.24 ** –0.11 0.09 0.12 0.49 *** 0.49 *** – 

pdl 0.06 0.11 0.09 0.25 ** –0.11 0.01 0.14 – 

pdw 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.28 ** –0.08 –0.08 –0.05 0.25 ** – 

nsp –0.21 * –0.12 –0.22 * –0.28 ** –0.12 –0.12 –0.14 –0.10 –0.29 ** – 

tsw 0.26 ** 0.47 *** 0.31 ** 0.30 ** –0.11 –0.11 –0.13 0.30 *** 0.41 *** –0.26 ** – 

swp –0.06 –0.12 –0.28 ** –0.14 –0.33 *** –0.33 *** –0.20 * 0.05 –0.02 0.08 0.28 ** – 

dwp 0.07 –0.64 *** –0.40 *** –0.07 0.15 0.15 0.17 –0.09 –0.01 –0.02 –0.43 *** 0.19 * 

† plh=plant height; msl=main stem length; nms=number of leaves on main stem; nll=number of leaflets per leaf; ptl=petiole length; pcl=peduncle length; 

ear=earliness; pdl=pod length; pdw=pod width; nsp=number of seeds per pod; tsw=1000-seed weight; swp=seed weight per plant; dwp=dry matter weight 

per plant. 

*,**,*** =Significant at P


There were negative and significant correlations between number of seeds per pod and 

number of leaves on main stem, number of leaflets per leaf, pod width and 1000-seed weight. 

The 1000-seed weight was positively influenced by most of the other characters except number 

of seeds per pod. Pod length and width had large effects on this character (r=0.30 and 0.41). 

Negative correlations between seed weight per plant and number of leaves on main stem, 

plant height, peduncle length and earliness showed that an increase in these characters 

resulted in a decrease in seed weight per plant. Early genotypes have higher seed yields than 

late ones. Dry matter weight per plant correlated highly and negatively with main stem length, 

number of leaves on main stem and 1000-seed weight. The significant and positive correlation 

coefficient between 1000-seed weight and seed weight per plant (r=0.19) indicated that the 

breeding studies should be focused on both characters to increase common vetch production. 

The variation among populations was also observed by using Principal Component 

Analysis. The first four components with Eigen values greater than 1.0 expressed 62.78% of 

total variation (Table 3). Component coefficients greater than 3.0 were taken into account as 

having a larger contribution to the total variation (Brown 1991). Negative values indicate the 

direction of relationship between the variable and component (Seiler and Stafford 1985; 

Veronesi and Falcinelli 1988). 

Table 3. Principal component coefficients for 13 characters 

Character prin 1 prin 2 prin 3 prin 4 

Plant height (cm) 0.320 0.182 0.070 0.326 

Main stem length (cm) 0.410 –0.181 –0.354 0.001 

No. of leaves per main stem 0.450 0.102 –0.231 0.124 

No. of leaflets per leaf 0.315 0.137 0.258 –0.138 

Petiole length (cm) –0.028 0.133 –0.220 –0.670 

Peduncle length (cm) 0.142 0.539 –0.045 0.043 

Earliness 0.072 0.483 0.167 0.266 

Pod length (cm) 0.199 –0.065 0.354 0.028 

Pod width (cm) 0.227 –0.118 0.372 –0.423 

No. of seeds per pod –0.245 –0.122 –0.285 0.263 

1000–seed weight (g) 0.375 –0.340 0.203 0.015 

Seed weight per plant (g) –0.125 –0.363 0.356 0.287 

Hay weight per plant (g) –0.307 0.289 0.399 –0.077 

Eigen values 3.152 2.096 1.636 1.280 

Percentage variance 24.24 16.12 12.58 9.84 

Cumulative variance 24.24 40.36 52.94 62.78 

Plant height, main stem length, number of leaves on main stem, number of leaflets per 

leaf and 1000-seed weight were the main contributors to the first principal component which 

covered 24.24% of the total variation. Component 2, accounting for 16.12% of variation, 

consisted of peduncle length and earliness in positive direction, 1000-seed weight and seed 

weight per plant in negative direction. Figure 7 shows the distribution of populations over 

the first two components. Five morphological characters together with earliness, 1000-seed 

weight and seed weight per plant were found to be major sources of variation in 

consideration with the first two components. Thirty-six populations made up a distinct 

group with a major contribution of these characters cited above. 

The third component was made of mainly generative characters – pod length, pod width, 

seed weight per plant and dry matter weight per plant – with the exception of main stem 

length, with 12.58% of variation. Only two characters – plant height and pod width – were 

the main contributors to the fourth principal component which accounted for 9.84% of total 

variation. The distribution of populations defined by the last two components is presented in 

Figure 8. Populations no. 51 and no. 100 collected from western Anatolia were quite 

different from all remaining populations. There was no clear grouping, all populations being 

scattered around the two axes.

156 


PRIN 2 

30000 

20000 

10000 

0 

-10000 

-20000 

-30000 

26,10626,76926,80626,83459,08 62,23973,33182,00 57,39284,50966,47957,481 

PRIN 1 

Fig. 7. Distribution of populations defined by principal components 1 and 2. 

PRIN 4 

30,000 

25,000 

20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

0 

1 

51 

24.96936.65837.09742.6690,75215.704-4.017-13.4618.256-6.2105.248 3.812 

PRIN 3 

Fig. 8. Distribution of populations defined by principal components 3 and 4. 

Principal component analysis together with variance analysis showed that there was a 

great amount of diversity among common vetch populations. This kind of analysis would 

help the plant breeders classify the material into groups according to the characters they are 

studying. 

References 

Brown, J.S. 1991. Principal components and cluster analysis of cotton cultivar variability across the US 

Cotton Belt. Crop Sci. 31:915–922. 

Goodman, M.M. 1968. The races of maize: II. Use of multivariate analysis of variance to measure 

morphological similarity. Crop Sci. 8:693-698. 

Harlan, J.R. 1971. Agricultural origins : Centers and noncenters. Science 174:468-474. 

Seiler, G.J. and R.E. Staffort. 1985. Factor analysis of component of yield in guar. Crop Sci. 25:905-908. 

Soya, H., A.E. Celen and M. Tosun. 1988. Kimi fig turlerinde tohumluk miktarinin ot verimi ve verim 

karakterlerine etkisi. E:Z: Derg. 25(1):195-203. 

Veronesi, F. and M. Falcinelli. 1988. Evaluation of an Italian germplasm collection of Festuca 

arundinacea Schreb. through a multivariate analysis. Euphytica 38:211-220. 

100


United Kingdom: Research at IGER on in situ conservation of botanical 

diversity in agricultural grasslands 


Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research (IGER), Aberystwyth, UK 

A number of regions within the UK have been designated Environmentally Sensitive Areas 

(ESAs). These areas have high, or at least potentially high, value for in situ conservation of 

biodiversity, which could be at risk from inappropriate management for agriculture, forestry 

and amenity usage. The aim of the UK government is to reverse environmental deterioration 

that has already occurred and to promote the continued maintenance and improvement of 

environmental quality in these areas, through the introduction of guidelines for appropriate 

management coupled with payment of subsidies to local inhabitants who agree to follow the 

guidelines. To enable these aims to be achieved, the UK Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries 

and Food (MAFF) funds several projects at IGER to develop guidelines for the restoration 

and conservation of biodiversity in situ in agricultural grasslands in ESAs. 

We are comparing the influence of a range of managements on botanical diversity in different 

types of grassland. These include varying the amount and type of fertilizer and lime applied, and 

varying the intensity and timing of grazing and cutting. Management regimes are selected that 

correspond to traditional local farming practices, intensive management and alternative lowinput 

systems. Effects are measured on productivity, species diversity and soil status. 

Different types of grassland have been shown to differ in their potential to increase in species 

diversity following the implementation of more environmentally sensitive management regimes. 

Grasslands that, through intensive management over many years, have lost diversity from the 

seed bank as well as the vegetation, cannot respond quickly to improved management. Natural 

invasion from surrounding grasslands is too slow to be acceptable under UK government plans. 

In such cases, consideration is given to artificially reintroducing species that have been 

lost. Projects in progress at IGER are determining optimal procedures for introducing seed. 

An open sward structure needs to be created at critical times to enable seedling 

establishment, whilst avoiding excessive damage to young seedlings. 

The provenance of commercially available seed for re-establishing species-rich grasslands is 

not currently controlled. We are assessing the importance of using locally provenanced seed. On 

the one hand, using seed of alien origin risks genetically contaminating local ecotypes. On the 

other hand, it has been hypothesized that such risks are minimized through a natural 

'environmental sieve', by which alien ecotypes are eliminated through being less well adapted. 

We have shown that this mechanism is not generally effective, and that significant genetic 

contamination does occur through use of commercial seed mixtures. 

Re-establishment of hedges in field margins is being promoted as a valuable component of in 

situ conservation of biodiversity within agricultural landscapes. However, it is undertaken 

mainly with commercially available hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna Jacq.) of eastern European 

origin. Locally provenanced hawthorn is either not commercially available or expensive. Our 

studies have shown major ecotypic differentiation between local races and eastern European 

ecotypes. Local races are superior in terms of adaptation to UK winters, development of a highquality 

dense hedge structure, and thorniness. They are therefore superior both in terms of 

habitat quality for wildlife, and in their effectiveness as a barrier to sheep and cattle. Discussions 

are in progress with seed companies to promote awareness of the benefits of using local races. 

Finally, there is particular concern over the genetic integrity of species that have evolved as 

dominant or subdominant components of grasslands but have now become rare, existing only as 

small isolated populations. There is a risk that the remnant populations will become too inbred. 

There is a corresponding need to address optimal habitat structure when suitable habitats are 

present only in small isolated pockets. IGER has a project to address this problem, by assessing 

geneflow between model populations of Lotus monomorphic for different isozyme marker alleles 

and sown in various spatial arrangements.

158 


Appendix I. Forage Passport Descriptors 

Based on the FAO/IPGRI Multicrop Passport Descriptors (14 Feb 97) and the main 

descriptors in the different forages databases 

FORAGE PASSPORT DESCRIPTORS 

1. Institute code (INSTCODE) 

Code of the institute where the accession is maintained. The codes consist of the 3-letter ISO 3166 

country code of the country where the institute is located plus number or an acronym as specified 

in the Institute database that will be made available by FAO. Preliminary codes (i.e. codes not yet 

incorporated in the FAO Institute database) start with an asterisk followed by a 3-letter ISO 3166 

country code and an acronym. 

2. Accession number (ACCENUMB) 

This number serves as a unique identifier for accessions and is assigned when an accession is 

entered into the collection. Once assigned this number should never be reassigned to another 

accession in the collection. Even if an accession is lost, its assigned number should never be 

reused. Letters should be used before the number to identify the genebank or national system 

(e.g. IDG indicates an accession that comes from the genebank at Bari, Italy; CGN indicates an 

accession from the genebank at Wageningen, The Netherlands; PI indicates an accession within 

the USA system). 

3. Collecting number (COLLNUMB) 

Original number assigned by the collector(s) of the sample, normally composed of the name or 

initials of the collector(s) followed by a number. This item is essential for identifying duplicates 

held in different collections. It should be unique and always accompany subsamples wherever 

they are sent. 

4. Genus (GENUS) 

Genus name for taxon. Initial uppercase letter required. 

5. Species (SPECIES) 

Specific epithet portion of the scientific name in lowercase letters plus authority. † Following 

abbreviation is allowed: “sp.” 

6. Subtaxa (SUBTAXA) 

Subtaxa can be used to store any additional taxonomic identifier plus authority. † Following 

abbreviations are allowed: “ssp.” (for subspecies); “var.” (for variety); “convar.” (for convariety); 

“f.” (for form). 

A. Collector's name (COLLNAME) 

The name of the collector. 

7. Accession name (ACCNAME) 

Either a registered or other formal designation given to the accession. First letter uppercase. 

Multiple names separated with semicolon. 

8. Country of origin (ORIGCTY) 

Name of the country in which the sample was originally collected or derived. Use the ISO 3166 

extended codes, (i.e. current and old 3 letter ISO 3166 country codes) 

9. Location of collecting site (COLLSITE) 

Location information below the country level that describes where the accession was collected 

starting with the most detailed information. Might include the distance in kilometers and 

direction from the nearest town, village or map grid reference point, (e.g. CURITIBA 7S, PARANA 

means 7 km south of Curitiba in the state of Parana) 

10. Latitude of collecting site (LATITUDE) 

Degrees and minutes followed by N (North) or S (South) (e.g. 1030S). Missing data (minutes) 

should be indicated with hyphen (e.g. 10—S). 

11. Longitude of collecting site (LONGITUDE) 

Degrees and minutes followed by E (East) or W (West) (e.g. 07625W). Missing data (minutes) 

should be indicated with hyphen (e.g. 076—W). 

† Authority is only provided at the most detailed taxonomic level.

APPENDIX I 159 

12. Elevation of collecting site (ELEVATION) 

[in meters above sea level] 

13. Collecting date of original sample [YYYYMMDD] (COLLDATE) 

Collecting date of the original sample where YYYY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the 

day. 

14. Status of sample (SAMPSTAT) 

1 Wild 

– 1A Natural ecotype 

0 Unknown 

– 1B Semi-natural ecotype 99 Other (Elaborate in 'Remarks' field) 

2 Weedy 

3 Traditional cultivar/Landrace 

4 Breeders' line 

5 Advanced cultivar 

15. Collecting source (COLLSRC) 

The coding scheme proposed can be used at 2 different levels of detail: Either by using the global 

codes such as 1, 2, 3, 4 or by using the more detailed coding such as 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 etc. 

1 Wild habitat 2 Farm 3 Market 

4 Institute/ Research 

1.1 Forest/ 2.1 Field 3.1 Town 

organization 

woodland 2.2 Orchard 3.2 Village 

1.2 Shrubland 2.3 Garden 3.3 Urban 

0 Unknown 

1.3 Grassland 2.4 Fallow 3.4 Other exchange 

1.4 Desert/ 2.5 Pasture system 

99 Other (Elaborate in 

tundra 2.6 Store 

'Remarks' field) 

16. Donor institute code (DONORCODE) 

Code for the donor institute. The codes consist of the 3-letter ISO 3166 country code of the country 

where the institute is located plus number or an acronym as specified in the Institute database that 

will be made available by FAO. Preliminary codes (i.e. codes not yet incorporated in the FAO 

Institute database) start with an asterisk followed by a 3-letter ISO 3166 country code and an 

acronym. 

17. Donor number (DONORNUMB) 

Number assigned to an accession by the donor. Letters should be used before the number to 

identify the genebank or national system (e.g. IDG indicates an accession that comes from the 

genebank at Bari, Italy; CGN indicates an accession from the genebank at Wageningen, The 

Netherlands; PI indicates an accession within the USA system) 

18. Other number(s) associated with the accession (OTHERNUMB) 

Any other identification number known to exist in other collections for this accession. Letters 

should be used before the number to identify the genebank or national system (e.g. IDG indicates 

an accession that comes from the genebank at Bari, Italy; CGN indicates an accession from the 

genebank at Wageningen, The Netherlands; PI indicates an accession within the USA system). 

Multiple numbers can be added and should be separated with a semicolon 

B. Breeding institute (BREEDINST) 

Code for the breeding institute. The codes consist of 3-letter ISO country code plus number or 

an acronym as specified in the Institute database that will be made available by FAO. Preliminary 

codes (i.e. codes not yet incorporated in the FAO Institute database) start with an asterisk 

followed by a 3-letter ISO country code and an acronym. 

C. Breeding method (BREEDMET) 

If more than one breeding method, enter in the order of breeding development and separate with 

a semicolon. 

1 intrapopulation selection 

2 mass selection (interpopulation selection) 

3 pair cross 

4 polycross 

5 backcross 

6 polyploidization 

7 mutation 

99 Other, specify in 'Remarks'

160 


D. General habitat (GENHABIT) 

1 forest deciduous 8 moorland 

2 forest evergreen 9 heath 

3 forest mixed 10 arable 

4 scrub 11 wasteland 

5 parkland 12 macchia 

6 orchard 99 Other, specify in descriptor 'Remarks' 

7 grassland 

E. Specific habitat (SPECHABIT) 

1 hedgerow 

2 clearing 

3 path 

4 alongside water, i.e. river, lake, etc. 

5 alongside building 

6 alongside path, road, track, etc. 

99 Other, specify in descriptor 'Remarks' 

F. Grassland habitat (GRAHABIT) 

1 abandoned 

2 grazed only 

3 conservation only 

4 mainly grazed 

5 mainly conservation 

6 zero grazed 

7 lawn 

8 sports turf 

99 Other specify in descriptor 'Remarks' 

G. Aspect (ASPECT) 

S = south, SW = southwest, SE = southeast, etc. 

H. Slope (SLOPE) 

(degrees) 

I. Physiography of site (SITEPHYS) 

1 plain 

2 valley bottom 

3 valley slope 

4 terrace 

5 summit 

99 Other, specify in descriptor 'Remarks' 

J. Seed availability (SEEDAVAIL) 

0 Not available 

1 Available 

K. European forage collection (EFC) 

0 No 

1 Yes 

L. Holder of Primary Collection (PRIMCOLL) 

Code for the institute holding the primary collection of the accession. The codes consist of 

3-letter ISO country code plus number or an acronym as specified in the Institute database that 

will be made available by FAO. Preliminary codes (i.e. codes not yet incorporated in the FAO 

Institute database) start with an asterisk followed by a 3-letter ISO country code and an acronym. 

19. Remarks (REMARKS) 

The remarks field is used to add notes or to elaborate on descriptors with value “99” (=Other). 

Prefix remarks with the field name they refer to and a colon (e.g. COLLSRC: roadside). Separate 

remarks referring to different fields are separated by semicolons.

APPENDIX I 161 

FAO WIEWS DESCRIPTORS 

1. Location of safety-duplicates (DUPLSITE) 

Code of the institute where a safety-duplicate of the accession is maintained. The codes consist of 

3-letter ISO 3166 country code of the country where the institute is located plus number or an 

acronym as specified in the Institute database that will be made available by FAO. Preliminary 

codes (i.e. codes not yet incorporated in the FAO Institute database) start with an asterisk 

followed by a 3-letter ISO 3166 country code and an acronym. Multiple numbers can be added 

and should be separated with a semicolon. 

M. Date of safety-duplication (YYYYMMDD) (DUPDATE) 

Date of safety-duplication, where YYYY is the year, MM is the month and DD is the day. 

2. Availability of passport data (PASSAVAIL) 

(i.e. in addition to what has been provided) 


1 Available 

3. Availability of characterization data (CHARAVAIL) 


1 Available 

4. Availability of evaluation data (EVALAVAIL) 


1 Available 

5. Acquisition type of the accession (ACQTYPE) 

1 Collected/bred originally by the institute 

2 Collected/bred originally by joint mission/institution 

3 Received as a secondary repository 

6. Type of storage (STORTYPE) 

Maintenance type of germplasm. If germplasm is maintained under different types of storage, 

multiple choices are allowed, separated by a semicolon (e.g. 2;3). (Refer to FAO/IPGRI Genebank 

Standards 1994 for details on storage type) 

1 Short-term 99 Other (elaborate in 'Remarks' field) 

2 Medium-term 

3 Long-term 

4 In vitro collection 

5 Field genebank collection 

6 Cryopreserved

162 


Appendix II. Towards a protocol for designating primary holders of 

accessions 


Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth, 

Ceredigion SY23 3EB, UK 

Background 

The identification of historically unique accessions has attracted considerable interest but 

presents major technical difficulties (Knüpffer 1989; van Hintum and Knüpffer 1995; Willner 

et al., this volume). Subsequent identification of historically duplicate but biologically 

unique accessions presents still further difficulties, especially for accessions of forage species 

whose genetic composition shows marked changes during regeneration. A major research 

programme would be required to undertake this for each species. For most species, and 

especially for temperate forages, it is likely not to be cost-effective in terms of the investment 

of time and resources relative to the gains to be achieved; moreover, progress in definitively 

identifying unique accessions cannot be made sufficiently rapidly to achieve the aims of the 

European Forage Collection programme. 

This article suggests an alternative that is considerably easier, is cost-effective and 

achievable with data in the full ECCDBs (European Central Crop DataBases). It is 

acknowledged that it may be regarded as conceptually unsatisfactory, since it relies on 

common donor numbers for detecting duplicates, which can be misleading (see Willner et al., 

p. 92). It is presented as an economical and rapid solution for improving the organization of 

genebank collections, not as a definitive means of rationalizing them. 

ECCDB managers will be the primary implementors of the protocol, but will need to liaise 

with relevant genebank curators. 

Full resolution of the issues discussed here is beyond the competence of this workshop: 

this article seeks primarily to suggest a procedure to enable the ECCDB managers to provide 

relevant information. For ease of reference the suggestions are presented as a practical 

protocol. However it should not be regarded as a definitive protocol until more widely 

discussed, revised and approved. 

Objective 

The objective is to facilitate the development of the European Forage Collection by providing 

ECCDB managers with a method for (a) selecting member genebanks of the ECP/GR to be 

recommended as the primary holder of accessions held in the European Forage Collection 

and (b) identifying the possible need for repatriation. 

It is proposed to evaluate the protocol empirically by applying it to the Lolium ECCDB for 

accessions held at IGER. 

Principles 

According to the Convention on Biological Diversity, each country owns and is responsible 

for its own biodiversity. Following this principle, the primary holder of each collected 

accession should normally be a genebank in the country of origin of the accession, provided 

that that genebank has the facilities and capacity to meet the terms of the European Forage 

Collection. Notwithstanding this, and recognizing that (a) designating a genebank as 

primary holder of an accession only concerns curatorship and implies nothing about 

ownership, and (b) maintenance of genetic integrity is of paramount importance, choice of 

primary holder should not be constrained by questions of ownership. The primary holder 

must be able to guarantee storage and regeneration conditions that optimize maintenance of 

genetic integrity regardless of the origin of the accession. As such, repatriation of a sample of

APPENDIX II 163 

seed will always be recommended if it has been lost from all genebanks in the country of 

origin, but this will not necessarily be associated with repatriation of responsibility. 

A genebank will in most cases be designated primary holder of accessions it has collected 

but not of accessions donated to it. Exceptions include: 

• it will not be primary holder if repatriation of seed with associated repatriation of 

responsibility is recommended 

• it will not be primary holder if another genebank that collaborated in the same 

collecting expedition is to be sole primary holder 

• it will be primary holder of seed that was donated to it with explicit or implicit transfer 

of responsibility for maintenance. 

Method 

The ECCDB manager must first distinguish between accessions collected by a genebank and 

accessions donated to a genebank. This is done using the Source passport descriptor 

introduced in the revised Forage Passport Descriptors List (see Appendix I). 19 An accession 

with no value in this field will not be assigned a primary holder. 

Collected accessions 

It is assumed that all collecting expeditions conform with the Convention on Biological 

Diversity and the International Undertaking. In particular, all collecting expeditions include 

at least one participant from the country in which the expedition is undertaken, and that 

visiting collectors agree to repatriate samples of seed on request. A collecting expedition 

undertaken without collaboration may only take place in the collector's own country. 

Step 1: identifying “duplicate” collections 

For all accessions where Source = collected by holding genebank, the ECCDB manager 

should seek duplicated data in the Collecting Number field. The search for duplicates 

should be based on the parsed components of the data, i.e. separated into groups of letters 

and numbers with the punctuation marks (space, colon, full stop, etc.) eliminated. This 

improves detection of accessions with duplicate collecting number even when entered with 

inconsistent data formats (e.g. with or without a space, colon, full stop, etc. between 

collectors' initials and number, with or without full stops after each initial, upper or lower 

case letters, etc.). 

It should be emphasized that this does not reliably identify historically duplicate, let alone 

biologically duplicate, accessions. The approach can be misleading if regarded as identifying 

duplicates, and is used here only as an easy, fast method of preliminarily identifying 

potential duplicates. 

Step 2: identifying the need for repatriation 

In all cases, the ECCDB manager should determine whether there is a need to consider 

repatriation, which occurs in the following situation: 

• none of the genebanks holding accessions with duplicate Collecting Number is in the 

country of origin of the accession (i.e. first three letters of Institute Code do not 

19 

The approval of this document would require the inclusion of an additional descriptor to the 

Forages Passport Descriptors List (Appendix I): 

Field name: Source 

Valid field values: 1=Collected by holding genebank; 2=Donated with transfer of responsibility; 

3=Donated without transfer of responsibility; 4= Donated with unknown transfer of responsibility. 

(In the case of a genebank that is also a breeding institute, varieties, selections, hybrids, etc. bred by 

the genebank itself could be recorded as an ”internal” donation, as category 2= Donated with 

transfer of responsibility. We could consider a separate category for such internal donations. 

However, since the implications for primary holdership are identical to category 2, there is no need 

for a separate category.)

164 


correspond to Country of Origin for all accessions sharing the same Collecting 

Number) (N.B. Include check for data validity: all accessions sharing the same 

Collecting Number should also share the same Country of Origin and identical other 

passport data on the original collection), and 

• the country of origin is an ECP/GR member. 

In this situation, the ECCDB manager will contact the genebank in the country of origin 

with a view to recommending repatriation of the accession. 

Step 3: designating primary holder 

Step 3a: primary holder of repatriated accession 

By mutual agreement between the holding genebanks and the genebank to which the 

accession is repatriated, one of the following options will be chosen: 

1. The genebank receiving the repatriated accession is designated primary holder. This is 

generally the preferred ultimate option, but only if the genebank is able to maintain 

genetic integrity to at least the standard achieved by the holding genebank. 

2. The original holding genebank (or genebanks if more than one) is designated primary 

holder, in accordance with the guidelines below. This will be preferred if the holding 

genebank can regenerate to a higher standard. 

3. The genebank receiving the repatriated accession is designated “ultimate” primary 

holder, but is unable to assume this responsibility immediately. The original holding 

genebank is designated temporary primary holder as an interim measure. This option 

is likely to be the most common, since: 

• the receiving genebank will not be able to distribute the accession until enough 

seed has been regenerated 

• even after it has enough seed to distribute, genetic integrity of the sample held by 

the receiving institute is likely to be worse than the sample at the original institute. 

Thus, the donor of the repatriated material will remain primary holder at least until the 

repatriated material becomes available for distribution, and probably until the donor runs 

out of material and also needs to regenerate. 

Step 3b: primary holder of “unique” accession without repatriation 

(N.B. again it is emphasized that “unique” is merely an abbreviation for an accession without 

duplicate collecting numbers: this does not imply it is actually unique, either historically or 

biologically.) 

If repatriation of both seed and responsibility is not appropriate and duplicate collecting 

numbers are not found, the genebank holding the accession is designated primary holder. 

This will occur under the following conditions: 

1. The original collecting expedition was undertaken by the genebank without 

collaboration. 

2. The original collecting expedition was undertaken in collaboration with at least one 

other organization, but: 

• through failure to enter relevant passport data, or through errors in data entry, or 

through entering data in incompatible formats, or through following different 

standards for translation or transliteration, or through failure to provide the 

ECCDB manager with all relevant data, the search for duplicate collecting numbers 

fails to detect historically duplicate collections 

• none of the other collaborators is a genebank participating in the ECP/GR 

• all collaborating genebanks that do participate in the ECP/GR have lost their 

sample of the accession from their collection.

APPENDIX II 165 

Step 3c: primary holder of duplicate accession without repatriation 

If accessions with duplicate collecting numbers are found, the ECCDB manager must 

determine which, if any, are original duplicates collected by other genebanks collaborating in 

a joint collecting expedition. This is the case where accessions with duplicate collecting 

numbers also have Source=collected by holding genebank. If there are no such collaborating 

genebanks, the sole genebank holding the accession with Source=collected by holding 

genebank will be designated primary holder unless repatriation is to be recommended. 

If two or more collaborating genebanks do hold original samples of accessions with 

duplicate Collection Number and Source=collected by holding genebank, the ECCDB 

manager may provisionally recommend one of them to be designated primary holder (unless 

repatriation is recommended). Recommending all original collecting genebanks jointly as 

primary holders may also be considered an option. Final designation is subject to mutual 

agreement between the collaborators and the ECCDB manager. 

Accessions that have duplicate Collecting Number but Source is different from 

"collected by holding genebank" are accepted as having been derived by donation from the 

original accession. The agreed primary holder of the original collection will be entered as the 

primary holder of all such donated accessions with duplicate collecting numbers. 

Donated accessions 

All accessions where Source is different from "collected by holding genebank" are considered 

to have been donated. Varieties, hybrids, selections and other breeders' lines created by 

a “breeding genebank” are recorded as donations to the genebank, even if this involves no 

physical donation of seed but only a logical internal donation from breeder to genebank. 

The previous section deals with donated accessions that share a duplicate Collection 

Number with original collections, and so that have been assigned a primary holder. This 

section deals with donated accessions that have not been sourced to an original collection. 

For these accessions, the ECCDB manager must distinguish between varieties and other 

accessions. 

Step 4: donated varieties 

For varieties, the ECCDB manager should conduct a simple search for historical duplicates 

using only the Accession Name passport data field. The search should not involve detailed 

inspection and correction of similar names, where differences have arisen through errors of 

transcription, transliteration, translation, etc. Accessions should be regarded as duplicate 

varieties if parsed components of the accession name are identical. For each distinct name, 

the ECCDB manager should inspect the origin(s) of accessions with that name. If there 

appears to be a single origin for accessions sharing the same name, the ECCDB should 

suggest a primary holder based on that origin. If there appears to be more than one distinct 

origin for accessions sharing the same name, the ECCDB should suggest a primary holder for 

each group. 

Step 5: other donated accessions 

For all other types of accession, the ECCDB must distinguish between donations made with 

or without associated transfer of responsibility. This is achieved by reference to the Source 

passport descriptor introduced into the revised Forage Passport Descriptors List. 

For accessions where Source=donated with responsibility, the genebank will be 

designated primary holder. 

For accessions where Source=donated without responsibility, the genebank will not be 

designated primary holder. No attempt will be made to search for duplicates, so the 

accessions will not be linked to any primary holder. 

For accessions where Source=donated with unknown responsibility, transfer of 

responsibility is assumed in the following situations:

166 


1. The donor is a breeder or other scientist, as identified by (a) a non-missing entry for the 

Breeding Institute passport data field, or (b) a Donor Institute Code that refers to an 

institute that has no genebank. It is assumed that the donation was made by a breeder 

or other scientist specifically because the genebank provides facilities for guaranteed 

long-term conservation. 

2. The Donor Institute Code refers to an institute with a genebank that (a) does not 

participate in the ECP/GR, or (b) that no longer exists. IPGRI will provide a list of 

recognized current genebanks participating in the ECP/GR. 

For all accessions not meeting the above conditions, the genebank is not designated 

primary holder. 

Discussion and implications 

The above protocol will leave many accessions having no primary holder. Their historical 

uniqueness will be unknown. ECCDB managers may conduct a more elaborate search for 

potential historical duplicates, but this is not recommended as a priority activity. 

Moreover, given the population characteristics of most temperate forage species, each 

sample of a wild population or primitive variety is likely to be biologically unique because of 

genetic changes associated with each regeneration and each donation. This applies both to 

accessions with no designated primary holder, and to accessions where the holder is not the 

primary holder. It will be particularly true for genebanks that do not follow the highest 

possible regeneration standards. As such, extreme caution is urged in relation to 

rationalizing collections based on primary holdings. In particular, no attempt should be 

made to eliminate an accession from a collection on the basis that it has not been assigned a 

primary holder. 

Rather, the identification of a primary holder should be used as a means of prioritizing 

characterization, evaluation, regeneration and distribution. A genebank should assign top 

priority to its accessions for which it has been designated primary holder. It should assign 

lowest priority to those for which another genebank has been designated primary holder, 

and will normally refer requests for seed of such accessions to the primary holder unless 

there is a particular need for seed from its own sample. It should assign intermediate priority 

to those with unassigned primary holder. We envisage that the primary holder will be the 

normal supplier for most external users (breeders and other scientists), whilst usage of other 

seed samples will be restricted mainly to genebank research. 

Finally, special consideration must be given to genebanks outside Europe. Since the 

competence of ECP/GR is restricted to Europe, non-European genebanks cannot be 

considered candidates for designation as primary holder. This is reflected in the protocol 

proposed above. To include non-European genebanks as primary holders would require 

extension of discussion to a global scale. 

However, as an interim measure that is within the competence of ECP/GR, the proposals 

presented here could be extended to include a second designation for a “primary holder 

without responsibility”. If the country of origin is outside Europe, it may be possible to 

identify a genebank in the country of origin that may hold a sample of the accession. That 

genebank would then be identified as “primary holder without responsibility”. This would 

not exclude the possibility of that genebank being identified as the primary holder (with 

responsibility), but that is a matter for agreement with the genebank concerned outside the 

limits of ECP/GR. 

References 

Knüpffer, H. 1989. Identification of duplicates in the European Barley database. Pp. 22-43 in Report of 

a Working Group on Barley (Third meeting). European Cooperative Programme for the 

Conservation and Exchange of Crop Genetic Resources. IBPGR, Rome. 

van Hintum, Th.J.L. and H. Knüpffer. 1995. Duplication within and between germplasm collections. 1. 

Identification of duplication on the basis of passport data. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 42:127-133.

APPENDIX III 167 

Appendix III. Guidelines for the regeneration of accessions in 

seed collections of the main perennial forage grasses and 

legumes of temperate grasslands 

N.R. Sackville Hamilton, K.H. Chorlton and I.D. Thomas 

Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research, Plas Gogerddan, Aberystwyth, 

Ceredigion SY23 3EB, UK 

Contents 

1. Introduction 168 

2. Background and assumptions 168 

2.1 Taxonomic scope and characteristics 168 

2.2 Types of collection 169 

2.3 Units of seed usage 169 

2.4 Targets for seed production during regeneration 170 

3. Regeneration protocol 170 

3.1 Selection of location for regeneration 170 

3.2 Selection of accessions 173 

3.3 Selection of parental material 179 

3.4 Preparation of regeneration plots 182 

3.5 Preparation of seed 182 

3.6 Crop management 183 

3.6.1 Before anthesis 183 

3.6.2 During anthesis 183 

3.6.3 After anthesis 184 

3.7 Harvesting and post-harvest management 184 

3.7.1 General procedures 184 

3.7.2 Harvesting 185 

3.7.3 Initial drying 185 

3.7.4 Threshing and cleaning 185 

3.7.5 Final drying 186 

3.7.6 Initial viability testing 186 

3.7.7 Seed packaging and storage 186 

3.8 Information management 186 

4. References 187

168 


1. Introduction 

“Timely regeneration must be a priority activity of all genebanks” (FAO 1996). The optimal 

protocol for regeneration depends on numerous factors, including breeding system and 

seed storage characteristics of the species concerned, the condition and genetic 

composition of the original sample, its expected usage and its perceived value within the 

collection, and operational constraints on genebank activities, such as funds, labour and 

equipment. It is therefore not possible to lay out a single uniquely optimal protocol. Rather, 

genebank-specific and even accession-specific decisions have to be made to establish the 

optimal protocol. In many cases there is not sufficient knowledge on which to determine 

the optimal solution; it is then necessary to make some pragmatic choices in the short term 

while undertaking research to enable further improvements in the long term. 

A generalized decision guide (Sackville Hamilton and Chorlton 1997) provides help in 

the decision-making process. However, the choices are complex and multifaceted. It is 

necessary to progress beyond a general decision guide by providing more specific, 

prescriptive regeneration guidelines for particular species. This will improve conformity 

among genebanks by eliminating some of the need for decision-making by individual 

curators. 

This document provides such prescriptive guidelines for the main perennial forage 

grasses and legumes of temperate grasslands. It is based on the principles presented in 

Sackville Hamilton and Chorlton (1997), which should be referred to for detailed 

discussion of the issues underlying the decisions presented here. 

2. Background and assumptions 

2.1 Taxonomic scope and characteristics 

No attempt is made in these guidelines to cover all forage species, because they encompass 

too wide a range of life cycle characteristics. Taxa covered include those with the following 

characteristics: 

1. Seed are small and sown at high density (typically about 400/m 2 for dominant grasses, 

to 40/m 2 for legumes and other minority components of seed mixtures). The resulting 

need for large numbers of seed generally rules out manual pollination as a tool for 

improving maintenance of genetic integrity. 

2. Seed are long-lived, with good long-term survival in storage and with relatively wellknown 

storage, dormancy and germination requirements. Seed survival characteristics 

have not been quantitatively determined as they have for some other species; 

nevertheless it is clear qualitatively that they are “easy” species for storage. IPGRIpreferred 

standards for storage and viability are therefore appropriate, there is a high 

degree of certainty over decisions, and relatively low priority attaches to additional 

research to improve knowledge of seed characteristics. 

3. The species are self-incompatible outbreeders, so that 

a) each accession must be maintained as an interbreeding population 

b) there is a high risk of contamination with alien pollen if appropriate control 

measures are not taken 

c) genetic variation within populations is high. 

4. The species are perennial, able to propagate vegetatively and with an indeterminate 

growth habit. Therefore there is potentially extremely high variation in fecundity 

between plants – some plants may produce zero seed, while the majority of the seed 

produced by a population may be produced by a small proportion of the plants in the 

population. The combination of this high variance in fecundity with high genetic 

variance within populations results in an exceptionally high potential for genetic


change during regeneration, even where contamination with alien genes is totally 

excluded. 

5. Many of the species are native and naturally common in the areas where they are most 

used agriculturally. Sown populations readily become feral, persisting as naturalized 

populations, spreading out from their original location and introgressing with native 

populations. Native and naturalized populations may be abundant in paths, verges, 

fallow land, in the weed flora around experimental plots, and the seed bank in the soil. 

As such, wherever the species are used commercially or experimentally, there is a high 

risk of contamination with alien plants, seed or pollen from natural and naturalized 

populations. 

In summary, the species covered by these guidelines present no particular problem in 

terms of seed storage, but in terms of the maintenance of genetic integrity they are 

probably the most difficult of all crop groups. The guidelines reflect this by attaching 

exceptionally high priority to limiting the loss of genetic integrity. Pending further research 

on alternative methodologies for the improved maintenance of genetic integrity, the 

guidelines are subject to future revision. 

Both wind-pollinated (grasses) and insect-pollinated (legumes) species are covered. 

These require different protocols for pollination and the prevention of contamination with 

alien pollen, but otherwise are similar. 

Categories of grassland species not covered by these guidelines include: 

• inbreeders (mainly the annual species) 

• apomicts (such as some Poa spp. and many tropical grasses) 

• medium- to large-seeded species (including many tropical legumes) 

• those with poorly known seed characteristics (including many nonagricultural 

species). 

2.2 Types of collection 

The following is assumed in relation to storage conditions: 

1. Accessions are maintained in an active collection optimized for utilization rather than 

conservation, and maintained at 0 to 4ºC with 3-7% seed moisture content. 

2. A sample of every accession is also held in a base collection maintained for 

conservation, under optimal conditions for long-term storage (“-18ºC or cooler with 

3-7% seed moisture content”: FAO/IPGRI Genebank Standards 1994) and with genetic 

integrity as far as possible intact. Seed in the base collection is not used for distribution. 

The preferred standard for regeneration purposes is to maintain the base collection at 

the same site as the active. It is acceptable to maintain the base collection at a distant 

site, although this makes it more difficult to achieve the preferred standard that all 

samples should usually be regenerated from the base collection (FAO/IPGRI Genebank 

standards 1994; see also section 3.3). 

3. A duplicate sample of every accession is maintained in a safety-duplicate collection, 

also held under optimal conditions but at a distant site from the base collection. Seed in 

the safety-duplicate collection is not used for any purpose other than replacing 

accessions that have been accidentally lost from the base collection. 

2.3 Units of seed usage 

Definition of the fundamental units of seed usage is prerequisite to efficient genebank 

operation. The three fundamental units are as follows: 

1. The distribution unit is the mean number of seed distributed with each request. This 

mean number may be varied in accordance with users’ requirements and seed 

availability. Preferred standard: mean 250 seeds; range 10-5000 seeds.

170 


2. The test unit is the number of seed required to test seed quality and viability. 

Preferred standard: 100 seeds. 

3. The base unit for regeneration is the number of seed needed to ensure the successful 

regeneration of a representative sample of the original accession, with genetic integrity 

maintained as far as possible intact and of sufficient size to meet future demands. The 

size of the base unit must make full allowance for all possible seed losses during 

regeneration and storage. Table 1 presents calculations for the preferred and acceptable 

base unit size. 

2.4 Targets for seed production during regeneration 

i. Seed quality 

New seed produced for storage should as far as possible be free of any pathogen or pest, 

especially of storage pests and seedborne pathogens, and have ≥ 95% germination rate. 

ii. Seed quantity 

The target number of seed to be produced depends on whether the regeneration is for the 

active, base and/or safety-duplicate collections. Targets for number of seed to be stored in 

the active and base collection are given in Table 2. The target for storage in the safetyduplicate 

collection is one base unit, i.e. 800 seed preferred, 240 acceptable (Table 1). 

iii. Genetic integrity 

Genetic integrity deteriorates through two principal routes: (a) contamination with alien 

genes, and (b) other changes in genotypic composition that occur by random drift and by 

nonrandom selection even in the absence of contamination by alien genes. Standards for 

the former are given in Table 3. 

Zero change in genotypic composition by drift or selection is not an achievable target. 

However, it is considered inappropriate to set quantitative targets. We merely set the 

qualitative target of minimizing changes as far as feasible within the constraints of 

available funding and infrastructure. 

As outbreeders, each accession typically contains high levels of genetic variation among 

its component plants for many characteristics. Moreover, as perennials with the ability to 

propagate vegetatively and with an indeterminate growth habit, there is potentially 

extremely high variation in fecundity between plants. At one extreme, some plants may 

allocate all resources to vegetative propagation and so produce zero seed. At the other 

extreme, because of the indeterminate growth habit, some plants may attain a large size 

and then produce a large number of inflorescences. Typically, most of the seed produced 

by a population is therefore derived from a small proportion of the plants in the 

population, while most plants contribute little or nothing. As a result, the potential for 

degradation of genetic integrity through both drift and selection is exceptionally high in 

these species. Exceptionally high priority is therefore attached to measures that reduce 

such changes. 

3. Regeneration protocol 

The regeneration protocol outlined here highlights aspects, such as the need for uniformity 

and absolute cleanliness, that are of particular importance to regeneration and that 

therefore will not feature in agronomy texts. It is assumed that the genebank has 

background knowledge of general agronomic requirements of the species. 

3.1 Selection of location for regeneration 

The location selected for regeneration should have the characteristics outlined in Table 4.


Quarantine regulations may also influence the choice of location for regenerating seed 

from newly imported seed or plants. It may be necessary or preferable to regenerate within 

quarantine facilities.

172 


Table 1. Preferred and acceptable sizes of a base unit 

Preferred standard Acceptable standard 

Number of parent plants to be used for 

regeneration 

100 plants 30 plants † 

Safety factors, guarding against: 

Germination rate < 100% 

2 

2 

Probability of crop failure > 0% 2 

2 

Other seed losses > 0% 

2 

2 

Total base unit size 800 seeds 240 seeds 

† 

The figure of 30 should be used with caution. It is lower than usually regarded as acceptable. In part it 

reflects the higher priority attached here to minimizing selection and contamination than to minimizing 

drift, and the resulting need for increased effort per parent plant. It is most acceptable for small original 

samples (e.g. of material collected vegetatively from pasture). It is not acceptable unless the protocol 

adopts preferred standards in relation to other measures for minimizing selection and contamination, 

such as regenerating inside isolation chambers. If these other preferred standards are not met, the 

acceptable standard should be increased to 50 plants. 

Table 2. Preferred and acceptable targets for the number of seeds to be stored 

(a) in the active collection 

Preferred Acceptable 

Use Basis of calculation 

standard standard 

Viability monitoring Expected number of tests 5 3 

• test unit size 100 100 

= number of seed required 500 300 

Regeneration 0 if regenerating from base 

1 base unit if regenerating from active 

0 240 

Seed distribution Expected number of requests † 

10 5 

• uncertainty factor ‡ 

5 3 

• distribution unit size 250 100 

= number of seed required 12,500 1,500 

Target number of seeds for storage in active collection after 

regeneration 

13,000 2,040 

(b) in the base collection 

Preferred Minimum 

Use Basis of calculation standard standard 

Viability monitoring Expected number of tests 20 5 

• test unit size 100 100 

Regeneration 

= number of seed required 2,000 500 

Replenishment of stocks in 

base collection 

1 base unit 800 240 


safety-duplicate collection 

1 base unit 800 240 


active collection 

Expected number of times 5 § 

1 

• uncertainty factor ‡ 

4 4 

• base unit size 800 240 

= number of seed required 16,000 960 

Target number of seeds for storage in base collection after 

regeneration 

19,600 1,940 

† 

Standards cannot be set for expected number of requests: determining appropriate values for any 

genebank is the sole responsibility of the curator. However, it is necessary to enter values here in order


to establish appropriate values for target seed quantities. The values entered are intended to represent 

approximate figures in the range likely to be adopted by most genebanks. 

‡ 

The uncertainty factor is a factor allowing for uncertainty of usage of seed in relation to the relative 

costs of producing more or fewer seed than are actually used. See Sackville Hamilton and Chorlton 

(1997). 

§ 

Assuming adherence to the preferred standard (section 3.3), that samples in the active collection are 

always regenerated from the base collection. 

 

Assuming adherence to the acceptable standard (section 3.3), that samples in the active collection 

are regenerated from remnant seed in the active collection for up to three cycles before reverting to the 

base collection. 

Table 3. Preferred and acceptable targets for contamination of accessions with alien genes 


Cause of contamination 

standard standard †‡ 

Misidentification of accessions caused by incorrect juxtaposition of 

plants and labels at any step during regeneration 

0% 0.001% 

Contamination with alien plants or seed from any source (other 

accessions, previous crops, wild or feral populations, seed bank) at 

any stage (seed preparation, seed-bed preparation, sowing, crop 

growth, harvesting, all post-harvest seed handling through to seed 

storage). 

0% 0.01% 

Contamination with pollen from any alien source (other accessions 

being regenerated nearby, or crops, wild or naturalized populations in 

the vicinity) at any stage. 

0% 0.1% 

† 

Although values are given for acceptable standards, high priority should be attached to achieving the 

preferred target instead, because of the detrimental consequences of lower standards in terms of loss of 

diversity in the collection (Sackville Hamilton and Chorlton 1997). 

‡ 

The differences in values set as acceptable for different causes of contamination reflect the different 

costs and difficulty of prevention. 

3.2 Selection of accessions 

An accession needs to be regenerated when it falls below predefined threshold levels for 

quantity or quality. Thresholds are given in Table 5 for accessions already in storage, and 

in Table 6 for new material not yet entered into the collection. 

Every effort should be made to ensure that enough seed is kept in the base collection to 

cover all usage, so that they should need to be regenerated only when they deteriorate in 

quality and never for inadequate quantity. Although Table 5 includes threshold quantity 

for seed in the base collection, falling below this threshold is regarded as a failure of the 

regeneration protocol. 

Selection of accessions for regeneration involves the following steps: 

i. Construct preliminary list of samples that may fall below threshold 

ii. Determine which of these are actually in need of regeneration 

iii. If necessary, prioritize accessions for regeneration 

iv. Select regeneration protocol appropriate to accession status 

v. In the event of problems, consider refining future regeneration protocol.

174 


Table 4. Preferred and acceptable standards for the characteristics of the location used for 

regeneration 

Location 

characteristic Preferred standard Acceptable standard 

Latitude Within 5° of site of origin Within 10° of site of origin 

Altitude Within 300 m of site of origin Within 500 m of site of origin 

Soil High fertility, permanently moist but 

well-drained, pH 5-7.5 depending on 

species 

Method for 

elimination of 

alien pollination 

(grasses) 

Method for 

elimination of 

alien pollination 

(legumes) 

Plants contained within 100% pollenproof 

isolation chambers, at least for 

the duration of anthesis 

Plants contained within 100% 

pollinator-proof isolation chambers, 

at least for the duration of anthesis 

Accessibility Sufficient to enable daily patrols and 

monitoring 

High fertility, permanently moist but welldrained, 

pH 5-8 depending on species 

Outside, in sheltered site, 

surrounded by tall crop of densely packed 

plants ≥2 m high, ≥20 m thick, and with its 

edge ≤1 m from edge of regeneration plot, ≥50 

m from nearest alien pollen source (other 

regeneration plot, crop, feral population, etc.) 

(increase distance from alien pollen if quality 

of barrier crop is reduced) 

Outside, in sheltered site, surrounded by 

≥50 m thick crop with dense canopy of flowers 

of similar colour, morphology and scent to 

accessions, preferably conspecific malesterile 

≥50 m from nearest alien pollen source (other 

regeneration plot, crop, feral population, etc.), 

near to source of preferred pollinator 

Sufficient to enable biweekly patrols and 

monitoring 

Table 5. Preferred and acceptable threshold levels for the quality and quantity of seed stored in 

base and active collections, below which seed should be regenerated 


Criterion Basis of calculation 

standard standard 

Germination rate ≤ 85% ≤ 70% 

Quantity in base 1 test unit 100 100 

collection † 

+ 1 base unit 800 240 

+ 2 nd base unit if there is an imminent need to 

regenerate the active collection from the base 

0-800 0-240 

collection ‡ 

= total threshold 900-1,700 340-580 

Quantity in active 1 test unit 100 100 

collection + 1 base unit if the next regeneration cycle is to 

use residual seed from the active collection § 

0 0-240 

+ 1 distribution unit 250 250 

* expected number of seed requests before the 

next possible regeneration cycle 

2 1 

= total threshold 600 350-590 

† 

Genebank procedures should aim to ensure that accessions do not fall below this threshold. 

‡ 

This will be the case if the sample in the active collection is at or below threshold and the genebank 

adheres to the preferred standard of regenerating active from base. 

§ 

This will never be the case if the genebank adheres to the preferred standard of regenerating active 

from base. It will be the case at least one in four cycles if the genebank adheres to the alternative 

standard of regenerating samples in the active collection from remnant seed in the active collection for 

up to three cycles before reverting to the base collection.

APPENDIX III 175

176 


Table 6. Preferred and acceptable threshold levels for the quality and quantity of newly received 

seed samples, below which new seed samples should be regenerated before being added to the 

collection 

Preferred Acceptable standard 

Criterion Basis of calculation 

standard 

Germination 

rate 

≤ 85% Regenerate regardless of 

germination rate 

≤ 95% 

≤ 70% 

Health As far as possible, free of any pathogen or 

pest 

Quantity Threshold quantity for regeneration of 

seed stored in base 

900-1700 340-580 

+ Threshold quantity for regeneration of 

seed stored in active 

600 350-590 

+ 1 base unit for safety-duplicate 800 240 

= Total threshold 2300-3100 930-1410 

i. Constructing the preliminary list 

Samples to be considered include all seed samples held in the base or active collection, and 

all newly received samples not yet in any collection. Samples held in the safety-duplicate 

collection should not normally require separate consideration. Preferred standard is that 

accessions in the safety-duplicate are held under conditions at least as good as the base 

collection, and that enough seed are held in the base collection to ensure that they require 

regeneration only when quality deteriorates. Where this is achieved, samples held in the 

safety-duplicate collection will need regeneration at the same time as those in the base 

collection, and regeneration protocol should make this assumption. Where standards fail 

and seed in the base collection require regeneration because they fall below threshold 

quantity, regeneration of base and safety-duplicate will fall out of synchrony and a 

separate regeneration cycle will be needed at some stage for the safety-duplicate collection. 

The genebank documentation system should be used to construct the preliminary list, 

and should indicate the location of the selected samples. The list should include samples 

that: 

• are below threshold for seed quantity (which for newly introduced material will 

include material received as plants rather than seed), or 

• might fall below threshold for seed quality. All seed whose quality has not already 

been tested fall into this category. This will include all newly introduced materials. It 

may also include stored seed, if the genebank has failed to meet acceptable 

standards for testing new seed samples before entering them in the collection. 

For seed that has been stored following at least acceptable standards, it can be assumed 

that quality will not fall below threshold for several years. In the absence of quantitative 

data on the rate of loss of viability in storage, Table 7 provides an approximate guide based 

on previous informal experience: it is supposed that seed samples might fall below 

threshold quality if they have remained in storage longer than the critical number of years 

given. 

Table 7. Critical number of years of storage in base and active collections, after which 

accessions are considered to be at risk of falling below threshold germination rate and therefore 

in need of a repeat germination test. It is assumed that the base collection is stored -18 C, and 

the active collection at +2 C, both at 3-7% seed moisture content. 

Germination rate at Last regenerated in-house using optimal Collection type


last test protocol for regeneration and storage? Base Active 

>95% Yes 100 20 

>95% No 50 10 

>90% Yes or No 15 5 

>85% Yes or No 5 3

178 


ii. Determining which samples in the preliminary list need regeneration 

Germination tests and seed health tests are required to determine which seed samples are 

actually below threshold for quality. The preferred standard is to assess all accessions 

identified to be at risk of falling below threshold. If this is not possible, for example if 

genebank capacity is not sufficient, acceptable standard is to: 

1. Identify groups of accessions in the preliminary list that have been previously 

regenerated in-house at the same time and are likely to show similar germination 

rates. 

2. Test one or two accessions from each such group. 

3. Treat all accessions in the group as if they have that germination rate. 

4. Raise the quality threshold slightly, to allow for untested accessions having lower 

quality. 

No attempt should be made to group new samples that have not previously been 

regenerated in-house, as there are likely to be wide variations in germination rate between 

accessions from the same collecting expedition or in the same batch of seed donated from 

another genebank: all such materials should have germination rate measured. 

With one possible exception, the list of samples in need of regeneration constitutes all 

those below threshold quantity, plus all those that tests have shown to be below threshold 

quality. 

The possible exception is for new seed samples donated by another genebank. If these 

fall significantly below acceptable threshold, it may be preferable to reject the accession 

altogether rather than attempt to regenerate. A decision on whether to reject or regenerate 

must be taken in conjunction with the donor: if the donor retains a superior sample of the 

same accession and is therefore able to regenerate to a superior standard, the sample 

should be rejected and a repeat donation requested. Otherwise, high-priority regeneration 

should be undertaken and a duplicate sample returned to the donor if requested. 

iii. Prioritizing accessions for regeneration 

If the number of samples in need of regeneration exceeds genebank capacity, there will be 

a need to identify which ones are in most urgent need of regeneration. Regeneration may 

be delayed where it is less urgent. Priorities include: 

1. If the list was drawn up on the basis of preferred standards for thresholds, these 

standards may be relaxed to acceptable standards (Tables 5 and 6), and priority 

attached to those accessions that fall below acceptable threshold. 

2. Regeneration of newly introduced samples and accessions in the base collection takes 

priority over accessions in the active collection. 

3. Regeneration of samples below threshold quality takes priority over those below 

threshold quantity, with one exception: if a germination test has been conducted on an 

accession with so few seed that satisfactory regeneration cannot be accomplished using 

the residual seed, then (a) the sample must be regenerated, and (b) the seed germinating 

during the germination test must be used as parental plants for regeneration. 

4. Rank samples by quality, and regenerate as many as possible of those with lowest 

quality. 

5. Rank samples by perceived value for conservation or utilization, e.g. attach high value 

to accessions that have been shown to be unique and highly distinctive, or to have 

particular alleles of research interest, or whose original collecting site has been 

destroyed. 

Regeneration must never be delayed for newly received samples and accessions in the 

base collection that are below minimum acceptable threshold for quality.


Any accessions in need of regeneration but not selected for regeneration must be 

immediately put on hold, placed in optimal storage conditions if not already there, and not 

used for any other purpose until they can be regenerated. 

iv. Selecting regeneration protocol appropriate to accession status 

The above procedures should identify accessions in need of regeneration before normal 

regeneration becomes impossible. However, in some cases the process will fail. Where seed 

quality or quantity is so far below minimum that the normal number and condition of 

parental plants cannot be established, there will then be a need for some form of ‘rescue 

regeneration’. 

At the minimum, this will involve simply recording in the documentation system that a 

bottleneck has occurred where insufficient plants can be grown from the remaining seed to 

enable regeneration of a representative sample. 

It may be possible also to “rescue” the accession from plants already in use for other 

purposes, e.g. germination tests, characterization, etc. 

If the above fail, the next resort is to retrieve seed from the safety-duplicate collection. 

Finally, where quality is so low that normal procedures would result in zero 

germination even for seed in the safety-duplicate collection, consider using technologies 

such as embryo rescue. 

v. Refining the protocol 

There may be a need to consider refining the above procedures if experience shows they 

are inadequate. 

Preferred standard is that accessions in the base collection should need to be 

regenerated only when they fall below threshold quality. If it is found that more than 5% 

are being regenerated because they are below threshold quantity, then target quantities for 

storage in the base collection should be increased (section 2.4). 

If germination rates for stored seed are above threshold in most cases (>90%), the 

number of years between tests may be increased (Table 7). Conversely, if too many (>5%) 

are too far below acceptable threshold, the number of years between tests should be 

reduced. 

3.3 Selection of parental material 

There are three components to the selection of material for use as parental plants: selecting 

the appropriate source, determining how many plants to grow from that source, and 

determining how those plants should be sampled from the selected source. 

i. Source of parental plants 

Samples to be entered into a collection for the first time are received either as living plants 

or as seed, which provide the only possible source of parental material for regeneration. In 

contrast, an accession already in a collection is preferably represented by seed samples in 

the base, active and safety-duplicate collections. Regeneration protocol must define which 

of these to use as parental material for the next generation of seed (summarized in Table 

8). 

Preferred standard is normally to use seed in the base collection as parental material for 

all regeneration, whether for replenishment of stocks in base, active or safety-duplicate 

collections (FAO/IPGRI Genebank Standards 1994). This preferred standard changes in 

two situations, both of which represent failures in the system: 

1. Replenishing stocks in the active collection from seed in the base collection would cause 

the latter to fall below threshold quantity (which is against preferred standards). In this 

case, seed in the active collection must be regenerated from remnant seed in the active 

collection, for all regeneration cycles until seed in the base collection falls below

180 


threshold quality. The curator should then also consider increasing the number of seed 

stored in the base collection the next time it is regenerated. 

2. The accession either has been lost from the base collection, or has suffered or would 

suffer an unacceptable loss of genetic integrity. In this case, seed in the safety-duplicate 

collection should be used to regenerate base, active and safety-duplicate collections 

simultaneously.


Table 8. Preferred and acceptable sources of parental material for replenishing stocks in base, 

active and safety-duplicate collections 

Source of 

parental Stocks to be replenished 

material Active Base Safety-duplicate 

Active Acceptable for ≤ 3 in 4 Not acceptable Not acceptable 

regeneration cycles according 

to Genebank Standards 1994; 

for perennial forages, regarded 

as not acceptable unless 

unavoidable. 

Preferred if too few seed in 

base collection 

Base Preferred; except: 

not acceptable if too few seed 

in base collection 

Safetyduplicate 

Always, unless 

exceptional conditions 

necessitate 

regeneration from 

safety-duplicate 

Same as for replenishing 

stocks in base: usually at 

same time and in same 

regeneration plot as base 

Only in exceptional conditions, where the accession is either completely lost from base 

or otherwise suffers unacceptable loss of genetic integrity. 

Acceptable alternative standard for replenishment of stocks in the active collection 

(FAO/IPGRI Genebank Standards 1994) is to alternate between active and base as source 

of parental material. This can include regenerating from remnant seed in the active 

collection for up to three successive regeneration cycles before reverting to seed in the base 

collection for one regeneration cycle. However, this is relatively unacceptable for species 

with high genetic variance within accessions and high potential rates of loss of genetic 

integrity. These guidelines are for such species, and therefore it is recommended to adopt 

the preferred standard wherever possible. This departure from FAO/IPGRI Genebank 

Standards 1994 is reflected in Table 8. 

Preferred standard for replenishment of stocks in the safety-duplicate collection is to 

regenerate at the same time and in the same regeneration plot as the base collection, using 

the same set of parental seed from the base collection; regenerated samples for storage in 

base and safety-duplicate collections should be appropriate random samples of the seed 

produced in the regeneration plot, which should therefore produce sufficient seed to 

satisfy requirements of both. 

Where seed in the base collection need regeneration because they are below threshold 

quantity (which is against preferred standard), the seed produced should be used to 

replace only the base collection, not the safety-duplicate collection as would normally be 

the case. Consequences of this are that seed in the safety-duplicate collection will then be 

superior in terms of genetic integrity, but have lower seed quality. The subsequent cycle of 

replenishment of stocks in the base collection should if possible be undertaken using seed 

from the safety-duplicate. This will not only resynchronize quality in base and safetyduplicate 

collections, but also maintain superior genetic integrity. 

ii. Number of parental plants 

The preferred standard is at least 100 plants established in the regeneration plot (i.e. 100 

plants surviving after losses due to

182 


iii. Identity of parent plants 

Preferred standard for wild populations is to adopt an integrated strategy for collecting, 

regenerating and storage that maximizes retention of original population structure and 

genetic integrity. For regeneration it should be possible to select particular parental plants 

that best represent the genetic structure of the original population sample. Achieving 

preferred standard requires use of multiple storage containers for each accession in the 

base collection. Each container should hold the progeny of one plant (vegetative cutting or 

seed heads) collected from the original population. For regeneration, an equal number of 

seed is then sampled at random from each container, to make up the required total 

number of parent plants. 

Acceptable standard is to ignore population structure, thoroughly mix seed of each 

accession and use a random subsample as parental plants for regeneration. 

3.4 Preparation of regeneration plots 

Preferred plot size: 100 plants by 20-cm spacing = 4 m 2 . 

Preferred standard is to use pots, as these provide superior control over soil, weeds, 

soilborne pests and pathogens, plant growth rate and contamination with alien plants; 

and the resultant mobility provides superior control of contamination with alien pollen 

and a means to improve throughput capacity. 

Acceptable standard is to use field plots, but this necessitates very considerable care in 

areas such as follows: 

• Soil. The regeneration plot must be as uniform as possible in terms of nutrients, soil 

structure, physical and chemical composition. Consider a physical and chemical 

analysis of the soil. If necessary, apply soil ameliorative treatments (e.g. fertilizers, lime, 

drainage, irrigation, ploughing, soil structuring, preheating). 

• Weeds, pests and pathogens. Determine whether such problems can be reduced 

during preparation of regeneration plots by the application of appropriate 

pregermination treatments for elimination of weeds, pests and pathogens. Ensure that 

any pregermination treatment selected does not adversely affect seed production. 

• Contamination with alien seed and plants. Preventing contamination involves either: 

• using a novel site with no prior history of the species being present, whether 

naturally or as part of previous trials or regeneration plots, or 

• rigorous elimination of plants and seed in the soil, e.g. by sterilizing soil, digging 

out the soil and replacing it with the sterile compost. A single cycle of ploughing 

to encourage germination followed by spraying or deep ploughing to kill 

emerging seedlings is not usually sufficient to eliminate all seed from the seed 

bank. 

• Contamination with alien pollen. Preferred standard is to erect pollen-proof or 

pollinator-proof cages over the regeneration plots. Acceptable is to isolate from other 

regeneration plots and other sources of pollen using a combination of distance and 

partial barriers (Table 4), eliminating all near sources of pollen. Preparation of the 

regeneration plot needs to take into account the intended method of control of 

contamination. 

3.5 Preparation of seed 

If appropriate or necessary, use seedlings already germinated from previous germination 

test (section 3.2). Otherwise, start with a new seed sample. The former may be preferred if 

the germination test produced enough seedlings and used seed from the desired source, or 

may be necessary when too few other seed remain.


Ensure 100% accuracy in the identification of accessions throughout bagging, labelling 

and transporting seed. Use built-in cross-checking mechanisms, including labels that stay 

with the seed wherever possible, dual labelling inside and outside bags, preprinted and 

pre-ordered sets of labels and labelled bags, and two personnel to cross-check each other. 

Ensure zero contamination of seed samples with seed of other accessions. Use only 

purpose-built seed-preparation facilities (work surfaces, machinery, etc.) containing no 

crevices or internal lacunae where seed may become lodged. Completely clean all surfaces 

and implements after preparing each accession. 

If necessary, break seed dormancy. Scarification (physically with sandpaper, or 

chemically with sulphuric acid) is a common requirement for forage legumes. 

Avoid use of Rhizobium inoculants for legumes, as host-strain specificity is likely to 

increase variance between individuals. Use mineral nitrogen instead. 

Apply proprietary seed dressings to reduce disease incidence or delay the onset of 

disease. 

Sow in seed trays. Transplant seedlings to pots (preferred) or as spaced plants in field 

plots (acceptable). Preferred pot volume approximately 1-2 L. Preferred spacing in the field 

approximately 20 cm. 

3.6 Crop management 

3.6.1 Before anthesis 

Inspect plots and plants regularly. As far as possible ensure complete control of weeds, 

pathogens and pests. Do not thin plants. 

As far as possible promote uniform induction of flowering in all plants. Vernalization 

over winter is a common requirement for flower induction in many temperate forage 

species. 

If using field plots, ensure continued absence of all potential sources of alien pollen both 

within and near the regeneration plots. 

If necessary, prune large plants to reduce variation in size between plants. Prune plants 

to prevent competition between them. If necessary, restrict growth uniformly by using 

small pots or low fertilizer application. 

Where possible, verify accession identity while the plants are growing, by comparing 

their phenotype against the documented phenotype of the accession. This will be possible 

only for accessions with visually distinctive characteristics of high heritability that have 

been recorded in the genebank documentation system. For some visually variable species 

such as Trifolium repens this may be feasible for a large proportion of accessions. For others 

such as Lolium perenne, it will not be feasible for most accessions. 

3.6.2 During anthesis 

Ensure no stresses, such as excessive heat or drought, that might interfere with normal 

meiosis and pollination. 

Prune plants at the beginning of anthesis so that all plants have a similar number of 

inflorescences at a similar stage of development, i.e. remove early inflorescences from 

plants with many. 

If required for the chosen method of elimination of alien pollen, move pots into a 

pollen-proof or pollinator-proof chamber for the duration of flowering, or erect temporary 

pollen-proof or pollinator-proof nets around the regeneration plot. 

In the absence of sufficient research on pollination patterns within regeneration plots, 

and given the expense of manual pollination for the large number of seeds required, the 

preferred standard is currently to permit open-pollination, using the smallest possible size 

of regeneration plot. For wind-pollinated species in isolation chambers, use an active

184 


air-circulation system to promote pollen dispersal. For insect-pollinated species, introduce 

pollen-free pollinators at anthesis. 

3.6.3 After anthesis 

Ensure control of pathogens and pests that reduce the quantity and quality of seed, 

especially those that are seedborne and potential problems in storage. 

Preferably, remove late-forming inflorescences. 

3.7 Harvesting and post-harvest management 

3.7.1 General procedures 

Post-harvest management involves a considerable amount of seed handling and transport, 

with a correspondingly high risk of contamination with alien seed or even completely 

misidentifying seed samples. Seed-handling operations must include procedures to 

eliminate errors in identifying accessions (see section 3.5). 

Strict attention must be paid to cleanliness, to ensure clean, high-quality seed and to 

avoid admixing seed from different accessions, different plants, or other sources. A good 

seed-handling environment is desirable, preferably in a room dedicated to seed-handling 

and with the following characteristics: 

• good lighting for close and detailed observations of samples 

• smooth flat work area, easily cleanable and with no crevices where seed could 

become lodged 

• draught-proof with limited access 

• access to all necessary equipment such as sieves, forceps, lens 

• controlled temperature and humidity where possible. 

Equipment, whether for manual or mechanical seed handling, must be suitable for 

producing a sample that contains seed only, not chaff, pieces of rachis, dead greenfly, 

dust, etc. The aim is to produce ‘standard seed’ quality by setting equipment (e.g. column 

blower, sieves) to a predetermined standard. 

Clean machinery and work surface between each seed lot to avoid contamination. 

Particular attention must be paid to difficult areas, such as inside machinery. 

Packets or other containers for seed should be secure, and of appropriate construction. 

They must at all times be labelled with accession ID, date, location and ID of the 

regeneration plot. 

Handling of seed, plants and accessions must be coordinated with the intended storage 

method (see section 3.7.7) as follows: 

• If seed of each plant are to be store separately (preferred for base and safetyduplicates), 

then the seed of each plant must be kept in separate containers 

throughout post-harvest management. 

• If seed are to be stored as a balanced bulk (acceptable for base and safety-duplicates; 

preferred for active), the preferred standard is to form the balanced bulk with clean 

seed, which necessitates keeping the seed of each plant in separate containers 

throughout post-harvest management up to the point of producing clean seed. 

• If seed are to be stored as a balanced bulk, an acceptable alternative is to form the 

balanced bulk at some earlier stage in the post-harvest management, prior to seedcleaning. 

This will save on handling costs but will result in a less accurate balanced 

bulk. It is most acceptable when all plants have approximately the same proportion 

of seed in the harvested material. 

• If all seed of one accession are to be stored in the same container as an unbalanced 

bulk (acceptable for active only), then seed can be bulked at any stage at or after 

harvesting.


If maintaining the seed of each plant in a separate container, the seed of different plants 

should be treated as distinct seed lots even if they belong to the same accession. That is: 

• each plant must be harvested individually 

• the seed produced by each plant must be handled separately 

• each container must be separately labelled, and information printed on the label 

must also include the ID of the parent plant 

• the documentation system must provide for individually labelling and tracking 

progress with each seed lot 

• procedures for cleanliness should be extended to include avoiding contamination 

with seed produced by other plants of the same accession. 

At all stages good seed health must be ensured, paying particular attention to storage 

pests and seedborne pathogens. Known diseased seed lots should be isolated from nondiseased 

lots. Keep insects out. If possible, filter air to keep out other pests and pathogens. 

Bags should be kept off the ground or floor of the drying area. 

To avoid infection with pathogens such as mildews, harvest in dry weather and store 

heads in a clean dry atmosphere with good air circulation. Use porous containers such as 

paper bags or muslin bags, not in waterproof containers such as plastic bags. Keep bags 

spaced well apart to allow dry air to circulate within and between them. 

Fumigants and pesticides should be used if necessary, but with caution and only as a 

last resort. 

To prevent rapid seed deterioration, avoid delays in seed processing after harvesting. 

3.7.2 Harvesting 

Harvesting must be done at ‘optimum’ maturity. Optimum here means with as many ripe 

seed per head as possible, after seed cease to be sensitive to desiccation, and before natural 

seed dispersal by fruit shattering. Harvest when the first main bulk of inflorescences is 

ready. Avoid late-developing inflorescences if they have not already been removed. 

If regenerating in outside plots (i.e. not following preferred standard), it is also 

necessary to harvest before excessive losses to bird and other pests, during appropriately 

dry weather, and before excessive damage by bad weather. 

The harvested unit must be suitable for the subsequent threshing method, e.g. for handthreshing, 

harvest the peduncle as well as the infructescence to provide a handle. 

Bulk harvesting of whole plot by machine is an option only when replenishing stocks in 

the active collection using the acceptable, not preferred, option of storing an unbalanced 

bulk (section 3.7.7). In all other cases, plants must be harvested individually. 

3.7.3 Initial drying 

Seed should be dried as soon as possible after harvest. The initial drying stage aims to dry 

material to a moisture content low enough for effective threshing. Threshing seed too dry 

may damage the seed and cause the entire seed head to shatter into the threshing machine 

along with the seed. 

Preferred standard is to dry in loosely packed and widely spaced paper bags, hanging 

off the ground in a dry room with good ventilation and air circulation. Active fan-assisted 

drying in a dehumidified chamber is not recommended. 

3.7.4 Threshing and cleaning 

Thresh manually, using sieves and a column blower to separate seed from chaff. The 

setting of the column blower must be adjusted differently for each species. 

Preferred standard is to use a humidity-controlled room to avoid rehydration.

186 


3.7.5 Final drying 

Optimal seed moisture content for final storage is lower than that for threshing, which 

necessitates a second stage of drying after threshing. Preferred standard is active drying 

with fan-assisted air circulation in a humidity-controlled room set to dry seed to the 3-7% 

moisture content. 

The alternative is passive drying with self-indicating silica gel in small boxes. As the 

silica gel absorbs moisture and changes colour from pink to blue, it should be repeatedly 

replaced with dry silica gel. Drying is complete when the silica gel ceases to change colour. 

For Lolium perenne seed starting at 15% moisture content, the silica gel typically needs 

replacing after 1, 3 and 6 weeks. 

Dried seed can be brittle and easily damaged. Increased care with seed handling is 

therefore necessary after the drying process is complete. 

3.7.6 Initial viability testing 

Germination rate should be tested prior to storage and after drying. Depending on seed 

characteristics, seed may need careful rehydration before the germination test to avoid 

damage. If genebank capacity is insufficient to test all seed samples, it is acceptable to test 

a representative sample of accessions, in accordance with overall strategy for monitoring 

viability. 

3.7.7 Seed packaging and storage 

Preferred storage medium is heat-sealed foil packs. Seed to be stored in a single container 

should be thoroughly mixed, to ensure that seed subsequently taken out for testing, 

distribution or regeneration will be random subsamples. 

For storage in the base and safety-duplicate collections, preferred standard is to 

maintain separately the progeny of each mother plant, and store them in separate 

containers. All containers for one accession should be placed together in one labelled 

sealed container. Acceptable standard is to form a balanced bulk by taking an aliquot of 

seed from each mother plant, mixing thoroughly, and storing in one container. If possible, 

the size of the aliquot should equal the amount of seed produced by the plant yielding 

fewest seed. However, the total sample size should not be less than the acceptable target 

(Table 2), and to achieve this it may be necessary to increase the size of the aliquot. 

Adherence to the preferred standard is strongly recommended because of the implications 

for long-term maintenance of genetic integrity. 

For storage in the active collection, preferred standard is to form a balanced bulk, in the 

same way as is acceptable for the base. Acceptable standard is to bulk all seed, but only if 

the genebank adopts the preferred standard of always regenerating active from base. An 

unbalanced bulk causes a major loss of genetic integrity: it is considered unacceptable to 

allow this degradation to cumulate further by repeatedly regenerating active from active. 

3.8 Information management 

Full records must be maintained, not only of the progress of seed through the regeneration 

system, but also of the entire regeneration history of each accession. This history starts 

when the accession enters the genebank and is a record of seed movement as well as a 

biological record. The record is updated continually and all aspects of the regeneration 

history noted. 

Relevant data include: 

• accession into genebank 

• date, donor, species, number of seed or plants or seed weight 

• packet number, location in genebank 

• regeneration required


• how many seed germinated for regeneration 

• how many plants used for regeneration 

• regeneration location, date, pot size, compost type 

• date of peak anthesis, harvest, threshing, germination test and results, etc. 

All data should be entered in the genebank documentation system: seed quantity, seed 

quality, identity verification, control of genetic integrity. 

Information technology-based preparation of labels, bags, etc. is recommended as part 

of quality assurance and the prevention of misidentification. 

4. References 

FAO. 1996. The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture: Background 

Documentation prepared for the International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources, 17- 

23 June 1996. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. 

FAO/IPGRI. 1994. Genebank Standards. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 

Rome/International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy. 

Sackville Hamilton, N.R. and K.H. Chorlton. 1997. Regeneration of Accessions in Seed Collections: A 

Decision Guide. Handbooks for Genebanks No. 5. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, 

Rome, Italy.

184 


Appendix IV. Summary of germplasm holdings 

Petter Marum ¹, Ian D. Thomas ² and Merja Veteläinen ³ 

¹ The Norwegian Crop Research Institute, Løken Research Station, Norway 

² IGER, Aberystwyth, United Kingdom 

³ Nordic Gene Bank, Alnarp, Sweden 

On the basis of information supplied in advance from the participants, we prepared the 

following summaries. For some countries we used information from the 'Directory of 

European Institutions Holding Crop Genetic Resources Collections' (Frison and Serwinski 

1995) and from the 'Report of a working group on forages. Fifth meeting' (Gass et al. 1995) as 

indicated in Table 1. 

Not all countries had filled out the forms completely. Except for the number of accessions, 

about 70% of the information was supplied. 

Table 1 gives the number of accessions for the eight genera: Trifolium, Medicago, Vicia, 

Lolium, Festuca, Phleum, Poa and Dactylis. The genus Trifolium has the largest number of 

accessions of the forage legumes, and the genus Lolium has the largest number of accessions 

among the grasses. In total there are 96 975 accessions in these eight genera. Poland has the 

largest number of accessions with 18 314. 

Table 2 gives the percentage of accessions in long- and medium-term storage. Information 

is available for 89% of the accessions. At some locations accessions are stored under both 

long- and medium-term conditions. In these cases the number of accessions under mediumterm 

storage has been set to zero. Overall, 36% of the accessions are stored under long-term 

conditions and 58% under medium-term conditions. The remaining 6% are stored under 

other conditions. 

Regeneration status is summarized in Table 3. Information on the need for regeneration 

was supplied for 67% of the accessions. Of these, 22% or 14 367 accessions were described as 

being in urgent need of regeneration. Extrapolating to the whole collection, it is estimated 

that 21 335 accessions are in urgent need of regeneration. Each year 4670 accessions are 

regenerated, of which about 51% are regenerated in Russia. 

The number of accessions available for distribution is given in Table 4. Information was 

supplied for 73% of the accessions. A total of 51 638 accessions are available. There are large 

differences between countries. 

Table 5 gives the distribution of accessions to different 'Status of Sample': 46% are 

classified as wild and 16% as advanced cultivars. The wild category also includes 'seminatural' 

populations, which although not sown have been subjected to agricultural 

management, such as cutting or grazing on a regular basis. 'Botanic Garden samples' have 

been obtained from a known donor, usually a Botanic Garden or University collection, but 

no further details of origin are known. 

References 

Frison, E. and J. Serwinski, editors. 1995. Directory of European Institutions Holding Crop Genetic 

Resources Collections, fourth edition. Vols. 1 and 2. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, 

Rome, Italy. 

Gass, T., R. Sackville Hamilton, K. Kolshus and E. Frison, editors. 1995. Report of a working group on 

forages. Fifth meeting, 31 March-2 April 1995, Hissar, Bulgaria. European Cooperative Programme 

for Crop Genetic Resources Networks (ECP/GR). International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, 

Rome, Italy.

Table 1. Number of accessions in national collections 

Country Dactylis Festuca Lolium Medicago Phleum Poa Trifolium Vicieae Total 

Austria 47 80 80 0 50 60 103 0 420 

Belgium 0 0 60 0 1 0 0 0 61 

Bulgaria 234 136 291 542 37 53 357 1669 3319 

Cyprus 0 0 14 29 0 0 0 82 125 

Czech Rep. 139 333 709 487 118 224 363 32 2405 

France † 

653 325 1740 2793 34 27 686 3629 9887 

Germany ‡ 

File: App4Tbl.doc 

1268 1522 2135 1259 886 651 1549 2279 11549 

Greece 252 183 182 573 12 0 553 578 2333 

Hungary 250 589 194 825 65 172 1142 504 3741 

Ireland 55 20 605 0 31 0 246 0 957 

Italy § 

444 343 716 2383 65 62 2275 2211 8499 

Lithuania 16 17 10 3 3 7 15 4 75 

Netherlands 28 0 194 0 102 0 142 0 466 

Nordic Gene Bank 239 542 154 23 355 342 388 4 2047 

Poland 6092 4606 2374 20 2568 2408 246 0 18314 

Portugal 331 99 138 503 0 0 445 591 2107 

Russia 1088 1856 732 2950 1267 626 3692 0 12211 

Slovakia 208 709 276 252 105 232 307 256 2345 

Spain 338 18 213 564 0 0 2800 0 3933 

Switzerland 142 98 4 0 0 114 55 0 413 

Turkey 178 27 0 889 24 13 763 1621 3515 

United Kingdom 

947 1236 2484 109 129 103 920 2173 8101 

F.R. Yugoslavia 5 0 10 63 0 0 74 0 152 

Total 12954 14739 13315 14267 5652 5094 17121 15633 96975 

† Data mainly from the Directory of European Institutions Holding Crop Genetic Resources Collections (Frison and Serwinski 1995) 

‡ Data for Braunschweig from the Directory of European Institutions Holding Crop Genetic Resources Collections (Frison and Serwinski 1995). 

§ Data for Bari from the Directory of European Institutions Holding Crop Genetic Resources Collections (Frison and Serwinski 1995). 

Includes data for Southampton from the Report of a working group on forages. Fifth meeting (Gass et al. 1995).

186 


Table 2. Accessions in long- or medium-term storage calculated from accessions with 

available information (information is available for 89% of accessions in Table 1) 

No. of accessions with In long-term storage In medium-term storage 

Country 

available information 

(%) 

† 

(%) 

Austria 420 0 100 

Belgium 61 0 100 

Bulgaria 3275 75 25 

Cyprus 125 0 100 

Czech Rep. 2405 63 37 

France 9887 7 93 

Germany 7176 100 0 

Greece 2333 0 37 

Hungary 3741 15 85 

Ireland 957 85 15 

Italy 4961 59 39 

Lithuania 75 100 0 

Netherlands 466 100 0 

Nordic Gene Bank 2047 100 0 

Poland 18314 0 100 

Portugal 2107 30 70 

Russia 12211 47 24 

Slovakia 2345 0 100 

Spain 3933 50 50 

Switzerland 413 24 76 

Turkey 3515 58 42 

United Kingdom 5836 34 66 

F.R. Yugoslavia 152 100 0 

Total 86755 36 58 

† 

Percentage of accessions that are stored only in medium-term storage (accessions that are stored 

under both long-term and medium-term conditions are not included in this column).

APPENDIX IV 187 

Table 3. Accessions in urgent need of regeneration and number of accessions 

regenerated/year calculated from accessions with available information (information is 

available on 67% of the accessions in Table 1) 

Accessions in urgent need of regeneration: No. of accessions 

Country Number % regenerated/year 

Austria 242 58 11 

Belgium 0 0 

Bulgaria 9 3 94 

Cyprus 23 53 3 

Czech Rep. 85 4 16 

France 120 10 

Germany 674 25 145 

Greece 521 22 0 

Hungary 249 7 367 

Ireland 65 30 0 

Italy 1041 21 326 


Netherlands 0 0 88 

Nordic Gene Bank 253 12 76 

Poland 2023 12 0 

Portugal 941 45 110 

Russia 3975 33 2398 

Slovakia 1318 57 210 

Spain 228 6 387 


Turkey 1175 46 280 

United Kingdom 1311 22 150 

F.R. Yugoslavia 

Total 14367 22 4670

188 


Table 4. Number of accessions available for distribution, based 

on the accessions with available information (information on 73% 

of the accessions is in Table 1) 

Available accessions: 

Country Number % 

Austria 13 3 

Belgium 61 100 

Bulgaria 533 18 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 2130 89 

France 

Germany 4803 88 

Greece 116 5 

Hungary 3741 100 

Ireland 

Italy 3372 68 

Lithuania 64 85 

Netherlands 455 100 

Nordic Gene Bank 2047 100 

Poland 18314 100 

Portugal 

Russia 5531 45 

Slovakia 927 40 

Spain 2598 66 

Switzerland 100 24 

Turkey 743 24 

United Kingdom 5934 100 

F.R. Yugoslavia 152 100 

Total 51638 74

Table 5. Percentage by 'Status of sample' by country 

Country 

No. 

accessions 

% 

Advanced 

cultivars 

% 

Landraces 

% Breeding 

material 

% Wild and 

ecotypes 

% Botanic 

garden 

sample 

APPENDIX IV 189 

% Unknown 

or info. not 

available 

Austria 420 5 95 

Belgium 61 100 

Bulgaria 3319 33 13 43 11 

Cyprus 125 89 11 

Czech Rep. 2405 71 1 8 19 1 

France 9887 16 9 1 11 63 

Germany 11549 17 26 5 2 50 

Greece 2333 12 3 26 35 24 

Hungary 3741 32 68 

Ireland 957 15 84 1 

Italy 8499 3 2 24 41 29 


Netherlands 466 31 19 2 49 

Nordic Gene Bank 2047 18 8 1 74 

Poland 18314 4 0 96 

Portugal 2107 0 87 13 

Russia 12211 39 22 40 

Slovakia 2345 41 6 5 48 1 

Spain 3993 1 1 3 93 1 


Turkey 3515 27 73 

United Kingdom 8101 11 2 3 43 5 36 

F.R. Yugoslavia 152 100 

Total 96975 16 9 4 46 0 24

190 


Appendix V. Survey on safety-duplication capacities 

As a result of a survey completed after the meeting, the following institutes have declared 

their availability to host safety-duplicates of forages under 'black box' arrangements. 

Institute Country 

RvP, Merelbeke (now DvP, 

Melle) 

Belgium –10°C 

Storage 

conditions Comments 

IPK-Gatersleben Germany –15°C in Malchow or Gatersleben 

Inst. of Agrobotany, Tápiószele Hungary –20°C /–4°C 

IMGV-UNIPG, Perugia Italy –18°C 

Research Institute of Plant 

Production, Piestany 

Slovakia –18°C/0°C 

NGB, Alnarp Sweden –20°C 

(limited 

amount)/-4°C 

RAC, Changins Switzerland –21°C 

negotiate about costs and 

packing 

CGN, Wageningen the Netherlands –20°C – reciprocal duplication 

IGER, Aberystwyth United Kingdom –25°C/~1°C 

(depends on 

amount) 

– to be delivered/packed in 

aluminium foil bags 

Additional information: 

• Other country representatives in the meeting also indicated that they would investigate 

possibilities to host safety-duplicates under 'black box' arrangements (Cyprus, Czech 

Republic, France, Greece, Hungary, Portugal, Russia, Spain and F.R. Yugoslavia). 

• Lithuania cannot host safety-duplicates.

Appendix VI. Acronyms and abbreviations 

APPENDIX VI 191 

AARI Aegean Agricultural Research Institute, Menemen, Izmir, Turkey 

ARI Agricultural Research Institute, Nicosia, Cyprus 

ARO Agricultural Research Organization, Bet Dagan, Israel 

ASSINSEL Association Internationale des Sélectionneurs 

BAL Federal Research Institute for Agriculture in Alpine Regions, Austria 

BAZ Bundesanstalt für Züchtungsforschung an Kulturpflanzen (Federal Centre for 

Breeding Research on Cultivated Plants), Quedlinburg, Germany 

CCDB Central Crop Database 

CGN Centre for Genetic Resources The Netherlands, Wageningen, The Netherlands 

CLIMA Cooperative Research Center for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture 

CNR Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (National Research Council), Bari, Italy 

CRF Centro de Recursos Fitogenéticos, Madrid, Spain 

EC European Commission 

ECP/GR European Cooperative Programme for Crop Genetic Resources Networks 

EGDS Eastern European Germplasm Documentation Systems Project 

ENMP Estação Nacional de Melhoramento de Plantas, Elvas, Portugal 

EU European Union 

CGARC/FCPI Central Greece Agricultural Research Center, Fodder Crops and Pastures 

Institute 

CYPARI Agricultural Research Institute, Nicosia, Cyprus 

GEVES Groupe d'étude et de contrôle des variétés et des semences, France 

HRI Horticulture Research International, Wellesbourne, UK 

ICARDA International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, Syria 

IGER Institute for Grassland and Environmental Research, Aberystwyth, UK 

IHAR Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute, Radzikow, Poland 

INIA Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agrarias, Badajoz, Spain 

INRA Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, France 

IPGR Institute of Introduction and Plant Genetic Resources, Sadovo, Bulgaria 

IPK Institut für Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzenforschung, Gatersleben, Germany 

ISA Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Lisbon, Portugal 

MAFF Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, UK 

MBG Mision Biologíca de Galicia, Pontevedra, Spain 

MTARC/GGB Macedonia-Thraki Agricultural Research Center, Greek Gene Bank 

NAGREF National Agricultural Research Foundation, Greece 

NGB Nordic Gene Bank, Alnarp, Sweden 

NGO Non-governmental organization 

PGR Plant genetic resources 

RAC Institute for Agrobotany, Tápiószele, Hungary 

RAPD Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA 

RICP Research Institute of Crop Production, Prague, Czech Republic 

RIPP Research Institute of Plant Production, Piestany, Slovakia 

SIA Servicio de Investigaciónes Agrarias, Spain 

UPM Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain 

UPV Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Spain 

VIR N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry, St. Petersburg 

WADA Western Australia Department of Agriculture 

WANA West Asia North Africa Region 

WIEWS World Information and Early Warning System on plant genetic resources (FAO) 

ZADI/IGR Zentralsstelle für Agrardokumentation und -information / Informationszenttrum für 

Genetische Ressourcen, Bonn, Germany (Centre for Agricultural Documentation 

and Information/Information Centre for Genetic Resources)

192 


Appendix VII. List of Participants 

Chairperson 

Petter Marum 

Norwegian Crop Research Institute 

Løken Research Station 

2940 Heggenes, Norway 

Tel: +47-6134 0205 

Fax: +47-6134 0655 

Email: petter.marum@planteforsk.no 

Working Group Members 

Franz Lassacher 

(representing Bernhard Krautzer) 

Federal Research Institute for Agriculture in 

Alpine Regions (BAL) 

8952 Irdning, Austria 

Tel. +43-3682 22451/242 

Fax: +43-3682 2461488 

Email: Bal.Gump@computerhaus.at 

An Ghesquiere 

(representing Dirk Reheul) 

Dept. Plant Genetics and Breeding 

(DvP) 

Caritasstraat 21 

9090 Melle, Belgium 

Tel: +32-9 2521052 

Fax: +32-9 2525075 

Email: dvp@clo.fgov.be 

Siyka Angelova 

Institute of Introduction and Plant Genetic 

Resources 

4122 Sadovo, Plovdiv, Bulgaria 

Tel: +35-932 267625 

Fax: +35-932 270270/629026 

Demetrios Droushiotis 

Agricultural Research Institute 

PO Box 2016 

1516 Nicosia, Cyprus 

Tel. +357-2 305101 

Fax: +357 2 316770 

Magdalena Sevcíková 

(representing Bohumil Cagas) 

Grassland Research Station 

756 54 Zubrí c. 698, Czech Republic 

Tel: +420-651 583195 

Fax: +420-651 583197 

Email: vstroz@ostrava.cesnet.cz 

François Balfourier 

(representing Vincent Gensollen) 

Station d'Amélioration des Plantes 

INRA 

Domaine de Crouelle 

63039 Clermont-Ferrand cedex 2, France 

Tel: +33-4 73624346 

Fax: +33-4 73624453 

Email: balfour@clermont.inra.fr 

Evelin Willner 

IPK-Genbank 

Aussenstelle Malchow 

23999 Malchow/Poel, Germany 

Tel: +49-38425 20316 

Fax: +49-38425 20316 

Email: E.Willner@so.hs-Wismar.de 

Thomas A. Vaitsis 

NAGREF 

Central Greece Agricultural Research Center 

PO Box 1262 

41110 Larissa, Greece 

Tel. +30-41 533810 

Fax: +30-41 533809 

Lajos Horváth 

Institute for Agrobotany 

Kulso mezo 15 

2766 Tápiószele, Hungary 

Tel. +36-53 380070/071 

Fax: +36-53 380072 

Email: lhorvath@agrobot.rcat.hu 

Valeria Negri 

Istituto Miglioramento Genetico Vegetale 

Facoltà di Agraria 

Univ. degli Studi di Perugia 

Borgo XX Giugno 74 

06100 Perugia, Italy 

Tel: +39-75 5856218 

Fax: +39-75 5856224 

Email: imgv@unipg.it 

Nijole Lemeziené 

Grass Breeding Dept. 

Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture 

Dotnuva-Akademija 

5051 Kedainiai, Lithuania 

Tel: +370-57 37284 

Fax: +370-57 56996

Loek J.M. van Soest 

Centre for Genetic Resources, The Netherlands 

(CGN, CPRO-DLO) 

PO Box 16 

6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands 

Tel: +31-317 477011 

Fax: +31-317 418094 

Email: L.J.M.vansoest@cpro.dlo.nl 

Manuel Tavares de Sousa 

Estação Nacional de Melhoramento de Plantas 

Apartado 6 

7351 Elvas Codex, Portugal 

Tel: +351-68 622844/47 

Fax: +351-68 629295 

Email: enmp@mail.telepac.pt 

Jarmila Drobná 

(representing Martin Uzik) 

Research Institute of Plant Production 

Bratislavská 122 

921 68 Piešt'any, Slovakia 

Tel.:+421-838 722311/312/326/327 

Fax: +421-838 726306 

Email: vurv@bb.sanet.sk 

Francisco González López 

Servicio de Investigación y Desarollo 

Tecnológico. Finca “La Orden” 

Guadajira. Apartado 22 

06080 Badajoz, Spain 

Tel: +34-924 449761/449703/449795 

Fax: +34-924 449748 

Merja Veteläinen 


PO Box 41 

23053 Alnarp, Sweden 

Tel.:+46-40 461790 

Fax:+46-40 462188 

Email : merja@ngb.se 

Arnold Schori 

Station Fédérale de recherches en production 

végétale de Changins 

Route de Duillier - BP 254 

1260 Nyon, Switzerland 

Tel: +41-22 3634723 

Fax: +41-22 3621325 

Email: Arnold.Schori@rac.admin.ch 


Aegean Agricultural Research Institute 

PO Box 9 

Menemen 

Izmir 35661, Turkey 

Tel: +90-232 8461331 

Fax:+90-232 8461107 

Email: aari@service.raksnet.com.tr 

APPENDIX VII 193 

Ruaraidh Sackville Hamilton 

Institute of Grassland and Environmental 

Research (IGER) 



Wales, United Kingdom 

Tel: +44-1970 828255 

Fax: +44-1970 828357 

Email: Ruaraidh.Hamilton@bbsrc.ac.uk 

Zorica Tomić 

Forage Crops Research Centre 

Agricultural Research Institute “Serbia” 

Trg rasinskih partizana 50 

37000 Kruševac, F.R. Yugoslavia 

Tel: +381-37 441295 

Fax: +381-37 441295/39951 

IPGRI 

Via delle Sette Chiese 142 

00145 Rome, Italy 

Thomas Gass 

Tel: +39-6 51892221 

Fax: +39-6 5750309 

Email: t.gass@cgnet.com 

Lorenzo Maggioni 

Tel: +39-6 51892231 

Fax: +39-6 5750309 

Email:l.maggioni@cgnet.com 

Observers 

Morten Hulden 


PO Box 41 

230 53 Alnarp,Sweden 

Tel: +46-40 461790 

Fax: +46-40 462188 

Email: morten@ngb.se 

Eva Thörn 


PO Box 41 

230 53 Alnarp, Sweden 

Tel: +46-40 461790 

Fax: +46-40 462188 

Email: eva@ngb.se

194 


Vladimir Chapurin 

N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant 

Industry (VIR) 

42 Bolshaya Morskaya Street 

190000 St Petersburg, Russian Federation 

Tel: +7-812 311 66 31 

Fax: +7-812 311 8762 

Email: vir@glas.apc.org 

Ian D. Thomas 

Institute of Grassland and Plant 

Environmental Research (IGER) 



Wales, United Kingdom 

Tel: +44-1970 828255/2131 

Fax: +44-1970 828357 

Email: ian.thomas@bbsrc.ac.uk 

Unable to attend 

Vincent Connolly 

TEAGASC 

Oak Park Research Centre 

Carlow, Ireland 

Tel: +353-503 31425 

Fax: +353-503 42423 

Avi Perevolotsky 

Institute of Field Crops 

Agricultural Research Organization (ARO) 

Volcani Center 

PO Box 6 

50250 Bet Dagan, Israel 

Tel: +972-3 968 3389 

Fax: +972-3 966 9642 

Godfrey Camilleri 

Agricultural Research & Development Centre 

Government Farm 

Ghammieri, Malta 

Fax: +356-442587/440251 

Wlodzimierz Majtkowski 

Botanical Garden 

Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute 

(IHAR) 

ul. Jedzdziecka 5 

85-687 Bydgoszcz, Poland 

Tel: +48-52 721 407 

Fax: +48-52 224 454 

Email: obihar@teltronik.com.pl

Download PDF (6215 kb) - Bioversity International

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?