1. Use of Agrobiodiversity for Pest and Disease Management Carlo Fadda, Bioversity International ODDG Seminars, 19 May 2011

8. Focus Group Discussion More than 1500 farmers attended the FGD globally

10. Amount and distribution of bean varieties Results – Farmers’ Knowledge Kabwohe Rubaya Nakaseke HH richness 2.21 2.20 2.556 HH Simpson 0.32 0.375 0.432 Community richness 23 26 16 Community Simpson 0.85 0.914 0.799 Divergence 0.62 0.59 0.46

11. Farmers’ Knowledge (Cont.) Dalixiang Baiyangnuo Magu Variation of resistance to rice blast in different traditional rice varieties 1-S 2-MS 3-MR 4-R

12. Results - Option 1 10 sample points were taken randomly in a field and these points’ for panicle blast different levels of resistance. Its range of variation was from 7% to 25%. Average disease incidence of 10 sample points for Dalixiang

13. Results - Option 1 (Cont.)

14. Biotic diversity regulates pests and diseases Crop genetic diversity in farmer’s fields – reducing vulnerability Reducing the probability of crop loss from pest and diseases now and in the future Weighted Damage Index = Crop loss (household) Variety richness at household level Variety Evenness at household level Household Damage Index Higher variety richness/evenness – less variance in damage: a risk minimizing argument for crop variety diversity in the production system Peng et al., 2011

15. Results – Option 2 Of 63 varieties, 3 didn’t flower .HR, R and MR accounted for 5%, 1.67% and 15%, respectively. The remaining 78.33% ranged from MS to HS (56.67%). HR 3 Qiena, Zhangmeleng-1, Chujing-27 R 1 Modelong-1 MR 9 Chengnuo-88 ， Nuoyou-9 ， Baiyangnuo ， Qiejiaba ， Qiege ， Chujing-24 ， Bendipinzhong ， Dulong-1 ， Xiangnuo

17. Results – Option 4 Disease grade of leaf blast Disease grade of panicle blast Resistance R MR MS S MS S HS No. 25 13 14 6 11 13 27 Precentage 43.10 22.41 24.14 10.34 21.57 25.49 52.94 No. of varieties 58 51 Seedling nursery Field identification nursery

20. Results - option 5 Cultivars Isolates Frequency of virulent on cultivars 143-7a 08-SL-1-21 9-3 Y2009-31-1-6 S-2009-10-1-5 G2009-7-1-1 G2009-6-1-3 Hongyang-3 R R R R R S S 28.57 Yijing-1 R S S R R R R 28.57 magu S R R S R R R 28.57 Tuobeigu R R R S S R R 28.57 Changnuo-2 R R S R S R - 33.33 Hejing-7 R S S S R R R 42.86 Zaogu S R R S S R R 42.86 Xiangnuo R R R S R S S 42.86 Yinuo931 R S R S R S R 42.86 Chujing27 S R S S R R R 42.86 tuojiangnuo R S S R S R R 42.86 Chujing24 S R R S R S R 42.86 dulong-2 R S S S R R S 57.14 Chengnuo88 R S R S S S R 57.14 Yuelianggu S S R R S S R 57.14 Zimigu S R S S R S R 57.14 Nuoyou-9 S R S S S R R 57.14 zhangmeleng-2 R R S R S S S 57.14 zhangmeleng-3 R S S S R S R 57.14 Aijiaogu S R - S R S S 66.67 kaomolao S S S - R R S 66.67 Baiyangnuo R R S S S S S 71.43 Dianza31 S R R S S S S 71.43 Amoqie S S S S R R S 71.43 Hongjiaogu S S S S R R S 71.43

22. Option 5 (Cont.) 3.51% 59.65% 14.04% 21.05% 1.75% 54.39% 1.75% 12.20% 19.30% 12.20%

24. Conclusions 2009 wet; 2010 dry Ochoa et al., 2010, unpublished data Anthracnose Ascochyta ALS Rust 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 Average 2.98 2.45 4.84 3.54 1.57 3.28 3.88 3.62

25. Conclusions DS of rust Populations plot mixture 48.1 5.0 44.0 29 5.0 48.5 65.1 15.0 6.7 29.1 16.2 62.5 45 21.7 27.5 58.1 22.5 5.0 64 27.5 44.0 28 52.0 8.3 67 52.0 27.5 33 52.0 44.0 21 68.3 33.3 22 71.2 18.8 47 71.2 44.0 65 71.2 46.8 50.1 80.0 6.7 Average 45.0 26.1

29. Let’s support diversity