LAMP Final Report 1997 - ARS - US Department of Agriculture

155 Pages·2010·0.42 MB·English

by  Wilfredo Salhuana

In the memory of
DR. WILLIAM BROWN
Plant explorer, geneticist, scientist and
leader in Plant Genetic Resources and Industry
LAMPPARTICIPANTS

DIRECTOR:
Dr. Steve Eberhart Agricultural Research Service, USDA
National Seed Storage Laboratory, Fort Collins, CO., U.S.A.
INTERNATIONAL COORDINATOR:

Ing. Ricardo Sevilla Programa Cooperativo de Investigaciones en Maíz
Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, Peru
COORDINATOR OF INFORMATION:
Ing. Jorge Rubio Centro de Informática para la Investigación Agrícola
Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, Peru
PRINCIPAL ADVISOR:
Dr. Wilfredo Salhuana Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc.
Plant Breeding Division, Miami, FL, U.S.A.
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS:
____________________________________________________________________________
COUNTRY PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR (PI) INSTITUTION
____________________________________________________________________________
ARGENTINA Ing. Marcelo Ferrer Instituto Nacional de Tecnología
Agropecuaria (INTA). EEA Pergamino
BOLIVIA Dr. Gonzalo Avila Centro de Investigaciones Fitoecogenéticas
de Pairumani. Cochabamba
BRAZIL Dr. Manoel Xavier dos Santos Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria
(EMBRAPA), CNPMS, Sete Lagoas, M.G.
COLOMBIA Ing. Carlos Díaz Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario (ICA). C.I.
Tulio Ospina, Medellin
CHILE Ing. Orlando Paratori Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIA).
E.E. La Platina, Santiago
GUATEMALA Ing. Mario Fuentes Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnología Agrícolas
(ICTA). Barcena, Villa Nueva, Guatemala
MEXICO Dr. Francisco Cárdenas Instituto Nacional de Investigación Forestal y
Agropecuaria (INIFAP). Chapingo
PARAGUAY Ing. Mercedes Alvarez Dirección de Investigación Agropecuaria (DIA).
IAN, Caacupé
ii
____________________________________________________________________________
COUNTRY PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR (PI) INSTITUTION
____________________________________________________________________________
PERU Ing. Hugo Sánchez Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina
(UNALM). Lima
URUGUAY Ing. Gerardo Vivo Facultad de Agronomía de la Universidad de la
República. E.E. M. Cassinoni, Paysandú
U.S.A. Dr. Linda Pollak U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Research Service (USDA-ARS). Iowa State
University, Ames, Iowa
VENEZUELA Ing. Arnoldo Bejarano Fondo Nacional de Investigaciones
Agropecuarias (FONAIAP), CENIAP, Maracay
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
To Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. for their help in evaluating the maize germplasm of Latin
America by financing LAMP and by providing the scientific counseling services of Dr. Wilfredo Salhuana.
To the Agricultural Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for their support and help
in directing this project. A special note of thanks to Drs. Quentin Jones, Henry Shands, and Steve Eberhart
for their direction of various stages of this project.
To the Programa Cooperativo de Investigaciones en Maiz, Agrarian University, La Molina and to Ing.
Ricardo Sevilla for his diligent work and guidance as International Coordinator.
To the Centro de Informática para la Investigación Agrícola (CIPIA) of the Department of Statistics of
the Agrarian University La Molina, for their support and to Ing. Jorge Rubio for his assistance in organizing
the database, developing the SIL (Sistema de Información LAMP) system, and for his help in coordinating
and processing LAMP information.
To the Administrators and Principal Investigators of the participant countries, without whose
collaboration a successful project would not be possible.
The Final Report of LAMP is dedicated to Dr. William Brown, in recognition of his dedication,
enthusiasm, pioneering efforts and success in stimulating international collaboration for the collection,
classification, and preservation of maize germplasm, for his many contributions to agriculture, and for his
work as a dedicated and inspiring researcher and administrator.
iv
CONTENTS
1.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PLAN AND EXECUTION OF
THE LATIN AMERICA MAIZE PROJECT (LAMP)
Ing. Ricardo Sevilla, and Dr. Wilfredo Salhuana................................................................. 1
2.0 COUNTRY FINAL REPORTS
2.1.ARGENTINA LAMP FINAL REPORT
Ing(cid:2) Marcelo Ferrer.............................................................................................................. 37
2.2 BOLIVIA LAMP FINAL REPORT
Dr. Gonzalo Avila................................................................................................................. 42
2.3 BRAZIL LAMP FINAL REPORT
Dr. Manoel Xavier dos Santos............................................................................................. 45
2.4 CHILE LAMP FINAL REPORT
Ing(cid:2) Orlando Paratori and Ing(cid:2) Rodrigo Sbarbaro Hofer.................................................... 57
2.5 COLOMBIA LAMP FINAL REPORT
Ing(cid:2) Carlos Díaz................................................................................................................... 60
2.6 GUATEMALA LAMP FINAL REPORT
Dr. Salvador Castellanos and Ing(cid:2) Jose Luis Queme........................................................ 67
2.7 MEXICO LAMP FINAL REPORT
Dr. Francisco Cárdenas....................................................................................................... 72
2.8 PARAGUAY LAMP FINAL REPORT
Ing(cid:2) Verónica Machado and Ing(cid:2) Mercedes Alvarez.......................................................... 75
2.9 PERU LAMP FINAL REPORT
Ing(cid:2) Hugo Sánchez.............................................................................................................. 76
2.10 UNITED STATES LAMP FINAL REPORT
v
Dr. Linda Pollak.................................................................................................................... 85
2.11 URUGUAY LAMP FINAL REPORT
Dr. Tabare Abadie and Ing(cid:2) Mario Olveyra......................................................................... 95
2.12 VENEZUELA LAMP FINAL REPORT
Ing. Arnoldo Bejarano 107
3.0 THE U.S. GERMPLASM ENHANCEMENT OF MAIZE (GEM) PROJECT
Dr. Linda Pollak 112
4.0 PROPOSAL OF INTERNATIONAL MAIZE GERMPLASM ENHANCEMENT
PROJECT (IMGEP)
Dr. Wilfredo Salhuana 125
5.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Dr. Wilfredo Salhuana and Dr. Steve Eberhart 140
vi
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PLAN AND EXECUTION OF
LATIN AMERICAN MAIZE PROJECT
(LAMP)
Ing Ricardo Sevilla and Dr. Wilfredo Salhuana
International Coordinator and Principal Advisor of LAMP
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objective
North America and the Southern Cone of South America utilize maize primarily for animal
feeding. Mexico, Central America, and the Andean Zone use maize mainly for human consumption,
processed (flours) or directly. In recent years, the demand for maize for poultry feeding has
increased.
The United States is the largest maize producing country in the world. It produces annually
about 253 million metric tons. Latin America maize production totals about 56 million metric tons,
only 13.6 percent of the world's total production, which is up three percent from ten years ago. In
recent years, annual maize production increased 3% in the Southern Cone of South America, 2.2%
in the Andean Region, and 1.9% in Central America (including Mexico and Caribbean). However, as
the population grows 2% to 3% per year, production and consumption decrease per capita, and the
importation of this cereal increases 10 kg/yr. per capita in the Andean Zone, and 28 kg/yr. per capita
in Central America.
Maize genetic variability is enormous in Latin America as there are more than 260 races, which
comprise 90 percent of world's maize diversity. A lot of attention has been given to the
morphological study of the races of maize. There are eleven publications, edited by Harvard
University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and by the National Research Council of the USA
describing 238 races from 23 different countries. Furthermore, seven catalogs on maize germplasm
1
from seven South American countries have been published with detailed information about the
morphology of the accessions.
Almost all hybrids and improved varieties arise from very few races. This is one of the reasons
that susceptibility to insect pests and diseases are increased, because of genetic uniformity, and the
improved varieties and hybrids may have less adaptability to the marginal environments in Latin
America.
Objectives of the breeders, demands of industry, and the changing consumer preferences
determine new routes to explore in plant breeding. Undoubtedly, good new germplasm and the use
of new methodologies will enhance plant breeding programs. One of the sources of maize
germplasm is in Latin America countries, but the landrace collections need to be evaluated in order
to select the best to be utilized in breeding programs. For this reason, eleven Latin America countries
and the United States consolidated their efforts to evaluate the maize germplasm existing in these
countries. The principal objective of the Latin American Maize Project (LAMP) was to obtain
information from the evaluation of the maize germplasm and to facilitate the access by breeders to
this information so that they can use it to create superior varieties and hybrids. Utilization of the full
range of genetic diversity will greatly expand the area of adaptation of derived hybrids and varieties.
Only in this way the region will fully utilize its genetic resources, currently under-utilized because of
the limitations of superior cultivars which can not be adapted to the limiting environments common to
the region. Improving adaptation to limiting conditions is more economical and ecologically
compatible than attempting to modify agricultural conditions through great investments in agricultural
technology.
1.2 Maize Breeding in Latin America
To predict the impact that the evaluation of maize germplasm in Latin America will have, it is
necessary to study the history of breeding in the region. In the 40’s and 50’s, the first years of
breeding in Latin America, landrace varieties were used as source materials. The majority of them
were collected from farmers' fields, whose ancestors had been cultivating them through the
centuries. Breeders rapidly identified extremely productive races, and heterotic patterns were
2
identified for the formation of hybrids that are still in use. Superior hybrids were rapidly adopted, their
success due to the exceptional heterosis obtained by crossing two or three high yielding races.
Wellhausen made the first attempt at a systematic identification of elite racial composites and
heterosis patterns for the lowland tropics. Results with other studies (Wellhausen 1965) identified
Tuxpeño and its related Caribbean and USA dents, Cuban Flint, Coastal Tropical Flint, and ETO.
Each country was exploiting the hybrid vigor pattern. In Venezuela: Tuxpeño x ETO; in Colombia:
Caribbean Flint, Tuxpeño and ETO; in Peru: Perla x Cuba; in Argentina: Cateto, Coastal Tropical
Flint, and Cuban Flint; in Brazil: Cateto, Paulista Dent, Tuxpeño; in Mexico, the Caribbean area and
Central America: Tuxpeño, ETO, Cuban Flint, and Coastal Tropical Flint (Wellhausen, 1978).
In general, the maize hybrids developed from these patterns are planted on a very low
percentage of the available land for maize production in Latin America because they are tropical,
adapted to good soil and environmental conditions, and respond to higher rates of fertilizer.
2.0 LAMP GEOGRAPHICAL BACKGROUND
2.1 Countries and regions
LAMP was conducted in eleven Latin American countries and the United States. Evaluation
trials were run in 34 regions, which covered most regions of the Americas where maize is grown from
41º Latitude in the north to 34º Latitude in the south, and from sea level to 3,400 masl (Figure 1).
The number of regions per country varied from one in Venezuela to seven in Peru. In the second
stage, every trial was replicated in two locations within a region. The total number of locations
planted was 70, but only 61 were harvested.
A file of "Characterization of the Location" was created based on geographical, climatic,
ecological, and agronomic features. Any location in LAMP had to have at least three geographical
descriptors: latitude, longitude, and altitude. The following meteorological data were to be recorded
in every experiment: monthly average temperature and rainfall for the months during which the trial
was run; the average monthly temperature and rainfall of the last years; and 10 different soil
descriptors.
3