Changes in the concept of genotype × environment interactions to fit agriculture diversification and decentralized participatory plant breeding: pluridisciplinary point of view

The standardization of environments (E) encouraged by modern society and by the productivist model of agriculture has resulted in the standardization of genotypes (G) thereby reducing G × E interaction. New societal values call for the diversification of agriculture to fit contrasted environments. T...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Euphytica 2008-10, Vol.163 (3), p.533, Article 533
Hauptverfasser: Desclaux, D., Nolot, J. M., Chiffoleau, Y., Gozé, E., Leclerc, C.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 3
container_start_page 533
container_title Euphytica
container_volume 163
creator Desclaux, D.
Nolot, J. M.
Chiffoleau, Y.
Gozé, E.
Leclerc, C.
description The standardization of environments (E) encouraged by modern society and by the productivist model of agriculture has resulted in the standardization of genotypes (G) thereby reducing G × E interaction. New societal values call for the diversification of agriculture to fit contrasted environments. This process can be depicted by four models defined by two axes, one socio-economic (individual logics versus collective governance), and the other agro-ecological (reductionist versus systemic approaches). These models differ in (i) their objectives (from improvement in yield to the empowerment of farmers), (ii) their specific expectations with respect to genotypes (from inherited genetic resources to varieties that represent genetic, ethical and social progress), (iii) their specific representations of the environment (E) (from a simple interaction between the bio-physical environment (B) and the crop management (C), to a complex interaction including the competences of the actors (A), outlets (O), regulations (R), society (S)), (iv) their particular relations between G and E (from G × E to G × B × C × A under evolving constraints represented by R × O × S). Taking this diversity into account changes the way plant improvement is considered. Thus, depending on the model, the order, interest and status of the five classic stages of plant improvement (setting objectives, creating variability, selecting, evaluating and disseminating) may be called into question. Between the existing analytical model (Model I) and a holistic model (Model IV) which remains to be developed, lies the challenge of ensuring the sustainability, efficiency and acceptability of plant breeding and resulting innovations. From a simple “statistical parameter” that we, as plant breeders, attempt to reduce, the G × E interaction is becoming an “objective” that we try to predict and valorize. Structuring the different components of E, G and G × E, enables us to extend the basic concept of representivity to both the cultivation conditions and the relational socio-economic positions of the actors involved.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10681-008-9717-2
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_235144764</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1898462371</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2302-5875b375c09f984216f9cc6c3ae903baef1ff9dbafc87e941ca031bebba46f23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kcFu1TAQRa0KJB6lH8DOYh8Yx0mcsENPUJAqsenecpzx61SpHWznofIjbPsP_YP2x3D0kFixGo107r2juYy9FfBeAKgPSUDXiwqgrwYlVFWfsZ1olaxa6OAF2wGIpqql7F6x1yndAsCgWtixx_2N8QdMnDzPN8ht8BaXzIPjB_Qh3y_49PD8--kB_ZFi8Hfoc2EzRmMzBZ94DtxR5uYQya5zXiPyiY4YEzmyZmO48ROf0BZpNDP9wokvJmaytJgc4j1fZlNcx4g4kT98LPsaaaJUgJm82YhQMrejjoQ_37CXzswJL_7Oc3b95fP1_mt19f3y2_7TVWVrCXXV9qodpWotDG7om1p0brC2s9LgAHI06IRzwzQaZ3uFQyOsASlGHEfTdK6W5-zdyXaJ4ceKKevbsEZfEnUtW9E0qmsKJE6QjSGliE4vke7KyVqA3prRp2Z0aUZvzejNuD5pUmHL8-M_4_-L_gBidJn6</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>235144764</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Changes in the concept of genotype × environment interactions to fit agriculture diversification and decentralized participatory plant breeding: pluridisciplinary point of view</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Desclaux, D. ; Nolot, J. M. ; Chiffoleau, Y. ; Gozé, E. ; Leclerc, C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Desclaux, D. ; Nolot, J. M. ; Chiffoleau, Y. ; Gozé, E. ; Leclerc, C.</creatorcontrib><description>The standardization of environments (E) encouraged by modern society and by the productivist model of agriculture has resulted in the standardization of genotypes (G) thereby reducing G × E interaction. New societal values call for the diversification of agriculture to fit contrasted environments. This process can be depicted by four models defined by two axes, one socio-economic (individual logics versus collective governance), and the other agro-ecological (reductionist versus systemic approaches). These models differ in (i) their objectives (from improvement in yield to the empowerment of farmers), (ii) their specific expectations with respect to genotypes (from inherited genetic resources to varieties that represent genetic, ethical and social progress), (iii) their specific representations of the environment (E) (from a simple interaction between the bio-physical environment (B) and the crop management (C), to a complex interaction including the competences of the actors (A), outlets (O), regulations (R), society (S)), (iv) their particular relations between G and E (from G × E to G × B × C × A under evolving constraints represented by R × O × S). Taking this diversity into account changes the way plant improvement is considered. Thus, depending on the model, the order, interest and status of the five classic stages of plant improvement (setting objectives, creating variability, selecting, evaluating and disseminating) may be called into question. Between the existing analytical model (Model I) and a holistic model (Model IV) which remains to be developed, lies the challenge of ensuring the sustainability, efficiency and acceptability of plant breeding and resulting innovations. From a simple “statistical parameter” that we, as plant breeders, attempt to reduce, the G × E interaction is becoming an “objective” that we try to predict and valorize. Structuring the different components of E, G and G × E, enables us to extend the basic concept of representivity to both the cultivation conditions and the relational socio-economic positions of the actors involved.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0014-2336</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-5060</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10681-008-9717-2</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Agriculture ; Agronomy ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Biophysics ; Biotechnology ; Crop management ; Economics ; Empowerment ; Genetic resources ; Genotype &amp; phenotype ; Genotype-environment interactions ; Genotypes ; Life Sciences ; Plant breeding ; Plant Genetics and Genomics ; Plant Pathology ; Plant Physiology ; Plant reproduction ; Plant Sciences ; Socioeconomics</subject><ispartof>Euphytica, 2008-10, Vol.163 (3), p.533, Article 533</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2302-5875b375c09f984216f9cc6c3ae903baef1ff9dbafc87e941ca031bebba46f23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2302-5875b375c09f984216f9cc6c3ae903baef1ff9dbafc87e941ca031bebba46f23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10681-008-9717-2$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10681-008-9717-2$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Desclaux, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nolot, J. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chiffoleau, Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gozé, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leclerc, C.</creatorcontrib><title>Changes in the concept of genotype × environment interactions to fit agriculture diversification and decentralized participatory plant breeding: pluridisciplinary point of view</title><title>Euphytica</title><addtitle>Euphytica</addtitle><description>The standardization of environments (E) encouraged by modern society and by the productivist model of agriculture has resulted in the standardization of genotypes (G) thereby reducing G × E interaction. New societal values call for the diversification of agriculture to fit contrasted environments. This process can be depicted by four models defined by two axes, one socio-economic (individual logics versus collective governance), and the other agro-ecological (reductionist versus systemic approaches). These models differ in (i) their objectives (from improvement in yield to the empowerment of farmers), (ii) their specific expectations with respect to genotypes (from inherited genetic resources to varieties that represent genetic, ethical and social progress), (iii) their specific representations of the environment (E) (from a simple interaction between the bio-physical environment (B) and the crop management (C), to a complex interaction including the competences of the actors (A), outlets (O), regulations (R), society (S)), (iv) their particular relations between G and E (from G × E to G × B × C × A under evolving constraints represented by R × O × S). Taking this diversity into account changes the way plant improvement is considered. Thus, depending on the model, the order, interest and status of the five classic stages of plant improvement (setting objectives, creating variability, selecting, evaluating and disseminating) may be called into question. Between the existing analytical model (Model I) and a holistic model (Model IV) which remains to be developed, lies the challenge of ensuring the sustainability, efficiency and acceptability of plant breeding and resulting innovations. From a simple “statistical parameter” that we, as plant breeders, attempt to reduce, the G × E interaction is becoming an “objective” that we try to predict and valorize. Structuring the different components of E, G and G × E, enables us to extend the basic concept of representivity to both the cultivation conditions and the relational socio-economic positions of the actors involved.</description><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>Agronomy</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Biophysics</subject><subject>Biotechnology</subject><subject>Crop management</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Empowerment</subject><subject>Genetic resources</subject><subject>Genotype &amp; phenotype</subject><subject>Genotype-environment interactions</subject><subject>Genotypes</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Plant breeding</subject><subject>Plant Genetics and Genomics</subject><subject>Plant Pathology</subject><subject>Plant Physiology</subject><subject>Plant reproduction</subject><subject>Plant Sciences</subject><subject>Socioeconomics</subject><issn>0014-2336</issn><issn>1573-5060</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kcFu1TAQRa0KJB6lH8DOYh8Yx0mcsENPUJAqsenecpzx61SpHWznofIjbPsP_YP2x3D0kFixGo107r2juYy9FfBeAKgPSUDXiwqgrwYlVFWfsZ1olaxa6OAF2wGIpqql7F6x1yndAsCgWtixx_2N8QdMnDzPN8ht8BaXzIPjB_Qh3y_49PD8--kB_ZFi8Hfoc2EzRmMzBZ94DtxR5uYQya5zXiPyiY4YEzmyZmO48ROf0BZpNDP9wokvJmaytJgc4j1fZlNcx4g4kT98LPsaaaJUgJm82YhQMrejjoQ_37CXzswJL_7Oc3b95fP1_mt19f3y2_7TVWVrCXXV9qodpWotDG7om1p0brC2s9LgAHI06IRzwzQaZ3uFQyOsASlGHEfTdK6W5-zdyXaJ4ceKKevbsEZfEnUtW9E0qmsKJE6QjSGliE4vke7KyVqA3prRp2Z0aUZvzejNuD5pUmHL8-M_4_-L_gBidJn6</recordid><startdate>200810</startdate><enddate>200810</enddate><creator>Desclaux, D.</creator><creator>Nolot, J. M.</creator><creator>Chiffoleau, Y.</creator><creator>Gozé, E.</creator><creator>Leclerc, C.</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>RC3</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200810</creationdate><title>Changes in the concept of genotype × environment interactions to fit agriculture diversification and decentralized participatory plant breeding: pluridisciplinary point of view</title><author>Desclaux, D. ; Nolot, J. M. ; Chiffoleau, Y. ; Gozé, E. ; Leclerc, C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2302-5875b375c09f984216f9cc6c3ae903baef1ff9dbafc87e941ca031bebba46f23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>Agronomy</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Biophysics</topic><topic>Biotechnology</topic><topic>Crop management</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Empowerment</topic><topic>Genetic resources</topic><topic>Genotype &amp; phenotype</topic><topic>Genotype-environment interactions</topic><topic>Genotypes</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Plant breeding</topic><topic>Plant Genetics and Genomics</topic><topic>Plant Pathology</topic><topic>Plant Physiology</topic><topic>Plant reproduction</topic><topic>Plant Sciences</topic><topic>Socioeconomics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Desclaux, D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nolot, J. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chiffoleau, Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gozé, E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leclerc, C.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Euphytica</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Desclaux, D.</au><au>Nolot, J. M.</au><au>Chiffoleau, Y.</au><au>Gozé, E.</au><au>Leclerc, C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Changes in the concept of genotype × environment interactions to fit agriculture diversification and decentralized participatory plant breeding: pluridisciplinary point of view</atitle><jtitle>Euphytica</jtitle><stitle>Euphytica</stitle><date>2008-10</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>163</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>533</spage><pages>533-</pages><artnum>533</artnum><issn>0014-2336</issn><eissn>1573-5060</eissn><abstract>The standardization of environments (E) encouraged by modern society and by the productivist model of agriculture has resulted in the standardization of genotypes (G) thereby reducing G × E interaction. New societal values call for the diversification of agriculture to fit contrasted environments. This process can be depicted by four models defined by two axes, one socio-economic (individual logics versus collective governance), and the other agro-ecological (reductionist versus systemic approaches). These models differ in (i) their objectives (from improvement in yield to the empowerment of farmers), (ii) their specific expectations with respect to genotypes (from inherited genetic resources to varieties that represent genetic, ethical and social progress), (iii) their specific representations of the environment (E) (from a simple interaction between the bio-physical environment (B) and the crop management (C), to a complex interaction including the competences of the actors (A), outlets (O), regulations (R), society (S)), (iv) their particular relations between G and E (from G × E to G × B × C × A under evolving constraints represented by R × O × S). Taking this diversity into account changes the way plant improvement is considered. Thus, depending on the model, the order, interest and status of the five classic stages of plant improvement (setting objectives, creating variability, selecting, evaluating and disseminating) may be called into question. Between the existing analytical model (Model I) and a holistic model (Model IV) which remains to be developed, lies the challenge of ensuring the sustainability, efficiency and acceptability of plant breeding and resulting innovations. From a simple “statistical parameter” that we, as plant breeders, attempt to reduce, the G × E interaction is becoming an “objective” that we try to predict and valorize. Structuring the different components of E, G and G × E, enables us to extend the basic concept of representivity to both the cultivation conditions and the relational socio-economic positions of the actors involved.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s10681-008-9717-2</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0014-2336
ispartof Euphytica, 2008-10, Vol.163 (3), p.533, Article 533
issn 0014-2336
1573-5060
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_235144764
source SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Agriculture
Agronomy
Biomedical and Life Sciences
Biophysics
Biotechnology
Crop management
Economics
Empowerment
Genetic resources
Genotype & phenotype
Genotype-environment interactions
Genotypes
Life Sciences
Plant breeding
Plant Genetics and Genomics
Plant Pathology
Plant Physiology
Plant reproduction
Plant Sciences
Socioeconomics
title Changes in the concept of genotype × environment interactions to fit agriculture diversification and decentralized participatory plant breeding: pluridisciplinary point of view
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T07%3A37%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Changes%20in%20the%20concept%20of%20genotype%C2%A0%C3%97%C2%A0environment%20interactions%20to%20fit%20agriculture%20diversification%20and%20decentralized%20participatory%20plant%20breeding:%20pluridisciplinary%20point%20of%20view&rft.jtitle=Euphytica&rft.au=Desclaux,%20D.&rft.date=2008-10&rft.volume=163&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=533&rft.pages=533-&rft.artnum=533&rft.issn=0014-2336&rft.eissn=1573-5060&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10681-008-9717-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1898462371%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=235144764&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true