IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v3y2011i9p1616-1636d14113.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Phenotypic Changes in Different Spinach Varieties Grown and Selected under Organic Conditions

Author

Listed:
  • Estelle Serpolay

    () (INRA, Unité SAD Paysage, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, 65 rue de Saint-Brieuc, F-35042 Rennes, France)

  • Nicolas Schermann

    () (INRA, Unité SAD Paysage, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, 65 rue de Saint-Brieuc, F-35042 Rennes, France)

  • Julie Dawson

    () (INRA, UMR 320 Génétique Végétale, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Ferme du Moulon, F-91190 Gif-sur-Yvette, France)

  • Edith T. Lammerts van Bueren

    () (Louis Bolk Institute, Hoofdstraat 24, NL-3972 LA Driebergen, The Netherlands)

  • Isabelle Goldringer

    () (INRA, UMR 320 Génétique Végétale, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Ferme du Moulon, F-91190 Gif-sur-Yvette, France)

  • Véronique Chable

    () (INRA, Unité SAD Paysage, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, 65 rue de Saint-Brieuc, F-35042 Rennes, France)

Abstract

Organic and low-input agriculture needs flexible varieties that can buffer environmental stress and adapt to the needs of farmers. We implemented an experiment to investigate the evolutionary capacities of a sample of spinach ( Spinacia oleracea L.) population varieties for a number of phenotypic traits. Three farmers cultivated, selected and multiplied one or several populations over two years on their farms. The third year, the versions of the varieties cultivated and selected by the different farmers were compared to the original seed lots they had been given. After two cycles of cultivation and on-farm mass selection, all the observed varieties showed significant phenotypic changes (differences between the original version and the version cultivated by farmers) for morphological and phenological traits. When the divergence among versions within varieties was studied, the results show that the varieties conserved their identity, except for one variety, which evolved in such a way that it may now be considered two different varieties. The heterogeneity of the population varieties was assessed in comparison with a commercial F1 hybrid used as control, and we found no specific differences in phenotypic diversity between the hybrid and population varieties. The phenotypic changes shown by the population varieties in response to on-farm cultivation and selection could be useful for the development of specific adaptation. These results call into question the current European seed legislation and the requirements of phenotypic stability for conservation varieties.

Suggested Citation

  • Estelle Serpolay & Nicolas Schermann & Julie Dawson & Edith T. Lammerts van Bueren & Isabelle Goldringer & Véronique Chable, 2011. "Phenotypic Changes in Different Spinach Varieties Grown and Selected under Organic Conditions," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 3(9), pages 1-21, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:3:y:2011:i:9:p:1616-1636:d:14113
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/3/9/1616/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/3/9/1616/
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    2. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    3. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Dupont, Diane & Krupnick, Alan & Zhang, Jing, 2011. "Valuation of cancer and microbial disease risk reductions in municipal drinking water: An analysis of risk context using multiple valuation methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 213-226, March.
    4. Kragt, Marit Ellen & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2009. "Using Choice Experiments to value River and Estuary Health in Tasmania with Individual Preference Heterogeneity," Research Reports 94816, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    5. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David & Wakker, Peter P., 2002. "Utility in Case-Based Decision Theory," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 483-502, August.
    6. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Moon, Amanda, 2009. "Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), December.
    7. Riccardo Scarpa & John M. Rose, 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 253-282, September.
    8. Brownstone, David & Train, Kenneth, 1998. "Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 109-129, November.
    9. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Francesco Marangon, 2008. "Using Flexible Taste Distributions to Value Collective Reputation for Environmentally Friendly Production Methods," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(2), pages 145-162, June.
    10. William S. Breffle & Robert D. Rowe, 2002. "Comparing Choice Question Formats for Evaluating Natural Resource Tradeoffs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 298-314.
    11. Ferrini, Silvia & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2007. "Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 342-363, May.
    12. Mark Morrison & Jeff Bennett, 2004. "Valuing New South Wales rivers for use in benefit transfer," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(4), pages 591-611, December.
    13. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    14. Danny Campbell & W. Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(3), pages 401-417, November.
    15. Adamowicz, Wiktor & Swait, Joffre & Boxall, Peter & Louviere, Jordan & Williams, Michael, 1997. "Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 65-84, January.
    16. Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Boxall, Peter C. & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1995. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments versus Contingent Valuation," Staff Paper Series 24126, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    17. Riccardo Scarpa & Kenneth G. Willis & Melinda Acutt, 2007. "Valuing externalities from water supply: Status quo, choice complexity and individual random effects in panel kernel logit analysis of choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 449-466.
    18. Joseph A. Herriges & Daniel J. Phaneuf, 2002. "Inducing Patterns of Correlation and Substitution in Repeated Logit Models of Recreation Demand," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(4), pages 1076-1090.
    19. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    20. Ian Bateman & Alistair Munro & Bruce Rhodes & Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden, 1997. "A Test of the Theory of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 112(2), pages 479-505.
    21. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    22. Herriges, Joseph A. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2002. "Inducing Patterns Correlation and Substitution in Repeated Logit Model of Recreation Demand," Staff General Research Papers Archive 5035, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    23. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    24. Chuan-zhong Li & Jari Kuuluvainen & Eija Pouta & Mika Rekola & Olli Tahvonen, 2004. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Natura 2000 Nature Conservation Programs in Finland," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(3), pages 361-374, November.
    25. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    26. Mara Thiene & Riccardo Scarpa, 2009. "Deriving and Testing Efficient Estimates of WTP Distributions in Destination Choice Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(3), pages 379-395, November.
    27. Stephane Hess & John Rose, 2009. "Should Reference Alternatives in Pivot Design SC Surveys be Treated Differently?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(3), pages 297-317, March.
    28. Rose, John M. & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A. & Collins, Andrew T., 2008. "Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 395-406, May.
    29. Jeff Brazell & Christopher Diener & Ekaterina Karniouchina & William Moore & Válerie Séverin & Pierre-Francois Uldry, 2006. "The no-choice option and dual response choice designs," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 255-268, December.
    30. Riccardo Scarpa & Danny Campbell & W. George Hutchinson, 2007. "Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 617-634.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Spinacia oleracea ; on-farm conservation; farmer varieties; participatory plant breeding; seed legislation; DUS;

    JEL classification:

    • Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics
    • Q0 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General
    • Q2 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation
    • Q3 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation
    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:3:y:2011:i:9:p:1616-1636:d:14113. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (XML Conversion Team). General contact details of provider: http://www.mdpi.com/ .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.