**8. Concluding remarks**

420 Ecosystems Biodiversity

development and the introduction of some new facilities, rural infrastructures and extension services, vegetable production grew at an average annual rate of 5.4%. In a survey conducted with 300 growers, the adoption of improved varieties (42%) and hybrid seed (30%) were the most responsible for this increase in vegetable production of all the technologies used. Among 27 vegetable crops propagated by seed there were 5 (19%) where the only change in vegetable production was the adoption of improved varieties or hybrid variety seeds; in 14 (52%) there was the additional adoption of simple cultural practices like row sowing and fertilization. Tomato grafting and other more sophisticated practices were not implemented. Of the hybrid varieties used, 92% were of cross-pollinated species in which hybrids are important for uniformity. Vegetatively propagated vegetables were not included in the activities. Eager to increase their production, the majority of the growers (91%), regardless of farmer type, invested in some new vegetable technology over the last five years of the project. The average proportion of growers who adopted an improved technology was 43%, and the average adoption rate among all technologies was 31%. Improved or hybrid vegetable varieties were 72% responsible for the increase of vegetable production, since it was easier and cheaper for the growers to buy improved variety seeds than to adopt other technologies. This fact per se highlights the importance of improved varieties and the need to invest in varietal improvement research, since it requires fewer behavioral changes compared to adopting new crop management practices. In terms of farmer's receptiveness to these improved technologies, small-scale farmers, particularly small landowners, tend to be late adopters due to skepticism about the cost of improved and hybrid seeds and capital and risk constraints compared with larger-scale farmers with large

Increased vegetable production has also resulted in important employment benefits for the community such as: new employment opportunities, substitution of family labor by hired labor, and increased wages. Local support industries have also benefited from the expansion of vegetable cultivation both on the input and output side. A higher degree of input commercialization was observed for vegetables as compared to cereals and included all inputs such as seed, inorganic fertilizers, pesticides, farm manure, plastic, mesh netting and bamboo poles. In general, a higher share of vegetable output was sold on markets as compared to the production of cereals. Vegetable growers were highly integrated into markets, selling a large share of their products and retaining a small portion for home consumption. This was true for both small-scale and large-scale farmers. Since supermarkets continue to play a minor role in Bangladesh, most of the vegetable produce was sold either

In general, the survey project found that vegetable production has contributed to widespread welfare improvement and poverty alleviation in Bangladesh. While nearly all communities agreed that they were benefiting from increased vegetable production (either in terms of enhanced consumption, enhanced investment, saving opportunities, or increased welfare), the grower level data also showed that larger-scale farmers have been able to capitalize more. On average, 90.3% of households experienced an improvement in their lives over the past five years, but large-scale growers reported greater increases in well-being as compared to smaller-scale farmers. The study has also shown that more impact can still be expected, particularly if agro-technology industries develop further. However, the availability of cheap, high quality vegetable seed may be restricted and a

Similar projects were implemented by AVRDC in other Asia-Pacific countries and in Africa and the results were similar showing that farmers receive more income from

cultivated areas (Collins, 1995).

in the local markets or to wholesalers.

major impediment to progress.

Vegetable breeding is the development of new vegetable varieties with new proprieties. In this era of changes, vegetables will play a major role in well-balanced diets and in the current global battle against malnutrition. There will be continuous need of biodiversity and new and performing varieties for sustainability of vegetable production. Biodiversity is the basis for vegetable breeding and for the introduction of new varieties and hybrids to improve quality and productivity.

Creation of vegetable hybrids is a key means towards the development of varieties for modern vegetable production. Hybrid seed production is high technology and a cost intensive venture. Only well organized seed companies with good scientific manpower and well equipped research facilities can afford seed production. Due to globalization, most vegetable breeding research and variety development in the world is presently conducted and funded in the private sector, mainly by huge multinational seed companies. Few companies are controlling a large part of the world market. Public vegetable breeders and public sector variety development are disappearing worldwide. This means in general that there will be fewer decision-making centers for vegetable breeding and variety development. This has also resulted in the focus on relatively few major vegetables produced worldwide, to the detriment of all other cultivated vegetables. It is imperative that national governments and policymakers, as part of a social duty, invest in breeding research and variety development of traditional open-pollinated varieties and in the minor and socalled "forgotten" vegetables. Smaller seed companies, which are usually specialized in few vegetable crops, must be supported, possibly through autonomous affiliation with the larger companies. More investments in this area will mean less expensive seed for growers to choose from, and increased preservation of vegetable biodiversity. The accomplishment of this goal may require new approaches to vegetable breeding research and development by both the public and private sector.

Domestic and international vegetable markets are changing rapidly, and a variety of factors such as supermarkets and improvements in transportation and refrigeration have largely contributed to this development. Trade liberalization has impacted on the increasing importance of exports, which are increasing for high value vegetable crops. Increasing urbanization, with increasing incomes mainly of growing middle classes in most parts of the world, requires large quantities of vegetables. These may be produced locally or at great distances from where they are consumed, with effects on vegetable post-harvest processing and value-added activities. The standards for participation in high value vegetable markets have increased, both in developed and developing countries and supply chains are increasingly complex, undergoing rapid changes, and often based on strong vertical integration. The participation of small-scale growers in dynamic vegetable markets for higher value vegetables is a major challenge. Participation requires, particularly in developing countries, a set of institutional changes, training, and credit facilities to allow

Biodiversity and Vegetable Breeding in the Light of Developments in Intellectual Property Rights 423

PBR available for further breeding ("breeder's exemption") . This offers possibilities to built on such inventions and may stimulate further innovation by others, including competitors, which serves the public objective of economic development, food security and preservation of biodiversity. As regards patent rights, however a clear distinction needs to be made between patents on technologies for plant breeding and patents on genetic properties of plants. Granting patent rights for genetic traits is conflicting with plant breeder's rights, the breeder's exemption in particular. The access to genetic variation/biodiversity is so crucial to further innovation in breeding that a form of breeder's exemption within patent rights is required. Amendement of regulations is necessary to increase room for innovation in vegetable breeding. This can be reached by restricting the scope of patents in plant breeding, and more specifically by reinstating the exemption of patents on varieties or by introducing

Until recently vegetable breeding research and development that targets small-scale and poor vegetable growers has largely been undertaken by public sector institutions and national agricultural research institutes. Public plant breeding remains a key component of vegetable research systems worldwide, especially in developing countries. However the increasing presence of private sector breeding and a decrease in national and international support makes it difficult for the public sector to continue operating in the traditional manner. Declining funding for public vegetable breeding coupled with the rapid increase of vegetable production and consumption and an urbanizing population, has created a difficult situation. More public sector vegetable breeders are needed worldwide to select and to produce non-hybrid varieties of the minor and "forgotten" vegetables. Breeding of vegetables and other minor crops must continue as a viable endeavor. This will benefit small-scale growers, and will safeguard biodiversity and food security in developing countries. A good example is China where there are four types of vegetable breeders and seed producers: public seed companies, research institutes, foreign seed companies, and

While the maintenance of vigorous public sector breeding programs in areas where private companies are not interested in providing low cost varieties is highly desirable, an additional approach to maximize vegetable and horticultural research input would be the development of global programs with public–private partnerships. The public sector may support portions of vegetable and horticultural R&D that are not attractive to the private sector, and feed improved breeding lines and systems to the private sector for exploitation in regions where the private sector is active, and nurture private sector development in regions where it is lacking. Many in the public and private sectors support such a complementary approach to overcome poverty and malnutrition in developing countries. In summary, we must ensure that society will continue to benefit from biodiversity and from the vital contribution that plant breeding offers, using both conventional and biotechnological tools, because improved and hybrid vegetable varieties are, and will continue to be, the most effective, environmentally safe, and sustainable way to ensure

Ali, M. (2002). The vegetable sector in Indochina: a synthesis. The vegetable sector in

Indochina countries: farm and household perspectives on poverty alleviation.

full breeder's exemption in patent rights.

local seed companies.

global food security in the future.

AVRDC-ARC. Bangkok.

**9. References** 

them to compete in increasingly competitive global markets that demand safe, uniform and high-quality produce. Credit facilities and other inputs must be part of subsistence vegetable production systems, so that the use of improved vegetable varieties can help subsistence vegetable farmers to overcome their poverty and food insecurity.

Since the introduction of modern biotechnology in the 1980's many new (in particular molecular) technologies have been devepoded that are important for plant breeding, which enables, e.g., speeding up of the breeding process and the discovery of genetic information. These technological breakthoughs have led to major changes in plant breeding and the development of molecular breeding. Molecular tools will be useful for selecting resistance genes, and increasing quality, nutritional value, and yields. These traits plus food safety will be important aspects of future breeding efforts. Overall, there is great genetic and phenotypic diversity for types and amounts of micronutrients in the various vegetables. Consequently there is a good potential for increasing micronutrient content and thus enrich the diet of the average consumer. More research is needed with the goals of providing benefit to poor and malnourished populations.

Biotechnology provides the ability to produce a broad array of insect-resistant and pathogen-resistant varieties that also express a variety of other value-added traits such as nutritional and post-harvest traits. As the number of value-added, GM traits increases, the number of potential combinations of traits that could be stacked within individual varieties increases geometrically, as to the cost associated with maintaining inventories of geographically adapted varieties expressing different combinations of traits. Consequently, we can expect that commercially available, GM vegetable varieties of the future will express multiple, unrelated, transgenic traits, and farmers in many cases likely will not have the option of planting varieties expressing only single traits. The availability of transgenic vegetable crops does not however ensure that they will be adopted by growers. The benefits of their adoption must exceed their costs for a large proportion of vegetable growers from one season to the next to be widely adopted.

The objective of plant breeding is to produce better varieties for farmers and growers. Investor's interests usually are not the breeder's first priority. Development of new technologies and its use in plant breeding have led to escalation of costs for the breeding companies. Further, protection and regulatory costs add to the high risk investments for the smaller breeding companies. The increased complexity of markets and the higher demands force modern plant breeding to reduce the time for new varieties development, thus, further escalating the cost. The short span of life of a variety in the environment is resulting in shorter earn back period. This double impact is bound to put more pressure on investors to recover their investment through protection of intellectual property, and consequently royalties.

Protection of intellectual property in plant breeding is not the primary driver to develop new, innovative varieties but it is an adequte tool to protect the new varieties in the market against illegal reproduction and sales. Plant breeder's rights as well as patent rights play a major role in supporting plant breeding and innovation. Despite the large differences between both systems, plant breeder's rights and patent rights may have two fundamental, identical objectives: i) on one hand, both rights systems ensure that the developer/inventor is recognised for his creation/invention by granting an exclusive right. For the proprietor this serves in practice a business-economic purpose that may provide; ii) on the other hand, plant breeder's rights as well as patent rights include an important socio-economic objective, by disclosing information on the patentable invention and by making a plant variety under PBR available for further breeding ("breeder's exemption") . This offers possibilities to built on such inventions and may stimulate further innovation by others, including competitors, which serves the public objective of economic development, food security and preservation of biodiversity. As regards patent rights, however a clear distinction needs to be made between patents on technologies for plant breeding and patents on genetic properties of plants. Granting patent rights for genetic traits is conflicting with plant breeder's rights, the breeder's exemption in particular. The access to genetic variation/biodiversity is so crucial to further innovation in breeding that a form of breeder's exemption within patent rights is required. Amendement of regulations is necessary to increase room for innovation in vegetable breeding. This can be reached by restricting the scope of patents in plant breeding, and more specifically by reinstating the exemption of patents on varieties or by introducing full breeder's exemption in patent rights.

Until recently vegetable breeding research and development that targets small-scale and poor vegetable growers has largely been undertaken by public sector institutions and national agricultural research institutes. Public plant breeding remains a key component of vegetable research systems worldwide, especially in developing countries. However the increasing presence of private sector breeding and a decrease in national and international support makes it difficult for the public sector to continue operating in the traditional manner. Declining funding for public vegetable breeding coupled with the rapid increase of vegetable production and consumption and an urbanizing population, has created a difficult situation. More public sector vegetable breeders are needed worldwide to select and to produce non-hybrid varieties of the minor and "forgotten" vegetables. Breeding of vegetables and other minor crops must continue as a viable endeavor. This will benefit small-scale growers, and will safeguard biodiversity and food security in developing countries. A good example is China where there are four types of vegetable breeders and seed producers: public seed companies, research institutes, foreign seed companies, and local seed companies.

While the maintenance of vigorous public sector breeding programs in areas where private companies are not interested in providing low cost varieties is highly desirable, an additional approach to maximize vegetable and horticultural research input would be the development of global programs with public–private partnerships. The public sector may support portions of vegetable and horticultural R&D that are not attractive to the private sector, and feed improved breeding lines and systems to the private sector for exploitation in regions where the private sector is active, and nurture private sector development in regions where it is lacking. Many in the public and private sectors support such a complementary approach to overcome poverty and malnutrition in developing countries.

In summary, we must ensure that society will continue to benefit from biodiversity and from the vital contribution that plant breeding offers, using both conventional and biotechnological tools, because improved and hybrid vegetable varieties are, and will continue to be, the most effective, environmentally safe, and sustainable way to ensure global food security in the future.

#### **9. References**

422 Ecosystems Biodiversity

them to compete in increasingly competitive global markets that demand safe, uniform and high-quality produce. Credit facilities and other inputs must be part of subsistence vegetable production systems, so that the use of improved vegetable varieties can help

Since the introduction of modern biotechnology in the 1980's many new (in particular molecular) technologies have been devepoded that are important for plant breeding, which enables, e.g., speeding up of the breeding process and the discovery of genetic information. These technological breakthoughs have led to major changes in plant breeding and the development of molecular breeding. Molecular tools will be useful for selecting resistance genes, and increasing quality, nutritional value, and yields. These traits plus food safety will be important aspects of future breeding efforts. Overall, there is great genetic and phenotypic diversity for types and amounts of micronutrients in the various vegetables. Consequently there is a good potential for increasing micronutrient content and thus enrich the diet of the average consumer. More research is needed with the goals of providing

Biotechnology provides the ability to produce a broad array of insect-resistant and pathogen-resistant varieties that also express a variety of other value-added traits such as nutritional and post-harvest traits. As the number of value-added, GM traits increases, the number of potential combinations of traits that could be stacked within individual varieties increases geometrically, as to the cost associated with maintaining inventories of geographically adapted varieties expressing different combinations of traits. Consequently, we can expect that commercially available, GM vegetable varieties of the future will express multiple, unrelated, transgenic traits, and farmers in many cases likely will not have the option of planting varieties expressing only single traits. The availability of transgenic vegetable crops does not however ensure that they will be adopted by growers. The benefits of their adoption must exceed their costs for a large proportion of vegetable growers from

The objective of plant breeding is to produce better varieties for farmers and growers. Investor's interests usually are not the breeder's first priority. Development of new technologies and its use in plant breeding have led to escalation of costs for the breeding companies. Further, protection and regulatory costs add to the high risk investments for the smaller breeding companies. The increased complexity of markets and the higher demands force modern plant breeding to reduce the time for new varieties development, thus, further escalating the cost. The short span of life of a variety in the environment is resulting in shorter earn back period. This double impact is bound to put more pressure on investors to recover their investment through protection of intellectual property, and

Protection of intellectual property in plant breeding is not the primary driver to develop new, innovative varieties but it is an adequte tool to protect the new varieties in the market against illegal reproduction and sales. Plant breeder's rights as well as patent rights play a major role in supporting plant breeding and innovation. Despite the large differences between both systems, plant breeder's rights and patent rights may have two fundamental, identical objectives: i) on one hand, both rights systems ensure that the developer/inventor is recognised for his creation/invention by granting an exclusive right. For the proprietor this serves in practice a business-economic purpose that may provide; ii) on the other hand, plant breeder's rights as well as patent rights include an important socio-economic objective, by disclosing information on the patentable invention and by making a plant variety under

subsistence vegetable farmers to overcome their poverty and food insecurity.

benefit to poor and malnourished populations.

one season to the next to be widely adopted.

consequently royalties.

Ali, M. (2002). The vegetable sector in Indochina: a synthesis. The vegetable sector in Indochina countries: farm and household perspectives on poverty alleviation. AVRDC-ARC. Bangkok.

Biodiversity and Vegetable Breeding in the Light of Developments in Intellectual Property Rights 425

Fuchs, M.; Tricoli, D.M.; McMaster, J.R.; Carney, K.J.; Schesser, M.; McFerson, J.R. &

Gabelman, W.H. & Peters, S. (1979). Genetical and plant breeding possibilities for improving

Gayon, J. & Zallen, D.T. (1998). The role of the Vilmorin Company in the promotion and

Gianessi, L.P.; Silvers, C.S.; Sankula, S. & Carpenter, J.E. 2002. Virus resistant squash. In:

Gockowski, J.; Mbazo'o, J.; Mbah, G. & Moulende, T. (2003). African traditional leafy vegetables and the urban and peri-urban poor. Food Policy 28:221–235. Gousset, C.; Collonnier, C., Mulya, K.; Mariska, I.; Rotino, G.L.; Besse, P.; Servaes, A. &

Graham, R.D.; Welch, R.M.; Saunders, D.A.; Ortiz-Monasterio, I.; Bouis, H.E.; Bonierbale,

Grube, R.C.; Radwanski, E.R. & Jahn, M. (2000). Comparative genetics of disease resistance

Hanson, P.M.; Bernacchi, D.; Green, S.K.; Tanksley, S.D.; Muniyappa, V. & Padmaja, A.

Hassel, R. & Shepard, B.M. (2002). Insect population on *Bacillus thuringiensis* transgenic

Hayes, H.K. & Jones, D.F. (1916). First generation crosses in cucumber. Republic Conf. Agr.

Henson, S. & Loader, R. (2001). Barriers to agricultural exports from developing countries: The role of sanitary and phytosanitary requirements. World Devel. 29:85–102. Henson, S.; Masakure, O. & Boselie, D. (2005). Private food safety and quality standards for

HKI (Helen Keller International) (2010). Homestead food production model contributes to

resistance in a cultivated tomato line. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 125:15–20. Hanson, P.M.;Yu, Y.R.; Lin, S.; Tsou, S.C.S.; Lee, T.C.; Wu, J.; Jin, S.; Gniffke, P. & Ledesma,

resistance. In vitro Cell. & Develop. Biol. - Plant 40:346–358.

the quality of vegetables. Acta Hort. 93:243–270.

Agricultural Policy, Washington, DC, USA.

subsistence food systems. Adv. Agron. 92:1–74.

within the *Solanaceae*. Genetics 155:873–887.

Characterization and Utilization 2:153.

sweet corn. J. Entom. Sci. 37:285-292.

Exp. Stat. 5:319-322.

30:371–384.

Nutr Bull 8:1-8.

Biol. 31:241–262.

Science 168:319–327.

Gonsalves D. (1998). Comparative virus resistance and fruit yield of transgenic squash with single and multiple coat protein genes. Plant Disease 82:1350–1356. Gaba, V.; Zelcer, A. & Gal-On, A. (2004). Cucurbit biotechnology - the importance of virus

diffusion of the experimental science of heredity in France, 1840–1920. J. History

*Plant Biotechnology: Current and Potential Impact for Improving Pest Management in U.S. Agriculture. An Analysis of 40 Case Studies*. National Center for Food and

Sihachakr, D. (2005). *Solanum torvum*, as a useful source of resistance against bacterial and fungal diseases for improvement of eggplant (*S. melongena* L.). Plant

M.; Haan, S.; Burgos, G.; Thiele, G.; Dominguez, M.R.L.; Meisner, C.A.; Beebe, S.E.; Potts, M.J.; Kadian, M.; Hobbs, P.R.; Grupta, R.K. & Twomlow, S. (2007). Nutritious

(2000). Mapping a wild tomato introgression associated with tomato leaf curl virus

D. (2004). Variation for antioxidant activity and antioxidants in subset of AVRDC the World Vegetable Center *Capsicum* core Collection. Plant Gen. Res.:

fresh produce exporters: The case of Hortico Agrisystems, Zimbabwe. Food Policy

improved household food security, nutrition and female empowerment-experience from scaling-up programs in Asia (Bangladesh, Cambodia, Nepal and Philipines).


Ali, M. & Hau, V.T.B. (2001). Vegetables in Bangladesh. Technical Bull. 25. AVRDC,

Andre, C.M.; Ghislain, M.; Berlin, P.; Oufir, M.; Herrera, M.R.; Hoffman, L.; Hausman, J.F.;

Bang, H.J.; Kim, S.G.; Leskovar, D. & King, S. (2007). Development of a codominant CAPS

Bettencourt, E. & Konopka, J. (1990). Vegetables. pp. 204–220. In: Directory of germplasm

Biacs, P.A.; Daood, H.G.; Huszka, T.T. & Biacs, P.K. (1993). Carotenoids and carotenoide esters from new cross-cultivars of paprika. J. Agr. Food Chem. 41:1864–1867. Brown, C.R.; Culley, D.; Yang, C.P.; Durst, R. & Wrolstad, R. (2005).Variation of anthocyanin

Burkness, E.C.; Hutchison, W.D.; Bolin, P.C.; Bartels, D.W.; Warnock, D.F. & Davis, D.W.

Collins, J. (1995). Farm size and non traditional exports: Determinants of participation in

Daunay, M.C.; Lester, R.N. & Ano, G. (1997). Les Aubergines. In: *L'amélioration des Plantes* 

Dias, J.S. (1989). The use of molecular markers in selection of vegetables. SECH, Actas Hort.

Dias, J.S. (2001). Effect of incubation temperature regimes and culture medium on broccoli

Dias, J.S. (2003). Protocol for broccoli microspore culture. In: *Doubled haploid production in* 

Dias, J.S. (2010). Impact of improved vegetable cultivars in overcoming food insecurity.

Dias, J.S. (2011). World importance, marketing and trading of vegetables. ICH 2010, Lisbon.

Dias, J.S. & Ortiz, R. (2012). Transgenic vegetable crops: progress, potentials and prospects.

Dinham, B. (2003). Growing vegetables in developing countries for local urban populations

EU (1998). Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998

and export markets: Problems confronting small-scale producers. Pest Manag. Sci.

on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. PBL no. 213. EU Brussels.

SNP in lycopene beta-cyclase (LCYB) gene. Mol. Breed. 20:63-72.

(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Econ. Entom. 94:197-203.

microspore culture embryogenesis. Euphytica 119:1-6.

pp. 195-204. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Plant Breeding Reviews 35:151-246.35:151-246.

FAO (2009). FAOSTAT data. Available from http://www.fao.org.

world markets. World Development 23:1103-1114.

Larondelle, Y. & Evers, D. (2007). Andean potato cultivars (*Solanum tuberosum* L.) as a source of antioxidant and mineral micronutrients. J. Agr. Food Chem. 55:366–378.

marker for allelic selection between canary yellow and red watermelon based on

and carotenoid contents and associated antioxidant values in potato breeding lines.

(2001). Field efficacy of sweet corn hybrids expressing a *Bacillus thuringiensis* toxin for management of *Ostrinia nubilalis* (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) and *Helicoverpa zea*

*Tropicales. Repéres.* Charrier A., Jacquot M., Hamon S. & Nicolas D. (eds.) pp. 83–

*crop plants. A manual*. Maluszynski, M., Kasha K.J., Forster B.P. & Szarejko I. (eds.).

Shanhua, Tainan.

collection. IBPGR, Rome.

J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 130:174–180.

107 CIRAD-ORSTOM, Paris.

Euphytica 176:125-136.

Acta Horticulturae (in press).

3:175-181.

59: 575–582.

pp.13.


Biodiversity and Vegetable Breeding in the Light of Developments in Intellectual Property Rights 427

Musser, F.R. & Shelton, A.M. (2003). Bt sweet corn and selective insecticides: their impacts

Musser, F.R.; Nyrop, J.P. & Shelton, A.M. (2006). Integrated biological and chemical controls

NASS (2007). Vegetables: 2006 annual summary. National Agricultural Statistics Service,

Ochoa, J.P.A.; Dainello, F.; Pike, L.M. & Drews, D. (1995). Field performance comparison of

Perring, T.M.; Gruenhagen, N.M. & Farrar, C.A. (1999). Management of plant viral diseases through chemical control of insect vectors. An. Rev. Entom. 44:457–481. Pfeiffer, W. & McClafferty, B. (2007). HarvestPlus: breeding crops for better nutrition. Crop

Premanchandra, B.R. (1986). Genetic regulation of carotene biosynthesis in selected tomato

Regmi, A. & Gehlar, M. (2001). Consumer preferences and concerns shape global food trade.

Reyes, L.F.; MillerJr, J.C. & Zevallos, L.C. (2005). Antioxidant capacity, anthocyanins and

Rohrbach, D.D.; Minde, I.J. & Howard, J. (2003). Looking beyond national boundaries:

Rose, R. & Dively, G.P. (2007). Effects of insecticide-treated and lepidopteran-active *Bt* 

Ryder, E.J. (2005). Intellectual property rights for plants. The case for a new law. Chronica

Schultheis, J.R. & Walters, S.A. (1998). Yield and virus resistance of summer squash cultivars

Shankula, S. (2006). Quantification of the Impacts on US Agriculture of Biotechnology-Derived Crops Planted in 2005. Available from http://www.ncfap.org/ Shepherd, A. (2005). The implications of supermarket development for horticultural farmers

Simon, P.W.; Pollak, L.M.; Clevidence, B.A.; Holden, J.M. & Haytowitz, D.B. (2009). Plant breeding for human nutritional quality. Plant Breed. Rev. 31:325–392. Speese, I.J.; Kuhar, T.P.; Bratsch, A.D.; Nault, B.A.; Barlow, V.M.; Cordero, R.J. & Shen, Z.

Stommel, J.R. & Haynes, K.G. (1994). Inheritance of beta carotene content in the wild tomato

(2005). Efficacy and economics of fresh-market Bt transgenic sweet corn in Virginia.

and breeding lines in North Carolina. HortScience 8:31–39.

and traditional marketing systems in Asia. FAO, Rome.

species *Lycopersicon cheesmanii*. J. Hered. 85:401–404.

in decision-making: European corn borer control in sweet corn as an example. J.

two transgenic summer squash hybrids to their parental hybrid lineage.

strains: Aspects of beta-carotene biosynthesis and B gene specificity. Intl. J. Vitam.

total phenolics in purple and red-fleshed potato (*Solanum tuberosum* L.) genotypes.

Regional harmonization of seed policies, laws and regulations. Food Policy, 28:

transgenic sweet corn on the abundance and diversity of arthropods. Env. Entom.

Monsanto (2009). Supplemental toolkit for investors. Updated June 2009. Monsanto.

on sweet corn pests and predators. J. Econ. Entom. 96:71-80.

OECD (2009). The Bioeconomy to 2030. Designing a policy agenda. OECD, Paris.

Econ. Entom. 99:1538-1549.

HortScience 30:492–493.

Washington DC.

Sci. 57:S88-S105.

317–333.

36:1254-1268.

Nutr. Res. 56:35–43.

Am. J. Pot. Res. 82:271–277.

Horticulturae 45(2):5-11.

Crop Protection 24:57-64.

Food Rev.: Global Food Trade 24:2–8.


Monsanto (2009). Supplemental toolkit for investors. Updated June 2009. Monsanto.

426 Ecosystems Biodiversity

Hoheisel, G.A. & Fleischer, S.J. (2007). Coccinelids, aphids, and pollen in diversified vegetable fields with transgenic and isoline cultivars. J. Insect Sci. 7:64. Hotz, C. & McClafferty, B. (2007). From harvest to health: Challenges for developing

Kader, A. (2003). A perspective on postharvest horticulture (1978–2003). HortScience

Kays, S.J. & Dias, J.S. (1995). Common names of commercially cultivated vegetables of the

Kays, S.J. & Dias, J.S. (1996). *Cultivated Vegetables of the World. Latin Binomial, Common Names in 15 Languages, Edible Part, and Method of Preparation*. Exon Press, Athens, Georgia. Keatinge, J.D.H.; Waliyar, F.; Jammadass, R.H.; Moustafa, A.; Andrade, M.; Drechsel, P.;

Kerr, E.A. (1969). Do tomato cultivars deteriorate after they are introduced? Reports of the

Key, N. & Runsten, D. (1999). Contract farming, small-holders, and rural development in

Kramer, M.G. & Redenbaugh, K. (1994). Commercialization of a tomato with an antisense polygalacturonase gene: the FLAVR SAVR™ tomato story. Euphytica 79:293–297. Lacerrot, H. (1996). Breeding strategies for disease resistance in tomato with emphasis to the

Leslie, T.W., Hoheisel, G.A.; Biddinger, D.J.; Rohr, J.R. & Fleisher, S.J. (2007). Transgenes

Lester, R.N.; Jaeger, P.M.L.; Spierings, B.H.B.; Bleijendaal, H.P.O. & Hooloway, H.L.O.

Lincoln, R.E. & Porter, J.W. (1950). Inheritance of beta-carotene in tomatoes. Genetics 35:206–

Lincoln, R.E.; Zscheile, F.P.; Porter, J.W.; Kohler, G.W. & Caldwell, R.M. (1943). Provitamin

Lynch, R.; Wiseman, B.; Sumner, H.; Plaisted, D. & Warnick, D. (1999). Management of corn

Ludwig, S.P. & Chumney, J.C. (2003). No room for experiment: the federal circuit's narrow construction of the experimental use defence. Nature Biotechnology 21:453. Mao,W.; Yi, J. & Sihachakr, D. (2008). Development of core subset for the collection of

Medley, T.L. (1994). Availability of determination of non-regulated status for virus resistant

A and vitamin C in the genus *Lycopersicon*. Bot. Gaz. 105:113–115.

hybrid expressing a cryIA (b) gene. J. Econ. Entom. 92:1217-1222.

world in 15 languages. Economic Botany 49:115-152.

outgrower production. World Devel. 27:381–401.

Food Nutr. Bul. 28:S271–S279.

vegetables. Crop Sci. 60:S51-S62.

Disease. Recife, Brazil. pp. 126–132.

squash. Federal Register 59:64187–64189.

Entom. 36:234-244.

Newsl. 81–82:17–26.

211.

Res. 6:33–40.

38:1004–1008.

75–80.

biofortified staple foods and determining their impact on micronutrient status.

Hughes, J.d'A.; Kardivel, P. & Luther, K. (2010). Re-learning old lessons for the future of food: By bread alone no longer − diversifying diets with fruit and

Horticultural Research Institute of Ontario, Vineland Station, Ontario, Canada. pp.

Latin America: The organization of agroprocessing firms and the scale of

tropics: Current status and research challenges. 1st Intl. Symp. on Tropical Tomato

sustain epigeal insect biodiversity in diversified vegetable farm systems. Env.

(1990). African eggplant: a review of collecting in West Africa. Plant Gen. Resources

earworm and fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) injury on a sweet corn

Chinese cultivated eggplant using morphological-basal passport data. Plant Gen.


**18** 

*1,2Brazil 3Argentina* 

**How Past Vicariant Events Can Explain** 

Gustavo Sebastián Cabanne3 and Fabrício Rodrigues Santos2 *1Instituto de Biociências – Universidade de São Paulo- Rua do Matão,* 

*3Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales, "Bernadino Rivadavia",* 

*2Instituto de Ciências Biológicas- Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais- Av.* 

Biodiversity is a wide term that includes all the hierarchy of life in the Earth. However, this word refers to the whole biological diversity: ecosystem diversity, species diversity and genetic diversity. Those three levels of diversity are melt one in another. The basal level involves genetic diversity that includes variation within and among individuals that are grouped in populations. In the next level, populations may differentiate due to mutations, genetic drift and different environmental pressures into distinct species. Finally, ecosystems

The biological communities observed today were formed along millions of years, although most of those biomes have been already affected by human activity, including many severally endangered regions of the world (Primack & Rodrigues, 2001). Some human activities that affect natural environments are as deforestation, coast occupation, overhunting and introduction of exotic species. Thus, nowadays, the great challenge for conservation of natural systems is to conciliate human activities and conservation. The discipline of conservation biology emerge as answer to this crisis, with multidisciplinary approaches that aim to investigate the human impacts on natural populations, biological communities and ecosystems; to developed practice to prevent the environmental degradation and species extinction, restoration of ecosystems and reintroduction of populations, to establish sustainable relationship between human communities and ecosystems (Rozzi et al*.,* 1998). However, all remaining ecosystems have been previously affected by multiple natural impacts such as climatic changes during the Pleistocene. Then, conservation biology also aims to discriminate between impacts due to natural events from

are characterized by different assemblages of species (Hunter, 1996).

those due to anthropogenic causes affecting current biodiversity distribution.

Biogeography, community ecology and population genetics attempt to describe how biological diversity is spatially distributed at different geographic scales (Miller et al.

**1. Introduction** 

 **the Atlantic Forest Biodiversity?** 

Gisele Pires Mendonça Dantas1,

*Cidade Universitária, São Paulo, SP* 

*Antônio Carlos, Belo Horizonte, MG* 

 *Av. Angel Gallardo 470, Buenos Aires* 

