2011 Key - Characterization - Descriptors

Key Characterization and
Evaluation Descriptors:
Methodologies for the
Assessment of 22 Crops
Adriana Alercia
Bioversity International is an independent international scientific organization that seeks to improve the
well-being of present and future generations of people by enhancing conservation and the deployment of
agricultural biodiversity on farms and in forests. It is one of 15 centres supported by the Consultative Group
on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), an association of public and private members who support
efforts to mobilize cutting-edge science to reduce hunger and poverty, improve human nutrition and health,
and protect the environment. Bioversity has its headquarters in Maccarese, near Rome, Italy, with offices in
more than 20 other countries worldwide. The organization operates through four programmes: Diversity for
Livelihoods, Understanding and Managing Biodiversity, Global Partnerships, and Commodities for
Livelihoods.
The international status of Bioversity is conferred under an Establishment Agreement which, by January
2010, had been signed by the Governments of Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina
Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy,
Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Slovakia, Sudan, Switzerland, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda
and Ukraine.
Financial support for Bioversity’s research is provided by more than 150 donors, including
governments, private foundations and international organizations. For details of donors and research
activities please see Bioversity’s Annual Reports, which are available in printed form on request from
bioversity-publications@cgiar.org or from Bioversity’s Web site (www.bioversityinternational.org).
The geographical designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not
imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of Bioversity or the CGIAR concerning the legal
status of any country, territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or
boundaries. Similarly, the views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views
of these organizations.
Mention of a proprietary name does not constitute endorsement of the product and is given only for
information.
Citation: Alercia A. 2011. Key Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors: Methodologies for the
Assessment of 22 Crops. Bioversity International, Rome, Italy.
Cover photo: Courtesy of Danny Hunter, Bioversity International; Marleni Ramirez, Bioversity International
and Grahame Jackson
ISBN 978-92-9043-874-8
Bioversity International
Via dei Tre Denari, 472/a
00057 Maccarese
Rome, Italy
© Bioversity International, 2011
Bioversity International is the operating name of the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute
(IPGRI).
Contents
Acknowledgements i
Preface ii
INTRODUCTION iii
1. Banana 1
2. Barley 27
3. Bean 42
4. Breadfruit 72
5. Cassava 92
6. Chickpea 118
7. Coconut 145
8. Cowpea 163
9. Faba bean 188
10. Finger millet 216
11. Grass pea 239
12. Lentil 256
13. Maize 280
14. Pearl millet 314
15. Pigeonpea 345
16. Potato 369
17. Rice 397
18. Sorghum 425
19. Sweet potato 480
20. Taro 525
21. Wheat 549
22. Yam 566
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have
contributed to the development of the strategic sets of ‘key access and
utilization descriptors for crops’. We would like to thank particularly, the
Global Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust) for their financial support.
Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leaders and Core Advisory

Groups from the CGIAR Centres, USDA, ECPGR and National Programmes
for providing valuable scientific direction and to all the reviewers who
participated in the surveys for their advice.
Special thanks are due to the various consultants working at different

stages of the production process, namely: Clara Ines Quinteros, Teresa Borelli,
Nadia Bergamini, Pepita Verbeek, Francesca Ercolani, Olga Spellman, Silvina
Gesumaria, Barbara Rae and Ana Laura Cerutti.
Adriana Alercia coordinated and managed the entire production of this

document and provided technical and scientific advice. Ms Nora Capozio
prepared the cover and Ana Laura Cerutti prepared the layout.
Particular thanks go to Michael Mackay for offering encouragement

and advice throughout the preparation of this publication
PREFACE
Bioversity International, with the financial support of the Global Crop
Diversity Trust (the Trust) has led the development of strategic key sets of
characterization and evaluation descriptors for 22 crops included in Annex I
of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture (ITPGRFA). These strategic sets of data standards are designed to
facilitate access to and utilization of plant genetic resources information.
Together with passport information, descriptors are critical to the effective
sharing of evaluation data and to the efficient use of plant genetic resources.
Passport, characterization and evaluation descriptors are included on the
GENESYS portal, to facilitate access to information and promote the utilization
of germplasm accessions.
Along with the definitions of key sets of data standards, which are also
available on Bioversity’s web site, the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base,
the CGIAR System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources
(SINGER) and EURISCO web sites, the project also documented the standard
development process, the outcome being detailed methodologies for each
crop.
This activity involved the participation of over 500 crop experts from
more than 200 research organizations and 85 different countries.
We hope that this document will contribute to stimulating additional

characterization and evaluation activities and promote information sharing,
with the ultimate outcome being more efficient management and use of plant
genetic resources.
INTRODUCTION
Bioversity has produced Key access and utilization data standards for 22 of the
crops in Annex I of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for
Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA). The crops covered are, banana, barley,
bean, breadfruit, cassava, chickpea, coconut, cowpea, faba bean, finger millet,
grass pea, lentil, maize, pearl millet, pigeonpea, potato, rice, sorghum, sweet
potato, taro, wheat and yam.
These guidelines provide the background information and objectives

and give insights into the structure and elements of the methodologies
developed by Bioversity to devise the crop-specific standards. They include
specific methodologies for each crop and serve as a reference guide to
develop further standards. Each methodology describes the development
process for each key set of descriptors. The methodologies build on work
previously carried out by Bioversity International and other initiatives such as
the Review of characterization standards and strategies for seven crops
accomplished as part of the SGRP Global Public Goods 2 (GPG2) project
carried out by the System-wide Genetic Resources Programme (SGRP) of the
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Further
input came from the Crop Strategies funded by the Trust developed by
communities of crop experts often facilitated by a CGIAR centre.
The following steps underpinned each of the key sets, and are
described in more detail in each specific crop methodology:
1. Information collection and reference documents

Information for the definition of the key sets was collected and compiled from
individual crop descriptor lists published by Bioversity and then compared
with similar definitions developed by other organizations such as the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the International Union for the
Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), other centres of the CGIAR,
and the characteristics proposed in the respective Crop Strategies. When
necessary (e.g. breadfruit), other sources of information such as pre-existing
descriptor lists from other internationally recognized organizations were
used. Draft minimum lists were sent out to crop experts for validation, in
order to assure the relevance and wide applicability of the standards.
Outputs from the SGRP Global Public Goods 2 (GPG2) project were
taken into account for the following crops: banana, chickpea, maize,
pigeonpea, potato, rice and sorghum.
Special attention was given to the inclusion of characters and traits

relevant to biotic and abiotic stresses of particular importance in the context of
climate change, such as drought, high temperatures and pests and diseases.
These are expected to intensify under climate change, and are listed in the
Evaluation Award Scheme on ‘Enhancing the Value of Crop Diversity,’
funded by the Global Crop Diversity Trust. In addition, internet searches
were carried out on a crop-by-crop basis, looking for the most up-to-date
information on crop characteristics and traits.
In the process of defining the first priority lists for each crop, Core
Advisory Groups (CAG) and survey participants were asked to use the
following criteria to select and prioritize characteristics and traits:
• Initial strategic set

• Global impact
• Importance for germplasm utilization
• Data availability
• True economic damage and wide geographical occurrence (for
biotic and abiotic stresses)
2. Preparing list of crop experts

The lists of experts were drawn from a directory of professionals who had
been involved in either the development or the review of existing Bioversity
descriptors. In addition, new names were drawn from lists of experts who
have taken part in crop-specific consultations for the preparation of the Crop
Strategies. Particular care was taken to include experts representing CGIAR
Centres, USDA, the European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic
Resources (ECPGR) and UPOV, and a variety of organizations and different
geographical regions.
The List of Experts consisted of:
(a) a Core Advisory Group composed of five experts, with at least one
acting as Crop Leader and the rest acting as an Advisory Group, each
representing an organization as listed above; and
(b) at least 20 reviewers or stakeholders for each crop.
3. Survey preparation and distribution

A draft survey was prepared listing the descriptors as approved in
consultation with the Crop Leader. The approved draft list was sent to the
identified experts, who were asked to select characteristics and traits
according to the given criteria and also to consider efficient and effective
utilization methods that would continue to evolve over time and thus be
applicable beyond an extensive germplasm documentation system.
Deadlines were set for each crop and reminders sent out one week
before the deadline and also on the deadline date. Extending the deadline to
accommodate further feedback was always considered.
4. Survey analysis
Results were analysed and descriptors ranked by their average rating and
importance. Survey results were then sent to the crop leader who, according
to the rating results, decided which characteristics should be included in the
final draft. This was then shared with the members of the Core Advisory
Group for final validation.
The following documents, sharing information on the survey and its

results, were prepared and sent to the Crop Leader for approval:
• Survey introduction
• Proposed descriptors to be included
• List of Core Group members and reviewers
• Summary table of survey results, highlighting the descriptors (with the
highest rating) identified by survey participants
• List of additional characteristics and traits not included in the survey
and suggested by reviewers.
5. Definition of the final List and Dissemination
Once the Crop Leader had confirmed the key set, the team shared the results
with the CAG to validate the final list for publication.
The final lists were converted into suitable electronic formats and
shared with EURISCO, the USDA Germplasm Resources Information
Network (GRIN), the CGIAR System-wide Information Network for Genetic
Resources (SINGER), the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology
and the developers and data providers of GENESYS, a global accession level
information portal. Additionally, final standards in PDF file format were sent
to Bioversity Library, the ECPGR Secretariat and the SGRP Crop Genebank
Knowledge Base for publication on the internet.
Methodology for the definition
of a key set of characterization
and evaluation descriptors for
banana (Musa spp.)
Information collection and preparation of the Minimum
Descriptor List (MDL)
Information for the definition of a MDL for banana was drawn from the publication:
‘Descriptors for Banana (Musa spp.)’ (IPGRI/INIBAP/CIRAD 1996) and from the
Addendum to the publication. The list was compared to descriptors highlighted as
most important in the CGIAR SGRP Global Public Goods 2 (GPG2) 4.2.1.1 Activity,
and with those for which data were available. Results were subsequently integrated
and harmonized with descriptors suggested in the: ‘Global Conservation Strategy for
Musa (Banana and Plantain)’ (INIBAP, 2006), particularly with regards to the
inclusion of evaluation traits such as important pests and diseases. Descriptors that
were awarded funds for further research by the Global Crop Diversity Trust 2008
Award Scheme ‘Enhancing the Value of Crop Diversity in a World of Climate
Change’ (EAS) were also included.
It should be noted, however, that the definition of a Key List for this crop
presented a number of challenges, mostly due to the fact that the list of most
important descriptors mentioned both in ‘Descriptors for Banana (Musa spp.)’
(IPGRI/ INIBAP/CIRAD 1996) and its Addendum, as well as those resulting from
the CGIAR SGRP GPG2 exercise, was significantly longer than that of other crops (64
compared to an average of 20). For this reason the Crop Leader and the Core
Advisory Group took longer than usual to reach a balanced consensus on this issue,
ultimately delaying the production of expected results.
Preparation of the List of Experts

Overall, 65 scientists were identified, coming from 40 countries and 45 different
organizations. Reviewers were selected from centres of excellence for banana
research and breeding such as USDA, ARS, the ‘Centre Africain de Recherches sur
Bananiers et Plantains’ (CARBAP) and the Indian National Research Centre for
Banana (NRCB) (see Annex I). Scientists included in the list were some of the
original reviewers of ‘Descriptors for Banana (Musa spp.)’ (IPGRI/INIBAP/CIRAD
1996), as well as participants in crop-specific consultations for the definition of the
‘Global Conservation Strategy for Musa’ (Banana and Plantain) (INIBAP, 2006).
Experts who submitted their comments to the CGIAR SGRP GPG2 exercise were also
included, as well as researchers that were awarded funds for further research by the
Trust 2008 Evaluation Award Scheme.
Following consultations with Nicolas Roux, and Stéphanie Channeliere from

the Bioversity International office in Montpellier, the list was reduced dramatically
to 25 key experts.
Survey preparation and distribution
To assist in the selection of a “reduced” set of traits, a comparison table was
prepared to visually identify “Most important” descriptors recurring in (i) the
Minimum List in the original ‘Descriptors for Banana (Musa spp.) (IPGRI-
INIBAP/CIRAD, 1996), in (ii) the results of the CGIAR SGRP GPG2 4.2.1.1 exercise,
(iii) in the ‘Global Conservation Strategy for Musa (INIBAP, 2006)’ and resulting
from consultations with the Bioversity office in Montpellier. This comparison
exercise (visible in Annex II) subsequently led to the definition of a tentative list of
key descriptors (see Annex III) that was submitted to the Montpellier office for
endorsement on 12th December 2008. On 16th December the Crop Leader submitted
the list of key traits to be shared among the group of experts for comments (see
Annex IV). The initial eight descriptors were already validated by a group of
international experts and included as reference. After lengthy discussions with
Bioversity staff held during the Annual Planning week at Bioversity Headquarters in
February 2009, it was felt that there was no need to include the minimum
characterization descriptors since they had been already validated during the
CGIAR SGRP GPG2 exercise and the subsequent meeting held in India in September
2008. Therefore, a new subgroup of scientists consisting of 16 members was defined
(see Annex V).
As result of a further refinement of this list by the Crop Leader and his
colleagues in the Montpellier office, 25 experts coming from 16 countries and 18
different organizations were identified (see Annex VI). Of particular note, the key set
for banana is the unique crop – out of the 22 – lacking a proper survey since
following instructions from the focal point, Nicolas Roux, experts were consulted
through email to validate the final list of evaluation descriptors (see Annex VII).
Setting consultation deadlines

Following the decision of the Crop Leader, the survey was done through an email
consultation sent out on 6th March 2009 with deadline on 20th March and, therefore
a reminder was sent out on 16th March. Because of the lack of responses the
deadline was postponed to 30th March 2009 and on 26th March a second reminder
was sent to the experts that had not participated in the consultation until that date,
to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained.
Consultation analysis and refinement of Minimum list
Of the 25 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 12 coming from
nine countries recorded their comments using the email consultation (see Annex
VIII). Results from the consultation were analysed and descriptors were ranked by
percentage of importance. To avoid any possible mistake in preparing the results of
the survey, calculating percentages and rating averages, the responses were
manually inserted in the SurveyMonkey system, making possible to obtain detailed
statistical information about the consultation results (see Annex IX). Open-ended
responses were also analysed and presented in Annex X. A summary of results and
the revised list were then sent to the Crop Leader for final approval on 8th May 2009.
As result of further consultation between the Crop Leader and Musa Bioversity
experts, a revised and final Minimum List was approved in June 2009 (see Annex
XI).
Once the core subset of characterization and evaluation standards for banana
was finalised, data were transformed into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN-
Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA first, and
subsequently into GENESYS, linking national, regional and international genebank
databases in support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food
and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also provided to the CGIAR System-
wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER), to EURISCO, to the
Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and to the SGRP Crop Genebank
Knowledge Base partners.
Acknowledgement
Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the
development of the initial strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for
lentil genetic resources’, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial
support. Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leader, Dr Nicolas Roux who
provided scientific direction. Ms Adriana Alercia provided technical expertise and
guided the entire production process.
Annex I – List of experts identified for participation to the survey for the
definition of a minimum set of descriptors for Banana (December, 2008)
Role Name Organization Country
Crop Leader Roux, Nicolas Bioversity International France
Core Group Arnaud, Elizabeth Bioversity International France
Channelière,
Core Group Bioversity International France
Stephanie
Fondi, Emmanuel Centre Africain de recherches sur
Core Group Cameroon
Ndakwe bananiers et plantains
Core Group Goenaga, Ricardo ARS/USDA USA
National Research Centre for Banana

Core Group/EAS Subbaraya, Uma India
(NRCB)
Van den Bergh,

Core Group Bioversity International France
Inge
Core Group Vézina, Anne Bioversity International France
Crop Strategy
Bakhiet, Salah ARC - Agricultural Research Corporation Sudan
Expert
Bolaños Corporacíon Colombiana de

Crop Strategy
Benavides, Martha Investigacíon Agropecuaria Colombia
Expert
Marina (CORPOICA-Armenia)
Crop Strategy Taiwan Banana Research Institute

Chen, Chi-Hon Taiwan
Expert (TBRI)
Crop Strategy
Chen, Houbin South China Agricultural University China
Expert
Crop Strategy Department of Primary Industries &

Daniells, Jeff Australia
Expert/DL Fisheries, Johnstone Research Station,
Crop Strategy De Oliveira e Silva,

EMBRAPA Brasil
Expert Sebastiao
Plant Genetic Resource Centre -

Crop Strategy
de Zoysa, I. J. Horticultural Crop Research and Sri Lanka
Expert
Development Institute (PGRC-HORDI)
Agricultural Research Council - Institute

Crop Strategy South
Fraser, Connie for Tropical and SubTropical Crops
Expert Africa
cultivar development
Crop Strategy Gonzales Diaz, Instituto de Investigaciones en Viandas

Cuba
Expert Lianet Tropicales (INIVIT)
Crop Strategy Corporación Bananera Nacional S.A.

Gonzalez, Miguel Costa Rica
Expert (CORBANA-LA RITA)
Crop Strategy Department of Primary Industries &

Hamill, Sharon Australia
Expert Fisheries, Maroochy Research Station,
Crop Strategy Davao National Crop Research and

Herradura, Lorna Philippines
Expert (GPG2) Development Center
Crop Strategy BARI - Bangladesh Agricultural Banglades

Hoque, Md. Abdul
Expert Research Institute h
Horticulture Research Centre Malaysian

Crop Strategy
Jamaluddin, Hawa Agricultural Research and Development Malaysia
Expert
Institute (MARDI)
Crop Strategy Guadeloup

Jenny, Christophe CIRAD
Expert/DL e
Papua
Crop Strategy
Kambuou, Rose National Agricultural Research Institute New
Expert
Guinea
Crop Strategy Kouassi, Koffi Centre National de Recherche Cote

Expert Simplice Agronomique (CNRA) d'Ivoire
Crop Strategy Mouketo, Centre de Recherche Agronomique de

Congo
Expert Ferdinand Loudima (CRAL)
Crop Strategy Institut de recherches agronomiques et

Ngezahayo, F. Burundi
Expert zootechnique
Crop Strategy
Nhi, Ho Huu Vietnam Agricultural Science Institute Vietnam
Expert
Crop Strategy Nsabimana, KIST - Kigali Institute of Science and

Rwanda
Expert Antoine Technology
Crop Strategy Nsemwa, Lebai ARDI - Ministry of Agriculture Food

Tanzania
Expert T.H. security and cooperatives
Crop Strategy
Onyango, Margaret University of Hawai at Manoa Hawaii
Expert
Papua
Crop Strategy
Paofa, Janet NARI, Laloki New
Expert
Guinea
Crop Strategy Rivera Canales, Fundación Hondureña de Investigación

Honduras
Expert José Mauricio Agrícola (FHIA)
Crop Strategy
Sutanto, Agus Indonesian Fruit Research Institute Indonesia
Expert
Crop Strategy Regional Germplasm Centre, Secretariat

Taylor, Mary Fiji
Expert of the Pacific Community (SPC)
Crop Strategy
Tenkouano, Abdou IITA Nigeria
Expert (GPG2)
Crop Strategy Centre africain de recherches sur

Tomekpe, Kodjo Cameroon
Expert/DL bananiers et plantains
Crop Strategy National Agricultural Research

Tushemereirwe, W. Uganda
Expert Organization
Crop Strategy Van den Houwe,

INIBAP Transit Center (ITC) Belgium
Expert/DL/SRG Ines
Crop Strategy Guangdong Academy of Agricultural

Xu, Lin Bing China
Expert Sciences, Pomology Institute,
Byabachwezi, Maruku Agriculture Research and

GPG2 Tanzania
Mgenzi Development Inst.
ISHS Churchill, Alice Federal Plant Soil and Nutrition Lab USA
De Beer, Zacharias South

ISHS ITSC - ARC BPIU
Christiaan Africa
De Langhe,
GPG2 TAG expert Belgium
Edmond
Institute of Experimental Botany, Czech Czech
GPG2 Dolezel, Jaroslav
Republique Republic
GPG2 Draye, Xavier Université Catholique de Louvain Belgium
Heslop-Harrison,
GPG2 University of Leicester UK
Pat
The
GPG2 Kema, Gert University of Wageningen Netherland
s
GPG2 Rheka, A Division of Fruit crops, IIHR, Karnataka India
ISHS Smith, Mike QDPI - Maroochy Research Station Australia
Reviewer (DL) Carreel, Françoise CIRAD / UMR BGPI France

Reviewer (DL) Delvaux, Bruno CUL - Catholic University of Leuven Belgium
Reviewer (DL) Evers, Guy FAO Italy
Reviewer (DL) Galán Saúco, ICIA - Instituto Canario de

Spain
GPG2 Victor Investigaciones Agrarias
Reviewer (DL) Goenaga, Ricardo ARS/USDA USA
Jordan Valley Banana Experiment

Reviewer (DL) Israeli, Yair Jordan
Station
Reviewer (DL)
Karamura, Deborah Bioversity International Uganda
GPG2
Reviewer (DL) Lahav, Emmanuel Akko Experiment Station Israel
Reviewer (DL) Lavigne, Christian CIRAD FLHOR - PRAM France
Reviewer (DL) Lescot, Thierry CIRAD France
Reviewer (DL) Ortiz, Rodomiro CIMMYT Mexico
Reviewer (DL) Perrier, Xavier CIRAD France
New Pocasangre, Luis Bioversity International Costa Rica

Rosales, Franklin
Reviewer (DL) Bioversity International Costa Rica
E.
Reviewer (DL)
Swennen, Rony CUL - Catholic University of Leuven Belgium
GPG2
Annex II – Summary comparison table weighing up important descriptors for
Banana drawn from a number of sources1.
Min List Most

Descriptor Descr IPGRI- GP GPG2 Crop EAS import.
no. INIBAP/CIRA G2 Data Strate Montpel
D 1996 avail gy lier
Pseudostem height
(6.2.1) * * *
[m]
Pigmentation of the
underlying (6.2.6) * * *
pseudostem
Blotches at the
(6.3.1) * * *
petiole base
Petiole canal leaf III (6.3.3) * * *
Petiole margins (6.3.4) * *
Petiole margin
(6.3.6) * *
colour
Edge of petiole
(6.3.7) * *
margin
Colour of cigar leaf
(6.3.22) * *
dorsal surface
Bunch position (6.4.6) * * *

Bunch shape (6.4.7) * *
Rachis position (6.4.12) * * *
Rachis appearance (6.4.13) * * *
Male bud shape (6.4.15) * * *
Male bud size [cm] (6.4.16) * *
Bract base shape (6.5.1) * *

Bract apex shape (6.5.2) * * *
Bract imbrication (6.5.3) * * *
Colour of the bract
(6.5.5) * * *
internal face
Bract behaviour
(6.5.12) * * *
before falling
Compound tepal
(6.6.2) * * *
basic colour
Lobe colour of
(6.6.4) * * *
compound tepal
Min List Most
Descriptor Descr IPGRI- GP GPG2 Crop EAS import.
no. INIBAP/CIRA G2 Data Strate Montpel
D 1996 avail gy lier
Anther colour (6.6.13) * *

Dominant colour of
(6.6.24) * *
male flower
Number of fruits on
(6.7.2) * * *
second hand
Fruit length [cm] (6.7.3) * * *

Fruit shape
(longitudinal (6.7.4) * * *
curvature)
Fruit apex (6.7.6) * * *

Remains of flower
(6.7.7) * *
relicts at fruit apex
Fruit pedicel length
(6.7.8) * *
[mm]
Fusion of pedicels (6.7.11) * *
Plant crop cycle [d] (7.4) * * * *
Bunch weight [kg] (7.9) * * * *
Number of hands (7.10) * * * *
Drought (8.2) * * * * *
Resistance to Black
Leaf streak/Black
Sigatoka (9.1.2) * * * * *
(Mycosphaerella
fijiensis)
Resistance to
Fusarium Wilt
/Panama disease (9.1.3) * * * * *
(Fusarium oxysporum
f.sp. cubense)
Burrowing
nematode (9.2.1) * * * *
(Radopholus similis)
1
Descriptors for Banana (Musa spp.) (IPGRI/INIBAP/CIRAD 1996) and Addendum, from the GPG2 4.2.1.1
exercise, from the Global Conservation Strategy for Musa (the Trust, 2006), from those descriptors that were
granted funding for further research by the Global Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust) through the 2008 EAS awards
and from consultations with the Bioversity Office in Montpellier (December 2008)
Annex III – Tentative list of descriptors for Musa submitted on 12 December
2008 to the Bioversity Office in Montpellier for comments and for further
resizing
First Priority
1. Pseudostem height [m]

2. Pigmentation of the underlying pseudostem
3. Blotches at the petiole base
4. Petiole canal leaf III
5. Bunch position
6. Rachis position
7. Rachis appearance
8. Male bud shape
9. Bract apex shape
10. Bract imbrication
11. Colour of the bract internal face
12. Bract behaviour before falling
13. Compound tepal basic colour
14. Lobe colour of compound tepal
15. Number of fruits on second hand
16. Fruit length [cm]
17. Fruit shape (longitudinal curvature)
18. Fruit apex
19. Plant crop cycle [d]
20. Bunch weight [kg]
21. Number of hands
22. Drought
23. Resistance to Black Leaf streak/Black Sigatoka (Mycosphaerella fijiensis)
24. Resistance to Fusarium Wilt /Panama disease (Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cubense)
25. Burrowing nematode (Radopholus similis)
2nd Priority
26. Petiole margins

27. Petiole margin colour
28. Edge of petiole margin
29. Colour of cigar leaf dorsal surface
30. Bunch shape
31. Male bud size [cm]
32. Bract base shape
33. Anther colour
34. Dominant colour of male flower
35. Remains of flower relicts at fruit apex
36. Fruit pedicel length [mm]
37. Fusion of pedicels
Annex IV – Key set of traits for Musa sent by the Bioversity Office in
Montpellier on 16 December 2008 to be shared with the CAG. Descriptors
already validated are highlighted in yellow
1. Bunch weight [kg]

2. Number of hands
3. Plant crop cycle [d]
4. Pseudostem height [cm]
5. Drought
6. Black Leaf Streaks (Black Sigatoka)
7. Fusarium wilt (Panama disease)
8. Burrowing nematode (Radopholus similis)
9. Number of fruits
10. Fruit length [cm]
11. Fruit weight [g]
12. Number of living (functional) leaves at flowering
13. Number of living (functional) leaves at harvest
14. Planting to shooting
15. Pseudostem girth [cm]
16. Height of following ratoon [cm]
17. Ratoon crop cycle [d]
18. Flooding
19. High temperature
20. Low temperature
21. Mineral deficiencies
22. Winds
23. Yellow Sigatoka
24. Bugtok /Moko
25. Root lesion nematode (Pratylenchus coffeae)
26. Weevil borer (Cosmopolites sordidus)
27. Meloidogyne sp. (Nematodes)
28. Helicotylenchus multicinctus (Nematodes)
Annex V - List of experts identified for participation to the on line consultation
for the validation of a key set of evaluation traits for Musa (12th February 2009)
Name Organization Country
Roux, Nicolas Bioversity International France

Cameroon
Subbaraya, Uma India
(NRCB)
Goenaga, Ricardo ARS/USDA USA
De Beer, Zacharias
ITSC - ARC BPIU South Africa
Christiaan
Chen, Chi-Hon Taiwan Banana Research Institute (TBRI) Taiwan
De Oliveira e Silva,
EMBRAPA Brasil
Sebastiao
Corporación Bananera Nacional S.A.
Gonzalez, Miguel Costa Rica
(CORBANA-LA RITA)
Davao National Crop Research and
Development Center
Institut de recherches agronomiques et
Ngezahayo, F. Burundi
zootechnique
Jenny, Christophe CIRAD Guadeloupe
Maruku Agriculture Research and

Byabachwezi, Mgenzi Tanzania
Development Inst.
De Langhe, Edmond TAG expert Belgium
Heslop-Harrison, Pat University of Leicester UK
The
Kema, Gert University of Wageningen
Netherlands
Rheka, A Division of Fruit crops, IIHR, Karnataka India

Annex VI – List of experts invited to participate in the email consultation for
the validation of a Key set of evaluation traits for Musa (6th March 2009)

Crop
Roux, Nicolas Bioversity International France
Leader
Aguilar, Juan Fundación Hondureña de
Honduras
Fernando Investigación Agrícola (FHIA)
Fundación Hondureña de
Coto, Julio Cesar Honduras
Investigación Agrícola (FHIA)
Department of Plant Industry &
Daniells, Jeff Australia
Fisheries (DPI&F)
Institute of Plant Breeding, College of
dela Cruz, Felipe Agriculture, University of the Philippines
Philippines (UPLB-IPB)
Cameroon
Davao National Crop Research and
Development Center
Horry, Jean Pierre CIRAD France
Jenny, Christophe CIRAD Guadeloupe
National Agricultural Research Papua New
Kambuou, Rosa
Institute (NARI) Guinea
International Institute of Tropical
Lorenzen, Jim Uganda
Agriculture
Mustaffa, MM National Research Centre for Banana India
National Banana
Research NARO-NBRP Uganda
Programme
Ngezahayo, Institut de recherches agronomiques
Burundi
Ferdinand. et zootechnique
Pocasangre, Luis Bioversity International Costa Rica
Fundación Hondureña de
Rivera, Mauricio Honduras
Investigación Agrícola (FHIA)
Sandoval, Jorge Corporación Bananera Nacional Costa Rica
Smith, Mike K QDPI - Maroochy Research Station Australia

Subbaraya, Uma India
(NRCB)
Indonesian Tropical Fruit Research
Sutanto, Agus Indonesia
Institute (ITFRI)
Regional Germplasm Centre,
Taylor, Mary Fiji
Secretariat of the Pacific Community
Centre africain de recherches sur

Tomekpe, Kodjo Cameroon
bananiers et plantains (CARBAP)
Van Nghiem,
Fruit and Vegetable Research Institute Vietnam
Nguyen
Vilarinhos, Alberto National Cassava & Tropical Fruits
Brazil
D. Research Center
Vroh, Bi Irie Nigeria
Agriculture
Annex VII – Email consultation and its attachment submitted on 6 March 2009
by the Bioversity Office in Montpellier to share with the identified experts
Da: Roux, Nicolas (Bioversity-France)
Inviato: ven 06/03/2009 19.04
A: Christophe Jenny; Julio Cesar Coto; fondien@yahoo.com; (vila@cnpmf.embrapa.br); Jim Lorenzen; Bi Irie
Vroh (B.Vroh@cgiar.org); Binita Uma Subbaraya (umabinit@yahoo.co.in); Jorge Sandoval
(jsandoval@corbana.co.cr); ferdinand ngezahayo; Jeff Daniells (Jeff.Daniells@dpi.qld.gov.au); Jean-Pierre Horry;
Juan Fernando Aguilar (jaguilar@fhia.org.hn); Mauricio Rivera; Kodjo TOMEKPE; nrcbdirector@sancharnet.in;
Mike K Smith (Mike.Smith@dpi.qld.gov.au); LORNA HERRADURA; Felipe dela Cruz; 'Mary Taylor';
Rosa.kambuou@nari.org.pg; National Banana Research Programme; nghiemvrq@yahoo.com;
bagusutanto_02@yahoo.com
Cc: Borelli, Teresa (Bioversity); Alercia, Adriana (Bioversity); Vezina, Anne (Bioversity-France); Ruas, Max
(Bioversity-France); Channeliere, Stéphanie (Bioversity-France); Karamura, Deborah (Bioversity-Uganda); Molina,
Agustin (Bioversity-Philippines); Pocasangre, Luis (Bioversity-Costa Rica)
Oggetto: selection of Descriptors for GIGA
Dear Colleagues,
I am seeking your assistance to achieve an important goal raised by a number of the global strategies
for the conservation and utilization of various important crop species (see
http://www.croptrust.org/main/strategies.php?itemid=82) supported by The Global Crop Diversity
Trust. To achieve the goals raised by the Trust strategies we need to select a key set of strategic
descriptors for Musa that will become the basis of the Global Information system on Germplasm
Accessions (GIGA) in support of the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA.
Completing the survey (see attachment) should not take more than 10 minutes of your valuable time. I
acknowledge that you might have previously contributed your expertise to similar initiatives, however I
want to emphasize that this survey is important and quite different in that it has a focus on practical
utilization.
Your knowledge and experience in Musa will be invaluable in helping us identify this initial, strategic
set of descriptors that should assist researchers to more easily utilize accessions held in crop
diversity collections and that will have the maximum impact on identifying traits important to crop
production.
The survey is divided into two sections. The first section presents 8 descriptors that have already
been agreed upon and recently validated by Musa experts. The aim of this exercise is to build upon
this initial set, and to select a number of additional traits that fall within the objectives outlined above.
Please consider the following factors when selecting key traits:
• Global impact
• For abiotic and biotic stresses, true economic damage and wide geographical occurrence
Please send us your respond within the next 2 weeks (i.e. by 20th March)
If you require any additional clarification please do not hesitate to contact my colleagues at Bioversity,
Teresa Borelli (T.Borelli@cgiar.org) and Adriana Alercia (A.Alercia@cgiar.org) or myself.
Best wishes,
Nicolas
Nicolas Roux, PhD
Genomics and Genetic Resources, Coordinator
Commodities for Livelihoods Programme
Parc Scientifique Agropolis II
34397 Montpellier Cedex 5, France
Tel.: (+33) 467.61.99.46 / 1302
Fax: (+33) 467.61.03.34
Skype: nroux_inibap
Email: n.roux@cgiar.org
www.bioversityinternational.org
Email consultation attachment:
Key access and utilization descriptors for

Banana genetic resources
This list consists of an initial GIGA Project set of characterization and evaluation descriptors
for Banana utilization. This key set of strategic descriptors, which should be significant at
the global level as much as possible, along with passport data, will become the basis of the
global accession level information system. This is an initial set that will facilitate access to
and utilization of Musa accessions held in genebanks and does not exclude addition of more
descriptors if data are available at a later date.
Based on the comprehensive list of ‘Descriptors for Banana (Musa spp.)’ (IPGRI-INIBAP,
CIRAD, 1996), this strategic set was developed building on previous initiatives such as the
SGRP Global Public Goods exercise (GPG2); consultations held during the TAG Meetings
held in June 2006 and october, 2008. Finally it was discussed and validated by Bioversity
Staff based at Montpellier in consultation with a Core Advisory Group led by Nicolas Roux
from Bioversity International.
Biotic and abiotic stresses included in the list were chosen because of their cosmopolitan
nature and global impact, since they have wide geographic occurrence and cause true
economic damage. The second set of descriptors corresponds to the ‘minimum descriptors’
for characterization developed by the TAG panel over the years. Numbers in parentheses on
the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in “Descriptors
for Banana (Musa spp.)”, (
http://bananas.bioversityinternational.org/content/view/26/53/lang,en/). Please tick the
descriptors you feel are essential to fulfill the objectives outlined in the message joined to
this survey.
Pseudostem height [m] (6.2.1)
Fruit length [cm] (6.7.3)
Plant crop cycle [d] (7.4)
Bunch weight [kg] (7.9)
Number of hands (7.10)
Susceptibility to drought (8.2)
Resistance to Black Sigatoka (Mycosphaerella fijiensis) (9.1.2)
Resistance to Fusarium Wilt (Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cubense) (9.1.3)

Burrowing nematode (Radopholus similis) (9.2.1)
Pigmentation of the underlying pseudostem (6.2.6)
Blotches at the petiole base (6.3.1)
Petiole canal leaf III (6.3.3)
Petiole margins (6.3.4)
Petiole margin colour (6.3.6)
Edge of petiole margin (6.3.7)
Colour of cigar leaf dorsal surface (6.3.22)
Bunch position (6.4.6)
Bunch shape (6.4.7)
Rachis position (6.4.12)
Rachis appearance (6.4.13)
Male bud shape (6.4.15)
Male bud size [cm] (6.4.16)
Bract base shape (6.5.1)
Bract apex shape (6.5.2)
Bract imbrication (6.5.3)
Colour of the bract internal face (6.5.5)
Bract behaviour before falling (6.5.12)
Compound tepal basic colour (6.6.2)
Lobe colour of compound tepal (6.6.4)
Anther colour (6.6.13)
Dominant colour of male flower (6.6.24)
Number of fruits on second hand (6.7.2)
Fruit shape (longitudinal curvature) (6.7.4)

Fruit apex (6.7.6)
Remains of flower relicts at fruit apex (6.7.7)
Fruit pedicel length [mm] (6.7.8)
Fusion of pedicels (6.7.11)
CONTRIBUTOR
[your name]
Annex VIII – Respondents to the email consultation for the definition of a Key
set of descriptors for Musa sent on 6th March 2009

Fundacion Hondurena de Investigation
Honduras
Coto, Julio Cesar Agricola (FHIA)
Centre Africain de Recherches sur bananiers et
Cameroun
Fondi, Emmanuel plantains
Subbaraya Uma
National Research Centre for Banana (NRCB) India
Binita
Lorenzen, Jim International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Uganda
Nabatanzi, Harriet International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Uganda
Nyine, Moses International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Uganda
Daniells, Jeff Dept of Plant Industry & Fisheries (DPI&F) Australia
Institut de recherches agronomiques et
Burundi
Ngezahayo, Ferdinand zootechnique
Fundacion Hondurena de Investigation
Honduras
Rivera, Mauricio Agricola (FHIA)
National Agricultural Research Institute Papua New
Kambuou, Rosa
(NARI) Guinea
Indonesian Tropical Fruit Research Institute
Sutanto, Agus Indonesia
(ITFRI)
Annex IX – Musa summary survey results ranked by rating average
Answer Options (n=12) Rating

Average
Bunch shape (6.4.7) 3.25

Fruit shape (longitudinal curvature) (6.7.4) 3.25
Remains of flower relicts at fruit apex (6.7.7) 3.25
Pigmentation of the underlying pseudostem (6.2.6) 3.00
Fruit apex (6.7.6) 3.00

Bunch position (6.4.6) 2.75
Rachis position (6.4.12) 2.50
Rachis appearance (6.4.13) 2.50
Male bud shape (6.4.15) 2.50
Bract imbrication (6.5.3) 2.50
Petiole canal leaf III (6.3.3) 2.25
Petiole margin colour (6.3.6) 2.25
Petiole margins (6.3.4) 2.00
Colour of the bract internal face (6.5.5) 2.00
Bract behaviour before falling (6.5.12) 2.00
Lobe colour of compound tepal (6.6.4) 2.00
Anther colour (6.6.13) 2.00
Fruit pedicel length [mm] (6.7.8) 2.00
Number of fruits on second hand (6.7.2) 1.92
Colour of cigar leaf dorsal surface (6.3.22) 1.75
Bract apex shape (6.5.2) 1.75
Dominant colour of male flower (6.6.24) 1.75
Fusion of pedicels (6.7.11) 1.75
Blotches at the petiole base (6.3.1) 1.50
Edge of petiole margin (6.3.7) 1.50
Male bud size [cm] (6.4.16) 1.50
Compound tepal basic colour (6.6.2) 1.50
Bract base shape (6.5.1) 0.75
Annex X – Musa email consultation open-ended responses
Coto Fondi
Subbaraya Rivera Karamura Sutanto Kambuou Ngezahayo N. time
Julio Emmanuel
Uma Mauricio Deborah Agus Rosa Ferdinand selected
Descriptors to be added Cesar Ndakwe
Weevil borer (Cosmopolites sordidus) (9.2.4) * * * * 4
Peduncle hairiness (6.4.5) * * * * 4
Predominant taste (6.7.22) * * * * 4
Blotches on leaves of water suckers (6.3.23) * * * 3
Fruit diameter [cm] 7.13 * * * 3
Leaf habit 6.1.1 (Identification of ploidy) * * * 3
Peduncle length (6.4.1) * * * 3
Bunch appearance (6.4.8) * * * 3
Arrangement of ovules (6.6.26) (Identification

* * * 3
of acuminata or balbisiana)
Pulp colour at maturity (6.7.19) * * * 3
Number of fruits per hand (7.11) * * 2
* * 2
Pseudostem girth [cm] (7.7)
Number of functional leaves at flowering

* * 2
(7.15)
Transverse section of fruit (ploidy

* * 2
identification) (6.7.5)
Mature fruit peel (6.7.13) * * 2
Fruits fall from hands (6.7.20) * * 2

Coto Fondi
Subbaraya Rivera Karamura Sutanto Kambuou Ngezahayo N. time
Julio Emmanuel
Uma Mauricio Deborah Agus Rosa Ferdinand selected
Descriptors to be added Cesar Ndakwe
Presence of seed with source of pollen

* * 2
(6.7.23)
Fruit weight [g] (7.14) * * 2
Pseudostem colour (6.2.3) * * 2
Number of functional leaves at harvest (7.16) * 1
Seed surface (6.7.24) * 1
Seed shape (6.7.25) * 1
Colour of free tepal (6.6.6) * 1
Number of suckers (6.2.9) * 1
Development of suckers (6.2.10) * 1
Flesh texture 6.7.21 * 1
Pollen vitality [%] (6.6.15) * 1
Rachis length * 1
Leaf consistency (ploidy) * 1
Susceptibility to BBTV (banana bunch top

* 1
virus)
Dry matter content * 1
Carbohydrate content * 1
Crispness * 1
Flour quality * 1
Annex XI – Musa final Key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors
with descriptors states and Contributors validated by the Crop Leader in June
2009
Pseudostem height [m] (6.2.1)

1 <2 m
2 2.1 to 2.9 m
3 >3 m
Peduncle hairiness (6.4.5)

1 Hairless
2 Slightly hairy
3 Very hairy, short hairs (similar to velvet touch)
4 Very hairy, long hairs (>2 mm)
Bunch position (6.4.6)

1 Hanging vertically
2 Slightly angled
3 Hanging at angle 45°
4 Horizontal
5 Erect
Bunch shape (6.4.7)

1 Cylindrical
2 Truncated cone shape
3 Asymmetric - Bunch axis is nearly straight
4 With a curve in the bunch axis
5 Spiral
Number of fruits on second hand (6.7.2)

1 <12
2 13-16
3 >17
Fruit length [cm] (6.7.3)

1 <15 cm
2 16- 20 cm
3 21- 25 cm
4 26- 30 cm
5 >31 cm
Fruit shape (longitudinal curvature) (6.7.4)

1 Straight (or slightly curved)
2 Straight in the distal part
3 Curved (sharp curve)
4 Curved in 'S' shape (double curvature)
Fruit apex (6.7.6)
1 Pointed
2 Lengthily pointed
3 Blunt-tipped
4 Bottle-necked
5 Rounded
Remains of flower relicts at fruit apex (6.7.7)

1 Without any floral relicts
2 Persistent style
3 Base of the style prominent
4 Persistent style and staminode
Predominant taste (6.7.22)

1 Astringent (like cooking banana)
2 Mild, slightly tasty or tasteless
3 Sweet (like Cavendish)
4 Sugary (like ‘Pisang Mas’)
5 Sweet and acidic (apple like)
99 Other (specify)
Plant crop cycle [d] (7.4)

From planting to harvest
Bunch weight [kg] (7.9)

Bunch stalk (peduncle) is cut above the first hand at the level of the last scar and
immediately below the last hand
Number of hands (7.10)
Resistance to black sigatoka (Mycosphaerella fijiensis) (9.1.2)
Resistance to fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense) (9.1.3)

Specify VCG group if known
Resistance to burrowing nematode (Radopholus similis) (9.2.1)
Resistance to weevil borer (Cosmopolites sordidus) (9.2.4)

Contributors
Nicolas Roux, Bioversity International, France

Stephanie Channelière, Bioversity International, France
Australia
Jeff Daniells, Dept of Plant Industry & Fisheries (DPI&F)
Burundi
Ferdinand Ngezahayo, Institut de recherches agronomiques et zootechnique
Cameroun
Emmanuel Fondi, Centre Africain de Recherches sur bananiers et plantains
Honduras
Julio Cesar Coto, Fundación Hondureña de Investigación Agrícola (FHIA)
Mauricio Rivera, Fundación Hondureña de Investigación Agrícola (FHIA)
India
Uma Binita Subbaraya, National Research Centre for Banana (NRCB)
Indonesia
Agus Sutanto, Indonesian Tropical Fruit Research Institute (ITFRI)
Papua New Guinea

Rosa Kambuou, National Agricultural Research Institute (NARI)
Uganda
Deborah Karamura, Bioversity International
Jim Lorenzen, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
Harriet Nabatanzi, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
Moses Nyine, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)
Information collection and preparation of a Minimum
Information for the definition of a key set of descriptors for barley was drawn from the
publication “Descriptors for barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)” (IPGRI, 1994). The list was
subsequently integrated and harmonized with descriptors suggested during the Crop
Strategy meetings for the ex-situ conservation of barley, held respectively in Tunis,
Tunisia (September, 2007) and Alexandria, Egypt (April, 2008). Descriptors that were
awarded funds for further research by the Global Crop Diversity Trust 2008 Award
Scheme ‘Enhancing the Value of Crop Diversity in a World of Climate Change’ (EAS),
particularly traits with regard to the inclusion of characters and traits relevant to biotic
and abiotic stresses for barley in the context of climate change. The initial key set of
priority descriptors for barley to be sent out for comments, was selected and prepared
by the Crop leader, Michael Mackay.
Preparing List of Experts

Experts were drawn from crop-specific consultations for the definition of the Crop
Strategy for the ex-situ conservation of barley genetic resources, held respectively in
Tunis, Tunisia (September, 2007) and Alexandria, Egypt (April, 2008). ECPGR experts
on barley were also included to cover a representative group of geographical locations.
Reviewers from the 1994 descriptors list were excluded due to their outdated contact
information. Overall, 28 experts were identified, from 26 countries and 27 different
organizations (see Annex I). Out of these, the Group Leader (Michael Mackay) selected
a Core Advisory Group (CAG) consisting of 17 experts from the major centres of
excellence for barley research and breeding to assist in the definition of a minimum set
of descriptors for this crop. Core Group members were drawn from prestigious
academic and scientific organizations including Montana State University, the John
Innes Centre, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas
(ICARDA), the Universities of Adelaide, Saskatchewan, Okayama, the Universidad de
la República del Uruguay as well as the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
Also included were the Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research
(IPK), N.I. Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry (VIR), the Institute of Biology - University
of Latvia, the Agricultural Research Institute Kromeriz, Ltd. and the Zhejiang Academy
of Agricultural Sciences.
In place of the survey, an informal letter was sent out to the 17 experts identified by
Michael Mackay, (see Annex II), requesting their comments on the identified minimum
set of characterization and evaluation descriptors of barley accessions to facilitate their
use by researchers and asked to make any suggestions regarding any characterization
and/or evaluation descriptors that were found to be relevant yet missing from the
proposed Minimum List. Comments received by ten experts coming from seven
countries were collected in a summary table (see Annex III), analysed and harmonised
with the original descriptors list. This exercise led to the definition of a revised key set
of descriptors for barley (Annex IV), which was shared among the CAG on 4 November
2008, for validation and final comments.
Input received from experts was again compiled into a comparison table (see
Annex V), analysed and harmonised with the original descriptors list in consultation
with the Crop Leader. This exercise led to the definition of the final key set of
descriptors for barley (see Annex VI). Afterwards a final key set was prepared adding
descriptor states and contributors (see Annex VII).
Once the core subset of characterization and evaluation standards for barley was
finalised, data were transformed into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN-Global
genebank data-management system being developed by USDA first, and subsequently
into GENESYS, linking national, regional and international genebank databases in
support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture
(PGRFA). The Excel files were also shared with the System-wide Information Network
for Genetic Resources (SINGER), the germplasm information exchange network of the
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and its partners,
EURISCO, the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and the SGRP Crop
Genebank Knowledge Base.
Acknowledgement
development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for barley
genetic resources’, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial support.
Annex I – List of experts identified for participation to the definition of a minimum
set of descriptors for barley

Core Group
Ambrose, Michael John Innes Centre UK
(Trust)
Core Group
Blake, Tom Montana State University USA
(IBGS)
Core Group
Castro, Ariel Universidad de la República Uruguay
(IBGS)
Core Group
Eglinton, Jason University of Adelaide Australia
(IBGS)
Core Group
Harvey, Bryan University of Saskatchewan Canada
(IBGS)
Leibniz institute of Plant Genetics and
Core Group Knüpffer, Helmut Germany
Crop Plant Research (IPK)
Core Group Konopka, Jan ICARDA Syria
Core Group
Kovaleva, Olga VIR, Dept. of Oat, Rye, Barley Russia
(IBGS)
Core Group
Rashal, Isaak Institute of Biology - University of Latvia Latvia
(EPCGR)
Core Group Research Institute for Bioresources -
Sato, Kazuhiro Japan
(Trust) Okayama University
Core Group Agricultural Research Institute Kromeriz, Czech
Spunar, Jaroslav
(IBGS) Ltd. Republic
Czech
Core Group Valkoun, Jan Scientific Consultant
Republic
Core Group LTJ Faculty - Swedish Univ. Agric
von Bothmer, Roland Sweden
(Trust) Sciences
Core Group
Wang, Junmei Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences P.R.China
(IBGS)
Core Group Basudeb Sarkar ICARDA Syria
Core Group Flavio Capettini ICARDA Syria
Core Group Ahmed Amri ICARDA Syria
Survey (IBGS) Abo El-Enein, Rashad NVRSRP - Agricultural Research Centre Egypt
Survey (Trust) Elfelah, Mouldi INRAT _ IRESA Tunisia
Survey (Trust) Gómez, Luz Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina Peru
Survey
Grando, Stefania ICARDA Syria
(Trust/IBGS)
Embrapa – Brazilian Corporation for
Survey (Trust) Iorczewski, Edson Brazil
Agricultural Research
Survey Copenhagen University - Dept of
Jahoor, Ahmed Denmark
(ECPGR) Agricultural Sciences
Survey Estação Nacional de Melhoramento de
Maçãs, Benvindo Martins Portugal
(ECPGR) Plantas
Survey (IBGS) Manninen, Outi MTT Agrifood Research Finland Finland
Survey
Molina Cano, José Luis IRTA Spain
(ECPGR)
National Plant Gene-Bank, Seed &Plant
Survey (Trust) Mozafari, Javad Iran
Improvement Institute
Survey (Trust) Ouabou, Hassan INRA - Morocco Morocco
Yuryev Institute of Plant Production -

Survey (Trust) Ryabchoun, Victor K. Ukraine
National Centre for PGR of Ukraine
Survey (Trust) Woldesemayat, Adugna Institute of Biodiversity Conservation Ethiopia

Annex II – Email sent by M. Mackay on August 19, 2008 to the experts of the Core
Group
Subject: Key descriptors for access and utilization of barley genetic resources
Dear Colleague,
Firstly, please accept my greetings in my new role at Bioversity International.
Secondly, this request for your assistance is aimed at identifying some key descriptors that will assist
researchers to utilize barley germplasm. These key descriptors, along with passport data, will become the
foundation information to be made available to researchers in a global accession level information
system. This system will provide access to some 2.5 million accessions (not all barley!) held in important
genebanks worldwide.
I have identified a ‘short’ list of characterization descriptors below, as well as a longer list. The short list is,
in my opinion, fundamental in categorizing accessions and should be helpful to utilization. The evaluation
traits are those for which the Global Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust) has awarded grants to various
organizations to undertake evaluation. The numbers in parentheses following the descriptors refer to the
original descriptor numbers contained in the “Descriptors for Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)” (IPGRI, 1994).
So, I am seeking your opinion/comment on the short list of characterization descriptors and evaluation
traits as being applicable to the objectives I have outlined above. If we can agree on these key
descriptors, Bioversity will include them as those barley descriptors to be available for searching in the
global system. Your contribution/comment, by 12 September 2008, will certainly be much appreciated
and acknowledged in the global system.
Should you require any further assistance, please don’t hesitate to contact me by email.
Sincerely,
Michael Mackay
Proposed Minimum/Key Characterization Descriptor List

• Growth class (seasonality) (7.1.1)
• Row number/lateral florets (7.2.3)
• Spike density (7.2.4)
• Lemma awn/hood (7.2.6)
• Kernel covering (7.3.1)
• Lemma colour (7.3.3)
• Aleurone colour (7.3.5)
Proposed Evaluation Trait List: The Trust has awarded grants for the evaluation of these traits:
• Protein content (8.1.1)
• Tolerance to heat stress (9.2)
• Tolerance to drought (9.3)
• Tolerance to salinity (9.6)
• Susceptibility to powdery mildew (Erysiphe graminis f.sp. hordei) (10.2.4)
• Susceptibility to scald (Rhynchosporium secalis) (10.2.5)
• Susceptibility to Net blotch (Pyrenophora teres) (10.2.7)
Long List of Characterization Descriptors.

• Plant height [cm] (7.1.3)
• Stem pigmentation (immature) (7.1.4)
• Row number/lateral florets (7.2.3)
• Lemma awn/hood (7.2.6)
• Lemma awn barbs (7.2.7)
• Glume colour (7.2.9)
• Length of rachilla hairs (7.2.12)
• Kernel covering (7.3.1)
• Lemma colour (7.3.3)
• Aleurone colour (7.3.5)
• 1000-kernel weight [g] (7.3.6)
• Specific gravity (Test Weight) [kg m3] (8.1.3)
• Susceptibility to Brown rust, Dwarf leaf rust (Puccinia hordei) (10.2.3)
Annex III – Comments on initial key set of descriptors for barley sent out on 19 August 2008
Roland
Tom Jan
Descriptor Kazuhiro Sato Von Basudeb Sarkarn (ICARDA) Flavio Cappetini
Descriptor name Bryan Harvey (Canada) Jason Eglington (Australia) Blake Ahmed Amri (ICARDA) Syria Konopka
no. (Japan) Bothmer Syria (ICARDA) Syria
(USA) Syria
(Sweden)
Growth class
7.1.1 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
(seasonality)
OK
Plant height would be useful if
(Transfer
7.1.3 Plant height Of limited value OK expressed relative to a well OK OK (Transfer to short list) OK OK OK
to short
characterized control variety.
list)
OK, but subject to
Stem pigmentation
7.1.4 environmental effects OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
(immature)
especially temperature
Row number/lateral
florets
Can be very subjective
7.2.4 Spike density outside of the extremes. OK OK OK OK OK Delete OK OK
(Delete?)
7.2.6 Lemma awn/hood OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
7.2.7 Lemma awn barbs OK OK OK OK OK OK Use in Minimum List OK OK
7.2.9 Glume colour OK, but limited value OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK

Length of rachilla
7.2.12 OK OK OK OK OK OK Use in Minimum List OK OK
hairs
OK. Presumably this means
hull adherence since all
7.3.1 Kernel covering OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
kernels are covered on the
plant but some thresh free.
7.3.3 Lemma colour OK OK OK OK OK OK OK Use in Minimum List OK
Data is
collected for
OK but can be very difficult all other
7.3.5 Aleurone colour OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
to score. (Delete) traits except
this one
(Delete?)
Do not have enough
1000-kernel weight
7.3.6 OK samples to measure OK OK OK Use in Minimum List OK OK OK
[g]
1000-kw (Delete?)
Will protein content
be measured by
Kjeldahl? This is
laborious. Also the
Waste of time because of Environmental effects on
character is Tricky
8.1.1 Protein content the huge environmental grain protein are difficult to OK OK OK OK OK
quantative and not (delete)
effect (Delete) manage (delete)
very reliable. It is
nice if you evaluate
this but need a good
control. (Delete)
Do not have enough
Specific gravity
samples to measure
8.1.3 (Test weight) [kg OK Use in short list OK OK OK Use in short list OK OK OK
3 test weight
m]
(Delete?)
It all depends on the
method of measurement. If
we can get a real measure
of these traits it would be No problems of heat, Salinity/drought/heat stress
very valuable. I am drought, salinity in tolerance results are too
Tolerance to heat
9.2 sceptical however since I Japan and do not variable between OK OK OK OK OK OK
stress
have found that materials have any data on environments/researchers
claiming resistance to these that (Delete) (Delete)
stresses do not turn out to
be so when we test them
here. (Delete)
Tolerance to Same as 9.2
9.3 Same as 9.2 (Delete) Same as 9.2 (Delete) OK OK OK OK OK OK
drought (Delete)
Roland
Tom Jan
Descriptor Kazuhiro Sato Von Basudeb Sarkarn (ICARDA) Flavio Cappetini
Descriptor name Bryan Harvey (Canada) Jason Eglington (Australia) Blake Ahmed Amri (ICARDA) Syria Konopka
no. (Japan) Bothmer Syria (ICARDA) Syria
(USA) Syria
(Sweden)
Same as 9.2. What kind of
Tolerance to Same as 9.2
9.6 salinity and at what stage? Same as 9.2 (Delete) OK OK OK OK OK OK
salinity (Delete)
(Delete)
Susceptibility to Wheat stem rust, Septoria, No rust diseases in

Brown Rust, Dwarf spot blotch and Fusarium Japan, but serious
10.2.3 OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
leaf rust (Puccinia are all more important to us. BaYMV occurrence.
hordei) (Delete) (Delete)
Susceptibility to
Not a disease of concern on
powdery mildew
10.2.4 the great plains of North OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK
(Erysiphe graminis
America (delete)
f.sp. hordei)
Susceptibility to
scald
(Rhynchosporium
secalis)
Two types of net
Susceptibility to Net blotch (spot type, net
This should be split into the Net blotch should be split into
10.2.7 blotch (Pyrenophora type) and the OK
two types spot form and net form
teres) resistances are
different.
Add: Plant height; Days to
Add: awn length, awn color and
flowering; 1000 kernel
Suggests removing lemma awn barbs (smooth vs
weight for characterization;
Spike Density from rough). For evaluation descriptors,
Susceptibility to spot blotch
Add: early growth habit; Add: the minimum list and we can add reaction to barley
Add: grain color; (Bipolaris sorokiniana);
Other basic vegetative phase market including the Length yellow dwarf virus (BYDV), to
earliness (heading Susceptibility to yellow rust
comments (BVP) and photoperiod uses of of rachilla hairs stripe disease (Helmintosporium
time, (Puccinia striiformis f.sp.
sensitivity barley (7.2.12) and Lemma gramineum) and yellow and leaf
hordei); Russian wheat aphid
awn barbs rusts. Also quality factors (alpha
(Diuraphis noxia); Fusarium
(smooth/rough). amylase, Bita Glucane) to dermine
head blight (Fusarium
the use as malting feed or food.
graminearum)
Annex IV – Revised initial set of first priority descriptors for barley utilization
Growth class (seasonality) (7.1.1)

Plant height [cm] (7.1.3)
Row number/lateral florets (7.2.3)
Lemma awn/hood (7.2.6)
Lemma awn barbs (7.2.7)
Kernel covering (7.3.1)
Lemma colour (7.3.3)
Susceptibility to Yellow rust (Puccinia striiformis) (10.2.1)
Susceptibility to Powdery mildew (Erysiphe graminis f.sp. hordei) (10.2.4)
Susceptibility to scald (Rhynchosporium secalis) (10.2.5)
Susceptibility to Net blotch (Pyrenophora teres) (10.2.7)
Susceptibility to Spot blotch (Cochliobolus sativus) (10.2.8)
Annex V – Comments received on revised initial set of first priority descriptors for
barley utilization
Flavio Bryan Harvey

Desc no. Descriptor name Basudeb Sarkar (ICARDA) Capettini (University
(ICARDA) Saskatchewan)
Growth class
7.1.1 OK OK OK
(seasonality)
7.1.3 Plant height OK OK OK
Row number/lateral
7.2.3 OK OK OK
florets
7.2.6 Lemma awn/hood OK OK OK
7.2.7 Lemma awn barbs OK OK OK
7.3.1 Kernel covering OK OK OK
7.3.3 Lemma colour OK OK OK
Susceptibility to
Yellow rust See comments
10.2.1 OK OK
(Puccinia below
striiformis)
Susceptibility to
Powdery mildew See comments
10.2.4 OK OK
(Erysiphe graminis below
f.sp. hordei)
Susceptibility to
scald See comments
10.2.5 OK OK
(Rhynchosporium below
secalis)
Susceptibility to
Net blotch See comments
10.2.7 OK OK
(Pyrenophora below
teres)
Susceptibility to
Spot blotch See comments
10.2.8 OK OK
(Cochliobolus below
sativus)
For the disease
Suggests including Insists on information to be
susceptibility/tolerance to rachilla useful it would help if
Other
drought. Increasingly hairs and the specific gene
comments
important traits as we head endosperm was identified or the
towards climate change. color races for which the
resistance applies.
Annex VI – Final key access and utilization descriptors for barley genetic
resources, defined on 19 November 2008
Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in
‘Descriptors for barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)’ (IPGRI, 1994).
1. Growth class (seasonality) (7.1.1)

2. Plant height [cm] (7.1.3)
3. Row number/lateral florets (7.2.3)
4. Lemma awn/hood (7.2.6)
5. Lemma awn barbs (7.2.7)
6. Length of rachilla hairs (7.2.12)
7. Kernel covering (7.3.1)
8. Lemma colour (7.3.3)
9. Aleurone colour (7.3.5)
10. Susceptibility to drought (9.3)
11. Susceptibility to Yellow rust (Puccinia striiformis f.sp. hordei) (10.2.1)
12. Susceptibility to Powdery mildew (Erysiphe graminis f.sp. hordei) (10.2.4)
13. Susceptibility to Scald (Rhynchosporium secalis) (10.2.5)
14. Susceptibility to Net blotch (Pyrenophora teres) (10.2.7)
15. Susceptibility to Spot blotch (Cochliobolus sativus) (10.2.8)
Annex VII – Final key set of descriptors for barley genetic resources

barley genetic resources
This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for barley
utilization. This key set of strategic descriptors, together with passport data, will become the
basis for the global accession level information portal (GENESYS) being developed by the
Bioversity-led project, Global Information on Germplasm Accessions (GIGA). It will facilitate
access to and utilization of barley accessions held in genebanks and does not preclude the
addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently become available.
Based on the comprehensive list of ‘Descriptors for barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)’ (IPGRI,
1994), the strategic set, listed below with the original descriptor states, was developed in
consultation with a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Michael Mackay of
Bioversity International.
Biotic and abiotic stresses included in the list were chosen because of their wide geographic
occurrence and significant economic impact.
The numbers indicated in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding
descriptor numbers as published in ‘Descriptors for Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)’ (IPGRI, 1994).

1 Winter
2 Facultative (intermediate)
3 Spring

At maturity, measured from the ground level to the top of spike excluding awns
Row number/lateral florets (7.2.3)

1 Two rowed, large or small sterile lateral florets
2 Two rowed, deficient
3 Irregular, variable lateral floret development
4 Six rowed, awnless or awnleted lateral florets
5 Six rowed, long awns on lateral florets
99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor)
Lemma awn/hood (7.2.6)

1 Awnless
2 Awnleted
3 Awned
4 Sessile hoods
5 Elevated hoods
Lemma awn barbs (7.2.7)
3 Smooth (few barbs at tip)
5 Intermediate (small barbs on upper half)
7 Rough
Length of rachilla hairs (7.2.12)

1 Short
2 Long
Kernel covering (7.3.1)

Whether or not the lemma and palea adhere to the caryopsis
1 Naked grain
2 Semi-covered grain
3 Covered grain
Lemma colour (7.3.3)

1 Amber (= normal)
2 Tan/red
3 Purple
4 Black/grey
Aleurone colour (7.3.5)

(Although this trait is difficult to observe, it is used for market type classification in several
countries)
1 White
2 Blue
Susceptibility to Yellow rust (Puccinia striiformis f.sp. hordei) (10.2.1)
Susceptibility to Scald (Rynchosporium secalis) (10.2.5)
Susceptibility to Net blotch (Pyrenophora teres) (10.2.7)
Susceptibility to Spot blotch (Cochliobolus sativus) (10.2.8)
Notes
Any additional information may be specified here, particularly that referring to the category
‘Other’ present in some of the descriptors above.
CONTRIBUTORS
Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who contributed to the development of
this strategic set of key access and utilization descriptors for barley genetic resources. The
following Bioversity staff contributed to this exercise: Michael Mackay, who provided scientific
direction, and Adriana Alercia, who provided technical expertise and guided the entire
production process.
Core Advisory Group

Michael Mackay, Bioversity International, Italy
Ahmed Amri, ICARDA, Syria
Tom Blake, Montana State University, USA
Flavio Capettini, ICARDA, Syria
Jason Eglington, University of Adelaide, Australia
Bryan Harvey, University of Saskatchewan, Canada
Jan Konopka, ICARDA, Syria
Basudeb Sarkar, ICARDA, Syria
Kazuhiro Sato, Okayama University, Japan
Jan Valkoun, Czech Republic
Roland Von Bothmer, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden
Methodology for the
definition of a key set of
characterization and
evaluation descriptors for
bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)
Information for the definition of a key set of descriptors for bean was based on the
comprehensive ‘Phaseolus vulgaris Descriptors’ published by IBPGR (now Bioversity
International) in 1982. The list was subsequently compared and harmonised, wherever
possible, with minimum descriptors listed in ‘Descriptors for PHASEOLUS’ (USDA,
ARS, GRIN), UPOV technical guidelines for French Bean (2005), ‘Handbook on
evaluation of Phaseolus Germplasm’ (PHASELIEU, 2001) and ‘Standard System for the
Evaluation of Bean Germplasm’ (CIAT, 1987). An excel table was prepared comparing
descriptors mentioned in each publication and then it was shared with the Crop Leader,
who selected the key set of descriptors to be included in the survey (see Annex I).

Being the original IBPGR publication too old, the list of experts was drawn from the
website of the European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources (ECPGR),
and from the PHASELIEU project. Additionally, experts were identified from The
World Information and Early Warning System (WIEWS) and from partners to the
Phaseomics Global Initiative. Dr Daniel Debouck from the International Center for
Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Crop Leader for this exercise, was asked to examine the
list and to make any additions or deletions he saw pertinent. He was also invited to
select experts to join the Core Advisory Group for the definition of an initial key set of
descriptors for bean. Overall 59 experts were identified, coming from 34 countries and
49 different organizations. The Core Advisory Group originally consisted of six experts
coming from internationally recognized organizations such as USDA-ARS, CIAT, the
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), the Instituto Nacional de
Investigación y Tecnología Agraria (INIA) and the Misión Biológica de Galicia- CSIC –
Phaselieu project and would be led by Dr Daniel Debouck (see Annex II).

A draft survey on Phaseolus was prepared listing the descriptors as agreed after
consultations with the Crop Leader (see Annex III). Once approved, the final version
was uploaded into the SurveyMonkey application on internet (see Annex IV). On 20th
March 2009 an email invitation with the link to the survey was sent to the identified
experts. They were invited to rate the importance of the proposed characterization and
evaluation descriptors for this crop and also encouraged to mention any additional trait
that was found to be relevant yet missing from the proposed Minimum List, along with
a substantiated justification for its inclusion. The survey deadline was set at 15th April
2009. A first reminder was sent out on 6th April 2009 and a second one on 14th April to
ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained.
Survey analysis and refinement of Minimum List

Of the 59 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 25 coming from 15
countries and 22 different organizations recorded their comments using the online
survey (see Annex V), four of them members of the Core Advisory Group. Results from
the survey were analysed and descriptors ranked by rating average and percentage
importance (see Annex VI). The summary of the survey, together with a report
containing comments received by the participants (see Annex VII) was sent to the Crop
Leader for further consultation and to help select a reduced set of key traits. As a way to
implement the final list and to avoid any misinterpretation of some traits, Dr Debouck
proposed to introduce digital images for some descriptors as seed colour, shape,
pattern, and Phaseolin type. Adriana Alercia discussed the feasibility of this proposal
with the developer of the Global Information Portal and an agreement was found for
this inclusion once data would become available.
Afterwards a final key set was prepared adding descriptor states and then was
sent again to Dr Debouck for his further validation (see Annex VIII).
The final validated document, approved also by the Core Advisory Group, and
including all the contributors (see Annex IX), was proofread by an external editor and
sent to the Bioversity Publication Unit for layout and online publication processes.
Furthermore, the publication was shared with ECPGR Secretariat; the Generation
Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base
partners. Additionally, data were converted into Excel files for uploading into the
GRIN-Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA first and
subsequently into the global accession level information portal, linking national,
regional and international genebank databases in support of the conservation and use
of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also
provided to the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER)
and to EURISCO.
Acknowledgement
development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for bean
Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leader, Dr Daniel Debouck, for his valuable
scientific direction. Ms Adriana Alercia provided technical expertise and guided the
entire production process.
Annex I – Summary comparison table weighing up important descriptors for bean drawn from different sourcesi
Daniel Revised
Phaselieu
IBPGR IBPGR UPOV Debouck key set SSE CIAT
IBPGR 1982 USDA/ARS/GRIN Desriptors
Desc. no. Descriptor name Descriptors selected Debouck 1987
list
3/11/08 21/11/08
4.1.1 Leaflet length [cm]
*
4.1.2 Plant type
* * * * * * **
4.2.1 Node number on main stem
from base to first inflorescence * *
4.2.2 Days to 50% flowering
* * * * * * **
4.2.3 Flower buds per inflorescence
*
4.2.4 Flower - Colour of standard
(combined with vein) * * * * * *
4.2.5 Flower - Colour of wings
* * * * * *
4.2.6 Pod colour (combined with
pattern) * * * * * *
4.2.7 Pod length (to be deleted from
key set) * * * *
4.2.8 Pod cross-section
* *
4.2.9 Pod curvature
*
4.2.10 Pod suture string (to be
deleted from key set) * * * *
4.2.11 Pod colour at physiological
maturity * *
4.2.12 Pod wall fibre
* *
4.2.13 Locules per pod
* *
4.3.1 Seed coat patterns
* * * * * * **
4.3.2 Seed coat darker colour
* * * * **
4.3.3 Seed coat lighter colour
* * * * **
Daniel Revised
Phaselieu
list
3/11/08 21/11/08
4.3.4 Brilliance of seed
* * **
4.3.5 Seed shape (Digital image)
* * * * *
6.1.1 Hypocotyl length [cm]
*
6.1.2 Hypocotyl pigmentation (to be
deleted from key set) * * *
6.1.3 Emerging cotyledon colour
* *
6.1.4 Leaf colour of chlorophyll
* *
6.1.5 Leaf colour of anthocyanin
*
6.1.6 Leaf shape
* * *
6.1.7 Days to 90% pod maturity
* * *
6.1.8 Leaf persistence
*
6.1.9 Plant height [cm] (to be
deleted from key set) * *
6.1.10 Stem diameter [mm]
*
6.1.11 Stem lodging
*
6.1.12 Node number at harvest
*
6.2.1 Flower bud size
*
6.2.2 Size of flower bracteole
*
6.2.3 Shape of flower bracteole
*
6.2.4 Flower bracteole/calyx length
relation *
6.2.5 Flower calyx/bracteole colour
*
6.2.6 Flower wing opening
*
Daniel Revised
Phaselieu
list
3/11/08 21/11/08
6.2.7 Flower style protrusion
*
6.2.8 Racemes per plant
*
6.2.9 Inflorescence length [mm]
*
6.2.10 Pedicel length [mm]
*
6.2.11 Duration of flowering
* * *
6.2.12 Position of pods
* * * **
6.2.13 Pod width [mm]
*
6.2.14 Pod beak length [mm]
* *
6.2.15 Pod beak position
*
6.2.16 Pod beak orientation
*
6.2.17 Dry pod colour
*
6.2.18 Pods per plant
* *
6.3.1 Seeds per pod
* *
6.3.2 Apparent seed veining
*
6.3.3 100-Seed weight [g] (changed)
*
* * * * (100-seed * **
weight)
6.3.4 Seed volume [cm3]
*
6.3.5 Seed dimensions [mm]
*
6.3.5.1 Seed length [mm]
* *
6.3.5.2 Seed width [mm]
* *
6.3.5.3 Seed height [mm]
* *
Daniel Revised
Phaselieu
list
3/11/08 21/11/08
6.3.6 Percentage seed protein [%]
*
6.3.7 Percentage seed protein of a
check variety *
7.1 Low temperature
* *
7.2 High temperature
*
7.3 Drought
* * *
7.4 High Humidity
*
7.5 Salinity
*
7.6 Soil acidity (Low available
phosphorous level) * *
8.1.1 Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say)
(Bruchids) * * * **
8.1.2 Apion godmani (Bean pod
weevil) (to be deleted) * * *
8.1.3 Aphis spp. (Aphids)
* *
8.1.4 Bemisia tabaci (Genn.)
(Whitefly) *
8.1.5 Caliothrips braziliensis (Thrips)
*
8.1.6 Cerotoma spp. (Leaf-feeding
insects) * *
8.1.7 Diabrotica spp. (Leaf-feeding
insects) * *
8.1.8 Empoasca kraemeri
(Leafhopper) * * * * * **
8.1.9 Heliothis spp. (Pod borer)
*
8.1.10 Maruca testulalis (Gey.) (Pod
borer) *
8.1.11 Zabrotes subfasciatus (Bruchids)
* * * **
Daniel Revised
Phaselieu
list
3/11/08 21/11/08
8.1.12 Epinotia spp.
*
8.1.13 Hedilepta indicata
*
8.1.14 Meloidogyne spp.
*
8.1.15 Pratylenchus spp.
*
8.1.16 Polyphagot arsonemus latus
(Tarsonomid mites)
*
* White spider
mite
8.1.17 Tetranychus spp. (Spider
mites) * *
8.1.18 Slugs
*
8.2.1 Alternaria spp. (Alternaria leaf
and pod spot) * *
8.2.2 Ascochyta spp. (Ascochyta leaf
spot) (to be confirmed) * * * **
8.2.3 Botrytis cinerea Pers. ex Fr.
(Grey mold) * *
8.2.4 Cercospora spp. (Cercospora
leaf spot) * *
8.2.5 Colletotrichum lindemethianum
(Anthracnose) * * * * **
8.2.6 Diaporthe spp. (Diaporthe pod
blight) * *
8.2.7 Erysiphe polygoni DC ex Merat.
(Powdery mildew) * *
8.2.8 Fusarium spp. (Root rot)
* * *
(Fusarium wilt?)
8.2.9 Macrophomina phaseoli
(Maubl.) (Ashy stem blight) * * * **
Charcoal rot
8.2.10 Phoesisariopsis griseola
(Ferraris) (Angular leaf spot) * *
Daniel Revised
Phaselieu
list
3/11/08 21/11/08
8.2.11 Phytophthora phaseoli (Thaxter)
(Downy mildew) *
8.2.12 Pseudocercosporella albida
(Matta & Balliard) (White leaf * * **
spot)
8.2.13 Pythium spp. (Root rot)
* * **
8.2.14 Rhizoctonia spp. (Root rot)
* * **
8.2.15 Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de
Bary (White mold) * * *
8.2.16 Thanatephorus cucumeris
(Frank) Dark (Web blight) * *
8.2.17 Uromyces phaseoli (Pers.)
Winter (Rust) * * * **
8.3.1 Corynebacterium flaccumfaciens
(Hedges) Dowson (Bacterial * *
wilt)
8.3.2 Pseudomonas phaseolicola (Halo
blight) * * * * * **
8.3.3 Pseudomonas syringae van Hall
(Bacterial brown spot) * *
8.3.4 Pseudomonas tabaci (Wolf &
Foster) Stevens (Wildfire) *
8.3.5 Xanthomonas phaseoli (E.F. Sm.)
Dowson (Bacterial blight) * * * * * **
8.4.1 Alfalfa mosaic virus
*
8.4.2 Bean chlorotic mottle virus
*
8.4.3 Bean common mosaic virus
(BCMV) * * * * * *
8.4.4 Bean curly dwarf mosaic virus
*
8.4.5 Bean golden mosaic virus
*
8.4.6 Bean rugose mosaic virus
*
Daniel Revised
Phaselieu
list
3/11/08 21/11/08
8.4.7 Bean southern mosaic virus
*
8.4.8 Bean summer death
*
8.4.9 Bean yellow mosaic virus
* *
8.4.10 Bean yellow stipple virus
*
8.4.11 Cucumber mosaic virus
*
8.4.12 Curly top virus
*
8.4.13 Euphorbia mosaic virus
*
8.4.14 Mycoplasma diseases
*
8.4.15 Red node (tobacco streak
virus) *
8.4.16 Rhynchosia mosaic virus
*
8.4.17 Tomato spotted wilt virus
*
New User category (dry bean, snap
descriptor bean, green seed, green frozen *
seed, popping beans)
Days to 50% physiological
maturity *
Growth habit
*
Vegetative adaptation (vigour)
*
Nodulation with Rhizobium
spp. *
Mycovellosiella phaseoli (=
Ramularia phaseoli) (Floury leaf *
spot)
Cercospora castellanii (=
Cvanderysti) (Gray leaf spot) *
Phomasp. (Phoma red blight)
*
Daniel Revised
Phaselieu
list
3/11/08 21/11/08
Chaetoseptoria wellmani(Round
leaf spot) *
Entyloma petuniae (Entyloma
leaf smut) *
Thielaviopsis basicola (Black
root rot) *
Sclerotium rolfsii (Southern
blight) *
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp.
phaseoli (Fusarium wilt) *
Ophiomyia spp. (Bean flies)
*
i
‘Phaseolus vulgaris Descriptors’ (IBPGR 1982), UPOV Technical guidelines for French Bean (2005), ‘Descriptors for PHASEOLUS’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN), ‘Handbook
on evaluation of Phaseolus Germplasm’ (PHASELIEU, 2001), ‘Standard System for the Evaluation of Bean Germplasm’ (CIAT, 1987), traits selected and validated
by Dr Debouck (CIAT).
Annex II – List of experts identified to participate to the survey
Crop Debouck, Daniel CIAT Colombia

Leader
CAG De la Cuadra, INIA - ECPGR Spain

Celia
CAG De Ron, Antonio Misión Biológica de Galicia - CSIC - Spain

M. Phaselieu
CAG Duc, Gerard INRA (ECPGR) France
CAG Santalla, Marta Misión Biológica de Galicia - CSIC - Spain

Phaselieu
CAG Voysest, Oswaldo CIAT Colombia
CAG Welsh, Molly ARS/USDA USA
ECPGR Bettencourt, Italy

Eliseu
ECPGR Buravtseva, T. VIR Russia
ECPGR Carravedo Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Spain

Fantova, Miguel Zaragoza
ECPGR Dotlacil, Ladislav Crop Research Institute Czech

Republic
ECPGR Hornakova, Olga SCPV Slovenia
ECPGR Horvath, Lajos Hungary
ECPGR Kainz, Wolfgang Austrian Agency for Health and Food Austria
Safety (AGES)
ECPGR Kleijer, Geert Swiss Commission for the Conservation Switzerland

of Cultivated Plants
ECPGR Lazanyi, Janos Debreceni Egyetem (AMTC) Hungary
ECPGR Lengauer, Doris LVZ Weis Austria
ECPGR Manoah, Myra Agricultural Research Organization Israel

(ARO)
ECPGR Ottosson, Fredrik Nordgen Sweden
ECPGR Quagliotti, Luciana Turin University Italy
ECPGR Russkikh, Ivan Belarusian State University Belorussia
ECPGR Ryabchoun, Victor Ukraine

K.
ECPGR Schmidt Baerbel IPK Germany

Rev suggd
by Knuppfer
ECPGR Vanderborght, National Botanical Garden Belgium

Thierry
ECPGR Vorderwuelbecke, Arche Noah Austria

Birgit
Phaseomics Aguilar, Orlando IBBM, Universidad Nacional de La Argentina

Mario Plata
Phaseomics Antoun, Hani Laval University Canada
Phaseomics Atkins, Craig A. CLIMA - University of Western Australia Australia
Phaseomics Beebe, Stephen CIAT Colombia
Phaseomics Bett, Kirstin E Department of Plant Sciences - Canada

University of Saskatchewan
Phaseomics Camargo, Luis E. ESALQ - University of Sao Paolo Brazil

A.
Phaseomics Covarrubias Departamento de Biologia Molecular Mexico

Robles, Alejandra de Plantas, Istituto UNAM
Alicia
Phaseomics Onzere, Nelson Department of Botany University of Kenya

Amugune Nairobi
Phaseomics Schröder, Department of Agronomy and Soils, Puerto

Eduardo C. University of Puerto Rico Rico
Phaseomics Sparvoli, IBBA - CNR Italy

Francesca
Phaseomics Terryn, Nancy IPBO Belgium
Phaseomics Vance, Carroll P. University of Minnesota - USDA/ARS USA
Phaseomics Volckaert, Guido Catholic University of Leuven Belgium
WIEWS Benedikova Research Institute of Plant Production Slovakia

Piestany
WIEWS Feyt, Henri CIRAD France
WIEWS Fundora, Z. Banco de Germoplasma Cuba
WIEWS Graner, A. IPK Germany
WIEWS Hýbl, Miroslav AGRITEC, Research, Breeding and Czech

Services Ltd. Republic
WIEWS Lawrence, Peter Australian Plant Genetic Resource Australia

Information Service
WIEWS Maliro, M. Bunda College of Agriculture Malawi
WIEWS Mario Lobo CORPOICA Colombia
WIEWS Muthamia, National Genebank of Kenya, Crop Kenya

Zachary Plant Genetic Resources Centre,
Kenya Agricultural Research Institute
WIEWS Podyma, W. Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Poland

Institute
WIEWS Salazar, E. Instituto de Investigaciones Chile

Agropecuarias, Centro Regional de
Investigación La Platina
WIEWS Stoyanova, S. Institute for Plant Genetic Resources Bulgaria

"K.Malkov"
WIEWS Veloso, MM INIAP Portugal
New Acosta, Jorge INIFAP Mexico

Reviewer
New Araya, Carlos Escuela de Ciencias Agrarias. Costa Rica

Reviewer Manuel Universidad Nacional.
New Buruchara, Robin CIAT - Africa Uganda

Reviewer
New Hernández F., Instituto Nacional de Innovación y Costa Rica

Reviewer Juan Carlos Trasferencia en Tecnológica
Agropecuaria
New Kelly, James Michigan State University USA

Reviewer
New Mwale, V.M. Bunda College of Agriculture University Malawi

Reviewer of Malawi (Germplasm Directory)
New Xuxiao, Zong CAAS China

Reviewer
New Xuzhen, Cheng CAAS China

Reviewer
Annex III - Characterization and Evaluation traits validated by Dr Daniel Debouck
on 20th March 2009 and used for the survey
1. Plant growth habit (4.1.2)

2. Days from sowing to 50% flowering (4.2.2)
3. Colour of standard flowers (4.2.4)
4. Colour of flower wings (4.2.5)
5. Pod colour (4.2.6)
6. Seed coat patterns (4.3.1)
7. Seed shape (4.3.5)
8. Days to 90% pod maturity (6.1.7)
9. Duration of flowering (6.2.11)
10. 100-seed weight [g]
11. Bruchids (Acanthoscelides obtectus) (8.1.1)
12. Leafhopper (Empoasca kraemeri) (8.1.8)
13. Bruchids (Zabrotes subfasciatus) (8.1.11)
14. Ascochyta leaf spot (Ascochyta spp.) (8.2.2)
15. Ascochyta blight (Phoma exigua var. diversispora Boerema)
16. Anthracnose (Colletotrichum lindemuthianum) (8.2.5)
17. Ashy stem blight (Macrophomina phaseolina) (8.2.9)
18. Halo blight (Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola) (8.3.2)
19. Bacterial blight (Xanthomonas campestris pv. phaseoli) (8.3.5)
20. Bean common mosaic virus (BCMV) (8.4.3)
21. User category (dry bean, snap bean, green seed, popping beans)
22. Phaseolin type
Annex IV – Survey to choose a key set of descriptors for bean (Phaseolus
vulgaris)
W E LCOME
Welcome to the survey for the selection of a key set of characterization and evaluation
descriptors to support an international information system to enhance the utilization of
germplasm held in genebanks.
Your knowledge and experience are being sought to select this initial ‘key set of descriptors’
of Bean accessions to identify traits important to crop production and to facilitate their u s e
by researchers.
Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 1 5 t h A p r i l
2009.
This key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors will be made available through a
global facility for identifying sets of accessions for evaluation and use. For characterization,
the aim is a key set of maximally differentiating traits that provide the most impact in
discriminating between accessions. For evaluation, the aim is to focus on a few important
traits for production, such as those related to biotic stresses of cosmopolitan nature.
The list presented here has been refined under the scientific direction of Dr. Daniel
Debouck, from CIAT.
This survey consists of two parts:
PART I: Lists important characterization descriptors for Bean. Based on your experience,
please rate the descriptors according to their importance in identifying accessions. It also
allows you to indicate if any essential descriptor that can contribute to its use is missing
from the minimum list presented.
PART II: Lists important evaluation descriptors for Bean. Please, rate these traits in order of
importance at the global level. It also allows you to indicate if any essential trait for
production is missing from the minimum list presented or indicate any that may not be very
significant to global production.
We thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in selecting this initial, key
set of descriptors.
P le a s e a llow u s to a ck n ow le dge y ou r con tr ibu tion by com ple tin g y ou r fu ll con ta ct de ta ils
be low :
Nam e:
O r g a n iz a t io n :
Addr e s s :
C it y / T o w n :
S t a t e / P r o v in c e :
Z I P / P o s t a lC o d e :
Cou ntr y :
E m a il A d d r e s s
P A R T I : C h a r a c t e r iz a t io n d e s c r ipto r s
These traits enable easy and quick discrimination between phenotypes. They are generally
highly heritable, can be easily seen by the eye and are equally expressed in all
environments.
*Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as
published in the ‘Pha s eolus v ulga ris Descriptors’ (IBPGR, 1982).
Not important Important Very important

Plant growth habit (4.1.2) j/ j/ j/
Days from sowing to 50% flowering (4.2.2) j/ j/ j/
Colour of standard flowers (4.2.4) j/ j/ j/
Colour of flower wings (4.2.5) j/ j/ j/
Pod colour (4.2.6) j/ j/ j/
Seed coat patterns (4.3.1) j/ j/ j/
Seed shape (4.3.5) j/ j/ j/
I f y ou con s ide r th a t a n e s s e n tia l tr a it is m is s in g fr om th is lis t, ple a s e in dica te it h e r e a lon g
w ith a s u bs ta n tia te d j u s tifica tion .
P A R T I I : E v a lu a tio n d e s c r ipto r s
These descriptors include characters such as biotic stresses. They are the most interesting
traits in crop improvement. Please consider the following factors relating to the trait when
making your final decision: (i) Global impact, (ii) Initial strategic set, (iii) Importance for
germplasm utilization, (iv) Data availability, (v) True economic damage and (vi) Wide
geographical occurrence.
Days to 90% pod maturity (6.1.7) j/ j/ j/
Duration of flowering (6.2.11) j/ j/ j/
100-seed weight [g] j/ j/ j/
Bruchids (Aca nthos celides obtectus ) (8.1.1) j/ j/ j/
Leafhopper (E m poa s ca k ra em eri) (8.1.8) j/ j/ j/
Bruchids (Z a brotes s ubfa s cia tus ) (8.1.11) j/ j/ j/
Ascochyta leaf spot (As cochy ta spp.) (8.2.2) j/ j/ j/
Ascochyta bligth (Phom a ex igua var. div er s is por a Boerema) j/ j/ j/
Anthracnose (C olletotr ichum lindem uthia num ) (8.2.5) j/ j/ j/
Ashy stem blight (Ma crophom ina pha s eolina ) (8.2.9) j/ j/ j/
Halo blight (Ps eudom ona s s y ringa e pv. pha s eolicola ) (8.3.2) j/ j/ j/
Bacterial blight (X a nthom ona s ca m pes tr is pv. pha s eoli) (8.3.5) j/ j/ j/
Bean common mosaic virus (BCMV) (8.4.3) j/ j/ j/
User category (dry beans, snap beans, green seed,
and popping beans) j/ j/ j/
Phaseolin type j/ j/ j/
I f y ou c on s ide r th a t a n e s s e n tia l tr a it im por ta n t for cr op im pr ov e m e n t a n d pr odu ction is
m is s in g fr om th is lis t, or , if a n y of th e de s cr iptor s lis te d is n ot cle a r ly u s e fu l to pr om ote
u tiliz a tion , ple a s e in dica te it h e r e a lon g w ith a s u bs ta n tia te d j u s tifica tion .
N O T E : P le a s e r e m e m be r , th is lis t is th e s ta r tin g poin t a n d w ill gr ow ov e r tim e , a s r e qu ir e d.
Annex V – Respondents to the survey for the definition of a key set of descriptors
for bean

CAG De Ron, Antonio M. MBG-CSIC Spain
Santalla Ferradas,
CAG CSIC Spain
Marta
Voysest Voysest,
CAG CIAT (retired) USA
Oswaldo
CAG Welsh, Molly USDA/ARS/WRPIS USA
IBBM, Facultad Ciencias Exactas,

Phaseomics Aguilar, Mario O. Argentina
Universidad Nacional de La Plata
Reviewer Dillon, Sally Primary Indistries and Fisheries Australia
Austrian Agency for Health and Food

ECPGR Kainz, Wolfgang Austria
Safety
FA 10 B, Versuchsstation für
ECPGR Lengauer, Doris Austria
Spezialkulturen
Vorderwülbecke,
ECPGR Arche Noah Austria
Birgit
Vanderborght,
ECPGR National Botanic Garden of Belgium Belgium
Thierry
Institute of Crop Science, Chinese

Reviewer Zong, Xuxiao China
Academy of Agricultural Sciences
Phaseomics Beebe, Stephen CIAT Colombia

Reviewrer
suggested
Schmidt, Bäerbel IPK Genbank Germany
by Knuppfer,
Helmut
National Bureau of Plant Genetic
Reviewer Rana, JC India
Resources
ECPGR Bettencourt, Eliseu Italy
Phaseomics Sparvoli, Francesca IBBA-CNR Italy
Covarrubias,
Phaseomics Instituto de Biotecnologia-UNAM Mexico
Alejandra A.
Veloso, Maria
Reviewer INRB/INIA Portugal
Manuela
Plant Production Research Centre - Slovak
WIEWS Benedikova, Daniela
Piestany Republic
ECPGR Ottosson, Fredrik Nordic Genetic Resource Center Sweden

Reviewer Beaver, James University of Puerto Rico USA
Reviewer Kelly, James D. Michigan State University USA
Reviewer Osorno, Juan M. North Dakota State University USA
Reviewer Urrea, Carlos A. University of Nebraska-Lincoln USA
Pastor-Corrales
Reviewer USDA-ARS, SGIL USA
(Talo), Marcial A.
Annex VI – Descriptors proposed in the survey ranked by rating average and by
percentage of importance
%
Rating Importance
Descriptor Descriptor
Average (Very
important)
Characterization Characterization
Plant growth habit (4.1.2) 4.92 Plant growth habit (4.1.2) 96.0
Seed coat patterns (4.3.1) 4.92 Seed coat patterns (4.3.1) 95.8
Seed shape (4.3.5) 4.52 Seed shape (4.3.5) 76.0
Colour of standard flowers (4.2.4) 3.64 Colour of standard flowers (4.2.4) 56.0
Days from sowing to 50% Colour of flower wings (4.2.5)
3.56 41.7
flowering (4.2.2)
Colour of flower wings (4.2.5) Days from sowing to 50%
3.21 40.0
flowering (4.2.2)
Pod colour (4.2.6) 3.13 Pod colour (4.2.6) 37.5
Evaluation Evaluation
100-seed weight [g] 4.52 100-seed weight [g] 76.2
Bean common mosaic virus Bean common mosaic virus
4.25 70.0
(BCMV) (8.4.3) (BCMV) (8.4.3)
User category (dry beans, snap User category (dry beans, snap
beans, green seed, and popping 4.19 beans, green seed, and popping 66.7
beans) beans)
Anthracnose (Colletotrichum Anthracnose (Colletotrichum
4.00 57.1
lindemuthianum) (8.2.5) lindemuthianum) (8.2.5)
Bacterial blight (Xanthomonas Bacterial blight (Xanthomonas
3.90 52.4
campestris pv. phaseoli) (8.3.5) campestris pv. phaseoli) (8.3.5)
Days to 90% pod maturity (6.1.7) 3.86 Days to 90% pod maturity (6.1.7) 50.0
Bruchids (Acanthoscelides Phaseolin type
3.47 36.4
obtectus) (8.1.1)
Phaseolin type Halo blight (Pseudomonas
3.32 35.0
syringae pv. phaseolicola) (8.3.2)
Bruchids (Zabrotes subfasciatus) Bruchids (Acanthoscelides
3.25 31.6
(8.1.11) obtectus) (8.1.1)
Halo blight (Pseudomonas Bruchids (Zabrotes subfasciatus)
3.25 20.0
syringae pv. phaseolicola) (8.3.2) (8.1.11)
Duration of flowering (6.2.11) Ascochyta bligth (Phoma exigua
2.95 20.0
var. diversispora Boerema)
Leafhopper (Empoasca kraemeri) Duration of flowering (6.2.11)
2.70 19.0
(8.1.8)
Ashy stem blight (Macrophomina Leafhopper (Empoasca kraemeri)
phaseolina) (8.2.9) 2.60 (8.1.8) 15.0
Ascochyta bligth (Phoma exigua Ascochyta leaf spot (Ascochyta

2.50 10.0
var. diversispora Boerema) spp.) (8.2.2)
Ascochyta leaf spot (Ascochyta Ashy stem blight (Macrophomina

2.45 10.0
spp.) (8.2.2) phaseolina) (8.2.9)
Annex VII - Additional descriptors proposed in the bean survey
Bean Descriptors Name of Expert
Marcial A.,
Voysest Beebe, Beaver Urrea, Kelly, Veloso,
N times Vanderborg Osorno, Kainz, Pastor-
Voysest, Stephe , Carlos Jame Maria
selected ht, Thierry Juan M. Wolfgang Corrales
Oswaldo n James A. s D. Manuela
(Talo)
Additional characterization descriptors
Photoperiod sensitivity: Simple to evaluate (yes or
no), stable across environments, and very important 1 X
for breeding and introgression.
Pod curvature (4.2.9) 1 X
Pod suture strings (4.2.10) 1 X
Seed colour 4 X X X X
Growth period. In the Andes for a farmer having a
bean of 200 days is like having a bean a cow; they
provide food (green pods, green beans and dry beans) 1 X
for almost the whole year. Other type of farmers on the
contrary look for early maturing beans.
Days from sowing to 90% physiological maturity.
The earlier the better to avoid early frost.
1 X
Additional evaluation descriptors
Plant Height (6.1.9) 1 X
Lodging (6.1.11) 1 X
Seed size. (6.3.5) In some market classes (greta
northern), the larger the better. 1 X
Drought (7.3) 2 X X
Seed-protein content 1 X
Soil constraints (low soil P and N) probably result in
the greatest yield losses.
1 X
Soil acidity (7.6) 1 X
Aluminum toxicity 1 X
Nutritional value 1 X
Angular leaf spot (8.2.10) 3 X X X
White Mold (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum) (8.2.15) 2 X X
Bean Rust (8.2.17) 4 X X X X
Bean Golden Mosaic (8.4.5) 3 X X X
Cucumber Mosaic Virus (CMV) (8.4.11) 1 X
Root rot (Phytopthora, Fusarium, Phytium) are
very limiting diseases.
2 X X
Bean common mosaic necrosis virus (BCMNV) 1 X
Annex VIII – Final Key set including descriptor states sent to Dr Debouck for
validation on 31st July 2009
Characterization
User category
1 Dry beans
2 Snap beans
3 Green seed
4 Popping beans
Plant growth habit (4.1.2)

1 Determinate bush
2 Indeterminate bush
3 Indeterminate prostrate or vining but not climbing
4 Indeterminate climbing
5 Mixed
Seed colour
Seed coat patterns (4.3.1)
0 Absent
1 Constant mottled (marmoratus)
2 Striped (striatus)
3 Rhomboid spotted (rhomboidius)
4 Speckled (punctatus)
5 Circular mottling (circumdatus in P. coccineus & vulgaris x coccineus (hybrid)
6 Marginal colour pattern (marginatus)
7 Broad striped (zebrinus)
8 Bicolor
9 Spotted bicolour
10 Pattern around hilum (face)
99 Other (specify in descriptor Notes)
Seed coat darker colour (4.3.2)

When both darker and lighter colours occur the paler is always genetically related to the
darker colour by a difference in a single enzyme.
1 Black
2 Brown, pale to dark
3 Maroon
4 Grey, brownish to greenish
5 Yellow to greenish yellow
6 Pale-cream to buff
7 Pure white
8 Whitish
9 White, purple tinged
10 Chlorophyll green
11 Green to olive
12 Red
13 Pink
14 Purple
Seed coat lighter colour (4.3.3)

When both darker and lighter colours occur, the paler is always genetically related to the
darker colour by a difference in a single enzyme. Choose from states of descriptor 4.3.2
Brilliance of seed (4.3.4)
3 Matt
5 Medium
7 Shiny
Seed shape (4.3.5)

Taken from middle of pod
1 Round
2 Oval
3 Square
4 Kidney shaped
5 Rectangular
100-seed weight [g] (6.3.3)

Weight of 100 seeds to the first decimal place at moisture content of 12-14%
Colour of standard flower (4.2.4)

In freshly opened flowers; the colours of freshly opened flowers are highly
changeable after opening
1 White
2 Green
3 Lilac
4 White with lilac edge
5 White with red stripes
6 Dark lilac with purple outer edge
7 Dark lilac with purplish spots
8 Carmine red
9 Purple
Days from sowing to 50% flowering (4.2.2)
Number of days from sowing to stage where 50% of plants have set flowers
Colour of flower wings (4.2.5)

In freshly opened flowers
1 White
2 Green
3 Lilac
4 White with carmine stripes
5 Strongly veined in red to dark lilac
6 Plain red to dark lilac
7 Lilac with dark lilac veins
8 Purple
99 Other specify in descriptor Notes)
Days to 90% pod maturity (6.1.7)

Numbers of days from emergence until 90% of pods are mature
Pod colour (4.2.6)
From fully expanded immature pod
1 Dark purple
2 Carmine red
3 Purple stripe on green
4 Carmine stripe on green
5 Pale red stripe on green
6 Dark pink (rose)
7 Normal green
8 Shiny green
9 Dull green to silver grey
10 Golden or deep yellow
11 Pale yellow to white
99 Other specify in descriptor Notes)
Evaluation
Phaseolin type
Drought (7.3)
Bean common mosaic virus (BCMV) (8.4.3)
Anthracnose (Colletotrichum lindemuthianum) (8.2.5)
Bacterial blight (Xanthomonas campestris pv. phaseoli) (8.3.5)
Bruchids (Acanthoscelides obtectus) (8.1.1)
Bruchids (Zabrotes subfasciatus) (8.1.11)
Halo blight (Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola) (8.3.2)
Annex IX – Final Key access and utilization descriptors for bean genetic
resources
PLANT DATA
Use category (4.1.X)

1 Dry beans
2 Snap beans
3 Green shelled seed
4 Popping beans

1 Determinate bush
2 Indeterminate bush
3 Indeterminate prostrate or vining but not climbing
4 Indeterminate climbing
5 Determinate climbing
6 Mixture
Days from sowing to 50% flowering (4.2.2)

Number of days from sowing to stage where 50% of plants have set flowers
Colour of flower standard (banner) (4.2.4)

In freshly opened flowers; the colours of freshly opened flowers are highly changeable after
opening
1 White
2 Green
3 Lilac
4 White with lilac edge
5 White with red stripes
6 Dark lilac with purple outer edge
7 Dark lilac with purplish spots
8 Carmine red
9 Purple
Colour of flower wings (4.2.5)

In freshly opened flowers
1 White
2 Green
3 Lilac
4 White with carmine stripes
5 Strongly veined in red to dark lilac
6 Plain red to dark lilac
7 Lilac with dark lilac veins
8 Purple
Pod colour (4.2.6)
From fully expanded immature pod
1 Dark purple
2 Carmine red
3 Purple stripe on green
4 Carmine stripe on green
5 Pale red stripe on green
6 Dark pink (rose)
7 Normal green
8 Shiny green
9 Dull green to silver grey
10 Golden or deep yellow
11 Pale yellow to white
Days to 90% pod maturity (6.1.7)

Numbers of days from emergence until 90% of pods are mature
SEED COLOUR
Seed coat patterns (4.3.1)

0 Absent
1 Mottled
2 Striped
3 Speckled
4 Spotted
5 Blotched
Seed coat colour 1 (4.3.2)

The list of the principal colours is listed below. If the seed has more than one colour the
secondary and tertiary colours are also recorded using the same colour codes as for the primary
colour.
1 White
2 Cream
3 Yellow
4 Brown
5 Pink
6 Red
7 Purple
8 Black
Brilliance of seed (4.3.4)

3 Dull
5 Medium
7 Shiny
1
For mixed material separate the variants and name them accordingly by a letter after the accession number
Seed shape (4.3.5)
Taken from middle of pod
1 Round
2 Oval
3 Cuboid
4 Kidney shaped
5 Markedly truncate

Weight of 100 seeds to the first decimal place at moisture content of 12-14%
Phaseolin type 2 (6.3.X)

The phaseolin types should be indicated by a letter e.g. T, C, S, as it has been indicated in
specialized publications such as Toro O, CH Ocampo & DG Debouck. 2007. Phaseolin:
variability and reference materials in wild and cultivated common bean. Annu. Rept. Bean
Improvement Coop. (USA) 50: 69-70. Once the phaseolin type has been indicated by a
conventional letter, then a digital image of the gel with the particular accession under study can
be added.
ABIOTIC STRESSES
Drought (7.3)
BIOTIC STRESSES
Bruchids (Acanthoscelides obtectus) (8.1.1)
Bruchids (Zabrotes subfasciatus) (8.1.11)
Anthracnose (Colletotrichum lindemuthianum) (8.2.5)
Halo blight (Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola) (8.3.2)
Bacterial blight (Xanthomonas campestris pv. phaseoli) (8.3.5)
Bean common mosaic virus (BCMV) (8.4.3)
NOTES
‘99=Other’ present in some of the descriptors above.
2
Brown JWS, Y Ma, FA Bliss & TC Hall. 1981. ‘Genetic variation in the subunits of globulin-1 storage protein in French bean’.
Theor. Appl. Genet. 59: 83-88
CONTRIBUTORS
CORE ADVISORY GROUP
Daniel Debouck, Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Colombia

Antonio M. De Ron, Misión Biológica de Galicia, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones
Científicas (MBG-CSIC), Spain
Marta Santalla Ferradas, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Spain
Oswaldo Voysest Voysest (retired), Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT),
USA
Molly Welsh, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
(USDA/ARS/WRPIS), USA
REVIEWERS
Argentina
O. Mario Aguilar, Instituto de Biotecnología y Biología Molecular (IBBM), Facultad Ciencias
Exactas, Universidad Nacional de La Plata
Australia
Sally Dillon, Primary Industries and Fisheries
Austria
Wolfgang Kainz, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES)
Doris Lengauer, FA 10 B, Versuchsstation für Spezialkulturen
Birgit Vorderwülbecke, ARCHE NOAH
Belgium
Thierry Vanderborght, National Botanic Garden of Belgium
China
Zong Xuxiao, Institute of Crop Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS)
Colombia
Stephen Beebe, Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT)
Germany
Baerbel Schmidt, Genebank Department, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant
Research (IPK)
India
JC Rana, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR)
Italy
Eliseu Bettencourt
Francesca Sparvoli, Istituto di Biologia e Biotecnologia Agraria, Consiglio Nazionale delle
Ricerche (IBBA-CNR)
Mexico
Alejandra A. Covarrubias, Instituto de Biotecnologia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México (UNAM)
Portugal
Maria Manuela Veloso, Instituto Nacional de Recursos Biológicos, Instituto Nacional de
Investigação Agrária (INRB/INIA)
Slovak Republic
Daniela Benedikova, Plant Production Research Centre – Piestany
Sweden
Fredrik Ottosson, Nordic Genetic Resource Center
USA
James Beaver, University of Puerto Rico
James D. Kelly, Michigan State University
Juan M. Osorno, North Dakota State University
Marcial A. Pastor-Corrales (Talo), United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Research Service, (USDA-ARS, SGIL)
Carlos A. Urrea, University of Nebraska – Lincoln
breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis)
Since Bioversity has not published a Descriptors List for breadfruit, information for
the definition of a MDL for this crop was drawn from the publication “Ragone,
Diane. Breadfruit. Artocarpus altilis (Parkinson) Fosberg. Promoting the conservation
and use of underutilized and neglected crops. 10.” (IPK and IPGRI, 1997) and
integrated with information on morphological descriptors mentioned in the website
of the National Tropical Botanical Gardens (NTBG). The list was subsequently
harmonized with descriptors suggested in the “Breadfruit Conservation Strategy“(the
Trust, 2007), particularly with regards to the inclusion of evaluation traits such as
yield, fruit quality and important pests and diseases for this crop.

The list of experts was prepared taking into account the list of participants to crop-
specific consultations for the definition of the “Breadfruit Conservation Strategy“(the
Trust, 2007), as well as participants to the Regional Workshop on Conservation and
Sustainable Use of Breadfruit Genetic Resources in the Pacific held in Fiji in 2002.
Breadfruit experts included in the publication “Ragone D. 2008. Regeneration
Guidelines: Breadfruit.” (CGIAR System- wide Genetic Resource Programme), were
also included in the Core Advisory Group. Overall, 56 experts were identified,
coming from 29 countries and 44 different organizations (Annex I). Out of these, a
Group Leader (Diane Ragone) and a Core Advisory group consisting of five experts
was selected to assist in the definition of a key set of descriptors. Experts forming the
Core Advisory group were drawn from internationally recognised organizations
such as USDA/ARS, the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) and the Nature
Conservancy (TNC) Micronesia Program.

The draft descriptors list was submitted to Dr. Diane Ragone for initial validation,
but since the NTBG team was still carrying out the characterization of breadfruit
accessions and was unable to make a substantiated decision on the Minimum list it
was decided that a draft list (37 characterization descriptors and seven evaluation
descriptors) would be sent out to identified experts for comments, to collect initial
thoughts on key breadfruit descriptors recognised by other experts in different
geographical areas. 56 experts were identified for survey participation, coming from
29 countries and representing 41 different organizations. The survey was uploaded
into the Survey Monkey application on the internet and an email invitation sent out
to experts on 14 October 2008. A link to the Survey was provided to experts, who
were invited to rate the importance of the proposed characterization and evaluation
descriptors for this crop. Experts were also encouraged to mention any additional
trait(s) that was/were found to be relevant yet missing from the proposed List, along
with a substantiated justification for its/their inclusion. The survey deadline was set
at 31 October 2008. A reminder was sent out on the 22nd of October to ensure that the
greatest possible feedback was obtained.

Of the 56 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 15 recorded their
comments using the online survey (see Annex II). Results from the Survey were
analysed and descriptors ranked by rating average and percentage of importance
(Annex III). A comparison table was prepared weighing up descriptors rated as very
important by experts, against (i) descriptors mentioned in the NTBG website and
further revised by Diane Ragone on 7 October 2008 (ii) those mentioned in the
USDA/ARS descriptor list and (iii) evaluation traits mentioned in the Breadfruit
Conservation Strategy (the Trust, 2007). The list was submitted to Diane Ragone on
11 December 2008 for endorsement and to help select a reduced set of key traits for
this crop. She replied on 20 December. Her selection is recorded in the comparison
table in Annex IV. The selected key set of traits (see Annex V), was compiled into a
Word document and sent to the Core Advisory Group (CAG) for validation on 23
December 2008. At the same time Diane Ragone was contacted for advice on the
formulation of descriptor states for the chosen key set of traits. Feedback was
received from Diane Ragone with descriptor states on 30 December, the list was
amended and sent back to Diane Ragone for final approval on 19 February 2009. Her
feedback was received on the same day with comments and implemented changes.
Comments received by the experts were collected, analysed and harmonised with
the original descriptors list. This exercise led to the definition of the final key set of
descriptors for breadfruit (Annex VI). The final version was shared, through an
email sent out on 5 March 2009 (Annex VII), with the experts that contributed to the
selection of the final key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for
breadfruit. Deadline for further comments was set on 13 March 2009. Comments
received were included in the final key set and on 16 March 2009 the list was
definitely approved by Dr Ragone, and finalized for publication (Annex VIII). On
18th March the final list was sent to the Publications Unit for editing and layout.
Once the core subset of characterization and evaluation standards for
breadfruit was finalised, data were transformed into Excel files for uploading into
the GRIN-Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA,
and into GENESYS, linking national, regional and international genebank databases in
support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and
agriculture (PGRFA). It was also shared with EURISCO, the Generation Challenge
Programme (GCP) Ontology, the System-wide Information Network for Genetic
Resources (SINGER) and with the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base.
Acknowledgement
development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for
breadfruit genetic resources’, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their
financial support. Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leader, Dr Diane Ragone
for providing valuable scientific direction. Ms Adriana Alercia provided technical
expertise and guided the entire production process.
Annex I – List of experts identified for participation to the Survey for the
definition of a minimum set of descriptors for breadfruit
Role Name Institution Country
Crop
Ragone, Diane National Tropical Botanical Garden Hawaii
Leader
CAG Zee, Francis ARS/USDA USA
CAG Jackson, Grahame
CAG/(SRG) Coronel, Roberto Philippines
CAG/ Nature Conservancy (TNC)

Raynor, Bill Micronesia
(SRG) Micronesia Program
CAG/Crop Centre for Pacific Crops & Trees,
Taylor, Mary Fiji
Strategy Secretariat of the Pacific Community
Strategy
Baccus -Taylor, Gail University of the West Indies West Indies
Expert
Strategy
Beyer, Richard Food Science Consulting Fiji
Expert
Strategy Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries &
Biaukula, Kalisito Fiji
Expert Forests
Strategy Forests & Trees Programme, SPC
Bulai, Sairusi Fiji
Expert Land Resources Division
Strategy Department of Environment and
Conner, Nicholas Australia
Expert Conservation
Federated
Strategy
Englberger, Lois Island Food Community of Pohnpei States of
Expert
Micronesia
Laboratoire de Défense des
Strategy
Gbèhounou, Gualbert Cultures/Institut National des Benin
Expert
Recherches Agricoles du Bénin
Centre for Wet Tropics Agriculture,
Strategy
Goebel, Roger Department of Primary Industries Australia
Expert
and Fisheries
Strategy
Golden, Kerith D University of the West Indies Jamaica
Expert
Strategy Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and
Halafihi, Manaia Tonga
Expert Fisheries
Strategy Centre for Pacific Crops & Trees,
Kete, Tevita Fiji
Expert SPC Land Resources Division
Strategy
Kumar, Sant Nature’s Way Co-operative (Fiji) Ltd. Fiji
Expert
Strategy Institut Agronomique néo-
Lebegin, Stéphane New Caledonia
Expert Caledonien
Federated
Strategy Agriculture, Office of Economic
Lorens, Adelino States of
Expert Affairs, Pohnpei State Government
Micronesia
Department of Crop Science &

Strategy
Maerere, Amon Production, Sokoine University of Tanzania
Expert
Agriculture
Strategy
Masamdu, Roy SPC Land Resources Division Fiji
Expert
CePaCT, Centre for Pacific Crops &
Strategy
Masau, Reapi Trees, SPC Land Resources Fiji
Expert
Division
Strategy Fruit Division, Horticultural Crop
Medagoda, Indrani Sri Lanka
Expert Research & Development Institute
American Samoa Community
Strategy American
Montenegro Ilaoa, Emily College, Community and Natural
Expert Samoa
Resources
Crop Development and Promotion
Strategy
Moustache, Mermedah Division, Ministry of Environment Seychelles
Expert
and Natural Resources
Sigatoka Research
Strategy
Nauluvula, Poasa Station, Ministry of Agriculture, Fiji
Expert
Fisheries & Forests (MAF)
Vanuatu Agricultural Research and
Strategy
Navarro, Muriel Technical Centre Vanuatu
Expert
(VARTC)
Strategy Nelson-Quartey, Flora
Crops Research Institute (CSIR) Ghana
Expert Christine
Department of Food Science &
Strategy
Omobuwajo, Taiwo O. Technology, Obafemi Awolowo Nigeria
Expert
University
Strategy
Padolina, Cenon SPC Forests & Trees Programme Fiji
Expert
Pillai, Aremogam Fiji
Expert Forests
Strategy
Prasad, Mere Bitu Koronivia Research Station, MAF Fiji
Expert
Strategy Papua New
Quartermain, Alan University of Vudal
Expert Guinea
Agriculture Division, Ministry of
Strategy Republic of
Redfern, Takena Environment, Lands & Agricultural
Expert Kiribati
Development
Strategy Roberts-Nkrumah, Laura Department of Food Production, Trinidad &
Expert B. University of the West Indies Tobago
Strategy Department of Life Sciences, Trinidad &
Rouse-Miller, Judy
Expert University of the West Indies Tobago
Strategy Faculty of Engineering, University of Trinidad &
Sankat, Clement K.
Expert the West Indies Tobago
Strategy
Sisifa, Aleki SPC Land Resources Division Fiji
Expert
Tirimaidoka, Luke Fiji
Expert Forests
Strategy Centre for Pacific Crops & Trees,
Tuia, Valerie Fiji
Expert SPC Land Resources Division
Strategy Crops Development, Commercial &

Tuivavalagi, Philip Samoa
Expert Export, Ministry of Agriculture
Strategy Extension, Ministry of Natural
Vave, Uatea Tuvalua
Expert Resources
Strategy
Wiseman, James DigitalMedia Hawaii/Pacific USA
Expert
EU-ACP Technical Centre for
Strategy The
Woodend, John Agricultural and Rural Cooperation
Expert Netherlands
(CTA)
Regional Department of Agriculture & Rural
Bule Lehi, Frazer Vanuatu
Workshop Development
Regional Bureau of Agriculture Ministry of
Francisco, Herman Palau
Workshop Resources & Development
Regional Solomon
Galo, Jean Ministry of Agriculture & Lands
Workshop Islands
Regional Solomon
Kabu, Roselyn Planting Materials Network
Workshop Islands
Regional Ministry of Environmental, Lands Republic of
Natake, Tearimawa
Workshop and Agricultural Development Kiribati
Regional Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry,
Samuelu, Laisene Samoa
Workshop Fisheries & Meteorology
Regional
Taufatofua, Pita Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry Tonga
Workshop
Regional
Thomson, Lex Secretariat of the Pacific Community New Caledonia
Workshop
Regional Department of Agriculture, Forestry
Veseaga, Punapa Niue
Workshop and Fisheries
Regional Ministry of Agriculture Department of
Wigmore, William Cook Islands
Workshop Resources & Development
Regional
Wright, Jacqui (formerly at ACIAR) Australia
Workshop
Expert Eyog-Matig, Oscar Bioversity Benin
Expert Arze, Jose' CATIE Costa Rica
Expert Lobo Arias, Mario CORPOICA Colombia
Expert Castiñeiras, Leonor INIFAT Cuba
Expert Azurdia, Cesar Guatemala
Expert Espitia, Miguel Universidad de Cordoba Colombia
Expert Astorga, Carlos

Annex II – Respondents to the Survey for the definition of a key set of descriptors
for breadfruit sent on 14th October 2008
Ragone, Diane National Tropical Botanical Garden Hawaii, USA
Jackson,
Australia
Grahame
Amagloh, Flora CSIR-Crops Research Institute Ghana
Baccus-Taylor,
University of the West Indies Trinidad & Tobago
Gail
Federated States of
Englberger, Lois Island Food Community of Pohnpei
Micronesia
Gbehounou, National Agricultural Research Institute
Republic of Benin
Gualbert (INRAB)
Golden, Kerith Basic Medical Sciences UWI, Mona Jamaica
Ilaoa, Emily M. ASCC-CNR (Land Grant Program) American Samoa
MInistry of Environment, Natural

Julie, Lewis Seychelles
Resources & Transport
Federated States of
Raynor, Bill The Nature Conservancy
Micronesia
Ministry of Environment, Lands &
Redfern, Takena Kiribati
Agricultural Development
Roberts-Nkrumah,
The University of the West Indies Trinidad and Tobago
Laura B.
Saena Tuia,
Secretariat of the Pacific Community Fiji
Valerie
Lebegin,
Institut Agronomique néo-Calédonien New Caledonia
Stéphane
Taufatofua, Pita Farmer Tonga
Taylor, Mary Secretariat of the Pacific Community Fiji
Zee, Francis USDA/ARS, PBARC USA

Annex III – Descriptors proposed in the Survey ranked by rating average and by
percentage importance
%
Rating Importance
Average (Very
important)
NUTRITIONAL COMPONENTS 4.86 NUTRITIONAL COMPONENTS 92.86
SALINITY TOLERANCE 4.69 SEED NUMBER 91.67
FRUIT YIELD 4.57 SALINITY TOLERANCE 84.62
FRUIT QUALITY 4.43 FRUIT FLESH COLOUR 78.57
FRUIT ROTS (Phytophtora, etc.) 4.38 FRUIT YIELD 78.57
TRUNK ROT DISEASE (Phellinus
3.92
noxius) DEGREE OF LEAF DISSECTION 72.73
CERCOSPORA LEAF SPOT 3.08 FRUIT QUALITY 71.43
SEED NUMBER 2.83 FRUIT ROTS (Phytophtora, etc.) 69.23
FRUIT FLESH COLOUR 2.57 FRUIT SKIN TEXTURE 64.29
DEGREE OF LEAF DISSECTION 2.36 LEAF LOBE NUMBER 64.29
FRUIT SKIN TEXTURE 2.29 FRUIT SHAPE 57.14
LEAF LOBE NUMBER 2.14 MALE FLOWER LENGTH 54.55
FRUIT SHAPE 2.07 MALE FLOWER WIDTH 54.55
LEAF LENGTH 1.92 LEAF SURFACE TEXTURE 50.00
LEAF WIDTH 1.92 LEAF LENGTH 46.15
MALE FLOWER LENGTH 1.91 LEAF WIDTH 46.15
MALE FLOWER WIDTH 1.91 TRUNK ROT DISEASE (Phellinus noxius) 46.15
LEAF SURFACE TEXTURE 1.83 SHAPE OF APICAL LEAF LOBE 45.45
PRESENCE/ABSENCE OF LEAF
1.69
HAIRS PRESENCE/ABSENCE OF LEAF HAIRS 38.46
FRUIT DIAMETER 1.64 CERCOSPORA LEAF SPOT 38.46
SHAPE OF APICAL LEAF LOBE 1.64 SEED WEIGHT 36.36
SEED WEIGHT 1.55 SEED DIAMETER 36.36
SEED DIAMETER 1.55 FRUIT DIAMETER 35.71
FRUIT WEIGHT 1.50 FRUIT WEIGHT 35.71
FRUIT STALK LENGTH 1.46 SEED SHAPE 33.33
FRUIT LENGTH 1.43 FRUIT STALK LENGTH 30.77
SEED SHAPE 1.42 FRUIT LENGTH 28.57
FRUIT SKIN COLOUR 1.36 FRUIT SKIN COLOUR 28.57
CORE DIAMETER OF FRUIT 1.33 LEAF VEIN COLOUR 27.27
LEAF VEIN COLOUR 1.27 CORE DIAMETER OF FRUIT 25.00
CORE LENGTH OF FRUIT 1.25 CORE LENGTH OF FRUIT 25.00
LEAF COLOUR 1.25 LEAF COLOUR 25.00
LEAF MARGIN 1.25 LEAF MARGIN 25.00
SEED LENGTH 1.25 SEED LENGTH 25.00
SHAPE OF LEAF BASE 1.18 FRUIT LATEX AMOUNT 21.43
FRUIT STALK INSERTION 1.15 SHAPE OF LEAF BASE 18.18
FRUIT LATEX AMOUNT 1.14 SEED COAT COLOUR 18.18
SEED COAT COLOUR 1.09 FRUIT LATEX COLOUR 16.67
FRUIT LATEX COLOUR 1.00 FRUIT STALK INSERTION 15.38
LEAF HAIR LOCATION 1.00 LEAF HAIR LOCATION 9.09
FRUIT PEDUNCLE COLLAR 0.92 LEAF HAIRS COLOUR 9.09
LEAF HAIRS COLOUR 0.73 LEAF HAIRS LENGTH 9.09
LEAF HAIRS LENGTH 0.64 FRUIT PEDUNCLE COLLAR 8.33
LEAF HAIRS ORIENTATION 0.45 LEAF HAIRS ORIENTATION 0.00
Annex IV – Comparison table revised by Diane Ragone on 20 December 2008.
Selected key traits for breadfruit by the NTBG scientist are recorded in the last
column
Revis
Survey Key
ed by
response ARS Crop descriptors
Descriptor NTGB Diane
by % USDA Strategy by DR
Rago
importance 19/12/08
ne
Average core
* *
diameter of fruit
Average core
* *
length of fruit
Fruit flesh colour ** * ** *
Male flower length ** * * *
Male flower width ** * * *
Male flower length

*
& width
Fruit diameter * * *
Fruit length * * *
Fruit shape ** * ** * *
Fruit weight * * * *
Scabbing of fruit
*
sections
Latex amount * * *
Latex colour * *
Shape of apical
* *
leaf lobe
Shape of leaf *
*
base
Leaf colour * * *
Presence/absenc
* * *
e of leaf hair
Leaf length * * *
Leaf margin * * *
Revis
Survey Key
ed by
Rago
importance 19/12/08
ne
Leaf shape * * *
Leaf surface
** * ** * *
texture
Leaf flexibility *
Leaf vein colour * * *
Leaf width * * *
Degree of leaf
** * ** * *
dissection
Leaf lobe number ** * ** * *
Collar neck/shape * *
Fruit peduncle
* *
(stalk) diameter
Fruit peduncle
* * *
(stalk) length
Peduncle (stalk)
* * *
insertion
Presence/absenc
* *
e of seeds
Seed number ** * ** *
Seed coat colour * * *
Seed diameter * * *
Seed length * * *
Seed shape * * *
Seed weight * * *
Fruit skin colour * * *
Fruit skin texture ** * ** * *
Nutritional
** * ** * *
components
Salinity tolerance ** * ** * *
Fruit yield ** * ** * *
Revis
Survey Key
ed by
Rago
importance 19/12/08
ne
Susceptibility to
Trunk Rot disease * * * * *
(Phellinus noxius)
Susceptibility to
Fruit Rots
** * ** *
(Phytophtora,
etc.)
Susceptibility to
Cercospora leaf * * *
spot
Fruit quality ** * **
Drought tolerance
* *
(NEW)
Size of tree
*
(NEW)
Shape of tree
*
(NEW)
Fruiting time/time
* *
of maturity (NEW)
Susceptibility to
*
mealy bugs
Annex V – Key set of priority descriptors for breadfruit as revised by Diane
Ragone on 23 December 2008 and sent to CAG for validation
1. Fruit weight
2. Fruit shape
3. Fruit skin texture
4. Leaf lobe number
5. Degree of leaf dissection
6. Leaf surface texture
7. Seed number
8. Male flower length & width
9. Nutritional components (Vitamins, Phosphorous, iron, etc.)
10. Fruit yield
11. Fruit rots Phytophthora, Colletotrichum (anthracnose); Rhizopus (soft rot)
12. Trunk rot disease (Phellinus noxius)
13. Susceptibility to mealy bugs
14. Salinity tolerance
15. Drought tolerance
16. Fruiting time/time of maturity
Annex VI – Key access and utilization descriptors for breadfruit genetic resources
with descriptor states as defined by Dr Diane Ragone on 24 February 2009
Fruit weight [kg]

Record the average weight of at least three fruits
Fruit shape
Observe three fruits at least, and record which shape best describe them
1 Spherical
2 Broad ovoid
3 Oval
4 Oblong
5 Ellipsoid
6 Heart-shaped
7 Irregular
Fruit skin texture

1 Smooth
2 Irregularly raised, flattened sections
3 Sandpapery
4 Pebbly
5 Spiky with hard raised centre point
6 Spiny with pointed flexible tip
Leaf lobe number

Record the average number of lobes of five leaves
Degree of leaf dissection

Observe five leaves and record the predominant degree of dissection
1 Leaf entire (no dissection)
2 Leaf dissected slightly on upper half
3 Leaf moderately dissected on upper half
4 Entire leaf moderately deeply dissected
5 Leaf deeply dissected
6 Leaf deeply dissected with wide spaces between lobes
Leaf surface texture

Observe five leaves and record the texture that best describes them
1 Glossy
2 Dull
Seed number
Record the average seed number of three fruits
Male flower length [cm]

Record the average of five male inflorescences
Male flower width [cm]
Fruiting time/time of maturity

Indicate which category listed below best describes the maturity time, and record the actual month
when mature fruits are on the tree and harvestable
3 Early
5 Medium
7 Late
Month [MM]
Nutritional components
Indicate the most significant component
1 Vitamin
2 Potassium
3 Iron
4 Carbohydrate
99 Other (specify in the Notes descriptor, 10)
Fruit yield
Record the actual count of fruits on tree and/or harvested. If resources are not available, the following
codes could be used
3 Low
5 Medium
7 High
Biotic stress susceptibility

Fruit rot (Phytophthora sp.)
Anthracnose (Colletotrichum sp.)
Soft rot (Rhizopus sp.)
Trunk rot (Phellinus noxius)
Mealybug (Icerya aegyptiaca)
Abiotic stress susceptibility

Salinity
Drought
Annex VII – Email to breadfruit experts to share final version of the Breadfruit
descriptors sent on 5 March 2009
From: Alercia, Adriana (Bioversity)

Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 2:20 PM
To: 'ragone@ntbg.org'; 'francis.zee@ars.usda.gov'; 'gjackson@zip.com.au'; 'braynor@tnc.org';
'maryt@spc.int'; 'recoronel1939@yahoo.com'; gbaccust@eng.uwi.tt; nutrition@mail.fm;
ldcstrig@bow.intnet.bj; kerith.golden@uwimona.edu.jm; kerrigold@cwjamaica.com; lebegin@iac.nc;
emily_ilaoa@yahoo.com; pgr@seychelles.net; floraamagloh@yahoo.com; macktaken79@yahoo.com;
lroberts-nkrumah@fsa.uwi.tt; valeriet@spc.int; pttofua@yahoo.com.au
Cc: Bergamini, Nadia (Bioversity)
Subject: RE: Key access and utilization descriptors for Breadfruit genetic resources - FINAL LIST
Dear Breadfruit experts,
You will be pleased to know that we have reached the final phase and have defined the Key access
and utilization descriptors for Breadfruit genetic resources.
I would like to thank you all for contributing to the development of this List, particularly to Dr Diane
Ragone, who provided scientific direction and to Grahame Jackson for his substantial contribution.
We have implemented and harmonized almost all comments received from you on 'essential'
descriptors descriptors, as this is just the first step in an evolving process.
As a brief reminder, the purpose of the exercise was to identify some key descriptors that will assist
researchers to more effectively utilize breadfruit germplasm. These key descriptors, along with
passport data, will become the foundation information to be made available to researchers in a global
accession level information system.
Now, we wish to share this final version with you, please find it herewith attached. This List will go
now to editing and layout processes and will be sent to relevant experts for its uploading in GRIN-
Global and ALIS (Accession Level Information System).
We hope that this Key strategic set will become an important standard for breadfruit genetic resources
documentation, since it is the result of a review of many years of fieldwork by scientists and field
practitioners, like you. As you will see from the 'Contributors' section, your valuable contribution, that
has certainly been much appreciated, is acknowledged.
Best regards,
Adriana
Annex VIII – Final Key access and utilization descriptors for Breadfruit genetic
resources as defined on 16 March 2009

breadfruit genetic resources
This list consists of an initial Global Information on Germplasm Accessions (GIGA) Project set of
characterization and evaluation descriptors for breadfruit. It contains those, which, along with
passport data, will become the basis of a global information system for this crop, and facilitate access
to and utilization of breadfruit held in genebanks. It does not exclude other descriptors at a later date.
The list is based on the publication “Ragone, Diane. Breadfruit. Artocarpus altilis (Parkinson)
Fosberg. Promoting the conservation and use of underutilized and neglected crops. 10” (IPK and
IPGRI, 1997), with additional descriptors drawn from work at the National Tropical Botanical
Gardens (NTBG). The list was subsequently integrated with evaluation traits, such as yield, fruit
quality and reaction to important pests and diseases, as suggested in the “Breadfruit Conservation
Strategy“(the Trust, 2007). The list was harmonized, wherever possible, with descriptors developed
by USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program. Germplasm Resources Information Network -
(GRIN).
Biotic and abiotic stresses are included in the list. They have been chosen because of their
cosmopolitan nature and global impact, since they have wide geographic occurrence and cause
economic damage.
The key set of access and utilization descriptors was defined in consultation with a Core Advisory
Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr Diane Ragone from the NTBG, and is listed below with the
descriptor states.
Fruit weight [kg]

Record the average weight of at least three fruits
Fruit shape
Observe three fruits at least, and record which shape best describe them
1 Spherical
2 Broad ovoid
3 Oval
4 Oblong
5 Ellipsoid
6 Heart-shaped
7 Irregular
Fruit skin texture

1 Smooth
2 Irregularly raised, flattened sections
3 Sandpapery
4 Pebbly
5 Spiky with hard raised centre point
6 Spiny with pointed flexible tip
Fruit flesh colour
1 White
2 Cream
3 Light yellow
4 Yellow
5 Dark yellow
Leaf lobe number

Record the average number of lobes of five leaves
Degree of leaf dissection

Observe five leaves and record the predominant degree of dissection
1 Leaf entire (no dissection)
2 Leaf dissected slightly on upper half
3 Leaf moderately dissected on upper half
4 Entire leaf moderately deeply dissected
5 Leaf deeply dissected
6 Leaf deeply dissected with wide spaces between lobes
Leaf surface texture

Observe five leaves and record the texture that best describes them
1 Glossy
2 Dull
Seed number
Record the average seed number of three fruits
Male flower length [cm]

Male flower width [cm]

Fruiting time/time of maturity

Indicate which category listed below best describes the maturity time, and record the actual month
when mature fruits are on the tree and harvestable
3 Early
5 Medium
7 Late
Month [MM]
Nutritional components
Indicate the most significant component
1 Vitamin
2 Potassium
3 Iron
4 Carbohydrate
5 Carotenoid content
Fruit yield
Record the actual count of fruits on tree and/or harvested. If resources are not available, the following
codes could be used
3 Low
5 Medium
7 High

Fruit rot (Phytophthora sp.)
Anthracnose (Colletotrichum sp.)
Soft rot (Rhizopus sp.)
Trunk rot (Phellinus noxius)
Mealybug (Icerya aegyptiaca)

Salinity
Drought
Notes
Specify here any additional information particularly that referring to the category ‘99=Other’ present
in some of the descriptors above.
CONTRIBUTORS
Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who contributed to the definition of this
strategic set of Descriptors for Breadfruit, particularly to Dr D. Ragone who provided scientific
direction. Adriana Alercia provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process.
Core Advisory Group

Diane Ragone, National Tropical Botanical Garden, Hawaii, USA
Grahame Jackson, 24 Alt Street, Queens Park, NSW 2022, Australia
Bill Raynor, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Federated States of Micronesia
Mary Taylor, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Fiji
Francis Zee, USDA,ARS, PBARC, USA
Reviewers
American Samoa
Emily M. Ilaoa, American Samoa Community College (ASCC)-Community and Natural Resources
(CNR) (Land Grant Program)
Benin
Gualbert Gbèhounou, National Agricultural Research Institute (INRAB)
Federated States of Micronesia

Lois Englberger, Island Food Community of Pohnpei
Fiji
Valerie Saena Tuia, Secretariat of the Pacific Community
Ghana
Flora Amagloh, Crops Research Institute (CSIR)
Jamaica
Kerith Golden, Basic Medical Sciences UWI
New Caledonia
Stéphane Lebegin, Institut Agronomique néo-Calédonien
Republic of Kiribati
Takena Redfern, Ministry of Environment, Lands & Agricultural Development
Seychelles
Julie Lewis, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources & Transport
Tonga
Pita Taufatofua, Farmer
Trinidad and Tobago

Laura B. Roberts-Nkrumah, University of the West Indies
Gail Baccus-Taylor, University of the West Indies
cassava (Manihot esculenta)
Information for the definition of a MDL for cassava was drawn from Genetic Resources
for cassava and wild relatives (IBPGR, 1983 - Appendix VII), which was modified
following advice from Dr. Daniel Debouck from CIAT, Colombia. The list included in
the publication was further compared with the List of cassava descriptors published by
EMBRAPA (June, 1998) and integrated and harmonized with descriptors suggested
during the Manihot Genetic Resources meeting held in Cali, Colombia, from 30 April to
2 May 2008. Important evaluation traits, such as pests and diseases and abiotic stresses,
were added to the original descriptors list.

Since the original draft was too old, the list of experts was drawn from the list of
reviewers to the draft version of “Descriptors for Cassava”. Participants to the Manihot
Genetic Resources meeting described above were also included as experts in the Survey.
Overall, 37 experts were identified, coming from nine countries and 17 different
organizations. Out of these, a Group Leader (Daniel Debouck) and a Core Advisory
group (CAG) consisting of nine experts (see Annex I) was selected to assist in the
definition of a minimum set of descriptors for Cassava. Experts forming the CAG were
selected from centres of excellence for cassava research and breeding such as
EMBRAPA, IITA, CIAT, Cornell University, INIA, INIVIT, the Khon Kaen Field Crop
Research Centre and the National Root Crop Research Institute.
Survey preparation and distribution – 1st phase

A draft survey on cassava was prepared listing the descriptors as approved by
consultations with the Crop Leader. Once approved, the final draft of the survey was
uploaded into the Survey Monkey application on the internet and an email invitation
sent out to the list of identified experts on 10 April 2008. A link to the Survey was
provided to experts, who were invited to rate the importance of the proposed
characterization and evaluation descriptors (81 descriptors) for this crop. Experts were
also encouraged to mention any additional trait that was found to be relevant yet
missing from the proposed list of descriptors, along with a substantiated justification
for its inclusion. The survey deadline was set at 29th of April 2008. A reminder was sent
out on the 22nd of April to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained. (See
Annex II).
Survey analysis – 1st phase
Of the 40 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 26, coming from
seven countries, recorded their comments using the online survey (see Annex III). At
the same time the descriptors list was circulated among participants to the “Mini-
Workshop on Minimum Cassava Descriptors” held on the 2nd of May 2008 in Cali,
Colombia within the above-mentioned Manihot Genetic Resources meeting.
Survey 2nd phase

Responses obtained from the survey were harmonized with comments received during
the mini-workshop. Results from the Survey were analysed and descriptors ranked by
rating average and percentage of importance (see Annex IV). The first 24 descriptors of
the ranking exercise were selected as the traits to be included in the final draft of the
Minimum descriptor list, which was subsequently circulated by email for comments
among the Crop leader (Daniel Debouck) and the nine experts composing the CAG on
23 July 2008. Of these, four replied with comments (see Annex V) that were streamlined
and harmonised to create a new Minimum List (see Annex VI). A summary of results
and the revised list were then sent to the Crop Leader for final approval on 6 October
2008, who in turn consulted with the CAG again on 10 October for the finalization of
the minimum list. A question arose regarding the inclusion of “Resistance to Salinity” in
the Minimum List. The CAG was contacted once more on 20 November to confirm the
rating of salinity. Five members of the CAG responded, confirming that “salinity” did
not meet the criteria for a "very important" descriptor, based on the fact that it is not
broadly important across the world. Thus, in consultation with the crop leader, salinity
was removed from the Minimum List.
Furthermore, Dr. John Beeching, from the Department of Biology & Biochemistry
of the University of Bath, was contacted to ensure that the standard method for
determining post-harvest physiological deterioration (PPD) developed by Wheatley and
quoted in the final key set of descriptors for Cassava was adequate and up-to-date. Dr.
Beeching replied that it was indeed suitable since it is the most versatile, economic and
rapid method for assessing PPD to date.
The revised and final Minimum list was approved on 7 November 2008 and is
presented in Annex VII. Afterwards a final key set was prepared adding descriptor
states and contributors (see Annex VIII).
Once the core subset of characterization and evaluation standards for cassava
Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA, and
databases in support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and
agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files will also be used for the System-wide Information
Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER), the germplasm information exchange
network of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and
EURISCO. The final publications were also shared with the SGRP Crop Genebank
Knowledge Base and the Generation Challenge Programme (CGP) Ontology partners.
Acknowledgement
development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for cassava
Special thanks go to Drs. Daniel Debouck and Xavier Scheldeman for providing
valuable scientific direction and to Adriana Alercia for guiding the entire production
process.
Annex I – List of experts identified for participation to the Survey for the definition
of a minimum set of descriptors for cassava
Crop leader Debouck, Daniel CIAT Colombia
Core Group Cunha Alves, Alfredo Augusto EMBRAPA/CNPMF Brazil
Core Group Dumet, Dominique IITA Nigeria
Core Group Eke-Okoro, O.N. National Root Crops Research Institute Nigeria
Core Group Hershey, Clair Cornell University USA
Core Group Hunter, Danny Bioversity International Italy
Core Group Morante, Nelson CIAT Colombia
Core Group Ríos Lobo, Llermé INIA Peru
Core Group Rodríguez Morales, Sergio J. INIVIT Cuba
Core Group Sarawat, Peaingpen Khon Kaen Field Crop Research Center Thailand
Core Group Scheldeman, Xavier Bioversity International Colombia
Manihot
Carvalho, Luiz EMBRAPA - Cenargen Brazil
Workshop
Manihot
Ceballos, Hernan CIAT Colombia
Workshop
Manihot
Cuervo, Maritza CIAT Colombia
Workshop
Manihot
Fukuda, Wania EMBRAPA/CNPMF Brazil
Workshop
Manihot
Ilona, Paul IITA Nigeria
Workshop
Manihot
Mafla, Graciela CIAT Colombia
Workshop
Manihot Ocampo Nahar, César

CIAT Colombia
Workshop Humberto
New Aranzales, Ericson CIAT Colombia

University of Bath
New Beeching, John UK
New Boonseng, Opas Rayong Field Crops Research Center Thailand
New Calle Calle, Fernando CIAT Colombia
New Dias, Miguel EMBRAPA Brazil
New Dixon, Alfred IITA Nigeria
New Fregene, Martin CIAT Colombia
New Howeler, Reinhardt CIAT Thailand
New Hurtado, Paula CIAT Colombia
New Iglesias, Carlos Weaver Popcorn Company USA
Prachinburi Field Crop Experiment

New Kulayasilapin, Pinit Thailand
Station
Lemos de Carvalho, Paulo Universidade Federal do Reconcavo da
New Brazil
Cesar Bahia
New Limsila, Atchara Rayong Field Crops Research Center Thailand
CORPOICA - Corporacion Centro de

New Lopez Montes, Antonio Colombia
Investigaciones Agropecuarias
Lopburi Service Center for Crops and
New Malipan, Anon Thailand
Production
Instituto de Investigaciones de la
New Mejia, Kember Peru
Amazonia peruana
New Nassar, Nagib Universidad de Brasilia Brazil
New Oyatomi, Olaniyi Ajewole IITA Nigeria
New Pérez, Juan Carlos CIAT Colombia
Universidad Nacional de la Amazonía

New Pinedo, Julio Peru
peruana (UNAP)
New Sias Costa, Ivo Roberto EMBRAPA - Cenargen Brazil
New Silva Santos, Vanderlei EMBRAPA/CENARGEN Brazil
New Villagomez Castillo, Vidal Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina Peru

Annex II – Minimum set of Descriptors for cassava - Survey to Crop Expert Group
WELCOME
Welcome to the survey to participate in the definition of a minimum set of characterization and evaluation
descriptors to support the global system of information on germplasm conservation and use.
You have been identified as an expert on Cassava, hence our request to help us in the identification of
the Cassava minimum set of descriptors.
The objective of this activity is to identify those descriptors that are essential to be recorded as they
represent those traits that the users of germplasm are looking for. They have been taken from a draft
revision of Descriptor List for Cassava (Manihot esculenta) [1] produced in 2000, and following scientific
advice from Dr Daniel Debouck (CIAT). That is, for characterization, we should be aiming at a minimum
set of maximally differentiating traits for the identification of the crop. For evaluation, we aim for a
minimum set of characters important for breeders (e.g. yield, protein content, stem chlorophyll content,
Fusarium, drought). It is hoped that a minimum set of characterization and evaluation data, available for
most ex situ conserved material, will allow a better comparability between genebanks which should
facilitate the identification of interesting material and an increased use of conserved material. An
enhanced use of the conserved germplasm will allow an easier and better justification of the costs
involved in ex situ conservation.
This survey should not take longer than 15 minutes. Your participation in it is highly appreciated.
The Deadline for this survey is June 30.
We thank you in advance for investing your time to provide us your input into the development of this
minimum set.
This survey consists of three parts:
- PART I (listed as 2 and 3): Deals with the selection of the most important characterization and
evaluation descriptors out of the Draft “Descriptors for Cassava as developed in 2000 and Descriptores
de Yuca p157-179.
- PART II (listed as 4): Is an open question which allows you to indicate those standards that are missing
in the minimum current list and which measurement/determination would promote the use of the material.
- PART III (listed as 5): We would ask you to provide some additional contacts (emails) of persons which
you consider as experts in Cassava and which could help to validate the final list of minimum descriptors.
[1] IBPGR. 1983. Appendix VII of Genetic Resources of Cassava and Wild relatives.
2. PART I: Characterization Descriptors
These enable an easy and quick discrimination between phenotypes. They are generally highly heritable,
can be easily seen by the eye and are equally expressed in all environments.
1. Please rate the importance of the following Plant Descriptors related to VEGETATIVE characters
for the identification of the crop.
NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
1. Plant height (cm)NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
2. Plant type NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
3. Stem colour NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
4. Growth habit of
young stem NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
5. Number of
branching levels NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
6. Branching angle NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
7. Height of the
first apical branch NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
(cm)
8. Number of
weeks from
planting to first NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
apical branching
9. Colour of
unexpanded apical NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
leaves
10. Colour of first

fully expanded leaf NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
11. Number of leaf

lobes NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
12. Shape of
central lobe NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
13. Length of
central lobe (cm) NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
14. Width of central

lobe (cm) NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
15. Leaf vein

colour NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
16. Petiole length NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
17. Petiole colour NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
18. Distribution of
anthocyanin
pigmentation in NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
petiole
19. Angle of petiole

insertion NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
20. Prominence of
leaf scars NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
21. Pubescence of
young leaves NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
22. Length of
stipules NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
23. Margin of
stipules NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
24. Storage root

surface colour NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
25. Storage root

pulp colour NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
26. Hydrocyanic
acid content NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
(HCN)(mg/kg)
27. Storage root

peduncle NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
28. Storage root

shape NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
29. Storage root

constrictions NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
30. Roots growth

attitude NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
31. Storage root

surface texture NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
32. Storage root

length NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
33. Storage root

diameter NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
34. Colour of outer

surface of storage NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
root cortex
2. Please rate the importance of the following Plant Descriptors related to INFLORESCENCE and
FRUIT characters for the identification of the crop.

1.
Absence/presence NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
of flowers
2. Colour of sepals NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
3. Colour of disc NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
4. Colour of stigma NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
5. Colour of ovary NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
6. Colour of
anthers NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
7. Length of sepal
(mm) NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
8. Width of sepal
(mm) NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
9.
Absence/presence
of female flowers NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
without staminoids
10.
of pollen
11.
of fruit set
12. Length of fruit

capsule (mm) NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
13. Diameter of
fruit capsule (mm) NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
14. Texture of fruit

exocarp NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
3. Please rate the importance of the following Plant Descriptors related to SEED characters for the
identification of the crop.
1. 100-Seed weight NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
2. Main colour of
seed NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
3. Secondary
colour of seed NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
4. Colour of seed
caruncle NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
Minimum set of Descriptors for cassava - Survey to Crop Expert Group
3. PART I: Evaluation Descriptors
This type of descriptors includes characters such as yield, agronomic performance, stress susceptibilities
and biochemical and cytological traits. They are the most interesting traits in crop improvement.
1. Please rate the importance of the following plant descriptors related to vegetative characters for
the current breeding programmes and for the foreseeable future.
1. Germination of stakes (%) NOT

IMPORTANT VERY Important
Important
2. Initial vigour NOT

Important
3. Number of weeks from

planting to second apical NOT
branching Important
4. Total fresh weight of

foliage and stems per plant NOT
(FW kg) Important
5. Total fresh weight of

storage roots per plant (FW NOT
kg) Important
6. Storage root dry matter NOT

percentage (DM, %) IMPORTANT VERY Important
Important
7. Fibre content (%) NOT

Important
8. Number of storage roots NOT

per plant IMPORTANT VERY Important
Important
9. Ease of root periderm NOT

(outer skin) removal IMPORTANT VERY Important
Important
10.Ease of root cortex (inner NOT

skin) removal IMPORTANT VERY Important
Important
11.Amount of rotted storage NOT

roots per plant IMPORTANT VERY Important
Important
12.Commercial roots (%) NOT

Important
13.Post-harvest deterioration NOT

Important
14.Harvest index NOT

Important
15.Earliness proportion NOT

Important
2. Please rate the importance of the following Abiotic Stress Susceptibility Descriptors FOR THE
CURRENT BREEDING PROGRAMME AND FOR THE FORESSEABLE FUTURE.
1. Reaction to low
temperature
2. Reaction to high
temperature NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
3. Reaction to
drought NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
4. Reaction to high
soil moisture NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
5. Reaction to low
ambient relative NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
humidity
6. Reaction to soil
salinity NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
7. Reaction to low
pH NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
8. Reaction to low
phosphorous NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
3. Please rate the importance of the following Biotic Stress Susceptibilities FOR THE CURRENT
BREEDING PROGRAMME AND FOR THE FORESSEABLE FUTURE.
1. Cassava
bacterial blight NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
2. Cassava
common mosaic
virus disease NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
(CMVD)
3. African cassava
mosaic virus NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
4. Cassava frog
skin disease NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
5. Cassava mites NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important
6. Whiteflies NOT Important IMPORTANT VERY Important

4. PART II: Additional Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors
Which additional characterization and evaluation standards do you consider essential to be included in
the list of minimum standards above to promote the use of ex situ conserved material.
1. Please add any CHARACTERIZATION DESCRIPTOR you consider essential for the identification of
the crop that is missing and indicate how the descriptor should be recorded, the conditions under which
the observation is made (i.e. growth stage, sample selection, specific parts to be measured, etc.) and
provide the unit of measurement/scales of values, when relevant.
2. Please add any EVALUATION DESCRIPTOR you consider essential for crop improvement that is
missing and indicate how the descriptor should be recorded, the conditions under which the observation
is made (i.e. growth stage, sample selection, specific parts to be measured, etc.) and provide the unit of
measurement/scales of values, when relevant.
Annex III – Respondents to the survey for the selection of a Minimum Set of
Descriptors for Cassava
Boonseng, Opas Rayong Field Crops Research Center Thailand
Calle Calle, Fernando CIAT Colombia
Carvalho, Luiz EMBRAPA - Cenargen Brazil
Ceballos, Hernan CIAT Colombia
Cuervo, Maritza CIAT Colombia
Cunha Alves, Alfredo Augusto EMBRAPA/CNPMF Brazil
Debouck, Daniel CIAT Colombia
Dumet, Dominique IITA Nigeria
Eke-Okoro, O.N. National Root Crops Research Institute Nigeria
Fukuda, Wania EMBRAPA/CNPMF Brazil
Hershey, Clair Cornell University USA
Howeler, Reinhardt CIAT Thailand
Hurtado, Paula CIAT Colombia
Iglesias, Carlos Weaver Popcorn Company USA
Ilona, Paul IITA Nigeria
Kulayasilapin, Pinit Prachinburi Field Crop Experiment Station Thailand
Mafla, Graciela CIAT Colombia

Lopburi Service Center for Crops and

Malipan, Anon Thailand
Production
Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonia

Mejia, Kember Peru
peruana
Morante, Nelson CIAT Colombia
Ocampo Nahar, César Humberto CIAT Colombia
Oyatomi, Olaniyi Ajewole IITA Nigeria
Ríos Lobos, Llermé INIA Peru
Rodríguez Morales, Sergio J. INIVIT Cuba
Sarawat, Peaingpen Khon Kaen Field Crop Research Center Thailand
Sias Costa, Ivo Roberto EMBRAPA - Cenargen Brazil

Annex IV – Descriptors ranked by rating average and by percentage importance
Ranked by rating average Ranked by % importance
%
Rating
No Descriptor name Descriptor name Importan
average
ce
1 Storage root pulp colour 2,9 Storage root pulp colour 95,2
2 African cassava mosaic virus 2,7 African cassava mosaic virus 81,0
3 Storage root dry matter percentage (DM, %) 2,7 Storage root dry matter percentage (DM, %) 81,0
4 Storage root surface colour 2,6 Storage root surface colour 76,2
5 Reaction to drought 2,4 Reaction to drought 71,4
6 Cassava bacterial blight 2,4 Cassava bacterial blight 66,7
7 Germination of stakes (%) 2,4 Germination of stakes (%) 66,7
Total fresh weight of storage roots per plant Total fresh weight of storage roots per plant
8 2,4 66,7
(FW kg) (FW kg)
9 Whiteflies 2,2 Whiteflies 57,1
10 Absence/presence of flowers 2,1 Absence/presence of flowers 57,1
Cassava common mosaic virus disease Cassava common mosaic virus disease
11 2,1 57,1
(CMVD) (CMVD)
12 Harvest index 2,1 Harvest index 57,1
13 Initial vigour 2,1 Initial vigour* 52,4
14 Stem colour 2,0 Stem colour 57,1
15 Colour of first fully expanded leaf 2,0 Colour of first fully expanded leaf* 52,4
16 Hydrocyanic acid content (HCN)(mg/kg) 2,0 Hydrocyanic acid content (HCN)(mg/kg)* 52,4
17 Colour of unexpanded apical leaves* 2,0 Colour of unexpanded apical leaves* 57,1
18 Pubescence of young leaves 2,0 Pubescence of young leaves 52,4
19 Petiole colour 1,9 Petiole colour 52,4
20 Reaction to high soil moisture 1,9 Reaction to high soil moisture 47,6
21 Cassava mites 1,9 Cassava mites 42,9
22 Post-harvest deterioration 1,9 Post-harvest deterioration 42,9
23 Reaction to soil salinity 1,8 Reaction to soil salinity* 38,1
24 Number of storage roots per plant 1,8 Number of storage roots per plant* 38,1
25 Reaction to low pH 1,8 Reaction to low pH* 38,1
26 Earliness proportion 1,8 Earliness proportion* 42,9
27 Cassava frog skin disease 1,8 Cassava frog skin disease* 42,9
28 Absence/presence of pollen 1,7 Absence/presence of pollen* 47,6
29 Colour of outer surface of storage root cortex 1,7 Colour of outer surface of storage root cortex* 42,9
30 Shape of central lobe 1,7 Shape of central lobe 42,9
32 Growth habit of young stem 1,7 Growth habit of young stem 42,9
Total fresh weight of foliage and stems per Total fresh weight of foliage and stems per
33 1,7 38,1
plant (FW kg) plant (FW kg)
34 Absence/presence of fruit set 1,6 Absence/presence of fruit set 38,1
35 100-Seed weight 1,6 100-Seed weight 38,1
Ranked by rating average = The Rating Average is a weighted average per column. Each rating scale choice
(column header) is assigned a value from left to right starting at "1". A sum is made of the weighted values of the no.
of respondents who picked the rating Very Important. Then the Weighted Value Calculation is divided by the Sum of
Respondents. For more info http://www.surveymonkey.com/HelpCenter/Answer.aspx?HelpID=89
Ranked by % importance = Percentage importance was calculated by multiplying the no. of people that considered
the descriptor very important by 100, and dividing the result by the no. of experts that took part in the survey (i.e.21)
N.B. Descriptors followed by an asterisk (*) in the second table show that they have either decreased or increased in
importance when rating average is used as reference.
Annex V – CAG responses to the identified set of Minimum descriptors for cassava, following the ranking
exercise
Characterization Evaluation
Characterization descriptors to Evaluation descriptors to be
Name Organization Country descriptors to be descriptors to be
be added added
deleted deleted
Debouck, -Germination of stakes
CIAT Colombia
Daniel -Initial Vigour
• Distribution of Anthocyanin
National Root Pigmentation • Storage root size
Eke-
Crops • Angle of branching • Reaction to salinity
Okoro, Nigeria
Research • Total fresh weight of storage • Reaction to low temperatures
O.N.
Institute roots per plant (FW kg) – • Reaction to low soil moisture
Marketable and Unmarketable
• Reaction to local soil constraints
(specify)
• Reaction to locally important
-Germination of stakes
• Color of internal surface of stem pests and diseases (specify),"
- Weight of roots
Hershey, Cornell epidermis • Locally important quality traits
USA - Absence/presence of
Claire University • Color of stem sub-epidermis (eg. poundability, farinha trait)
flowers
• Shape of central lobe Move Total fresh wt of storage
- HCN
roots: Germination of stakes;
HCN content to Evaluation
Traits
List under a single descriptor

• Colour of inner surface of storage
"Susceptibility to diseases
root cortex
(specify)"• African cassava
• Colour of flower disc
mosaic virus (ACMV)
• Shape of central leaf lobe • Colour of first fully
Ríos • Cassava bacterial blight
• Storage root peduncle expanded apical leaf • Post-harvest
Lobos, INIA Peru • Cassava common mosaic virus
• Storage root shape • Pubescence of young deterioration
Llermé (CsCMV)
• Texture of storage root surface leaves
• Cassava mites
* Suggests listing descriptors from
• Cassava frog skin disease
22 to 26 under a single descriptor
(FSD)
(Susceptibility to diseases)
• Whiteflies
Annex VI – Identified key set of descriptors from the Survey
Characterization descriptors
1. Storage root pulp colour

2. Storage root surface colour
3. Germination of stakes (%)
4. Total fresh weight of storage roots per plant (FW kg)
5. Absence/presence of flowers
6. Stem colour
7. Colour of first fully expanded leaf
8. Hydrocyanic acid content (HCN)(mg/kg)
9. Colour of unexpanded apical leaves
10. Pubescence of young leaves
11. Petiole colour
12. Colour of outer surface of storage root cortex
Evaluation descriptors
13. Storage root dry matter percentage (DM, %)

14. Harvest index
15. Initial vigour
16. Post-harvest deterioration
17. Reaction to drought
18. Reaction to high soil moisture
19. African cassava mosaic virus (ACMV)
20. Cassava bacterial blight
21. Cassava common mosaic virus (CsCMV)
22. Cassava mites
23. Cassava frog skin disease (FSD)
24. Whiteflies
Annex VII – Final validated key set of descriptors for access and utilization of
cassava genetic resources
Characterization descriptors
1. Storage root pulp colour

2. Storage root surface colour
3. Stem colour
4. Colour of first fully expanded leaf
5. Shape of central lobe
6. Colour of unexpanded apical leaves
7. Pubescence of young leaves
8. Petiole colour
9. Colour of outer surface of storage root cortex
Evaluation descriptors
10. Storage root dry matter percentage (DM %)

11. Total fresh weight of storage roots per plant (FW kg)
12. Hydrocyanic acid content (HCN)(mg/kg)
13. Harvest index
14. Post-harvest deterioration
15. Reaction to drought
16. Reaction to high soil moisture
17. African cassava mosaic virus (ACMV)
18. Cassava bacterial blight
19. Cassava common mosaic virus (CsCMV)
20. Cassava mites
21. Cassava frog skin disease (FSD)
22. Whiteflies
23. Cassava Brown Streak Virus (CBSD)
Annex VIII – Final key set of descriptors for cassava genetic resources obtained
after validation

cassava genetic resources
This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for cassava
access to and utilization of cassava accessions held in genebanks and does not preclude the
Based on the comprehensive list of descriptors contained in ‘Genetic Resources for cassava
and wild relatives’ (IBPGR, 1983, Appendix VII), this strategic set, listed below with the original
descriptor states, was developed in consultation with cassava experts worldwide, and further
refined by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr Daniel Debouck of CIAT.
Storage root pulp colour

Observed immediately after being cut open
1 White or cream
2 Yellow
3 Pink
Storage root surface colour

1 White
2 Cream
3 Light brown
4 Dark brown
Stem colour
Observed between 50–100 cm from ground level
1 Silver green
2 Light brown or orange
3 Dark brown
Colour of first fully expanded leaf

3 Light green
5 Dark green
7 Green–purple
9 Purple
Shape of central lobe
1 Oblanceolate
2 Linear
3 Elliptic
4 Pandurate (obovate with pair of basal lobes)
5 Lanceolate
Colour of unexpanded apical leaves

3 Light green
5 Dark green
7 Green–purple
9 Purple
Pubescence of young leaves

Newly formed leaves in the transitional stage
3 Sparse
5 Intermediate
7 Dense
Petiole colour
1 Light green
2 Dark green
3 Green–purple
4 Purple
Colour of outer surface of storage root cortex

1 White or cream
2 Yellow
3 Pink
4 Purple
Storage root dry matter percentage (DM %)
Total fresh weight of storage roots per plant (FW kg)

Recorded on 10 plants
Hydrocyanic acid content (HCN) [mg/kg]

3 Low (sweet)
7 High (bitter)
Harvest index
Fresh storage root weight (5)/total plant weight (4 + 5)
Post-harvest deterioration
Qualitative evaluation of physiological deterioration1
3 Low
5 Medium
7 High
Reaction to drought (7.3)
Reaction to high soil moisture (7.4)
African Cassava Mosaic Virus (ACMV)
Cassava Bacterial Blight (CBB)
Cassava Common Mosaic Virus (CsCMV)
Cassava mites
Cassava Frogskin Disease (CFSD)
Whiteflies
Cassava Brown Streak Virus Disease (CBSD)
Notes
1
Use quantitative method described by Wheatley C. et al. (1985), Post-harvest deterioration of cassava roots, in Cock JH and Reyes JA, editors,
Cassava: Research, Production and Utilization. UNDP-CIAT, Cali, Colombia, pp 655–671. Or specify method used in the NOTES descriptor.
CONTRIBUTORS
this strategic set of key access and utilization descriptors for cassava, and in particular to the
participants in the ‘Mini-Workshop on Minimum Cassava Descriptors’ held on 2 May 2008 in
Cali, Colombia. Special thanks go to Drs. Daniel Debouck and Xavier Sheldeman for providing
scientific direction, and to Adriana Alercia for providing technical expertise and guiding the
Core Advisory Group

Daniel Debouck, CIAT, Colombia
Alfredo Augusto Cunha Alves, EMBRAPA, Brazil
Dominique Dumet, IITA, Nigeria
O.N. Eke-Okoro, National Root Crops Research Institute, Nigeria
Clair Hershey, Cornell University, USA
Danny Hunter, Bioversity International, Italy
Nelson Morante, CIAT, Colombia
Llermé Ríos Lobo, INIA, Peru
Sergio J. Rodríguez Morales, INIVIT, Cuba
Peaingpen Sarawat, Khon Kaen Field Crop Research Centre, Thailand
Xavier Scheldeman, Bioversity, Colombia
Reviewers
Brazil
Luiz Carvalho, EMBRAPA
Miguel Dias, EMBRAPA/CPAA
Wania Fukuda, EMBRAPA
Paulo Cesar Lemos de Carvalho, Universidade Federal do Reconcavo da Bahia
Nagib Nassar, Universidad de Brasilia
Ivo Roberto Sias Costa, EMBRAPA/CENARGEN
Vanderlei Silva Santos, EMBRAPA/CNPMF
Colombia
Fernando Calle Calle, CIAT
Hernan Ceballos, CIAT
Maritza Cuervo, CIAT
Paula Hurtado, CIAT
Graciela Mafla, CIAT
César Humberto Ocampo Nahar, CIAT
Nigeria
Alfred Dixon, IITA
Paul Ilona, IITA
Olaniyi Ajewole Oyatomi, IITA
Peru
Kember Mejia, Instituto de Investigaciones de la Amazonía peruana
Julio Pinedo, Universidad Nacional de la Amazonía peruana (UNAP)
Vidal Villagomez Castillo, Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina
Thailand
Opas Boonseng, Rayong Field Crops Research Centre
Reinhardt Howeler, CIAT
Pinit Kulayasilapin, Prachinburi Field Crop Experiment Station
Atchara Limsila, Rayong Field Crops Research Centre
Anon Malipan, Lopburi Service Centre for Crops and Production
United Kingdom
John Beeching, Department of Biology & Biochemistry, University of Bath
USA
Carlos Iglesias, Weaver Popcorn Company
chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)
Information for the definition of a MDL for chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) was drawn
from the publication ‘Descriptors for Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)’
(IBPGR/ICRISAT/ICARDA, 1993). A comparison table was prepared comparing
these descriptors to important descriptors mentioned in the draft document ‘Global
Strategy for the Ex Situ Conservation of Chickpea (Cicer L.)’ (the Trust, December
2008); and to descriptors that were awarded funds for further research by the Global
Crop Diversity Trust 2008 Award Scheme ‘Enhancing the Value of Crop Diversity in
a World of Climate Change’ (EAS). These were further weighed against Descriptors
for CHICKPEA (USDA, ARS, GRIN); ‘Guidelines for the conduct of tests for
Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability’ (UPOV, 2005) and important descriptors
resulting from the SGRP Global Public Goods, Phase 2 (GPG2), Activity 4.2.1.1.
Particular attention was given to those descriptors for which data were available.
Descriptors were integrated and harmonized to produce an initial minimum

set to be submitted to the Crop Leader for approval. During a crop-specific
consultation held at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), India
in June 2009, a minimum and a long list covering diagnosis and breeding traits were
discussed (see Annex I). From the comparison table discussed during the meeting, a
list of descriptors which were considered important for utilization were included in
the key set of descriptors, that would be proposed through the survey.

The list of experts was prepared using various sources. It includes experts drawn
from the original descriptor list and participants in crop-specific consultations for the
definition of the ‘Global Strategy for the Ex Situ Conservation of Chickpea (Cicer L.)’
(the Trust, December 2008). The list was further integrated with experts from the
ECPGR Network, from the Trust Evaluation Awards Scheme (EAS) and the Status
Regeneration Guidelines, as well as experts drawn from FAO WIEWS, Directory of
Germplasm collections, and those identified during the crop-specific meeting held at
NBPGR. An internet search was also performed to integrate this list and obtain the
greatest number of comments. Jan Konopka, from the International Center for
Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), was first contacted to supply
names of experts who could be involved in this exercise and review the comparison
table. ICARDA experts proposed were Ken Street, Amri Ahmed, Malhotra Rajendra
and Mohammed Imtiaz and were invited to act as the Crop Advisory Group (CAG).
During her visit to India, the coordinator of the exercise, Ms Adriana Alercia
collaborated with renown expert, M.C. Kharkwal of IARI Genetics (India) and in
consultation with Prem N. Mathur, it was agreed that he would act as Crop Leader
together with M. Imtiaz (ICARDA, Syria).
Overall, 54 experts were identified, coming from 22 countries and 38 different
organizations (see Annex II). Out of these, Mohammed Imtiaz (ICARDA) and M.C.
Kharkwal (IARI) were selected as Crop Leaders and a Core Advisory Group
consisting of 10 experts was identified to assist in the definition of a minimum set of
descriptors, which was subsequently circulated for validation among the wider
group of experts.

A draft survey on chickpea was prepared listing the descriptors as approved by
consultations with the Crop Leaders and the CAG (see Annex III). Once approved,
the final draft of the survey was uploaded into the SurveyMonkey application on the
internet (see Annex IV) and sent out to the list of identified experts in July 2009.
Experts were invited to validate the initial ‘Minimum set of descriptors’ of chickpea
accessions to facilitate their use by researchers and asked to make any suggestions
regarding any characterization and/or evaluation descriptors that were found to be
relevant yet missing from the proposed Minimum List. The survey deadline was set
at 20 August 2009. A reminder was sent out before the deadline to ensure that the
Survey analysis and refinement of the Minimum List

Of the 54 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 32 from 16
countries and 21 organizations recorded their comments using the online survey (see
Annex V). Results from the consultation were analyzed and descriptors were ranked
by rating average and percentage of importance (see Annex VI). Descriptors having a
wide consensus amongst experts were highlighted in bold typeface. These summary
results listed by ranking and percentage of responses of the survey, together with a
report containing comments as open-ended questions received from the participants
(see Annex VII) were sent to the Core Advisory Group inviting experts to select
descriptors that should be included in the Minimum List by indicating them with an
‘X’ in the relevant column. Advice provided by Dr Imtiaz was followed along with
the CAG survey responses and survey percentage results, because other Core
Advisory members, although participating to the survey, did not answer in spite of
the reminders. As a result, a first final list was defined and subsequently proposed to
members of the CAG for their validation and comments (see Annex VIII). Many
replies were received and sparked off an interesting debate, which was summarized
listing the discussed descriptors, along with relevant comments (see Annex IX), and
sent again to the Core Advisory Group.
In early April 2009, the first priority set for utilization, with the addition of a
few more descriptors and one descriptor for deletion, as suggested by the CAG and
approved by the Crop Leaders, was again shared with the CAG for further
refinement and their final approval (see Annex X). Dr Hari D. Upahdyaya of the
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT, India)
was added as Crop Leader due to the substantial scientific advice provided during
the last phase.
Definition of a final key set of descriptors for chickpea

The final key set approved by the Crop Leaders and the CAG, including all the
contributors (see Annex XI), was proofread by an external editor and sent to the
Bioversity Publications Unit for layout and on-line publication processes.
Furthermore, the publication was shared with the ECPGR Secretariat; the Generation
Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge
Base partners. Additionally, data were converted into Excel files for uploading into
the GRIN-Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA,
and into the global accession level information portal (GENESYS). The Excel files were
also disseminated to the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources
(SINGER) and to EURISCO.
Acknowledgement
Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who contributed to the
development of the strategic set of key access and utilization descriptors for chickpea
genetic resources, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial support.
Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leaders, Mohammed Imtiaz, M.C. Kharkwal
and Dr H. Updadhyaya for providing valuable scientific direction. Ms Adriana
Alercia provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process.
Annex I – Comparison table weighing up important descriptors for chickpea drawn from different sources¹
Desc. Descriptor name IBPGR/ Evaluation Strategy UPOV USDA GPG2 Imp GPG2 Top Data avail. Long List NBPGR 09 ICARDA
no. ICRISAT/ Awards (3) (4) (5) traits 10 ICRISAT (9) MIN (GR (Imtiaz) MIN
ICARDA (2) (6) (7) (8) utilization) x use
1993 (10) (11)
(1)
4.1.1 Plant pigmentation * * * * * *
4.1.2 Plant hairiness * *
4.1.3 Leaf type * * * * * *
4.1.4 Number of leaflets per leaf * * * *
4.2.1 Days to 50% flowering * * (80%) * * * * * * *
4.2.2 Days to maturity * * * * * * * *
4.2.3 Number of seeds per pod * * * * * * * * *
4.2.4 Flower colour * * * * * *
Number of flowers and pods
4.2.5 * * * * * *
per peduncle
4.2.6 Pod length [mm] * * * *
To be deleted.
4.2.7 Pod dehiscence * * Not important
and difficult
4.2.8 Number of pods per plant * * * * * * * *
4.3.1 Seed shape * * * * * *
4.3.2 Seed testa texture * * * *
4.3.3 Seed colour * * * * * * *
Absence/presence of minute
4.3.4 * * *
black dots
* (not
4.3.5 100-Seed weight [g] * * * * * * * *
100)
6.1.1 Growth habit * * * * * * *
6.1.2 Leaflet length [mm] * * *
Redundant, to
2 be deleted
6.1.3 Leaf area [cm ] * since there is
leaf length
6.1.4 Number of branches * * To be deleted
6.1.4.1 Number of primary branches * * * * * *
Number of secondary
6.1.4.2 * * * *
branches
6.1.4.3 Apical primary * * * To be deleted
6.1.4.4 Apical secondary * To be deleted
6.1.4.5 Tertiary * * To be deleted
Plant canopy height
6.1.5 * * * * * * * * *
(at maturity)
6.1.6 Plant canopy width [cm] * * * * To be deleted
To be deleted
6.2.1 Flower duration * * and difficult to
record
6.2.2 Yield *
6.2.2.1 Biological yield per plant [g] * * * *
6.2.2.2 Grain yield per plant [g] * * * * * * *
6.3.1.1 Protein content [% DW] * * * * * *
6.3.1.2 Dhal milling [%] * *
6.3.1.3 Cooking time * *
6.3.1.4 Cookability of dry seeds * * Delete
Reactions to low
7.1 * *
Temperature
7.1.1 Seedling emergence * *
Susceptibility to cold (whole
7.1.2 * * * Delete *
plant)
7.1.3 Frost damage * * * * *
Reactions to high
7.2 * * * * * *
temperature (Heat)
Reactions to Aluminium
7.3 * *
toxicity
7.4 Reaction to low Iron * * *
7.5 Reaction to drought * * * * * * * * *
Reaction to low seedbed
7.6 * Delete
moisture conditions
New Reaction to salt stress * *
7.7 Reaction to Alkaline soils * Delete
Alternaria alternata (Fr.)
8.1.1 * * *
Kiessler (Alternaria blight)
Ascochyta rabiei (Pass.)
8.1.2 * * * * * * * * *
Labr. (Ascochyta blight)
Botrytis cinerea Pers. ex Fr.
8.1.3 * * * * * *
(Grey mould)
Fusarium oxysporum
8.1.4 * * * * * * * * *
Schlecht. (Fusarium wilt)
Phytophthora megasperma
8.1.5 Drechs. (Phytophthora * * * *
blight)
Uromyces ciceris-arietini
8.1.6 * *
(Grogn.) Jacz & Beyer (Rust)
Pythium ultimum Trow.
8.2.1 * * *
(Damping off)
Stemphylium sarciniforme
8.2.2 (Cav.) Wilts. (Stemphylium * *
blight)
Xanthomonas cassiae
8.2.3 * * *
Kulkarni et al. (Seedling rot)
Fusarium solani (Mart.)
8.3.1 * * * * * *
Sacc. (Root rot)
Operculella padwickii
8.3.2 * *
Kheswalla (Foot rot)
Rhizoctonia bataticola
8.3.3 * * * *
(Taub.) Butler (Dry root rot)
Sclerotinia sclerotiorum
8.3.4 * * *
(Lib.) de Bary (Stem rot)
Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc.
8.3.5 * * * * *
(Collar rot)
Bean (pea) leafroll virus
8.4.1 * * * *
(Luteovirus) (Chickpea stunt)
Metopina ciceri Disney
8.5.1 * *
(Nodule damaging flies)
Agrotis ipsilon Hufnagel. etc.
8.5.2 * *
(Cutworm)
Liriomyza cicerina (Rondani)
8.5.3 * * * * *
(Leaf miner)
Aphis craccivora (Koch)
8.5.4 * *
(Aphids)
Helicoverpa armigera
8.6.1 * * * * *
(Hübner) (Pod borer)
Callosobruchus chinensis
8.7.1 * *
(L.) (Storage bruchid beetle)
Meloidogyne incognita;
8.8.1 M.javanica; M. aritiellia * * * *
(Rootknot nematode)
Pratylenchus thornei; P. zeae
8.8.2 Graham (Root lesion * * *
nematode)
Heterodera ciceri (Vovlas,
8.8.3 Greco and Di Vito) (Cyst * * * *
nematode)
Nitrogen fixing ability *
Amino Acid content * Not required
Seed size * * * *
Salinity tolerance/Stress to
* * Already added
soil salinity
Stress to Zinc * * *
Colletotrichum blight * *
¹ (1) ‘Descriptors for Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)’ (IBPGR, ICRISAT and ICARDA, 1993);
(2) Evaluation Award Scheme 2008 (EAS);
(3) Global Strategy for the Ex Situ Conservation of Chickpea (Cicer L.), Draft, July 2008;
(4) UPOV technical guidelines for Chick-Pea (2005);
(5) ‘Descriptors for CHICKPEA’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN);
(6) Important traits from the GPG2 exercise;
(7) Top ten traits from the GPG2 exercise;
(8) ‘Core Collection of Chickpea as a Means to Enhance Utilization of Genetic Resources in Crop Improvement’ (ICRISAT);
(9) Long list of traits identified during the crop-specific meeting at NBPGR (June 2009);
(10) Minimum list of traits identified during the crop-specific meeting at NBPGR (June 2009);
(11) Dr Imtiaz’s choice of descriptors.
Annex II – List of experts identified to participate in the survey
Role/Source Name Organization Country
Crop Leader Imtiaz,

ICARDA Syria
(suggested by Ken Street) Mohammed
Indian Agricultural Research
Crop Leader Kharkwal, M.C. India
Institute (IARI, Genetics)
CAG Boulineau, Francois GEVES (UPOV) France
USDA, ARS. Washington

CAG Coyne, Clare USA
State University
CAG (contact from ENEA
Crinò, Paola ENEA Italy
chickpea congress)
NBPGR (Under utilized plants
CAG Dua, Ram Prakash India
division)
CAG Duc, Gérard INRA (ECPGR) France
CAG (suggested at
Gaur, P. ICRISAT India
ontology workshop)
Bangladesh Agricultural
CAG Haque, Mamtazul Bangladesh
Research Institute
CAG (suggested by IPK Genebank Department
Kotter, Matthias Germany
H. Knüpffer, IPK) Leibniz Institute
CAG Malhotra, Rajinder ICARDA Syria
CAG Updadhyaya, H. ICRISAT India
Hebrew University of
Internet Abbo, Shahal Israel
Jerusalem
Institut National Agronomique
Crop Strategy Abdelguerfi, Aissa Algeria
(INA)
SINGER survey Amri, Ahmed Head GRU (ICARDA) Syria
Benediková, Research Institute of Plant Slovak

WIEWS
Daniela Production Piestany Republic
Internet Berger, Jens D. CSIRO Plant Industry Australia
Agriculture and Agri-Food

Internet (Plant pathologist) Buchwaldt, Lone Canada
Canada
Russian
Internet Bulyntsev, Sergey Curator Chickpea VIR
Federation
Indian Institute for Pulses
Internet Chaturvedi, S.K. India
Research
Internet (Plant pathologist) Chen, Weidong ARS/USDA USA
Centres for Legumes in

Journal Croser, Janine Mediterranean Agriculture Australia
(CLIMA)
Contact from ENEA
De la Rosa, Lucia INIA Spain
chickpea congress
Internet Diederichsen, Axel Canada
Canada
Dwivedi, Narendra NBPGR (Regional Station -
NBPGR India
Kumar Jodhpur)
WIEWS Fundora, Z. Banco de Germplasma Cuba
Directory of Germplasm Garzon-Tiznado, Instituto Nacional de

Mexico
(Nutritionist) J.A. Investigaciones Agrícolas
Czech
WIEWS Hýbl, Miroslav Agritech
Republic
Jiménez-Díaz,
Internet (Plant pathologist) IAS-CSIC Spain
Rafael M.
Plant Molecular Biology,
Internet (Plant geneticist) Kahl, Gunter Germany
Biozentrum
Western Australian
Department of Agriculture and
Internet Khan, Tanveer Australia
Food, Dryland Research
Institute
Reviewer Kumar, J. IARI, Genetics India
Reviewer Mishra, S.K. NBPGR India
South Australian Research

Internet McMurray, Larn and Development Institute Australia
(SARDI)
Purdue website Mohamed, Ali I. Virginia State University USA
Centro de Investigación y
Directory of Germplasm Moreno, Maria T. Desarrollo Agrario Alameda Spain
del Obispo
Muehlbauer, USDA/ARS Washington State
Internet (Plant pathologist) USA
Frederick J. University
NBPGR (Project
Nizar, M Abdul NBPGR India
Coordinator)
Indira Gandhi Agricultural
Internet Pandey, R.L. India
University
Pereira, Maria da Estação Nacional de
ECPGR Portugal
Graça Melhoramento de Plantas
Directory of Germplasm Pratibha, Brahmi NBPGR India
Department of Primary
Crop Strategy Redden, Bob Australia
Industries Victoria
SINGER Survey
Reddy, M. Thimma ICRISAT India
(Genebank data manager)
ICRISAT (Principal scientist

ICRISAT Sharma, Kiran India
chickpea genetic engineering)
ICRISAT Legumes
Sharma, Mamta ICRISAT India
pathology
Reviewer Sharma, S.K. ICAR, NBPGR India
Institute of Agriculture-
Journal Siddique, K.H.M. University of Western Australia
Australia
Purdue website Slinkard, Al University of Saskatchewan Canada
Aegean Agricultural Research

Crop Strategy/WIEWS Tan, Ayfer Turkey
Institute (AARI)
Department of Field Crops,
Internet Toker, Cengiz Faculty of Agriculture, Turkey
Akdeniz University
Van der Maesen, Wageningen Agricultural The
Internet
L.J.G. University Netherlands
Istituto per la Protezione delle
Internet (Plant pathologist) Vovlas, Nicola Italy
Piante, C.N.R.
Papua New
SRG/WIEWS Yadav, Shyam S. Retired
Guinea
Pakistan Agricultural
EAS/Crop Strategy Zahoor, Ahmad Pakistan
Research Council
Annex III - First priority set of descriptors for chickpea identified by Dr Imtiaz in
July 2009, to be inserted in the survey
1. Plant pigmentation (4.1.1)

2. Leaf type (4.1.3)
3. Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1)
4. Days to maturity (4.2.2)
5. Number of seeds per pod (4.2.3)
6. Flower colour (4.2.4)
7. Number of flowers and pods per peduncle (4.2.5)
8. Number of pods per plant (4.2.8)
10. Seed colour (4.3.3)
11. 100-Seed weight [g] (4.3.5)
12. Seed size (4.3.X)
13. Growth habit (6.1.1)
14. Number of primary branches (6.1.4.1)
15. Plant canopy height (at maturity) (6.1.5)
16. Biological yield per plant [g] (6.2.2.1)
17. Grain yield per plant [g] (6.2.2.2)
18. Protein content [% DW] (6.3.1.1)
19. Susceptibility to cold (whole plant) (7.1.2)
20. Frost damage (7.1.3)
21. Stress to Zinc (7.X)
22. Reactions to high temperature (Heat) (7.2)
23. Reaction to drought (7.5)
24. Reaction to salt stress (7.X)
25. Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta rabiei) (8.1.2)
26. Grey mould (Botrytis cinerea) (8.1.3)
27. Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum) (8.1.4)
28. Phytophthora blight (Phytophthora megasperma) (8.1.5)
29. Seedling rot (Xanthomonas cassiae) (8.2.3)
30. Root rot (Fusarium solani) (8.3.1)
31. Dry root rot (Rhizoctonia bataticola) (8.3.3)
32. Stem rot (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum) (8.3.4)
33. Collar rot (Sclerotium rolfsii) (8.3.5)
34. Chickpea stunt (Bean (pea) leafroll virus) (8.4.1)
35. Leaf miner (Liriomyza cicerina) (8.5.3)
36. Pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera) (8.6.1)
37. Rootknot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita; (8.8.1)
M. javanica; M. aritiellia)
38. Root lesion nematode (Pratylenchus thornei; P. zeae) (8.8.2)
39. Cyst nematode (Heterodera ciceri) (8.8.3)
Annex IV – Survey to choose a key set of descriptors for chickpea utilization
WELCOME
Welcome to the survey for the selection of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for
chickpea to support an international information system to enhance the utilization of germplasm
held in genebanks.
Your knowledge and experience are being sought to define an initial ‘key set’ of descriptors that identify
traits important to crop production and facilitate the use of accessions.
Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 20 August 2009.
This key set of descriptors will be made available through a global portal for identifying sets of
accessions for evaluation and use. For characterization, the aim is a key set of maximally differentiating
traits that provide the most impact in discriminating between accessions. For evaluation, the aim is to
focus on a few important traits for production, such as those related to abiotic or biotic stresses of
cosmopolitan nature.

- PART I: Characterization descriptors.
- PART II: Evaluation descriptors.
We thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in selecting the set of descriptors.
* Please allow us to acknowledge your contribution by completing your full contact details
below:
Name:
Position:
Organization:
Country:
Email:
PART I: Characterization descriptors
These traits enable easy and quick discrimination between phenotypes. They are generally highly
heritable, can be easily seen by the eye and are equally expressed in all environments.
Based on your experience, please rate the descriptors according to their importance. It also allows you
to indicate if any essential descriptor that can contribute to its use is missing from the minimum list
presented.
*Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in the
IBPGR/ICRISAT/ICARDA publication ‘Descriptors for Chickpea’ (1993).
*Descriptors with numbers ending in ‘X’ are new descriptors that were added during the revision of the original
publication.

Plant pigmentation (4.1.1) n n n
Leaf type (4.1.3) n n n
Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) n n n
Days to maturity (4.2.2) n n n
Number of seeds per pod (4.2.3) n n n
Flower colour (4.2.4) n n n
Number of flowers and pods per peduncle (4.2.5) n n n
Number of pods per plant (4.2.8) n n n
Seed shape (4.3.1) n n n
Seed colour (4.3.3) n n n
100-Seed weight [g] (4.3.5) n n n
Seed size (4.3.X) n n n
If you consider that an essential trait is missing from this list, please indicate
it here along with a substantiated justification.
PART II: Evaluation descriptors
These descriptors include characters such as biotic and abiotic stresses. They are the most interesting
traits in crop improvement. Please consider the following factors relating to the trait when making your
final decision: (i) Global impact, (ii) Initial strategic set, (iii) Importance for germplasm utilization,
(iv) Data availability, (v) True economic damage and (vi) Wide geographical occurrence.
Please, rate these traits in order of importance at the global level. It also allows you to indicate if any
essential trait for production is missing from the minimum list presented or indicate any that may not be
very significant to global production.
Not Important Important Very important
Growth habit (6.1.1) n n n

Number of primary branches (6.1.4.1) n n n
Plant height (at maturity) (6.1.5) n n n
Biological yield per plant [g] (6.2.2.1) n n n
Grain yield per plant [g] (6.2.2.2) n n n
Protein content [% DW] (6.3.1.1) n n n
Susceptibility to cold (whole plant) (7.1.2) n n n
Frost damage (7.1.3) n n n
Stress to Zinc (7.X) n n n
Reactions to high temperature (Heat) (7.2) n n n
Reaction to drought (7.5) n n n
Reaction to salt stress (7.X) n n n
Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta rabiei) (8.1.2) n n n
Grey mould (Botrytis cinerea) (8.1.3) n n n
Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum) (8.1.4) n n n
Phytophthora blight (Phytophthora megasperma) (8.1.5) n n n
Seedling rot (Xanthomonas cassiae) (8.2.3) n n n
Root rot (Fusarium solani) (8.3.1) n n n
Dry root rot (Rhizoctonia bataticola) (8.3.3) n n n
Stem rot (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum) (8.3.4) n n n
Collar rot (Sclerotium rolfsii) (8.3.5) n n n
Chickpea stunt (Bean (pea) leafroll virus) (8.4.1) n n n
Leaf miner (Liriomyza cicerina) (8.5.3) n n n
Pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera) (8.6.1) n n n
Rootknot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita; M. javanica; n n n
M. aritiellia) (8.8.1)
Root lesion nematode (Pratylenchus thornei; P. zeae) (8.8.2) n n n

Cyst nem atode (Heterodera ciceri) (8.8.3) n n n
If you consider that an essential trait important for crop improvement and
production is missing from the list above, please indicate it here along with a
substantiated justification.
Annex V – List of respondents to the survey
Role Name Position Organization Country
Crop Indian Agricultural Research

Kharkwal, M.C. India
Leader Institute (IARI, Genetics)
International Center for
Crop Imtiaz,
Agricultural Research in the Dry Syria
Leader Muhammad
Areas (ICARDA)
CAG Bharadwaj, C. Senior Scientist India
Institute (IARI)
Groupe d'Etude et de contrôle
Boulineau,
CAG Directeur d'unité des Variétés et des Semences France
François
(GEVES)
United States Department of
CAG Coyne, Clarice J. Curator/Geneticist Agriculture, Agricultural USA
Research Service (USDA-ARS)
Agenzia nazionale per le nuove
tecnologie, l’energia e lo
CAG Crinò, Paola Scientist Italy
sviluppo economico sostenibile
(ENEA)
Principal Scientist
CAG Dua, R.P. and Coordinator India
Resources (NBPGR)
AICRP (UUC)
Chief Scientific Bangladesh Agricultural
CAG Haque, Mamtazul Bangladesh
Officer Research Institute
Leibniz Institute of Plant
Genetics and Crop Plant
Research (IPK) Department of
CAG Lohwasser, Ulrike Germany
Genebank, Research Group
Resources Genetics and
Reproduction
CAG Pandravada, S.R. Senior Scientist Resources (NBPGR), Regional India
Station, Hyderabad
Principal Scientist International Crops Research
Upadhyaya, Hari
CAG and Head Gene Institute for the Semi-Arid India
D.
Bank Tropics (ICRISAT)
Israel
Reviewer Abbo, Shahal Lecturer Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Plant Production Research

Antalíková, Curator of Centre, Research Institute of Slovak
Reviewer
Gabriela Chickpea Plant Production (PPRC, RIPP) Republic
Piešťany
Plant Gene Resources of
Diederichsen,
Reviewer Curator Canada, Agriculture and Agri- Canada
Axel
Food Canada
Garzón-Tiznado, Researcher- Universidad Autónoma De
Reviewer Mexico
José Antonio Professor Sinaloa
International Crops Research

Reviewer Gowda, C.L.L. Institute for the Semi-Arid India
Tropics (ICRISAT)
Jiménez-Díaz, Professor of Plant
Reviewer University of Córdoba Spain
Rafael M. Pathology
Principal Research Department of Agriculture and

Reviewer Khan, Tanveer Australia
Officer Food

Reviewer Kumar, Jitendra Principal scientist India
Institute (IARI)
Head, Germplasm National Bureau of Plant Genetic
Reviewer Mishra, S.K. India
Evaluation Division Resources (NBPGR)
Research
Reviewer Muehlbauer, Fred Agriculture, Agricultural USA
Geneticist (retired)
Research Service (USDA-ARS)
Curator, Australian
Department of Primary Industries
Reviewer Redden, Bob Temperate Field Australia
Victoria
Crops Collection
Reddy, M. Scientific
Reviewer Institute for the Semi-Arid India
Thimma Associate
Tropics (ICRISAT)
Researcher and Instituto de Investigaciones
Shagarodsky
Reviewer curator of chickpea Fundamentales en la Agricultura Cuba
Scull, Tomás
collection Tropical (INIFAT)
Reviewer Sharma, Mamta Scientist Institute for the Semi-Arid India
Tropics (ICRISAT)
Reviewer Sharma, Shivali Institute for the Semi-Arid India
Tropics (ICRISAT)
Siddique, Professor and The University of Western
Reviewer Australia
Kadambot Director Australia
Reviewer Singh, Sube Institute for the Semi-Arid India
Tropics (ICRISAT)
Chickpea
Crop Development Centre,
Reviewer Taran, Bunyamin Breeder/Assist. Canada
University of Saskatchewan
prof
van der Maesen, Prof. of Plant The
Reviewer Wageningen University
L.J.G. Taxonomy Netherlands
Yadav, Shyam Ex. Principal Indian Agricultural Research

Reviewer India
Singh Chickpea Breeder Institute (IARI)
National Agricultural Research

Reviewer Zahoor, Ahmad Senior Director Pakistan
Centre (NARC)
Annex VI – List of descriptors proposed in the survey, ranked by rating average and
percentage of importance, and sent to the Core Advisory Group for their selection
Rating Your % % Very

Average selection Important important
100-Seed weight [g] 100-Seed weight [g]
4.75 12.5% (3) 87.5% (21)
(4.3.5) (4.3.5)
Days to maturity Days to 50% flowering
4.50 12.5% (3) 79.2% (19)
(4.2.2) (4.2.1)
Seed colour (4.3.3) 4.50 Days to maturity (4.2.2) 25.0% (6) 75.0% (18)
Days to 50% flowering

4.33 Seed colour (4.3.3) 25.0% (6) 75.0% (18)
(4.2.1)
Seed shape (4.3.1) 3.96 Seed shape (4.3.1) 20.8% (5) 66.7% (16)
Flower colour (4.2.4) 3.71 Flower colour (4.2.4) 33.3% (8) 54.2% (13)
Seed size (4.3.X) 3.63 Seed size (4.3.X) 37.5% (9) 50.0% (12)
Number of seeds per Number of pods per plant

3.42 16.7% (4) 50.0% (12)
pod (4.2.3) (4.2.8)
Number of flowers and Number of seeds per
3.13 37.5% (9) 45.8% (11)
pods per peduncle (4.2.5) pod (4.2.3)
Number of flowers and
Plant pigmentation (4.1.1) 3.00 41.7% (10) 37.5% (9)
pods per peduncle (4.2.5)
Number of pods per plant
3.00 Plant pigmentation (4.1.1) 56.5% (13) 26.1% (6)
(4.2.8)
Leaf type (4.1.3) 2.83 Leaf type (4.1.3) 66.7% (16) 16.7% (4)
Ascochyta blight
Reaction to drought
4.43 (Ascochyta rabiei) 8.3% (2) 83.3% (20)
(7.5)
(8.1.2)
Ascochyta blight Reaction to drought
4.42 17.4% (4) 78.3% (18)
(Ascochyta rabiei) (7.5)
Fusarium wilt Fusarium wilt
(Fusarium oxysporum) 4.38 (Fusarium oxysporum) 20.8% (5) 75.0% (18)
(8.1.4) (8.1.4)
Grain yield per plant [g]
Growth habit (6.1.1) 4.25 16.7% (4) 75.0% (18)
(6.2.2.2)
Grain yield per plant Pod borer (Helicoverpa
4.25 20.8% (5) 70.8% (17)
[g] (6.2.2.2) armigera) (8.6.1)
Pod borer (Helicoverpa
4.17 Growth habit (6.1.1) 37.5% (9) 62.5% (15)
armigera) (8.6.1)
Reaction to salt stress Reaction to salt stress
3.74 30.4% (7) 56.5% (13)
(7.X) (7.X)
Plant height (at maturity) Grey mould (Botrytis
3.63 29.2% (7) 54.2% (13)
(6.1.5) cinerea) (8.1.3)
Reactions to high Protein content [% DW]
3.63 41.7% (10) 45.8% (11)
temperature (Heat) (7.2) (6.3.1.1)
Grey mould (Botrytis Plant height (at maturity)
3.58 58.3% (14) 37.5% (9)
cinerea) (8.1.3) (6.1.5)
Protein content [% DW] Reactions to high
3.54 58.3% (14) 37.5% (9)
(6.3.1.1) temperature (Heat) (7.2)
Dry root rot (Rhizoctonia Dry root rot (Rhizoctonia
3.38 50.0% (12) 37.5% (9)
bataticola) (8.3.3) bataticola) (8.3.3)
Root rot (Fusarium solani) Susceptibility to cold
3.29 45.8% (11) 37.5% (9)
(8.3.1) (whole plant) (7.1.2)
Susceptibility to cold Biological yield per plant
3.25 37.5% (9) 37.5% (9)
(whole plant) (7.1.2) [g] (6.2.2.1)
Rootknot nematode
(Meloidogyne incognita; Root rot (Fusarium solani)
3.13 54.2% (13) 33.3% (8)
M. javanica; M. aritiellia) (8.3.1)
(8.8.1)
Biological yield per plant Number of primary
3.00 50.0% (12) 29.2% (7)
[g] (6.2.2.1) branches (6.1.4.1)
Stem rot (Sclerotinia
3.00 Frost damage (7.1.3) 50.0% (12) 29.2% (7)
sclerotiorum) (8.3.4)
Collar rot (Sclerotium Chickpea stunt (Bean (pea)
3.00 41.7% (10) 29.2% (7)
rolfsii) (8.3.5) leafroll virus) (8.4.1)
Number of primary Collar rot (Sclerotium

2.96 56.5% (13) 26.1% (6)
branches (6.1.4.1) rolfsii) (8.3.5)
Rootknot nematode
(Meloidogyne incognita;
Frost damage (7.1.3) 2.96 62.5% (15) 25.0% (6)
M. javanica; M. aritiellia)
(8.8.1)
Chickpea stunt (Bean Stem rot (Sclerotinia
2.71 58.3% (14) 25.0% (6)
(pea) leafroll virus) sclerotiorum) (8.3.4)
(8.4.1) rot
Seedling Phytophthora blight
(Xanthomonas cassiae) 2.68 (Phytophthora 52.2% (12) 21.7% (5)
(8.2.3) megasperma) (8.1.5)
Root lesion nematode
Seedling rot (Xanthomonas
(Pratylenchus thornei; 2.68 59.1% (13) 18.2% (4)
cassiae) (8.2.3)
P. zeae) (8.8.2)
Phytophthora blight Root lesion nematode
(Phytophthora 2.65 (Pratylenchus thornei; 59.1% (13) 18.2% (4)
megasperma) (8.1.5) P. zeae) (8.8.2)
Leaf miner (Liriomyza Cyst nematode
2.61 54.2% (13) 16.7% (4)
cicerina) (8.5.3) (Heterodera ciceri) (8.8.3)
Cyst nematode Leaf miner (Liriomyza
2.46 65.2% (15) 13.0% (3)
(Heterodera ciceri) (8.8.3) cicerina) (8.5.3)
Stress to Zinc (7.X) 1.54 Stress to Zinc (7.X) 37.5% (9) 8.3% (2)
Annex VII – Additional descriptors included in the open-ended section of the survey
Name of expert
B. Redden G.
A.
Chickpea Descriptor (Dep. of
J. R.P. Dua Diederichsen P. Crinò
T. Antalíková
N. times Primary S.S. Yadav Shagarodsky (PPRC-
Kumar (NBPGR, (Agriculture (ENEA,
selected Industries (IARI, India) Scull (INIFAT, RIPP
(IARI, India) India) and Agri- Italy)
Victoria, Cuba) Piešťany,
Food Canada)
Australia) Slovakia)
Additional characterization traits (VI=
VI VI VI VI VI VI VI VI
Very Important)
Plant hairiness (4.1.2), wide diversity of
1 X
major types: none, pubescent, very hairy
X Seed
X Seed type like
Testa texture (4.3.2) is very important to roughness
rough seeded,
differentiate the genotypes with respect to 3 (smooth, X
smooth seeded
seed surface rough,
may be included
tuberculated)
Cotyledon colour in mature seeds (green-
olive; orange-red; or yellow. An important 1 X
and stable trait
Weight of seed per plant (g) X
Number of seed per plant X
Additional evaluation traits
Resistant to store pests particularly the
1 X
Bruchids
Lodging should be rated 1 X
In our case the most important pests in
Cuba are Heliothis virescens and 1 X
Spodoptera spp.
Comments:
Quality traits and anti-nutritional traits may
be identified and included. This crop need
X
worldwide attention on these traits for
human consumption
The importance of each pathogen depends
on the environment where chickpea is X
grown
Plant pigmentation should be clarified e.g.
foliage pigment or stem pigment etc. Some
varieties are dark green and some are light X
green colour like kabuli types are light
green and desi types are dark green colour
Annex VIII – First list of descriptors for chickpea drawn from Dr Imtiaz’s
selection, from the survey and CAG’s feedback, and sent to the Core Advisory
Group for validation
First priority set of descriptors for chickpea

2. Days to maturity (4.2.2)
5. Number of pods per plant (4.2.8)
8. 100-Seed weight [g] (4.3.5)
9. Seed size (4.3.X)
11. Grain yield per plant [g] (6.2.2.2)
12. Protein content [%DW] (6.3.1.1)
14. Reaction to salt stress (7.X)
15. Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta rabiei) (8.1.2)
16. Grey mould (Botrytis cinerea) (8.1.3)
17. Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum) (8.1.4)
18. Pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera) (8.6.1)
Additional trait suggested:
19. Testa texture (4.3.2)

Annex IX – Attachment containing summary background information about the
debate on some additional descriptors suggested and submitted to CAG
CHICKPEA
1. Plant height:
- Important for mechanical harvesting;
- No descriptor is included to quantify the accessions especially in terms of growth parameters
which are also important phenotypic indicators of the productivity of a genotype to some extent;
- It is necessary as a key descriptor;
- Indicated as most important descriptor for breeding in GPG2 results (managed by ICRISAT);
- Survey rating (n=24):
Not
Plant height Important Very important
important 3.63 24
(at maturity) 58.3% (14) 37.5% (9)
(6.1.5) 4.2% (1)
2. Testa texture:
- Very important to differentiate the genotypes with respect to seed surface;
- Seed roughness (smooth, rough, tuberculated);
- It is necessary as a key descriptor
- Survey rating: Not rated since not included in the survey, but suggested as additional descriptor
by 5 experts;
- Indicated as most important descriptor for diagnosis in GPG2 results (managed by ICRISAT).
3. Number of primary branches:

- Important phenotypic indicator of the productivity of a genotype, to some extent;
- Indicated as most important descriptor for breeding in GPG2 results (managed by ICRISAT);
Number of Not
Important Very important
primary important 2.96 24
branches 50.0% (12) 29.2% (7)
20.8% (5)
(6.1.4.1)
4. Leaf Type
- Suggested by ICARDA and NPBGR scientists;
- Indicated as most important descriptor for breeding in GPG2 activity (managed by ICRISAT);
- It is not so important because most of the cultivated chickpeas are multipinnate;
Not
Leaf type Important Very important
(4.1.3) important 2.83 24
66.7% (16) 16.7% (4)
16.7% (4)
ANNEX X – Chickpea descriptors list proposed to the CAG (10/2) n=24
(Blue face= added; Red face= deleted)
Plant pigmentation (4.1.1)

Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1)
Days to maturity (4.2.2)
Number of seeds per pod (4.2.3)
Flower colour (4.2.4)
Number of pods per plant (4.2.8)
Seed shape (4.3.1)
Testa texture (4.3.2)
Seed colour (4.3.3)
100-Seed weight [g] (4.3.5)
Seed size (4.3.X) – TO BE DELETED: 100-seed weight is conveniently used as
a measure of seed size and therefore the latter could be deleted.
Growth habit (6.1.1)
Number of primary branches (6.1.4.1)
Plant height (at maturity) (6.1.5)
Grain yield per plant [g] (6.2.2.2)
Protein content [%DW] (6.3.1.1)
Reaction to salt stress (7.X)
Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta rabiei) (8.1.2)
Grey mould (Botrytis cinerea) (8.1.3)
Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum) (8.1.4)
Pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera) (8.6.1)
ANNEX XI – Final key set of descriptors for chickpea genetic resources

chickpea genetic resources
This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for chickpea
(Cicer arietinum L.) genetic resources utilization. This strategic set of descriptors, together
with passport data, will become the basis for the global accession level information portal
being developed by Bioversity International with the financial support of the Global Crop
Diversity Trust (the Trust). It will facilitate access to and utilization of chickpea accessions
held in genebanks and does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data
subsequently become available.
Based on the comprehensive list ‘Descriptors for Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)’ published
by ICRISAT, ICARDA and IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1993, the list builds on
the results of the SGRP Global Public Goods Activity 4.2.1.1, particularly with regard to
those descriptors highlighted as the most important diagnostic and breeding traits. It was
subsequently compared and harmonized with a number of sources such as the UPOV
technical guidelines for Chick-Pea (2005), ‘Descriptors for CHICKPEA’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN),
‘Core Collection of Chickpea as a Means to Enhance Utilization of Genetic Resources in Crop
Improvement’ (ICRISAT-website), ‘Global Strategy for the Ex situ Conservation of Chickpea
(Cicer L.)’ (the Trust, 2008), as well as with those descriptors that were awarded funds for
further research by the Trust in 2008 Evaluation Awards Scheme (EAS). This list was further
refined during a meeting held at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR,
India) in June 2009. Several scientists from NBPGR and the Indian Agricultural Research
Institute (IARI) participated.
A worldwide distribution of experts was involved in an online survey to define a first
priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize chickpea genetic resources. This
key set was afterwards validated by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by
Dr M. Imtiaz of the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas
(ICARDA), Dr M.C. Kharkwal of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) and Dr
Hari D. Upadhyaya of the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
(ICRISAT).
Biotic and abiotic stresses included in the list were chosen because of their wide
geographic occurrence and significant economic impact at a global level.
Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptor
numbers listed in the 1993 publication. Descriptors with numbers ending in ‘letters’ are
either modified or are new descriptors that were added during the development of the list
below.
PLANT DATA
Stem/foliage pigmentation (4.1.1)

Observed before flowering. Indicate whether the pigmentation is on stems or leaves in the
descriptors Notes
1 No anthocyanin (light green)
3 No anthocyanin (green)
5 Low anthocyanin (partly light purple)
7 High anthocyanin (predominantly purple)
9 Highly purple
Number of days from sowing (or first rain sufficient for germination under rainfed
conditions) until 50% of the plants have started to flower

Number of days from sowing (or first rain sufficient for germination under rainfed
conditions) until 90% of the pods have matured and turned yellow

Average number of 10 pods each from five representative plants. At maturity

In most cases pink and blue flowers have veins of a darker shade in the flag, while the tip of
the keel is also darker. The classes are ranges rather than only the shades of the reference
colours. Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) colour codes are given in parentheses beside
descriptor states
1 Blue (violet-blue group 97B)
2 Light blue (violet-blue group 97C)
3 Dark pink (red-purple group 64D)
4 Pink (red-purple group 63D)
5 Light pink (red-purple group 69C)
6 White (white group 155D)
7 White-pink striped (white group 155D, red-purple group 63D)

Average number of pods taken from five representative plants. At maturity
Seed shape (4.3.1)

1 Angular, ram’s head (most desi cultivars)
2 Irregular rounded, owl’s head (most kabuli cultivars)
3 Pea-shaped, smooth round (intermediate types)
Seed testa texture (4.3.2)

1 Rough (pea-shaped)
2 Smooth
3 Tuberculated (sticky surface)
Seed colour (4.3.3)
Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) colour codes are given in parentheses beside descriptor
states
1 Black (black group 202A, 202B; brown group 200A)
2 Brown (greyed-orange group 177B)
3 Light brown (greyed-orange group 177C)
4 Dark brown (greyed-orange group 177A)
5 Reddish brown (greyed-orange group 166C)
6 Greyish brown (brown group 200D)
7 Salmon brown (greyed-orange group 165C)
8 Grey (greyed-green group 196A)
9 Brown beige (greyed-orange group 173D)
10 Beige (greyed-orange group 165D)
11 Yellow (greyed-orange group 164B)
12 Light yellow (greyed-orange group 164C)
13 Yellow brown (greyed-orange group 165C)
14 Orange yellow (greyed-orange group 168D)
15 Orange (greyed-orange group 168C)
16 Yellow beige (orange-white group 159C)
17 Ivory white (orange-white group 159C)
18 Green (greyed-green group 191A; grey group 201A; greyed-orange group 166B)
19 Light green (greyed-green group 193B)
20 Variegated
21 Black brown mosaic (black group 202A; greyed-orange group 177E)

Measured at 10% (air-dry) moisture content

The angle of the branches from the vertical axis at the pod filling stage
1 Prostrate (branches flat on the ground, >80°)
2 Spreading (61-80° from vertical)
3 Semi-spreading (26-60° from vertical)
4 Semi-erect (16-25° from vertical)
5 Erect (0-15° from vertical)

Average number of basal primary branches per plant taken from five representative plants
Plant canopy height [cm] (6.1.5)

Average canopy height of five representative plants. Recorded at maturity
Seed yield per plant [kg ha-1] (6.2.2.2)
Seed protein content [% DW] (6.3.1.1)

Whole seed crude protein using the dye-binding method or automatic protein analyzer
ABIOTIC STRESSES
Reaction to salinity (7.X)

BIOTIC STRESSES
Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta rabiei) (8.1.2)
Grey mould (Botrytis cinerea) (8.1.3)
Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri) (8.1.4)
Pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera) (8.6.1)
NOTES
CONTRIBUTORS
development of this strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for chickpea
genetic resources’, and in particular to Dr M. Imtiaz (ICARDA), Dr M.C. Kharkwal (IARI)
and Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya (ICRISAT) for providing valuable scientific direction.
Ms Adriana Alercia (Bioversity International) provided technical expertise and guided the
CORE ADVISORY GROUP

Muhammad Imtiaz, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA),
Syria
M.C. Kharkwal, Division of Genetics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), India
Hari D. Upadhyaya, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT),
India
C. Bharadwaj, Division of Genetics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), India
François Boulineau, Groupe d'Etude et de contrôle des Variétés et des Semences (GEVES), France
Clarice J. Coyne, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA,
ARS), USA
Paola Crinò, Agenzia nazionale per le nuove tecnologie, l’energia e lo sviluppo economico sostenibile
(ENEA), Italy
R.P. Dua, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), India
Matthias Kotter, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK), Germany
Ulrike Lohwasser, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK) Department of
Genebank, Research Group Resources Genetics and Reproduction, Germany
S.R. Pandravada, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), Regional Station,
Hyderabad, India
REVIEWERS
Australia
Tanveer Khan, Department of Agriculture and Food
Bob Redden, Department of Primary Industries Victoria
Kadambot Siddique, The University of Western Australia
Bangladesh
Mamtazul Haque, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute
Canada
Axel Diederichsen, Plant Gene Resources of Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Bunyamin Taran, Crop Development Centre, University of Saskatchewan
Cuba
Tomás Shagarodsky Scull, Instituto de Investigaciones Fundamentales en la Agricultura Tropical
(INIFAT)
India
C.L.L. Gowda, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
Jitendra Kumar, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI)
S.K. Mishra, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR)
M. Thimma Reddy, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
Mamta Sharma, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
Shivali Sharma, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
Sube Singh, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
Shyam Singh Yadav, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI)
Israel
Shahal Abbo, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Mexico
José Antonio Garzón-Tiznado, Universidad Autónoma De Sinaloa
Pakistan
Ahmad Zahoor, National Agricultural Research Centre (NARC)
Slovak Republic
Gabriela Antalíková, Plant Production Research Centre, Research Institute of Plant Production (PPRC,
RIPP) Piešťany
Spain
Rafael M. Jiménez-Díaz, University of Córdoba
The Netherlands
L.J.G. van der Maesen, Wageningen University
USA
Fred Muehlbauer, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA,
ARS)
Methodology for the
definition of a key set of
characterization and
evaluation descriptors for
coconut (Cocos nucifera L.)
Information for the definition of a MDL for coconut was drawn from the publication
‘Descriptors for Coconut’ (IPGRI, 1995) and from the ‘Minimum List of Descriptors for
Coconut’ (Bioversity, 2007). The original lists were compared to characteristics and
traits suggested in the ‘Global Conservation Strategy for Cocos nucifera’ (the Trust, 2008)
and to the outcomes of the survey carried out in 2007 among coconut experts for the
definition of the minimum set of descriptors for this crop. Important evaluation traits,
such as main pests and diseases for coconut, were added to the minimum list, including
traits that were awarded funds for further research by the Global Crop Diversity Trust
2008 Award Scheme, ‘Enhancing the Value of Crop Diversity in a World of Climate
Change’ (EAS).

Experts were drawn from crop-specific consultations for the definition of the ‘Global
Conservation Strategy for Cocos nucifera’ (the Trust, 2008) and from the original
Bioversity publication. Overall, 47 experts were identified, coming from 23 countries
and 29 different organizations (see Annex I). Out of these a Core Advisory Group
consisting of six experts was selected to assist in the definition of a key set of descriptors
for coconut utilization. Members of the Core Advisory Group were selected from
important organizations and research centres focusing on coconut conservation, such as
the Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le
développement (CIRAD) and the Philippine Coconut Authority.

The ‘Minimum List of Descriptors for Coconut’ (Bioversity, 2007) was compared to
descriptors suggested in the ‘Global Conservation Strategy for Cocos nucifera’ (the Trust,
2008) and to results from the consultation carried out in July 2008 for the definition of
essential evaluation descriptors for this crop. Since the Minimum List published in 2007
already contained characterization and evaluation traits agreed upon by internationally
recognized coconut experts, it was decided that the survey should refer to the
‘Minimum List of Descriptors for Coconut ‘(Bioversity, 2007), and seek expert advice
only on the important biotic and abiotic stresses in the context of climate change, such
as resistance to main pests and diseases (see Annex II). The survey would additionally
include comments received from Dr. M. Dollet (CIRAD) on biotic stresses and from Dr.
A. Prades (CIRAD) on descriptors included in sections 15 to 18. Consensus on this
decision was sought from Maria Luz George (Bioversity) and Chantal Hamelin
(CIRAD).
Once approved, the final text was uploaded into the SurveyMonkey web
application (see Annex III) and sent out on 24th February 2009 to the list of identified
experts. They were invited to rate the list of biotic and abiotic stresses provided, and
asked to suggest important evaluation descriptors that were found to be relevant yet
missing from the proposed Minimum List. The survey deadline was set at 20th March.
A reminder was sent out on 10th March and a second reminder was sent on 16th March
to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained.
Survey analysis
Of the 47 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 20, coming from 15
countries, recorded their comments using the online survey (see Annex IV). Results
from the survey were analyzed and descriptors ranked by rating average and
percentage of importance (see Annex V). The summary of the survey, together with a
report containing comments received by the participants (see Annex VI) was sent to the
Core Advisory Group for further consultation and to help select a reduced set of key
traits for this crop. CIRAD scientists, after analyzing the results of the survey, proposed
six key traits for biotic and abiotic stresses affecting coconut (see Annex VII). These
identified traits, together with characterization and evaluation data already defined in
the ‘Minimum List of Descriptors for Coconut’ (Bioversity, 2007), were grouped
together (see Annex VIII) to create a new document compliant with the Germplasm
Information on Genebank Accessions project terms of reference.
Once the core subset of characterization and evaluation standards for Coconut
Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA, to EURISCO
and into the Global Accession Level Information Portal (GENESYS), linking national,
regional and international genebank databases in support of the conservation and use
of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also
provided to the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER),
the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base, and the Generation Challenge Programme
(GCP) Ontology partners.
Acknowledgement
development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for coconut
genetic resources’, and in particular to the valuable scientific direction provided by
CIRAD scientists. Special recognition goes to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their
financial support. Ms Adriana Alercia provided technical expertise and guided the
Annex I – List of experts identified for participation to the survey for the definition
of a key set of evaluation descriptors for Coconut

Core Group George, Maria Luz Bioversity International Malaysia
Core Group Hamelin, Chantal CIRAD France
Core Group Baudouin, Luc CIRAD France

Core Group Harries, Hugh C. Consultant UK
Core Group Labouisse, Jean- CIRAD France
Pierre
Core Group Perera, A.A. Lalith Coconut Research Institute (CRI) Sri Lanka
(EAS)
Core Group Santos, Gerardo A. PCA Philippines
Crop Strategy Faure, M. Cocoa & Coconut Insitute of PNG Papua
Expert New
Guinea
Crop Strategy Jayasekara, C. Coconut Research Insitute Sri Lanka
Expert
Crop Strategy Rajagopal, V. India Central Plantation Crops Research India
Expert Institute (CPCRI)
Crop Strategy Rillo, E. Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA-ARC) Philippines
Expert
Crop Strategy Konan Konan, Jean Centre Nationale de Recherche Agronomique Ivory
Expert/Review Louis (CNRA) Coast
er (MDL)
Crop Strategy Kullaya, Alois Mikocheni Agricultural Reserach Institute Tanzania
Expert/Review (MARI)
er (MDL)
Crop Strategy Novarianto, Hengky Indonesian Coconut and Palmae Research Indonesia
Expert/Review Institute (ICOPRI) Mapanget
er (MDL)
Reviewer Alfiler, Ambrosio Raul Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) Albay Philippines
(MDL) Research Center, Banao Guinobatan, Albay
Reviewer Aragao, Wilson Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária Brazil
(MDL) Centro de Pesquisa Agropecuária dos
Tabuleiros Costeiros (EMBRAPA/CPATC) Av
Beira Mar, 3250, Aracaju/SE
Reviewer Carpio, Carlos Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) Albay Philippines
(MDL) Research Center, Banao Guinobatan, Albay
Elliptical Rd, Diliman, Quezon City
Reviewer Castillo Gonzalez, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Mexico
(MDL) Ramon Artemio Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP)
Reviewer Chellapa, Jayabose Central Plantation Crops Research Institute India
(MDL) (CPCRI)
Reviewer Engelmann, Florent Institut de Recherche pour le Développement France
(MDL) (IRD)
Reviewer Halafihi, Mana'ia Ministry of Agriculture and Food Forests and Tonga
(MDL) Fisheries
Reviewer Hua, Chen Coconut Research Institute Chinese Academy China
(MDL) of Tropical Agriculture Sciences (CRI-CATAS)
Reviewer Islam, Nazirul Bangladesh Agricultural Research Inst (BARI) Banglades
(MDL) h
Reviewer Jerard Bosco, B. Central Plantation Crops Research Institute India
(MDL) Augustine (CPCRI)
Reviewer Kete, Tevita N. Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) Fiji
(MDL)
Reviewer Khaleque Mian, Md Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Banglades
(MDL) Abdul Agricultural University Department of Genetics h
and Plant Breeding
Reviewer Kumar, Vijendra Wainigata Research Station Ministry of Fiji
(MDL) Agriculture, Sugar and Land
Resettlement
Reviewer Le Thuy, Nguyen Thi Oil Plant Institute of Vietnam (OPI) Vietnam
(MDL)
Reviewer Liangqiu, Chen Coconut Research Institute Chinese Academy China
Reviewer Longxiang, Tang Coconut Research Institute Chinese Academy China
Reviewer Manohar, Erlene Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) Philippines
(MDL)
Reviewer Mooleedhar, Vish Research Division Ministry of Agriculture Trinidad &
(MDL) Central Experiment Station Tobago
Reviewer Nair, Velayudhan Central Plantation Crops Research Institute India
(MDL) (CPCRI)
Reviewer Nampoothiri, M S Swaminathan Research Foundation India
(MDL) Unnikrishnan K.
Reviewer Nipah, Joseph O. Oil Palm Research Institute (OPRI) Ghana
(MDL)
Reviewer Niral, V. Central Plantation Crops Research Institute India
(MDL) (CPCRI)
Reviewer Odewale, Joshua O. Nigerian Inst for Oil Palm Research (NIFOR) Nigeria
(MDL)
Reviewer Okolo, Edmund Nigerian Institute for Oil Palm Research Nigeria
(MDL)
Reviewer Ovasuru, Tore Kokonas Industri Koporesan (KIK) Papua
(MDL) New
Guinea
Reviewer Perera, Chandrika Coconut Research Institute (CRI) Sri Lanka
(MDL)
Reviewer Rivera, Ramon Philippine Coconut Authority Zamboanga Philippines
(MDL) Research Center (PCA-ZRC)
Reviewer Sileye, Tiata Vanuatu Agriculture and Technical Center Republic
(MDL) (VARTC) of Vanuatu
Reviewer Solangi, Abdul Plant Genetic Resources Conservation and Pakistan
(MDL) Hameed Management
Reviewer Thomas, G. Central Plantation Crops Research Institute India
(MDL) (CPCRI)
Reviewer Tuivavalagi, Philip Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Samoa Samoa
(MDL) (MAF)
Reviewer Wai Fong, W. Au Department of Agriculture (DOA) Malaysia
(MDL)
Reviewer Zhiguo, Dong Coconut Research Institute Chinese Academy China
Annex II – Key traits relating to biotic and abiotic stresses affecting Coconut
proposed in the survey sent out on 24th February 2009

Bud rot (Phytophthora spp.) (8.1.2)
Stem bleeding (Ceratocystis paradoxa; Chalara paradoxa) (8.1.9)
Lixa pequena (Catacauma torrendiella) (8.1.11)
Queima das folhas (Botryodiplodia theobromae) (8.1.12)
Lixa grande (Coccostroma palmicola) (8.1.13)
Coconut foliar decay virus (CFDV) (8.2.1)
Coconut cadang-cadang viroid (CCCVd) (8.2.2)
Red ring nematode (Bursaphelenchus cocophilus) (8.4.1)
Hartrot (Phytomonas sp.) (8.5.1)
Kerala root wilt (8.6.1)
Kalimantan wilt
Lethal yellowing * (8.6.1)
Coconut hispine beetle (Brontispa longissima)
Rhinoceros beetle (Oryctes rhinoceros) (8.7.34)

Reaction to salinity (7.1)
Reaction to waterlogging (7.2)
Reaction to low temperature (7.4)
Reaction to mineral deficiencies (7.5)
Reaction to mineral toxicitie (7.6)
Reaction to pH (7.7)
*Also called in other countries as Cape Saint Paul Wilt Disease (CSPW), Kaincopé Disease, Awka
Disease, Kribi Disease, Lethal Disease
Annex III – Survey for the selection of key traits relating to biotic and abiotic
stresses affecting Coconut
WELCOME
Welcome to the survey for the selection of a key set of evaluation traits relating to biotic
and abiotic stresses affecting Cocos nucifera.
This survey should take no longer than 15 minutes. Your participation in it is highly
appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 20 March 2009.
Information for the definition of this key set was drawn from the publication “Descriptors for
Coconut” (IPGRI, 1995), and builds on work carried out by Bioversity in 2007, in
collaboration with CIRAD and other international organizations, for the definition of a key
set of morphometric descriptors for categorizing accessions and leading to the effective
utilization of Coconut germplasm.
Today your knowledge and experience are being sought to select an additional set of
descriptors related to important biotic and abiotic stresses for this crop. A number of these
have been identified by the Global Crop Diversity Trust as requiring further research into
their importance.
The survey consists of two parts:

PART I: Lists important biotic stresses for Cocos nucifera. You are kindly asked to rate these
stresses in order of global impact. You may also indicate any essential descriptor that you
believe is missing from the list and that can contribute to the effective use of Coconut
germplasm.
PART II: Lists important abiotic stresses for Cocos nucifera. You are kindly asked to rate
these stresses in order of importance at the global level. You may also indicate any essential
descriptor that you believe is missing from the list and that can contribute to the effective
use of Coconut germplasm.
Thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in this exercise.
P le a s e a llow u s to a ck n ow le dge y ou r con tr ibu tion by com ple tin g y ou r fu ll con ta ct de ta ils
be low :
Nam e:
P os ition :
I n s titu te :
Addre s s :
City / T ow n :
Cou ntr y :
E m a il:
P hone:
Fax:
P A R T I : S u s c e ptib ility to bio tic s tr e s s e s
Please rate the importance of the following traits relating to susceptibility to BIOTIC
stresses, bearing in mind current breeding programmes and future production and use of
Coconut germplasm at the global level.
* N u m be r s in pa r e n th e s e s on th e r igh t- h a n d s ide a r e th e c or r e s pon din g de s cr iptor s

n u m be r s a s pu blis h e d in th e I P G R I pu blica tion ‘D e s cr iptor s for C oc on u t’( 1 9 9 5 ) .

BUD ROT (Phytophthora spp.) (8.1.2) j/ j/ j/
KALIMANTAN WILT j/ j/ j/
STEM BLEEDING (Ceratocystis paradoxa; Chalara paradoxa) (8.1.9) j/ j/ j/
LIXA PEQUENA (Catacauma torrendiella) (8.1.11) j/ j/ j/
QUEIMA DAS FOLHAS (Botryodiplodia theobromae) (8.1.12) j/ j/ j/
LIXA GRANDE (Coccostroma palmicola) (8.1.13) j/ j/ j/
COCONUT FOLIAR DECAY VIRUS (CFDV) (8.2.1) j/ j/ j/
COCONUT CADANG-CADANG VIROID (CCCVd) (8.2.2) j/ j/ j/
RED RING NEMATODE (Bursaphelenchus cocophilus) (8.4.1) j/ j/ j/
HARTROT (Phytomonas sp.) (8.5.1) j/ j/ j/
KERALA ROOT WILT (8.6.1) j/ j/ j/
LETHAL YELLOWING* (8.6.1) j/ j/ j/
COCONUT HISPINE BEETLE (Brontispa longissima Gestro) (8.7.29) j/ j/ j/
RHINOCEROS BEETLE (Oryctes rhinoceros) (8.7.34) j/ j/ j/
*Also known, in other countries, as Cape Saint Paul Wilt Disease (CSPW), Kaincopé Disease, Awka Disease, Kribi
Disease, Lethal Disease.
I f y ou c on s ide r th a t a n e s s e n tia l tr a it is m is s in g fr om th is lis t, or , if a n y of th e de s cr iptor s

lis te d is n ot cle a r ly u s e fu l to pr om ote u tiliz a tion , ple a s e in dica te it h e r e a lon g w ith a
s u bs ta n tia te d j u s tifica tion .
P A R T I I : S u s c e ptibility to a bio tic s tr e s s e s
Please rate the importance of the following traits relating to susceptibility to ABIOTIC
stresses, bearing in mind current breeding programmes and future production and use of
Coconut germplasm at the global level.
* N u m be r s in pa r e n th e s e s on th e r igh t- h a n d s ide a r e th e c or r e s pon din g de s cr iptor s

n u m be r s a s pu blis h e d in th e I P G R I pu blica tion ‘D e s cr iptor s for C oc on u t’( 1 9 9 5 ) .

SALINITY (7.1) j/ j/ j/
WATERLOGGING (7.2) j/ j/ j/
DROUGHT (7.3) j/ j/ j/
LOW TEMPERATURE (7.4) j/ j/ j/
MINERAL DEFICIENCIES (7.5) j/ j/ j/
MINERAL TOXICITIES (7.6) j/ j/ j/
PH (7.7) j/ j/ j/
/
I f y ou c on s ide r th a t a n e s s e n tia l tr a it is m is s in g fr om th is lis t, or , if a n y of th e de s cr iptor s
lis te d is n ot cle a r ly u s e fu l to pr om ote u tiliz a tion , ple a s e in dica te it h e r e a lon g w ith a
s u bs ta n tia te d j u s tifica tion .
NOTE: Please remember, this list is the starting point and will grow over time, as required.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION.

Annex IV – Respondents to the survey

Crop Leader George, Maria Luz Bioversity International Malaysia
C.
Core Group Baudouin, Luc CIRAD France
(MDL)
Core Group Harries, Hugh C. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew UK
(MDL)
Core Group Labouisse, Jean- CIRAD France
(MDL) Pierre
Core Group Santos Alora, Philippines
(MDL) Gerardo PCA
Crop Strategy Novarianto, Hengky Indonesian Coconut and Palmae Indonesia
Expert/Reviewer Research Institute
(MDL)
Reviewer (MDL) Castillo Gonzalez, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Mexico
Ramon Forestales Agricolas y Pecuarias
(INIFAP)
Reviewer (MDL) Chellapa, Jayabose Central Plantation Crops Research India
Institute
Reviewer (MDL) Halafihi, Mana'ia Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Tonga
Forests and Fisheries
Reviewer (MDL) Jerard, Augustine Central Plantation Crops Research India
B. Institute (CPCRI)
Reviewer (MDL) Longxiang, Tang Coconut Research Institute of China
Chinese Academy of Tropical
Agriculture Sciences (CRICATAS)
Reviewer (MDL) Nazirul, Islam Horticulture Research Centrer Bangladesh
Reviewer (MDL) Niral, V. C.P.C.R.I India
Reviewer (MDL) Odewale, Joshua Nigerian Inst for Oil Palm Research Nigeria
Olusesan (NIFOR)
Reviewer (MDL) Perera, S. A. C. N. Coconut Research Institute of Sri Sri Lanka
Lanka
Reviewer (MDL) Rivera, Limosinero Philippine Coconut Authority- Philippines
Ramon Zamboanga Research Center
Reviewer (MDL) Sileye, Tiata VARTC Vanuatu
Reviewer (MDL) Solangi, Abdul Coastal Agricultural Research Pakistan
Hameed station, PARC
Reviewer (MDL) Tevita, Kete N. Secretariat of the Pacific Community Fiji
Reviewer (MDL) Zhiguo, Dong Coconut Research Institute China

Annex V – Descriptors listed in the Coconut survey ranked by rating average and
by percentage of importance
%
Rating Importance
Average (Very
important)
Susceptibility to biotic stresses Susceptibility to biotic stresses
LETHAL YELLOWING* (8.6.1) 4.11 LETHAL YELLOWING* (8.6.1) 72.2
COCONUT FOLIAR DECAY BUD ROT (Phytophthora spp.)
3.65 47.1
VIRUS (CFDV) (8.2.1) (8.1.2)
BUD ROT (Phytophthora spp.) RHINOCEROS BEETLE (Oryctes
3.59 42.1
(8.1.2) rhinoceros) (8.7.34)
RHINOCEROS BEETLE (Oryctes COCONUT FOLIAR DECAY VIRUS
3.37 41.2
rhinoceros) (8.7.34) (CFDV) (8.2.1)
COCONUT CADANG-CADANG COCONUT CADANG-CADANG
2.81 37.5
VIROID (CCCVd) (8.2.2) VIROID (CCCVd) (8.2.2)
COCONUT HISPINE BEETLE
(Brontispa longissima Gestro) 2.60 KERALA ROOT WILT (8.6.1) 33.3
(8.7.29)
RED RING NEMATODE
KERALA ROOT WILT (8.6.1) 2.47 (Bursaphelenchus cocophilus) 31.3
(8.4.1)
STEM BLEEDING (Ceratocystis COCONUT HISPINE BEETLE
paradoxa; Chalara paradoxa) 2.44 (Brontispa longissima Gestro) 25.0
(8.1.9) (8.7.29)
RED RING NEMATODE STEM BLEEDING (Ceratocystis
(Bursaphelenchus cocophilus) 2.31 paradoxa; Chalara paradoxa) 18.8
(8.4.1) (8.1.9)
HARTROT (Phytomonas sp.)
2.13 KALIMANTAN WILT 12.5
(8.5.1)
HARTROT (Phytomonas sp.)
KALIMANTAN WILT 1.94 12.5
(8.5.1)
LIXA PEQUENA (Catacauma LIXA PEQUENA (Catacauma
1.21 7.1
torrendiella) (8.1.11) torrendiella) (8.1.11)
QUEIMA DAS FOLHAS QUEIMA DAS FOLHAS
(Botryodiplodia theobromae) 1.13 (Botryodiplodia theobromae) 6.7
(8.1.12) (8.1.12)
LIXA GRANDE (Coccostroma LIXA GRANDE (Coccostroma
1.07 0.0
palmicola) (8.1.13) palmicola) (8.1.13)
Susceptibility to abiotic stresses Susceptibility to abiotic stresses
DROUGHT (7.3) 4.50 DROUGHT (7.3) 75.0
WATERLOGGING (7.2) 3.28 MINERAL DEFICIENCIES (7.5) 31.6
MINERAL DEFICIENCIES (7.5) 3.00 WATERLOGGING (7.2) 22.2
PH (7.7) 2.82 LOW TEMPERATURE (7.4) 21.1
LOW TEMPERATURE (7.4) 2.79 MINERAL TOXICITIES (7.6) 18.8
MINERAL TOXICITIES (7.6) 2.63 PH (7.7) 17.6
SALINITY (7.1) 2.00 SALINITY (7.1) 16.7
Annex VI – Additional descriptors proposed in the Coconut survey results
Coconut Descriptor Name of expert

Chellapa, Labouisse, Harries, Halafih Rivera, Jerard Ramon Odewale, Baudou Nazirul
J. J-P H.C. i, M. Ramon L. Bosco, B. Castillo, Joshua in, Luc Islam,
Augustine Gonzalez O. Md.
Red weevil of coconut (Opisina
X
arenosella)
Palm weevil (Rhyncophorus spp.) X X
Stick insects (Graeffea crouani) X
Fruit mite (Eriopyhes/Aceria)
For a substantiated justification, see
Hewitt, W.B. & L. Chiarappa, L.
(eds) (1977) Plant Health and
X X
Quarantine Problems Arising in
International Genetic Resources
Transfer; pp. 125-136. CBC Press
Cleveland, USA.
We have Socorro wilt in the X
Philippines although very localized.
Pre mature nut fall, this usually
happens in Nigeria from six months
of fruit development to the eleventh X
month. It can reduce fruit production
to abou10%
Monocot weeds usually traps over
75% of nutrient that ought to be
available to the coconut and can X
reduce production by more than
50%.
Fruit bug (Amblypelta &
X
Pseudotheraptus)
Red palm mite (Raoelia Indica) X
Coconut mite (E. guerreronis)
cause 80% surface area are
damaged, accompanied by great X
distortion and reduction in nut size,
Yield reduces up to 80%
Resistance to strong winds
(Cyclone). Windstorm tolerance -
see Marty, G., le Guen, V. &
X X X X
Fournial, T.(1986) Cyclone effects
on coconut plantations in Vanuatu.
Oleagineux 41 (2) 268-269.
Annex VII – Coconut Key set of evaluation descriptors validated by CIRAD
scientists after SurveyMonkey analysis on 16th April 2009
Biotic
Lethal yellowing (8.6.1)
Abiotic
Drought (7.3)
Resistance to strong winds (7.X)
Annex VIII - Key access and utilization descriptors for Coconut genetic
resources and Contributors
PLANT DATA
Stem morphology
Measurements should be done at six and ten years after planting
Stem girth at 20 cm above soil level [cm] (4.5.1)
Stem girth at 1.5 m height [cm] (4.5.2)
Stem height [cm] (4.5.4)

Measured from ground to oldest green leaf
Date [YYYYMMDD] (4.5.4.1)
Height [cm] (4.5.4.2)
Height between 11 leaf scars (ten internodes) [cm] (4.5.9)

Measure starting from 1.5 m from ground surface
Inflorescence traits
Pollination behaviour (1.14)

1 Predominantly self-pollinated (generally dwarf varieties)
2 Intermediate
3 Predominantly out-crossing (generally tall varieties)
Number of female flowers (4.8.13)
Number of spikelets (4.8.X)
Fruit
Fruit colour of immature fruit (4.9.3)

1 Yellow
2 Yellow-red (Pale orange)
3 Red-yellow (Orange)
4 Red
5 Red-green (Copper)
6 Green-red (Bronze)
7 Green
8 Green-yellow (Pale-green)
9 Yellow-green (Greenish yellow)
10 Red-yellow-green (Brown)
Fruit polar section shape (4.9.10)
1 Round
2 Egg-shaped
3 Pear-shaped
4 Elliptic
Nut (fruit without husk) appearance and shape (4.9.15)

1 Pointed
2 Ovoid
3 Almost round
4 Oblate
Fruit component analysis (FCA)
Fruit weight [g] (4.10.1)

Whole fruit
Husk weight [g] (4.10.Xa)
Nut weight [g] (4.10.2)

Fruit without husk
Shell weight [g] (4.10.4)

Nut without water and without endosperm
Water weight [g] (4.10.Xb)
Endosperm weight [g] (4.10.Xc)
Endosperm thickness [mm] (4.11.1)

Measured on the equator of the nut
Yield
Date observations began [YYYYMMDD] (4.12.1)
Date observations ended [YYYYMMDD] (4.12.2)
Number of bunches per palm per year (4.12.4)
Number of fruits harvested per palm per year (4.12.5)
Copra weight per nut [g] (4.12.7)

Calculated as: copra (g) = dry endosperm (g) * 100/94
Dry meat oil content [%] (4.13.1)

Based on weight of oil extracted/total dry weight of the sample × 100
(Soxhlet Method to be used)
Abiotic stresses
Drought (7.3)
Strong winds (7.X)

Coded on a 1-9 resistance scale, as follows:
1 Very low
3 Low
5 Intermediate
7 High
9 Very high
Biotic stresses
Lethal yellowing (8.6.1)
Notes
Any additional information may be specified here, including possible deviations
from the Stantech Manual methods.
CONTRIBUTORS
Core Advisory Group

Luc Baudouin, Centre de Cooperation Internationale en Recherche Agronomique
pour le Developpement (CIRAD), France
Maria Luz George, Bioversity International, Malaysia
Chantal Hamelin, CIRAD, France
Hugh C. Harries, UK
Jean-Pierre Labouisse, CIRAD, France
Gerardo Santos Alora, PCA, Philippines
Reviewers
Bangladesh
Islam Nazirul, Horticulture Research Centre
China
Tang Longxiang, Coconut Research Institute
Dong Zhiguo, Coconut Research Institute
Fiji
Kete Tevita, Secretariat of the Pacific Community
France
Michel Dollet, CIRAD
Alexia Prades, CIRAD
India
Augustine Jerard Bosco, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute
Jayabose Chellapa, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute
V. Niral, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute
Indonesia
Hengky Novarianto, Indonesian Coconut and Palm Research Institute
Mexico
Ramon Artemio Castillo Gonzalez, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales,
Agricolas y Pecuarias
Nigeria
Joshua Odewale, Nigerian Institute for Oil Palm Research
Pakistan
Abdul Hameed Solangi, Coastal Agricultural Research Station
Philippines
Ramon Rivera Limosinero, Philippine Coconut Authority-Zamboanga Research
Centre
Sri Lanka
Chandrika Perera, Coconut Research Institute
Tonga
Mana’ia Halafihi, Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Forests and Fisheries
Vanuatu
Tiata Sileye, Agriculture and Technical Centrer
cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.)
Walp.]
Information for the definition of a Minimum Descriptor List for cowpea was based on
the publication ‘Descriptors for Cowpea’ published by IBPGR (now Bioversity
International) in 1983. The comprehensive descriptors list included in this publication
was compared to characteristics and traits mentioned in a number of other sources such
as Descriptors for VIGNA (USDA, ARS, GRIN), Descriptors for Characterization and
Evaluation of Cowpea (National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences, NIAS, Genebank
of Japan) as well as those drawn from the article ‘Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]
core collection defined by geographical, agronomical and botanical descriptors’
(V. Mahalakshmi, Q. Ng, M. Lawson and R. Ortiz, Plant Genetic Resources:
Characterization and Utilization, Vol. 5, Issue 3, pp. 113-119, NIAB, 2007). An Excel table
was prepared comparing descriptors mentioned in each list. The table was then refined
during a crop-specific meeting held at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources
(NBPGR) in India in June 2009, that involved several scientists from NBPGR and the
Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI). The consultation resulted in the definition
of a preliminary key set of descriptors for cowpea (see Annex I).

As the original publication was too old to be used for this purpose, the List of Experts
was prepared taking into account different sources such as the European Cooperative
Programme for Plant Genetic Resources (ECPGR) Vigna Database website maintained
by the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), the World Vegetable Center
in Taiwan (AVRDC), the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), FAO
WIEWS Directory of Germplasm Holdings, SINGER and the Network for the Genetic
Improvement of Cowpea for Africa (NGICA), as well as the Vigna Crop Germplasm
committee from the USDA ARS-GRIN. The relevant participants in the Conference on
Biotechnology, Breeding and Seed Systems for African Crops, organized by the
Rockefeller Foundation and the Instituto de Investigação Agrária de Moçambique
(IIAM), held in March 2007, were also added to the list that was then refined during the
crop-specific meeting held at NBPGR in June 2009.
Overall, 63 experts, from 28 countries and 37 different organizations, were listed

(see Annex II). Out of these, Dr Dominique Dumet (IITA) and Dr S.K. Mishra (NBPGR)
were identified as Crop Leaders and were asked to review the list and add/delete
names as they saw fit or pertinent. They were also asked to select experts to join the
Core Advisory Group, for the definition of an initial key set of descriptors for cowpea.
During the last phase of development of the key list, Dr Dumet communicated that she
felt it more appropriate to be replaced by Christian Fatokun from IITA as Crop Leader
for this crop.

Due to the tight timeframe of the project and Dr Dumet only being available for the last
phase of the definition of the key set, the initial list was further refined during the crop-
specific consultation meeting held at NBPGR, India in June 2009, involving several
scientists from NBPGR and the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI). Dr Mishra
accepted to be the Crop Leader and other experts at the NBPGR crop-specific
consultation participated in the discussions. They were asked to refine the list of experts
already identified and to go through the initial list drawn from the comparison table.
A worldwide distribution of experts was involved in an online survey to define a

first priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize cowpea genetic
resources. This key set was afterwards validated by a Core Advisory Group (see
‘Contributors’) led by Dr S.K. Mishra of NBPGR and Dr Christian Fatokun of IITA.
The survey on Vigna spp., proposing the Minimum List of Descriptors (see Annex
III) as approved at NBPGR, was uploaded into the SurveyMonkey application on the
Internet (see Annex IV) and an email invitation was sent out to the list of selected
experts on 2 July 2009 providing them with the link to access the Survey. They were
invited to rate the importance of the proposed characterization and evaluation
descriptors for this crop and were also encouraged to mention any additional trait that
was found to be relevant yet missing from the proposed Minimum List, along with a
substantiated justification for its inclusion. The survey deadline was set at 30 July 2009.
A first reminder was sent out on 17 July 2009 and a second on 29 July 2009 to ensure that
the greatest possible feedback was obtained.

Of the 63 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 23 from 13 countries
and 17 organizations recorded their comments using the online survey (see Annex V).
Results from the survey were analyzed and descriptors were ranked by rating average
and percentage of importance (see Annex VI). An email consultation was carried out
among members of the CAG asking them to validate the descriptors resulting from the
survey as ‘most important’ (see Annex VII). Descriptors having a wide consensus
amongst the experts were highlighted in blue bold face. These summary results of the
survey, together with a report containing comments received by the participants (see
Annex VIII), were sent to the Core Advisory Group inviting experts to select descriptors
that should be included in the minimum list by indicating them with an ‘X’ in the
relevant column. A first draft of the key set for cowpea, including relevant descriptor
states and methods, was produced and submitted to the Crop Leaders and to the CAG
for final validation (see Annex IX). Their advice was also requested for the inclusion of
‘Days to pod maturity’ and the definition of the descriptor states of the ‘Seed coat
colour’ descriptor.
Comments received were included and harmonized, wherever possible, with the
final version and were shared for final validation, through email, with the experts who
contributed to the selection of the final key set of characterization and evaluation
descriptors for cowpea. The deadline for validation was set for 12 February 2010. An
important issue was raised by one of the members of the CAG who strongly suggested
the addition of the descriptor ‘Testa texture’ to the final list because the rating obtained
from the survey was the same as ‘Eye colour’. He also requested to rename the
descriptor ‘Plant growth habit’ with ‘Plant architecture’. After a consultation with CAG
members regarding this issue, all the inputs received were collected and shared with the
Crop Leaders (Dr Fatoukun and Dr Mishra) for their final decision.
Definition of a final key set of descriptors for cowpea

The final document approved by the Crop Leaders and CAG, including all the
descriptor states and contributors (see Annex X), was tagged for layout, edited by a
freelance editor and sent to the Bioversity Publications Unit for layout and on-line
publication processes. Furthermore, the publication was shared with the ECPGR
Secretariat; the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and the SGRP Crop
Genebank Knowledge Base partners. Additionally, data were converted into Excel files
for uploading into the GRIN-Global genebank data-management system being
developed by USDA and into the global accession level information portal (GENESYS),
linking national, regional and international genebank databases in support of the
conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The
Excel files were also provided to the System-wide Information Network for Genetic
Resources (SINGER) and to EURISCO.
Acknowledgement
development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for cowpea
Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leaders, Dr Christian Fatokun from IITA,
Nigeria and Dr S.K. Mishra from NBPGR, India, for providing valuable scientific
direction. Ms Adriana Alercia provided technical expertise and guided the entire
production process.
Annex I – Summary comparison table weighing up important descriptors for cowpea drawn
from different sources¹
IBPGR
Descr. Descriptors for Vigna spp. IITA, NBPGR NBPGR
1983 USDA (2) NIAS (4)
No. (cowpea) 2006 (3) Long (5) Min_09 (5)
(1)
4.1.1 Growth habit * * * * * *
4.1.2 Growth pattern * *
4.1.3 Twining tendency * * *
4.1.4 Plant pigmentation * * * *
4.1.5 Terminal leaflet shape * * * (difficult)
4.1.6 Plant hairiness * * *
4.2.1 Days to 50% flowering * * * * *
4.2.2 Raceme position * * *
4.2.3 Days to first mature pods * * * Delete
4.2.4 Pod attachment to peduncle * * *
4.2.5 Immature pod pigmentation * * * * *
4.2.6 Pod curvature of mature pods * *
4.2.7 Pod length [cm] * * * but [mm] * * * (cm is ok)
4.2.8 Number of locules per pod * * * *
4.3.1 Seed shape * * *
4.3.2 Testa texture * * * * *
4.3.3 Eye pattern * * * *
4.3.4 Eye colour * * * * * *
* 100 but
4.3.5 100 Seed weight [g] * * 25% * *
in [g]
6.1.1 Hypocotyl length [mm] * *
6.1.2 Leaf colour * *
6.1.3 Leaf marking * *
6.1.4 Terminal leaflet length [mm] * * *
6.1.5 Terminal leaflet width [mm] * * *
6.1.6 Leaf texture * *
6.1.7 Stipule length [mm] * *
6.1.8 Stipule width [mm] * *
6.1.9 Number of main branches * * * * *
6.1.10 Number of nodes on main stem * * * *
6.1.11 Plant early vigour * * *
6.1.12 Leaf-stem ratio * *
6.1.13 Percentage dry weight * Not required
6.1.14 Green matter yield per plant [g] * *
6.1.15 Capacity for re-growth * *
6.1.16 In vitro dry matter digestibility * *
Delete (see
6.2.1 Flowering pigment pattern * *
flower colour)
6.2.2 Flower colour * * * * *
6.2.3 Flower standard length [mm] * *
6.2.4 Calyx lobe length [mm] * *
6.2.5 Duration of flowering * Delete
6.2.6 Number of racemes per plant * *
*(important
6.2.7 Peduncle length [mm] * for *
harvesting)
6.2.8 Number of pods per peduncle * * * * *
6.2.9 Number of pods per plant * *
6.2.10 Pod width [cm] * * but [mm] * Delete
Difficult to
6.2.11 Pod wall thickness *
measure
6.2.12 Pod colour * * (dry) * *
6.3.1 Seed length [mm] * * (but size) * *
6.3.2 Seed width [mm] * * (but size) * (but size) *
6.3.3 Seed thickness [mm] * * *
6.3.4 Seed crowding * * *
6.3.5 Splitting of testa * *
6.3.6 Attachment of testa * *
6.3.7 Percentage seed protein * * *
7.1 Low temperature * Not required
7.2 High temperature * *
7.3 Drought * * *
7.4 High soil moisture * *
8.1.1 Coried bugs * *
Striped bean weevil (Alcidodes
8.1.2 * * *
leucogrammus)
8.1.3 Cowpea aphid (Aphis craccivora) * * * *
8.1.4 Pea aphid (Aphis fabae) * *
Cowpea storage weevil
8.1.5 * *
(Callosobruchus chinensis)
Cowpea curculio
8.1.6 * *
(Chalcodermus aeneus)
8.1.7 Beetle (Chrysolagria spp.) * *
8.1.8 Pod borer (Cydia ptychora) * *
8.1.9 Leaf hoppers (Empoasca Kerri) * *
Epilachna beetles
8.1.10 * *
(Epilachna spp.)
Lima bean pod borer (Etiella
8.1.11 * *
zinckenella)
African bollworm
8.1.12 * *
(Heliothis armigera)
8.1.13 Beetle (Lagria villosa) * *
Legume pod borer
8.1.14 * *
(Maruca testulalis)
Adzuki pod borer
8.1.15 * *
(Matsumuraeses phaseoli)
Striped foliage beetle
8.1.16 * *
(Medythia quaterna)
Flower thrips
8.1.17 * *
(Megalurothrips sjostedti)
8.1.18 Blister beetle (Mylabris spp.) * * *
8.1.19 Green stink bug (Nezara viridula) * *
Foliage beetles (Ootheca
8.1.20 * *
bennigseni Ootheca mutabilis)
8.1.21 Pod weevil (Piezotrachelus varius) * *
Foliage thrips
8.1.22 * *
(Sericothrips occipitalis)
Egyptian leaf worm
8.1.23 * *
(Spodoptera littoalis)
Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta
8.2.1 * *
phaseolorum Sacc.)
Cercospora leaf spot (Cercospora
8.2.2 * * * *
cruenta Sacc.)
Lamb’s tail pod tot
8.2.3 * *
(Choanephora spp.)
Brown blotch (Colletotrichum
8.2.4 truncatum (Schw.) Andrus & * *
Moore)
Anthracnose (Collectrichum,
8.2.5 * *
Lindemuthianum)
Target leaf spot
8.2.6 * *
(Corynespora cassiicola)
Scab
8.2.7 * *
(Elsinoë phaseoli Jenkins)
Powdery mildew
8.2.8 * * *
(Erysiphe polygoni DC)
Fusarium wilt
8.2.9 * * *
(Fusarium oxysporum Shlect)
Fusarium collar and stem rot
8.2.10 (Fusarium solani (Mart) Appel & * *
Wollenw)
Pink rust
8.2.11 * *
(Phakosora pachyrizi Syd.)
Phytophtora stem rot
8.2.12 (Phytophthora cactorum (Leb. & * *
Cohn) Schroet)
Leaf smut
8.2.13 * *
(Protomycopsis phaseoli)
Pythium stem rot (Pythium
8.2.14 * *
aphanidermatum (Edson) Fritz.)
Seedling mortality (Pythium
8.2.15 * *
aphanidermatum (Edson) Fritz.)
Seedling mortality
8.2.16 * *
(Rhizoctonia solani Kuehn)
Web blight
8.2.17 * *
(Rhizoctonia solani Kuehn)
Sclerotium stem rot
8.2.18 * *
(Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc.)
Septoria leaf spot (Septonia
8.2.19 * *
vignae, Septoraia vignicola)
8.2.20 False rust (Synchytrium dolichi) * *
Brown rust (Uromyces
8.2.21 * *
appendiculatus)
Veticillium wilt (Verticillium albo-
8.2.22 * *
atrum Reinke & Berth)
Bacterial light and canker
8.3.1 * *
(Xanthomonas vignicola Burkh.)
8.4.1 Cowpea aphid-borne mosaic * * *
8.4.2 Cowpea banding mosaic * *
Cowpea chloritic mottle cowpea
8.4.3 * * *
golden mosaic
8.4.4 Cowpea golden mosaic * *
8.4.5 Cowpea mild mottle * *
8.4.6 Cowpea mottle * *
8.4.7 Cowpea ringspot * *
8.4.8 Cowpea (severe) mosaic * * *
8.4.9 Cowpea (yellow) mosaic * * * *
8.4.10 Cucumber mosaic * * *
8.4.11 Southern bean mosaic * *
8.4.12 Sunn-hemp mosaic * *
Plant height at maturity
New * * *
(Average of 5 plants) [cm]
New Pod position * * *
New Seed coat colour * * * *
New Cotyledon colour * * *
Hillum ring colour * Not required
New Colour of mottles on seed coat * *
¹ (1) ‘Descriptors for Cowpea’ (IBPGR, now Bioversity International, in 1983);

(2) Descriptors for VIGNA (USDA, ARS, GRIN);
(3) ’Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] core collection defined by geographical, agronomical and botanical descriptors’ (V. Mahalakshmi,
Q. Ng, M. Lawson and R. Ortiz Plant Genetic Resources: Characterization and Utilization, Vol. 5, Issue 3, pp. 113-119, NIAB, 2007);
(4) Descriptors for Characterization and Evaluation of Cowpea (National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences, NIAS, Genebank of Japan);
(5) Long and Minimum list of descriptors identified by participants in the crop-specific meeting held at the NBPGR in June 2009.
SOURCE ROLE NAME ORGANIZATION COUNTRY
SINGER survey Crop Leader Dumet, Dominique IITA Nigeria
NBPGR 09 Crop Leader Mishra, S.K. NBPGR India
NGICA website CAG Boukar, Ousmane IITA Nigeria
Replied instead of Damasceno e

Lopes (Germplasm CAG Silva, Kaesel EMBRAPA Brazil
collection) Jackson
NGICA website CAG Fatokun, Christian IITA Nigeria
Chair Vigna Crop

Germplasm CAG Fery, Richard USDA/ARS USA
committee

Replied instead of
CAG Lohwasser, Ulrike Genetics and Crop Plant Germany
Kotter (WIEWS)
Research (IPK)
Germplasm
CAG Morris, Brad USDA/ARS USA
collection
UPOV P. Button CAG Niwa, Yuji UPOV Japan
UPOV P. Button CAG Yuasa, Mitsuo UPOV Japan
Participant
Reviewer Arinaitwe, Abel Makerere University Uganda
conference 2007
Instituto de Investigaciones
WIEWS Director General Arnaldo, Adolfo Fundamentales en Cuba
Agricultura Tropical (INIFAT)
Cowpea
NGICA website Baoua, Ibrahim INRAN Niger
entomologist
NBPGR 2009 Reviewer Bharadwaj, C IARI, Genetics India
IITA website Boahen, Stephen IITA Mozambique
NGICA website Reviewer Bressan, Ray A. Purdue University USA
Russian
ECPGR Reviewer Burlayaeva, Marina VIR Vavilov Institute
Federation
Campos, Francisco
NGICA website Reviewer Federal University of Cerará Brazil
A.P.
ECPGR Reviewer De la Cuadra, Celia INIA Madrid Spain
Misión Biológica de Galicia -

Also in bean survey Reviewer De Ron, Antonio M. Spain
CSIC - Phaselieu
Germplasm
Reviewer Debouck, Daniel G. CIAT Colombia
collection
Australian Tropical Crops &
WIEWS Reviewer Dillon, Sally Forages Genetic Resources Australia
Centre
NBPGR 2009 Reviewer Dua, Ram Prakash NBPGR India
University of California
NGICA website Reviewer Ehlers, Jeff USA
Riverside
Coordinator,
IITA website Legumes for Graner, Andreas IPK Germany
Livelihoods Project
USDA website Reviewer Harrison, Howard USDA/ARS USA
WIEWS Reviewer Jenks, Matthew Purdue University USA
Research
USDA website Kainz, Wolfgang AGES Austria
Agronomist
NBPGR 2009 Reviewer Kharkwal, M.C. IARI, Genetics India
NBPGR 2009 Reviewer Kumar, J. IARI, Genetics India
NGICA website Reviewer Kyeong-ho, Chung AVRDC Taiwan
Australian Tropical Crops

ECPGR Reviewer Lawrence, Peter &Forage Genetic Res. Australia
Centre
AVRDC contacts Legume researcher Mabutha, Obert Ministry of Agriculture Botswana
Germplasm
Reviewer Mahajan, R.K. NBPGR India
collection
Germplasm
Reviewer Mamadou Touré, IER, Cinzana Station, Segou Mali
collection
Israel Gene Bank for
Agricultural Crops,
ECPGR Reviewer Manoah, Myra Israel
Organisation, Volacni Center
NGICA website Reviewer Moar, William Auburn University USA
NGICA website Plant breeder Mohammad F. Ishiyaku Ahmadu Bello University Nigeria
ICRISAT website Reviewer Monyo, Emmanuel ICRISAT Malawi
ICRISAT website Breeder Moutari, Adamou INRAN Niamey
NGICA website Reviewer Murdock, Larry Purdue University USA
Jefferson Agriculture
Jefferson website Director of programs Myers Rob USA
Institute
NGICA website Reviewer Ndiaga Cisse ISRA/CNRA Senegal
Suggested by
Director General Negri, Valeria University of Perugia Italy
ECPGR Coordinator
NGICA website Reviewer Nwalozie, Marcel CORAF Senegal
Suggested by
Reviewer Obreza, Matija IITA Nigeria
ECPGR Coordinator
NGICA website Reviewer Pandravada, S.R. NBPGR India
Genebank data
SINGER survey Rai, Mathura IIVR, Varanasi India
manager
NBPGR 2009 Reviewer Raje, R.S. IARI, Genetics India
NBPGR 2009 Reviewer Rana, J.C. NBPGR India
University of California
NBPGR website Reviewer Roberts, Philip A. USA
Riverside
NGICA website Reviewer Singh, Bir. B. Retired Nigeria
NGICA website Reviewer Sithole-Niang, Idah University of Zimbabwe Zimbabwe
AVRDC contacts Cowpea Breeder Srinivasan Ramasamy AVRDC Taiwan
NGICA Network Reviewer Stavropoulos, Nikolaos NAGREF Greece
AVRDC contacts Entomologist Tamo, Manuele IITA Benin
AATF
ECPGR Reviewer Terry, Eugene Kenya
c/o ILRI
Legume
IITA website Thies, Judy USDA/ARS USA
entomologist
ICRISAT Cowpea breeder Upadhyaya, Hari D ICRISAT India
NGICA website Plant pathologist Van Vugt, Daniel IITA Malawi
Research Plant
USDA website Vanderborght, Thierry National Botanic Garden Belgium
Pathologist
ICRISAT Reviewer Widders, Irvin E. Bean/cowpea CRSP USA
IITA website Legume Agronomist Zong Xuxiao ICGR-CAAS China

Annex III – Set of descriptors for cowpea as included in the survey (June 2009)
obtained during the crop consultation meeting held at NBPGR

2. Plant pigmentation (4.1.4)
3. Plant hairiness (4.1.6)
5. Immature pod pigmentation (4.2.5)
6. Pod length [cm] (4.2.7)
7. Testa texture (4.3.2)
8. Eye colour (4.3.4)
9. 100 Seed weight [g] (4.3.5)
10. Number of main branches (6.1.9)
12. Peduncle length [mm] (6.2.7)
13. Number of pods per peduncle (6.2.8)
14. Pod colour (6.2.12)
15. Seed coat colour
16. Cotyledon colour
17. Percentage seed protein (6.3.7)
18. Drought (7.3)
19. Striped bean weevil (Alcidodes leucogrammus) (8.1.2)
20. Blister beetle (Mylabris spp.) (8.1.18)
21. Cercospora leaf spot (Cercospora cruenta) (8.2.2)
22. Powdery mildew (Erysiphe polygoni) (8.2.8)
23. Cowpea (yellow) mosaic (8.4.9)
Annex IV – Survey to choose a key set of descriptors for cowpea utilization
WELCOME
cowpea to support an international information system to enhance the utilization of germplasm held in
genebanks.
Your knowledge and experience are being sought to define an initial key set’ of descriptors that identify
traits important to crop production and facilitate the use of accessions by researchers.
Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 30 July 2009
accessions for evaluation and use. For characterization, the aim is a key set of maximally differentiating
traits that provide the most impact in discriminating between accessions. For evaluation, the aim is to
focus on a few important traits for production, such as those related to abiotic or biotic stresses of

* Please allow us to acknowledge your contribution by completing your full

contact details below:
Name:
Position:
Organization:
Country:
Email Address:
Based on your experience, please select descriptors that provide the most impact in discriminating
between accessions. It also allows you to indicate if any essential descriptor that can contribute to its
use is missing from the minimum list presented.
*Numbers in parentheses on the right - hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in the IBPGR
publication 'Descriptors for Cowpea' (1983).

Growth habit (4.1.1) n/ n/ n/
Plant pigmentation (4.1.4) n/ n/ n/
Plant hairiness (4.1.6) n/ n/ n/
Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) n/ n/ n/
Immature pod pigmentation (4.2.5) n/ n/ n/
Pod length [cm] (4.2.7) n/ n/ n/
Testa texture (4.3.2) n/ n/ n/
Eye colour (4.3.4) n/ n/ n/
100 Seed weight [g] (4.3.5) n/ n/ n/
These descriptors include characters such as biotic stresses. They are the most interesting traits in crop
improvement. Please consider the following factors relating to the trait when making your final decision:
(i) Global impact, (ii) Initial strategic set, (iii) Importance for germplasm utilization, (iv) Data availability,
(v) True economic damage and (vi) Wide geographical occurrence.
Number of main branches (6.1.9) n/ n/ n/

Flower colour (6.2.2) n/ n/ n/
Peduncle length [mm] (6.2.7) n/ n/ n/
Number of pods per peduncle (6.2.8) n/ n/ n/
Pod colour (6.2.12) n/ n/ n/
Seed coat colour n/ n/ n/
Cotyledon colour n/ n/ n/
Percentage seed protein (6.3.7) n/ n/ n/
Drought (7.3) n/ n/ n/
Striped bean weevil ( Alcidodes leucogrammus) (8.1.2) n/ n/ n/
Blister beetle ( Mylabris spp.) (8.1.18) n/ n/ n/
Cercospora leaf spot ( Cercospora cruenta ) (8.2.2) n/ n/ n/
Powdery mildew ( Erysiphe polygoni) (8.2.8) n/ n/ n/
Cowpea (yellow) mosaic (8.4.9) n/ n/ n/
production is missing from this list, or, if any of the descriptors listed is not
clearly useful to promote utilization, please indicate it here along with a

Annex V – List of respondents to the survey and contributing through email
ROLE NAME POSITION ORGANIZATION Country

Crop
Leader International Institute of Tropical
Fatokun, C.A. Plant Breeder Nigeria
[New Agriculture (IITA)
(ex-CAG)]
Crop National Bureau of Plant Genetic
Mishra, S.K. India
Leader Resources (NBPGR)
Boukar, Cowpea International Institute of Tropical
CAG (New) Nigeria
Ousmane breeder Agriculture (IITA)
Damasceno e Center of Agriculture Research of
CAG Silva, Kaesel Researcher MidNorth - Empresa Brasileira de Brazil
Jackson Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA)
Supervisory
United States Department of Agriculture,
Fery, Richard Research
CAG Agricultural Research Service (USDA- USA
L. Geneticist/Res
ARS), US Vegetable Laboratory
earch Leader
Lohwasser, Genebank Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and
CAG Germany
Ulrike Taxonomist Crop Plant Research
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
CAG Niwa, Yuji Examiner Japan
Fisheries
Reviewer Adeleke, Remi Nigeria
Agriculture (IITA)
Senior Division of Genetics, Indian Agricultural
Reviewer Bharadwaj, C. Scientist Research Institute, Indian Council of India
(Breeding) Agricultural Research (IARI-ICAR)
Vigna
Burlyaeva, N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Russian
Reviewer Collections
Marina Industry (VIR) Federation
Curator
Institut Sénégalais de Recherches
Reviewer Cisse, Ndiaga Plant Breeder Senegal
Agricoles (ISRA)
Research
Misión Biológica de Galicia, Consejo
De Ron, Professor
Reviewer Superior de Investigaciones Científicas Spain
Antonio M. Plant Genetic
(MBG-CSIC)
Resources
Research Queensland Primary Industries and
Reviewer Dillon, Sally Australia
Scientist Fisheries
Head of the
Dumet, Genetic International Institute of Tropical
Reviewer Nigeria
Dominique Resources Agriculture (IITA)
Center
Research
Reviewer Ehlers, Jeffrey University of California, Riverside USA
Specialist
Ishiyaku,
Head Cowpea Institute for Agricultural Research,
Reviewer Mohammad Nigeria
Breeding Unit Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria
Faguji
Kainz, Austrian Agency for Health and Food
Reviewer Curator Austria
Wolfgang Safety (AGES)
Director of
Reviewer Myers, Robert Jefferson Institute USA
Programs
Applied Biology Department, University of
Reviewer Negri, Valeria Professor Italy
Perugia
Pandravada, Senior
Reviewer Resources (NBPGR), Regional Station, India
S.R. Scientist
Hyderabd
United States Department of Agriculture,
Pederson, Research Agricultural Research Service (USDA-
Reviewer USA
Gary Leader ARS), Plant Genetic Resources
Conservation Unit
Principal
Reviewer Rana, J.C. Resources (NBPGR), Regional Station, India
Scientist
Phagli, Shimla
Asian Vegetable Research and
Reviewer Srinivasan, R. Entomologist Development Center (AVRDC-The World Taiwan
Vegetable Center)
Annex VI – Survey summary results ranked by rating and percentage of importance
%
%
Rating Importance
Descriptor Descriptor Importance
Average (Very
(important)
important)
Pod length [cm]
Pod length [cm] (4.2.7) 4.43 28.6% (6) 71.4% (15)
(4.2.7)
100 Seed weight [g]
Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) 4.33 23.8% (5) 71.4% (15)
(4.3.5)
100 Seed weight [g] (4.3.5) 4.29 33.3% (7) 66.7% (14)
(4.2.1)
Growth habit (4.1.1) 4.10 Growth habit (4.1.1) 33.3% (7) 61.9% (13)
Testa texture (4.3.2) 3.14 Eye colour (4.3.4) 33.3% (7) 42.9% (9)
Eye colour (4.3.4) 3.14 Testa texture (4.3.2) 57.1% (12) 28.6% (6)
Immature pod pigmentation
2.90 Plant hairiness (4.1.6) 23.8% (5) 28.6% (6)
(4.2.5)
Immature pod
Plant pigmentation (4.1.4) 2.20 57.1% (12) 23.8% (5)
pigmentation (4.2.5)
Plant pigmentation
Plant hairiness (4.1.6) 2.14 40.0% (8) 20.0% (4)
(4.1.4)
Seed coat colour 4.35 Seed coat colour 20.0% (4) 75.0% (15)
Number of pods per peduncle Number of pods per
4.00 38.1% (8) 57.1% (12)
(6.2.8) peduncle (6.2.8)
Percentage seed protein
3.75 Drought (7.3) 42.9% (9) 47.6% (10)
(6.3.7)
Drought (7.3) 3.67 Pod colour (6.2.12) 38.1% (8) 47.6% (10)
Percentage seed
Pod colour (6.2.12) 3.52 50.0% (10) 45.0% (9)
protein (6.3.7)
Cowpea (yellow) mosaic
3.35 Flower colour (6.2.2) 35.0% (7) 45.0% (9)
(8.4.9)
Cowpea (yellow)
Flower colour (6.2.2) 3.30 45.0% (9) 40.0% (8)
mosaic (8.4.9)
Cercospora leaf spot
Cercospora leaf spot
2.95 (Cercospora cruenta) 63.2% (12) 21.1% (4)
(Cercospora cruenta) (8.2.2)
(8.2.2)
Striped bean weevil
Powdery mildew (Erysiphe
2.84 (Alcidodes 31.6% (6) 21.1% (4)
polygoni) (8.2.8)
leucogrammus) (8.1.2)
Number of main branches Peduncle length [mm]
2.76 42.9% (9) 19.0% (4)
(6.1.9) (6.2.7)
Powdery mildew
Peduncle length [mm] (6.2.7) 2.24 (Erysiphe polygoni) 68.4% (13) 15.8% (3)
(8.2.8)
Blister beetle (Mylabris spp.) Blister beetle (Mylabris
2.21 47.4% (9) 15.8% (3)
(8.1.18) spp.) (8.1.18)
2.00 Cotyledon colour 35.0% (7) 15.0% (3)
Number of main
Cotyledon colour 1.80 76.2% (16) 9.5% (2)
branches (6.1.9)
Annex VII – List of descriptors proposed in the survey ranked by rating average
sent to the Crop Leaders for validation
Your Rating
Descriptor
selection Average
Characterization
Pod length [cm] (4.2.7) 4.43
Days to 50% flowering (4.2.1) 4.33
100 Seed weight [g] (4.3.5) 4.29
Growth habit (4.1.1) 4.10
Testa texture (4.3.2) 3.14
Eye colour (4.3.4) 3.14
Immature pod pigmentation (4.2.5) 2.90
Plant pigmentation (4.1.4) 2.20
Plant hairiness (4.1.6) 2.14
Evaluation
Seed coat colour 4.35
Number of pods per peduncle
4.00
(6.2.8)
Percentage seed protein (6.3.7) 3.75
Drought (7.3) 3.67
Pod colour (6.2.12) 3.52
Cowpea (yellow) mosaic (8.4.9) 3.35
Flower colour (6.2.2) 3.30
Cercospora leaf spot (Cercospora
2.95
cruenta) (8.2.2)
Powdery mildew (Erysiphe polygoni)
2.84
(8.2.8)
Number of main branches (6.1.9) 2.76
Peduncle length [mm] (6.2.7) 2.24
Blister beetle (Mylabris spp.) (8.1.18) 2.21
2.00
Cotyledon colour 1.80
Annex VIII – Additional descriptors included in the open-ended section of the survey
Cowpea descriptor Name of expert

Srinivas Faguji
Burlyaev an Ehlers Ishiyaku
Kaesel Kai
a (AVRDC (Univ. (Inst.
Jackson nz Dumet
(Vavilov -The Rana of Agric. Cisse Myers
N. times D. (AG (IITA, Boukar (IITA,
Additional traits selected
Inst. World
(EMBRA
(NBPGR, Californ
ES,
Res.,
Nigeria Nigeria)
(ISRA, (Jefferson
Russian Vegetab India) ia, Ahmadu Senegal) Institute, USA)
PA, Aus )
Federati le Riversid Bello
Brazil) tria)
on) Center, e, USA) Univ.,
Taiwan) Nigeria)
Immature pod -presence of
membrane (absent, medium, 1 X
profuse)
Immature pod - presence of
fibre (absent, medium, 1 X
abundant)
Sugar content of immature
pods
1 X
Stem - length 1 X
Seed shape (4.3.1) 1 X
X (For grain
seeds/pod is
important and
for vegetable
Average Seeds per pod 2 X
pod length
and fibre
content
matters)
Peduncle position-above
canopy or within. (This clearly
1 X
and rapidly distinguish
accessions)
Eye shape 1 X
X Days to 95%
maturity to
help identify
Early, medium or late maturing 2 X the accessions
as early,
medium or late
Leaf Shape 1 X
X
Harvestability
- how easy is
Pod dehiscence (after maturity) it to harvest
2 X
(weak, medium, strong) the variety?
Related to
that is lodging
resistance.
Pod curvature (4.2.6) 1 X
Internodes length 1 X
Hypocotyl length (6.1.1) 1 X
Epicotyl length 1 X
Cooking ability (very poor,
medium, very good)
1 X
The seed quality has also been
considered, mainly for the
1 X
minerals contents like zinc and
iron.
For fodder types foliage
1 X
quantity is important
Cowpea storage weevil
(Callosobruchus spp.) (8.1.5)
2 X X
Pod borer (Maruca vitrata)
1 X
(8.1.8)
Bean aphid (Aphis craccivora)
4 X X X X
(8.1.3)
Cowpea aphid-borne mosaic
3 X X X
(8.4.1)
Flower thrips (Megalurothrips
usitatus) (8.1.17)
3 X X X
Cucumber mosaic (8.4.10) 3 X X X
Brown blotch (Colletotricum
truncatum) (8.2.4)
1 X
Thanatephorus cucumeris 1 X
Resistance to root-knot
1 X
nematodes
Bacterial blight 3 X X X
Striga 1 X
Alectra 2 X X
Scab (Sphaceloma sp) 1 X
COMMENTS
We consider flower colour, pod
colour, seed coat colour as
characterization desciptors that X
also are very important as
evaluation descriptors
Annex IX – Key access and utilization descriptors for cowpea sent to CAG for
validation
PLANT DATA

Evaluated in the 6th week after sowing
1 Acute erect (branches form acute angles with main stem)
2 Erect (branching angle less acute than above)
3 Semi-erect (branches perpendicular to main stem, but do not touch the ground)
4 Intermediate (lower branches touch the ground)
5 Semi-prostrate (main stem reaches 20 or more centimetres)
6 Prostrate (plants flat on ground; branches spread several metres)
7 Climbing

Number of days from sowing until 50% of the plants have begun to flower. Recorded for plants
with the same sowing date at the same location each year
Pod length [cm] (4.2.7)

Average length of the 10 longest mature pods from 10 randomly selected plants
Days to pod maturity (4.2.X)

Number of days from sowing to when 95% of the plants have mature pods
Eye colour (4.3.4)

0 Eye absent (white, cream)
1 Brown splash or gray
2 Tan brown
3 Red
4 Green
5 Blue to black
6 Blue to black spots or mottle
7 Speckled (even distribution of fine speckling)
8 Mottled (dark brown pigment typically absent around hilum)
9 Mottled and speckled (Victor)
99 Other (specify in the descriptor Notes)

Weight of 100 seeds with 12% moisture content
Seed coat colour (4.3.X)

1 White
2 Violet
3 Mauve-pink
Number of pods per peduncle (6.2.8)

Recorded under total insect control. Average number of 10 randomly selected peduncles
Pod colour (6.2.12)
Of mature pod
1 Pale tan or straw
2 Dark tan
3 Dark brown
4 Black or dark purple
Seed protein [%] (6.3.7)
ABIOTIC STRESSES
Drought (7.3)
BIOTIC STRESSES
Cowpea (yellow) mosaic virus (CPMV) (8.4.9)
NOTES
Annex X – Final key set of descriptors for cowpea genetic resources obtained
after validation

cowpea genetic resources
This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for cowpea
(Vigna unguiculata) genetic resources utilization. This strategic set of descriptors, together with
passport data, will become the basis for the global accession level information portal being
developed by Bioversity International with the financial support of the Global Crop Diversity
Trust (the Trust). It will facilitate access to and utilization of cowpea accessions held in
genebanks and does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently
become available.
Based on the comprehensive list ‘Descriptors for Cowpea’ published by IBPGR (now
Bioversity International) in 1983, the list was subsequently compared with a number of sources
such as ‘Descriptors for VIGNA’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN), ‘Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.]
core collection defined by geographical, agronomical and botanical descriptors’ 1 (IITA, 2006),
and ‘Descriptors for Characterization and Evaluation of Cowpea’ (National Institute of
Agrobiological Sciences, Genebank of Japan). The initial list was further refined during a crop-
specific consultation meeting held at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR,
India). It involved several scientists from NBPGR and the Indian Agricultural Research Institute
(IARI).
priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize cowpea genetic resources. This key
set was afterwards validated by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr S.K.
Mishra of NBPGR and Dr Christian Fatokun of IITA.
occurrence and significant economic impact at a global level.
Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptor numbers
listed in the 1983 publication. Descriptors with numbers ending in ‘letters’ are either modified or
are new descriptors that were added during the development of the list below.
PLANT DATA

Evaluated in the 6th week after sowing
1 Acute erect (branches form acute angles with main stem)
2 Erect (branching angle less acute than above)
3 Semi-erect (branches perpendicular to main stem, but do not touch the ground)
4 Intermediate (lower branches touch the ground)
5 Semi-prostrate (main stem reaches 20 or more centimetres)
6 Prostrate (plants flat on ground; branches spread several metres)
7 Climbing
1
V. Mahalakshmi, Q. Ng, M. Lawson and R. Ortiz, Plant Genetic Resources: Characterization and Utilization, Vol. 5, Issue 3, pp.113-
119, NIAB, 2007
Number of days from sowing until 50% of the plants have begun to flower. Recorded for plants
with the same sowing date at the same location each year

Average length of the 10 longest mature pods from 10 randomly selected plants
Days to pod maturity (4.2.X)

Number of days from sowing to when 95% of the plants have mature pods
Testa texture (4.3.2)

1 Smooth
3 Smooth to rough
5 Rough (fine reticulation)
7 Rough to wrinkled
9 Wrinkled (coarse folds on the testa)
Eye colour (4.3.4)

0 Eye absent (white, cream)
1 Brown splash or gray
2 Tan brown
3 Red
4 Green
5 Blue to black
6 Blue to black spots or mottle
7 Speckled (even distribution of fine speckling)
8 Mottled (dark brown pigment typically absent around hilum)
9 Mottled and speckled

Weight of 100 seeds with 12% moisture content
Seed coat colour (4.3.X)

Recorded at maturity
1 White
2 Cream
3 Brown
4 Red
5 Purple
6 Black
99 Other (i.e. ‘yellow’ or ‘blue’, specify in the descriptor Notes)

1 White
2 Violet
3 Mauve-pink

Recorded under total insect control. Average number of 10 randomly selected peduncles
Pod colour (6.2.12)
Of mature pod
1 Pale tan or straw
2 Dark tan
3 Dark brown
4 Black or dark purple
Seed protein content [%] (6.3.7)
ABIOTIC STRESSES
Drought (7.3)
BIOTIC STRESSES
Cowpea (yellow) mosaic virus (CPMV) (8.4.9)
NOTES
CONTRIBUTORS
development of this strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for cowpea genetic
resources’, and in particular to Dr Christian Fatokun and Dr S.K. Mishra for providing valuable
scientific direction. Adriana Alercia provided technical expertise and guided the entire
production process.
CORE ADVISORY GROUP

S.K. Mishra, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), India
Christian Fatokun, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Nigeria
Ousmane Boukar, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Nigeria
Kaesel Jackson Damasceno e Silva, Center of Agriculture Research of MidNorth, Empresa Brasileira de
Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA), Brazil
Richard L. Fery, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS),
US Vegetable Laboratory, USA
Ulrike Lohwasser, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research, Germany
Yuji Niwa, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan
REVIEWERS
Australia
Sally Dillon, Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries
Austria
India
C. Bharadwaj, Division of Genetics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Indian Council of Agricultural
Research (IARI-ICAR)
S.R. Pandravada, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), Regional Station, Hyderabd
J.C. Rana, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), Regional Station, Phagli, Shimla
Italy
Valeria Negri, Applied Biology Department, University of Perugia
Nigeria
Remi Adeleke, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA)
Dominique Dumet, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA)
Mohammad Faguji Ishiyaku, Institute for Agricultural Research, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria
Russian Federation
Marina Burlyaeva, N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry (VIR)
Senegal
Ndiaga Cisse, Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles (ISRA)
Spain
Antonio M. De Ron, Misión Biológica de Galicia, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (MBG-
CSIC)
Taiwan
R. Srinivasan, Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center (AVRDC-The World Vegetable
Center)
USA
Jeffrey Ehlers, University of California, Riverside
Robert Myers, Jefferson Institute
Gary Pederson, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS),
Plant Genetic Resources Conservation Unit
faba bean (Vicia faba)
Information for the definition of a MDL for faba bean was drawn from ‘Faba Bean
Descriptors’ (IBPGR/ICARDA, 1985). Descriptors were discussed with Dr. Ken Street
from ICARDA, who agreed to be Crop Leader for this exercise. The comprehensive
descriptors list included in this publication was compared with essential descriptors
listed in the ‘Descriptors for Faba bean’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN); UPOV technical
guidelines for Broad Bean; Minimal descriptors of Faba Bean from NBPGR, and the
traits in need of further research identified in the Draft ‘Global Strategy for the Ex Situ
Conservation of Faba Bean’ (the Trust, March, 2009), since the final version of this
document was not available at that time but its draft was at an advanced stage (see
Annex I).

Being the original publication too old to be used for this purpose, collaboration was
sought from scientists included in the European Database for Vicia faba (ECPGR),
particularly from the ECPGR Grain Legumes Working Group, and from participants to
the Global Collaborative Ex-situ Conservation Strategies for Food Legumes held in
Aleppo, Syria, from 19th to 22nd February 2007. The expert list was further compiled by
querying the FAO WIEWS Directory of germplasm collections for Vicia. Overall, 80
experts were identified, coming from 50 countries and 67 different organizations.
Among them, a Crop Leader (Ken Street) was selected who, consequently, chose a Core
Advisory Group consisting of eight experts to assist in the definition of a Minimum set
of descriptors for this crop (see Annex II).

A draft survey on Faba Bean was prepared listing the descriptors as approved by
consultations with the Crop Leader (see Annex III). Once approved, the final version of
the survey was uploaded into the SurveyMonkey application on the internet. On 24th
March 2009 an email invitation to the survey was sent out to the list of identified
experts, who were invited to rate the importance of the proposed characterization and
evaluation descriptors (41 descriptors) for this crop (see Annex IV).
Experts were also encouraged to mention any additional trait that was found to
be relevant yet missing from the proposed minimum list, along with a substantiated
justification for its inclusion. The survey deadline was set at 20th April 2009. A first
reminder was sent out on 7th April and a second one on 16th April to ensure that the

Of the 80 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise 21, coming from 16
countries and 17 organizations, recorded their comments using the SurveyMonkey
consultation (see Annex V). Results from the survey were analysed and descriptors
ranked by rating average and percentage of importance (see Annex VI). The summary
results of the survey conducted with the SurveyMonkey tool, together with a report
containing comments received by the participants (see Annex VII) was sent to the Crop
Leader for his validation. His revised list was subsequently shared with the Core
Advisory Group on 25th May 2009 to settle the definition of the key set of descriptors for
this crop (see Annex VIII). The Core Advisory Group agreed on the final minimum set
(see Annex IX).These identified set of characterization and evaluation traits were
grouped together to create a new document compliant with the project terms of
reference.
Once the core subset of characterization and evaluation standards for Faba Bean
was finalised, descriptor states were integrated into the list (see Annex X). The final
document, including all contributors (see Annex XI), was proofread and sent to the
Publication Unit for layout and on-line publication processes. The final publication was
also shared with ECPGR partners and was uploaded in the SGRP Crop Genebank
Knowledge Base. Furthermore, data were converted into Excel files for uploading into
the GRIN-Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA and
into GENESYS, linking national, regional and international genebank databases in
(PGRFA). The Excel files were also provided to the System-wide Information Network
for Genetic Resources (SINGER) and to EURISCO.
Acknowledgement
development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for faba bean
Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leader, Dr ken Street (ICARDA) for providing
valuable scientific direction.
Annex I: - Summary comparison table for important descriptors for Faba Bean drawn from a number of sources1
Descr. Descriptors for Vicia faba (Broad bean or KEN STREET STRATEGY
IBPGR 1985 USDA UPOV NBPGR
no. Faba bean) (selection) (the Trust)
4.1.1 Growth habit * * * * *
4.1.6 Plant height [cm] * * * * *
4.3.3 100-seed weight [g] * * * * *
4.1.4 Basal node branching * * * *
4.2.3 Flower ground colour * * * *
4.1.5 Higher node branching * * *
4.3.5 Hilum colour * * * *
4.2.4 Intensity of streaks * *
6.1.3 Leaflet number * * *
6.1.2 Leaflet shape * * *
4.1.3 Leaflet size * * *
4.3.1 Ovules per pod * * *
Plant width *
4.2.9 Pod colour * * * *
4.2.6 Pod angle * * *
6.2.4 Pod distribution * *
4.2.10 Pod length [cm] * * [mm] * * *
4.2.7 Pod shape * * * *
6.2.5 Pod shatter * * *
4.2.8 Pod surface * *
Pod width [mm] * * *

6.2.3 Pods per node * * *
4.3.4 Seed ground colour (Testa colour) * * * * *
4.3.6 Seed shape * * * *
Seed size *
4.3.2 Seeds per pod * * * *
Stem branching *
4.1.7 Stem colour * *
4.1.2 Stem pigmentation * * *
4.2.5 Wing petal colour * * * * *
4.2.1 Days to flower * * * * * *
4.2.2 Pod maturity * * * *

2
6.3.6 Seed yield [g/m ] * * [kg/ha]
6.1.1 Stipule spot pigmentation *
6.1.4 Stem thickness (cm) * * *
6.1.5 Resistance to lodging * *
6.2.1 Number of flowers per inflorescence * * * *
6.2.2 Height of lowest pod-bearing node at harvest [cm] *
6.2.6 Male fertility *
6.2.7 Autofertility *
6.3.1 Testa pattern *
6.3.2 Protein content [%] * *
6.3.3 Sulphur amino acids (per 16 g N) * *
6.3.4 Vicine and convicine content * *

6.3.5 Cooking time * *
7.1.1 Winter kill *
7.1.2 Low temperature damage *
7.2 High temperature * * *
7.3 Drought *
7.4 High soil moisture *
7.5 Salinity (Tolerance) * *
8.1.1 Aphids (Aphis spp. ) * *
8.1.2 Leaf weevils (Sitona spp. ) * *
8.1.3 Leaf miners (Liriomyza spp ) * * *
8.1.4 Stem borers (Lixus spp ) * *
8.1.5 Seed weevils (Bruchus spp. ) * *
8.1.6 Stem nematodes (Ditylenchus diosaci ) * *
8.1.7 Broomrape (Orobanche crenata ) 8.1.7 * * *
8.2.1 Chocolate spot (Bortrytis fabae) 8.2.1 * * *
8.2.2. Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta fabae ) 8.2.2 * * *
8.2.3 Leaf spot (Alternaria spp. ) 8.2.3 *
8.2.4 Rust ( Uromyces fabae) *
8.2.5 Powder mildew (Erysiphe polygoni ) *
8.2.6 Root rot complex (Rhizoctonia spp ) * *
8.2.7 Root rot complex (Fusarium spp ) *
8.2.8 Stem rot (Sclerotinia ) * *
8.2.9 Other (specify in the NOTES descriptor, 11 ) *

8.4.1 Alfalfa mosaic virus (AMV) *
8.4.2 Bean leaf roll virus (BLRV) *
8.4.3 Bean yellow mosaic virus (BYMV) * *
8.4.4 Pea enation mosaic virus (PEMV) *
8.4.5 Broad bean true mosaic virus (BBTMV=EAMV) * *
8.4.6 Broad bean stain virus (BBSV) *
Independent vascular system *
Tolerance to chilly conditions *
Tolerance to frost (ex low temp) * *

Plant: number of stems (including tillers more than half
*
the length of the main stem
Leaflet: length (basal pair of leaflet at secondary node) *
Leaflet width (basal pair of leaflet at secondary node) *

Leaflet: position of maximum width (basal pair of
*
leaflet at secondary node
Wing: melanin spot *
Wing: colour of melanin spot *
Standard: anthocyanin colouration *
1
‘Faba Bean Descriptors’ (IBPGR/ICARDA, 1985); ‘Descriptors for Faba bean’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN); UPOV thecnical guidelines for Broad Bean;
‘Minimal descriptors of Faba Bean’ from NBPGR; traits in need of further research identified in the Draft ‘Global Strategy for the Ex Situ
Conservation of Faba Bean’ [Global Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust), March, 2009] and descriptors suggested by Ken Street
Annex II – List of experts identified for participation to the survey for the
definition of a minimum set of descriptors for Faba Bean

Crop Leader
Street, Ken ICARDA Syria
(SRG)
ECPGR/Crop
Ambrose, Mike John Innes Centre UK
Strategy
Core Group Duc, Gerard INRA (ECPGR) France
Core Group Maalouf, Fouad ICARDA Syria
Core Group Malhotra, Rajendra ICARDA Syria
Core Group Mathur, Prem Bioversity India
Core Group Robertson, Larry USDA USA
Core Group Sarker, Ashutosh ICARDA Syria
Crop Australian Temperate Field Crops

Redden, Bob Collection
Australia
Strategy/WIEWS
Institute for Plant Genetic Resources
ECPGR Angelova, Siyka Bulgaria
"K. Malkov" (IPGR)
Atikyilmaz, Nüket
Aegean Agricultural Research Institute
ECPGR responded to survey Turkey
(AARI)
(Lerzan Aykas)
Babayeva, Sevda
Genetic Resources Institute of Azerbaijan
ECPGR compiled survey (Almas Azerbaijan
National Academy of Sciences
Asadova)
Faculté universitaire des Sciences

ECPGR Baudoin, Jean Pierre Belgium
agronomiques de Gembloux
ECPGR Bogusas, Romas Lithuanian Institute of Agriculture Lithuania
Centre of Agricultural Technology

ECPGR Canko, Agim Albania
Transfer Fushe-Kruje
ECPGR Carboni, Andrea CRA - CIN Italy
Institutul de Cercetare Dezvoltare

ECPGR Cenusa, Maria Pentru Legumicultura si Floricultura Romania
Vidra
Macedonia
ECPGR Dimov, Zoran University Ss. Cyril and Methodius
(FYR)
Potato Centre - Department of
ECPGR Doherty, Gerry Ireland
Agriculture and Food
Estação Nacional de Melhoramento
ECPGR Duarte, Isabel Maria Portugal
de Plantas
ECPGR/Crop
Holly, László Research Centre for Agrobotany Hungary
Strategy
ECPGR Hovinen, Simo Boreal Plant Breeding Ltd. Finland
Czech
ECPGR/WIEWS Hýbl, Miroslav AGRITEC Ltd. Sumperk
Republic
NAGREF - Fodder Crops and Pasture
ECPGR Iliadis, Costantinos Greece
Institute
Centre for Genetic Resources, the The
ECPGR/WIEWS Kik, Chris
Netherlands (CGN) Netherlands
ECPGR Korakhashvili, Avtandil Agrarian State University of Georgia Georgia
Kristian Thorup- Faculty of Agricultural Sciences,

ECPGR Denmark
Kristensen University of Aarhus
AGES - Austrian Agency for Health
ECPGR Mechtler, Klemens Austria
and Food Safety
Crop and Seed Science Department -
ECPGR Meglic, Vladimir Slovenia
Agricultural Institute of Slovenia
Research Institute of Plant Production
ECPGR Mendel, Lubomir Slovakia
- Slovak Agricultural Research Centre
ECPGR Pallides, Andreas Agricultural Research Institute Cyprus
ECPGR Ruge-Wehling, Brigitte Julius Kühn-Institute (JKI) Germany
Scientific Centre of Agriculture and

ECPGR Semergyan, Suren Armenia
Plant Protection
ECPGR Sudaric, Aleksandra Agricultural Institute Osijek Croatia
ECPGR Swiecicki, Wojciech Institute of Plant Genetics Poland

Institute of Field and Vegetable Crops
ECPGR Vasic, Mirjana Serbia
Novi Sad
ECPGR/Crop Vishnyakova, Margarita N.I. Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry
Russia
Strategy A. (VIR)
Indian Agricultural Research Institute
ECPGR Yadav, Shyam Singh India
(IARI)
Crop Strategy Abdelguerfi, A. Institut National Agronomique (INA) Algeria
Crop Institute of Biodiversity Conservation and
Abdi, Adugna Research (IBCR)
Ethiopia
Strategy/WIEWS
Crop Strategy Acuña, Hernan INIA CARI Chile
Crop Strategy Buchwaldt, Lone Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canada
de los Mozos Pascual, Banco de Germoplasma, Centro de
Crop Strategy Spain
Marcelino Investigacion Agraria de Albaladejito
Crop Strategy Della, Athena Agricultural Research Insitute Cyprus
Crop Strategy Diederichsen, Axel Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canada

El-Hawary, Mohamed
Crop Strategy National Gene Bank of Egypt Egypt
Ibrahim
Crop Strategy Furman, Bonnie J. ARS/USDA USA
Crop
Galasso, Incoronata CNR Italy
Strategy/WIEWS
Crop Strategy Gowda, C.L.L. ICRISAT India
Crop Strategy Horváth, Lajos Institute for Agrobotany Hungary
GCSAR - Ministry of Agric & Agrarian

Crop Strategy Jamal, Majd Reform
Syria
Plant Genetic Resources Unit Crop Improv

Crop Strategy Moal, Sharif - Ministry of Agriculture
Afghanistan
Crop Strategy Monreal, Álvaro Ramos Consejeria de Agricultura Ganadería Spain

Dept Plant Breeding and Genetics I.
Crop Strategy Pandey, R.L. Gandhi Agric. Univ
India
Crop Strategy Ryabchoun, Victor K. National Centre for PGR of Ukraine Ukraine
Crop Strategy Sharma, S.K. ICAR, NBPGR India
Crop Strategy Srivastava, Surendra Nepal Agricultural Research Nepal
Crop Strategy Suso, María José Instituto de Agricultura Sostenible (CSIC) Spain
Crop Aegean Agricultural Research Institute
Tan, Ayfer (AARI)
Turkey
Strategy/WIEWS
Crop Strategy Valkoun, Jan ICARDA Syria
Crop Strategy Van Ginkel, Maarten Horsham
Australia
Departamento de Recursos Genéticos e
Crop Strategy Veloso, Maria Manuela Melhoramento, Estação Agronómica Portugal
Nacional
Phaseolus Germplasm Collection -
Crop Strategy Welsh, Molly USA
USDA/ARS
Institute of Crop Germplasm Resources,
Crop Strategy Xuxiao, Zong CAAS
China
(Graner, A. he is the
Director) forwared
Genebank, Leibniz Institute of Plant
WIEWS message to Helmut Genetics and Crop Plant Research
Germany
Knuepffer and Matthias
Kotter
WIEWS Jean Hanson ILRI Ethiopia
Plant Breeding and Acclimatization
WIEWS Podyma, W. Institute
Poland
School of Biological Sciences, University

WIEWS Shepherd, D. of Southampton
UK

WIEWS Stoyanova, S. "K.Malkov"
Bulgaria
Australian Medicago Genetic Resources

WIEWS Centre
Australia
Centro de Investigaciones
WIEWS Fitoecogenéticas de Pairumani
Bolivia
Embrapa Recursos Genéticos e

WIEWS Biotecnologia
Brazil
Departamento Nacional de Recursos

WIEWS Fitogenéticos y Biotecnología
Ecuador
National Genebank of Kenya, Crop Plant

WIEWS Genetic Resources Centre (KARI)
Kenya
WIEWS Estación Experimental Agraria Illpa Peru
WIEWS Suceava Genebank Romania
WIEWS Plant Breeding Station Slovakia
WIEWS Nordic Genetic Resource Center Sweden
Department of Crop sciences,

New Reviewer Wolfgang Link Germany
University of Göttingen
New Reviewer
Curator
Sergey Bulyntsev Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry Russia
collection Faba
bean
Annex III – Faba bean characterization and evaluation descriptors revised by Ken
Street and proposed in the survey sent out on 24th March 2009
CHARACTERIZATION
• Growth habit (4.1.1)
• Leaflet size (4.1.3)
• Branching from basal nodes (4.1.4)
• Branching from higher nodes (4.1.5)
• Plant height [cm] (4.1.6)
• Days to flowering (4.2.1)
• Days to maturity (4.2.2)
• Flower ground colour (4.2.3)
• Wing petal colour (4.2.5)
• Pod shape (4.2.7)
• Pod colour at maturity (4.2.9)
• Pod length [cm] (4.2.10)
• Number of seeds per pod (4.3.2)
• 100 seed weight [g] (4.3.3)
• Ground colour of testa (seed coat) (4.3.4)
• Hilum colour (4.3.5)
• Seed shape (4.3.6)
EVALUATION
• Stem thickness [cm] (6.1.4)
• Resistance to lodging (6.1.5)
• Number of flowers per inflorescence (6.2.1)
• Number of pods per node (6.2.3)
• Pod shattering (6.2.5)
• Sulphur amino acids (per 16 g N) (6.3.3)
• Cooking time (6.3.5)
• Independent vascular system
• Tolerance to high temperature (7.2)
(Indicate if observed at the juvenile, vegetative, flowering, pod set or grain
filling phase)
• Tolerance to chilly conditions
(Observed at the flowering stage)
• Tolerance to frost
(Observed at the flowering stage)
• Salinity (7.5)
• Aphids (Aphis spp.) (8.1.1)
• Leaf weevils (Sitona spp.) (8.1.2)
• Leaf miners (Liriomyza spp.) (8.1.3)
• Stem borers (Lixus spp.) (8.1.4)
• Seed weevils (Bruchus spp.) (8.1.5)
• Stem nematodes (Ditylenchus dipsaci) (8.1.6)
• Broomrape (Orobanche crenata) (8.1.7)
• Chocolate spot (Bortrytis fabae) (8.2.1)
• Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta fabae) (8.2.2)
• Root rot complex (Rhizoctonia spp) (8.2.6)
• Stem rot (Sclerotinia spp.) (8.2.8)
• Bean yellow mosaic (BYMV) (8.4.3)
Annex IV – Survey to choose a key set of Descriptors for Faba bean (Vicia faba)
WELCOME
Your knowledge and experience are being sought to select this initial ‘key set of
descriptors’ of Vicia faba accessions to identify traits important to crop production and
to facilitate their use by researchers.
Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 20th April
2009.
This key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors will be made available through
a global facility for identifying sets of accessions for evaluation and use. For
characterization, the aim is a key set of maximally differentiating traits that provide the
most impact in discriminating between accessions. For evaluation, the aim is to focus on
a few important traits for production, such as tolerance to an important disease or
salinity.
The list presented here has been drawn from the IBPGR publication ‘Faba Bean
Descriptors’ (1985) and, further revised in consultation with Dr. Kenneth Street from
ICARDA.

- PART I: Lists the most important characterization descriptors for Faba bean. Based on
your experience, please rate the descriptors according to their importance in identifying
accessions. It also allows you to indicate if any essential descriptor that can contribute to
its use is missing from the minimum list presented.
- PART II: Lists important evaluation descriptors for Faba bean. Please, rate these traits
in order of importance at the global level. It also allows you to indicate if any essential
trait for production is missing from the minimum list presented or indicate any that may
not be very significant to global production.
We thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in selecting this initial,
key set of descriptors.
* Please allow us to acknowledge your contribution by completing your full contact

details below:
Name:
Position:
Organization:
Address:
City/Town:
Country:
Email:
These traits enable easy and quick discrimination between phenotypes. They are
generally highly heritable, can be easily seen by the eye and are equally expressed in all
environments.
* Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published
in the IBPGR publication ‘Faba Bean Descriptors’ (1985).

Growth habit (4.1.1) j j j
Leaflet size (4.1.3) j j j
Branching from basal nodes (4.1.4) j j j
Branching from higher nodes (4.1.5) j j j
Plant height [cm] (4.1.6) j j j
Days to flowering (4.2.1) j j j
Days to pod maturity (4.2.2) j j j
Flower ground colour (4.2.3) j j j
Wing petal colour (4.2.5) j j j
Pod shape (4.2.7) j j j
Pod colour at maturity (4.2.9) j j j
Pod length [cm] (4.2.10) j j j
100 seed weight [g] (4.3.3) j j j
Ground colour of testa (seed coat) (4.3.4) j j j
Hilum colour (4.3.5) j j j
Seed shape (4.3.6) j j j
If you consider that an essential trait is missing from this list, please indicate it here along
with a substantiated justification.
These descriptors include characters such as pod shattering, biotic and abiotic stresses.
They are the most interesting traits in crop improvement. Please consider the following
factors relating to the trait when making your final decision: (i) Global impact, (ii) Initial
strategic set, (iii) Importance for germplasm utilization, (iv) Data availability, (v) True
economic damage and (vi) Wide geographical occurrence.

Stem thickness [cm] (6.1.4) j j j
Resistance to lodging (6.1.5) j j j
Number of flowers per inflorescence (6.2.1) j j j
Number of pods per node (6.2.3) j j j
Pod shattering (6.2.5) j j j
Sulphur amino acids (per 16 g N) (6.3.3) j j j
Cooking time (6.3.5) j j j
Independent vascular system j j j
Tolerance to high temperature (7.2) j j j
Tolerance to chilly conditions j j j
Tolerance to frost j j j
Tolerance to salinity (7.5) j j j
Aphids (Aphis spp.) (8.1.1) j j j
Leaf weevils (Sitona spp.) (8.1.2) j j j
Leaf miners (Liriomyza spp.) (8.1.3) j j j
Stem borers (Lixus spp.) (8.1.4) j j j
Seed weevils (Bruchus spp.) (8.1.5) j j j
Stem nematodes (Ditylenchus dipsaci) (8.1.6) j j j
Broomrape (Orobanche crenata) (8.1.7) j j j
Chocolate spot (Botrytis fabae) (8.2.1) j j j
Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta fabae) (8.2.2) j j j
Root rot complex (Rhizoctonia spp.) (8.2.6) j j j
Stem rot (Sclerotinia spp.) (8.2.8) j j j
Bean yellow mosaic (BYMV) (8.4.3) j j j
If you consider that an essential trait important for crop improvement and production is
missing from this list, or, if any of the descriptors listed is not clearly useful to promote
utilization, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification.

Annex V – Respondents to the survey consultation for the definition of a Key set
of descriptors for faba bean
Crop leader Street, Kenneth ICARDA Syria
CAG Maalouf, Fouad ICARDA Syria
CAG Duc, Gérard INRA France
CAG Robertson, Larry USDA-ARS USA
CAG MATHUR, P. N. Bioversity International India

Redden, Robert Department of Primary Industries
CAG Australia
(Bob) Victoria
Genetic Resources Institute of
Reviewer Asadova, Almas Azerbaijan National Academy of Azerbaijan
Sciences
Reviewer Aykas, Lerzan Turkey
Institute
Reviewer Bulyntsev, Sergey Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry Russia
Reviewer Carboni, Andrea CRA-CIN Italy

Pairumani's Phytoecogenetical
Reviewer Claure, E. Tito Bolivia
Research center
Plant Gene Resources of Canada,
Reviewer Diederichsen, Axel Canada
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Reviewer Duarte, Isabel INRB/INIA Portugal
Reviewer Furman, Bonnie J. USDA/ARS USA
Reviewer Link, Wolfgang University of Göttingen Germany

Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics
Reviewer Lohwasser, Ulrike Germany
and Crop Plant Research
Srinivasan,
Reviewer NBPGR India
Kalyani
Instituto de Agricultura Sostenible
Reviewer Suso, María José Spain
(CSIC)
Veloso, Maria
Reviewer INRB/INIA Portugal
Manuela
Institute of Crop Science, Chinese
Reviewer Xuxiao, Zong China
Srinivasan,
Reviewer NBPGR India
Kalyani
Annex VI – Descriptors listed in the Faba Bean survey ranked by rating average
and by percentage of importance
Stree % %
Rating
t's Importan Importan
Avera Descriptor
Descriptor select ce ce (Very
ge (importa importan
ion
nt) t)
100 seed weight [g] 4.70 100 seed weight [g] (4.3.3) 15.0 (3) 85.0 (17)
(4.3.3)
Days to flowering (4.2.1) 4.40 Days to flowering (4.2.1) 30.0 (6) 70.0 (14)
Plant height [cm] (4.1.6) 4.20 Pod shattering (6.2.5) 26.3 (5) 63.2 (12)
Days to pod maturity 4.16 Plant height [cm] (4.1.6) 40.0 (8) 60.0 (12)
(4.2.2)
Pod shattering (6.2.5) 3.95 Resistance to lodging 30.0 (6) 60.0 (12)
(6.1.5)
Ground colour of testa 3.94 Days to pod maturity 42.1 (8) 57.9 (11)
(seed coat) (4.3.4) (4.2.2)
Resistance to lodging 3.90 Flower ground colour 26.3 (5) 57.9 (11)
(6.1.5) (4.2.3)
Pod length [cm] (4.2.10) 3.89 Chocolate spot (Botrytis 26.3 (5) 57.9 (11)
fabae) (8.2.1)
Seed weevils (Bruchus 3.78 Ground colour of testa 38.9 (7) 55.6 (10)
spp.) (8.1.5) (seed coat) (4.3.4)
Flower ground colour 3.68 Seed weevils (Bruchus 33.3 (6) 55.6 (10)
(4.2.3) spp.) (8.1.5)
Number of seeds per pod 3.68 Aphids (Aphis spp.) (8.1.1) 30.0 (6) 55.0 (11)
(4.3.2)
Chocolate spot (Botrytis 3.68 Pod length [cm] (4.2.10) 42.1 (8) 52.6 (10)
fabae) (8.2.1)
Seed shape (4.3.6) 3.65 Tolerance to frost 31.6 (6) 52.6 (10)
Aphids (Aphis spp.) (8.1.1) 3.65 Ascochyta blight 31.6 (6) 52.6 (10)
(Ascochyta fabae) (8.2.2)
Tolerance to frost 3.58 Tolerance to salinity (7.5) 27.8 (5) 50.0 (9)
Ascochyta blight 3.58 Growth habit (4.1.1) 35.0 (7) 50.0 (10)
(Ascochyta fabae) (8.2.2)
Growth habit (4.1.1) 3.55 Number of pods per node 36.8 (7) 47.4 (9)
(6.2.3)
Number of pods per node 3.47 Wing petal colour (4.2.5) 35.0 (7) 45.0 (9)
(6.2.3)
Tolerance to salinity (7.5) 3.33 Number of seeds per pod 52.6 (10) 42.1 (8)
(4.3.2)
Bean yellow mosaic 3.32 Tolerance to high 36.8 (7) 42.1 (8)
(BYMV) (8.4.3) temperature (7.2)
Wing petal colour (4.2.5) 3.30 Tolerance to chilly 31.6 (6) 42.1 (8)
conditions
Stree % %
Rating
t's Importan Importan
Avera Descriptor
Descriptor select ce ce (Very
ge (importa importan
ion
nt) t)
Leaf miners (Liriomyza 3.26 Stem rot (Sclerotinia spp.) 36.8 (7) 42.1 (8)
spp.) (8.1.3) (8.2.8)
Number of flowers per 3.25 Hilum colour (4.3.5) 40.0 (8) 40.0 (8)
inflorescence (6.2.1)
Tolerance to high 3.21 Seed shape (4.3.6) 55.0 (11) 40.0 (8)
temperature (7.2)
Stem rot (Sclerotinia spp.) 3.21 Leaf weevils (Sitona spp.) 40.0 (8) 40.0 (8)
(8.2.8) (8.1.2)
Hilum colour (4.3.5) 3.20 Broomrape (Orobanche 15.0 (3) 40.0 (8)
crenata) (8.1.7)
Leaf weevils (Sitona spp.) 3.20 Root rot complex 38.9 (7) 38.9 (7)
(8.1.2) (Rhizoctonia spp.) (8.2.6)
Branching from basal 3.11 Branching from basal 42.1 (8) 36.8 (7)
nodes (4.1.4) nodes (4.1.4)
Root rot complex 3.11 Leaf miners (Liriomyza 47.4 (9) 36.8 (7)
(Rhizoctonia spp.) (8.2.6) spp.) (8.1.3)
Pod shape (4.2.7) 3.10 Pod shape (4.2.7) 45.0 (9) 35.0 (7)
Tolerance to chilly 3.05 Number of flowers per 50.0 (10) 35.0 (7)
conditions inflorescence (6.2.1)
Stem borers (Lixus spp.) 2.89 Bean yellow mosaic 57.9 (11) 31.6 (6)
(8.1.4) (BYMV) (8.4.3)
Stem nematodes Stem borers (Lixus spp.)
2.74 50.0 (9) 27.8 (5)
(Ditylenchus dipsaci) (8.1.4)
(8.1.6)
Leaflet size (4.1.3) Stem nematodes
2.71 (Ditylenchus dipsaci) 47.4 (9) 26.3 (5)
(8.1.6)
Pod colour at maturity 2.47 Pod colour at maturity 47.4 (9) 21.1 (4)
(4.2.9) (4.2.9)
Broomrape (Orobanche 2.45 Branching from higher 44.4 (8) 16.7 (3)
crenata) (8.1.7) nodes (4.1.5)
Stem thickness [cm] 2.30 Sulphur amino acids (per 36.8 (7) 15.8 (3)
(6.1.4) 16 g N) (6.3.3)
Branching from higher 2.17 Leaflet size (4.1.3) 66.7 (14) 14.3 (3)
nodes (4.1.5)
Cooking time (6.3.5) 2.00 Stem thickness [cm] 60.0 (12) 10.0 (2)
(6.1.4)
Sulphur amino acids (per 1.89 Cooking time (6.3.5) 57.9 (11) 5.3 (1)
16 g N) (6.3.3)
Independent vascular 1.84 Independent vascular 52.6 (10) 5.3 (1)
system system
Annex VII – Additional characterization and evaluation descriptors proposed in the Faba Bean survey results
Faba Bean descriptor Name of expert

Redden, Asadova, Duc, Diederichsen, Link, Maalouf, Srinivasan, Claure,
Bob Almas. Gérard. Axel. Wolfgang Fouad. Kalyani. Tito E.
Additional characterization N. of Very Very Very Very imp. Very imp. Very Very imp. Very
descriptor times imp. imp. imp. imp. imp.
selected
Mean canopy height quicker

to measure once for whole
1 X
plot, than separate plant
heights, and of equal utility
Number of pods per plant 1 X

Number of pods per nodes 1 X
Number of flowers per
raceme: Important for yield 1 X
potential
Number of flower per nodes:
is associated with yield and
1 X
with the level of outcrossing
rate
Number of leaflets per leaf 2 X X
Early plant vigour 1 X
Leaflet shape 1 X
Stem pigmentation 1 X
Seed coat colour (Seed
colour, because dark colours
2 X X
are not liked by the farmers
and also by consumers.)
Pod width 1 X
COMMENTS
remark about leaflet size,
shape, number /leaf and
colour: certainly with genotypic X
differences but there is a need
for calibration of records
Faba Bean descriptor Name of expert
Redden, Asadova, Duc, Diederichsen, Link, Maalouf, Srinivasan, Claure,
Bob Almas. Gérard. Axel. Wolfgang Fouad. Kalyani. Tito E.
N. of
Additional evaluation Very Very Very Very Very
times Very imp. Very imp. Very imp.
descriptor imp. imp. imp. imp. imp.
selected
Importance of bruchids
inversely related to seed
storage hygeine and quality
of storage. Susceptibility to 1 X
any pest / disease should
be noted whever infection
occassionally significant
Remark: The root rot
complex may also involve
1 X
Fusarium spp in some
case.
Self Fertility: Important for
breeding and germplasm 1 X
conservation.
It is rather methionine and
cysteine content than all 1 X
amino acids.
Vicine and Convicine
2 X X
content %
Protein content % 1 X
FBYNV: very important
because they damage the
crop in all Mediterranean 1 X
area. There is a need to
find sources for resistance
Annex VIII - First priority descriptors for Faba Bean (Vicia faba) sent to CAG on
26th May 2009 drawn from survey results and validated by Ken Street
3. Days to flowering (4.2.1)
4. Days to pod maturity (4.2.2)
5. Flower ground colour (4.2.3)
6. Wing petal colour (4.2.5)
9. 100 seed weight [g] (4.3.3)
10. Ground colour of testa (seed coat) (4.3.4)
12. Resistance to lodging (6.1.5)
13. Number of pods per node (6.2.3)
14. Pod shattering (6.2.5)
15. Tolerance to high temperature (7.2)
16. Tolerance to salinity (7.5)
17. Tolerance to chilly conditions
18. Tolerance to frost
19. Aphids (Aphis spp.) (8.1.1)
20. Seed weevils (Bruchus spp.) (8.1.5)
21. Chocolate spot (Botrytis fabae) (8.2.1)
22. Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta fabae) (8.2.2)
23. Stem rot (Sclerotinia spp.) (8.2.8)

Annex IX – Final list of descriptors compiled after consultation with the Core
Advisory Group showing descriptors added (in green) and removed (in red)
2. Branching from basal nodes (4.1.4)
4. Days to flowering (4.2.1)
5. Days to pod maturity (4.2.2)
7. Wing petal colour (4.2.5)
8. Pod angle/attitude at maturity (4.2.6)
11. 100 seed weight [g] (4.3.3)
12. Ground colour of testa (seed coat) (4.3.4)
14. Resistance to lodging (6.1.5)
15. Number of pods per node (6.2.3)
16. Pod shattering (6.2.5)
17. Tolerance to high temperature (7.2)
19. Tolerance to frost
20. Aphids (Aphis spp.) (8.1.1)
21. Seed weevils (Bruchus spp.) (8.1.5)
22. Chocolate spot (Botrytis fabae) (8.2.1)
23. Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta fabae) (8.2.2)
24. Rust (Urom yces fabae ) (8.2.4)
25. Stem rot (Sclerotinia spp.) (8.2.8)
26. Number of flower per nodes
27. Faba Bean Yellow Mosaic Virus (FBYM)
Tolerance for chilly conditions

Annex X – Final list with descriptor states

1 Determinate, i.e. stems with terminal inflorescence
2 Semi-determinate, i.e. without terminal inflorescence
3 Indeterminate
Branching from basal nodes (4.1.4)

Mean number of branches (to the nearest whole number) per plant taken from five
representative plants in late flowering stage

Measured at near maturity from ground to the tip of the plant. Average of 10 plants
Days to flowering (4.2.1)

Number of days from sowing until 50% of plants have flowered. However, in dry land
areas where planting occurs in dry soils, it is counted from the first day of rainfall or
irrigation which is sufficient for germination
Days to pod maturity (4.2.2)

Number of days from sowing until 90% of the pods have dried. See 4.2.1 for planting in
dry soils
Flower ground colour (4.2.3)

Ground colour of standard petal (flag)
1 White
2 Violet
3 Dark brown
4 Light brown
5 Pink
6 Red
7 Yellow
99 Other (i.e. ‘mixed’, specify in the Notes descriptor)
Wing petal colour (4.2.5)

1 Uniformly white
2 Uniformly coloured
3 Spotted
Pod angle/attitude at maturity (4.2.6)
1 Erect
2 Horizontal
3 Pendent

Mean of five dry pods

Mean of five dry pods
Ground colour of testa (seed coat) (4.3.4)

Observed immediately after harvest (within one month after harvest)
1 Black
2 Dark brown
3 Light brown
4 Light green
5 Dark green
6 Red
7 Violet
8 Yellow
9 White
10 Grey
Seed shape (4.3.6)

1 Flattened
2 Angular
3 Round
99 Other (i.e. ‘mixed’, specify the Notes descriptor)
Resistance to lodging (6.1.5)

3 Low
5 Medium
7 High
Number of pods per node (6.2.3)

Mean number of pods on the second pod-bearing node of five plants
Pod shattering (6.2.5)
0 Non-shattering (wrinkled-pod type)
1 Shattering
Number of flowers per node (6.2.X)
ABIOTIC STRESSES
High temperature (7.2)
Salinity (7.5)
Frost (7.X)
BIOTIC STRESSES
Aphids (Aphis spp.) (8.1.1)
Seed weevils (Bruchus spp.) (8.1.5)
Chocolate spot (Botrytis fabae) (8.2.1)
Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta fabae) (8.2.2)
Rust (Uromyces fabae) (8.2.4)
Stem rot (Sclerotinia spp.) (8.2.8)
Faba Bean Yellow Mosaic Virus (FBYM) (8.4.X)

ANNE XI - List of contributors
Core Advisory Group
Kenneth Street, ICARDA, Syria

Gérard Duc, INRA, France
Fouad Maalouf, ICARDA, Syria
P. N. Mathur, Bioversity International, India
Robert Redden, Department of Primary Industries Victoria, Australia
Larry Robertson, USDA-ARS, USA
Reviewers
Algeria
A. Abdelguerfi, ENSA
Azerbaijan
Almas Asadova, Genetic Resources Institute of Azerbaijan National Academy of
Sciences
Bolivia
Tito E. Claure, Pairumani's Phytoecogenetical Research Center
Canada
Axel Diederichsen, Plant Gene Resources of Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada
China
Zong Xuxiao, Institute of Crop Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences
Germany
Wolfgang Link, University of Göttingen
Ulrike Lohwasser, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research
India
Kalyani Srinivasan, NBPGR
Italy
Andrea Carboni, CRA-CIN
Portugal
Isabel Duarte, INRB/INIA
Maria Manuela Veloso, INRB/INIA
Russia
Sergey Bulyntsev, Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry
Spain
María José Suso, Instituto de Agricultura Sostenible (CSIC)
Turkey
Lerzan Aykas, Aegean Agricultural Research Institute
USA
Bonnie J. Furman, USDA-ARS
Methodology for the definition of a
key set of characterization and
evaluation descriptors for finger
millet [Eleusine coracana (L.)
Gaertn]
Information for the definition of a Minimum Descriptor List for finger millet [Eleusine
coracana (L.) Gaertn] was based on the publication ‘Descriptors for Finger Millet’
published by IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1985. Since the relevant Crop
strategy for finger millet was not available at the time of development of this key set, the
‘Regional strategy for the ex situ conservation of plant genetic resources in Eastern
Africa’ (Global Crop Diversity Trust, 2006), was analyzed particularly with regard to
evaluation traits such as susceptibility to important biotic and abiotic stresses.
This comprehensive descriptors list was then compared with essential traits listed
in ‘Descriptors for GRASS-WARMSEASON’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN); ‘Morphological
diversity in finger millet germplasm introduced from Southern and Eastern Africa’
[(H.D. Upadhyaya, C.L.L. Gowda and V. Gopal Reddy) SAT eJournal, ICRISAT, Vol. 3,
Issue 1, December 2007]; ‘Descriptors for Characterization and Evaluation of Finger
millet’ [National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences (NIAS); Genebank of Japan], and
with ‘Phenotypic Diversity of Ethiopian Finger Millet [Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn] in
Relation to Geographical Regions as an Aid to Germplasm Collection and Conservation
Strategy’ [(Kebere Bezaweletaw, Prapa Sripichitt, Wasana Wongyai and Vipa
Hongtrakul) Kasetsart Journal (Natural Science), 41:7-16, 2007].
An excel table was prepared comparing traits listed in the above mentioned
sources. The table was shared with the Crop Leader and then discussed with
participants in the crop-specific meeting held in June 2009 at the National Bureau of
Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), and involving experts from the Indian Agricultural
Research Institute (IARI), All India Coordinated Millet Project (AICMP), NBPGR
Headquarters and Shimla Research Station (see Annex I). During the meeting,
characterization and evaluation traits important for finger millet were identified and a
key set agreed upon. A comparison table containing only the Minimum List of
characterization and evaluation descriptors was compiled to assist the Crop Leader in
the selection of the list of traits to be proposed in the on-line survey (see Annex II).

The List of Experts was prepared taking into account the participants involved in crop-
specific consultations for the definition of the ‘Regional strategy for the ex situ
conservation of plant genetic resources in Eastern Africa’ (the Trust, 2006). Scientists
present in the Sorghum & Millet directory of the Interactive Resource Center (IRC)
website and some experts involved in the McKnight Foundation Collaborative Crop
Research Program project were also included in the list.
Additional reviewers were selected from among authors of relevant articles for
this crop, such as the one on Ethiopian finger millet used for preparing the minimum list.
Overall 66 experts from 24 countries and 42 different organizations were

identified (see Annex III). Out of these, a Crop Leader, Dr A. Seetharam from All India
Coordinated Research Projects (AICRP) on Small millets, and a Core Advisory Group
(CAG), consisting of six experts, were selected to assist in the definition of a minimum
set of descriptors for this crop. Members of the CAG were chosen from world renowned
organizations such as International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
(ICRISAT), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), NBPGR, and from experts
involved in the AICRPs on Small millets Project.

A draft survey on Eleusine Coracana was prepared following consultations with the Crop
Leader and finger millet experts during the crop-specific meeting held at NBPGR. At the
meeting a proposal was made to include both Long and Minimum Lists of Descriptors
in the survey considering that, according to the Memorandum of Understanding
between Bioversity International and ICAR, lists of traditional descriptors should be
revised for five crops, including finger millet. However, because of the complexity and
length of the survey text, the coordinator of this activity decided to include only the
minimum set of traits defined during the meeting. This was done after the participants
had already agreed on the Long List, thus solely the Minimum List needed a wider
validation (see Annex IV). Once approved, the final draft of the survey was uploaded
into the SurveyMonkey application on internet. An email with the link to the survey
was sent to scientists identified in the List of Experts on 23 June 2009 inviting them to
validate the initial Minimum set of descriptors of Eleusine coracana accessions to promote
the utilization of finger millet germplasm (see Annex V). Experts were also encouraged
to mention any additional trait that was found to be relevant yet missing from the
proposed list, along with a substantiated justification for its inclusion. The survey
deadline was set at 23 July 2009, therefore, a first reminder was sent out on 7 July 2009
and a second one on 17 July 2009. By popular demand the deadline was extended to 6
August 2009 to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained.

Of the 66 experts identified and involved in the exercise, 22 from 13 countries and 18
different organizations recorded their comments using the online survey (see Annex VI).
Among them, there were the Crop Leader and seven members of the Core Advisory
Group (CAG). Results from the survey were analyzed and descriptors ranked by rating
average and percentage of importance (see Annex VII). The summary results of the
survey together with a report containing comments received by the participants (see
Annex VIII) were sent to the Crop Leader and to the Core Advisory Group for further
consultation and to help select a reduced set of key traits. In order to reach a wider
consensus on the final key set of traits, additional members were added to the CAG at
this stage. All feedback received from advisory members and reviewers was compared
and harmonized, where possible (see Annex IX). This exercise led to a first draft of the
key set for finger millet that was submitted to the Crop Leader and the Core Advisory
Group again for final validation. Of particular note, no descriptors concerning abiotic
stresses were included in the key set since none of the CAG selected “Soil salinity” (7.5)
(the only abiotic stress proposed), as “Very Important” and because of its low rating.
Definition of a final key set of descriptors for finger millet

The final document approved by the Crop Leader and CAG, including all the
contributors (see Annex X), was proofread by an external editor and sent to the
Bioversity Publications Unit for layout and on-line publication processes. Furthermore,
the publication was shared with the ECPGR Secretariat; the Generation Challenge
Programme (GCP) Ontology and the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base partners.
Additionally, data were converted into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN-Global
genebank data-management system being developed by USDA first, and subsequently
into the Global Accession Level Information Portal (GENESYS), linking national, regional
and international genebank databases in support of the conservation and use of plant
genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also provided
to the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) and to
EURISCO.
Acknowledgement
development of this strategic set of key access and utilization descriptors for finger
millet genetic resources, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial
support. Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leader, Dr A. Seetharam from AICRP
Small millets (India), for providing valuable scientific direction. Ms Adriana Alercia
provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process.
Annex I – Comparison table weighing up important descriptors for finger millet drawn from
different sources i ii
Ethiopian Min +
IBPGR Long
USDA ICRISAT NIAS finger Data
Bioversity Descriptors 1985 List
(2) (3) (4) m. article Avail
(1) (6)
(5) (6)
Growth [plant] habit 4.1.1 (Seedling stage) * * * *
Plant height [cm] 4.1.2 * * * * * *
Culm branching 4.1.3 * *
Plant pigmentation 4.1.4 * * * *
Productive tillers (NUMBER) 4.2.1 * * * *
Days to flowering 4.2.2 * * * * *
Ear exsertion [mm] 4.2.3 (n/n)
Ear shape 4.2.4 * * * * *
Ear size 4.2.5 (see finger l W) *
Finger branching 4.2.6 * * *
Discontinuity of spikelets on finger 4.2.7 * *
Finger length [mm] 4.2.8 * * * *
Finger width [mm] 4.2.9 * *
Glume length [mm] 4.2.10 * *
Spikelet shattering 4.2.11 N/N
Number of grains per spikelet 4.2.12 * * *
Grain covering 4.2.13 * *
Grain colour 4.3.1 * * * * * *
Culm thickness [mm] 6.1.1 * * *
Leaf number 6.1.2 * * *
Leaf sheat length [mm] 6.1.3
Leaf sheat width [mm] 6.1.4
Leaf blade length [cm] 6.1.5
Leaf blade width [cm] 6.1.6
Stomatal frequency 6.1.7
Blade length of flag leaf [cm] 6.1.8 * * *
Blade width of flag leaf [cm] 6.1.9 * *
Lodging susceptibility 6.1.10 * *
Green fodder yield 6.1.11 * * * *
Peduncle length [cm] 6.2.1 * *
Finger number 6.2.2 * * *
Spikelet density 6.2.3 * *
Days to maturity 6.2.4 * * * *
Synchrony of ear maturity 6.2.5 * *
Grain shape 6.3.1 * * *
Grain surface 6.3.2 * * *
Grain uniformity 6.3.3 * *
Pericarp persistence after threshing 6.3.4 * * * *
1000 grain weight [g] 6.3.5 * * * *
Grain yield per plant [g] 6.3.6 * * * *
Grain yield potential 6.3.7
Malting quality 6.3.8 * * *
Protein content [%] 6.3.9 * * *
Lysine content [%] 6.3.10 * *
Methionine content [%] 6.3.11 * *
Mineral content [%] 6.3.12 * *
Calcium content [%] 6.3.12 * * *
Low temperature 7.1
High temperature 7.2
Drought 7.3 * *
High soil moisture 7.4
Soil salinity 7.5 * * *
Shoot flies (Atherigona spp.) 8.1.1 * *
White grubs (Holotrichia spp.) 8.1.2 * *
Armyworms (Mythimna spp.) 8.1.3 * *
Hairy caterpillars (Amsacta albistriga
(Walk), Estigmene lactinea G.) 8.1.4
* *
Bollworms (Heliothis armigera (Hub.)) 8.1.5 * *
Stem borers (Busseola spp. - Chilo spp. -
Sesamia spp.) 8.1.6
* * *
Aphids (Hysteroneura setariae (Thomas) -

Rhopalosiphum maidis (Fitch) - Tetraneura * *
spp.) 8.1.7
Earhead caterpillars (Cacoecia spp. -

Cryptoblades spp. - Eublemma spp. - * *
Stenachroia elongella Hamps) 8.1.8
Beetles (Epicauta spp. - Epilachna similis

(Thunb.) - Monolepta signata O.) 8.1.9 * *
Earhead bugs (Calocoris angustatus (Leth.)

- Dolycoris indicus (Slal.) - Menida Histrio * *
(Fabr.) - Nezara viridula L.) 8.1.10
Midges (Contarinia spp.) 8.1.11 * *
Weevils (Myllocerus spp. - Nematocerus
spp.) 8.1.12
* *
Grain moth (Sitotroga cerealella (Oliv.))

8.1.13 * *
Grasshoppers 8.1.14 * *
Locusts 8.1.15
Birds 8.1.16 *
Blast on foliage 8.2.1 * * * *
Blast on neck 8.2.2 * * * *
Blast on finger 8.2.3 * * * *
Foot rots 8.2.4 * *
Wilts 8.2.5 * *
Leaf spots (Cercospora spp. -
Collectotrichum graminicola (Ces.) Wilson -
Drechslera rostratum (Drechs.) - Richard & * * *
Fraser) = (Exserohilum rostratum Drechs. -
Phyllachora eleusines Speg.) 8.2.6
Downy mildews (Sclerophthora macrospora

(Sacc.) Thirum., Shaw & Naras.) 8.2.7 * *
Smuts (Melanosichium eleusinis (Kulk.)

Mundk. & Thirum.) 8.2.8
* *
Grain molds (Curvularia lunata (Walk.)

Bold.) 8.2.9 * *
i
(1) ‘Descriptors for Finger Millet’ (IBPGR, 1985); (2) ‘Descriptors for GRASS-WARMSEASON’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN); (3) ‘Morphological
diversity in finger millet germplasm introduced from Southern and Eastern Africa’ [(HD Upadhyaya, CLL Gowda and V Gopal Reddy)
SAT eJournal, ICRISAT, Vol. 3, Issue 1, December 2007]; (4) ‘Descriptors for Characterization and Evaluation of Finger millet’ [National
Institute of Agrobiological Sciences (NIAS), Genebank of Japan]; (5) ‘Phenotypic Diversity of Ethiopian Finger Millet [Eleusine
coracana (L.) Gaertn] in Relation to Geographical Regions as an Aid to Germplasm Collection and Conservation Strategy’ [(Kebere
Bezaweletaw, Prapa Sripichitt, Wasana Wongyai and Vipa Hongtrakul) Kasetsart Journal (Natural Science) 41:7 – 16, 2007]; (6) Long
and Minimum list of descriptors identified by participants in the crop-specific meeting held at the NBPGR in June 2009.
ii
Descriptors highlighted in yellow are the Minimum key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for genetic resources
utilization; descriptors highlighted in red are descriptors for deletion.
Annex II – Comparison table for a Minimum List of characterization and evaluation descriptors
sent to the Crop Leader on 10 June 2009
in C&E
Descriptors for finger millet IBPGR Ethiopian finger
USDA ICRISAT NIAS (Data
(Eleusine coracana) 1985 millet article
Available)
Plant height [cm] 4.1.2 * * * * *
Plant pigmentation 4.1.4 * * *
Productive tillers (NUMBER) 4.2.1 * * *
Days to flowering 4.2.2 * * * *
Ear shape 4.2.4 * * * *
Finger branching 4.2.6 * *
Finger length [mm] 4.2.8 * * *
Number of grains per spikelet 4.2.12 * *
Grain colour 4.3.1 * * * * *
Leaf number 6.1.2 * *
Green fodder yield 6.1.11 * * *
Finger number 6.2.2 * *
Days to maturity 6.2.4 * * *
1000 grain weight [g] 6.3.5 * * *
Grain yield per plant [g] 6.3.6 * * *
Malting quality 6.3.8 * *
Protein content [%] 6.3.9 * *
Calcium content [%] 6.3.12 * *
Soil salinity 7.5 * *
Stem borers (Busseola spp. -

* *
Chilo spp. - Sesamia spp.) 8.1.6
Blast on foliage 8.2.1 * * *
Blast on neck 8.2.2 * * *
Blast on finger 8.2.3 * * *

Collectotrichum graminicola (Ces.)
Wilson) - Drechslera rostratum
* *
(Drechs. - Richard & Fraser ) =
Exserohilum rostratum Drechs.) -
Phyllachora eleusines Speg. ) 8.2.6
Annex III – Experts identified to participate to the online survey
ROLE NAME ORGANIZATION COUNTRY
Ex-Project Coordinator, AICRP

Crop Leader Seetharam, A. India
on Small millets
CAG Baniya, B.K. NARC (Retired) Nepal
New CAG Bramel, Paula IITA Nigeria
CAG suggested
Hash, C. Tom ICRISAT India
ontology workshop
New CAG Lohwasser, Ulrike Genetics and Crop Plant Germany
Research (IPK)
NBPGR, Regional Station,
CAG Rana, J.C. India
Phagli, Shimla
New CAG Updhyaya, Hari D. ICRISAT India
Syngenta internet Abraha, Negusse NARI Eritrea
Melkassa Agricultural Research
Syngenta internet Ageru, Asfaw Adugna Ethiopia
Center
Syngenta internet Ahmadou, Issaka INRAN Niger
Reviewer Bandyopadhyay, Ranajit IITA Nigeria
Comparative
Department of Genetics,
Genomics Bennetzen, Jeffrey Lynn USA
University of Georgia
Bennetzen's Lab
1
Article internet 1 Bezaweletaw, Kebere Awassa Agric. Research Center Ethiopia
Syngenta internet Bidinger, F.R. ICRISAT India

Syngenta internet Bonamigo, Luiz Sementes Brazil
Syngenta internet Buntin, G. David UGA USA
Reviewer Chee, Peng UGA USA
Reviewer Chen, Chengci Montana State University USA
Syngenta internet Clerget, Benoit ICRISAT Mali
Reviewer Cohn, Donna Hampshire College USA

Syngenta internet Degu, Erenso Ethiopia
Center
Collaborative Crop
Devos, Katrien Martha University of Georgia (UGA) USA
Research Program
2
Article internet 2 Dida, M. Mathews Maseno University Kenya
Reviewer Elfadil, Adam Ag Research Corporation Sudan
1
Article internet 1: Kasetsart J. (Nat. Sci.) 41:7-16 (2007), Phenotypic Diversity of Ethiopian Finger Millet [Eleusine
coracana (L.) Gaertn] in Relation to Geographical Regions as an Aid to Germplasm Collection and Conservation
Strategy Kebere Bezaweletaw1, Prapa Sripichitt2.
2
Article internet 2: Population Structure and Diversity in Finger Millet Germplasm.
National Center for Genetic
WIEWS Ellis, David Resources Preservation USA
(NCGRP)
Reviewer Endale, Dinku USDA, GA USA
Reviewer Erbaugh, Mark Ohio State University USA
Syngenta internet Ferreira, Alves Sementes Brazil
Syngenta internet Fite, Geleta Dept of Agricultural Research Botswana
Reviewer Fofana, Amadou ISRA-CRZ Senegal
Syngenta internet Franca Neto, Jose EMBRAPA Brazil
Syngenta internet Habindavyi, Esperance ISABU Burundi
Syngenta internet Harinarayana, Gollapudi Ganga Kaveri Seeds India
Reviewer (no longer

Harrison Dunn , Melanie L. ARS-USDA, GA USA
CAG)
Reviewer Haussmann, Bettina ICRISAT Niger
Hernandez Alatorre, Jose

Syngenta internet INIFAP Mexico
Antonio
Collaborative Crop University of Agriculture

Hittalmani, Shailaja India
Research Program sciences Bangalore (UASB)
Reviewer (no longer

Jayarame, Gowda AICRP on Small millets India
CAG)
Ukiriguru Mwanza Agricultural
Reviewer Kamuntu, Seperatus Tanzania
Research Institute
Reviewer (no longer
Khairwal, I.S. AICPMIP India
CAG)
Reviewer Kumar, Anand AERC Canada
Australian Tropical Crops &
Germplasm
Lawrence, Peter Forages Genetic Resources Australia
Collection (2003)
Centre
Collaborative Crop
Leong, Sally University of Wisconsin USA
Research Program
NBPGR meeting
Mahajan, R.K. NBPGR India
June 2009
Reviewer Mativavarira, Munyaradzi Crop Breeding Institute Zimbabwe
Reviewer Maloo, S.R. MPUAT, Udaipur, Rajasthan India
NBPGR Expert
Mishra, S.K. NBPGR India
meeting 2009
Reviewer Ni, Xinzhi USDA, GA USA
Syngenta internet Nutsugah, Stephen SARI Ghana
Syngenta internet Oduori, Chrispus O.A. KARI Kenya

Syngenta internet Rai, K.N. ICRISAT India
Syngenta internet Rattunde, Fred ICRISAT Mali
SINGER Survey
(Genebank data Reddy, Thimma ICRISAT India
manager)
Syngenta internet Reddy, V. Gopal ICRISAT India
Reviewer Rooney, Lloyd TAMU USA
Syngenta internet Sanogo, Moussa IER Mali
Suggested by
Schmidt, Barbel IPK Genebank Dept Germany
H. Knüpffer
Syngenta internet Sharma, Y.K. Agric Research Station India

1
Article internet 1 Sripichitt, Prapa Kasetsart University Thailand
Institut Sénégalais de
Pearl millet breeder Sy, Ousmane Senegal
Recherches Agricoles (ISRA)

Syngenta internet Tesso, Tesfaye Ethiopia
Center
Burkina
Syngenta internet Traore, Hamidou INERA-CREAF
Faso
NBPGR June visit NBPGR Regional Station,

Verma, V.D. India
2009 Phagli, Shimla
Syngenta internet Weltzien Rattunde, Eva ICRISAT Mali
Institute of Crop Germplasm

Reviewer Xuxiao, Zong China
Resources, CAAS
Syngenta internet Yadav, Om Parkash CAZRI India
Institute of Biodiversity
WIEWS Ethiopia
Conservation
National Genebank of Kenya,

KARI Website Crop Plant Genetic Resources Kenya
Centre - Muguga KARI-NGBK
Agricultural Research Centre -

KARI Website Kenya
Katumani KARI-Katumani
1
Article internet 1: Kasetsart J. (Nat. Sci.) 41:7-16 (2007), Phenotypic Diversity of Ethiopian Finger Millet [Eleusine coracana
(L.) Gaertn] in Relation to Geographical Regions as an Aid to Germplasm Collection and Conservation Strategy Kebere
Bezaweletaw1, Prapa Sripichitt2.
Annex IV – Key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for finger millet
(Eleusine coracana) validated at the crop-specific meeting held at NBPGR in June
2009 and used for the online survey
Plant height [cm] 4.1.2 *

Plant pigmentation 4.1.4 *
Productive tillers (NUMBER) 4.2.1 *
Days to flowering 4.2.2 *
Ear shape 4.2.4 *
Finger branching 4.2.6 *
Finger length [mm] 4.2.8 *
Number of grains per spikelet 4.2.12 *
Grain colour 4.3.1 *
Leaf number 6.1.2 *
Green fodder yield 6.1.11 *
Finger number 6.2.2 *
Days to maturity 6.2.4 *
1000 grain weight [g] 6.3.5 *
Grain yield per plant [g] 6.3.6 *
Malting quality 6.3.8 *
Protein content [%] 6.3.9 *
Calcium content [%] 6.3.12 *
Soil salinity 7.5 *
Stem borers (Busseola spp. - Chilo spp. - Sesamia spp.) 8.1.6 *
Blast on foliage 8.2.1 *
Blast on neck 8.2.2 *
Blast on finger 8.2.3 *
Leaf spots (Cercospora spp., Collectotrichum graminicola, Drechslera rostratum, *
Exserohilum rostratum, Phyllachora eleusines) 8.2.6
Annex V – Online survey to choose a key set of descriptors for finger millet utilization
WELCOME
finger millet to support an international information system to enhance the utilization of germplasm held
in genebanks.
Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 23 July 2009.
This key set of descriptors will be made available through a global portal for identifying sets of accessions
for evaluation and use. For characterization, the aim is a key set of maximally differentiating traits that
provide the most impact in discriminating between accessions. For evaluation, the aim is to focus on a few
important traits for production, such as those related to abiotic or biotic stresses of cosmopolitan nature.
By selecting descriptors as 'very important', you are helping us define the key set that will be
instrumental for assisting researchers to more easily utilize finger millet accessions.

* Please allow us to acknowledge your contribution by completing your full contact details
below:
Name:
Position:
Organization:
Country:
Email:
Based on your experience, please rate the descriptors according to their importance. It also allows you to
indicate if any essential descriptor that can contribute to its use is missing from the minimum list
presented.
*Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published
in the IBPGR publication 'Descriptors for Finger millet' (1985).
Productive tillers (4.2.1)
Ear shape (4.2.4)
Finger branching (4.2.6)
Finger length [mm] (4.2.8)
Number of grains per spikelet (4.2.12)
Grain colour (4.3.1)
If you consider that an essential trait is missing from this list, please indicate it here along with
a substantiated justification.
These descriptors include characters such as grain yield and biotic and abiotic stresses. They are the most
interesting traits in crop improvement. Please consider the following factors relating to the trait when
making your final decision: (i) Global impact, (ii) Initial strategic set, (iii) Importance for germplasm
utilization, (iv) Data availability, (v) True economic damage and (vi) Wide geographical occurrence.
Leaf number (6.1.2)
Green fodder yield (6.1.11)
Finger number (6.2.2)
1000-grain weight [g] (6.3.5)
Grain yield per plant [g] (6.3.6)
Malting quality (6.3.8)
Grain protein content [%] (6.3.9)
Calcium content [%] (6.3.13)
Soil salinity (7.5)
Stem borers (Busseola spp. - Chilo spp. - Sesamia spp. )

(8.1.6)
Blast on foliage (8.2.1)
Blast on neck (8.2.2)
Blast on finger (8.2.3)
Leaf spots (Cercospora spp. - Collectotrichum graminicola -

Drechslera rostratum = Exserohilum rostratum -
Phyllachora eleusines) (8.2.6)
missing from the list above, please indicate it here along with a substantiated justification.

Annex VI – Respondents to the online survey
ROLE NAME POSITION ORGANIZATION COUNTRY
Ex-Project All India Coordinated Research

Crop Leader Seetharam, A. India
Coordinator Project (AICRP) - Small millets
Baniya, Bimal Principal Scientist
CAG NARC Nepal
Kumar Retired
CAG Bramel, Paula DDG-R4D IITA Nigeria
CAG Hash, C. Tom ICRISAT India
Genebank Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics

CAG Lohwasser, Ulrike Germany
Taxonomist and Crop Plant Research
CAG Mathur, Prem Bioversity International India

CAG Rana, J.C. Principal Scientist Resources (NBPGR) Regional India
Station
Principal Scientist
CAG Upadhyaya, Hari D. and Head, Gene ICRISAT India
Bank
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural
Reviewer Asfaw Adugna Plant Breeder Ethiopia
Research (EIAR)
Reviewer Ashok, Kumar Principal Scientist NBPGR India
Reviewer Dida, Mathews M. Senior Lecturer Maseno University Kenya
Queensland Primary Industries and
Reviewer Dillon, Sally Research Scientist Australia
Fisheries
Elfadil Mukhtar
Reviewer Scientist Agricultural Research Corporation Sudan
Adam
Habindavyi, Institut des Sciences Agronomiques
Reviewer Researcher Burundi
Espérance du Burundi
University of Agricultural Sciences,
Reviewer Hittalmani, Shailaja Professor and Head India
Bangalore
Lake Zone Agricultural Research

Kamuntu, Seperatus Agricultural Research
Reviewer Institute and Development (LZARDI) Tanzania
P. Officer
Ukiriguru Mwanza
Reviewer Kumar, K. Anand Research Lead AERC Inc. Canada

Reviewer Mare, Marco Millets Breeder Crop Breeding Institute (C.B.I) Zimbabwe
Senior Research Kenya Agricultural Research
Reviewer Oduori, C. Kenya
Officer Institute
Reviewer Reddy, M. Thimma Scientific Associate ICRISAT India
Institut Sénégalais de Recherches

Reviewer Sy, Ousmane Pearl millet breeder Senegal
Agricoles (ISRA)
Sorghum and Millet Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural

Reviewer Taye, Tadesse Ethiopia
research coordinator Research (EIAR)
Annex VII – Survey results ranked by rating average and percentage of importance
Very
Rating Important
Descriptor Descriptor important
Average (%)
(%)
Days to flowering (4.2.2) 4.58 Days to flowering (4.2.2) 21.10% 78.90%
Grain colour (4.3.1) 4.40 Grain colour (4.3.1) 30.00% 70.00%
Ear shape (4.2.4) 4.30 Plant height [cm] (4.1.2) 25.00% 70.00%
Plant height [cm] (4.1.2) 4.25 Finger length [mm] (4.2.8) 25.00% 70.00%
Finger length [mm]
4.25 Ear shape (4.2.4) 35.00% 65.00%
(4.2.8)
Productive tillers (4.2.1) 4.05 Finger branching (4.2.6) 25.00% 65.00%
Finger branching (4.2.6) 4.00 Productive tillers (4.2.1) 35.00% 60.00%
Plant pigmentation Number of grains per spikelet
3.40 45.00% 40.00%
(4.1.4) (4.2.12)
Number of grains per
3.35 Plant pigmentation (4.1.4) 55.00% 35.00%
spikelet (4.2.12)
1000-grain weight [g]
4.40 Finger number (6.2.2) 20.00% 75.00%
(6.3.5)
Finger number (6.2.2) 4.35 1000-grain weight [g] (6.3.5) 30.00% 70.00%
Grain protein content Grain protein content [%]
4.20 40.00% 60.00%
[%] (6.3.9) (6.3.9)
Grain yield per plant [g]
4.00 Grain yield per plant [g] (6.3.6) 36.80% 57.90%
(6.3.6)
Days to maturity (6.2.4) 3.95 Days to maturity (6.2.4) 40.00% 55.00%
Blast on finger (8.2.3) 3.95 Blast on finger (8.2.3) 40.00% 55.00%
Green fodder yield
3.84 Calcium content [%] (6.3.13) 30.00% 55.00%
(6.1.11)
Calcium content [%]
3.65 Blast on foliage (8.2.1) 45.00% 45.00%
(6.3.13)
Blast on foliage (8.2.1) 3.60 Green fodder yield (6.1.11) 57.90% 42.10%
Malting quality (6.3.8) 3.50 Malting quality (6.3.8) 50.00% 40.00%
Blast on neck (8.2.2) 3.50 Blast on neck (8.2.2) 50.00% 40.00%
Stem borers (Busseola Stem borers (Busseola spp. -
spp. - Chilo spp. - 3.15 Chilo spp. - Sesamia spp. ) 55.00% 30.00%
Sesamia spp. ) (8.1.6) (8.1.6)
Collectotrichum graminicola -
Leaf number (6.1.2) 2.89 Drechslera rostratum = 60.00% 20.00%
Exserohilum rostratum -
Soil salinity (7.5) 2.85 Soil salinity (7.5) 70.00% 15.00%
Leaf spots (Cercospora
spp. - Collectotrichum
graminicola - Drechslera
2.80 Leaf number (6.1.2) 78.90% 10.50%
rostratum = Exserohilum
rostratum - Phyllachora
eleusines) (8.2.6)
Annex VIII – Additional traits proposed in the survey
Finger millet descriptor Name of expert

Elfadil
Additional characterization N. times Ousmane Marco Asfaw J.C. Hari D. C. Bimal Kumar Shailaja
Mukhtar
traits proposed Sy Mare Adugna
Adam
Rana Upadhyaya Oduori Baniya Hittalmani
Size of the grain is very

important, bigger the grain size,
2 X X
more likely is the variety for
most farmers
Panicle exsertion 1 X
Threshability of grains is also an
important trait which farmers 1 X
consider while making selection
Plant aspect score 1 X
Overall agronomic desirability of

the accessions as observed 1 X
visually
Additional evaluation traits
Dry matter weight, this is very
important for farmers who needs 1 X
fodder for animals
Head compacity is important, if the
head is compact, there is 1 X
possibility of hiding insects
Number of fingers 1 X
Finger width 1 X
Finger characteristic: this will help

the extent of diseases susceptibility 1 X
and insect infestation
Striga support Shootfly at seedling

1 X
stage
Cooking and keeping quality 1 X

Annex IX – Summary results table sent to the Crop Leader and the CAG for validation
Your Rating
Descriptor
selection Average
Characterization
Days to flowering (4.2.2) 4.58
Grain colour (4.3.1) 4.40
Ear shape (4.2.4) 4.30
Plant height [cm] (4.1.2) 4.25
Finger length [mm] (4.2.8) 4.25
Productive tillers (4.2.1) 4.05
Finger branching (4.2.6) 4.00
Plant pigmentation (4.1.4) 3.40
Number of grains per spikelet (4.2.12) 3.35
Evaluation
1000-grain weight [g] (6.3.5) 4.40
Finger number (6.2.2) 4.35
Grain protein content [%] (6.3.9) 4.20
Grain yield per plant [g] (6.3.6) 4.00
Days to maturity (6.2.4) 3.95
Blast on finger (8.2.3) 3.95
Green fodder yield (6.1.11) 3.84
Calcium content [%] (6.3.13) 3.65
Blast on foliage (8.2.1) 3.60
Malting quality (6.3.8) 3.50
Blast on neck (8.2.2) 3.50
Stem borers (Busseola spp. - Chilo spp. 3.15

- Sesamia spp.) (8.1.6)
Leaf number (6.1.2) 2.89
Soil salinity (7.5) 2.85

Collectotrichum graminicola - Drechslera
2.80
rostratum = Exserohilum rostratum -
Annex X – Final key set of descriptors for finger millet genetic resources

finger millet genetic resources
This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for finger millet
genetic resources utilization. This strategic set of descriptors, together with passport data, will
become the basis for the global accession level information portal being developed by Bioversity
International with the financial support of the Global Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust). It will
facilitate access to and utilization of finger millet accessions held in genebanks and does not
preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently become available.
Based on the comprehensive list ‘Descriptors for Finger millet’ published by IBPGR (now
Bioversity International) in 1985, the list was subsequently compared with a number of sources
such as ‘Descriptors for GRASS-WARMSEASON’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN), ‘Morphological
diversity in finger millet germplasm introduced from Southern and Eastern Africa’ (SAT
eJournal, ICRISAT, Vol. 3, Issue 1, December 2007), ‘Descriptors for Characterization and
Evaluation of Finger millet (National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences, Genebank of Japan),
‘Phenotypic Diversity of Ethiopian Finger Millet [Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn] in Relation to
Geographical Regions as an Aid to Germplasm Collection and Conservation Strategy’ (Kasetsart
Journal, Natural Science, 41:7-16, 2007).
The initial list was further refined during a crop-specific consultation meeting held at the
National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR, India) in June 2009. It involved several
scientists from NBPGR, the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) and the All India
Coordinated Research Project on Small Millets (AICRP-Small Millets).
priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize finger millet genetic resources. This
key set was afterwards validated by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr A.
Seetharam, Ex-Project Coordinator, All India Coordinated Research Project on Small Millets.
Biotic stresses included in the list were chosen because of their wide geographic occurrence
and significant economic impact at a global level.
listed in the 1985 publication.
PLANT DATA

From ground level to the tip of inflorescence (ear). At dough stage

At flowering
0 Not pigmented
1 Pigmented
Productive tillers (4.2.1)

Number of basal tillers which bear mature ears

From sowing to stage when ears have emerged from 50% of main tillers
Ear shape (4.2.4)
At dough stage
1 Droopy (fingers lax and drooping)
2 Open (fingers straight)
3 Semi-compact (tops of fingers curved)
4 Compact (fingers incurved)
5 Fist-like (fingers very incurved)
Finger branching (4.2.6)

At dough stage
0 Absent
1 Present
Finger length [mm] (4.2.8)

From base to the tip of longest spike (finger) on main tiller. At dough stage
Number of grains per spikelet (4.2.12)

At maturity
3 Low (4 grains)
5 Intermediate (6 grains)
7 High (8 grains)

Post-harvest
1 White
2 Light brown
3 Copper-brown
4 Purple-brown
Green fodder yield (6.1.11)

Consider tillering, height, leafiness, bulk and senescence. At maturity
Finger number (6.2.2)

On main ear. At dough stage

From sowing to stage when 50% of main tillers have mature ears
1000-grain weight [g] (6.3.5)

Mean of five plants, post-harvest
Grain protein content [DW %] (6.3.9)

Percentage of dry grain weight
Calcium content [DW %] (6.3.13)

Percentage of dry grain weight
BIOTIC STRESSES
Stem borers (Busseola spp.; Chilo spp.; Sesamia spp.) (8.1.6)

Blast on foliage (Pyricularia sp.) (8.2.1)
At 30 days
Blast on neck (Pyricularia sp.) (8.2.2)

At maturity
Blast on finger (Pyricularia sp.) (8.2.3)

At maturity
NOTES
CONTRIBUTORS
development of this strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for finger millet
genetic resources’, and in particular to Dr A. Seetharam for providing valuable scientific
direction. Ms Adriana Alercia provided technical expertise and guided the entire production
process.
CORE ADVISORY GROUP

A. Seetharam, Ex-Project Coordinator, All India Coordinated Research Project on Small Millets, India
Bimal Kumar Baniya, Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), Nepal
Paula Bramel, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Nigeria
Tom C. Hash, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India
Prem Mathur, Bioversity International, India
J.C. Rana, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), Regional Station, Phagli, Shimla, India
Hari D. Upadhyaya, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India
REVIEWERS
Australia
Burundi
Espérance Habindavyi, Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Burundi
Canada
K. Anand Kumar, Agriculture Environmental Renewal Canada (AERC) Inc.
Ethiopia
Asfaw Adugna, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR)
Taye Tadesse, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR)
India
Ashok Kumar, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR)
Hittalmani Shailaja, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore
Kenya
Mathews M. Dida, Maseno University
C. Oduori, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute
Senegal
Ousmane Sy, Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles (ISRA)
Sudan
Adam Mukhtar Elfadil, Agricultural Research Corporation
Tanzania
Seperatus P. Kamuntu, Lake Zone Agricultural Research and Development Institute (LZARDI)
Zimbabwe
Marco Mare, Crop Breeding Institute (CBI)
grass pea (Lathyrus spp.)
Information for the definition of a MDL for Lathyrus was drawn from the publication
Descriptors for Lathyrus spp. (IPGRI, 2000). The list derived from this publication was
subsequently integrated and harmonized with descriptors suggested in the ‘Crop
Strategy for the ex-situ conservation of Lathyrus’ (the Trust, 2007), particularly with
regards to the inclusion of evaluation traits such as susceptibility to important biotic
and abiotic stresses for grass pea.

A list of experts was prepared taking into account the list of original reviewers involved
in the publication ‘Descriptors for Lathyrus spp.’ (IPGRI, 2000), as well as experts taking
part in crop-specific consultations for the definition of the ‘Crop Strategy for the ex-situ
conservation of Lathyrus (the Trust, 2007). Experts belonging to the Lathyrus Germplasm
Collections Directory were also included. Overall, the list was composed of 60 experts,
coming from 31 countries and 51 different organizations (see Annex II). Out of these, a
Group Leader (Dr Prem N. Mathur) and a Core Advisory group consisting of five
experts was selected to assist in the definition of a minimum set of descriptors for this
crop, which was subsequently circulated for validation among a wider group of experts.
Experts forming the CAG were selected from world renowned organizations such as
ICARDA, the Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research, the
Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, the Indira Ghandi Agricultural University,
the Department of Agriculture and Food of Western Australia and crop-specific
networks such as the ECPGR.

A draft survey on Lathyrus was prepared following consultations with the Crop Leader
and the CAG at the beginning of July 2008. Once approved, the final draft of the survey
was uploaded into the Survey Monkey application on the internet and an email
invitation sent out to experts. A link to the Survey was provided to experts, who were
invited to validate the initial ‘Minimum set of descriptors’ of Lathyrus accessions to
promote its utilization (see Annex I). Experts were also encouraged to mention any
additional trait(s) that was (were) found to be relevant yet missing from the proposed
List, along with a substantiated justification for its (their) inclusion. The survey deadline
was set at 28 July 2008. A reminder was sent out on the 22 July to ensure that the
Survey analysis
Of the 60 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise (see Annex II), 14,
coming from 11 countries, recorded their comments using the online survey (see Annex
III). Comments received were harmonised and sent to the Crop Leader for further
refinement. Dr. Ken Street from ICARDA, also provided essential input for the
refinement of the minimum list. The revised minimum list, together with descriptor
states for each descriptor was sent to the CAG for final approval on 28 October 2008,
requesting that final comments be submitted to the Coordinator by 7 November. The
final minimum list, approved by the Crop Leader and the CAG, is presented in Annex
IV. Afterwards a final key set was prepared adding descriptor states and contributors
(see Annex V).
Once the core subset of characterization and evaluation standards for grass pea
Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA, and into
GENESYS, linking national, regional and international genebank databases in support of
the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA).
The Excel files were also shared with the System-wide Information Network for Genetic
Resources (SINGER), the germplasm information exchange network of the Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and EURISCO.
Acknowledgement
development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for Lathyrus
Annex I – Survey to choose a Minimum set of Descriptors for Grass Pea (Lathyrus
spp.)
1. WELCOME
Welcome to the survey for the selection of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors to
support an international system of information to enhance the utilization of germplasm held in genebanks.
Your knowledge and experience is requested to validate this initial ‘Minimum set of descriptors’ of
Lathyrus accessions to facilitate their use by researchers.
This key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors will be made available through a global facility
for identifying sets of accessions for evaluation and use. For characterization, the aim is a small set of
maximally differentiating traits that provide the most impact in discriminating between accessions and,
sometimes, may be also relevant to choosing accessions for evaluation. For example, plant height may
be indicative in identifying tolerance to lodging. For evaluation, the aim is to focus on a few important
traits for production, such as resistance/tolerance to an important disease or some aspect of product
quality. This initial set of characterization and evaluation data will constitute the basis of an international
facility for researchers to identify the sets of accessions more likely to contain the genetic variation they
require for their specific crop improvement programmes.
The list presented here has been drawn from the IPGRI publication “Descriptors for Lathyrus spp.”(2000),
and adopted by the Trust Crop Strategy Meeting for the ex-situ conservation of Lathyrus (2007).
This survey should take no longer than 15 minutes. Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The
deadline for this survey is JULY 28TH 2008.
We thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in validating this initial, key set of
descriptors.
- PART I: Lists important characterization descriptors for Lathyrus. It also allows you to indicate if any
essential descriptor that can contribute to its use is missing from the minimum list presented.
- PART II: Lists important evaluation descriptors for Lathyrus. It also allows you to indicate if any essential
trait for production is missing from the minimum list presented or indicate any that may not be very
Please allow us to acknowledge your contribution by completing your full contact details below:
Name
Position
Institute
Address
City/Town
Country
Email
Phone
Fax
2. Part I: Characterization descriptors
Characterization descriptors* are those that permit accessions to be easily described and categorized into
groups. They are generally highly heritable, can be easily seen by the eye and are expressed equally in
all environments.
*Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published
in the Bioversity publication ‘Descriptors for Lathyrus spp., 2000’.
PLANT GROWTH HABIT (7.1.6)

Recorded at the beginning of the flowering period
1 Prostrate
2 Spreading
3 Semi-erect
4 Erect
SEEDLING VIGOUR (7.1.3)

Recorded 20 days after emergence
3 Poor
5 Intermediate
7 Vigorous
PLANT HEIGHT [cm] (7.2.1)

Height of plant at physiological maturity measured from ground to the tip of the longest branch
NUMBER OF PRIMARY BRANCHES (7.3.2)

Counted at first pod maturity (only pod-bearing branches)
ROOT NODULATION AT FULL BLOOMING STAGE (7.4.2)

0 No nodules
3 Low
5 Intermediate
7 High
DAYS TO 50% FLOWERING [d] (7.6.2)

Number of days from sowing to stage when 50% of plants have begun to flower in a row
DAYS TO MATURITY [d] (7.6.4)

From sowing to when 80% of plants have mature pods
FLOWER COLOUR (7.6.12)
Score on fresh, open flowers for score standard, wing and keel colours separately
1 White
2 White blue
3 Blue
4 Grey
5 Light yellow
6 Yellow
7 Pink
8 Orange
9 Red
10 Violet-blue
11 Violet
NUMBER OF PODS PER PLANT (7.7.2)

Mean number of pods. Recorded from randomly selected plants at physiological maturity
NUMBER OF SEEDS PER POD (7.7.16)

Mean number of seeds counted on randomly selected pods. Recorded at physiological maturity.
POD DEHISCENCE (7.7.17)

Scored one week after maturity
0 No shattering
3 Low shattering
5 Medium shattering
7 High shattering
SEED COAT COLOUR (7.8.3)

1 Greyed-white
2 Yellow-white
3 Grey
4 Brown
5 Yellow-green
6 Pink
7 Red-purple
8 Black
9 Grey mottled
99 Other (specify in descriptor)
100-SEED WEIGHT [g] (7.8.10)

Weight of 100 randomly selected mature seeds at 8-10% (air-dry) seed moisture content.
If you consider that an essential trait for the identification of the crop to promote its use is missing from
this list, please add it here along with a substantiated justification.
4.PART II: Evaluation Descriptors
This type of descriptor includes those traits of significant importance to sustainable production, including
abiotic and biotic stresses. In this case we want to target a few key evaluation traits for which we can
initially collect data. This list is the starting point and would grow over time.
HARVEST INDEX [%] (8.1.6)

Ratio of total grain to total biological yield taken from randomly selected plants in a row
B-N-OXALYL-L-A, B-DIAMINOPROPIONIC ACID (ODAP) CONTENT [%] (8.2.4)

Estimate ODAP content in dry seed and any other plant part (specify such as dry cotyledons, dry embryo,
etc.)
SEED CRUDE PROTEIN CONTENT [g/100g DW] (8.2.1)
SUSCEPTIBILITY TO BEAN APHIDS (Aphis craccivora) (10.1.1)
SUSCEPTIBILITY TO POD BORERS (Etiella zinckenella) (10.1.2)
SUSCEPTIBILITY TO JASSIDS
SUSCEPTIBILITY TO POWDERY MILDEW (Erysiphe polygoni f.sp. pisi) (10.3.1)
SUSCEPTIBILITY TO DOWNY MILDEW (Peronospora lathyri – palustris) 10.3.2)
SUSCEPTIBILITY TO BROOMRAPE (Orobanche spp.)
If you consider that an essential trait important for crop improvement and production is missing from this
list, or, if any of the descriptors listed is not clearly useful to promote utilization, please indicate it here
along with a substantiated justification.
Could you please indicate if you think the key descriptors chosen are suitable for the
stated purpose?
Could you please indicate if you think the key descriptors chosen are suitable for the stated purpose?
Yes
No

Annex II - List of experts identified for participation to the Survey for the
definition of a minimum set of descriptors for Lathyrus
Bioversity International Office for

Crop leader Mathur, P.N. India
South Asia
Core Group Haque, Mamtazul Bangladesh
Research Institute
Core Group Sarker, Ashutosh ICARDA South East Asia Office India
Core Indira Gandhi Agricultural

Pandey R.L. India
Group/Reviewer DL University
Core Department of Agriculture and
Hanbury, C.D. Australia
group/Reviewers DL Food, Western Australia
Core
Lohwasser, Ulrike Genetics and Crop Plant Germany
group/Reviewers DL
Research (ECPGR)
SRG Muehlbauer, F.J. USDA USA
Research Institute for Plant Slovakia

Reviewers Desc List Benková, Michaela Production Republic
Reviewers Desc List Combes, Daniel IBEAS (ECPGR) France
Centro de Recursos Fitogenéticos

Reviewers Desc List De la Cuadra, Celia “La Canaleja”
Spain
Centro de Recursos Fitogenéticos

Reviewers Desc List De la Rosa, Lucia “La Canaleja”
Spain
Reviewers Desc List Frese, L. Federal Centre for Breeding Germany
Reviewers Desc
Hanson, Jean ILRI Ethiopia
List/SRG
Reviewers Desc List Islam, Obaidual Bangladesh
Research Institute
Faculty of Medicine, University of
Reviewers Desc List Lambein, Fernand Belgium
Ghent
Seed Conservation Section, Royal United
Reviewers Desc List Linington, Simon Botanical Gardens Kingdom
Olegovna Burlyaeva, N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of
Reviewers Desc List Plant Industry (VIR)
Russia
Marina
Reviewers Desc List Poulsen, Gert B. Nordic Genebank Sweden
Indira Gandhi Agricultural

Reviewers Desc List Sharma, R.N. India
University
Research Institute for Fodder Czech
Reviewers Desc List Smoliková, Marta
Plants Ltd. Republic
Czech
Reviewers Desc List Valkoun, Jan
Republic
Australian Medicago Genetic
Strategy Expert * Resources Centre
Australia
Genetic Resources Centre
Strategy Expert * Bangladesh Agricultural Research Bangladesh
Centre
Institute for Plant Genetic
Strategy Expert * Bulgaria
Resources
Biodiversity Conservation and
Strategy Expert * Ethiopia
Research Institute
Department of Plant Breeding,
Strategy Expert * Indian Institute of Pulses India
Research
Dept. of Botany, Institute of Life
Strategy Expert * Science, Hebrew Univ. of Israel
Jerusalem
Strategy Expert * Agricultural Research Council Nepal
Sector de Pastagens e
Strategy Expert * Forragens Dept Past., Forrag., Portugal
Proteaginosas
Servicio de Investigacion Agraria
Strategy Expert * Spain
Junta de Castilla y Leon
General Commission for
Strategy Expert * Syria
Scientific Agricultural Research
Ustimovskaya Experimental
Strategy Expert * Ukraine
Station for Plant Cultivation
Strategy Expert Abdelguerfi, A. Institut National Agronomique (INA) Algeria
Institute of Biodiversity Conservation

Strategy Expert Abdi, Adugna and Research (IBCR)
Ethiopia
Centro Regional de Investigación

Strategy Expert Acuña, Hernan Chile
Quilamapu, Inia
United
Strategy Expert Ambrose, Mike John Innes Centre
Kingdom
Strategy Expert Diederichsen, Axel Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canada
Banco de Germoplasma, Centro

De los Mozos Pascual,
Strategy Expert de Investigacion Agraria de Spain
Marcelino
Albaladejito
Strategy Expert Della, Athena Agricultural Research Insitute Cyprus
El-Hawary, Mohamed
Strategy Expert National Gene Bank of Egypt Egypt
Ibrahim
Strategy Expert Furman, Bonnie J. ARS/USDA USA

Strategy Expert Galasso, Incoronata CNR Italy
Strategy Expert Gowda, C.L.L. ICRISAT
National Institute for Agricultural

Strategy Expert Holly, László Quality Control Research Centre for Hungary
Agrobotany
Strategy Expert Horváth, Lajos Institute for Agrobotany Hungary
GCSAR - Ministry of Agric &

Strategy Expert Jamal, Majd Agrarian Reform
Syria
Plant Genetic Resources Unit Crop

Strategy Expert Moal, Sharif Improv - Ministry of Agriculture
Afghanistan
Strategy Expert Monreal, Álvaro Ramos Consejeria de Agricultura Ganadería Spain
Australian Temperate Field Crops

Strategy Expert Redden, Bob Collection
Australia
Strategy Expert Ryabchoun, Victor K. National Centre for PGR of Ukraine Ukraine
Strategy Expert Sharma, S.K. ICAR India
Strategy Expert Srivastava, Surendra Nepal Agricultural Research Nepal
Instituto de Agricultura Sostenible

Strategy Expert Suso, María José (CSIC)
Spain

Strategy Expert Tan, Ayfer Institute (AARI)
Turkey

Strategy Expert Van Ginkel, Maarten Horsham
Australia
Departamento de Recursos
Strategy Expert Veloso, Maria Manuela Genéticos e Melhoramento, Estação Portugal
Agronómica Nacional
N.I. Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry
Strategy Expert Vishnakovaya, Margarita (VIR)
Russia
Phaseolus Germplasm Collection

Strategy Expert Welsh, Molly USA
- USDA/ARS
Institute of Crop Germplasm
Strategy Expert Xuxiao, Zong Resources, CAAS
China
Institute of Agribiotechnology &

Strategy Expert Zahoor, Ahmad Genetic Resources
Pakistan
N.I. Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry
Expert Alexanian, Sergey (VIR)
Annex III – Survey responses and suggested additions/deletions to the identified set of Minimum descriptors for
Lathyrus
Name Organization Country Characterization Character Evaluation descriptors Evaluation Do you think the
descriptors to be added ization to be added descriptors key descriptors
descripto to be deleted chosen are
rs to be suitable for the
deleted stated purpose?
Yes/No
Abdelguerfi, A. INA Algeria * * * * Yes
Height to the first pod; Susceptibility to Bruchus
De La Rosa, L. INIA Spain * * Yes
Seed shape sp. and Fusarium sp.
Centro de
Straw crude protein
De los Mozos Investigación
Spain * * content; Susceptibility to * Yes
Pascual, M. Agraria de
Bruchids
Albaladejito
Agriculture and
Diederichsen,
Agri-Food Canada * * * * Yes
A.
Canada
Susceptibility to Helicoverpa
Department of spp. larvae attack; Alfalfa
Agriculture and Australi mosaic virus (AMV), bean
Hanbury, Colin * * yellow mosaic virus (BYMV)
* Yes
Food, Western a
Australia and pea seed-borne mosaic
virus (PSbMV).
Bangladesh
Haque, Md. Agricultural Banglad Leaf tendril; hypocotyle Days to 1st flowering; pod
* * Yes
Mamtazul Research esh and epicotyle color length and seed yield
Institute
Leibniz Institute
Lohwasser, of Plant Genetics German
* * * * Yes
Ulrike and Crop Plant y
Research
BIOVERSITY
Mathur, P.N. INTERNATIONA India * * * * Yes
L
Department of
Primary Australi Anthocynin on leaf; Root
Redden, Bob * * Yes
Industries a Immature pod colour nodulation
Victoria
Name Organization Country Characterization Character Evaluation descriptors Evaluation Do you think the
descriptors to be added ization to be added descriptors key descriptors
descripto to be deleted chosen are
rs to be suitable for the
deleted stated purpose?
Seedling vigour (7.1.3) to
be recoreded in
Indira Gandhi
accordance with seed
Sharma, R.N. Agricultural India * Yes
index (100 seed wt.);
University
Pod colour and
pods/peduncle
Czech
Valkoun, Jan Republi * * * * Yes
c
Vishnyakova, Vavilov Institute Ascochyta orobi Sacc.
Russia * * * Yes
Margarita of Plant Breeding and A. lathyri
Welsh, Molly USDA-ARS WA * * * * Yes
Soluble solid matter content
of sprouts (without cotyledon)
Date of first flowering; for vegetable purposes; Vc
content, protein content,
Xuxiao, Zong CAAS China Ecological habitat; Fresh * sugar content and other
* Yes
biomass; Dry biomass soluble solid matter content
in total (for vegetable
purpose)
Annex IV – Agreed key set of descriptors approved by the Crop Leader and the
Core Advisory Group on 25/10/2008
Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as
published in the Bioversity publication ‘Descriptors for Lathyrus spp., 2000’.
Seedling vigour (7.1.3)

Number of primary branches (7.3.2)
Days to 50% flowering [d] (7.6.2)
Days to maturity [d] (7.6.4)
Pod bearing position [cm] (height to first pod) (7.6.19)
Pod dehiscence (7.7.17)
Seed coat colour (7.8.3)
100-seed weight [g] (7.8.10)
Harvest index [%] (8.1.6)
Seed crude protein content [g/100g DW] (8.2.1)
β-N-Oxalyl-L-α, β-Diaminopropionic Acid (ODAP) content [%] (8.2.4)
Susceptibility to bean aphids (Aphis craccivora) (10.1.1)
Susceptibility to pod borers (Etiella zinckenella) (10.1.2)
Susceptibility to Bruchids (Bruchus sp.) (10.1.4)
Susceptibility to Jassids (10.1.5)
Susceptibility to Powdery mildew (Erysiphe polygoni f.sp. pisi) (10.3.1)
Susceptibility to Downy mildew (Peronospora lathyri – palustris) (10.3.2)
Susceptibility to Broomrape (Orobanche spp.) (10.X.1)
Annex V – Final key set of descriptors for Lathyrus genetic resources obtained
after validation

Lathyrus spp. genetic resources
This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for Lathyrus
access to and utilization of Lathyrus accessions held in genebanks, and does not preclude the
Based on the comprehensive list of ‘Descriptors for Lathyrus spp.’ (IPGRI, 2000), the set was
developed in consultation with Lathyrus experts worldwide, and further refined by a Core
Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr Prem Mathur of Bioversity International.
Biotic and abiotic stresses included in the list were chosen because of their cosmopolitan
nature, wide geographical occurrence and significant economic impact.
The numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptor
numbers as published in ‘Descriptors for Lathyrus spp.’ (IPGRI, 2000). Descriptors with
numbers ending in ‘X’ are new descriptors that were added during the revision of the original
publication.

Recorded 20 days after emergence
3 Poor
5 Intermediate
7 Vigorous

Recorded at the beginning of flowering period
1 Prostrate
2 Spreading
3 Semi-erect
4 Erect

Height of plant at physiological maturity measured from ground to the tip of the longest branch
Number of primary branches (7.3.2)

Counted at first pod maturity (only pod-bearing branches)

Number of days from sowing to stage when 50% of plants have begun to flower in a row
Days to maturity [d] (7.6.4)
From sowing to when 80% of plants have mature pods

Score on fresh, open flowers for score standard, wing and keel colours separately
1 White
2 White blue
3 Blue
4 Grey
5 Light yellow
6 Yellow
7 Pink
8 Orange
9 Red
10 Violet–blue
11 Violet
Pod-bearing position [cm] (7.6.19)

Recorded as height to the lowest pod

Mean number of pods. Recorded from randomly selected plants at physiological maturity.

Mean number of seeds counted on randomly selected pods. Recorded at physiological maturity.

Scored one week after maturity
0 No shattering
3 Low shattering
5 Medium shattering
7 High shattering
Seed coat colour (7.8.3)

1 Greyed–white
2 Yellow–white
3 Grey
4 Brown
5 Yellow–green
6 Pink
7 Red–purple
8 Black
9 Grey mottled
10 Green mottled
100-seed weight [g] (7.8.10)

Weight of 100 randomly selected mature seeds at 8–10% (air-dry) seed moisture content
Harvest index [%] (8.1.6)
Ratio of total grain to total biological yield taken from randomly selected plants in a row
Seed crude protein content [g/100 g DW] (8.2.1)
β-N-Oxalyl-L-α, β-Diaminopropionic Acid (ODAP) content [%] (8.2.4)

Estimate ODAP content in dry seeds and any other plant part (specify, such as dry cotyledons,
dry embryo, etc.)
Susceptibility to Bean aphids (Aphis craccivora) (10.1.1)
Susceptibility to Pod borers (Etiella zinckenella) (10.1.2)
Susceptibility to Bruchids (Bruchus spp.) (10.1.4)
Susceptibility to Jassids (10.1.X)
Susceptibility to Powdery mildew (Erysiphe polygoni f.sp. pisi) (10.3.1)
Susceptibility to Downy mildew (Peronospora lathyri-palustris) (10.3.2)
Susceptibility to Broomrape (Orobanche spp.) (10.X.X)
Notes
CONTRIBUTORS
this strategic set of key access and utilization descriptors for Lathyrus genetic resources. The
following Bioversity staff contributed to this exercise: Michael Mackay, who provided scientific
direction, and Adriana Alercia, who provided technical expertise and guided the whole
production process. Special thanks go to Prem Mathur for his scientific advice and guidance on
this crop.
Core Advisory Group

Prem Mathur, Bioversity International, Italy
Colin Hanbury, Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia
Mamtazul Haque, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Bangladesh
Ulrike Lohwasser, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research, Germany (ECPGR)
R.L. Pandey, Indira Gandhi Agricultural University, India
Kenneth Street, ICARDA, Syria
Reviewers
Algeria
Aïssa Abdelguerfi, Institut National Agronomique (INA)
Australia
Bob Redden, Australian Temperate Field Crops Collection, Department of Primary Industries
Canada
Axel Diederichsen, Plant Gene Resources of Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
China
Zong Xuxiao, Institute of Crop Sciences, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences
Czech Republic
Jan Valkoun
India
R.N. Sharma, Indira Gandhi Agricultural University
Russia
Margarita Vishnyakova, Vavilov Institute of Plant Breeding
Spain
Lucia de la Rosa, Centro de Recursos Fitogenéticos – INIA
Marcelino de los Mozos Pascual, Centro de Investigación Agraria de Albaladejito
USA
Molly Welsh, USDA-ARS
lentil (Lens Miller)
Information for the definition of a Minimum Descriptor List for lentil
(Lens Miller) was drawn from the publication ‘Lentil Descriptors’ published by ICARDA
and IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1985. The list derived from this publication
was subsequently integrated and harmonized with descriptors suggested in the ‘Global
Strategy for the Ex-Situ Conservation of Lentil (Lens Miller)’ (the Trust, 2008),
particularly with regard to the inclusion of characters and traits relevant to abiotic and
biotic stresses for lentil of particular importance in the context of climate change.
The comprehensive descriptors list included in this publication was compared

with essential descriptors listed in Descriptors for LENTIL (USDA, ARS, GRIN, 1998);
UPOV Technical Guidelines for Lentil (2003) and with descriptors listed in the article
‘Methodology to establish a composite collection: case study in lentil‘ (Plant Genetic
Resources, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 2-12, NIAB, 2006) by Bonnie J. Furman, ICARDA, 2005, as
well as with those descriptors that were awarded funds for further research by the Trust
in the Evaluation Awards Scheme (EAS) 2008. An Excel table was prepared comparing
descriptors mentioned in each list, and then shared with experts participating in a crop-
specific meeting held in India in June 2009 at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic
Resources (NBPGR). The consultation, which involved several experts from NBPGR and
the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), resulted in the definition of a
preliminary key set of descriptors for lentil (see Annex I).

As the List of Experts involved in the publication ‘Lentil Descriptors’ (IBPGR and
ICARDA, 1985) was too old, the experts taking part in the definition of the ‘Global
Strategy for the Ex-Situ Conservation of Lentil (Lens Miller)’ (the Trust, 2008), who also
participated to a survey sent out on 20 April 2006, were included. Participants of the
Global Collaborative Ex situ Conservation Strategies for Food Legumes in Aleppo, Syria,
in February 2007 and the experts belonging to the ‘Lentil Germplasm Collections
Directory’ were also considered.
The databases of FAO WIEWS, ECPGR Lens, developed by the Aegean

Agricultural Research Institute (AARI), Turkey, as well as that of the Centre for
Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture (CLIMA) offered a number of relevant names. A
further source of experts was the list of participants in the ‘First South Asian Travelling
Workshop on Food Legumes in India’ that took place in March 2008, attended by over
30 experts from India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan, obtained through the ICARDA
website.
Additional names of experts were found in the websites of relevant organizations
such as the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI), the South Australian
Research and Development Institute (SARDI) and the Center for New Crops & Plant
Products (Purdue University) and some relevant contacts obtained at the ENEA
Chickpea congress held at the University of La Tuscia, Viterbo, Italy in 2009.
Crop Leaders and members of the Core Advisory Group were identified during a
crop-specific meeting held at NBPGR in June 2009 chaired by Ms Adriana Alercia.
Overall, the list was composed of 64 experts, from 30 countries and 41 different
organizations. Additionally, the invitation was sent to other nine relevant institutions,
without addressing it to specific scientists (see Annex II). Out of these, two Crop
Leaders, Ashutosh Sarker (ICARDA, Syria) and Shashi K. Mishra (NBPGR, India) and a
Core Advisory Group (CAG) consisting of nine experts, selected from world renowned
organizations, were identified to assist in the definition of a key set of descriptors for
this crop, which was subsequently circulated for validation among a wider group of
experts.

A draft survey on lentil was prepared at the beginning of June 2009, including the first
priority minimum set (see Annex III) obtained following consultations with the Crop
Leaders and the CAG. Once approved, the final draft of the survey was uploaded into
the SurveyMonkey application on the internet (see Annex IV). An email invitation,
containing the link to access to the survey, was sent out to experts on 29 July 2009,
inviting them to validate the initial ‘Minimum set of descriptors’ of lentil accessions to
promote the utilization of germplasm. Experts were also encouraged to mention any
additional relevant traits missing from the proposed list, along with a substantiated
justification for their inclusion. The survey deadline was set at the 10 September 2009. A
reminder was sent out on the 2 September 2009 to experts who had not yet responded.
By popular demand the deadline was extended to 18 September 2009 to ensure that the

recorded their comments using the online survey (see Annex V). Results from the
survey were analyzed and descriptors were ranked by rating average and percentage of
importance (see Annex VI). The summary results of the survey together with a report
containing comments received by the participants (see Annex VII) were sent to the Core
Advisory Group asking them to indicate descriptors that should be included in the final
list.
Descriptors selected were compared in order to reach a ‘First priority set of
descriptors’ (see Annex VIII) that was presented to the Core Advisory Group for their
approval. The list was amended accordingly with comments received from experts,
taking into account survey results and selections. Of particular note was that the
descriptors ‘Rust’ and ‘Number of pods per plant’ were included by popular demand,
and ‘Stemphylium spp.’ was added as a causal organism for blight. The Coordinator sent
an email to one of the Crop Leaders explaining that two out of the five descriptors
suggested by him would not be added because of their rating resulted relatively low
and none of the members of the Core Advisory Group had selected them. The revised
minimum list (see Annex IX), including all contributors, descriptor states and methods
for each descriptor, was sent to the whole group of participants in the exercise for their
final validation on 16 February 2010.
Dr Ashutosh Sarker was asked to advice on the use of the proper unit of
measurement for the descriptor ‘Seed yield per plant’.
Definition of a final key set of descriptors for lentil

The final document approved (see Annex X), was proofread by an external editor and
sent to the Bioversity Publication Unit for layout and on-line publication processes.
Furthermore, the publication was shared with the ECPGR Secretariat; the Generation
Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base
partners. Additionally, data were converted into Excel files for uploading into the
GRIN-Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA and
subsequently into the global accession level information portal (GENESYS), linking
national, regional and international genebank databases in support of the conservation
and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files
were also provided to the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources
Acknowledgement
Bioversity is grateful to all scientists and researchers who have contributed to the
development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for lentil
Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leaders, Dr Ashutosh Sarker
(ICARDA, Syria) and Dr Shashi K. Mishra (NBPGR, India) for providing valuable
scientific direction.
Annex I – Summary comparison table weighing up important descriptors for lentil drawn from
different sourcesi
UPOV
ICARDA IBPGR/ ICARDA
2003 ARS_ ICARDA LONG MIN-
/IBPGR ICARDA EAS Strategy Sarker’s
Descriptor name Most USDA article NBPGR NBPGR
Descr. 1985 (4) (6) selectio
imp. (3) (5) (7) (7)
number (1) n
(2)
New Plant growth * * * * *
habit
Anthocyanin
4.1.1 * *(?) *(?) * * *
colour in the
hypocotyl
4.1.2 Plant * * * * * *
pubescence
4.1.3 Leaflet size * * * *
Plant height [cm] *at

4.1.4 * * * * * * *
(at maturity flowering
stage)
4.1.5 Tendrilness * * * * * *
(present/absent)
4.2.1 Days to 50% * * * * * * * *
flowering [d]
4.2.2 Days to maturity * * * * * * *
[d]
4.2.3 Flower ground * * * * * * *
colour
4.2.4 Pod * * * * * * *
pigmentation
4.3.1 Number of seeds * * * * * *
per pod
4.3.2 100-seed weight * * (DW) * * * * * *
[g]
4.3.3 Ground colour of * * * * * *
seed testa
4.3.4 Pattern of seed * * * * *
testa
4.3.5 Colour of pattern * * * * *
on seed testa
4.3.6 Cotyledon colour * * * * * * *
6.1.1 Lodging * * * *
susceptibility
6.1.2 Biological yield * * * *
per plant [g]
6.2.1 Number of pods * * (pods) * * * * *
per peduncle
New Harvest index * * * *
6.2.2 Height of lowest * * * * *

pod [cm]
6.2.3 Pod shedding * * * * *
6.2.4 Pod dehiscence * * * * *

6.3.1 Seed yield per * * * * * * *
plant [g]
6.3.2 Seed Protein * * * *
content [%]
Methionine and
6.3.3 other sulphur * *
containing amino
acids [mg/g N]
New Seed iron *
content
New Seed zinc *
content
6.3.4 Seed cooking * * * *
time
7.1 Low temperature * * Not *
required
7.1.1 Winter kill * Not
required
7.1.2 Frost tolerance * * *
7.2 High temperature * * * *
7.3 Drought * * * * * *
7.4 High soil * * *

moisture
7.5 Salinity * * * *
8.1.1 Aphids (Aphis * * *

craccivora Koch)
8.1.2 Weevils (Sitona * * *
spp.)
8.1.3 Weevils * * *
(Bruchus spp.)
Pod borers
8.1.4 (Etiella * *
zinckenella
Treit.)
Rust (Uromyces
8.2.1 * * * * * *
fabae (Pers.) de
Bary)
8.2.2 Blight * * * * *
(Ascochyta spp.)
Vascular wilts
8.2.3 (Fusarium * * * * *
oxysporum f. sp.
lentis Gordon)
Downy mildew
8.2.4 * * * *
(Peronospora
lentis Gaum.)
8.5 Parasitic weeds * * * *
(Orobanche spp.)
New Dry seed width * * * *
[mm]
Dry seed profile
New * * * *
in longitudinal
cross-section
New Resistance to * * *
Anthracnose
New Seed shape * * * * *
New Stem * *
pigmentation
New Leaflet shape *
Stemphylium
New blight *
(Stemphylium
botryosum)
Dry root rot
New *
(Rhizoctonia
solani Kuhn)
Collar rot
New *
(Sclerotium
rolfsii Sacc.)
Stem rot
New (Sclerotinia *
sclerotium (Lib.)
de Bary)
Powdery mildew
New (Erysiphe *
polygoni D.C.)
New Bean leaf roll *

virus
New Bean yellow *
mosaic virus
Root-knot
New nematode *
(Meloidogyne
spp.)
New Dodder (Cuscuta *
campestris)
Thrips
New *
(Kakothrips
robustus)
Seed
Pod length * weight
already
included
i
(1) ‘Lentil Descriptors’ (IBPGR and ICARDA, 1985); (2) UPOV technical guidelines for LENTIL (2003); (3) Descriptors for Lentil (USDA, ARS, GRIN,
1998); (4) Evaluation Awards Scheme (EAS) by the Trust in 2008; (5) The article ‘Methodology to establish a composite collection: case study in
lentil’ (Plant Genetic Resources 4(1); 2-12, NIAB, 2006) by Bonnie J. Furman, ICARDA, 2005; (6) ‘Global Strategy for the Ex-Situ Conservation of
Lentil (Lens Miller)’ (the Trust, 2008); (7) Crop specific meeting held in India (June, 2009) involving experts from the National Bureau of Plant
Genetic Resources (NBPGR) and the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI).
ROLE/SOURCE NAME INSTITUTION COUNTRY

Crop Leader Sarker, Ashutosh ICARDA Syria
Crop Leader Mishra, S.K. NBPGR India
CAG/ECPGR
N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Russian
(suggested by Alexanian, Sergei
Industry (VIR) Federation
ECPGR Coordinator)
CAG/UPOV Boulineau, Francois GEVES France
CAG Coyne, Clare USDA/ARS USA
CAG Dua, Ram Prakash NBPGR (Underutilized plants division) India
CAG Gowda, C.L.L. ICRISAT India
CAG (suggested by Genebank, Leibniz Institute of Plant
Kotter, Matthias Germany
H. Knüpffer) Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK)
CAG/ECPGR
Centro Nacional de Recursos Fitogenéticos
(suggested by Latorre, Fernando Spain
CRF - INIA
ECPGR Coordinator)
CAG Muehlbauer, F.J. USDA/ARS USA
CAG/NBPGR Rana, J.C. NBPGR, Regional station, Shimla India
Crop Strategy Expert Abdelguerfi, A. Institut National Agronomique (INA) Algeria
Institute of Biodiversity Conservation and
Crop Strategy Expert Abdi, Adugna Ethiopia
Research (IBCR)
Centro Regional de Investigación
Crop Strategy Expert Acuña, Hernan Chile
Quilamapu, INIA
Biodiversity Conservation and Research
Crop Strategy Expert Ahmed, Ibrahim Ethiopia
Institute
Institut National de la Recherche
WIEWS Al Faiz, Chaouki Morocco
Agronomique (INRA)
SINGER survey Amri, Ahmed GRU (ICARDA) Syria
ECPGR (suggested
by ECPGR Atikyilmaz, Nuket Turkey
(AARI)
Coordinator)
Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute
Crop Strategy Expert Azizur, Rahman Bangladesh
(BARI)
Research Institute of Plant Production Slovak
WIEWS Benediková, Daniela
Piešt’any Republic
Crop Strategy Expert Buchwaldt, Lone Plant Gene Res of Canada and Agri-Food Canada
Purdue website Carr, Patrick M. North Dakota University USA
Contact ENEA
Crinò, Paola ENEA Italy
Chickpea congress
Contact ENEA
De la Rosa, Lucía INIA Spain
Chickpea congress
Crop Strategy Expert Della, Athena Agricultural Research Institute Cyprus
Crop Strategy Expert Diederichsen, Axel Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canada
Crop Strategy Expert Docho, Shamov Institute for Plant Genetic Resources Bulgaria
Purdue website Edwarson, Steven North Dakota Barley Council USA
El-Hawary, Mohamed
Crop Strategy Expert National Gene Bank of Egypt Egypt
Ibrahim
Crop Strategy Expert Furman, Bonnie J. ARS/USDA USA
Crop Strategy Expert Galasso, Incoronata CNR (National Research Council) Italy
National Institute for Agricultural Quality
Crop Strategy Expert Holly, László Hungary
Control -Research Centre for Agrobotany
Crop Strategy Expert Horváth, Lajos Institute for Agrobotany Hungary
GCSAR - Ministry of Agric & Agrarian
Crop Strategy Expert Jamal, Majd Syria
Reform
CLIMA website Khan, Tanveer CLIMA Australia
South Australian Research and
SARDI website Maqbool, Ahmad Australia
Development Institute (SARDI)
SARDI website Mc Murray, Larry SARDI Australia
Instituto Nacional de Investigación y
Miren Edurne
WIEWS Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria. Centro de Spain
Aguiriano Labandibar
Recursos Fitogenéticos
Plant Genetic Resources Unit Crop
Crop Strategy Expert Moal, Sharif Afghanistan
Improvement, Ministry of Agriculture
Purdue website Mohamed, Ali I. Virginia State University USA
Monreal, Álvaro
Crop Strategy Expert Consejeria de Agricultura Ganadería Spain
Ramos
CLIMA website Oliver, Richard CLIMA Australia
Crop Strategy Expert Pandey, R.L. Indira Ghandi University India
ECPGR (suggested
Istituto di Genetica Vegetale, Consiglio
by ECPGR Pignone, Domenico Italy
Nazionale delle Ricerche
Coordinator)
WIEWS Podyma, W. Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute Poland
Suggested by
Pritchard, Ian CLIMA Australia
Tanveer
Crop Strategy
Redden, Bob Australian Temperate Field Crops Collection Australia
Expert/WIEWS
Crop Strategy
Ryabchoun, Victor K. National Centre for PGR of Ukraine Ukraine
Expert/WIEWS
Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias,
ECPGR Salazar, E. Chile
Centro Regional de Investigación La Platina
School of Biological Sciences, University of
WIEWS Sheperd, D. UK
Southampton
Purdue website Slinkard, Al University of Saskatchewan Canada
Crop Strategy Expert Srivastava, Surendra Nepal Agricultural Research Nepal
WIEWS Stoyanova, S. Bulgaria
"K. Malkov"
Crop Strategy Expert Suso, María José Instituto de Agricultura Sostenible (CSIC) Spain
CLIMA website Sweetingham, Mark CLIMA Australia
Crop Strategy Expert Tan, Ayfer Turkey
(AARI)
ICGL Upadhyaya, Hari D. ICRISAT India
Crop Strategy Expert Van Ginkel, Maarten ICARDA Syria
ICGL Vandenberg, Albert University of Saskatchewan Canada
Departamento de Recursos Genéticos e
Crop Strategy
Veloso, Maria Manuela Melhoramento, Estação Agronómica Portugal
Expert/WIEWS
Nacional
Institute of Crop Germplasm Resources,
Crop Strategy Expert Xuxiao, Zong China
CAAS
Internet Yadav, Nawal Kishore NGLRP, Rampur Nepal
Lentil Collection N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Russian
Yankov, Ivan
Curator Industry (VIR) Federation
Crop Strategy Institute of Agribiotechnology & Genetic
Zahoor, Ahmad Pakistan
Expert/WIEWS Resources
Crop Australian Medicago Genetic Resources
Australia
Strategy/WIEWS Centre
Department of Plant Breeding, Indian
Crop Strategy India
Institute of Pulses Research
Dept. of Botany, Institute of Life Science,
Crop Strategy Israel
Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem
WIEWS Agricultural Research Centre Libya
Crop Strategy Agricultural Research Council Nepal
Sector de Pastagens e Forragens Dept
Crop Strategy Portugal
Past., Forrag., Proteaginosas
Servicio de Investigación Agraria Junta de
Crop Strategy Spain
Castilla y Leon
General Commission for Scientific
Crop Strategy Syria
Ustimovskaya Experimental Station for Plant
Crop Strategy Ukraine
Cultivation
Annex III – First lentil key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors included in the
survey (July 2009). Drawn from Sarker’s (ICARDA) selection in the comparison table and then
revised
1. Plant growth habit

2. Anthocyanin colour in the hypocotyl (4.1.1)
3. Plant pubescence (4.1.2)
4. Leaflet size (4.1.3)
5. Plant height [cm] (at maturity stage) (4.1.4)
6. Tendrilness (present/absent) (4.1.5)
7. Days to 50% flowering [d] (4.2.1)
8. Days to 90% maturity [d] (4.2.2)
10. Pod pigmentation (4.2.4)
12. 100-seed weight [g] (4.3.2)
13. Seed shape
14. Dry seed width [mm]
15. Dry seed profile in longitudinal cross-section
16. Ground colour of seed testa (4.3.3)
17. Pattern of seed testa (4.3.4)
18. Colour of pattern on seed testa (4.3.5)
19. Cotyledon colour (4.3.6)
20. Lodging susceptibility (6.1.1)
21. Biological yield per plant [g] (6.1.2)
23. Harvest index
24. Height of lowest pod [cm] (6.2.2)
25. Pod shedding (6.2.3)
26. Pod dehiscence (6.2.4)
27. Seed yield per plant [g] (6.3.1)
28. Seed protein content [%] (6.3.2)
29. Seed iron content [%]
30. Seed zinc content [%]
31. Seed cooking time (6.3.4)
32. Low temperature (7.1)
33. Frost tolerance (7.1.2)
34. High temperature (7.2)
35. Drought (7.3)
36. High soil moisture (7.4)
37. Salinity (7.5)
38. Aphids (Aphis craccivora) (8.1.1)
39. Weevils (Sitona spp.) (8.1.2)
40. Weevils (Bruchus spp.) (8.1.3)
41. Rust (Uromyces fabae) (8.2.1)
42. Blight (Ascochyta spp.) (8.2.2)
43. Stemphylium blight (Stemphylium botryosum)
44. Vascular wilts (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lentis) (8.2.3)
45. Downy mildew (Peronospora lentis) (8.2.4)
46. Parasitic weeds (Orobanche spp.) (8.5)
47. Dry root rot (Rhizoctonia solani)
48. Collar rot (Sclerotium rolfsii)
49. Stem rot (Sclerotinia sclerotium)
50. Powdery mildew (Erysiphe polygoni)
51. Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.)
52. Dodder (Cuscuta campestris)
53. Thrips (Kakothrips robustus)
54. Bean leaf roll virus
55. Bean yellow mosaic virus
Annex IV – Survey to choose a key set of descriptors for lentil utilization
WELCOME
Lentil to support an international information system to enhance the utilization of germplasm held in
genebanks.
Your knowledge and experience are being sought to define an initial ‘key set’ of descriptors that identify traits
important to crop production and facilitate the use of accessions by researchers.
Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 10 September 2009.
accessions for evaluation and use.

- PART I: Characterization descriptors
- PART II: Evaluation descriptors

Name:
Position:
Organization:
Country:
Email:
between accessions. It also allows you to indicate if any essential descriptor that can contribute to its use is
missing from the minimum list presented.
*Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in
the IBPGR/ICARDA publication ‘Lentil Descriptors’ (1985).
Very important Important Not important
Plant growth habit ○ ○ ○

Anthocyanin colour in the hypocotyl (4.1.1) ○ ○ ○
Plant pubescence (4.1.2) ○ ○ ○
Leaflet size (4.1.3) ○ ○ ○
Plant height [cm] (at maturity stage) (4.1.4) ○ ○ ○
Tendrilness (present/absent) (4.1.5) ○ ○ ○
Days to 50% flowering [d] (4.2.1) ○ ○ ○
Days to 90% maturity [d] (4.2.2) ○ ○ ○
Flower ground colour (4.2.3) ○ ○ ○
Pod pigmentation (4.2.4) ○ ○ ○
Number of seeds per pod (4.3.1) ○ ○ ○
100-seed weight [g] (4.3.2) ○ ○ ○
Seed shape ○ ○ ○
Dry seed width [mm] ○ ○ ○
Dry seed profile in longitudinal cross-section ○ ○ ○
Ground colour of seed testa (4.3.3) ○ ○ ○
Pattern of seed testa (4.3.4) ○ ○ ○
Colour of pattern on seed testa (4.3.5) ○ ○ ○
Cotyledon colour (4.3.6) ○ ○ ○
These descriptors include characters such as abiotic and biotic stresses. They are the most interesting
traits in crop improvement. Please consider the following factors relating to the trait when making
your final decision: (i) Global impact, (ii) Initial strategic set, (iii) Importance for germplasm utilization,
(iv) Data availability, (v) True economic damage and (vi) Wide geographical occurrence.
essential trait for production is missing from the minimum list presented or indicate any that may not
be very significant to global production.
Very important Important Not Important
Lodging susceptibility (6.1.1) ○ ○ ○

Biological yield per plant [g] (6.1.2) ○ ○ ○
Number of pods per peduncle (6.2.1) ○ ○ ○
Harvest index ○ ○ ○
Height of lowest pod [cm] (6.2.2) ○ ○ ○
Pod shedding (6.2.3) ○ ○ ○
Pod dehiscence (6.2.4) ○ ○ ○
Seed yield per plant [g] (6.3.1) ○ ○ ○
Seed protein content [%] (6.3.2) ○ ○ ○
Seed iron content [%] ○ ○ ○
Seed zinc content [%] ○ ○ ○
Seed cooking time (6.3.4) ○ ○ ○
Low temperature (7.1) ○ ○ ○
Frost tolerance (7.1.2) ○ ○ ○
High temperature (7.2) ○ ○ ○
Drought (7.3) ○ ○ ○
High soil moisture (7.4) ○ ○ ○
Salinity (7.5) ○ ○ ○
Aphids (Aphis craccivora) (8.1.1) ○ ○ ○
Weevils (Sitona spp.) (8.1.2) ○ ○ ○
Weevils (Bruchus spp.) (8.1.3) ○ ○ ○
Rust (Uromyces fabae) (8.2.1) ○ ○ ○
Blight (Ascochyta spp.) (8.2.2) ○ ○ ○
Stemphylium blight (Stemphylium botryosum) ○ ○ ○
Vascular wilts (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lentis) (8.2.3) ○ ○ ○
Downy mildew (Peronospora lentis) (8.2.4) ○ ○ ○
Parasitic weeds (Orobanche spp.) (8.5) ○ ○ ○
Dry root rot (Rhizoctonia solani) ○ ○ ○
Collar rot (Sclerotium rolfsii) ○ ○ ○
Stem rot (Sclerotinia sclerotium) ○ ○ ○
Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.) ○ ○ ○
Powdery mildew (Erysiphe polygoni) ○ ○ ○
Dodder (Cuscuta campestris) ○ ○ ○
Thrips (Kakothrips robustus) ○ ○ ○
Bean leaf roll virus ○ ○ ○
Bean yellow mosaic virus ○ ○ ○
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION

Crop Head of Germplasm National Bureau of Plant Genetic
Mishra, S.K. India
Leader Evaluation Division Resources (NBPGR)
Regional Coordinator
Crop Sarker, for South Asia and International Center for Agricultural
India
Leader Ashutosh Food Legume Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA)
Breeder
Agrawal, Shiv International Center for Agricultural
CAG Lentil Breeder Syria
Kumar Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA)
Centro de Recursos Fitogenéticos,
de la Rosa, Instituto Nacional de Investigación y
CAG Researcher Spain
Lucía Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria
(INIA)
Lohwasser, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and
CAG Genebank taxonomist Germany
Ulrike Crop Plant Research (IPK)
CAG Rana, J.C. Principal Scientist India
Resources (NBPGR)
South Australian Research and
Reviewer Ahmad, M. Principal Scientist Australia
Development Institute (SARDI)
Senior Director, crop National Agricultural Research Centre
Reviewer Ahmad, Zahoor Pakistan
sciences (NARC)
Atikyilmaz, Governmental Aegean Agricultural Research
Reviewer Turkey
Nuket organization Institute (AARI)
Benkova, Plant Production Research Centre Slovak
Reviewer Research Worker
Michaela Piešt’any Republic
Groupe d'Etude et de contrôle des
Boulineau, Variétés et des Semences (GEVES),
Reviewer Directeur d'unité France
François International Union for the Protection
of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV)
Caminero
Instituto Tecnológico Agrario de
Reviewer Saldaña, Legume breeder Spain
Castilla y León
Constantino
Network Coordinator National Bureau of Plant Genetic
Reviewer Dua, R.P. India
(UUC) Resources (NBPGR)
Furman, Bonnie Curator/Lead
Reviewer Agriculture, Agricultural Research USA
J. Scientist
Service (USDA-ARS)
Research Centre for Agrobotany,
Reviewer Holly, László National Coordinator Central Agriculture Office (RCA, Hungary
CAO)
Laghetti,
Reviewer Senior Researcher CNR (National Research Council) Italy
Gaetano
Curator, Australian
Reviewer Redden, Bob Temperate Field Australia
Victoria
Crops Collection
Indian Institute of Pulses Research -
Reviewer Solanki, R.K. Scientist India
Kanpur
Legume germplasm International Center for Agricultural
Reviewer Street, Kenneth Syria
curator Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA)
Instituto de Agricultura Sostenible,
Suso, María
Reviewer Tenure scientist Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Spain
José
Científicas (CSIC)
Institute of Crop Sciences, Chinese
Reviewer Xuxiao, Zong Prof. & PhD. China
Annex VI – List of descriptors proposed in the survey ranked by rating average
sent to the Core Advisory Group for their selection
Your Rating
Descriptor
Selection Average
Characterization
100-seed weight [g] (4.3.2) 4.89
Plant height [cm] (at maturity stage) (4.1.4) 4.65
Ground colour of seed testa (4.3.3) 4.41
Plant growth habit 4.28
Days to 90% maturity [d] (4.2.2) 4.28
Days to 50% flowering [d] (4.2.1) 4.00
Cotyledon colour (4.3.6) 3.83
Number of seeds per pod (4.3.1) 3.78
Colour of pattern on seed testa (4.3.5) 3.06
Flower ground colour (4.2.3) 2.94
Dry seed width [mm] 2.89
Pattern of seed testa (4.3.4) 2.83
Pod pigmentation (4.2.4) 2.78
Tendrilness (present/absent) (4.1.5) 2.71
Seed shape 2.67
Anthocyanin colour in the hypocotyl (4.1.1) 2.56
Leaflet size (4.1.3) 2.47
Plant pubescence (4.1.2) 2.39
Dry seed profile in longitudinal cross-section 1.72
Evaluation
Seed yield per plant [g] (6.3.1) 4.32
Drought (7.3) 4.32
Pod shedding (6.2.3) 4.21
Frost tolerance (7.1.2) 4.21
Biological yield per plant [g] (6.1.2) 4.05
Lodging susceptibility (6.1.1) 3.95
Pod dehiscence (6.2.4) 3.94
Harvest index 3.68
Vascular wilts (Fusarium ox ysporum f. sp. lentis )
3.63
(8.2.3)
Height of lowest pod [cm] (6.2.2) 3.58
Seed protein content [%] (6.3.2) 3.58
High temperature (7.2) 3.58
Blight (Ascochyta spp.) (8.2.2) 3.53
Number of pods per peduncle (6.2.1) 3.42
Rust (Uromyces fabae) (8.2.1) 3.33
Salinity (7.5) 3.11
Low temperature (7.1) 3.05
Aphids (Aphis craccivora) (8.1.1) 2.79
Seed cooking time (6.3.4) 2.58
High soil moisture (7.4) 2.58
Weevils (Sitona spp.) (8.1.2) 2.58
Weevils (Bruchus spp.) (8.1.3) 2.58
Stem rot (Sclerotinia sclerotium) 2.26
Stemphylium blight (Stemphylium botryosum) 2.21
Dry root rot (Rhizoctonia solani) 2.11
Seed iron content [%] 2.05
Seed zinc content [%] 1.89
Downy mildew (Peronospora lentis) (8.2.4) 1.89
Collar rot (Sclerotium rolfsii) 1.89
Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.) 1.79
Parasitic weeds (Orobanche spp.) (8.5) 1.78
Powdery mildew (Erysiphe polygoni) 1.74
Bean leaf roll virus 1.74
Bean yellow mosaic virus 1.63
Thrips (Kakothrips robustus) 1.17
Dodder (Cuscuta campestris) 0.63
Annex VII – Additional traits proposed in the survey
Lentil descriptor Name of expert
R.K.
U. Lohwasser
Solanki C. Caminero
N. of M. (Leibniz Inst. L. Holly L. De la
(Indian Saldaña
Ahmad Plant Gen. (RCA Rosa
Additional traits times (SARDI,
Inst.
Crop Plant
(Inst.Tecn.
CAO, (INIA,
selected Pulses Agr. Castilla y
Australia) Res., Hungary) Spain)
Res., León, Spain)
Germany)
India)
Number of pods per plant is a key
factor in determining the yield
potential of any lentil accession/line.
There are large differences in pod
1 X
number per plant within each
species of the genus Lens therefore,
in my view, pod number per plant
must be included here.
Leaf colour (Justification: In dark
green leaves black aphid incidence
1 X
was found to be more as compared
to light green).
Primary leaflet shape or leaflet
length/width ratio appears to be a 1 X
rather stable character.
Seed type/race: macrosperma and X
1
microsperma.
Extention of seed ornamentation. 1 X
Branching, number of basal
branch. As far as we know,
branching capability is quite
important not just because this
character determines yield
diferential expression, but also 1 X
becasue it is involved in the time
needed to get complete soil
coverage, which is important in
weed competition and herbicide
costs.
Comments
In Germany the last diseases no
problem but maybe for other X
regions.
I am not really sure about plant
height must be consider as really
highly heritable. It is true that not
strong GxE interaction exists when
compared genotypes clearly
X
different for this trait, but when this
difference is weak, GxE becomes
important, so may be better to
include Plant height in the
evaluation descriptor set.
Annex VIII – First priority set of descriptors for lentil utilization resulting from
the survey sent to the Core Advisory Group for their approval
1. Plant height [cm] (at maturity stage) (4.1.4)

2. Plant growth habit (4.1.X)
3. Days to 50% flowering [d] (4.2.1)
4. Days to 90% maturity [d] (4.2.2)
6. 100-seed weight [g] (4.3.2)
7. Ground colour of seed testa (4.3.3)
8. Cotyledon colour (4.3.6)
9. Lodging susceptibility (6.1.1)
10. Biological yield per plant [g] (6.1.2)
11. Harvest index (6.1.X)
13. Height of lowest pod [cm] (6.2.2)
14. Pod shedding (6.2.3)
15. Pod dehiscence (6.2.4)
16. Seed yield per plant [g] (6.3.1)
17. Frost tolerance (7.1.2)
18. Drought (7.3)
19. Blight (Ascochyta spp.) (8.2.2)
20. Vascular wilts (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lentis) (8.2.3)
Annex IX – List of descriptors for lentil utilization amended as per inputs
suggested by the Core Advisory Group and included in the key set sent to the
whole group of experts for their final validation
Plant height [cm] (at maturity stage) (4.1.4)

Plant growth habit (4.1.X)
Days to physiological maturity [d] (4.2.2)
Ground colour of seed testa (4.3.3)
Pattern of seed testa (4.3.4)
Cotyledon colour (4.3.6)
Lodging susceptibility (6.1.1)
Biological yield per plant [g] (6.1.2)
Harvest index (6.1.X)
Height of lowest pod [cm] (6.2.2)
Pod shedding (6.2.3)
Number of pods per plant (6.2.X)
Seed yield per plant [g] (6.3.1)
Frost (7.1.2)
Drought (7.3)
Blight (Ascochyta spp.; Stemphyilium spp.) (8.2.2)
Vascular wilts (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lentis) (8.2.3)
Annex X – Final key set of descriptors for lentil genetic resources

lentil genetic resources
This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for lentil
genetic resources utilization. This strategic set of descriptors, together with passport data,
will become the basis for the global accession level information portal being developed by
Bioversity International with the financial support of the Global Crop Diversity Trust (the
Trust). It will facilitate access to and utilization of lentil accessions held in genebanks and
does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently become
available.
Based on the comprehensive list ‘Lentil Descriptors’ published by ICARDA and IBPGR
(now Bioversity International) in 1985, the list was subsequently compared with a number of
sources such as ‘UPOV technical guidelines for Lentil’ (2003); ‘Descriptors for LENTIL’
(USDA, ARS, GRIN); ‘Methodology to establish a composite collection: case study in lentil’ 1
(ICARDA, 2005); ‘Global Strategy for the Ex Situ Conservation of Lentil (Lens Miller)’ (the
Trust, 2008); as well as with those descriptors that were awarded funds for further research
by the Trust in 2008 Evaluation Awards Scheme (EAS). The initial list was further refined
during a crop-specific consultation meeting held at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic
Resources (NBPGR, India) in June 2009. It involved several scientists from NBPGR and the
Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI).
priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize lentil genetic resources. This
key set was afterwards validated by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by
Dr Ashutosh Sarker (ICARDA) and Dr Shashi K. Mishra (NBPGR).
below.
PLANT DATA

Height of plant measured from the ground to the tip of the extended foliage, at maturity.
Average height of 10 plants
Plant growth habit (4.1.X)

Observed after flowering
1 Prostrate
2 Semi-prostrate
3 Intermediate
4 Upright
5 Erect
99 Other (i.e. ‘mixed’, specify in the descriptor Notes)
1
Bonnie J. Furman, Plant Genetic Resources, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 2-12, NIAB, 2006
Number of days from sowing until 50% of the plants are in flower. However, in dry land
areas when planting in dry soils, it is counted from the first day of rainfall or irrigation,
which is sufficient for germination
Days to physiological maturity [d] (4.2.2)

Number of days from sowing until 90% of the pods are golden brown. See 4.2.1 for planting
in dry soils

Average number of seeds of 10 dry pods

Average weight of two samples of 100 randomly chosen seeds
Ground colour of seed testa (4.3.3)

To be observed on seeds less than three months old
1 Green
2 Grey
3 Brown
4 Black
5 Pink
Pattern of seed testa (4.3.4)

0 Absent
1 Dotted
2 Spotted
3 Marbled
4 Complex (any combination of 1, 2 and 3)
Cotyledon colour (4.3.6)

To be observed on seeds less than three months old
1 Yellow
2 Orange-red
3 Olive-green

Scored at maturity (see 4.2.2) on a scale 1-9
0 None (all plants standing)
3 Low
5 Medium
7 High
Biological yield per plant [g] (6.1.2)

Yield of dried mature plants after pulling
Harvest index [%] (6.1.X)

Maximum number of pods per peduncle on 10 representative plants
Height of lowest pod [cm] (6.2.2)

Estimate of the average height above ground of the lowest pod on unlodged plants at
harvest
Pod shedding (6.2.3)
Scored after or during harvesting one week after maturity (see 4.2.2) on a scale 1-9
0 None
3 Low
5 Medium
7 High

Scored one week after maturity on a scale 1-9
0 None
3 Low
5 Medium
7 High
Number of pods per plant (6.2.X)

Average number of pods. Recorded from randomly selected plants at physiological maturity
Seed yield per plant [g/plant] (6.3.1)

Yield of seed after drying
ABIOTIC STRESSES
Frost (7.1.2)
Drought (7.3)
BIOTIC STRESSES
Blight (Ascochyta spp., Stemphylium spp.) (8.2.2)
Vascular wilts (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lentis) (8.2.3)
CONTRIBUTORS
development of this strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for lentil genetic
resources’, and in particular to Dr A. Sarker (ICARDA, Syria) and Dr S.K. Mishra (NBPGR,
India) for providing valuable scientific direction. Ms Adriana Alercia (Bioversity
International) provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process.
CORE ADVISORY GROUP

A. Sarker, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Syria
S.K. Mishra, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), India
Kumar Shiv Agrawal, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA),
Syria
Lucía De la Rosa, Centro de Recursos Fitogenéticos, Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología
Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA), Spain
J.C. Rana, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), India
REVIEWERS
Australia
Maqbool Ahmad, South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI)
Bob Redden, Department of Primary Industries Victoria
China
Zong Xuxiao, Institute of Crop Sciences, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences
France
François Boulineau, Groupe d'Etude et de contrôle des Variétés et des Semences (GEVES)
Hungary
László Holly, Agriculture Research Centre for Agrobotany, Central Agriculture Office (RCA, CAO)
India
R.P. Dua, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR)
R.K. Solanki, Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur
Italy
Gaetano Laghetti, National Research Council
Pakistan
Zahoor Ahmad, National Agricultural Research Centre (NARC)
Slovak Republic
Michaela Benkova, Plant Production Research Centre Piešt’any
Spain
Constantino Caminero Saldaña, Instituto Tecnológico Agrario de Castilla y León
María José Suso, Instituto de Agricultura Sostenible, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas
(CSIC)
Syria
Kenneth Street, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA)
Turkey
Nuket Atikyilmaz, Aegean Agricultural Research Institute
USA
Bonnie J. Furman, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA-
ARS)
maize (Zea mays L.)
Information for the definition of a Minimum Descriptor List for maize
(Zea mays L.) was based on the publication ‘Descriptors for Maize’ (CIMMYT/IBPGR
1991). The original list contained therein was then weighed against descriptors
mentioned in a number of other sources such as UPOV technical guidelines for Maize
(1994); Descriptors for MAIZE (USDA, ARS, GRIN); the ‘Global Strategy for the Ex situ
Conservation and Utilization of Maize Germplasm’ (the Trust, 2007); Dr Suketoshi
Taba’s poster presented at the meeting held at the Sociedad Mexicana de Fitogenética
(SOMEFI) in September 2008; ‘Descriptors for Characterization and Evaluation of Maize’
(National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences, Genebank of Japan), as well as with those
descriptors that were awarded funds for further research by the Global Crop Diversity
Trust in the 2008 Evaluation Awards Scheme (EAS). The initial list also builds on the
results of the SGRP Global Public Goods Activity 4.2.1.1, with special attention to
breeding traits. The initial list was further refined during a crop-specific consultation
meeting held in June 2009 at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR)
in India, with the participation of several scientists from NBPGR and the valuable
contribution of Dr Sain Dass of the Directorate of Maize Research, Indian Council of
Agricultural Research (ICAR).
As result of this exercise, and to assist in the selection of a “reduced” set of traits,
a comparison table was prepared to visually identify “most important” descriptors
recurring in the above mentioned sources (see Annex I).

The List of Experts was compiled including participants involved in crop-specific
consultations for the definition of the ‘Global Strategy for the Ex situ Conservation and
Utilization of Maize Germplasm’ (the Trust, 2007). The list was further integrated with
experts from the Global Maize Program within the International Maize and Wheat
Improvement Center (CIMMYT), from the European Cooperative Programme for Plant
Genetic Resources (ECPGR), and with contributors to the publication of ‘Regeneration
guidelines: Maize’ (S. Taba, S. Twumasi-Afriyie, SGRP/the Trust, 2008). Reviewers from
the 1991 descriptors list were excluded due to their outdated contact information.
Overall, 80 experts were selected, from 41 countries and 44 different

organizations. Out of these, Dr Suketoshi Taba (CIMMYT) was identified as Crop
Leader. After consultation with Dr Taba, the Core Advisory Group (CAG), consisting of
seven experts was selected to assist in the definition of a key set of descriptors (see
Annex II).
From the comparison table submitted to Dr Taba, a first list of descriptors was identified
and sent to him again for endorsement on 1 June 2009 (see Annex III). The Crop Leader
replied with comments and amendments on the same day. The validated list
(see Annex IV) was consequently used for preparing a draft survey on maize. After Dr
Taba’s approval, the final version of the survey was uploaded into the SurveyMonkey
application on internet (see Annex V) and sent out to the list of identified experts on
2 June 2009. Participants were invited to validate this initial key set of descriptors of
maize accessions to facilitate their use by researchers and asked to make suggestions
regarding any characterization or evaluation descriptors that were found to be relevant
yet missing from the proposed Minimum List.
The survey deadline was set at 30 June 2009. A first reminder was sent out on
16 June 2009 and a second one on 25 June 2009 to ensure that the greatest possible
feedback was obtained.

Of the 80 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 36 experts from
23 countries and 26 organizations recorded their comments using the online survey
(see Annex VI). Results from the survey were analyzed and descriptors were ranked by
rating average and percentage of importance (see Annex VII). The summary results of
the survey together with a report containing comments and additional descriptors
suggested for inclusion in the key set received from the participants (see Annex VIII)
were sent to the Crop Leader in order to reach a consensus on the final list. Dr Taba’s
feedback was shared with Dr Dass on 30 September 2009 for his additional approval
(see Annex IX). A first draft of the key set for maize containing relevant descriptor states
was then produced and submitted to the Crop Leader and to the CAG for final
validation (see Annex X).
Definition of a final key set of descriptors for maize

The final document approved by the Crop Leader and CAG (see Annex XI), was
proofread by an external editor and sent to the Bioversity Publications Unit for layout
and on-line publication processes. Furthermore, the publication was shared with the
ECPGR Secretariat; the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and the
SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base partners. Additionally, data were converted into
Excel files for uploading into the GRIN-Global genebank data-management system
being developed by USDA and subsequently into the global accession level information
portal (GENESYS), linking national, regional and international genebank databases in
resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also provided to the
System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) and to EURISCO.
Acknowledgement
development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for maize
Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leader, Dr Suketoshi Taba (CIMMYT, Mexico)
and to Dr Sain Dass for providing valuable scientific direction. Ms Adriana Alercia
Annex I – Summary comparison table weighing up important descriptors for maize drawn
from different sources i
CIMMYT/ CIMMYT/ Breeding

CIMMYT/IBPGR Evaluation Maize Taba’s GPG2 (Taba’s
IBPGR IBPGR UPOV ARS-USDA traits NIAS
Descriptor name Awards Strategy Poster selection)
Desc. no. 1991 (GPG2)
Days to 50% tasseling

4.1.1
(male flowering) * * * *
Days to 50% silking
4.1.2 (female flowering) * * * * *
(5.1)
Days to ear leaf
4.1.3 senescence in 50% of * * *
the plants
4.1.4 Plant height [cm] (5.2) * * * * *
4.1.5 Ear height [cm] (5.4) * * * *
Foliage (total leaf
4.1.6
surface) * *
Number of leaves
4.1.7 above the uppermost * *
ear including ear leaf
4.1.8 Tillering index * * * *
4.1.9 Stem colour * *
4.1.10 Root lodging [%] * * * * (not %)
4.1.11 Stalk lodging [%] * * * * (not %)
4.1.12 Sheath pubescence * *
4.1.13 Tassel type * *
4.2.1 Ear Husk cover * *
4.2.2 Ear damage * *
Ear kernel row
4.2.3
arrangement * * *
Number of ear kernel
4.2.4
rows * * * * *
Kernel type/Type of
4.3.1
grain * * * * *
Kernel colour/Colour of
4.3.2
top of grain * * * * *
4.3.3 1000 kernel weight [g] * * * * 100
6.2.2 Ear length [cm] * * * * * *
6.2.4 Ear diameter [cm] * * * * *
Shape of uppermost
6.2.10
ear * * *
6.3.1 Kernel length [mm] * * *
6.3.2 Kernel width [mm] * * *
7.5 Drought * * *
Diplodia maydis;
Gibberella zeae;
8.1.1
Fusarium moniliforme * * * *
(Ear rot, stalk rot)
Puccinia sorghi;
8.1.2 Puccinia polysora * * * * *
(Southern Rust)
Peronosclerospora
8.1.3 spp.; Sclerophthora * * * *
spp. (Downy mildew)
Corn stunt spiroplasma
8.2.1
(CSS) (Corn stunt) * * *
8.3.2 Chilo spp. (Borer) * * *
8.3.6 Sesamia spp. (Borer) * * * *
Grain yield * *
Total number of leaves
6.1.1
per plant * *
6.1.2 Leaf length [cm] * *
6.1.3 Leaf width [cm] * *
6.1.4 Leaf venation index *
6.1.5 Leaf orientation *
6.1.6 Presence of leaf ligule *
6.1.7 Root volume *
6.1.8 Tassel length [cm] * * *
Tassel peduncle length
6.1.9
[cm] *
Tassel branching space
6.1.10
[cm] *
Number of primary
6.1.11
branches on tassel * *
Number of secondary
6.1.12
branches on tassel *
Number of tertiary
6.1.13
branches on tassel *
6.1.14 Tassel size *
Growing Degree Units
6.1.15 (GDU) to 50% female *
flowering
GDU to 50% male
6.1.16
flowering *
6.1.17 Stay green *
Prolificacy index of
6.2.1
ears *
Ear peduncle length
6.2.3
[cm] *
6.2.5 Cob diameter [cm] *
Ear rachis diameter
6.2.6
[cm] *
6.2.7 Number of ear bracts *
Number of kernels per
6.2.8
row *
6.2.9 Cob colour * * * *
Grain shedding of ear
6.2.11
[%] *
6.3.3 Kernel thickness [mm] *
Shape of upper surface
6.3.4
of kernel * *
6.3.5 Kernel pericarp colour * *
*
6.3.6 Kernel aleurone colour * (combined
with
*
pattern)
Kernel endosperm
6.3.7
colour * * *
7.1 Low temperature * * *
Frost damage
7.2
susceptibility *
7.3 Aluminium toxicity * *
7.4 Low Nitrogen *
Helminthosporium
maydis;
8.1.4 Helminthosporium * * * *
turcicum (Leaf blight -
Southern Corn)
Ustilago maydis
8.1.5
(Smut) * * * *
Sphacelotheca reiliana
8.1.6
(Tassel smut) *
Phyllachora maydis
8.1.7
(Tar spot) *
Corn streak virus
8.2.2
(CSV) (Corn streak) *
Maize fine stripe virus
8.2.3 (MRFV) (Fine striping *
disease)
Maize bushy stunt
8.2.4 mycoplasma (MBSD) * *
(Maize bushy stunt)
Maize dwarf mosaic
8.2.5 virus (MDM) (Maize * * *
dwarf virus)
8.3.1 Busseola spp. (Borer) * *
8.3.3 Diatrea spp. (Borer) * *
Heliothis zea; Heliothis
8.3.4
armigera (Ear worm) * *
8.3.5 Ostrinia spp. (Borer) * * * *
Spodoptera spp.
8.3.7
(Armyworm) * * *
Diabrotica spp. (Root
8.3.8
worm) * *
Sitophilus spp.
8.3.9
(Weevil) * *
Prostephanus (Grain
8.3.10
borer) * *
Kernel yield and fodder
yield *
Phaeosphaeria leaf
spot (PLS)
(Phaeosphaeria *
maydis; Phoma
maydis)
Combining ability (How
well it crosses among *
varieties)
Maize streak virus *
Resistance to Striga
hermontica *
Ratio of ear leaf
senescence and days *
to silking
Ear quality (1-5) *
Ratio grain yield and
grain moisture at *
harvest [%]
Selection index *
Fertility *
Field germination *
Adaptation *
Kernel *
Seed moisture *
Agronomic scale *
Race class *
i
‘Descriptors for Maize’ (CIMMYT/IBPGR 1991); UPOV technical guidelines for Maize; ’Descriptors for MAIZE’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN);
Recommendations for further research under the Evaluation Award Scheme (EAS); ‘Global Strategy for the Ex situ
Conservation and Utilization of Maize Germplasm’ (the Trust, 2007); Dr Taba’s poster presented at the meeting held at SOMEFI
in September 2008; Dr Taba’s choice of descriptors within the ones identified in the SGRP Global Public Goods Activity 4.2.1.1
(GPG2, 2008); results of the GPG2 for the breeding traits exercise; ‘Descriptors for Characterization and Evaluation of Maize’
(National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences, Genebank of Japan).
Crop Leader Taba, Suketoshi CIMMYT Mexico
CAG Dass, Sain Director (Directorate of Maize Research) India
CAG Grau, Michael Genebank Dept Leibniz Institute (IPK) Germany
CAG Guiard, Joël GEVES (UPOV) France

Kenya Agricultural Research Inst. Nat.
CAG Muthamia, Zachary K. Kenya
Genebank of Kenya
CAG Payne, Thomas CIMMYT Mexico
CAG Satyavathi, C. Tara Indian Agricultural Research Institute India
CAG Sharma, Shyam Kumar NBPGR India

Global Maize Afriyie, Twumasi
CIMMYT Ethiopia
Program Strafford
Crop Strategy Plant Genetic Resources Programme Nat.
Ahmad, Zahoor Pakistan
Expert Agric. Res. Center
Crop Strategy Agricultural Research and Development
Antohe, Ion Romania
Expert Institute
Crop Strategy
Aragón Cuevas, Flavio INIFAP - Oaxaca Mexico
Expert
Global Maize
Araus Ortega, José Luis CIMMYT Mexico
Program
Global Maize
Atlin, Gary CIMMYT Mexico
Program
Barata da Silva, Ana Banco Portugues de Germoplasma
ECPGR Portugal
Maria Vegetal (BPGV)
Crop Strategy Centre for Genetic Resources, The The
Bas, Noor
Expert Netherlands Netherlands
Crop Strategy Gene Bank, Research Inst. of Plant Slovak
Benediková, Daniela
Expert Production Republic
Global Maize
Beyene, Yoseph CIMMYT Kenya
Program
Maize project
Boerner, Andreas IPK, Genebank Dept, Leibniz Institute Germany
INRA
Crop Strategy
Budiarti, Sri Gajatri ICABIO GRAD Indonesia
Expert
Crop Strategy Cesar Tapia/Alvaro
INIAP-DENAREF Ecuador
Expert Monteros
Crop Strategy
Chura Chuquija, Julián Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina Peru
Expert
Crop Strategy Czech
Chytilova, Vera RICP Prague-Ruzyne
Expert Republic
Crop Strategy
Condon, Federico INIA Uruguay
Expert
Global Maize
Diallo, Alpha O. CIMMYT Kenya
Program
Crop Strategy
Dumet, Dominique IITA Nigeria
Expert
Maize project National Agricultural Research Foundation
Evgenidis, Georgios Greece
INRA (NAGREF)
Crop Strategy
Ferrer, Marcelo Edmundo INTA Argentina
Expert
Crop Strategy Aegean Agricultural Research Institute
Firat, A. Ertug Turkey
Expert (AARI)
Global Maize
Friesen, Dennis CIMMYT Ethiopia
Program
Crop Strategy Fuentes López, Mario Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnología Agrícolas
Guatemala
Expert Roberto (ICTA)
Cereal Institute - National Agricultural
ECPGR Gogas, D. Greece
Research Foundation
Crop Strategy Centro de Invest. Fitoecogenéticas de
Guzman, Lorena Bolivia
Expert Pairumani
Crop Strategy
Has, Ioan Agricultural Research and Station TURDA Romania
Expert
Crop Strategy Hernández Casillas, Juan
INIFAP - Mexico Mexico
Expert Manuel
Crop Strategy National Corn and Sorghum Research
Jampatong, Sansern Thailand
Expert Center, Kasetsart University
Crop Strategy
Kainz, Wolfgang AGES Austria
Expert
Global Maize
Kanampiu, Fred CIMMYT Kenya
Program
Reviewer Kaul, Jyoti Directorate of Maize Research India
Reviewer Kumar, Ashok NBPGR India

Crop Strategy
Kuz'myshyna, Natalia NCPGRU Ukraine
Expert
Crop Strategy Australian Tropical Crops & Forages
Lawrence, Peter Australia
Expert Germplasm Collection
Crop Strategy
Lu, Xinxiong CAAS China
Expert
Global Maize
MacRobert, John CIMMYT Zimbabwe
Program
Global Maize
Magorokosho, Cosmos CIMMYT Zimbabwe
Program
Global Maize
Mahuku, George CIMMYT Mexico
Program
Global Maize
Makumbi, Dan CIMMYT Kenya
Program
Maize
N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Russian
Collection Matveeva, Galina
Industry (VIR) Federation
Curator
Maize Breeder Menkir, Abebe IITA Nigeria
Maize N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Russian
Mironova, Maria
Researcher Industry (VIR) Federation
Reviewer Mishra, S.K. NBPGR India
Centro Investigaciones Agrarias de
ECPGR Moreno Gonzales, Jesus Spain
Mabegondo
ECPGR/
Motto, Mario Unità di ricerca per la maiscoltura Italy
Maize DB
Global Maize
Mugo, Stephen CIMMYT Kenya
Program
Crop Strategy
Murariu, Danela Suceava Genebank Romania
Expert
Global Maize
Narro, Luis Alberto CIMMYT Colombia
Program
Crop Strategy Navas Arboleda,
CORPOICA Colombia
Expert Alejandro Alberto
Crop Strategy
Noldin, Orlando J. CRA Paraguay
Expert
Maize project Consejo Superior de Investigaciones
Ordas, Amando Spain
INRA Cientificas (CSIC)
Crop Strategy
Ordás, Armando Misión Biológica de Galicia (CSIC) Spain
Expert/ECPGR
New Reviewer Ortiz, Rodomiro CIMMYT Mexico
Global Maize
Ortíz-Ferrara, Guillermo CIMMYT, South Asia Regional Office Nepal
Program
Global Maize
Palacios, Natalia CIMMYT Mexico
Program
Global Maize
Pixley, Kevin CIMMYT Mexico
Program
Reviewer Rana, J.C. NBPGR, Regional station, Shimla India
Maize project
Ruaud, Pierre Limagrain Group France
INRA
Crop Strategy
Salazar Suazo, Erika Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias Chile
Expert
Crop Strategy
Segovia, Victor INIA - CENIAP Venezuela
Expert
Global Maize
Setimela, Peter CIMMYT Zimbabwe
Program
Crop Strategy
Sevilla-Panizo, Ricardo Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina Peru
Expert
Crop Strategy National Bureau of Plant Genetic
Srinivasan, Kalyani India
Expert/ECPGR Resources
Crop Strategy Research Institute of Crop Production of Czech
Stehno, Zdenek
Expert/ECPGR Prague Republic
EAS
expert/Crop Teixeira, Flavia Franca EMBRAPA Brazil
Strategy
Centre for Genetic Resources, The The
ECPGR Visser, Bert
Netherlands (CGN) Netherlands
Global Maize
Vivek, Bindiganavile CIMMYT Zimbabwe
Program
Crop Strategy Wedelsbäck Bladh,
Nordic Gene Bank Sweden
Expert/ECPGR Katarina
Global Maize
Zaidi, Pervez H. Asian Regional Maize Program, CIMMYT India
Program
Crop Strategy
Zanetto, Anne INRA France
Expert/ECPGR
Crop Strategy
Zurab, Jinjik Hadze Georgia
Expert/ECPGR
Annex III – First list of characterization and evaluation descriptors for maize
submitted to the Crop Leader on 1 June 2009
1. Days to 50% tasseling (male flowering)

2. Days to 50% silking (female flowering)
3. Days to ear leaf senescence in 50% of the plants
4. Plant height [cm]
5. Ear height [cm]
6. Foliage (total leaf surface)
7. Number of leaves above the uppermost ear including ear leaf
8. Tillering index
9. Stem colour
10. Root lodging [%]
11. Stalk lodging [%]
12. Sheath pubescence
13. Tassel type
14. Ear Husk cover
15. Ear damage
16. Ear kernel row arrangement
17. Number of ear kernel rows
18. Kernel type/Type of grain
19. Kernel colour/Colour of top of grain
20. 1000 kernel weight [g]
21. Ear length [cm]
22. Ear diameter [cm]
23. Shape of uppermost ear
24. Kernel length [mm]
25. Kernel width [mm]
26. Grain yield
27. Drought
28. Diplodia maydis; Gibberella zeae; Fusarium moniliforme (Ear rot, stalk rot)
29. Puccinia sorghi; Puccinia polysora (Southern Rust)
30. Peronosclerospora spp.; Sclerophthora spp. (Downy mildew)
31. Corn stunt spiroplasma (CSS) (Corn stunt)
32. Chilo spp. (Borer)
33. Sesamia spp. (Borer)
Annex IV – Initial key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for maize
validated by the Crop Leader on 1 June 2009, uploaded to the SurveyMonkey
1. Days to 50% tasseling (male flowering)

2. Days to 50% silking (female flowering)
3. Days to ear leaf senescence in 50% of the plants
4. Plant height [cm]
5. Ear height [cm]
6. Foliage (total leaf surface) (rating)
7. Number of leaves above the uppermost ear including ear leaf
8. Tillering index
9. Stem colour
10. Root lodging [%]
11. Stalk lodging [%]
13. Tassel type
14. Ear Husk cover
15. Ear damage (rating) or ear quality
17. Number of ear kernel rows
18. Kernel type/Type of grain
19. Kernel colour/Colour of top of grain
20. 1000 kernel weight [g]
21. Ear length [cm]
22. Ear diameter [cm]
23. Shape of uppermost ear
24. Kernel length [mm]
25. Kernel width [mm]
26. Drought
27. Diplodia maydis; Gibberella zeae; Fusarium moniliforme (Ear rot, stalk rot)
28. Puccinia sorghi (common rust in temperate and highland environments); Puccinia polysora
(Southern Rust in tropics)
29. Bipolaris maydis, syn. Helminthosporium maydis (Maydis leaf blight); Exserohilum turcicum,
syn. Helminthosporium turcicum (Turcicum leaf blight)
30. Peronosclerospora spp.; Sclerophthora spp. (Downy mildew)
31. Corn Stunt Spiroplasma (CSS) (Corn stunt)
32. Chilo spp. (Borer)
33. Sesamia spp. (Borer)
34. Grain yield
Annex V – Survey to choose a key set of descriptors for maize (Zea mays L.)
WELCOME
of maize accessions to identify traits important to crop production and to facilitate their use
by researchers.
Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 30 June 2009.
traits for production, such as those related to biotic stresses of cosmopolitan nature.
The list presented here has been refined under the scientific direction of Dr Suketoshi Taba
(CIMMYT).

- PART I: Lists important characterization descriptors for maize. Based on your experience,
- PART II: Lists important evaluation descriptors for maize. Please, rate these traits in order
of importance at the global level. It also allows you to indicate if any essential trait for
production is missing from the minimum list presented or indicate any that may not be
set of descriptors.
Please allow us to acknowledge your contribution by completing your full contact details
below:
Name:
Position:
Organization:
Country:
Email:
environments.
published in the CIMMYT/IBPGR publication ‘Descriptors for Maize (Zea mays L.)’ (1991).
Not Very
important Important important
Days to 50% tasseling (male flowering) (4.1.1)
Days to 50% silking (female flowering) (4.1.2)
Days to ear leaf senescence in 50% of the plants (4.1.3)
Ear height [cm] (4.1.5)
Foliage (total leaf surface) (rating) (4.1.6)
Number of leaves above the uppermost ear including ear leaf (4.1.7)
Tillering index (4.1.8)
Stem colour (4.1.9)
Root lodging [%] (4.1.10)
Stalk lodging [%] (4.1.11)
Tassel type (4.1.13)
Ear Husk cover (4.2.1)
Ear damage (rating) or ear quality (4.2.2)
Number of ear kernel rows (4.2.4)
Kernel type/Type of grain (4.3.1)
Kernel colour/Colour of top of grain (4.3.2)
1000 kernel weight [g] (4.3.3)
These descriptors include characters such as grain yield and biotic stresses. They are the
most interesting traits in crop improvement. Please consider the following factors relating to
the trait when making your final decision: (i) Global impact, (ii) Initial strategic set, (iii)
Importance for germplasm utilization, (iv) Data availability, (v) True economic damage and
(vi) Wide geographical occurrence.
Very
Not important Important important
Ear length [cm] (6.2.2)
Ear diameter [cm] (6.2.4)
Shape of uppermost ear (6.2.10)
Kernel length [mm] (6.3.1)
Kernel width [mm] (6.3.2)
Grain yield
Drought (7.5)
Ear rot, stalk rot (Diplodia maydis; Gibberella zeae; Fusarium
moniliforme) (8.1.1)
Common rust in temperate and highland environments
(Puccinia sorghi); Southern Rust in tropics (Puccinia polysora)
(8.1.2)
Downy mildew (Peronosclerospora spp.; Sclerophthora spp.)
(8.1.3)
Maydis leaf blight (Bipolaris maydis, syn. Helminthosporium
maydis)
Turcicum leaf blight (Exserohilum turcicum, syn.
Helminthosporium turcicum) (8.1.4)
Corn stunt (Corn stunt spiroplasma (CSS)) (8.2.1)
Borer (Chilo spp.) (8.2.3)
Borer (Sesamia spp.) (8.3.6)

Annex VI – List of respondents to the survey
Crop Leader Taba, Suketoshi CIMMYT Mexico
CAG Dass, Sain Directorate of Maize Research India
CAG Guiard, Joël GEVES France
CAG Payne, Thomas CIMMYT Mexico
CAG Tara Satyavathi, C. Indian Agricultural Research Institute India
Reviewer Adeleke, R.A. IITA IBADAN Nigeria
Reviewer Antohe, Ion NARDI Romania

Reviewer Aragón Cuevas, Flavio INIFAP Mexico
Reviewer Barata, Ana Maria INRB/BPGV Portugal
Reviewer Beyene, Yoseph CIMMYT Kenya

Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics
Reviewer Börner, Andreas Germany
and Crop Plant Research (IPK)
Queensland Primary Industries and
Reviewer Dillon, Sally Australia
Fisheries
BATEM (Bati Akdeniz Agricultural
Reviewer Erdal, Sekip Turkey
Resarch Institute)
Reviewer Evgenidis, G. NAGREF-Cereal Institute Greece
INTA (Instituto Nacional de
Reviewer Ferrer, Marcelo Edmundo Argentina
Tecnología Agropecuaria)
Reviewer Fuentes, Mario OID Guatemala
National Corn and Sorghum
Reviewer Jampatong, Sansern Thailand
Research Center
Reviewer Johnson, Scott S. Pegasus Genetics; CRD Advisors USA
Reviewer Kainz, Wolfgang AGES Austria
Reviewer Kaul, Jyoti Directorate of Maize Research India
National Centre for Plant Genetic
Reviewer Kuz'myshyna, Natalia Ukraine
Resources of Ukraine
Reviewer MacRobert, John CIMMYT Zimbabwe
Reviewer Magorokosho, Cosmos CIMMYT Zimbabwe
Reviewer Mahuku, George CIMMYT Mexico
N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Russian
Reviewer Matveeva, Galina
Plant Industry (VIR) Federation
Reviewer Murariu, Danela Suceava Genebank Romania
Reviewer Narro, Luis CIMMYT Peru

Spanish Council for Scientific
Reviewer Ordas, Amando Spain
Research (CSIC)
Reviewer Ortiz, Rodomiro CIMMYT Mexico
Reviewer Pixley, Kevin CIMMYT Mexico
Reviewer Rana, J.C. India
Resources Regional Station
Reviewer Ruaud, Pierre Limagrain Group France
INIA (Instituto de Investigaciones
Reviewer Salazar Suazo, Erika Chile
Agropecuarias)
Reviewer Teixeira, Flavia França EMBRAPA Maize and Sorghum Brazil
Reviewer Tracy, William University of Wisconsin-Madison USA
Reviewer Zaidi, P.H. CIMMYT India

and evaluation descriptors ranked by percentage of importance sent to the Crop
Leader for validation
Dr
Rating
Descriptor Taba’s
Average
selection
Characterization
Kernel type/Type of grain (4.3.1) 4.26
Days to 50% tasseling (male flowering) (4.1.1) 4.00
Days to 50% silking (female flowering) (4.1.2) 3.97
Kernel colour/Colour of top of grain (4.3.2) 3.88
Number of ear kernel rows (4.2.4) 3.73
Ear height [cm] (4.1.5) 3.56
1000 kernel weight [g] (4.3.3) 3.44
Tassel type (4.1.13) 3.38
Ear Husk cover (4.2.1) 3.18
Stalk lodging [%] (4.1.11) 3.03
Ear damage (rating) or ear quality (4.2.2) 2.88
Root lodging [%] (4.1.10) 2.88
Tillering index (4.1.8) 2.41
Number of leaves above the uppermost ear including ear leaf
2.38
(4.1.7)
Stem colour (4.1.9) 2.24
Days to ear leaf senescence in 50% of the plants (4.1.3) 2.06
Foliage (rating of total leaf surface) (4.1.6) 1.78
Evaluation
4.23
Grain yield 4.13
Drought (7.5) 3.94
maydis); Turcicum leaf blight (Exserohilum turcicum, syn. 3.90
Common rust in temperate and highland environments (Puccinia

3.77
sorghi); Southern Rust in tropics (Puccinia polysora) (8.1.2)
Ear length [cm] (6.2.2) 3.65
Borer (Sesamia spp.) (8.3.6) 3.50
3.48
(8.1.3)
Borer (Chilo spp.) (8.3.2) 3.37
Kernel length [mm] (6.3.1) 3.26
Ear diameter [cm] (6.2.4) 3.13
Corn stunt (Corn Stunt Spiroplasma (CSS)) (8.2.1) 3.00
Kernel width [mm] (6.3.2) 2.94
Shape of uppermost ear (6.2.10) 1.97
Very
Descriptor Important
important
Evaluation
Grain yield 35.5% 61.3%

38.7% 61.3%
Drought (7.5) 45.2% 51.6%

maydis); Turcicum leaf blight (Exserohilum turcicum, syn.; 54.8% 45.2%
Ear length [cm] (6.2.2) 51.6% 41.9%
Kernel length [mm] (6.3.1) 38.7% 41.9%
Common rust in temperate and highland environments

(Puccinia sorghi); Southern Rust in tropics (Puccinia polysora) 61.3% 38.7%
(8.1.2)

51.6% 38.7%
(8.1.3)
Borer (Sesamia spp.) (8.3.6) 50.0% 40.0%
Ear diameter [cm] (6.2.4) 45.2% 35.5%
Kernel width [mm] (6.3.2) 38.7% 35.5%
Borer (Chilo spp.) (8.3.2) 56.7% 33.3%
Corn stunt (Corn stunt spiroplasma (CSS)) (8.2.1) 50.0% 30.0%
Shape of uppermost ear (6.2.10) 54.8% 6.5%

Annex VIII – Additional descriptors included in the open-ended section of the survey
Name of expert
Additional
N. S.S. I. F. S. E.
descriptors No. times M.E. G. P.H. J. D.
Kuz'myshy
S.
Johns
J. M.
Antohe França
W.
Jampato
P.
Salazar
K.
proposed Ferrer Mahuku Zaidi MacRobert Muriaru Dass Guiard Fuentes Kainz Ruaud Pixley
na on Teixeira ng Suazo
Additional
characterization
traits
Total number of leaves
1 X
per plant
Largo y ancho de la
hoja de la mazorca 1 X
superior
Anthesis-sliking
interval (=Days to 50%
1 X
silking - Days to 50%
Anthesis)
Hairiness of leaves 1 X
Hairiness of stalks 1 X
Stalk colour at harvest 1 X
Wrap leafiness ear 1 X
Consistence ear cover 1 X
Height of fastening of
an upper productive 1 X
cprn-cob, cm
Stalk, diameter above
2 X X
earcorn
Height of main stalk,
1 X
cm
Leaf angle 1 X
Leaf Anthocyanin of
1 X
sheath
Tassel: Anthocyanin
coloration at the base 2 X X
of glume
Tassel: Anthocyanin
3 X X X
coloration of anthers
Tassel: Density of
1 X
spikelets
Tassel: Attitude of
2 X X
lateral branches
Attitude of leaves 1 X
Ear: Anthocyanin
3 X X X
colouration of silks
Ear diameter 1 X
Grain Type 2 X X
Ear: Anthocyanin
colouration of glumes 3 X X X
of cob
Ear: Shape: (conical,
1 X
cylindrical)
Kernel row
1 X
arrangement
Kernel: Shape –
shrunken, round, 1 X
toothed or flat
Leaf colour 1 X
Anthocyanin coloration
of brace roots indirect
information on 1 X
resistance to some
pests
Number of ears per
1 X
plant
COMMENTS
Days to flower and senescence should be expressed in growing degree days, not in days. X
General remark: the recent revision of UPOV test guidelines on Maize includes all the characteristics
X
with a good discrimination power, those with an asterisk are really the best ones
I think a rating of root and/or stalk lodging is much too environment-dependent to be very
X
useful
Additional evaluation
traits
Leaf width (6.1.3) 3 X X X
Instead of Foliage
rating I would suggest 1 X
Leaf length [cm]
Venation Index (6.1.4) 1 X
Tassel branching
1 X
space (6.1.10)
Number of tassel
primary ramifications 1 X
(6.1.11)
Rachis diameter
1 X
(6.2.6)
Ustilago Maydis 1 X
Gray leaf spot
(Cercospora zea- 2 X X
maydis)
Maize streak virus
2 X X
(MSV)
Low temperature - it is
very important for
northern extremity of
maize crops. This
descriptor gives the
1 X
opportunity to identify
accessions which can
be used in the
breeding program for
precocity.
Salt tolerance 1 X
Tolerance to low
1 X
Nitrogen
Earliness at flowering
1 X
and at harvest time
Type of endosperme 1 X
Lodging resistance 1 X
Digestibility of entire
1 X
plant for silage type
Heterotic pattern 1 X
Grain disease
1 X
(micotoxin)
Corn root worm
1 X
(Diabrotica)
European corn borer
1 X
(Ostrinia)
Corn ear worm
1 X
(Helicoverpa)
Fall armyworm
1 X
(Spodoptera)
Grain nutritional
1 X
components
Provitamin A 1 X
Content oil 1 X
Content cell wall
1 X
digestibility
Endosperm
1 X
creaminess
Pericarp softness 1 X
S. No. Characteristics States 1. (+) Leaf: Angle between blade and stem (on leaf just
above upper ear) Small (<45°) Wide (>45°) 2 (+) Leaf: Attitude of blade (on leaf just
above upper ear) Straight Drooping 3. (S) Stem: Anthocyanin colouration of brace
roots) Absent Present 4. (*) Tassel: Time of anthesis (on middle third of main axis, 50
% of plants) Very early (<45 days) Early (45-50 days) Medium (50-55 days) Late (>55
days) 5. (+)(S) Tassel: Anthocyanin colouration of glumes excluding base (in middle
third of main axis) Absent Present 6. (S) Tassel: Anthocyanin colouration of glumes
excluding base (in middle third of main axis) Absent Present 7. (S) Tassel: Anthocyanin
colouration of anthers (in middle third of mairr axis on fresh anthers) Absent Present 8
Tassel: Density of spikelets (in middle third of main axis) Sparse Dense 9. (*) (+)
Tassel: Angle between main axis and lateral branches Narrow (< 45°) Wide (> 45°) 10.
(*)(+) Tassel: Attitude of lateral branches (in lower third of tassel) Straight Curved
Strongly curved 11 Ear: Time of silk emergence (50% plants) Very early (<48 days)
Early (48-53 days) Medium (53-58 days) Late (>58 days) 12. (*) Ear: Anthocyanin
colouration of silks (on day of emergency) Absent Present 13 Leaf: Anthocyanin
colouration of sheath (below the ear) Absent Present 14 Tassel: Length of main axis
above lowest side branch Short (<20 cm) Medium (20-30 cm) Long (> 30 cm) 15.1 (*)
X
Inbred lines only: Plant : Length (up to flag leaf) Short (<120 cm) Medium (120-150 cm)
Long (>150 cm) 15.2 (*) Hybrids and open pollinated varieties only: Plant : Length (up
to flag leaf) Short (<150 cm) Medium (150-180 cm) Long (181-210 cm) Very long (>210
cm) 16 Plant: Ear placement Low Medium High 17 Leaf: Width of blade (leaf of upper
ear) Narrow (<8 cm) Medium (8-9 cm) High ( >9 cm) 18. (*) Ear: Length without husk
Short (<10 cm) Medium (10-15 cm) Long (>15 cm) 19 Ear: Diameter without husk (in
middle) Small (<4 cm) Medium (4-5 cm) Large (>5 cm) 20. (+) Ear: Shape Conical
Conico-cylinderical Cylindrical 21 Ear: Number of rows of grains Few ( < 8) Medium
(10-12) Many (>14) 22. (*) Ear: Type of grain (in middle third of ear) Flint Semi flint/
Semi dent Dent 23. (*) Ear: Colour of top of grain White White with cap Yellow Yellow
with cap Orange Red Other (specify) 24. (*) Ear: Anthocyanin colouration of glumes of
cob White Light purple Dark purple 25. (+) Kernel: Row arrangement (middle of ear)
Straight Spiral Irregular 26 Kernel: Poppiness Absent Present 27 Kernel: Sweetness
Absent Present 28 Kernel: Waxiness Absent Present 29 Kernel: Opaqueness Absent
Present 30. (+) Kernel: Shape Shrunken Round Indented Toothed Pointed 31 Kernel:
1000 kernel weight) Very small (<100g) Small (100-200 g) Medium (200-300 g) Large
(>300 g)
Annex IX – Dr Taba’s comments on the survey results shared with Dr Dass on 30 September 2009
Rating
Descriptor Dr Taba’s selection
Average
Characterization
Kernel type/Type of grain (4.3.1) 4.26 x
Days to 50% tasseling (male flowering) 4.00 x
(4.1.1)
Days to 50% silking (female flowering) 3.97 x
(4.1.2)
Kernel colour/Colour of top of grain 3.88 x
( ) of ear kernel rows (4.2.4)
Number 3.73 x
Ear height [cm] (4.1.5) 3.56 x
1000 kernel weight [g] (4.3.3) 3.44 x
Plant height [cm] (4.1.4) 3.38 x
Tassel type (4.1.13) 3.38 x
Ear Husk cover (4.2.1) 3.18 x
Stalk lodging [%] (4.1.11) 3.03 x
X This is rating of kernel health for most part and
Ear damage (rating) or ear quality (4.2.2) 2.88 uniformity of ears. There is no trait to indicate plant
health among chosen minimum descriptors. At least this
can be included.
Root lodging [%] (4.1.10) 2.88 X This trait is to indicate root strength and standability.
This is rather confined to Mexican highland and northern

Tillering index (4.1.8) 2.41 flint races. If genebank does not have these germplasm,
this is less interest.
X This is again more racial traits: most improved
Number of leaves above the uppermost
2.38 materials have a little difference. I still think this is worth
ear including ear leaf (4.1.7)
while, as plant efficiency indicated by the trait to some
extent.
This is again specific interest, as a large part of
Stem colour (4.1.9) 2.24 germplasm does not have coloured stems, except in
CIMMYT where Mexican landraces often have coloured
stems.
X (this is not popular in the survey, but there is no data
to indicate plant adaptation and health at
Days to ear leaf senescence in 50% of the characterization, this is a reason I use in CIMMYT. This
2.06 is one of the best parameters to differentiate accessions
plants (4.1.3)
in general performance in selection index). The ratio of
leaf senescence and days to silk is very good indicator for
grain filling period.
Again, this is a racial trait for most part, indicating large
broad leaf and leaf numbers> Forage maize may be
Foliage (rating of total leaf surface) indicative of high rating of this trait. So location specific.
1.78
(4.1.6) CIMMYT will need it anyway. It also indicates a general
plant structure in combination with plant height and ear
height.
Rating
Descriptor Dr Taba’s selection
Average
Evaluation
Ear rot, stalk rot (Diplodia maydis;
Gibberella zeae; Fusarium moniliforme) 4.23 x
(8.1.1)
Grain yield 4.13 x
Drought (7.5) 3.94 x

Maydis leaf blight (Bipolaris maydis, syn.
Helminthosporium maydis); Turcicum leaf 3.90 x
blight (Exserohilum turcicum, syn.
Common rust in temperate and highland
environments (Puccinia sorghi); Southern 3.77 x
Rust in tropics (Puccinia polysora) (8.1.2)
Ear length [cm] (6.2.2) 3.65 x
Borer (Sesamia spp.) (8.3.6) 3.50 x
Downy mildew (Peronosclerospora spp.; 3.48 x
Sclerophthora spp.) (8.1.3)
Borer (Chilo spp.) (8.3.2) 3.37 x
Kernel length [mm] (6.3.1) 3.26 x
Ear diameter [cm] (6.2.4) 3.13 x
Corn stunt (Corn stunt spiroplasma (CSS)) 3.00 x
(8.2.1)
Kernel width [mm] (6.3.2) 2.94 x
X This is a racial trait and a bit of heterotic pattern of
inbreds. I would think this is still some indication of
kernel arrangement, kernel numbers, cob formation.
Conico and cylindrical send a message to a good corn
breeder as to heterotic pattern how he uses in parent if
Shape of uppermost ear (6.2.10) 1.97
no other information is available. Now it is testcross
bases, that everyone assumes cylindrical ears. Shelling
cylindrical ears are seen normally that was very
minimum, I suppose. Evaluation does not include test
crosses in this case, I will keep it.
Annex X – Key access and utilization descriptors for maize sent to the Crop
Leader and CAG for validationi
PLANT DATA
Days to tasseling (male flowering) (4.1.1)

Number of days from sowing to when 50% of the plants have shed pollen
Days to silking (female flowering) (4.1.2)

Number of days from sowing to when silks have emerged on 50% of the plants
Days to ear leaf senescence (4.1.3)

Number of days from sowing to when 50% of the plants have a dry ear leaf

From ground level to the base of the tassel. After milk stage

From ground level to the node bearing the uppermost ear. After milk stage
Foliage rating (4.1.6)

(Rating of total leaf surface)
Counted on at least 20 representative plants. After milk stage

Percentage of plants root-lodged. (This trait indicates root strength and standability). Two weeks
before harvest
Stalk lodging (4.1.11)

Percentage of plants stalk-lodged. Two weeks before harvest

At milk stage
1 Primary
2 Primary-secondary
3 Primary-secondary-tertiary
Ear husk cover (4.2.1)

3 Poor
5 Intermediate
7 Good
Ear damage (4.2.2)

(Rating of kernel health). Amount of ear damage caused by ear rot and/or insects, etc.
0 None
3 Little
7 Severe
Number of kernel rows (4.2.4)

Count number of kernel rows in the central part of the uppermost ear
Kernel type (4.3.1)
Indicate up to three kernel types in the order of frequency
1 Floury
2 Semi-floury (morocho), with an external layer of hard endosperm
3 Dent
4 Semi-dent, intermediate between dent and flint but closer to dent
5 Semi-flint, flint with a soft cap
6 Flint
7 Pop
8 Sweet
9 Opaque 2/QPM
10 Tunicate
11 Waxy
Kernel colour (top of grain) (4.3.2)

Indicate up to three colours in the order of frequency
1 White
2 Yellow
3 Purple
4 Variegated
5 Brown
6 Orange
7 Mottled
8 White cap
9 Red
1000-kernel weight [g] (4.3.3)

Adjusted to 10% moisture content

Measured at the central part of the uppermost ear

1 Cylindrical
2 Cylindrical-conical
3 Conical
4 Round

Average of 10 consecutive kernels from one row in the middle of the uppermost ear, measured
with a calliper

Measured on the same 10 kernels as 6.3.1
Grain yield (6.3.X)
ABIOTIC STRESSES
Drought (7.5)
Reflected in seed yield relative to control
BIOTIC STRESSES
Ear rot, stalk rot (Diplodia maydis, Gibberella zeae, Fusarium moniliforme) (8.1.1)
Common rust in temperate and highland environments (Puccinia sorghi) (8.1.2a)
Southern rust in tropics (Puccinia polysora) (8.1.2b)
Downy mildew (Peronosclerospora spp.; Sclerophthora spp.) (8.1.3)
Maydis leaf blight (Bipolaris maydis syn. Helminthosporium maydis) (8.1.4a)
Turcicum leaf blight (Exserohilum turcicum, syn. Helminthosporium turcicum) (8.1.4b)
Corn stunt (Corn stunt spiroplasma (CSS) (8.2.1)
Ear: Anthocyanin colouration of silks (on day of emergency) Absent Present
Ear: Anthocyanin colouration of glumes of cob (White, Light purple, Dark purple)
6.1.3 Leaf width [cm]

i
Descriptors highlighted in light blue are new or modified; Descriptors highlighted in yellow were proposed by participants in
the survey
Annex XI – Final key set of descriptors for maize genetic resources

maize genetic resources
This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for maize utilization. This
strategic set of descriptors, together with passport data, will become the basis for the global accession
level information portal being developed by Bioversity International with the financial support of the
Global Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust). It will facilitate access to and utilization of maize accessions held
in genebanks and does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently become
available.
Based on the comprehensive list ‘Descriptors for Maize’ published by CIMMYT and IBPGR (now
Bioversity International) in 1991, the list was subsequently compared with a number of sources such as
UPOV technical guidelines for Maize (1994), ‘Descriptors for MAIZE’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN), ‘Global
Strategy for the Ex situ Conservation and Utilization of Maize Germplasm’ (the Trust, 2007), Dr Taba’s
poster presented at the meeting held at the Sociedad Mexicana de Fitogenética (SOMEFI) in September
2008, ‘Descriptors for Characterization and Evaluation of Maize’ (National Institute of Agrobiological
Sciences, Genebank of Japan), as well as with those descriptors that were awarded funds for further
research by the Trust in 2008 Evaluation Awards Scheme (EAS). The initial list also builds on the results
of the SGRP Global Public Goods Activity 4.2.1.1, with special attention to breeding traits. It was further
refined during a meeting held at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR, India) in June
2009. It involved several scientists from NBPGR and the valuable contribution of Dr Sain Dass of the
Directorate of Maize Research, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR).
A worldwide distribution of experts was involved in an online survey to define a first priority set of
descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize maize genetic resources. This key set was afterwards
validated by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr Suketoshi Taba of the International
Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT).
Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptor numbers listed in the
1991 publication. Descriptors with numbers ending in ‘letters’ are either modified or new descriptors that
were added during the development of the list below.
PLANT DATA
Days to tasseling (male flowering) (4.1.1)

Number of days from sowing to when 50% of the plants have shed pollen
Days to silking (female flowering) (4.1.2)

Number of days from sowing to when silks have emerged on 50% of the plants
Days to ear leaf senescence (4.1.3)

Number of days from sowing to when 50% of the plants have a dry ear leaf

From ground level to the base of the tassel. After milk stage

From ground level to the node bearing the uppermost ear. After milk stage
Foliage rating (4.1.6)
Rating of total leaf surface
Counted on at least 20 representative plants. After milk stage

Percentage of plants root-lodged. This trait indicates root strength and standability. Two weeks before
harvest
Stalk lodging [%] (4.1.11)

Percentage of plants stalk-lodged. Two weeks before harvest

At milk stage
1 Primary
2 Primary-secondary
3 Primary-secondary-tertiary
Ear husk cover (4.2.1)

3 Poor
5 Intermediate
7 Good
Ear damage (4.2.2)

Rating of kernel health. Amount of ear damage caused by ear rot and/or insects, etc.
0 None
3 Little
7 Severe
Number of kernel rows (4.2.4)

Count number of kernel rows in the central part of the uppermost ear
Kernel type (4.3.1)

Indicate up to three kernel types in order of frequency
1 Floury
2 Semi-floury (morocho), with an external layer of hard endosperm
3 Dent
4 Semi-dent, intermediate between dent and flint but closer to dent
5 Semi-flint, flint with a soft cap
6 Flint
7 Pop
8 Sweet
9 Opaque 2/QPM
10 Tunicate
11 Waxy
Kernel colour (top of grain) (4.3.2)
Indicate up to three colours in order of frequency
1 White
2 Yellow
3 Purple
4 Variegated
5 Brown
6 Orange
7 Mottled
8 White cap
9 Red
1000-kernel weight [g] (4.3.3)

Adjusted to 10% moisture content

Measured at the central part of the uppermost ear

1 Cylindrical
2 Cylindrical-conical
3 Conical
4 Round

Average of 10 consecutive kernels from one row in the middle of the uppermost ear, measured
with a calliper

Measured on the same 10 kernels as 6.3.1
Grain yield (6.3.X)
ABIOTIC STRESSES
Drought (7.5)
Reflected in seed yield relative to control
BIOTIC STRESSES
Ear rot, stalk rot (Diplodia maydis, Gibberella zeae, Fusarium moniliforme) (8.1.1)
Common rust in temperate and highland environments (Puccinia sorghi) (8.1.2a)
Southern rust in tropics (Puccinia polysora) (8.1.2b)
Downy mildew (Peronosclerospora spp., Sclerophthora spp.) (8.1.3)
Maydis leaf blight (Bipolaris maydis syn., Helminthosporium maydis) (8.1.4a)
Turcicum leaf blight (Exserohilum turcicum syn., Helminthosporium turcicum) (8.1.4b)

Corn stunt (Corn stunt spiroplasma) (CSS) (8.2.1)
CONTRIBUTORS
Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development of this
strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for maize genetic resources’, and in particular to Dr
Suketoshi Taba (CIMMYT, Mexico) for providing scientific direction. Ms Adriana Alercia (Bioversity
CORE ADVISORY GROUP

Suketoshi Taba, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Mexico
Sain Dass, Directorate of Maize Research, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), India
Joël Guiard, Groupe d’Etude et de Controle de Varietes et des Semences (GEVES), France
Thomas Payne, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Mexico
C. Tara Satyavathi, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, India
REVIEWERS
Argentina
Marcelo Edmundo Ferrer, Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA)
Australia
Austria
Brazil
Flavia França Teixeira, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa Maize and Sorghum)
Chile
Erika Salazar Suazo, Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIA)
France
Pierre Ruaud, Limagrain Group
Germany
Andreas Börner, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK)
Greece
G. Evgenidis, National Agricultural Research Foundation, Cereal Institute (NAGREF)
Guatemala
Mario Fuentes, Organización Integral de Desarrollo (OID)
India
Jyoti Kaul, Directorate of Maize Research, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)
Ashok Kumar, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR)
J.C. Rana, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources Regional Station, Phagli, Shimla (NBPGR)
P.H. Zaidi, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)
Kenya
Yoseph Beyene, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)
Mexico
Flavio Aragón Cuevas, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP)
George Mahuku, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)
Rodomiro Ortiz, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)
Kevin Pixley, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)
Nigeria
R.A. Adeleke, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan
Peru
Luis Narro, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)
Portugal
Ana Maria Barata, Instituto Nacional de Recursos Biológicos, Banco Português de Germoplasma Vegetal
(INRB/BPGV)
Romania
Ion Antohe, National Agricultural Research and Development Institute (NARDI)
Danela Murariu, Suceava Genebank
Russian Federation
Galina Matveeva, N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry (VIR)
Spain
Amando Ordas, Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC)
Thailand
Sansern Jampatong, National Corn and Sorghum Research Center
Turkey
Sekip Erdal, Bati Akdeniz Agricultural Research Institute (BATEM)
Ukraine
Natalia Kuz'myshyna, National Centre for Plant Genetic Resources of Ukraine
USA
Scott S. Johnson, Pegasus Genetics, CRD Advisors
William Tracy, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Zimbabwe
John MacRobert, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)
Cosmos Magorokosho, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)
pearl millet [Pennisetum
glaucum (L.) R. Br.]
Information for the definition of a Minimum Descriptor List for pearl millet was
based on the publication ‘Descriptors for Pearl Millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.)
R. Br.]’ published by ICRISAT and IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1993.
The comprehensive descriptors list included in this publication was compared with
descriptors listed in Descriptors for PMILLET (USDA, ARS, GRIN); ‘Establishment
of a pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.] core collection based on
geographical distribution and quantitative traits’ [Euphytica (2007) 155:35–45]; ‘Pearl
millet germplasm at ICRISAT genebank – status and impact’ (ICRISAT, Vol. 3, Issue
1, 2007); Guidelines for the conduct of tests for Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability
on Pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.) (PPV & FRA, 2007), and with the
traits that were awarded funds for further research by the Global Crop Diversity
Trust through the Evaluation Award Scheme (the Trust, 2008). The list was then
refined during a crop-specific consultation meeting held in June 2009 at the National
Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) in India, following the advice of
scientists from NBPGR, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) and the All
India Coordinated Research Project on Pearl Millet (AICRP-Pearl Millet). To assist in
the selection of a “reduced” set of traits, a comparison table was prepared to visually
identify the “most important” descriptors recurring in the above mentioned sources
(see Annex I).

The List of Experts was compiled including experts involved in various crop-specific
consultations on millets, representatives of the world major pearl millet collections,
plant pathologists and breeders. Overall, 52 experts were selected, coming from 12
countries and 34 different organizations (see Annex II). Out of these, Dr Prem
Mathur from Bioversity International was identified as Crop Leader and further to
the crop-specific meeting held at NBPGR in June 2009, Dr I.S. Khairwal (AICRP-
Pearl Millet) was also identified as Crop Leader. In the final stages of the exercise, Dr
Hari D. Upadhyaya from ICRISAT provided valuable advice on the definition of the
final key set. A Core Advisory Group, consisting of various experts from different
organizations was selected to assist in the definition of a minimum set of descriptors,
which was subsequently circulated for validation among a wider group of scientists.

During the crop-specific meeting held at the NBPGR in June 2009, the comparison
table was analyzed and an initial key set of characterization and evaluation traits
was selected (see Annex III). The agreed list, compiled under the scientific guidance
of Dr Mathur and Dr Khairwal, was consequently used to prepare a draft survey on
pearl millet. Moreover, participants in the meeting were requested to identify – in
addition to the key set of descriptors for pearl millet utilization – further descriptors
that were considered important for describing and utilizing genetic resources, yet
judged ‘not essential’. This longer list of descriptors would have contributed to the
full characterization and evaluation of pearl millet, to be included in an eventual
revised (traditional) list of descriptors for this crop.
The final version of the key set was uploaded into the SurveyMonkey
application on internet and sent out to the list of identified experts on 26 June 2006
(see Annex IV). Participants were invited to validate this initial key set of descriptors
of pearl millet accessions to facilitate their use by breeders and asked to make
suggestions regarding any characterization or evaluation descriptors that were
found to be very important yet missing from the proposed Minimum List.
The survey deadline was set at 28 July 2009, therefore a first reminder was
sent out on 14 July 2009 and a second on 24 July 2009 to ensure that the greatest
possible feedback was obtained.

Of the 52 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 25 experts from
16 different organizations and nine countries recorded their comments using the
online survey, nine of whom were members of the CAG (see Annex V). Results from
the consultation were analyzed and descriptors were ranked by rating average and
percentage of importance (see Annex VI). The summary results of the survey
together with a report containing comments recorded by the participants (see
Annexes VII and VIII) were sent to the Crop Leaders and to the CAG. In order to
reach a wider consensus on the final key set of traits, additional members were
added to the CAG at this stage. All feedback received from advisory members was
compared and harmonized, where possible (see Annex IX). This exercise led to a first
draft of the key set for pearl millet that was submitted to the Crop Leaders for final
validation (see Annex X). Particularly noteworthy is a comment from one of the
Crop Leaders underlining that although drought was considered important in the
context of climate change, pearl millet has normally been grown as a rain fed crop.
Therefore, he felt that even if the character was important, the possibility genebank
curators of screening a large number of collections against drought may not be
viable. However, since most of the Core Advisory Group members recommended it,
it was decided to include this trait in the list. The same applied to ‘Blast’, an
additional abiotic stress suggested during the survey by many experts from different
countries.
Definition of a final key set of descriptors for pearl millet
The approved document, including all the contributors (see Annex XI), was
proofread by an external editor and sent to the Bioversity Publications Unit for
layout and on-line publication. The publication was later shared with the European
Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources (ECPGR) Secretariat; the
Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and the SGRP Crop Genebank
Knowledge Base partners. Additionally, data were converted into Excel files for
uploading into the GRIN-Global genebank data-management system being
developed by USDA, and subsequently into the global accession level information
portal (GENESYS), linking national, regional and international genebank databases in
support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and
agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also provided to the CGIAR System-wide
Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) and to EURISCO.
Acknowledgement
development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for pearl
millet genetic resources’, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial
support. Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leaders, Dr I.S. Khairwal (AICRP-
Pearl Millet), Dr Prem Mathur (Bioversity International) and Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya
(ICRISAT) for providing valuable scientific direction. Ms Adriana Alercia provided
technical expertise and guided the entire production process.
Annex I - Summary comparison table weighing up important descriptors for pearl millet drawn from different sourcesi ii
IITA
IBPGR/ UPOV, ICRISAT 2007
collection- LONG MIN
Bioversity ICRISAT PPV & FRA, USDA EAS (data avail AR)
Descriptor name Bhattacharjee (NBPGR) (NBPGR)
Descr. no. 1993 2007 (3) (4) AICPM too
2006 (7) (8)
(1) (2) (5)
(6)
* excluding
4.1.1 Plant height [cm] * * * * * *
spike
4.1.2 Stem diameter [mm] * * *
4.1.3 Early vigour * * *
4.1.4 Tillering attitude * *
4.1.5 Total number of tillers * * *
4.1.6 Number of productive tillers * * * * * *
4.1.7 Number of nodal tillers * * * *
4.1.8 Plant aspect * *
4.1.9 Lodging susceptibility * * *
4.1.10 Green fodder yield potential * * *
4.2.1 Spike shape * * * * panicle * *
4.2.2 Spikelet shattering/threshing *
4.2.3 Bristle length * * * * *

* not
4.2.4 Days to 50% flowering * * * * *
50%
4.2.5 Sensitivity to photoperiod * * * *
4.2.6 Flowering range *
4.2.7 Synchrony of ear maturity * * panicle * *

4.2.8 Restoration response * *
* panicle
4.2.9 Ear exsertion type * * spike * *
exsertion
4.2.10 Ear exsertion distance [cm] *
4.3.1 Spike length [cm] * * * * panicle * * *
4.3.2 Spike thickness [mm] * * * * panicle * * *
4.3.3 Spike density * * * Spikelet * *
4.4.1 Seed colour (change to grain) * * * * * *
4.4.2 Seed covering * *
4.4.3 Seed shape * * * * * *
4.4.4 Seed weight per spike [g] *
4.4.5 1000 Seed weight [g] * * * * * *
4.4.6 Seed volume [cm3] *
4.4.7 Endosperm texture * * *

Yellow endosperm (rename to
4.4.8 * * *
colour of endosperm)
New Green fodder yield per plant [kg] * *
Yield potential (rename to seed
4.4.9 * * * *
Grain yield per plant in g)
6.1.1 Leaf length [cm] * * * *
6.1.2 Leaf width [mm] * * * *
6.1.3 Leaf attitude * *
6.1.4 Leaf colour * *
6.1.5 Sheath length [cm] * *
6.1.6 Sheath pigmentation * *
6.1.7 Blade pigmentation * *

* 4th
6.1.8 Sheath pubescence * *
leaf
6.1.9 Senescence * *
6.1.10 Separation [cm] *

Number of leaves (rename to
6.1.11 * * *
nodes)
6.1.12 Stem internode length [cm] * * *
6.1.13 Stalk juiciness * * Sweet stalk *
6.1.14 Juice quality *
6.1.15 Node pigmentation * * *
6.1.16 Internode pigmentation * * *
6.1.17 Node pubescence * * *
6.1.18 Internode pubescence * *
6.2.1 Rachis diameter [mm] *
6.2.2 Rachis pubescence * *
6.2.3 Rachis tip * *
6.2.4 Involucre stalk length [mm] *

Number of fertile spikelets per
6.2.5 *
involucres
6.2.6 Bristle colour * * *
6.2.7 Bristle ornamentation * *
6.2.8 Mono-aristation length *
6.2.9 Poly-aristation density * *
6.2.10 Spikelet glume colour * * * *
6.2.11 Anther colour * * * *
6.2.12 Stigma pigmentation * *
6.2.13 Florets per spikelet * *

6.3.1 Seed apex shape *
6.3.2 Seed surface * *

6.3.3 Protein content [% DW] * * *
6.3.4 Lysine content [% DW] * *
6.3.5 Methionine content [% DW] * *
6.3.6 Tryptophane content [% DW] * *
7.1 Reaction to drought * ** * *
7.2 Reaction to salinity * * *

Downy mildew (Sderospora
8.1.1 * * * *
graminicola (Sacc. Schroet.))
8.1.2 Rust (Puccinia penniseti Zimm.) * * * *
8.2.1 Ergot (Claviceps fusiformis Lov.) * * *

Smut (Tolyposporium
8.2.2 * * * *
penicillariae Bref.)
Witchweed (Striga asiatica (L.)
8.3.1 O. Kuntze Striga hermonthica * * * *
Benth.)
White grub (Holotrichia spp.,
8.4.1 * *
Apogonia sp.)
8.4.2 Wire worm (Gonocephalum spp.) * ?
Root aphid (Stibaropus minor
8.4.3 *
Fabr.)
Pearl millet shoot fly (Atherigona
8.5.1 * *
approximata Malloch)
Pearl millet stem borer (Coniesta
8.5.2 * *
(Acigona) ignefusalis Hmps.)
Spotted stem borer (Chilo
8.5.3 * *
partellus Swin.)
8.5.4 Hairy caterpillars (Amsacta sp.) * *
Locust (Locusta migratoria
8.5.5 *
migratorioides L.)
Grasshopper (Hieroglyphus sp.
8.5.6 * *
Oedaleus senegalensis Krauss)
Desert locust (Schistocerea
8.5.7 *
gregaria Forsk.)
Corn leaf aphid (Rhopalosiphum
8.5.8 *
maidis Fitch)
Oriental armyworm (Mythimna
8.5.9 * *
separata Wlk.)
African armyworm (Spodoptera
8.5.10 * *
exempta Wlk.)
Fall armyworm (Spodoptera
8.5.11 * *
frugiperda J.E. Smith)
8.5.12 Cutworm (Agrotis sp.) *
Head caterpillars (Helicoverpa
8.6.1 armigera Hb. Cryptoblabes * *
midiella Mill. Eublemim spp.)
Pearl millet head caterpillars
8.6.2 (Heliocheilus (Raghuva) * *
albipunctella)
Blister beeTles (Mylabris
8.6.3 pustulata Thunb. Psallydolytta *
sp.)
8.6.4 Pachnoda spp. *
Pearl millet midge (Geromyia
8.6.5 * *
penniseti Felt)
Head bug (Calocoris angustatus
8.6.6 * *
Leth.)
8.6.7 Cotton stainer (Dysdercus sp.) *
Thrips (Haplothrips sp.
8.6.8 * *
Thrips sp.)
Scarabaeid beetle (Rhinyptia
8.6.9 *
infuscata Burin.)
i
(1) ‘Descriptors for Pearl Millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) r. Br.]’ (IBPGR/ICRISAT 1993); (2) ‘Guidelines for the conduct of tests for Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability. (Pearl millet
(Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.))’ (PPV & FRA, 2007); (3) ‘Descriptors for PMILLET (USDA, ARS, GRIN)’; (4) Evaluation Award Scheme 2008 (EAS); (5) ‘Pearl millet germplasm at ICRISAT
genebank – status and impact’ (ICRISAT, Vol. 3, Issue 1, 2007); (6) ‘Establishment of a pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.] core collection based on geographical distribution and
quantitative traits’ (Euphytica (2007) 155:35–45); (7) Long list of traits identified during the crop-specific meeting at NBPGR (June 2009); (8) Minimum list of traits identified during the crop-
specific meeting at NBPGR (June 2009).
ii
Descriptors highlighted in yellow are those identified to be proposed in the online survey
Annex II – List of Experts identified to participate in the survey for the
definition of a minimum set of descriptors for pearl millet

Crop Leader Khairwal, I.S. AICRP-Pearl Millet India
Crop Leader Mathur, Prem Bioversity India
Bhattacharjee,
CAG IITA Nigeria
Ranjana
CAG/NBPGR meeting AICRP on Small millets,
Gowda, Jayarame India
June 2009 UAS, GKVK, Bangalore
CAG Gupta, Suresh ICRISAT India
Harrison-Dunn,
CAG ARS/USDA USA
Melanie
CAG ontology workshop Hash, C. Tom ICRISAT India
Haussmann, Bettina
CAG/Core group EAS ICRISAT Niger
I.G.
CAG/Core group Pacheco, Luis UPOV Brasil
CAG Satyavathi, Tara C. IARI, Genetics India
CAG Rai, K.N. ICRISAT India
CAG Reddy, K.N. ICRISAT India
CAG/NBPGR meeting AICRP on Small millets,
Seetharam, A. India
June 2009 UAS, GKVK, Bangalore
CAG Unnikrishnan, K.V. IARI, Genetics India
West Africa Community of
Practice (CoP WAF) Aminou, Ali FUMA Gaskya Niger
participant
Pearl millet planning Angarawai, Ignatius Millet research- Lake
Nigeria
Workshop Oct-2002 Ijantiku Chad Research Institute
Intsormil team Atokple, I. Inoussa Savanna Agric. Res. Inst. Ghana
Contact sent by Franca Neto,
Bonamigo Luiz Adriana Seed Company Brazil
Jose
Practice (CoP WAF) Boye, Tahirou ICRISAT Niger
participant
Core collection Bramel, Paula J. IITA India
IRC contacts Chopra, Kuldip Raj Biostadt MHseeds Ltd India
IRC contacts Franca Neto, José EMBRAPA Brazil

Gebeyehu,
(INTSORMIL CRSP) Nazret Research Center Ethiopia
Geremew
Pearl millet breeder Gonda, Jada INRAN Niger
IRC contacts Gopal, B. Zuari Seeds Ltd India
Advantaindia Seed
IRC contacts Gupta, Suresh India
Company
Bayer Bioscience/Proagro
IRC contacts Jyalekha, A.K. India
Seeds
IRC contacts Katrien, Devos UGA USA
Collection and evaluation of
pearl millet (Pennisetum
Institut des Régions
glaucum) germplasm from Loumerem, M. Tunisia
Arides
the arid regions of Tunisia
(2008)
IRC contacts Mahala, R.S. Pioneer Overseas India
Reviewer Mishra NBPGR India
IRC contacts Naik, Sunil Emergent Genetics India
Nouri, Maman INRAN Niger
Ousseini, Boubacar Farmer representative Niger
IRC contacts Pareek, Satish Pioneer Overseas India
IRC contacts Parzies, Heiko Univ. of Hohenheim Germany
Practice (CoP WAF) Rattunde, Fred ICRISAT Mali
participant
SINGER Survey (Genebank
data manager)
IRC contacts Sankar Kaveri Seed Co India
Sanogo, Moussa CRRA de Niono,
(INTSORMIL CRSP) Mali
Daouda Programme Mil
Suggested by H. Knüpffer Schmidt, Baerbel IPK-Genebank Dept Germany
IRC contacts Shelke, G.V. Ankur Seeds India

Singh, B.B. IARI, Genetics India
Practice (CoP WAF) Souley, Soumana INRAN Niger
participant
Institut Sénégalais de
Pearl millet breeder Sy, Ousmane Recherches Agricoles Senegal
(ISRA)
Taonda, S.J.
Intsormil team INERA Burkina Faso
Baptiste
IRC contacts Thakur, Ram ICRISAT India
ICRISAT Upadhyaya, Hari D. ICRISAT India
Collection and evaluation of

pearl millet (Pennisetum
glaucum) germplasm from Van Damme, P. UGent-FBSE Belgium
the arid regions of Tunisia
(2008)
NBPGR Regional
Verma, V.D. India
Station, Phagli, Shimla
IRC contacts Warathe, Shailendra Syngenta India India
IRC contacts Wilson, Jeff USDA, GA USA
IRC contacts Xinzhi, Ni USDA, GA USA
Annex III – Initial minimum key set of characterization and evaluation
descriptors for pearl millet identified during the crop-specific meeting held at
NBPGR in June 2009

Early vigour (4.1.3)
Number of productive tillers (4.1.6)
Green fodder yield per plant [kg] (4.1.10)
Spike shape (4.2.1)
Bristle length (4.2.3)
Sensitivity to photoperiod (4.2.5)
Synchrony of ear maturity (4.2.7)
Ear exsertion type (4.2.9)
Spike length [cm] (4.3.1)
Spike thickness [mm] (4.3.2)
Spike density (4.3.3)
Seed shape (4.4.3)
1000-seed weight [g] (4.4.5)
Seed grain yield per plant [g] (4.4.9)
Leaf length [cm] (6.1.1)
Leaf width [mm] (6.1.2)
Number of nodes (6.1.11)
Stem internode length [cm] (6.1.12)
Spikelet glume colour (6.2.10)
Downy mildew (Sderospora graminicola) (8.1.1)
Rust (Puccinia penniseti) (8.1.2)
Smut (Tolyposporium penicillariae) (8.2.2)
Witchweed (Striga asiatica; Striga hermonthica) (8.3.1)
Annex IV – Survey to choose a key set of descriptors for pearl millet utilization
WELCOME
Welcome to the survey for the selection of a key set of characterization and
evaluation descriptors for pearl millet to support an international information system
to enhance the utilization of germplasm held in genebanks.
Your knowledge and experience are being sought to define an initial ‘key set’ of
descriptors that identify traits important to crop production and facilitate the use of
accessions by researchers.
Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is

28 July 2009.
This key set of descriptors will be made available through a global portal for
identifying sets of accessions for evaluation and use. For characterization, the aim is a
key set of maximally differentiating traits that provide the most impact in
discriminating between accessions. For evaluation, the aim is to focus on a few
important traits for production, such as those related to abiotic or biotic stresses of
By selecting descriptors as 'very important', you are helping us define the key set
that will be instrumental for assisting researchers to more easily utilize Pearl millet
accessions.
We thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in selecting the set of
descriptors.
*Please allow us to acknowledge your contribution by completing your full contact
details below:
Name:
Position:
Organization:
Country:
Email:
generally highly heritable, can be easily seen by the eye and are equally expressed in
all environments.
Based on your experience, please select descriptors that provide the most impact in
discriminating between accessions. It also allows you to indicate if any essential
descriptor that can contribute to its use is missing from the minimum list presented.
*Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors

numbers as published in the IBPGR/ICRISAT publication 'Descriptors for Pearl millet
[Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.]' (1993).
Very
Not important Important
important
Early vigour (4.1.3)
Spike shape (4.2.1)
Bristle length (4.2.3)
Sensitivity to photoperiod (4.2.5)
Synchrony of ear maturity (4.2.7)
Ear exsertion type (4.2.9)
Seed shape (4.4.3)
1000-seed weight [g] (4.4.5)
Seed grain yield per plant [g] (4.4.9)
These descriptors include characters such as biotic and abiotic stresses. They are the
most interesting traits in crop improvement. Please consider the following factors
relating to the trait when making your final decision: (i) Global impact, (ii) Initial
Please, rate these traits in order of importance at the global level. It also allows you
to indicate if any essential trait for production is missing from the minimum list
presented or indicate any that may not be very significant to global production.
Very
Not Important Important
important
Leaf length [cm] (6.1.1)
Leaf width [mm] (6.1.2)
Number of nodes (6.1.11)
Stem internode length [cm] (6.1.12)
Spikelet glume colour (6.2.10)
Downy mildew (Sderospora graminicola)
(8.1.1)
Rust (Puccinia penniseti) (8.1.2)
Smut (Tolyposporium penicillariae) (8.2.2)
Witchweed (Striga asiatica; Striga
hermonthica) (8.3.1)
If you consider that an essential trait important for crop improvement and production
is missing from the list above, please indicate it here along with a substantiated
justification.
NOTE: Please remember, this list is the starting point and will grow over time, as
required.

Annex V – Survey respondents
Crop Leader Khairwal, I.S. AICRP-Pearl Millet India

Crop Leader Mathur, Prem Bioversity India
Crop Leader Upadhyaya, Hari D. ICRISAT India
CAG Gupta, S.K. ICRISAT India
CAG Harrison-Dunn, Melanie USDA, NPGS USA
CAG Hash, C. Tom ICRISAT India
CAG Haussmann, Bettina I.G. ICRISAT Niger
Pacheco, Luís Gustavo

CAG Ministry of Agriculture Brazil
Asp
CAG Rai, K.N. ICRISAT India
CAG Reddy, Narismha K. ICRISAT India
Indian Council of
CAG Seetharam, A. Agricultural Research India
(ICAR)
Indian Agricultural
CAG Tara Satyavathi, C. India
Research Institute
Reviewer Asfaw Adugna EIAR Ethiopia
Reviewer Gopal, B. Zuari Seeds Limited India
Reviewer Jayalekha, A.K. Bayer Bioscience Pvt Ltd India

Reviewer Lohwasser, Ulrike Genetics and Crop Plant Germany
Research
Institut des Régions
Reviewer Loumerem, Mohamed Tunisia
Arides-Tunisia
Crop Breeding Institute
Reviewer Mare, Marco Zimbabwe
(C.B.I.)
Reviewer Ni, Xinzhi USDA-ARS USA
University of Hohenheim,
Reviewer Parzies, Heiko K. Germany
Inst. of Plant Breeding
Reviewer Reddy, M. Thimma ICRISAT India
ISRA (Institut sénégalais
Reviewer Sy, Ousmane Senegal
de recherches agricoles)
Reviewer Thakur, R.P. ICRISAT India
Reviewer Warathe, Shailendra Syngenta India Ltd. India
Reviewer Wilson, Jeffrey P. USDA-ARS USA

Annex VI – Survey results ranked by rating average and percentage of importance
%
%
Rating Importance
Average (very
(important)
important)
4.62 Days to 50% flowering (4.2.4) 19.0% (4) 81.0% (17)
(4.2.4)
Spike length [cm] (4.3.1) 4.50 Spike length [cm] (4.3.1) 25.0% (5) 75.0% (15)
Grain colour (4.4.1) 4.33 Grain colour (4.4.1) 33.3% (7) 66.7% (14)
Plant height [cm] (4.1.1) 4.24 1000-seed weight [g] (4.4.5) 28.6% (6) 66.7% (14)
1000-seed weight [g] (4.4.5) 4.19 Plant height [cm] (4.1.1) 38.1% (8) 61.9% (13)
Spike thickness [mm] (4.3.2) 4.06 Seed grain yield per plant [g] (4.4.9) 23.8% (5) 61.9% (13)
Spike density (4.3.3) 4.00 Spike thickness [mm] (4.3.2) 33.3% (6) 61.1% (11)
Number of productive tillers
3.90 Number of productive tillers (4.1.6) 30.0% (6) 60.0% (12)
(4.1.6)
Seed grain yield per plant [g]
3.81 Spike density (4.3.3) 36.8% (7) 57.9% (11)
(4.4.9)
Green fodder yield per plant Green fodder yield per plant [kg]
3.38 33.3% (7) 47.6% (10)
[kg] (4.1.10) (4.1.10)
Spike shape (4.2.1) 3.37 Spike shape (4.2.1) 42.1% (8) 42.1% (8)
Ear exsertion type (4.2.9) 3.32 Sensitivity to photoperiod (4.2.5) 40.0% (8) 40.0% (8)
Sensitivity to photoperiod
3.20 Lodging susceptibility (4.1.9) 35.0% (7) 35.0% (7)
(4.2.5)
Seed shape (4.4.3) 3.06 Ear exsertion type (4.2.9) 57.9% (11) 31.6% (6)
Lodging susceptibility (4.1.9) 2.80 Seed shape (4.4.3) 55.6% (10) 27.8% (5)
Bristle length (4.2.3) 2.68 Synchrony of ear maturity (4.2.7) 45.0% (9) 25.0% (5)
Synchrony of ear maturity
2.60 Early vigour (4.1.3) 47.4% (9) 21.1% (4)
(4.2.7)
Early vigour (4.1.3) 2.47 Bristle length (4.2.3) 63.2% (12) 15.8% (3)
Downy mildew (Sderospora Downy mildew (Sderospora

4.35 20.0% (4) 75.0% (15)
graminicola) (8.1.1) graminicola) (8.1.1)
Reaction to drought (7.1) 3.68 Reaction to drought (7.1) 26.3% (5) 57.9% (11)
Rust (Puccinia penniseti) Smut (Tolyposporium penicillariae)
3.45 55.0% (11) 35.0% (7)
(8.1.2) (8.2.2)
Smut (Tolyposporium Witchweed (Striga asiatica; Striga
3.40 50.0% (10) 35.0% (7)
penicillariae) (8.2.2) hermonthica) (8.3.1)
Witchweed (Striga asiatica;
3.25 Anther colour (6.2.11) 21.1% (4) 31.6% (6)
Striga hermonthica) (8.3.1)
Leaf length [cm] (6.1.1) 2.21 Rust (Puccinia penniseti) (8.1.2) 65.0% (13) 30.0% (6)
Leaf width [mm] (6.1.2) 2.21 Stem internode length [cm] (6.1.12) 27.8% (5) 22.2% (4)
Anther colour (6.2.11) 2.21 Number of nodes (6.1.11) 36.8% (7) 21.1% (4)
Number of nodes (6.1.11) 2.16 Leaf length [cm] (6.1.1) 47.4% (9) 15.8% (3)
Stem internode length [cm]
1.94 Leaf width [mm] (6.1.2) 47.4% (9) 15.8% (3)
(6.1.12)
Spikelet glume colour
1.89 Spikelet glume colour (6.2.10) 36.8% (7)` 15.8% (3)
(6.2.10)
Annex VII – Additional descriptors and comments proposed in the open-ended section of the survey
Name of expert
Additional M.
S.K. A. H.D.
N. times Harris B. M. A. B. R.P. O. A.K. J. H.K. L.G.
descriptors proposed on- Gopal Loumerem Adugna Haussmann Thakur
Gupta;
Sy Jayalekha
C.T. Hash
Wilson Parzies Pacheco
Seethara Upadhy
K.N. Rai m aya
Dunne
Characterization
traits
X Node
pigmentation
Pigmentation on (6.1.15) I
leaf/node which may think there is
sometimes indicate a correlation
3 X X
seedling marker to between
identify the accession node
at seedling stage. pigmentation
and juice
quality
Bristle colour (6.2.6) 1 X
Days to 100%
flowering it is better
than flowering range 1 X
(4.2.6) is needed by
plant breeder.
Seed covering (4.4.2). 1 X
The grain volumetric

weight (g/cm³) is an
important trait for
African farmers who
sell the grain in
volume units (and not 1 X
kg units). A high
volumetric weight is
appreciated, as this
will also yield more
flour.
X Dry fodder
yield is more
important
than green
fodder yield,
and is not
that much
Instead of green more
fodder yield (which complicated
would be a to assess-
destructive measure) requiring in
2 X
I would prefer dry addition only
stover weight (g/m²) fresh and
as indicator of fodder oven-dry
plant types. weights of a
subsample
to determine
the dry
matter
fraction of
the green
fodder
Spike tip sterility:
2 X
Absent, Present
Spike bristle: Absent,

2 X
Present
Node pubescence 1 X
X A general
agronomic
or farmer
preference
score,
possibly
Agronomical
given by
appreciation (farmers 2 X
farmers
and technicians) (separately
for women
and men)
during a
participatory
evaluation.
X High
starch:
Endosperm texture: nowada
Texture of endosperm ys
distillerie
visually scored on a 1-
s and
9 scale. 3 X
brewers
1 = Highly corneous
are
and 9 = Highly looking
starchy. for such
traits in
millet
Number of nodal
1 X
tillers (4.1.7)
Total number of tillers

(4.1.5) Strongly
1 X
related to the fodder
yield
Evaluation traits
X X
Blast/Le Reaction
af spot to Blast:
(Pyricula Increase
ria d
Reaction to blast as it grisea)- incidenc
is emerging as an damage e of this
important biotic stress 6 X X s foliage disease X
in certain parts of in India,
India. the
major
cultivato
r of pearl
millet
High Iron and Zinc:

much sought after
trait to check nutrient 2 X
malnutrition in rural
households
Susceptibility to
chinch bugs has been
a problem for me in
the southeastern
United States when
regenerating material
for germplasm
increase. The chinch
bugs produce severe
damage greatly
affecting crop yield.
Because of
geographical 1 X
limitation of this
problem at present, it
most likely does not
warrant inclusion on
this list. However, I
wanted to bring this
problem to your
attention in the case
chinch bugs become
problematic in other
countries/areas in the
future.
Leaf colour (6.1.4) 1 X
Presence or absence
1 X
of awn is important
Adaptation to low soil
fertility (eg low-P soils 1 X
in West Africa)
Responsiveness to
fertilizer application
are further traits of 1 X
high interest to
farmers
Stemborer resistance
is very important, e.g. 1 X
in Nigeria
Headminer resistance
can be very
important, depending 1 X
on the region of
interest
Reaction to head
1 X
caterpillar (8.6.1)
Susceptibility to
flower-damaging
insects (e.g.
1 X
cantarides) can be
very important,
depending on the
region of interest
Rust (Puccinia
1 X
substriata var. indica)
Smut (Moesziomyces
1 X
penicillariae)
Stay green trait after
maturity: important
trait to identify forage
2 X
type genotypes under
moisture stress
conditions
Reaction to salinity
tolerance: very
X
important trait as the
Reaction
soils of central Asia 3 X
to
are saline and pearl
salinity
millet is finding niche
area there
Seedling: leaf sheath:
anthocyanin 1 X
coloration of base
Leaf sheath:
1 X
pubescence
Culm: anthocyanin
coloration of 1 X
internode
Culm: diameter 1 X
Glume: anthocyanin
coloration (excluding 1 X
tips)
X Ergot X Ergot
(Clavice (Clavice
ps ps
fusiformi fusiformi
s)- s
infects Loveless
panicles, )
Ergot is an important replaces (8.2.1).
disease of pearl millet 3 grains X
Occurs
in some areas with
widely
sclerotia
and
produce
s
mycotoxi
ns-
Shoot fly is the only
major pest of pearl 1 X
millet in tropics
Grain quality
descriptors such as
1 X
seed oil content might
be useful
X (Grain X Seed
quality protein
descriptors content
Protein content [% such as (%)
2
DW] (6.3.3) protein
content
might be
useful)
COMMENTS
Reaction to drought is
too general - what
X
type of drought do we
mean here?
Number of leaves
((6.1.11) not number X
of nodes - mistake)
Annex VIII – Summary results sent to the Crop Leaders and CAG for validation
Rating Your
Descriptor
Average selection
Characterization

Spike length [cm] (4.3.1) 4.50
Grain colour (4.4.1) 4.33
1000-seed weight [g] (4.4.5) 4.19
Spike thickness [mm] (4.3.2) 4.06
Spike density (4.3.3) 4.00
Number of productive tillers (4.1.6) 3.90
Seed grain yield per plant [g OR g/cm3?] (4.4.9) 3.81
DRY fodder yield per plant [kg] (4.1.10) 3.38
Spike shape (4.2.1) 3.37
Ear exsertion type (4.2.9) 3.32
Sensitivity to photoperiod (4.2.5) 3.20
Seed shape (4.4.3) 3.06
Lodging susceptibility (4.1.9) 2.80
Bristle length (4.2.3) 2.68
Synchrony of ear maturity (4.2.7) 2.60
Early vigour (4.1.3) 2.47
Evaluation
Downy mildew (Sderospora graminicola) (8.1.1) 4.35
Reaction to drought (7.1) 3.68
Rust (Puccinia penniseti) (8.1.2) 3.45
Smut (Tolyposporium penicillariae) (8.2.2) 3.40
Witchweed (Striga asiatica; Striga hermonthica) (8.3.1) 3.25
Leaf length [cm] (6.1.1) 2.21
Leaf width [mm] (6.1.2) 2.21
Number of nodes (6.1.11) 2.16
Stem internode length [cm] (6.1.12) 1.94
Spikelet glume colour (6.2.10) 1.89
Annex IX – Replies received from Crop Leaders and CAG on the survey results
Name of Expert
Pearl millet descriptor M.
Rating I.S. B. T.C. C.T. A. H.D. P.
Harrison
Average Khairwal Haussmann Satyavathi Hash Seetharam Upadhyaya Mathur
Dunn
Characterization
Days to 50% flowering (4.2.4) 4.62 X X X X X X X
Spike length [cm] (4.3.1) 4.50 X X X X X X X
Grain colour (4.4.1) 4.33 X X X X X X
Plant height [cm] (4.1.1) 4.24 X X X X X X
1000-seed weight [g] (4.4.5) 4.19 X X X X X X X X
Spike thickness [mm] (4.3.2) 4.06 X X X X X X
Spike density (4.3.3) 4.00 X X X X X
Number of productive tillers (4.1.6) 3.90 X X X X X X
X
Seed grain yield per plant [g] (4.4.9) 3.81 X X X X X X
X
Green fodder yield per plant [kg] (4.1.10) 3.38 X X X X X X
X
Spike shape (4.2.1) 3.37 X
Ear exsertion type (4.2.9) 3.32 X
Sensitivity to photoperiod (4.2.5) 3.20 X X X
Seed shape (4.4.3) 3.06 X
Lodging susceptibility (4.1.9) 2.80 X
Bristle length (4.2.3) 2.68 X X
Synchrony of ear maturity (4.2.7) 2.60 X
Early vigour (4.1.3) 2.47 X
Evaluation
Downy mildew (Sderospora
4.35 X X X X X X
graminicola) (8.1.1) X
Reaction to drought (7.1) 3.68 X X X X
Rust (Puccinia penniseti) (8.1.2) 3.45 X X
Smut (Tolyposporium penicillariae) (8.2.2) 3.40 X X X
Witchweed (Striga asiatica; Striga
3.25 X
Leaf length [cm] (6.1.1) 2.21
Leaf width [mm] (6.1.2) 2.21
Number of nodes (6.1.11) 2.16
Stem internode length [cm] (6.1.12) 1.94
Spikelet glume colour (6.2.10) 1.89
Additional traits
Blast X X X X
Ergot X
NB. Descriptors highlighted in yellow are those that received a wide consensus amongst experts (according to rating averages and feedback received from CAG) and were submitted to the
Crop Leaders.
Annex X – Draft of the key access and utilization descriptors for pearl millet
sent to the Crop Leaders for final validation
PLANT DATA

From the ground level to the tip of the spike. At dough stage

Number of spikes which bear seed at dough stage. Spikes younger than the dough stage are
not counted

At flowering

Number of days from field emergence to when 50% of plants flower. Stigma emergence on
the main spike is considered as flowering

At dough stage

Maximum diameter of the spike, excluding bristles. At dough stage

At maturity
3 Loose
5 Intermediate
7 Compact

After threshing. Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) colour codes are given in parentheses
beside descriptor states
1 Ivory (yellow-white group 158A)
2 Cream (orange-white group 159A)
3 Yellow (yellow group 8C)
4 Grey (grey group 201)
5 Deep grey (black group 202B)
6 Grey brown (brown group 199)
7 Brown (brown group 200)
8 Purple (purple group 79B)
9 Purplish black
10 A mixture of white and grey grains (on the same spike)
1000-seed weight [g] (4.4.5)

At 12% moisture content

ABIOTIC STRESSES
BIOTIC STRESSES
Downy mildew (Sclerospora graminicola) (8.1.1)
Blast (Pyricularia grisea) (8.1.X)

Annex XI – Final key set for characterization and evaluation of pearl millet
genetic resources including descriptor states and contributors

pearl millet genetic resources
This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for pearl
millet genetic resources utilization. This strategic set of descriptors, together with passport
data, will become the basis for the global accession level information portal being developed
by Bioversity International with the financial support of the Global Crop Diversity Trust (the
Trust). It will facilitate access to and utilization of pearl millet accessions held in genebanks
and does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently become
available.
Based on the comprehensive list ‘Descriptors for Pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.)
R. Br.]’ published by ICRISAT and IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1993, the list was
subsequently compared with a number of sources such as ‘Descriptors for PMILLET’
(USDA, ARS, GRIN), ‘Establishment of a pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.] core
collection based on geographical distribution and quantitative traits’ (Euphytica (2007)
155:35–45), ‘Pearl millet germplasm at ICRISAT genebank – status and impact’ (ICRISAT,
Vol. 3, Issue 1., 2007), ‘Guidelines for the Conduct of Test for Distinctness, Uniformity and
Stability on Pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.)’ (PPV & FRA, 2007), as well as with
those descriptors that were awarded funds for further research by the Global Crop Diversity
Trust in 2008 Evaluation Award Scheme (EAS). The initial list was further refined during a
crop-specific consultation meeting held at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources
(NBPGR, India) in June 2009. It involved several scientists from the National Bureau of Plant
Genetic Resources (NBPGR), Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) and All India
Coordinated Research Project on Pearl Millet (AICRP-Pearl Millet).
priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize pearl millet genetic resources.
This key set was afterwards validated by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by
Dr Prem Mathur of Bioversity International, Dr I. S. Khairwal, Project Coordinator, AICRP-
Pearl Millet and Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya of International Crops Research Institute for the
Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT).
either modified or new descriptors that were added during the development of the list
below.
PLANT DATA

From the ground level to the tip of the spike. At dough stage

Number of spikes which bear seed at dough stage. Spikes younger than the dough stage are
not counted

At flowering
Number of days from field emergence to when 50% of plants flower. Stigma emergence on
the main spike is considered as flowering

At dough stage

Maximum diameter of the spike, excluding bristles. At dough stage

At maturity
3 Loose
5 Intermediate
7 Compact

After threshing. Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) colour codes are given in parentheses
beside descriptor states
1 Ivory (yellow-white group 158A)
2 Cream (orange-white group 159A)
3 Yellow (yellow group 8C)
4 Grey (grey group 201)
5 Deep grey (black group 202B)
6 Grey brown (brown group 199)
7 Brown (brown group 200)
8 Purple (purple group 79B)
9 Purplish black
10 A mixture of white and grey grains (on the same spike)
1000-seed weight [g] (4.4.5)

At 12% moisture content
ABIOTIC STRESSES
BIOTIC STRESSES
Downy mildew (Sclerospora graminicola) (8.1.1)
Blast (Pyricularia grisea) (8.1.X)

CONTRIBUTORS
development of this strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for pearl millet
genetic resources’, and in particular to Dr I.S. Khairwal (AICRP-Pearl Millet), Dr Prem
Mathur (Bioversity International) and Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya (ICRISAT) for providing
valuable scientific direction. Adriana Alercia provided technical expertise and guided the
CORE ADVISORY GROUP

I.S. Khairwal, All India Coordinated Research Project on Pearl Millet (AICRP-Pearl Millet), India
India
S.K. Gupta, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India
Melanie Harrison-Dunn, United States Department of Agriculture, National Plant Germplasm System
(USDA, NPGS), USA
Tom C. Hash, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India
Bettina I.G. Haussmann, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT),
Niger
Luís Gustavo Asp Pacheco, Ministry of Agriculture, Brazil
K.N. Rai, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India
K. Narismha Reddy, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT),
India
A. Seetharam, Ex-Project Coordinator, All India Coordinated Research Project on Small Millets,
India
C. Tara Satyavathi, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), India
REVIEWERS
Ethiopia
Germany
Ulrike Lohwasser, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research
Heiko K. Parzies, University of Hohenheim, Institute of Plant Breeding
India
B. Gopal, Zuari Seeds Limited
A.K. Jayalekha, Bayer Bioscience Pvt. Ltd.
R.P. Thakur, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
Shailendra Warathe, Syngenta India Ltd.
Senegal
Ousmane Sy, Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles (ISRA)
Tunisia
Mohamed Loumerem, Institut des Régions Arides
USA
Xinzhi Ni, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS)
Jeffrey P. Wilson, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA-
ARS)
Zimbabwe
Marco Mare, Crop Breeding Institute (CBI)
pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.)
Millsp.]
Information collection and preparation of the Minimum Descriptor
List (MDL)
Information for the definition of a Minimum Descriptor List for pigeonpea was drawn from the
publication ‘Descriptors for Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]’ published by IBPGR (now
Bioversity International) and ICRISAT in 1993. A table was prepared comparing the descriptors
listed in the above publication to important traits mentioned in the ‘Development of a Strategy for
the Global Conservation of Pigeonpea Genetic Resources’ (August 2006) and to those used in
ICRISAT to identify accessions. Furthermore, these were weighed against Descriptors for
PIGEON-PEA (USDA, ARS, GRIN) and important traits resulting from the SGRP GPG2 exercise.
The list was further discussed and refined during a crop-specific consultation meeting held in
India in June 2009, at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR). The consultation,
which involved several experts from NBPGR and the Indian Agricultural Research Institute
(IARI), chaired by Adriana Alercia, resulted in the definition of a preliminary key set of
descriptors for pigeonpea to be included in the survey for review (see Annex I). The long list of
descriptors was also revised during the consultation meeting.

The List of Experts was prepared including experts drawn from the list of participants in the crop-
specific consultations for the definition of the ‘Development of a Strategy for the Global
Conservation of Pigeonpea Genetic Resources’ (August 2006). It was then integrated with the
names of experts found in pigeonpea websites such as the NBPGR website, FAO WIEWS and the
Purdue University website. An internet search was also performed to integrate this list and to
obtain the greatest number of experts. The List of Experts was further refined during the crop-
specific meeting held at NBPGR in June 2009.
Overall, 51 experts were identified, from 17 countries and 29 different organizations. Out of
these, Dr Ram Prakash Dua (NBPGR, India) and Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya (International Crops
Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics-ICRISAT, India) were selected as Crop Leaders and a
Core Advisory Group (CAG) consisting of 11 experts was identified to assist in the definition of a
key set of descriptors. In order to reach a wider group of experts, ten organizations were added to
the established list, inviting the relevant expert within the organization to participate (see Annex
II).

A draft survey of pigeonpea was prepared listing the descriptors as approved by consultations
with the Core Advisory Group. Once the list was refined (see Annex III), during the meeting at
NBPGR in June 2009, the final draft of the survey was uploaded into the SurveyMonkey
application on the internet (see Annex IV). On 22 July 2009 an invitation email with the link to the
survey was sent to the list of identified experts.
They were invited to validate this initial ‘Minimum set of descriptors’ of pigeonpea
accessions to facilitate their use by researchers and asked to make suggestions regarding any
characterization or evaluation descriptors that were found to be relevant yet missing from the
proposed Minimum List. The survey deadline was set at 31 August 2009. A first reminder was
sent out on the 31 July 2009, a second on the 27 August 2009 and a third one the same day of the
deadline, to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained.

Of the 51 experts identified and involved in the exercise, 20 experts from 7 countries and 13
organizations recorded their comments using the online survey (see Annex V). Results from the
survey were analyzed and descriptors were ranked by rating average and percentage of
importance (see Annex VI). The summary results of the survey together with a report containing
comments received by the participants (see Annex VII) were sent to the Core Advisory Group
asking them to select the descriptors that should be included in the final list. Feedback received by
the experts was harmonized and integrated to compile an initial list of important traits. A first
draft of the key set for pigeonpea, containing the aforesaid descriptors, with relevant methods and
states, references and the complete list of contributors, was submitted to the CAG for their
approval (see Annex VIII). Due to the inconsistency of comments sent by experts regarding the
descriptors ‘Base colour of flower (4.2.5)’, ‘Pod colour (4.2.11)’ and ‘Protein content (6.2.1)’, it
became necessary to ask Crop Leaders to advice on the inclusion of these traits.
It was agreed to follow Dr Hari Upadhyaya’s advice to keep in the key set the trait ‘Protein
content’ as a large variation (13-31%) has been observed for this trait and pigeonpea, as a pulse
crop, is being grown mainly for this purpose. It was also agreed to leave off the list the other two
descriptors that have therefore been excluded. Dr Hari Upadhyaya also made us aware of the
names of two experts who had given their contribution along with him.
Definition of a final key set of descriptors for pigeonpea

The final document approved by the Crop Leaders and the CAG including all the contributors
(see Annex IX), was proofread by an external editor and sent to the Bioversity Publications Unit
for layout and on-line publication processes. Furthermore, the publication was shared with the
ECPGR Secretariat; the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and the SGRP Crop
Genebank Knowledge Base partners. Additionally, data were converted into Excel files for
uploading into the GRIN-Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA,
and subsequently into the global accession level information portal (GENESYS), linking national,
regional and international genebank databases in support of the conservation and use of plant
genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also provided to the
System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) and to EURISCO.
Acknowledgement
Bioversity is grateful to all the scientists and researchers who have contributed to the development
of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for pigeonpea genetic resources’, and
to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial support. Particular recognition goes to the
Crop Leaders, Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya from ICRISAT, India and Dr Ram Prakash Dua from
NBPGR, India, for providing valuable scientific direction. Ms Adriana Alercia provided technical
Annex I – Comparison table for the definition of a minimum set of descriptors for
pigeonpea drawn from different sourcesi
Desc. Descriptor name IBPGR/ GPG2 Strategy USDA ICRISAT Long Min
no. ICRISAT (b) (c) /ARS Accession (NBPGR) (NBPGR)
(a) (d) identifiers (f) (f)
(e)
4.1.1 Growth habit * * * * *
4.1.2 Plant height [cm] * * * * * *
4.1.3 Plant stand * Delete
4.1.4 Number of branches * Delete
4.1.4.1 Number of primary branches * * * * *
4.1.4.2 Number of secondary * * * * *
branches
4.1.4.3 Number of tertiary branches * * * * *
4.1.5 Stem colour * * * *
4.1.6 Stem thickness [mm] * * *
4.1.7 Leaf size [cm2] * * Delete
4.1.8 Leaflet shape * * * *

4.1.9 Leaf hairiness (lower surface * * * *
of the leaves)
4.2.1 Days to 50% flowering * * * * * *

4.2.2 Duration of flowering * Delete
4.2.3 Early vigour * * *
4.2.4 Days to 75% maturity * * * * *
4.2.5 Base colour of flower * * * * (flower * *
colour)
4.2.6 Second flower colour * * *
4.2.7 Pattern of streaks * * * *
4.2.8 Flowering pattern * * * * *
4.2.9 Raceme number * * * *
4.2.10 Seeds per pod * * * * * *
4.2.11 Pod colour * * * *
New Pod stripes colour * *
4.2.12 Pod form * * * *
4.2.13 Pod hairiness * * * *
4.2.14 Pod bearing length [cm] * * * * *
4.3.1 Seed colour pattern * * * *
4.3.2 Base colour of seed * * * * *
4.3.3 Seed secondary colour * * * *
4.3.4 Seed eye colour * * *
4.3.5 Seed eye width * * Delete
4.3.6 Seed shape * * *
4.3.7 Hilum * * *
4.3.8 100-seed weight [g] * * * * *
6.1 Seed yield per plant [g] * * * * *
6.1.1 Harvest index * * * * *
6.1.2 Shelling percentage [%] * * * * *
6.2.1 Protein content [%] * * * * *
6.2.2 Dhal milling [%] * *
6.2.3 Cooking time * *
6.2.4 Cookability of dry seeds * Delete
7.1 Reaction to low temperature * *
7.2 Reaction to high * *
temperatures
7.3 Reaction to drought * *
7.4 Reaction to excess soil * *
moisture
7.5 Reaction to soil salinity * * * *
7.6 Reaction to soil acidity * *
8.1.1 Grapholita critica (Leaf tier) * *
8.1.2 Megalurothrips usitatus * *
(Flower thrips)
8.1.3 Mylabris pustulata * *
(Flower beetle)
8.1.4 lndozocladius asperulus * *
(Bud weevil)
8.1.5 Clavigralla gibbosa; Nezara * *
viridul; Anoplocnemis spp.
(Pod-sucking bug)
8.1.6 Helicoverpa armigera; Etiella * * * * *
zinckenella; Maruca testulalis
(Legume pod borer)
8.1.7 Lampides boeticus (L.); * *
Catochrysops strabo (Blue
butterfly)
8.1.8 Melanagromyza obtusa * * * * *
(Mall.) (Podfly)
8.1.9 Exelastis atomosa (Wals.) * *
(Plume moth)
8.1.10 Callosobruchus chinensis * * *
(L.) (Bruchid)
8.1.11 Otinotus oneratus W. * *
(Cow bugs)
8.1.12 Empoasca kerri Pruthi * *
(Jassids)
8.1.13 Tanaostigmodes caianinae * * * *
LaSalle (Pod wasp)
8.2.1 Phytophthora drechsleri f.sp. * * * *

caiani (Phytophthora blight)
8.2.2 Rhizoctonia bataticola; * *

Macrophomina phaseolina
(Dry root rot)
8.2.3 Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc. * *
(Collar rot)
8.2.4 Alternaria alternata * *
(Alternaria blight)
8.2.5 Cercospora cajan; * *
Mycovellosiella caiani
(Cercospora leaf spot)
8.2.6 Oidiopsis taurica; Leveillula * *
taurica (Powdery mildew)
8.2.7 Fusarium udum, * * * * (Wilt field) * *

F. oxysporum f.sp. udum (wilt pot)
(Wilt)
8.3.1 Xanthomonas campestris pv. * *
cajani (Bacterial leaf spot
and stem canker)
8.4.1 Sterility mosaic virus (SMV) * * * * *
8.4.2 Witches' broom * *
(Mycoplasma)
8.4.3 Yellow mosaic virus (YMV) * *
8.5.1 Heterodera cajani Koshy * *
(Cyst nematode)
8.5.2 Meloidogyne incognita * *
(Root knot nematode)
8.5.3 Rotylenchus reniformis * *

(Reniform nematode)
Pod length (cm) * * * * *

Pod number (Number of * * * *
pods per plant)
Plant width * Not

required
i
(a) ‘Descriptors for Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]’ (IBPGR and ICRISAT, 1993);
(b) Important traits resulting from the GPG2 exercise;
(c) ‘Development of a Strategy for the Global Conservation of Pigeonpea Genetic Resources’ (August 2006);
(d) ‘Descriptors for PIGEON-PEA’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN);
(e) Traits used in ICRISAT to identify accessions;
(f) Long and Minimum List of descriptors identified by participants in the crop-specific meeting held at NBPGR in June 2009.

Crop Leader Upadhyaya, Hari D. ICRISAT India
Crop Leader Dua, Ram Prakash NBPGR India
CAG Bharadwaj, C. IARI India

CAG Debouk, Daniel CIAT Colombia
CAG Gowda, M. Byre University of Agricultural Sciences India
CAG
suggested by Kotter, Matthias IPK Genebank Dept. Leibniz Institute Germany
H. Knüpffer
CAG Australian Tropical Crops Genetic
Lawrence, Peter Australia
Crop Strategy Resources
CAG Lobo Burle, Marília EMBRAPA Brazil
CAG Pieretti, Isabelle CIRAD France
CAG
Ontology Rai, K.N. ICRISAT India
workshop
CAG Raje, R.S. IARI India
CAG Rao, Srinivas C. ARS/USDA USA
CAG Saxena, K. ICRISAT India
Department of Agricultural Research –
Crop Strategy Aung, Toe Myanmar
CARI
Purdue Bhardwaj, Harbans
Virginia State University USA
website L.
Asian Vegetable Research and
Internet Bing Bing (Engle) Taiwan
Development Center (AVRDC)
NBPGR
Bisht, Ishwari Singh NBPGR India
website
Plant Genetic Resources Research
WIEWS Blartey, S. Ghana
Institute
Purdue
Ching, Alejandro Northwest Missouri State University USA
website
Crop Strategy Dharmaraj, P.S. Agricultural Research Station India
Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and

Crop Strategy Graner, Andreas Germany
Crop Plant Research (IPK)
Crop Strategy Gupta, S. ICAR India

Crop Strategy Kaloki, Peter ICRISAT Kenya
de Lima Nechet,
Internet EMBRAPA Brazil
Kátia
Crop Strategy Madhavi Latha, K. (GT Crop improvement) ICRISAT India
Crop Strategy Majumder, N.D. Indian Institute of Pulses Research (IIPR) India
NBPGR
Mishra, S.K. NBPGR India
website
Crop Strategy Mligo, Joseph K. Ilonga Agricultural Research Institute Tanzania
Retired Senior Officer - Seed & Plant

Crop Strategy Murthi, Anishetty N. India
Genetic Resources (FAO)
Department of Pulses - Center for Plant
Crop Strategy Nadarajan, N. India
Breeding and Genetics
NBPGR
(Project Nizar, M. Abdul NBPGR India
coordinator)
Pathmanathan Trinidad &
Crop Strategy University of West Indies, St. Augustine
Umaharan Tobago
Crop Strategy Rao, S.K. Jawaharlal Nehru Agricultural Univ. India
Crop Strategy Reddy, K.N. (GT Crop improvement) ICRISAT India
Crop Strategy Reddy L.J. (GT Crop improvement) ICRISAT India
Crop Strategy Reddy, V.G. (GT Crop improvement) ICRISAT India
Crop Strategy Roy, S.K. Pulses & Oilseeds Research Station India
Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones

Crop Strategy Salas, Manuel J. Venezuela
Agricola (INIA)
Crop Strategy Sastry, D.V.S.S.R. (GT Crop improvement) ICRISAT India
ICRISAT
Legumes Sharma, Matma ICRISAT India
pathology
Crop Strategy Sharma, S.K. NBPGR India
Crop Strategy Siambi, Moses ICRISAT Malawi
Crop Strategy Singh, A.K. NBPGR India
Crop Strategy Singh, Bir IITA Nigeria
Crop Strategy Singh, D.P. GB Pant University of Agril. & Technology India
Crop Strategy Singh, Sube (GT Crop improvement) ICRISAT India
ICRISAT
Srivatsava, Rakesh
Pigeonpea ICRISAT India
K.
Breeding
Crop Strategy Tikle, A.N. AICRPP, RAK College of Agriculture India
Van der Maesen, The

Internet Wageningen Agricultural University
L.J.G. Netherlands
Crop Strategy Verma, B.N. Zambia Seed Company Zambia
Crop Strategy Wanjari, K.B. Department of Botany India
Facultad de Agronomia, Universidad de
Crop Strategy Dean Venezuela
Zuila
Crops and Horticulture Research Nepal

Crop Strategy Director Nepal
Agriculture Research council
Crop Strategy Director Agricultural Research Organization Israel
Plant Genetic Resources Research

Crop Strategy Director Ghana
Institute
Serere Agricultural & Animal Production

Crop Strategy Director of Research Uganda
Research Institute (SAARI)
WIEWS ILRI Ethiopia

WIEWS CENARGEN-EMBRAPA Brasil
WIEWS Chitedze Agricultural Research Station Malawi
Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias,

WIEWS Panama
Universidad de Panamá
Institute of Plant Breeding, University of

WIEWS Philippines
the Philippines, Los Baños College
Annex III – Set of descriptors for pigeonpea as included in the survey (July 2009)
1. Growth habit 4.1.1

2. Plant height [cm] 4.1.2
3. Number of primary branches 4.1.4.1
4. Number of secondary branches 4.1.4.2
5. Number of tertiary branches 4.1.4.3
6. Stem colour 4.1.5
7. Leaflet shape 4.1.8
8. Leaf hairiness (lower surface of the leaves) 4.1.9
9. Days to 50% flowering 4.2.1
10. Days to 75% maturity 4.2.4
11. Base colour of flower 4.2.5
12. Second flower colour 4.2.6
13. Pattern of streaks 4.2.7
14. Flowering pattern 4.2.8
15. Seeds per pod 4.2.10
16. Pod number (Number of pods per plant) New
17. Pod colour 4.2.11
18. Pod stripes colour New
19. Pod form 4.2.12
20. Pod bearing length [cm] 4.2.14
21. Pod length [cm] New
22. Seed colour pattern 4.3.1
23. Base colour of seed 4.3.2
24. 100-seed weight [g] 4.3.8
25. Seed yield per plant [g] 6.1
26. Harvest index 6.1.1
27. Shelling percentage [%] 6.1.2
28. Protein content [%] 6.2.1
29. Reaction to soil salinity 7.5
30. Helicoverpa armigera; Etiella zinckenella; Maruca testulalis 8.1.6
(Legume pod borer)
31. Melanagromyza obtusa (Podfly) 8.1.8
32. Callosobruchus chinensis (Bruchid) 8.1.10
33. Tanaostigmodes caianinae (Pod wasp) 8.1.13
34. Phytophthora drechsleri f.sp. caiani (Phytophthora blight) 8.2.1
35. Fusarium udum (Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. udum) (Wilt) 8.2.7
36. Sterility mosaic virus (SMV) 8.4.1
Annex IV – Survey to choose a key set of descriptors for pigeonpea utilization
WELCOME
pigeonpea to support an international information system to enhance the utilization of germplasm held in
genebanks.
Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 31 August 2009.

Name:
Position:
Organization:
Country:
Email:
IBPGR/ICRISAT publication ‘Descriptors for Pigeonpea’ (1993).

Growth habit (4.1.1) n n n
Plant height [cm] (4.1.2) n n n
Number of primary branches (4.1.4.1) n n n
Number of secondary branches (4.1.4.2) n n n
Number of tertiary branches (4.1.4.3) n n n
Stem colour (4.1.5) n n n
Leaflet s hape (4.1.8) n n n
Leaf hairiness (lower surface of the leaves) (4.1.9) n n n
Days to 75% maturity (4.2.4) n n n
Base colour of flower (4.2.5) n n n
Second flower colour (4.2.6) n n n
Pattern of streaks (4.2.7) n n n
Flowering pattern (4.2.8) n n n
Seeds per pod (4.2.10) n n n
Pod number (Number of pods per plant) n n n
Pod colour (4.2.11) n n n
Pod stripes colour n n n
Pod form (4.2.12) n n n
Pod bearing length [cm] (4.2.14) n n n
Pod length [cm] n n n
Seed colour pattern (4.3.1) n n n
Base colour of seed (4.3.2) n n n
100-seed weight [g] (4.3.8) n n n
These descriptors include characters such as yield and biotic stresses. They are the most interesting
final decision: (i) Global impact, (ii) Initial strategic set, (iii) Importance for germplasm utilization, (iv)
Data availability, (v) True economic damage and (vi) Wide geographical occurrence.
Seed yield per plant [g] (6.1) n n n

Harvest index (6.1.1) n n n
Shelling percentage [%] (6.1.2) n n n
Protein content [%] (6.2.1) n n n
Reaction to soil salinity (7.5) n n n
Helicoverpa armigera; Etiella zinckenella; Maruca testulalis
n n n
(Legume pod borer) (8.1.6)
Melanagromyza obtusa (Pod fly) (8.1.8) n n n
Callosobruchus chinensis (Bruchid) (8.1.10) n n n
Tanaostigmodes caianinae (Pod wasp) (8.1.13) n n n
Phytophthora drechsleri f.sp. caiani (Phytophthora blight)
n n n
(8.2.1)
Fusarium udum, (F. oxysporum f.sp. udum) (Wilt) (8.2.7) n n n
Sterility mosaic virus (SMV) (8.4.1) n n n
Network
Crop Dua, Ram Prakash coordinator National Bureau of Plant India
Leader (UUC) Genetic Resources (NBPGR)
Principal International Crops Research
Crop Upadhyaya, Hari D. Scientist and Institute for the Semi-Arid India
Leader Head, Genebank Tropics (ICRISAT)
Senior Scientist Division of Genetics, Indian
CAG Bharadwaj, C. (Plant Breeding) Agricultural Research India
Institute (IARI)
Researcher/Legu Embrapa Recursos
CAG Burle, Marília Lobo me Curator Genéticos e Biotecnologia Brazil
CAG Gowda, M. Byre Principal University of Agricultural India

Scientist Sciences, Bangalore
Genebank Leibniz Institute of Plant

CAG Lohwasser, Ulrike Genetics and Crop Plant Germany
Taxonomist Research
Senior scientist, Division of Genetics, Indian
CAG Raje, R.S. Pigeonpea Agricultural Research India
Institute (IARI)
Principal International Crops Research
CAG Saxena, K.B. Institute for the Semi-Arid India
Scientist Tropics (ICRISAT)
Reviewer Bhardwaj, Harbans Professor Virginia State University USA
Principal National Bureau of Plant
Reviewer Bisht, I.S. Scientist & Genetic Resources India
Professor, PGR (NBPGR), Pusa Campus,
New Delhi
Department of Agricultural
Reviewer Myint, Aye Aye Head of PGR Research, Central Myanmar
Section Agricultural Research
Institute (CARI)
Reviewer Reddy, K.N. Institute for the Semi-Arid India
Tropics (ICRISAT)
Lead Scientific International Crops Research

Reviewer Sastry, D.V.S.S.R. Officer Institute for the Semi-Arid India
Tropics (ICRISAT)
Reviewer Sharma, Mamta Scientist Institute for the Semi-Arid India
Tropics (ICRISAT)
Reviewer Sharma, Shivali Institute for the Semi-Arid India
Tropics (ICRISAT)
Reviewer Srivastava, Rakesh K. Scientist Institute for the Semi-Arid India
Tropics (ICRISAT)
Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia
Reviewer Tikle, Ashok Senior Scientist Agricultural University, India
Gwalior
van der Maesen, Professor of The
Reviewer Plant Taxonomy Wageningen University
L.J.G. (em.) Netherlands
Research and
Reviewer Verma, B.N. Production Zambia Seed Co. Ltd. Zambia
Director
Head, Dept of
Agricultural
Reviewer Wanjari, K.B. Botany, Dr. Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh India
P.D.K.V., Agricultural University
AKOLA,
Maharashtra
Annex VI – List of descriptors proposed in the survey ranked by rating average
and sent to the Core Advisory Group for their selection
Your Rating
Descriptor
selection Average
Characterization
Growth habit (4.1.1) 4.78
100-seed weight [g] (4.3.8) 4.78
Days to 75% maturity (4.2.4) 4.33
Seeds per pod (4.2.10) 4.28
Seed colour pattern (4.3.1) 4.22
Number of primary branches (4.1.4.1) 4.06
Plant height [cm] (4.1.2) 4
Base colour of seed (4.3.2) 3.94
Pod colour (4.2.11) 3.72
Pod number (Number of pods per plant) 3.67
Base colour of flower (4.2.5) 3.61
Pod length [cm] 3.56
Flowering pattern (4.2.8) 3.44
Number of secondary branches (4.1.4.2) 3.19
Stem colour (4.1.5) 2.89
Second flower colour (4.2.6) 2.83
Pod stripes colour 2.83
Pod form (4.2.12) 2.83
Pod bearing length [cm] (4.2.14) 2.81
Pattern of streaks (4.2.7) 2.65
Leaflet shape (4.1.8) 2.41
Leaf hairiness (lower surface of the leaves) (4.1.9) 2.29
Number of tertiary branches (4.1.4.3) 2
Evaluation
Helicoverpa armigera; Etiella zinckenella;
4.53
Maruca testulalis (Legume pod borer) (8.1.6)
Fusarium udum (F. oxysporum f.sp.udum)
4.5
(Wilt) (8.2.7)
Sterility mosaic virus (SMV) (8.4.1) 4.41
Seed yield per plant [g] (6.1) 4.33
Phytophthora drechsleri f.sp. caiani
4.13
(Phytophthora blight) (8.2.1)
Callosobruchus chinensis (Bruchid) (8.1.10) 3.88
Melanagromyza obtusa (Pod fly) (8.1.8) 3.69
Protein content [%] (6.2.1) 3.56
Harvest index (6.1.1) 3.39
Reaction to soil salinity (7.5) 2.88
Shelling percentage [%] (6.1.2) 2.65
Tanaostigmodes caianinae (Pod wasp) (8.1.13) 1.69
Pigeonpea descriptor Name of expert

D.V.S. R.S. K.B. Wanjari Ashok Hari D. Aye Aye R.P.Dua K. B. Saxena (ICRISAT,
N. S.R. Raje (Dr Panjabrao Tikle Upadhyay Myint (Dep. (NBPGR, India) India)
Additional traits times Sastry (Div. of Deshmukh (RVS a Agric.
selec (ICRIS Geneti Agric. Univ., Agric. (ICRISAT, Research -
ted AT, cs, Maharashtra, Univ., India) CARI,
India) IARI, India) Gwalior, Myanmar)
India) India)
Seedling vigor 2 X X Early vigour
Broadness of pod against narrow pod may be important for 1 X
identification and characterization (Pod length)
Branching pattern: Depending on angle of primary branches to the 1 X
main stem actual plant type can be classed as erect, semi-erect or
spreading while growth habit only classifies as determinate semi-
determinate or indeterminate
Plant stand 1 X
Stem thickness [mm] (4.1.6). related to agro forestry and fodder 1 X
Duration of flowering 1 X
Seed secondary colour (4.6.3) 1 X
Seed eye colour (4.3.4) 1 X
Seed eye width (4.3.5) 1 X
Seed shape (4.3.6) 2 X X Seed shape
(4.3.6) is important
Hilum (4.3.7) 2 X X Presence
/absence of hilum
(4.3.7) is important
Photo period sensitivity--It is very important as to determines 2 X X
flowering, maturity, height, no.of pods etc. Planting of sensitive types
nears shortest day will have a telescopic effect on overall phenology of
the plant and consequently a different agronomy is needed to optimize
yield
Water logging tolerance is becoming important in pigeonpea 3 X X Tolerance to X Water logging is
water logged becoming an important
condition constraint. However not
much information is
available.
Split Dal recovery in milling 1 X
Quality parameters of split Dal (Cotyledons of matured grains) are 1 X
important traits for future crop improvement.
Drought tolerance: Major crop area of pigeonpea is rainfed throughout 3 X X Reaction X Reaction to
the world. The terminal drought affects the pigeonpea yield and it has to drought drought
become an essential criterion for assessment (7.3)
Reaction to excess soil moisture (7.4) 2 X X
Reaction to low temperature (7.1) 1 X
Reaction to high temperatures (7.2) 1 X
Reaction to soil acidity (7.6) 1 X
Yellow mosaic virus (YMV) 1 X
Alternaira blight (Alternaria alternate (Fr.) Keissler) (8.2.4) 1 X
Another important parameter may be considered is adaptation to 1 X
intercropping as most pigeonpea are grown under intercrops.
Annex VIII – Initial key access and utilization descriptors for pigeonpea sent to
the Core Advisory Group for validation
Key access and utilization descriptors

for pigeonpea genetic resources
This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for pigeonpea
(Cajanus cajan L. Millsp.) genetic resources utilization. This strategic set of descriptors,
together with passport data, will become the basis for the global accession level information
portal being developed by Bioversity International with the financial support of the Global
Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust). It will facilitate access to and utilization of pigeonpea
accessions held in genebanks and does not preclude the addition of further descriptors,
should data subsequently become available.
Based on the comprehensive list ‘Descriptors for Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]’
published by ICRISAT and IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1993, the list builds on
the results of the SGRP Global Public Goods Activity 4.2.1.1. It was subsequently compared
and harmonized with a number of sources such as ‘Descriptors for PIGEON-PEA’ (USDA,
ARS, GRIN); ‘Development of a Strategy for the Global Conservation of Pigeonpea Genetic
Resources’ (the Trust, 2006); as well as with traits provided by the Department of
Agricultural Research (DAR) the former CARI from Myanmar. It was further refined during
a meeting held at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR, India) in June
2009 that involved several scientists from NBPGR and the Indian Agricultural Research
Institute (IARI).
priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize pigeonpea genetic resources.
This key set was afterwards validated by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by
Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya of International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
(ICRISAT) and Dr Ram Prakash Dua of NBPGR.
either modified or new descriptors that were added during the development of the list
below.

1 Erect and compact
2 Semi-spreading
3 Spreading
4 Trailing

At maturity
Number of secondary branches (4.1.4.2)

From sowing or first irrigation/rainfall to when 50% of plants flower
Days to 75% maturity (4.2.4)
From sowing or first irrigation/rainfall to 75% maturity
Base colour of flower (4.2.5)

Main colour of the petals. Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) colour codes are given in
parentheses beside descriptor states
1 Ivory (green-yellow group 1)
2 Light yellow (yellow group 6D)
3 Yellow (yellow-orange group 14A)
4 Orange-yellow (orange-red group 31A)
Flowering pattern (4.2.8)

1 Determinate
2 Semi-determinate
3 Indeterminate
Seeds per pod (4.2.10)

Average number of seeds of 10 randomly selected pods from three randomly selected plants
in a row
Pod colour (4.2.11)

Main colour of the pod. Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) colour codes are given in
parentheses beside descriptor states
1 Green (yellow-green group 144A)
2 Purple (greyed-purple group 183A)
3 Mixed, green and purple
4 Dark purple (greyed-purple group 187A)
Pod bearing length [cm] (4.2.14)

Distance between lowest and topmost pod on the plant
Pod number (4.2.a)

Number of pods per plant
Pod length [cm] (4.2.b)

Maximum average length of 10 randomly selected mature pods. Recorded at physiological
maturity
Seed colour pattern (4.3.1)

1 Plain
2 Mottled
3 Speckled
5 Ringed
Base colour of seed (4.3.2)

states
1 White (yellow-white group 158C)
2 Cream (greyed-white group 156C)
3 Orange (greyed-orange group 163B)
4 Light brown (yellow-orange group 22C)
5 Reddish-brown (reddish-brown group 200D)
6 Light grey (grey-brown group 199B)
9 Dark purple (black group 202A)
10 Dark grey (black group 202B)
Estimated from a random sample taken from total row yield
Seed yield per plant [g] (6.1)
Harvest index (6.1.1)

Ratio of total grain yield and total biological yield taken from three randomly selected plants
in a row
Shelling percentage [%] (6.1.2)

Calculated from seed-pod ratio of three randomly selected plants in a row
Protein content [%] (6.2.1)

Whole seed crude protein percentage based on dry weight using the dye-binding method or
automatic protein analyzer
ABIOTIC STRESSES
Reaction to excess soil moisture (7.4)
Reaction to soil salinity (7.5)
Reaction to water logging (7.c)
BIOTIC STRESSES
Legume pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera; Etiella zinckenella; Maruca testulalis) (8.1.6)
Pod fly (Melanagromyza obtusa) (8.1.8)
Bruchids (Callosobruchus chinensis) (8.1.10)
Phytophthora blight (Phytophthora drechsleri f. sp. cajani) (8.2.1)
Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum f.sp.udum) (8.2.7)
Sterility mosaic virus (SMV) (8.4.1)

Annex IX – Final key set of descriptors for pigeonpea genetic resources

pigeonpea genetic resources
This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for pigeonpea
[Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.] genetic resources utilization. This strategic set of descriptors,
Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust). It will facilitate access to and utilization of pigeonpea
Based on the comprehensive list ‘Descriptors for Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]’
published by ICRISAT and IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1993, the list builds on
the results of the SGRP Global Public Goods Activity 4.2.1.1 and was subsequently compared
and harmonized with a number of sources such as ‘Descriptors for PIGEON-PEA’ (USDA,
ARS, GRIN); as well as ‘Development of a Strategy for the Global Conservation of Pigeonpea
Genetic Resources’ (the Trust, 2006). It was further refined during a meeting held at the
National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR, India) in June 2009 that involved
several scientists from NBPGR and the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI).
priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize pigeonpea genetic resources.
Survey results were afterwards analyzed and validated by a Core Advisory Group (see
‘Contributors’) led by Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya of the International Crops Research Institute
for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) and Dr Ram Prakash Dua of the National Bureau of
Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR).
below.
PLANT DATA

1 Erect and compact
2 Semi-spreading
3 Spreading
4 Trailing

At maturity

Number of primary branches per plant
Number of secondary branches (4.1.4.2)

Number of secondary branches per plant

From sowing or first irrigation/rainfall until 50% of plants flower
Days to 75% maturity (4.2.4)
From sowing or first irrigation/rainfall to 75% maturity
Flowering pattern (4.2.8)

1 Determinate
2 Semi-determinate
3 Indeterminate
Seeds per pod (4.2.10)

Average number of seeds of 10 randomly selected pods from three randomly selected plants
in a row
Pod bearing length [cm] (4.2.14)

Distance between lowest and topmost pod on the plant
Pod number (4.2.a)

Number of pods per plant. Recorded at maturity
Pod length [cm] (4.2.b)

Maximum average length of 10 randomly selected mature pods. Recorded at physiological
maturity
Seed colour pattern (4.3.1)

1 Plain
2 Mottled
3 Speckled
5 Ringed
Seed base colour (4.3.2)

states
1 White (yellow-white group 158C)
2 Cream (greyed-white group 156C)
3 Orange (greyed-orange group 163B)
4 Light brown (yellow-orange group 22C)
5 Reddish-brown (reddish-brown group 200D)
6 Light grey (grey-brown group 199B)
9 Dark purple (black group 202A)
10 Dark grey (black group 202B)

Weight of air dried (10% moisture) seeds estimated from a random sample taken from total
row yield
Seed yield per plant [g] (6.1)

Average seed yield of three randomly selected plants
Harvest index (6.1.1)

Ratio of total seed yield and total biological yield taken from three randomly selected plants
in a row
Shelling percentage [%] (6.1.2)

Calculated from seed-pod ratio of three randomly selected plants in a row
Seed protein content [%] (6.2.1)
Whole seed crude protein percentage based on dry weight using the dye-binding method or
automatic protein analyzer
ABIOTIC STRESSES
Reaction to excess soil moisture (7.4)
Reaction to water logging (7.c)
BIOTIC STRESSES
Legume pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera; Etiella zinckenella; Maruca testulalis) (8.1.6)
Pod fly (Melanagromyza obtusa) (8.1.8)
Bruchids (Callosobruchus chinensis) (8.1.10)
Phytophthora blight (Phytophthora drechsleri f.sp. cajani) (8.2.1)
Fusarium wilt (Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. udum) (8.2.7)
Sterility mosaic virus (SMV) (8.4.1)
CONTRIBUTORS
development of this strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for pigeonpea
genetic resources’, and in particular to Dr Hari D. (ICRISAT) and Dr Ram Prakash Dua
(NBPGR) for providing valuable scientific direction. Ms Adriana Alercia (Bioversity
CORE ADVISORY GROUP

India
Ram Prakash Dua, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR)
C. Bharadwaj, Division of Genetics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), India
Marília Lobo Burle, Embrapa Recursos Genéticos e Biotecnologia, Brazil
M. Byre Gowda, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, India
Ulrike Lohwasser, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK), Germany
R.S. Raje, Division of Genetics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), India
K.B. Saxena, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India
REVIEWERS
India
I.S. Bisht, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), Pusa Campus
K.N. Reddy, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
D.V.S.S.R. Sastry, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
Mamta Sharma, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
Rakesh K. Srivastava, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
Ashok Tikle, Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Agricultural University, Gwalior
K.B. Wanjari, Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Agricultural University
Myanmar
Aye Aye Myint, Department of Agricultural Research (DAR), the former CARI
The Netherlands
L.J.G. van der Maesen, Wageningen University
USA
Harbans Bhardwaj, Virginia State University
Zambia
B.N. Verma, Zambia Seed Co. Ltd.
potato (Solanum tuberosum)
Information for the definition of a Minimum Descriptor List for potato (Solanum
tuberosum) was drawn from the publication ‘Descriptors for the Cultivated Potato’
(IBPGR, 1977). The original list was compared to descriptors utilized by the
International Potato Center (CIP) for the morphological characterization of potatoes
and contained in ‘Characterization – Cultivated potato minimum descriptor list’
(CIP, 1994) and the CIP Morphological guide ‘Guía para las Caracterizaciones
Morfológicas Básicas en Colecciones de Papas Nativas’ (René Gómez, CIP, 2000).
Results from the comparison were harmonized with the outcomes of the CGIAR
SGRP Global Public Goods 2 (GPG2) Activity 4.2.1.1 on selected crops (2008). The list
was further refined after a meeting held on 24 November 2008 at Bioversity
Headquarters in Rome, between Dr David Tay (identified Crop Leader) and Ms
Adriana Alercia. In particular, evaluation traits (such as important pests and diseases
for cultivated potato, tuber quality and other agronomic characteristics) and data
availability for selected descriptors were considered a priority (see Annex I) and
were included in the descriptor list.

Experts were drawn from participants in the crop-specific consultations for the
definition of the ‘Global Strategy for the Ex situ Conservation of Potato’ (the Trust,
July, 2006). Reviewers from the 1977 descriptors list were excluded due to their
outdated contact information. Overall, 41 experts from 26 countries and 29 different
organizations were identified. Out of these, Dr David Tay was identified as Crop
Leader and, following his inputs, a Core Advisory Group (CAG) consisting of seven
experts was selected to assist in the definition of a key set of descriptors for this crop.
Members of the CAG were chosen amongst specialists and experts working for
world renowned academic and scientific institutions such as USDA/ARS, the
International Potato Center (CIP), the Instituto de Producción y Sanidad Vegetal,
Universidad Austral de Chile and Wageningen University (see Annex II).

Due to the tight timeframe of the project it was decided to contact Dr David Tay from
CIP and ask him for relevant results of the CGIAR SGRP GPG2 activity on potato.
The initial set of descriptors for cultivated potato revised and finalized by Dr Tay on
24 November 2008 (see Annex III) was used to prepare the online consultation
through the SurveyMonkey web application.
An email invitation to the survey was sent out on 17 March 2009 to the
identified List of Experts. They were invited to rate the list of characterization and
evaluation descriptors provided, and asked to suggest important descriptors that
were found to be relevant yet missing from the proposed Minimum List (see Annex
IV). The survey deadline was set at 5 April 2009. A first reminder was sent out on 27
March 2009 and a second one was sent on 2 April 2009. By popular demand, the
deadline was extended to 16 April 2009 to ensure that the greatest possible feedback
was obtained.

Of the 41 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 14 from 12
countries and 12 organizations recorded their comments using the online survey
(see Annex V). Results from the survey were analyzed and descriptors ranked by
rating average and percentage of importance (see Annex VI). The summary results of
the survey together with a report containing comments received by the participants
(see Annex VII) were sent to the Crop Leader, Dr Tay. He, subsequently, shared them
with his colleagues Dr René Gómez, Dr Alberto Salas and Dr Merideth Bonierbale for
the final validation (see Annex VIII).
Definition of a final key set of descriptors for potato

Once the core subset of characterization and evaluation standards for this crop was
approved, descriptor states were integrated into the list (see Annex IX). The final
document, including also all the contributors names (see Annex X), was proofread
and sent to the Bioversity International Publication Unit for layout and on-line
publication processes. Furthermore, the final publication was shared with the
European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources (ECPGR); the
Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and the SGRP Crop Genebank
Knowledge Base. Additionally, data were converted into Excel files for uploading
into the GRIN-Global genebank data management system being developed by USDA
and into the global accession level information portal (GENESYS), linking national,
regional and international genebank databases in support of the conservation and
use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were
also provided to the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources
After the publication was released, and during the Roots and Tubers
Conference held at CIP in November 2009, attended by Ms Adriana Alercia,
discussions were held on the final key set publication on cultivated potato and the
next CIP crop, sweet potato with Drs David Tay, Rene Gomez and Alberto Salas, the
last two experts being potato curators of cultivated and wild potato respectively. CIP
experts realized after the release of the publication that a few amendments were
required for potato concerning colours. Therefore, the document was amended
accordingly and republished in 2010 (see Annex XI).
Acknowledgement
cultivated potato genetic resources’, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their
financial support. Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leader, Dr David Tay (CIP,
Peru) for providing valuable scientific direction.
Annex I – Comparison table for the definition of an initial set of descriptors for cultivated
potato drawn from a number of sources1
Descr. no. CIP Key
CIP CIP data CIP
CIP- List CIP data
Descriptor name Desc through Morpho
IBPGR revised by available
1994 GPG2 Guide
1977 D. Tay
Ploidy level 3.1.2 * * *
Predominant tuber skin colour 3.2.1 (*) * * * * *
Intensity of predominant tuber skin colour 3.2.1b * * * * *
Secondary tuber skin colour 3.2.2 (*) * * * * *
Distribution of secondary skin tuber colour 3.2.3 (*) * * * * *
Predominant tuber flesh colour 3.2.5 (*) * * * * *
Secondary tuber flesh colour 3.2.6 (*) * * * * *

1st Priority Descriptors
Tuber outline (shape) 3.2.8 * * * * *

To be
Odd tuber shapes 3.2.9 * * * * confirmed
Depth of eyes 3.2.10 (*) * * * * *
Stem pigmentation 3.3.4 * * * * *
Stem wing shape 3.3.6 * * * * *
Lateral leaflet numbers 3.4.1b * * * * *
Interjected leaflet number in the rachis among lateral

leaflets
3.4.1c * * * * *
Flowering degree 3.5.14 (*) * * * * *
Plant Growth Habit 3.6.1 * * * * *

To be
Foliar blight (Phytophtora) 6.1.1 * confirmed
Susceptibility to drought 5.2 * Partly
To be
Susceptibility to salinity * confirmed
To be
High tuber yield * * confirmed
Calyx pigmentation 3.5.1 * * *
2nd Priority Descriptors
Corolla shape 3.5.3 * * *
Predominant flower colour 3.5.4 * * *
Intensity of predominant flower colour 3.5.4b * * *
Secondary flower colour 3.5.5 * * *
Distribution of secondary flower colour 3.5.6 * * *
Pistil pigmentation 3.5.10 * * *
Pedicel pigmentation * * *
Eyes per tuber 3.2.11 (*)
Tuber skin type 3.2.4 (*)
Distribution of secondary tuber flesh colour 3.2.7 (*) * *
Predominant sprout colour 3.3.1 * *
Secondary sprout colour 3.3.2 * *
Type of leaf dissection 3.4.1 * *

(combined
No. of interjected leaflets on the petiolules * *
with 3.4.1)
Duration of flowering 3.5.16 (*)
Seed set 3.5.24 (*)
Pollen production 3.5.9 (*)
Tuber set 4.4.1 (*)
Tuber size 4.4.2 (*)
Tuber defects - Crack 4.4.3.1 (*)
Tuber defects - Secondary growth 4.4.3.2 (*)
Tuber defects - Hollow heart 4.4.3.3 (*)
Tuber defects - Internal necrosis 4.4.3.4 (*)

Other descriptors
Tuber defects - Lenticels 4.4.3.5 (*)
Uniformity of tuber size 4.4.4 (*) *
Stolon length 4.4.5 (*)
Foliar blight 6.1.1 (*) *
Wilt 6.1.2 (*) *
Tuber disease 6.1.3 (*) *
Bacterial disease 6.2 (*) *
Viral disease 6.3 (*) *
Nematode 6.4 (*) *
Tuber dry matter content 7.1 * *
Tuber total N content (%) 7.2 (*)
Tuber protein content * *
Relative nutritive value *
Total tuber Glyco-Alkaloid content (TGA) *
Short duration *
Anther pigmentation * *
Distribution of secondary sprout colour * *
Fruit colour * *
Fruit shape * *
Fruit Maturity *
N.B. Descriptor numbers were drawn from the publication ‘Descriptors for the Cultivated Potato’ (IBPGR, 1977). Asterisks (*) following
the descriptor numbers denote descriptors selected as 'highly important' in the same publication (i.e. 1977). Lowercase letters following
descriptor numbers denote revised/new descriptors.
________________________________________
1
‘Descriptors for the Cultivated Potato’ (IBPGR, 1977); ‘Potato Descriptors for a minimum characterization of potato collections’ (CIP, 1994);
the outcomes of the SGRP Global Public Goods 2 (GPG2) activity 4.2.1.1.1 (2008); the CIP Morphological guide ‘Guía para las
Caracterizaciones Morfológicas Básicas en Colecciones de Papas Nativas’ (René Gómez, CIP, 2000); outcomes of the meeting held on 24
November 2008 at Bioversity Headquarters between David Tay (identified Crop Leader) and Adriana Alercia (Bioversity, Rome) and CIP data
availability.
Annex II - List of Experts identified for the survey for the definition of a key set of descriptors
for cultivated potato

Crop Leader Tay, David International Potato Center (CIP) Peru
CAG Arbizu, Carlos International Potato Center (CIP) Peru
CAG Bamberg, John USDA, ARS Potato Introduction Project USA
Instituto de Producción y Sanidad Vegetal,
CAG Contreras, Andrés M. Chile
Universidad Austral de Chile
CAG Gómez, René International Potato Center (CIP) Peru
Centre for Genetic Resources, Wageningen
CAG Hoekstra, Roel The Netherlands
University
CAG Hunter, Danny Bioversity International Italy
CAG Salas, Alberto International Potato Center (CIP) Peru
Strategy (the Potato Research Center, Agriculture and Agri-
Allaby, Ricky Canada
Trust) Food Canada
Bodea, Dimitru
Strategy (the
answered Silvia Genebank of Suceava Romania
Trust)
Strajeru
Strategy (the
Bradshaw, John Commonwealth Potato Collection, SCRI United Kingdom
Trust)
Strategy (the
Cadima, Ximena Fundación PROINPA Bolivia
Trust)
Strategy (the
Carnegie, Stuart SASA United Kingdom
Trust)
Strategy (the
Chujoy, Enrique International Potato Center (CIP) Peru
Trust)
Strategy (the Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
Clausen, Andrea Argentina
Trust) (INTA)
Strategy (the Cuevas Sanchez, Banco Nacional de Germoplasma Veget, Dep. de
Mexico
Trust) Jesus A. Fitotecnia, Univ. Aut. de Chapingo
Reviewer
suggested by Genebank Department, Leibniz Institute of Plant
Dehmer, Klaus Germany
Helmut Knüpffer Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK)
(IPK)
Strategy (the
Dolnicar, Peter Biotechniska fakulteta Slovenia
Trust)
Strategy (the Domkárová,
Potato Research Institute Czech Republic
Trust) Jaroslava
Strategy (the Dos Santos, Fausto Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Hortalizas
Brazil
Trust) Francisco (CNPH), EMBRAPA
Strategy (the
Ellissèche, Daniel INRA, Amélioration de la Pomme de Terre France
Trust)
Strategy (the
Espinoza, Alejandro INIFAP Mexico
Trust)
Strategy (the Centro de Investigación Agropec. del Estado de
Gonzales, Lourdes Venezuela
Trust) Merida, INIA
Strategy (the
Griffin, Dennis Teagasc Ireland
Trust)
Strategy (the
Herrera, Rosario International Potato Center (CIP) Peru
Trust)
Strategy (the
Hosaka, Kazuyoshi Faculty of Agriculture, Kobe University Japan
Trust)
Strategy (the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science
Kaiyun, Xie China
Trust) (IVFCAAS)
Strategy (the N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry Russian
Kiru, Stepan
Trust) (VIR) Potato Collection Federation
Strategy (the
Monteros, Alvaro INIAP-DENAREF Ecuador
Trust)
Corporación Colombiana de Investigación
Strategy (the
Moreno, Dilmer Agropecuaria (Corpoica), Centro de Investigación Colombia
Trust)
Tibaitatá
Strategy (the Graduate School of Life and Environmental
Okuno, Kazutoshi Japan
Trust) Sciences. University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1
Strategy (the
Orrillo, Matilde International Potato Center (CIP) Peru
Trust)
Strategy (the
Panta, Ana International Potato Center (CIP) Peru
Trust)
Strategy (the Podgajetskiy, Anatoly Institute for Potato Production Ukrainian Academy
Ukraine
Trust) A. of Agric. Sciences
Reviewer
suggested by Prof Kostiw, Michal Plant Breeding and Acclimatization Institute Poland
Lewosz
Reviewer
suggested by Ramsay, Gavin Commonwealth Potato Collection, SCRI United Kingdom
Bradshaw
Strategy (the
Reynoso, Daniel International Potato Center (CIP) Peru
Trust)
Strategy (the Centro de Conservación de la biodiversidad
Rios, Domingo Spain
Trust) Agrícola de Tenerife
Strategy (the
Roca, William International Potato Center (CIP) Peru
Trust)
Strategy (the
Rossel, Genoveva International Potato Center (CIP) Peru
Trust)
Strategy (the
Simon, Reinhard International Potato Center (CIP) Peru
Trust)
Annex III – Set of descriptors for cultivated potato validated by Dr David Tay on
24 November 2008 and information on data availability in CIP
IBPGR Data available
at CIP
1. Ploidy level (3.1.2) Yes
2. Predominant tuber skin colour (3.2.1) Yes
3. Intensity of predominant tuber skin colour (3.2.1b) Yes
4. Secondary tuber skin colour (3.2.2) Yes
5. Distribution of secondary skin tuber colour (3.2.3) Yes
6. Predominant tuber flesh colour (3.2.5) Yes
7. Secondary tuber flesh colour (3.2.6) Yes
8. Tuber outline (shape) (3.2.8) Yes
9. Odd tuber shapes (3.2.9) To be confirmed1
10. Depth of eyes (3.2.10) Yes
11. Stem pigmentation (3.3.4) Yes
12. Stem wing shape (3.3.6) Yes
13. Lateral leaflet numbers (3.4.1b) Yes
14. Interjected leaflet number in the rachis among lateral leaflets (3.4.1c) Yes
15. Flowering degree (3.5.14) Yes
16. Plant growth habit (3.6.1) Yes
17. High tuber yield - To be confirmed1
18. Foliar blight (Phytophtora) (6.1.1) To be confirmed1
19. Susceptibility to drought (5.2) To be confirmed1
20. Susceptibility to salinity - To be confirmed1
Descriptors as included in the survey

1st priority key descriptors
1. Ploidy level (3.1.2)
2. Predominant tuber skin colour (3.2.1)
3. Intensity of predominant tuber skin colour (3.2.1b)
4. Secondary tuber skin colour (3.2.2)
5. Distribution of secondary skin tuber colour (3.2.3)
6. Predominant tuber flesh colour (3.2.5)
7. Secondary tuber flesh colour (3.2.6)
8. Tuber outline (shape) (3.2.8)
9. Odd tuber shapes (3.2.9)
10. Depth of eyes (3.2.10)
11. Stem pigmentation (3.3.4)
12. Stem wing shape (3.3.6)
13. Lateral leaflet numbers (3.4.1b)
14. Interjected leaflet number in the rachis among lateral leaflets (3.4.1c)
15. Flowering degree (3.5.14)
16. Plant growth habit (3.6.1)
17. High tuber yield
18. Foliar blight (Phytophtora) (6.1.1)
19. Susceptibility to drought (5.2)
20. Susceptibility to salinity
1
Traits were to be confirmed by Dr Tay at a later stage.
Annex IV – Survey to choose a key set of descriptors for cultivated potato
(17 March 2009)
WELCOME
of Potato accessions to identify traits important to crop production and to facilitate their use
by researchers.
Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 5 April 2009.
traits for production, such as resistance to an important disease or yield.
The list presented here has been drawn from a number of sources such as: ‘Descriptors for
Cultivated potato’ (IBPGR/CIP, 1977), ‘Descriptores de la Papa’ (CIP, 1994) and ‘Guía para
las Caracterizaciones Morfológicas Básicas en Colecciones de Papas Nativas’ (René Gómez,
CIP, 2000) and further harmonized with the results from the GPG2 Activity 4.2.1.1
(Potato descriptors CIP-GPG2), under the scientific direction of Dr David Tay from CIP.
- PART I: Lists important characterization descriptors for Potato. Based on your experience,
- PART II: Lists important evaluation descriptors for Potato. Please, rate these traits in order
production is missing from the minimum list presented or indicate any that may not be very
set of descriptors.
Please allow us to acknowledge your contribution by completing your full contact

details below:
Name:
Organization:
Address 1:
City/Town:
State/Province:
ZIP/Postal Code:
Country:
Email Address:
environments.
published in the CIP-IBPGR publication ‘Descriptors for the Cultivated Potato’ (1977), those having an
additional letter have been drawn form ‘Guía para las Caracterizaciones Morfológicas Básicas en
Colecciones de Papas Nativas’ (René Gómez, CIP, 2000).
Please rate the following descriptors based on their importance in describing and
categorizing accessions.
Not Very
Important
important important
Ploidy level (3.1.2)
Predominant tuber skin colour (3.2.1)
Intensity of predominant tuber skin colour (3.2.1b)
Secondary tuber skin colour (3.2.2)
Distribution of secondary skin tuber colour (3.2.3)
Predominant tuber flesh colour (3.2.5)
Secondary tuber flesh colour (3.2.6)
Tuber outline (shape) (3.2.8)
Odd tuber shapes (3.2.9)
Depth of eyes (3.2.10)
Stem pigmentation (3.3.4)
Stem wing shape (3.3.6)
Lateral leaflet numbers (3.4.1b)
Interjected leaflet number in the rachis among lateral leaflets

(3.4.1c)
Flowering degree (3.5.14)
If you consider that an essential trait is missing from this list, please indicate it here
These descriptors include characters such as yield, biotic and abiotic stresses. They are the
most interesting traits in crop improvement.
Please rate the following evaluation traits, bearing in mind current breeding
programmes and future production and use of Cultivated potato germplasm at the
global level.
High tuber yield
Foliar blight (Phytophtora)
Susceptibility to salinity
production is missing from this list, or, if any of the descriptors listed is not clearly
useful to promote utilization, please indicate it here along with a substantiated
justification.
required.

Annex V – Respondents to the survey

CAG (Strategy, the Trust) Bamberg, John US Potato Genebank USA
CAG (Strategy, the Trust) Hoekstra, Roel CGN The Netherlands
CAG (Bioversity) Hunter, Danny Bioversity International Italy
International Potato Centre
CAG (Strategy, the Trust) Salas, Alberto Peru
(CIP)
Strategy (the Trust) Arbizu, Carlos Peru
(CIP)
Strategy (the Trust) Carnegie, Stuart SASA United Kingdom
Has replied on behalf of: Chauvin, Jean-
INRA France
Ellissèche, Daniel Eric
Strategy (the Trust) Chujoy, Enrique Peru
(CIP)
Reviewer suggested by
Dehmer, Klaus J. IPK / GLKS Germany
Helmut Knüpffer (IPK)
Dílmer Moreno-
Strategy (the Trust) Corpoica Colombia
Mendoza, José
Strategy (the Trust) Dolničar, Peter Agricultural Institute of Slovenia Slovenia
Domkářová, Potato Research Institute
Strategy (the Trust) Czech Republic
Jaroslava Havlíčkův Brod
Vavilov Institute of plant
Strategy (the Trust) Kiru, Stepan Russian Federation
Industry, (VIR)
Centro de Conservación de la
Ríos Mesa,
Strategy (the Trust) Biodiversidad Agrícola de Spain
Domingo
Tenerife
Annex VI – Descriptors proposed in the survey ranked by rating average and by percentage of
importance
%
%
Rating Importance
Average (Very
(important)
important)
Predominant tuber skin colour 4.64 Predominant tuber skin 0.0 92.9
(3.2.1) colour (3.2.1)
Predominant tuber flesh colour 4.21 Predominant tuber flesh 21.4 71.4
(3.2.5) colour (3.2.5)
Ploidy level (3.1.2) 3.86 Tuber outline (shape) (3.2.8) 7.1 71.4
Depth of eyes (3.2.10) 3.62 Ploidy level (3.1.2) 21.4 64.3
Secondary tuber skin colour 3.50 Depth of eyes (3.2.10) 30.8 53.8
(3.2.2)
Tuber outline (shape) (3.2.8) 3.49 Secondary tuber skin colour 57.1 35.7
(3.2.2)
Plant growth habit (3.6.1) 3.31 Odd tuber shapes (3.2.9) 46.2 30.8
Flowering degree (3.5.14) 3.23 Lateral leaflet numbers 35.7 28.6

(3.4.1b)
Secondary tuber flesh colour 3.21 Flowering degree (3.5.14) 69.2 23.1
(3.2.6)
Distribution of secondary skin 3.00 Distribution of secondary 64.3 21.4
tuber colour (3.2.3) skin tuber colour (3.2.3)
Odd tuber shapes (3.2.9) 2.92 Secondary tuber flesh colour 71.4 21.4
(3.2.6)
Lateral leaflet numbers 2.50 Plant growth habit (3.6.1) 84.6 15.4
(3.4.1b)
Stem pigmentation (3.3.4) 2.00 Stem pigmentation (3.3.4) 53.8 7.7
Intensity of predominant tuber 1.93 Stem wing shape (3.3.6) 21.4 7.1
skin colour (3.2.1b)
Interjected leaflet number in 1.64 Interjected leaflet number in 42.9 7.1
the rachis among lateral the rachis among lateral
Stem wing shape (3.3.6) 1.00 Intensity of predominant 64.3 0.0
tuber skin colour (3.2.1b)
Foliar blight (Phytophtora) 4.71 Foliar blight (Phytophtora) 14.3 85.7
Susceptibility to drought (5.2) 3.86 High tuber yield 50.0 42.9
High tuber yield 3.64 Susceptibility to drought 57.1 42.9

(5.2)
Susceptibility to salinity 3.00 Susceptibility to salinity 64.3 21.4
Annex VII - Additional descriptors included in the open-ended section of the survey
Cultivated potato descriptor Name of expert

Additional characterization N. of times Enrique Carlos Alberto Domingo Ríos Stuart Klaus J.
descriptor selected Chujoy Arbizu Salas Mesa Carnegie Dehmer
Flower colour 5 X X X X X
Tuber sprout colour. Sprout colour can be

described simply and used to group 3 X X X
phenotypes before planting.
Tuber sprout shape 2 X X
Corolla shape 2 X X
Terminal leaflets 1 X
Primary lateral leaflets 1 X
Calix colour 1 X
Number of eyes per tuber 1 X
Plant maturity is a key characteristic in

differentiating and managing varieties in a
1 X
collection. Varieties tend to be grouped
and harvested according to maturity.
Distribution of secondary tuber flesh

1 X
colour
Cultivated potato descriptor Name of expert
José
Additional evaluation N. of times Enrique Carlos Alberto Stepan Stuart Dílmer Klaus J.
descriptor selected Chujoy Arbizu Salas Kiru Carnegie Moreno- Dehmer,
Mendoza
Tuber yield stability 1 X
Susceptibility to main viruses

1 X
(PVX, PVY, PLRV)
Earliness Adaptation to latitude

2 X X
and altitude
Wart resistance - is most

important in the case of
1 X
recommendation for breeding
as valuable source
Susceptibility to potato cancer 1 X
COMMENT: While the assessment of varieties to disease is desirable, it needs to borne in mind that
this can change with time and this is particularly pertinent to late blight. The development of new
X
genotypes of Phytophthora infestans in Europe has meant that a variety's response can vary depending
on the genotype of pathogen with which it is challenged.
COMMENT: I think High tuber yield of commercial sizes is very important for Andean varieties. X
Annex VIII – Survey results for first priority descriptors of cultivated potato
validated by Dr Tay and his colleagues at CIP (July 2009)
Intensity of predominant tuber skin colour (3.2.1a)
Distribution of secondary skin tuber colour (3.2.3)
Depth of eyes (3.2.10)
Tuber sprout colour (3.3.1)
Lateral leaflet numbers (3.4.1b)
Interjected leaflet number in the rachis among lateral leaflets (3.4.1c)
Drought (5.2)
Soil salinity (5.d)
Foliar blight (Phytophtora) (6.1.1.1)
High tuber yield (7.e)

Annex IX – Final list of characterization and evaluation standards for cultivated
potato including descriptor states
PLANT DATA

Count of the zygotic (2n) number of chromosomes

Code indicating the colour which covers most of the surface of the tuber, expressed as:
1 White-cream
2 Yellow
3 Orange
4 Brownish
5 Pink
6 Red
7 Purplish-red
8 Purple
9 Dark purple-black (Blackish)

1 Light
2 Intermediate
3 Intense

Code describing a secondary colour on the surface of the tuber, expressed as:
0 Absent
1 White-cream
2 Yellow
3 Orange
4 Brownish
5 Pink
6 Red
7 Purplish-black
8 Purple
9 Dark purple-black (Blackish)
Distribution of secondary tuber skin colour (3.2.3)
Code representing the pattern of distribution of the secondary colour on the surface of
the tuber, expressed as:
0 Absent
1 Eyes – when the secondary colour is confined to the eyes only
2 Eyebrows – when the secondary colour is present in the eyebrows only
3 Splashed – when the secondary colour is confined to areas around the eyes
4 Scattered – when the secondary colour is distributed at random in one or more
areas around the tuber
5 Spectacled – when areas around the eyes do not show secondary colour and the
reminder of the tuber is pigmented
6 Stippled – when the surface of the tuber is more or less uniform covered with spots

Code indicating the flesh colour present in most of the tuber, expressed as:
1 White
2 Cream
3 Yellow-cream
4 Yellow
5 Red
6 Violet
7 Purple

Code representing a secondary flesh colour in the tuber, expressed as:
0 Absent
1 White
2 Cream
3 Yellow-cream
4 Yellow
5 Red
6 Violet
7 Purple
Code describing the tuber outline, expressed as:
1 Compressed (oblate) – major axis is the shortest axis
2 Round – an almost circular outline
3 Ovate – an outline resembling an egg. The broadest part is within 1/3 of the
distance from the stolon end
4 Obovate – an outline which is inversely ovate and broadest within 1/3 of the
distance from the apical end (rose or eye end)
5 Elliptic – an outline showing the same breadth when measured at equal distance
from both the stolon and apical ends. The outline is slightly acute at each end
6 Oblong – an almost rectangular outline with the sides nearly parallel but the
corners are rounded. The length/breadth ratio should not be more than 3/2
7 Long-oblong – an oblong outline with a length/breadth ratio closer to 2/1
8 Elongate – a long rectangular outline with a length/breadth ratio equal to or
more than 3/1

Code representing those variants of tuber shape which cannot be described under tuber
outline shape. It is expressed as follows:
0 Absent
1 Flattened – when the length of a transverse section, at any point of the tuber, is
more than three times longer than its breadth
2 Clavate – resembling an elongated club, thickened at one end
3 Reniform – shaped like a kidney
4 Fusiform – spindle-shaped, tapering gradually at both ends
5 Falcate – curved or shaped like a sickle or horseshoe
6 Spiral – long and coiled
7 Digitate – resembling a hand or a fist
8 Concertina-shaped – resembling a concertina
9 Tuberosed – covered with few or many small lumps and tubers. It includes those
shaped like a pineapple, a cluster of grapes, and raised internodes
Depth of tuber eyes (3.2.10)

Code indicating the depth of the eyes in the tuber, expressed as:
1 Protruding
2 Shallow
3 Medium
4 Deep
5 Very deep

Code describing the colour which covers most of the surface of the sprout, expressed as:
1 White-green
2 Pink
3 Red
4 Violet
5 Purple
Code indicating the colour of the stems, expressed as:
1 Green only
2 Red-brown only
3 Purple only
4 Cream with some red-brown
5 Cream with purple
6 Red-brown with some green
7 Purple with some green

Code for the presence and shape of the stem wing, expressed as:
0 Absent
1 Straight
2 Undulate
3 Dentate
Lateral leaflet numbers (3.4.1a)

0 Absent
1 One pair
2 Two pairs
3 Three pairs
4 Four pairs
5 Five pairs
6 Six pairs
7 Seven or more pairs
Interjected leaflets number in the rachis among lateral leaflets (3.4.1b)

0 Absent
1 One pair
2 Two pairs
3 Three pairs
4 Four or more pairs

Code indicating the colour present in most of the corolla, expressed as:
1 White
2 Light red
3 Intense red
4 Light blue
5 Intense blue
6 Light purple
7 Intense purple
8 Yellow
Code describing the degree of flowering which should be recorded at the peak of the
flowering period, expressed as:
0 No buds
1 Bud abortion
3 Scarce flowering
5 Moderate flowering
7 Profuse flowering

Code indicating the type of growth habit at the beginning of flowering of the accession
expressed as:
1 Erect
2 Semi-erect
3 Decumbent, when the stems trail on the ground but they rise at the apex
4 Prostrate, when the stems trail on the ground
5 Semi-rosette
6 Rosette, when all or most leaves arranged at the base of the stem are close to the
soil surface
High tuber yield (7.a)
ABIOTIC STRESSES
Drought (5.2)
The method of evaluating is in the process of being defined and the following descriptor
states are expected to be used:
1 Very low or no visible sign of susceptibility (Highly tolerant)
3 Low (Tolerant)
5 Intermediate (or slightly tolerant)
7 High (Non-tolerant)
Soil salinity (5.a)
BIOTIC STRESSES
Foliar blight (Phytophthora spp.) (6.1.1.1)
NOTES
Any additional information may be specified here, particularly that referring to the
category ‘Other’ present in some of the descriptors above.
Annex X – List of contributors
CORE ADVISORY GROUP

David Tay, International Potato Center (CIP), Peru
Carlos Arbizu, International Potato Center (CIP), Peru
John Bamberg, US Potato Genebank, USA
René Gómez, International Potato Center (CIP), Peru
Roel Hoekstra, CGN, The Netherlands
Alberto Salas, International Potato Center (CIP), Peru
REVIEWERS
Colombia
José Dílmer Moreno-Mendoza, Corpoica
Czech Republic
Jaroslava Domkárová, Potato Research Institute Havlíkuv Brod
France
Jean-Eric Chauvin, INRA
Germany
Klaus J. Dehmer, IPK/GLKS
Peru
Merideth Bonierbale, International Potato Center (CIP)
Enrique Chujoy, International Potato Center (CIP)
Russian Federation
Stepan Kiru, N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry (VIR)
Slovenia
Peter Dolničar, Agricultural Institute of Slovenia
Spain
Domingo Ríos Mesa, Centro de Conservación de la Biodiversidad Agrícola de Tenerife
United Kingdom
Stuart Carnegie, SASA
Annex XI – Final key access and utilization descriptors for cultivated potato
genetic resources, revised and republished in 2010

cultivated potato genetic resources
This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for cultivated potato
utilization. This strategic set of descriptors, together with passport data, will become the basis for the
global accession level information portal being developed by Bioversity International with the financial
support of the Global Crop Diversity Trust. It will facilitate access to and utilization of cultivated potato
accessions held in genebanks and does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data
subsequently become available.
Based on the comprehensive ‘Descriptors for the Cultivated Potato’ published by the International
Potato Center (CIP) and IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1977, the list was subsequently
compared and harmonized, wherever possible, with minimum descriptors listed in ‘Descriptores de la
Papa’ (CIP, 1994), with the ‘Guía para las Caracterizaciones Morfológicas Básicas en Colecciones de
Papas Nativas’ (René Gómez, CIP, 2000), and with those for which data were available. It also builds on
the SGRP Global Public Goods (GPG2) activity.
This minimal set defines a first priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize
cultivated potato genetic resources. A worldwide distribution of experts involved in an online survey was
assured and the list was afterwards validated by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr
David Tay of CIP.
Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptor numbers listed in the
1977 descriptors. Descriptors with numbers ending in ‘letters’ are new descriptors that were added during
the development of the list below.
PLANT DATA

Count of the zygotic (2n) number of chromosomes

Code indicating the colour which covers most of the surface of the tuber, expressed as:
1 White-cream
2 Yellow
3 Orange
4 Brownish
5 Pink
6 Red
7 Purplish-red
8 Purple
9 Blackish

1 Light
2 Intermediate
3 Intense
Code describing a secondary colour on the surface of the tuber, expressed as:
0 Absent
1 White-cream
2 Yellow
3 Orange
4 Brownish
5 Pink
6 Red
7 Purplish-red
8 Purple
9 Blackish
Distribution of secondary tuber skin colour (3.2.3)

Code representing the pattern of distribution of the secondary colour on the surface of the tuber, expressed
as:
0 Absent
1 Eyes – when the secondary colour is confined to the eyes only
2 Eyebrows – when the secondary colour is present in the eyebrows only or includes eyes
3 Splashed – when the secondary colour is confined to areas around the eyes or includes eyes and
eyebrows
4 Scattered – when the secondary colour is distributed at random in one or more areas around the
tuber
5 Spectacled – when areas around the eyes do not show secondary colour and the reminder of the
tuber is pigmented
6 Stippled – when the surface of the tuber is more or less uniform covered with spots
7 Few spots

Code indicating the flesh colour present in most of the tuber, expressed as:
1 White
2 Cream
3 Yellow-cream
4 Yellow
5 Red
6 Violet
7 Purple

Code representing a secondary flesh colour in the tuber, expressed as:
0 Absent
1 White
2 Cream
3 Yellow-cream
4 Yellow
5 Red
6 Violet
7 Purple
Code describing the tuber outline, expressed as:
1 Compressed (oblate) – major axis is the shortest axis
2 Round – an almost circular outline
3 Ovate – an outline resembling an egg. The broadest part is within 1/3 of the distance from the
stolon end
4 Obovate – an outline which is inversely ovate and broadest within 1/3 of the distance from the
apical end (rose or eye end)
5 Elliptic – an outline showing the same breadth when measured at equal distance from both the
stolon and apical ends. The outline is slightly acute at each end
6 Oblong – an almost rectangular outline with the sides nearly parallel but the corners are rounded.
The length/breadth ratio should not be more than 3/2
7 Long-Oblong – an oblong outline with a length/breadth ratio closer to 2/1
8 Elongate – a long rectangular outline with a length/breadth ratio equal to or more than 3/1

Code representing those variants of tuber shape which cannot be described under tuber outline shape.
It is expressed as follows:
0 Absent
1 Flattened – when the length of a transverse section, at any point of the tuber, is more than three
times longer than its breadth
2 Clavate – resembling an elongated club, thickened at one end
3 Reniform – shaped like a kidney
4 Fusiform – spindle-shaped, tapering gradually at both ends
5 Falcate – curved or shaped like a sickle or horseshoe
6 Spiral – long and coiled
7 Digitate – resembling a hand or a fist
8 Concertina-shaped – resembling a concertina
9 Tuberosed – covered with few or many small lumps and tubers. It includes those shaped like a
pineapple, a cluster of grapes, and raised internodes
Depth of tuber eyes (3.2.10)

Code indicating the depth of the eyes in the tuber, expressed as:
3 Shallow
5 Medium
7 Deep
9 Very deep

Code describing the colour which covers most of the surface of the sprout, expressed as:
1 White-cream
2 Yellow
3 Pink
4 Red
5 Violet
6 Purple
7 Blackish
Code indicating the colour of the stems, expressed as:
1 Green
2 Cream with some red-brown
3 Cream with purple
4 Red-brown with some green
5 Purple with some green
6 Red-brown
7 Purple

Code for the presence and shape of the stem wing, expressed as:
0 Absent
1 Straight
2 Undulate
3 Dentate
Lateral leaflet numbers (3.4.1a)

0 Absent
1 One pair
2 Two pairs
3 Three pairs
4 Four pairs
5 Five pairs
6 Six pairs
7 Seven or more pairs
Interjected leaflets number in the rachis among lateral leaflets (3.4.1b)

0 Absent
1 One pair
2 Two pairs
3 Three pairs
4 Four or more pairs

Code indicating the colour present in most of the corolla, expressed as:
1 White/cream/yellow
2 Pink
3 Red
4 Light blue
5 Blue
6 Purple
7 Violet

Code describing the degree of flowering which should be recorded at the peak of the flowering period,
expressed as:
0 No buds
1 Bud abortion
3 Scarce flowering
5 Moderate flowering
7 Profuse flowering
Code indicating the type of growth habit at the beginning of flowering of the accession expressed as:
1 Erect
2 Semi-erect
3 Decumbent, when the stems trail on the ground but they rise at the apex
4 Prostrate, when the stems trail on the ground
5 Semi-rosette
6 Rosette, when all or most leaves arranged at the base of the stem are close to the soil surface
High tuber yield (7.a)
ABIOTIC STRESSES
Drought (5.2)
The method of evaluating is in the process of being defined and the following descriptor states are
expected to be used:
1 Very low or no visible sign of susceptibility (Highly tolerant)
3 Low (Tolerant)
5 Intermediate (or Slightly tolerant)
7 High (Non-tolerant)
Soil salinity (5.a)
BIOTIC STRESSES
Foliar blight (Phytophthora spp.) (6.1.1.1)
NOTES
Any additional information may be specified here, particularly that referring to the category ‘Other’
present in some of the descriptors above.
CONTRIBUTORS
strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors of cultivated potato genetic resources’, and in
particular to Dr David Tay (CIP, Peru) who provided scientific direction. Ms Adriana Alercia provided
technical expertise and guided the entire production process.
CORE ADVISORY GROUP

David Tay, International Potato Center (CIP), Peru
Carlos Arbizu, International Potato Center (CIP), Peru
John Bamberg, US Potato Genebank, USA
René Gómez, International Potato Center (CIP), Peru
Roel Hoekstra, CGN, the Netherlands
Alberto Salas, International Potato Center (CIP), Peru
REVIEWERS
Colombia
José Dílmer Moreno-Mendoza, Corpoica
Czech Republic
Jaroslava Domkárová, Potato Research Institute Havlíkuv Brod
France
Jean-Eric Chauvin, INRA
Germany
Klaus J. Dehmer, IPK/GLKS
Peru
Merideth Bonierbale, International Potato Center (CIP)
Enrique Chujoy, International Potato Center (CIP)
Russian Federation
Stepan Kiru, N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry (VIR)
Slovenia
Peter Dolničar, Agricultural Institute of Slovenia
Spain
Domingo Ríos Mesa, Centro de Conservación de la Biodiversidad Agrícola de Tenerife
United Kingdom
Stuart Carnegie, SASA
rice (Oryza spp.)
Information for the definition of a MDL for Rice was based on the publication
‘Descriptors for wild and cultivated Rice (Oryza spp.)’ (Bioversity International, IRRI
and WARDA, 2007). The list derived from this publication was compared to important
descriptors mentioned in a number of sources such as UPOV technical guidelines
(2004); ‘Standard Evaluation System for Rice’ (IRRI, 2002); ‘Descriptor for RICE’ (USDA,
ARS, GRIN), and relevant descriptors resulting from activity 4.2.1.1 of the SGRP Global
Public Goods Phase 2 (GPG2), submitted by IRRI and WARDA. Results from the
comparison exercise were subsequently integrated and harmonized with those that
were awarded funds for further research by the Global Crop Diversity Trust Evaluation
Award Scheme, 2008 (see Annex I). On 20th March 2009 this first Minimum set of
descriptors was further discussed with Dr Ruaraidh Sackville Hamilton from the
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) who provided scientific direction for the
publication of ‘Descriptors for wild and cultivated Rice (Oryza spp.)’. It was agreed to
build on the Minimum List of Descriptors for rice which contained characterization
descriptors, adding traits important to crop production under the scientific guidance of
Dr Ed Redoña, Global Rice Coordinator at the International Network for Genetic
Evaluation for Rice (INGER).

The list of experts was prepared taking into account reviewers involved in the
publication ‘Descriptors for wild and cultivated Rice (Oryza spp.)’ as well as
participants to the Expert Consultation Meeting that was held at IRRI, Philippines, in
December 2007 to discuss a preliminary draft of the ‘Global Strategy for the Ex-situ
conservation of Rice’. Overall the list was composed of 79 experts, coming from 28
countries and 51 different organizations (see Annex II). Out of these, a Crop Leader,
Edilberto D. Redoña, and a Core Advisory Group (CAG) consisting of seven experts
were selected to assist in the definition of a minimum set of descriptors for this crop.
Members of the CAG were selected from world renowned organizations and research
centres focusing on rice conservation such as IRRI, International Center for Tropical
Agriculture (CIAT), National Bureau Of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), and INGER.
A draft of the survey was proposed to the Crop Leader on 8 May 2009 and subsequently
the final revised version (see Annex III) was uploaded into the SurveyMonkey
application on internet. On 11 May an email invitation, containing the link to the
survey, was sent out to the identified experts who were invited to validate the initial
‘Minimum set of descriptors’ of rice accessions to promote the utilization of germplasm.
Participants were also encouraged to mention any additional traits that were found to
be relevant yet missing from the proposed list, along with a substantiated justification
for their inclusion. The already approved and published list of highly discriminating
Bioversity, IRRI and WARDA descriptors for rice was inserted in the survey for
reference (see Annex IV).
The survey deadline was set at 12 June, a first reminder was sent out on 26 May
and a second one on 5 June 2009 to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was
obtained.

Of the 79 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 28, coming from 16
countries and 23 organizations recorded their comments using the online survey; six of
them members of the CAG (see Annex V). Results from the survey were analyzed and
descriptors ranked by rating average and percentage of importance (see Annex VI). The
survey summary results together with a report containing open-ended responds
received by the participants (see Annex VII) were shared with the Crop Leader for
validation on 4 August 2009. His comments (see Annex VIII) were harmonized and sent
again to Dr Redoña for further refinement. The revised minimum list was then sent to
the CAG for final approval on 30 September 2009 (see Annex IX).
The approved document, including descriptor states and all the contributors (see
Annex X), was proofread by an external editor and sent to the Bioversity Publication
Unit for layout and online publication processes. Furthermore, the publication was
shared with ECPGR Secretariat; the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology
and the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base partners. Additionally, data were
converted into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN-Global genebank data-
management system being developed by USDA and into the global accession level
information portal (GENESYS), linking national, regional and international genebank
databases in support of the Conservation and Use of Plant Genetic Resources for Food
and Agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also provided to the System-wide
Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) and to EURISCO.
Acknowledgement
development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for rice
Special thanks go to Dr Edilberto Redoña for his valuable scientific contribution.
Annex I – Comparison table for the definition of a Key set of traits for Rice drawn from a number of sourcesi
WARDA GPG2
Bioversity
Bioversity- USDA, ARS, IRRI Data available
descriptor Bioversity descriptor name UPOV SES EAS
IRRI-WARDA GRIN GPG2 (*) considered
no.
important (**)
Bioversity 7.2.3 Main heading * *
MDL
7.3.11 Auricle: colour * * * (page 32) *
7.3.22 Flag leaf: attitude (early observation) * * * (page 39) *
7.3.25 Culm: length * * * (page 34) *
7.3.28 Culm: anthocyanin colouration on the nodes * *
7.3.29 Culm: underlying node colour * * (page 33)
7.3.34 Flag leaf: attitude (late observation) * *
7.4.2 Stigma: colour * * * (page 38) *
7.4.6 Lemma: colour of apiculus (early observation) * *
7.4.9 Awns distribution * * * * (page 33) *
7.4.18 Panicle: length * * * (page 36) * **
7.4.19 Panicle: attitude of main axis * * * (page 36) *
7.4.20 Panicle: attitude of branches (Plant type USDA - Panicle * * * * (page 37) *
type)
7.5.4 Lemma and palea: pubescence * * * * (page 36)
7.5.10 Sterile lemma: length * * (page 37) *
7.5.11 Longer sterile lemma length *
7.5.13 Sterile lemma: colour * * * (page 37) *
7.5.20 Caryopsis: length * * *
7.5.22 Caryopsis: shape (grain shape) * * *
7.5.23 Caryopsis: pericarp colour (Bran colour USDA?) * *
8.1.2 Caryopsis scent * * (page 37)
Other 4.6 Seedling vigour *
descriptors
7.2.2.1 Days from seeding to flowering **
7.2.2.2 Days to first heading (Flowering date) *
7.2.4 Maturity * * *
7.2.4.1 Days from seeding to maturity **
7.2.3.1 Days to main heading *
7.3.18 Leaf blade length [cm] * * *
7.3.19 Leaf blade width [cm] * * **
7.3.27 Culm: diameter at basal internode [mm] *
7.3.7 Leaf blade intensity of green colour (colour) *
7.3.8 Leaf blade attitude (leaf angle) *
WARDA GPG2
Bioversity
no.
important (**)
7.3.9 Leaf blade pubescence *
7.4.1 % Pollen sterility/fertility at anthesis (Male sterility) * * *
7.4.17 Panicle number per plant * *
7.4.21 Panicle: secondary branching * *
7.4.22 Panicle: exsertion *
7.4.5 Lemma and palea colour * * *
7.4.8 Awns presence (Awning) *
7.5.15 Grain length [mm] **
7.5.16 Grain width [mm] * * *
7.5.18 Grain: 100-grain weight [g] *
7.5.2 Panicle threshability * *
7.5.8 Lemma: colour of apiculus *
8.1.1 Lemma: phenol reaction *
8.1.10 Elongation ratio * * *
8.1.3 Endosperm amylose content [%] * *
8.1.4 (?) Alkali spreading value ? *
8.1.5 Gelatinization Temperature by Differential Scanning *
8.1.6 Gel consistency *
8.1.7 Brown rice protein content [% DW] *
8.1.8 Lysine content [% DW] *
8.1.9 Parboiling loss [% DW] *
9.1 Cold [IS-75] * * *
9.2 Heat [IS-76] * * *
9.3 Drought [IS-80] * * *
9.4 Alkali injury and salt injury [IS-70-71] * * *
9.5 Iron toxicity [IS-72] * * *
9.6 Phosphorus deficiency [IS-73] *
9.7 Zinc deficiency [IS-74] * *
9.8 Flood or submergence [IS-86] * * *
10.1 Diseases * *
10.1.1 Leaf blast (Magnaporthe grisea) * * * *
10.1.2 Panicle blast (Magnaporthe grisea) * * * *
10.1.3 Brown spot (Cochliobolus miyabeanus) *
10.1.5 Bacterial leaf streak (Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzicola) * *
10.2 Diseases caused by viruses and MLOs [IS-36] * *
10.2.1 Rice grassy stunt (RGSV1 and RGSV2) * *
10.2.4 Rice Yellow Mottle Virus *
WARDA GPG2
Bioversity
no.
important (**)
10.3 Insects * *
10.3.1 Brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens) * *
10.3.5 Stem borers * * *
10.3.6 Leaf folder (Cnaphalocrocis medinalis) * *
10.3.7 Gall midge (Orseolia oryzae) * *
12.2 Gelatinisation Temperature * *
12.3 Fragrance *
13.1 Chromosome number *
13.2 Ploidy level *
13.3 Other cytological characters *
% Seed sterility/fertility *
Diurnal duration of anthesis *
DNA profiles using SSR markers *
Duration of flowering period *
Fertile tillering ability *
Grain weight of 1000 grains or rough rice [g] * (10 and 100) *
Grain yield per plant * (page 45) * *
Kernel width *
Phenotypic acceptability * (page 7) * *
Panicle number per m2 *
Plant height [cm] * * * * *
Rice tungro bacilliform virus * *
Sheath blight (Rhizoctonia solani) (Thanatephorus * *
cucumeris)
Straighthead *
Tillering ability **
Time of day of flowering (start/end) *
i
‘Descriptors for wild and cultivated Rice (Oryza spp.)’ (Bioversity International, IRRI and WARDA, 2007), UPOV technical guidelines (2004), ‘Standard
Evaluation System for Rice (SES)’ (IRRI, 2002), ‘Descriptors for RICE’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN), Evaluation Awards Scheme (EAS), descriptors submitted by IRRI and
WARDA to the GPG2 project.
Annex II - Experts identified to take part to the survey

Crop
Redoña, Edilberto D. IRRI Philippines
Leader
CAG Borromeo, Teresita UPLB Philippines
CAG Khin Than, Nwe Rice Department Myanmar
CAG Martínez, César CIAT Colombia
CAG Salaices, Luis Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Spain
CAG Sharma, S.K. NBPGR India
CAG Shobha, Rani Directorate of Rice Research India
CAG Tang, Shenxiang China National Rice Research Institute China
Malaysian Agricultural Research and
Reviewer Alias, Ismail Malaysia
Development Institute
Reviewer Almazan, Socorro IRRI Philippines
Reviewer Amron, Azuan MARDI Malaysia
Reviewer Anishetty, Murthi FAO/CGIAR India
Reviewer Apanich, Nathathai National Genebank of Thailand Thailand
Attiogbevi-Somado,
Reviewer WARDA Benin
Eklou
Reviewer Banaticla, Maria Celeste IRRI Philippines
Reviewer Bockelman, Harold E. ARS/USDA USA
Reviewer Bounphanousay, Chay ARC Genebank Lao PDR
Director, Institute of Agricultural Science of
Reviewer Buu, Bui Chi Viet Nam
South Vietnam (IAS)
Reviewer Catibog, Noel PCARRD Philippines
Chanphengxay,
Reviewer NAFRI Lao PDR
Monthathip
Da Silva Mariante,
Reviewer EMBRAPA Brazil
Arthur
Bangladesh
Reviewer Ennamul, Haque Bangladesh
Rice Research Institute
Czech
Reviewer Faberova, Iva Research Institute of Crop Production
Republic
Reviewer Faylon, Patricio S. PCARRD Philippines
Reviewer Ferreira, Marcio Elias Embrapa Brazil
Reviewer Fesenko, Maria VIR WEB SITE Russia
Reviewer Fitzgerald, Melissa IRRI Philippines

Gatot Irianto, M.S., Ir. H.
Reviewer IAARD Indonesia
Sumarjo
Reviewer Gosalvitra, Prasert Rice Dept Thailand
Reviewer Haron, Sharif MARDI Malaysia
Bangladesh Agricultural Research Center
Reviewer Harun-ur-Rashid, M. Bangladesh
(BARC)
Reviewer Htut Oo, U Tin Dept of Agricultural Planning Myanmar

Reviewer Ilao, Susan Sandra L. PCARRD Philippines
Reviewer Javier, Edwin IRRI Philippines
Reviewer Khan, Inayatullah Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock Pakistan
Reviewer Kim, Je-Kyu National Institute for Crop Science (NICS) Korea
Reviewer Kim, Tae-San RDA Korea

National Agriculture and Food Research
Reviewer Kouang, Douangsila Lao PDR
Institute
Kudagamage,
Reviewer Dept Agricolture Sri Lanka
Chandrasiri
Reviewer Kumashiro, Takashi JIRCAS Japan
Reviewer Lal Karna, Parashuram Nepal Agricultural Research Council Nepal
Reviewer Lewin, Laurie Rice CRC Australia
Reviewer Mal, Bhag Bioversity India
Reviewer Misra Lal, Sah Nepal Agricultural Research Council Nepal
Reviewer Mozafari, Javad NPGB Iran
Reviewer Muhammad, Akram Pakistan Agricultural Reseach Council Pakistan
Reviewer Myung Chul Lee National Agrodiversity Center Korea
Reviewer Nafisah. Afif Indonesian Center for Rice Research Indonesia
Reviewer Naredo, Elizabeth IRRI Philippines
Reviewer Lang, Nguyen Thi Cuu Long Rice Research Institute Vietnam
Reviewer Nimal, Dissanayake Rice Research Institute Sri Lanka
Laboratory of Plant Genetics & Breeding
Science,
Reviewer Okuno, Kazutoshi Japan
Graduate School of Life and Environmental
Sciences
Reviewer Orapin, Watanesk Rice Department Thailand
Cambodian Agricultural Research and

Reviewer Ouk, Makara Cambodia
Development Institute (CARDI
Reviewer Padolina, Thelma PhilRice Philippines
NBPGR Regional Station, Rajendranagar,

Reviewer S.R.Pandravada India
Hyderabad-500 030, Andhra Pradesh
Reviewer Rai, Mangala ICAR India

Ramanantsoanirina,
Reviewer FOFIFA/CENRADERU Madagascar
Alain
Reviewer Rana, J.C. NBPGR India
Reviewer Reaño, Renato IRRI Philippines
Reviewer Romanova, Olga VIR Russia
Reviewer Romero, G. PhilRice Philippines

Reviewer Sanni, Kayode WARDA Benin
Reviewer Sanwidi, Abdoulaye WARDA Benin
Cambodian Agricultural Research and
Reviewer Sarom, Men Cambodia
Development Institute (CARDI)
Reviewer Shihua, Cheng China National Rice Research Institute China

Reviewer N. Shobha Rani Directorate of Rice Research India
Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences
Reviewer Shumin, Wang China
(CAAS)
Reviewer Sie, Moussa WARDA Benin
Reviewer Silitonga, Tiur Sudiati ICABGRRD Bogor Indonesia
Reviewer Tchamba, Albert WARDA Benin
Reviewer Tia, Daniel WARDA Benin
Reviewer Torre do Vale, Carla IIAM Mozambique
Hyderabad Directorate of Rice Research
Reviewer Viraktamath, B.C. India
(DRR)
Reviewer Wambugu, Peter NGBK Kenya
Reviewer Orapin Watanesk Bureau of Rice Research and Development Thailand
Reviewer Yang, Sae-Jun National Institute of Crop Science, RDA Korea
Reviewer Yeon-Gyu, Kim National Institute for Crop Science (NICS) Korea
Reviewer Zain, Hj. Abdullah Md University Malaysia Terengganu Malaysia
Annex III - Evaluation descriptors for Rice selected by Dr Redoña on 5 May 2009
Plant height [cm]

Endosperm amylose content [%] 8.1.3
Cold [IS-75] 9.1
Heat [IS-76] 9.2
Drought [IS-80] 9.3
Alkali injury and salt injury [IS-70-71] 9.4
Flood or submergence [IS-86] 9.8
Phenotypic acceptability
Leaf blast (Magnaporthe grisea) 10.1.1
Brown spot (Cochliobolus miyabeanus) 10.1.3
Bacterial leaf streak (Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzicola) 10.1.5
Rice Yellow Mottle Virus 10.2.4
Sheath blight (Rhizoctonia solani) (Thanatephorus cucumeris) 10.2.6
Brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens) 10.3.1
Stem borers 10.3.5
Gall midge (Orseolia oryzae) 10.3.7
Rice tungro bacilliform virus
Annex IV - Survey to choose a key set of descriptors for Rice
Welcome to the survey for the selection of a first priority set of evaluation descriptors of Rice
to support an international information system to enhance the utilization of germplasm held
in genebanks.
Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 12 th June
2009
The key set, along with the List of highly discriminating Bioversity IRRI descriptors for rice
(Annex I, Bioversity/IRRI/WARDA, 2007), which can be found in Part I, will be made
available through a global facility for identifying sets of accessions for evaluation and use,
and does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently
become available.
The list presented here has been drawn from the Bioversity/IRRI/WARDA publication
Descriptors for wild and cultivated Rice ’(Oryza spp.)’ (2007), and further harmonized with
results from the GPG2 Activity 4.2.1.1; with descriptors that were awarded funds for
further research by the Global Crop Diversity Trust
2008 Award Scheme; with UPOV technical guidelines for rice (2004), wherever possible;
and with the IRRI publication ’Standard Evaluation System for Rice (SES)’ (2002), under
the scientific direction of Dr. Edilberto Redoña (IRRI).
- PART I: Lists the most important characterization descriptors for Rice, validated and
published in ’Descriptors for wild and cultivated Rice (Oryza spp.)’ Bioversity/IRRI/WARDA
(2007). They are reported here only for reference.
- PART II: Lists important evaluation descriptors for Rice. Please, rate these traits in order
of importance at the global level, their wide geographic occurrence and significant
economic impact. It also allows you to indicate if any essential trait for production is
missing from the minimum list presented or indicate any that may not be very significant to
global production.
We thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in selecting this key set of
descriptors.
* Please allow us to acknowledge your contribution by completing

your full contact details below:
Name:
Position:
Organization:
Country:
Email:
List of highly discriminating Bioversity

-IRRI descriptors for rice (Annex I, Bioversity/IRRI/WARDA, 2007),
already validated and only for reference.
*Numbers on the right - hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in the
Bioversity/IRRI/WARDA publication ‘Descriptors for Rice ( Oryza spp.) ’ (2007).
Main heading (7.2.3)

Auricle: colour (7.3.11)
Flag leaf: attitude (early observation) (7.3.22)
Culm: length (7.3.25)
Culm: anthocyanin colouration on the nodes (7.3.28)
Culm: underlying node colour (7.3.29)
Flag leaf: attitude (late observation) (7.3.34)
Stigma: colour (7.4.2)
Lemma: colour of apiculus (early observation) (7.4.6)
Awns distribution (7.4.9)
Panicle: length (7.4.18)
Panicle: attitude of main axis (7.4.19)
Panicle: attitude of branches (7.4.20)
Lemma and palea: pubescence (7.5.4)
Sterile lemma: length (7.5.10)
Longer sterile lemma length (7.5.11)
Sterile lemma: colour (7.5.13)
Caryopsis: length (7.5.20)
Caryopsis: shape (7.5.22)
Caryopsis: pericarp colour (7.5.23)
Caryopsis scent (8.1.2)
These descriptors include characters such as endosperm amylose content, biotic and abiotic stresses.
They are the most interesting traits in crop improvement. Please consider the following factors relating
to the trait when making your final decision: (i) Global impact, (ii) Initial strategic set, (iii) Importance
for germplasm utilization, (iv) Data availability, (v) True economic damage and (vi) Wide geographical
occurrence.
Endosperm amylose content [%] (8.1.3) n n n

Cold (9.1) n n n
Heat (9.2) n n n
Drought (9.3) n n n
Alkali injury and salt injury (9.4) n n n
Flood or submergence (9.8) n n n
Phenotypic acceptability n n n
Leaf blast ( Magnaporthe grisea) (10.1.1) n n n
Brown spot ( Cochliobolus miyabeanus ) (10.1.3) n n n
Bacterial leaf streak ( Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzicola)
n n n
(10.1.5)
Rice Yellow Mottle Virus (10.2.4) n n n
Sheath blight ( Rhizoctonia solani ) (Thanatephorus cucumeris )
n n n
(10.2.6)
Brown planthopper ( Nilaparvata lugens) (10.3.1) n n n
Stem borers (10.3.5) n n n
Gall midge ( Orseolia oryzae) (10.3.7) n n n
Rice tungro bacilliform virus n n n
Plant height [cm] n n n

Annex V – Respondents to the survey

CAG Borromeo, Teresita H University of the Philippines Los Baños Philippines
Rice Division, Department of Agricultural
CAG Khin Than Nwe Myanmar
Research
CAG Martinez, Cesar P. CIAT Colombia
Oficina Española De Variedades
CAG Salaices, Luis SPAIN
Vegetales
CAG Shobha Rani, N. Directorate of Rice Research India
CAG Tang, Shengxiang China National Rice Research Institute China
Reviewer Almazan, Ma. Socorro R. IRRI Philippines
Reviewer Anishetty, Murthi India
Reviewer Catibog, Noel A. PCARRD Philippines
Reviewer Faberova, Iva Crop Research Institute Prague Czech Republic
Haque, Enamul A K G
Reviewer Bangladesh Rice Research Institute Bangladesh
Md.
Reviewer Lang, Nguyen Thi Cuulong delta rice research Insitute Vietnam
Reviewer Dr Lewin, Laurie NSW Department of Primary Industries Australia
Reviewer Myung Chul Lee National Agrodiversity Center Republic of Korea
Reviewer Nafisah, Afif Indonesian Centre for Rice Research Indonesia
Reviewer Natarajan, Sivaraj NBPGR India
Reviewer Padolina, Thelma F. PhilRice Philippines
Reviewer Pandey, Manish Kumar Directorate of Rice Research India
NBPGR Regional Station,
Reviewer Pandravada, S.R. Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500 030, India
Andhra Pradesh.
Reviewer Ramanantsoanirina, Alain FOFIFA/CENRADERU Madagascar
Reviewer Rana, J C India
Resources Regional Station
Reviewer Reaño, Renato A. TTC-GRC IRRI Philippines
Reviewer Romanova, Olga VIR Russia
Site Noorzuraini Binti Abd
Reviewer MARDI Malaysia
Rahman
Reviewer Susanto, Untung Indonesian Center for Rice Research Indonesia
Bureau of Rice Research and
Reviewer Watanesk, Orapin Thailand
Development
Reviewer Yang, Sae-Jun Natl' Institute of Crop Science, RDA Republic of Korea
Reviewer Zain, Abdullah Md University Malaysia Terengganu Malaysia
Annex VI - Survey results ranked by rating average and sent to Dr Redoña for
validation
Rating Dr. Redoña’s

Answer Options
Average selection
Leaf blast (Magnaporthe grisea) (10.1.1) 4.35
Endosperm amylose content [%] (8.1.3) 4.33
4.33
Brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens) (10.3.1)
Drought (9.3) 4.19
Flood or submergence (9.8) 4.07
Sheath blight (Rhizoctonia solani) (Thanatephorus 4.04

cucumeris) (10.2.6)
3.81
Phenotypic acceptability
Plant height [cm] 3.74
Heat (9.2) 3.63
Alkali injury and salt injury (9.4) 3.54
Rice tungro bacilliform virus 3.52
Bacterial leaf streak (Xanthomonas oryzae pv. 3.50

oryzicola) (10.1.5)
Stem borers (10.3.5) 3.48
Cold (9.1) 3.41

3.00
Gall midge (Orseolia oryzae) (10.3.7)
2.77
Brown spot (Cochliobolus miyabeanus) (10.1.3)
2.36
Rice Yellow Mottle Virus (10.2.4)
Annex VII - Additional descriptors proposed in the open-ended responds section of the survey
Additional N. Shobh Pandra Watan Marti Roma Raman Than Tang Laurie Reaño Nafisah Padol Susa Anish Rana
descriptors of times a Rani vada esk nez nova antsoa Nwe Lewin ina nto etty
propose
nirina
d
Plant stature, X
considering yield 1
potential
Growth duration, X
considering crop 1
index
Basal leaf sheath X
1
colour
Panicle exertion 3 X X X
Leaf pubescence of
1 X
blade surface
Leaf anthocynin
1 X
colouration of auricles
Ligule shape and X
1
colour
Awn colour 1 X
Gelatinization X
1
temperature
Gel consistency 1 X
Grain chalkiness. 1 X
Degree of X
germination of grains 1
on standing
Performance under
1 X
aerobic conditions
Glume and glume tip X
1
colour
Presence of X
ornamentation/
1
striations/ lines on
glumes
Rice leaffolder 1 X
Bacterial leaf blight 3 X X X
Ragged stunt 1 X
Seedling rot 1 X
propose
nirina
d
Grain quality in terms X

of high milling
recovery and
endosperm 1
translucency is very
important for rice
trade
Grain aroma 2 X X
Grain shape 4 X X X X
Grain size 1 X
Grain appearance 1 X
Kernel length X
Sead coat colour
1 X
(Kernel colour)
X
Neck and leaf blast
resistance is very 1
important
Pyricularia oryzae X
Cav. (this is known
1
as leaf and neck
blast)
Lodging (function of X X X
soil fertility for tall
plant) but related to 3
yield threshability or
shatering
Threshability 1 X
Initial heading 1 X
Main heading 1 X
1000 grain weight 2 X X
propose
nirina
d
Photoperiod sensitive X
(strong,weak, non),
which is very
important character 1
especially for
temperate zone rice
area
Number of spikelets
1 X
per panicle
Number of panicles X
1
per hill.
Viviparity 1 X
Annex VIII - Comments on survey results received from Dr Redoña on 2nd
September 2009
Rating
Answer Options Dr. Redoña’s selection
Average
Leaf blast (Magnaporthe grisea) (10.1.1) 4.35 OK
Endosperm amylose content [%] (8.1.3) 4.33 OK
Brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens) (10.3.1) 4.33 OK
Drought (9.3) 4.19 OK
Flood or submergence (9.8) 4.07 OK
OK but no strong source or resistance

Sheath blight (Rhizoctonia solani) (Thanatephorus
4.04 to this disease so most would be
cucumeris) (10.2.6)
susceptible
Phenotypic acceptability 3.81 OK
Plant height [cm] 3.74 OK
Heat (9.2) 3.63 OK
Alkali injury and salt injury (9.4) 3.54 OK
Rice tungro bacilliform virus 3.52 OK
Bacterial leaf streak (Xanthomonas oryzae pv.

3.50 OK
oryzicola) (10.1.5)
Stem borers (10.3.5) 3.48 OK
Cold (9.1) 3.41 OK

Limited in occurrence to South Asian
Gall midge (Orseolia oryzae) (10.3.7) 3.00
countries only
Brown spot (Cochliobolus miyabeanus) (10.1.3) 2.77 OK; emerging disease
Rice Yellow Mottle Virus (10.2.4) 2.36 Limited in occurrence to Africa

Annex IX - First priority set of descriptors for rice resulting from the survey
shared with the Core Advisory Group for final validation on 30th September 2009i
Endosperm amylose content [%] (8.1.3)
Phenotypic acceptability [IS-10] (8.1.a)
Cold [IS-75] (9.1)
Heat [IS-76] (9.2)
Drought [IS-80] (9.3)
Alkali injury and salt injury [IS-70-71] (9.4)
Flood or submergence [IS-86] (9.8)
Leaf blast (Magnaporthe grisea) [IS-30] (10.1.1)
Brown spot (Cochliobolus miyabeanus) [IS-32] (10.1.3)
Bacterial leaf streak (Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzicola) [IS-33] (10.1.5)
Bacterial blight (Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae) [IS-35] (10.1.7)
Rice tungro bacilliform virus (RTBV) [RTD] (10.2.a)
Sheath blight (Thanatephorus cucumeris) [IS-37] (10.2.6)
Brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens) [IS60] (10.3.1)
Stem borers (Chilo suppressalis) [IS-63] (10.3.5)

Annex X - Final list of characterization and evaluation descriptors for Rice
including descriptor states and Contributors
PLANT DATA
Main heading (7.2.3)

Date on which 80% of the plants are heading. It is specified either as the number of days
from effective seeding date to main heading date or as effective seeding date and main
heading date
Auricle: colour (7.3.11)

Stage: late vegetative
(IRRI)
0 0 Absent (no auricles)
1 011 Whitish
2 062 Yellowish green
3 080 Purple
4 081 Light purple
5 084 Purple lines
Flag leaf: attitude (early observation) (7.3.22)

Measured near the collar. Angle of attachment between the flag leaf blade and the main
panicle axis. Record the average of five samples.
Stage: cultivated species at anthesis; wild species seven days after anthesis
1 Erect
3 Semi-erect (intermediate)
5 Horizontal
7 Descending
Plant: height [cm] [IS-5] (7.3.25a)

Use actual measurement in cm from soil surface to the tip of the tallest panicle (awns
excluded). For height measurements at other growth stages, specify the stage. Record in
whole numbers (do not use decimals).
Stage: after flowering to maturity.
Alternatively, they can be coded as follows:
1 Semidwarf (lowland: less than 110 cm; upland: less than 90 cm)
5 Intermediate (lowland: 110–130 cm; upland: 90–125 cm)
9 Tall (lowland: more than 130 cm; upland: more than 125 cm)
Culm: length [cm] (7.3.25)

Measured from ground level to the base of the panicle. Record the average of five actual
measurements, to the nearest cm.
Stage: cultivated species after flowering to maturity; wild species seven days after anthesis.
Alternatively, cultivated species can be coded as follows:
1 Very short (<50 cm)
2 Very short to short (51–70 cm)
3 Short (71–90 cm)
4 Short to intermediate (91–105 cm)
5 Intermediate (106–120 cm)
6 Intermediate to long (121–140 cm)
7 Long (141–155 cm)
8 Long to very long (156–180 cm)
9 Very long (>180 cm)
Culm: anthocyanin colouration on nodes (7.3.28)
The presence and distribution of purple colour from anthocyanin, observed on the outer
surface of the nodes on the culm.
Stage: after flowering to near maturity
(IRRI)
0 0 Absent
1 080 Purple
2 081 Light purple
3 084 Purple lines
Culm: underlying node colour (7.3.29)

The underlying colour of the outer surface of the nodes on the culm, ignoring any
anthocyanin colouration.
Stage: after flowering to near maturity
(IRRI)
0 0 No underlying colour visible due to anthocyanin
1 041 Light gold
2 060 Green
Flag leaf: attitude (late observation) (7.3.34)

(Cultivated species) Observed near the collar. Angle of attachment between the flag leaf
blade and the main panicle axis. Record the average of five samples.
Stage: maturity
1 Erect
3 Semi-erect
5 Horizontal
7 Descending
Stigma: colour (7.4.2)

Observed at anthesis (between 0900 and 1400) using a hand lens
(IRRI)
1 010 White
2 061 Light green
3 030 Yellow
4 081 Light purple
5 080 Purple
Lemma: colour of apiculus (early observation) (7.4.6)

Stage: cultivated species after anthesis to hard dough stage (pre-ripening stage); wild species
at anthesis
(IRRI)
1 010 White
2 020 Straw
3 052 Brown (tawny)
4 060 Green
5 070 Red
6 071 Red apex
7 080 Purple
8 087 Purple apex
9 100 Black
Awns: distribution (7.4.9)
(Cultivated species) The presence and distribution of awns along the panicle.
Stage: flowering to maturity
0 None (awnless)
1 Tip only
2 Upper quarter only
3 Upper half only
4 Upper three-quarters only
5 Whole length
Panicle: length [cm] (7.4.18)

(Wild species) Length of main axis of panicle measured from the panicle base to the tip.
Record the average of five representative plants.
Stage: seven days after anthesis or upon full panicle exsertion
Panicle: attitude of main axis (7.4.19)

Stage: near maturity
1 Upright
2 Semi-upright
3 Slightly drooping
4 Strongly drooping
Panicle: attitude of branches (7.4.20)

The compactness of the panicle, classified according to its mode of branching, angle of
primary branches, and spikelet density.
Stage: cultivated species near maturity; wild species seven days after anthesis
1 Erect (compact panicle)
3 Semi-erect (semi-compact panicle)
5 Spreading (open panicle)
7 Horizontal
9 Drooping
Panicle: exsertion (7.4.22)

Extent to which the panicle is exserted above the flag leaf sheath.
Stage: near maturity
1 Enclosed (panicle is partly or entirely enclosed within the leaf sheath of the flag leaf blade)
3 Partly exserted (panicle base is slightly beneath the collar of the flag leaf blade)
5 Just exserted (panicle base coincides with the collar of the flag leaf blade)
7 Moderately well exserted (panicle base is above the collar of the flag leaf blade)
9 Well exserted (panicle base appears well above the collar of the flag leaf blade)
Lemma and palea: pubescence (7.5.4)

Visual assessment of the presence and distribution of mature grains using a hand lens
1 Glabrous
2 Hairs on lemma keel
3 Hairs on upper portion
4 Short hairs
5 Long hairs (velvety)
Sterile lemma: length [mm] (7.5.10)
Record the average length of five spikelets. For spikelets with symmetrical sterile lemmas
(i.e. sterile length the same on both sides), record the length here. For spikelets with
asymmetrical sterile lemmas (i.e. sterile lemma on one side longer than that on the other),
record here only the length of the shorter sterile lemma (see 7.5.11 for the longer sterile
lemma).
May be coded as:
3 Short
5 Medium
7 Long
9 Extra long
Longer sterile lemma: length [mm] (7.5.11)

(Only for spikelets with asymmetrical sterile lemmas) Record the average length of the
longer sterile lemma on five spikelets.
May be coded as:
3 Short
5 Medium
7 Long
9 Extra long
Sterile lemma: colour (7.5.13)

Observe five representative plants
(IRRI)
1 020 Straw
2 040 Gold
3 070 Red
4 080 Purple
Caryopsis: length [mm] (7.5.20)
Caryopsis: shape (7.5.22)

1 Round
2 Semi-round
3 Half spindle-shaped
4 Spindle-shaped
5 Long spindle-shaped
Caryopsis: pericarp colour (7.5.23)

(IRRI)
1 010 White
2 051 Light brown
3 055 Speckled brown
4 050 Brown
5 070 Red
6 088 Variable purple
7 080 Purple
Caryopsis: scent (8.1.2)

From cooked kernel. Use freshly harvested grain. A molecular marker for fragrance is
described in Section 12.3, Fragrance of ‘Descriptors for wild and cultivated Rice (Oryza spp.)’
0 Non-scented
1 Lightly scented
2 Scented
Endosperm amylose content [%] (8.1.3)
Amylose content of all cultivars of low amylose and many of intermediate amylose is
sensitive to high temperatures during grain-filling. Molecular markers for classifying
amylose are listed in Section 12.1, Amylose content of ‘Descriptors for wild and cultivated
Rice (Oryza spp.)’
0 Waxy-glutinous (<3)
1 Very low (~9)
3 Low (~17)
5 Intermediate (~20)
7 High (~23)
9 Very high (>25)
Phenotypic acceptability [IS-10] (8.1.a)

Breeding objectives for each location vary. The score should reflect the overall acceptability
of the variety in the location where it is being grown.
Stage: maturity
1 Excellent
3 Good
5 Fair
7 Poor
9 Unacceptable
ABIOTIC STRESSES
Cold [IS-75] (9.1)
Heat [IS-76] (9.2)
Drought [IS-80] (9.3)
Alkali injury and salt injury [IS-70-71] (9.4)
Flood or submergence [IS-86] (9.8)
BIOTIC STRESSES
Leaf blast (Magnaporthe grisea) [IS-30] (10.1.1)
Brown spot (Cochliobolus miyabeanus) [IS-32] (10.1.3)
Bacterial leaf streak (Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzicola) [IS-33] (10.1.5)
Bacterial blight (Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae) [IS-35] (10.1.7)
Sheath blight (Thanatephorus cucumeris) [IS-37] (10.2.6)
Rice tungro bacilliform virus (RTBV) [IS-36] (10.2.a)
Brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens) [IS-60] (10.3.1)
Stem borer (Chilo suppressalis) [IS-63] (10.3.5)

CONTRIBUTORS
CORE ADVISORY GROUP
Edilberto D. Redoña, International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Philippines

Teresita H. Borromeo, University of the Philippines Los Baños, Philippines
Cesar P. Martinez, Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Colombia
Khin Than Nwe, Department of Agricultural Research, Myanmar
Luis Salaices, Oficina Española de Variedades Vegetales, Spain
N. Shobha Rani, Directorate of Rice Research, India
Shengxiang Tang, China National Rice Research Institute, China
REVIEWERS
Australia
Laurie Lewin, NSW Department of Primary Industries
Bangladesh
A. K. G. Md. Enamul Haque, Bangladesh Rice Research Institute
Czech Republic
Iva Faberova, Crop Research Institute, Prague
India
Narasimha Murthi Anishetty
Manish Kumar Pandey, Directorate of Rice Research
S. R. Pandravada, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR)
J. C. Rana, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR)
Natarajan Sivaraj, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR)
Indonesia
Afif Nafisah, Indonesian Center for Rice Research
Untung Susanto, Indonesian Center for Rice Research
Madagascar
Alain Ramanantsoanirina, Centre National de la Recherche Applique au Développement
Rurale (FOFIFA/CENRADERU)
Malaysia
Site Noorzuraini Binti Abd Rahman, Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development
Institute (MARDI)
Abdullah Md Zain, University Malaysia Terengganu
Philippines
Ma. Socorro R. Almazan, International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)
Noel A. Catibog, Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources
Research and Development (PCARRD)
Thelma F. Padolina, Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice)
Renato A. Reaño, Genetic Resources Center, International Rice Research Institute (TTC-GRC,
IRRI)
Republic of Korea
Myung Chul Lee, National Agrodiversity Center
Sae-Jun Yang, National Institute of Crop Science (RDA)
Russia
Olga Romanova, N. I. Vavilov Institute of Plant Industry (VIR)
Thailand
Orapin Watanesk, Bureau of Rice Research and Development
Vietnam
Nguyen Thi Lang, Cuulong Delta Rice Research Institute
sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.)
Moench]
Information for the definition of a Minimum Descriptor List for sorghum [Sorghum
bicolor (L.) Moench] was drawn from the publication ‘Descriptors for Sorghum
[Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]’ (IBPGR and ICRISAT, 1993). The list was compared
with descriptors highlighted as most important in the SGRP Global Public Goods,
Phase 2 (GPG2) activity 4.2.1.1. A summary report on SGRP GPG2 data received can
be found in Annex I. Results were subsequently integrated and harmonized with
descriptors suggested in the ‘Guidelines for the Conduct of Tests for Distinctness,
Homogeneity and Stability’ on Sorghum bicolor (L.) (International Union for the
Protection of new Varieties of Plants, UPOV, 1989); the list of Descriptors for
SORGHUM (USDA, ARS, GRIN); ‘Characterization of ICRISAT-bred Sorghum
Hybrid Parents’ (Set I) (International Sorghum and Millets Newsletter, No. 47,
Special issue, ICRISAT 2006). The list was then weighed against the ‘Revised
Descriptors for Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]’ (IPGRI and ICRISAT, 2007),
that was developed by a Committee formed at the Expert Consultation Meeting for
Developing a Strategy for the Global Conservation of Sorghum Genetic Resources,
held at ICRISAT, Patancheru, India March 2007, supported by the Global Crop
Diversity Trust and ICRISAT. The comparison table obtained from all of the above
documents and publications was further discussed during a crop-specific meeting
held at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), in India in June
2009. During this meeting, a minimum and a long list were selected, the latter
serving as a basis for the revision of the conventional list of sorghum descriptors. The
resulting list of descriptors was also compared with the list of traits provided by the
National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences (NIAS) (see Annex II).

Experts included in the list were some of the participants in crop-specific
consultations for the definition of the ‘Strategy for the Global Ex Situ Conservation of
Sorghum Genetic Diversity (the Trust, 2007), representatives of the world’s major
sorghum collections, plant pathologists and breeders, besides experts that took part
in the crop-specific consultation held in NBPGR, India. Overall, 74 experts were
identified, coming from 24 countries and 45 different organizations (see Annex III).
Out of these, Dr Jeff Dahlberg (United Sorghum Checkoff Program, USA) was
identified as Crop Leader and a Core Advisory Group (CAG) consisting of 12 experts
was selected to assist in the definition of a minimum set of descriptors, which was
subsequently circulated for validation among a wider group of experts.

The comparison table was submitted to members of the Core Advisory Group to
assist them in the selection of a preliminary reduced set of traits. Dr Jeff Dahlberg,
Crop Leader, selected traits to be included in the conventional long list and identified
the key traits for the minimum set, while the selection of Dr Robert Henzell
(Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries, Australia), a member of the CAG,
focused only on the importance of traits for breeders. Feedback from NBPGR was
also taken into consideration while harmonizing the list to be included in the survey.
The aim of the survey was twofold: (i) to define a key set of descriptors for the
utilization of sorghum genetic resources and (ii) to revise/validate the conventional
list, as originally requested by Dr Dahlberg and Dr Henzell. In order to achieve this
result, the survey was divided in two parts. The first part consisted of defining an
‘Initial minimum key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors important for
utilization’ that focused mainly on the essential key traits. The second part included
‘Other descriptors important for describing, discriminating and utilizing sorghum
genetic resources’ which would be included in the revised version of the updated
conventional list, but not preventing the inclusion of some of them in the high
priority list, provided they were well rated.
A list of descriptors, drawn from the comparison table to be included in the

survey was submitted to the experts and subsequently endorsed by them (see Annex
IV).
A draft survey on sorghum was prepared listing the descriptors validated by

the experts. Once approved, the final draft of the survey was uploaded into the
SurveyMonkey application (see Annex V) on the internet and sent out to the list of
identified experts on 21 September 2009. The survey deadline was set at 23 October
2009. A first reminder was sent out on the 6 October 2009 and a second one on
19 October 2009 to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was obtained.

Out of the 74 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 39 from 15
countries and 26 organizations participated in this exercise (see Annex VI). Of the 39
respondents, 36 recorded their comments using the online survey whilst three
additional experts participated during the second phase providing their advice on
the survey outcomes.
Results from the consultation were analyzed and descriptors were ranked by
rating average and percentage of importance (see Annex VII). Descriptors having a
wide consensus amongst experts were highlighted in yellow. These summary results
of the survey were sent to the Core Advisory Group inviting experts to select
descriptors that should be included in the key set by indicating them with an ‘X’ in
the relevant column. Other descriptors, such as ‘Race (1.5.5)’ and ‘Group name
(1.5.6)’ that belong to Passport data, had been added to the key set because
considered extremely important for understanding the type of material and making
relevant selections.
After lengthy discussions concerning the definition of descriptors’ names,
methods and states chosen for the minimum priority set for sorghum, a first draft
was compiled and shared with the Core Advisory Group for their approval on 11
March 2010 (see Annex VIII). The list resulting from these consultations was shared
with all of the scientists (see Annex IX). They were asked to validate the key set,
making them aware about the need to select traits and characteristics of a
cosmopolitan nature and wide geographical coverage. Further comments received
from ICRISAT were included and harmonized wherever possible with the final
version. Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya (ICRISAT, India) was added as Crop Leader due to
the substantial scientific advice provided.
Unfortunately, advice provided by Dr M. Elangovan of the Directorate of

Sorghum Research (formerly National Research Centre for Sorghum), India could
not be implemented during this first phase because consultations were already
closed, but they will be included in a second round. Before implementing any
change/addition/deletion to the agreed list (i.e. including new sizes, new colours,
etc.), the list should be shared with the whole community, led by the Crop Leaders,
to reach the right consensus amongst countries in order to obtain ‘international’
status. This exercise is therefore just the first step of an evolving process, so there will
be opportunities in the near future to implement further additions, after they have
been widely agreed.
Definition of a final key set of descriptors for sorghum

The final document approved by the whole group of experts, including all the
descriptor states and contributors (see Annex X), was edited and proofread by an
external editor and afterwards laid out and sent to the Bioversity Publications Unit
for on-line publication processes. Additionally, the publication was shared with
ECPGR; the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and the SGRP Crop
Genebank Knowledge Base partners. Furthermore, data were converted into Excel
files for uploading into the GRIN-Global genebank data-management system being
developed by USDA, and into the global accession level information portal
(GENESYS), linking national, regional and international genebank databases in support
of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture
(PGRFA). The Excel files were also provided to the System-wide Information
Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) and to EURISCO.
Acknowledgement
sorghum genetic resources’, and to the Global Crop Diversity Trust for their financial
support. Particular recognition goes to Drs Jeff Dahlberg, Bob Henzell and Hari D.
Upadhyaya for providing valuable scientific direction.
Annex I – Summary report on sorghum data from the SGRP Global Public
Goods, Phase 2 (GPG2) exercise 4.2.1.1
Within the framework of Component 1 of the GIGA Project (‘Development of

characterization and evaluation data standards for 22 target crops’), data provided
by Hari D. Upadhyaya (ICRISAT, India) on sorghum, resulting from the GPG2 4.2.1.1
exercise, was analyzed to identify a key set of descriptors for this crop.
The following factors will be considered when selecting key traits:

1. Global impact
2. Initial strategic set
3. Importance for germplasm utilization
4. Data availability
5. True economic damage
6. Wide geographical occurrence
Data received from ICRISAT were compared to the descriptors list for sorghum,
drawn from ‘Descriptors for Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench.]’
(IBPGR/ICRISAT, 1993). Unfortunately, no important descriptors were mentioned in
the ‘Strategy for the global Ex-situ conservation of Sorghum genetic diversity’ (the
Trust, 2007), to be able to perform a comparison.
The list was ultimately composed of the descriptors highlighted as most important
on a 1-5 scale by ICRISAT (where 1 = most important). Diagnostic traits (1), breeding
traits (3) and diagnostic/breeding traits (5) were included.
Numbers in parentheses on the right hand side are the original descriptor numbers
drawn from the publication ‘Descriptors for Sorghum’ (IBPGR/ICRISAT, 1993).
1. Plant height (5) (4.1.1)

2. Plant colour (1) (4.1.2)
3. Waxy bloom (1) (4.1.6)
4. Days to flowering (5) (4.2.1)
5. Inflorescence compactness and shape (5) (4.2.2)
6. Grain covering (1) (4.2.4)
7. Seed colour (5) (4.3.1)
8. Grain lustre (5) (4.3.2)
9. 100-seed weight (5) (4.3.3)
10. Grain number per panicle (5) (4.3.4)
11. Grain sub-coat (1) (4.3.5)
12. Endosperm texture (1) (4.3.8)
13. Inflorescence exsertion (5) (6.2.4)
14. Inflorescence length [cm] (5) (6.2.5)
15. Inflorescence width [cm] (5) (6.2.6)
16. Seed threshability [%] (3) (6.3.2)
17. Sorghum shoot fly (3) (8.1.1)
18. Spotted stem borer (3) (8.1.2)
19. Sorghum midge (3) (8.1.5)
20. Earhead bug (3) (8.1.6)
21. Sugarcane aphid (3) (8.1.13)
22. Anthracnose (8.2.3)
23. Grain moulds (3) (8.2.4)
24. Leaf blight (3) (8.2.5)
25. Downy mildew (3) (8.2.11)
26. Rust (3) (8.2.13)
27. Ergot (3) (8.2.15)
28. Striga (3) (8.5.1)
Remarks:
From the documents received:
1. Some descriptors are not rated (e.g. stalk juiciness, juice flavour, awns,
shattering, quality traits and abiotic stresses).
2. No reply was received to questions 3a and 3b respectively “Are the
above (1-28) descriptors adequate?”; “If not, list the additional
descriptors for characterization”.
3. No answer was provided to question 4 “List the 15 most important
descriptors for characterization and evaluation (based on their value in
research and breeding), in order of preference, which includes existing
descriptors along with suggested new descriptors. (If you wish list can
be shorter or exceed 15)”.
4. No answer was received to question 5 “What are the specific breeding
traits (grain quality, agronomic, biotic and abiotic traits) for which
evaluation was done and to how many accessions?”.
5. There is no indication on whether data are available for these traits.
Annex II – Comparison table weighing up important descriptors for sorghum drawn from different sources1 2
Breeding
IBPGR/ UPOV GPG2 ICRISAT NIAS
Descr. ARS_U traits NBPGR
Descriptor name ICRISAT (1989) (most imp DUS Dahlberg Henzell Genebank
no. SDA (c) (GPG2) (f)
1993 (a) (b) =1) (d) 2006 (e) (g)
(d)
4.1.1 Plant height [cm] * * * * * B B B
4.1.2 Plant colour * * * L B B
4.1.3 Stalk juiciness * * B L B
4.1.4 Juice flavour * B L
4.1.5 Leaf midrib colour * * * * B B B
4.1.6 Waxy bloom * * * L B
4.2.1 Days to 50% flowering * * * B B B *

Inflorescence
4.2.2 compactness and * * * * * B B B *
shape
4.2.3 Glume colour * * * * B B B
4.2.4 Grain covering * * * B B B *

4.2.5 Awns * * L B
4.2.6 Shattering * * L B B
4.3.1 Grain colour * * * * * B B B *

4.3.2 Grain lustre * * L L
4.3.3 1000-seed weight [g] * * B L B

Pigmented testa
4.3.5
(Grain sub-coat) * * EXCL B
4.3.6 Grain plumpness * * L L B
4.3.7 Grain form * * L B B
4.3.8 Endosperm texture * * * L B B
4.3.9 Endosperm colour * * L B B

4.3.10 Endosperm type * * L B B
6.1.1 Seedling vigour * * L L

Exclude:
not a
6.1.2 Lodging susceptibility * * genetic
B B
trait
B-This is a
very
important
trait -
make sure
it is clear
that this is
a post-
6.1.3 Senescence rating * B L anthesis
drought
resistance
trait see
6.1.5 in
Jeff's
descriptor
table RGH
6.2.1 Photosensitivity * * L L B
Number of flowering
6.2.2
stems per plant * EXCL L
6.2.3 Synchrony of flowering * EXCL L L

Inflorescence
6.2.4
exsertion * * * L B B
Inflorescence length
6.2.5
[cm] * * * B B B *
Inflorescence width
6.2.6
(head) [cm] * * B L B
Restoration response
6.2.7
(Milo source) * L L B
Male sterile cytoplasm
6.2.8
system * L L
6.3.1 Grain hardness [kg] * EXCL L
6.3.2 Threshability [%] * * L L B

Low
Grain weathering
6.3.3
susceptibility * * ?? L heritabili
ty
Reaction to low
7.1
temperature * * L L B
Reaction to high
7.2
temperature * * L L B
7.3 Reaction to drought * * B L B

Reaction to high soil
7.4
moisture * L L
7.5 Reaction to salinity * * L L B
7.6 Reaction to soil acidity * * L L B

Sorghum shoot fly
8.1.1
(Atherigona soccata) * * * B L B
Spotted stem borer
8.1.2
(Chilo partellus) * * * B L B
Maize stalk borer
8.1.3
(Busseola fusca) * B L L
Pink Stem Borer
(Sesamia inferens) * L L L
Pink Borer (Africa)
(Sesamia calamistis) * L L L
Sugarcane borer,
8.1.4 Stem borer * L L L
(Diatraea saccharalis)
Lesser Cornstalk Borer
(Elasmopalpus L L
lignosellus)
Sorghum midge
8.1.5 (Stenodiplosis * * * B L B
sorghicola)
Earhead bug
(Calocoris angustatus;
8.1.6
Eurystylus * * L L
immaculatus)
Corn earworm EXCLUD
8.1.7
(Heliothis zea) * E
L
African bollworm EXCLUD
8.1.8
(Helicoverpa armigera) * E
L
Armyworms
8.1.9
(Spodoptera spp.) * * (FAW) ? L
Oriental armyworms
8.1.10
(Mythimna separata) * ? L
Greenbug (Schizaphis
8.1.11
graminum) * * ? L B
Shoot Bug (Peregrinus
L L
maidis) (Ashmead)
Spittel Bug (Poophilus
L L
costalis)
Sap-sucking Bug
L L
(Dolycoris indicus)
Corn leaf aphid
EXCLUD
8.1.12 (Rhopalosiphum * E
L
maidis)
White sugarcane aphid
8.1.13
(Melanaphis sacchari) * * * L L
Chinch bug (Blissus
8.1.14
leucopterus) * L L
White grubs
(Phyllophaga crinita;
8.1.15
Schizonycha spp., * EXCL L
Holotrichia spp.)
Sorghum web worm
8.1.16
(Nola sorghella) * L L
Earhead web worm
(Nola analis; L L
Cryptoblabes gnidiella)
Web worm
8.1.17 (Stenachroia elongella; * EXCL L
Eublemma spp.)
Sorghum mite
8.1.18
(Oligonychus indicus) * EXCL L
Banks grass mite
8.1.19 (Oligonychus * L L
pratensis)
Grasshopper
8.1.20 (Oedaleus * EXCL L
senegalensis)
Locusts (Locusta
8.1.21
migratoria) * EXCL L
8.1.22 Birds * EXCL L
Cutworms L L
Wireworms L L
Southern corn
rootworm (Diabrotica L L
undecimpuncta)
Rough leaf spot
8.2.1
(Ascochyta sorghi) * L L
Grey leaf spot
8.2.2
(Cercospora sorghi) * * L L B
Ladder leaf spot
(Cercospora B L B
fusimaculans)
Anthracnose
8.2.3 (Colletotrichum * * * * B L B
graminicola)
Grain moulds
8.2.4 (Curvularia lunata; * * * B L B
Fusarium spp.)
Leaf blight
(Exserohilum turcicum;
8.2.5 Setosphaeria turcica; * * * B L B
Helminthosporium
turcicum)
Target leaf spot
8.2.6
(Bipolaris sorghicola) * EXCL L
Oval leaf spot
8.2.7 (Ramulispora * EXCL L
sorghicola)
Tar spot (Phyllachora
8.2.8
sacchari) * EXCL L
Zonate leaf spot
8.2.9 (Gloeocercospora * * L L B
sorghi)
Charcoal rot
8.2.10 (Macrophomina * * B L B
phaseolina)
Fusarium root and
stalk rot, Head blight L L B
(Fusarium spp.)
Downy mildew
8.2.11 (Peronosclerospora * * * * B L B
sorghi)
Black dot grain mould
8.2.12
(Phoma insidiosa) * EXCL L
Rust (Puccinia
8.2.13
purpurea) * * * L L B
Sooty stripe
8.2.14
(Ramulispora sorghi) * EXCL L
Ergot (Sphacelia
8.2.15 sorghi, Claviceps * * * L L B
africana)
Smut
8.2.16
(Sphacelotheca spp.) * L L
Long smut
(Tolyposporium
8.2.19
ehrenbergii, * L L
Sporisorium cruentum)
Bacterial leaf stripe
(Pseudomonas
8.3.1
andropogoni) * L L B
(E.F.Sm.) Stapp.
Bacterial leaf spot
8.3.2 (Pseudomonas * L L B
syringae)
Bacterial leaf streak
8.3.3 (Xanthomonas * L L B
campestris)
Maize dwarf mosaic
8.4.1
virus (MDMV) * EXCL L
Sugarcane mosaic
8.4.2
virus (SCMV) * * EXCL L
Johnsongrass mosaic
8.4.3
virus (JsGMV) * EXCL L
Maize stripe virus
8.4.4
(MStV) * EXCL L
Maize mosaic virus
8.4.5
(MMV) * EXCL L
Witchweed (Striga
asiatica; Striga Imp x
8.5.1
densiflora; Striga * * * Africa
L
hermonthica)
Sorghum yellow
banding virus (SYBV) * EXCL L
Number of basal tillers
per plant * EXCL B *
Glume pubescence * L B
Grain shape * B L B
Mesocarp thickness * EXCL B
Nodal tiller * EXCL L

Pericarp colour (red,
white and lemon * B
yellow)
Spreader * EXCL B
Maturity group (early,
medium, late) * EXCL L
Grain yield potential * * (grain EXCL B B
yeild)
Grain nutrient content
(fat, phosphorous,
starch, sucrose, dry * EXCL L
matter)
Aluminum toxicity * EXCL L
Manganese toxicity * EXCL L
Fodder yield * L L
Desirability Rating EXCL B B
Intensifier gene EXCL L
Coleoptile color EXCL L
Peduncle breakage EXCL L
Pollen shed EXCL L B

Red-headed Hairy
Caterpillar (Amsacta L L
albistriga)
Flea Beetle (Several
species, L L
Chrysomelidae)
Grey Leaf Weevil
(Myllocerus L L
subfasciatus)
Sugarcane Rootstock
Weevil (Anacentrinus L L
deplanatus)
Blister Beetle
L L
(Calocoris angustatus)
Bacterial Leaf Blight
L L
(Acidovorax avenae)
Bacterial top and Stalk
rot (Erwinia L L
chrysanthemi)
Yellow Leaf Blotch
L L
(Pseudomonas sp.)
Seedling Diseases
(Various genus:
Pythium spp.,
Fusarium spp., L L
Aspergillus spp.,
Rhizoctonia spp.,
Phoma spp.)
Crazy Top
(Sclerophthora L L
macrospora)
Pokkah Boeng
L L
(Gibberella intermedia)
Milo Disease
(Periconia circinata) L L
(L. Mangin) Sacc.
Pythium Root Rot
L L
(Pythium spp.)
Acremonium Wilt
L L
(Acremonium strictum)
Banded Leaf and
Sheath Blight
L L
(Rhizoctonia solani)
Kühn
Southern Sclerotial
Rot (Sclerotium rolfsii) L L
Sacc.
Storage moulds
(Several Genus:
Aspergillus spp.,
L L
Penicillium spp.,
Alternaria spp.,
Fusarium spp.)
Maize chlorotic dwarf
L L
virus (MCDV)
Sorghum chlorotic spot
L L
virus (SgCSV)
Peanut clump virus
L L
(PCV)
Sorghum stunt mosaic
L L
virus (SSMV)
Maize rough dwarf
L L
virus (MRDV)
Mal de Rio Cuarto
L L
virus (MRCV)
Fiji disease virus
L L
(FDV)
Maize streak virus
L L
(MSV)
Yellow Sorghum Stunt
L L
(YSS)
Stunt Nematodes
(Tylenchorhynchus L L
spp.)
Root-Lesion
Nematodes L L
(Pratylenchus spp.)
Root-Knot Nematodes
L L
(Meloidogyne spp.)
Culm length *
Grain weight per
panicle *
Panicle type *
Date of maturity *
Diameter of culm *
Leaf length *
Leaf width *
1
(a) ‘Descriptors for Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]’ (IBPGR and ICRISAT, 1993);
(b) ‘Guidelines for the Conduct of Tests for Distinctness, Homogeneity and Stability’ on Sorghum bicolor (L.) (International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, UPOV, 1989);
(c) ‘Descriptors for SORGHUM’ (USDA-ARS-GRIN);
(d) Descriptors highlighted as most important in the GPG2 4.2.1.1 exercise and breeding traits;
(e) ‘Characterization of ICRISAT-bred Sorghum Hybrid Parents’ (Set I) (International Sorghum and Millets Newsletter, No. 47, Special issue, ICRISAT 2006);
(f) A minimum and a long list selected during a crop specific meeting held at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), in India in June 2009;
(g) Traits provided by the National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences (NIAS), Japan.
2
L = Long list; B= Both lists (Minimum and Long); and EXCL = exclude from both lists.
Annex III - List of experts identified to participate in the survey for the definition of
a minimum set of descriptors for sorghum

Crop Leader (Crop United Sorghum Checkoff
Dahlberg, Jeff USA
Strategy Expert) Program (USCP)
CAG (Crop Strategy

Chantereau, Jacques CIRAD France
Expert)
CAG (UPOV) Guiard, Joël GEVES France
CAG (Suggested at
Hash, C. Tom ICRISAT India
ontology workshop)
CAG (Crop Strategy Department of Primary

Henzell, R.G. Australia
Expert) Industries & Fisheries
CAG Khairwal, I.S. AICPMIP India
Bioversity International,
CAG (Bioversity) Mathur, Prem India
Office for South Asia
CAG (Suggested by
Jeff ahlberg/Added Miller, Fred MMR Genetics USA
later)
CAG (Crop Strategy
Pederson, Gary A. ARS/USDA USA
Expert)
CAG/NBPGR Prandavada S.R. NBPGR India
CAG (Crop Strategy Emeritus Scientist, AICRP

Seetharam, A. India
Expert) on Small millets, Bangalore
Directorate of Sorghum
CAG (Crop Strategy Research (formerly National
Seetharama, N. India
Expert) Research Centre for
Sorghum)
CAG (Crop Strategy
Updadhyaya, Hari D. ICRISAT India
Expert)
Syngenta
Institut d'Economie Rurale
Foundation, Aboubacar, Touré Mali
(IER) Bamako
Sorghum Breeder
INIFAP - Banco de
Major collections Aragón Cuevas, Flavio Mexico
Germoplasma de Oaxaca
National Research Centre

New Aruna, C. India
for Sorghum (NRCS)
Syngenta Ethiopian Institute of
Foundation finger Adugna, Asfaw Agricultural Research Ethiopia
millet survey (EIAR)
NBPGR meeting Ashok, Kumar NBPGR India
National Centre for Genetic

Crop Strategy
Atoyebi, J. Resources and Nigeria
Expert
Biotechnology
Syngenta Bandyopadhyay,
IITA Nigeria
Foundation Ranajit
Crop Strategy Institute of Biodiversity

Beyene, M. Ethiopia
Expert Conservation
Crop Strategy Marathwada Agricultural

Borikar, S.T. India
Expert University
Syngenta Department of Primary

Borrell, Andrew Australia
Foundation Industries & Fisheries
Sorghum breeding Institut d'Economie Rurale

Coulibaly, S.B. Mali
Intsormil (IER)
Syngenta
Ebiyau, Johnie SAARI Uganda
Foundation
Crop Strategy
Expert/Forwarded El Tahir, I.M. Sudan
Corporation
to Awdelkarim
Plant pathologist
(specialized in Erpelding, John E. ARS/USDA USA
sorghum)
Major collections Franzone, Pascual INTA Argentina
Syngenta Glaszmann, Jean-

CIRAD France
Foundation Christophe
Crop Strategy
Gowda, C.L.L. ICRISAT India
Expert
Revised descriptors Grenier, Cecile Purdue University USA
Syngenta
Institut des Sciences
Foundation finger Habindavyi, Espérance Burundi
Agronomiques du Burundi
millet survey
Syngenta
Hamid, Adam M. Ali Sudan Ag Res & Tech Corp Sudan
Foundation
Syngenta
Jordan, David DPI&F Australia
Foundation
Directorate of Maize
NBPGR meeting Jyoti, Kaul India
Research
Sorghum Improvement
Crop Strategy
Kamatar, M.Y. Project - University of India
Expert
Agricultural Sciences
McKnight
Foundation
Kapran, Issoufou INRAN Niger
Collaborative Crop
Research Program
National Institute of
Major collections Kawase, Makoto Japan
Agrobiological Sciences
NIAS website Kazutoshi Okuno NIAS genebanK Japan
Syngenta
Kwame Offei, Sam University of Ghana Ghana
Foundation
Syngenta Institute of Crop Sciences

Li, Yu China
Foundation (CAAS)
Suggested by
Instituto Agronômico de
Marilia Burle/Added Lira, Mário de Andrade Brazil
Pernambuco (IPA)
later
Syngenta
Magalhaes, Jurandir EMBRAPA Brazil
Foundation
Suggested by
Martins Netto, Déa
Marilia Burle/Added EMBRAPA Brazil
Alécia
later
NBPGR meeting Mishra, S.K. NBPGR India
Major collections/ N.I. Vavilov Research

Russian
Forwarded to Mitrofanova, Olga P. Institute of Plant Industry
Federation
Romanova (VIR)
Syngenta Pacific Seeds, Advanta
Muller, Neil Australia
Foundation Seeds
National Genebank of
Reviewer Muthamia, Zachary K. Kenya
Kenya (KARI)
Syngenta
Muuka, Ferdinand Zambia ARS Zambia
Foundation
Syngenta
Ochanda, James BECA, ILRI Kenya
Foundation
Syngenta
Foundation Senior University of Hohenheim,
Parzies, Heiko K. Germany
Scientist, pearl Inst. of Plant Breeding
millet survey
Sorghum & Millet
Crop Germplams Pedersen, Jeff ARS/USDA USA
Committee
Crop Strategy Institute of Crop Sciences
Ping, Lu China
Expert (CAAS)
Institute of Plant
Major collections Ramirez, Dolores, A. Philippines
Breeding/ULPB
International Center for
SRG Rao, Kameswara India
Biosaline Agriculture (ICBA)
Syngenta
Foundation
Collaborative Crop
Rattunde, Fred ICRISAT Mali
Research
programme
(website)
Crop Strategy
Reddy, Belum ICRISAT India
Expert
Crop Strategy
Expert
Crop Strategy Texas Agricultural

Rosenow, Darrell USA
Expert Experiment Station
Directorate of Maize
NBPGR meeting Sain, Dass India
Research
Syngenta
Schaffert, Robert EMBRAPA Brazil
Foundation
Suggested by IPK, Gatersleben -

Schmidt, Barbel Germany
H. Knüpffer Genebank Dept
Crop Strategy
Sharma, H.C. ICRISAT India
Expert
Crop Strategy
Sharma, S.K. NBPGR India
Expert
EVIGEZ Information Crop Research Institute

Stehno, Zdenek Czech Republic
system (CRI) Dept Gene Bank
Syngenta
Foundation
Sorghum and Millet Ethiopian Institute of
Tadesse, Taye Ethiopia
research Agricultural Research
coordinator, finger
millet survey
Reviewer Indian Agricultural
Tara Satyavathi, C. India
(NBPGR meeting) Research Institute
Crop Strategy
Thakur, R.P. ICRISAT India
Expert
Reviewer Indian Agricultural

Unnikrishnan, K.V. India
(NBPGR meeting) Research Institute
Crop Strategy
Vadez, V. ICRISAT India
Expert
Crop Strategy Institute of Crop Sciences

Wang, Shumin China
Expert (CAAS)
Syngenta
Wanyera, Nelson SAARI Uganda
Foundation
Crop Strategy
Weltzien, Eva ICRISAT India
Expert
Syngenta
Foundation
Yohe, John M. Int Sorghum/millet program USA
Program Director
CRSP
Annex IV – List of descriptors, drawn from the comparison table, to be included in
the survey, approved by the experts after consultations
(bold face= to be included in the first section; normal face= to be included in the second section)
1. Plant height [cm] 4.1.1

2. Plant colour 4.1.2
3. Stalk juiciness 4.1.3
4. Juice flavour 4.1.4
5. Leaf midrib colour 4.1.5
6. Waxy bloom 4.1.6
7. Number of basal tillers per plant
8. Nodal tillering
9. Grain yield
10. Fodder yield
11. Desirability rating (total plant)
12. Days to 50% flowering 4.2.1
13. Inflorescence compactness and shape 4.2.2
14. Glume colour 4.2.3
15. Grain covering 4.2.4
16. Awns 4.2.5
17. Glume pubescence
18. Shattering 4.2.6
19. Grain colour 4.3.1
20. Grain luster 4.3.2
21. Seed shape
22. 100-seed weight [g] 4.3.3
23. Genotypic pericarp colour
24. Pigmented testa (Grain sub-coat) 4.3.5
25. Grain plumpness 4.3.6
26. Intensifier gene
27. Grain form 4.3.7
28. Mesocarp thickness
29. Endosperm texture 4.3.8
30. Endosperm colour 4.3.9
31. Absence/presence of spreader gene
32. Endosperm type 4.3.10
33. Coleoptile color
34. Seedling vigour 6.1.1
35. Lodging susceptibility 6.1.2
36. Senescence rating 6.1.3
37. Peduncle breakage
38. Photosensitivity 6.2.1
39. Number of flowering stems per plant 6.2.2
40. Pollen shed
41. Synchrony of flowering 6.2.3
42. Inflorescence exsertion 6.2.4
43. Inflorescence length [cm] 6.2.5
44. Inflorescence width (head) [cm] 6.2.6
45. Restoration response (Milo source) 6.2.7
46. Male sterile cytoplasm system 6.2.8
47. Grain hardness [kg] 6.3.1
48. Threshability [%] 6.3.2
49. Grain weathering susceptibility 6.3.3
50. Grain Nutrient content (fat, phosphorous, starch, sucrose, dry matter)
51. Mineral toxicity (Aluminium, Manganese)
52. Reaction to low temperature 7.1
53. Reaction to high temperature 7.2
54. Reaction to drought 7.3
55. Reaction to high soil moisture 7.4
56. Reaction to salinity 7.5
57. Reaction to soil acidity 7.6
58. Sorghum shoot fly (Atherigona soccata) 8.1.1

59. Spotted stem borer (Chilo partellus) 8.1.2
60. Maize stalk borer (Busseola fusca) 8.1.3
61. Pink Stem Borer (Sesamia inferens)
62. Pink Borer (Africa) (Sesamia calamistis)
63. Sugarcane borer, Stem borer (Diatraea saccharalis) 8.1.4
64. Lesser Cornstalk Borer (Elasmopalpus lignosellus)
65. Sorghum midge (Stenodiplosis sorghicola) 8.1.5
66. Earhead bug (Calocoris angustatus) 8.1.6
67. African head bug Eurystylus immaculatus)
68. Corn earworm (Heliothis zea) 8.1.7
69. African bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) 8.1.8
70. Armyworms (Spodoptera spp.) 8.1.9
71. Oriental armyworms (Mythimna separata) 8.1.10
72. Greenbug (Schizaphis graminum) 8.1.11
73. Shoot Bug (Peregrinus maidis)
74. Spittel Bug (Poophilus costalis)
75. Sap-sucking Bug (Dolycoris indicus)
76. Corn leaf aphid (Rhopalosiphum maidis) 8.1.12
77. White sugarcane aphid (Melanaphis sacchari) 8.1.13
78. Chinch bug (Blissus leucopterus) 8.1.14
79. White grubs (Phyllophaga crinita; Schizonycha spp., Holotrichia spp.) 8.1.15
80. Sorghum web worm (Nola sorghella) 8.1.16
81. Earhead web worm (Nola analis; Cryptoblabes gnidiella)
82. Web worm (Stenachroia elongella; Eublemma spp.) 8.1.17
83. Sorghum mite (Oligonychus indicus) 8.1.18
84. Banks grass mite (Oligonychus pratensis) 8.1.19
85. Grasshopper (Oedaleus senegalensis) 8.1.20
86. Locusts (Locusta migratoria) 8.1.21
87. Birds 8.1.22
88. Red-headed Hairy Caterpillar (Amsacta albistriga)
89. Flea Beetle
90. Grey Leaf Weevil (Myllocerus subfasciatus)
91. Sugarcane Rootstock Weevil (Anacentrinus deplanatus)
92. Cutworms
93. Wireworms
94. Southern corn rootworm (Diabrotica undecimpuncta)
95. Rough leaf spot (Ascochyta sorghi) 8.2.1

96. Grey leaf spot (Cercospora sorghi) 8.2.2
97. Ladder leaf spot (Cercospora fusimaculans)
98. Anthracnose (Colletotrichum graminicola) 8.2.3
99. Grain molds (Curvularia lunata; Fusarium spp.) 8.2.4
100. Leaf blight (Exserohilum turcicum; Setosphaeria turcica; 8.2.5
Helminthosporium turcicum)
101. Target leaf spot (Bipolaris sorghicola) 8.2.6
102. Oval leaf spot (Ramulispora sorghicola) 8.2.7
103. Tar spot (Phyllachora sacchari) 8.2.8
104. Zonate leaf spot (Gloeocercospora sorghi) 8.2.9
105. Charcoal rot (Macrophomina phaseolina) 8.2.10
106. Fusarium root and stalk rot; Head blight (Fusarium spp.)
107. Pokkah Boeng (Gibberella intermedia)
108. Downy mildew (Peronosclerospora sorghi) 8.2.11
109. Crazy Top (Sclerophthora macrospora)
110. Black dot grain mold (Phoma insidiosa) 8.2.12
111. Rust (Puccinia purpurea) 8.2.13
112. Sooty stripe (Ramulispora sorghi) 8.2.14
113. Ergot (Sphacelia sorghi, Claviceps africana) 8.2.15
114. Smut (Sphacelotheca spp.) 8.2.16
115. Long smut (Tolyposporium ehrenbergii, Sporisorium cruentum) 8.2.19
116. Pythium Root rot (Pythium spp.)
117. Southern sclerotial rot (Sclerotium rolfsii)
118. Banded Leaf and Sheath Blight (Rhizoctonia solani)
119. Acremonium Wilt (Acremonium strictum)
120. Milo Disease (Periconia circinata)
121. Bacterial leaf stripe (Pseudomonas andropogoni) 8.3.1

122. Bacterial leaf spot (Pseudomonas syringae) 8.3.2
123. Yellow leaf blotch (Pseudomonas sp.)
124. Bacterial leaf streak (Xanthomonas campestris) 8.3.3
125. Bacterial leaf blight (Acidovorax avenae)
126. Bacterial top and stalk rot (Erwinia chrysanthemi)
127. Maize dwarf mosaic virus (MDMV) 8.4.1

128. Sugarcane mosaic virus (SCMV) 8.4.2
129. Johnsongrass mosaic virus (JsGMV) 8.4.3
130. Maize stripe virus (MStV) 8.4.4
131. Maize mosaic virus (MMV) 8.4.5
132. Maize rough dwarf virus (MRDV)
133. Maize chlorotic dwarf virus (MCDV)
134. Maize streak virus (MSV)
135. Sorghum chlorotic spot virus (SgCSV)
136. Peanut clump virus (PCV)
137. Sorghum stunt mosaic virus (SSMV)
138. Mal de Rio Cuarto virus (MRCV)
139. Fiji disease virus (FDV)
140. Yellow Sorghum Stunt (YSS)
141. Sorghum yellow banding virus (SYBV)
142. Witchweed (Striga asiatica; Striga densiflora; Striga hermonthica) 8.5.1
143. Stunt nematode (Tylenchorhynchus spp.)

144. Root-lesion nematode (Pratylenchus spp.)
145. Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.)
Annex V – Survey to choose a key set of descriptors for sorghum utilization
WELCOME
Welcome to the survey for the selection of a minimum set of characterization and evaluation
descriptors for sorghum to support an international information system to enhance the
utilization of germplasm held in genebanks.
Your knowledge and experience are being sought to select this initial minimum ‘key set of
descriptors’ to identify traits important to crop production and to facilitate their use by
researchers. This set will be made available through a global portal for identifying sets of
Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 23 October
2009.
This initial minimum list of descriptors should be relevant to describing, and especially utilizing
germplasm.
It is hoped that a priority set of data, available for most ex situ conserved material, will
allow a better comparability between genebanks which should facilitate the identification of
interesting material and an increased use of conserved material.
This survey also allows you to indicate other descriptors considered important for describing and
discriminating between accessions.

- PART I: Initial minimum key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors
important for sorghum utilization
- PART II: Other traits important for describing, discriminating and utilizing
sorghum genetic resources
We thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in selecting the set of
descriptors.

Name:
Position:
Organization:
Country:
Email:
PART I: Initial minimum key set of C&E descriptors important for
sorghum utilization
This initial key set has been defined following advice from NBPGR scientists and further refined by
Jeff Dhalberg and Bob Henzell.
Please select these traits in order of importance bearing in mind the following factors:

• Global impact
• For abiotic and biotic stresses, true economic damage and wide geographical occurrence
IBPGR/ICRISAT publication ‘Descriptors for Sorghum’ [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench], 1993.

Plant height [cm] (4.1.1) n n n
Plant colour (4.1.2) n n n
Leaf midrib colour (4.1.5) n n n
Grain yield n n n
Inflorescence compactness and shape (4.2.2) n n n
Glume colour (4.2.3) n n n
Grain covering (4.2.4) n n n
Shattering (4.2.6) n n n
Grain colour (4.3.1) n n n
100-seed weight [g] (4.3.3) n n n
Endosperm texture (4.3.8) n n n
Lodging susceptibility (6.1.2) n n n
Inflorescence exsertion (6.2.4) n n n
Inflorescence length [cm] (6.2.5) n n n
Sorghum shoot fly (Atherigona soccata) (8.1.1) n n n
Spotted stem borer (Chilo partellus) (8.1.2) n n n
Sorghum midge (Stenodiplosis sorghicola) (8.1.5) n n n
White sugarcane aphid (Melanaphis sacchari) (8.1.13) n n n
Anthracnose (Colletotrichum graminicola) (8.2.3) n n n
Grain molds (Curvularia lunata; Fusarium spp.) (8.2.4) n n n
Charcoal rot (Macrophomina phaseolina) (8.2.10) n n n
Downy mildew (Peronosclerospora sorghi) (8.2.11) n n n
PART II: Other traits important for describing, discriminating and
utilizing sorghum genetic resources
Please rate these characteristics and traits in order of importance in describing, discriminating and
utilizing sorghum accessions.
By selecting descriptors here you are contributing to the next revision of the Characterization and
Evaluation categories of the conventional sorghum list of descriptors.
Stalk juiciness (4.1.3) n n n

Juice flavour (4.1.4) n n n
Waxy bloom (4.1.6) n n n
Number of basal tillers per plant n n n
Nodal tillering n n n
Fodder yield n n n
Desirability rating (total plant) n n n
Awns (4.2.5) n n n
Glume pubescence n n n
Grain lustre (4.3.2) n n n
Seed shape n n n
Genotypic pericarp colour n n n
Pigmented testa (Grain sub-coat) (4.3.5) n n n
Grain plumpness (4.3.6) n n n
Intensifier gene n n n
Grain form (4.3.7) n n n
Mesocarp thickness n n n
Endosperm colour (4.3.9) n n n
Absence/presence of spreader gene n n n
Endosperm type (4.3.10) n n n
Coleoptile color n n n
Seedling vigour (6.1.1) n n n
Senescence rating (6.1.3) n n n
Peduncle breakage n n n
Photosensitivity (6.2.1) n n n
Number of flowering stems per plant (6.2.2) n n n
Pollen s hed n n n
Synchrony of flowering (6.2.3) n n n
Inflorescence width (head) [cm] (6.2.6) n n n
Restoration response (Milo source) (6.2.7) n n n
Male sterile cytoplasm system (6.2.8) n n n
Grain hardness [kg] (6.3.1) n n n
Threshability [%] (6.3.2) n n n
Grain weathering susceptibility (6.3.3) n n n
Grain Nutrient content (fat, phosphorous, starch, sucrose, dry
n n n
matter)
Mineral toxicity (Aluminium, Manganese) n n n
Reaction to low temperature (7.1) n n n
Reaction to high temperature (7.2) n n n
Reaction to high soil moisture (7.4) n n n
Reaction to salinity (7.5) n n n
Reaction to soil acidity (7.6) n n n
Maize stalk borer (Busseola fusca) (8.1.3) n n n
Pink stem borer (Sesamia inferens) n n n
Pink borer (Africa) (Sesamia calamistis) n n n
Sugarcane borer, Stem borer (Diatraea saccharalis) (8.1.4) n n n
Lesser cornstalk borer (Elasmopalpus lignosellus) n n n
Earhead bug (Calocoris angustatus) (8.1.6) n n n
African head bug (Eurystylus immaculatus) n n n
Corn earworm (Heliothis zea) (8.1.7) n n n
African bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) (8.1.8) n n n
Armyworms (Spodoptera spp.) (8.1.9) n n n
Oriental armyworms (Mythimna separata) (8.1.10) n n n
Greenbug (Schizaphis graminum) (8.1.11) n n n
Shoot bug (Peregrinus maidis) n n n
Spittel bug (Poophilus costalis) n n n
Sap-sucking bug (Dolycoris indicus) n n n
Corn leaf aphid (Rhopalosiphum maidis) (8.1.12) n n n
Chinch bug (Blissus leucopterus) (8.1.14) n n n
White grubs (Phyllophaga crinita; Schizonycha spp.,
n n n
Holotrichia spp.) (8.1.15)
Sorghum web worm (Nola sorghella) (8.1.16) n n n

Earhead web worm (Nola analis; Cryptoblabes gnidiella) n n n
Web worm (Stenachroia elongella; Eublemma spp.) (8.1.17) n n n
Sorghum mite (Oligonychus indicus) (8.1.18) n n n
Banks' grass mite (Oligonychus pratensis) (8.1.19) n n n
Grasshopper (Oedaleus senegalensis) (8.1.20) n n n
Locusts (Locusta migratoria) (8.1.21) n n n
Birds (8.1.22) n n n
Red-headed hairy caterpillar (Amsacta albistriga) n n n
Flea beetle n n n
Grey leaf weevil (Myllocerus subfasciatus) n n n
Sugarcane rootstock weevil (Anacentrinus deplanatus) n n n
Cutworms n n n
Wireworms n n n
Southern corn rootworm (Diabrotica undecimpuncta) n n n
Rough leaf spot (Ascochyta sorghi) (8.2.1) n n n
Grey leaf spot (Cercospora sorghi) (8.2.2) n n n
Ladder leaf spot (Cercospora fusimaculans) n n n
Leaf blight (Exserohilum turcicum; Setosphaeria turcica;
n n n
Target leaf spot (Bipolaris sorghicola) (8.2.6) n n n
Oval leaf spot (Ramulispora sorghicola) (8.2.7) n n n
Tar spot (Phyllachora sacchari) (8.2.8) n n n
Zonate leaf spot (Gloeocercospora sorghi) (8.2.9) n n n
Fusarium root and stalk rot; Head blight (Fusarium spp.) n n n
Po kkah b o eng (Gibberella intermedia) n n n
Crazy top (Sclerophthora macrospora) n n n
Black dot grain mold (Phoma insidiosa) (8.2.12) n n n
Rust (Puccinia purpurea) (8.2.13) n n n
Sooty stripe (Ramulispora sorghi) (8.2.14) n n n
Ergot (Sphacelia sorghi, Claviceps africana) (8.2.15) n n n
Smut (Sphacelotheca spp.) (8.2.16) n n n
Long smut (Tolyposporium ehrenbergii, Sporisorium cruentum)
n n n
(8.2.19)
Pythium root rot (Pythium spp.) n n n

Southern sclerotial rot (Sclerotium rolfsii) n n n
Banded leaf and sheath blight (Rhizoctonia solani) n n n
Acremonium wilt (Acremonium strictum) n n n
Milo disease (Periconia circinata) n n n
Bacterial leaf stripe (Pseudomonas andropogoni) (8.3.1) n n n
Bacterial leaf spot (Pseudomonas syringae) (8.3.2) n n n
Yellow leaf blotch (Pseudomonas sp.) n n n
Bacterial leaf streak (Xanthomonas campestris) (8.3.3) n n n
Bacterial leaf blight (Acidovorax avenae) n n n
Bacterial top and stalk rot (Erwinia chrysanthemi) n n n
Maize dwarf mosaic virus (MDMV) (8.4.1) n n n
Sugarcane mosaic virus (SCMV) (8.4.2) n n n
Johnsongrass mosaic virus (JsGMV) (8.4.3) n n n
Maize stripe virus (MStV) (8.4.4) n n n
Maize mosaic virus (MMV) (8.4.5) n n n
Maize rough dwarf virus (MRDV) n n n
Maize chlorotic dwarf virus (MCDV) n n n
Maize streak virus (MSV)
Sorghum chlorotic spot virus (SgCSV)
Peanut clump virus (PCV)
Sorghum stunt mosaic virus (SSMV)
Mal de Rio Cuarto virus (MRCV)
Fiji disease virus (FDV)
Yellow Sorghum stunt (YSS)
Sorghum yellow banding virus (SYBV)
Witchweed (Striga asiatica; Striga densiflora;

Striga hermonthica) (8.5.1)
Stunt nematode (Tylenchorhynchus spp.)
Ro ot-lesion nematode (Pratylenchus spp.)
R o ot-knot nem atode (Meloidogyne spp.)
n
n
If you consider that an important characteristic for describing or
discriminating among accessions is missing from this list, please indicate it
here along with a substantiated justification.
Annex VI – List of respondents to the survey

Crop Research United Sorghum Checkoff
Dahlberg, Jeff USA
Leader Director Program
International Crops
Crop Upadhyaya, Research Institute for the
India
Leader Hari D. Semi-Arid Tropics
(ICRISAT)
Groupe d'Etude et de
Directeur
CAG Guiard, Joël contrôle des Variétés et des France
adjoint
Semences (GEVES)
International Crops
Research Institute for the
CAG Hash, C. Tom India
Semi-Arid Tropics
(ICRISAT)
Sorghum plant
Queensland Department of
CAG Henzell, R.G. breeder Australia
Primary Industries
(retired)
Instituto Agronômico de
CAG Lira, Mario Brazil
Pernambuco (IPA)
CAG Mathur, Prem Bioversity International India

Research
Miller, Frederick Director/
CAG MMR Genetics USA
R. Senior
Breeder
National Bureau of Plant
Pandravada, Senior Genetic Resources
CAG India
S.R. Scientist (NBPGR), Regional Station,
Hyderabad
Agriculture, Agricultural
Pederson, Gary Research Research Service (USDA,
CAG USA
A. Leader ARS), Plant Genetic
Resources Conservation
Unit
Indian Council of
Emeritus
CAG Seetharam, A. Agricultural Research India
Scientist
(ICAR)
Directorate of Sorghum
Research (formerly National
CAG Seetharama, N. Director India
Research Centre for
Sorghum)
Ethiopian Institute of
Researcher/pl
Reviewer Adugna, Asfaw Agricultural Research Ethiopia
ant breeder
(EIAR)
National Bureau of Plant
Principal
Reviewer Ashok, Kumar Genetic Resources India
Scientist
(NBPGR)
Awadelkarim, A. Agricultural Research
Reviewer Researcher Sudan
Ahmed Cooperation
Bandyopadhyay, Plant International Institute of
Reviewer Nigeria
Ranajit pathologist Tropical Agriculture (IITA)
Director of
Marathwada Agricultural
Reviewer Borikar, S.T. Research India
University
(Retd.)
Coulibaly, Sidi Sorghum
Reviewer Institut d'Economie Rurale Mali
Bekaye breeder
Senior Directorate of Sorghum
Reviewer Elangovan, M. India
Scientist Research (DSR)
Research Agriculture, Agricultural
Reviewer Erpelding, John USA
Geneticist Research Service (USDA,
ARS)
Habindavyi, Researcher/Br Institute of Agricultural

Reviewer Burundi
Espérance eeder Research - Burundi (ISABU)
Principal Plant Queensland Primary

Reviewer Jordan, David Australia
Breeder Industries and Fisheries
Reviewer Kawase, Makoto Agrobiological Sciences Japan
(NIAS)
Magalhaes, Embrapa Maize and
Reviewer Brazil
Jurandir Sorghum
Okuizumi, Chief
Reviewer Agrobiological Sciences Japan
Hisato researcher
(NIAS)
Parzies, Heiko Research University of Hohenheim,
Reviewer Germany
K. Officer Stuttgart
Research Agriculture, Agricultural
Reviewer Pedersen, Jeff USA
Geneticist Research Service (USDA,
ARS)
Institute of Crop Science,
Chinese Academy of
Reviewer Ping, Lu China P.R.
Agricultural Sciences
(CAAS)
Rao, N. International Center for
Reviewer Scientist UAE
Kameswara Biosaline Agriculture
International Crops
Reddy, Belum Principal Research Institute for the
Reviewer India
V.S. Scientist Semi-Arid Tropics
(ICRISAT)
International Crops
Reddy, Gopal, Research Institute for the
Reviewer India
V. Semi-Arid Tropics
(ICRISAT)
Senior Indian Agricultural Research
Reviewer Satyavathi, Tara India
Scientist Institute (IARI)
International Crops
Reviewer Sharma, H.C. India
Semi-Arid Tropics
(ICRISAT)
International Crops
Reviewer Sharma, Shivali India
Semi-Arid Tropics
(ICRISAT)
Schmidt, Curator for Genetics and Crop Plant
Reviewer Germany
Baerbel Vegetables Research (IPK),
Gatersleben
Head of
Reviewer Stehno, Zdenek Crop Research Institute Czech Republic
genebank
National
Ethiopian Institute of
Sorghum
Reviewer Tadesse, Taye Agricultural Research Ethiopia
Research
(EIAR)
Coordinator
International Crops
Principal
Reviewer Thakur, R.P. Scientist India
Semi-Arid Tropics
(Cereals Path)
(ICRISAT)
International Crops
Principal Research Institute for the
Reviewer Vadez, Vincent India
Scientist Semi-Arid Tropics
(ICRISAT)
and percentage of importance, sent to the Core Advisory Group for their
selection in order to choose an initial key set of sorghum descriptorsi
Answered Skipped
Part 1. Key set descriptors for sorghum questions= 32 questions= 1
Your Rating Very Not Response

Survey results Important
selection Average important important Count
Race (1.5.5)
Group name (1.5.6)
5.63 87.5% (28) 12.5% (4) 0% (0) 32
(4.2.1)
Plant height [cm]
5.44 81.3% (26) 18.8% (6) 0% (0) 32
(4.1.1)
Grain yield 5.32 77.4% (24) 22.6% (7) 0% (0) 31
Grain colour (4.3.1) 5.16 71.9% (23) 28.1% (9) 0% (0) 32
100-seed weight [g]
5.03 67.7% (21) 32.3% (10) 0% (0) 31
(4.3.3)
Reaction to drought
4.97 71.9% (23) 21.9% (7) 6.3% (2) 32
(7.3)
Inflorescence
compactness and 4.69 59.4% (19) 37.5% (12) 3.1% (1) 32
shape (4.2.2)
Shattering (4.2.6) 4.6 56.7% (17) 40.0% (12) 3.3% (1) 30
Inflorescence length
4.45 51.6% (16) 45.2% (14) 3.2% (1) 31
[cm] (6.2.5)
Sorghum shoot fly
(Atherigona soccata) 4.35 51.6% (16) 41.9% (13) 6.5% (2) 31
(8.1.1)
Grain moulds
(Curvularia lunata; 4.26 48.4% (15) 45.2% (14) 6.5% (2) 31
Fusarium spp.) (8.2.4)
Lodging susceptibility
4.16 45.2% (14) 48.4% (15) 6.5% (2) 31
(6.1.2)
Spotted stem borer
(Chilo partellus) 4.1 46.7% (14) 43.3% (13) 10.0% (3) 30
(8.1.2)
Anthracnose
(Colletotrichum 4.06 45.2% (14) 45.2% (14) 9.7% (3) 31
graminicola) (8.2.3)
Endosperm texture
3.87 38.7% (12) 51.6% (16) 9.7% (3) 31
(4.3.8)
Inflorescence exsertion
3.87 38.7% (12) 51.6% (16) 9.7% (3) 31
(6.2.4)
Grain covering (4.2.4) 3.77 38.7% (12) 48.4% (15) 12.9% (4) 31
Sorghum midge
(Stenodiplosis 3.77 32.3% (10) 61.3% (19) 6.5% (2) 31
sorghicola) (8.1.5)
Downy mildew
(Peronosclerospora 3.58 25.8% (8) 67.7% (21) 6.5% (2) 31
sorghi) (8.2.11)
Charcoal rot
(Macrophomina 3.3 20.0% (6) 70.0% (21) 10.0% (3) 30
phaseolina) (8.2.10)
Leaf midrib colour
3.19 18.8% (6) 68.8% (22) 12.5% (4) 32
(4.1.5)
Glume colour (4.2.3) 3 21.9% (7) 56.3% (18) 21.9% (7) 32
White sugarcane aphid
(Melanaphis sacchari) 3 19.4% (6) 61.3% (19) 19.4% (6) 31
(8.1.13)
Plant colour (4.1.2) 2.63 9.4% (3) 68.8% (22) 21.9% (7) 32
Part 2. Other traits important for describing Answered Skipped
and utilizing sorghum question= 29 question= 4
Your Rating Very Not Response

Survey results Important
selection Average important Important Count
Photosensitivity (6.2.1) 5.35 82.1% (23) 14.3% (4) 3.6% (1) 28
Fodder yield 4.93 71.4% (20) 21.4% (6) 7.1% (2) 28
Stalk juiciness (4.1.3) 4.71 57.1% (16) 42.9% (12) 0% (0) 28
Male sterile cytoplasm
4.67 66.7% (18) 22.2% (6) 11.1% (3) 27
system (6.2.8)
Synchrony of flowering
4.50 57.7% (15) 34.6% (9) 7.7% (2) 26
(6.2.3)
Restoration response
4.11 55.6% (15) 25.9% (7) 18.5% (5) 27
(Milo source) (6.2.7)
Desirability rating (total
4.00 51.9% (14) 29.6% (8) 18.5% (5) 27
plant)
Threshability [%] (6.3.2) 4.00 40.7% (11) 51.9% (14) 7.4% (2) 27
Reaction to high
4.00 48.1% (13) 37.0% (10) 14.8% (4) 27
temperature (7.2)
Endosperm type
3.92 42.3% (11) 46.2% (12) 11.5% (3) 26
(4.3.10)
Seedling vigour (6.1.1) 3.92 53.8% (14) 23.1% (6) 23.1% (6) 26
Genotypic pericarp
3.86 42.9% (12) 42.9% (12) 14.3% (4) 28
colour
Grain Nutrient content
(fat, phosphorous,
3.69 34.6% (9) 53.8% (14) 11.5% (3) 26
starch, sucrose, dry
matter)
Reaction to low
3.69 46.2% (12) 30.8% (8) 23.1% (6) 26
temperature (7.1)
Senescence rating
3.67 40.7% (11) 40.7% (11) 18.5% (5) 27
(6.1.3)
Grain hardness [kg]
3.67 37.0% (10) 48.1% (13) 14.8% (4) 27
(6.3.1)
Pigmented testa (Grain
3.64 39.3% (11) 42.9% (12) 17.9% (5) 28
sub-coat) (4.3.5)
Grain weathering
3.58 34.6% (9) 50.0% (13) 15.4% (4) 26
susceptibility (6.3.3)
Seed shape 3.54 28.6% (8) 60.7% (17) 10.7% (3) 28
Pollen shed 3.48 40.0% (10) 36.0% (9) 24.0% (6) 25
Grain form (4.3.7) 3.44 33.3% (9) 48.1% (13) 18.5% (5) 27
Endosperm colour
3.44 40.7% (11) 33.3% (9) 25.9% (7) 27
(4.3.9)
Grain plumpness (4.3.6) 3.43 28.6% (8) 57.1% (16) 14.3% (4) 28
Mineral toxicity
(Aluminium, 3.43 32.1% (9) 50.0% (14) 18.5% (5) 28
Manganese)
Leaf blight (Exserohilum
turcicum; Setosphaeria
turcica; 3.38 29.2% (7) 54.2% (13) 16.7% (4) 24
Helminthosporium
turcicum) (8.2.5)
Ergot (Sphacelia sorghi;
Claviceps africana) 3.38 29.2% (7) 54.2% (13) 16.7% (4) 24
(8.2.15)
Birds (8.1.22) 3.36 44.0% (11) 24.0% (6) 32.0% (8) 25
Number of basal tillers
3.32 32.1% (9) 46.4% (13) 21.4% (6) 28
per plant
Grain lustre (4.3.2) 3.32 25.0% (7) 60.7% (17) 14.3% (4) 28
Rust (Puccinia
3.26 30.4% (7) 47.8% (11) 21.7% (5) 23
purpurea) (8.2.13)
Witchweed (Striga
asiatica; Striga
3.13 37.5% (9) 29.2% (7) 33.3% (8) 24
densiflora; Striga
Reaction to salinity (7.5) 3.11 29.6% (8) 44.4% (12) 25.9% (7) 27
Number of flowering
3.00 24.0% (6) 52.0% (13) 24.0% (6) 25
stems per plant (6.2.2)
Reaction to soil acidity
3.00 25.9% (7) 48.1% (13) 25.9% (7) 27
(7.6)
Smut (Sphacelotheca
3.00 25.0% (6) 50.0% (12) 25.0% (6) 24
spp.) (8.2.16)
Inflorescence width
2.88 26.9% (7) 12.3% (11) 30.8% (8) 26
(head) [cm] (6.2.6)
Grey leaf spot
(Cercospora sorghi) 2.87 21.7% (5) 52.2% (12) 26.1% (6) 23
(8.2.2)
Awns (4.2.5) 2.79 27.6% (8) 37.9% (11) 34.5% (10) 29
Long smut
(Tolyposporium
ehrenbergii, 2.75 20.8% (5) 50.0% (12) 29.2% (7) 24
Sporisorium cruentum)
(8.2.19)
Corn leaf aphid
(Rhopalosiphum maidis) 2.74 26.1% (6) 39.1% (9) 34.8% (8) 23
(8.1.12)
Maize stripe virus
2.74 34.8% (8) 21.7% (5) 43.5% (10) 23
(MStV) (8.4.4)
Intensifier gene 2.65 11.5% (3) 65.4% (17) 23.1% (6) 26
Fusarium root and stalk
rot; Head blight 2.63 25.0% (6) 37.5% (9) 37.5% (9) 24
(Fusarium spp.)
Greenbug (Schizaphis
2.61 30.4% (7) 26.1% (6) 43.5% (10) 23
graminum) (8.1.11)
Peduncle breakage 2.54 15.4% (4) 53.8% (14) 30.8% (8) 26
2.52 20.0% (5) 44.0% (11) 36.0% (9) 25
moisture (7.4)
Zonate leaf spot
(Gloeocercospora 2.48 17.4% (4) 47.8% (11) 34.8% (8) 23
sorghi) (8.2.9)
Waxy bloom (4.1.6) 2.46 14.3% (4) 53.6% (15) 32.1% (9) 28
Mesocarp thickness 2.42 19.2% (5) 42.3% (11) 38.5% (10) 26
Absence/presence of
2.42 15.4% (4) 50.0% (13) 34.6% (9) 26
spreader gene
Earhead bug (Calocoris
2.35 21.7% (5) 34.8% (8) 43.5% (10) 23
angustatus) (8.1.6)
Maize dwarf mosaic
2.35 17.4% (4) 43.5% (10) 39.1% (9) 23
virus (MDMV) (8.4.1)
Black dot grain mold
(Phoma insidiosa) 2.32 22.7% (5) 31.8% (7) 45.5% (10) 22
(8.2.12)
Shoot bug (Peregrinus
2.25 16.7% (4) 41.7% (10) 41.7% (10) 24
maidis)
Sugarcane mosaic virus
2.25 12.5% (3) 50.0% (12) 37.5% (9) 24
(SCMV) (8.4.2)
Sooty stripe
(Ramulispora sorghi) 2.22 17.4% (4) 39.1% (9) 43.5% (10) 23
(8.2.14)
Bacterial leaf stripe
(Pseudomonas 2.22 17.4% (4) 39.1% (9) 43.5% (10) 23
andropogoni) (8.3.1)
Maize stalk borer
2.19 15.4% (4) 42.3% (11) 42.3% (11) 26
(Busseola fusca) (8.1.3)
Nodal tillering 2.14 14.3% (4) 42.9% (12) 42.9% (12) 28
Banded leaf and sheath
blight (Rhizoctonia 2.09 17.4% (4) 34.8% (8) 47.8% (11) 23
solani)
Maize mosaic virus
2.09 17.4% (4) 34.8% (8) 47.8% (11) 23
(MMV) (8.4.5)
African head bug
(Eurystylus 2.05 18.2% (4) 31.8% (7) 50.0% (11) 22
immaculatus)
Glume pubescence 2.04 10.7% (3) 46.4% (13) 42.9% (12) 28
Sugarcane borer, Stem
borer (Diatraea 2.00 16.7% (4) 33.3% (8) 50.0% (12) 24
saccharalis) (8.1.4)
Armyworms
(Spodoptera spp.) 1.96 13.0% (3) 39.1% (9) 47.8% (11) 23
(8.1.9)
Bacterial leaf spot
(Pseudomonas 1.96 21.7% (5) 21.7% (5) 56.5% (13) 23
syringae) (8.3.2)
Pink borer (Africa)
1.92 16.0% (4) 32.0% (8) 52.0% (13) 25
(Sesamia calamistis)
Coleoptile colour 1.88 12.5% (3) 37.5% (9) 50.0% (12) 24
Pink stem borer
1.88 12.5% (3) 37.5% (9) 50.0% (12) 24
(Sesamia inferens)
African bollworm
(Helicoverpa armigera) 1.83 13.0% (3) 34.8% (8) 52.2% (12) 23
(8.1.7)
Sorghum mite
(Oligonychus indicus) 1.83 21.7% (5) 17.4% (4) 60.9% (14) 23
(8.1.18)
Rough leaf spot
(Ascochyta sorghi) 1.83 8.7% (2) 43.5% (10) 47.8% (11) 23
(8.2.1)
Pythium root rot
1.83 8.7% (2) 43.5% (10) 47.8% (11) 23
(Pythium spp.)
Juice flavour (4.1.4) 1.82 10.7% (3) 39.3% (11) 50.0% (14) 28
Ladder leaf spot
(Cercospora 1.77 18.2% (4) 22.7% (5) 59.1% (13) 22
fusimaculans)
Bacterial leaf streak
(Xanthomonas 1.75 12.5% (3) 33.3% (8) 54.2% (13) 24
campestris) (8.3.3)
Bacterial leaf blight
1.75 12.5% (3) 33.3% (8) 54.2% (13) 24
(Acidovorax avenae)
Corn earworm (Heliothis
1.70 8.7% (2) 39.1% (9) 52.2% (12) 23
zea) (8.1.8)
Target leaf spot
(Bipolaris sorghicola) 1.70 8.7% (2) 39.1% (9) 52.2% (12) 23
(8.2.6)
Chinch bug (Blissus
1.64 13.6% (3) 27.3% (6) 59.1% (13) 22
leucopterus) (8.1.14)
Locusts (Locusta
1.63 12.5% (3) 29.2% (7) 58.3% (14) 24
migratoria) (8.1.21)
Web worm (Stenachroia
elongella; Eublemma 1.57 13.0% (3) 26.1% (6) 60.9% (14) 23
spp.) (8.1.17)
Acremonium wilt
1.57 8.7% (2) 34.8% (8) 56.5% (13) 23
(Acremonium strictum)
Sorghum chlorotic spot
1.57 17.4% (4) 17.4% (4) 65.2% (15) 23
virus (SgCSV)
Stunt nematode
(Tylenchorhynchus 1.57 8.7% (2) 34.8% (8) 56.5% (13) 23
spp.)
White grubs
(Phyllophaga crinita;
Schizonycha spp., 1.50 9.1% (2) 31.8% (7) 59.1% (13) 22
Holotrichia spp.)
(8.1.15)
Cutworms 1.50 12.5% (3) 25.0% (6) 62.5% (15) 24
Maize chlorotic dwarf
1.50 13.6% (3) 22.7% (5) 63.6% (14) 22
virus (MCDV)
Sorghum stunt mosaic
1.50 13.6% (3) 22.7% (5) 63.6% (14) 22
virus (SSMV)
Oriental armyworms
(Mythimna separata) 1.43 8.7% (2) 30.4% (7) 60.9% (14) 23
(8.1.10)
Sorghum web worm
(Nola sorghella) 1.43 8.7% (2) 30.4% (7) 60.9% (14) 23
(8.1.16)
Earhead web worm
(Nola analis; 1.43 8.7% (2) 30.4% (7) 60.9% (14) 23
Cryptoblabes gnidiella)
Oval leaf spot
(Ramulispora 1.43 8.7% (2) 30.4% (7) 60.9% (14) 23
sorghicola) (8.2.7)
Pokkah boeng
1.43 4.3% (1) 39.1% (9) 56.5% (13) 23
(Gibberella intermedia)
Crazy top
(Sclerophthora 1.43 8.7% (2) 30.4% (7) 60.9% (14) 23
macrospora)
Southern sclerotial rot
1.43 8.7% (2) 30.4% (7) 60.9% (14) 23
(Sclerotium rolfsii)
Milo disease
1.43 8.7% (2) 30.4% (7) 60.9% (14) 23
(Periconia circinata)
Yellow leaf blotch
1.43 13.0% (3) 21.7% (5) 65.2% (15) 23
(Pseudomonas sp.)
Johnsongrass mosaic
1.43 4.3% (1) 39.1% (9) 56.5% (13) 23
virus (JsGMV) (8.4.3)
Root-lesion nematode
1.43 8.7% (2) 30.4% (7) 60.9% (14) 23
(Pratylenchus spp.)
Root-knot nematode
1.43 8.7% (2) 30.4% (7) 60.9% (14) 23
(Meloidogyne spp.)
Lesser cornstalk borer
(Elasmopalpus 1.38 12.5% (3) 20.8% (5) 66.7% (16) 24
lignosellus)
Flea beetle 1.36 9.1% (2) 27.3% (6) 63.6% (14) 22
Maize streak virus
1.36 13.6% (3) 18.2% (4) 68.2% (15) 22
(MSV)
Sorghum yellow
1.36 9.1% (2) 27.3% (6) 63.6% (14) 22
banding virus (SYBV)
Spittel bug (Poophilus
1.30 8.7% (2) 26.1% (6) 65.2% (15) 23
costalis)
Sap-sucking bug
1.30 13.0% (3) 17.4% (4) 69.6% (16) 23
(Dolycoris indicus)
Banks grass mite
(Oligonychus pratensis) 1.30 8.7% (2) 26.1% (6) 65.2% (15) 23
(8.1.19)
Grey leaf weevil
(Myllocerus 1.30 13.0% (3) 17.4% (4) 69.6% (16) 23
subfasciatus)
Sugarcane rootstock
weevil (Anacentrinus 1.30 8.7% (2) 26.1% (6) 65.2% (15) 23
deplanatus)
Wireworms 1.30 8.7% (2) 26.1% (6) 65.2% (15) 23
Red-headed hairy
caterpillar (Amsacta 1.25 8.3% (2) 25.0% (6) 66.7% (16) 24
albistriga)
Southern corn rootworm
(Diabrotica 1.23 13.6% (3) 13.6% (3) 72.7% (16) 22
undecimpuncta)
Grasshopper (Oedaleus
1.17 8.7% (2) 21.7% (5) 69.6% (16) 23
senegalensis) (8.1.20)
Tar spot (Phyllachora
1.17 4.3% (1) 30.4% (7) 65.2% (15) 23
sacchari) (8.2.8)
Bacterial top and stalk
rot (Erwinia 1.17 8.7% (2) 21.7% (5) 69.6% (16) 23
chrysanthemi)
Maize rough dwarf virus
1.17 8.7% (2) 21.7% (5) 69.6% (16) 23
(MRDV)
Yellow sorghum stunt
1.17 8.7% (2) 21.7% (5) 69.6% (16) 23
(YSS)
Peanut clump virus
1.04 4.3% (1) 26.1% (6) 69.6% (16) 23
(PCV)
Fiji disease virus (FDV) 0.82 4.5% (1) 17.4% (4) 77.3% (17) 22
Mal de Rio Cuarto virus
0.78 4.3% (1) 18.2% (4) 78.3% (18) 23
(MRCV)
i
Descriptors highlighted in yellow are those that received a wide consensus amongst the experts.
Annex VIII – First draft for the minimum priority set of descriptors for sorghum
submitted to the CAG
Key set of descriptors

PLANT DATA
Race (1.5.5)
Group name (1.5.6)

Stalk juiciness (4.1.3)
Planting date [YYYYMMDD]
Flowering behaviour
Inflorescence compactness and shape (4.2.2)
Grain covering (4.2.4)
Shattering (4.2.6)
Grain yield
Fodder yield
Desirability rating (total plant)
Genotypic pericarp colour
Pigmented testa (Grain sub-coat) (4.3.5)
Endosperm texture (4.3.8)
Pollen shed

Senescence rating (6.1.3)
Photosensitivity (6.2.1)
Inflorescence exertion (6.2.4)
Inflorescence length [cm] (6.2.5)
Restoration response (Milo source) (6.2.7)
Male sterile cytoplasm system (6.2.8)
ABIOTIC STRESSES
Pollen susceptibility
Seedling susceptibility
Reproductive susceptibility

Pre-anthesis drought reaction
Post-anthesis drought reaction (stay-green ability)
BIOTIC STRESSES
Sorghum shoot fly (Atherigona soccata) (8.1.1)
Spotted stem borer (Chilo partellus) (8.1.2)
Sorghum midge (Stenodiplosis sorghicola) (8.1.5)
Anthracnose (Colletotrichum graminicola) (8.2.3)
Grain moulds (Curvularia lunata; Fusarium spp.) (8.2.4)
Annex IX – First draft of the key access and utilization descriptors for sorghum

This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for sorghum
genetic resources utilization. This strategic set of descriptors, together with passport data,
will become the basis for the global accession level information portal being developed by
Bioversity International with the financial support of the Global Crop Diversity Trust (the
Trust). It will facilitate access to and utilization of sorghum accessions held in genebanks and
does not preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently become
available.
Based on the comprehensive list ‘Descriptors for Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]’
published by ICRISAT and IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1993, the list was
subsequently compared with a number of sources such as ‘UPOV technical guidelines for
Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.)’ (1989); ‘Descriptors for SORGHUM’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN);
‘Characterization of ICRISAT-Bred Sorghum Hybrid Parents (Set I)’1 (ICRISAT, 2006); as well
as the list of traits provided by National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences (NIAS). The
initial list also builds on the results of the SGRP Global Public Goods Activity 4.2.1.1 led by
Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya (ICRISAT), particularly with regard to those descriptors highlighted
as having the most important diagnostic and breeding traits and also to the Descriptors Draft
for Sorghum, as revised by a Committee formed at the Expert Consultation Meeting for
Developing a Strategy for the Global Conservation of Sorghum Genetic Resources held at
ICRISAT in 2007. The initial list was further refined during a crop-specific consultation
meeting held at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR, India) in June 2009.
priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize sorghum genetic resources. This
key set was afterwards validated by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr
Jeff Dahlberg of the United Sorghum Checkoff Program, and included leading sorghum
organizations such as ICRISAT, NBPGR, USDA and the Directorate of Sorghum Research
(formerly National Research Centre for Sorghum), amongst others.
below.
1
International Sorghum and Millets Newsletter, No. 47, Special issue
Race and Group name (1.5.5/6)
(As per Dahlberg, 2000)
1 Bicolor 93 Subglabrescens
10 Bicolor 94 Subglabrescens-milo
11 Dochna 95 Milo-kaura
12 Nervosum
13 Nervosum-kaoliang 10 Guinea-caudatum
14 Nervosum-broomcorn 100 Caudatum-guineense
15 Sudanense 101 Nigricans-guineense
2 Guinea 11 Guinea-kafir
20 Guineense 110 Caffrorum-roxburghii
21 Conspicuum 111 Roxburghii-shallu
22 Margaritiferum
23 Roxburghii 12 Guinea-durra
120 Durra-roxburghii
3 Caudatum 121 Membraneceum
30 Caudatum 122 Durra-membranaceum
31 Caudatum-nigricans
32 Nigricans 13 Kafir-caudatum
33 Sumac 130 Caudatum-kafir
34 Nigricans-feterita 131 Caffrorum-birdproof
35 Dobbs 132 Caffrorum-darso
36 Caudatum-kaura 133 Caffrorum-feterita
37 Zerazera
14 Durra-caudatum
4 Kafir 140 Caudatum-durra
40 Caffrorum 141 Nigricans-durra
142 Durra-nigricans
5 Durra 143 Durra-feterita/Kaura
50 Durra
51 Nandyal 15 Kafir-durra
52 Cernuum 150 Durra-kafir
151 Caffrorum-durra
6 Guinea-bicolor
60 Guinea-bicolor 16 Perennial wild
61 Dochna-honey 160 S. halepense
62 Dochna-roxburghii 161 S. propinquum
7 Caudatum-bicolor 17 Annual wild

70 Caudatum-bicolor 170 S. bicolor subsp. drummondii
71 Caudatum-dochna
72 Nigricans-bicolor 18 S. bicolor subsp. verticilliforum
73 Dochna-nigricans 180 verticilliforum
181 arundinaceum
8 Kafir-bicolor 182 virgatum
80 Bicolor-kafir 183 aethiopicum
81 Caffrorum-bicolor
82 Dochna-kafir 19 Unclassified
9 Durra-bicolor 20 Breeding material

90 Durra-bicolor 200 Unclassified
91 Dochna-durra
92 Durra-dochna 21 Mixed
From ground (base of plant) to tip of panicle at 50% flowering. Mean of 10 randomly selected
plants

0 Not juicy
1 Slightly juicy
3 Juicy

From planting date to when 50% of the plants have started flowering
Planting date [YYYYMMDD] (5.4)

When planting is done (if moisture is sufficient) or when irrigation is done after
planting
Flowering behaviour
If grown under long days
0 Absent
3 Early
7 Late

1 Very lax panicle (typical of wild sorghums)
2 Very loose erect primary branches
3 Very loose drooping primary branches
4 Loose erect primary branches
5 Loose drooping primary branches
6 Semi-loose erect primary branches
7 Semi-loose drooping primary branches
8 Semi-compact elliptic
9 Semi-compact rectangular
10 Compact elliptic
11 Compact oval
12 Half broom corn
13 Broomcorn

Amount of grain covered by glumes at maturity. Involuted grain is found when the grain
has completely twisted inside of the glumes and is fully exposed, such as in the race Guinea
1 25% grain covered
2 50% grain covered
3 75% grain covered
4 Grain fully covered
5 Glumes longer than grain
6 Involuted
Shattering (4.2.6)
Observed at maturity
3 Low
5 Intermediate
7 High
Grain yield (6.3.b)
Overall estimation of the grain yield for the accession based upon the particular growing
conditions that the accession was accessed in
3 Low
5 Medium
7 High
Fodder yield
3 Low
5 Medium
7 High
Desirability rating (6.1.4)

Overall agronomic desirability (use and yield potential) of the total plant as observed
visually
3 Poor
5 Medium
7 Good

Phenotypic colour of the grain
1 White
2 Chalky white
3 Grey
4 Red
5 Light red
6 Yellow
7 Bronze
8 Brown
9 Black
10 Purple
11 Variegated
12 Mixed
Genotypic pericarp colour

Genetically, there are three pericarp colours in sorghum
1 White (R-yy or rryy)
2 Lemon Yellow (rrY-)
3 Red (R-Y-)

Measured at 12% moisture content

Tannins are not present without the presence of a pigmented testa
0 Absent (b1b1b2b2 or B1-b2b2 or b1b1B2-)
1 Present (B1-B2-)

1 Completely corneous
3 Mostly corneous
5 Intermediate-partly corneous
7 Mostly starchy (floury)
9 Completely starchy (floury)
Pollen shed
Visual score (early morning) when the panicle is lightly tapped. Observed at 50% flowering.
Mean of five randomly selected plants
3 Low
5 Intermediate
7 High

Observed 15 days after emergence
3 Low
5 Intermediate
7 High

Indicate if root or stalk
3 Low
5 Intermediate
7 High
Senescence rating [%] (6.1.3)

Death of leaves and stalk at grain maturity
1 Very slightly senescent (10%)
3 Slightly senescent (25%)
5 Intermediate (about half of leaves dead) (50%)
7 Mostly senescent (75%)
9 Completely senescent (leaves and stalk dead)
Recorded on the basis of rainy season (long days): post-rainy season (short days) ratios of
plant height (4.1.1) and days to flowering (4.2.1) above
1 Insensitive
2 Partially sensitive
3 Very sensitive
Inflorescence exsertion (6.2.4)

1 Slightly exserted (<2 cm but ligule of flag leaf definitively below inflorescence base)
2 Exserted (2-10 cm between ligule and inflorescence base)
3 Well-exserted (>10 cm between ligule and inflorescence base)
4 Peduncle recurved (inflorescence below ligule and clearly exposed splitting the leaf sheath)

From base of inflorescence (head) to tip. Mean of five randomly selected plants

The reaction of the F1 plant when a male sterile (A line) is pollinated with the accession
1 Maintainer
2 Partial maintainer/restorer
3 Restorer

There are four major distinct cytoplasmic-genetic systems
1 A1
2 A2
3 A3
4 A4
ABIOTIC STRESSES
Pollen susceptibility (7.1.a)

Measured as reduction in pollen production at low temperatures (10ºC to 15ºC)
Seedling susceptibility (7.1.1)

Measured as reduction in seed germination at low temperatures (10ºC to 15ºC)
Reproductive susceptibility (7.1.2)

Measured as reduction in seed set at low temperatures (10ºC to 15ºC)
Pre-anthesis drought reaction (7.3.a)

Measured as plants stressed prior to flowering. Plant symptoms include leaf rolling,
leaf erectness, leaf bleaching, leaf firing, delayed flowering, poor panicle exsertion,
saddle effect, panicle/floret blasting, and reduced panicle size. Ratings may be on
individual symptoms or a combination of symptoms
Post-anthesis drought reaction (stay-green ability) (7.3.b)

Measured as plants stressed post-flowering. Plant symptoms include premature leaf
and plant death, stalk collapse and lodging, charcoal rot (Macrophomina phaseolina)
infestation, and reduced seed size
BIOTIC STRESSES
NOTES
CONTRIBUTORS
development of this strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for sorghum
genetic resources’, and in particular to Dr Jeff Dahlberg (United Sorghum Checkoff Program,
USA) for providing valuable scientific direction. Adriana Alercia (Bioversity International)
The valuable substantial scientific advice provided by ICRISAT scientists is gratefully

acknowledged.
CORE ADVISORY GROUP
Jeff Dahlberg, United Sorghum Checkoff Program, USA

Joël Guiard, Groupe d'Etude et de contrôle des Variétés et des Semences (GEVES), France
C. Tom Hash, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India
R.G. Henzell, Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Australia
Mario A. Lira, Agricultural Research Institute of Pernambuco (IPA), Brazil
Frederick R. Miller, MMR Genetics L.L.C., USA
Hyderabad, India
Gary A. Pederson, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA,
ARS), Plant Genetic Resources Conservation Unit, USA
A. Seetharam, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), India
N. Seetharama, Directorate of Sorghum Research (formerly National Research Centre for Sorghum),
India
India
REVIEWERS
Australia
David Jordan, Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries
Brazil
Jurandir Magalhaes, Embrapa Maize and Sorghum
Burundi
Espérance Habindavyi, Institute of Agricultural Research - Burundi (ISABU)
China P. R.
Lu Ping, Institute of Crop Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS)
Czech Republic
Zdenek Stehno, Crop Research Institute
Ethiopia
Germany
Heiko K. Parzies, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart
Baerbel Schmidt, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK), Gatersleben
India
Kumar Ashok, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR)
S.T. Borikar, Marathwada Agricultural University
M. Elangovan, Directorate of Sorghum Research (DSR)
Belum V.S. Reddy, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
V. Gopal Reddy, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
H.C. Sharma, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India
Shivali Sharma, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India
Tara Satyavathi, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI)
Vincent Vadez, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
Japan
Makoto Kawase, National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences (NIAS)
Hisato Okuizumi, National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences (NIAS)
Mali
Sidi Bekaye Coulibaly, Institut d'Economie Rurale
Nigeria
Ranajit Bandyopadhyay, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA)
Sudan
A. Ahmed Awadelkarim, Agricultural Research Cooperation
United Arab Emirates

N. Kameswara Rao, International Center for Biosaline Agriculture
USA
John Erpelding, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA,
ARS)
Jeff Pedersen, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA, ARS)
Annex X – Final key set of descriptors for sorghum genetic resources obtained
after validation

This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for sorghum
[Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] genetic resources utilization. This strategic set of descriptors,
Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust). It will facilitate access to and utilization of sorghum
Based on the comprehensive list ‘Descriptors for Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]’
published by ICRISAT and IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1993, the list was
subsequently compared with a number of sources such as ‘UPOV technical guidelines for
Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.)’ (1989); ‘Descriptors for SORGHUM’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN);
‘Characterization of ICRISAT-Bred Sorghum Hybrid Parents (Set I)’1 (ICRISAT, 2006); as well
as the list of traits provided by the National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences (NIAS). The
initial list also builds on the results of the SGRP Global Public Goods Activity 4.2.1.1 led by
Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya (ICRISAT), particularly with regard to those descriptors highlighted
as having the most important diagnostic and breeding traits, and also to the Descriptors
Draft for sorghum, which was revised by a Committee formed at the Expert Consultation
Meeting for Developing a Strategy for the Global Conservation of Sorghum Genetic
Resources held at ICRISAT in 2007. The initial list was further refined during a crop-specific
consultation meeting held at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR, India)
in June 2009.
priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize sorghum genetic resources. This
key set was afterwards validated by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr
Jeff Dahlberg of the United Sorghum Checkoff Program and Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya of the
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), together with
leading sorghum organizations such as NBPGR, USDA and the Directorate of Sorghum
Research (formerly National Research Centre for Sorghum), amongst others.
below.
1
International Sorghum and Millets Newsletter, No. 47, Special issue
Race and Group name (1.5.5/6)
(As per Dahlberg, 2000)
92 Durra-dochna
1 Bicolor 93 Subglabrescens
10 Bicolor 94 Subglabrescens-milo
11 Dochna 95 Milo-kaura
12 Nervosum
13 Nervosum-kaoliang 10 Guinea-caudatum
14 Nervosum-broomcorn 100 Caudatum-guineense
15 Sudanense 101 Nigricans-guineense
2 Guinea 11 Guinea-kafir
20 Guineense 110 Caffrorum-roxburghii
21 Conspicuum 111 Roxburghii-shallu
22 Margaritiferum
23 Roxburghii 12 Guinea-durra
120 Durra-roxburghii
3 Caudatum 121 Membraneceum
30 Caudatum 122 Durra-membranaceum
31 Caudatum-nigricans
32 Nigricans 13 Kafir-caudatum
33 Sumac 130 Caudatum-kafir
34 Nigricans-feterita 131 Caffrorum-birdproof
35 Dobbs 132 Caffrorum-darso
36 Caudatum-kaura 133 Caffrorum-feterita
37 Zerazera
14 Durra-caudatum
4 Kafir 140 Caudatum-durra
40 Caffrorum 141 Nigricans-durra
142 Durra-nigricans
5 Durra 143 Durra-feterita/Kaura
50 Durra
51 Nandyal 15 Kafir-durra
52 Cernuum 150 Durra-kafir
151 Caffrorum-durra
6 Guinea-bicolor
60 Guinea-bicolor 16 Perennial wild
61 Dochna-honey 160 S. halepense
62 Dochna-roxburghii 161 S. propinquum
7 Caudatum-bicolor 17 Annual wild

70 Caudatum-bicolor 170 S. bicolor subsp. drummondii
71 Caudatum-dochna
72 Nigricans-bicolor 18 S. bicolor subsp. verticilliforum
73 Dochna-nigricans 180 verticilliforum
181 arundinaceum
8 Kafir-bicolor 182 virgatum
80 Bicolor-kafir 183 aethiopicum
81 Caffrorum-bicolor 19 Unclassified
82 Dochna-kafir
20 Breeding material
9 Durra-bicolor 200 Unclassified
90 Durra-bicolor
91 Dochna-durra 21 Mixed
From the ground (base of plant) to the tip of the panicle at 50% flowering. Mean of 10
randomly selected plants

0 Not juicy
1 Slightly juicy
3 Juicy
Fodder yield (4.1.a)

3 Low
5 Medium
7 High

From planting date until 50% of the plants have started flowering
Planting date [YYYYMMDD] (5.4)

When planting is done (if moisture is sufficient) or when irrigation is done after
planting
Flowering behaviour (4.2.a)

If grown under long days
0 Absent
3 Early
7 Late

1 Very lax panicle (typical of wild sorghums)
2 Very loose erect primary branches
3 Very loose drooping primary branches
4 Loose erect primary branches
5 Loose drooping primary branches
6 Semi-loose erect primary branches
7 Semi-loose drooping primary branches
8 Semi-compact elliptic
9 Semi-compact oval
10 Compact elliptic
11 Compact oval
12 Half broom corn
13 Broomcorn

Amount of grain covered by glumes at maturity. Involuted grain is found when the grain
has completely twisted inside of the glumes and is fully exposed such as in the Guinea race
1 25% grain covered
2 50% grain covered
3 75% grain covered
4 Grain fully covered
5 Glumes longer than grain
6 Involuted
Shattering (4.2.6)
Observed at maturity
3 Low
5 Intermediate
7 High
Phenotypic colour of the grain
1 White
2 Chalky white
3 Straw
4 Grey
5 Light red
6 Red
7 Yellow
8 Light brown
9 Brown
10 Black
11 Purple
12 Variegated (when streaks of red or white appear in the grain)
13 Reddish brown
14 Mixed (when there are mixed grain colours in the grain)

Measured at 12% moisture content

Tannins are not present without the presence of a pigmented testa
0 Absent (b1b1b2b2 or B1-b2b2 or b1b1B2-)
1 Present (B1-B2-)

1 Completely corneous
2 Mostly corneous
3 Intermediate-partly corneous
4 Mostly starchy (floury)
5 Completely starchy (floury)
Genotypic pericarp colour (4.3.a)

Genetically, there are three pericarp colours in sorghum
1 White (R-yy or rryy)
2 Lemon Yellow (rrY-)
3 Red (R-Y-)

Observed 15 days after emergence
3 Low
5 Intermediate
7 High

Indicate if root or stalk
3 Low
5 Intermediate
7 High
Senescence rating [%] (6.1.3)

Death of leaves and stalk at grain maturity
1 Very slightly senescent (10%)
3 Slightly senescent (25%)
5 Intermediate (about half of leaves dead) (50%)
7 Mostly senescent (75%)
9 Completely senescent (leaves and stalk dead)
Desirability rating (6.1.4)
Overall agronomic desirability (use and yield potential) of the total plant as observed
visually
1 Very good
2 Good
3 Average
4 Poor
5 Very poor
Recorded on the basis of rainy season (long days): post-rainy season (short days) ratios of
plant height (4.1.1) and days to flowering (4.2.1) above
1 Insensitive
2 Partially sensitive
3 Very sensitive
Inflorescence exsertion (6.2.4)

1 Slightly exserted (<2 cm but ligule of flag leaf definitively below inflorescence base)
2 Exserted (2-10 cm between ligule and inflorescence base)
3 Well-exserted (>10 cm between ligule and inflorescence base)
4 Peduncle recurved (inflorescence below ligule and clearly exposed splitting the leaf sheath)

From base of inflorescence (head) to tip. Mean of five randomly selected plants

The reaction of the F1 plant when a male sterile (A line) is pollinated with the accession
1 Maintainer
2 Partial maintainer/restorer
3 Restorer

There are four major distinct cytoplasmic-genetic systems
1 A1
2 A2
3 A3
4 A4
Pollen shed (6.2.a)

Visual score (early morning) when the panicle is lightly tapped. Observed at 50% flowering.
Mean of five randomly selected plants
3 Low
5 Intermediate
7 High
Grain yield (6.3.a)

Overall estimation of the grain yield for the accession based upon the particular growing
conditions in which it was accessed
3 Low
5 Medium
7 High
ABIOTIC STRESSES

Pollen susceptibility (7.1.a)
Measured as reduction in pollen production at low temperatures (10ºC to 15ºC)
Seedling susceptibility (7.1.1)

Measured as reduction in seed germination at low temperatures (10ºC to 15ºC)
Reproductive susceptibility (7.1.2)

Measured as reduction in seed set at low temperatures (10ºC to 15ºC)
Pre-anthesis drought reaction (7.3.a)

Measured as plants stressed prior to flowering. Plant symptoms include leaf rolling,
leaf erectness, leaf bleaching, leaf firing, delayed flowering, poor panicle exsertion,
saddle effect, panicle/floret blasting, and reduced panicle size. Ratings may be on
individual symptoms or a combination of symptoms
Post-anthesis drought reaction (stay-green ability) (7.3.b)

Measured as plants stressed post-flowering. Plant symptoms include premature leaf
and plant death, stalk collapse and lodging, charcoal rot (Macrophomina phaseolina)
infestation, and reduced seed size
BIOTIC STRESSES
NOTES
CONTRIBUTORS
development of this strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for sorghum
genetic resources’, and in particular to Dr Jeff Dahlberg (United Sorghum Checkoff Program,
USA) and Dr Hari D. Upadhyaya (ICRISAT, India) for providing valuable scientific
direction. Adriana Alercia (Bioversity Interntional) provided technical expertise and guided
the entire production process.
The valuable substantial scientific advice provided by ICRISAT scientists is gratefully

acknowledged.
CORE ADVISORY GROUP
Jeff Dahlberg, United Sorghum Checkoff Program, USA

India
Joël Guiard, Groupe d'Etude et de contrôle des Variétés et des Semences (GEVES), France
C. Tom Hash, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India
R.G. Henzell, Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Australia
Mario A. Lira, Agricultural Research Institute of Pernambuco (IPA), Brazil
Frederick R. Miller, MMR Genetics L.L.C., USA
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, India
Gary A. Pederson, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA,
ARS), Plant Genetic Resources Conservation Unit, USA
A. Seetharam, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), India
N. Seetharama, Directorate of Sorghum Research (formerly National Research Centre for Sorghum),
India
REVIEWERS
Australia
David Jordan, Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries
Brazil
Jurandir Magalhaes, Embrapa Maize and Sorghum
Burundi
Espérance Habindavyi, Institute of Agricultural Research - Burundi (ISABU)
China P. R.
Lu Ping, Institute of Crop Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS)
Czech Republic
Zdenek Stehno, Crop Research Institute
Ethiopia
Germany
Heiko K. Parzies, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart
Baerbel Schmidt, Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK), Gatersleben
India
Kumar Ashok, National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR)
S.T. Borikar, Marathwada Agricultural University (MAU)
M. Elangovan, Directorate of Sorghum Research (DSR)
Belum V.S. Reddy, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
V. Gopal Reddy, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
H.C. Sharma, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
Tara Satyavathi, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI)
Vincent Vadez, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)
Japan
Makoto Kawase, National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences (NIAS)
Hisato Okuizumi, National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences (NIAS)
Mali
Sidi Bekaye Coulibaly, Institut d'Economie Rurale
Nigeria
Ranajit Bandyopadhyay, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA)
Sudan
A. Ahmed Awadelkarim, Agricultural Research Cooperation
The United Arab Emirates

N. Kameswara Rao, International Center for Biosaline Agriculture
USA
John Erpelding, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA,
ARS)
Jeff Pedersen, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA, ARS)
sweet potato [Ipomoea
batatas]
Information for the definition of a Minimum Descriptor List for sweet potato [Ipomoea
batatas] was drawn from the publication ‘Descriptors for Sweet Potato’ [CIP, AVRDC,
IBPGR (now Bioversity International), 1991]. The original list was compared to
descriptors mentioned in a number of documents, namely:
1. Main output of the Germplasm Characterization National Workshop held from
January 24-26, 2006 at the Philippines Root Crop Research and Training Center
(PhilRootcrops) in Leyte, central Philippines;
2. Basic list of descriptors for sweet potato, drawn from Guarino, L and Jackson,
GVH ‘Describing and documenting root crops in the South Pacific’. Suva, Fiji,
1986. FAO. RAS/83/001, Field document 12;
3. ‘Global Strategy for Ex-situ Conservation of Sweetpotato Genetic Resources’, (the
Trust, 2007);
4. Descriptors that were awarded funds for further research by the Global Crop
Diversity Trust 2008 Award Scheme ‘Enhancing the Value of Crop Diversity in a
World of Climate Change’ (EAS);
5. Criteria for evaluating sweet potato cultivars drawn from the Report on the
ACIAR sweet potato workshop, held in Madang, Papua New Guinea from 28-29
June 2006;
6. Important descriptors mentioned in the CIP website;
7. ‘Descriptors for Characterization and Evaluation of Sweet potato’ (National
Institute of Agrobiological Sciences, NIAS, Genebank of Japan);
8. ‘Descriptors for SWEETPOTATO’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN).
Evaluation traits such as important pests and diseases for sweet potato, tuber
quality and other agronomic characteristics were included. An Excel summary table was
prepared comparing traits listed in all of the above mentioned sources (see Annex I).

Experts were drawn from the ‘Global Strategy for Ex-situ Conservation of Sweetpotato
Genetic Resources’ (the Trust, 2007) and from the participants’ list of the ACIAR sweet
potato workshop, held in Madang, Papua New Guinea from 28–29 June 2006. The list
was further integrated with names of participants in the Symposium of the International
Society for Tropical Root Crops (ISTRC), held in Peru on 2-6 November 2009 and with
two additional expert names, suggested by EMBRAPA (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa
Agropecuária, Brazil), who are the curators of the EMBRAPA genebank. Reviewers
from the 1991 descriptors list were excluded due to their outdated contact information.
Overall, 77 experts were identified, from 27 countries and 42 different
organizations. Out of these, two Crop Leaders, Genoveva Rossel and David Tay [both
from the International Potato Centre (CIP), Peru] and a Core Advisory Group consisting
of 10 experts (see Annex II) were selected to assist in the definition of a minimum set of
descriptors for this crop. Core Advisory Group members were drawn from prestigious
academic and scientific organizations including the International Potato Centre (CIP),
the Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA), and the United States
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA, ARS).

On 26 November 2008 a letter was sent out to the Crop Leaders, along with the
comparison table described above (Annex I), to help define a key set of characterization
and evaluation descriptors for sweet potato utilization. A reminder requesting the
revised list was sent to CIP on 30 March 2009. In order to accelerate the process, the
comparison table with an additional column, where CIP experts could indicate their
selection, was sent by email on 28 July 2009. Two further reminders were sent on
2 September 2009 and 15 October 2009, after which Dr Tay sent back the comparison
table with CIP’experts input. The table included many descriptors (39) only related to
characterization data. It was suggested to refine their selection of characteristics and
concentrate on the most important abiotic and biotic stresses, taking into account their
cosmopolitan nature, wide geographical coverage and significant economical impact.
Because of the tight timeframe, and wanting to take advantage of the Symposium of the
International Society for Tropical Root Crops (ISTRC), being held in November 2009, the
Coordinator of Component 1, Ms Adriana Alercia (Bioversity International) travelled to
Peru to meet with experts and discuss the draft list that would be included in the
survey.
During the meeting, a detailed workplan was defined listing steps to be followed
and relevant deadlines. Crop Leaders were also contacted by telephone and, on 31
January 2010, they provided their selection for an initial key set of evaluation and
characterization descriptors for sweet potato to be included in the online survey (see
Annex III). A draft survey on sweet potato was therefore prepared listing the descriptors
approved by consultations with Dr Genoveva Rossel. The final draft of the survey was
uploaded into the SurveyMonkey application and sent out to the list of identified
experts on 5 April 2010. Experts were invited to validate this initial ‘Key set of
descriptors’ of sweet potato accessions to facilitate their use by researchers, and asked to
make suggestions regarding any additional characterization and/or evaluation traits
yet missing from the proposed List (see Annex IV).
The deadline for the survey was set at 2 March 2010. A first reminder was sent
out on 19 February 2010 and a second one on 25 February 2010, to ensure that the

and 18 organizations recorded their comments using the online survey (see Annex V).
Results from the survey were analyzed and descriptors were ranked by rating average
and percentage of importance (see Annex VI). The summary results of the survey
together with a report containing comments received by the participants (see Annex VII)
were sent to the Core Advisory Group asking them to select those descriptors they
considered essential for the minimum key set. The feedback received was collated in the
comparison table resulting from the survey (rating and percentages) and sent to the
Crop Leaders. They were asked to validate or select traits from the list to define a
priority list of descriptors that would be shared and approved by the whole group of
experts.
Following the advice of Drs Rossel and Tay, it was decided that the final set of
descriptors would be composed of the complete list of descriptors proposed in the
survey (see Annex VIII). A first draft of the final document listing the above set was
produced including relevant descriptor states and all the contributors and was
submitted to Crop Leaders for final validation (see Annex IX). It was further refined by
adding five descriptors as Dr Rossel strongly suggested them, indicating that they were
extremely useful for sweet potato. These additional traits are listed below:
Ground cover (4.1.3)

Vine internode length (4.1.4.1)
Vine internode diameter (4.1.4.2)
Storage root surface defects (4.2.2)
Storage root cortex thickness (4.2.3)
Definition of a final key set of descriptors for sweet potato

The final document was shared with the whole group of experts, including all the
descriptor states and contributors (see Annex X). Six out of nine members of the Core
Advisory Group, validated the list with the exception of Dr Grahame Jackson who
raised a number of issues regarding: 1. storage root colours (viruses may alter the
colours giving much paler colours of B carotene varieties); 2. doubts on the validity of
certain descriptors to be included, such as petiole length, vine tip pubescence, mature
leaf size and in particular root surface defects (4.2.2) as viruses, especially feathery
mottle strains, produce root symptoms; 3. the inclusion of SP chlorotic stunt virus since
it is often latent, and 4. naming the weevil species.
The Coordinator of Component 1, Ms Adriana Alercia, sent Dr Jackson's comments
together with the following information to the Crop Leaders asking them for make a
final decision in this regard.
Petiole length, mature leaf size and Vine tip pubescence: According to the comparison
table available in Annex I, these characteristics are included also in the Guarino and Jackson
publication, as well as listed in USDA, ARS descriptors and in NIAB’s List.
With regard to storage root colours, again there are two drawn from Guarino and Jackson
publication, but generally all of them are well ranked according to the survey responses. The
species name should be included for weevil.
After consulting with the Crop Leaders, changes were implemented and the key set
was edited and laid out. It was then sent to the Bioversity Publications Unit for on-line
publication process. Furthermore, the publication was shared with the ECPGR
Secretariat; the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology and the SGRP Crop
Genebank Knowledge Base partners. Additionally, data were converted into Excel files
for uploading into the GRIN-Global genebank data-management system being
developed by USDA and into the Germplasm Information on Genebank Accessions
global portal (GENESYS), linking national, regional and international genebank databases
in support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and
agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also provided to the System-wide Information
Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) and to EURISCO.
Acknowledgement
development of the strategic key set of descriptors for sweet potato, and to the Global
Crop Diversity Trust for their financial support. Particular recognition goes to the Crop
Leaders, Dr Genoveva Rossel and Dr David Tay from CIP (Peru), as well as to Dr
Grahame Jackson (Australia) for providing valuable scientific direction during the
development of the Key access and utilization descriptors for sweet potato.
Annex I – Summary comparison table weighing up important descriptors for sweet potato drawn from different
sourcesi
MDL G. ACIAR Important
CIP/ CIP-
Jackson/ Crop sweet descriptors
Desc. AVRDC/ UPWAR ARS-GRIN
no.
Descriptor name IBPGR D 2006
L. Strategy EAS (e) potato mentioned NIAS (h)
(i)
Guarino 2007 (d) worksho in the CIP
1991 (a) (b)
(c) p 2006 (f) website (g)
4.1.1 Twining * * * *
4.1.2 Plant type * * * *
* (Vine
4.1.3 Ground cover * growth
rate?)
4.1.4 Vine internode *
4.1.4.1 Vine internode length * * * *
4.1.4.2 Vine internode diameter * *
4.1.5 Vine pigmentation * * *
4.1.5.1 Predominant vine colour * *
4.1.5.2 Secondary vine colour * * *
4.1.6 Vine tip pubescence * * * * *
4.1.7 Mature leaf shape * * *
4.1.7.1 General outline of leaf * * *
4.1.7.2 Leaf lobe type * * *
4.1.7.3 Leaf lobe number * * *
4.1.7.4 Shape of central leaf lobe * *
4.1.8 Mature leaf size * * * *
Breadth of leaf [cm] *
4.1.9 Abaxial leaf vein pigmentation * * * * *
4.1.10 Foliage colour *
4.1.10.1 Mature leaf colour * * *
4.1.10.2 Immature leaf colour * * * * *
4.1.11 Petiole length * * * *
4.1.12 Petiole pigmentation * * * *
4.2.1 Storage root shape * * * *
4.2.2 Storage root surface defects * *
4.2.3 Storage root cortex thickness * *
4.2.4 Storage root skin colour * * * *
4.2.4.1 Predominant storage root skin colour * * *
Intensity of predominant storage root
4.2.4.2 * * *
skin colour
4.2.4.3 Secondary storage root skin colour * * *
4.2.5 Storage root flesh colour * * * *
4.2.5.1 Predominant storage root flesh colour * * * *
4.2.5.2 Secondary storage root flesh colour * * * *
Distribution of secondary storage root
4.2.5.3 * * *
flesh colour
4.3.1 Flowering habit * *
4.3.2 Flower colour * * * *
4.3.3 Flower size *
4.3.3.1 Flower length [cm] * * * *
4.3.3.2 Flower width [cm] * * * *
4.3.4 Shape of limb * *
4.3.5 Equality of sepal length * * * *
4.3.6 Number of sepal veins * *
4.3.7 Sepal shape * * * *
4.3.8 Sepal apex * * * *
4.3.9 Sepal pubescence * *
4.3.10 Sepal colour * *
4.3.11 Colour of stigma * *
4.3.12 Colour of style * * *
4.3.13 Stigma exertion * * *
4.3.14 Seed capsule set * *
6.1.1 Storage root formation *
6.1.2 Storage root stalk *
6.1.3 Number of storage roots per plant * * *
Weight of storage roots *
6.1.4 Variability of storage root shape * * *
6.1.5 Variability of storage root size * * *
6.1.6 Storage root cracking * * *
6.1.7 Latex production in storage roots *
6.1.8 Oxidation in storage roots *
6.2 Quality characters *
6.2.1 Storage root dry matter content [%] * * *
6.2.2 Storage root nitrogen content [%] * *
Storage root crude fibre [% fresh
6.2.3 * * *
weight]
Storage root starch content [% dry
6.2.4 * *
weight]
Storage root total alcohol soluble sugar
6.2.5 *
content [%]
Storage root carotene content
6.2.6 * * *
[mg/100g fresh weight]
6.2.7 Keeping quality of stored storage roots * * *
6.2.8 Sprouting ability * * *
6.2.9 Boiled storage root *
6.2.9.1 Consistency of boiled storage root *
Undesirable colour of boiled storage
6.2.9.2 *
root
6.2.9.3 Texture of boiled storage root flesh * *
6.2.9.4 Sweetness of boiled storage root flesh * *
7.1 Reaction to drought * * *
7.2 Reaction to flooding *
7.3 Reaction to heat *
7.4 Reaction to salinity * * *
7.5 Reaction to shade *
7.6 Reaction to soil pH below 5.0 *
7.7 Reaction to high soil temperature *
8.1 Insects *
8.1.1 Cylas spp. (Sweet potato weevil) * * * * *
Euscepes postfasciatus Fairmaire
8.1.2 * *
(West Indian sweet potato weevil)
8.1.3 Alcidodes sp. (Sweet potato weevils) *
Conoderus sp. (Sweet potato wire
8.1.4 * *
worms)
8.1.5 Melanotus spp. (Wire worms) *
Chaetocnema confinis Crotch (Sweet
8.1.6 * *
potato flea beetle)
8.1.7 Systena sp. (Flea beetles) *
Typophorus sp. (Sweet potato leaf
8.1.8 *
beetles)
Diabrotica sp., Aspidomorpha sp.,
8.1.9 Calasposoma dauricum Mennerheim * *
(Beetles or rootworms)
Phyllophaga sp., Plectris aliena Chapin
8.1.10 * *
(Grubworm)
Agrius cingulatus Fabricius
8.1.11 (Hornworm); Acraea acerata * *
(Defoliating caterpillar)
Aphis gossypii Glov.; Myzus persicae
8.1.12 *
Sulzer (Aphids)
Bemisia tabaci Gennadius (Sweet
8.1.13 *
potato whytefly)
Herse convolvuli L.
8.1.14 *
(Sweet potato moth)
Bedellia sommulentella Zellar;
8.1.15 Brachmia macroscopa Meyrick; *
Prodenia litura F. (Moth)
Omphisa anastomasalis Guernee
8.1.16 *
(Sweet potato stem borer)
8.2 Nematodes * *
Meloidogyne spp.
8.2.1 * * *
(Root-knot nematode)
Rotylenchulus reniformis Linford and
8.2.2 *
Oliveira (Reniform nematode)
8.2.3 Belonolaimus sp. (Sting nematode) *
8.2.4 Ditylenchus sp. (Brown ring rot) *
Pratylenchus coffeae (Zimmermann)
8.2.5 * *
Goodey (Root lesion nematode)
8.3 Fungi *
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. batatas
8.3.1 * * *
(Fusarium wilt or stem rot)
Fusarium oxysporum Schlect.
8.3.2 * *
(Fusarium surface rot)
Fusarium solani (Mart.) Appel & Wr.
8.3.3 * * *
(Fusarium root rot)
Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc. (Sclerotial
8.3.4 *
blight and circular spot)
Ceratocystis fimbriata Ell. & Halst
8.3.5 * * *
(Black rot)
Monilochaetes infuscans Ell. & Halst.
8.3.6 *
ex. Harter (Scurf)
Rhizopus stolonifer (Ehr. ex. Fr.)
8.3.7 * *
(Lind.) (Soft rot)
Diplodia gossypina (Cke.)
8.3.8 * *
(Java black rot)
Diaporthe batatatis Harter & Field
8.3.9 * *
(Diaporthe dry rot)
Elsinoe batatas (Saw.) Viegas &
8.3.10 * *
Jenkins (Scab or spot anthracnose)
Phyllosticta batatas (Thuem.) Cbe.;
8.3.11 Cercospora batatae Zimm; Septoria *
bataticola Taub. (Leaf spot)
Albugo ipomoeae-panduratae (Schw.)
8.3.12 *
Swing. (White rust)
Plenodomus destruens Harter
8.3.13 * *
(Foot rot)
Macrophomina phaseoli (Maubl.) Ashby
8.3.14 * *
(Charcoal rot)
8.4 Bacteria *
Streptomyces ipomoea (Person & W.T.
8.4.1 * * *
Martin) (Pox or soil rot)
Erwinia chrysanthemi Dupes
8.4.2 * * *
(Bacterial stem and root rot)
Pseudomonas solanacearum
8.4.3 * *
C.F. Smith (Bacterial wilt)
8.5 Viruses *
Sweetpotato Feathery Mottle Virus
8.5.1 * *
(SPFMV)
8.5.2 Mild mottle virus (SPMMV) *
8.5.3 Vein mottle virus (SPVMV) *
Sweet potato virus disease
8.5.4 * *
(SPVD complex)
8.6 Mycoplasma *
8.6.1 Witches broom *
Sweet potato stem blight
* *
(Alternaria sp.)
Sweet potato chlorotic stunt virus
*
(SPCSV)
High protein *
Flavour *
Earliness (time to maturity of storage
*
roots)
Development of tubers on the runners
*
or at the base
i
(a) ‘Descriptors for Sweet Potato’ (CIP, AVRDC, IBPGR, 1991);
(b) Main output of the Germplasm Characterization National Workshop held from 24-26 January 2006, at the Philippines Root Crop Research and Training Center
(PhilRootcrops) in Leyte, central Philippines;
(c) Basic list of descriptors for Sweet Potato, drawn from Guarino, L. and Jackson, G.V.H. ’Describing and documenting root crops in the South Pacific’. Suva, Fiji, 1986. FAO.
RAS/83/001, Field document 12;
(d) ‘Global Strategy for Ex-situ Conservation of Sweetpotato Genetic Resources’ (the Trust, 2007);
(e) Descriptors that were awarded funds for further research by the Global Crop Diversity Trust 2008 Award Scheme ‘Enhancing the Value of Crop Diversity in a World of
Climate Change’ (EAS);
(f) Criteria for evaluating sweet potato cultivars drawn from the Report on the ACIAR sweet potato workshop, held in held in Madang, Papua New Guinea 28–29 June 2006;
(g) Important descriptors mentioned in the CIP website;
(h) ‘Descriptors for Characterization and Evaluation of Sweet potato’ (National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences, NIAS, Genebank of Japan);
(i) ‘Descriptors for SWEETPOTATO’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN).

Crop Leader Rossel, Genoveva CIP Peru
Crop Leader Tay, David CIP Peru
Republic of
CAG/UPOV Choi, Keun-Jin UPOV
Korea
CAG Hunter, Danny Bioversity International Italy
CAG Jackson, Grahame Australia
CAG Jarret, Robert ARS/USDA USA
CAG (EAS) Panta, Ana CIP Peru
CAG (the Trust
Rao, Ramanatha Bioversity International India
expert)
CAG (the Trust
Roca, Willy CIP Peru
expert)
Vegetable and Ornamental
CAG (EAS) de Ronde, Kobie South Africa
Plant Institute (ARC)
CAG/Curator of
Roots and
Tubers in Sias Costa, Ivo EMBRAPA Brazil
Embrapa
Cenargen
CAG/Curator of
Embrapa’s Suita de Castro, Luis
EMBRAPA Brazil
Sweet Potato Antônio
Gene Bank
International Potato Center
Crop Strategy
Andrade, Maria Isabel (CIP), International Institute of Mozambique
Expert
Tropical Agriculture (IITA)
Symposium
Agili, Sammy CIP Kenya
ISTRC
Symposium
Akoroda, Malachy University of Ibadan Nigeria
ISTRC
Crop Strategy National Highlands Sweet Papua New
Apa, Annamarie
Expert Potato Collection - (NARI) Guinea
University of the Philippines
Crop Strategy
Borromeo, Teresita H. Los Baños, Crop Science Philippines
Expert
Cluster
Crop Strategy Bosco de Carvalho,
EMBRAPA Hortalicas Brazil
Expert Joao
ACIAR Australian National University,
Bourke, Mike Australia
workshop 2006 Canberra
Crop Strategy
Campilan, Dindo CIP-UPWARD Philippines
Expert
Crop Strategy
Castillo, Gelia CIP-UPWARD Philippines
Expert
Chambers, Barbara Australia
ACIAR
Chang, Christie University of New England Australia
workshop 2006
Symposium
Chipungu, Felistus Bvumbwe Research Station Malawi
ISTRC
Sweet Potato Pest and
ACIAR
Coleman, Eric Disease Project, QDPI Australia
workshop 2006
Crop Strategy
de Chavez, Hidelisa CIP-UPWARD Philippines
Expert
Reviewer Ezeta, Fernando CIP Indonesia
Crop Strategy Northern Philippines Rootcrop
Gonzales, Ines Philippines
Expert Research and Training Center
Symposium
Gruneberg, Wolfgang CIP Peru
ISTRC
Harwood, Tracy Australia
ACIAR Papua New
Hombuhanje, Freddy World Vision
workshop 2006 Guinea
Instituto Nacional de
Crop Strategy Tecnología Agropecuaria,
Hompanera, Norma R. Argentina
Expert Instituto de Recursos
Biológicos, CIRN
ACIAR Sweet Potato Ppest and
Hughes, Mike Australia
workshop 2006 Ddisease Pproject, QDPI
ACIAR Papua New
Ivahupa, Sharryl World Vision
Crop Strategy Kapinga, Regina
CIP Uganda
Expert Emilian
ACIAR Papua New
Kapis, Joseph World Vision
ACIAR Papua New
Kata, Joseph World Vision
ACIAR
Katapa, Peter WWF Australia
workshop 2006
ACIAR
Kirchhof, Gunnar University of Queensland Australia
workshop 2006
Crop Strategy
Kumagai Toru NICS - NARO Japan
Expert
Crop Strategy Kuoko, Stephen Horticulture Research Institute
Tanzania
Expert Sebastiani Horti-Tengeru
Suggested at
Lebot, Vincent CIRAD France
ISTRC
Crop Strategy Republic of
Lee, Joon-Seol NICS Mokpo Experimental St.
Expert Korea
Crop Strategy Xuzhou Sweet Potato
Li, Hongmin China
Expert Research Center
ACIAR
Lim, TK ACIAR, Canberra Australia
workshop 2006
ACIAR Fresh Produce Development Papua New
Liripu, Greg
workshop 2006 Agency Guinea
ACIAR Sweet Potato Pest And
Maltby, John Australia
workshop 2006 Disease Project, QDPI
University of the Philippines
Reviewer Manguiat, Proceso H. Philippines
Los Baños
Philippine Root Crops
Crop Strategy
Mariscal, Algerico Research and Training Center Philippines
Expert
(Philrootcrops)
Symposium
Maziya-Dixon, Bussie IITA Nigeria
ISTRC
ACIAR
Menz, Ken ACIAR, Canberra Australia
workshop 2006
Crop Strategy Milián Jiménez, Marilys
INIVIT Cuba
Expert Diley
Geneflow 2009 Morales, Francisco CIAT Colombia
Crop Strategy
Mwanga, Robert O.M. NARO Uganda
Expert
Commonwealth
Symposium
Nandwani, Dilip Northern Marianas College of the Northern
ISTRC
Mariana Islands
Crop Strategy Central Tuber Crops
Naskar, S.K. India
Expert Research Institute (ICAR)
ACIAR Papua New
Okpul, Tom PNG University of Technology
Symposium Olojede, Adeyemi National Root Crops Research
Nigeria
ISTRC Olujide Institute, Umudike
ACIAR Papua New
Ontiri, Enoch WWF
Symposium Central Potato Research
Pandey, Suman Kumar India
ISTRC Institute
Crop Strategy Randrianaivoarivony,
FIFAMANOR Madagascar
Expert Jean Marc
Crop Strategy National Institute of
Reynoso, Daniel Peru
Expert Agricultural Research (INIA)
Suggested at
Roskruge, Nick Massey University New Zealand
ISTRC
Suggested at Centre d'Ecologie Functionelle
Roullier, Caroline France
ISTRC et Evolutive
Symposium
Sartie, Alieu IITA Nigeria
ISTRC
ACIAR
Setiawan, Asep CIP Indonesia
workshop 2006
Symposium
Sharma, Kamal IITA Nigeria
ISTRC
Sharp, Timothy Australia
Spriggs, John Australia
Symposium
Sreekanth, Attaluri CIP India
ISTRC
Mikocheni Agricultural
internet Tairo, Fred Tanzania
Research Institute
Crop Strategy Xuzhou Sweet Potato
Tang, Jun China
Expert Research Center
Plant Genetic Resources
Crop Strategy
Van Kien, Nguyen Center, Vietnam Agricultural Vietnam
Expert
Science Institute
ACIAR
Wright, Jacqui ACIAR, Port Moresby Australia
workshop 2006
Suggested at
Xie, Kaiyun CIP, Liaison Office, Beijing China
ISTRC
Indonesian Legumes and
Crop Strategy Yakub, Muhammod
Tuber Crops Research Indonesia
Expert Jusuf
Institute (ILTRI)
Annex III – Initial key set of evaluation and characterization descriptors for sweet
potato validated by the Crop Leaders (G. Rossel and D. Tay) to be uploaded in the
survey
DESCRIPTOR NAME
1. Twining (ability) (4.1.1)
2. Plant growth habit (type) (4.1.2)
3. Predominant vine colour (4.1.5.1)
4. Secondary vine colour (4.1.5.2)
5. Vine tip pubescence (4.1.6)
6. General outline of leaf (4.1.7.1)
7. Leaf lobes type (4.1.7.2)
8. Leaf lobe number (4.1.7.3)
9. Shape of central leaf lobe (4.1.7.4)
10. Mature leaf size (4.1.8)
11. Abaxial leaf vein pigmentation (4.1.9)
12. Mature leaf colour (4.1.10.1)
13. Immature leaf colour (4.1.10.2)
14. Petiole length (4.1.11)
15. Petiole pigmentation (4.1.12)
16. Storage root shape (4.2.1)
17. Predominant storage root skin colour (4.2.4.1)
18. Intensity of predominant storage root skin colour (4.2.4.2)
19. Secondary storage root skin colour (4.2.4.3)
20. Predominant storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.1)
21. Secondary storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.2)
22. Distribution of secondary storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.3)
QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS
23. Storage root dry matter content [%] (6.2.1)
24. Storage root nitrogen content [%] (6.2.2)
25. Storage root starch content [% DW] (6.2.4)
26. Storage root total alcohol soluble sugar content [%] (6.2.5)
27. Storage root carotene content [mg/100g FW] (6.2.6)
28. Consistency of boiled storage root (6.2.9.1)
29. Texture of boiled storage root flesh (6.2.9.3)
ABIOTIC STRESS
31. Reaction to flooding (7.2)
32. Reaction to heat (7.3)
33. Reaction to salinity (7.4)
BIOTIC STRESS
34. Sweet potato weevil (Cylas spp.) (8.1.1)
35. Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.) (8.2.1)
36. Fusarium wilt or stem rot (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. batatas) (8.3.1)
37. Black rot (Ceratocystis fimbriata) (8.3.5)
38. Java black rot (Diplodia gossypina) (8.3.8)
39. Scab or spot anthracnose (Elsinoe batatas) (8.3.10)
40. Charcoal rot (Macrophomina phaseoli) (8.3.14)
41. Bacterial stem and root rot (Erwinia chrysanthemi) (8.4.2)
42. Sweet potato virus disease (SPVD complex) (8.5.4)
43. Sweet potato chlorotic stunt virus (SPCSV)
Annex IV – Survey to choose a key set of Descriptors for Sweet potato utilization
WELCOME
sweet potato utilization to support an international information system to enhance the utilization of
Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 2 March 2010.
This key set of descriptors will be made available through a global portal for identifying sets of accessions
for evaluation and use.
* Please allow us to acknowledge your contribution by completing your full contact details below:
Name:
Position:
Organization:
Country:
Email:
Survey to choose a key set of Descriptors for Sweet potato
*Numbers in parentheses on the right - hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers as published in the
CIP/AVRDC/IBPGR publication ‘Descriptors for Sweet potato ’ (1991).
Twining (ability) (4.1.1) n n n

Plant growth habit (type) (4.1.2) n n n
Predominant vine colour (4.1.5.1) n n n
Secondary vine colour (4.1.5.2) n n n
Vine tip pubescence (4.1.6) n n n
General outline of leaf (4.1.7.1) n n n
Leaf lobes type (4.1.7.2) n n n
Leaf lobe number (4.1.7.3) n n n
Shape of central leaf lobe (4.1.7.4) n n n
Mature leaf size (4.1.8) n n n
Abaxial leaf vein pigmentation (4.1.9) n n n
Mature leaf colour (4.1.10.1) n n n
Immature leaf colour (4.1.10.2) n n n
Petiole length (4.1.11) n n n
Petiole pigmentation (4.1.12) n n n
Storage root shape (4.2.1) n n n
Predominant storage root skin colour (4.2.4.1) n n n
Intensity of predominant storage root skin colour (4.2.4.2) n n n
Secondary storage root skin colour (4.2.4.3) n n n
Predominant storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.1) n n n
Secondary storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.2) n n n
Distribution of secondary storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.3) n n n
5
Survey to choose a key set of Descriptors for Sweet potato
These descriptors include characters such as abiotic andbiotic stresses. They are the most interesting
final decision: (i) Global impact, (ii) Initial strategic set, (iii) Importance for germplasm utilization,
(iv) Data availability, (v) True economic damage, and (vi) Wide geographical occurrence.
essential trait for crop production is missing from the minimum list presented or indicate any that may
not be very significant to global production.

Storage root dry matter content [%] (6.2.1) n n n
Storage root nitrogen content [%] (6.2.2) n n n
Storage root starch content [% DW] (6.2.4) n n n
Storage root total alcohol soluble sugar content [%] (6.2.5) n n n
Storage root carotene content [mg/100g FW] (6.2.6) n n n
Consistency of boiled storage root (6.2.9.1) n n n
Texture of boiled storage root flesh (6.2.9.3) n n n
Reaction to flooding (7.2) n n n
Reaction to heat (7.3) n n n
Reaction to salinity (7.4) n n n
Sweet potato weevil ( Cylas spp.) (8.1.1) n n n
Root-knot nematode ( Meloidogyne spp.) (8.2.1) n n n
Fusarium wilt or stem rot ( Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. batatas) n n n
(8.3.1)
Black rot ( Ceratocystis fimbriata) (8.3.5) n n n

Java black rot ( Diplodia gossypina) (8.3.8) n n n
Scab or spot anthracnose ( Elsinoe batatas ) (8.3.10) n n n
Charcoal rot ( Macrophomina phaseoli) (8.3.14) n n n
Bacterial stem and root rot ( Erwinia chrysanthemi) (8.4.2) n n n
Sweet potato virus disease (SPDV complex) (8.5.4) n n n
Sweet potato Chlorotic Stunt Virus (SPCSV) n n n
5
6
Crop Rossel, Genoveva CIP Peru

Leader
Crop Tay, David CIP Peru
Leader
CAG Hunter, Danny Project Scientist Bioversity Italy
International
CAG Jackson, Grahame Australia
CAG Jarret, Robert Curator USDA USA
CAG Panta, Ana In vitro Genbank CIP Peru

Curator
CAG Rao, Ramanatha Honorary Bioversity India
Research Fellow International
CAG Sias Costa, Ivo EMBRAPA Brazil
Roberto
CAG Suita de Castro, Luis EMBRAPA Brazil
Antônio
Reviewer Agili Makanginya, Sweet potato International Kenya
Sammy breeder Potato Center
Sweetpotato
Reviewer Akoroda, Malachy Scientific Advisor Nigeria
Promotion
Group
Reviewer Arizio, Carla Marcela Investigadora INTA Argentina
Borromeo, Teresita Professor and University of the

Reviewer Philippines
H. Head, PGR Philippines Los
Division Baños
Xuzhou Sweet
Reviewer Cao, Qinghe Division leader Potato China
Research
Centre
Reviewer de Chavez, Hidelisa Network Affiliate CIP-UPWARD Philippines
Department of
Chief Sweet
Reviewer Chipungu, Felistus Agricultural Malawi
potato breeder
Research
Services
Regional Leader -
Reviewer Campilan, Dindo CIP India
South, West and
Central Asia
Department of
Employment,
Economic
Development
Extension and Innovation
Reviewer Hughes, Michael Australia
Agronomist (DEEDI),
Queensland –
Primary
Industries and
Fisheries
Reviewer Kapis, Joseph Area Manager - World Vision Papua New
Madang Program Guinea
Reviewer Kirchhof, Gunnar Senior research University of Australia
fellow Queensland
University of the
Reviewer Manguiat, Proceso H. Researcher Philippines
Philippines Los
Baños
Philippine Root
Professor/Plant Crop Research
Reviewer Mariscal, Algerico M. and Training Philippines
Breeder
Center
(PhilRootcrops)
Central Tuber
Reviewer Naskar, S.K. Director Crops India
Research
Institute
Reviewer Okpul, Tom Lecturer PNG University Papua New
of Technology Guinea
Horticulture
Sebastiani, Stephen Principal agric Research
Reviewer Institute Tanzania
Kuoko research officer
(HORTI
Tengeru)
Reviewer Xie, Kaiyun Liaison scientist CIP, Liaison China
Office China
Indonesian
Sweetpotato Legumes and
Yakub, Muhammad
Reviewer breeder and Tuber Crops Indonesia
Jusuf
cuarator Research
Institute
Annex VI – List of descriptors proposed in the survey ranked by rating average and
percentage of importance, sent to the Core Advisory Group for their selectioni
%
%
Rating Your Importance
Average selection (very
(important)
important)
Predominant storage root Predominant storage root
4.91 95.5% (21) 4.5% (1)
flesh colour (4.2.5.1) flesh colour (4.2.5.1)
Predominant storage root Predominant storage root
4.45 72.7% (16) 27.3% (6)
skin colour (4.2.4.1) skin colour (4.2.4.1)
Storage root shape (4.2.1) 4.32 Storage root shape (4.2.1) 72.7% (16) 22.7% (5)
Plant growth habit (type) Plant growth habit (type)
4.00 57.1% (12) 38.1% (8)
(4.1.2) (4.1.2)
General outline of leaf General outline of leaf
3.95 54.5% (12) 40.9% (9)
(4.1.7.1) (4.1.7.1)
Secondary storage root Secondary storage root
3.86 50.0% (11) 45.5% (10)
flesh colour (4.2.5.2) flesh colour (4.2.5.2)
Leaf lobes type (4.1.7.2) 3.32 Leaf lobes type (4.1.7.2) 50.0% (11) 27.3% (6)
Distribution of secondary
Predominant vine colour
storage root flesh colour 3.29 47.6% (10) 19.0% (4)
(4.1.5.1)
(4.2.5.3)
Distribution of secondary
Mature leaf colour
3.09 storage root flesh colour 42.9% (9) 38.1% (8)
(4.1.10.1)
(4.2.5.3)
Predominant vine colour Abaxial leaf vein
2.95 36.4% (8) 22.7% (5)
(4.1.5.1) pigmentation (4.1.9)
Petiole pigmentation
Leaf lobe number (4.1.7.3) 2.73 36.4% (8) 22.7% (5)
(4.1.12)
Intensity of predominant
Immature leaf colour
storage root skin colour 2.73 36.4% (8) 18.2% (4)
(4.1.10.2)
(4.2.4.2)
Secondary storage root skin Mature leaf colour
2.59 31.8% (7) 50.0% (11)
colour (4.2.4.3) (4.1.10.1)
Abaxial leaf vein
2.50 Leaf lobe number (4.1.7.3) 27.3% (6) 45.5% (10)
pigmentation (4.1.9)
Petiole pigmentation Shape of central leaf lobe
2.50 27.3% (6) 36.4% (8)
(4.1.12) (4.1.7.4)
Shape of central leaf lobe
2.45 Twining (ability) (4.1.1) 20.0% (4) 45.0% (9)
(4.1.7.4)
Immature leaf colour Vine tip pubescence
2.36 19.0% (4) 42.9% (9)
(4.1.10.2) (4.1.6)
Secondary vine colour
Twining (ability) (4.1.1) 2.35 19.0% (4) 28.6% (6)
(4.1.5.2)
Vine tip pubescence (4.1.6) 2.24 Mature leaf size (4.1.8) 18.2% (4) 36.4% (8)
Intensity of predominant
Mature leaf size (4.1.8) 2 storage root skin colour 13.6% (3) 68.2% (15)
(4.2.4.2)
Secondary vine colour Secondary storage root
1.81 13.6% (3) 63.6% (14)
(4.1.5.2) skin colour (4.2.4.3)
Petiole length (4.1.11) 1.50 Petiole length (4.1.11) 0.0% (0) 50.0% (11)
i
List of descriptors proposed in the survey ranked by rating average and percentage of
importance, sent to the Core Advisory Group for their selectioni
%
%
Rating Your Importance
Average selection (Very
(important)
important)
Storage root dry matter Storage root dry matter
4.74 87.0% (20) 13.0% (3)
content [%] (6.2.1) content [%] (6.2.1)
Sweet potato virus
Sweet potato virus disease
4.52 disease (SPVD complex) 82.6% (19) 13.0% (3)
(SPVD complex) (8.5.4)
(8.5.4)
Sweet potato weevil Sweet potato weevil
4.35 73.9% (17) 21.7% (5)
(Cylas spp.) (8.1.1) (Cylas spp.) (8.1.1)
Storage root carotene
4.26 content [mg/100g FW] 69.6% (16) 26.1% (6)
[mg/100g FW] (6.2.6)
(6.2.6)
Storage root starch
Reaction to drought (7.1) 4.13 65.2% (15) 26.1% (6)
content [% DW] (6.2.4)
Reaction to salinity (7.4) 4.13 Reaction to drought (7.1) 56.5% (13) 43.5% (10)
Storage root starch content [%
4.04 Reaction to salinity (7.4) 56.5% (13) 43.5% (10)
DW] (6.2.4)
Scab or spot anthracnose Sweet potato chlorotic
3.83 52.2% (12) 39.1% (9)
(Elsinoe batatas) (8.3.10) stunt virus (SPCSV)
Sweet potato chlorotic stunt Scab or spot anthracnose
3.78 47.8% (11) 47.8% (11)
virus (SPCSV) (Elsinoe batatas) (8.3.10)
Reaction to flooding (7.2) 3.57 Reaction to flooding (7.2) 47.8% (11) 39.1% (9)
Root-knot nematode Texture of boiled storage
3.52 43.5% (10) 43.5% (10)
(Meloidogyne spp.) (8.2.1) root flesh (6.2.9.3)
Root-knot nematode
Texture of boiled storage root
3.48 (Meloidogyne spp.) 39.1% (9) 52.2% (12)
flesh (6.2.9.3)
(8.2.1)
Fusarium wilt or stem rot
Consistency of boiled
(Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. 3.43 39.1% (9) 47.8% (11)
storage root (6.2.9.1)
batatas) (8.3.1)
Consistency of boiled storage
3.39 (Fusarium oxysporum f. 34.8% (8) 56.5% (13)
root (6.2.9.1)
sp. batatas) (8.3.1)
Reaction to heat (7.3) 3.22 Reaction to heat (7.3) 30.4% (7) 56.5% (13)
Storage root total alcohol
Black rot (Ceratocystis
3.17 soluble sugar content [%] 30.4% (7) 47.8% (11)
fimbriata) (8.3.5)
(6.2.5)
Bacterial stem and root
Bacterial stem and root rot
3.05 rot (Erwinia 22.7% (5) 63.6% (14)
(Erwinia chrysanthemi) (8.4.2)
chrysanthemi) (8.4.2)
Storage root total alcohol Charcoal rot
soluble sugar content [%] 2.96 (Macrophomina phaseoli) 22.7% (5) 59.1% (13)
(6.2.5) (8.3.14)
Java black rot (Diplodia Black rot (Ceratocystis
2.96 21.7% (5) 69.6% (16)
gossypina) (8.3.8) fimbriata) (8.3.5)
Charcoal rot (Macrophomina Java black rot (Diplodia
2.91 17.4% (4) 69.6% (16)
phaseoli) (8.3.14) gossypina) (8.3.8)
Storage root nitrogen content Storage root nitrogen
2.43 17.4% (4) 52.2% (12)
[%] (6.2.2) content [%] (6.2.2)
i
Name of expert
Hughes, Cao, Naskar, Yakub, M.
Chipungu, M. Qinghe S.K. Jusuf
Sweet potato descriptor Panta, F. (Dept. of
Employment
(Xuzhou (Central Agili (Indonesian Jackson,
Ana (Dept. of Sweet Tuber Makanginya, Legume and
G.*
Economic
(CIP, Agric. Res. Potato Crops Tuber Crops
Peru) Services,
Development
Research Research S. (CIP, Kenya) Research
(Australia)
and
Malawi) Centre, Institute, Institute,
Innovation,
China) India) Indonesia)
Australia)
Additional traits
Root length X
Root size X
Post harvest strorage period for storage
roots. In Papua New Guinea, sweet potato
is grown in the highlands, packed & driven
to Lae, then shipped to Port Moresby for
resale. This probably takes at least 1 week X
in less than ideal conditions. Varieties
being grown for this market are now being
selected to some degree on their
postharvest shelf-lives
Sweet potato stem nematode X
Sweet potato feathery mottle virus
2 X X
(SFMV)
Reaction to Begomovirus/Sweet
2 X X
potato leaf viruses
Storage root formation- closed cluster,
open, cluster, dispersed, very dispersed-
X
can be used to discriminate varieties in the
field
Adaptation to environment - Temperate,
Cool tropical, Warm tropical and Hot
tropical - Exchange of germplasm across X
regions is on the increase, hence need to
include this description
Storage root anthocyanin (mg/100g wb) X
Vitamin C content (% wb) X
Vine thickness X
Too many descriptors for leaf, general
outline of leaf may be all that is required,
X
it is difficult to distinguish between some
of those states
Weevil may be of interest, but I doubt that
there are varieties resistant to X
C. formicarius
Comments
Most of these descriptors are of little
X
interest
*varieties do differ consistently on their vine thickness. Luigi Guarino and I chose Thin and Thick, not wanting to measure it. Not easy. Also, there seem to be too
many descriptors for leaf, and I wonder if they are all necessary. The general outline of leaf may be all that is required. And for 4.1.7.1, it is difficult to distinguish
between some of those states. I have done away with leaf lobe type and number in the selections above. It's just too complicated! If we go back to the fig of Yen 1984
of the leaves then shape, lobe number and dissection are all recorded in one.
*I find most of these descriptors of little interest. They would never be ones that I would use before advising introductions; they seem to be for commercial user
rather than household use. Weevil may be of interest, but I doubt that there are varieties resistant to C. formicarius, although IITA bred some resistant to the weevil
of Africa years ago. Scab is the only one that I would rate very important. I presume that the pathogens listed are important somewhere globally - I have not come
across many of them, so I can't say. None except nematode, scab and SPDV seem to be important globally, but I may be wrong.
Annex VIII – Table comparing the CAG’s selection and the rating and percentages obtained in the survey. Crop Leaders
Drs G. Rossel and D. Tay approved the complete list of descriptors proposed in the survey for inclusion in the final key set
% Very G. Rossel
Rating % G. R. D. Hunter
important S. Costa Total and
Jackson Rao (Bioversity
Sweet potato descriptor Average
N=23
Important (EMBRAPA)
(Australia) (India) International) D. Tay
(CIP)
Characterization
Predominant storage root flesh
4.91 95.5% (21) 4.5% (1) X X X X 4 Yes
colour (4.2.5.1)
Predominant storage root skin
4.45 72.7% (16) 27.3% (6) X X X X 4 Yes
colour (4.2.4.1)
Storage root shape (4.2.1) 4.32 72.7% (16) 22.7% (5) X X X X 4 Yes
Plant growth habit (type) (4.1.2) 4.00 57.1% (12) 38.1% (8) X X X X 4 Yes
General outline of leaf (4.1.7.1) 3.95 54.5% (12) 40.9% (9) X X X 3 Yes
Secondary storage root flesh
3.86 50.0% (11) 45.5% (10) X X X X 4 Yes
colour (4.2.5.2)
Leaf lobes type (4.1.7.2) 3.32 50.0% (11) 27.3% (6) X X X X 4 Yes
Distribution of secondary storage
3.29 42.9% (9) 38.1% (8) X 1 Yes
root flesh colour (4.2.5.3)
Mature leaf colour (4.1.10.1) 3.09 31.8% (7) 50.0% (11) X 1 Yes
Predominant vine colour (4.1.5.1) 2.95 47.6% (10) 19.0% (4) X X X X 4 Yes
Leaf lobe number (4.1.7.3) 2.73 27.3% (6) 45.5% (10) X 1 Yes
Intensity of predominant storage
2.73 13.6% (3) 68.2% (15) 0 Yes
root skin colour (4.2.4.2)
Secondary storage root skin colour
2.59 13.6% (3) 63.6% (14) 0 Yes
(4.2.4.3)
Abaxial leaf vein pigmentation
2.50 36.4% (8) 22.7% (5) X 1 Yes
(4.1.9)
Petiole pigmentation (4.1.12) 2.50 36.4% (8) 22.7% (5) X X X 3 Yes
Shape of central leaf lobe (4.1.7.4) 2.45 27.3% (6) 36.4% (8) 0 Yes
Immature leaf colour (4.1.10.2) 2.36 36.4% (8) 18.2% (4) 0 Yes
Twining (ability) (4.1.1) 2.35 20.0% (4) 45.0% (9) 0 Yes
Vine tip pubescence (4.1.6) 2.24 19.0% (4) 42.9% (9) X 1 Yes
Mature leaf size (4.1.8) 2 18.2% (4) 36.4% (8) 0 Yes
Secondary vine colour (4.1.5.2) 1.81 13.6% (3) 63.6% (14) 0 Yes
Petiole length (4.1.11) 1.50 0.0% (0) 50.0% (11) 0 Yes
Evaluation
Storage root dry matter content [%]
4.74 87.0% (20) 13.0% (3) X X X X 4 Yes
(6.2.1)
Sweet potato virus disease (SPDV
4.52 82.6% (19) 13.0% (3) X X X X 4 Yes
complex) (8.5.4)
Sweet potato weevil (Cylas spp.)
4.35 73.9% (17) 21.7% (5) X X X X 4 Yes
(8.1.1)
4.26 69.6% (16) 26.1% (6) X X X X 4 Yes
[mg/100g FW] (6.2.6)
Reaction to drought (7.1) 4.13 56.5% (13) 43.5% (10) X X X X 4 Yes
Reaction to salinity (7.4) 4.13 56.5% (13) 43.5% (10) X 1 Yes
Storage root starch content
4.04 65.2% (15) 26.1% (6) X X X X 4 Yes
[% DW] (6.2.4)
Scab or spot anthracnose
3.83 47.8% (11) 47.8% (11) X X X X 4 Yes
(Elsinoe batatas) (8.3.10)
Sweet potato Chlorotic Stunt Virus
3.78 52.2% (12) 39.1% (9) X X X 3 Yes
(SPCSV)
Reaction to flooding (7.2) 3.57 47.8% (11) 39.1% (9) X 1 Yes
Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne
3.52 39.1% (9) 52.2% (12) X 1 Yes
spp.) (8.2.1)
Texture of boiled storage root flesh
3.48 43.5% (10) 43.5% (10) X 1 Yes
(6.2.9.3)
(Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. 3.43 34.8% (8) 56.5% (13) 0 Yes
batatas) (8.3.1)
Consistency of boiled storage root
3.39 39.1% (9) 47.8% (11) 0 Yes
(6.2.9.1)
Reaction to heat (7.3) 3.22 30.4% (7) 56.5% (13) X 1 Yes
Black rot (Ceratocystis fimbriata)
3.17 21.7% (5) 69.6% (16) 0 Yes
(8.3.5)
Bacterial stem and root rot
3.05 22.7% (5) 63.6% (14) 0 Yes
(Erwinia chrysanthemi) (8.4.2)
Storage root total alcohol soluble
2.96 30.4% (7) 47.8% (11) 0 Yes
sugar content [%] (6.2.5)
Java black rot (Diplodia gossypina)
2.96 17.4% (4) 69.6% (16) 0 Yes
(8.3.8)
Charcoal rot (Macrophomina
2.91 22.7% (5) 59.1% (13) 0 Yes
phaseoli) (8.3.14)
Storage root nitrogen content [%]
2.43 17.4% (4) 52.2% (12) 0 Yes
(6.2.2)
Comments from G. Jackson
There are not many leaf characters
chosen, and this may be a worry.
Of those that MAY be useful are
the following 2: - there does not
seem to be clear consensus on
these, with very important and not
important with similar scores! X 1
Abaxial leaf vein pigmentation
(4.1.9) (1 green; 2 half or less of
main vein purple; 3 purple spotting;
4 pale purple; 5 all purple); Petiole
pigmentation (4.1.12) (1 green; 2
moderately purple; 3 purple)
Not sure that you would want dry
matter and starch; dry matter is a X 1
good indicator of starch content
I doubt that Chlorotic stunt virus
can be detected unless it's in a
complex, usually with feathery
X 1
mottle; unless you do molecular
tests of course - not really a useful
descriptor
I would think that reaction to
viruses specifically and all other
X 1
pathogens (except scab) is best
left for evaluation locally.
No idea about texture of boiled
roots; is this a constant X 1
characterisitic?
Annex IX – First draft of the key access and utilization descriptors for sweet
potato sent to Crop Leaders and the CAG for validation

sweet potato genetic resources
This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for sweet potato
(Ipomoea batatas) genetic resources utilization. This strategic set of descriptors, together with
Trust (the Trust). It will facilitate access to and utilization of sweet potato accessions held in
become available.
Based on the comprehensive list ‘Descriptors for Sweet potato’ published by the
International Potato Center (CIP), the Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center
(AVRDC) and IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1991, the list was subsequently
compared with a number of sources1.
priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize sweet potato genetic resources.
This key set was afterwards validated by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr
Genoveva Rossel and Dr David Tay of CIP.
1
(a) Main output of the Germplasm Characterization National Workshop held on 24-26 January 2006, at the Philippines Root
Crop Research and Training Center (PhilRootcrops) in Leyte, Central Philippines;
(b) Basic list of descriptors for Sweet Potato, drawn from Guarino, L. and Jackson, G.V.H. ‘Describing and documenting root
crops in the South Pacific’. Suva, Fiji, 1986. FAO. RAS/83/001, Field document 12;
(c) ‘Global Strategy for Ex-Situ Conservation of Sweetpotato Genetic Resources’ (the Trust, 2007);
(d) Descriptors that were awarded funds for further research by the Trust in 2008 Evaluation Awards Scheme (EAS);
(e) Criteria for evaluating sweet potato cultivars drawn from the Report on the ACIAR sweet potato workshop, held in
Madang, Papua New Guinea on 28-29 June 2006;
(f) Important descriptors mentioned in the CIP website;
(g) ‘Descriptors for Characterization and Evaluation of Sweet potato’ (National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences,
Genebank of Japan);
(h) ‘Descriptors for SWEETPOTATO’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN).
PLANT DATA
Twining (ability) (4.1.1)

Ability of vines to climb adjacent stakes placed in those accessions showing twining
characteristics
0 Non-twining
3 Slightly twining
5 Moderately twining
7 Twining
9 Very twining
Plant growth habit (type) (4.1.2)

Length of the main vines
3 Erect (<75cm)
5 Semi-erect (75-150 cm)
7 Spreading (151-250 cm)
9 Extremely spreading (>250 cm)
Predominant vine colour (4.1.5.1)

1 Green
3 Green with few purple spots
4 Green with many purple spots
5 Green with many dark purple spots
6 Mostly purple
7 Mostly dark purple
8 Totally purple
9 Totally dark purple
Secondary vine colour (4.1.5.2)

0 Absent
1 Green base
2 Green tip
3 Green nodes
4 Purple base
5 Purple tip
6 Purple nodes
Vine tip pubescence (4.1.6)

Degree of hairiness of immature leaves recorded at the apex of the vines
0 Absent
3 Sparse
5 Moderate
7 Heavy
General outline of the leaf (4.1.7.1)

1 Rounded
2 Reniform (kidney-shaped)
3 Cordate (heart-shaped)
4 Triangular
5 Hastate (trilobular and spear-shaped with the basal lobes more or less divergent)
6 Lobed
7 Almost divided
Leaf lobes type (4.1.7.2)
0 No lateral lobes (entire)
1 Very slight (teeth)
3 Slight
5 Moderate
7 Deep
9 Very deep
Leaf lobe number (4.1.7.3)

Most leaves of sweet potatoes have two basal lobes and they should not be counted. Record the
predominant number of lateral and central leaf lobes observed on the leaves located in the
middle section of the vine.
Generally sweet potatoes have 1, 3, 5, 7 or 9 leaf lobes. If the leaf has no lateral lobes but shows a
central tooth this number is 1. If the apical portion of the leaf is rounded this number is 0
Shape of central leaf lobe (4.1.7.4)

0 Absent
1 Toothed
2 Triangular
3 Semi-circular
4 Semi-elliptic
5 Elliptic
6 Lanceolate
7 Oblanceolate
8 Linear (broad)
9 Linear (narrow)
Mature leaf size (4.1.8)

Length from the basal lobes to the tip of the leaves. Record the average expression of at least
three leaves located in the middle section of the vine
3 Small (<8 cm)
5 Medium (8-15 cm)
7 Large (16-25 cm)
9 Very large (>25 cm)
Abaxial leaf vein pigmentation (4.1.9)

Describe the most frequent expression of the distribution of anthocyanin (purple) pigmentation
shown in the veins of the lower surface of the leaves
1 Yellow
2 Green
3 Purple spot in the base of main rib
4 Purple spots in several veins
5 Main rib partially purple
6 Main rib mostly or totally purple
7 All veins partially purple
8 All veins mostly or totally purple
9 Lower surface and veins totally purple
Mature leaf colour (4.1.10.1)
1 Yellow-green
2 Green
3 Green with purple edge
4 Greyish-green (due to heavy pubescence)
5 Green with purple veins on upper surface
6 Slightly purple
7 Mostly purple
8 Green upper, purple lower
9 Purple both surfaces
Immature leaf colour (4.1.10.2)

1 Yellow-green
2 Green
4 Greyish-green (due to heavy pubescence)
6 Slightly purple
7 Mostly purple
8 Green upper, purple lower
9 Purple both surfaces
Petiole length (4.1.11)

Average petiole length, from the base to the insertion with the blade, of at least three leaves in
the middle portion of a main vine
3 Short (10-20 cm)
5 Intermediate (21-30 cm)
7 Long (31-40 cm)
Petiole pigmentation (4.1.12)

Distribution of anthocyanin (purple) pigmentation in the petioles of leaves. Indicate the most
predominant colour first
1 Green
2 Green with purple near stem
3 Green with purple near leaf
4 Green with purple at both ends
5 Green with purple spots throughout petiole
6 Green with purple stripes
7 Purple with green near leaf
8 Some petioles purple, others green
9 Totally or mostly purple
Storage root shape (4.2.1)
Storage root outline shown in longitudinal section
1 Round – almost a circular outline with a length to breadth (L/B) ratio of about 1:1
2 Round elliptic – a slightly circular outline with acute ends. L/B ratio not more than 2:1
3 Elliptic – symmetrical outline with about the maximum breadth at equal distance from
both ends which are slightly acute. L/B ratio not more than 3:1
4 Ovate – outline resembling the longitudinal section of an egg. The broadest part is at the
distal end (i.e. away from the root stalk)
5 Obovate – inversely ovate outline. The broadest part is at the proximal end (i.e. close to
the root stalk)
6 Oblong – almost rectangular outline with sides nearly parallel and corners rounded. L/B
ratio about 2:1
7 Long oblong – oblong outline with a L/B ratio of more than 3:1
8 Long elliptic – elliptic outline with a L/B ratio of more than 3:1
9 Long irregular or curved
Predominant storage root skin colour (4.2.4.1)

1 White
2 Cream
3 Yellow
4 Orange
5 Brownish orange
6 Pink
7 Red
8 Purple-red
9 Dark purple
Intensity of predominant storage root skin colour (4.2.4.2)

1 Pale
2 Intermediate
3 Dark
Secondary storage root skin colour (4.2.4.3)

0 Absent
1 White
2 Cream
3 Yellow
4 Orange
5 Brownish orange
6 Pink
8 Purple-red
9 Dark purple
Predominant storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.1)

1 White
2 Cream
3 Dark cream
4 Pale yellow
5 Dark yellow
6 Pale orange
7 Intermediate orange
8 Dark orange
9 Strongly pigmented with anthocyanins
Secondary storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.2)
0 Absent
1 White
2 Cream
3 Yellow
4 Orange
5 Pink
6 Red
7 Purple-red
8 Purple
9 Dark purple
Distribution of secondary storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.3)

0 Absent
1 Narrow ring in cortex
2 Broad ring in cortex
3 Scattered spots in flesh
4 Narrow ring in flesh
5 Broad ring in flesh
6 Ring and other areas in flesh
7 In longitudinal sections
8 Covering most of the flesh
9 Covering all flesh
Storage root dry matter content [%] (6.2.1)
Storage root nitrogen content [%] (6.2.2)

Use the Kjeldahl Method
Storage root starch content [% DW] (6.2.4)
Storage root total alcohol soluble sugar content [%] (6.2.5)

The phenol-sulphuric method is suggested
Storage root carotene content [mg/100g FW] (6.2.6)
Consistency of boiled storage root (6.2.9.1)

1 Watery
2 Extremely soft
3 Very soft
4 Soft
5 Slightly hard
6 Moderately hard
7 Hard
8 Very hard
9 Very hard and non-cooked
Texture of boiled storage root flesh (6.2.9.3)
1 Dry
3 Somewhat dry
5 Intermediate
7 Moist
9 Very moist
ABIOTIC STRESSES

Observe after 6 weeks without irrigation or rainfall in a soil without subsurface water and in a
season of high evaporation (4-6 mm per day)
Reaction to flooding (7.2)

Late season flooding during storage root formation. The environmental conditions could consist
of about 2 weeks’ flooding (water-saturated soil) in a heavy soil
Reaction to heat (7.3)

Hot season with night temperatures of more than 22°C. The yield comparisons could be versus
yields obtained under cooler conditions

In a soil with salinity levels of more than 8 mmhos/cm. The yield comparisons could be versus
yields obtained in soils with less than 2 mmhos/cm
BIOTIC STRESSES
Sweet potato weevil (Cylas spp.) (8.1.1)
Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.) (8.2.1)
Fusarium wilt or stem rot (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. batatas) (8.3.1)
Black rot (Ceratocystis fimbriata) (8.3.5)
Java black rot (Diplodia gossypina) (8.3.8)
Scab or spot anthracnose (Elsinoe batatas) (8.3.10)
Charcoal rot (Macrophomina phaseoli) (8.3.14)
Bacterial stem and root rot (Erwinia chrysanthemi) (8.4.2)
Sweet potato virus disease (SPVD complex) (8.5.4)
Sweet potato chlorotic stunt vrus (SPCSV) (8.5.X)

NOTES
CONTRIBUTORS
strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for sweet potato genetic resources’, and in
particular to Dr D. Tay and Dr G. Rossel of the International Potato Centre (CIP) for providing valuable
scientific direction. Adriana Alercia provided technical expertise and guided the entire production process.
CORE ADVISORY GROUP
Genoveva Rossel, International Potato Centre (CIP), Peru

David Tay, International Potato Centre (CIP), Peru
Grahame Jackson, Australia
Robert Jarret, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA, ARS),
USA
Ana Panta, International Potato Centre (CIP), Peru
Ramanatha Rao, Bioversity International, India
Ivo Sias Costa, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA), Brazil
REVIEWERS
Argentina
Carla Marcela Arizio, Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA)
Australia
Michael Hughes, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI),
Queensland – Primary Industries and Fisheries
Gunnar Kirchhof, University of Queensland
China
Qinghe Cao, Xuzhou Sweet Potato Research Centre
Kaiyun Xie, International Potato Center (CIP), Liaison Office China
Kenya
Sammy Agili Makanginya, International Potato Center (CIP)
India
Dindo Campilan, International Potato Center (CIP)
S.K. Naskar, Central Tuber Crops Research Institute
Indonesia
Muhammad Jusuf Yakub, Indonesian Legumes and Tuber Crops Research Institute
Malawi
Felistus Chipungu, Department of Agricultural Research Services
Nigeria
Malachy Akoroda, Sweetpotato Promotion Group
Papua New Guinea
Joseph Kapis, World Vision
Tom Okpul, Papua New Guinea University of Technology
Philippines
Teresita H. Borromeo, University of the Philippines Los Baños
Hidelisa de Chavez, International Potato Center (CIP-UPWARD)
Proceso H. Manguiat, University of the Philippines Los Baños
Algerico M. Mariscal, Philippines Root Crop Research and Training Center (PhilRootcrops)
Tanzania
Stephen Kuoko Sebastiani, Horticulture Research Institute (HORTI Tengeru)
Annex X – Final key set for sweet potato genetic resources obtained after
validation

sweet potato genetic resources
This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for sweet potato
(Ipomoea batatas) genetic resources utilization. This strategic set of descriptors, together with
Trust (the Trust). It will facilitate access to and utilization of sweet potato accessions held in
become available.
Based on the comprehensive list ‘Descriptors for Sweet potato’ published by the
International Potato Center (CIP), the Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center
(AVRDC) and IBPGR (now Bioversity International) in 1991, the list was subsequently
compared with a number of sources1.
priority set of descriptors to describe, to access and to utilize sweet potato genetic resources.
This key set was afterwards validated by a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr
David Tay and Dr Genoveva Rossel of CIP.
geographical occurrence and significant economic impact at a global level.
1
(a) Main output of the Germplasm Characterization National Workshop held on January 24-26, at the Philippine Root Crop
Research and Training Center (PhilRootcrops) in Leyte, Central Philippines
(b) Basic list of descriptors for Sweet Potato, drawn from Guarino, L. and Jackson, G.V.H. ‘Describing and documenting root
crops in the South Pacific’. Suva, Fiji, 1986. FAO. RAS/83/001, Field document 12
(c) ‘Global Strategy for Ex-Situ Conservation of Sweet potato Genetic Resources’ (Trust, 2007)
(d) Descriptors that were awarded funds for further research by the Trust in 2008 Evaluation Awards Scheme (EAS);
(e) Criteria for evaluating sweet potato cultivars drawn from the Report on the ACIAR sweet potato workshop, held in
Madang, Papua New Guinea on 28-29 June 2006
(f) Important descriptors mentioned in the CIP website
(g) ‘Descriptors for Characterization and Evaluation of Sweet potato’ (National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences,
Genebank of Japan)
(h) ‘Descriptors for SWEETPOTATO’ (USDA, ARS, GRIN)
PLANT DATA
Twining (ability) (4.1.1)

Ability of vines to climb adjacent stakes placed in those accessions showing twining
characteristics
0 Non-twining
3 Slightly twining
5 Moderately twining
7 Twining
9 Very twining
Plant growth habit (type) (4.1.2)

Length of the main vines
3 Erect (<75cm)
5 Semi-erect (75-150 cm)
7 Spreading (151-250 cm)
9 Extremely spreading (>250 cm)
Ground cover (4.1.3)

Estimated percentage of ground cover recorded 35-40 days after planting
3 Low (<50%)
5 Medium (50-74%)
7 High (75-90%)
9 Total (>90%)
Vine internode length (4.1.4.1)

Average length of at least three internodes located in the middle section of the vine
3 Short (3-5 cm)
7 Long (10-12 cm)
Vine internode diameter (4.1.4.2)

Average diameter of at least three internodes located in the middle section of the vine
1 Very thin (<4 mm)
3 Thin (4-6 mm)
5 Intermediate (7-9 mm)
7 Thick (10-12 mm)
9 Very thick (>12 mm)
Predominant vine colour (4.1.5.1)

1 Green
2 Green with few purple spots
3 Green with many purple spots
4 Green with many dark purple spots
5 Mostly purple
6 Mostly dark purple
7 Totally purple
8 Totally dark purple
Secondary vine colour (4.1.5.2)
0 Absent
1 Green base
2 Green tip
3 Green nodes
4 Purple base
5 Purple tip
6 Purple nodes
Vine tip pubescence (4.1.6)

Degree of hairiness of immature leaves recorded at the apex of the vines
0 Absent
3 Sparse
5 Moderate
7 Dense
General outline of the leaf (4.1.7.1)

1 Rounded
2 Reniform (kidney-shaped)
3 Cordate (heart-shaped)
4 Triangular
5 Hastate (trilobular and spear-shaped with the basal lobes more or less divergent)
6 Lobed
7 Almost divided
Leaf lobes type (4.1.7.2)

0 No lateral lobes (entire)
1 Very slight (teeth)
3 Slight
5 Moderate
7 Deep
9 Very deep
Leaf lobe number (4.1.7.3)

Most leaves of sweet potatoes have two basal lobes and they should not be counted. Record the
predominant number of lateral and central leaf lobes observed on the leaves located in the
middle section of the vine.
Generally sweet potatoes have 1, 3, 5, 7 or 9 leaf lobes. If the leaf has no lateral lobes but shows a
central tooth this number is 1. If the apical portion of the leaf is rounded this number is 0
Shape of central leaf lobe (4.1.7.4)

0 Absent
1 Toothed
2 Triangular
3 Semi-circular
4 Semi-elliptic
5 Elliptic
6 Lanceolate
7 Oblanceolate
8 Linear (broad)
9 Linear (narrow)
Mature leaf size (4.1.8)
Length from the basal lobes to the tip of the leaves. Record the average expression of at least
three leaves located in the middle section of the vine
3 Small (<8 cm)
5 Medium (8-15 cm)
7 Large (16-25 cm)
9 Very large (>25 cm)
Abaxial leaf vein pigmentation (4.1.9)

Describe the most frequent expression of the distribution of anthocyanin (purple) pigmentation
shown in the veins of the lower surface of leaves
1 Yellow
2 Green
3 Purple spot in the base of main rib
4 Purple spots in several veins
5 Main rib partially purple
6 Main rib mostly or totally purple
7 All veins partially purple
8 All veins mostly or totally purple
9 Lower surface and veins totally purple
Mature leaf colour (4.1.10.1)

1 Yellow-green
2 Green
4 Greyish-green (due to dense pubescence)
6 Slightly purple
7 Mostly purple
8 Green upper surface, purple lower surface
9 Purple on both surfaces
Immature leaf colour (4.1.10.2)

1 Yellow-green
2 Green
4 Greyish-green (due to dense pubescence)
6 Slightly purple
7 Mostly purple
8 Green upper surface, purple lower surface
9 Purple on both surfaces
Petiole length (4.1.11)

Average petiole length, from the base to the insertion with the blade, of at least three leaves in
the middle portion of a main vine
3 Short (10-20 cm)
7 Long (31-40 cm)
Petiole pigmentation (4.1.12)
Distribution of anthocyanin (purple) pigmentation in the petioles of leaves. Indicate the most
predominant colour first
1 Green
2 Green with purple near stem
3 Green with purple near leaf
4 Green with purple at both ends
5 Green with purple spots throughout petiole
6 Green with purple stripes
7 Purple with green near leaf
8 Some petioles purple, some others green
9 Totally or mostly purple
Storage root shape (4.2.1)

Storage root outline shown in longitudinal section
1 Round – almost a circular outline with a length to breadth (L/B) ratio of about 1:1
2 Round elliptic – a slightly circular outline with acute ends. L/B ratio not more than 2:1
3 Elliptic – symmetrical outline with about the maximum breadth at equal distance from both
ends which are slightly acute. L/B ratio not more than 3:1
4 Ovate – outline resembling the longitudinal section of an egg. The broadest part is at the distal
end (i.e. away from the root stalk)
5 Obovate – inversely ovate outline. The broadest part is at the proximal end (i.e. close to the root
stalk)
6 Oblong – almost rectangular outline with sides nearly parallel and corners rounded. L/B ratio
about 2:1
7 Long oblong – oblong outline with a L/B ratio of more than 3:1
8 Long elliptic – elliptic outline with a L/B ratio of more than 3:1
9 Long irregular or curved
Storage root surface defects (4.2.2)

0 Absent
1 Alligator-like skin
2 Veins
3 Shallow horizontal constrictions
4 Deep horizontal constrictions
5 Shallow longitudinal grooves
6 Deep longitudinal grooves
7 Deep constrictions and deep grooves
Storage root cortex thickness (4.2.3)

1 Very thin (<1 mm)
3 Thin (1-2 mm)
5 Intermediate (2-3 mm)
7 Thick (3-4 mm)
9 Very thick (>4 mm)
Predominant storage root skin colour (4.2.4.1)
1 White
2 Cream
3 Yellow
4 Orange
5 Brownish orange
6 Pink
7 Red
8 Purple-red
9 Dark purple
Intensity of predominant storage root skin colour (4.2.4.2)

1 Pale
2 Intermediate
3 Dark
Secondary storage root skin colour (4.2.4.3)

0 Absent
1 White
2 Cream
3 Yellow
4 Orange
5 Brownish orange
6 Pink
7 Red
8 Purple-red
9 Dark purple
Predominant storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.1)

1 White
2 Cream
3 Dark cream
4 Pale yellow
5 Dark yellow
6 Pale orange
7 Intermediate orange
8 Dark orange
9 Strongly pigmented with anthocyanins
Secondary storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.2)

0 Absent
1 White
2 Cream
3 Yellow
4 Orange
5 Pink
6 Red
7 Purple-red
8 Purple
9 Dark purple
Distribution of secondary storage root flesh colour (4.2.5.3)
0 Absent
1 Narrow ring in cortex
2 Broad ring in cortex
3 Scattered spots in flesh
4 Narrow ring in flesh
5 Broad ring in flesh
6 Ring and other areas in flesh
7 In longitudinal sections
8 Covering most of the flesh
9 Covering all flesh
Storage root dry matter content [%] (6.2.1)
Storage root nitrogen content [%] (6.2.2)

Use the Kjeldahl Method
Storage root starch content [% DW] (6.2.4)
Storage root total alcohol soluble sugar content [%] (6.2.5)

The phenol-sulphuric method is suggested
Storage root carotene content [mg/100g FW] (6.2.6)
Consistency of boiled storage root (6.2.9.1)

1 Watery
2 Extremely soft
3 Very soft
4 Soft
5 Slightly hard
6 Moderately hard
7 Hard
8 Very hard
9 Very hard and non-cooked
Texture of boiled storage root flesh (6.2.9.3)

1 Dry
3 Somewhat dry
5 Intermediate
7 Moist
9 Very moist
ABIOTIC STRESSES

Observed after six weeks without irrigation or rainfall in a soil without subsurface water and in
a season of high evaporation (4-6 mm per day)
Reaction to flooding (7.2)

Late season flooding during storage root formation. The environmental conditions could consist
of about two weeks’ flooding (water-saturated soil) in a heavy soil
Reaction to heat (7.3)
Hot season with night temperatures of more than 22°C. The yield comparisons could be versus
yields obtained under cooler conditions

In a soil with salinity levels of more than 8 mmhos/cm. The yield comparisons could be versus
yields obtained in soils with less than 2 mmhos/cm
BIOTIC STRESSES
Sweet potato weevil (Cylas spp.) (8.1.1)
Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne spp.) (8.2.1)
Fusarium wilt or stem rot (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. batatas) (8.3.1)
Black rot (Ceratocystis fimbriata) (8.3.5)
Java black rot (Diplodia gossypina) (8.3.8)
Scab or spot anthracnose (Elsinoe batatas) (8.3.10)
Charcoal rot (Macrophomina phaseoli) (8.3.14)
Bacterial stem and root rot (Erwinia chrysanthemi) (8.4.2)
Sweet potato virus disease (SPVD complex) (8.5.4)
Sweet potato chlorotic stunt virus (SPCSV) (8.5.X)
NOTES
CONTRIBUTORS
development of this strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for sweet potato
genetic resources’, and in particular to Dr D. Tay and Dr G. Rossel of the International Potato
Centre (CIP) for providing valuable scientific direction. Adriana Alercia provided technical
CORE ADVISORY GROUP

Genoveva Rossel, International Potato Centre (CIP), Peru
David Tay, International Potato Centre (CIP), Peru
Robert Jarret, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDA, ARS),
USA
Ana Panta, International Potato Centre (CIP), Peru
Ramanatha Rao, Bioversity International, India
Ivo Sias Costa, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA), Brazil
Luis Antônio Suita de Castro, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA), Brazil
REVIEWERS
Argentina
Carla Marcela Arizio, Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA)
Australia
Michael Hughes, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI),
Queensland – Primary Industries and Fisheries
Gunnar Kirchhof, University of Queensland
China
Qinghe Cao, Xuzhou Sweet Potato Research Centre
Kaiyun Xie, International Potato Center (CIP), Liaison Office China
Kenya
Sammy Agili Makanginya, International Potato Center (CIP)
India
Dindo Campilan, International Potato Center (CIP)
S.K. Naskar, Central Tuber Crops Research Institute
Indonesia
Muhammad Jusuf Yakub, Indonesian Legumes and Tuber Crops Research Institute
Malawi
Felistus Chipungu, Department of Agricultural Research Services
Nigeria
Malachy Akoroda, Sweetpotato Promotion Group
Papua New Guinea

Joseph Kapis, World Vision
Philippines
Teresita H. Borromeo, University of the Philippines Los Baños
Hidelisa de Chavez, International Potato Center (CIP-UPWARD)
Algerico M. Mariscal, Philippines Root Crop Research and Training Center (PhilRootcrops)
Tanzania
Stephen Kuoko Sebastiani, Horticulture Research Institute (HORTI Tengeru)
taro (Colocasia esculenta)
Information for the definition of a strategic key set for Taro was drawn from the
publication ‘Descriptors for Taro (Colocasia esculenta)’ (IPGRI, 1999), subsequently
integrated and harmonized with descriptors suggested in the draft document ‘Edible
Aroid Conservation Strategy’ being developed by the Global Crop Diversity Trust.
Important evaluation traits, such as main pests and diseases and abiotic stresses,
were added to the original descriptors lists, including traits that were awarded funds
for further research by the Global Crop Diversity Trust 2008 Award Scheme
‘Enhancing the Value of Crop Diversity in a World of Climate Change’ (EAS).

The list of experts was prepared taking into account the list of original reviewers
engaged in the publication of ‘Descriptors for Taro’ (IPGRI, 1999), as well as experts
taking part in crop-specific consultations for the definition of the draft document
‘Edible Aroid Conservation Strategy’. Overall, 90 experts were identified, coming
from 55 countries and 77 different organizations. Out of these, a Crop Leader (Danny
Hunter) and a Core Advisory group consisting of six experts (See Annex I) were
selected to assist in the definition of a minimum set of descriptors, which was later
circulated for validation among the wider group of experts. Members of the CAG
were selected amongst in-house specialists and experts working for world renowned
institutions such as USDA/ARS, CIRAD, the Secretariat of the Pacific Community
and the University of Maribor, Slovenia.

A draft survey on Taro was prepared listing the descriptors as approved by
consultations with the Crop Leader and the CAG. Once approved, the final draft of
the survey was uploaded into the Survey Monkey application on the internet and
sent out to the list of identified experts. A link was provided to experts who were
invited to comment on the suitability of this initial ‘Minimum set of descriptors’ of
Taro accessions in fostering the use of taro germplasm. Experts were also
encouraged to specify any additional trait(s) that were found to be relevant yet
missing from the proposed Minimum List, along with a substantiated justification
for their inclusion. Email invitations to respond to the survey were sent out on the
28th of July 2008 and the survey deadline set at the 29th of August 2008. A reminder
was sent out on the 22nd of August to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was
obtained (see Annex II).
Of the 90 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 13, coming from
11 countries, recorded their comments using the online survey. Their inputs were
summarized in a comparison table and comments weighed against each other (see
Annex III). As part of the refinement process, further sources of information on Taro
descriptors were analyzed, namely:
• Guarino, L. & Jackson, G. (1986). Strengthening plant protection and root
crops development in the South Pacific. FAO. RAS/83/001. Field document
12
• Lebot, V. et al. (2004). Characterisation of taro (Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott
genetic resources in Southeast Asia and Oceania. Genetic Resources and Crop
Evolution 51: 381-392.
Descriptors highlighted as important in these papers were harmonised as far as

possible with comments received from Taro experts during the survey, with the
Minimum List of descriptors published in Descriptors for Taro (IPGRI, 1999) and with
evaluation traits for which the Trust awarded grants to various organizations to
undertake evaluation on. Special attention was given to descriptors for which data
are available. Suggested changes were further discussed with Danny Hunter,
Bioversity’s root crop expert and the refined Minimum List sent out once again to
the CAG group on 26 September 2008 for validation and finalization. Six out of
seven CAG members submitted their comments.
Definition of a Final key set of Descriptors for Taro

Comments received were compared to IPGRI’s original Minimum List and to
comments received during the survey using a comparison table (see Annex IV).
Results obtained were further discussed with the Crop leader Danny Hunter for
final approval. The final Minimum List (see Annex V) was approved on 17 October
and published in December 2008 (see Annex VI).
Once the core subset of characterization and evaluation standards for Taro
was finalized, data were transformed into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN-
Global genebank data-management system being developed by USDA, and
databases in support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food
and agriculture (PGRFA). The files were also shared with SGRP Crop Genebank
Knowledge Base, the Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) Ontology, the
System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) and with
EURISCO.
Acknowledgement
development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for taro
Annex I - List of experts identified for participation to the Survey for the
definition of a minimum set of descriptors for Taro
Crop Leader Hunter, Danny Bioversity Italy
Core Group Jackson, Graeme Australia
USDA-ARS National Germplasm

Core Group Ayala-Silva, Tomas USA
Repository
Faculty of Agriculture, University
Core Group Ivancic, Anton Slovenia
of Maribor
Core Group Lebot, Vincent CIRAD Vanuatu
Core Group Ramanatha, Rao V.R. Bioversity (HF) India
Core Group Taylor, Mary SPC Fiji
TaroGen
Harding, Rob University of Queensland Australia
expert
TaroGen
Singh, Davinder University of Sydney Australia
expert
Crop
National Plant Genetic Resources
Strategy Akonaay, Herman B. Tanzania
Centre (TPRI)
Expert
Crop
Strategy Akoroda, Malachy IITA Nigeria
Expert
Crop
Strategy Autar, Moti Koronivia Research Station Fiji
Expert
Crop
Nepal Agricultural Research
Strategy Baniya, B.K. Nepal
Council
Expert
Crop Institut des Sciences
Strategy Baramburiye, Juven Agronomiques du Burundi Burundi
Expert (ISABU)
Crop
Institute of Plant genetic
Strategy Bennett-Lartey, Samuel Ghana
Resources
Expert
Crop
Estación Experimental Agricola de Puerto
Strategy Bosques Vega, Angel
Isabela Rico
Expert
Crop
Strategy Cadima, Ximena PROINPA Brazil
Expert
Crop Instituto de Investigaciones
Strategy Castiñeiras, Leonor Fundamentales en Agriculturea Cuba
Expert Tropical (INIFAT)
Crop
Strategy Davidson, Campbell NORGEN Canada
Expert
Crop
Palau Community College R&D
Strategy Del Rosario, Aurora Palau
Station
Expert
Crop
Strategy Edison, S . CTCRI India
Expert
Crop Institute of
Strategy Embaye, Kassahun BiodiversityConservation and Ethiopia
Expert Research
Federate
Crop d States
Strategy Englberger, Konrad SPC of
Expert Micronesi
a
Crop
Philippine Root Crops Research Philippine
Strategy Ferraren, Dilberto O.
and Training Centre (PRCRTC) s
Expert
Crop
Botanical Gardens of the
Strategy Gonçalves, Eduardo Brazil
Universidade Católica de Brasília
Expert
Crop
Department of Agricultural Swazilan
Strategy Gumedze, T.
Research d
Expert
Crop
Strategy Herscovitch, Claire Royal Botanic Gardens Sydney Australia
Expert
Crop
Strategy Höfte, Monica University of Ghent Belgium
Expert
Crop
Strategy Iosefa, Tolo University of the South Pacific Samoa
Expert
Crop Plant Genetic Resources Centre,
Banglade
Strategy Islam, Obaidul M. Bangladesh Agricultural Research
sh
Expert Council
Crop
Research Institute for Legume and
Strategy Jusuf, Muhammed Indonesia
Tuber Crops
Expert
Crop
Wuhan Vegetable Research
Strategy Ke, Weidong China
Institute
Expert
Crop
Zimbabw
Strategy Kusena, Kudzai National Genebank of Zimbabwe
e
Expert
Crop
Lamine, Doumbouya
Strategy National Gene Bank Guinea
Mohamed
Expert
Crop
Strategy Lawrence, Janet CARDI Jamaica
Expert
Crop
National Plant Genetic Resources South
Strategy Lezar, Andre
Centre Africa
Expert
Crop
Strategy Liyange, A. Plant Genetic Resources Centre Sri Lanka
Expert
Crop
National Botanical Research
Strategy Loots, Sonja Namibia
Institute
Expert
Crop
SADC Plant Genetic Resources
Strategy Lupupa, Thandie Zambia
Centre (SPGRC)
Expert
Crop
PGR & Agronomy, Department of
Strategy Mahdere, Amanuel Eritrea
Agricultural Research & HRD
Expert
Crop
Guadalou
Strategy Marceau, Farant INRA
pe
Expert
Crop
Philippine Root Crops Research Philippine
Strategy Marischal, Algerico
and Training Centre (PRCRTC) s
Expert
Crop
National Root Crops Research
Strategy Mbanaso, Ada Nigeria
Institute
Expert
Crop
Instituto de Investigaciones de
Strategy Milian, Marilys Cuba
Viandas Tropicales
Expert
Crop
Moçambique, Pedro Centro Nacional De Recursos
Strategy Angola
Antonio Fitogeneticos
Expert
Crop
Department of Agricultural
Strategy Mohloboli, M. Lesotho
Research
Expert
Crop Instituto Nacional de
Strategy Morales, Sergio Rodríguez Investigaciones de Viandas Cuba
Expert Tropicales (INIVIT)
Crop
IIAM - Instituto de Investigacao Mozambi
Strategy Munisse, Paulino
Agraria de Mozambique que
Expert
Crop
National Centre for Research in DR
Strategy Munyuli, Theodore
Natural Sciences CRSN-LWIRO Congo
Expert
Crop
Institut des Sciences
Strategy Mutaganda, Amini Rwanda
Agronomiques du Rwanda (ISAR),
Expert
Crop
Strategy Mwila, G. Zambia NPGRC Zambia
Expert
Crop Institut de Recherche
Strategy Nahimana, Melchior Agronomique et Zootechnique Burundi
Expert (IRAZ)
Crop
Strategy Nsapato, Lucius Chitedze Research Station Malawi
Expert
Crop
Strategy Ofentse, Ounce NPGRC Botswana
Expert
Crop
Strategy Ofentse, Tlhaloganyo O. DAR Botswana
Expert
Crop
Strategy Ofori, Kwadwo University of Ghana Ghana
Expert
Crop
Puerto
Strategy Ortiz, Carlos University of Puerto Rico
Rico
Expert
Crop
Strategy Prana, Made LIPI Indonesia
Expert
Crop
Horticultural Crop research
Strategy Premathilaka, A. Sri Lanka
Development Institute
Expert
Crop
Malawi Plant Genetic Resources
Strategy Pungulani, Lawrent Malawi
Centre
Expert
Crop
Madagas
Strategy Ramanantosoarina, Allain SRR FOFIFA
car
Expert
Crop
Nicaragu
Strategy Reyes Castro, Guillermo National Agrarian University
a
Expert
Crop
Strategy Rios Lobo, Llerme INIEA Peru
Expert
Crop
Strategy Robin, Gregory ISTRC Jamaica
Expert
Crop
Costa
Strategy Saborio, Francisco Universidad de Costa Rica
Rica
Expert
Crop
Strategy Sagoe, Regina Ghana
Expert
Crop
Strategy Sharma, S.K. India
Resources
Expert
Crop
National Center for Seeds &
Strategy Shirata, Kazuto Japan
Seedlings
Expert
Crop
National Biodiversity Programme,
Strategy Tshewang, Ugygen Bhutan
Ministry of Agriculture,
Expert
Crop
Estación Experimental Pucallpa -
Strategy Vargas, Clemente Peru
Ucayali, INIEA
Expert
Crop New
Strategy Varin, Didier Centre des Tubercules Tropicaux Caledoni
Expert a
Federate
Crop d States
Strategy Verma, Virendra Mohan MPPRC of
Expert Micronesi
a
Crop National Plant Genetic Resources
Philippine
Strategy Villavicencio, Maria Lea Laboratory, Institute of Plant
s
Expert Breeding-Crop Science Cluster
Crop
Strategy Wasswa, John Mulumba Entebbe Botanical Gardens Uganda
Expert
Crop
Strategy Wetzel, Magaly INPA Brazil
Expert
Crop
Wigmore, William & Cook
Strategy MAF
Poeschko, Maja Islands
Expert
Crop
Guadalou
Strategy Xande, Alain INRA
pe
Expert
Reviewer New
Fullerton, Bob NZODA/Hort-research
(MDL) Zealand
Reviewer ADAP Plant Diagnostic/ Research
Greenough, Diana R.
(MDL) Lab, Northern Marianas College
Reviewer formerly Royal Botanic Gardens
Hay, Alistair Australia
(MDL) Sydney
Papua
Reviewer
Kambuou, Rosa NARI Dry Lowlands Program New
(MDL)
Guinea
Reviewer
Konishi, Tatsuo Tokyo University of Agriculture Japan
(MDL)
Reviewer
Matthews, Peter National Museum of Ethnology Japan
(MDL)
Reviewer
Okpul, Tom University of Queensland Australia
(MDL)
Papua
Reviewer
Paofa, Janet NARI, Laloki New
(MDL)
Guinea
Papua
Reviewer
Risimeri, Jimmy NARI, Laloki New
(MDL)
Guinea
Reviewer
Sauerborn, Joachim University of Hohenheim Germany
(MDL)
Reviewer Taro Genetic Resources Project
Sivan, Param Fiji
(MDL) (SPC)
Reviewer Institute of Agriculture and
Takayanagi, Kenji Japan
(MDL) Forestry, University of Tsukuba
Reviewer National Bureau of Plant Genetic
Velayudhan, K.C. India
(MDL) Resources (ICAR)
Reviewer Faculty of Agriculture, Okayama
Yoshino, Hiromichi Japan
(MDL) University
Annex II – Survey to choose a Minimum set of Descriptors for Taro (Colocasia
esculenta)
WELCOME
Welcome to the survey for the selection of a key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors to
support an international system of information to enhance the utilization of germplasm held in
genebanks.
Your knowledge and experience is requested to validate this initial ‘Minimum set of descriptors’ of
Taro accessions to facilitate their use by researchers.
This key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors will be made available through a global
facility for identifying sets of accessions for evaluation and use. For characterization, the aim is a
small set of maximally differentiating traits that provide the most impact in discriminating between
accessions and, sometimes, may be also relevant to choosing accessions for evaluation. For
evaluation, the aim is to focus on a few important traits for production, such as tolerance to drought or
salinity stress. This initial set of characterization and evaluation data will constitute the basis of an
international facility for researchers to identify the sets of accessions more likely to contain the genetic
variation they require for their specific crop improvement programmes.
The list presented here has been drawn from the IPGRI publication “Descriptors for Taro” (1999) and,
as discussed during the Trust Crop Strategy Meeting for the ex-situ conservation for edible aroids
(2007), while morphological information has been documented, more work is needed for agronomic
evaluations.
This survey should take no longer than 15 minutes. Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The
deadline for this survey is August the 29th 2008.
We thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in validating this initial, key set of
descriptors.
PART I: Lists important characterization descriptors for Taro. It also allows you to indicate if any
essential descriptor that can contribute to its use is missing from the minimum list presented.
PART II: Lists important evaluation descriptors for Taro. It also allows you to indicate if any essential
trait for production is missing from the minimum list presented or indicate any that may not be very
2. PART I: Characterization descriptors
Characterization descriptors* are those that permit accessions to be easily described and categorized
into groups. They are generally highly heritable, can be easily seen by the eye and are expressed
equally in all environments.
published in the Bioversity publication ‘Descriptors for Taro’ (1999).
NUMBER OF STOLONS (Side shoots) (7.1.3)

0 None
11–5
2 6 – 10
3 11 – 20
4 >20
LEAF BLADE COLOUR (7.2.4)

Observed on fully expanded and mature leaves
1 Whitish
2 Yellow or yellow green
3 Green
4 Dark green
5 Pink
6 Red
7 Purple
8 Blackish (violet-blue)
LEAF LAMINA LENGTH/WIDTH RATIO (7.2.7)

Recorded at maximum width and length of leaf lamina excluding petiole
LEAF VEIN MAIN COLOUR (7.2.11)

Observe the upper side of the leaf blade, beyond junction
1 Whitish
2 Yellow
3 Orange
4 Green
5 Pink
6 Red
7 Brownish
8 Purple
VEIN PATTERN (7.2.12)

Shape of pigmentation on veins on leaf lower surface
1 V pattern (in a ‘V’ space)
2 I pattern (in an ‘I’ shape)
3 Y pattern (in a ‘Y’ shape)
4 Y pattern and extending to secondary veins
PETIOLE/LAMINA LENGTH RATIO (7.2.13)

PETIOLE COLOUR (7.2.14)
1 Whitish
2 Yellow
3 Orange
4 Light green
5 Green
6 Red
7 Brown
8 Purple
PETIOLE COLOUR OF TOP THIRD (7.2.14.1)

Same colours as 7.2.14
PETIOLE COLOUR OF MIDDLE THIRD (7.2.14.2)

PETIOLE COLOUR OF BASAL THIRD (7.2.14.3)

FLOWER FORMATION (7.3.1)

0 Absent
1 Rarely flowering (less than 10% of plants flowering)
2 Flowering (more than 10% of plants flowering)
CORM BRANCHING (7.5.3)

0 Unbranched
1 Branched
CORM SHAPE (7.5.4)

1 Conical
2 Round
3 Cylindrical
4 Elliptical
5 Dumb-bell
6 Elongated
7 Flat and multifaced
8 Clustered
9 Hammer-shaped
CORM FLESH COLOUR OF CENTRAL PART (7.5.7)

1 White
2 Yellow
3 Orange
4 Pink
5 Red
6 Red-purple
7 Purple
CORM FLESH FIBRE COLOUR (7.5.8)
1 White
2 Light yellow
3 Yellow or orange
4 Red
5 Brown
6 Purple
If you consider that an essential trait for the identification of the crop to promote its use is missing from
this list, please add it here along with a substantiated justification.
4. PART II: Evaluation Descriptors
This type of descriptor includes those traits of significant importance to sustainable production,
including abiotic and biotic stresses. In this case we want to target a few key evaluation traits for
which we can initially collect data. This list is the starting point and would grow over time.
DRY MATTER CONTENT OF CORMS AT SHORT STORAGE [mg/100g, DM] (8.1.2)

Less than 1 week
CORM ACRIDITY [mg/100 g, DM]

(8.1.5)
1 Very low ≤ 50 mg
2 Low 51 – 100 mg
3 Intermediate 101-300 mg
4 High > 300 mg
PALATABILITY (8.1.7)
Taste panel test
3 Bad
5 Fair
7 Good
REACTION TO HIGH TEMPERATURE (9.1)

Scored under natural conditions during the hot season
REACTION TO DROUGHT (9.2)

Scored under natural conditions during day period for at least four weeks
REACTION TO SOIL SALINITY (9.4)
BEETLES (Papuana spp.) (10.1.1)
TARO LEAF BLIGHT (Phytophthora colocasiae) (10.2.1)
PYTHIUM ROOT ROT (Pythium spp.) (10.2.2)
VIRUSES (Please specify below, i.e. Dasheen mosaic virus (DsMV); Colocasia bobone disease
virus).
If you consider that an essential trait important for crop improvement and production is missing from
this list, or, if any of the descriptors listed is not clearly useful to promote utilization, please indicate it
here along with a substantiated justification.
Could you please indicate if you think the key descriptors chosen are suitable for the
stated purpose?
Could you please indicate if you think the key descriptors
descriptors chosen are suitable for the stated purpose?
Yes
No
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR

YOU PARTICIPATION.
Annex III – Summary of comments received from Survey for the definition of a key set of descriptors for Taro
Name Characterization descriptors to be added Characterization Evaluation descriptors Evaluation Do you think the
descriptors to to be added descriptors to be key descriptors
be deleted deleted chosen are
suitable for the
stated purpose?
Yes/No
Ayala-Silva,
* * * * Yes
Tomas
Ferraren, Dilberto
Petiole stripe (7.2.15) * * Corm acridity Yes
O.
Petiole junction pattern (7.2.8); Petiole junction Plant maturity (earliness);
Iosefa, Tolo Yes
colour (7.2.9) Reaction to waterlogging
Number of suckers; Vein pattern; Flower Reaction to salinity;

Ivancic, Anton * No
Leaf blade margin formation Resistance to Beetles
Mouth feel; Reactions to

*Absolute measurements should be recorded, not temperature salinity, and
ratios drought need to be clarified
Matthews, Peter * Corm acridity No
Corm shape to be combined with branching habit; more.
Shapes to be recorded in 3D; Basal ring colour *More detail in reaction to
pests
Mbanaso, Egbichi
* * * * *
N.A.
Okpul, Tom *Replace no. of stolons with stolon formation * * * Yes
Ortiz, C. E. * * * * Yes
Reaction to temperature,
Critical descriptors: No. of stolons, leaf blade Critical descriptors: Dry
Rao, Ramanatha Corm flesh fibre drought, salinity;
colour, leaf vein main colour, corm shape, corm matter content, corm acridity, Yes
V. colour resistance to Beetles
flesh colour palatability, Taro leaf blight
and to Pythium root rot
Reyes Castro, G. * * * * Yes
Important descriptors:
Petiole junction colour; No. of corms per plant;
Ríos Lobo, Llermé Corm size; Corm skin colour; Corm weight per * * * Yes
plant; Corm yield
Leaf colour; Leaf vein main colour
Villavicencio,
Hairiness of corms * * * Yes
Maria Lea H.
* Consistency of cooked
Weidong, Ke *Petiole junction colour Yes
corms or cormels
Annex IV - Table comparing all inputs received from the Expert Survey and from CAG consultations. Comments were
weighed against descriptors mentioned in Descriptors for Taro (IPGRI, 1999) and evaluation descriptors that have been
granted evaluation awards by the Trust
Descriptor Desc. Biove Lebot Jackson/ Ferraren Iosefa Ivancic Matthews Okpul Rao Rios Villavic Weidong Taylor
name no. rsity Guarino Lobo encio
Replac
Number of Stolon Stolon e with
stolons (Side (7.1.3) * formati formation Stolon *
shoots) on ** formati
on
Leaf blade
colour
(7.2.4) * * * * *
Leaf lamina
length/width (7.2.7) * * Delete
ratio
Original MDL proposed by Bioversity
Leaf vein main

colour
(7.2.11) * * *
Vein pattern (7.2.12) * ** Delete
Petiole/lamina
length ratio
(7.2.13) * * Delete
Petiole colour (7.2.14) * * *
Petiole colour of
(7.2.14.1) * * **
top third
Petiole colour of
(7.2.14.2) * *
middle third
Petiole colour of
(7.2.14.3) * **
basal third
Flower
(7.3.1) * * * * Delete
formation
Corm branching (7.5.3) *
* *
(combi (combine
ned
with
Corm shape (7.5.4) * with * *
corm corm
branch branchin
ing) g)
Corm flesh
colour of central (7.5.7) * * ** *
part
Descriptor Desc. Biove Lebot Jackson/ Ferraren Iosefa Ivancic Matthews Okpul Rao Rios Villavic Weidong Taylor
name no. rsity Guarino Lobo encio
Corm flesh fibre Del
(7.5.8) * *
colour ete
Dry matter
content of
corms at short
(8.1.2) * *
storage
Problem
See
Corm acridity (8.1.5) *
art.
evaluatin Delete *
g trait
Corm
Palatability
(8.1.7) * * *
* (record
Reaction to high
temperature
(9.1) * with *
altitude)
Reaction to * (to be
(9.2) *
drought (EAS) clarified)
* (to be
Reaction to soil * (to be
(9.4) * clarified
salinity (EAS) clarified)
)
Resistance to * (to be
Beetles (10.1.1) * clarified *
(Papuana spp.) )
Resistance to
Taro Leaf Blight
(Phytophthora
(10.2.1) * * * *
colocasiae)
Resistance to
Pythium root rot (10.2.2) * *
(Pythium spp.)
Resistance to
* (more
viruses (Please * *
specify) detail)
** = data available
EAS = Evaluation Awards granted by the Trust

Descriptor name Desc. Biove Lebot Jackson/ Ferraren Iosefa Ivancic Matthews Okpul Rao Rios Villavi Weidong Taylor
no. rsity Guarino Lobo cencio
Plant height (7.1.2) *
No. of suckers (7.1.4) * *
Leaf base shape (7.2.1) *
Sap colour of leaf
(7.2.10) **
blade tip
Petiole stripe (7.2.15)
Petiole stripe
(7.2.15.1) * *
colour
*
Petiole basal-ring
(7.2.16) ** (important
colour
)
Leaf sheath colour (7.2.19) **
Predominant
position/orientation
Additional descriptors
(7.2.2) * **
of leaf lamina
surface
* Very
Leaf blade margin (7.2.3) * importa
nt
Variegation of
(7.2.4.1) * **
lamina
Leaf blade margin
(7.2.5) *
colour
Petiole junction
(7.2.8) ** *
pattern
Petiole junction
(7.2.9) * ** * * *
colour
Corm weight (7.5.5) * *
Corm cortex
(7.5.6) *
colour
Plant maturity
(8.3.1) * *
(earliness)
Altitude *
Botanical variety *
Corm Hairiness *
Corm size *
Descriptor name Desc. Biove Lebot Jackson/ Ferraren Iosefa Ivancic Matthews Okpul Rao Rios Villavi Weidong Taylor
no. rsity Guarino Lobo cencio
Corm yield *
Germplasm type (2.13) *
Growing
(2.17.15) *
conditions
Growth habit *
Mouth feel
(Consistency of * *
cooked corms)
Number of corms
*
per plant
Reaction to
*
waterlogging
Resistance to
Corm rot disease
*
(Hirschmaniella
miticausa)
Sinus *
Taro large and
small bacilliform *
virus diseases
Ratio of sheath
length/total petiole (7.2.18) *
length
*
(linked
Beta Carotene to
content flesh
colour
)
Annex V – Key set of descriptors for Taro (Colocasia esculenta) as defined by
survey analysis, consultations with Core Advisory Group composed of world-
recognised Taro experts and in-house discussion with Bioversity root crop
experts
Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding

descriptors numbers as published in the publication ‘Descriptors for Taro
(Colocasia esculenta)’ (IPGRI, 1999).
1. Number of stolons (side shoots) (7.1.3)

2. Number of suckers (7.1.4)
3. Leaf blade colour (7.2.4)
4. Petiole junction colour (7.2.9)
5. Leaf vein main colour (7.2.11)
6. Petiole colour (7.2.14)
7. Petiole basal-ring colour (7.2.16)
8. Flower formation (7.3.1)
9. Corm branching (7.5.3)
10. Corm shape (7.5.4)
11. Corm flesh colour of central part (7.5.7)
12. Dry matter content of corms at short storage [mg/100g DM] (8.1.2)
13. Corm acridity [mg/100 g DM] (8.1.5)
14. Palatability (8.1.7)
15. Plant maturity (earliness) (8.3.1)
17. Reaction to soil salinity (9.4)
18. Resistance to Taro leaf blight (Phytophthora colocasiae) (10.2.1)
Annex VI – Final key set of descriptors for taro genetic resources

taro genetic resources
This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for taro
basis for the global accession-level information system being developed by the
Bioversity-led project, Global Information on Germplasm Accessions (GIGA). It will
facilitate access to and utilization of taro accessions held in genebanks, and does not
preclude the addition of further descriptors, should data subsequently become available.
Based on the comprehensive list of ‘Descriptors for Taro (Colocasia esculenta)’ (IPGRI,
1999), this minimal set, listed below with the original descriptor states, was developed in
consultation with taro experts worldwide, and further refined by a Core Advisory Group
(see ‘Contributors’) led by Dr Danny Hunter of Bioversity International.
geographic occurrence and significant economic impact.
The numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors
numbers as published in the publication ‘Descriptors for Taro (Colocasia esculenta)’ (IPGRI,
1999).
Number of stolons (side shoots) (7.1.3)

0 None
1 1–5
2 6–10
3 11–20
4 >20
Number of suckers (direct shoot) (7.1.4)

0 Absent
1 1–5
2 6–10
3 11–20
4 >20
Leaf blade colour (7.2.4)

Observed on fully expanded and mature leaves
1 Whitish
2 Yellow or yellow green
3 Green
4 Dark green
5 Pink
6 Red
7 Purple
8 Blackish (violet–blue)
Petiole junction colour (7.2.9)
Observed on the upper side
0 Absent
1 Yellow
2 Green
3 Red
4 Purple
Leaf main vein colour (7.2.11)

Observe the upper side of leaf blade, beyond junction
1 Whitish
2 Yellow
3 Orange
4 Green
5 Pink
6 Red
7 Brownish
8 Purple
Petiole colour (7.2.14)
Colour of top third (7.2.14.1)

1 Whitish
2 Yellow
3 Orange
4 Light green
5 Green
6 Red
7 Brown
8 Purple
99 Other (e.g. ‘bronze’, black; specify in the Notes descriptor)
Colour of middle third (7.2.14.2)

Same colours as for 7.2.14.1
Colour of basal third (7.2.14.3)

Same colours as for 7.2.14.1
Petiole basal-ring colour (7.2.16)

1 White
2 Green (yellow green)
3 Pink
4 Red
5 Purple
Flower formation (7.3.1)

0 Absent
1 Rarely flowering (less than 10% of plants flowering)
2 Flowering (more than 10%1 of plants flowering)
1
10% is considered to be the level of frequent flowering.
Corm branching (7.5.3)
0 Unbranched
1 Branched
Corm shape (7.5.4)

1 Conical
2 Round
3 Cylindrical
4 Elliptical
5 Dumb-bell
6 Elongated
7 Flat and multifaced
8 Clustered
9 Hammer-shaped
Corm flesh colour of central part (7.5.7)

1 White
2 Yellow
3 Orange
4 Pink
5 Red
6 Red–purple
7 Purple
99 Other (e.g. if colour is not uniform—blotches of lighter or darker pigmentation—
specify in Notes descriptor)
Dry matter content of corms [mg/100 g DM] (8.1.2)

At short storage (<1 week)
Corm acridity [mg/100 g DM] (8.1.5)

1 Very low ≤50 mg
2 Low 51–100 mg
3 Intermediate 101–300 mg
4 High >300 mg
Palatability (8.1.7)
Taste panel test
3 Bad
5 Fair
7 Good
Plant maturity (earliness) (8.3.1)

1 Very early (<4 months)
2 Early (4 to 6 months)
3 Intermediate (6 to 8 months)
4 Late (8 to 10 months)
5 Very late (>10 months)
6 Undetermined growth (wild types)

Scored under natural conditions during day period for at least four weeks

Stress susceptibility to Taro leaf blight (Phytophthora colocasiae) (10.2.1)
Notes
CONTRIBUTORS
development of this strategic set of key access and utilization descriptors for taro genetic
resources. The following Bioversity staff contributed to this exercise: Danny Hunter, who
provided scientific direction, and Adriana Alercia who provided technical expertise and
guided the whole production process.
CORE ADVISORY GROUP

Tomas Ayala-Silva, USDA-ARS National Germplasm Repository, USA
Anton Ivancic, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Maribor, Slovenia
Vincent Lebot, CIRAD, Vanuatu
V. Ramanatha Rao, Bioversity, India
Mary Taylor, SPC, Fiji
REVIEWERS
China
Ke Weidong, Wuhan Vegetable Research Institute
Japan
Peter Matthews, National Museum of Ethnology
Nicaragua
Guillermo Reyes Castro, Universidad Nacional Agraria
Nigeria
Egbichi Nnenna Adaoha Mbanaso, National Root Crops Research Institute
Papua New Guinea

Tom Okpul, PNG University of Technology
Peru
Llermé Rios Lobo, INIEA
Philippines
Dilberto O. Ferraren, Philippine Root Crops Research and Training Centre (PRCRTC)
Maria Lea Villavicencio, National Plant Genetic Resources Laboratory, Institute of Plant
Breeding-Crop Science Cluster
Samoa
Tolo Iosefa, University of the South Pacific
USA
Carlos Ortiz, University of Puerto Rico
wheat (Triticum spp.)
Information collection and preparation of the initial set of
Descriptor List
Information for the definition of a key set of descriptors and traits for Wheat was drawn
from the publication “Revised Descriptor List for Wheat (Triticum spp.)” (IBPGR, 1985).
The list was subsequently integrated and harmonized with descriptors suggested in the
Crop Strategy for the ex-situ conservation of Triticale Genetic Resources (the Trust
2007), and with descriptors being funded for further research by the Global Crop
Diversity Trust 2008 Award Scheme ‘Enhancing the Value of Crop Diversity in a World
of Climate Change’ (EAS).

Experts were drawn from participants to the crop-specific consultations for the
definition of the Crop Strategy for the ex-situ conservation of Triticale Genetic
Resources, and from those taking part in the 11th Wheat Genetic Symposium (Brisbane,
August 2008). Reviewers from the 1985 descriptors list were excluded due to the
outdated nature of their contact information. Overall, 63 experts were identified,
coming from 16 countries and 40 different organizations. Out of these, the Group
Leader (Michael Mackay) selected a Core Advisory group (CAG) consisting of 15
experts to assist in the definition of a minimum set of descriptors. Core Group members
were chosen among experts from institutes and organizations at the forefront in wheat
breeding and research, namely USDA/ARS, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada,
ICARDA, CIMMYT, the Research Institute of Crop Production, the John Innes Centre,
the N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry, the Wheat Genetics and Genomics
Resource Centre, the Department of Primary Industries NSW, the University of Zurich
and the Komugi Network of Japan.

As a preliminary step, on 19 August 2008, Michael Mackay sent out an email to a select
number of wheat experts (see Annex I) explaining the important goal raised by a
number of the global strategies for the conservation and utilization of various important
crop species supported by the Global Crop Diversity Trust. Their purpose was to
identify a limited set of characterization and evaluation descriptors to provide users
with options for accessing and identifying candidate wheat accessions for further
evaluation/utilization.
In his email (see Annex II) he provided a ‘short’ list of characterization
descriptors and evaluation traits requesting experts to provide their feedback and
comments on the suitability of those traits for the purpose outlined above (see Annex
III). Comments received were analysed (see Annex IV) and a revised key set of
descriptors was prepared to be shared among participants to the 11th International
Wheat Genetics Symposium held in Brisbane, Australia, in August 2008.
During the Wheat Plant Genetic Resources Workshop held during the
Symposium, on 26 August 2008, Michael Mackay presented the revised key set of
descriptors for wheat to about 50 participants who discussed the proposed list and
provided their input.
On return to Bioversity Headquarter, comments received by email and during

the meeting were harmonized to produce a revised key set of descriptors to be further
discussed with the CAG prior to final selection of the ‘roll-out’ descriptors. Thus, in
place of a survey, an informal letter was sent out to the 15 experts forming the CAG on
29 October 2008 (see Annex V). CAG members were invited to submit their comments
and/or validate the final key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors of Wheat
accessions. Comments received were collected in a summary table (see Annex VI),
analyzed and harmonized with the original descriptors list. This exercise led to the
definition of the final key set of descriptors for wheat (Annex VII). Afterwards a final key
set was prepared adding descriptor states and contributors and validated again by Michael
Mackay (see Annex VIII).
Once the core subset of characterization and evaluation standards for Wheat was
finalized, data were transformed into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN-Global
genebank data-management system being developed by USDA and into GENESYS,
linking national, regional and international genebank databases in support of the
conservation and use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The
Excel files were also shared with the System-wide Information Network for Genetic
Resources (SINGER) and EURISCO.
Acknowledgement
development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for wheat
Annex I – Core Group of experts identified for participation to the definition of a
key set of descriptors for Wheat
USDA/ARS National Small

Core Group Bockelman, Harold E. USA
Grains Research Facility
Core Group (IWGS) Clarke, John Canada
Canada
Research Institute of Crop
Core Group (IWGS) Dotlacil, Ladislav Czech Republic
Production
Graduate School of
Core Group (the
Endo, Takashi R. Agriculture (JPN Komugi Japan
Trust/IWGS)
Network)
Research Institute of Crop
Core Group Faberova, Iva Czech Republic
Production (RICP)
Wheat Genetics and
Core Group (the
Gill, Bikram S. Genomics Resource Center USA
Trust)
(WGGRC)
Department of Primary
Core Group (IWGS) Grimes, Greg Australia
Industries NSW
Core Group (IWGS) Keller, Beat University of Zurich Switzerland
Core Group (the N.I. Vavilov Research

Mitrofanova, Olga P. Russia
Trust) Institute of Plant Industry
Core Group (IWGS) Ogbonnaya, Francis ICARDA Syria
Core Group Payne, Thomas CIMMYT Mexico
Core Group Braun, Hans CIMMYT Mexico
Core Group Singh, Ravi CIMMYT Mexico
Core Group (the

Snape, John John Innes Centre (JIC) United Kingdom
Trust)
National Centre for Wheat
Core Group Zonghu, He China
Research and Engineering
Annex II – Email sent by Michael Mackay to selected group of Wheat experts on
19 August 2008
Dear Colleague,
Firstly, please accept my greetings in my new role at Bioversity International.
Secondly, this request for your assistance is aimed at identifying some key descriptors that will assist
researchers to utilize wheat germplasm. These key descriptors, along with passport data, will become the
foundation information to be made available to researchers in a global accession level information
system. This system will provide access to some 2.5 million accessions (not all wheat!) held in important
genebanks worldwide.
I have identified a ‘short’ list of characterization descriptors and evaluation traits below, as well as a
longer list. The short list is, in my opinion, fundamental in categorizing accessions and should be helpful
to utilization, while the longer lists are provided for reference. The short list of evaluation traits represents
those for which the Global Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust) has awarded grants to various organizations to
undertake evaluation; hence there will be results and data available from this work in due course. The
numbers in parentheses following the descriptors refer to the original descriptor numbers contained in the
“Revised Descriptor List for Wheat (Triticum spp.)” (IBPGR, 1985).
So, I am seeking your opinion/comment on the short list of characterization descriptors and evaluation
traits as being applicable to the objectives I have outlined above. For those of you who will be present at
th
the 11 International Wheat Genetics Symposium (Brisbane 24-29 August) I intend to present these lists
th
at the Wheat Plant Genetic Resources Workshop on Tuesday 26 August and seek comment /
agreement from the wider audience that will be present. If you won’t be present at the IWGS, could I ask
you to please send your comment/suggestions to Teresa Borelli (T.Borelli@CGIAR.ORG) by 12
September? The agreed key descriptors will be included as those wheat descriptors to be initially
available for searching in the global system when it is deployed in 2010. Your contribution will be much
appreciated and, later, acknowledged in the global system.
Should you require any further assistance, please don’t hesitate to contact one of my colleagues, Adriana
(A.Alercia@CGIAR.ORG) and Teresa (T.Borelli@CGIAR.ORG), or myself by email.
Sincerely,
Michael Mackay
Annex III – First attempt at a ‘short’ list of characterization and evaluation
descriptors for Wheat, sent out by email to Core Advisory Group on 19/08/08
Proposed Minimum/Key Descriptor List

Awnedness (4.2.3)
Glume colour (4.2.4)
Glume hairiness (4.2.5)
Seed colour (4.3.1)
Proposed Key Evaluation Trait List:
Pre-harvest sprouting tendency (6.3.1)
Protein content (6.3.3)
Tolerance to drought (7.4)
Tolerance to salinity (7.7)
Susceptibility to Hessian fly (Mayetiola destructor) (8.1.2)
Susceptibility to Stem Rust (Puccinia graminis) (8.2.2)
Susceptibility to Glume blotch (Septoria nodorum) (8.2.5)
Susceptibility to Russian wheat aphid (Diuraphis noxia)
Susceptibility to Sunn pest
Annex IV – Comments on proposed key set of Descriptor List for Wheat sent out
on 19 August 2008. Descriptor numbers with an asterisk (*) are considered 1st
priority descriptors
Descriptor Descriptor Thomas Payne Bockelman, Hans Braun

no. name (CIMMYT) Harold E.
(USDA/ARS)
Growth class
4.1.1*
(seasonality)
Reduced height
4.1.2 Plant height
(Rht) genes if known
4.2.2* Spike density
4.2.3* Awnedness
4.2.4* Glume colour
4.2.5* Glume hairiness
4.3.1* Seed colour
Pre-harvest Note: Presumably

6.3.1* sprouting only for white
tendency grained materials?
Wonders about Relative to what? -
value of this trait, Dependent on
6.3.3* Protein content since it is easily environment; 12%
manipulated in protein means
breeding nothing
Wonders about
Tolerance to value of this trait, Not sure how you
7.4* since it is measure this - in
drought
extremely difficult what environment?
to quantify
How accurate will
Tolerance to this screening be?
7.7*
salinity What is the
reference?
Susceptibility to
Hessian fly Against which
8.1.2*
(Mayetiola biotype?
destructor)
Descriptor Descriptor Thomas Payne Bockelman, Hans Braun
no. name (CIMMYT) Harold E.
(USDA/ARS)
Note: Until
virulence is wider Why stem rust only?
spread, this may Susceptibility/resista
Susceptibility to be difficult to nce means nothing
Stem Rust usefully screen. without knowing
8.2.2*
(Puccinia Without adequate races/genes. This
graminis) virulence, some info could be very
locations may misleading without
record mostly additional info.
resistant types.
Susceptibility to Not sure why;
Powdery reaction to Yellow
mildew Rust and Leaf Rust
8.2.4 [tritici ?]
(Erysiphe would be more
graminis f.sp. useful to the
hordei) developing world
Susceptibility to
Worldwide Septoria
Glume blotch
8.2.5* tritici much more
(Septoria
important!
nodorum)
I believe more than
Susceptibility to
a dozen resistance
Russian wheat
genes have been
* aphid
identified for RWA.
(Diuraphis
Are more sources
noxia)
required?
Has genetic
Susceptibility to
* resistance been
Sunn pest
identified?
Further comments
Thomas Payne (CIMMYT):

May consider also including:
• Grain micronutrient content (Iron, Zinc) for those cooperators working with HarvestPlus
• Winter survival (=winter kill) important for winter wheat environments
• Aphid damage [postulated to be increasingly important with warmer climates]
• Helminthosporium sativum [particularly important for hotter environments, e.g. Eastern Gangetic Plains,
Bangladesh]
• Septoria tritici, as it is very important in Mediterranean countries, perhaps more so for durum
• Plant height, as an indicator of semi-dwarf (“modern”), etc. [either in cm or relative to a check]. Easy
and routinely measured.
• Phenology, as days to heading and/or anthesis. Again, easy and routinely measured.
• Breeders are often asked for high industrial quality materials. I’ve never been asked for this type of
material. I suspect genebanks have the “reputation” for holding materials with poor industrial quality. I
wonder if we could redress this issue by including traits such as HMW-Glu, HMW-Gli or easily determined
NIR quality traits? Also, yellow berry and pigmentation may be included for durums. Need to find traits
that are easily measured, and meaningful. Response to vernalization - vrn genes if known
Hans Braun:
* Response to light - ppd genes if known Protein quality Glu/gli HMG bands - easy to measure (could use
existing data sets from Australia); 1B/1R data (existing data sets available); If you want to increase use by
breeders than the info should be supported where possible by gene info - rust resistance, hessian fly,
Russian Wheat Aphid - Should add info on diseases for which large collections were screened for, e.g.
fusarium head blight, helminthosporium leaf blight, nematodes, root rots. Protein quality not protein
content - latter highly dependent on environment. Better Gli / Glu / genes and High molecular weight
(HMW); presence of translocations, etc. Thousand kernel wt (TKW) if seed size expressed relative to
known check
Annex V – Email sent by Michael Mackay to selected group of Wheat experts on
29 October 2008
Subject: GIGA Project wheat descriptors - final phase
Dear members of the Wheat Core Advisory Group,
Many thanks to those of you who provided feedback for defining the initial GIGA (Global Information on
Germplasm Accessions) Project set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for Wheat utilization
th
prior to the 11 IWGS in August.
At the IWGS I conducted a wheat plant genetic resources workshop where about 50 participants
discussed the initial list of descriptors I circulated and had their various inputs, which together with any
suggestions you made, have brought us to the final phase in choosing this initial set. In order to validate
the revised initial list (see below), your final comment is sought.
In the initial rollout of GIGA we need to develop a model system whereby information that is helpful to
germplasm users in identifying candidate accessions (from up to 500,000 accessions in the case of
wheat), for research and pre-breeding purposes, we only want to focus on a small number of descriptors
that will be useful for this purpose. This will not exclude other descriptors from being added at a later
date. Based on the feedback received we have identified descriptors and traits considered as the '1st
priority' and listed them below. Some additional descriptors which people raised as of interest I have listed
nd
as ‘2 priority’ and we will include these in the GIGA project if at all possible. As previously mentioned,
this is the first step in an evolving process and later on we will be able to include additional descriptors,
based on feedback from users and on availability of data.
This first set of GIGA descriptors, along with passport data, will become the basis of the global accession
level information system that will facilitate access and use of wheat germplasm.
Could you please have a final look at the list and forward any questions or suggested modifications to my
colleague, Adriana Alercia A.Alercia@cgiar.org by the end of next week (Friday November 7th).
Thanks again to all of you for your valuable contribution in this process and look forward to hearing from
you.
Best regards,
Michael
________________________________________________________________
1st Priority - Revised initial set of descriptors for Wheat utilization:

• Awnedness (4.2.3)
• Glume colour (4.2.4)
• Glume hairiness (4.2.5)
• Seed colour (4.3.1)
• Tolerance to drought (7.4)
• Tolerance to salinity (7.7)
• Susceptibility to Stem Rust (Puccinia graminis) (8.2.2)
2nd Priority - Descriptors to be included if possible or in a second phase:
• Plant height (4.1.2)

• Days to flower (4.2.1)
• Percentage protein content (6.3.3)
• Hessian fly (Mayetiola destructor) (8.1.2)
• Powdery mildew (Erysiphe graminis) (8.2.4)
• Glume blotch (Septoria nodorum) (8.2.5)
• Susceptibility to Russian wheat aphid (Diuraphis noxia)
• Susceptibility to Sunn pest (Eurygaster spp.)
Annex VI – Comments received from CAG to final key set of descriptors sent out
for validation on 29/10/2008
st
1 Priority - Revised initial set of descriptors for Wheat utilization
Mike Bikram
Descriptor Hans Braun/Thomas He Zhonghu
Desc no. Ambrose/John Gill
name Payne (CIMMYT) (NCWRE)
Snape (JIC) (WGGRC)
Growth class
4.1.1 OK OK OK
(seasonality)
OK - but
suggests
replacing
by seeds
4.2.2 Spike density OK per spikelet OK
and
number of
seeds per
spike
4.2.3 Awnedness OK OK OK
4.2.4 Glume colour OK OK OK
Glume
4.2.5 OK OK OK
hairiness
4.3.1 Seed colour OK OK OK
Doubtful on
Not sure how you Not deliverable
Tolerance to obtaining
7.4 measure this - in what across Agrees with Gill
drought data for
environment? collections
this trait
Doubtful on
How accurate will this Not deliverable
Tolerance to obtaining
7.7 screening be? what is across Agrees with Gill
salinity data for
reference? collections
this trait
Why stem rust only?
susceptibility / resistance
Susceptibility Doubtful on
means nothing without Not deliverable
to Stem Rust obtaining
8.2.2 knowing races / genes. across Agrees with Gill
(Puccinia data for
This info could be very collections
graminis) this trait
misleading without
additional info.
2nd Priority - Descriptors to be included if possible or in a second phase
Reduced height (Rht) Move to

4.1.2 Plant height Move to 1st list Agrees with Gill
genes if known 1st list
Suggests
Days to Move to changing to
4.2.1 Move to 1st list
flower 1st list heading dates
and maturity
Mike Bikram
Descriptor Hans Braun/Thomas He Zhonghu
Desc no. Ambrose/John Gill
name Payne (CIMMYT) (NCWRE)
Snape (JIC) (WGGRC)
Relative to what? -
Dependent on
environment; 12% protein
means nothing. Highly
dependent on E. Protein
quality Glu/gli HMG bands
- easy to measure (could
Percentage
use existing data sets
6.3.3 protein
from Australia) - Protein
content
quality not protein content
- latter highly dependent
on environment. Better Gli
/ Glu / genes and (High
molecular weight) HMW;
presence of
translocations, etc
Hessian fly
8.1.2 (Mayetiola Against which biotype?
destructor)
Not sure why; reaction to
Powdery
Yellow Rust and Leaf
mildew
8.2.4 Rust would be more
(Erysiphe
useful to the developing
graminis)
world
Glume blotch
Worldwide Septoria tritici
8.2.5 (Septoria
much more important!
nodorum)
Susceptibility
to Russian
wheat aphid
(Diuraphis
noxia)
Susceptibility
to Sunn pest
(Eurygaster
spp.)
If you want to increase

Suggests
use by breeders than the
dividing the 1st Suggests
info should be supported
priority list into 2 adding a
where possible by gene Overall agrees
groups: 1) Traits descriptor
info - rust resistance, with comments
of high each for
hessian fly, RWA - Should by
heritability 2) biotic and
add info on diseases for Gill.Suggests
Other Complex traits abiotic
which large collections adding leaf
comments of high stresses
were screened for, e.g. rust and
importance (see and then
Fusarium head blight, yellow rust;
email of 4 Nov) have an
Helminthosporium leaf Wheat type:
and including options for
blight, nematodes, root winter, spring
plant height and specifying
rots. . TKW if seed size
flowering time which one
expressed relative to
in key set
known check
Annex VII – Final key access and utilization descriptors for Wheat genetic
resources, defined on 25 November 2008
Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors

numbers as published in ‘’Revised Descriptor List for Wheat (Triticum spp.)” (IBPGR,
1985).
1. Growth class (seasonality) (4.1.1)

3. Days to flower (4.2.1)
4. Spike density (4.2.2)
5. Awnedness (4.2.3)
6. Glume colour (4.2.4)
7. Glume hairiness (4.2.5)
9. Tolerance to drought (7.4)
11. Susceptibility to Stem Rust (Puccinia graminis) (8.2.2)
Annex VIII – Final key set of descriptors for wheat genetic resources validated by
Michael Mackay

wheat genetic resources
This list consists of an initial set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for wheat
basis for the global accession-level information system being developed by the Bioversity-led
project, Global Information on Germplasm Accessions (GIGA). It will facilitate access to and
utilization of wheat accessions held in genebanks and does not preclude the addition of further
descriptors, should data subsequently become available.
Based on the comprehensive ‘Revised Descriptor List for Wheat (Triticum spp.)’ (IBPGR,
1985), this set, listed below with the original descriptor states, was developed in consultation
with a Core Advisory Group (see ‘Contributors’) led by Michael Mackay of Bioversity
International.
The numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors
numbers as published in the ‘Revised Descriptor List for Wheat (Triticum spp.)’ (IBPGR, 1985).

1 Winter
2 Facultative (intermediate)
3 Spring

Height of plant at maturity, measured in cm from ground to top of spike, excluding awns
Days to flower (4.2.1)

Counted as days from sowing to 50% of plants in flower. However, when planting in dry soils
in dryland areas it is counted from the first day of rainfall or irrigation which is sufficient for
germination

A visual measure of the density of a spike measured on a 1-9 scale
(N.B. spike density is not the same as spike shape.)
1 Very lax
3 Lax
5 Intermediate
7 Dense
9 Very dense
Awnedness (4.2.3)
0 Awnless
3 Awnletted (short awns)
7 Awned (conspicuous awns)
Glume colour (4.2.4)

Observed on the outer glume
1 White
2 Red to brown
3 Purple to black
Glume hairiness (4.2.5)

Measured on outer side of sterile glume
0 Absent
3 Low
7 High
Seed colour1 (4.3.1)

1 White
2 Red
3 Purple
Tolerance to drought (7.4)

Coded on a 1-9 scale, where:
3 Low susceptibility
5 Medium susceptibility
9 High susceptibility
Tolerance to salinity (7.7)

Susceptibility to stem rust (Puccinia graminis) (8.2.2)

Notes
Any additional information may be specified here, particularly that referring to the category ‘Other’
present in some of the descriptors above.
1 If this is difficult to decide then the sodium hydroxide test can be used. Place grains in a petri-dish and add 25 ml of a 5%
solution of NaOH for 60-90 minutes. Original red grains will be dark brownish orange, and white grains will be straw
yellow
CONTRIBUTORS
this strategic set of key access and utilization descriptors for wheat genetic resources, and in
particular to the participants in the Wheat Plant Genetic Resources Workshop organised during
the 11th International Wheat Genetics Symposium held in Brisbane, Australia, in August 2008.
The following Bioversity staff contributed to this exercise: Michael Mackay, who provided
scientific direction, and Adriana Alercia, who provided technical expertise and guided the
CORE ADVISORY GROUP

Michael Mackay, Bioversity International, Italy
Mike Ambrose, John Innes Centre (JIC), United Kingdom
Harold E. Bockelmann, USDA/ARS, USA
Hans Braun, CIMMYT, Mexico
Ladislav Dotlacil, Research Institute of Crop Production, Czech Republic
Bikram Gill, Wheat Genetics and Genomics Resource Centre (WGGRC), USA
Greg Grimes, Department of Primary Industries New South Wales, Australia
Beat Keller, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Francis Ogbonnaya, ICARDA, Syria
Thomas Payne, CIMMYT, Mexico
John Snape, John Innes Centre (JIC), United Kingdom
He Zhonghu, National Centre for Wheat Research and Engineering, China
yam (Dioscorea spp.)
Information for the definition of a MDL for Yam was based on the publication
‘Descriptors for Yam’ (Dioscorea spp.) (IPGRI/IITA, 1997). The original list contained
therein was compared to descriptors mentioned in a number of documents, namely:
1. Basic list of descriptors for Yam (Dioscorea alata) from ‘Describing
and documenting Root Crops in the South Pacific’ (Guarino L. and
Jackson G, 1986. RAS/83/001. Field Document 12).
2. Basic list of descriptors for Yam (Dioscorea esculenta) from
‘Describing and documenting Root Crops in the South Pacific’
(Guarino L. and Jackson G, 1986. RAS/83/001. Field Document 12).
3. Traits that were awarded funds for further research by the Global
Crop Diversity Trust (the Trust) 2008 Award Scheme ‘Enhancing
the Value of Crop Diversity in a World of Climate Change’ (EAS).
4. ‘Development of a West African yam Dioscorea spp. core collection’
(Mahalakshmi V. et al., 2007, in Genetic Resources and Crop
Evolution 54: 1817–1825)
5. ‘Genetic relationships between Dioscorea alata L. cultivars’ (Lebot V.
et al. 1998, in Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 45: 499–509)
6. ‘Morphological variability of greater yam (Dioscorea alata L.) in
Malaysia’ (Sayed M. Zain Hasan et al., 2008 in Plant Genetic
Resources: Characterization and Utilization 6(1); 52–61)
7. Selection of the descriptors done by Danny Hunter (Bioversity).
Evaluation traits such as important pests and diseases for Yam, tuber quality and
other agronomic characteristics were included.
The Comparison table is presented in Annex I.
Preparation of List of Experts

The list of experts was compiled including authors and contributors of the above
mentioned IPGRI/IITA publication; experts that were listed in the Standard
Regeneration Guidelines as focal points for Yam, researchers that had been awarded
funds for further research on this crop by the Trust 2008 Award Scheme: ‘Enhancing the
Value of Crop Diversity in a World of Climate Change’ (EAS) and experts from the
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) centres.
In addition some reviewers were drawn from the Taro and Cassava lists of experts
participating to the development of the key access and utilization descriptors for those
crops. Overall 43 experts were identified coming from 25 countries and 31 different
organizations. Although Dr Dominique Dumet at the International Institute of Tropical
Agriculture (IITA) was initially invited to be the Crop Leader and she suggested to
appoint her colleague Dr Ranjana Bhattacharjee instead, since she was working for IITA
genebank and had a long experience in crop characterization. Dr Bhattacharjee accepted
the invitation but felt necessary to seek further advice in order to achieve a wider
geographical coverage in the definition of biotic and abiotic stresses for Yam. Therefore,
Danny Hunter (Bioversity) was sought to lead this crop considering his wide expertise
on root and tuber crops.
The Core Advisory Group (CAG), consisting of five experts, was also selected to
assist in the definition of a minimum set of descriptors for this crop. Core Group
members were chosen from prestigious academic and scientific organizations including
the National Root Crops Research Institute, the Secretariat of the Pacific Community
(SPC), L'Institut de Recherché pour le Développement (IRD) and the Centre de
Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement
(CIRAD) (See Annex III).

On 2nd December 2008 Dr Bhattacharjee was contacted to ask advice on a first
comparison table. She expressed the need of further inputs from other experts. Thus
Danny Hunter was asked to act as Crop Leader too considering his wide experience on
this crop. An initial key set was prepared based on descriptors that recurrently appear
across species and across different information sources plus on those identified by
Danny Hunter. On 2nd March 2009 the revised comparison table, the initial key set of
descriptors further refined by Dr Hunter and the tentative list of experts (see Annex II)
were sent to Dr Bhattacharjee. A draft survey, listing the descriptors approved by the
Crop Leaders (see Annex IV), was prepared and sent to them for their validation. Once
approved, the final draft of the survey was uploaded into the SurveyMonkey
application on internet and sent out on 24th March 2009 to the list of identified experts
(see Annex V). They were invited to validate this initial ‘Minimum set of descriptors’ of
Yam accessions to facilitate their use by researchers. Furthermore, they were asked to
make suggestions regarding any characterization and/or evaluation descriptors that
were found to be relevant yet missing from the proposed Minimum List.
The survey deadline was set at 20th April 2009. A reminder was sent out on 7th
April and a second one on 16th April to ensure that the greatest possible feedback was
obtained.

Of the 43 experts who were identified and involved in the exercise, 18 coming from 10
countries and 13 organizations recorded their comments using the online survey
(Annex VI). Results from the survey were analyzed and descriptors ranked by rating
average and percentage of importance (Annex VII). The summary results of the survey
together with a report containing open-ended responses received by the participants
(see Annex VIII) were shared with Danny Hunter, Ranjana Bhattacharjee and the
members of the Core Advisory Group in order to reach a consensus on the final list.
Comments received from Dr Perla Hammon (Institut de Recherché pour le
Développement) were streamlined and harmonised with Dr Bhattacharjee’s ones to
define a Minimum List (see Annex IX). Approval of the final List was sought with
Danny Hunter on 9th July 2009 (Annex X). Afterwards a final key set was prepared
adding descriptor states and then discussed and validated again by Danny Hunter on
30th September 2009.
The final document, including all the contributors (see Annex XI), was proofread
by an external Editor and sent to the Publication Unit for layout and on-line publication
processes. Furthermore, the publication was shared with the European Cooperative
Programme for Plant Genetic Resources (ECPGR) Secretariat; the Generation Challenge
Programme (GCP) Ontology and the SGRP Crop Genebank Knowledge Base partners.
Additionally, data were converted into Excel files for uploading into the GRIN-Global
genebank data-management system being developed by USDA and into the global
accession level information portal (GENESYS), linking national, regional and international
genebank databases in support of the conservation and use of plant genetic resources
for food and agriculture (PGRFA). The Excel files were also provided to the System-
wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) of the CGIAR and to
EURISCO.
Acknowledgement
development of the strategic set of ‘Key access and utilization descriptors for yam
Annex I – Comparison table for the definition of a Key set of traits for Yam*
i
IPGRI/II IPGRI/IITA IPGRI IPGRI IPGRI/ IPGRI IPGRI/ IPGRI/ D. D. EAS (3) IIT D. D. Descr
i i i i i i i
TA Descriptor name /IITA /IITA IITA /IITA IITA IITA ala esculen A alata alata iptors
Descrip D. D. D. D. D. D. ta ta (2) arti (5) Morph refine
tor. no. escul alata bulbif num cayen penta (1) cle o d by
enta era mular ensis- phylla (4) article D.
ia rotun (6) Hunte
data (**=mos r (7)
t
importa
nt)
Number of days to
7.1.1 **
emergence
Stem length at 20d
7.1.2 **
after emergence
7.1.4 Young stem colour * * * * * * * *
Young stem wing
7.1.7 * *
colour
Young stem -
Absence/presence
7.1.10 *
of coloured spots at
spine base
Mature stem -
7.1.17 number of stems *
per plant
7.1.18 Mature stem colour * * * * * * *
Mature stem
7.1.20 *
branching
Mature stem
7.1.21 * *
diameter [cm]
Mature stem cross-
7.1.22 section shape at *
base
Internode length
7.1.23 *
[cm]
Mature stem
7.1.24 absence/presence *
of waxiness
Mature stem wing
7.1.26 * *
size
Mature stem wing
7.1.27 * * *
colour
Mature stem
7.1.28 absence/presence * *
of ridges
Mature stem -
7.1.29 *
hairiness
i
i i i i i i i
ia rotun (6) Hunte
data (**=mos r (7)
t
importa
nt)
Mature stem
of scale leaves
Spines on stem base
7.1.34 * * * * * *
(2.4.6, 2.4.7)
Spines on stem *
7.1.35 * *
above base (?)
Mature stem spine
7.1.36 *
position
Mature stem spine
7.1.37 *
shape
Mature stem spine
7.1.38 *
length
Mature stem
of coalescent spines
Mature stem colour
7.1.40 of spot at spine *
base
First leaf emergence
7.2.1 *
(2.5.1)
7.2.3 Young leaf colour * * * * * * *
Young leaf margin
7.2.4 * * * * *
colour
Young leaf vein
7.2.5 * * *
colour
Young leaf petiole
7.2.6 * * * * * *
colour
Young leaf petiole
7.2.7 * *
wing colour
Mature leaf -
7.2.9 **
Position of leaves
Mature leaf - leaf
7.2.12 * *
type
Mature leaf -
7.2.13 number of leaflets *
in compound leaf
7.2.14 Mature leaf - colour *
i
i i i i i i i
ia rotun (6) Hunte
data (**=mos r (7)
t
importa
nt)
7.2.15 Mature leaf colour * * * * * * * *
Mature leaf vein
7.2.16 colour (upper * * * * * * * ** *
surface)
Mature leaf vein
7.2.17 colour (lower * * * **
surface)
Mature leaf margin
7.2.18 * * * *
colour
Waxiness of
7.2.21 upper/lower *
surface
7.2.22 Mature leaf - shape * **
Mature leaf -
7.2.24 * *
undulation of leaf
Mature leaf -
7.2.25 distance between *
lobes
Mature leaf -
7.2.26 upward folding of *
leaf along main vein
Mature leaf -
downward arching
7.2.27 *
of leaf along main
vein
Mature leaf -
upward folding of
7.2.28 *
leaf lobe to form a
cup
Mature leaf -
7.2.29 downward arching *
of leaf lobes
(Leng
th to
width
Mature leaf -
7.2.30 * ratio **
measurement (matu
re
leaf))
i
i i i i i i i
ia rotun (6) Hunte
data (**=mos r (7)
t
importa
nt)
Mature leaf -
position of the
7.2.31 *
widest part of the
leaf
Mature leaf - tip
7.2.32 * *
length
Mature leaf tip
7.2.33 * *
colour
Mature leaf petiole
7.2.34 * * *
length
*
(combi
ned
Mature leaf petiole with
7.2.37 * * * * * * * ** *
colour leaf
junctio
n
colour)
Mature leaf petiole
7.2.38 * *
wing colour
Mature leaf
7.2.39 *
spininess of petiole
7.3.1 Flowering *
7.3.3 Sex * *
7.3.11 Flower colour *
7.4.1 Fruit formation *
Absence/presence
7.5.1 * * * *
of aerial tuber
7.5.2 Aerial tuber shape * **
Aerial tuber
7.5.3 * * *
diameter
Aerial tuber skin
7.5.4 * **
colour
Aerial tuber surface
7.5.5 *
texture
Absence/presence
7.5.6 of bumps on aerial *
tuber
i
i i i i i i i
ia rotun (6) Hunte
data (**=mos r (7)
t
importa
nt)
Aerial tuber skin
7.5.7 *
thickness
Aerial tuber flesh
7.5.8 * *
colour
Maturity (tubers)
7.6.2 after emergence * *
(2.3.2)
Relationship of
7.6.5 *
tuber
Absence presence of
7.6.6 *
corms
7.6.7 Corm size *
Corm ability to be
7.6.8 separated from *
tuber
7.6.11 Spininess of roots * *
Absence/presence
7.6.12 *
of anchor roots
7.6.14 Tuber shape * * * * * * * * * *
Tendency of tuber
7.6.15 * *
to branch
7.6.17 Tuber length * * ** *
7.6.18 Tuber width [cm] * **
Roots on the tuber
7.6.19 * *
surface
7.6.19 Spiny roots on the
*
.1 tuber
Place of roots on
7.6.20 *
the tuber
Prickly appearance
7.6.21 *
of the tuber
Absence/presence
7.6.24 of cracks on the *
tuber surface
i
i i i i i i i
ia rotun (6) Hunte
data (**=mos r (7)
t
importa
nt)
7.6.25 Tuber skin thickness *
Tuber skin colour

7.6.26 * * *
(beneath the bark)
Skin colour at head
7.6.29 * *
of the tuber
Flesh colour at
7.6.30 central transverse * * * * * * ** *
cross-section
Flesh colour of
7.6.31 * *
lower part of tuber
Uniformity of flesh
7.6.32 colour in cross- *
section
Time for flesh
7.6.34 oxidation after *
cutting
7.6.38 Weight of tuber (g) *
Total weight of
8.1.2 harvested tubers * *
[kg]
Texture of cooked
8.3.9 *
tuber
Overall assessment
8.3.15 *
of cooked tuber
Bitterness of cooked
8.3.13 *
(aerial tuber)
9.4 *
moisture
Reaction to high
9.5 *
salinity
10.1.1 Yam mosaic

* * *
.4 potyvirus (YMV)
i
i i i i i i i
ia rotun (6) Hunte
data (**=mos r (7)
t
importa
nt)
Anthracnose
10.1.2 * * * *
susceptibility
* (Yam
tuber rot
Fusarium spp. disease
10.1.3 *
(2.12.3) Fusarium
oxysporu
m)
10.2.3 Pratylenchus
*
.2 coffeae
*
Yam beetle damage (Resistan
10.2.7
on leaves ce to Yam
beetle)
*
Yam beetle damage (Resistan
10.2.8 *
on tubers ce to Yam
beetle)
Stay-green ability * *
Stem wing
*
undulation
Number of tubers
8.1.1 *
per plant
i
IPGRI/IITA. 1997. Descriptors for Yam (Dioscorea spp.). International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria/International Plant Genetic Resources
Institute, Rome, Italy
* For number reference see section: ‘Information collection and preparation of a Minimum Descriptor List (MDL)’
Annex II – Tentative list of experts sent to Dr. Bhattacharjee for validation

Danny Hunter
Crop Leader Bhattacharjee, IITA Nigeria
Ranjana
National Root Crops
Core Group (EAS) Eke-Okoro, O.N. Nigeria
Research Institute
Jackson,
Core Group Australia
Grahame V.H.
Secretariat of the
Core Group Mary Taylor Pacific Community Fiji
(SPC)
Core Group (SRG) Hamon, Perla IRD France
Core Group Lebot, Vincent CIRAD Vanuatu
University of Florida -
O'Hair, Stephen
(SRG) Tropical Research. & USA
K.
Education. Center
National Biotechnology
(SRG) Dansi, Alexandre Laboratory, University Benin
of Abomey-Calavi
University of the
Carpena,
Reviewer (DL) Philippines Los Baños, Philippines
Azucena L.
Crop Science Cluster
Reviewer (DL) Kurup, G.T
Reviewer (DL) Nayar, N.M.
Reviewer (DL) Swee Lian, Tan
Reviewer (DL) Mamicpic, Noel G. Philippines
Reviewer (DL) Quat Ng, N.
Universidade Federal
Reviewer (DL) Pedralli, Gilberto Brazil
de Ouro Preto
Rashid,
Reviewer (DL)
Mohammad M.
Silitonga, Sudiaty
Reviewer (DL)
T.
Supatanakul,
Reviewer (DL)
Winia
Reviewer (DL) Hazekamp, Tom
Reviewer (from Internet) Dumont, Roland CIRAD (?) France
Reviewer (from Internet) Vernier, Philippe
*Zoundjihèkpon, Université d'Abomey-
Reviewer (from Internet) Benin
Jeanne Calavi
Reviewer (from Internet) Bill Cable Samoa
Sayed, M. Zain Technology University
Reviewer (from Internet) Malaysia
Hasan of Malaysia
Norizan, Technology University
Reviewer (from Internet) Malaysia
Mohamad of Malaysia
Lowveld National South
Reviewer (from Internet) Johan Hurter
Botanical Garden Africa
Reviewer (from Internet) Narina, Satya S S Virginia State University USA
Annex III – Identified experts to take part to the on-line survey

Crop Leader Hunter, Danny Bioversity Italy
Bhattacharjee,
Crop Leader IITA Nigeria
Ranjana
CAG
Ekeokoro, O.N. National Root Crops Research Institute Nigeria
(EAS)
CAG Grahame, Jackson V.H. Australia
CAG
Hamon, Perla IRD France
(SRG)
CAG Lebot, Vincent CIRAD Vanuatu
Secretariat of the Pacific Community
CAG Taylor, Mary Fiji
(SPC)
Reviewer Cable, William Dept Agricolture Samoa
Crop Strategy
Cadima, Ximena PROINPA Brazil
Expert (Taro)
Core Group Cunha Alves, Alfredo
EMBRAPA/CNPMF Brazil
Cassava Augusto
National Biotechnology Laboratory,

(SRG) Dansi, Alexandre Benin
University of Abomey-Calavi
Core Group
David, Tay International Potato Centre (CIP) Peru
cultivated potato
Reviewer de Oliveira Ademar P. Brazilian Society for Horticoltural Science Brasil
Reviewer (DL) Asiedu, Robert IITA Nigeria
Reviewer Keller, Joachim IPK Germany
Reviewer (DL) Mignouna, Hodeba D. AATF Kenya
Reviewer (DL) Otoo, Emmanuel Crops Research Institute Ghana
Strategy expert Philippine Root Crop Research and

Ferraren, Dilberto O. Philippines
(Taro) Training Center (PhilRootcrops)
Manihot
Workshop Fukuda, Wania EMBRAPA/CNPMF Brazil
(Cassava)
Reviewer (DL)
Yam Kikuno, Hidehiko IITA Nigeria
Physiologist
Reviewer Linh Chi, Vu Plant Resources Center Viet Nam

Core Group
Llerme Rios, Lobos INIA Peru
Cassava
Reviewer Manguiat, Proceso H. University of the Philippines Los Baños Philippines
Strategy expert Mbanaso, Egbichi National Root Crops Research Institute,

Nigeria
(Taro) Nnenna Adaoha Umudike
Suggested by
Bioversity Milian, Marylis INIVIT (Instituto de Viandas Tropicales) Cuba
Colombia
Reviewer (DL) Nayar, N.M. University of kerala India
Papua New
Reviewer (Taro) Okpul, Tom PNG University of Technology
Guinea
Strategy expert
Ortiz, Carlos E. University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez USA
(Taro)
Reviewer Richards, Paul Wageningen University Netherlands
Reviewer Struik, Paul C. Wageningen University Netherlands
Strategy expert
Reyes Castro, Guillermo Universidad Nacional Agraria Nicaragua
(Taro)
Reviewer Satya, Narina S S Virginia State University USA
Reviewer
(Cassava Sias Costa, Ivo Roberto EMBRAPA - Cenargen Brazil
expert)
Center of Agricultural Biotechnology and
Reviewer (DL) Silitonga, Sudiaty T. Genetic Resources Research and Indonesia
Development (ICABIOGRRAD)
Suggested by
Bioversity Soto, Andrès Àlvarez UNIVERSIDAD DE CORDOBA Colombia
Colombia
Malaysia Agric. Research and
Reviewer (DL) Swee Lian, Tan Malaysia
Development Institute (MARDI)
Strategy expert
Tolo, Iosefa University of the South Pacific Samoa
(Taro)
Core Group
V. Rao, Ramanatha Bioversity India India
Taro SRG
Reviewer Vernier, Philippe CIRAD France
Strategy expert Villavicencio, Maria Lea Institute of Plant Breeding-Crop Science
Philippines
(Taro) H. Cluster
Strategy expert
Weidong, Ke Wuhan Vegetable Research Institute China
(Taro)
Reviewer Zannou, Afio Universite d'Abomey-Calavi Benin
Reviewer Zoundjihèkpon, Jeanne Université d'Abomey-Calavi Benin

Annex IV – Initial key set of descriptors for access and utilization of Yam, revised
by Dr Hunter (2nd March 2009) and agreed by Dr Bhattacharjee (20th March 2009)
1. Young stem colour (7.1.4)

2. Mature stem colour (7.1.18)
3. Spines on stem base (7.1.34)
4. Young leaf colour (7.2.3)
5. Young leaf margin colour (7.2.4)
6. Young leaf petiole colour (7.2.6)
7. Mature leaf colour (7.2.15)
8. Mature leaf vein colour (upper surface) (7.2.16)
9. Mature leaf petiole colour (7.2.37)
10. Maturity (tubers) after emergence (7.6.2)
11. Tuber shape (7.6.14)
12. Tuber length (7.6.17)
13. Flesh colour at central transverse cross-section (2.10.11) (7.6.30)
14. Total weight of harvested tubers [kg] (8.1.2)
15. Overall assessment of cooked tuber (8.3.15)
16. Yam mosaic potyvirus (YMV) (10.1.1.4)
17. Anthracnose susceptibility (10.1.2)
18. Fusarium spp. (10.1.3)
19. Yam beetle damage on tubers (10.2.8)
20. Pratylenchus coffeae (10.2.3.2)
21. Stay-green ability
22. Reaction to high soil moisture (9.4)
23. Reaction to high salinity (9.5)
Annex V – Survey to choose a key set of Descriptors for Yam (Dioscorea spp.)
WELCOME
Your knowledge and experience are being sought to select this initial ‘key set of
descriptors’ of Yam accessions to identify traits important to crop production and to
facilitate their use by researchers.
Your participation in it is highly appreciated. The deadline for this survey is 20th April
2009.
This key set of characterization and evaluation descriptors will be made available through
a global facility for identifying sets of accessions for evaluation and use. For
characterization, the aim is a key set of maximally differentiating traits that provide the
most impact in discriminating between accessions. For evaluation, the aim is to focus on
a few important traits for production, such as tolerance to an important disease or
salinity.
The list presented here has been drawn from the IPGRI/IITA publication ‘Descriptors for
Yam (Dioscorea spp.)’ (1997) and, further refined under the scientific direction of Ranjana
Bhattacharjee (IITA) and Danny Hunter (Bioversity).
PART I: Lists important characterization descriptors for Yam. Based on your experience,
PART II: Lists important evaluation descriptors for Yam. Please, rate these traits in order
production is missing from the minimum list presented or indicate any that may not be
We thank you in advance for investing your time and expertise in selecting this initial,
key set of descriptors.
Please allow us to acknowledge your contribution by completing your full contact details
below:
Name:
Organization:
Address 1:
City/Town:
State/Province:
ZIP/Postal Code:
Country:
Email Address
generally highly heritable, can be easily seen by the eye and are equally expressed in
all environments.
*Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers
as published in the IPGRI/IITA publication ‘Descriptors for Yam (Dioscorea spp.)’ (1997).

Young stem colour (7.1.4) j j j
Mature stem colour (7.1.18) j j j
Spines on stem base (7.1.34) j j j
Young leaf colour (7.2.3) j j j
Young leaf margin colour (7.2.4) j j j
Young leaf petiole colour (7.2.6) j j j
Mature leaf colour (7.2.15) j j j
Mature leaf vein colour (upper surface) (7.2.16) j j j
Mature leaf petiole colour (7.2.37) j j j
Maturity (tubers) after emergence (7.6.2) j j j
Tuber shape (7.6.14) j j j
Tuber length (7.6.17) j j j
Flesh colour at central transverse cross-section (7.6.30) j j j
If you consider that an essential trait is missing from this list, please indicate it here
These descriptors include characters such as yield, biotic and abiotic stresses. They are
the most interesting traits in crop improvement. Please consider the following factors
relating to the trait when making your final decision: (i) Global impact, (ii) Initial

Total weight of harvested tubers [kg] (8.1.2) j j j
Overall assessment of cooked tuber (8.3.15) j j j
Stay-green ability j j j
Reaction to high soil moisture (9.4) j j j
Reaction to high salinity (9.5) j j j
Yam mosaic potyvirus (YMV) (10.1.1.4) j j j
Anthracnose susceptibility (10.1.2) j j j
Fusarium spp. (10.1.3) j j j
Pratylenchus coffeae (10.2.3.2) j j j
Yam beetle damage on tubers (10.2.9) j j j
required.

Annex VI – Respondents to the survey
Abraham. K Central Tuber Crops research Institute India
Bhattacharjee,
IITA Nigeria
Ranjana
Dansi A. Alexandre University of Abomey-Calavi Benin
Dr Ekeokoro, O N National Root Crops Research Institute Nigeria
Hamon, Perla IRD France
Kikuno, Hidehiko IITA Nigeria
Linh Chi, Vu Plant Resources Center Viet Nam
Manguiat, Proceso
University of the Philippines Los Baños Philippines
H.
Mbanaso, E.N.A. National Root Crops Research Institute Nigeria
Narina, S. Satya Virginia State University USA
Nayar, NM Kerala University India
Okpul, Tom Papua New Guinea University of Technology Australia
Otoo, Emmanuel CSIR-Crops Research Institute Ghana
Rao, Ramanatha Bioversity India
Sheela, M.N. Central Tuber Crops Research Institute India
Swee-Lian Tan Malaysian Agri R&D Institute (MARDI) Malaysia
Vernier, Philippe CIRAD France
Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques, Université

Zannou, Afio Benin
d'Abomey-Calavi
Annex VII – Descriptors proposed in the survey ranked by rating average and by
percentage importance
%
%
Rating Importanc
Average e (Very
(important)
important)
Overall assessment of
4.53 Tuber shape (7.6.14) 16.7 (3) 77.8 (14)
cooked tuber (8.3.15)
Anthracnose susceptibility Overall assessment of
4.53 23.5 (4) 76.5 (13)
(10.1.2) cooked tuber (8.3.15)
Flesh colour at central
Anthracnose susceptibility
transverse cross-section 4.44 23.5 (4) 76.5 (13)
(10.1.2)
(7.6.30)
Flesh colour at central
Tuber shape (7.6.14) 4.39 transverse cross-section 27.8 (5) 72.2 (13)
(7.6.30)
Yam mosaic potyvirus (YMV) Yam mosaic potyvirus
4.18 41.2 (7) 58.8 (10)
(10.1.1.4) (YMV) (10.1.1.4)
Fusarium spp. (10.1.3) 3.94 Fusarium spp. (10.1.3) 37.5 (6) 56.3 (9)
Total weight of harvested
3.88 Young stem colour (7.1.4) 27.8 (5) 55.6 (10)
tubers [kg] (8.1.2)
Mature stem colour (7.1.18) 3.83 Young leaf colour (7.2.3) 27.8 (5) 55.6 (10)
Tuber length (7.6.17) 3.71 Tuber length (7.6.17) 35.3 (6) 52.9 (9)
Total weight of harvested
Spines on stem base (7.1.34) 3.67 41.2 (7) 52.9 (9)
tubers [kg] (8.1.2)
Yam beetle damage on Mature stem colour
3.65 44.4 (8) 50.0 (9)
tubers (10.2.9) (7.1.18)
Spines on stem base
Young stem colour (7.1.4) 3.61 38.9 (7) 50.0 (9)
(7.1.34)
Young leaf colour (7.2.3) 3.61 Stay-green ability 26.7 (4) 46.7 (7)
Pratylenchus coffeae Young leaf petiole colour
3.60 38.9 (7) 44.4 (8)
(10.2.3.2) (7.2.6)
Reaction to high soil Yam beetle damage on
3.50 52.9 (9) 41.2 (7)
moisture (9.4) tubers (10.2.9)
Mature leaf petiole colour Pratylenchus coffeae
3.44 53.3 (8) 40.0 (6)
(7.2.37) (10.2.3.2)
Young leaf petiole colour Mature leaf petiole colour
3.39 50.0 (9) 38.9 (7)
(7.2.6) (7.2.37)
Maturity (tubers) after
Stay-green ability 3.13 33.3 (6) 38.9 (7)
emergence (7.6.2)
Mature leaf vein colour Reaction to high soil
3.00 57.1 (8) 35.7 (5)
(upper surface) (7.2.16) moisture (9.4)
Maturity (tubers) after Reaction to high salinity
2.94 53.3 (8) 26.7 (4)
emergence (7.6.2) (9.5)
Reaction to high salinity Young leaf margin colour
2.93 50.0 (8) 25.0 (4)
(9.5) (7.2.4)
Mature leaf colour
Mature leaf colour (7.2.15) 2.78 55.6 (10) 22.2 (4)
(7.2.15)
Young leaf margin colour Mature leaf vein colour
2.75 68.8 (11) 18.8 (3)
(7.2.4) (upper surface) (7.2.16)
Annex VIII - Additional descriptors included in the Open-ended section of the survey
Yam Descriptor Name of expert

N. times Narina, Rao, Dansi A. Kikuno,
Okpul, Hamon, Abraham. Sheela,
Additional Descriptor selecte
Tom
S.
Perla
Ramana Alexand
K M.N
Hidehik
d Satya tha re o
Leaf shape, it is very discriminant for some 2
varieties of D. cayenensis-D.rotundata
X X
Average number of tubers may be 2
added. it is a varietal character. "mean
number of tubers at harvest" for those
having more than one tuber) for relative
X X
description of the inherent level of
variation.
Grainy or uniform look of cross section 2
of tuber gives an idea about the cooked
appearance and taste. It may be included. X X
Texture of inside of tuber at central
transverse cross-section
Appearance of cooked tuber is 1
important X
Browning of cut surface is important. 2
Browining of tubers at central X X
transverse cross-section
Preharvest infestation due to fungal- 1
insect association (this is based on the
tuber damage experienced in the field--The
tubers were attacked by an unknown fungi
and followed by (insect) larval invasion
before harvest, when we tested the larvae
in the lab, we found that they belong to
Dipterae ...So My guess flies are also
damaging the tubers heavily in Local
agroclimatic regions of Kovvur (The place X
where I was working on Tuber
Improvement previously),Andhra Pradesh,
India. This damage has economical impact
as the farmers in that region faced severe
loss, not even have tubers for next year
planting. It should be taken into
concideration, and We need to include this
trait important for crop improvement and
production globally.
Complex tuber length can be dependant 1
on the nature of the soil and the kind of X
preparation of the soil before planting
Number of tubers per mound: very 1
important for D. rotundata
X
Post harvest storage: very important 1 X
Tolerence of the tuber seeds to drought 1
after planting: this is the major reason
given by farmers for abandoning landraces
X
in the arid zone of the north west of Benin.
Uniform flesh colour may be added as a 1
descriptor
X
Dried flesh colour Important 1 X
Rather than reaction to high soil moisture, 1
reaction to drought may be added X
hairiness of tuber may be added 1 X
Grainiiness Tuber cortex colour : 1
Important
X
Texture of epidermides of tubers 1 X
Drymatter Nematode incidence 1 X
Scale insect damage Aerial tuber 1
production X
Viscosity of tuber 1 X
COMMENT: Descriptor 8.1.2. Considering 1
the varying number of tubers that can be
harvested per hill from the different species X
of yams, I would like to suggest the use of
"mean weight of tubers at harvest"
COMMENT: Young leaf margin colour is 1
not important for D. cayenenesis-D.
rotundata but maybe could be for other
X
cultivated species of Oceania or Asia.
COMMENT: Mature leaf vein colour is 1
not important for D. cayenenesis-D.
rotundata but maybe could be for other
X
cultivated species of Oceania or Asia
COMMENT: I cannot give any comment 1
on, Reaction to high soil moisture or
salinity, Fusarium spp. and Pratylenchus X
coffeae.
COMMENT: Anthracnose susceptibility 1
is very important for D. alata while Yam
mosaic potyvirus is for D. cayenensis-D.
X
rotundata complex.
COMMENT: Is total weight harvewsted per 1
plant?
X
COMMENT:1.mature stem colour varies 1
in base and upper portions of stem. they X
may be separately recorded
COMMENT: 2. mature leaf petiole will 1
have colouration in petiole base, middle
and top distinctly, usually base and top are X
of same colour. So petiole colour may be
recorded as entire or partial
Annex IX – Comments on survey results received from Dr Perla Hamon (CAG) and
Dr Bhattacharjee
Rating Perla Ranjana

Descriptor Average Hamon Bhattacharjee
Overall assessment of cooked tuber (8.3.15) 4.53 B Selected
Anthracnose susceptibility (10.1.2) 4.53 B Selected
Flesh colour at central transverse cross-
4.44 B/I
section (7.6.30)
Tuber shape (7.6.14) 4.39 I Selected
Yam mosaic potyvirus (YMV) (10.1.1.4) 4.18 B Selected
Fusarium spp. (10.1.3) 3.94 B Selected
Total weight of harvested tubers [kg] (8.1.2) 3.88 B
Mature stem colour (7.1.18) 3.83
Tuber length (7.6.17) 3.71 Selected
Spines on stem base (7.1.34) 3.67 I
Yam beetle damage on tubers (10.2.9) 3.65 B
Young stem colour (7.1.4) 3.61
Young leaf colour (7.2.3) 3.61 I
Pratylenchus coffeae (10.2.3.2) 3.60 B
Reaction to high soil moisture (9.4) 3.50 B
Mature leaf petiole colour (7.2.37) 3.44
Young leaf petiole colour (7.2.6) 3.39
Stay-green ability 3.13 Selected
Mature leaf vein colour (upper surface)
3.00
(7.2.16)
Maturity (tubers) after emergence (7.6.2) 2.94 Selected
Reaction to high salinity (9.5) 2.93 B
Mature leaf colour (7.2.15) 2.78 I
Young leaf margin colour (7.2.4) 2.75
Leaf shape (7.2.22) I
Spine shape (7.1.37) I
Spine colour I
Branching (7.1.20) I
Total number of harvested tubers (8.1.1) B
I: Identification
B: Breading
Annex X – Final key set of descriptors for Yam (Dioscorea spp.) as defined by
survey analysis, consultations with Core Advisory Group and approved by Dr
Hunter
Numbers in parentheses on the right-hand side are the corresponding descriptors numbers
as published in the publication Descriptors for Yam (Dioscorea spp. ) (IPGRI/IITA 1997).
1. Spines on stem base (7.1.34)

2. Tuber shape (7.6.14)
3. Tuber length (7.6.17)
4. Flesh colour at central transverse cross-section (7.6.30)
5. Total weight of harvested tubers [kg] (8.1.2)
6. Overall assessment of cooked tuber (8.3.15)
7. Stay-green ability (8.3.X)
8. Reaction to high soil moisture (9.4)
9. Yam mosaic potyvirus (YMV) (10.1.1.4)
10. Anthracnose susceptibility (10.1.2)
11. Fusarium spp. (10.1.3)
12. Pratylenchus coffeae (10.2.3.2)
13. Yam beetle damage on tubers (10.2.9)
Annex XI - Final list of characterization and evaluation standards for Yam
including descriptor states and Contributors
PLANT DATA
Spines on stem base (7.1.34)

3 Few
7 Many
Tuber shape (7.6.14)

1 Round
2 Oval
3 Oval-oblong
4 Cylindrical
5 Flattened
6 Irregular
Tuber length (7.6.17)

1 ≤20 cm
2 21–40 cm
3 ≥41 cm
Flesh colour at central transverse cross-section (7.6.30)

1 White
2 Yellowish white or off-white
3 Yellow
4 Orange
5 Light purple
6 Purple
7 Purple with white
8 White with purple
9 Outer purple/inner yellowish
Total weight of harvested tubers [kg] (8.1.2)

Calculated on ten plants per accession. At harvest
Overall assessment of cooked tuber (8.3.15)

3 Low
5 Intermediate
7 High
Stay-green ability (8.3.X)

Retention of green colour at maturity
ABIOTIC STRESSES
Reaction to high soil moisture (9.4)
BIOTIC STRESSES
Yam mosaic potyvirus (YMV) (10.1.1.4)
Anthracnose susceptibility (10.1.2)
Fusarium spp. (10.1.3)
Pratylenchus coffeae (10.2.3.2)
Yam beetle damage on tubers (10.2.9)
NOTES
CONTRIBUTORS
CORE ADVISORY GROUP
Ranjana Bhattacharjee, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Nigeria
O. N. Ekeokoro, National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI), Nigeria
Perla Hamon, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), France
REVIEWERS
Benin
A. Alexandre Dansi, Université d'Abomey-Calavi
Afio Zannou, Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques, Université d'Abomey-Calavi
France
Philippe Vernier, Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le
Développement (CIRAD)
Ghana
Emmanuel Otoo, CSIR-Crops Research Institute
India
K. Abraham, Central Tuber Crops Research Institute (CTCRI)
N. M. Nayar, Kerala University
R. Rao, Bioversity International
M. N. Sheela, Central Tuber Crops Research Institute (CTCRI)
Malaysia
Tan Swee-Lian, Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI)
Nigeria
Hidehiko Kikuno, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA)
E. N. A. Mbanaso, National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI)
Papua New Guinea

Philippines
USA
Narina S. Satya, Virginia State University
Viet Nam
Vu Linh Chi, Plant Resources Center
IPGRI and INIBAP
operate under the name
Supported by the CGIAR
ISBN-978-92-9043-874-8

2011 Key - Characterization - Descriptors

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2011 Key - Characterization - Descriptors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Key Characterization and

© Bioversity International, 2011

Particular recognition goes to the Crop Leaders and Core Advisory

Special thanks are due to the various consultants working at different

Adriana Alercia coordinated and managed the entire production of this

Particular thanks go to Michael Mackay for offering encouragement

We hope that this document will contribute to stimulating additional

These guidelines provide the background information and objectives

1. Information collection and reference documents

Special attention was given to the inclusion of characters and traits

• Initial strategic set

2. Preparing list of crop experts

(b) at least 20 reviewers or stakeholders for each crop.

3. Survey preparation and distribution

The following documents, sharing information on the survey and its

Preparation of the List of Experts

Following consultations with Nicolas Roux, and Stéphanie Channeliere from

Setting consultation deadlines

Role Name Organization Country

Crop Leader Roux, Nicolas Bioversity International France

Core Group Arnaud, Elizabeth Bioversity International France

Core Group Goenaga, Ricardo ARS/USDA USA

National Research Centre for Banana

Van den Bergh,

Core Group Vézina, Anne Bioversity International France

Bolaños Corporacíon Colombiana de

Crop Strategy Taiwan Banana Research Institute

Crop Strategy Department of Primary Industries &

Crop Strategy De Oliveira e Silva,

Plant Genetic Resource Centre -

Agricultural Research Council - Institute

Crop Strategy Gonzales Diaz, Instituto de Investigaciones en Viandas

Crop Strategy Corporación Bananera Nacional S.A.

Crop Strategy Department of Primary Industries &

Crop Strategy Davao National Crop Research and

Crop Strategy BARI - Bangladesh Agricultural Banglades

Horticulture Research Centre Malaysian

Crop Strategy Guadeloup

Crop Strategy Kouassi, Koffi Centre National de Recherche Cote

Crop Strategy Mouketo, Centre de Recherche Agronomique de

Crop Strategy Institut de recherches agronomiques et

Crop Strategy Nsabimana, KIST - Kigali Institute of Science and

Crop Strategy Nsemwa, Lebai ARDI - Ministry of Agriculture Food

Crop Strategy Rivera Canales, Fundación Hondureña de Investigación

Crop Strategy Regional Germplasm Centre, Secretariat

Crop Strategy Centre africain de recherches sur

Crop Strategy National Agricultural Research

Crop Strategy Van den Houwe,

Crop Strategy Guangdong Academy of Agricultural

Byabachwezi, Maruku Agriculture Research and

De Beer, Zacharias South

GPG2 Rheka, A Division of Fruit crops, IIHR, Karnataka India

ISHS Smith, Mike QDPI - Maroochy Research Station Australia

Reviewer (DL) Carreel, Françoise CIRAD / UMR BGPI France

Reviewer (DL) Delvaux, Bruno CUL - Catholic University of Leuven Belgium

Reviewer (DL) Evers, Guy FAO Italy

Reviewer (DL) Galán Saúco, ICIA - Instituto Canario de

Reviewer (DL) Goenaga, Ricardo ARS/USDA USA

Jordan Valley Banana Experiment

Reviewer (DL) Lahav, Emmanuel Akko Experiment Station Israel

Reviewer (DL) Lavigne, Christian CIRAD FLHOR - PRAM France

Reviewer (DL) Lescot, Thierry CIRAD France

Reviewer (DL) Ortiz, Rodomiro CIMMYT Mexico