The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Wild relatives and crop cultivars: detecting natural introgression and farmer selection of new genetic combinations in agroecosystems
Abstract
Whether new combinations of genes that result from hybridization and introgression between wild and cultivated taxa are maintained, with the resultant development of populations with new characteristics, depends on natural selection, and in the case of crops, on human selection. While many cases of deliberate introgression of desirable traits into crop cultivars as part of breeding programmes are known, the extent and significance of natural or farmer‐assisted introgression is uncertain. A range of techniques have been used to document natural hybridization and introgression of agricultural crops and their wild relatives in many crops including maize, wheat, barley, oats, pearl millet, foxtail millet, quinoa, hops, hemp, potato, cocona, casava, common bean, cowpea, pigeon pea, carrots, squash, tomato, radish, letuce, chilli, beets, sunflower, cabbage, and rasberries. However, the majority of these studies are based on morphological characters, and few have investigated the frequency with which such new types are produced and retained in natural and agroecosystems for farmer selection. Even more limited is information on the role of farmers in recognizing and selecting new genetic variation from the natural introgression of crops with their wild relatives, and the impact, once selected, of these new genetic combinations on the crop diversity. Molecular evaluation of natural introgression linked to investigations of farmer recognition and use of introgressed types provide ways of evaluating whether farmer selection for introgressed types is a significant process in increasing the genetic diversity of crop plants.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hybrid origins of plant species
Rieseberg, L. H. (1997) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.359 · Cited by 1,246
Cited by
Food security and biodiversity: can we have both? An agroecological analysis
Chappell, M. J., & LaValle, L. A. (2011) · Agriculture and Human Values · doi:10.1007/s10460-009-9251-4 · Cited by 474
Crop genetic erosion: understanding and responding to loss of crop diversity
Khoury, C. K., Brush, S., Costich, D. E., Curry, H. A., de Haan, S., Engels, J. M. M., Guarino, L., Hoban, S., Mercer, K. L., Miller, A. J., et al. (2022) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.17733 · Cited by 471
Primmer, C. R., Borge, T., Lindell, J., & Sætre, G. ‐. (2002) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1046/j.0962-1083.2001.01452.x · Cited by 448
Introgression of Crop Alleles into Wild or Weedy Populations
Ellstrand, N. C., Meirmans, P., Rong, J., Bartsch, D., Ghosh, A., de Jong, T. J., Haccou, P., Lu, B.-R., Snow, A. A., Neal Stewart, C., et al. (2013) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110512-135840 · Cited by 233
Prohens, J., Gramazio, P., Plazas, M., Dempewolf, H., Kilian, B., Díez, M. J., Fita, A., Herraiz, F. J., Rodríguez-Burruezo, A., Soler, S., et al. (2017) · Euphytica · doi:10.1007/s10681-017-1938-9 · Cited by 206
Metadata
- Authors
- Jarvis, D. I., & Hodgkin, T.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1999-12
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- s1
- Pages
- 159-60
- ISSN
- 0962-1083 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-294X
- OpenAlex
- W2143239151
- Cited by
- 232
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 3.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Wild relatives and crop cultivars: detecting natural introgression and farmer selection of new genetic combinations in agroecosystems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-294x.1999.00799.x
- The paper
- Jarvis, D. I., & Hodgkin, T. (1999). Wild relatives and crop cultivars: detecting natural introgression and farmer selection of new genetic combinations in agroecosystems. Molecular Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294x.1999.00799.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.