Wheat Landraces of Turkey

Abstract

Turkey falls within Vavilov's Center of origin and harbors large genetic diversity of several economically important crop species. Wild crop relative, such as wild einkorn, wild emmer, wild barley, wild oats, wild rye and their respective domesticated forms, in addition to a multitude of other crop species, have been cultivated for millennia in several parts of Turkey, especially in the northern part of the Fertile Crescent. Turkish farmers developed landraces from these crops; however, these landraces and the indigenous knowledge gained over many generations are being lost due to several anthropogenic and other factors. Landraces of wheat and other major and minor crops still play an important role in the livelihood of small scale farmers in Turkey. This paper reviews and contrasts the current status of Turkey's main wheat landraces with their past and suggests specific strategies for their maintenance.

Headnote

Abstract

Turkey falls within Vavilov's Center of origin and harbors large genetic diversity of several economically important crop species. Wild crop relative, such as wild einkorn, wild emmer, wild barley, wild oats, wild rye and their respective domesticated forms, in addition to a multitude of other crop species, have been cultivated for millennia in several parts of Turkey, but especially in the northern part of the Fertile Crescent. Turkish farmers developed landraces from these crops; however, these landraces and the indigenous knowledge gained over many generations are being lost due to several anthropogenic and other factors. Landraces of wheat and other major and minor crops still play an important role in the livelihood of small scale farmers in Turkey. This paper reviews and contrasts the current status of Turkey's main wheat landraces with their past; and suggests specific strategies for their maintenance.

Key words: Wheat landraces, Turkey, genetic diversity

Introduction

There are various definitions for "landrace" or "variety". Harlan (1995) describes the landraces as "balanced populations - variable in equilibrium with both environment and pathogens and genetically dynamic". They are defined as "local" when seed from that variety has been planted in the region for at least one farmer generation (Louette, 2000). In an attempt to provide a clear definition to "landrace", Zeven (1998) claims that due to its complex and indefinable nature, an all-embracing definition cannot be given. However, Zeven suggests the following: "an autochthonous landrace is a variety with a high capacity to tolerate biotic and abiotic stress, resulting in a high yield stability and an intermediate yield level under a low input agricultural system". For the definition of landrace, Bioversity International agrees upon the following definition: "A landrace of a seedpropagated crop is a variable population, which is identifiable and usually has a local name. It lacks 'formal' crop improvement, is characterized by a specific adaptation to the environmental conditions of the area of cultivation (tolerant to the biotic and abiotic stresses of that area) and is closely associated with the uses, knowledge, habits, dialects, and celebrations of the people who developed and continue to grow it" (Biodiversity International, 2013). Common points in the definitions are, landraces undergo an adaptation process for certain length of time and possess some degree of tolerance to stress conditions.

Background information

Agriculture and horticulture have long history in Turkey. The information gathered from several excavations suggest that agriculture started to evolve in Anatolia almost 10,000 years ago. Anatolia hosted several civilizations in the past and it was a path way between Asia and Europe during the history (Harlan, 1995; van Zeits and de Roller, 1995; Karagö z et al., 2010). Recent excavations in Göbekli Tepe of Sanliurfa Province have a potential to shed light on the periods prior to known date of agriculture (Bird, 1999). Throughout history, the Turkish people benefited a lot from local varieties.

Farmers, for over 500 generations have given us a priceless heritage of diverse germplasm. They gradually improved their material by selecting for several desirable characteristics such as bigger fruits (grain), homogenous germination, nonshattering, non-lodging, homogenous ripening, better tasting and quality and so on. Changing environmental conditions also contributed a lot for the landraces to develop genotypes that are better adapted to conditions where they were grown. Harlan (1995) lists the following steps usually followed as wild species, that may have been initially gathered were gradually brought into cultivation; loss of natural dispersal mechanism, rapid germination, larger seeds, simultaneous ripening, loss of mechanical means of protection, color changes and loss of toxic or bitter properties. Final product through time was a good accumulation of morpho-physiological traits conferring adaptability to stress environments (Jaradat, 2013).

Wheat has been a staple crop in the Anatolian region since prehistoric times. Anatolia has been home to vast numbers of farming cultures, from the initial waves of Neolithic migrants to modern times. Early Indo-European cultures, Hittites, Hellenic and Byzantine cultures, Romans, and Turkic cultures have successively occupied Anatolia since the beginnings of agriculture there. As other crops in their cradle areas of crop domestication, the diversity of wheat in Anatolia is large, as farmers have identified, multiplied and preserved them for millennia (Brush, 1995). Farmers in northern Turkey still grow emmer (Triticum dicoccon) and einkorn (Triticum monococcum), two primitive species, and the first wheat types to come into cultivation (Karagö z, 1996; Nesbitt, 1995; Guiliani et al., 2009). It is reported that emmer is also grown at 6 villages in Caucasian part of Turkey through participatory sustainable projects run by a local NGO (Anatolia Foundation, 2013). Bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) dominates Anatolia, although the durum wheat (Triticum durum) is also common.

Varietal richness in cultivated and natural plants attracted several other scientists in the past. Vavilov, Zhukovsky and Harlan (Harlan, 1950) were among them. In the same period as Gö kgö l, well known Russian scientist Zhukovsky conducted 3 collecting missions to Turkey during 1925-1927. Zhukovsky was encouraged by Vavilov and his missions were supported by The Botany Society of the Soviet Union. The author paid praise to M. Gö kgö l for his generous assistance during the missions (Zhukovsky, 1951). During three years of hard work in Turkey, Zhukovsky collected around 10,000 samples of cereals, forages and vegetables. The material was an enormous contribution to plant varieties of the Soviet Union (Zhukovsky, 1951).

Among the crop species, Turkey's wheat variation has always received greater attention since the beginning of 20th century. At the first quarter of 20th century, pioneering Turkish scientist Mirza Gö kgö l collected wheat landraces from all over Turkey and evaluated them for basic characteristics. Gö kgö l identified about 18.000 types of wheat and among them he identified 256 new varieties. His publications are still the most notable sources for the breeders and scientists dealing with plant genetic resources. The analyses of these material convinced Gö kgö l that almost all wheat varieties existing in the world were present in Turkey and that Turkish landraces provide an endless treasure to the breeders (Gö kgö l, 1935; Gö kgö l 1939; Gö kgö l, 1955).

Turkish farmers cultivated their landraces widely untill the second half of 20th century. After the World War II, a program was started in Turkey through an agreement with Rockfeller Foundation. Although it was a modest start in agriculture research, mechanization, use of fertilizers and chemicals, it resulted in unexpected consequences. Among several plant groups involved, wheat program had the greatest impact. It didn't take long for the new varieties to replace the landraces. The heritage begun to be demolished after so called high yielding "Mexican wheats" were introduced to the country. Initially some of those high yielding semi dwarf varieties yielded as much as four times the local varieties with suitable input. Although the country has also introduced some of previously unknown wheat diseases, it was assumed as "the green revolution" and enjoyed by Turkish farmers those days.

Table 1 gives a brief list of wheat yield values through time from late Ottoman Period (before the establishment of Republic of Tukey), before high yielding varieties (HYV's) and after introduction of HYV's up to 2012. Although the values suggest that there is a consistent yield increase after the introduction of high yielding varieties, it is also the period when farmers used agricultural inputs extensively. If the years with too little yield, due to wars and severe droughts are excluded, over 1 ton/ha during Ottoman Period can be ragerded excellent in the absence of agricultural mechanization and use of inputs.

Reasons for landrace cultivation

It is evident from the past experience that agricultural research generally addressed to the most promising areas by concentrating on species with economic importance. Doing so the researchers have saturated the most productive regions by providing suitable high yielding varieties and all the necessary technical information including agronomy packages developed for specific regions.

Traditional farmers in marginal areas have always been neglected by the researchers. In other words farmers of the marginal areas were leftwith all the elements of their traditional way of farming. Most of the innovations developed for the suitable environment, did not fit to the marginal areas. Therefore traditional farmers in marginal regions were more likely to maintain their landraces (Harlan, 1995).

Several factors including physical, climatic, socio-economic, market facilities, pricing policies, and so on, play role in cultivation of landraces. Multiple farmer concerns such as conformity for special food production, yield, risk and quality concerns contribute to the persistence of landraces. Household characteristics in forming variety choice will also affect the household's perceptions of the importance and value of landraces (Brush and Meng, 1998).

Reliable yield level is another reason for retention of landraces, because they are low risk option in the marginal conditions, resulting in fewer poor production years (Bardsley and Thomas, 2005). While the average annual production is likely to be lower with traditional varieties in marginal areas, they are perceived by farmers as producing more in the worst years than the modern varieties (Bardsley and Thomas, 2005). Genetic diversity within and between local varieties plays a role in seed production, albeit a small amount, in disaster years. The landrace does not necessarily have a level of tolerance to diseases, but being heterogeneous they may be able to offer some level of protection against extreme agronomic conditions (Bardsley and Thomas, 2005).

Access to markets plays an especially important role in the decision to cultivate traditional varieties. Households with fewer market sales are characterized by the smallest amount of total land owned as well as a relatively small percentage of available irrigated land (Brush and Meng, 1998).

Consumption attributes of a variety are reported to be important to the farm household, on farm cultivation is the best solution to guarantee availability (Brush and Meng, 1998). Advantages of Kirik landrace in East Anatolia High quality and white grain for white unleavened lavash bread, High value marketable product locally, Shortgrowing season, Facultative wheat, Low risk of production, Good straw, no awns (Bardsley and Thomas, 2005)

Variety choice is based on multiple household objectives and can not be attributed only to yield. The interaction among the various attributes is likely to play an important role. Yield attributes are ranked higher for modern varieties while traditional varieties are ranked higher in terms of taste and baking quality. Traditional varieties are also associated with better drought resistance attributes (Brush and Meng, 1998).

Present status

As it was stated above, a variety is regarded as "local", if it has been planted at least for one farmer generation (Louette, 2000). Assuming that farmers of Turkey have been practising agriculture for 10.000 years, one can easily figure out that thousands of landraces must have been transferred form father to son for over 500 generations. Time elapsed is long enough for especially annual crops to develop genotypes adapted to biotic and abiotic stress conditions in relatively large geography.

It is quite evident that landraces covered all of the arable lands some 50 years ago. Dalrymple (1986) claims that about 50% of Turkey's wheat area was planted in HYV's in 1984, by the varieties selected among high quality farmer cultivars and introduced varieties. No official figure is available at the moment about the ratio of landraces in each plant groups. What we can do is try to make a rough estimation by means of indicators of landrace cultivation. For that, first thing to do is to asses the reasons for cultivating landraces. A number of factors can be listed here for the reasons why the farmers continue or quit cultivating landraces. Most of the reason are universal and a few of them may be peculiar to Turkey.

Land size is an important indicator for productivity of agricultural system. Population increase posesses great pressure in Turkey on land size. Current inheritance system anticipates sharing the inherited property equally among the successors. Consequently land is fragmented into tens of plots in a few generations. Average farm size is 6,1 ha and about 65 % of the enterprices have a farm size lower than 5 ha. We should underline the fact that above mentioned factors generally act in favor of landraces cultivation. Another peculiarity of agricultural production system is that about 51 % of the agricultural enterprises are fragmented into more than 6 plots (Güven, 2010; SIS, 1994; SIS, 2004).

Karagö z (1996) reports that hulled wheat landraces cultivation is still practiced in villages of Sinop Province (north) by subsistance farmers majority of whom have farm size smaller than 5 ha without irrigation facility. Average number of plots per house hols is 16, there is no market for the crop and the crop is mainly grown as animal feed. Although several high yielding wheat varieties were tested to replace hulled wheat species, none of them overcome the yield of hulled wheats. This was due to the fact that hulled wheat landraces are better adapted to adverse conditions than the improved varieties. Hulled wheat is considered an indicator of poverty.

In an another study performed in north-north western transition zone (Bolu, Kastamonu, Bilecik, Eskisehir and Kütahya Provinces) following points have been highlighted: over 50 % of the farmer peasants were more than 50 years old, all with farming background of at least 20 years, fertilizer is only used for wheat, relation of the farmers with local extension service is weak, 47 % of the farms have no irrigation facility, majority of the farmers are equipped with tractor but agricultural eqipment is insufficient, animal husbandry plays an important role for subsistence, and 64 % of the male farmers consult with the women for subsequent crop design (Tan, 2002).

Cereals

Wheat is the major field crop grown in Turkey with 7.529.639 ha, followed by barley with 2.748.766 ha. Average yield of these cerals are 2.670 and 2.580 kg/ha respectively (TÜIK, 2013). Both of these crops yield less than the average in high altitude marginal areas of Turkey which accounts for 55 % of total cereal production area. Assuming that landrace cultivation is associated with lower yield, wheat and barley landraces are grown at about 10% of the low yielding area, we end up with an area of 565.312 ha of wheat and barley landrace cultivation. There is no improved varieties in hulled wheat species and use of registered varieties in oats and rye is negligible. Total cultivation area of these crops are 3.988, 89.327 and 143.222 ha respectively. Altogether total cereal landraces cultivation area is estimated to be 801.849 ha which is 3,37% of all cultivation area. Wheat landraces are generally grown at small patches in west and northern transition zones of Central Plateau, forest openings of North Anatolia, Eastern and South eastern Anatolia. Besides tle localized landraces, there are a few landraces grown in large areas such as Tokak (2 row barley), Kunduru (durum wheat) and Köse (bread wheat).

Wheat landraces of Turkey are usually kept as populations rather than selected homogenous cultivars. Thus those populations are characterized by great genetic and phenotypic variations. Thus landraces within a single village may show tarits sucha as white, black or red grain; the presence and absence of awns; tightly or loosely packed spikes; and different abilities to tolerate abiotic conditions (Brush, 2004).

There are several records concerning emmer and einkorn cultivation in Turkey. Kobalyev (cited in Zhukovsky, 1951) who participated the expeditions conducted by Zhukovsky during 1925- 1927 stated that "being a spring type of a crop of secondary importance, emmer cultivation area in Anatolia was about 2 % of all cultivated areas, and it is subject to total extinction in near future". Gö kgö l (1939) reports that emmer was a low yielding type of wheat and it is being replaced by higher yielding varieties. Today emmer and einkorn hulled wheat species are still beign grown in sloping forest openings at the north transition area by very poor villagers for subsistence where no other crop can be grown. Altogether their acreage is about 3.988 ha which was 107.758 ha in 1948 (Karagö z, 1996; TÜIK, 2013). Local NGO's are working hard for introduction and spread of emmer. Emmer bulgur is now available in certain markets of big cities.

Sustainability of landraces

First thing to keep in mind is that loss of landraces is a continuous, irreversible event which is hard to cease. It is inevitable that landraces will continue to be replaced by genetically uniform cultivars. There may be ways of maintaining some of the landraces sustainably for long periods, but there seems to be no way of conserving all the landraces forever. Therefore it would be wise to concentrate on the most appropriate and promising ones rather than trying to keep entire variation. Suitable strategies for promising plant groups and regions must be very well identified.

There is no proven successful strategy for in situ conservation and sustainable use of landraces yet. Different strategies apply to different plant groups and target areas. Any conservation activity should take into consideration the socio economic conditions of the target groups. Flexible management plans, prepared for target species and target areas are needed. Plans should be prepared by participation of all possible stakeholders suh as landrace producers, consumers, industry and exporters. Management plans should be flexible enough to keep up with the changing market demands. Promotion of market demand for the landraces should be one of the strategies of the plans.

Selecting target plant groups for in situ conservation of landraces is a critical issue and many factors are involved. Farmers would be interested in the species they are accustomed to, which are also the components of agricultural production system. Different or new crops may not be readily acceptable by the farmers. The key factor is that farmers are primary decision makers. Selection of target taxa should be leftwith the farmers. Where conservation of a species depend on maintenance of a particular ecosystem, due regard must also be paid to other species that are essential components of the ecosystem, even when these are not direct target of a conservation plan (Hawtin and Hodgkin, 1997). This is particularly the case where a certain rotation plan is applied. In that case the other plant groups should also be taken into on farm conservation plans in rotation with the target species.

Suggestions for sustainability of landraces

It is hard to suggest something special for any of the target plants or regions for long term conservation. The key point here is that any agricultural activity is maintained if it is worth to do so. Any initiative should prepare the infrastructure to add value to landraces and try to convince the farmers that they will earn more if they do so. Farmers' participation is very important for success of the management plans. Below is a short list of suggestions; market creation, development of benefit sharing regimes for the farmers conserving landraces, conservation of traditional knowledge related with landrace utilization and conservation, development of on farm breeding facilities, growing landrace mixtures, ammendment of seed registration system and/or creation of a special registry system for landraces and use of landraces in organic farming systems.

Creating new markets will have a positive impact on landrace cultivation. Consumers may not be aware of existence of new and different tastes and flavors that landraces bear. For example, there is a market in Italy for hulled wheat species and their products are sold at higher prices than ordinary wheat varieties, but in Turkey not many people are aware of existance of such varieties. Promotion of certain products made with landraces may create demand. For promotion of emmer production following points were recommenden by Guiliani et al. (2009): "an active public awareness campaign targeted at consumers, to be put in place by local governments, with the involvement of nongovernmental organizations and farmers' organizations". The authors also appreciate the crucial role Policy-makers have in spreading information about the dietary benefits of emmer through the media, campaigns, and ad-hoc education programs.

Benefit sharing issue is one of the three principles of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 2008). Parties to the CBD agreed on Nagoya Protocol in 2010 to enable fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources, thereby contributing to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity including landraces (Nagoya Protocol, 2013). The Nagoya Protocol is an agreement made in good faith among the parties which could only be beneficial for sustainable use of landraces if it can be implemented in a fair manner within and among the countries.

Conservation of landraces is directly related with conservation and maintanence of traditional knowledge since landraces developed distinct feature under traditional system. Therefore it is of crucial importance that traditional knowledge is collected and maintained.

Selecting within landraces for desired characteristics poses a danger on their genetic diversity because it may result in highly heterogenous populations into genetically poor homogenous ones. On farm breeding obtion is still more preferable than replacing the landraces with high yielding cultivars since at least some of the genes and characteristics are maintained with this strategy.

Growing mixtures of landraces does apply for the ones with similar phenotypic characteristics. This strategy may be applied to the ones that are still being widely used like Tokak (barley), Kunduru (durum wheat. In case of highly mixed populations the same operation can be applied by selecting and mixing the similar types and returning them to the users in different lots. It may also add market value to the crop by having more homogenous product.

Existing seed certification system posesses problems to the landraces becuse of required homogenity of the reproduction material. Although a number of landraces were released within this system in Turkey, they are all phenotypically homogenous because of eliminating offtypes among them for many years.Under strong restrictive seed certification systems the landraces have almost no chance to take market share. A less restrictive system allowing landraces to have diversity within the pre determined ranges is necessary.

It is also a fact that loss of landraces is associated with progress achieved in economic level and agricultural practices. Negative correlation between landrace cultivation and rural development suggest that, a way of integrating landrace cultivation into development plans should be searched. Social and economical progress provide new era for promotion of natural and healthy foods. People of the developed countries are more interested in consuming healthier food. This trend might be used for the benefit of landraces by integrating them into organic farming applications.

Being a production system which aims to reestablish the organic equilibrium of the ecological system, organic agriculture uses organic inputs at limited level. Having a lot of varieties that are adapted to low input conditions, landraces provide invaluable source for organic farming practices. Landrace production areas are more suitable for organic farming because they are the least polluted parts of the farming systems. Potential of the landraces must be evaluated for their response to organic farming applications to provide new and varying sources to farmers and breeders.

Organic farms make use of large numbers of plant and animal species than conventional systems. As a result, the large pool of genetic resources for food and is maintained and other useful organisms such as predators, pollinators and other useful microorganisms are increased for the very benefit of the agricultural system.

There are several hundred millions of farmers in the world who do not have the economic means to buy high yielding seeds or synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, necessary for conventional cultivation. Many of these have opted for the maintenance or reintroduction of organic systems based on traditional forms of agriculture. These promote the use of varieties and breeds that are better adapted to local stress conditions and do not require unavailable and costly inputs.

There are also farmers who have opted for organic agriculture in part because they wish to produce healthy and environmentally friendly food, and also because they are attracted by the strong demand for organic products and related premium prices. Market driven farmers should, as minimum, rotate crops as the first step towards improving agricultural biodiversity. This is one of the methods required by organic certification bodies as well as by financial programs. These farmers have also opted for sowing locally adapted species and varieties that are more resistant to disease and local environmental conditions because synthetic fertilizers and pesticides cannot be relied upon (Sciallaba, 2003).

Organic crops cover a total of 614.618 ha in 2011 and number of organic products reached to 42.460 (TÜIK, 2013). Land and number of farmers dealing with organic agriculture tripled during 2005-2011. We can assume organic agriculture is a promising activity for Turkey for more widespread use and sustainability of landraces.

Conclusion

Landraces of wheat and other major and minor crops still play an important role in the livelihood of small scale farmers in Turkey. Several factors including physical, climatic, socio-economic, market facilities, and pricing policies, play a major role in cultivation of landraces. It is estimated that cereal landraces cover almost 800.000 ha in Turkey. Loss of landraces is a continuous, irreversible event. It is inevitable that landraces will continue to be replaced by genetically uniform cultivars. There may be ways of maintaining some of the landraces sustainably for long periods, but there seems to be no way of conserving all the landraces forever. Market creation, development of benefit sharing regimes, conservation of traditional knowledge related with landrace utilization, development of on farm breeding facilities, growing landrace mixtures, ammendment of seed registration system and/or creation of a special registry system for landraces and use of landraces in organic farming systems are suggested for sustainability of crop landraces.

References

References

Anatolia Foundation. 2013. SustainableVillage Projects in the Kars Region of Eastern Anatolia. http://www.anatoliafoundation.org/ anasayfa.html.

Bardsley, D. and I. Thomas. 2005. Valuing local wheat landraces for agrobiodiversity conservation in Northeast Turkey. Agric. Ecosy. Env. 106: 407-412.

Biodiversity International. 2013. http://www. ecpgr.cgiar.org/networks/in_situ_and_on_ farm/on_farm_wg.html

Bird, M. 2009. Ever Nearer the Past. Time, Dec. 06, 1999.

Brush, S. B. 1995. In situ conservation of landraces in centers of crop diversity. Crop Sci. 35:346- 354.

Brush, S. B. and E. Meng. 1998. Farmers' valuation and conservation of crop genetic resources. Gen. Res. Crop Evol. 45:139-150.

Brush, S. B. 2004. Farmers' bounty: locating crop diversity in the contemporary world. Yale University Press, New Haven & London, p. 327.

Bugday Association. 2013. Seed exchange network. http://bugdayglobal.org/.

CBD. 1998. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal, Canada.

Dalrymple, D. 1986. Development and spread of high-yielding wheat varieties in developing countries. USAID, Washington, DC.

Gö kgö l, M. 1935. Turkey's wheats, V.I (in Turkish). Istanbul. Tarim Bakanligi, Istanbul- Yesilköy Tohum Islah Istasyonu Yayini: 7. p. 436.

Gö kgö l, M. 1939. Turkey's wheats, V.II (in Turkish). Istanbul. Tarim Bakanligi, Istanbul- Yesilköy Tohum Islah Istasyonu Yayini: 14. p. 955.

Gö kgö l, M. 1955. Classification key for wheats (in Turkish). Ziraat Vekaleti, Nesriyat ve Haberlesme Müdürlüg, No: 716:172.

Guiliani, A., A. Karagö z and N. Zencirci. 2009. Emmer (Triticum dicoccon) Production and market potential in marginal mountainous areas of Turkey. Mount. Res. Dev. (MRD). 29(3):220-229.

Güven, F. 2010. General status of agricultural enterprises and determination of self sufficient enterprise size in Turkey (in Turkish). Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, General Directorate of Agrarian Reform.

Harlan, J. R. 1950. Collection of crop plants in Turkey. Agron. J. 42:258-59.

Harlan, J. R. 1995. Crops & Man. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Crop Science Society of America, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, USA. p. 284.

Hawtin, G. C. and T. Hodgkin. 1997. Towards the future. Plant Genetic Conservation. The in situ approach. In: N. Maxted, B. V. Ford-Lloyd and J. G. Hawkes (Eds.). pp.369-382. Chapman & Hall.

Jaradat, A. 2013. Wheat Landraces: A Mini Review. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2013. 25(1):20- 29.

Karagö z, A. 1996. Agronomic practices and socioeconomic aspects of emmer and einkorn cultivation in Turkey. Proceedings of the first International Workshop on Hulled Wheats. 21-22 July 1995, Castelvecchio Pascoli, Tuscany, Italy. Padulosi, S., K. Hammer and J. Heller (Eds.), IPGRI, pp.172-177.

Karagö z, A. 2003. Plant Genetic Resources Conservation in Turkey. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Sustainable Use of Plant Biodiversity to Promote New Opportunities for Horticultural Production Development. E. Düzyaman and Y. Tüzel (Eds.). Acta Hort. 598:17-25.

Karagö z, A. 2006. Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profiles, Turkey. http://www. fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Counprof/PDF%2 0files/Turkey.pdf.

Karagöz, A., N. Zencirci, A. Tan, T. Taskin, H. Kö ksel, M. Sürek, C. Toker and K. Özbek. 2010. Conservation and utilization of genetic resources (in Turkish). In: Vth Technical Congress of the Agriculture, 17-21 Jan., 2010. Chamber of Agricultural Engineers, Ankara, pp. 155-177.

Louette, D. 2000. Traditional management of seed and genetic diversity: what is a landrace? In: Genes in the field. On farm conservation of crop diversity. S. B. Brush, (Ed). pp. 109-142. IPGRI, IDRC, Lewis Publishers.

Nagoya Protocol. 2013. http://www.cbd.int/abs/.

Nesbitt, M. 1995. Plants and people in ancient Anatolia. Biblical Arch. 58:68-81.

Sciallaba, N. E. H. 2003. Organic agriculture: The challenge of sustaining food production while enhancing biodiversity. Report of the FAO/UNTG Workshop. Biodiversity and Organic Agriculture in Turkey. Ankara, pp.13- 76.

SIS. 2001. State Institute of Statistics. Agricultural Structure (Production, Price and Value). Ankara.

SIS. 2004. State Institute of Statistics. Agricultural census, 2001.

Tan, A. 2002. In situ (on farm) conservation of landraces from transitional zone of Turkey. Final report for Project No: TOGTAG-2347, Turkish Association for Scientific and Technical Research (unpublished).

Tan, A. 2009. Country Report on the State of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Second National Report of Turkey on Conservation and Sustainable Utilisation of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, Izmir, pp.48.

TÜIK. 2013. Turkish Statistical Institute. http://tuikapp.tuik.gov.tr/bitkiselapp/bitkisel_i ng.zul

van Zeist, W. and G. J. de Roller. 1995. Plant remains from Asikli Hö yük, a pre-pottery site in central Anatolia. Veget Hist Archeobot 4:179-185.

Vavilov, N. I. 1994. Origin and Geography of Cultivated Crops. Cambridge University Press, UK.

Zeven, A. C. 1998. Landraces: A review of definitions and classifications. Euphytica 104:127-139.

Zhukovsky, P. M. 1951. Ecological types and economic importance of Anatolian wheat (Translators: C. Kipçak, H. Nouruzhan and S. Türkistanli), pp.158-214. In: Agricultural Structure of Turkey (in Turkish). Turkish Sugar Beet Plants Publications No: 20, p. 887.