I need help for the whole assignment. This is plant physiology assignment which requires high level of knowledge.
BISC 366 Plant Physiology 1. C3, C4 and CAM plants have advantages and disadvantages under specific environmental conditions. In theory a hybrid plant carrying all three mechanisms would have the largest flexibiliy to respond and do well under various conditions. a. (3) Draw a picture combining the three metabolic pathways (C3 with simplified Calvin cycle in the middle), label key steps with letters (arrow with letter above), take a picture or scan it, insert it here. b. (12) Indicate what steps should be activated or turned off during the following environmental conditions and motivate that on an energy level and water loss how that optimizes photosynthetic yield: i. 10oC night temperature, 30oC day temperature, dry ground, high light intensity ii. 10oC night temperature, 15oC day temperature, wet ground, high light intensity iii. 10oC night temperature, 40oC day temperature, wet ground, high light intensity iv. 10oC night temperature, 40oC day temperature, dry ground, high light intensity 2. (3) In the apetala 2 mutant, sepals are replaced by carpel-like structures. Explain how that can happen on a molecular level. 3. (15) Spontaneous mutant show Provide a plausible explanation (a hypothesis) what causes these defects. Use knowledge from this course to pinpoint likely gene and how its activity is altered (loss of function, miss-expression). Simplest explanation is typically most plausible and therefore awarded marks. a. b. c. d. e. 4. (4) Provide pros and cons of Cassava plants with and without HCN. 5. A life with a large impact Read attached obituary about Norman Borlaug and answer these questions. a. Traditionally, breeders at the time would go through one life cycle of wheat per year. What did Borlaug do to reduce the time of the breeding process? b. (3) What was the side effect of chemical fertilizer (NPK including N fixated by the Haber-Bosch process) and what did Borlaug and team do to address this problem? c. (3) Put the outcome in the light of sugar source-sink relationship d. (4) Provide a target gene and specific alteration to accomplish this in other crops e. (4) Traditionally, new improved cereal varieties could be planted elsewhere along the longitude axis, even from one continent to another, but not readily along the latitude axis. How did Borlaug and coworkers address that problem? f. (4) Provide a target gene and specific alteration to accomplish this in other crops. g. (2) Borlaug received the Nobel Peace Prize. What was likely the main reason for that? Use the attached publication, Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead, by Prabhu L. Pingali, to answer the following questions. Apart from individual numbers and words, do NOT copy and paste sentences. Use your own wording. 6. (2) Briefly provide numerical evidence showing that the Green revolution (GR) staved off imminent starvation. 7. (3) Explain in your own words why the plant breeding part of the Green Revolution (GR) came from international organizations and not countries and companies. 8. (5) Describe the sequential spread of the GR in the world (max 6 sentences). 9. (4) Africa lagged behind, and still does, in the uptake of GR resources. Provide reasons for that (included in this paper, there are probably other reasons). 10. (5) The increase in yield (amount of grain in kg/hectare) attributed to the GR is described as between 15% and 200%. At the same time, % increase per year attributed to genetic gain from breeding is no more than 1-3% per year. Provide arguments explaining this discrepancy. 11. (6) There is a common perception, also among biologists/ecologists, that plant breeding has been carried out by and benefited mostly large pesticide/seed companies like such as Monsanto. Provide in three sentences key arguments that could be used to efficiently counteract such a generalized statement. (I’m not saying that there aren’t reasons to be critical of companies such as Monsanto, certainly are, but the discussion needs to balanced and informed). 12. (4) Provide both negative and positive effects of expanded rice production and attached lower prices on: i. consumption of plants rich in micronutrients ii. consumption of plant seeds rich in protein (legumes). 13. (4) Countries, and by extension taxpayers such as your parents, that fund CGIAR and IRRI want to know that their money come to good use. Provide specific arguments for that. 14. (4) The GR has had extensive negative environmental effects. Nitrogen played and plays a big role in that. Use your knowledge from this course to explain why and offer a way of addressing it. 15. The investment by countries and organizations in the CGIAR, IRRI and other GR institutions steadily declined in the 2000s, in part because of the absence of catastrophic starvations. The author describes GR 2.0. a. (4) Provide 3-4 powerful sentences why there is a need for GR 2.0. b. (10) The IRRI sites below provide specific fields in which they are working towards GR 2.0. Identify one of them and write a mock paragraph why they should hire you or at least let you come as an intern, using arguments going from wide and general to a specific plant physiology/development process demonstrating in a few sentences that you understand it, and how you could work on improving it. Alternatively, go to the CGIAR site below, pick one of their organizations, read a bit what they do, and in a similar way as above, explain how you can contribute, again going down to specifics. https://www.irri.org/research-platform/strategic-innovation https://www.irri.org/research-platform/rice-breeding https://www.cgiar.org/research/research-centers/ 3 pnas200912953 12302..12308 Green Revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead Prabhu L. Pingali1 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Agricultural Development, Seattle, WA 98102 Edited by William C. Clark, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, and approved June 25, 2012 (received for review April 2, 2012) A detailed retrospective of the Green Revolution, its achievement and limits in terms of agricultural productivity improvement, and its broader impact at social, environmental, and economic levels is provided. Lessons learned and the strategic insights are reviewed as the world is preparing a “redux” version of the Green Revolution with more integrative environmental and social impact combined with agricultural and economic development. Core policy directions for Green Revolution 2.0 that enhance the spread and sustainable adoption of productivity enhancing technologies are specified. global public goods | nutrition | poverty | technology | agricultural development T he developing world witnessed an extraordinary period of food crop productivity growth over the past 50 y, despite increasing land scarcity and rising land values. Although populations had more than doubled, the production of cereal crops tripled during this period, with only a 30% increase in land area cultivated (1). Dire predictions of a Malthusian famine were belied, and much of the developing world was able to overcome its chronic food deficits. Sub- Saharan Africa continues to be the ex- ception to the global trend. Much of the success was caused by the combination of high rates of investment in crop research, infrastructure, and mar- ket development and appropriate policy support that took place during the first Green Revolution (GR). I distinguish the first GR period as 1966–1985 and the post- GR period as the next two decades. Large public investment in crop genetic im- provement built on the scientific advances already made in the developed world for the major staple crops—wheat, rice, and maize—and adapted those advances to the conditions of developing countries (2). The GR strategy for food crop pro- ductivity growth was explicitly based on the premise that, given appropriate institu- tional mechanisms, technology spillovers across political and agroclimatic bound- aries could be captured. However, neither private firms nor national governments had sufficient incentive to invest in all of the research and development of such inter- national public goods. Private firms oper- ating through markets have limited interest in public goods, because they do not have the capacity to capture much of the benefit through proprietary claims; also, because of the global, nonrival nature of the re- search products, no single nation has the incentive to invest public resources in this type of research. International public goods institutions were needed to fill this gap, and efforts to develop the necessary institutional capacity, particularly in plant breeding, were a cen- tral part of the GR strategy. Based on the early successes with wheat at the Inter- national Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT) in Mexico and rice at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Re- search (CGIAR) was established specif- ically to generate technological spillovers for countries that underinvest in agricul- tural research, because they are unable to capture all of the benefits of those invest- ments (3). After CGIAR-generated knowledge, invention, and products (such as breeding lines) were made publicly avail- able, national public and private sectors responded with investments for technology adaptation, dissemination, and delivery. Despite that success, in the post-GR period, investment in agriculture dropped off dramatically into the mid-2000s (4). However, the need for continued invest- ments in agricultural innovation and pro- ductivity growth is as important today as it was in the early years of the GR. Low in- come countries and lagging regions of emerging economies continue to rely on agricultural productivity as an engine of growth and hunger reduction (5–7). However, sustaining productivity gains, enhancing smallholder competitiveness, and adapting to climate change are be- coming increasingly urgent concerns across all production systems. Since themid-2000s and heightened after the 2008 food price spikes, there has been renewed interest in agricultural investment, and there are calls for the next GR, in- cluding those calls made by the former Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi Annan and Sir Gordon Conway (3, 8). Simultaneously, there is recognition of the limitations of the first GR and the need for alternative solutions that correct for those limitations and unintended conse- quences (5). GR 2.0 must address these concerns both where the GR was successful and in low income countries and lagging regions, where agricultural productivity is still low. This paper reviews the evidence on the diffusion and impact of GR crop genetic improvements and the limitations and unintended environmental, social, and institutional consequences of the GR strategy for productivity growth. Then, I turn to the current period and the renewed interest and investment in agricultural de- velopment, and I give the technology and institutional priorities for a GR 2.0. First GR: Diffusion and Impact of Crop Genetic Improvements Positive impacts on poverty reduction and lower food prices were driven in large part by crop germplasm improvements in CGIAR centers that were then transferred to