ORIGINAL ARTICLE Genetic Resources (2024), 5 (10), 81–93 DOI: 10.46265/genresj.BQTW2172 https://www.genresj.org ISSN: 2708-3764 Checklist and prioritization of crop wild relatives in Sudan and South Sudan Ahmed Aldow *,a, Joana Magos Brehm a, Maha Kordofani a,b, Fatouma Abdoul-latif c and Nigel Maxted a a School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, B15 2TT, Birmingham, UK b Department of Botany, The University of Khartoum, 11115, Khartoum, Khartoum, Sudan c Centre of Studies and Research of Djibouti (CERD), Medicinal Research Institute, Djibouti Abstract: Crop wild relatives (CWR) encompass wild plant species or subspecies closely related to domesticated crops. This study presents the first comprehensive checklist and prioritized inventory of CWR for Sudan and South Sudan. Building on the regional CWR list for Northeast Africa, we identified 499 CWR taxa belonging to 44 families, with 90% of these being native species. The most prominently represented families were Poaceae (148), Fabaceace (72) and Convolvulaceae (43), while Panicum (32), Eragrostis (27), Ficus (24) and Pennisetum (20) were the most frequent genera. A prioritized inventory of 85 CWR taxa was developed based on three criteria: economic value, utilization potential and threat status. The prioritized CWR are predominately native (78%) and encompass 12 families dominated by Poaceae (38), followed by Solanaceae (9), Fabaceae (6) and Cucurbitaceae (6). Priority genera included 27, with Digitaria (17), Solanum (9) and Cucumis (5) emerging as key genera for conservation attention. This comprehensive national CWR inventory provides a crucial foundation for developing targeted conservation strategies in Sudan and South Sudan. Keywords: Crop wild relatives, conservation, checklist of crop wild relatives, priority inventory Citation: Aldow, A., Brehm, J. M., Kordofani, M., Abdoul-latif, F., Maxted, N. (2024). Checklist and prioritization of crop wild relatives in Sudan and South Sudan. Genetic Resources 5 (10), 81–93. doi: 10.46265/genresj.BQTW2172. © Copyright 2024 the Authors. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Introduction Crop wild relatives (CWR) are wild ancestors of plant taxa that are closely related to domesticated crops. These wild plants possess a high reservoir of genetic diversity for improving the resilience and productivity of our cultivated crops (Ford-Lloyd et al, 2011). CWR possess a broader genetic diversity compared to domesticated crops because of their adaptation to various climatic conditions (Dempewolf et al, 2017). This genetic richness allows CWR to share valuable genes with their domesticated counterparts, enhancing crop resistance to pests, diseases and environmental stresses (Barazani et al, 2008). Globally, an estimated 50,000–60,000 CWR occur, with 10,740 identified as potential contributors to future food security (Maxted ∗Corresponding author: Ahmed Aldow (ahmedalsafie@yahoo.com) and Kell, 2009). Recognizing their importance, a study by Vincent et al (2013) established an initial global priority list of 1,392 species for conservation and utilization to ensure food security. However, CWR face numerous threats, including nitrogen deposition, land- use alterations, invasive alien species, overgrazing, urbanization and climate change (Ford-Lloyd et al, 2011). Climate change is projected to have a detrimental impact on global crop production (Lobell et al, 2011). Over the past three decades, global warming has accelerated and is expected to intensify further in the years to come (IPCC, 2020). In Africa, the effects of climate change on food production are already apparent, manifesting as changes in rainfall patterns, rising temperatures and an increased frequency of extreme weather events (IPCC, 2020). These changes have resulted in reduced crop yields, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa (IPCC, 2020), which is home to Received: 10.06.2024 Accepted: 17.09.2024 Published online: 29.10.2024 https://www.genresj.org https://www.doi.org/10.46265/genresj.BQTW2172 https://www.genresj.org https://www.doi.org/10.46265/genresj.BQTW2172 mailto:ahmedalsafie@yahoo.com 82 Aldow et al Genetic Resources (2024), 5 (10), 81–93 approximately 45,000 plant species (Linder, 2014), and where a significant portion of the population relies on plant resources as the foundation of their diet (Gollin and Rogerson, 2014). For the comprehensive utilization of CWR in crop improvement programmes, it is vital to conserve, clas- sify and make them accessible to researchers and plant breeders at national, regional and global levels (Maxted et al, 2015). Hence, urgent measures involving comple- mentary protection, both in situ (on farms) and through storage in ex situ facilities (genebanks), are essential steps to preserve these genetic resources and ensure their availability to researchers and breeders (Maxted and Kell, 2009). The initial phase of CWR conservation planning entails the development of a checklist, defin- ing the taxon names of existing CWR within a specific region or country (Maxted et al, 1997). Subsequently, the creation of a priority CWR checklist involves reduc- ing the number on the checklist to more manageable lev- els. This is achieved by applying criteria such as threat status, endemicity and potential utilization (Ford-Lloyd et al, 2008). To assess the potential utilization of CWR in plant breeding, researchers rely on two main concepts: the gene pool concept (Harlan and De Wet, 1971) and the taxon group concept (Maxted et al, 2006). These concepts are crucial as they help us to understand the genetic relationships between cultivated crops and their wild relatives. Close relatives hold a higher likelihood of intercrossing than distant ones. The gene pool concept furnishes valuable information to plant breeders, aiding them in selecting germplasm for crossbreeding and plant improvement. It is divided into three categories: the primary gene pool (GP1), where GP1a represents the cultivated forms and GP1b the wild or weedy forms; the secondary gene pool (GP2), consisting of species that are less closely related but still capable of gene transfer, albeit with difficulty; and the tertiary gene pool (GP3), consisting of distantly related species where gene transfer is either impossible or requires advanced methods such as genetic engineering (Harlan and De Wet, 1971). In cases where gene pool concept information is unavailable, the taxon group concept serves as an alternative. The taxon group concept categorizes relationships as follows: taxon group 1a (TG1a) is the crop itself, taxon group 1b (TG1b) includes the same species as the crop, taxon group 2 (TG2) consists of species within the same series or section as the crop, taxon group 3 (TG3) refers to species in the same subgenus as the crop, taxon group 4 (TG4) includes species in the same genus as the crop, and taxon group 5 (TG5) includes species in the same tribe as the crop but belonging to a different genus (Maxted et al, 2006). CWR checklists and prioritized inventories have been established in various countries worldwide, includ- ing Mexico (Contreras-Toledo et al, 2019), the United States (Khoury et al, 2013), Spain (Rubio-Teso et al, 2018), Portugal (Magos-Brehm et al, 2008), Benin (Ido- hou et al, 2013), Tunisia (Mokni et al, 2022), Italy (Cian- caleoni et al, 2021) and South Africa (Holness et al, 2019). A recent study by Aldow et al (2023) developed the first regional CWR inventory for Northeast Africa. However, there has been no prior investigation into CWR diversity in Sudan and South Sudan. Thus, the objec- tives of this study are 1) to prepare Sudan and South Sudan CWR checklist, and 2) annotate this checklist to prioritize it for active conservation using the Interactive Toolkit for CWR Conservation Planning (Magos et al, 2017). Geographical context Sudan and South Sudan, located in Northeast Africa between latitudes 4◦ and 22◦ N and longitudes 22◦ and 38◦ E (Zaroug, 2006), are bordered by Ethiopia and Eritrea to the east and Egypt to the north. The combined total area of both countries is approximately 2.5 million km2, with Sudan covering about 1,878,000km2 and South Sudan about 646,883 km2 (Zaroug, 2006; World Bank, 2021). Pasture and forests cover 40% of the land, while cultivated area accounts for about 33% of the total area, of which only 21% is actively cultivated, resulting in very low crop yields (UNEP, 2007). The two countries are divided into five ecological zones: desert, semi- desert, woodland savannah, flood region and montane vegetation. Agriculture is the main source of income for 60–80% of the population (Elgali et al, 2010). The five agricultural systems include mechanized rain-fed agricultural schemes, traditional rain-fed agriculture, mechanized irrigation schemes, traditional irrigation and livestock husbandry/pastoralism (Zaroug, 2006). Approximately 90% of the farming areas in the country depend on precipitation (Siddig et al, 2020), while in South Sudan, despite more favourable climatic conditions, agricultural output remains low (Diao et al, 2012). Materials and methods CWR checklists and inventories are the main starting points for effective conservation strategies (Maxted et al, 2015). This study is based on the CWR diversity identified for Northeast Africa (Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, and South Sudan) by Aldow et al (2023) to create a checklist and a priority inventory for Sudan and South Sudan. We excluded invasive species documented for Sudan and South Sudan from the Global Invasive Species Database (GISD) of IUCN (http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/) and the Invasive Species Compendium (CABI) (http://www .cabi.org/isc/). Our approach involved a three-step process: 1. Starting point: We began with the comprehensive CWR checklist for Northeast Africa compiled by Aldow et al (2023), which included 1,020 taxa. 2. Regional refinement: We then used a digitalized floristic checklist of Sudan and South Sudan, compiled by the first author based on Plants of Sudan and South Sudan: An Annotated Checklist (Darbyshire et al, http://www.cabi.org/isc/ Genetic Resources (2024), 5 (10), 81–93 Sudan and South Sudan crop wild relatives 83 2015) during the establishment of the CWR checklist for Northeast Africa, to retain a checklist with taxa occurring only in these two countries. Note that in the flora of Sudan and South Sudan, the Compositae family is referred to as the Asteraceae family. 3. A priority inventory of CWR was selected based on three criteria: (A) Economic value: FAOSTAT crop valuation (FAO, 2021) was used to select taxa with economic importance based on the related crop. (B) The utilization potential: priority taxa within gene pool categories 1b, 2, 3 and taxon group categories 1b, 2, 3 and 4 (with documented use in crop development only) were selected based on the information available in the Germplasm Resources Information Network Taxonomy (USDA, 2023) and the Harlan de Wet CWR inventory (Vincent et al, 2013). (C) Threat status: although (Kell et al, 2017) rec- ommended incorporating threat status as a prioritiza- tion criterion, its application was limited due to the scarcity of Red List data for these countries (only 7% of plant species according to Darbyshire et al (2015). However, based on expert consultation, the endangered South Sudanese coffee species Coffea neoleroyi A. P. Davis (IUCN, 2022), was added to the priority checklist. Additional information was incorporated into the compiled CWR checklist and inventory. This supple- mentary data encompassed taxonomic details such as accepted taxa names, synonyms and authorities. Addi- tionally, it included the common names of related crops, native status, the utilization of the crop, the type of relat- edness (gene pool or taxon group), confirmed or poten- tial use in crop breeding, distribution status along with relevant references, and in situ and ex situ conservation statuses. Results CWR Checklist The CWR checklist of Sudan and South Sudan contains 449 taxa (including subspecies and varieties), belonging to 88 genera across 44 families. Both native and introduced taxa are included. Invasive taxa, like Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers, were removed from the checklist. Sudan has 133 taxa, 59 genera, and South Sudan 161 taxa and 47 genera. Over 90% of the listed CWR are native to these two countries. The most common plant families include Poaceae (grasses) with 148 taxa, Fabaceae (legumes) with 72 taxa, and Convolvulaceae (morning glories) with 43 taxa. The genera with the highest number of CWR taxa are Panicum (32), Eragrostis (27), Ficus (24) and Pennisetum (20). Details on the distribution of taxa can be found in Supplemental Table 1 and Figure 1. Priority checklist The priority checklist of Sudan and South Sudan contains 85 taxa related to 12 families and 27 genera. Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of these priority taxa across both countries. The most mentioned families were Poaceae (38), Solanaceae (9), Fabaceae and Cucurbitaceae (6 each), while Digitaria, Solanum, Cucumis and Echinochlo were the most mentioned genera (Supplemental Table 2 and Figure 3). The closest wild relatives to the crop GP1b, TG1b, TG2 and GP2 represent about 49% and GP3 counts for about half of the priority taxa (Figure 4a and Supplemental Table 3). The confirmed use of taxa is about 8%, potential use 17%, confirmed and potential use 14%, and unconfirmed use 61% (Figure 4b and Supplemental Table 3). CWR in the checklist have provided a number of beneficial traits to crops such as chickpea, teff, coffee, finger millet, cassava, rice, cotton and sorghum found in Sudan and South Sudan (Table 1). Discussion The inventory conducted in Sudan and South Sudan reveals a rich diversity of native and introduced taxa associated with a broad range of crops. This provides a crucial foundation for the development of national policies and strategies in both countries. These strategies should prioritize the conservation of the identified CWR genetic diversity, both in situ and ex situ, with the ultimate goal of ensuring the long- term conservation of these valuable resources for the benefit of future generations (Kell et al, 2017). In light of the critical importance of CWR for global food security and sustainable agriculture, researchers and scientific institutions have advocated for a coordinated global CWR conservation strategy (Dempewolf et al, 2014), which should encompass both in situ and ex situ approaches for effective conservation. The checklist of CWR identified a significantly higher diversity of CWR in South Sudan (37,9%) compared to Sudan. Interestingly, about one-third of the CWR identified are found in both countries. Additionally, nearly half (45%) of the priority CWR are shared between the two nations. Unfortunately, most documented plant taxa in these countries are outdated due to a lack of recent research, likely a result of long- standing civil conflicts. This highlights the urgent need for taxonomic experts to update the classification of these CWR. National CWR conservation strategies should be harmonized with regional and international initiatives. As proposed by Maxted et al (2015), integrating national and regional CWR conservation strategies is highly beneficial. This recognizes that prioritization criteria for CWR conservation at the national level can often be aligned with the regional level. This overlap facilitates collaboration between various agencies (governmental, private, or voluntary) at both levels, leading to the development of more effective CWR conservation strategies. 84 Aldow et al Genetic Resources (2024), 5 (10), 81–93 Figure 1. Distribution of CWR taxa in the checklist in Sudan and South Sudan Figure 2. Distribution of priority CWR in Sudan and South Sudan Genetic Resources (2024), 5 (10), 81–93 Sudan and South Sudan crop wild relatives 85 Figure 3. Diversity of taxa among CWR families within the priority CWR inventory in Sudan and South Sudan. Figure 4. Genetic relatedness and use potential for priority CWR inventory in Sudan and South Sudan. a) shows the genetic relatedness of the priority CWR inventory in Sudan and South Sudan, based on the gene pool and taxon group concepts. b) illustrates the status of the priority CWR inventory in Sudan and South Sudan for crop improvement, categorized as potential, confirmed, confirmed and potential, and unconfirmed. 86 Aldow et al G enetic Resources (2024),5 (10),81–93 Table 1. Relatedness of CWR taxa and their confirmed use in crop improvement in the priority inventory of Sudan and South Sudan. GP1, primary gene pool; GP2, secondary gene pool; GP3, tertiary gene pool. ’b’ indicates the wild or weedy form. Taxon Relatedness to CWR Confirmed use of CWR to broaden crop improvement References Coffea canephora var. gossweileri A. Chev. GP2b Coffee berry disease resistance; coffee rust resistance; root-knot nematode resistance Anthony et al (2011); Levi et al (2005); Noir et al (2003); Prescott-Allen and Prescott-Allen (1988) Coffea liberica Hiern GP2b Coffee rust resistance Anthony et al (2011); Prakash et al (2009); Prescott-Allen and Prescott-Allen (1988) Fragaria chiloensis (L.) Duchesne. GP1b Fruit size; Fruit quality Ahmadi and Bringhurst (1992) Fragaria vesca L. GP3 Anthracnose resistance; Powdery mildew resistance; improved aroma Ahmadi and Bringhurst (1992); Scott (1951) Fragaria virginiana Duchesne. GP1b Fruit number; fruit size; powdery mildew resistance; scorch resistance; day neutral Ahmadi and Bringhurst (1992); Hancock et al (2002) Diplotaxis erucoides (L.) DC. GP3 Alternaria blight resistance; blackleg resistance; cytoplasmic male sterility Klewer et al (2003); Prakash et al (2009); Siemens (2002) Diplotaxis harra (Forssk.) Boiss. GP3 Gene transfer Begum et al (1995) Eleusine africana K. OByrne GP1b Fertility trait Dida and Devos (2006) Eleusine kigeziensis S.M. GP1b Fertility trait Dida and Devos (2006) Thinopyrum junceum (L.) Á. Löve GP3 Soil salinity tolerance Nevo and Chen (2010) Gossypium longicaly x Hutch. & B.J.S. Lee. GP2 Reniform nematode resistance Robinson et al (2007) Ipomoea purpurea (L.) Roth. GP3 Gene transfer Cao et al (2009) Lens ervoides (Brign.) Grande GP2 Seed size; Yield improvement; anthracnose resistance; Ascochyta blight resistance; Stemphylium blight resistance Ahmad et al (1997); Kumar et al (2014); Tullu et al (2011) Lupinus mexicanus Cerv. er Lag. GP3 Gene transfer Busmann-Loock et al (1992); Clements et al (2005) Malus sylvestris Miller GP1b Agronomic trait Volk et al (2015) Manihot carthagenensis subsp. glaziovii (Müll. Arg.) Allem GP2 Cassava bacterial blight; resistance; cassava mealy bug resistance; Cassava mosaic Virus Resistance Hahn et al (1980); Hajjar and Hodgkin (2007); Nair and Unnikrishnan (2007); Prescott-Allen and Prescott-Allen (1988) Medicago arborea L. GP3 Anthracnose resistance Armour et al (2008); Quiros and Bauchan (1988) Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata (Wall. ex G. Don) Cif. GP2 Crop ontology trait Hannachi et al (2009) Continued on next page G enetic Resources (2024),5 (10),81–93 Sudan and South Sudan crop w ild relatives 87 Table 1 continued Taxon Relatedness to CWR Confirmed use of CWR to broaden crop improvement References Oryza brachyantha A. Chev. & Roehr. GP2 Bacterial blight resistance Brar and Singh (2011) Oryza longisteminata A. Chev. & Roehr. GP1b Drought tolerance; yield improvement; bacterial blight resistance; Grassy stunt resistance Brar and Singh (2011); Hajjar and Hodgkin (2007); Jena (2010) Pistacia khinjuk Stocks. GP2 Rootstock Hormaza and Wünsch (2007) Pennisetum purpureum Schumach. GP2 Cytoplasmic male sterility; fertility restoration genes; panicle length; days to maturity; yield improvement Dujardin and Hanna (1989) Hajjar and Hodgkin (2007); Hanna (1997); Palit et al (2014) Pennisetum squamulatum Fresen. GP2 Fertility restoration genes Dujardin and Hanna (1989) Phaseolus coccineus L. GP2 Aluminium tolerance; yield improvement; angular leaf spot resistance; anthracnose resistance; bean stem maggot resistance; bean yellow mosaic virus resistance; common bacterial blight resistance; fusarium root rot resistance; white mould resistance De Ron et al (2015); Freytag et al (1982); Loskutov and Rines (2011); Mahuku et al (2003); Miklas et al (1999); Porch et al (2013); Schwartz and Singh (2013); Singh et al (2008); Singh (2001); Wilkinson and Re (1983); Zapata et al (2004) Saccharum spontaneum L. GP2 Cold tolerance; red rot resistance; smut resistance; sugarcane mosaic virus; early maturing Cordeiro et al (2003); Prescott-Allen and Prescott-Allen (1986) Setaria viridis (L.) P. Beauv. GP1b Triazine resistance Darmency and Pernes (1985) Sinapis arvensis L. GP2 Blackleg resistance; sclerotinia resistance; cytoplasmic male sterility Hu et al (2002); Snowdon et al (2000); Wei et al (2010) Solanum aethiopicum solan L. GP3 Rootstock; yield improvement; bacterial wilt resistance; fusarium wilt resistance Collonnier et al (2001); Daunay (2008); Frary et al (2007); Rotino et al (2014); USDA (2011) Solanum incanum L. GP2 Drought tolerance; rootstock; verticillium wilt resistance Frary et al (2007); Knapp et al (2013); USDA (2011) Solanum linnaeanum Hopper & Jaeger GP2 Fungal wilt resistance Frary et al (2007); Rotino et al (2014); Yin et al (2015) Solanum macrocarpon L. GP3 Rootstock USDA (2011) Solanum marginatum L. f. GP3 Gene transfer Borgato et al (2007) Sorghum purpureosericeum (Hochst. ex A. Rich.) Schweinf. & Asch. GP3 Sorghum shoot fly resistance Nwanze et al (1990) Vigna radiata var. sublobata (Roxb.) Verdc. GP1b Bruchid resistance Konarev et al (2002) Vigna vexillata (L.) A. Rich GP3 Gene transfer Gomathinayagam et al (1998) 88 Aldow et al Genetic Resources (2024), 5 (10), 81–93 The development of the national checklist and inven- tory of CWR focused exclusively on those associated with food crops, such as rice, sorghum and finger mil- let. This focus is justified by the crucial role these crops play in providing nutrition and ensuring food security in these two nations. This region has historically been affected by food insecurity as a direct consequence of social conflict and warfare, making the prioritization of food security crops in the CWR inventory a strategic approach. Climate change poses a significant threat to the future of food crops, including their wild relatives. Jarvis et al (2008) emphasized the critical need to identify and conserve CWR that are threatened by climate change, such as cowpea (Vigna), a crucial food security crop in sub-Saharan Africa. Studies by Jarvis et al (2008) estimate that 2-6% of Vigna species in sub-Saharan Africa could face extinction by 2055, highlighting the urgency of identifying and conserving these threatened CWR. Fortunately, Sudan and South Sudan contain three vital CWR of V. unguiculata subsp. dekindtiana (Harms) Verdc, V. unguiculata subsp. pubescens (R Wilczek) pasquet and V. vexillata (L.) A. Rich. These CWR represent a valuable genetic reservoir that could be important for developing climate-resilient cowpea varieties in the future, potentially preserving food security in the region and beyond. CWR conservation priorities are an important step in conservation planning at the national, regional and international levels. This newly developed inventory in Sudan and South Sudan identifies CWR associated with essential food crops such as sorghum, rice, cowpea and pearl millet. While this inventory represents a valuable resource, the number of taxa in Sudan and South Sudan (449 taxa) is lower compared to the checklists of other countries such as Indonesia (Rahman et al, 2019), China (Kell et al, 2015), Portugal (Magos-Brehm et al, 2008), USA (Khoury et al, 2013) and Zambia (Ng’uni et al, 2019). This difference highlights the importance of continued CWR conservation and exploration efforts in Sudan and South Sudan. Conclusion This study highlights the important role of CWR in Sudan and South Sudan in enriching crop diversity and promoting sustainable food production at all levels – national, regional and international. By identifying and prioritizing 85 CWR taxa from a comprehensive checklist of 449, this research provides a crucial foundation for targeted conservation efforts. The establishment of the first CWR checklist and inventory for these two countries offers the basis for further research to ensure the long- term sustainability and utilization of the prioritized CWR. Key areas for future research include: • Protecting genebanks during civil conflicts: The ongoing civil conflict in Sudan tragically exempli- fies this threat. Researchers were forced to call upon the international community to intervene and protect the country’s main seedbank from the potential loss of irreplaceable crop varieties and damage to its facilities (Nordling, 2024). Simi- lar situations have been observed with ICARDA in Syria (Darvish et al, 2023) and Yemen (Aljarmouzi et al, 2024) This incident highlights the urgent need for a comprehensive regional and global ini- tiative to safeguard genebank during conflicts. • Enhanced floras and CWR inventory validation: Develop separate, comprehensive floras for Sudan and South Sudan, collaborating with agronomists to validate the CWR inventory accuracy. • Taxonomic expeditions for new CWR discovery: Conduct taxonomic research projects in remote, untapped areas, potentially leading to the dis- covery of new CWR, and work with national genebanks on collaborative efforts and germplasm preservation. • Gap analyses: Initiate in situ and ex situ conser- vation gap analysis for the priority CWR taxa in each country. These analyses will inform the devel- opment of comprehensive conservation plans for each CWR’s specific needs. • Climate change impact assessment: Assessing climate change models to evaluate potential threats to CWR populations. Supplemental data Supplemental Table 1. Checklist of CWR in Sudan and South Sudan Supplemental Table 2. Priority inventory of CWR in Su- dan and South Sudan Supplemental Table 3. Related crop and concept level of the priority inventory of CWR taxa in Sudan and South Sudan Author contributions Ahmed Aldow: Conceptualization, data curation, for- mal analysis, investigation, methodology, resources, val- idation, visualization, writing (original draft, review and editing). Joana Magos Brehm: Supervision. Maha Kordofani: Resources, validation. Fatouma Abdoul-latif: Resources, validation. Nigel Maxted: Supervision. Conflict of interest statement The authors confirmed that no conflict of interest exists. References Ahmad, M., Russell, A., and Mcneil, D. (1997). Identification and genetic characterization of different resistance sources to ascochyta blight within the genus Lens. Euphytica 97(3), 311–315. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1023/A:1003095423132 Ahmadi, H. and Bringhurst, R. S. (1992). Breeding strawberries at the decaploid level. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 117(5), 856–862. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003095423132 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003095423132 https://www.genresj.org/index.php/grj/article/view/genresj.BQTW2172/suppdata197 https://www.genresj.org/index.php/grj/article/view/genresj.BQTW2172/suppdata197 https://www.genresj.org/index.php/grj/article/view/genresj.BQTW2172/suppdata197 https://www.genresj.org/index.php/grj/article/view/genresj.BQTW2172/suppdata197 Genetic Resources (2024), 5 (10), 81–93 Sudan and South Sudan crop wild relatives 89 Aldow, A., Brehm, J. M., Kordofani, M., Abdoul- Latif, F., and Maxted, N. (2023). Conserva- tion of crop wild relative diversity in Northeast Africa: checklist and prioritization. Crop Science . url: https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/ 10.1002/csc2.21083. Aljarmouzi, M., Alsharjabi, K. M., and Amri, A. (2024). Use of plant genetic resources in Yemen and suggestions for potential improvement. Genetic Resources 5(10), 39–52. doi: https://doi.org/10. 46265/genresj.VDWO8193 Anthony, F., Bertrand, B., Etienne, H., and Lashermes, P. (2011). Coffea and psilanthus. Wild crop relatives: Genomic and breeding resources 41-61. Armour, D., Mackie, J., Musial, J., and Irwin, J. (2008). Transfer of anthracnose resistance and pod coiling traits from Medicago arborea to M. sativa by sexual reproduction. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 117(2), 149–156. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-008- 0761-z Barazani, O., Perevolotsky, A., and Hadas, R. (2008). A problem of the rich: Prioritizing local plant genetic resources for ex situ conservation in Israel. Biological Conservation 141(2), 596–600. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.10.014 Begum, F., Paul, S., Bag, N., Sikdar, S., and Sen, S. (1995). Somatic hybrids between Brassica juncea (L). Czern. and Diplotaxis harra (Forsk.) Boiss and the generation of backcross progenies. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 91(6), 1167–1172. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1007/BF00223936 Borgato, L., Conicella, C., Pisani, F., and Furini, A. (2007). Production and characterization of arboreous and fertile Solanum melongena+ Solanum margina- tum somatic hybrid plants. Planta 226(4), 961– 969. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-007-0542 -y Brar, D. and Singh, K. (2011). Oryza. In Wild crop relatives: Genomic and breeding resources: Cereals, ed. Kole, C. (Dordrecht London, New York: Springer Heidelberg), 321-336. Busmann-Loock, A., Dambroth, M., and Menge- Hartmann, U. (1992). Histological observations on interspecific crosses in the genus Lupinus. Plant breed- ing 109(1), 82–85. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1439-0523.1992.tb00155.x Cao, Q., Zhang, A., Ma, D., Li, H., Li, Q., and Li, P. (2009). Novel interspecific hybridization between sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.) and its two diploid wild relatives. Euphytica 169(3), 345–352. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-009-9967-7 Ciancaleoni, S., Raggi, L., Barone, G., Donnini, D., Gigante, D., Domina, G., and Negri, V. (2021). A new list and prioritization of wild plants of socioeconomic interest in Italy: toward a conservation strategy. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 45(9), 1300–1326. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565. 2021.1917469 Clements, J., Buirchell, B., Yang, H., Smith, P., Sweetingham, M., and Smith, C. (2005). Lupin. In Genetic resources, chromosome engineering, and crop improvement, series-II grain legumes, ed. Singh, R. and Jauhar, P., (Boca Raton: CRC), 231-323. Collonnier, C., Fock, I., Kashyap, V., Rotino, G., Daunay, M., Lian, Y., Mariska, I., Rajam, M., Servaes, A., and Ducreux, G. (2001). Applications of biotechnology in eggplant. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture 65(2), 91–107. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1023/A:1010674425536 Contreras-Toledo, A. R., Cortés-Cruz, M., Costich, D. E., De, L., Rico-Arce, M., Brehm, J. M., and Maxted, N. (2019). Diversity and conservation priorities of crop wild relatives in Mexico. Plant Genetic Resources 17(2), 140–150. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1017/S1479262118000540 Cordeiro, G. M., Pan, Y. B., and Henry, R. J. (2003). Sugarcane microsatellites for the assessment of genetic diversity in sugarcane germplasm. Plant Science 165(1), 181–189. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0168-9452(03)00157-2 Darbyshire, I., Kordofani, M., Farag, I., Candiga, R., and Pickering, H. (2015). The plants of Sudan and South Sudan: an annotated checklist. Darmency, H. and Pernes, J. (1985). Use of wild Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. to improve triazine resistance in cultivated S. italica (L.) by hybridization. Weed Research 25(3), 175–179. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1365-3180.1985.tb00633.x Darvish, M. A., Kaddour, A. A., Bourgol, A., Ramazan, Y., Hallak, Y., Cavers, S., and Cottrell, J. (2023). Wild relatives of fruit trees in Syria: Genetic resources threatened by conflict. Genetic Resources 4(7), 68–75. doi: https://doi.org/10.46265/genresj.ETES2274 Daunay, M. C. (2008). Eggplant. In Vegetables II, ed. Prohens, J. and Nuez, F., (New York: Springer), 163- 220. De Ron, A. M., Papa, R., Bitocchi, E., González, A. M., Debouck, D. G., Brick, M. A., Fourie, D., Marsolais, F., Beaver, J., and Geffroy, V. (2015). Common bean. In Grain Legumes. Handbook of Plant Breeding, ed. De Ron, A. M., (New York: Springer), volume 10, 1-36. Dempewolf, H., Baute, G., Anderson, J., Kilian, B., Smith, C., and Guarino, L. (2017). Past and future use of wild relatives in crop breeding. Crop science 57(3), 1070–1082. doi: https://doi.org/10. 2135/cropsci2016.10.0885 Dempewolf, H., Eastwood, R. J., Guarino, L., Khoury, C. K., Müller, J. V., and Toll, J. (2014). Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change: A Global Initiative to Collect, Conserve, and Use Crop Wild Relatives. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 38(4), 369– 377. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2013. 870629 Diao, X., You, L., Alpuerto, V., and Folledo, R. (2012). Assessing agricultural potential in South Sudan-A spatial analysis method. In Application of Geographic Information Systems, volume 139. https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/csc2.21083 https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/csc2.21083 https://doi.org/10.46265/genresj.VDWO8193 https://doi.org/10.46265/genresj.VDWO8193 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-008-0761-z https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-008-0761-z https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.10.014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.10.014 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00223936 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00223936 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-007-0542-y https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-007-0542-y https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0523.1992.tb00155.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0523.1992.tb00155.x https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-009-9967-7 https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2021.1917469 https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2021.1917469 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010674425536 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010674425536 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479262118000540 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479262118000540 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9452(03)00157-2 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9452(03)00157-2 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.1985.tb00633.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.1985.tb00633.x https://doi.org/10.46265/genresj.ETES2274 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2016.10.0885 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2016.10.0885 https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2013.870629 https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2013.870629 90 Aldow et al Genetic Resources (2024), 5 (10), 81–93 Dida, M. M. and Devos, K. M. (2006). Finger millet. In Cereal and millets, ed. Kole, C., (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer), 333-343. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/97 8-3-540-34389-9 10. Dujardin, M. and Hanna, W. W. (1989). Crossability of pearl millet with wild Pennisetum species. Crop Science 29(1), 77–80. doi: https://doi.org/10.2135/ cropsci1989.0011183X002900010019x Elgali, M. B., Mustafa, R. H., and Bauer, S. (2010). Development of the Agricultural Crops Trade Sector of Sudan Under the Increasing World Food Prices. In AAAE Third Conference/AEASA 48th Conference, Cape Town. FAO (2021). FAOSTAT. url: https://www.fao.org/ faostat/en/#home. Ford-Lloyd, B., Kell, S., and Maxted, N. (2008). Establishing conservation priorities for crop wild relatives. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Crop Wild Relative Conservation and Use, Sicily, Italy, 14-17 September 2005, CABI Publishing, Wallingford, 110-119. Ford-Lloyd, B. V., Schmidt, M., Armstrong, S. J., Barazani, O., Engels, J., Hadas, R., Hammer, K., Kell, S. P., Kang, D., and Khoshbakht, K. (2011). Crop wild relatives—undervalued, underutilized and under threat? Bioscience 61, 559–565. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1525/bio.2011.61.7.10 Frary, A., Doganlar, S., and Daunay, M. C. (2007). Eggplant. In Vegetables. Genome Mapping and Molecular Breeding in Plants, ed. Kole, C., (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer), volume 5, 287-313. Freytag, G., Bassett, M., and Zapata, M. (1982). Registration of XR-235-1-1 bean germplasm (Reg. no. GP42). Crop Sci 22, 1268–1269. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.2135/cropsci1982.0011183X002200060066x Gollin, D. and Rogerson, R. (2014). Productivity, transport costs and subsistence agriculture. Journal of Development Economics 107, 38–48. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2013.10.007 Gomathinayagam, P., Rathnaswamy, R., and Ramaswamy, N. (1998). Interspecific hybridization between Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. and V. vexillata (L.) A. Rich. through in vitro embryo culture. Euphyt- ica 102(2), 203–209. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1023/A:1018381614098 Hahn, S., Howland, A., and Terry, E. (1980). Correlated resistance of cassava to mosaic and bacterial blight diseases. Euphytica 29(2), 305–311. doi: https://doi. org/10.1007/BF00025127 Hajjar, R. and Hodgkin, T. (2007). The use of wild relatives in crop improvement: a survey of developments over the last 20 years. Euphytica 156(1), 1–13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681- 007-9363-0 Hancock, J., Luby, J., Dale, A., Callow, P., Serce, S., and El-Shiek, A. (2002). Utilizing wild Fragaria virginiana in strawberry cultivar development: Inheritance of photoperiod sensitivity, fruit size, gender, female fer- tility and disease resistance. Euphytica 126(2), 177– 184. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016309724998 Hanna, W. W. (1997). Influence of cytoplasms from a wild grassy subspecies on dry matter yields in pearl millet. Crop Science 37(2), 614–616. doi: https://doi. org/10.2135/cropsci1997.0011183X003700020050x Hannachi, H., Sommerlatte, H., Breton, C., Msallem, M., Gazzah, M. E., Hadj, S. B. E., and Bervillé, A. (2009). url: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-008-9374-2. Harlan, J. R. and De Wet, J. M. J. (1971). Toward a Rational Classification of Cultivated Plants. Taxon 20, 509–517. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1218252 Holness, S., Hamer, M., Magos, Brehm, J., and Raimondo, D. (2019). Priority areas for the in situ conservation of crop wild relatives in South Africa. Plant Genetic Resources: Characterization and Utilization 17(2), 115–127. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1017/S1479262118000503 Hormaza, J. and Wünsch, A. (2007). Pistachio. In Fruits and Nuts. Genome Mapping and Molecular Breeding in Plants, ed. Kole, C., (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer), volume 4, 243-251. Hu, Q., Andersen, S., Dixelius, C., and Hansen, L. (2002). Production of fertile intergeneric somatic hybrids between Brassica napus and Sinapis arvensis for the enrichment of the rapeseed gene pool. Plant Cell Reports 21(2), 147–152. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1007/s00299-002-0491-7 Idohou, R., Assogbadjo, A. E., Fandohan, B., Gouwakin- nou, G. N., Kakai, R. L. G., Sinsin, B., and Maxted, N. (2013). National inventory and prioritization of crop wild relatives: case study for Benin. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 60, 1337–1352. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-012-9923-6 IPCC (2020). Climate Change and Land. An IPCC Special Report on climate change, desertifi- cation, land degradation, sustainable land manage- ment, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. Summary for Policymakers . url: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/ 4/2020/02/SPM Updated-Jan20.pdf. IUCN (2022). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. url: https://www.iucnredlist.org/. accessed date: 2022.12.27 Jarvis, A., Lane, A., and Hijmans, R. J. (2008). The effect of climate change on crop wild relatives. Ecosystems & Environment 126(1), 13–23. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.agee.2008.01.013 Jena, K. K. (2010). The species of the genus Oryza and transfer of useful genes from wild species into cultivated rice, O. sativa. Breeding Science 60(5), 518– 523. doi: https://doi.org/10.1270/jsbbs.60.518 Kell, S., Qin, H., Chen, B., Ford-Lloyd, B., Wei, W., Kang, D., and Maxted, N. (2015). China’s crop wild relatives: Diversity for agriculture and food security. Ecosystems & Environment 209, 138–154. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.02.012 Kell, S. P., Ford-Lloyd, B. V., Brehm, J. M., Iriondo, J. M., and Maxted, N. (2017). Broadening the https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1989.0011183X002900010019x https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1989.0011183X002900010019x https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/\#home https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.7.10 https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.7.10 https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1982.0011183X002200060066x https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1982.0011183X002200060066x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2013.10.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2013.10.007 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018381614098 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018381614098 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00025127 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00025127 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-007-9363-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-007-9363-0 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016309724998 https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1997.0011183X003700020050x https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1997.0011183X003700020050x https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-008-9374-2 https://doi.org/10.2307/1218252 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479262118000503 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479262118000503 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-002-0491-7 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-002-0491-7 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-012-9923-6 https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2020/02/SPM_Updated-Jan20.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2020/02/SPM_Updated-Jan20.pdf https://www.iucnredlist.org/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.01.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.01.013 https://doi.org/10.1270/jsbbs.60.518 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.02.012 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.02.012 Genetic Resources (2024), 5 (10), 81–93 Sudan and South Sudan crop wild relatives 91 Base, Narrowing the Task: Prioritizing Crop Wild Relative Taxa for Conservation Action. Crop Science 57(3), 1042–1058. doi: https://doi.org/10.2135/ cropsci2016.10.0873 Khoury, C. K., Greene, S., Wiersema, J., Maxted, N., Jarvis, A., and Struik, P. C. (2013). An inventory of crop wild relatives of the United States. Crop Science 53(4), 1496–1508. doi: https://doi.org/10. 2135/cropsci2012.10.0585 Klewer, A., Scheunemann, R., and Sacristán, M. (2003). Incorporation of blackspot resistance from different origins into oilseed rape. In Proc. 11th Internat. Rapeseed Congress. Knapp, S., Vorontsova, M. S., and Prohens, J. (2013). Wild relatives of the eggplant (Solanum melongena L.: Solanaceae): new understanding of species names in a complex group. PLOS ONE 8(2), e57039. doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057039 Konarev, A. V., Tomooka, N., and Vaughan, D. A. (2002). Proteinase inhibitor polymorphism in the genus Vigna subgenus Ceratotropis and its biosystematic implications. Euphytica 123(2), 165–177. Kumar, J., Srivastava, E., Singh, M., Mahto, D., Pratap, A., and Kumar, S. (2014). Lentil. In Alien Gene Transfer in Crop Plants, volume 2, Achievements and Impacts, 191-205. Levi, A., Thomas, C. E., Simmons, A. M., and Thies, J. A. (2005). Analysis based on RAPD and ISSR markers reveals closer similarities among Citrullus and Cucumis species than with Praecitrullus fistulosus (Stocks) Pangalo. Genetic resources and crop evolution 52, 465–472. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10722-005-2260-2 Linder, H. P. (2014). The evolution of African plant diversity. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 2. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2014.00038 Lobell, D. B., Schlenker, W., and Costa-Roberts, J. (2011). Climate trends and global crop production since 1980. Science 333(6042), 616–620. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1126/science.1204531 Loskutov, I. G. and Rines, H. W. (2011). Avena. In Wild crop relatives: genomic and breeding resources, Springer, 109-183. Magos, Brehm, J., Kell, S., Thormann, I., Gaisberger, H., Dulloo, M., and Maxted, N. (2017). Interactive Toolkit for Crop Wild Relative Conservation Planning. url: http://www.cropwildrelatives.org/conservation- toolkit. Magos-Brehm, J., Maxted, N., Ford-Lloyd, B. V., and Martins-Louçao, M. A. (2008). National inventories of crop wild relatives and wild harvested plants: case-study for Portugal. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 55(6), 779–796. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10722-007-9283-9 Mahuku, G. S., Jara, C., Cajiao, C., and Beebe, S. (2003). Sources of resistance to angular leaf spot (Phaeoisariopsis griseola) in common bean core collection, wild Phaseolus vulgaris and secondary gene pool. Euphytica 130(3), 303–313. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023095531683 Maxted, N., Avagyan, A., Frese, L., Iriondo, J., Magos, Brehm, J., Singer, A., and Kell, S. (2015). Concept for in situ conservation of crop wild relatives of crop wild relatives in Europe (Rome, Italy: Wild Species Conser- vation in Genetic Reserves Working Group, European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources). url: https://www.ecpgr.org/resources/ecpgr- publications/publication/ecpgr-concept-for-in-situ- conservation-of-crop-wild-relatives-in-europe-2015. Maxted, N., Ford-Lloyd, B. V., Jury, S., Kell, S., and Scholten, M. (2006). Towards a definition of a crop wild relative. Biodiversity & Conservation 15, 2673–2685. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531- 005-5409-6 Maxted, N., Hawkes, J., Guarino, L., and Sawkins, M. (1997). Towards the selection of taxa for plant genetic conservation. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 44(4), 337–348. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1023/A:1008643206054 Maxted, N. and Kell, S. (2009). Establishment of a global network for the in situ conservation of crop wild relatives: status and needs (Rome, Italy: FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture), 266p. url: https://www.fao.org/3/ i1500e/i1500e18d.pdf. Miklas, P., Zapata, M., Beaver, J., and Grafton, K. (1999). Registration of four dry bean germplasms resistant to common bacterial blight: ICB-3, ICB-6, ICB-8, and ICB-10. Crop Science 39(2), 594–594. Mokni, R. E., Barone, G., Maxted, N., Kell, S., and Domina, G. (2022). A prioritised inventory of crop wild relatives and wild harvested plants of Tunisia. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 69(5), 1787–1816. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722- 021-01340-z Nair, S. and Unnikrishnan, M. (2007). Recent trends in cassava breeding in India. Gene Conserve 26, 370–386. Nevo, E. and Chen, G. (2010). Drought and salt tolerances in wild relatives for wheat and barley improvement. Plant, cell & environment 33(4), 670– 685. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009. 02107.x Ng’uni, D., Munkombwe, G., Mwila, G., Gaisberger, H., Brehm, J. M., Maxted, N., Kell, S., and Thormann, I. (2019). Spatial analyses of occurrence data of crop wild relatives (CWR) taxa as tools for selection of sites for conservation of priority CWR in Zambia. Plant Genetic Resources: Characterization and Utilization 17(2), 103–114. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1017/S1479262118000497 Noir, S., Anthony, F., Bertrand, B., Combes, M. C., and Lashermes, P. (2003). Identification of a major gene (Mex-1) from Coffea canephora conferring resistance to Meloidogyne exigua in Coffea arabica. Plant pathology 52(1), 97–103. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1046/j.1365-3059.2003.00795.x https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2016.10.0873 https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2016.10.0873 https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2012.10.0585 https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2012.10.0585 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057039 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-005-2260-2 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-005-2260-2 https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2014.00038 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204531 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204531 http://www.cropwildrelatives.org/conservation-toolkit http://www.cropwildrelatives.org/conservation-toolkit https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-007-9283-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-007-9283-9 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023095531683 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023095531683 https://www.ecpgr.org/resources/ecpgr-publications/publication/ecpgr-concept-for-in-situ-conservation-of-crop-wild-relatives-in-europe-2015 https://www.ecpgr.org/resources/ecpgr-publications/publication/ecpgr-concept-for-in-situ-conservation-of-crop-wild-relatives-in-europe-2015 https://www.ecpgr.org/resources/ecpgr-publications/publication/ecpgr-concept-for-in-situ-conservation-of-crop-wild-relatives-in-europe-2015 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-005-5409-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-005-5409-6 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008643206054 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008643206054 https://www.fao.org/3/i1500e/i1500e18d.pdf https://www.fao.org/3/i1500e/i1500e18d.pdf https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-021-01340-z https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-021-01340-z https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.02107.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.02107.x https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479262118000497 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479262118000497 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3059.2003.00795.x https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3059.2003.00795.x 92 Aldow et al Genetic Resources (2024), 5 (10), 81–93 Nordling, L. (2024). Desperate scientists seek help to save Sudan’s seed bank. url: https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr- news-africa-pan-african-2024-1-desperate-scientists- seek-help-to-save-sudan-s-seed-bank/. Nwanze, K., Rao, K., and Soman, P. (1990). Under- standing and manipulating resistance mechanisms in sorghum for control of the shoot fly. In Proceed- ings of the International Symposium on Melocular and Genetic Approaches to Plant Stress, 14-17 February 1990, New Delhi, India. Palit, P., Mathur, P. B., and Sharma, K. (2014). Pearl Millet. In Alien Gene Transfer in Crop Plants, volume 2, Springer, 75-83. Porch, T. G., Beaver, J. S., Debouck, D. G., Jackson, S. A., Kelly, J. D., and Dempewolf, H. (2013). Use of wild relatives and closely related species to adapt common bean to climate change. Agronomy 3(2), 433–461. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy3020433 Prakash, S., Bhat, S., and Fu, T. D. (2009). Wild germplasm and male sterility. In Biology and breeding of crucifers, 113-127. Prescott-Allen, C. and Prescott-Allen, R. (1986). The first resource (Yale University Press). Prescott-Allen, R. and Prescott-Allen, C. (1988). Genes from the Wild. Using Wild Genetic Resources for Food and Raw Materials (London: Earthscan Publications), 111p. doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315066769 Quiros, C. F. and Bauchan, G. R. (1988). The genus Medicago and the origin of the Medicago sativa comp. Alfalfa and alfalfa improvement 29, 93–124. url: https: //doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr29.c3. Rahman, W., Magos, Brehm, J., and Maxted, N. (2019). Setting conservation priorities for the wild relatives of food crops in Indonesia. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 66(4), 809–824. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10722-019-00761-1 Robinson, A., Bell, A., Dighe, N., Menz, M., Nichols, R., and Stelly, D. (2007). Introgression of resistance to Nematode Rotylenchulus reniformis into upland cot- ton (Gossypium hirsutum) from Gossypium longica- lyx. Crop Science 47(5), 1865–1877. doi: https://doi. org/10.2135/cropsci2006.12.0776 Rotino, G. L., Sala, T., and Toppino, L. (2014). Eggplant. In Alien Gene Transfer in Crop Plants, volume 2, Springer, 381-409. Rubio-Teso, M. L., Lamas, E. T., Parra-Quijano, M., Rosa, L. D. L., Fajardo, J., and Iriondo, J. M. (2018). National inventory and prioritization of crop wild relatives in Spain. Genetic resources and crop evolution 65(4), 1237–1253. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10722-018-0610-0 Schwartz, H. F. and Singh, S. P. (2013). Breeding common bean for resistance to white mold: A review. Crop Science 53(5), 1832–1844. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.2135/cropsci2013.02.0081 Scott, D. H. (1951). Cytological studies on polyploids derived from tetraploid Fragaria vesca and cultivated strawberries. Genetics 36(4). doi: https://doi.org/10. 1093/genetics/36.4.311 Siddig, K., Stepanyan, D., Wiebelt, M., Grethe, H., and Zhu, T. (2020). Climate change and agriculture in the Sudan: Impact pathways beyond changes in mean rainfall and temperature. Ecological Economics 169, 106566–106566. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ecolecon.2019.106566 Siemens, J. (2002). Interspecific hybridisation between wild relatives and Brassica napus to introduce new resistance traits into the oilseed rape gene pool. Czech Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding 38(3/4), 155– 157. Singh, R., Sharma, P., Varshney, R. K., Sharma, S., and Singh, N. (2008). Chickpea improvement: role of wild species and genetic markers. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews 25(1), 267–314. doi: https://doi.org/10.5661/bger-25-267 Singh, S. P. (2001). Broadening the genetic base of common bean cultivars: a review. Crop Sci- ence (6), 1659–1675. doi: https://doi.org/10.2135/ cropsci2001.1659 Snowdon, R., Winter, H., Diestel, A., and Sacristán, M. (2000). Development and characterisation of Brassica napus-Sinapis arvensis addition lines exhibiting resistance to Leptosphaeria maculans. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 101(7), 1008–1014. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s001220051574 Tullu, A., Diederichsen, A., Suvorova, G., and Vanden- berg, A. (2011). Genetic and genomic resources of lentil: status, use and prospects. Plant Genetic Resources 9(1), 19–29. UNEP (2007). Sudan Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment. url: https://bit.ly/GRJ197-1. USDA (2011). Germplasm Resources Information Network - (GRIN) [Online Database]. National Germplasm Resources Laboratory, Beltsville, Mary- land. url: http://www.ars-grin.gov/. accessed date: 2011-03 USDA (2023). Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) USDA, ARS, National Resources Program. url: https://www.ars-grin.gov. accessed date: 2023-05 Vincent, H., Wiersema, J., Kell, S., Fielder, H., Dobbie, S., Castañeda-Álvarez, N. P., Guarino, L., Eastwood, R., León, B., and Maxted, N. (2013). A prioritized crop wild relative inventory to help underpin global food security. Biological Conservation 167, 265–275. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.08.011 Volk, G. M., Chao, C. T., Norelli, J., Brown, S. K., Fazio, G., Peace, C., Mcferson, J., Zhong, G. Y., and Bretting, P. (2015). The vulnerability of US apple (Malus) genetic resources. Genetic resources and crop evolution 62(5), 765–794. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10722-014-0194-2 Wei, W., Li, Y., Wang, L., Liu, S., Yan, X., Mei, D., Li, Y., Xu, Y., Peng, P., and Hu, Q. (2010). Development of a novel Sinapis arvensis disomic addition line in Brassica napus containing the restorer gene for https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-africa-pan-african-2024-1-desperate-scientists-seek-help-to-save-sudan-s-seed-bank/ https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-africa-pan-african-2024-1-desperate-scientists-seek-help-to-save-sudan-s-seed-bank/ https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-africa-pan-african-2024-1-desperate-scientists-seek-help-to-save-sudan-s-seed-bank/ https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy3020433 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315066769 https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr29.c3 https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr29.c3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-019-00761-1 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-019-00761-1 https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2006.12.0776 https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2006.12.0776 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-018-0610-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-018-0610-0 https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2013.02.0081 https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2013.02.0081 https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/36.4.311 https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/36.4.311 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106566 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106566 https://doi.org/10.5661/bger-25-267 https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2001.1659 https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2001.1659 https://doi.org/10.1007/s001220051574 https://bit.ly/GRJ197-1 http://www.ars-grin.gov/ https://www.ars-grin.gov https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.08.011 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-014-0194-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-014-0194-2 Genetic Resources (2024), 5 (10), 81–93 Sudan and South Sudan crop wild relatives 93 Nsa CMS and improved resistance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and pod shattering. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 120(6), 1089–1097. doi: https://doi. org/10.1007/s00122-009-1236-6 Wilkinson, R. and Re, W. (1983). Incorporation of Phaseolus coccineus germplasm may facilitate production of high yielding P. vulgaris lines. Annual Report of the Bean Improvement Cooperative 26, 28–29. World Bank (2021). World Development Indicators. The World Bank. url: https://data.worldbank.org/ indicator/AG.LND.TOTL.K2. Yin, Y., Tang, Q., and Liu, X. (2015). A multi-model analysis of change in potential yield of major crops in China under climate change. Earth Syst. Dynam 6(1), 45–59. doi: https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-45-2015 Zapata, M., Freytag, G., and Wilkinson, R. (2004). Release of five common bean germplasm lines resistant to common bacterial blight: W-BB-11, W- BB-20-1, W-BB-35, W-BB-52, and W-BB-11-56. The Journal of Agriculture of the University of Puerto Rico 88(1-2), 91–95. Zaroug, M. G. (2006). Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profiles (Rome: FAO). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-009-1236-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-009-1236-6 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.TOTL.K2 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.TOTL.K2 https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-45-2015 Introduction Geographical context Materials and methods Results CWR Checklist Priority checklist Discussion Conclusion Supplemental data Author contributions Conflict of interest statement