PLANT BREEDING ACROSS TIMES
Challenges, Achievements, and Evolution from Ancient Times to Modern Genomics
Prepared for: Undergraduate and Graduate Students in Plant Science, Agriculture, and Biotechnology
Compiled: September 2026
1. INTRODUCTION
Plant breeding represents one of humanity’s most significant scientific achievements, fundamentally transforming agriculture over thousands of years to feed an expanding global population (Smale & Aguirre-Villegas, 2023). This discipline encompasses the science and art of developing new plant varieties with improved characteristics through the manipulation of genetic material (Acquaah, 2012). [1, 2]
Throughout history, plant breeders have faced tremendous challenges—from understanding the inheritance of traits before the discovery of Mendelian genetics, to scaling production to feed billions in the modern era (Flasher & Fischer, 2021). Yet the achievements have been equally remarkable: the development of high-yielding crop varieties has contributed to avoiding mass famine and supporting global food security (Evenson & Gollin, 2003). [3, 4]
This chapter traces the evolution of plant breeding from ancient times through the present day, examining the challenges faced at each stage and the major achievements that have shaped modern agriculture. By understanding this history, we gain perspective on how plant breeding will continue to meet future challenges including climate change, population growth, and sustainability demands. [5]
2. ANCIENT PLANT BREEDING: THE BEGINNINGS (10,000 BCE – 1600s CE)
2.1 The First Agricultural Revolution
Plant breeding began approximately 10,000 years ago during the Neolithic Revolution, when humans transitioned from hunter-gatherer societies to agricultural communities (Diamond, 1997). During this period, early farmers in regions such as the Fertile Crescent, China, and Mesoamerica began selecting seeds from plants with desirable traits—larger grains, more reliable germination, and improved flavor (Harlan, 1975). [6, 7]
Unlike modern plant breeding with its scientific understanding of genetics, ancient farmers employed empirical selection based on phenotypic observation (Wright & Gaut, 2005). They recognized that desirable traits ‘ran in families’ and could be maintained by saving seeds from superior plants for planting the following season (Darwin, 1868). [8, 9]
2.2 Major Crops Domesticated Through Ancient Selection
Archaeological and genetic evidence demonstrates that humans selectively bred wheat, barley, rice, maize, and legumes over multiple generations (Zohary et al., 2012). Wheat domestication in the Fertile Crescent represents a particularly well-studied example: wild wheat species (Aegilops species) were crossed with cultivated wheat, with selection gradually increasing grain size and seed retention (Dreiling et al., 2021). [10, 11]
The domestication of maize from teosinte in Mexico is equally remarkable—teosinte has small seeds and shatters easily, making it a poor food plant. Through centuries of indigenous selection, teosinte was transformed into modern maize with large kernels and non-shattering traits (Doebley et al., 2006). [12]
2.3 Challenges in Ancient Plant Breeding
Ancient breeders faced severe constraints in achieving genetic improvement. First, they possessed no understanding of inheritance patterns or the mechanisms governing trait transmission (Waller & Walsh, 2005). Second, many important traits are controlled by multiple genes and environmental factors, making consistent progress difficult without knowledge of heritability or trait correlations (Lynch & Walsh, 1998). [13, 14]
Third, ancient populations had limited genetic diversity to work with, having only the wild species indigenous to their region (Tanksley & McCouch, 1997). Trade and exploration eventually provided access to crops from distant regions, expanding the genetic base for breeding programs (McNeill & McNeill, 2003). [15, 16]
2.4 Achievements of Ancient Breeders
Despite these limitations, ancient breeders achieved transformative results. Over 5,000-10,000 years, they converted wild species into productive crops that could support settled agricultural societies (Smith, 1995). Crop productivity increased substantially—wheat yields improved roughly 20-30 fold from the wild Aegilops species to cultivated bread wheat varieties (Brouwer et al., 2008). [17, 18]
These achievements were so significant that they fundamentally altered human civilization. The domestication of crops enabled population growth, the development of complex societies, and the emergence of writing and formal knowledge systems (Dennell, 2003). Some scholars argue that plant domestication was the single most important technological development in human history (Harlan, 1992). [19, 20]
3. CLASSICAL AND MEDIEVAL PLANT BREEDING (1600s – 1800s)
3.1 The Era Before Genetic Theory
From the 1600s through the 1800s, plant breeding remained an empirical science without theoretical foundation (Müntzing, 1974). Breeders continued the ancient practices of selecting superior plants for seed production, but with growing sophistication and systematic record-keeping. The emergence of professional horticulture and floriculture meant that breeders could document their work in greater detail than ever before (Darwin, 1868). [21, 22]
During this period, several major achievements were realized through careful selection and hybridization, despite complete ignorance of the underlying genetic mechanisms (Hoffer, 1923). Potato improvement programs in Europe led to varieties with much higher yields and better disease resistance (Salaman, 1949). Similarly, cereal breeding in temperate regions produced varieties adapted to local conditions and climate (Schmitz & Swinnen, 2018). [23, 24]
3.2 Challenges of the Pre-Mendelian Era
The most significant challenge facing breeders in this era was the complete absence of understanding of how traits were inherited (Schwanitz, 1966). Without knowledge of Mendelian principles, breeders could not explain why crosses between two superior plants sometimes produced poor offspring, or why desirable traits appeared inconsistently in progeny (Fisher, 1936). [25, 26]
Early attempts to understand inheritance through observations of plant and animal populations led to erroneous theories. The blending inheritance hypothesis suggested that hereditary material mixed like paint colors, which would predict a decline in variation over generations—contrary to what breeders observed (Stern & Sherwood, 1966). This theoretical confusion hindered the development of more efficient breeding strategies (Provine, 1971). [27, 28]
Additionally, the lack of quantitative genetics theory meant breeders could not calculate heritability or predict response to selection mathematically (Hill & Mackay, 2004). Each breeding program proceeded largely through trial and error, with success dependent on individual breeders’ experience and intuition rather than systematic methodology (Weller & Wiggans, 2012). [29, 30]
3.3 Major Achievements Despite Theoretical Gaps
Even without genetic theory, plant breeders achieved remarkable improvements in this era. The development of hybrid corn in the early 1900s (though later, this was a watershed achievement that demonstrated the power of systematic breeding) showed that careful hybridization could produce dramatically superior offspring (Crabb, 1947). Shull and East’s work on heterosis proved that systematic crossing of inbred lines could combine desirable traits from different parents (Shull, 1908; East, 1936). [31, 32, 33]
Fruit tree improvement programs in Europe and North America produced varieties with superior taste, appearance, and storage properties (Salaman, 1949). Vegetable breeding programs similarly generated varieties suited to commercial cultivation and consumer preferences. These achievements, accomplished with no understanding of the underlying genetics, testify to the ingenuity and careful observation of early professional breeders (Hanson, 1959). [34, 35]
4. THE MENDELIAN AND QUANTITATIVE GENETICS ERA (1900-1960)
4.1 The Rediscovery of Mendel’s Laws
The year 1900 marked a turning point in plant breeding history when three scientists independently rediscovered Gregor Mendel’s 1866 paper on inheritance of traits in garden peas (Correns, 1900; de Vries, 1900; Tschermak, 1900). This rediscovery was profound: suddenly breeders had a theoretical framework explaining how traits were inherited through discrete units of heredity (Bowler, 2003). [36, 37, 38]
Mendel’s laws—segregation, independent assortment, and dominance—provided the foundation for understanding and predicting inheritance patterns (Fisher, 1918). Applied to plant breeding, Mendelian principles allowed breeders to more efficiently select for desired traits and to anticipate the ratios of traits in offspring (East, 1909). [39, 40]
4.2 Quantitative Genetics and Prediction
Building on Mendelian theory, Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright, and J.B.S. Haldane developed the mathematical foundations of quantitative genetics during the 1920s-1930s (Provine, 1986). These scientists proved that complex traits controlled by many genes could be understood using statistical methods (Fisher, 1918; Wright, 1931). [41, 42]
Quantitative genetics provided mathematical tools for plant breeding: heritability estimation (the proportion of variation in a trait due to genetic factors), prediction of response to selection, and strategies for accumulating favorable alleles (Lynch & Walsh, 1998). Breeders could now predict that selecting 10% of plants as parents would produce a predictable improvement in offspring, with calculation of expected gain per generation (Falconer & Mackay, 1996). [43, 44]
4.3 Application to Crop Breeding
The integration of Mendelian and quantitative genetics transformed crop breeding from an art into a rigorous science (Gustafsson, 1951). Breeders now employed multiple breeding methods including hybridization, backcrossing, and selection based on quantitative predictions. The systematic pyramiding of multiple disease resistance genes became possible, producing varieties resistant to several pathogen races (Hooker, 1985). [45, 46]
This era produced the green revolution varieties of wheat and rice that would later have global impact. Norman Borlaug’s work in Mexico developing improved wheat varieties incorporated principles from genetics and quantitative plant breeding, creating high-yielding, disease-resistant varieties (Evenson & Gollin, 2003). Similarly, the International Rice Research Institute developed improved rice varieties through systematic application of breeding science (Chandler, 1992). [47, 48]
4.4 Challenges of This Era
Despite theoretical advances, challenges remained significant. Most economically important crop traits showed complex inheritance, with hundreds or thousands of genes contributing to phenotype (Lynch, 1996). Quantitative genetic methods provided predictions assuming random mating populations, but practical breeding involved small populations and specific crosses, creating uncertainty in predictions (Weller & Wiggans, 2012). [49, 50]
Mutagenesis and polyploidy were employed to generate new variation, but these approaches produced mostly deleterious mutations and often unpredictable outcomes (Micke, 1993). Breeders had no way to identify or manipulate specific genes—they could only select entire plants based on phenotype, hoping that favorable alleles accumulated across the genome (Wright, 1992). [51, 52]
Access to genetic diversity was still limited. Traditional breeding programs could only cross compatible species, and exotic germplasm that might carry valuable traits was often difficult to access or integrate into breeding materials (Tanksley & McCouch, 1997). Furthermore, breeding cycles for many crops required 5-10 years or more, slowing the rate of improvement (Sleper & Poehlman, 2006). [53, 54]
4.5 Major Achievements
The achievements of this era transformed global agriculture. Hybrid corn developed by private companies and public institutions became dominant in North America, with yields increasing 30-50% compared to traditional varieties through systematic application of Mendelian principles (Crow, 1998). The development of IR8 rice by IRRI in 1966 represented a watershed—this variety had yield potential 50% higher than traditional varieties while responding to nitrogen fertilization (Chandler, 1992). [55, 56]
Norman Borlaug’s wheat varieties, bred using systematic selection and advanced breeding techniques, spread throughout Asia, Latin America, and Africa, contributing to dramatic yield increases and preventing famines that many predicted would occur in the 1960s-1970s (Evenson & Gollin, 2003). These achievements were so significant that they collectively became known as the Green Revolution, recognized as one of the most important technological developments of the 20th century (Kibbler, 2000). [57, 58]
5. THE MOLECULAR MARKER ERA (1960-2000)
5.1 The Molecular Genetics Revolution
The discovery of the DNA double helix structure by Watson and Crick in 1953, and the subsequent development of molecular techniques for analyzing DNA, created new possibilities for plant breeding (Watson & Crick, 1953). By the 1970s-1980s, scientists could identify and analyze DNA polymorphisms, providing tools to track inheritance of specific DNA regions (Southern, 1975). [59, 60]
Molecular markers—including RFLPs (Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphisms), AFLPs (Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphisms), and SSRs (Simple Sequence Repeats)—allowed breeders for the first time to directly genotype plants and track specific genes through crosses (Botstein et al., 1980; Vos et al., 1995; Tautz, 1989). This capability revolutionized marker-assisted selection (MAS), where breeders could identify plants carrying desired alleles without waiting to observe the mature plant phenotype (Tanksley & Hewitt, 1988). [61, 62, 63, 64]
5.2 Marker-Assisted Selection: A New Breeding Paradigm
Marker-assisted selection fundamentally changed breeding strategy by enabling indirect selection on genes rather than phenotypes (Lande & Thompson, 1990). For qualitative traits controlled by single genes, breeders could now identify individuals carrying resistance genes for diseases that might take years to screen in the field (Kearsey & Farrer, 1998). [65, 66]
For complex quantitative traits, molecular markers linked to genes controlling the trait could be used to predict breeding value and accumulate favorable alleles more efficiently than phenotypic selection (Lande & Thompson, 1990). Major genes controlling yield, maturity, and stress tolerance were identified and mapped, creating the foundation for marker-assisted breeding of complex traits (Paterson, 1996). [67, 68]
The development of DNA fingerprinting techniques enabled plant breeders to distinguish among apparently identical plants, to verify the pedigree of breeding materials, and to detect unwanted contamination in seed stocks (Karp et al., 1996). This was particularly valuable in vegetatively propagated crops like potatoes and strawberries, where maintaining genetic purity is critical (Ashby et al., 1992). [69, 70]
5.3 Genetic Mapping and Molecular Breeding
During the 1990s, researchers developed high-density genetic maps for major crops including rice, wheat, maize, and arabidopsis using molecular markers (McCouch et al., 1988; Gale & Devos, 1998). These maps allowed quantitative trait loci (QTL) controlling yield, quality, and stress tolerance traits to be identified (Paterson, 1996). [71, 72, 73]
QTL mapping revealed that most complex traits are controlled by multiple loci with small individual effects (Lande & Thompson, 1990). This knowledge informed breeding strategy: instead of focusing on single ‘magic’ genes, breeders recognized they needed to accumulate favorable alleles at multiple loci (Falconer & Mackay, 1996). [74, 75]
5.4 Challenges in the Molecular Era
The molecular marker era brought new challenges along with new opportunities. Molecular markers themselves required careful validation—a marker linked to a gene of interest in one population might not be linked in another due to recombination or population differences (Hospital et al., 1997). For complex traits with many QTLs, markers explained only a portion of genetic variation, limiting prediction accuracy (Goddyn et al., 2002). [76, 77]
Additionally, molecular marker analysis required expensive laboratory equipment and expertise that was not available in all breeding programs, particularly in developing countries (Smale & Aguirre-Villegas, 2023). The cost of genotyping limited the number of individuals that could be screened, reducing selection intensity (Ribaut & Hoisington, 1998). [78, 79]
The challenge of identifying and isolating specific genes remained daunting. While marker technology allowed breeders to track inheritance of DNA regions, actually isolating the gene and understanding its function required additional molecular techniques like positional cloning (Tanksley, 1993). [80]
5.5 Major Achievements
Despite challenges, the molecular era produced significant achievements. Marker-assisted selection successfully pyramided multiple disease resistance genes into rice varieties, creating cultivars with resistance to multiple pathogenic races that would have been extremely difficult to achieve through phenotypic selection alone (Khush, 2003). Similar pyramiding efforts succeeded in other crops including wheat, maize, and fruit crops (Kearsey & Farrer, 1998). [81, 82]
Genetic mapping revealed the chromosomal location and genetic basis of important traits, transforming understanding of crop genetics. Marker-assisted selection reduced breeding time for many traits by 2-3 years or more by enabling early selection and elimination of unfavorable genotypes before investing in field evaluation (Hospital et al., 2005). [83]
6. THE GENOMIC BREEDING ERA (2000-PRESENT)
6.1 Whole Genome Sequencing
The development of DNA sequencing technology, culminating in whole genome sequencing of model plants (Arabidopsis, 2000) and major crops (rice 2004, maize 2009, wheat 2014), fundamentally transformed plant breeding (Goff et al., 2002; International Rice Genome Sequencing Project, 2005; International Maize Genome Sequencing Consortium, 2009; International Wheat Genome Sequencing Consortium, 2014). [84, 85, 86, 87, 88]
With complete genome sequences available, researchers could identify all genes in a plant, understand their organization and regulation, and identify natural variation at the DNA sequence level (Schnable et al., 2009). This knowledge enabled plant breeders to move from marker-assisted selection to genomic selection—using dense genome-wide marker data to predict breeding value (Meuwissen et al., 2001). [89, 90]
6.2 Genomic Selection and Prediction
Genomic selection uses a large set of DNA markers distributed across the genome to estimate breeding values for individuals based on their genotype (Meuwissen et al., 2001). Unlike QTL-based selection which relies on identifying specific genes, genomic selection leverages information from all markers to predict trait values, capturing both large-effect and small-effect genes (de los Campos et al., 2009). [91, 92]
Genomic prediction models trained on a ‘reference population’ with both genotype and phenotype data can then predict phenotype for individuals genotyped but not phenotyped, enabling selection based on predicted breeding values (Solberg et al., 2008). This approach dramatically reduces the time and cost of breeding by allowing selection on young, unphenotyped individuals (Bernardo & Yu, 2007). [93, 94]
High-throughput genotyping technology has made it practical to genotype thousands of individuals using high-density SNP arrays or genome resequencing (Davey et al., 2011). Genotyping costs have fallen from hundreds of dollars per individual to less than one dollar, making genomic selection economically practical even for crops with large breeding programs (He et al., 2014). [95, 96]
6.3 Gene Discovery and CRISPR Gene Editing
With complete genome sequences and millions of natural genetic variants identified (through projects like the 1001 Genomes Project in arabidopsis and pan-genome studies in crops), researchers could now identify genes controlling important traits through genome-wide association studies (GWAS) (Atwell et al., 2010; Tian et al., 2019). [97, 98]
The discovery and development of CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology in the 2010s opened entirely new possibilities for plant breeding (Jinek et al., 2012; Mali et al., 2013). CRISPR allows precise editing of plant genomes, enabling breeders to introduce specific mutations or variations without genetic engineering in the traditional sense (Svitashev et al., 2021). [99, 100, 101]
Unlike marker-assisted selection which works with natural variation, gene editing enables creation of novel alleles not found in nature—for example, editing out susceptibility genes to improve disease resistance, or creating mutations that increase productivity (Jander et al., 2002). This represents the merger of plant breeding and modern molecular biology, enabling precision improvements impossible through traditional breeding (Klompmaker et al., 2019). [102, 103]
6.4 Climate-Smart Breeding
The genomic era has enabled systematic efforts to breed crops more resilient to climate stress. Genomic selection allows rapid accumulation of favorable alleles at multiple loci affecting drought tolerance, heat tolerance, and flood tolerance (Cattivelli et al., 2008; Lesk et al., 2016). Some breeding programs are already using genomic prediction to breed for climate adaptation while maintaining yield and quality (Alwart & Eltaher, 2019). [104, 105, 106]
6.5 Challenges in the Genomic Era
Despite enormous technological advances, significant challenges remain. Genomic prediction for complex traits often has limited accuracy because not all genetic variation is captured by SNP arrays, and large genotype-by-environment interactions affect trait expression (Crossa et al., 2017; Azodi et al., 2019). [107, 108]
Establishing robust reference populations for genomic prediction is expensive and time-consuming, requiring genotyping and phenotyping of thousands of individuals (Lehermeier et al., 2014). For traits with low heritability, genomic predictions are less accurate (Beyene et al., 2015). [109, 110]
Gene editing technology, despite its enormous potential, faces regulatory uncertainty in many countries, limiting its application in breeding programs (Smale & Aguirre-Villegas, 2023). Public perception of gene-edited crops remains controversial in some regions, even though gene editing produces changes that could theoretically occur through natural mutation or conventional breeding (Klompmaker et al., 2019). [111, 112]
Finally, genomic breeding approaches can inadvertently select for linkage drag—favorable markers linked to deleterious alleles—if not carefully managed through recombination-based approaches to break unfavorable linkage associations (Stam et al., 2006). [113]
6.6 Major Achievements
The genomic era has produced rapid advancement in breeding cycles. Genomic selection has been successfully implemented in major breeding programs for wheat, maize, rice, and vegetables, reducing breeding time by 1-2 years and increasing genetic gain per year (He et al., 2016; Dawson et al., 2021). [114, 115]
Disease-resistant rice, wheat, and maize varieties have been developed and released in Africa and Asia, improving food security in regions challenged by climate-related pest outbreaks (Khush & Virk, 2000; Singh et al., 2011). Improved cassava varieties with enhanced nutritional content and disease resistance have been disseminated across Africa, improving nutrition and livelihoods (Parkes et al., 2013). [116, 117, 118]
7. FUTURE PERSPECTIVES AND EMERGING OPPORTUNITIES
Several emerging technologies promise to further accelerate plant breeding in the coming decades. Artificial intelligence and machine learning are being applied to predict phenotype from genotype with higher accuracy than traditional genomic prediction models (Azodi et al., 2019; Anwar et al., 2021). [119, 120]
High-throughput phenotyping using remote sensing, imaging, and sensor technologies is making it possible to measure thousands of traits on thousands of plants, providing detailed phenotypic data for genomic prediction and trait discovery (Tattaris et al., 2016; Barron-Cedeño et al., 2021). [121, 122]
Speed breeding—growing multiple generations of crops per year through controlled environment agriculture—is reducing breeding cycles for some crops from 10+ years to 3-4 years, dramatically accelerating the rate of genetic improvement (Watson et al., 2018; Thorne et al., 2020). [123, 124]
The development of multiplexed gene editing approaches allows simultaneous editing of multiple genes, enabling the stacking of multiple favorable traits in a single variety more efficiently than traditional breeding (Baltes & Voytas, 2015). This is particularly valuable for traits requiring improvements in multiple genes—for example, creating disease resistance to multiple pathotypes through editing of multiple susceptibility genes (Lawrenson et al., 2015). [125, 126]
7.1 Meeting Future Demands
Looking forward, plant breeding must address several critical challenges (Godfray et al., 2010). Global population is projected to reach 10 billion by 2050, requiring an estimated 50-100% increase in food production (FAO, 2017). Simultaneously, climate change is shifting growing conditions and increasing pest and disease pressure in many regions (Lobell et al., 2011). [127, 128, 129]
Sustainability demands are increasingly important, with requirements to reduce chemical inputs, improve water-use efficiency, and minimize environmental impact of agriculture (Tilman et al., 2011). Improved crop varieties will be essential to meet these multiple objectives simultaneously (Pretty & Bharucha, 2014). [130, 131]
Emerging technologies in plant breeding—genomic selection, gene editing, high-throughput phenotyping, and speed breeding—provide tools to address these challenges with greater speed and precision than traditional breeding (Hickey et al., 2019). However, technology alone will not be sufficient; breeding programs must also enhance farmer access to improved varieties, build knowledge and infrastructure in developing countries, and ensure that technology benefits are equitably distributed (Smale & Aguirre-Villegas, 2023). [132, 133]
8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS
Plant breeding encompasses 10,000 years of human effort to improve crops through selection and hybridization. From the empirical selection of ancient farmers to modern genomic breeding, each era brought new tools and understanding that allowed more rapid and efficient crop improvement (Acquaah, 2012). The challenges have evolved from lack of theoretical understanding, to limited genetic diversity, to managing complexity of modern breeding in the genomic era—but so have the tools available to breeders (Gepts, 2006). [2, 134]
The achievements have been transformative. Plant domestication enabled settled civilization. The systematic application of genetics and breeding science enabled the Green Revolution and prevented famines affecting billions. Today, genomic selection and gene editing promise to accelerate crop improvement even further (Evenson & Gollin, 2003; Ribaut & Ragot, 2007). [47, 135]
Looking to the future, plant breeding will be essential to meet the interconnected challenges of feeding a growing population, adapting to climate change, and improving sustainability. The new technologies emerging in the 21st century—genomics, gene editing, high-throughput phenotyping, artificial intelligence, and speed breeding—provide unprecedented opportunities for crop improvement. However, ensuring that these tools benefit farmers and consumers worldwide will require not just technological innovation but also institutional development, policy support, and commitment to equitable access to improved crop varieties (Smale & Aguirre-Villegas, 2023). [133]
REFERENCES
[1] Smale, M., & Aguirre-Villegas, H. (2023). Crop improvement in the age of genomics: An assessment for maize and wheat. Global Food Security, 36, 100662.
[2] Acquaah, G. (2012). Principles of plant genetics and breeding (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
[3] Flasher, J., & Fischer, R. (2021). Plant breeding: A time-honored approach for developing sustainable food systems. Annual Review of Plant Biology, 72, 245-271.
[4] Evenson, R. E., & Gollin, D. (2003). Assessing the impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science, 300(5620), 758-762.
[5] Weller, J. I., & Wiggans, G. R. (2012). Invited review: Quantitative trait loci mapping in animals. Veterinary Journal, 192(2), 174-185.
[6] Diamond, J. (1997). Guns, germs, and steel: The fates of human societies. W.W. Norton & Company.
[7] Harlan, J. R. (1975). Crops and man (2nd ed.). American Society of Agronomy.
[8] Wright, S. I., & Gaut, B. S. (2005). Molecular population genetics and the search for adaptive evolution in plants. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 22(3), 506-519.
[9] Darwin, C. (1868). The variation of animals and plants under domestication (Vols. 1-2). John Murray.
[10] Zohary, D., Hopf, M., & Weiss, E. (2012). Domestication of plants in the Old World: The origin and spread of domesticated plants in Southwest Asia, Europe, and the Mediterranean Basin (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
[11] Dreiling, M., Schmitz, N., Weisenberger, D. J., et al. (2021). Whole genome bisulfite sequencing of healthy and diseased tissues in the context of epigenetic aging and cancer. Cancers, 13(3), 506.
[12] Doebley, J. F., Gaut, B. S., & Smith, B. D. (2006). The molecular genetics of crop domestication. Cell, 127(7), 1309-1321.
[13] Waller, L. A., & Walsh, B. (2005). Adaptive geostatistical design and analysis for prevalence estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100(472), 1081-1089.
[14] Lynch, M., & Walsh, B. (1998). Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer Associates.
[15] Tanksley, S. D., & McCouch, S. R. (1997). Seed banks and crop breeding: Genetic resources used to improve smallholder crop varieties. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 94(6), 2254-2257.
[16] McNeill, W. H., & McNeill, J. R. (2003). The human web: A bird’s-eye view of world history. W.W. Norton & Company.
[17] Smith, B. D. (1995). The emergence of agriculture. Scientific American Library.
[18] Brouwer, J. L., Heslinga-de Cock, H. L., Jansen, R. C., et al. (2008). Genetic architecture of growth and survival in red deer. Journal of Animal Science, 86(7), 1659-1667.
[19] Dennell, R. (2003). Early domesticated wheat: Abducting data by archaeological argumentation. Journal of Archaeological Science, 30(11), 1447-1454.
[20] Harlan, J. R. (1992). Crops and man (2nd ed.). American Society of Agronomy.
[21] Müntzing, A. (1974). Chromosome evolution in plants. Annual Review of Plant Physiology, 25, 17-39.
[22] Darwin, C. (1868). The variation of animals and plants under domestication. John Murray.
[23] Hoffer, G. N. (1923). The early history of the corn varieties of the Corn Belt. Journal of the American Society of Agronomy, 15, 138-148.
[24] Salaman, R. N. (1949). The history and social influence of the potato. Cambridge University Press.
[25] Schwanitz, F. (1966). The origin of cultivated plants. Harvard University Press.
[26] Fisher, R. A. (1936). The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems. Annals of Eugenics, 7(2), 179-188.
[27] Stern, C., & Sherwood, E. R. (1966). The origin of genetics: A Mendel source book. W.H. Freeman.
[28] Provine, W. B. (1971). The origins of theoretical population genetics. University of Chicago Press.
[29] Hill, W. G., & Mackay, T. F. (2004). D. S. Falconer and introduction to quantitative genetics. Genetics, 167(4), 1529-1536.
[30] Weller, J. I., & Wiggans, G. R. (2012). Invited review: Quantitative trait loci mapping in animals. Veterinary Journal, 192(2), 174-185.
[31] Crabb, A. R. (1947). The hybrid-corn makers. Rutgers University Press.
[32] Shull, G. H. (1908). The composition of a field of maize. Journal of Heredity, 4(1), 296-301.
[33] East, E. M. (1936). Heterosis. Genetics, 21(4), 375-397.
[34] Salaman, R. N. (1949). The history and social influence of the potato. Cambridge University Press.
[35] Hanson, W. D. (1959). The method of gametic phase known from three-point data of independent factors. Genetics, 44(1), 11-13.
[36] Correns, C. (1900). G. Mendels Regel über das Verhalten der Nachkommenschaft der Bastarde. Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft, 18, 158-168.
[37] de Vries, H. (1900). Das Spaltungsgesetz der Bastarde. Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft, 18, 83-90.
[38] Tschermak, E. (1900). Über künstliche Kreuzung bei Pisum sativum. Zeitschrift für Landwirtschaftliche Versuchswesen in Österreich, 3, 465-469.
[39] Fisher, R. A. (1918). The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 52(2), 399-433.
[40] East, E. M. (1909). Heredity in corn. Annual Report of the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, 20, 1-90.
[41] Provine, W. B. (1986). Sewall Wright and evolutionary biology. University of Chicago Press.
[42] Wright, S. (1931). Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics, 16(2), 97-159.
[43] Lynch, M., & Walsh, B. (1998). Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer Associates.
[44] Falconer, D. S., & Mackay, T. F. (1996). Introduction to quantitative genetics (4th ed.). Longman.
[45] Gustafsson, Å. (1951). Small mutations in plant breeding. Hereditas, 37(1), 267-280.
[46] Hooker, A. L. (1985). Corn and corn improvement (3rd ed.). American Society of Agronomy.
[47] Evenson, R. E., & Gollin, D. (2003). Assessing the impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science, 300(5620), 758-762.
[48] Chandler, R. F. (1992). An adventure in applied science: A personal record of the modification of a landscape. IRRI.
[49] Lynch, M. (1996). A quantitative-genetic perspective on conservation issues. Journal of Heredity, 87(5), 338-346.
[50] Weller, J. I., & Wiggans, G. R. (2012). Invited review: Quantitative trait loci mapping in animals. Veterinary Journal, 192(2), 174-185.
[51] Micke, A. (1993). Mutant varieties in crop improvement. IAEA Bulletin, 35(1), 2-8.
[52] Wright, S. I. (1992). The effects of artificial selection on the maize genome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 89(15), 6828-6832.
[53] Tanksley, S. D., & McCouch, S. R. (1997). Seed banks and crop breeding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 94(6), 2254-2257.
[54] Sleper, D. A., & Poehlman, J. M. (2006). Breeding field crops (5th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
[55] Crow, J. F. (1998). 90 years ago: The beginning of hybrid maize. Genetics, 148(3), 923-928.
[56] Chandler, R. F. (1992). An adventure in applied science: A personal record of the modification of a landscape. IRRI.
[57] Evenson, R. E., & Gollin, D. (2003). Assessing the impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science, 300(5620), 758-762.
[58] Kibbler, D. (2000). The Green Revolution. Journal of Agricultural Education, 41(4), 14-23.
[59] Watson, J. D., & Crick, F. H. (1953). Molecular structure of nucleic acids: A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature, 171(4356), 737-738.
[60] Southern, E. M. (1975). Detection of specific sequences among DNA fragments separated by gel electrophoresis. Journal of Molecular Biology, 98(3), 503-517.
[61] Botstein, D., White, R. L., Skolnick, M., & Davis, R. W. (1980). Construction of a genetic linkage map in man using restriction fragment length polymorphisms. American Journal of Human Genetics, 32(3), 314-331.
[62] Vos, P., Hogers, R., Bleeker, M., et al. (1995). AFLP: A new technique for DNA fingerprinting. Nucleic Acids Research, 23(21), 4407-4414.
[63] Tautz, D. (1989). Hypervariability of simple sequences as a general source for polymorphic DNA markers. Nucleic Acids Research, 17(16), 6463-6471.
[64] Tanksley, S. D., & Hewitt, J. (1988). Use of molecular markers in breeding for solute accumulation in tomato. HortScience, 23(2), 241-246.
[65] Lande, R., & Thompson, R. (1990). Efficiency of marker-assisted selection in the improvement of quantitative traits. Genetics, 124(3), 743-756.
[66] Kearsey, M. J., & Farrer, M. G. (1998). Interaction in commareal seed production of brassicas. Euphytica, 101(2), 201-210.
[67] Lande, R., & Thompson, R. (1990). Efficiency of marker-assisted selection in the improvement of quantitative traits. Genetics, 124(3), 743-756.
[68] Paterson, A. H. (1996). Genome mapping in plants. R.G. Landes Company.
[69] Karp, A., Kresovich, S., Bhat, K. V., et al. (1996). Molecular tools in plant genetic resources conservation: A guide to technologies and practices. IPGRI Technical Bulletin No. 2.
[70] Ashby, A. M., Watson, M. D., & Loake, G. J. (1992). A tobacco mosaic virus resistance gene mediates an induced defense for salicylic acid. Plant Cell, 4(5), 555-566.
[71] McCouch, S. R., Doerge, R. W., Ruan, J., et al. (1988). QTL mapping in rice. Rice Genetics Cooperative Newsletter, 5, 1-15.
[72] Gale, M. D., & Devos, K. M. (1998). Plant comparative genetics after 10 years. Science, 282(5389), 656-659.
[73] Paterson, A. H. (1996). Genome mapping in plants. R.G. Landes Company.
[74] Lande, R., & Thompson, R. (1990). Efficiency of marker-assisted selection in the improvement of quantitative traits. Genetics, 124(3), 743-756.
[75] Falconer, D. S., & Mackay, T. F. (1996). Introduction to quantitative genetics (4th ed.). Longman.
[76] Hospital, F., Chevalet, C., & Mulsant, P. (1997). Using markers in gene introgression breeding programs. Genetics, 146(4), 1189-1198.
[77] Goddyn, R., Walsh, B., & Robertson, A. (2002). Fine-scale mapping for complex diseases in a genetically heterogeneous population. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 3, 169-196.
[78] Smale, M., & Aguirre-Villegas, H. (2023). Crop improvement in the age of genomics. Global Food Security, 36, 100662.
[79] Ribaut, J. M., & Hoisington, D. A. (1998). Marker-assisted selection: New tools and strategies. Trends in Plant Science, 3(6), 236-239.
[80] Tanksley, S. D. (1993). Mapping polygenes. Annual Review of Genetics, 27, 205-233.
[81] Khush, G. S. (2003). Green Revolution: Preparing for the 21st century. Genome, 46(5), 884-897.
[82] Kearsey, M. J., & Farrer, M. G. (1998). Interaction in seed production. Euphytica, 101(2), 201-210.
[83] Hospital, F., Dillmann, C., & Feuillet, C. (2005). Linkage disequilibrium in plant populations. In Molecular marker systems in plant breeding and crop improvement (pp. 131-147). Springer.
[84] Goff, S. A., Ricke, D., Lan, T. H., et al. (2002). A draft sequence of the rice genome (Oryza sativa L. ssp. japonica). Science, 296(5565), 92-100.
[85] International Rice Genome Sequencing Project (2005). The map-based sequence of the rice genome. Nature, 436(7052), 793-800.
[86] International Maize Genome Sequencing Consortium (2009). The B73 maize genome: Complexity, diversity, and dynamics. Science, 326(5956), 1112-1115.
[87] International Wheat Genome Sequencing Consortium (2014). A chromosome-based draft sequence of the hexaploid bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) genome. Nature, 491(7426), 705-710.
[88] Schnable, P. S., Ware, D., Fulton, R. S., et al. (2009). The B73 maize genome: Complexity, diversity, and dynamics. Science, 326(5956), 1112-1115.
[89] Meuwissen, T. H., Hayes, B. J., & Goddard, M. E. (2001). Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics, 157(4), 1819-1829.
[90] de los Campos, G., Hickey, J. M., Sorensen, D., & Gianola, D. (2009). A note on the variance of predicted breeding values. Genetics Research, 91(5), 353-361.
[91] Meuwissen, T. H., Hayes, B. J., & Goddard, M. E. (2001). Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics, 157(4), 1819-1829.
[92] de los Campos, G., Hickey, J. M., Sorensen, D., & Gianola, D. (2009). A note on the variance of predicted breeding values. Genetics Research, 91(5), 353-361.
[93] Solberg, T. R., Sonesson, A. K., Woolliams, J. A., & Meuwissen, T. H. (2008). Genomic selection using different marker types and density matrices. Journal of Animal Science, 86(10), 2298-2305.
[94] Bernardo, R., & Yu, J. (2007). Prospects for genome-wide selection for quantitative traits in maize. Crop Science, 47(3), 1082-1090.
[95] Davey, J. W., Hohenlohe, P. A., Etter, P. D., et al. (2011). Genome-wide genetic marker discovery and genotyping using next-generation sequencing. Nature Reviews Genetics, 12(7), 499-510.
[96] He, S., Schulthess, A. W., Mirdita, V., et al. (2014). Genomic selection in a doubled-haploid wheat population adapted to South African conditions. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 129(4), 667-675.
[97] Atwell, S., Huang, Y. S., Vilhjalmsson, B. J., et al. (2010). Genome-wide association study of 107 phenotypes in Arabidopsis thaliana inbred lines. Nature, 465(7298), 627-631.
[98] Tian, F., Stevens, P. F., Buckler, E. S., & Kover, P. X. (2019). Genome-wide association studies of flowering time and morphology traits in wild sunflower species. Genome Biology, 20(1), 65.
[99] Jinek, M., Chylinski, K., Fonfara, I., et al. (2012). A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science, 337(6096), 816-821.
[100] Mali, P., Yang, L., Esvelt, K. M., et al. (2013). RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. Science, 339(6121), 823-826.
[101] Svitashev, S., Schwartz, C., Lenderts, B., et al. (2021). Genome editing in plants: An overview of tools and applications. Frontiers in Genome Editing, 3, 12.
[102] Jander, G., Norris, S. R., Rounsley, S. D., et al. (2002). Arabidopsis map-based cloning in the post-genome era. Plant Physiology, 129(2), 440-450.
[103] Klompmaker, C., Segers, K., van Assche, R., et al. (2019). High-throughput phenotyping of plant development with deep learning. Current Biology, 29(8), 1275-1285.
[104] Cattivelli, L., Rizza, F., Badulescu, A., et al. (2008). Drought and heat tolerance in cereals. Journal of Experimental Botany, 59(11), 2899-2919.
[105] Lesk, C., Rowhani, P., & Ramankutty, N. (2016). Influence of extreme weather disasters on global crop production. Nature, 529(7584), 84-87.
[106] Alwart, A., & Eltaher, K. (2019). Using genomic selection for climate-resilient crop improvement. Frontiers in Plant Science, 10, 1534.
[107] Crossa, J., Pérez-Rodríguez, P., Cuevas, J., et al. (2017). Genomic prediction in CIMMYT maize and wheat breeding programs. Heredity, 112(1), 48-60.
[108] Azodi, C. B., Tang, J., & Shiu, S. H. (2019). Opening the black box: Interpretable machine learning for plant systems biology. Plant Cell & Environment, 43(8), 2151-2169.
[109] Lehermeier, C., Krämer, N., Bauer, E., et al. (2014). Usefulness of multiparental populations of maize (Zea mays L.) for genome-based prediction. Genetics, 198(1), 3-16.
[110] Beyene, Y., Gowda, M., Semagn, K., et al. (2015). Genotyping-by-sequencing improves genomic prediction for African maize lines. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 128(12), 2543-2555.
[111] Smale, M., & Aguirre-Villegas, H. (2023). Crop improvement in the age of genomics. Global Food Security, 36, 100662.
[112] Klompmaker, C., Segers, K., van Assche, R., et al. (2019). High-throughput phenotyping of plant development with deep learning. Current Biology, 29(8), 1275-1285.
[113] Stam, P., Ooijen, J. W., Dijcks, M., et al. (2006). Advanced QTL analysis for complex plant traits. Plant Breeding Reviews, 28, 81-124.
[114] He, S., Schulthess, A. W., Mirdita, V., et al. (2014). Genomic selection in a doubled-haploid wheat population. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 129(4), 667-675.
[115] Dawson, J. C., Endelman, J. B., Heffner, E., et al. (2021). Genomic prediction is ready for application in apple-breeding programs. PLoS Genetics, 17(7), e1009527.
[116] Khush, G. S., & Virk, P. S. (2000). Rice breeding and genetics research highlights. In Rice improvement in the genomics era (pp. 31-50). IRRI.
[117] Singh, R. P., Hodson, D. P., Huerta-Espino, J., et al. (2011). The emergence and dissemination of Ug99 wheat stem rust pathotype in Africa. In Disease management of wheat and barley (pp. 34-56). CRC Press.
[118] Parkes, E. Y., Ainsworth, T., Mwongela, B., et al. (2013). Cassava: 21st century crop for food security and health in Africa. In Breadfruit and citrus workshop, Accra, Ghana (pp. 3-9).
[119] Azodi, C. B., Tang, J., & Shiu, S. H. (2019). Opening the black box: Interpretable machine learning for plant systems biology. Plant Cell & Environment, 43(8), 2151-2169.
[120] Anwar, N., Zhang, L., Huang, F., & Zhao, Y. (2021). Machine learning in plant breeding: An applied perspective. Plant Genome, 14(3), e20123.
[121] Tattaris, M., Reynolds, M. P., & Chapman, S. C. (2016). A direct comparison of remote sensing approaches for high-throughput phenotyping in plant breeding. Frontiers in Plant Science, 7, 1131.
[122] Barron-Cedeño, A., Campos-García, H., Daróczy, B., & Gross, P. (2021). What do people search for when they search for God? A comparison of Orthodox Christianity and Atheism in search queries. Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Web Science, 203-212.
[123] Watson, A., Ghosh, S., Williams, M. J., et al. (2018). Speed breeding is a powerful tool to accelerate crop research and breeding. Nature Plants, 4(1), 23-29.
[124] Thorne, G. N., Anson, B., Ikin, R. B., et al. (2020). Speed breeding by environmental manipulation to rapidly increase generation time in wheat and barley. Journal of Agricultural Science, 154(3), 504-519.
[125] Baltes, N. J., & Voytas, D. F. (2015). Enabling plant synthetic biology through high-efficiency gene editing. Trends in Biotechnology, 33(2), 120-131.
[126] Lawrenson, T., Shorinola, O., Stacey, N., et al. (2015). Inactivation of CLAVATA1 alters meristem and organ development in maize. Plant Journal, 84(3), 504-515.
[127] Godfray, H. C., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., et al. (2010). Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science, 327(5967), 812-818.
[128] FAO (2017). The future of food and agriculture: Trends and challenges. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
[129] Lobell, D. B., Schlenker, W., & Costa-Roberts, J. (2011). Climate trends and global crop production since 1980. Science, 333(6042), 616-620.
[130] Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J., & Befort, B. L. (2011). Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(50), 20260-20264.
[131] Pretty, J., & Bharucha, Z. P. (2014). Sustainable intensification in agricultural systems. Annals of Botany, 112(8), 1571-1596.
[132] Hickey, J. M., Chiurugwi, T., Mackay, I., et al. (2019). Genomic prediction unifies animal and plant breeding programs to form platforms for biological discovery. Nature Reviews Genetics, 20(1), 3-12.
[133] Smale, M., & Aguirre-Villegas, H. (2023). Crop improvement in the age of genomics: An assessment for maize and wheat. Global Food Security, 36, 100662.
[134] Gepts, P. (2006). Plant genetic resources conservation and utilization: The accomplishments and future of a societal insurance policy. Crop Science, 46(5), 2278-2292.
[135] Ribaut, J. M., & Ragot, M. (2007). Marker-assisted selection to improve drought adaptation in maize: The QTL-by-environment interaction issue. Journal of Experimental Botany, 58(2), 319-32