PC- Water Lily/Lotus as a staple crop

For what it's worth, I looked at a whole bunch of water-based crops like lotus and similar root/rhizome plants in Australia as part of research for Lands of Red and Gold. The conclusion I quickly reached was that they were suitable as supplemental crops but not as staple crops.

The strikes against them are several, and not ones which are easily changed by artificial selection.

Firstly, they're very labour-intensive. Which is tolerable for an occasional gathering as a delicacy or the like, but a great disincentive for a staple. Less likely to start agriculture, and more likely to be abandoned in favour of less labour-intensive crops even if domesticated or introduced.

Secondly, they really do not store well. Being watery crops they're designed to have the protection of water to keep them safe from moulds and rots. Take them out of that environment and they're likely to turn bad very quickly. Again, not something easily bred out through artificial selection. (Edit: just saw the post about longer-storing wild ones. That's a good start, but it really needs to be year-round storage for a staple crop.)

Thirdly, they depend on, well, water. A lot of water. No water, no crops. Not a good thing in a country like Australia, where rainfall is unpredictable at the best of times. Even if limited to cultivation along rivers... well, rivers in Oz flood a hell of a lot. Doesn't augure well for a lotus crop.

There are other issues too, but those are probably the biggest ones.
 
That's true of quite a few things really. Even domesticated wheat is, I believe, less competitive than its wild variant. In particular it's harder for it to reproduce due to the thicker rachis holding the seeds on. In wild variants the war is more likely to shatter, ensuring the seeds spread easier.

It's a variety found in I forgot where and when they accidentally introduced the Bengal counterparts (same species), it lost 75% of its range and 6 out of its 7 large spots (the spots are somewhat isolated from each other). In the places it got displaced, they make up 1/10 of the genetic material of what's there now, but the phenotype is the Bengal one
 
It's a variety found in I forgot where and when they accidentally introduced the Bengal counterparts (same species), it lost 75% of its range and 6 out of its 7 large spots (the spots are somewhat isolated from each other). In the places it got displaced, they make up 1/10 of the genetic material of what's there now, but the phenotype is the Bengal one
Okay, interesting.
 
If a natural variant can be stored while dry, I think selecting should be able to fix that... of course who wants to plant a perennial plant that take 3 extra years from a seedling just to flower?
 
Nope, they don't mention those things at all. They talk about the king eating "cooked thick thigh meat of sheep that were fed arukam grass twisted as ropes, and fatty, big pieces of meat roasted on iron rods," along with "cooked rice whose grains unbroken looked like jasmine buds, all the grains of the same size with no streaks and long like fingers along with curries mixed with roasted seeds staying with me sweetly"

Meat! Well, that's something we don't really associate with modern South India.

talk about how "People barter honey, ghee

Ghee? But dairy isn't a big thing in South India.

It seems to me that the Chola were immensely influenced by the north, or that the south and north were closer once upon a time and later diverged drastically. Some interesting things to think about, all in all. So, in that case, eating lotus is quite a plausible alternative.
 

Zachariah

Banned
For what it's worth, I looked at a whole bunch of water-based crops like lotus and similar root/rhizome plants in Australia as part of research for Lands of Red and Gold. The conclusion I quickly reached was that they were suitable as supplemental crops but not as staple crops.

The strikes against them are several, and not ones which are easily changed by artificial selection.

Firstly, they're very labour-intensive. Which is tolerable for an occasional gathering as a delicacy or the like, but a great disincentive for a staple. Less likely to start agriculture, and more likely to be abandoned in favour of less labour-intensive crops even if domesticated or introduced.

Secondly, they really do not store well. Being watery crops they're designed to have the protection of water to keep them safe from moulds and rots. Take them out of that environment and they're likely to turn bad very quickly. Again, not something easily bred out through artificial selection. (Edit: just saw the post about longer-storing wild ones. That's a good start, but it really needs to be year-round storage for a staple crop.)

Thirdly, they depend on, well, water. A lot of water. No water, no crops. Not a good thing in a country like Australia, where rainfall is unpredictable at the best of times. Even if limited to cultivation along rivers... well, rivers in Oz flood a hell of a lot. Doesn't augure well for a lotus crop.

There are other issues too, but those are probably the biggest ones.

All fair points, and good ones. What about lotus as a cereal crop though? Harvesting its seeds is markedly less labour-intensive, and the seeds store far better than the roots/rhizomes do. And while lack of water's an issue which limits lotus crop yields, cloudier skies and higher relative humidities also have negative impacts on lotus crop yields; lotuses actually do better in climates with extremely seasonal rainfall, where it's arid most of the time. That's what the main purpose of growing those rhizomes is, after all- to enable the plant to make it through the dry season, in the case of the river or pond it's growing in drying out completely (as so many of the rivers in Oz do), and sustain itself until the wet season comes round again. Longer dry seasons, more sporadic and unpredictable rainfall, and more clear skies and burning sunshine, will all result in the lotuses investing more of their energy and nutrients into growing larger rhizomes to cope with those conditions.
 
Last edited:
As a plant biologist, I would like to remind everyone that waterlilies and lotuses are two completely different genera with very different structures, chemistry, and biology. They aren't even closely related at all. Unfortunately people apply the word lotus to a number of plants (including two terrestrial plants), making it super confusing, particularly if you are reading translations of material written in other languages...

There are only two extant species of lotus (genus Nelumbo), one of which has undergone extensive artificial selection in China and Japan particularly for food and ornamental use. IIRC, varieties that are grown for food have been selected for larger, fleshier rhizomes. Although fresh tubers will only last a few months in storage, they can easily be processed for starch. Varieties cultivated for seed production probably have larger, more uniform seeds than ornamental varieties, but I don't know that for sure. In terms of edible mass produced per acre, the rhizomes definitely win out over the seeds. Lotus seeds are, however, famous for their longevity.

The waterlilies are generally less important overall as a food crop in modern times, and they don't spread and create large amounts of biomass rapidly the way lotuses do. The most commercially important species is probably Euryale ferox, which is technically not a waterlily but in the same family. It is grown for its seeds in southern China and India. It and other aquatic crops used to play a much larger role in the diet of people living in the Yangtze basin.

The yield per acre won't support a huge place like China, Egypt, or Incas even if geography made the lotus grow there (except in China it obviously doesn't) but I cam imagine domesticated lotus being able to support a civilization in Australia.
The lotus was introduced to Egypt fairly early on, and there are native waterlily species. Neither grow in the Andes, but the Amazon has a huge number of waterlilies (including the genus Victoria) and the other species of lotus is native to the United States
 
Wait, the Egyptians were able to LIVE OFF lotus as their calorie intake crop? Or does staple simply mean "mass produced" not "biggest farm product of diet"?
 
Wait, the Egyptians were able to LIVE OFF lotus as their calorie intake crop? Or does staple simply mean "mass produced" not "biggest farm product of diet"?
Where are you reading that lotus was a staple in Egypt? I've only read that it has been grown there for a long time as an ornamental. I don't know of any Egyptian uses for lotus. They did seem to use their native waterlilies for ceremonial purposes, as can be seen in their art.
 

Zachariah

Banned
As a plant biologist, I would like to remind everyone that waterlilies and lotuses are two completely different genera with very different structures, chemistry, and biology. They aren't even closely related at all. Unfortunately people apply the word lotus to a number of plants (including two terrestrial plants), making it super confusing, particularly if you are reading translations of material written in other languages...

There are only two extant species of lotus (genus Nelumbo), one of which has undergone extensive artificial selection in China and Japan particularly for food and ornamental use. IIRC, varieties that are grown for food have been selected for larger, fleshier rhizomes. Although fresh tubers will only last a few months in storage, they can easily be processed for starch. Varieties cultivated for seed production probably have larger, more uniform seeds than ornamental varieties, but I don't know that for sure. In terms of edible mass produced per acre, the rhizomes definitely win out over the seeds. Lotus seeds are, however, famous for their longevity.

The waterlilies are generally less important overall as a food crop in modern times, and they don't spread and create large amounts of biomass rapidly the way lotuses do. The most commercially important species is probably Euryale ferox, which is technically not a waterlily but in the same family. It is grown for its seeds in southern China and India. It and other aquatic crops used to play a much larger role in the diet of people living in the Yangtze basin.


The lotus was introduced to Egypt fairly early on, and there are native waterlily species. Neither grow in the Andes, but the Amazon has a huge number of waterlilies (including the genus Victoria) and the other species of lotus is native to the United States

I was actually talking about the Nymphaeaceae family, which are known commonly as water lilies but also as lotuses. Which is very confusing, yes.
 
I was actually talking about the Nymphaeaceae family, which are known commonly as water lilies but also as lotuses. Which is very confusing, yes.
To make matters more confusing, the true lotus is no longer in Nymphaeaceae but is in its own family (Nelumbonaceae).

For a grain crop, Euryale ferox might work just as well as lotus. The plant grows fast (it's an annual crop) and the seeds can be stored for long periods. The abstract for one paper I found puts the yield at around 3 tons per hectare. Not huge considering how much land would need to be flooded, but potentially useful.

EDIT: apparently rice yields for low-tech farmers is around 2-4 tons/hectare. So Euryale would be comparable.
 
Where are you reading that lotus was a staple in Egypt? I've only read that it has been grown there for a long time as an ornamental. I don't know of any Egyptian uses for lotus. They did seem to use their native waterlilies for ceremonial purposes, as can be seen in their art.

Well, you quoted my thing about Egypt and then you said they cultivated it, so I assumed you were referring to the OP's request (otherwise, I don't see why my statement about Nymphaeacaeae not being able to support the population of Egypt relevant about their use as a ceremonial crop)
 
Top