3.1.2. Remembering: Dissonant Histories from Collection and Conservation to Hybrids and Genetic Engineering

In the 1920s, driven by the realization that Hawaiian crop biodiversity and agricultural practices were in rapid decline, Gerritt P. Wilder and E.S. Craighill Handy, Bishop Museum researchers, initiated the first formal taro germplasm collections in Hawai'i, including cultivars gathered from the Pacific [62]. The fledgling UH Agricultural Experiment Station received its original kalo collection in the mid-1930s from these two sources and individual taro farmers. The authors of *Bulletin 84: Taro Varieties in Hawaii* (1939) recognized that cross-breeding and new cultivar selections were proceeding without a systematic nomenclature for existing Hawaiian taro varieties [62] and developed a taxonomic key that became the seminal work on Hawaiian taro varietal identification.

Since the 1940s, the University of Hawai'i's experiment stations have maintained kalo collections, primarily for research and breeding programs. An important exception to this is the Moloka'i Research and Demonstration Farm which maintains a primary focus on cultivar conservation and production for taro, serving for the last 40 years as the largest and most important true-type Hawaiian kalo plant material distribution center in the islands for local farmers. In contrast, the University's Harold Lyon Arboretum kalo collection focuses on germplasm storage, conservation, and botanical study.

During the 1950–70s, additional cultivars were brought from the Pacific to Hawai'i (botanical garden accession records), some of which were distributed to the agricultural experiment stations. A common pattern throughout this collection history was that names of origin, an important source of information, were frequently replaced or left unrecorded. Later, breeder-assigned codes further distanced cultivars from their identities (e.g., P1–P20 for 20 cultivars from Palau).

At this junction, two trends appear in the University's taro research. The first is an increased focus on a variety of commercial targets [97,98] by selecting and promoting a limited number of Hawaiian kalo varieties felt to be best-suited for these purposes. This, along with demand for product uniformity (i.e., purple poi), contributed towards further decline in taro diversity in farmers' fields. By 1990, a single variety, Maui Lehua (a farmer-developed cross between two Hawaiian varieties, Lehua maoli and Moi, [29]) was the preferred choice in commercial markets and hence farmers' fields, developing over time the usual pest and disease challenges associated with monocropping [99–101].

Second, researchers responded to declining taro yields and wetland soil health with fertilizer and breeding trials. Initially, these were among Hawaiian varieties, followed by Pacific x Hawaiian and later Southeast Asian x Hawaiian crosses [102–104]. An outbreak of taro leaf blight (*Phytophthora*) in Samoa cemented the UH College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (CTAHR) emphasis on developing disease-resistant taro, first by conventional cross-breeding. Three such taro hybrids were patented [102] causing an uproar in the Hawaiian community over indigenous rights to germplasm. In 2006, after student and community standoffs at the University President's office and Board of Regents meetings, the patents were torn up and released. Hawaiians rejected initial offers to hand the patents over, clarifying that kalo could not be owned, even by them [105]. Work on development of Hawaiian kalo hybrids continues, along with patenting of ornamental taro crosses [106,107].

In Hawai'i, numerous undescribed and poorly-tracked introductions and crosses present a significant challenge to maintaining indigenous crop biodiversity and knowledge of kalo varieties [61]. Similarities between these introductions and Hawaiian cultivars complicate efforts to retain true-type Hawaiian and Pacific kalo collections and to help farmers differentiate among them. A tendency for invasiveness (aggressive runners) in crop cultivar introductions from outside Hawai'i and among new hybrids has become a serious issue for some kalo farmers (Figure 1).

**Figure 1.** An almost cormless invasive hybrid taro with Lehua maoli-like characteristics (bronzing in youngest leaves; lilac purple base) removed from a wetland taro patch, Hawai'i (**left**) and runners expressed in field trials in the hybrid, Pa'lehua, one of the patented taros (**right**). Photo by P. Levin 2006/2011.

At the same time the patent issue arose, individual researchers at UH Manoa were already ¯ investigating the development of disease resistant taro through genetic engineering. Genes for rice chitinase, wheat oxalate oxidase, and grapevine stilbene synthase were inserted into taro [108–110], a process considered a violation of the sacred relationship between kalo and kanaka. The very thought of changing the being and genetic structure of an ancestor was unacceptable to many Native Hawaiian farmers and cultural practitioners [111,112]. Moreover, taro farmers and Hawaiians only learned of the project by chance through a brief report [113] rather than pre-research consultation. Clearly expressing that genetic modification was an undesirable solution that carried high socio-economic risk, including the potential to jeopardize their livelihoods and way of life, taro farmers requested that the research be ended and the plants destroyed. Proactive recommendations were made for more relevant and useful agroecological research directions [61]. Taro growers also reached out to department chairs and chancellors at the university, and the Taro Task Force submitted a formal letter to UH's President offering to work with the university to develop guidance for future kalo investigations without response.

In the years-long effort to persuade the University administration, which carried into the Hawai'i State Legislature, Native Hawaiians, taro farmers, and their supporters passionately demonstrated and lobbied for the cultural integrity of kalo, as a plant sacred to the Hawaiian people, to be honored and maintained. University responses tended to polarize the issue, characterizing such advocacy as a threat to the intellectual freedom of researchers. Inherent in the conflict was the absence of a more holistic approach to the complex challenges of taro and taro field health. The overt focus on "fixing the plant," a concept embedded in commercial agriculture, ignored farm conditions, kinships between Hawai'i and the Pacific, potential for economic injustice, and evidence from the Pacific of cross-pollination risks in diploid taros [84,87]. The outcome was a legislated 5-year moratorium on genetic engineering, specifically protecting Hawaiian kalo varieties but keeping the door open for all other taros [114]; it did not end the conflict. The physical, financial, emotional and spiritual costs of the research and subsequent University response for many taro growers and Hawaiians has never been fully quantified, and many remain deeply wounded and distrustful of the University of Hawai'i. The University's mission as a land grant institution was called into question for the disenfranchisement of communities it was meant to serve. This history has also been described and analyzed in several publications from outsider [111,115,116] and insider [112] perspectives. The framing of farmer/Hawaiian science, knowledge and rights in opposition to- and of lesser value than- the expertise and intellectual freedom of researchers during such conflicts stands out both as a wall and an opening where transformation in research and a higher standard of research ethics might occur.

#### 3.1.3. Connecting Voices—Turning the Canoe

At the height of these conflicts, the Hawai'i Department of Agriculture was called on to convene stakeholders and develop a research program addressing "taro security and purity" without genetic engineering [114]. The resulting Taro Security and Purity Task Force was formalized by the Hawai'i State Legislature in 2008 to address the many other issues affecting taro farming in the islands [117]. The task force was unique in that, by statute, it was required to consist of no less than 50 percent taro farmers along with representatives from 'Onipa'a Na Hui Kalo, a respected statewide taro farmers' ¯ organization, three state agencies, and the University of Hawai'i.

The task force spent a year researching and meeting with farmers on each island and developed 87 recommendations which were submitted in a report to the 2010 legislature.. The web-accessible Taro Security and Purity Task Force Report provided a template to help the University better align research initiatives with community-identified needs for kalo [61]. Notably, the development of disease-resistant taro cultivars is absent from the recommendations. Instead, the Task Force asked all stakeholders to consider that "the development of new hybrid taros does not resolve the underlying responsibilities we have to take care of the soil," and, it "encourages a focus on improving taro yields, and pest and disease resistance and reduction through the improvement of soil and water conditions and the study of the preferred conditions of traditional Hawaiian kalo cultivars ... in the search for the most robust matches between taro varieties, farm practices and locations" (p58) [61]. A major recommendation was to "establish policy to guide and encourage taro research that supports taro farmer needs and concerns." While the report represents taro farmer expertise and experiences and is often used by growers to remind agencies of priority issues and established recommendations, informal exchanges suggest most university researchers are unfamiliar with, or even unaware of, these recommendations.

#### *Ku'i Ka Pohaku, 'Anapa Ke Ahi o Ka Lewa: ¯* From the Right to Make Traditional Foods, a Flame

In 2011, the grassroots Legalize Pa'i 'ai Movement fought for and re-established the legal right to pound kalo into pa'i 'ai (the almost waterless stage before poi) and poi using a traditional board and stone and to sell the product directly to consumers (HRS 321-4.7, [118]). This fed an increased demand for Hawaiian kalo varieties in local exchanges, markets and at taro events and raised the revenues to taro growers 200 percent. It also gained the attention of several of Hawaii's rising chefs [119–121], an important factor in expanding consumer demand and improving farmer incomes for lesser known indigenous crops [122,123]. To meet family demands, board and stone workshops and ku'i clubs (poi-making clubs) have proliferated in the islands. Young commercial growers are now planting a more diverse set of Hawaiian taro varieties for these specialty markets rather than monocropping for larger poi mills (Levin, field obs). At least one ku'i club is growing their own kalo supply in the taro patch with established farmers, potentially creating new farmers in the process. As a reminder of the agency and authority of Haloa, over the last 10 years, an annual poi pounding event at the state capitol ¯ (Ku'i at the Capitol) has drawn thousands of taro farmers, cultural practitioners, and students from across the islands in the simple, yet political, act of making food, in recent years preparing 1,000 pound of poi in a single day.

The strength and breadth of the community-based network that enabled the Pa'i 'ai Movement, cultivar protection, the contesting of water allocation decisions that affected taro farmers, and many other efforts can be traced in part to 'Onipa'a Na Hui Kalo (and its precursors, the Mauka Lo'i ¯ and Kalopa'a O Waiahole), an organization and an idea that providing hands-on experiences in ¯ reclaiming and restoring ancient kalo-growing sites and communing around food together also taught the collective power of community. [124,125] Named in honor of Queen Lili'uokalani whose message to Hawaiians during the era of the Overthrow was to be steadfast ('onipa'a), ONHK became a support network for isolated taro farmers; an information exchange ahupua'a to ahupua'a on planting practices, pest and disease management, markets, water and land rights challenges, food security and family wellbeing. Members and participants record that it "awakened laulima" (cooperation) for thousands of youth and community members. [126] Huli (planting material) exchanges, 'ai pono movements (health centered around traditional Hawaiian foods), education from in the lo'i (wetland taro patches) to school gardens and curriculum in schools, and a significant rise in volunteerism on small-scale taro farms (a modern version of collective agriculture labor traditions) are offshoots of this movement. Today, reflecting on the resilience and abundance that the network embodies, the traditions of Haloa ¯ are alive, and are, as Osorio (2016) writes, increasingly "meaningful and instructive" the more that people are involved in the restorative work of 'aina (land) and growing kalo [ ¯ 127].

#### 3.1.4. *Ola Ka Inoa*: The Importance of Identity and the Power of Restoring Names

Early kalo survey work [30,31,39] suggests Hawaiian agriculturalists developed both highly site-specific varieties and more broadly adapted cultivars. The longest-standing and most recent work in Hawaiian kalo biodiversity has documented almost 2000 kalo names from Hawaiian and English language source materials [29]. Even with Whitney, Bowers and Takahashi's (1939) conservative rule of 50 percent duplication in naming, this may more than double Handy's estimates in kalo cultivar diversity (roughly 300–400) to 800 or more unique varieties; a spectacular example of natural cultivar mutation nurtured by human selection and invention. Kalo names reflect keen observational skills, farmer connections to place, often a delicious sense of humor and affirm the poetic beauty of Hawaiian

language and the world of the kalo farmer. Kalo names based on the color and patterns of fish were frequent, such as the Mana 'opelu kalo with its dark flecking and pinkish cast that mimics the i'a ¯ 'opelu (mackerel scad; ¯ *Decapterus pinnulatus*; Figure 2).

**Figure 2.** Kalo Mana 'opelu and i'a ' ¯ opelu ( ¯ *Decapterus pinnulatus*). P. Levin 2014 (taro) and J. Konanui 2014 (fish).

Accurately identifying Hawaiian kalo cultivars (approx. 60 remain) relies on recognizing morphological characteristics, still the most practical method for varietal recognition. Thirteen Hawaii-based botanical gardens, university research stations and individuals now maintain kalo assemblages in the islands. Over the last two decades, regular collaboration between taro experts and plant managers has improved identification and shifted some collections from solely conservation to interactive education, active propagation and distribution. With that, a larger public is being reintroduced to the cultivars and their names.

Identification guides have been essential to improving botanical collections. They have also been unexpected catalysts in community-based biocultural restoration efforts. The 1939 publication of *Bulletin 84: Taro Varieties in Hawaii* by the Hawai'i Agricultural Experiment Station [62] is an example of how such information can ignite a tenacious pursuit of rediscovery, even for backyard growers. This humble book has remained a beacon for novices of Hawaiian crop cultivar diversity for almost 80 years and has stood as a silent challenge to learn more and do better. Building on the original work of *Bulletin 84*, cultural practitioner and kalo and 'awa expert Jerry Konanui and others worked tirelessly over the last 40 years to expand, refine, and reverify cultivar descriptions. A lack of original names and descriptions for Pacific island varieties introduced to Hawai'i, as well as parentage and descriptions for hybrid cultivars persists.

Kalo and 'awa varieties' identification work has gone hand in hand in Hawai'i under the guidance of Konanui. The frequency of site visits to collections and workshops increased exponentially as a response to the challenges to kalo that arose within and outside the University. Between 2005 and 2015, Konanui shared his knowledge with enthusiasm and passion in more than 100 kalo varieties workshops; average attendance rose from 15 to over 100 people. Demand for kalo varieties and *Bulletin 84* has grown in the process. Farmers and poi-making practitioners, with a focus on local markets, are adding value to their product by sharing what they learn with consumers. Growers are also beginning to experiment and make discerning choices about cultivars for planting based on what the names tell them and where they farm. Thus, the power of kupuna crop names is in the libraries of knowledge they carry. Relearning which cultivars belong where in the landscape expands our food security capacity.

#### 3.1.5. Envisioning: Appropriate Research Directions and Applications of Technology

Refocusing our attention on molecular technologies, we note that phylogenetic and population genetic studies of Hawaiian kalo varieties have lagged behind research on taro in Asia and the Pacific, and current tools are unable to clearly distinguish between individual Hawaiian cultivars within 'ohana groupings or beyond regional relationships in some cases [40,128,129]. Analysis based on ISSR-PCR methods suggest strong connections within the Mana and Manini kalo 'ohana of Hawai'i to those elsewhere in the Pacific [129]. The group names appear in the Tahitian, Samoan, and Hawaiian languages and they bear common characteristics, strengthening the argument. Another recent study appears to identify the Hawaiian cultivars as a unique set of plant material relative to the rest of the Asia and the Pacific [130]. It is critical to note, however, that the validity of all such studies requires that source material is properly identified at the start of research and living material is maintained for reverification; this involves the expertise of indigenous crop cultivar specialists and the careful maintenance of cultivars and points to some of the limitations of genomic technologies without such protocols and relationships in place.

An effective and high-demand application of proven technologies is the tissue culture work being done by the Hawai'i Rare Plant Micropropagation Lab at UH Harold L. Lyon Arboretum (HRPM Lab). The Lab has collaborated for many years with local kalo experts to provide carefully curated, long-term germplasm storage and backup for living collections of Hawaiian kalo cultivars [40]. Helping to safeguard the future of kupuna crops through tissue culture is an example of culturally acceptable technological applications, especially as this contributes to development and maintenance of disease-free material. Accompanied by good land-management practices, it provides tools for strengthening kalo disease resistance from the ground up without necessitating loss of cultivar integrity.

The current network of collaboration between the HRPM Lab, kalo experts, key botanical gardens, agricultural stations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and taro growers demonstrates how listening to farmer needs and kupuna crop voices, along with education, has maintained bridges and made invitations possible from the community that are restoring Hawaiian kalo diversity, improving kalo vigor and farmer economics from multiple directions. Shared among them is a respect for kalo origins, a sense of 'ohana, and clear track records of thoughtful engagement in questions of indigenous crops restoration, local food security and kuleana.

Better understanding of the strengths and limitations of various technologies in the rapidly changing field of molecular biology, appropriate application to study questions, and ethical implications will improve research rigor and outcomes. Research attentive to questions of interest to farmers and indigenous communities may improve engagement and acceptance further. Which taro varieties came first to Hawai'i and how they are related to each other and to the rest of the Pacific remains a tantalizing question linked to the oceanic migrations of Hawai'i's past. Such inquiry might also be part of a journey towards reconciliation, improved credibility and research vigor for the University provided the canoe is properly prepared for, built, provisioned and manned.

As kin (elder brother) and akua (god) in the Hawaiian cosmology, kalo is as powerfully symbolic and present today for some as it was a millennium ago. As we plant more kalo and align agriculture research with kuleana, so, too, will greater attention to indigenous science and thought, and relationship with Haloa grow. ¯

#### *3.2. 'Uala—Reclaiming History to Restore Diversity*

#### 3.2.1. Celestial and Oceanic Connections

While Haloa (kalo) plays a central role in Hawaiian cosmology and present-day understanding ¯ of food systems and family system [131], 'uala (sweet potato) plays a central role in traditional food systems for Maori in Aotearoa for whom its celestial whakapapa (genealogy) is common ¯ knowledge [132,133]. Although 'uala holds a less revered position in Hawaiian origin stories, the stories of 'uala that emerge provide us a view into connections of Hawai'i and the rest of Oceania. Through the names of deities and ancestors emerge common associations of 'uala with Hina and 'Aikanaka, ancestor of Kaha'i, a famous navigator. In Hana, Maui, hualani (a reference to an 'uala) is ¯ associated with Hinahanaiakamalama (also known as Hinaaimalama or Lonomuku), whose foot is cut off by her husband 'Aikanaka as she leaps toward the moon [1,134]. Veiled references to 'uala are found in the *Kumulipo* as the seeds of Makali'i, Hina, and Lonomuku, and the food of Hinahanaiakamalama (wa 14) [ ¯ 3,25], and later, Hinaaiakamalama is associated with 'Aikanaka, Hema, Kaha'i, and Wahieloa (wa 16) [ ¯ 3,25], navigators referenced in other traditions across Oceania [1,48,135]. These names allude to 'uala's association with celestial bodies, lunar cycles, seasonal planting, and navigation. In yet another epic, following a destructive tsunami of Kahina'aimalama and Kahinali'i, the priest Kanalu opens his malo and finds kalo, 'uala, ko, mai'a and 'uhi which he plants and prays to grow, spread, ¯ and repopulate the land [136].

The presence of sweet potato across Oceania has fueled academic discussion among anthropologists for decades (see [137,138]). Archaeologists now contend sweet potato arrived in Hawai'i with a second wave of Polynesian arrivals following the plant's introduction to central Polynesia from the South American continent [29,137,139]. R.C. Green suggests the timing of this as 1000–1100 CE [29], and at present, the earliest 'uala radiocarbon date in Hawai'i is 1290-1430 CE for a charcoal fragment from the leeward Kohala field system [140]. Regardless of the exact timing of arrival, what is known is that 'uala enabled expansion of cultivation and populations into areas generally too dry for kalo cultivation [140,141].

Cultivation in these drier regions was dependent on the skill of farmers and the will of the gods. Documented prayers associated with 'uala and dryland farming appeal to natural forms associated with the deities of Ku, Lono, and K ¯ ane, imploring clouds to shade and bring rain and calling K ¯ anepua'a ¯ to root in the fields (for some examples, see [142]). Thus, the cosmological connections of 'uala with atmospheric phenomena and celestial bodies (as calendars) reflect not only its dispersal but also serve a practical purpose in seasonally dry environments where it was a major staple. 'Uala planting here was determined by the onset of rains and planters were acutely attentive to the skies. "*Ha'ule ka ua i ¯ Kahoaea/ Papakolea, i hea 'oe? ¯* " (When it rained at Kahoaea or Papakolea, both 'uala growing areas, where ¯ were you? [143,144]). Across Hawai'i, 'uala was planted primarily with vegetative slips, and planters would have needed access to living material to establish new fields during windows of opportunity. At the same time, 'uala yields tubers as early as three months, making it the fastest-maturing of the Hawaiian planter's staple crops. "*He 'uala ka 'ai ho'ola koke i ka w ¯ ¯ı*," sweet potato is the food that quickly ends the famine [143].

### 3.2.2. Naming and Reclaiming: Ongoing Efforts to Deepen and Expand Our Understanding of 'Uala Diversity

Approximately 300 names have been documented for various 'uala in the Hawaiian Islands [33,36]. These include an unknown number of synonyms and Hawaiian cultivars that may be extinct or known today only as accession numbers within botanical collections [36]. The most comprehensive published descriptions of identifying traits (English language) are found in The Hawaiian Planter [33], informed by E.S. Craighill Handy's visits by to several communities across the Hawaiian archipelago in the 1930s. Although the 300 names and Handy's survey include a handful of introduced varieties (e.g., 'Okinawa,' 'Pukiki'), the large number suggests high cultivar diversity and local specificity (Figure 3). Regardless,

the disconnect between documented names from Hawaiian language records, varieties grown by Handy's informants (some preserved as pressed specimens in the Bishop Museum Herbarium), and current day living collections presents significant challenges. Handy's herbarium specimens did not retain colors and do not include tuber descriptions important for identification.

**Figure 3.** Four of an unknown number of extant Hawaiian 'uala cultivars (leaves and tubers): top row (L-R) 'Pala'ai,' "Ele'ele,' and bottom row (L-R) 'Kalia,' 'Piko.' Photos by A. Kagawa-Viviani

Another daunting challenge is understanding the nature of the cultivars that persist today in collections and gardens. Cultivars of living sweet potato collections are easily mixed during bed rotations, requiring collection managers to be particularly attentive to distinguishing traits and labeling. Yet another challenge is understanding how much kahuli (mutation, sporting) has shaped the plants we know today; sports are a natural phenomenon and are well-known and described for both Maori ¯ kumara [145] and to a lesser extent for Hawaiian 'uala [33]. In conservation-oriented botanical settings where active farmer-informed selection is not occurring, mutants might be perpetuated over multiple planting cycles, leading to altered traits in key identifiers such as leaf shapes and pigments as well as differences in tuber pigments. On the flip side, breeding efforts through the 1900s [146–149] not only produced numerous hybrids, but may have also contributed to disproportionate preservation of flowering cultivars over non-flowering lineages. The extent and nature of hybrids—both natural (open-pollinated) and intentional (hand-pollinated)—in current 'uala collections remains poorly understood. Finally, the natural plasticity of 'uala traits (variation under different environmental conditions) also presents challenges in comparing 'uala observations made at different locations and times. All of the above- mix-ups, sporting, hybrids, trait plasticity, contribute to the challenge of matching today's living cultivars with older written descriptions, names, and stories.

Molecular tools, utilized for some decades to understand the movements and connectivity of sweet potato across the Pacific [150,151], may aid in the effort to reconnect living plants to herbarium collections, and older documented names and cultural knowledge. Current research efforts focus on the genetic relatedness of preserved 'uala specimens in herbaria and Hawaiian varieties maintained in botanical collections [152]. Similar research in Aotearoa has found that Maori kumara have genetics ¯ reflecting hybridization with introduced varieties [133]. Despite this, these kumara are still considered a native food. It remains to be seen whether "traditional" Hawaiian varieties that persist today have distinct genetics or reflect hybridization with introduced varieties, and to what extent this may influence cultural valuation of these crops as spiritual and physical sustenance.

#### 3.2.3. Returning 'Uala Diversity to Diets and Landscapes

Understanding how we moved from high crop diversity to the current situation of only a handful of commercial sweet potato varieties is a complicated tale involving pests, climatic variability, population collapse and migration, and changing land tenure, demographics, dietary preference, and market forces [43]. A quick dive into records from Hawai'i's Kingdom and Territorial periods implicates a shift toward commercial production favoring the cultivation of introduced varieties. The 1850 formation of the Royal Hawaiian Agricultural Society was catalyzed by the prospect of exporting produce to the recently acquired American coast of California [153]. In 1857, Kalaupapa was exporting 'uala 'likolehua,' 'apo,' and 'halonaipu' along with introduced varieties 'Iapana' and 'Kaleponi' [154]. By 1916, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station system was promoting the distribution of "improved" sweet potato varieties such as 'New Era', 'Kauai/Madera', 'Merced/Jersey Sweet' [155,156]. On Kaua'i, G.W. Sahr advertised, "*Uniform products demand the highest prices. The county agent can help you market a product that can be depended upon. One of the greatest obstacles in marketing sweet potatoes is the existence of so many different varieties, many of which are of inferior quality. The pink Kauai Madera sweet potato is one of the best varieties to plant. Let the county agent aid you in getting cuttings.*" [157] During this Territorial period, USDA agricultural stations actively hosted the import of and breeding of new varieties including crosses with native varieties which continued at the University of Hawai'i [146,147], although activities beyond these thesis projects are not well documented. Although introduced sweet potato varieties were already in cultivation at the turn of the 19th century, distribution of new varieties and hybrids oriented toward commercial production and increasing reliance on markets over home gardens may have accelerated the move away from locally-adapted native cultivars.

Changing the trajectory of over 100 years of history is no small task. Yet distributed efforts are underway to reclaim 'uala as a Hawaiian crop. Restoration efforts in dryland field systems (see Lincoln et al., this issue) have stimulated interest in rain-fed cultivation techniques and crop varieties with varied tolerances to drought and introduced pests (see also [158,159]). Efforts are also underway to increase capacity for citizen and student observers to document their cultivars including those persisting in home gardens that may not be included in botanical collections. Ethnobotanical collections across the Hawaiian Islands have safeguarded several dozen 'uala varieties for decades. Field trials of documented 'uala are being conducted now at University research stations to better characterize them and encourage farmers to plant heirloom varieties with uniquely Hawaiian histories. Many in Hawai'i are still only familiar with the purple-fleshed, white-skinned 'Okinawan' varieties or imported moist orange-fleshed 'yams.' It will take effort and education to restore appreciation for the older varieties and their place on dinner tables across Hawai'i.

As interest in Hawaiian 'uala grows, it is natural that research interests may focus on creating "better" hybrids to feed the masses. Yet the history of 'uala highlights its value in connecting people and providing medicine [160] and sustenance over long voyages, dry regions, and in the most difficult times. Recognizing this context, we are now challenged to move beyond existing paradigms of crop improvement to consider research agendas centered on 'uala's broad accessibility and local specificity, that foster 'uala as a catalyst for restoring indigenous foods to families across Hawai'i. *He 'uala ka 'ai ho'ola koke i ka w ¯ ¯ı*.

#### *3.3. Ko—A Knowledge Revival and Changes in Crop Use over Time ¯*

#### 3.3.1. Ko in Ancient Hawai'i ¯

Prior to European arrival, ko played a significant role in Hawaiian agricultural traditions. K ¯ o¯ is associated with the god Kane, the first of four primary dieties to come to Hawai'i; a variety of k ¯ o, ¯ "Ele', appears second to the kalo 'Manauea' in the *Kumulipo* creation chant [3,25], and plays a central role in the *Kumuhonua* genealogy that provides the lineage of traditional medical experts [161,162]. This importance of ko in these essential religious sagas is manifested in its extensive use in ceremonial ¯

offerings and medicinal practices. Indigenous horticulturalists distinguished upwards of 50 sugarcane cultivars that differed in their appearance, usage, and environmental tolerance (Figure 4) [163]. Agriculturally, ko could be found growing in most arable habitats: along the banks of lo'i (flooded ¯ terraces) with mai'a and other moisture-loving crops, stabilizing the banks and shading the water; in backyard gardens where the canes were meticulously manicured; in extensive rainfed systems forming thick hedges that extended for miles, acting as windbreaks; in young lava flows growing in excavated pits, heavily mulched; in boggy lowlands persisting even on brackish waters; and in other conditions. The cultivation of ko, in many cases, appears to have played a critical role in the cropping system, and ¯ the almost excessive cultivation of ko may have been to manage landscape level patterns of moisture ¯ and nutrients to better cultivate staple crops such as kalo and 'uala [33,39,164,165].

### 3.3.2. Remembering: Plantations and Germplasms

The earliest development of the sugarcane industry in Hawai'i beginning in 1836 utilized native ko¯ cultivars. Although the Hawaiian cultivars were developed and selected for use in diversified cropping systems, many still exhibited superior production in monoculture cultivation and were exported to plantations around the world. Starting in 1854 with a Tahitian cultivar, an influx of introduced varieties replaced Hawaiian ko in cultivation and, ultimately, even in backyard and other small-scale plantings. ¯ Well-known varieties were given Hawaiian names and adopted into cultural norms.

In the early 1900s, a world-renowned breeding program at the Hawaii Sugar Planters' Association (HSPA) began which produced tens of thousands of new hybrid varieties that displaced both Hawaiian and imported sugarcanes. In the late 1800s, as part of the establishment of its breeding program, HSPA conducted statewide reconnaissance of ko, collecting several hundred accessions along with minimal ¯ local ethnographic information (typically only a name). From this effort, about 65 unique cultivars were identified, including both Hawaiian and introduced heirloom varieties. In 1932, a bulletin publication, *The Native Hawaiian Canes*, was released describing, with very little detail, the Hawaiian cultivars [166]. Although HSPA has maintained the collection, it has been neglected, resulting in mislabeling and losses of cultivars. Starting in the 1970s and into the 1990s, multiple ethnobotanical gardens took interest in indigenous Hawaiian crops, leading to the dissemination of the HSPA collection. The gardens each added new canes, often presumed to be Hawaiian varieties, from various private sources.

#### 3.3.3. Revitalizing Knowledge of Ko¯

In the early 2000s, a volunteer effort began to restore the knowledge systems of Hawaiian ko. With a certain irony, the sugarcane industry simultaneously preserved the physical germplasm ¯ while eroding the cultural knowledge regarding it. After initial efforts, it was quickly realized that multiple shortcomings in the germplasms existed: the names attached to the modern collection were often incorrect, there was poor documentation or differentiation between native Hawaiian, introduced heirloom, and early hybrid varieties, and there was no identification process for verifying or identifying a cultivar.

*Mahi'ai* (native farmers) and *kupuna ¯* (elders) confirmed that contemporary knowledge of ko was ¯ almost non-existent; when talking about native varieties, most described only a "red" and "white" type, with no names or more detailed descriptions. A handful of practitioners with more substantial knowledge were identified, but it became clear that the ethnobotanical gardens were considered the primary source of knowledge. Unfortunately, that knowledge was primarily handed down from HSPA, which was minimal to begin with and severely affected by errors and a lack of concern for the accuracy of the ethnographic information.

The effort to rebuild knowledge of ko over the past 15 years has been an ongoing series of ¯ partnerships between research and practice. The first major effort involved detailed morphological documentation. After all, if a cane is not identifiable, it cannot be accurately reconnected to its history. Over a ten-year period, this work served to spark increased interest in the specific sugarcane varieties through discussions with germplasm managers and farmers. The efforts resulted in a botanical key

that is now freely available online along with the cultivar descriptions and pictures [167]. Importantly, this work provides clarity for germplasm management by distinguishing Hawaiian ko from other ¯ heirloom varieties and providing a clear identification guide to varieties. Efforts are now underway to verify these findings through genetic assessment of the Hawaiian sugarcane germplasms.

Concurrent efforts to rebuild cultural knowledge of ko included interviews and discussions with ¯ practitioners that had knowledge of names, uses, and descriptions, tracing germplasms accession back to their roots, examining herbarium specimens and collection notes, and translating primary sources such as past writings by Hawaiian scholars, recordings of ethnographic interviews conducted in the early 1900s, and the Hawaiian newspapers that published over 58,000 pages of articles between 1834 and 1948. From these sources, thorough historical descriptions of the cane varieties, new names and descriptions of lost varieties, unique uses, growing conditions, and agricultural practices were identified.

Simultaneously, efforts were made to share cultivars to have more material available for propagation, education and use, and to connect growers interested in ko to facilitate knowledge ¯ exchange. The entire collection was provided to over 20 private growers, with hundreds of growers receiving multiple or individual cultivars. The ethnographic and botanical research provided a stronger sense of the cultivars, and their usage and significance, which enabled outreach and education, still ongoing. Since 2010, 23 workshops on growing, identifying, and cultural uses of ko have been ¯ conducted that have reached some 600 famers and practitioners.

**Figure 4.** A subset of ko varieties illustrating some of the diversity showing, from left to right, 'N ¯ anahu,' ¯ 'Moano,' "Ula,' 'Laukona,' 'Hinahina,' 'Hal¯ ali'i,' 'Pua'ole,' and 'Wai' ¯ ohi'a.' Photo by N. Lincoln. ¯
