Newsletter June 01
These newsletters are distributed at irregular intervals by Dag Lindgren.
Email me if you want to be added or removed from the list or your email-address
changed. I regret that insufficiencies in the interfacing between me and my
computer sometimes causes problems in this (and other) processes, do not
hesitate to focus my attention on that. An URL address to this Newsletter is at
http://www-genfys.slu.se/staff/dagl\Papers\Newsletters\Newsletter00to01\Newsletter_June01.htm
it may appear nicer formatted there.
NOVA 02
The
28:th Nordic PhD course in Plant Breeding has the theme
QUANTITATIVE
GENETICS AND EFFICIENT BREEDING
and
takes place January 21-27, 2002 at Barnens
Ö, Väddö, Stockholm, Sweden
The
course website is
http://daglindgren.upsc.se/nova02/
I am arranging it,
and will focus attention on some areas of relevance for forest tree improvement.
Tim Mullin will be guest teacher. I think it is an extremely
relevant activity for active forest geneticists with an interest for
tree improvement as well as for active forest tree breeders. I strongly encourage those who subscribe to this
email to participate (as “passive” if not “active”). I also ask you to
encourage participation by others, who you believe will benefit from a better
basis for understanding plant breeding activities. It is possible there is room
in the schedule for letting “passive” play a more important role than in
previous courses, if interested you can contact me. I have always seen these
courses as an important part in as well the basic training as the maintenance
of skill and contact net in the area. I participated in the first course as an
active student and am now “crowning” my carrier by arranging the 28:th.
SLU’s
field trials
There is a list of
the field trials of the department of forest genetics and plant physiology at
http://www-genfys.slu.se/Project/field/field.htm
According to the
departmental register our department has 107 “active” long time field trials.
All are conifers. 79 were established before 1990, 28 1990-1995 and no after
1996.
There exists a
Nordic register over long-term field trials, “noltfox”, to which SLU has reported centrally (based
on departments reports and classifications). Under the subject field “Genetic
diversity and breeding”, there are 300 trials at SLU, of which 40 were
established 1990-1995 and 2 after 1995.
The distribution on
current departments within SLU (on “active” field trials established later than
1989 with subject “genetic diversity and breeding”)
Forest Genetics and
Plant Physiology: 23 trials; latest
1993
Forest Management: 4 trials; latest 1990
Silviculture: 15 trials; latest 1997
Forest Genetics: 0 trials; latest 1989
It may be noted
that this trend does mainly reflect differences among departments, but seem to
reflect an SLU trend. Forest genetics at SLU can certainly live some time without
establishing field trials. There exist many trials in the field. And it may
even be a reasonable “sharing of tasks” that future long term field activities
are done by SkogForsk. But
SLU´s stated basic concept is :
”To develop man's understanding and
sustainable use of biological natural resources.”
In my opinion this concept is not
trustworthy if long term forest genetics field trials are left to SkogForsk. A
governmental University ought to be more concerned with long term
sustainability than the more applied industrial controlled “commercial”
SkogForsk. I believe that the trend in recent establishment reflects a
declining interest and competence to deal with old tests, which is a more
serious matter.
Retirement
My
former PhD student Eleonor White is retiring after 35
years with the Canadian Forest Service. You get a feeling of the arrow of time when your
former students start to retire….
Undergraduate Tree Breeding Course
Undergraduate Tree Breeding Course 2001 at Umeå will be taught Nov 5 -
Dec 4 2001.
Five "skogsvetare" and 8 "foreign students" has
registered.
Skogsvetare are rather few and not increasing compared with previous
years, and experience says that half of them will not appear without ever reporting
their planned absence.
Foreign students are more than 2000 (and their participation is
according to experience more reliable).
Probably the reason for the increase from 2000 is that less alternatives
in Uppsala are offered.
One may speculate around the future implications of that forest tree
breeding has a better reputation among foreign than among Swedish students.
PLANTaktuellt
Skriften PLANTaktuellt lever och utvecklas. Den vänder sig i första hand
till plantskolister och skogsvårdsansvariga, men även till forskar- och
lärarkollegor i hela Norden. Eftersom den når den mest operativa målgruppen
när det gäller t.ex. skogsgenetiska spörsmål så kan det vara lämpligt att
skogsgenetiker försöker förmedla
sina resultat genom denna. Om man har
något handfast som man själv vill skriva en artikel om är det naturligtvis
välkommet. Ännu mer välkommet är dock tips, i stor och liten skala, som
kan förmedlas i artikel eller notisform. Skriv i så fall ett mail till
mats.hannerz@skogforsk.se eller Christer Nyström i Garpenberg (cny@du.se).
Den som är intresserad kan prenumerera på PLANTaktuellt (4 nr per år, 200
kr) genom att maila till Christer, eller gå in på SkogForsks hemsida
(www.skogforsk.se, se under forskningen, frö och plantor).
Gossip...
It is said that Gunnar Jansson will be half time paid by department of Forest
Genetics and that some resource will be set aside to reconstruct the genetic
lab at Umeå (probably it will close down in Sept, when the plant physiologists
will leave the “Skogis” building in Umeå). It has been suggested that Gunnar
Jansson and Bengt Andersson will look at the SLU genetic departments.
I repeat some paragraphs from the May01
newsletter with some specifications in italics (which also is used elsewhere to
indicate late changes), as they may have been misunderstood.
Professor
Lärarförslagsnämnden
has found Bengt Andersson qualified
to professor in forest genetics, he will become adjunct professor at our
department from July 1. That means that SkogForsk and SLU agrees he
spends 20% of his time with SLU matters. It does not make that much
difference, as we cooperate earlier also. He got a share of the teaching in
forest genetics at Umeå. We interpret it as a visible sign of our good
cooperation.
Degenerated
plants?
We often talk about plants from stands as “natural” and plants from seed
orchards as “improved”. I speculate if it might not be more justified to call
plants from stands “degenerated” and plants from seed orchards as “natural”.
Human has probably had a dysgenic influence on forests. At least in the north
the forests were repeatedly creamed for the best trees. Therefore a single
cycle of plus tree selection may just compensate for historical sins, and can
be considered as a reconstruction of a more natural state. What do you think,
is this reasonable?
Another thought in the same line: Forestry wants a plant from each seed and a
valuable tree from each plant, we are soon there, and this is very different
from nature. That must also mean some negative selection. Part of the
breeding effort is just compensating for that.
Clonal propagation
The
thought struck me that clonal propagation can be done abroad. Seeds can be sent
abroad for cloning. The cloned seeds or embryos can be further transported
(returned). The transport can be done by ordinary “courier” mail without
dangerous delays, large costs, large administrative difficulty or large risk
for destruction because of unsuitable environments. Thus we are not dependent
on being able to do somatic embryogenesis or artificial seeds in Sweden, but
the “factory” can be somewhere else. Or there may be stronger reasons to – at some time
in the future - consider developing and building a “seed cloning factory” in
Sweden, as the potential market is much wider than Sweden.
I
am much against the concept of patenting “genes”. I think it retards
development (by complications and monopolitic tendencies), strengthens popular
antipathy against forest tree breeding and repels capital from forest tree
breeding (because of the long time involved and because there are not easy to
market “commercial” profits in forest genetics). Patents connected to forest
tree genes are among other things doubtful because 1) each clone constitutes a
very small market, 2) very many clones must be dealt with both in forestry and
in breeding, 3) we do not want to viewed at as the creators of
“Frankenforests”; and much of these feelings have with focusing on large
commercial companies focusing on controlling markets to do as much as with
manipulating life, 4) a deep understanding of the conditions the different
regional actors work under and their interactions is needed to develop a plant
material (thus e.g. professional regional breeders, this means many and
different people).
But
now I try to argue that I see patents and large international companies as less
doubtful in propagation than breeding, and I have fewer difficulties in seeing
possible advantages (although I still think over emphasis on patenting and
creating of monopoly can be is a doubtful thing). “Multiplication” of clones
seldom functions without frictions. It is often small and inefficient systems
supported by limited competence and which seldom are in the main focus of the
operation, and not subject to real commercial pressure to do a good job. A “scientifically”
based cooperation often focuses too much on the science and too little on
professional service. The existence of a commercial service is likely to widen
clonal propagation nearer to its optimal use, by making it more available for
smaller and less dedicated operations.
For
systems where a large international company, which does not claim any ownership
of the genotypes or scientific partnership, makes just the clonal propagation,
I see considerable advantages:
It
can be used for mass-multiplication of good clones.
It
can be used to get uniform material for clonal testing without own facilities
or competence on a professional basis.
Note
that clonal testing of the breeding material is often the most efficient way
for long-term breeding or selection of seed orchard clones even if clonal
forestry is not intended.
Clonal
experiments have also a potential in science, which seldom was fully explored
for the difficulty of getting uniform clonal material locally
Clones
can be cryostored without own facilities or competence and thus preserved
stable for later use
The
system has the potential to be developed to a facility for assisting in the
production of GMO material for testing
There
seems to be possibilities for competition, reasonable time span between
investment (contracts) and return of the investment. Thus there are
possibilities for “the market” to force development. Patents in these areas are
less likely to block development and more similar to “ordinary” patents. They
are also (from the investors point of view) easier to defend. Still this is much dependent on that the
multiplication technique used in the local nurseries after the return of the
cloned material can be simple, reliable, similar to current practices and
inexpensive (thus that the cloned material is raised similar to seedlings).
At a recent visit Yousry
El-Kassaby described such a system to me and us in Umeå, which I think sounded
interesting...(I especially focused the attention on the system to Urban
Eriksson and Jan Twetman), for further information, contact yelkassaby@cellfor.com
Why
so few conifer GMO in field tests?
Conifers are
important for commercial plantation forestry, e.g. in Sweden 99 per cent of all
forest tree seedlings raised are conifers. GMO (Genetic Modified Organisms, GE)
trees have become an important research target with the justification that this
would create better trees, either directly through GMO-forestry or indirectly
through a better basic understanding or supporting techniques (like flowering
induction). Why does not research put more attention on conifers (even if that
is more difficult), if the aim is applied rather than basic?
There is a recent
article about transgenic trees tested in North America (Silvae Genetica
49:233-239). “Today only two field trials of transgenic trees have been planted
in Canada” (two poplar trials). In Table 1 (confined trials in US) there are 3
conifers and 83 other tree species. I looked at
http://www.isb.vt.edu/cfdocs/fieldtests1.cfm
(which probably reflects the current situation) and found 15 pine and 1 spruce
trial. (So the conifers may be on way up, but the 15 pine trials seem all to be
the same species, institution and localisation.)
There is
information about GMO “field trials” (environmental releases) in the European
Union (EU) at
http://food.jrc.it/gmo/
This seems to include experiments with Scots pine and Norway spruce, but these
experiments are not field trials, just outdoor pollinations with transgenic
pollen. Thus where does not exist a single conifer field trial in the whole EU
(among 1649 GMO trials of which 17 were with trees).
Why has the
reluctance been so strong against establishing GMO trials with the most
important and relevant conifer species?
I submitted the question
above to FORESTGEN 010607. This initiated a row of contributions to the debate,
which probably is the longest in the history of FORESTGEN (which, however, does
not say much as forest geneticists are not much for this form of debate) and an
additional discussion developed into comments to me, which was not visible on
FORESTGEN. However, most replies were concerned with issues only slightly
related to my question (why are there so few of the field trials with conifers?).
I made a general end-comment as follows to FORESTGEN
My
reaction
I
submitted the question “Why so few conifer GMO in field tests?” to FORESTGEN
June 6. Now I comment on the matter relating to the discussion that arouse and
in general.
GMO
is now successfully and without evident negative effects on environment or
human health used on more than 40 million hectare agricultural land (mainly US,
Canada and Argentine). This is after only two decades of development, which is
an extremely rapid implementation. Genetic engineering has a huge potential,
and where goes very large research investments into GMO related matters. The
technique must sooner or later spread to more countries, characters and crops.
Long
rotation conifers seem to be among the last potential targets for GMO, the need
of field evaluation is an important reason for that. The long rotation time can be seen as a good reason not to invest
in GMO for conifers (Friedman pointed out that longer rotation give less
incitements for investment in intensive forestry). But science should still
explore a potentially powerful practical option. Neither science explores the
potential to understand how genetics actually works in the forests if no field
trials are done.
It
may be wrong that long rotation conifers will come very late (if ever). After
accumulating some experience over rotation from short rotation conifers (e.g.
radiata on NZ, c.f. reply by Walter), it may be concluded that benefits evident
in tests over only a fraction of the rotation time (better establishment) are not
likely to be counteracted by disadvantages appearing late. But even if such a
decision probably will be found justified at some point in the future for some
types of GMO, this point lies probably many decades and more long term field
trials ahead.
We working
with long term forestry should not be too worried about the time perspective,
E.g. in Sweden investments in forest tree breeding started 1938 (in the never
realised hope of commercialising triploids). After more than six decades this
has lead to that more than half of the Swedish regeneration material originates
from first generation seed orchards. So the long rotation time should not
discourage scientists from getting started. But it seems to be in the World’s
interest to encourage and follow efforts on places, where the conifer rotation
time is shorter; and where conifer experiments are being established anyway
(see reply by Walter and http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/search/srch_reg.htm).
Both
public and private funds have enthusiastically supported research, which seemed
to bring GMO forests closer. This in combination with GMOs attractive features
for commercialisation (patents, “biotech”); the success in agriculture; and
brave visions by some scientists, may have created an over trust in a fast and
massive expansion of GMO into plantation forestry. But, at the same time,
plantation trials were rather rare and mainly comprised model systems. This
over trust in combination with strong emphases of characters in commercial
agriculture, which “people” often perceive as ecologically doubtful (herbicide
resistance and “home manufactured” pesticides), and its association to
commercial interests and mechanisms which are not familiar to the forestry sector,
have probably contributed to strong and premature demands from institutions
like “green certification” (cf. reply by Burley); WWF (cf. reply by Bisoffi);
and “Eco-terrorists” (cf. reply by Apedaile). Such “protests” also contribute
to the high costs of establishing field trials (cf. reply by Walter). There may
be reasons for a more relaxed attitude (cf contributions from Bisoffi, Walsh
and Frankis).
Not
tolerating GMO trees is a rather fresh decision in green certification, and I
do not think it is trustworthy that recent standards and principles should
exist there forever. There is much and frequent turbulence. A policy of never
tolerating a single GMO tree, while tolerating 50 million hectares of
agricultural equivalents, seems neither sustainable nor trustworthy (even if
different standards for forestry and agriculture is common on other issues,
think about fertilization, monoculture and herbicides etc.), especially when
GMO in a future will spread more to crops more similar to forest trees. Field
tests brings the GMO forest options closer in time, by making us more able to
evaluate advantages and risks. Perhaps it will also contribute to a more
relaxed attitude, if there exist a number of real GMO trees, which looks like
real trees. It seems in line with WWF demands (cf. reply by Bisoffi) to
establish field trials, as they are needed for risk-evaluation. Without field
tests, the true potential can never be evaluated.
Scientists
with GMO trials are justifiable worried for sabotage. Many GMO trials are not
replicated. Conventional forest field trials are almost always replicated, and
for Sweden I guess that the risk of “loosing” a site is something like 1/3. Why
not use replications more often for GMO trials? (That is not only because of the risk of sabotage.)
It
is technical difficult to make a conifer plant from a cell and GMO requires
changes in propagation technique which are difficult to master (cf. response by
Friedman). Conifer GMO trials seems actually to become more common (cf.
response by Mullin & Walter), perhaps reflecting improvements in
propagation techniques. That
“popular resistance” or high costs to an increasing degree prevent GMO field
trials does not seem reflected in the statistics. These factors are not likely
to hit harder against conifers than other tree species.
The
lack of GMO conifer field trials may reflect a trend that Forest Science
(Universities) does not trust in “genetic” field trials as a method to gain
knowledge nowadays. For our department (I am a University Professor) we have
responsibility for 107 active trials. All are with conifers. 79 were
established before 1990; 28 1990-1995; and no after 1996. For our department
the interest has certainly swung drastically towards “trial free non-conifer
GMOs”. The trend seems similar at University level (Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences).
I was adviced an article in a past issue of
"Grain" (which is the
"Quarterly Newsletter of the Genetic Resources
Action International") titled "Can't See the Trees for the
Wood".
http://www.grain.org/publications/set001-en.cfm
Among different
official national GMO sites I found the NZ particular informative (they keep
much documentation available)
http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/search/srch_reg.htm
One article among
many:
The advantages and disadvantages of the application of genetic
engineering to forest trees: a discussion
J.H. Mathews, and M.M. Campbell.
pp. 371-380.
http://www3.oup.co.uk/foresj/hdb/Volume_73/Issue_04/