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 (that is the e-mail-discussion forum of the worlds forest geneticists). 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

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/