Conference 2, Forestry: Summary for June 2000

The "terminator technology", as applied to field crops, received a lot of criticism from the users' point of view, as it would prevent farmers from using farm seed for sowing. Applied to forest trees, this technology would seem to have distinct advantages, as it would prevent any dispersal of transferred genes into nature. Maybe the discussion could be expanded to consider the pros and cons of this technology, depending on the species, environments, and production systems it would be applied in. Thoughts from people interested in forest research and use ?

Sirkka Immonen, PhD
Secretariat of the Technical Advisory Committee of the CGIAR,
FAO
Rome
Italy

[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 4:44 PM
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Terminator technology and forest trees: 13

Although none of the planned genes/traits for incorporation into genetically modified (GM) trees are considered dangerous in the sense of having a significant potential to cause a large increase in invasiveness comparable to that of a noxious exotic organism, many practitioners believe that it will be prudent and more socially acceptable to use infertile or reduced fertility GM trees in plantations for some of the traits planned. Non-flowering trees would reduce the chances for herbicide tolerant trees to be more difficult to control outside of plantations. It would also reduce the magnitude of non-target effects from use of pest-resistant trees. For changes in wood quality alone, the case for control of flowering is less clear as the DEGREE (though not necessarily the precise type) of the changes expected from GM trees is likely to fall within the vast range of variation seen among species and genotypes produced via conventional silviculture and breeding.

Genes to reduce flowering would be useful to control the spread of exotic trees, whether they are GM or not. The spread of exotic species into ecosystems where they are not wanted is a much more serious threat than is the addition of one or more genes via GM.

The increase in productivity if flowering were avoided could be great in some species. It would also reduce the level of allergens greatly if no pollen was released. Pollen from planted trees is a very serious health issue in many areas.

Because GM trees will only be used in short-rotation, farm-like plantations, and often with wind-pollinated species like pines and poplars, the bidiversity effects from loss of flowers would, in most cases, be highly tolerable for the benefits it brings. For species where flowering is desirable (e.g., for honey production), types of flowering control could be pursued that retain basic flower structure (e.g., nectaries, petals) but prevent maturation/release of pollen or seeds.

Although experience with COMMERCIAL GM crops has shown that traits are usually very stably expressed, even after several years of research trials it would be advisable to monitor non-flowering trees for several more years to ensure that flowering control is stable, or that the level of gene release is at a very low level. This can be readily done in intensive plantations. A system for flowering control that uses more than one mechanism (functional redundancy) would be desirable to provide a high level of stability. This is possible using current GM technology.

Steve Strauss, Oregon State University, USA
Steve.Strauss@orst.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 10:32 AM
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Forest biotechnology guidelines: 14

[Thanks to Dr. Smith for this excellent, comprehensive and thought-provoking contribution, on draft guidelines for appropriate biotechnology and forest productivity in the developing world....Moderator]

A general recommendation for the use of forest biotechnology in the developing world is difficult, since each situation is unique. Furthermore, the high-technology components of biotechnology cannot be considered in isolation from the economic/technological/political/ethical milieu in which they will be applied. I present below some guidelines from my experience with forest biotechnology. They are organized into 4 situations, according to the type of operation.

Situation 1. Multinational company (MNC) using biotechnology with exotic species:

a. Where taxation incentives to the multinational from government disadvantage the local or national community.

b. Where the local community has to bear the costs of infrastructure such as ports and roads where the primary benefit is to the forestry operation.

c. Where technologies such as genetic engineering offend local custom (or religion) and lead to conflict with operators who insist that scientific logic will be the only basis for decision making.

d. Where the multinational uses local taxation incentives to subsidize research and development with the particular species, but in fact the work is of greater benefit to its operations in other territories.

e. Where the market for the product is in other nations which have ethical objections to the use of genetic engineering.

For situation 1, the main constraints to the use of forest biotechnology in a developing nation would be political or religious/ethical.

Situation 2. Multinational company using species indigenous to the area of operation:

In this case, the use of biotechnology should be reconsidered where:

a. The MNC claims intellectual property rights that deny local access to the (unmodified) indigenous species. An example is the US patent for Neem products.

b. The genetic modification of indigenous species poses a threat to the wider natural population of that species.

This situation could perhaps be alleviated by mandatory use of genes to make sexual reproduction impossible for the modified clone. It should be acknowledged here that there is concern in Europe and North America that even simple vegetative reproduction of indigenous species may pose a threat to natural populations by creating an imbalance in the gene flow through mass production of pollen by the (industrially) favored genotypes. Thus, there may even be constraints to the use of micropropagation, somatic embryogenesis, or other forms of vegetative propagation.

Situation 3. Local development of forestry using exotic species:

a. Is a suitable infrastructure in place ? Effective plant propagation and forest establishment practices must first be put in place. Even in developed economies it is not uncommon to see companies investing heavily in "cutting edge" biotechnology research and development while neglecting to upgrade their nursery and establishment operations.

b. Are the promised benefits of biotechnology realistic ? Without independent, rigorous scientific and economic evaluation of a project, a manager can be "seduced" into unrealistic expectations. Scientists often state that with sufficient investment in research and development, a promised technology is possible. Managers usually interpret this to mean that, given the investment, the outcome is assured.

c. Is the preferred technology cost-effective ? Investment in conventional tree breeding will probably give more reliable return in the short to medium term than investment in biotechnology research and development.

d. What are the relative net present returns from investment ? If financial resources are limiting, planting a larger area in a standard crop may give the same or better return than investing in research and development to produce a better quality crop on a smaller land area. If land is the limiting factor, investment in forest biotechnology may be an attractive option.

In addition to 3a - 3d, the points made for Situations 1 and 2 are also usually applicable. In discussions of the application of biotechnology, we should keep in mind that genetic improvement behaves like an annuity. Once the investment has been made, the genetic improvement continues to give an economic return. However this is true for a seed orchard tree or an improved clone as well as for a genetically engineered improvement.

Situation 4. Local development of forestry using indigenous species:

a. Is the indigenous species in question subject to restrictions in use because of local customary or religious practices ? This question must be considered by international funding agencies.

b. What relative weightings should be applied to local benefit versus global obligations ? For example, is it permissible or advisable to deploy locally produced genetically engineered indigenous trees when this may attract condemnation from conservative elements in developed nations ? For instance, genetically engineered pines may be a source of pollen that could compromise the market value of "organic" food grown nearby.

c. Given finite financial resources, how should local authorities be encouraged to allocate these resources amongst the competing demands for indigenous species biotechnology research and development ? For instance, which takes priority: gene conservation, gene discovery and mapping, or genetic improvement of the indigenous species ?

Dr. Dale Smith, MetaGenetics New Zealand.
dalesmith@xtra.co.nz

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 11:15 AM
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Terminator technology and forest trees: 15

A follow-up to the message of Steve Strauss [5 June].

I have been a strong advocate of the dual value (in respect of preventing ecological side effects and enhancing effective productivity) of suppressing flowering in forest trees. There are several interesting points to consider.

Any genetic transformation is going to incur non-zero risk of adverse side effects on cultivar fitness. About the worst case could be inadvertently knocking out resistance to a new strain of a pathogen which might only materialise after a number of years. With forest trees, if such a new pathogen strain materialised after a number of years of large-scale planting of stock that depended on a particular genetic transformation, the outcome could be dire indeed.

This would parallel what happened with corn blight in the USA in 1970, when the farming industry had become massively dependent on the Texas male sterile cytoplasmic factor for producing hybrid corn. That the 'genetic time bomb' took 20 years to 'detonate' could make such a development far more serious with forest trees than it was with the annual maize crops (although there there was some good fortune that made it much less severe than it might have been). I know very well that past technology was involved, which was not the same as new biotechnology, and that an organelle genome rather than the nuclear genome was involved. However, what it set out to achieve is so similar to something that is now being pursued with forest trees, that I believe it is still a precedent to be kept in mind. I know the probability of such an eventuality is low, but risk is a function of both the probability and the severity of the unwanted outcome, and in this scenario the severity is so extreme that I consider it must be accommodated in any scheme of risk management. Here, as Steve Strauss has pointed out, we have the greatest economic attraction for longer-rotation crops [presumably, he means shorter-rotation crops...Moderator], and yet it is for such crops that the hazard may be greatest.

I agree with Steve Strauss [last paragraph of his message of 5 June...Moderator] that for genetic containment, redundancy of mechanisms to stop flowering has major attractions [i.e. where more than one mechanism is used to stop flowering...Moderator]. However, use of additional mechanisms will increase the risks. To address the potential severity of outcome requires avoiding massive dependence on any one transformation (i.e. achieving risk spread) but the challenge is to combine that with redundancy. I would add that there may be technical factors that could make that challenge particularly great in the case of preventing flowering. Indeed, different strategies may be appropriate according to whether the prime reason for control of flowering is genetic containment or enhanced wood production.

These issues are adressed in a paper of mine that is due out any day in New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science 29(3): 375-390.

In the backgound there is the consideration that, with economic risks of the sort that may be entailed here, while business interests may have them well managed (e.g. in respect of global risk spread), the exposure of communities or even countries may not be unacceptable.

Rowland Burdon, New Zealand
rowland.burdon@forestresearch.co.nz
Phone +64 7 343 5742 (direct)
+64 7 343 5899 (switchboard)
+64 7 345 6027 (home)
Fax +64 7 343 5330

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 8:56 AM

To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'

Subject: biotechnology and forest genetic diversity: 16

I agree with Dr. Burdon [6 June] that there are incremental, unpredictable risks involved with all types of genetic modification, both 'conventional' and transgenic. However, it is important to acknowledge that those risks are managable if the technology is employed responsibly. In a way, we are fortunate to have experienced some large-scale disasters such as the corn blight, and various disease epidemics that have plagued monoclonal poplar plantations at various times in the past. These mishaps have graphically demonstrated the folly of excessive reliance on a narrow genetic base in our crops. I am usually careful not to make general statements about biotechnology risk, which is largely case-specific. However, if biotechnology results in a substantial narrowing of the genetic base of planting stock on a landscape scale, this will result in an increase in risk exposure compared to conventional forestry. Considerable effort and discipline will be required to ensure that multiple transgenic genotypes are carried through the development and approval process for each trait. Also, experience with clonal forestry should help identify optimal planting designs that maximize genetic diversity on the landscape while maintaining productivity and efficient management of plantations. One of the challenges will be to ensure that planting guidelines are followed, especially in situations where there are strong, short-term financial disincentives. This may be one barrier to sustainable implementation of biotech forestry in the developing world.

Steve DiFazio
349 Richardson Hall
Forest Science Department
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331-5752, USA

Email: difazios@fsl.orst.edu
http://www.fsl.orst.edu/tgerc/steved.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 9:28 AM
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Terminator technology and forest trees: 17

Some comments on the very reasonable, cautionary views of Rollie Burdon [6 June ].

There is no question that use of a new technology involves risks. Nothing ventured nothing gained. This is by no means unique to biotech. The question is how are risks assessed during research, testing, and initial commercial deployment.

Genetically modified (GM) trees will only be used commercially after a number of years of testing on many sites. During this process the vast majority of transgenic lines are discarded....often up to 99%. Only those that are most stable and perform well are considered for commercial use.

In forestry we have the advantage that in most cases we will be introducing trees gradually as plantations are felled and replanted (in contrast to agriculture, where GM seed can be used on a large scale in a very short time period...as we have seen in the USA, Canada, and Argentina). Thus, after many years of research there are many additional years of gradual commercial use where performance and risk of unforeseen problems are assessed.

Although gene transfer does cause changes in physiology, the genomes of plants are highly redundant and resilient. Experience has shown that it is possible to find transgenic lines, if one screens and tests well, that behave normally after gene transfer--though the frequency of abnormality varies widely among transformation methods and species.

Dr. Burdon is certainly correct that the more genes used, the more transgenic lines must be assessed for normal growth and acceptable gene and phenotype expression. Those planning to introduce many genes must be prepared to test many lines.

Finally, one must consider risk in context. Is it more risky to introduce specific genes than to introduce and grow on a large scale monocultures of exotic species ? I think not. These new species have required many kinds of research and management over the years to learn to cope with unexpected problems, many of which continue (e.g. provenance, nutrition and hydrology, new pests and pathogens, escape into native ecosystems) [definition of "provenance": place where the forest or tree stand (which can be natural or artificial) is growing on which the seeds (or propagules) were collected...Moderator]. The level of risk involved in use of transgenic trees appears, at least to me, to be quite a bit smaller than the risks that are managed routinely as part of these programs.

The many transgenic trees produced around the world have demonstrated that transgenics can be produced that are highly stable and perform well--at least over the several years of research trials performed to date. But, they are not risk free, especially from the view of large scale, long-term commercial use. There is still much learning to do. We pursue transgenics because we seek their benefits and our experience to date indicates that we can manage their risks. However, we must be committed to careful, step by step assessment of performance and adaptability, as well as of ecological consequences--the same requirements that should apply to any good silviculture or breeding program.

Steve Strauss, Oregon State University, USA
Steve.Strauss@orst.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 8:18 AM
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Transgenic trees and biotechnology: 18

From HONG L.T. of IPGRI-APO, Malaysia

I shall contribute my narrow views on this topic even though much has already been discussed by those messages posted so far.

I agree with Dr. Trevor Fenning [19 May], who has stated that if most of those factors (that are listed in his email message) are not addressed then biotechnology will not be of much help. Any genetic modifications are bound to carry with it some degrees of unpredictable risks as mentioned by Dr. Burton [6 June]. However, the use of biotechnology for establishing forest plantations in forestry is not an answer to all the questions or problems (see Toby Bradshaw's discussion [25 May ]).

# Yes, trees in most developing countries have a shorter rotation, therefore any undesirable or detrimental transgenetic effects will be manifested in a shorter time compared to temperate trees.

# The use of biotechnology in whatever form is a valuable tool for intensifying efforts, not only to ensure the continued supply of sustainable wood or fibre resource but also as a means of replenishing deforested areas.

# However this does not mean that the stringent precautions and testing of biotechnology (genetically modification) produced planting stocks should not be observed. When used with all the associated safety protocols observed I think biotechnology is of tremendous help to supplement the dwindling supply of timber (fibres).

# The success of obtaining "genetically modified (GM)" (although using conventional breeding and cloning techniques which are not genetic modification in the true sense) rubber trees (Hevea brasiliensis ) to produce increased latex yields from about 300kg per ha. to about 1500-2000 kg/ha. is a tremendous achievement.

# I am not an advocate for large scale plantings of GM forest trees as yet. Many reasons against this have been given in the previous messages posted. However, biotechnology should be used as a tool to increase the productivity of forestry especially for timber (or fibre) production. Of course there are many hurdles to be overcome before this realisation could take place.

Hong L.T. ( Mr.)
Bamboo & Rattan and FGR Specialist
International Plant Genetic Resources [ IPGRI ],
Region Office for Asia, the Pacific and Oceania,
P.O. Box 236, UPM Post Office,
43400 Serdang, Selangor, MALAYSIA

Tel: +60-(0)3-89423891 Ext: 206
Fax: +60-(0)3-89487655
Email: l.hong@cgiar.org
IPGRI is a Future Harvest Centre

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 8:15 AM
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: biotechnology and forest genetic diversity: 19

I would like to comment on the genetic diversity in Mexico. Here, there are several pine species and some trees look like hybrids. According to the taxonomists they know there is crossing among species - that could be a problem to deliver transgenic trees in our forests lands.

Moreover, maize, beans, tomatoes, cacao, papaya, etc., have all of them wild relatives.

Even using cloning propagation has to be planned in order to maintain the genetic diversity.

The risk could be high in countries like Mexico. Before delivering any transgenic plant in places with wild relatives, any eventuality and risk must be evaluated.

Carlos Ramirez Serrano
Departamento de Botanica y Zoologia
CUCBA Universidad de Guadalajara
AP. 139
45101 Zapopan Jalisco, Mexico

Tel: +52 36 82 00 03
Fax: +52 36 82 01 20
E-mail: cramirez@maiz.cucba.udg.mx

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 2:29 PM
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: The need for Forest Biotechnology: 20

Trees are relatively slow-growing, long-lived organisms. Current forestry practice is failing to meet demand for forest products the world over, that much is clear, with the balance being taken from 'wild' forests. So, something has to change. Forest biotechnology in it's widest sense has a role to play here. It will not on its own solve the world's environmental or consequent social problems, but it is hard to see how they can be reduced without meeting people's needs for wood and wood products first. Doing nothing (or just too little) is not an option. I wish there was more time for dealing with all the issues involved, but there isn't.

A big issue is whether the environmental risks from forest biotechnology can be minimized, while maximizing the gain (whoever it is who is planting the forests), and whether the some risks are sufficiently small to be outweighed by those benefits. The potential gain is biggest in tropical regions, as trees grow much faster than in temperate regions and simultaneously the need for improvements is forestry productivity is also the most acute, primarily to meet the needs of the people living there. Although significant, the commercial (export?) interests of multinational companies are a relatively small part of the equation, and probably far less significant than the various forestry programs designed to meet local needs conducted by Governments.

Technology is about doing more with less. I believe that forest biotechnology has a role to play here, when judged appropriate and safe - as already discussed by others. Incidentally, I would also include 'conventional' breeding in the definition, which itself is becoming increasingly sophisticated, and is aimed at skewing the traits of a population towards a desired end that would probably not occur spontaneously otherwise. Neither is it free of the potential to impact 'wild' populations, or running the risk of allowing exotic species or genotypes to escape into new areas.

If genetic engineering of trees can be used to reduce these risks further, or is deemed safer (at least under some circumstances) than 'conventionally' bred trees, and still contribute to meeting global demand, then it would be negligent not to use them where appropriate.

Dr. Trevor Fenning.
Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology,
Jena, Germany.
Fenning@ice.mpg.de

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 1:28 PM
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Good for all ? : 21

Thanks to Dr. Immonen for raising the query of application of Genetic Use Restiction Technologies (GURT) with reference to forests [5 June]. The mere possibility of use of this particular technology in the agricultural sector has raised a lot of fundamental questions; ranging from control and monopoly to ethics and subsistence of farmers. However, reading the messages posted last week, the impression I get is that the GURTS or 'terminator technology' is not seen as being such a negative technology in forest trees at all. In fact, a strategy for controlled flowering (through GURT, or something similar) seems to be welcomed as the strategy of choice for forest plantations.

I would be interested in knowing whether there are other important differences concerning the ways in which new biotechnologies are seen for forests versus crops. Further, with respect to GURT, what then should be the policy options? How does one justify the concerns raised in one sector with the broad welcome in the other?

Thank you

K Ghosh, PhD
Genetic Resources Officer
Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
FAO
Rome, Italy

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 9:43 AM
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Forest trees vs. crops : 22

In response to Dr Ghosh's question [12 June], there is one very basic difference between many forest trees and certain agricultural crops, namely the scope for operational use of vegetative propagation. This has various implications, of which the two-fold attraction of using some form of 'terminator technology' is but one. Many of the practices for breeding and mass-propagation for crop plants are based on seed propagation being effectively obligate [i.e. biologically essential for essential...Moderator]. The hybrid-corn system, for instance, has represented a way of combining uniformity with high heterozygosity, which can be achieved far more simply by vegetative propagation - if that is feasible. It is perhaps fortunate that the long generation times of forest trees have deterred breeders from pursuing, within species, the hybrid-corn approach for which there was often no intrinsic need.

Forest trees also differ from many crop plants in that seed production, far from being the central purpose of the crop, is the end-result of an unwelcome diversion of resources from wood production.

One further difference is that with forest trees, plantations are now being grown alongside wild populations, or at least within easy range for gene contamination. With crop plants that is usually not so, a notable exception having been pointed out in the case of maize and teosinte (Message 19, June 9 ).

Rowland Burdon
New Zealand Forest Research Institute
Phone +64 7 343 5742 (direct)
+64 7 343 5899 (switchboard)
+64 7 345 6027 (home)
Fax +64 7 343 5330

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 10:16 AM
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: GE trees - a southern perspective : 23

I must question the present slant in the debate around genetically engineered (GE) forestry and particularly to its application in third world circumstances. Beside reiterating my well worn views as to the doubtful viability of first world solutions to third world problems, it must be said that this debate has not examined the hard questions.

The discussion is largely academic due to the fact that, firstly, the life science companies gave an undertaking not to introduce Terminator, Traitor or other Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURT) crops to the wild. It will take more than a bit of sweet talk to persuade a rather sceptical world that terminator is a sustainable and a viable way forward. Given the present feelings of disquiet presently growing around the world regarding GE food crops, it is doubtful if terminator technology would be accepted by anybody.

Further, the discussion is academic in that as far as I know, the present state of microbiology and genetics is, as yet, not freely able to transfer multiple gene constructs to a recipient genome. So, perhaps we may be able to presently make a terminator pine but it is unlikely that we can also give insect resistance and lower lignin content properties, etc., whilst also conferring sterility in some way or other.

Quite why we are discussing issues which remain in the realm of science fiction, is moot. It is I suppose, useful for us to theoretically explore the issues that will be raised before we are able to fully practice insertion of multiple constructs.

Given that up to 99% of trial trees may be discarded during selection for single construct insertion (Message 17, June 7), the extremely limited gene pool in forests of multiple construct trees would increase by magnitides the chances for catastrophic consequences, either through instability or through pathogen or pest attack (Message 15, June 6). It seems hardly worth our while, although scientists love a challenge. At what cost, one wonders. It seems logical to encourage low technology input, locally suited solutions, before introducing incrementally risky technology to nations with inadequate infrastructure.

If we are able to genetically engineer sterile, fast-growing, low-lignin, insect-resistant trees, I ask from a Southern perspective what possible use such an area could have for anything other than greed. Even a conventional pine forest offers, to a limited extent, the possibility of berries and birds.

Instead, Southern needs can presently be met by improving breeding and husbandry techniques of existing indigenous species. First things first. South Africa already has a massive problem containing plantations of invasive, water-thirsty exotic acacias and pines. Such plantations are often simply resources for developed nations.

Instead, companion planting recreating the full local diversity of forest ecosystems will provide not only timber but also food, forage, firewood, medicines, will encourage biodiversity and, generally, seems like a much more sensible solution than genetically engineering some unstable, unpredictable exotic import. I have compared growth of single species indigenous trees as opposed to companion planted indigenous trees and the growth difference can be up to +150%, when growing from a clear site. Monoculture plantations are wasteful and largely unsuited to developing world needs, except apparently when financed by outside institutions pursuing questionable economic growth. Conventional commercial forestry is often a poor investment for Southern nations, given the hidden human, social and environmental costs.

I believe that given our present knowledge, the introduction of GE forestry to the south is inviting another problem that we do not need. Let us first see how the developed nations cope. The South is no longer their testing ground.

Glenn Ashton
Ekogaia Foundation
Box 222
Noordhoek
7975
Cape Town
South Africa
ekogaia@iafrica.com
ekogaia@bigfoot.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 3:24 PM
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: forestry applications for GURT; IPR : 24

Contributed by Dale R. Smith, Ph.D.
MetaGenetics New Zealand
dalesmith@xtra.co.nz

Some thoughts on the potential for application of GURT (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies) in forestry. The two classes of GURT are discussed in turn:

A) Variety-level Genetic Use Restriction Technologies, V-GURT.

The engineered plant variety cannot be propagated from seed by the grower. One example of the V-GURT has been dubbed `Terminator' and is described in US patent No. 5,723,765.

Trees are long-term crops and an area of land planted in any given year will not be planted again for at least 10 years, usually more. The areas of land planted in a given tree variety are tiny compared to that used for agronomic species, and the rate of return on investment for biotech companies is probably not attractive for other than the main-stream Pinus, Acacia, or Eucalyptus species.

Perhaps a stronger argument against GURT in forestry is that the mean performance of open pollinated progeny of a stand planted today will be no better than that of the stand itself. Managers in the future would gain more from deploying cuttings from the original V-GURT stand rather than seedlings, even if they were gifted a magic potion that reversed the GURT effect. The addition of technology to prevent vegetative propagation from a stand of GURT trees may be possible, but implies a raft of developmental costs and technological sophistication in addition to prevention of germination. No such technology exists at present.

Finally, is GURT a potential candidate where regulations demand sterility in stands of transgenic trees? While superficially an attractive proposition, it would probably be imprudent to deploy transgenic trees where sterility is based on one or two genes acting late in seed development. Sexual reproduction has been so important in evolution that we must be aware of the possibility of activation of redundant genetic pathways that could render the seed fertile. At the very least, with present technology, it will take years rather than months to verify that the GURT is effective in a tree species. More importantly, current V-GURT strategies do not appear to affect pollen production.

B) Trait-specific Genetic Use Restriction Technologies, T-GURT.

In T-GURTs only the `added value' transgenic trait is protected by technological means, and would be activated at the will of the grower. They are particularly suitable for delivery through vegetative propagation of planting stock. As an example, it has been proposed that Bt genes under the control of an inducible promoter could lie dormant until insect attack justified the application of a chemical, inducing the formation of gene products that are toxic to insects. However, the application of the inducing substance over a forest suggests that aircraft would be used. In most instances the cost of the "induction" chemical would be similar to that of a pesticide, that is, only a fraction of the application costs, compared with aircraft operation. No advantages here for a cash-strapped developing world?

T-GURTs might become viable if the gene induction agent was low cost. A pipe-dream maybe, but I can see a future scenario where gene induction is triggered by a photoreceptor operating in a fashion similar to the red - far red light sensitive phytochrome system. A laser situated on a mountaintop or even in a geostationary satellite might be used to induce gene activity over a large area of transgenic trees, for a relatively low cost.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, T-GURTs have a long way to go before they are technically reliable and politically acceptable. They may eventually be suitable for use in developing economies, but what about the intellectual property cost? Will any kind of transgenic tree technology be out of reach?

The finite life of patents is something that seems to be overlooked when the costs of intellectual property are discussed. The long rotation periods for forests mean that the cost of licensing today's technology will not be an issue for the trees planted twenty years from now, and beyond. Immediate use of the latest (expensive) technology is all very well for a company with a large current cash flow. Absorbing higher operational costs in the expectation of some debatable future return is perhaps not in the best interests of a developing economy.

Wait a few years, and at least there will be no licensing costs for todays "hot" gene constructs.

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 2:18 PM
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 25: Re: GE trees - a southern perspective

Glenn Ashton (message #23, June 13) raises some relevant points, but it has to be reiterated that such approaches have (so far) failed to meet people's diverse needs (as I discussed in messages #9 and #20). However, following on from the theme that time is not on our side, we must not limit ourselves to a 'one solution fits all' approach, as many different strategies as possible should be under development at the present time, leaving people free to choose the most appropriate solution to local needs in future.

I suspect that transgenic trees will only be suitable for planting in a few highly specific (but important) cases, but that forest biotechnology in general (including the material coming out of breeding programs) will be widely adopted, because of the benefits it offers. The more suitable (and suited) to local needs the material is, the better. Multinational companies (MNCs) clearly need to behave themselves in this arena, but their activities are small compared to the scale of the forestry activity in developing countries, and the problems associated with it.

Perhaps the biggest issue related to MNCs, and the application of forest biotechnology to the needs of developing countries is access to appropriate technology for local programs, and such companies not using intellectual property rights or patents to obstruct progress of the World's poorest people (and least able to pay). This is clearly an ongoing and difficult issue - from the companies point of view too, but one that can be resolved when the will and imagination is there.

A couple of examples of how this may be achieved : Eucalyptus have been grown in Ethiopia for some time (originally introduced for ornamental reasons I gather) and now many people around the capital are dependent upon them for their daily firewood. There is a crying need for faster growing genotypes which burn well i.e. with high lignin - precisely those plants thrown out of the low lignin (for paper) breeding programs. I understand that such plant material is being made available. Also, the Westvaco corporation, I think it was, has had some success with local initiatives for growing its fast-growing conifers genotypes in Southern Africa - whereby local farmers grew the trees and are free to use them for their own needs, with the company buying what it needs from them.

These are some success stories which may point the way forward for co-operation between the ways and means of the developed world, and the needs and resources of the developing world.

Dr Trevor Fenning.
Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology, Jena, Germany.
fenning@ice.mpg.de

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 5:01 PM
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Sterile trees and clones : 26

Sirkka Immonen (June 5) raised the "terminator" issue. I share the enthusiasm to sterile trees with some earlier contributions (e.g. Rowland Burdon, June 13 ). Fully domesticated trees should allocate their resources to useful things like wood and not waste energy on unneeded, unasked for, uncontrolled and even dangerous reproductive activities. A major goal of breeding is to allocate the resources to where they are valuable for the grower. And as sterility is also a safety device, it seems to be the place to start GE (genetic engineering), even if that may be far from simple. But let the GE show its powerfulness here first. In conventional tree breeding and multiplication, the techniques used may often tend to increase fertility (sort of collateral damage), but GE has the potential to circumvent this. The essence of evolution in nature is reproductive success, so here is an ultimate way in which we can give human-defined goals priority over products derived from evolution. It also makes the divide between the domesticated sterile man-made crop and the undomesticated fertile strict and clear. This seems OK to me on some land.

That few objections appear is probably because GE is more abstract and futuristic for forestry, as it is not yet applied and many applications probably lie in the far future. Some issues may not have passed the stage when scientists - sometimes a bit naively like me above - point at possibilities.

To remove fertility by GE is high tech. Professionals want to appear futuristic and visionary, scientists and executives are eager to see development (or at least to make that impression). Tree breeding training and forest genetic studies often focus on advanced, futuristic, complicated and expensive techniques, which are not adequate for small, badly supported and organisational shaky tree breeding programs with limited tradition and experience. I believe most such programs benefit from fertile trees producing seeds and also serving other functions in the same time (e.g. recruitment population, wood production). The attention to biotechnology draws attention away from the development of more realistic and rewarding low intensive, cheap, low-tech, simple, robust, local, small-scaled, non-fancy seed supply and breeding programs. In theory, high intensity biotechnology and low intensity breeding complements each other and there should be room for both, but in practice much of the brain power and research funding focuses on high tech. This conflict will hit developing countries harder than developed countries. Biotech in forestry is probably the future, but often too far in the future to be of short-term relevance.

Clones:

Most visions about forestry with GE (as well as many other forms of biotechnology) include clonal forestry as an element. Factors connected to legal commercial issues will favour few clones for GE clonal forestry. GE is a considerable added expense. Thus GE is likely to favour use of fewer clones than conventional clonal forestry. GE (in addition to other problems) is likely to increase the same type of possible risk as conventional clonal forestry based on few clones. This argument is somewhat less relevant for agricultural applications (response to Kakoli Ghosh, June 12 and complementing Rowland Burdon, June 13). Programs considering GE may first consider if clonal forestry with few clones is well developed and accepted (like for some Eucalyptus in Brazil). For large programs in developed countries there are possibilities to develop both techniques in parallel, but less so in developing countries.

Dag Lindgren
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden
Dag.Lindgren@genfys.slu.se

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 9:19 AM
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 27: Strategies for genetically transformed forest trees - cost and risk

In summary, depending on the methods used, when investment for production of planting stock is finite, genetic transformation (modification) will probably lead to a reduction of genetic diversity. Compliance costs for the technology must be taken into account when assessing risk and calculating the expected gain.

I. Strategies, costs, and risk:

Vegetatively propagated clones - the "transclone". Each stably transformed cell line using the same plant genotype and the same foreign gene will give rise to a unique transclone. Effective levels of expression of the foreign gene cannot be predicted at present, therefore the performance of transclones must be determined in field trials, often of very long duration. Many transclones, probably 10-20 or more, will need to be field-tested for each plant genotype/foreign gene combination. For a fixed investment, as the number of transclones increases, the number of "host" plant genotypes decreases proportionately, and genetic variability in stands could be substantially reduced.

Transformation techniques currently available for most forest tree species use one of the following 2 options:

1. Proactive transformation - transformation of randomly selected, untested juvenile clones, using some new trait (such as a gene for herbicide tolerance) followed by field testing of all viable transclones that are produced. The value of intrinsic traits of the clones will be approximately the same as the mean for the family, given an adequate sample size.

2. Retroactive transformation - randomly selected, non-transformed juvenile clones are field-tested to determine their growth characteristics, followed by transformation of stored juvenile tissue, using only the best clones. A second round of field testing is necessary to identify the most effective transclones.

These research and development options are only possible with a long-term funding commitment. Calculations have shown that, in order to discover a given number of useful production transclones, the costs for proactive transformation (i.e. option 1) are at least twice that for retroactive transformation (DR Smith, NZ Forest Research Institute, unpublished data). However, practically all current forest tree research follows the proactive option. There is a risk that corporate political expedience could result in a net negative genetic gain because some of the limited number of transgenic clones presently available from research laboratories will perform worse than the family mean for the natural traits.

II. Lower-cost options for deploying transgenics:

Recent developments in rejuvenation of mature pines will significantly improve the economics of transformation of clones that have rare and valuable intrinsic traits. While the technology will not satisfy concerns about reduced genetic variation, I expect this to become a favoured route to tree improvement when the technology is demonstrated with other genera.

Production of transgenic seedlings through transformation of seed orchard clones could also be a viable, relatively low-cost option, but only for a limited range of introduced traits. For instance, herbicide-tolerance genes could be introduced into progeny-tested seed orchard clones, and effective, low-cost screening could be carried out on seedlings in the greenhouse or nursery bed. The surviving seedlings would retain a respectable degree of within-family genetic variation. This option is even more attractive if applied to clones used for control pollination where substantial genetic gain in the progeny has already been demonstrated. Vegetative amplification from transformed seedling stool-beds is a low-cost option that could add extra gain.

The transformed parent approach would not be useful for traits that cannot be selected for in the nursery bed. There is currently no way to test the effectiveness of introduced genes that confer resistance to insects or microbes which become a problem only as trees undergo transition from the juvenile to the mature phase.

An additional layer of costs in the production of transgenic seed may arise from regulations forbidding release of transgenic pollen, meaning that transgenic parent trees must be kept in large GMO houses. As technical problems of producing transgenic trees are overcome, it will be necessary to address the politically-imposed costs. International GMO legislation may well forbid dispersal of transgenic pollen and seed. The use of genes to prevent pollen and seed production in a transgenic tree should be accepted now as a necessary condition of field release of transgenic trees. For vegetatively propagated trees, there are potential gains from increased wood production (estimated at 30% in radiata pine) which makes genetic "immasculation" commercially, as well as proceedurally, attractive.

Dr. Dale Smith
MetaGenetics New Zealand
dalesmith@xtra.co.nz

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 8:49 AM
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Biotechnology and classical breeding: 29

I am following up on one statement by Dr Fenning (9 June, Message 20) who said "Technology is about doing more with less". I suggest that it would be more appropriate to state that applying forest biotechology should be about "putting in more to achieve much more". Making increased inputs in order to achieve higher returns applies very generally to the process of domestication, and the successful application of new biotechnology will amount to bringing domestication to a higher level than is attainable with classical breeding.

As I have said earlier in this Conference, and in other fora, the application of new biotechnology will need to stand as an enhancement of classical breeding, rather than as a substitute for it. Thus the payoffs from such technology will often depend greatly on the application being superimposed upon a classical breeding infrastructure. True, there will be some things that cannot be achieved without the biotechnology, but being able to use the biotechnology may set the classical breeder free to achieve gains on other fronts. In the short to medium term, the development of biotechnology is likely to make much increased demands of the breeding infrastructure, e.g. in the progeny sizes needed for QTL detection and quantification, and in the field testing to verify the safety of using transgenics.

There will eventually be ways in which use of new biotechnology will contribute to reducing the need for certain inputs. Enhanced productivity, for instance, should allow the concentration of commercial forestry onto smaller land areas, through reducing a number of costs and increasing returns. Also, biotechnology promises more efficient ways to combat various diseases, pests and weeds. But both reducing the effective costs of growing trees and enhancing the returns will generally depend heavily on increasing a range of key inputs, notably in the area of genetic improvement.

Rowland Burdon, New Zealand
rowland.burdon@forestresearch.co.nz
Phone +64 7 343 5742 (direct)
+64 7 343 5899 (switchboard)
+64 7 345 6027 (home)
Fax +64 7 343 5330

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 8:49 AM
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Biotechnology and classical breeding: 29

Rowland Burdon, New Zealand
rowland.burdon@forestresearch.co.nz
Phone +64 7 343 5742 (direct)
+64 7 343 5899 (switchboard)
+64 7 345 6027 (home)
Fax +64 7 343 5330

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 2:25 PM
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Developed vs developing countries forestry programs: 30

To judge by the emails I have been receiving about Brazil's alleged plans to pulp half the remaining Amazon area (is this true, does anyone know?) developing countries don't need the input of 'multinational companies' or developed countries to get rid of their forests. Rather, they need help to maintain what they have left, so far as possible, while continuing to meet their forestry needs.

As discussed by others, to put together tree breeding and forestry improvement programs (with or without biotechnology) is a formidible exercise, which needs considerable resources. The inputs will be repaid handsomely (and ultimately enable more to be achieved with less, as I said before), but you have to be able to afford the investment in the first place. There will be many forest species of importance to developing regions that could be developed further and faster with help from wealthier countries, but if it is lacking for whatever reason then simpler approaches are probably recommended.

Indeed, I would advise anyone thinking of setting up a forest tree improvement program using biotechnology to consider the cost-benefits before starting out, however deep their pockets. An easy way for developed countries to help poorer countries would be for material to be made available from existing programs, where appropriate. For example, Eucalypts may not suit everyone's needs, but where they would be useful, then there's a wealth of material that could be readily utilised.

There may be intellectual property issues that need adressing too (especially where companies are involved), but if there is a will, this should not be an insuperable problem.

Trevor Fenning, Germany
Fenning@ice.mpg.de

[Just to give more information on Brazilian forests mentioned in the first paragraph, an e-mail message we have seen on 12 June stated

"... Brazilian congress is now voting on a project that will reduce the amazon forest to 50% of its size. The area to be deforested is 4 times the size of Portugal and would be mainly used for agriculture and pastures for livestock... All the wood is to be sold to international markets in the form of wood chips, by multinational companies... The truth is that the soil in the amazon forest is useless without the forest itself. Its quality is very acidic and the region is prone to constant floods. At this time more than 160.000 square kilometers deforested with the same purpose, are abandoned and in the process of becoming deserts. We cannot let this happen. Copy the text into a new email, put your complete name in the list below, and send to everyone you know. (Don't just forward it cos then it will end up with rows of >>>'s ) If you are the 100th person to sign please send a copy to fsaviolo@openlink.com.br Thank you."

..........Moderator]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 2:31 PM
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: mature trees: 31

A small note in reply to one or two previous mails. It is perfectly possible in many cases to propagate without problems from mature trees identified as 'elite', and apply genetic engineering techniques as part of a modest program of development, if desired. This is clearly still problematic for some species (including most conifers), but it is not the universal problem it used to be.

Trevor Fenning, Germany
Fenning@ice.mpg.de

[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org The last day for posting messages is Friday 30 June. For further information on the Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 3:13 PM
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: 32: Re: mature trees

[Just a final reminder to conference participants that the last day for posting messages on the theme of "how appropriate are currently available biotechnologies for the forestry sector in developing countries" is tomorrow Friday 30 June.....Moderator]

Physiological Ageing and Other Hidden Costs of Forest Biotechnology.

Dr Fenning [27 June] correctly pointed out that much progress has been made with micropropagation of elite (mature) trees. Managers need to be aware, however, that "physiological ageing" can drastically reduce gain in species where the juvenile state exhibits greater relative-growth-rate than sexually mature material. This has been demonstrated conclusively with Radiata pine and Norway spruce, and is suspected in other conifers.

Physiological ageing and its consequences, and solutions to the problem in pines have been reviewed recently (Smith, 1999). Although Radiata pine clones displayed the expected improvements in form and intra-clonal uniformity in replicated field trials, stem volumes at ages 6-10 were more than 20% lower than seedling controls. In the mid-seventies, Sweet and Wells published evidence that trees established from cuttings taken from ortets aged between 10 and 43 years showed incremental loss of ramet stem volume with advancing age of the ortets (Sweet and Wells, 1974). During the 1980's, Menzies and co-workers established extensive ortet-age-effect field trials on a number of sites. Well-replicated trials were planted using ramets from ortets ranging in age from 1 to 5 years. These trials showed conclusively that cuttings from 4 and 5 year old ortets showed average stem volume losses of 8% and 19% respectively compared to seedling controls, when measured five years after planting (Menzies et al, 1991). This effect, often referred to as "physiological ageing' has since been confirmed in a number of tree improvement trials in New Zealand (New Zealand Forest Research Ltd, unpublished data).

It is clear that any expected gain from the elite genotype is offset by volume loss due to physiological ageing. To circumvent this, many tree improvement programmes are based around techniques for maintaining the juvenile state in samples of clones, while other samples are used in clonal field trials. Cutting-edge programmes use micropropagation or somatic embryogenesis which both have very high capital and labour costs.

Many field trials with micropropagated pines species have revealed an unexpected physiological ageing in chronologically juvenile material, leading to stem volume losses compared to seedling controls. This problem can still be seen in the small number of programmes with pines where micropropagation is used in industry. Physiological ageing has not been widely reported in most conifer somatic embryogenesis work, although we did see it in early studies with Radiata pine.

The recent demonstration of rejuvenation of elite, 20-year-old Radiata pine through somatic embryogenesis induced in tissue from vegetative apical meristems (Smith, 1999) gives us some hope that the problem of physiological ageing may not concern us in the future.

While the examples above demonstrate that biotechnological approaches to tree improvement have hidden costs, so too does conventional tree breeding. Dramatic improvements in stem form and straightness have been achieved with Radiata pine in New Zealand, along with 30% gains in volume compared to the original introductions of this exotic species. Unfortunately the quality of the wood has deteriorated somewhat, with increased dimensional instability and internal checking. These problems have been overcome in part by innovations in timber drying technology, but this is itself a capital-intensive industry.

For a developing economy, it is essential to ensure that genetic "improvements" or new biotechnology does not leave a legacy of reduced stem volumes, or require extensive investment in new processing technology.

Menzies, MI, BK. Klomp, and DG. Holden. 1991. Optimal Physiological Age of Propagules for use in Clonal Forestry, New Zealand Forest Research Institute Bulletin, No. 160: p. 142.

Smith, DR. 1999: Successful rejuvenation of Radiata pine. Proceedings of 25th Southern Forest Tree Improvement Conference, New Orleans. July 1999 (in press)

Sweet, GB, and LG. Wells. 1974. Comparison of the Growth of Vegetative Propagules and Seedlings, New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science 4(2): p. 399

From Dr. Dale Smith, MetaGenetics New Zealand
(dalesmith@xtra.co.nz)

Return to Logs of Conference 2 or go to the main Forum pages.