Hmm, restoring nature back to its original condition using genetically modified versions of the trees that were lost. I'm a little conflicted whether this is a good thing.

Makes me wonder how all those American chestnut trees survived so long in their natural environment, only to be rapidly taken out by a simple disease (which happened coincidentally at around the same time humans began moving in and changing the landscape). I suspect there were additional human-caused environmental factors that led to the trees becoming more susceptible to disease in the first place.

Very interesting. This blurb from the linked article in particular:

"Powell and his team were responsible for finding and testing genes that would protect the tree. His background research on the blight fungus led the way to the successful use of a wheat oxalate oxidase gene. This gene doesn't hurt the fungus, but instead detoxifies the acid used by the fungus to attack the tree, essentially changing the fungus from a pathogen to a saprophyte that lives on the bark of the tree without causing significant harm."

Sounds to me like it's the true American chestnut, with an intact genome, to which has been added 2 genes to counter act a foreign pathogen.

Compared to the non-genetically modified plants we dump pesticides on, seems environmentally friendlier.

Perhaps we'll soon be discussing the relative merits & con.s or American chestnut as a yard tree. Assuming you &/or your kids/pets don't want to walk barefoot where those spiny nut covers fall...

Richard.

Socal2warm, you should Google 'chestnut blight' and read up on it. it's not that the American chestnut become more susceptible to an existing disease...the disease itself was introduced here by human activity. And the same goes for sooooo many other diseases that threaten to wipe out our trees and forests.

Europeans arriving here in the old days assumed the American chestnut was the same species as they knew from the old country. C. sativa is said to be blight-susceptible also but clearly not as severely as it has not been reduced to perhaps millions of sprouting - or dead - stumps.

That is pretty cool. It would be great if this transgenic tree grows, for all intents and purposes, just the same as the original C. dentata.

I'm a little wary of this statement however:

"The results of the metabolite analyses indicate that the nuts produced from transgenic plants aren't appreciably different from those produced by wild-type plants and should be safe for consumption."

Aren't appreciably different? Should be safe?

Terenne, we're all primed to be hyper-suspicious these days. But I interpret that sentence, and those words, to indicate any differences are minor and unlikely to have negative impact. I know, I'm right there with ya in not trusting some sources, but really....sometimes things are just what they are!

+oM

Well said Brandon.

As a scientist who is working on resistance to exotic pathogens, I can tell you that biotech solutions, such as GM, need to be considered more as a solution. Too many people who know nothing about GM (except what they saw on a meme on Facebook) are speaking out against them without knowing how vital they may be to saving some species - or at least allowing for restoration.

Uh, I think perhaps you meant to direct that at me, Sal. You're welcome!

One of my peeves is the way careless journalists and even sometimes people that should know better equate "genetic manipulation", which mankind has been doing since before recorded history, with "genetic engineering", in which genetic material from a totally unrelated organism is introduced into some plant or animal (or fungus or bacteria or virus or...) to confer some ability or resistance to that target organism. The two are not the same, the latter being a subset of the former, but you'd never know it from reading dumb articles. Our country's ability to digest and comprehend science is abysmally poor right now, and sloppy journalism sure isn't helping.

+oM

Always need to come up with content by deadline. Anytime someone is reporting on a topic they have little or no background in they may include or miss something that matters, without knowing it does. Scientists are supposed to run their findings by other scientists to make sure they are valid, any time information is not being processed and presented by the scientific community itself the benefit of the level of care it takes may be lost.

Yes, Tom, I have reservations but am a huge fan of science. I think science is a primary source of enlightenment for humanity and it sheds light on the often dark and warped world of human emotion and superstition. And you're right, many people don't understand it, and I didn't really either when I was younger, but have benefitted from having a son who might not have been the easiest kid to raise, but is a natural born scientist and is now studying biotechnology at a local polytechnic institute.

It is likely that the phrasing in the article is an expression of "scientific reticence" which is prudent. I doubt that modifying 2 genes out of 30,000 in C. dentata is going to be a problem, but don't really know.

Anyway here in the US don't we all eat GMO corn and soy on a regular basis? So what's a few chestnuts... Although to hedge my bets I buy a lot of organic food and think the jury is still out on genetically engineered food.

Though I agree with willows that there is a lot of hysteria about GMO foods, I also don't think the ramifications of them has been as well researched as they should be. After all, where's the money? If spending to prove them safe outweighs spending to question their safety by 15 to 1, well, you can guess the likely outcome. People don't realize that some PhDs can cow-tow to whoever's putting bread on their table just as anyone else could. Sorry. It's the truth. During the big trans-fat blow up 10 years ago, it was amusing and illustrative to see the agrobiz put out research by primarily midwestern nutritionists screaming "these aren't dangerous at all! It's a all a big lie! Keep hoovering your margarine and shortening!"

This article has an obviously pro-GMO bias, as Tom points out, by the utterly false equivalence with mere selective breeding. But it more importantly ignores several practical and ecological questions. By introducing one clone with one protective gene, you obviously raise the possibility of the widespread pathogen evolving resistance to that lone gene, especially if slow gene flow into native population reserves takes place. (And as has already happened with GMO grain crops.)

Sometimes when you rearrange building blocks they fall down.

Has anyone tried the melorange, which is a GMO melon out of a Monsantos lab? I recently tried it and it was fantastic! As a non-scientist, I do my best to keep up with the issue of GMO's, but I have to admit it gets lost on me. I get the feeling the cat's out of the bag on this one. While labeling seems to be a reasonable request (Why not let consumers know?), I think it's safe to say that GMO's are here to stay.

....and again, if by GMO, we mean genetically modified organism, they've been around since the first time some guy, fresh out of the cave, noticed that out of all the uh, I'll say wheat plants-who knows what plant it really was-there was this one that bore more grain, or didn't get leaf blight, or.....or....or....whatever thing it was that he noticed, and then went on to crossbreed that plant with another one he'd seen which exhibited similar traits. That's GMO, and has been around since long before any of us were born.

Genetically engineered.....is what people mean but never say. That's taking a bit of genetic material from a oh, bacterium, and splicing it into a corn plant, so that forever onward, that variety of corn now has whatever that bacterium had. Obviously, I'm talking here about something that really was done, the insertion of genes to produce the toxin manufactured inside Bacterium thuringiensis into corn, so that any insect that takes a bite out of anywhere on that corn plant, now will get sick and quit eating.

One wonders how we will ever make good decisions if we don't even understand whatever it is that's the issue of the moment.

Sorry Basics, didn't mean to go off on you personally, nor is that what this rant is about really. Just that once again, those terms, which do not mean the same thing, are being interchanged.

+oM

In my haste-I've got a lot of haste going here today-I mis-labeled something up above. I meant to spell Bacillus thuringiensis, not Bacterium. We'll get there eventually!

+oM

+oM,
One of the great things about the Bt corn is...the Bt toxin genes inserted in there don't affect all insects - they're specific for certain members of the Lepidoptera...so, really only affect corn borer and corn earworm caterpillars. Bt toxin has no effect on mammals or birds - or most other insect species.
Analyses have shown that Bt corn, as a result of diminished insect damage to stalk & ear, tends to have much lower levels of mycotoxin contamination; many of the mycotoxins are much greater threats to human & animal health than any imagined threat that the inserted gene segments may pose.

Yes. One of the bad things-and this is huge-is, let's say, just for the purpose of this discussion, that scientists inserted the Bt gene into Rudbeckia hirta. OK, that plant is not exactly rare, but it can't hold a candle to the ubiquity of corn. Agreed? So, now we're exposing those insect species susceptible to Bt to vast acreages-millions and millions of acres of corn. Agreed? So now, instead of a few garden plants, even if we include the R. hirta existing in prairies, putting that gene in that species would expose relatively few insects-lepidopterous or otherwise-to this toxin (the toxin in Bt that kills insects). So can you see where we're taking this? I can. Pretty soon, if it hasn't already happened, races of insects will or have evolved with resistance to this toxin. It's one thing to have that relatively small subgroup of people who grow organically, and who therefore really need a tool like Bt, to use the stuff. Plant corn with the same genetic mechanism across vast acreages, that's a whole different story. And the little organic people (and the rest of civilization) lose out.

No free rides....and no completely safe technology.

+oM

Definitions of GMO from Wikipedia and sciencedictionary.org (just a couple random sites I went to):

"A genetically modified organism (GMO) is any organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques."

"A term, currently used most often in international trade discussions, that designates crops that carry new traits that have been inserted through advanced genetic engineering methods"

Wtom, the way you define GMO in your post sounds more like "selection" of plants in the field that display certain desirable traits. No manipulation of their genetic material in the lab required.

Precisely, Terenne. Selection is the earliest form of GMO. That dictionary entry is perpetuating a fals notion. Genetic engineering is what everybody is up in arms about, but they're calling it GMO. This is just further evidence of that.

I'm done beating this dead horse here. But I do know people active in the field, and I can say with complete certainty that the information in those dictionary entries is incorrect. It happens!

+oM

GMO versus GEO is just "symantics" (in the broadest sense of the word). I see professors, scientist, and various types of agricultural "experts" (including those doing the genetic engineering) use the terms genetically modified organism and genetically modified crops, to mean what Tom insists is really genetically engineered organisms/crops, on a regular and consistent basis. I've heard the argument Tom makes a number of times, but I have yet to see a widely accepted standard in any educational/research/professional field. If anything, the GMO term is winning out in the general populous. Genetic engineering is probably the most commonly used word to describe what is being done (verb), but there is apparently not even close to a standard for using the term to describe the actual organisms resulting from genetic engineering (noun, adjective). Some people may want it to be one way or another, but from my experience, neither horse has won the race yet!

This post was edited by brandon7 on Fri, Feb 6, 15 at 20:09

Since American Chestnut used to dominate substantial regions of forest, and grows fast, I would imagine a blight-resistant introduction could fairly quickly (for a tree) change a lot of forest land. Which wouldn't bother me so much but for those spiny nut covers.

How many of you would choose one of these for a yard tree? Aside from the novelty of a 'real' American Chestnut, what would motivate you to get one over, oh, an oak, pecan, hickory, sugar maple, tulip poplar, other big tree not-otherwise-specied...?

Richard.

Those wishing to get chestnuts would choose the chestnut tree. All will require more space - visual as well as physical - than many modern yards can provide.

"How many of you would choose one of these for a yard tree? Aside from the novelty of a 'real' American Chestnut, what would motivate you to get one over, oh, an oak, pecan, hickory, sugar maple, tulip poplar, other big tree not-otherwise-specied...?"

I did. Actually, I have several close to my house and other parts of my land that I walk by often. Those spines can't be worse than conifer needles anyway. I love the appearance of a chestnut tree and they will produce nuts eventually, for me or for wildlife. They thrive in my acid, poor sandy soil wich not all trees do. I like all broadleaf trees but nut trees might be the nicest.

This post was edited by Huggorm on Sat, Feb 7, 15 at 13:30

Well, I planted a Liquidambar seedling I got from the Ntl Arbor Day in 2006, they have pretty spikey balls. I don't know when they start flowering, but I will probably be long gone from here before it starts dropping those little pricklies.

I collected some C. sativa nuts this past fall, they do have terribly spikey nut covers, and are definitely worse than spruce needles. I assume C. dentata is similar. I don't know what I'm going to do with the C. sativa seeds yet, but would plant either chestnut, if I had room for more canopy trees - maybe the next house.

"Those spines can't be worse than conifer needles anyway."

Yeah...sure...that's the ticket! LOL

Slightly off topic, but considering the knowledge of reporters.

Several years ago the army was destroying some chemicals in Indiana. The young female report was out to get Pulitzer prize for her expose' on the terrible situation with toxic chemicals. The man in charge explained the process and the reporter asked several dumb questions. The man finally told the report that the resulting solution was like Draino. Her response was are your people trained to handle Draino. She probable used Draino in one of her home clean preparations, and I will bet she had no idea of what she was doing.

huh?

Well, I've got american chestnuts down both sides of the driveway.....lovely lawn trees for a big lawn. Some of my seedlings come from small nut selections, 2.8 grams or so, and the blue jays are in heaven. The larger nutted ones, 6 grams or so, are great for cooking, and munching. I have some half Chinese, half American ones, letting nature introgress blight resistance into our woods. The pure Chinese get overtopped too soon, but the halflings produce seed for quite a while. I've had catkins for 3 years now, but no burs , however some of my buddies have trees older than mine and they are producing lots of seednuts. They have been kind enough to share seed, grin. I don't see why both approaches wouldn't work. If you want the F1 generation to be male fertile though, you need to use a Chinese seed parent, not an American seed parent. If you intend instead to use male barren F1 generation to produce a backcross to pure americans in your woods already, use the American as the seed parent. The backcross 1 has some male fertile ones and they can pollinate each other and nature culls whatever ones didn't get at least some blight resistance and good tree form. Some of my F1's want to be bushes and I rogued them. Some of my BC1's want to be bushes too, so just plant lots and let nature cull.

BTW, I disagree with Brandon that the distinction I present is "just symantics". Hell, I don't even think it's semantics! Two different concepts being conflated is not a semantics issue, it's one of misunderstanding. And the people who actually are involved in these varied activities are the very ones who serve as my sources. Just because a lot of people are confused, it doesn't mean the person who is not confused is wrong. Or does it?

Beyond that aspect of this discussion, it does somewhat bring to mind thoughts some of us have had that the future composition of our forests may, by necessity, have to be an engineered entity to some degree. As we continue to lose species via introduction of non-native pests and pathogens,could it be that the only way to fill the ecological niches which are being lost via these introductions is to bring in genetics which are from elsewhere? I can at least conceive of such a future. So, do we bring in Asian genetics to our hemlocks to confer resistance to HWA? OR as in this conversation, do the same sort of thing with Castanea? Fraxinus? Ulmus? The list goes on......

+oM

+oM

Tom, I am confused about why you think everyone is confused! A vast number of the actual researchers in this very field use the GM terminology (especially, but not limited to, when discussing topics with the general public). Some choose to use other, less-popular, terminology, but that doesn't make the first group wrong or confused.

Besides all that, since the term GEO can be considered a subset of GMO, AND, the term GMO is almost never used by most people to describe anything but what we might call GEO, AND, since almost everyone already associates GMO with specifically what we could call GEO...how could one possibly argue that this communication is some kind of misunderstanding?

My gut feeling (no real analysis involved) about our forests being engineered by necessity is that by that time we will have already lost the war, if we haven't already.