Forest Health and Biotechnology Possibilities and Considerations (2019) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Summary
Summary
Pages 1-12
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
However, ecosystems can be seriously disrupted when a nonnative, invasive pest3 is introduced or when native pests increase their geographic range or become more virulent because of external drivers such as climate change. Massive, synchronous die-offs threaten the survival of tree species and negatively affect ecosystem services, such as water filtration, soil erosion prevention, carbon sequestration, livelihoods, and social values.
|
From page 2... ...
target species, or biotechnological modifications to confer resistance in the target species. As of 2018, although research on incorporating resistance to insects or pathogens via biotechnology was being conducted in some forest tree species such as the American chestnut and poplar hybrids, no such resistant genotypes -- created with the intent to spread resistance into a forest population -- had been planted in a North American forest.
|
From page 3... ...
5. In what ways does the current regulatory system include forest health in evaluating the ecological and environmental risks of deploying trees developed with GE, and how does this compare with regulatory evaluation of impacts for other methods used to address forest health threats such as non-GE trees or other biological control or pesticide approaches?
|
From page 4... ...
Conclusion: Healthy forests provide valuable ecosystem services to humans. Conclusion: The health of North American forests is threatened by the introduction and spread of nonnative insects and pathogens and the epidemics of native pests exacerbated by environmental stress due to climate change.
|
From page 5... ...
The OxO enzyme expressed in transgenic chestnut converts oxalic acid to carbon dioxide and hydrogen peroxide, thereby conferring on the tree genetic resistance to the blight. Conclusion: Substantial literature supports the need for sustained investment in prevention and eradication as the most cost-effective and lowest impact approaches for managing introduction of nonnative insect pests and pathogens.
|
From page 6... ...
Recommendation: Sufficient investment of time and resources should be made to successfully identify or introduce resistance into tree species threatened by insects and pathogens. CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO THE USE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY IN FOREST TREES Any intervention to address forest health involves consideration of associated ecological, economic, social, and ethical issues.
|
From page 7... ...
Doing nothing to counter such threats may result in the loss of populations or entire species, with significant effects on forest ecosystems that also mean a loss of wildness. Other practices that might address forest health, such as selective breeding, pose similar threats to wildness because they involve the selection of genotypes, the decision to plant trees, and continued monitoring of the trees.
|
From page 8... ...
Conclusion: Some important ethical questions raised by deploying biotechnology in noncommercial forests fall outside any evaluation of changes in ecosystem services. Recommendation: More studies of societal responses to the use of biotechnology to address forest health threats in the United States are needed. Such studies might investigate (1)
|
From page 9... ...
This stepwise approach may be the only practical way to obtain data on gene flow and impacts at the spatial and temporal scales that are needed for proper impact assessment for biotech trees. Conclusion: An integrated impact assessment framework that combines ecological risk assessment with consideration of ecosystem services would provide a way to evaluate impacts of introduction of a biotech tree both on the forest functions and on the ecosystem services provided.
|
From page 10... ...
Forest health also is not considered in the regulation of nonbiotech products designed to address forest health problems. The assessments or reviews conducted for these management options do not do a better job of incorporating forest health and ecosystem services into their analysis than the assessments conducted for biotech trees.
|
From page 11... ...
Conclusion: There are mechanisms in place to alert neighboring countries about biotech forest trees that could enter their territory, but biotech trees could migrate across a national border without notice if the biotech tree is not regulated in the country of origin. Conclusion: Forest health also is not considered in the regulation of nonbiotech products designed to address forest health problems, such as biological control agents, pesticides, and assisted migration.
|
From page 12... ...
Recommendation: Investment in human capital should be made in many professions, including tree breeding, forest ecology, and rural sociology to guide the development and deployment of pest-resistant trees. Recommendation: Studies of societal responses to the use of biotechnology to address forest health threats should be used to help in developing a complementary framework to ecosystem services that takes into account intrinsic values, related spiritual and ethical concerns, and social justice issues raised by the deployment of biotechnology in forests.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.