BOARD ON AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES Forest Health and Biotechnology: Possibilities and Considerations Report Release Event January 8, 2019 nas.edu/forestbiotech #ForestBiotechStudy
Committee on the Potential for Biotechnology to Address Forest Health Susan E. Offutt , Chair Forest population genetics U.S. Government Accountability Office (retired) Tree gene flow and reproductive biology Vikram E. Chhatre , University of Wyoming Genomics and quantitative genetics Forest ecology and entomology Jason A. Delborne , North Carolina State University Selective breeding and genetic engineering of forest trees Stephen DiFazio , West Virginia University Sociology and ethics Doria R. Gordon , Environmental Defense Fund Economics Inés Ibáñez , University of Michigan U.S. environmental and regulatory law Gregory Jaffe , Center for Science in the Public Interest Mark D. Needham , Oregon State University Clare Palmer , Texas A&M University Jeanne Romero-Severson , University of Notre Dame Ronald R. Sederoff (NAS) , North Carolina State University (emeritus) Diana L. Six , University of Montana Richard A. Sniezko , U.S. Forest Service
Statement of Task Examine the potential use of biotechnology for mitigating threats • to forest tree health • Identify the ecological, economic, and social implications of deploying biotechnology in forests, and develop a research agenda to address knowledge gaps about its application Focus on trees and consider at least two cases that consider the • use of biotechnology to protect a tree species from an insect and/or disease where negative consequences for forest health are anticipated.
Impetus for the Study A healthy forest sustains ecosystems over time and space and • provides value to humans Forest health is threatened by invasive pests, exacerbated by • climate change Existing regulatory system has not yet reviewed biotech plants to be • released into unmanaged forest ecosystems Public sector plays an important role in protecting forest health •
Definition of Forest Health A condition that sustains the structure, composition, processes, function, productivity, and resilience of forest ecosystems over time and space. An assessment of this condition is based on the current state of knowledge and can be influenced by human needs, cultural values, and land management objectives.
Forest Ecosystem Functions and Services End-Products Direct Use/Non-Use Environment Direct User Water Flora Industries Aquatic Extractive Use Fauna Other Biotic Components In-situ Use Atmospheric Flows of Final Terrestrial Components Ecosystem Services Households Soil Other Abiotic Non-Use Components - Existence - Bequest Composite Government Atmospheric - Other Non-Use End-Products Other End-Products SOURCE: EPA. 2015.
Increasing Threats to Forest Health: Insect Pests and Pathogens Harmful introductions Lack of resistance Climate change More than one threat Dark red areas represent estimates of at least 25% loss of tree vegetation between 2013 and 2027 due to insects and diseases. SOURCE: Krist et al., 2014.
Harmful Introductions: Nonnative Insect Pests and Pathogens • 455 known insect species introductions since 1600s • 62 high-impact insect species • 16 high-impact pathogen species Phloem and wood borers Sap feeders SOURCE: Aukema et al., 2010.
Lack of Resistance: Novel Insect Pests and Pathogens Whitebark Pine: White Pine Blister Rust Chestnut: Chestnut Blight, Root Rot SOURCE: U.S. Forest Service SOURCE: R. Sniezko Ash: Emerald Ash Borer SOURCE: iStock Photo Poplar: Canker (Septoria) SOURCE: S. Simon
Climate Change: Synergistic Effects with Native and Nonnative Insect Pest and Pathogens • Warmer winters • Fewer cold spells • Longer active seasons Estimated development of spruce beetle in a single year in North American spruce forests SOURCE: Bentz et al. 2010.
More than One Threat: Diseases, Insect Pests, Environmental Stressors Whitebark Pine: White Pine Blister Rust, Chestnut: Chestnut Blight, Root Rot Mountain Pine Beetle SOURCE: R. Sniezko SOURCE: U.S. Forest Service
Measures to Curtail the Attacks from Insect Pests and Pathogens SOURCE: Adapted from GAO, 2015.
Using Biotechnology to Mitigate Threats to Forest Health • Biotechnology provides a means to introduce or modify genes in trees to increase resistance to pests 2 tree species have been altered with biotechnology for forest health purposes, but both are – still in field trials Challenges to using biotechnology include: • – Lack of knowledge about the mechanisms of pest resistance in trees Large genome size and long life span – Lack of information on the effects of releasing new genotypes into the environment – Need for resistant trees to be suitably adapted to specific environments – – Many tree species under pest attack do not have adequate or sustained breeding programs in which to integrate biotechnology Caveats • Prevention of the introduction of nonnative species and eradication are the most cost- effective and lowest impact approaches to managing nonnative pests. No single management practice is likely to be effective in combatting major pest outbreaks. •
Using Biotechnology to Mitigate Threats to Forest Health Recommendations Sufficient investment of time and resources should be made to successfully identify or • introduce resistance into tree species threatened by insects and pathogens. More research should be conducted on the fundamental mechanisms involved in trees’ • resistance to pests and adaptation to diverse environments under a changing climate. • The deployment of any biotechnological solution with the goal of preserving forest health should be preceded by developing a reasonable understanding in the target species of (a) rangewide patterns of distribution of standing genetic variation, if known; (b) magnitude of local adaptation; and (c) identification of spatial regions that are vulnerable to genetic offset. • Entities concerned about forest health should devote resources to identifying resistant trees within a population that have survived a pest outbreak. Research to understand the role of resistance in coevolved systems from the perspective of a global host – pest system, where the nonnative pathogen or insect originate, would help guide efforts in North America. Research should address whether resistance imparted to tree species through a • genetic change will be sufficient to persist in trees that are expected to live for decades to centuries as progenitors of future generations.
Improving Impact Assessment • Any decision framework for assessing the potential impacts of introducing a biotech tree on forest health needs to enable evaluation of trade-offs between positive, negative, and neutral impacts • An impact assessment framework accommodates an assessment of ecological risk to forest function as well as consideration of the ecosystem services lost or maintained with or without an intervention to address forest health • Field trials are needed to gather data on biotech trees in terms of gene flow, durability and effectiveness of resistance, seed generation and dispersal, genetic fitness, and some ecosystem impacts Sources of uncertainty need to be incorporated into evaluations with models • Address large spatial and temporal scales and stochasticity of forests – – Quantify reliability of impact assessments – Estimate predictive capacity of models – Identify data needs for models Account for climate change in areas targeted for species restoration –
Improving Impact Assessment Recommendations • Federal agencies should continue efforts to improve the incorporation of all components of ecosystem services into the integrated impact assessment. Modeling and other approaches should be developed to address questions • about biotech tree gene flow, dispersal, establishment, performance, and impact that are precluded where flowering of field trial material is restricted. Models for tree biotech assessments should identify, quantify, and account • for sources of uncertainty. An adaptive management approach to forest health should be used to ensure • continued learning and address impacts to both the environment and society. Impact assessment should be a continuous and iterative process. •
Research and Investment Needs Beyond Biotechnology • Biotechnology is one of many approaches to address forest health and should not be pursued to the exclusion of other options Multiple management practices may need to be used to address forest • health threats Interventions to address forest health using biotechnology should also • consider social values Biotechnological interventions are likely to impose varying risks, costs, and – benefits on different groups of people over time Social impacts should be investigated, research into the perspectives of – individuals and communities likely to be affected should be carried out, and affected communities should be engaged transparently and respectfully – Engagement processes could include surveys, focus groups, town hall meetings, science cafes A conceptual framework to account for forests’ intrinsic value is needed to • complement impact assessment
Recommend
More recommend
