10 ms·

I hope they are able to bring back the American Chestnut too. That tree isn't completely dead -- some stumps and shoots remain -- but adult trees never survive

I hope they are able to bring back the American Chestnut too. That tree isn't completely dead -- some stumps and shoots remain -- but adult trees never survive, due to a fungus that didn't used to exist in North America. There are now two programs to bring it back. One, by hybridizing with Japanese Chestnut and breeding to (hopefully) keep not much more than the Japanese tree's blight resistance. And another -- more controversially but maybe actually better -- that adds to the American Chestnut genome a single gene, from wheat, that confers resistance to the fungus. These latter trees would be even more like the originals. The hybrid program has some test sites now in the wild. The GMO version has not been approved, but I hope it will be.

throwawaygal7 5y ago
Releasing GMO chestnuts will contaminant the gene pool forever, it's a bad idea. Two things about the American chestnut are relevant: 1) the percentage of forest it occupied is widely overstated, seemingly due to exageration thru retelling of the story. It was usually a top ten tree at most sites, far from the numbers you usually see in articles. The these numbers are from ideal sites for its colonization or areas where it was planted by humans. This is widely known and studied, but people who write about it to lay audiences tend to use exaggerated figures out of context. 2) many specimens survived the blight due to partial resistance, not all were wiped out. All we need to do is wait and they'll do just fine. Even a traditional breeding program would work in a few generations, there's really no good reason to rush this stuff.
- trash3 5y ago
  All we need to do to fix climate change is wait as well ;)
  - sojournerc 5y ago
    What are you winking at? Cheeky comment, but thread was about trees... You just trying to flame war?
  - hobs 5y ago
    I dont know why the poster is being downvoted, I have heard the same about the Chestnut coming back from foresters and others in the know for a decent amount of time. Pretty sure you'll find https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi12xaJxA5U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi12xaJxA5U saying the same thing about the Chestnut.
- sojournerc 5y ago
  Whomever downvoted this care to comment with evidence?
  - SECProto 5y ago
    American Chestnuts that have gained resistance to blight via selective breeding, hybridization with a different species, or insertion of a different gene are all genetically modified. The only difference is the source of the modification. Starting a comment with the inflammatory statement "Releasing GMO chestnuts will contaminant the gene pool forever, it's a bad idea" doesn't serve the discussion well. Humans are really good at throwing environmental pressure (logging) after environmental pressure (chestnut blight) after environmental pressure (urban air pollution) after environmental pressure (global warming) at species. The speed with which these pressures arise is faster than natural selection can deal with for most species, and are leading to an extinction event rather than species just learning to adapt. If we can make minor direct genetic modifications to help species cope, I think it's an unqualified win.
  - irrational 5y ago
    I didn’t downvote, but my guess is that it has to do with the first sentence as sounding like something an anti-GMO nut would say.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      Right. "contaminant " or even "contaminate" is a "press the emotional button" kind of word. The kind of disgust-trigger than inhibits rational thought. Stripped of that, it says "the new gene will be in the tree's the gene pool forever, so it's a bad idea" which is a non-sequitur. Putting the gene in permanently, for permanent fungus resistance, is the point, isn't it? The emotional appeal is the entire argument. It seems to imply that gene editing is always "bad and dirty". There might be a case to be made that putting this particular gene in this tree is a bad idea, but this sentence is really not it (1). I think that I had an emotional reaction against it ;) IMHO Gene editing is too broad a category to judge like that. Comments on the internet - good, bad or useless? It depends on what you write, and where. If someone is going to ask for "comment with evidence", then do not reverse the burden of proof (1) and put that on "downvoters", instead ask for "sources" that all gene editing is "contamination", rather than giving a free pass to sneaking in the conclusion via loaded language, without supporting evidence. I think that I gave this topic more in-depth examination than it deserved, but there you go. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
- bobcostas55 5y ago
  >Releasing GMO chestnuts will contaminant the gene pool forever So what?
accrual 5y ago
The Wikipedia article suggests there are not just a few, but many known living examples of the American Chestnut. Not to say it doesn't need saving, but this seems better than just some stumps and shoots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_chestnut#Surviving_specimens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_chestnut#Surviving_sp...
- julienchastang 5y ago
  It is quite common to see American Chestnuts in the northeast US, in the Hudson Valley, for example. Growing up in that area, I saw many with their big beautiful serrated leaves. The problem is that they never grow very tall or big before being attacked and killed by the blight. I believe some can even bear fruit though I do not personally recall this. There have been a number of really good articles in publications like the nytimes on bringing back the American chestnut to health via parallel tracks of cross-hybridization and GMO. I don't have the references right now, but a quick Internet search will reveal them.
  - joecool1029 5y ago
    Some do still bear fruit even inside blight range. I live in NJ and have a survivor that's stressed but able to produce. Got a few handfuls out last year and was able to try some for the first time. This yield is compared to the few truckloads I get off the 2 chinese chestnuts here, but it's something. Basically, there's 2 ways to bring these trees back to blight range (or something approximating them). Method 1 is hybridization route with Chinese chestnut, method 2 is genetically modified route using a single wheat protein gene to confer resistance. Method 2 needs approval and there was a request for comment open a couple years about it.
  - whicks 5y ago
    I'm a bit late to this conversation but I wanted to drop in and support this comment. I live in North Carolina and have personally seen dozens of adolescent American Chestnut trees in the Appalachians in the western part of the state. They love the high ridge lines out there. Most of the chestnuts I've seen look like shrubs due to how they develop and can easily be missed of you're not looking carefully for them. From what I've read elsewhere most American Chestnuts only make it to 5-10 years old before the blight gets them. I've only seen a couple of trees taller than 10-15' tall in the wild (and have seen several infected with the blight). The American Chestnut is "functionally extinct", because despite the fact that they are somewhat prominent throughout their native habitat as adolescents, they rarely (if ever) are able reach maturity and develop fruit (and therefore can't reproduce). Here are a few pics of some adolescent chestnuts if anyone is curious: - https://unsplash.com/photos/O9q1p_9bji0 https://unsplash.com/photos/O9q1p_9bji0 - https://unsplash.com/photos/0s7_4fm8y-g https://unsplash.com/photos/0s7_4fm8y-g - https://unsplash.com/photos/WKl-XtkAnXM https://unsplash.com/photos/WKl-XtkAnXM - https://unsplash.com/photos/fESmwiRQf_c https://unsplash.com/photos/fESmwiRQf_c
tomcam 5y ago
Yes! Also the Dutch Elm.
goda90 5y ago
I watched this video from a guy named Mark Shepard who's approach is hybridization and natural selection. It sounds like he has American-Chinese chestnut hybrids in his farm: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RePJ3rJa1Wg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RePJ3rJa1Wg
jgwil2 5y ago
We're likely going to need such programs to save thre North American ash species from the Emerald Ash Borer as well.
jsnodlin 5y ago

throwawaygal7 5y ago

Releasing GMO chestnuts will contaminant the gene pool forever, it's a bad idea. Two things about the American chestnut are relevant: 1) the percentage of forest it occupied is widely overstated, seemingly due to exageration thru retelling of the story. It was usually a top ten tree at most sites, far from the numbers you usually see in articles. The these numbers are from ideal sites for its colonization or areas where it was planted by humans. This is widely known and studied, but people who write about it to lay audiences tend to use exaggerated figures out of context. 2) many specimens survived the blight due to partial resistance, not all were wiped out. All we need to do is wait and they'll do just fine. Even a traditional breeding program would work in a few generations, there's really no good reason to rush this stuff.

trash3 5y ago
All we need to do to fix climate change is wait as well ;)
- sojournerc 5y ago
  What are you winking at? Cheeky comment, but thread was about trees... You just trying to flame war?
- hobs 5y ago
  I dont know why the poster is being downvoted, I have heard the same about the Chestnut coming back from foresters and others in the know for a decent amount of time. Pretty sure you'll find https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi12xaJxA5U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi12xaJxA5U saying the same thing about the Chestnut.
sojournerc 5y ago
Whomever downvoted this care to comment with evidence?
- SECProto 5y ago
  American Chestnuts that have gained resistance to blight via selective breeding, hybridization with a different species, or insertion of a different gene are all genetically modified. The only difference is the source of the modification. Starting a comment with the inflammatory statement "Releasing GMO chestnuts will contaminant the gene pool forever, it's a bad idea" doesn't serve the discussion well. Humans are really good at throwing environmental pressure (logging) after environmental pressure (chestnut blight) after environmental pressure (urban air pollution) after environmental pressure (global warming) at species. The speed with which these pressures arise is faster than natural selection can deal with for most species, and are leading to an extinction event rather than species just learning to adapt. If we can make minor direct genetic modifications to help species cope, I think it's an unqualified win.
- irrational 5y ago
  I didn’t downvote, but my guess is that it has to do with the first sentence as sounding like something an anti-GMO nut would say.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    Right. "contaminant " or even "contaminate" is a "press the emotional button" kind of word. The kind of disgust-trigger than inhibits rational thought. Stripped of that, it says "the new gene will be in the tree's the gene pool forever, so it's a bad idea" which is a non-sequitur. Putting the gene in permanently, for permanent fungus resistance, is the point, isn't it? The emotional appeal is the entire argument. It seems to imply that gene editing is always "bad and dirty". There might be a case to be made that putting this particular gene in this tree is a bad idea, but this sentence is really not it (1). I think that I had an emotional reaction against it ;) IMHO Gene editing is too broad a category to judge like that. Comments on the internet - good, bad or useless? It depends on what you write, and where. If someone is going to ask for "comment with evidence", then do not reverse the burden of proof (1) and put that on "downvoters", instead ask for "sources" that all gene editing is "contamination", rather than giving a free pass to sneaking in the conclusion via loaded language, without supporting evidence. I think that I gave this topic more in-depth examination than it deserved, but there you go. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
bobcostas55 5y ago
>Releasing GMO chestnuts will contaminant the gene pool forever So what?

accrual 5y ago

The Wikipedia article suggests there are not just a few, but many known living examples of the American Chestnut. Not to say it doesn't need saving, but this seems better than just some stumps and shoots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_chestnut#Surviving_specimens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_chestnut#Surviving_sp...

julienchastang 5y ago
It is quite common to see American Chestnuts in the northeast US, in the Hudson Valley, for example. Growing up in that area, I saw many with their big beautiful serrated leaves. The problem is that they never grow very tall or big before being attacked and killed by the blight. I believe some can even bear fruit though I do not personally recall this. There have been a number of really good articles in publications like the nytimes on bringing back the American chestnut to health via parallel tracks of cross-hybridization and GMO. I don't have the references right now, but a quick Internet search will reveal them.
- joecool1029 5y ago
  Some do still bear fruit even inside blight range. I live in NJ and have a survivor that's stressed but able to produce. Got a few handfuls out last year and was able to try some for the first time. This yield is compared to the few truckloads I get off the 2 chinese chestnuts here, but it's something. Basically, there's 2 ways to bring these trees back to blight range (or something approximating them). Method 1 is hybridization route with Chinese chestnut, method 2 is genetically modified route using a single wheat protein gene to confer resistance. Method 2 needs approval and there was a request for comment open a couple years about it.
- whicks 5y ago
  I'm a bit late to this conversation but I wanted to drop in and support this comment. I live in North Carolina and have personally seen dozens of adolescent American Chestnut trees in the Appalachians in the western part of the state. They love the high ridge lines out there. Most of the chestnuts I've seen look like shrubs due to how they develop and can easily be missed of you're not looking carefully for them. From what I've read elsewhere most American Chestnuts only make it to 5-10 years old before the blight gets them. I've only seen a couple of trees taller than 10-15' tall in the wild (and have seen several infected with the blight). The American Chestnut is "functionally extinct", because despite the fact that they are somewhat prominent throughout their native habitat as adolescents, they rarely (if ever) are able reach maturity and develop fruit (and therefore can't reproduce). Here are a few pics of some adolescent chestnuts if anyone is curious: - https://unsplash.com/photos/O9q1p_9bji0 https://unsplash.com/photos/O9q1p_9bji0 - https://unsplash.com/photos/0s7_4fm8y-g https://unsplash.com/photos/0s7_4fm8y-g - https://unsplash.com/photos/WKl-XtkAnXM https://unsplash.com/photos/WKl-XtkAnXM - https://unsplash.com/photos/fESmwiRQf_c https://unsplash.com/photos/fESmwiRQf_c

tomcam 5y ago

Yes! Also the Dutch Elm.

goda90 5y ago

I watched this video from a guy named Mark Shepard who's approach is hybridization and natural selection. It sounds like he has American-Chinese chestnut hybrids in his farm: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RePJ3rJa1Wg https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RePJ3rJa1Wg

jgwil2 5y ago

We're likely going to need such programs to save thre North American ash species from the Emerald Ash Borer as well.

jsnodlin 5y ago