Enhanced Wilderness

The study of invasive species in wilderness

Saturday, January 30, 2010

The Wilderness Gene-eee is Out of the Box

Genetic engineering is coming to the forests.

EnhancedWilderness.com

While the practice of splicing foreign DNA into food crops has become common in corn and soy, few companies or researchers have dared to apply genetic engineering to plants that provide an essential strut of the U.S. economy, trees.

But that will soon change. Two industry giants, International Paper Co. and MeadWestvaco Corp., are planning to transform plantation forests of the southeastern United States by replacing native pine with genetically engineered eucalyptus, a rapidly growing Australian tree that in its conventional strains now dominates the tropical timber industry.

The companies' push into genetically modified trees, led by their joint biotech venture, ArborGen LLC, looks to overcome several hurdles for the first time. Most prominently, they are banking on a controversial gene splice that restricts trees' ability to reproduce, meant to allay fears of bioengineered eucalyptus turning invasive and overtaking native forests.

If such a fertility control technology -- which has come under fire in farming for fear seed firms will exploit it -- is proven effective, it could open the door to many varieties of wild plants, including weedy grasses, to be genetically engineered for use in energy applications like biomass and next-generation biofuels without fear of invasiveness.

The use of such perennial plants -- so named because, unlike annual farm crops, they live and grow for many years -- has long interested business and government, including the Energy Department, which has collaborated with ArborGen. The plants, which include many grasses targeted for cellulosic ethanol, can be harvested when needed and, given their hardiness, grow on marginal land.

Yet many questions remain about the effectiveness of the fertility system used by ArborGen, which, according to leading scientists, has never been rigorously studied in multiyear trials to prove that it can effectively control plants' spread. More research must be conducted before such systems are relied upon to restrict pollen and seed spread, they say.

Despite these calls, ArborGen has been seeking government deregulation of its eucalyptus, which is primarily engineered to resist freezing temperatures, since 2008. If successful, ArborGen would likely revolutionize the timber industry and the Southern landscape by becoming the first company to roll out bioengineered trees on a massive scale, observers say.

In its rosiest scenarios, growers using ArborGen's presumably expensive seeds would see huge gains in productivity and become the preferred tree stock for a new generation of bioenergy refineries. The South would become the new Appalachia ; timber would serve as its coal. Inklings of such progress have already arisen, including recent word that the German utility RWE AG would build the world's largest wood-pellet plant in Georgia to supplement its coal habits.

By adopting eucalyptus as a tree stock, the United States would simply be catching up with countries like Brazil , which has leveraged vast tree plantations in recent decades to pivot from a net wood importer to an exporter. While the South saw a rise in pine plantations during this time, pine cannot compete with eucalyptus for sheer growth rate, the company says.

"The United States is behind the game on this," said Les Pearson, ArborGen's director of regulatory affairs. "Lots of countries around the world have been growing eucalyptus for many decades."

Indeed, primarily because of competition from South America , demand for traditional American tree pulp has gone slack. This sagging industry could allow up to 10 million acres in the Southeast to be repurposed for fast-growing eucalyptuses, according to corporate estimates.

But it still remains unclear if the nascent bioenergy industry will be enough to make up for demand lost to Brazilian plantations, said Curtis Seltzer, a timber consultant who has studied ArborGen and calls its trees a "game changer."

"It's not clear to me that biomass will pick up the slack for the traditional markets [as they] ebb," Seltzer said. "But it could."

Even given government incentives and a price on carbon, however, ArborGen must satisfy concerns from regulators and environmental groups that its engineered trees will not, especially when gifted with the ability to resist cold, spread untrammeled through forests.
Pollen problems

At its most basic, life is about reproduction. And the species' struggle to adapt and survive can make attempts to control the fertility of plants difficult, according to Steve Strauss, a tree geneticist at Oregon State University who has also consulted with ArborGen.

ArborGen relies on what has been the most popular system for restricting plant pollen, which uses a bacterial gene to produce a toxic enzyme called barnase that slices apart genetic material in a cell, causing death. Through genetic trickery, the enzyme is only produced in the pollen-spreading parts of the tree, destroying its ability to reproduce -- at least most of the time.

Given the number of trees that will be produced, there will likely be enough genetic instability to allow a very small number of the freeze-tolerant eucalyptuses to reproduce, Strauss said. Rather than an absolute containment system, barnase should be thought of as a mitigation strategy, he added.

"It doesn't mean there are no pollen grains produced," Strauss said. "Almost nothing in biology is 100 percent."

A tiny number of seedlings are almost assured to escape from the eucalyptus plantations, Strauss said. But since the trees, in his evaluation, are unlikely to prove invasive, there should be little cause for alarm.

"When you talk about trees, storms happen, wind blows," he said. "The containment is not absolute. There is the chance of some spread. Is it likely to become an invasive weed? Seems unlikely to me."

Until now, only two of ArborGen's experimental eucalyptus stations have been allowed to flower, and the company has reported little in the way of pollen production in the trees. It is now seeking to greatly expand the number and location of trees allowed to flower to 28 sites totaling 330 acres scattered across seven states. The Agriculture Department issued a draft approval of the expansion, subject to public comment, earlier this month (Land Letter, June 11, 2009).

The modified eucalyptus trees are already planted at most of these sites, and as they approach sexual maturity, ArborGen has been forced to pluck the trees' flowers or cut them down completely, causing millions of dollars in lost research, said Nancy Hood, ArborGen's public affairs director.

This test acreage is fairly small, hardly the equivalent of a full-scale commercial planting, as some environmental groups have accused. (For comparison, there are more than 32 million acres of pine plantation in the South.) However, ArborGen has confessed that it hopes USDA will deregulate the trees by the time the cohort reaches harvest age -- around seven years or so -- allowing the resulting pulp to be sold.

Many biotech researchers are supportive of the expanded experimental permit, which will allow more complete studies of the fertility containment system. While ArborGen has released little in the way of peer-reviewed research so far, it will publish barnase results this year, said Maud Hinchee, ArborGen's chief technology officer.

Such data would be a welcome change. While barnase's mechanism is well documented -- and approved for use in domesticated crops like rapeseed -- its effectiveness has barely been studied, according to an analysis written by Strauss in 2007.

"There does not seem to have been any serious field studies, in any crop, sufficient to estimate the operational effectiveness of containment genes," Strauss wrote. "Until many such studies are published, it would be unwise to assume that genes can be fully and safely contained in the near future."

Decisions to deregulate any wild GM plant like the eucalyptus must take into account this lack of research, said Hong Luo, a molecular biologist at Clemson University who has developed a gene containment system for another wild plant, turfgrass. His team recently completed a one-year study of the system's effectiveness, he said, but more research is needed.

"There haven't been really too much studies of what would be impact of transgene escape from perennials," he said. "We will be cautious in this respect."

It remains to be seen how the public will react to the concept of GM forest trees. But as researchers point out, people have already embraced some engineered trees that have no pollen controls. Almost all of the papaya trees in Hawaii are genetically engineered to resist the devastating ringspot virus, and similar efforts are under way to save the American chestnut, which has been nearly eradicated by fungal disease.

However, the inability to promise 100 percent containment could delay the development of bioengineered plants that carry even slight risks of invasiveness. But such foolproof systems will come, Strauss predicted.

"I do believe we can produce absolute containment," he said. "We will be able to do that, I believe, in 10 years. But it's not proven yet."
Australian invaders

The unproven nature of ArborGen's fertility controls is concerning largely because they will be used to introduce a robust, foreign tree, conservation groups say. The timber industry has long dreamed of importing eucalyptus into the South, mimicking Brazil 's success, where plantations transformed the country -- at some environmental toll -- from a timber importer to an exporter within decades.

Previous domestic efforts to establish the tree in the South, which came to a peak in the early 1980s, failed as winter freezes scythed dead swaths through experimental plantations. Only in Florida have the trees survived, though they have only been used in only limited ways, mostly for mulch. All efforts to move the tree into more temperate conditions have failed, until now.

Thanks to a plant gene that it licensed from Mendel Biotechnology, a prime R&D contractor with Monsanto Co., ArborGen's freeze-tolerant eucalyptuses have been grown in much colder conditions up into the Carolinas . (ArborGen has many connections to Monsanto, starting with its CEO, Barbara Wells, who worked at the seed giant for 18 years.) Mendel's regulatory gene controls the expression of other genes that influence cold resistance, and its use represents the state of the art in plant biotech.

But in opening the door to the plant's cultivation, far more scrutiny is needed as to how eucalyptus will behave when grown in bulk, said Doria Gordon, a senior ecologist at the Nature Conservancy.

"My concern is about invasiveness. Not that it is a GMO, per se," Gordon said. "The concern is, what threat is it to Florida 's natural area and to the Southeast's natural areas?"

Last year, Gordon, who also works at the University of Florida , evaluated one of the two species used to breed ArborGen's hybrids, Eucalyptus grandis, also known as the rose gum. The tree had previously turned invasive in South Africa, Gordon found, which led her to conclude that the tree carried a risk of turning invasive in the South, as well.

Gordon serves on a panel that evaluates the invasive risk of plants in Florida , and last year, the panel classified the rose gum as a possible invader. Only a few variants of the tree can be grown, it said, and only with strict management practices, including harvesting within six months of the onset of flower production -- much sooner than a forest plantation would like.

Though the rose gum carries an invasive risk, ArborGen's trees are an unknown quantity, Gordon said. Given the uncertainty involved, however, the Nature Conservancy has recommended to USDA that ArborGen be allowed fewer acres and trees to flower, and none in Florida , she said. The draft permit approved by USDA would allow flowering in 10 sites across the state.

"We don't know if it could become more invasive over time," she said. And until then, "it would be logical to me to not do those trials in Florida ."

It is not irrational to fear invasiveness in eucalyptus, said Dan Binkley, a forest ecologist at Colorado State University . However, the rose gum appears to take on weedy traits only in arid regions like South Africa , where it can leverage its tremendous water efficiency. The South is far moister by comparison.

Even in Florida , the eucalyptus has proved to be somewhat delicate, ArborGen's Pearson added.

The tree "does not exist outside of the planted environment," he said. And in the closed confines of a plantation, "you need to manage these things very carefully to let them survive and thrive."
'More Wood. Less Land'

While he would like to see more data on the water use and fire impacts of eucalyptus plantations, Binkley understands the tree's allure, he said.

Unlike the pine trees used in Southern plantations -- which have quietly helped displace tobacco in the region's economy -- eucalyptus can deploy a full canopy of leaves within a few years. It is greedy for carbon, and within 27 months can grow to 55 feet in height.

The ultimate benefit of eucalyptus plantations would be the ability to grow more wood on less land, ArborGen's Hinchee said. (Not coincidentally, the firm's motto is "More Wood. Less Land.") Forests are continuously lost to development in the South, and natural hardwood acres have become harder to harvest. Increased productivity would have benefits "through the whole economic chain," she said.

Similar claims have been made for the practice of forest plantations as a whole, which remains controversial despite its ubiquity in the South, and little data exists to verify the claims.

In the end, if the United States seriously pursues bioenergy from plants, the country will face a choice of drawing that power more from trees that are treated like crops, or from grasses, which can behave far more invasively, Strauss said.

"If we're going to rely on biofuels as a significant part of a diverse portfolio of renewable technology," then harvesting trees is the best way to go, he said. "There's a lot of marginal land that could be used."

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Johnson Grass - Wilderness Weed of the Week


Johnson Grass (Sorghum halepense) is one of the most beautiful grasses with a white pin stripped leaf. The seed head is ornate but the real story is what you do not see. The root system is full of tubers or rhizomes. It's been around since the early 1800s imported from Mediterranean for a forage crop. I selected this plant because while cutting hay I found a small circle of these very tall garasses in my hay field. This plant was custom designed for wilderness. In fact most roads in the Smokey Mountains have Johnson Grass growing thick on the sides of the roads. The Tennessee department of transportation uses special mowers to handle this tough guy.

I wonder how those fragile little pristine cactus would fair in a patch of Johnson Grass? Climate Change would have very little effect on Johnson Grass. Anyone wishing to check out Johnson Grass would not have very far to go. It's just a matter of knowing what one is looking over. The tubers are best for planting but the seeds are large and hardy. look out wilderness Johnson is moving in!

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Wilderness designation equals worthless designation

More wilderness equals more worthless public land. Invasive species are the number one concern for managers of wilderness areas. Why would anyone expect anything different for that is the only activity going on in a wilderness designated area! I see more and more bulletins about this forest or that desert or river being overrun by agent invasive species this or that. Seems the modern world is over filled with things that do not belong there. Has anyone ever heard of the survival of the fittest? Pristine wilderness is one big joke! Even the very oldest of the designated wilderness areas are overrun with some type of species that clouds the "pristine" view. Come on, wake up, it's not going to stay the same way Columbus, Clark and Powell found it! Nor will an act of Congress make Mother Nature change her ways. The only result of the wilderness designation is to deny millions the joy of access and management assistance for these areas. Once a wilderness designated, forever a worthless area. Why do the wilderness activist not tell all about the currently designated wilderness? Is it because most of these areas have burned or changed into something none of us would prefer. Just remember Wilderness equals Worthless!

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Got a problem - Get an insect to eat it?

I was really set back by this article where insects are being used to fight a loosing battle to remove Tamarisk from the Colorado River. The very same method could be used to remove endangered species from wilderness study areas. Without the endangered species card to play no reason to restrict anyone or anything from using the area! Just a thought.
http://www.gjsentinel.com/hp/content/news/stories/2009/05/02/050309_3A_Tamarisk_beetle.html
Of course these little critters will sooner or later be there anyway. What is that TV show called? After Man or when man is gone? Plants and insects eat New York City. Cogon.

Wilderness Weed of the Week

Nut Grass or purple nutsedge is the Wilderness Weed of the Week. He's a survivor and will be around for a very long time. The root system and tubers provide all the ground running ability needed to cover miles and miles of pristine wilderness. The seeds are very productive also. Some say this is the number one weed in the world but that's for another days comparison.

http://www.invasive.org/species/subject.cfm?sub=5506

Seeds and tubers are very easy to find for study because this guy is everywhere in most states.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

NON-NATIVE INVASIVE SPECIES IN WILDERNESS



This is the html version of the file

http://www.wilderness.net/toolboxes/documents/invasive/NNIP_Intro.doc

.



Google

automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.





NON-NATIVE INVASIVE PLANTS IN WILDERNESS









Non-native invasive species have the potential to damage the biological diversity and ecosystem integrity of many wilderness areas. Although all invasives species can have a major impact on naturally functioning ecosystems, this toolbox will focus specifically on invasive plants (NNIP).




These species create a host of adverse environmental effects, including the displacement of native plants; reduction in habitat and forage for wildlife; loss of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; increased soil erosion and reduced water quality; and changes in the intensity and frequency of fires. Each year the United States loses 1.7 million acres to the spread of these invasives. Invasive plants continue to increase and invade previously uninfested areas. Section 4c of The Wilderness Act of 1964 requires that wilderness be “…protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions…�. An effective non-native invasive species management plan will help preserve wilderness character and natural conditions.




Forest Service managers should note that national databases are the suggested tool for capturing inventory and treatment data. The NRIS database contains the TERRA module, which serves as a repository for inventory data. It also contains the national protocol for monitoring tasks.
FACTS is another module in NRIS that documents all invasive plant species treatment efforts.




By nature, invasive plants spread rapidly and can quickly cross administrative boundaries. Successful management of non-native

invasive species in wilderness

can only be accomplished through cooperative efforts between local, state, and federal agencies. Although control is only one part of a successful program, it is the only option for areas that already have infestations.




Three main treatment categories exist for removing non-native invasive plant species (herbicide, bio-control, and hand-pulling); of which hand pulling is the only method that should be attempted without NEPA in place. Units are strongly urged to complete the NEPA process before proceeding with any kind of treatment program. In many cases this can be accomplished at the Forest or even at the Regional level. Even then, site specific NEPA may be required on a case-by-case basis. In all cases, a Minimum Requirements Decision Guide




analysis


(www.wilderness.net/toolboxes/)


should be completed prior to treatment. The following paper adds to the discussion and provides some suggested guidance for addressing management of NNIP in wilderness in a NEPA analysis. Regional Wilderness and NNIP Specialists can provide information on region-specific guidelines and requirements.








Invasive Plant Issues and the Wilderness Resource




By Susan Sater with help from Peter Landres




Adapted for the wilderness.net toolbox by Tom Carlson




2005







  • The 1964 Wilderness Act presents managers with direction that creates a dilemma regarding what to do about invasive plants:





    • Section 2 (a) provides direction to preserve natural conditions in wilderness; natural conditions are interpreted to mean what would have existed in the absence of at least historic, European human activities




    • Section 2 (c) defines wilderness as an area where earth and its community of life are “untrammeledâ€�; untrammeled is interpreted to mean uncontrolled, unconfined, not restrained by people—protected from modern human control or at least intentional
      manipulation





  • The dilemma that this direction creates regarding what to do about invasive plants is that managers must choose either:





    • to preserve natural conditions by actively manipulating wilderness to reduce or eliminate invasive plants, or




    • to keep wilderness free from intentional modern human manipulation, but loose natural conditions due to the changes caused by invasive plants





  • A regional, forest or wilderness invasive plant EIS should explicitly decide:




    • if treatment of invasive plants (manipulation of wilderness) is appropriate in order to reduce or eliminate unnatural conditions, and




    • if treatment of invasive plants is appropriate in wilderness, is it appropriate everywhere or just under certain circumstances:





      • Does the appropriateness of invasive plant treatment vary with spatial scale, intensity, or periodicity of the treatment (if so which spatial scales, intensities, and periodicities are appropriate?)



      • Should invasive plant treatment be considered more appropriate in some wildernesses than in others (if so, what criteria distinguish wildernesses where treatments are or are not appropriate?






  • Wherever invasive plant treatment in wilderness is considered, the regional, forest or wilderness invasive plant EIS must specifically address these issues:





    • Quantity and quality of information on reference conditions




    • Quantity and quality of information on the consequences of both no treatment and treatment



    • Monitoring—for both pre and post treatment by any method



    • Vectors—what is being done to prevent the spread of invasive weeds into wilderness




    • Rehabilitation—what type of work needs to be done after treatment to mitigate treatment effects



    • Restoration—what is being done to restore natural plant communities




    • Under what conditions or treatment prescriptions is use of motorized equipment or mechanized transport appropriate



Sunday, May 24, 2009

Invasive species read no signs, have no rules and obey only the laws of nature

Please join Enhanced Wilderness to get the message out that the treat of invasive species in wilderness study areas far exceeds the low impacts of ohv on designated trails. Invasive species do not read signs and have no limits other than natures. Invasive species obey no laws other than nature. Invasive species travel by air, water and ground using every mode of travel. Birds, turtles, rats, snakes, deer, bear and countless other animals are possible transporters of invasive species. Once an invasive species is established in a wilderness study area there is very little chance of detection because of limited observers access. The very fact that it is a wilderness study area may actually destroy the qualities favored by wilderness designation. Once made a wilderness it's only use is for enhancement. The wilderness advocates are the first to call for improvements in the wilderness by removing and adding features they see as "good for wilderness". How is it that only they know "what is good for wilderness"? Many of us may have a very different view of what is "good for wilderness" and not be afraid to show these views. Who died and gave the wilderness to only a few special selected persons mostly self proclaiming to know what to remove and add to wilderness? These wilderness belong to us all and we intent to use them one way or another. Go ahead designate a wilderness. Close a trail. Make my day. Cogon.

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Southern Utah has plenty of weeds on BLM lands proposed for wilderness

Seems southern Utah has a lot of weeds on BLM lands just placed into the wilderness system. When we get more specific information from the BLM via a request for public information, we'll pass that on. You may check the BLM web site here: http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/cedar_city/more/weeds.html to see a small bit of the problem.

Enhanced Wilderness is the only use for Wilderness


Many of us who have previously enjoyed ohv travel on our public lands have had to park the machine and join the wilderness movement simply because we have no other choice. Trails are closed to our bikes and machines so now we must find new and fulfilling ways to enjoy the land we love so much. It seems to us that the only thing possible to enjoy would be to hike into the wilderness study areas, that's now the only way to access them, and do the study thing which is all that's available. Most of us are not very well educated in the life sciences of advance biology as the lady in the Paria River picnic protest, but we find a quick course in invasive species is just the kind of thing we could actually master and enjoy.


However, we now find out that even this wilderness experience could have impacts on our freedoms and movements. Seems that if you actually do find an invasive species to study in a wilderness study area you are required by law to report it to the County Weed Control Board. Darn! Seems they would give the BLM or Forestry 5 days to dig it up, burn it, or put chemicals from hell on it! If they didn't do any of the above then the County would have to do the dirty job and bill the BLM or Forestry.


I'm not sure about you but that does seem a bit out of character for a wilderenss study area. How would one "study the effects of weeds in wilderness" if no wilderness has weeds and how would one know anything about all this if it can't be studied! Now I think the real truth in all this is that wilderness study areas do in fact have weeds! And lots of them. The only people that ever go out there are hikers and in a lot of very remote areas hikers do not hike there. So I guess a former ohv person could actually do some good in a wilderness study area by looking for invasive species and being well versed in what they are actually looking for. If you happen to find one do not touch it! It is illegal to even have possession of invasive species material. Only take pictures and do a GPS reading for the report you must file with the County Weed Control Board. That would be your contribution to being a good wilderness study area visitor.


Many of you are now wondering how would I actually know if I saw an invasive species if it's illegal to have one. Well in many states it's not illegal to have the material. If you are traveling the country where many areas have for example Johnsons Grass growing in fields for cows. You may even be able to buy seeds and look them over for study.


Now that you understand a bit about invasive species you may wish to study all sorts of non-invasive species in wilderness study areas. That is where the Enhanced Wilderness comes in. Once you have parked the machine and the bike and the baby stroller, Yes even the baby stroller is not allowed in a wilderness study area, you may enjoy the wonderful joy of Enhanced Wilderness. Go to the cheap stores and buy all sorts of wild flowers, grass, produce, and anything that may grow and mix well in a big bag. Take this bag to your favorite wilderness study area and hike for miles in any direction all the while placing a bit of these seeds in places they may grow. This is now an Enhanced Wilderness protected by law for all future generations to enjoy and further enhance. You will be able to study all these wonderful plants and tell all your friends how different seeds do in the different wilderness areas. Enhanced Wilderness is the only use for any wilderness. Just make sure you know the invasive species in your state and report the findings. All other species are for study in these wonderful wilderness areas set aside by only Congress for your use. That they will never take from you. It's still yours to enjoy and enhance.


For many of you wishing to study invasive species seeds under control microscopic conditions, we will post areas were these plants grow wild in wilderness or aside public highways. If you find plants please inform us for posting. The study of invasive species in wilderness study areas is very important for all future generations. Please check back with Enhanced Wilderness for updates and information.