THE ROLE AND IMPLICATIONS OF BIOTECHNOLOGY

IN FORESTRY
by
Alvin Yanchuk3
INTRODUCTION:
Forest biotechnology has witnessed many new inventions and
techniques over the past decade, and it is likely this will continue at an
even more rapid pace in the future. As such, it may be difficult to know
what to expect from biotechnology, nevertheless, it is important we
continue to evaluate the basic forest genetic management principles that
should be considered, irrespective of the options that technologies will offer
forest managers.
While the biotechnology debate in agriculture will continue to be very
instructive to forestry, several issues in forestry are different and will
require special attention. This article will briefly 1) summarise
biotechnology currently used and being developed in forestry, and 2)
explore some of the issues and controversies related to their use.

BIOTECHNOLOGIES USED IN FORESTRY:

Biotechnology can be described as “any technological application
that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to
make or modify products or processes for specific use” (CBD, 2000). This
can encompass a wide variety of techniques, but the three main areas in
forestry that will likely be important are:
1) The use of vegetative propagation methods,
2) The use of molecular genetic markers, and
3) The production of genetically modified trees (GM trees).

 Vegetative propagation methods:

Vegetative propagation comprises a broad range of techniques
involving manipulation of plant tissue (e.g. sections of stems, leaves, roots,
seeds or even cell cultures) which ultimately allows for complete vegetative
“re-propagation” of the whole plant, i.e., the production of clonal
“varieties” or lines. The simplest forms of vegetative propagation are the
various techniques of grafting and the rooting of stem sections or
“cuttings.” Some species can root or graft easily onto rootstock, whereas
other species may require more elaborate “treatments” in order to be
successfully rooted or propagated. In forestry, most commercial scale
cloning methods rely on rooted cuttings for reforestation purposes,
however, advanced cloning techniques (see below) are also a basic
prerequisite for the production of genetically modified (GM) trees. Specific
“biotechnologies” related to vegetative propagation in forestry fall into the
three main categories of micro-propagation, cryo-preservation and in vitro
storage, and in vitro selection.

 Micro-propagation:
Micro-propagation is the development of clonal lines from small
tissue samples such as buds, roots or embryos extracted from seeds. The
last, referred to as somatic embryogenesis (SE), will likely be the most
promising micro-propagation technology for long-term storage and large-
scale production of trees from selected clonal lines, particularly for conifer
species. SE can be particularly useful once the genetic value of the clones
has been determined through field testing. However, the development
costs of such advanced tissue culture technologies are high compared with
simpler techniques.

 Cryo-preservation and in vitro storage:

With this technique small tissue samples are maintained at very cold
temperatures to maintain their current physiological condition. Therefore,
the evaluation of genotypes for efficient production of plant material later
on is usually one of the main goals of cryo-preservation (e.g., in SE
storage). While the technology is useful and necessary for many
applications in clonal forestry, it may also have applications in programmes
for species with recalcitrant seed, where basic seed storage is a major
problem (Englemann, 1997).

 In vitro selection:
This technique involves selecting for a trait (e.g. heavy metal or salt
tolerance) at an early stage in the micro-propagation phase. Although in
vitro selection has been used to some degree in crop plants, attempts in
forest trees have been limited to selection of expressed GM traits in trees
(i.e., in vitro selection techniques are a basic requirement in the process of
screening for successfully GM transformed clonal lines). Other traits,
therefore, can be combined with basic in vitro selection criteria required for
GM screening (e.g. mercury tolerance in yellow poplar [Rugh et al., 1998]),
which could be used for identifying clonal lines useful for phyto-remediation
purposes (Guller et al. 2001).

 Molecular genetic markers:

Genetic markers are essentially DNA sequences that are indicative of
common ancestry. The challenge to the geneticist is to look for
relationships between these markers and characteristics of trees from
pedigrees or specific populations. With correct interpretations, genetic
markers are invaluable for examining patterns of genetic variation among
and within populations, assessing levels of out-crossing and inbreeding,
and genetic identification or “fingerprinting” of varieties or pedigrees.
Genetic marker data can also be used for assisting with early selection of
better genotypes, rather than waiting for the tree to express the trait much
later. However, marker-assisted selection (MAS) is yet being routinely
applied in tree breeding programmes, largely because of economic
constraints (i.e., the additional genetic gains are generally not large enough
to offset the costs of applying the technology). Thus it is likely that
MAS will only be applied for a handful of species and situations, e.g. a few
of the major commercially used pine (e.g. Frewen et al., 2000) and
Eucalyptus species. Molecular markers are therefore primarily an
information tool and are used to locate DNA/genes that can be of interest
for genetic transformation, or information on population structure, mating
systems and pedigree confirmation.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) Trees:
Genetic modification of plants usually involves the artificial
introduction of well-characterized genes from other species into a new
plant genome, which then expresses itself as a new novel trait. “Biolistics”
(i.e.blasting DNA into the cell nucleus) or micro-organism vectors (e.g.
Agrobacterium) that carry the specific gene of interest are typically used to
introduce the gene(s). Of course, long-term or adequate expression of the
gene in the GM plant is critical. To be of economic value, GM trees must
offer unique features that cannot be economically delivered through
conventional breeding programmes, and that are capable of offsetting the
costs in developing the technology. The traits that have so far been
considered for potential genetic modification of forest trees are herbicide
resistance, reduced flowering or sterility, insect resistance and wood
chemistry. While conventional tree breeding programmes have been able
to make changes to insect resistance and wood quality, they have limited
possibilities of incorporating traits such as herbicide resistance, specific
changes in wood chemistry or reduced flowering. With GM technologies,
these possibilities are likely to come within reach.

ISSUES SURROUNDING THE USE BIOTECHNOLOGY IN FORESTRY:

Most of the concern about genetically modified plants, derives from

concern about these products grown as food. Although this will rarely be a
direct issue in forestry, careful evaluation will still be necessary to all
aspects of use of the trees because they can have many purposes.
It is difficult to say that any particular technique in itself can pose increased
biological risk. It is the gene products that pose a risk, irrespective of the
technology used to obtain them. To evaluate possible risks fully, in-depth
knowledge of the particular genetic transformation is necessary, e.g., what
are the protein products; produced by the transformation in the plant and
their possible interactions with other genes. This may be particularly true
when more than one or two transgenes are incorporated. In such cases
there may be requirements for longer field testing, more environmental
assessments and caution in deployment (Burdon,1999).These issues,
however, should not be considered unique to GM trees per se, as they are
considerations that tree breeders must consider even for conventionally
bred trees.
Forest Genetic Resources No. 30. FAO, Rome, Italy (2002)

Issues Associated With Specific Types of Traits:

 Herbicide Resistance.
 Herbicide resistance in poplars is probably the most well developed
GM technology in forest trees. The first concern with herbicide-resistant GM
plants is the evidence of the development of resistance in the weeds. The
risk may be substantially less in forestry than in agriculture, as herbicides
are only applied for a short period of time, with fewer applications as total
weed control is not necessary in forest tree plantations. The introduction of
herbicide resistance with GM technology may be one of the most feasible
and applied genetic modifications in trees; however, it is only likely for a
few well-developed species in certain situations, such as in intensive poplar
fibre farms. The second question is of course related to the effects on
adjacent or local wild populations of trees, if cross-breeding does occur
(e.g. in important in situ conservation areas). If the acceptability of this risk
is too great, reduced flowering or sterility transgenes (see below) may need
to be incorporated into GM tree lines.

 Reduced Flowering or sterility.

Reduced flowering in forest trees may be desirable to re-direct
products of photosynthesis into wood production, rather than into
reproductive tissues. However, since our knowledge of the reallocation of
such internal resources in a tree is not well quantified at this point, the
main justification for reduced flowering or sterility development is to
substantially reduce gene flow to wild adjacent populations of the same
species. Although substantial research on flowering mechanisms is under
way (e.g., Strauss and Bradshaw, 2001), the stability of sterility-gene
expression over time will have to be confirmed in field trials that reflect
expected rotation lengths.

 Insect resistance:
The development of GM insect resistant is now common, but it also
creates some of the most complex ecological questions. First, is the
possible toxicity of the compounds produced in GM insect resistant plants
when they are grown specifically for human consumption, or in forestry, on
non-target animals. Second, there are ecological concerns of cross-
breeding with wild relatives as well as the evolution of resistance in the
pest populations. Moreover, the long generation time of most tree species
allows for many generations of insect populations to challenge a new
single-gene resistance mechanism. The most developed GM approach for
insect resistance in both forestry and agriculture, has been the use of
genes from a natural insect pathogen, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Poplars
are again among the tree species in which the technology is most
advanced (e.g. TGERC,1999; Yifan and Jainjun, 2001). Research and
development of other compounds is under way to reduce the reliance on
the relatively narrow group of natural Bt toxins (French-Constant and
Bowen, 1999). Because of the complex ecological ramifications and public
concerns surrounding GM insect-resistant plants, high levels of scientifically
sound laboratory and field testing will be required.

 Wood property chemistry:

 Genes important in the pathway of lignin development in wood have
been modified to produce unique wood composition in very young trees
(e.g. Lapierre et al. 1999: Akim et al. 2001), with the goal of easier and
more environmentally friendly pulping. Two important questions that
remain in developing lignin-modified varieties or clones are, “how much
extra value would there be in plantations using such trees” and “would
altered wood show susceptibilities to environmental stresses?” Once again,
substantial periods of field testing will be required to answer such
questions.

Can Genetically Modified trees be safely deployed in the

environment?
The primary ecological concern with GM plants appears to be from
potential problems arising from gene exchange with wild populations.
However, in many situations for which GM trees will be considered, it will be
with exotic plantation species so this would not be a factor. If not, reduced
flowering or sterility is likely to be a basic requirement, as well as
implementing more restrictions in deployment. Some investigations to look
at these specific questions are under way in forestry (e.g. DiFazio, et al.,
1999). Current regulations of the Forest Stewardship Council (1999)
prohibit the use of genetically modified trees, but they also state that “the
use of an exotic species shall be carefully controlled and actively monitored
to avoid adverse ecological impacts.” However, the idea that GM trees
might be functionally analogous to some invasive exotic species does not
seem very likely (Strauss and Bradshaw, 2001). On the other hand, a large
genetic change made to the overall fitness of a native species, even by a
single gene addition, and released without adequate consideration of local
environmental risks is not appropriate either. Clearly, potential risks must
be balanced with benefits in all types of improved forest trees, considering
the deployment schemes that will be used in space and time. In any event,
deployment strategies should be designed to minimize the risks of
economic losses of the stand as well as future biological losses, such as the
development of resistance in pest and disease populations (e.g. Roberds
and Bishir, 1997). To help address many of these types of concerns, several
countries have developed regulations and restrictions specifying the
requirements of confined field testing needed before commercial release of
GM plants (OECD, 2000). These requirements, necessary to reduce
biological and economic risks, will undoubtedly continue to evolve, as will
national laws and regulations, and other broader international agreements
on bio safety, e.g. the Cartagena Protocol on Bio safety (CBD, 2000). New
institutions are also surfacing to assist with critical research in the
applications and policy around the use of GM trees (Burke, 2001).

Equity of Access to Genetic Modification Technologies:

Private investors have taken the lead for most investments in modern
biotechnology, and in so doing have also had to manage the associated
economic risks. In many situations these investment risks are protected by
patents, and agreements for the use of techniques or material could then
be prohibitively expensive. In order to offset some of these concerns, the
role of governments may have to expand in research and development in
order to provide a flow of material and information that can be used and
shared by both private and public institutions (Santos and Lewontin, 1997).
The allocation of funds, whether through private or public agencies, needs
to achieve a balance between building scientific capabilities and
knowledge, and supporting more applied, well proven forestry technologies
(Burdon, 1994). In this regard, the investment and use of any
biotechnology needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Public Acceptance of Genetic Modification:

Although the rapid generation turnover in crops has allowed genetic
modification technology to develop quickly, the ecological ramifications in
forestry will likely be much more difficult to evaluate. Due to the relatively
long period a tree requires to grow to a usable size, it is likely they will
encounter more environmental stresses (e.g., variable weather, pests), that
could trigger unpredictable genetic responses. Long periods of testing will
be required for proper evaluation under both laboratory and field
conditions. Public and government acceptance of GM plants is now as
dependent on biological risk assessment and risk issue management (Leiss,
1999) as it is on any technical or economic issues.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE CHALLENGES:

The following are few summary points and conclusions that can be drawn
from the discussion above:
 The development time, from the laboratory to the field, for all new
types of
tissue culture or GM trees will be substantially longer than in crop species.
While this may provide forest scientists and managers time to learn from
the issues being faced in agriculture, the economic realities of relatively
long generations will continue to be a major challenge to investors in
biotechnology.
 It appears that GM trees will become a reality only for novel and
particularly
valuable traits in short rotation tree species in intensively managed forest
plantations. It will usually be in the context of high intensity clonal forestry
that most of the issues need to be examined and evaluated.
 The public must be confident that regulatory frameworks are in place
so that
commercial development of biotechnology does not take precedence over
biosafety issues. However, the development of useful biotechnology in
forestry should not be put at risk with extraordinary regulatory compliance
costs that are driven by unwarranted concerns.
 Government participation in the development of biotechnology
appears
necessary to keep some flow of material and knowledge in the public
domain. Without this, the costs of using privately
owned genes could seriously limit further interest and development of GM
technology in trees.
  Even if GM trees are not used on a wide scale in the future, research
and development
in GM technology will provide a great deal of information about gene action
and regulation, which could be of long-term value to conventional breeding
programmes.
 Other forest management decisions with potentially more serious
ecological
consequences, including large-scale species introductions or inappropriate
use of provenances or improved trees from conventional breeding, need to
be evaluated by foresters, managers and regulatory agencies in the same
way as products of modern biotechnology.
 Finally, while those in the forefront of any technology are likely to
appreciate its
potential benefits, in the end it will be the economic and regulatory
systems of governing bodies at national and world levels that must
evaluate the technology’s relevance and appropriateness.

Forest Genetic Resources No. 30. FAO, Rome, Italy (2002)

REFERENCES:
1. Akim, L.G., Argyropoulos, D.S., Jouanin, L., Leple, J.C., Pilate, G., Pollet, B.
& Lapierre, C. 2001. Quantitative P-31 NMR spectroscopy of lignins from
transgenic poplars. Holzforschung. 55:386-390.
2. Burdon, R.D. 1994. The role of biotechnology in forest tree breeding.
Forest Genetic Resources, 22: 2-5. FAO, Rome.
3. Burdon, R.D. 1999. Risk-management issues for genetically engineered
forest trees. New Zealand Journal of Forest Research, 29:375-390.
4. Burke, S.W. 2001. Responding to new trees and to the issues at hand:
The institute of forest biotechnology. In: Proc. of the First Symposium on
Ecological and Societal Aspects of Transgenic Plantations. S.H. Strauss and
H.D.
5. Bradshaw, eds. College of Forestry, Oregon State University. pp. 62-69.
[www.fsl.orst.edu/tgerc/iufro2001/eprocd.pdf] CBD 2000. Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety. Convention on Biological Diversity. Available on the
Internet at http://www.biodiv.org/biosafe/Protocol/Protocol.html
6. Englemann, F. 1997. In vitro conservation methods. In J.A. Callow, B.V.
Ford-Lloyd & H.J. Newbury, eds. Biotechnology and plant genetic resources:
conservation and use, p. 119-161. Biotechnology in Agriculture Series
No.19. Wallingford, UK, CAB International.
7. DiFazio, S.P., Leonardi, S., Cheng, S. & Strauss, S.H. 1999. Assessing
potential risks of transgene escape from fiber plantations. In: Proc. of Gene
Flow and Agriculture: Relevance for Transgenic Crops, 72: 171-176.
8. French-Constant, R. & Bowen, D. 1999. Photorhabus toxins: novel
biological insecticides. Current Opinion in Microbiology, 2: 284-288. Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC). 1999. Principles and criteria for forest
stewardship. Internet document
(http://www.fsc-uk.demon.co.uk/PrinciplesCriteria.html)
9. Frewen, B.E., Chen, T.H.H., Howe, G., Davis, J., Rohde, A., Boerjan, W., &
Bradshaw, H.D. Jr. 2000. QTL and candidate gene mapping of bud set and
bud flush in Populus. Genetics, 154: 837-845.
10. Guller, G., Komives, T. & Rennenberg, H. 2001. Enhanced tolerance of
transgenic poplar plants overexpressing gamma-glutamylcysteine
synthetase towards chloroacetanilide herbicides. Journal of Experimental
Botany.
11. Lapierre, C., Pollet, B., Petit-Conil, M., Toval, G., Romero, J., Pilate, G.,
Leple, J.C., Boerjan, W., Ferret, V., De Nadai, V. & Jouanin, L. 1999.
Structural alterations of lignins in transgenic poplars with depressed
cinnamyl alcohol dehydrogenase or caffeic acid O-methyltransferase
activity have an opposite impact on the efficiency of industrial kraft
pulping. Plant Physiology, 119: 153-162.
12. Leiss, W. 1999. The trouble with science: public controversy over
genetically-modified foods. Presented at the Eastern Regional Meetings of
the Canadian Society of Plant Physiologists, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, 12
December 1999. Available on the Internet at:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~wleiss/news/trouble_with_science.htm
13. Merkle, S.A. & Dean, J.F.D. 2000. Forest biotechnology. Current Opinion
in Biotechnology, 11: 298-302. OECD. 2000. Biotechnology regulatory
developments in OECD member countries. Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (Internet document
(http://www.oecd.org/ehs/country.htm)
14. Roberds, J.H. & Bishir, J. 1997. Risk analysis in clonal forestry. Canadian
Journal of Forest Research, 27: 425-432.
15. Rugh, C.L., Senecoff, J.F., Meagher, R.B. & Merkle, S.A. 1998.
Development of transgenic yellow poplar for mercury phytoremediation.
Nature Biotechnology, 10: 925-928.
Santos, M. de Miranda & Lewontin, R.C. 1997. Genetics, plant breeding and
patents: conceptual contractictions and practical problems in protecting
biological innovations. IPGRI Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter, 112: 1-8.
16. Strauss, S.H. & H.D. Bradshaw. 2001. Tree biotechnology in the new
millennium: International symposium on ecological and societal aspect of
transgenic plantations. Oregon State University.
(http://www.fsl.orst.edu/tgerc/iufro2001/eprocd.htm)
17. Tree Genetic Engineering Research Cooperative (TGERC). 1999. TGERC
highlights of 1998-1999. Internet document
(http://www.fsl.orst.edu/tgerc/1998-99.htm)
18. Yifan, H. & Jianjun, H. 2001. Field evaluation of insect-resistant
transgenic Populus nigra trees. In: Proc. of the First Symposium on
Ecological and Societal Aspects of Transgenic Plantations. S.H. Strauss &
H.D. Bradshaw, eds. College of Forestry, Oregon State University.
(http://www.fsl.orst.edu/tgerc/iufro2001/abstract.htm)