Live data from Hacker News

The problem with the Darling 58 genetically modified chestnut tree

nymag.com

11–20 of 62 posts

Re: The problem with the Darling 58 genetically modified chestnut tree

#11
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A country of two million people managed to plant six million trees in one day in 2008 https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4AI49U/

How many of them survived more than a year?

Many of them. Do you have information about it that the rest of us don't?

"Fifty million trees planted- the government said in 2014- with a success rate of 61% compared to the average European planting success rate of 35%."

Re: The problem with the Darling 58 genetically modified chestnut tree

#13
post #4

IMHO this is a romantic effort, no one can plant a tree species at such a scale.

Sometimes, I just have some view of a city, or whatever, look out, quietly scan the horizon and just muse "every tree I see was planted by someone". Someone said "here, there will be a tree" and it was so. Small ones, big ones. They're just everywhere. "See that park over there? Someone put every one of those trees in the ground." Then, as a corollary, one day, a parking lot has several dozen trees. Next day, they're…

Given adequate rainfall and the right range of soil acidity trees will seed and grow themselves. This town was farm fields in the 1930s. Some trees were planted when the streets were laid out and houses built. Others, particularly ornamentals, continue to be planted. But there are a great number of trees that are volunteers that have been allowed to mature over the last century. Norway maples, sweet gum, tulip poplar, and red oak are particularly good at volunteering.

Re: The problem with the Darling 58 genetically modified chestnut tree

#14
post #4

IMHO this is a romantic effort, no one can plant a tree species at such a scale.

Sometimes, I just have some view of a city, or whatever, look out, quietly scan the horizon and just muse "every tree I see was planted by someone". Someone said "here, there will be a tree" and it was so. Small ones, big ones. They're just everywhere. "See that park over there? Someone put every one of those trees in the ground." Then, as a corollary, one day, a parking lot has several dozen trees. Next day, they're…

I've had health issues for about 5 years, my back yard is a dense forest because I'm not outside editing it back to my preferences.

Trees definitely do not need us.

Re: The problem with the Darling 58 genetically modified chestnut tree

#15
post #4

IMHO this is a romantic effort, no one can plant a tree species at such a scale.

Sometimes, I just have some view of a city, or whatever, look out, quietly scan the horizon and just muse "every tree I see was planted by someone". Someone said "here, there will be a tree" and it was so. Small ones, big ones. They're just everywhere. "See that park over there? Someone put every one of those trees in the ground." Then, as a corollary, one day, a parking lot has several dozen trees. Next day, they're…

Many do plant themselves. In my city (Atlanta), slash pine, pecan, tulip poplar and mimosa frequently grow as volunteers and get quite large.

Re: The problem with the Darling 58 genetically modified chestnut tree

#16
For those, like me, who wondered, why not just reclone the original Darling 58?

Here is the answer from TACF: “ Why not then return to the “real” Darling 58? The first reason is that the Darling 58 also uses the 35S constitutive promoter which appears to result in a variety of metabolic costs to the tree and likely causes the majority of performance problems observed in the Darling line. Secondly, there are only a handful, and perhaps even only one, D58 tree(s) in existence. These trees are at either the T0 or T1 stage (the original event and first-generation offspring). If work is to start over at those early diversification stages, it makes sense to focus on new OxO lines that express the gene only in tissues infected with blight. Confining OxO expression to blight infected tissues should reduce the metabolic cost of expressing this gene, thus these new lines are more likely to have enhanced forest competitiveness.”

Re: The problem with the Darling 58 genetically modified chestnut tree

#17
post #5
post #4

IMHO this is a romantic effort, no one can plant a tree species at such a scale.

A country of two million people managed to plant six million trees in one day in 2008 https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4AI49U/

Planting trees results in inferior forests. A healthy forest comes from natural forestation that goes through pioneer species stages.

Re: The problem with the Darling 58 genetically modified chestnut tree

#18
post #4

IMHO this is a romantic effort, no one can plant a tree species at such a scale.

Sometimes, I just have some view of a city, or whatever, look out, quietly scan the horizon and just muse "every tree I see was planted by someone". Someone said "here, there will be a tree" and it was so. Small ones, big ones. They're just everywhere. "See that park over there? Someone put every one of those trees in the ground." Then, as a corollary, one day, a parking lot has several dozen trees. Next day, they're…

This is definitely an odd take, given the 150+ saplings I pull from my meager backyard every spring. I'm still killing off the root system of some Elm trees that were destroyed in 2021 during the big freeze here in Texas. If I didn't keep that in check I'd have dozens of elms at this point.

Re: The problem with the Darling 58 genetically modified chestnut tree

#19
So this group wants to propagate a GMO to "save" a tree species? Which is of course impossible with current mechanisms. Although it seems that producing a near replacement tree is likely within reach.

But they can't even seem to be sure what edited organism they are trying to propagate? This is why I do not trust GMO stuff. I have no special credentials (just an undergraduate degree) but even at that level it was clearly stated to me that if you're going to do research, you need to keep clear documentation about what you are doing so it is reproducible.

Re: The problem with the Darling 58 genetically modified chestnut tree

#20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes, I just have some view of a city, or whatever, look out, quietly scan the horizon and just muse "every tree I see was planted by someone". Someone said "here, there will be a tree" and it was so. Small ones, big ones. They're just everywhere. "See that park over there? Someone put every one of those trees in the ground." Then, as a corollary, one day, a parking lot has several dozen trees. Next day, they're…

I've had health issues for about 5 years, my back yard is a dense forest because I'm not outside editing it back to my preferences. Trees definitely do not need us.

In a dense cities, the trees you see now that were allowed to grow to maturity were mostly likely planted by a human, with some exceptions of course. Any trees that began to grow organically were probably cut or eliminated.
Post reply on HN