Report Release Event

January 8, 2019

nas.edu/forestbiotech

#ForestBiotechStudy

Forest Health and

Biotechnology:

Possibilities and

Considerations

BOARD ON AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Committee on the Potential for Biotechnology to

Address Forest HealthSusan E. Offutt, Chair

U.S. Government Accountability Office (retired)

Vikram E. Chhatre, University of Wyoming

Jason A. Delborne, North Carolina State

University

Stephen DiFazio, West Virginia University

Doria R. Gordon, Environmental Defense Fund

Inés Ibáñez, University of Michigan

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

Forest population genetics

Tree gene flow and reproductive biology

Genomics and quantitative genetics

Forest ecology and entomology

Selective breeding and genetic engineering of

forest trees

Sociology and ethics

Economics

U.S. environmental and regulatory law

• 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.

Statement of Task

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

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.

Definition of Forest Health

Aquatic

Terrestrial

Atmospheric

Water

Flora

Fauna

Other Biotic

Components

Atmospheric

Components

Soil

Other Abiotic

Components

Composite

End-Products

Other End-Products

Extractive Use

In-situ Use

Non-Use

- Existence

- Bequest

- Other Non-Use

Industries

Households

Government

Environment End-Products Direct Use/Non-Use Direct User

SOURCE: EPA. 2015.

Forest Ecosystem Functions and Services

Flows of Final

Ecosystem Services

Harmful introductions Lack of resistance Climate change More than one threat

SOURCE: Krist et al., 2014.

Dark red areas represent estimates of at least 25% loss of tree vegetation

between 2013 and 2027 due to insects and diseases.

Increasing Threats to Forest Health: Insect Pests and Pathogens

Harmful Introductions: Nonnative Insect Pests and Pathogens

• 455 known insect species introductions since 1600s

• 62 high-impact insect species

• 16 high-impact pathogen species

Sap feeders Phloem and wood borers

SOURCE: Aukema et al., 2010.

Lack of Resistance: Novel Insect Pests and Pathogens

Ash: Emerald Ash Borer

Chestnut: Chestnut Blight, Root Rot Whitebark Pine: White Pine Blister RustSOURCE: U.S. Forest Service SOURCE: R. Sniezko

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 forestsSOURCE: Bentz et al. 2010.

More than One Threat:

Diseases, Insect Pests, Environmental Stressors

Chestnut: Chestnut Blight,

Root Rot

SOURCE: U.S. Forest Service

Whitebark Pine: White Pine Blister Rust,

Mountain Pine BeetleSOURCE: R. Sniezko

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

Research and Investment Needs Beyond Biotechnology

Recommendations

• Investment in effective prevention and eradication approaches

should be the first line of defense against nonnative species in

efforts to maintain forest health.

• Management for forest health should make use of multiple practices

in combination to combat threats to forest health.

• Public funders should support and expand breeding programs to

encompass the genetic diversity needed to preserve tree species

essential to ecosystem services.

• Investment in human capital should be made in professions, including

tree breeding, forest ecology, and rural sociology, to guide the

development and potential deployment of pest-resistant trees

effectively.

Research and Investment Needs Beyond Biotechnology

Recommendations (cont.)

• More studies of the societal responses to the use of biotechnology to address forest health

threats in the United States are needed. Such studies might investigate (1) the responses of

different social and cultural groups to the deployment of biotechnology in forests, (2) the

stability and consistency of attitudes toward the different applications of biotechnology in a

range of circumstances, (3) differences in attitudes toward biotechnology strategies (e.g.,

cisgenesis, transgenesis, genome editing), (4) the relationship between deeper value

orientation and attitudes toward biotechnology, and (5) how people consider trade-offs

between values such as wilderness and species protection.

• Studies of societal responses to the use of biotechnology to address forest health threats

should be used to help in developing a complementary framework to ecosystem services

that takes into account intrinsic values, related spiritual and ethical concerns, and social

justice issues raised by the deployment of biotechnology in forests.

• Respectful, deliberative, transparent, and inclusive processes of engaging with people

should be developed and deployed, both to increase understanding of forest health threats

and to uncover complex public responses to any potential interventions, including those

involving biotechnology.

• Developers, regulators, and funders should experiment with analytical deliberative methods

that engage stakeholders, communities, and the public.

U.S. Regulatory System for Biotechnology

and Forest Health• The current regulatory system does not consider forest health

• Study’s definition of forest health considers entire forest ecosystem

and its value to humans

• Current regulatory system has more narrow focus

– Deliberate release of resistant tree into the environment intended to protect

forest health

– Geographic scope of release means involvement of large, diverse group of

stakeholders

– Contrast with regulatory experience with agronomic crops

Recommendation: Regulatory agencies should explore ways to incorporate into

their regulatory oversight responsibilities the ability to assess the impact on

ecosystem services for biotech and nonbiotech products developed for

improving forest health.

Public Sector as Catalyst

• Public (and private non-profit) sector would logically

lead in development and assessment of potential of

biotech trees

• Evaluating trade-offs

– Establish connection between ecosystem functions and the goods

and services provided to humans

– Consider both positive and negative effects on ecosystem services

and identify distribution of effects across stakeholders

Filling Knowledge Gaps

• Preparing for effective responses to threats to forest

health

• Understanding tree response to biotic and abiotic stress

– Forest genetics

– Tree breeding

• Understanding societal values and perspectives on

interventions

– Effective engagement with stakeholders and communities

– Linkage between ecosystem functions and services

Download the report for FREE

www.nap.edu

Study Sponsored by

www.nas.edu/forestbiotech @NASEM.Ag @NASEM_Ag #ForestBiotechStudy

Thank YouCommittee members

Reviewers

Speakers and members of the public

Sponsors

National Academies staff