1 / 30

Alvin Yanchuk,

THE IMPACTS OF TREE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMES ON FOREST HEALTH: THE PAST MODELS, AND FUTURE APPROACHES NEEDED IN CHANGING CLIMATES. Alvin Yanchuk, Forest Genetics Section, Research Branch, B.C. Forest Service, Victoria, B.C. Canada Gillian Allard ,

biana
Download Presentation

Alvin Yanchuk,

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. THE IMPACTS OF TREE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMES ON FOREST HEALTH: THE PAST MODELS, AND FUTURE APPROACHES NEEDED IN CHANGING CLIMATES Alvin Yanchuk, Forest Genetics Section, Research Branch, B.C. Forest Service, Victoria, B.C. Canada Gillian Allard, Forest Health Officer, Forestry Department, FAO, Rome, Italy

  2. Predicted range and frequency for Douglas-fir in British Columbia Present 2025 2085 2055 < 5 % 5 - 10 % > 10 % Source: Hamann A. & T. Wong. http://genetics.forestry.ubc.ca/hamann/

  3. Climate and pest range shifts under future warming predictions; e.g., Nun moth

  4. Climate and pest range shifts under future warming predictions; e.g., Gypsy moth

  5. mountain pine beetle mortality in lodgepole pine Dothistroma needle cast

  6. Response curves for ‘Nelson Low’ and ‘Prince George Low’ populations of lodgepole pine in BC (from, Wang et al. 2006, Global Change Biology) Figure 6. Growth response curves of populations for 20-year height and volume per hectare versus mean annual temperature (MAT).

  7. Optimization of best populations in 8 seed planning zones of lodgepole pine in BC (from, Wang et al. 2006, Global Change Biology) Great news, but will this just be more food for the insects!?

  8. A long history pest and disease resistance research in forestry…. 1966 1992 In 2005, FAO initiated a survey of the literature to document status / impact of tree improvement programs addressing disease and pest resistance 2003 1996

  9. Categories / Status • Breeding programmes with deployed resistant material; • Programmes breeding for resistance, no deployed material; • Resistance detected in genetic/provenance trials; • Evidence in genetic variation in resistance in small research seedling or clonal trials. The information is also categorized under three broad approaches: • traditional plant breeding methods; • molecular biology approaches; • genetic engineering.

  10. Tree Improvement and Breeding Programs for Pest and Disease Resistance…..summary ~ 260 resistance ‘research programmes / initiatives’ identified ~ 20 programmes are using or have identified resistance materials only 4-5 major commercial forestry programmes have documented ‘impacts’ substantial investments have had to be made in these 4-5 large commercial programmes, over a period of several decades transgenics – most are with poplars in China ongoing survey: additional projects making impacts, particularly in smaller programmes / countries?

  11. Disease resistance breeding • western white and sugar pines • blister rust resistance • USDA For Serv (Moscow, ID; Doreena, OR) • BC MoFR and Canadian Forest Service • loblolly and slash pines • fusiform rust resistance • NCSU / U. Florida / WGTIP • radiata pine • Dothistroma (For Res Inst., Rotorua) • poplars (e.g., Greenwood / Mead-Westvaco / many European countries) • Melampspora • Septoria • Venturia • chestnut blight (TACF)

  12. Pest resistance breeding • white pine weevil (B.C.) • aphids on spruce (DK,UK) • poplar beetles and borers (China, US) • >> eucalyptus – leaf beetles • >> mammals- eucs, redcedar • >> birch borer / ash borer • >> adelgids in spruce • >> bark beetles • >> etc

  13. Overview of Current BC Programs • Changing directions of trait objectives • Growth and form selected in first generations • Pest resistance ‘models’ • Spruce (weevil) • Pine (bark beetle) • Redcedar (deer) • Disease resistance ‘models’ • White pine (blister rust) • Redcedar (needle disease) • Douglas-fir (root rot) • Pine (gall rusts)

  14. Sitka spruce clone #898 – immune to all attacks todate! ?

  15. Breeding and deploying deer resistance western redcedar • Observed variation in browse among trees • Browse correlated with needle monoterpenes • Genetic variation in monoterpenes

  16. Western redcedar browse resistance • Thujone at redcedar concentrations • thujone • Control • Monoterpenes in redcedar appear ‘repellent’ to deer!

  17. ? delta-3-carene

  18. Will this approach serve us well into the future? • Pests and diseases we will be facing? • Shifting species and population ranges into new environments • Increased activity/damage in current distributions • Continuing exotic pest and disease introductions • Can’t afford to develop specific resistances to pest ‘x’ or disease ‘y’? • 15 - 40 years per programme to develop and deploy resistant material? • 5 additional issues we must consider are…

  19. 1. Resources for pest and diseases resistance breeding….? • We will likely have fewer resources to incorporate specific host-pest resistance mechanisms • Tree breeders, entomologists, pathologists interested in screening / phenotyping and working together? • Dwindling investments and take up of tree improvement programs • TIMO’s, REIT’s, corporate ‘disintegration’ • Use of ‘cheapest seed’ • Global reductions in basic plant breeding and quantitative genetic training

  20. 2. Innovation in applying resistances • Finding specific mechanisms has been extremely difficult • after ~150 papers on mountain birch herbivory (Haukioja. et al.)… still no clear understanding, e.g., • Large spectrum of compounds that change over the growing season • Resistance varies by herbivore spp. • Changes in nutrients, water content and leaf toughness as important as any chemicals • general mechanisms against ‘classes’ of pests? • may be more difficult with diseases? • Large investments in host-pest / disease research is still being made, however; • better $ alignment with applied programmes that deliver resistant germplasm, if possible

  21. 3. Studies on non-pedigreed trees • Studies on wild trees, while important for modelling natural disturbances, they may not; • be able to extrapolate work to facilitated migration of species / populations under climate change • Working with pedigreed material from breeding programs, if available, can still provide basic information

  22. Distribution of long-term genetic field experiments in B.C Map of our 1000 tests • Currently >1000 field installations! • range in age from 1 to ~50

  23. EP 513 Coastal Douglas-fir Provenance Test • Represents millions of dollars of investment • database management • documentation • security • Annual maintenance expenditures in the order of $350k / yr

  24. 4. Further Investments in Molecular Genetics • Out pacing investments in applied and traditional breeding technology!?; • 30% of the ‘initiatives’ were molecular based approaches (over the last 10 years) • of great biological interest, but need to be better aligned with applied programmes • e.g., phenotyping on seed orchard clones?

  25. 5. Transgenic trees • Address immediate local insect or disease problems (e.g., use of Bt) • Still have to operate within well developed breeding programmes • Adequate field testing • Populations must be managed at the landscape level • particularly with a climate change ‘lens’ • gene flow to wild relatives • consider evolution of virulence or resistance

  26. Building resistance ‘portfolios’ to classes of biotic challenges?

  27. Conclusions: after 50 years of tree breeding… • …relatively minor global impacts of resistance breeding, however; • some, locally very important successes • few species have the tree improvement ‘machinery’ in place • substantial research not directed on problems where silvicultural management options are limited (e.g., Pw, chestnut)? • New approaches necessary? • better focus of resources? • general ‘mechanisms’ of resistance (i.e., cross resistance?) • Finding resistance genotypes is not our main challenge; • test our current resistances/genotypes across ‘new’ classes of pests and diseases resistance (i.e., cross resistance?) • can we build the internal capacity to do so?

  28. Thank you! Acknowledgements- John Russell, John King, Barry Jaquish, Mike Carlson, Nick Ukrainetz Photo: A. Woods

More Related