[PCA] Need info on std. template to profile life cycles of angiosperms -- reply to Peter Rauch's inquiry

[Gena Fleming]

Noting that all the plants you mentioned have been genetically engineered,
and APHIS is responsible for processing their De-regulation

(see:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/biotechnology/content/printable_version/BRS_FS_biodereg_02-06.pdf
),
would another more transparent way of saying this perhaps be that you are
trying to limit (or at least justify that you have tried to assess the
inevitable) contamination of other crops as well as indigenous species (such
as guayule) by genetically engineered plants (including but not limited to
the few you mentioned here) that are being evaluated for field trials and
eventually complete deregulation by the USDA?  Plants that may contain
vaccines, hormones or other pharmaceuticals;  herbicide tolerance,
industrial chemicals or pesticides, or have been engineered for partial
sterility?   So you want to know what other species they might cross
pollinate with (spreading the contamination, including spreading of
fertility problems)?  Or whether the genetically engineered seeds might lay
dormant in the ground for years and years and then suddenly pop up
contaminating other plants unexpectedly?



What about the increased horizontal gene transfer that can be expected with
transgenic plants?  What about animals that may eat the seeds and carry them
to diverse locations?  What about pollen and seed dispersal through
tornadoes and floods?  What about pollen that kills pollinators?  What about
animals that wander or fly into fields and inadvertently consume vaccines
and human hormones now growing in these plants?  What about cold tolerant
eucalyptus and other trees that could now become invasive?  What about Bt
toxin that kills off beneficial soil micro-organisms?  How do we get our
heirloom crops back when they are contaminated with DNA from other genera
and kingdoms?  How do we ever reclaim the native guayule?  How do we assess
whether a forest tree has been contaminated by a genetically altered tree of
the same species?  How can we trace genetic contamination?  How can you
possibly account for all the variables when growing these plants in the
open?  And all those genetically engineered trials that are simply
designated by APHIS as "CBI" (confidential business information), I guess
we'll never know what they have been genetically engineered to contain.



Nature is an integrated system.   How can a database possibly account for
all the potential effects from the changes being introduced by genetic
engineering:

http://www.isb.vt.edu/cfdocs/isblists2.cfm?opt=8



And yet you write, "We then envision preparing brief (several
page) biological documents (profiles) on individual species, which would
adhere tightly to the standard template. The results for a species would be
something like the Cliffs Notes, but much shorter."



Corporations are corrupting our world's precious life forms, patenting them
as commodities, placing the entire regenerative and reproductive capacity of
life on this planet at risk, and your concern is compiling documents on
species that are "like Cliffs notes, but much shorter"?



The USDA is responsible for allowing this to happen.  But let it not be in
my name.



Gena Fleming


2008/12/26 <bmacbryde at netscape.net>

> Thanks for the inquiry and comments.
>
> First the easier clarification:  We've no plans to have a relational
> database for this, just static information. However, databases can help to
> narrow down categories to a functional minimum, which is what we'd like to
> start with in a standard agrobiology template. So, maybe someone has done
> the general profile work for a plant database, and a manual would give the
> summary.
>
> Second, the basic use envisioned is just internal guidance, so that an
> array of people with different backgrounds can quickly and simplistically
> understand the basic dynamics of the species, which are often major crops
> such as corn, rice, cotton, rapeseed/canola, onion, etc., but include a
> range of other species, e.g. safflower, guayule, plum, and poplar.
> Reproductive concerns relate to placement of crop varieties (experimental or
> breeding strains) so they don't cross-pollinate with other varieties, don't
> come up as volunteers in subsequent crops, and whether they could be
> dispersed beyond the agricultural area.
>
> The idea is not to go far into agroecological aspects, but recognize
> potentials. When fine-tuning refinements are needed for a particular species
> or planting situation, the idea is that they would just be added beyond the
> template. Also, if some new major fact became know, e.g., long seed dormancy
> in a crop thought to not have it, the crop profile would be changed, but by
> some internal staff review process, so that each staff person wouldn't be
> morphing the crop profile into their own version.
>
> Thanks.
> Bruce MacBryde
> USDA/APHIS
> Riverdale, MD
>
> E-mail: bmacbryde at netscape.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Rauch <peterar at berkeley.edu>
> To: native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org
> Sent: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:46 am
> Subject: Re: [PCA] Need info on std. template to profile life cycles of
> angiosperms, emphasis on reproductive dynamics
>
> Just two brief comments...
>
> You say:
> "The impetus behind this idea is to organize and focus internal information
> better, and limit the categories to those we really need."
> and,
> "just to capture the main categories to profile the potential dynamics of
> such
> species."
> and in the subject line,
> "to profile life cycles of angiosperms, emphasis on reproductive dynamics".
>
> But, organize and focus better for what purposes ?   What is it that you
> really
> need the data for ?  The "potential dynamics" of a (mainly common crop
> plants
> and several plantation trees) species includes a world of possibilities
> --how is
> this information intended to be used ?
>
> That will help (you and others) determine what might constitute a
> "relatively
> standard set of parameters to indicate basic life cycles of flowering
> plants in
> the United States, focusing mainly on common crop plants and several
> plantation
> trees".
>
> "...envision preparing brief (several page) biological documents (profiles)
> on
> individual species..."
>
> Who is expected to read (be served by) these documents, and for what
> purpose(s)
> ?
>
>
> Second, you refer a couple of time to "relational database".  I suggest
> that
> _how_ the information is stored and accessed is a far second (but then very
> important) consideration, after the full details are understood of "what
> purposes" and "what data will serve those purposes."
>
> Peter
>
> At 09:48 08/12/22, you wrote:
>
> Where I work (USDA/APHIS), we are in early stages of planning to
>>
> prepare and/or
> fine-tune and adopt a relatively standard set of parameters (which we are
> calling a template) to indicate basic life cycles of flowering plants in
> the
> United States, focusing mainly on common crop plants and several plantation
> trees. The impetus behind this idea is to organize and focus internal
> information better, and limit the categories to those we really need. This
> would
> not be for a relational database. We then envision preparing brief (several
> page) biological documents (profiles) on individual species, which would
> adhere
> tightly to the standard template. The results for a species would be
> something
> like the Cliffs Notes, but much shorter.
>
>>
>> I would appreciate information on existing standard formats or
>>
> templates of
> this general type. For example, parameters of interest to put in the
> standard
> template include: native or introduced; annual, biennial, herbaceous or
> woody
> perennial; modes of pollination (wind, insects, both, percentages,
> characteristics); outcrossing, selfing, both (and rough percentages);
> isolation
> distances to maintain genetic separation between cultivated strains
> (cultivars);
> vegetative propagation (kinds, extent); modes of dispersal (and
> characteristics); seed dormancy (practical characteristics, longevity);
> potential free-living strains (weedy strains or relatives, other taxa);
> etc.
> Details on morphology are not a focus.
>
>>
>> Occasionally others have made thorough efforts to capture life history
>>
> variation in flowering plants, for example in standardizing categories for
> a
> relational database. I'd much appreciate suggestions on major comprehensive
> papers or similar efforts, whether they relate to wild plants (native or
> naturalized), horticultural plants, silvicultural plants, or agricultural
> plants. The idea is not to elaborate on the infinite variation, but just to
> capture the main categories to profile the potential dynamics of such
> species.
>
>>
>> Thanks, Bruce MacBryde, Ph.D.
>> USDA/APHIS
>> Riverdale, MD
>>
>> E-mail: bmacbryde at netscape.net
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> native-plants mailing list
> native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org
>
> http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org
>
> Disclaimer
> Posts on this list reflect only the opinion of the individual who is
> posting the
> message; they are not official opinions or positions of the Plant
> Conservation
> Alliance.
>
> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to
> native-plants-request at lists.plantconservation.org
> with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> native-plants mailing list
> native-plants at lists.plantconservation.org
>
> http://lists.plantconservation.org/mailman/listinfo/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org
>
> Disclaimer
> Posts on this list reflect only the opinion of the individual who is
> posting the message; they are not official opinions or positions of the
> Plant Conservation Alliance.
>
> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to
> native-plants-request at lists.plantconservation.org with the word
> "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.plantconservation.org/pipermail/native-plants_lists.plantconservation.org/attachments/20081229/aa0ed878/attachment.html>