However, the road to digesting cellulose is a long one. Before current research on cellulose, only one enzyme, cellulose synthase (CESA), of the cellulose constructing protein complex was known. Recently, researchers at Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology in Potsdam, working with colleagues in the USA, identified another enzyme that may play a crucial role in the synthesis of cellulose. When researchers tested plants that could not form this newly identified protein, cellulose synthase-interactive protein (CSI1), they found that a much lower amount of cellulose was produced. This, of course, led to structural malformations in the plant.

Although the scientists have not completely ascertained the full scope of CSI1’s function, the identification of the protein remains a large step forward for the pursuit of cellulose digestion. Understanding the formation of cellulose and plant cell walls could prove to be key in increasing the digestibility of cellulose in animal feed, and could, in turn, spur agricultural production in the midst of a global food crisis.

Discussion Question: Can you foresee any problems if livestock or humans could digest cellulose?

News Article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100720083254.htm

Journal Article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1007092107

The gene of interest comes from the fern Pteris vittata, a plant that is 100 to 1000 times more resistant to arsenic than other species of plants. Jody Banks and David Salt, professors at Purdue University, determined the resistant genes by using yeast functional complementation. Essentially, they introduced thousands of different genes from the fern (since the fern’s genome was not sequenced) into yeast, which was not resistant to arsenic, and then exposed the yeast to arsenic. Yeast that survived had taken up the genes necessary for arsenic tolerance.

To validate the results found via yeast functional complementation, the researchers knocked out the resistance genes in fern plants and then exposed the plant to arsenic. With knocked out genes, the plant was unable to survive. The genes that Banks and Salt discovered are not present in flowering plants, but careful genetic modification of flowering plants could lead to arsenic resistance in flowering species (e.g. crop plants) as well.

Since the activity of the genes leads to the absorption of arsenic from the soil, plants with these genes could remove arsenic from polluted lands. After the fern absorbs the arsenic, it relocates the arsenic to vacuoles in its fronds, where the arsenic can do little to damage the plant or its surroundings.

Discussion Question: Do you think that arsenic-tolerance genes can be expressed similarly in flowering plants? What would be the advantage?

News Article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100608183044.htm

Journal Article: http://www.plantcell.org/cgi/content/abstract/tpc.109.069773v1

Fortunately enough for the billion-plus South Asians around the world in addition to countless other lentil lovers out there, a recent study conducted by Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists has discovered a new variety of lentils that has proven to be a richer source of protein, fiber, minerals, and vitamins than its predecessors.

This new form of lentil, known as Essex, was developed by George Vandemark and Fred Muehlbauer of the ARS and was chosen for public release from a pool of potential varieties due to its unparalleled yield.

In addition to this obvious benefit, it was also found that Essex has protein levels anywhere from 20 to 30 percent higher than other currently popular varieties of lentils.  Furthermore, a host of experiments have shown that Essex enjoys a symbiotic relationship with Rhizobium bacteria that have been found to be extremely efficient nitrogen fixers. How soon will this variety be available to the public, you may wonder? According to the research team at the ARS, Essex may be available for sale to growers as early as 2011. Here’s to biotechnology!

Discussion Question: share your thoughts on biotechnology and genetic engineering. Are you completely for the idea, or are you wary of potentially harmful side effects of this quickly developing technology.

News Article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100316112454.htm

Scientific Article: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/

In a study done by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the current method of cattle grazing proved deleterious to sage-grouse. Cattle do not actually consume the sagebrush that the sage-grouse use for food and shelter. Instead, they consume the grass in between sagebrush plants (interspace grass). However, after 40% of the interspace grass is gone, the cattle begin grazing on grass below the sagebrush. This grazing ends up being problematic for the grouse, as its habitat begins to be destroyed.

Although it seems apparent that stopping grazing would help the grouse population proliferate again, it is not beneficial to the ranchers who own these grazing cattle. Many ranchers prefer to have their animals graze on public lands, and stopping grazing on these lands altogether would hurt them. ARS scientists proposed that ranchers may graze on public lands, but the grazing should be carefully monitored. If the cattle have consumed 40% of interspace grass, ranchers should relocate their cattle to other grazing areas before the cattle begin damaging grouse habitat.

Discussion Question: What other solutions could you think of to solve this problem?

News Article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100430131235.htm
Journal Article: http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?seq_no_115=196170

While I often feed my appetite for being around these gorgeous and majestic plants by taking strolls through the beautiful Memorial Park, sometimes I crave something a little more and my ‘go-to’ place throughout life has always been Yosemite National Park in California. Therefore, when I read about a recent study conducted by a team from the US Geological Survey and the University of Washington that concluded that the number of large trees in this awe-inspiring park has been on a steady decline over the past century, I was truly saddened.

To conduct the study, the research team compared the earliest records of large-diameter trees densities from the 1930s to more recent records from the 1990s and found that in this period alone, about 24% of these large trees vanished.

Unfortunately, the implications of this decline are far more wide ranging than reducing my number of trips to Yosemite every couple of years; a rapid decline in large trees as noted by this study means the habitat loss of countless species of plants and animals. Furthermore, large-diameter trees are better at resisting forest fires than are there smaller counterparts so we can expect the number of these devastating disasters to also increase in the coming years. This is especially true if we consider the fact that there is now increasing evidence for the hypothesis that there is an ongoing shift from fire-tolerant to fire intolerant trees in the region.

“Although this study did not investigate the causes of decline, climate change is a likely contributor to these events and should be taken into consideration,” said USGS scientist emeritus Jan Van Wagtendonk. I suspect that this is just one of many future studies that will continue to find more and more potential negative effects of climate change on our environment in the coming years.

Discussion Question: Do you think that it is really the effects of global warming that are at play here, or are there other possible reasons you can think of for this marked decline? What are these other reasons?

News Article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090729132117.htm
Journal Article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.03.009

The true shame in all of this is the simple fact that scientists had not even discovered many of these now extinct plants and animals and therefore, we will never know the numerous beneficial effects they once offered our planet.

Although the aforementioned deforestation is one of the leading causes of extinction of plants and animals around the world, it is by no means the only one. In fact, human behavior has negatively impacted numerous species of plants (largely unintentionally) since the beginning of our history.  In the New York region, for example, numerous plants such as the Nantucket shadbush, the coastal violet, and the hairy angelica all currently face extinction directly because of human interference of their natural growth patterns.

For the past 20 years, therefore, the Brooklyn Botanic Garden has been mapping species of plants in every county within a 50-mile radius of New York City to assess the current threat level to specific plants and then, implement a plan of action for their revival.

Undoubtedly, this was a long and arduous process for all of those involved but their efforts were made worthwhile just a few weeks ago when the project finally came to an end. One of the leading causes of the near-extinction of many of the species in this region was discovered to be the introduction of foreign varieties of plants that ultimately led to the detriment of native ones.

“Plants from other parts of the world are now quite abundant, but there are many others that have been lost due to urbanization,” said Gerry Moore, the botanical garden’s science director. The main goal of this large scale mapping, then, was to order the plants in a list from most threatened to least threatened and then promote the planting of the former with the hope of leading to the eventual revival of these increasingly rare plants in the New York area. As you may have guessed, this is an extremely exciting time for the researchers of this project as they will finally be able to witness the many fruits of their countless years of labor.

Discussion Question: In addition to the introduction of foreign varieties of plants, what other human behavior do you think has led to the near extinction of many species of plants in this region?

News Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/nyregion/03flora.html
Scientific Article: http://www.bbg.org/

As a lover of biology, the vast diversity of life on earth and the almost perfect homeostasis with which these various life forms interact with one another continues to amaze me.  Therefore, when I read about a recent research study led by a team at the University of California at Irvine that described how insect eating animals have been found to reduce the effects of global warming by removing the threat of harmful plant eating insects, I was once again reminded of my mom’s wise words.

“Our efforts solidify the importance of birds, bats, lizards and other similar animals to ecosystem health, and underscores the importance of conserving these species in the face of global change,” said Kailen Mooney, an assistant professor in ecology and evolutionary biology at UC-Irvine. The main importance of this finding is the fact that it comes at a time when many leading ecologists have begun casting doubt on the role birds and other insect eaters have as plant protectors.

After carefully researching the many complex feeding patterns of these various plant eaters, however, Mooney and the rest of her team were able to once again bring into light and reconfirm the extremely important role of these omnivores in safeguarding the livelihood of plants.  “Our study provides the most comprehensive support of this hypothesis to date. It shows that despite feeding on predatory insects, birds, bats and lizards still act as plant protectors by having net negative effects on plant-feeding insects,” Mooney added.

Discussion Question: Do you think that there are negative side effects to the removal of plant eating insects that were ignored by the research team? What might some of these effects be?

News Article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100407134819.htm
Scientific Article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1001934107

A lot of times, we only associate stress with an emotional state, forgetting its physical attributes. This mindset also explains why we never think of plants ever facing stress. But once you are able to think of stress as having physical factors and attributes, you can realize that plants can get stuck in even worse situations, because they are never able to run away!

Fortunately, however, plants do have innate protection systems that respond to different stresses and prevent the plant from dying. However, these systems usually come with a cost, often decreasing plant growth.  Stephen Howell, professor of genetics, development, and cell biology from Iowa State University, recently published a study that determines how the plant Arabidopsis responds to heat stress.

According to the research, when the environment is very hot, several proteins in the plant do not fold correctly. Structure defines function in the case of proteins, and thus, when they do not fold correctly, it inherently means that they are unable to function correctly. When mis-folded or unfolded proteins are recognized by sensor exonucleus factors within the cells, molecular related transcription factors travel to the nucleus and activate genes to guide the folding process for the proteins.

As can be guessed, this process takes time and energy, thus inhibiting the growth of the plant while it is occurring. According to Howell, this study can be used to figure out how to allow the plant to grow while facilitating the refolding process for proteins. This information can definitely incite further research to figure out a solution that will allow plants to grow better in stressful situations.

Discussion question: Why would growth be prevented during this process?
News Article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100330102833.htm
Research Article: http://www.plantcell.org/cgi/rapidpdf/tpc.109.072173v1

As it turns out, the answer to the question concerning the source of the pollen may actually be “all of the above.”  According to an article by Claire Williams published in the American Journal of Botany, pine pollen can travel up to 1,800 miles over a short time period.

Through collection of loblolly pine pollen blown from the outer banks of North Carolina to the barrier islands, Williams unveiled that pine pollen traveling as far as 2,000 feet in the air and 25 miles off shore maintained viability and can still germinate.  Because loblolly pine provides more than 15 percent of the world’s timber, the findings of this study could have profound implications on the approval of transgenic pine tree growth.

With pollen that maintains the ability to germinate over long distances of travel, preventing the spread of transgenic pine traits to wild pine species would become nearly impossible.  For instance, a transgenic loblolly pine tree may have specifically engineered traits for drought tolerance and disease resistance; thus, upon travel of their pollen to a location of wild pines, the pollen will cross-pollinate with the wild species, making the wild tree now have traits for drought tolerance and disease resistance as well.

Although this study may mean bad news for transgenic pines, the viability of “far-flung” pollen may actually be advantageous for forests experiencing climate change.  With higher wind speeds and more frequent storms expected with human-induced climate change, pollen will travel greater distances from their source; therefore, the genes needed to adapt to warmer temperatures will have a better chance of integrating with populations lacking the genes.

Discussion Question: Considering that plants other than pine trees use wind pollination for reproducing, will this study prevent genetic modification of other populous plant species?  Can you name of any other plant species that might not be approved for genetic modification for fear of cross-pollination with wild species?

News Article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100405091943.htm
Paper Abstract: http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/abstract/ajb.0900255v1?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=long+distance+pine+pollen&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

The idea that insect-eating animals consume both plant-predators and plant-protectors has caused many to doubt the significance that insect-eating animals have on plants. For example, spiders also contribute to plant growth by reducing the number of plant-feeders. It was hypothesized that lowering the number of spiders in the environment would cancel out the effect of lowering the numbers of plant-predators.  However, the researchers still insist that their work shows that an increase in insect-eaters significantly benefits plants. An increase in plant growth would also help the environment by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Discussion Question: What other insect-eating animals could help benefit plants?
News Article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100407134819.htm
Journal Article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1001934107