Thanks for that link.
I've seen (but can't find now) studies that showed that plants in one part of a field can signal plants far away THROUGH fungi that associate with their roots that they need to activate their insect defenses.
The researchers found that, when they blocked the roots' connections through the soil fungi (mycorrhizae?) , the signal was no longer received and the remote plants did not gear up their defenses until the insects reached them..
Not only smart, but altruistic!
That was one thing that got me to thinking about co-evolution. It makes simple sense that arbuscular MR might co-evolve with the plants whose roots they inhabit. That's like a simple symbiote-symbiote co-evolution. "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."
However, I also see that worms must have evolved to do things that favor plants.
Why does it seem that MOST aerobic microbes are good for soil, in the sense that plants do do better when you add any kind of compost?
Now i'm entertaining an idea that is an extension of an idea someone else proposed to explain why humans and maybe some other animals) evolved some traits (like altruism) that don't always give an advantage to the individual that posses them, and not even solely favor the descendents of that individual.
The idea was that "evolution or natural selection can occur BY TRIBE as easily as by individual or family".
If we picked just the right buzzwords, like "rhizosphere" or "soil ecosystem", might it not make sense that what has been happening for up to a billion years (since the Neoproterozoic Era or the beginning of the Cambrian period) is that "soil" has been evolving ...by which I mean that soil microbes, higher plants with roots, worms, soil insects and arthropods have all been co-evolving.
I started taking that thought more seriously when i realized what the driver was: everything that lives aerobically / heterotrophically in or on the soil depends on the productivity of higher plants for their energy and carbon source.
(Just not algae, lichens or other photoautotrophs or energy-from-inorganic-mineral-eating "lithoautotrophs".)
So in this theory, the driver is that fertile soil "floats all boats). It is in every heterotroph's best interests if it does things that improve the productivity of the plants that provide it with energy and carbon compounds.
If a fungi loosens the soil and facilitates water retention and wicking from deeper down, the aboveground plants produce more and drop more compost onto the soil for that fungi to consume.
If a worm evolves to migrate up and down every day, leaving air and water channels behind, plants do better and feed the worms better.
If a worm drags bits of leaves down from the litter and duff into the root zone (!!) where microbes turn them into plant food, worms, microbes and plants all benefit.
Looked at that way, the idea of "survival of the fittest" sounds more like "survival of the most co-operative" than "Nature, red in tooth and claw".
Silly? Obvious? Wrong? Dumb?
My original observation was that almost no matter what you do to plant matter, if it can get oxygen, it turns into something that is better for soil and plants than anything you can buy in a bag. And the mix of microbes and small things that perform that miracle are everywhere!
Why should that have become true?
Alexander Pope said, in "Essay On Man":
Look round our world; behold the chain of love
Combining all below and all above.
See plastic Nature working to this end,
The single atoms each to other tend,
Attract, attracted to, the next in place
Formed and impelled its neighbour to embrace.
See matter next, with various life endued,
Press to one centre still, the general good.
See dying vegetables life sustain,
See life dissolving vegetate again:
All forms that perish other forms supply
(By turns we catch the vital breath, and die),
Like bubbles on the sea of matter borne,
They rise, they break, and to that sea return.
Nothing is foreign: parts relate to whole;
One all-extending, all-preserving soul
Connects each being, greatest with the least;
Made beast in aid of man, and man of beast;
All served, all serving: nothing stands alone;
The chain holds on, and where it ends, unknown.
Now, if only humans could evolve as much intelligence as plants, worms, fungi and bacteria!
If only we could evolve to the point where we WERE as smart as dirt!
GMO's - continued part II
Rick,
Some good points! I think we have evolved along with plants to benefit their growth, and enhance their growth. This has in turn benefitted us. Whether it is placing the dead fish next to the corn seed or more modern chemical farming in terms of plant protection or fertility this is essentially what we are doing. I think we have also learned that some of the help might have been too much or had other unintended consequences and a more integrated approach is now favored. CO2 is a limiting factor in plant growth and there is no doubt out increasing this has benefitted plants. Many plant have been domesticated to the point that they would cease to exist without out help.
John
>> Many plant have been domesticated to the point that they would cease to exist without out help.
I agree. They need us as much as we need them, but if we stopped cultivating the fussy, highly productive varieties, less productive crops or weeds would survive without our help.
We, however, are totally dependent on fresh water, soil fertility, and cultivated crops to avert massive famine and, probably, wars.
I've read in many sources that our historic ability to keep increasing crop yields every year is starting to hit a limit.
GMOs may extend the era of ever-increasing crop yields, if the focus of GE turns to subsistence farming in marginal situations instead of maximizing profit wherever there are the most bucks to be made.
I'm not knocking making a profit - profits pay for my paycheck and everyone else's.
I would just like to see some GMOs that will help feed the next few decades of ever-growing world population.
Apples that can be shipped more roughly and cheaply and then stored longer after bruising without LOOKING bruised don't excite me.
C4-photosynthetic rice and wheat, and saline-tolerant crop varieties excite me.
FDA Concludes GMO Crops Innate Potato And Arctic Apple Are Safe For Consumption
http://www.growingproduce.com/fruits/apples-pears/fda-concludes-gmo-crops-innate-potato-and-arctic-apple-safe-for-consumption/?utm_source=knowledgemarketing&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=avgenews%2003262015&omhide=true
How about a potato that produces less acrylamide, a chemical that has been linked to cancer in animals?
Yes there are some very exciting innovations that will yet be coming...that will be something other than cosmetic. Though the apples are not just cosmetic...there are a lot of brown apples that are thrown away and this could reduce culls and waste and people just throwing apples away without ever eating them.
As far as world agricultural output? If the entire world adopted modern agriculture we could increase productivity immensely! Triple or quadruple current levels with todays technology. A large percentage of agricultural land is not being efficiently utilized.
It would make more sense to adopt those technologies before trying to increase yields via GMO in my opinion.
>> Though the apples are not just cosmetic...there are a lot of brown apples that are thrown away and this could reduce culls and waste
That's a valid point. I guess we'll find out if there is anything bad about over-aged, bruised apples besides the brown coloration.
>> If the entire world adopted modern agriculture we could increase productivity immensely! Triple or quadruple current levels with todays technology. A large percentage of agricultural land is not being efficiently utilized.
Would you say that land is being under-utilized only because they can't afford the up-front investment for fertilizers, pesticides and tractors? Or if they did put the money into modern practices, would they for some reason be unable to recoup the investment by selling the increased yield?
Or some other reason?
I thought we were hitting limits on availability of clean water for irrigation, and energy for tractors and making chemical fertilizer.
'I've read in many places that all the "good" agricultural land is already in use, and that increasingly marginal lands are being cropped with varieties not-well-suited to marginal inputs.
>> It would make more sense to adopt those technologies before trying to increase yields via GMO in my opinion.
I might go along with that so long as modern methods maintain the fertility of the soil as well as pro-technology people think they do, and don;t destroy the soil the way pro-organic people think they do.
And as long as there really IS enough "slack" in current cropland yields that they can be greatly increased within the budgets of the countries currently using less-productive methods.
And without further in increasing the load of CO2 we dump into the atmosphere every year. (Currently 9 BILLION tons every year.)
Here's a link to a discussion of "The Food Babe", aka walking ignorance: http://gawker.com/the-food-babe-blogger-is-full-of-shit-1694902226.
Enjoy!
thanks Willy, great post