Scientific Breakthrough Increases Plant Yields By One Third (wsu.edu) 197
Slashdot reader schwit1 writes, "Plant scientists have found a way to encourage plants to better use atmospheric nitrogen, thus increasing yields by more than one third. The technique not only produces healthier plants and more seeds, it reduces the need for fertilizer, the overuse of which can be an environmental issue." From WSU News:
For years, scientists have tried to increase the rate of nitrogen [conversion] in legumes by altering...interactions that take place between the bacterioid and the root nodule cells. [Washington State University biologist Mechthild] Tegeder took a different approach: She increased the number of proteins that help move nitrogen from the rhizobia bacteria to the plant's leaves, seed-producing organs and other areas where it is needed. The additional transport proteins sped up the overall export of nitrogen from the root nodules.
This initiated a feedback loop that caused the rhizobia to start fixing more atmospheric nitrogen, which the plant then used to produce more seeds. "They are bigger, grow faster and generally look better than natural soybean plants," Tegeder said.
This initiated a feedback loop that caused the rhizobia to start fixing more atmospheric nitrogen, which the plant then used to produce more seeds. "They are bigger, grow faster and generally look better than natural soybean plants," Tegeder said.
Big agro GMO ploy (Score:5, Funny)
This is all a sinister plot by big agriculture to poison us all with nitrogen, amirite? They're just looking for ways to stuff more nitrogen and other fillers into our food supply!
Re: (Score:2)
Projections are that the atmosphere could be 78% nitrogen in the future if this is allowed to go forward!
GMO (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GMO (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't have to be anti-science to think that we need better regulation on GMOs. In particular the Monopoly (or almost of ) by Monsanto on a lot of the base patents when it comes to GMOs is a bigger issue than almost any other with GMOs.... there is more but I'm tired and don't feel like typing more... so...
TL;DR: Political issues with GMOs and how they are being controlled/used in society doesn't make you anti-science
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is a very silly post, phantomfive. Patent numbers are usually not published in newspapers. And ordinary people don't know how to "google" for them.
But if you give us a list of numbers and the relevant information what it is about, you certainly would get enlightening answers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What is the expiration date on these cited patents? Do no others exist ? Are you anti-patent?
Or do you resent others accomplishing that of which you are incapable?
Re: GMO (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:GMO (Score:5, Interesting)
Monsanto's first generation of GE soybean went off patent a while back and anyone can now use it. Unlike copyright, plant patents do actually expire.
Re:GMO (Score:4, Interesting)
You are right that political issues don't make you anti-science, but the vast, vast majority of complaints about GE crops I see claiming to be 'political issues' are simply nonsense dressed up to justify irrational opposition. I'm not sure which specific patent problem you are referring to though.
You are also right that we need better regulation. The regulations on GE crops are so strict right now that only one non-corporate GE crop is presently in use right now...the Rainbow papaya, developed by the University of Hawai'i, and even the creator of that one believes that the only reason that one made it is because it was released before the regulations became stricter. Very recently we saw approval of an apple by a smaller company. If you want to avoid excessive corporate control by Monsanto (which by the way isn't actually a monopoly considering that the are several other similar companies out there, like Pioneer, Syngenta, Bayer Crop Science, and Dow AgroSciences) then what we need are regulations that will allow innovations like this to actually come to use instead of being shelved indefinitely, which is the fate of most university developed GE crops.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between hating GMOs because they're GMOs and hating a company that makes GMO crops. There's nothing wrong with GMO.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to be anti-science to think that we need better regulation on GMOs. In particular the Monopoly (or almost of ) by Monsanto on a lot of the base patents when it comes to GMOs is a bigger issue than almost any other with GMOs...
Monsoto is a pretty bad company and there are many things wrong with them, but they are not monopoly or a near monopoly, they are not even the biggest player on the market.
Though if they are allowed to bought by Bayer, they probably will be combined.
Re: (Score:2)
Government restrictions of this thing are a problem, therefore the solution is more government restrictions of this thing!
I had something for this.
Oh, right, a brain.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Wait until Trump supporters find out that soybeans make you gay.
http://www.wnd.com/2006/12/392... [wnd.com]
Re: (Score:3)
They totally missed the chance for an appropriate cover picture [wordpress.com] for that story.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait until Trump supporters find out that soybeans make you gay.
I would have thought that finding out that soybeans give you man boobs would have been enough (and it is actually supported by the available science) but alas, no. People of Wal-Mart, indeed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hang in there. It'll all be over in a few weeks. Well, to be honest it was all over back in August, but some dead horses really deserve a good beating.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
While you would probably consider politifact to be biased (or think that not supporting same-sex marriage isn't the same as "anti-gay"), how about this: http://www.politifact.com/new-... [politifact.com]
They can go pound sand (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also third world countries already have mass starvation.
Those are fourth world countries mate, and there aren't many countries like that left.
Re:They can go pound sand (Score:4, Insightful)
Bollocks, what of all the GE crops like Golden Rice, BioCassava, Bangladeshi Bt Eggplant, and Brazilian golden mosaic virus resistant beans developed exactly for that purpose? These of course are equally opposed by anti-GE activists, probably more so because of how they disprove your claim. Besides that, GE is such a broad term that you might as well say cooking exists solely to make McDonald's money.
Re: (Score:2)
what of all the GE crops like Golden Rice, BioCassava, Bangladeshi Bt Eggplant, and Brazilian golden mosaic virus resistant beans developed exactly for that purpose?
As a species we throw away six times as much food as we'd need to feed the hungry every year. The notion that we need new food crops to feed everyone is... notional. If we're not willing to solve the problem through distribution, we need only to abandon these environmentally inefficient monocultural farming practices. Robotics provides the way forward here as in so many other disciplines, where we have gone awry in the name of labor efficiency. Planting guilds with integrated pest management meaning trap cr
Re: (Score:2)
Except for Somalia and Sudan, 3rd world countries don't exist anymore (since 20 years).
And the problems in those countries are political and not a farming/water/harvest/food problem.
However your tag regarding GMO is right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, maybe also the GMO, but glyphosate truly does.
Re: (Score:2)
Great news (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The above does that to a degree.
It both does not use nitrogen fertiliser - which means no CO2 is used in the production and transport of the bacteria, and grows bigger - which absorbs more CO2.
Rushing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why didn't natural selection already "discover" this? Perhaps there's a big trade-off that hasn't been discovered yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Rushing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Natural selection optimizes to a plant's natural environment. Intensive modern agriculture is not a plant's natural environment. Everything comes with tradeoffs, and in nature there are a lot of things that come into play beyond just "racing to as many seeds as possible". Perhaps, for example, by producing more nitrogen they'd be fertilizing the soil for their competitors which would outgrow them - maybe they were limiting the nitrogen for a reason.
Indeed, this actually does seem to happen. Here in Iceland, lupine is not a native species, but it's taken off like crazy since it was introduced (to try to restore our soil), pushing out native species. However, evidence shows that after an area has grown lupine for several decades, it tends to slowly die out, being replaced by native plants that can now - due to the improved soil - outcompete the lupine. Lupine is, of course, a legume.
maybe, maybe not (Score:5, Funny)
An economist is walking through the park with his son. "Look, Dad! There's a $20 under that bench!" Dad says, "Don't be absurd... if there was, someone would have picked it up."
Local minima (Score:2)
This should be used with Cannabis (Score:2, Insightful)
Higher crop yield and less fertilizer? Maybe the prices will drop, but probably not.
Re: (Score:3)
Or what usually happens: we grow more humans.
Nope - more efficient food production leads to more leisure time which leads to more education which leads to lower population levels. Feed everybody as much as possible if you want the population to decline.
https://www.ted.com/talks/hans... [ted.com]
Unintended consequences: (Score:2)
More and bigger plants will also mean even faster exhaustion of micro-nutrients from the soil. Since not all the biomass produced in that soil is being recycled into it - the whole point of agriculture is our removal and use of parts of the plants - then the soil will slowly be exhausted of its non-infinite supply of those nutrients. The future results is food crops that contain less of those micro-nutrients, leaving future generations that consume them with a deficit. We've already seen this effect in t
Feed me ... (Score:2)
I am allergic to soybean (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Attack Of The Killer Soy Beans? (Score:5, Funny)
And what happens when the nitrogen levels in the atmosphere are depleted by these Genetic Horrors???
The holy balance of 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide will be disturbed, increasing our oxygen intake, and BURNING OUT OUR CELLS AS OXIDATION RATES INCREASE!!!
OMG where's my tin-foil-hat-equipped-with-supplemental-nitrogen-tank???
\_(oo)_/
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even need to get that far. The scientist compared them to "natural" plants, saying they grow better. That means they aren't natural, so the food religion will shun them just like GMO.
Re:Attack Of The Killer Soy Beans? (Score:4, Interesting)
They are GMOs - the abstract specifically mentions that the plants are transgenic. How big a problem that is though depends on what exactly they did. I mean it's already almost impossible to get your hands on non-GMO soybeans in the US, and this modification manages to simultaneously boost yields, reduce fertilizer demands, and potentially improve long-term soil health. Exactly the sort of GMOs I'm actually (tentatively) in favor of.
Since it's transgenic I'm guessing they now produce additional kinds of nitrogen-transport proteins rather than just boosting the levels of the proteins they already use, which does increase the potential for health problems to emerge in those who eat them, unless they're something already found in other food crops. Even if not though, they're far less likely to cause problems than transgenic "pest-resistance" genes, which as a rule specifically code for the plant to produce anti-pest toxins. Even if those poisons aren't an obvious short-term problem for mammals, thy may present longer-term risks - after all an awful lot of our cellular biology is still shared with insects and the like.
Personally, I'd have a lot fewer problems with GMOs if we made two modifications to the law:
1) eliminate gene patents, and with them a host of the perverse incentives currently infesting the industry.
2) require all new compounds produced in modified organisms to undergo extensive independent safety testing at least on par with what the FDA (supposedly) requires for new drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there would be fewer coming to market, and that would probably be a good thing - we're playing with a science potentially far more dangerous than atomic bombs, mainly because it can so easily entirely escape our control, and we're still scarcely in the finger-painting stage of actually understanding what exactly we're tinkering with.
Those that did get released though, would likely have faced far more unbiased scrutiny, as well as being primarily developed for more altruistic purposes as rent-seeking wo
Re: (Score:2)
Then why would the paper discussing the effects refer to the plants being transgenic? Last I heard traditional crossbreeding isn't classified as transgenic.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry... Volkswagen was planning ahead for just such a contingency! God bless those TDI engineers.
Re: (Score:2)
She is just increasing the levels of naturally existing proteins, and there is nothing to stop that happening in the normal course of evolution (it's not the same as developing a protein with a totally new function, which isn't as easy to evolve). If this were beneficial for soybean plants in nature, they would already have evolved these higher levels of transport proteins. So there must be a downside. For example, it might starve the roots of n
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What a stupid comment. Do you really think that evolution is ever "done"? If it were beneficial for soybean plants in nature, it may NOT have already evolved simply because it may be an area of their genome that is highly conserved due to the presence of other critical genes nearby, or it may be that the soybean genome is "good enough" such that being able to fix excess atmospher
Re: (Score:3)
We shoot Matthew McConaughey into space and that fixes everything. [youtube.com]
Also, we get space colonies and anti-gravity plus Anne Hathaway and Jessica Chastain are involved in the whole thing as well.
Oh, and Matt Damon gets shot out into space out of an airlock.
It's win-win-win-win-win... win-win all the way.
whoosh (Score:2)
Perhaps there needs to be some kind of "I am kidding" tag for situations like this. Like /S... maybe I should do this:
<JustKidding> Jk! Jk! Jk! </JustKidding>
Re: (Score:2)
Evolution 'seeks' local maximums. It isn't necessarily the optimum solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that what is a "maximum" depends greatly on context. For example: if some animal species' primary challenge in life is to be able to bend down tree branches to get at their fruit, then its "maximum" may be to become heavy and muscular; but in a context where harvests are unpredictable and the species needs to survive long periods of shortage, then its "maximum" may be to have much less muscle mass, and thus energy consumption, to survive until the periods of abundance.
As I wrote below, I can
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The "Monsanto sued a farmer for accidental cross pollenation case" is a myth [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are links. Check them for yourself. Contrarily, present any evidence whatsoever that he was charged with accidentally planting GM seeds and had argued that it was accidental.
Re: (Score:2)
If nature basically had a means to increase plant growth rate by 1/3, then there must have been something else in nature which made it more efficient in the long run NOT to take advantage of it.
What's in it for the bacteria to fix that much extra nitrogen?
Re:Attack Of The Killer Soy Beans? (Score:5, Informative)
The plants basically breed them.
It's important to note that root nodules operate as a very close symbiosis - not exactly to the extent of our mitochondria in our cells, but it's more than just "bacteria that happen to be living next to the plant". The plant roots grow a carefully structured channel specifically to allow bacteria to "infect" them. The bacteria and plants work together on this - the plants produce flavinoids to let the bacteria know that they're there, and the bacteria in turn respond to flavinoids by producing nod factors, which lets the plant know that the bacteria are present and that it needs to work to encapsulate them. When an "infection" is established inside the root, the plant closes off the channel, not only trapping the bacteria, but also protecting them. The plants then nurture the bacteria, providing them nitrogen, oxygen, nutrients, and even proteins that assist in the fixation process. When the plant dies, the extensive cultures of bacteria are released and become free to colonize other plant roots
If you were asking why bacteria evolved the need to fix nitrogen in general... that's easy. Nitrogen is one of the essential components in life; they had to. It's needed for protein, DNA, RNA, etc; life as we know it can't exist without it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's how it starts.
The next thing you know, civilization has collapsed and there are triffids prowling the countryside looking for walking nitrogen/nutrient bundles (aka humans).
Re: (Score:2)
The obligatory reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:Great, but (Score:5, Insightful)
industrial processing to make it edible and hormone-like effects abound....
Uh, you mean it has to be cooked? Edamame is a delicious dish of straight soybeans........
Also, every food you eat affects your hormones......
Re:Great, but (Score:4, Insightful)
Leave him alone with his paranoia.
Re:Great, but (Score:4, Informative)
I think he's referring to the isoflavones in soybeans which mimic estrogen and are possibly linked to multiple hormone-related health issues.
While everything you eat affects your body in some way or another, consuming isoflavones in sufficient quantities which convert into phytoestrogensis a bad idea as hormone balance is especially sensitive to such consumption... well... for men anyway. For post-menopausal women, there have been beneficial effects in studies that show it's similar to taking low-dose hormone-replacement therapies -- ie estrogen pills. There's also a theory that increased soy products have aided in increased breast sizes, early puberty, and low sperm counts... though it's far from proven.
The National Institute of Health states results from various studies are mixed and that it supports further study, yet cautions women who are at high risk of breast or cervical cancer from eating lots of soy.
https://nccih.nih.gov/health/s... [nih.gov]
Re:Great, but (Score:4, Insightful)
There's also a theory that increased soy products have aided in increased breast sizes, early puberty, and low sperm counts... though it's far from proven.
If that were true, wouldn't regions that eat a lot of tofu have women with generally larger breasts?
Re: (Score:2)
wouldn't regions that eat a lot of tofu have women with generally larger breasts?
The way I have it is that the traditional fermentation process (also when soy sauce is made the old-fashioned way) diminishes those phytoestrogens considerably. In other words: traditional tofu and soy sauce not problematic, factory produced stuff as available in the West probably problematic.
(As I'm steering away from all processed foods - due to a general desire to live healthier and a particular desire to increase my quite low testosterone levels, all due to a medical condition -, and since whole soybea
Re: (Score:2)
Plant and animal hormones share a chemical structure.
We're evolved to eat 'pseudo estrogens'. Picking a particular plant to fear, misses be basic point.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Plant and animal hormones share a chemical structure.
We're evolved to eat 'pseudo estrogens'. Picking a particular plant to fear, misses be basic point.
First: they are phytoestrogens not pseudo estrogens.
Second: different estrogen class steroids bind differently to different receptor types
Third: different receptor types have differing physiological expressions.
Your reply is like saying we share opioid structures with plants and have evolved that way so different plants and different opioids do not matter.
You have definitely missed the basic point of my post which, just to make clear, was soy estrogens do not cause breast enlargement at any humanly consumab
Re: (Score:2)
Neglecting the anti-soy - if increasing nitrogen transport from the nodules improves their efficiency, it seems at least plausible that doing this for other plants which naturally fix nitrogen would also help. So - mostly legumes.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, these are transgenic plants according to TFAbstract, so the anti-GMO crowd can still demand we not have nice things.
Re:That's great, but (Score:5, Informative)
People have been consuming legumes (beans, peas, chickpeas, lentils, etc) since we were hunter-gatherers, and have long formed the staple diets of numerous regions across the world. Legumes are a rich source of plant protein, fiber, carbs, and minerals.
Re: (Score:2)
People have been consuming legumes (beans, peas, chickpeas, lentils, etc) since we were hunter-gatherers
See, that's why we call it hunting and gathering... because it didn't include activities such as consuming legumes [which require cooking to break-down toxic phytins/lectins]. This was the neolithic era; legumes did not begin to be cultivated on a large scale a few tends of thousands of years ago (early neolithic).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The "Paleo diet" concept that hunter-gatherers do not consume grains and legumes simply because they don't farm them is patently false. Indeed, if you look at the best preserved paleolthic human find, that of Ötzi the Iceman, it appears that a large portion if not a majority of his diet was grains (his second to last meal was herb bread with some red deer). Hunter-gatherers today frequently collect wild grains and legumes, and surely did so in the past as well. Legumes are typically are roasted whol
Re: (Score:2)
wild rice has been available in North America since the first humans migrated here. And people have a very long history of eating them, even if they weren't planting them intentionally.
And here's a video of a man planting a primitive sweet potato patch [youtube.com]. Everything he's done in the video is available to a person from the middle paleolithic, and possibly as far back as the lower paleolithic. (building a cooking fire starts to become less common when you go back far enough)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you're using your own private definition of "hunting and gathering". Are you trying to say people in hunter-gatherer societies didn't have fire, or that they didn't cook at all? When it comes to edible plants the only qualification is they didn't engage in agriculture.
Re: (Score:3)
Note that to a primitive peoples, carbs are a very good thing. They're basically pure energy. They don't keep you "full" for as long as fats and protein, so they're not advisable for dieters, but in terms of giving your body energy - one of the primary tasks of any hunter-gathererer - they do the job quite well.
Fats of course are a "denser" energy source, but they're not found as abundantly in plant sources. And contrary to common perception, with most hunter-gatherer societies, the vast majority of calo
Re: (Score:3)
No, there aren't - at least from a human perspective. Sometimes small amounts can be gained by sifting through dried manure for undigested seeds and the like ("second harvest"), but not much.
1) "Beans" are just one category of legume.
2) No, beans do not need "ridiculous amount of processing and co
Re:Yeah.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly having enough food is the least of the problems with too many people on the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
What's your point? Do you think the planet can support an unlimited number of people? 7 billion people who all want to live at the same level as the average first world citizen? Use a comparable amount of resources? Food isn't really a problem today other than actually getting it to starving people. However billions of cars and houses with A/C and swimming pools and all the other stuff of modern life taxes the planet's resoucrces much more than some people living in a hut alongside a river. I don't sub
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think the planet can support an unlimited number of people?
Yes.
7 billion people who all want to live at the same level as the average first world citizen?
Yes.
The current level of industry on Earth is causing heating of the planet.
So if all those industries used solely solar, would the earth still be heating?
We have a long way to go before we are unable to produce enough food to feed everyone. And like food getting to those who need it, much of the over-consumption is about getting the niceties of life to those who are in need, not about the ability to build them sustainably.
Already over populated (Score:2)
I think every human being should be able to own 1 square mile of land.
Of course that means we only have room for 57 million people.
The Earth is about 1250% over populated by my standard.
Re:Yeah.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The big problem is that every calorie of food requires the input of 10 calories of fossil-fuel energy [scientificamerican.com], mainly from oil and gas, which will be running out within your lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
The big problem is that every calorie of food requires the input of 10 calories of fossil-fuel energy [scientificamerican.com], mainly from oil and gas, which will be running out within your lifetime.
Well, people have been producing calories far longer than they have been using fossil fuels to do it. But a return to those methods may not be very compatible with the modern Agribusiness/GMO complex.
At least all those overweight people will finally be able to use up the reserves...
Re: (Score:2)
It's not "the modern Agribusiness/GMO complex" that it would be incompatible with, it would be incompatible with current global human population levels.
And it's no those overweight Americans who will starve...
Re: (Score:2)
You are simply lying. The green revolution is the only reason we can support current population levels let alone your ludicrous number.
Re:Yeah.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe. But then there's that little bit in TFS that says "it reduces the need for fertilizer". Which means less petrochemical input into the food cycle. That could be a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
"mainly from oil and gas, which will be running out within your lifetime."
I should be so lucky. I'm afraid we're going to need some even more spectacular scientific breakthroughs to make that happen :(
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's the most cost efficient way to do it. When fossil fuels get more expensive food will get more expensive, but don't buy into the idea we're going to see mass starvation. Not at current population levels.
And fossil fuels will not be "running out" in our lifetime or anyone else's, though they will become too expensive to use for noncritical transportation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But why should we want more people on Earth? We want more productive people on Earth, but the most productive societies in the world tend to have the lowest reproduction rates as their members carefully curate a few offspring rather than spawn prolifically in hopes that a few will survive and care for them in their old age. As automation increasingly eliminates jobs, we should be working on increasing the quality, not the quantity, of people on the Earth.
Re: Yeah.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... our new legume overlords.
I'll just leave this here.
https://youtu.be/wEUwtFg7PeI [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:3)
So, Elsevier has an astroturf program?
Re: (Score:2)
I kind of feel like it will end up with a plant eating someone named Audrey.