I just came across this article in Science that points out how so little of our public research dollars go towards basic plant (agricultural) research. They claim that 2% of federal spending on research R&D goes to agricultural research. I am reminded of the general public bias out there which I noticed beginning as a graduate student when I decided to work on plants rather than animals or fungi or microbes. I've also been told by several faculty that their postdocs do quite well in a plant-specific search, but usually lose out to equivalent job candidates who study animals. Once I gave a talk and one of the faculty members afterwards mentioned that hearing my talk was the first time he actually found anything having to do with plants interesting. I was obviously flattered, but also appalled that so many people are so uninterested in plants.
Hey! Where does your food come from?? Ultimately, the answer is almost always plants. Who gobbles up CO2 and spits out oxygen for us to breathe?? Uh, plants. Does anyone wear cotton or linen anymore? They also come from plants. And your house is also likely made with wood (plants). Yep, plants make it possible for us to survive and thrive.
I know we are pretty animal focused (being animals ourselves), but I hope we can develop a better appreciation and understanding of plants. I know everyone wants a cure for cancer, but I would argue that funding basic research in plant biology is also crucial for our survival and health.
A new focus on Plant Science by McCormick & Tijian
Science 19 November 2010: Vol. 330 no. 6007 p. 1021
DOI: 10.1126/science.1198153
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6007/1021.full.pdf
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Re: biofuel crops as habitat?
Just ran across this article in a new pub, Global Change Biology (GBC) Bioenergy which looked at how perennial feedstocks impact animal biodiversity. Perennial biomass feedstocks enhance avian diversity by Robertson et al. 2010 (DOI: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01080.x). [Note: sorry I will try to find "open" articles, but this is tough!! Please let me know if you want me to send pdf]
The authors looked at bird (and bird food=bugs) diversity and abundance in 3 kinds of habitat:
1) corn monoculture
2) switchgrass plot
3) mixed-grass prairie
This included surveying 20 sites of each type above, but just in the upper mid-west (Michigan).
The clear expectation is that corn (annual plant) would support the lowest bird diversity (this has already been shown). We also already know that mixed-grass prairie, which is largely what the midwest once was before modern agriculture, supports very high bird diversity and abundance. The big question is, what would the perennial switchgrass plot (switchgrass is native to N. America and is one of the mixed prairie grasses) be like in terms of supporting bird diversity and habitat?
It turns out that there was a greater diversity of birds with a larger patch (plot) size for both switchgrass & prairie, but not for corn. Also, the perennials (not corn) supported more arthropods (mainly insects), a key component in many birds' diets. Even though there was greater bird diversity overall in the mixed prairie habitat, the switchgrass plot was also pretty good.
Overall, this suggests that at least for some locations and for one species of cellulosic feedstock (switchgrass)--growing perennial energy crops can be managed to maintain habitat for native grassland birds.
The authors looked at bird (and bird food=bugs) diversity and abundance in 3 kinds of habitat:
1) corn monoculture
2) switchgrass plot
3) mixed-grass prairie
This included surveying 20 sites of each type above, but just in the upper mid-west (Michigan).
The clear expectation is that corn (annual plant) would support the lowest bird diversity (this has already been shown). We also already know that mixed-grass prairie, which is largely what the midwest once was before modern agriculture, supports very high bird diversity and abundance. The big question is, what would the perennial switchgrass plot (switchgrass is native to N. America and is one of the mixed prairie grasses) be like in terms of supporting bird diversity and habitat?
It turns out that there was a greater diversity of birds with a larger patch (plot) size for both switchgrass & prairie, but not for corn. Also, the perennials (not corn) supported more arthropods (mainly insects), a key component in many birds' diets. Even though there was greater bird diversity overall in the mixed prairie habitat, the switchgrass plot was also pretty good.
Overall, this suggests that at least for some locations and for one species of cellulosic feedstock (switchgrass)--growing perennial energy crops can be managed to maintain habitat for native grassland birds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)