I would expect this would become a quick-harvest product (pine) more than something that would turn into an old-growth forest-type place.henry wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 2:08 pmI would think that sunlight availability might come in to this as well. Bigger tree means bigger canopy which means to optimise growth they will need to be further apart. So whilst the individual tree may possibly have the potential for greater growth a forest of super trees may not gain as much productivity as the individual increase in individual tree growth would predict.
It will, trees will always be obscuring eachothers sunlight to some degree, and also there will be competition for nutrients at some point that will start reducing individual growth. In addition, we know that most plants cannot fully extract all required nutrients from their surroundings, and they are reliant on symbiotic interactions with soil bacteria/fungi (just like we need our microbiome to digest our food). So there may be another limitation, again in transport of nutrients, and generally speaking requiring some level of biodiversity in order to make a forest 'work'... monocultures very easily lead to soil depletion, with all due consequences. In that light, there is a group at MIT that aims at engineering the soil microbiome to more efficiently fixate nitrogen components (and by that, reduce the need for artificial fertilizers for the plants that feed on this microbiome). It's a pretty cool and promising piece of work.henry wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 2:08 pmI would think that sunlight availability might come in to this as well. Bigger tree means bigger canopy which means to optimise growth they will need to be further apart. So whilst the individual tree may possibly have the potential for greater growth a forest of super trees may not gain as much productivity as the individual increase in individual tree growth would predict.
Unfortunately, that is very true. Genetic engineering is an extremely valuable tool for mitigating (the impact of) climate change, and providing more sustainable as well as nutritional agriculture in the future. The fact that self-declared 'planet protection' charities strongly oppose it is an atrocity (as their opposition to CCS and nuclear is), and in case of golden rice one can quite convincingly claim that Greenpeace has blood on its hands. And not only is their opposition based on flawed reasoning, it's also to no avail - the initiatives most hurt by their opposition, are those with the most altruistic objectives.nzjrs wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:13 pmMassively off-topic, but golden rice remains wildly unpopular in activist circles, despite its age and generally accepted health benefits, even by those that protest it.
I doubt there is any meaningful chance of GMO trees going into production any time soon - even granting for a minute that an order of magnitude or so of improvement is possible in plantation yield (I doubt it - looking over the history of acceptable GMO selective breeding of plantation forestry and the changes it has brought).
The longer this controversy goes on the more I believe that large-scale climate engineering is going to be the only solution that the human race every deploys that is at a scale to make meaningful change.
Well, they are trying, many of them. Not for 10x, more like for 2x faster growth, but they are. And you might see it in about a decade.Zynerji wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 1:27 pmI mean, with CAS9 and CRSPR tech, why not work on engineering trees/corn that consume 10x more CO2 during their life cycle? I can't believe that no one has thought of it, because there is no money to be made from it. Pine trees that grow 10x faster, and sequester 10x CO2 and then provide cheap building supplies would be a win/win/win.
"A litre of petrol costs..." What % of this 'retail price' is disincentive manipulation?
Then we´d have to analyse the cost difference of each car but, is economics the only aspect to analyse?