plants

bringing-the-“functionally-extinct”-american-chestnut-back-from-the-dead

Bringing the “functionally extinct” American chestnut back from the dead


Wiped out in its native range by invasive pathogens, the trees may make a comeback.

Very few people alive today have seen the Appalachian forests as they existed a century ago. Even as state and national parks preserved ever more of the ecosystem, fungal pathogens from Asia nearly wiped out one of the dominant species of these forests, the American chestnut, killing an estimated 3 billion trees. While new saplings continue to sprout from the stumps of the former trees, the fungus persists, killing them before they can seed a new generation.

But thanks in part to trees planted in areas where the two fungi don’t grow well, the American chestnut isn’t extinct. And efforts to revive it in its native range have continued, despite the long generation times needed to breed resistant trees. In Thursday’s issue of Science, researchers describe their efforts to apply modern genomic techniques and exhaustive testing to identify the best route to restoring chestnuts to their native range.

Multiple paths to restoration

While the American chestnut is functionally extinct—it’s no longer a participant in the ecosystems it once dominated—it’s most certainly not extinct. Two Asian fungi that have killed it off in its native range; one causes chestnut blight, while a less common pathogen causes a root rot disease. Both prefer warmer, humid environments and persist there because they can grow asymptomatically on distantly related trees, such as oaks. Still, chestnuts planted outside the species’ original range—primarily in drier areas of western North America—have continued to thrive.

There is also a virus that attacks the chestnut blight fungus, allowing a few trees to survive in areas where that virus is common. Finally, a handful of trees have grown to maturity in the American chestnut’s original range. These trees, which the paper refers to as LSACs (large surviving American chestnuts), suggest that there might have been some low level of natural resistance within the now-vanished population.

Those trees are central to one of the efforts to restore the American chestnut. If enough of them have distinct means of resisting the fungi, interbreeding them might produce a strain that not only survives the fungi but can also thrive in the Appalachians.

A related approach took advantage of the fact that the American chestnut can produce fertile hybrids with the Chinese chestnut, which had co-evolved with the introduced fungi and were thus resistant to lethal infections. The hope was that continued back-breeding of these hybrids with American chestnuts would result in trees that were very similar to American chestnuts yet retained the fungal resistance of their Asian cousins.

Both efforts suffered from the same problem that faces any biologist working on trees: They are slow-growing and can take years to reach a size at which they produce seeds. The situation was further complicated by the fact that the American chestnut can’t pollinate itself, so you need at least two trees before any breeding is possible.

Concerned about what this might mean for the potential reintroduction of the chestnut into the Appalachians, a third project turned to biotechnology. Research had identified oxalic acid as a key factor in the blight’s virulence. Wheat naturally produces an enzyme that degrades oxalic acid, and researchers inserted the gene that encodes that enzyme into the American chestnut genome, creating a genetically modified tree that can potentially disarm the fungus’ attack.

Without understanding the nature of resistance or the effectiveness of the transgenic gene, there’s no way to know which method would be most effective. So researchers from the American Chestnut Foundation assembled a massive collaboration to examine all these options and determine what would be needed to reintroduce blight-resistant chestnuts into the wild.

Tracking resistance

The scale of the effort is immense. All told, the team infected over 4,000 individual trees with the blight fungus and tracked their growth in Appalachian nurseries for an average of over 14 years. The trees were scored for resistance on a zero-to-100 scale based on the damage caused by the infection. This data was combined with some serious lab work; the team produced the highest-quality chestnut genomes yet (of both American and Chinese species) and gathered biochemical data on how the trees respond to infection.

It quickly became apparent that there were significant differences in the growth rates of some of the resistant trees. When planted at sites where viruses kept the blight in check, the Chinese chestnuts grew more slowly than native trees, while hybrids grew at an intermediate rate. That could make a big difference, as rapid growth may have enabled the chestnut to reach its former dominance of the canopy.

Somewhat surprisingly, this slow growth turned out to be a problem for the genetically modified American chestnuts as well. By chance, the wheat gene ended up being inserted into a gene known to be important for the growth of other plants. It seems to be important in the chestnut as well; plants with two copies of the inserted genes survived at 16 percent of their expected rate, and those with a single copy grew 22 percent slower than unmodified trees.

That said, there was a lot of variability among the genetically modified trees, with 4 percent of the tested trees showing both high blight resistance and growth comparable to that of unmodified American chestnuts. It will be important to determine whether this collection of traits remains consistent in ensuing generations.

In a bit of good news, the progeny from surviving American chestnuts grew like American chestnuts. In less good news, among 143 of these trees, only seven had resistance levels of above 50 on the team’s 100-point scale. It’s possible that interbreeding these trees could further boost resistance, but it also poses the risk of creating a population that’s too inbred to thrive after reintroduction.

Root causes

The research team decided to use their testing to investigate the genetic basis of resistance. There’s a very practical reason for this: If resistance is mediated by just a handful of genes that each have large impacts, it should be possible to continue breeding resistant strains back to regular American chestnuts and selecting for resistance. But if there are many factors with relatively small impacts, it will require directed interbreeding of hybrids to maximize both resistance and DNA originating from the American chestnut.

The team completed the highest-quality chestnut genomes for both the American and Chinese species, identifying about 25,000 to 30,000 genes in the different assemblies. They then used this information for two types of genetic analysis: quantitative trait locus identification and genome-wide association. Both approaches aim to identify regions of the genome associated with specific properties and estimate their impact.

The work suggested that resistance arises from a relatively large number of sites, each with relatively minor effects. For example, the sites in the genome identified by quantitative trait analysis typically boosted resistance by about 10 points on the researchers’ 100-point scale. In the genome-wide analysis, 17 individual genetic differences were associated with about a quarter of the heritable resistance traits. All of this suggests that, for the hybrids (and likely for the weaker blight resistance found in surviving American chestnuts), directed breeding among surviving trees will be needed.

For the root rot fungus, in contrast, it looks like there are a limited number of important alleles with a large impact.

The researchers also took an alternative approach to identify resistance factors, comparing 100 chemicals produced by resistant and susceptible strains. Among the 41 chemicals detected at higher levels in the Chinese chestnut, the researchers found a metabolite, lupeol, that completely suppressed the growth of the fungal pathogen. Another, erythrodiol, limited its growth. If we can identify the genes involved in producing those chemicals, we could use that knowledge to guide directed breeding programs—or even engage in gene editing to increase their production.

The team’s current plan is to use genomic predictions to select hybrid seedlings for planting in test orchards, aiming to identify plants with high growth and resistance. From there, the process can be repeated. But even after the exhaustive exploration of resistance traits, the researchers seem to believe that all three approaches—selecting resistant American chestnuts, breeding hybrids derived from Chinese chestnuts, and directed genetic modification—can help bring the American chestnut back.

The researchers warn, though, that as environmental disturbances and invasive species continue to push some key species to the brink of extinction, we need to get better at this kind of species rescue operation.

Science, 2026. DOI: 10.1126/science.adw3225  (About DOIs).

Photo of John Timmer

John is Ars Technica’s science editor. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California, Berkeley. When physically separated from his keyboard, he tends to seek out a bicycle, or a scenic location for communing with his hiking boots.

Bringing the “functionally extinct” American chestnut back from the dead Read More »

new-pathway-engineered-into-plants-lets-them-suck-up-more-co₂

New pathway engineered into plants lets them suck up more CO₂

And, well, it worked remarkably well. The plants carrying all the genes for the McG cycle weighed two to three times as much as control plants that only had some of the genes. They had more leaves, the leaves themselves were larger, and the plants produced more seeds. In a variety of growing conditions, the plants with an intact McG cycle incorporated more carbon, and they did so without increasing their water uptake.

Having a two-carbon output also worked as expected. By feeding the plants radioactive bicarbonate, they were able to trace the carbon showing up in the expected molecules. And imaging confirmed that the plants were making so many lipids that their cells formed internal pockets containing nothing but fatty materials. Triglyceride levels increased by factors of 100 or more.

So, by a variety of measures, the plants actually did better with an extra pathway for fixing carbon. There are a number of cautions, though. For starters, it’s not clear whether what we’re learning using a small weed will also apply to larger plants or crops, or really anything much beyond Arabidopsis at the moment. It could be that having excess globs of fat floating around the cell has consequences for something like a tree. Plants grown in a lab also tend to be provided with a nutrient-rich soil, and it’s not clear whether all of this would apply to a range of real-world conditions.

Finally, we can’t say whether all the excess carbon these plants are sucking in from the atmosphere would end up being sequestered in any useful sense. It could be that all the fat would just get oxidized as soon as the plant dies. That said, there are a lot of approaches to making biofuel that rely on modifying the fats found in plants or algae. It’s possible that this can eventually help make biofuels efficient so they actually have a net positive effect on the climate.

Regardless of practical impacts, however, it’s pretty amazing that we’ve now reached the point where we can fundamentally rewire a bit of metabolism that has been in operation for billions of years without completely messing up plants.

Science, 2025. DOI: 10.1126/science.adp3528  (About DOIs).

New pathway engineered into plants lets them suck up more CO₂ Read More »

we-have-the-first-video-of-a-plant-cell-wall-being-built

We have the first video of a plant cell wall being built

Plant cells are surrounded by an intricately structured protective coat called the cell wall. It’s built of cellulose microfibrils intertwined with polysaccharides like hemicellulose or pectin. We have known what plant cells look like without their walls, and we know what they look like when the walls are fully assembled, but we’ve never seen the wall-building process in action. “We knew the starting point and the finishing point, but had no idea what happens in between,” says Eric Lam, a plant biologist at Rutgers University. He’s a co-author of the study that caught wall-building plant cells in action for the first time. And once we saw how the cell wall building worked, it looked nothing like how we drew that in biology handbooks.

Camera-shy builders

Plant cells without walls, known as protoplasts, are very fragile, and it has been difficult to keep them alive under a microscope for the several hours needed for them to build walls. Plant cells are also very light-sensitive, and most microscopy techniques require pointing a strong light source at them to get good imagery.

Then there was the issue of tracking their progress. “Cellulose is not fluorescent, so you can’t see it with traditional microscopy,” says Shishir Chundawat, a biologist at Rutgers. “That was one of the biggest issues in the past.” The only way you can see it is if you attach a fluorescent marker to it. Unfortunately, the markers typically used to label cellulose were either bound to other compounds or were toxic to the plant cells. Given their fragility and light sensitivity, the cells simply couldn’t survive very long with toxic markers as well.

We have the first video of a plant cell wall being built Read More »

urban-agriculture’s-carbon-footprint-can-be-worse-than-that-of-large-farms

Urban agriculture’s carbon footprint can be worse than that of large farms

Greening your greens —

Saving on the emissions associated with shipping doesn’t guarantee a lower footprint.

Lots of plants in the foreground, and dense urban buildings in the background

A few years back, the Internet was abuzz with the idea of vertical farms running down the sides of urban towers, with the idea that growing crops where they’re actually consumed could eliminate the carbon emissions involved with shipping plant products long distances. But lifecycle analysis of those systems, which require a lot of infrastructure and energy, suggest they’d have a hard time doing better than more traditional agriculture.

But those systems represent only a small fraction of urban agriculture as it’s practiced. Most urban farming is a mix of local cooperative gardens and small-scale farms located within cities. And a lot less is known about the carbon footprint of this sort of farming. Now, a large international collaboration has worked with a number of these farms to get a handle on their emissions in order to compare those to large-scale agriculture.

The results suggest it’s possible that urban farming can have a lower impact. But it requires choosing the right crops and a long-term commitment to sustainability.

Tracking crops

Figuring out the carbon footprint of urban farms is a challenge, because it involves tracking all the inputs, from infrastructure to fertilizers, as well as the productivity of the farm. A lot of the urban farms, however, are nonprofits, cooperatives, and/or staffed primarily by volunteers, so detailed reporting can be a challenge. To get around this, the researchers worked with a lot of individual farms in France, Germany, Poland, the UK, and US in order to get accurate accounts of materials and practices.

Data from large-scale agriculture for comparison is widely available, and it includes factors like transport of the products to consumers. The researchers used data from the same countries as the urban farms.

On average, the results aren’t good for urban agriculture. An average serving from an urban farm was associated with 0.42 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents. By contrast, traditional produce resulted in emissions of about 0.07 kg per serving—six times less.

But that average obscures a lot of nuance. Of the 73 urban farms studied, 17 outperformed traditional agriculture by this measure. And, if the single highest-emitting farm was excluded from the analysis, the median of the urban farms ended up right around that 0.7 kg per serving.

All of this suggests the details of urban farming practices make a big difference. One thing that matters is the crop. Tomatoes tend to be fairly resource-intensive to grow and need to be shipped quickly in order to be consumed while ripe. Here, urban farms came in at 0.17 kg of carbon per serving, while conventional farming emits 0.27 kg/serving.

Difference-makers

One clear thing was that the intentions of those running the farms didn’t matter much. Organizations that had a mission of reducing environmental impact, or had taken steps like installing solar panels, were no better off at keeping their emissions low.

The researchers note two practical reasons for the differences they saw. One is infrastructure, which is the single largest source of carbon emissions at small sites. These include things like buildings, raised beds, and compost handling. The best sites the researchers saw did a lot of upcycling of things like construction waste into structures like the surrounds for raised beds.

Infrastructure in urban sites is also a challenge because of the often intense pressure on land, which can mean gardens have to relocate. This can shorten the lifetime of infrastructure and increase its environmental impact.

Another major factor was the use of urban waste streams for the consumables involved with farming. Composting from urban waste essentially eliminated fertilizer use (it was only 5 percent of the rate of conventional farming). Here, practices matter a great deal, as some composting techniques allow the material to become oxygen-free, which results in the anaerobic production of methane. Rainwater use also made a difference; in one case, the carbon impact of water treatment and distribution accounted for over two-thirds of an urban farm’s emissions.

These suggest that careful planning could make urban farms effective at avoiding some of the carbon emissions of conventional agriculture. This would involve figuring out best practices for infrastructure and consumables, as well as targeting crops that can have high carbon emissions when grown on conventional farms.

But any negatives are softened by a couple of additional considerations. One is that even the worst-performing produce seen in this analysis is far better in terms of carbon emissions than eating meat. The researchers also point out that many of the cooperative gardens provide a lot of social functions—things like after-school programs or informal classes—that can be difficult to put an emissions price on. Maximizing these could definitely boost the societal value of the operations, even if it doesn’t have a clear impact on the environment.

Nature Cities, 2019. DOI: 10.1038/s44284-023-00023-3  (About DOIs).

Urban agriculture’s carbon footprint can be worse than that of large farms Read More »