While the upward shift of plant species has been observed on many alpine and nival summits, the reaction of the subalpine and lower alpine plant communities to the current warming and lower snow precipitation has been little investigated so far. To this aim, 63 old, exhaustive plant inventories, distributed along a subalpine–alpine elevation gradient of the Swiss Alps and covering different plant community types (acidic and calcareous grasslands; windy ridges; snowbeds), were revisited after 25–50 years. Old and recent inventories were compared in terms of species diversity with Simpson diversity and Bray–Curtis dissimilarity indices, and in terms of community composition with principal component analysis. Changes in ecological conditions were inferred from the ecological indicator values. The alpha‐diversity increased in every plant community, likely because of the arrival of new species. As observed on mountain summits, the new species led to a homogenization of community compositions. The grasslands were quite stable in terms of species composition, whatever the bedrock type. Indeed, the newly arrived species were part of the typical species pool of the colonized community. In contrast, snowbed communities showed pronounced vegetation changes and a clear shift toward dryer conditions and shorter snow cover, evidenced by their colonization by species from surrounding grasslands. Longer growing seasons allow alpine grassland species, which are taller and hence more competitive, to colonize the snowbeds. This study showed that subalpine–alpine plant communities reacted differently to the ongoing climate changes. Lower snow/rain ratio and longer growing seasons seem to have a higher impact than warming, at least on plant communities dependent on long snow cover. Consequently, they are the most vulnerable to climate change and their persistence in the near future is seriously threatened. Subalpine and alpine grasslands are more stable, and, until now, they do not seem to be affected by a warmer climate.

In this review, current EU GMO regulations are subjected to a point-by point analysis to determine their suitability for agriculture in modern Europe. Our analysis concerns present GMO regulations as well as suggestions for possible new regulations for genome editing and New Breeding Techniques (for which no regulations presently exist). Firstly, the present GMO regulations stem from the early days of recombinant DNA and are not adapted to current scientific understanding on this subject. Scientific understanding of GMOs has changed and these regulations are now, not only unfit for their original purpose, but, the purpose itself is now no longer scientifically valid. Indeed, they defy scientific, economic, and even common, sense. A major EU regulatory preconception is that GM crops are basically different from their parent crops. Thus, the EU regulations are "process based" regulations that discriminate against GMOs simply because they are GMOs. However current scientific evidence shows a blending of classical crops and their GMO counterparts with no clear demarcation line between them. Canada has a "product based" approach and determines the safety of each new crop variety independently of the process used to obtain it. We advise that the re-writes it outdated regulations and moves toward such a product based approach.  Secondly, over the last few years new genomic editing techniques (sometimes called New Breeding Techniques) have evolved. These techniques are basically mutagenesis techniques that can generate genomic diversity and have vast potential for crop improvement. They are not GMO based techniques (any more than mutagenesis is a GMO technique), since in many cases no new DNA is introduced. Thus they cannot simply be lumped together with GMOs (as many anti-GMO NGOs would prefer). The EU currently has no regulations to cover these new techniques. In this review, we make suggestions as to how these new gene edited crops may be regulated. The EU is at a turning point where the wrong decision could destroy European agricultural competitively for decades to come.

No abstract

No abstract

The concept of organic farming is summarised and compared as an example to farming with biotechnology-derived crops. If done within an ecological concept, both methods can be seen as environmentally acceptable. Organic farming does not offer consistent arguments for the rejection of transgenic crops. Some arguments (from genomics to biodiversity) are discussed in order to demonstrate that the contrast between both farming systems is rated too high and that it is possible to overcome the divide. In this way the ground is prepared for a proposal on how to merge those otherwise incompatible agricultural management systems, a proposal that also will have to build on a new concept of sustainability. It will be dealt with in the second part of the article in the next issue of New Biotechnology.