Perceived Acceptability of Implementing Marker-Assisted Selection in the Forests of British Columbia

Abstract

Abstract:The forest sector in British Columbia (BC) has faced a number of challenges over the past decade. In response to some of those challenges, the government has invested in forest genomic tools. Marker-assisted selection (MAS) is a biotechnological tool that flags desired traits on the genome. This tool may assist tree breeders with the early selection of preferred genotypes, reducing the breeding cycle and more accurately and efficiently selecting for improved qualities. However, there is a poor understanding of the perceived acceptability of implementing MAS. Semi-structured interviews and a questionnaire were employed across participants categorized into four groups. It was found that government and industry participants held positive perceptions towards MAS, supporting its use and continued research in BC, and identifying its benefits in forest regeneration and to tree breeders. Environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) and First Nations attitudes lay between neutral and negative. Concerns were most strongly focused on environmental impacts, ecosystem degradation, and reduced genetic diversity, while identified benefits were specific to tree breeders and improved tree resiliency. It was concluded that before MAS can be successfully implemented, an appropriate setting must first be established through improved knowledge of biotechnology and its applications, well-defined policies, and strengthened engagement and consultation with First Nations.

Trust, Perceptions of Risks and Benefits, and Normative Acceptance of Approaches for Restoring American Chestnut Trees

“…Savadori et al (2004), for example, found that experts (i.e., professors and Ph.D. students in biology) viewed food and medical technologies such as GE as less risky and more useful than did the public. Similar patterns have been found in the context of forestry (Hajjar et al, 2014;Jepson & Arakelyan, 2017b;Nilausen et al, 2016). Nilausen et al (2016), for example, found that representatives of government agencies and the forest industry were more supportive of using technologies related to breeding and genetics in forestry than were citizen organizations (i.e., NGOs) and indigenous pop-ulations.…”

“…Assessing group differences in normative acceptance of natural resource issues has been a prominent line of research, especially between the public and other interest groups (e.g., scientists, agencies; Vaske & Whittaker, 2004). Studies have shown, for example, that nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), indigenous groups, and the general public can be less accepting of some issues, such as breeding or GE in forestry, compared to other groups such as scientists and industry representatives (Hajjar, McGuigan, Moshofsky, & Kozak, 2014; Jepson & Arakelyan, 2017b; Nilausen, Gélinas, & Bull, 2016).…”

“…Most research on perceived benefits of breeding and GE has focused on agriculture and food where researchers have found positive relationships between benefits and normative acceptance (NASEM, 2016; Scott et al., 2018; Siegrist, 2000). In the context of forestry, acceptance of approaches such as breeding and GE has been associated with perceived benefits including improved consumer choice (Tsourgiannis et al., 2016), reduced pesticide and herbicide inputs (Kazana et al., 2015), increased tree growth (Kazana et al., 2016), and reduced harvest pressure on wild forests (Nilausen et al., 2016). Research examining public responses to using breeding and GE to address ash dieback in the U.K. found that people viewed these approaches more favorably when used for addressing tangible issues (e.g., tree diseases), suggesting that perceived benefits may correlate with acceptance of using these approaches in forestry (Jepson & Arakelyan, 2017a, 2017b).…”

Tools and Technologies for Quantifying Spread and Impacts of Invasive Species

“…Despite the enormous investment in resources that have been expended to identify markers, very few operational breeding programs for either crops or trees use MAS (Isik 2014;Muranty et al 2014;Neale and Kremer 2011;Xu and Crouch 2008). Several factors have contributed to this, but often markers associated with QTLs are identified in studies using a relatively small number of progeny, and consequently they may not be useful when tested in other families because the markers are not located sufficiently close to the genes responsible for the trait of interest (Nilausen et al 2016). In addition, traits like resistance are often complex, so it can be difficult to detect all the different loci involved.…”

Applications of molecular markers for bacterial blight resistant varieties in rice (Oryza sativa L.)

“…Cost effectiveness of MAS: MAS has been proven to successful technique for selection of desirable plants in segregation population without linkage drag, pyramiding disease resistance gene and shortens period of releasing new cultivars. But the usage of MAS is restricted to traits with monogenic inheritance, laboratory with highly technical equipment and well trained scientific human resource as well as operation resource (Nilausen et al, 2016;Yang et al, 2016). The reliability and reproducibility of QTL based marker is unpredictable because of these types of markers were developed only in limited period of time/locations.…”