Poplar Science: Producing More Biomass from Genetically Beefed-Up Trees

"so it doesn't engender competition between biomass production and essential food sources"

Oh, where does all that extra biomass come from? From the same pool of nutrients that the edible parts get theirs.

Hmmm.

I kinda like the idea. This could change alot of things in nature. It could mean so much pluses. But there is a threat of something going wrong. The most worst case scenario is Ents as a by product of this.

Just as long as they don't sing.

Or take five hours to say a few sentences... Then again.. If that happened, I don't think they would be too hard to stop. Ents aren't exactly the fastest things out there. Just keep them away from the Hoover Dam and bring in flamethrowers.

im thinking the same as dennisw. the only thing would be if you possibly found some random unused place to plant and harvest continuously,and even then youre depleting nutrients.

The problem with corn is that it is a greedy plant. It eats the soil it is in, requiring lots of fertilizer. Making it grow thicker is not going to solve anything.

Making poplar trees (already a fast growing straight grained wood) get thicker faster (they need no help getting taller faster, as they race to the sky) will give you old growth wood without the old growth. The benefits of this to the pulp industry are signifigant and the potential benefits to the lumber industry are game changing.

Also, trees can do without fertilizer. They get their carbon from the air, rather than the ground, recycle their own nitrogen (from leaf litter), and generally more tolerant of acidity variablility in the soil, and even when harvested leave a health store of carbon locked in the soil (in the root system).

Finally, the quantity, size, and quality of production from many fruit bearing plants is based on the diameter of the trunk (as that is analogious to root system uptake). If this could "widen the highway" for nuitrient to rise in fruit bearing plants it has the potential to create more vigerious and faster setting fruit trees (and other similar systems, like grapes).

No matter what you plant or where you plant it nutrients are going to be depleted. Its the way nature works. However Oakspar, I hope you're not trying to tell me that on a per ton of biomass basis corn requires more fertilizer than you're local golf course. I grew up on a farm and nothing bothers me more than people blaming farmers for overusing fertilizer. Farmers are in a business, they calculate the amount of fertilizer they need because its an input cost. They're not going to use any more than they have to. Its too expensive. However, look out the window at your lawn, or your neighbors, or the local golf course this summer. If they're lush and green in the middle of August its because they have been fertilized and watered. In an urban setting that fertilizer has not where to runoff to except the gutter, into the storm drain, and out to your local river. When fertilizer is applied to a field there are many drainage areas where any fertilizer that is carried away will collect before it hits a waterway. Also, even though corn takes it nutrients from the soil its carbon comes from the air, just like any other plant. So making the stalk, which is comprised of cellulose, lignin, and other polysaccharides, is going to take in its carbon from the atmosphere, not the soil. And finally, even though tree's get all the credit for trapping carbon in the soil corn plants have root systems as well which are left behind in the field every year.

As far as the article itself goes, I'm excited to see how much the amount of biomass available can be increased by thickening the stalks of plants. My only concern is that by speeding up the process how much density is sacrificed due to growing faster. The density or hardness of many plants is due to the lignin content which is a complex polymer that takes time to create. WIthout the needed density will the plants that have this new mutation be more prone to wind damage?

ajhonson1986 said:"They're not going to use any more than they have to. Its too expensive. However, look out the window at your lawn, or your neighbors, or the local golf course this summer. If they're lush and green in the middle of August its because they have been fertilized and watered. In an urban setting that fertilizer has not where to runoff to except the gutter, into the storm drain, and out to your local river. When fertilizer is applied to a field there are many drainage areas where any fertilizer that is carried away will collect before it hits a waterway. Also, even though corn takes it nutrients from the soil its carbon comes from the air, just like any other plant. So making the stalk, which is comprised of cellulose, lignin, and other polysaccharides, is going to take in its carbon from the atmosphere, not the soil. And finally, even though tree's get all the credit for trapping carbon in the soil corn plants have root systems as well which are left behind in the field every year. " Yeah it's true..
But i know "Like steroids lift baseball players' performances above and beyond what nature endowed them with, a means to beef up biofuel feedstocks by even ten percent could be the difference between the ball dropping at the warning track or making it over the fence -- a home run being analogous to meeting America's lofty goal of generating a third of all liquid fuel from renewable sources by 2025" "..."

Can anyone tell me how I can work out if my Poplars use tubular oscillator infractions to generate the rate of growth?