We live in an incredible time in terms of our advancing understanding of how microorganisms interact with humans and with plants. It’s truly a “the more we learn, the more we understand how little we know” sort of thing. Our paradigms are being completely reshaped as to how plants access nutrients and how they fight off disease and pests through their partnerships with organisms in their microbiome.
This new way of considering how plants work is highlighted in this issue of Acres U.S.A. in the conversation between Acres U.S.A. executive editor John Kempf and Dr. James White of Rutgers University. Among the many “aha” moments is how plants receive perhaps 70 to 80 percent of their nutrition via endophytes — organisms inside the plant itself. Just as enlightening is the article by David Olson in this issue on the role of diversity in the microbiome — why it’s so important and how to help nurture it in your fields.
Yet, the more we learn, the more you have to scratch your head at some of the headlines coming out from researchers who seem to not have made this shift in thinking. I say this not to belittle anyone; merely to point out that sometimes old ideas die hard. Here are some recent examples:
“Plant warfare: The crucial function of Nrc proteins in tomato defense mechanisms.” This study details the discovery of a gene that aids in defense against Pseudomonas. Yet it pays little to no attention to how either nutrition or endophytic bacteria and fungi are creating these Nrc proteins. The emphasis is on genetically engineering the plant to increase the desired genes directly.
“Scientists engineer plant microbiome to protect crops against disease.” It’s encouraging that the plant microbiome is acknowledged; we actually feature this report in our Eco-update section this month. The alarming thing is that this old paradigm first resorts to human efforts to engineer — as if the plant is in grave need of our intervention. That said, efforts to influence the plant microbiome are surely safer than human attempts to add/subtract/change genes directly.
“Researchers improve seed nitrogen content by reducing plant chlorophyl levels.” This study claims that since we plant plants so close together, not much sunlight reaches lower leaves; instead of simply adjusting plant spacing (as in the System of Crop Improvement — SCI — see our coverage of this in the February 2023 issue), the researchers advocate lowering chlorophyl levels so sunlight can reach lower leaves. They succeed in raising nitrogen levels, but what other effects do they produce by intentionally reducing photosynthetic capability — usually the last thing we should want to do?
“Genetics of host plants determine what microorganisms they attract.” This is surely true; yet perhaps (again, see the interview in this issue with James White) it’s more the microorganisms that are affecting the DNA of the plants than the other way around. Also, per Robert Kremer’s work, genetically modified plants significantly affect the microbiome compared to non-GM plants.
“Electronic ‘soil’ enhances crop growth.” This paper rightly recognizes the important role electrical current plays in plant growth (perhaps paramagnetism, too — an idea discussed in this magazine for decades), yet the scientists’ solution is to implement this concept by growing plants hydroponically, instead of in soil with microorganisms.
The change in paradigm applies to related subjects as well. “Climate change isn’t producing expected increase in atmospheric moisture over dry regions. Of course not — they aren’t including plant aerosols or evapotranspiration in their models. See our story from Rob Lewis in the December issue, and more on this in future issues.
This is “I feel like I’m taking crazy pills” kind of stuff. One’s presuppositions definitely color what one takes away from basic scientific research. My point isn’t to discount science; it’s simply that we should err on the side of expecting that things are far more complicated, interrelated and biology-centric than we probably imagine.
And that’s the view from the country.
