Mind the seed

Seeing the new Tree Seed and Seedling Field Guide Series from the Landscape Alliance reminded me that I’d also meant to write about the International Principles and Standards for Native Seeds in Ecological Restoration. That’s been sitting on my to-do list for a while now. It is not one of those standards documents that tells you what everyone ought to do and leaves the messy details to somebody else. It really gets into the…well, I was going to say weeds but that would be all wrong. Let’s just say it’s pretty comprehensive: where the seeds should come from, how much to collect, how to maintain genetic diversity, how to process and store them, how to test viability and germination, and what information should accompany the seed lot to the person who eventually plants it. There is even a pro-forma label. In other words, lots of advice about how not to screw up the supply chain for seeds of native plants to be used in habitat restoration and the like.

The new field guides sit very nicely alongside that. They take the same concern with quality and turn it into practical guidance for people producing and using tree seeds and seedlings in Kenya and Rwanda. The scales and specifics are different, but the underlying problem is much the same: restoration depends on getting seeds from a wild population to a restoration site without losing the information, quality or diversity on which success depend. The standards provide a framework for doing that; the field guides help people put it into practice specifically for trees in East Africa.

It’s all a welcome corrective to the tendency to think that restoration begins when you put a seed or seedling in the ground. Quite a lot has to go right before you get to that bit. One question, though. Are all these various principles, standards, guides and recommendations integrated into the digital workflow for forest restoration that I blogged about a couple of weeks back?

Where have all the nutrients gone?

The “nutrient collapse” story has been doing the rounds for years, and we’ve been picking at it on the blog for almost as long.

Back in 2009, Jeremy looked at evidence that older crop varieties could contain more minerals, protein and other nutrients than newer ones, and discussed various possible reasons, including the intriguing possibility of a “genetic dilution” effect as breeders selected for yield.

By 2012, we were stressing that the evidence was more complicated than the headlines suggested, and in 2019 we linked to the latest critical review of the evidence by Robin Marles of the Bureau of Nutritional Sciences in Canada.

Now the latest episode of the BBC’s indispensable More or Less podcast asks again whether carrots are becoming less nutritious, prompted by a listener who clearly hasn’t been following our blog, and turns to Dr Marles, now retired, for the answer. Which hasn’t really changed much.

The bottom line is that breeding for yield and other commercially important traits can change the balance of what ends up in the harvest, and that we have historically been much better at measuring tonnes per hectare than what is actually in those tonnes.

Brainfood: From data to action