1. Genetisk variation Dag Lindgren 090511 Arlanda

2. • Martin Lascoux, professor Uppsala, evolution biology • Outi Savolainen, professor Oulu, genetics • Nils Ryman, professor, Stockholm, population genetics • Bo Karlsson, responsible tree breeding in southern Sweden • Ola Rosvall, research leader green sector Skogforsk including tree breeding • Sanna Black-Samuelsson, Forest authority, genetic specialist • Dag Lindgren, professor SLU, forest genetics

3. Program 090511 • Dag takes the word for a presentation of the program of the day • Welcome! As we start late no coffee before lunch. • As the document is and will be in Swedish I sometimes use Swedish, but speakers are free to use English and often we may keep to that if it feels natural. • We are not many so you can break and say something whenever you want. • Bo writes memory notations from this meeting. I assume we will see them sometime and that comments will be possible, but Bo formulates the notes. • Bo redogör för regeringsuppdraget etc. • Dag makes and introduction. • Inputs from a reference group, three professors from ”ordinary” universities with experiences from forest genetics. • Each member of the reference group is in centre (ide om max tid 30 min, det går bra med mindre eller inte alls eller lite mer). The order is random and made now. It should not be seen as lectures, but be a guarantee that time does not become short for what a member of the reference group feel is important and want said. It can start in what is written but need not do that. Others can break with questions, information or comments, but it should be strictly about what the reference person wants in focus and kept short. • Lunch break 12 or shortly after whenever it feels natural • After the reference persons got their oppertunity to bring things in focus, the floor is open for anyone to say anything of relevance, and to comment on details in depth (e.g. on what is written) or ask any questions or comments. • Break 14.30 for afternoon coffee. Participants have been asked to be available to 15.30 and the room is available and I stay somewhat longer if you want to continue to discuss.

4. Bo gets the floor!

5. Formalia • Dag is responsible on delegation from Skogforsk. • The document will be in Swedish. • The form of the final document and popular summaries and how it will be made available will be decided later in consultation with Bo (Skogforsk), but it will be available on other webs than my. • På webben och är tillgängligt för världen, dvs transparans och öppenhet. Referensgruppen kan följa hur det utvecklas. Det finns en ”blogg”, om någon (t ex ur referensgruppen) vill göra en egen kommentar till det färdiga dokumentet kan jag lägga den där. • Jag avser också att utveckla websidan och låta den vara kvar någon tid framöver. • Inputs from a reference group, three professors from ”ordinary” universities with experiences from forest genetics. • This meeting is also a person to person interface between Science, Tree improvement and Authority and can facilitate a better understanding of different points of view. • Restrict mainly to Scots pine and Norway spruce and Swedish forests. I do not feel able to extend it more in a limited time, and these species are dominating plant production.

6. • Skogforsk likes this to be similar to a “MKB”. I have lower ambitions. That would require a workshop and some assistant and more time. But it could be seen as a starting point! • I was asked to condense it to a printable file but I may have missed things and there are more material linked to.

7. Tidshorisont • Ursprungligen tänkte jag vara nästan klar till sommaren • Men jag kunde knappast börja ”på allvar” utan att få input/dialog från referensgruppen och det visade sig behövas ett personligt möte och detta kunde inte arrangeras förrän nu. • Därför arbetar jag med detta i höst också som ”emeritus”. Så före jul har jag ställt ett läsbart manus i utsikt, där huvudsakligen redigering återstår.

8. Topics on the marginal... • Should ”administrative” suggestions be included. I have decided to do that. I can not see it is harmful, and increases the chance that some of the fora, who will see the document will react positively. But I really do not intend that the government itself will react. • ”Förflyttade” provenienser. De är uppenbarligen genetisk variation, så det känns inte fel och eftersom de nu är i fokus av debatten, så tyckte jag med stöd av andra att det var bra att jag tog upp det, men de har kommit lite för mycket i fokus i texten hittills, och det ledde också till att jag inte vill argumentera omkring det ”offentligt” innan jag smält vad vi diskuterar idag.

9. Introduction to the topics

10. • What is “genetic variation” • Are the difference between silvicultural regimes more important than genetic variation? (Has planting or not bigger impact than genetic variation?) • People and the political system want genetic diversity, so what could be done to meet their desires? (The ”PR” dimension)

11. • What is the connection between genetic variation and “skadegörare”? • Adaptedness versus “skadegörare”? • Breeding and “skadegörare” • Magnitude of natural gene migration? How much faster is gene flow by breeding and domestication? • Genetic structure of Natural forest? • Genetic differences between stands with and without Man.

12. • Differences between ”Goals” for Man and Nature • How much does selection change variation? • How are the value relations among field experiments, field experience, marker gene observations and theory? • How much do we know from the field (cf discussion about Bouffier Raffin and Kremer 2008) • History of pine and spruce in Sweden with particular consideration of genetics • How does Man and Domestication and civilisation affect forest with particular aspects of genetics? – Intentional – Unintentional

13. • Has Man had a dysgenic effect on the forest? • How different are different provenances? • Is the ”local provenance” genetically fine tuned to the environment where it grows? • To what degree are forest reproductive materials transferred (proveniensförflyttningarnas omfattning) • Can the historic impact of foreign spruce in southern Sweden be better estimated? – How large part of the forest is cultivated? (thus subject to provenance transfer) – How large part of the spruce in Götaland is foreign seed source? (foreign parents) – How large part of the spruce in Götaland is foreign origin? (foreign ancestrors but not parents)

14. • What is the effect of hybridization in spruce and pine? • What is the effect if (when) ”alien genes” take over (south Swedish spruce genes invaded by Belarus genes)? • What is the current speed of change? • How can genetic status and changes in the Swedish forest be better documented and analyzed on the national and lower levels? • Earlier possible ”genetic” mistakes; and has it been possible to quantify the genetic component? (e.g. Gremmeniella, Gudrun)

15. • Genetic diversity in a natural stand • Genetic diversity in a planted stand • Genetic diversity in a stand from a seed orchard – How can and will seed orchards affect genetic diversity? (now and in the foreseeable future) • Relevant comparisons in field trials between ”bred” (”or selected”) and ”natural” • Advantages and disadvantages with a low genetic diversity in a stand

16. • Genetic diversity in landscapes with a mosaic of different stands from different epoches and with different history? Diversity on the landscape level? • What effects have tree breeding on diversity on – the stand level – the landscape level – the national level

17. • Whats the effects of that improved material has another genetic structure with genes with a wider origin (breaking of within stand inbreeding, hybridisation of trees with ancestors some 100 km apart) • What are the consequences that a considerable part of future forests will originate from say 400 ancestors?

18. • Will the “bred” genes contaminate reservats etc.? • What’s the implications of forest tree breeding on gene conservation? • How can national statistics of the genetics of the Swedish forest be improved? • Is it possible and meaningful to test seed lots “genetically” before use? • Forest production is valuable! Compromises with other interests must be possible! What can be compromised and what can not? • Who owns the problem? If something might be bad for the forest owner, must the problem be raised to a higher level? If something reduce the production of the forest (say hybrid depression), is that not just good for environment?

19. • What research would be most relevant for reducing possible risks and straighten out the issues? • What activities could be considered for addition to the long term breeding? • Possible modifications of rules and administrative procedures

20. End

21. Dag L questions

22. • I have a bad memory and am old and not in perfect health, so do not beleive I remember everything said. I would have preferred to get it written shared in small doses easier to absorb. • Does it exist some similar document I could get? • Some person I should try to call and have a conversation with? • Some of the present who want a special meeting with me about something connecting to this? • Some web-discussion club this should suit to?