Last week, the State Government of Victoria announced that the five-year moratorium on the cultivation of genetically-modified (GM) canola would be lifted in early 2008. New South Wales has also announced that it will lift its ban. South Australia is expected to follow soon whilst Tasmania wants to maintain its prohibition. The lifting of the moratorium is a highly controversial decision, but one that I welcome.

This story goes back to 2003 when the Commonwealth Government’s Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) approved the cultivation of Bayer CropScience’s InVigor® and Monsanto’s Roundup Ready® herbicide-resistant canola (Brassica napus) for commercial oil production. In response, most Australian states (which have constitutional authority over agriculture) imposed 5-year moratoria on the basis that the economic and environmental risk was still unknown.

This was a sensible decision because it permitted more scientific and economic research to be conducted and for the community and farmers to express their concerns to government and industry.

GM canola has been grown in the United States and Canada since 1995. To date, there has been no evidence to suggest that there is a risk to the health of humans nor wildlife from growing such crops. In fact Bennett et al. (2004) found that growing a GM herbicide-tolerant crop would be less harmful to the environment and human health than growing the conventional crop, owing to the reduction of herbicide use. Indeed, there are many benefits that can come to Australia from the cultivation of GM crops.

Australia already cultivates GM cotton and carnations. The incorporation of genes for “drought resistance” in wheat and rice for instance could have dramatic environmental benefits, not least allowing us to grow more food with less water. The savings could be returned to our parched rivers and waterways.

Despite the potential benefits, there is a general paranoia amongst extremist environmental groups (such as Greenpeace) that GM-crops are somehow “unnatural” and “dangerous”. Such claims show a complete lack of scientific literacy. The labelling of GM crops as “Frankenfood” is a favourite scare-tactic amongst the environmental extremists.

A good example of the potential of GM was the FlavrSavr tomato, developed by Calgene. When tomatoes ripen, they become soft and are easily spoilt and so are picked green. The softening is caused by a protein called polygalacturonase, which is present in all tomatoes. Calgene scientists simply cloned the gene, flipped it backwards and re-inserted it back into the tomato. This antisense gene then blocked the function of polygalacturonase and the tomatoes stayed firm after ripening. No “foreign” genes were used, yet green groups went berserk and even suggested the tomatoes contained fish genes! (This claim was false).

Golden Rice provides another example of the positive potential of genetic modification. According to the World Health Organisation, dietary vitamin A deficiency (VAD) causes some 250,000 to 500,000 children to go blind each year. As a remedy to this problem, scientists Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer developed Golden Rice which contains elevated levels of β-carotene (provitamin A). Rice plants produce β-carotene in green tissues but not in the endosperm (the edible part of the seed). By addition of only two genes, phytoene synthase (psy) and phytoene desaturase (crt I), the pathway was reconstituted and β-carotene is consequently accumulated in the endosperm. The humanitarian benefit of cultivating this rice would be enormous, but for environmentalists objecting to the use of a “bacterial gene” in its development.

The notion that a “foreign” gene poses some risk to health or is unnatural is a myth. Aside from the lack of evidence of this process being dangerous in itself, gene transfer between bacteria and plants happens in nature, such as in the case of Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Sure, if a scientist were to transfer a gene encoding a toxin into an edible plant, that would be dangerous, but only because of the presence of toxin and not because the gene was “foreign”. Given that the DNA code is universal across all organisms and no genes have species-specific identifiers marking them as “plant”, “animal”, “bacterial” et cetera, this fear of the technology is misplaced.

One concern with growing GM canola is that herbicide-resistance genes will ‘contaminate’ non-GM canola crops via cross-pollination, since canola is an out-crossing species. In an Australian study, Rieger et al. (2002) found that canola pollen could be spread up to 3 kilometres away from source plants, but herbicide-resistance genes were present in an average of 0.03% of plants tested at those distances, suggesting that buffer zones could be successfully used where farmers want to grow non-GM canola without fear of contamination. This is especially applicable in the case of Tasmania. Under European standards for instance, “GM free” canola is permitted to contain up to 0.9% genetically modified material.

It is true that the organic sector could be affected by the commercial planting of GM canola, however ABARE currently estimates that organic canola accounts for less than 1% of the Australian canola crop. In any case, the economic debate is one which farmers will need to have and decide upon. This is not an environmental risk, but an economic one.

I believe that the adoption or otherwise of GM crops should be conducted where it is economically and environmentally prudent to do so. If a particular agricultural industry doesn’t want to grow GM crops because they feel their industry can gain higher prices with non-GM, then I support them wholehartedly. But if the environmental return (eg less use of herbicides, less water use etc) and the economic return is greater with GM crops, then as a society we should embrace the technology.

Of course there are risks. One risk is of GM crops hybridising with wild relatives in species where this is possible and wild relatives are present, causing a transfer of new traits (such as herbicide resistance) to these plants. However it is the job of the OGTR to evaluate and regulate new releases and to date, they’ve done an excellent job in risk assessment. Anyone who works in a PC2 laboratory would know how stringent the Gene Technology Act 2000 is.

It is up to affected farming groups, the OGTR, the Food Standards Authority and state governments to decide for each agricultural sector what is best for consumers, industry and the country. Consumers are entitled to stringent labelling regulations on all food, and the choice whether to purchase GM food products.

Genetic modification of crops offers Australia many opportunities and it would be foolish in the extreme to ignore the potential of this tried-and-tested technology and miss out on what it can offer the people of Australia and the world.

Scientific references:

Bennett et al. (2004) Environmental and human health impacts of growing genetically modified herbicide-tolerant sugar beet: a life-cycle assessment. Plant Biotechnology Journal 2: 273–278

DallaPenna et al. (1986) Molecular cloning of tomato fruit polygalacturonase: Analysis of polygalacturonase mRNA levels during ripening. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 83 (17): 6420-6424

Rieger et al. (2002) Pollen-Mediated movement of herbicide resistance between commercial canola fields. Science 296 (5577): 2386-2388

Image credits:

1. Canola field by Neal Sanche, used under a Creative Commons licence.

2. Canola plant by Richard Rosalion, used under a Creative Commons licence.

I have just recently visited the Philippines for a holiday. The flight is a lengthy 7 hours from Melbourne to Manila and having been three years since my last visit, I had a lot to see and do in this great country.

Yet for all the touristy places I wanted to visit, there was one lesser-known Philippine attraction that I couldn’t pass up the opportunity to witness. I speak of the famous “Fertility Tree”.

You will never find reference to the Fertility Tree in your Lonely Planet guides, nor on the Wow Philippines website, nor in your glossy holiday brochures. It is only something that the locals know about.

The infamous Fertility Tree (and corillon) at the
University of the Philippines at Los Baños (UPLB).

I learnt of the existence of this tree when I was socialising with Filipino friends here in Melbourne and it came up in conversation somehow. Everyone had a cheeky grin on their face as it was discussed in Tagalog and I was left confused until with repressed laughter, the story was explained to me in English.

The Fertility Tree is located at the University of The Philippines in the town of Los Baños, which lies 63 kilometres south-east of Manila. The Fertility Tree grows on the edge of what we’d call an oval (large field) and during the day is the favourite place of joggers, sports players and students looking for some sunshine whilst studying.

But at night, I am told the story is very different.

When the sun has set and most students are asleep, the Fertility Tree is a favourite spot for student couples to meet up for private romance under the protective darkness of its large canopy.

The story goes that many children have been born as a result of this magnificent tree. Such is its reputation that students and alumni from across the seven-campus University of the Philippines system are aware of the magic powers of the Fertility Tree.

With almost universal recognition amongst the Pinoys that I have met, I decided I had to make time to see the Fertility Tree whilst in the Philippines.

I arranged to be driven from Manila to the University of the Philippines at Los Baños (UPLB) one afternoon and was shown where the tree was. The tree is known scientifically as Samanea saman and has a grand canopy.

Being a foreigner at UPLB doesn’t go unnoticed and it is not uncommon for Filipino students to greet overseas visitors with a friendly “Hey Joe!”. Given the purpose of my visit, I was trying to blend in as best as a pale Australian can when walking purposefully to the university’s most infamous tree with a large camera. Needless to say, I took photos of the tree at some distance but resisted the temptation to walk under its canopy. I therefore cannot comment on the rumour that prophylactics are occasionally found there!

After viewing the tree and the surrounds for a little while, I then took a tour of the rest of the UPLB campus before leaving Los Baños for the return trip to Manila before dark.

Having seen the Fertility Tree for myself, the question remains about whether the story of the Fertility Tree is even true? Who knows. Some doubt the likelihood that anyone could do ‘that’ unnoticed at night beneath the tree.

Regardless of the veracity of the story, the Fertility Tree is as much a product of the Filipino sense of humour and psyche as anything else and I am glad that I had the opportunity to see it for myself and experience this small piece of Philippine culture.

Even now that I am back in Australia, the thought of the Fertility Tree brings a smile to my face!

Tucked away in the sprawling suburb of Cranbourne on Melbourne’s south-east is a garden like none that I have ever seen. The ‘Australian Garden’ at the Royal Botanic Gardens Cranbourne is a hidden gem, and well worth a visit.

It looks like central Australia, but this is Melbourne!
The Dry River Garden featuring Dampiera and Thryptomene at RBG Cranbourne.

I had heard about the Australian Garden at RBG Cranbourne but hadn’t yet been able to find the time to visit until now. And in some ways I am glad I waited.

Because as I entered the gardens, I realised I had quite a treat in store. Lain before me was a spectacular garden filled with red sand and lined with a plethora of native plant species. The vision before me was contemporary, eye-catching and unmistakably Australian. I could hardly wait to get amongst it all!

The Dry River Garden looking back to the main building.

The landscaped Australian Garden was opened to the public in May 2006, after years of planning and development by the Royal Botanic Gardens. Designed by Taylor Cullity Lethlean and Paul Thompson (a landscape architect specialising in Australian flora), the gardens aim to showcase the beauty and diversity of Australian flora.

To begin with, the path leading to the main entrance is lined with a Tasmanian conifer (Callitris sp.) and she-oaks (Allocasuarina sp.) that provides a formal – almost traditional-looking entranceway. Visitors are directed through the foyer of the building before descending a series of steps to be confronted with the vista of the Red Sand Garden – a massive expanse of red sands planted with central Australian flora. The outlook is so spectacular one almost feels transported to the Northern Territory.

The rich blue flowers of Dampiera linearis.

The garden is designed as a circuit around the Red Sand Garden and the first themed garden was the Dry River Bed garden. This was filled with a huge selection of low-growing shrubs and groundcovers planted in broken rivulet-shaped garden beds. Various gravels, pebbles, barks and other textured materials provided a mulch of sorts between the young plants.

Of particular interest in this garden were the rich blue flowers of various Dampiera species, contrasted with the yellow of Senna artemisioides and the pink of Thryptomene saxicola and Lysiosepalum involucratum.

Further around the circuit was the Eucalypt Walk, which features members of the genus Eucalyptus. But perhaps the most interesting part of the garden is on the eastern side of the site.

The ‘Home Garden’, one of the exhibition gardens.

Here, there are a range of ‘exhibition gardens’ which are designed to showcase how Australian flora can be used in domestic gardens. Whilst the Dry River, Red Sand and Eucalypt Gardens feature both common and rare species, the exhibition gardens only feature species available at retail garden centres to allow visitors to recreate the plantings at home. I think this is a terrific idea.

My favourite exhibition garden was called the ‘Future Garden’. Designed by Site Office, this garden was the winner of a number of landscape architecture awards. Positioned in raised cell-shaped garden beds, the plants are mostly modern cultivars selected as much because of their garden origin as their beauty. Between them rise giant barber’s poles to add colour and interest. Whilst the concept may sound a little strange, it works surprisingly well and I was most impressed.

The ‘Future Garden’ features coloured poles amongst the plantings.

The final feature worth mentioning is the long rockpool waterway, which is paralleled by the giant sculptural Escarpment Wall designed by Greg Clark. Despite the strict water restrictions, the rockpool waterway was flowing and provided a relaxing feel to the area opposite the exhibition gardens.

The visit to the Australian Garden at RBG Cranbourne was especially timely as I enjoyed fine weather and I was lucky to see so many of the plants in flower.

Looking along the rockpool waterway with the escarpment wall on the far right.

I do have one criticism of the Australian Garden, and that pertains to the cafeteria, called the Boonerwurrung Café.

Mid-way through my tour of the Australian Garden I fancied a cup of coffee and something to eat, but entry to the café necessitated departure from the paid area of the garden with the obvious problem of needing to pay a second admission for re-entry. And whilst the coffee and food was of excellent quality, I felt the range was somewhat limited.

That said, these are minor criticisms of an otherwise excellent venue.

Floral detail of Pterostylis baptistii.
(See larger image at Photologium.com)

For anyone who wants to see the very best of our Australian flora in a contemporary setting, I thoroughly recommend the Australian Garden at the Royal Botanic Gardens Cranbourne. Whilst there are a number of other public gardens in Melbourne that exhibit Australian plants (such as Maranoa Gardens in Balwyn and Karwarra Garden in Kalorama), none feature the contemporary landscaping style of the Australian Garden.

RBG Cranbourne lies 45 kilometres south-east of Melbourne and entry to the landscaped Australian Garden costs $9.25 for an adult.

I was visiting my parents a few weeks ago when I made an exciting entomological ‘discovery’ in the garden. Whilst looking at the plants, I saw a different and unfamiliar bee-like creature hovering near some flowers. It turned out to be a ‘blue-banded bee’ – I’d never seen one before!

This blue-banded bee (Amegilla cingulata) is taking an interest in Verbena flowers.

The blue-banded bees caught my eye because of their iridescent colour and because they hovered. This is something English bees (Apis mellifera) cannot do. The blue-banded bees also moved between flowers much faster than English bees which made photographing and observing them very difficult!

Blue-banded bees (Amegilla cingulata) are native to Australia, but also occur naturally in Papua New Guinea, East Timor, Indonesia and Malaysia. Unlike other bee species, blue-banded bees are solitary insects. They typically build nests in sandstone, mud or the mortar-gaps in the brickwork of houses.

Detail of a blue-banded bee.

Blue-banded bees specialise in an unusual sort of flower pollination called ‘buzz pollination’. Normally flowers release pollen passively, but some species are specially designed to be pollinated by ‘buzz pollinators’ that grab onto the flowers and vibrate them quickly to release the pollen.

The tomato is a common example of a species that relies on ‘buzz pollination’. Without appropriate pollinators, commercial tomato yields are significantly reduced. In Australian glasshouse-based tomato farms, there is no common buzz pollinator available, so tomato growers are forced to use an “electric bee” vibrator to pollinate flowers. This is very labour intensive and adds cost to the final product.

So as a labour- and cost-saving remedy, tomato growers want the Commonwealth Government to allow the introduction of the European bumble bee (Bombus terrestris) as a glasshouse pollinator for their crops, despite the negative environmental consequences that would result. However the University of Adelaide has recently demonstrated that native blue-banded bees were just as effective glasshouse pollinators as bumble bees. Research is now focussed on the commercialisation of blue-banded bees for the tomato industry.

So in the future, there may be a big role for the humble blue-banded bee in industry. But in the interim, I hope to see more of these interesting insects buzz-pollinating the plants in the garden.

One of Melbourne’s nicest horticultural attractions is the Conservatory in East Melbourne. Set amongst the leafy Fitzroy Gardens, the conservatory building lures visitors who could never be disappointed because the plant displays inside are always stunning!

Twilight at the Melbourne Conservatory

The Conservatory was opened in 1930 at a cost of ₤4000, and designed in the Spanish Mission style. Prior to construction, there was considerable public debate about the merits of sacrificing open space for such a structure, but few Melburnians today would consider the Fitzroy Gardens complete without the Conservatory.

Hydragea macrophylla feature heavily in this season’s conservatory display.

The conservatory features a rotation of plant displays throughout the year. When I visited last weekend, the conservatory was filled with hydrangeas and fuchsias. The colour was phenomenal. Even if I have seen these plants a thousand times, seldom do they look so good!

Detail of a Fuchsia cultivar.

The interior of the conservatory has a pathway that is laid out in a circuit, and includes a pond in the middle and a footbridge to cross. Around the various rockeries and other features, the multitude of potted plants is arranged to good effect.

 
An Asian-inspired display of Hydrangea macrophylla and New Guinea Impatiens.

Entry to the conservatory is free and well worth a look if you are able to make the time. You won’t be disappointed!