Accessibility / Report Error

Carbon Sequestration: what really matters? - A reply to Buckeridge & Aidar

Abstracts

This is a reply to Buckeridge & Aidar's (2002) Point of View on the possible usefulness of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) built to increase carbon sequestration, and Plant Gene Therapy (PGT), particularly in rain forests, as future tools to reduce excessive atmospheric CO2. We argue that the alternatives to carbon sequestration they presented should not be treated as scientific or political priority, since their arguments have major ecological and socio-political flaws, such as ecological unpredictability, the existence of an already high potential for carbon sequestration by native non-manipulated plants, and the relevance of scientific and political sovereignty in regard to the global change issue.

Carbon Sequestration; Ecological Integration; Environmental Stress; Gene Therapy; Global Change; Rain forest


Esta é uma resposta ao Ponto de Vista de Buckeridge & Aidar (2002) sobre a possível utilidade de organismos modificados geneticamente para aumentar o sequestro de carbono atmosférico e de Terapia Gênica Vegetal, particularmente em florestas tropicais chuvosas, como futuras ferramentas para reduzir dióxido de carbono em excesso na atmosfera. Nós defendemos o argumento que as alternativas apresentadas naquele artigo não devem ser tratadas como prioridades científicas ou políticas, uma vez que pecam por não considerarem importantes aspectos ecológicos e sócio-políticos, tais quais imprevisibilidade ecológica, a existência de um grande potencial de sequestro de carbono por plantas nativas não-manipuladas, e a relevância da soberania científica e política no que se refere ao tema das mudanças globais.

Estresse Ambiental; Floresta Tropical Chuvosa; Integração Ecológica; Mudanças Globais; Seqüestro de Carbono; Terapia Gênica


POINTS OF VIEW

Carbon Sequestration: what really matters? - A reply to Buckeridge & Aidar

Eduardo Arcoverde de MattosI; Fábio Rubio ScaranoII

IUniversidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Instituto de Biologia, Departamento de Ecologia, CCS - IB Laboratório de Ecologia Vegetal, Ilha do Fundão - Rio de Janeiro, 21941-970, RJ Brasil E.Mail: eamattos@biologia.ufrj.br

IIUniversidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Instituto de Biologia, Departamento de Ecologia, CCS - IB Laboratório de Ecologia Vegetal, Ilha do Fundão - Rio de Janeiro, 21941-970, RJ Brasil E.Mail: fscarano@biologia.ufrj.br

ABSTRACT

This is a reply to Buckeridge & Aidar's (2002) Point of View on the possible usefulness of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) built to increase carbon sequestration, and Plant Gene Therapy (PGT), particularly in rain forests, as future tools to reduce excessive atmospheric CO2. We argue that the alternatives to carbon sequestration they presented should not be treated as scientific or political priority, since their arguments have major ecological and socio-political flaws, such as ecological unpredictability, the existence of an already high potential for carbon sequestration by native non-manipulated plants, and the relevance of scientific and political sovereignty in regard to the global change issue.

Key Words: Carbon Sequestration, Ecological Integration, Environmental Stress, Gene Therapy, Global Change, Rain forest

RESUMO

Esta é uma resposta ao Ponto de Vista de Buckeridge & Aidar (2002) sobre a possível utilidade de organismos modificados geneticamente para aumentar o sequestro de carbono atmosférico e de Terapia Gênica Vegetal, particularmente em florestas tropicais chuvosas, como futuras ferramentas para reduzir dióxido de carbono em excesso na atmosfera. Nós defendemos o argumento que as alternativas apresentadas naquele artigo não devem ser tratadas como prioridades científicas ou políticas, uma vez que pecam por não considerarem importantes aspectos ecológicos e sócio-políticos, tais quais imprevisibilidade ecológica, a existência de um grande potencial de sequestro de carbono por plantas nativas não-manipuladas, e a relevância da soberania científica e política no que se refere ao tema das mudanças globais.

Palavras-chave: Estresse Ambiental, Floresta Tropical Chuvosa, Integração Ecológica, Mudanças Globais, Seqüestro de Carbono, Terapia Gênica

Full text available only in PDF format.

Texto completo disponível apenas em PDF.

Date received 06/24/2002

Accepted 07/02/2002

  • BROWN, J.H. 1995. Organisms as engineers: a useful framework for studying effects on ecosystems? Trends Ecol. Evol., 10(2): 51-52.
  • BUCKERIDGE, M.S. & AIDAR, M.P.M. 2002. Carbon sequestration in the rain forest: alternatives using environmentally friendly biotechnology. [published electronically at http://www.biotaneotropica.org.br/v2n1/en/abstract?point-of-view+BN00902012002
  • CHAPIN, F.S. II, AUTUMN, K. & PUGNAIRE, F. 1993. Evolution of suites of traits in response to environmental stress. Am. Nat. 142: 78-92.
  • CRAWLEY, M.J. 1996. Plant Ecology. Blackwell Science, Oxford.
  • FOUCAULT, M. 1972. The archaeology of knowledge. Routledge Classics, London.
  • KÖRNER, C. 2000. Biosphere responses to CO2 enrichment. Ecol. Appl., 10: 1590-1619.
  • LAWLOR, D.W. 2002. Carbon and nitrogen assimilation in relation to yield: mechanisms are the key to understanding production systems. J. Exp. Bot. 53(370): 773-787.
  • LAWTON, J.H. 1994. What do species do in ecosystems? Oikos, 71(3): 367-374.
  • de MATTOS, E.A. 1998. Perspectives on Comparative Ecophysiology of some Brazilian Vegetation Types: Leaf CO2 and H2O gas exchange, chlorophyll a fluorescence and carbon isotope discrimination. In Ecophysiological strategies of xerophytic and amphibious plants in the neotropics. (F.R. Scarano & A.C. Franco, eds.). Series Oecologia Brasiliensis, vol. IV. PPGE-UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, p.1-18.
  • de MATTOS, E.A., LOBO, P.C. & JOLY, C.A. 2002. Overnight rainfall inducing rapid changes in photosynthetic behaviour in a cerrado woody species during a dry spell amidst the rainy season. Aust. J. Bot., 50(2): 241-246 .
  • MURRAY, B.G. Jr. 2001. Are ecological and evolutionary theories scientific? Biol. Rev. 76: 255-289.
  • PETERS, R.H. 1991. A critique for ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • PICKETT, S.T.A., KOLASA, J. & JONES, C.G. 1994. Ecological understanding. Academic Press, New York.
  • PRADO, C.H.B.A. & MORAES, J.A.P.V. 1997. Photosynthetic capacity and specific leaf mass in twenty wood species of cerrado vegetation under field conditions. Photosynthetica, 33: 103-112.
  • SCARANO, F.R. 2002. Structure, function and floristic relationships of plant communities in stressful habitats marginal to the Brazilian Atlantic rain forest. Ann. Bot. (in press).
  • SCARANO, F.R. & FRANCO, A.C., eds. 1998. E c o p h y s i o l o g i c a l s t r a t e g i e s o f xerophytic and amphibious plants in the n e o t r o p i c s . S e r i e s O e c o l o g i a Brasiliensis, vol IV. PPGE-UFRJ
  • SCARANO, F.R., DUARTE, H.M., RIBEIRO, K.T., RODRIGUES, P.J.F.P., BARCELLOS, E.M.B., FRANCO, A.C., BRULFERT, J., DELÉENS, E. & LÜTTGE, U. 2001. Four sites with contrasting environmental stress in southeastern Brazil: relations of species, life form diversity, and geographical distribution to ecophysiological parameters. Bot. J. Linn. Soc., 136: 345-364.
  • SHRADER-FRECHETTE, K.S. & McCOY, E.D. 1993. Method in ecology: strategies for conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • TILMAN, D. 1999. The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: a search for general principles. Ecol., 80: 1455-1474.
  • VITOUSEK, P.M., MOONEY, H.A., LUBCHENCO, J. & MELILLO, J.M. 1997. Human domination of earth's ecosystems. Science, 277: 494-499.

Publication Dates

  • Publication in this collection
    11 June 2013
  • Date of issue
    2002

History

  • Accepted
    07 Feb 2002
  • Received
    24 June 2002
Instituto Virtual da Biodiversidade | BIOTA - FAPESP Departamento de Biologia Vegetal - Instituto de Biologia, UNICAMP CP 6109, 13083-970 - Campinas/SP, Tel.: (+55 19) 3521-6166, Fax: (+55 19) 3521-6168 - Campinas - SP - Brazil
E-mail: contato@biotaneotropica.org.br