DamnInteresting.com Article on Caulerpa
- Thread starter dismayed
- Start date
Samala
New member
That article is actually a little disturbing for the way it attempts to distort some facts.. but I dont exactly have the case history for the invasive strain of C. taxifolia in my hands so I suppose I cant really argue it.
Actually, the latest updates on Caulerpa genus invasions include sighting of Caulerpa brachypus (sometimes called mini-prolifera in the hobby) in reefs off of Florida and within the Indian River Lagoon system.
Right now the leading theory is that it was released from home aquaria. :/
>Sarah
Actually, the latest updates on Caulerpa genus invasions include sighting of Caulerpa brachypus (sometimes called mini-prolifera in the hobby) in reefs off of Florida and within the Indian River Lagoon system.
Right now the leading theory is that it was released from home aquaria. :/
>Sarah
Plantbrain
Active member
Put bluntly, they are full of garbage when it comes to suggesting it's a GMO.
Good grief.
I guess every domesticated crop is a GMO by that definition
Also, the plant they used was merely a clone.
So there was no hybridization, there was no selection of sexual recombinations. They just had one plant that did well.
Who knows if that plant was a recombinant or if they just happened to find a plant out in the wild that did well in their tank?
You can look at the blots and see some very slight differences, but no one went out of their way to make a GMO Caulpera for this hobby.
Scare tactics, baloney, I think most of the article is okay and brings a good message about invasive seaweeds, but the part about GMO's, come on, that's manure science at it's best
Regards,
Tom Barr
Good grief.
I guess every domesticated crop is a GMO by that definition
Also, the plant they used was merely a clone.
So there was no hybridization, there was no selection of sexual recombinations. They just had one plant that did well.
Who knows if that plant was a recombinant or if they just happened to find a plant out in the wild that did well in their tank?
You can look at the blots and see some very slight differences, but no one went out of their way to make a GMO Caulpera for this hobby.
Scare tactics, baloney, I think most of the article is okay and brings a good message about invasive seaweeds, but the part about GMO's, come on, that's manure science at it's best
Regards,
Tom Barr
Nothing like solving a problem by creating another problem :lol:
I always get a kick out of how they keep trying to blame that strains existence in CA on home aquarists. I've got over 20 years in the industry and don't know of a single commercial source for that strain. It could easily be available at the institutional level of public aquaria via trades between institutions, but certainly not at a home hobbyist level. But than, it's easier to point at hobbyist vs. more common and large scale transport of invasive species such as shipping.
Samala
New member
Bill I can't remember if this study actually found the Med clone in their e-commerce samples, but if you have access to ESA papers, its worth a read. In fact if you cant get the full document send me a PM with your addy and I'll snag a PDF version for you.
>Sarah
>Sarah
Sarah, you've got a PM 
From the abstract it looks like they are just suggesting the trade is a problem due to how the genus is represented and spread throughout the hobby, as opposed to that specific species and strain. Be interesting to see the meat of the paper.
From the abstract it looks like they are just suggesting the trade is a problem due to how the genus is represented and spread throughout the hobby, as opposed to that specific species and strain. Be interesting to see the meat of the paper.
Plantbrain
Active member
It sounds like the study is one that simply shows how transparency the e commerce trade is. Not that C taxifolia is rampant in the trade.
Few wholesalers are experts at IDing macro algae, heck, most reef folks are not even close either.
What would you expect and predict?
That study just confirms what we'd expect.
They did a FW aquatic plant version, 90% of the time you could get anything you wanted that was banned.
Also, something I'd predict and expect.
Who takes care of invasive species for aquatic weeds in the USA?
Yep....that's pretty much the answer ....... no one really.
Using markers to determine the species is used because many phycologist have trouble using morphological traits, and some cases, heck, we really do not know. When discussing a specific strain/variety, ecotype like this weed, then the marker method is best.
Then you know it's defintitely that population of concern and can trace where it came from for the most part.
However, I get a little pithed when these quacks suggest GMO fear into all of this, that confuses the real issue, and spreads myths.
Aquarists can make a strong group for helping out these issues though. So knowing more, helping spread the word, not the weeds etc helps.
Even if we did not spread it, we can help nonetheless.
When we get an possible sample of C taxilfolia here, the process goes to 3 folks and any more, I just say send to do the marker analysis. Compare that to the known Med clone, then we know.
ID'ing is really tough when you have very focused questions like this, but at least we can answer it and the molecular folks get lots of $ for paternity suits
Regards,
Tom Barr
Few wholesalers are experts at IDing macro algae, heck, most reef folks are not even close either.
What would you expect and predict?
That study just confirms what we'd expect.
They did a FW aquatic plant version, 90% of the time you could get anything you wanted that was banned.
Also, something I'd predict and expect.
Who takes care of invasive species for aquatic weeds in the USA?
Yep....that's pretty much the answer ....... no one really.
Using markers to determine the species is used because many phycologist have trouble using morphological traits, and some cases, heck, we really do not know. When discussing a specific strain/variety, ecotype like this weed, then the marker method is best.
Then you know it's defintitely that population of concern and can trace where it came from for the most part.
However, I get a little pithed when these quacks suggest GMO fear into all of this, that confuses the real issue, and spreads myths.
Aquarists can make a strong group for helping out these issues though. So knowing more, helping spread the word, not the weeds etc helps.
Even if we did not spread it, we can help nonetheless.
When we get an possible sample of C taxilfolia here, the process goes to 3 folks and any more, I just say send to do the marker analysis. Compare that to the known Med clone, then we know.
ID'ing is really tough when you have very focused questions like this, but at least we can answer it and the molecular folks get lots of $ for paternity suits
Regards,
Tom Barr
Similar threads
