Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
05 April 2022 | Story Leonie Bolleurs | Photo Supplied
WJ swart
Prof Wijnand Swart believes a ‘systems level understanding’ of phytobiomes (consisting of plants, their environment, and all their associated organisms) will enable us to produce sufficient crops to meet global demands while minimising negative impacts on our environment.

Plant health is important for the survival of our planet and all its living creatures. Now, imagine an instrument that contains a DNA chip from virtually every known plant pathogen, where one can simply snip off a piece of the infected plant material, slip it into the ‘plant disease tricorder’, and within seconds you have not only a diagnosis of the disease, but all the information about its control too.

According to Prof Wijnand Swart, Professor of Plant Pathology in the Department of Plant Sciences at the University of the Free State (UFS) and President of the Southern African Society for Plant Pathology (SASPP), this concept might be a bit far-fetched, but is a distinct possibility for the not-too-distant future. “Without a doubt …,” he believes.

He was recently a guest on a series of radio talks on plant health in South Africa, hosted by the National Science and Technology Forum (NSTF) in partnership with Plaas/Farm TV (YouTube broadcaster). His talk on the topic, Whither (or wither) Plant Pathology in the next 50 years, was specifically focused on understanding the latest research and dynamics of the discipline in a South African context.

In terms of this futuristic perspective, he says collaboration between plant pathologists and biomedical and aeronautical engineers, nanotechnologists, and computer scientists will aid the development of micro-sensory technologies for the detection of new plant diseases that are relevant to biosecurity, plant disease diagnostics, and epidemiological modelling.

In his discussion, Prof Swart referred to the work of Prof John Lucas, former Head of Plant Pathology and Microbiology at the Rothamsted Research Station in the United Kingdom, who believes that there are three key issues facing plant pathologists in the 21st century. These are the strengthening of food security while simultaneously safeguarding the health of associated ecosystems and reducing the dependency on natural resources; the creation of pest and disease control systems that are sustainable and not compromised by the evolution of pest and pathogen strains; and the development of suitable crop protection technologies.

Future technologies

Based on the work of Prof Lucas, Prof Swart states that future technologies in plant health will develop in five areas. In the first area, he says DNA-based technologies will greatly increase the speed, sensitivity, and accuracy of pest and pathogen detection and diagnosis.

Also key here, is the integration of nanomaterials into disease management strategies and diagnostics. He says in the past decade, the use of nanotechnology in phytopathology has grown exponentially. According to him, nanotechnology can increase productivity using nano-pesticides and nano-fertilisers, improve soil quality by means of nano-zeolites and hydrogels, stimulate plant growth using nanomaterials, and provide smart monitoring via nano-sensors and wireless communication devices.

Prof Swart says according to Prof Lucas, the second area in which plant health technologies will grow is plant defence and immunity. When induced, plant resistance primes plants to deal with a diversity of biotic and abiotic stresses. Prospects of inducing chemically modulated plant resistance via biological agents (such as engineered microbes), might result in low-cost seed treatments, thereby removing the need for expensive chemical spray regimes.

Technology development in plant health will also become more evident in genetic diversification. Prof Swart believes sequencing the genomes of major crop species and their wild relatives will expand the known gene pool and diversify genetic resources available to plant breeders.

According to him, a new era is beckoning, where the prospect of crop pharmacology based on signal molecules and their receptors will become a reality. It will be based on the development of novel chemistries designed to manipulate specific molecular targets, by either regulating host resistance or disabling the disease-causing processes of pathogens.

The fifth area in which plant health technologies will develop, is ecological approaches to disease control. He says by understanding the ecology of pathogens, our ability to exploit their natural enemies will improve. Ecological approaches to plant disease control will have a significant impact on the introduction of invasive pathogen species, while the effect of climate change will influence the emergence of new plant diseases and epidemics. He strongly believes that it is important to take a holistic approach to understanding how and why plant pathogenesis occurs if we are to manage diseases effectively.

Future challenges

The development of these new technologies is very important, as there are several challenges that plant pathology will face in the future. These include the increasing demand for food to support the growing global population; the decreasing production potential of agriculture due to competition for fertile land; the increased risk of plant disease epidemics resulting from agricultural intensification; the depletion of natural resources; and the influence of climate change on interactions between plants and their pests or pathogens.

Prof Swart believes a ‘systems level understanding’ of phytobiomes (consisting of plants, their environment, and all their associated organisms) will enable us to produce sufficient crops to meet global demands while minimising negative impacts on our environment.

He concludes, saying that plant pathology will evolve as an interdisciplinary science. He adds that future research will focus on new problems that are traditionally seen as outside the core discipline of plant pathology. Furthermore, food security will be a dominant and important driver of plant pathology research, while the impact of climate change on plant diseases will be very significant. Finally, that the adaptive potential of plant and pathogen populations will be one of the most important predictors of the magnitude of climate change effects.

LISTEN: radio interview


News Archive

“To forgive is not an obligation. It’s a choice.” – Prof Minow during Reconciliation Lecture
2014-03-05

“To forgive is not an obligation. It’s a choice.” – Prof Minow during the Third Annual Reconciliation Lecture entitled Forgiveness, Law and Justice.
Photo: Johan Roux

No one could have anticipated the atmosphere in which Prof Martha Minow would visit the Bloemfontein Campus. And no one could have predicted how apt the timing of her message would be. As this formidable Dean of Harvard University’s Law School stepped behind the podium, a latent tension edged through the crowded audience.

“The issue of getting along after conflict is urgent.”

With these few words, Prof Minow exposed the essence of not only her lecture, but also the central concern of the entire university community.

As an expert on issues surrounding racial justice, Prof Minow has worked across the globe in post-conflict societies. How can we prevent atrocities from happening? she asked. Her answer was an honest, “I don’t know.” What she is certain of, on the other hand, is that the usual practice of either silence or retribution does not work. “I think that silence produces rage – understandably – and retribution produces the cycle of violence. Rather than ignoring what happens, rather than retribution, it would be good to reach for something more.” This is where reconciliation comes in.

Prof Minow put forward the idea that forgiveness should accompany reconciliation efforts. She defined forgiveness as a conscious, deliberate decision to forego rightful grounds of resentment towards those who have committed a wrong. “To forgive then, in this definition, is not an obligation. It’s a choice. And it’s held by the one who was harmed,” she explained.

Letting go of resentment cannot be forced – not even by the law. What the law can do, though, is either to encourage or discourage forgiveness. Prof Minow showed how the law can construct adversarial processes that render forgiveness less likely, when indeed its intention was the opposite. “Or, law can give people chances to meet together in spaces where they may apologise and they may forgive,” she continued. This point introduced some surprising revelations about our Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).

Indeed, studies do report ambivalence, disappointment and mixed views about the TRC. Whatever our views are on its success, Prof Minow reported that people across the world wonder how South African did it. “It may not work entirely inside the country; outside the country it’s had a huge effect. It’s a touchstone for transitional justice.”

The TRC “seems to have coincided with, and maybe contributed to, the relatively peaceful political transition to democracy that is, frankly, an absolute miracle.” What came as a surprise to many is this: the fact that the TRC has affected transitional justice efforts in forty jurisdictions, including Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Cambodia and Liberia. It has even inspired the creation of a TRC in Greensborough, North Carolina, in the United States.

There are no blueprints for solving conflict, though. “But the possibility of something other than criminal trials, something other than war, something other than silence – that’s why the TRC, I think, has been such an exemplar to the world,” she commended.

Court decision cannot rebuild a society, though. Only individuals can forgive. Only individuals can start with purposeful, daily decisions to forgive and forge a common future. Forgiveness is rather like kindness, she suggested. It’s a resource without limits. It’s not scarce like water or money. It’s within our reach. But if it’s forced, it’s not forgiveness.

“It is good,” Prof Minow warned, “to be cautious about the use of law to deliberately shape or manipulate the feelings of any individual. But it is no less important to admit that law does affect human beings, not just in its results, but in its process.” And then we must take responsibility for how we use that law.

“A government can judge, but only people can forgive.” As Prof Minow’s words lingered, the air suddenly seemed a bit more buoyant.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept