Response to comments by DiGiovanni and Kevan on "Session V: Estimating Likelihood and Exposure", by Zaida Lentini, Environ. Biosafety Res. 5 (2006) 193-195

D. Gustafson
{"title":"Response to comments by DiGiovanni and Kevan on \"Session V: Estimating Likelihood and Exposure\", by Zaida Lentini, Environ. Biosafety Res. 5 (2006) 193-195","authors":"D. Gustafson","doi":"10.1051/EBR:2008008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"DiGiovanni and Kevan (2008, Environ. Biosafety Res. 7 : 105–108) commented extensively on the empirical approach that I and my co-authors took in our previous modeling of pollen-mediated gene flow in maize (Gustafson et al. (2006) Crop Sci. 46 : 2133–2140). As we detailed in that original paper, gene flow is a highly complex process that necessarily requires at least some level of empiricism in order to adequately quantify all of the biological, meteorological, and physical phenomena that are involved. DiGiovanni and Kevan favor a mechanistic modeling approach, and they proposed a number of potential advantages for such a method over our entirely empirical technique. However, the 20 m buffers we had proposed based on our empirical model continue to be supported by the rapidly growing body of experimental data on maize gene flow that has now been collected in Europe and elsewhere around the world. This does not mean there is no place for mechanistic modeling of gene flow, but it does suggest that properly implemented empirical approaches have a valid role to play. They offer a degree of simplicity and practical utility that is not available from more complicated approaches.","PeriodicalId":87177,"journal":{"name":"Environmental biosafety research","volume":"7 1","pages":"111-113"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental biosafety research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1051/EBR:2008008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

DiGiovanni and Kevan (2008, Environ. Biosafety Res. 7 : 105–108) commented extensively on the empirical approach that I and my co-authors took in our previous modeling of pollen-mediated gene flow in maize (Gustafson et al. (2006) Crop Sci. 46 : 2133–2140). As we detailed in that original paper, gene flow is a highly complex process that necessarily requires at least some level of empiricism in order to adequately quantify all of the biological, meteorological, and physical phenomena that are involved. DiGiovanni and Kevan favor a mechanistic modeling approach, and they proposed a number of potential advantages for such a method over our entirely empirical technique. However, the 20 m buffers we had proposed based on our empirical model continue to be supported by the rapidly growing body of experimental data on maize gene flow that has now been collected in Europe and elsewhere around the world. This does not mean there is no place for mechanistic modeling of gene flow, but it does suggest that properly implemented empirical approaches have a valid role to play. They offer a degree of simplicity and practical utility that is not available from more complicated approaches.
对DiGiovanni和Kevan关于“第五部分:估计可能性和暴露”的评论的回应,作者:Zaida Lentini, Environ。生物安全第5 (2006)193-195
DiGiovanni and Kevan (2008, Environ)。生物安全Res. 7: 105-108)广泛评论了我和我的合著者在我们之前的玉米花粉介导基因流动模型中采用的经验方法(Gustafson et al. (2006) Crop Sci. 46: 2133-2140)。正如我们在那篇原始论文中详述的那样,基因流动是一个高度复杂的过程,为了充分量化所有涉及的生物、气象和物理现象,至少需要一定程度的经验主义。DiGiovanni和Kevan倾向于机械建模方法,他们提出了这种方法比我们完全经验的技术有许多潜在的优势。然而,我们基于我们的经验模型提出的20米缓冲层继续得到欧洲和世界其他地方收集的快速增长的玉米基因流实验数据的支持。这并不意味着基因流动的机制建模没有一席之地,但它确实表明,正确实施的经验方法可以发挥有效的作用。它们提供了某种程度的简单性和实用性,这是更复杂的方法所不能提供的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信