Increased frequency of droughts and degraded edaphic conditions decreases the success of many reforestation efforts in the Pacific Northwest. Microbial endophyte consortia have been demonstrated to contribute to plant growth promotion and protection from abiotic and biotic stresses – specifically drought conditions – across a number of food crops but for limited tree species. Our research aimed to investigate the potential to improve establishment of economically and ecologically important conifers through a series of in situ field trials and ex situ simulations. Microbial endophyte consortia from Salicaceae, previously shown to confer drought tolerance, and conifer endophyte strains with potentially symbiotic traits were selected for trials with Douglas-fir ( Pseudotsuga menziesii ) and western redcedar ( Thuja plicata ). Reductive experimentation was used to subject seedlings to a spectrum of simulated drought levels or presence/absence of fertilizer, testing hypotheses that endophyte consortia impart improved drought resistance and growth promotion, respectively. Inoculation from Salicaceae consortia significantly ( p ≤ 0.05) improved survival among seedlings of both species subject to increasing drought stress, with T. plicata seedlings surviving at twofold higher rates in extreme drought conditions. Both species demonstrated improved growth 540 days after inoculation of seed with conifer derived consortia. In the carefully controlled greenhouse experiments with both species, seedling Fv/Fm and SPAD values remained significantly ( p ≤ 0.05) more stable in inoculated treatment groups as stress increased. Our findings confirm that multi-strain consortia may be applied as seed or field amendment to conifers, and the approach is efficient in garnering a positive growth response and can mitigate abiotic stressors.

Most philosophical defences of the state’s right to exclude immigrants derive their strength from the normative importance of self‐determination. If nation‐states are taken to be the political institutions of a people, then the state’s right to exclude is the people’s right to exclude – and a denial of this right constitutes an abridgement of self‐determination. In this article, I argue that this view of self‐determination does not cohere with a group‐agency view of nation‐states. On the group‐agency view that I defend, a nation‐state is the kind of group‐agent that does not supervene on the intentionality of member/citizens. If we think that a nation‐state is an intentional group‐agent in its own right, then we should think that self‐determination resides with the institutions of the state rather than with the citizens. If nation‐states do not supervene on the intentionality of citizens, then it is unclear why citizens might have the right to control membership in the state as a feature of self‐determination.

No abstract