52
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Bt Crop Effects on Functional Guilds of Non-Target Arthropods: A Meta-Analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Uncertainty persists over the environmental effects of genetically-engineered crops that produce the insecticidal Cry proteins of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). We performed meta-analyses on a modified public database to synthesize current knowledge about the effects of Bt cotton, maize and potato on the abundance and interactions of arthropod non-target functional guilds.

          Methodology/Principal Findings

          We compared the abundance of predators, parasitoids, omnivores, detritivores and herbivores under scenarios in which neither, only the non-Bt crops, or both Bt and non-Bt crops received insecticide treatments. Predators were less abundant in Bt cotton compared to unsprayed non-Bt controls. As expected, fewer specialist parasitoids of the target pest occurred in Bt maize fields compared to unsprayed non-Bt controls, but no significant reduction was detected for other parasitoids. Numbers of predators and herbivores were higher in Bt crops compared to sprayed non-Bt controls, and type of insecticide influenced the magnitude of the difference. Omnivores and detritivores were more abundant in insecticide-treated controls and for the latter guild this was associated with reductions of their predators in sprayed non-Bt maize. No differences in abundance were found when both Bt and non-Bt crops were sprayed. Predator-to-prey ratios were unchanged by either Bt crops or the use of insecticides; ratios were higher in Bt maize relative to the sprayed non-Bt control.

          Conclusions/Significance

          Overall, we find no uniform effects of Bt cotton, maize and potato on the functional guilds of non-target arthropods. Use of and type of insecticides influenced the magnitude and direction of effects; insecticde effects were much larger than those of Bt crops. These meta-analyses underscore the importance of using controls not only to isolate the effects of a Bt crop per se but also to reflect the replacement of existing agricultural practices. Results will provide researchers with information to design more robust experiments and will inform the decisions of diverse stakeholders regarding the safety of transgenic insecticidal crops.

          Related collections

          Most cited references67

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates.

          Although scores of experiments have examined the ecological consequences of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) crops, debates continue regarding the nontarget impacts of this technology. Quantitative reviews of existing studies are crucial for better gauging risks and improving future risk assessments. To encourage evidence-based risk analyses, we constructed a searchable database for nontarget effects of Bt crops. A meta-analysis of 42 field experiments indicates that nontarget invertebrates are generally more abundant in Bt cotton and Bt maize fields than in nontransgenic fields managed with insecticides. However, in comparison with insecticide-free control fields, certain nontarget taxa are less abundant in Bt fields.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Long-Term Assessment of the Effects of TransgenicBtCotton on the Abundance of Nontarget Arthropod Natural Enemies

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Ecology of interactions between weeds and arthropods.

              Weeds and arthropods interact in agricultural systems. Weeds can directly serve as food sources or provide other ecosystem resources for herbivorous arthropods, and indirectly serve carnivorous (beneficial) arthropods by providing food and shelter to their prey. Weeds can serve as alternative hosts for pest and beneficial arthropods when their preferred crop host is absent. Herbivory on crops by pest arthropods reduces the competitive ability of crop plants, leading to increased weed growth. Interactions between weeds and arthropods have several implications to integrated pest management (IPM). Pest and beneficial arthropod populations can be maintained in the absence of crop hosts. This statement also applies to all other pests that use weeds as a food source, including pathogens, nematodes, mollusks, and vertebrates. Weeds outside crop fields that maintain overwintering populations of arthropod pests are the major reason for the development of area-wide IPM programs for certain mobile arthropod pests. Weeds can serve as a source of increased diversity in agroecosystems. Increased diversity has been the rationale for enhancing biological control of arthropod pests through habitat management. The consequences of such approaches are difficult to predict on a multispecies IPM basis.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1932-6203
                2008
                7 May 2008
                : 3
                : 5
                : e2118
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Biology, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska, United States of America
                [2 ]USDA-ARS Arid Land Agricultural Research Center, Maricopa, Arizona, United States of America
                [3 ]USDA-ARS North Central Agricultural Research Laboratory, Brookings, South Dakota, United States of America
                [4 ]Department of Entomology, Iowa State University, Iowa, United States of America
                [5 ]U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, Oregon, United States of America
                University of Pretoria, South Africa
                Author notes

                Conceived and designed the experiments: JL LW SN RB LW. Analyzed the data: JL LW SN RB. Wrote the paper: JL LW SN RB LW.

                Article
                08-PONE-RA-03283R1
                10.1371/journal.pone.0002118
                2346550
                18461164
                18a1c02e-5202-4f16-8043-7cb6b2c6fbbf
                Wolfenbarger et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
                History
                : 11 January 2008
                : 10 March 2008
                Page count
                Pages: 11
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biotechnology/Plant Biotechnology
                Ecology/Community Ecology and Biodiversity
                Plant Biology/Agricultural Biotechnology

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article