Euphytica

, Volume 91, Issue 1, pp 55–58 | Cite as

Ecological aspects of transgenic sugar beet: transfer and expression of herbicide resistance in hybrids with wild beets

  • Detlef Bartsch
  • Matthias Pohl-Orf
Article

Summary

An increasing number of genetically engineered cultivars of several crops is being experimentally released into the environment. In future, crops with new transgenic traits will probably play an important role in agricultural practice. The long-term effect of transgenes on community ecology will depend on the distribution and establishment of transgenic plants in the wild, on the sexual transfer of their new genes to the environment and on the potential ecological impact of the transgenic trait. The starting point was the use of transgenic sugar beet lines, Beta vulgaris subspec. vulgaris var. altissima DÖLL (Helm 1957), with transgenes coding for rhizomania and herbicide (BASTA®) resistance. The first two questions to answer were: Can the transgenes be transferred via pollen to wild beets, Beta vulgaris subspec. maritima (L.) ARCANG. or cultivated relatives such as red beet or spinach beet and are they expressed in the hybrids? Can transgenes be monitored in young Beta vulgaris-hybrids? The experimental transfer of transgenes was conducted in 1993 at a field location in northern Germany. The beets were hand-pollinated with transgenic pollen. In a non destructive biotest, the hybrid seedlings were tested for herbicide resistance. Transgenic plants showed no noxious phenotypic effects whereas control plants developed leaf necroses. All herbicide resistant hybrids within the biotest were assumed to be transgenic.

Key words

Beta vulgaris BNYVV herbicide resistance hybridization risk assessment transgenic plants 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barocka, K. H. 1985. Zucker- und Futterrüben in: Lehrbuch der Pflanzenzüchtung landwirtschaftlicher Kulturformen. Bd. 2, Spezieller Teil, Paul Parey Verlag, Berlin-Hamburg. 245–287.Google Scholar
  2. Bartsch, D., Haag, C., Morak, C., Pohl, M., Witte, B. 1994. Autecological studies of the competitiveness of transgenic sugar beets. Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft für Ökologie. Ban 23: 435–444Google Scholar
  3. Beck, E., Ludwig, G., Auerswald, ED., Reiss, B., Schaller, H. 1982. Nucleotide sequence and exact localization of the neomycin phosphotransferase gene from transposon TN5. Gene 19: 327–336Google Scholar
  4. Boudry, P., Mörchen, M., Saumitou-Laprade, P., Vernet, P. H. and Van Dijk, H. 1993. The origin and evolution of weed beets: consequences for the breeding and release of herbicide-resistant transgenic sugar beets. Theor Appl Genet 87: 471–478Google Scholar
  5. Evans, A. and Weir, J. 1981. The evolution of weed beet in sugar beet crops. Kulturpflanze 29: 301–310Google Scholar
  6. Helm, J. 1957. Versuch einer morphologisch-systematischen Gliederung der Art Beta vulgaris L. Züchter 27: 203–223Google Scholar
  7. Hornsey, K. G. and Arnold, M. H. 1979. The origin of weed beet. Ann Appl Biol 92: 279–285.Google Scholar
  8. Knapp, E. 1958. Beta-Rüben, Handbuch der Pflanzenzüchtung. Bd Züchtung der Knollen- und Wurzelfruchtarten. Kappert, H. and Rudorf, W. (eds.). Parey Verlag, Berlin Hamburg. 196–283Google Scholar
  9. Kramer, C., Di Maio, J., Carswell, G. K. and Shillito, R. D. 1993. Selection of transformed protoplast-derived zea mays colonies with phosphinothricin and a novel assay using the pH indicator chlorophenol red. Planta 190: 454–458Google Scholar
  10. Lexander, K. 1980. Present knowledge on sugar beet bolting mechanisms. Proc. Int. Inst. Sugar Beet Research 43rd Winter Congress Brussels. 245–258Google Scholar
  11. Longden, P. C. 1989. Effects of increasing weed-beet density on sugar-beet yield and quality. Ann Appl Biol 114: 527–532Google Scholar
  12. Meulewaeter, F., Soetaert, P., van Emmelo, J. 1989. Structural analysis of the coat protein gene in different BNYVV isolates. Medelingen Faculteit Landbouwwetenschap Rijksuniversiteit Gent 54/2: 465–468Google Scholar
  13. Sadeghian, S. Y. and Johansson, E. 1993. Genetic study of bolting and stem length in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) using an factorial cross design. Euphytica 65: 177–185Google Scholar
  14. Santoni, S. and Berville, A. 1991. Characterization of the nuclear ribosomal DNA-units and phylogeny of Beta L. wild forms and cultivated beets. Theor Appl Genet 83: 533–542Google Scholar
  15. Santoni, S. and Berville, A. 1992. Evidence for gene exchange between sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) and wild beets: consequences for transgenic sugar beets. Plant Molecular Biology 20: 578–580Google Scholar
  16. Smit, A. L. 1982. Influence of the temperature and day length on bolting in sugar beet, Proceedings of the International Institute for Sugar beet Research 45th Winter Congress Brussels. 25–36Google Scholar
  17. Thompson, CJ., Mova, NR., Tizard, R., Crameri, R., Davies, JE, Lauwereys, R., Botterman, J. 1987. Characterization of the herbicide-resistance gene bar from Streptomyces hygroscopicus. EMBO Journal 6(9): 2519–2523Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Detlef Bartsch
    • 1
  • Matthias Pohl-Orf
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Biology V, Ecology, Ecochemistry and EcotoxicologyTechnical University AachenAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations