, 147:69 | Cite as

The ecological effects of exotic disease resistance genes introgressed into British gooseberries

  • John Warren
  • Penri James
Plant-Animal Interactions


The potential for gene flow between crops and their wild relatives is now well established. However, few studies have investigated the effects of crop genes on fitness in natural populations, or the indirect ecological consequences of their naturalisation. This study investigates the likelihood of genes derived from North American gooseberry species (which are resistant to the coevolved American gooseberry mildew) becoming established in mildew-susceptible native British gooseberries, and the impact of this on their invertebrate herbivores. The results reveal that seedlings containing resistance genes had significantly higher survival rates than susceptible native plants. Alien genes were more likely to establish when introgressed into native genomes and when crossed with local provenance genotypes. Furthermore, plants containing alien genes tended to support significantly more but smaller invertebrates. Thus, the potential ecological effects of crop gene escape may vary with source and recipient genome and such effects may not be directly related to the gene’s function.


Alien genes Ecological effects Gene naturalisation Introgression 



We would like to thank the University of Cambridge Botanic Gardens and Chris Reynolds, for supplying some of the plant material used; Joe and Eleanor for helping with the field work; and Iain Donnison and Jamie Newbold for commenting on the manuscript.


  1. Andow DA, Hilbeck A (2004) Science-based risk assessment for nontarget effects of transgenic crops. Bioscience 54:637–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brodsgaard HF, Brodsgaard CJ, Hansen H, Lovei GL (2003) Environmental risk assessment of transgene products using honey bee (Apis mellifera) larvae. Apidologie 43:139–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Champion GT, May MJ, Bennett S, Brooks DR, Clark SJ, Danieis RE, Firbank LG, Haughton AJ, Hawes C, Heard MS, Perry JN, Randle Z, Rossall MJ, Rothery P, Skellern MP, Scott RJ, Squire GR, Thomas MR (2003) Crop management and agronomic context of the farm scale evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Philos Trans Roy Soc B 358:1801–1818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davenport IJ, Wilkinson MJ, Mason DC, Charters YM, Jones AE, Allainguillaume J, Butler HT, Raybould AF (2000) Quantifying gene movement from oilseed rape to its wild relatives using remote sensing. Int J Remote Sens 21:3576–3573Google Scholar
  5. Davis PM, Onstad DW (2000) Seed mixtures as a resistance management strategy for European corn borers (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) infesting transgenic corn expressing Cry1Ab protein. J Econ Entomol 93:937–948PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ellstrand NC, Prentice HC, Hancock JF (1999) Gene flow and introgression from domesticated plants into their wild relatives. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 30:539–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Giddings G (2000) Modelling the spread of pollen from Lolium perenne. The implications for the release of wind pollinated transgenics. Theor Appl Genet 100:971–974Google Scholar
  8. Gray AJ, Raybould AF (1998) Crop genetics—reducing transgene escape routes. Nature 392:653–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grime JP (1966) Shade avoidance and shade tolerance in flowering plants. In: Bainbridge R, Evans GC, Rackham O (eds) Light as an ecological factor. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 187–207Google Scholar
  10. Gueritaine G, Sester M, Eber F, Chevre AM, Darmency H (2002) Fitness of backcross six of hybrids between transgenic oilseed rape (Brassica napus) and wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum). Mol Ecol 11:1419–1426CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hails RS, Morley K (2005) Genes invading new populations: a risk assessment perspective. Trends Ecol Evol 20:245–252CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Keep E (1973) Breeding for resistance to American gooseberry mildew, Sphaerotheca mors-uvae, in the gooseberry (Ribes grossularia). Ann Appl Biol 76:131–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Keep E (1975) Currants and gooseberries. In: Moore JN, Janick J (eds) Advances in fruit breeding. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, pp 197–268Google Scholar
  14. Kim YT, Park BK, Hwang EI, Yim NH, Lee SH, Kim SU (2004) Detection of recombinant marker DNA in genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant soybean and use in environmental risk assessment. J Microbiol Biotechnol 14:390–394Google Scholar
  15. Messeguer J (2003) Gene flow assessment in transgenic plants. Plant Cell Tissue Organ 73:201–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rake BA (1958) The history of gooseberries in England. Fruit Year Book 10:84–87Google Scholar
  17. Saeglitz C, Pohl M, Bartsch D (2000) Monitoring gene flow from transgenic sugar beet using cytoplasmic male-sterile bait plants. Mol Ecol 9:2035–2040CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Schuler TH, Denholm I, Clark SJ, Stewart CN, Poppy GM (2004) Effects of Bt plants on the development and survival of the parasitoid Cotesia plutellae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in susceptible and Bt-resistant larvae of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). J Insect Physiol 50:435–443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Scott SE, Wilkinson MJ (1998) Transgene risk is low. Nature 393:320–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Smartt J, Simmonds NW (1995) Evolution of crop plants, 2nd edn. Longman Scientific and Technical, HarlowGoogle Scholar
  21. Snow AA, Pilson D, Rieseberg LH, Paulsen MJ, Pleskac N, Reagon MR, Wolf DE, Selbo SM (2003) A Bt transgene reduces herbivory and enhances fecundity in wild sunflowers. Ecol Appl 13:279–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Squire GR, Brooks DR, Bohan DA, Champion GT, Daniels RE, Haughton AJ, Hawes C, Heard MS, Hill MO, May MJ, Osborne JL, Perry JN, Roy DB, Woiwod IP, Firbank LG (2003) On the rationale and interpretation of the farm scale evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Philos Trans Roy Soc B 358:1779–1799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stewart CN, Halfhill MD, Warwick SI (2003) Transgene introgression from genetically modified crops to their wild relatives. Nat Rev Genet 4:806–817CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Timmons AM, Charters YM, Crawford JW, Burn D, Scott SE, Dubbels SJ, Wilson NJ, Robertson A, O’Brien ET, Squire GR, Wilkinson MJ (1996) Risks from transgenic crops. Nature 380:487–487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Torgensen H, Soja G, Janssen I, Gaugitsch H (1998) Risk assessment of conventional crop plants in analogy to transgenic plants. Environ Sci Pollut Res 5:89–93Google Scholar
  26. USDA Ribes genebank (2004) Scholar
  27. Wilkinson MJ, Davenport IJ, Charters YM, Jones AE, Allainguillaume J, Butler HT, Mason DC, Raybould AF (2000) A direct regional scale estimate of trangene movement from genetically modified oilseed rape to its wild progenitors. Mol Ecol 9:983–991CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Rural SciencesUniversity of WalesCeredigionUK

Personalised recommendations