Advertisement

Transgenic Research

, 15:501 | Cite as

Prey-mediated effects of transgenic canola on a beneficial, non-target, carabid beetle

  • Natalie Ferry
  • Evan A. Mulligan
  • C. Neal Stewart
  • Bruce E. Tabashnik
  • Gordon R. Port
  • Angharad M. R. Gatehouse
Original Paper

Abstract

Transgenic plants producing insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) can control some major insect pests and reduce reliance on sprayed insecticides. However, large scale adoption of this technology has raised concerns about potential negative effects, including evolution of pest resistance to Bt toxins, transgene flow from Bt crops to other plants, and harm to non-target beneficial organisms. Furthermore, concern has also been expressed over the effects this technology may have on biodiversity in general. Ecologically relevant risk assessment is therefore required (Risk = Hazard × Exposure). Transgenic plants that produce Bt toxins to kill insect pests could harm beneficial predators. This might occur directly by transmission of toxin via prey, or indirectly by toxin-induced reduction in prey quality (Hazard). To test these hypotheses, we determined the effects of Bt-producing canola on a predatory ground beetle (Pterostichus madidus) fed larvae of diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella) that were either susceptible or resistant to the Bt toxin. Survival, weight gain, and adult reproductive fitness did not differ between beetles fed prey reared on Bt-producing plants and those fed prey from control plants. Furthermore, while Bt-resistant prey was shown to deliver high levels of toxin to the beetle when they were consumed, no significant impact upon the beetle was observed. Subsequent investigation showed that in choice tests (Exposure), starved and partially satiated female beetles avoided Bt-fed susceptible prey, but not Bt-fed resistant prey. However, in the rare cases when starved females initially selected Bt-fed susceptible prey, they rapidly rejected them after beginning to feed. This prey type was shown to provide sufficient nutrition to support reproduction in the bioassay suggesting that Bt-fed susceptible prey is acceptable in the absence of alternative prey, however adults possess a discrimination ability based on prey quality. These results suggest that the direct effects of Bt-producing canola on predator life history was minimal, and that predators’ behavioural preferences may mitigate negative indirect effects of reduced quality of prey caused by consumption of Bt-producing plants. The results presented here therefore suggest that cultivation of Bt canola may lead to conservation of non-target predatory and scavenging organisms beneficial in pest control, such as carabids, and may therefore provide more sustainable agricultural systems than current practices. In addition, minimal impacts on beneficial carabids in agro-ecosystems suggest that Bt canola crops are likely to be compatible with integrated pest management (IPM) systems.

Keywords

Bacillus thuringiensis Beneficial predators Carabid Non-target Resistance Tritrophic interactions 

References

  1. Bradford MM (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Analytical Biochemistry 72:248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chilcutt CF, Tabashnik BE (1997a) Host-mediated competition between the pathogen Bacillus thuringiensis and the parasitoid Cotesia plutella of the diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Environ. Entomol 26:38–45Google Scholar
  3. Chilcutt CF, Tabashnik BE (1997b) Independent and combined effects of Bacillus thuringiensis and the parasitoid Cotesia plutella (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) on susceptible and resistant diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). J. Econ. Entomol 90:397–403Google Scholar
  4. Chilcutt CF, Tabashnik BE (1999a) Simulation of integration of Bacillus thuringiensis and the parasitoid Cotesia plutellae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) for control of susceptible and resistant diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Environ Entomol 28:505–512Google Scholar
  5. Chilcutt CF, Tabashnik BE (1999b) Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis on adults of Cotesia plutellae (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), a parasitoid of the diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Biocontrol Sci Technol 9:435–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dutton A, Klein H, Romeis J (2002) Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperla carnea. Ecol Entomol 27(4):441–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dutton A, Romeis J, Bigler F (2003a) Assessing the risks of insect resistant transgenic plants on entomophagous arthropods: Bt maize expressing Cry1Ab as a case study. Biol Control 48:611–636Google Scholar
  8. Dutton A, Klein H, Romeis J, Bigler F (2003b) Prey-mediated effects of Bacillus thuringiensis spray on the predator Chrysoperla carnea in maize. Biol Control 26(2):209–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ellstrand NC (2003) Current knowledge of gene flow in plants: implications for transgene flow. Philos Trans Roy Soc Lon Ser B – Biol Sci 358(1434):1163–1170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eubanks MD, Denno RF (2000) Health food versus fast food: the effects of prey quality and mobility on prey selection by a generalist predator and indirect interactions among prey species. Ecol Entomol 25:140–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferre J, Van Rie J (2002) Biochemistry and genetics of insect resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis. Ann Rev Entomol 47:501–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferry N, Edwards MG, Mulligan EA, Emami K, Petrova A, Frantescu M, Davison GM, Gatehouse AMR (2003a) Engineering resistance to insect pests. In: Christou P, Klee H (eds) Handbook of plant biotechnology. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferry N, Raemaekers RJM, Majerus MEN, Jouanin L, Port G, Gatehouse JA, Gatehouse AMR (2003b) Impact of oilseed rape expressing the insecticidal cysteine protease inhibitor oryzacystatin on the beneficial predator Harmonia axyridis (multicoloured Asian ladybeetle). Mol Ecol 12(2):493–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferry N, Jouanin L, Ceci LR, Mulligan EA, Emami K, Gatehouse JA, Gatehouse AMR (2005) Impact of oilseed rape expressing the insecticidal serine protease inhibitor, mustard trypsin inhibitor-2 on the beneficial predator Pterostichus madidus. Mol Ecol 14:337–349PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gould F (1998) Sustainability of transgenic insecticidal cultivars: integrating pest genetics and ecology. Ann Rev Entomol 43:701–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Groot AT, Dicke M (2002) Insect-resistant transgenic plants in a multi-trophic context. Plant J 31(4):387–406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Head G, Brown CR, Groth ME, Duan JJ (2001) Cry1Ab protein levels in phytophagous insects feeding on transgenic corn: implications for secondary exposure risk assessment. Entomol Exp Appl 99(1):37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hilbeck A, Moar WJ, Pusztai-Carey M, Filippini A, Bigler F (1999) Prey-mediated effects of Cry1Ab toxin and protoxin and Cry2A protoxin on the predator Chrysoperla carnea. Entomol Exp Appl 91(2):305–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. James C (2005) Global Status of Biotech/GM Crops in 2005. ISAAA Briefs No. 34: Preview. ISAAA, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  20. Losey JE, Rayor LS, Carter ME (1999) Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399(6733):214–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lövei GL, Sunderland KD (1996) Ecology and behavior of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Ann Rev Entomol 41:231–256Google Scholar
  22. Luff ML (1973) The annual activity pattern and life cycle of Pterostichus madidus (F.) (Col. Carabidae). Ent Scand 4:259–273Google Scholar
  23. Luff ML (1974) Adult and larval feeding habits of Pterostichus madidus (F.) (Coleoptera: Carabidae). J NAT Hist 8: 403–409Google Scholar
  24. Mair J, Port GR (2001) Predation by the carabid beetles Pterostichus madidus and Nebria brevicollis is affected by size and condition of the prey slug Deroceras reticulatum. Agricul Forest Entomol 3:99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meier MS, Hilbeck A, (2001) Influence of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis corn-fed prey on prey preference of immature Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Basic Appl Ecol 2(1):35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meissle M, Vojtech E, Poppy GM (2005) Effects of Bt maize-fed prey on the generalist predator Poecilus cupretis L. (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Trans Res 14(2):123–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Phipps RH, Park JR (2002) Environmental benefits of genetically modified crops: global and European perspectives on their ability to reduce pesticide use. J Anim Feed Sci 11(1):1–18Google Scholar
  28. Ramachandran S, Buntin GD, All JN (1998) Greenhouse and field evaluations of transgenic canola against diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella, and corn earworm, Helicoverpa zea. Entomol Exp Appl 88(1):17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rodrigo-Simón A, de Maagd RA, Avilla C, Bakker PL, Molthoff J, González-Zamora JE, Ferré J (2006) Lack of detrimental effects of Bacillus thuringiensis cry toxins on the insect predator Chrysoperla carnea: a toxicological, histopathological, and biochemical analysis. Appl Environ Microbiol 72(2):1595–1603PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roger C, Coderre D, Vigneault C, Boivin G (2001) Prey discrimination by a generalist coccinellid predator: effect of prey age or parasitism? Ecol Entomol 26:163–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Romeis J, Dutton A, Bigler F (2004) Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). J Insect Physiol 50(2–3):175–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schuler TH, Potting RPJ, Denholm I, Poppy GM (1999) Parasitoid behaviour and Bt plants. Nature 400:825–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schuler TH, Potting RPJ, Denholm I, Clark SJ, Clark AJ, Stewart CN, Poppy GM (2003) Tritrophic choice experiments with Bt plants, the diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella) and the parasitoid Cotesia plutellae. Trans Res 12(3):351–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shelton AM, Zhao JZ, Roush RT (2002) Economic, ecological, food safety, and social consequences of the deployment of Bt transgenic plants. Ann Rev Entomol 47:845–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stewart CN, Adang MJ, All JN (1996) Insect control and dosage effects in transgenic canola containing a synthetic Bacillus thuringiensis crylAc gene. Plant Physiol 112(1):115–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tabashnik BE, Cushing NL, Finson N, Johnson MW (1990) Field Development of Resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis in Diamondback Moth (Lepidoptera, Plutellidae). J Econ Entomol 83(5):1671–1676Google Scholar
  37. Tabashnik BE, Roush RT, Earle ED (2000) Resistance to Bt toxins. Science 287(5450):42–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tabashnik BE, Carriere Y, Dennehy TJ, Morin S, Sisterson MS, Roush RT, Shelton AM, Zhao JZ (2003) Insect resistance to transgenic Bt crops: lessons from the laboratory and field. J Econ Entomol 96(4):1031–1038PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Unal G, Jepson, PC (1991) The toxicity of aphicide residues to beneficial invertebrates in cereal crops. Ann Appl Biol 118:493–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. VanDijk TS (1994) On the relationship between food, reproduction and survival of 2 carabid beetles Calathus-Melanocephalus and Pterostichus-versicolor. Ecol Entomol 19(3):263–270Google Scholar
  41. Volkmar C, Lübke-Al Hussein M, Jany D, Hunold I, Richter L, Kreuter T, Wetzel T (2002) Ecological studies on epigeous arthropod populations of transgenic sugar beet at Friemar (Thuringia, Germany). Agricul Ecosys Environ 1998:1–11Google Scholar
  42. Wallin H, Chiverton PA, Ekbom BS, Borg A (1992) Diet, fecundity and egg size in some polyphagous predatory carabid beetles. Entomol Exp Appl 65:129–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wolfenbarger LL, Phifer PR (2000) Biotechnology and ecology – The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science 290(5499):2088–2093PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natalie Ferry
    • 1
  • Evan A. Mulligan
    • 1
  • C. Neal Stewart
    • 2
  • Bruce E. Tabashnik
    • 3
  • Gordon R. Port
    • 1
  • Angharad M. R. Gatehouse
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Biology, Institute for Research on Environment and SustainabilityUniversity of Newcastle Upon TyneNewcastleUK
  2. 2.Department of Plant SciencesUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of EntomologyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations