Heterogeneity in the distribution of genetically modified and conventional oilseed rape within fields and seed lots
- 116 Downloads
The implementation of co-existence in the commercialisation of GM crops requires GM and non-GM products to be segregated in production and supply. However, maintaining segregation in oilseed rape will be made difficult by the highly persistent nature of this species. An understanding of its population dynamics is needed to predict persistence and develop potential strategies for control, while to ensure segregation is being achieved, the production of GM oilseed rape must be accompanied by the monitoring of GM levels in crop or seed populations. Heterogeneity in the spatial distribution of oilseed rape has the potential to affect both control and monitoring and, although a universal phenomenon in arable weeds and harvested seed lots, spatial heterogeneity in oilseed rape populations remains to be demonstrated and quantified. Here we investigate the distribution of crop and volunteer populations in a commercial field before and during the cultivation of the first conventional oilseed rape (winter) crop since the cultivation of a GM glufosinate-tolerant oilseed rape crop (spring) three years previously. GM presence was detected by ELISA for the PAT protein in each of three morphologically distinguishable phenotypes: autumn germinating crop-type plants (3% GM), autumn-germinating ‘regrowths’ (72% GM) and spring germinating ‘small-type’ plants (17% GM). Statistical models (Poisson log-normal and binomial logit-normal) were used to describe the spatial distribution of these populations at multiple spatial scales in the field and of GM presence in the harvested seed lot. Heterogeneity was a consistent feature in the distribution of GM and conventional oilseed rape. Large trends across the field (50 × 400 m) and seed lot (4 × 1.5 × 1.5 m) were observed in addition to small-scale heterogeneity, less than 20 m in the field and 20 cm in the seed lot. The heterogeneity was greater for the ‘regrowth’ and ‘small’ phenotypes, which were likely to be volunteers and included most of the GM plants detected, than for the largely non-GM ‘crop’ phenotype. The implications of the volunteer heterogeneity for field management and GM-sampling are discussed.
KeywordsSpatial aggregation Brassica napus Volunteers Spatial decomposition Spatial scale Generalised linear mixed effects
We wish to thank Gill Banks, Adele Parish, Joyce McKlusky, Geoff Robertson, and Mark Young for their expertise and help, the FSE consortium for the provision of seed rain and seedbank data, Tracy Valentine and Cathy Hawes for comments on the manuscript and to the anonymous referees who made valuable contributions to this paper. This work was funded by the UK Government Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs.
- AGBIOS (2007) GM Crop Database. http://www.agbios.com/dbase.php. Cited 28 March 2007
- Begg GS, Elliott MJ, Squire GR, Copeland J (2007b) Final report of the DEFRA project: prediction, sampling and management of GM impurities in fields and harvested yields of oilseed rape, VS0126. Defra, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Cardina J, Johnson GA, Sparrow DH (1997) The nature and consequence of weed spatial distribution. Weed Science 45:364–373Google Scholar
- Colbach N, Clermont-Dauphin C, Meynard JM (2001) GENESYS: a model of the influence of cropping system on gene escape from herbicide tolerant rapeseed crops to rape volunteers – I. Temporal evolution of a population of rapeseed volunteers in a field. Agr Ecosyst Environ 83:235–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- European Commission (2007) Community Register of GM Food and Feed. http://ec.europa.eu/food/dyna/gm_register/index_en.cfm. Cited 11 April 2007
- FAOSTAT (2006) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://faostat.fao.org/. Cited 15 December 2006
- González-Andújar JL, Perry JN, Moss SR (1999) Modeling effects of spatial patterns on the seed bank dynamics of Alopecurus myosuroides. Weed Sci 47:697–705Google Scholar
- Heard MS, Hawes C, Champion GT, Clark SJ, Firbank LG, Haughton AJ, Parish AM, Perry JN, Rothery P, Scott RJ, Skellern MP, Squire GR, Hill MI (2003) Weeds in fields with contrasting conventional and genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. I. Effects on abundance and diversity. Philos T Roy Soc B 358:1819–1832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Paoletti C, Donatelli M, Kay S, Van den Eede G (2003) Simulating kernel lot sampling: the effect of heterogeneity on the detection of GMO contaminations. Seed Sci Technol 31:629–638Google Scholar
- Paoletti C, Heissenberger A, Mazzara M, Larcher S, Grazioli E, Corbisier P, Hess N, Berben G, Lubeck PS, De Loose M, Moran G, Henry C, Brera C, Folch I, Ovesna J, Van den Eede G (2006) Kernel lot distribution assessment (KeLDA): a study on the distribution of GMO in large soybean shipments. Eur Food Res Technol 224:129–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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 T Roy Soc B 358:1779–1799CrossRefGoogle Scholar