Transgenic Research

, Volume 17, Issue 6, pp 1059–1077 | Cite as

Environmental impact of herbicide regimes used with genetically modified herbicide-resistant maize

  • Yann DevosEmail author
  • Mathias Cougnon
  • Sofie Vergucht
  • Robert Bulcke
  • Geert Haesaert
  • Walter Steurbaut
  • Dirk Reheul
Original Paper


With the potential advent of genetically modified herbicide-resistant (GMHR) crops in the European Union, changes in patterns of herbicide use are predicted. Broad-spectrum, non-selective herbicides used with GMHR crops are expected to substitute for a set of currently used herbicides, which might alter the agro-environmental footprint from crop production. To test this hypothesis, the environmental impact of various herbicide regimes currently used with non-GMHR maize in Belgium was calculated and compared with that of possible herbicide regimes applied in GMHR maize. Impacts on human health and the environment were calculated through the pesticide occupational and environmental risk (POCER) indicator. Results showed that the environmental impact of herbicide regimes solely relying on the active ingredients glyphosate (GLY) or glufosinate-ammonium (GLU) is lower than that of herbicide regimes applied in non-GMHR maize. Due to the lower potential of GLY and GLU to contaminate ground water and their lower acute toxicity to aquatic organisms, the POCER exceedence factor values for the environment were reduced approximately by a sixth when GLY or GLU is used alone. However, the environmental impact of novel herbicide regimes tested may be underestimated due to the assumption that active ingredients used with GMHR maize would be used alone. Data retrieved from literature suggest that weed control efficacy is increased and resistance development delayed when GLY or GLU is used together with other herbicides in the GMHR system. Due to the partial instead of complete replacement of currently used herbicide regimes, the beneficial environmental impact of novel herbicide regimes might sometimes be reduced or counterbalanced. Despite the high weed control efficacy provided by the biotechnology-based weed management strategy, neither indirect harmful effects on farmland biodiversity through losses in food resources and shelter, nor shifts in weed communities have been demonstrated in GMHR maize yet. However, with the increasing adoption rate of GMHR maize and their associated novel herbicide regimes, this situation is expected to change in the short-term.


Biotechnology-based weed management strategy Herbicide regimes Glyphosate Glufosinate-ammonium Genetically modified herbicide-resistant maize Transgenic maize 


  1. Accinelli C, Screpanti C, Vicari A, Catizone P (2004) Influence of insecticidal toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki on the degradation of glyphosate and glufosinate-ammonium in soil samples. Agric Ecosyst Environ 103:497–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arias-Estévez M, López-Periago E, Martínez-Carballo E, Simal-Gándara J, Mejuto JC, García-Río L (2008) The mobility and degradation of pesticides in soils and the pollution of groundwater resources. Agric Ecosyst Environ 123:247–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beckie HJ, Owen MDK (2007) Herbicide-resistant crops as weeds in North America. CAB Reviews: PAVSNNR 2:1–22Google Scholar
  4. Beckie HJ, Harker KN, Hall SI, Légère A, Sikkema PH, Clayton GW, Thomas AG, Leeson JY, Ségiun-Swartz G, Simard MJ (2006) A decade of herbicide-resistant crops in Canada. Can J Plant Sci 86:1243–1264Google Scholar
  5. Behrens MR, Mutlu N, Chakraborty S, Dumitru R, Zhi Jiang W, LaVallee BJ, Herman PL, Clemente TE, Weeks DP (2007) Dicamba resistance: enlarging and preserving biotechnology-based weed management strategies. Science 316:1185–1188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benbrook C (2001) Do GM crops mean less pesticide use? Pest Outlook 12:204–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennett R, Phipps R, Strange A, Grey P (2004) Environmental and human health impacts of growing genetically modified herbicide-tolerant sugar beet: a life-cycle assessment. Plant Biotechnol J 2:273–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennett RM, Phipps RH, Strange AM (2006) The use of life cycle assessment to compare the environmental impact of production and feeding of conventional and genetically modified maize for broiler production in Argentina. J Anim Feed Sci 15:71–82Google Scholar
  9. Bonny S (2008) Genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant soybean in the USA: adoption factors, impacts and prospects. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 28:21–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bradley PR, Johnson WG, Hart SE, Buesinger ML, Massey RE (2000) Economics of weed management in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays L.). Weed Technol 14:495–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brimner TA, Gallivan GJ, Stephenson GR (2005) Influence of herbicide-resistant canola on the environmental impact of weed management. Pest Manag Sci 61:47–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brookes G, Barfoot P (2005) GM crops: the global economic and environmental impact–the first nine years 1996–2004. AgBioForum 8:187–196Google Scholar
  13. Brooks DR, Bohan DA, Champion GT, Haughton AJ, Hawes C, Heard MS, Clark SJ, Dewar AM, Firbank LG, Perry JN, Rothery P, Scott RJ, Woiwod IP, Birchall C, Skellern MP, Walker JH, Baker P, Bell D, Browne EL, Dewar AJG, Fairfax CM, Garner BH, Haylock LA, Horne SL, Hulmes SE, Mason NS, Norton LR, Nuttall P, Randle Z, Rossall MJ, Sands RJN, Singer EJ, Walker MJ (2003) Invertebrate responses to the management of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant and conventional spring crops. I. Soil-surface-active invertebrates. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 358:1847–1862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brooks DR, Clark SJ, Perry JN, Bohan DA, Champion GT, Firbank LG, Haughton AJ, Hawes C, Heard MS, Woiwod IP (2005) Invertebrate biodiversity in maize following withdrawal of triazine herbicides. Proc R Soc B 272:1497–1502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Butler SJ, Vickery JA, Norris K (2007) Farmland biodiversity and the footprint of agriculture. Science 315:381–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cerdeira AL, Duke SO (2006) The current status and environmental impact of glyphosate-resistant crops: a review. J Environ Qual 35:1633–1658PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cerdeira AL, Gazziero DLP, Duke SO, Matallo MB, Spadotto CA (2007) Review of potential environmental impacts of transgenic glyphosate-resistant soybean in Brazil. J Environ Sci Health part B 42:539–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Champion GT, May MJ, Bennett S, Brooks DR, Clark SJ, Daniels 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. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 358:1801–1818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Culpepper AS (2006) Glyphosate-induced weed shifts. Weed Technol 20:277–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Demont M, Tollens E (2004) First impact of biotechnology in the EU: Bt maize adoption in Spain. Ann Appl Biol 145:197–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Demont M, Daems W, Dillen K, Mathijs E, Sausse C, Tollens E (2008) Regulating coexistence in Europe: beware of the domino-effect. Ecol Econ 64:683–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Devos Y, Reheul D, De Schrijver A, Cors F, Moens W (2004) Management of transgenic herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape in Europe: a case study on minimizing vertical gene flow. Environ Biosafety Res 3:135–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Devos Y, Reheul D, De Schrijver A (2005) The co-existence between transgenic and non-transgenic maize in the European Union: a focus on pollen flow and cross-fertilization. Environ Biosafety Res 4:71–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Devos Y, Reheul D, Thas O, De Clercq EM, Cougnon M, Cordemans K (2007) Implementing isolation perimeters around genetically modified maize. Agron Sustain Dev 27:155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Devos Y, Thas O, De Clercq EM, Cougnon M, Cordemans K, Reheul D (2008) Feasibility of isolation perimeters for genetically modified maize. Agron Sustain Dev, doi:10.1051/agro:2007031Google Scholar
  26. Dill GM (2005) Glyphosate-resistant crops: history, status and future. Pest Manag Sci 61:219–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Duke SO (2005) Taking stock of herbicide-resistant crops ten years after introduction. Pest Manag Sci 61:211–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ellis JM, Griffin JL, Linscombe SD, Webster EP (2003) Rice (Oryza sativa) and corn (Zea mays) responses to simulated drift of glyphosate and glufosinate. Weed Technol 17:452–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Firbank LG (2005) Striking a new balance between agricultural production and biodiversity. Ann Appl Biol 146:163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Firbank LG, Heard MS, Woiwod IP, Hawes C, Haughton AJ, Champion GT, Scott RJ, Hill MO, Dewar AM, Squire GR, May MJ, Brooks DR, Bohan DA, Daniels RE, Osborne JL, Roy DB, Black HIJ, Rothery P, Perry JN (2003a) An introduction to the Farm-Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. J Appl Ecol 40:2–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Firbank LG, Smart SM, Crabb J, Critchley CNR, Fowbert JW, Fuller RJ, Gladders P, Green DB, Henderson I, Hill MO (2003b) Agronomic and ecological costs and benefits of set-aside in England. Agr Ecosyst Environ 95:73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Firbank LG, Heard MS, Rothery P, Scott RJ, Brooks DR, Hawes C, Champion GT, Clark SJ, Dewar AM, Haughton AJ, May MJ, Perry JN, Squire GR (2005a) Effects of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant cropping systems on weed seedbanks in following years. Biol Lett 2:140–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Firbank L, Lonsdale M, Poppy G (2005b) Reassessing the environmental risks of GM crops. Nat Biotechnol 23:1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gianessi LP (2005) Economic and herbicide use impacts of glyphosate-resistant crops. Pest Manag Sci 61:241–245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gibbons DW, Bohan DA, Rothery P, Stuart RC, Haughton AJ, Scott RJ, Wilson JD, Perry JN, Clark SJ, Dawson RJG, Firbank LG (2006) Weed seed resources for birds in fields with contrasting conventional and genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Proc R Soc B 273:921–1928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Giesy JP, Dobson S, Solomon KR (2000) Ecotoxicological risk assessment for roundup herbicide. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 167:35–120Google Scholar
  37. Gower SA, Loux MM, Cardina J, Harrison SK, Sprankle PL, Probst NJ, Bauman TT, Bugg W, Curran WS, Currie RS, Harvey RG, Johnson WG, Kells JJ, Owen MDK, Regehr DL, Slack CH, Spaur M, Sprague CL, VanGessel M, Young BG (2003) Effect of postemergence glyphosate application timing on weed control and grain yield in glyphosate-resistant corn: results of a 2-yr multistate study. Weed Technol 17:821–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Graef F, Stachow U, Werner A, Schütte G (2007) Agricultural practice changes with cultivating genetically modified herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape. Agr Syst 94:111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hamill AS, Knezevic SZ, Chandler K, Sikkema PH, Tardif FJ, Shrestha A, Swanton CJ (2000) Weed control in glufosinate-resistant corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 14:578–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Haughton AJ, Bell JR, Boatman ND, Wilcox A (1999) The effects of different rates of the herbicide glyphosate on spiders in arable field margins. J Arachnol 27:249–254Google Scholar
  41. Haughton AJ, Bell JR, Wilcox A, Boatman ND (2001a) The effect of the herbicide glyphosate on non-target spiders: part I. direct effects on Lepthyphantes tenuis under laboratory conditions. Pest Manag Sci 57:1033–1036PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Haughton AJ, Bell JR, Boatman ND, Wilcox A (2001b) The effect of the herbicide glyphosate on non-target spiders: part II. indirect effects on Lepthyphantes tenuis in field margins. Pest Manag Sci 57:1037–1042PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hawes C, Haughton AJ, Osborne JL, Roy DB, Clark SJ, Perry JN, Rothery P, Bohan DA, Brooks DR, Champion GT, Dewar AM, Heard MS, Woiwod IP, Daniels RE, Young MW, Parish AM, Scott RJ, Firbank LG, Squire GR (2003) Responses of plants and invertebrate trophic groups to contrasting herbicide regimes in the Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 358:1899–1915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Heard MS, Hawes C, Champion GT, Clark SJ, Firbank LG, Haughton AJ, Parish A, Perry JN, Rothery P, Scott RJ, Skellern M, Squire GR, Hill MO (2003a) Weeds in fields with contrasting conventional and genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. 1. Effects on abundance and diversity. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 358:1819–1832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Heard MS, Hawes C, Champion GT, Clark SJ, Firbank LG, Haughton AJ, Parish AM, Perry JN, Rothery P, Roy DB, Scott RJ, Skellern MP, Squire GR, Hill MO (2003b) Weeds in fields with contrasting conventional and genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. 2. The effects on individual species. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 358:1833–1846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Heard MS, Rothery P, Perry JN, Firbank LG (2005) Predicting long-term changes in weed populations under GMHT crop management. Weed Res 45:331–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Heard MS, Clark SJ, Rothery P, Perry JN, Bohan DA, Brooks DR, Champion GT, Dewar AM, Hawes C, Haughton AJ, May MJ, Scott RJ, Stuart RS, Squire GR, Firbank LG (2006) Effects of successive seasons of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant maize cropping on weeds and invertebrates. Ann Appl Biol 149:249–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Heimlich RE, Fernandez-Cornejo J, McBride W, Klotz-Ingram C, Jans S, Brooks N (2000) Genetically engineered crops: has adoption reduce pesticide use? Agric Outlook 274:13–17Google Scholar
  49. Holland JM (2004) The environmental consequences of adopting conservation tillage in Europe: reviewing the evidence. Agric Ecosyst Environ 103:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kleter GA, Bhula R, Bodnaruk K, Carazo E, Felsot AS, Harris CA, Katayama A, Kuiper HA, Racke KD, Rubin B, Shevah Y, Stephenson GR, Tanaka K, Unsworth J, Wauchoppe RD, Wong S-S (2007) Altered pesticide use on transgenic crops and the associated general impact from an environmental perspective. Pest Manag Sci 63:1107–1115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kleter GA, Harris C, Stephenson G, Unsworth J (2008) Comparison of herbicide regimes and the associated potential environmental effects of glyphosate-resistant crops versus what they replace in Europe. Pest Manag Sci 64:479–488PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Laitinen P, Siimes K, Eronen L, Ramo S, Welling L, Oinonen S, Mattsoff L, Ruohonen-Lehto M (2006) Fate of the herbicides glyphosate, glufosinate-ammonium, phenmedipham, ethofumesate and metamitron in two Finnish arable soils. Pest Manag Sci 62:473–491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lal R (2004) Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 304:1623–1627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lal R, Reicosky DC, Hanson JD (2007) Evolution of the plow over 10.000 years and the rationale for no-till farming. Soil Tillage Res 93:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Leroux GD, Chouinard N, Nadeau M, Buhler S (2006) Volet 3 – Aspects agroenvironnementaux. 1. Les cultures tolérantes aux herbicides. In: Michaud D et collaborateurs (eds) Impact environnemental des cultures transgéniques cultivées au Québec. Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs du Québec, Québec City, Canada, pp 107–128Google Scholar
  56. Mamy L, Barriuso E, Gabrielle B (2005) Environmental fate of herbicides trifluralin, metazachlor, metamitron and sulcotrione compared with that of glyphosate, a substitute broad spectrum herbicide for different glyphosate-resistant crops. Pest Manag Sci 61:905–916PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Montgomery DR (2007) Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 104:13268–13272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nazarko OM, Van Acker RC, Entz MH (2005) Strategies and tactics for herbicide use reduction in field crops in Canada: a review. Can J Plant Sci 85:457–479Google Scholar
  59. Nillesen E, Scatasta S, Wesseler J (2006) Do environmental impacts differ for BT, HT and conventional corn with respect to pesticide use in Europe? An empirical assessment using the environmental impact quotient. IOBC/wprs Bulletin 29:109–118Google Scholar
  60. Norsworthy JK, Burgos NR, Oliver LR (2001) Differences in weed tolerance to glyphosate involve different mechanisms. Weed Technol 15:725–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Owen MDK, Zelaya IA (2005) Herbicide-resistant crops and weed resistance to herbicides. Pest Manag Sci 61:301–311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Parker RG, York AC, Jordan DL (2006) Weed control in glyphosate-resistant corn as affected by preemergence herbicide and timing of postemergence herbicide application. Weed Technol 20:564–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Perry JN, Firbank LG, Champion GT, Clark SJ, Heard MS, May MJ, Hawes C, Squire GR, Rothery P, Woiwod IP, Pidgeon JD (2004) Ban on triazine herbicides likely to reduce but not negate relative benefits of GMHT maize cropping. Nature 428:313–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 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 11:1–18Google Scholar
  65. Puricelli E, Tuesca D (2005) Weed density and diversity under glyphosate-resistant crop sequences. Crop Prot 24:533–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Roy DB, Bohan DA, Haughton AJ, Hill MA, Osborne JL, Clark SJ, Perry JN, Rothery P, Scott RJ, Brooks DR, Champion GT, Hawes C, Heard MS, Firbank LG (2003) Invertebrates and vegetation of field margins adjacent to crops subject to contrasting herbicide regimes in the Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 358:1879–1898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sammons RD, Heering DC, Dinicola N, Glick H, Elmore GA (2007) Sustainability and stewardship of glyphosate and glufosinate-resistant crops. Weed Technol 21:347–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sanvido O, Romeis J, Bigler F (2007) Ecological impacts of genetically modified crops: ten years of field research and commercial cultivation. Adv Biochem Engin/Biotechnol 107:235–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Screpanti C, Accinelli C, Vicari A, Catizone P (2005) Glyphosate and glufosinate-ammonium runoff from a corn-growing area in Italy. Agron Sustain Dev 25:407–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Scursoni JA, Forcella F, Gunsolus J (2007) Weed escapes and delayed weed emergence in glyphosate-resistant soybean. Crop Prot 26:212–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Service RF (2007) A growing threat down on the farm. Science 316:1114–1117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Shaner DL (2000) The impact of glyphosate-tolerant crops on the use of other herbicides and on resistance management. Pest Manag Sci 56:320–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Solomon KR, Thompson DG (2003) Ecological risk assessment for aquatic organisms from over-water uses of glyphosate. J Toxicol Environ Health 6:289–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tomlin CDS (2006) Fourteenth Edition of the Pesticide Manual. British Crop Protection Council, Hampshire, UKGoogle Scholar
  75. Vercruysse F, Steurbaut W (2002) POCER, the pesticide occupational and environmental risk indicator. Crop Prot 21:307–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Watkinson AR, Freckleton RP, Robinson RA, Sutherland WJ (2000) Predictions of biodiversity responses to genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. Science 289:1554–1557PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wauchope RD, Buttler TM, Hornsby AG, Augustijnbeckers PWM, Burt JP (1992) The SCS ARS CES pesticide properties database for environmental decision-making. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 123:1–155PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Wauchope RD, Estes TL, Allen R, Baker JL, Hornsby AG, Jones RL, Richards RP, Gustafson DI (2002) Predicted impact of transgenic, herbicide-tolerant corn on drinking water quality in vulnerable watersheds of the mid-western USA. Pest Manag Sci 58:146–160PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Woodburn AT (2000) Glyphosate: production, pricing and use worldwide. Pest Manag Sci 56:309–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Young BG (2006) Changes in herbicide use patterns and production practices resulting from glyphosate-resistant crops. Weed Technol 20:301–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Zuver KA, Bernards ML, Kells JL, Sprague CL, Medlin CR, Loux MM (2006) Evaluation of postemergence weed control strategies in herbicide-resistant isolines of corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 20:172–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yann Devos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mathias Cougnon
    • 1
  • Sofie Vergucht
    • 2
  • Robert Bulcke
    • 1
  • Geert Haesaert
    • 3
  • Walter Steurbaut
    • 2
  • Dirk Reheul
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant Production, Faculty of Bioscience EngineeringGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Department of Crop Protection, Faculty of Bioscience EngineeringGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  3. 3.Department of Plant Production, Faculty of Bioscience and Landscape ArchitectureUniversity College of GhentGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations