Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 24, Issue 26, pp 21434–21444 | Cite as

Environmental risk assessment of blight-resistant potato: use of a crop model to quantify nitrogen cycling at scales of the field and cropping system

  • Mark W. Young
  • Ewen Mullins
  • Geoffrey R. Squire
Research Article
  • 163 Downloads

Abstract

Environmental risk assessment of GM crops in Europe proceeds by step-wise estimation of effect, first in the plant, then the field plot (e.g. 10–100 m−2), field (1000–10,000 m−2) and lastly in the environment in which the crop would be grown (100–10,000 km2). Processes that operate at large scales, such as cycling of carbon (C) and nitrogen (N), are difficult to predict from plot scales. Here, a procedure is illustrated in which plot scale data on yield (offtake) and N inputs for blight resistant (both GM and non-GM) and blight-susceptible potato are upscaled by a model of crop resource use to give a set of indicators and metrics defining N uptake and release in realistic crop sequences. The greatest potential damage to environment is due to loss of N from the field after potato harvest, mainly because of the large quantity of mineral and plant matter, high in N, that may die or be left in the field. Blight infection intensifies this loss, since less fertiliser N is taken up by plants and more (as a proportion of plant mass) is returned to the soil. In a simulation based on actual crop sequences, N returns at harvest of potato were raised from 100 kg ha−1 in resistant to 150 kg ha−1 in susceptible varieties subject to a 40% yield loss. Based on estimates that blight-resistant types would require ~20% of the fungicide applied to susceptible types, introduction of resistant types into a realistic 6-year cropping sequence would reduce overall fungicide use to between 72 and 54% depending on the inputs to other crops in the sequence.

Keywords

GM Cisgenic Potato Late blight Crop model Phytophthora infestans Carbon Nitrogen Biogeochemical Pesticide Environmental risk assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This is publication No. 27 produced within the framework of the project Assessing and Monitoring the Impacts of Genetically Modified Plants on Agro-ecosystems (AMIGA), funded by the European Commission in Framework Programme 7, Theme KBBE.2011.3.5-01.

Supplementary material

11356_2017_9769_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (249 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 248 kb).
11356_2017_9769_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (560 kb)
ESM 2 (XLSX 559 kb).

References

  1. Arpaia S, Messéan A, Birch NA, Hokannen H, Härtel S, van Loon L, Lovei G, Park J, Spreafico H, Squire GR, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tebbe C, van der Voet H (2014) Assessing and monitoring impacts of genetically modified plants on agro-ecosystems: the approach of AMIGA project. Entomologia 2014:2 doi:  http://dx.doi.org/10.4081/entomologia.2014.154
  2. Beaumont A (1947) The dependence on the weather of the dates of outbreak of potato late blight epidemics. Trans Br Mycol Soc 31:45–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birch ANE, Griffiths BS, Caul S, Thompson J, Heckmann LH, Krogh PH, Cortet J (2007) The role of laboratory, glasshouse and field scale experiments in understanding the interactions between genetically modified crops and soil ecosystems: a review of the ECOGEN project. Pedobiologia 51:251–260. doi: 10.1016/j.pedobi.2007.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birch ANE, Begg GS, Squire GR (2011) How agro-ecological research helps to address food security issues under new IPM and pesticide reduction policies for global crop production systems. J Exp Bot 62:3251–3261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. EC (2009) EC regulation no 1107/2009. Concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EECGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooke DEL, Cano LM, Raffaele S et al (2012) Genome analyses of an aggressive and invasive lineage of the Irish potato famine pathogen. PLoS Pathog 8:e1002940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Defra (2007) Maximum nitrogen (Nmax) limits, and exemptions from the closed spreading period for manufactured nitrogen fertilisers. ADAS Report to Defra – supporting paper for the consultation on implementation of the Nitrates Directive in England. Defra, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Defra (2010) Fertiliser manual (RB209), 8th edn. Defra/The Stationary Office, London http://www.ahdb.org.uk/documents/rb209-fertiliser-manual-110412.pdf Google Scholar
  9. Devienne-Barret F, Justes E, Machet JM, Mary B (2000) Integrated control of nitrate uptake by crop growth rate and soil nitrate availability under field conditions. Ann Bot 86:955–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fertiliser Practice (2016) The British survey of fertiliser practice: fertiliser use on farm crops for the year 2015. Defra, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. EFSA (2010) Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants. EFSA Journal 2010 8(11):1879. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1879 Google Scholar
  12. Foster SJ, Park T-H, Pel M et al (2009) Rpi-vnt1.1, a Tm-22 homolog from Solanum venturii confers resistance to potato late blight. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 22:589–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fry WE (2008) Phytophthora infestans: the plant (and R gene) destroyer. Mol Plant Pathol 9:385–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gebhardt C, Valkonen JPT (2001) Organisation of genes controlling disease resistance in potato. Annu Rev Phytopathol 39:79–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greenwood DJ, Neeteson JJ, Draycott A (1986) Quantitative relationships for the dependence of growth rate of arable crops on their nitrogen content, dry weight and aerial environment. Plant Soil 91:281–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greenwood DJ, Draycott A (1995) Modelling uptake of nitrogen, phosphate and potassium in relation to crop growth. In: Kabat P, Marshall B, van den Broek BJ, van Keulen H (eds) Modelling and parameterization of the soil-plant-atmosphere system: a comparison of potato growth models. Wageningen pers, Wageningen, pp 155–175Google Scholar
  17. Haas BJ, Kamoun S, Zody MC et al (2009) Genome sequence and analysis of the Irish potato famine pathogen Phytophthora infestans. Nature 461:393–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haesaert G, Vossen JH, Custers R et al (2015) Transformation of the potato variety Desiree with single or multiple resistance genes increases resistance to late blight under field conditions. Crop Prot 77:163–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haverkort AJ, Boonekamp PM, Hutten R et al (2008) Societal costs of late blight in potato and prospects of durable resistance through cisgenic modification. Potato Res 51:47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haverkort AJ, Boonekamp PM, Hutten R et al (2016) Durable late blight resistance in potato through dynamic varieties obtained by cisgenesis: scientific and societal advances in the DuRPh project. Potato Res:1–32Google Scholar
  21. Hawes C, Squire GR, Hallett PD, Watson C, Young M (2010) Arable plant communities as indicators of farming practice. Agric Ecosyst Environ 138:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hillier J, Hawes C, Squire GR, Hilton A, Wale S, Smith P (2009) The carbon footprints of food crop production. Int J Agric Sustain 7:107–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jacobsen E, Schouten H (2008) Cisgenesis, a new tool for traditional plant breeding, should be exempted from the regulation on genetically modified organisms in a step by step approach. Potato Res 51:75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jefferies RA, Heilbron TD (1995) Simulating effects of water-stress on growth and yield of potato. In: Kabat P, Marshall B, van den Broek BJ, van Keulen H (eds) Modelling and parameterization of the soil-plant-atmosphere system: a comparison of potato growth models. Wageningen pers, Wageningen, pp 213–225Google Scholar
  25. Jefferies RA, MacKerron DKL (1989) Radiation interception and growth in irrigated and droughted potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Field Crop Res 22:101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jones JDG, Witek K, Verweij W et al (2014) Elevating crop disease resistance with cloned genes. Philos Trans R Soc B 369:20130087. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0087 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kabat P, Marshall B, van den Broek BJ, van Keulen H (1995) Modelling and parameterization of the soil-plant-atmosphere system: a comparison of potato growth models. Wageningen pers, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  28. MacKerron DKL (1985) A simple model of potato growth and yield. Part II. Validation and external sensitivity. Agric For Meteorol 34:285–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. MacKerron DKL, Waister PD (1985) A simple model of potato growth and yield. Part I. Model development and sensitivity analysis. Agric For Meteorol 34:241–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. MacKerron DKL, Young MW, Davies HV (1993) A method to optimize N-application in relation to soil supply of N, and yield of potato. Plant Soil 155:139–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marshall B, van den Broek B (1995) Field experiments and analysis of data used in the case study. In: Kabat P, Marshall B, van den Broek BJ, van Keulen H (eds) Modelling and parameterization of the soil-plant-atmosphere system: a comparison of potato growth models. Wageningen pers, Wageningen, pp 179–210Google Scholar
  32. Marshall B, Squire GR, Terry AC (1992) Effect of temperature on interception and conversion of solar radiation by stands of groundnut. J Exp Bot 43:95–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Messean A, Squire G, Perry J, Angevin F, Gomez M, Townend P, Sausse C, Breckling B, Langrell S, Dzeroski S, Sweet J (2009) Sustainable introduction of GM crops into european agriculture: a summary report of the FP6 SIGMEA research project. OCL 16:37–51. doi: 10.1684/ocl.2009.0241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Millard P, Marshall B (1986) Growth, nitrogen uptake and partitioning within the potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) crop, in relation to application. J Agric Sci 107:421–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Monie C, Reay G, Wardlaw J (2014) Pesticide usage in Scotland. Arable crops and potato stores 2014, Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA), Edinburgh (and comparable volumes for 2012 and 2010)Google Scholar
  36. Ortiz V, Phelan S, Mullins E (2016) A temporal assessment of nematode community structure and diversity in a rhizosphere of cisgenic Phytophthora infestans-resistant potatoes. BMC Ecol 16:55. doi: 10.1186/s12898-016-0109-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pel MA, Foster SJ, Park T-H et al (2009) Mapping and cloning of late blight resistance genes from Solanum venturii using an interspecific candidate gene approach. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 22:601–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Platt HW, Tai G (1998) Relationship between resistance to late blight in potato foliage and tubers of cultivars and breeding selections with different resistance levels. Am Journal Potato Res 75:173–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rietman H, Bijsterbosch G, Cano LM et al (2012) Qualitative and quantitative late blight resistance in the potato cultivar Sarpo Mira is determined by the perception of five distinct RXLR effectors. Mol Plant Microbe Ineract 25:910–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rodewald J, Trognitz B (2013) Solanum resistance genes against Phytophthora infestans and their corresponding avirulence genes. Mol Plant Pathol 14:740–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sadras VO, Lemaire G (2014) Quantifying crop nitrogen status for comparisons of agronomic practices and genotypes. Field Crop Res 164:54–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Squire GR (1995) Linkages between plant and weather in models of crop production. In: Kabat P, Marshall B, van den Broek BJ, van Keulen H (eds) Modelling and parameterization of the soil-plant-atmosphere system: a comparison of potato growth models. Wageningen, Wageningen pers, pp 57–76Google Scholar
  43. Squire GR, Hawes C, Valentine TA, Young MW (2015) Degradation rate of soil function depends on trajectory of agricultural intensification. Agric Ecosyst Environ 202:160–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Squire GR, Lecomte J, Husken A, Soukup J, Messean A (2013) Contributions of pollen and seed to impurity in crops—a comparison of maize, oilseed rape and beet. In: Bertheu Y (ed) Genetically modified and non-genetically modified food supply chains: co-existence and traceability Blackwell, pp. 23-34Google Scholar
  45. Sylvester-Bradley R, Kindred DR (2009) Analysing nitrogen responses of cereals to prioritize routes to the improvement of nitrogen use efficiency. J Exp Bot 60:1939–1951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vleeshouwers VGA, Raffaele S, Vossen JH et al (2011) Understanding and exploiting late blight resistance in the age of effectors. Annu Rev Phytopathol 49:507–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark W. Young
    • 1
  • Ewen Mullins
    • 2
  • Geoffrey R. Squire
    • 1
  1. 1.Ecological SciencesJames Hutton InstituteDundeeUK
  2. 2.Teagasc Crops, Environment and Land Use ProgrammeOak Park Crops Research CentreCarlowIreland

Personalised recommendations