Advertisement

Transgenic Research

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 257–267 | Cite as

Decomposition dynamics and structural plant components of genetically modified Bt maize leaves do not differ from leaves of conventional hybrids

  • Corinne ZurbrüggEmail author
  • Linda Hönemann
  • Michael Meissle
  • Jörg Romeis
  • Wolfgang Nentwig
Original Paper

Abstract

The cultivation of genetically modified Bt maize has raised environmental concerns, as large amounts of plant residues remain in the field and may negatively impact the soil ecosystem. In a field experiment, decomposition of leaf residues from three genetically modified (two expressing the Cry1Ab, one the Cry3Bb1 protein) and six non-transgenic hybrids (the three corresponding non-transformed near-isolines and three conventional hybrids) was investigated using litterbags. To elucidate the mechanisms that cause differences in plant decomposition, structural plant components (i.e., C:N ratio, lignin, cellulose, hemicellulose) were examined. Furthermore, Cry1Ab and Cry3Bb1 protein concentrations in maize leaf residues were measured from harvest to the next growing season. While leaf residue decomposition in transgenic and non-transgenic plants was similar, differences among conventional cultivars were evident. Similarly, plant components among conventional hybrids differed more than between transgenic and non-transgenic hybrids. Moreover, differences in senescent plant material collected directly from plants were larger than after exposure to soil for 5 months. While the concentration of Cry3Bb1 was higher in senescent maize leaves than that of Cry1Ab, degradation was faster, indicating that Cry3Bb1 has a shorter persistence in plant residues. As decomposition patterns of Bt-transgenic maize were shown to be well within the range of common conventional hybrids, there is no indication of ecologically relevant, adverse effects on the activity of the decomposer community.

Keywords

Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab Cry3Bb1 Environmental risk assessment Plant litter Soil ecosystem 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank L. Kuhn-Nentwig for technical help in the laboratory and V. Keller and B. Tschanz for assistance in the field. We are thankful to the farmers for providing their fields. H.P Kunc, S. Dubelmann, C. Zwahlen and two anonymous reviewers gave valuable comments on an earlier draft of this article. We thank Monsanto for providing maize seeds and P. Natale and L. French for kindly providing eggs of the Colorado Potato Beetle and the European Corn Borer. We are grateful to H. Bachmann and F. Blum for instructions on the C/N analyzer. This project was funded by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN).

References

  1. Ahmad A, Wilde G, Yan Zhu K (2005) Detectability of coleopteran-specific Cry3Bb1 protein in soil and its effect on nontarget surface and below-ground arthropods. Environ Entomol 34:385–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bathon H, Singh P, Clare GK (1991) Rearing methods. In: Van der Geest LPS, Evenhuis HH (eds) Tortricid pests: their biology, natural enemies and control. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 283–312Google Scholar
  3. Baumgarte S, Tebbe CC (2005) Field studies on the environmental fate of the Cry1Ab Bt-toxin produced by transgenic maize (Mon810) and its effect on bacterial communities in the maize rhizosphere. Mol Ecol 14:2539–2551CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Crecchio C, Stotzky G (1998) Insecticidal activity and biodegradation of the toxin of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki bound to humic acids from soil. Soil Biol Biochem 30:463–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crecchio C, Stotzky G (2001) Biodegradation and insecticidal activity of the toxin of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki bound on complexes of montmorillonite-humic acids-AI hydroxypolymers. Soil Biol Biochem 33:573–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Escher N, Käch B, Nentwig W (2000) Decomposition of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis maize by microorganisms and woodlice Porcellio scaber (Crustacea: Isopoda). Basic Appl Ecol 1:161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Flores S, Saxena D, Stotzky G (2005) Transgenic Bt plants decompose less in soil than non-Bt plants. Soil Biol Biochem 37:1073–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Griffiths BS, Caul S, Thompson J et al (2005) A comparison of soil microbial community structure, protozoa and nematodes in field plots of conventional and genetically modified maize expressing the Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab toxin. Plant Soil 275:135–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Griffiths BS, Caul S, Thompson J et al (2007) Microbial and microfaunal community structure in cropping systems with genetically modified plants. Pedobiologia 51:195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gugerli P (1979) Le test immuno-enzymatique (ELISA) et son application pour le diagnostic rapide des viruses de la pomme de terre. Rev Suisse d’Agric 11:253–260Google Scholar
  11. Gugerli P (1986) Potato viruses. In: Bergmeyer HU (ed) Methods of enzymatic analysis, vol XI. VCH Verlagsgesellschaft GmbH, Weinheim, pp 430–446Google Scholar
  12. Hellmich RL, Albajes R, Bergvinson D et al (2008) The present and future role of insect-resistant genetically modified maize in IPM. In: Romeis J, Shelton AM, Kennedy GG et al (eds) Integration of insect-resistant genetically modified crops within IPM programs. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 119–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hönemann L, Zurbrügg C, Nentwig W (2008) Effects of Bt-corn decomposition on the composition of the soil meso- and macro-fauna. Appl Soil Ecol 40:203–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hopkins DW, Gregorich EG (2003) Detection and decay of the Bt endotoxin in soil from a field trial with genetically modified maize. Eur J Soil Sci 54:793–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Icoz I, Stotzky G (2007) Cry3Bb1 protein from Bacillus thuringiensis in root exudates and biomass of transgenic corn does not persist in soil. Trans Res 17:609–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Icoz I, Stotzky G (2008) Fate and effects of insect-resistant Bt crops in soil ecosystems. Soil Biol Biochem 40:559–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Icoz I, Saxena D, Andow DA, Zwahlen C, Stotzky G (2008) Microbial populations and enzyme activities in soil in situ under transgenic corn expressing Cry proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis. J Environ Qual 37:647–662CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. James C (2007) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2007. ISAAA Brief No. 37, ISAAA, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  19. Jung HG, Sheaffer CC (2004) Influence of Bt transgenes on cell wall lignification and digestibility of maize stover for silage. Crop Sci 44:1781–1789Google Scholar
  20. Lehman MR, Osborne SL, Rosentrater KA (2008) No differences in decomposition rates observed between Bacillus thuringiensis and non-Bacillus thuringiensis corn residue incubated in the field. Agron J 100:163–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meissle M, Romeis J (2009) Insecticidal activity of Cry3Bb1 expressed in Bt maize on larvae of the Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata. Ent Exp Appl 131:308–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Motavalli PP, Kremer RJ, Fang M, Means NE (2004) Impact of genetically modified crops and their management on soil microbially mediated plant nutrient transformation. J Environ Qual 33:816–824PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mungai NW, Motavalli PP, Nelson KA, Kremer RJ (2005) Differences in yields, residue composition and N mineralization dynamics of Bt- and non-Bt-maize. Nutr Cycl Agroecosys 73:101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D (2006) nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effect models. R package version 3.1-73Google Scholar
  25. Poerschman J, Rauschen S, Langer U, Augustin J, Górecki T (2008) Molecular level lignin patterns of genetically modified Bt-maize MON88017 and three conventional varieties using tetramethylammonium hydroxide (TMAH)-induced thermochemolysis. J Agr Food Chem 56:11906–11913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Poerschman J, Rauschen S, Langer U, Augustin J, Górecki T (2009) Fatty acid patterns of genetically modified Cry3Bb1 expressing Bt-maize MON88017 and its near-isogenic line. J Agr Food Chem 57:127–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Poerschmann J, Gathmann A, Augustin J, Langer U, Górecki T (2005) Molecular composition of leaves and stems of genetically modified Bt and near-isogenic non-Bt maize—characterization of lignin patterns. J Environ Qual 34:1508–1518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. R Development Core Team (2006) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org
  29. Romeis J, Bartsch D, Bigler F et al (2008) Assessment of risk of insect-resistant transgenic crops to nontarget arthropods. Nat Biotechnol 26:203–208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Saxena D, Stotzky G (2001) Bt corn has a higher lignin content than non-Bt corn. Am J Bot 88:1704–1706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Saxena D, Stotzky G (2002) Bt toxin is not taken up from soil or hydroponic culture by corn, carrot, radish, or turnip. Plant Soil 239:165–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Saxena D, Flores S, Stotzky G (1999) Insecticidal toxin in root exudates from Bt corn. Nature 402:480PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Sims SR, Holden LR (1996) Insect bioassay for determining soil degradation of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki Cry1A(b) protein in corn tissue. Environ Entomol 25:659–664Google Scholar
  34. Tapp H, Stotzky G (1998) Persistence of the insecticidal toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki in soil. Soil Biol Biochem 30:471–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tarkalson DD, Kachman SD, Knops JMN, Thies JE, Wortmann CS (2008) Decomposition of Bt and non-Bt corn hybrid residues in the field. Nutr Cyc Agroecosys 80:211–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Taylor BR, Parkinson D, Pearsons WFJ (1989) Nitrogen and lignin content as predictors of litter decay rates: a microcosm test. Ecology 70:97–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. VDLUFA (1976) Methodenhandbuch Bd. III. Die Chemische Untersuchung von Futtermitteln. VDLUFA, SpeyerGoogle Scholar
  38. Zwahlen C, Hilbeck A, Gugerli P, Nentwig W (2003) Degradation of the Cry1Ab protein within transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis corn tissue in the field. Mol Ecol 12:765–775CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Zwahlen C, Hilbeck A, Nentwig W (2007) Field decomposition of transgenic Bt maize residue and the impact on non-target soil invertebrates. Plant Soil 300:245–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Corinne Zurbrügg
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Linda Hönemann
    • 1
  • Michael Meissle
    • 2
  • Jörg Romeis
    • 2
  • Wolfgang Nentwig
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Ecology and EvolutionUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  2. 2.Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ARTZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.AGRIDEALindauSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations