Skip to main content

Assessment of the life cycle of genetically modified and non-genetically modified rice cultivars

Abstract

The release of environmental emissions, which partly emanates from the application of chemical inputs, is a major global concern. Planting crops that have been genetically modified (GM) is one possible solution for reducing negative impacts on the environment and human health. The life cycle of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM rice cultivars was assessed. Four GM lines (derived from a backcross of ‘Khazar’ cultivar with ‘Tarom Molaii’, a GM line) and conventional cultivars (non-GM parents) were cultivated under a standard biosafety protocol in three isolated regions in the north of Iran. In order to conduct a life cycle assessment analysis, at first, the results of low- and medium-yielding cultivars in each region were analyzed separately. Since there were no differences among the impact categories and indices in different regions, the average for the results of the three regions is presented. Results show that decreased application of pesticides in GM cultivars led to less energy utilization, emission of greenhouse gases, and global warming potential (GWP). The highest amount of GWP, cumulative non-renewable energy demand, terrestrial acidification, freshwater eutrophication, marine eutrophication, and water depletion were observed in the non-GM cultivars. The heavy metals emitted in air (Pb, Cd, Zn, and Hg) and water (Cr, Zn, Cu, Cd, Hg, Pb, and Ni) were less in GM cultivars than in non-GM cultivars. Pollutants emitted from soil (nitrate, metals, and pesticide) in GM cultivars derived from ‘Khazar’ were less than their non-GM parent. As a result, we conclude that the level of emission of environmental emissions is directly related to the application of input and method of field management, which was based on the lowest level of these indices obtained when GM cultivars were produced. Therefore, the emissions released from environmental issues are positively correlated with the application of inputs and field management practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. http://ir.biosafetyclearinghouse.net/database/record.shtml?documentid=108923

  2. http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/images/docs/rice-standard-evaluation-system.pdf

  3. https://www.pre-sustainability.com/news/ecoinvent-different-system-models

References

  • Ahmad A, Negri I, Oliveira W, Brown C, Asiimwe P, Sammons B, Horak M, Jiang C, Carson D (2016) Transportable data from non-target arthropod field studies for the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified maize expressing an insecticidal double-stranded RNA. Transgenic Res 25:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akhtar ZR, Ye GY, Lu ZB, Chang X, Shen XJ, Peng YF, Hu C (2013) Impact assessments of transgenic cry1Ab rice on the population dynamics of five non-target thrip species and their general predatory flower bug in Bt and non-Bt rice fields using color sticky card traps. J Integr Agric 12:1807–1815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andow DA, Lovei GL, Arpaia S (2009) Cry toxins and proteinase inhibitors in transgenic plants do have non-zero effects on natural enemies in the laboratory: rebuttal to Shelton et al. 2009. Environ Entomol 38:1528–1532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Areal FJ, Riesgo L (2015) Probability functions to build composite indicators: a methodology to measure environmental impacts of genetically modified crops. Ecol Indic 52:498–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Areal FJ, Riesgo L, Rodríguez-Cerezo E (2013) Economic and agronomic impact of commercialized GM crops: a meta-analysis. J Agric Sci 151:7–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bare J (2011) TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Techn Environ Policy 13:687–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bare JC, Norris GA, Pennington DW, McKone T (2003) TRACI: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. J Ind Ecol 6:49–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beheshti Tabar I, Keyhani A, Rafiee S (2010) Energy balance in Iran’s agronomy (1990-2006). Renew Sust Energ Rev 14(2):849–855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett RM, Phipps RH, Strange AM (2006a) An application of life cycle assessment for environmental planning and management: the potential environmental and human health impacts of growing genetically-modified herbicide tolerance sugar beet. J Environ Plann Manag 49(1):59–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett RM, Phipps RH, Strange AM (2006b) 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 15:71–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bravo-Almonacid F, Rudoy V, Welin B, Eugenia Segretin M, Bedogni MC, Stolowicz F, Criscuolo M, Foti M, Gomez M, López M, Serino G, Cabral S, Dos Santos C, Huarte M, Mentaberry A (2011) Field testing, gene flow assessment and pre-commercial studies on transgenic Solanum tuberosum spp. tuberosum (cv. Spunta) selected for PVY resistance in Argentina. Transgenic Res 21:967–982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brentrup F, Kusters J, Kuhlmann H, Lammel J (2004b) Environmental impact assessment of agricultural production systems using the life cycle assessment methodology: I. Theoretical concept of a LCA method tailored a crop production. Eur J Agron 20(3):247–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brentrup F, Kusters J, Lammel J, Barraclough P, Kuhlmann H (2004a) Environmental impact assessment of agricultural production systems using the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology: II. The application of N fertilizer uses in winter wheat production systems. Eur J Agron 20(3):265–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookes G, Barfoot P (2013) The global income and production effects of genetically modified (GM) crops 1996-2011. GM Crops Food 4:74–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao QJ, Xia H, Yang X, Lu BR (2009) Performance of hybrids between weedy rice and insect-resistant transgenic rice under field experiments: implication for environmental biosafety assessment. J Integr Plant Biol 51:1138–1148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrière Y, Crowder DW, Tabashnik BE (2010) Evolutionary ecology of insect adaptation to Bt crops. Evol Appl 3:561–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattaneo MG, Yafuso C, Schmidt C, Huang C-Y, Rahman M, Olson C, Ellers-Kirk C, Orr BJ, Marsh SE, Antilla L, Dutilleul P, Carrière Y (2006) Farm-scale evaluation of the impacts of transgenic cotton on biodiversity, pesticide use, and yield. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:7571–7576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charles R, Jolliet O, Gaillard G, Pellet D (2006) Environmental analysis of intensity level in wheat crop production using life cycle assessment. Agric Ecosyst Environ 113(1/4):216–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collard BCY, Vera Cruz CM, McNally KL, Virk PS, Mackill DJ (2008) Rice molecular breeding laboratories in the genomic era: current status and future considerations. Int J Plant Gen 524847. https://doi.org/10.1155/2008/524847

  • Consmuller N, Beckmann V, Petrick M (2010) An econometric analysis of regional adoption patterns of Bt maize in Germany. Agric Econ 41:275–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dastan S, Ghareyazie B, Pishgar SH (2019) Environmental impacts of transgenic Bt rice and non-Bt rice cultivars in northern Iran. Biocatal Agric Biotechnol 20:101160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engström R, Wadeskog A, Finnveden G (2009) Environmental assessment of Swedish agriculture. Ecol Econ 60:550–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esfahani AA, Niknejad Y, Fallah H, Dastan S (2019) Integrated management of organic manures and chemical fertilizers for enhancing paddy yield and the nutrient content of rice cultivars. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 50(5):570–585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2018) FAO rice market monitor (RMM). http://www.fao.org/economic/est/publications/rice-publications/rice-market-monitor-rmm/en/ (last accessed: 21 February 2020).

  • FAOSTAT (2011) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Statistics Division-Pesticides (Use) Database. Rome: FAOSTAT. http://faostat3.fao.org/download/R/RP/E (last accessed: 21 February 2020).

  • Ghareyazie B, Alinia F, Menguito CA, Rubia LG, de Palma JM, Liwanag EA, Cohen MB, Khush GS, Bennett J (1997) Enhanced resistance to two stem borers in an aromatic rice containing a synthetic cry1Ab gene. Mol Breed 3:401–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habibi E, Niknejad Y, Fallah H, Dastan S, Barari Tari D (2019) Life cycle assessment of rice production systems in different paddy field size levels in north of Iran. Environ Monit Assess 191:202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He X, Qiao Y, Liang L, Knudsen MT, Martin F (2018) Environmental life cycle assessment of long-term organic rice production in sub-tropical China. J Clean Prod 176:880–888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hokazono S, Hayashi K (2012) Variability in environmental impacts during conversion from conventional to organic farming: a comparison among three rice production system in Japan. J Clean Prod 28:101–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horak MJ, Rosenbaum EW, Kendrick DL, Sammons B, Phillips SL, Nickson TE, Dobert RC, Perez T (2015) Plant characterization of Roundup Ready 2 Yield-soybean, MON 89788, for use in ecological risk assessment. Transgenic Res 24:213–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang J, Hu R, Rozelle S, Pray C (2005) Insect-resistant GM rice in farmers’ fields: assessing productivity and health effects in China. Science 308(5722):688–690

  • Hutchison WD, Burkness EC, Mitchell PD, Moon RD, Leslie TW, Fleischer SJ, Abrahamson M, Hamilton KL, Steffey KL, Gray ME, Hellmich RL, Kaster LV, Hunt TE, Wright RJ, Pecinovsky K, Rabaey TL, Flood BR, Raun ES (2010) Area wide suppression of European corn borer with Bt maize reaps savings to non-Bt maize growers. Science 330:222–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2013) Summary for policymakers. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Doschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Climate Change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, pp 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

  • Iriarte A, Rieradevall J, Gabarrel H (2010) Life cycle assessment of sunflower and rapeseed as energy crops under Chilean condition. J Clean Prod 18:336–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2006) 14040 International Standard. Environmental management–life cycle assessment–principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • James C (2015) ISAAA (The International Service for The Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications) Briefs No. 39, Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2015. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.

  • Kazemi H, Kamkar B, Lakzaei S, Badsar M, Shahbyki M (2015) Energy flow analysis for rice production in different geographical regions of Iran. Energy 84:390–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khoshnevisan B, Rajaeifar MA, Clark S, Shamshirband MA, Bardul Anuar N, Mohd Shuib NL, Gani A (2014) Evaluation of traditional and consolidated rice farms in Guilan province, Iran, using life cycle assessment and fuzzy modeling. Sci Total Environ 481:242–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klumper W, Qaim M (2014) A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PLoS One 9:e111629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koga N (2008) An energy balance under a conventional crop rotation system in northern Japan: perspectives on fuel ethanol production from sugar beet. Agric Ecosyst Environ 125:101–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyndt T, Quispe D, Zhai H, Jarret R, Ghislain M, Liu Q-C, Gheysen G, Kreuze JF (2015) The genome of cultivated sweet potato contains Agrobacterium T-DNAs with expressed genes: an example of a naturally transgenic food crop. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112:5844–5849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lammoglia SK, Kennedy M, Barriuso E, Alletto L, Justes E, Munier-Jolain N, Mamy L (2017) Assessing human health risks from pesticide use in conventional and innovative cropping systems with the BROWSE model. Environ Int 105:66–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li Y-H, Hallerman EM, Liu Q-S, Wu K-M, Peng Y (2016) The development and status of Bt rice in China. Plant Biotechnol J 14:839–848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ling F, Zhou F, Chen H, Lin Y-J (2016) Development of marker-free insect-resistant Indica rice by Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated co-transformation. Front Plant Sci 7:1608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y-B, Li J-S, Stewart CN Jr, Luo Z-L, Xiao N-W (2015) The effects of the presence of Bt-transgenic oilseed rape in wild mustard populations on the rhizosphere nematode and microbial communities. Sci Total Environ 530(531):263–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu Y-H, Wu K-M, Jiang Y-Y, Guo Y-Y, Desneux N (2012) Widespread adoption of Bt cotton and insecticide decrease promotes biocontrol services. Nature 487:362–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matson PA, Parton WJ, Power A, Swift M (1997) Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 277:504–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Jihad-e-Agriculture of Iran (2016) Annual Agricultural Statics. https://www.maj.ir/

  • Mohammadi A, Rafiee S, Jafari A, Keyhani A, Dalgaard T, Trydeman Knudsen M, Nguyen TLT, Borek R, Hermansen JE (2015) Joint life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis for the benchmarking of environmental impacts in rice paddy production. J Clean Prod 106:521–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nabavi-Pelesaraei A, Abdi R, Rafiee S, Taromi K (2014) Applying data envelopment analysis approach to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emission of rice production. Eng Agric Environ Food 7:155–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nabavi-Pelesaraei A, Hoseinzadeh-Bandbafha B, Qasemi-Kordkheili P, Kouchaki-Penchah H, Riahi-Dorcheh F (2016) Applying optimization techniques to improve of energy efficiency and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions of wheat production. Energy 103:672–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nabavi-Pelesaraei A, Rafiee S, Mohtasebi SS, Hosseinzadeh-Bandbafha H, Chau KW (2017) Energy consumption enhancement and environmental life cycle assessment in paddy production using optimization techniques. J Clean Prod 162:571–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nabavi-Pelesaraei A, Rafiee S, Mohtasebi SS, Hoseinzadeh-Bandbafha H, Chau K (2018) Integration of artificial intelligence methods and life cycle assessment to predict energy output and environmental impacts of paddy production. Sci Total Environ 631(632):1279–1294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemecek T, Kagi T (2007) Life cycle inventories of Swiss and European agricultural production systems. Final report Eco invent V2.0 NO. 15a. Agroscope Reckenholz-Taenikon Research Station ARTM, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Zurich and Dubendorf, CH.

  • Pathak H, Wassmann R (2007) Introducing greenhouse gas mitigation as a development objective in rice-based agriculture: I. Generation of technical coefficients. Agric Syst 94:807–825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pazouki TM, Ajam Noroui H, Ghanbari Malidareh A, Dadashi MR, Dastan S (2017) Energy and CO2 emission assessment of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) production scenarios in central areas of Mazandaran province, Iran. Appl Ecol Environ Res 15(4):143–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phipps RH, Park JR (2002) Environmental effects of genetically modified crops: global and European perspectives on their ability to reduce pesticide use. J Anim Feed Sci 11:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pishgar-Komleh SH, Akram A, Keyhani A, Raei M, Elshout PMF, Huijbregts MAJ, van Zelm R (2017) Variability in the carbon footprint of open-field tomato production in Iran - a case study of Alborz and East-Azerbaijan provinces. J Clean Prod 142:1510–1517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pishgar-Komleh SH, Sedeedpari P, Rafiee S (2011) Energy and economic analysis of rice production under different farm levels in Guilan province of Iran. Energy 36:5824–5831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramedani Z, Rafiee S, Heidari MD (2011) An investigation on energy consumption and sensitive analysis of soybean production farms. Energy 36(11):6340–6344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rebitzer G, Ekvall T, Frischknecht R, Hunkeler D, Norris G, Rydberg T, Schmidt W, Suh S, Weidema BP, Pennington DW (2004) Life cycle assessment. Part 1: Framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environ Int 30:701–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romeis J, Meissle M, Bigler F (2006) Transgenic crops expressing Bacillus thuringiensis toxins and biological control. Nat Biotechnol 24:63–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy P, Shimizu N, Okadome H, Shiina T, Kimura T (2007) Life cycle of rice: challenges and choices for Bangladesh. J Food Eng 79:1250–1255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy P, Nei D, Orikasa T, Xu QY, Okadome H, Nakamura N, Shiina T (2009) A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. J Food Eng 90:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shelton AM, Naranjo SE, Romeis J, Hellmich RL, Wolt JD, Federici BA, Albajes R, Bigler F, Burgess EP, Dively GP (2009) Setting the record straight: a rebuttal to an erroneous analysis on transgenic insecticidal crops and natural enemies. Transgenic Res 18:317–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SimaPro (2011) Software and Database Manual. Pré Consultants BV, Amersfoort

    Google Scholar 

  • Soltani A, Rajabi MH, Zeinali E, Soltani E (2013) Energy inputs and greenhouse gases emissions in wheat production in Gorgan, Iran. Energy 50:54–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tzilivakis J, Warner DJ, May M, Lewis KA, Jaggard K (2005) An assessment of the energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) production in the UK. Agric Syst 85:101–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unakitan G, Hurma H, Yilmaz F (2010) An analysis of energy use efficiency of canola production in Turkey. Energy 35(9):3623–3627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang M-X, Wu W-L, Liu W, Bao Y-H (2007) Life cycle assessment of the winter wheat-summer maize production system on the North China Plain. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol 14(4):400–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang M-X, Xia X-F, Zhang Q-J, Liu J-G (2010) Life cycle assessment of a rice production system in Taihu region, China. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol 17(2):157–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y-Y, Li Y-H, Huang Z, Chen X-P, Romeis J, Dai P-L, Peng Y-F (2015) Toxicological, biochemical, and histopathological analyses demonstrate that Cry1C and Cry2A are not toxic to larvae of the honeybee, Apis mellifera. J Agric Food Chem 63:6126–6132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfenbarger LL, Naranjo SE, Lundgren JG, Bitzer RJ, Watrud LS (2008) Bt crop effects on functional guilds of non-target arthropods: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 3:e2118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood S, Cowie A (2004) A review of greenhouse gas emission factors for fertilizer production. Research and Development Division, State Forests of New South Wales. Cooperative Research Center for Greenhouse Accounting.

  • World Health Organization (2014) Preventing suicide: a global imperative, Geneva

  • Yodkhum S, Gheewala SH, Sampattagul S (2017) Life cycle GHG evaluation of organic rice production in northern Thailand. J Environ Manag 196:217–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank our colleagues from the Agricultural Biotechnology Research Institute of Iran (ABRII), Rice Research Institute of Iran (RRII), and Iran’s Biosafety Clearing-House and Biosafety Working Group in ABRII, who provided insight and expertise that greatly assisted the research.

Funding

This research received support from the Iran National Science Foundation (INSF) in the form of a postdoctoral project 93032174.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Salman Dastan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the study involving biological materials were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national ethic committee. This study was approved in the Agricultural Biotechnology Research Institute of Iran (ABRII), Rice Research Institute of Iran (RRII), and Iran’s Biosafety Clearing-House and Biosafety Working Group in ABRII, which provided insight and expertise that greatly assisted the research.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Amjad Kallel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dastan, S., Ghareyazie, B., Teixeira da Silva, J.A. et al. Assessment of the life cycle of genetically modified and non-genetically modified rice cultivars. Arab J Geosci 13, 362 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-05386-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-05386-8

Keywords

  • Bacillus thuringiensis
  • Biosafety
  • Environmental emissions
  • Pesticides
  • Transgenic rice