Advertisement

Sustainable Management of Insect-Resistant Crops

  • Shelby J. Fleischer
  • William D. Hutchison
  • Steven E. Naranjo
Chapter

Abstract

Sustainability is a goal-oriented process that advances based on new knowledge. We discuss factors relevant to insect-resistant crops and sustainability: adoption patterns, insecticide use patterns and their influence on humans, biological control, areawide effects, and evolution of populations resistant to the transgenic crop. Genetically engineered insect-resistant crops were introduced at a time when insecticide options and use patterns were changing. Management of lepidopteran and coleopteran pests has been achieved through constitutive expression of proteins derived from the crystalline spore and the vegetative stage of various strains of Bacillus thuringiensis. Management to aphid-transmitted viruses has been achieved through expression of viral coat proteins. Adoption patterns have been rapid where use is allowed. Areawide reductions in pest populations have occurred in cotton and maize in multiple parts of the world, enabled eradication programs, and conferred significant economic benefits to crops that are not transgenic. Insecticide use has decreased dramatically in cotton, leading to improved biological control, reductions in pesticide poisonings, and changes in species composition that achieve pest status. Pro-active resistance management programs, the first to be deployed in all of agriculture, has slowed but not stopped the evolution of resistant populations. Five insect pest species have evolved resistance. Future constructs may provide induced or tissue-specific expression, or use RNAi to deliver protection from insect pests. Constructs that alter plant metabolism, to achieve drought tolerance, nitrogen-utilization, or biomass conversion efficiency, may also affect insect populations and communities. Sustainable management of insect-resistant transgenic crops requires consideration of regional effects of both densities and genetics of mobile target insect populations. The underlying assumption of IPM, that multiple and diverse management tactics are more sustainable, continues to be highly relevant, and necessary, to maintain the utility of transgenic crops, to manage the wider community of species relevant to agroecosystems, and to enable agriculture to adapt to change.

Keywords

IPM Areawide Bacillus thuringiensis Insecticide Resistance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank T. Sappington and A. Shelton for valuable reviews which improved the manuscript.

References

  1. Brookes G, Barfoot P (2012) GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996–2010. PG Economics Ltd., Dorchester, 187 ppGoogle Scholar
  2. Carriere Y, Ellers-Kirk C, Sisteron M, Antilla L, Whitlow M, Dennehy TJ, Tabashnik B (2003) Long-term regional suppression of pink bollworm by Bacillus thuringiensis cotton. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:1519–1523PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen M, Shelton A, Gong-yin Y (2011) Insect-resistant genetically modified rice in China: from research to commercialization. Annu Rev Entomol 56:81–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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) Areawide suppression of European corn borer with B.t. maize reaps savings to non-B.t. growers. Science 330:222–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kouser S, Qaim M (2011) Impact of B.t. cotton on pesticide poisoning in smallholder agriculture: a panel data analysis. Ecol Econ 70:2105–2113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lu Y, Wu K, Jiang Y, Guo Y, Desneux N (2012) Widespread adoption of B.t. cotton and insecticide decreases promote biocontrol services. Nature 487:362–365PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Naranjo SE (2011) Impacts of B.t. transgenic cotton on Integrated Pest Management. J Agric Food Chem 59:5842–5851PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. National Research Council (NRC) (2010) The impact of genetically engineered crops on farm sustainability in the United States. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. Qaim M, Kouser S (2013) Genetically modified crops and food security. PLoS One 8(6):e64879. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064879 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Shelton AM, Fuchs M, Shotkoski FA (2008) Transgenic vegetables and fruits for control of insects and insect-vectored pathogens. In: Romeis J, Shelton AM, Kennedy GG (eds) Integration of insect-resistant genetically modified crops within IPM programs. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  11. Shelton AM, Olmstead DL, Burkness EC, Hutchison WD, Dively G, Welty C, Sparks AN (2013) Multi-state trials of B.t. sweet corn varieties for control of the corn earworm. J Econ Entomol 106:2151–2159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Tabashnik BE, Brevault T, Carriere Y (2013) Insect resistance to B.t. crops: lessons from the first billion acres. Nat Biotechnol 31:510–521PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wu KM, Lu YH, Feng HQ, Jiang YY, Zhao JZ (2008) Suppression of cotton bollworm in multiple crops in China in areas with B.t.-toxin-containing cotton. Science 321:1676–1678PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shelby J. Fleischer
    • 1
  • William D. Hutchison
    • 2
  • Steven E. Naranjo
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of EntomologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park, State CollegeUSA
  2. 2.Department of EntomologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  3. 3.USDA-ARSArid-Land Agricultural Research CenterMaricopaUSA

Personalised recommendations