Recent advances in ecological biosafety research on the risks of transgenic plants: A trans-continental perspective

  • I. M. Parker
  • D. Bartsch
Part of the Advances in Life Sciences book series (ALS)

Summary

Until recently, ecological tests of invasiveness for transgenic plants have investigated traits with limited ecological relevance, and so the fact that most have shown no additional risk of invasion is not surprising. Similarly, results to date provide us with little confidence in the opinion held by many in the biotechnology industry that genetic engineering is unconditionally safe. The experimental biosafety research has resulted in a situation where companies in some countries have gained permission to grow potentially “risky” transgenic plants on a commercial scale, without substantial ecological data quantifying the risk they pose. Perhaps experiments on transgenic organisms so far have been more useful in generating new questions and new concepts of ecological risk assessment than in providing generalisations about organisms themselves. In cases where predictions of risk have a high degree of uncertainty, or if the sheer volume of field releases overwhelms this stage of biosafety assessment, monitoring potential ecological long-term effects is the final method of choice. This situation underscores the need for solid monitoring programs in the future.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abe, H. and Tamada, T. (1986) Association of beet necrotic yellow vein virus with isolates of Polymyxa betae Keskin. Ann. Phytopath. Soc. Japan 52: 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler, L.S., Wickler, K., Wyndham, P.S., Under, C.R. and Schmitt, J. (1993) Potential for persistence of genes escaped form canola: Germination cues in crop, wild, and crop-wild hybrid Brassica rapa. Funct. Ecol. 1: 736–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anonymous (1991) Reports on 1990 trials with transgenic glyphosate tolerant sugar beet. Reports to the National Agency for Environmental Protection, Denmark.Google Scholar
  4. Anonymous (1993a) Reports on 1992 trials with transgenic glyphosate tolerant sugar beet. Reports to the National Agency for Environmental Protection, Denmark.Google Scholar
  5. Anonymous (1993b) Report results from frost resistance trials with sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) transformed with glyphosate resistance genes. Reports to the National Agency for Environmental Protection, Denmark.Google Scholar
  6. Anonymous (1993c) Competitive ability of transgenic sugar beet 1992–1993. Report to the National Agency for Environmental Protection, Denmark.Google Scholar
  7. Anonymous (1993d) Report of trials with establishment of transgene sugarbeet. Report to the National Agency for Environmental Protection, Denmark.Google Scholar
  8. Anonymous (1994) Report on results from indoor freezing trials 1993/94 with sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) transformed with glyphosate-tolerance genes. Report to the National Agency for Environmental Protection, Denmark.Google Scholar
  9. Asgrow Seed Company (1992) Petition for determination of regulatory status of Cucurbita pepo L. cultivar YC77E ZW-20. United States Department of Agriculture, APHIS.Google Scholar
  10. Baker, H. (1965) Characterictics and modes of origin of weeds. In: H.G. Baker and G.L. Stebbins (eds): The Genetics of Colonizing Species. Academic Press, New York, pp 147–168.Google Scholar
  11. Bartsch, D., Sukopp, H. and Sukopp, U. (1993) Introduction of plants with special regard to cultigens running wild. In: K. Wöhrmann and J. Tomiuk (eds): Transgenic Organisms: Risk Assessment of Deliberate Release. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, pp 135–151.Google Scholar
  12. Bartsch, D., Haag, C., Morak, C., Pohl, M. and Witte, B. (1994) Autecological studies of the competitiveness of transgenic sugar beets. Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft für Ökologie (München-Weihenstephan) 23: 435–444.Google Scholar
  13. Bartsch, D., Pohl-Orf, M., Schmidt, M. and Schuphan, I. (1995) Naturalization of transgenic (BNYV-Virus resistant) sugar beet in agricultural and non-agricultural areas. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on the Biosafety Results of Field Test of Genetically Modified Plants and Microorganisms. Monterey, California, Conference Proceedings, pp 353–361.Google Scholar
  14. Bartsch, D. and Hücking, C. (1995) Future aspects of ecological biosafety research. In: J. Landsmann and R. Casper (eds): Key Biosafety Aspects of Genetically Modified Organisms. Mitteilungen aus der Biologischen Bundesanstalt für Land- und Forstwirtschaft 309: 71–79.Google Scholar
  15. Bergelson, J. (1994) Changes in fecundity do not predict invasiveness: A model study of transgenic plants. Ecology 75: 249–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Boudry, P., Morchen, M., Saumitou-Laprade, P., Vernet, P. and van Dijk, H. (1993) The origin and evolution of weed beets: Consequences for the breeding and release of herbicide resistant transgenic sugar-beets. Theor. Appl. Genet 87: 471–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. BRIDGE (1991) Biotechnology R and D in the EC. In: I. Economidis (ed.): Biotechnology Action Programme (BAP). Part II. Detailed Final Report of BAP Contractors in Risk Assessment (1985–1990) Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.Google Scholar
  18. BRIDGE (1995) Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Plants — BRIDGE 1992–1994. Practical Information and Programmes. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.Google Scholar
  19. Calgene (1992) Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status: Flavr Savr Tomato. United States Department of Agriculture, APHIS.Google Scholar
  20. Calgene (1993) Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status: BXN Cotton. United States Department of Agriculture, APHIS.Google Scholar
  21. Calgene (1994) Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status: Laurate Oilseed Rape. United States Department of Agriculture, APHIS.Google Scholar
  22. Carsner, E. (1928) The wild beet in California. Facts Sugar 23: 1120–1121.Google Scholar
  23. Crawley, M.J. (1990) The ecology of genetically modified organisms. In: H.A. Mooney and G.A. Bernardi (eds): Introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms into the Environment. John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp 133–150.Google Scholar
  24. Crawley, M.J. (1992) The comparative ecology of transgenic and conventional crops. In: R. Casper and J. Landsmann (eds): Proceedings of the 2rd International Symposium on the Biosafety Results of Field Test of Genetically Modified Plants and Microorganisms. May 11–14, 1992. Goslar, Germany ( Biologische Anstalt für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Braunschweig ), pp 43–52.Google Scholar
  25. Crawley, M.J., Hails, R.S., Rees, M., Kohn, D. and Buxton, J. (1993) Ecology of transgenic oilseed rape in natural habitats. Nature 363: 620–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Damgaard, C. and Loeschcke, V. (1993) Inbreeding depression and dominance-suppression competition after inbreeding in rapeseed (Brassica napus). Theor. Appl. Genet. 88: 321–323.Google Scholar
  27. de Vries, E.T., van der Meijden, R. and Brandenburg, W.A. (1992) Botanical files — A study of the real chances for spontaneous gene flow from cultivated plants to the wild flora of the Netherlands. Gorteria supplement 1: 1–100.Google Scholar
  28. Dobson, A.P. and May, R.M. (1986) Patterns of invasions by pathogens and parasites. In: H.A. Mooney and G.A. Bernardi (eds): Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 58–77.Google Scholar
  29. Doney, D.L., Whitney, E.D., Terry, J., Frese, L. and Fitzgerald P. (1990) The distribution and dispersal of Beta vulgaris L. ssp. maritima germplasm in England, Wales, and Ireland. J. Sugar Beet Res 27: 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Faccioli, G. and Giunchedi, L. (1974) On the viruses involved on rhizomania diseases of sugar beet in Italy. Phytopath. mediter 13: 28–35.Google Scholar
  31. Fredshavn, J.R., Poulsen, G.S., Huybrechts, I. and Rudelsheim, P. (1995) Competitiveness of transgenic oilseed rape. Transgenic Res. 4: 142–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Frese, L. (1991) Sammlung, Erhaltung und Nutzbarmachung der genetischen Ressourcen von Beta-Rüben (B. vulgaris L.) und Wurzelzichorien (Cichorium intybus L.). Landbauforschung Völkenrode 41: 65–73.Google Scholar
  33. Hornsey, K.G. and Arnold, M.H. (1979) The origins of weed beet. Ann. Appl. Biol 92: 279–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jones, D. (1995) Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on the Biosafety Results of Field Test of Genetically Modified Plants and Microorganisms, Monterey, California Nov. 1994.Google Scholar
  35. Kareiva, P. (1993) Transgenic plants on trial. Nature 363: 580–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kareiva, P. (1993) Transgenic plants on trial. Nature 363: 580–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kjellsson, G. and Simonsen, V. (1994) Methods for Risk Assessment of Transgenic Plants: I. Competition, Establishment and Ecosystem Effects. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Klinger, T., Arriola, P. and Ellstrand, N. (1992) Crop-weed hybridisation in radish (Raphanus sativus): Effects of distance and population size. Amer. J. Bot. 79: 1431 –1435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Landsmann, J. and Casper, R. (1995) Key Biosafety Aspects of Genetically Modified Organisms. Mitteilungen aus der Biologischen Bundesanstalt für Land- und Forstwirtschaft 309, Braunschweig, Germany.Google Scholar
  40. Letschert, J.P.W. (1993) Beta section Beta: Biogeographical patterns of variation, and taxonomy. Diss. Universiteit Wageningen Google Scholar
  41. Linder, C.R. (1994) The Ecology of Population Persistence for Wild, Crop, and Crop-Wild Hybrid Brassica and its Implication for Transgenes Escaped from Canola. Ph.D. thesis. Brown University.Google Scholar
  42. Linder, C.R. and Schmitt, J. (1994) Assessing the risks of transgene escape through time and crop-wild hybrid persistence. Molec. Ecol 3: 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Longden, P.C. (1974) Sugar beet as a weed. Proc. 12th British Weed Control Conference 301 –308.Google Scholar
  44. Longden, P.C. (1989) Effects of increasing weed-beet density on sugar-beet yield and quality. Ann. Appl. Biol 114: 527–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Madsen, K.H. (1994) Weed Management and Impact on Ecology of Growing Glyphosate Tolerant Sugarbeets, Ph.D. thesis. The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Weed Science, Denmark.Google Scholar
  46. Manasse, R. (1992) Ecological risks of transgenic plants: Effects of spatial dispersion on gene flow. Ecol. Appl 2: 431–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mellon, M. and Rissler, J. (1995) Transgenic crops: USDA data on small-scale tests contribute little to commercial risk assessment. Bio/Technology 13: 96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Monsanto (1993) Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status for Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean. United States Department of Agriculture, APHIS.Google Scholar
  49. Monsanto (1994) Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status for Potatoes Producing the Colorado Potato Beetle Control Protein of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. tenebrionis. United States Department of Agriculture, APHIS.Google Scholar
  50. Monsanto (1995) Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status: Bollgard™ Cotton Lines 757 and 1076 (Gossypium hirsutum L) with the Gene from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki. United States Department of Agriculture, APHIS.Google Scholar
  51. Mooney, H.A. and Bernardi, G. (1990) Introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms into the Environment. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  52. Morris, W., Kareiva, P. and Raymer, P. (1994) Do barren zones and pollen traps reduce gene escape from transgenic crops? Ecol. Appl 4: 157–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Morris, W., Kareiva, P. and Raymer, P. (1994) Do barren zones and pollen traps reduce gene escape from transgenic crops? Ecol. Appl 4: 157–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pimentel, D. (1986) Biological invasions of plants and animals in agriculture and forestry. In: H.A. Mooney and J.A. Drake (eds): Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawai. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 149–162.Google Scholar
  55. Raybould, A.F. and Gray, A.J. (1993) Genetically modified crops and hybridization with wild relatives: A UK perspective. J. Appl. Ecol 30: 199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Regal, P.J. (1994) Scientific principles for ecologically based risk assessment of transgenic organisms. Molec. Ecol 3: 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rissler, J. and Mellon, M. (1993) Perils Amidst the Promise: Ecological Risk of Transgenic Crops in a Global Market. Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  58. Santoni, S. and Berville, A. (1992) Characterization of the nuclear ribosomal DNA units and phylogeny of Beta L. wild forms and cultivated beets. Theor. Appl. Genet 83: 533–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schierenbeck, K.A., Mack, R.N. and Scharitz, R.R. (1994) Herbivore effects on Lonicera growth and biomass allocation. Ecology 75: 1661 –1672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stone, R. (1994) Large plots are next test for transgenic crop safety. Science 266: 1472–1473.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tiedje, J.M.R., Colwell, R.L., Grossman, Y.I., Hodson, R.E., Lenski, R.E., Mack, R.N. and Regal, P.J. (1989) The planned introduction of genetically engineered organisms: Ecological considerations and recommendations. Ecology 70: 298–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Whitney, E.D. (1989) Identification, distribution, and testing for resistance to rhizomania in Beta maritima. Plant Disease 73: 287–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Williamson, M. (1992) Environmental risks from the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) — The need for molecular ecology. Molec. Ecol 1: 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Williamson, M. (1993) Invaders, weeds, and the risks from GMOs. Experientia 49: 219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag Basel/Switzerland 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. M. Parker
    • 1
  • D. Bartsch
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BotanyUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biology V (Ecology, Ecotoxicology and Ecochemistry)Technical University of AachenAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations