Bollgard cotton is the trademark given to a number of varieties of cotton bio-engineered to produce an insecticidal protein from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). When produced by the modified cotton plants, this protein controls certain lepidopterous cotton insect pests. Commercially available since 1996, these cotton varieties are purchased under a license agreement in which the growers pay a fee and agree to abide by the terms, which include a 1-year license to use the technology and agreement to participate in an insect resistance management program. Today, Bollgard cotton is grown on more than one-third of all cotton acreage in the USA. This product has reduced cotton production costs and insecticide use by providing an effective alternative to chemical insecticides for the control of tobacco budworm, Heliothis virescens; cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa zea; and pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella. The specificity and safety profile of the Bt protein produced in planta in cotton was maintained. It has retained its selectivity for lepidopterous insects and lacks the characteristics found in potential allergenic proteins. Fiber quality, the agronomic characteristics of the plant and seed composition remain unchanged. New cotton technology is being developed to provide improved insect control and a wider spectrum of activity. These future products could further reduce insecticide use in the production of cotton, while maintaining the high level of safety and reliability that has been demonstrated by five seasons of Bollgard cotton use.

Cry1Ac protoxin (the active insecticidal toxin in both Bollgard and Bollgard II cotton [Gossypium hirsutum L.]), and Cry2Ab2 toxin (the second insecticidal toxin in Bollgard II cotton) were bioassayed against five of the primary lepidopteran pests of cotton by using diet incorporation. Cry1Ac was the most toxic to Heliothis virescens (F.) and Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders), demonstrated good activity against Helicoverpa zea (Boddie), and had negligible toxicity against Spodoptera exigua (Hübner) and Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith). Cry2Ab2 was the most toxic to P. gossypiella and least toxic to S. frugiperda. Cry2Ab2 was more toxic to S. exigua and S. frugiperda than Cry1Ac. Of the three insect species most sensitive to both Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) proteins (including H. zea), P. gossypiella was only three-fold less sensitive to Cry2Ab2 than Cry1Ac, whereas H. virescens was 40-fold less sensitive to Cry2Ab2 compared with CrylAc. Cotton plants expressing Cry1Ac only and both Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab2 proteins were characterized for toxicity against H. zea and S.frugiperda larvae in the laboratory and H. zea larvae in an environmental chamber. In no-choice assays on excised squares from plants of different ages, second instar H. zea larvae were controlled by Cry1Ac/Cry2Ab2 cotton with mortality levels of 90% and greater at 5 d compared with 30-80% mortality for Cry1Ac-only cotton, depending on plant age. Similarly, feeding on leaf discs from Cry1Ac/Cry2Ab2 cotton resulted in mortality of second instars of S.frugiperda ranging from 69 to 93%, whereas exposure to Cry1Ac-only cotton yielded 20-69% mortality, depending on plant age. When cotton blooms were infested in situ in an environmental chamber with neonate H. zea larvae previously fed on synthetic diet for 0, 24, or 48 h, 7-d flower abortion levels for Cry1Ac-only cotton were 15, 41, and 63%, respectively, whereas for Cry1Ac/Cry2Ab2 cotton, flower abortion levels were 0, 0, and 5%, respectively. Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab2 concentrations were measured within various cotton tissues of Cry1Ac-only and Cry1Ac/Cry2Ab2 plants, respectively, by using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Terminal leaves significantly expressed the highest, and large leaves, calyx, and bracts expressed significantly the lowest concentrations of Cry1Ac, respectively. Ovules expressed significantly the highest, and terminal leaves, large leaves, bracts, and calyx expressed significantly (P < 0.05) the lowest concentrations of Cry2Ab2. These results help explain the observed differences between Bollgard and Bollgard II mortality against the primary lepidopteran cotton pests, and they may lead to improved scouting and resistance management practices, and to more effective control of these pests with Bt transgenic crops in the future.

Laboratory-selected Bacillus thuringiensis-resistant colonies are important tools for elucidating B. thuringiensis resistance mechanisms. However, cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa zea, a target pest of transgenic corn and cotton expressing B. thuringiensis Cry1Ac (Bt corn and cotton), has proven difficult to select for stable resistance. Two populations of H. zea (AR and MR), resistant to the B. thuringiensis protein found in all commercial Bt cotton varieties (Cry1Ac), were established by selection with Cry1Ac activated toxin (AR) or MVP II (MR). Cry1Ac toxin reflects the form ingested by H. zea when feeding on Bt cotton, whereas MVP II is a Cry1Ac formulation used for resistance selection and monitoring. The resistance ratio (RR) for AR exceeded 100-fold after 11 generations and has been maintained at this level for nine generations. This is the first report of stable Cry1Ac resistance in H. zea. MR crashed after 11 generations, reaching only an RR of 12. AR was only partially cross-resistant to MVP II, suggesting that MVP II does not have the same Cry1Ac selection pressure as Cry1Ac toxin against H. zea and that proteases may be involved with resistance. AR was highly cross-resistant to Cry1Ab toxin but only slightly cross-resistant to Cry1Ab expressing corn leaf powder. AR was not cross-resistant to Cry2Aa2, Cry2Ab2-expressing corn leaf powder, Vip3A, and cypermethrin. Toxin-binding assays showed no significant differences, indicating that resistance was not linked to a reduction in binding. These results aid in understanding why this pest has not evolved B. thuringiensis resistance, and highlight the need to choose carefully the form of B. thuringiensis protein used in experiments.

Summary 1.A high dose ⁄ refuge strategy has been adopted in the USA to manage the risk of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) resistance in target pests such as the cotton bollworm (CBW), Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) in transgenic Bt cotton Gossypium hirsutum L. Structured refuges, consisting of non-Bt cotton, have been a mandated part of this strategy to produce non-selected insects that are temporally and spatially synchronous with insects from the Bt crop, diluting Bt resistance alleles through mating. However, the bollworm is highly polyphagous and exploits a large number of crop and weedy hosts concurrently with Bt cotton. 2. A study was carried out in five major US cotton-producing states during 2002 and 2003 using the ratios of 13 C to 12 C in bollworm moths to estimate the proportions of the population originating from C 3 or C 4 plants. A separate study measured gossypol residues in moths from four states in 2005 and 2006, enabling the identification of moths whose natal hosts were cotton rather than other C 3 hosts. 3. C 4 hosts served as the principal source of bollworm moths from mid-to-late June to early September, depending on the state. Beginning in late August ⁄ early September and lasting 1-4 weeks, the majority of moths exhibited isotopic compositions characteristic of C 3 hosts. During this period, however, the minimum percentage of moths that developed as larvae on C 4 hosts was typically >25%. By mid-September and through October and November, the majority of the bollworm population exhibited C 4 isotopic compositions. 4. Between late June and early August, cotton-derived bollworm moths (moths with gossypol residues) comprised <1% of moths in all states, and remained below this level throughout the season in North Carolina. In other states, cotton-derived moths increased between early August and early September to peak at an average of 19AE1% of all moths. 5. Synthesis and applications. Data on 13 C ⁄ 12 C ratios and gossypol residues in CBW moths were used to assess the importance of structured non-Bt cotton refuges for the management of Bt resistance risk in H. zea. Weekly estimates of bollworm breeding on cotton, C 3 plants other than cotton and C 4 plants showed that, throughout the season, the majority of bollworm moths caught in pheromone traps adjacent to cotton fields did not develop as larvae on cotton. This result implies that management practices in cotton such as the use of structured cotton refuges will play a relatively minor role -particularly compared with maize Zea mays L. -in managing potential resistance to Bt cotton in populations of the CBW in the US Cotton Belt.

Selection pressure on bollworm, Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), by cotton, Gossypium hirsutum (L.) (Malvaceae), that produces one or more Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner (Bt) proteins is reduced by plantings of non‐Bt refuge cotton that produce non‐selected individuals. However, the contributions of non‐Bt, non‐cotton crop hosts to the overall effective refuge for H. zea on Bt cotton have not been estimated. A 2‐year, season‐long study was conducted in five US cotton‐producing states to assess the spatial and temporal population dynamics and host use of H. zea. Helicoverpa zea larval estimates in commercial crop fields demonstrated that non‐cotton crop hosts, such as maize, Zea mays L. (Poaceae), grain sorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench (Poaceae), peanut, Arachis hypogaea L. (Fabaceae), and soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merrill (Fabaceae), collectively support much larger larval populations than cotton throughout the season. Larval populations were almost entirely restricted to maize in the middle part of the season (June and portions of July), and were observed in non‐cotton crop hosts more frequently and typically in larger numbers than in cotton during the period when production would be expected in cotton (July and August). Numbers of H. zea larvae produced in replicated strip trials containing various crop hosts paralleled production estimates from commercial fields. In contrast, the number of H. zea adults captured in pheromone traps at interfaces of fields of Bt cotton and various crop hosts rarely varied among interfaces, except in instances where maize was highly attractive. With the exception of this early season influence of maize, moth numbers were not related to local larval production. These data demonstrate that H. zea adults move extensively from their natal host origins. Therefore, non‐cotton crop hosts, and even relatively distant hosts, contribute significantly to effective refuge for H. zea on Bt cotton. The results presented here demonstrate that substantial natural refuge is present for Bt‐resistance management of H. zea throughout the mid‐South and Southeast portions of the US cotton belt.