The Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops (GMHT) were conducted in the UK from 2000 to 2002 on beet (sugar and fodder), spring oilseed rape and forage maize. The management of the crops studied is described and compared with current conventional commercial practice. The distribution of field sites adequately represented the areas currently growing these crops, and the sample contained sites operated at a range of management intensities, including low intensity. Herbicide inputs were audited, and the active ingredients used and the rates and the timings of applications compared well with current practice for both GMHT and conventional crops. Inputs on sugar beet were lower than, and inputs on spring oilseed rape and forage maize were consistent with, national averages. Regression analysis of herbicide-application strategies and weed emergence showed that inputs applied by farmers increased with weed densities in beet and forage maize. GMHT crops generally received only one herbicide active ingredient per crop, later and fewer herbicide sprays and less active ingredient (for beet and maize) than the conventional treatments. The audit of inputs found no evidence of bias.
The effects of herbicide management of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) beet, maize and spring oilseed rape on the abundance and diversity of soil-surface-active invertebrates were assessed. Most effects did not differ between years, environmental zones or initial seedbanks or between sugar and fodder beet. This suggests that the results may be treated as generally applicable to agricultural situations throughout the UK for these crops. The direction of the effects was evenly balanced between increases and decreases in counts in the GMHT compared with the conventional treatment. Most effects involving a greater capture in the GMHT treatments occurred in maize, whereas most effects involving a smaller capture were in beet and spring oilseed rape. Differences between GMHT and conventional crop herbicide management had a significant effect on the capture of most surface-active invertebrate species and higher taxa tested in at least one crop, and these differences reflected the phenology and ecology of the invertebrates. Counts of carabids that feed on weed seeds were smaller in GMHT beet and spring oilseed rape but larger in GMHT maize. In contrast, collembolan detritivore counts were significantly larger under GMHT crop management.
for research. Most schemes sample sites that are self-selected by contributors and therefore tend 20 to cover locations that are rich in butterflies. To provide a more representative assessment of 21 butterfly populations, the Wider Countryside Butterfly Survey (WCBS) was developed with a 22 stratified-random sample of survey sites across the UK. We compare butterfly trends from the 23 WCBS locations against those measured from traditional butterfly transects which are typically 24 located in areas of good quality semi-natural habitats. Across the 26 species analysed, there was a 25 significant positive relationship between trends measured from the two schemes between 2009 and 26 2013, the period when both schemes were operating fully. There was a tendency (17 out of 26 27 species analysed) for these changes to be greater within WCBS compared to traditional BMS 28 transects, although this effect was not consistent across comparisons between pairs of consecutive 29 years. When assessing these individual year-to-year changes, there was however a significant 30 correlation between the two schemes in all cases. Over relatively short time periods, weather 31 patterns are likely to dominate butterfly population fluctuations and lead to comparable trends 32 across monitoring schemes. Over longer time periods, differences in land management may affect 33 habitat condition differently for protected areas versus the wider countryside and it is therefore 34 important to maintain comprehensive butterfly monitoring programmes to detect and interpret 35 such effects. 36 3
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.