Agricultural practice changes with cultivating genetically modified herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape

Graef, Frieder; Stachow, Ulrich; Werner, A.; Schütte, Gesine

doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2006.09.008

Cited by 28 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Through the reliance on a component-based chemically intensive production system, symptoms of agricultural problems would be treated rather than causes. Opponents claim that the reliance on good agricultural practices (e.g., sound crop rotation) would take away many causes of agricultural problems, in turn making some current chemical-based therapies redundant (Hubbell and Welsh, 1998;Graef et al, 2007;Malézieux et al, 2008;Powles, 2008). Instead of being a remedy to current agricultural problems, as claimed by proponents, GM crops are therefore perceived by opponents as a new source of problems that are even worse than those GM crops were meant to solve.…”

Section: Opponents' Rationale On Coexistencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Proponents even argue that greater efficiency, productivity and management flexibility would enhance economic competitiveness. In the case of GM herbicide-resistant crops, the biotechnology-based weed management strategy is thought to replace a set of currently used herbicides by broad-spectrum, non-selective herbicides with better environmental profiles, and to reduce the amount of active ingredients applied and herbicide doses used (Nelson and Bullock, 2003;Brimner et al, 2005;Cerdeira and Duke, 2006;Graef et al, 2007;Kleter et al, 2007Kleter et al, , 2008Bonny, 2008;Devos et al, 2008b;Duke and Powles, 2008;Gardner and Nelson, 2008;Shipitalo et al, 2008). The adoption of GM herbicide-resistant crops and their associated management practices might (i) increase the flexibility in timing of weed management; (ii) simplify weed management; (iii) reduce management time; (iv) lower the risk for crop injury; (v) facilitate the adoption of no-till or reduced-till planting procedures; and (vi) generate less concern with carry-over damage to rotational crops (Marra and Piggott, 2006;Sanvido et al, 2007;Devos et al, 2008b;Duke and Powles, 2008;Gianessi, 2008).…”

Section: Proponents' Rationale On Coexistencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union. A review

Devos

Demont

Dillen

et al. 2009

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

160

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-The adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops in the European Union (EU) raises questions on the feasibility of coexistence between GM and non-GM crops. Regulations to ensure that different cropping systems can develop side-by-side without excluding any agricultural option are currently implemented or developed by member states. The aim of this review is to explore whether nationally or regionally proposed coexistence strategies comply with the general principles established by the European Commission that ask for science-based and proportionate coexistence measures. In the first part, existing legal requirements and potential sources of adventitious mixing are reviewed. It is discussed what type of coexistence measures might be necessary to keep GM inputs below the legal tolerance threshold of 0.9%. Concentrating on cross-fertilisation as the major biological source of adventitious mixing in maize, it is then assessed to which extent available scientific data on cross-fertilisation can explain the diversity of currently proposed isolation distances by several member states. In the second part, it is analysed whether currently proposed isolation distances reflect contending policy objectives towards GM crops that largely exceed the economic scope of coexistence. It is investigated how coexistence is intersecting with a wider debate about the role of GM crops in agriculture. Based on the analysis of existing cross-fertilisation data, it is concluded that some of the currently proposed isolation distances are not in line with the coexistence principles laid down by the European Commission: they are (i) excessive from a scientific point of view; (ii) difficult to implement in practice; (iii) rarely proportional to the regional heterogeneity in the agricultural landscape; and (iv) not proportional to the farmers' basic economic incentives for coexistence. Hence, the range of proposed isolation distances cannot simply be explained by different interpretations of available scientific data, possible error intervals and remaining uncertainties inherent in the scientific process. It is argued that other than scientific issues must be at play. One might thus claim that coexistence has become an arena of contending values and visions on the future of agriculture and on the role GM crops might play therein.adventitious mixing / Bt-maize / coexistence / cross-fertilisation / flexible measures / genetically modified (GM) crops / isolation distances / liability / fixed measures / sustainable development

show abstract

Section: Opponents' Rationale On Coexistencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Proponents' Rationale On Coexistencementioning

confidence: 99%

Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union. A review

Devos

Demont

Dillen

et al. 2009

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

160

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Enhanced flexibility in timing of weed control and reduced herbicide application frequency are widely claimed reasons to cultivate HT crops (Graef et al, 2007). In addition, GMHT-associated herbicides (glyphosate and glufosinate) are less persistent than conventional herbicides, such as atrazine (Hails, 2002), which is now prohibited across the EU (Halford, 2004), and control of certain broad-leaf and grass weeds can be achieved with a single herbicide (Sanvido et al, 2006).…”

Section: Reducing Fungicide and Herbicide Inputsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, even when intensive management practices are adopted, oilseed rape is still considered a 'high'-risk crop as a result of the crop's sensitivity to competition from broad-leaf and grass weeds, such as volunteer cereals and wild oats, which can depress the crop's yield potential. The availability of GM oilseed rape varieties resistant to either glyphosate or glufosinate-ammonium could assist farmers in achieving more efficient weed control through the application of a single post-emergence broad-spectrum herbicide from seedling stages to early bolting (Graef et al, 2007). Under certain agronomic conditions, GMHT oilseed rape can deliver increased yields of up to 10% (Phipps & Park, 2002).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Relevance of genetically modified crops in light of future environmental and legislative challenges to the agri‐environment

O'Brien

Mullins

2009

Annals of Applied Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Past two decades at least 50 genes were transformed into Brassica napus rapeseed (Brassica napus L.), the transferred genes were mainly those traits related to insect resistance (Du et al, 2007;Lin et al, 2002;Wang et al, 2005), disease resistance (Lan et al, 2000;Ma et al, 2008), herbicide resistance (Graef et al, 2007;Peng et al, 1998;Sakhno et al, 2008), male sterility (He et al, 2003;Engelke et al, 2010), fatty acid synthesis and quality improvement (Knutzon et al, 1999;Stoutjesdijk et al, 2000;Mietkiewska et al, 2008;Shi et al, 2001) and stress tolerance (Wang, 2006). More than 10 GM canola varieties in Canada and other countries had been approved to plant in the commercial production (Lu, 2006, cited from the Chinese journal of Zhongguo Youliao Zuowu Xuebao, 27(4): 106-110).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Insertion Copy Number and Integration Site of T-DNA in the Genome of Transgenic High Oelic Rapeseed (<i>Brassica napus</i> L.)

Chen¹,

Zhang²,

Huang³

et al. 2012

pgt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to acquire the information about the insertion copy number and integration site of T-DNA in the genome of transgenic high oleic acid rapeseed (Brassica napus L.), we isolated the genomic DNA from the transgenic line W-4, the T 2 generation plants, then the transgenic genomic DNA was digested with BamHⅠ prior to conducting Southern bolt with the probe of a segment of NPTⅡ labeled with Dig. The results showed that only one copy of T-DNA was detected to be integrated into the genome of transgenic line W-4. To isolate the flanking sequence of both right border and left border of T-DNA insertion in the genome, the thermal asymmetric interlaced PCR (TAIL-PCR) was employed by using three or four nested specific primers designed based on the sequence of the vector pCNFIRnos and a short arbitrary degenerate primer (AD1 or AD2), respectively. The PCR products corresponding to flanking sequences of the right and left border were specifically amplified. The flanking sequence of right border is 470 bp in length which includes a 290 bp genomic sequence and a 180 bp vector sequence based on analysis of VecScreen, while the left border flanking sequence is 641 bp in length including a 365 bp genomic sequence and a 276 bp vector sequence. Further sequence alignment analysis revealed that the 180 bp sequence is identical to the RB border of pCNFIRnos vector, which exists a 62 bp deletion, whereas the later of 276 bp is better identical to the left border of pCNFIRnos vector besides a change from G to A happened. Therefore, it was suggested that the integration of the T-DNA in the genome of transgenic line W-4 should be a kind of vector backbone-free integration. Furthermore, there is no any information about homologous sequence of acquired flanking sequences found in the genome based on the Blastn analysis, which implied that the T-DNA should be integrated into non-coding region of the genome. In conclusion, we considered that the information about the T-DNA insertion copy number, integration site and flanking sequences in the genome of the transgenic rapeseed W-4 might be very useful for the biosafety assessment of genetically modified rapeseed and for the indentification of the transgenic high oleic acid rapeseed.

show abstract

Agricultural practice changes with cultivating genetically modified herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape

Cited by 28 publications

References 39 publications

Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union. A review

Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union. A review

Relevance of genetically modified crops in light of future environmental and legislative challenges to the agri‐environment

Analysis of Insertion Copy Number and Integration Site of T-DNA in the Genome of Transgenic High Oelic Rapeseed (<i>Brassica napus</i> L.)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About