Coleopteran-specific Cry3Bb Toxin from Transgenic Corn Pollen Does Not Affect the Fitness of a Nontarget Species,Coleomegilla maculataDeGeer (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae)

Lundgren, Jonathan G.; Wiedenmann, Robert N.

doi:10.1603/0046-225x-31.6.1213

Cited by 99 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…maculata has been selected as a surrogate for assessing nontarget effects of IRGE crops because of the importance of coccinellids as natural enemies for controlling many kinds of insect pests in various crop systems, and the amenability of C. maculata in laboratory settings (Pilcher et al 1997, Riddick et al 1998, Duan et al 2002, Lundgren et al 2002. In previous studies, larvae or adults of C. maculata were generally exposed to Cry toxins by ingesting intoxicated prey (tri-trophic study) or plant tissue (Lundgren et al 2004, Moser et al 2008.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both larvae and adults of C. maculata are predaceous, feeding on aphids, thrips, and lepidopteran eggs and larvae (Hoffmann andFrodsham 1993, Duan et al 2002), Lundgren et al 2002. In addition to prey, C. maculata may also feed on various fungi or plant tissues, such as seedling, pollen, sap, and nectar as alternative food sources (Pemberton and Vandenberg 1993;Duan et al 2002;Wiedenmann 2002, 2004;Moser et al 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, this species is likely exposed to Cry proteins in Bt crops directly through pollen feeding. This together with the fact that the species can be easily reared and tested in the laboratory makes it a good surrogate for the assessment of nontarget effects of IRGE crops (Pilcher et al 2005, Riddick et al 1998, Duan et al 2002, Lundgren et al 2002. Limitations of working with this species are, however, the lack of an appropriate artiÞcial diet in which test proteins can be easily incorporated in high concentrations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Development of a Tier-1 Assay for Assessing the Toxicity of Insecticidal Substances Against Coleomegilla maculata

Ostrem

Romeis

et al. 2011

env. entom.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To assess the potential dietary effects of insecticidal substances on the predacious ladybird beetle, Coleomegilla maculata De Geer, a Tier-1 laboratory testing system was developed. Artificial diets using shrimp eggs were developed, and a tier-1 bioassay examining C. maculata development and survival was designed based on those diets. To further measure the artificial diet in a Tier-1 testing system, larvae of C. maculata were fed the diet treated with different concentrations of an inorganic stomach poison, potassium arsenate (PA), or a cysteine protease inhibitor, E-64. The results demonstrated that the testing system was capable of detecting the dietary effects of both substances on the survival and development ofC. maculata. With increasing concentrations of PA in the diet, fewer larvae developed to adults, with only 22.7% larvae surviving to the adult stage in the treatment with the highest content of PA (32 µg/g of diet). Likewise, dose-dependent responses also were found for other life-table parameters of C. maculata. Similar to the assays with PA, the survival rates of C. maculata consistently decreased with increasing E-64 content in the diet. Survival analysis showed that the insects fed E-64 at 50, 150, and 450 µg/g in the diet had significantly lower survival rates compared with those on the untreated artificial diet. The study presented here describes a robust testing system that will be useful for assessing the potential hazard (or toxicity) effects after dietary exposure of insecticidal compounds produced by GE plants or conventional insecticides on the ladybird predator, C. maculata. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. ABSTRACT To assess the potential dietary effects of insecticidal substances on the predacious ladybird beetle, Coleomegilla maculata De Geer, a Tier-1 laboratory testing system was developed. ArtiÞcial diets using shrimp eggs were developed, and a tier-1 bioassay examining C. maculata development and survival was designed based on those diets. To further measure the artiÞcial diet in a Tier-1 testing system, larvae of C. maculata were fed the diet treated with different concentrations of an inorganic stomach poison, potassium arsenate (PA), or a cysteine protease inhibitor, E-64. The results demonstrated that the testing system was capable of detecting the dietary effects of both substances on the survival and development of C. maculata. With increasing concentrations of PA in the diet, fewer larvae developed to adults, with only 22.7% larvae surviving to the adult stage in the treatment with the highest content of PA (32 g/g of diet). Likewise, dose-dependent responses also were found for other life-table parameters of C. maculata. Similar to the assays with PA, the survival rates of C. maculata consistently decreased with increasing E-64 content in the die...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development of a Tier-1 Assay for Assessing the Toxicity of Insecticidal Substances Against Coleomegilla maculata

Ostrem

Romeis

et al. 2011

env. entom.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Experimental assessments of the compatibility of GM crops on biological control agents 3.1. Effects of non-prey foods derived from insect-resistant crops Laboratory feeding assays indicate that pollen, vegetative tissues, and seeds from commercialized Bt events do not affect natural enemies in the laboratory (Pilcher et al, 1997;Armer et al, 2000;Lundgren and Wiedenmann, 2002;Geng et al, 2006;Mullin et al, 2005;Ludy and Lang, 2006b;Obrist et al, 2006b;Torres et al, 2006;Li et al, 2008) and there have been no consistent direct deleterious effects of Bt crops on field populations of predators (see below for a discussion on primary parasitoids in Bt crops). Other insecticidal compounds expressed by not-yet-commercialized GM plants, such as those expressing snowdrop lectin (Galanthus nivalis L. agglutinin; GNA) appear to be more deleterious to natural enemies.…”

Section: Conservation Tillage and Biological Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological compatibility of GM crops and biological control

et al. 2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant genetically modified (GM) crops pervade many modern cropping systems (especially field-cropping systems), and present challenges and opportunities for developing biologically based pest-management programs. Interactions between biological control agents (insect predators, parasitoids, and pathogens) and GM crops exceed simple toxicological relationships, a priority for assessing risk of GM crops to non-target species. To determine the compatibility of biological control and insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant GM crop traits within integrated pest-management programs, this synthesis prioritizes understanding the bi-trophic and prey/host-mediated ecological pathways through which natural enemies interact within cropland communities, and how GM crops alter the agroecosystems in which natural enemies live. Insect-resistant crops can affect the quantity and quality of non-prey foods for natural enemies, as well as the availability and quality of both target and non-target pests that serve as prey/hosts. When they are used to locally eradicate weeds, herbicide-tolerant crops alter the agricultural landscape by reducing or changing the remaining vegetational diversity. This vegetational diversity is fundamental to biological control when it serves as a source of habitat and nutritional resources. Some inherent qualities of both biological control and GM crops provide opportunities to improve upon sustainable IPM systems. For example, biological control agents may delay the evolution of pest resistance to GM crops, and suppress outbreaks of secondary pests not targeted by GM plants, while herbicide-tolerant crops facilitate within-field management of vegetational diversity that can enhance the efficacy of biological control agents. By examining the ecological compatibility of biological control and GM crops, and employing them within an IPM framework, the sustainability and profitability of farming may be improved. RightsWorks produced by employees of the U.S. Government as part of their official duties are not copyrighted within the U.S. The content of this document is not copyrighted. b s t r a c tInsect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant genetically modified (GM) crops pervade many modern cropping systems (especially field-cropping systems), and present challenges and opportunities for developing biologically based pest-management programs. Interactions between biological control agents (insect predators, parasitoids, and pathogens) and GM crops exceed simple toxicological relationships, a priority for assessing risk of GM crops to non-target species. To determine the compatibility of biological control and insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant GM crop traits within integrated pest-management programs, this synthesis prioritizes understanding the bi-trophic and prey/host-mediated ecological pathways through which natural enemies interact within cropland communities, and how GM crops alter the agroecosystems in which natural enemies live. Insect-resistant crops can...

show abstract

“…En lien avec l'action des toxines du Bt contre certains groupes d'insectes, des effets négatifs ont été notés dans les cas où l'espèce considérée était apparentée à l'insecte visé par la toxine exprimée. Pour les hybrides de maïs exprimant la toxine Cry1Ab, par exemple, des effets négatifs ont été observés contre certains lépidoptères apparentés à la pyrale du maïs (Felke et al 2002; Hansen Jesse et Obrycki 2000;Losey et al 1999;Pilcher et al 1997a;Zangerl et al 2001), alors qu'aucun effet significatif n'était observé, en champ comme en laboratoire, pour une gamme d'espèces plus éloignées incluant des pucerons, des acariens et divers arthropodes omnivores (Duan et al 2002;Head et al 2001;Lozzia et al 1998Lozzia et al , 2000Lumbierres et al 2004;Lundgren et Wiedenmann 2002;Obrist et al 2005;Pilcher et al 1997b). Dans le cas d'une ingestion de toxine via le pollen, les impacts négatifs observés pour certains lépidoptères étaient associés systéma-tiquement à l'hybride Event 176 (Felke et al 2002; Hansen Jesse et Obrycki 2000;Losey et al 1999;Stanley-Horn et al 2001;Zangerl et al 2001), reconnu pour sa teneur élevée en protéine recombinante dans les tissus du pollen.…”

unclassified

Impact environnemental des cultures transgéniques

Michaud

2006

phyto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

La publication d’un article scientifique sur les effets néfastes d’un hybride de maïs transgénique exprimant une δ-endotoxine duBacillus thuringiensiscontre des larves du papillon monarque causait, il y a quelques années, une controverse sans précédent sur l’impact environnemental des caractères recombinants introduits au bagage génétique des cultures agricoles. Le présent article de synthèse, complémentaire à un article de ce même numéro abordant la migration des transgènes dans l’environnement (Michaud 2005), discute de l’impact des caractères recombinants encodés par les transgènes sur l’incidence et le développement des différents organismes vivants du milieu. L’impact des nouveaux caractères est d’abord considéré à l’échelle des écosystèmes, à la lumière des effets exercés par les pratiques agricoles courantes sur la diversité biologique au champ. L’impact de ces caractères est ensuite considéré en fonction des interactions spécifiques établies au champ ou en conditions de laboratoire entre la plante modifiée et une gamme d’espèces modèles incluant des ravageurs herbivores secondaires, des arthropodes prédateurs et différents organismes du sol.

show abstract

Coleopteran-specific Cry3Bb Toxin from Transgenic Corn Pollen Does Not Affect the Fitness of a Nontarget Species,Coleomegilla maculataDeGeer (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae)

Cited by 99 publications

References 22 publications

Development of a Tier-1 Assay for Assessing the Toxicity of Insecticidal Substances Against <I>Coleomegilla maculata</I>

Development of a Tier-1 Assay for Assessing the Toxicity of Insecticidal Substances Against <I>Coleomegilla maculata</I>

Ecological compatibility of GM crops and biological control

Impact environnemental des cultures transgéniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About