The DOI matches its Crossref record; 319 of the 352 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 6 of the 176 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control
Open accessAbstract
• Insecticidal Bt crops were grown on more than 100 million hectares in 2017. • Risk assessment considers exposure and toxicity of natural enemies to Bt proteins. • Bt proteins appear not to harm natural enemies. • Reduced insecticide use in Bt crops can enhance the conservation of natural enemies. • Bt technology represents a powerful tool for IPM. Genetically engineered (GE) crops producing insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) (mainly Cry proteins) have become a major control tactic for a number of key lepidopteran and coleopteran pests, mainly in maize, cotton, and soybean. As with any management tactic, there is concern that using GE crops might cause adverse effects on valued non-target species, including arthropod predators and parasitoids that contribute to biological control. Such potential risks are addressed prior to the commercial release of any new GE plant. Over the past 20+ years, extensive experience and insight have been gained through laboratory and field-based studies of the non-target effects of crops producing Cry proteins. Overall, the vast majority of studies demonstrates that the insecticidal proteins deployed today cause no unintended adverse effects to natural enemies. Furthermore, when Bt crops replace synthetic chemical insecticides for target pest control, this creates an environment supportive of the conservation of natural enemies. As part of an overall integrated pest management (IPM) strategy, Bt crops can contribute to more effective biological control of both target and non-target pests. The growing use of insecticidal seed treatments in major field crops (Bt or not) may dampen the positive gains realized through reductions in foliar and soil insecticides. Nonetheless, Bt technology represents a powerful tool for IPM.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This review synthesizes 20+ years of evidence and concludes that Bt crops generally cause no unintended adverse effects on arthropod natural enemies and can support conservation biological control when they replace broad-spectrum insecticides. However, insecticidal seed treatments may dampen these benefits.
Key findings
- Bt crops expressing Cry/Vip proteins were grown on 101 million hectares worldwide in 2017, with adoption above 80% in some regions; herbicide-tolerant GE crops were grown on 166.4 million hectares. Bt eggplant use in Bangladesh rose from 20 farmers in 2014 to over 27,000 in 2018.
- Laboratory bitrophic studies covered 20 natural enemy species from 6 orders and 12 families; tritrophic studies with confirmed or expected exposure covered 6 hymenopteran parasitoids from 4 families, 32 predators from 12 families in 5 orders, and one entomopathogenic nematode. Meta-analysis found no negative effects of Bt plants/Cry proteins on natural enemies; parasitoid reproduction was higher on Bt-fed hosts, driven by a single study, and removing that study reduced the effect size to a non-significant 0.0633.
- As of late 2008, over 63 field studies covering six classes, >21 orders, and >185 species concluded that nontarget effects of Bt crops are minimal or negligible, especially compared with insecticide use. A notable exception is specialist parasitoids in Bt maize, whose abundance may decline when their target hosts are effectively controlled.
- In Arizona Bt cotton, the IPM strategy cumulatively saved growers over $500 million since 1996 ($274/ha/year) and prevented over 25 million pounds of active ingredient from being used; Bt cotton was described as a keystone technology enabling conservation biological control.
Methods
- Narrative review with quantitative synthesis of laboratory bitrophic and tritrophic studies and field studies on Bt crops and natural enemies.
- Meta-analysis of tritrophic studies used Hedge’s d, a random effects model, bias-corrected bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals, and MetaWin v2.1; only one independent metric per life-history trait was retained, and for multigeneration studies the final exposed generation was used.
- Field evidence was summarized from prior meta-analyses and case studies in Bt cotton and Bt maize systems.
Limitations
- Stated: agro-ecosystem complexity means indirect effects may only become visible once GE plants are grown in farmer fields; effects of herbicide-tolerant crop systems on arthropods and biological control are difficult to predict; insecticidal seed treatments may counteract gains from reduced foliar and soil insecticides; some claimed unexpected non-target effects were not verified and likely artifacts.
- Stated/evident: Bt technology is largely limited to maize, cotton, and soybean and to relatively few countries in Europe and Africa, so conclusions depend on the available published studies.
- Evident: this is a review with an embedded meta-analysis, not new empirical field or laboratory data; the parasitoid reproduction result was driven by a single study and became non-significant when that study was removed.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
104 Not checked yet · 50 Own interpretation · 14 No basis given · 8 Own result · 5 Own method · 2 Partly supported · 1 Supported so far · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“An example is modified Cry51Aa2 protein (Cry51Aa2.834_16)that protects cotton against feeding damage caused by hemipteran and thysanopteran pests (Baum et al., 2012;Gowda et al., 2016;Bachman et al., 2017).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 8. Outlook
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Baum et al., 2012 source
- Partly supportedcites Gowda et al., 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Field insect bioassays; page not provided) report that cotton expressing Cry51Aa2.834_16 reduced populations of two Lygus species, which are hemipteran pests. The paper does not report protection against thysanopteran pests, and the field trials measured insect numbers rather than feeding damage directly. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Supportedcites Bachman et al., 2017 source
The Introduction identifies Cry51Aa2.834_16 as the modified protein produced by MON 88702 cotton and states that it protects against feeding damage from certain hemipteran and thysanopteran pests. The Discussion reports activity against hemipteran pests and field protection against feeding damage from thrips (Thysanoptera). The claim is supported as referring to susceptible pests, not every species in those orders. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eliminating this study reduced the effect size to a non-significant 0.0633.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 5.3. Tritrophic studies
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This result was driven by a single study where parasitoids (Cotesia plutellae; Hymenoptera: Braconidae) were offered a choice between Bt resistant Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) caterpillars on Bt compared with non-Bt oilseed rape in field simulators in the laboratory (Schuler et al., 2003).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 5.3. Tritrophic studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schuler et al., 2003 source
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The majority of studies tested material from Bt-transgenic maize, followed by rice, potato, and cotton.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 5.2. Bitrophic studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Results mirror those found in prior meta-analyses with fewer studies (Naranjo, 2009) in showing that a variety of Bt plants and Cry proteins have no negative effects on a broad range of natural enemy species when the non-target species were exposed in an ecologically realistic manner (Fig. 4).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 5.3. Tritrophic studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Naranjo, 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Through a literature review, we have retrived 68 publications presenting the results from such tritrophic studies using Bt plant material as the test substance.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 5.3. Tritrophic studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We re-ran the analyses eliminating all studies that used herbivores as host or prey that did not contain Cry proteins (Table S1).The results were similar.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 5.3. Tritrophic studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To our knowledge, bitrophic studies, where natural enemies were directly fed with Bt plant material, have been conducted on a total of 20 species from 6 orders and 12 families (Table 1).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 5.2. Bitrophic studies
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With two exceptions, exposure of the natural enemies to the plant produced Cry proteins has been confirmed or can be expected given the test system and the feeding mode of the test organism.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 5.2. Bitrophic studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With the exception of four studies, none of the bitrophic studies has reported putative adverse effects of the Bt plant on the natural enemies when compared with the respective control plant.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 5.2. Bitrophic studies
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 54
- Probably not a substantial claim. 20
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“There is evidence that Bt crops can reduce target pest populations over broad scales (Carrière et al., 2003;Dively et al., 2018;Hutchison et al., 2010;Wan et al., 2012;Wu et al., 2008;Zhang et al., 2018) resulting in reduced damage on both GE and non-GE crops in the region.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Carrière et al., 2003 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract reports that abundant Bt cotton suppressed pink bollworm populations across 15 Arizona regions, supporting the broad-scale pest-suppression claim. The Results and Discussion report regional population declines, but do not establish reduced crop damage on both Bt and non-Bt cotton. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Supportedcites Dively et al., 2018 source
The Abstract reports regional suppression of target pests associated with widespread Bt maize adoption and decreased crop injury in vegetables outside the Bt maize fields. The Significance section states that this regional suppression benefited vegetable growers through reduced crop damage; the Abstract also describes pest control in Bt crops themselves. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites Hutchison et al., 2010 source
The paper reports that Bt maize use is associated with areawide suppression of European corn borer and that both Bt and non-Bt maize growers benefit. It describes Bt maize as preventing pest damage and attributes benefits for non-Bt growers to areawide suppression (Abstract; page not specified in our copy). (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“The technique has already been successfully applied to crop plants to alter agriculturally important traits such as disease resistance (Wang et al., 2014) and drought tolerance (Shi et al., 2017).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 8. Outlook
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang et al., 2014 source
- Supportedcites Shi et al., 2017 source
The Discussion states that this CRISPR-Cas9 study modified an endogenous maize gene to create variants with a positive effect on drought tolerance. Shi et al. is cited for drought tolerance in the citing sentence; disease resistance is separately attributed to Wang et al. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For parasitoids, studies tended to use Bt-resistant hosts more, but again the results were the same regardless of the type of host.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 5.3. Tritrophic studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For predators, the majority of studies used non-susceptible prey and the results were exactly the same whether using non-susceptible or Bt-resistant prey (not shown).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 5.3. Tritrophic studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Effect sizes were generally larger for parasitoids and analyses indicated that reproduction (number of progeny) was actually higher when their hosts had fed on Bt plants compared with non-Bt plants.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 5.3. Tritrophic studies
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most commonly used test substance was pollen.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 5.2. Bitrophic studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Overall, the Arizona cotton IPM strategy has cumulatively saved growers over $500 million since 1996 in yield protection and control costs ($274/ha/year), while preventing over 25 million pounds of active ingredient from being used in the environment (Ellsworth et al., 2018).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 7.1. Bt cotton
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ellsworth et al., 2018
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Genetically engineered (GE) crops producing insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) (mainly Cry proteins) have become a major control tactic for a number of key lepidopteran and coleopteran pests, mainly in maize, cotton, and soybean.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites ISAAA, 2017
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Maize pollen is relatively heavy and deposited mainly within or in close proximity to the maize field, which limits exposure of arthropods offcrop, although certain wind conditions may lead to pollen drift over several kilometers (Sanvido et al., 2008).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 4.4. Exposure in off-crop habitats
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sanvido et al., 2008 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) assessed the environmental impact of HT maize and soybean and concluded that their cultivation is unlikely to raise additional environmental safety concerns compared to conventional maize or soybean in most conditions”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > Box 1
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In 2017, GE varieties expressing one or several insecticidal genes from Bt were grown on a total of 101 million hectares worldwide, reaching adoption levels above 80% in some regions (ISAAA, 2017; Fig. 1).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 2. GE plant cultivation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites ISAAA, 2017
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“From a practical standpoint, because not all natural enemies potentially at risk can be tested, a representative subset of species (surrogates) is selected for assessment (Carstens et al., 2014;Romeis et al., 2013b;Wach et al., 2016).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 3. Non-target risk assessment of GE plants
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These so-called pyramid events are more effective in controlling the target pests and help to slow down the evolution of resistance (Gressel et al., 2017;Huang, 2015;Que et al., 2010;Zhao et al. 2005).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 2. GE plant cultivation
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For insecticidal proteins in GE plants to directly affect a natural enemy, the organism has to ingest the toxin (exposure, see Section 4) and be susceptible to it (toxicity, see Section 5).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 3. Non-target risk assessment of GE plants
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“GE insect resistant crops have been grown on a large scale for more than 20 years, and there is considerable experience and knowledge on how they can affect natural enemies and how their risks can be assessed prior to commercialization.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 1. Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Natural enemies can be exposed to plant produced-Bt proteins when feeding directly on plant tissue, or via prey or host species that have consumed Bt plant material (Fig. 2, routes 1 and 2).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 4.1. Concentration of Bt proteins in plant material
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Care was taken to preserve independence in observations from any one study and to use metrics that reflected the longest exposure to the Cry protein.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 5.3. Tritrophic studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, herbivores and other arthropods that have ingested Bt protein from the Bt crop may leave the field and expose natural enemies off-crop (Fig. 2, route 7).Because of the rapid excretion and digestion, however, this route of exposure is temporally very limited.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 4.4. Exposure in off-crop habitats
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The available data indicate that these pyramided insecticidal proteins typically act additively in sensitive species and cause no unexpected effects in species that are not sensitive to the individual toxins (Graser et al., 2017;Guo et al., 2016;Haller et al. 2017;Kumar et al., 2014;Levine et al., 2016;Raybould et al., 2012;Shu et al., 2018;Su et al., 2015;Svobodová et al., 2017;Tian et al., 2014T”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 5. Toxicity of insecticidal proteins produced in GE plants
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Relevant data were extracted from the identified studies (Tables S1 and S2) for various life history traits that have a bearing on population dynamics and biological control function (immature development, immature and adult survival, fecundity, parasitism and predation).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 5.3. Tritrophic studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We further retained only data from studies in which the plant was used as the source of the Cry protein, although this plant material could have been incorporated into an artificial diet.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 5.3. Tritrophic studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Pollen, plant debris, and also exudates from living roots or exudes from decaying plant material might enter small streams that often run close to agricultural fields (Rosi-Marshall et al., 2007;Tank et al., 2010).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 4.4. Exposure in off-crop habitats
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The non-Bt plants used were generally isolines or near-isolines of the Bt plants (> 90% of studies); the remaining studies did not provide sufficient information.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 5.3. Tritrophic studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A random effects model was used for analyses to enable a broad inference of effects and bias-corrected, bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals were used to determine if the effect size differed from zero.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 5.3. Tritrophic studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While these studies offer realistic trophic scenarios, because aphids are common prey and hosts in crop fields, they are not suitable for testing the direct effects of Cry proteins on natural enemies.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 5.3. Tritrophic studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With the introduction in 2006 of a selective insecticide for Lygus hesperus (Hemiptera: Miridae) the package was complete and overall insecticide use statewide for cotton was dramatically reduced.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 7.1. Bt cotton
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In the USA, neonicitinoid seed-treatments for cotton is common in some production regions (Allen et al., 2018;North et al., 2018;Toews et al., 2010), where it can provide economic control of thrips during the seedling establishment period (North et al., 2018).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 7.1. Bt cotton
What the sources say
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The impacts of such usage on arthropod natural enemies in not well understood in cotton, but some data suggest minimal effects at recommended doses (Saeed et al. 2016).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 7.1. Bt cotton
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Saeed et al. 2016 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nonetheless, extant data suggests that Bt crops do not alter the function of the natural enemy community and may provide for enhanced biological control services if they prevent or reduce the alternative use of broader-spectrum insecticides for control of the Bt targeted pest.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 6. Impacts of Bt crops on arthropod natural enemy abundance and function in the field
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Further, it has been suggested that such early tier laboratory studies can conservatively predict non-target effects expected in the field (Duan et al., 2010).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 6. Impacts of Bt crops on arthropod natural enemy abundance and function in the field
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Duan et al., 2010 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The quickly increased adoption of Bt cotton led to broad, areawide control of the pest (Carrière et al., 2003) and opened the door for an opportunity to eradicate this invasive pest.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 7.1. Bt cotton
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Carrière et al., 2003 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In China, a large-scale study demonstrated that the decline in insecticide sprays in Bt cotton resulted in an increased abundance of important natural enemies and an associated decline in aphid populations (Lu et al., 2012).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 7.1. Bt cotton
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lu et al., 2012
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, Bt crops represent a highly selective control tactic that should conserve natural enemies and contribute to enhanced management of pests, especially if Bt crops replace the application of broad-spectrum insecticides for control of Bt targeted pests.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 6. Impacts of Bt crops on arthropod natural enemy abundance and function in the field
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This provided clear evidence that the commonly used insecticides harmed the internal parasitoid while Cry1C did not.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 5.3. Tritrophic studies
boosteddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Overall, Brookes and Barfoot (2018) estimate massive reductions in foliar insecticide use in Bt cotton production globally, pointing strongly to the potential for conservation biological control to play an important and ever increasing role in IPM more broadly in this crop system.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 7.1. Bt cotton
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brookes and Barfoot (2018)
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Bt cotton became a cornerstone element in the pink bollworm eradication program initiated in 2006 in Arizona, and insecticide use for this pest ceased entirely by 2008 (Naranjo and Ellsworth, 2010).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 7.1. Bt cotton
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Naranjo and Ellsworth, 2010
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This pattern was associated with a disproportionately larger reduction in broad-spectrum insecticides resulting in a situation where most of the few insecticides now applied are those that more selectively target the pests and conserve natural enemies.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 7.1. Bt cotton
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Again, adverse effects on the natural enemies were observed in the pyrethroid treatment but not in the case of Bt broccoli.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 5.3. Tritrophic studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tian et al., 2015 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The use of seed treated with various neonicitinoids has become pervasive in several field crops in the USA (Douglas and Tooker, 2015;Papiernik et al., 2018) and potentially negates to some degree the reduction in insecticides possible through the deployment of Bt crops.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 7.1. Bt cotton
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Douglas and Tooker, 2015
- Not checked yetcites Papiernik et al., 2018 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“They noted that when biological control was disrupted, it often led to an 'insecticide treadmill' for the pests which, in turn, led to their eventual resistance to the insecticides.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 7.3. Importance of natural enemies for resistance management
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Smith and Hagen, 1959
- Not checked yetcites Stern and van den Bosch, 1959
- Not checked yetcites Stern et al., 1959
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Studies on the widespread adoption of Bt maize in the Midwestern USA corn belt have demonstrated a dramatic decline in populations of O. nubilalis, and thus the need for insecticide treatments for this key lepidopteran pest.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 7.2. Bt maize
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Simulations demonstrated that parasitism by D. insulare provided the most reliable long-term control of P. xylostella within this system and always delayed the evolution of resistance to Bt broccoli.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 7.3. Importance of natural enemies for resistance management
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Onstad et al., 2013 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, as noted, there has been a trend in the USA to add neonicotinoid seed treatments and to date virtually all maize seeds sold are treated (Douglas and Tooker, 2015;Sappington et al., 2018).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 7.2. Bt maize
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Douglas and Tooker, 2015
- Not checked yetcites Sappington et al., 2018 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This insurance approach is targeting a number of early-season pests that occur only sporadic but for some of which rescue treatments are not available (Gray, 2011;Sappington et al., 2018).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 7.2. Bt maize
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“where cowpea is the most important grain legume (Murdock et al., 2008).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 8. Outlook
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Murdock et al., 2008
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Recent work suggests that seed treatments in maize can negatively impact some natural enemy populations early season even though there is recovery later on (Disque et al., 2018).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 7.2. Bt maize
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Disque et al., 2018
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In a greenhouse study over multiple generations, use of C. maculata and Bt broccoli provided excellent control of P. xylostella while delaying resistance in P. xylostella to Bt broccoli (Liu et al., 2014).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 7.3. Importance of natural enemies for resistance management
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Liu et al., 2014
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Furthermore, this study demonstrated that Bt sweet corn provided better control of lepidopteran pests, and did not negatively affect the predation rates of sentinel egg masses of the European corn borer, as did lambda cyhalothrin and indoxacarb.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 7.2. Bt maize
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Musser and Shelton, 2003 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Unlike most of the cotton production region in the US, the use of treated seed in Arizona is relatively rare (< 13% of acreage, P. Ellsworth, personal communication), mainly because plants in this production environment can quickly outgrow any minor thrips damage and some species such as Frankliniella occidentalis (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) are actually considered beneficial (Gonzalez et al., 1982;”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 7.1. Bt cotton
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gonzalez et al., 1982
- Not checked yetcites Trichilo and Leigh, 1986
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While these studies document lower pest pressure because of wide spread adoption of Bt maize and less need for insecticidal sprays, by implication they also suggest that widespread conservation of natural enemies may be occurring.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 7.2. Bt maize
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Furthermore, this decline occurred not only for those who adopted Bt maize, but also for surrounding maize farmers that did not (Hutchinson et al., 2010).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 7.2. Bt maize
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hutchinson et al., 2010
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A similar 'halo' effect of lepidopteran suppression by the widespread adoption of Bt maize in the eastern USA has also been documented, as well as the benefits of pest declines in surrounding vegetable fields (Dively et al., 2018).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 7.2. Bt maize
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dively et al., 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As described previously, multiple studies have shown that Cry1 proteins expressed in plants control targeted Lepidoptera but do not harm important natural enemies, thus conserving them to function as biological control agents.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 7.3. Importance of natural enemies for resistance management
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“While two lines expressing a cry1Ab/Ac fusion gene have received biosafety certificates by the Ministry of Agriculture already in 2009, no Bt rice is commercialized yet (Li et al., 2016).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 8. Outlook
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Li et al., 2016
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As expected and intended, the insecticidal proteins deployed today have a narrow spectrum of activity and cause no detrimental unintended effects to natural enemies.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 9. Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, the change in insecticide use has benefitted non-target species in general and biological control in particular.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 9. Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These techniques allow the knock-out of a specific gene.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 8. Outlook
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A compound that is of particular interest is the alpha-amylase inhibitor αAI-1 from the green bean that has been introduced into various other legumes and shown to provide very high levels of protection from certain (susceptible) bruchid (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) species (Lüthi et al., 2013a;Morton et al., 2000).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 8. Outlook
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lüthi et al., 2013a
- Not checked yetcites Morton et al., 2000 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Suppression of Snf7 has been reported to cause increased D. v. virgifera larval mortality leading to reduced root damage (Bolognesi et al., 2012).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 8. Outlook
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bolognesi et al., 2012 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The potential of RNAi for pest control has first been demonstrated in 2007 for H. armigera and Diabrotica virgifera virgifera (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) (Baum et al., 2007;Mao et al., 2007).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 8. Outlook
What the sources say
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In addition to Bt, effective toxins have also been isolated from other bacteria including species of Pseudomonas (Anderson et al., 2018) and Chromobacter (Sampson et al. 2017) that might be expressed in future insect-resistant GE plants.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 8. Outlook
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Other examples of nonconstitutive promoters include tissue-specific and inducible promoters that may help not only limit exposure to natural enemies but can be used for resistance management (Bates et al., 2005).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 8. Outlook
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bates et al., 2005 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: In today's Bt-transgenic plants, expression of insecticidal genes is driven by constitutive promotors (e.g., CaMV 35s) and the proteins are constantly produced in most plant tissues.
In the paper
“Interestingly, resistance was not sequence-specific but caused by an impaired luminal uptake, indicated by cross resistance to other dsRNAs tested.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 8. Outlook
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Khajuria et al., 2018 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The first insect-resistant dsRNA-expressing GE crop was registered by the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) in June 2017 (https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-registers- innovative-tool-control-corn-rootworm).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 8. Outlook
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-registers- innovative-tool-control-corn-rootworm
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In general, dietary RNAi works very well in Coleoptera but less so in Lepidoptera (Baum and Roberts, 2014).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 8. Outlook
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Baum and Roberts, 2014
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The efficacy of Bt-transgenic crops in controlling important target pests has been very high.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 9. Conclusions
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, such insect-resistant GE varieties can not only help to increase yields and provide economic benefits to farmers but also improve environmental and human health.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 9. Conclusions
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“New plant breeding techniques, such as genome editing that are protein-mediated or based on sequence-specific nucleases are continuously been developed (Baltes and Voytas, 2015).”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 8. Outlook
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Baltes and Voytas, 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“There is compelling evidence that GM crops can contribute to sustainable development goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and the economy.”
§ Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control > 9. Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites EASAC, 2013
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The published laboratory and field studies reviewed are representative and unbiased with respect to the non-target effects of Bt crops.
“Over the past 20+ years, extensive experience and insight have been gained through laboratory and field-based studies of the non-target effects of crops producing Cry proteins.”
“Overall, the vast majority of studies demonstrates that the insecticidal proteins deployed today cause no unintended adverse effects to natural enemies.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In today's Bt-transgenic plants, expression of insecticidal genes is driven by constitutive promotors (e.g., CaMV 35s) and the proteins are constantly produced in most plant tissues.
“In today's Bt-transgenic plants, the expression of the insecticidal genes is driven by constitutive promotors (i.e., CaMV 35s) and the proteins are constantly produced in most plant tissues.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The CYP71A1 gene encodes an enzyme that catalyzes the conversion of tryptamine to serotonin.
“The gene encodes for an enzyme that catalyzes the conversion of tryptamine to serotonin.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“numerous non-target laboratory studies with a wide range of taxa using purified Bt proteins, plant material, or prey that had consumed Bt proteins have demonstrated the specificity of Cry1- and Cry2-class proteins to Lepidoptera and Cry3-class proteins to Chrysomelidae (Coleoptera) [47, 61–63].”
From Does the growing of Bt maize change abundance or ecological function of non-target animals compared to the growing of non-GM maize? A systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [61]
Citations
Cites
The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital
Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., et al. (1997) · Nature · doi:10.1038/387253a0 · Cited by 22,585
Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis
Assessment, M. E. (2005) · Island Press · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18167309 · Cited by 10,665
The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9
Doudna, J. A., & Charpentier, E. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1258096 · Cited by 7,062 · cited 1×
“Of those, CRISPR-Cas9 (Doudna and Charpentier, 2014) has gained the highest importance.”
BackgroundHabitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture
Landis, D. A., Wratten, S. D., & Gurr, G. M. (2000) · Annual Review of Entomology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.45.1.175 · Cited by 3,100 · cited 1×
“One involves habitat manipulations to increase the abundance and activity of natural enemies (Landis et al., 2000), because natural enemies have been shown to benefit from increased landscape complexity (Bianchi et al.”
BackgroundPrice, P. W., Bouton, C. E., Gross, P., McPheron, B. A., Thompson, J. N., & Weis, A. E. (1980) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.es.11.110180.000353 · Cited by 2,298 · cited 2×
“Studies on plant-herbivore-natural enemy interactions reveal that plant defense traits can have negative, positive, or neutral effects on natural enemies (Boethel and Eikenbary, 1986; Hare, 2002; Ode, 2006; Peterson et al., 2016b; Price et al., 1980).”
BackgroundWang, Y., Cheng, X., Shan, Q., Zhang, Y., Liu, J., Gao, C., & Qiu, J.-L. (2014) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.2969 · Cited by 2,072 · cited 1×
“The technique has already been successfully applied to crop plants to alter agriculturally important traits such as disease resistance (Wang et al., 2014) and drought tolerance (Shi et al.”
MethodBianchi, F. J. J. A., Booij, C. J. H., & Tscharntke, T. (2006) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3530 · Cited by 2,031 · cited 1×
“, 2000), because natural enemies have been shown to benefit from increased landscape complexity (Bianchi et al., 2006; Chaplin-Kramer et al., 2011; Veres et al., 2013).”
BackgroundThe Economic Value of Ecological Services Provided by Insects
LOSEY, J. E., & VAUGHAN, M. (2006) · BioScience · doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[311:tevoes]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 1,942
Control of coleopteran insect pests through RNA interference
Baum, J. A., Bogaert, T., Clinton, W., Heck, G. R., Feldmann, P., Ilagan, O., Johnson, S., Plaetinck, G., Munyikwa, T., Pleau, M., et al. (2007) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt1359 · Cited by 1,789
Goergen, G., Kumar, P. L., Sagnia, S. B., Togola, A., & Tamò, M. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0165632 · Cited by 1,770 · cited 8×
“Attempts to construct arthropod food webs and use this information to select the most appropriate surrogate species for testing have also been developed for Bt cowpea in West Africa (Ba et al., 2018), Bt sweet potato in Uganda (Rukarwa et al., 2014), and Bt pine trees in New Zealand (Todd et al., 2008).”
BackgroundInfluentialIRAC: Mode of action classification and insecticide resistance management
Sparks, T. C., & Nauen, R. (2014) · Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology · doi:10.1016/j.pestbp.2014.11.014 · Cited by 1,399 · cited 1×
“, 2013), may play a significant role in limiting the number of cases of resistance to Bt plants to date, especially compared to the ever-increasing cases of resistance to broad-spectrum insecticides (Sparks and Nauen, 2015).”
BackgroundMao, Y.-B., Cai, W.-J., Wang, J.-W., Hong, G.-J., Tao, X.-Y., Wang, L.-J., Huang, Y.-P., & Chen, X.-Y. (2007) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt1352 · Cited by 1,358 · cited 1×
“The potential of RNAi for pest control has first been demonstrated in 2007 for H. armigera and Diabrotica virgifera virgifera (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) (Baum et al., 2007; Mao et al., 2007).”
BackgroundStern, V. M., Smith, R. F., van den Bosch, R., & Hagen, K. S. (1959) · Hilgardia · doi:10.3733/hilg.v29n02p081 · Cited by 1,223
Bacillus thuringiensis: A story of a successful bioinsecticide
Bravo, A., Likitvivatanavong, S., Gill, S. S., & Soberón, M. (2011) · Insect Biochemistry and Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ibmb.2011.02.006 · Cited by 1,163 · cited 1×
“Because Bt proteins are gut-active, they need to be ingested to reveal their insecticidal properties (Bravo et al., 2011).”
BackgroundInsect resistance to Bt crops: lessons from the first billion acres
Tabashnik, B. E., Brévault, T., & Carrière, Y. (2013) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.2597 · Cited by 1,086 · cited 1×
“These findings suggest that biological control, in addition to other factors including refuges and gene expression (Tabashnik et al., 2013), may play a significant role in limiting the number of cases of resistance to Bt plants to date, especially compared to the ever-increasing cases of resistance to broad-spectrum i…”
BackgroundThe environmental consequences of adopting conservation tillage in Europe: reviewing the evidence
Holland, J. M. (2004) · Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/j.agee.2003.12.018 · Cited by 1,062 · cited 1×
“Reduced tillage or no-tillage minimizes the disruption of the soil structure, composition and biodiversity with positive impacts on arthropods and biological control (Holland, 2004; Stinner and House, 1990; Tamburini et al., 2016; Triplett and Dick, 2008).”
BackgroundA meta-analysis of crop pest and natural enemy response to landscape complexity
Chaplin‐Kramer, R., O’Rourke, M. E., Blitzer, E. J., & Kremen, C. (2011) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01642.x · Cited by 1,037 · cited 1×
“, 2000), because natural enemies have been shown to benefit from increased landscape complexity (Bianchi et al., 2006; Chaplin-Kramer et al., 2011; Veres et al., 2013).”
BackgroundShi, J., Gao, H., Wang, H., Lafitte, H. R., Archibald, R. L., Yang, M., Hakimi, S. M., Mo, H., & Habben, J. E. (2017) · Plant Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1111/pbi.12603 · Cited by 1,029
Mechanisms of dsRNA uptake in insects and potential of RNAi for pest control: A review
Huvenne, H., & Smagghe, G. J. (2009) · Journal of Insect Physiology · doi:10.1016/j.jinsphys.2009.10.004 · Cited by 996 · cited 1×
“RNAi effects caused by ingested dsRNA have been shown in various insect orders but with highly variable success rates in the down regulation of the target genes (Baum and Roberts, 2014; Huvenne and Smagghe, 2010).”
BackgroundA Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops
Klümper, W., & Qaim, M. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111629 · Cited by 869 · cited 13×
“Recently, the technology has been applied to eggplant for protection against the eggplant fruit and shoot borer (Leucinodes orbonalis, Lepidoptera: Crambidae) (Hautea et al., 2016).”
ResultInfluentialBiological control and sustainable food production
Bale, J. S., LENTEREN, J. C. V., & Bigler, F. (2007) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2182 · Cited by 826
Widespread adoption of Bt cotton and insecticide decrease promotes biocontrol services
Lu, Y., Wu, K., Jiang, Y., Guo, Y., & Desneux, N. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11153 · Cited by 815
Areawide Suppression of European Corn Borer with Bt Maize Reaps Savings to Non-Bt Maize Growers
Hutchison, W. D., Burkness, E. C., Mitchell, P. D., Moon, R. D., Leslie, T. W., Fleischer, S. J., Abrahamson, M., Hamilton, K. L., Steffey, K. L., Gray, M. E., et al. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1190242 · Cited by 759 · cited 1×
“There is evidence that Bt crops can reduce target pest populations over broad scales (Carrière et al., 2003; Dively et al., 2018; Hutchison et al., 2010; Wan et al., 2012; Wu et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2018) resulting in reduced damage on both GE and non-GE crops in the region.”
BackgroundSuppression of Cotton Bollworm in Multiple Crops in China in Areas with Bt Toxin–Containing Cotton
Wu, K., Lu, Y., Feng, H., Jiang, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1160550 · Cited by 739
Transgenic crops expressing Bacillus thuringiensis toxins and biological control
Romeis, J., Meissle, M., & Bigler, F. (2006) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt1180 · Cited by 719
Self-citationEstruch, J., Warren, G. W., Mullins, M. A., Nye, G., Craig, J. A., & Koziel, M. G. (1996) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.93.11.5389 · Cited by 707 · cited 1×
“However, this bacterium possesses another class of insecticidal proteins, the vegetative insecticidal proteins (Vips), which are synthesized during the vegetative growth phase (Estruch et al., 1996) and have a different mode of action than Cry proteins (Lee et al.”
BackgroundSurge in insect resistance to transgenic crops and prospects for sustainability
Tabashnik, B. E., & Carrière, Y. (2017) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.3974 · Cited by 647 · cited 1×
“With the threat of targeted pests evolving resistance to Bt proteins expressed in plants (Tabashnik and Carrière, 2017), investigations have been undertaken to determine whether natural enemies may help delay resistance to Bt proteins in the targeted”
BackgroundInsect Resistant Cotton Plants
Perlak, F. J., Deaton, R. W., Armstrong, T. A., Fuchs, R. L., Sims, S. R., Greenplate, J. T., & Fischhoff, D. A. (1990) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt1090-939 · Cited by 616
No‐Tillage Crop Production: A Revolution in Agriculture!
Triplett, G. B., & Dick, W. A. (2008) · Agronomy Journal · doi:10.2134/agronj2007.0005c · Cited by 585 · cited 1×
“Reduced tillage or no-tillage minimizes the disruption of the soil structure, composition and biodiversity with positive impacts on arthropods and biological control (Holland, 2004; Stinner and House, 1990; Tamburini et al., 2016; Triplett and Dick, 2008).”
BackgroundPlant Resistance to Arthropods
(2005) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/1-4020-3702-3 · Cited by 582 · cited 2×
“Together with biological control, host plant resistance forms the foundation of sustainable IPM programs (Kennedy, 2008; Smith, 2005; Tingey and Steffens, 1991).”
BackgroundInsect resistance management in GM crops: past present and future
Bates, S. L., Zhao, J.-Z., Roush, R. T., & Shelton, A. M. (2005) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt1056 · Cited by 577 · cited 1×
“Other examples of nonconstitutive promoters include tissue-specific and inducible promoters that may help not only limit exposure to natural enemies but can be used for resistance management (Bates et al., 2005).”
BackgroundSelf-citationCRC handbook of pest management in agriculture
Pimentel, D. (1990) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 545
Douglas, M. R., & Tooker, J. F. (2015) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es506141g · Cited by 544 · cited 1×
“However, as noted, there has been a trend in the USA to add neonicotinoid seed treatments and to date virtually all maize seeds sold are treated (Douglas and Tooker, 2015; Sappington et al., 2018).”
BackgroundOmnivory in Terrestrial Arthropods: Mixing Plant and Prey Diets
Coll, M., & Guershon, M. (2002) · Annual Review of Entomology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.47.091201.145209 · Cited by 544 · cited 1×
“Nectar is an important source of carbohydrates for adult parasitoids and some predators (Coll and Guershon, 2002; Lundgren, 2009), although there is no evidence that nectar contains Cry proteins.”
BackgroundInsect Tolerant Transgenic Tomato Plants
Fischhoff, D. A., Bowdish, K. S., Perlak, F. J., et al. (1987) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt0887-807 · Cited by 529
Assessment of risk of insect-resistant transgenic crops to nontarget arthropods
Romeis, J., Bartsch, D. K., Bigler, F., Candolfi, M. P., Gielkens, M. M. C., Hartley, S. E., Hellmich, R. L., Huesing, J. E., JEPSON, P. C., Layton, R. J., et al. (2008) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt1381 · Cited by 505
Self-citationPLANT CHEMISTRY AND NATURAL ENEMY FITNESS: Effects on Herbivore and Natural Enemy Interactions
Ode, P. J. (2005) · Annual Review of Entomology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.51.110104.151110 · Cited by 505 · cited 1×
“Studies on plant-herbivore-natural enemy interactions reveal that plant defense traits can have negative, positive, or neutral effects on natural enemies (Boethel and Eikenbary, 1986; Hare, 2002; Ode, 2006; Peterson et al., 2016b; Price et al., 1980).”
BackgroundBolognesi, R., Ramaseshadri, P., Anderson, J., Bachman, P., Clinton, W., Flannagan, R., Ilagan, O., Lawrence, C., Levine, S., Moar, W., et al. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047534 · Cited by 473 · cited 2×
“virgifera, which is crucial for the transport of transmembrane proteins (Bachman et al., 2013; Bolognesi et al., 2012).”
BackgroundFull crop protection from an insect pest by expression of long double-stranded RNAs in plastids
Zhang, J., Khan, S. A., Hasse, C., Ruf, S., Heckel, D. G., & Bock, R. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1261680 · Cited by 471
Herbivores: Between Plants and Predators
Hester, A. J. (1999) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2664.1999.00459-6.x · Cited by 458
Does landscape composition affect pest abundance and their control by natural enemies? A review
Veres, A., Petit, S., Conord, C., & Lavigne, C. (2011) · Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/j.agee.2011.05.027 · Cited by 451 · cited 1×
“, 2000), because natural enemies have been shown to benefit from increased landscape complexity (Bianchi et al., 2006; Chaplin-Kramer et al., 2011; Veres et al., 2013).”
BackgroundA Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bt Cotton and Maize on Nontarget Invertebrates
Marvier, M., McCreedy, C., Regetz, J., & Kareiva, P. (2007) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1139208 · Cited by 445 · cited 1×
“, 2009) and several quantitative syntheses (Comas et al., 2014; Dang et al., 2017; Marvier et al., 2007; Naranjo, 2009; Pellegrino et al., 2018; Peterson et al., 2011; Wolfenbarger et al., 2008).”
BackgroundEconomic Value of Biological Control in Integrated Pest Management of Managed Plant Systems
Naranjo, S. E., Ellsworth, P. C., & Frisvold, G. B. (2014) · Annual Review of Entomology · doi:10.1146/annurev-ento-010814-021005 · Cited by 430
Self-citationGuidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants
(GMO), E. P. O. G. M. O. (2010) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1879 · Cited by 428 · cited 3×
“It is thus likely that those results are artifacts, probably resulting from problems in study design (EFSA, 2009; Rauschen, 2010; Ricroch et al., 2010; Romeis et al., 2013a, 2014b).”
ResultBacillus thuringiensis : an environmental biopesticide : theory and practice
Entwistle, P. F. (1993) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 427
Increasing corn for biofuel production reduces biocontrol services in agricultural landscapes
Landis, D. A., Gardiner, M. M., van der Werf, W., & Swinton, S. M. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0804951106 · Cited by 390 · cited 1×
“mated (Losey and Vaugh, 2006), a value that is regarded as extremely conservative (Landis et al., 2008).”
BackgroundArthropods and Other Invertebrates in Conservation-Tillage Agriculture
Stinner, B. R., & House, G. J. (1990) · Annual Review of Entomology · doi:10.1146/annurev.en.35.010190.001503 · Cited by 378 · cited 1×
“Reduced tillage or no-tillage minimizes the disruption of the soil structure, composition and biodiversity with positive impacts on arthropods and biological control (Holland, 2004; Stinner and House, 1990; Tamburini et al., 2016; Triplett and Dick, 2008).”
BackgroundRecruitment of predators and parasitoids by herbivore-injured plants
Turlings, T. C. J., & WÄCKERS, F. L. (2004) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511542664.003 · Cited by 372
Fate and effects of insect-resistant Bt crops in soil ecosystems
Icoz, I., & Stotzky, G. (2008) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.11.002 · Cited by 354
Next-generation insect-resistant plants: RNAi-mediated crop protection
Zhang, J., Khan, S. A., Heckel, D. G., & Bock, R. (2017) · Trends in Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.04.009 · Cited by 348 · cited 1×
“Another promising new development is the use of RNA interference (RNAi) to control arthropod pests by developing plants to produce double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) that silences an essential gene in the target species after ingestion (Burand and Hunter, 2013; Zhang et al., 2017).”
BackgroundDutton, A. C., Klein, H., Romeis, J., & Bigler, F. (2002) · Ecological Entomology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2311.2002.00436.x · Cited by 334 · cited 1×
“magnitude (or even higher) than those found in the leaf tissue (ÁlvarezAlfageme et al., 2008, 2011; Dutton et al., 2002; Guo et al., 2016; Li and Romeis, 2010; Meissle and Romeis, 2009a, 2018; Obrist et al., 2006b,c; Torres and Ruberson, 2008; Svobodová et al., 2017).”
BackgroundSelf-citationInteractions of plant resistance and parasitoids and predators of insects
Scopes, N. E. A. (1986) · Crop Protection · doi:10.1016/0261-2194(86)90081-5 · Cited by 331
Advances in Insect Chemical Ecology
(2004) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511542664 · Cited by 330
Bt Crop Effects on Functional Guilds of Non-Target Arthropods: A Meta-Analysis
Wolfenbarger, L. L., Naranjo, S. E., Lundgren, J. G., Bitzer, R. J., & Watrud, L. S. (2008) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002118 · Cited by 324 · cited 1×
“…and summarized in narrative reviews (Romeis et al., 2006; Sanvido et al., 2007; Lundgren et al., 2009) and several quantitative syntheses (Comas et al., 2014; Dang et al., 2017; Marvier et al., 2007; Naranjo, 2009; Pellegrino et al., 2018; Peterson et al., 2011; Wolfenbarger et al., 2008).”
BackgroundSelf-citationLong-term regional suppression of pink bollworm by Bacillus thuringiensis cotton
Carrière, Y., Ellers-Kirk, C., Sisterson, M., Antilla, L., Whitlow, M., Dennehy, T. J., & Tabashnik, B. E. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0436708100 · Cited by 320 · cited 1×
“pest (Carrière et al., 2003) and opened the door for an opportunity to eradicate this invasive pest.”
BackgroundGenetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects
Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience and Future Prospects, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Studies, D. O. E. A. L., & National Academies of Sciences, E. (2016) · doi:10.17226/23395 · Cited by 320
Lee, M. K., Walters, F. S., Hart, H., Palekar, N., & Chen, J.-S. (2003) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.69.8.4648-4657.2003 · Cited by 315 · cited 1×
“, 1996) and have a different mode of action than Cry proteins (Lee et al., 2003).”
BackgroundMultitrophic Level Interactions
(2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511542190 · Cited by 311
Pilcher, C. D., Obrycki, J. J., Rice, M. E., & Lewis, L. C. (1997) · Environmental Entomology · doi:10.1093/ee/26.2.446 · Cited by 297
Interactions between weeds, arthropod pests, and their natural enemies in managed ecosystems
Norris, R. F., & Kogan, M. (2000) · Weed Science · doi:10.1614/0043-1745(2000)048[0094:ibwapa]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 297
Integration of Insect-Resistant Genetically Modified Crops within IPM Programs
Kennedy, G. G. (2008) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8373-0_1 · Cited by 293 · cited 3×
“…starts with laboratory studies representing highly controlled, worst-case exposure conditions and progresses to bioassays with more realistic exposure to the toxin and semi-field or open field studies carried out under less controlled conditions (Garcia-Alonso et al., 2006; Romeis et al., 2008a).”
BackgroundResistance of rice to insect pests mediated by suppression of serotonin biosynthesis
Lu, H., Luo, T., Hao-wei, F., Wang, L., Tan, Y., Huang, J., Wang, Q., Yè, G., Gatehouse, A. M. R., Lou, Y., et al. (2018) · Nature Plants · doi:10.1038/s41477-018-0152-7 · Cited by 292
Suitability of (extra-)floral nectar, pollen, and honeydew as insect food sources
WÄCKERS, F. L. (2005) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511542220.003 · Cited by 289 · cited 1×
“Consequently, aphid honeydew, which is an important source of energy for both predators and parasitoids (Wäckers, 2005), is a negligible route of exposure to plant-produced Bt proteins (Fig.”
BackgroundHead, G., Carroll, M. W., Evans, S. P., Rule, D. M., Willse, A., Clark, T. L., Storer, N. P., Flannagan, R. D., Samuel, L. W., & Meinke, L. J. (2017) · Pest Management Science · doi:10.1002/ps.4554 · Cited by 284
HOW PLANTS BENEFIT FROM PROVIDING FOOD TO PREDATORS EVEN WHEN IT IS ALSO EDIBLE TO HERBIVORES
van Rijn, P. C. J., van Houten, Y. M., & Sabelis, M. W. (2002) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[2664:hpbfpf]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 276
Morton, R. L., Schroeder, H. E., Bateman, K. S., Chrispeels, M. J., Armstrong, E., & Higgins, T. J. V. (2000) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.070054597 · Cited by 262
Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems
Rosi-Marshall, E. J., Tank, J. L., Royer, T. V., Whiles, M. R., Evans-White, M., Chambers, C., Griffiths, N. A., Pokelsek, J., & Stephen, M. L. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0707177104 · Cited by 254 · cited 1×
“that often run close to agricultural fields (Rosi-Marshall et al., 2007; Tank et al., 2010).”
BackgroundImpacts of Bt crops on non-target invertebrates and insecticide use patterns.
Naranjo, S. E. (2009) · CABI Reviews · doi:10.1079/pavsnnr20094011 · Cited by 252 · cited 8×
“Results mirror those found in prior meta-analyses with fewer studies (Naranjo, 2009) in showing that a variety of Bt plants and Cry proteins have no negative effects on a broad range of natural enemy species when the non-target species were exposed in an ecologically realistic manner (Fig.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSelf-citationKhajuria, C., Ivashuta, S., Wiggins, E., Flagel, L., Moar, W., Pleau, M., Miller, K., Zhang, Y., Ramaseshadri, P., Jiang, C., et al. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0197059 · Cited by 251 · cited 3×
“Combing Bt Cry proteins with RNAi has great potential to delay resistance development (Khajuria et al., 2018; Ni et al., 2017).”
BackgroundBrookes, G. R., & Barfoot, P. (2018) · GM crops & food · doi:10.1080/21645698.2018.1476792 · Cited by 247 · cited 14×
“Recently, the technology has been applied to eggplant for protection against the eggplant fruit and shoot borer (Leucinodes orbonalis, Lepidoptera: Crambidae) (Hautea et al., 2016).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialBachman, P. M., Bolognesi, R., Moar, W. J., Mueller, G. M., Paradise, M. S., Ramaseshadri, P., Tan, J., Uffman, J. P., Warren, J., Wiggins, B. E., et al. (2013) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-013-9716-5 · Cited by 242
RNAi: Future in insect management
Burand, J. P., & Hunter, W. B. (2012) · Journal of Invertebrate Pathology · doi:10.1016/j.jip.2012.07.012 · Cited by 239 · cited 1×
“Another promising new development is the use of RNA interference (RNAi) to control arthropod pests by developing plants to produce double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) that silences an essential gene in the target species after ingestion (Burand and Hunter, 2013; Zhang et al., 2017).”
BackgroundRegional pest suppression associated with widespread Bt maize adoption benefits vegetable growers
Dively, G. P., Venugopal, P. D., Bean, D., Whalen, J., Holmstrom, K., Kuhar, T. P., Doughty, H. B., Patton, T., Cissel, W., & Hutchison, W. D. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1720692115 · Cited by 239 · cited 1×
“also been documented, as well as the benefits of pest declines in surrounding vegetable fields (Dively et al., 2018).”
BackgroundThe American Association for Research into Nervous and Mental Diseases, Hawes, C., Haughton, A. J., Osborne, J. L., Roy, D. B., Clark, S. J., PERRY, J. N., ROTHERY, P., Bohan, D. A., Brooks, D. R., et al. (2003) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2003.1406 · Cited by 237 · cited 1×
“Most importantly, however, crop type and sowing seasons had a far larger impact on the weed and invertebrate composition than the herbicide regime (Hawes et al., 2003; Smith et al., 2008).”
BackgroundRomeis, J., Hellmich, R. L., Candolfi, M. P., Carstens, K., de Schrijver, A., Gatehouse, A. M. R., Herman, R. A., Huesing, J. E., McLean, M. A., Raybould, A. F., et al. (2010) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-010-9446-x · Cited by 232
Self-citationEcology of interactions between weeds and arthropods
Norris, R. F., & Kogan, M. (2005) · Annual Review of Entomology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.49.061802.123218 · Cited by 224
Enabling plant synthetic biology through genome engineering
Baltes, N. J., & Voytas, D. F. (2014) · Trends in biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2014.11.008 · Cited by 223 · cited 1×
“New plant breeding techniques, such as genome editing that are protein-mediated or based on sequence-specific nucleases are continuously been developed (Baltes and Voytas, 2015).”
BackgroundRomeis, J., Dutton, A. C., & Bigler, F. (2003) · Journal of Insect Physiology · doi:10.1016/j.jinsphys.2003.11.004 · Cited by 218
Self-citationZhao, Y., Cao, J. W., Collins, H. L., Bates, S. L., Roush, R. T., Earle, E. D., & Shelton, A. M. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0409324102 · Cited by 217
Self-citationA first report of glyphosate-resistant goosegrass (Eleusine indica (L) Gaertn) in Malaysia
Lee, L. J., & Ngim, J. (2000) · Pest Management Science · doi:10.1002/(sici)1526-4998(200004)56:4 · Cited by 213
Plant-provided food for carnivorous insects: a protective mutualism and its applications
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.43-3383 · Cited by 207
Raps, A., Kehr, J., Gugerli, P., Moar, W. J., Bigler, F., & Hilbeck, A. (2001) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-294x.2001.01236.x · Cited by 205 · cited 1×
“Bt proteins, however, do not seem to enter the phloem sap, which is the food for aphids (Raps et al., 2001).”
BackgroundNaranjo, S. E. (2005) · Environmental Entomology · doi:10.1603/0046-225x(2005)034[1193:laoteo]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 201 · cited 3×
“The impact of Bt crops on the biological control services supplied by generalist arthropod predators have been uniformly neutral in Bt maize (Ahmad et al., 2006) and Bt cotton (Head et al., 2005; Naranjo, 2005b; Olson and Ruberson, 2012; Sisterson et al., 2004).”
BackgroundSelf-citationTrait stacking in transgenic crops: Challenges and opportunities
Que, Q., Chilton, M.-D. M., de Fontes, C. M., He, C., Nuccio, M., Zhu, T., Wu, Y., Chen, J. S., & Shi, L. (2010) · GM Crops · doi:10.4161/gmcr.1.4.13439 · Cited by 191
Impacts of Bt Transgenic Cotton on Integrated Pest Management
Naranjo, S. E. (2010) · Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jf102939c · Cited by 190 · cited 3×
“, 2008) and their role in IPM has received considerable attention (Downes et al., 2017; Gray, 2011; Meissle et al., 2011; Naranjo, 2011; Romeis et al., 2008b; Wilson et al., 2018).”
BackgroundSelf-citationNaranjo, S. E., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2009) · Pest Management Science · doi:10.1002/ps.1861 · Cited by 183 · cited 6×
“Results mirror those found in prior meta-analyses with fewer studies (Naranjo, 2009) in showing that a variety of Bt plants and Cry proteins have no negative effects on a broad range of natural enemy species when the non-target species were exposed in an ecologically realistic manner (Fig.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSelf-citationPellegrino, E., Bedini, S., Nuti, M., & Ercoli, L. (2018) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-21284-2 · Cited by 177 · cited 1×
“, 2009) and several quantitative syntheses (Comas et al., 2014; Dang et al., 2017; Marvier et al., 2007; Naranjo, 2009; Pellegrino et al., 2018; Peterson et al., 2011; Wolfenbarger et al., 2008).”
BackgroundInteractions of Plant Resistance and Parasitoids and Predators of Insects
Boethel., D. J., & Eikenbary, R. D. (1986) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 177
Conservation tillage mitigates the negative effect of landscape simplification on biological control
Tamburini, G., Simone, S. D., Sigura, M., Boscutti, F., & Marini, L. (2015) · Journal of Applied Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12544 · Cited by 175 · cited 1×
“Reduced tillage or no-tillage minimizes the disruption of the soil structure, composition and biodiversity with positive impacts on arthropods and biological control (Holland, 2004; Stinner and House, 1990; Tamburini et al., 2016; Triplett and Dick, 2008).”
BackgroundAn overview of general features of risk assessments of genetically modified crops
Craig, W., Tepfer, M., Degrassi, G., & Ripandelli, D. (2008) · Euphytica · doi:10.1007/s10681-007-9643-8 · Cited by 172 · cited 1×
“Worldwide, GE plants are subject to an environmental risk assessment (ERA) before being released for cultivation (Craig et al., 2008).”
BackgroundDutton, A., Romeis, J., & Bigler, F. (2003) · BioControl · doi:10.1023/a:1026313719424 · Cited by 170 · cited 2×
“, 2006c) also lacked exposure given the very low concentrations of Cry proteins in the pollen of this event (Dutton et al., 2003; Nguyen and Jehle, 2007).”
BackgroundSelf-citationProgress Towards RNAi-Mediated Insect Pest Management
Baum, J. A., & Roberts, J. K. (2014) · Advances in insect physiology · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-800197-4.00005-1 · Cited by 168 · cited 14×
“RNAi effects caused by ingested dsRNA have been shown in various insect orders but with highly variable success rates in the down regulation of the target genes (Baum and Roberts, 2014; Huvenne and Smagghe, 2010).”
BackgroundInfluentialSanvido, O., Romeis, J., & Bigler, F. (2007) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/10_2007_048 · Cited by 165 · cited 1×
“However, changes in weed management affect weed diversity and abundance and also might indirectly affect the abundance, diversity and effectiveness of biological control (Bigler and Albajes, 2011; Lundgren et al., 2009; Sanvido et al., 2007).”
BackgroundSelf-citationA tiered system for assessing the risk of genetically modified plants to non-target organisms
Garcia-Alonso, M., Jacobs, E., Raybould, A., Nickson, T. E., Sowig, P., Willekens, H., Van Der Kouwe, P., Layton, R., Amijee, F., Fuentes, A. M., et al. (2006) · Environmental Biosafety Research · doi:10.1051/ebr:2006018 · Cited by 161 · cited 1×
“Testing starts with laboratory studies representing highly controlled, worst-case exposure conditions and progresses to bioassays with more realistic exposure to the toxin and semi-field or open field studies carried out under less controlled conditions (Garcia-Alonso et al., 2006; Romeis et al., 2008a).”
BackgroundHarwood, J. D., Wallin, W. G., & Obrycki, J. J. (2005) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2005.02611.x · Cited by 159 · cited 3×
“Parasitoids commonly don’t consume plant tissue and adult parasitoids collected in Bt maize and Bt rice fields did not contain measurable Cry protein concentrations (Harwood et al., 2005; Li et al., 2017b).”
BackgroundResultOrr, D. B., & Landis, D. A. (1997) · Journal of Economic Entomology · doi:10.1093/jee/90.4.905 · Cited by 157 · cited 1×
“However, reductions in target host abundance do not always lead to reductions in biological control function (Dhillon and Sharma, 2013; Fernandes et al., 2007; Lumbierres et al., 2011; Orr and Landis, 1997; Rose, 2005; Thomazoni et al., 2010).”
BackgroundUnintended compositional changes in genetically modified (GM) crops: 20 years of research
Herman, R. A., & Price, W. D. (2013) · Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jf400135r · Cited by 156
Nguyen, H. T., & Jehle, J. A. (2007) · Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection · doi:10.1007/bf03356208 · Cited by 156 · cited 8×
“Modern Bt maize varieties based on other transformation events (e.g., MON810, Bt11) express very low levels of Cry1Ab in the pollen (Perry et al., 2010; Shelton and Sears, 2001).”
BackgroundInfluentialGenetic basis and detection of unintended effects in genetically modified crop plants
Ladics, G. S., Bartholomaeus, A., Bregitzer, P., Doerrer, N. G., Gray, A. J., Holzhauser, T., Jordan, M. C., Keese, P. K., Kok, E. J., Macdonald, P., et al. (2015) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-015-9867-7 · Cited by 153
Self-citationMortality dynamics and population regulation inBemisia tabaci
Naranjo, S. E., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2005) · Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata · doi:10.1111/j.1570-7458.2005.00297.x · Cited by 152 · cited 3×
“The impact of Bt crops on the biological control services supplied by generalist arthropod predators have been uniformly neutral in Bt maize (Ahmad et al., 2006) and Bt cotton (Head et al., 2005; Naranjo, 2005b; Olson and Ruberson, 2012; Sisterson et al., 2004).”
BackgroundSelf-citationOlsen, K., Daly, J. C., Holt, H. E., & Finnegan, E. J. (2005) · Journal of Economic Entomology · doi:10.1603/0022-0493-98.3.1007 · Cited by 152 · cited 1×
“older, while the Cry2ab protein remains relatively stable (Adamczyk et al. 2001; Knight et al., 2013; Olsen et al., 2005).”
BackgroundAdamczyk, J. J., Hardee, D. D., Adams, L. C., & Sumerford, D. V. (2001) · Journal of Economic Entomology · doi:10.1603/0022-0493-94.1.284 · Cited by 149 · cited 1×
“In the case of Bt cotton, the Cry1Ac concentration typically declines when plants get older, while the Cry2ab protein remains relatively stable (Adamczyk et al. 2001; Knight et al., 2013; Olsen et al., 2005).”
BackgroundExposure of arthropod predators to Cry1Ab toxin in Bt maize fields
Obrist, L. B., Dutton, A. C., Albajes, R., & Bigler, F. (2006) · Ecological Entomology · doi:10.1111/j.0307-6946.2006.00762.x · Cited by 148
Romeis, J., Babendreier, D., Wäckers, F. L., & Shanower, T. G. (2005) · Basic and Applied Ecology · doi:10.1016/j.baae.2004.10.004 · Cited by 147 · cited 1×
“The exceptions are studies conducted with adult egg parasitoids belonging to the genus Trichogramma (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) which, due to their minute size, are not able to feed on maize pollen grains (Romeis et al., 2005).”
BackgroundSelf-citationBt Sweet Corn and Selective Insecticides: Impacts on Pests and Predators
Musser, F. R., & Shelton, A. M. (2003) · Journal of Economic Entomology · doi:10.1093/jee/96.1.71 · Cited by 144 · cited 2×
“In contrast, the use of insecticides for Bt targeted pests in non-Bt crops can significantly reduce biological control function (Musser and Shelton, 2003; Rose, 2005).”
BackgroundSelf-citationSchnell, J., Steele, M., Bean, J., Neuspiel, M., Girard, C., Dormann, N., Pearson, C., Savoie, A., Bourbonnière, L., & Macdonald, P. (2014) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-014-9843-7 · Cited by 142
Next‐generation transgenic cotton: pyramiding RNAi and Bt counters insect resistance
Ni, M., Ma, W., Wang, X., Gao, M., Dai, Y., Wei, X., Zhang, L., Peng, Y., Chen, S., Ding, L., et al. (2017) · Plant Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1111/pbi.12709 · Cited by 139
Trichilo, P. J., & Leigh, T. F. (1986) · Environmental Entomology · doi:10.1093/ee/15.4.821 · Cited by 137 · cited 1×
“and some species such as Frankliniella occidentalis (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) are actually considered beneficial (Gonzalez et al., 1982; Trichilo and Leigh, 1986).”
BackgroundSanvido, O., Romeis, J., Gathmann, A., Gielkens, M. M. C., Raybould, A. F., & Bigler, F. (2011) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.08.006 · Cited by 136 · cited 5×
“Worldwide, GE plants are subject to an environmental risk assessment (ERA) before being released for cultivation (Craig et al., 2008).”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationPeterson, J. A., Ode, P. J., Oliveira-Hofman, C., & Harwood, J. D. (2016) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2016.01794 · Cited by 136
Comas, C., Lumbierres, B., Pons, X., & Albajes, R. (2014) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-013-9737-0 · Cited by 129 · cited 1×
“, 2009) and several quantitative syntheses (Comas et al., 2014; Dang et al., 2017; Marvier et al., 2007; Naranjo, 2009; Pellegrino et al., 2018; Peterson et al., 2011; Wolfenbarger et al., 2008).”
BackgroundSurvey of Tillage Trends Following the Adoption of Glyphosate-Resistant Crops
Givens, W. A., Shaw, D. R., Kruger, G. R., Johnson, W. G., Weller, S. C., Young, B. G., Wilson, R. G., Owen, M. D. K., & Jordan, D. (2009) · Weed Technology · doi:10.1614/wt-08-038.1 · Cited by 128 · cited 1×
“and conservation tillage regimes have become more widely adopted with the introduction of HT crops (Givens et al., 2009; Smyth et al., 2011).”
BackgroundExtrapolating non-target risk of Bt crops from laboratory to field
Duan, J. J., Lundgren, J. G., Naranjo, S., & Marvier, M. (2010) · Biology Letters · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2009.0612 · Cited by 127 · cited 1×
“Further, it has been suggested that such early tier laboratory studies can conservatively predict non-target effects expected in the field (Duan et al., 2010).”
BackgroundSelf-citationBachman, P. M., Huizinga, K. M., Jensen, P. D., Mueller, G., Tan, J., Uffman, J. P., & Levine, S. L. (2016) · Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.08.001 · Cited by 123
A perspective on management of Helicoverpa armigera: transgenic Bt cotton, IPM , and landscapes
Downes, S. J., Kriticos, D. J., Parry, H. R., Paull, C., Schellhorn, N. A., & Zalucki, M. P. (2016) · Pest Management Science · doi:10.1002/ps.4461 · Cited by 122 · cited 1×
“, 2008) and their role in IPM has received considerable attention (Downes et al., 2017; Gray, 2011; Meissle et al., 2011; Naranjo, 2011; Romeis et al., 2008b; Wilson et al., 2018).”
BackgroundBourguet, D., Chaufaux, J., Micoud, A., Délos, M., Naïbo, B., Bombarde, F., Marque, G., Eychenne, N., & Pagliari, C. (2002) · Environmental Biosafety Research · doi:10.1051/ebr:2002005 · Cited by 120 · cited 1×
“decline in Bt maize once their host insects are effectively controlled (Bourguet et al., 2002; Manachini, 2003; Manachini and Lozzia, 2004; Siegfried et al., 2001).”
BackgroundRomeis, J., Raybould, A. F., Bigler, F., Candolfi, M. P., Hellmich, R. L., Huesing, J. E., & Shelton, A. M. (2012) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.09.035 · Cited by 119 · cited 5×
“…Coleoptera-active Cry34/35Ab1 (De Schrijver et al., 2016; Narva et al., 2017) and Cry3Bb1 (Devos et al., 2012) and the Lepidoptera-active Cry1Ab (Romeis et al., 2013a), Cry1Ac (CERA, 2011), Cry2Ab (CERA, 2013a), Cry1F (Baktavachalam et al., 2015; CERA, 2013b), and Vip3Aa (CERA, 2012; Raybould…”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationThe development and status of Bt rice in China
Li, Y., Hallerman, E. M., Liu, Q., Wu, K., & Peng, Y. (2015) · Plant Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1111/pbi.12464 · Cited by 117 · cited 2×
“While two lines expressing a cry1Ab/Ac fusion gene have received biosafety certificates by the Ministry of Agriculture already in 2009, no Bt rice is commercialized yet (Li et al., 2016).”
BackgroundArthropod Abundance and Diversity in Bt and Non-Bt Cotton Fields
Sisterson, M. S., Biggs, R. W., Olson, C. A., Carrière, Y., Dennehy, T. J., & Tabashnik, B. E. (2004) · Environmental Entomology · doi:10.1603/0046-225x-33.4.921 · Cited by 115 · cited 1×
“The impact of Bt crops on the biological control services supplied by generalist arthropod predators have been uniformly neutral in Bt maize (Ahmad et al., 2006) and Bt cotton (Head et al., 2005; Naranjo, 2005b; Olson and Ruberson, 2012; Sisterson et al., 2004).”
BackgroundDEWAR, A. M., May, M. J., Woiwod, I. P., Haylock, L. A., Champion, G. T., Garner, B. H., Sands, R. J. N., Qi, A., & Pidgeon, J. D. (2003) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2248 · Cited by 113 · cited 1×
“Additionally, it is possible to enhance arthropod biomass and weed seed banks to provide food for farmland birds (Dewar et al., 2003; May et al., 2005).”
BackgroundTank, J. L., Rosi-Marshall, E. J., Royer, T. V., Whiles, M. R., Griffiths, N. A., Frauendorf, T. C., & Treering, D. J. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1006925107 · Cited by 112 · cited 2×
“be very low due to a huge dilution effect of the running water (Carstens et al., 2012; Tank et al., 2010).”
BackgroundThe Management of Insect Pests in Australian Cotton: An Evolving Story
Wilson, L., Whitehouse, M., & Herron, G. A. (2018) · Annual Review of Entomology · doi:10.1146/annurev-ento-020117-043432 · Cited by 112 · cited 1×
“, 2008) and their role in IPM has received considerable attention (Downes et al., 2017; Gray, 2011; Meissle et al., 2011; Naranjo, 2011; Romeis et al., 2008b; Wilson et al., 2018).”
BackgroundLundgren, J. G., & Wiedenmann, R. N. (2002) · Environmental Entomology · doi:10.1603/0046-225x-31.6.1213 · Cited by 110
Bernal, C. C., Aguda, R. M., & Cohen, M. B. (2002) · Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata · doi:10.1046/j.1570-7458.2002.00921.x · Cited by 108 · cited 1×
“parvata lugens; Hemiptera: Delphacidae) on different Bt rice lines (Bernal et al., 2002; Tian et al., 2018a).”
BackgroundBt Eggplant Project in Bangladesh: History, Present Status, and Future Direction
Shelton, A. M., Hossain, M. J., Paranjape, V., et al. (2018) · Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology · doi:10.3389/fbioe.2018.00106 · Cited by 107
Self-citationGurr, G. M., & You, M. (2016) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2015.01255 · Cited by 106
Torres, J. B., & Ruberson, J. R. (2007) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-007-9109-8 · Cited by 105 · cited 4×
“…are in the same order of magnitude (or even higher) than those found in the leaf tissue (ÁlvarezAlfageme et al., 2008, 2011; Dutton et al., 2002; Guo et al., 2016; Li and Romeis, 2010; Meissle and Romeis, 2009a, 2018; Obrist et al., 2006b,c; Torres and Ruberson, 2008; Svobodová et al., 2017).”
BackgroundInfluentialDefinition and feasibility of isolation distances for transgenic maize cultivation
Sanvido, O., Widmer, F., Winzeler, M., Streit, B., Szerencsits, E., & Bigler, F. (2008) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-007-9103-1 · Cited by 105 · cited 1×
“pollen is relatively heavy and deposited mainly within or in close proximity to the maize field, which limits exposure of arthropods offcrop, although certain wind conditions may lead to pollen drift over several kilometers (Sanvido et al., 2008).”
BackgroundA Critical Assessment of the Effects of Bt Transgenic Plants on Parasitoids
Chen, M., Zhao, Y., Collins, H. L., Earle, E. D., Cao, J. W., & Shelton, A. M. (2008) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002284 · Cited by 104 · cited 3×
“(Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) (Chen et al., 2008) and Macrocentrus cingulum (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) (Wang et al.”
BackgroundSelf-citationÁlvarez‐Alfageme, F., Bigler, F., & Romeis, J. (2010) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-010-9430-5 · Cited by 104
Self-citationBiological Control: Ecology and Applications
Heimpel, G. E., & Mills, N. J. (2017) · Cited by 103
Perspectives in Ecological Theory and Integrated Pest Management
(2007) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511752353 · Cited by 102
Integration of Insect-Resistant Genetically Modified Crops within IPM Programs
Romeis, J., Shelton, A. M., & Kennedy, G. G. (2008) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8373-0 · Cited by 102
Self-citationEnvironmental Impact of Genetically Modified Crops
Ferry, N., Gatehouse, A. M. R., & Spi, T. (2009) · CABI eBooks · doi:10.1079/9781845934095.0000 · Cited by 101
Hagenbucher, S., Olson, D. M., Ruberson, J. R., WÄCKERS, F. L., & Romeis, J. (2013) · Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences · doi:10.1080/07352689.2013.809293 · Cited by 98 · cited 1×
“, trichomes) and are defined by having a direct impact on the herbivore by negatively affecting its important life-history parameters or by deterring adult oviposition (Hagenbucher et al., 2013; Price et al., 1980; Sabelis et al., 1999).”
BackgroundSelf-citationIntegrated management approaches for pink bollworm in the southwestern United States
Henneberry, T. J., & Naranjo, S. E. (1998) · Integrated Pest Management Reviews · doi:10.1023/a:1009673622862 · Cited by 97 · cited 1×
“In Arizona, Bt cotton led to dramatic reductions in the use of foliar insecticides for the target pest, all of them broad-spectrum in nature (Henneberry and Naranjo, 1998).”
BackgroundSelf-citationNon‐target risk assessment of Bt crops – Cry protein uptake by aphids
Romeis, J., & Meissle, M. (2010) · Journal of Applied Entomology · doi:10.1111/j.1439-0418.2010.01546.x · Cited by 97 · cited 1×
“This list includes phloem feeding insects like aphids, but there is increasing evidence in the literature that phloem feeders have extremely low or non-existent titers of Cry proteins in their bodies after feeding on Bt plants (Romeis and Meissle, 2011).”
BackgroundSelf-citationHead, G., Moar, W. J., Eubanks, M. D., Freeman, B., Ruberson, J. R., Hagerty, A. M., & Turnipseed, S. G. (2005) · Environmental Entomology · doi:10.1603/0046-225x(2005)034[1257:amlcoa]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 96 · cited 1×
“The impact of Bt crops on the biological control services supplied by generalist arthropod predators have been uniformly neutral in Bt maize (Ahmad et al., 2006) and Bt cotton (Head et al., 2005; Naranjo, 2005b; Olson and Ruberson, 2012; Sisterson et al., 2004).”
BackgroundBreitler, J. C., Vassal, J. M., Del Mar Catala, M., Meynard, D., Marfà, V., Melé, E., Royer, M., Murillo, I., San Segundo, B., Guiderdoni, E., et al. (2004) · Plant Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1467-7652.2004.00086.x · Cited by 93
Obrist, L. B., Dutton, A. C., Romeis, J., & Bigler, F. (2006) · BioControl · doi:10.1007/s10526-005-2936-8 · Cited by 93
Self-citationLamichhane, J. R., Devos, Y., Beckie, H. J., Owen, M. D. K., Tillie, P., Messéan, A., & Kudsk, P. (2016) · Critical Reviews in Biotechnology · doi:10.1080/07388551.2016.1180588 · Cited by 93 · cited 1×
“Such an assessment, however, is a regulatory requirement in the European Union (Lamichhane et al., 2017).”
BackgroundThe evolution of direct and indirect plant defence against herbivorous arthropods
Sabelis, M. W., van Baalen, M., Bakker, F. M., et al. (1999) · UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) · Cited by 92
Duan, J. J., Head, G., McKee, M. J., Nickson, T. E., Martin, J. W., & Sayegh, F. S. (2002) · Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata · doi:10.1046/j.1570-7458.2002.01013.x · Cited by 92
Torres, J. B., Ruberson, J. R., & Adang, M. J. (2006) · Agricultural and Forest Entomology · doi:10.1111/j.1461-9563.2006.00298.x · Cited by 92 · cited 1×
“, 2009), cotton (Eisenring et al., 2017; Torres et al., 2006), soybean (Yu et al.”
Li, Y., & Romeis, J. (2009) · Biological Control · doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2009.12.003 · Cited by 91 · cited 1×
“magnitude (or even higher) than those found in the leaf tissue (ÁlvarezAlfageme et al., 2008, 2011; Dutton et al., 2002; Guo et al., 2016; Li and Romeis, 2010; Meissle and Romeis, 2009a, 2018; Obrist et al., 2006b,c; Torres and Ruberson, 2008; Svobodová et al., 2017).”
BackgroundSelf-citationPerry, J. N., Devos, Y., Arpaia, S., Bartsch, D., Gathmann, A., Hails, R. S., Kiss, J., Lheureux, K., Manachini, B., Mestdagh, S., et al. (2010) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.2091 · Cited by 91
Vojtech, E., Meissle, M., & Poppy, G. M. (2005) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-005-2736-z · Cited by 91 · cited 1×
“In general, parasitoids that consume the gut of their host, where most of the Bt protein is located, are expected to experience higher exposure than those leaving the host without consuming the gut (Meissle et al., 2004; Vojtech et al., 2005).”
BackgroundSelf-citationA transgenic approach for controlling Lygus in cotton
Gowda, A., Rydel, T. J., Wollacott, A. M., Brown, R. S., Akbar, W., Clark, T. L., Flasinski, S., Nageotte, J. R., Read, A. C., Shi, X., et al. (2016) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms12213 · Cited by 91
Plant genetic variation in tritrophic interactions
Hare, J. D. (2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511542190.002 · Cited by 90 · cited 1×
“Studies on plant-herbivore-natural enemy interactions reveal that plant defense traits can have negative, positive, or neutral effects on natural enemies (Boethel and Eikenbary, 1986; Hare, 2002; Ode, 2006; Peterson et al., 2016b; Price et al., 1980).”
BackgroundCarstens, K., Anderson, J., Bachman, P., De Schrijver, A., Dively, G., Federici, B., Hamer, M., Gielkens, M., Jensen, P., Lamp, W., et al. (2012) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-011-9569-8 · Cited by 90 · cited 1×
“be very low due to a huge dilution effect of the running water (Carstens et al., 2012; Tank et al., 2010).”
BackgroundSelf-citationMeissle, M., & Romeis, J. (2009) · Plant Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1467-7652.2009.00431.x · Cited by 90
Self-citationEcological compatibility of GM crops and biological control
Lundgren, J. G., Gassmann, A. J., Bernal, J. S., Duan, J. J., & Ruberson, J. R. (2009) · Crop Protection · doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2009.06.001 · Cited by 88 · cited 7×
“Nectar is an important source of carbohydrates for adult parasitoids and some predators (Coll and Guershon, 2002; Lundgren, 2009), although there is no evidence that nectar contains Cry proteins.”
BackgroundInfluentialDevelopment of Bt Rice and Bt Maize in China and Their Efficacy in Target Pest Control
Liu, Q., Hallerman, E. M., Peng, Y., et al. (2016) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms17101561 · Cited by 88
Baum, J. A., Sukuru, U. R., Penn, S. R., Meyer, S. E., Subbarao, S., Shi, X., Flasinski, S., Heck, G. R., Brown, R. S., & Clark, T. L. (2012) · Journal of Economic Entomology · doi:10.1603/ec11207 · Cited by 86
Naranjo, S. E., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2009) · Biological Control · doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2009.08.006 · Cited by 85 · cited 6×
“Results mirror those found in prior meta-analyses with fewer studies (Naranjo, 2009) in showing that a variety of Bt plants and Cry proteins have no negative effects on a broad range of natural enemy species when the non-target species were exposed in an ecologically realistic manner (Fig.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSelf-citationBt maize and integrated pest management ‐ a European perspective
Meissle, M., Romeis, J., & Bigler, F. (2011) · Pest Management Science · doi:10.1002/ps.2221 · Cited by 82 · cited 3×
“Consequently, aphids contain, at best, trace amounts of Bt protein several orders of magnitude lower than the concentrations in green tissue (Romeis and Meissle, 2011; Tian et al., 2015).”
BackgroundSelf-citationLi, Y., Romeis, J., Wang, P., Peng, Y., & Shelton, A. M. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022185 · Cited by 81
Self-citationThe Present and Future Role of Insect-Resistant Genetically Modified Cotton in IPM
Naranjo, S. E., Ruberson, J. R., Sharma, H. C., Wilson, L., & Wu, K. (2008) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8373-0_6 · Cited by 81 · cited 1×
“Most of the Bt varieties target lepidopteran pests (Hellmich et al., 2008; Naranjo et al., 2008).”
BackgroundSelf-citationIs the German suspension of MON810 maize cultivation scientifically justified?
Ricroch, A., Bergé, J. B., & Kuntz, M. (2010) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-009-9297-5 · Cited by 80 · cited 1×
“It is thus likely that those results are artifacts, probably resulting from problems in study design (EFSA, 2009; Rauschen, 2010; Ricroch et al., 2010; Romeis et al., 2013a, 2014b).”
Schuler, T. H., Potting, R. P. J., Denholm, I., Clark, S. J., Clark, A. J., Stewart, C. N., & Poppy, G. M. (2003) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1023/a:1023342027192 · Cited by 79 · cited 1×
“…was driven by a single study where parasitoids (Cotesia plutellae; Hymenoptera: Braconidae) were offered a choice between Bt resistant Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) caterpillars on Bt compared with non-Bt oilseed rape in field simulators in the laboratory (Schuler et al., 2003).”
BackgroundExpression of Cry3Bb1 in transgenic corn MON88017
Nguyen, H. T., & Jehle, J. A. (2009) · Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jf901115m · Cited by 78 · cited 2×
“This has, for example, been reported for Cry3Bb1 in maize event MON88017 (Nguyen and Jehle, 2009), but not for Cry1Ab in maize event MON810 (Nguyen and Jehle, 2007).”
BackgroundWeber, N., Halpin, C., Hannah, L. C., Jez, J. M., Kough, J., & Parrott, W. (2012) · Plant Physiology · doi:10.1104/pp.112.204271 · Cited by 78 · cited 1×
“The current approach is conservative, in particular because offtypes are typically eliminated over the many years of breeding and selection that happen in the process of developing a new GE variety (Ladics et al., 2015; Privalle et al., 2012; Schnell et al., 2015; Weber et al., 2012).”
BackgroundOptimising environmental risk assessments
Devos, Y., Romeis, J., Luttik, R., Maggiore, A., PERRY, J. N., Schoonjans, R., Streissl, F., Tarazona, J. V., & Brock, T. C. M. (2015) · EMBO Reports · doi:10.15252/embr.201540874 · Cited by 76
Self-citationWhen bad science makes good headlines: Bt maize and regulatory bans
Romeis, J., McLean, M. A., & Shelton, A. M. (2013) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.2578 · Cited by 74
Self-citationThe Present and Future Role of Insect-Resistant Genetically Modified Maize in IPM
Hellmich, R. L., Albajes, R., Bergvinson, D., Prasifka, J. R., Wang, Z., & Weiss, M. J. (2008) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8373-0_5 · Cited by 73 · cited 1×
“Most of the Bt varieties target lepidopteran pests (Hellmich et al., 2008; Naranjo et al., 2008).”
BackgroundShelton, A. M., Naranjo, S. E., Romeis, J., Hellmich, R. L., Wolt, J. D., Federici, B. A., Albajes, R., Bigler, F., Burgess, E. P. J., Dively, G. P., et al. (2009) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-009-9260-5 · Cited by 73
Self-citationRaybould, A. F., & Vlachos, D. (2010) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-010-9442-1 · Cited by 72
Li, Y., Meissle, M., & Romeis, J. (2008) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002909 · Cited by 72
Self-citationThe monarch butterfly controversy: scientific interpretations of a phenomenon
Shelton, A. M., & Sears, M. K. (2001) · The Plant Journal · doi:10.1046/j.1365-313x.2001.01118.x · Cited by 72 · cited 2×
“, MON810, Bt11) express very low levels of Cry1Ab in the pollen (Perry et al., 2010; Shelton and Sears, 2001).”
BackgroundSelf-citationEnvironmental impacts from herbicide tolerant canola production in Western Canada
Smyth, S. J., Gusta, M. L., Belcher, K., Phillips, P. W. B., & Castle, D. G. A. (2011) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2011.01.004 · Cited by 70 · cited 2×
“(Brookes and Barfoot, 2018; Smyth et al., 2011), which in turn could help mitigate climate change.”
BackgroundProtection goals in environmental risk assessment: a practical approach
Garcia‐Alonso, M., & Raybould, A. F. (2013) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-013-9760-1 · Cited by 68 · cited 1×
“agronomic and phenotypic characteristics of the GE plant with its conventional counterpart(s) (Garcia-Alonso, 2010; Garcia-Alonso and Raybould, 2014).”
BackgroundObrist, L. B., Klein, H., Dutton, A. C., & Bigler, F. (2005) · Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata · doi:10.1111/j.1570-7458.2005.00298.x · Cited by 68
Lawo, N. C., Wäckers, F. L., & Romeis, J. (2010) · Journal of Insect Physiology · doi:10.1016/j.jinsphys.2010.06.012 · Cited by 66 · cited 1×
“…effects has been demonstrated experimentally for the parasitoids Diadegma insulare (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) (Chen et al., 2008) and Macrocentrus cingulum (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) (Wang et al., 2017) and for the predators C. carnea (Lawo et al., 2010) and C. maculata (Li et al., 2011).”
BackgroundSelf-citationLi, Y., Zhang, X., Chen, X., Romeis, J., Yin, X., & Peng, Y. (2015) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep07679 · Cited by 66
Self-citationIbrahim, A. B., Monteiro, T. R., Cabral, G. B., & Aragão, F. J. L. (2017) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-017-0035-0 · Cited by 66
Álvarez‐Alfageme, F., Ferry, N., Castañera, P., Ortego, F., & Gatehouse, A. M. R. (2008) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-008-9177-4 · Cited by 65 · cited 1×
“or other members of higher trophic levels (2).”
BackgroundBeyond Bt: Alternative Strategies for Insect-Resistant Genetically Modified Crops
Malone, L. A., Gatehouse, A. M. R., & Barratt, B. I. P. (2008) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8373-0_13 · Cited by 64 · cited 1×
“dopteran, coleopteran, and hemipteran pests (Malone et al., 2008).”
Effects of transgenic cry1Ab rice pollen on fitness of Propylea japonica (Thunberg)
Bai, Y., Jiang, M., & Cheng, J. A. (2005) · Journal of Pest Science · doi:10.1007/s10340-004-0078-x · Cited by 63
The Current Status and Development of Insect-Resistant Genetically Engineered Poplar in China
Wang, G., Dong, Y., Liu, X., et al. (2018) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2018.01408 · Cited by 63 · cited 1×
“Bt-transgenic poplar trees producing lepidopteran-active Cry proteins have been grown in China since 2002, covering 450 ha in 2011 (Wang et al., 2018).”
BackgroundField evidence for the exposure of ground beetles to Cry1Ab from transgenic corn
Zwahlen, C., & Andow, D. A. (2005) · Environmental Biosafety Research · doi:10.1051/ebr:2005014 · Cited by 62 · cited 2×
“2016a), carabids (Zwahlen and Andow, 2005), or ladybird beetles (Harwood et al.”
BackgroundArpaia, S., Birch, A. N. E., Kiss, J., van Loon, J. J. A., Messéan, A., Nuti, M., Perry, J. N., Sweet, J. B., & Tebbe, C. C. (2017) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.039 · Cited by 62 · cited 1×
“Thus, the data available do not support the proposal by some scientists (Arpaia et al., 2017) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (EFSA, 2010) that in-planta studies are needed to fully assess the Bt-plant effects on natural enemies (see Devos et al.”
ResultZhang, W., Lu, Y., van der Werf, W., Huang, J., Wu, F., Zhou, K., Deng, X., Jiang, Y., Wu, K., & Rosegrant, M. W. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1721436115 · Cited by 61
Zurbrügg, C., Hönemann, L., Meissle, M., Romeis, J., & Nentwig, W. (2010) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-009-9304-x · Cited by 60 · cited 1×
“When litter bags filled with senescent Bt maize leaves were buried in a maize field in autumn, almost no Bt protein was detectable eight months later (Zurbrügg et al., 2010).”
BackgroundSelf-citationFourteen Years ofBtCotton Advances IPM in Arizona
Naranjo, S. E., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2010) · Southwestern Entomologist · doi:10.3958/059.035.0329 · Cited by 60 · cited 1×
“Bt cotton became a cornerstone element in the pink bollworm eradication program initiated in 2006 in Arizona, and insecticide use for this pest ceased entirely by 2008 (Naranjo and Ellsworth, 2010).”
BackgroundSelf-citationBitrophic and tritrophic effects of Bt Cry3A transgenic potato on beneficial, non-target, beetles
Ferry, N., Mulligan, E. A., Majerus, M. E. N., & Gatehouse, A. M. R. (2007) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-007-9088-9 · Cited by 59
Raybould, A., Kilby, P., & Graser, G. (2012) · Transgenic research · doi:10.1007/s11248-012-9658-3 · Cited by 59 · cited 1×
“and biochemical equivalence with the plant-produced protein (Raybould et al., 2013).”
BackgroundResponsiveness of Arthropod Herbivores and Their Natural Enemies to Modified Weed Management in Corn
Albajes, R., Lumbierres, B., & Pons, X. (2009) · Environmental Entomology · doi:10.1603/022.038.0349 · Cited by 59 · cited 1×
“(Hemiptera: Nabidae) and Carabidae (Coleoptera) (Albajes et al., 2009).”
Privalle, L., Chen, J., Clapper, G. M., et al. (2012) · Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jf302706e · Cited by 59
Bachman, P. M., Ahmad, A., Ahrens, J. E., Akbar, W., Baum, J. A., Brown, S., Clark, T. L., Fridley, J. M., Gowda, A., Greenplate, J. T., et al. (2017) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0169409 · Cited by 59
Wang, Y., Li, Y., Romeis, J., Chen, X., Zhang, J., Chen, H., & Peng, Y. (2012) · Biological Control · doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2012.02.011 · Cited by 58
Self-citationBt maize pollen exposure and impact on the garden spider, Araneus diadematus
Ludy, C., & Lang, A. (2006) · Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata · doi:10.1111/j.1570-7458.2006.00375.x · Cited by 55
Romeis, J., Meissle, M., Álvarez‐Alfageme, F., Bigler, F., Bohan, D. A., Devos, Y., Malone, L. A., Pons, X., & Rauschen, S. (2014) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-014-9791-2 · Cited by 53
Self-citationBt Crops Producing Cry1Ac, Cry2Ab and Cry1F Do Not Harm the Green Lacewing, Chrysoperla rufilabris
Tian, J., Wang, X., Long, L.-P., Romeis, J., Naranjo, S. E., Hellmich, R. L., Wang, P., Earle, E. D., & Shelton, A. M. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060125 · Cited by 52
Self-citationLi, Y., Romeis, J., Wu, K., & Peng, Y. (2013) · Insect Science · doi:10.1111/1744-7917.12044 · Cited by 51 · cited 1×
“…false negatives (i.e, the failure to detect adverse effects of toxins that are potentially harmful in the field) and positives (i.e., the detection of adverse effects when the toxin is unlikely to be harmful in the field) (De Schrijver et al., 2016; Li et al., 2014b; Romeis et al., 2011, 2013a).”
BackgroundSelf-citationInsect-Resistant Transgenic Crops and Biological Control
Romeis, J., Driesche, R. G. V., Barratt, B. I. P., & Bigler, F. (2008) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8373-0_4 · Cited by 50
Self-citationMoser, S. E., Harwood, J. D., & Obrycki, J. J. (2008) · Environmental Entomology · doi:10.1603/0046-225x(2008)37[525:lfobha]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 50 · cited 7×
“Modern Bt maize varieties based on other transformation events (e.g., MON810, Bt11) express very low levels of Cry1Ab in the pollen (Perry et al., 2010; Shelton and Sears, 2001).”
MethodInfluentialHow well will stacked transgenic pest/herbicide resistances delay pests from evolving resistance?
Gressel, J., Gassmann, A. J., & Owen, M. D. (2017) · Pest Management Science · doi:10.1002/ps.4425 · Cited by 50
Prevalence of sporadic insect pests of seedling corn and factors affecting risk of infestation
Sappington, T. W., Hesler, L. S., Allen, K. C., Luttrell, R. G., & Papiernik, S. K. (2018) · Journal of Integrated Pest Management · doi:10.1093/jipm/pmx020 · Cited by 50 · cited 3×
“surance approach is targeting a number of early-season pests that occur only sporadic but for some of which rescue treatments are not available (Gray, 2011; Sappington et al., 2018).”
BackgroundBiological Control: Ecology and Applications
Rodriguez‐Saona, C. (2018) · American Entomologist · doi:10.1093/ae/tmy017 · Cited by 49
Breitler, J. C., Cordero, M. J., Royer, M., Meynard, D., San Segundo, B., & Guiderdoni, E. (2001) · Molecular Breeding · doi:10.1023/a:1011609128319 · Cited by 48 · cited 1×
“The feasibility of this approach has been documented in the glasshouse and in the field for rice where cry genes were driven by the woundinducible mpi promotor from maize (Breitler et al., 2001, 2004).”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- CERA, 2012. A Review of the Environmental Safety of Vip3Aa. Center for Environmental Risk Assessment, ILSI Research Foundation, Washington DC, USA. Available online: <http://ilsi.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/06/vip3Aa_EN.pdf>.
- CERA, 2013b. A Review of the Environmental Safety of the Cry1F Protein. Center for Environmental Risk Assessment, ILSI Research Foundation, Washington DC, USA. Available online: <http://ilsi.org/researchfoundation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/05/Cry1f-monograph.pdf>.
- EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), 2009, EFSA J., 1149, 1
- Liu, 2014, Natural enemies delay insect resistance to Bt plants, PLoS One, 9
- Meissle, 2004, Implications for the parasitoid Campoletis sonorensis (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) when developing in Bt maize-fed Spodoptera littoralis larvae (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), IOBC/WPRS Bull., 27, 117
- Pertry, I., Sanou, E.I.R., Speelman, S., Ingelbrecht, I., 2016. The success story of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso: a role model for sustainable cotton production in other cotton growing countries? In: De Buck, S., Ingelbrecht, I., Heijde, M., Van Montagu, M. (Eds.), Innovative Farming and Forestry Across the Emerging World: The Role of Genetically Modified Crops and Trees. International Industrial Biotechnology Network (IIBN), e-book, pp. 81–93. Available online: <https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8500337/file/8501700>.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Integrated pest management: good intentions, hard realities. A review
Deguine, J., Aubertot, J., Flor, R. J., Lescourret, F., Wyckhuys, K. A. G., & Ratnadass, A. (2021) · Agronomy for Sustainable Development · doi:10.1007/s13593-021-00689-w · Cited by 853
“Genetically engineered crops producing Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) endotoxins and host-plant resistance also fit under the IPM umbrella and have ample potential to reduce pesticide use, though the former technology does carry certain risks (Bharucha 2015; Peshin and Zhang 2014; Romeis et al. 2019).”
BackgroundGive predators a complement: Conserving natural enemy biodiversity to improve biocontrol
Snyder, W. E. (2019) · Biological Control · doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.04.017 · Cited by 272
Global Patterns of Insect Resistance to Transgenic Bt Crops: The First 25 Years
Tabashnik, B. E., Fabrick, J. A., & Carrière, Y. (2023) · Journal of Economic Entomology · doi:10.1093/jee/toac183 · Cited by 218
“…crops with one or more insecticidal traits, integrated pest management (IPM) is optimal for sustainable pest suppression (Liu et al. 2014, Hutchison 2015, Anderson et al. 2019, Hurley and Sun 2019, Romeis et al. 2019, Carrière et al. 2020a, Tabashnik et al. 2021, Van den Berg et al. 2021).”
Rethinking biorational insecticides for pest management: unintended effects and consequences
Haddi, K., Turchen, L. M., Jumbo, L. O. V., Guedes, R. N. C., Pereira, E. J. G., Aguiar, R. W. D. S., & de Oliveira, E. E. (2020) · Pest Management Science · doi:10.1002/ps.5837 · Cited by 216
Tabashnik, B. E., & Carrière, Y. (2019) · Journal of Economic Entomology · doi:10.1093/jee/toz173 · Cited by 200
Metadata
- Authors
- Romeis, J., Naranjo, S. E., Meissle, M., & Shelton, A. M.
- Affiliations
- Agroscope (CH)
- Agricultural Research Service (US)
- Cornell University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Romeis, Jörg
- Venue
- Biological Control
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-03
- Volume
- 130
- Pages
- 136-154
- ISSN
- 1049-9644 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2894891153
- Semantic Scholar
- 956c8bb5380ff65d789de07b07e1d8af5916203d
- Cited by
- 231
- References
- 352
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 23
- FWCI
- 9.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Biological Control (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Agroscope
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Insect Resistance and Genetics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect-Plant Interactions and Control
- Keywords
- Bt crops, Bacillus thuringiensis, Cry proteins, conservation biological control, natural enemies, non-target effects, insecticidal seed treatment, integrated pest management, insecticide reduction, genetically modified crops
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
