The DOI matches its Crossref record; 319 of the 352 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 4 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
105 Not checked yet · 50 Own interpretation · 14 No basis given · 8 Own result · 5 Own method · 1 Supported so far · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
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.
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
“Studies with no or negligible exposure were conducted with 7 hymenopteran parasitoids from 4 families and 12 predators from 6 families in 5 orders (Table S2).”
§ 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. 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
Items 201–319 of 319
Gray, M. E. (2011) · Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jf102673s · Cited by 48 · cited 4×
“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).”
BackgroundInfluentialSheldon, J. K., & MacLeod, E. G. (1971) · Psyche A Journal of Entomology · doi:10.1155/1971/505909 · Cited by 47 · cited 1×
“Green lacewings, Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae), feed exclusively on pollen and nectar in the adult stage (Li et al., 2010; Sheldon and MacLeod, 1971), while larvae are predators which can supplement their diet with pollen (Meissle et al., 2014).”
BackgroundHautea, D. M., Taylo, L. D., Masanga, A. P. L., et al. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157498 · Cited by 47 · cited 5×
“has been applied to eggplant for protection against the eggplant fruit and shoot borer (Leucinodes orbonalis, Lepidoptera: Crambidae) (Hautea et al., 2016).”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationAssessing the Effects of Bt Maize on the Predatory Mite Neoseiulus cucumeris
Obrist, L. B., Klein, H., Dutton, A. C., & Bigler, F. (2006) · Experimental and Applied Acarology · doi:10.1007/s10493-006-0008-0 · Cited by 46
Bt-maize event MON 88017 expressing Cry3Bb1 does not cause harm to non-target organisms
Devos, Y., de Schrijver, A., CLERCQ, P. D., Kiss, J. G., & Romeis, J. (2012) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-012-9617-z · Cited by 46 · cited 3×
“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).”
BackgroundSelf-citationMay, M. J., Champion, G. T., DEWAR, A. M., et al. (2005) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2948 · Cited by 46 · 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).”
BackgroundBt rice in China — focusing the nontarget risk assessment
Li, Y., Zhang, Q., Liu, Q., et al. (2017) · Plant Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1111/pbi.12720 · Cited by 46
Self-citationLevine, S. L., Tan, J., Mueller, G. M., Bachman, P. M., Jensen, P. D., & Uffman, J. P. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118622 · Cited by 45 · cited 1×
“Recent studies have demonstrated that this is also true for a combination of Cry proteins and dsRNA (Khajuria et al., 2018; Levine et al., 2015; Ni et al., 2017).”
BackgroundDevelopment of European corn borer larvae on Event 176 Bt corn: influence on survival and fitness
Siegfried, B. D., Zoerb, A. C., & Spencer, T. (2001) · Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata · doi:10.1046/j.1570-7458.2001.00843.x · Cited by 44 · 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).”
BackgroundMeissle, M., Álvarez‐Alfageme, F., Malone, L. A., & Romeis, J. (2012) · EFSA Supporting Publications · doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2012.en-334 · Cited by 44 · cited 1×
“Databases containing this information have been established for various field crops in Europe (e.g., Meissle et al., 2012, Riedel et al., 2016) and for rice in China (Li et al., 2017b).”
BackgroundSelf-citationVandervoet, T. F., Ellsworth, P. C., Carrière, Y., & Naranjo, S. E. (2018) · Journal of Economic Entomology · doi:10.1093/jee/toy049 · Cited by 44
Self-citationSafety of Pseudomonas chlororaphis as a gene source for genetically modified crops
Anderson, J. A., Staley, J., Challender, M., & Heuton, J. (2018) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-018-0061-6 · Cited by 44 · cited 2×
“bacteria including species of Pseudomonas (Anderson et al., 2018) and Chromobacter (Sampson et al.”
BackgroundInteractions of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal crops with spiders (Araneae)
Peterson, J. A., Lundgren, J. G., & Harwood, J. D. (2011) · Journal of Arachnology · doi:10.1636/m10-98.1 · Cited by 43 · 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).”
BackgroundImpact of Insect-resistant Transgenic Crops on Aboveground Non-target Arthropods
Romeis, J., Meissle, M., Raybould, A. F., & Hellmich, R. L. (2009) · CABI eBooks · doi:10.1079/9781845934095.0165 · Cited by 42 · cited 9×
“…et al. (2014), 20Li et al. (2014a), 21Wang et al. (2012), 22Mason et al. (2008), 23Obrist et al. (2006c), 24Ludy and Lang (2006), 25Meissle and Romeis (2009a), 26Lumbierres et al. (2012), 27Armer et al. (2000). where consequently no conclusions about the toxicity of the Cry proteins could…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSelf-citationLi, Y., Meissle, M., & Romeis, J. (2009) · Journal of Insect Physiology · doi:10.1016/j.jinsphys.2009.09.011 · Cited by 42 · cited 1×
“clusively on pollen and nectar in the adult stage (Li et al., 2010; Sheldon and MacLeod, 1971), while larvae are predators which can supplement their diet with pollen (Meissle et al.”
BackgroundSelf-citationAhmad, A., Wilde, G. E., Whitworth, R. J., & Zolnerowich, G. (2006) · Journal of Economic Entomology · doi:10.1093/jee/99.4.1085 · Cited by 42 · 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.”
BackgroundMeissle, M., & Romeis, J. (2009) · Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata · doi:10.1111/j.1570-7458.2009.00859.x · Cited by 41 · cited 7×
“This is supported by evidence from ELISA measurements of field collected arthropods from Bt maize (Harwood et al., 2005; Meissle and Romeis, 2009a; Obrist et al., 2006a, Peterson et al., 2009), cotton (Eisenring et al., 2017; Torres et al., 2006), soybean (Yu et al., 2014), and rice (Li et al.,…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSelf-citationStern, V. M., & van den Bosch, R. (1959) · Hilgardia · doi:10.3733/hilg.v29n02p103 · Cited by 41 · cited 2×
“This key finding on the importance of conserving biological control agents was instrumental in the development of the Integrated Control Concept (Smith and Hagen, 1959; Stern and van den Bosch, 1959; Stern et al., 1959), the precursor of the IPM concept.”
BackgroundBt crops benefit natural enemies to control non-target pests
Tian, J.-C., Yao, J., Long, L.-P., Romeis, J., & Shelton, A. M. (2015) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep16636 · Cited by 41 · cited 5×
“Many studies in this crop have been dominated by Macrocentris grandii (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), an exotic parasitoid introduced to the USA for control of O. nubilalis, which is in turn the main target of Bt maize.”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationLi, Y., Chen, X., Hu, L., Romeis, J., & Peng, Y. (2014) · Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry · doi:10.1002/etc.2567 · Cited by 40
Self-citationToews, M. D., Tubbs, R. S., Wann, D. Q., & Sullivan, D. (2010) · Pest Management Science · doi:10.1002/ps.1983 · Cited by 40
Longevity of phytophagous heteropteran predators feeding on transgenic Btt‐potato plants
Armer, C. A., Berry, R. E., & Kogan, M. (2000) · Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata · doi:10.1046/j.1570-7458.2000.00672.x · Cited by 40
Saeed, R., Razaq, M., & Hardy, I. C. (2016) · Pest Management Science · doi:10.1002/ps.4146 · Cited by 39
Weed and invertebrate community compositions in arable farmland
Smith, V., Bohan, D. A., Clark, S. J., Haughton, A. J., Bell, J. R., & Heard, M. S. (2008) · Arthropod-Plant Interactions · doi:10.1007/s11829-007-9027-y · Cited by 39 · 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).”
BackgroundThe Halo Effect: Suppression of Pink Bollworm on Non-Bt Cotton by Bt Cotton in China
Wan, P., Huang, Y., Tabashnik, B. E., Huang, M., & Wu, K. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042004 · Cited by 39
Todd, J. H., Ramankutty, P., Barraclough, E. I., & Malone, L. A. (2008) · Environmental Biosafety Research · doi:10.1051/ebr:2008003 · Cited by 39 · cited 2×
“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).”
BackgroundTian, J., Long, L.-P., Wang, X.-P., Naranjo, S. E., Romeis, J., Hellmich, R. L., Wang, P., & Shelton, A. M. (2014) · Environmental Entomology · doi:10.1603/en13184 · Cited by 39
Self-citationMusser, F. R., Nyrop, J. P., & Shelton, A. M. (2006) · Journal of Economic Entomology · doi:10.1603/0022-0493-99.5.1538 · Cited by 39 · cited 1×
“…biological and chemical control into a decisionmaking tool and highlighted the benefit of conserving natural enemies so they could play a role in suppressing not only the lepidopteran pests but secondary pests such as aphids that infest the ears and affect marketability (Musser et al., 2006).”
BackgroundSelf-citationThe end of a myth—Bt (Cry1Ab) maize does not harm green lacewings
Romeis, J., Meissle, M., Naranjo, S. E., Li, Y., & Bigler, F. (2014) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2014.00391 · Cited by 38
Self-citationMusser, F. R., Nyrop, J. P., & Shelton, A. M. (2006) · Journal of Economic Entomology · doi:10.1093/jee/99.5.1538 · Cited by 38 · cited 1×
“making tool and highlighted the benefit of conserving natural enemies so they could play a role in suppressing not only the lepidopteran pests but secondary pests such as aphids that infest the ears and affect marketability (Musser et al., 2006).”
BackgroundSelf-citationShort-term assessment of Bt maize on non-target arthropods in Brazil
Fernandes, O. A., Faria, M., Martinelli, S., Schmidt, F., Carvalho, V. F., & Moro, G. (2007) · Scientia Agricola · doi:10.1590/s0103-90162007000300006 · Cited by 37 · 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).”
BackgroundTian, J., Collins, H. L., Romeis, J., Naranjo, S. E., Hellmich, R. L., & Shelton, A. M. (2012) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-012-9604-4 · Cited by 37 · cited 1×
“…adults) immunologically by ELISA is still biologically active, which indicates that ELISA data can be used to estimate levels of exposure to active Bt protein (Chen et al. 2008; Guo et al., 2016; Li et al., 2011; Meissle and Romeis, 2009b; Obrist et al., 2006b; Tian et al., 2012, 2013, 2018b).”
BackgroundSelf-citationSCHUPPENER, M., MÜHLHAUSE, J., MÜLLER, A., & RAUSCHEN, S. (2012) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-294x.2012.05716.x · Cited by 37 · cited 1×
“period of pollen shed, butterfly larvae are likely to ingest certain amounts of pollen grains together with their food plant (Perry et al., 2010; Schuppener et al., 2012; Shelton and Sears, 2001).”
BackgroundFrequency and abundance of selected early-season insect pests of cotton
Allen, K. C., Luttrell, R. G., Sappington, T. W., Hesler, L. S., & Papiernik, S. K. (2018) · Journal of Integrated Pest Management · doi:10.1093/jipm/pmy010 · Cited by 37 · cited 1×
“However, in the USA, and possibly other parts of the world, this benefit is to some extent counteracted by the increasing application of insecticidal seed treatments (to both Bt and non-Bt crops) for the management of early season pests and as insurance against sporadic pests (Allen et al., 2018; Sappington et al., 20…”
BackgroundTransgenic maize event TC1507: Global status of food, feed, and environmental safety
Baktavachalam, G. B., Delaney, B., Fisher, T. L., Ladics, G. S., Layton, R. J., Locke, M., Schmidt, J., Anderson, J. A. H., Weber, N. N., Herman, R. A., et al. (2015) · GM crops & food · doi:10.1080/21645698.2015.1054093 · Cited by 36 · cited 2×
“Reviews are available for a number of Bt proteins including the 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, 20…”
Carstens, K., Cayabyab, B., De Schrijver, A., Gadaleta, P. G., Hellmich, R. L., Romeis, J., Storer, N., Valicente, F. H., & Wach, M. (2014) · GM Crops & Food · doi:10.4161/gmcr.26560 · Cited by 36 · cited 1×
“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).”
BackgroundSelf-citationTwo heteropteran predators in relation to weed management in herbicide-tolerant corn
Albajes, R., Lumbierres, B., & Pons, X. (2011) · Biological Control · doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2011.03.008 · Cited by 36 · cited 3×
“The benefits of this technology include highly effective weed control, greater flexibility in applying the herbicide, reduced phytotoxicity to the crop, and savings in time and costs (Bigler and Albajes, 2011).”
BackgroundHuesing, J. E., Romeis, J., Ellstrand, N. C., Raybould, A., Hellmich, R. L., Wolt, J. D., Ehlers, J. D., Dabiré-Binso, L. C., Fatokun, C. A., Hokanson, K. E., et al. (2011) · GM Crops · doi:10.4161/gmcr.2.3.18689 · Cited by 35 · cited 1×
“Another example is that of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata ssp. unguiculata) that contains Cry1Ab to protect the plant from damage by Maruca testulalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) (Ba et al., 2018; Huesing et al., 2011; Mohammed et al., 2014).”
BackgroundSvobodová, Z., Shu, Y., Habuštová, O. S., Romeis, J., & Meissle, M. (2017) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2017.0440 · Cited by 35 · cited 2×
“considerably in different plant tissues, across different developmental stages, and among different Bt proteins and transformation events (Eisenring et al., 2017; Knight et al., 2013; Nguyen and Jehle 2007, 2009; Obrist et al., 2006a; Svobodová et al., 2017).”
BackgroundSelf-citationNaranjo, S. E. (2005) · Environmental Entomology · doi:10.1093/ee/34.5.1211 · Cited by 35 · 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-citationMolecular Approaches to Improve the Insecticidal Activity of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry Toxins
Lucena, W. A., Pelegrini, P. B., Martins-de-Sa, D., et al. (2014) · Toxins · doi:10.3390/toxins6082393 · Cited by 34 · cited 1×
“ifications to improve efficacy or to facilitate expression in plants (Lucena et al., 2014).”
BackgroundWhitehouse, M., Wilson, L., Davies, A. P., Cross, D., Goldsmith, P., Thompson, A., Harden, S., & Baker, G. H. (2014) · Environmental Entomology · doi:10.1603/en13167 · Cited by 33 · cited 1×
“Vips are already deployed in some commercial maize hybrids (e.g., MIR162, Raybould and Vlachos, 2011) and cotton (e.g., COT102 in Bollgard III, Whitehouse et al., 2014).”
BackgroundMeissle, M., & Romeis, J. (2017) · Insect Science · doi:10.1111/1744-7917.12468 · Cited by 33 · cited 3×
“…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).”
BackgroundSelf-citationHogervorst, P. A. M., WÄCKERS, F. L., Woodring, J. P., & Romeis, J. (2008) · Agricultural and Forest Entomology · doi:10.1111/j.1461-9563.2008.00412.x · Cited by 32
Self-citationSeason-long expression of Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab proteins in Bollgard II cotton in Australia
Knight, K., Head, G., & Rogers, J. (2013) · Crop Protection · doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2012.10.014 · Cited by 32 · cited 2×
“considerably in different plant tissues, across different developmental stages, and among different Bt proteins and transformation events (Eisenring et al., 2017; Knight et al., 2013; Nguyen and Jehle 2007, 2009; Obrist et al., 2006a; Svobodová et al., 2017).”
BackgroundMeissle, M., Zünd, J., Waldburger, M., & Romeis, J. (2014) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep05900 · Cited by 31 · cited 5×
“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).”
BackgroundInfluentialDhillon, M. K., & Sharma, H. C. (2013) · PubMed · Cited by 30
Smith, R. F., & Hagen, K. S. (1959) · Hilgardia · doi:10.3733/hilg.v29n02p131 · Cited by 30 · cited 1×
“strated that use of selective insecticides could be used to control the spotted alfalfa aphid without disrupting an important parasitoid that helped keep it in check (Smith and Hagen, 1959; Stern and van den Bosch, 1959; Stern et al., 1959).”
BackgroundSampson, K., Zaitseva, J., Stauffer, M., Vande Berg, B., Guo, R., Tomso, D., McNulty, B., Desai, N., & Balasubramanian, D. (2017) · Journal of Invertebrate Pathology · doi:10.1016/j.jip.2016.10.004 · Cited by 30 · cited 2×
“, 2018) and Chromobacter (Sampson et al. 2017) that might be expressed in future insect-resistant GE plants.”
BackgroundDisque, H. H., Hamby, K. A., Dubey, A., Taylor, C., & Dively, G. P. (2018) · Pest Management Science · doi:10.1002/ps.5201 · Cited by 30 · cited 1×
“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).”
BackgroundMovement of transgenic plant‐expressed Bt Cry1Ac proteins through high trophic levels
Wei, W., Schuler, T. H., Clark, S. J., Stewart, C. N., & Poppy, G. M. (2008) · Journal of Applied Entomology · doi:10.1111/j.1439-0418.2007.01242.x · Cited by 29
Sanou, E. I. R., Gheysen, G., Koulibaly, B., et al. (2018) · New Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2018.01.005 · Cited by 29 · cited 1×
“Use of Bt cotton has been temporarily halted in Burkina Faso after eight years (Pertry et al., 2016; Sanou et al., 2018).”
BackgroundRaybould, A. F., Graser, G., Hill, K., & Ward, K. (2010) · Journal of Applied Entomology · doi:10.1111/j.1439-0418.2010.01601.x · Cited by 27 · cited 1×
“…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., 2014, 2018b; Walters et al., 2018).”
BackgroundAcquisition of Cry1Ac Protein by Non-Target Arthropods in Bt Soybean Fields
Yu, H., Romeis, J., Li, Y., Li, X., & Wu, K. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0103973 · Cited by 27 · cited 2×
“(Hemiptera: Nabidae), have also been reported to feed directly on green leaf tissue (Yu et al., 2014).”
BackgroundSelf-citationOnstad, D. W., Liu, X., Chen, M., Roush, R., & Shelton, A. M. (2013) · Journal of Economic Entomology · doi:10.1603/ec12287 · Cited by 27 · cited 1×
“Using this same system, a model was created to study the influence of D. insulare on the long-term pest management and evolution of resistance in P. xylostella (Onstad et al., 2013).”
Self-citationDoes Bt rice pose risks to non‐target arthropods? Results of a meta‐analysis in China
Dang, C., Lu, Z., Wang, L., Chang, X., Wang, F., Yao, H., Peng, Y., STANLEY, D. W., & Yè, G. (2017) · Plant Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1111/pbi.12698 · Cited by 27 · 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).”
BackgroundA review of the environmental safety of the Cry1Ab protein
Lean, M. M. (2011) · Environmental Biosafety Research · doi:10.1051/ebr:2012003 · Cited by 27
Mites: A primary food source for two predators in San Joaquin Valley cotton
Gonzlez, D., Patterson, B., Leigh, T. F., et al. (1982) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · Cited by 27
de Schrijver, A., Devos, Y., CLERCQ, P. D., Gathmann, A., & Romeis, J. (2016) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-016-9950-8 · Cited by 26
Self-citationA review of the environmental safety of the Cry1Ac protein
Lean, M. M. (2011) · Environmental Biosafety Research · doi:10.1051/ebr/2012002 · Cited by 26
Rauschen, S. (2010) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-009-9301-0 · Cited by 25 · 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).”
Effect of Bt maize on the plant-aphid-parasitoid tritrophic relationships
Lumbierres, B., Starý, P., & Pons, X. (2011) · BioControl · doi:10.1007/s10526-010-9317-7 · Cited by 25 · 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).”
BackgroundLüthi, C., Álvarez‐Alfageme, F., Ehlers, J. D., Higgins, T. J. V., & Romeis, J. (2013) · Bulletin of Entomological Research · doi:10.1017/s0007485312000818 · Cited by 25
Self-citationGeng, J.-H., Shen, Z., Song, K., & Zheng, L. (2006) · Environmental Entomology · doi:10.1603/0046-225x(2006)35[1661:eoporc]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 25
Ingestion of Bt corn pollen containing Cry1Ab/2Aj or Cry1Ac does not harm Propylea japonica larvae
Liu, Y., Liu, Q., Wang, Y., Chen, X., Song, X., Romeis, J., Li, Y., & Peng, Y. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep23507 · Cited by 25
Self-citationAn assessment of the risk of Bt-cowpea to non-target organisms in West Africa
Ba, M. N., Huesing, J. E., Tamò, M., Higgins, T. J. V., Pittendrigh, B. R., & Murdock, L. L. (2018) · Journal of Pest Science · doi:10.1007/s10340-018-0974-0 · Cited by 25 · 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).”
BackgroundInfluentialDevos, Y., Álvarez‐Alfageme, F., Gennaro, A., & Mestdagh, S. (2016) · Journal of Applied Entomology · doi:10.1111/jen.12248 · Cited by 23
Kumar, R., Tian, J., Naranjo, S. E., & Shelton, A. M. (2014) · Journal of Economic Entomology · doi:10.1603/ec13567 · Cited by 23
Self-citationPeterson, J. A., Obrycki, J. J., & Harwood, J. D. (2009) · Biocontrol Science and Technology · doi:10.1080/09583150902968972 · Cited by 23
North, J. H., Gore, J., Catchot, A. L., Stewart, S. D., Lorenz, G. M., Musser, F. R., Cook, D. R., Kerns, D. L., & Dodds, D. M. (2018) · Journal of Economic Entomology · doi:10.1093/jee/tox324 · Cited by 23 · cited 1×
“2010), where it can provide economic control of thrips during the seedling establishment period (North et al., 2018).”
BackgroundOlson, D. M., & Ruberson, J. R. (2012) · Biocontrol Science and Technology · doi:10.1080/09583157.2012.731495 · Cited by 22
Wach, M., Hellmich, R. L., Layton, R., Romeis, J., & Gadaleta, P. G. (2016) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-016-9945-5 · Cited by 22 · cited 1×
“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).”
BackgroundSelf-citationZhao, Z., Li, Y., Xiao, Y., et al. (2016) · Toxins · doi:10.3390/toxins8070212 · Cited by 22
Chang, X., Lu, Z., Shen, Z., Peng, Y., & Yè, G. (2017) · Environmental Entomology · doi:10.1093/ee/nvx113 · Cited by 22
Papiernik, S. K., Sappington, T. W., Luttrell, R. G., Hesler, L. S., & Allen, K. C. (2018) · Journal of Integrated Pest Management · doi:10.1093/jipm/pmx026 · Cited by 21
IPM and Insect-Protected Transgenic Plants: Thoughts for the Future
Shelton, A. M., Romeis, J., & Kennedy, G. G. (2008) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8373-0_14 · Cited by 19 · cited 1×
“Thus, Bt plants have turned what was once a minor foliar insecticide into a major control strategy (Shelton et al., 2008) and their role in IPM has received considerable attention (Downes et al.”
BackgroundSelf-citationSu, H. ‐., Tian, J., Naranjo, S. E., Romeis, J., Hellmich, R. L., & Shelton, A. M. (2014) · Journal of Applied Entomology · doi:10.1111/jen.12184 · Cited by 19
Self-citationRiedel, J., Romeis, J., & Meissle, M. (2016) · EFSA Supporting Publications · doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2016.en-956 · Cited by 19 · cited 1×
“Databases containing this information have been established for various field crops in Europe (e.g., Meissle et al., 2012, Riedel et al., 2016) and for rice in China (Li et al., 2017b).”
BackgroundSelf-citationLi, Y., Liu, Y., Yin, X., Romeis, J., Song, X., Chen, X., Geng, L., Geng, L., & Li, Y. (2017) · Toxins · doi:10.3390/toxins9030108 · Cited by 19 · cited 8×
“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).”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citation(GMO), E. P. O. G. M. O. (2012) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2753 · Cited by 19
(GMO), E. P. O. G. M. O. (2011) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2480 · Cited by 19
Meissle, M., & Romeis, J. (2012) · Environmental Entomology · doi:10.1603/en11321 · Cited by 18 · cited 1×
“However, the body of literature from more realistic laboratory and field experiments does not provide any evidence for such an accumulation (Meissle and Romeis, 2012).”
BackgroundSelf-citationThomazoni, D., Degrande, P. E., Silvie, P. J., & Faccenda, O. (2010) · Agritrop (Cirad) · Cited by 18
Tian, J., Romeis, J., Liu, K., et al. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-08173-w · Cited by 18 · cited 1×
“There is evidence, however, for direct plant feeding by Pseudogonatopus flavifemur (Hymenoptera: Dryinidae), a parasitoid of planthoppers, that contained Cry protein when caged with Bt rice plants devoid of hosts (Tian et al., 2017).”
BackgroundSelf-citationAhmed, H. A. A., Onarıcı, S., Bakhsh, A., Akdoğan, G., Karakoç, Ö. C., Özcan, S. F., Aydın, G., Aasım, M., Ünlü, L., Sancak, C., et al. (2017) · Plant Biotechnology Reports · doi:10.1007/s11816-017-0453-8 · Cited by 18 · cited 1×
“Another example is the successful use of the wound-inducible AoPR1 promotor isolated from Asparagus officinalis in cotton and potato (Ahmed et al., 2017; Anayol et al., 2016).”
BackgroundResponse of transgenic Bt cowpea lines and their hybrids under field conditions
Mohammed, Ishiyaku, Abdullahi, & Katung (2014) · Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science · doi:10.5897/jpbcs2013.0401 · Cited by 17 · cited 6×
“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).”
BackgroundInfluentialUptake and bioaccumulation of Cry toxins by an aphidophagous predator
Paula, D. P., & Andow, D. A. (2015) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2015.11.036 · Cited by 17 · cited 1×
“It has been claimed that Bt proteins may accumulate in a ladybird in a system using aphids and purified Bt proteins in an artificial diet (Paula and Andow, 2016).”
BackgroundMultitrophic Cry-protein flow in a dual-gene Bt-cotton field
Eisenring, M., Romeis, J., Naranjo, S. E., & Meissle, M. (2017) · Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/j.agee.2017.07.009 · Cited by 17 · cited 3×
“…is supported by evidence from ELISA measurements of field collected arthropods from Bt maize (Harwood et al., 2005; Meissle and Romeis, 2009a; Obrist et al., 2006a, Peterson et al., 2009), cotton (Eisenring et al., 2017; Torres et al., 2006), soybean (Yu et al., 2014), and rice (Li et al., 2017b).”
BackgroundSelf-citationLumbierres, B., Albajes, R., & Pons, X. (2012) · Biological Control · doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2012.07.009 · Cited by 16
Anayol, E., Bakhsh, A., Karakoç, Ö. C., Onarıcı, S., Köm, D., Aasim, M., Özcan, S. F., Barpete, S., Khabbazi, S. D., Önol, B., et al. (2016) · Plant Biotechnology Reports · doi:10.1007/s11816-016-0388-5 · Cited by 16 · cited 1×
“Another example is the successful use of the wound-inducible AoPR1 promotor isolated from Asparagus officinalis in cotton and potato (Ahmed et al., 2017; Anayol et al., 2016).”
BackgroundASIIMWE, P., ELLSWORTH, P. C., & NARANJO, S. E. (2016) · Ecological Entomology · doi:10.1111/een.12340 · Cited by 16
Self-citationSafety considerations derived from Cry34Ab1/Cry35Ab1 structure and function
Narva, K. E., Wang, N. X., & Herman, R. A. (2016) · Journal of Invertebrate Pathology · doi:10.1016/j.jip.2016.07.019 · Cited by 16
Graser, G., Walters, F. S., Burns, A., Sauve, A., & Raybould, A. (2017) · Journal of Insect Science · doi:10.1093/jisesa/iex003 · Cited by 16
García‐Ruiz, E., Loureiro, Í., Farinós, G. P., Gómez, P., Gutiérrez, E., Sánchez, F. J., Escorial, M. C., Ortego, F., Chueca, M. C., & Castañera, P. (2018) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0191408 · Cited by 16
Mason, C. E., Sheldon, J. K., Pesek, J., Bacon, H., Gallusser, R., Radke, G., & Slabaugh, B. (2008) · Journal of Agricultural and Urban Entomology · doi:10.3954/1523-5475-25.4.265 · Cited by 15
Garcia‐Alonso, M. (2010) · Cited by 15
Tian, J., Wang, X.-P., Chen, Y., Romeis, J., Naranjo, S. E., Hellmich, R. L., Wang, P., & Shelton, A. M. (2018) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-18620-3 · Cited by 15 · cited 3×
“…adults) immunologically by ELISA is still biologically active, which indicates that ELISA data can be used to estimate levels of exposure to active Bt protein (Chen et al. 2008; Guo et al., 2016; Li et al., 2011; Meissle and Romeis, 2009b; Obrist et al., 2006b; Tian et al., 2012, 2013, 2018b).”
BackgroundSelf-citationShu, Y., Romeis, J., & Meissle, M. (2018) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2018.00039 · Cited by 15 · cited 1×
“…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., 2014, 2018b; Walters et al., 2018).”
BackgroundSelf-citationÁlvarez‐Alfageme, F., Lüthi, C., & Romeis, J. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036862 · Cited by 14
Self-citationGuo, Y.-Y., Tian, J.-C., Shi, W.-P., Dong, X.-H., Romeis, J., Naranjo, S. E., Hellmich, R. L., & Shelton, A. M. (2016) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-015-9917-1 · Cited by 14 · 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-citationWang, Z., Li, Y., He, K., Bai, S., Zhang, T., Cai, W., & Wang, Z. (2017) · Insect Science · doi:10.1111/1744-7917.12352 · Cited by 14
Svobodová, Z., Habuštová, O. S., Holec, J., Holec, M., Boháč, J., Jursík, M., Soukup, J., & Sehnal, F. (2017) · Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/j.agee.2017.09.018 · Cited by 14 · cited 1×
“Subsequent field studies conducted with HT maize in both Spain and the Czech Republic and with HT cotton in Spain have shown that the response of arthropods to altered weed abundance and diversity was variable and differed among taxa (Albajes et al., 2009, 2011; García-Ruiz et al., 2018; Svobodová et al., 2018).”
BackgroundWalters, F. S., Graser, G., Burns, A., et al. (2017) · Environmental Entomology · doi:10.1093/ee/nvx207 · Cited by 13
Bigler, F., & Albajes, R. (2011) · Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety · doi:10.1007/s00003-011-0688-1 · Cited by 12 · cited 2×
“The benefits of this technology include highly effective weed control, greater flexibility in applying the herbicide, reduced phytotoxicity to the crop, and savings in time and costs (Bigler and Albajes, 2011).”
BackgroundIdentification of relevant non-target organisms exposed to weevil-resistant Bt sweetpotato in Uganda
Rukarwa, R. J., Mukasa, S. B., Odongo, B., Ssemakula, G. N., & Ghislain, M. (2013) · 3 Biotech · doi:10.1007/s13205-013-0153-1 · Cited by 11 · cited 1×
“(Rukarwa et al., 2014), and Bt pine trees in New Zealand (Todd et al.”
BackgroundLevine, S. L., Mueller, G. M., & Uffman, J. P. (2016) · Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.05.003 · Cited by 11 · cited 1×
“…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., 2014, 2018b; Walters et al.,…”
BackgroundHaller, S., Romeis, J., & Meissle, M. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-10801-4 · Cited by 11
Self-citationHuang, F. (2015) · CABI eBooks · doi:10.1079/9781780644370.0173 · Cited by 9 · cited 1×
“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).”
BackgroundTian, J., Wang, G., Han, H., Romeis, J., Zhang, F., Yè, G., Xie, M., Wang, G., & Lü, Z. (2018) · Pest Management Science · doi:10.1002/ps.4886 · Cited by 9 · cited 3×
“…adults) immunologically by ELISA is still biologically active, which indicates that ELISA data can be used to estimate levels of exposure to active Bt protein (Chen et al. 2008; Guo et al., 2016; Li et al., 2011; Meissle and Romeis, 2009b; Obrist et al., 2006b; Tian et al., 2012, 2013, 2018b).”
BackgroundSelf-citationEcology of natural enemies and genetically engineered host plants
Kennedy, G. G., & Gould, F. L. (2007) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511752353.010 · Cited by 8 · cited 1×
“…genetic engineering have provided a novel and powerful means of transferring insect-resistance genes to crops, and there is evidence that those resistance traits have similar effects on natural enemies than resistance achieved by conventional breeding (Kennedy and Gould, 2007; Romeis et al. 2008c).”
BackgroundPeterson, J. A., Obrycki, J. J., & Harwood, J. D. (2016) · Biocontrol Science and Technology · doi:10.1080/09583157.2016.1193591 · Cited by 8
Ellsworth, P. C., Fournier, A., Frisvold, G. B., et al. (2017) · CABI eBooks · doi:10.1079/9781786394118.0214 · Cited by 8 · cited 1×
“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).”
BackgroundSelf-citationManachini, B., & Lozzia, G. C. (2004) · IOBC/WPRS Bulletin · Cited by 7
Biology ofTrichogramma pretiosum(Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) Fed Transgenic Maize Pollen
Sousa, M. F. D., Fernandes, M. G., & Mota, T. A. (2017) · Florida Entomologist · doi:10.1653/024.100.0324 · Cited by 7
Lüthi, C., Álvarez‐Alfageme, F., & Romeis, J. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0067785 · Cited by 6
Self-citationXia, Z., Guo, Y., Kong, H., et al. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0142714 · Cited by 6
Lüthi, C., Álvarez‐Alfageme, F., & Romeis, J. (2018) · Pest Management Science · doi:10.1002/ps.4919 · Cited by 3
Self-citationAN ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF BT TRANSGENIC SWEET CORN ON NON-TARGET ARTHROPOD COMMUNITIES
Rose, R. (2005) · University Libraries (University of Maryland) · Cited by 1
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