CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 320Insect Resistance and GeneticsGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchInsect-Plant Interactions and Control

Long-term regional suppression of pink bollworm by Bacillus thuringiensis cotton

Open access
Carrière, Yves, Ellers-Kirk, Christa, Sisterson, Mark, Antilla, Larry, Whitlow, Mike, Dennehy, Timothy J., Tabashnik, Bruce E.·2003·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.0436708100PMC PMC149864
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Despite the potentially profound impact of genetically modified crops on agriculture and the environment, we know little about their long-term effects. Transgenic crops that produce toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) to control insects are grown widely, but rapid evolution of resistance by pests could nullify their benefits. Here, we present theoretical analyses showing that long-term suppression of pest populations is governed by interactions among reproductive rate, dispersal propensity, and regional abundance of a Bt crop. Supporting this theory, a 10-year study in 15 regions across Arizona shows that Bt cotton suppressed a major pest, pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella), independent of demographic effects of weather and variation among regions. Pink bollworm population density declined only in regions where Bt cotton was abundant. Such long-term suppression has not been observed with insecticide sprays, showing that transgenic crops open new avenues for pest control. The debate about putative benefits of Bt crops has focused primarily on short-term decreases in insecticide use. The present findings suggest that long-term regional pest suppression after deployment of Bt crops may also contribute to reducing the need for insecticide sprays.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0436708100

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Bt crops can reduce target pest populations over broad scales, resulting in reduced damage on both GE and non-GE crops in the region.

    “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.”

    From Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control (2019) · cites this paper as Carrière et al., 2003

  • The quickly increased adoption of Bt cotton led to broad, areawide control of the pest and opened the door for an opportunity to eradicate this invasive pest.

    “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.”

    From Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control (2019) · cites this paper as Carrière et al., 2003

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. [1]James C. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) Brief No. 24. Ithaca, NY: ISAAA; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  2. [8]Alstad D N, Andow D A. AgBiotech News Info. 1996;8:177N–181N. [Google Scholar]
  3. [9]Riggin-Bucci T M, Gould F. J Econ Entomol. 1997;90:241–251. [Google Scholar]
  4. [10]Henneberry T J, Naranjo S E. Integr Pest Manag Rev. 1998;3:31–52. [Google Scholar]
  5. [11]Chu C C, Henneberry T J. Southwest Entomol. 1990;15:273–280. [Google Scholar]
  6. [15]Brown P W, Russell B. The Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET) Computer Bulletin Board. Univ. of Arizona Cooperative Extension Service; 1995. http://ag.arizona.edu/AZMET/ , http://ag.arizona.edu/AZMET/. . [Google Scholar]
  7. [16]Henneberry T J, Bariola L A, Kittock D L. In: Pink Bollworm Control in the Western United States. Graham H M, editor. Agricultural Reviews and Manuals, ARM-W-16: U. S. Department of Agriculture; 1980. pp. 9–23. [Google Scholar]
  8. [17]Henneberry T J, Forlow Jech L. Southwest Entomol. 1999;24:281–300. [Google Scholar]
  9. [18]Sims M A, Dennehy T J, Patin A, Carrière Y, Liu Y-B, Tabashnik B E, Antilla L, Whitlow M. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. Memphis, TN: National Cotton Council; 2001. pp. 1175–1179. [Google Scholar]
  10. [20]Swed F S, Eisenhart C. Ann Math Stat. 1943;14:66–87. [Google Scholar]
  11. [22]Levins R. Bull Entomol Soc Am. 1969;15:237–240. [Google Scholar]
  12. [24]Peck S F, Gould F, Ellner S. J Econ Entomol. 1999;92:1–16. [Google Scholar]
  13. [26]Fife L C. J Econ Entomol. 1961;54:908–913. [Google Scholar]
  14. [27]Tabashnik B E, Dennehy T J, Carrière Y. BioScience. 2001;51:905–906. [Google Scholar]
  15. [28]Caprio M A. Biocontrol Sci Tech. 1994;4:487–497. [Google Scholar]
  16. [29]Whitham T G. Science. 1989;244:1490–1493. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Carrière, Y., Ellers-Kirk, C., Sisterson, M., Antilla, L., Whitlow, M., Dennehy, T. J., & Tabashnik, B. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • Department of Entomology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721; and Arizona Cotton Research and Protection Council, 3721 East Wier Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85040-2933
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2003-02-05
Volume
100
Issue
4
Pages
1519-1523
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.0436708100
PMC
PMC149864
OpenAlex
W2012355057
Cited by
320
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 19
FWCI
7.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture
  • Arizona Cotton Research and Protection Council
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
Pectinophora gossypiella, Bacillus thuringiensis, Bt cotton, genetically modified crops, pest population suppression, insect dispersal, reproductive rate, insecticide reduction
MeSH terms
Animals, Bacillus thuringiensis, Female, Male, Moths, Pest Control, Biological, Population Dynamics, Regression Analysis

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.

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