The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: A risk assessment
Open accessAbstract
A collaborative research effort by scientists in several states and in Canada has produced information to develop a formal risk assessment of the impact of Bt corn on monarch butterfly ( Danaus plexippus ) populations. Information was sought on the acute toxic effects of Bt corn pollen and the degree to which monarch larvae would be exposed to toxic amounts of Bt pollen on its host plant, the common milkweed, Asclepias syriaca , found in and around cornfields. Expression of Cry proteins, the active toxicant found in Bt corn tissues, differed among hybrids, and especially so in the concentrations found in pollen of different events. In most commercial hybrids, Bt expression in pollen is low, and laboratory and field studies show no acute toxic effects at any pollen density that would be encountered in the field. Other factors mitigating exposure of larvae include the variable and limited overlap between pollen shed and larval activity periods, the fact that only a portion of the monarch population utilizes milkweed stands in and near cornfields, and the current adoption rate of Bt corn at 19% of North American corn-growing areas. This 2-year study suggests that the impact of Bt corn pollen from current commercial hybrids on monarch butterfly populations is negligible.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Genetically modified crops: current status and future prospects
Kumar, K., Gambhir, G., Dass, A., Tripathi, A. K., Singh, A., Jha, A. K., Yadava, P., Choudhary, M., & Rakshit, S. (2020) · Planta · doi:10.1007/s00425-020-03372-8 · Cited by 528
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ORGANISMS AND THE ENVIRONMENT: CURRENT STATUS AND RECOMMENDATIONS1
Snow, A. A., Andow, D. A., Gepts, P., Hallerman, E. M., Power, A., Tiedje, J. M., & Wolfenbarger, L. L. (2005) · Ecological Applications · doi:10.1890/04-0539 · Cited by 334
Insecticide use: Contexts and ecological consequences
Devine, G. J., & Furlong, M. J. (2007) · Agriculture and Human Values · doi:10.1007/s10460-007-9067-z · Cited by 331
Assessing environmental risks of transgenic plants
Andow, D. A., & Zwahlen, C. (2006) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00846.x · Cited by 327
EFFECTS OF PLANTS GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOR INSECT RESISTANCE ON NONTARGET ORGANISMS
O'Callaghan, M., Glare, T. R., Burgess, E. P. J., & Malone, L. A. (2005) · Annual Review of Entomology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.50.071803.130352 · Cited by 304
Metadata
- Authors
- Sears, M. K., Hellmich, R. L., Stanley-Horn, D. E., Oberhauser, K. S., Pleasants, J. M., Mattila, H. R., Siegfried, B. D., & Dively, G. P.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2001-09-14
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 11937-11942
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2150197358
- Cited by
- 492
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 50.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: A risk assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.211329998
- The paper
- Sears, M. K., Hellmich, R. L., Stanley-Horn, D. E., Oberhauser, K. S., Pleasants, J. M., Mattila, H. R., Siegfried, B. D., & Dively, G. P. (2001). Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: A risk assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.211329998
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.