Cited by 38Insect-Plant Interactions and ControlInsect Resistance and GeneticsGenetically Modified Organisms Research

Long-Term Assessment of the Effects of Transgenic Bt Cotton on the Function of the Natural Enemy Community

Open access
Naranjo, Steven E.·2005·Environmental Entomology

Abstract

Field studies to assess effects of transgenic crops on nontarget organisms primarily have focused on nontarget abundance and diversity, whereas few have examined effects on nontarget community function. A 5-yr field study in Arizona assessed whether transgenic cotton producing the Cry1Ac toxin of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) had an effect on the natural enemy community’s impact on three key pests. Predator:prey ratios for Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) and Lygus hesperus Knight were similar in unsprayed Bt and non-Bt cotton. Insecticide applications in positive control plots inconsistently altered ratios for B. tabaci. Predation indices based on the known feeding activity of selected predators showed that potential predator impact was unaltered by Bt cotton but was consistently depressed with insecticide applications. Sentinel eggs and pupae of Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) experienced the same rates of predation in both unsprayed Bt and non-Bt cotton. Cohort-based life tables for B. tabaci showed that rates of sucking predation, parasitism, and dislodgement (chewing predation in part) were unchanged by Bt cotton. Underlying experimental designs were sufficient to consistently detect changes of <20% in predator:prey ratios and predation indices and changes of <10% in rates of P. gossypiella and B. tabaci mortality with >80% power ( = 0.05). These long-term studies showed essentially no effects of Bt cotton on natural enemy function in Arizona cotton and further showed that minor reductions in density of several predator taxa in Bt cotton observed in a companion study may have little ecological meaning relative to natural enemy impact on key pests in the system.

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 · 10.1093/ee/34.5.1211

Cites

51 of 51 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Croft, B. A. 1990. Arthropod biological control agents and pesticides. Wiley, New York.
  2. Ellsworth, P. C., and V. Barkley. 2001. Cost-effective Lygus management in Arizona cotton, pp. 299 Ð307. In Cotton, a college of agriculture report. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
  3. Ellsworth, P. C., and J. S. Jones. 2001. Cotton IPM in Ari- zona: a decade of research, implementation and educa- tion, pp. 1088 Ð1096. In P. Dugger and D. Richter (eds.), Proceedings of the beltwide cotton conferences. National Cotton Council, Memphis, TN.
  4. Ellsworth, P. C., H. Moser, T. J. Henneberry, G. Majeau, and J. Subramani. 2002. Transgenic comparisons of pink bollworm efÞcacy and response to heat stress, pp. 147Ð 157. In Cotton, a college of agriculture and life sciences report. University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
  5. Tronstad, R., S. Husman, R. Norton, E. Norton, P. Clay, and M. Zerkoune. 2004. Review of the 2003 Arizona cotton season, pp. 1Ð 4. In Cotton, a college of agriculture and life sciences report University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
  6. Whitcomb, W. H. 1980. The use of predators in insect con- trol, pp. 105Ð123. In D. Pimentel (ed.), CRC handbook of pest management in agriculture. CRC, Boca Raton, FL.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Naranjo, S. E.
Affiliations
Agricultural Research Service (US)
Corresponding author
Naranjo, Steven E.
Venue
Environmental Entomology
Published
2005-10-01
Volume
34
Issue
5
Pages
1211-1223
ISSN
  • 0046-225X (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-2936
OpenAlex
W4231591380
Cited by
35
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
6.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
Environmental Entomology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture
  • Agricultural Research Service
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect-Plant Interactions and Control
  • 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
Keywords
Bt cotton, Cry1Ac toxin, predator-prey ratio, non-target organisms, Bemisia tabaci, Lygus hesperus, Pectinophora gossypiella, insecticide effects on predators, parasitism, dislodgement, long-term field experiment, Arizona cotton

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