Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 525

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Insect Resistance to Transgenic Bt Crops: Lessons from the Laboratory and Field

Tabashnik, Bruce E., Carrière, Yves, Dennehy, Timothy J., Morin, Shai, Sisterson, Mark S., Roush, Richard T., Shelton, Anthony M., Zhao, Jian-Zhou·2003·Journal of Economic Entomology

Abstract

Transgenic crops that produce insecticidal toxins from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) grew on >62 million ha worldwide from 1996 to 2002. Despite expectations that pests would rapidly evolve resistance to such Bt crops, increases in the frequency of resistance caused by exposure to Bt crops in the field have not yet been documented. In laboratory and greenhouse tests, however, at least seven resistant laboratory strains of three pests (Plutella xylostella [L.], Pectinophora gossypiella [Saunders], and Helicoverpa armigera [Hübner]) have completed development on Bt crops. In contrast, several other laboratory strains with 70- to 10,100-fold resistance to Bt toxins in diet did not survive on Bt crops. Monitoring of field populations in regions with high adoption of Bt crops has not yet detected increases in resistance frequency. Resistance monitoring examples include Ostrinia nubilalis (Hübner) in the United States (6 yr), P. gossypiella in Arizona (5 yr), H. armigera in northern China (3 yr), and Helicoverpa zea (Boddie) in North Carolina (2 yr). Key factors delaying resistance to Bt crops are probably refuges of non-Bt host plants that enable survival of susceptible pests, low initial resistance allele frequencies, recessive inheritance of resistance to Bt crops, costs associated with resistance that reduce fitness of resistant individuals relative to susceptible individuals on non-Bt hosts ("fitness costs"), and disadvantages suffered by resistant strains on Bt hosts relative to their performance on non-Bt hosts ("incomplete resistance"). The relative importance of these factors varies among pest-Bt crop systems, and violations of key assumptions of the refuge strategy (low resistance allele frequency and recessive inheritance) may occur in some cases. The success of Bt crops exceeds expectations of many, but does not preclude resistance problems in the future.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jee/96.4.1031

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 525

Metadata

Authors
Tabashnik, B. E., Carrière, Y., Dennehy, T. J., Morin, S., Sisterson, M. S., Roush, R. T., Shelton, A. M., & Zhao, J.-Z.
Venue
Journal of Economic Entomology
Published
2003-08-01
Volume
96
Issue
4
Pages
1031-1038
ISSN
  • 0022-0493 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-291X
OpenAlex
W2087760470
Cited by
525
References
3
FWCI
12.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Insect Resistance to Transgenic Bt Crops: Lessons from the Laboratory and Field. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jee/96.4.1031
The paper
Tabashnik, B. E., Carrière, Y., Dennehy, T. J., Morin, S., Sisterson, M. S., Roush, R. T., Shelton, A. M., & Zhao, J.-Z. (2003). Insect Resistance to Transgenic Bt Crops: Lessons from the Laboratory and Field. Journal of Economic Entomology. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/96.4.1031

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.