Cited by 73Genetically Modified Organisms ResearchInsect Resistance and GeneticsInsect-Plant Interactions and Control

A synthesis of laboratory and field studies on the effects of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) maize on non‐target Lepidoptera

Open access
Lang, A., Otto, M.·2010·Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata

Abstract

One of the major applications of transgenic crops in agriculture are the so‐called Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner (Bt) plants, in particular Bt maizes, which produce insecticidal Cry proteins that target specific orders, such as the Lepidoptera or Coleoptera. We reviewed publications that reported on the direct toxic effects of Bt‐maize and/or Cry proteins of current Bt‐maize events on larvae of non‐target butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera). In total, 20 peer‐reviewed publications were identified, of which 16 papers contributed laboratory‐based data and seven field‐based data. An adverse effect on caterpillars was recorded in 52% of all laboratory‐based and in 21% of all field‐based observations. The variables most often studied and having the highest occurrence of effects were larval survival, body mass, and developmental time. Parameters of the adult stage were under‐represented in the studies. Overall, 11 lepidopteran species were tested. The majority of the studies originated from the USA, with the Monarch butterfly being the most studied, whereas other species and other parts of the world were widely neglected. Laboratory experiments were often run under unrealistic conditions from an ecological point of view. Although the papers we reviewed indicated a potential hazard for Lepidoptera that are exposed to and feed on lepidopteran‐specific Bt‐maize pollen, a general conclusion on the level of risk for butterflies and moths cannot as yet be drawn. A comprehensive risk characterization would require thorough hazard identification, exposure assessment, and impact assessment. However, our review showed that even the basic level of hazard characterization is as yet incomplete. Reasons for this are the still‐limited numbers of publications and concurrent lack of knowledge, the restriction of data to only a few species, the over‐representation of North American species, and the identified limitations of both laboratory and field experiments. The findings of this review suggest that more realistic, ecologically meaningful, and detailed experiments and analyses are crucial to improve the present assessment of Bt‐maize cultivation effects on Lepidoptera.

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 · 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2010.00981.x

Cites

75 of 75 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. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) (2006) Guidance docu- ment of the scientific panel on genetically modified organisms for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants and derived food and feed. EFSA Journal 99: 1-100.
  2. EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (1998) Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. Federal Register 63(93): 26846- 26924.
  3. ⁄ EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of geneti- cally modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90 ⁄ 220 ⁄ EC -Commission Declaration. Official Journal L 106: 1-39.
  4. Jesse LCH & Obrycki JJ (2002) Assessment of the non-target effects of transgenic Bt corn pollen and anthers on the milkweed tiger moth, Euchatias egle Drury (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 75: 55-58.
  5. Lang A, Ludy C & Vojtech E (2004) Dispersion and distribution of Bt maize pollen in field margins. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection 111: 417-428.
  6. Miller WE (2005) Reproductive bulk in capital-breeding Lepi- doptera. Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 59: 229-233.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lang, A., & Otto, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Basel (CH)
  • Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (DE)
Corresponding author
Lang, A.
Venue
Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-04-06
Volume
135
Issue
2
Pages
121-134
ISSN
  • 0013-8703 (ISSN-L)
  • 1570-7458
OpenAlex
W2101946131
Cited by
73
References
75
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 9
FWCI
9.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Insect Resistance and Genetics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect-Plant Interactions and Control
Keywords
Bt maize, Bacillus thuringiensis, Cry proteins, Lepidoptera, larval toxicity, larval survival, monarch butterfly, genetically modified crops, risk assessment, hazard characterization, exposure assessment, impact assessment

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