Does the growing of Bt maize change abundance or ecological function of non-target animals compared to the growing of non-GM maize? A systematic review protocol
Open accessAbstract
Background: Since 1996, genetically modified (GM) crops have been grown on an ever increasing area worldwide. Maize producing a Cry protein from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) was among the first GM crops released for commercial production and it is the only GM crop currently cultivated in Europe. A major part of the regulatory process that precedes the commercial release of GM crops is the environmental risk assessment. Because Bt maize is modified to produce insecticidal proteins, potential interactions with non-target organisms are a major area of concern to be addressed in the risk assessment. In particular, beneficial arthropods that provide important agro-ecological services, such as pollination, decomposition, and biological control are the focus. This systematic review will evaluate if the growing of Bt maize changes abundance or ecological function of non-target animals compared to the growing of conventional, non-GM maize. The review will be limited to plot or field level data including field margins. Potential cropping system effects and off-field effects will not be addressed. Bt maize will be compared to conventional maize either untreated or treated with chemical insecticides. Methods: Stakeholders from academia, competent authorities, industry, and civil society organizations were given the opportunity to comment on the review question and an earlier draft of this review protocol. Keyword searches will be conducted in a range of abstracting and full text literature databases. Retrieved records will be screened against a set of inclusion criteria, first on title and abstract level, then on full text level. Selected studies will be evaluated for risks of bias (quality assessment). Data on field/plot characteristics, maize cultivars, insecticide treatments, non-target animal taxa, sampling methods, and response variables of populations and ecological functions will be extracted. Meta-analysis will be conducted using the effect size estimator Hedge’s d on a range of comparisons and including sensitivity analysis. The review process will be fully documented in CADIMA, an open access online data portal for evidence synthesis.
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
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.
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?
This systematic review follows the protocol previously published by Meissle et al.
“This systematic review follows the protocol previously published by Meissle et al. [9].”
From Does the growing of Bt maize change abundance or ecological function of non-target animals compared to the growing of non-GM maize? A systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [9]
In addition to toxicity of the introduced Bt proteins, effects may include food web effects as a result of the missing target species in Bt crops and effects resulting from changes in plant physiology or changes in crop management practices.
“In addition to toxicity of the introduced Bt proteins, effects also may include food web effects as a result of the missing target species in Bt crops and effects resulting from changes in plant physiology or changes in crop management practices [9].”
From Does the growing of Bt maize change abundance or ecological function of non-target animals compared to the growing of non-GM maize? A systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [9]
A reduction of populations of valued organisms may lead to environmental harm, no matter if the underlying effects are direct or indirect, anticipated or unanticipated.
“The review covers field data of non-target animals, because a reduction of populations of valued organisms may lead to environmental harm, no matter if the underlying effects are direct or indirect, anticipated or unanticipated [9].”
From Does the growing of Bt maize change abundance or ecological function of non-target animals compared to the growing of non-GM maize? A systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [9]
Meissle et al. translated the general guidance for critical appraisal provided by CEE to more specific criteria applicable to the present review question.
“Meissle et al. [9] translated the general guidance for critical appraisal provided by CEE to more specific criteria applicable to the present review question.”
From Does the growing of Bt maize change abundance or ecological function of non-target animals compared to the growing of non-GM maize? A systematic review (2022) · cites this paper as [9]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 15 · Cited by 13
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Smets G, Spök A, GRACE team members: Assessing the evidence of health, environmental and socio-economic Impacts of GMOs -GRACE stakeholder consultation on good review practice in GMO impact assessment. Part 1: overall process and review questions. Available online: http://www.grace-fp7.eu/content/reports-study-plans-consultation- documents [Accessed 11 April 2014].
- Authors
- Meissle, M., Naranjo, S. E., Kohl, C., Riedel, J., & Romeis, J.
- Affiliations
- Agroscope (CH)
- U.S. Arid Land Agricultural Research Center (US)
- Julius Kühn-Institut (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Meissle, Michael
- Venue
- Environmental Evidence
- Published
- 2014-04-24
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2047-2382 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2149470023
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 0.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Environmental Evidence (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- OpenAgrar (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- FP7 Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Biotechnology (311957)
- 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, genetically modified crops, non-target organisms, beneficial arthropods, ecological function, environmental risk assessment, conventional maize, chemical insecticides, field margins, biological control, pollination, decomposition, insecticidal proteins
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