Cited by 166Genetically Modified Organisms ResearchInsect Resistance and GeneticsInsect-Plant Interactions and Control

Transgenic Insecticidal Crops and Natural Enemies: A Detailed Review of Laboratory Studies

Open access
Lövei, Gabor L., Andow, David A., Arpaia, Salvatore·2009·Environmental Entomology

Abstract

This review uses a data-driven, quantitative method to summarize the published, peer-reviewed literature about the impact of genetically modified (GM) plants on arthropod natural enemies in laboratory experiments. The method is similar to meta-analysis, and, in contrast to a simple author-vote counting method used by several earlier reviews, gives an objective, data-driven summary of existing knowledge about these effects. Significantly more non-neutral responses were observed than expected at random in 75% of the comparisons of natural enemy groups and response classes. These observations indicate that Cry toxins and proteinase inhibitors often have non-neutral effects on natural enemies. This synthesis identifies a continued bias toward studies on a few predator species, especially the green lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea Stephens, which may be more sensitive to GM insecticidal plants (16.8% of the quantified parameter responses were significantly negative) than predators in general (10.9% significantly negative effects without C. carnea). Parasitoids were more susceptible than predators to the effects of both Cry toxins and proteinase inhibitors, with fewer positive effects (18.0%, significant and nonsignificant positive effects combined) than negative ones (66.1%, significant and nonsignificant negative effects combined). GM plants can have a positive effect on natural enemies (4.8% of responses were significantly positive), although significant negative (21.2%) effects were more common. Although there are data on 48 natural enemy species, the database is still far from adequate to predict the effect of a Bt toxin or proteinase inhibitor on natural enemies.

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 · 10.1603/022.038.0201

Cites

103 of 103 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: 1

  1. In M. J. Crawley (ed.), Natural enemies. Blackwell ScientiÞc, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lövei, G. L., Andow, D. A., & Arpaia, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (IT)
Venue
Environmental Entomology
Published
2009-04-01
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
293-306
ISSN
  • 0046-225X (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-2936
OpenAlex
W2128125070
Cited by
166
References
103
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 25
FWCI
2.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Environmental Entomology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (acceptedVersion)
  • INFM-OAR (INFN Catania) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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
genetically modified crops, arthropod natural enemies, delta-endotoxin, protease inhibitors, parasitoids, predators, Chrysoperla carnea, green lacewings, non-target effects, laboratory experiments
MeSH terms
Bacillus thuringiensis Toxins, Animals, Arthropods, Bacterial Proteins, Endotoxins, Hemolysin Proteins, Insect Control, Insecticides, Larva, Species Specificity, Databases, Factual, Crops, Agricultural, Plants, Genetically Modified

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