Cited by 35Genetically Modified Organisms ResearchInsect Resistance and GeneticsAgricultural safety and regulations

Regulatory considerations surrounding the deployment Of Bt-expressing cowpea in Africa: Report of the deliberations of an expert panel

Huesing, Joseph E., Romeis, Jörg, Ellstrand, Norman C., Raybould, Alan, Hellmich, Richard L., Wolt, Jeffrey D., Ehlers, Jeffrey D., Dabiré-Binso, L. Clémentine +14 more·2011·GM Crops

Abstract

Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata spp unguiculata) is adapted to the drier agro-ecological zones of West Africa where it is a major source of dietary protein and widely used as a fodder crop. Improving the productivity of cowpea can enhance food availability and security in West Africa. Insect predation--predominately from the legume pod borer (Maruca vitrata), flower thrips (Megalurothrips sjostedti) and a complex of pod-sucking bugs (e.g., Clavigralla spp)--is a major yield-limiting factor in West African cowpea production. Dramatic increases in yield are shown when M. vitrata is controlled with insecticides. However, availability, costs, and safety considerations limit pesticides as a viable option for boosting cowpea production. Development of Bt-cowpea through genetic modification (GM) to control the legume pod borer is a promising approach to cowpea improvement. Cowpea expressing the lepidopteran-active Cry1Ab protein from Bacillus thuringiensis is being developed as a first generation Bt-cowpea crop for West Africa. Appropriate stewardship of Bt-cowpea to assure its sustainability under West African conditions is critical to its successful development. A first step in this process is an environmental risk assessment to determine the likelihood and magnitude of adverse effects of the Cry1Ab protein on key environmental protection goals in West Africa. Here we describe the results of an expert panel convened in 2009 to develop the problem formulation phase for Bt-cowpea and to address specific issues around gene flow, non-target arthropods, and insect resistance management.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4161/gmcr.2.3.18689

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Cowpea contains Cry1Ab to protect the plant from damage by Maruca testulalis.

    “Another example is that of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata ssp.unguiculata) that contains Cry1Ab to protect the plant from damage by Maruca testulalis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) (Ba et al., 2018;Huesing et al., 2011;Mohammed et al., 2014).”

    From Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control (2019) · cites this paper as Huesing et al., 2011

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huesing, J. E., Romeis, J., Ellstrand, N. C., Raybould, A., Hellmich, R. L., Wolt, J. D., Ehlers, J. D., Dabiré-Binso, L. C., Fatokun, C. A., Hokanson, K. E., Ishiyaku, M. F., Margam, V. M., Obokoh, N., Mignouna, J. D., Nang'ayo, F., Ouedraogo, J. T., Pasquet, R. S., Pittendrigh, B. R., Schaal, B. A., Stein, J., Tamò, M., & Murdock, L. L.
Affiliations
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
  • University of California, Riverside (US)
  • Syngenta (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Iowa State University (US)
  • Laboratoire Central d’Entomologie Agricole de Kamboinsé; INERA; Burkina Faso
  • CGIAR (FR)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Institute for Agricultural Research (NG)
  • King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (SA)
  • African Agricultural Technology Foundation (KE)
  • Institut de l'Environnement et Recherches Agricoles (BF)
  • International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (KE)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Donald Danforth Plant Science Center (US)
  • International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (BJ)
Venue
GM Crops
Published
2011-06
Volume
2
Issue
3
Pages
211-224
ISSN
  • 1938-1999 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-2006
OpenAlex
W2020792050
Cited by
35
References
79
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • GM Crops (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion)
  • Iowa State University Digital Repository (Iowa State University) (submittedVersion)
  • CGSPace A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) (submittedVersion)
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 › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
Keywords
cowpea, Cry1Ab toxin, Bacillus thuringiensis, Maruca vitrata, legume pod borer, environmental risk assessment, gene flow, non-target arthropods, insect resistance management, West Africa, food security, problem formulation
MeSH terms
Bacillus thuringiensis Toxins, Africa, Western, Animals, Bacillus thuringiensis, Bacterial Proteins, Endotoxins, Environmental Monitoring, Hemolysin Proteins, Host-Parasite Interactions, Hybridization, Genetic, Insecta, Fabaceae, Pest Control, Biological, Plant Diseases, Gene Expression, Crops, Agricultural, Risk Assessment, Plants, Genetically Modified, Gene Flow

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