Cited by 36Genetically Modified Organisms ResearchInsect Resistance and GeneticsInsect-Plant Interactions and Control

Surrogate species selection for assessing potential adverse environmental impacts of genetically engineered insect-resistant plants on non-target organisms

Open access
Carstens, Keri, Cayabyab, Bonifacio, De Schrijver, Adinda, Gadaleta, Patricia G, Hellmich, Richard L, Romeis, Jörg, Storer, Nicholas, Valicente, Fernando H +1 more·2014·GM Crops & Food

Abstract

Most regulatory authorities require that developers of genetically engineered insect-resistant (GEIR) crops evaluate the potential for these crops to have adverse impacts on valued non-target organisms (NTOs), i.e., organisms not intended to be controlled by the trait. In many cases, impacts to NTOs are assessed using surrogate species, and it is critical that the data derived from surrogates accurately predict any adverse impacts likely to be observed from the use of the crop in the agricultural context. The key is to select surrogate species that best represent the valued NTOs in the location where the crop is going to be introduced, but this selection process poses numerous challenges for the developers of GE crops who will perform the tests, as well as for the ecologists and regulators who will interpret the test results. These issues were the subject of a conference "Surrogate Species Selection for Assessing Potential Adverse Environmental Impacts of Genetically Engineered Plants on Non-Target Organisms" convened by the Center for Environmental Risk Assessment, ILSI Research Foundation. This report summarizes the proceedings of the conference, including the presentations, discussions and the points of consensus agreed to by the participants.

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 · 10.4161/gmcr.26560

Cites

10 of 10 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?

  • Because not all natural enemies potentially at risk can be tested, a representative subset of species (surrogates) is selected for assessment.

    “From a practical standpoint, because not all natural enemies potentially at risk can be tested, a representative subset of species (surrogates) is selected for assessment (Carstens et al., 2014;Romeis et al., 2013b;Wach et al., 2016).”

    From Genetically engineered crops help support conservation biological control (2019) · cites this paper as Carstens et al., 2014

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: 2

  1. [12]Heimbach U, et al. in Guidelines to evaluate side-effects of plant protection products to non-target arthropods. M.P., Candolf, S., Blumel, R., Forster, F.M., Bakker, C., Grimm, S.A., Hassan, U., Heimbach, M.A., Mead-Briggs, B., Reber, R., Schmuck, H., V. (Eds.) International Organization for Biological and Integrated Control of Noxious Animals and Weeds, West Palearctic Regional Section (IOBC/WPRS) (2000).
  2. [14]EFSA. Submission of scientific peer-reviewed open literature for the approval of pesticide active substances under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. The EFSA Journal 2011; 2011: 2092 - 140

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carstens, K., Cayabyab, B., De Schrijver, A., Gadaleta, P. G., Hellmich, R. L., Romeis, J., Storer, N., Valicente, F. H., & Wach, M.
Affiliations
  • Pioneer Hi-Bred (US)
  • University of the Philippines Los Baños (PH)
  • Agricultural Research Service (US)
  • Agroscope (CH)
  • Indian Institute of Millets Research (IN)
  • International Life Sciences Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Wach, Michael
Venue
GM Crops & Food
Published
2013-09-23
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
11-15
ISSN
  • 2164-5698 (ISSN-L)
  • 2164-5701
OpenAlex
W2072093076
Cited by
36
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
6.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • GM crops & food (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion)
  • Iowa State University Digital Repository (Iowa State University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
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
non-target organisms, environmental risk assessment, Bt crops, ecological impact assessment
MeSH terms
Animals, Breeding, Environment, Insecta, Species Specificity, 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