Literature DB >> 23062830

Deriving criteria to select arthropod species for laboratory tests to assess the ecological risks from cultivating arthropod-resistant genetically engineered crops.

Jörg Romeis1, Alan Raybould, Franz Bigler, Marco P Candolfi, Richard L Hellmich, Joseph E Huesing, Anthony M Shelton.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Arthropods form a major part of the biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Many species are valued because they provide ecosystem services, including biological control, pollination and decomposition, or because they are of conservation interest. Some arthropods reduce crop yield and quality, and conventional chemical pesticides, biological control agents and genetically engineered (GE) crops are used to control them. A common concern addressed in the ecological risk assessment (ERA) that precedes regulatory approval of these pest control methods is their potential to adversely affect valued non-target arthropods (NTAs). A key concept of ERA is early-tier testing using worst-case exposure conditions in the laboratory and surrogate test species that are most likely to reveal an adverse effect. If no adverse effects are observed in those species at high exposures, confidence of negligible ecological risk from the use of the pest control method is increased. From experience with chemical pesticides and biological control agents, an approach is proposed for selecting test species for early-tier ERA of GE arthropod-resistant crops. Surrogate species should be selected that most closely meet three criteria: (i) Potential sensitivity: species should be the most likely to be sensitive to the arthropod-active compound based on the known spectrum of activity of the active ingredient, its mode of action, and the phylogenetic relatedness of the test and target species; (ii) RELEVANCE: species should be representative of valued taxa or functional groups that are most likely to be exposed to the arthropod-active compound in the field; and (iii) Availability and reliability: suitable life-stages of the test species must be obtainable in sufficient quantity and quality, and validated test protocols must be available that allow consistent detection of adverse effects on ecologically relevant parameters. Our proposed approach ensures that the most suitable species are selected for testing and that the resulting data provide the most rigorous test of the risk hypothesis of no adverse effect in order to increase the quality and efficiency of ERAs for cultivation of GE crops.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23062830     DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.09.035

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chemosphere        ISSN: 0045-6535            Impact factor:   7.086


  42 in total

1.  Using problem formulation to clarify the meaning of weight of evidence and biological relevance in environmental risk assessments for genetically modified crops.

Authors:  Alan Raybould; Karen Holt; Ian Kimber
Journal:  GM Crops Food       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 3.074

2.  Potential use of an arthropod database to support the non-target risk assessment and monitoring of transgenic plants.

Authors:  Jörg Romeis; Michael Meissle; Fernando Alvarez-Alfageme; Franz Bigler; David A Bohan; Yann Devos; Louise A Malone; Xavier Pons; Stefan Rauschen
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2014-03-16       Impact factor: 2.788

Review 3.  Quality of laboratory studies assessing effects of Bt-proteins on non-target organisms: minimal criteria for acceptability.

Authors:  Adinda De Schrijver; Yann Devos; Patrick De Clercq; Achim Gathmann; Jörg Romeis
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2016-03-15       Impact factor: 2.788

Review 4.  Review: biosafety assessment of Bt rice and other Bt crops using spiders as example for non-target arthropods in China.

Authors:  Huilin Yang; Yuande Peng; Jianxiang Tian; Juan Wang; Jilin Hu; Qisheng Song; Zhi Wang
Journal:  Plant Cell Rep       Date:  2017-02-16       Impact factor: 4.570

5.  Bt rice expressing Cry2Aa does not cause direct detrimental effects on larvae of Chrysoperla sinica.

Authors:  Yunhe Li; Yuanyuan Wang; Jörg Romeis; Qingsong Liu; Kejian Lin; Xiuping Chen; Yufa Peng
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2013-09-22       Impact factor: 2.823

6.  Establishing a system with Drosophila melanogaster (Diptera: Drosophilidae) to assess the non-target effects of gut-active insecticidal compounds.

Authors:  Simone Haller; Michael Meissle; Jörg Romeis
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2016-10-28       Impact factor: 2.823

7.  Protection goals in environmental risk assessment: a practical approach.

Authors:  Monica Garcia-Alonso; Alan Raybould
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 2.788

8.  Bt Proteins Have No Detrimental Effects on Larvae of the Green Lacewing, Chrysopa pallens (Rambur) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae).

Authors:  I Ali; S Zhang; M S Muhammad; M Iqbal; J-J J-J Cui
Journal:  Neotrop Entomol       Date:  2017-04-28       Impact factor: 1.434

9.  Effects of transgenic cry1Ie maize on non-lepidopteran pest abundance, diversity and community composition.

Authors:  Jingfei Guo; Kanglai He; Shuxiong Bai; Tiantao Zhang; Yunjun Liu; Fuxin Wang; Zhenying Wang
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2016-06-25       Impact factor: 2.788

Review 10.  Biosafety management and commercial use of genetically modified crops in China.

Authors:  Yunhe Li; Yufa Peng; Eric M Hallerman; Kongming Wu
Journal:  Plant Cell Rep       Date:  2014-02-04       Impact factor: 4.570

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.