| Literature DB >> 28753622 |
Qianjin Wang1, Naishun Han1, Cong Dang1, Zengbin Lu1, Fang Wang1, Hongwei Yao1, Yufa Peng2, David Stanley3, Gongyin Ye1.
Abstract
The advent of genetically modified (GM) Bt rice creates the possibility of interactions among Bt crops, crop pathogens and non-target herbivores. In particular, information on how pathogen-infected Bt-expressing plants will influence non-target herbivores is necessary to predict the sustainability of GM cropping systems. Laboratory bioassays were conducted to evaluate the potential combined impacts of rice dwarf virus (RDV) and two Bt rice lines, T1C-19 (Cry1C) and T2A-1 (Cry2A), on non-target green rice leafhopper (GRLH), Nephotettix cincticeps (Uhler) (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae). In the first experiment, GRLHs feeding preference tests on Bt rice lines compared to a parental control rice line, MH63, were conducted. As rice plants were uninfected with RDV, GRLHs generally preferred the control MH63 line over the two Bt lines during the initial 8 h, with no significant preference during the following 64 h. As rice plants were infected with RDV, there were no clear preferences between the Bt rice lines and the control MH63 line. In the second experiment, we assessed the combined influence of RDV-infection status and Bt rice lines on GRLH biological parameters. Egg duration, adult weights, and male adult longevity were significantly affected on RDV-infected Bt rice. Other parameters, egg hatching rate, nymph survival and fecundity were not significantly influenced. We infer that interaction effect among two testing Bt rice lines and RDV will not lead to enlarged pest populations, thus demonstrating that growing these two Bt rice lines will poses negligible risk to GRLH in sustainable rice agroecosystems. Long-term field experiments to monitor the population dynamics of GRLHs at large scale need to be carried out to confirm the current results.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28753622 PMCID: PMC5533439 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181258
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1The feeding selection performance of GRLH, Nephotettix cincticeps among Bt rice (T1C-19 and T2A-1) along with non-Bt parent control (MH63).
(A) Rice plants of each tested line are healthy but not infected by RDV; (B) Rice plants of each tested line are infected by RDV. Columns represent means and bars indicate standard errors of the mean (n = 20). At the same time after inoculation by leafhoppers, the columns caped with different low-case letters are significantly different (P < 0.05) according to ANOVA based on Duncan’s multiple range tests; otherwise, there are no significant differences.
Results of multiple comparisons of factors affecting the biological parameters of GRLH.
| Parameters | Rice lines | RDV-infected status | Rice lines × RDV-infected status | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Egg hatching rate (%) | 0.42 | 0.6596 | 0.01 | 0.9223 | 1.24 | 0.3047 |
| Egg duration (day) | 36.63 | < 0.0001 | 17.69 | < 0.0001 | 45.19 | < 0.0001 |
| Survival rate of nymphs (%) | 2.27 | 0.1098 | 18.29 | < 0.0001 | 0.91 | 0.4048 |
| Total duration of male nymphs (day) | 43.93 | < 0.0001 | 0.27 | 0.6066 | 0.64 | 0.5306 |
| Total duration of female nymphs (day) | 51.24 | < 0.0001 | 0.53 | 0.4673 | 2.06 | 0.1312 |
| Wet body weight of male adults (mg/adult) | 7.50 | 0.0008 | 1.62 | 0.2049 | 8.95 | 0.0032 |
| Wet body weight of female adults (mg/adult) | 10.86 | < 0.0001 | 2.51 | 0.1152 | 3.92 | 0.0221 |
| Male adult longevity (day) | 0.20 | 0.8197 | 7.32 | 0.0089 | 3.46 | 0.0378 |
| Female adult longevity (day) | 0.89 | 0.4159 | 0.21 | 0.6459 | 0.50 | 0.6107 |
| Fecundity (eggs/female) | 6.36 | 0.0031 | 8.15 | 0.0059 | 1.87 | 0.1636 |
Parameters were analyzed by general linear models (GLM) using SAS software. When multiple comparisons were conducted, P values were sequentially adjusted by the Bonferroni method (adjusted α = 0.0033).
The biological parameters of GRLH, Nephotettix cincticeps feeding on Bt rice lines (T1C-19 and T2A-1) and non-Bt rice parent control (MH63) plants under the condition of RDV-infection vs. non-infection.
| Parameters | T1C-19 | T2A-1 | MH63 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy plants | RDV-infected plants | Healthy plants | RDV-infected plants | Healthy plants | RDV-infected plants | |
| Egg hatching rate (%) | 97.50 ± 1.12 a (8) | 86.67 ± 2.83 a (12) | 83.33 ± 6.8 a (10) | 100.00 ± 0.00 a (13) | 100.00 ± 0.00 a (10) | 96.21 ± 1.01 a (14) |
| Egg duration (day) | 6.85 ± 0.12 c (33) | 6.08 ± 0.06 d (36) | 6.50 ± 0.09 cd (48) | 7.90 ± 0.19 a (30) | 7.13 ± 0.10 bc (30) | 7.67 ± 0.09 ab (46) |
| Survival rate of nymphs (%) | 17.33 ± 7.00 c (15) | 56.67 ± 8.03 ab (15) | 25.33 ± 7.80 bc (15) | 44.67 ± 7.92 abc (15) | 38.67 ± 9.30 abc (15) | 62.00 ± 6.63 a (15) |
| Total duration of male nymphs (day) | 29.07 ± 1.15 a (14) | 28.79 ± 0.56 a (57) | 23.88 ± 0.67 b (25) | 24.97 ± 0.49 b (37) | 22.94 ± 0.42 b (31) | 22.93 ± 0.43 b (45) |
| Total duration of female nymphs (day) | 33.83 ± 0.98 a (12) | 33.71 ± 1.01 a (28) | 26.85 ± 0.78 bc (13) | 29.23 ± 0.79 b (30) | 26.00 ± 0.50 c (27) | 25.23 ± 0.48 c (48) |
| Wet body weight of male adults (mg/adult) | 1.50 ± 0.09 c (12) | 1.77 ± 0.04 abc (47) | 1.83 ± 0.08 abc (24) | 1.71 ± 0.05 b (32) | 2.02 ± 0.99 a (26) | 1.85 ± 0.05 ab (33) |
| Wet body weight of female adults (mg/adult) | 2.60 ± 0.12 b (11) | 2.84 ± 0.07 b (25) | 2.98 ± 0.13 ab (13) | 2.81 ± 0.09 b (29) | 2.98 ± 0.10 ab (25) | 3.27 ± 0.05 a (42) |
| Male adult longevity (day) | 21.42 ± 4.43 ab (7) | 26.14 ± 2.96 ab (14) | 23.10 ± 2.29 ab (10) | 23.23 ± 2.37 ab (13) | 13.75 ± 2.16 b (8) | 29.85 ± 3.52 a (13) |
| Female adult longevity (day) | 23.83 ± 7.14 a (6) | 24.69 ± 3.20 a (13) | 31.22 ± 4.42 a (9) | 25.08 ± 2.72 a (13) | 29.40 ± 4.02 a (10) | 30.07 ± 3.80 a (14) |
| Fecundity (eggs/female) | 43.88 ± 14.78 b (8) | 58.92 ± 11.17 b (12) | 41.60 ± 8.49 b (10) | 53.92 ± 10.13 b (13) | 57.80 ± 8.34 b (10) | 107.36 ± 11.04 a (14) |
Data are expressed as mean ± standard error, and number of replicates is indicated in parentheses. Means in the same row followed by the same lowercase letters are not significantly different among six treatments based on general linear models (GLM) by Proc GLM (Bonferroni correction, adjusted α = 0.0033).