| Literature DB >> 29988354 |
Martha G Rocha-Munive1, Mario Soberón2, Saúl Castañeda1, Esteban Niaves1, Enrique Scheinvar1, Luis E Eguiarte1, David Mota-Sánchez3, Enrique Rosales-Robles4, Urbano Nava-Camberos5, José L Martínez-Carrillo6, Carlos A Blanco7, Alejandra Bravo2, Valeria Souza1.
Abstract
For more than 20 years cotton has been the most widely sown genetically modified (GM) crop in Mexico. Its cultivation has fulfilled all requirements and has gone through the different regulatory stages. During the last 20 years, both research-institutions and biotech-companies have generated scientific and technical information regarding GM cotton cultivation in Mexico. In this work, we collected data in order to analyze the environmental and agronomic effects of the use of GM cotton in Mexico. In 1996, the introduction of Bt cotton made it possible to reactivate this crop, which in previous years was greatly reduced due to pest problems, production costs and environmental concerns. Bt cotton is a widely accepted tool for cotton producers and has proven to be efficient for the control of lepidopteran pests. The economic benefits of its use are variable, and depend on factors such as the international cotton-prices and other costs associated with its inputs. So far, the management strategies used to prevent development of insect resistance to GM cotton has been successful, and there are no reports of insect resistance development to Bt cotton in Mexico. In addition, no effects have been observed on non-target organisms. For herbicide tolerant cotton, the prevention of herbicide resistance has also been successful since unlike other countries, the onset of resistance weeds is still slow, apparently due to cultural practices and rotation of different herbicides. Environmental benefits have been achieved with a reduction in chemical insecticide applications and the subsequent decrease in primary pest populations, so that the inclusion of other technologies-e.g., use of non-Bt cotton- can be explored. Nevertheless, control measures need to be implemented during transport of the bolls and fiber to prevent dispersal of volunteer plants and subsequent gene flow to wild relatives distributed outside the GM cotton growing areas. It is still necessary to implement national research programs, so that biotechnology and plant breeding advances can be used in the development of cotton varieties adapted to the Mexican particular environmental conditions and to control insect pests of regional importance.Entities:
Keywords: Bt cotton; GMO; Mexico; center of origin; environmental impact; herbicide
Year: 2018 PMID: 29988354 PMCID: PMC6023983 DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2018.00082
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol ISSN: 2296-4185
Figure 1Timeline for GM cotton transformation events released in Mexico. Black dots indicate the first and last year that each release was requested. The figure shows the different GM cotton released applications that have received a permit in Mexico, from 2005 until 2015 (CIBIOGEM, 2018).
Figure 2Climatic suitability model for geographical space projection regions for wild cotton G. hirsutum (green dots) and cultivated GM cotton regions (red dots). Regions do not overlap, but show proximity in the area known as “La Laguna” (black circle).
Figure 3Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of environmental conditions of the analyzed cotton records (wild, GM, and volunteer). Conditions in which GM cotton is planted (blue dots) are very restrictive and differentiable from the rest of the cotton species (wild in black, gray, and colors). GM volunteers are represented with red dots.
Figure 4GM cotton distribution models adding the presence of volunteers. In green: potential distribution of GM cotton. In yellow: potential distribution of wild cotton. Black dots indicate the records of GM cotton plots while red dots indicate the records of volunteer plants used for the elaboration of the models.
Insects reported by technicians as important pests in all regions.
| Cotton bollworm ( | 116 | 6 | −110 |
| Pink bollworm ( | 103 | 6 | −97 |
| Beet armyworm ( | 17 | 7 | −10 |
| Cotton leaf perforator ( | 6 | 0 | −6 |
| Tobacco budworm ( | 3 | 0 | −3 |
| Fall armyworm ( | 2 | 1 | −1 |
| Cabbage looper ( | 2 | 1 | −1 |
| Cotton fleahopper ( | 1 | 0 | −1 |
| Yellow sugarcane aphid ( | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Stink bug ( | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Red spider mite ( | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| Cotton aphid ( | 3 | 13 | 10 |
| Boll weevil ( | 46 | 57 | 11 |
| Conchuela bug ( | 23 | 47 | 24 |
| Other Hemipterous plant bugs | 23 | 50 | 27 |
| Thrips ( | 4 | 33 | 29 |
| Lygus bug ( | 5 | 38 | 33 |
| Whitefly ( | 21 | 71 | 50 |
Numbers indicated the number of times that a technician mentioned the name of the insect as important before the deployment of Bt cotton and after it. The effect was measured by the subtraction of both values. Negative values indicate a decrease in the number of times reported and positive values indicate an increase in the times reported.