Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013;8(3):e60125.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060125. Epub 2013 Mar 27.

Bt crops producing Cry1Ac, Cry2Ab and Cry1F do not harm the green lacewing, Chrysoperla rufilabris

Affiliations

Bt crops producing Cry1Ac, Cry2Ab and Cry1F do not harm the green lacewing, Chrysoperla rufilabris

Jun-Ce Tian et al. PLoS One. 2013.

Abstract

The biological control function provided by natural enemies is regarded as a protection goal that should not be harmed by the application of any new pest management tool. Plants producing Cry proteins from the bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), have become a major tactic for controlling pest Lepidoptera on cotton and maize and risk assessment studies are needed to ensure they do not harm important natural enemies. However, using Cry protein susceptible hosts as prey often compromises such studies. To avoid this problem we utilized pest Lepidoptera, cabbage looper (Trichoplusia ni) and fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda), that were resistant to Cry1Ac produced in Bt broccoli (T. ni), Cry1Ac/Cry2Ab produced in Bt cotton (T. ni), and Cry1F produced in Bt maize (S. frugiperda). Larvae of these species were fed Bt plants or non-Bt plants and then exposed to predaceous larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla rufilabris. Fitness parameters (larval survival, development time, fecundity and egg hatch) of C. rufilabris were assessed over two generations. There were no differences in any of the fitness parameters regardless if C. rufilabris consumed prey (T. ni or S. frugiperda) that had consumed Bt or non-Bt plants. Additional studies confirmed that the prey contained bioactive Cry proteins when they were consumed by the predator. These studies confirm that Cry1Ac, Cry2Ab and Cry1F do not pose a hazard to the important predator C. rufilabris. This study also demonstrates the power of using resistant hosts when assessing the risk of genetically modified plants on non-target organisms.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

    1. McEwen P, New TR, Whittington AE (2001) Lacewings in the crop environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
    1. Sanvido O, Romeis J, Gathmann A, Gielkens M, Raybould A, et al. (2012) Evaluating environmental risks of genetically modified crops: ecological harm criteria for regulatory decision-making. Environmental Science & Policy 15: 82–91.
    1. Nienstedt KM, Brock TCM, van Wensem J, Montforts M, Hart A, et al. (2012) Development of a framework based on an ecosystem services approach for deriving specific protection goals for environmental risk assessment of pesticides. Science of the Total Environment 415: 31–38. - PubMed
    1. Garcia-Alonso M, Jacobs E, Raybould A, Nickson TE, Sowig P, et al. (2006) A tiered system for assessing the risk of genetically modified plants to non-target organisms. Environmental Biosafety Research 5: 57–65. - PubMed
    1. Romeis J, Bartsch D, Bigler F, Candolfi MP, Gielkens MMC, et al. (2008) Assessment of risk of insect-resistant transgenic crops to nontarget arthropods. Nature Biotechnology 26: 203–208. - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

LinkOut - more resources