Paper · 2014 · PLoS ONE

The Cultivation of Bt Corn Producing Cry1Ac Toxins Does Not Adversely Affect Non-Target Arthropods

Yanyan Guo; Yanjie Feng; Yang Ge; et al.

8
claims
11
verbatim quotes
32
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Transgenic corn producing Cry1Ac toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) provides effective control of Asian corn borer, Ostrinia furnacalis (Guenée), and thus reduces insecticide applications. However, whether Bt corn exerts undesirable effects on non-target arthropods (NTAs) is still controversial. We conducted a 2-yr study in Shangzhuang Agricultural Experiment Station to assess the potential impact of Bt corn on field population density, biodiversity, community composition and structure of NTAs. On each sampling date, the total abundance, Shannon's diversity index, Pielou's evenness index and Simpson's diversity index were not significantly affected by Bt corn as compared to non-Bt corn. The "sampling dates" had a significant effect on these indices, but no clear tendencies related to "Bt corn" or "sampling dates X corn variety" interaction were recorded. Principal response curve analysis of variance indicated that Bt corn did not alter the distribution of NTAs communities. Bray-Curtis dissimilarity and distance analysis showed that Cry1Ac toxin exposure did not increase community dissimilarities between Bt and non-Bt corn plots and that the evolution of non-target arthropod community was similar on the two corn varieties. The cultivation of Bt corn failed to show any detrimental evidence on the density of non-target herbivores, predators and parasitoids. The composition of herbivores, predators and parasitoids was identical in Bt and non-Bt corn plots. Taken together, results from the present work support that Bt corn producing Cry1Ac toxins does not adversely affect NTAs.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Bt corn did not significantly change total arthropod abundance or three diversity indices.

Treatment
Bt corne0
Outcome
total abundance, Shannon's diversity index, Pielou's evenness index and Simpson's diversity indexe0
Direction
not significantly affectede0
Comparator
non-Bt corne0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the total abundance, Shannon's diversity index, Pielou's evenness index and Simpson's diversity index were not significantly affected by Bt corn as compared to non-Bt corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 528–699 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Sampling dates significantly affected these arthropod indices.

Outcome
these indicese0
Setting
sampling datese0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The "sampling dates" had a significant effect on these indices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 701–763 · show in text ↑
e1

“Bt corn on field population density”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 409–444 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No clear trend was recorded for the Bt corn by sampling date interaction.

Treatment
Bt corne0
Outcome
tendenciese0
Direction
no clear tendenciese0
Qualifier
sampling dates X corn varietye0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“no clear tendencies related to "Bt corn" or "sampling dates X corn variety" interaction were recorded”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 769–870 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bt corn did not alter the distribution of non target arthropod communities.

Treatment
Bt corne0
Outcome
distribution of NTAs communitiese0
Direction
did not altere0
Comparator
non-Bt corn plotse1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Bt corn did not alter the distribution of NTAs communities”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 933–991 · show in text ↑
e1

“between Bt and non-Bt corn plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1118–1150 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cry1Ac exposure did not increase dissimilarity of arthropod communities between Bt and non Bt plots.

Treatment
Cry1Ac toxin exposuree0
Outcome
community dissimilaritiese0
Direction
did not increasee0
Comparator
non-Bt corn plotse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Cry1Ac toxin exposure did not increase community dissimilarities between Bt and non-Bt corn plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1053–1150 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Non target arthropod communities evolved similarly on both corn varieties.

Outcome
evolution of non-target arthropod communitye0
Direction
similare0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the evolution of non-target arthropod community was similar on the two corn varieties”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1160–1245 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bt corn showed no detrimental effect on non target herbivore, predator and parasitoid density.

Treatment
Bt corne0
Outcome
density of non-target herbivores, predators and parasitoidse0
Direction
failed to show any detrimental evidencee0
Comparator
non-Bt corn plotse1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The cultivation of Bt corn failed to show any detrimental evidence on the density of non-target herbivores, predators and parasitoids”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1247–1380 · show in text ↑
e1

“identical in Bt and non-Bt corn plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1443–1480 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Herbivore, predator and parasitoid composition was identical in Bt and non Bt plots.

Outcome
composition of herbivores, predators and parasitoidse0
Direction
identicale0
Comparator
non-Bt corn plotse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The composition of herbivores, predators and parasitoids was identical in Bt and non-Bt corn plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1382–1480 · show in text ↑

Zea mays subsp. mays · ecology: diversity · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

Zea mays subsp. mays · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

53 papers: 31 positive, 22 negative or no effect

21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

49 papers more in this group

See all 53 papers →

transgenic · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

41 papers: 22 positive, 19 negative or no effect

18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

37 papers more in this group

See all 41 papers →

transgenic · ecology: diversity · Zea mays (maize)Results agree

13 papers: 0 positive, 13 negative or no effect

12 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.