Paper · 2005 · Environmental Entomology

Long-Term Assessment of the Effects of Transgenic Bt Cotton on the Function of the Natural Enemy Community

Steven E. Naranjo

10
claims
15
verbatim quotes
101
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract Field studies to assess effects of transgenic crops on nontarget organisms primarily have focused on nontarget abundance and diversity, whereas few have examined effects on nontarget community function. A 5-yr field study in Arizona assessed whether transgenic cotton producing the Cry1Ac toxin of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) had an effect on the natural enemy community’s impact on three key pests. Predator:prey ratios for Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) and Lygus hesperus Knight were similar in unsprayed Bt and non-Bt cotton. Insecticide applications in positive control plots inconsistently altered ratios for B. tabaci. Predation indices based on the known feeding activity of selected predators showed that potential predator impact was unaltered by Bt cotton but was consistently depressed with insecticide applications. Sentinel eggs and pupae of Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) experienced the same rates of predation in both unsprayed Bt and non-Bt cotton. Cohort-based life tables for B. tabaci showed that rates of sucking predation, parasitism, and dislodgement (chewing predation in part) were unchanged by Bt cotton. Underlying experimental designs were sufficient to consistently detect changes of <20% in predator:prey ratios and predation indices and changes of <10% in rates of P. gossypiella and B. tabaci mortality with >80% power (α = 0.05). These long-term studies showed essentially no effects of Bt cotton on natural enemy function in Arizona cotton and further showed that minor reductions in density of several predator taxa in Bt cotton observed in a companion study may have little ecological meaning relative to natural enemy impact on key pests in the system.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Predator to prey ratios for Bemisia tabaci were similar in unsprayed Bt and non-Bt cotton.

Treatment
unsprayed Bte0
Interactor
Bemisia tabaciBemisia tabacie0pest
Outcome
Predator:prey ratios for Bemisia tabacie0
Direction
similare0
Comparator
non-Bt cottone0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bemisia tabaci
Bemisia tabaci · InteractorPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Predator:prey ratios for Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) and Lygus hesperus Knight were similar in unsprayed Bt and non-Bt cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 409–533 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Predator to prey ratios for Lygus hesperus were similar in unsprayed Bt and non-Bt cotton.

Treatment
unsprayed Bte0
Interactor
Lygus hesperusLygus hesperuse0pest
Outcome
Predator:prey ratiose0
Direction
similare0
Comparator
non-Bt cottone0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Lygus hesperus
Lygus hesperus · Interactorno rights reserved · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Predator:prey ratios for Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) and Lygus hesperus Knight were similar in unsprayed Bt and non-Bt cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 409–533 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Insecticide applications inconsistently altered Bemisia tabaci predator to prey ratios.

Treatment
Insecticide applicationse0
Interactor
B. tabaciBemisia tabacie0pest
Outcome
ratios for B. tabacie0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bemisia tabaci
Bemisia tabaci · InteractorPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 53–59 · show in text ↑
e0

“Insecticide applications in positive control plots inconsistently altered ratios for B. tabaci”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 535–629 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bt cotton did not alter predation-index estimates of predator impact.

Treatment
Bt cottone0
Outcome
potential predator impacte0
Direction
unalterede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“potential predator impact was unaltered by Bt cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 719–771 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Insecticide applications consistently depressed predation-index estimates of predator impact.

Treatment
insecticide applicationse0
Outcome
potential predator impacte0
Direction
depressede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 53–59 · show in text ↑
e0

“potential predator impact was unaltered by Bt cotton but was consistently depressed with insecticide applications”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 719–832 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pectinophora gossypiella sentinel eggs and pupae had the same predation rates in unsprayed Bt and non-Bt cotton.

Treatment
unsprayed Bte0
Interactor
Pectinophora gossypiellaPectinophora gossypiellae0pest
Outcome
rates of predatione0
Direction
samee0
Comparator
non-Bt cottone0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Pectinophora gossypiella
Pectinophora gossypiella · InteractorAlbertonatureza · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sentinel eggs and pupae of Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) experienced the same rates of predation in both unsprayed Bt and non-Bt cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 834–975 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bemisia tabaci sucking predation, parasitism, and dislodgement rates were unchanged by Bt cotton.

Treatment
Bt cottone0
Interactor
B. tabaciBemisia tabacie0pest
Outcome
rates of sucking predation, parasitism, and dislodgemente0
Direction
unchangede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bemisia tabaci
Bemisia tabaci · InteractorPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Cohort-based life tables for B. tabaci showed that rates of sucking predation, parasitism, and dislodgement (chewing predation in part) were unchanged by Bt cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 977–1140 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The study design could detect changes below 20% in predator to prey ratios and predation indices with over 80% power.

Outcome
predator:prey ratios and predation indicese0
Value
<20%e0
Qualifier
>80% power (α = 0.05)e0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 53–59 · show in text ↑
e0

“sufficient to consistently detect changes of <20% in predator:prey ratios and predation indices and changes of <10% in rates of P. gossypiella and B. tabaci mortality with >80% power (α = 0.05)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1179–1372 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The study design could detect pest mortality changes below 10% with over 80% power.

Outcome
rates of P. gossypiella and B. tabaci mortalitye0
Value
<10%e0
Qualifier
>80% power (α = 0.05)e0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 53–59 · show in text ↑
e0

“changes of <10% in rates of P. gossypiella and B. tabaci mortality with >80% power (α = 0.05)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1279–1372 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors interpret minor predator-density reductions in Bt cotton as having little ecological meaning for pest control.

Outcome
natural enemy impact on key pestse0
Qualifier
minor reductions in density of several predator taxa in Bt cottone0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 53–59 · show in text ↑
e0

“minor reductions in density of several predator taxa in Bt cotton observed in a companion study may have little ecological meaning relative to natural enemy impact on key pests in the system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1509–1699 · show in text ↑

transgenic · Bemisia tabaci · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

6 papers: 2 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. no effect

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

insecticide · ecology: diversity · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

16 papers: 3 positive, 13 negative or no effect

12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

12 papers more in this group

See all 16 papers →

transgenic · Pectinophora gossypiella · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

17 papers: 14 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

13 papers more in this group

See all 17 papers →

transgenic · ecology: diversity · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

7 papers: 0 positive, 7 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 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.