Paper · 2007 · Environmental Entomology

Effects of Insecticide-Treated and Lepidopteran-Active Bt Transgenic Sweet Corn on the Abundance and Diversity of Arthropods

Robyn Rose; Galen P. Dively

8
claims
15
verbatim quotes
60
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc

Abstract

A field study was conducted over 2 yr to determine the effects of transgenic sweet corn containing a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) on the diversity and abundance of nontarget arthropods. The Bt hybrid (expressing Cry1Ab endotoxin for lepidopteran control) was compared with near-isogenic non-Bt and Bt hybrids treated with a foliar insecticide and with a near-isogenic non-Bt hybrid without insecticides. Plant inspections, sticky cards, and pitfall traps were used to sample a total of 573,672 arthropods, representing 128 taxonomic groups in 95 families and 18 orders. Overall biodiversity and community-level responses were not significantly affected by the transgenic hybrid. The Bt hybrid also had no significant adverse effects on population densities of specific nontarget herbivores, decomposers, and natural enemies enumerated at the family level during the crop cycle. As expected, the insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin had broad negative impacts on the abundance of many nontarget arthropods. One insecticide application in the Bt plots reduced the overall abundance of the natural enemy community by 21-48%. Five applications in the non-Bt plots reduced natural enemy communities by 33-70%. Nontarget communities affected in the insecticide-treated Bt plots exhibited some recovery, but communities exposed to five applications showed no trends toward recovery during the crop cycle. This study clearly showed that the nontarget effects of Bt transgenic sweet corn on natural enemies and other arthropods were minimal and far less than the community-level disruptions caused by lambda-cyhalothrin.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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

The Bt hybrid did not significantly affect overall arthropod biodiversity or community responses.

Taxon
sweet cornt0
Treatment
transgenic hybride0
Outcome
Overall biodiversity and community-level responsese0
Direction
not significantly affectede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Overall biodiversity and community-level responses were not significantly affected by the transgenic hybrid.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 593–701 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sweet Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–79 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The Bt hybrid had no significant adverse effects on nontarget herbivore, decomposer and natural enemy densities.

Taxon
sweet cornt0
Treatment
Bt hybride0
Outcome
population densities of specific nontarget herbivores, decomposers, and natural enemiese0
Direction
no significant adverse effectse0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“The Bt hybrid also had no significant adverse effects on population densities of specific nontarget herbivores, decomposers, and natural enemies”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 702–846 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sweet Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–79 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Lambda-cyhalothrin negatively affected abundance of many nontarget arthropods.

Taxon
sweet cornt0
Treatment
lambda-cyhalothrine0
Outcome
abundance of many nontarget arthropodse0
Direction
negative impactse0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“the insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin had broad negative impacts on the abundance of many nontarget arthropods”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 914–1021 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sweet Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–79 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

One insecticide application in Bt plots reduced natural enemy abundance by 21-48%.

Taxon
sweet cornt0
Treatment
One insecticide application in the Bt plotse0
Outcome
overall abundance of the natural enemy communitye0
Direction
reducede0
Value
21-48%e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“One insecticide application in the Bt plots reduced the overall abundance of the natural enemy community by 21-48%.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1023–1138 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sweet Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–79 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Five applications in non-Bt plots reduced natural enemy communities by 33-70%.

Taxon
sweet cornt0
Treatment
Five applications in the non-Bt plotse0
Outcome
natural enemy communitiese0
Direction
reducede0
Value
33-70%e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Five applications in the non-Bt plots reduced natural enemy communities by 33-70%.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1139–1221 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sweet Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–79 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Affected communities in insecticide-treated Bt plots showed some recovery.

Taxon
sweet cornt0
Treatment
insecticide-treated Bt plotse0
Outcome
Nontarget communitiese0
Direction
recoverye0

Verbatim

e0

“Nontarget communities affected in the insecticide-treated Bt plots exhibited some recovery”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1222–1312 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sweet Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–79 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Communities exposed to five applications showed no recovery trend during the crop cycle.

Taxon
sweet cornt0
Treatment
five applicationse0
Outcome
recoverye0
Direction
no trends toward recoverye0
Qualifier
during the crop cyclee0

Verbatim

e0

“communities exposed to five applications showed no trends toward recovery during the crop cycle”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1318–1413 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sweet Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–79 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bt corn nontarget effects were minimal and much less than lambda-cyhalothrin disruptions.

Taxon
sweet corne0
Outcome
nontarget effectse0
Direction
far lesse0
Comparator
lambda-cyhalothrine0

Verbatim

e0

“the nontarget effects of Bt transgenic sweet corn on natural enemies and other arthropods were minimal and far less than the community-level disruptions caused by lambda-cyhalothrin”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1446–1627 · show in text ↑

lambda-cyhalothrin · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 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 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

37 papers more in this group

See all 41 papers →

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

62 papers: 48 positive, 14 negative or no effect

13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 48 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

58 papers more in this group

See all 62 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.