Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:26:03.315Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Potential for weediness of Bt cotton in northern Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Rowena J. Eastick  and
Mark N. Hearnden
Mark N. Hearnden
Affiliation:
Northern Territory Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines, P.O. Box 3000, Darwin, NT, 0801, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The release of Bt cotton varieties genetically modified for increased tolerance to major cotton insect pests provided impetus for the reestablishment of a cotton industry in northern Australia. However, this stimulated concern that the addition of the gene might facilitate an increase in the potential for weediness of genetically modified cultivars in noncropping habitats. Bt and conventional cottonseeds were planted in 12 sites in northern Australia to test the hypothesis that there would be no increase in the ability of Bt cotton vs. conventional cotton to establish weedy, or invasive populations, defined as population growth over time greater than one, irrespective of location, habitat, seed type, or population density. Invasiveness was a factor of germination, survival, and recruitment. We examined whether the addition of the Bt gene would increase fitness of these parameters, and associated invasiveness. An irrigation drain was considered a high-risk habitat for cotton establishment, so an additional site was sown at that habitat to provide supplementary data to the original 12 sites. Location and habitat were the dominant factors influencing germination, survival, fecundity, and invasiveness. Bt and non-Bt cottonseeds did not differ in their ability to germinate, establish, and survive. After 2 yr, cotton plant survival was very low, and only 3 of 13 sites established fecund cotton populations. Measurements continued for an additional 2 yr at these sites. There was no increase in values for invasiveness for the Bt genotype treatments at any location or habitat after 2 yr or at two selected habitats after > 4 yr, demonstrating that the addition of the Bt gene will not confer increased fitness for weediness. Mean invasiveness values for each habitat, irrespective of genotype, were less than one, indicating that neither conventional nor Bt cotton would establish invasive cotton populations in northern Australian habitats.

Keywords

Bt, Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstakicotton, Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Sicot 289’Transgenicinvasivenessnatural habitatsgenetically modified
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 6 , December 2006 , pp. 1142 - 1151
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Annells, A. J. and Strickland, G. R. 2003. Assessing the feasibility for cotton production in tropical Australia: systems for Helicoverpa spp. management. Pages 905–912 in Swanepoel, A. ed. Proceedings of the World Cotton Research Conference 3: Cotton Production for the New Millennium. Rustenburg, South Africa: Agricultural Research Council— Institute for Industrial Crops.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1990. Nutritional Problems of Northern Australian Soils. Northern Territory Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines Technical Bulletin 12.Google Scholar
Auld, B. A. and Coote, B. G. 1980. A model of a spreading plant population. Oikos. 34:287–292.Google Scholar
Bergelson, J. 1994. Changes in fecundity do not predict invasiveness. Ecology. 75:249–252.Google Scholar
Brown, A. H. D., Brubaker, C. L., and Kilby, M. J. 1997. Assessing the risk of cotton transgene escape into wild Australian Gossypium species. Pages 83–94 in McLean, G. D., Waterhouse, P. M., Evans, G., and Gibbs, M. J. eds. Commercialisation of Transgenic Crops: Risk, Benefit and Trade Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop. Canberra, Australia: Cooperative Research Centre for Plant Science and Bureau of Resource Sciences.Google Scholar
Brubaker, C. L., Brown, A. H. D., Stewart, J. M., Kilby, M. J., and Grace, J. P. 1999. Production of fertile hybrid germplasm with diploid Australian Gossypium species for cotton improvement. Euphytica. 108:199–213.Google Scholar
Conner, A. J., Glare, T. R., and Nap, J. 2003. The release of genetically modified crops into the environment, part II: overview of ecological risk assessment. Plant J. 33:19–46.Google Scholar
Constable, G. A. and Shaw, A. J. 1988. Temperature requirements for cotton. New South Wales, Australia: Department of Agriculture and Fisheries Agfact P5.3.5. Agdex 151/022.Google Scholar
Crawley, M. J., Brown, S. L., Hails, R. S., Kohn, D. D., and Rees, M. 2001. Transgenic crops in natural habitats. Nature. 409:682–683.Google Scholar
Crawley, M. J., Hails, R. S., Rees, M., Kohn, D., and Buxton, J. 1993. Ecology of transgenic oilseed rape in natural habitats. Nature. 363:620–623.Google Scholar
Eastick, R. J. 2002. The Potential Weediness of Transgenic Cotton in Northern Australia: A Report Prepared for Consideration by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR). Darwin, Australia: Northern Territory Government, Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines Technical Bulletin 305.Google Scholar
Eastick, R. J. and Hearnden, M. N. 2003. The role of germination in the assessment of the potential weediness of Bt cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) in tropical Australia. Pages 421–428 in Swanepoel, A. ed. Proceedings of the World Cotton Research Conference, 3: Cotton Production for the New Millennium. Rustenburg, South Africa: Agricultural Research Council—Institute for Industrial Crops.Google Scholar
Fitt, G. P. 2003. Implementation and impact of transgenic Bt cottons in Australia. Pages 371–382 in Swanepoel, A. ed. Proceedings of the World Cotton Research Conference, 3: Cotton Production for the New Millennium. Rustenburg, South Africa: Agricultural Research Council—Institute for Industrial Crops.Google Scholar
Freckleton, R. P. and Watkinson, A. R. 1998. How does temporal variability affect predictions of weed population numbers? J. Appl. Ecol. 35:340–344.Google Scholar
Fryxell, P. A. 1979. The Natural History of the Cotton Tribe (Malvaceae, Tribe Gossypieae). College Station, TX: Texas A&M University.Google Scholar
Godfree, R. C., Young, A. G., Lonsdale, W. M., Woods, M. J., and Burdon, J. J. 2004. Ecological risk assessment of transgenic pasture plants: a community gradient modeling approach. Ecol. Lett. 7:1077–1089.Google Scholar
Hails, R. S. 2000. Genetically modified plants—the debate continues. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15/1:14–18.Google Scholar
Hails, R. S., Rees, M., Kohn, D. D., and Crawley, M. J. 1997. Burial and seed survival in Brassica napus subsp. oleifera and Sinapis arvensis including a comparison of transgenic and non-transgenic lines of the crop. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 264:1–7.Google Scholar
Hearn, A. B. 1981. Cotton nutrition. Field Crop Abstr. 34/1:11–34.Google Scholar
Jordan, N. 1999. Escape of pest resistance transgenes to agricultural weeds: relevant facets of weed ecology. Pages 27–32 in Traynor, P. L. and Westwood, J. H. eds. Proceedings of a Workshop on Ecological Effects of Pest Resistance Genes in Managed Ecosystems. Blacksburg, Virginia: Information Systems for Biotechnology.Google Scholar
Parker, I. M. and Kareiva, P. 1996. Assessing the risks of invasion for genetically engineered plants: acceptable evidence and reasonable doubt. Biol. Conserv. 78:193–203.Google Scholar
Raybould, A. F., Moyes, C. L., Maskell, L. C., and Mogg, R. J. 1999. Predicting the ecological impacts of transgenes for insect and virus resistance in natural and feral populations of Brassica species. Pages 3–15 in Ammann, K., Jacot, Y., Simonsen, V., and Kjellsson, G. eds. Methods for Risk Assessment of Transgenic Plants, III: Ecological Risks and Prospects of Transgenic Plants, Where Do We Go from Here? Basel, Switzerland: Birkhauser Verlag.Google Scholar
Saeglitz, C. and Bratsch, D. 2002. Review Article: Plant gene flow consequences. AgBiotechNet. 4:1–8.Google Scholar
Stewart, C. N., All, J. N., Raymer, P. L., and Ramachandran, S. 1997. Increased fitness of transgenic insecticidal rapeseed under insect selection pressure. Mol. Ecol. 6:773–779.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. A. and Tulloch, D. 1985. Rainfall in the wet–dry tropics: extreme events at Darwin and similarities between years during the period 1870–1983. Aust. J. Ecol. 10:281–295.Google Scholar
Traynor, P. L. and Westwood, J. H. 1999. Proceedings of a Workshop on Ecological Effects of Pest Resistance Genes in Managed Ecosystems. Blacksburg, Virginia: Information Systems for Biotechnology.Google Scholar
Virtue, J. G., Groves, R. H., and Panetta, F. D. 2001. Towards a system to determine the national significance of weeds in Australia. Pages 124–152 in Groves, R. H., Panetta, F. D., and Virtue, J. G. eds. Weed Risk Assessment. Collingwood, Australia: CSIRO.Google Scholar
Westwood, J. H. and Traynor, P. L. 1999. Executive summary. Pages 3–11 in Traynor, P. L. and Westwood, J. H. eds. Proceedings of a Workshop on Ecological Effects of Pest Resistance Genes in Managed Ecosystems. Blacksburg, Virginia: Information Systems for Biotechnology.Google Scholar
Williams, J., Day, K. J., Isbell, R. F., and Reddy, S. J. 1985. Soils and Climate. Pages 31–92 in Muchow, R. C. ed. Agro-Research for the Semi-arid Tropics: North-West Australia. St. Lucia, Australia: University of Queensland.Google Scholar
Williams, R. J., Duff, G. A., Dowman, D. M., and Cook, G. D. 1996. Variation in the composition and structure of tropical savannas as a function of rainfall and soil texture along a large-scale climatic gradient in the Northern Territory, Australia. J. Biogeogr. 23:747–756.Google Scholar