Characterization of competitive interactions in the coexistence of Bt-transgenic and conventional rice

BMC Biotechnology

Yongbo Liu¹  Feng Ge⁴  Yuyong Liang²  Gang Wu³  Junsheng Li¹ 

[1] State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk Assessment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China

[2] Institute of Plant Protection, Jiangxi Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanchang 330200, China

[3] Hubei Insect Resources Utilization and Sustainable Pest Management Key Laboratory, College of Plant Science and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China

[4] State Key Laboratory of Integrated Management of Pest and Rodents, Institute of Zoology, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, 8 Dayangfang, Beijing 100101, China

关键词: Natural ecosystem;    Agricultural ecosystem;    Herbivory;    Competitive ability;    Transgenic rice;    Coexistence;   

Others  :  1177550
DOI  :  10.1186/s12896-015-0141-0

 received in 2014-11-04, accepted in 2015-04-13,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Transgene flow through pollen and seeds leads to transgenic volunteers and feral populations in the nature, and consumer choice and economic incentives determine whether transgenic crops will be cultivated in the field. Transgenic and non-transgenic plants are likely to coexist in the field and natural habitats, but their competitive interactions are not well understood.

Methods

Field experiments were conducted in an agricultural ecosystem with insecticide spraying and a natural ecosystem, using Bt-transgenic rice (Oryza sativa) and its non-transgenic counterpart in pure and mixed stands with a replacement series.

Results

Insect damage and competition significantly decreased plant growth and reproduction under the coexistence of transgenic and conventional rice. Insect-resistant transgenic rice was not competitively superior to its counterpart under different densities in both agricultural and natural ecosystems, irrespective of insect infection. Fitness cost due to Bt-transgene expression occurred only in an agroecosystem, where the population yield decreased with increasing percentage of transgenic rice. The population yield fluctuated in a natural ecosystem, with slight differences among pure and mixed stands under plant competition or insect pressure. The presence of Chilo suppressalis infection increased the number of non-target insects.

Conclusions

Plant growth and reproduction patterns, relative competition ability and population yield indicate that Bt-transgenic and non-transgenic rice can coexist in agroecosystems, whereas in more natural habitats, transgenic rice is likely to outcompete non-transgenic rice.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Liu et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Stewart JCN, Halfhill MD, Warwick SI: Transgene introgression from genetically modified crops to their wild relatives. Nat Rev Genet 2003, 4(10):806-17.
• [2]Liu Y, Wei W, Ma K, Darmency H: Spread of introgressed insect-resistance genes in wild populations of Brassica juncea: a simulated in-vivo approach. Transgenic Res 2013, 22:747-56.
• [3]Warwick SI, Légère A, Simard MJ, James T: Do escaped transgenes persist in nature? The case of an herbicide resistance transgene in a weedy Brassica rapa population. Mol Ecol 2008, 17(5):1387-95.
• [4]Ellstrand N, Meirmans P, Rong J, Bartsch D, Ghosh A, de Jong T, Haccou P, Lu B, Snow A, Stewart CN Jr, et al.: Introgression of crop alleles into wild or weedy populations. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 2013, 44:325-45.
• [5]Chen LJ, Lee DS, Song ZP, Suh HS, Lu BR: Gene flow from cultivated rice (Oryza sativa) to its weedy and wild relatives. Ann Bot 2004, 93:67-73.
• [6]Jank B, Rath J, Gaugitsch H: Co-existence of agricultural production systems. Trends Biotechno 2006, 24:198-200.
• [7]Demont M, Devos Y: Regulating coexistence of GM and non-GM crops without jeopardizing economic incentives. Trends Biotechnol 2008, 26(7):353-8.
• [8]Jongsma MA, Gould F, Legros M, Yang L, Loon JJA, Dicke M: Insect oviposition behavior affects the evolution of adaptation to Bt crops: consequences for refuge policies. Evol Ecol 2010, 24(5):1017-30.
• [9]Møldrup ME, Geu-Flores F, de Vos M, Olsen CE, Sun J, Jander G, Halkier BA: Engineering of benzylglucosinolate in tobacco provides proof-of-concept for dead-end trap crops genetically modified to attract Plutella xylostella (diamondback moth). Plant Biotechnol J 2012, 10(4):435-42.
• [10]Lu BR, Yang C: Gene flow from genetically modified rice to its wild relatives: Assessing potential ecological consequences. Biotechnol Adv 2009, 27(6):1083-91.
• [11]D’Hertefeldt T, Jorgensen RB, Pettersson LB: Long-term persistence of GM oilseed rape in the seedbank. Biol Lett 2008, 4:314-7.
• [12]van Heerwaarden J, Ortega Del Vecchyo D, Alvarez-Buylla ER, Bellon MR: New genes in traditional seed systems: Diffusion, detectability and persistence of transgenes in a maize metapopulation. PLoS One 2012, 7:e46123.
• [13]Hooftman DAP, Jong MJD, Oostermeijer JGB, Den Nijs HCM: Modelling the long-term consequences of crop-wild relative hybridization: a case study using four generations of hybrids. J Appl Ecol 2007, 44(5):1035-45.
• [14]Devos Y, Demont M, Dillen K, Reheul D, Kaiser M, Sanvido O: Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union. A review Agron Sustain Dev 2009, 29(1):11-30.
• [15]Hall L, Topinka K, Huffman J, Davis L, Good A: Pollen flow between herbicide resistant Brassica napus is the cause of multiple-resistant B. napus volunteers. Weed Sci 2000, 48:688-94.
• [16]Rong J, Song Z, Su J, Xia H, Lu B-R, Wang F: Low frequency of transgene flow from Bt/CpTI rice to its nontransgenic counterparts planted at close spacing. New Phytol 2005, 168(3):559-66.
• [17]Ellstrand NC: When transgenes wander, should we worry? Plant Physiol 2001, 125:1543-5.
• [18]Ramachandran S, Buntin GD, All JN, Raymer PL, Stewart CN Jr: Intraspecific competition of an insect-resistant transgenic canola in seed mixtures. Agron J 2000, 92:368-74.
• [19]Moon HS, Halfhill MD, Good LL, Raymer PL, Stewart CN Jr: Characterization of directly transformed weedy Brassica rapa and introgressed B. rapa with Bt cry1Ac and gfp genes. Plant Cell Rep 2007, 26(7):1001-10.
• [20]Yang X, Xia H, Wang W, Wang F, Su J, Snow AA, Lu B-R: Transgenes for insect resistance reduce herbivory and enhance fecundity in advanced generations of crop-weed hybrids of rice. Evol Appl 2011, 4(5):672-84.
• [21]Xia H, Lu B-R, Xu K, Wang W, Yang X, Yang C, Luo J, Lai F, Ye W, Fu Q: Enhanced yield performance of Bt rice under target-insect attacks: implications for field insect management. Transgenic Res 2011, 20(3):655-64.
• [22]Yang X, Wang F, Su J, Lu B-R: Limited fitness advantages of crop-weed hybrid progeny containing insect-resistant transgenes (Bt/CpTI) in transgenic rice field. PLoS One 2012, 7(7):e41220.
• [23]Wu KM, Lu YH, Feng HQ, Jiang YY, Zhao JZ: Suppression of Cotton Bollworm in Multiple Crops in China in Areas with Bt Toxin-Containing Cotton. Science 2008, 321(5896):1676-8.
• [24]Hutchison WD, Burkness EC, Mitchell PD, Moon RD, Leslie TW, Fleischer SJ, Abrahamson M, Hamilton KL, Steffey KL, Gray ME, et al.: Areawide Suppression of European Corn Borer with Bt Maize Reaps Savings to Non-Bt Maize Growers. Science 2010, 330(6001):222-5.
• [25]Jhala AJ, Bhatt H, Topinka K, Hall LM: Pollen-mediated gene flow in flax (Linum usitatissmum L.): can genetically engineered and organic flax coexist? Heredity 2011, 106:557-66.
• [26]Langhof M, Hommel B, Hüsken A, Schiemann J, Wehling P, Wilhelm R, Rühl G: Coexistence in maize: Do nonmaize buffer zones reduce gene flow between maize fields? Crop Sci 2008, 48(1):305.
• [27]Huang JK, Hu RF, Rozelle S, Pray C: Insect-resistant GM rice in farmers’ fields: Assessing productivity and health effects in China. Science 2005, 308:688-90.
• [28]Chen LY, Snow AA, Wang F, Lu BR: Effects of insectresistance transgenes on fecundity in rice (Oryza sativa, Poaceae): a test for underlying costs. Am J Bot 2006, 93:94-101.
• [29]Xia H, Chen L, Wang F, Lu B-R: Yield benefit and underlying cost of insect-resistance transgenic rice: Implication in breeding and deploying transgenic crops. Field Crops Res 2010, 118(3):215-20.
• [30]Tu J, Zhang G, Datta K, Xu C, He Y, Zhang Q, Khush GS, Datta SK: Field performance of transgenic elite commercial hybrid rice expressing Bacillus thuringiensis δ-endotoxin. Nat Biotechnol 2000, 18:1101-4.
• [31]Wang Y, Zhang G, Du J, Liu B, Wang M: Influence of transgenic hybrid rice expressing a fused gene derived from cry1Ab and cry1Ac on primary insect pests and rice yield. Crop Protect 2010, 29(2):128-33.
• [32]Wang F, Ye C, Zhu L, Nie L, Cui K, Peng S, Lin Y, Huang J: Yield differences between Bt transgenic rice lines and their non-Bt counterparts, and its possible mechanism. Field Crop Res 2012, 126:8-15.
• [33]Di K, Stewart CN Jr, Wei W, Shen B-c, Tang Z-X, Ma K-P: Fitness and maternal effects in hybrids formed between transgenic oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) and wild brown mustard [B. juncea (L.) Czern et Coss.] in the field. Pest Manage Sci 2009, 65(7):753-60.
• [34]Escarré J, Lepart J, Sans X, Sentuc JJ, Gorse V: Effects of herbivory on the growth and reproduction of Picris hieracioides in the Mediterranean region. J Veg Sci 1999, 10:101-10.
• [35]Rogers W, Siemann E: Effects of simulated herbivory and resource availability on native and invasive exotic tree seedlings. Basic Appl Ecol 2002, 3(4):297-307.
• [36]Hawkes CV, Sullivan JJ: The impact of herbivory on plants in different resource conditions a meta-analysis. Ecology 2001, 82:2045-58.
• [37]Boalt E, Lehtilä K: Tolerance to apical and foliar damage: costs and mechanisms in Raphanus raphanistrum. Oikos 2007, 116(12):2071-81.
• [38]Vaughton G, Ramsey M: Seed mass variation in the shrub Banksia spinulosa (Proteaceae): resource constraints and pollen source effects. Int J Plant Sci 1997, 158:424-31.
• [39]Wise MJ, Cummins JJ: Strategies of Solanum carolinense for regulating maternal investment in response to foliar and floral herbivory. J Ecol 2006, 94:629-36.
• [40]Weis AE, Hochberg ME: The diverse effects of intraspecific competition on the selective advantage to resistance: a model and its predictions. Am Nat 2000, 156:276-92.
• [41]Haag JJ, Coupe MD, Chahill JF: Antagonistic interactions between competition and insect herbivory on plant growth. J Ecol 2004, 92:156-67.
• [42]Schardler M, Brandl R, Haase J: Antagonistic interactions between plant competition and insect herbivory. Ecology 2007, 88:1490-8.
• [43]Steets JA, Salla R, Ashman TL: Herbivory and competition interact to affect reproductive traits and mating system expression in impatiens capensis. Am Nat 2006, 167:591-600.
• [44]Vacher C, Weis AE, Hermann D, Kossler T, Young C, Hochberg ME: Impact of ecological factors on the initial invasion of Bt transgenes into wild populations of birdseed rape (Brassica rapa). Theor Appl Genet 2004, 109(4):806-14.
• [45]Alstad DN, Andow DA: Implementing management of insect resistance to transgenic crops. AgBiotech News Information 1996, 8:177-81.
• [46]Lu Y, Wu K, Jiang Y, Xia B, Li P, Feng H, Wyckhuys KAG, Guo Y: Mirid Bug Outbreaks in Multiple Crops Correlated with Wide-Scale Adoption of Bt Cotton in China. Science 2010, 328(5982):1151-4.
• [47]Bergelson J, Purrington CB: Surveying patterns in the cost of resistance in plants. Am Nat 1996, 148:536-58.
• [48]Kalinina O, Zeller SL, Schmid B: Competitive performance of transgenic wheat resistant to powdery mildew. PLoS One 2011, 6:e28091.
• [49]Damgaard C, Kjaer C: Competitive interactions and the effect of herbivory on Bt-Brassica napus, Brassica rapa and Lolium perenne. J Appl Ecol 2009, 46(5):1073-9.
• [50]Liu Y, Wei W, Ma K, Li JS, Liang Y, Darmency H: Consequences of gene flow between oilseed rape (Brassica napus) and its relatives. Plant Sci 2013, 211:42-51.
• [51]R Development Core team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. V. R foundation for statistical computing, Austria. 2008; http://www.r-project.org/ (Ed.).