Are soil microbial endpoints changed by Bt crops compared with conventional crops? A systematic review protocol

Environmental Evidence

Niels Bohse Hendriksen⁴  Jeremy B Sweet³  Christian Frølund Damgaard¹  Paul Henning Krogh¹  Kaloyan Kostov² 

[1] Department of Bioscience, Aarhus University, P.O. Box 314, Vejlsøvej 25, Silkeborg 8600, Denmark;Agrobioinstitute, 8 Dragan Tzankov Blvd., Sofia BG-1164, Bulgaria;Sweet Environmental Consultants, 6 Green Street, Willingham, Cambridge CB24 5JA, UK;Department of Environmental Science, Aarhus University, Frederiksborgvej 399, Roskilde DK-4000, Denmark

关键词: Soil processes;    δ-endotoxin;    Bacillus thuringiensis;    Cry toxins;    Risk assessment;    Bt crops;    Soil microorganisms;   

Others  :  800808
DOI  :  10.1186/2047-2382-3-11

 received in 2014-02-25, accepted in 2014-05-13,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Bt crops have raised environmental concerns over consequences for sustainability of soil biodiversity and ecosystems services in agricultural land. As Bt crops contain insecticidal proteins potential interactions with non-target organisms are of major concern for the risk assessment. In recent years, numerous field and laboratory studies have been conducted to assess the potential adverse effects of the Bt crops on different non- target organisms including microorganisms living in the soil. Soil microorganisms include primarily bacteria and fungi. They interact with plants and animals and play significant roles in nutrient cycling and energy flow in soils and are actively involved in chemical and biological processes. It is likely that any changes accruing in soil will affect soil microorganisms, and so their abundance/diversity and activities can be used as indicators for many aspects of soil quality, and thus for the assessment of the potential effects Bt crops on the environment.

Methods

The key review question is: Are abundances/diversity/activities of soil microorganisms changed by Bt crops compared with conventional crops? For this purpose relevant literature will be collected systematically through a comprehensive search strategy in a number of general, specialized and personal databases. The search terms will define the locality or type of laboratory/glasshouse study – the field, soil, rhizosphere, the populations - types of soil microorganisms, the exposure - types of Bt proteins, the assessed outcome -abundances/diversity/activity of microorganisms and the crop, will be used for retrieving of relevant studies. We present the criteria against which studies will be included in the review and how they will be assessed. These criteria include appropriate study designs and comparators. This protocol outlines the type of analyses that will be performed to assess bias of the selected studies and if co-variables describing the heterogeneity of the studies introduces biases. The synthesis will be performed as a quantitative synthesis combining the magnitude of potential effects from the individual studies. The synthesis will include assessments of heterogeneity related to the studied abundances/ diversities/activities, types of exposure, methodology, comparators and publication bias.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Kostov et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Dale PJ, Clarke B, Fontes EMG: Potential for the environmental impact of transgenic crops. Nat Biotech 2002, 20:567-574.
• [2]Gatehouse JA: Biotechnological Prospects for Engineering Insect-Resistant Plants. Plant Physiol 2008, 146:881-887.
• [3]Marshall A: Existing agbiotech traits continue global march. Nat Biotech 2012, 30:207.
• [4]Romeis J, Bartsch D, Bigler F, Candolfi MP, Gielkens MMC, Hartley SE, Hellmich RL, Huesing JE, Jepson PC, Layton R, Quemada H, Raybould A, Rose RI, Schiemann J, Sears MK, Shelton AM, Sweet J, Vaituzis Z, Wolt JD: Assessment of risk of insect-resistant transgenic crops to nontarget arthropods. Nat Biotech 2008, 26:203-208.
• [5]Lavelle P, Decäens T, Aubert M, Barot S, Blouin M, Bureau F, Margerie P, Mora P, Rossi JP: Soil invertebrates and ecosystem services. ICSZ Soil Animals and Ecosystems Services Proceedings of the XIVth International Colloquium on Soil Biology 2006, 42(1):S3-S15.
• [6]Marvier M: Using meta-analysis to inform risk assessment and risk management. J Verbr Lebensm 2011, 6:113-118.
• [7]Duan JJ, Lundgren JG, Naranjo S, Marvier M: Extrapolating non-target risk of Bt crops from laboratory to field. Biol Lett 2010, 6:74-77.
• [8]Duan JJ, Marvier M, Huesing J, Dively G, Huang ZY: A meta-analysis of effects of Bt crops on honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). PLoS ONE 2008, 3(1):e1415.
• [9]Marvier M, McCreedy C, Regetz J, Kareiva P: A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates. Science 2007, 316:1475-1477.
• [10]Naranjo SE: Impacts of Bt crops on non-target invertebrates and insecticide use patterns. CAB reviews: perspectives in agriculture, veterinary science, nutrition and natural resources 2009, 4:1-11.
• [11]Wolfenbarger LL, Naranjo SE, Lundgren JG, Bitzer RJ, Watrud LS: Bt Crop Effects on Functional Guilds of Non-Target Arthropods: A Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 2008, 3:e2118.
• [12]Carpenter JE: Impact of GM crops on biodiversity. GM Crops 2011, 2:7-23.
• [13]Icoz I, Stotzky G: Fate and effects of insect-resistant Bt crops in soil ecosystems. Soil Biol Biochem 2008, 40:559-586.
• [14]O’Callaghan M, Glare TR, Burgess EPJ, Malone LA: Effects of plants genetically modified for insect resistance on nontarget organisms. Annu Rev Entomol 2005, 50:271-292.
• [15]Cheeke TE: Effects of the cultivation of genetically modified Bt crops on nontarget soil organisms. In Microbial Ecology in Sustainable Agroecosystems. Edited by Cheeke TE, Coleman DC, Wall DH. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2012:153-227.
• [16]Hannula SE, Boer W, Veen JA: Do genetic modifications in crops affect soil fungi? a review. Biol Fertil Soils 2014, 50:433-446.
• [17]CEE: Collaboration for Environmental Evidence: Guidelines for Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management. Version 4.2. Environmental Evidence: www.environmentalevidence.org/Documents/Guidelines/Guidelines4.2.pdf webcite. Book Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. Guidelines for Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management. Version 4.2. Environmental Evidence 2013. http://www.environmentalevidence.org/Documents/Guidelines/Guidelines4.2.pdf webcite (Editor ed.^eds.). City
• [18]A Programming Environment for Data Analysis and Graphics Version 3.0.1. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 2011. http://www.r-project.org/ webcite SAS Institute Inc.: SAS/STAT® 9.3 User’s Guide
• [19]Walker E, Hernandez AV, Kattan MW: Meta-analysis: its strengths and limitations. Cleve Clin J Med 2008, 75:431-439.
• [20]Sterne JAC, Egger M: Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol 2001, 54:1046-1055.