Containment of regulated genetically modified cotton in the field

Scientific Opinion on applications (EFSA-GMO-UK-2008-57 and EFSA-GMO-RX-MON15985) for the placing on the market of insect-resistant genetically modified cotton MON 15985 for food and feed uses, import and processing, and for the renewal of authorisation o

“…Because cotton pollen is very large (120-200 µm), heavy and sticky, wind-mediated dispersal of pollen to cross-pollinate other cotton varieties is considered negligible (Vaissiere and Vinson, 1994). In addition, cross-pollination percentages rapidly decrease with increasing distance from the pollen source (Umbeck et al, 1991;Kareiva et al, 1994;Llewellyn and Fitt, 1996;Xanthopoulos and Kechagia, 2000;Zhang et al, 2005;Van Deynze et al, 2005Hofs et al, 2007;Llewellyn et al, 2007;Heuberger et al, 2010).…”

Safety Assessment of Transgenic Organisms, Volume 4

“…As the pollen grains are large, heavy and somewhat sticky, dissemination by wind is absent or negligible (McGregor, 1976; Umbeck et al, 1991; Borém et al, 2003). Under humid laboratory conditions, Richards et al (2005) found that about 90% of the pollen grains were viable after 8 hrs, nearly 31% still viable after 16 hrs and about 7.5% viable after 32 hrs, but after 8 hrs on the proboscis of Helicoverpa armigera moths, pollen grains were about 81% non-viable.Although cotton is mostly self-pollinating, in the presence of suitable insect pollinators it is also cross-pollinating at generally low levels, which improves yields (McGregor, 1976; Tanda, 1984;Mamood et al, 1990;Rhodes, 2002;Sanchez and Malerbo-Souza, 2004;Llewellyn et al, 2007). The species pool and concentration of pollinators vary according to region, location, season and timing.…”

“…The species pool and concentration of pollinators vary according to region, location, season and timing. The extent of spontaneous (unaided) or natural outcrossing thus depends greatly upon local insect populations, including introduced and native species (Moffett et al, 1976; Berger et al, 1988; Freire et al, 2002;Rhodes, 2002;Sanchez and Malerbo-Souza, 2004; Danka, 2005; Van Deynze et al, 2005;Llewellyn et al, 2007). Nectar from the extrafloral bracteal nectaries (epicalyx) is more accessible than nectar from the floral nectaries inside the calyx, so flower visitors are not always potential pollinators (Moffett et al, 1975; McGregor, 1976; Tsigouri et al, 2004; Danka, 2005).…”

“…Apis mellifera can be an important pollinator, but it does not prefer Gossypium pollen (McGregor, 1976; Eisikowitch and Loper, 1984; Vaissière et al, 1984;Waller et al, 1985;Loper, 1986; Vaissière, 1991; Vaissière and Vinson, 1994; Danka, 2005; Van Deynze et al, 2005). In using insecticides to manage the crop, mitigation measures are taken to preserve the pollinator populations, for example by not applying insecticides during the effective period of flowering (Delattre, 1992; Bourland et al, 2001;Sekloka et al, 2007).Isolation of test plots or the crop thus depends on the presence and flight distances of the insect pollinators, and the result desired (Llewellyn et al, 2007). Conditions and objectives vary tremendously.…”

“…From experiments, isolation distances suggested for field tests include 8-10 m (Turkey) (Sen et al, 2004); 10 m (Greece) (Xanthopoulos and Kechagia, 2000); 20 m (Brazil) (Freire, 2002a); 33 m (India) (Singh and Singh, 1991); and 60 m (China) . Barriers composed of other cotton can be effective (Simpson and Duncan, 1956); in Australia the accepted practice has been a distance of 20 m with a cotton buffer or 50 m of bare ground, but somewhat larger distances may be preferable sometimes (Llewellyn et al, 2007). Border rows of Zea mays 4 m wide reduced cotton crosspollination in Brazil from 15% to 5%, and an isolation distance of 100 m has been recommended when maize barriers are used (Castro et al, 1982; Freire, 2005).…”