Effects of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant cropping systems on weed seedbanks in two years of following crops

Firbank, L. G.; Rothery, P.; May, Mike; Clark, S. J.; Scott, Rod; Stuart, R. C.; Boffey, C.; Brooks, David R.; Champion, G. T.; Haughton, A. J.; Hawes, Cathy; Heard, Matthew S.; Dewar, A. M.; Perry, J. N.; Squire, G. R.

doi:10.1098/rsbl.2005.0390

Cited by 30 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, some agronomic parameters, such as crop height and plant density, were studied in the UK's Farm-Scale Evaluations Hawes et al, 2003;Heard et al, 2003a, b;Firbank et al, 2006). Data from variety trials in the UK and by Hawes et al (2003) showed that early in the season Chardon LL was slightly taller than comparator varieties, and data from variety trials in the UK show slightly later maturity characteristics.…”

Section: Evaluation Of Relevant Scientific Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific opinion on applications EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐T25 and EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2007‐46 for the renewal of authorisation of maize T25, and for the placing on the market of herbicide‐tolerant genetically modified maize T25, both for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer CropScience AG

2013

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This scientific opinion reports on a risk assessment for the authorisation for (continued) marketing of genetically modified maize T25 for food and feed uses, import and processing. Maize T25 contains a single insertion locus containing a pat cassette conferring tolerance to glufosinate-based herbicides. Bioinformatic analyses, protein expression data and genetic stability studies did not raise safety issues. The compositional, agronomic and phenotypic characteristics of maize T25 grain and its conventional counterpart showed no differences that are of relevance for food/feed safety. The safety assessment identified no concerns regarding the potential toxicity and allergenicity of the newly introduced PAT protein. The compositional data indicating the nutritional equivalence of maize T25 were supported by the results of the feeding studies. There was no evidence that the genetic modification might significantly change the overall allergenicity of maize T25. Considering all available information related to the agronomic and phenotypic characterisation of maize T25, the EFSA GMO Panel did not observe any enhanced fitness characteristics of maize T25 that will change its capacity to spread, establish or persist compared with non-genetically modified (GM) maize, except in the presence of glufosinate-based herbicides. Considering its intended uses as food and feed, interactions with the biotic and abiotic environment were not considered an issue. Risks associated with an unlikely but theoretically possible horizontal gene transfer from maize T25 to bacteria have not been identified. The monitoring plan and reporting intervals were in line with the intended uses. The Panel concluded that maize T25, as described in the applications, is as safe as its conventional counterpart with respect to potential effects on human and animal health or the environment in the context of its intended uses for food and feed, import and processing. Application EFSA-GMO-NL-2007-46 was initially for food and feed uses, import and processing of maize T25 and all derived products, and cultivation of maize T25 in the European Union (EU).Following the applicant's request to modify the scope of applications EFSA-GMO-RX-T25 and EFSA-GMO-NL-2007-46 to no longer include cultivation of maize T25 in the EU, the EFSA GMO Panel provides a single scientific opinion, valid for both applications.The EFSA GMO Panel assessed maize T25 with reference to the intended uses and appropriate principles described in its Guidance Documents for the risk assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed (EFSA, 2006a) and for renewal of authorisations of existing GMO products lawfully placed on the market (EFSA, 2006b). In delivering its scientific opinion, the EFSA GMO Panel considered applications EFSA-GMO-RX-T25 and EFSA-GMO-NL-2007-46, additional information submitted by the applicant at the request of the Panel, the scientific comments submitted by Member States and relevant scientific publications. In accordance with its guidance document for renewal of...

show abstract

Section: Evaluation Of Relevant Scientific Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific opinion on applications EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐T25 and EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2007‐46 for the renewal of authorisation of maize T25, and for the placing on the market of herbicide‐tolerant genetically modified maize T25, both for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer CropScience AG

2013

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For a transition towards sustainability, renewable sources of energy need to be maximized and some energy flows directed to fuel essential internal tropic interactions (e.g. to soil organic matter or to weeds for arable birds) so as to maintain other ecosystem functions (Rydberg & Jansén 2002;Champion et al 2003;Haberl et al 2004;Firbank et al 2006Firbank et al , 2008. All annual crops, though, are derived from opportunists and so their resource use is inherently different to perennials.…”

Section: Improving Natural Capital For Agroecosystemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence

Pretty

2007

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

1,372

746

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concerns about sustainability in agricultural systems centre on the need to develop technologies and practices that do not have adverse effects on environmental goods and services, are accessible to and effective for farmers, and lead to improvements in food productivity. Despite great progress in agricultural productivity in the past half-century, with crop and livestock productivity strongly driven by increased use of fertilizers, irrigation water, agricultural machinery, pesticides and land, it would be over-optimistic to assume that these relationships will remain linear in the future. New approaches are needed that will integrate biological and ecological processes into food production, minimize the use of those non-renewable inputs that cause harm to the environment or to the health of farmers and consumers, make productive use of the knowledge and skills of farmers, so substituting human capital for costly external inputs, and make productive use of people's collective capacities to work together to solve common agricultural and natural resource problems, such as for pest, watershed, irrigation, forest and credit management. These principles help to build important capital assets for agricultural systems: natural; social; human; physical; and financial capital. Improving natural capital is a central aim, and dividends can come from making the best use of the genotypes of crops and animals and the ecological conditions under which they are grown or raised. Agricultural sustainability suggests a focus on both genotype improvements through the full range of modern biological approaches and improved understanding of the benefits of ecological and agronomic management, manipulation and redesign. The ecological management of agroecosystems that addresses energy flows, nutrient cycling, population-regulating mechanisms and system resilience can lead to the redesign of agriculture at a landscape scale. Sustainable agriculture outcomes can be positive for food productivity, reduced pesticide use and carbon balances. Significant challenges, however, remain to develop national and international policies to support the wider emergence of more sustainable forms of agricultural production across both industrialized and developing countries.

show abstract

“…The project EuMon (Schmeller et al 2006) collected metadata on biodiversity monitoring in Europe and has compiled a large database equipped with a comfortable search interface (EuMon database 2008; Henle and Schmeller, editorial this issue). The database currently (data from September 2007) (2002); Snow et al (2003) Cucurbita pepo (Spencer and Snow 2001) EVects on decomposers and soil organisms GriYths et al (2000); Saxena et al (1999) Recombinant proteins in plant root exudates (Borisjuk et al 1999) Enhanced mortality of non-target organisms Pleasants et al (2001) Lepidoptera (Gathmann et al 2006) Lepidoptera, Hymenoptera (Schuler et al 2004) Tri-trophic interactions Birch et al (1999); Poppy and Sutherland (2004); Schuler et al (1999) Cysteine proteinase inhibitor in potatoes (Cowgill et al 2004) Decreased countryside biodiversity Berger et al (2000); Hails (2005) Farm-scale evaluations (Firbank et al 2006) 1 C comprises 552 complete monitoring schemes, covering approximately 4,000 species and 145 diVerent habitat types, and addresses of 239 monitoring coordinators and institutions. The database contains information on sampling eVort and methods, equipment costs, and person-months spent in the schemes annually.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Cultivation of genetically modified organisms: resource needs for monitoring adverse effects on biodiversity

Schmeller

Henle

2008

Biodivers Conserv

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Genetically modiWed organisms (GMO) in non-European countries are introduced into the agro-environment on large scale with little knowledge of adverse eVects on biodiversity. In the European Union (EU) possible eVects of GMOs on biodiversity have to be accurately and precisely monitored. Monitoring biodiversity with a high precision is expensive and may only be achieved in close cooperation between GMO monitoring and general biodiversity monitoring. The EuMon project sampled metadata on biodiversity monitoring in Europe. Basing on the metadata, we estimated resource needs for biodiversity monitoring as needed for detecting potential adverse eVects of GMOs on biodiversity. On average the analyzed schemes with a potential to detect at least a 5% change of biodiversity monitor 242.6 § 105.4 sites at 322.6 § 172.1 person days employing 63 § 23 persons per year. The time invested in monitoring, given as person days, however, diVered greatly between schemes and species groups, so that real manpower might be considerably higher.

show abstract

Effects of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant cropping systems on weed seedbanks in two years of following crops

Cited by 30 publications

References 9 publications

Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence

Cultivation of genetically modified organisms: resource needs for monitoring adverse effects on biodiversity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About