Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Tiered tests to assess the environmental risk of fitness changes in hybrids between transgenic crops and wild relatives: the example of virus resistant Brassica napus

  • Alan Raybould (a1) and Ian Cooper (a2)

Abstract

Over the last 20 years, there has been much research aimed at improving environmental risk assessment of transgenic crops. Despite large amounts of data, decisions to allow or prohibit the release of transgenic crops remain confused and controversial. We argue that part of the reason for confusion is the lack of clear definitions of components of the environment that should be protected, and, as a consequence, there is no way to judge the relevance of data collected under the auspices of ‘environmental risk assessment’. Although this criticism applies to most aspects of environmental risk assessment of transgenic crops, it is most pertinent to effects that might result from an increase in plant fitness, often referred to as increased weediness. Environmental risk assessment of weediness is regarded as complicated: an increase in the fitness of a transgenic plant compared with non-transgenic counterparts will be the result of an interaction between the altered plant phenotype and an enormous number of environmental variables. This has led to the idea that risk assessment of weediness needs to “understand” these interactions, with the implication that exhaustive data are required. Here we argue that environmental risk assessment of the weediness of transgenic plants need not be complicated. Analysis of the conditions that must be met for increased weediness to occur suggests a series of studies that starts with simple tests in the laboratory under “worst case” assumptions, and becomes increasingly complex and realistic should the simpler studies not indicate negligible risk with sufficient certainty. We illustrate how the approach might work for assessing the risks of increased weediness using the example of possible introgression of a gene for Turnip mosaic virus (TuMV) resistance from oilseed rape to certain wild Brassica species.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Tiered tests to assess the environmental risk of fitness changes in hybrids between transgenic crops and wild relatives: the example of virus resistant Brassica napus
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Tiered tests to assess the environmental risk of fitness changes in hybrids between transgenic crops and wild relatives: the example of virus resistant Brassica napus
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Tiered tests to assess the environmental risk of fitness changes in hybrids between transgenic crops and wild relatives: the example of virus resistant Brassica napus
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

References

Hide All
[1] APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) (1987) 7 CFR Parts 330 and 340, Plant pests; introduction of genetically engineered organisms or products; final rule. Fed. Register 52: 22892–22915
[2] Barrett KL, Grandy N, Harrison EG, Hassan S, Oomen P (1994) Guidance Document on Regulatory Testing Procedures for Pesticides with Non-Target Arthropods. Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Brussels
[3] Bedford ID, Briddon RW, Brown JK, Rosell RC, Markham PG (1994) Geminivirus transmission and biological characterisation of Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) biotypes from different geographic regions. Ann. Appl. Biol. 125: 311–325
[4] Bergelson, J (1994) Changes in fecundity do not predict invasiveness – a model study of transgenic plants. Ecology 75: 249252
[5] Bergelson, J, Purrington, CB, Wichmann, G (1998) Promiscuity in transgenic plants. Nature 395: 25
[6] Bing, DJ, Downey, RK, Rakow, G (1996) Hybridizations among Brassica napus, B.rapa, and B. juncea and their weedy relatives B. nigra and Sinapis arvensis under open pollination conditions in the field. Plant Breed. 115: 470473
[7] Burban, C, Fishpool, LDC, Fauquet, C, Fargette, D, Thouvenel, J-C (1992) Host associated biotypes within West African populations of the whitefly Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) (Hom., Aleyrodidae). J. Appl. Ent. 113: 416423
[8] Butler, D, Reichhardt, A (1999) Long-term effect of GM crops serves up food for thought. Nature 398: 654656
[9] Candolfi MP, Barrett KL, Campbell PJ, Forster R, Grandy N, Huet M-C, Lewis G, Oomen PA, Schmuck R, Vogt H (2000) Guidance Document on Regulatory Testing and Risk Assessment Procedures for Plant Protection products with Non-Target Arthropods. Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, FL
[10] Chèvre, AM, Eber, F, Baranger, A, Boucherie, A, Broucqsault, LM, Bouchet, Y, Renard, M (1998) Risk assessment on crucifer species. Acta Hort. 459: 219224
[11] Chèvre AM, Ammitzboll H, Breckling B, Dietz-Pfeilstetter A, Eber F, Fargue A, Gomez-Campo C, Jenczewski E, Jørgensen R, Lavigne C, Meier MS, den Nijs HCM, Pascher K, Séguin-Swartz G, Sweet J, Stewart Jr CN, Warwick S (2004) A review on interspecific gene flow from oilseed rape to wild relatives. In den Nijs HCM, Bartsch D, Sweet J, eds, Introgression from Genetically Modified plants into Wild Relatives. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp 235–251
[12] Cooper, JI, Jones, AT (1983) Responses of plants to viruses: proposals for the use of terms. Phytopathology 73: 127128
[13] Cooper JI, Raybould AF (1997) Transgenes for stress tolerance: consequences for weed evolution. Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection ConferenceWeeds, pp 265–272
[14] Cooper JI, Walsh JA (2003) Genetic modification of disease resistance, viral pathogens. In Thomas B, Murphy D, Murray B, eds, Encyclopedia of Applied Plant Sciences. Academic Press, London, UK, pp 257–262
[15] Cross, FB (1996) Paradoxical perils of the precautionary principle. Wash. & L. Law Rev. 53: 851925
[16] Dinant, S, Blaise, F, Kusiak, C, Astier-Manifacier, S, Albouy, J (1993) Heterologous resistance to potato virus Y in transgenic tobacco plants expressing the coat protein of lettuce mosaic potyvirus. Phytopathology 83: 818824
[17] Dinant, S, Maisonneuve, B, Albouy, J, Chupeau, Y, Chupeau, M-C, Bellec, Y, Gaudefroy, F, Kusiak, C, Souche, S, Robaglia, C, Lot, H (1997) Coat protein gene-mediated protection in Lactuca sativa against lettuce mosaic potyvirus strains. Mol. Breeding 3: 7586
[18] Dutton, A, Romeis, J, Bigler, F (2003) Assessing the risks of insect resistant plants on entomophagous arthropods: Bt-maize expressing Cry1Ab as a case study. BioControl 48: 611– 636
[19] Ellstrand, NC (2001) When transgenes wander, should we worry? Plant Physiol. 125: 15431545
[20] Ellstrand, NC, Prentice, HC, Hancock, JF (1999) Gene flow and introgression from domesticated plants into their wild relatives. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30: 539563
[21] Elvin, DE, Welsh, R, Batie, SS, Capentier, CL (2003) Towards an ecological systems approach in public research for environmental regulation of transgenic crops. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 99: 114
[22] EPPO (2003) Environmental risk assessment scheme for plant protection products. EPPO Bull. 33: 103111
[23] Gray, AJ (2004) Ecology and government policies: the GM crop debate. J. Appl. Ecol. 41: 110
[24] Hails, RS, Morley, K (2005) Genes invading new populations: a risk assessment perspective. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20: 245252
[25] Hansen, LB, Siegismund, HR, Jørgensen, RB (2001) Introgression between oilseed rape Brassica napus L. and its weedy relative B. rapa in a natural population. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 48: 621627
[26] Heritage, J (2003) Will GM rapeseed cut the mustard? Science 302: 401403
[27] Hill, RA, Sendashonga, C (2003) General principles for risk assessment of living modified organisms: lessons from chemical assessment. Environ. Biosafety Res. 2: 8188
[28] Jan, FJ, Fagoaga, C, Pang, SZ, Gonsalves, D (2000) A single transgene derived from two distinct viruses confers multi-virus resistance in transgenic plants through homology-dependent gene silencing. J. Gen. Virol. 81: 21032109
[29] Lehmann, P, Walsh, JA, Jenner, CE, Kozubek, E, Greenland, A (1996) Genetically engineered protection against turnip mosaic virus infection in transgenic oilseed rape (Brassica napus var. oleifera). J. Appl. Gen. 37A: 118121
[30] Maskell, LC, Raybould, AF, Cooper, JI, Edwards, M-L, Gray, AJ (1999) Effects of turnip mosaic virus and turnip yellow mosaic virus on the survival, growth and reproduction of wild cabbage (Brassica oleracea). Ann. Appl. Biol. 135: 401407
[31] Miller, HI, Conko, G (2005) NGO war on biotechnology. J. Commer. Biotech. 11: 209222
[32] Mitchell, CE, Power, AG (2003) Release of invasive plants from fungal and viral pathogens. Nature 421: 625627
[33] Mitchell ND, Richards AJ (1979) Biological Flora of the British Isles No 145, Brassica oleracea ssp. oleracea. J. Ecol. 67: 1087–1096
[34] Naranjo, SE, Head, G, Dively, GP (2005) Field studies assessing arthropod nontarget effects in Bt transgenic crops: introduction. Environ. Ent. 34: 11781180
[35] Newman NC (1998) Fundamentals of Ecotoxicology. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI
[36] Pallett, DW, Thurston, MI, Cortina-Borja, M, Edwards, M-L, Alexander, M, Mitchell, E, Raybould, AF, Cooper, JI (2002) The incidence of viruses in wild Brassica rapa ssp. sylvestris in Southern England. Ann. Appl. Biol. 141: 163170
[37] Peters RH (1991) A Critique for Ecology. Cambridge University Press
[38] Pimentel, D, McNair, S, Janecka, J, Wightman, J, Simmonds, C, O’Connell, C, Wong, E, Russel, L, Zern, J, Aquino, T, Tsomondo, T (2001) Economic and environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 84: 120
[39] Poppy, G (2000) GM crops: environmental risks and non-target effects. Trends Plant Sci. 5: 46
[40] Preston CD, Pearman DA, Dines TD (2002) New Atlas of the British & Irish Flora. Oxford University Press
[41] Raybould, AF (2004) A decade of gene flow research: improved risk assessments or missed opportunities? Aspects Appl. Biol. 74: 2733
[42] Raybould AF (2005) Assessing the environmental risks of transgenic volunteer weeds. In Gressel J, ed., Crop Ferality and Volunteerism. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 389– 401
[43] Raybould, AF, Gray, AJ (1993) Genetically modified crops and hybridization with wild relatives: a UK perspective. J. Appl. Ecol. 30: 199219
[44] Raybould, AF, Gray, AJ (1994) Will hybrids of genetically modified crops invade natural communities? Trends Ecol. Evol. 9: 8589
[45] Raybould AF, Wilkinson MJ (2005) Assessing the environmental risks of gene flow from genetically modified crops to wild relatives. In Poppy GM, Wilkinson MJ, eds, Gene Flow from GM Plants. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp 169–185
[46] Raybould AF, Maskell LC, Edwards M-L, Cooper JI, Gray AJ (1999a) The prevalence and spatial distribution of viruses in natural populations of Brassica oleracea. New Phytol. 141: 265–275
[47] Raybould AF, Moyes CL, Maskell LC, Mogg RJ, Warman EA, Wardlaw JC, Elmes GW, Edwards M-L, Cooper JI, Clarke RT, Gray AJ (1999b) Predicting the ecological impacts of transgenes for insect and virus resistance in natural and feral populations of Brassica species. In Ammann K, Jacot Y, Simonsen V, Kjellsson G, eds, Methods of Risk Assessment of Transgenic Plants III. Ecological risks and prospects of transgenic plants. Bïrkhäuser Verlag, Basel, pp 3–15
[48] Raybould AF, Edwards M-L, Clarke RT, Pallett D, Cooper JI (2000) Heritable variation for the control of turnip mosaic virus and cauliflower mosaic virus replication in wild cabbage. Beiträge zur Züchtungsforschung – Bundesanstalt für Züchtungsforschung an Kulturpflanzen. Proceedings of the 7th Aschersleben Symposium – New Aspects of Resistance Research on Cultivated Plants, pp 4–8
[49] Raybould AF, Alexander MJ, Mitchell E, Thurston MI, Pallett DW, Hunter P, Walsh JA, Edwards M-L, Jones AME, Moyes CL, Gray AJ, Cooper JI (2003) The ecology of turnip mosaic virus in populations of wild Brassica species. In Beringer J, Godfray CHJ, Hails RA, eds, Ecological Dynamics & Genes, final symposium volume. Blackwell Scientific Press, Oxford, UK, pp 226–244
[50] Rich TCG (1991) Crucifers of Great Britain and Ireland. London: Botanical Society of the British Isles
[51] Scheffler, JA, Dale, PJ (1994) Opportunities for gene transfer from transgenic oilseed rape (Brassica napus) to related species. Transgenic Res. 3: 263278
[52] Shattuck, VI (1992) The biology, epidemiology and control of turnip mosaic virus. Offprints from Plant Breeding Reviews 14: 199238
[53] Thurston, MI, Pallett, DW, Cortina-Borja, M, Edwards, M-L, Raybould, AF, Cooper, JI (2001) The incidence of viruses in wild Brassica nigra in Dorset (UK). Ann. Appl. Biol. 139: 277284
[54] U N (1935) Genome analysis in Brassica with special reference to the experimental formation of B. napus and the peculiar mode of fertilization. Shokub utsu Kekyu Zasshi. 7: 389452
[55] US EPA (2001) Biopesticides Registration Action Document – Bacillus thuringiensis Plant Incorporated Protectants. http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/pips/bt_brald.htm
[56] Wilkinson, MJ, Davenport, IJ, Charters, YM, Jones, AE, Allainguillaume, J, Butler, HT, Mason, DC, Raybould, AF (2000) A direct regional scale estimate of transgene movement from GM oilseed rape to its wild progenitors. Mol. Ecol. 9: 983991
[57] Wilkinson, MJ, Elliot, LJ, Allainguillaume, J, Shaw, MW, Norris, C, Welters, R, Alexander, M, Sweet, J, Mason, DC (2003a) Hybridization between Brassica napus and B. rapa on a national scale in the United Kingdom. Science 302: 457459
[58] Wilkinson, MJ, Sweet, J, Poppy, G (2003b) Risk assessment of GM plants: avoiding gridlock? Trends Plant Sci. 8: 208212

Keywords

Tiered tests to assess the environmental risk of fitness changes in hybrids between transgenic crops and wild relatives: the example of virus resistant Brassica napus

  • Alan Raybould (a1) and Ian Cooper (a2)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed