Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-p566r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T20:30:57.934Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Gene flow, biodiversity, and genetically modified crops: Weedy rice in Thailand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2014

Barbara Schaal
Affiliation:
Washington University
Wesley J. Leverich
Affiliation:
St. Louis University
Sansanee Jamjod
Affiliation:
Chiang Mai University
Chanya Maneechote
Affiliation:
Chiang Mai University
Anbreen Bashir
Affiliation:
St. Louis University
Amena Prommin
Affiliation:
Chiang Mai University
Adirek Punyalue
Affiliation:
Chiang Mai University
Athitya Suta
Affiliation:
Chiang Mai University
Theerasak Sintukhiew
Affiliation:
Sintukhiew
Anupong Wongtamee
Affiliation:
Chiang Mai University
Tonapha Pusadee
Affiliation:
Chiang Mai University
Sunisa Niruntrayakul
Affiliation:
Chiang Mai University
Benjavan Rerkasem
Affiliation:
Chiang Mai University
J. Andrew DeWoody
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Indiana
John W. Bickham
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Indiana
Charles H. Michler
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Indiana
Krista M. Nichols
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Indiana
Gene E. Rhodes
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Indiana
Keith E. Woeste
Affiliation:
Purdue University, Indiana
Get access

Summary

The domestication of plants and animals and the development of agriculture some 10,000 years ago has led to profound changes in the environment and to biodiversity (Diamond 1997; Smith 1998). As natural communities were replaced by pastures and fields, native species were displaced or their habitats fragmented (Heywood 1995; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). The extirpation of native species began with the earliest agricultural communities in the Middle East and Asia and continues today. Every major advance in agriculture, from the development of new crops to mechanized farming, has environmental consequence. The most recent change in agricultural practice is the planting of genetically modified (GM) crops. First developed and legalized in the 1990s, today the majority of crops in the United States are GM, with approximately 90% of the U.S. soybean crop GM for herbicide tolerance (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2008).

GM crops are varieties that have been transformed by using a biological or physical method to insert specific genes into a genome (Chrispeels & Sadava 2003). The inserted genes, transgenes, can come from another species or from the same species. In contrast, most varieties of nontransgenic crops are produced by traditional and modern methods of crop improvement and selective breeding (Chrispeels & Sadava 2003). Other descriptions for such GM crops are recombinant or genetically engineered crops. The specific methods of genetic manipulation used to produce a GM crop are not thought to have any serious consequences (National Research Council 2002), but rather the consideration of most concern is the specific nature of the introduced transgene. Because the method of crop improvement has little effect, some researchers have argued that the distinction between GM crops and non-GM crops is artificial; crops produced by traditional means of plant breeding are also GM (Federoff & Brown 2004). This point is important: The issues and concerns that have been raised about recently developed GM crops are also of concern regarding traditional crop varieties.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allainguillaume, J, Alexander, M, Bullock, JM et al. (2006) Fitness of hybrids between rapeseed (Brassica napus) and wild Brassica rapa in natural habitats. Molecular Ecology, 15, 1175–1184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andow, DA, Zwahlen, C (2006) Assessing environmental risks of transgenic plants. Ecology Letters, 9, 196–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bashir, A (2006) Hybrid Fitness and the Potential for Gene Flow Between Cultivated Rice, Oryza sativa and its Wild Relative, Oryza rufipogon. Ph.D Dissertation, St. Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri.Google Scholar
Ceddia, MG, Bartlett, M, Perrings, C (2007) Landscape gene flow, coexistence and threshold effect: the case of genetically modified herbicide tolerant oilseed rape (Brassica napus). Ecological Modeling, 205, 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, MA, Burke, JM (2006) Letting the gene out of the bottle: the population genetics of GM crops. New Phytologist, 170, 429–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chrispeels, MJ, Sadava, DE (2003) Plants, Genes, and Crop Biotechnology. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Boston.Google Scholar
Clark, EA (2006) Environmental risk of genetic engineering. Euphytica, 148, 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (2007) Implications of gene flow in the scale-up and commercial use of biotechnology-derived crops: economic and policy considerations. Issue Paper, 37, 1–24.Google Scholar
Day, PR (1987) Concluding remarks. Regulatory Considerations: Genetically-Engineered Plants. Center for Science Information, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Diamond, J (1997) Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. WW Norton, New York.Google Scholar
Ellstrand, NC (2003) Dangerous Liaisons? When Cultivated Plants Mate with Their Wild Relatives. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Federoff, N, Brown, NM (2004) Mendel in the Kitchen: A Scientist's View of Genetically Modified Foods. Joseph Henry Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Hancock, JF (2003) A framework for assessing the risk of transgenic crops. BioScience, 53, 512–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haygood, R, Ives, AR, Andow, DA (2003) Consequences of recurrent gene flow from crops to wild relatives. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279, 1879–1886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heywood, VH (1995) Global Biodiversity Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Jhala, AJ, Hall, LM, Hall, JC (2008) Potential hybridization of flax with weedy and wild relatives: an avenue for movement of engineered genes. Crop Science, 48, 825–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knispel, AL, McLachlan, SM, Van Acker, RC et al. (2008) Gene flow and multiple herbicide resistance in escaped canola populations. Weed Science, 56, 72–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, DA, Francisco-Ortega, J, Jansen, RK (1996) Hybridization and the extinction of rare plant species. Conservation Biology, 10, 10–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Londo, J, Schaal, B (2007) Origins and population genetics of weedy rice in the United States. Molecular Ecology, 16, 4522–4535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Londo, JP, Chiang, YC, Hung, KH, Chiang, TY, Schaal, BA (2006) Phylogeography of Asian wild rice, Oryza rufipogon, reveals multiple independent domestications of cultivated rice Oryza sativa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 103, 9578–9583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maneechote, C (2007) Weedy Rice: Problem and Control. Department of Agriculture, Thailand Research Fund and Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.Google Scholar
Maneechote, C, Jamjod, S, Rerkasem, B (2004) Invasion of weedy rice in rice fields in Thailand: problems and management. International Rice Research Notes, 29, 20–22.Google Scholar
Martinez-Castillo, J, Zizumbo-Villarreal, D, Gepts, P et al. (2007) Gene flow and genetic structure in the wild-weedy-domesticated complex of Phaseolus lunatus L. in its Mesoamerican center of domestication and diversity. Crop Science, 47, 58–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McRae, BH, Beier, P (2007) Circuit theory predicts gene flow in plant and animal populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 19885–19890.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Well-Being. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Muir, WM, Howard, RD (2002) Assessment of possible ecological risks and hazards of transgenic fish with implications for other sexually reproducing organisms. Transgenic Research, 11, 101–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Research Council (2002) Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants: The Scope and Adequacy of Regulation. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Nielson, RL, McPherson, MA, O'Donovan, JT et al. (2009) Seed-mediated gene flow in wheat: seed bank longevity in western Canada. Weed Science, 57, 124–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Office of Agriculture Economics (OAE) 2008. Thailand Agriculture Year Book 2550. OAE, Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives, Bangkok, Thailand.Google Scholar
Pasquet, RS, Peltier, A, Hufford, MB et al. (2008) Long-distance pollen flow assessment through evaluation of pollinator foraging range suggests transgene escape distances. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 105, 13456–13461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pilson, D, Prendeville, HR (2004) Ecological effects of transgenic crops and the escape of transgenes into wild populations. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 35, 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilson, D, Snow, AA, Rieseberg, LH et al. (2004) A protocol for evaluating the ecological risks associated with gene flow from transgenic crops into their wild relatives: the case of cultivated sunflower and wild Helianthus annuus. In: Introgression from Genetically Modified Plants into Wild Relatives (eds. den Nijs, HCM, Bartsch, D, Sweek, J), pp. 219–233. CAB International, Oxfordshire, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prommin, A (2007) Segregation in F2 Generation of Crosses between Common Wild Rice (Oryza rufipogon Griff.) and Cultivated Rice (O. sativa L.). MSc Thesis, Chiang Mai University, Thailand.Google Scholar
Punyalue, A (2006) Characterization of Common Wild Rice Populations from Main Rice Growing Regions of Thailand. MSc Thesis, Chiang Mai University, Thailand.Google Scholar
Purrington, CB, Bergelson, J (1995) Assessing weediness of transgenic crops: industry plays plant ecologist. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 10, 340–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sintukhiew, T (2004) Interspecific Hybridization between Cultivated Rice (Oryza sativa L.) and Wild Rice (O. rufipogon). MSc Thesis, Chiang Mai University, Thailand.Google Scholar
Smith, B (1998) The Emergence of Agriculture. Scientific American Library, New York.Google Scholar
Snow, AA (2002) Transgenic crops – why gene flow matters. Nature Biotechnology, 20, 542.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snow, AA, Pilson, D, Rieseberg, LH et al. (2003) A Bt transgene reduces herbivory and enhances fecundity in wild sunflowers. Ecological Applications, 13, 279–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommut, W (2003) Changes in Flood-Prone Rice Ecosystems in Thailand, Crop Year 2000–2001. Department of Agriculture. Bangkok, Thailand.Google Scholar
Suta, A. 2008. Weedy Rice Contamination in Farmers’ Seed. MSc Thesis, Chiang Mai University, Thailand.Google Scholar
Tesso, T, Kapran, I, Grenier, C et al. (2008) The potential for crop-to-wild gene flow in sorghum in Ethiopia and Niger: a geographic survey. Crop Science, 48, 1425–1431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (2008) Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. Available at .
Warwick, SI, Legere, A, Simard, MJ et al. (2008) Do escaped transgenes persist in nature? The case of an herbicide resistance transgene in a weedy Brassica rapa population. Molecular Ecology, 17, 1387–1395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watrud, LS, Lee, EH, Fairbrother, A et al. (2004) Evidence for landscape level, pollen-mediated gene flow from genetically modified creeping bent-grass with CP4 EPSPS as a marker. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 101, 14533–14538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, MJ, Elliott, LJ, Allainguillaume, J et al. (2003) Hybridization between Brassica napus and B. rapa on a national scale in the United Kingdom. Science, 302, 457–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wongtamee, A (2008) Evaluation of Exotic Genes Contamination from Crop Rice (Oryza sativa L.) in Common Wild Rice (Oryza rufipogon Griff.) Populations. MSc Thesis, Chiang Mai University, Thailand.Google Scholar
Xu, D, Duan, X, Wang, B et al. (1996) Expression of a late embryogenesis abundant protein gene, HVA1, from barley confers tolerance to water deficit and salt stress in transgenic rice. Plant Physiology, 110, 249–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, NY, Linscombe, S, Oard, J (2003) Outcrossing frequency and genetic analysis of hybrids between transgenic glufosinate herbicide resistant rice and the weed, red rice. Euphytica, 130, 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please 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 account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×