17th European Carabidologists Meeting, September 20-25, 2015
Effects of genetically modified maize for insect resistance on the composition of the ground beetle populations
INTRODUCTION
R. Bažok1, C.H. Krupke2, L.W. Bledsoe2, D. Lemić1, Z. Drmić1, M. Čačija1, H. Virić1 1University of Zagreb, Svetošimunska 25, Zagreb, Croatia (
[email protected]) 2Purdue University, Department for Entomology, W. State Street, West Lafayette, IN, USA (
[email protected] ) Genetically modified maize (GMO) was grown for the first time in the US and Canada in 1997. Since then, GM maize production has expanded to more than 35 million hectares worldwide. Two traits are expressed by today’s GM maize cultivars: insect resistance and herbicide tolerance. In almost all cases, cultivars now express both of these traits simultaneously (stacked genes). Some transgenic traits - such as the pesticidal toxins expressed by Bt genes - may affect non-target species as well as the crop pests they are intended to control (Altieri et al. (2004). The potential for adverse effects of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Berliner maize, on non-target organisms has received much attention since Losey et al. (1999) and Jesse & Obrycki (2000) suggested that pollen from Bt maize could be hazardous to the larvae of the monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus (L.). The monarch butterfly controversy demonstrated that it is difficult to extrapolate from laboratory studies to field conditions (Oberhauser et al., 2001; Dively et al., 2004). Other studies, including research conducted in Germany and in Switzerland, have found no negative effects on non-target organisms. Although no significant adverse effects on non-target wildlife or soil health have so far been observed in the field, scientists disagree regarding how much evidence is needed to demonstrate that growing Bt crops is sustainable in the long term. Scientists agree that the possible impacts on non-target species should be monitored and compared with the effects of other current agricultural practices such as chemical pesticide use (FAO, GM Science Review Panel). Based on known differences that exist between transgenic maize events, it is likely that levels of impact on insect populations associated with each event vary. There may also be differences in the levels of impact if those Bt events are sown in different seed mixtures with their isogenic lines. The aim of the research is to establish if composition of the ground beetles populations is influenced by trait or by ratio of the isogenic seeds in the seed mixture.
Table 1 The review of Bt hybrids , seed mixtures ratio and applied insecticides No Hybrid Percent Producer Bt protein Insecticide applied of seed in seed mixture 1 DKC 62-55 100 DeKalb no Cholotianidin + tefluthrin 2 DKC 62-54 95 Cry 3Bb1 Chlotianidin + DKC 62-65 5 Cry 1Ab 3 DKC 62-54 90 Cry 3Bb1 Chlothianidin + DKC 62-65 10 Cry 1Ab 4 P34R65 100 Pioneer no Tiamethoxam + tefluthrin 5 PO916XR + 95 Cry 34/35 Tiamethoxam P34R65 5 Cry1F 6 PO916XR + 90 Cry 34/35 Tiamethoxam P34R65 10 Cry1F
Picture 1 Pitfall traps (photo: Bažok)
METHODOLOGY
Pitfall traps (nine traps per treatment) were used to monitor populations of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in plots of maize grown in 2012 at Throckmorton Purdue Agricultural Center (Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA) in 2012 (Picture 1). Details on the treatments are shown in Table 1. Sowing was conducted on April 28th 2012. Three traps per replication (i.e. nine traps per treatment) were burried into the soil on May 9th . Traping occured every 7 days consisted of 15 sampling , from May 16th to August 22nd (a total of 15 sampling). All collected arthropods were classified into the groups (Insecta, Aranea and Myriapoda). Ground beetles were separated and identified to the species and/or genus level. Based on the number of identified individuals of established species and/or genus for all species and/or genus of the Ground beetle, the abundance and frequency were calculated for each field and year. The total number of arthropod groups and/or genus were subjected to one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Critical level P≤0.05 for detecting significant difference between fields and Duncan’s multiple range tests, for mean separation were used.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A total of 10.309 individuals belonging to the Arthropod group were collected from 54 Pitfall traps during 15 weeks. The ratio of different groups is shown by the Picture 3. Out of the total capture a total of 4963 insect specimens were collected This included 3393 ground beetles representing 31 species (8-15 species per treatment).
Aranea
Picture 2 The total number of caught individuals belonging to the group of Arthropods during the season
Myriapoda
Insecta
Carabidae
Picture 3 The ratio of different systematic groups in the total capture
We give grate gratitude to Fullbright program for funding the study. We thank students for help with sampling and field work.
4. Amphasia intersitialis
5.Bembidion patruele
6Anisodactylus spp. (binotatus)
8. Clivina dentipes
9.Clivina bipustulata
10. Harpalus herbivagus
11. Harpalus pensylvanicus
12. Bradycellus badipennis
13. Poecillus lucublandus
14. Amara augustata
15. Scarites subtriatus
17. Paratachys prximus
18. Tachys sp.
19. Bembidion affinae
20. Patrobus longicornis
22. Harpalus caliginosus
25. Unidentified
28. Dicaelus ambigus
29. Agonum ????
31. Agonoderus (Stenolophus) comma
32. Bradycellus lecontei
33. carabidae- larvae
34. Cicindela splendida
18
5
1
1
1
0
2
0
68
1
1
2
1
4
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
691
6
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
34
0
1
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
5
571
521
7
5
0
0
0
1
0
0
31
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
4
573
521
4
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
32
0
1
0
1
6
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
5
509 434
7
2
0
0
2
1
0
1
49
0
0
2
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
6
6
478 435
4
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
25
1
1
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
3393 3005
46
18
2
1
5
2
3
1 239
2
4
9
3 16
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
23
1,36
0,53
0,15 0,06
0,09
7,04 0,06
0,12
0,26 0,09 0,47
0,03
0,06
0,06
0,03
0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03
0,03
0,09
0,67
Total
516 403
treatment
3. Harpalus erythropus
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
2. Pterostichus melanarius
Picture 4 The number of caught individuals belonging to the group of Arthropods
LITERATURE
Total
Altieri, M.A., Gurr, G.M., Wratten, S.D. 2004. Genetic engineering and ecological engineering: a clash of paradigms or scope for synergy? In: Ecological Engineering for Pest Management: Advances in Habitat Manipulation for Arthropods (ed: Gurr, G.M. Wratten, S.D., Altieri, Dively, G.P., Rose, R., Sears, M.K., Hellmich, R.L., Stanley-Horn, D.E., Calvin, DD, Russo, J.M., Anderson, P.L. 2004. Effects on monarch butterfly larvae (Lepidoptera: Danaidae) after continuous exposure to Cry1Ab—expressing corn during anthesis. Environ. Entomol. 33:1116–1125. Jesse, L.C.H., Obrycki, J.J. 2000. Field deposition of Bt transgenic corn pollen: lethal effects on the monarch butterfly. Oecologia, 125: 241–248. Losey, J. E., Rayor, L. S. Carter, M. E. 1999. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature (Lond.).399: 214. Oberhauser, K. S., Prysby, M., Mattila, H. R., Stanley-Horn, D. E., Sears, M. K., Dively, G. P., Olson, E., Pleasants, J. M., Lam, W.K.F., Hellmich, R. L. 2001. Temporal and spatial overlap between monarch larvae and corn pollen. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98: 11913-11918.
1. Poecillus chalcites
There are no significant differences amnog the treatments in the number pf individuals belonging to various groups (Picture 4). The most abundant species was Poecilus (Poecilus) chalcites (Say, 1823) represented with 3005 individuals (88.56 %) and followed by Harpalus pensylvanicus (De Geer, 1774) (Table 2). Results indicate that various traits Bt seeds sown in two Table 2 The capture of the different ground beetle species ratios, 90 and 95 % mixtures with isogenic lines have similar per treatment (P-predators, S- se)ed eaters, O- others effects on Arthropods communities and ground beetles species richness and numerousness’ as isogenic lines sown alone and treated with insecticide.
1 2
746
3
100,00
88,56
P,S
P,S
S,P
0,06 0,03
P
0,03
S,O S,O
P,S
P
P,O S,O
C,O
P
