8 research outputs found

    Use of an innovative T-tube maze assay and the proboscis extension response assay to assess sublethal effects of GM products and pesticides on learning capacity of the honey bee Apis mellifera L.

    Get PDF
    Transgenic Cry1Ac+CpTI cotton (CCRI41) is a promising cotton cultivar throughout China but side effects and especially sublethal effects of this transgenic cultivar on beneficial insects remain poorly studied. More specifically potential sublethal effects on behavioural traits of the honey bee Apis mellifera L. have not been formally assessed despite the importance of honey bees for pollination. The goal of our study was to assess potential effects of CCRI41 cotton pollen on visual and olfactory learning by honey bees. After a 7-day oral chronic exposure to honey mixed with either CCRI41 pollen, imidacloprid-treated conventional pollen (used as positive sublethal control) or conventional pollen (control), learning performance was evaluated by the classical proboscis extension reflex (PER) procedure as well as a T-tube maze test. The latter assay was designed as a new device to assess potential side effects of pesticides on visual associative learning of honey bees. These two procedures were complementary because the former focused on olfactory learning while the latter was involved in visual learning based on visual orientation ability. Oral exposure to CCRI41 pollen did not affect learning capacities of honey bees in both the T-tube maze and PER tests. However, exposure to imidacloprid resulted in reduced visual learning capacities in T-tube maze evaluation and decreased olfactory learning performances measured with PER. The implications of these results are discussed in terms of risks of transgenic CCRI41 cotton crops for honey bees

    Quantification of toxins in a Cry1Ac + CpTI cotton cultivar and its potential effects on the honey bee Apis mellifera L.

    Get PDF
    Transgenic Cry1Ac + CpTI cotton (CCRI41) is increasingly planted throughout China. However, negative effects of this cultivar on the honey bee Apis mellifera L., the most important pollinator for cultivated ecosystem, remained poorly investigated. The objective of our study was to evaluate the potential side effects of transgenic Cry1Ac + CpTI pollen from cotton on young adult honey bees A. mellifera L. Two points emphasized the significance of our study: (1) A higher expression level of insecticidal protein Cry1Ac in pollen tissues was detected (when compared with previous reports). In particular, Cry1Ac protein was detected at 300 ± 4.52 ng g−1 [part per billion (ppb)] in pollen collected in July, (2) Effects on chronic mortality and feeding behaviour in honey bees were evaluated using a no-choice dietary feeding protocol with treated pollen, which guarantee the highest exposure level to bees potentially occurring in natural conditions (worst case scenario). Tests were also conducted using imidacloprid-treated pollen at a concentration of 48 ppb as positive control for sublethal effect on feeding behaviour. Our results suggested that Cry1Ac + CpTI pollen carried no lethal risk for honey bees. However, during a 7-day oral exposure to the various treatments (transgenic, imidacloprid-treated and control), honey bee feeding behaviour was disturbed and bees consumed significantly less CCRI41 cotton pollen than in the control group in which bees were exposed to conventional cotton pollen. It may indicate an antifeedant effect of CCRI41 pollen on honey bees and thus bees may be at risk because of large areas are planted with transgenic Bt cotton in China. This is the first report suggesting a potential sublethal effect of CCRI41 cotton pollen on honey bees. The implications of the results are discussed in terms of risk assessment for bees as well as for directions of future work involving risk assessment of CCRI41 cotton

    Ecological compatibility of GM crops and biological control

    Get PDF
    Insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant genetically modified (GM) crops pervade many modern cropping systems (especially field-cropping systems), and present challenges and opportunities for developing biologically based pest-management programs. Interactions between biological control agents (insect predators, parasitoids, and pathogens) and GM crops exceed simple toxicological relationships, a priority for assessing risk of GM crops to non-target species. To determine the compatibility of biological control and insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant GM crop traits within integrated pest-management programs, this synthesis prioritizes understanding the bi-trophic and prey/host-mediated ecological pathways through which natural enemies interact within cropland communities, and how GM crops alter the agroecosystems in which natural enemies live. Insect-resistant crops can affect the quantity and quality of non-prey foods for natural enemies, as well as the availability and quality of both target and non-target pests that serve as prey/hosts. When they are used to locally eradicate weeds, herbicide-tolerant crops alter the agricultural landscape by reducing or changing the remaining vegetational diversity. This vegetational diversity is fundamental to biological control when it serves as a source of habitat and nutritional resources. Some inherent qualities of both biological control and GM crops provide opportunities to improve upon sustainable IPM systems. For example, biological control agents may delay the evolution of pest resistance to GM crops, and suppress outbreaks of secondary pests not targeted by GM plants, while herbicide-tolerant crops facilitate within-field management of vegetational diversity that can enhance the efficacy of biological control agents. By examining the ecological compatibility of biological control and GM crops, and employing them within an IPM framework, the sustainability and profitability of farming may be improved

    Ecological compatibility of GM crops and biological control

    No full text

    Behavioral effects of insect-resistant genetically modified crops on phytophagous and beneficial arthropods: a review

    No full text
    corecore