Department of Entomology
  • About
    • At a Glance
    • Welcome
    • Code of Conduct
    • Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion >
      • DEI Working Group
      • Resources
    • Departmental History
    • For Alumni
    • Support Entomology >
      • Steinhauer Scholarship Fund
    • Contact >
      • Directions
  • News
    • News
    • Seminar Blog
    • Seminar Schedule
    • Awards
  • People
    • Faculty
    • Post Docs
    • Students
    • Staff
    • Alumni
    • For PI/Faculty
    • Proposal Resources
  • Academics
    • Graduate >
      • Admissions
      • MS Degree Requirements
      • PhD Degree Requirements
      • Graduate Student Resources
      • Forms for Grad Students
      • Financial Assistance
      • Award & Funding Opportunities
      • Entomology Student Organization
    • Online Masters in Applied Entomology
    • Undergraduate >
      • Entomology Minor
      • Honors Program
  • Research
    • IPM & Biological Control of Agricultural, Urban & Forest Pests
    • Ecology, Conservation, Restoration, Climate Change >
      • Pollinator Science and Apiculture
    • Evolution, Systematics and Evo-Devo
    • Genetics & Genomics and Medical Entomology
  • Extension/Outreach
    • Educational Outreach
    • Insect Camp
    • Insect Drawings
    • Insect Identification
    • Pesticide Education and Assessment Program
    • Plant Diagnostic Laboratory (PDL)

Monitoring Bt crops: pest management does not end when GM seeds are planted

5/23/2017

 
Transgenic Bt crops have been a very successful tool for managing various insect pests in field crops. However, like all pest management strategies, they have both pros and cons. Dr. Dominic Reisig, from North Carolina State University, discusses the challenges of managing resistance against Bt crops, using the example of Helicoverpa zea, an important pest of both corn and cotton.
Picture
Genetically engineered Bt crops have become an increasingly important tool for managing arthropod pests in field crops. Last year, they accounted for 79% of the corn and 84% of cotton planted in the United States (USDA 2016). Dr. Dominic Reisig, an associate professor and extension specialist at the North Carolina State University, is currently studying the benefits and concerns associated with the widespread adoption of Bt technology.

Bt crops are plants which have been genetically modified to contain genes for insecticidal protein crystals (Cry toxins) from the soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (“Bt”). Cry toxins have been extensively tested for their effects on humans and have been shown to be harmless to people. Their mode of action specifically targets insect guts and certain Cry toxins can be very specific to known pests (Ibrahim et al. 2010). They are expressed in the tissue of plants throughout the plant’s entire life, creating a highly focused pest management option that significantly reduces both pest abundance and the need for insecticide application.
Picture
Figure 1. Electron microscope image of Cry protein crystals (Microscopy by Jim Buckman)
With the advent of Bt crops, there has been a reduction in the amount of insecticides applied in a number of crops, particularly corn, soybeans, and cotton. At the same time, growers have also seen increases in their yield, particularly in areas with high pest pressure. Bt crops have also lead to increases in ecosystem services from beneficial insects, including both pollinators and natural enemies, due to the reduction in pesticide use.

Along with these benefits, there are negative effects associated with using Bt crops, including an increase in non-target pests. There are a number of agricultural pests that are unaffected by Cry toxins, including insects with piercing-sucking mouthparts like stink bugs. A reduction in the number of insecticide sprays in Bt crop systems has allowed populations of these non-target pests to build up. Among the primary concerns about Bt crop usage is the development of resistance by pests like the corn earworm (Helicoverpa zea), a moth which is a pest of corn and cotton, both important Bt crops in the US.

There are three main strategies used to prevent or delay the development of resistance to Bt crops. The first is planting a refuge, which is a part of a field that is planted with non-Bt seed. These non-Bt plants will sustain insect pests that are susceptible to Cry toxins that can mate with resistant individuals to produce offspring with less or no resistance, preventing the resistance trait from building up in the population. However, Dr. Reisig conducted surveys in North Carolina in which he found that 40% of corn growers do not plant a refuge; thus, this strategy is not practically applied.

The second major strategy to prevent resistance is to use high enough doses of a toxin to kill most of the individuals in a population. This strategy prevents the build up of resistance by placing the dose of the toxin too high for insects to overcome in a short period of time. However, a study conducted in the 1990’s found that the Cry1Ab protein (the first Bt protein inserted into corn) was present at a relatively low dose for H. zea, only killing ~50% of individuals. Dr. Reisig repeated this experiment and found that the effectiveness of Bt corn against H. zea has decreased even further (Reisig and Reary-Jones 2015). It is now known that H. zea has developed resistance against Cry1Ab. Here again, a good theory does not make it into practice. Dr. Reisig did find however that while Bt corn does not directly kill H. zea, it does cause decrease in pupal weight, and is carrying out experiments to understand the implications for managing H. zea.
Picture
Figure 2. Cotton fruit damaged by Helicoverpa zea (Photo Mohammad-Amir Aghaee)
The final major way to manage resistance is stacking (or “pyramiding”) multiple Bt proteins together into a single plant, which may have an additive or multiplicative effect. However, recent surveys suggest that H. zea is now also developing resistance to these stacked traits as well. As current resistance management strategies are not effective for H. zea, or in the case of planting a refuge, responsibly adapted, there is concern that Bt resistance in H. zea will continue to spread. Although this pest does not cause significant yield losses in corn, it is economically damaging to cotton. Dr. Reisig has found that H. zea larvae are sensitive to the presence of Bt in cotton, and try to move away from it. Since different parts of the plant express different levels of Bt proteins, larvae might preferentially feed on areas with low Bt.

Part of responsible management of any pest involves monitoring for and taking steps to mitigate resistance to control methods. The marked success of Bt crops does not circumvent this responsibility. On the contrary, it underscores our need to continue to promote responsible use of Bt so that this pest management tool will remain effective for many insect and human generations to come. Dr. Reisig’s research is invaluable to this process. If you’d like to learn more you can watch this video of his 2015 fall seminar or follow his blog posts on the NC State Extension website.
 
 
References
 
USDA. (2016). Recent trends in GE adoption. <https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx>
 
Ibrahim, M. A., Griko, N., Junker, M., & Bulla, L. A. (2010). Bacillus thuringiensis: A genomics and proteomics perspective. Bioengineered Bugs, 1(1), 31–50. http://doi.org/10.4161/bbug.1.1.10519
 
Resig, D., & Reary-Jones, F. P. F. (2015). Inhibition of Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) growth by transgenic corn expressing Bt toxins and development of resistance to Cry1Ab. Environmental Entomology. 44(4): 1275-85.
 
 
 Authors

Aditi Dubey is a PhD student in the Hamby lab studying the non-target impacts of neonicotinoid seed treatments.
 
Maggie Lewis is a PhD student in the Hamby lab studying interactions between spotted wing drosophila and its yeast and fungal microbes.
 
Samuel Ramsey is a PhD candidate at University of Maryland in Dr. Dennis vanEngelsdorp’s lab researching Varroa destructor.
 


Comments are closed.

    Categories

    All
    Awards
    Colloquium
    Faculty Spotlight
    Fall 2013 Colloquium
    Fall 2014 Colloquium
    Fall 2015 Colloquium
    Fall 2016 Colloquium
    Featured
    Innovation
    News
    Publications
    Science Projects
    SESYNC
    Spring 2014 Colloquium
    Spring 2015 Colloquium
    Spring 2016 Colloquium
    Talks
    Undergraduate

    Archives

    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

    RSS Feed

Picture
Picture
Picture
Department of Entomology 
University of Maryland 
4112 Plant Sciences Building 
College Park, MD 20742-4454
USA

Telephone: 301.405.3911 
Fax: 301.314.9290
Picture
Web Accessibility
  • About
    • At a Glance
    • Welcome
    • Code of Conduct
    • Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion >
      • DEI Working Group
      • Resources
    • Departmental History
    • For Alumni
    • Support Entomology >
      • Steinhauer Scholarship Fund
    • Contact >
      • Directions
  • News
    • News
    • Seminar Blog
    • Seminar Schedule
    • Awards
  • People
    • Faculty
    • Post Docs
    • Students
    • Staff
    • Alumni
    • For PI/Faculty
    • Proposal Resources
  • Academics
    • Graduate >
      • Admissions
      • MS Degree Requirements
      • PhD Degree Requirements
      • Graduate Student Resources
      • Forms for Grad Students
      • Financial Assistance
      • Award & Funding Opportunities
      • Entomology Student Organization
    • Online Masters in Applied Entomology
    • Undergraduate >
      • Entomology Minor
      • Honors Program
  • Research
    • IPM & Biological Control of Agricultural, Urban & Forest Pests
    • Ecology, Conservation, Restoration, Climate Change >
      • Pollinator Science and Apiculture
    • Evolution, Systematics and Evo-Devo
    • Genetics & Genomics and Medical Entomology
  • Extension/Outreach
    • Educational Outreach
    • Insect Camp
    • Insect Drawings
    • Insect Identification
    • Pesticide Education and Assessment Program
    • Plant Diagnostic Laboratory (PDL)