Transgenic Cotton for Insect Control

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Interaction of chemigation timings with efficacy of reduced-risk insecticides and An update on West Coast cranberry variety trials and other pest management.
Advertisements

Ellsworth/UA Integrated Management of Whiteflies in Arizona Peter C. Ellsworth, Ph.D. IPM Specialist, University of Arizona Maricopa, AZ, USA & Steve Naranjo,
Integrated Pest Management in Banana Next. Integrated Pest Management in Banana Biocontrol is the reduction of disease producing activity of a pathogen.
S Concepts of Integrated Pest Management Leonard Coop Assistant Research Professor Oregon State University Integrated Plant Protection Center 2040 Cordley.
Bt corn Saturnina C Halos, Ph.D. Chair, Biotechnology Advisory Team Department of Agriculture.
Evolution for Ecology. The Importance of Evolution in Ecology  Ecologists study proximate or “how” questions:  How nutrients flow through ecosystems.
Insecticide Resistance: Genes For Pest? Donnie Day.
Biotechnology education at Purdue University and beyond Peter Goldsbrough Dept. of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University January 2006.
Ellsworth/UA Transgenic Cotton for Insect Control Peter C. Ellsworth, Ph.D. IPM Specialist, University of Arizona Maricopa Agricultural Center Maricopa,
Ellsworth/UA Ecological Effects of Transgenic Crops Peter C. Ellsworth, Ph.D. IPM Specialist, University of Arizona & Steve Naranjo, Ph.D. Research Scientist,
Some Remarks on pest control in Brazil Thanks to Anderson Galvão – Céleres Consultoria and Prof. Marcelo Gravina de Moraes -UFRGS.
Integrated Pest Management and Biocontrol
Insect Management. Know your system… What is the plant, what is normal? Most plant health problems are not caused by biotic (living) factors such as insects.
Genetically Modified Foods
Integrated Pest Management
Pesticides. Pests are any species that interferes with human welfare by: – competing with us for food – invading lawns and gardens – destroying building.
GM Technology (The Perfect Plant or The Next Mad Cow?) Image courtesy ofcountry2.blogspot.com Image courtesy of Egr 108 Dr. Davis J.
A Study of Genetically Modified Crops: Their Advantages and Disadvantages Prepared by: Matthew MacMullin, Biological Engineering Jordan Smith, Food Science.
Food Production Macronutrients- carbohydrates, proteins and fats Micronutrients- vitamins (A, C, E) and minerals (iron, iodine, calcium) Chronic undernutrition:
Good, Bad or Ugly?. A brief history of food Humans have manipulated food crops since ancient times. Agriculture is not natural. Humans select for certain.
Risk assessment: Bt corn MON810 Risk assessment: identifying and evaluating possible dangers predicting the chances the danger will occur assessing the.
Managing Plant Pests.
Jeffrey Vitale Gaspard Vognan Marc Ouattarra Karim Traore Oumar Guigemo Burkina Faso Bollgard II ® Socio-economic Study: Outcomes from 2011 Field Surveys.
Integrated Pest Management Chapter 5 Lesson 5.2. PA Academic Standards for Environment & Ecology Standard B Analyze health benefits and risks associated.
Workshop on modern biology & its social impacts 2-5 Dec 2007, Xishuanbanna, Yunnan, China Environmental Impacts of GM Crops for Insect-Resistance Yufa.
Biotechnology Objectives for October 21, 2010  We will consider the nature and issues of food biotechnology  We will answer some questions about food.
{ Bt cotton Bethany Zumwalde.  What is Bt cotton?  How is it produced?  Advantages & limitations  Bt cotton study  Inheritance of an insecticidal.
Integrated Pest Management Lesson 5.3. Theme Outline Lesson 5.3 Effects of IPM on the Environment and Society Benefits of IPM Drawbacks of IPM.
Resurgence Mostly documented with insect pests
Transgenic Plants Dr. Sanjay Singh C.M.P. College Allahabad
MONSANTO COMPANY Is now a leading global provider of agricultural products and integrated solutions that bring together chemicals, seeds, and biotechnology.
Field Performance of WideStrike Insect Protection Against Key Lepidopteran Pests in the Mid-South And Southeastern U.S. M. Willrich Siebert, L. B. Braxton,
Greenpeace Lauren Gianniny Britta Zack. Greenpeace: who we are NNNNon-profit organization –N–N–N–Non-violent –4–4–4–40 countries GGGGoal - to.
GMO Fact or Fiction?. Fact or Fiction? GMOs are created by injecting chemicals into food AFTER it is harvested Fiction GMOs are developed through genetic.
BT Corn Carla Barrios Jim Taylor. BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS IS A SPECIES OF BACTERIA THAT PRODUCES (CRYSTAL-LIKE)PROTEINS THAT ARE TOXIC TO CERTAIN INSECTS.
PRINSIP BIOTEKNOLOGY Application of Biotech on Plants, Agriculture.
Susceptibility of Cry1F-susceptible and -resistant fall armyworm to transgenic corn plants containing single or pyramided Bt genes Y. Niu1, R. Meagher2,
Thurs. Nov. 18 Other due dates:
Genetic Modification of Food
Managing Plant Pests Reminder: student learning activities are at the end of this power point.
Tobacco Insect Management 2016 Update
Economic and Social Benefits of GM Cotton
GMO and agriculture: pest management and how the landscape has changed Midwest and MidContinental Chapter of the Medical Library Association Micheal D.K.
Transgenic Cotton for Insect Control
Chapter 20 Pesticides and Pest Control
WORKSHOP ON CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS ISSUES SURROUNDING GMO’S
9.01 Discuss integrated pest management strategies
Pests and Pest Control.
BTY100-Lec#5.1 Genetic Engineering © LPU : BTY100.
For Integrated Pest Management
Genetic Modification 3.5.
Higher Biology Crop Protection Mr G R Davidson.
Genetically Modified Food
DIFFERENT CONCENTRATION-RESPONSE ESTIMATES FOR ASSESSING HELIOTHINE SUSCEPTIBILITY TO BT INSECTICIDAL PROTEINS M. I. Ali and R. G. Luttrell, University.
EDEXCEL GCSE NATURAL SELECTION AND GENETIC MODIFICATION PART 2
SUSTAINABLE PEST MANAGEMENT
Jaime Pullman – Brian Lenihan
Precision Agriculture in Pest Management
Unit 6: Part VI: Pesticides and Pest Control
Stacked Bt Corn: Efficacy and Potential Implications for Bollworm Control in Cotton S. D. Stewart (UT Extension), B. R. Leonard (LSU AgCenter) &
Next.
Pests and Pest Control.
Field Performance of A VipCotTM Line Against Heliothines in Louisiana
-In the US 13% OF ALL CROPS DAMAGED BY INSECTS World Wide 33%
GMO Fact or Fiction?.
GMO Fact or Fiction?.
Human Genome Project Human Genome Project's (Mapped Human Genes)
Non Bt Corn Variety Testing
GMO Fact or Fiction?.
Presentation transcript:

Transgenic Cotton for Insect Control Peter C. Ellsworth, Ph.D. IPM Specialist, University of Arizona Maricopa Agricultural Center Maricopa, AZ, USA

Disclosure Those engaged in the dialog on biotechnology should fully disclose their relationships and opinions “up front” so that audiences can consider the context. Partial support for my research comes from companies with interests in biotechnology. The balance of support comes from state and federal sources of competitively available public funds.

Disclosure (continued) Biotechnology and its products are neither inherently good nor bad. The specific process and each of its products should be scientifically and independently evaluated.

Transgenic Cotton for Insect Control What is available now & in the future? Origin, identity & development Insect target(s) in the U.S. Efficacy & utility in the Arizona system (benefits) Safety (risks) Resistance Impact of gene on plant Biodiversity non-target effects

Products Available for Cotton Insect Control Only 1 ‘trans’-gene has been commercialized Based on the crystalline protein produced by Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Developed by Monsanto as Bollgard® and incorporated into commercial varieties by several cotton seed companies (e.g., Delta Pineland Co. & Stoneville Pedigreed Seed Co.) Sold in the U.S., Australia, Mexico, South Africa, India, China, Argentina, Indonesia

Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Common soil bacterium Present in nature in a variety of forms (species & strains) Produces proteins that are toxic to insects Commonly used in garden sprays & for commercial agriculture, including organic farming Extremely well-known toxin in terms of human health & environmental safety

Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Crystalline proteins are classified according to structure & have a specific nomenclature (e.g., Cry1Ac) Cotton has been transformed with Cry1Ac (narrow spectrum; Lepidoptera only) Protein binds with receptors in the insect gut causing pores which perforate the midgut & lead to cell leakage & insect death

The Transformation Coker 312 The gene of interest is spliced out of the bacterium using a vector, like Agrobacterium tumefasciens, & transferred to cotton cells grown in tissue culture The cells are grown into a plant & then, after testing, plants are back-crossed into commercial lines to make new varieties Recurrent back-crossing

Spectrum of Activity for BG Excellent Control No Control Tobacco Budworm, the principal pest in the South Trichoplusia ni Spodoptera exigua Heliothis virescens Spodoptera frugiperda Spodoptera ornithogalli Pectinophora gossypiella Bucculatrix thurberiella Pink Bollworm (PBW), our principal pest Beneficial Insects Estigmene acrea Helicoverpa zea (pre-bloom) Agrotis & Feltia spp. Helicoverpa zea (post-bloom) Pseudoplusia includens Marmara spp.

AZ’s Primary Lepidopteran Pest Pink Bollworm Multiple generations Adult lays eggs on bolls or susceptible squares (SS) Larvae hatch & penetrate bolls within 24 hrs

Alternatives for PBW Control Repeated, broad-spectrum sprays are required to prevent moths from invading fields No effective larvicides or ovicides Biological controls are limited by the biology of this pest Little impact of parasitoid or predators Cultural controls can be very effective Requires early termination & areawide compliance with plowdown requirements

Secondary Lepidopteran Pests Occasional pests Induced pests Helicoverpa zea Heliothis virescens Trichoplusia ni Estigmene acrea (Arctiidae) Bucculatrix thurberiella Spodoptera exigua

Bt Cotton Questions Efficacy & economic studies Agronomic studies How effective is the gene? Are oversprays required for lepidopteran control? If so, are there new scouting & threshold considerations? Agronomic studies Impacts (+/-) on yield & fiber qualities? Product integrity & stability studies High-dose through life of plant? High-dose in all varieties? Purity? Ecological studies Impact on non-target organisms (NTO) Ca. 100% for PBW Not for PBW Search for large larvae No unintended effects Yes, actively growing No, some not marketed > 98% (?)

BG Cotton Efficacy Young larvae present regardless of cotton type Little difference between Bt & non-Bt (-) varieties

BG Cotton Kills Small Larvae PBW larvae must feed in order to be killed. Large larvae survive mainly in non-Bt varieties.

Impact on Arizona Cotton In 1990, > 6.8 sprays were made against PBW; still, > 5% yield loss Since 1996 when Bt cotton was introduced, it has never required oversprays for PBW control, AND Since 1997, only 0.5 sprays have been made against PBW over all cotton acreage (Bt and non-Bt); i.e., an areawide reduction of PBW has occurred The net reduction in insecticide use has resulted in huge savings to farmers, and large improvements to the agroecosystem in terms of beneficial insect communities & IPM

Safety - Resistance Given time & exposure, insects have the capacity to overcome most insecticides. Bt cotton may be no different, however, there are safeguards: Refugia High-Dose Strategy Development of additional proteins

Refugia Objective: provide harborage for susceptible moth production to reduce the chance of resistant (R) moths mating with each other U.S. growers are required to plant a proportion of their acreage to non-Bt cotton 5% Refuge, if no lepidopteran-active insecticides are used on it, or else 20% Refuge RR SS RS

High-Dose Strategy, Depends on: Yes Yes? Yes, *refuges No (?) The production of a dose high enough to kill: >99.9% of a susceptible (SS) population, and >95% of the heterozygous (RS) individuals, A recessive resistance, Random mating, A low initial frequency of the ‘R’ allele.

Development of Additional Transgenes (Bt’s) Bollgard II® 2 Bt gene product, original Bollgard (Cry1Ac) + Cry2Ab Final stages of US-EPA approval Limited commercial production in 2003 Full replacement of BG varieties by 2008? Bollgard III Little information on this available at this time; research stages only Cry1F Under development by Dow Agrosciences in combination with Cry1Ac

Impact of Gene on Plant Isogenic lines were developed for testing the impact of the gene(s) on agronomic and efficacy characteristics of the plant Lines Cry1Ac+ Cry2Ab Cry1Ac only Cry2Ab only Null C312B DP50 DP50B (Cry1Ac) DP50II (Cry1AC+Cry2Ab) Particle gun DP50 Cry1Ac Cry2Ab

Isoline Studies of BG & BGII Replicated studies Artificial & natural PBW infestations Sprayed & Unsprayed conditions

Warts are often formed at the site of PBW attack Dead 1st instar in Bt cotton

BGII Results - PBW, 1st Instars Dead 1st Instars Live 1st Instars

BGII Results - PBW, All Instars

BGII Results - B. thurberiella BGII prevented cotton leafperforator development better than BG Leaves at top of plant (younger) express highest doses of Bt Older leaves (bottom) have reduced doses of Bt

Marmara sp. Citrus Peel Miner is an incidental lepidopteran that mines the main stem and boll surfaces Cry2Ab alone (‘X’) is more effective than Cry1Ac (‘B’)

Spectrum of Activity for BG (Cry1Ac) Excellent Control No Control Heliothis virescens Pectinophora gossypiella Helicoverpa zea Bucculatrix thurberiella Spodoptera exigua Estigmene acrea Trichoplusia ni Spodoptera frugiperda Spodoptera ornithogalli Pseudoplusia includens Agrotis & Feltia spp. Beneficial Insects Marmara spp.

Spectrum of Activity for BGII (Cry1Ac + Cry2Ab) Excellent Control No Control Heliothis virescens Pectinophora gossypiella Helicoverpa zea Bucculatrix thurberiella Spodoptera exigua Estigmene acrea Trichoplusia ni Spodoptera frugiperda Spodoptera ornithogalli Pseudoplusia includens Agrotis & Feltia spp. Beneficial Insects Marmara spp.

High Dose and % Efficacy? Throughout our early work with BG cotton, we often would find low levels of “survivors” from our field plots

Source of Survivors Low expression of Bt in plants? Low levels of non-Bt contaminants? In the seedbag From volunteer seed Resistance?

% Efficacy Against PBW Before plants are tested for presence of Bt After PBW from non-Bt plants are discarded % Efficacy Against PBW Cry1Ac 100% Cry2Ab 99.67% Both Genes 100%

Biodiversity / NTO Studies The reports of Bt effects on Monarch butterflies have fueled much emotional debate on the use of biotech crops. Monarch Butterfly, symbol of nature and “wildness” in North America.

Non-Target Organisms (NTO) Over 370 arthropod species have been tracked in 2 years of field studies using a variety of methodologies. So far, no major or functional differences have been found in Arizona between BG, BGII, and conventional cotton communities… Except where harsh PBW sprays are needed in conventional cottons. Thus, Bt cotton ecosystems are not only safe, but safer than conventional cotton ecosystems where insecticidal inputs are higher.

Conclusions The use of Bt cottons in Arizona has provided the first larvicidal and selective approach to controlling PBW. The control provided by Bt cottons approaches immunity. No survivors have been found in field studies. Bt cotton has revolutionized our ability to implement IPM in AZ cotton & reduced our insecticide inputs by over 60%. Future transgenic products for insect control in cotton should be independently & scientifically tested. Other than new Bt genes/events, there are few, if any, development plans for insect contol products.

Information ACIS All University of Arizona crop production & crop protection information is available on our web site, Arizona Crop Information Site (ACIS), at http://ag.arizona.edu/crops