Open Access
Translator Disclaimer
27 June 2014 Effects of Bt CpTI transgenic cotton on the performance of Tetranychus turkestani (Acari: Tetranychidae)
Guang-Yun Li, Jing-Jing Li, Wei Xia, He-Li Qu, Shuai Yang, Jian-Ping Zhang
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

Transgenic cotton is very effective in controlling targeted pests such as cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera). However, increases in spider mite (Acari: Tetranychidae) populations have been reported in fields of transgenic cotton. The objectives of our laboratory experiments were (i) to determine host plant preference (transgenic or non-transgenic cotton) of T. turkestani females and (ii) to compare the life table parameters of T. turkestani females reared on transgenic or non-transgenic cotton. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays indicated that T. turkestani females reared on transgenic cotton leaves contained 14.9±0.23 μg Bt toxic protein per gram fresh weight, about 57.4% toxin in the transgenic cotton leaves. Results of dual-choice disc tests showed that T. turkestani females preferred to feed and lay eggs on non-transgenic cotton. Food source (transgenic or non-transgenic cotton) had no significant effect on the life table parameters of T. turkestanifemales. We conclude that increases in the population of spider mites in fields of transgenic cotton cannot be attributed to host plant preference or to the effects of Bt toxic protein on the non-targeted arthropods life cycle. Additional studies should be done to determine if the increases are due to less insecticide application or less competition with primary insects in transgenic cotton fields.

Introduction

Spider mites are one of the most destructive herbivorous pests in cotton field worldwide (Luttrell et al. 1994). The mites generally feed on the lower surface of cotton leaves by piercing mesophyll cells with their stylets. Yellowish-white spots appear on damaged leaves shortly after infestation. Several days later, reddish brown patches form as the number of spots increases. Finally the cotton leaves begin to roll. Mite injury always causes a reduction in leaf chlorophyll content, resulting in severe declines in cotton yield and quality (Park and Lee, 2002). In northwest China, the spider mite population consists of several species, including Tetranychus turkestani (Ugarov et Nikolskii), Tetranychus truncatus Ehara, Tetranychus dunhuangensis Wang, and Tetranychus cinnabarinus Boisduval. Among these species, T. turkestani is a damaging and important pest (Guo et al. 2013), also it causes the most damage to cotton in the northern part of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (Lu, 1990). Spider mite populations have increased since the widespread adoption of transgenic cotton (Wu and Guo, 2005; Zhao et al. 2011). In some cases, spider mites have become the primary pest of transgenic cotton.

Transgenic cotton expressing Bt toxic protein such as Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac derived from Bacillus thuringiensis has been effectively used to control targeted pests such as cotton bollworm (Shelton et al. 2002; Cattaneo et al. 2006; Yves et al. 2006; Wu et al. 2008; Tabashnik et al. 2010; Hutchison et al. 2010). As a result, total pesticide expenditures by farmers have declined by 87% (Liu and Huang, 2012) since 1997 when transgenic cotton was first commercially planted in China. The planting area of transgenic cotton has dramatically increased with time. Now there is growing concern that transgenic cultivars may threaten non-targeted organisms, including other pests (Li et al. 2010; Mota et al. 2013) or beneficial insects.

Many field and laboratory studies have been conducted to evaluate the potential effects of genetically modified crops on non-targeted insects. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) has detected Bt toxic protein in both herbivorous pests and their natural enemies (Alvarez-Alfageme et al. 2008; Torris and Ruberson. 2008; Li et al. 2011; García et al. 2012; Tian et al. 2013). A resurgence of secondary pests such as aphids, spider mites, and mirid bugs has also been reported in transgenic crops (Wu et al. 2002; Lu et al. 2010; Zhao et al. 2011). The effect of transgenic crops on the life histories of non-targeted insects has been observed under laboratory conditions, but the results are inconsistent. Most studies indicated that transgenic crops had no adverse effects on either Aphis gossypii or Adelphocoris suturalis (Lawo et al. 2009; Li et al. 2010). Beneficial insects such as predatory mites (Obrist et al. 2006; de Castro et al. 2012), green lacewings (Chrysoperla carnea)(Romeis et al. 2004; Li et al. 2008) and beetles (Ferry et al. 2007) were also unaffected. In contrast, some researchers observed high mortality rates among the larvae of ladybird beetle (Adalia bipunctata) reared on diets with Bt toxic protein (Hilbeck et al. 2012).

Spider mites are not only one of the most significant cotton pests but also the prey for many insect species. It is important to determine whether transgenic cotton has any effect on this non-targeted pest. The objectives of this laboratory study were (i) to determine whether the spider mite (T. turkestani) has host preference or oviposition preference for transgenic cotton and its corresponding isogenic cultivar and (ii) to verify whether transgenic cotton affects the life table parameters of T. turkestani.

Materials and methods

Spider mites

A colony of T. turkestani was started in the laboratory using individuals originally obtained from a cotton field near Huayuan, Shihezi City, Xinjiang Province, P. R. China in 2010. The colony was maintained on young, potted sword bean (Semen canavaliae Gladiatae) plants in a climate chamber. The temperature in the chamber was 28±1°C, the relative humidity was 70±10%, and the photoperiod was 16 h light: 8 h dark. Before they were used in the experiment the spider mites were reared on non-transgenic cotton for several generations.

Plant material

The transgenic cotton cultivar ‘SGK321’ and its corresponding non-transformed isoline, ‘Shiyuan321’, were used in this experiment. ‘SGK321’ is obtained by transforming Shiyuan 321 with Cry1Ac+CpTI (Guo, 1995). Both Cry1Ac and CpTI can express toxic proteins targeted forLepidoptera pests. These cultivars were provided by the Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China.

The two cotton cultivars were sown in experiment stations of Shihezi University in late April 2013, and maintained with standard agronomic practices of the region, but no pesticides were applied to the plants. A new batch of cotton was planted each week to ensure that there were enough plants at the 4–8 leaf stage for the experiment.

Bt-toxin detection

Transgenic cotton and its near isoline cotton leaves were collected when the cotton plants reached the 4–8 leaf stage. Adult T . turkestani reared with cotton leaves at the 4–8 leaf stage were also collected. The leaves and spider mites were put into separate microreaction tubes and stored at -20 ºC before ELISA tests.

The concentration of Bt toxic protein in the leaves and spider mites was measured using a double antibody sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay from Agdia (Elkhart, IN, USA). Before conducting the ELISA tests, 1g leaf sample or 40-50 mg of spider mites material were ground in 1×phosphate-buffered saline, 0.1% Tween 20 (PBST) wash buffer at a 1:10 ratio (w/v) and then centrifuged for 15 min at 12000 g. The supernatants were used in the ELISA tests according to the instructions of the manufacturer.

Host preference and oviposition preference test

To prepare the dual-choice disc tests, we used a 30 mm diameter punch to cut round discs from SGK321 and Shiyuan321 leaves collected when plants were at the 4–8 leaf stage. Each disc was then cut in half. One half-disc of SGK321 and one half-disc of Shiyuan321 were put side by side on filter paper in 9 mm petri dishes. Moist sponges beneath the filter paper kept the filter paper damp. Four T .turkestani females were transferred onto each half disc. The position of both the spider mites and their eggs were recorded every 12 hours for three days. The eggs were removed from the discs after each observation. T .turkestani females that were dead, missing, or at the boundary between the two half discs were not included in the count. The experiment was conducted at a temperature of 28±1ºC, a relative humidity of 75%±5%, and a photoperiod of 16 h light: 8 h dark. There were 30 replications in this experiment. The relative position of the SGK321 and Shiyuan321 discs (i.e., left or right side) was alternated between replications.

Laboratory performance of T. turkestani on different cotton cultivars

Development of T. turkestani on different cotton cultivars

Flat leaves were collected from SGK321 and Shiyuan321 plants and then washed with water. The leaves were put upside down on filter paper in 90 mm diameter petri dishes. Moist sponges beneath the filter paper kept the paper damp. The edges of the leaves were surrounded by strips of wet cotton to prevent the escape of the spider mites. Each leaf was divided into four rearing units using wet cotton strips. One female T. turkestani was transferred into each unit. The spider mites and all the eggs except one were removed 12 h later. 120 replications were set for each cotton cultivar. The development of each egg was observed every 24 h until the larvae reached the adult stage. The cotton leaves were replaced every several days to ensure that the leaves were fresh.

Survival and reproduction of T. turkestani on different cotton varieties

The sex of the spider mites was determined within 24 h of reaching the adult stage. Males and females were paired and placed together on one quarter of a cotton leaf as described above. The pairs were checked every day and the following parameters were recorded: pre-oviposition period, daily fecundity, post-oviposition period, and survival rate. Eggs were removed each day. In total, we observed 47 T. turkestani pairs reared on SGK321 cotton and 37 T. turkestani pairs reared on Shiyuan321.

The experiment was conducted in climate chambers to ensure that spider mites were reared under stable conditions. The experiment was conducted at a temperature of 28±1 ºC, a relative humidity of 75%±5%, and a photoperiod of 16 h light: 8 h dark.

Statistical analyses

An age-specific female life table was constructed according to the method developed by Zhao and Zhou (1984). Survival rate (lx , percentage of spider mites still living at age x) and daily fecundity (mx, mean number of female eggs laid per adult female at age x) were calculated based on the number of female individuals. Population parameters were calculated according to the following formulae:

e01_236.gif
where Ro is the net reproductive rate; rm is the intrinsic rate of increase; λ is the finite rate of increase; T is the mean generation time; and Dt is the doubling time.

In the calculation of population parameters, 120 individuals were divided into four groups. The homoscedasticity of variance for each parameter was verified before performing T-tests using SPSS 17.0. The difference in survival rates between T. turkestani reared on SGK321 cotton and Shiyuan321were compared using Kaplan-Meier method and analyzed with log-rank test in SPSS. The mx were analyzed using Microsoft Excel software.

In the host preference and oviposition preference test Wilcoxon signed rank test was adopted to analyze data of both series of experiments.

Results

Bt-toxin concentrations in cotton and T.turkestani

The concentration of Bt toxic protein in the transgenic cotton leaves averaged 26.0±0.77 μg/g fresh weight (Fig. 1). The concentration of Bt toxic protein in T .turkestani reared on transgenic cotton leaves averaged 14.9±0.23 μg/g fresh weight, 42.6% less than in cotton. No Bt toxic protein was detected in the non-transgenic cotton leaves or in T .turkestani reared on non-transgenic cotton leaves.

FIGURE 1.

Concentration of Bt toxic protein (mean±SE) in transgenic (SGK321) cotton, in its corresponding non-transformed isoline (Shiyuan321), and in T .turkestani females reared on the leaves of these two cultivars. nd: not detectable.

f01_236.jpg

Feeding preference of T. turkestani

There was no significant difference in the percentage of T. turkestani females on leaf discs of transgenic or non-transgenic cotton during the first 24 h of the dual-choice disc tests (Fig. 2). In contrast, a larger percentage of spider mites was observed on leaf discs of non-transgenic cotton 36 to 72 h after the start of the tests. The differences were significant at 36, 48, and 72 h (T-tests,P<0.05). At 60 h, number of spider mites found on Shiyuan321 (mean±SD) were also higher than that of SGK321, though no significant difference was seen. There is a tendency that more and more spider mites preferred to live on the Shiyuan321 as the time passed by.

FIGURE 2.

Percentage of T. turkestani females observed on leaf half-discs of transgenic (SGK321) cotton and its corresponding non-transformed isoline (Shiyuan321) during a 72 h trial. Asterisks indicate that the percentage of T. turkestani females were significantly different on Shiyuan 321 than on SGK321 (P<0.05).

f02_236.jpg

FIGURE 3.

Percentage of T. turkestan eggs on leaf half-discs of transgenic (SGK321) cotton and its corresponding non-transformed isoline (Shiyuan321) cotton during a 72 h trial. Single and double asterisks indicate that the percentage of T. turkestani eggs were significantly different on Shiyuan321 than on SGK321 at the P<0.05 and P<0.01 levels of signficance.

f03_236.jpg

Oviposition preference of T. turkestani

The percentage of T. turkestani eggs on leaf discs of non-transgenic cotton was always greater than the percentage of eggs on leaf discs of transgenic cotton (Fig. 3). The differences in oviposition were not significant at 12 h (P=0.656) or 24 h (P=0.054). T. turkestani showed significant oviposition preference from 36 to 60 h after the start of the test. Furthermore, the differences in oviposition were highly significant at 60 h (P=0.001). These results indicate that number of T. turkestani females who chose to lay eggs on non-transgenic cotton leaves increased with time.

Life table parameters of T. turkestani

No significant differences were observed in the developmental parameters (i.e., eggs, larvae, protonymph, deutonymph, larva-adult, generation and adult) of T. Turkestan (Table 1, P>0.05). The fecundity parameters (pre-oviposition, oviposition, post-oviposition, and adult longevity) of T. turkestani females reared on transgenic or non-transgenic cotton were also similar (Table 2, P>0.05). Furthermore, no significant differences were observed in the total number of eggs per female or in the number of eggs per female per day (Table 2, P>0.05). For these reasons, it was not surprising that the population parameters (i.e., R0, T, rm, Dt, and λ) of T. turkestani females reared on SGK321 were not differ from those reared on Shiyuan321.

TABLE 1.

Developmental period parameters (mean±SE) of T. turkestani females reared on transgenic cotton (SGK321) and its corresponding non-transformed isoline (Shiyuan321). Data are mean±SE. n is the number of T. turkestani at each life stage. P values were obtained by independent T-tests (P<0.05).

t01_236.gif

TABLE 2.

Fecundity parameters (mean±SE) of T. turkestani reared on transgenic cotton (SGK321 ) and its corresponding non-transformed isoline (Shiyuan321). Data are mean±SE. n is the number of T. turkestanifemales at each life stage. P values were obtained by independent T-tests (P<0.05).

t02_236.gif

TABLE 3.

Population parameters of T. turkestani females reared on transgenic cotton (SGK321) and its corresponding non-transformed isoline (Shiyuan321). Data are mean±SE. P values were obtained by independent T-tests (P<0.05).

t03_236.gif

The survival rate of T. turkestani females reared on non-transgenic cotton was more or less the same with that of females reared on transgenic cotton,no significant difference was observed between them (Fig. 4; log-rank test,χ2=0.951, df=1, p=0.330). The number of eggs/female/day increased from about 1 egg/female/day at the start of the oviposition period to a peak of 8–9 eggs/female/day about one week later. The fecundity then decreased gradually for about three weeks. No eggs were observed 26 d after the start of oviposition. The fecundity of T. turkestani females reared on SGK321 was similar to that of females reared on Shiyuan321 (Fig. 5).

FIGURE 4.

Survival rates of T. turkestani females reared on transgenic cotton (SGK321) and its corresponding non-transformed isoline (Shiyuan321).

f04_236.jpg

Discussion

Results from the dual-choice disc tests indicated that T. turkestani females preferred to feed and lay eggs on non-transgenic cotton. Interestingly, these preferences were not observed until 36 h after the start of the tests. The preference increased with time, especially oviposition preference. This is consistent with the hypothesis that because insects and spider mites cannot immediately perceive host plant quality in small-scale experiments, they require feeding experience on the host plant before adjusting their preference (Egas, 2003). Previous studies reported conflicting results about the preference of insects regarding transgenic cultivars or their non-transformed isolines. For example, Rovenska (2005) demonstrated that T. urticae preferred transgenic eggplant (Solanum melongenaL.) to non-transgenic eggplant. However, the same species (T. urticae) had greater preference for non-transgenic potato (Solanum tuberosum Solanaceae) (Rovenska and Zemek, 2006). This indicated that in regard to a choice between transgenic or non-transgenic plant materials, the preference of an insect and spider mites may vary depending on plant species. Bakonyi (2006) reported that Folsomia candida preferred non-transgenic maize (Zea mays L.) to Bt-maize (producing Cry1Ab toxin) as a food source, whereas Heteromurus nitidus and Sinella coeca preferred Bt-maize. This indicates that non-targeted arthropods species react differently to the same pair of transgenic and non-transgenic plants. Additional studies need to be conducted to determine if insect preference can be attributed to differences in plant morphology or secondary metabolite content after genetic transformation.

FIGURE 5.

Daily fecundity (eggs/female/day, mean±SE) of T. turkestani females reared on transgenic cotton (SGK321) and on its corresponding non-transformed isoline (Shiyuan321) (n=37-47).

f05_236.jpg

Because of their preference for non-transgenic cotton, we predicted that that T. turkestanifemales reared on Shuyuan321 would develop more rapidly and have higher survival rates than females reared on SGK321. This would be in accordance with the oviposition-preference offspring-performance hypothesis (Thompson, 1988). However, our results indicated females reared on transgenic or non-transgenic cotton showed no difference in either development or fecundity. Similarly, transgenic crops (cotton and maize) in two others studies had no effect on the development, survival, or reproduction of T. urticae (Esteves, 2010; Li and Romeis, 2010). Dutton (2002) and Lozzia et al. (2000) reported no difference in the intrinsic rate of natural increase of T. urticae reared on Bt or non-transgenic plants. Our results as well as most of the above studies indicated that although spider mites reared on transgenic plants had significant concentrations of Bt toxic protein, but the protein apparently had no effect on the development and reproduction of either T. turkestani or T. urticae.

Our results and those of previous studies indicated that transgenic cotton was effective in controlling targeted pests, but had no negative impact on the survival or development of non-targeted arthropods such as spider mites. Some researchers have reported that spider mite populations were 25 to 44% higher in transgenic cotton fields than in non-transgenic cotton fields (Cui and Xia, 1998; Xia, 1999; Zhao, 2011). In our study, we were surprised that T. turkestani females preferred non-transgenic to transgenic cotton. Bt toxic protein had no side effect on the life parameters of T. turkestani. In contrast, field observations indicated that spider mite populations were significantly higher in SGK321 than those in Shiyuan321. One reason might be that systemic insecticide use was lower in the fields of transgenic cotton fields. Alternatively, weak biological control by natural enemies or reduced interspecific competition between spider mites and the primary pests accounts for this phenomenon (Qiu et al. 2006; Yong and Ding, 2011).

T. turkestani is one of the three most important pests in cotton fields of Xinjiang Province. It is also a food source for many natural enemies including ladybird beetles, green lacewings, predatory thrips and predatory mites. As an important member in the food web, T. turkestani plays a vital role in the environment risk assessment of transgenic crops. In order to completely evaluate the effects of transgenic crops on T. turkestani, additional studies should be conducted to determine if increased spider mite populations in fields of transgenic cotton are due to reduction in insecticide application, less competition with primary insects, or weak biological control by natural enemies.

Acknowledgments

We thank Lu Yanhui and Liu Bing from the Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing for providing seeds. We thank Professor Jeff Geer from College of Agriculture, Shihezi University, Xinjiang for his generous help with revising the manuscript. This research was funded by the Specialized Research Fund for the Public Service Sectors (Agriculture) of China (No. 201103020) and by the Special Fund for the National Cotton Industry System from the Ministry of Agriculture of China (No. CARS-18).

References

1.

F. Alvarez-Alfageme , N. Ferry , P. Castanera , F. Ortego & M.R.A. Gatehouse ( 2008) Prey mediated effects of Bt maize on fitness and digestive physiology of the red spider mite predator Stethorus punctillum Weise (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Transgenic Research , 17(5), 943–954.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11248-008-9177-4 Google Scholar

2.

G. Bakonyi , F. Szira , I. Kiss , I. Villanyi , A. Seres & A. Szekacs ( 2006) Preference tests with collembolas on isogenic and Bt-maize. European Journal of Soil Biology , 42, S132–S135.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2006.06.005 Google Scholar

3.

M.G. Cattaneo , C. Yafuso , C. Schmidt , C.Y. Huang , M. Rahman , C. Olson , E.K. Christa , J.O. Barron , E.M. Start , A. Larry , D. Pierre & C. Yves ( 2006) Farm-scale evaluation of the impacts of transgenic cotton on biodiversity, pesticide use, and yield. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 103(20), 7571–7576. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0508312103 Google Scholar

4.

J.J. Cui & J.Y. Xia ( 1998) Effects of Bt transgenic cotton (with Early Maturity) on population dynamic of main pests and their natural enemies. Acta Gossypii Sinica , 10(5), 255–26. Google Scholar

5.

T.R. de Castro , J.J.S. Ausique , D.H. Nunes , F.H. Ibanhes & I.D. Junior ( 2012) Risk assessment of Cry toxins of Bacillus thuringiensis on the predatory mites Euseius concordis and Neoseiulus californicus(Acari: Phytoseiidae). Experimental and Applied Acarology , 59, 421–433.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10493-012-9620-3 Google Scholar

6.

A. Dutton , H. Klein , J. Romeis & F. Bigler ( 2002) Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperla carne. Ecological Entomology , 27(4), 441–447.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2311.2002.00436.x Google Scholar

7.

M. Egas , D.J. Norde & M.W. Sabelis ( 2003) Adaptive learning inarthropods:spider mites learn to distinguish food quality. Experimental and Applied Acarology , 30, 233–247.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/b:appa.0000006512.26242.39 Google Scholar

8.

F.A.B. Esteves , J.V. Oliveira , J.B. Torres & G.C.M. Gondim ( 2010) Compared biology and behavior of Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acari:Tetranychidae) and Phytoseiulus macropilis (Banks) (Acari: Phytoseiidae) on BollgardTM and non-transgenic isoline Cotton. Neotropical Entomology , 39(3), 338– 344.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s1519-566x2010000300005 Google Scholar

9.

N. Ferry , E.A. Mulligan , M.E.N. Majerus & M.R.A. Gatehouse ( 2007) Bitrophic and tritrophic effects of Bt Cry3A transgenic potato on beneficial, non-target, beetles. Transgenic Research , 16(6), 795–812.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11248-007-9088-9 Google Scholar

10.

M. García , F. Ortego , P. Castañera & G.P. Farinos ( 2012) Assessment of prey-mediated effects of the coleopteran-specific toxin Cry3Bb1 on the generalist predator Atheta coriaria (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Bulletin of Entomological Research , 102(03), 293–302.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0007485311000666 Google Scholar

11.

S.D. Guo ( 1995) Engineering of insect-resistant plant with Bacillus thuringiensis crystal protein genes. China Agricultural science , 28(5), 8–13. Google Scholar

12.

Y.L. Guo , X. D. Jiao , J.J. Xu , S. Yang , X.K. Duan & J.P. Zhang ( 2013) Growth and reproduction of Tetranychus turkestani and Tetranychus truncatus (Acari: Tetranychidae) on cotton and corn. Systematic and Applied Acarology , 18(1), 89–98.  http://dx.doi.org/10.11158/saa.18.1.10 Google Scholar

13.

A. Hilbeck , J.M. McMillan , M. Meier , A. Humble , J. Schläpfer-Miller & M. Trtikova ( 2012) A controversy re-visited:Is the coccinellid Adalia bipunctata adversely affected by Bt toxins? Environmental Sciences Europe , 24(1), 1–12.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2190-4715-24-10 Google Scholar

14.

W.D. Hutchison , E.C. Burkness , P.D. Mitchell , R.D. Moon & T.W. Leslie ( 2010) Area wide suppression of European corn borer with Bt maize reaps savings to non-Bt maize growers. Science , 330(6601), 222–225.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1190242 Google Scholar

15.

N.C. Lawo , F.L. Wäckers & J. Romeis ( 2009) Indian Bt cotton varieties do not affect the performance of cotton aphids. PLoS One , 4(3), e4804.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004804 Google Scholar

16.

Y.H. Li & J. Romeis ( 2010) Bt maize expressing Cry3Bb1 does not harm the spider mite, Tetranychus urticae, or its ladybird beetle predator, Stethorus punctillum. Biological Control , 53 (3), 337–344.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2009.12.003 Google Scholar

17.

Y.H. Li , J. Romeis , P. Wang , Y.F. Peng & A. M. Shelton ( 2011) A comprehensive assessment of the effects of Bt cotton on Coleomegilla maculata demonstrates no detrimental effects by Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab. PloS One , 6(7), e22185.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0022185 Google Scholar

18.

Y.H. Li , M. Meissle & J. Romeis ( 2008) Consumption of Bt maize pollen expressing Cry1Ab or Cry3Bb1 does not harm adult green lacewings, Chrysoperla carnea (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). PLoS One , 3(8), e2909.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002909 Google Scholar

19.

G.P. Li , H.Q. Feng , P.Y. Chen , S.Y. Wu , B. Liu & F. Qiu ( 2010) Effects of transgenic Bt cotton on the population density, oviposition behavior, development, and reproduction of a non-target pest,Adelphocoris suturalis (Hemiptera: Miridae). Environment Entomology , 39(4), 1378–1387.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/en09223 Google Scholar

20.

E.M. Liu & J.K. Huang ( 2013) Risk preference and pesticide use by cotton farmers in China. Journal of Development Economics , 103, 202–215.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2012.12.005 Google Scholar

21.

G.C. Lozzia , I.E. Rigamonti , B. Manachini & R. Rocchetti ( 2000) Laboratory studies on the effects of transgenic corn on the spider mite Tetranychus urticae Koch. Bollettino di Zoologia Agrariae di Bachicoltura , 32(1), 35–47. Google Scholar

22.

R.G. Luttrell , G.P. Fitt , F.S. Ramalho & E.S. Sugonyaev ( 1994) Cotton pest management. Annual Review of Entomology , 39, 517–591.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.en.39.010194.002505 Google Scholar

23.

Y.H. Lu , K.M. Wu , Y. Jiang , B. Xia , P. Li , H.Q. Feng , K. A.G. Wyckhuys & Y.Y. Guo ( 2010) Mirid bug outbreaks in multiple crops correlated with wide-scale adoption of Bt cotton in China. Science , 328(5982), 1151–1154.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1187881 Google Scholar

24.

S.L. Lu ( 1990) Preliminary report on the study of Tetranychus turkestani (Ugarov et Nikolskii). Journal of Xinjiang Agricultural Science, (3) , 118–119. Google Scholar

25.

T.A. Mota , M.F. Souza , M.G. Fernandes , P.R.B. Fonseca , S.O. Kssab & J.C. Quadros ( 2013) Biological parameters of the non-target pest Aphis gossypii Glover (Hemiptera: Aphididae) on genetically modified (GM) Bt cotton. African Journal of Biotechnology , 12(16), 1987–1992. Google Scholar

26.

L. B. Obrist , H. Klein , A. Dutton & F. Bigler ( 2006) Assessing the effects of Bt maize on the predatory mite Neoseiulus cucumeris. Experimental and Applied Acarology , 38(2–3), 125–139.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10493-006-0008-0 Google Scholar

27.

Y.L. Park & J.H. Lee ( 2002) Leaf cell and tissue damage of cucumber caused by two spotted spider mite (Acari: Tetranychidae). Journal of Economic Entomology , 95(5), 952–957.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/0022-0493-95.5.952 Google Scholar

28.

X.H. Qiu , M.S. Huang , X.L. Rong , P. Wan & J.P. Wu ( 2006) The Niche of Tetranychus cinnabarinus and its predatory Enemies in the Bt cotton field. Hubei Agricultural Science , 03, 331–334. Google Scholar

29.

J. Romeis , A. Dutton & F. Bigler ( 2004) Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Journal of Insect Physiology , 50, 175–183.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jinsphys.2003.11.004 Google Scholar

30.

G.Z . Rovenská & R. Zemek ( 2006) Host plant preference of aphids, thrips and spider mites on GNA -expressing and control potatoe. Phytoparasitica , 34(2), 139–148.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02981314 Google Scholar

31.

G.Z. Rovenská , R. Zemek , J.E.U. Schmidt & A. Hilbeck (2005) Altered host plant preference of Tetranychus urticae and prey preference of its predator Phytoseiulus persimilis (Acari: Tetranychidae, Phytoseiidae) on transgenic Cry3Bb-eggplants. Biological Control , 33(3), 293–300.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2005.03.017 Google Scholar

32.

A.M. Shelton , J.Z. Zhao & R.T. Roush ( 2002) Economic, ecological, food safety, and social consequences of the deployment of Bt transgenic plants. Annual Review of Entomology , 47, 845–881. Google Scholar

33.

B.E. Tabashnik , M.S. Sisterson , P.C. Ellsworth , T.J. Dennehy , L. Antilla , L. Liesner , M. Whitlow , R.T. Staten , J.A. Fabrick , G.C. Unnithan , A.J. Yelich , C. Ellers-Kirk , V.S. Harpold , X. Li & Y.Y. Carrière ( 2010) Suppressing resistance to Bt cotton with sterile insect releases. Nature Biotechnology , 28(3), 1304–1307.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1704 Google Scholar

34.

J.N. Thompson ( 1988) Coevolution and alternative hypotheses on insect/plant interactions. Ecology , 69(4), 893–895.  http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1941238 Google Scholar

35.

J.C. Tian , X.P. Wang , L.P. Long , J. Romeis , S.E. Naranjo , R.L. Hellmich , P. Wang , E.D. Earle & A.M. Shelton ( 2013) Bt crops producing Cry1Ac, Cry2Ab and Cry1F do not harm the green lacewing, Chrysoperla rufilabris. PloS One , 8(3), e60125.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060125 Google Scholar

36.

J.B. Torres & J.R. Ruberson ( 2008) Interactions of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac toxin in genetically engineered cotton with predatory heteropterans. Transgenic Research , 17(3), 345–354.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11248-007-9109-8 Google Scholar

37.

K.M. Wu , W. Li , H. Feng & Y.Y. Guo ( 2002) Seasonal abundance of the mirids, Lygus lucorum and Adelphocorisspp . (Hemiptera: Miridae) on Bt cotton in northern China. Crop Protection , 21(10), 997–1002.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0261-2194(02)00080-7 Google Scholar

38.

K.M. Wu , Y.H. Lu , H.Q. Feng , Y.Y Jiang & J.Z. Zhao ( 2008) Suppression of cotton bollworm in multiple crops in China in areas with Bt toxin-containing cotton. Science , 321(5896), 1676–1678.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1160550 Google Scholar

39.

K.M. Wu & Y.Y. Guo ( 2005) The evolution of cotton pest management practices in China. Annual Review of Entomology , 50, 31–52.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.50.071803.130349 Google Scholar

40.

J.Y. Xia , J.J. Cui , L.H. Ma , S.L. Dong & X.F. Cui ( 1999) The role of transgenic Bt cotton in integrated insect pest management. Acta Gossypii Sinica , 11(2), 57–64. Google Scholar

41.

X.J. Yong & W. Ding ( 2011) The resistant mechanism of plant to mites. Chinese Journal of Applied Entomology , 48(5), 1495–1504. Google Scholar

42.

C. Yves , E.K. Christa , S. Mark , A. Larry , W. Mike , J.D. Timothy & E.T. Bruce ( 2006) Long-term regional suppression of pink bollworm by Bacillus thuringiensis cotton. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 100(4), 1519–1523.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0436708100 Google Scholar

43.

J.H. Zhao , P. Ho & H. Azadi ( 2011) Benefits of Bt cotton counterbalanced by secondary pests? Perceptions of ecological change in China. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment , 173, 985–994.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1439-y Google Scholar

44.

Z.M. Zhao & X.Y. Zhou (1984) Introduction to Ecology. Beijing Scientific and Technological Literature Press, pp. 16–85. Google Scholar
© 2014 Systematic & Applied Acarology Society
Guang-Yun Li, Jing-Jing Li, Wei Xia, He-Li Qu, Shuai Yang, and Jian-Ping Zhang "Effects of Bt CpTI transgenic cotton on the performance of Tetranychus turkestani (Acari: Tetranychidae)," Systematic and Applied Acarology 19(2), 236-247, (27 June 2014). https://doi.org/10.11158/saa.19.2.14
Accepted: 1 June 2014; Published: 27 June 2014
JOURNAL ARTICLE
12 PAGES


Share
SHARE
KEYWORDS
ELISA
host plant preference
life table
transgenic cotton
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top