Identifying indicator species for post-release monitoring of genetically modified, herbicide resistant crops
In Europe, regulations for release and placing-on-the-market of genetically modified (GM) crops require post-release monitoring of their impact on the environment. Monitoring potential adverse effects of GM crops includes direct effects as well as indirect effects, e.g. GM crop specific changes in land and pest management. Currently, there is a gap in the pre-release risk assessments conducted for regulatory approval of GM herbicide resistant (HR) crops. Since the relevant non-selective herbicides have been registered many years ago, in current dossiers requesting regulatory approval of GM HR crops, the environmental impacts of the corresponding non-selective herbicides are either entirely omitted or the applicant simply refers to the eco-toxicological safety assessments conducted for its original pesticide approval that do not address environmental issues arising in conjunction with the cultivation of GM HR crops. Since the ‘Farm-scale Evaluations’, it is clear that consequences for farmland biodiversity can be expected. The objective of this project was to identify relevant indicator species for the long-term impact of GM HR maize cultivation and the application of their corresponding non-selective herbicides, glyphosate and glufosinate. In this article, we describe the outcome of a modified Event Tree Analysis, essentially a funnel-like procedure allowing to reduce the large number of potentially affected non-target species to those with greatest ecological relevance and highest risk to be adversely affected based on a number of ecological criteria. This procedure allowed us to identify a total of 21 weed-Lepidoptera associations that we proposed for post release monitoring of GM HR maize in Germany.
KeywordsIndicator species Non-selective herbicides Non-target species Transgenic crops
This work was supported by the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation with funds of the German Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety.
- Brookes G, Barfoot P (2006) GM crops: the first 10 years—Global socio-economic and environmental impacts. ISAAA Brief No. 36 www.pgeconomic.co.uk./pdf/global_impactstudy_2006_v1_finalPGEconomics.pdf (last checked: February 2008)
- Burke M (2005) Managing GM crops with herbicides: Effects on farmland wildlife. Farm Scale Evaluation Research Consortium www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/fse/results/fse-summary-05.pdf
- Burke M (2003) GM crops: effects on farmland wildlife. Farmscale Evaluation Research Team and the Steering Committee. www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/fse/results/fse-summary-03.pdf
- Friends of the Earth International Report (2007) Who benefits from GM crops? An analysis of the global performance of GM crops (1996–2006). www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/who_benefits_from_gm_crops.pdf
- Haeupler H, Muer T (2000) Bildatlas der Farn- und Blütenpflanzen Deutschlands. Verlag Eugen Ulmer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
- Heap I (2007) International survey of herbicide resistant weeds. www.weedscience.org/in.asp
- Hoogeveen YR, Petersen J-E, Gabrielsen P (2002) Agriculture and biodiversity in Europe. Council of Europe, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
- James C (2006) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2006. ISAAA Brief 35Google Scholar
- Meier M, Hilbeck A (2005) Faunistische Indikatoren für das Monitoring der Umweltwirkungen gentechnisch veränderter Organismen (GVO). Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt 29:137Google Scholar
- National Research Council (2002) Risk assessment models: environmental effects of transgenic plants—the scope and adequacy of regulation. National Academy Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar