Advertisement

Evaluating the Role of Habitat Quality on Establishment of GM Agrostis stolonifera Plants in Non-agronomic Settings

  • Lidia S. Watrud
  • Mike Bollman
  • Marjorie Storm
  • George King
  • Jay R. Reichman
  • Connie Burdick
  • E Henry Lee

Abstract

We compared soil chemistry and plant community data at non agronomic mesic locations that either did or did not contain genetically modified (GM) Agrostis stolonifera. The best two-variable logistic regression model included soil Mn content and A. stolonifera cover and explained 90% of the variance in the probability of a site having GM A. stolonifera. Inclusion of NH4 as a third predictor variable increased the variance explained by the logistic model to 100%. Soils at GM locations were characterized by significantly lower (P < 0.05) Mn, A. stolonifera cover, and NH4. Pairwise comparisons indicated that sites in which the GM plants became established had a significantly higher % of bare ground and significantly lower A. stolonifera cover, Mn, organic matter, and carbon (P < 0.05). The pH of soil at GM plant locations varied from 5.9 to 9.5. Our results suggest potential roles of soil disturbance and nutrient status in the establishment of Agrostis in mesic habitats. Additional research is needed to evaluate the ecological consequences of gene flow of GM Agrostis to non-agronomic plant communities.

Keywords

Genetically Modify Bare Ground Genetically Modify Crop Genetically Modify Plant Control District 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Cattani DJ, Nowak, JN (2001) Interseeding in creeping bentgrass: a viable option or wishful thinking? Golf Course Mgmt 69: 49–54Google Scholar
  2. Grime P (1977) Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies in plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am Nat 11: 1169–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. MacBryde B (2005) White Paper: perspective on creeping bentgrass, Agrostis stolonifera L. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/about_aphis/printable_version/cbg-wpFinal.pdf US Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Biotechnology Regulatory Services, Riverdale, MD
  4. Oregon Administrative Rules (2002) Oregon Secretary of State, Oregon State Archives, item 603-052-1240. Oregon Department of Agriculture, Salem, OR. http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS_600/OAR_603/603_052.html
  5. Reichman JR, Watrud L, Lee EH, Burdick C, Bollman M, Storm MJ, King G, Mallory-Smith C (2006) Establishment of transgenic herbicide-resistant creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera. L.) in non-agronomic habitats Mol Ecol 15: 4243–4255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Van de Water P, Watrud LS, Lee EH, Burdick C, King GA (2007) Long-distance GM pollen movement of creeping bentgrass using modeled wind trajectory analysis. Ecol Appl 17: 1244–1256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Watrud LS, Lee EH, Fairbrother A, Burdick C, Reichman JR, Bollman M, Storm M, King G, Van de Water P (2004) Evidence for landscape-level, pollen-mediated gene flow from genetically modified creeping bentgrass with CP4 EPSPS. as a marker Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101: 14533–14538CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lidia S. Watrud
    • 1
  • Mike Bollman
    • 1
  • Marjorie Storm
    • 2
  • George King
    • 2
  • Jay R. Reichman
    • 1
  • Connie Burdick
    • 1
  • E Henry Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.US Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology DivisionCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.Dynamac CorporationCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations