Cotton pp 299-312 | Cite as

Effect of Transgenic Cotton Expressing the Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki Endotoxin on Soil Microorganisms — Risk Assessment Studies

  • K. K. Donegan
  • R. J. Seidler
Part of the Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry book series (AGRICULTURE, volume 42)


The genetic engineering of plants has facilitated the production of agronomically desirable crops that exhibit increased resistance to pests, herbicides, pathogens, and environmental stress, and enhancement of qualitative and quantitative crop traits (Gasser and Fraley 1992). Along with these many benefits, however, comes the potential for adverse ecological effects because of the often sustained expression in the genetically engineered (transgenic) plant of the engineered trait(s) and the persistence of the transgenic plant or plant residue in the environment. Consequently, we have undertaken research to evaluate the potential ecological effects of transgenic plants and their products.


Transgenic Plant Cotton Plant Parental Treatment Transgenic Cotton Cotton Treatment 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ali AUDD, Adellatif MA, Bakry NM, El-Sawaf SK (1973) Studies on biological control of the greater wax moth, Galleria mellonella. 1. Susceptibility of wax moth larvae and adult honeybee workers to Bacillus thuringiensis. J Agric Res 12:117–123Google Scholar
  2. Biolog MicroStation System Manual, Release 3.01. (1992) Biolog, Inc, Hayward, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  3. Broder MW, Wagner GH (1988) Microbial colonization and decomposition of corn, wheat, and soybean residue. Soil Sci Soc AM J 52:112–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crawley HJ, Hails RS, Rees M, Kohn D, Baxton J (1993) Ecology of transgenic oilseed rape in natural habitats. Nature 363:620–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Darbyshire JF, Wheatley RE, Greaves MP, Inkson RH (1974) A rapid micromethod for estimating bacterial and protozoan populations in soil. Ecology 61:764–771Google Scholar
  6. Delannay X, LaVallee BJ, Proksch RK, Fuchs RL, Sims SR, Greenplate JT, Marrone PG, Dodson RB, Augustine JJ, Layton JG, Fischhoff DA (1989) Field performance of transgenic tomato plants expressing the Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki insect control protein. Bio/Technology 7:1265–1269Google Scholar
  7. Donegan KK, Palm CJ, Fieland VJ, Porteous LA, Ganio LM, Schaller DL, Bucao LQ, Seidler RJ (1995) Changes in levels, species and DNA fingerprints of soil microorganisms associated with cotton expressing the Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki endotoxin. Appl Soil Ecol 2:111–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Donegan KK, Schaller DL, Stone JK, Ganio LM, Reed G, Hamm PB, Seidler RJ (1996) Microbial populations, fungal species diversity and plant pathogen levels in field plots of potato plants expressing the Bacillus thuringiensis var. tenebrionis endotoxin. Transgen Res 5:25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Donegan KK, Seidler RJ, Fieland VJ, Schaller DL, Palm CJ, Ganio LM, Cardweel DM, Steinberger Y (1997) Decomposition of genetically engineered tobacco under field conditions: persistence of the proteinase inhibitor I product and effects on soil microbial respiration and protozoa, nematode and microarthropod populations. J Appl Ecol 34:767–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fitzpatrick T (1993) Pleiotropic gene found in barley plant. Genet Eng News 13(5): 1, 22Google Scholar
  11. Flexner JL, Lighthart B, Croft BA (1986) The effects of microbial pesticides on non-target, beneficial arthropods. Agric Ecosyst Environ 16:203–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fox J (1991) Bt resistance prompts early planning. Bio/Technology 9:1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garland JL, Mills AL (1991) Classification and characterization of heterotrophic microbial communities on the basis of patterns of community-level sole-carbon-source. Appl Environ Microbiol 57:2351–2359PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gasser CS, Fraley RT (1992) Transgenic crops. Sci Am June 1992:62–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hofte H, Whiteley HR (1989) Insecticidal crystal proteins of Bacillus thuringiensis. Microbiol Rev 53:242–255PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. James RJ, Miller JC, Lighthart B (1993) Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki affects a beneficial insect, the cinnabar moth (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae). J Econ Entom 86:334–339Google Scholar
  17. Jenkins JN, Parrott WL, McCarty JC Jr, Barton KA, Umbeck PF (1991) Field test of transgenic cottons containing a B.t. gene. Dept, of Information Services, Division of Agriculture, Forestry and Veterinary Medicine. MAFES Techn Bull 174, Jan 1991, 6 ppGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson MT, Gould F (1992) Interaction of genetically engineered host plant resistance and natural enemies of Heliothis virescens (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in tobacco. Environ Entomol 21:586–597Google Scholar
  19. Kareiva P, Morris W, Jacobi CM (1994) Studying and managing the risk of cross-fertilization between transgenic crops and wild relatives. Mol Ecol 3:15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Klinger T, Ellstrand NC (1994) Engineered genes in wild populations: fitness of weed-crop hybrids of Raphanus sativus. Ecolog Appl 4:117–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koziel MG, Beland GL, Bowman C, Carozzi NB, Crenshaw R, Crossland L, Dawson J, Desai N, Hill M, Kadwell S, Launis K, Lewis K, Maddox D, McPherson K, Meghji MR, Merlin E, Rhodes R, Warren GW, Wright M, Evola SV (1993) Field performance of elite transgenic maize plants expressing an insecticidal protein derived from Bacillus thuringiensis. Bio/Technology 11:194–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lange P (1990) The German experience gained with field testing of genetically modified plants. Federal Ministry for Research and Technology, Bonn, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  23. Lundstrum L (1992) Monsanto develops beetle-resistant plants - plots show remarkable control. Potato Grower Idaho 21:36–38Google Scholar
  24. MacKenzie D (1990) Jumping genes confound German scientists. New Sci Dec 15:199Google Scholar
  25. Manasse RS (1992) Ecological risks of transgenic plants: effects of spatial dispersion on gene flow. Ecol Appl 2:431–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miller JC (1990) Field assessment of the effects of microbial pest control agents on nontarget Lepidoptera. Am Entomol 36:135–139Google Scholar
  27. Molloy D, Jamnback H (1981) Field evaluation of Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis as a black fly biocontrol agent and its effect on nontarget stream insects. J Econ Entomol 74:314–318Google Scholar
  28. Mulla MS, Federichi BA, Darwazeh HA (1982) Larvicidal effect of Bacillus thuringiensis serotype H-14 against stagnant-water mosquitoes and its effect on nontarget organisms. Environ Entomol 11:788–795Google Scholar
  29. Palm CJ, Donegan KK, Harris DL, Seidler RJ (1994) Quantitation in soil of Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki delta-endotoxin from transgenic plants. Mol Ecol 3:145–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Palm CJ, Schaller DL, Donegan KK, Seidler RJ (1996) Persistence in soil of transgenic plant produced Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki endotoxin. Can J Microbiol 42:1258–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Parr JF, Papendiek RI (1978) Factors affecting the decomposition of crop residues by microorganisms. In: Oschwald WR (ed) Crop residue management systems. Amer Soci Agron, Madison, WI, pp 101–129Google Scholar
  32. Perlak FJ, Deaton RW, Armstrong TA, Fuchs RL, Sims SR, Greenplate JT, Fischhoff DA (1990) Insect-resistant cotton plants. Bio/Technology 8:939–943PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Porteous LA, Armstrong JA, Seidler RJ, Watrud LS (1994) An effective method to extract DNAs from environmental samples for polymerase chain reaction amplification and DNA fingerprint analysis. Curr Microbiol 29:301–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pratt GE, Royce LA, Croft BA (1993) Measurement of toxicity of soils following incorporation of plant residues engineered with Bacillus thuringiensis vas. kurstaki endotoxin, using a Heliothis virescens growth bioassay, Proc 5th Investigators Meeting for EPA’s Environmental Release of Biotechnology Research Program, College Park, Maryland 1992Google Scholar
  35. Ream JE, Berberich SA, Sims SR, Rogan GJ, Fuchs RL (1992) In blanta distribution and environmental fate of insect-resistant cotton proteins. Plant Physiol Suppl 99(1):80Google Scholar
  36. SAS Institute (1989) SAS/STAT user’s guide, Version 6, vol 2,4th edn. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, 846 ppGoogle Scholar
  37. Stotzky G (1986) Influence of soil mineral colloids on metabolic processes, growth, adhesion and ecology of microbes and viruses. In: Huang PM, Schnitzer M (eds) Interactions of soil mineral with natural organics and microbes. Soil Sci Soc America, Madison, Wisconsin, pp 305–428Google Scholar
  38. The Economist (1990) The tomatoes of the free of knowledge. The Economist, 14 July 1990 The Gene Exchange (1992) Unexpected results in transgenic organisms. The Gene Exchange 3(3):6–7Google Scholar
  39. Tolstova YS, Ionova ZA (1976) Toxicity of pesticides to TrichoGramma. Zashch: Rast (Mosc) 9:21Google Scholar
  40. Umbeck PF, Barton KA, Nordheim EV, McCarty JC, Parrot WL, Jenkins JN (1991) Degree of pollen dispersal by insects from a field test of genetically engineered cotton. J Econ Entomol 84:1943–1950Google Scholar
  41. USDA-CRS and USDA-ARS (1992) Scientific evaluation of the potential for pest resistance to the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) delta-endotoxins. A Conference to Explore Resistance Management Strategies, Beltsville, MD, Jan 21–23, 1992Google Scholar
  42. Vaeck M, Reynaerts A, Hofte H, Jansens S, De Beuckeleer M, Dean C, Zabeau M, Van Montagu M, Leemans J (1987) Transgenic plants protected from insect attack. Nature 328:33–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yamada K (1992) Genetic vegomatics splice and dice with weird results. Wall Street J April 13, 1992Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. K. Donegan
    • 1
  • R. J. Seidler
    • 2
  1. 1.Dynamac Corporation NHEERL-WEDCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NHEERL-WEDCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations