Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Transgenic Bt Cotton: Effects on Target and Non-Target Insect Diversity

Written By

Muhammad Arshad, Rashad Rasool Khan, Asad Aslam and Waseem Akbar

Submitted: 20 October 2017 Reviewed: 17 December 2017 Published: 02 May 2018

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.73182

From the Edited Volume

Past, Present and Future Trends in Cotton Breeding

Edited by Mehboob-Ur-Rahman and Yusuf Zafar

Chapter metrics overview

2,045 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Occurrence of diversity in ecosystem sustains particular characteristic of a biological community and also ensures stability of the community. Transgenic crops may affect insect biodiversity by unintended impacts on non-target arthropod population. For example, transgenic GM cotton specific to target lepidopterous pests can change the cotton pest spectrum and may induce the growth of new harmful pest species having no pest status. The change in species composition may influence IPM approach in cotton crop. The results of authors’ research studies as well as global impact indicate that GM cotton is highly specific to target pests and has no unintended impact on non-target insect population. GM cotton provides significant season-long field control of target pests (Helicoverpa armigera, Earias spp. and Pectinophora gossypiella), with no significant control of Spodoptera species. The decreased insecticide use in GM cotton has a positive impact on beneficial insect populations and can increase the stability of rare species. Bt cotton has no resistance against non-target sucking insect pests. As GM cotton has no adverse effects on the non-target insect population and can reduce the use of broad-spectrum insecticides, it can become an important tool of IPM program in cotton agro-ecosystem of Pakistan.

Keywords

  • target insects
  • non-target insects
  • diversity
  • GM cotton
  • Pakistan

1. Introduction

1.1. Transgenic Bt cotton

Cotton plant has been genetically modified to incorporate gene conferring insecticidal protein (Cry1Ac) derived from the naturally occurring soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) var. Kurstaki. Genes that express the delta-endotoxins are called “cry genes [1]. In lepidopterans, the chewing mouthparts promote the ingestion of Bt toxins and the crystals are solubilized in the midgut having alkaline environment (pH 9 to 12). The crucial step in the activation of crystal proteins is the cleavage of toxins which may vary in different insect species [2]. Larvae stop feeding after Bt toxin ingestion due to the onset of paralysis in midgut, altered permeability and disintegration of the epithelium that leads starvation to death of the insect within 2–3 days after exposure. The larval death may vary depending on insect species, larval age and the amount of toxin ingested [3].

Monsanto developed and commercialized the first insect-resistant transgenic GM cotton expressing Cry1Ac gene (Bollgard® I) in 1996 [4]. GM cotton, the first transgenic non-food crop, has provided a specific, safe and effective tool for the control of lepidopterous pests [5, 6, 7, 8] as compared to insecticides (pyrethroids and carbamates) that adversely affect non-target arthropods and other invertebrates [9].

Transgenic Bt cotton has provided an important tool for developing an integrated pest management (IPM) strategy [10, 11], especially for lepidopterous larvae in cotton [12, 13, 14, 15]. GM cotton expressing Cry genes is cultivated on 33.1 million ha in different cotton growing countries including United States [16, 17], China [18, 19, 20], India [21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26], South Africa [27, 28, 29], Mexico [30], Argentina [31, 32] and Pakistan [33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43] and experienced many benefits like reduced use of broad-spectrum insecticides, improved control of target pests, reduced production cost, increased yield and better opportunity for biological control.

The targeted pests have developed the resistance against Bollgard I in most of the countries. To overcome this issue, Monsanto has released Bt cotton containing two Bt genes Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab (Bollgard II). However, there are some other alternative means to minimize the development of resistance in target pests including: a) planting of refuge crop that does not contain Bt based product for susceptible target insect pests, b) consistent and high level of expression of Bt proteins in all plant structures, c) monitoring for shift in baseline susceptibility of target pests to Bt based products, d) use of other IPM control strategies (sowing time, new chemistry insecticides etc.) [43].

1.2. Global status of GM cotton

It is estimated that there is a rapid adoption of GM crops globally (up to 30 countries), and almost 18 million farmers have been grown these crops on more than 2 billion ha. GM crops have reflected substantial economic, health, environmental and social benefits to farmers by increasing crop productivity and conserving biodiversity [44].

GM cotton is being planted in USA since 1996 and it is estimated that 93% of total cotton area (3.98 million ha) is under cultivation of Biotech cotton. Biotech cotton is the third most important GM crop in Brazil and estimated to occupy 1.01 million ha in 2016/17. In India, farmers increased the cotton productivity by planting GM cotton on 11.2 million ha representing 96% of cotton area. Paraguay approved GM Cotton in 2011 for commercial production, and keeping in view the benefit of this technology, about 12,000 ha was planted up to 2015–2016. In Pakistan GM cotton is being cultivated on 2.9 million ha (97%) of the total 3 million ha of cotton area [44].

1.3. Status of GM cotton in Pakistan

Adoption of Bt-cotton in Pakistan was not fast than that of the other major cotton growing countries. The cultivation of Bt-cotton in Pakistan started upon the release of Bt-cotton candidate lines (IR-NIBGE-2, IR-FH-901, IR-CIM-443 and IR-CIM-448, developed by NIBGE Faisalabad) in 2003–2004 for testing their performance in various localities of Pakistan. Later on these varieties started capturing area each year. In 2005–2006, area under these varieties was 0.20 million ha, of which 0.093 million ha was in the cotton belt of Punjab Province [45]. In 2009, Ministry of Food and Agriculture made a positive development for the introduction of Bt cotton varieties in the country to maximize cotton production and for this purpose a letter of intent was signed with Monsanto company, but process was delayed. During the meantime, these cotton varieties including IR-NIBGE-2 (approved as IR-NIBGE-1524), IR-FH-901 (approved as IR-NIBGE-901), IR-CIM-448 (approved as IR-NIBGE-3701) and Bt-121 acquired >40% of the total cultivated area of cotton in both the province (Sindh and Punjab). Later on these cotton varieties along with some new varieties were approved by the Punjab Seed Council (PSC) on March 31, 2010 to counteract the cultivation of adulterated and unapproved Bt cotton seed (Table 1).

Sr. # Variety/lines Center of release Year of cultivation and approval
1 IR-NIBGE-3701 NIBGE Faisalabad, Pakistan Released for testing at farmer fields in 2003–2004 but approved in 2010 for Punjab, and in 2011 for Sindh
2 IR-NIBGE-901 NIBGE Faisalabad, Pakistan Released for testing at farmer fields in 2003–2004 but approved in 2011 for Sindh
3 NS-121 Neelum Seed, Multan, Pakistan Released in 2006, approved in 2010
4 MNH-886 Cotton Research Institute, Multan, Pakistan Approved in 2012
5 FH-142 Cotton Research Institute, AARI Faisalabad, Pakistan Approved in 2013
6 IUB-2013 Islamia University Bahawalpur, Pakistan Approved in 2014

Table 1.

The most popular Bt-cotton varieties (covered at least 10% area in any province) of Pakistan.

Later on some more Bt cotton varieties were approved for commercialization but all these varieties contain a single Cry1Ac toxic gene. In 2014, Bt cotton was grown an area of 2.9 million ha indicating an adoption rate of 88% in the country. Of the approved 32 Bt cotton varieties, half were developed by private seed companies and half by public sector research institutes. It was estimated that about 700,000 resource poor and small farmers were benefited from Bt cotton cultivation. The economic benefits achieved from Bt cotton cultivation was US$1615 million for 2010–2013 [46]. However, the productivity of cotton in Pakistan is low (0.5 tons/ha) as compared to other Bt cotton growing countries. The agricultural productivity can be enhanced by increased adoption of Bt cotton, which would considerably reduce insecticide applications, better quality of cotton, increased farm income, less exposure of insecticides to farmers and farm laborers and ultimate impact on food security efforts in the country.

1.4. GM cotton and insecticide use

Farmers rely heavily on the use of insecticides to control insect pests in cotton crop [4748]. This dependence on insecticides escalated the production cost. GM cotton containing Bt genes resulted in reduced application of pesticides for controlling the insect pests [8, 21, 49, 50, 51]. Insecticide application in Bt cotton has reduced up to 14 applications in China [52], 5-6 in Australia [53], 7 in South Africa [54] and 2.5 in India [55]. The introduction of Bt cotton in Southeast Asia significantly reduced the insecticide applications by 72%, increased yield of 11.4% and an estimated profit of US $126.02/ha [56]. The reduced insecticide use may increase the predator abundance and can affect the arthropod communities overall in Bt cotton field [57, 58, 59, 60, 61].

Advertisement

2. Diversity of insects on cotton crop

Cotton crop hosts a rich diversity of insect pests, predators and parasitoids. About 145 insect and mite pests have been reported in the cotton crop in Pakistan [97]. Cotton insect pests cause 35–40% yield loss [62]. The insect pest complex on cotton is divided into two groups: chewing insect pests and sucking insect pests. Among the chewing insect pests, cotton bollworm complex (Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner), Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) and Earias Spp.) are the most destructive ones in Pakistan and causes 30–40% yield reduction [63], because of damage to flowers, squares and bolls [64, 65]. Among sucking insect pests i.e., whitefly, jassid, thrips, aphid and cotton mealy bug are important [66, 67].

Farmers consider insecticides as a main sole to manage the insect pests in cotton crop. Most of the insecticides used, are broad-spectrum, which disturb the insect biodiversity, damage the beneficial insect fauna, hazardous to human health and environment, as well as leading to insect pests resurgence and outbreaks of secondary pests [68]. The insecticide application to cotton crop is the most intensive and the crop is to be considered as the largest insecticide consumer throughout the world [69]. It is estimated that in Pakistan, farmers spend US$300 million on pesticides annually, of which more than 80% is used on cotton, especially for bollworms.

2.1. Impact of GM cotton on target insect pests

Among the target insect pests of Bt cotton Helicoverpa armigera Hubner, Earias spp., Spodoptera spp. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), Pectinophora gossypiella Saunder (Lepidoptera: Gelechidae) and Spodoptera spp. are more serious pests of cotton in Pakistan. They damage the cotton plant by feeding on squares, flowers and bolls and in severe damage caused significant yield reduction [70].

2.1.1. Cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa Armigera)

Commonly known as cotton bollworm (CBW) is one of the damaging pests of cotton and many other field crops worldwide [8, 71, 72, 73]. In India, this pest causes an estimate crop loss of US $350 million annually and farmers have to spray 15–20 times. Farmers in Pakistan also rely heavily on the use of chemical to control this pest and this indiscriminate use of insecticide particularly pyrethroids has developed resistance in this pest against insecticides [74, 75].

Our research studies have shown that transgenic Bt cotton offers great potential to significantly reduce the pesticide application for the control of major lepidopterous pest, H. armigera in Pakistan. The bollworm larval densities in Bt cotton remained below the threshold level; hence, no insecticide application is needed in Bt cotton. The results have shown no ovipositional differences between Bt and conventional cotton, as female moths cannot differentiate between Bt and non-Bt cotton for oviposition [76].

Transgenic Bt cotton varieties have lethal effect against H. armigera [77, 78, 79, 80, 81] and proved to be very effective in controlling this pest, causing 80–90% mortality in Australia [70], more than 90% in China [82] and 40–50% in India [83]. However, some studies have showed inadequate control of H. armigera with Bt cotton [84]. Some studies have showed no oviposition difference of H. armigera between transgenic Bt and non-Bt cotton [85, 86]. While, other reported greater number of eggs in Bt cotton than conventional cotton because of better leaf canopy due to lower damage [48]. It is also observed that there is a variation in Bt cotton resistance throughout the growing season and has shown the higher resistance to H. armigera at the last 10 days of May (94.5%) and July (83.3%), which decreased in August (22.7%) [84]. Similarly, some other field research studies conducted in Pakistan [87] and somewhere else [88, 89, 90, 91] have showed significantly lower population of H. armigera in Bt cotton as compared to non-Bt cotton.

2.1.2. Pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella)

It is the most important pest throughout the world, wherever the cotton is grown [92, 93] and almost difficult to control this pest because of its cryptic feeding habit. Bt cotton containing Cry1Ac can effectively control this pest [94, 95, 96]. Our research results indicated a lower density of rosette flowers and larvae in Bt cotton as compared to conventional cotton [97]. The study indicated that some larvae survived in Bt cotton, late in the season (end of September and October). It may be due to the decreased Bt toxin expression at lateral stage of plant [98]. However, it is admired that Bt cotton effectively suppressed the larval density in early season to an extent that pest could not cause an economic damage in the late season. Our results and those of other investigators support the efficacy of Bt cotton for pink bollworm control [99, 100, 101].

2.1.3. Spotted bollworm (Earias spp.)

It is an important pest of cotton in Indo-Pak subcontinent and cause damage to fruiting bodies and shedding of squares, flowers and bolls [102, 103]. Although, the primary target of transgenic Bt cotton is to control cotton bollworm, H. armigera but it also has a significant impact on other bollworm species, including Earias insulana & E. vittella. It occurs as an early to mid-season pest in cotton and hence transgenic Bt cotton can effectively control this pest during early-mid phase of the crop, when toxin expression is high. Baseline susceptibility data has shown that Cry1Ac was highly toxic to spotted bollworm with LC50 ranged from 0.006 to 0.105 μg/ml of diet and 0.88 ng/cm2 for leaf-dip bioassays [104].

Bt cotton containing Cry1Ac proved to be effective against this pest and significantly control the larval population [78, 105, 106]. Another research study conducted in Pakistan investigated the infestation trend of spotted bollworm in different plant parts of transgenic Bt and conventional cotton cultivars and reported minimum infestation of 3.36% in transgenic variety, “IR-FH-901” as compared to conventional variety, “FH-900” with 10.5% infestation [65].

2.1.4. Armyworm (Spodoptera spp.)

Commonly known as beet armyworm and fall armyworm is a multivoltine, polyphagous pest and can cause significant damage to cotton crop in case of severe infestation. Bt cotton with Cry1Ac proved not to be effective against armyworm, Spodoptera spp. [65, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110]; hence, no significant differences in larval density between Bt and non-Bt conventional cotton [111, 112] and insecticide applications are needed to control this pest in Bt cotton. In Pakistan Bt cotton varieties proved to be less affective against armyworm and less mortality (13.3–53.3%) noted on different Bt cotton varieties containing CriAc. Some other field studies have shown that there were no significant differences in larval density among Bt and non-Bt cotton [112, 113]. As Bt cotton varieties expressing single toxin gene (Cry1Ac) have no resistance against armyworm, Spodoptera species, to overcome this problem a Bollgard® II cotton was developed that contain Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab, which provide the adequate control of armyworm and cotton bollworms [114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123].

2.2. Impact of GM cotton on non-target insect pests

The potential impact of GM crops on non- target organisms is a strategic concern among farmers, policy makers and scientist working on the development of GM crops as an ideal pest control tactic. Non-target organisms include all organisms except for the pest to be controlled. Examples of non-target organisms would be birds, reptiles, mammals, fish and other insects. A number of studies have shown that Bt toxin is highly selective and has no adverse effects on non-target insect fauna in cotton [124, 125, 126, 127].

2.2.1. Impact of GM cotton on non-target major sucking insect pests

Among the non-target, sucking insect pests of GM cotton, whitefly, jassid, thrips, aphid and cotton mealy bug are the most important in Pakistan. These are very destructive pests during seedling and vegetative phase of cotton as they suck the sap of the plant, make it weak and in case of severe infestation wilting and shedding of leaves occur.

The field research study indicated that transgenic Bt cotton proved to be very effective against certain chewing lepidopterous pests and reduced the insecticide applications [37]. But at the same time, non-target sucking insect pests may become the significant insect pests, because the reduced use of insecticides in Bt cotton can increase the sucking insect pest complex [90]. Most of the research studies have showed the higher population of sucking insect pests mainly; jassid, whitefly, aphid and thrips in transgenic Bt cotton [85]. Some other research studies conducted in Pakistan [63] and India [48] have found no significant differences in sucking insect pests; whitefly, jassid and thrips population among transgenic Bt and non-Bt cotton. As Bt cotton has no resistance against sucking insect pests and requires continuous use of pesticides and other control tactics for effective management of these insect pests [84, 105, 128].

Seed treatment provided the better protection against early-season sucking pests in transgenic cotton. As, there is no direct impact of Bt toxin on the non-target insect species but the ingestion of Bt toxin may prolong the development time during which herbivores are more exposed to parasitoids and predators [129]. It is suggested that Bt cotton along with pesticide applications could provide protection against target and non-target insect pests. But for the long term implementation of Bt cotton as a component of IPM, it is important that such varieties should be transformed with Bt genes that have also the resistance against non-target sucking pests to reduce the number of pesticide applications.

2.2.2. Impact of GM cotton on non-target natural enemies

Cotton crop hosts a rich diversity of insect predators and parasitoids, which have the significant role in regulating the pest population [130, 131]. Most of the field studies have shown no significant effects of Bt crops on natural enemies [40, 42, 60, 124, 129, 132, 133, 134]. Some reported the reduced activity of parasitoids in Bt cotton due to the absence of hosts or direct toxic effects of Bt toxin [86, 135, 136].

Bt cotton may act as a refuge for insect predators and spiders in large scale cotton production, where non-Bt cotton may be sprayed with insecticides [58]. Although Bt cotton is effective against target pests and have no direct influence on natural enemies [80] but there are the options that natural enemy population may be indirectly influenced by the behavioral change of non-target organisms or by the removal of their prey/hosts [124, 126, 137]. Some laboratory studies have reported indirect effects on natural enemies’ population through unhealthy prey/hosts but at the same time population may be increased because of increased parasitism of unhealthy prey/host due to Bt toxin [124, 137, 138, 139, 140].

Bt cotton can affect natural enemies in field by the removal of eggs, larvae and pupae of lepidopterous pests that serves as food sources [91]. Some studies showed the adverse effects of Bt toxin on the survival and development of some predators [109]. It may be due to the ingestion of Bt toxin during feeding on lepidopterous larvae or may be due to the consumption of intoxicated non-target prey that may pick up the Bt toxin [141]. While, most of the studies experienced no effect of Bt toxin on a main predator, Chrysoperla carnea [142] and reported no significant difference in abundance of insect predators between unsprayed Bt and non-Bt cotton fields [143]. The reduced insecticide use in Bt cotton can increase the predaceous arthropod population [144]. Some other field studies reported no significant difference of natural enemy populations between Bt and non-Bt cotton fields and where the differences were present, natural enemy populations were significantly higher in Bt than non-Bt cotton, mainly due to lower insecticide use in Bt cotton fields [145].

2.2.3. Impact of GM cotton on the overall abundance and insect diversity

Bt cotton can alters the insect diversity especially predators and parasitoids by reducing the abundance of Helicoverpa spp. and some other lepidopterous species [146, 147, 148]. A little numerical difference was found in the overall abundance and diversity of insect community in unsprayed Bt and conventional cotton fields [149], but another field study showed that species richness and total abundance reduced by 2.4–16.3 and 71.0–78.3%, respectively in Bt than non-Bt cotton fields [150]. Similarly, a three-year field studies have revealed no significant differences in species richness, evenness and diversity between unsprayed Bt and non Bt cotton, but plots receiving insecticides have slightly higher evenness.

The reduced insecticide use in Bt cotton may increase the minor insect pests’ community, which are suppressed under intense insecticide applications [92]. The mirid bugs, which were minor insect pests in northern China, now have attained the status of main pests and population has increased 12-folds mainly due to the Bt cotton cultivation on large scale [151].

However, Shannon’s index for total arthropod community and the neutral arthropod guild found significantly higher in Bt cotton fields than those in non-Bt cotton [152]. A comparison of Shannon-Weaver diversity indices in Bt and non-Bt cotton under sprayed and unsprayed conditions revealed that Bt cotton increased the diversity of arthropod communities and pest sub-communities; however, it decreased the diversity of natural enemy sub-communities [153]. A comparison of canopy and ground dwelling arthropod community revealed no significant difference in the abundance of total insect community between unsprayed Bt and non-Bt cotton [134]. In addition, the relative greater abundance of honey bees; Apis mellifera, A. cerana, A. dorsata and other pollinators in Bt than non-Bt cotton, indicate that Bt cotton may be a good source of nectar and pollen for insect pollinators [152]. Similarly, some other field studies have revealed that Bt cotton increased the stability of insect community, pest and natural enemy sub-communities and found no significant effects on the non-target insect diversity [154, 155].

Advertisement

3. Conclusions

A plenty of insects inhabit the cotton crop, including the target and non-target insects. Transgenic Bt cotton has resistance against major target insect pests; H. armigera, Earias spp. & P. gossypiella and significantly reduce the insecticide applications. This reduction in pesticide use has a positive impact on natural enemies and increased the stability of beneficial rare species. Bt cotton varieties with Cry1Ac toxin are ineffective against armyworm, Spodoptera spp. However, some inhibitory effects of Bt toxin on the growth of armyworm larvae are observed but there is a chance that this pest may become the major and alarming pest in Bt cotton field in Pakistan. Bt cotton has no resistance against sucking insect pests; jassid, whitefly, thrips, aphid & mealybug and insecticides are used to control these pests. To increase the stability of Bt based products as an important tool of IPM in cotton, it is crucial that such varieties should be transformed with Bt toxin genes, which also have other resistance traits against non-target insect pests to reduce the number of insecticide applications. There is also need to re-determine the economic threshold levels for sucking pests and bollworms in Bt cotton due to increased beneficial abundance and the change of pest status. The biotechnological efforts, in developing the transgenic Bt cotton varieties, should also focus on the sustainable temporal and intra-plant expression of Cry1Ac toxin in all plant parts.

References

  1. 1. Naglaa AA. The story behind Bt cotton: Where does Sudan stand? GM Crops & Food. 2014;5:241-243. DOI: 10.1080/21645698.2014.997119
  2. 2. Perlak FJ, Oppenhuizen M, Gustafson K, Voth R, Sivasupramaniam S, Heering D, Carey B, Ihrig RA, Roberts JK. Development and commercial use of Bollgard® cotton in the USA - early promises versus today’s reality. The Plant Journal. 2001;27:489-501
  3. 3. Gill SS, Cowles EA, Pietrantonio PV. The mode of action of Bacillus thuringiensis endotoxins. Annual Review of Entomology. 1992;37:615-636
  4. 4. Purcell JP, Perlak FJ. Global impact of insect-resistant (Bt) cotton. AgBioforum. 2004;7:27-30
  5. 5. Betz FS, Hammond BG, Fuchs RL. Safety and advantages of Bacillus thuringiensis protected plants to control insect pests. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 2000;32:156-173
  6. 6. Shelton AM, Zhao JZ, Roush RT. Economic, ecological, food safety, and social consequences of the deployment of Bt transgenic plants. Annual Review of Entomology. 2002;47:845-881
  7. 7. Mendelsohn M, Kough J, Vaituzis Z, Matthews K. Are Bt crops safe? Nature Biotechnology. 2003;21:1003-1009
  8. 8. KM W, Guo YY. The evolution of cotton pest management practices in China. Annual Review of Entomology. 2005;50:31-52
  9. 9. KM W, Guo YY. Changes in susceptibility to conventional insecticides of a Cry1Ac-selected population of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Pest Management Science. 2004;60:680-684
  10. 10. Liu YB, Tabashnik BE, Dennehy TJ, Patin AL, Sims MA, Meyer SK, Carriere Y. Effects of Bt cotton and Cry1Ac toxin on survival and development of pink bollworm (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Journal of Economic Entomology. 2001;94:1237-1242
  11. 11. Mellet MA, Schoeman AS, Broodryk SW, Hofs JL. Bollworm Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner), (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) occurrences in Bt and non-Bt-cotton fields, marble hall, Mpumalanga, South Africa. African. Entomology. 2004;12:107-115
  12. 12. Torres JB, Ruberson JR. Canopy- and ground-dwelling predatory arthropods in commercial Bt and non-Bt cotton fields: Patterns and mechanisms. Environmental Entomology. 2005;34:1242-1256
  13. 13. Wu K, Lu Y, Feng H, Jiang Y, Zhao J. Suppression of cotton bollworm in multiple crops in China in areas with Bt toxin-containing cotton. Science. 2008;321:1676-1678
  14. 14. Lu Y, Wu K, Jiang Y, Guo Y, Desneux N. Widespread adoption of Bt cotton and insecticide decrease promotes biocontrol services. Nature. 2012;487:362-365
  15. 15. Tian JC, Yao J, Long LP, Romeis J, Shelton AM. Bt crops benefit natural enemies to control non-target pests. Scientific Reports. 2015;5:16636. DOI: 10.1038/srep16636
  16. 16. Frisvold GB, Reeves JM, Tronstad R. Bt cotton adoption in the United States and China: International trade and welfare effects. AgBioforum. 2006;9:69-78
  17. 17. Luttrell RG, Jackson RE. Helicoverpa zea and Bt cotton in the United States. GM Crops & Food: Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain. 2012;3:213-227. DOI: 10.4161/gmcr.20742
  18. 18. Pray C, Ma DM, Huang JK, Qiao FB. Impact of Bt cotton in China. World Development. 2001;29:813-825
  19. 19. Huang J, Hu R, Fan C, Pray CE, Rozelle S. Bt cotton benefits, costs, and impacts in China. AgBioforum. 2002;5:153-166
  20. 20. Wang G, Wu Y, Gao W, Fok M, Liang W. Impact of Bt cotton on the Farmer’s livelihood system in China. In: International Cotton Conference, Rationales and evolutions of cotton policies in main producing countries. ISSCRI International Conference; 13-17 May 2008; Montpellier, France
  21. 21. Qaim M. Bt cotton in India: Field trial results and economic projections. World Development. 2003;31:2115-2127
  22. 22. Qaim M, Zilberman D. Yield effects of genetically modified crops in developing countries. Science. 2003;5608:900-902
  23. 23. Gandhi VP, Namboodiri NV. The adoption and economics of Bt cotton in India: Preliminary results from a study [Working paper number 2006-2009-04]. Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, India; 2006
  24. 24. Subramanian A, Qaim M. Village-wide effects of agricultural biotechnology: The case of Bt cotton in India. World Development. 2009;37:256-267
  25. 25. Dhillon MK, Gujar GT, Kalia V. Impact of Bt cotton on insect biodiversity in cotton ecosystem in India. Pakistan Entomologist. 2011;33:161-165
  26. 26. Kranthi KR. Impact of Bt cotton in India. Cotton Statistics & News. 2013;36:1-4
  27. 27. Ismael Y, Bennett R, Morse S. Farm level impact of Bt cotton is in South Africa. Biotechnology and Development Monitor. 2001;48:15-19
  28. 28. Thirtle C, Beyers L, Ismael Y, Piesse J. Can GM-technologies help the poor? The impact of Bt cotton in Makhathini flats, KwaZulu-Natal. World Development. 2003;31:717-732
  29. 29. Hofs JL, Fok M, Vaissayre M. Impact of Bt cotton adoption on pesticide use by smallholders: A 2-year survey in Makhatini flats (South Africa). Crop Protection. 2006;25:984-988
  30. 30. Traxler G, Godoy-Avila S, Falck-Zepeda J, Espinoza-Arellano JJ. Transgenic Cotton in Mexico: Economic and Environmental Impacts [Unpublished Report]. Auburn, AL: Department of Agricultural Economics, Auburn University; 2001
  31. 31. Qaim M, De-Janvry A. Genetically modified crops, corporate pricing strategies, and farmers’ adoption: The case of Bt cotton in Argentina. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2003;85:814-828
  32. 32. Qaim M, De-Janvry A. Bt cotton and pesticide use in Argentina: Economic and environmental effects. Environment and Development Economics. 2005;10:179-200
  33. 33. Rao IA. Pakistan-GM Cotton Grown [Internet]. 2006. Available from: http://www.afaa.com.au/news/n_news-1758.asp [Accessed 15-03-2008]
  34. 34. Arshad M, Suhail A, Asghar M, Tayyab M, Hafeez F. Factors influencing the adoption of Bt cotton in the Punjab, Pakistan. Journal of Agricultural and Social Sciences. 2007;3:121-124
  35. 35. Arshad M, Suhail A, Arif MJ, Khan MA. Transgenic Bt and non-transgenic cotton effects on survival and growth of Helicoverpa armigera. International Journal of Agricultural and Biology. 2009;11:473-476
  36. 36. Arshad M, Suhail A, Gogi MD, Yaseen M, Asghar M, Tayyib M, Karar H, Hafeez F, Ullah UN. Farmers’ perceptions of insect pests and pest management practices in Bt cotton in the Punjab, Pakistan. International Journal of Pest Management. 2009;55:1-10
  37. 37. Arshad M, Suhail A. Studying the sucking insect pests community in transgenic Bt cotton. International Journal of Agricultural and Biology. 2010;12:764-768
  38. 38. Nazli H, Sarker R, Meilke K, Orden D. Economic performance of Bt cotton varieties in Pakistan. In: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association’s 2010 AAEA, CAES & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting; 25-27 July 2010; Denver, Colorado
  39. 39. Arshad M, Suhail A. Field and laboratory performance of transgenic Bt cotton containing Cry1Ac against beet armyworm larvae (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Pakistan Journal of Zoology. 2011;43:529-535
  40. 40. Arshad M, Arif MJ, Gogi MD, Abdu-ur-Rehman M, Zain-ul-Abdin, Wakil W, Saeed NA. Seasonal abundance of non-target natural enemies in transgenic Bt and conventional cotton. Pakistan Entomologist. 2014;36:37-40
  41. 41. Arshad M, Khan HAA, Abdul-ur-Rehman M, Saeed NA. Incidence of insect predators and parasitoids on transgenic Bt cotton in comparison to non-Bt cotton varieties. Pakistan Journal of Zoology. 2015;47:823-829
  42. 42. Arshad M. Zain-ul-Abdin, Gogi MD, Arif MJ, khan RR. Seasonal pattern of infestation by spotted bollworm, Earias insulana (Boisd.) and pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saund.) in field plots of transgenic Bt and non-Bt cottons. Pakistan Journal of Zoology. 2015;47:177-186
  43. 43. Head G, Dennehy T. Insect resistance Management for Transgenic Bt Cotton. In: Zehr UB, editor. Cotton, Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry 65, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-04796-1_7. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2010. pp. 113-125
  44. 44. ISAAA. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2016. ISAAA Brief No. 52. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY
  45. 45. Rao IA. Why Not GM Crops [Internet]. 2007. Available from: http://www.pakistan.com/english/advisory/biotechnology/why-not.gm.crops.shtml [Accessed: 2008-08-05]
  46. 46. James C. Global status of commercialized Biotech/GM crops. ISAAA Brief No. 49. ISAAA: Ithaca, New York [Internet]. 2014. Available from: http://www.isaaa.org [Accessed: 2016-03-20]
  47. 47. Nasreen A, Cheema GM, Ashfaq M, Saleem MA. Survival of Trichogramma chilonis Ishii (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammitidae) after exposure to different insecticides: Laboratory studies. Pakistan Journal of Zoology. 2004;36:79-82
  48. 48. Sharma HC, Pampapathy G. Influence of transgenic cotton on the relative abundance and damage by target and non-target insect pests under different protection regimes in India. Crop Protection. 2006;25:800-813
  49. 49. Benedict JH, Altman DW. Commercialization of transgenic cotton expressing insecticidal crystal protein. In: Jenkins J, Saha S, editors. Genetic Improvement Cotton: Emerging Technologies. Enfield, New Hampshire, USA: Science Publications; 2001. pp. 137-201
  50. 50. Carriere Y, Dennehy TJ, Pedersen B, Haller S, Ellers-Kirk C, Antilla L, Liu YB, Willott E, Tabashnik BE. Large-scale management of insect resistance to transgenic cotton in Arizona: Can transgenic insecticidal crops be sustained? Journal of Economic Entomology. 2001;94:315-325
  51. 51. Liu S, Liu D, Jia T. Studies on the chemical treatment of bollworm resistant cotton in the Shaanxi cotton growing area. China Cotton. 2002;29:20-24
  52. 52. Pray CE, Huang JK, RF H, Rozelle S. Five years of Bt cotton in China- the benefits continue. The Plant Journal. 2002;31:423-430
  53. 53. Fitt GP. Deployment and impact of transgenic Bt cotton in Australia. In: The Economic and Environmental Impacts of Agbiotech: A Global Perspective. Kalaitzandonakes NG, editor. Kluwer: New York; 2003. p. 141-164
  54. 54. James C. Global review of commercialized transgenic crops: 2001. Feature: Bt cotton. ISAAA Briefs. No. 26, ISSAA, Ithaca, NY [Internet]. 2002. Available from: http://www.isaaa.org [Accessed: 2008-08-12]
  55. 55. Barwale RB, Gadwal VR, Usha Z, Brent Z. Prospects for Bt cotton technology in India. AgBioforum. 2004;7:23-26
  56. 56. Hubbell BJ, Marra MC, Carlson GA. Estimating the demand for a new technology: Bt cotton and insecticide policies. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2000;82:118-132
  57. 57. Luttrell RG, Mascarenhas VJ, Schneider JC, Parker CD, Bullock PD. Effect of transgenic cotton expressing endotoxin protein on arthropod populations in Mississippi cotton. In: Proceedings of Beltwide Cotton Conference, San Antonio, TX, USA; 4-7 January 1995. p. 760-763
  58. 58. Armstrong JS, Leser J, Kraemer G. An inventory of the key predators of cotton pests on Bt and non-Bt cotton in West Texas. In: Proceedings of Beltwide Cotton Conference, San Antonio, USA; 4-8 January 2000. p. 1030-1033
  59. 59. Men XY, Ge F, Liu XH, Yardim EN. Diversity of arthropod communities in transgenic Bt cotton and non-transgenic cotton agroecosystems. Environmental Entomology. 2003;32:270-275
  60. 60. KM W, Guo YY. Influences of Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner cotton planting on population dynamics of the cotton aphid, Aphis gossypii glover, in northern China. Environmental Entomology. 2003;32:312-318
  61. 61. Hagerty AM, Kilpatrick AL, Turnipseed SG, Sullivan MJ, Bridges WC. Predaceous arthropods and lepidopteran pests on conventional, Bollgard, and Bollgard II cotton under untreated and disrupted conditions. Environmental Entomology. 2005;34:105-114
  62. 62. Kannan M, Uthamasamy S, Mohan S. Impact of insecticides on sucking pests and natural enemy complex of transgenic cotton. Current Science. 2004;89:726-729
  63. 63. Abro GH, Syed TS, Tunio GM, Khuhro MA. Performance of transgenic Bt cotton against insect pest infestation. Journal of Biotechnology. 2004;3:75-81
  64. 64. Gore J, Leonard BR, Church GE, Russell JS, Hall TS. Cotton boll abscission and yield losses associated with first-instar bollworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) injury to non-transgenic and transgenic Bt cotton. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2000;93:690-696
  65. 65. Ashfaq M, Arif MJ, Gogi MD, Suhail A, Sarfraz RM, Zia K. Comparative resistance of transgenic and conventional cotton cultivars against spotted bollworm Earias spp. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on squares, flowers and bolls during the growing season of cotton in Pakistan. In: Internal Symposium: Sustainable Crop Improvement and Integrated management; 14-16 September 2006. p. 100-109
  66. 66. Aslam M, Razaq M, Shah SA, Ahmad F. Comparative efficacy of different insecticides against sucking pests of cotton. Journal of Research (Science). 2004;15:53-58
  67. 67. Amjad A, Aheer GM. Varietal resistance against sucking insect pests of cotton under Bahawalpur ecological conditions. Journal of Agriculture Research. 2007;45:205-208
  68. 68. Yousefi VO. Agrochemical in South Africa [Internet]. 2000. Available from: http://www.occuphealth.fi/e/info/anl/199/agro03.htm [Accessed: 2009-05-25]
  69. 69. Yan F, Bengtsson M, Anderson P, Ansebo L, Xu C, Witzgall P. Antennal response of cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) to volatiles in transgenic Bt cotton. Journal of Applied Entomology. 2004;128:354-357
  70. 70. Taley YM, Thote RL, Nimbalkar SA. Assessment of crop losses due to insect pests of cotton and cost benefit of protection schedule. PKV Research Journal. 1998;12:126-128
  71. 71. Gujar GT, Vinay K, Archana K. Bioactivity of Bacillus thuringiensis against the American bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Annals of Plant Protection Sciences. 2000;8:125-131
  72. 72. Khan RA, Hamed M. Toxicity of different groups of insecticides against first, second and third instar larvae of cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (hub.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Pakistan Journal of Zoology. 2005;37:13-15
  73. 73. Liu XX, Zhang QW, BL X, Li JC. Effects of Cry1Ac toxin of Bacillus thuringiensis and nuclear polyhedrosis virus of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on larval mortality and pupation. Pest Management Science. 2006;62:729-737
  74. 74. Kranthi KR, Jadhav DR, Kranthi S, Wanjari RR, Ali SS, Russell DA. Insecticide resistance in five major insect pests of cotton in India. Crop Protection. 2002;21:449-460
  75. 75. Kranthi KR, Russell D, Wanjari R, Kherde M, Munje S, Lavhe N, Armes N. In-season changes in resistance to insecticides in Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in India. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2002;95:134-142
  76. 76. Arshad M, Suhail A, Arif MJ, Khan MA. Transgenic Bt and non-transgenic cotton effects on survival and growth of Helicoverpa armigera. International Journal of Agricultural and Biology. 2009;11:473-476
  77. 77. Wan P, Zhang YJ, KM W, Huang MS. Seasonal expression profiles of insecticidal protein and control efficacy against Helicoverpa armigera for Bt cotton in the Yangtze River valley of China. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2005;98:195-201
  78. 78. Morse S, Bennett R, Ismael Y. Comparing the performance of official and unofficial genetically modified cotton in India. AgBioforum. 2005;8:1-6
  79. 79. Zhao J, Rui C, Lu M, Fan X, Ru L, Meng X. Monitoring and management of Helicoverpa armigera resistance to transgenic Bt cotton in northern China. Resistance Pest Management. 2000;1:28-31
  80. 80. Akhurst RJ, James W, Bird LJ, Beard C. Resistance to the Cry1Ac delta-endotoxin of Bacillus thuringiensis in the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Journal of Economic Entomology. 2003;96:1290-1299
  81. 81. Kumar KR, Stanley S. Comparative efficacy of transgenic Bt and non-transgenic cotton against insect pest of cotton in Tamil Nadu, India. Resist. Pest management. Newsletter. 2006;15:38-43
  82. 82. KM W, Guo YY, Lv N, Greenplate JT, Deaton R. Efficacy of transgenic cotton containing a Cry1Ac gene from Bacillus thuringiensis against Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in northern China. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2003;96:1322-1328
  83. 83. Bambawale OM, Singh A, Sharma OP, Bhosle BB, Lavekar RC, Dhandapani A, Kanwar V, Tanwar RK, Rathod KS, Patange NR, Pawar VM. Performance of Bt cotton (MECH-162) under integrated pest management in farmers’ participatory field trial in Nanded district, Central India. Current Science. 2004;86:1628-1633
  84. 84. Hilder VA, Boulter D. Genetic engineering of crop plants for insect resistance-a critical review. Crop Protection. 1999;18:177-191
  85. 85. Ning X, Song Q, Kong X, Chen H, Meng J, He Y, Zhang SA. Preliminary research on the regularity of population fluctuations of major insects and natural enemies in the field of Bt transgenic cotton in the Xinjiang region. China Cotton. 2001;28:12-13
  86. 86. Xia JY, Cui JJ, Dong SL. Resistance of transgenic Bt cotton to Helicoverpa armigera Hubner (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and its effects on other insects in China. Genetic Improvement of Cotton. 2001:203-225
  87. 87. Sarfraz M, Arif MJ, Gogi MD, Ahmad G. Comparative resistance of transgenic and conventional cotton against American bollworm. Pakistan Entomologist. 2003;25:85-88
  88. 88. Cui J, Xia J. Effects of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) transgenic cotton on the dynamics of pest population and their enemies. Acta Phytophysiologia Sinica. 2000;27:141-145
  89. 89. Head G, Moar M, Eubanks M, Freeman B, Ruberson J, Hagerty A, Turnipseed S. A multiyear, large-scale comparison of arthropod populations on commercially managed Bt and non-Bt cotton fields. Environmental Entomology. 2005;34:1257-1266
  90. 90. Men X, Ge F, Edwards CA, Yardim EN. The influence of pesticide applications on Helicoverpa armigera Hubner and sucking pests in transgenic Bt cotton and non-transgenic cotton in China. Crop Protection. 2005;24:319-324
  91. 91. Wu K, Lin K, Miao J, Zhang Y. Field abundance of insect predators and insect pests on Delta-Endotoxin-producing transgenic cotton in northern China. In: 2nd International Symposium Biological Control of Arthropods: Davos, Switzerland; 12-16 September 2005. p. 362-368
  92. 92. Attique MR, Ahmad Z, Mohyuddin AI, Ahmad MM. Studies on Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) and its control strategy in the Punjab, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Zoology. 2001;33:115-123
  93. 93. Naranjo SE. Arthropod communities and transgenic cotton in the Western USA. In: California Conference on Biological Control III, University of California, Davis, USA; 15-16 August 2002. p. 33-38
  94. 94. Flint HM, Parks NJ. Seasonal infestation by pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders), of transgenic and non-transgenic cultivars of cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L., in central Arizona. Southwestern Entomologist. 1999;24:13-20
  95. 95. Carriere Y, Ellers-Kirk C, Liu YB, Sims MA, Patin AL, Dennehy TJ, Tabashnik BE. Fitness costs and maternal effects associated with resistance to transgenic cotton in the pink bollworm (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Journal of Economic Entomology. 2001;94:1571-1576
  96. 96. Wan P, Wu K, Huang M, Wu J. Seasonal pattern of infestation by pink bollworm Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) in field plots of Bt transgenic cotton in the Yangtze River valley of China. Crop Protection. 2004;23:463-467
  97. 97. Arshad M. Zain-ul-Abdin, Gogi MD, Arif MJ, khan RR. Seasonal pattern of infestation by spotted bollworm, Earias insulana (Boisd.) and pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saund.) in field plots of transgenic Bt and non-Bt cottons. Pakistan Journal of Zoology. 2015;47:177-186
  98. 98. Zhang Y, Wu K, Guo Y. On the spatio-temporal expression of the contents of Bt insecticidal protein and the resistance of Bt transgenic cotton to cotton bollworm. Acta Phytophylacica Sinica. 2001;28:1-6
  99. 99. Henneberry TJ, Jech LF. Seasonal pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders), infestations of transgenic and non-transgenic cottons. Southwestern Entomologist. 2000;25:273-286
  100. 100. Lavekar RC, Telang SM, Sharma OP, Rathod KS. Efficacy of pesticides against field insect pests of Bt cotton. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences. 2004;12:428-431
  101. 101. Nadaf ARM, Goud KB. Effect of Bt cotton on pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) infestation. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences. 2007;15:61-67
  102. 102. Abro GH, Syed TS, Dayo ZA. Varietal resistance of cotton against Earias spp. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences. 2003;6:1837-1839
  103. 103. Ibargutxi MA, Estela A, Ferre J, Caballero P. Use of Bacillus thuringiensis toxins for control of the cotton pest Earias insulana (Boisd.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2006;72:437-442
  104. 104. Kranthi S, Kranthi KR, Siddhabhatti PM, Dhepe VR. Baseline toxicity of Cry1Ac toxin against spotted bollworm, Earias vitella (fab.) using a diet-based bioassay. Current Science. 2004;87:1593-1597
  105. 105. Hofs JL, Schoeman A, Vaissayre M. Effect of Bt cotton on arthropod biodiversity in south African cotton fields. Communications on agricultural and applied. Biological Sciences. 2004;69:191-194
  106. 106. Kannan M, Uthamasamy S. Abundance of arthropods on transgenic Bt and non-Bt cotton. Journal of Applied Zoological Researches. 2006;17:145-149
  107. 107. Adamczyk JJ, Adams LC, Hardee DD. Field efficacy and seasonal expression profiles for terminal leaves of single and double Bacillus thuringiensis toxin cotton genotypes. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2001;94:1589-1593
  108. 108. Agrawal N, Malhotra P, Bhatnagar RK. Interaction of gene-cloned and insect cell-expressed aminopeptidase N of Spodoptera litura with insecticidal crystal protein Cry1C. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2002;68:4583-4592
  109. 109. Ponsard S, Gutierrez AP, Mills NJ. Effect of Bt-toxin (Cry1Ac) in transgenic cotton on the adult longevity of four heteropteran predators. Environmental Entomology. 2002;31:1197-1205
  110. 110. Yu Y, Kang X, Lu Y, Liang J, Wang H, Wu J, Yang Y. Effects of the transgenic Bt cotton on the increase in population of Spodoptera litura Fabricius. Jiangsu. Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2004;20:169-172
  111. 111. Adamczyk JJ, Gore J. Development of bollworms, Helicoverpa zea, on two commercial Bollgard® cultivars that differ in overall Cry1Ac levels. Journal of Insect Science. 2004;4:1-5
  112. 112. Wan P, Wu K, Huang M, Yu D, Wu J. Population dynamics of Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on Bt cotton in the Yangtze River valley of China. Environmental Entomology. 2008;37:1043-1048
  113. 113. Jeyakumar P, Tanwar RK, Jat MC, Dhandapani A, Bambawale OM, Monga D. Spodoptera litura: An emerging pest on bt cotton (cry 1Ac) under north Indian conditions. Pesticide Research Journal. 2007;19:197-200
  114. 114. Greenplate J, Penn SR, Mullins JW, Oppenhuizen M. Seasonal Cry1Ac levels in DP50B: the “Bollgard basis” for Bollgard II. In: Proceedings of Beltwide Cotton Conference, San Antonio, USA; 4-8 January 2000. p. 1039-1040
  115. 115. Greenplate JT, Penn SR, Shappley Z, Oppenhuizen M, Mann J, Reich B, Osborn J. Bollgard II efficacy: Quantification of total lepidopteran activity in a 2-gene product. In: Proceedings of Beltwide Cotton Conference, San Antonio, USA; 4-8 January 2000. p. 1041-1043
  116. 116. Allen CT, Kharboutli MS, Capps C, Earnest LD. Effectiveness of Bollgard-II cotton varieties against foliage and fruit feeding caterpillars in Arkansas. In: Proceedings of Beltwide Cotton Conference, San Antonio, USA; 4-8 January 2000. p. 1093-1094
  117. 117. Jackson RE, Bradley JR, Burd AD, Duyn JWV. Field and greenhouse performance of bollworm on Bollgard II cotton genotypes. In: Proceedings of Beltwide Cotton Conference San Antonio, USA; 4-8 January 2000. p. 1048-1051
  118. 118. Ridge RL, Turnipseed SG, Sullivan MJ. Field comparison of genetically-modified cottons containing one strain (Bollgard) and two strains (Bollgard-II) of Bacillus thuringiensis Kurstaki. In: Proceedings of Beltwide Cotton Conference, San Antonio, USA; 4-8 January 2000. p. 1057-1058
  119. 119. Stewart SD, Knighten KS, Davis FM. Efficacy of Bt cotton expressing two insecticidal proteins of Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner on selected caterpillar pests. In: Proceedings of Beltwide Cotton Conference, San Antonio, USA; 4-8 January 2000. p. 1043-1048
  120. 120. Gore J, Leonard BR, Adamczyk JJ. Bollworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) survival on ‘Bollgard’ and ‘Bollgard II’ cotton flower bud and flower components. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2001;94:1445-1451
  121. 121. Chitkowski RL, Turnipseed SG, Sullivan MJ, Bridges WC. Field and laboratory evaluations of transgenic cottons expressing one or two Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki Berliner proteins for management of noctuid (Lepidoptera) pests. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2003;96:755-762
  122. 122. Adamczyk JJ, Greenberg S, Armstrong JS, Mullins WJ, Braxton LB, Lassiter RB, Siebert MW. Evaluations of Bollgard®, Bollgard II®, and WideStrike® technologies against beet and fall armyworm larvae (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Florida Entomologist. 2008;91:531-536
  123. 123. Hardke JT, Jackson RE, Leonard BR. Temple JH. Fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) development, survivorship, and damage on cotton plants expressing insecticidal plant-incorporated protectants. Journal of Economic Entomology. 2015;108:1086-1093
  124. 124. Schuler TH, Potting RPJ, Denholm I, Poppy GM. Parasitoid behaviour and Bt plants. Nature (London). 2001;401:825-826
  125. 125. Pilson D, Prendeville HR. Ecological effects of transgenic crops and the escape of transgenes into wild populations. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics. 2001;35:149-174
  126. 126. Sisterson MS, Biggs RW, Olson C, Carriere Y, Dennehy TJ, Tabashnik BE. Arthropod abundance and diversity in Bt and non-Bt cotton fields. Environmental Entomology. 2004;33:921-929
  127. 127. Lovei GL, Arpaia S. The impact of transgenic plants on natural enemies: A critical review of laboratory studies. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 2005;114:1-14
  128. 128. Deng SD, Xu J, Zhang QW, Zhou SW, Effect XGJ. Of transgenic Bt cotton on population dynamics of the non-target pests and natural enemies of pests. Acta Entomologica Sinica. 2003;46:1-5
  129. 129. Groot AT, Dicke M. Insect resistant transgenic plants in a multi-trophic context. The Plant Journal. 2002;31:387-406
  130. 130. Naranjo SE. Long-term assessment of the effects of transgenic Bt cotton on the function of the natural enemy community. Environmental Entomology. 2005;34:1211-1223
  131. 131. Naranjo SE, Ellsworth PC. Mortality dynamics and population regulation in Bemisia tabaci. Entomologia Experimentalis Et Applicata. 2005;116:93-108
  132. 132. Sears MK, Hellmich RL, Stanley-Horn DE, Oberhauser KS, Pleasants JM, Mattila HR, Siegfried BD, Dively GP. Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: A risk assessment. In: Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, USA. 2001. pp. 11937-11942
  133. 133. Obrycki JJ, Ruberson JR, Losey JE. Interactions between natural enemies and transgenic insecticidal crops. Genetics Evolution and Biological Control. 2004:183-206
  134. 134. Whitehouse MEA, Wilson LJ, Fitt GP. A comparison of arthropod communities in transgenic Bt and conventional cotton in Australia. Environmental Entomology. 2005;34:1224-1241
  135. 135. Loughrin JH, Manukian A, Health RR. Volatile emitted by different cotton varieties damaged by feeding beet armyworm larvae. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 1995;21:1217-1227
  136. 136. Xia J, Cui J, Ma L, Dong S, Cui X. The role of transgenic Bt cotton in integrated insect pest management. Acta Gossypii Sinica. 1998;11:57-64
  137. 137. Dutton A, Klein H, Romeis J, Bigler F. Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperla carnea. Ecological Entomology. 2002;27:441-447
  138. 138. Hilbeck A, Moar WJ, Pusztai-Carey M, Filippini A, Bigler F. Prey-mediated effects of Cry1Ab toxin and protoxin and Cry2A protoxin on the predator Chrysoperla carnea. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 1999;91:305-316
  139. 139. Baur ME, Boethel DJ. Effect of Bt-cotton expressing Cry1A(c) on the survival and fecundity of two hymenopteran parasitoids (Braconidae: Encyrtidae) in the laboratory. Biological Control. 2003;26:325-332
  140. 140. Ren L, Yang Y, Qin Q, Yu Y. Reciprocal effects of the transgenic cotton and parasitoids on the development of cotton bollworm. Jiangsu Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2004;20:80-83
  141. 141. Dutton A, Obrist L, D'alessandro M, Diener L, Muller M, Romeis J, Bigler F. Tracking Bt-toxin in transgenic maize to assess the risks on non-target arthropods. Bulletin OILB/SROP. 2004;27:57-63
  142. 142. Romeis J, Dutton A, Bigler F. Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). Journal of Insect Physiology. 2004;50:175-183
  143. 143. Naranjo SE, Ellsworth PC. Arthropod communities and transgenic cotton in the Western United States: implications for biological control. In: Proceedings of 1st International Symposium on Biological Control of Arthropods: Honolulu, Hawaii; 14-18 January 2003. p. 284-291
  144. 144. Turnipseed SG, Sullivan MJ. Consequences of natural enemy disruption with applications of “hard” insecticides prior to the bollworm flight in conventional and Bt cotton. In: Proceedings of Beltwide Cotton Conference: Orlando, Florida, USA; 3-7 January 1999. p. 1110-1112
  145. 145. Kumar KR, Chandrasehar G, Ayyappan S. Assessment of arthropod communities in transgenic and conventional cotton in Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu. Journal of Ecobiology. 2007;19:201-207
  146. 146. Wilson FD, Flint HM, Deaton WR, Fischhoff DA, Perlak FJ, Armstrong TA, Fuchs RL, Berberich SA, Parks NJ, Stapp BR. Resistance of cotton lines containing a Bacillus thuringiensis toxin to pink-bollworm (Lepidoptera, Gelechidae) and other insects. Journal of Economic Entomology. 1992;85:1516-1521
  147. 147. Flint HM, Henneberry TJ, Wilson FD, Holguin E, Parks N, Buehler RE. The effects of transgenic cotton, Gossypium hirsutum, containing Bacillus thuringiensis toxin genes for the control of the pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) and other arthropods. Southwestern Entomologist. 1995;20:281-292
  148. 148. Jenkins JN, Mccarty JC. Comparison of 4 cotton genotypes for resistance to Heliothis virescens. Crop Science. 1994;34:1231-1233
  149. 149. Fitt GP, Wilson LJ. Genetic engineering in IPM: Bt cotton. In: Kennedy GG, Sutton TB, editors. Emerging Technologies in Integrated Pest Management: Concepts, Research and Implementation. St. Paul: APS Press; 2000. pp. 108-125
  150. 150. Wei G, Cui L, Zhang X, Liu S, Lu N, Zhang Q. Arthropod community structures in transgenic Bt cotton fields. Yingyong Shengtai Xuebao. 2001;12:576-580
  151. 151. Qiu J. GM crop use makes minor pests major problem. Nature on line publication. DOI: 10.1038/news.2010.242
  152. 152. Li W, Wu K, Chen X, Feng H, Xu G, Guo Y. Effects of transgenic cotton carrying Cry1A + CpTI and Cry1Ac genes on the diversity of arthropod community in cotton fields in northern area of North China. Journal of agricultural. Biotechnology. 2003;11:383-387
  153. 153. Shashidhar V, Nachappa MS. Relative abundance of insect pollinators on Bt and non-Bt cotton hybrids at Dharwad. Insect Environment. 2004;10:166-168
  154. 154. Cui J, Luo J, Wang C, Li S, Li C. Studies on the stability of arthropod community in transgenic CrylAc plus CpT1 cotton fields. Journal of Southwest Agriculture University. 2006;28:8-11
  155. 155. Wadhwa S, Gill RS. Effect of Bt-cotton on biodiversity of natural enemies. Journal of Biological Control. 2007;21:9-16

Written By

Muhammad Arshad, Rashad Rasool Khan, Asad Aslam and Waseem Akbar

Submitted: 20 October 2017 Reviewed: 17 December 2017 Published: 02 May 2018