Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Field tests on managing resistance to Bt-engineered plants

Nature Biotechnology volume 18, pages 339–342 (2000)Cite this article

Abstract

Several important crops have been engineered to express toxins of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) for insect control. In 1999, US farmers planted nearly 8 million hectares (nearly 20 million acres) of transgenic Bt crops approved by the EPA. Bt-transgenic plants can greatly reduce the use of broader spectrum insecticides, but insect resistance may hinder this technology. Present resistance management strategies rely on a “refuge” composed of non-Bt plants to conserve susceptible alleles. We have used Bt-transgenic broccoli plants and the diamondback moth as a model system to examine resistance management strategies. The higher number of larvae on refuge plants in our field tests indicate that a “separate refuge” will be more effective at conserving susceptible larvae than a “mixed refuge” and would thereby reduce the number of homozygous resistant (RR) offspring. Our field tests also examined the strategy of spraying the refuge to prevent economic loss to the crop while maintaining susceptible alleles in the population. Results indicate that great care must be taken to ensure that refuges, particularly those sprayed with efficacious insecticides, produce adequate numbers of susceptible alleles. Each insect/Bt crop system may have unique management requirements because of the biology of the insect, but our studies validate the need for a refuge. As we learn more about how to refine our present resistance management strategies, it is important to also develop the next generation of technology and implementation strategies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Mortality of diamondback moth larvae at 10 p.p.m.
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Roush, R.T. & Shelton, A.M. Assessing the odds; the emergence of resistance to Bt transgenic plants. Nat. Biotechnol. 15, 816–817 ( 1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Krattiger, A.F. Insect resistance in crops: a case study of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and its transfer to developing countries. Intl. Svc. for the Acquisition of Agribiotech Appl. (ISAAA) Briefs No. 2. (ISAAA, Ithaca, NY; (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mellon, M. & Rissler, J. (eds). Now or never: serious plans to save a natural pest control. (Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA; 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Roush, R.T. (1994) Managing pests and their resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis: can transgenic crops be better than sprays? Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 4, 501–516 ( 1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Texas A&M University. Report filed with US EPA for hearing on 21 May 1997. Docket OPP–0478 (1997).

  6. McGaughey, W.H. & Whalon, M.E. Managing insect resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis toxins. Science 258, 1451–1455 (1992).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Alstad, D.N. & Andow, D.A. Managing the evolution of insect resistance to transgenic plants. Science 268, 1894–1896 (1995).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Tabashnik, B.E. Delaying insect adaptation to transgenic plants: seed mixtures and refugia reconsidered. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 255, 7–12 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Roush, R.T. Can we slow adaptation by pests to insect transgenic crops? In Biotechnology and integrated pest management (ed. Persley, G.) 242–263 (CAB International, Wallingford, UK; 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Roush, R.T. Managing resistance to transgenic crops. In Advances in insect control: the role of transgenic plants. (eds Carozzi, N. & Koziel, M.) 271–294 (Taylor and Francis, London; 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hargrove, T.R. Wrangling over refuge. Am. Sci. 87, 24– 25 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gould, F. & Tabashnik, B. Bt-cotton resistance management. In Now or never: serious new plans to save a natural pest control (eds Mellon, M. & Rissler, J.) 67–105 (Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, MA; 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Shelton, A.M. et al. Resistance of diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) to Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies in the field. J. Econ. Entomol. 86, 697–705 ( 1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Metz, T.M., Tang, J.D., Shelton, A.M., Roush, R.T. & Earle, E.D. Transgenic broccoli expressing a Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal crystal protein: implications for pest resistance management strategies. Mol. Breeding 1, 309–317 (1995).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Tang, J.D., Gilboa, S., Roush, R.T. & Shelton, A.M. Inheritance, stability and lack of fitness costs of field-selected resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis in diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) from Florida . J. Econ. Entomol. 90, 732– 741 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Shelton, A.M., Tang, J.D., Roush, R.T. & Earle, E.D. Can we manage resistance to Bt -engineered plants? Results of greenhouse and field tests. Proceedings of the Sixth Australian Applied Entomological Research Conference, Brisbane, Australia, 29 Sept.–2 Oct. 1998. (eds. M.P. Zalucki, R.A.I. Drew and G.G. White) 258– 266, University of Queensland Printery, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Tang, J.D. et al. Survival, weight gain, and oviposition of resistant and susceptible Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) on broccoli expressing Cry1Ac toxin of Bacillus thuringiensis. J. Econ. Entomol. 92, 47–55 ( 1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Tang, J.D. et al. Toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis spore and crystal protein to the resistant diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 62, 564– 569 (1996).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Tabashnik, B.E. et al. Global variation in the genetic and biochemical basis of diamondback moth resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94, 12780–12785 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Roush, R.T. Bt-transgenic crops: just another pretty insecticide or a chance for a new start in resistance management? Pesticide Sci. 51, 328–334 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Llewellyn, D. & Higgins, T.J. (1998) Biotechnological approaches to crop protection: novel sources of insect tolerance genes other than Bt-toxins. Proceedings of the Sixth Australian Applied Entomological Research Conference, Brisbane, Australia, October 1998 .

    Google Scholar 

  22. Talekar, N.T. & Shelton, A.M. Biology, ecology and management of the diamondback moth. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 38, 275–301 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Metz, T.D., Dixit, R. & Earle, E.D. Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation of broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. italica) and cabbage ( B. oleracea var. capitata). Plant Cell Rep. 15, 287–292 (1995).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Perez, C.J. Tang, J.D., & Shelton, A.M. Comparison of leaf-dip and diet bioassays for monitoring Bacillus thuringiensis resistance in field populations of diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 90, 94–101 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. LeOra Software. Polo-PC: a user's guide to probit or logit analysis. (LeOra Software, Berkeley, CA; 1987 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Melissa Birkett, Hilda Collins, Jennifer Cooley, Bryna Mitchell, Sabrina Siebert, Powell Smith, and Joe Zhao for their assistance in this project. The research was funded by USDA NRI grants 91-37302-6199, 93-01977 and 95-37302-1783.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Juliet D. Tang

    Present address: Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Mississippi State University, MS, 39762

  2. Richard T. Roush

    Present address: Department of Crop Protection, Waite Institute, PMB 1, Glen Osmond, South Australia, 5064, Australia

  3. Elizabeth D. Earle

    Present address: Department of Plant Breeding, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853

  4. Timothy D. Metz

    Present address: Department of Biological Sciences, Campbell University, Buies Creek, NC, 27506

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Entomology, Cornell University, New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Geneva, NY, 14456

    Anthony M. Shelton & Juliet D. Tang

  2. Department of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853

    Richard T. Roush

  3. Department of Plant Breeding, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853

    Timothy D. Metz

Authors
  1. Anthony M. Shelton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Juliet D. Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard T. Roush
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Timothy D. Metz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Elizabeth D. Earle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony M. Shelton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shelton, A., Tang, J., Roush, R. et al. Field tests on managing resistance to Bt-engineered plants. Nat Biotechnol 18, 339–342 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1038/73804

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/73804

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing