These studies have documented that Bt-resistant insects can survive on Bt plants and that different management strategies will influence the durability of resistance. Although these studies provided some insight into variables that could be manipulated to delay the onset of resistance, the present field study was performed to provide further data to help identify variables that may influence resistance management in the field. Field experiment examined the effect of refuge size and refuge placement (mixed vs. separate refuges) on the distribution of the larvae within the plots as well as the level of resistance in diamondback moths at the end of the season. Our results demonstrated that the cumulative number of larvae per plant on refuge plants through the season in the 20% mixed refuge was significantly lower (6.4 vs. 14.6) than the 20% separate refuge (Table 1). This finding indicates that, as in our previous greenhouse experiments, a separate refuge is more effective at conserving the number of susceptible alleles because larvae on these refuge plants will be more likely to survive to adults (either SS or RS) that can mate with RR individuals and thereby reduce the number of RR offspring. This finding provides evidence to support the use of a separate refuge for Bt-transgenic crops that are attacked by insects that can move between plants as larvae. On the Bt-expressing plants over the season, an average of £0.3 larva was found in any of the treatments, indicating that the diamondback moth population was being controlled by the Btexpressing plants (Table 1). This was also confirmed by the absence of any larvae on the Bt-expressing plants at the end of the season

Download PDF

References

1. Brent, R. Cell, 2000.
2. Cooper, N. G., the Human Genome Project. Deciphering the Blue print of heredity. Universityscience book. Mill Velly California, 1994.
3. De Risi, J.L.Iyer. V.R. and Brown, P.O. Science 1997.
4. Goffeau, A. et.al. Science 1996.
5. Lander, E.S. Science 1996.
6. Oliver, S.G. et.al. Nature 1992.
7. Rounsley, S. and Briggs S. Current opinion on Plant Biol.1999.
8. Rebbeck CA, Leroi AM, Burt A (2011) Mitochondrial capture by a transmissible cancer. Science, 331–303.
9. Smith RL, Sytsma KJ (1990) Evolution of Populus nigra (sect. Aigeiros): Introgressive hybridization and the chloroplast contribution of Populus Alba (sect. Populus) Am J Bot 77:1176–1187.
10. Cross Ref Web of Science Rieseberg LH, Soltis DE (1991) Phylogenetic consequences of cytoplasmic gene flow in plants. Evol Trends Plants 5:65–84.
11. Acosta MC, Premoli AC (2010) Evidence of chloroplast capture in South American Nothofagus (subgenus Nothofagus, Nothofagaceae) Mol Phylogenet Evol 54:235–242.
12. Tsitrone A, Kirkpatrick M, Levin DA (2003) A model for chloroplast capture. Evolution 57:1776–1782.
13. Keeling PJ, Palmer JD (2008) Horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotic evolution. Nat RevGenet 9:605–618.
14. Keeling PJ (2009) Functional and ecological impacts of horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotes.
15. Curr Opin Genet Dev 19:613–619. (2010) the give-and-take of DNA: Horizontal gene transfer in plants. Trends Plant Sci 15:11–22.
16. Bergthorsson U, Adams KL, Thomason B, Palmer JD (2003) widespread horizontal transferof mitochondrial genes in flowering plants. Nature 424:197–201.
17. Won H, Renner SS (2003) Horizontal gene transfer from flowering plants to Gnetum. ProcNatl Acad Sci USA 100:10824–10829

Back