© 1999 Macmillan Magazines Ltd.

Volume 399(6733)             20 May 1999             p 214
Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae
[Scientific Correspondence]

Losey, John E.; Rayor, Linda S.; Carter, Maureen E.

Department of Entomology, Comstock Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA

Browse Table of Contents





Although plants transformed with genetic material from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) are generally thought to have negligible impact on non-target organisms [1], Bt corn plants might represent a risk because most hybrids express the Bt toxin in pollen [2], and corn pollen is dispersed over at least 60 metres by wind [3]. Corn pollen is deposited on other plants near corn fields and can be ingested by the non-target organisms that consume these plants. In a laboratory assay we found that larvae of the monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus, reared on milkweed leaves dusted with pollen from Bt corn, ate less, grew more slowly and suffered higher mortality than larvae reared on leaves dusted with untransformed corn pollen or on leaves without pollen.

Pollen for our assay was collected from N4640-Bt corn and an unrelated, untransformed hybrid, and was applied by gently tapping a spatula of pollen over milkweed (Asclepias curassavica) leaves that had been lightly misted with water. Pollen density was set to visually match densities on milk-weed leaves collected from corn fields. Petioles of individual leaves were placed in water-filled tubes that were taped into plastic boxes. Five three-day-old monarch larvae from our captive colony were placed on each leaf, and each treatment was replicated five times. Milkweed leaf consumption, monarch larval survival and final larval weight were recorded over four days.

Larval survival (56%) after four days of feeding on leaves dusted with Bt pollen was significantly lower than survival either on leaves dusted with untransformed pollen or on control leaves with no pollen (both 100%, P = 0.008) (Figure 1a). Because there was no mortality on leaves dusted with untransformed pollen, all of the mortality on leaves dusted with Bt pollen seems to be due to the effects of the Bt toxin.

[Help with image viewing]

Figure 1. Survival and leaf consumption of second- to third-instar monarch larvae on each of three milkweed leaf treatments: leaves with no pollen (light blue), leaves treated with untransformed corn pollen (green) and leaves dusted with pollen from Bt corn (dark blue). a, Mean (+/-s.e.m.) survival based on the proportion of larvae surviving in five replicates of each treatment. b, Mean (+/-s.e.m.) cumulative leaf consumption based on the total amount of leaf area consumed per larva in five replicates of each treatment. The amount of leaf area consumed per larva in each experimental unit was calculated for each time interval by dividing the amount of leaf area consumed in that interval by the number of larvae alive during the time interval. Cumulative consumption was calculated by summing the leaf area consumed per larva at each interval. Colours of lines correspond to those of the bars in a.

There was a significant effect of corn pollen on monarch feeding behaviour (P = 0.0001) (Figure 1b). The mean cumulative proportion of leaves consumed per larva was significantly lower on leaves dusted with Bt pollen (0.57 +/- 0.14, P = 0.001) and on leaves dusted with untransformed pollen (1.12 +/- 0.09, P = 0.007) compared with consumption on control leaves without pollen (1.61 +/- 0.09). The reduced rates of larval feeding on pollen-dusted leaves might represent a gustatory response of this highly specific herbivore to the presence of a 'non-host' stimulus. However, such a putative feeding deterrence alone could not explain the nearly twofold decrease in consumption rate on leaves with Bt pollen compared with leaves with untransformed pollen (P = 0.004).

The low consumption rates of larvae fed on leaves with Bt pollen led to slower growth rates: the average weight of larvae that survived to the end of the experiment on Bt-pollen leaves (0.16 +/- 0.03 g) was less than half the average final weight of larvae that fed on leaves with no pollen (0.38 +/- 0.02 g, P = 0.0001).

These results have potentially profound implications for the conservation of monarch butterflies. Monarch larvae feed exclusively on milkweed leaves [4]; the common milkweed, A. syriaca, is the primary host plant of monarch butterflies in the northern United States and southern Canada [5]. Milkweed frequently occurs in and around the edges of corn fields, where it is fed on by monarch larvae [6]. Corn fields shed pollen for 8-10 days between late June and mid-August, which is during the time when monarch larvae are feeding [7]. Although the northern range of monarchs is vast, 50% of the summer monarch population is concentrated within the mid-western United States, a region referred to as the 'corn belt' because of the intensity of field corn production [8]. The large land area covered by corn in this region suggests that a substantial portion of available milkweeds may be within range of corn pollen deposition.

With the amount of Bt corn planted in the United States projected to increase markedly over the next few years [9], it is imperative that we gather the data necessary to evaluate the risks associated with this new agrotechnology and to compare these risks with those posed by pesticides and other pest-control tactics.

John E. Losey, Linda S. Rayor, Maureen E. Carter

Department of Entomology, Comstock Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA



1. Ostlie, K. R., Hutchison, W. D. & Hellmich, R. L. Bt Corn and European Corn Borer (NCR publ. 602, Univ. of Minnesota, St Paul, 1997). [Context Link]

2. Fearing, P. L., Brown, D., Vlachos, D., Meghji, M. & Privalle, L. Mol. Breed. 3, 169-176 (1997). [Context Link]

3. Raynor, G. S., Ogden, E. C. & Hayes, J. V. Agron, J. 64, 420-427 (1972). [BIOSIS Previews Link] [Context Link]

4. Malcolm, S. B., Cockrell, B. J. & Brower, L. P. in Biology and Conservation of the Monarch Butterfly (eds Malcolm, S. B. & Zalucki, M. P.) 253-267 (Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, 1993). [Context Link]

5. Malcolm, S. B., Cockrell, B. J. & Brower, L. P. J. Chem. Ecol. 15, 819-853 (1989). [Context Link]

6. Yenish, J. P., Fry, T. A., Durgan, B. R. & Wyse, D. L. Weed Sci. 45, 44-53 (1997). [BIOSIS Previews Link] [Context Link]

7. Brower, L. P. J. Exp. Biol. 199, 93-103 (1996). [Context Link]

8. Wassenaar, L. I. & Hobson, K. A. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 15436-15439 (1998). [Medline Link] [BIOSIS Previews Link] [Context Link]

9. Andow, D. A. & Hutchison, W. D. in Now or Never: Serious New Plans to Save a Natural Pest Control (eds Mellon, M. & Rissler, J.) 19-65 (Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1998). [Context Link]

Accession Number: 00006056-199905200-00012
Browse Table of Contents

Copyright (c) 2000-2003 Ovid Technologies, Inc.
Version: rel6.1.0, SourceID 1.7672.1.63