2009,42(1):145-153 Scientia Agricultura Sinica doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2009.01.018 Glycine mac (L.) Merri 1 210095 / 100193 An Experimental Case of Safety Assessment of Weediness of Transgenic Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean (Glycine mac (L.) Merri) SONG Xiao-ling 1, QIANG Sheng 1, PENG Yu-fa 2 ( 1 Weed Research Laboratory of Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095; 2 State Key Laboratory for Biology of Plant Diseases and Insect Pests, Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193) Abstract: Objective To assess the potential ecological risk for weediness of transgenic soybean 40-3-2, which was introduced as production raw material for edible oil, and to verify the operation of clauses for weediness assessment of transgenic soybean in China. Method In the field, the surviving competition ability (including germination rate, plant height, leaf number), reproducing ability (the number of flowers, legumes, and seeds per plant), volunteer possibility, seed shattering and persisting possibility of transgenic glyphosate-resistant soybean 40-3-2, recipient variety and conventional soybean varieties were comparatively evaluated. Result The surviving competition ability of transgenic glyphosate-resistant soybean was less than that of conventional soybean variety which was similar with that of recipient soybean in appropriate season. However, the surviving competition ability of three soybean varieties was similar in appropriate season. The number of flowers was also similar among the three varieties in appropiate season, but the number of legumes and seeds per plant of transgenic glyphosate-resistant soybean and recipient soybean were less than that of conventional soybean variety in appropriate season. The number of flowers, legumes and seeds per plant of conventional soybean variety were a little bit less than that of transgenic glyphosate-resistant soybean and recipient soybean in unfavorable one. The seed shattering and persisting ability of all experimental soybean varieties were weak. And no volunteer plant was observed in experimental period. Conclusion It is concluded that the transgenic glyphosate-resistant soybean from Monsanto Company had lowest potential weediness when it was planted or was imported as production raw materials for edible 2008-01-112008-10-20 2007CB10920230400059 1969 Tel/Fax 025-84395117 E-mail sxl@njau.edu.cn 1960Tel/Fax 025-84395117 E-mail wrl@njau.edu.cn
146 42 oil in Nanjing, China. It was verified that the items on weediness in the evaluation standard of environmental safety are practical through the field trial. Key words: transgenic glyphosate-resistant soybean; weediness; safety assessment [1-4] [5-8] DNA [9-10] 1998 Alberta glyphosate glufosinateimazethapyr 3 Brassica napus [11] 1999 Saskatchewan [12] 2002 1 English Nature Research Reports 3 [13] Crawley 2001 4 Bt insecticidal Bt toxin pea lectin 12 10 [14] [15] 40-3-2 40-3-2 GB 4404.2 3 40-3-2 A5547-127 N2899
1 Glycine mac (L.) Merri 147 ph 6 7 Leptochloa chinensis L. Nees Melochia corchorifolia L. Echinochloa Beauv. spp. Cyperus L. spp. Eclipta prostrate L. L. 90% Digitaria sanguinalis L. Scop 100 m 500 m 1 4 A 5 10 cm B 32 /4 m 2 96 /4 m 2 4 2 7 23 8 13 2, 9 2 9 22 4 m 2 1 m 4 m 45 d 30 d 1.2.2 10 10 5 20 cm 4 20 12 20 ml 25/ 10/14 h 7 d
148 42 2002 7 2003 7 1 1 3 2 3 4 Table 1 Germination rate of different varieties of soybean under different planting methods Plot Planting time 1 First times 2 Second times 3 Third times 4 Fourth times 1A1 55.47 Ab 78.91 ABab 83.595 ABb 49.335Cd 1A2 57.03Ab 80.73 ABab 69.53Bb 57.03 BCcd 1B1 72.66Aab 54.15Bc 82.815ABb 71.0975 ABabc 1B2 80.21Aa 58.02ABbc 80.47ABb 76.825ABab 2A1 62.51A Aab 98.44Aa 90.625Aa 56.255 BCcd 2A2 65.63 Aab 95.31Aa 82.81ABb 69.79 ABabc 2B1 73.44 Aab 93.75aab 90.625Aa 72.92 ABab 2B2 83.34Aa 95.82Aa 94.795Aa 80.21Aa 3A1 75.00Ab 86.72 ABab 90.6275Aa 57.8175BCcd 3A2 66.67 Aab 94.34 ABab 83.595 ABb 63.2825ABCbcd 3B1 78.91Aa 91.41ABab 88.2825Aa 82.825Aa 3B2 80.21Aa 89.85 ABab 88.02Aa 82.5525Aa 1 2 45 d 5.2 6.1 6.7 7.5 3.5 3.8 4.8 5.1 1 3 4 3 3 2 1 2 45 1
1 Glycine mac (L.) Merri 149 Fig. 1 The leaf number of different soybean varieties of first and second times on 45 days after planting under different planting methods Fig. 3 Plant height of different varieties soybean of first and second times on 45 days after planting under different planting methods Fig. 2 The leaf number of different soybean varieties of third and fourth times on 30 days after planting under different planting methods 2 3 3 30 d 4 3 3 1 2 3 4 2 3 3
150 42 6 Fig. 4 Plant height of different soybean varieties of third and fourth times on 30 days after planting under different planting methods 4 3 5 1 2 Fig. 5 Average flower number per plant of different soybean varieties of first, second and third times under different planting methods Fig. 6 Average number of seeds and legumens per plant of different soybean varieties of first, second times under different planting methods 3 90 d 80% 20% 30% 50% 80%15% 25% 4 3 3
1 Glycine mac (L.) Merri 151 90% 2 3 2 4 1 12 Table 2 Comparison of seed persistence between transgenic soybean and conventional soybean Herbicide-resistant soybean Conventional soybean Time of soybean buried Non-germinated rate Germinated rate Rotted rate Non-germinated rate Germinated rate Rotted rate 1 One month 0 10 90 0 3.75 96.25 2 Two months 0 7.5 92.5 0 2.5 96.25 3 Three months 0 7.5 92.5 0 6.25 93.75 3 [8] [16-18] [9,18] 3 50% 10% 20%
152 42 [5,19] 3 [8,20] 3 0 [21] [22-23] 40-3-2 References [1] Kathen A. The impact of transgenic crop releases on biodiversity in developing countries. Biotechology Development Monitor, 1996, 28: 10-15. [2] James K. Could transgenic super crops one day breed super weeds. Science, 1996, 274(5285): 180-181. [3],,.., 1998, 22(4): 289-299. Qian Y Q, Tian Y, Wei W. Ecological risk assessment of transgenic plants. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica, 1998, 22 (4): 289-299. (in Chinese) [4] Dale P J, Clarke B, Fontes E M G. Potential for the environmental impact of transgenic crops. Nature Biotechnology, 2002, 20(6): 567-574. [5] Baker H G. The evolution of weeds. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1974, 5: 1-24. [6],.., 1996, (3): 48-52. Guo S L, Li Y H. The basic characteristics of weeds and their important role in enriching biodiversity of cultivated environments. Resource Science, 1996, (3): 48-52. (in Chinese) [7],,.. ( ), 2006, 35(3): 103-110. Guo S L, Wang Y, Cao T. The high diversity of weed reproduvtuon and adaption to the human-disturbed environment. Journal of Shanghai Normal University (Natural Science), 2006, 35(3): 103-110. (in Chinese)
1 Glycine mac (L.) Merri 153 [8].. :, 2000: 8-14. Qiang S. Weed Science. Beijing: China Agriculture Press, 2000: 8-14. (in Chinese) [9],.. :, 2002: 67-73. Liu Q, Zhu X Q. Biosafety. Beijing: Science Press, 2002: 67-73. (in Chinese) [10],.., 1998, 18(1): 1-9. Qian Y Q, Ma K P. Progress in the studies on genetically modified organisms, and the impact of its release on environment. Acta Eologica Sinica, 1998, 18(1): 1-9. (in Chinese) [11] Hall L, Topinka K, Huffman J, Davis L, Good A. Pollen flow between herbicide-resistant Brassica napus is the cause of multiple-resistant B. napus volunteers. Weed Science, 2000, 48: 688-694. [12] Beckie H J, Hall L M, Warwick S I. Impact of herbicide-resistant crops as weeds in Canada. Proceedings Brighton Crop Protection Conference - Weeds, 2001: 135-142. [13] Orson J. Gene stacking in herbicide tolerant oilseed rape: lessons from the North American experience. English Nature Research Reports, 2002 (443): 1-17. [14] Crawley M J, Brown S L, Hails R S, Kohn D D, Rees M. Transgenic crops in natural habitats. Nature, 2001, 409(6821): 682-683. [15].., 2004, 37(2): 175-187. Jia S R. Environmental risk assessment of GM crops: Progress in risk assessment. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2004, 37(2): 175-187. (in Chinese) [16],.., 1999, 19(1): 561-569. [17],,.., 1998, 15(4): 18-29. Li B, Chen J K, Watkinson R. A literature review on plant competition. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 1998, 15(4): 18-29. (in Chinese) [18],,.., 2003, 19(2): 61-64. Zhou J, Wang C Y, Chen J Q. Indexes for assessment of genetically modified plants invasiveness. Rural Eco-environment, 2003, 19(2): 61-64. (in Chinese) [19] Andrsson L, Milberg P, Schutz W, Steinmetz O. Germination characteristics and emergence time of annual Bromus species of differing weediness in Sweden. Weed Research, 2002, 42: 135-147. [20] Cai H W, Morishima H. Genomic regions affecting seed shattering and seed dormancy in rice. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 2000, 100: 6, 840-846. [21].., 2002, 27(4): 51-56. Cheng Y P. Problems of transgenic plants turning into weeds and corresponding resolving strategies. Jilin Nongye Kexue (Journal of Jilin Agricultral Sciences), 2002, 27(4): 51-56. (in Chinese) [22].., 1997, l17(6): 36-42. Jia S R. Environment and food biosafety assessment of transgenic plants. Progress in Technology, 1997, 117(6): 36-42. (in Chinese) [23].., 2001, 9(3): 205-207. Wang G Y. The safety evaluation of transgenic plants. Jouranal of Agricultural Biotechnology, 2001, 9(3): 205-207. (in Chinese) Peng S L, Xiang Y C. The invasion of exotic plants and effects of ecosystems. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 1999, 19(1): 561-569. (in Chinese)