Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2013: Impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions

REFERENCES

• American Soybean Association Conservation Tillage Study. 2001. Available at: http://soygrowers.com/ctstudy/ctstudy_files/frame.htm
   Google Scholar
• Angers DA, Eriksen-Hamel NS. Full-inversion tillage and organic carbon distribution in soil profiles: a meta-analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am J 2008; 72:1370-4; http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2007.0342
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asia-Pacific Consortium on Agricultural Biotechnology (APCoAB). Bt cotton in India: a status report. New Delhi, India: ICRASTAT; 2006
   Google Scholar
• Baker J, Ochsner T, Venterea R, Griffis T. Tillage and soil carbon sequestration—What do we really know? Agricul Ecosyst Environ 2007; 118:1-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benbrook C. A review and assessment of impact of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the US – the first sixteen years. Environ Sci Eur 2012; 24:24
   Google Scholar
• Bernacchi C. A review and assessment of impact of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the US – the first sixteen years. Environ Sci Eur 2012; 24:24
   Google Scholar
• Bernacchi C, Hollinger S, Meyers T. The conversion of the corn/soybean ecosystem to no-till agriculture may result in a carbon sink. Global Change Biol 2005; 11(11):1867-72
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blanco-Canqui H, Lal R. No-tillage and soil-profile carbon sequestration: an on-farm assessment. Soil Sci Soc Am J 2008; 72:693-701; http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2007.0233
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brimner T, Gallivan G, Stephenson G. Influence of herbicide-resistant canola on the environmental impact of weed management. Pest Manag Sci 2005; 61(1):47-52
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brookes G. The farm level impact of using Bt maize in Spain. Paper presented at the 6th International Consortium on Agricultural Biotechnology Research (ICABR) Conference, Ravello, Italy. 2003. Available at: http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/bt_maize_in_spain.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Brookes G. The farm-level impact of herbicide-tolerant soybeans in Romania. AgBioForum 2005; 8(4):235-41. Available at: http://www.agbioforum.org
   Google Scholar
• Brookes G. The impact of using GM insect resistant (Bt) maize in Europe since 1998. Int J Biotechnol 2008; 134: 3-4
   Google Scholar
• Brookes G, Barfoot P. Global impact of biotech crops: socio-economic and environmental effects 1996-2004. AgbioForum 2006; 8(2&3):187-96, Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org
   Google Scholar
• Brookes G, Barfoot P. Global impact of biotech crops: socio-economic and environmental effects 1996-2005. Agbioforum 2007; 9(3):1-13. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org
   Google Scholar
• Brookes G, Barfoot P. Global impact of biotech crops: socio-economic and environmental effects 1996-2006. Agbioforum 2008; 11(1):21-38. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org
   Google Scholar
• Brookes G, Barfoot P. Global impact of biotech crops: environmental effects 1996-2008. AgBioforum 2010; 13(1):76-94. Available on the World Wide Web: http://www.agbioforum.org
   Google Scholar
• Brookes G, Barfoot P. Global impact of biotech crops: environmental effects 1996-2009. GM Crops 2011; 2(issue 1):34-49; http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.2.1.15529
   Google Scholar
• Brookes G, Barfoot P. Global impact of biotech crops: environmental effects 1996-2010. GM Crops 2012; 3:1-9
   Google Scholar
• Brookes G, Barfoot P. Key environmental impacts of global GM crop use 1996-2011. GM Crops 2013; 4:1-11
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brookes G, Barfoot P. Key environmental impacts of GM crops 1996-2012. GM Crops 2014; 5:149-60
   Google Scholar
• Brookes G, Carpenter J, McHughen A. A review and assessment of Impact of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the US – the first sixteen years’ by Benbrook C. 2012. Available at: www.pgeconomics.co.uk
   Google Scholar
• Calegari A, Hargrove W, Rheinheimer D, Ralisch R, Tessier D, De Tourdonnet S, Guimaraes M. Impact of long-term no-tillage and cropping system management on soil organic carbon in an Oxisil: A model for sustainability. Agronomy J 2002; 100:1013-9; http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/agronj2007.0121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canola Council of Canada. An agronomic & economic assessment of transgenic canola, Canola Council, Canada. 2001. Available at: http://www.canola-council.org
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). The cotton consultants Australia 2005 Bollgard II comparison report. Collingwood, Australia; 2005
   Google Scholar
• Conservation Tillage and Plant Biotechnology (CTIC). How new technologies can improve the environment by reducing the need to plough. 2002. Available at: http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/CTIC/Biotech.html
   Google Scholar
• Derpsch R, Friedrich T, Kassam A, Hongwen L. Current status of adoption on no-till farming in the world and some of its main benefits. Int J Agric Biol Eng 2010; 3(1):1-26.
   Google Scholar
• Doyle B. The Performance of Ingard and Bollgard II Cotton in Australia During the 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 Seasons. Armidale, Australia: University of New England; 2005
   Google Scholar
• Doyle B. The Performance of Roundup Ready Cotton 2001-2002 in the Australian Cotton Sector. Armidale, Australia: University of New England; 2003
   Google Scholar
• Eagle AJ, Henry L, Olander L, Haughen-Kozyra K, Millar N, Robertson G. Greenhouse gas mitigation potential of agricultural land management in the United States – A synthesis of the literature. Duke University Technical Working Group on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases (T-AGG) Report. Durham, NC: Duke University; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Fabrizzi K, Moron A, Garan F. Soil carbon and nitrogen organic fractions in degraded vS non-degraded mollisols in Argentina. Soil Sci Soc Am J 2003; 67:1831-41; http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2003.1831
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandez-Cornejo J, Wechsler S, Livingston M, Mitchell L. Genetically engineered crops in the United States. 2014. USDA Economic Research Service report ERR 162. Available at: www.ers.usda.gov
   Google Scholar
• Fisher J, Tozer P. Evaluation of the environmental and economic impact of Roundup Ready Canola in the Western Australian Crop Production System. Technical report 11/2009, ISBN 9780 9807333-0-3. Bentley, Australia: Curtin University of Technology; 2009
   Google Scholar
• Galveo A. Farm survey findings of impact of insect resistant cotton in Brazil. Celeres, Brazil; 2009 & 2010. Available at: www.celeres.br
   Google Scholar
• Galveo A. Farm survey findings of impact of GM crops in Brazil 2011. Celeres, Brazil; 2012; Available at: www.celeres.co.br
   Google Scholar
• George Morris Centre. Economic & environmental impacts of the commercial cultivation of glyphosate tolerant soybeans in Ontario (unpublished report). Guelph, Ontario: Author; 2004
   Google Scholar
• Gianessi L, Carpenter J. Agricultural Biotechnology: Insect Control Benefits. Washington, DC: NCFAP; 1999. Available at: http://www.ncfap.org/reports/biotech/insectcontrolbenefits.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hutchison W, Burkness EC, Mitchell PD, Moon RD, Leslie TW, Fleischer SJ, Abrahamson M, Hamilton KL, Steffey KL, Gray ME, et al. Area-wide suppression of European Corn Borer with Bt maize reaps savings to non-bt maize growers. Science 2010; 330:222-5; PMID:20929774; http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1190242
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IMRB International. Socio-economic benefits of Bollgard and product satisfaction (in India). Mumbai, India: Author; 2006
   Google Scholar
• IMRB International. Socio-economic benefits of Bollgard and product satisfaction in India. Mumbai, India: Author; 2007
   Google Scholar
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Chapter 2: Generic Methodologies Applicable to Multiple Land-Use Categories. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Volume 4. Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. 2006. Available at: http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_02_Ch2_Generic.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ismael Y, Bennett R, Morse S, Buthelezi T. Bt Cotton and pesticides. A case study of smallholder farmers in Makhathini Flats South Africa. Paper presented at the International ICABR Conference, Ravello, Italy. 2002
   Google Scholar
• Jasa P. Conservation Tillage Systems, Extension Engineer. University of Nebraska; 2002. Available at: http://www.agecon.okstate.edu/isct/labranza/jasa/tillagesys.doc
   Google Scholar
• Johnson JMF, Reicosky DC, Allmaras RR, Sauer TJ, Venterea RT, Dell CJ. Greenhouse gas contributions and mitigation potential of agriculture in the central USA. Soil Tillage Research 2005; 83:73-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.02.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson S, Strom S. Quantification of the Impacts on US Agriculture of Biotechnology-Derived Crops Planted in 2006. Washington, DC: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP); 2007
   Google Scholar
• Kleiter G. The Effect of the Cultivation of GM Crops on the use of Pesticides and the Impact thereof on the Environment, RIKILT. Wageningen, Netherlands: Institute of Food Safety; 2005
   Google Scholar
• Klumper W, Qaim M. A meta analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops. PLOS One 2014; 9(11):e111629; PMID:25365303; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0111629
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovach J, Petzoldt C, Degni J, Tette J. A method to measure the environmental impact of pesticides. New York's Food and Life Sciences Bulletin. NYS Agriculture. Exp. Sta. Cornell University, Geneva, NY, 139. 1992 and annually updated. Available at: http://www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/EIQ.html
   Google Scholar
• Lal R. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 2004; 304(5677):1623-7; PMID:15192216; http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1097396
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lal R. Enhancing crop yields in the developing countries through restoration of the soil organic carbon pool in agricultural lands. Land Degradation Dev 2005; 17(2):197-209; http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.696
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lal R. Beyond copenhagen: mitigating climate change and achieving food security through soil carbon sequestration. Food Secur 2010; 2(2):169-77; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12571-010-0060-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazarus WF. Machinery cost estimates. Falcon Heights, MN: University of Minnesota Extension Service; 2013. Available at: www.faculty.apec.umn.edu/wlazarus/documents/machdata.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Leibig M, Morgan J, Reeder J, Ellert B, Gollany H, Schuman G. Greenhouse gas contributions and mitigation potential of agriculture practices in north-western USA and Western Canada. Soil Tillage Res 2005; 83:25-52; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.02.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michigan State University. US Cropland greenhouse gas calculator. 2013. Available at: http://surfkbs.msu.edu
   Google Scholar
• Monsanto Brazil. Farm survey of conventional and Bt cotton growers in Brazil 2007. Unpublished. 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Monsanto Comercial Mexico. Official report to Mexican Ministry of Agriculture of the 2005 cotton crop. Unpublished. 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Monsanto Comercial Mexico. Official report to Mexican Ministry of Agriculture of the 2007 cotton crop. Unpublished. 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Monsanto Comercial Mexico. Official report to Mexican Ministry of Agriculture of the 2008 cotton crop. Unpublished. 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Monsanto Comercial Mexico. Official report to Mexican Ministry of Agriculture of the 2009 cotton crop. Unpublished. 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Monsanto Comercial Mexico. Official report to Mexican Ministry of Agriculture of the 2011 cotton crop. Unpublished. 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Monsanto Comercial Mexico. Official report to Mexican Ministry of Agriculture of the 2011 cotton crop. Unpublished. 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Olson K, Ebelhar S, Lang J. Effects of 24 years of conservation tillage systems on soil organic carbon and soil productivity. Applied and Environmental Soil Science 2013; Article ID 617504.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson R, Schleier J. A probabilistic analysis reveals fundamental limitations with the environmental impact quotient and similar systems for rating pesticides. PeerJ 2014 2:e364; http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.364
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pray C, Huang J, Hu R, Roselle S. Five years of Bt cotton in China – the benefits continue. Plant J 2002; 31(4):423-30; PMID:12182701; http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313X.2002.01401.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qaim M, De Janvry A. Bt cotton and pesticide use in Argentina: economic and environmental effects. Environ Dev Economics 2005; 10:179-200
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qaim M, Traxler G. Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina: farm level, environmental and welfare effects, 6th ICABR conference. 2002. Ravello, Italy
   Google Scholar
• Reeder R. No-till benefits add up with diesel fuel savings. 2010. Available at: http://www.thelandonline.com/currentedition/x1897235554/No-till-benefits-add-up-with-diesel-fuel-savings
   Google Scholar
• Reicosky D. Conservation tillage and carbon cycling: soil as a source or sink for carbon. Morris, MN: USDA Agricultural Research Service, North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Robertson G, Paul E, Harwood R. Greenhouse gases in intensive agriculture: contributions of individual gases to the radioactive forces of the atmosphere. Science 2000; 289(N0 5486):1922-5; PMID:10988070; http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.289.5486.1922
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sankula S, Blumenthal E. Impacts on US Agriculture of Biotechnology-Derived crops Planted in 2003: An Update of Eleven Case Studies. Washington, DC: NCFAP; 2003
   Google Scholar
• Sankula S, Blumenthal E. Impacts on US Agriculture of Biotechnology-Derived Crops Planted in 2005: An Update of Eleven Case Studies. Washington, DC: NCFAP; 2006
   Google Scholar
• Smyth S, Gusta M, Belcher K, Phillips P, Castle D. Changes in chemical toxicity following adoption of herbicide tolerant canola in Western Canada. Agricultural Systems. 2011 ; 104:403–410.
   Google Scholar
• Traxler G, Godoy-Avilla S, Falck-Zepeda J, Espinoza-Arellano J. Transgenic cotton in Mexico: Economic and environmental impacts. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Biotechnology, Science and Modern Agriculture: A new industry at the dawn of the century, Ravello, Italy. 2001
   Google Scholar
• University of Illinois. Costs and fuel use for alternative tillage systems. 2006. Available at: http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/manage/newsletters/fefo06_07/fefo06_07.html
   Google Scholar
• USDA Comet-VR. An online tool for estimating carbon storage in agroforestry practices. 2013. Available at: www.cometvr.colostate.edu
   Google Scholar
• USDA Energy Estimator: Tillage. 2013. Available at: http://ecat.sc.egov.usda.gov
   Google Scholar
• West T, Post W. Soil organic carbon sequestration rates by Tillage and crop rotation: a global analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am J 2002; 66(November/December):930-1046
   Google Scholar
• Wutzler T, Reichstein M. Soils apart from equilibrium – consequences for soil carbon balance modelling. Biogeosci Discuss 2006; 3:1679-714; http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bgd-3-1679-2006
   Google Scholar