Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2015: Impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions

REFERENCES

• American Soybean Association Conservation Tillage Study. 2001. Available at: https://soygrowers.com/asa-study-confirms-environmental-benefits-of-biotech-soybeans/
   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, ICRASTAT, New Delhi, India; 2006. Unpublished.
   Google Scholar
• Baker J, Ochsner T, Venterea T, Griffis T. Tillage and soil carbon sequestration—What do we really know? Agriculture, Ecosystems Environment 2007; 118:1-5; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.05.014
   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. Environmental Sci Europe 2012; 24:24; http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2190-4715-24-24
   Google Scholar
• Bernacchi CJ, Hollinger SE, 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; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.01050
   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 Management Science 2005; 61:47-52; PMID:15593073; http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.967
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brookes G. The benefits of adopting GM insect resistant (Bt) maize in the EU: first results from 1998–2006. Int J Biotechnol 2008; 10:148-66; http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJBT.2008.018351
   Google Scholar
• Brookes G. The farm-level impact of herbicide-tolerant soybeans in Romania. AgBioForum 2005; 8(4):235-41. 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(1):34-49; PMID:21844697; http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.2.1.15529
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brookes G, Barfoot P. Global impact of biotech crops: environmental effects 1996–2010. GM Crops 2012; 3:129-37; http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.20061
   Google Scholar
• Brookes G, Barfoot P. Environmental impacts of GM crop use 1996–2013: impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions. GM Crops 2015; 6:103-33; http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2015.1025193
   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. Key environmental impacts of global GM crop use 1996–2011. GM Crops 2013; 4:1-11; http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.22748
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brookes G, Barfoot P. Key environmental impacts of GM crops 1996–2012. GM Crops 2014; 5:149-160; http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.28449
   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/publications.php
   Google Scholar
• Calegari A, Hargrove W, Rheinheimer D, Ralisch R, Tessier D, De Tourfonnet S, Guimaraes Ml. Impact of Long-Term No-Tillage and Cropping System Management on Soil Organic Carbon in an Oxisil: A Model for Sustainability. Agronomy J 2000; 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.canolacouncil.org/media/504430/17908_transgenic_canola_1.pdf
   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.org/media/pdf/Biotech2003.pdf
   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; 3:1-26.
   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 N Engl; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Doyle B. The performance of roundup ready cotton 2001–2002 in the Australian cotton sector. Armidale, Australia: University N Eng; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Eagle J, Olander L, Henry L, Haugen-Kozyra K, Millar N, Robertson P. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation potential of agricultural land management in the United States - A synthesis of the literature 2012, Duke University Technical Working Group on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases (T-AGG) Report.
   Google Scholar
• Fabrizzi K, Moron A, Garan F. Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Organic Fractions in Degraded VS Non-Degraded Mollisols in Argentina. Soil Science Society 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: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/err162/43668_err162.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Fisher J, Tozer P. Evaluation of the environmental and economic impact of Roundup Ready Canola in the Western Australian Crop Production System. Curtin University of Technology. 2009. Technical report 11/2009. Available at: https://www.abca.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/news_pdf_068_WA_Curtin_University_canola_study.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Galveo A. Farm survey findings of impact of GM crops in Brazil 2011, Celeres, Brazil 2012. Unpublished.
   Google Scholar
• Galveo A. Farm survey findings of impact of insect resistant cotton in Brazil. Celeres, Brazil 2009 & 2010. Unpublished.
   Google Scholar
• George Morris Centre. Economic & environmental impacts of the commercial cultivation of glyphosate tolerant soybeans in Ontario. Guelph, Ontario: Author; 2004. Unpublished.
   Google Scholar
• Gianessi L, Carpenter J. Agricultural biotechnology: Insect control benefits. Washington, DC: NCFAP; 1999.
   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. www.sciencemag.org; 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. Unpublished.
   Google Scholar
• IMRB International. Socio-economic benefits of Bollgard and product satisfaction in India. Mumbai, India: Author; 2007. Unpublished.
   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 on the World Wide Web: http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006 gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_02_Ch2_Generic.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ismael Y, Bennett R, Morse S, Buthelezi T. Bt cotton, pesticides, labour and health: A case study of smallholder farmers in the Makhathini Flats, Republic of South Africa. Outlook on Agriculture 2003; 32(2):123–128.
   Google Scholar
• Jasa P. Conservation Tillage Systems, Extension Engineer, University of Nebraska. 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson J, Reicosky D, Allmarao R, Sauer T, Venterea R, Dell C. 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. Available at: www.ncfap.org/special-reports
   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
• Kniss A, Coburn C. Quantitative evaluation of the environmental impact quotient (EIQ) for comparing herbicides. PLOS One 2015; 10(6):e0131200; PMID:26121252; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131200
   PubMedGoogle 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. 8 pp. 1992 and annually updated.
   Google Scholar
• Lal R. Beyond Copenhagen: mitigating climate change and achieving food security through soil carbon sequestration. Food Security 2010; 2(2):169-77; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12571-010-0060-9
   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; 17:197-209; http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.696
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lal R. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 2004; 304:1623-7; PMID:15192216; http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1097396
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lazarus WF. Machinery cost estimates May 2013, University of Minnesota Extension Service. Available at: http://www.minnesotafarmguide.com/news/regional/machinery-cost-estimates/pdf_a5a9623c-636a-11e3-8546-0019bb2963f4.html
   Google Scholar
• Leibig M, Morgan J, Reeder J, Elert 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. 2016. Available at: http://surf.kbs.msu.edu
   Google Scholar
• Monsanto Brazil. Farm survey of conventional and Bt cotton growers in Brazil 2007. 2008. Unpublished.
   Google Scholar
• Monsanto Comercial Mexico. Official report to Mexican Ministry of Agriculture of the 2005 cotton crop. 2005. Unpublished.
   Google Scholar
• Monsanto Comercial Mexico. Official report to Mexican Ministry of Agriculture of the 2007 cotton crop. 2007. Unpublished.
   Google Scholar
• Monsanto Comercial Mexico. Official report to Mexican Ministry of Agriculture of the 2008 cotton crop. 2008. Unpublished.
   Google Scholar
• Monsanto Comercial Mexico. Official report to Mexican Ministry of Agriculture of the 2009 cotton crop. 2009. Unpublished.
   Google Scholar
• Monsanto Comercial Mexico. Official report to Mexican Ministry of Agriculture of the 2011 cotton crop. 2012. Unpublished.
   Google Scholar
• Monsanto Comercial Mexico. Official report to Mexican Ministry of Agriculture of the 2013 cotton crop. 2013. Unpublished.
   Google Scholar
• Monsanto Comercial Mexico. Official report to Mexican Ministry of Agriculture of the 2015 cotton crop. 2015. Unpublished.
   Google Scholar
• Olson K, Ebelhar S, Lang J. Effects of 24 years of conservation tillage systems on soil organic carbon and soil productivity. Applied Environmental Soil Sci 2013; 2013:10; http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/617504
   Google Scholar
• Peterson R, Schleier J. A probabilistic analysis reveals fundamental limitations with the environmental impact quotient and similar systems for rating pesticides. Peer J 2014; 2:e364; PMID:24795854; 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 Journal 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, Environment and Development Economics. 2005; 10:179-200.
   Google Scholar
• Qaim M. Traxler G. Roundup ready soybeans in Argentina: Farm level and welfare effects. Agricultural Economics 2005; 32(1), 73–86; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0169-5150.2005.00006
   Google Scholar
• Reeder R. No-till benefits add up with diesel fuel savings. 2010. Available at: http://www.thelandonline.com/archives/no-till-benefits-add-up-with-diesel-fuel-savings/article_035dfdc8-1569-5d9b-8b14-1d9e60c96871.html
   Google Scholar
• Reicosky D. Conservation tillage and carbon cycling: soil as a source or sink for carbon. USA: University of Davis; 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; 289:1922-125; 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 SJ, Gusta M, Belcher K, Phillips PWB, Castle D. Changes in Herbicide Use Following the Adoption of HR Canola in Western Canada. Weed Technol 2011; 25:492-500; http://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WT-D-10-00164.1
   Web of Science ®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. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228584807_Transgenic_Cotton_in_Mexico_Economic_and_Environmental_Impacts
   Google Scholar
• University of Illinois. Costs and fuel use for alternative tillage systems. 2006. Available at: http://www.farmdoc.illinois.edu/manage/newsletters/fefo06_07/fefo06_07.html
   Google Scholar
• USDA Energy Estimator: tillage. 2014. Available at: http://ecat.sc.egov.usda.gov
   Google Scholar
• USDA. An online tool for estimating carbon storage in agroforestry practices (COMET-VR). 2014. Available at: http://www.cometvr.colostate.edu/
   Google Scholar
• West T, Post W. Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration Rates by Tillage and Crop Rotation: A Global Analysis. Soil Sci Society Am J 2002; 66:930-1046; http://dx.doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2002.1930
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wutzler T, Reichstein M. Soils apart from equilibrium – consequences for soil carbon balance modelling. Biogeosciences Discuss 2006; 3:1679-714; http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bgd-3-1679-2006
   Google Scholar