IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v220y2009i8p1090-1097.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Maximum feasible distance of windborne cross-pollination in Brassica napus: A ‘mass budget’ model

Author

Listed:
  • Hoyle, Martin
  • Cresswell, James E.

Abstract

A theory of gene dispersal by wind pollination can make an important contribution to understanding the viability and evolution of important plant groups in the Earth's changing landscape and it can be applied to evaluate concerns about the spread of engineered genes from genetically modified (GM) crops into conventional varieties via windborne pollen. Here, we present a model of cross-pollination between plant populations due to the wind. We perform a ‘mass budget’ of pollen by accounting for the number of pollen grains from release in the source population, dispersal from the source to the sink population by the wind, and deposition on receptive surfaces in the sink population. Our model can be parameterised for any wind-pollinated species, but we apply it to Brassica napus (oilseed rape or canola) to investigate the threat posed by wind pollination to GM confinement in agriculture. Specifically, we calculate the maximum feasible distance at which a particular level of windborne gene dispersal could be attained. This is equivalent to the separation distance between populations or fields required to achieve a given threshold of gene dispersal or adventitious GM presence. As required, model predictions of the upper bounds on levels of wind-mediated gene dispersal exceed observations from a wide range of published studies. For a level of gene dispersal below 0.9%, which is the EU threshold for GM adventitious presence, we predict that the maximum feasible distance for agricultural fields of B. napus is 1000m, regardless of field shape and direction of prevailing winds. For fields closer than 1000m, our model results do not necessarily imply that the 0.9% threshold is likely to be breached, because in this instance we have conservatively set the values of parameters where current knowledge is limited. We also predict that gene dispersal is reduced by 50% when the lag in peak flowering between the source and sink populations is 13 days, and reduced by 90% when the lag is 24 days. We identify further measurements necessary to improve the accuracy of the model predictions.

Suggested Citation

  • Hoyle, Martin & Cresswell, James E., 2009. "Maximum feasible distance of windborne cross-pollination in Brassica napus: A ‘mass budget’ model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(8), pages 1090-1097.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:220:y:2009:i:8:p:1090-1097
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.01.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380009000404
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.01.013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ceddia, M. Graziano & Bartlett, Mark & Perrings, Charles, 2007. "Landscape gene flow, coexistence and threshold effect: The case of genetically modified herbicide tolerant oilseed rape (Brassica napus)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 205(1), pages 169-180.
    2. Belcher, Ken & Nolan, James & Phillips, Peter W.B., 2005. "Genetically modified crops and agricultural landscapes: spatial patterns of contamination," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 387-401, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Groeneveld, Rolf A. & Wesseler, Justus & Berentsen, Paul B.M., 2013. "Dominos in the dairy: An analysis of transgenic maize in Dutch dairy farming," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-116.
    2. Breustedt, Gunnar & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Müller-Scheeßel, Jörg, 2013. "Impact of alternative information requirements on the coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM oilseed rape in the EU," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 104-115.
    3. Gray, Emily & Ancev, Tihomir & Drynan, Ross, 2011. "Coexistence of GM and non-GM crops with endogenously determined separation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2486-2493.
    4. Shyama V. Ramani & Mhamed-Ali El-Aroui, 2020. "On application of the precautionary principle to ban GMVs: an evolutionary model of new seed technology integration," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 1243-1266, September.
    5. Demont, Matty & Dillen, Koen & Daems, Wim & Sausse, Christophe & Tollens, Eric & Mathijs, Erik, 2009. "On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 508-518, December.
    6. Demont, Matty & Daems, W. & Dillen, Koen & Mathijs, Erik & Sausse, C. & Tollens, Eric, 2008. "Economics of spatial coexistence of genetically modified and conventional crops: Oilseed rape in Central France," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 43650, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Nelson, John P., 2023. "Differential “progressibility” in human know-how: A conceptual overview," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    8. Chaput-Bardy, A. & Fleurant, C. & Lemaire, C. & Secondi, J., 2009. "Modelling the effect of in-stream and overland dispersal on gene flow in river networks," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(24), pages 3589-3598.
    9. Parker, Dawn Cassandra, 2007. "Revealing "space" in spatial externalities: Edge-effect externalities and spatial incentives," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 84-99, July.
    10. Wisner, Robert N., 2004. "Round-Up® Ready Spring Wheat: Its Potential Short-Term Impacts on U.S. Wheat Exports Markets and Prices," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12205, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    11. Munro, Alistair, 2008. "The spatial impact of genetically modified crops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 658-666, November.
    12. Mattia C. Mancini & Kent Kovacs & Eric Wailes & Jennie Popp, 2016. "Addressing the Externalities from Genetically Modified Pollen Drift on a Heterogeneous Landscape," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-18, October.
    13. Choi, E. Kwan, 2013. "Genetic contamination of traditional products," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 291-297.
    14. Debeljak, Marko & Trajanov, Aneta & Stojanova, Daniela & Leprince, Florence & Džeroski, Sašo, 2012. "Using relational decision trees to model out-crossing rates in a multi-field setting," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 245(C), pages 75-83.
    15. Lewis, David J. & Barham, Bradford L. & Zimmerer, Karl S., 2008. "Spatial Externalities in Agriculture: Empirical Analysis, Statistical Identification, and Policy Implications," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 1813-1829, October.
    16. Stefan Ambec & Corinne Langinier & Phillipe Marcoul, 2011. "Spatial Efficiency of Genetically Modified and Organic Crops," Working Papers 2011-11, University of Alberta, Department of Economics.
    17. Colbach, Nathalie & Monod, Hervé & Lavigne, Claire, 2009. "A simulation study of the medium-term effects of field patterns on cross-pollination rates in oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(5), pages 662-672.
    18. Antoci, Angelo & Iannucci, Gianluca & Rocchi, Benedetto & Ticci, Elisa, 2023. "The land allocation game: Externalities and evolutionary competition," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 124-133.
    19. Ceddia, M. Graziano & Bartlett, Mark & Perrings, Charles, 2008. "Policies for the regulation of coexistence between GM and conventional crops," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44193, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. E. Kwan Choi, 2011. "Genetic Contamination of Traditional Products," DEGIT Conference Papers c016_002, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:220:y:2009:i:8:p:1090-1097. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.