IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nature/v428y2004i6980d10.1038_nature02374.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ban on triazine herbicides likely to reduce but not negate relative benefits of GMHT maize cropping

Author

Listed:
  • J. N. Perry

    (Rothamsted Research)

  • L. G. Firbank

    (NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology)

  • G. T. Champion

    (Broom's Barn Research Station)

  • S. J. Clark

    (Rothamsted Research)

  • M. S. Heard

    (NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology)

  • M. J. May

    (Broom's Barn Research Station)

  • C. Hawes

    (Scottish Crop Research Institute)

  • G. R. Squire

    (Scottish Crop Research Institute)

  • P. Rothery

    (NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology)

  • I. P. Woiwod

    (Rothamsted Research)

  • J. D. Pidgeon

    (Broom's Barn Research Station)

Abstract

The UK Farm-Scale Evaluations (FSE) compared the effects on biodiversity of management of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) spring-sown crops with conventional crop management1. The FSE reported larger weed abundance under GMHT management for fodder maize2, one of three crops studied. Increased seed production may be important for the long-term persistence of these arable weeds and may benefit invertebrates, small mammals and seed-eating birds1. In three-quarters of FSE maize fields, growers used atrazine on the conventionally managed half, reflecting contemporary commercial practice3. Withdrawal of the triazine herbicides atrazine, simazine and cyanazine from approved lists of EU chemicals4 could therefore reduce or even reverse the reported benefits of GMHT maize1,2,5. Here we analyse effects of applications of triazine herbicides in conventional maize regimes on key indicators6, using FSE data. Weed abundances were decreased greatly relative to all other regimes whenever atrazine was applied before weeds emerged. Here, we forecast weed abundances in post-triazine herbicide regimes7,8. We predict weed abundances under future conventional herbicide management to be considerably larger than that for atrazine used before weeds emerged, but still smaller than for the four FSE sites analysed that used only non-triazine herbicides. Our overall conclusion is that the comparative benefits for arable biodiversity of GMHT maize cropping would be reduced, but not eliminated, by the withdrawal of triazines from conventional maize cropping.

Suggested Citation

  • J. N. Perry & L. G. Firbank & G. T. Champion & S. J. Clark & M. S. Heard & M. J. May & C. Hawes & G. R. Squire & P. Rothery & I. P. Woiwod & J. D. Pidgeon, 2004. "Ban on triazine herbicides likely to reduce but not negate relative benefits of GMHT maize cropping," Nature, Nature, vol. 428(6980), pages 313-316, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:428:y:2004:i:6980:d:10.1038_nature02374
    DOI: 10.1038/nature02374
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02374
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/nature02374?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 search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bürger, Jana & Darmency, Henri & Granger, Sylvie & Guyot, Sébastien H.M. & Messéan, Antoine & Colbach, Nathalie, 2015. "Simulation study of the impact of changed cropping practices in conventional and GM maize on weeds and associated biodiversity," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 51-63.
    2. Uwe A. Schneider & Livia Rasche & Bruce A. McCarl, 2018. "Assessing the Economic Impacts of Pesticide Regulations," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-13, April.

    More about this item

    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:nat:nature:v:428:y:2004:i:6980:d:10.1038_nature02374. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    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.