Paper · 2020 · Crop Protection

Efficacy of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) maize expressing Cry1F, Cry1A.105, Cry2Ab2 and Vip3Aa20 proteins to manage the fall armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Brazil

Valéria F. Moscardini; Luiz H. Marques; Antônio C. Santos; et al.

6
claims
10
verbatim quotes
28
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-nd

Abstract

Recommendations to manage the impact of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to maize production include the use of Bt crops where approved, combined with the adoption of integrated pest management (IPM) and insect resistance management (IRM) practices. This study evaluated the efficacy of Bt maize expressing proteins Cry1F + Cry 1A.105 + Cry2Ab2 + Vip3Aa20 to control S. frugiperda under field conditions in Brazil. This Bt maize technology effectively managed seedling cutting injury, significantly reduced foliar feeding and achieved near 100% protection from kernel-feeding caused by both a Cry1F-resistant strain and a field-collected population of S. frugiperda. Consistent field-collected data across several years and planting regions suggest that this Bt maize technology will be an important tool for the effective management of all important feeding injury types caused by S. frugiperda in Brazil. As with any Bt maize hybrid, its implementation within IPM and IRM practices should help growers maintain maize crop sustainability in Brazil.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bt maize effectively managed seedling cutting injury from fall armyworm.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
Bt maize technologye0
Interactor
S. frugiperdaSpodoptera frugiperdae0pest
Outcome
seedling cutting injurye0
Direction
effectively managede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Spodoptera frugiperda
Spodoptera frugiperda · InteractorUSGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab from Beltsville, Maryland, USA · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“This Bt maize technology effectively managed seedling cutting injury, significantly reduced foliar feeding and achieved near 100% protection from kernel-feeding caused by both a Cry1F-resistant strain and a field-collected population of S. frugiperda.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 429–680 · show in text ↑
t0

“maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–45 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Bt maize significantly reduced fall armyworm foliar feeding.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
Bt maize technologye0
Interactor
S. frugiperdaSpodoptera frugiperdae0pest
Outcome
foliar feedinge0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Spodoptera frugiperda
Spodoptera frugiperda · InteractorUSGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab from Beltsville, Maryland, USA · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“This Bt maize technology effectively managed seedling cutting injury, significantly reduced foliar feeding and achieved near 100% protection from kernel-feeding caused by both a Cry1F-resistant strain and a field-collected population of S. frugiperda.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 429–680 · show in text ↑
t0

“maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–45 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bt maize gave near 100% protection from kernel feeding by a Cry1F-resistant fall armyworm strain.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Material
Cry1F-resistant straine0
Treatment
Bt maize technologye0
Interactor
S. frugiperdaSpodoptera frugiperdae0pest
Outcome
kernel-feedinge0
Direction
protectione0
Value
near 100%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Spodoptera frugiperda
Spodoptera frugiperda · InteractorUSGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab from Beltsville, Maryland, USA · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“This Bt maize technology effectively managed seedling cutting injury, significantly reduced foliar feeding and achieved near 100% protection from kernel-feeding caused by both a Cry1F-resistant strain and a field-collected population of S. frugiperda.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 429–680 · show in text ↑
t0

“maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–45 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bt maize gave near 100% protection from kernel feeding by a field-collected fall armyworm population.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
Bt maize technologye0
Interactor
S. frugiperdaSpodoptera frugiperdae0pest
Outcome
kernel-feedinge0
Direction
protectione0
Value
near 100%e0
Qualifier
field-collected populatione0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Spodoptera frugiperda
Spodoptera frugiperda · InteractorUSGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab from Beltsville, Maryland, USA · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“This Bt maize technology effectively managed seedling cutting injury, significantly reduced foliar feeding and achieved near 100% protection from kernel-feeding caused by both a Cry1F-resistant strain and a field-collected population of S. frugiperda.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 429–680 · show in text ↑
t0

“maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 40–45 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors interpret Bt maize as an important tool against fall armyworm feeding injury in Brazil.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Interactor
S. frugiperdaSpodoptera frugiperdae0pest
Outcome
effective management of all important feeding injury typese0
Setting
Brazile0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Spodoptera frugiperda
Spodoptera frugiperda · InteractorUSGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab from Beltsville, Maryland, USA · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Consistent field-collected data across several years and planting regions suggest that this Bt maize technology will be an important tool for the effective management of all important feeding injury types caused by S. frugiperda in Brazil.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 681–920 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend implementing Bt maize within IPM and IRM practices for crop sustainability.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
implementation within IPM and IRM practicese0
Outcome
maintain maize crop sustainabilitye0
Setting
Brazile0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“As with any Bt maize hybrid, its implementation within IPM and IRM practices should help growers maintain maize crop sustainability in Brazil.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 921–1063 · show in text ↑

transgenic · Spodoptera frugiperda · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

16 papers: 14 positive, 2 negative or no effect

13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

12 papers more in this group

See all 16 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.