INTRODUCTION

1.1 Use and Impact of Bt Maize

Starting from 1996 the characteristics from Bt had been balanced with short
progressions to state the valuable stone protein of Bacillus thuringiensis. By this system,
plants itselves can make their own protein and guarantee thems from unpleasant animals by
exclusive of several outside of Bacillus thuringiensis with or produced insect repellent
showers. During the year 1999, there are about 29 000 000 areas of place that is known for Bt
corn, potato and cotton were gotten to be all around. In United States, they had be evaluated
the limit extra pretty almost 92 000 000 million dollar through used Bt guaranteed cotton.

Bacillus thuringiensis Genetic modified (GM) harvests are guaranteed especially

against European corn borer, southwestern corn borer, tobacco budworm, cotton bollworm,
pink bollworm and the Colorado potato creepy crawly. Diverse profit credited via Bacillus
thuringiensis include:

1. Lessened regular impacts from pesticides – When the plants are making the toxic
substances in their tissues there is no convincing motivation to sprinkle built pesticides or
apply Bt mixtures topically.

2. Expanded open entryway for supportive bugs – Bt proteins won't butcher

important frightening little things.

3. lessened pesticide prologue to property workers and non-target animals.

1.2 Potential dangers to using Bacillus thuringiensis :

1. Obtrusiveness – Genetic changes, through standard repeating or by genetic building

can conceivably change the natural substance to end up meddlesome. Few exhibited natural
elements become meddlesome, yet its a sensitivity at the customers.

2. Imperviousness to Bt - The best potential risk to using Bt-items is security.

Agriculturists have made various moves to help balance wellbeing.
3. Cross-debasement of characteristics - Although risky, qualities from GM harvests
can conceivably familiarize the new qualities with nearby species.

Bt maize has altered bug control and numerous ranchers have profited, however some
individuals stay wary of this new innovation.

A great many individuals are acquainted with the eager caterpillar in the vegetable
enclosure or the subtle insect in the wash room, and fighting with these unwelcomed
nuisances is a ancient issue. After people began cultivating they have imparted piece of their
harvest to creepy crawlies. Cultivators of maize, Zea mays(corn), are tested with various
nuisances, however the most critical are lepidopteran hatchlings for example caterpillars that
are stalk borers, ear or leaf feeders, and coleopteran hatchlings such as bug grubs that eat
roots. Ostrinia nubilalis is the European corn borer, for instance, be nicknamed the "billion
dollar bug" on the grounds that it charge cultivators cost a billion dollars every year in insect
sprays and lost the pontential yield (Figure 1).

Figure 1
European corn borer: shotholes and tunnel in leaf midrib (a), damage and fungal infection in
non-Bt maize (left) and Bt maize (b), stalk tunneling (c), and adult female (left) and male (d).
 Most maize producers depend on customary harvest insurance practices to deal with
these creepy crawlies, including social, organic or substance (bug spray) strategies or a parity
of these routines that expects to minimize ecological effect called coordinated irritation
administration (IPM) (Hellmich et al. 2008). In any case, in 1996 USA producers were
acquainted with business maize that was hereditarily designed (GE) with imperviousness to
European corn borer and other lepidopteran maize bothers. In 2003 an alternate GE maize
was presented that slaughtered corn rootworm hatchlings (creepy crawly grubs), particularly
hatchlings of the western corn rootworm,diabrotica virgifera, an alternate "billion dollar bug"
(Figure 2). These GE plants produce precious stone (Cry) proteins or poisons got from the
dirt bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), thus the basic name "Bt maize". Bt maize has
changed vermin control in various nations, yet there still are inquiries concerning its
utilization and effect.

1.3 Bacillus thuringiensis Maize (Bt Maize)

Bacillus thuringiensis is a types of microorganisms that creates proteins that are
poisonous to specific creepy crawlies. Due to this, it has been utilized as an issue microbial
insect spray in excess of 50 years to manage bug caterpillars. Bt insect sprays are well known
with natural ranchers on the grounds that they are viewed as "common insect poisons" and
they contrast from most ordinary bug sprays on the grounds that they are lethal to just a little
scope of related creepy crawlies. This is on account of particular level of pH, proteins, and
midgut receptors are obliged to actuate and tie a given Cry poison to midgut cells, which
prompts pore development in the bug's digestive tract and demise (Federici 2002). A "lock
and key" similarity is helpful to clarify this specificity. In the event that the midgut receptor is
viewed as the "lock" and the Cry protein is the "key" then bug passing just happens after the
"lock and key" equal.

There are various Cry poisons that are classified by their range of movement. For
maize bothers, essential Cry proteins are Cry1 and Cry2 for Lepidoptera and Cry3 proteins
for Coleoptera (Schnepf et al. 1998). Maize can be hereditarily built to create these particular
Cry poisons. Accordingly, parts of Bt maize are like host plant safety qualities, for example,
DIMBOA (2,4-dihydroxy-7-methoxy-1,4-benzoxazin-3-one), which at abnormal states
decreases harm by European corn borer (Klun et al. 1967). Seed suppliers frequently join or
stack characteristics for Lepidoptera and Coleoptera control into the same plant. Additionally,
diverse sorts of Bt poisons focused for the same bugs are regularly joined into more powerful
plant protectants called pyramids. This various poison methodology is valuable for
overseeing creepy crawly imperviousness to Bt maize.

Figure 2
Scientist inspecting lodged maize from rootworm larvae (a), maize roots from non-Bt maize
hybrid (right) and coleopteran Bt maize hybrid (b), rootworm larva (white arrow) feeding on
maize root (c), and adult western corn rootworm.

Producers are pulled in to the comfort of Bt maize crossovers in light of the fact that
they take into consideration "clinched" creepy crawly security. GE maize seed originates
from the vender with inborn vermin safety. Practically, this implies that cultivators will be
taking care of and applying less substance insect poisons, which has both medical advantages
for the producers and vital ecological profits. It additionally obviously implies agriculturists
can invest less time applying insect poisons yet be sure about the assurance of their harvest
from key vermin. Besides, producers are pulled in to the yield security and enhanced grain
quality ordinarily found with Bt maize. Interestingly, because of the presentation of Bt maize,
late research proposes there has been an areawide concealment of European corn borer
populaces (Hutchison et al. 2010). This is helpful to both Bt and non-Bt maize producers.
Bt maize offers both monetary and ecological focal points and cultivator reactions show an
attention to both sorts of these profits. Numerous producers refer to interesting chances to
ensure yield and decrease taking care of (and utilization) of bug sprays to clarify their fast
appropriation of Bt maize (Pilcher et al. 2002). Brookes and Barfoot (2010) assessed that
from 1996 to 2008 the aggregate abatement in bug spray dynamic fixing (a.i.) use on Bt
maize was 35% (29.9 million kg) internationally. A significant part of the decrease in insect
poison a.i. was most likely because of coleopteran-dynamic Bt maize, as insect poisons
utilized against Diabrotica spp. involve 25–30% of the worldwide aggregate in maize (James
2003, Rice 2004

1.4 Protected Yields

Verifiably, cultivators experienced issues controlling corn borers in light of the fact
that bug sprays are not viable after hatchlings have burrowed into the stalk. One entomologist
called corn borers "quiet cheats" in light of the fact that stalk burrowing and ear damage
frequently decreased yields 5-10 percent or more with numerous producers not in any case
taking note. At the point when entomologists began to try different things with Bt maize in
the early 1990s, numerous were surprised that the plants were about "projectile confirmation"
to corn borer damage. Beforehand plant reproducers had the capacity build host plant safety,
yet none of these plants were "slug confirmation". Of course, producers that utilization Bt
maize frequently see higher yields because of this lessened creepy crawly damage (Gómez-
Barbero et al. 2008)

1.5 Improved Grain Quality

An alternate advantage of Bt maize is lessened event of ear molds (Figure 1b). Since
creepy crawly harm gives a site to contamination by molds, Bt-secured maize can have lower
levels of poisons created by molds such as mycotoxins, particularly fumonisin and
deoxynivalenol (Dowd 2000, Munkvold et al. 1999). Outcomes of sullying with mold may be
not kidding, as fumonisins can result in deadly leukoencephalomalacia in stallions, aspiratory
edema in swine, and disease in research facility rats. Monetary investigation recommends that
USA agriculturists save $23 million every year through diminished mycotoxins (Wu et al.
2004) and mycotoxin diminishment likewise could be a critical medical advantage in
different parts of the world where maize is an eating regimen staple (Wu 2006).

1.6 Possible Effects on Non-target Organisms

There have been no astounding consequences for non-target life forms saw with Bt
maize, which affirms the specificity of the Bt proteins. Most studies recommend Bt maize has
little if any effect on predators and parasitoids and, when contrasted and maize treated with
compound bug sprays, Bt maize regularly brings about expanded biodiversity [for general
surveys see (O'callaghan et al. 2005, Romeis et al. 2008)]. Authority bugs that rely on upon
target irritations are the exemption to the speculation that Bt maize does not affect non-target
creatures. This is especially valid for a few parasitoids, which may get to be less bottomless
alongside their herbivorous hosts (Pilcher et al. 2005, Romeis et al. 2008, Storer et al. 2008).
Likewise, less saprophagous dipterans (i.e., fly hatchlings that eat rotting natural matter) have
been seen in Bt maize fields, which has been ascribed to the circuitous impact of diminished
lepidopteran plant damage (Candolfi et al. 2004, Dively et al. 2004). Studies with ruler
butterfly caterpillars, Danaus plexippus, proposed ruler butterfly populaces would be
diminished from bolstering on milkweed leaves covered with Bt maize dust (Jesse & Obrycki
2000, Losey et al. 1999). Subsequent studies, then again, showed that the effect was
immaterial on account of restricted introduction and low lethality of Bt maize dust to ruler
caterpillars (Dively et al. 2004, Hellmich et al. 2001, Sears et al. 2001, Stanley-Horn et al.
2001).

2.0 Maize Gene Flow

The exchange of hereditary material between populaces (i.e., quality stream) is

frequently thought to be a potential issue between GE crops and their wild relatives
(Messeguer 2003). In many ranges of the world delivering GE maize, on the other hand,
creation is detached from related species that could hybridize with maize. Along these lines,
this natural concern is limited to zones where wild relatives of maize happen (e.g., Mexico).
Maize is an open-pollinated product, yet the extensive size of dust grains constrains its
development. Regardless, a few cultivators, especially natural producers, request practically
no pollution from GE dust or seed and by and large question creation of any GE maize. This
has been an especially questionable issue in Europe.

2.1 Insect Resistance

Effective control of creepy crawlies by Bt maize has numerous researchers worried

that abuse of Bt maize could create bothers impervious to Bt poisons. Field-developed
imperviousness to Bt maize has happened for two moth species: fall armyworm, Spodoptera
frugiperda, in Puerto Rico, and African stem borer, Busseola fusca, in South Africa, so this
worry is justified. Different systems have been proposed for overseeing bug imperviousness
to Bt maize, yet presently the high-measurement/shelter (HDR) method is the most generally
prescribed (Bates et al. 2005, Tabashnik 1994). With this system, bugs that eat the Bt maize
are presented to a to a great degree high dosage of poison; and this is supplemented with
asylums, typically non-Bt maize, that give a populace of vulnerable creepy crawlies that are
not presented to Bt poison (Figure 3). Hence, uncommon safe moths that create on Bt maize,
as opposed to mating with one another, mate with people among the mind-boggling number
of vulnerable moths from the shelter (Gould 1998, Tabashnik & Croft 1982).

This methodology basically weakens safety qualities and keeps up a populace of

powerless bugs. The HDR technique ought to be viable the length of plants express a high
measurement of the poison, qualities giving safety are uncommon, and there are numerous
bugs from the asylum accessible to mate haphazardly with safe creepy crawlies (Gould
1998). Some of the time persuading producers to plant non-Bt maize shelters is a test on the
grounds that it obliges watchful arranging of where to plant the shelter and could diminish
yields. As of now in the USA asylum proposals range from 5–20 percent, contingent upon
locale of the nation and kind of Bt maize.
 Insect resistance management (IRM) high dose and refuge strategy assumes resistance
is recessive. Many susceptible moths (SS) are produced in refuge maize that mate with rare
resistant (RR) moths. Mating of resistant (RR) and susceptible (SS) moths produces
heterozygous (RS) moths that die when they feed on high-dose Bt maize. This strategy
dilutes resistance genes and delays or prevents the evolution of resistance to Bt maize

Pyramided maize that delivers two Bt proteins with distinctive modes of activity
focused for the same creepy crawly has diminished asylums in light of the fact that the two-
poison "repetitive slaughtering" decreases the risks that bugs will advance safety. A test with
the HDR procedure is Bt maize is not high dosage for some regular maize bothers. For
instance, lepidopteran Bt maize is not high dosage for fall armyworm, S. frugiperda, corn
earworm, Helicoverpa zea, and cutworm species (family Noctuidae), while coleopteran Bt
maize is not high dosage for corn rootworm (Diabrotica spp.). Both examples of field safety,
fall armyworm, S. frugiperda, in Puerto Rico, and African stem borer, B. fusca, in South
Africa, included species that were just modestly defenseless to Bt maize. Be that as it may it
is indistinct if safety development was because of absence of high dosage or inadequate
refuge.
CONCLUSION

Compatibility with Other Control Methods

As on conclusion, in spite of the fact that Bt maize is a vital apparatus for producers,
it can't totally supplant other nuisance control strategies. Insect poisons, for instance, may be
important to control optional bug bugs. Host plant safety is paramount to keep up on the
grounds that if vermin get to be impervious to Bt poisons it will be required as an issue
system for bug control. At long last, Bt maize ought to be particularly good with natural
control on the grounds that diminished utilization of insect sprays ought to prompt an
increment in helpful creepy crawlies (Naranjo 2009). All in all, customary vermin
administration rehearses must be kept up so as to keep away from dependence on a solitary
strategy.
References

Bates, S. L. et al. Insect resistance management in GM crops: Past, present and future. Nature
Biotechnology 23, 57-62 (2005). doi:10.1038/nbt1056

Brookes, G. & Barfoot, P. Global impact of biotech crops: Environmental effects, 1996-\
2008. AgBioForum 13, 76-94 (2010).

Candolfi, M. P. et al. A faunistic approach to assess potential side-effects of genetically

modified Bt-corn on non-target arthropods under field conditions.Biocontrol Science
and Technology 14, 129-170 (2004).

Dively, G. P. et al. Effects on monarch butterfly larvae (Lepidoptera: Danaidae) after

continuous exposure to Cry1Ab-expressing corn during anthesis.Environmental
Entomology 33, 1116-1125 (2004). doi:10.1603/0046-225x-33.4.1116

Dowd, P. F. Indirect reduction of ear molds and associated mycotoxins in Bacillus

thuringiensis corn under controlled and open field conditions: Utility and
limitations. Journal of Economic Entomology 93, 1669-1679 (2000).

Federici, B. A. "Case study: Bt crops - a novel mode of insect control," in Genetically

Modified Crops: Assessing Safety, ed. K. T. Atherton (Taylor & Francis, 2002) 164
200.

Gómez-Barbero, M., Berbel, J., & Rodríguez-Cerezo, E. Bt corn in Spain - the performance
of the EU's first GM crop. Nature Biotechnology 26, 384-386 (2008).
doi:10.1038/nbt0408-384

Gould, F. Sustainability of transgenic insecticidal cultivars: Integrating pest genetics and

ecology. Annual Review of Entomology 43, 701-726 (1998).

Hellmich, R. L. et al. "The present and future role of insect-resistant genetically modified
maize in IPM," in Integration of Insect-Resistant Genetically Modified Crops within
IPM Programs, eds. J. Romeis, A. M. Shelton, & G. G. Kennedy (Springer, 2008)
119-158.

Hellmich, R. L. et al. Monarch larvae sensitivity to Bacillus thuringiensis-purified proteins

and pollen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 98, 11925-11930 (2001).

Hutchison, W. D. et al. Areawide suppression of European corn borer with Bt maize reaps
savings to non-Bt maize growers. Science 330, 222-225 (2010).
doi:10.1126/science.1190242

James, C. Global review of commercialized transgenic crops: 2002 Feature: Bt maize. ISAAA
Briefs No. 29. (ISAAA, 2003) xiii + 182 pp. (article)

Jesse, L. C. H., & Obrycki, J. J. Field deposition of Bt transgenic corn pollen: Lethal effects
on the monarch butterfly. Oecologia 125, 241-248 (2000).
Klun, J. A., Tipton, C. L., & Brindley, T. A. 2,4-dihydroxy-7-methoxy-1, 4-benzoxazin-3-one
(DIMBOA), an active agent in the resistance of maize to the European corn
borer. Journal of Economic Entomology 60, 1529-1533 (1967).

Losey, J. E., Rayor, L. S., & Carter, M. E. Transgenic pollen harms monarch
larvae. Nature 399, 214 (1999).

Messeguer, J. Gene flow assessment in transgenic plants. Plant Cell Tissue and Organ
Culture 73, 201-212 (2003).

Munkvold, G. P., Hellmich, R. L., & Rice, L. G. Comparison of fumonisin concentrations in

kernels of transgenic Bt maize hybrids and nontransgenic hybrids. Plant Disease 83,
130-138 (1999).

Naranjo, S. E. Impacts of Bt crops on non-target invertebrates and insecticide use

pattern. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and
Natural Resources 11, 1-23 (2009). doi: 10.1079/PAVSNNR20094011 (link)

O'Callaghan, M. et al. Effects of plants genetically modified for insect resistance on

nontarget organisms. Annual Review of Entomology 50, 271-292 (2005).
doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.50.071803.130352

Pilcher, C. D., Rice, M. E., & Obrycki, J. J. Impact of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis corn
and crop phenology on five nontarget arthropods.Environmental Entomology 34,
1302-1316 (2005).

Pilcher, C. D. et al. Biotechnology and the European corn borer: Measuring historical farmer
perceptions and adoption of transgenic Bt corn as a pest management
strategy. Journal of Economic Entomology 95, 878-892 (2002).

Rice, M. E. Transgenic rootworm corn: Assessing potential agronomic, economic, and

environmental benefits. Plant Health Progress (2004). doi:10.1094/PHP-2004-0301
01-RV

Romeis, J. et al. Assessment of risk of insect-resistant transgenic crops to nontarget

arthropods. Nature Biotechnology 26, 203-208 (2008). doi:10.1038/nbt1381

Schnepf, E. et al. Bacillus thuringiensis and its pesticidal crystal proteins. Microbiology and
Molecular Biology Reviews 62, 775-806 (1998).

Sears, M. K. et al. Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: A risk

assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America 98, 11937-11942 (2001).

Stanley-Horn, D. E. et al. Assessing the impact of Cry1Ab-expressing corn pollen on

monarch butterfly larvae in field studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of
 Sciences of the United States of America 98, 11931-11936 (2001).

Storer, N. P., Dively, G. P., & Herman, R. A. "Landscape effects of insect-resistant

genetically modified crops," in Integration of Insect-Resistant Genetically Modified
Crops within IPM Programs, eds. J. Romeis, A. M. Shelton, & G. G. Kennedy
(Springer, 2008) 273-302.

Tabashnik, B. E. Evolution of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis. Annual Review of

Entomology 39, 47-79 (1994).

Tabashnik, B. E., & Croft, B. A. Managing pesticide resistance in crop-arthropod complexes

- Interactions between biological and operational factors.Environmental
Entomology 11, 1137-1144 (1982).

Wu, F. Mycotoxin reduction in Bt corn: Potential economic, health, and regulatory

impacts. Transgenic Research 15, 277-289 (2006). doi:10.1007/s11248-005-5237-1

Wu, F., Miller, J. D., & Casman, E. A. The economic impact of Bt corn resulting from
mycotoxin reduction. Journal of Toxicology —Toxin Reviews 23, 397-424 (2004).
doi:10.1081/txr-200027872

ADVANCE CROP PRODUCTION

 AGR 702

CROP IMPROVEMENT OF BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS MAIZE

PREPARE BY: NOR SURIATI BT NAJIB BASAH

MATRIC NO: 2013450104
SUBMITTED DATE: 29 APRIL 2015
LECTURER’S NAME: DR TSAN FUI YING

FACULTY OF PLANTATION AND AGROTECHNOLOGY

2015