Following Mary Howell's excellent lead, I was sent this URL (among
others) by Klaus Ammann:
Which is a study he and 2 others did on:
Field release of transgenic crops in Switzerland -
An ecological risk assessment of vertical gene flow
I went straight to:
The hundreds of small-scale field tests in order to evaluate the
performance of genetically engineered crop varieties are up to now not
designed to investigate the ecological risks of widespread
commercialization (1994 International Symposium on the Biosafety
Results of Field Tests of Genetically Modified Plants and
Microorganisms in Monterey, CA, USA).
In order to achieve sustainability in cultivating transgenic crops,
the focus should be on long term monitoring of several years in the
same field where the transgenic crop was planted. To assess
invasiveness, the transgenic plant's capacity to disperse and
establish in adjacent and nearby habitats should be investigated.
Sound familiar? (I hope so).
The substantiation of this conclusion is contained in the following
Table of Contents
(It's long, and the point of presenting it is that it's well done and
should provide ample material for assuming a defensible stance on what
for some of us is an intuitive and dead certain issue. Douglas Hinds).
3.1 The process of domestication of crop plants
3.1.1 Definition of domestication
3.1.2 Origin of domestication
3.1.3 Where has domestication appeared?
3.1.4 Who is responsible for domestication?
3.1.5 Which plants are concerned?
3.1.6 What's the process of domestication
3.2 Effects on neighbouring natural area: gene transfer and
3.2.1 General introduction
184.108.40.206 Factors of hybridization
220.127.116.11 Barriers to pollen dissemination
18.104.22.168 Are natural hybrids fit or unfit compared to their parents?
3.2.2 Which are the traits modified by genetic engineering?
3.2.3 Which of these modified traits should have an influence on the hybridization process?
3.2.5 Conclusion: Gene flow via pollen transport
3.3.1 General Introduction
22.214.171.124 What is a weed?
126.96.36.199 Weed characteristics / weediness
3.3.3 The origin of weeds
3.3.4 Crops running wild
3.3.5 Crops showing weed characteristics
188.8.131.52 Case study Brassica napus, oilseed rape
184.108.40.206 Case study Beta sativa, sugar beet
3.3.6 Reversion of crops to wild types
3.3.7 Weeds evolving from hybridizations between crops and related wild species
220.127.116.11 Brassica napus, oilseed rape
18.104.22.168 Beta vulgaris, Sugar beet
3.3.8 Genes of weediness
3.3.9 Herbicide tolerant weeds
22.214.171.124 Natural herbicide tolerance in wild species
126.96.36.199 Herbicide tolerance in wild species induced by hybridization with herbicide tolerant transgenic crops
3.3.10 Enhanced weediness in transgenic crops?
188.8.131.52 Analogy from conventional plants
184.108.40.206 Is it possible that crops having acquired pest resistance through transformation could turn into aggressive weeds?
3.4 Ecological view
3.4.1 Some basic thoughts about safety research
220.127.116.11 Major possible ecological risks of transgenic
3.4.2 Is there any difference in the choice of the cultivar or crop regarding risk assessment in genetic engineering?
18.104.22.168 A comparison with the daily mega-experiment of newly introduced genomes
3.4.3 Is there any difference between transgenic and non-transgenic plants?
22.214.171.124 Are there genes for weediness existing?
126.96.36.199 The case of Brassica napus, oilseed rape
188.8.131.52 Field experiments with transgenic crops, a summary
3.4.4 The risk of vertical gene flow caused by transgenic crops in Switzerland
184.108.40.206 General remarks
220.127.116.11 Escaped transgenes
18.104.22.168 What happens if a transgene escapes and a transgene population of a wild relative persists in nature for a long time?
22.214.171.124 Some selected case histories
126.96.36.199.1 Transgene spread from oilseed rape
188.8.131.52.2 Possible transgene spread from oat
184.108.40.206.3 Possible transgene spread from sugar beet
220.127.116.11 Summing up the risk of escaped transgenes
3.4.5 Risk of insects becoming immune to the biopesticide Bt
3.4.6 Risk assessment in Switzerland regarding transgenic crops
18.104.22.168 List of crops and cultivars of some importance in Switzerland, which could be subject to genetic engineering in future
22.214.171.124.1 Conclusions regarding agricultural strategies
126.96.36.199.2 Conclusions regarding field releases and breeding strategies
188.8.131.52.3 Conclusions regarding combined codes for the judgement of risk regarding field release of transgenic crops: Introduction to gene flow indices
184.108.40.206.3.1 Classification of the codes of dispersal of pollen (Dp)
220.127.116.11.3.2 Classification of the codes for the dispersal of diaspores (Dd)
18.104.22.168.3.3 Classification of the codes for Df (frequency of distribution)
22.214.171.124.4 Summing up the codes
126.96.36.199.5 Classification by combination of the three codes
188.8.131.52.6 Dispersal indices for some important Swiss crops and risk categories
184.108.40.206.7 Risk categories for the 22 crops important to Switzerland
220.127.116.11.8 Preliminary examples of risk assessment for Swiss crop plants
18.104.22.168 How to proceed in risk assessment?
22.214.171.124 Summary of scheme to assess two environmental risks
I need a date for this valuable resource. DH
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 12 2000 - 14:00:32 EST