Effectiveness of varied refugia configurations for genetically modified maize (Zea mays L.) in KwaZulu-Natal midlands

• Main Author: Moodley, Odeshnee
• Other Authors: Modise, D.
• Format: Others
• Language: en
• Published: 2015
• Subjects: Genetically modified; Refugia; Bt maize; Yield; Cost-benefit ratio; Farmer compliance; Seed mixture; Insect damage; Refuge planting requirements; Refuge configuration; Refuge option; 633.15233096847; Corn > Diseases and pests > South Africa > KwaZulu > Natal Midlands > Case studies; Corn yields > South Africa > KwaZulu > Natal Midlands > Case studies; Corn > South Africa > KwaZulu-Natal Midlands > Case studies; Corn > Genetic engineering
• Online Access: Moodley, Odeshnee (2013) Effectiveness of varied refugia configurations for the genetically modified maize (Zea mays L.) in Kwa-Zulu-Natal midlands, University of South Africa, Pretoria, <http://hdl.handle.net/10500/18319>; http://hdl.handle.net/10500/18319

Genetically modified (GM) white and yellow maize, Zea mays, has been commercially released and cultivated in South Africa since 1997/1998. The traits expressed are insect resistance and herbicide tolerance conferred by the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Cry genes and Agrobacterium 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP) synthase gene, respectively. The Cry genes have been used widely to control lepidopteran insect pests but insect resistance to GM Bt crops has been a concern since the introduction of this technology. A management strategy includes refugia planting of 5% non-Bt plants, with no insecticide application, and 20%, where insecticide application is allowed. These refugia are designed to allow the survival of insect pests within restricted planted zones. However, in South Africa there are reports of Bt-resistant stem borer (Busseola fusca) (Fuller) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and non-compliance with refuge planting. The aims of this study were two-fold: 1. To conduct a survey among KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) GM maize growers to ascertain information such as level of compliance with refuge planting and to determine which refugia were predominantly planted and reasons thereof; 2. To conduct a replicated field trial to determine yield, insect borer damage and economic benefit of the 5% unsprayed and 20% sprayed refuge options (including three configurations namely strip, perimeter and block and a 5 and 20% ‘refuge-in-a-bag’ option). The survey indicated that 28 out of 29 (96.6%) KZN Bt maize growers plant the 5% non-sprayed refuge with 27 (96.4%) of those respondents planting the strip configuration for the purpose of insect management (75%) and ease of planting (32.2%). The survey also showed that 7 (seven) i.e. 21.9% of KZN Bt maize growers observed borer damage and although growers are now fully compliant with refugia planting requirements, initially 7 respondents (24.1%) did not comply with or plant refugia correctly. Furthermore, 7 respondents reported insect borer damage in their maize with 4 of the 7 instances (57.1%) likely stemming from incorrectly planted refugia. vii No significant differences in yield or insect damage were observed between the 5 and 20% refugia for any of the planting configurations in the field trial. However due to costs involved with insecticide application and labour required for the operation in the 20% option, these treatments were less economically advantageous than the non-Bt control. The 20% block and strip configurations had a cost benefit ratio of ZAR 7.21 and ZAR 6.67 respectively, earned per R1 spent by the grower compared with ZAR 7.76 in the sprayed control. The cost-benefit comparison for the 5% block and strip configurations was ZAR 8.48 and ZAR 7.71, respectively compared with ZAR 9.44 in the unsprayed control. In addition, the 20% seed mixture limited borer damage to 4.95% when compared with 15.77% damage in the sprayed control (ANOVA, F pr = 0.124). The seed mixtures are not available commercially and the results from the survey indicated that some education and marketing by the seed companies would be advisable prior to their release to the farming community. In order to determine which of the refuge options between 5 and 20% would be more advantageous for growers overall, regardless of the planting configuration; data were grouped and analysed. There were no significant differences in either the yield or insect damage for the 5 and 20% refugia, but the cost-benefit calculations indicated that the 5% option was more cost effective – for the 5 and 20% refugia, ZAR 7.97 and ZAR 7.15 respectively, earned per ZAR 1 spent by the grower (ANOVA, F pr. = 0.03). This is because no insecticide was used in the 5% treatments. Mean ear damage comparisons between the 5 and 20% refugia showed that the 20% refuge in the perimeter configuration incurred the least damage (2.65% ear damage) compared with 5% perimeter (10.86% ear damage), although the reasons for this are not clear. While the results of the field trials showed no significant differences in insect damage and yield with regard to choice of refuge configuration, monitoring insect resistance management remains an integral part of Bt maize crops in South Africa, in order to delay further resistance development and to prolong the viability of Bt technology. === Agriculture and  Animal Health === M. Sc. (Agriculture)