Korean Journal of Environmental Biology (환경생물)

Korean Society of Environmental Biology (한국환경생물학회)
권호 표지

Effect of the Anthracnose Resistant Transgenic Chili Pepper on the Arthropod Communities in a Confined Field

야외 격리 포장에서 유전자 변형 탄저병 저항성 PepEST 고추가 절지동물 군집에 미치는 영향

  • Yi, Hoon-Bok (Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology (KRIBB)) ;
  • Kwon, Min-Chul (Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology (KRIBB)) ;
  • Park, Ji-Eun (Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology (KRIBB)) ;
  • Kim, Chang-Gi (Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology (KRIBB)) ;
  • Park, Kee-Woong (Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology (KRIBB)) ;
  • Lee, Bum-Kyu (Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology (KRIBB)) ;
  • Kim, Hwan-Mook (Korea Research Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology (KRIBB))
  • 이훈복 (한국생명공학연구원 바이오평가센터) ;
  • 권민철 (한국생명공학연구원 바이오평가센터) ;
  • 박지은 (한국생명공학연구원 바이오평가센터) ;
  • 김창기 (한국생명공학연구원 바이오평가센터) ;
  • 박기웅 (한국생명공학연구원 바이오평가센터) ;
  • 이범규 (한국생명공학연구원 바이오평가센터) ;
  • 김환묵 (한국생명공학연구원 바이오평가센터)
  • Published : 2007.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study was conducted to assess the environmental risks of anthracnose resistant transgenic chili peppers with the PepEST gene on non-target organisms in the agroecosystem environments during the chili pepper growing seasons in 2006. We quantitatively collected arthropods assemblages living on leaves and flowers of chili peppers on June 20, July 25, and August 25 by using an insect vacuum collector to compare the patterns of arthropod community structures between non-transgenic chili peppers (nTR, WT512) and anthracnose resistant transgenic chili peppers (TR, line 68). We found the seasonal difference with the highest species richness and Shannon's diversity in July's sampling among the growing seasons (P<0.05) and each sampling season showed the different arthropod community composition. We also found there was no statistical difference between the two types of crops, nTR and TR, at each sampling time (P>0.05). The significance level of arthropod community showed that there were lots of seasonal difference of functional groups as well as taxa but only the herbivore group in the functional groups was significantly different for the types of plants (P<0.05). So, we further examined the herbivore groups to find any potential damage and identified the possibility of herbivorous damage from some herbivores, grasshoppers, aphids and thrips. Although we couldn't find any adverse effects from the environmental risk assessment between the arthropod community structures on two types of plants from our results, we should keep working for the environmental risk assessment because of the herbivorous potential risk possibility.

농업생태계에 심겨진 탄저병 저항성 유전자인 PepEST 유전자가 내재된 유전자변형 고추의 환경위해성을 평가하기 위하여 2006년 고추의 생육기간 동안 절지동물의 군집구조를 3회(6월 20일, 7월 25일, 8월 28일)에 걸쳐 조사하였다. 두 가지의 고추 즉 모본(nTR, WT512)와 유전자 변형 고추(TR, line 68)의 꽃과 잎에 서식하는 곤충을 포함한 절지동물의 군집구조를 파악하기 위하여 곤충을 포획할 수 있는 진공 흡입기를 이용하여 절지동물을 정량적으로 채집하였다. 생육 기간 중에서 7월에 가장 많은 종수, 종다양도, 그리고 종구성의 차이를 보여주었지만(P<0.05), 각 생육기간별 두 작물간의 군집구조는 통계적으로 유의한 차이가 없었다(P>0.05). 각 분류군 별로 통계적인 유의성을 검증한 결과, 초식자의 먹이 기능군이 통계적인 유의성을 나타냈으며 (P<0.05), 그초식자군의 고추에 대한 잠재적인 피해 가능성을 검정한 결과, 섬서구메뚜기, 진딧물, 그리고 총채벌레의 잠재적 피해가능성이 크다고 판단되었다. 지금까지 수행된 본 연구결과를 근거로 판단하여 볼 때, 유전자 변형 고추로 인한 비표적 생물체의 군집구조의 차이가 없었으므로, 환경위해도는 없는 것으로 판단되지만, 추후 환경 위해도의 잠재 가능성 때문에, 환경위해성 평가연구가 지속적으로 수행되어야 한다고 결론 내릴 수 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. 정영호. 2000. 채소 병해충 진단과 방제. 농촌진흥청 농업과학기술원편, 아카데미 서적, 330pp
  2. Clarke KR. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust. J. Ecol. 18:117-143 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.1993.tb00438.x
  3. Conner AJ, TR Glare and JP Nap. 2003. The release of genetically modified crops into the environment. Part II. Overview of ecological risk assessment. Plant J. 33:19-46 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0960-7412.2002.001607.x
  4. Dale P. 2002. The environmental impact of genetically modified (GM) crops-A review. J. Agri. Sci. 138:245-248
  5. Fraley R. 1992. Sustaining the supply. Bio/Technology 10:40-43 https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0192-40
  6. Griffiths BS, IE Geoghegan and WM Robertson. 2000. Testing genetically engineered potato, producing the lectins GNA and Con A, on non-target soil organisms and processes. J. Appl. Ecol. 37:159-170
  7. Hilbeck A, DA Andow and EMG Fontes. 2006. Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms: V.2 Methodologies for assessing Bt cotton in Brazil. CABI, London UK
  8. Hilbeck A and DA Andow. 2004. Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms: V. 1. A case study of Bt Maize in Kenya. CABI, Wallingford, UK
  9. James C. 2005. Executive summary of global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: ISAAA Briefs No. 34. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY
  10. Kim YS, HH Lee, MK Ko, CE Song, CY Bae, YH Lee and BJ Oh. 2001. Inhibitation of fungal appressorium formation by pepper (Capsicum annuum) esterase. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 14:80-85 https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI.2001.14.1.80
  11. McCune B and JB Grace. 2002. Analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software Design. Gleneden Beach, OR, USA
  12. Moon HC, CI Kwon, IJ Rock, GB Rae, DH Kim and CY Hwang. 2006. Seasonal occurrence and damage by thrips on open and red pepper in Jeonbuk Province. Kor. J. Appl. Entomol. 45:9-13
  13. Nap JP, PLJ Metz, M Escaler and AJ Conner. 2003. The release of genetically modified crops into the environment. Part I. Overview of current status and regulations. Plant J. 33:1-18 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0960-7412.2003.01602.x
  14. SAS Institute. 2001. PROC user's manual, version 6th ed. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA
  15. Simmonds NW, J Smartt, S Millam and W Spoor. 1999. Principles of crop improvement, 2nd ed. Blackwell, Oxford, UK
  16. Yi HB, JE Park, MC Kwon, S Park, CG Kim, SC Jeong, WK Yoon, SM Park, SL Han, CH Harn and HM Kim. 2006. Environmental risk assessment of watermelon grafted onto transgenic rootstock resistant to Cucumber green mottle mosaic virus (CGMMV) on non-target insects in conventional agro-ecosystem. J. Ecol. Field Biol. 29:323-330 https://doi.org/10.5141/JEFB.2006.29.4.323