Identifying hazards in complex ecological systems. Part 3: Hierarchical Holographic Model for herbicide tolerant oilseed rape

Integrating diverse scientific and practitioner knowledge in ecological risk analysis: a case study of biodiversity risk assessment in South Africa

Ecological risk analysis (ERA) is a structured evaluation of threats to species, natural communities, and ecosystem processes from pollutants and toxicants and more complicated living stressors such as invasive species, genetically modified organisms, and biological control agents. Such analyses are typically conducted by a narrowly-focused group of scientific experts using technical information. We evaluate whether the inclusion of more diverse experts and practitioners in ERA improved the ecological knowledge base about South African biodiversity and the potential impacts of genetically modified (GM) crops. We conducted two participatory ERA workshops in South Africa, analyzing potential impacts of GM maize on biodiversity. The first workshop involved only four biological scientists, who were joined by 18 diverse scientists and practitioners in the second, and we compared the ERA process and results between the two using descriptive statistics and semi-structured interview responses. The addition of diverse experts and practitioners led to a more comprehensive understanding of biological composition of the agro-ecosystem and a more ecologically relevant set of hazards, but impeded hazard prioritization and the generation of precise risk assessment values. Results suggest that diverse participation can improve the scoping or problem formulation of the ERA, by generating an ecologically robust set of information on which to base the subsequent, more technical risk assessment. The participatory ERA process also increased the transparency of the ERA by exposing the logic and rationale for decisions made at each step.

Eliciting expert knowledge in conservation science

Expert knowledge is used widely in the science and practice of conservation because of the complexity of problems, relative lack of data, and the imminent nature of many conservation decisions. Expert knowledge is substantive information on a particular topic that is not widely known by others. An expert is someone who holds this knowledge and who is often deferred to in its interpretation. We refer to predictions by experts of what may happen in a particular context as expert judgments. In general, an expert-elicitation approach consists of five steps: deciding how information will be used, determining what to elicit, designing the elicitation process, performing the elicitation, and translating the elicited information into quantitative statements that can be used in a model or directly to make decisions. This last step is known as encoding. Some of the considerations in eliciting expert knowledge include determining how to work with multiple experts and how to combine multiple judgments, minimizing bias in the elicited information, and verifying the accuracy of expert information. We highlight structured elicitation techniques that, if adopted, will improve the accuracy and information content of expert judgment and ensure uncertainty is captured accurately. We suggest four aspects of an expert elicitation exercise be examined to determine its comprehensiveness and effectiveness: study design and context, elicitation design, elicitation method, and elicitation output. Just as the reliability of empirical data depends on the rigor with which it was acquired so too does that of expert knowledge.

Attitudes of European farmers towards GM crop adoption

This article analyses European Union (EU) farmers' attitudes towards adoption of genetically modified crops by identifying and classifying groups of farmers. Cluster analysis provided two groups of farmers allowing us to classify farmers into potential adopters or rejecters of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) crops. Results showed that economic issues such as the guarantee of a higher income and the reduction of weed control costs are the most encouraging reasons for potential adopters and rejecters of GMHT crops. This article also examines how putting in place measures to ensure coexistence between GM and non-GM crops may influence farmers' attitudes towards GMHT crop adoption. Results show that the implementation of a coexistence policy would have a negative impact on farmers' attitudes on adoption and consequently may hamper GMHT adoption in the EU.

Risks and Precautions of Genetically Modified Organisms

Commercial potential of biotechnology is immense since the scope of its activity covers the entire spectrum of human life. The most potent biotechnological approach is the transfer of specifically constructed gene assemblies through various techniques. However, this deliberate modification and the resulting entities thereof have become the bone of contention all over the world. Benefits aside, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have always been considered a threat to environment and human health. In view of this, it has been considered necessary by biosafety regulations of individual countries to test the feasibility of GMOs in contained and controlled environments for any potential risks they may pose. This paper describes the various aspects of risk, its assessment, and management which are imperative in decision making regarding the safe use of GMOs. Efficient efforts are necessary for implementation of regulations. Importance of the risk assessment, management, and precautionary approach in environmental agreements and activism is also discussed.

Problem formulation in the environmental risk assessment for genetically modified plants

Problem formulation is the first step in environmental risk assessment (ERA) where policy goals, scope, assessment endpoints, and methodology are distilled to an explicitly stated problem and approach for analysis. The consistency and utility of ERAs for genetically modified (GM) plants can be improved through rigorous problem formulation (PF), producing an analysis plan that describes relevant exposure scenarios and the potential consequences of these scenarios. A properly executed PF assures the relevance of ERA outcomes for decision-making. Adopting a harmonized approach to problem formulation should bring about greater uniformity in the ERA process for GM plants among regulatory regimes globally. This paper is the product of an international expert group convened by the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) Research Foundation.

Biological invasions: recommendations for U.S. policy and management

The Ecological Society of America has evaluated current U.S. national policies and practices on biological invasions in light of current scientific knowledge. Invasions by harmful nonnative species are increasing in number and area affected; the damages to ecosystems, economic activity, and human welfare are accumulating. Without improved strategies based on recent scientific advances and increased investments to counter invasions, harm from invasive species is likely to accelerate. Federal leadership, with the cooperation of state and local governments, is required to increase the effectiveness of prevention of invasions, detect and respond quickly to new potentially harmful invasions, control and slow the spread of existing invasions, and provide a national center to ensure that these efforts are coordinated and cost effective. Specifically, the Ecological Society of America recommends that the federal government take the following six actions: (1) Use new information and practices to better manage commercial and other pathways to reduce the transport and release of potentially harmful species; (2) Adopt more quantitative procedures for risk analysis and apply them to every species proposed for importation into the country; (3) Use new cost-effective diagnostic technologies to increase active surveillance and sharing of information about invasive species so that responses to new invasions can be more rapid and effective; (4) Create new legal authority and provide emergency funding to support rapid responses to emerging invasions; (5) Provide funding and incentives for cost-effective programs to slow the spread of existing invasive species in order to protect still uninvaded ecosystems, social and industrial infrastructure, and human welfare; and (6) Establish a National Center for Invasive Species Management (under the existing National Invasive Species Council) to coordinate and lead improvements in federal, state, and international policies on invasive species. Recent scientific and technical advances provide a sound basis for more cost-effective national responses to invasive species. Greater investments in improved technology and management practices would be more than repaid by reduced damages from current and future invasive species. The Ecological Society of America is committed to assist all levels of government and provide scientific advice to improve all aspects of invasive-species management.

The current status and environmental impacts of glyphosate-resistant crops: a review

Glyphosate [N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine]-resistant crops (GRCs), canola (Brassica napus L.), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), maize (Zea mays L.), and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] have been commercialized and grown extensively in the Western Hemisphere and, to a lesser extent, elsewhere. Glyphosate-resistant cotton and soybean have become dominant in those countries where their planting is permitted. Effects of glyphosate on contamination of soil, water, and air are minimal, compared to some of the herbicides that they replace. No risks have been found with food or feed safety or nutritional value in products from currently available GRCs. Glyphosate-resistant crops have promoted the adoption of reduced- or no-tillage agriculture in the USA and Argentina, providing a substantial environmental benefit. Weed species in GRC fields have shifted to those that can more successfully withstand glyphosate and to those that avoid the time of its application. Three weed species have evolved resistance to glyphosate in GRCs. Glyphosate-resistant crops have greater potential to become problems as volunteer crops than do conventional crops. Glyphosate resistance transgenes have been found in fields of canola that are supposed to be non-transgenic. Under some circumstances, the largest risk of GRCs may be transgene flow (introgression) from GRCs to related species that might become problems in natural ecosystems. Glyphosate resistance transgenes themselves are highly unlikely to be a risk in wild plant populations, but when linked to transgenes that may impart fitness benefits outside of agriculture (e.g., insect resistance), natural ecosystems could be affected. The development and use of failsafe introgression barriers in crops with such linked genes is needed.