Next Article in Journal
The Pattern of Social Parasitism in Maculinea teleius Butterfly Is Driven by the Size and Spatial Distribution of the Host Ant Nests
Next Article in Special Issue
Molecular Genetic Basis of Lab- and Field-Selected Bt Resistance in Pink Bollworm
Previous Article in Journal
BdNub Is Essential for Maintaining gut Immunity and Microbiome Homeostasis in Bactrocera dorsalis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Resistance Allele Frequency of Helicoverpa zea to Vip3Aa Bacillus thuringiensis Protein in the Southeastern U.S.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 14
Issue 2
10.3390/insects14020179
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Managing Practical Resistance of Lepidopteran Pests to Bt Cotton in China

by
Yudong Quan
1,2 and
Kongming Wu
1,*
1
State Key Laboratory for Biology of Plant Diseases and Insect Pests, Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, China
2
Guangdong Laboratory for Lingnan Modern Agriculture, Guangzhou 510641, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2023, 14(2), 179; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14020179
Submission received: 30 December 2022 / Revised: 4 February 2023 / Accepted: 7 February 2023 / Published: 10 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Resistance of Pests to Insecticidal Proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt))
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Bt (Cry1Ac) cotton has been commercialized in China since 1997. Two tactics have mainly been used in targeted pest resistance management for small farmers. The first is the use of natural refuges composed of corn, soybeans, vegetables, peanuts, and other crops to delay the development of the resistance of multi-host crop pests such as the cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) to Bt cotton. The second is to use the offspring of F2 generation hybrids (Bt and non-Bt cotton hybrids) to produce a 25% seed mix refuge formed by non-Bt cotton, further delaying the evolution of resistance of single cotton-eating target pests such as the pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella). The 25-year production practice has demonstrated that this dual strategy of Bt cotton resistance management in China has been very successful to date, with no failures observed in lepidopteran pest control in the production process.

Abstract

China is one of the major cotton producers globally with small farmers. Lepidopteran pests have always been the main factor affecting cotton production. To reduce the occurrence of and damage caused by lepidopteran pests, China has employed a pest control method focused on planting Bt (Cry1Ac) cotton since 1997. Chinese resistance management tactics for the main target pests, the cotton bollworm and pink bollworm, were also implemented. For polyphagous (multiple hosts) and migratory pests such as the cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera), the “natural refuge” strategy, consisting of non-Bt crops such as corn, soybean, vegetables, peanuts, and other host crops, was adopted in the Yellow River Region (YRR) and Northwest Region (NR). For a single host and weak migration ability pest, such as the pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella), the seed mix refuge strategy yields a random mixture within fields of 25% non-Bt cotton by sowing second-generation (F2) seeds. According to field monitoring results for more than 20 years in China, practical resistance (Bt cotton failure) of target pests was avoided, and there were no cases of Bt (Cry1Ac) failure of pest control in cotton production. This indicated that this Chinese resistance management strategy was very successful. The Chinese government has decided to commercialize Bt corn, which will inevitably reduce the role of natural refuges; therefore, this paper also discusses adjustments and future directions of cotton pest resistance management strategies.

1. Introduction

Cotton is an important source of fiber for the textile industry and biofuels (seed oils) and is a major annual cash crop. Globally, about 150 countries are involved in the cotton industry, with an annual output value of more than USD 60 billion [1,2]. Outbreaks of cotton pests have directly or indirectly (transmission of plant diseases) caused 15–30% economic losses during production [3,4,5]. An attempt to reduce the damage has led to the overuse and misuse of chemical insecticides, leading to serious health and ecological problems, including harm to human and animal health, insecticidal resistance, pest resurgence, and environmental pollution [6,7]. Therefore, green and efficient control of cotton pests is of great significance to maintaining the healthy development of the industry.
Lepidoptera includes the most important taxa of cotton pests globally [8]. Since the 1980s, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) (or secreted protein) has been widely used as a microbial insecticide to control cotton pests such as the cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera), pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella), and beet armyworm (Spodoptera exigua). With the development of biotechnology, genetically engineered crops that produce insecticidal Bt proteins in plant tissue were created that can kill some voracious insect pests but are not toxic to most non-target organisms, including natural enemies. Bt cotton was commercialized in the United States and Australia in 1996 [9,10]. Since then, China (1997), Argentina (1998), South Africa (1998), Colombia (2002), India (2002), and Brazil (2005) have successively approved the production and application of Bt cotton [11,12]. At present, the insecticidal protein species expressed by commercially cultivated Bt cotton around the world include Cry1Ac, Cry2Ab, and Vip3Aa, with an annual planting area of more than 33 million hectares [2,5,13]. This plays an important role in controlling the occurrence of lepidopteran pests (see Tabashnik and Carrière (2019) [14], Li et al., (2019) [15], Knight et al., (2021) [16] review).
Despite the widespread application of Bt cotton suppressing targeted pests, the primary threat to its long-term efficacy is evolution of resistance by pests, which entails a genetically based decrease in their susceptibility that would diminish the benefits of Bt cotton. The preventive management of resistance is an important task for commercial cultivation in various countries. In view of the type of Bt cotton (differently expressed Bt proteins), cultivation, target pests, and other factors, various countries have formulated their own resistance management strategies based on local situations [17]. In China, cotton cultivation and production are mainly performed by millions of smallholder farmers. The occurrence of pests in large-scale planting regions is very different due to the climate [8,18]. Bt cotton producing Cry1Ac was commercialized about 25 years ago in China and has been effective against the cotton bollworm (H. armigera), a serious pest of many crops that is unique to cotton-growing countries. In this paper, we review the commercialization process, resistance management strategies, and effectiveness of Bt-Cry1Ac cotton in China in order to enable scientists from all over the world to better understand China’s experience, enrich the understanding for resistance management strategies of smallholder farmers in developing countries, and further promote the sustainable use of Bt crops.

2. Bt Cotton Planting and the Target Pest Resistance Management Strategy in China

At present, China’s cotton growing area can be grouped into three major regions: the Yellow River Region (YRR) (33′ N and 41′ N, with an average annual rainfall of 500 to 700 mm), the Yangtze River Region (CRR) (25′ N and 33′ N, with an annual rainfall of 800 to 1500 mm), and the Northwest Region (NR) (Gansu Province, Xinjiang, with an annual rainfall of less than 200 mm) [8]. Before 2000, cotton in China was mainly planted in the YRR and CRR. Since the 21st century, with the adjustment of China’s planting structure, the cotton planting area has gradually shifted to the northwestern inland cotton area. In 2021, the cotton planting area in Xinjiang was 2.5 million hectares, accounting for 82.76% of the total area of the country (https://www.chyxx.com/industry/202112/990259.html, accessed on 29 December 2022). The important Lepidopteran pests in cotton fields in China include the cotton bollworm (H. armigera), pink bollworm (P. gossypiella), Asian corn borer (Ostrinia furnacalis), beet armyworm (Spodoptera exigua), tobacco cutworm (Spodoptera litura), diamond bollworm (Earias cubeoviridis), and cotton looper (Anomis flava). Traditionally, the cotton bollworm is the most important pest of cotton in the YRR and NR, while the pink bollworm is the most important pest of cotton production in the CRR [8].
In response to the serious threat to cotton production from lepidopteran pests such as the cotton bollworm and pink bollworm, China approved the commercial cultivation of cotton varieties expressing Cry1Ac in YRR in 1997, which was expanded to CRR areas after 2000 and was also widely cultivated in Xinjiang and Gansu after 2009 [18,19,20]. In the early stage, Bt cotton varieties grown in China were mainly from Monsanto and were gradually replaced by domestic cotton varieties (GK series) [21,22]. Bt (CryAc) cotton has a control effect on a variety of lepidopteran pests. Its control effect on pests such as the pink bollworm and Asian corn borer is greater than 90%, and its control effect on pests such as the cotton bollworm is higher than 80%. Its control effect on the noctuid twill moth and beet armyworm moth, however, is relatively low [23,24,25,26,27,28]. After the large-scale planting of Bt cotton, the incidence of lepidopteran pests in various cotton areas was significantly reduced, meaning the use of chemical pesticides was basically unnecessary. This played a critical role in the development of cotton production and was generally welcomed by cotton growers [13,18,29,30].
The widespread and long-term use of Bt cotton has greatly increased the risk of generating resistance to the Cry1A toxin by target insects in the field [8]. It is agreed that protoxin (the full-length Cry1Ac protein) is digested by midgut proteases (of target insects) into activated toxins, then the activation would bind to insect midgut receptors and induce the formation of pores in the membrane thus leading to cell death [31]. Since the highest changes in activity have been detected through alterations in binding to midgut receptors, this step is considered critical [31]. Diverse proteins and glycoconjugates contain binding sites of H. armigera and P. gossypiella in the field or laboratory population in China, such as cadherin, teraspanin, aminopeptidase-N (APN), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), and ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporter family proteins (Table 1). Such proteins have been proposed to explain resistance to Cry toxins. In addition, given that there is no shared binding site (receptor) between Vip3 and Cry proteins, their use in combination favors the toxicity of Bt crops and also delays insect resistance [17].
The resistance of target insects can generally be classified into three previously described categories: practical resistance, early warning of resistance (the resistance has significantly increased, but the Bt crops can still control or kill most populations), and no decrease in susceptibility (no significant increase compared with the baseline) [31]. To delay the resistance in the field, several resistance management strategies have been developed, including “high-dose refuge”, “multiple genes” (such as Cry and Vip3) (pyramid strategy), and rotation of Bt crops [17]. Given the large holdings and relatively homogenous cropping patterns in developed countries such as the USA and Australia, the use of mandated, structural refuges is feasible. However, due to small land holdings and heterogeneous cropping patterns in developing countries such as India and China, the use of structural refuges is difficult. Although the Chinese government has put forward requirements, implementing and supervising compatible refuges remains challenging [32,33,34]. According to China’s conditions, two special resistance management strategies can be used. One is called “natural refuges” and is composed of other non-Bt crops (hosts) such as corn, soybean, peanuts, etc., planted around Bt cotton, to delay the resistance of the polyphagous cotton bollworm. The other is for the pink bollworm and is called “seed mix refuges”. It is established through planting F2 hybrid cotton seeds generated by the hybridization of Bt cotton and ordinary cotton [23,35]. After about 20 years, different effects of these resistance management strategies can be observed. The resistance management measures in developed countries such as the United States have effectively controlled the development of cotton pest resistance, while the resistance management measures in China have also been successful; however, in countries such as India, there have been failures in Bt cotton pest control.
Table
Table 1. The reported resistance mechanism of H. armigera and P. gossypiella in previous publications in China.
Table 1. The reported resistance mechanism of H. armigera and P. gossypiella in previous publications in China.
InsectsResistance MechanismInheritanceReference
MutationsGenesFrequency (%)
H. armigeraProteaseHaserpin-e (up)/ 2/[36]
HaTryR (down)//[37]
Cadherin 1HaCad (down)8.7%Recessive[24,31]
Tetraspanin 1HaTSPAN1 (down)10%Dominant[38]
ATP-binding cassette transporters (ABCC2/3) 1HaABCC2/3 (down)/Recessive[39]
Aminopeptidase N (HaAPN1-96S)apn1//[40]
Alkaline phosphatase (HaALP1f)HaALP1/2/Matrilineal[41]
P. gossypiellaCadherin 1r1/2PgCad1/Recessive[42]
r13PgCad1/Recessive[43]
r14PgCad1/Recessive[44]
r15PgCad1/Recessive[45]
r16PgCad1/Recessive[46]
r17/18PgCad1/Recessive[42]
r19/20PgCad1/Recessive[47]
PgCad189/880.02/3%Recessive[48]
PgCad470.03%Recessive[48]
PgCad65/Recessive[48]
“1” Found in a field population; the others were detected in the selected Cry1Ac resistance strain in the laboratory. “2” Lack of data.

3. Resistance Management Tactic Type I: Natural Refuge for Polyphagous Cotton Bollworm

The outbreak of the cotton bollworm in China in the 1990s was the greatest factor restricting cotton production in China [49,50]. Cotton bollworms in China include four geographical types (tropical, subtropical, temperate, and Xinjiang), which are distributed in the tropical region, CRR, YRR, and the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China. In the tropical region and CRR, due to heavy rainfall in the summer, cotton bollworms find it difficult to pupate in the soil, meaning they cause greater harm to cotton production only in dry years. YRR and Xinjiang are major occurrence areas of cotton bollworm in China. The cotton bollworm has a strong migration habit, and each geographical type migrates between host crops in its distribution area [8]. In the YRR and Xinjiang region, the first generation of cotton bollworm larvae feed mainly on wheat, whereas the subsequent generations feed on a variety of crops such as cotton, corn, vegetables, peanuts, and soybeans [8,18]. Due to the small planting plots and the large number of smallholder farms, supervision is difficult, so it is extremely challenging to set up large-scale artificial structured refuges in China. Two methods are highlighted in the management of cotton bollworm resistance to Bt cotton. The first is to plant Bt cotton varieties expressing high concentrations of insecticidal toxin, and the second is to utilize the natural ecological role of small-scale farmers in multi-crop cultivation [18,35]. Generally, cotton is planted together with corn, peanuts, soybeans, and other crops in China. The overlap of the silk/kernel stage of corn and the migration of adult cotton bollworms increases the probability of moth movement and oviposition in corn fields [8]. The first-generation larvae primarily feed on wheat hosts and subsequently migrate to Bt cotton, corn, peanuts, and soybeans (Figure 1) [8,35]. Since crops such as wheat, corn, peanuts, soybeans, and vegetables in the field do not express the Bt protein, they can provide a natural refuge for cotton bollworms that transfer to these hosts. Such crops can produce a large quantity of cotton-bollworm-sensitive individuals (SS), and resistant individuals (RR) living in Bt cotton produce heterozygotes (RS) after mating with sensitive individuals (SS). Given that the inheritance of cotton bollworm resistance to Cry1Ac (expressed in Bt cotton) is autosomal recessive, the heterozygous (RS) resistance allele is not expressed or shows little expression (Table 1). The heterozygous (RS) individuals cannot survive on Bt cotton, thereby reducing the allele frequency (Figure 1). This mixed cropping system, consisting of wheat, corn, soybeans, etc., can provide a refuge for cotton bollworms throughout the season and has been used for the resistance management of pests such as the cotton bollworm in YRR and Xinjiang cotton-growing areas in China [8,35]. At the same time, the long-distance migration of adult cotton bollworms in cotton-growing areas and non-cotton-growing areas in China has also intensified gene exchange between different populations, further diluting the resistance allele frequency [51,52,53,54].
Resistance monitoring is essential for the early detection of Bt resistance, and it is necessary to diagnose the evolutionary status of resistance to the Bt toxin in target insect populations [8,55]. The Chinese government established a national cotton pest prediction and monitoring system in the 1980s and included target pest resistance monitoring after Bt cotton was grown commercially [8,56,57]. Zhang et al. monitored cotton bollworm resistance in China from 1997 to 2017, and the results showed that the IC50s values were less than 0.05 ug/mL before 2014, increased in the subsequent time, and reached 0.092 ug/mL in 2017 (Figure 1B) [24]. F1 generation resistance surveillance methods showed that the frequency of resistant Cry1Ac alleles in field cotton bollworm populations increased from 0.58% to 7.5% (1999–2007), and the frequency of resistance genes fluctuated until 2015 but remained below about 10% without a significant increase (Figure 1C) [58,59,60]. However, in the Xinjiang region (NR), alleles have remained consistently low (under 0.4%) [61]. In addition, monitoring results (2002–2008) from Xiajin County (an intensive Bt cotton-planting area) in the Shandong Province and Anci County in the Hebei Province (multiple crop systems including corn, soybean, peanuts, and Bt cotton) showed that the resistance evolution rate of the cotton bollworm with natural refuges (Anci County) was significantly lower than that in dense cultivation areas (Xiajin), which verified the effectiveness of resistance management strategies in natural refuges [58]. Extensive monitoring of Bt cotton (YRR) in six northern provinces in China from 2010 to 2013 by Jin et al. also indicated that natural refuges could delay the development of cotton bollworm resistance but were less effective than non-Bt cotton-structured refuges in the same area [62]. Li et al. summarized three elements of the efficient role of natural refuges. One is that there are enough host plants in space and time around non-Bt crops to provide living conditions for target insects, another is that these non-Bt crops can produce sufficient freely moving sensitive insects, and the third is that the viable population of Bt crops can freely mate with the natural refuge populations [63].
Insects 14 00179 g001 550
Figure 1. Natural refuge strategy (A) and field monitoring of Helicoverpa armigera regarding Cry1Ac resistance IC50s and alleles (B,C) in China. The IC50 is the concentration of the Cry1Ac protein that inhibits larval development by 50%, and the error bars stand for the 95% fiducial limits. The frequency of alleles in field Helicoverpa armigera was obtained through an F1 screen from the previous work. Bioassay data of IC50 and frequency of alleles in the figures are from Zhang et al. [24,56,57].
Figure 1. Natural refuge strategy (A) and field monitoring of Helicoverpa armigera regarding Cry1Ac resistance IC50s and alleles (B,C) in China. The IC50 is the concentration of the Cry1Ac protein that inhibits larval development by 50%, and the error bars stand for the 95% fiducial limits. The frequency of alleles in field Helicoverpa armigera was obtained through an F1 screen from the previous work. Bioassay data of IC50 and frequency of alleles in the figures are from Zhang et al. [24,56,57].
Insects 14 00179 g001
The resistance management of cotton bollworm pests in developed countries such as the United States and Australia includes three measures. One is to plant 5–20% non-Bt cotton around Bt cotton-planting areas and to build susceptible cotton bollworm refuges. It is forbidden to spray Bt pesticides in refuges, and the aim is to kill overwintering diapause pupae as much as possible in Bt cotton fields [32,33]. The second is to plant Bt cotton varieties expressing high concentrations of insecticidal toxins. The third is to plant Bt cotton varieties (such as Cry1Ac + Cry2Ab + Vip3Aa) that express multiple insecticidal genes [64,65]. The implementation of these measures has played a role in adversarial governance, and so far, H. punctigera and H. armigera in Australia, in addition to H. virescens in the United States, remain sensitive to Bt cotton [14]. In contrast, cotton bollworm resistance management measures in China are based on natural refuge production models, which are simpler to operate and more practical to use and are therefore easier for smallholder farmers in developing countries to implement.

4. Resistance Management Tactic Type II: Seed Mix Refuge for Oligophagic Pink Bollworm

The pink bollworm (P. gossypiella) has been found in various cotton regions in China, spreading to the Yangtze River Basin Cotton Region (CRR) [8,66]. Unlike the cotton bollworm, which has a variety of host crops other than cotton, the pink bollworm mainly feeds on cotton. The first generation of larvae feeds on cotton buds and flowers, causing shedding, and the subsequent generations of larvae drill into the interior of the cotton bolls to feed and damage them, resulting in rotten bolls and stiff petals. Although pink bollworm larvae can feed on okra (Abelmoschus esculentus) and tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum), field trial investigations have shown that okra or tomato are non-preferred hosts. The pink bollworm survives the winter as larvae in seed cotton, cottonseed, and dead bolls and has 3–4 generations per year in the CRR cotton area [23,67,68].
Regarding the resistance management strategy for the pink bollworm, the United States adopted a structured refuge/high-does approach from 1996 to 2005 and planted 25% non-Bt cotton as a structured refuge every year [69]. Beginning in 2006, cotton growers collaborated with scientists from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the University of Arizona, and other institutions and released sterile (irradiated) pink bollworm moths in large numbers in the southwestern United States in an effort to eradicate the pink bollworm completely. Sterile moths mated with potentially resistant pink bollworm moths (on Bt cotton), producing relatively few heterozygous larvae (pink bollworms are incompletely dominant for Cry1Ac/Cry2Ab resistance or recessive) which could not survive on Bt cotton. In addition, sterile moths also interacted with wild-type moths in the field (field sensitive or resistant), and since one of the gametes was sterile, these heterozygous larvae were also less likely to become fertile adults. During this period, growers were allowed to grow up to 100% Bt cotton under a special EPA exemption, and the percentage of cotton grown in Arizona that consisted of non-Bt cotton refuges dropped from >25% to less than 5%. Subsequently, annual monitoring in Arizona showed that no pink bollworm larvae were found on cotton from 2010 to 2018, and no wild pink bollworm moths were found in fields from 2013 to 2018. Based on similar conditions in other states, the US Secretary of Agriculture announced in October 2018 that pink bollworm had been eradicated in the continental commercial cotton producing areas in the United States [16,70,71,72,73,74,75]. In India, the cotton seeds provided by cotton seed companies not only include 450 g of Bt cotton seeds per bag but also contain 120 g of non-Bt cotton seeds in order to set up structural refuges. However, farmers have found that non-Bt cotton is harmful to pests, and they are unwilling to plant it, resulting in very few non-Bt cotton refuges in actual production [76]. In 2008, Gujarat confirmed for the first time that pink bollworms had generated resistance to Cry1Ac cotton; thus, Cry1Ac + Cry2Ab cotton had to be planted [77,78]. By 2015, pink bollworm resistance to Cry1Ac + Cry2Ab cotton had become ubiquitous [77,78], indicating that it is difficult for smallholders in developing countries to manage resistance with structural refuge strategies under their production models.
Different strategies have been adopted for the management of resistance of the pink bollworm to Bt cotton in China. In the early stage (2004–2009), smallholders were unwilling to set up structural refuges, leading to the proportion of non-Bt cotton planted being as low as 6% [23]. The concept of natural refuges does not apply to the pink bollworm, which feeds almost exclusively on cotton in the CRR (there are no suitable non-Bt crop refuges). Bt (CryAc) cotton has high control efficiency against the pink bollworm, and the habit of the pink bollworm rarely transplants damage, which provides feasibility for the method of mixed planting with non-Bt cotton and Bt cotton seeds [23,79]. Compared with setting up structural refuges, this hybrid strategy is simpler and easier to carry out. In China, farmers prefer to plant hybrid cotton that combines Bt and non-Bt cotton because it gives a higher yield. Most farmers choose to grow F2 seeds due to the high price of F1 seeds. However, F2 seeds can produce 25% refugia of non-Bt plants (randomly scattered in Bt cotton fields) (Figure 2) [23,80,81,82]. The production process of F2 hybrid cotton seeds involves F1 hybrids (which can produce Bt toxin), crossing Bt cotton with non-Bt cotton (which is more productive than Bt cotton), and F1 generation self-crossing (self-pollination) to produce F2 seeds. Since the F1 generation has one copy of the Bt transgene without corresponding alleles, F1 can still express the Bt toxin. Among F2 seeds produced by self-pollination, 25% Bt homozygotes and 50% heterozygotes are expected to produce Bt toxin, and 25% of non-Bt homozygotes do not develop Bt toxicity [83,84]. The 25% non-Bt cotton provides a large enough sensitive population (SS) for hybridization (RS) with the resistant population (RR) surviving on Bt cotton. Given that the inheritance of Cry1Ac-resistance in the pink bollworm is recessive, heterozygotes (RS) cannot survive on Bt cotton planted in large quantities in the field, reducing the frequency of resistant alleles (Table 1). In terms of seed production, the production of F1 hybrid seeds requires expensive artificial pollination, while the self-pollination of F1 hybrids to produce F2 hybrid seeds can significantly reduce the cost of seed production (the price of F1 seed is about 35% higher than that of F2), and the yield of hybrid cotton (F1/F2) is usually higher than that of its parental varieties (such as parental Bt cotton), further increasing production efficiency [23,81,82]. In 2017, Wan and other scientists tested about 14,000 seeds among 84 of the most prevalent species in the CRR in the Chinese market using an immunoassay to estimate the percentage of seeds containing Cry1Ac in cotton. After analyzing the results, together with planting data in the region, they found that the cotton species in the market from 2004 to 2009 were mainly F1 hybrid cotton (>60%) with only a small amount of F2 hybrid cotton (about 16%), and the subsequent (2010–present) F2 hybrid cotton planting increased to 59% and remained stable [23]. About 15% (59% * 25% ≈ 15%) of the cotton in the 2010 F2 blend field was non-Bt cotton (refuge). Combining non-Bt cotton varieties (small numbers of non-Bt cotton planted by some farmers) and non-Bt cotton plants of F2 hybrids, the overall proportion of refuge (the proportion of non-Bt cotton planted) almost doubled from 12% in 2009 to 23% in 2010 and then increased to 25–27% in 2011–2015 [23].
The monitoring data of pink bollworm resistance in the CRR cotton area showed that when F2 cotton seeds were not planted on a large scale (mainly F1 cotton seeds were planted) from 2004 to 2009, under the diagnostic concentration of 9 μg/mL Cry1Ac, the survival rate of pink bollworm larvae (with newly hatched larvae as the experimental object) increased from 0% in 2005–2007 to 56% in 2008–2010. The median survival rate grew from 0% in 2005–2007 to 1.6% in 2008–2010. The average LC50 (median lethal concentration) (to Cry1Ac) value of pink bollworms collected and monitored in the field increased by about one fold in 2008–2010 compared with that in 2005–2007 (Figure 2A,B) [23,85]. However, after the implementation of seed mix refuges, the percentage of the population surviving at the diagnostic concentration dropped from 56% in 2008–2010 to 0% in 2011–2015, and the median percentage surviving at the diagnostic concentration decreased from 1.6% in 2008–2010 to 0% in 2011–2015. The average LC50 value was 0.26μg/mL in 2012–2015, which decreased to the same as that in 2005–2008 (0.22 μg/mL) (Figure 2D) [23]. In addition, the frequency of resistance alleles also decreased significantly during 2012–2015 [23], which demonstrated that China achieved success in the resistance management of F2 hybrid-based seed mix refuges to the pink bollworm [23]. Hybrid refuges represent an alternative strategy to lower the risk of smallholders not planting structural refuges that meet the requirements. China’s F2 generation hybrid seed strategy has increased farmers’ enthusiasm for implementation by reducing production costs.

5. Challenges and Directions of Cotton Pest Resistance Management Strategies in China

The planting of Bt cotton in the past two decades has brought tremendous economic and ecological benefits to Chinese farmers. The application of natural refuges and F2 hybrid seed strategies has played an important role in the long-term use of Bt cotton. However, the deeper commercialization of Bt corn and Bt soybean in China will pose a challenge to the natural refuge strategy of the cotton bollworm [86]. Small-scale experiments have shown that the control effect of transgenic insect-resistant corn on the fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) could reach 95%, and the yield could increase by 6.7–10.7%, thus greatly reducing the cost of pest control [87]. The increase in yield and reduction in control costs may attract a large number of Chinese farmers to widely plant related varieties. Insect-resistant corn varieties that have been issued safety certificates mainly express proteins such as Cry1Ab, Cry1Ab/Vip3Aa, Cry1Ab/Cry2Aj, and Cry1Ab/Cry2Ab, etc., and they efficiently target pests such as H. armigera, O. furnacalis, S. frugiperda, and Mythimna separata (lepidopteran pests) [15,88]. Considering that corn and soybean are important natural refuges (non-Bt crops) for resistance management of the cotton bollworm and that >55% of the farmland planting area (in the YRR/CRR area) has corn as a major crop, it is expected that a large amount of Bt corn may replace the original non-transgenic corn hectares. Thus, resistance of the cotton bollworm and other pests of cotton and corn could increase quickly, which will require the rapid development of new resistance management strategies given the complex interactions of multiple insect-resistance genes, regional planting refuge crops, and pest ecology. One caveat to the concerns for resistance is that the addition of Bt corn to production systems in the U.S. has led to significant levels of pest suppression in both non-Bt corn and non-Bt vegetable crops, which has reduced crop losses in the refuge crops while still providing non-Bt-exposed susceptible moths for resistance management [89,90]. In addition, Bt corn planting will also affect the number of natural enemies and reservoirs of cotton pests, which are related to pest population evolution and resistance management in Bt cotton fields. This needs to be further studied.
The strategy of stacking multiple insect-resistant genes (multi-Bt gene cotton), called second-/third-generation cotton (such as Cry1Ac + Cry2Ab + Vip3Aa), has the advantages of a more robust, long-term efficacy and resistance management impact as well as a requirement for fewer refuges compared to monogenic cotton [91]. After 2003, the United States and Australia almost completely replaced single-gene cotton (Cry1Ac, INGARD®) with double-gene cotton (Cry1Ac + Cry2Ab, Bollgard II®). Subsequently, cotton expressing three genes (Cry1Ac + Cry2Ab + Vip3Aa) was used to replace the double-gene cotton. According to statistics, third-generation cotton expressing Cry and Vip3Aa planted in the United States in 2019 accounted for about 27% of the total planting area, and more than 90% of the planting area in Australia was third-generation cotton during 2016–2017 [5,13,92]. China’s cotton area is still dominated by single-gene Bt cotton at present, and progress of the application of new-generation cotton is far behind that of other countries. Since the F2 generation hybrid seed strategy can provide 25% non-Bt cotton refuges, the expansion of planting non-Bt cotton refuges is not only of great significance for the control of the pink bollworm but can also effectively alleviate the reduction of natural refuges for cotton bollworms affected by the commercial planting of Bt corn and soybeans. Therefore, the research and development of multiple Bt gene cotton, combined with an F2 generation hybrid seed strategy, may be one of the key development directions for small farmers of China in the near future.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.W.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.Q.; writing—review and editing, K.W.; visualization, Y.Q.; supervision, K.W.; project administration, K.W.; funding acquisition, K.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Lingnan Modern Agriculture Project (NT2021003).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We thank Yutao Xiao (Agricultural Genomics Institute at Shenzhen, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences) for kindly introducing the situation of cotton bolloworm resistance in the field. We are greatful to Yan Jin, and Dandan Zhang (State Key Laboratory for Biology of Plant Disease and Insect Pests, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences) for generously providing the migration and bioassay data.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Dohlman, E.; Johnson, J.; MacDonald, S.; Meyer, L.; Soley, G. The World and United States Cotton Outlook. In Proceedings of the USDA’s 95 Annual Agricultural Outlook Forum, Arlington, VA, USA, 21–22 February 2019; pp. 21–22. [Google Scholar]
  2. Zafar, M.M.; Razzaq, A.; Farooq, M.A.; Rehman, A.; Firdous, H.; Shakeel, A.; Mo, H.; Ren, M. Insect resistance management in Bacillus thuringiensis cotton by MGPS (multiple genes pyramiding and silencing). J. Cotton Res. 2020, 3, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cui, J.; Chen, H.; Zhao, X.; Luo, J. Research course of the cotton IPM and its prospect. Cotton Sci. 2007, 19, 385–390. [Google Scholar]
  4. Chen, P.; Xiao, Q.; Zhang, J.; Xie, C.; Wang, B. Occurrence prediction of cotton pests and diseases by bidirectional long short-term memory networks with climate and atmosphere circulation. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020, 176, 105612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tarazi, R.; Jimenez, J.L.S.; Vaslin, M.F. Biotechnological solutions for major cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) pathogens and pests. Biotechnol. Res. Innov. 2019, 3, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sanahuja, G.; Banakar, R.; Twyman, R.M.; Capell, T.; Christou, P. Bacillus thuringiensis: A century of research, development and commercial applications. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2011, 9, 283–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Luo, S.; Naranjo, S.E.; Wu, K. Biological control of cotton pests in China. Biol. Control 2014, 68, 6–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wu, K.M.; Guo, Y.Y. The evolution of cotton pest management practices in China. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2005, 50, 31–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Vaeck, M.; Reynaerts, A.; Hofte, H.; Jansens, S.; De Beuckeleer, M.; Dean, C.; Zabean, M.; Van Montagu, M.; Leemans, J. Transgenic plants protected from insect attack. Nature 1987, 328, 33–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Perlak, F.; Deaton, R.; Armstrong, T.; Fuchs, R.; Sims, S.; Greenplate, J.; Fischhoff, D. Insect resistant cotton plants. Nat. Biotechnol. 1990, 8, 939–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Benedict, J.H.; Ring, D.R. Transgenic crops expressing Bt proteins: Current status, challenges and outlook. In Transgenic Crop Protection: Concepts and Strategies; Koul, O., Dhaliwal, G.S., Eds.; Science Publishers: Enfield, NH, USA, 2004; pp. 15–84. [Google Scholar]
  12. James, C. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2007; ISAAA Brief No. 37; International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2007; Available online: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/experimental-agriculture/article/global-status-of-commercialized-biotechgm-crops-2007-brief-37-by-c-james-ithaca-ny-usa-international-service-for-the-acquisition-of-agribiotech-applications-2007-pp-125-15-pp-executive-summary-us5000-free-to-eligible-nationals-of-developing-countries-isbn-9781892456427/0DF80AF3B90031224922AC266BE0BE94 (accessed on 20 December 2022).
  13. ISAAA. Gobal Status or Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops in 2019: Biotech Crops Drive Socio-Economic Development and Sustainable Environment in the New Frontier; International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  14. Tabashnik, B.E.; Carrière, Y. Global patterns of resistance to Bt crops highlighting pink bollworm in the United States, China, and India. J. Econ. Entomol. 2019, 112, 2513–2523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Li, Y.; Eric, H.; Wu, K.; Peng, Y. Insect-resistant genetically engineered crops in China: Development, application, and prospects for use. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2019, 65, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Knight, K.M.; Head, G.P.; Rogers, D.J. Successful development and implementation of a practical proactive resistance management plan for Bt cotton in Australia. Pest Manag. Sci. 2021, 77, 4262–4273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bates, S.; Zhao, J.Z.; Roush, R.; Shelton, A.M. Insect resistance management in GM crops: Past, present and future. Nat. Biotechnol. 2005, 23, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wu, K.M.; Lu, Y.H.; Feng, H.Q.; Jiang, Y.Y.; Zhao, J.Z. Suppression of cotton bollworm in multiple crops in China in areas with Bt toxin containing cotton. Science 2008, 321, 1676–1678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Feng, L.; Chi, B.; Dong, H. Cotton cultivation technology with Chinese characteristics has driven the 70-year development of cotton production in China. J. Integr. Agric. 2022, 21, 597–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Qiao, F. Fifteen years of Bt cotton in China: The economic impact and its dynamics. World Dev. 2015, 70, 177–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Guo, S. Engineering of insect-resistant plant with Bacillus thuringiensis crystal protein genes. Sci. Agric. Sin. 1995, 28, 8–13. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  22. Yu, S.; Fan, S. Research and commercialization of national Bt cotton in China. Biobusiness 2010, 10, 35–41. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  23. Wan, P.; Xu, D.; Cong, S.; Jiang, Y.; Huang, Y.; Wang, J.; Wu, H.; Wang, L.; Wu, K.; Carrière, Y.; et al. Hybridizing transgenic Bt cotton with non-Bt cotton counters resistance in pink bollworm. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 5413–5418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhang, D.; Xiao, Y.; Chen, W.; Lu, Y.; Wu, K. Field monitoring of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae) Cry1Ac insecticidal protein resistance in China (2005–2017). Pest Manag. Sci. 2019, 75, 753–759. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lü, L.; Luo, J.; Zhang, S.; Yu, Q.; Ma, L.; Liu, X.; Wang, C.; Ma, X.; Ma, Y.; Cui, J. Efficiency of cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera Hübner) control of different Bt cotton varieties in North China. J. Cott. Res. 2018, 1, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wu, G.; Harris, M.K.; Guo, J.Y.; Wan, F.H. Response of multiple generations of beet armyworm, Spodoptera exigua (Hübner), feeding on transgenic Bt cotton. J. Appl. Entomol. 2009, 133, 90–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wan, P.; Wu, K.; Huang, M.; Yu, D.; Wu, J. Population dynamics of Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on Bt cotton in the Yangtze River valley of China. Environ. Entomol. 2008, 37, 1043–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Xu, W.; Liu, B.; Wang, R.; Zheng, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Li, X. Effects of transgenic Bt cotton on insect population in cotton field in coastal agricultural region of Jiangsu province. J. Ecol. Rural Environ. 2008, 24, 32–38. (In Chinses) [Google Scholar]
  29. Tabashnik, B.E.; Carrière, Y. Successes and Failures of Transgenic Bt Crops: Global Patterns of Field-evolved Resistance. In Bt Resistance—Characterization and Strategies for GM Crops Producing Bacillus Thuringiensis Toxins; Soberón, M., Gao, Y., Bravo, A., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2015; Volume 4, pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  30. Qiao, F.; Huang, J. Sustainability of the economic benefit of Bt cotton in China: Results from household surveys. J. Dev. Stud. 2020, 56, 2045–2060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jurat-fuentes, J.L.; Heckel, D.G.; Ferre, J. Mechanisms of Resistance to Insecticidal Proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2020, 66, 121–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gould, F.; Anderson, A.; Jones, A.; Sumerford, D.; Heckel, D.G.; Lopez, J.; Micinski, C.; Leonard, R.; Laster, M. Initial frequency of alleles for resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis toxin in field populations of Heliothis virescens. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1997, 94, 3519–3523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Cerda, H.; Wright, D.J. Modeling the spatial and temporal location of refugia to manage resistance in Bt transgenic crops. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2004, 102, 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mohan, K.S.; Ravi, K.C.; Suresh, P.J.; Sumerford, D.; Head, G.P. Field resistance to the Bacillus thuringiensis protein Cry1Ac expressed in Bollgard® hybrid cotton in pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders), populations in India. Pest Manag. Sci. 2016, 72, 738–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wu, K.; Guo, Y.; Gao, S. Evaluation of the natural refuge function for Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) within Bacillus thuringiensis transgenic cotton growing areas in northern China. J. Econ. Entomol. 2002, 95, 832–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhang, C.; Wei, J.; Naing, Z.L.; Soe, E.T.; Tang, J.; Liang, G. Up-regulated serpin gene involved in Cry1Ac resistance in Helicoverpa armigera. Pestic. Biochem. Phys. 2022, 188, 105269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Liu, C.; Xiao, Y.; Li, X.; Oppert, B.; Tabashnik, B.E.; Wu, K.L. Cis-mediated down-regulation of a trypsin gene associated with Bt resistance in cotton bollworm. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 7219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Jin, L.; Wang, J.; Guan, F.; Zhang, J.; Yu, S.; Liu, S.; Xue, Y.; Li, L.; Wu, S.; Wang, X.; et al. Dominant point mutation in a tetraspanin gene associated with field-evolved resistance of cotton bollwrom to transgenic Bt cotton. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 11760–11765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wang, J.; Ma, H.; Zhao, S.; Huang, J.; Yang, Y.; Tabashnik, B.E.; Wu, Y. Functional redundancy of two ABC transporter proteins in mediating toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis to cotton bollworm. PLoS Pathog. 2021, 16, e1008427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhang, S.; Cheng, H.; Gao, Y.; Wang, G.; Liang, G.; Wu, K. Mutation of an aminopeptidase N gene is associated with Helicoverpa armigera resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac toxin. Insect Biochem. Molec. 2009, 39, 421–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ningthoujam, K.; Sorokhaibam, M.; Thangjam, R.; Gujar, G.T. Association of alkaline phosphatase activity with inheritance of Cry1Ac resistance in Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner). J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 2020, 8, 198–204. [Google Scholar]
  42. Wang, J.; Xu, D.; Wang, L.; Cong, S.; Wan, P.; Lei, C.; Fabrick, J.A.; Li, X.; Tabashnik, B.E.; Wu, K. Bt resistance alleles in field populations of pink bollworm from China: Similarities with the United States and decreased frequency from 2012 to 2015. Pest Manag. Sci. 2020, 76, 527–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, L.; Ma, Y.; Wan, P.; Liu, K.; Xiao, Y.; Wang, J.; Cong, S.; Xu, D.; Wu, K.; Fabrick, J.A.; et al. Resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis linked with a cadherin transmembrane mutation affecting cellular trafficking in pink bollworm from China. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2018, 94, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wang, L.; Ma, Y.; Wei, W.; Wan, P.; Liu, K.; Xu, M.; Cong, S.; Wang, J.; Xu, D.; Xiao, Y.; et al. Cadherin repeat 5 mutation associated with Bt resistance in a field-derived strain of pink bollworm. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 16840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wang, L.; Wang, J.; Ma, Y.; Wan, P.; Liu, K.; Cong, S.; Xiao, Y.; Xu, D.; Wu, K.; Fabrick, J.A.; et al. Transposon insertion causes cadherin mis-splicing and confers resistance to Bt cotton in pink bollworm from China. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 7479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wang, L.; Ma, Y.; Guo, X.; Wan, P.; Liu, K.; Cong, S.; Wang, J.; Xu, D.; Xiao, Y.; Li, X.; et al. Pink bollworm resistance to Bt toxin Cry1Ac associated with an insertion in cadherin exon 20. Toxins 2019, 11, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Wang, L.; Xu, D.; Huang, Y.; Zhou, H.; Liu, W.; Cong, S.; Wang, J.; Li, W.; Wan, P. Mutation in the cadherin gene is a key factor for pink bollworm resistance to Bt cotton in China. Toxins 2022, 14, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Wang, L. Identification and Analysis of Resistance Alleles of Pink Bollworm Cadherin in the Yangtze River Valley. Doctorate Thesis, Chinese Academy of Agriculture Sciences, Beijing, China, 2017. (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]
  49. Chen, R.; Huang, J.; Qiao, F. Farmers’ knowledge on pest management and pesticide use in Bt cotton production in China. China Econ. Rev. 2013, 27, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Huang, J.; Hu, R.; van Meijl, H.; van Tongeren, F. Economic impacts of genetically modified crops in China. Genet. Mol. Biol. 2003, 24, 18390. [Google Scholar]
  51. Feng, H.Q.; Wu, K.M.; Cheng, D.F.; Guo, Y.Y. Northward migration of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and other moths in early summer observed with radar in northern China. J. Econ. Entomol. 2004, 97, 1874–1883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Feng, H.; Wu, K.; Ni, Y.; Cheng, D.; Guo, Y. Return migration of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) during autumn in northern China. B. Entomol. Res. 2005, 95, 361–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cheng, D.; Wu, K.; Tian, Z.; Wen, L.; Shen, Z. Acquisition and analysis of migration data from the digitized display of a scanning entomological radar. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020, 35, 63–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wu, K.; Guo, Y.; Wu, Y. Ovarian development of adult females of cotton bollworm and its relation to migratory behavior around Bohai Bay of China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2002, 22, 1075–1078. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  55. Wu, K. Monitoring and management strategy for Helicoverpa armigera resistance to Bt cotton in China. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2007, 95, 220–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wu, K.; Guo, Y.; Lv, N. Geographic variation in susceptibility of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal protein in China. J. Econ. Entomol. 1999, 92, 273–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wu, K.; Guo, Y.; Lv, N.; Greenplate, J.T.; Deaton, R. Resistance monitoring of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal protein in China. J. Econ. Entomol. 2002, 95, 826–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Liu, F.; Xu, Z.; Chang, J.; Chen, J.; Meng, F.; Zhu, Y.C.; Shen, J. Resistance allele frequency to Bt Cotton in field populations of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in China. J. Econ. Entomol. 2008, 101, 933–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Li, G.; Wu, K.; Gould, F.; Feng, H.; He, Y.; Guo, Y. Frequency of Bt resistance genes in Helicoverpa armigera populations from the Yellow River cotton-farming region of China. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2004, 112, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pan, L.; Shi, M.; Chen, J.; Wei, Q.; Gao, C. Resistance monitoring of larvae treated with Bt cotton and pesticides in Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Orient. Insects 2017, 51, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Li, G.P.; Feng, H.Q.; Gao, Y.L.; Wyckhuys, K.A.C.; Wu, K.M. Frequency of Bt resistance alleles in Helicoverpa armigera in the Xinjiang cotton-planting region of China. Environ. Entomol. 2010, 39, 1698–1704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jin, L.; Zhang, H.; Lu, Y.; Yang, Y.; Wu, K.; Tabashnik, B.E.; Wu, Y. Large-scale test of the natural refuge strategy for delaying insect resistance to transgenic Bt crops. Nat. Biotechnol. 2015, 33, 169–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Li, Y.; Gao, Y.; Wu, K. Function and effectiveness of natural refuge in IRM strategies for Bt crops. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2017, 21, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zhao, J.; Cao, J.; Li, Y.; Collins, H.L.; Roush, R.T.; Earle, E.D.; Shelton, A.M. Transgenic plants expressing two Bacillus thuringiensis toxins delay insect resistance evolution. Nat. Biotechnol. 2003, 21, 1493–1497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Brevault, T.; Heuberger, S.; Zhang, M.; Ellers-Kirk, C.; Ni, X.; Masson, L.; Li, X.; Tabashnik, B.E.; Carrière, Y. Potential shortfall of pyramided transgenic cotton for insect resistance management. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 5806–5811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Liu, Y.D.; Wu, K.M.; Guo, Y.Y. Population structure and introduction history of the pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella, in China. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2009, 130, 160–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International (CABI). Invasive Species Compendium: Datasheet Report for Pectinophora gossypiella (Pink Bollworm). 2016. Available online: www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/39417 (accessed on 20 December 2022).
  68. Ariela, N.; Liora, S.H.; Mario, R.; Roee, S.; Rami, H.A. Can tomato be a potential host plant for pink bollworm? World Cott. Res. 2011, 42, 258–260. [Google Scholar]
  69. Tabashnik, B.E.; Morin, S.; Unnithan, G.C.; Yelich, A.J.; Ellers-Kirk, C.; Harpold, V.S.; Sisterson, M.S.; Ellsworth, P.C.; Dennehy, T.J.; Antilla, L.; et al. Sustained susceptibility of pink bollworm to Bt cotton in the United States. GM Crops Food 2012, 3, 194–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Grefenstette, B.; El-Lissy, O.; Staten, R.T. Pink Bollworm Eradication Plan in the U.S. 2009. Available online: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=94468d9d02b6c89992db5fd47d5024a3070a81ce (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  71. Tabashnik, B.E.; Sisterson, M.S.; Ellsworth, P.C.; Dennehy, T.J.; Antilla, L.; Liesner, L.; Whitlow, M.; Staten, R.T.; Fabrick, J.A.; Unnithan, G.C.; et al. Suppressing resistance to Bt cotton with sterile insect releases. Nat. Biotechnol. 2010, 28, 1304–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Liesner, L.; Antilla, L.; Whitlow, M.; Staten, R.T. Arizona pink bollworm eradication program 2010 update. In Proceedings of the 2011 Beltwide Cotton Conferences, National Cotton Council of America, Memphis, TN, USA, 4–7 January 2011; pp. 1143–1149. [Google Scholar]
  73. Liesner, L.R.; Fairchild, D.; Solis, J. Arizona pink bollworm eradication program 2017 update. In Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, National Cotton Council of America, Memphis, TN, USA, 3–5 January 2018; pp. 718–720. [Google Scholar]
  74. Liesner, L.R.; Fairchild, D.; Brengle, J. Arizona pink bollworm eradication program 2018 update. In Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, National Cotton Council of America, Memphis, TN, USA, 8–10 January 2019; pp. 371–373. [Google Scholar]
  75. Persue, S. Eradication of Pink Bollworm Proclamation. 2018. Available online: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/usda-pink-bollworm-proclamation.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  76. Mohan, K.S. Refuge-in-bag for Bt cotton. Curr. Sci. 2018, 114, 726–727. [Google Scholar]
  77. Naik, V.C.; Kumbhare, S.; Kranthi, S.; Satija, U.; Kranthi, K.R. Field-evolved resistance of pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders)(Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae), to transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton expressing crystal 1Ac (Cry1Ac) and Cry2Ab in India. Pest Manag. Sci. 2018, 74, 2544–2554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kukanar, V.S.; Singh, T.V.K.; Kranthi, K.R.; Andow, D.A. Cry1Acresistance allele frequency in field populations of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) collected in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, India. Crop Prot. 2018, 107, 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Carroll, M.W.; Head, G.; Caprio, M. When and where a seed mix refuge makes sense for managing insect resistance to Bt plants. Crop Prot. 2012, 38, 74–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Tabashnik, B.E.; Wu, K.; Wu, Y. Early detection of field-evolved resistance to Bt cotton in China: Cotton bollworm and pink bollworm. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2012, 110, 301–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Dong, H.; Li, W.; Tang, W.; Zhang, D. Development of hybrid Bt cotton in China—A successful integration of transgenic technology and conventional techniques. Curr. Sci. 2004, 86, 778–782. [Google Scholar]
  82. Feng, G.; Gan, X.; Yao, Y.; Luo, H.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, W. Comparisons of photosynthetic characteristics in relation to lint yield among F1 hybrids, their F2 descendants and parental lines of cotton. J. Integr. Agric. 2014, 13, 1909–1920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Zhang, B.H.; Guo, T.; Wang, Q. Inheritance and segregation of exogenous genes in transgenic cotton. J. Genet. 2000, 79, 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Heuberger, S.; Ellers-Kirk, C.; Yafuso, C.; Grassmann, A.J.; Tabashnik, B.E.; Dennehy, T.J.; Carrière, Y. Effects of refuge contamination by transgenes on Bt resistancein pink bollworm (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2008, 101, 504–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Wan, P.; Huang, Y.; Wu, H.; Huang, M.; Cong, S.; Tabashnik, B.E.; Wu, K. Increased frequency of pink bollworm resistance to Bt toxinCry1Ac in China. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e29975. [Google Scholar]
  86. MARA. The Release of National GM Soybean/Corn Variety Certification Standard (Try Out). 2022. Available online: http://www.fgs.moa.gov.cn/flfg/202206/t20220608_6401924.htm (accessed on 20 December 2022).
  87. Yang, X.; Zhao, S.; Liu, B.; Gao, Y.; Hu, C.; Li, W.; Yang, Y.; Li, G.; Wang, L.; Yang, X.; et al. Bt maize can provide non-chemical pest control and enhance food safety in China. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2022, 21, 391–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Liang, J.; Yang, X.; Jiao, Y.; Wang, D.; Zhao, Q.; Sun, Y.; Li, Y.; Wu, K. The evolution of China’s regulation of agricultural biotechnology. Abiotech 2022, 3, 237–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Hutchison, W.D.; Burkness, E.C.; Mitchell, P.D.; Moon, R.D.; Leslie, T.W.; Fleischer, S.J.; Abrahamson, M.; Hamilton, K.L.; Steffey, K.L.; Gray, M.E.; et al. Areawide suppression of European corn borer with Bt maize reaps savings to non-Bt maize growers. Science 2010, 330, 222–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Dively, G.P.; Venugopal, P.D.; Bean, D.; Whalen, J.; Holmstrom, K.; Kuhar, T.P.; Doughty, H.B.; Patton, T.; Cissel, W.; Hutchison, W.D. Regional pest suppression associated with widespread Bt maize adoption benefits vegetable growers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 3320–3325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Roush, R.T. Bt-transgenic crops: Just another pretty insecticide or a chance for a new start in resistance management? Pestic. Sci. 1997, 51, 328–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Tabashnik, B.E.; Carrière, Y. Surge in insect resistance to transgenic crops and prospects for sustainability. Nat. Biotechnol. 2017, 35, 926–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Insects 14 00179 g002 550
Figure 2. Major Bt cotton planted (A,B) and field monitoring of Pectinophora gossypiella Cry1Ac resistance (C,D) in China. LC50 represents the median lethal concentration of the Cry1Ac protein to the collected larvae, and error bars stand for the 95% fiducial limits. The percent of cotton planted and bioassay data of LC50 from 2004-present are from Wan et al. [23].
Figure 2. Major Bt cotton planted (A,B) and field monitoring of Pectinophora gossypiella Cry1Ac resistance (C,D) in China. LC50 represents the median lethal concentration of the Cry1Ac protein to the collected larvae, and error bars stand for the 95% fiducial limits. The percent of cotton planted and bioassay data of LC50 from 2004-present are from Wan et al. [23].
Insects 14 00179 g002
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Quan, Y.; Wu, K. Managing Practical Resistance of Lepidopteran Pests to Bt Cotton in China. Insects 2023, 14, 179. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14020179

AMA Style

Quan Y, Wu K. Managing Practical Resistance of Lepidopteran Pests to Bt Cotton in China. Insects. 2023; 14(2):179. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14020179

Chicago/Turabian Style

Quan, Yudong, and Kongming Wu. 2023. "Managing Practical Resistance of Lepidopteran Pests to Bt Cotton in China" Insects 14, no. 2: 179. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14020179

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop