Can GM crops help to enhance biodiversity? - entsteht die Website ...

Biodiversity and the debate on GM crops
Can GM crops help to enhance biodiversity?
Klaus Ammann, AF-11 web version version 3. November 2011
Contents
1. THE ISSUE .............................................................................................................................................. 3
2. SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................... 3
3. THE NEEDS FOR BIODIVERSITY – THE GENERAL CASE ............................................................... 4
3.1. Relationship between biodiversity and ecological parameters ..................................................... 5
3.2. A new concept of sustainability .................................................................................................................. 6
3.2.1. The most important column to the left is agriculture. .............................................................................................. 7
3.2.2. Middle column: Socio Ethics: .............................................................................................................................................. 9
3.2.3. Right column on Evolution: ............................................................................................................................................... 10
3.3. Crop biodiversity has not been reduced in the twentieth century according to a new meta
analysis ...............................................................................................................................................................11
3.4. Biodiversity is better served by conventional agriculture compared to organic production
................................................................................................................................................................................13
4. TYPES OF BIODIVERSITY................................................................................................................... 15
4.1. Towards a general theory of biodiversity .............................................................................................15
4.2. Genetic diversity .............................................................................................................................................15
4.3. Species diversity .............................................................................................................................................16
4.4. Ecosystem diversity ......................................................................................................................................16
5. THE GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION OF BIODIVERSITY ........................................................................... 17
6. LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY ..................................................................................................................... 19
6.1. Species loss will increase ...........................................................................................................................19
6.2. Agriculture as the major factor of biodiversity loss .........................................................................20
6.3. Impact of agriculture can also help biodiversity ................................................................................24
6.4. Are GM crops responsible for a higher loss of biodiversity? .......................................................25
6.5. Introduced species, another threat to biodiversity ...........................................................................25
6.6. Biodiversity as a ‘biological insurance’ against ecosystem disturbance ................................26
6.7. On centers of biodiversity and centers of crop diversity ...............................................................29
7. THE CASE OF AGRO-BIODIVERSITY, OLD AND NEW INSIGHTS ................................................ 32
7.1. On the genomic processing level, genetically engineered crops are not basically different
from conventionally bred crops. ...............................................................................................................32
7.2. Nature’s fields: ancient wild crop relatives grew often in monodominant stands ...............36
7.3. Extreme plant population dynamics of agricultural systems .......................................................37
7.4. Agrobiodiversity and the food web of insects also show extreme population dynamics .37
7.5. The case of organic farming .......................................................................................................................38

2
8. SELECTED PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVING HIGH TECHNOLOGY AGRICULTURE RELATED
TO BIODIVERSITY ................................................................................................................................ 42
8.1. Biodiversity and the management of agricultural landscapes .....................................................42
8.2. More biodiversity through mixed cropping ..........................................................................................43
8.3. On the wish list: more crop diversity, foster orphan crop species. ...........................................44
8.4. Varietal mixture of genes and seeds .......................................................................................................44
8.5. More biodiversity in the food web including non-target insects by reducing pesticide use
with transgenic crops and other strategies .........................................................................................44
8.6. Push- and pull strategy for reducing pest damage in maize fields. ...........................................45
8.7. Plant breeding revisited ...............................................................................................................................45
8.7.1 New biotechnology approaches in plant breeding .................................................................................................. 45
8.7.1.1. Cis- and Intragenic approaches ......................................................................................................................................................... 45
8.7.1.3. Reverse screening methods: tilling and eco-tilling ................................................................................................................. 46
8.7.1.4. Zinc finger targeted insertion of transgenes ............................................................................................................................... 47
8.7.1.5. Synthetic biology ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 47
8.7.2. Improvement of conventional breeding ...................................................................................................................... 49
8.8. New ways of using biotechnology for enhancing natural resistance ........................................49
8.9. Final remarks on the improvement list related to biodiversity .....................................................50
9. INTERLUDE: THE ROLE OF FUNDAMENTALIST ACTIVISTS AND SCIENTISTS WITH A
STRONG ANTI-GMO AGENDA IN THE DISPUTE ABOUT GM CROPS .......................................... 51
10. TWO CASE STUDIES ON THE IMPACT OF TRANSGENIC CROPS ON BIODIVERSITY AND
HEALTH ................................................................................................................................................. 52
10.1. The case of herbicide tolerant crops, Application of Conservation Tillage easier with
herbicide tolerant crops ...............................................................................................................................52
10.2. The Case of Impact of Bt maize on non-target organisms .............................................................54
11. BIODIVERSITY DATA IN GM CROPS OTHER THAN BT RESISTANCE AND HERBICIDE
TOLERANCE ......................................................................................................................................... 60
12. BT CORN HAS LESS CANCER CAUSING MYCOTOXINS THAN CONVENTIONAL CORN ......... 61
13. SOME CLOSING WORDS: ................................................................................................................... 62
14. CITED REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 62

1. The Issue
Genetically engineered crops are often taken automatically for the main reason of biodiversity loss.
There are numerous false claims of this kind, such as Vandana Shiva gives in her frequent world tours:
3
Shiva, V., Emani, A., & Jafri, A.H. (1999)
Globalization and threat to seed security - Case of transgenic cotton trials in India. Economic and Political Weekly, 34, 10-11, pp
601-613 http://www.ask-force.ch/web/Cotton/Shiva-Globalisation-Threat-Seed-Security-1999.pdf
“In such a situation, the introduction of genetically engineered (GE) seeds becomes worrisome. In absence of any such regulation,
the costlier GE seeds will offer no guarantee for whether they perform well or not. This will lead to complete erosion of the
agricultural biodiversity and adversely affect the socio-economic status of the farmers. This will be further aggravated since GE
seeds will be patented, and corporations will treat information about them as proprietary.”
And another citation from Greenpeace Great Britain, downloaded from their website November 12,
2009 1
“The introduction of genetically modified (GM) food and crops has been a disaster. The science of taking genes from one species
and inserting them into another was supposed to be a giant leap forward, but instead they pose a serious threat to biodiversity
and our own health. In addition, the real reason for their development has not been to end world hunger but to increase the
stranglehold multinational biotech companies already have on food production.”
The contrary is true, GM crops can help reduce the application of herbicides which are problematic for
the environment, and a plethora of hard data proofs that non-target insects often survive quite well in
Bt maize fields, whereas in non-GM crop fields, often the non-target organisms suffer from massive
spraying of chemicals problematic to the environment and life. Another set of hard facts has been
generated from the no-tillage culture of herbicide tolerant soybeans, where it is proven that soil fertility
is greatly enhanced.
2. Summary
The need for biodiversity on all levels is made clear: Biodiversity provides a source of significant
economic, aesthetic, health and cultural benefits (3.). Relationsships between biodiversity and
ecosystems is given in a table (3.1.) and a new concept of sustainability with more emphasis on
development and progress is given (3.2.)
Types of biodiversity are often used without clear definition: genetic biodiversity - species diversity and
ecosystem diversity are all part of biodiversity (4.).
A short chapter on global distribution on biodiversity closes the general part (5).
1 Greenpeace, statement on GM crops http://www.ask-force.ch/web/Fundamentalists/Greenpeace-Biodiversity-GB-website-
20091112.pdf AND http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/gm

4
The loss of biodiversity has one main reason: habitat destruction through urbanization, land use and
agriculture (6.1.). Another threat to indigenous biodiversity is invasive species and species migration due
to human activities (6.2.). Biodiversity is a kind of biological insurance for ecosystem processes (6.3.).
In chapter 7 crop biodiversity gets a closer look: the genome of transgenic crops is not basically different
from non-transgenic crops (7.1.).). Strikingly enough, the ancestral crop species chosen by the first
farmers have lived in monodominant stands (7.2.). Agricultural biodiversity is characterized through high
dynamics of all processes (7.3 and 7.4).
Chapter 8 deals with a series of proposals on how to enhance agricultural biodiversity through
(landscape) management (8.1.), mixed cropping (8.2.), enhancing crop diversity through fostering orphan
crops (8.3.) varietal mixture of genes and seeds of the same crop (8.4.), allow indirectly more diversity of
non-target insects with the use of pest resistant transgenic crops and by reducing pesticide use and
through no-tillage (8.5.), push-and-pull technologies (8.6.), better plant breeding (8.7), enhancing natural
resistance with biotechnology (8.8.).
In an interlude chapter 9 on the activities of the protest industry and opponent scientists it is explained
why the obvious success of GM crops is not really making progress in Europe.
In chapter 10, two case studies on GM crops are given with some detail on how those crops with
widespread commercialization are helping efficiently to regain biodiversity in regions with intensive and
industrial agriculture: Herbicide tolerant crops (10.1.) and pest tolerant Bt crops (10.2.)
In a final chapter 11, the health benefits of Bt maize are documented: transgenic Bt maize has much
lower mycotoxin levels than non-transgenic maize.
3. The needs for biodiversity – the general case
Biological diversity (often contracted to biodiversity) has emerged in the past decade as a key area of
concern for sustainable development (see 3.2), but crop biodiversity, the subject of this text, is rarely
considered. The author’s contribution to the discussion of crop biodiversity in this chapter should be
considered as part of the general case for biodiversity. Biodiversity provides a source of significant
economic, aesthetic, health and cultural benefits. It is assumed that the well-being and prosperity of
earth’s ecological balance as well as human society directly depend on the extent and status of biological
diversity (Table 1). Biodiversity plays a crucial role in all the major biogeochemical cycles of the planet.
Plant and animal diversity ensures a constant and varied source of food, medicine and raw material of all
sorts for human populations. Biodiversity in agriculture represents a variety of food supply choice for
balanced human nutrition and a critical source of genetic material allowing the development of new and
improved crop varieties. In addition to these direct-use benefits, there are enormous other less tangible
benefits to be derived from natural ecosystems and their components. These include the values attached
to the persistence, locally or globally, of natural landscapes and wildlife, values, which increase as such
landscapes and wildlife become scarce.

5
Biological diversity may refer to diversity in a gene, species, community of species, or ecosystem, or even
more broadly to encompass the earth as a whole. Biodiversity comprises all living beings, from the most
primitive forms of viruses to the most sophisticated and highly evolved animals and plants. According to
the 1992 International Convention on Biological Diversity, biodiversity means “the variability among
living organisms from all sources including, terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems and the
ecological complexes of which they are part” (CBD, 1992) It is important not to overlook the various
scale-dependent perspectives of biodiversity, as this can lead to many misunderstandings in the debate
about biosafety. It is not a simple task to evaluate the needs for biodiversity, especially to quantify the
agro ecosystem biodiversity vs. total biodiversity (Purvis & Hector, 2000; Tilman, 2000).
One example may be sufficient to illustrate the difficulties: Biodiversity is indispensable to sustainable
structures of ecosystems. But sustainability has many facet’s, among others also the need to feed and to
organize proper health care for the poor. This last task is of utmost importance and has to be balanced
against biodiversity per se, such as in the now classic case of the misled total ban on DDT, which caused
hundreds of thousands of malaria deaths in Africa in recent years, the case is summarized in many
publications, here a small selection: (Attaran & Maharaj, 2000; Attaran et al., 2000; Curtis, 2002; Curtis &
Lines, 2000; Horton, 2000; Roberts et al., 2000; Smith, 2000; Taverne, 1999; Tren & Bate, 2001; WHO,
2005)
3.1. Relationship between biodiversity and ecological parameters
The relationships between biodiversity and ecological parameters, linking the value of biodiversity to
human activities are partially summarized in Table 1.
Table 1 Primary goods and services provided by ecosystems
Ecosystem Goods Services
Agro ecosystems Food crops Maintain limited watershed functions (infiltration, flow
Fiber crops control, partial soil protection)
Crop genetic resources Provide habitat for birds, pollinators, soil organisms
important to agriculture
Build soil organic matter
Sequester atmospheric carbon
Provide employment
Forest ecosystems Timber
Fuel wood
Drinking and irrigation water
Fodder
Non-timber products (vines,
bamboos, leaves, etc.)
Food (honey, mushrooms,
fruit, and other edible
plants; game)
Genetic resources
Freshwater
ecosystems
Drinking and irrigation water
Fish
Hydroelectricity
Genetic resources
Reduce air-pollutants, emit oxygen
Cycle nutrients
Maintain array of water shed functions (infiltration,
purification, flow control, soil stabilization)
Maintain biodiversity
Sequester atmospheric carbon
Generate soil
Provide employment
Provide human and wildlife habitat
Contribute aesthetic beauty and provide recreation
Buffer water flow (control timing and volume)
Dilute and carry away wastes
Cycle nutrients
Maintain biodiversity
Sequester atmospheric carbon

Grassland
ecosystems
Coastal and marine
ecosystems
Livestock (food, game,
hides, fiber)
Drinking and irrigation
water
Genetic resources
Fish and shellfish
Fishmeal (animal feed)
Seaweeds (for food
and industrial use)
Salt
Genetic resources
Petroleum, minerals
6
Provide aquatic habitat
Provide transportation corridor
Provide employment
Contribute aesthetic beauty and provide recreation
Maintain array of watershed functions (infiltration, purification, flow
control, soil stabilization)
Cycle nutrients
Reduce air-pollutants, emit oxygen
Maintain biodiversity
Generate soil
Sequester atmospheric carbon
Provide human and wildlife habitat
Provide employment
Contribute aesthetic beauty and provide recreation
Moderate storm impacts (mangroves; barrier islands)
Provide wildlife (marine and terrestrial) habitat
Maintain biodiversity
Dilute and treat wastes
Sequester atmospheric carbon
Provide harbors and transportation routes
Provide human and wildlife habitat
Provide employment
Contribute aesthetic beauty and provide recreation
Desert Limited grazing, hunting Sequester atmospheric carbon
ecosystems Limited fuelwood Maintain biodiversity
Genetic resources Provide human and wildlife habitat
Petroleum, minerals Provide employment
Contribute aesthetic beauty and provide recreation
Urban space Provide housing and employment
ecosystems Provide transportation routes
Contribute aesthetic beauty and provide recreation
Maintain biodiversity
Contribute aesthetic beauty and provide recreation
3.2. A new concept of sustainability
With this introduction, the following sustainability scheme can easily be understood: The left column is
really the most important one when it comes to necessities of mankind: But in order to reach
sustainability in agriculture, we must adopt progressive and innovative management strategies, it will be
necessary to combine the most efficient and sustainable agriculture production systems. Details can be
seen in the fig. 1. It should be made clear that agriculture needs to become highly competitive,
innovative and there is an urgent need to produce more food on a smaller surface. But all efforts will be
in vain, if we do not succeed to make substantial progress in the fields of socio-economics and
technology.
Unfortunately, the concept of sustainability is often seen in combination with an extremely defensive
concept of the precautionary “principle” – which actually has to be called correctly the precautionary
approach (Böschen, 2009), it is often abused as a defence against the introduction of GM crops.
If we want to aim at a more sustainable world, it needs more than the usual defensive means advocated.

Sustainable development has been defined in many ways, but the most frequently quoted definition is
from Our Common Future, also known as the Brundtland Report (UN-Report-Common-Future, 1987):
"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts:
the concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and
the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment's ability to meet present
and future needs”
Sustainability is usually understood as a definition with a rather defensive spirit, but if one reads it in its
original content, then the words envision uncompromisingly the way forward – asking not only for
conservation, but also for development and management of patterns of production and consumption.
The declaration of the OECD, authored by Yokoi (Yokoi, 2000) catalogues a range of concrete measures
and rules in order to achieve a more sustainable agriculture. It is remarkable, that the proposed
indicators do not distinguish between farming with or without transgenic crops.
The scheme in Figure 1 meets those needs and asks for an intransigent view into the future. The three
column model has been chosen with care, and as one can see:
7
3.2.1. The most important column to the left is agriculture.
It demands “to foster renewable resources, knowledge based agriculture (Trewavas, 2008) and includes
some additions (Swaminathan, 2001) (Ammann, 2007b, 2008d). The rather provocative word “Organic
Precision Biotechnology Agriculture” is now coined, a shorter one might be “organotransgenic”
Agriculture, but the most elegant “orgenic” (Gressel, 2009) is unfortunately already lost to other
purposes. By no means does this suggest to include the mistakes of organic farming or exaggerated
industrialization of production; those mistakes in organic farming are dealt with properly in my previous
article in New Biotechnology (Ammann, 2008d), as there are (1) the low yield, documented in many long
term monitoring experiments and the eco-imperialist attitude towards farmers of the developing world
(Paarlberg, 2000, 2009; Paarlberg, 2001; Paarlberg, 2002) and (2) the propaganda-like slogans of better
food quality, contradicted by numerous scientific analysis, to name just one major meta study: On the
positive side is some pioneering work in developing recycling loops in agriculture (Albihn, 2001; Ernst,
2002; Granstedt, 2000a, b; Kirchmann et al., 2005; Korn, 1996; Srivastava et al., 2004) and also in better
landscape management: (Belfrage et al., 2005; Boutin et al., 2008; Clemetsen & van Laar, 2000a; Filser et
al., 2002; Hadjigeorgiou et al., 2005; Hendriks et al., 2000; Holst, 2001; Jan Stobbelaar & van Mansvelt,
2000; Kuiper, 2000; MacNaeidhe & Culleton, 2000; Norton et al., 2009; Potts et al., 2001; Rossi & Nota,
2000; Schellhorn et al., 2008; Skar et al., 2008; Stobbelaar et al., 2000). To balance local production
against global trade will not be easy, since the equilibrium between the demands and perils of pressure
to produce for global trading and local food production must be found. The economic basis should be
important, but local social networking and life need to be taken into account as well. The mistakes on
the side of industrial agriculture have been already anticipated by one of the creators of the green
revolution: Swaminathan (Swaminathan, 1968) published early warnings on unwelcome developments
related to the Green Revolution:

8
“The initiation of exploitive agriculture without a proper understanding of the various consequences of every one of the changes
introduced into traditional agriculture, and without first building up a proper scientific and training base to sustain it, may only
lead us, in the long run, into an era of agricultural disaster rather than one of agricultural prosperity.”
After the unique success of the Green Revolution, detrimental effects (upsurge of pest insects,
growing insect resistance against widely used pesticides and negative effects on the soil fertility
and a rising number of herbicide resistant weeds), Swaminathan called for an Evergreen
Revolution in 2006 (Kesavan & Swaminathan, 2006; Swaminathan, 2006): higher productivity in
perpetuity needs a new emphasis on better infrastructure, crop rotation, sustainable
management of natural resources and progressive enhancement of soil fertility and overall
biodiversity, goals which can only be achieved in a new combination of traditional and high
technology knowledge. Logically, detrimental effects like upcoming resistance of pests,
upcoming resistant weeds and a replacement of old, successfully reduced pest insects by new
resistant species (moving into a huge ecological niche) are problems of broadly adopted new
high tech crops. But these are also old problems known from conventional and traditional
agriculture since ages, the only difference is that correction with new technological means
(modern breeding, conservation tillage etc.) will be easier and quicker. A comprehensive
overview on how sustainability could be organized, is offered by (Reed et al., 2006): The good
thing about this scheme is that it is open ended and conceived as a learning process, thus having
the near automatic capability of adaptation to local needs.
Fig. 1 Adaptive learning process for sustainability indicator development and application, from (Reed et al., 2006).

9
On a more theoretical level, but in a comparable process spirit (Phillis & Andriantiatsaholiniaina, 2001)
have chosen the approach over fuzzy logic, followed by a recent publication within the same framework:
(Phillis et al., 2010), giving a truly holistic picture including corporate structures.
“Many people believe that our society is at the crossroads today because of societal and environmental problems of scales
ranging from the local to the global. Such problems as global warming, species extinction, overpopulation, poverty, drought, to
name but a few, raise questions about the degree of sustainability of our society. To answer sustainability questions, one has to
know the meaning of the concept and possess mechanisms to measure it. In this paper, we examine a number of approaches in
the literature that do just that. Our focus is on analytical quantitative approaches. Since no universally accepted definition and
measuring techniques exist, different approaches lead to different assessments. Despite such shortcomings, rough ideas and
estimates about the sustainability of countries or regions can be obtained. One common characteristic of the models herein is
their hierarchical nature that provides sustainability assessments for countries in a holistic way. Such models fall in the category
of system of systems. Some of these models can be used to assess corporate sustainability.” From (Phillis et al., 2010)
3.2.2. Middle column: Socio Ethics:
It is of utmost importance to reach greater equity in the whole food production system, especially in
these difficult times of the credit crunch 2009. It will be imperative to reduce the huge agricultural
subsidies paid to the farmers in the developed world, which needs to be clearly labeled as protectionism
and which therefore needs to be seriously questioned. Access to global markets is important, but should
not hamper local food production and social structures in the developing world. The myth that
developing countries are in the tight grip of multinationals can be debunked with some statistically
underpinned publications: (Aerni et al., 2009; Atkinson, 2003; Beachy, 2003; Chrispeels, 2000; Cohen,
2005; Cohen & Galinat, 1984; Cohen & Paarlberg, 2004; Dhlamini et al., 2005). A new creative capitalism
– a novel discussion which would have been totally utopic before the global economic crisis in 2008 –
needs our attention. It will be a demanding process to reconcile traditional knowledge with modern
science; the IP system is often seriously underestimated in its positive effects, but it is up to now
completely unilateral - no wonder - since it has been created by the developed world. In the IP
handbook of (Krattiger, 2007), accessible over the internet, there are numerous contributions offering
innovative solutions to reconcile this contrast; the author also contributed and offered some solutions
(Ammann, 2006). This contribution made it clear that we need a big boost in breeding science, but also a
new focus on emerging fields in science: biomimetics (formerly bionics) could be a promising area of
research, where high technology equipment is certainly helpful, but not indispensable, and agriculture
needs new research goals for new production lines (Gressel, 2007) including up to now underutilized
crops. Biomimetics needs to be considered with a broad perspective, here just the example of
hygroscopic mechanisms occurring abundantly in the plant kingdom and in insects. But the functional
details, sometimes working for 200 years beyond the organismal death, need clarification; maybe in
some future days we will be able to use the adiabatic moisture differences of our daily climate
fluctuations to produce power – as soon as we start to understand the still basically unknown
mechanisms in numerous hygroscopical organs – these thoughts will soon be part of a new research
project. Published literature on the subject: (Bhushan & Jung, 2010; Johnson et al., 2009; Luz & Mano,
2009; Reed et al., 2009; Zabler et al., 2010)

10
3.2.3. Right column on Evolution:
The most audacious third column questions our view of evolution in the biological and in the general
sense of the word. Evolution deplorably still contains – often not conscious – some elements of
creationism (Mayr, 1991) – and this not only with opponents of gene splicing. It will be important to
emancipate these views and make clear, that for many years we have taken human evolution into our
own hands through modern medicine, and we need to deal with the problems and prospects of a new
evolutionary view. Modern breeding has the potential to enlighten the population, if done in an ethically
acceptable way and if communicated properly. The tasks will grow over the next decades, and in many
fields of science we are already now heavily dependent on calculation power; therefore, let’s make sure
that mathematical algorithms can be translated into useful artificial intelligence in the service of
mankind. We need the help of all new and emerging technologies (of course regulated in a sensible way)
in order to enhance food production and the livelihood of mankind. The statement “only one planet” is
at the same time a reminder to precaution, but appeals also to our responsibility to take evolution as a
whole into our own hands. This can only be achieved if we have a close and conscious look at the cultural
side of human evolution as a whole with all its consequences for ourselves. This will be another string of
thoughts in a next feature on ‘Darwin and beyond’, the development of the evolutionary theory after
Darwin on all levels, from the molecules to culture, it will need historical and philosophical scrutiny,
going far beyond the usual disputes on technologies. (Azzone, 2008; Mesoudi & Danielson, 2008).
Fig. 2 A new concept of a sustainable world, in AGRICULTURE based on renewable natural resources, knowledge based
agriculture and organic precision biotech-agriculture, in SOCIO-ECONOMICS based on equity, global dialogue, reconciliation
of traditional knowledge with science, reduction of agricultural subsidies and creative capitalism, in TECHNOLOGIES in
(Ammann, 2009c).

3.3. Crop biodiversity has not been reduced in the twentieth century
according to a new meta analysis
11
According to (van de Wouw et al., 2010) the agricultural crop biodiversity trends are not as negative as
common sense would suggest: Although there was a significant reduction of crop biodiversity of 6% in
the 1960s compared to 1950, the data indicate that after the 1960s the trend was positively reversed.
van de Wouw, M., T. van Hintum, et al. (2010). "Genetic diversity trends in twentieth century crop cultivars: a
meta analysis." TAG Theoretical and Applied Genetics 120(6): 1241-1252.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00122-009-1252-6 http://www.ask-force.ch/web/Biotech-Biodiv/van-de-Wouw-Genetic-Diversity-
Trends-2010.pdf In recent years, an increasing number of papers has been published on the genetic diversity trends in crop
cultivars released in the last century using a variety of molecular techniques. No clear general trends in diversity have emerged
from these studies. Meta analytical techniques, using a study weight adapted for use with diversity indices, were applied to
analyze these studies. In the meta analysis, 44 published papers were used, addressing diversity trends in released crop varieties
in the twentieth century for eight different field crops, wheat being the most represented. The meta analysis demonstrated that
overall in the long run no substantial reduction in the regional diversity of crop varieties released by plant breeders has taken
place. A significant reduction of 6% in diversity in the 1960s as compared with the diversity in the 1950s was observed.
Indications are that after the 1960s and 1970s breeders have been able to again increase the diversity in released varieties. Thus,
a gradual narrowing of the genetic base of the varieties released by breeders could not be observed. Separate analyses for wheat
and the group of other field crops and separate analyses on the basis of regions all showed similar trends in diversity(van de
Wouw et al., 2010).
Fig. 3 Crop genetic diversity in the twentieth century based on an unweighted (a) and a weighted (b) meta analysis of 44
publications. The diversity in the decade with the lowest diversity was set to 100, from (van de Wouw et al., 2010)

Fig. 4 Wheat genetic diversity (a) and crop genetic diversity (excluding wheat) (b) in the twentieth century based on a
weighted meta analysis of 20 publications. The diversity in the decade with the lowest diversity was set to 100
12
“Wheat has been the most popular crop for studies on genetic diversity trends as 421 out of a total of 732 decadal comparisons
in this meta analysis involved wheat. To check whether the wheat studies dominated the final result, two additional analyses
were carried out with only the wheat studies and excluding the wheat studies respectively (Fig. 3a, b). Although in these smaller
analyses no significant effects could be observed, the general trends were similar, with a low diversity around the 1960s still
visible in both cases. The analyses of the wheat studies showed a relatively later, in the 1990s, recovery of the genetic diversity,
while the other crops showed this recovery already in the 1970s.”(van de Wouw et al., 2010)
In another paper, the vegetable crop diversity has been put in relation with patents by (Heald &
Chapman, 2009), a more detailed publication is announced for 2011/2012:
“The conventional wisdom, as illustrated in the July 2011 issue of National Geographic, (Tomanio, 2011)
holds that the last century was a disaster for crop diversity,” he said. “In the mainstream media, this
position is so entrenched that it no longer merits a citation.”
The graphic in the National Geographic Magazine is based on an old RAFI study from 1983 with a clearly
limited choice of data, today we know with statistics based on comprehensive insight that crop diversity
is climbing steadily in numbers as shown above by (van de Wouw et al., 2010). The prepublication of
(Heald & Chapman, 2009) offers the same picture:
“A complete inventory of all North American commercial seed catalogs undertaken in 1903 and 2004 both reveal around 7000
different varieties offered for sale. Because only a little over 400 of the modern varieties date from 1903 or earlier, the data
suggest an impressive amount of innovative activity between 1903 and 2004. About 6500 of the 2004 varieties are
twentiethcentury innovations or imports, suggesting that thousands of other new varieties came and went in the years between
1903 and 2004. What drives the cycle of continuing innovation: patented inventions, unpatented creations, or importation? The

13
data presented herein strongly suggest that the intellectual property system (including the Plant Patent Act, the Plant Variety
Protection Act, and utility patents [collectively hereinafter “patents”]) plays an insignificant role in vegetable crop diversity, with
the possible exception of corn.” (Heald & Chapman, 2009)
3.4. Biodiversity is better served by conventional agriculture compared to
organic production
According to (Gabriel et al., 2010) on-farm biodiversity components depend on farming practices at farm
and landscape levels, but also strongly interacts with fine- and coars-scale variables.
Gabriel, D., S. M. Sait, et al. (2010). "Scale matters: the impact of organic farming on biodiversity at different
spatial scales." Ecology Letters -- --.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01481.x AND http://www.ask-force.ch/web/Organic/Gabriel-Scale-
Matters-Organic.2010.pdf AND comment in TIMES: http://www.ask-force.ch/web/Organic/Webster-
Study-Spikes-organic-Times-201005.PDF
“There is increasing recognition that ecosystems and their services need to be managed in the face of environmental change.
However, there is little consensus as to the optimum scale for management. This is particularly acute in the agricultural
environment given the level of public investment in agri-environment schemes (AES). Using a novel multiscale hierarchical
sampling design, we assess the effect of land use at multiple spatial scales (from location-within-field to regions) on farmland
biodiversity. We show that on-farm biodiversity components depend on farming practices (organic vs. conventional) at farm and
landscape scales, but this strongly interacts with fine- and coarse-scale variables. Different taxa respond to agricultural practice
at different spatial scales and often at multiple spatial scales. Hence, AES need to target multiple spatial scales to maximize
effectiveness. Novel policy levers may be needed to encourage multiple land managers within a landscape to adopt schemes that
create landscape-level benefits.”

14
Fig. 5 Farmland biodiversity components in relation to landscape-scale management (C: coldspot vs. H: hotspot), farm
management (Con: conventional vs. Org: organic), location-within-field (centre vs. edge vs. margin) and crop type (arable vs.
grass fields). Mean species density ± SEM of (a) forb plant species per transect and survey, n = 3456; geometric mean number
of individuals ± SEM of: (b) epigeal arthropods per sampling station and survey, n = 5139; (c) butterflies per transect and
survey, n = 856; (d) hoverflies; (e) bumblebees; and (f) solitary bees per sampling station and survey, n = 4354, respectively.
From (Gabriel et al., 2010)
From the discussion: Plant species density was much higher in organic fields than in conventional ones
(although differences were much lower for margins), and there were additional landscape-level effects
but mainly in organic fields. The absence of a landscape effect in conventional cereal fields is due to
farmers using more chemicals to suppress weeds within hotspots. Similarly, epigeal arthropods,
butterflies (and bumblebees in arable fields) were more abundant in organic farms and hotspots. In
contrast, adult hoverflies (Syrphidae) were more common on conventional farms, especially in hotspots,
despite their larvae being more common in organic fields. Farmland bird diversity was also higher on
conventional farms (except generalist species and corvidae). In general, the conclusions did not fit the
common views of clear benefits of organic farming related to biodiversity. In a Times article, Ben
Webster, 2 the editor on environment, concluded:
“Birds such as the skylark and lapwing are less likely to be found in organic fields than on conventional farms, according to a
study that contradicts claims that organic agriculture is much better for wildlife. It concludes that organic farms produce less
than half as much food per hectare as ordinary farms and that the small benefits for certain species from avoiding pesticides and
2 http://www.ask-force.org/web/Organic/Webster-Study-Spikes-organic-Times-201005.PDF

15
artificial fertilizers are far outweighed by the need to make land more productive to feed a growing population.
The research, by the University of Leeds, is another blow to the organic industry, which is already struggling because of falling
sales and a report from the Food Standards Agency that found that organic food was no healthier than ordinary produce. In
organic fields than on conventional farms, according to a study that contradicts claims that organic agriculture is much better for
wildlife. It concludes that organic farms produce less than half as much food per hectare as ordinary farms and that the small
benefits for certain species from avoiding pesticides and artificial fertilizers are far outweighed by the need to make land more
productive to feed a growing population.”
4. Types of Biodiversity
4.1. Towards a general theory of biodiversity
(Pachepsky et al., 2001) show in a thoughtful publication, that there are still many unknowns in the
equations modeling biodiversity. They present a framework for studying the dynamics of communities
which generalizes the prevailing species-based approach to one based on individuals that are
characterized by their physiological traits. The observed form of the abundance distribution and its
dependence on richness and disturbance are reproduced, and can be understood in terms of the tradeoff
between time to reproduction and fecundity. This is more or less confirmed by (Banavar & Maritan,
2009) with the following caveat: A lesson from these calculations is that just because a theory fits the
data, it does not necessarily imply that the assumptions underlying the theory are correct.
Whereas Pachepsky et al. emphasize the importance of individual organisms over species, (Levine &
HilleRisLambers, 2009) come to the conclusion, that niches play an important role in maintaining
biodiversity, together with strong evidence, that species differences have a critical role in stabilizing
species diversity. Ecological niches also have been seriously underestimated when calculating with
models the impact of climate change on biodiversity: Strikingly enough coexistence of prairie grasses
seems to be stabilized with climate variability according to (Adler et al., 2006).
4.2. Genetic diversity
In many instances genetic sequences, the basic building blocks of life, encoding functions and proteins
are almost identical (highly conserved) across all species. The small un-conserved differences are
important, as they often encode the ability to adapt to specific environments. Still, the greatest
importance of genetic diversity is probably in the combination of genes within an organism (the
genome), the variability in phenotype produced, conferring resilience and survival under selection. Thus,
it is widely accepted that natural ecosystems should be managed in a manner that protects the untapped
resources of genes within the organisms needed to preserve the resilience of the ecosystem. Much work
remains to be done to both characterize genetic diversity and understand how best to protect, preserve,
and make wise use of genetic biodiversity (Batista et al., 2008; Baum et al., 2007; Cattivelli et al., 2008;
Mallory & Vaucheret, 2006; Mattick, 2004; Raikhel & Minorsky, 2001; Witcombe et al., 2008).
The number of metabolites found in one species exceeds the number of genes involved in their
biosynthesis. The concept of one gene - one mRNA - one protein - one product needs modification.
There are many more proteins than genes in cells because of post-transcriptional modification. This can
partially explain the multitude of living organisms that differ in only a small portion of their genes. It also

explains why the number of genes found in the few organisms sequenced is considerably lower than
anticipated.
16
4.3. Species diversity
For most practical purposes measuring species biodiversity is the most useful indicator of biodiversity,
even though there is no single definition of what is a species. Nevertheless, a species is broadly
understood to be a collection of populations that may differ genetically from one another to some
extent degree, but whose members are usually able to mate and produce fertile offspring. These genetic
differences manifest themselves as differences in morphology, physiology, behaviour and life histories;
in other words, genetic characteristics affect expressed characteristics (phenotype). Today, about 1.75
million species have been described and named but the majority remains unknown. The global total
might be ten times greater, most being undescribed microorganisms and insects (May, 1990).
4.4. Ecosystem diversity
At its highest level of organization, biodiversity is characterized as ecosystem diversity, which can be
classified in the following three categories:
Natural ecosystems, i.e. ecosystems free of human activities. These are composed of what has been
broadly defined as “Native Biodiversity”. It is a matter of debate whether any truly natural ecosystem
exists today, as human activity has influenced most regions on earth. It is unclear why so many
ecologists seem to classify humans as being “unnatural”.
Semi-natural ecosystems in which human activity is limited. These are important ecosystems that are
subject to some level of low intensity human disturbance. These areas are typically adjacent to managed
ecosystems.
Managed ecosystems are the third broad classification of ecosystems. Such systems can be managed by
humans to varying degrees of intensity from the most intensive, conventional agriculture and urbanized
areas, to less intensive systems including some forms of agriculture in emerging economies or
sustainably harvested forests.
Beyond simple models of how ecosystems appear to operate, we remain largely ignorant of how
ecosystems function, how they might interact with each other, and which ecosystems are critical to the
services most vital to life on earth. For example, the forests have a role in water management that is
crucial to urban drinking water supply, flood management and even shipping.
Because we know so little about the ecosystems that provide our life-support, we should be cautious and
work to preserve the broadest possible range of ecosystems, with the broadest range of species having
the greatest spectrum of genetic diversity within the ecosystems. Nevertheless, we know enough about
the threat to, and the value of, the main ecosystems to set priorities in conservation and better
management. We have not yet learnt enough about the threat to crop biodiversity, other than to
construct gene banks, which can only serve as an ultimate ratio – we should not indulge into the illusion

17
that large seed banks could really help to preserve crop biodiversity. The only sustainable way to
preserve a high crop diversity, i.e. also as many landraces as possible, is to actively cultivate and breed
them further on. This has been clearly demonstrated by the studies of Berthaud and Bellon (Bellon &
Berthaud, 2004, 2006; Bellon et al., 2003; Berthaud, 2001) Even here we have much to learn, as the vast
majority of the deposits in gene banks are varieties and landraces of the four major crops. The theory
behind patterns of general biodiversity related to ecological factors such as productivity is rapidly
evolving, but many phenomena are still enigmatic and far from understood (Schlapfer et al., 2005;
Tilman et al., 2005), as for example why habitats with a high biodiversity are more robust towards
invasive alien species.
5. The global distribution of biodiversity
Biodiversity is not distributed evenly over the planet. Species richness is highest in warmer, wetter,
topographically varied, less seasonal and lower elevation areas. There are far more species in total per
unit area in temperate regions than in polar ones, and far more again in the tropics than in temperate
regions. Latin-America, the Caribbean, the tropical parts of Asia and the Pacific all together host eighty
percent of the ecological mega-diversity of the world. An analysis of global biodiversity on a strictly
metric basis demonstrates that besides the important rain forest areas there are other hotspots of
biodiversity, related to tropical dry forests for example (Kier et al., 2005; Kuper et al., 2004; Lughadha et
al., 2005).
Within each region, every specific type of ecosystem will support its own unique suite of species, with
their diverse genotypes and phenotypes. In numerical terms, global species diversity is concentrated in
tropical rain forests and tropical dry forests. Amazon basin rainforests can contain up to nearly three
hundred different tree species per hectare and supports the richest (often frugivorous) fish fauna known,
with more than 2500 species in the waterways. The sub-montane tropical forests in tropical Asia and
South America are considered to be the richest per unit area in animal species in the world. (Vareschi,
1980).

18
Fig. 6 Global biodiversity value: a map showing the distribution of some of the most highly valued terrestrial biodiversity
world-wide (mammals, reptiles, amphibians and seed plants), using family-level data for equal-area grid cells, with red for
high biodiversity and blue for low biodiversity (Williams et al., 2003)

6. Loss of biodiversity
19
6.1. Species loss will increase
(Pimm & Raven, 2000) come to the following conclusion: Unless there is immediate action to salvage
the remaining unprotected hotspot areas, the species losses will more than double. There is, however,
a glimmer of light in this gloomy picture. High densities of small-ranged species make many species
vulnerable to extinction. But equally this pattern allows both minds and budgets to be concentrated on
the prevention of nature’s untimely end. According to Myers et al., these areas constitute only a little
more than one million square kilometers. Protecting them is necessary, but not sufficient. Unless the
large remaining areas of humid tropical forests are also protected, extinctions of those species that are
still wide-ranging should exceed those in the hotspots within a few decades (see Box 1).”
Fig. 7 from (Pimm & Raven, 2000): explanatory text in Box 1 and below
“Applying the species–area relationship to the individual hotspots gives the prediction that 18% of all their species will eventually
become extinct if all of the remaining habitats within hotspots were quickly protected (curve c in Box 1). Assuming that the
higherthan-average rate of habitat loss in these hotspots continues for another decade until only the areas currently protected
remain (curve b in Box 1), these hotspots would eventually lose about 40% of all their species. All of these projections ignore
other effects on biodiversity, such as the possibly adverse impact of global warming, and the introduction of alien species, which
is a well-documented cause of extinction of native species.

20
6.2. Agriculture as the major factor of biodiversity loss
Biodiversity is being lost in many parts of the globe, often at a rapid pace. It can be measured by loss of
individual species, groups of species or decreases in numbers of individual organisms. In a given location,
the loss will often reflect the degradation or destruction of a whole ecosystem. The unchecked rapid
growth of any species can have dramatic effects on biodiversity. This is true of weeds, elephants but
especially humans, who being at the top of the chain can control the rate of proliferation of other
species, as well as their own, when they put their mind to it.
Habitat loss due to the expansion of human urbanisation and the increase in cultivated land surfaces is
identified as a main threat to eighty five percent of all species described as being close to extinction. The
shift from natural habitats towards agricultural land paralleled population growth, often thoroughly and
irreversibly changing habitats and landscapes, especially in the developed world. Many from the
developed world are trying to prevent such changes from happening in developing nations, to the
consternation of many of inhabitants of the developing world who consider this to be eco-imperialism,
promulgated by those unable to correct their own mistakes. A clear decline of biodiversity due to
agricultural intensification is documented by (Robinson & Sutherland, 2002) for the post-war period in
Great Britain.
Today, more than half of the human population lives in urban areas, a figure predicted to increase to
sixty percent by 2020 when Europe, and the Americas will have more than eighty percent of their
population living in urban zones. Five thousand years ago, the amount of agricultural land in the world is
believed to have been negligible. Now, arable and permanent cropland covers approximately one and a
half billion hectares of land, with some 3.5 billion hectares of additional land classed as permanent
pasture. The sum represents approximately 38% of total available land surface of thirteen billion ha
according to FAO statistics.
Habitat loss is of particular importance in tropical regions of high biological diversity where at the same
time food security and poverty alleviation are key priorities. The advance of the agricultural frontier has
led to an overall decline in the world’s forests. While the area of forest in industrialised regions remained
fairly unchanged, natural forest cover declined by 8% in developing regions. It is ironical that the most
bio-diverse regions are also those of greatest poverty, highest population growth and greatest
dependence upon local natural resources. (Lee & Jetz, 2008)

21
Fig. 8 Regional Concerns: Relative Importance Given to Environmental Issues by Regions: Although poverty and the growing
global population are often targeted as responsible for much of the degradation of the world's resources, other factors-such
as the inefficient use of resources (including those of others), waste generation, pollution from industry, and wasteful
consumption patterns-are equally driving us towards an environmental precipice. Fig. 4 indicates the relative importance of
environmental issues within and across regions (UNEP, 1997).
Fig. 9 Regional environmental trends in habitat loss (UNEP, 1997) reflects trends for the same issues, without depicting the
rate of changes in these trends. In many instances, although trends are increasing, the rate of increase over the years has
slowed down or was less than the rate of increase in economic growth previously experienced by countries with comparable
economic growth. This suggests that several countries are making the transition to a more sustainable environment at a
lower level of economic development than industrial countries typically did over the last 50 years. From (UNEP, 1997).

22
Fig. 10 Changing priority concerns. As nations develop, different sets of environmental concerns assume priority. Initially,
prominence is given to issues associated with poverty alleviation and food security and development- namely, natural
resource management to control land degradation, provide an adequate water supply, and protect forests from
overexploitation and coastal zones from irreversible degradation. Attention to issues associated with increasing
industrialization then follows. Such problems include uncontrolled urbanization and infrastructure development, energy and
transport expansion, the increased use of chemicals, and waste production. More affluent societies focus on individual and
global health and well-being, the intensity of resource use, heavy reliance on chemicals, and the impact of climate change
and ozone destruction, as well as remaining vigilant on the long-term protection needs of natural resources. Figure 3
illustrates the observed progression on environmental priority issues. From (UNEP, 1997)
The full complexity of factors influencing habitat and species loss is still heavily researched and progress
can be expected in the next few years. Two examples may suffice to demonstrate on how intricate the
dynamics of habitat and species loss is working: (Field et al., 2009; Kerr & Deguise, 2004). There is no
doubt, that the situation is bleak, and action is needed, action which realistically will be built on difficult
decisions on priorities.

23
Fig. 11 Estimated loss and gain of plant species from 2000 to 2005. It is interesting to see that in highly disturbed regions as
Europe, SE-Asia and North America the number of species has even augmented, but no doubt: always on the cost of the
indigenous flora. http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/estimated-loss-of-plant-species-2000-2005
(Sole & Montoya, 2006) demonstrate the dynamics of ecological network meltdown due to habitat loss:
“Theory suggests that the response of communities to habitat loss depends on both species
characteristics and the extens to which species interact. Larger bodied and rare species are usually the
first losers in most ecosystems around the world (Purvis & Hector, 2000; Woodroffe & Ginsberg, 1998).
Similarly, food web theory predicts that habitat loss and fragmentation reduces population densities of
top predators 13, and therefore species of higher trophic levels are more frequently lost than species
from lower levels, see (Petchey et al., 2004) for a review. In a related context, the consequences of
species loss are highly mediated by the position of such species within the interaction network (Dunne et
al., 2002; Pimm, 1993; Pimm et al., 1995; Sole & Montoya, 2001). The disappearance of preys attacked
by numerous specialized predators, for example, have larger consequences than the loss of preys with
fewer specialized predators.”

24
Fig. 12 Number of species in each trophic level for different values of habitat destroyed. Here two different probabilities of
colonization by plants are used: Here two different probabilities of colonization by plants are used: p = 0.15, straight lines
(numbers in the figure). See text for details. Other parameters: C = 0.28 (including competitive interactions among plants).
from (Sole & Montoya, 2006).
Still, more needs to be known about the dynamics of habitat loss (Memmott et al., 2006): Habitat
destruction is a collective term for a variety of environmental troubles, each of which may have different
effects on food web structure and, given that they often act concomitantly, may also interact with each
other in unpredictable ways. While a frequent outcome of habitat destruction is species loss, whether
the different types of habitat destruction lead to different patterns of species loss remains largely
unknown.
6.3. Impact of agriculture can also help biodiversity
A case study for high-altitude rice in Nepal by (Joshi & Witcombe, 2003) has demonstrated, that participatory
rice breeding can also result in a positive impact on rice landrace diversity. With the exception of two villages,
the varietal richness among adopting farmers was either static or increased, and there was an overall increase
in allelic diversity. However, this positive picture could change with an unconsiderate introduction of modern
traits.

25
6.4. Are GM crops responsible for a higher loss of biodiversity?
In a report (Ammann, 2004a) and a summaries published later (Ammann, 2005) it is stated extensively
and clearly with lots of literature references, that biodiversity is not hampered by the cultivation of GM
crops per se, on the contrary, Bt crops for instance need less pesticide sprays and consequently, nontarget
insect populations are considerably better off in Bt maize (Bitzer et al., 2005; Candolfi et al., 2004;
Hails, 2005; Hector et al., 2007; Kalushkov et al., 2009; Lozzia, 1999; Robinson & Sutherland, 2002;
Symondson et al., 2006; Trewavas, 2001) and in cotton fields (Cattaneo et al., 2006): Their results
indicate that impacts of agricultural intensification can be reduced when replacement of broad-spectrum
insecticides by narrow-spectrum Bt crops does not reduce control of pests not affected by Bt crops.
Regarding herbicide tolerant crops which allow for a nearly 100% change towards no-tillage
management, which results in clearly higher soil fertility: (Christoffoleti et al., 2008; Locke et al., 2008;
Norsworthy, 2008; Wang et al., 2008). Four major meta studies have proven that biotechnology crops
can help to enhance biodiversity as a whole: (Duan et al., 2008; Marvier et al., 2007; Naranjo, 2009;
Wolfenbarger et al., 2008). For details and discussions see chapter 10 with the two case studies of Bt
crops and herbicide tolerant crops.
6.5. Introduced species, another threat to biodiversity
Unplanned or poorly planned introduction of non-native (“exotic” or “alien”) species and genetic stocks
is a major threat to terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity worldwide. There are hundreds if not thousands
of new and foreign genes introduced with trees, shrubs, herbs, microbes and higher and lower animals
each year (Kowarik, 2005; Sukopp & Sukopp, 1993). Many of those organisms sometimes barely survive
and can, after years and even many decades of adaptation, begin to be invasive. In the case of exotic
tree species in Central Europe, the average lag time has been calculated to about 150 years (Kowarik,
2005). This might be misconstrued as increasing biodiversity, but the final effect is sometimes the
opposite – even though (Landolt, 1994) has enumerated after years of inventory work for the town of
Zurich some 2000 higher plant species, a majority of which inhabit disturbed and ruderal habitats. Still, in
natural biota the introduced species often displace native species such that many native species become
extinct or severely limited, such cases are known to be very serious in tropical islands (Ammann, 1997;
Fowler et al., 2000). An important share of alien species originates from agricultural weeds and as a
result of constant traffic with commercial seeds and plant materials such as cotton.
Freshwater habitats worldwide are amongst the most modified by humans, especially in temperate
regions. In most areas, introduction of non-native species is the most or second most important activity
affecting inland aquatic areas, with significant and often irreversible impacts on biodiversity and
ecosystem function. A classic example is the extinction of half to two thirds of the indigenous fish
population in Lake Victoria after the introduction of the Nile perch Lates niloticus, a top predator
(Schofield & Chapman, 1999). Several species of free-floating aquatic plants able to spread by vegetative
growth have dispersed widely over the globe and become major pests. Water hyacinth (Eichhornia
crassipes) is a notable example in tropical waters as is Anarchis canadensis = Elodea canadensis in
temperate waters of the Northern Hemisphere.

26
6.6. Biodiversity as a ‘biological insurance’ against ecosystem disturbance
Biodiversity should still act as biological insurance for ecosystem processes, except when mean trophic
interaction strength increases strongly with diversity (Thebault & Loreau, 2005). The conclusion, which
needs to be tested against field studies, is that in tropical environments with a natural high biodiversity
the interactions between potentially invasive hybrids of transgenic crops and their wild relatives should
be buffered through the complexity of the surrounding ecosystems. This view is also confirmed by the
results of Davis (Davis, 2003) . Taken together, theory and data suggest that compared to intertrophic
interaction and habitat loss, competition from introduced species is not likely to be a common cause of
extinctions in long-term resident species at global, meta-community and even most community levels.
There is a widespread view that centers of crop origin should not be touched by modern breeding
because these biodiversity treasures are so fragile that these centers should stay free of modern
breeding. This is an erroneous opinion, based on the fact that regions of high biodiversity are
particularly susceptible to invasive processes, which is wrong. On the contrary, there are studies
showing that a high biodiversity means more stability against invasive species, as well as against genetic
introgression (Morris et al., 1994; Tilman et al., 2005; Whitham et al., 1999). The introduction of new
predators and pathogens has caused well-documented extinctions of long-term resident species,
particularly in spatially restricted environments such as islands and lakes. One of the (in)famous cases of
an extinction of an endemic rare moth is documented from Hawaii, it has been caused by a failed
attempt of biological control (Henneman & Memmott, 2001; Howarth, 1991). However, there are
surprisingly few instances of extinctions of resident species that can be attributed to competition from
new species. This suggests either that competition-driven extinctions take longer to occur than those
caused by predation or that biological invasions are much more likely to threaten species through intertrophic
than through intra-trophic interactions (Davis, 2003). This also fits well with agricultural
experience, which builds on much faster ecological processes combined with “exotic” crops which often
lack important instruments for rapid spreading.
There is more evidence, that biological invasions, and thus also transgenic hybrids of wild relatives of
GMOs with a potentially higher fitness, are depending on a multitude of factors, some now with recent
research stepwise identified:
(Von Holle & Simberloff, 2005) established the first experimental study to demonstrate the primacy of
propagule pressure as a determinant of habitat invisibility in comparison with other candidate
controlling factors. There is more evidence documented that vegetation structure and diversity has
influence on invasion dynamics on various vegetation types (Von Holle et al., 2003; Von Holle &
Simberloff, 2004; Weltzin et al., 2003).
In a later paper (Fridley et al., 2007) the same author group makes even clearer statements:
“Given a particular location that is susceptible to recurrent exotic invasion, native species richness can contribute to invasion
resistance by means of neighborhood interactions and should be maintained or restored.”
See also the caption of the figure from (Fridley et al., 2007) where a similar statement is included.

27
Fig. 13 Conceptualized diagram of the invasion paradox. Fine-grained studies, many of which are experimental, often suggest
negative correlations between native and exotic species richness but are highly variable. Nearly all broader-grain
observational studies indicate positive native–exotic richness correlations. Likely exceptions are comparisons between
temperate and tropical biomes, where preliminary data suggest that biodiversity hotspots have very few exotic species. From
(Fridley et al., 2007).
The much more dynamic picture on agricultural fields fits well with farming experience, which builds on
much faster ecological processes. It is a widespread error of many ecologists not to take into account the
ephemeral ecological situation of agricultural plant communities (Ammann et al., 2004).
Also according to (Thebault & Loreau, 2005) biodiversity should still act as biological insurance for
ecosystem processes, except when mean trophic interaction strength increases strongly with diversity.
The conclusion – which needs to be tested against field studies, is that in tropical environments with a
natural high biodiversity the interactions between potentially invasive hybrids of transgenic crops and
their wild relatives should be buffered through the complexity of the surrounding ecosystems.
This view is also confirmed by (Davis, 2003): Taken together, theory and data suggest that, compared to
intertrophic interaction and habitat loss, competition from introduced species is not likely to be a
common cause of extinctions in long-term resident species at global, metacommunity and even most
community levels. It should also be clear that the simple introduction of transgenes to the wild
populations or any kind of preservable landrace would not cause any harm to biodiversity, except if the

28
introduced transgene is changing the population structure due to some considerable change in the
competitiveness of the species or race receiving the transgene. With this caveat it is simply antibiotech
propaganda if one claims that the introgression with transgenes has per se and automatically something
to do with a reduction of biodiversity. On the contrary, GMO crops often can – wisely used, be the
source of betterment of biodiversity (Ammann, 2005).
Useful for our thesis produced here is the paper of (Morris et al., 1994). The authors indeed found that
4-8 m of in width may actually increase seed contamination over what would be expected if the
intervening ground were instead planted entirely with a trap crop.
Finally, it should also be made clear that the threat of landraces is not only caused by environmental and
biological agents, but is often the cause of vanishing traditional knowledge (Gupta et al., 2003).
(Harlan, 1975) was among the first to state that landraces have come to rely on cultivation for their
survival, active breeding and conscious selection are at the heart of landrace definition, although not all
researchers share this view: (Hawkes, 1983) states that the adaptation of the landraces to the
environment is the result of selection ‘largely of an unconscious nature’. An excellent review about
definitions and classifications of landraces is given by (Zeven, 1998), see also (Zeven, 1999, 2000, 2002).
An excellent early, but still valid comment and table summing up advantages and disadvantages of exsitu
and in-situ conservation of landraces is given by (Hawkes, 1991):
“No doubt other factors might be considered in addition to those mentioned in Table I.
However, the fact that in-situ and ex-situ methods both possess advantages and disadvantages renders it imperative to
scrutinize each with great care. The general conclusions reached up to now are that each method is complimentary to the other,
rather than antagonistic. However, the problems continue to confront us, namely, that whereas ex-situ storage methods have
been established satisfactorily for at least two decades (Frankel & Hawkes, 1975) and are those in common use for "orthodox"
seeds, those for in-situ conservation are only just beginning to be formulated. This is particularly worrying when we need to
decide on conservation strategies for "recalcitrant" species – those whose seeds have no dormancy period and cannot thus be
stored under the reduced temperature and humidity that have proved so satisfactory for orthodox species (Roberts, 1975).
It is quite clear that much more thought and research initiatives need to be applied to the problem of in-situ conservation. The
International Board for Plant Genetic Resources, IBPGR (1985) developed a provisional list of species for ecogeographical
surveying and in-situ conservation for fruit trees, forages and a number of other crops, and pointed out the need for
"sufficiently large and diverse" populations so as to sustain the levels of allelic frequencies in conserved populations. The
publication called for further research, setting out at the same time a number of useful parameters for genetic conservation.
However, the publication is understandably reticent on hard data involved in setting up reserves, for the simple reason that
hard data do not yet exist.”
Still, it seems that we do not know yet enough to make out of the above thesis a theory which holds up
to all scrutiny, as (Ives & Carpenter, 2007) develop with convincing details and an impressive survey of
the existing literature on biodiversity stability and ecosystems. Their final remarks are rather
inconclusive and call for a case to case perspective:
“Finally, a finding common to many empirical studies is that the presence of one or a handful of species, rather than the overall
diversity of an ecosystem, is often the determinant of stability against different perturbations. We suspect that, depending on
the types of stability and perturbation, different species may play key roles.
Predicting which species, however, is unlikely to be aided by general theory or surveys of empirical studies; each ecosystem might
have to be studied on a case-by-case basis. In the face of this uncertainty and our ignorance of what the future might bring, the
safest policy is to preserve as much diversity as possible.”

29
6.7. On centers of biodiversity and centers of crop diversity
Centers of biodiversity are still a controversial matter as was shown by (Barthlott et al., 2007) with the
example of various African biodiversity patterns published over decades.
Fig. 14 Historical evolution of maps displaying plant species richness patterns in Africa. Apart from the map of (Wulff, 1935)
which indicates the total species richness of the displayed areas, the maps show species richness per standard area of 10,000
km2. All maps are inventory-based and to a varying degree rely on expert-opinion. The same legend of ten classes as
displayed was applied to all maps, from (Barthlott et al., 2007)

Fig. 15 The original eight centers of crop diversity according to Vavilov, N.I. (Hawkes, 1983; Hawkes, 1990, 1991, 1999;
Hawkes & Harris, 1990; Vavilov, 1987; Vavilov, 1940; Williams, 1990)
30
Also the definition of centers of crop biodiversity is still debated. Harlan (Harlan, 1971), in deviation of
the classic Vavilov centers (Hawkes, 1983; Hawkes, 1990, 1991, 1999; Hawkes & Harris, 1990; Vavilov,
1926, 1951; Vavilov, 1987, 2009), proposed a theory that agriculture originated independently in three
different areas and that, in each case, there was a system composed of a center of origin and a
noncenter, in which activities of domestication were dispersed over a span of five to ten-thousand
kilometers. One system was in the Near East (the Fertile Crescent) with a noncenter in Africa; another
center includes a north Chinese center and a noncenter in Southeast Asia and the south Pacific, with the
third system including a Central American center and a South American noncenter. He suggests that the
centers and the noncenters interacted with each other.
The centers of diversity which Vavilov described were not discrete but overlapped for a number of crops,
as regions which have concentrations of variation assessed in terms of recognizable botanical varieties
and races. But he also included a complex of properties which include physiological and ecotype
characters (Williams, 1990). This is why the concept of the biodiversity centers underwent later many
amendments and enlargements, which resulted among others in the map of (Zeven, 1998; Zeven &
Zhukovsky, 1975).

Fig. 16 P.M. Zhukovsky's alterations (solid lines) and additions (broken lines) to Vavilovs original concept of crop diversity,
after (Zeven & Zhukovsky, 1975) taken from (Harlan, 1971)
31
Harlan proposes the theory that agriculture originated independently in three different areas and that, in
each case, there was a system composed of a center of origin and a noncenter, in which activities of
domestication were dispersed over a span of 5000 to 10000 kilometers. One system includes a definable
Near East center and a noncenter in Africa; another center includes a North Chinese center and a
noncenter in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific; the third system includes a Mesoamerican center and
a South American noncenter. There are suggestions that, in each case, the center and the noncenter
interact with each other. Crops did not necessarily originate in the centers of their highest diversity (or
in any conventional concept of the term), nor did agriculture necessarily develop in a geographical
centre.

32
Fig. 17 Centers and noncenters of agricultural origins (A1, Near East center; A2, African noncenter; B1, North Chinese center;
B2, Southeast Asian and South Pacific noncenter; C1, Mesoamerican center; C2, South American noncenter, from (Harlan,
1971)
7. The case of agro-biodiversity, old and new insights
In many publications about agro-biodiversity it is hardly questioned whether biodiversity per se is a good
thing. It is just assumed that we need to strive for as much biodiversity as possible, sometimes on the
cost of simple production rules. This is why the following subchapters will try to produce a fresh and
more pragmatic look at biodiversity in agriculture. It is scientifically and agronomically not acceptable to
ask for more biodiversity related to non-crop species within the production field, this is why the British
Farm Scale Experiments ask basically the wrong questions: (Chassy et al., 2003).
7.1. On the genomic processing level, genetically engineered crops are not
basically different from conventionally bred crops.
Generally, it should be emphasized, that there is no need to stress too much the difference between
transgenic and non-transgenic crops: It has been confirmed by many authors, that Werner Arbers insight
has proven to be correct (Arber, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004; Arber, 2009):
“Site-directed mutagenesis usually affects only a few nucleotides. Still another genetic variation sometimes produced by genetic
engineering is the reshuffling of genomic sequences, e.g. if a given open reading frame is brought under a different signal for
expression control or if a gene is knocked out. All such changes have little chance to change in fundamental ways, the properties
of the organism. In addition, it should be remembered that the methods of molecular genetics themselves enable the researchers
anytime to verify whether the effective genomic alterations correspond to their intentions, and to explore the phenotypic
changes due to the alterations. This forms part of the experimental procedures of any research seriously carried out.
Interestingly, naturally occurring molecular evolution, i.e. the spontaneous generation of genetic variants has been seen to follow
exactly the same three strategies as those used in genetic engineering. These three strategies are:

� small local changes in the nucleotide sequences,
� internal reshuffling of genomic DNA segments, and
� aquisition of usually rather small segments of DNA from another type of organism by horizontal gene transfer.
33
“However, there is a principal difference between the procedures of genetic engineering and those serving in nature for
biological evolution. While the genetic engineer pre-reflects his alteration and verifies its results, nature places its genetic
variations more randomly and largely independent of an identified goal. Under natural conditions, it is the pressure of natural
selection which eventually determines, together with the available diversity of genetic variants, the direction taken by evolution.
It is interesting to note that natural selection also plays its decisive role in genetic engineering, since indeed not all pre-reflected
sequence alterations withstand the power of natural selection. Many investigators have experienced the effect of this natural
force which does not allow functional disharmony in a mutated organism.”
This view has been lately confirmed for a baseline comparison of transgenic and non-transgenic crops by
(Batista et al., 2008; Baudo et al., 2006; Shewry et al., 2007). For more details see p. 28ff and the ASK-
FORCE contribution on this topic: http://www.efb-central.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/58/
(Van Bueren et al., 2003) try to explain on the molecular level, why organic farming cannot accept
genetic engineering with a number of arguments:
Following (Verhoog et al., 2003), they state that the naturalness of organic agriculture not only to the
avoidance of inorganic, chemical inputs and to the application of other agroecological principles, but also
implies integrity. Their definition of intrinsic integrity of plant genomes:
“The general appreciation for working in consonance with natural systems in organic farming extends itself to the regard with
which members of the movement view individual species and organisms. Species, and the organisms belonging to them, are
regarded as having an intrinsic integrity. This integrity exists aside from the practical value of the species to humanity and it can
be enhanced or degraded by management and breeding measures. This kind of integrity can only be assessed from a biocentric
perspective (see below). Organic agriculture assigns an ethical value to this integrity, and encourages propagation, breeding, and
production systems that protect or enhance it.”
And further on:
“From a biocentric perspective, organic agriculture acknowledges the intrinsic value and therefore the different levels of integrity
of plants as described above. The consequence of acknowledging the intrinsic value of plants and respecting their integrity in
organic agriculture implies that the breeder takes the integrity of plants into account in his choices of breeding and propagation
techniques. It implies that one not merely evaluates the result and consequences of an intervention, but in the first place
questions whether the intervention itself affects the integrity of plants. From the above described itself affects the integrity of
plants.”
From the above described levels of the nature of plants and its characteristics, a number of criteria,
characteristics, and principles for organic plant breeding and propagation techniques are listed by the
authors for exclusion: All breeding methods using chemicals or radiation, such as cholchicinizing or
gamma radiation induced mutants, all methods not allowing a full live cycle of the plant, all methods
manipulating the genome of the organisms etc.
Unfortunately, the authors completely miss the point that the structure and assembly of DNA has been
changed heavily over the decades and centuries of conventional breeding. Modern wheat in all variants
and traits used today – also by organic farmers – are a product of processes, where the intrinsic value of
the genomic naturalness has been completely ignored and any imaginable change has been successfully
integrated, from adding chromosome fragments to integrating foreign genomes and accepting radiation

34
mutation in the case of Triticum durum over a long period of time, also chromosome inversions,
translocations are well documented in most major crops. The reality is, whether we accept it for any kind
of definition, that most of the principles advocated by (Van Bueren & Struik, 2004, 2005; Van Bueren et
al., 2002; Van Bueren et al., 2003; Verhoog et al., 2003) are clearly violated by almost all existing modern
crop traits and cannot be redone, unless you could theoretically go back to the ancestral traits (which
have in most cases of the major crops not survived the centuries of classical breeding efforts). So, in
reality, the principle of the ‘intrinsic values of the plant genome’ is a fiction and not science based, and to
be clear: purely politically motivated as a very doubtful marketing argument.
The whole concept of violation of the intrinsic naturalness of the genome by inserting alien genes from
other species across the natural species barrier is also falsified by the occurrence of a naturally
transgenic grass: See the case discussed by (Ghatnekar et al., 2006) in chapter 6.2 paragraph 2). Have
also a look at David Tribes blog with an impressive list of natural transgenic crops and organisms:
http://gmopundit2.blogspot.com/2006/05/collected-links-and-summaries-on.html
It is also questionable to stress the overcoming of natural hybridization barriers by genetic engineering,
since this has been done by traditional breeding methods in former decades: Here the example of
Somatic hybridising (i.e. non-sexual fusion of two somatic cells). The advantage of this method is that by
the fusion of cells with different numbers of chromosomes (for instance different species of Solanum)
fertile products of the crossing can be obtained at once because diploid cells are being somatically fused.
Polyploid plants are obtained containing all the chromosomes of both parents instead of the usual half
set of chromosomes from each. For this, cells are required whose cell walls have been digested away by
means of enzymes and are only enclosed by a membrane, (these are then called protoplasts). With the
loss of their cell walls, protoplasts have also lost their typical shape and are spherical like egg cells. This
mixture of cells to be fused is then exposed to electric pulses. In order to get from the cell mixture the
‘right’ product of the fusion (since fusion of two cells from similar plants can also occur) one different
selectable character in each of the original plants is necessary. Only cells that survive this double
selection are genuine products of fusion. (The easiest way to achieve such selectable markers is by
genetic engineering, for instance by incorporating antibiotic resistance into the original plants.)
Protoplast fusion has been investigated and applied to potatoes, for instance. In the EU regulations
concerning the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the environment somatic
hybrids are not considered as GMO’s and do not require authorization. The most recent draft of the EU
organic regulations in which the introduction of GMO’s in organic cultivation is forbidden, follows the
above definition. (Karutz, 1999; Koop et al., 1996). Somatic hybrids have been experimentally achieved in
hundreds of cases, the publication list in the Web of Science reveals over 3500 references.
This basic insight of a molecular biologist has been confirmed by analysis of modern breeding processes
and their real products in crops, as an example here a comparison on the genomic level between
transgenic and non-transgenic wheat traits done by Shewry et al.: (Shewry et al., 2006):
“Whereas conventional plant breeding involves the selection of novel combinations of many thousands of genes, transgenesis
allows the production of lines which differ from the parental lines in the expression of only single or small numbers of genes.
Consequently it should in principle be easier to predict the effects of transgenes than to unravel the multiple differences which
exist between new, conventionally-produced cultivars and their parents. Nevertheless, there is considerable concern expressed by
consumers and regulatory authorities that the insertion of transgenes may result in unpredictable effects on the expression of

35
endogenous genes which could lead to the accumulation of allergens or toxins. This is because the sites of transgene insertion
are not known and transgenic plants produced using biolistics systems may contain multiple and rearranged transgene copies
(up to 15 in wheat) inserted at several loci which vary in location between lines (Barcelo et al., 2001; Rooke et al., 2003).
Similarly, this apparently random insertion has led to the suggestion that the expression of transgenes may be less stable than
that of endogenous genes between individual plants, between generations and between growth environments. Although there is
evidence that the expression of transgenes introduced by biolistic transformation is prone to silencing in a small proportion of
wheat (Anand et al., 2003; Howarth et al., 2005), many recent reviews including, (Altpeter et al., 2005; Jones, 2005; Kohli et al.,
2003; Sahrawat et al., 2003) demonstrate the utility of biolistics transformation (and other methods such as direct insertion of
DNA fragments as a basis for stable genetic manipulation.”
(Baker et al., 2006; Barcelo et al., 2001) are confirming the above statements – they could be extended to
other methods of transformation like direct insertion of DNA fragments (Paszkowski et al., 1984) and with
some questions about the long term stability also to the agrobacterium mediated transformations (Maghuly et
al., 2007). But what is really interesting us here is published and documented by (Baudo et al., 2006): Overall,
genome disturbances in traditional breeding in comparable cases are measured to be greater than in
transformation.
“Detailed global gene expression profiles have been obtained for a series of transgenic and conventionally bred wheat lines
expressing additional genes encoding HMW (high molecular weight) subunits of glutenin, a group of endosperm-specific seed
storage proteins known to determine dough strength and therefore bread-making quality. Differences in endosperm and leaf
transcriptome profiles between untransformed and derived transgenic lines were consistently extremely small, when analyzing
plants containing either transgenes only, or also marker genes. Differences observed in gene expression in the endosperm
between conventionally bred material were much larger in comparison to differences between transgenic and untransformed
lines exhibiting the same complements of gluten subunits. These results suggest that the presence of the transgenes did not
significantly alter gene expression and that, at this level of investigation, transgenic plants could be considered substantially
equivalent to untransformed parental lines.”
Further confirmings are coming from recent publications like (Batista et al., 2008; Shewry et al., 2007), they all
come to the conclusion, that at least certain transgenic crops show demonstrably less transscriptomic
disturbances than their non-transgenic counterparts.
(Miller & Conko, 2004) raise in a justified way doubts about the commonly used concept of transgenesis.
In the light of pre-recombinant DNA produced in great variety by conventional breeding with thousands
of foreign genes.
“In these examples of prerecombinant-DNA genetic improvement, breeders and food producers possess little knowledge of the
exact genetic changes that produced the useful trait, information about what other changes have occurred concomitantly in the
plant or data on the transfer of newly incorporated genes into animals, humans or microorganisms. Consider, for example, the
relatively new man-made wheat 'species' Triticum agropyrotriticum, which resulted from the wide-cross combination of the
genomes of bread wheat and a wild grass sometimes called quackgrass or couchgrass (Banks et al., 1993; Sinigovets, 1987) T.
agropyrotriticum, which possesses all the chromosomes of wheat as well as the entire genome of the quackgrass, was
independently produced for both animal feed and human food in the former Soviet Union, Canada, the United States, France,
Germany and China.”
See also the ASK-FORCE contributions on the web by K. Ammann 2009 3 and 4 on the same subject.
3 ASK-FORCE contribution K. Ammann 2009: is there really a difference between transgenic and non-transgenic crops
on the molecular level? http://www.efb-central.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/58/
4 ASK-FORCE contribution K. Ammann 2009: Regulation: Misconcepts cause high costs and huge delays in regulation of
GM crops: http://www.efb-central.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/59/

36
The consequences are, that organic farming – using the argument of artificial DNA breeding disturbance,
should decide for the transgenic crops in many cases. Another consequence is that transgenic crops of the
first generation should never have been subjected to regulation purely based on the processes involved,
rather it would have been wise to have in each case a close look at the products. In the case of the Golden
Rice this has serious ethical consequences, because each year lost to unreasonable and unscientific
regulation causes the death of hundreds of thousands of deaths due to severe deficiency in vitamin A,
especially among the children of developing countries of South Eastern Asia. In Europe this kind of
unscientific regulatory basis hinders the development of transgenic crop breeding for the benefit of a
more ecological production. And on top of this the organic farming industry does not shy away from false
and often hypocrite propaganda against genetically engineered crops for the sake of marketing their own
products. For a broader view on “organotransgenics” as a whole see (Ammann, 2008b; Ammann, 2009c;
Ammann & van Montagu, 2009).
7.2. Nature’s fields: ancient wild crop relatives grew often in
monodominant stands
Species and genetic diversity within any agricultural field will inevitably be more limited than in a natural
or semi-natural ecosystem. Surprisingly enough, many of the crops growing in farming systems all over
the world have traits of ancestral parents which lived originally in natural monocultures (Wood & Lenne,
2001). This is after all most probably the reason why our ancestral farmers chose those major crops.
There are many examples of natural monocultures, such as the classic stands of Kelp, Macrocystis
pyrifera, already analyzed by Darwin (Darwin, 1845), and more relevant to agriculture, it has now been
recognized by agro-ecologists that simple, monodominant vegetation exists throughout nature in a wide
variety of circumstances. Indeed, (Fedoroff & Cohen, 1999) reporting (Janzen, 1998, 1999) use the term
‘natural monocultures’ in analogy with crops. Such monodominant stands may be extensive. As one
example out of many, Harlan recorded that for the blue grama grass (Bouteloua gracilis): ‘stands are
often continuous and cover many thousands of square kilometers of the high plains of central USA.’ It is
of utmost importance for the sustainability of agriculture to determine how these extensive,
monodominant and natural grassland communities persist and when and if we might expect their
collapse. More examples are given in Wood & Lenne 1999 (Wood & Lenne, 1999), here we cite a few
more cases. Wild species: Picea abies, Spartina townsendii, Pteridium aquilinum, various species of
Bamboos, Arundinaria ssp, (Gagnon & Platt, 2008). Also the related Phragmites communis grow in large
monodominant stands, which contain large clones. They renew after some decades over seeds (just like
the large tropical Bamboos do in amazingly regular periods), this causes local temporary breakdowns of
the populations. Still other ancestral cultivars are cited extensively (Wood & Lenne, 2001). Sorghum, the
wild variety verticilliflorum is the widest distributed feral complex of the genus, with a broad climatic
plasticity, extending almost continuously east of 20° east longitude from the South African coast to 10°
north latitude. It overlaps along its northern and northwestern borders with variety aethiopicum and var.
arundinaceum, again hybridizing extensively. It grows over extensive areas of tall grass savannah in the
Sudan (Wood & Lenne, 2001). Typically enough, (Ayana et al., 2000) found a remarkably narrow genetic
basis for the variety verticilliflorum in their analysis. Wild rice: Oryza coarctata is reported in Bengal as
growing in simple, oligodiverse pioneer stands of temporarily flooded riverbanks (Prain, 1903); Harlan

37
ascribed Oryza (Harlan, 1989) to monodominant populations and illustrated harvests from dense stands
of wild rice in Africa (Oryza barthii, the progenitor of the African cultivated rice, Oryza glaberrima). Oryza
barthii was harvested wild on a massive scale and was a local staple crop across Africa from the
southern Sudan to the Atlantic. Grain yields of wild rice stands in Africa and Asia could exceed 0.6 tonnes
per hectare — an indication of the stand density of wild rice (Evans, 1998).
Botanists and plant collectors have repeatedly and emphatically noted the existence of dense stands of
wild relatives of wheat (Wood & Lenne, 2001). For example, in the Near East, massive stands of wild
wheats cover many square kilometers (Harlan, 1992). Wild einkorn (Triticum monococcum subsp.
boeoticum) in particular tends to form dense stands, and when harvested, its yields per square meter
often match those of cultivated wheats under traditional management (Hillmann, 1996). Wild Einkorn
occurs in massive stands as high as 2000 meters altitude in south-eastern Turkey and Iran (Harlan &
Zohary, 1966). Wild emmer (Triticum turgidum subsp. dicoccoides) grows in massive stands in the
northeast of Israel, as an annual component of the steppe-like herbaceous vegetation and in the
deciduous oak park forest belt of the Near East (Nevo, 1998). Wild wheat was also recorded to grow in
Turkey and Syria in natural, rather pure stands with a density of 300/ m² (Anderson, 1998).
7.3. Extreme plant population dynamics of agricultural systems
Agricultural ecosystems can be dynamic in terms of species diversity over time due to management
practices. This is often not understood by ecologists who involve themselves in biosafety issues related
to transgenics. They still think in ecosystem categories close (or seemingly close) to nature. Biodiversity
in agricultural settings can be considered to be important at a country level in areas where the
proportion of land allocated to agriculture is high: Ammann in (Wolfenbarger et al., 2004). This is the
case in continental Europe for example, where 45% of the land is dedicated to arable and permanent
crops or permanent pasture. In the UK, this figure is even higher, at 70%. Consequently, biodiversity has
been heavily influenced by man for centuries, and changes in agrobiological management will influence
biodiversity in such countries overall. Innovative thinking about how to enhance biodiversity in general,
coupled with bold action, is critical in dealing with the loss of biodiversity
Consequently, biodiversity has been heavily influenced by humans for centuries, and changes in
agrobiological management will influence biodiversity in such countries overall. Innovative thinking
about how to enhance biodiversity in general coupled with bold action is critical in dealing with the loss
of biodiversity. High potential to enhance biodiversity considerably can be seen on the level of regional
landscapes, as is proposed by (Dollaker, 2006; Dollaker & Rhodes, 2007), and with the help of remote
sensing methods it should be possible to plan for a much better biodiversity management in agriculture
(Mucher et al., 2000).
7.4. Agrobiodiversity and the food web of insects also show extreme
population dynamics
In a recent and notable paper Macfayden et al. 2009 (Macfadyen et al., 2009), were able to show in
extensive field studies, focusing on the food web and its ecosystem services, instead of using traditional
biodiversity descriptors, that things are a bit more complex than expected: Although organic farms

38
support greater levels of biodiversity on all three trophic levels, as shown in meta studies (Bengtsson et
al., 2005; Hole et al., 2005), these systems provide greater levels of natural pest control and therefore
also provide greater resistance towards the invasion of alien herbivores since more parasitoids are
attacking herbivores.. However they also predict (Macfadyen et al., 2009), as a consequence of higher
species richness, a lower connectance and therefore a lower robustness of organic farms to species loss
(Lafferty et al., 2008).
It is amazing to see that there are entomologists who wonder about the slightest detail in insect
population shifts and food-webs in order to satisfy their strife to find negative effects of transgenic crops
on non-target insects, they often forget some basics about experimentation. This has recently happened
again with a paper from lab entomologists (Lovei et al., 2009), which has been refuted justifiably on
multiple grounds by an important consortium (Shelton et al., 2009), here only one important reason
mentioned: Feeding experiments have been done in the past (Hilbeck et al., 1998a; Hilbeck et al., 1998b)
with low quality prey, but when you use healthy prey, the lacewings have a proven extremely high
tolerance for the Bt proteins (Dutton et al., 2002; Romeis et al., 2004). Given here as a typical
controversy on experimental details, some of the main influences are completely forgotten: Just imagine
the mass extinction effects which happen with certitude, if you change the cropping system, often from
year to year? Interestingly enough, there is literature on the detrimental effects of crop rotation against
pest insects (Landis et al., 2000), but it’s difficult to find field work data on non-target insects related to
crop rotation.
Agricultural ecosystems can be dynamic in terms of species diversity over time due to management
practices. This is often not understood by ecologists who involve themselves in biosafety issues related
to transgenics. They still think in ecosystem categories close (or seemingly close) to nature. Biodiversity
in agricultural settings can be considered to be important at a country level in areas where the
proportion of land allocated to agriculture is high: Ammann in (Wolfenbarger et al., 2004). This is the
case in continental Europe for example, where 45% of the land is dedicated to arable and permanent
crops or permanent pasture. In the UK, this figure is even higher, at 70%. Consequently, biodiversity has
been heavily influenced by man for centuries, and changes in agrobiological management will influence
biodiversity in such countries overall. Innovative thinking about how to enhance biodiversity in general,
coupled with bold action, is critical in dealing with the loss of biodiversity.
7.5. The case of organic farming
It is often assumed, that organic farming is automatically helping agrobiodiversity. But is it not that
simple. A comparison to conventional farming in Switzerland over 21 years has revealed positive effects
of organic farming: (Mader et al., 2000; Mader et al., 2002a; Widmer et al., 2006). Soil fertility, including
mycorrhiza data can be related positively to organic farming.
Fact is, that biodiversity depends on many elements, such as landscape, management etc. It is therefore
no surprise that biodiversity levels in a comparison between organic and conventional farming show a
mixed picture, as demonstrated by (Gabriel et al., 2010).

39
Fig. 17 Distribution of different measures describing farmland birds across organic and conventional farms in coldspot (black)
and hotspot (grey) landscapes. (g) Ordination of farmland bird species (black dots) and corvids (grey triangles). Means + SEM
per farm and survey, n = 190; number of: (a) farmland bird species, (b) farmland bird specialist species, (c) farmland bird
generalist species; (d) Shannon Index; (e) number of farmland birds excluding jackdaw and rook and (f) number of corvids
(jackdaw, rook, jay and magpie) per farm and survey. Geometric means are shown for abundance data. The effect of farm
management does not depend on which measure is used. See Appendix S1c for additional details. From (Gabriel et al., 2010)
The authors of the study conclude:
“Conservation management needs to target multiple spatial scales. To date, schemes have been focused on relatively fine scales,
because the land is managed at these scales. However, our results suggest that, for maximum effect, there is a need to manage
at a spatial scale beyond the farm. The challenge will be to find policy levers to encourage multiple farmers within a landscape to
adopt such schemes in concert, thereby creating landscape-level benefits. Our results also have implications beyond agricultural

40
land; wherever wild populations are managed, attention should be paid to the importance of the environment beyond the
immediate area of management because this could enhance or detract from the aims of the focal management itself.” (Gabriel
et al., 2010)
This view has been previously confirmed by (Weibull et al., 2000): The results show clearly, that it is not
conventional versus organic farming making the difference in butterfly diversity, it is the special
structure:
Fig. 18 a) A principal component analysis of butterfly species composition on 8 organic (circles) and 8 conventional (triangles)
farms. PC1 and PC2 together explain 48% of the variation in the data. PC1 is significantly correlated with large-scale
heterogeneity (r_0.626**) and PC2 is significantly correlated with small-scale heterogeneity (r_0.669**). (n_16). b) The scores
of the species included in the principal component analysis.
More in detail, the authors also discuss contradictory results: Our results suggest that variation in
landscape heterogeneity

41
“Our results suggest that variation in landscape heterogeneity is more important than the farming system for butterfly diversity
and abundance. The general opinion that organic farming enhances diversity is not necessarily true. It is an important conclusion
that landscape structure, but not always farming practices, has effects on diversity. Therefore farmers of all kinds should be
encouraged to increase the small-scale heterogeneity on their properties to enhance diversity. This can be done with rather
simple methods, such as leaving small habitat islands or strips within fields, increasing field margins and open up ditches where
possible.
Organic farms often have animals and therefore also a certain crop rotation and higher frequency of grazed areas which can be
important for species richness. For example, (Feber et al., 1997) found a higher butterfly abundance on organic farms compared
with conventional farms and suggested that a higher frequency of clover leys on organic farms explained this pattern. In our
study we had taken this variation in account when pairing the farms, which might explain why our results are not consistent with
those of (Feber et al., 1997).”
On the other hand, yield is still on the negative side in organic farming, as the same DOC 21-year tests in
Switzerland have revealed:
Fig. 18 Yield of winter wheat, potatoes, and grass-clover in the farming systems of the DOK trial. Values are means of six
years for winter wheat and grass-clover and three years for potatoes per crop rotation period. Bars represent least signiÞcant
differences (P , 0.05).. From (Mader et al., 2002b)

42
The conclusions of the author of this study is tending towards making peace between the various parties
of farming management: In order to get out the best possible solutions, always adapted to local
condictions, should be an optimal mixture from organic to industrial farming including all methods of
modern technology, from better community and landcape structure analysis over enhanced recycling
methods to conservation tilling and – last but not least, include modern breeding methods. The author
can imagine that some of the transgenic crops (mainly insect resistance and stress resistance events)
should be included into ecological and even organic farming. (Ammann, 2009c; Ammann & van Montagu,
2009; Miller et al., 2008)
8. Selected proposals for improving high technology agriculture
related to biodiversity
8.1. Biodiversity and the management of agricultural landscapes
High potential to enhance biodiversity considerably can be seen on the level of regional landscapes
(Dollaker, 2006; Dollaker & Rhodes, 2007), and with the help of remote sensing methods it should be
possible to plan for much better biodiversity management in agriculture (Mucher et al., 2000). This is
also a good point for organic farming in marginal regions like the Norwegian Sognefjord. An analysis has
shown the positive influence of small scale organic farming in this region (Clemetsen & van Laar, 2000b).
Some of the more important papers demonstrate the intensive research activities on the relationship
between landscapes and biodiversity (Belfrage et al., 2005; Boutin et al., 2008; Clemetsen & van Laar,
2000a; Filser et al., 2002; Hendriks et al., 2000; Jan Stobbelaar & van Mansvelt, 2000; Kuiper, 2000;
MacNaeidhe & Culleton, 2000; Norton et al., 2009; Rossi & Nota, 2000; Schellhorn et al., 2008;
Stobbelaar et al., 2000). (Bawa et al., 2007; Brush & Perales, 2007; Bryan et al., 2007; Harrop, 2007;
Heywood et al., 2007; Jackson et al., 2007a; Jackson et al., 2007b; Pascual & Perrings, 2007) all advocate
the many ingenious agricultural systems that have shaped novel, resilient landscapes for centuries and in
so doing have also sustained high levels of biodiversity. These authors of a special volume for Diversitas
also critizise intensification of agriculture with the sole target of enhancing production, and want to go
back to traditional management. Unfortunately, traditional agricultural systems are no more compatible
with the today’s demand for higher yield and economic incentives. It is therefore essential, to search for
innovative combinations of landscape management focusing on biodiversity and modern agriculture.
Organotransgenic strategies have been analyzed in detail and combinations are possible (Ammann,
2008b; Ammann, 2009c; Ammann & van Montagu, 2009). A bibliography, containing a total of over 300
papers dealing with the impact of ecological agriculture on landscapes and vice versa can be found in
(Ammann, 2009a). There is a lot of potential in restructuring landscape in regions with a high yielding
industrial agricultural production. In a thoughtful multivariate scheme Benton et al. (Benton et al., 2003)
show the highly complex interactions between farmland activities and the diversity of bird species:

43
Fig. 19 The multivariate and interacting nature of farming practices and some of the routes by which farming practice
impacts on farmland birds. Arrows indicate known routes by which farming practices (green boxes) indirectly (dark-blue
boxes) or directly (light-blue boxes) affect farmland bird demography (yellow boxes), and therefore local population
dynamics (orange boxes) and finally total population size (red box). The goal of manipulating farming practice is to impact on
population size. Rather than identifying key routes through this web to change in a piece-wise fashion (e.g. insecticide usage),
we suggest that management designed to increase habitat heterogeneity is likely to benefit the organisms in such a way as to
meet the management goals. The rate at which the birds will feed is determined both by the amount of food (abundance)
and its accessibility (access) within the habitat. From (Benton et al., 2003).
Now that many of the biodiversity myths related to agriculture are clarified, it is becoming obvious, that
one of the priorities in fostering biodiversity in agriculture, is to take better care of the landscape
structure, and this is where high tech agriculture can learn from organic and integrated farming. But
there are also other ways and means to cope up with the demand of enhancing biodiversity in high tech
agriculture.
8.2. More biodiversity through mixed cropping
Mixed cropping systems have been proposed for a variety of agricultural management systems. The
bibliography coming from the Web of Science reach nearly 300 items and many papers offer a wide
variety of options. There is no reason, why modern cropping system with industrial automation could not
cope up with some specific mixed cropping systems. Mixed cropping offers advantages in pest
management and soil fertility (Wolfe, 2000; Zhu et al., 2000; Zhu et al., 2003), but also is subject to
limitations, such as the fight against the maize stem borer (Songa et al., 2007), still, under low pest
pressure a system of maize-bean intercropping in Ethiopia seems to be successful (Belay et al., 2009).

44
A recent publication confirmed the positive effects: A combination of enhanced AMF (Arbuscular
Mycorrhizal Fungi), , EF (Earth Worm data), and mixed cropping increased the yield, mycorrhizal
colonization rate, SMB (soil microbial biomass), and nitrogen uptake of the clover plants, confirming the
positive effects of diversity on an agro-ecosystem (Zarea et al., 2009). Positive results are also reported
from Pakistan: A pot experiment was conducted to study the effect of mixed cropping of wheat and
chickpea on their growth and nodulation in chickpea (Gill et al., 2009). But there are also limits to mixed
cropping provided you mix crops within the same field without any separation. (Paulsen, 2007) worked
on such intricate mixtures with peas, wheat, lupins, false flax and demonstrated serious problems with
reduced yield, those systems need further development.
8.3. On the wish list: more crop diversity, foster orphan crop species.
Another important aspect has been covered by the recently published book of Gressel (Gressel, 2007)
with an interesting theme: a proactive review on orphan crops, their present day deficiencies (the ‘glass
ceiling’ and how biotechnology methods could greatly enhance them, so that they could be
commercialized in a more competitive way in future. It is especially fascinating to see how the author
blends modern molecular biology with a deep insight into agriculture and its forgotten crops. This is an
important boundary line, where organic/ecological farming can meet with modern biotechnology and
create considerable synergy. Even within crops with a seemingly low reputation like the herbicide
tolerant soybeans regarding diversity, trends are positive, as a report from Iowa shows (Tylka, 2002):
Recently there are over 700 nematode resistant soybean traits registered, the majority of them herbicide
tolerant.
8.4. Varietal mixture of genes and seeds
Also on a micro scale of seed production, biodiversity could play a new role. Precision Biotechnology
could also mean a combination of resistance genes, done either through gene stacking (Gressel et al.,
2007; Lozovaya et al., 2007; Taverniers et al., 2008) or by taking up the idea of artificial gene clusters
(Thomson et al., 2002). This has been the accepted strategy up to now.
But this goal of introducing more biodiversity in the fields could be achieved in a much simpler way.
Other than complex gene-stacking it would be easier to create a seed mix in which each seed contains a
single resistance, and the appropriate mixture could be adapted to the local pest situation. This would
considerably lower selection pressure (Ammann, 1999) and would create a situation, which comes closer
to nature, where we encounter many genomes within a square mile and dozens of different resistance
genes. Varietal mixtures have been proposed by several authors (Gold et al., 1989, 1990; Murphy et al.,
2007; Smithson & Lenne, 1996).
8.5. More biodiversity in the food web including non-target insects by
reducing pesticide use with transgenic crops and other strategies
If we refrain from heavy pesticide use, beneficial insects will come back – as they do in Bt maize fields,
(Candolfi et al., 2004; Marvier et al., 2007; Naranjo, 2009; Wolfenbarger et al., 2008) and adapt to
GMO’s. More comments on biodiversity and the advantageous use of biotechnology in agriculture are
published in the reviews by (Ammann, 2004a, 2005, 2007a, 2008a, 2009b; Ammann et al., 2005).

45
Much has been written on agricultural biodiversity; foremost the book of Wood & Lenne (Wood &
Lenne, 1999) should be mentioned here, a refreshing mix of modern agriculture and independent views
on biodiversity. Each chapter, written by some of the best experts in the field, deserves to be taken up in
the future debate on agriculture and biodiversity. The chapter on traditional management written by
(Thurston et al., 1999) provides a very enlightening summary. Of course those management details have
to be carefully selected for modern agriculture and where necessary also to be adapted. As a catalogue
of ideas the tables in this article serve well.
There are also comparative data available on long term development, with organic and conventional
agriculture. The results show positive trends towards more biodiversity, when conventional farms are
converted into organic farms, but the influence of local management habits and also a changing
landscape are very important (Taylor & Morecroft, 2009) and high technology farming could again learn.
See the final chapter on case studies for more details.
8.6. Push- and pull strategy for reducing pest damage in maize fields.
The ‘push–pull’ or ‘stimulo-deterrent diversionary’ strategy is established by exploiting semiochemicals
to repel insect pests from the crop (‘push’) and to attract them into trap crops like Desmodium spp.
which can at the same time produce with bacterial nodules a nitrogen fertilizer effect. (Hassanali et al.,
2008). Results of this field trial demonstrate higher maize yield when applying the push- and pull
strategy, when compared with conventional maize cultures in Africa. It would be more interesting and
convincing to see a field trial with a comparison to Bt maize.
8.7. Plant breeding revisited
8.7.1 New biotechnology approaches in plant breeding
In an early paper, Britt et al. give an overview on many molecular possibilities which will develop for new
breeding successes (Britt & May, 2003), they address the current status of plant gene targeting and what is
known about the associated plant DNA repair mechanisms. One of the greatest hurdle that plant biologists face
in assigning gene function and in crop improvement is the lack of efficient and robust technologies to
generate gene replacements or targeted gene knockouts. It seems to be clear that transgenesis will
remain a solid technology for breeding, but new approaches will appear – as science is always open for
progress and new breakthroughs. There are many new biotechnologies enhancing the speed of achieving
targeted breeding successes such as (Wittenberg et al., 2005) with the high throughput marker finding
technology, only a few can be mentioned here:
8.7.1.1. Cis- and Intragenic approaches
A new technology has now proven to be a successful strategy: As Romments describe it, cisgenetics is a
welcome way of combining the benefits of traditional breeding with modern biotechnology. It is an

46
understandable enthusiasm of the first researchers using this technology to emphasize the positive sides
by also comparing to transgenesis as an ‘old-fashioned’ method with its problems. But things are
certainly not so easy: In chapter 7.1. it is made clear that on the genomic level, particularly on the level
of molecular processes, there is no difference between transgenic and non-transgenic crops (supported
by an important body of scientific literature), and this is certainly also true to cisgenic and intragenic
varieties. This is why it is questionable and based on false grounds to make claims that those new
methods in transformation would be safer, as Giddings has made it clear in his letter (Giddings, 2006),
and his arguments against the the views of (Schouten & Jacobsen, 2007; Schouten et al., 2006a;
Schouten et al., 2006b) and later publications (Conner et al., 2007; Jacobsen & Nataraja, 2008; Jacobsen
& Schouten, 2007) could have been targeted as well: they try to demonstrate that the new cisgenics and
intragenics are safer than transgenics, which is not based on any facts, rather it is based on accepting
without scientific scrutiny the negative public perception on transgenic crops. It is also wrong to use
without clarification the term “alien genes” in view of confirmed and widely accepted universality of
DNA and genomic structures.
However, there is nothing to say against the application of such new methods per se, as (Jacobsen &
Nataraja, 2008; Jacobsen & Schouten, 2007) can demonstrate:
“The classical methods of alien gene transfer by traditional breeding yielded fruitful results. However, modern varieties demand
a growing number of combined traits, for which pre-breeding methods with wild species are often needed. Introgression and
translocation breeding require time consuming backcrosses and simultaneous selection steps to overcome linkage drag. Breeding
of crops using the traditional sources of genetic variation by cisgenesis can speed up the whole process dramatically, along with
usage of existing promising varieties. This is specifically the case with complex (allo)polyploids and with heterozygous, vegetative
propagated crops. Therefore, we believe that cisgenesis is the basis of the second/ever green revolution needed in traditional
plant breeding. For this goal to be achieved, exemption of the GM-regulation of cisgenes is needed.”
8.7.1.3. Reverse screening methods: tilling and eco-tilling
Two rather independent publications (Parry et al., 2009; Rigola et al., 2009) with largely incongruent
literature lists promote a new technology of finding useful genes within the genome of the crops
involved: They both promote powerful reverse genetic strategies that allow the detection of induced
point mutations in individuals of the mutagenized populations can address the major challenge of linking
sequence information to the biological function of genes and can also identify novel variation for plant
breeding (Parry et al., 2009). (Rigola et al., 2009) develop reverse genetics approaches which rely on the
detection of sequence alterations in target genes to identify allelic variants among mutant or natural
populations. Current (pre-) screening methods such as tilling and eco-tilling are based on the detection
of single base mismatches in heteroduplexes using endonucleases such as CEL 1. However, there are
drawbacks in the use of endonucleases due to their relatively poor cleavage efficiency and exonuclease
activity. Moreover, prescreening methods do not reveal information about the nature of sequence
changes and their possible impact on gene function. (Rigola et al., 2009) present a KeyPointTM
technology, a high-throughput mutation/polymorphism discovery technique based on massive parallel
sequencing of target genes amplified from mutant or natural populations. Thus KeyPoint combines
multidimensional pooling of large numbers of individual DNA samples and the use of sample
identification tags (‘‘sample barcoding’’) with next-generation sequencing technology. (Rigola et al.,
2009) can demonstrate first successes in tomato breeding by identifying two mutants in the tomato
eIF4E gene based on screening more than 3000 M2 families in a single GS FLX sequencing run, and
discovery of six haplotypes of tomato eIF4E gene by re-sequencing three amplicons in a subset of 92
tomato lines from the EU-SOL core collection. This technology will prove to be useful and does not need
for its own breakthrough to refer to a scientifically unjustified critique of transgenesis. Whether the new

technology will replace the transgenic ‘Amflora potato’ has still to be proven by further scrutinizing of
the results of the equivalent trait (Davies et al., 2008).
47
8.7.1.4. Zinc finger targeted insertion of transgenes
Plant breeding has gone through dynamic developments, from marker assisted breeding to transgenesis
with steadily improved methods to the latest development of the Zink finger enzyme assisted targeted
insertion of transgenes in complex organisms (Cai et al., 2009; Shukla et al., 2009; Townsend et al.,
2009). The development is so rapid, that it is necessary here to make some additional remarks related to
the paragraph in the first of the articles dealing with the topic of organo-transgenesis (Ammann, 2008b):
According to the descriptions of the new technology, it will be even more difficult for the breeders of
new organic crops to refuse Zink finger transgenesis, since it is very likely that the transcriptomic
disturbances will be even smaller in future – compared to the clumsy and tedious methods of
conventional breeding.
8.7.1.5. Synthetic biology
In some 150 laboratories, synthetic biology is intensively researched, and it seems clear that the future
will bring here some unexpected revolutions: A new field, synthetic biology, is emerging on the basis of
these experiments (Benner, 2004), where chemistry mimics biological processes as complicated as
Darwinian evolution. According to (Tian et al., 2009) the emerging field of synthetic biology is generating
insatiable demands for synthetic genes, which far exceed existing gene synthesis capabilities. Tian et al.
claim that technologies and trends potentially will lead to breakthroughs in the development of
accurate, low-cost and high-throughput gene synthesis technology - the capability of generating
unlimited supplies of DNA molecules of any sequence or size will transform biomedical and any
biotechnology research in the near future. And, according to (Benner et al., 1998), already in 1998 the
redesigning of nucleic acids has been judged in an optimistic way, this was confirmed in an important
Nature review in 2005 (Benner & Sismour, 2005).
The real breakthrough came with the synthesis of an organism including its reproduction, achieved after
years of research and a firm belief in success, typical for the senior author of the mega-project still
continuing: (Gibson et al., 2008a; Gibson et al., 2008b; Gibson et al., 2010; Rusch et al., 2007).
A pragmatic view of a new regulatory scheme answering to the new biosafety tasks of synthetic biology
is proposed by (Bugl et al., 2007):

48
Fig. 190 Our framework calls for the immediate and systematic implementation of a tiered DNA synthesis order screening
process. To promote and establish accountability, individuals who place orders for DNA synthesis would be required to
identify themselves, their home organization and all relevant biosafety information. Next, individual companies would use
validated software tools to check synthesis orders against a set of select agents or sequences to help ensure regulatory
compliance and flag synthesis orders for further review. Finally, DNA synthesis and synthetic biology companies would work
together through the ICPS, and interface with appropriate government agencies (worldwide), to rapidly and continually
improve the underlying technologies used to screen orders and identify potentially dangerous sequences, as well as develop
a clearly defined process to report behavior that falls outside of agreed-upon guidelines. ICPS, International Consortium for
Polynucleotide Synthesis. From (Bugl et al., 2007)
This kind of new regulatory approach will be necessary in order to avoid unnecessary hindering of
research progress in synthetic biology, a demand supported with other innovative suggestions for
interactive procedures (Maurer et al., 2006). Another balanced view (Serrano, 2007) demonstrates also
the new risks arising from synthetic organisms and the accidental (or purposeful) release in the
environment. As always, the ethical awareness and behavior has to be developed further, agreeing with
(Edmond & Mercer, 2009) not in a way which gives forfeit power to social sciences. What we really need
is a new interfacultary, interdisciplinary or even better transdisciplinary discursive scheme as proposed
in chapters 5.2 and 5.3. of Ask-Force blog on the debate strategy (Ammann, 2010).
It should be a warning, what happened some 35 years ago in the US National Institute of Health with the
words of Henry I. Miller 5 :
“Thirty-five years ago, the US National Institutes of Health adopted overly riskaverse guidelines for research using recombinant
DNA, or “genetic engineering,” techniques. Those guidelines, based on what has proved to be an idiosyncratic and largely invalid
5 Henry I. Miller: Understanding the Frankenstein Tradition 2010: http://www.ask-force.org/web/Synthetic/Miller-Understanding-
Frankenstein-20101103.pdf

set of assumptions, sent a powerful message that scientists and the federal government were taking seriously speculative,
exaggerated risk scenarios – a message that has afflicted the technology’s development worldwide ever since.”
49
8.7.2. Improvement of conventional breeding
For sure there is also value in the development of conventional breeding methodologies for organic (and
non-organic) crops. It is obvious, that also high technology breeding of new crops can learn from the
newly developed organic breeding strategies:
In a recent and comprehensive paper, a consortium lead by Wolfe (Wolfe et al., 2008) give an account on
breeding crops for organic farming. Many of the characteristics required in new varieties are common to both
conventional and organic agriculture, but there are also a number of breeding targets, mostly of complex
nature, that must have a higher priority in organic farming. Characters that are important for the farming
system and the crop rotation, weed competition and adaptation to arbuscular mycorrhizas for instance have a
higher priority. To rationalize the long enduring selection process, it is necessary to focus on simultaneous
selection processes such as weed competition, nutrient uptake and disease/pest resistance. It seems, that the
trend to ban any kind of in vitro breeding technology is unfortunately growing and therefore it is anticipated,
that banning even marker assisted breeding will deprive the organic community from modern and very
efficient tools to achieve the genomic breeding goals. This way, the slowdown process cannot be stopped, it
will be very difficult to reach the urgent need of better yield, and the difficulties will grow with the need to
cope with a considerably higher diversity of environmental factors, which does not favour centralized breeding.
The real force of breeding for organic crops comes from the strong link to social structures, as promoted by a
variety of breeding programs, such as the ones on Sorghum in Western Africa by researchers from
Wageningen (Slingerland et al., 2003; Slingerland et al., 2006), explicitly enforcing participative working
strategies including traditional knowledge. These thoughts and strategies could well also be taken up by
breeding programs using unrestrained all modern DNA related manipulation methods.
8.8. New ways of using biotechnology for enhancing natural resistance
With the pioneering work of Métraux, Boller and Turlings in the mid eighties and early ninties (Metraux
& Boller, 1986; Metraux et al., 1990; Turlings et al., 1989) the Systemic Acquired Resistance got some
interest: They found that salicylic acid was functioning as internal signal for triggering systemic acquired
resistance (Dangl & Jones, 2001; Metraux et al., 2002). There is potential for such strategies for fighting
off pests by employing mechanisms close to nature.
In 1996, a maize (E)-beta-caryophyllene synthase has been discovered (Jackson, 1996) implicated in
indirect defense responses against herbivores. This defense substance is no more expressed in most
American maize varieties, but there is a possibility to restore the defense by genetic engineering
(Degenhardt et al., 2009; Kollner et al., 2008; Rostas & Turlings, 2008) – another promising pathway in
modern breeding.

50
8.9. Final remarks on the improvement list related to biodiversity
This cannot be the place to give a comprehensive list of possible improvements which are compatible
with high technology agriculture. This would fill dozens of pages and could also well be the intellectual
engine for a long term research program – and it is rewarding to see that major organizations are active
in this field, such as CGIAR, IFPRI etc., including some leading universities such as Cornell, Wageningen,
Hohenheim, Davis etc. etc. Rather, the reader is referred to some books having been written with the
purpose to improve agricultural biodiversity – most of the chapters cited below do not envisage
improving high technology agriculture per se, rather most of the authors see themselves in opposition to
it. In the eyes of the author this is at least questionable, and it would be much more fruitful to find
opportunities for collaboration and create synergy.
There are a number of books, reports and numerous peer reviewed journal articles which deal with all
aspects of ecological agriculture. The authors come with proposals on how to enhance sustainability,
how to preserve biodiversity and what can be done so that traditional knowledge with all its treasures
does not vanish. There are a majority of authors who really do not lose the focus of the developing world
and its dramatic problems, but they avoid topics like modern breeding etc. (Altieri & Nicholls, 2004;
Altieri, 2002; Scherr & McNeely, 2007; Thurston, 1991). Scherr et al. and in particular also Wood &
Lenne (Wood & Lenne, 1999) offer highly interesting chapters on the science and practice of
ecoagriculture. It is impressive for the reader to learn about various schemes of integrated farming
systems, and some are really integrative and especially strong on the side of analyzing social dynamics,
history and economy, topics sometimes forgotten by conservationists and certainly by proponents of
high technology agriculture. On the other hand it is striking to see, with a few notable exceptions, that
modern breeding technology and in most cases also high technology management methods like remote
sensing, GIS supported systems are often only briefly mentioned. In Scherr & McNeely (Scherr &
McNeely, 2007) even a meticulous search does not reveal a single sentence on genetically engineered
crops, the otherwise extensive keyword index does not contain such words. On the other hand, it is
rewarding to see in the same book a treatment on remote sensing (Dushku et al., 2007), stating that this
is an important instrument in the landscape planning of ecoagriculture (GIS-based decision support).
Nevertheless, the scarcity of such treatments provokes the serious question about bias against modern
agricultural technology. The same can be said from the IAASTD report. In a rebuttal to a letter to Science
(Mitchell, 2008) attacking the views of Fedoroff (Fedoroff, 2008), the author (Ammann, 2008c)
commented about the IAASDD report (IAASTD http://www.agassessment.org/ 2007):
“Mitchell referred to the IAASTD report to degrade the importance of transgenic crops, but this report does not meet scientific
review standards and comes to questionable negative conclusions about biotechnology in agriculture: “Information [about GM
crops] can be anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty on benefits and harms is unavoidable.” Such biased judgment ignores
thousands of high quality science papers; it is not surprising that most renowned experts left the IAASTD panel before the final
report was published”.
The good thing about all those cited publications on ecoagriculture is to see with an open mind, that
transgenic crops and all high technology practices, even the first generation transgenic crops, could very
well fit into ecoagriculture and, vice versa, that ecoagricultural strategies could very well be introduced
into high tech agriculture. The possible positive role of biotechnology related to ecology and
conservation has been stated as early as 1996 (Bull, 1996). It is fact which has been repetitiously stated

51
with solid justification: The present day transgenic crops commercialized are not inherently scale
dependent, which means, they can, with some adaptation in the management, very well be integrated in
small scale farming – which has been shown with success in India and China with Bt cotton (Gruere
Guillaume P. et al., 2008; Herring, 2008; Vitale et al., 2008).
9. Interlude: the role of fundamentalist activists and scientists with a
strong anti-GMO agenda in the dispute about GM crops
New technologies always cause in the introductory phase some concern, even anxiety among the
population. Some nice examples from past technology introduction phases are summarized in
“Hystories” (Showalter, 1997), the present situation is probably best analyzed by (Taverne, 2005b) and
his latest book on the “March of Unreason” (Taverne, 2005a). It is also devastating to see, that
development of modern breeding is hindered dramatically in Africa (Paarlberg, 2000), and it is one of the
perpetuating myths that the multinational companies are taking over in developing countries – on the
contrary, it’s the public research which is dominant to 85% according to FAO statistics (Dhlamini et al.,
2005) and (Cohen, 2005). The statistics of ISAAA show that the trend in developing countries is very
positive http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/37/executivesummary/default.html
Contrary to this constant positive trend in the development and spread of GM crops there is a
widespread activity existing of various kinds of anti-GMO activists, here just a very few typical examples:
There are four main lines of resistance working frantically to reverse these positive trends:
� Scientists who publish questionable or simply flawed papers, based usually on lab protocols
which do not fit to international standards, such as Irina Ermakova’s rat experiments (Marshall,
2007), for more details go to the ASK-FORCE of PRRI:
http://pubresreg.org/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=27&topic=13.0
� Activist websites like the ones of Greenpeace, producing lots of scaremonger material such as
the hoax of the 1600 dead sheep in India which allegedly have eaten leaves of Bt cotton and died
afterwards, a story which has been perpetuated on the websites, despite scientific evidence that
the sheep died from infections. Full details on the ASK-FORCE blog of the European Federation of
Biotechnology http://www.efb-central.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/13/
� Lay people like Jeffrey Smith, a long time ardent member of the Maharishi cult and fanatic anti-
GMO author: He publicly claimed there were 500 studies proving that yogic flying and
transcendental meditation cut crime and increased IQ. His latest book is proof of the contrary:
scare stories in a professional layout, with very little verifiable facts but written in a brilliant style
in the mode: Throw plenty of dirt and some will be sure to stick. (Smith, 2007). An excellent
documentation of many of those myths against GM crops has recently been published by Peggy
Lemaux (Lemaux, 2008), getting some excellent science into the debate.

52
� The most problematic publications stem from scientists who filter facts, give a one-sided picture
by omitting crucial data, but per se come with reproducible results and manage to get them
published in peer reviewed journals, a typical example comes from a member of GENOEK from
Tromsoe in Norway, a group pretending to have a holistic view in contrast to most pro-GMO
scientists, but actually just do the exact contrary: Ann Myhre published a paper demonstrating
that the 35S promoter so often used to enhance transgene expression, shows some activity in
cultures of human cells. This is – per se – a scary story, but in her paper (Myhre et al., 2006) she
and her co-authors carefully avoid to tell the reader that the very same promoter is eaten daily
in quantities by those who relish vegetables of Brassicaceae. More details see in the ASK-FORCE
text on the critical review of (Dona & Arvanitoyannis, 2009) under
http://www.pubresreg.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=70
10. Two case studies on the impact of transgenic crops on biodiversity
and health
The two case studies are just samples of an intensive biosafety research with thousands of peer
reviewed publications, and the positive results from it are well documented. Worldwide, there has not
been a single incident of negative, permanent impact of GM crops, published in a peer reviewed journal,
which caused real problems in environment and food.
10.1. The case of herbicide tolerant crops, Application of Conservation
Tillage easier with herbicide tolerant crops
The soil in a given geographical area has played an important role in determining agricultural practices since
the time of the origin of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East. Soil is a precious and finite
resource. Soil composition, texture, nutrient levels, acidity, alkalinity and salinity are all determinants of
productivity. Agricultural practices can lead to soil degradation and the loss in the ability of a soil to produce
crops. Examples of soil degradation include erosion, salinization, nutrient loss and biological deterioration. It
has been estimated that 67% of the world’s agricultural soils have been degraded (World Resources Institute,
2000).
It may also be worth noting that soil fertility is a renewable resource and soil fertility can often be restored
within several years of careful crop management.
In many parts of the developed and the developing world tillage of soil is still an essential tool for the control of
weeds.
Unfortunately, tillage practices can lead to soil degradation by causing erosion, reducing soil quality and
harming biological diversity. Tillage systems can be classified according to how much crop residue is left on the
soil surface (Fawcett et al., 1994; Fawcett & Towery, 2002; Trewavas, 2001; Trewawas, 2003). Conservation
tillage is defined as “any tillage and planting system that covers more than 30% of the soil surface with crop
residue, after planting, to reduce soil erosion by water” (Fawcett & Towery, 2002). The value of reducing tillage
was long recognized but the level of weed control a farmer required was viewed as a deterrent for adopting
conservation tillage. Once effective herbicides were introduced in the latter half of the 20 th century, farmers
were able to reduce their dependence on tillage. The development of crop varieties tolerant to herbicides has

53
provided new tools and practices for controlling weeds and has accelerated the adoption of conservation
tillage practices and accelerated the adoption of “no-till” practices (Fawcett & Towery, 2002). Herbicide
tolerant cotton has been rapidly adopted since its introduction in (Fawcett et al., 1994). In the US, 80% of
growers are making fewer tillage passes and 75% are leaving more crop residue (Cotton Council, 2003). In a
farmer survey, seventy-one percent of the growers responded that herbicide tolerant cotton had the greatest
impact on soil fertility related to the adoption of reduced tillage or no-till practices (Cotton Council, 2003). In
soybean, the growers of glyphosate tolerant soybean plant higher percentage of their acreage using no-till or
reduced tillage practices than growers of conventional soybeans (American Soybean Association, 2001). Fiftyeight
percent of gyphosate-tolerant soybean adopters reported making fewer tillage passes versus five years
ago compared to only 20% of non-glyphosate tolerant soybean users (American Soybean Association, 2001).
Fifty four percent of growers cited the introduction of glyphosate tolerant soybeans as the factor which had
the greatest impact toward the adoption of reduced tillage or no-till (American Soybean Association, 2001).
Today, the scientific literature on “no-tillage” and “conservation tillage” has grown on more than 6500
references, a selection of some 1200 references from the last three years are given in the following link:
http://www.ask-force.ch/web/Tillage/Bibliography-No-conservation-Tillage-2006-20080626.pdf
Several important reviews have been published in recent months, the all tell a positive story regarding the
overall impact of herbicide tolerant crops and the impact on the agricultural environment:
Here just a few examples and statement:
(Bonny, 2008): In a comprehensive review Bonny describes the unprecedented success of the introduction of
transgenic Soybean in the United States.
It is worthwhile to show one of the graphs about the statistics of glyphosate use, thus correcting some of the
legends spread by opponents, sometimes coming in seemingly sturdy statistics like those of (Benbrook, 2004)
stating that the herbicide and pesticide use has grown ever since the introduction of transgenic crops. But a
closer, more differentiated look reveals this to be an “urban legend”: (Carpenter & Gianessi, 2000).

54
Fig. 21 Main herbicides used on total soybean acreage, 1990-2006 (as % of soybean surface treated by each herbicide) (From
USDA NASS, 1991-2007). With the development of glyphosate-tolerant soybean, this herbicide is used far more extensively.
Indeed, it replaces the herbicides used previously; the Figure shows only a few of the latter. From (Bonny, 2008):
“A comparison of transgenic versus conventional soybean reveals that transgenic glyphosate-tolerant soybean allows both the
simplification of weed control and greater work flexibility. Cropping transgenic soybean also fits well with conservation tillage.
Transgenic soybean has an economic margin similar to conventional soybean, despite a higher seed cost. The next section
describes the evolution of the use of herbicides with transgenic soybean, and some issues linked to the rapid increase in the use
of glyphosate. At the beginning a smaller amount of herbicides was used, but this amount increased from 2002, though not
steadily. Nonetheless, the environmental and toxicological impacts of pesticides do not only depend on the amounts applied.
They also depend on the conditions of use and the levels of toxicity and ecotoxicity. The levels of ecotoxicity seem to have
somewhat decreased. The success of transgenic soybeans for farmers has led to a higher use of glyphosate as a replacement for
other herbicides, which has in turn led to a decline in its effectiveness. However, the issue here is not only genetic engineering in
itself, but rather the management and governance of this innovation.”
(Cerdeira et al., 2007) also emphasize the benefits, despite some green propaganda from Brazil and Argentina,
but point also to some potential problems with the evolution of glyphosate resistant weeds:
“Transgenic glyphosate-resistant soybeans (GRS) have been commercialized and grown extensively in the Western Hemisphere,
including Brazil. Worldwide, several studies have shown that previous and potential effects of glyphosate on contamination of
soil, water, and air are minimal, compared to those caused by the herbicides that they replace when GRS are adopted. In the USA
and Argentina, the advent of glyphosate-resistant soybeans resulted in a significant shift to reduced- and no-tillage practices,
thereby significantly reducing environmental degradation by agriculture. Similar shifts in tillage practiced with GRS might be
expected in Brazil. Transgenes encoding glyphosate resistance in soybeans are highly unlikely to be a risk to wild plant species in
Brazil. Soybean is almost completely self-pollinated and is a non-native species in Brazil, without wild relatives, making
introgression of transgenes from GRS virtually impossible. Probably the highest agricultural risk in adopting GRS in Brazil is
related to weed resistance. Weed species in GRS fields have shifted in Brazil to those that can more successfully withstand
glyphosate or to those that avoid the time of its application. These include Chamaesyce hirta (erva-de-Santa-Luzia), Commelina
benghalensis (trapoeraba), Spermacoce latifolia (erva-quente), Richardia brasiliensis (poaia-branca), and Ipomoea spp. (cordade-viola).
Four weed species, Conyza bonariensis, Conyza canadensis (buva), Lolium multiflorum (azevem), and Euphorbia
heterophylla (amendoim bravo), have evolved resistance to glyphosate in GRS in Brazil and have great potential to become
problems.”
These findings are also published in an earlier study with a worldwide scope looking at the herbicide tolerant
crops of the Western Hemisphere by some of the same authors (Cerdeira & Duke, 2006) with the same
outcome as above. A summary on glyphosate tolerant crops is also published in (Ammann, 2004b; Ammann,
2005).
More pertinent review papers on soil erosion and other agronomic parameters have been published in
relationship with the new agricultural management of herbicide tolerant weeds:
(Anderson, 2007; Bernoux et al., 2006; Beyer et al., 2006; Bolliger et al., 2006; Causarano et al., 2006; Chauhan
et al., 2006; Etchevers et al., 2006; Gulvik, 2007; Knapen et al., 2007; Knowler & Bradshaw, 2007; Peigne et al.,
2007; Raper & Bergtold, 2007; Thomas et al., 2007; Thompson et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2006).
10.2. The Case of Impact of Bt maize on non-target organisms
In a study on environmental impact of Bt-maize on the environment, a book project of now 350 pages,
the author also has included a commentary chapter for over 180 scientific studies dealing with non-

55
target organism which could be harmed by the cultivation of Bt maize. Observing strictly the baseline
comparison with non-Bt maize cultivation, it can be said that there is not a single publication pointing to
detrimental effects of Bt maize compared to other maize traits. Four meta studies have been published
recently with more or less stringent selection of data published in scientific journals, and all those meta
analysis do not show any sign of regulatory problems. (Chen et al., 2008; Duan et al., 2008; Marvier et
al., 2007; Wolfenbarger et al., 2008)
(Wolfenbarger et al., 2008) is singled out here since it is the best meta-analysis existing so far, the
selection criteria are clearly defined on all levels and based on a carefully filtered dataset, actually a
subset of the database published by (Marvier et al., 2007) on the net under
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5830/1475/DC1
In total, the database used contained 2981 observations from 131 experiments reported in 47 published
field studies on cotton, maize and potato. Maize has been studied in the following two comparison
categories (including also data on potato and cotton).
� The first set of studies contrasted Bt with non-Bt plots, neither of which received any additional
insecticide treatments. This comparison addresses the hypothesis that the toxins in the Bt plant
directly or indirectly affect arthropod abundance. It also can be viewed as a comparison between the
Bt crop and its associated unsprayed refuge (Gould, 2000).
� The second set of studies contrasted unsprayed Bt fields with non-Bt plots that received insecticides.
This comparison tests the hypothesis that arthropod abundance is influenced by the method used to
control the pest(s) targeted by the Bt crop. (The third set of studies contrasted fields of Bt-crops and
non-Bt-crops both treated with insecticides, a category which did not occur in the here included
studies of maize.)
Great care was taken to eliminate redundant taxonomic units and multiple development stages of the same
species, with a preference of the least mobile development stage, also the datasets are all derived from the
same season.
In contrast to the following study by (Marvier et al., 2007) the statistical analysis was not done with the original
taxonomic units, rather the authors decided to use an additional descriptor, six ‘functional guilds’ (herbivore,
omnivore, predator, parasitoid, detritivores, or mixed). More details can be read in the original publication, as
a whole, database robustness and sensitivity of the datasets have been thoroughly discussed and careful
decisions have been made in order to get maximum quality of the meta-analysis.
“In maize, analyses revealed a large reduction of parasitoids in Bt fields. This effect stemmed from the lepidopteran-specific
maize hybrids, and examining the 116 observations showed that most were conducted on Macrocentrus grandii, a specialist
parasitoid of the Bt-target, Ostrinia nubilalis. There was no significant effect on other parasitoids, but M. grandii abundance was
severely reduced by Bt maize. Higher numbers of the generalist predator, Coleomegilla maculata, were associated with Bt maize
but numbers of other common predatory genera (Orius, Geocoris, Hippodamia, Chrysoperla, were similar in Bt and non-Bt
maize.”
The conclusion is rather simple: Bt maize is better for the environment, and in almost all field studies the
non-target insects, including a whole range of butterflies have a better survival chance than in non-Bt
crop fields.

56
Fig. 22 The effect of Bt crops on non-target functional guilds compared to unsprayed, non-Bt control fields. Bars denote the
95% confidence intervals, asterisks denote significant heterogeneity in the observed effect sizes among the comparisons (*
,0.05, ** ,0.01, *** ,0.001), and Arabic numbers indicate the number of observations included for each functional group.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002118.g001. Fig. 1 from (Wolfenbarger et al., 2008)

57
Fig. 23 The effect of Bt crops on non-target functional guilds compared to insecticide-treated, non-Bt control fields. Bars
denote the 95% confidence intervals, asterisks denote significant heterogeneity in the observed effect sizes among the
studies (*,0.05, ** ,0.01, *** ,0.001), and Arabic numbers indicate the number of observations included for each functional
group. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002118.g002. Fig. 2 from (Wolfenbarger et al., 2008)
“In maize, the abundance of predators and members of the mixed functional guild were higher in Bt maize compared to
insecticide-sprayed controls (Fig. 2b). Significant heterogeneity occurred in predators, indicating variation in the effects of Bt
maize on this guild. For example, we detected no significant effect sizes for the common predator genera Coleomegilla ,
Hippodamia or Chrysoperla, but the predator Orius spp. and the parasitoid Macrocentrus were more abundant in Bt maize than
in non-Bt maize plots treated with insecticides. Partitioning by taxonomic groupings or the target toxin (Lepidoptera versus
Coleoptera) did not reduce heterogeneity within predators. However, insecticides differentially affected predator populations.
Specifically, application of the pyrethroid insecticides lambda-cyhalothrin, cyfluthrin, and bifenthrin in non-Bt control fields
resulted in comparatively fewer predators within these treated control plots. Omitting studies involving these pyrethroids
revealed a much smaller and homogeneous effect size. Predator abundance in Bt fields was still significantly higher compared
with insecticide-treated plots, but the difference was less marked without the pyrethroids (Fig. 3). Compared to the subset of
controls using pyrethroids, Bt maize was particularly favorable to Orius spp.”

58
Fig. 24 Effects of Bt maize vs. control fields treated with a pyrethroid insecticide on predatory arthropods. Bars denote the
95% confidence intervals, asterisks denote significant heterogeneity in the observed effect sizes among the
studies (* ,0.05, ** ,0.01, *** ,0.001), and Arabic numbers indicate the number of observations included for each
functional group. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002118.g003 . Fig. 3 from (Wolfenbarger et al., 2008)
“Bt-maize favored non-target herbivore populations relative to insecticide-treated controls, but there was also significant
heterogeneity, some of which was explained by taxonomy. Aphididae were more abundant in insecticide sprayed fields and
Cicadellidae occurred in higher abundance in the Bt maize In contrast to patterns associated with predators and detritivores,
type of insecticide did not explain the heterogeneity in herbivore responses. The pyrethroid-treated controls accounted for 85% of
the herbivore records. Individual pyrethroids had variable effects on this group, and none yielded strong effects on the
herbivores.
An underlying factor associated with the heterogeneity of the herbivore guild remained unidentified, but many possible factors
were eliminated (e.g., Cry protein target, Cry protein, event, plot size, study duration, pesticide class, mechanism of pesticide
delivery, sample method, and sample frequency).
An underlying factor associated with the heterogeneity of the herbivore guild remained unidentified, but many possible factors
were eliminated.”

59
Fig. 25 Effect of Bt crops vs. insecticide-treated, non-Bt control fields on soil-inhabiting predators and detritivores. Bars
denote the 95% confidence intervals, asterisks denote significant heterogeneity in the observed effect sizes among the
studies (* ,0.05, ** ,0.01, *** ,0.001), and Arabic numbers indicate the number of observations included for each functional
group. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002118.g004. Fig. 4 from (Wolfenbarger et al., 2008)
“The ‘‘mixed’’ functional group was more abundant in Bt maize (E = 0.1860.14, n= 103) compared with non-Bt maize treated
with insecticides. The majority of this functional group is comprised of carabids (n= 33), nitidulids (n= 26), and mites (n =23).
For potatoes, the abundance of predators (E = 0.6960.30, n =38), but not herbivores, was significantly higher in the Bt crop (Fig
2c). Responses within each functional group were variable but sample sizes were too low to further partition this significant
heterogeneity.
Predator-non target herbivore ratio analyses
No significant change in predator-prey ratios was detected in cotton or potato; in maize there was a significantly higher
predator- prey ratio in Bt maize plots than in the insecticide controls (E = 0.6360.42, n= 15). Significant heterogeneity for the
predator: prey response existed in all three crops, but again sample sizes were too small to explore the cause of this variability.
Predator-detritivore analyzes.
The higher abundance of detritivores in sprayed non-Bt maize appeared to be drivenprimarily by two families of Collembola with
a high proportion of surface-active species (Entomobryidae: E=20.2460.15, n= 97; Sminthuridae: E=20.2860.23, n= 43, Fig. 4).
Three other families, Isotomidae, Hypogastruridae, and Onychiuridae, with more sub-surface species, were similar in Bt and non-
Bt fields. We would expect surface-active collembolans to be more vulnerable to surface-active predators, and we detected a
significantly lower abundance in one predator of Collembola (Carabidae: E= 0.2360.22, n= 43) but not in another (Staphylinidae:
E=20.2160.23, n = 39, Fig 4). The other two detritivore families occupy different niches than Collembola and responded
differently to insecticide treatments. The abundance of Japygidae (Diplura) was unchanged (E =20.1160.35, n= 9), but that for
Lathridiidae (Coleoptera) was higher in Bt maize (E =0.7660.70, n =6), suggesting a direct negative effect of insecticides on this
latter group. Lathridiid beetles, although being surface-active humusfeeders, are larger and more motile than Collembola and
thus may be less vulnerable to predators and more vulnerable to insecticides.”

As a whole, the study of Wolfenbarger et al. et al. did not reveal any negative effects, confirming for a
large amount of data and publications the environmental benefits of the Bt maize tested.
60
11. Biodiversity data in GM crops other than Bt resistance and
Herbicide tolerance
Although one has to see that most commercialized GM crops are related to Bt resistance and herbicide
tolerance, there are field data existing for not yet commercialized crops showing likewise positive
results, a few examples of transgenic wheat are presented here:
In a study by (von Burg et al., 2011), hypothesizing that GM wheat could influence the quantitative food
web of aphids, the results suggest that the effects are negligible and the potential effect on non-target
insects is limited:
“In this study, (von Burg et al., 2011) looked at transgenic disease-resistant wheat (Triticum aestivum) and its effect on aphid–
parasitoid food webs. They hypothesized that the GM of the wheat lines directly or indirectly affect aphids and that these effects
cascade up to change the structure of the associated food webs. Over 2 years, they studied different experimental wheat lines
under semi-field conditions. They constructed quantitative food webs to compare their properties on GM lines with the properties
on corresponding non-transgenic controls. They found significant effects of the different wheat lines on insect community
structure up to the fourth trophic level. However, the observed effects were inconsistent between study years and the variation
between wheat varieties was as big as between GM plants and their controls. This suggests that the impact of our powdery
mildew-resistant GM wheat plants on food web structure may be negligible and potential ecological effects on non-target insects
limited.” (von Burg et al., 2011)
In a previous detailed laboratory study (von Burg et al., 2010) emphasized that studies of plant– insect
interactions and their ecology are important to understand how these interactions shape insect
herbivore communities. The use of transgenic plants opens up a whole range of new research questions,
which are not necessarily questions about potential environmental risks of the novel plants (Raybould,
2010). In this study they wanted to find out if and how transgenic powdery mildew-resistant wheat
affects the non-target aphid M. dirhodum and whether there are aphid clone x wheat lines (G x E)
interactions. The research group could not detect any major effects of the transformed wheat line on a
range of life-history parameters in this detailed laboratory study. This suggests that the genetic
transformation did not alter the quality of the wheat plants as hosts for the aphid M. dirhodum.
In another study within the same research project (see www.wheat-cluster.ch) came to interesting
conclusions, which might be related to epigenetic effects: Abstract:
“Background:
The introduction of transgenes into plants may cause unintended phenotypic effects which could have an impact on the plant
itself and the environment. Little is published in the scientific literature about the interrelation of environmental factors and
possible unintended effects in genetically modified (GM) plants.
Methods and Findings:
We studied transgenic bread wheat Triticum aestivum lines expressing the wheat Pm3b gene against the fungus powdery
mildew Blumeria graminis f.sp. tritici. Four independent offspring pairs, each consisting of a GM line and its corresponding non-
GM control line, were grown under different soil nutrient conditions and with and without fungicide treatment in the glasshouse.
Furthermore, we performed a field experiment with a similar design to validate our glasshouse results. The transgene increased

61
the resistance to powdery mildew in all environments. However, GM plants reacted sensitive to fungicide spraying in the
glasshouse. Without fungicide treatment, in the glasshouse GM lines had increased vegetative biomass and seed number and a
twofold yield compared with control lines. In the field these results were reversed. Fertilization generally increased GM/control
differences in the glasshouse but not in the field. Two of four GM lines showed up to 56% yield reduction and a 40-fold increase
of infection with ergot disease Claviceps purpurea compared with their control lines in the field experiment; one GM line was very
similar to its control.
Conclusions:
Our results demonstrate that, depending on the insertion event, a particular transgene can have large effects on the entire
phenotype of a plant and that these effects can sometimes be reversed when plants are moved from the glasshouse to the field.
However, it remains unclear which mechanisms underlie these effects and how they may affect concepts in molecular plant
breeding and plant evolutionary ecology.” (Zeller et al., 2010)
Comment: It is normal, that breeding effects, whether with traditional methods or molecular methods,
show differences in reproduction, greenhouse and field performance, this is known by professional
breeders and is usually subject to careful selection processes. It is also normal, that many of those effects
are unknown in their origin, and the rule is that molecular breeding yields more clarity than conventional
methods (Muurinen et al., 2006).
12. Bt corn has less cancer causing mycotoxins than conventional corn
Bt corn is definitely healthier: Many publications have demonstrated that Bt maize has less mycotoxins
with their bad reputation of cancerogeneity.
In a worldwide review, (Placinta et al., 1999) summarized the situation on mycotoxins in animal feed
(including a comprehensive list of literature).
“Three classes of Fusarium mycotoxins may be considered to be of particular importance in animal health and productivity.
Within the trichothecene group, deoxynivalenol (DON) is widely associated with feed rejection in pigs, while T-2 toxin can
precipitate reproductive disturbances in sows.
Another group comprising zearalenone (ZEN) and its derivatives is endowed with oestrogenic properties.
The third category includes the fumonisins which have been linked with specific toxicity syndromes such as equine
leukoencephalomalacia (ELEM) and porcine pulmonary oedema.”
It is important to know that storage conditions are heavily influencing the fumonisin content of the
maize cobs, as was shown by (Fandohan et al., 2003; Gressel et al., 2004; Olakojo & Akinlosotu, 2004) in
Africa: the storage conditions are often poor and foster fungal infection dramatically, also due to postharvest
weevils.
It seems logical to fight fumonisin producing fungi with fungicides, but this is obviously not an easy task
according to (D'Mello et al., 1998; D'Mello et al., 2001; D'Mello et al., 1999). There are no feasible
solutions ready – except the ones offered by the Bt crops. Also the use of fungicide sprays does not really
bring considerable remedy. It is interesting to note that D’Mello deems most promising to develop
Fusarium resistant crops, in order to avoid the clearly detrimental effects of pigs reacting on high
fumonisin levels in feed.

62
Many studies in epidemiological human medicine have proven the clear pathogenicity of fumonisins:
Here the important critical review of many pertinent papers: (Marasas et al., 2004). They found and cite
numerous studies which demonstrate that fumonisins are potential risk factors for neural tube defects,
craniofacial anomalies, and other birth defects arising from neural crest cells because of their apparent
interference with folate utilization.
13. Some closing words:
Agriculture is in the centre of this text, and rightly so, since we have the urgent task to feed a billion
hungry people, and there is no time for sterile sophisticated bickering on whether some hypothetical
negative effects could emerge decades from now, since by then, hundreds of millions of people will die
from hunger and diseases. The case of the golden rice is symbolic for the situation of mankind: we can
develop it as fast as we can, unhampered by over-regulation – or we may tolerate hundreds of
thousands of children dying every year from pro-vitamin A deficiency. It is no coincidence that this article
closes with some references essential for the Golden Rice debate (Depee et al., 1995; Humphrey et al.,
1998; Humphrey et al., 1992; Mayer et al., 2008; Miller, 2009; Potrykus, 2003; Stein et al., 2008). Actually
the solution would be extremely simple and its unconditional support would honor all institutions of the
United Nations, including the Convention of Biodiversity which has created the Cartagena Protocol on
Biosafety.
Human beings should be part of any risk assessment in technology: this is a request with enormous
ethical implications.
14. Cited references
Adler, P.B., HilleRisLambers, J., Kyriakidis, P.C., Guan, Q., & Levine, J.M. (2006)
Climate variability has a stabilizing effect on the coexistence of prairie grasses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America, 103, 34, pp 12793-12798
Aerni, P., Rae, A., & Lehmann, B. (2009)
Nostalgia versus Pragmatism? How attitudes and interests shape the term sustainable agriculture in Switzerland and New Zealand.
Food Policy, 34, 2, pp 227-235
Albihn, A. (2001)
Recycling biowaste - Human and animal health problems, Ed. pp 69-75
Altieri, M. & Nicholls, C.I. (2004) Biodiversity and Pest Management in Agroecosystems Second Edition edn. Haworth Press, Binghamton, N.Y.,
IS: 10: 8181890787 pp
Altieri, M.A. (2002)
Agroecology: The science of natural resource management for poor farmers in marginal environments. Agriculture Ecosystems &
Environment, 93, 1-3, pp 1-24
Altpeter, F., Baisakh, N., Beachy, R., Bock, R., Capell, T., Christou, P., Daniell, H., Datta, K., Datta, S., Dix, P.J., Fauquet, C., Huang, N., Kohli, A.,
Mooibroek, H., Nicholson, L., Nguyen, T.T., Nugent, G., Raemakers, K., Romano, A., Somers, D.A., Stoger, E., Taylor, N., & Visser, R. (2005)
Particle bombardment and the genetic enhancement of crops: myths and realities. Molecular Breeding, 15, 3, pp 305-327

American Soybean Association (2001)
Electronic Source: Homepage, published by: ASA
Ammann, K. (1997)
Botanists to blame ? Plant Talk, 8, pp 4
Ammann, K. (1999)
Electronic Source: Towards precision biotechnology (ed C. Juma), Viewpoints on Biotechnology
published by: Center for International Development at Harvard University (CID)
Ammann, K. (2004a)
Electronic Source: The impact of agricultural biotechnology on biodiversity, a review, published by: Klaus Ammann
63
Ammann, K. (2004b)
The Impact of Agricultural Biotechnology on Biodiversity: Myths and Facts. In Agricultural biotechnology: finding common
international goals. NABC's sixteenth annual meeting, Guelph, 13-15 June 2004. National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, Guelph,
Canada
Ammann, K. (2005)
Effects of biotechnology on biodiversity: herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant GM crops. Trends in Biotechnology, 23, 8, pp 388-
394
Ammann, K. (2006)
Reconciling Traditional Knowledge with Modern Agriculture: A Guide for Building Bridges. In Intellectual Property Management in
Health and Agricultural Innovation a handbook of best practices, Chapter 16.7 (eds A. Krattiger, R.T.L. Mahoney, L. Nelsen, G.A.
Thompson, A.B. Bennett, K. Satyanarayana, G.D. Graff, C. Fernandez & S.P. Kowalsky), pp. 1539-1559. MIHR, PIPRA, Oxford, U.K. and
Davis, USA
Ammann, K. (2007a)
The Needs for Plant Biodiversity: The General Case, Foreword. In Genetic Glass Ceilings, transgenics for crop biodiversity (ed J.
Gressel), pp. X - XVII. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland
Ammann, K. (2007b)
Reconciling Traditional Knowledge with Modern Agriculture: A Guide for Building Bridges. In Intellectual Property Management in
Health and Agricultural Innovation a handbook of best practices
(eds A. Krattiger, R.T.L. Mahoney, L. Nelsen, G.A. Thompson, A.B. Bennett, K. Satyanarayana, G.D. Graff, C. Fernandez & S.P. Kowalsky), pp.
1539-1559. MIHR, PIPRA, Oxford, U.K. and Davis, USA
Ammann, K. (2008a)
Biodiversity and GM crops, Instanbul Sabanci University, 3rd Symposium on Agricultural Biotechnology and Biosafety, IPM-IPC
Sabanci University, Istanbul. 11. September 2008, Ed. Cetiner Selim pp 34
Ammann, K. (2008b)
Feature: Integrated farming: Why organic farmers should use transgenic crops. New Biotechnology, 25, 2, pp 101 - 107
Ammann, K. (2008c)
In Defense of GM Crops, in response to P. Mitchell's letter 'Doubts about GM crops' (Vol. 321, 25 July, p. 485 as a response to N.
Fedoroff's Editorial 'Seeds of a Perfect Storm'.(Vol. 320, 25 April 2008, p. 425). Science, 322, 5907, pp 1465-1466
Ammann, K. (2008d)
Integrated farming: why organic farmers should use transgenic crops. New Biotechnology, 25, 2-3, pp 101-107
Ammann, K. (2009a)
Bibliography on the relationship between ecological agriculture and landscape pp 34 Istanbul (Report)
Ammann, K. (2009b)
Biodiversity and GM crops. In Environmental Impact of Genetically Modified/Novel Crops,released in March, 423p (eds N. Ferry &
A.M.R. Gatehouse), pp. 28 CAB International, Wallingford, Oxfordshire
Ammann, K. (2009c)
Feature: Why farming with high tech methods should integrate elements of organic agriculture. New Biotechnology, 25, 6, pp 378-
388
Ammann, K. (2010)
Review: Rethinking Communication Strategy in the Debate on GM Crops In ASK-FORCE contribution, pp. 58. K. Ammann, Neuchatel,
Switzerland
Ammann, K., Jacot, Y., & Rufener Al Mazyad, P. (2005)
The ecology and detection of plant ferality in the historic records. In Crop Ferality and Volunteerism (ed J. Gressel), pp. 31-43. Taylor
& Francis, Boca Raton
Ammann, K. & van Montagu, M. (2009)
Organotransgenesis arrives. New Biotechnology, 25, 6, pp 377-377

Ammann, K.i., Wolfenbarger, L., Andow DA. and Hilbeck, A., Nickson, T., Wu, F., Thompson, B., & Ammann, K. (2004)
Electronic Source: Biosafety in agriculture: is it justified to compare directly with natural habitats ? (ed ESA Ecological Society of
America), Frontiers in Ecology, Forum: GM crops: balancing predictions of promise and peril
published by: Ecological Society of America
Anand, A., Trick, H.N., Gill, B.S., & Muthukrishnan, S. (2003)
Stable transgene expression and random gene silencing in wheat. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 1, 4, pp 241-251
64
Anderson, P.C. (1998)
History of harvesting and threshing techniques for cereals in the prehistoric Near East. In The Origins of Agriculture and Crop
Domestication (eds A.B. Damania, J. Valkoun, G. Willcox & C.O. Qualset), pp. 145-159. ICARDA, Aleppo
Anderson, R.L. (2007)
Managing weeds with a dualistic approach of prevention and control. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 27, 1, pp
13-18
Arber, W. (2000)
Genetic variation: molecular mechanisms and impact on microbial evolution. Fems Microbiology Reviews, 24, 1, pp 1-7
Arber, W. (2002)
Roots, strategies and prospects of functional genomics. Current Science, 83, 7, pp 826-828
Arber, W. (2003)
Elements for a theory of molecular evolution. Gene, 317, 1-2, pp 3-11
Arber, W. (2004)
Biological evolution: Lessons to be learned from microbial population biology and genetics. Research in Microbiology, 155, 5, pp 297-
300
Arber, W. (2009)
The impact of science and technology on the civilization. Biotechnology Advances, In Press, Corrected Proof, pp
Atkinson, R.C. (2003)
Public sector collaboration for agricultural IP management (vol 301, pg 174, 2003). Science, 302, 5648, pp 1152-1152
Attaran, A. & Maharaj, R. (2000)
Ethical debate - Doctoring malaria, badly: the global campaign to ban DDT. British Medical Journal, 321, 7273, pp 1403-1403
Attaran, A., Roberts, D.R., Curtis, C.F., & Kilama, W.L. (2000)
Balancing risks on the backs of the poor. Nature Medicine, 6, 7, pp 729-+
Ayana, A., Bekele, E., & Bryngelsson, T. (2000)
Genetic variation in wild sorghum (Sorghum bicolor ssp verticilliflorum (L.) Moench) germplasm from Ethiopia assessed by random
amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD). Hereditas, 132, 3, pp 249-254
Azzone, G.F. (2008)
The Biological Foundations of Culture and Morality. Rendiconti Lincei-Scienze Fisiche E Naturali, 19, 2, pp 189-204
Baker, J.M., Hawkins, N.D., Ward, J.L., Lovegrove, A., Napier, J.A., Shewry, P.R., & Beale, M.H. (2006)
A metabolomic study of substantial equivalence of field-grown genetically modified wheat. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 4, 4, pp 381-
392
Banavar, J.R. & Maritan, A. (2009)
Ecology: Towards a theory of biodiversity. Nature, 460, 7253, pp 334-335
Banks, P.M., Xu, S.J., Wang, R.R.C., & Larkin, P.J. (1993)
VARYING CHROMOSOME COMPOSITION OF 56-CHROMOSOME WHEAT X THINOPYRUM-INTERMEDIUM PARTIAL AMPHIPLOIDS.
Genome, 36, 2, pp 207-215
Barcelo, P., Rasco-Gaunt, S., Thorpe, C., & Lazzeri, P. (2001)
Transformation and gene expression. In Advances in botanical research incorporating advances in plant pathology (eds P.R. Shewry,
P.A. Lazzeri & K.J. Edwards), Vol. 34, pp. 59–126.J.A. Callow
Barthlott, W., Hostert, A., Kier, G., Koper, W., Kreft, H., Mutke, J., Rafiqpoor, M.D., & Sommer, J.H. (2007)
Geographic patterns of vascular plant diversity at continental to global scales. Erdkunde, 61, 4, pp 305-315
Batista, R., Saibo, N., Lourenco, T., & Oliveira, M.M. (2008)
Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 9, pp 3640-3645

65
Baudo, M.M., Lyons, R., Powers, S., Pastori, G.M., Edwards, K.J., Holdsworth, M.J., & Shewry, P.R. (2006)
Transgenesis has less impact on the transcriptome of wheat grain than conventional breeding. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 4, 4, pp
369-380
Baum, J.A., Bogaert, T., Clinton, W., Heck, G.R., Feldmann, P., Ilagan, O., Johnson, S., Plaetinck, G., Munyikwa, T., Pleau, M., Vaughn, T., &
Roberts, J. (2007)
Control of coleopteran insect pests through RNA interference. Nature Biotechnology, 25, pp 1322-1326
Bawa, K.S., Joseph, G., & Setty, S. (2007)
Poverty, biodiversity and institutions in forest-agriculture ecotones in the Western Ghats and Eastern Himalaya ranges of India.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 121, 3, pp 287-295
Beachy, R.N. (2003)
IP policies and serving the public. Science, 299, 5606, pp 473-473
Belay, D., Schulthess, F., & Omwega, C. (2009)
The profitability of maize-haricot bean intercropping techniques to control maize stem borers under low pest densities in Ethiopia.
Phytoparasitica, 37, 1, pp 43-50
Belfrage, K., Bjorklund, J., & Salomonsson, L. (2005)
The effects of farm size and organic farming on diversity of birds, pollinators, and plants in a Swedish landscape. Ambio, 34, 8, pp
582-588
Bellon, M.R. & Berthaud, J. (2004)
Transgenic maize and the evolution of landrace diversity in Mexico. The importance of farmers' behavior. Plant Physiology, 134, 3, pp
883-888
Bellon, M.R. & Berthaud, J. (2006)
Traditional Mexican agricultural systems and the potential impacts of transgenic varieties on maize diversity. Agriculture and Human
Values, 23, 1, pp 3-14
Bellon, M.R., Berthaud, J., Smale, M., Aguirre, J.A., Taba, S., Aragon, F., Diaz, J., & Castro, H. (2003)
Participatory landrace selection for on-farm conservation: An example from the Central Valleys of Oaxaca, Mexico. Genetic Resources
and Crop Evolution, 50, 4, pp 401-416
Benbrook, C. (2004)
Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine Years pp 53 pp Technical Paper Number 7
(Report)
Bengtsson, J., Ahnstrom, J., & Weibull, A.C. (2005)
The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 2, pp 261-269
Benner, S.A. (2004)
Understanding nucleic acids using synthetic chemistry. Accounts of Chemical Research, 37, 10, pp 784-797
Benner, S.A., Battersby, T.R., Eschgfaller, B., Hutter, D., Kodra, J.T., Lutz, S., Arslan, T., Baschlin, D.K., Blattler, M., Egli, M., Hammer, C., Held,
H.A., Horlacher, J., Huang, Z., Hyrup, B., Jenny, T.F., Jurczyk, S.C., Konig, M., von Krosigk, U., Lutz, M.J., MacPherson, L.J., Moroney, S.E.,
Muller, E., Nambiar, K.P., Piccirilli, J.A., Switzer, C.Y., Vogel, J.J., Richert, C., Roughton, A.L., Schmidt, J., Schneider, K.C., & Stackhouse, J.
(1998)
Redesigning nucleic acids. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 70, 2, pp 263-266
Benner, S.A. & Sismour, A.M. (2005)
Synthetic biology. Nature Reviews Genetics, 6, 7, pp 533-543
Benton, T.G., Vickery, J.A., & Wilson, J.D. (2003)
Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18, 4, pp 182-188
Bernoux, M., Cerri, C.C., Cerri, C.E.P., Neto, M.S., Metay, A., Perrin, A.S., Scopel, E., Razafimbelo, T., Blavet, D., Piccolo, M.D., Pavei, M., &
Milne, E. (2006)
Cropping systems, carbon sequestration and erosion in Brazil, a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 26, 1, pp 1-8
Berthaud, J. (2001)
Maize Diversity in Oaxaca, Mexico: Simple Questions but No Easy Answers, CIMMYT-Report pp 2 (Report)
Beyer, M., Klix, M.B., Klink, H., & Verreet, J.A. (2006)
Quantifying the effects of previous crop, tillage, cultivar and triazole fungicides on the deoxynivalenol content of wheat grain - a
review. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection, 113, 6, pp 241-246

Bhushan, B. & Jung, Y.C. (2010)
Natural and biomimetic artificial surfaces for superhydrophobicity, self-cleaning, low adhesion, and drag reduction. Progress in
Materials Science, 56, 1, pp 1-108
Bitzer, R.J., Rice, M.E., Pilcher, C.D., Pilcher, C.L., & Lam, W.K.F. (2005)
Biodiversity and community structure of epedaphic and euedaphic springtails (Collembola) in transgenic rootworm Bt corn.
Environmental Entomology, 34, 5, pp 1346-1376
66
Bolliger, A., Magid, J., Amado, T.J.C., Neto, F.S., Ribeiro, M.D.D., Calegari, A., Ralisch, R., & de Neergaard, A. (2006)
Taking stock of the Brazilian "zero-till revolution": A review of landmark research and farmers' practice. Advances in Agronomy, Vol
91, 91, pp 47-110
Bonny, S. (2008)
Genetically modified glyphosate-tolerant soybean in the USA: adoption factors, impacts and prospects. A review. Agronomy for
Sustainable Development, 28, 1, pp 21-32
Böschen, S. (2009)
Hybrid regimes of knowledge? Challenges for constructing scientific evidence in the context of the GMO-debate. Environmental
Science and Pollution Research, 16, 5, pp 508-520
Boutin, C., Baril, A., & Martin, P.A. (2008)
Plant diversity in crop fields and woody hedgerows of organic and conventional farms in contrasting landscapes. Agriculture
Ecosystems & Environment, 123, 1-3, pp 185-193
Britt, A.B. & May, G.D. (2003)
Re-engineering plant gene targeting. Trends in Plant Science, 8, 2, pp 90-95
Brush, S.B. & Perales, H.R. (2007)
A maize landscape: Ethnicity and agro-biodiversity in Chiapas Mexico. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 121, 3, pp 211-221
Bryan, C.G., Hallberg, K.B., & Johnson, D.B. (2007)
Comparison of microbiological populations of mineral heaps and mine wastes of differing ages in active and abandoned copper
mines. Biohydrometallurgy: From the Single Cell to the Environment, pp 585-585
Bugl, H., Danner, J.P., Molinari, R.J., Mulligan, J.T.-., Park, H.O., Reichert, B., Roth, D.A., Wagner, R., Budowie, B., Scripp, R.M., Smith, J.A.L.,
Steele, S.J., Church, G., & Endy, D. (2007)
DNA synthesis and biological security. Nature Biotechnology, 25, 627-629, pp
Bull, A.T. (1996)
Biotechnology for environmental quality: Closing the circles. Biodiversity and Conservation, 5, 1, pp 1-25
Cai, C., Doyon, Y., Ainley, W., Miller, J., DeKelver, R., Moehle, E., Rock, J., Lee, Y.-L., Garrison, R., Schulenberg, L., Blue, R., Worden, A., Baker,
L., Faraji, F., Zhang, L., Holmes, M., Rebar, E., Collingwood, T., Rubin-Wilson, B., Gregory, P., Urnov, F., & Petolino, J. (2009)
Targeted transgene integration in plant cells using designed zinc finger nucleases. Plant Molecular Biology, 69, 6, pp 699-709
Candolfi, M.P., Brown, K., Grimm, C., Reber, B., & Schmidli, H. (2004)
A faunistic approach to assess potential side-effects of genetically modified Bt-corn on non-target arthropods under field conditions.
Biocontrol Science and Technology, 14, 2, pp 129-170
Carpenter, J. & Gianessi, L. (2000)
Herbicide use on roundup ready crops. Science, 287, 5454, pp 803-804
Cattaneo, M.G., Yafuso, C., Schmidt, C., Huang, C.Y., Rahman, M., Olson, C., Ellers-Kirk, C., Orr, B.J., Marsh, S.E., Antilla, L., Dutilleu, P., &
Carriere, Y. (2006)
Farm-scale evaluation of the impacts of transgenic cotton on biodiversity, pesticide use, and yield. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 103, 20, pp 7571-7576
Cattivelli, L., Rizza, F., Badeck, F.W., Mazzucotelli, E., Mastrangelo, A.M., Francia, E., Mare, C., Tondelli, A., & Stanca, A.M. (2008)
Drought tolerance improvement in crop plants: An integrated view from breeding to genomics. Field Crops Research, 105, pp 1-14
Causarano, H.J., Franzluebbers, A.J., Reeves, D.W., & Shaw, J.N. (2006)
Soil organic carbon sequestration in cotton production systems of the southeastern United States: A review. Journal of
Environmental Quality, 35, 4, pp 1374-1383
CBD (1992)
Electronic Source: Convention on Biological Diversity, published by: United Nations
Cerdeira, A.L. & Duke, S.O. (2006)

67
The current status and environmental impacts of glyphosate-resistant crops: A review. Journal of Environmental Quality, 35, 5, pp
1633-1658
Cerdeira, A.L., Gazziero, D.L.P., Duke, S.O., Matallo, M.B., & Spadotto, C.A. (2007)
Review of potential environmental impacts of transgenic glyphosate-resistant soybean in Brazil. Journal of Environmental Science
and Health Part B-Pesticides Food Contaminants and Agricultural Wastes, 42, 5, pp 539-549
Chassy, B., Carter, C., McGloughlin, M., McHughen, A., Parrott, W., Preston, C., Roush, R., Shelton, A., & Strauss, S.H. (2003)
UK field-scale evaluations answer wrong questions. Nature Biotechnology, 21, 12, pp 1429-1430
Chauhan, B.S., Gill, G.S., & Preston, C. (2006)
Tillage system effects on weed ecology, herbicide activity and persistence: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture,
46, 12, pp 1557-1570
Chen, M., Zhao, J.-Z., Collins, H.L., Earle, E.D., Cao, J., & Shelton, A. (2008)
A Critical Assessment of the Effects of Bt Transgenic Plants on Parasitoids. PLoS ONE 3, 5, pp
Chrispeels, M.J. (2000)
Biotechnology and the poor. Plant Physiology, 124, 1, pp 3-6
Christoffoleti, P.J., Galli, A.J.B., Carvalho, S.J.P., Moreira, M.S., Nicolai, M., Foloni, L.L., Martins, B.A.B., & Ribeiro, D.N. (2008)
Glyphosate sustainability in South American cropping systems. Pest Management Science, 64, 4, pp 422-427
Clemetsen, M. & van Laar, J. (2000a)
The contribution of organic agriculture to landscape quality in the Sogn og Fjordane region of Western Norway. Agriculture
Ecosystems & Environment, 77, 1-2, pp 125-141
Clemetsen, M. & van Laar, J. (2000b)
The contribution of organic agriculture to landscape quality in the Sogn og Fjordane region of Western Norway. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment, 77, 1-2, pp 125-141
Cohen, J.I. (2005)
Poorer nations turn to publicly developed GM crops. Nature Biotechnology, 23, 1, pp 27-33
Cohen, J.I. & Galinat, W.C. (1984)
Potential Use of Alien Germplasm for Maize Improvement. Crop Science, 24, 6, pp 1011-1015
Cohen, J.I. & Paarlberg, R. (2004)
Unlocking crop biotechnology in developing countries - A report from the field. World Development, 32, 9, pp 1563-1577
Conner, A.J., Barrell, P.J., Baldwin, S.J., Lokerse, A.S., Cooper, P.A., Erasmuson, A.K., Nap, J.P., & Jacobs, J.M.E. (2007)
Intragenic vectors for gene transfer without foreign DNA. Euphytica, 154, 3, pp 341-353
Cotton Council (2003)
Electronic Source: National Cotton Council of America, published by: Cotton Council
Curtis, C.F. (2002)
Restoration of malaria control in the Madagascar highlands by DDT spraying. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 66,
1, pp 1-1
Curtis, C.F. & Lines, J.D. (2000)
Should DDT be banned by international treaty? Parasitology Today, 16, 3, pp 119-121
D'Mello, J.P.F., Macdonald, A.M.C., Postel, D., Dijksma, W.T.P., Dujardin, A., & Placinta, C.M. (1998)
Pesticide use and mycotoxin production in Fusarium and Aspergillus phytopathogens. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 104, 8, pp
741-751
D'Mello, J.P.F., Macdonald, A.M.C., & Rinna, R. (2001)
Effects of azoxystrobin on mycotoxin production in a carbendazim-resistant strain of Fusarium sporotrichioides. Phytoparasitica, 29,
5, pp 431-440
D'Mello, J.P.F., Placinta, C.M., & Macdonald, A.M.C. (1999)
Fusarium mycotoxins: a review of global implications for animal health, welfare and productivity. Animal Feed Science and
Technology, 80, 3-4, pp 183-205
Dangl, J.L. & Jones, J.D.G. (2001)
Plant pathogens and integrated defence responses to infection. Nature, 411, 6839, pp 826-833

68
Darwin, C. (1845) Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the Countries Visited During the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle
Round the World,, nd ed. edn. John Murray, London, pp
Davies, H., Bryan, G., & Taylor, M. (2008)
Advances in Functional Genomics and Genetic Modification of Potato. Potato Research, 51, 3, pp 283-299
Davis, M.A. (2003)
Biotic globalization: Does competition from introduced species threaten biodiversity? Bioscience, 53, 5, pp 481-489
Degenhardt, J.r., Hiltpold, I., KÃllner, T.G., Frey, M., Gierl, A., Gershenzon, J., Hibbard, B.E., Ellersieck, M.R., & Turlings, T.C.J. (2009)
Restoring a maize root signal that attracts insect-killing nematodes to control a major pest. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 106, 32, pp 13213-13218
Depee, S., West, C.E., Muhilal, Karyadi, D., & Hautvast, J. (1995)
Lack of Improvement in Vitamin-a Status with Increased Consumption of Dark-Green Leafy Vegetables. Lancet, 346, 8967, pp 75-81
Dhlamini, Z., Spillane, C., Moss, J., Ruane, J., Urquia, J., & Sonnino, A. (2005)
Status of Research and Application of Crop Technologies in Developing Countries, Preliminary Assessment, FAO pp 62 FAO Reports
Rome (Report)
Dollaker, A. (2006)
Conserving biodiversity alongside agricultural profitability through integrated R&D approaches and responsible use of crop protection
products. Pflanzenschutz-Nachrichten Bayer, 59, 1, pp 117-134
Dollaker, A. & Rhodes, C. (2007)
Integrating crop productivity and biodiversity conservation pilot initiatives developed by Bayer CropScience, in Weed Science in Time
of Transition. Crop Science, 26, 3, pp 408-416
Dona, A. & Arvanitoyannis, I.S. (2009)
Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 49, 2, pp 164 - 175
Duan, J.J., Marvier, M., Huesing, J., Dively, G., & Huang, Z.Y. (2008)
A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bt Crops on Honey Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). PLoS ONE, 3, 1, pp e1415
Dunne, J.A., Williams, R.J., & Martinez, N.D. (2002)
Network structure and biodiversity loss in food webs: robustness increases with connectance. Ecology Letters, 5, 4, pp 558-567
Dushku, A., Brown, S., Pearson, T., Shoch, D., & Khare, A. (2007)
Remote Sensing. In Farming with Nature: The Science and Practice of Ecoagriculture (Paperback), pp. 250-264. IslandPress,
Washington, Covelo, London
Dutton, A., Klein, H., Romeis, J., & Bigler, F. (2002)
Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperla carnea. Ecological
Entomology, 27, 4, pp 441-447
Edmond, G. & Mercer, D. (2009)
Norms and Irony in the Biosciences: Ameliorating Critique in Synthetic Biology. Law & Literature, 21, 3, pp 445-470
Ernst, W.G. (2002)
Global equity and sustainable earth resource consumption requires super-efficient extraction-conservation-recycling and ubiquitous,
inexpensive energy. International Geology Review, 44, 12, pp 1072-1091
Etchevers, J.D., Prat, C., Balbontin, C., Bravo, M., & Martinez, M. (2006)
Influence of land use on carbon sequestration and erosion in Mexico, a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 26, 1, pp 21-
28
Evans, L.T. (1998) Feeding the Ten Billion: Plants and Population Growth, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK., pp p. 34
Fandohan, P., Hell, P., Marasas, W., & Wingfield, M. (2003)
Review - Infection of maize by Fusarium species and contamination with fumonisin in Africa. Arfrican Journal of Biotechnology, 2, 12,
pp 570-579
Fawcett, R., Christensen, B., & Tierney, D. (1994)
The impact of conservation tillage on pesticide runoff into surface water., 49, pp 126-135
Fawcett, R. & Towery, D. (2002)
Electronic Source: Conservation tillage and plant biotechnology: How new technologies can improve the environment by reducing
the need to plow., published by: Purdue University

Feber, R.E., Firbank, L.G., Johnson, P.J., & Macdonald, D.W. (1997)
The effects of organic farming on pest and non-pest butterfly abundance. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 64, 2, pp
133-139
69
Fedoroff, N. (2008)
Seeds of a Perfect Storm. Science Magazine, 320, 5875, pp 425-
Fedoroff, N.V. & Cohen, J.E. (1999)
Plants and population: Is there time? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 96, 11, pp
5903-5907
Field, R., Hawkins, B.A., Cornell, H.V., Currie, D.J., Diniz-Filho, J.A.F., Guegan, J.F., Kaufman, D.M., Kerr, J.T., Mittelbach, G.G., Oberdorff, T.,
O'Brien, E.M., & Turner, J.R.G. (2009)
Spatial species-richness gradients across scales: a meta-analysis. Journal of Biogeography, 36, 1, pp 132-147
Filser, J., Mebes, K.H., Winter, K., Lang, A., & Kampichler, C. (2002)
Long-term dynamics and interrelationships of soil Collembola and microorganisms in an arable landscape following land use change.
Geoderma, 105, 3-4, pp 201-221
Fowler, S.V., Ganeshan, S., Mauremootoo, J., & Mongroo, Y. (2000)
Biological Control of Weeds in Mauritius: Past Successes Revisited and Present Challenges, 4-14 July 1999, Montana State University,
Bozeman, Montana, USA, Proceedings of the X International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds, Ed. N.R. Spencer pp 43-50
Frankel, O.H. & Hawkes, J.G. (1975) Crop Genetic Resources for Today and Tomorrow Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, pp
Fridley, J.D., Stachowicz, J.J., Naeem, S., Sax, D.F., Seabloom, E.W., Smith, M.D., Stohlgren, T.J., Tilman, D., & Von Holle, B. (2007)
The invasion paradox: Reconciling pattern and process in species invasions. Ecology, 88, 1, pp 3-17
Gabriel, D., Sait, S.M., Hodgson, J.A., Schmutz, U., Kunin, W.E., & Benton, T.G. (2010)
Scale matters: the impact of organic farming on biodiversity at different spatial scales. Ecology Letters, 9999, 9999, pp
Gagnon, P.R. & Platt, W.J. (2008)
Multiple disturbances accelerate clonal growth in a potentially monodominant bamboo. Ecology, 89, 3, pp 612-618
Ghatnekar, L., Jaarola, M., & Bengtsson, B.O. (2006)
The introgression of a functional nuclear gene from Poa to Festuca ovina. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 273, 1585, pp 395 - 399
Gibson, D.G., Benders, G.A., Andrews-Pfannkoch, C., Denisova, E.A., Baden-Tillson, H., Zaveri, J., Stockwell, T.B., Brownley, A., Thomas, D.W.,
Algire, M.A., Merryman, C., Young, L., Noskov, V.N., Glass, J.I., Venter, J.C., Hutchison, C.A., & Smith, H.O. (2008a)
Complete chemical synthesis, assembly, and cloning of a Mycoplasma genitalium genome. Science, 319, 5867, pp 1215-1220
Gibson, D.G., Benders, G.A., Axelrod, K.C., Zaveri, J., Algire, M.A., Moodie, M., Montague, M.G., Venter, J.C., Smith, H.O., & Hutchison, C.A.
(2008b)
One-step assembly in yeast of 25 overlapping DNA fragments to form a complete synthetic Mycoplasma genitalium genome.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 51, pp 20404-20409
Gibson, D.G., Glass, J.I., Lartigue, C., Noskov, V.N., Chuang, R.-Y., Algire, M.A., Benders, G.A., Montague, M.G., Ma, L., Moodie, M.M.,
Merryman, C., Vashee, S., Krishnakumar, R., Assad-Garcia, N., Andrews-Pfannkoch, C., Denisova, E.A., Young, L., Qi, Z.-Q., Segall-Shapiro,
T.H., Calvey, C.H., Parmar, P.P., Hutchison, C.A., III, Smith, H.O., & Venter, J.C. (2010)
Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome. Science, pp science.1190719
Giddings, V.L. (2006)
'Cisgenic' as a product designation. Nat Biotech, 24, 11, pp 1329-1329
Gill, S., Abid, M., & Azam, F. (2009)
MIXED CROPPING EFFECTS ON GROWTH OF WHEAT (TRITICUM AESTIVUM L.) AND CHICKPEA (CICER ARIETENUM L.). Pakistan Journal
of Botany, 41, 3, pp 1029-1036
Gold, C.S., Altieri, M.A., & Bellotti, A.C. (1989)
Effects of Cassava Varietal Mixtures on the Whiteflies Aleurotrachelus-Socialis and Trialeurodes-Variabilis in Colombia. Entomologia
Experimentalis Et Applicata, 53, 3, pp 195-202
Gold, C.S., Altieri, M.A., & Bellotti, A.C. (1990)
Effects of Intercropping and Varietal Mixtures on the Cassava Hornworm, Erinnyis-Ello L (Lepidoptera, Sphingidae), and the Stem-
Borer, Chilomima-Clarkei (Amsel) (Lepidoptera, Pyralidae), in Colombia. Tropical Pest Management, 36, 4, pp 362-367
Gould, F. (2000)
Testing Bt refuge strategies in the field. Nature Biotechnology, 18, 3, pp 266-267

70
Granstedt, A. (2000a)
Increasing the efficiency of plant nutrient recycling within the agricultural system as a way of reducing the load to the environment
experience from Sweden and Finland. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 80, 1-2, pp 169-185
Granstedt, A. (2000b)
Reducing the nitrogen load to the Baltic Sea by increasing the efficiency of recycling within the agricultural system - Experience of
ecological agriculture in Sweden and Finland. Landbauforschung Volkenrode, 50, 3-4, pp 95-102
Gressel, J. (2007) Genetic Glass Ceilings, transgenics for crop biodiversity The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, IS: ISBN-
10: 0801887194 ISBN-13: 978-0801887192 pp
Gressel, J. (2009)
Orgenic Food. Nat Genet, 41, 2, pp 137-137
Gressel, J., Hanafi, A., Head, G., Marasas, W., Obilana, B., Ochanda, J., Souissi, T., & Tzotzos, G. (2004)
Major heretofore intractable biotic constraints to African food security that may be amenable to novel biotechnological solutions.
Crop Protection, 23, 8, pp 661-689
Gressel, J., Meir, S., Herschkovitz, Y., & Al-Ahmad, H. (2007)
Approaches to and successes in developing transgenically enhanced mycoherbicides. Novel Biotechnologies for Biocontrol Agent
Enhancement and Management, pp 297-305
Gruere Guillaume P., Mehta-Bhatt Purvi, & Debdatta Sengupta (2008)
Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India Reviewing the Evidence, IFPRI Discussion Paper 00808, Environment and Production
Technology Division pp 64 IFPRI Discussion Paper 00808 Washington (Report)
Gulvik, M.E. (2007)
Mites (Acari) as indicators of soil biodiversity and land use monitoring: A review. Polish Journal of Ecology, 55, pp 415-440
Gupta, A.K., Sinha, R., Koradia, D., Patel, R., Parmar, M., Rohit, P., Patel, H., Patel, K., Chand, V.S., James, T.J., Chandan, A., Patel, M., Prakash,
T.N., & Vivekanandan, P. (2003)
Mobilizing grassroots' technological innovations and traditional knowledge, values and institutions: articulating social and ethical
capital. Futures, 35, 9, pp 975-987
Hadjigeorgiou, I., Osoro, K., de Almeida, J.P.F., & Molle, G. (2005)
Southern European grazing lands: Production, environmental and landscape management aspects. Livestock Production Science, 96,
1, pp 51-59
Hails, R.S. (2005)
Assessing the impact of genetically modified crops on agricultural biodiversity. Minerva Biotecnologica, 17, 1, pp 13-20
Harlan, J. & Zohary, D. (1966)
Distribution of wild wheats and barley. Science, 153, pp 1074-1080
Harlan, J.R. (1971)
Agricultural Origins - Centers and Noncenters. Science, 174, 4008, pp 468-&
Harlan, J.R. (1975) Crops and Man American Society for Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, pp
Harlan, J.R. (1989)
Wild-grass harvesting in the Sahara and Sub-Sahara of Africa. In Foraging and Farming: the Evolution of Plant Exploitation (eds D.R.
Harris & G.C. Hillman), pp. 79–98, 88–91 and Figures. 5.2–5.3. Unwin Hyman, London
Harlan, J.R. (1992) Crops and Man, 2nd edition American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, IS: 0-89118-107-5, pp 295
Harrop, S.R. (2007)
Traditional agricultural landscapes as protected areas in international law and policy. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 121, 3,
pp 296-307
Hassanali, A., Herren, H., Khan, Z.R., Pickett, J.A., & Woodcock, C.M. (2008)
Integrated pest management: the push-pull approach for controlling insect pests and weeds of cereals, and its potential for other
agricultural systems including animal husbandry. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 363, 1491, pp
611-621
Hawkes, J.G. (1983) The Diversity of Crop Plants Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., pp
Hawkes, J.G. (1990)
VAVILOV,N.I. - THE MAN AND HIS WORK. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 39, 1, pp 3-6

71
Hawkes, J.G. (1991)
International Workshop on Dynamic Insitu Conservation of Wild Relatives of Major Cultivated Plants - Summary of Final Discussion
and Recommendations. Israel Journal of Botany, 40, 5-6, pp 529-536
Hawkes, J.G. (1999)
The evidence for the extent of N.I. Vavilov's new world Andean centres of cultivated plant origins. Genetic Resources and Crop
Evolution, 46, 2, pp 163-168
Hawkes, J.G. & Harris, D.R. (1990)
VAVILOV,N.I. CENTENARY SYMPOSIUM - SYMPOSIUM PAPERS. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 39, 1, pp 1-1
Heald, P.J. & Chapman, S. (2009)
Patents and Vegetable Crop Diversity. Research Paper Series, 09-017, pp 8
Hector, A., Joshi, J., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Schmid, B., Spehn, E.M., Wacker, L., Weilenmann, M., Bazeley-White, E., Beierkuhnlein, C.,
Caldeira, M.C., Dimitrakopoulos, P.G., Finn, J.A., Huss-Danell, K., Jumpponen, A., Leadley, P.W., Loreau, M., Mulder, C.P.H., Nesshoover, C.,
Palmborg, C., Read, D.J., Siamantziouras, A.S.D., Terry, A.C., & Troumbis, A.Y. (2007)
Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: reconciling the results of experimental and observational studies. Functional Ecology, 21, 5,
pp 998-1002
Hendriks, K., Stobbelaar, D.J., & van Mansvelt, J.D. (2000)
The appearance of agriculture: An assessment of the quality of landscape of both organic and conventional horticultural farms in
West Friesland. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 77, 1-2, pp 157-175
Henneman, M.L. & Memmott, J. (2001)
Infiltration of a Hawaiian Community by Introduced Biological Control Agents. Science, 293, 5533, pp 1314-1316
Herring, R.J. (2008)
Whose numbers count? Probing discrepant evidence on transgenic cotton in the Warangal district of India International Journal of
Multiple Research Approaches, 2, pp 145-159
Heywood, V., Casas, A., Ford-Lloyd, B., Kell, S., & Maxted, N. (2007)
Conservation and sustainable use of crop wild relatives. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 121, 3, pp 245-255
Hilbeck, A., Baumgartner, M., Fried, P.M., & Bigler, F. (1998a)
Effects of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis corn-fed prey on mortality and development time of immature Chrysoperla carnea
(Neuroptera : Chrysopidae). Environmental Entomology, 27, 2, pp 480-487
Hilbeck, A., Eckel, C., & Kennedy, G.G. (1998b)
Impact of Bacillus thuringiensis - insecticides on population dynamics and egg predation of the Colorado potato beetle in North
Carolina potato plantings. Biocontrol, 43, 1, pp 65-75
Hillmann, G. (1996)
‘Late Pleistocene changes in wild food plants available to huntergatherers of the northern Fertile Crescent:possible preludes to cereal
cultivation. In The Origin and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, (ed D.R. Harris), pp. 159–203, p 189. University College
Press, London
Hole, D.G., Perkins, A.J., Wilson, J.D., Alexander, I.H., Grice, F., & Evans, A.D. (2005)
Does organic farming benefit biodiversity? Biological Conservation, 122, 1, pp 113-130
Holst, H. (2001)
Nature conservation and landscape management advice - The integration of nature conservation and landscape management into
"goodfarming practice" as a future task. Berichte Uber Landwirtschaft, 79, 4, pp 552-564
Horton, J.E. (2000)
Caution required with the precautionary principle. The Lancet, 356, 9226, pp 265-265
Howarth, F.G. (1991)
Environmental Impacts of Classical Biological-Control. Annual Review of Entomology, 36, pp 485-509
Howarth, J.R., Jacquet, J.N., Doherty, A., Jones, H.D., & Cannell, M.E. (2005)
Molecular genetic analysis of silencing in two lines of Triticum aestivum transformed with the reporter gene construct pAHC25.
Annals of Applied Biology, 146, 3, pp 311-320
Humphrey, J.H., Agoestina, T., Juliana, A., Septiana, S., Widjaja, H., Cerreto, M.C., Wu, L.S.F., Ichord, R.N., Katz, J., & West, K.P. (1998)
Neonatal vitamin A supplementation: effect on development and growth at 3 y of age. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 68, 1,
pp 109-117

72
Humphrey, J.H., West, K.P., & Sommer, A. (1992)
Vitamin-a-Deficiency and Attributable Mortality among under-5-Year-Olds. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 70, 2, pp 225-
232
IAASTD http://www.agassessment.org/ (2007)
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development
Ives, A.R. & Carpenter, S.R. (2007)
Stability and diversity of ecosystems. Science, 317, 5834, pp 58-62
Jackson, J.J. (1996)
Field performance of entomopathogenic nematodes for suppression of western corn rootworm (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Journal
of Economic Entomology, 89, 2, pp 366-372
Jackson, L.E., Pascual, U., Brussaard, L., de Ruiter, P., & Bawa, K.S. (2007a)
Biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: Investing without losing interest. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 121, 3, pp 193-195
Jackson, L.E., Pascual, U., & Hodgkin, T. (2007b)
Utilizing and conserving agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 121, 3, pp 196-210
Jacobsen, E. & Nataraja, K.N. (2008)
Cisgenics - Facilitating the second green revolution in India by improved traditional plant breeding. Current Science, 94, 11, pp 1365-
1366
Jacobsen, E. & Schouten, H.J. (2007)
Cisgenesis strongly improves introgression breeding and induced translocation breeding of plants. Trends in Biotechnology, 25, 5, pp
219-223
Jan Stobbelaar, D. & van Mansvelt, J.D. (2000)
The process of landscape evaluation: Introduction to the 2nd special AGEE issue of the concerted action: “The landscape and
nature production capacity of organic/sustainable types of agriculture”. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 77, 1-2, pp
1-15
Janzen, D. (1998)
Gardenification of wildland nature and the human footprint. Science, 279, 5355, pp 1312-1313
Janzen, D. (1999)
Gardenification of tropical conserved wildlands: Multitasking, multicropping, and multiusers. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 96, 11, pp 5987-5994
Johnson, E.A.C., Bonser, R.H.C., & Jeronimidis, G. (2009)
Recent advances in biomimetic sensing technologies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and
Engineering Sciences, 367, 1893, pp 1559-1569
Jones, H.D. (2005)
Wheat transformation: current technology and applications to grain development and composition. Journal of Cereal Science, 41, 2,
pp 137-147
Joshi, K.D. & Witcombe, J.R. (2003)
The impact of participatory plant breeding (PPB) on landrace diversity: A case study for high-altitude rice in Nepal. Euphytica, 134, 1,
pp 117-125
Kalushkov, P., Gueorguiev, B., Spitzer, L., & Nedved, O. (2009)
BIODIVERSITY OF GROUND BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: CARABIDAE) IN GENETICALLY MODIFIED (BT) AND CONVENTIONAL (NON-BT)
POTATO FIELDS IN BULGARIA. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment, 23, 3, pp 1346-1350
Karutz, C. (1999)
Electronic Source: Ecological cereal breeding and genetic engineering, published by: Research Institute for Organic Agriculture
(FiBL),
Kerr, J.T. & Deguise, I. (2004)
Habitat loss and the limits to endangered species recovery. Ecology Letters, 7, 12, pp 1163-1169
Kesavan, P.C. & Swaminathan, M.S. (2006)
From green revolution to evergreen revolution: Pathways and terminologies. Current Science, 91, 2, pp 145-146
Kier, G., Mutke, J., Dinerstein, E., Ricketts, T.H., Kuper, W., Kreft, H., & Barthlott, W. (2005)
Global patterns of plant diversity and floristic knowledge. Journal of Biogeography, 32, 7, pp 1107-1116

Kirchmann, H., Nyamangara, J., & Cohen, Y. (2005)
Recycling municipal wastes in the future: from organic to inorganic forms? Soil Use and Management, 21, pp 152-159
Knapen, A., Poesen, J., Govers, G., Gyssels, G., & Nachtergaele, J. (2007)
Resistance of soils to concentrated flow erosion: A review. Earth-Science Reviews, 80, 1-2, pp 75-109
Knowler, D. & Bradshaw, B. (2007)
Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy, 32, 1, pp 25-48
Kohli, A., Twyman, R.M., Abranches, R., Wegel, E., Stoger, E., & Christou, P. (2003)
Transgene integration, organization and interaction in plants. Plant Molecular Biology, 52, 2, pp 247-258
Kollner, T.G., Held, M., Lenk, C., Hiltpold, I., Turlings, T.C.J., Gershenzon, J., & Degenhardt, J. (2008)
A maize (E)-beta-caryophyllene synthase implicated in indirect defense responses against herbivores is not expressed in most
American maize varieties. Plant Cell, 20, 2, pp 482-494
73
Koop, H.U., Steinmuller, K., Wagner, H., Rossler, C., Eibl, C., & Sacher, L. (1996)
Integration of foreign sequences into the tobacco plastome via polyethylene glycol-mediated protoplast transformation. Planta, 199,
2, pp 193-201
Korn, M. (1996)
The dike pond concept: Sustainable agriculture and nutrient recycling in China. Ambio, 25, 1, pp 6-13
Kowarik, I. (2005)
Urban ornamentals escaped from cultivation. In Crop Ferality and Volunteerism (ed J. Gressel). CRC Press, Boca Raton
Krattiger, A., Mahoney, R.T.L., Nelsen, L., Thompson, G. A., Bennett, A.B., Satyanarayana, K., Graff, G.D., Fernandez, C., Kowalsky, S.P., ed.
(2007)
Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation a handbook of best practice, pp 1539-1559, MIHR, PIPRA,
Oxford, U.K. and Davis, USA, IS: ISBN-13: 978-1-4243-2027-1
Kuiper, J. (2000)
A checklist approach to evaluate the contribution of organic farms to landscape quality. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 77,
1-2, pp 143-156
Kuper, W., Sommer, J.H., Lovett, J.C., Mutke, J., Linder, H.P., Beentje, H.J., Van Rompaey, R., Chatelain, C., Sosef, M., & Barthlott, W. (2004)
Africa's hotspots of biodiversity redefined. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 91, 4, pp 525-535
Lafferty, K.D., Allesina, S., Arim, M., Briggs, C.J., De Leo, G., Dobson, A.P., Dunne, J.A., Johnson, P.T.J., Kuris, A.M., Marcogliese, D.J., Martinez,
N.D., Memmott, J., Marquet, P.A., McLaughlin, J.P., Mordecai, E.A., Pascual, M., Poulin, R., & Thieltges, D.W. (2008)
Parasites in food webs: the ultimate missing links. Ecology Letters, 11, 6, pp 533-546
Landis, D.A., Wratten, S.D., & Gurr, G.M. (2000)
Habitat Management to Conserve Natural Enemies of Arthropod Pests in Agriculture. Annual Review of Entomology, 45, 1, pp 175-
201
Landolt, E. (1994)
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FLORA OF THE CITY OF ZURICH .1. INTRODUCTION - DESCRIPTION OF THE NEW FLORA - PTERIDOPHYTES
AND GYMNOSPERMS. Botanica Helvetica, 104, 2, pp 157-170
Lee, T.M. & Jetz, W. (2008)
Future battlegrounds for conservation under global change. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 275, 1640, pp
1261-1270
Lemaux, P.G. (2008)
Genetically Engineered Plants and Foods: A Scientist's Analysis of the Issues (Part I). Annual Review of Plant Biology, 59,
10.1146/annurev.arplant.58.032806.103840, pp 771-812
Levine, J.M. & HilleRisLambers, J. (2009)
The importance of niches for the maintenance of species diversity. Nature, 461, 7261, pp 254-257
Locke, M.A., Zablotowicz, R.M., Reddy, K.N., & Steinriede, R.W. (2008)
Tillage management to mitigate herbicide loss in runoff under simulated rainfall conditions. Chemosphere, 70, pp 1422-1428
Lovei, G.L., Andow, D.A., & Arpaia, S. (2009)
Transgenic Insecticidal Crops and Natural Enemies: A Detailed Review of Laboratory Studies. Environmental Entomology, 38, pp 293-
306
Lozovaya, V., Zernova, O., Lygin, A., Ulanov, A., Li, S., Hill, C., Hartman, G., Clough, S., Nelson, R., & Widholm, J. (2007)

74
Phenolic gene stacking in soybean to enhance disease resistance and health-promoting value. Plant Biology (Rockville), 2007, pp 124
Lozzia, G.C. (1999)
Biodiversity and structure of ground beetle assemblages (Coleopterae, Carabidae) in Bt corn and its effects on non target insects.
Boll. Zool. Agr. Bachic. Ser. II, 31, pp 37-58
Lughadha, E.N., Baillie, J., Barthlott, W., Brummitt, N.A., Cheek, M.R., Farjon, A., Govaerts, R., Hardwick, K.A., Hilton-Taylor, C., Meagher,
T.R., Moat, J., Mutke, J., Paton, A.J., Pleasants, L.J., Savolainen, V., Schatz, G.E., Smith, P., Turner, I., Wyse-Jackson, P., & Crane, P.R. (2005)
Measuring the fate of plant diversity: towards a foundation for future monitoring and opportunities for urgent action. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 360, 1454, pp 359-372
Luz, G.M. & Mano, J., F (2009)
Biomimetic design of materials and biomaterials inspired by the structure of nacre. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A:
Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 367, 1893, pp 1587-1605
Macfadyen, S., Gibson, R., Polaszek, A., Morris, R.J., Craze, P.G., Planque, R., Symondson, W.O.C., & Memmott, J. (2009)
Do differences in food web structure between organic and conventional farms affect the ecosystem service of pest control? Ecology
Letters, 12, 3, pp 229-238
MacNaeidhe, F.S. & Culleton, N. (2000)
The application of parameters designed to measure nature conservation and landscape development on Irish farms. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment, 77, 1-2, pp 65-78
Mader, P., Edenhofer, S., Boller, T., Wiemken, A., & Niggli, U. (2000)
Arbuscular mycorrhizae in a long-term field trial comparing low-input (organic, biological) and high-input (conventional) farming
systems in a crop rotation. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 31, 2, pp 150-156
Mader, P., Fliessbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P., & Niggli, U. (2002a)
Organic farming and energy efficiency. Science, 298, 5600, pp 1891-1891
Mader, P., Fliessbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P., & Niggli, U. (2002b)
Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science, 296, 5573, pp 1694-1697
Maghuly, F., da Câmara Machado, A., Leopold, S., Khan, M., Katinger, H., & Laimer, M. (2007)
Long-term stability of marker gene expression in Prunus subhirtella: a model fruit tree species. Journal of Biotechnology, 127, 2, pp
310-321
Mallory, A.C. & Vaucheret, H. (2006)
Functions of microRNAs and related small RNAs in plants. Nature Genetics, 38, pp S31-S36
Marasas, W.F.O., Riley, R.T., Hendricks, K.A., Stevens, V.L., Sadler, T.W., Gelineau-van Waes, J., Missmer, S.A., Cabrera, J., Torres, O.,
Gelderblom, W.C.A., Allegood, J., Martinez, C., Maddox, J., Miller, J.D., Starr, L., Sullards, M.C., Roman, A.V., Voss, K.A., Wang, E., & Merrill,
A.H. (2004)
Fumonisins disrupt sphingolipid metabolism, folate transport, and neural tube development in embryo culture and in vivo: A
potential risk factor for human neural tube defects among populations consuming fumonisin-contaminated maize. Journal of
Nutrition, 134, 4, pp 711-716
Marshall, A. (2007)
GM soybeans and health safety—a controversy reexamined, full controversy, including reply Ermakova. Nature Biotechnology, 25, 9,
pp 981-987 and 1351 - 1360
Marvier, M., McCreedy, C., Regetz, J., & Kareiva, P. (2007)
A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Bt Cotton and Maize on Nontarget Invertebrates. Science %R 10.1126/science.1139208, 316, 5830, pp
1475-1477
Mattick, J.S. (2004)
The hidden genetic program of complex organisms. Scientific American, 291, 4, pp 60-67
Maurer, S.M., Lucas, K.V., & Terrell, S. (2006)
From Understanding to Action: Community-Based Options for Improving Safety and Security in Synthetic Biology, Draft 1.1, April 15,
University of California pp 93 Berkeley, Califorina (Report)
May, R.M. (1990)
How Many Species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 330, 1257, pp 293-304
Mayer, J.E., Pfeiffer, W.H., & Beyer, P. (2008)
Biofortified crops to alleviate micronutrient malnutrition. Genome studies and Molecular Genetics, edited by Juliette de Meaux and
Maarten Koornneef / Plant Biotechnology, edited by Andy Greenland and Jan Leach, 11, 2, pp 166-170

75
Mayr, E. (1991)
THE IDEOLOGICAL RESISTANCE TO DARWIN THEORY OF NATURAL-SELECTION. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,
135, 2, pp 123-139
Memmott, J., Alonso, D., Berlow, E.L., Dobson, A., Dunne, J.A., Sole, R., & Weitz, J. (2006)
Biodiversity loss and ecological network structure. Ecological Networks: Linking Structure to Dynamics in Food Webs, pp 325-347
Mesoudi, A. & Danielson, P. (2008)
Ethics, evolution and culture. Theory in Biosciences, 127, 3, pp 229-240
Metraux, J.P. & Boller, T. (1986)
Local and Systemic Induction of Chitinase in Cucumber Plants in Response to Viral, Bacterial and Fungal-Infections. Physiological and
Molecular Plant Pathology, 28, 2, pp 161-169
Metraux, J.P., Nawrath, C., & Genoud, T. (2002)
Systemic acquired resistance. Euphytica, 124, 2, pp 237-243
Metraux, J.P., Signer, H., Ryals, J., Ward, E., Wyssbenz, M., Gaudin, J., Raschdorf, K., Schmid, E., Blum, W., & Inverardi, B. (1990)
INCREASE IN SALICYLIC-ACID AT THE ONSET OF SYSTEMIC ACQUIRED-RESISTANCE IN CUCUMBER. Science, 250, 4983, pp 1004-1006
Miller, H.I. (2009)
A golden opportunity, squandered. Trends in Biotechnology, 27, 3, pp 129-130
Miller, H.I. & Conko, G. (2004)
Chasing 'transgenic' shadows. Nat Biotech, 22, 6, pp 654-655
Miller, H.I., Morandini, P., & Ammann, K. (2008)
Is biotechnology a victim of anti-science bias in scientific journals? Trends in Biotechnology, 26, 3, pp 122-125
Mitchell, P. (2008)
Doubts About GM Crops. Science Magazine, 321, pp 489
Morris, W.F., Kareiva, P.M., & Raymer, P.L. (1994)
Do Barren Zones and Pollen Traps Reduce Gene Escape from Transgenic Crops. Ecological Applications, 4, 1, pp 157-165
Mucher, C.A., Steinnocher, K.T., Kressler, F.P., & Heunks, C. (2000)
Land cover characterization and change detection for environmental monitoring of pan-Europe International Journal of Remote
Sensing,, 21, 6-7, pp 1159-1181
Murphy, K.M., Campbell, K.G., Lyon, S.R., & Jones, S.S. (2007)
Evidence of varietal adaptation to organic farming systems. Field Crops Research, 102, 3, pp 172-177
Muurinen, S., Slafer, G.A., & Peltonen-Sainio, P. (2006)
Breeding Effects on Nitrogen Use Efficiency of Spring Cereals under Northern Conditions. Crop Sci., 46, 2, pp 561-568
Myhre, M.R., Fenton, K.A., Eggert, J., Nielsen, K.M., & Traavik, T. (2006)
The 35S CaMV plant virus promoter is active in human enterocyte-like cells. European Food Research and Technology, 222, 1-2, pp
185-193
Naranjo, S.E. (2009)
Impacts of Bt crops on non-target invertebrates and insecticide use patterns. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary
Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources,, 4, 11, pp 23 pp
Nevo, E. (1998)
Genetic diversity in wild cereals: Regional and local studies and their bearing on conservation ex situ and in situ. Genetic Resources
and Crop Evolution, 45, 4, pp 355-370
Norsworthy, J.K. (2008)
Effect of tillage intensity and herbicide programs on changes in weed species density and composition in the southeastern coastal
plains of the United States. Crop Protection, 27, pp 151-160
Norton, L., Johnson, P., Joys, A., Stuart, R., Chamberlain, D., Feber, R., Firbank, L., Manley, W., Wolfe, M., Hart, B., Mathews, F., MacDonald,
D., & Fuller, R.J. (2009)
Consequences of organic and non-organic farming practices for field, farm and landscape complexity. Agriculture Ecosystems &
Environment, 129, 1-3, pp 221-227
Olakojo, S. & Akinlosotu, T. (2004)

76
Comparative study of storage methods of maize grains in South Western Nigeria. African Journal of Biotechnology, 3, 7, pp 362-365
Paarlberg, R. (2000)
Genetically modified crops in developing countries - Promise or peril? Environment, 42, 1, pp 19-27
Paarlberg, R. (2009)
The Ethics of Modern Agriculture. Society, 46, 1, pp 4-8
Paarlberg, R.L. (2001) The Politics of Precaution: Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries (International Food Policy Research
Institute) International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, IS: ISBN-10: 0801868238 ISBN-13: 978-0801868238, pp 200
Paarlberg, R.L. (2002)
The real threat to GM crops in poor countries: consumer and policy resistance to GM foods in rich countries. Food Policy, 27, 3, pp
247-250
Pachepsky, E., Crawford, J.W., Bown, J.L., & Squire, G. (2001)
Towards a general theory of biodiversity. Nature, 410, 6831, pp 923-926
Parry, M.A.J., Madgwick, P.J., Bayon, C., Tearall, K., Hernandez-Lopez, A., Baudo, M., Rakszegi, M., Hamada, W., Al-Yassin, A., Ouabbou, H.,
Labhilili, M., & Phillips, A.L. (2009)
Mutation discovery for crop improvement. Journal of Experimental Botany, 60, 10, pp 2817-2825
Pascual, U. & Perrings, C. (2007)
Developing incentives and economic mechanisms for in situ biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture
Ecosystems & Environment, 121, 3, pp 256-268
Paszkowski, J., Shillito, R.D., Saul, M., Mandak, V., Hohn, T., Hohn, B., & Potrykus, I. (1984)
Direct Gene-Transfer to Plants. Embo Journal, 3, 12, pp 2717-2722
Paulsen, H.M. (2007)
Organic mixed cropping systems with oilseeds - 1. Yields of mixed cropping systems of legumes or spring wheat with false flax
(Camelina sativa L. Crantz). Landbauforschung Volkenrode, 57, 1, pp 107-117
Peigne, J., Ball, B.C., Roger-Estrade, J., & David, C. (2007)
Is conservation tillage suitable for organic farming? A review. Soil Use and Management, 23, 2, pp 129-144
Petchey, O.L., Downing, A.L., Mittelbach, G.G., Persson, L., Steiner, C.F., Warren, P.H., & Woodward, G. (2004)
Species loss and the structure and functioning of multitrophic aquatic systems. Oikos, 104, 3, pp 467-478
Phillis, Y.A. & Andriantiatsaholiniaina, L.A. (2001)
Sustainability: an ill-defined concept and its assessment using fuzzy logic. Ecological Economics, 37, 3, pp 435-456
Phillis, Y.A., Kouikoglou, V.S., & Manousiouthakis, V. (2010)
A Review of Sustainability Assessment Models as System of Systems. Ieee Systems Journal, 4, 1, pp 15-25
Pimm, S.L. (1993)
BIODIVERSITY AND THE BALANCE OF NATURE. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function, 99, pp 347-359
Pimm, S.L. & Raven, P. (2000)
Biodiversity - Extinction by numbers. Nature, 403, 6772, pp 843-845
Pimm, S.L., Russell, G.J., Gittleman, J.L., & Brooks, T.M. (1995)
THE FUTURE OF BIODIVERSITY. Science, 269, 5222, pp 347-350
Placinta, C.M., D'Mello, J.P.F., & Macdonald, A.M.C. (1999)
A review of worldwide contamination of cereal grains and animal feed with Fusarium mycotoxins. Animal Feed Science and
Technology, 78, 1-2, pp 21-37
Potrykus, I. (2003)
Nutritionally enhanced rice to combat malnutrition disorders of the poor. Nutrition Reviews, 61, 6, pp S101-S104
Potts, S.G., Willmer, P., Dafni, A., & Ne'eman, G. (2001)
The utility of fundamental ecological research of plant-pollinator interactions as the basis for landscape management practices.
Proceedings of the Eight International Pollination Symposium Pollination: Integrator of Crops and Native Plant Systems, 561, pp 141-
152
Prain, D. (1903) ‘Flora of the Sundribuns, pp 231–370, p 357.

77
Purvis, A. & Hector, A. (2000)
Getting the measure of biodiversity. Nature, 405, 6783, pp 212-219
Raikhel, N.V. & Minorsky, P.V. (2001)
Celebrating Plant Diversity. Plant Physiol. %R 10.1104/pp.900012, 127, 4, pp 1325-1327
Raper, R.L. & Bergtold, J.S. (2007)
In-row subsoiling: A review and suggestions for reducing cost of this conservation tillage operation. Applied Engineering in
Agriculture, 23, 4, pp 463-471
Raybould, A.F. (2010)
Reducing uncertainty in regulatory decision-making for transgenic crops: More ecological research or shrewder environmental risk
assessment? GM crops, 1, 1, pp 1-7
Reed, E.J., Klumb, L., Koobatian, M., & Viney, C. (2009)
Biomimicry as a route to new materials: what kinds of lessons are useful? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A:
Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 367, 1893, pp 1571-1585
Reed, M.S., Fraser, E.D.G., & Dougill, A.J. (2006)
An adaptive learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities. Ecological Economics, 59,
4, pp 406-418
Rigola, D., van Oeveren, J., Janssen, A., Bonne, A., Schneiders, H., van der Poel, H.J.A., van Orsouw, N.J., Hogers, R.C.J., de Both, M.T.J., & van
Eijk, M.J.T. (2009)
High-Throughput Detection of Induced Mutations and Natural Variation Using KeyPoint (TM) Technology. PLoS One, 4, 3, pp Article
No.: e4761
Roberts, D.R., Manguin, S., & Mouchet, J. (2000)
DDT house spraying and re-emerging malaria. The Lancet, 356, 9226, pp 330-332
Roberts, E.H. (1975)
Problems of long-term storage of seed and pollen for genetic resources conservation. In Crop Genetics Resources for Today and
Tomorrow. (eds O.H. Frankel & J.G. Hawkes). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England
Robinson, R.A. & Sutherland, W.J. (2002)
Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39, 1, pp 157-176
Romeis, J., Dutton, A., & Bigler, F. (2004)
Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera:
Chrysopidae). Journal of Insect Physiology, 50, 2-3, pp 175-183
Rooke, L., Steele, S.H., Barcelo, P., Shewry, P.R., & Lazzeri, P.A. (2003)
Transgene inheritance, segregation and expression in bread wheat. Euphytica, 129, 3, pp 301-309
Rossi, R. & Nota, D. (2000)
Nature and landscape production potentials of organic types of agriculture: a check of evaluation criteria and parameters in two
Tuscan farm-landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 77, 1-2, pp 53-64
Rostas, M. & Turlings, T.C.J. (2008)
Induction of systemic acquired resistance in Zea mays also enhances the plant's attractiveness to parasitoids. Biological Control, 46,
2, pp 178-186
Rusch, D.B., Halpern, A.L., Sutton, G., Heidelberg, K.B., Williamson, S., Yooseph, S., Wu, D.Y., Eisen, J.A., Hoffman, J.M., Remington, K.,
Beeson, K., Tran, B., Smith, H., Baden-Tillson, H., Stewart, C., Thorpe, J., Freeman, J., Andrews-Pfannkoch, C., Venter, J.E., Li, K., Kravitz, S.,
Heidelberg, J.F., Utterback, T., Rogers, Y.H., Falcon, L.I., Souza, V., Bonilla-Rosso, G., Eguiarte, L.E., Karl, D.M., Sathyendranath, S., Platt, T.,
Bermingham, E., Gallardo, V., Tamayo-Castillo, G., Ferrari, M.R., Strausberg, R.L., Nealson, K., Friedman, R., Frazier, M., & Venter, J.C. (2007)
The Sorcerer II Global Ocean Sampling expedition: Northwest Atlantic through Eastern Tropical Pacific. Plos Biology, 5, 3, pp 398-431
Sahrawat, A.K., Becker, D., Lutticke, S., & Lorz, H. (2003)
Genetic improvement of wheat via alien gene transfer, an assessment. Plant Science, 165, 5, pp 1147-1168
Schellhorn, N.A., Macfadyen, S., Bianchi, F., Williams, D.G., & Zalucki, M.P. (2008)
Managing ecosystem services in broadacre landscapes: what are the appropriate spatial scales? Australian Journal of Experimental
Agriculture, 48, 12, pp 1549-1559
Scherr, S.J. & McNeely, J.A., eds. (2007)
Farming with Nature: The Science and Practice of Ecoagriculture (Paperback), pp 1-472, IslandPress, Washington, Covelo, London,
IS: ISBN-10: 1597261289 ISBN-13: 978-1597261289

78
Schlapfer, F., Pfisterer, A.B., & Schmid, B. (2005)
Non-random species extinction and plant production: implications for ecosystem functioning. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42, 1, pp
13-24
Schofield, P.J. & Chapman, L.J. (1999)
Interactions between Nile perch, Lates niloticus, and other fishes in Lake Nabugabo, Uganda. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 55, 4,
pp 343-358
Schouten, H.J. & Jacobsen, E. (2007)
Are mutations in genetically modified plants dangerous? Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, Article ID 82612,, pp 2
Schouten, H.J., Krens, F.A., & Jacobsen, E. (2006a)
Do cisgenic plants warrant less stringent oversight? Nature Biotechnology, 24, 7, pp 753-753
Schouten, H.J., Krens, F.A., Jacobsen, K., & Jacobsen, E. (2006b)
Cisgenic plants are similar to traditionally bred plants - International regulations for genetically modified organisms should be altered
to exempt cisgenesis. Embo Reports, 7, 8, pp 750-753
Serrano, L. (2007)
Synthetic biology: promises and challenges. Mol Syst Biol, 3, pp
Shelton, A., Naranjo, S., Romeis, J., Hellmich, R., Wolt, J., Federici, B., Albajes, R., Bigler, F., Burgess, E., Dively, G., Gatehouse, A., Malone, L.,
Roush, R., Sears, M., & Sehnal, F. (2009)
Setting the record straight: a rebuttal to an erroneous analysis on transgenic insecticidal crops and natural enemies. Transgenic
Research, 18, 3, pp 317-322
Shewry, P.R., Baudo, M., Lovegrove, A., & Powers, S. (2007)
Are GM and conventionally bred cereals really different? Trends in Food Science & Technology, 18, 4, pp 201-209
Shewry, P.R., Powers, S., Field, J.M., Fido, R.J., Jones, H.D., Arnold, G.M., West, J., Lazzeri, P.A., Barcelo, P., Barro, F., Tatham, A.S., Bekes, F.,
Butow, B., & Darlington, H. (2006)
Comparative field performance over 3 years and two sites of transgenic wheat lines expressing HMW subunit transgenes. Theoretical
and Applied Genetics, 113, 1, pp 128-136
Showalter, E. (1997) Hystories Columbia University Press, New York, IS: 0-231-10458-8, pp 244
Shukla, V.K., Doyon, Y., Miller, J.C., DeKelver, R.C., Moehle, E.A., Worden, S.E., Mitchell, J.C., Arnold, N.L., Gopalan, S., Meng, X., Choi, V.M.,
Rock, J.M., Wu, Y.-Y., Katibah, G.E., Zhifang, G., McCaskill, D., Simpson, M.A., Blakeslee, B., Greenwalt, S.A., Butler, H.J., Hinkley, S.J., Zhang,
L., Rebar, E.J., Gregory, P.D., & Urnov, F.D. (2009)
Precise genome modification in the crop species Zea mays using zinc-finger nucleases. Nature, advanced online publication, pp
Sinigovets, M.E. (1987)
THE CYTOGENETIC STRUCTURE OF A 56-CHROMOSOME TRITICUM-AESTIVUM - ELYTRIGIA INTERMEDIA HYBRIDS. Genetika, 23, 5, pp
854-862
Skar, M., Swensen, G., Dervo, B.K., & Stabbetorp, O. (2008)
Diversity in a Norwegian agrarian landscape: Integrating biodiversity, cultural and social perspectives into landscape management.
International Journal of Biodiversity Science & Management, 4, 1, pp 15-31
Slingerland, M.A., Klijn, J.A.E., Jongman, R.H.G., & van der Schans, J.W. (2003)
The unifying power of sustainable development. Towards balanced choices between People, Planet and Profit in agricultural
production chains and rural land use: the role of science., Wageningen University pp 1-94 WUR-report Sustainable Development
Wageningen (Report)
Slingerland, M.A., Traore, K., Kayode, A.P.P., & Mitchikpe, C.E.S. (2006)
Fighting Fe deficiency malnutrition in West Africa: an interdisciplinary programme on a food chain approach. Njas-Wageningen
Journal of Life Sciences, 53, 3-4, pp 253-279
Smith, A.G. (2000)
How toxic is DDT? The Lancet, 356, 9226, pp 267-268
Smith, J. (2007) Genetic Roulette, The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, second printing edn. YES! Books and Chelsea
Green (January 31, 2007) Fairfield Iowa, IS: ISBN-10: 0972966528 ISBN-13: 978-0972966528, pp 319
Smithson, J.B. & Lenne, J.M. (1996)
Varietal mixtures: A viable strategy for sustainable productivity in subsistence agriculture. Annals of Applied Biology, 128, 1, pp 127-
158

Sole, R.V. & Montoya, J.M. (2001)
Complexity and fragility in ecological networks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 268, 1480, pp 2039-2045
79
Sole, R.V. & Montoya, J.M. (2006)
Ecological network meltdown from habitat loss and fragmentation. In Ecological Networks: Linking Structure to Dynamics in Food
Webs (eds M. Pascual & J.A. Dunne), pp. 305-323 Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity - Proceedings Volumes
Songa, J.M., Jiang, N., Schulthess, F., & Omwega, C. (2007)
The role of intercropping different cereal species in controlling lepidopteran stemborers on maize in Kenya. Journal of Applied
Entomology, 131, 1, pp 40-49
Srivastava, R.C., Singhandhupe, R.B., & Mohanty, R.K. (2004)
Integrated farming approach for runoff recycling systems in humid plateau areas of eastern India. Agricultural Water Management,
64, 3, pp 197-212
Stein, A.J., Sachdev, H.P.S., & Qaim, M. (2008)
Genetic engineering for the poor: Golden Rice and public health in India. World Development, 36, pp 144-158
Stobbelaar, D.J., Kuiper, J., van Mansvelt, J.D., & Kabourakis, E. (2000)
Landscape quality on organic farms in the Messara valley, Crete: Organic farms as components in the landscape. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment, 77, 1-2, pp 79-93
Sukopp, H. & Sukopp, U. (1993)
Ecological Long-Term Effects of Cultigens Becoming Feral and of Naturalization of Nonnative Species. Experientia, 49, 3, pp 210-218
Swaminathan, M.S. (1968)
The age of algeny, genetic destruction of yield barriers and agricultural transformation.Presidential Address, Agricultural Science
Section, Varanasi, India. Proc. Indian Science Congr.,, 55th Indian Science Congr.Jan. 1968., Ed. pp
Swaminathan, M.S. (2001)
Biotechnology, genetic modification, organic farming and nutrition security. Phytomorphology, 51, 3-4, pp 19-30
Swaminathan, M.S. (2006)
An Evergreen Revolution. Crop Science, 46, 5, pp 2293-2303
Symondson, W.O.C., Cesarini, S., Dodd, P.W., Harper, G.L., Bruford, M.W., Glen, D.M., Wiltshire, C.W., & Harwood, J.D. (2006)
Biodiversity vs. biocontrol: positive and negative effects of alternative prey on control of slugs by carabid beetles. Bulletin of
Entomological Research, 96, 6, pp 637-645
Taverne, D. (2005a) The March of Unreason Oxford University Press, USA (January 18, 2007), Oxford, IS: ISBN-10: 0199205620
ISBN-13: 978-0199205622, pp 320
Taverne, D. (2005b)
The new fundamentalism, Commentary. Nature Biotechnology, 23, 4, pp 415-416
Taverne, J. (1999)
DDT - to Ban or not to Ban? Parasitology Today, 15, 5, pp 180-181
Taverniers, I., Papazova, N., Bertheau, Y., De Loose, M., & Holst-Jensen, A. (2008)
Gene stacking in transgenic plants: towards compliance between definitions, terminology, and detection within the EU regulatory
framework. Environmental Biosafety Research, 7, 4, pp doi:10.1051/ebr:2008018
Taylor, M.E. & Morecroft, M.D. (2009)
Effects of agri-environment schemes in a long-term ecological time series. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 130, 1-2, pp 9-15
Thebault, E. & Loreau, M. (2005)
Trophic interactions and the relationship between species diversity and ecosystem stability. American Naturalist, 166, 4, pp E95-
E114
Thomas, G.A., Titmarsh, G.W., Freebairn, D.M., & Radford, B.J. (2007)
No-tillage and conservation farming practices in grain growing areas of Queensland - a review of 40 years of development. Australian
Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 47, 8, pp 887-898
Thompson, J.P., Owen, K.J., Stirling, G.R., & Bell, M.J. (2008)
Root-lesion nematodes (Pratylenchus thornei and P. neglectus): a review of recent progress in managing a significant pest of grain
crops in northern Australia. Australasian Plant Pathology, 37, 3, pp 235-242
Thomson, J.M., Lafayette, P.R., Schmidt, M.A., & Parrott, W.A. (2002)

80
Artificial gene-clusters engineered into plants using a vector system based on intron- and intein-encoded endonucleases. In Vitro
Cellular & Developmental Biology-Plant, 38, 6, pp 537-542
Thurston, H.D. (1991)
Sustainable Practices for Plant Disease Management in Traditional Farming Systems, pp. 280. Westview Press, Boulder,
Colorado.ISBN-10: 0813383633 ISBN-13: 978-0813383637
Thurston, H.D., Salick, J., Smith, M.E., Trutmann, P., Pham, J.-L., & McDowell, R. (1999)
Traditional Management of Agrobiodiversity. In Agrobiodiversity, Characterization, Utilization and Management (eds D. Wood & J.
Lenne), pp. 211-243. CABI, Oxon, UK and New York, N.Y. USA
Tian, J.D., Ma, K.S., & Saaem, I. (2009)
Advancing high-throughput gene synthesis technology. Molecular Biosystems, 5, 7, pp 714-722
Tilman, D. (2000)
Causes, consequences and ethics of biodiversity. Nature, 405, 6783, pp 208-211
Tilman, D., Polasky, S., & Lehman, C. (2005)
Diversity, productivity and temporal stability in the economies of humans and nature. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management, 49, 3, pp 405-426
Tomanio, J. (2011)
Our Dwindling Food Variety. National Geographic Magazine, July 2011, pp
Townsend, J.A., Wright, D.A., Winfrey, R.J., Fu, F., Maeder, M.L., Joung, J.K., & Voytas, D.F. (2009)
High-frequency modification of plant genes using engineered zinc-finger nucleases. Nature, advanced online publication, pp
Tren, R. & Bate, R. (2001) Malaria and the DDT Story iea, The Institute of Economic Affairs, London, IS: 0 255 36499 7, pp 112
Trewavas, A. (2008)
The cult of the amateur in agriculture threatens food security. Trends in Biotechnology, 26, 9, pp 475-478
Trewavas, A.J. (2001)
The population/biodiversity paradox. Agricultural efficiency to save wilderness. Plant Physiology, 125, 1, pp 174-179
Trewawas, A. (2003)
Electronic Source: Benefits To The Use Of Gm Herbicide Tolerant Crops- The Challenge Of No-Till Agriculture, published by:
Scientific Alliance
Turlings, T.C.J., Tumlinson, J.H., Lewis, W.J., & Vet, L.E.M. (1989)
BENEFICIAL ARTHROPOD BEHAVIOR MEDIATED BY AIRBORNE SEMIOCHEMICALS .8. LEARNING OF HOST-RELATED ODORS INDUCED
BY A BRIEF CONTACT EXPERIENCE WITH HOST BY-PRODUCTS IN COTESIA-MARGINIVENTRIS (CRESSON), A GENERALIST LARVAL
PARASITOID. Journal of Insect Behavior, 2, 2, pp 217-225
Tylka, G.L. (2002)
Soybean cyst nematoderesistant varieties for Iowa. Iowa State University, Ext. Publ. Pm-1649, 1649, pp 1-26
UN-Report-Common-Future (1987)
Our Common Future, Chapter 2: Towards Sustainable Development, United Nations pp 21 From A/42/427. Our Common Future:
Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development Geneva (Report)
UNEP (1997)
Global State of the Environment Report, Executive Summary pp (Report)
Van Bueren, E.T.L. & Struik, P.C. (2004)
The consequences of the concept of naturalness for organic plant breeding and propagation. Njas-Wageningen Journal of Life
Sciences, 52, 1, pp 85-95
Van Bueren, E.T.L. & Struik, P.C. (2005)
Integrity and rights of plants: Ethical notions in organic plant breeding and propagation. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental
Ethics, 18, 5, pp 479-493
Van Bueren, E.T.L., Struik, P.C., & Jacobsen, E. (2002)
Ecological concepts in organic farming and their consequences for an organic crop ideotype. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural
Science, 50, 1, pp 1-26
Van Bueren, E.T.L., Struik, P.C., Tiemens-Hulscher, M., & Jacobsen, E. (2003)
Concepts of intrinsic value and integrity of plants in organic plant breeding and propagation. Crop Science, 43, 6, pp 1922-1929

81
van de Wouw, M., van Hintum, T., Kik, C., van Treuren, R., & Visser, B. (2010)
Genetic diversity trends in twentieth century crop cultivars: a meta analysis. TAG Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 120, 6, pp 1241-
1252
Vareschi, V. (1980) Vegetationsökologie der Tropen Ulmer, Stuttgart, IS: 3800134233, pp 294
Vavilov, N.I. (1926) Studies on the origin of cultivated plants State Press, Leningrad, pp 248
Vavilov, N.I. (1951)
The origin, variation, immunity, and breeding of cultivated plants. In Chronica Botanica (ed C. Botanica) Selected Writings of N.I.
Vavilov
Vavilov, N.I. (1987)
Vavilov,N.I. - on the Centenary of His Birth. Tsitologiya I Genetika, 21, 5, pp 323-&
Vavilov, N.I. (2009)
Geographical regularities in the distribution of the genes of cultivated plants PRELIMINARY COMMUNICATION. Comparative
Cytogenetics, 3, 1, pp 71-78
Vavilov, N.L. (1940)
The new systematics of cultivated plants. In The new systematics (ed J. Huxley), pp. 549-566. University Press, Oxford
Verhoog, H., Matze, M., Van Bueren, E.L., & Baars, T. (2003)
The role of the concept of the natural (naturalness) in organic farming. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 16, 1, pp 29-
49
Vitale, J., Glick, H., Greenplate, J.T., & Traore, O. (2008)
The economic impacts of second generation Bt cotton in West Africa: empirical evidence from Burkina Faso. International Journal of
Biotechnology, 10, 2-3, pp 167 - 183
von Burg, S., Müller, C.B., & Romeis, J. (2010)
Transgenic disease-resistant wheat does not affect the clonal performance of the aphid Metopolophium dirhodum Walker. Basic and
Applied Ecology, In Press, Corrected Proof, pp
von Burg, S., van Veen, F.J.F., Ã lvarez-Alfageme, F., & Romeis, J.r. (2011)
Aphid-parasitoid community structure on genetically modified wheat. Biology Letters, online 19. January 2011, pp 6
Von Holle, B., Delcourt, H.R., & Simberloff, D. (2003)
The importance of biological inertia in plant community resistance to invasion. Journal of Vegetation Science, 14, 3, pp 425-432
Von Holle, B. & Simberloff, D. (2004)
Testing Fox's assembly rule: does plant invasion depend on recipient community structure? Oikos, 105, 3, pp 551-563
Von Holle, B. & Simberloff, D. (2005)
Ecological resistance to biological invasion overwhelmed by propagule pressure. Ecology, 86, 12, pp 3212-3218
Wang, Q.L., Bai, Y.H., Gao, H.W., He, J., Chen, H., Chesney, R.C., Kuhn, N.J., & Li, H.W. (2008)
Soil chemical properties and microbial biomass after 16 years of no-tillage fanning on the Loess Plateau, China. Geoderma, 144, 3-4,
pp 502-508
Wang, X.B., Cai, D.X., Hoogmoed, W.B., Oenema, O., & Perdok, U.D. (2006)
Potential effect of conservation tillage on sustainable land use: A review of global long-term studies. Pedosphere, 16, 5, pp 587-595
Weibull, A.-C., Bengtsson, J., & Nohlgren, E. (2000)
Diversity of butterflies in the agricultural landscape: the role of farming system and landscape heterogeneity. Ecography, 23, 6, pp
743-750
Weltzin, J.F., Muth, N.Z., Von Holle, B., & Cole, P.G. (2003)
Genetic diversity and invasibility: a test using a model system with a novel experimental design. Oikos, 103, 3, pp 505-518
Whitham, T.G., Martinsen, G.D., Floate, K.D., Dungey, H.S., Potts, B.M., & Keim, P. (1999)
Plant hybrid zones affect biodiversity: Tools for a genetic-based understanding of community structure. Ecology, 80, 2, pp 416-428
WHO (2005)
WHO Position On DDT Use In Disease Vector Control Under The Stockholm Convention On Persistent Organic Pollutants, WHO pp 2
Geneva (Report)
Widmer, F., Rasche, F., Hartmann, M., & Fliessbach, A. (2006)

82
Community structures and substrate utilization of bacteria in soils from organic and conventional fanning systems of the DOK longterm
field experiment. Applied Soil Ecology, 33, 3, pp 294-307
Williams, J.T. (1990)
Vavilov Centers of Diversity and the Conservation of Genetic-Resources. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 39, 1, pp 89-93
Williams, P., Lees, D., Araujo, M., Humphries, C., Vane-Wright, D., & Kitching, I. (2003)
Electronic Source: Biodiversity, Measuring the Variety of Nature & Selecting Priority Areas for Conservation, published by: British
Museum
Witcombe, J.R., Hollington, P.A., Howarth, C.J., Reader, S., & Steele, K.A. (2008)
Breeding for abiotic stresses for sustainable agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 363, pp
703-716
Wittenberg, A.H.J., van der Lee, T., Cayla, C., Kilian, A., Visser, R.G.F., & Schouten, H.J. (2005)
Validation of the high-throughput marker technology DArT using the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana. Molecular Genetics and
Genomics, 274, 1, pp 30-39
Wolfe, M.S. (2000)
Crop strength through diversity. Nature, 406, 6797, pp 681-682
Wolfe, M.S., Baresel, J.P., Desclaux, D., Goldringer, I., Hoad, S., Kovacs, G., Loschenberger, F., Miedaner, T., Ostergard, H., & van Bueren,
E.T.L. (2008)
Developments in breeding cereals for organic agriculture. In 1st EUCARPIA Meeting of the Section Organic Plant Breeding and Low-
Input Agriculture 2007, published in Euphytica October 2008, pp. 323-346, Wageningen, NETHERLANDS
Wolfenbarger, L.L., Andow, D.A., Hilbeck, A., Nickson, T., Wu, F., Thompson, P.B., & Ammann, K. (2004)
GE crops: balancing predictions of promise and peril. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2, 3, pp 154-160
Wolfenbarger, L.L., Naranjo, S.E., Lundgren, J.G., Bitzer, R.J., & Watrud, L.S. (2008)
Bt Crop Effects on Functional Guilds of Non-Target Arthropods: A Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE, 3, 5, pp e2118
Wood, D. & Lenne, J. (1999)
Agrobiodiversity and Natural Biodiversity: Some Parallels. In Agrobiodiversity, Characterization, Utilization and Management (eds D.
Wood & J. Lenne), pp. 425-445. CABI, Oxon, UK and New York, N.Y. USA
Wood, D. & Lenne, J. (2001)
Nature's fields: a neglected model for increasing food production. Outlook on Agriculture, 30, 3, pp 161-170
Woodroffe, R. & Ginsberg, J.R. (1998)
Edge effects and the extinction of populations inside protected areas. Science, 280, 5372, pp 2126-2128
World Resources Institute (2000)
People and Ecosystems, The Frayling Web of Life, World Resources Institute, UNDP, UNEP, World Bank, pp 36 Washington (Report)
Wulff, E.W. (1935)
Versuch einer Einteilung der Vegetation der Erde in pflanzengeographische Gebiete auf Grund der Artenzahl. Repertorium Specierum
Novarum Regni Vegetabilis, 12, pp 57-83
Yokoi, Y. (2000)
Effects of Agricultural Activities on the Ecosystem, OECD pp 7 Agriculture and the Ecosystem, Chapter 11 Paris (Report)
Zabler, S., Paris, O., Burgert, I., & Fratzl, P. (2010)
Moisture changes in the plant cell wall force cellulose crystallites to deform. Journal of Structural Biology, 171, 2, pp 133-141
Zarea, M.J., Ghalavand, A., Goltapeh, E.M., Rejali, F., & Zamaniyan, M. (2009)
Effects of mixed cropping, earthworms (Pheretima sp.), and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (Glomus mosseae) on plant yield,
mycorrhizal colonization rate, soil microbial biomass, and nitrogenase activity of free-living rhizosphere bacteria. Pedobiologia, 52, 4,
pp 223-235
Zeller, S.L., Kalinina, O., Brunner, S., Keller, B., & Schmid, B. (2010)
Transgene x Environment Interactions in Genetically Modified Wheat. PLoS ONE, 5, 7, pp e11405
Zeven, A.C. (1998)
Landraces: A review of definitions and classifications. Euphytica, 104, 2, pp 127-139
Zeven, A.C. (1999)
The traditional inexplicable replacement of seed and seed ware of landraces and cultivars: A review. Euphytica, 110, 3, pp 181-191
Zeven, A.C. (2000)

83
Traditional maintenance breeding of landraces: 1. Data by crop. Euphytica, 116, 1, pp 65-85
Zeven, A.C. (2002)
Traditional maintenance breeding of landraces: 2. Practical and theoretical considerations on maintenance of variation of landraces
by farmers and gardeners. Euphytica, 123, 2, pp 147-158
Zeven, A.C. & Zhukovsky, P.M. (1975) Dictionary of cultivated plants and their centres of diversity Pudoc, Wageningen, pp 9-26
Zhu, Y.Y., Chen, H.R., Fan, J.H., Wang, Y.Y., Li, Y., Chen, J.B., Fan, J.X., Yang, S.S., Hu, L.P., Leung, H., Mew, T.W., Teng, P.S., Wang, Z.H., &
Mundt, C.C. (2000)
Genetic diversity and disease control in rice. Nature, 406, 6797, pp 718-722
Zhu, Y.Y., Wang, Y.Y., Chen, H.R., & Lu, B.R. (2003)
Conserving traditional rice varieties through management for crop diversity. Bioscience, 53, 2, pp 158-162