Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Commercialized transgenic traits, maize productivity and yield risk

Nature Biotechnology volume 31, pages 111–114 (2013)Cite this article

Subjects

To the Editor:

Maize expressing different versions of Bacillus thuringiensis toxins (Bt), 5 enolphyruvylshikimate-3 phosphate synthase (EPSPS) and phosphinothricin acetyl transferase alone or in combination are part of the current wave of agricultural technological change. We analyzed grain yield data from annual field experiments during 1990–2010 in Wisconsin to test hypotheses that maize expressing these transgenic traits alone or in combination (stacked) has greater productivity (as measured by the mean harvested yield) and lower production risk (as measured by the variance, skewness and kurtosis of harvested yield). Compared with conventional hybrids, the impact of transgenic traits (both single and stacked traits) on mean yield ranges from −12.2 to +6.5 bushels per acre. This shows that reducing yield risk is an important source of benefits of transgenic technology, especially for stacked traits. These benefits are estimated to be equivalent to a yield increase of 0.8–4.2 bushels per acre. We found evidence for gene interactions ('yield drag' and 'event lag' effects) that can reduce yield.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Anonymous. Crop Production 2010 Summary <http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropProdSu/2010s/2011/CropProdSu-01-12-2011_new_format.pdf> (National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, DC, 2011).

  2. Duvick, D. Adv. Agron. 86, 83–145 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Tester, M. & Langridge, P. Science 327, 818–822 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Fernandez-Cornejo, J. Adoption of genetically engineered crops in the US <http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/> (Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC; 2010).

  5. Anonymous. Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States <http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12804> (National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 2010).

  6. James, C. Executive Summary of Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2010 (ISAAA Briefs No. 42, International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Ithaca, NY, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Qaim, M. & Zilberman, D. Science 299, 900–902 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Qaim, M. Annu. Rev. Resource Econ. 1, 665–694 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ronald, P. Genetics 188, 11–20 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Doebley, J. Annu. Rev. Genet. 38, 37–59 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Springer, N.M. & Stupar, R.M. Genome Res. 17, 264–275 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Edgerton, M.D. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 493–496 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Goodwin, B. & Ker, A.P. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 80, 139–153 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Moss, C. & Shonkwiler, J.S. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 75, 1056–1062 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sherrick, B., Zanini, F.C., Schnitkey, G.D. & Irwin, S.H. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 86, 406–419 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Just, R.E. & Pope, R.D. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 61, 276–284 (1979).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Antle, J.M. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 3, 192–201 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Antle, J.M. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 69, 509–522 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Antle, J.M. & Goodger, W.J. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 66, 342–350 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was support in part by a US Department of Agriculture Hatch grant and a US Department of Agriculture AFRI grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA

    Guanming Shi & Jean-Paul Chavas

  2. Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA

    Joseph Lauer

Authors
  1. Guanming Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jean-Paul Chavas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joseph Lauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guanming Shi.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Methods and Supplementary Table (PDF 147 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shi, G., Chavas, JP. & Lauer, J. Commercialized transgenic traits, maize productivity and yield risk. Nat Biotechnol 31, 111–114 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2496

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2496

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing