National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 4 Concluding Thoughts
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2008. Genetically Engineered Organisms, Wildlife, and Habitat: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12218.
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2008. Genetically Engineered Organisms, Wildlife, and Habitat: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12218.
Page 54

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

References Andow, D.A. 2003. UK farm-scale evaluations of transgenic herbicide-tolerant crops. Nature Biotechnology 21:1453–1454. Aspen FACE. 2008. Aspen FACE (Free-Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment) Experiment Web- site. Available online at [accessed on April 11, 2008]. Butler, S.J., J.A. Vickery, and K. Norris. 2007. Farmland diversity and the footprint of agri- culture. Science 315:381–384. Cattaneo, M., C. Yafuso, C. Schmidt, C. Huang, M. Rahman, C. Olson, C. Ellers-Kirk, B. Orr, S.E. Marsh, L. Antilla, P. Dutilleul, and Y. Carrière. Farm-scale evaluation of the impacts of transgenic cotton on biodiversity, pesticide use, and yield. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103:7571–7576. Council on Environmental Quality and Office of Science and Technology Policy (CEQ/ OSTP). 2001. Case Studies of Environmental Regulation. Washington, DC: Office of Science and Technology Policy. Available online at [accessed on April 11, 2008]. Dietz, H., and P.J. Edwards. 2006. Recognition that causal processes change during plant invasion helps explain conflicts in evidence. Ecology 87(6):1359–1367. Ewald, D., J. Hu, and M. Yang. 2006. Transgenic Forest Trees in China. Chapter 2 in Tree Transgenesis: Recent Developments, M. Fladung and D. Ewald, eds. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Federico, P., T.G. Hallam, G.F. McCracken, S. Purucker, W. Grant, A.N. Sandoval, J. Westbrook, R. Medellin, C. Cleveland, C.G. Sansone, J.D. López Jr., M. Betke, A. Moreno-Valdez, T. H. Kunz. 2008. Brazilian free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis) as insect pest regulators in transgenic and conventional cotton crops. Ecological Applications 18:826–837. Fernandez-Cornejo, J., and M. Caswell. 2006. The First Decade of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States. USDA Economic Research Service Economic Information Bulletin 11. Washington, DC: USDA. Marvier, M., C. McCreedy, J. Regetz, and P. Kareiva. 2007. A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates. Science 316:1475–1477. 53

54 GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ORGANISMS, WILDLIFE, AND HABITAT Kapuscinki, A.R., K. Hayes, S. Li, and G. Dana, ed. 2007. Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms, Volume 3: Methodologies for Transgenic Fish. Oxfordshire, UK: CABI Publishing. National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). 2008. Available online at http://www. [accessed on April 11, 2008]. National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. 2001. Ecological Monitoring of Genetically Modified Crops: A Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NRC. 2002a. Animal Biotechnology: Science Based Concerns. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. 2002b. Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants: The Scope and Adequacy of Regu- lation. The National Academies Press. NRC. 2004. Biological Confinement of Genetically Engineered Organisms. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Pilate, G., E. Guiney, K. Holt, M. Petit-Conil, C. Lapierre, J-C. Leplé, B. Pollet, I. Mila, E.A. Webster, H.G. Marstorp, D.W. Hopkins, L. Jouanin, W. Boerjan, W. Schuch, D. Cornu, and C. Halpin. 2002. Field and pulping performances of transgenic trees with altered lignification. Nature Biotechnology 20:607–612. Rosi-Marshall, E., J.L. Tank, T.V. Royer, M.R. Whiles, M. Evans-White, C. Chambers, N.A. Griffiths, J. Pokelsek, and M.L. Stephen. 2007. Transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems. PNAS 104:16204–16208. U.K. Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs. 2008. Farm Scale Evaluations (FSE). Available online at [accessed on April 11, 2008]. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2008. Program Synopsis: USDA Biotech- nology Risk Assessment Grants (BRAG) Program. Available online at http://www. [accessed January 18, 2008]. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2008. Welcome to the USGS: Biological Resources Discipline. Available online at [accessed January 18, 2008]. Wolfenbarger, L. L., S. E. Naranjo, J.G. Lundgren, R.J. Bitzer, and L.S. Watrud. 2008. Bt crop effects on functional guilds of non-target arthropods: A meta-analysis. PLoS One 3(5): e2115–e2118.

Next: Appendix A: Agenda »
Genetically Engineered Organisms, Wildlife, and Habitat: A Workshop Summary Get This Book
Buy Paperback | $38.00 Buy Ebook | $30.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Since the first commercial introduction of transgenic corn plants in 1995, biotechnology has provided enormous benefits to agricultural crop production. Research is underway to develop a much broader range of genetically engineered organisms (GEOs), including fish, trees, microbes, and insects, that could have the potential to transform fields such as aquaculture, biofuels production, bioremediation, biocontrol, and even the production of pharmaceuticals . However, biotechnology is not without risk and continues to be an extremely controversial topic. Chief among the concerns is the potential ecological effects of GEOs that interact with wildlife and habitats.

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is charged with providing scientific advice to inform federal agencies that manage wildlife and their habitats. USGS has identified biotechnology as one of its major challenges for future research. Seeing an opportunity to initiate a dialogue between ecologists and developers of GEOs about this challenge, the USGS and the National Research Council (NRC) held a two-day workshop in November of 2007, to identify research activities with the greatest potential to provide the information needed to assess the ecological effects of GEOs on wildlife and habitats. The workshop, designed to approach the research questions from a habitat, rather than transgenic organism, perspective, is summarized in this book.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook,'s online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!