A GM technology improves water use efficiency in the Australian Cotton Industry.

Insect-resistant cotton also water efficient

Preliminary results from CSIRO research in Narrabri have shown that genetically modified insect-resistant cotton may also be more water efficient.

Two years of field experiments by CSIRO Plant Industry's Mr Dirk Richards and Mr Stephen Yeates, show that under normal full irrigation, Bollgard® II cotton used ten per cent less water than an equivalent conventional variety and had higher yields.

Bollgard® II makes up most of the Australian cotton crop and has reduced pesticide use by up to 80 per cent.

Research is now optimising agronomic management of Bollgard® II as it tends to produce bolls earlier than conventional cotton because insect damage does not delay early crop growth.

Bollgard® II and conventional cotton extract soil water at a similar rate, but Bollgard® II has a more compact growing season so uses less water overall for the same or higher yields.

Bollgard® II had lower yields only when it was moisture stressed from peak flowering to the end of flowering when boll filling started.

Soil moisture stress applied to conventional cotton at the same time did not affect yield as much, due to later flowering and a better ability to compensate later in the season.

This research is helping growers fine tune their water management strategies for Bollgard® II.

This research is supported by the Cotton Research and Development Corporation and the Cotton Catchment Communities Cooperative Research Centre.

Roger Kalla has this to say at Jen Marohasy's blog, which linked to this post:

Interesting stuff coming out of Narrabri. It is further evidence that technological 'fixes' to different kind of stresses that affect yields and productivity of our crops plants actually can have synergistic effects.

Insect protected crops that need to devote less resources to defend themselves against attack from insects can devote a larger proportion of their energy to harvest water efficiently.

This is a good example where the seemingly reductionistic approach of fixing one problem actually has a profound effect on the whole plant physiology which allows in this case the genetically engineered cotton plant to increase it water use efficiency.

So by adding a single gene to cotton ( using reductionistic GM technology) we get environmental benefits in both reduced pesticide use by 80% and a more efficient use of water.

Now that is something Greenpeace should consider when they want the [Australian] States to continue with their bans on GM crops.

GMO Pundit's take:

PR stunts are often there to cover up an inconvenient truth with pre-emptive smoke, and on this topic we have seen major PR spin in the opposite direction from Greenpeace and their subsidiaries.

On the surface this is just another science story.

But drought and climate challenges are a key agronomic challenge here and elsewhere, and with Bollgard II cotton we're a little better off as far as water use efficiency

Note that before this item appeared, Greenpeace and NCF circulated rumours and did FOI stunts and PR spin implying the opposite (surprise surprise) . Plant physiology, crop science and genetics are intimately entwined in the interpretation, so that it requires care, time, extensive factual data and good judgement in evaluation of the benefits. It's easy to spin the story in any direction, so take care when the story comes from known spinmeisters.

"Greenpeace recently asked CSIRO for documentation on the water use, soil impact and effect on other insects of GM cotton through a freedom of information request. CSIRO have apparently responded by asking for $21,000 - the cost of getting 1,000 hours of documentation together."

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000962.html

The Network of Concerned Farmers, an alliance of farmers with concerns regarding genetically modified crops, are calling for research to determine why GM crops perform worse during droughts.

"There is more than enough evidence to reveal that GM crops perform worse than non-GM crops during drought conditions but this vital information is being ignored," said Julie Newman, National Spokesperson for the Network of Concerned Farmers.

http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2253

But that's the point I'm making: PR stunts are often there to cover up an inconvenient truth with pre-emptive smoke.

That what Kym Chance's current drivel on alleged non GM premium's for canola is all about, as less than +3% premium for non GM canola is trivial compared to -30% cost disadvantage.


Bottom line
A concrete example showing that genetics can preserve water in the soil by management of total transpiration, but you need to be clever to capture the value. Of course you don't need GM to do it, that's not the point either. But it is useful to ensure that GM crops capture these complex and sometimes marginal advantages .

See Also
Only in America: GM saving farmers from drought this year.

Corn with YieldGard in Triple Stack Does well in Drought as it has better Roots.