Gene Flow, Invasiveness, and Ecological Impact of Genetically Modified Crops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main environmental concerns about genetically modified (GM) crops are the potential weediness or invasiveness in the crop itself or in its wild or weedy relatives as a result of transgene movement. Here we briefly review evidence for pollen- and seed-mediated gene flow from GM crops to non-GM or other GM crops and to wild relatives. The report focuses on the effect of abiotic and biotic stress-tolerance traits on plant fitness and their potential to increase weedy or invasive tendencies. An evaluation of weediness and invasive traits that contribute to the success of agricultural weeds and invasive plants was of limited value in predicting the effect of biotic and abiotic stress-tolerance GM traits, suggesting context-specific evaluation rather than generalizations. Fitness data on herbicide, insect, and disease resistance, as well as cold-, drought-, and salinity-tolerance traits, are reviewed. We describe useful ecological models predicting the effects of gene flow and altered fitness in GM crops and wild/weedy relatives, as well as suitable mitigation measures. A better understanding of factors controlling population size, dynamics, and range limits in weedy volunteer GM crop and related host or target weed populations is necessary before the effect of biotic and abiotic stress-tolerance GM traits can be fully assessed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".