Questions? Call 888-624-8373

PAPERBACK + PDF
your price: $41.00
add to cart

PAPERBACK
list:$34.95
Web:$31.46
add to cart

PDF BOOK
your price: $27.00
add to cart

PDF CHAPTERS
your price: $2.80
select

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

Animal Biotechnology: Science Based Concerns (2002)
Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources (BANR)
Board on Life Sciences (BLS)

Page
83
bottomleft bottomright

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.


Animal Biotechnology: Science-Based Concerns

TABLE 5.1 Factors contributing to level of concern for species transformed.

 

Factor Contributing to Concern

 

Animal

Number of Citations1

Ability to Become Feral2

Likelihood of Escape Captivity3

Mobility4

Community Disruptions Reported5

Level of Concern6

Insects8

1804

High

High

High

Many

 

Fish7

186

High

High

High

Many

Mice/ Rats

53

High

High

High

Many

Cat

160

High

High

Moderate

Many

Pig

155

High

Moderate

Low

Many

Goat

88

High

Moderate

Moderate

Some

Horse

93

High

Moderate

High

Few

Rabbit

8

High

Moderate

Moderate

Few

Mink

16

High

High

Moderate

None

Dog

11

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Few

Chicken

11

Low

Moderate

Moderate

None

Sheep

27

Low

Low

Low

Few

Cattle

16

Low

Low

Low

None

1 Number of scientific papers dealing with feral animals of this species.

2 Based on number of feral populations reported.

3 Based on ability of organism to evade confinement measures by flying, digging, swimming, or jumping ability for any of the life stages.

4 Relative dispersal distance by walking, running, flying, swimming, or hitchhiking in trucks, trains, boats, etc.

5 Based on worldwide citations reporting community damage and extent of damage.

6 A ranking based on the four contributing factors.

7 Did not include shellfish, some of which (such as zebra mussel and asiatic clam) have proven highly invasive.

8Limited to gypsy moth and Africanized honeybee.

The Likelihood of Harm Given that Exposure has Occurred: P(H/E)

The stability and resilience of the receiving community is another factor that influences whether transitory or long-term harm results from the introduction of GE animals. Colonization by GE animals might result in local displacement of a conspecific population, which could have a disruptive effect on other species in a community, for example, by releasing competing species from resource competition or prey species from predation (Kapuscinski and Hallerman, 1990); additionally, the survival of predatory species that depend on the eliminated species could be threatened. This concern is best exemplified by the classic experiment of Paine (1966) in the rocky intertidal zone. By experimentally removing the top predator, a starfish (Piaster sp.), the number of species in the plot was reduced from 15 to eight. Another example is the impact of pigs on plant species diversity reported by Hone (2002). Ground rooting of feral pigs in Namadgi National Park, Australia, decreased the number of plant

Page
83