IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v245y2012icp75-83.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using relational decision trees to model out-crossing rates in a multi-field setting

Author

Listed:
  • Debeljak, Marko
  • Trajanov, Aneta
  • Stojanova, Daniela
  • Leprince, Florence
  • Džeroski, Sašo

Abstract

Nearly three-quarters of the genetically modified maize (the insect resistant type MON 810, also called Bt maize) produced in the EU are cultivated in Spain, where the share of Bt maize cultivation in some regions (Catalonia) is very high (above 70%). In order to ensure coexistence with the production of conventional maize and satisfy the 0.9% EU threshold for adventitious presence of authorized genetically modified (GM) material in conventional (non-GM) maize crops, a set of preventive coexistence measures must be applied. These measures usually include the setup of large and fixed isolation distances, pollen barriers, flowering coincidence, crop rotation and other measures, which are very hard to fulfill in a multi-field setting. Basic empirical and modeling studies that explore the feasibility of coexistence between GM and non-GM crops focus on pair-based interactions between fields while multi-field studies build upon them, attempting to consider the complexity of gene flow under crop management practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Debeljak, Marko & Trajanov, Aneta & Stojanova, Daniela & Leprince, Florence & Džeroski, Sašo, 2012. "Using relational decision trees to model out-crossing rates in a multi-field setting," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 245(C), pages 75-83.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:245:y:2012:i:c:p:75-83
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.04.015
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380012001810
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2012.04.015?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Demont, Matty & Daems, Wim & Dillen, Koen & Mathijs, Erik & Sausse, Christophe & Tollens, Eric, 2008. "Regulating coexistence in Europe: Beware of the domino-effect!," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 683-689, February.
    2. Marta Czarnak-Klos & Emilio Rodriguez Cerezo, 2010. "European Coexistence Bureau (ECoB) - Best Practice Document for Coexistence of Genetically Modified Crops with Conventional and Organic Farming. 1. Maize Crop Production," JRC Research Reports JRC59319, Joint Research Centre.
    3. Bohanec, Marko & Messéan, Antoine & Scatasta, Sara & Angevin, Frédérique & Griffiths, Bryan & Krogh, Paul Henning & Žnidaršič, Martin & Džeroski, Sašo, 2008. "A qualitative multi-attribute model for economic and ecological assessment of genetically modified crops," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 215(1), pages 247-261.
    4. Ivanovska, Aneta & Todorovski, Ljupčo & Debeljak, Marko & Džeroski, Sašo, 2009. "Modelling the outcrossing between genetically modified and conventional maize with equation discovery," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 220(8), pages 1063-1072.
    5. Belcher, Ken & Nolan, James & Phillips, Peter W.B., 2005. "Genetically modified crops and agricultural landscapes: spatial patterns of contamination," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 387-401, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Groeneveld, Rolf A. & Wesseler, Justus & Berentsen, Paul B.M., 2013. "Dominos in the dairy: An analysis of transgenic maize in Dutch dairy farming," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-116.
    2. Marion Desquilbet & Sylvaine Poret, 2014. "How do GM/non GM coexistence regulations affect markets and welfare?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 51-82, February.
    3. Breustedt, Gunnar & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Müller-Scheeßel, Jörg, 2013. "Impact of alternative information requirements on the coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM oilseed rape in the EU," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 104-115.
    4. GianCarlo Moschini, 2015. "In medio stat virtus: coexistence policies for GM and non-GM production in spatial equilibrium," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 42(5), pages 851-874.
    5. Gray, Emily & Ancev, Tihomir & Drynan, Ross, 2011. "Coexistence of GM and non-GM crops with endogenously determined separation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2486-2493.
    6. Demont, Matty & Dillen, Koen & Daems, Wim & Sausse, Christophe & Tollens, Eric & Mathijs, Erik, 2009. "On the proportionality of EU spatial ex ante coexistence regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 508-518, December.
    7. Demont, Matty & Daems, W. & Dillen, Koen & Mathijs, Erik & Sausse, C. & Tollens, Eric, 2008. "Economics of spatial coexistence of genetically modified and conventional crops: Oilseed rape in Central France," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 43650, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. GianCarlo Moschini, 2008. "Biotechnology and the development of food markets: retrospect and prospects," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 35(3), pages 331-355, September.
    9. Coléno, F.C. & Angevin, F. & Lécroart, B., 2009. "A model to evaluate the consequences of GM and non-GM segregation scenarios on GM crop placement in the landscape and cross-pollination risk management," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 101(1-2), pages 49-56, June.
    10. Nelson, John P., 2023. "Differential “progressibility” in human know-how: A conceptual overview," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    11. Parker, Dawn Cassandra, 2007. "Revealing "space" in spatial externalities: Edge-effect externalities and spatial incentives," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 84-99, July.
    12. Matty Demont & Yann Devos & Olivier Sanvido, 2010. "Towards Flexible Coexistence Regulations for GM crops in the EU Vers des réglementations flexibles en terme de coexistence pour les cultures transgéniques dans l’Union européenne Hin zu flexiblen Koex," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 9(2), pages 18-24, August.
    13. Wisner, Robert N., 2004. "Round-Up® Ready Spring Wheat: Its Potential Short-Term Impacts on U.S. Wheat Exports Markets and Prices," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12205, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    14. Munro, Alistair, 2008. "The spatial impact of genetically modified crops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 658-666, November.
    15. Mattia C. Mancini & Kent Kovacs & Eric Wailes & Jennie Popp, 2016. "Addressing the Externalities from Genetically Modified Pollen Drift on a Heterogeneous Landscape," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-18, October.
    16. Choi, E. Kwan, 2013. "Genetic contamination of traditional products," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 291-297.
    17. Matty Demont & Marie Cerovska & Wim Daems & Koen Dillen & József Fogarasi & Erik Mathijs & František Muška & Josef Soukup & Eric Tollens, 2008. "Ex Ante Impact Assessment under Imperfect Information: Biotechnology in New Member States of the EU," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 463-486, September.
    18. Lewis, David J. & Barham, Bradford L. & Zimmerer, Karl S., 2008. "Spatial Externalities in Agriculture: Empirical Analysis, Statistical Identification, and Policy Implications," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 1813-1829, October.
    19. Ambec, Stefan & Langinier, Corinne & Marcoul, Phillipe, 2011. "Spatial Efficiency of Genetically Modified and Organic Crops," Working Papers 2011-11, University of Alberta, Department of Economics.
    20. Samuel Le Féon & Théo Dubois & Christophe Jaeger & Aurélie Wilfart & Nouraya Akkal-Corfini & Jacopo Bacenetti & Michele Costantini & Joël Aubin, 2021. "DEXiAqua, a Model to Assess the Sustainability of Aquaculture Systems: Methodological Development and Application to a French Salmon Farm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-28, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:245:y:2012:i:c:p:75-83. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.