Assessment of regional capabilities for agricultural coexistence with genetically modified maize

BACKGROUND: The coexistence of agricultural production with and without the use of genetically modified (GV) crops is supposed to be made possible in Germany by regulations, which include minimal distances of GV-fields to potentially susceptible crop fields and habitats. To explore the impact of these regulations on region specific coexistence potentials, we broadened the applicability of an existing method for the simulation of the spatial distribution of arable fields cropped with conventional, organic and GV-maize. We used simulations which combine a variety of minimum distances of GV-maize fields to assess regional specific options and limitations for coexistence. RESULTS: An existing method was extended to be applicable for different spatial scales, from the large (e.g. Federal State) to small (e.g. municipality). Input data consisted of cropping statistics, geometry of arable fields and protected areas. Scenarios of cropping situations included various minimal distances between GV-maize fields and protected areas and various proportions of maize within the areas. The results of the simulations represent possible distribution patterns of non-GV and GV-maize fields as well as the size of the remaining area in which additional GV-maize can be grown without violating the minimal distance rules. As suspected, increasing proportions of GV-maize and increasing minimal distances lower the areas suitable for additional GV-maize. However, the relation between the area of GV-maize grown and those suitable for GV-maize cultivation varied between the scenarios. Moreover, the variability between the municipalities was even more evident, due to varying landscape structure (proportion of maize, the ratio total arable land to maize, proportion of protected areas). Areas with high proportions of GV-maize, of protected areas and of maize could be problematical for coexistence. We discuss these parameters with regard to other coexistence studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our method is suitable to simulate the spatial distribution of fields cultivated with GV-crops and non-GV-crops on various scales. Simulations on the scale of a Federal State reveals those areas, in which coexistence could be problematical. Simulations on a county scale, however, allow more insight into options and restrictions for coexistence in relation to landscape structural characteristics, which also can be transferred to larger scales. On the scale of municipalities simulations can help to analyse the limits of coexistence in areas of high conflict potential, moreover this level is more realistic with regard to practical agricultural decisions on the farm level.