Institute of Zoology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU), Gregor Mendel Straße 33, A-1180, Vienna, Austria.
Agro-Environmental Research Institute, National Agricultural Research and Innovation Centre, Herman O. u. 15, Budapest, H-1022, Hungary.
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2020 May;27(14):17280-17289. doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-08213-5. Epub 2020 Mar 9.
Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) are currently the most widely used agrochemicals for weed control. Environmental risk assessments (ERA) on nontarget organisms mostly consider the active ingredients (AIs) of these herbicides, while much less is known on effects of commercial GBH formulations that are actually applied in the field. Moreover, it is largely unknown to what extent different soil characteristics alter potential side effects of herbicides. We conducted a greenhouse experiment growing a model weed population of Amaranthus retroflexus in arable field soil with either 3.0 or 4.1% soil organic matter (SOM) content and treated these weeds either with GBHs (Roundup LB Plus, Touchdown Quattro, Roundup PowerFlex) or their respective AIs (isopropylammonium, diammonium or potassium salts of glyphosate) at recommended dosages. Control pots were mechanically weeded. Nontarget effects were assessed on the surface activity of the springtail species Sminthurinus niger (pitfall trapping) and litter decomposition in the soil (teabag approach). Both GBHs and AIs increased the surface activity of springtails compared to control pots; springtail activity was higher under GBHs than under corresponding AIs. Stimulation of springtail activity was much higher in soil with higher SOM content than with low SOM content (significant treatment x SOM interaction). Litter decomposition was unaffected by GBHs, AIs or SOM levels. We suggest that ERAs for pesticides should be performed with actually applied herbicides rather than only on AIs and should also consider influences of different soil properties.
草甘膦类除草剂（GBH）是目前用于杂草控制的最广泛使用的农用化学品。对非靶标生物的环境风险评估（ERA）主要考虑这些除草剂的活性成分（AIs），而对于实际应用于田间的商业 GBH 制剂的影响则知之甚少。此外，不同土壤特性在多大程度上改变除草剂的潜在副作用也知之甚少。我们在含有 3.0%或 4.1%土壤有机质（SOM）的耕地土壤中进行了温室实验，种植了模型杂草苋菜种群，并以推荐剂量用 GBHs（Roundup LB Plus、Touchdown Quattro、Roundup PowerFlex）或其相应的 AIs（异丙基铵、二铵或草甘膦钾盐）处理这些杂草。对照盆通过机械除草。在地表活动的跳虫物种 Sminthurinus niger（陷阱陷阱）和土壤中的凋落物分解（茶包法）上评估非靶标效应。与对照盆相比，GBH 和 AIs 都增加了跳虫的地表活性；与相应的 AIs 相比，GBHs 下跳虫的活性更高。在 SOM 含量较高的土壤中，跳虫活性的刺激作用远高于 SOM 含量较低的土壤（处理 x SOM 交互作用显著）。凋落物分解不受 GBH、AIs 或 SOM 水平的影响。我们建议，应使用实际应用的除草剂而不是仅使用 AIs 进行农药 ERA，并应考虑不同土壤特性的影响。
