Department of Agricultural Chemistry, Edaphology and Microbiology, University of Cordoba, 14071, Cordoba, Spain.
Departamento de Química, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, 13565-905, Brazil.
Environ Pollut. 2021 Jul 15;281:117013. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117013. Epub 2021 Mar 24.
Premix or tank mix of glyphosate and 2,4-D are a good alternative to control glyphosate-resistant and -tolerant weeds; however, the combination of herbicides may increase the environmental impacts, since mixtures often have higher toxicity than a single herbicide. In addition, antagonism between these herbicides has also been reported. We compared the efficacy of a premix glyphosate+2,4-D formulation with respect to the tank mix of both herbicides on glyphosate-resistant Conyza canadensis and -tolerant Epilobium ciliatum populations in laboratory and field experiments. 2,4-D suppressed the glyphosate-resistance/tolerance of both species, whose populations presented similar responses to their susceptible counterparts (LD ≥ 480+320 g ha glyphosate + 2,4-D, respectively). Plants of both species treated with the premix formulations retained ∼100-μL more herbicide solution, accumulated 20-25% and 28-38% more shikimate and ethylene, respectively, and presented greater C-glyphosate absorption and translocation, depending on the species, compared to plants treated with the tank mix treatment. Although doubling the field dose (720 + 480 g ha) improved (5-22%) the control of these weeds in the field, split applications of both premix and tank mix provided the best control levels (≤70%), but premix treatments maintained control levels above 85% for longer (120-d). No antagonism between glyphosate and 2,4-D was found. The addition of 2,4-D controlled both broadleaf species. For all parameters evaluated on the C. canadensis and E. ciliatum populations in the laboratory and in the field, the premix treatments showed better performance than the tank mix treatments. Premix formulations could reduce the environmental impact of herbicides used to control glyphosate resistant/tolerant weeds by decreasing the herbicide amount needed to achieve an acceptable weed control level.
草甘膦与 2,4-D 的预混或桶混是控制抗草甘膦和耐草甘膦杂草的一种很好的替代方法;然而,除草剂的混合物可能会增加环境影响,因为混合物的毒性通常比单一除草剂更高。此外,还报道了这些除草剂之间的拮抗作用。我们比较了草甘膦+2,4-D 预混配方与两种除草剂桶混在实验室和田间试验中对抗草甘膦的加拿大飞蓬和耐草甘膦的柳穿鱼种群的效果。2,4-D 抑制了这两个物种的草甘膦抗药性/耐性,它们的种群对其敏感对应物的反应相似(LD ≥ 480+320 g ha 草甘膦+2,4-D,分别)。用预混配方处理的两种植物保留了约 100-μL 更多的除草剂溶液,分别积累了 20-25%和 28-38%更多的莽草酸和乙烯,并且根据物种的不同,表现出更大的 C-草甘膦吸收和转运,与用桶混处理的植物相比。虽然田间剂量加倍(720+480 g ha)提高了(5-22%)对这些杂草的控制,但两种预混和桶混的分剂量施用提供了最好的控制水平(≤70%),但预混处理保持控制水平在 120 天以上(85%)。未发现草甘膦和 2,4-D 之间的拮抗作用。2,4-D 的添加控制了两种阔叶物种。对于在实验室和田间试验中对 C. canadensis 和 E. ciliatum 种群评估的所有参数,预混处理的表现均优于桶混处理。预混配方可以通过减少达到可接受杂草控制水平所需的除草剂用量来降低用于控制抗草甘膦/耐草甘膦杂草的除草剂的环境影响。