Show simple item record

resumen

Abstract
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 [ver mas...]
dc.contributor.authorPalma Bautista, Candelario
dc.contributor.authorCruz Hipólito, Hugo E.
dc.contributor.authorAlcántara de la Cruz, Ricardo
dc.contributor.authorVázquez García, José Guadalupe
dc.contributor.authorYanniccari, Marcos
dc.contributor.authorde Prado, Rafael
dc.dateinfo:eu-repo/date/embargoEnd/2023-03-30
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-30T14:33:30Z
dc.date.available2021-03-30T14:33:30Z
dc.date.issued2021-07
dc.identifier.issn0269-7491
dc.identifier.issn1873-6424
dc.identifier.otherhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117013
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/9000
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749121005959
dc.description.abstractPremix 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 (LD50 ≥ 480+320 g ha−1 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 14C-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−1) 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.eng
dc.formatapplication/pdfes_AR
dc.language.isoenges_AR
dc.publisherElsevieres_AR
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccesses_AR
dc.sourceEnvironmental Pollution 281 : 117013 (July 2021)es_AR
dc.subjectEscardaes_AR
dc.subjectWeed Controleng
dc.subjectHerbicidases_AR
dc.subjectHerbicideseng
dc.subjectResistencia a los Herbicidases_AR
dc.subjectResistance to Herbicideseng
dc.subjectGlifosatoes_AR
dc.subjectGlyphosateeng
dc.subjectImpacto Ambientales_AR
dc.subjectEnvironmental Impacteng
dc.subject2,4-des_AR
dc.subject2,4-Deng
dc.subjectConyza canadensis
dc.subjectEpilobium
dc.subject.otherControl de Malezases_AR
dc.subject.otherÁcido 2,4-diclorofenoxiacéticoes_AR
dc.subject.otherEpilobium ciliatum
dc.titleComparison of premix glyphosate and 2,4-D formulation and direct tank mixture for control of Conyza canadensis and Epilobium ciliatumes_AR
dc.typeinfo:ar-repo/semantics/artículoes_AR
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_AR
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersiones_AR
dc.description.origenEEA Barrowes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Palma Bautista, Candelario. Universidad de Córdoba. Departamento de Química Agrícola y Edafología; Españaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Cruz Hipólito, Hugo E. Universidad de Córdoba. Departamento de Química Agrícola y Edafología; Españaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Alcántara de la Cruz, Ricardo. Universidade Federal de São Carlos. Departamento de Química; Brasiles_AR
dc.description.filFil: Vázquez García, José G. Universidad de Córdoba. Departamento de Química Agrícola y Edafología; Españaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: Yanniccari, Marcos Ezequiel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Laboratorio de Biotecnología y Genética Vegetal; Argentina.es_AR
dc.description.filFil: Yanniccari, Marcos Ezequiel. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Chacra Experimental Integrada Barrow; Argentinaes_AR
dc.description.filFil: de Prado, Rafael. Universidad de Córdoba. Departamento de Química Agrícola y Edafología; Españaes_AR
dc.subtypecientifico


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

common

Show simple item record