Assessing the Effect of Prometryn Soil Residue on Soil Microbial Biomass and Different Crops using Bioassay Test

پژوهش های حفاظت گیاهان ایران

Article 6, Volume 30, Issue 2 - Serial Number 35, June 2016, Pages 337-346   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jpp.v30i2.48344

Authors

M.T. Al-e-Ebrahim^* ; Mohammad Mehdizadeh

University of Mohaghegh Ardabili

Abstract

Introduction: Herbicides are the most widely used of chemical pesticides for agricultural production and landscape management. The environmental risk of herbicides should be evaluated near sites of application, even though basic ecotoxicological tests have been conducted before they can be registered for marketing. For example, triazine herbicides, which are photosynthetic PSII herbicide that considered only slightly or moderately toxic to many susceptible plants, soil microorganisms, mammals and humans, however, concerns have arisen because this herbicide are members of a class claimed to be carcinogenic, or may affect the development as reproductive toxins. For this reason, most reliable evidence is needed to test these claims and investigate their ecological effects. Prometryn is a herbicide belongs to triazine family that may leave residual activity in the soil for extended periods, causing injury and yield reduction of susceptible soil microorganisms and crops in rotation. Compared with other methods, the rapidity of response, sensitivity, high level of precision, simple process and easy operation are the advantages of bioassay methods for the routine monitoring of biologically available photosynthesis-inhibiting herbicides present in agricultural soils.
Materials and Methods: A pot experiment was conducted under greenhouse conditions in order to study the sensitivity of 4 different crops to prometryn soil residue at the College of Agricultural Sciences, Ilam University, Ilam, Iran in 2014. Experimental type was completely randomized design in a factorial arrangement with three replications. Treatments included 4 different crops (lettuce, barley, rapeseed and beet) and prometryn simulated concentrations residues in soil (0.0033, 0.0166, 0.033, 0.066, 0.1 and 0.166 mg. kg-1soil). 15 cm diameter pots were filled with a modified soil and 10 of seeds of crops were planted in 5 regular positions. The plants were thinned to five plants per pot after germination. The pots were kept for 30 days under controlled conditions. Shoot and root biomass production was measured 30 days after emergence. At harvest, growth parameters including the dry weight of shoots and roots were determined. The data were subjected to analysis of variance by computer facilities, using Mstatc software. Plant response to prometryn residues was fitted with sigmoidal 3 and 4 parametric equations to the shoot biomass data as a function of the herbicide residue concentrations and was used to calculate the doses for 50% inhibition of shoot growth (ED50). In another experiment the effect of prometryn concentrations (0, 0.0033, 0.0166, 0.033, 0.066, 0.1 and 0.166 mg. kg-1soil) on soil microbial activity was determined using titration method in controlled conditions.
Results and Discussion: Plant response to increasing concentration of prometryn, in general, followed a classical dose response relationship. The logistic model fitted well to the root and shoot plants response herbicide concentrations. Results showed that the shoot and root dry matter were significantly affected by increasing prometryn soil residue in all crops (plettuce>beet>barely. Based on the mechanism of action of prometryn and its best efficiency on board leaf plants control, the least biomass reduction obtained for barley is understandable. In general, this is safe to plant a susceptible species if the plant-available residue were less than the species ED10 value, and there would be a great risk for different levels of crop damage if the plant-available residue were higher than ED50 values of the species. Comparisons between species allow the safe selection of a crop that has a critical ED50 level lower than the residue level in the soil. Alternatively, planting a sensitive species could be delayed until the residue level in the soil is less than the critical level. In the Southwest areas of Iran, these crops are often sown few months after the application of a residual herbicide in the preceding crop. This large variation in plant sensitivity to prometryn residues indicates that there is potential for considerable damage to some of the rotational crops. In second experiment the results clearly indicating that in initial days of prometryn application used drastically reduced the C, N and total microbial in treated soil compared with the untreated (Control) soil.
Conclusion: According to the results of this studyt the study crops are very suitable for use in bioassays for the side-effects of prometryn at low concentration rates. In this study prometryn herbicide provided symptoms of phytotoxicity to the crops, whereas seed germination of crops was not adversely affected. In the other words, this condition indicating that the application of prometryn in agricultural soil leads to decrease the total biomass of soil microorganisms at initial period. By possibly knowing the level of prometryn residual in the soil, producers could have some flexibility in crop rotations if sensitive crops such as rapeseed are to be planted following triazine herbicide use on crops.

Keywords

ED50; Microorganism; Persistance; rapeseed; Triazine

References

1- Ahmad I., and Crawford G. 1990. Trace residua analysis of the sulfonylurea herbicide chlorsulfuron in soil by gas chromatography-electron capture detection. Journal of agricultural food chemistry, 38: 138-141.

2- Anderew H.C., and Rend P.H. 2010. Herbicide and plant physiology.second edition. Willey Blakkwell publication. 289. p.

3- Celano G., Smejkalova D., Spaccini R., and Piccolo A. 2008. Interactions of three s-triazines with humic acids of different structure. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 56: 7360-7366.

4- Demczuk A., Sacała E., and Grzys E. 2004. Changes in the activity of the acetyl lactate (ALS) under the effect of the herbicide Titus at different varieties of cucumber. Progress in Plant Protection, 44: 645-647.

5- Fisher L.R., York A.C., and Jordan D.L. 2007. Flue-cured Tobacco and Peanut Response to Diuron, Fluometuron and Prometryn Applied to a Preceding Crop. The Journal of Cotton Science, 11: 168-176.

6- Halloway K.L., Kookana R.S., Noy D.M., Smith J.G., and Wilhelm N. 2006.Persistence and leaching of imazethapyr and flumetsulam herbicides over a 4-year period in the highly alkaline soils of south-eastern Australia. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 46: 669-674.

7- Henderson C.W.L., and Webber M.J. 1993. Phytotoxicity of several pre-emergence and post-emergence herbicides to green bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 33: 645-652.

8- Imamul S.M., and Didarul M.D. 2005.A handbook on analysis of soil, plant and water. University of Dhaka, Bangladesh, 246 pp.

9- Izadi E., Rashed-Mohassel M.H., Mahmoudi GH., and Dehghan M. 2013. Evaluation of some crops tolerance to tribenuron methyl soil residues. Journal of Plant Protection. 26: 362-369. (in Persian).

10- Izadi E., Rashed-Mohassel M.H., and Zand E. 2011. Evaluation of different crops sensitivity to Atrazine soil residue. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research, 8: 995-1001. (in Persian)

11- Javorekova S., Svrekova I., and Makova J. 2010. Influence of benomyl and prometryn on the soil microbial activities and community structures in pasture grasslands of Slovakia. Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part B, 45: 702–709.

12- Jettner R.J., Walker S.R., Churchett J.D., Blamey F.P.C., Adkins S.W., and Bell K. 1999. Plant sensitivity to atrazine and chlorsulfuron residues in a soil free system. Weed Research, 39: 287-295.

13- Khan MS., Chaudhry P., Wani P.A., and Zaidi A. 2006. Biotoxiceffects of the herbicides on growth, seed yield, and grainprotein of greengram. Journal of Applied Science and Environmental Management, 10: 141-6.

14- Kucharski M., and Sadowski J. 2006. The impact of soil moisture on the distribution of herbicide– research laboratory. Progress in Plant Protection, 46: 750-753.

15- Mansoori S., Zand E., Baghestani-Meybodi M.A., and Tavakoli M. 2008. Effect of sulfonylurea herbicides on yield and component of yield of canola. Weed Science, 4: 83-85.

16- Mohiuddin M., and Mohammed M. 2013. Influence of fungicide (Carbendazim) and herbicides (2, 4-D and Metribuzin) on non-target beneficial soil microorganisms of Rhizospheric Soil of Tomato Crop. IOSR Journal of Environmental Science, Toxicology and Food Technology, 5: 47-50.

17- Moreno J.L., Aliaga A., Navarro S., Hernandez T., and Garcia C. 2007. Effects of atrazine on microbial activity in semiarid soil. Applied Soil Ecology, 35: 120-127.

18- Ou Z., Sun T., and Zhang H. 1994. A Bioassav for Determining Simazine in Water Using Aqiatic Flowering fiants (Ceratophyllurn oryzetorum, Ranunculus trichophyllus and Alisma plantago-aquatica). Pesticide Science, 42: 173-178.

19- Papadopoulou-Mourkidou E., Karpouzas D.G., Patsias J., Kotopoulou A., Milothridou A., Kintzikoglou K., and Vlachou P. 2004. The potential of pesticides to contaminate the groundwater resources of the Axios river basin in Macedonia, Northern Greece. Part I. Monitoring study in the north part of the basin. Science of the Total Environment, 321: 127–146.

20- Parrish S.K., Euler J.P., Gnogna R., Spirlet M., Walker A., Mc Vicar F.M., and Cullinngton J.E. 1995. Field, Glasshouses and laboratory investigations into the rate of degradation of MON-37500 in European Soils. British Crop Protection Conference. Weeds. 687-672.

21- Radivojevic L., Santric L., Stankovic R., and Janjic V. 2004. Herbicides and soil microorganisms. Plant Doctor, 32: 475-478.

22- Rahman A., and Holland P.T. 1985. Persistence and mobility of simazine in some New Zealand soils. New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 13: 59-65.

23- Ranft R.D., Seefeldt S.S., Zhang M., and Barnes D.L. 2010. Development of a soil bioassay for triclopyr residue and comparison with a laboratory extraction. Weed Technology, 24: 538-543.

24- Robert M.Z., Weaver M.A., and Martin L.A. 2006. Microbial adaptation for accelerated atrazine mineralization/degradation in Mississippi Delta soils. Weed Science, 54: 538-547.

25- Sadowski J., and Kucharski M. 2004. The impact of agro-meteorological factors to download and phytotoxicity remains of the herbicides contained in the soil. Progress in Plant Protection, 44: 355-363.

26- Sadowski J., Rola H., and Kucharski M. 2002. The use of bioassays to assess the level of herbicides residues in soil. Progress in Plant Protection, 42: 152-158.

27- Santin-Montanya I., Alonso-Prados J.L., Villarroya M., and Garci-Baudin J.M. 2006. Bioassay for determining sensitivity to sulfosulfuron on seven plant species. Journal of Environmental Science and Health B, 41: 781-793.

28- Sarmah A.K., Kookana R.S., and Alston A.M. 1999. Degradation of chlorsulfuron and triasulfuron in alkaline soil under laboratory conditions. Weed Research, 39: 83-92.

29- Sebiomo A., Ogundero V.W., and Bankole S.A. 2011. Effect of four herbicides on microbial population, soil organic matter and dehydrogenase activity. African Journal of Biotechnology, 10: 770-778.

30- Sekutowski T., and Sadowski J. 2009. PHYTOTOXKITTM microbiotest used in detecting herbicide residue in soil. Environment Protection Engineering, 35: 105-110.

31- Szmigielski A.M., Schoenau J.J., Lervine A., and Schilling B. 2010. Evaluation a mustard root bioassay for predicting crop injury from soil residual flucarbazone. Communications in soil science and plant analysis, 39: 413- 420.

32- Tietjen K.G., Kluth J.F., Andree R., Haug M., Lindig M., Muller K.H., Wroblowsky H.J., and Trebst A. 1991. The herbicide binding niche of photosystem II - a model. Pesticide Science, 31: 65-72.

33- Ware G.W. 2000. The Pesticide Book.5th ed. Thomson Publications, Fresno, CA.

34- Woznica Z. 2008. Herbologia. Basics of biology, ecology and weed control. Ed. PWRiL, Poznan, pp. 430.