Comparison of premix glyphosate and 2,4-D formulation and direct tank mixture for control of Conyza canadensis and Epilobium ciliatum

Autores
Palma Bautista, Candelario; Cruz Hipólito, Hugo E.; Alcántara de la Cruz, Ricardo; Vázquez García, José Guadalupe; Yanniccari, Marcos; de Prado, Rafael
Año de publicación
2021
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión aceptada
Descripción
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 (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.
EEA Barrow
Fil: Palma Bautista, Candelario. Universidad de Córdoba. Departamento de Química Agrícola y Edafología; España
Fil: Cruz Hipólito, Hugo E. Universidad de Córdoba. Departamento de Química Agrícola y Edafología; España
Fil: Alcántara de la Cruz, Ricardo. Universidade Federal de São Carlos. Departamento de Química; Brasil
Fil: Vázquez García, José G. Universidad de Córdoba. Departamento de Química Agrícola y Edafología; España
Fil: Yanniccari, Marcos Ezequiel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Laboratorio de Biotecnología y Genética Vegetal; Argentina.
Fil: Yanniccari, Marcos Ezequiel. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Chacra Experimental Integrada Barrow; Argentina
Fil: de Prado, Rafael. Universidad de Córdoba. Departamento de Química Agrícola y Edafología; España
Fuente
Environmental Pollution 281 : 117013 (July 2021)
Materia
Escarda
Herbicidas
Resistencia a los Herbicidas
Glifosato
Impacto Ambiental
2,4-d
Weed Control
Herbicides
Resistance to Herbicides
Glyphosate
Environmental Impact
2,4-D
Conyza canadensis
Epilobium
Control de Malezas
Ácido 2,4-diclorofenoxiacético
Epilobium ciliatum
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
Repositorio
INTA Digital (INTA)
Institución
Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
OAI Identificador
oai:localhost:20.500.12123/9000
Acceder
id INTADig_5bbdf779e49a7013f5b7709e15641dce
oai_identifier_str oai:localhost:20.500.12123/9000
network_acronym_str INTADig
repository_id_str l
network_name_str INTA Digital (INTA)
spelling Comparison of premix glyphosate and 2,4-D formulation and direct tank mixture for control of Conyza canadensis and Epilobium ciliatumPalma Bautista, CandelarioCruz Hipólito, Hugo E.Alcántara de la Cruz, RicardoVázquez García, José GuadalupeYanniccari, Marcosde Prado, RafaelEscardaHerbicidasResistencia a los HerbicidasGlifosatoImpacto Ambiental2,4-dWeed ControlHerbicidesResistance to HerbicidesGlyphosateEnvironmental Impact2,4-DConyza canadensisEpilobiumControl de MalezasÁcido 2,4-diclorofenoxiacéticoEpilobium ciliatumPremix 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.EEA BarrowFil: Palma Bautista, Candelario. Universidad de Córdoba. Departamento de Química Agrícola y Edafología; EspañaFil: Cruz Hipólito, Hugo E. Universidad de Córdoba. Departamento de Química Agrícola y Edafología; EspañaFil: Alcántara de la Cruz, Ricardo. Universidade Federal de São Carlos. Departamento de Química; BrasilFil: Vázquez García, José G. Universidad de Córdoba. Departamento de Química Agrícola y Edafología; EspañaFil: Yanniccari, Marcos Ezequiel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Laboratorio de Biotecnología y Genética Vegetal; Argentina.Fil: Yanniccari, Marcos Ezequiel. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Chacra Experimental Integrada Barrow; ArgentinaFil: de Prado, Rafael. Universidad de Córdoba. Departamento de Química Agrícola y Edafología; EspañaElsevierinfo:eu-repo/date/embargoEnd/2023-03-302021-03-30T14:33:30Z2021-03-30T14:33:30Z2021-07info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/9000https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02697491210059590269-74911873-6424https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117013Environmental Pollution 281 : 117013 (July 2021)reponame:INTA Digital (INTA)instname:Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuariaenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2025-10-23T11:17:32Zoai:localhost:20.500.12123/9000instacron:INTAInstitucionalhttp://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/oai/requesttripaldi.nicolas@inta.gob.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:l2025-10-23 11:17:33.301INTA Digital (INTA) - Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuariafalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Comparison of premix glyphosate and 2,4-D formulation and direct tank mixture for control of Conyza canadensis and Epilobium ciliatum
title Comparison of premix glyphosate and 2,4-D formulation and direct tank mixture for control of Conyza canadensis and Epilobium ciliatum
spellingShingle Comparison of premix glyphosate and 2,4-D formulation and direct tank mixture for control of Conyza canadensis and Epilobium ciliatum
Palma Bautista, Candelario
Escarda
Herbicidas
Resistencia a los Herbicidas
Glifosato
Impacto Ambiental
2,4-d
Weed Control
Herbicides
Resistance to Herbicides
Glyphosate
Environmental Impact
2,4-D
Conyza canadensis
Epilobium
Control de Malezas
Ácido 2,4-diclorofenoxiacético
Epilobium ciliatum
title_short Comparison of premix glyphosate and 2,4-D formulation and direct tank mixture for control of Conyza canadensis and Epilobium ciliatum
title_full Comparison of premix glyphosate and 2,4-D formulation and direct tank mixture for control of Conyza canadensis and Epilobium ciliatum
title_fullStr Comparison of premix glyphosate and 2,4-D formulation and direct tank mixture for control of Conyza canadensis and Epilobium ciliatum
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of premix glyphosate and 2,4-D formulation and direct tank mixture for control of Conyza canadensis and Epilobium ciliatum
title_sort Comparison of premix glyphosate and 2,4-D formulation and direct tank mixture for control of Conyza canadensis and Epilobium ciliatum
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Palma Bautista, Candelario
Cruz Hipólito, Hugo E.
Alcántara de la Cruz, Ricardo
Vázquez García, José Guadalupe
Yanniccari, Marcos
de Prado, Rafael
author Palma Bautista, Candelario
author_facet Palma Bautista, Candelario
Cruz Hipólito, Hugo E.
Alcántara de la Cruz, Ricardo
Vázquez García, José Guadalupe
Yanniccari, Marcos
de Prado, Rafael
author_role author
author2 Cruz Hipólito, Hugo E.
Alcántara de la Cruz, Ricardo
Vázquez García, José Guadalupe
Yanniccari, Marcos
de Prado, Rafael
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Escarda
Herbicidas
Resistencia a los Herbicidas
Glifosato
Impacto Ambiental
2,4-d
Weed Control
Herbicides
Resistance to Herbicides
Glyphosate
Environmental Impact
2,4-D
Conyza canadensis
Epilobium
Control de Malezas
Ácido 2,4-diclorofenoxiacético
Epilobium ciliatum
topic Escarda
Herbicidas
Resistencia a los Herbicidas
Glifosato
Impacto Ambiental
2,4-d
Weed Control
Herbicides
Resistance to Herbicides
Glyphosate
Environmental Impact
2,4-D
Conyza canadensis
Epilobium
Control de Malezas
Ácido 2,4-diclorofenoxiacético
Epilobium ciliatum
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv 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 (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.
EEA Barrow
Fil: Palma Bautista, Candelario. Universidad de Córdoba. Departamento de Química Agrícola y Edafología; España
Fil: Cruz Hipólito, Hugo E. Universidad de Córdoba. Departamento de Química Agrícola y Edafología; España
Fil: Alcántara de la Cruz, Ricardo. Universidade Federal de São Carlos. Departamento de Química; Brasil
Fil: Vázquez García, José G. Universidad de Córdoba. Departamento de Química Agrícola y Edafología; España
Fil: Yanniccari, Marcos Ezequiel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Laboratorio de Biotecnología y Genética Vegetal; Argentina.
Fil: Yanniccari, Marcos Ezequiel. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA). Chacra Experimental Integrada Barrow; Argentina
Fil: de Prado, Rafael. Universidad de Córdoba. Departamento de Química Agrícola y Edafología; España
description 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 (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.
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021-03-30T14:33:30Z
2021-03-30T14:33:30Z
2021-07
info:eu-repo/date/embargoEnd/2023-03-30
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str acceptedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/9000
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749121005959
0269-7491
1873-6424
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117013
url http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12123/9000
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0269749121005959
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117013
identifier_str_mv 0269-7491
1873-6424
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Elsevier
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Environmental Pollution 281 : 117013 (July 2021)
reponame:INTA Digital (INTA)
instname:Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
reponame_str INTA Digital (INTA)
collection INTA Digital (INTA)
instname_str Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
repository.name.fl_str_mv INTA Digital (INTA) - Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria
repository.mail.fl_str_mv tripaldi.nicolas@inta.gob.ar
_version_ 1846787542920200192
score 12.982451

Publicaciones similares