4.7 Article

Soil ecotoxicity assessment of glyphosate use under field conditions: microbial activity and community structure of Eubacteria and ammonia-oxidising bacteria

期刊

PEST MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
卷 72, 期 4, 页码 684-691

出版社

JOHN WILEY & SONS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/ps.4037

关键词

glyphosate; soil microbial community; microbial activity; quantitative PCR; denaturant gradient gel electrophoresis; ammonia-oxidising bacteria

资金

  1. National Agency of Scientific and Technical Promotion (ANPCyT) [PICT 2011-0736, PICT 2012-0122]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUNDA plot-scale experiment was conducted to assess the impact of field application rates of glyphosate on soil microbial communities by taking measurements of microbial activity (in terms of substrate-induced respiration and enzyme activity) in parallel with culture-independent approaches to assessing both bacterial abundance and diversity. Two rates of glyphosate, alone or in a mixture with 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, were applied directly onto the soil surface, simulating normal use in chemical fallow in no-till systems. RESULTSNo consistent rate-dependent responses were observed in the microbial activity parameters investigated in the field plots that were exposed to glyphosate. Denaturant gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) of the overall bacterial community (Eubacteria) and ammonia-oxidising bacteria (AOB) revealed no effects of the high rate of glyphosate on the structure of the communities in comparison with the control. No treatment effects were observed on the abundance of Eubacteria shortly after treatment in 2010, while a small but significant difference between the high rate and the control was detected in the first sampling in 2011. The abundance of AOB was relatively low during the study, and treatment effects were undetectable. CONCLUSIONSThe absence of negative effects on soil microbial communities in this study suggests that glyphosate use at recommended rates poses low risk to the microbiota. (c) 2015 Society of Chemical Industry

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据