Advertisement

Effects of the Glyphosate Active Ingredient and a Formulation on Lemna gibba L. at Different Exposure Levels and Assessment End-Points

  • M. C. Sobrero
  • F. Rimoldi
  • A. E. Ronco
Article

Abstract

The use of formulations of the herbicide glyphosate in transgenic crops of the Pampa’s plains of Argentina has extensively increased, though there is scarce information of its impact on non-target vascular plants from agro-ecosystem related surface waters. The sensitivity of a local clone of the macrophyte Lemna gibba L. to glyphosate active principle and Roundup Max formulation was studied in standardized laboratory conditions. Phytotoxic effects, considering the aquatic route, at a concentration range of glyphosate between 0.5 and 80 mg L−1 as active ingredient during 10 days of exposure were assessed on plant population growth, frond growth, shape and number, total chlorophyll content and colony architecture. Exposure to 1 mg L−1 of glyphosate (an expected environmental concentration) affects all the studied assessment endpoints, except for population growth and chlorophyll content. Equivalent concentrations of this herbicide as the active ingredient or RoundupMax indicate higher phytotocity of the formulation. Exposed plants at concentrations of herbicide between 1 and 7.5 mg L−1 exhibit after two days a recovery of the multiplication rate. Frond aggregation and longer stipe was detected between 1 and 15 mg L−1 of glyphosate, determining more open colony architecture. At higher concentrations of the herbicide fronds break-up. Comparisons with literature data indicate a higher sensitivity of the L. gibba local clone with respect to L. minor and algal species, and also a similar response to the herbicide in field experiments with the same species.

Keywords

Glyphosate Roundup Total Chlorophyll Content Glyphosate Concentration Local Clone 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank P. Peruzzo for assistance in chemical analysis and C. Knipp for editorial suggestions. Financial support was from the National Agency for Promotion of Science and Technology ANPCyT (project PICT2000 8480) and the National University of La Plata, Argentina.

References

  1. AOAC (1990) Official methods of analysis of the AOAC. Method 983.10. Association of Official Analytical Chemists Inc., Virginia, p 205Google Scholar
  2. Blackburn L, Boutin C (2003) Subtle effects of herbicide use in the context of genetically modified crops: a case study with glyphosate (Roundup R). Ecotoxicology 12:271–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boutin C, Freemark KE, Keddy CJ (1993) Proposed guidelines for registration of chemical pesticides: non target plant testing and evaluation. Technical report series 145. Canadian Wildlife Service, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  4. Cox C (2003) Herbicide fact sheet glyphosate (Roundup). J Pestic Reform 18:3–17, 1998, updated 4/03Google Scholar
  5. Environment Canada (1999) Biological test method: test for measuring the inhibition of growth using the freshwater macrophyte, Lemna minor. Environmental Protection Service, EPS 1/RM/37, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  6. Krogh KA, Halling-Sorensen B, Mogensen BB, Vejrup KV (2003) Environmental properties and effect of non ionic surfactants adjuvants in pesticides: a review. Chemosphere 50:871–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lockhart WL, Billeck BN, Baron CL (1989) Bioassays with a floating aquatic plant (Lemna minor) for effects of sprayed and dissolved glyphosate. Hydrobiologia 188/189:353–359Google Scholar
  8. Martin ML, Sobrero MC, Rivas C, Rimoldi F, Ronco A (2003) Impacto del uso de pesticidas asociado a la siembra directa sobre especies no blanco. Flora riparia y acuática. In: Memorias Conferencia Internacional Usos del Agua, Cartagena de Indias, pp 27–31Google Scholar
  9. Martin ML, Ronco A (2006) Effects of mixtures of pesticides used in the direct seeding technique on non-target plant seeds. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 77:228–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Michel A, Johnson RD, Duke SO, Scheffler BE (2004) Dose-response relationships between herbicides with different modes of action and growth of Lemna paucicostata: an improved ecotoxicological method. Environ Toxicol Chem 23:1074–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Paradiso Giles M (2000) Variabilidad interclonal en Lemna gibba L. frente a dos herbicidas con distinto modo de acción. Master Thesis. Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la República, MontevideoGoogle Scholar
  12. Peruzzo P, Marino D, Cremonte C, Da Silva M, Porta A, Ronco A (2003) Impacto de pesticidas en aguas superficiales y sedimentos asociado a cultivos por siembra directa. In: Memorias Conferencia Internacional Usos del Agua, Cartagena de Indias, pp 135–142Google Scholar
  13. Peterson HG, Boutin C, Martin PA, Freemark K, Ruecker NJ, Moody MJ (1994) Aquatic phyto-toxicity of 23 pesticides applied at expected environmental concentrations. Aquat Toxicol 28:275–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ralph PJ (2000) Herbicide toxicity of Halophila ovalis assessed by chlorophyll a fluorescence. Aquat Bot 66:141–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Salisbury FB, Ross CW (1994) Fisiología vegetal. Grupo Editorial Iberoamérica, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  16. Satorre EH (2005) Cambios tecnológicos en la agricultura Argentina actual. Ciencia Hoy 15:24–31Google Scholar
  17. Sobrero MC, Beltrano J, Ronco A (2004) Comparative response of Lemnaceae clones to Cu(II), Cr(VI) and Cd(II) toxicity. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 73:416–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tsui MTK, Chu LM (2003) Aquatic toxicity of glyphosate-based formulations: comparison between different organisms and the effects of environmental factors. Chemosphere 52:1189–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. WSSA (1994) Glyphosate. In: Herbicide handbook, 7th edn. The Weed Science Society of America, Lawrence, pp 149–152Google Scholar
  20. Zar JH (1996) Biostatistical analysis. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Research Centre, Faculty of SciencesNational University of La Plata, CONICETLa PlataArgentina

Personalised recommendations