Effects of Liming and Urochloa brizantha Management on Leaching Potential of Picloram
In pastures, the application of limestone is often performed after removal of the animals for proper development and establishment of regrowth. Together with this practice, the use of picloram in high concentrations for dicotyledonous weeds is common. Therefore, the evaluation of the behavior of this herbicide in these conditions is critical. The objective of this study was to determine the leaching of the picloram, in the soil with different pH and cultivated with Urochloa brizantha (signalgrass) trimmed or not. The experiment was plotted in a subdivided plot with four repetitions, where the plots were constituted by factors pH (5.3 and 6.4) and Urochloa brizantha managements (trimmed and no trimmed). The subplots were composed by depths (0 to 50 cm). The picloram was applied to the top of the columns after 65 days after emergency. A rain of intensity of 60 mm was simulated 12 h after the herbicide application. Picloram concentration was quantified by the high-performance liquid chromatography. Besides that, a control treatment was added without the presence of the signalgrass, for each substrate. The picloram was not detected in the percolated water through the columns. Picloram leached to deeper layers in the soil with pH 6.4, independently of the signalgrass management. The signalgrass reduced the leaching of the picloram, and those no-trimmed demonstrate a higher capacity to retain the herbicide in superficial layers. The liming of the soil increases the pH and reduces the amount of organic matter in the soil, which favors the leaching of picloram to the layer of 30–35 cm. Trimming of Urochloa brizantha reduces the capacity of this forage to reduce the leaching of picloram.
KeywordsHerbicide mobility Pastures Signalgrass Auxin mimetizers
This work was supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES), and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG).
- MacAdam, J. W., & Nelson, C. J. (2017). Physiology of forage plants. Forages, Volume 1: An Introduction to Grassland Agriculture, 1, 51.Google Scholar
- Maciel, G. M., Inácio, F. D., de Sá-Nakanishi, A. B., Haminiuk, C. W. I., Castoldi, R., Comar, J. F., Bracht, A., & Peralta, R. M. (2013). Response of Ganoderma lucidum and Trametes sp. to the herbicide picloram: Tolerance, antioxidants and production of ligninolytic enzymes. Pestic Biochem Phys, 105, 84–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nascimento, A. F., Pires, F. R., Chagas, K., Procópio, S. O., Oliveira, M. A., Cargnelutti Filho, A., Belo, A. F., & Egreja Filho, F. B. (2015). Risk of soil recontamination due to using Eleusine coracana and Panicum maximum straw after phytoremediation of picloram. Int J Phytoremediat., 17, 313–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Padovan, M. P., Brook, R. M., Barrios, M., Cruz-Castillo, J. B., Vilchez-Mendoza, S. J., Costa, A. N., & Rapidel, B. (2018). Water loss by transpiration and soil evaporation in coffee shaded by Tabebuia rosea Bertol. and Simarouba glauca dc. compared to unshaded coffee in sub-optimal environmental conditions. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 248, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Passos, A. B. R., Souza, M. F., Silva, D. V., Saraiva, D. T., da Silva, A. A., Zanuncio, J. C., & Gonçalves, B. F. S. (2018). Persistence of picloram in soil with different vegetation managements. Environ Sci Pollut, 1–6.Google Scholar
- Wongkaew, A., Saito, H., Fujimaki, H., & Šimůnek, J. (2018). Numerical analysis of soil water dynamics in a soil column with an artificial capillary barrier growing leaf vegetables. Soil Use Manage.Google Scholar