Effects of a glyphosate-based herbicide on soil animal trophic groups and associated ecosystem functioning in a northern agricultural field

Hagner, Marleena; Mikola, Juha; Saloniemi, Irma; Saikkonen, Kari; Helander, Marjo

doi:10.1038/s41598-019-44988-5

Cited by 55 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a greenhouse experiment, no effect of GBH on litter decomposition was observed but an increase in the stabilization factor, suggesting a conversion from labile into more recalcitrant compounds (Gaupp-Berghausen et al 2015). In contrast, other studies found no effect of GBH on litter decomposition in greenhouse (van Hoesel et al 2017) or field studies (Casabé et al 2007;Hagner et al 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Commercial glyphosate-based herbicides effects on springtails (Collembola) differ from those of their respective active ingredients and vary with soil organic matter content

Maderthaner

Weber

Takács

et al. 2020

Environ Sci Pollut Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) are currently the most widely used agrochemicals for weed control. Environmental risk assessments (ERA) on nontarget organisms mostly consider the active ingredients (AIs) of these herbicides, while much less is known on effects of commercial GBH formulations that are actually applied in the field. Moreover, it is largely unknown to what extent different soil characteristics alter potential side effects of herbicides. We conducted a greenhouse experiment growing a model weed population of Amaranthus retroflexus in arable field soil with either 3.0 or 4.1% soil organic matter (SOM) content and treated these weeds either with GBHs (Roundup LB Plus, Touchdown Quattro, Roundup PowerFlex) or their respective AIs (isopropylammonium, diammonium or potassium salts of glyphosate) at recommended dosages. Control pots were mechanically weeded. Nontarget effects were assessed on the surface activity of the springtail species Sminthurinus niger (pitfall trapping) and litter decomposition in the soil (teabag approach). Both GBHs and AIs increased the surface activity of springtails compared to control pots; springtail activity was higher under GBHs than under corresponding AIs. Stimulation of springtail activity was much higher in soil with higher SOM content than with low SOM content (significant treatment x SOM interaction). Litter decomposition was unaffected by GBHs, AIs or SOM levels. We suggest that ERAs for pesticides should be performed with actually applied herbicides rather than only on AIs and should also consider influences of different soil properties.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Commercial glyphosate-based herbicides effects on springtails (Collembola) differ from those of their respective active ingredients and vary with soil organic matter content

Maderthaner

Weber

Takács

et al. 2020

Environ Sci Pollut Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although glyphosate has been formally classified by regulatory agencies and researches as having low environmental risks (e.g. Hagner, Mikola, Saloniemi, Saikkonen, & Helander, 2019), its negative impacts in nature and humans are still highly controversial and have been debated worldwide. A recent assessment of glyphosate use showed low but pervasive contamination hazard in almost all agroecosystems globally (Maggi, Cecilia, Tang, & McBratney, 2020), and medical science studies are linking glyphosate with human diseases (Zanardi et al., 2020).…”

Section: How Are Invasive Plant Species Controlled?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Controlling invasive plant species in ecological restoration: A global review

Weidlich

Florido

Sorrini

et al. 2020

Journal of Applied Ecology

244

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Invasive plant species can hinder the establishment and growth of native plants and impact several ecosystem properties, such as soil cover, nutrient cycling, fire regimes and hydrology. Controlling invasive plants is then a necessary, yet usually expensive, step towards the restoration of an ecosystem. A synthesis of literature is needed to understand variation in invasive plants' impacts and their practical control in restoration contexts, and to identify associated knowledge gaps. We reviewed 372 articles published from 2000 to 2019 covering the control of undesirable plants (both exotic invasive and overabundant native plant species) in ecological restoration to gather information on the main plants being controlled and methods used, and considering the distribution of studies among biomes and countries grouped according to the Human Development Index (HDI). Grasses and forbs were the most‐studied invasive plant species in restoration sites, but invasive trees were well studied in the tropics. Poaceae and Asteraceae were the most studied families of invasive plants. Non‐chemical interventions (mostly mowing and prescribed fire) were used in more than half of the reviewed studies globally, but chemical methods (mainly glyphosate spraying, used in 40% of projects using herbicides) are also common. The reviewed studies were mostly performed in countries with very high HDI. Countries with low and medium HDI used only non‐chemical methods. Synthesis and applications. Decisions about which control method to use depend heavily on the invasive plant species' growth forms, the local economic situation where the restoration sites are located and resources available for control. More developed countries tend to use more chemical control, whereas less developed ones use mainly non‐chemical methods. Since most of the reviewed studies were performed in countries with very high HDI, we lack information from developing countries, which concentrates global hotspots for biodiversity conservation and global commitments of forest and landscape restoration.

show abstract

“…A study testing the same GBHs and AIs on springtails (soil mesofauna) shows increased surface activity of springtails both under GBHs and AIs compared to hand weeding with a higher stimulation of springtail activity under higher SOM levels [68]. Another study found only minor effects of GBHs (Roundup Gold, 450 g l −1 potassium salt) on enchytraeids and nematodes [90].…”

Section: Effects On Earthwormsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of glyphosate-based herbicides and their active ingredients on earthworms, water infiltration and glyphosate leaching are influenced by soil properties

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) are among the most often used pesticides. The hundreds of GBHs used worldwide consist of the active ingredient (AI) glyphosate in form of different salts, possibly other AIs, and various mostly undisclosed co-formulants. Pesticide risk assessments are commonly performed using single AIs or GBHs at standard soil conditions without vegetation. In a greenhouse experiment, we established a weed population with common amaranth (Amaranthus retroflexus) to examine the effects of three GBHs (Roundup LB Plus, Roundup PowerFlex, Touchdown Quattro) and their corresponding AIs (salts of glyphosate isopropylammonium, potassium, diammonium) on the activity and physiological biomarkers (glutathione S-transferase, GST; acetylcholine esterase, AChE) of an ecologically relevant earthworm species (Lumbricus terrestris). GBHs and AIs were applied at recommended doses; hand weeding served as control. Experiments were established with two soil types differing in organic matter content (SOM; 3.0% vs. 4.1%) and other properties. Results Earthworm activity (casting and movement activity) decreased after application of glyphosate formulations or active ingredients compared to hand weeding. We found no consistent pattern that formulations had either higher or lower effects on earthworm activity than their active ingredients; rather, differences were substance-specific. Earthworm activity was little affected by soil organic matter levels. Biomarkers remained unaffected by weed control types; GST but not AChE was decreased under high SOM. Water infiltration after a simulated heavy rainfall was interactively affected by weed control types and SOM. Leachate amount was higher after application of formulations than active ingredients and was higher under low SOM. Glyphosate concentrations in soil and leachate were strongly affected by application of formulations or active ingredients and varied with SOM (significant weed control type x SOM interaction). Conclusions We found that both commercial formulations and pure active ingredients can influence earthworms with consequences on important soil functions. Glyphosate products showed increased, reduced or similar effects than pure glyphosate on particular soil functions; soil properties can substantially alter this. Especially at lower SOM, heavy rainfalls could lead to more glyphosate leaching into water bodies. A full disclosure of co-formulants would be necessary to further decipher their specific contributions to these inconsistent effects.

show abstract

Effects of a glyphosate-based herbicide on soil animal trophic groups and associated ecosystem functioning in a northern agricultural field

Cited by 55 publications

References 59 publications

Commercial glyphosate-based herbicides effects on springtails (Collembola) differ from those of their respective active ingredients and vary with soil organic matter content

Commercial glyphosate-based herbicides effects on springtails (Collembola) differ from those of their respective active ingredients and vary with soil organic matter content

Controlling invasive plant species in ecological restoration: A global review

Effects of glyphosate-based herbicides and their active ingredients on earthworms, water infiltration and glyphosate leaching are influenced by soil properties

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About