Toxicological risk assessment of mechanical-chemical vs. chemical weed control techniques in sugar beet in Germany using SYNOPS-GIS

IF 3.5 Q1 AGRONOMY Frontiers in Agronomy Pub Date : 2024-01-08 DOI:10.3389/fagro.2023.1274703
O. Fishkis, Joern Strassemeyer, Franz Pöllinger, Christel Anne Roß, Heinz-Josef Koch
{"title":"Toxicological risk assessment of mechanical-chemical vs. chemical weed control techniques in sugar beet in Germany using SYNOPS-GIS","authors":"O. Fishkis, Joern Strassemeyer, Franz Pöllinger, Christel Anne Roß, Heinz-Josef Koch","doi":"10.3389/fagro.2023.1274703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The EU Farm to Fork strategy aims to reduce the use of pesticides and associated toxicological risks. However, the risks coming along with currently available alternatives to chemical weed control in sugar beet have not yet been evaluated. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the toxicological risks to arthropods, aquatic and soil organisms caused by mechanical-chemical in comparison to conventional chemical weed control in sugar beet.The risk assessment was performed using SYNOPS-GIS, a process-based model calculating the environmental fate of pesticides and the exposure risk to arthropods, aquatic and soil organisms.Overall, broadcast spraying of conventional herbicides caused low to very low toxicological risks in most regions and years in Germany. Nevertheless, there were considerably higher risks to aquatic and soil organisms from conventional broadcast spraying in northern Germany than in other regions of Germany. With conventional herbicides, mechanical-chemical weed control reduced toxicological risks proportionally to the reduction in application amount. In contrast, band spraying of the new herbicide with the active ingredients foramsulfuron and thiencarbazone-methyl caused an aquatic risk as broadcast spraying with conventional herbicides, although the application rate was 120 times lower. This was due to high toxicity of both active ingredients of the new herbicide to water plants.Not only the application amount of herbicides but also environmental toxicity should be included in assessment approaches such as the EU “Harmonized Risk Indicator”.","PeriodicalId":34038,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Agronomy","volume":"55 18","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Agronomy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2023.1274703","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRONOMY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The EU Farm to Fork strategy aims to reduce the use of pesticides and associated toxicological risks. However, the risks coming along with currently available alternatives to chemical weed control in sugar beet have not yet been evaluated. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the toxicological risks to arthropods, aquatic and soil organisms caused by mechanical-chemical in comparison to conventional chemical weed control in sugar beet.The risk assessment was performed using SYNOPS-GIS, a process-based model calculating the environmental fate of pesticides and the exposure risk to arthropods, aquatic and soil organisms.Overall, broadcast spraying of conventional herbicides caused low to very low toxicological risks in most regions and years in Germany. Nevertheless, there were considerably higher risks to aquatic and soil organisms from conventional broadcast spraying in northern Germany than in other regions of Germany. With conventional herbicides, mechanical-chemical weed control reduced toxicological risks proportionally to the reduction in application amount. In contrast, band spraying of the new herbicide with the active ingredients foramsulfuron and thiencarbazone-methyl caused an aquatic risk as broadcast spraying with conventional herbicides, although the application rate was 120 times lower. This was due to high toxicity of both active ingredients of the new herbicide to water plants.Not only the application amount of herbicides but also environmental toxicity should be included in assessment approaches such as the EU “Harmonized Risk Indicator”.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用 SYNOPS-GIS 对德国甜菜中机械-化学除草技术与化学除草技术进行毒理学风险评估
欧盟 "从农场到餐桌 "战略旨在减少杀虫剂的使用和相关的毒理学风险。然而,目前可用的甜菜化学除草替代品所带来的风险尚未得到评估。因此,本研究的目的是确定机械化学除草与传统化学除草相比,对节肢动物、水生生物和土壤生物造成的毒理学风险。风险评估使用 SYNOPS-GIS(一种基于过程的模型,用于计算农药的环境归宿以及节肢动物、水生生物和土壤生物的暴露风险)进行。不过,在德国北部,常规喷雾对水生生物和土壤生物造成的风险要比德国其他地区高得多。在使用传统除草剂时,机械化学除草法的毒性风险与施用量的减少成正比。与此相反,使用含有活性成分福美双和甲基噻嗪酮的新型除草剂进行带状喷洒时,虽然施药量减少了 120 倍,但与使用传统除草剂进行广播喷洒时一样,会对水生生物造成危害。这是因为新型除草剂的两种有效成分对水生植物的毒性都很高。在欧盟 "统一风险指标 "等评估方法中,不仅要考虑除草剂的施用量,还要考虑环境毒性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Frontiers in Agronomy
Frontiers in Agronomy Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
123
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Toxicological risk assessment of mechanical-chemical vs. chemical weed control techniques in sugar beet in Germany using SYNOPS-GIS Amplicon sequencing identified a putative pathogen, Macrophomina phaseolina, causing wilt in African eggplant (Solanum aethiopicum) grown in Tanzania and Uganda Effects of transplanting and AMF inoculation on the fruit yield of African eggplants (Solanum aethiopicum and Solanum anguivi) in Tanzania Using integrated weed management systems to manage herbicide-resistant weeds in the Canadian Prairies Mulching as a weed management tool in container plant production - review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1