草甘膦
杂草
麦草畏
灭草烟
杂草防治
草铵膦
农学
MCPA公司
环境科学
生物
作者
Lee Hudek,Aydin Enez,Lambert Bräu
出处
期刊:Sustainability
[Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute]
日期:2021-10-16
卷期号:13 (20): 11454-11454
被引量:6
摘要
Glyphosate-based foliar spray herbicides are the most common method for urban weed control due to their broad-spectrum and efficacy for burndown applications. As interest in glyphosate alternatives has increased in recent years, this project assessed the efficacy of the following non-glyphosate-based alternative weed management strategies: glufosinate, imazapyr, MCPA + dicamba, prodiamine, pine oil, clove oil, nonanoic acid, acetic acid + hydrochloric acid and steam against untreated (negative) controls and glyphosate-treated sites. Across all four seasonal treatments (winter, spring, summer and autumn), glyphosate and glufosinate reduced weed coverage (>65% after 4 and 12 weeks); imazapyr reduced weed coverage by >80% after 12 weeks; and steam reduced weed coverage by >80% after 4 weeks, and after 12 weeks showed to reduce weed coverage by >20% after the second application. The MCPA + dicamba, prodiamine, pine oil, clove oil, nonanoic acid and acetic acid + hydrochloric acid treatments had mixed impacts on weed coverage. Minimal alterations to soil physicochemical properties were observed across the two sites for all treatments. Assessment of impacts the different weed management strategies had on arthropod and microbial relative abundance showed minimal alterations; with only steam observed to reduce relative microbial abundance. Glufosinate, imazapyr and steam may be considered alternatives to glyphosate for reducing weed coverage but may not be as effective or have undesirable off-target effects. Overall, glyphosate provided the most consistent weed reduction at both sites over 12 weeks, without any recorded negative off-target or soil biota impacts.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI