Keywords
CO2 emission, Chernozem, Herbicides, Látókép, Debrecen, soil respiration
This article is included in the Agriculture, Food and Nutrition gateway.
CO2 emission, Chernozem, Herbicides, Látókép, Debrecen, soil respiration
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important greenhouse gas, which affects significantly global warming and climate change (Rastogi et al., 2002). Approximately 30% of the total CO2 emissions are released by agricultural activities. It is notable that agricultural CO2 emissions increased by 27% over two decades, from 1970 to 1990 (Lal, 2004).
Primary sources of soil CO2 emissions are root respiration and degrading of organics by soil microorganisms. Soil microbial activity mainly depends on soil properties, including soil temperature, organic matter and soil moisture content (Smith et al., 2003). Increasing scientific attention is focused on understanding the role of the soil microbial community (Bautista et al., 2017; Cho-Tiedje, 2000; Mátyás et al., 2018; Mátyás et al., 2020) and nutrient cycles (Jakab, 2020; Sándor et al., 2020). It has been documented that different cultivation technologies significantly impact soil microbiological activity (Sándor et al., 2020).
Different chemicals (such as fertilizers and/or herbicides) are utilized in agricultural technologies. Use of herbicides constitutes an integral part of crop production, and one should be aware that they cause a “secondary effect” on both soil life and so called “non-target” organisms (Kecskés, 1976). Sensitive organisms are killed after using herbicides, and their remains are easily decomposed by the surviving microorganisms (Cervelli et al., 1978). At present, the selection criteria for allowed chemicals is more rigorous and stricter than over past decades, and they are restricted to smaller concentrations (Inui et al., 2001). Soil microbes play a major role in maintaining soil quality (Mendes et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2008).
In this paper, we discuss carbon dioxide emission levels of chernozem soil at the Debrecen-Látókép Plant Cultivation Experimental Station, where herbicides were applied to control the weeds. We compare results of carbon dioxide production in treated plots to untreated control parcels.
First, we conducted a literature review on types and doses (L-ha-1 or kg-ha-1) of herbicides (Molnár & Ocskó, 2000; Ocskó, 1991; Ocskó et al., 2017) that had been applied from 1991 to 2017 at Debrecen-Látókép Plant Cultivation Experimental Station (47°33’ 55.36” N; 21°28’ 12.27” E). The type of soil is calcareous chernozem; according to the International Classification (WRB) it is designated as Calcic Endofluvic Chernozen (Endosceletic). Prior absolute control soil was measured; control soil did not receive any treatment or fertilizers.
Soil CO2 was measured in triplicate by NaOH absorption. Experiments were performed between 1991 and 2017. In 1991, 2000, 2008 and 2017 soil samples were obtained two weeks after the herbicide(s) was applied. For incubation, 10 g of soil was weighed and placed in a polyester bag (0.1 mm ø holes), from where CO2 could escape. One took 500 mL laboratory glassware in which 10 cm3 of 0.1 M NaOH solution (Sigma-Aldrich, USA) was introduced to absorb the released carbon dioxide. Soil samples were hung above the NaOH solution, and the glass containers were sealed tightly. Since CO2 has a greater density than air, it sunk in the container, and was absorbed by the alkaline solution. After an incubation period of 7 days, the remaining alkali solution was back titrated with 0.1 M HCl (Sigma-Aldrich, USA), in the presence of phenolphthalein, and then with methyl orange indicator. From the volume of equivalence one can calculate the amount of CO2 formed during soil respiration, according to Equation 1.
mg (CO2)· 10 g−1 · 7 day−1 = (C-S) · f(NaOH) · f(HCl) · 2.2 * dm (1)
where, C: 0.1 M/ dm3 HCl loss for methyl orange indicator (Sigma-Aldrich, USA); S: 0.1 M dm3 HCl loss for phenolphthalein indicator (Sigma-Aldrich, USA); f: 0.1 mol dm-3 HCl and a 0.10 mol dm-3 NaOH factor; 2.2: titer (1 mL 0,1 mol dm-3 HCl equivalent 2.2 mg CO2); dm: multiplication factor for dry soil.
Data analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel 2003 (mean values and standard deviation). Two-factor variance analysis was performed to obtain the significant effect on measured parameters. Significant differences were accepted at the level 1%, but the evaluation was calculated by LSD 5% values, as widely accepted in agricultural research.
In 1991, three herbicides were applied, and even the basic doses were high. Results were compared to the control; CO2 production was significantly reduced at single doses and a further decrease was experienced at 2–3 times greater doses. Consequently, CO2 production declined gradually with increasing doses of herbicides. The smallest production was obtained at 3 times the dose of Anelda Plus 80 EC, its value being only 59% of the control (Table 1).
Herbicide dose | Initial herbicide dose (L ha-1) | 1x | 2x | 3x | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | Herbicide | Soil respiration (mg CO2 · 10 g-1 · (7 day)-1) | |||
1991 | Control | None | 23.5 | ||
Alirox 80 Ec | 5-8 | 22.81 | 21.75 | 18.37 | |
Anelda Plus 80 EC | 5-9 | 20.15 | 16.25 | 13.91 | |
Vernolate 80 EC | 6-8 | 18.34 | 17.55 | 15.91 | |
2000 | Control | None | 14.25 | ||
Dual 720 EC | 2.5 -3.5 | 11.34 | 12.67 | 11.56 | |
Frontier 900 EC | 1.5-2.0 | 10.4 | 10.21 | 10.14 | |
Hungazin PK | 1.4-2.8* | 12.43 | 10.11 | 9.36 | |
Dual Gold 960 EC | 1.4-1.6 | 10.52 | 10.37 | 10.21 | |
Proponit 8720 EC | 1.5-2.5 | 12.4 | 11.71 | 10.54 | |
Acenit 880 EC | 2.0-2.6 | 9.22 | 9.57 | 9.17 | |
2008 | Control | None | 15.47 | ||
Merlin SC | 0.16-0.20 | 15.41 | 15.38 | 15.49 | |
Wig EC | 3.5-4.5 | 12.86 | 13.27 | 11.46 | |
2017 | Control | None | 19.18 | ||
Adengo | 0.40-0.44 | 19.42 | 19.47 | 19.44 | |
Capreno | 0.25-0.30 | 18.87 | 19.16 | 18.96 | |
Figaro TF | 2.0-5.0 | 17.94 | 17.72 | 16.3 |
In 2000, six different active ingredients were used, and their effect examined. Much lower doses were applied, half and one third of the ones used in 1991. As compared to the control, soil respiration decreased significantly in all treated plots, after laboratory incubation. The lowest results were obtained with Acenit 880 EC; when 3x dose was used, only the 64% of the control being achieved.
In 2008, a significant decrease was found for the treated soil relative to the control. In the treatment with triple dose, only 74% of the control was measured. The herbicides used in 2008 are no longer authorized, as they were withdrawn from the market.
In 2017, three herbicides were examined. Out of them, Figaro TF, which contained glyphosate agent, was no longer authorized. When this herbicide was applied, CO2 production decreased significantly. Carbon dioxide production did not change considerably in Andengo and Capreno treatments; there was a slight increase in treatments with Andengo and decrease in treatments with Capreno.
We can conclude that CO2 production decreased significantly in the soil for 11 out of the 14 herbicides. With two herbicides, Merlin SC (izoxaflutol) and Capreno (Isoxadifen-ethyl, tembotrione), there was no significant change of treated soils relative to the untreated soil, and there was only one herbicide Adengo (Bayer, Germany), which increased soil respiration slightly, but not significantly. The main sources of CO2-emissions from soil is the respiration of plant roots and of the microbial community. Therefore, a significant decrease of CO2 emission indicates a change in these parameters. One can recommend for use those chemicals, which do not cause major changes in the microbial community and do not affect life conditions of other live organisms.
Figshare: Supporting data CO2 soil respiration, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13125290.v1 (Dama Research Center Limited, 2020).
Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
No
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
References
1. Beni Á, Lajtha K, Kozma J, Fekete I: Application of a Stir Bar Sorptive Extraction sample preparation method with HPLC for soil fungal biomass determination in soils from a detrital manipulation study.J Microbiol Methods. 136: 1-5 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full TextCompeting Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Soil ecology
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Plant Protection; Insect Ecology; Soil Ecology
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Soil microbiology
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | |||
---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | |
Version 1 19 Nov 20 |
read | read | read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)