Evaluating Weed Control Efficacy of Microencapsulated EPTC and Trifluralin Herbicides under Greenhouse Condition

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• A. Rahbari ¹
• E. Izadi Darbandi ²
• M.H. Rashed Mohassel ²
• Gh. Zohori ³
• E. Zand ⁴

¹ Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

² Department of Agrotechnology, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

³ Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

⁴ Iranian Research Institute of Plant Protection, Tehran, Iran

10.22067/jpp.2021.32596.0

Abstract

Introduction
In conventional formulations such as emulsifiable concentrates (EC), wettable powders, soluble liquids, etc., complete availability of the active agent is usually considered immediate or rapid following usage. Application rates of these formulations of pesticides are greater than the minimum threshold concentration to counter losses from sorption, volatilization, photodecomposition, microbial and chemical degradation, and leaching. Controlled-release technology for pesticides could reduce environmental damage and increase efficiency by enhancement of delivery to the site of action. This survey was conducted to determine the possibility of EPTC and trifluralin efficiency improvement by using microencapsulated formulation (MC) that were first synthesized in Iran.
 
Materials and Methods
Two separated greenhouse experiments were conducted in Tirtash Research and Education Center (Mazandaran–Iran) in 2014. The experiments were carried out in a factorial arrangement based on a randomized complete block design with three replications. The Microencapsulated formulation of EPTC and trifluralin herbicides were compared with emulsifiable concentrate formulation (Eradicane 82% and Treflan 48%) in 0 (control), 25, 50, 75 and 100 percent of active ingredient (a.i.) (4.92 and 1.2 kg a.i./ha, recommended doses for EPTC and trifluralin, respectively). For this purpose, the soil of pots were infested with the seed of Green foxtail (Setaria viridis) and Redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflaxus). The responses of weeds to treatments, specifically seedling number, were analyzed using ANOVA tests, non-linear regression, and fitting to three parameters of Weibull and log-logistic equations. This analysis was based on Akaike's Information Criterion, Residual Standard Error, and Lack-of-Fit Test indices in the R3.4.1 program. The effective dose were determined for 10, 50 and 90 percent of weed control (ED₁₀, ED₅₀ and ED₉₀, respectively). Relative potency index (R) of formulation types were determined by divided ED₅₀ of EC into MC formulations.
 
Results and Discussion
According to the results of the experiments, the formulation type had a significant effect on the weed numbers. The MC formulations of EPTC increased Green foxtail and Redroot pigweed control efficiencies. The ED₁₀, ED₅₀ and ED₉₀ decreased from 0.72, 2.94 and 7.18 kg a.i.ha^-1 in the EC to 0.41, 1.87 and 4.89 kg a.i.ha^-1 in the MC formulation for Green foxtail and 1.08, 3.29 and 10.02 kg a.i.ha^-1 in the EC to 0.57, 2.36 and 9.67 kg a.i.ha^-1 in the MC formulation for Redroot pigweed. The R index of EPTC in Green foxtail and Redroot pigweed control were 1.57 and 1.39, respectively. Weed control increased as trifluralin dosage increased in both of the formulation types, although in higher doses of the MC, weed control efficiency increased more than the EC formulation. So the efficiency of the MC formulations depended on application dosages. The ED₁₀, ED₅₀ and ED₉₀ of Green foxtail were 0.14, 0.55 and 1.27 kg a.i.ha^-1 in the EC and 0.19, 0.52 and 0.98 kg a.i.ha^-1 in the MC formulation. The ED₁₀, ED₅₀ and ED₉₀ of Redroot pigweed were 0.20, 0.64 and 2.02 kg a.i.ha^-1 in the EC and 0.26, 0.56 and 1.19 kg a.i.ha^-1 in the MC formulation. So that the R index of trifluralin in Green foxtail and Redroot pigweed control were 1.05 and 1.14, respectively. The dependency of trifluralin behavior to applied microcapsule dose may be connected to capture of herbicide in microcapsule particles which it causes reduction of bioavailability of herbicide in soil lower than the threshold doses of injury level. Whiles under this experimental conditions, the herbicides are less affected by degrading agents and therefore have less opportunity to express the advantages of MC formulation. Whereas the field studies results showed that the 50% of the recommended dosage of MC formulation had same efficiency as 75% of the recommended dosage of EC formulations (results were not published).
 
Conclusion
Microencapsulation is a versatile tool for product design and is successfully used in various sectors and for a variety of different product features. However, although lot of research has been performed, only relatively few developments have made it into products in the agrochemical area. For example 37 actives out of 908 listed in total in the pesticide manual, mainly insecticides, are described as being formulated as control solutions. While the development of this technology in agriculture can play an important role in preserving the environment and reducing the pollution caused by pesticides. The purpose of the application of controlled release formulations is the gradual release of herbicides in a suitable amount with maintaining efficiency in agronomic conditions. This type of formulation is a combination of the herbicide and associated material that releases effective material over a given period due to weed control. The results of this study showed that the R index of EPTC and trifluralin were 1.57 and 1.05 in Green foxtail, and 1.39 and 1.14 in Redroot pigweed control, respectively. So that the microcapsule formulation of EPTC and trifluralin herbicides increased the efficacy and reduced the application dose.
 

Keywords

• Controlled release
• Dose-response
• Relative potential

20.1001.1.29808170.1402.37.3.5.3

Main Subjects

• Weed

---

References

1. Bernards, M.L., Simmons, J.T., Guza, C.J., Schulz, C.R., Penner, D., & Kells, J.J. (2006). Inbred corn response to acetamide herbicides as affected by safeners and microencapsulation. Weed Technology, 20, 458-465. https://doi.org/10.1614/WT-05-130R.1
2. Cahoon, C.W., York, A.C., Jordan, D.L., Everman, W.J., Seagroves, R.W., Braswell, L.R., & Jennings, K.M. (2015). Weed control in cotton by combinations of microencapsulated acetochlor and various residual herbicides applied preemergence. Weed Technology, 29(4): 740-750. https://doi.org/10.1614/WT-D-15-00061.1
3. Carter, A.D. (2000). Herbicide movement in soils: Principles, pathways and processes. Weed Research, 40, 113-122. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3180.2000.00157.x
4. Cobb, A.H., & Reade, P.H. (2010). Herbicide and plant physiology. 2^th Wiley-Blackwell, 296Pp. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444327793
5. Coffman, C.B., & Gentner, W.A. (1980). Persistence of several controlled release formulations of trifluralin in greenhouse and field. Weed Science, 28(1), 21-23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043174500027697
6. Coffman, C.B., & Gentner, W.A. (1984). Herbicidal activity of controlled release formulations of trifluralin. Indian Journal Agricultural Science, 54(2), 117-122. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4044606
7. Dhareesank, A.M., Kobayashi, K., & Usui, K. (2006). Residual phytotoxic activity of pethoxamid in soil and its concentration in soil water under different soil moisture conditions. Weed Biology and Management, 6, 50-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-6664.2006.00195.x
8. Doub, J.P., Wilson, H.P., & Hatzios, K.K. (1988). Comparative efficacy of two formulations of alachlor and metolachlor. Weed Science, 36, 221-226. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3989325
9. Doub, J.P., Wilson, H.P., Hines, T.E., & Hatzios, K.K. (1988). Consecutive annual applications of alachlor and metolachlor to continuous no-till Corn (Zea mays). Weed Science, 36(3), 340-344.
10. Fogleman, M., Norsworthy, J.K., Barber, T., & Gbur, E. (2018). Influence of formulation and rate on rice tolerance to early-season applications of acetochlor. Weed Technology, 33(2), 239-245. https://doi.org/10.1017/wet.2018.98
11. Hack, B., Egger, H., Uhlemann, J., Henriet, M., Wirth, W., Vermeer, A.W.P., & Duff, D.G. (2012). Advanced Agrochemical Formulations through Encapsulation Strategies? Chemie Ingenieur Technik, 84(3), 223-234. https://doi.org/10.1002/cite.201100212
12. Institute, SAS. (2002). The SAS system for windows. Release 9.1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC 27513, USA.
13. Jursik, M., Soukup, J., Holec, J., Andr, J., & Hamouzova, K. (2015). Efficacy and selectivity of pre-emergent sunflower herbicides under different soil moisture conditions. Plant Protection Science, 51, 214-222. https://doi.org/10.17221/82/2014-PPS
14. Kennedy, J.M., & Talbert, R.E. (1977). Comparative persistence of dinitroaniline type herbicides on the soil surface. Weed Science, 25, 373-381. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043174500033695
15. Lee, F.T.H., & Nicholson, P. (1991). International patent WO 96/14743.
16. Li, D., Liu, B., Yang, F., Wang, X., Shen, H., & Wu, D. (2016). Preparation of uniform starch microcapsules by premix membrane emulsion for controlled release of avermectin. Carbohydrate Polymers, 136, 341–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2015.09.050
17. Matthews, G.A. (2000). Pesticide application methods. 3^th Blackwell Sci. Ltd. 432 Pp. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470760130
18. Meredith, A.N., Harper, B., & Harper, S.L. (2016). The influence of size on the toxicity of an encapsulated pesticide: a comparison of micron- and nano-sized capsules. Environment International, 86, 68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2015.10.012
19. Monaco, T.J., Weller, S.C., & Ashton, F.M. (2002). Weed science: principles and practices. 4^th Wiley-Blackwell, 688 Pp.
20. Nielsen, O.K., Ritz, C.H., & Streibig, J.C. (2004). Nonlinear mixed model regression to analyze herbicide dose-response relationships. Weed Technology, 18, 30-37. https://doi.org/10.1614/WT-03-070R1
21. Parochetti, J.V., & Dec, G.W. (1978). Photodecomposition of eleven dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Science, 26(2), 153-156. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4042852
22. Petersen, B.B., Shea, P.J., & Wicks, G.A. (1988). Acetanilide activity and dissipation as influenced by formulation and Wheat stubble. Weed Science, 36(2), 243-249. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043174500074786
23. Petersen, B.B., & Shea, P.J. (1989). Microencapsulated alachlor and its behavior on Wheat (Triticum aestivum) straw. Weed Science, 37(5), 719-723. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4045135
24. Ritter, R.L., Kaufman, L.M., Monaco, T.J., Novitzky, W.P., & Moreland, D.E. (1989). Characterization of triazine-resistant Giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) and its control in no-tillage Corn (Zea mays). Weed Science, 37(4), 591-595. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajps.2002.334.336
25. Ritz, C., Baty, F., Streibig, J.C., & Gerhard, D. (2015). Dose-response analysis using R PLOS ONE, 10 (12), e0146021.
26. Savage, K.E. (1978). Persistence of several dinitroaniline herbicides as affected by soil moisture. Weed Science, 26, 465-471. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4042903
27. Scher, H.B., Rodson, M., & Lee, K. (1998). Microencapsulation of pesticides by interfacial polymerisation utilizing isocyanate or aminoplast chemistry. Pesticide Science, 54, 394-400. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9063(199812)54:4<394::AID-PS829>3.0.CO;2-S
28. Schreiber, M.M., Shasha, B.S., Ross, M.A., Orwick, P.L., & Edgecomb, D.W. (1978). Efficacy and rate of release of EPTC and butylate from starch encapsulated formulations under greenhouse conditions. Weed Science, 26, 679-686. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043174500064821
29. Sopeña, F., Maqueda, C., & Morillo, E. (2009). Controlled release formulations of herbicides based on micro-encapsulation. Ciencia e Investigacion Agraria, 35(1), 27-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-16202009000100002
30. Team, R.C. (2017). Homepage of R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org, Accessed October 1, 2017.
31. Ueji, M., & Inao, K. (2001). Rice paddy field herbicides and their effects on the environment and ecosystems. Weed Biology Management, 1, 71-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1445-6664.2001.00002.x
32. Vasilakoglou, I.B., Eleftherohorinos, I.G., & Dhima, K.B. (2001). Activity, adsorption and mobility of three acetanilide and two new amide herbicides. Weed Research, 41, 535-546. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3180.2001.00256.x
33. Wilkins, R. (2003). Controlled release formulations of pesticides. P. 386-398 In Encyclopedia of agrochemicals. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/047126363X
34. Wilson, M. (2003). Optimising pesticide use. first edn. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 214 Pp. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470871792
35. Zand, E., Baghestani, M.A., Mousavi, S.K., Oveisi, M., Ebrahimi, M., Rastgoo, M., & Labafi Hossienzadeh, M.R. (2008). Weed management handbook. Mashhad Jehad-e Daneshghahi Publication, (In Persian), 480.
36. Zhang, D.X., Li, B.X., Zhang, X.P., Zhang, Z.Q., Wang, W.C., & Liu, F. (2016). Phoxim microcapsules prepared with polyurea and urea−formaldehyde resins differ in photostability and insecticidal activity. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2841-2846. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.6b00231