Next Article in Journal
Agrochemicals—The Pesticides Section
Previous Article in Journal
Development of Quality Requirements of Chemical Analytical Measurements
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Glyphosate Effects on Earthworms: Active Ingredients vs. Commercial Herbicides at Different Temperature and Soil Organic Matter Levels

1
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU), Department of Integrative Biology and Biodiversity Research, Institute of Zoology, Gregor Mendel Straße 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria
2
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Vienna (BOKU), Department of Landscape, Spatial and Infrastructure Science, Institute of Statistics, Peter-Jordan-Straße 82, 1190 Vienna, Austria
3
National Agricultural Research and Innovation Centre, Agro-Environmental Research Institute, Herman Ottó út 15, H-1022 Budapest, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agrochemicals 2023, 2(1), 1-16; https://doi.org/10.3390/agrochemicals2010001
Submission received: 17 November 2022 / Revised: 9 December 2022 / Accepted: 16 December 2022 / Published: 22 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Herbicides)

Abstract

:
Little is known about the non-target effects of glyphosate active ingredients (GLY) versus glyphosate-based herbicide (GBH) formulations on soil organisms, and whether effects are influenced by environmental conditions. We investigated the avoidance behavior, biomass growth, and reproduction of earthworms (Eisenia fetida, E. andrei) in response to two GLYs (glyphosate ammonium and potassium salt), the corresponding GBHs (Touchdown Quattro, Roundup PowerFlex) containing these GLYs, and the “inert” co-formulant alkylpolyglycoside (APG) at two temperature (15 °C vs. 20 °C) and soil organic matter levels (3.2% vs. 4.3%). Earthworm avoidance was lower at high soil organic matter content, but remained unaffected by substances and temperature. Earthworm biomass growth and reproduction (cocoons and juveniles) were significantly affected by substances and temperature; reproduction was also affected by a substance and temperature interaction. Biomass growth was almost zero at higher temperature; reproduction was generally higher at higher temperature. More cocoons were produced under Roundup PowerFlex than under the corresponding AI, due to the impact of the co-formulant APG. No other differences were observed between GBH and the corresponding AIs. We conclude that the non-target effects of pesticides can only be fully assessed if all ingredients in a formulation are known and environmental parameters are included in environmental risk assessments.

1. Introduction

Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBH) are broad-spectrum, non-selective herbicides used to control weeds or desiccate crop plants to facilitate harvesting [1]. There are hundreds of GBHs on the market worldwide, and the number of applications increased nearly 15-fold between 1996 and 2016 [2]. GBHs usually consist of 35–50% of the active substance glyphosate GLY [3], mainly in the form of various salts (e.g., isopropylamine, ammonium, sodium, and potassium salts) [4,5]. To further increase the efficiency of the active ingredient (AI), coformulants such as surfactants, antifoam agents, and dyes are added to the GLYs [6]. Pesticide approval in the European Union (EU) [7,8], the USA [9], and other OECD countries make a distinction between AI and inert coformulants [7]. Active ingredients or substances are toxic for the target species, while all other coformulants are classified as inert [10]. However, there is increasing evidence that coformulants can also have toxic effects on humans and the environment, yet current environmental risk assessment focuses almost exclusively on the active ingredient [11,12]. Even the European Union lists 144 “unacceptable coformulants” to be banned due to their inherent hazardous properties [13]. Independent research on effects is hampered by the fact that the identity and concentration of coformulants in pesticide products are treated as confidential business information and are usually not listed on product labels [10,14].
In soil, GLY undergoes various physical and chemical changes that affect its retention, transport, degradation, uptake by plants, and leaching [5]. The binding of GLY to soil particles is high compared to other pesticides, and the degree of sorption depends on the mineral content and type of soil, pH, soil phosphate content, and soil organic matter [15,16]. Soils with higher organic matter content and minerals such as aluminum and iron oxides can bind glyphosate for longer [15]. The remaining GLY remains available in soil for plant uptake, interaction with metal cations, and degradation [17,18]. In soil, GLY has a half-life of 47 days [5] to 197 days [19]. Decomposition in soil depends on the type and characteristics of the soil microorganisms, as well as climatic conditions such as moisture and temperature [20,21,22]. Studies also confirm that GLY is used as a source of carbon, nitrogen, or phosphorus by microorganisms [23,24].
Earthworms are among the most important animal group in soils and serve as surrogate species in environmental risk assessments [25]. Of the approximately 3600 earthworm species worldwide [26], the compost worm Eisenia fetida is most commonly used in ecotoxicological studies. Earthworms are sensitive to chemicals in the soil distributed on their body surface due to chemo-sensitive receptors [27]. Earthworm avoidance behavior, growth, reproduction, and mortality have been identified as ecologically relevant endpoints in these ecotoxicological studies [28]. A meta-analysis of 25 ecotoxicological studies comparing the effects of GBH and GLY on earthworms reports widely varying results for the same endpoints and attributed this to the use of different earthworm species, different glyphosate formulations, different soil temperatures, and different soil properties [29]. Temperature has a significant effect on the degradation of GBHs and thus indirectly on the toxic effects, while soil properties affect herbicide absorption and half-life [21,22,30].
The objectives of this study were to (i) evaluate the effects of two commercial GBH formulations (Roundup PowerFlex and Touchdown Quattro) and their respective active ingredients GLY (glyphosate potassium and ammonium salt) and the co-formulant alkylpolyglucoside (APG) contained in both formulations on earthworm avoidance behavior, biomass growth, and reproduction and (ii) determine the extent to which this response is affected by temperature and different soil organic matter levels. We expected that earthworm avoidance behavior, reproduction rate, and biomass would be negatively affected by GBHs, GLYs, or APGs, and that GBHs would show a stronger effect than GLY alone because of coformulants. We also expected that earthworm response would be lower at high soil organic matter levels due to buffering effects, but stronger at higher temperatures because of the additional stress this places on earthworms. To our knowledge, this is among the first studies to adapt standardized protocols for environmental risk assessments with temperature and soil organic matter levels.

2. Materials and Methods

The experiments were performed between March and May 2019 at the Institute of Zoology of the University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria.

2.1. Test Substances

Roundup PowerFlex (RP; Bayer AG, Leverkusen, Germany) was purchased in a garden center in Vienna, Austria, Touchdown Quattro (TQ; Syngenta Czech, Prague, Czech Republic) in an online store (VMD Drogerie, Veselí nad Moravou, Czech Republic). RP contains the AI potassium salt (potassium N-[(hydroxyphosphinato)methyl]glycine) at 43.8%, and TQ the AI ammonium salt (carboxymethylamino)methyl-hydroxyphosphinate) at 34%. Both formulations contain the co-formulant alkylpolyglucoside (APG) at 20% in RP and 10% in TQ, according to the safety data sheets [31,32].
The glyphosate salts and APG were provided by our project partner the Agro-Environmental Research Institute in Budapest, Hungary. The potassium and ammonium salt, produced from glyphosate, was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich, Hungary (Budapest, Hungary). Glyphosate potassium salt was synthesized by adding 1.66 g (9.82 mmol) of glyphosate under continuous stirring to a cooled 0.84 mL aliquot of a 45% (w/w) aqueous potassium hydroxide solution. The mixture was stirred overnight at 4 °C and the resulting precipitate was filtered and lyophilized to obtain 1.04 g (5.02 mmol, 51.1%) of glyphosate potassium salt. In the same procedure, 1.66 g (9.82 mmol) of glyphosate was added to 1.33 mL aliquot of a 28% (w/w) aqueous ammonium hydroxide solution to obtain 1.01 g (4.97 mmol, 50.6%) of glyphosate ammonium salt.
To calculate the desired concentration in mg kg−1 or µL kg−1 dry soil, we first calculated the mass of soil of one hectare at a depth of 5 cm and a bulk density for Chernozem soils of 1.5 g cm−3 [33]: 1.5 g cm−3 × 5 cm × 1 ha = 750,000 kg. Then, the dosage amount ha−1 was divided by soil mass to obtain the concentration of the substance kg−1 dry soil (Table 1). The substances were diluted with the appropriate amount of tap water to achieve a water content of 40% when mixed with the soil.

2.2. Test Substrate

Topsoil (0–15 cm) from two different arable fields of the BOKU experimental farm in Großenzersdorf near Vienna was used for the experiments. The soil was a Chernozem on loess [34], which was cultivated in crop rotations according to good agricultural practice. The soil with the lower SOM content of 3.2% was from a conventionally farmed field where synthetic insecticides (AI deltamethrin, pymetrozine) had been applied in the previous 3 years but no herbicides in the previous 5 years. The soil with the higher SOM content of 4.3% was from a field that had been managed organically for 25 years. These different SOM values reflect the average situation in conventional and organic arable farms in the region but are relatively high compared to arable cropland worldwide. Nevertheless, the SOM levels we differentiated were substantially (34%) different between the two levels. More detailed information on nutrients is provided in Table 2. Soil moisture content during the experiment was kept constant at 20 ± 2 vol.% during the experiment.

2.3. Earthworms

Earthworms were kindly provided by a vermicomposting company (Vermigrand Natur GmbH, Absdorf, Austria). Two thousand adult earthworms were selected and maintained in their rearing compost substrate in plastic bags during a dark:light period of 8:16 h at 10 °C in a climate chamber. The earthworms consisted of the species Eisenia fetida and E. andrei, which are morphologically identical except for their different pigmentation: E. andrei is uniformly red, while E. fetida is striped [35]. Both species are standard test organisms in terrestrial ecotoxicology [36]. For simplicity, only E. fetida is mentioned throughout the text.

2.4. Earthworm Avoidance Test

The avoidance test was conducted using a 3-factorial design consisting of
  • Factor substances (6 levels):
    2 GBHs (Roundup PowerFlex vs. Touchdown Quattro)
    2 GLYs (potassium salt vs. ammonium salt)
    Adjuvant (alkylpolyglucoside APG vs. water);
  • Factor temperature (2 levels): 15 ± 2 °C vs. 20 ± 2 °C air temperature;
  • Factor soil organic matter (2 levels): 3.2% vs. 4.3% SOM.
Each level was replicated 5 times: (5 substances + control) * 2 temperature levels * 2 SOM * 5 replicates = 120 experimental units.
White plastic boxes (length: 18 cm; width: 13.5 cm; height: 4.5 cm) with a removeable vertical partition were used as experimental units to create two equally sized treatment areas (Figure 1A). The test substances (Roundup, Touchdown Quattro, ammonium, potassium salt, and APG) were prepared and mixed into the substrate (40% water content) immediately before the start of the experiment. The soils were mixed and 200 g (dry weight) was filled into the plastic containers, with the control soil in one half and the test soil containing the substances in the other half of the container. The control treatments were set up in parallel and contained only water [36,37].
Adult E. fetida with similar biomass (200–300 mg) were selected from the rearing containers, carefully cleaned from adhering soil, and dried on a paper towel. The partition of the plastic boxes was removed, and 10 adult earthworms were introduced to the boxes. To prevent escape of the worms, the test containers were covered with a perforated transparent plastic lid. Containers were randomly placed in a climate chamber and incubated at 15 ± 2 °C and 20 ± 2 °C with a 16:8 h light:dark period for 48 h (Binder Climate Chamber KBLF 720, Tuttlingen, Germany) (Figure 1C). According to DIN ISO 17512 [36], no feeding of the animals is required during the test. After 48 h the divider was inserted to keep the worms on the respective half and worms counted separately in each half of the soil. Worms found in the center line of the test vessel were scored with 0.5 [36,37]. Worms that did not show activity were classified as dead [36].
Soil pH and moisture content were measured at the beginning and end of the test phase in five test containers with untreated soil [36,37].
Avoidance behavior of the test substance was calculated according to DIN ISO 17512 [36], using the mean earthworm number in the test soil and the mean earthworm number in the control (Equation (1)). This means that with negative values, the earthworms prefer the test soil, 0% means no reaction, a positive value means avoidance of the test substance.
x = n c n t N 100
where x is the avoidance in percent (%), n c is the number of earthworms in the control soil, n t is the number of earthworms in the test soil, and N is the total number of earthworms. ISO 17512 sets a threshold value according to which a test soil has a limited habitat function if >80% of earthworms are present in the control soil or <20% in the test soil. The 20% threshold used in the above formula at N = 10 corresponds to 60% avoidance behavior [27].

2.5. Earthworm Biomass Growth and Reproduction

This experiment was conducted using a 2-factorial test design with the following factors:
  • Factor substances (6 levels):
    2 GBHs (Roundup PowerFlex vs. Touchdown Quattro)
    2 GLYs (potassium salt vs. ammonium salt)
    Adjuvants (alkylpolyglucoside vs. water);
  • Factor temperature: 15 ± 2 °C vs. 20 ± 2 °C air temperature.
Each level was replicated 5 times: (5 substances + control) * 2 temperatures * 5 replicates = 60 experimental units.
We used similar white plastic boxes with perforated transparent lids as experimental units for this experiment (Figure 1B). Each box was filled with control soil or test substrate with 500 g (dry soil) approx. 4 cm high.
Ten adult worms (total biomass of 2.8–3.5 g) were selected from the rearing substrate, washed free of soil, carefully dried on a paper towel, and introduced to the experimental units. All test boxed were placed in the corresponding climate chamber programmed to 15 ± 2 °C and 20 ± 2 °C for a 16:8 h light:dark period. Boxes were randomly arranged in the climate chamber to avoid systemic errors.
Earthworms were fed 5 g of dried horse manure once a week and sprayed with 5 mL of tap water per test box. The horse manure came from the provider of the worms and was not medicated or treated with substances such as growth-promoting nematicides or similar veterinary products that could adversely affect the worms. These feeds therefore fulfilled the requirements of the Austrian standard ISO 11268.
After completion of the first experimental phase after 31 days, the total number of earthworms and the mass of living adult worms were recorded. Then, 5 g of horse manure was mixed into the test and control soil and placed back into the respective test boxes. The boxes were incubated for another 32 days and then the juveniles and cocoons counted during 15 min per box.
Earthworm biomass change was expressed as a percentage of the mass change in relation to the initial weight, taking into account the number of missing worms (Equation (2)):
m I n d = ( m e m b n b n e 1 ) 100
with m I n d meaning the relative biomass change per individual in percent (%) per test vessel, m e meaning total earthworm biomass of each test vessel at the end of the test, n e meaning the number of worms at the end of the test per test vessel, m b meaning total earthworm biomass of each test vessel at the start of the test, and m b meaning the number of worms at the end of the test per test vessel.
Two samples (21 HT-TQ with 7 worms and 30 LT-TQ with 2 worms) were excluded from the calculation because of more than 10% of worms being missing.
Each test block (5 replicates) was removed from the climatic chamber immediately before counting. On the penultimate day of the experiment (18 May), a technical error occurred and the remaining 13 samples incubated in the climatic chamber at 20 °C were exposed to 60 °C for 3 h. Therefore, only the number of cocoons could be determined, but not the number of juvenile worms due to the high temperature. Soil pH and moisture content were measured at the beginning (day 0) and end (day 34) of the experiment.
The pH value of the test and control soils was measured before and after the experiments with distilled water in a ratio of 1:5 soil. Soil moisture was determined gravimetrically on 30 g soil taken from the 5 repetitions before and after the experiment after drying at 105 °C for 24 h. Air temperature in the climatic chambers was monitored using data loggers (Tinytag TPG 4901, West Sussex, UK).

2.6. Statistical Analyses

All analyses were performed with R-Studio, R version 3.6.1 for Windows [38] using the “car” and “multcomp” packages. The factor substances had six levels: Roundup PowerFlex (RP), Touchdown Quattro (TQ), potassium salt (po), ammonium salt (am), alkypolyglucoside (APG), and control. The factor temperature had two levels (20 °C vs. 15 °C), and the factor SOM also two levels (4.3% vs. 3.2%). All raw data are provided in the Supplementary Materials.
Avoidance behavior was tested using a three-factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the factors: substance, temperature, and SOM. Prerequisites such as normal distribution (QQ plot) and variance homogeneity (Levene Test) of residuals were tested and were met. Such statistical analysis and the threshold method are often used in avoidance testing [27,39].
Biomass changes were tested using two-factorial ANOVAs with the factors: substances and temperature, followed by glht-Post-Hoc-Tests (General Linear Hypothesis Test with Tukey Contrast) when main effects were significant. The residuals of the dependent variable were tested for normal distribution (Q/Q plot) and homoscedasticity (Levene test).
The numbers of juveniles and cocoons were tested using a general linear model with a Poisson distribution with factors: substances and temperature together with their two-way interactions and subsequent analysis of deviation, followed by glht-Post-Hoc-Test with significant results. Control and coformulant (ADJ) were excluded from the GLM model for the variable juveniles because of incomplete datasets. The assumption of normal distribution of the residuals was verified by a Q/Q plot.
Statistical significance was generally defined at p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Avoidance Behavior

Statistical analysis showed that avoidance behavior was unaffected by substances and temperature but significantly influenced by SOM (Figure 2, Table 3). At both temperature levels, the substances are usually more avoided at low SOM; no significant interaction effects between substances, SOM, and temperature were found (Table 3).
Avoidance was never higher than 60%, which is the threshold value for the restriction of the habitat function according to DIN ISO 17512.
Nine samples of a total of 120 samples only had nine worms instead of the initial 10 and were discarded according to ISO 17512. The validation of the homogeneity of earthworm distribution was carried out with control soils without substance addition and resulted in average ratios between the two halves of the test system of 40–60% [36].

3.2. Growth, Cocoons and Juveniles

Earthworm biomass change was significantly affected by substances and temperature, with a marginally significant substance × temperature interaction (Table 4, Figure 3a). Post-hoc comparisons showed no significant differences between substances within temperature levels (Figure 3a). Only one earthworm died or was missing in the control group, so the data were considered valid [40]. No earthworm mortality was observed at the substance concentrations used.
Cocoon production was significantly affected by substances and temperature, with a significant substance × temperature interaction (Figure 3b, Table 4). Post-hoc comparisons showed significant differences between substances only at high temperature (Figure 3b). Cocoon production was highest under the coformulant ADJ, with significant differences from potassium salt and TQ. Only the formulation RU was significantly different to its AI potassium salt (Figure 3b).
Juvenile numbers were significantly affected by substances and temperature, with a significant substance x temperature interaction (Figure 3c, Table 4). Post-hoc comparisons at temperature levels revealed no significant differences (Figure 3c).

4. Discussion

In this study, we attempted to provide a more realistic environmental risk assessment of two widely used glyphosate herbicide formulations (Roundup PowerFlex, Touchdown Quattro), their active ingredients (potassium salt, ammonium salt), and a common coformulant (alkylpolyglcoside) on earthworm behavior, growth, and reproduction by extending ecotoxicological standard tests with two temperature and two soil organic matter levels. Earthworms were affected either by GBHs or GLYs, but there was no general pattern that GBHs had a stronger effect than its corresponding GLYs. The most surprising result was a significant effect of the “inert” coformulant APG on earthworms. The interactions between the impact of GBH or AIs and soil organic matter or temperature suggest that these environmental parameters should no longer be ignored in standard environmental risk assessments.

4.1. Avoidance Behavior

Avoidance behavior varied considerably but was not significantly affected by substances or temperature. However, avoidance was significantly lower at high SOM across all substances and temperatures.
Since avoidance tests are common in environmental risk assessments for pesticide registration, it was not surprising that we did not find strong effects. While we did not find differential effects between GBHs and their respective AIs, others [41] found higher avoidance of E. andrei to GLY compared to GBH (herbicide Pica Pau 480 SC, 480 g a.i. l−1). However, the dose applied in the previous study was >10 times higher (30 mg AI kg−1) than in our study. Three other studies with GBH at the recommended field dose yielded conflicting results. A meta-analysis of 25 ecotoxicological studies comparing earthworm response to GLY vs. GBH revealed very different results, even for the same endpoints [29]. In the meta-analysis, the contrasting results were attributed to several factors, including the use of different earthworm species (epigenetic and anecic species), different glyphosate formulations (consisting of different coformulants), different soil temperatures, and different soil types [29].
We observed a lower avoidance of the substances by the earthworms at high SOM levels. It seems that the higher sorption of glyphosate in soils with higher SOM content [30] influences the behavior of earthworms towards the test substances. Independent of SOM content, others researchers also found differences in earthworm (Eisenia andrei) avoidance between two herbicide AIs (sulcotrione and penoxsulam) and their respective commercial formulations (Mikado and Viper) [27]. Further experiments would be needed to better understand the interactions between SOM, sorption processes, and soil biota response.
Several factors could lead to interactive effects of SOM on the toxicity of substances. First, higher SOM leads to higher soil moisture and better living conditions for earthworms, which could then better cope with harmful substances [42]. Second, higher SOM could lead to improved microbial degradation of glyphosate [23] or higher microbial biomass which provides an additional food source for earthworms [24,43]. Third, soils with a higher SOM also have higher p and K contents as inherent properties that could adsorb GLY and make them less available to earthworms [30,44]. Fourth, GLY has been shown to sorb to SOM and earthworms might not readily get in contact with GLY at high SOM contents [30,45]. Additional soil parameters need to be studied to clarify the influence of each soil property [15]. Further studies are needed to determine whether higher tolerance of GBHs and GLYs at high SOM would also reduce earthworm hazards in the long-term, or whether prolonged contact with these substances would result in greater harm to earthworms.

4.2. Growth and Reproduction

Studies comparing GBHs vs. AIs are scarce and reach different conclusions. Only one study compared GBH with GLY on E. fetida in a similar setting and comes to similar results [29]. Worms living in soil contaminated with AI isopropylamine salt lost biomass and survived a stress test for a shorter time than worms in control groups. In contrast, worms living in soil contaminated with GBH (Roundup Ready-to-Use III, Roundup Super Concentrate) did not lose biomass and survived the stress test just like the worms in the control group. However, it should be noted that dosages in this experiment (26.3 mg kg−1) were almost nine times higher than in the current study. The authors suggest that the nitrates and phosphates in the formulations stimulate microbial activity, thereby accelerating glyphosate degradation [43].
In our experiment, earthworm growth and reproduction in response to different herbicides were tested at two temperature levels without distinguishing between SOM. Biomass was significantly affected by substance and temperature (no interaction). Temperature had a stronger effect on biomass than substances with significantly higher growth at higher temperature, but with only a marginally significant interaction between substance and temperature. Earthworm biomass was similar for GBHs and GLYs, suggesting that coformulants added to GLYs in GBHs had no adverse effects on biomass. To our knowledge, only one study [29] reported effects of GBHs vs. GLYs and temperature on earthworms. In another study, E. fetida exposed to a GBH (Roundup Ready-To-Use III; isopropylamine salt as active ingredient) did not impact body mass at about twice the recommended dose (60.7 mg AI kg−1) [46]. The earlier study found that both earthworm responses varied with the initial body mass and soil temperature [29]; only initially heavy worms growing up in warm soil responded to GBH, and they responded by becoming significantly heavier than their uncontaminated counterparts; in contrast, worms with lighter mass and worms growing up in a cooler temperature did not respond to contamination with a change in final body mass.
In general, for all samples, the number of juveniles hatched per cocoon ranged from 2–6, which is common for this species [47]. We found significantly fewer cocoons under potassium salt compared to its GBH Roundup PowerFlex. This is in line with others who also report fewer cocoons at a GLY compared to GBH (95% AI; GLY not further specified) although much higher dosages of ≥5000 mg kg−1 were used [48]. No difference in cocoon production was found between GBHs and AIs (95% GLY not further specified) at concentrations of 200 mg GLY kg−1 [49].
We noted a trend for glyphosate salts to develop fewer juveniles than GBHs. Significantly fewer juveniles were found in E. fetida after GBH treatment (Roundup FG with 1440 g AI/ha) [50]. No effect on the reproduction rate was found when testing GBH Glycel S.L (at 2 and 8 mg AI kg−1 soil) [51]. In contrast, increased cocoon production but decreased cocoon fertility was observed after GBH application (Roundup, 48%, 6 l GBH/ha and 12 l GBH/ha) [52].
It is also observed that E. fetida is less sensitive to pesticides than other earthworm species [53,54,55]. The discrepancy in results could be due to the unknown coformulants in the formulations [14]. This type of inconsistency is often reported in ecotoxicological experiments [29]. Several studies looking at terrestrial non-target animals show that GBH has an equal or higher toxicity than GLY [56,57]. In contrast, in several studies considering terrestrial non-target organisms, GBH has been observed to be more toxic than GLY, including soil bacteria [58], amphibians [59], collembolans [44].

4.3. Effects of Coformulants

The effects of coformulants have rarely been tested in invertebrates. A recent systematic literature review found that only 19 studies examined the effects of coformulants or ”inert” ingredients on bee health [12]. In these studies, ”inert” ingredients were found to cause mortality in bees through multiple exposure routes, act synergistically with other stressors, and cause colony-level effects.
When used on freshwater worms, GBH with the coformulant POEA (polyethoxylated tallow amine) shows higher cytotoxicity than GLY alone [60]. Even for plants, GLY was only slightly toxic at the recommended dilutions in agriculture, but the strong herbicidal and toxic properties of its formulations were exerted by the POEA formulant family alone [56]. In addition, the authors identified the heavy metals arsenic, chromium, cobalt, lead, and nickel, which are known to be toxic and endocrine disruptors, as contaminants in GBHs. This could also explain some of the adverse effects of GBHs. The effects of POEA and a GBH formulation (Roundup) on different test organisms proved POEA to be more acutely toxic to aquatic organisms [61]. POEA was also proven to be the most toxic component on aquatic invertebrates, compared to the effects of technical-grade glyphosate and the investigated GBH [62]. In another study, ethoxylated adjuvants used in GBH formulations proved to be nearly ten thousand times more toxic to human cells than the toxicity of the AI [63]. This finding has been reconfirmed in numerous additional studies [14,64,65]. In the meantime, POEA-based GBHs were banned in the EU and gradually phased out during the 2015–2017 period [66], but in most other regions POEA-based GBHs are still in use. The EFSA reference GBH formulation is Roundup BioFlow with a quarternary ammonium coformulant/surfactant, however, unfortunately there are no data on the proportion of GBHs containing APG. There is ample evidence that failure to consider the toxicity of coformulants distorts the safety profile of commercial herbicides and other pesticides [6,11,12,67]. Another important issue with indications of genotoxic and carcinogenic effects is the increasing use of GBHs containing additional herbicidal AIs such as 2,4-D, or dicamba [68], but a discussion of this is beyond the scope of this study.
We are aware of only a few studies addressing the effects of the coformulant APG. Testing the cytotoxic and endocrine effects of GLY or APG on human placental cells showed that APG is 18 times and GBH (Medallon Premium, 350 g GLY l−1) 2000 times more cytotoxic than GLY only [14]. The coformulant APG was found to be more cytotoxic than the formulation GBH which contained APG; however, the formulation was more endocrine-disrupting than APG, and GLY alone had no significant effect [14]. We found increased cocoon production stimulated by APG, which might be explained by the hormesis effect, which exerts a positive effect on organisms at small doses of harmful substances [52,69]. A no-observed-effect concentration (NOEC) for APG of 654 mg kg−1 was determined for E. fetida [70], therefore, APG is considered only slightly toxic to earthworms and is readily biodegradable under all aerobic and anaerobic environmental conditions [70]. APG is also listed on the Safer Chemical Ingredients List (SCIL) of the US EPA based on the aquatic toxicity and rate of biodegradation [71]. Our results indicate that glyphosate AI may have a more negative effect on reproduction than the GBH formulation, because the adjuvant APG stimulates cocoon production.
The resulting effects of the adjuvant in combination with GLY may explain the inconsistencies of the results in the 25 studies compared by Pochron et al. 2019 [29], as they used different GBHs from different manufacturers. In addition, many studies do not report exact product names, making it impossible to determine the effects of coformulants. None of these studies consider the influence of soil type on the effect of GLYs/GBHs. There is no consensus on the type of soil used or what soil values have been reported. Moreover, some follow the OECD standards, while others use variants of the OECD standards [29]. These differences make it difficult to compare the studies.
However, pioneering studies from Pochron’s laboratory suggest that even with a constant soil type (e.g., pH, soil moisture, and SOM), the microbial biomass may vary. They suggest that the microbial biomass may influence the health of earthworms [29]. An increase in microorganisms could serve as a food source for earthworms and/or promote the increase of available nutrients in the soil [24,29,72], which could have a positive effect on the offspring in the current study.

4.4. Effects of Temperature

Interactions between herbicide effects and climate variables get increasingly important with ongoing climate change [73]. In this study, temperature was shown to affect biomass, cocoon production, and the number of juveniles, but not avoidance behavior. Earthworms showed an 18% increase in biomass at low temperature as opposed to an increased temperature. However, a high temperature increased the number of cocoons and juveniles. Reproduction rate was found to interact with treatments and temperature, indicating a dependence.
Very little is known about the interactions between temperature and herbicide effects. Amphibians (Bufo bufo) have been shown to be more sensitive to GBH [74,75] at lower temperatures, this pattern was also confirmed for other amphibian species (Rana temporaria and Bufotes viridis) and the response to a fungicide formulation (Folpan 500 SC) [76]. Interactions between GBHs, their Ais, and temperature have rarely been studied for soil biota. Stress tests of the worms revealed the interaction of the herbicide Roundup Ready to Use III (26.3 mg kg−1 dry soil) and temperature [29]. Especially when the earthworms lived in heated soil, exposure to Roundup did not affect their survival time under stress. However, when the earthworms had lived in non-heated soil, Roundup exposure shortened their survival time.
Studies show that tolerance to high and low temperature can be reduced by chemical stressors [77]. The effects of two insecticides (chlorpyrifos and carbofuran) on survival, growth, and reproduction of E. andrei are greater at a standard temperature of 20 °C than at 26 °C [78]. In the risk assessment of environmental chemicals, tests are performed under standard conditions 20 ± 2 °C. Our results suggest that the substances interact with temperature, and it would therefore be important in further studies for the ERAs to include tests of the substances as a function of temperature.

5. Conclusions

In general, we found that either GBHs or GLYs affect earthworms, but could not identify a general pattern, and there was only one clear indication for cocoon numbers that a GLY had a stronger effect than its corresponding GBH. The most surprising result was that the coformulant APG showed stimulatory effects on earthworms, resulting in lower effects of GBH on cocoon numbers than pure AI. It was important to observe interactions between the impact of GBH or AIs with either soil organic matter or temperature because in the European Union, environmental risk assessments of pesticide approval typically test AIs and at least one lead formulation using one soil type at one standard temperature [79]. Looking at the literature on this topic, there is a wide variation in the effects of GBHs, GLYs, and coformulants on earthworms. These differences are due to the fact that ingredients in a given branded product may vary geographically and temporally without being indicated on product labels, in safety data sheets, or other publicly available information sources [10]. Therefore, GBHs are black boxes in terms of their complete ingredients [6]. Furthermore, in addition to the coformulants discussed in this study, petroleum and heavy metals were frequently found in formulations with even more toxic effects than the active ingredient itself [56,80]. Thus, our results suggest that current environmental risk assessments, which focus mainly on active ingredients or specific formulations and use standard temperatures and standard soils, most likely underestimate impacts on non-target organisms. To better understand the effects of herbicides on non-target organisms, a full declaration of all formulation ingredients, tank mixtures, and interactions with other agrochemicals applied [81] would be essential.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agrochemicals2010001/s1, Table S1 data avoidance.xlsx; Table S2 data biomass cocoons juveniles.xlsx.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.S., J.G.Z., E.G., A.S., M.M., E.T. and S.K.; methodology, R.S.; validation, J.G.Z., A.S., E.G., M.M., S.K. and B.S.; statistical analysis, R.S., B.S.; investigation, R.S.; resources, E.G., M.M., E.T., S.K.; data curation, R.S., J.G.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, R.S. and J.G.Z.; writing—review and editing, all authors; visualization, J.G.Z.; supervision, J.G.Z.; project administration, A.S., M.M., E.G. and J.G.Z.; funding acquisition, A.S. and J.G.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by project no. 97öu3 of the action Austria-Hungary of the Osztrák-Magyar Akció Alapítvány (OMAA) and the Austrian Agency for International Cooperation in Education and Research (OED) granted to AS and JGZ. The funding body had no role in the design of the study, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, or in writing the manuscript.

Data Availability Statement

All raw data are provided in the Supplementary Materials.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Anna Altmanninger, Verena Brandmaier, Kerstin Krückel, Anna Suanjak, Leona Puhony, Mirta L. Menone, and Yoko Muraoka for various help during the experimental phase. Thanks to Pia Euteneuer of the BOKU Experimental Farm for providing the soil, to Alfred Grand of Vermigrand GmbH, Absdorf, and to Franz Zehetner of BOKU Institure of Soil Research for providing lab equipment.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mesnage, R.; Zaller, J.G. Herbicides: Chemistry, Efficacy, Toxicology, and Environmental Impacts. In Emerging Issues in Analytical Chemistry; Thomas, B.F., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; p. 366. [Google Scholar]
  2. Benbrook, C.M. Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2016, 28, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Mesnage, R.; Defarge, N.; Spiroux de Vendômois, J.; Séralini, G.E. Potential toxic effects of glyphosate and its commercial formulations below regulatory limits. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2015, 84, 133–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Baylis, A.D. Why glyphosate is a global herbicide: Strengths, weaknesses and prospects. Pest Manag. Sci. 2000, 56, 299–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Székács, A. Herbicide Mode of Action. In Herbicides: Chemistry, Efficacy, Toxicology, and Environmental Impacts; Mesnage, R., Zaller, J.G., Thomas, B.F., Eds.; Emerging Issues in Analytical Chemistry; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 41–86. [Google Scholar]
  6. Mesnage, R. Coformulants in Commercial Herbicides. In Herbicides: Chemistry, Efficacy, Toxicology, and Environmental Impacts; Mesnage, R., Zaller, J., Thomas, B.F., Eds.; Emerging Issues in Analytical Chemistry; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 87–112. [Google Scholar]
  7. European Commission. Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC. Off. J. Eur. Union 2009, 309, 1–50. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009R31107 (accessed on 1 November 2022).
  8. EFSA. Data collection on co-formulants used in representative plant protection product formulations in the context of the EFSA peer review process for approval/renewal of approval of active substances. EFSA J. 2022, 19, EN-7547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. EPA. Inert Ingredints Overview and Regulation. 2022. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/inert-ingredients-overview-and-guidance (accessed on 5 December 2022).
  10. Mesnage, R.; Benbrook, C.; Antoniou, M.N. Insight into the confusion over surfactant co-formulants in glyphosate-based herbicides. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2019, 128, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mesnage, R.; Antoniou, M.N. Ignoring adjuvant toxicity falsifies the safety profile of commercial pesticides. Front. Public Health 2018, 5, 361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Straw, E.; Thompson, L.; Leadbeater, E.; Brown, M. ‘Inert’ ingredients are understudied, potentially dangerous to bees and deserve more research attention. Proc. R. Soc. B 2022, 289, 20212353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. EC. Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/383 of 3 March 2021 amending Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council listing co-formulants which are not accepted for inclusion in plant protection products (Text with EEA relevance). Off. J. Eur. Union 2021, 74, 7–26. [Google Scholar]
  14. Defarge, N.; Takács, E.; Lozano, V.L.; Mesnage, R.; Vendômois, J.S.; Seralini, G.E.; Székács, A. Co-formulants in glyphosate-based herbicides disrupt aromatase activity in human cells below toxic levels. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Borggaard, O.K.; Gimsing, A.L. Fate of glyphosate in soil and the possibility of leaching to ground and surface waters: A review. Pest Manag. Sci. 2008, 64, 441–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Zaller, J.G.; Brühl, C.A. Direct Herbicide Effects on Terrestrial Nontarget Organisms Belowground and Aboveground. In Herbicides: Chemistry, Efficacy, Toxicology, and Environmental Impacts; Mesnage, R., Zaller, J.G., Thomas, B.F., Eds.; Emerging Issues in Analytical Chemistry; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 181–230. [Google Scholar]
  17. Fuchs, B.; Laihonen, M.; Muola, A.; Saikkonen, K.; Dobrev, P.I.; Vankova, R.; Helander, M. A Glyphosate-Based Herbicide in Soil Differentially Affects Hormonal Homeostasis and Performance of Non-target Crop Plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 12, 787958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Muola, A.; Fuchs, B.; Laihonen, M.; Rainio, K.; Heikkonen, L.; Ruuskanen, S.; Saikkonen, K.; Helander, M. Risk in the circular food economy: Glyphosate-based herbicide residues in manure fertilizers decrease crop yield. Sci. Tot. Environ. 2021, 750, 141422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Silva, V.; Mol, H.G.J.; Zomer, P.; Tienstra, M.; Ritsema, C.J.; Geissen, V. Pesticide residues in European agricultural soils—A hidden reality unfolded. Sci. Tot. Environ. 2019, 653, 1532–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Giesy, J.P.; Dobson, S.; Solomon, K.R. Ecotoxicological Risk Assessment for Roundup® Herbicide. In Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology: Continuation of Residue Reviews; Ware, G.W., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 35–120. [Google Scholar]
  21. Bento, C.P.M.; Goossens, D.; Rezaei, M.; Riksen, M.; Mol, H.G.J.; Ritsema, C.J.; Geissen, V. Glyphosate and AMPA distribution in wind-eroded sediment derived from loess soil. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 220, 1079–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bento, C.P.M. Glyphosate and Aminomethylphosphonic Acid (AMPA) Behavior in Loess Soils and Off-Site Transport Risk Assessment; Wageningen University: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  23. Muskus, A.M.; Krauss, M.; Miltner, A.; Hamer, U.; Nowak, K.M. Effect of temperature, pH and total organic carbon variations on microbial turnover of 13C315N-glyphosate in agricultural soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 658, 697–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mandl, K.; Cantelmo, C.; Gruber, E.; Faber, F.; Friedrich, B.; Zaller, J.G. Effects of Glyphosate-, Glufosinate- and Flazasulfuron-Based Herbicides on Soil Microorganisms in a Vineyard. Bull Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2018, 101, 562–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Santos, M.J.G.; Ferreira, M.F.L.; Cachada, A.; Duarte, A.C.; Sousa, J.P. Pesticide application to agricultural fields: Effects on the reproduction and avoidance behaviour of Folsomia candida and Eisenia andrei. Ecotoxicology 2012, 21, 2113–2122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Reynolds, J. Earthworms of the world. Glob. Biodivers. 1994, 4, 11–16. [Google Scholar]
  27. Marques, C.; Pereira, R.; Gonçalves, F. Using earthworm avoidance behaviour to assess the toxicity of formulated herbicides and their active ingredients on natural soils. J. Soils Sediments 2009, 9, 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. van Gestel, C.A.; Mommer, L.; Montanarella, L.; Pieper, S.; Coulson, M.; Toschki, A.; Rutgers, M.; Focks, A.; Römbke, J. Soil Biodiversity: State-of-the-Art and Possible Implementation in Chemical Risk Assessment. Integr. Environ. Assess Manag. 2021, 17, 541–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Pochron, S.; Choudhury, M.; Gomez, R.; Hussaini, S.; Illuzzi, K.; Mann, M.; Mezic, M.; Nikakis, J.; Tucker, C. Temperature and body mass drive earthworm (Eisenia fetida) sensitivity to a popular glyphosate-based herbicide. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2019, 139, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Albers, C.N.; Banta, G.T.; Hansen, P.E.; Jacobsen, O.S. The influence of organic matter on sorption and fate of glyphosate in soil—Comparing different soils and humic substances. Environ. Pollut. 2009, 157, 2865–2870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Bayer Crop Science. Safety Data Sheet Roundup(R) PowerFlex. 2022. Available online: https://cropscience.bayer.co.uk/data/documents/roundup/roundup-flex/roundup-flex-msds/ (accessed on 18 December 2022).
  32. Syngenta. Safety data sheet Touchdown Quattro. 2018. Available online: https://www.syngenta.de/sites/g/files/zhg146/f/sicherheitsdatenblatt-touchdown-quattro.pdf?token=1614933071. (accessed on 18 December 2022).
  33. Hrčková, K.; Žák, Š.; Hašana, R.; Švančárková, M. Change of chosen soil physical properties of chernozem after seven years of no-till soil cultivation. J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 2014, 15, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  35. Dominguez, J.; Velando, A.; Ferreiro, A. Are Eisenia fetida (Savigny, 1826) and Eisenia andrei Bouché (1972) (Oligochaeta, Lumbridicae) different biological species? Pedobiologia 2005, 49, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. DIN ISO 17512-1; Deutsches Institut für Normung. Bodenbeschaffenheit—Vermeidungsprüfung zur Bestimmung der Bodenbeschaffenheit und der Auswirkungen von Chemikalien auf das Verhalten—Teil 1: Prüfung von Regenwürmern (Eisenia fetida und Eisenia andrei) (ISO 17512-1:2008). Beuth Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2010; 32p.
  37. Natal-da-Luz, T.; Römbke, J.; Sousa, J.P. Avoidance tests in site-specific risk assessment—Influence of soil properties on the avoidance response of collembola and earthworms. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2008, 27, 1112–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  39. Sousa, A.; Pereira, R.; Antunes, S.C.; Cachada, A.; Pereira, E.; Duarte, A.C.; Goncalves, F. Validation of avoidance assays for the screening assessment of soils under different anthropogenic disturbances. Ecotox. Environ. Saf. 2008, 71, 661–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. ÖNORM EN ISO 11268-2: 2015-08; Austrian Standards. Bodenbeschaffenheit—Wirkungen von Schadstoffen auf Regenwürmer —Teil 2: Bestimmung der Wirkung auf die Reproduktionsleistung von Eisenia fetida/Eisenia andrei. Austrian Standards: Vienna, Austria, 2015; 28p.
  41. Buch, A.C.; Brown, G.G.; Niva, C.C.; Sautter, K.D.; Sousa, J.P. Toxicity of three pesticides commonly used in Brazil to Pontoscolex corethrurus (Muller, 1857) and Eisenia andrei (Bouche, 1972). Appl. Soil Ecol. 2013, 69, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Pulleman, M.M.; Six, J.; van Breemen, N.; Jongmans, A.G. Soil organic matter distribution and microaggregate characteristics as affected by agricultural management and earthworm activity. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2005, 56, 453–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Pochron, S.; Simon, L.; Mirza, A.; Littleton, A.; Sahebzada, F.; Yudell, M. Glyphosate but not Roundup® harms earthworms (Eisenia fetida). Chemosphere 2020, 241, 125017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Maderthaner, M.; Weber, M.; Takács, E.; Mörtl, M.; Leisch, F.; Römbke, J.; Querner, P.; Walcher, R.; Gruber, E.; Székács, A.; et al. Commercial glyphosate-based herbicides effects on springtails (Collembola) differ from those of their respective active ingredients and vary with soil organic matter content. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 17280–17289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Yu, Y.; Zhou, Q.-X. Adsorption characteristics of pesticides methamidophos and glyphosate by two soils. Chemosphere 2005, 58, 811–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Pochron, S.T.; Mirza, A.; Mezic, M.; Chung, E.; Ezedum, Z.; Geraci, G.; Mari, J.; Meiselbach, C.; Shamberger, O.; Smith, R.; et al. Earthworms Eisenia fetida recover from Roundup exposure. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2021, 158, 103793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Edwards, C.A.; Bohlen, P.J. Biology and Ecology of Earthworms, 3rd ed.; Chapman & Hall: London, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  48. García-Torres, T.; Giuffré, L.; Romaniuk, R.; Ríos, R.P.; Pagano, E.A. Exposure assessment to glyphosate of two species of annelids. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2014, 93, 209–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Zhou, C.-F.; Wang, Y.-J.; Li, C.-C.; Sun, R.-J.; Yu, Y.-C.; Zhou, D.-M. Subacute toxicity of copper and glyphosate and their interaction to earthworm (Eisenia fetida). Environ. Pollut. 2013, 180, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Casabé, N.; Piola, L.; Fuchs, J.; Oneto, M.L.; Pamparato, L.; Basack, S.; Giménez, R.; Massaro, R.; Papa, J.C.; Kesten, E. Ecotoxicological assessment of the effects of glyphosate and chlorpyrifos in an Argentine soya field. J. Soils Sediments 2007, 7, 232–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Yasmin, S.; D’Souza, D. Effect of pesticides on the reproductive output of Eisenia fetida. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2007, 79, 529–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Santadino, M.; Coviella, C.; Momo, F. Glyphosate Sublethal Effects on the Population Dynamics of the Earthworm Eisenia fetida (Savigny, 1826). Water Air Soil Pollut. 2014, 225, 2207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ma, W.C.; Bodt, J. Differences in toxicity of the insecticide chlorpyrifos to six species of earthworms (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae) in standardized soil tests. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1993, 50, 864–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Fitzgerald, D.G.; Warner, K.A.; Lanno, R.P.; Dixon, D.G. Assessing the effects of modifying factors on pentachlorophenol toxicity to earthworms: Applications of body residues. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1996, 15, 2299–2304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Pelosi, C.; Joimel, S.; Makowski, D. Searching for a more sensitive earthworm species to be used in pesticide homologation tests—a meta-analysis. Chemosphere 2013, 90, 895–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Defarge, N.; Spiroux de Vendômois, J.; Séralini, G.E. Toxicity of formulants and heavy metals in glyphosate-based herbicides and other pesticides. Toxicol. Rep. 2018, 5, 156–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Gill, J.P.K.; Sethi, N.; Mohan, A.; Datta, S.; Girdhar, M. Glyphosate toxicity for animals. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2018, 16, 401–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sihtmäe, M.; Blinova, I.; Künnis-Beres, K.; Kanarbik, L.; Heinlaan, M.; Kahru, A. Ecotoxicological effects of different glyphosate formulations. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2013, 72, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wagner, N.; Reichenbecher, W.; Teichmann, H.; Tappeser, B.; Lötters, S. Questions concerning the potential impact of glyphosate-based herbicides on amphibians. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2013, 32, 1688–1700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Contardo-Jara, V.; Klingelmann, E.; Wiegand, C. Bioaccumulation of glyphosate and its formulation Roundup Ultra in Lumbriculus variegatus and its effects on biotransformation and antioxidant enzymes. Environ. Pollut. 2009, 157, 57–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tsui, M.T.K.; Chu, L.M. Aquatic toxicity of glyphosate-based formulations: Comparison between different organisms and the effects of environmental factors. Chemosphere 2003, 52, 1189–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Folmar, L.C.; Sanders, H.O.; Julin, A.M. Toxicity of the herbicide glyphosphate and several of its formulations to fish and aquatic invertebrates. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1979, 8, 269–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Mesnage, R.; Bernay, B.; Séralini, G.E. Ethoxylated adjuvants of glyphosate-based herbicides are active principles of human cell toxicity. Toxicology 2013, 313, 122–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Székács, I.; Fejes, Á.; Klátyik, S.; Takács, E.; Patkó, D.; Pomóthy, J.; Mörtl, M.; Horváth, R.; Madarász, E.; Darvas, B.; et al. Environmental and toxicological impacts of glyphosate with its formulating adjuvant. Int. J. Biol. Vet. Agric. Food Eng. 2014, 8, 213–218. [Google Scholar]
  65. Klátyik, S.; Bohus, P.; Darvas, B.; Székács, A. Authorization and toxicity of veterinary drugs and plant protection products: Residues of the active ingredients in food and feed and toxicity problems related to adjuvants. Front. Vet. Sci. 2017, 4, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. EFSA. Request for the evaluation of the toxicological assessment of the co-formulant POE-tallowamine. EFSA J. 2015, 13, 4303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Straw, E.A.; Brown, M.J.F. Co-formulant in a commercial fungicide product causes lethal and sub-lethal effects in bumble bees. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 21653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Mesnage, R.; Brandsma, I.; Moelijker, N.; Zhang, G.; Antoniou, M.N. Genotoxicity evaluation of 2,4-D, dicamba and glyphosate alone or in combination with cell reporter assays for DNA damage, oxidative stress and unfolded protein response. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2021, 157, 112601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Belz, R.G.; Duke, S.O. Herbicides and plant hormesis. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2014, 70, 698–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Willing, A.; Messinger, H.; Aulmann, W. Ecology and Toxicology of Alkyl Polyglycosides. In Handbook of Detergents, Part B; Zoller, A., Ed.; Marcel Dekker Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2004; Volume 121, pp. 516–551. [Google Scholar]
  71. EPA. Safer Choice Criteria for Surfactants. 2022. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/saferchoice/safer-choice-criteria-surfactants (accessed on 5 December 2022).
  72. Bruckner, A.; Schmerbauch, A.; Ruess, L.; Heigl, F.; Zaller, J. Foliar Roundup application has minor effects on the compositional and functional diversity of soil microorganisms in a short-term greenhouse experiment. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2019, 174, 506–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Brühl, C.A.; Zaller, J.G. Indirect herbicide effects on biodiversity, ecosystem functions, and interactions with global changes. In Herbicides: Chemistry, Efficacy, Toxicology, and Environmental Impacts; Mesnage, R., Zaller, J.G., Thomas, B.F., Eds.; Emerging Issues in Analytical Chemistry; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 231–272. [Google Scholar]
  74. Baier, F.; Jedinger, M.; Gruber, E.; Zaller, J.G. Temperature-dependence of glyphosate-based herbicide’s effects on egg and tadpole growth of Common Toads. Front. Environ. Sci. 2016, 4, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Baier, F.; Gruber, E.; Hein, T.; Bondar-Kunze, E.; Ivanković, M.; Mentler, A.; Brühl, C.A.; Spangl, B.; Zaller, J.G. Non-target effects of a glyphosate-based herbicide on Common toad larvae (Bufo bufo, Amphibia) and associated algae are altered by temperature. PeerJ 2016, 4, e2641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Leeb, C.; Schuler, L.; Brühl, C.A.; Theissinger, K. Low temperatures lead to higher toxicity of the fungicide folpet to larval stages of Rana temporaria and Bufotes viridis. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0258631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Holmstrup, M.; Sørensen, L.I.; Bindesbøl, A.-M.; Hedlund, K. Cold acclimation and lipid composition in the earthworm Dendrobaena octaedra. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 2007, 147, 911–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. De Silva, P.M.C.S.; Pathiratne, A.; van Gestel, C.A.M. Influence of temperature and soil type on the toxicity of three pesticides to Eisenia andrei. Chemosphere 2009, 76, 1410–1415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. European Commission. Commission regulation (EU) No 284/2013 of 1 March 2013 setting out the data requirements for plant protection products, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. Off. J. Eur. Union 2013, L93, 85–152. [Google Scholar]
  80. Jungers, G.; Portet-Koltalo, F.; Cosme, J.; Séralini, G.-E. Petroleum in Pesticides: A Need to Change Regulatory Toxicology. Toxics 2022, 10, 670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Zaller, J.G.; Kruse-Plaß, M.; Schlechtriemen, U.; Gruber, E.; Peer, M.; Nadeem, I.; Formayer, H.; Hutter, H.-P.; Landler, L. Unexpected air pollutants with potential human health hazards: Nitrification inhibitors, biocides, and persistent organic substances. Sci. Tot. Environ. 2022, 862, 160643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Experimental units separated in two halves for avoidance test (A), experimental units used for reproduction test (B), and arrangement of units in climate chambers to test for temperature effects (C).
Figure 1. Experimental units separated in two halves for avoidance test (A), experimental units used for reproduction test (B), and arrangement of units in climate chambers to test for temperature effects (C).
Agrochemicals 02 00001 g001
Figure 2. Avoidance behavior of earthworms in response to the test substances: CO—control (water), RU—Roundup Power Flex, po—potassium salt active ingredient (AI) of RU, TQ—Touchdown quattro, am—diammonium salt AI of TQ, and adjuvant (ADJ) contained both in RU and TQ, at low (3.2%) and high (4.3%) soil organic matter level (SOM) under 15 °C or 20 °C air temperature. Means ± SD = 5.
Figure 2. Avoidance behavior of earthworms in response to the test substances: CO—control (water), RU—Roundup Power Flex, po—potassium salt active ingredient (AI) of RU, TQ—Touchdown quattro, am—diammonium salt AI of TQ, and adjuvant (ADJ) contained both in RU and TQ, at low (3.2%) and high (4.3%) soil organic matter level (SOM) under 15 °C or 20 °C air temperature. Means ± SD = 5.
Agrochemicals 02 00001 g002
Figure 3. Earthworm biomass change from initial biomass (a), number of cocoons (b), and number of juveniles produced (c) of E. fetida in soil contaminated with substances (CO—water, RU—Roundup Power Flex, po—potassium salt active ingredient of RU, TQ—Touchdown quattro, am—diammonium salt AI of TQ, ADJ-surfactant contained in RU and TQ) under 15 °C or 20 °C air temperature. Significant mean comparisons denoted with asterisks: ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001. Missing values of juveniles for CO and ADJ due to technical problems. Means ± SD, n = 5.
Figure 3. Earthworm biomass change from initial biomass (a), number of cocoons (b), and number of juveniles produced (c) of E. fetida in soil contaminated with substances (CO—water, RU—Roundup Power Flex, po—potassium salt active ingredient of RU, TQ—Touchdown quattro, am—diammonium salt AI of TQ, ADJ-surfactant contained in RU and TQ) under 15 °C or 20 °C air temperature. Significant mean comparisons denoted with asterisks: ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001. Missing values of juveniles for CO and ADJ due to technical problems. Means ± SD, n = 5.
Agrochemicals 02 00001 g003
Table 1. Treatments and appropriate dosages for avoidance and reproduction testing.
Table 1. Treatments and appropriate dosages for avoidance and reproduction testing.
SubstanceConc.
AI
(g l−1)
Recomm.
Applic. Rate
(l ha−1)
Field Rate
(l ha−1)
Dosage in Lab.
Experiments
(µL kg−1)
Roundup PowerFlex (RP)4803.753.755.00
Potassium salt in RP5883.752.21 §2.94 §§
Alkyl polyglucoside in RP20%3.750.751.00
Touchdown Quattro (TQ)3605.005.006.67
Ammonium salt in TQ4355.002.18 §2.90 §§
Alkyl polyglucoside in TQ10%5.000.500.70
§ field rate in kg ha−1; §§ dosage in mg kg−1.
Table 2. Characteristics of the two soil types used in the experiment. Soil analysis was performed by the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES). SOM…soil organic matter.
Table 2. Characteristics of the two soil types used in the experiment. Soil analysis was performed by the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES). SOM…soil organic matter.
ParameterLow SOMHigh SOMIntermediate SOM §
pH7.57.57.6
Phosphorus (mg kg−1)81125113
Potassium (mg kg−1)173245227
Magnesium (mg kg−1)14097106
Soil organic matter (%)3.24.33.9
§ this mixture of 50:50 low:high SOM was used for the reproduction experiment.
Table 3. ANOVA results of avoidance behavior of earthworms in response to substances (2 glyphosate-based herbicides, 2 glyphosate-salts, coformulant, water), two soil organic matter levels (3.2% vs. 4.3%), and two air temperatures (15 °C vs. 20 °C). Significant effects in bold.
Table 3. ANOVA results of avoidance behavior of earthworms in response to substances (2 glyphosate-based herbicides, 2 glyphosate-salts, coformulant, water), two soil organic matter levels (3.2% vs. 4.3%), and two air temperatures (15 °C vs. 20 °C). Significant effects in bold.
FactorsDfF ValuePr (>F)
Substances50.6490.663
Soil organic matter17.4340.008
Temperature10.0260.871
Substances × Soil organic matter50.2920.916
Substances × Temperature51.5590.179
Substances × Soil organic matter × Temperature52.1070.071
Table 4. Analysis of deviance results of earthworm biomass change, cocoon and juvenile production in response to substances (2 glyphosate-based herbicides, 2 glyphosate-salts, adjuvant, water) and temperature (15 °C vs. 20 °C) and their interaction. Df = 5 for substances, df = 1 for temperature, and df = 5 for interactions. Due to missing values for control and APG for juveniles, these levels were deleted from the model (df = 3 for substances). F-values for biomass change, Chi2 for cocoon and juvenile production. Values in bold indicate significant results.
Table 4. Analysis of deviance results of earthworm biomass change, cocoon and juvenile production in response to substances (2 glyphosate-based herbicides, 2 glyphosate-salts, adjuvant, water) and temperature (15 °C vs. 20 °C) and their interaction. Df = 5 for substances, df = 1 for temperature, and df = 5 for interactions. Due to missing values for control and APG for juveniles, these levels were deleted from the model (df = 3 for substances). F-values for biomass change, Chi2 for cocoon and juvenile production. Values in bold indicate significant results.
ParametersSubstancesTemperatureSubst. × Temp.
F/Chi2pF/Chi2pF/Chi2p
Biomass change (%)2.6440.035165.160<0.0012.0900.083
Cocoon production (no.)11.795<0.00159.170<0.00114.2750.014
Juvenile production (no.)71.198<0.001178.89<0.0018.4100.038
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Schmidt, R.; Spangl, B.; Gruber, E.; Takács, E.; Mörtl, M.; Klátyik, S.; Székács, A.; Zaller, J.G. Glyphosate Effects on Earthworms: Active Ingredients vs. Commercial Herbicides at Different Temperature and Soil Organic Matter Levels. Agrochemicals 2023, 2, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/agrochemicals2010001

AMA Style

Schmidt R, Spangl B, Gruber E, Takács E, Mörtl M, Klátyik S, Székács A, Zaller JG. Glyphosate Effects on Earthworms: Active Ingredients vs. Commercial Herbicides at Different Temperature and Soil Organic Matter Levels. Agrochemicals. 2023; 2(1):1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/agrochemicals2010001

Chicago/Turabian Style

Schmidt, Ricarda, Bernhard Spangl, Edith Gruber, Eszter Takács, Mária Mörtl, Szandra Klátyik, András Székács, and Johann G. Zaller. 2023. "Glyphosate Effects on Earthworms: Active Ingredients vs. Commercial Herbicides at Different Temperature and Soil Organic Matter Levels" Agrochemicals 2, no. 1: 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/agrochemicals2010001

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop