PHYSIOLOGICAL AND MORPHOANATOMIC RESPONSES OF <i>Bowdichia virgilioides</i> KUNTH. (FABACEAE) TO GLYPHOSATE

Oliveira, Ana Paula Augusta de; Crispim-Filho, Ailton José; Santos, Vanessa Ribeirode Souza; Costa, Alan Carlos; Silva, Kellen Lagares Ferreira

doi:10.1590/1806-908820210000028

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Scientific Article • Rev. Árvore 45 • 2021 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-908820210000028 copy

PHYSIOLOGICAL AND MORPHOANATOMIC RESPONSES OF Bowdichia virgilioides KUNTH. (FABACEAE) TO GLYPHOSATE

RESPOSTAS FISIOLÓGICAS E MORFOANATÔMICAS DE Bowdichia virgilioides KUNTH. (FABACEAE) AO GLIFOSATO

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

The expansion of agribusiness in Brazil is partly due to the expansion of arable areas in the Cerrado biome, which, consequently, leads to an increase in the use of herbicides, including glyphosate. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the physiological and morphoanatomic responses of Bowdichia virgilioides Kunth. (Fabaceae), when exposed to the herbicide glyphosate, under controlled greenhouse conditions. In addition, the study proposed to identify possible response patterns of the studied species and provide subsidies for the study of the species in areas affected by the drift of the herbicide. The experimental design was in randomized blocks, with seven doses of the herbicide: 25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1200 g i.a ha^-1 besides the control (0), with four repetitions each. Gas exchange, chlorophyll a fluorescence emission, chloroplast pigment content, membrane permeability, and visual and anatomical features were analyzed. The results showed that glyphosate is phytotoxic to B. virgilioides because, even at low doses, this herbicide was able to affect all parameters analyzed. There was also confirmation of the presence of phenolic compounds, mainly in the palisade parenchyma. The metabolic alterations presented demonstrated the sensitivity of B. virgilioides to glyphosate. Thus, the observed responses can serve as a tool for diagnosing the effects of glyphosate exposure on this species, present in native areas affected by the drift of this herbicide. Its indiscriminate use poses a risk to Cerrado biodiversity.

Keywords:
Herbicide; Phytotoxicity; Cerrado

Table 1 Adjusted regression equations for gas exchange and chlorophyll a fluorescence in B. virgilioides plants subjected to diff erent concentrations of glyphosate. They refer to Figure 1.

Features	Unit	Adjusted equations	R²
A	24 hours after application	$y = 6, 5181 - 0, 0047 x + 2 E - 06 x^{2}$	0,85*
A	48 hours after application	$y = 4, 1068 - 0, 0037 x + 1 E - 06 x^{2}$	0,72*
A	216 hours after application	$y = 4, 6425 - 0, 0049 x + 1 E - 06 x^{2}$	0,90^*
A	264 hours after application	$y = 2, 8092 - 0, 0045 x + 2 E - 06 x^{2}$	0,56^ns
A	336 hours after application	$y = 5, 4184 - 0, 0096 x + 5 E - 06 x^{2}$	0,92^*
g_s	24 hours after application	$y = 0, 0985 - 7 E - 05 x + 4 E - 08 x^{2}$	0,49^ns
g_s	48 hours after application	$y = 0, 00574 - 4 E - 05 x + 1 E - 08 x^{2}$	0,82^*
g_s	216 hours after application	$y = 0, 0493 - 2 E - 05 x + 2 E - 10 x^{2}$	0,88^*
g_s	264 hours after application	$y = 0, 0414 + 2 E - 05 x - 2 E - 09 x^{2}$	0,61^ns
g_s	336 hours after application	$y = 0, 065 - 6 E - 05 x + 3 E - 08 x^{2}$	0,50^ns
E	24 hours after application	$y = 1, 2393 - 0, 0006 x + 3 E - 07 x^{2}$	0,57^ns
E	48 hours after application	$y = 0, 796 - 0, 0004 x + 2 E - 07 x^{2}$	0,89^*
E	216 hours after application	$y = 0, 7094 - 0, 0003 x + 9 E - 08 x^{2}$	0,80^*
E	264 hours after application	$y = 0, 5419 + 0, 0001 x - 6 E - 08 x^{2}$	0,62^ns
E	336 hours after application	$y = 0, 8238 - 0, 0004 x + 1 E - 07 x^{2}$	0,68^ns
Ci/Ca	24 hours after application	$y = 0, 7102 - 0, 0002 x + 8 E - 08 x^{2}$	0,85^*
Ci/Ca	48 hours after application	$y = 0, 7418 + 0, 0002 x + 4 E - 08 x^{2}$	0,86^*
Ci/Ca	216 hours after application	$y = 0, 6774 + 0, 0005 x - 3 E - 07 x^{2}$	0,88^*
Ci/Ca	264 hours after application	$y = 0, 6774 + 0, 0005 x - 3 E - 07 x^{2}$	0,79^*
Ci/Ca	336 hours after application	$y = 0, 672 + 0, 0004 x - 2 E - 07 x^{2}$	0,96^*
Fv/Fm	24 hours after application	$y = 0, 7028 - 0, 0001 x - 8 E - 08 x^{2}$	0,84^*
Fv/Fm	72 hours after application	$y = 0, 6893 - 0, 0001 x - 1 E - 08 x^{2}$	0,80^*
Fv/Fm	120 hours after application	$y = 0, 7125 - 3 E - 06 x - 7 E - 08 x^{2}$	0,70^*
Fv/Fm	168 hours after application	$y = 0, 7398 - 0, 0003 x + 2 E - 07 x^{2}$	0,88^*
Fv/Fm	240 hours after application	$y = 0, 7343 - 0, 0002 x - 1 E - 08 x^{2}$	0,94^*
Fv/Fm	336 hours after application	y $y = 0, 6568 - 0, 0002 x - 1 E - 07 x^{2}$	0,61^ns
ΔF/Fm'	24 hours after application	$y = 0, 3897 - 0, 0003 x - 1 E - 07 x^{2}$	0,93^*
ΔF/Fm'	72 hours after application	$y = 0, 282 - 0, 0004 x - 3 E - 07 x^{2}$	0,72^*
ΔF/Fm'	120 hours after application	$y = 0, 215 - 0, 0003 x - 2 E - 07 x^{2}$	0,77^*
ΔF/Fm'	168 hours after application	$y = 0, 1728 - 0, 0002 x + 1 E - 07 x^{2}$	0,84^*
ΔF/Fm'	240 hours after application	$y = 0, 1728 - 0, 0002 x + 1 E - 07 x^{2}$	0,84^*
ΔF/Fm'	336 hours after application	$y = 0, 1693 - 1 E - 04 x - 5 E - 08 x^{2}$	0,62^ns
ETR	24 hours after application	$y = 72, 63 - 0, 1241 x + 5 E - 05 x^{2}$	0,94^*
ETR	72 hours after application	$y = 112, 83 - 0, 2112 x + 0, 0001 x^{2}$	0,82^*
ETR	120 hours after application	$y = 80, 338 - 0, 0952 x + 5 E - 05 x^{2}$	0,86^*
ETR	168 hours after application	$y = 75, 759 - 0, 0871 x + 4 E - 05 x^{2}$	0,85^*
ETR	240 hours after application	$y = 73, 547 - 0, 088 x + 4 E - 05 x^{2}$	0,81^*
ETR	336 hours after application	$y = 75, 32 - 0, 0717 x - 4 E - 05 x^{2}$	0,63^ns
NPQ	24 hours after application	$y = 1, 1007 + 0, 0011 x - 6 E - 07 x^{2}$	0,90^*
NPQ	72 hours after application	$y = 1, 3663 + 0, 0015 x - 9 E - 07 x^{2}$	0,62^ns
NPQ	120 hours after application	$y = 1, 7087 + 0, 0018 x - 1 E - 06 x^{2}$	0,80^*
NPQ	168 hours after application	$y = 1, 8894 + 0, 0006 x - 4 E - 07 x^{2}$	0,64^ns
NPQ	240 hours after application	$y = 1, 914 + 0, 0002 x - 2 E - 06 x^{2}$	0,61^ns
NPQ	336 hours after application	$y = 1, 4173 - 0, 0014 x + 9 E - 07 x^{2}$	0,87^*

Table 2 Leaf blade morphometry of Bowdichia virgilioides Kunth., after exposure to diff erent doses of Glyphosate..

Glyphosate	ADE (μm)*	PP (μm)*	SP (μm)*	ABE (μm)^ns	LT (μm)^ns
0	27,96 a	67,69 a	67,09 a	17,86 a	171,84 a
25	24,22ab	57,80ab	63,69ab	15,64 a	169,60 a
50	25,90ab	57,74 ab	57,63ab	14,72 a	165,28 a
100	24,69ab	56,56ab	57,63ab	15,22 a	186,82 a
200	24,43 ab	58,19 ab	61,72ab	16,63 a	179,38 a
400	24,75ab	52,61 ab	53,41ab	15,73 a	183,66 a
800	24,19 ab	55,53 ab	53,03ab	15,30 a	180,05 a
CV%	11,8	14,28	13,06	15,01	11,94

Sociedade de Investigações Florestais Universidade Federal de Viçosa, CEP: 36570-900 - Viçosa - Minas Gerais - Brazil, Tel: (55 31) 3612-3959 - Viçosa - MG - Brazil
E-mail: rarvore@sif.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *Corresponding author.