Leaching of isothiocyanates through intact soil following simulated biofumigation
Biofumigation can be used as an alternative to conventional soil fumigation to control soil-borne pests. With biofumigation, plant tissue with a natural content of glucosinolates (cruciferous plants) is damaged and incorporated into the topsoil. When the plant tissue is damaged, the glucosinolates come into contact with the endogenous enzyme myrosinase, which catalyse the hydrolysis of glucosinolates into various products depending on the reaction conditions. Isothiocyanates are among the potential products formed from these reactions. We investigated if the isothiocyanates from rape plant material were leached through the soil to drain depth when a heavy rainstorm followed the biofumigation. We applied isothiocyanates from rape plant material (1,480 μmol m−2) to four large (0.6 m diameter, 1.0 m long) intact soil monoliths from a loamy and a sandy soil and conducted a leaching experiment under semi-field conditions. The soil monoliths were irrigated with 70–90 mm (10 mm h−1) and the concentrations of three isothiocyanates (3-butenyl, 4-pentenyl and 2-phenethyl) were monitored in the leachate. Between 0 and 14.8 mmol isothiocyanates were leached for each mol of isothiocyanates applied during application of 70–90 mm irrigation. The distribution coefficient estimated from leached concentrations was 0.04–1.19 for 3-butenyl, 0.04–1.15 for 4-pentenyl isothiocyanate and 0.037–0.97 for 2-phenethyl isothiocyanate. The concentration of total isothiocyanates in the leachate was in the same order of magnitude as the LD50 of isothiocyanates for sensitive aquatic organisms.
KeywordsAttenuation Biofumigation Glucosinolate Isothiocyanate Soil Transport
This work was funded by the Danish Research Councils (Contract no. 23-02-0152). We thank Stig T. Rasmussen, Bodil B. Christensen and Jørgen M. Nielsen for excellent technical assistance.
- Brown PD, Morra MJ (1997) Control of soil-borne plant pests using glucosinolate-containing plants. Adv Agron 61:167–231Google Scholar
- Elberson LR, Borek V, McCaffrey JP, Morra MJ (1996) Toxicity of rapeseed meal-amended soil to wireworms, Limonius californicus (Coleoptera: Elateridae). J Agr Entomol 13:323–330Google Scholar
- Gimsing AL, Kirkegaard JA (2005) Glucosinolate and isothiocyanate concentration in soil following incorporation of Brassica biofumigants. Soil Biol Biochem Submitted (and hopefully accepted before this paper is printed)Google Scholar
- Gimsing AL, Strobel BW, Hansen HCB (2006) Benzyl and 2-propenyl isothiocyanate sorption and degradation in soil. Environ Toxicol Chem Submitted (and hopefully accepted before this paper is printed)Google Scholar
- Kirkegaard JA, Matthiessen JN (2004) Developing and refining the biofumigation concept. Agroindustria 3:233–239Google Scholar
- Kjaer A (1976) Glucosinolates in Cruciferae. In: Vaughan JG, Macleod AJ, Jones BMG (eds) The biology and chemistry of the Cruciferae. Academic Press, London, pp 207–219Google Scholar
- Klute A, Dirksen C (1986) Hydraulic conductivity and diffusivity: laboratory methods. In: A. Klute (ed) Methods of soil analysis, Part 1. 2nd Ed. Agron. Monogr. 9. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI, pp 687–734Google Scholar
- Lazzeri L, Manici LM (2001) Allelopathic effect of glucosinolate-containing plant green manure on Pythium sp and total fungal population in soil. Hortscience 36:1283–1289Google Scholar
- Matthiessen JN, Warton B, Shackleton MA (2004b) The importance of plant maceration and water addition in achieving high Brassica-derived isothiocyanate levels in soil. Agroindustria 3:277–280Google Scholar
- Soil Survey Staff (1999) Keys to soil taxonomy. Pochahontas Press, Inc., Blacksburg, Virginia, USAGoogle Scholar
- Sørensen H (1990) Glucosinolates: structure–properties–function. In: Shahidi F (ed) Canola and rapeseed. production, chemistry, nutrition and processing technology. Van Nostand Reinhold, New York, pp 149–172Google Scholar
- Toride N, Leji FJ, van Genuchten MTh (1999) The CXTFIT code for estimating parameters from laboratory or field tracer experiments. Vers. 2.1. Research Report No. 137. U.S. Salinity Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Riverside, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar