Soil Persistence of Triasulfuron Herbicide as Affected by Biotic and Abiotic Factors

Persistence of triasulfuron [3-(6-methoxy-4methyl-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl)-1-{2-(2-chloroethoxy)-phenylsulfonyl}-urea] in soil was studied under wheat crop and laboratory conditions. Field experiment was conducted in the farms of Agronomy Division, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi. Randomized block design (RBD) was followed with four replicates and two rates of treatments along with control and weedy check. Triasulfuron was applied as post-emergent application to wheat crop at two rates of application viz., 15 g and 20 g a.i. ha^?1. Soil samples at 0 (3 h), 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20, and 30-day intervals after application were drawn, extracted, cleaned up, and analyzed for herbicide residues by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) using C₁₈ column and methanol: water (8:2) as mobile phase at 242 nm wave length. Effect of microbial activity and soil pH was studied under laboratory conditions. Dissipation of triasulfuron followed a first-order-rate kinetics. Residues dissipated from field soil with half-life of 5.8 and 5.9 days at two rates of application. The study indicated biphasic degradation with faster rate initially (t _1/2 = 3.7 days), followed by a slower dissipation rate at the end (t _1/2 = 9.4 days). Similar trend was observed with non-sterile soil in laboratory with a longer half-life. Acidic pH and microbial activity contributed toward the degradation of triasulfuron in soil.     

Integrating Habitat Status, Human Population Pressure, and Protection Status into Biodiversity Conservation Priority Setting

Abstract:  Priority setting is an essential component of biodiversity conservation. Existing methods to identify priority areas for conservation have focused almost entirely on biological factors. We suggest a new relative ranking method for identifying priority conservation areas that integrates both biological and social aspects. It is based on the following criteria: the habitat's status, human population pressure, human efforts to protect habitat, and number of endemic plant and vertebrate species. We used this method to rank 25 hotspots, 17 megadiverse countries, and the hotspots within each megadiverse country. We used consistent, comprehensive, georeferenced, and multiband data sets and analytical remote sensing and geographic information system tools to quantify habitat status, human population pressure, and protection status. The ranking suggests that the Philippines, Atlantic Forest, Mediterranean Basin, Caribbean Islands, Caucasus, and Indo-Burma are the hottest hotspots and that China, the Philippines, and India are the hottest megadiverse countries. The great variation in terms of habitat, protected areas, and population pressure among the hotspots, the megadiverse countries, and the hotspots within the same country suggests the need for hotspot- and country-specific conservation policies.