Have a personal or library account? Click to login

Effects of integrated application of plant-based compost and urea on soil food web, soil properties, and yield and quality of a processing carrot cultivar

Journal of Nematology
Volume 52 (2020): Issue 1 (January 2020)
By:
Open Access
|Oct 2020

Figures & Tables

Figure 1:

Soil food web condition in plots amended with integrated application of urea and PC, standard urea and non-amended check in sandy loam soil at planting (May, June) and harvest (October) in 2012 to 2014 growing seasons. Numbers 1 to 6 represent treatments: 1 = Urea alone (U1:PC0), 2 = U3:PC1, 3 = U1:PC1, 4 = U1:PC3, 5 = PC alone (U0:PC1), and 6 = non-amended check. The soil food web condition is expressed in four quadrants (A, B, C, and D) according to Ferris et al. (2001). *Treatments significantly increased SI from 50 using one-tail t-test at α = 0.05 for 2014 growing season.
Soil food web condition in plots amended with integrated application of urea and PC, standard urea and non-amended check in sandy loam soil at planting (May, June) and harvest (October) in 2012 to 2014 growing seasons. Numbers 1 to 6 represent treatments: 1 = Urea alone (U1:PC0), 2 = U3:PC1, 3 = U1:PC1, 4 = U1:PC3, 5 = PC alone (U0:PC1), and 6 = non-amended check. The soil food web condition is expressed in four quadrants (A, B, C, and D) according to Ferris et al. (2001). *Treatments significantly increased SI from 50 using one-tail t-test at α = 0.05 for 2014 growing season.

Figure 2:

Means across all sampling time points of soil phosphorus content at the studied treatments across 2012 and 2013 growing seasons. Ratios represent treatments: Urea alone (U1:PC0), 3:1 ratio of urea and PC (U3:PC1), 1:1 ratio of urea and PC (U1:PC1), 1:3 ratio of urea and PC (U1:PC3), PC alone (U0:PC1) and Check = non-amended control. Bars with different letters are significantly different at P ≤ 0.05 using Fisher’s LSD. Error bars represent standard errors.
Means across all sampling time points of soil phosphorus content at the studied treatments across 2012 and 2013 growing seasons. Ratios represent treatments: Urea alone (U1:PC0), 3:1 ratio of urea and PC (U3:PC1), 1:1 ratio of urea and PC (U1:PC1), 1:3 ratio of urea and PC (U1:PC3), PC alone (U0:PC1) and Check = non-amended control. Bars with different letters are significantly different at P ≤ 0.05 using Fisher’s LSD. Error bars represent standard errors.

Figure 3:

Means across all sampling time points of soil respiration (µg CO2-C g−1 day−1) at the studied treatments across 2012 and 2013 growing seasons. Ratios represent treatments: Urea alone (U1:PC0), 3:1 ratio of urea and PC (U3:PC1), 1:1 ratio of urea and PC (U1:PC1), 1:3 ratio of urea and PC (U1:PC3), PC alone (U0:PC1) and Check = non-amended control. Bars with different letters are significantly different at P ≤ 0.05 using Fisher’s LSD. Error bars represent standard errors.
Means across all sampling time points of soil respiration (µg CO2-C g−1 day−1) at the studied treatments across 2012 and 2013 growing seasons. Ratios represent treatments: Urea alone (U1:PC0), 3:1 ratio of urea and PC (U3:PC1), 1:1 ratio of urea and PC (U1:PC1), 1:3 ratio of urea and PC (U1:PC3), PC alone (U0:PC1) and Check = non-amended control. Bars with different letters are significantly different at P ≤ 0.05 using Fisher’s LSD. Error bars represent standard errors.

Figure 4:

Effect of treatments on mean carrot yield by category (marketable and unmarketable) in 2012, 2013, and 2014. Ratios represent treatments: Urea alone (U1:PC0), 3:1 ratio of urea and PC (U3:PC1), 1:1 ratio of urea and PC (U1:PC1), 1:3 ratio of urea and PC (U1:PC3), PC alone (U0:PC1) and Check = non-amended control. There was no significant difference in quality category at P ≤ 0.05 using Fisher’s LSD.
Effect of treatments on mean carrot yield by category (marketable and unmarketable) in 2012, 2013, and 2014. Ratios represent treatments: Urea alone (U1:PC0), 3:1 ratio of urea and PC (U3:PC1), 1:1 ratio of urea and PC (U1:PC1), 1:3 ratio of urea and PC (U1:PC3), PC alone (U0:PC1) and Check = non-amended control. There was no significant difference in quality category at P ≤ 0.05 using Fisher’s LSD.

Figure 5:

Multiple factor analysis of the variables where Dimension 1 (Dim 1) and Dimension 2 (Dim 2) represent the first and second best summary of variability of the information, respectively. (A) Relationships among soil properties (Gc1) (soil pH (pH), organic matter percentage (OM), nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N), ammonium-nitrogen (NH4-N), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), moisture percent (MO), bulk density (BD), cation exchange capacity (CEC), and porosity (PO) and abundance of nematode trophic groups (Gc2) (bacterivores (BV), fungivores (FV), omnivores (OV), predators (PR), herbivores (HV)) and non-herbivores (FL) (Yeates et al., 1993). (B) Relationships of soil food web indices (Gc1) (SI, EI, CI, and BI), soil properties (Gc2), and carrot yield and quality (Gc3) (total marketable (MC) and total unmarketable carrots (UNC)) from plots amended with integrated application of urea and plant compost.
Multiple factor analysis of the variables where Dimension 1 (Dim 1) and Dimension 2 (Dim 2) represent the first and second best summary of variability of the information, respectively. (A) Relationships among soil properties (Gc1) (soil pH (pH), organic matter percentage (OM), nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N), ammonium-nitrogen (NH4-N), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), moisture percent (MO), bulk density (BD), cation exchange capacity (CEC), and porosity (PO) and abundance of nematode trophic groups (Gc2) (bacterivores (BV), fungivores (FV), omnivores (OV), predators (PR), herbivores (HV)) and non-herbivores (FL) (Yeates et al., 1993). (B) Relationships of soil food web indices (Gc1) (SI, EI, CI, and BI), soil properties (Gc2), and carrot yield and quality (Gc3) (total marketable (MC) and total unmarketable carrots (UNC)) from plots amended with integrated application of urea and plant compost.

Figure 6:

Multiple factor analysis of the variables where Dimension 1 (Dim 1) and Dimension 2 (Dim 2) represent the first and second best summary of variability of the information, respectively. (A) Relationships among abundant herbivores (Gc1) (Malenchus, MAL; Tylenchus, TYL; Helicotylenchus, HEL; Pratylenchus, PRA) and carrot yield and quality expressed as fresh weight (Gc2) (total marketable (MC) and total unmarketable carrots (UNC). (B) Relationships among and abundant herbivore nematodes (Gc1) and carrot yield and quality (Gc2) expressed as number from plots amended with integrated application of urea and plant compost.
Multiple factor analysis of the variables where Dimension 1 (Dim 1) and Dimension 2 (Dim 2) represent the first and second best summary of variability of the information, respectively. (A) Relationships among abundant herbivores (Gc1) (Malenchus, MAL; Tylenchus, TYL; Helicotylenchus, HEL; Pratylenchus, PRA) and carrot yield and quality expressed as fresh weight (Gc2) (total marketable (MC) and total unmarketable carrots (UNC). (B) Relationships among and abundant herbivore nematodes (Gc1) and carrot yield and quality (Gc2) expressed as number from plots amended with integrated application of urea and plant compost.

Soil pH, nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) and calcium (Ca) contents (ppm) in plots amended with integrated application of urea and PC to supply 135 kg N/ha recommended for processing carrot cultivars, standard urea application and non-amended check in sandy loam soil at planting (0) and at 133 days after planting (DAP) in 2012 to 2013 growing seasons_

Treatments as a ratio of urea (U) and PC
VariablesYRDAPU1: PC0a U3:PC1U1:PC1U1:PC3U0:PC1Check
pH201206.8 ± 0.1 bBb 6.8 ± 0.2 bB7.2 ± 0.3 bA7.0 ± 0.2 bAB7.2 ± 0.1 bA7.2 ± 0.4 cA
1336.4 ± 0.3 cB6.8 ± 0.3 bAB7.4 ± 0.1 abA7.2 ± 0.4 bA7.3 ± 0.5 bA7.3 ± 0.6 abcA
201306.9 ± 0.1 bA7.0 ± 0.2 abA7.4 ± 0.1 abA7.2 ± 0.3 bA7.3 ± 0.5 bA7.4 ± 0.6 bA
1336.7 ± 0.2 bB7.1 ± 0.1 aAB7.5 ± 0.1 aA7.4 ± 0.2 aA7.6 ± 0.3 aA7.5 ± 0.5 abA
NO3-N201201.4 ± 0.3 dAB0.6 ± 0.2 cB0.8 ± 0.9 cAB0.5 ± 0.1 cB0.7 ± 0.5 cB1.5 ± 0.6 cA
13329.2 ± 17 aA2.9 ± 0.9 bB3.0 ± 1 bB3.7 ± 1 abB4.6 ± 2 bB3.0 ± 2 bB
201305.3 ± 0.6 cA5.4 ± 1.3 aA6.0 ± 0.9 aA5.4 ± 0.2 aA6.5 ± 1.2 aA7.2 ± 3 aA
13317.5 ± 8 bA2.6 ± 1.2 bB3.4 ± 2.3 bB4.6 ± 2.5 aB3.8 ± 1.4 bB2.7 ± 0.5 bB
Ca201201159.7 ± 171 bA1120.7 ± 123 bA1263.3 ± 129 abA1139.3 ± 82 bA1192.7 ± 115 bA1295.7 ± 298 bA
1331057.3 ± 103 bA1126.7 ± 110 bA1287.7 ± 122 abA1193.7 ± 33 bA1307.3 ± 351 abA1303.7 ± 433 bA
201301111.3 ± 91 bA1108.7 ± 120 bA1246.7 ± 73 bA1152.3 ± 129 bA1345.3 ± 424 abA1406.3 ± 495 aA
1331243.3 ± 95 aA1242.3 ± 121 aA1471.3 ± 57 aA1388.3 ± 116 aA1423.0 ± 186 aA1450.3 ± 365 aA

List of nematode genera detected in plots amended with integrated application of urea and PC at different levels to supply 135 kg N/ha recommended for processing carrot cultivars, standard urea, and non-amended check plots in sandy loam soil in 2012, 2013, and 2014 growing seasons_

HerbivoresBacterivoresFungivoresOmnivoresPredators
Basiria (2) Eumonhystera (1) Aphelenchoides (2) Eudorylaimus (4) Tripyla (3)
Boleodorus (2) Mesorhabditis (1) Aphelenchus (2) Mesodorylaimus (4) Clarkus (4)
Cephalenchus (2) Panagrellus (1) Ditylenchus (2) Microdorylaimus (4) Mylonchulus (4)
Malenchus (2) Panagrolaimus (1) Filenchus (2) Pungentus (4) Prionchulus (4)
Paratylenchus (2) Pellioditis (1) Diphtherophora (3) Thonus (4) Nygolaimus (5)
Psilenchus (2) Pristionchus (1) Tylencholaimellus (4) Aporcelaimellus (5)
Tylenchus (2) Rhabditis (1) Prodorylaimus (5)
Dolichorynchus (3) Acrobeloides (2)
Helicotylenchus (3) Cephalobus (2)
Hemicycliophora (3) Cervidellus (2)
Heterodera (J2) a (3) Eucephalobus (2)
Pratylenchus (3) Heterocephalobus (2)
Rotylenchus (3) Plectus (2)
Tylenchorhynchus (3) Microlaimus (3)
Trichodorus (4) Prismatolaimus (3)
Longidorus (5) Alaimus (4)
Xiphinema (5)

Probability values (Pr > F) of treatment (TR), sampling time (T), and interaction of treatment and sampling time (TR × T) effects for nematode trophic group abundances, non-herbivore and total nematodes, nematode community and soil food web indices, soil respiration and soil physiochemical properties for field plots amended with integrated application of urea and PC at different levels to supply 135 kg N/ha and standard urea application and non-amended check in sandy loam soil in 2012 to 2014_

Probability > F
VariablesTR T TR × T
Trophic groups
 Herbivores0.95< 0.00010.60
 Bacterivores0.95< 0.00010.67
 Fungivores0.93< 0.00010.77
 Omnivores0.86< 0.00010.35
 Predators0.48< 0.00010.82
 Non-herbivores0.98< 0.00010.62
 Total nematodes0.97< 0.00010.89
Diversity indices
 H′a0.99< 0.00010.2
 Hill’s N10.97< 0.00010.29
 Hill’s N00.99< 0.00010.44
Ecological disturbance indices
 PPI0.91< 0.00010.43
 MI0.67< 0.00010.48
 MI250.13< 0.00010.64
Food web indices
 EI0.6300.00120.49
 SI0.041< 0.00010.48
 BI0.623< 0.00010.61
 CI0.940< 0.00010.48
 Soil respiration0.020< 0.00010.53
Soil physiochemical properties
 Bulk density0.45< 0.00010.98
 Porosity0.26< 0.00010.98
 Moisture0.28< 0.00010.73
 Soil pH0.18< 0.00010.01
 Phosphorus0.020.0050.74
 Potassium0.69< 0.00010.42
 Calcium0.48< 0.00010.03
Magnesium0.74< 0.00010.55
Organic matter0.23< 0.00010.54
Nitrate-nitrogen0.02< 0.0001<0.0001
Ammonium-nitrogen0.43< 0.00010.99
Cation exchange capacity0.62< 0.00010.55
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/jofnem-2020-111 | Journal eISSN: 2640-396X | Journal ISSN: 0022-300X
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 1 - 17
Published on: Oct 21, 2020
Published by: Society of Nematologists, Inc.
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 times per year
Keywords:
Compost,
Ecology,
Integrated application,
Nematodes,
Soil health,
Trophic group
Related subjects:
Life sciences,
Life sciences, other

© 2020 A. Habteweld, D. Brainard, A. Kravchencko, P. S. Grewal, H. Melakeberhan, published by Society of Nematologists, Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 52 (2020): Issue 1 (January 2020)Next article