Simple, inexpensive, and rapid approach to detect changes in the structure of soil free-living nematodes

F. Semprucci; L. Catani; E. Grassi; M. Jakubcsiková; A. Čerevková

doi:10.2478/helm-2024-0001

Figures & Tables

Occurrence and morphology of possible cuticularizations in the buccal cavity: 1.unarmed buccal cavity; 2. stylet; 3. odontostyle; 4. onchiostyle; 5. tooth or teeth.

A) Amphideal fovea: 1. undetected; 2. circular/rounded or oval; 3. spiral; 4. thin, narrow slit or pore-like; 5. large slite-like & S-shape; 6. funnel-shape; 7. pouch-like; 8. caliciform. B) Cuticles: 1. smooth; 2. annulated; 3. with outhgrowths; C) Oesophageal shape: 1. oesophagus posteriorly expanded; 2. oesophagus cylindrical; 3. oesophagus with basal bulb; 4. oesophagus with cylindrical corpus and basal bulb; 5. oesophagus with median bulb; 6. oesophagus with median bulb; 6. oesophagus with swollen corpus and basal bulb; 7. oesophageal procorpus broad posteriorly expanded, bulb-like isthmus short basal bulb.

Assignment of each genus in the four morpho-functional traits and creation of the data matrix based on their combinations.

nMDS carried out on both nematode genera and trait codes (Bray–Curtis similarity, untransformed data) from forest ecosystems in Slovakia. Factors analyzed: A, B) managed beech forest (BEE), managed spruce forest (SPR), and unmanaged mixed forest (UNM). C-D) BEE and SPR plots were stratified by stand age: 0–20, 40–60, and 100–120 age.

nMDS carried out on both nematode genera and trait codes (Bray–Curtis similarity, untransformed data) from grassland types of various regions of the Slovak Republic. Factors analyzed: A, B) localities placed around Slovakia (i.e. Ľubietová, Stropkov, Telgárt, Vrbovce and Veľký Folkmár); C, D) type of grassland: NM (established during last 3 years), PM (covered with indigenous multispecies vegetation irregularly mown) and PP (with indigenous vegetation regularly grazed); E, F) period (May 2004 and October 2005).

nMDS carried out on both nematode genera and trait codes (Bray–Curtis similarity, untransformed data) from different maize-growing regions in Europe. Factors analyzed: A, B) country (i.e. Denmark, Slovakia, Sweden and Spain); C, D) maize Bt and isogenic (ISO) hybrids and E, F) period (year 2013, 2014).

k-dominance curves carried out on both nematode genera and trait codes from forest ecosystems in Slovakia. Factors analyzed: A, B) managed beech forest (BEE), managed spruce forest (SPR), and unmanaged mixed forest (UNM). C-D) BEE and SPR plots were also stratified by stand age: 0–20, 40–60, and 100–120 age.

k-dominance curves carried out on both nematode genera and trait codes from grassland types of various regions of the Slovak Republic. Factors analyzed: A, B) type of grassland: NM (established during last 3 years), PM (covered with indigenous multispecies vegetation irregularly mown) and PP (with indigenous vegetation regularly grazed); C, D) localities placed around Slovakia (i.e. Ľubietová, Stropkov, Telgárt, Vrbovce and Veľký Folkmár); E, F) period (May 2004 and October 2005).

k-dominance curves carried out on both nematode genera and trait codes from different maize-growing regions in Europe. Factors analyzed: A, B) maize Bt and isogenic (ISO) hybrids and E, F) period (year 2013, 2014); C, D) country (i.e. Denmark, Slovakia, Sweden and Spain).

Geographical location, information on sampling stations and methods used in the three study cases: forest, grassland and maize crop systems_

Charactersitcs of the study area	Forest	Grassland	Maize crop
Reference	Čerevková et al., 2021	Čerevková, 2006	Čerevková et al., 2018
Study Area	Slovakia	Slovakia	Denmark, Spain, Slovakia, and Sweden
Sampling locations and coordinates	Mount Poľana (48°37′ N 19°30′ E)	Hybe (49°02′N, 19°49′E) Veľký Folkmár (48°51′N, 21°10′E) Ľubietová, Strelníky (48°45′N, 19°22′E) Stropkov (49°12′N, 21°38′E) Telgárt (48°51′N, 20°11′E) Vrbovce (48°47′N, 17°28′E)	Denmark - Slagelse (55°19′N, 11°23′E) Spain – Seseña (40°05′N, 3°40′W) Slovakia – Borovce (48°34′N, 17°43′E) Sweden – Lund (55°45′N 13°2′E)
Environmental factors compared	Managed beech forest (BEE) Managed spruce forest (SPR) Unmanaged mixed forest (UNM)	Permanent meadow (PM) New meadow (NM) Permanent pasture (PP)	Bt maize isogenic hybrids
Sampling date	August 2019	October 2003 – 2004	2013/2014 (during the flowering phase of maize)
No. of plots sampled	15	4	10
No. of replicates for plot	5	5	3
Extraction method	Baermann technique	Cobb's flotation-sieving method	Baermann technique
Total genera found	51	65	45
Type of soil	Cambisol	Hybe: Podzol Veľký Folkmár: Cambisol Ľubietová, Strelníky: Cambisol Stropkov Cambisol Telgárt: Cambisol Vrbovce: Luvisol	Denmark (Slagelse) – Cambisol Spain (Seseña) – Luvisol Slovakia (Bórovce) – Chernozem Sweden (Lund) – Cambisol
Relevant environmental parameters information (pH, temperature etc..)	pH: 4.69 – 4.93; C%: 9.10 – 9.71; N%: 0.76 – 0.82; C/N: 11.66 – 12.07	pH: 6.95-7-8.2; Cox 3.42-6.16	pH: 5.97 – 7.55; C%. 1.24 – 1.68; N%: 0.13 – 0.17; C/N: 8.68 – 13.11
Type of vegetation	BEE: Fagus sylvatica L. Acer spp.; SPR: Picea abies (L.) H. Karst.); UNM: F. sylvatica, Abies alba Mill., Acer pseudoplatanus L., Fraxinus excelsior L., P. abies and Ulmus glabra H.	NM: Dactylis glomerata L., Festuca rubra L. and Lolium perene L.; PM: indigenous multispecies vegetation irregularly mown; PP: indigenous vegetation regularly grazed	Bt and isogenic (ISO) hybrids DKC3872YG (Bt maize line MON810) and its near-isogenic line DKC3871 DKC6451YG (Bt maize line MON810) and its near-isogenic line DKC6450

Results of Analysis of Similarities (ANOSIM) carried out to detect the potential occurrence of significant differences among the factors under scrutiny in each of the three study cases (n_s_ indicates when significant differences were not found and abbreviations are as follows: BEE: managed beech forest; SPR: managed spruce forest; UNM: unmanaged mixed forest; 0–20, 40–60, and 100–120 stage age; NM: new meadow; PM: permanent meadow; PP: permanent pasture)_

Case study	Genus level structure Global statistic	Pairwise Test	Trait combination level Global statistic	Pairwise Test
Forest ecosystem	R = 0.29; p = 0.001	SPR vs UNM: R = 0.39; p = 0.001	R = 0.29; p = 0.001	SPR vs UNM: R = 0.40; p = 0.001
		BEE vs SPR: R = 0.27; p = 0.001		BEE vs UNM: R = 0.27; p = 0.002
		BEE vs UNM: R = 0.25; p = 0.002		BEE vs SPR: R = 0.22; p = 0.002
Forest age	R = 0.15; p = 0.001	0–20 vs old forest: R=0.34; p=0.002	R = 0.16; p = 0.001	0–20 vs old forest: R=0.35; p=0.004
		40–60 vs old forest: R=0.21; p=0.013		40–60 vs old forest: R=0.23; p=0.006
		0–20 vs 100–120: R=0.19; p=0.02		0–20 vs 100–120; R=0.20; p=0.012
		100–120 vs old forest: R=0.15; p=0.04		100–120 vs old forest; R=0.15; p=0.027
		0–20 vs 40–60: R=0.14; p= 0.03		40–60 vs 100–120; R=0.14; p=0.036
		40–60 vs 100–120: R= 0.14; p=0.04
Grassland ecosystem	R=0.12; p=0.005	NM vs PP: R= 0.23; p=0.006	R=0.12; p=0.012	NM vs PP: R= 0.26; p=0.005
		NM vs PM: R= 0.15; p=0.001		NM vs PM: R= 0.11; p=0.042
Grassland site	R=0.24; p=0.002	Stropkov vs Telgárt: R=0.67; p=0.002	R=0.18; p=0.004	Stropkov vs Telgárt: R=0.55; p=0.002
		V. Folkmár vs Stropkov: R=0.58; p=0.001		V. Folkmár vs Stropkov: R=0.49; p=0.004
		Hybe vs Stropkov: R=0.50; p=0.004		V. Folkmár vs Ľubietová: R=0.44; p=0.004
		Ľubietová vs Telgárt: R=0.47; p=0.004		Ľubietová vs Telgárt: R=0.44; p=0.002
		V. Folkmár vs Ľubietová: R=0.41; p=0.001		Hybe vs Stropkov: R=0.33; p=0.032
Grassland date	p=n.s.	p=n.s.	p=n.s.	p=n.s.
Type of maize crop	p=n.s.	p=n.s.	p=n.s.	p=n.s.
Country	R = 0.38; p = 0.001	Sweden vs Slovakia: R=0.53; 0.001	R = 0.28; p<0.001	Sweden vs Spain: R=0.52; p=0.001
		Spain vs Slovakia: R=0.44; p=0.001		Denmark vs Spain: R=0.36; p=0.001
		Denmark vs Spain: R=0.38; p=0.001		Sweden vs Slovakia: R=0.33; 0.001
		Sweden vs Spain: R=0.38; p=0.001		Spain vs Slovakia: R=0.31; p=0.001
		Denmark vs Slovakia: R=0.33; p=0.001		Denmark vs Slovakia: R=0.24; p=0.001
		Denmark vs Sweden: R=0.23; p=0.001		Denmark vs Sweden: R=0.10; p=0.001
Year	R=0.19; p=0.001		R=0.07; p=0.002

Simple, inexpensive, and rapid approach to detect changes in the structure of soil free-living nematodes

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 7.

Fig. 8.

Fig. 9.

Geographical location, information on sampling stations and methods used in the three study cases: forest, grassland and maize crop systems_

Paradigm

My account