| Literature DB >> 25625375 |
Juan E Palomares-Rius1, Pablo Castillo1, Miguel Montes-Borrego1, Juan A Navas-Cortés1, Blanca B Landa1.
Abstract
This work has studied for the first time the structure and diversity of plant-parasitic nematodes (PPNs) infestingEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25625375 PMCID: PMC4308072 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116890
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Species, common-name, family, prevalence, and density (average number of individuals in 500 cm3 of soil) of plant-parasitic nematodes infecting 92 olive orchards in southern Spain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aglenchus Agricola | tylenchids | Tylenchidae | 18 | 19.57 | 20.56 | 7 | 58 | 2 | p, [ |
| Amplimerlinius longicauda | stunt | Telotylenchidae | 1 | 1.09 | 56.00 | 56 | 56 | 3 | p, [ |
| Amplimerlinius magnistylus | stunt | Telotylenchidae | 4 | 4.35 | 25.75 | 3 | 56 | 3 | p, [ |
| Amplimerlinius paraglobigerus | stunt | Telotylenchidae | 1 | 1.09 | 3.00 | 3 | 3 | 3 | +, [ |
| Aorolaimus perscitus | spiral | Hoplolaimidae | 3 | 3.26 | 212.33 | 4 | 621 | 3 | +, [ |
| Aprutides guidetti | aphelenchids | Seinuridae | 3 | 3.26 | 20.67 | 5 | 33 | 2 | - |
| Basiria sp. | tylenchids | Tylenchidae | 4 | 4.35 | 22.50 | 7 | 31 | 2 | - |
| Bitylenchus hispaniensis | stunt | Telotylenchidae | 7 | 7.61 | 415.71 | 7 | 1580 | 3 | +, [ |
| Coslenchus alacinatus | tylenchids | Tylenchidae | 2 | 2.17 | 61.00 | 12 | 110 | 2 | - |
| Coslenchus costatus | tylenchids | Tylenchidae | 10 | 10.87 | 39.60 | 14 | 121 | 2 | - |
| Criconema annuliferum | ring | Criconematidae | 6 | 6.52 | 30.00 | 2 | 48 | 3 | +, [ |
| Criconemella rosmarini | ring | Criconematidae | 1 | 1.09 | 2.00 | 2 | 2 | 3 | p, [ |
| Criconemoides amorphus | ring | Criconematidae | 7 | 7.61 | 177.00 | 3 | 910 | 3 | +, [ |
| Criconemoides informis | ring | Criconematidae | 11 | 11.96 | 50.09 | 2 | 324 | 3 | +, [ |
| Criconemoides sphaerocephalum | ring | Criconematidae | 5 | 5.43 | 157.80 | 4 | 742 | 3 | +, [ |
| Criconemoides xenoplax | ring | Criconematidae | 30 | 32.61 | 67.13 | 3 | 458 | 3 | +, [ |
| Diphtherophora sp. | dorylaimds | Diphtherophoridae | 22 | 23.91 | 11.68 | 2 | 34 | 3 | - |
| Diptenchus sp. | anguinids | Anguinidae | 1 | 1.09 | 261.00 | 261 | 261 | 2 | - |
| Discotylenchus sp. | tylenchids | Tylenchidae | 1 | 1.09 | 69.00 | 69 | 69 | 2 | - |
| Ditylenchus sp. | stem and bulb | Anguinidae | 28 | 30.43 | 33.25 | 3 | 148 | 2 | - |
| Filenchus aquilonius | tylenchids | Tylenchidae | 3 | 3.26 | 76.00 | 21 | 110 | 2 | - |
| Filenchus ditissimus | tylenchids | Tylenchidae | 5 | 5.43 | 25.60 | 4 | 47 | 2 | - |
| Filenchus sandneri | tylenchids | Tylenchidae | 16 | 17.39 | 51.38 | 7 | 184 | 2 | - |
| Filenchus sp. | tylenchids | Tylenchidae | 59 | 64.13 | 103.32 | 2 | 1870 | 2 | - |
| Filenchus thornei | tylenchids | Tylenchidae | 31 | 33.70 | 94.03 | 10 | 540 | 2 | - |
| Filenchus vulgaris | tylenchids | Tylenchidae | 16 | 17.39 | 162.69 | 12 | 784 | 2 | - |
| Helicotylenchus canadensis | spiral | Hoplolaimidae | 4 | 4.35 | 4535.00 | 1860 | 10100 | 3 | p, [ |
| Helicotylenchus digonicus | spiral | Hoplolaimidae | 72 | 78.26 | 1829.07 | 12 | 14200 | 3 | +, [ |
| Helicotylenchus dihystera | spiral | Hoplolaimidae | 1 | 1.09 | 620.00 | 620 | 620 | 3 | +, [ |
| Helicotylenchus exallus | spiral | Hoplolaimidae | 1 | 1.09 | 91.00 | 91 | 91 | 3 | p, [ |
| Helicotylenchus oleae | spiral | Hoplolaimidae | 6 | 6.52 | 1255.83 | 13 | 7100 | 3 | +, [ |
| Helicotylenchus pseudorobustus | spiral | Hoplolaimidae | 4 | 4.35 | 671.75 | 40 | 1840 | 3 | +, [ |
| Helicotylenchus vulgaris | spiral | Hoplolaimidae | 4 | 4.35 | 5586.00 | 244 | 14800 | 3 | +, [ |
| Heterodera mediterranea | Cyst | Heteroderidae | 1 | 1.09 | 320.00 | 320 | 320 | 3 | +, [ |
| Longidorus magnus | needle | Longidoridae | 2 | 2.17 | 2.00 | 1 | 3 | 5 | p, [ |
| Longidorus sp. | needle | Longidoridae | 1 | 1.09 | 2.00 | 2 | 2 | 5 | +, [ |
| Meloidogyne arenaria | root-knot | Meloidogynidae | 1 | 1.09 | 32.00 | 32 | 32 | 3 | +, [ |
| Meloidogyne artiellia | root-knot | Meloidogynidae | 1 | 1.09 | 2980.00 | 2980 | 2980 | 3 | - |
| Merlinius brevidens | stunt | Telotylenchidae | 58 | 63.04 | 81.72 | 4 | 892 | 3 | p, [ |
| Merlinius leptus | stunt | Telotylenchidae | 1 | 1.09 | 31.00 | 31 | 31 | 3 | p, [ |
| Merlinius nanus | stunt | Telotylenchidae | 1 | 1.09 | 14.00 | 14 | 14 | 3 | p, [ |
| Merlinius nothus | stunt | Telotylenchidae | 1 | 1.09 | 32.00 | 32 | 32 | 3 | p, [ |
| Merlinius obscurus | stunt | Telotylenchidae | 6 | 6.52 | 151.67 | [ | 387 | 3 | p, [ |
| Neodolichorhynchus microphasmis | stunt | Telotylenchidae | 3 | 3.26 | 410.67 | [ | 610 | 3 | p, [ |
| Neopsilenchus sp. | tylenchids | Tylenchidae | 1 | 1.09 | 5.00 | 5 | 5 | 2 | - |
| Ogma rhombosquamatum | ring | Criconematidae | 12 | 13.04 | 750.33 | 17 | 6300 | 3 | +, [ |
| Paratrophurus loofi | stunt | Telotylenchidae | 2 | 2.17 | 1403.50 | 7 | 2800 | 3 | - |
| Paratylenchus ciccaronei | pin | Paratylenchidae | 2 | 2.17 | 830.50 | 21 | 1640 | 2 | +, [ |
| Paratylenchus microdorus | pin | Paratylenchidae | 31 | 33.70 | 74.97 | 3 | 742 | 2 | +, [ |
| Paratylenchus sheri | pin | Paratylenchidae | 9 | 9.78 | 463.89 | 11 | 2320 | 2 | +, [ |
| Paratylenchus vandenbrandei | pin | Paratylenchidae | 2 | 2.17 | 27.50 | 18 | 37 | 2 | +, [ |
| Pratylenchus crenatus | root-lesion | Pratylenchidae | 1 | 1.09 | 241.00 | 241 | 241 | 3 | +, [ |
| Pratylenchus neglectus | root-lesion | Pratylenchidae | 15 | 16.30 | 346.57 | 1 | 3410 | 3 | - |
| Pratylenchus penetrans | root-lesion | Pratylenchidae | 1 | 1.09 | 42.00 | 42 | 42 | 3 | +, [ |
| Pratylenchus thornei | root-lesion | Pratylenchidae | 20 | 21.74 | 84.80 | 3 | 542 | 3 | - |
| Psilenchus hilarulus | tylenchids | Tylenchidae | 7 | 7.61 | 14.14 | 5 | 39 | 2 | - |
| Psilenchus hilarus | tylenchids | Tylenchidae | 1 | 1.09 | 11.00 | 11 | 11 | 2 | - |
| Psilenchus sp. | tylenchids | Tylenchidae | 2 | 2.17 | 9.50 | 9 | 10 | 2 | - |
| Rotylenchus robustus | spiral | Hoplolaimidae | 1 | 1.09 | 720.00 | 720 | 720 | 3 | +, [ |
| Trichodorus andalusicus | stubby-root | Trichodoridae | 1 | 1.09 | 2.00 | 2 | 2 | 4 | +, [ |
| Trichodorus giennensis | stubby-root | Trichodoridae | 7 | 7.61 | 4.67 | 2 | 14 | 4 | +, [ |
| Trophurus imperialis | stunt | Telotylenchidae | 1 | 1.09 | 101.00 | 101 | 101 | 3 | - |
| Tylenchorhynchus clarus | stunt | Telotylenchidae | 14 | 15.22 | 496.07 | 7 | 3890 | 3 | +, [ |
| Tylenchorhynchus dubius | stunt | Telotylenchidae | 4 | 4.35 | 302.25 | 58 | 840 | 3 | +, [ |
| Tylenchorhynchus maximus | stunt | Telotylenchidae | 1 | 1.09 | 48.00 | 48 | 48 | 3 | +, [ |
| Tylenchorhynchus mediterraneus | stunt | Telotylenchidae | 7 | 7.61 | 676.14 | 24 | 1820 | 3 | p, [ |
| Tylenchorhynchus ventrosignatus | stunt | Telotylenchidae | 3 | 3.26 | 55.33 | 32 | 91 | 3 | p, [ |
| Tylenchorhynchus zeae | stunt | Telotylenchidae | 3 | 3.26 | 152.67 | 41 | 360 | 3 | p, [ |
| Tylenchus davainei | tylenchids | Tylenchidae | 39 | 42.39 | 113.56 | 7 | 1410 | 2 | p, [ |
| Tylenchus elegans | tylenchids | Tylenchidae | 13 | 14.13 | 55.92 | 7 | 134 | 2 | - |
| Tylenchus hamatus | tylenchids | Tylenchidae | 3 | 3.26 | 232.67 | 184 | 310 | 2 | - |
| Tylenchus sp. | tylenchids | Tylenchidae | 7 | 7.61 | 96.29 | 7 | 480 | 2 | - |
| Xiphinema adenohystherum | dagger | Longidoridae | 2 | 2.17 | 2.00 | 1 | 3 | 5 | p, [ |
| Xiphinema italiae | dagger | Longidoridae | 3 | 3.26 | 15.00 | 1 | 22 | 5 | +, [ |
| Xiphinema nuragicum | dagger | Longidoridae | 9 | 9.78 | 11.00 | 1 | 26 | 5 | p, [ |
| Xiphinema pachtaicum | dagger | Longidoridae | 54 | 58.70 | 32.31 | 3 | 412 | 5 | +, [ |
| Zygotylenchus guevarai | root-lesion | Pratylenchidae | 15 | 16.30 | 106.40 | 10 | 780 | 3 | - |
aAverage and minimum nematode levels in fields where this species was detected;b Colonizer-persister value according to Bongers [30]
b Nematode species are recognized as parasite (+), potentially parasite (p), or not parasite (-) of cultivated or wild olives.
Fig 1Summary box-plots of nematode abundance, Richness, Shannon, and Evenness diversity indexes and Plant Parasitic Index (PPI) derived from results of nematode identification in 92 olive orchards (S1 Table) grouped by the agronomic characteristics of the olive orchards sampled.
(A) Orchard management systems included: A = Wild olives or ‘Acebuches’, O = Organic management; C = Conventional management. (B) Soil management systems included: CC = Conventional management with cover crop, CT = Conventional management with tillage, OC = Organic management with cover crop, and OT = Organic management with tillage. (C) Soil texture. (D) Olive cultivar. The rank-based Kruskall-Wallis test was used to determine differences in all estimated diversity indexes in relation to the different agronomic factors and the resulting probability values are shown. For each agronomic parameter and diversity index, boxes with a different letter indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) according to multiple pairwise comparisons between OMS, SMS, soil texture and olive cultivar levels determined by the Dunn test. (*) ‘Lucentino’ was present in only one orchard and was not included in the statistical analyses.
Fig 2Unsupervised cluster analysis of PPN populations in olive orchards in southern Spain.
The Ward linkage method was applied to the Bray–Curtis dissimilarity matrix calculated from frequency of occurrence of the 77 species of PPNs identified among the 92 olive orchard soils sampled. The optimum number of clusters and the degree of membership of an olive orchard to each of the four clusters was estimated on the basis of the maximum average silhouette width according to K-means partitioning (S1 Fig.). The intensity of color (from light yellow to deep red) shown for each nematode species correlates with abundance Log(number of individuals/500 cm3 of soil).
Fig 3NMDS biplot of a Bray-Curtis dissimilarity matrix of nematode community analysis.
The fitted vectors of environmental variables (soil physicochemical and climatic) and the agronomic variable olive cultivar (each of the 11 olive cultivars is shown with different symbols) that were most significantly and strongly associated (P < 0.05) with the ordination and shown in Table 2 are also represented (a generalized additive model fitted contours show also maximum temperature (Tmax) ramp (ºC).
Summary of relationships between agronomic, soil and environmental factors and plant-parasitic nematode communities in a collection of 92 olive orchards in Southern Spain .
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Soil physicochemical variables | |||
| Clay (%) | 0.0238 | 0.36863 | |
|
| 0.0806 | 0.03297 | * |
| Organic C (%) | 0.0094 | 0.64835 | |
| Organic N (%) | 0.002 | 0.93107 | |
| Extractable P (ppm) | 0.0169 | 0.50350 | |
|
| 0.0817 | 0.02897 | * |
| CEC | 0.0005 | 0.97602 | |
| C:N ratio | 0.0656 | 0.05095 | . |
|
| 0.0965 | 0.01399 | * |
| SOM (%) | 0.0094 | 0.65035 | |
|
| 0.2114 | 0.00199 | ** |
| Climatic variables | |||
| Total Rainfall | 0.0344 | 0.20679 | |
| Average Rainfall | 0.0234 | 0.33866 | |
| ETP | 0.0204 | 0.38761 | |
|
| 0.1077 | 0.00699 | ** |
|
| 0.0771 | 0.03297 | * |
| Tmean | 0.0386 | 0.18581 | |
| Altitude | 0.0330 | 0.20380 | |
| Agronomic variables | |||
|
| 0.2334 | 0.00199 | ** |
| Presence of vegetative cover | 0.0068 | 0.54046 | |
| Age of plantation | 0.0173 | 0.54845 | |
| Irrigation regimen | 0.0271 | 0.08492 | |
| Orchard management system | 0.0354 | 0.16883 |
aCorrelations with soil physicochemical, environmental and agronomic variables (r 2) were obtained by fitting linear trends to the NMDS ordination obtained in Fig. 3 and significance (P) was determined by permutation (nperm = 1000). ‘***’ = P < 0.001; ‘**’ = P < 0.01; ‘*’ = P < 0.05; ‘.’ = P < 0.1. Variables with highest significant weight are shown in bold.
bOrchard agronomic characteristics, and climatic and soil physicochemical properties were reported before [10, 26].
Fig 4Sums of squares multivariate regression tree summarizing olive PPN community–agronomic, climatic and soil factors relationships.
The tree was calculated using frequency of PPNs in each olive orchard. For each split a rule is selected based on the predictors to minimize the dissimilarity within the plant parasitic nematode profiles in the resulting two nodes (main rule is shown above the node). At each terminal node, the mean relative abundances of each plant parasitic nematode are shown as bar plots, together with the number of olive orchards for each group and the PPN species with the highest frequency.