Accesso libero

Impact of a conservation agriculture system on soil characteristics, rice yield, and root-parasitic nematodes in a Cambodian lowland rice field

Malyna Suong
Malyna Suong
, 
Elodie Chapuis
Elodie Chapuis
, 
Vira Leng
Vira Leng
, 
Florent Tivet
Florent Tivet
, 
Dirk De Waele
Dirk De Waele
, 
Huế Nguyễn Thị
Huế Nguyễn Thị
 e 
Stéphane Bellafiore
Stéphane Bellafiore
   | 03 dic 2019
Journal of Nematology's Cover Image
INFORMAZIONI SU QUESTO ARTICOLO
Articolo precedente
Articolo Successivo
Cita
Article Category: Arts & Humanities
Pubblicato online: 03 dic 2019
Pagine: 1 - 15
Ricevuto: 08 mar 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/jofnem-2019-085
© 2019 Malyna Suong et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Figure 1:

Principal component analysis (PCA) between plots belonging to conventional plough-based tillage (CT) and direct-seeding mulch-based cropping (DMC) systems and other variables in Stung Chinith field experiment. The first two dimension captures 43.3 and 21.9% of the total variance, respectively. Each dot is a plot; plots are regrouped by an ellipse considering the cultivation mode (DMC vs CT, see text for details). The variables were measured from samples at 10 cm soil layer/depth during each nematode survey: Cond is soil conductivity, Redox is the redaction-oxidation reaction, and ppm is the amount of salt in parts per million. Other variables were calculated from 0 to 5 cm soil layer in the laboratory: pH, BD (soil bulk density (ρb)), K (available potassium (K+)), Mg (available magnesium (Mg2+)), TN (total nitrogen), TOC (total organic carbon), LC (labile carbon), PO (diphosphorus dioxide (P2O2)), and CN (ratio between carbon and nitrogen). Yield is rice yield calculated in kilogram per hectare (kg ha-1). Groups constituted by the cultivation mode (DMC vs CT) are significantly different (Monte–Carlo test p = 0.016).
Principal component analysis (PCA) between plots belonging to conventional plough-based tillage (CT) and direct-seeding mulch-based cropping (DMC) systems and other variables in Stung Chinith field experiment. The first two dimension captures 43.3 and 21.9% of the total variance, respectively. Each dot is a plot; plots are regrouped by an ellipse considering the cultivation mode (DMC vs CT, see text for details). The variables were measured from samples at 10 cm soil layer/depth during each nematode survey: Cond is soil conductivity, Redox is the redaction-oxidation reaction, and ppm is the amount of salt in parts per million. Other variables were calculated from 0 to 5 cm soil layer in the laboratory: pH, BD (soil bulk density (ρb)), K (available potassium (K+)), Mg (available magnesium (Mg2+)), TN (total nitrogen), TOC (total organic carbon), LC (labile carbon), PO (diphosphorus dioxide (P2O2)), and CN (ratio between carbon and nitrogen). Yield is rice yield calculated in kilogram per hectare (kg ha-1). Groups constituted by the cultivation mode (DMC vs CT) are significantly different (Monte–Carlo test p = 0.016).

Figure 2:

Comparison of yield in direct mulch-based cropping systems (DMC) vs conventional plough-based tillage (CT) plots. Pairwise comparison of rice production in 2014 and 2015 in the DMC system vs two CT systems using the Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric test. DMC: direct-seeding mulch-based cropping system; CT-B: conventional tillage-seed broadcasting method; CT-T: conventional tillage transplanting method. Values are in kg ha−1 and in the form: mean ± standard error.
Comparison of yield in direct mulch-based cropping systems (DMC) vs conventional plough-based tillage (CT) plots. Pairwise comparison of rice production in 2014 and 2015 in the DMC system vs two CT systems using the Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric test. DMC: direct-seeding mulch-based cropping system; CT-B: conventional tillage-seed broadcasting method; CT-T: conventional tillage transplanting method. Values are in kg ha−1 and in the form: mean ± standard error.

Figure 3:

Comparison of the average number of root-parasitic nematodes between DMC vs conventional tillage plots in both year sequences. RPN stands for root-parasitic nematodes extracted from rice roots. The number of nematodes indicated is the average of RPN per gram of root. Different letter on histogram (a, b) indicates significant difference using Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric test. Values are the mean ± standard error. DMC: direct-seeding mulch-based cropping system; CT-B: conventional tillage-seed broadcasting method; CT-T: conventional tillage transplanting method.
Comparison of the average number of root-parasitic nematodes between DMC vs conventional tillage plots in both year sequences. RPN stands for root-parasitic nematodes extracted from rice roots. The number of nematodes indicated is the average of RPN per gram of root. Different letter on histogram (a, b) indicates significant difference using Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric test. Values are the mean ± standard error. DMC: direct-seeding mulch-based cropping system; CT-B: conventional tillage-seed broadcasting method; CT-T: conventional tillage transplanting method.

Figure 4:

Comparison of the percentage of Meloidogyne graminicola vs Hirschmanniella mucronata. (A) represents the percentage of M. graminicola vs H. mucronata in directmulch-based cropping systems (DMC). (B) represents the percentage of M. graminicola vs H. mucronata in conventional plough-based tillage (CT).
Comparison of the percentage of Meloidogyne graminicola vs Hirschmanniella mucronata. (A) represents the percentage of M. graminicola vs H. mucronata in directmulch-based cropping systems (DMC). (B) represents the percentage of M. graminicola vs H. mucronata in conventional plough-based tillage (CT).

Figure 5:

Comparison of the dynamic of Meloidogyne graminicola vs Hirschmanniella mucronata following rice development stages. (A) represents the dynamic of M. graminicola theory (continue line with the black triangle symbols), of H. mucronata theory (continue line with the cross-black symbol), and of the average of root-parasitic nematodes (RPN) per 100 g of root (discontinued line with squared-white symbols). M. graminicola theory and H. mucronata theory were calculated by multiplying the ratio of M. graminicola and H. mucronata identified by PCR with the total number of RPN then divided by 100. The survey times and the rice development stages are indicated below the lines. The discontinued graphs for M. graminicola and H. mucronata are due to the fact that no J2 were collected during tillering stage 2014 and harvest stage 2015 because the hatching was compromised and we were not able to recover J2 for PCR/Blastn performance. (B) represents the percentage of M. graminicola (black histograms) vs H. mucronata (white histograms) during both eight surveys. n represents the total number of J2 successes identified by PCR and sequencing. No data means that no J2 were collected during tillering stage in 2014 and harvest stage in 2015, because the hatching was compromised and we were not able to collect J2.
Comparison of the dynamic of Meloidogyne graminicola vs Hirschmanniella mucronata following rice development stages. (A) represents the dynamic of M. graminicola theory (continue line with the black triangle symbols), of H. mucronata theory (continue line with the cross-black symbol), and of the average of root-parasitic nematodes (RPN) per 100 g of root (discontinued line with squared-white symbols). M. graminicola theory and H. mucronata theory were calculated by multiplying the ratio of M. graminicola and H. mucronata identified by PCR with the total number of RPN then divided by 100. The survey times and the rice development stages are indicated below the lines. The discontinued graphs for M. graminicola and H. mucronata are due to the fact that no J2 were collected during tillering stage 2014 and harvest stage 2015 because the hatching was compromised and we were not able to recover J2 for PCR/Blastn performance. (B) represents the percentage of M. graminicola (black histograms) vs H. mucronata (white histograms) during both eight surveys. n represents the total number of J2 successes identified by PCR and sequencing. No data means that no J2 were collected during tillering stage in 2014 and harvest stage in 2015, because the hatching was compromised and we were not able to collect J2.

Figure S1:

Distribution of plots in the experimental field (28,850 m2) in Stung Chinith, Cambodia.
Distribution of plots in the experimental field (28,850 m2) in Stung Chinith, Cambodia.

Figure S2:

The typical formation of root galls caused by M. graminicola infection in six weed species commonly found in the lowland experimental paddy field.
The typical formation of root galls caused by M. graminicola infection in six weed species commonly found in the lowland experimental paddy field.
eISSN:
2640-396X
Lingua:
Inglese
Frequenza di pubblicazione:
Volume Open
Argomenti della rivista:
Life Sciences, other
Feed RSS della rivista