Castellano-Hinojosa Antonio, Noling Joseph W, Bui Hung Xuan, Desaeger Johan A, Strauss Sarah L
Southwest Florida Research and Education Center, Department of Soil and Water Sciences, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 2685 State Rd 29N, Immokalee, FL 34142, USA.
Gulf Coast Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 14625 Co Rd 672, Wimauma, FL 33598, USA.
Sci Total Environ. 2022 Dec 15;852:158285. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158285. Epub 2022 Aug 27.
Fumigants are commonly used to control soil-borne pathogens of high-value crops, but they may also impact non-target soil microorganisms. Increasing interest in the use of sustainable management practices to control plant- and root-parasitic nematodes has resulted in the formulation of non-fumigant nematicides (chemicals or bionematicides) which are considered environmentally friendly alternatives to fumigants. However, the impact of these new products compared to standard fumigants on soil-borne pathogens, plant production, and the diversity and composition of non-target microbial communities in all crops remains unclear. To begin to address this knowledge gap, we examined the effect of fumigants commonly used in Florida (United States) strawberry production and newly formulated non-fumigant nematicides on nematode and weed control, plant growth, crop yield, and bacterial and fungal community diversity and predicted functionality. We found the standard fumigants increased crop yields and reduced weed pressure more than non-fumigants. Both fumigants and non-fumigants were an efficient management strategy to control sting nematodes. Treatments also impacted the abundance of specific beneficial and antagonistic taxa. Both fumigants and non-fumigants reduced soil bacterial and fungal diversity, an effect that remained for six months, thus suggesting a potential residual impact of these products on soil microorganisms. However, only fumigants altered soil microbial community composition and reduced network complexity, inducing a decrease or even a loss of some predicted bacterial and fungal functions, particularly during the first weeks after fumigation. Nevertheless, soil collected at the end of the season showed significant levels of root-knot nematode suppression in a growth chamber experiment, irrespective of the previous treatment. By linking the effect of fumigants and non-fumigants on soil-borne pests, plant and production, and the soil microbiome, this study increases our knowledge regarding the environmental impact of these products.
熏蒸剂常用于防治高价值作物的土传病原体，但它们也可能影响非目标土壤微生物。人们对使用可持续管理措施来控制植物和根寄生线虫的兴趣日益浓厚，这促使了非熏蒸性杀线虫剂（化学药剂或生物杀线虫剂）的研发，这些药剂被认为是熏蒸剂的环保替代品。然而，与标准熏蒸剂相比，这些新产品对所有作物中土传病原体、植物产量以及非目标微生物群落的多样性和组成的影响仍不明确。为了填补这一知识空白，我们研究了美国佛罗里达州草莓生产中常用的熏蒸剂和新研发的非熏蒸性杀线虫剂对线虫和杂草控制、植物生长、作物产量以及细菌和真菌群落多样性及预测功能的影响。我们发现，标准熏蒸剂比非熏蒸剂更能提高作物产量并减轻杂草压力。熏蒸剂和非熏蒸剂都是控制刺线虫的有效管理策略。处理方式还影响了特定有益和拮抗类群的丰度。熏蒸剂和非熏蒸剂都降低了土壤细菌和真菌的多样性，这种影响持续了六个月，这表明这些产品对土壤微生物可能有潜在的残留影响。然而，只有熏蒸剂改变了土壤微生物群落组成并降低了网络复杂性，导致一些预测的细菌和真菌功能减少甚至丧失，尤其是在熏蒸后的头几周。尽管如此，在生长室试验中，季末采集的土壤显示出对根结线虫有显著的抑制作用，无论之前采用何种处理方式。通过将熏蒸剂和非熏蒸剂对土传害虫、植物和产量以及土壤微生物组的影响联系起来，本研究增加了我们对这些产品环境影响的了解。
