Application of plant–soil feedbacks in the selection of crop rotation sequences
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2022 |
Outros Autores: | , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/10451/51159 |
Resumo: | Plant–soil feedback (PSF) can be a major driver of plant performance in com- munities, and this concept can be used in selecting crop rotation sequences to maximize agricultural yields. Potential benefits of using PSF in this context include nutrient use optimization, pathogen reduction, and enhancement of mutualisms between crops and microbes. Yet the contributions of these com- bined mechanisms are poorly understood. Here we investigated the relative contributions of these mechanisms using five major crops commonly culti- vated in rotation (alfalfa, canola, maize, soybean, and wheat) under controlled conditions. We trained soil by growing each of the five crops in a “training phase,” and then reciprocally planted the five crops in the trained soils in a “feedback phase.” To tease out soil biota from nutrient effects, we established three treatments: “control” (trained unsterilized soil used in the feedback phases), “biota” (sterilized soil in the feedback phase inoculated with soil biota from the control treatment after the training phase), and “nutrient” (sterilized soils in both phases). Plant–soil feedback for each crop was calculated by com- paring the total biomass of each crop grown in soils trained by each of the four other crops (i.e., in rotation) against total biomass in self-trained soil (i.e., monocropping). We found that PSF values varied among crop combina- tions in all the treatments, but such variation was the greatest in the nutrient treatment. Overall, soil biota feedback tended to be lower, whereas nutrient feedback tended to be greater compared to the unsterilized control soil, suggesting that effects of antagonistic biota outweighed those of beneficial microbes in the biota treatment, and that plants optimized nutrient uptake when the soil microbiome was absent in the nutrient treatment. Furthermore, soils in the nutrient treatment trained by the legume crops (alfalfa and soy- bean) tended to provide the greatest positive feedback, emphasizing the impor- tant legacy of N2 fixers in crop rotation. Taken together, our data demonstrate how nutrients and soil biota can be integral to PSFs among crops, and that assessing PSFs under controlled conditions can serve as a basis to determine the most productive crop rotation sequences prior to field testing. |
id |
RCAP_9d8554628ee3a2cdfb6e4041bb6edfff |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.ul.pt:10451/51159 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Application of plant–soil feedbacks in the selection of crop rotation sequencesPlant–soil feedback (PSF) can be a major driver of plant performance in com- munities, and this concept can be used in selecting crop rotation sequences to maximize agricultural yields. Potential benefits of using PSF in this context include nutrient use optimization, pathogen reduction, and enhancement of mutualisms between crops and microbes. Yet the contributions of these com- bined mechanisms are poorly understood. Here we investigated the relative contributions of these mechanisms using five major crops commonly culti- vated in rotation (alfalfa, canola, maize, soybean, and wheat) under controlled conditions. We trained soil by growing each of the five crops in a “training phase,” and then reciprocally planted the five crops in the trained soils in a “feedback phase.” To tease out soil biota from nutrient effects, we established three treatments: “control” (trained unsterilized soil used in the feedback phases), “biota” (sterilized soil in the feedback phase inoculated with soil biota from the control treatment after the training phase), and “nutrient” (sterilized soils in both phases). Plant–soil feedback for each crop was calculated by com- paring the total biomass of each crop grown in soils trained by each of the four other crops (i.e., in rotation) against total biomass in self-trained soil (i.e., monocropping). We found that PSF values varied among crop combina- tions in all the treatments, but such variation was the greatest in the nutrient treatment. Overall, soil biota feedback tended to be lower, whereas nutrient feedback tended to be greater compared to the unsterilized control soil, suggesting that effects of antagonistic biota outweighed those of beneficial microbes in the biota treatment, and that plants optimized nutrient uptake when the soil microbiome was absent in the nutrient treatment. Furthermore, soils in the nutrient treatment trained by the legume crops (alfalfa and soy- bean) tended to provide the greatest positive feedback, emphasizing the impor- tant legacy of N2 fixers in crop rotation. Taken together, our data demonstrate how nutrients and soil biota can be integral to PSFs among crops, and that assessing PSFs under controlled conditions can serve as a basis to determine the most productive crop rotation sequences prior to field testing.WileyRepositório da Universidade de LisboaKoyama, AkihiroDias, TeresaAntunes, Pedro M.2022-02-07T19:09:36Z2022-012022-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10451/51159eng10.1002/eap.2501info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-11-08T16:55:42Zoai:repositorio.ul.pt:10451/51159Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T22:02:28.695950Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Application of plant–soil feedbacks in the selection of crop rotation sequences |
title |
Application of plant–soil feedbacks in the selection of crop rotation sequences |
spellingShingle |
Application of plant–soil feedbacks in the selection of crop rotation sequences Koyama, Akihiro |
title_short |
Application of plant–soil feedbacks in the selection of crop rotation sequences |
title_full |
Application of plant–soil feedbacks in the selection of crop rotation sequences |
title_fullStr |
Application of plant–soil feedbacks in the selection of crop rotation sequences |
title_full_unstemmed |
Application of plant–soil feedbacks in the selection of crop rotation sequences |
title_sort |
Application of plant–soil feedbacks in the selection of crop rotation sequences |
author |
Koyama, Akihiro |
author_facet |
Koyama, Akihiro Dias, Teresa Antunes, Pedro M. |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Dias, Teresa Antunes, Pedro M. |
author2_role |
author author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Repositório da Universidade de Lisboa |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Koyama, Akihiro Dias, Teresa Antunes, Pedro M. |
description |
Plant–soil feedback (PSF) can be a major driver of plant performance in com- munities, and this concept can be used in selecting crop rotation sequences to maximize agricultural yields. Potential benefits of using PSF in this context include nutrient use optimization, pathogen reduction, and enhancement of mutualisms between crops and microbes. Yet the contributions of these com- bined mechanisms are poorly understood. Here we investigated the relative contributions of these mechanisms using five major crops commonly culti- vated in rotation (alfalfa, canola, maize, soybean, and wheat) under controlled conditions. We trained soil by growing each of the five crops in a “training phase,” and then reciprocally planted the five crops in the trained soils in a “feedback phase.” To tease out soil biota from nutrient effects, we established three treatments: “control” (trained unsterilized soil used in the feedback phases), “biota” (sterilized soil in the feedback phase inoculated with soil biota from the control treatment after the training phase), and “nutrient” (sterilized soils in both phases). Plant–soil feedback for each crop was calculated by com- paring the total biomass of each crop grown in soils trained by each of the four other crops (i.e., in rotation) against total biomass in self-trained soil (i.e., monocropping). We found that PSF values varied among crop combina- tions in all the treatments, but such variation was the greatest in the nutrient treatment. Overall, soil biota feedback tended to be lower, whereas nutrient feedback tended to be greater compared to the unsterilized control soil, suggesting that effects of antagonistic biota outweighed those of beneficial microbes in the biota treatment, and that plants optimized nutrient uptake when the soil microbiome was absent in the nutrient treatment. Furthermore, soils in the nutrient treatment trained by the legume crops (alfalfa and soy- bean) tended to provide the greatest positive feedback, emphasizing the impor- tant legacy of N2 fixers in crop rotation. Taken together, our data demonstrate how nutrients and soil biota can be integral to PSFs among crops, and that assessing PSFs under controlled conditions can serve as a basis to determine the most productive crop rotation sequences prior to field testing. |
publishDate |
2022 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2022-02-07T19:09:36Z 2022-01 2022-01-01T00:00:00Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10451/51159 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10451/51159 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1002/eap.2501 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Wiley |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Wiley |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799134574346764288 |