Abstract
The agronomic management of symbiotic (S) inoculations, by means of bio-fertilizers (BF), is aimed at inducing modifications of the plant rhizosphere and thereafter of the phenotype and yield of the crop. It is here shown that the yield response of maize to a symbiotic treatment may be correlated to six easy-to-calculate indicator variables on the basis of the raw foliar pH, NIR-Spectroscopy of leaves, and the NIRS of hay litter-bags from soils. It has been confirmed, in a set of thirteen pairwise comparisons of Symbiotic (S) soil inoculated by BF
Author Contributions
Copyright© 2019
Volpato Silvia, et al.
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Competing interests The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Funding Interests:
Citation:
Materials And Methods
In 2018, three centers collaborated in the setting up and the realization of the calibration experiments ( Two centers collaborated in the 2019 validation experiments. The inoculation was performed using a Micosat F ® bio-fertilizer and four AFM types as coatings (1 kg ha-1). 1Biota composition: finely ground cultivated As previously described An NIR-SCiOTM equation, taken from unpublished results of an experimental trial on tomato plants, was used to obtain an indirect estimate of the soil induced respiration (SIR) capacity, which was measured according to Anderson and Domsch The NIR spectrum of the leaves was detected using the smart NIR-SCiOTM in the lower leaf page, in duplicate. Coding samples were obtained and a chemometric elaboration was carried out, as described for the litter-bags. The raw foliar pH measurements were carried out, according to the acquisitions of previous works Individual data of the raw foliar pH and of the soil respiratory capacity were analyzed by means of mixed models Yield data from the Control and Symbiotic sub-plots and their effects were analyzed using the Friedman test for paired comparisons In order to model the dependent variable, as an effect- size, the yield was expressed as the Ln of the response ratio (S/C), where the mean of the inoculated treatment (S) was divided by the mean of the non-inoculated control (C), that is, d_Y = Ln(S/C). This mode of expression is arithmetically equivalent to calculating the relative prevalence of S over C (d _Y= S/C -1), with the result being given in percentage. Seven independent variables, including the squared values of the litter-bag fingerprints, were fitted to the response ratio The average results of the six independent parameters issued from the two validation experiments were applied in the model and the dependent predictions were compared to the realized S/C yield deviation. A positive-negative quadrant classification was performed for the more extensive DISAFA 2018-2 experiment.
Experiments
Pairwise comparison
Cultivars
Yield
Bio-fertilizer
Type /dose
2018 calibration, N. 52 plots
2018-1CREA-IC (BG, Italy)
1
Pioneer P1547.
Corn 14.5% DM
Micosat FMF1
Granular10kg/ha
2
Corn 14.5% DM
3
Corn 14.5% DM
4
Corn 14.5% DM
5
Corn 14.5% DM
6
Corn 14.5% DM
7
Corn 14.5% DM
8
Corn 14.5% DM
2018-2DISAFA-1(TO, Italy)
9
DM waxy spikes
Tan1kg/ha
10
DM waxy spikes
11
Corn 14.5% DM
Granular10kg/ha
12
Corn 14.5% DM
2018-3
Maisadour
13
MAS 68K
Corn 14.5% DM
2019 validation, N. 50 Plots
2019-1
14
DK4316
Corn 14.5% DM
MF1
Tan1kg/ha
2019-2DISAFA-2(TO, Italy)
15-18
MASDM6318
Corn 14.5% DM
AM_092
19-22
Corn 14.5% DM
AM_ 073
23-26
Corn 14.5% DM
AM_ 054
27-30
Corn 14.5% DM
AM_ 125
31-34
Corn 14.5% DM
MF1
35-38
MASShaniya
Corn 14.5% DM
AM_ 092
39-42
Corn 14.5% DM
AM_ 073
43-46
Corn 14.5% DM
AM_ 054
47-50
Corn 14.5% DM
AM_ 125
51-55
Corn 14.5% DM
MF1
Results
The average yield measured in the fifty sub-plots of the calibration set was 14.47 t ha-1 for C The average mixed model solutions were 5.34 for C P<0.01 P<0.001 In the 2018 calibration experiments ( The increase in yield was favored where the respiration of the soil increased , as can be seen in On average, the leaves of the C and S groupes were classified at a similar sensitivity level, that is, at 73.6 and 72.9%, respectively, for the C and S categories ( d_Y=d_Yield = Ln(Yield_S/Yield_C)%; d_H = Ln(H_S/H_C)% where H = H+ = (10^-pH*10^6); %SS = % of the correct classification of the Symbiotic fingerprints; %CC = % of the correct classification of the non-Symbiotic Control fingerprints; the pairwise outlier. A high sensitivity was reached for the AKA classification of the litter-bags (86.0 and 87.6%, respectively, After excluding one outlier, the d_Y model reached an adjusted R The first experiment in 2019-1, which was based on 75 pH and a leaf examination plus 40 NIR SCiO scans of 20 litterbags, has shown a good agreement between the yield predicted by the model (7.0%) and the yield realized in the field (4.2%). Both values are in the same quadrant of In the 2019-2 DISAFA-2 experiment, where a relevant body of measurements were conducted, that is, nearly two thousand (730 leaves for pH and NIR-Tomoscopy plus 350 scans of litter-bags), the average regression response was null (
Experiments
# Plot Pairs
C
S
Av.C
Av.S
d_S/C%
Prob.
2018-1CREA-IC(BG, Italy)
1
14.64
14.87
13.79
13.76
-0.2%
0.48
2
13.76
14.61
3
14.08
14.57
4
15.24
14.54
5
13.43
13.51
6
14.26
14.65
7
13.32
12.87
8
11.56
10.50
2018-2DISAFA-1(TO, Italy)
9
16.76
18.60
14.79
16.47
11.3%
0.01
10
12.61
14.61
11
15.54
21.75
12
14.29
19.16
13
16.76
15.27
14
12.61
16.68
15
15.54
13.30
16
14.29
14.10
17
14.35
15.46
18
14.87
16.16
19
15.09
15.57
20
14.82
16.19
21
14.35
16.85
22
14.87
17.85
23
15.09
16.64
24
14.82
15.35
2018-3
Maïsadour-1
25
14.85
14.73
14.85
14.73
-0.8%
Means
14.47
15.53
7.3%
0.03
Experiments
# PlotPairs
C
S
Av.C
Av.S
d_S/C%
Prob.
2019-1
26
12.58
13.1
4.20%
2019-2
DISAFA-2
27
15.9
13.42
28
14.42
15.7
29
15.34
14.84
30
17.23
13.94
31
15.9
16.3
32
14.42
14.78
33
17.23
15.4
34
15.34
15.29
35
15.9
16.15
36
14.42
16.78
37
15.34
13.96
38
17.23
14.39
39
15.9
15.83
40
14.42
15.81
41
15.34
15.22
42
17.23
14.65
43
15.9
16.61
44
14.42
14.77
45
17.23
14.46
46
15.34
16.17
47
17.34
16.6
48
14.42
13.61
49
14.81
13.94
50
15.76
16.21
51
16.14
16.77
52
14.42
16.17
53
14.81
14.41
54
15.76
13.82
55
17.34
15.65
56
14.42
16.92
57
14.81
13.6
58
15.76
14.41
59
17.34
17.62
60
14.42
15.04
61
14.81
14.54
62
15.76
13.32
63
17.34
16.14
64
14.42
14.1
65
14.81
14.71
66
15.76
13.55
Mean Validation
15.55
15.09
-3.00%
0.16
Factor
Effects
Av.C
Av.S
d_S/C%
Prob.
Bio-fertilizers
AM_09
15.65
14.78
-5.6%
0.16
AM_ 07
15.50
15.37
-0.9%
0.56
AM_ 05
15.65
15.23
-2.7%
0.48
AM_ 12
15.65
15.26
-2.5%
0.48
MF
15.65
15.06
-3.8%
0.48
CultivarsMaïsadour
DM6318
15.72
15.22
-3.2%
0.65
Shaniya
15.52
15.06
-3.0%
0.07
C-Control
S-Symbiotic
Ln(pH_S/pH_C)
P-value
LSMean
±
SE
LSMean
±
SE
Value
5.336
±
0.018
5.141
±
0.018
-0.0372
<.0001
Yield (t ha-1)
Foliar acidity H+ (No. 152)
SIR (mcg CO2g-1) (No. 448)
Experiments
Pairwise
C-Control
S-Symbiotic
Ln(S/C)
C-Control
S-Symbiotic
Ln(S/C)
C-Control
S-Symbiotic
Ln(S/C)
2018-1
CREA-IC
(BG, Italy)
a
14.64
14.87
0.015
4.7
7.7
0.488*
284
190
-0.399
b
13.76
14.61
0.06
4.5
6.6
0.4
261
240
-0.086
c
14.08
14.57
0.034
3.5
4.9
0.331
259
272
0.051
d
15.24
14.54
-0.047
6.1
5.7
-0.054
203
288
0.350
e
13.43
13.51
0.005
2.6
5.4
0.73
290
228
-0.238
f
14.26
14.65
0.027
1.3
4.7
1.251*
253
250
-0.014
g
13.32
12.87
-0.035
6
6.8
0.127
265
263
-0.005
h
11.56
10.5
-0.096
4
5.4
0.308
283
291
0.028
2018-2
DISAFA-1
(TO, Italy)
i
14.8
18.53
0.225
7.9
10.5
0.28
246
285
0.149
j
14.8
14.84
0.002
7.9
13.4
0.523
246
238
-0.031
k
14.79
15.84
0.069
28.3
39.2
0.326
234
274
0.161
l
14.79
16.67
0.12
28.3
11.9
-0.865
234
254
0.083
2018-3
Maïsadour
m
14.85
14.73
-0.008
6.3
5.6
-0.113
490
433
-0.124
Means
14.18
14.67
0.029
8.6
9.8
0.138
272.71
269.77
-0.006
Pairwise
Yield
Acidity
Foliar NIR-Tomoscopy
Litter-bags NIRS
d_Y
d_H
F_ CC
F_ SS
L_ CC
L_%SS
1
a
1.5
66
82
87
86
92
2
b
6.0
48
69
58
92
91
3
c
3.4
-4
75
69
75
86
4
d
-4.7
30
75
75
92
100
5
e
0.5
141
74
77
96
100
6
f
2.7
185
61
63
95
91
7
g
-3.5
87
71
77
100
90
8
h
-9.6
11
88
71
100
100
9
i
22.5
37
77
75
78
78
10
j
0.2
63
80
88
72
71
11
k
6.9
25
78
75
84
87
12
l
12.0
-92
88
65
82
74
13
m
-0.8
-12
39
68
66
79
Mean
3.4
44.9
73.6
72.9
86.0
87.6
Std.
8.0
69.4
12.7
8.7
11.0
9.7
Var. coef.
236%
154%
17%
12%
13%
11%
Yield model
Coef.
± Stdev.
Std Coef
t-ratio
P-value
Constant
-2.190
0.540
0.000
-4.060
0.0049
d_H
-0.010
0.020
-0.050
-0.270
0.3983
d_SIR
-0.070
0.050
-0.240
-1.530
0.0936
NIR Foliar %fingerprint_SS
-0.270
0.100
-0.420
-2.770
0.0197
NIR Litter-bags %fingerprint CC
6.130
1.290
11.850
4.740
0.0026
NIR Litter-bags %fingerprint CC ^2
-3.620
0.770
-11.770
-4.690
0.0027
NIR Litter-bags %fingerprint SS ^2
-0.200
0.080
-0.590
-2.500
0.0274
R2adj
0.78
0.0104
Standard error
±4%
Results
Positive
16%
44%
Negative
84% P 0.0012
56%
Negative
Positive
Predictions
Discussion
A significant, albeit highly variable positive response of maize yield to bio-fertilizer was observed (+7.3%) in the calibration, but the response to bio-fertilizers was disappointing in the validation experiments. In literature, maize-grain responses in yield were positive in some cases (+6.4% The foliar pH measurements, which on average were 5.23 in 2018 and 5.20 in 2019, confirmed the previously obtained acidic value of 4.84 in the stems The second method used in this work was the NIR-Tomoscopy of leaves. In the study with Finally, the litter-bag responses appeared to be related to the pH mechanisms but also, and more interestingly, to yield production. The parabolic trend observed in Johnson et al In the first experiments conducted to formalize the litter-bag method A first question arises about the interdependencies of the C and S fingerprints. Are the two closely correlated (r=0.79 in this 2018 experiments)? In theory, if the inoculation has no effect, the threshold of 50% should buffer the AKA classification. Instead, when an effect is present, the differentiation increases, and both the S and C fingerprints should grow. The question now concerns the band with low litter-bag fingerprints: what does this mean? In our opinion, a minimum of receptivity in the soil is necessary to start reliable mechanisms in the rhizosphere: a Moreover, what about the soils with too high litter-bag fingerprints? As for all fertilizers, the symbiotic responses are parabolic, and mutualism, or even parasitism, can therefore take place till the yield diminishes. Klironomos In the final model, the soil respiration parameter did not appear to be statistically significant, because of some biased points ( The model has proved to be predictive in both directions. Along the positive side, we have obtained encouraging results, while the negative side induces to reflect to a lack of knowledge for the symbiotic mechanisms. The failure to raise the yields observed in the main validation experiment has been forecast, since foliar pH and litter-bags were examined and the model was tested, thus the capacity of the model has been confirmed, even for null or negative outcomes. Therefore, how can we explain the failure of a positive symbiosis on yield in the bio-fertilized plots? The centers and soils were the same as those of the successful 2018 experiments, and the phenotype variability appeared somewhat restricted, but the substantial difference, in our opinion, are due to the genetic background of the cultivars. In 2018, it was the MAS 68K that did not respond, while in 2019 neither MAS DM6318 nor MAS Shaniya responded, thereby reducing the symbiotic relationship to commensalism or even parasitism. Since several AM fungi were involved, a general factor that hinders symbiosis can be envisaged in these genetic lines. The selection for resistance to fungi diseases perhaps also carried over an adversive effect to the beneficial fungi. This hypothesis should be taken into consideration for bio-fertilization advances.
Conclusion
In the advancement of a more generalized use of bio-fertilizers for a sustainable and high-producing symbiotic agriculture, we are currently facing three kinds of difficulties. First, the local conditions, which require a tuning of the soil management and concurrent mineral factors that are favorable for bio-fertilizers, namely N- and P-availability. Second, a variable genetic asset of the crops, which might impede efforts to promote a bio-variability in the soil microbial biota favorable to viability and activity of local and inoculated AM strains, if some higly productive crops are genetically disadvantaged to establish new AM symbiosis. Third, “ The results reported in this study encourage further implementation of the basic symbiotic model for maize production a basic crop that is currently threatened by high costs of production. In our opinion, this minor research route for smart agriculture could lead to an advancement in parallel knowledge concerning the hard microbiomic horizon Further research, focused on genetic-genetic interactions, is still needed, and the easy methods, but especially the foliar pH and the litter-bags, as here described, can be used to ascertain the efficiency of biofertilizers and promote an improvement in soil fertility.