Abstract
There is currently a lack of rapid indirect analysis methods for the assessment of the effects of soil microbiota on vine production. Fifteen clusters of two
Author Contributions
Copyright© 2021
Cugnetto Alberto, 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:
Introduction
Clusters of different productivities are usually recognized in vineyards. Apart from microclimatic and border factors, which are more frequent in soils on slopes than in soils on plains, the variability within the same vine in fields may be attributable to different degrees of soil fertility. Such a soil variability, which is usually defined as the ability of a soil to promote plant growth and yield by integrating different soil functions However, no easy indicator of the soil microbial status has been available until now. Increasing interest in microorganisms, such as endophytes, symbionts, pathogens, and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria, can be observed in the literature, while less attention has been paid to the larger community of soil microorganisms, or soil microbiome, which may have more far-reaching effects. Each organism in the community of soil microorganisms acts in coordination with the overall soil microbiome to influence the health of a plant and crop productivity The use of litterbags is a technique that has long been adopted in soil studies on the evolution of microfauna in bulk soil The aims of the present experiment have been to confirm the applicability of the Litterbag-NIRS and pH-Foliar-NIRS methods in domains with different clusters and to search for spectral correlations between plant yields and other phenotypes. A field monitoring of three clusters of different vigor, assessed in the summer of 2019, was conducted in the summer of 2020 in commercial vineyards with the aim of searching for sky-earth correlations to advance precision agriculture in vineyards. The Litterbag-NIRS method was applied, in parallel without soil chemical analyses, to correlate the yield of the identified production clusters. Moreover, by assessing a fingerprint in the electromagnetic spectra that was available from previous templates, it was possible to unravel some of the microbiological activities and soil traits that are in general favorable for the yield.
Materials And Methods
The trial was conducted in the western Po valley in three All the vineyards are on a hilly area of glacial morainic origin, with soils that show a tendentially acid / sub-acid reaction and an important presence of skeletons that greatly limit the workability of the soils. It is therefore normal to observe perennially grassed vineyards in this area. The three The two A herbicide trial was performed in the conventional EV vineyard using a Glyphosate-based product. The determinations were performed following the phenological growth stages and BBCH identification keys of grapevine ( In order to characterize the structure of the canopy of the plants under study, the leaf layers were determined using the point quadrat method This application, which can be used on an Iphone, was designed to obtain digital images of the canopy, which are then processed through a special algorithm that relates the full spaces of the wall to the empty ones. The application returns a series of indices that are closely related to the plant vigor A total of 100 berries were collected randomly from each plant during the harvest and subsequently taken to the laboratory. A total of 20 berries were taken for each sample and were used to determine the average weight of the berries. The grape sample was then manually pressed, filtered, and brought to a temperature of 20 °C. The degree brix and the pH were determined on the liquid fraction using a bench refractometer and pH meter. On 20/05/2020, 5 litterbags per cell were buried at a depth of 5-10 cm. Each litterbag was filled with hay for small animals ( Vita Verde Small Animal Alpine Hay , produced by Vitakraft pet care GmbH & Co. KG, Bremen, Germany), ground to 3 mm. About 2 g of hay was packed into half empty 5x10cm square polypropylene nets (1.5 mm mesh), which were resealed using 4 staples, and a plastic label was applied for identification and for easiness of finding purposes. The litterbags were explanted after 60 days, sun dried, gently cleaned and preserved at room temperature until delivery. The brushed litterbags were opened and the surfaces of both sides were examined, in reflectance mode, protected by a magnetic spacer capsule, measuring 9*40 mm, of a smart miniaturized NIRS web-based wireless spectrophotometer (SCiO v. 1.2, Consumer Physics, Tel Aviv, Israel) The chemical composition of the litterbag residues pertaining to each spectrum was predicted using templates assessed under WinISI format in an experiment on biofertilized tomato ( Means with different letters are different at P <0.05; * Two outliers found for the within-vine group linear regression of the yield on pH (Figure 1); § one outlier found for the PLS regression of the yield on the Sentinel-2-like bands On June 20, samples of 10 leaves, randomly chosen from each cluster, were analyzed for petiole pH using a Hamilton Peek Double-Pore F, / Knick combined 35 x 6 (LxØ) glass-plastic electrode, two decimals, and an NIR-SCiOTM smart device, as described in Masoero et al. Chemometrics of the 331-point NIR spectra was performed using the SCiOTM Lab proprietary software, by means of a classification procedure based on a random forest algorithm. The reflectance spectra were mathematically transformed as standard normal variates, Log and 1st derivate, and the classification then produced an AKA (as known as) confusion matrix on the basis of belonging to a Herbicide or Not-herbicide class within one of the
Variables
Vineyard class
BBCH
Gems, n plant-1
All
5
Inflorescences, n plant-1
All
57
Fertility index, plant-1
All
57
Canopy layers, n plant-1
All
79
Berry weight, g
All
89
Yield, kg plant-1
All
89
Pruning wood, kg plant-1
All
97
Juice DM% (Brix°)
All
89
Juice pH
89
Leaf Area Index
89
Canopy cover Index
89
Clumping Index
89
Crown Porosity Index
89
Vine
Vineyard
pH
Yield kg plant-1
b6_750 nm
c7_793 nm
c8a_875 nm
d9_955 nm
1
3.07
cd
5.12 *
bc
*
0.612
0.664
0.681
0.675
1
3.29
ab
8.44
ab
0.590
0.647
0.659
0.649
1
3.44
a
7.52
ab
0.613
0.669
0.681
0.668
2
3.24
b
6.92
ab
0.621
0.684
0.700
0.693
2
3.13
bc
9.68
a
0.625
0.691
0.709
0.703
§
2
3.38
ab
5.70
ab
0.576
0.626
0.635
0.625
3
3.17
bc
7.40
ab
0.603
0.668
0.677
0.666
3
3.23
b
6.82
ab
0.592
0.663
0.674
0.664
3
3.16
bc
7.53
ab
0.589
0.662
0.671
0.657
4
3.08
bc
1.96
c
0.615
0.703
0.722
0.711
4
3.01
cd
5.70 *
ab
*
0.638
0.721
0.737
0.722
4
2.89
d
3.44
c
0.630
0.696
0.709
0.695
5
2.94
d
3.12
c
0.667
0.729
0.745
0.735
5
2.74
e
3.96
c
0.659
0.734
0.751
0.740
5
2.90
d
2.26
c
0.676
0.745
0.760
0.747
3.23
7.24
0.602
0.664
0.676
0.667
2.93
3.41
0.647
0.721
0.737
0.725
P(Vine)
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
RMSE
0.22
2.95
0.043
0.048
0.050
0.048
R2model
0.42
0.42
0.21
0.26
0.27
0.26
Results
As expected , Means with different letters are different at P <0.05; * Two outliers found for the within-vine group linear regression of the yield on pH ( The yield and foliar pH were correlated, but the trends were different for the between or within vine regressions. In fact, when considering all 15 cells ( The The prediction of the yield from the single foliar NIR spectra, by means of the PLS model, reached an R-square cross-validated (R2cv) value of 0.66 for the overall cases ( Several other traits were positively correlated with the foliar NIR spectra ( SECV: standard error in cross validation; R2cv: r-squares in cross validation. The spectral information of the leaves, as available in the four Sentinel-2-like bands, or implemented in the PLS models with the foliar pH, is presented in The prediction of yield from the Litterbag-NIR spectra, through the PLS model, reached an R-square cross-validated (R2cv) value of 0.72 for the overall cases ( The pruning wood was also closely correlated to the litterbag spectra ( Some positive relationships emerged for the vegetational and fruiting characteristics of Among the 20 variables predicted by means of the litterbag-NIRS method described in a previous paper The variables of the decomposing hay and of the soil, as predicted by the Litterbag-NIRS method, adopting the templates presented in Baldi et al. The variables linked to a more intense Mycorrizhal status (Myc-type) are associated with the young A relevant spectral signature of the weed treatment appeared in the Litterbag-NIRS spectra for the This Non-Herbicide model was then validated in the other organic (Non-Herbicide) vineyards. The results were statistically significant in two out of four cases, equally divided between The Herbicide in the framework of the weed treatments tended to elicit the total digestibility of the litterbag residues, while it apparently tended to depress the microbic C and its respiration activity in the soil (
Class
Variables
N
Mean
SD
SECV
R2cv
All
Yield, kg plant-1
277
5.76
2.13
1.44
0.66
104
3.83
4.25
2.41
0.68
164
2.44
3.84
2.45
0.59
Leaf Area Index, n
116
1.73
0.49
0.19
0.85
Canopy cover, ,
111
0.75
0.12
0.03
0.93
Clumping Index
113
0.21
0.05
0.03
0.66
Crown Porosity
112
0.79
0.06
0.02
0.84
All
Leaf layers, n plant-1
278
2.72
0.40
0.30
0.43
107
3.04
0.30
0.15
0.73
163
2.50
0.30
0.28
0.16
All
Gems, n plant-1
277
33.65
17.71
10.54
0.64
114
49.43
7.03
6.22
0.21
164
22.46
14.79
8.82
0.64
All
Inflorescences, n plant-1
277
24.54
14.36
8.28
0.67
114
38.05
5.78
5.70
0.02
161
12.96
8.87
6.20
0.51
All
Fertility, n plant-1
229
0.77
0.15
0.11
0.46
103
0.31
0.35
0.20
0.68
167
0.80
0.15
0.12
0.35
All
Average grape weight, g
279
2.28
0.31
0.23
0.45
105
2.46
0.18
0.17
0.03
171
2.12
0.31
0.21
0.52
All
Grape Brix°
273
21.86
1.45
1.37
0.10
104
21.10
0.79
0.54
0.52
164
22.16
1.88
1.87
0.01
All
Grape pH
254
3.10
0.05
0.04
0.39
105
3.08
0.03
0.02
0.46
178
2.98
0.26
0.25
0.06
Variables
N
Mean
SD
SECV
R2cv
All
4Sent2 +pH
12
5.68
2.08
1.02
0.77
All
4Sent2
12
5.68
2.08
1.10
0.73
4Sent2 +pH
8
6.93
1.12
1.84
0.00
4Sent2
7
7.19
0.91
1.48
0.00
4Sent2 +pH
5
2.95
0.83
0.67
0.47
4Sent2
6
3.41
1.35
1.89
0.00
Variables
N
Mean
SD
SECV
R2cv
All
Yield, kg plant-1
12
5.41
2.17
1.19
0.72
7
6.84
1.18
0.73
0.67
6
3.41
1.35
0.44
0.91
All
Wood, kg plant-1
11
1.77
0.50
0.21
0.83
Leaf Area Index, n
5
1.86
0.47
0.39
0.43
Canopy cover,
5
0.78
0.13
0.08
0.72
All
Gems, n plant-1
13
33.06
18.04
11.71
0.57
6
43.30
3.14
4.22
0.00
5
12.08
1.75
0.52
0.93
All
Gems, n head-to-fruit-1
13
29.37
16.57
10.69
0.57
8
41.55
5.39
6.28
0.00
5
10.08
1.36
0.72
0.77
All
Gems, n plant-1
13
34.57
18.20
11.16
0.62
7
46.54
6.10
7.00
0.00
6
13.73
2.88
3.47
0.00
All
Gems, n plant-1
13
23.85
14.66
9.63
0.58
7
32.43
7.31
4.41
0.69
6
8.00
2.13
1.51
0.58
All
Inflorescences, n head-to-fruit-1
13
24.12
15.25
10.27
0.55
7
33.77
8.59
5.52
0.65
6
7.60
1.73
1.82
0.07
All
Grape Brix
11
21.91
1.29
0.92
0.53
7
21.28
1.01
0.98
0.19
5
23.20
0.96
0.67
0.61
All
Grape pH
11
3.08
0.05
0.03
0.56
7
3.08
0.04
0.05
0.00
5
3.12
0.08
0.02
0.97
Yield related
Variable
PLS Std Coefficient
Mean ± Std
SIR- Substrate Induced RespirationSoil C microbic, µg Cmic g-1 FW
0.145
0.060
93.8 ± 8.7
84.4 ± 8.07
Litterbag Crude protein, %DM
0.010
0.009
12.9 ± 0.8
10.8 ± 2.1
Litterbag ADF, %DM
-0.033
-0.023
25.9 ± 1.9
30.6 ± 5.8
Soil NO3--N, mg kg-1 DM
-0.129
-0.022
22.4 ± 4.2
14.6 ± 3.9
Vine
Vineyard
No.
%F(Non)
P(Non)
%F(Herb)
P(Herb)
Calibration
EV
80
94%
0.0001
62%
0.099
Validation
CS
31
48%
0.8238
Validation
CD
40
78%
0.0004
Validation
NV
33
55%
0.5657
Validation
NG
40
75%
0.0016
Non-Herbicide (1) Herbicide (2)
PLS Std.Coeff
Soil C microbic, µg Cmic g-1 FW
-0.00507
Litterbag Total Digestibility , %
0.00522
Discussion
It has been confirmed in this work on the litterbag-NIRS method that the In this work, the The spectral correlation of litterbags with the yield in vine has been reported here for the first time. This precedent is a stimulus to verify such relationship in other crop and orchard experiments and surveys where litterbags have been placed and collected, but the correlation has not yet been calculated. Moreover, the correlations of the litterbags with the buds and the pH of the berries are original and limited to So, what could the non-academic interest be in extending this Litterbag-NIRS technique? Soil analyses are by definition chemical analyses If it is common practice to refer to the Earth as a