Abstract
Rapid analyses methods for the assessment of soil microbiota are lacking. In a commercial farm tomato plants were subjected to different fertilization strategies: 1. mineral Control (C); 2. Organic amendment (O); 3. Organic amendment + Micosat F © biofertilizer (OM). A first rapid method (Litterbag-NIRS) concerned hay litterbags coupled with a smart SCiOTM device. A second method (Foliar-NIRS) used the same device on the leaves. The plants showed positive responses to the amendment and biofertilization in the yield: C 60.5.1 t ha-1
Author Contributions
Copyright© 2020
Baldi Elena, 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
Soil fertility, usually defined as the ability of a soil to promote plant growth and yield by integrating different soil functions The use of litterbags is a technique that has long been adopted in soil studies on the evolution of microfauna in the bulk soil Rapid predictors of yield are necessary tools to advance biofertilizer tuning and management. Classic microscopic techniques are usually necessary for arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) studies in this sector In a two-year project based on maize field trials The aims of the present experiment are to confirm the Litterbag-NIRS and the Foliar-NIRS methods in a different species under soil microbial enrichment, and to search spectral correlation with biochemical parameters of the soil and with the phenotype of the litterbags in order to extend the "model learning" of the statistical analyses applied to soil microbial fertility.
Materials And Methods
The trial was conducted on a commercial farm in the Padana Plain (44°35′19″N 12°00′43″E) on the Heinz 1301 tomato cultivar. Plantlets were transplanted at the third-fourth true leaf stage on April 17, 2018 and grown in a double row with a distance between plants of 40 cm in the row, for a total 33000 plants ha-1 in a plot where tomato was also grown in 2017. The soil in which the experimentation was carried out was characterized by a clayey-silty texture and was plowed during the winter. Before transplanting, 800 kg ha-1 of organic amendment (40% P2O5; 3% Organic N; 4% K2O; 4% organic C; 26% fulvic acid; 9% humic acid; 10% SO3, 1% Mn; 1% Mg) and 2 q ha-1 of an organo-mineral fertilizer (10% N; 12% P2O5; 7% K2O; 2% MgO; 16% SO3; 0,5% Fe; 0.01% Zn; 0.1% B; 7,5% organic C; 3% humic + fulvic acid) were applied; 10 days after transplanting, 1.8 q ha-1 calcium nitrate (15% N; 26% Ca O) was supplied. During the experiment, the following fertilization strategies were compared. C - mineral fertilization: supplied, by fertigation, at transplanting and 4 times during the season for a total 138 kg N ha-1; 107 kg P2O5 ha-1, 110 kg K2O ha-1; O - organic fertilization: supply patented by Demetra Italia S.R.L, organic fertilizersa,b applied by fertigation at transplanting and 6 times during the season for a total of 74.5 kg N ha-1; 62 kg P2O5 ha-1, 47 kg K2O ha-1: OM - organic fertilization + Micosat (M): at transplanting, plantlets were dunked for 3 hours in a Micosat-MOc (5 kg ha-1) + Nutribacterd (2 kg ha-1) solution. In addition, the Micosat MO was fertigated 3 times at 2 kg ha-1, The plants were fertilized as described for O. a Soltermax P (an activator of the rhizospheric biota): a yeast extract with humic substances, fulvic acids, adhesion promoters N and P; Composition : water soluble nitrogen (N) 5 %, organic nitrogen (N) 0.7%, P2O5 15%, organic carbon (C) 9%. b Vegater (an activator of the rhizospheric biota): yeast extract with humic substances, fulvic acids, essential vegetal AA; Composition : organic nitrogen (N), 2 %, organic carbon (C) 24%. c Micosat MO (composition per 100 g): 10 g of finely ground cultivated dNutribacter: bacterial multiplying activator; Composition Nitrogen (N) organic soluble in water 3 %; Organic carbon (C) 15% A row was used for each treatment for sample collection and 4 blocks in each row were defined in order to obtain replicates. One month after transplanting, 12 litterbags per treatment were buried at a depth of 10 cm ( In the same days as the litterbag sampling, soil was sampled at a depth of 2-20 cm to measure the nitrate (NO3--N) and ammonium (NH4+-N) concentrations and microbial biomass activity. Nitrate and N-NH4+ were extracted from 10 g of soil using a solution of 100 mL of KCl (2 M); samples were shaken at 100 rpm for 1 h and, after soil sedimentation, a limpid solution was collected and stored at -20°C until analysis, which was performed with an auto analyzer (Auto Analyzer AA3; Bran+Luebbe, Norderstadt, Germany). Microbial respiration was measured using the substrate induced respiration (SIR) method The field data replicates were tested for a pairwise comparison by means of the Friedman test for paired samples or by the Kruskal-Wallis test for unpaired samples, using the StatBox V6.5 package (Grimmer Logiciels, Paris, France). Meanwhile, a linear two-way model, with treatment and period, was fitted to the soil and to the chemical variables and foliar composition traits of the litterbags by means of the SAS 9.01 package (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Chemometrics of the 331-point NIR spectra was performed using the SCiO 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 AKA (as known as) confusion matrices according to a six treatment * period or three treatments (final period). The method requires numerical homogeneity between the compared classes, and a probability The chemical composition of the litterbag residues was predicted using a Perkin Elmer IdentiCheck TM instrument (714-3333 nm), and the widest spectra were fed to equations established on twelve species of crops, analyzed at four stages The composition of the fresh tomato leaves was predicted, as indicated in the In order to compare the spectroscopic features with the body of the classificatory information provided by the chemical variables pertaining to the soil and leaves, a modern classifier method, that is, the support vector machine (SVM), provided in the XLStat 2019.4.1 (Addinsoft) package, was used. A final PLS model, based on the group averages of fifteen independent variables - 10 from the soil and 5 from the leaves - was performed for the yield with the StatBox software, using 2 latent components.
Results
The supply of organic fertilizer alone (O) or in combination with the microorganism (OM) induced an increase in the tomato yield, in comparison with the mineral fertilization (C) ( The two forms of mineral N measured in the soil were highly correlated to each other (r=0.94), but were interactively modulated by the organic amendment ( The A period refers to 56 d from sowing and 20 d from placing the litter bags; the B period refers to 92 d from sowing and 56 d from placing the litter bags; A&B mixing of the litterbags from the A and B periods; np: not performed. Soil microbial carbon ( Micosat treated plants induced a decrease of protein of 19% As far as the probable microbial active populations are concerned, the OM soils were associated with a type of rapid r-strategist that was able to oxidize glucose into CO2, as pointed out by the high SIR values and the concentration of the less available cellular wall components. Conversely, the C soils benefitted from the slow k-strategist populations that had preserved the most labile substances of the hay in the litterbags. The average reflectance of the C litterbags ( The calibrations were all positive ( The fingerprinting of the treatments (C, O, OM)in the two periods (A, B) from the Litterbag-NIRS method was highly significant with 63% on average ( The reflectance of the leaves ( Like the Sentinel-2 EOS Satellite band: (740-750 nm); (773-793 nm); (855-875 nm); (935-955 nm). A valid fingerprinting of the treatments was obtained from the NIRS of the leaves, that is, 78% on average, compared to similar values of 94% for the SVM classification, which involved a pool of 23 leaf variables ( The most important below-ground variable for yield ( When only the Litterbag-NIRS and Foliar-NIRS methods were combined in a multiple regression model, similar results could were obtained, in terms of r-square (0.95), with partial r2values 0.45 from the Litterbag-NIRS and 0.50 from the foliar-NIRS ( The top-down application of 14 previous Litterbag-NIRS models for the assignment of the status of biofertilized (M ) or untreated Control (C ) (
C
O
OM
O\C%
P
OM\C%
P
OM\O%
P
Means t ha-1
60.47
70.77
74.23
17.9%
0.05
23%
0.05
4.9%
0.08
Soilanalyses
Period
Unit
C
O
OM
O\C%
P
OM\C%
P
OM\O%
P
R2cvin SCiO
Microbial biomass
0
µg Cmic g-1FW
329.6
391.6
363.9
19%
0.08
10%
0.56
-7%
0.15
np
Microbial biomass
A
µg Cmic g-1FW
122.4b
254.6a
165.9ab
108%
0.02
36%
0.25
-35%
0.02
0.73
Microbial biomass
B
µg Cmic g-1FW
134.3ab
108.5b
184.3a
-19%
0.43
37%
0.13
70%
0.03
NO3--N
A
mg kg-1 DM
2.95c
112.60b
215.01a
3715%
0.00
7185%
0.00
91%
0.02
0.84
NO3--N
B
mg kg-1 DM
1.42c
20.92b
40.95a
1375%
0.00
2787%
0.00
96%
0.25
NH4+-N
A
mg kg-1 DM
3.51c
11.30b
30.47a
222%
0.00
768%
0.00
170%
0.02
0.66
NH4+-N
B
mg kg-1 DM
2.71c
4.23b
3.61a
56%
0.02
33%
0.04
-15%
0.56
Litterbag constituents
Basal respiration
A
µg Cmic g-1FW
3026
3623
4288
20%
0.95
42%
0.25
18%
0.95
np
Basal respiration
B
µg Cmic g-1FW
1966
1587
1990
-19%
0.77
1%
1.00
25%
0.39
np
Protein
A&B
DW%
12.8
11.7
10.3
-8%
0.22
-19%
-12%
NDF digestibility
A&B
%
58.2
56.0
51.8
-4%
0.56
-11%
-8%
0.63
ADL
A&B
DW%
8.8
8.7
7.9
-1%
0.90
-11%
-10%
0.81
Lipids
A&B
DW%
3.1
2.9
2.8
-6%
0.37
-10%
-4%
Total digestibility
A&B
%
80.8
77.9
75.2
-4%
0.14
-7%
-3%
0.71
Free sugars
A&B
DW%
49.8
48.0
48.4
-4%
0.03
-3%
1%
0.78
digestible NDF
A&B
DW%
31.1
30.0
30.4
-3%
0.26
-2%
1%
0.71
Ash
A&B
DW%
16.3
15.4
16.2
-6%
0.49
0%
6%
0.78
Cellulose
A&B
DW%
23.0
22.7
23.5
-2%
0.84
2%
3%
0.92
Gross energy
A&B
MJ/kg
16.0
16.1
16.4
1%
0.40
3%
2%
0.77
Fiber Weende
A&B
DW%
16.0
16.6
16.6
4%
0.82
4%
0%
0.76
Hemicellulose
A&B
DW%
12.3
12.7
13.2
3%
0.81
7%
4%
0.71
NDF
A&B
DW%
42.0
46.0
45.3
10%
0.06
8%
-1%
0.80
ADF
A&B
DW%
29.6
33.6
34.7
14%
0.13
17%
3%
0.67
non-digestible NDF
A&B
DW%
19.2
22.1
24.8
15%
0.14
29%
12%
0.71
Crop Maturity Index
A&B
Ratio
0.69
1.10
1.33
60%
0.03
94%
21%
Threshold 17%
C-A
C-B
O-A
O-B
OM-A
OM-B
Litterbag-NIRS
87%
40%
62%
71%
40%
75%
P (No. 20)
0.0001
0.0062
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0062
Support vector machine-V4
50%
50%
100%
75%
100%
50%
P (No. 4)
0.0789
0.0789
0.0001
0.0002
0.0001
0.0789
P (1 vs. 2)
0.0929
0.7170
0.1443
0.8739
0.0320
0.3256
Support vector machine-V18 (Litterbag composition)
25%
75%
100%
50%
75%
50%
P (No. 4)
0.6701
0.0020
0.0001
0.0789
0.0020
0.0789
Leaf Constituents
Unit
C
O
OM
O\C%
P
OM\C%
P
OM\O%
P
Free sugars
DW%
44.51a
42.95b
43.01b
-3%
0.00
-3.4%
0.00
0%
0.88
Ash
DW%
6.95b
7.37a
6.74b
6%
0.22
-3.0%
0.22
-9%
0.00
Crop maturity index
Ratio
2.29a
2.20b
2.24b
-4%
0.02
-2.1%
0.02
2%
0.07
non-digestible NDF
DW%
29.83b
30.22a
29.66b
1%
0.15
-0.6%
0.15
-2%
0.00
Protein
DW%
8.16
8.04
8.12
-2%
0.66
-0.5%
0.66
1%
0.43
Lipids
DW%
1.28b
1.30a
1.28b
2%
0.71
-0.3%
0.71
-2%
0.01
Total digestibility
%
70.10
69.93
70.07
0%
0.86
0.0%
0.86
0%
0.22
Cellulose
DW%
24.93a
23.88b
24.93a
-4%
0.99
0.0%
0.99
4%
0.00
Gross energy
MJ kg -1
17.36b
17.38a
17.38a
0%
0.02
0.1%
0.02
0%
0.87
NDF
DM%
47.27a
46.20b
47.34a
-2%
0.78
0.2%
0.78
2%
0.00
predicted pH
pH
5.08b
5.07b
5.11a
0%
0.06
0.4%
0.06
1%
0.01
Dry Matter
DW%
29.45ab
29.09b
29.60a
-1%
0.51
0.5%
0.51
2%
0.02
digestible NDF
DW%
24.58
24.57
24.73
0%
0.40
0.6%
0.40
1%
0.37
Fiber Weende
DW%
27.24
27.33
27.44
0%
0.14
0.7%
0.14
0%
0.43
pH measured
pH
6.25b
6.15c
6.34a
-2%
0.00
1.4%
0.00
3%
0.00
ADF
DW%
45.65c
47.85a
46.46b
5%
0.01
1.8%
0.01
-3%
0.00
NDF digestibility
%
43.31b
44.26a
44.13a
2%
0.03
1.9%
0.03
0%
0.74
ADL
DW%
8.13b
8.28b
8.41a
2%
0.02
3.4%
0.00
2%
0.29
S2
Ref.
0.74b
0.72c
0.77a
-3.1%
0.00
4.8%
0.00
8%
0.00
S2
Ref.
0.77b
0.74c
0.81a
-3.2%
0.00
5.1%
0.00
9%
0.00
S2
Ref.
0.75b
0.73c
0.79a
-3.4%
0.00
5.8%
0.00
10%
0.00
S2
Ref.
0.67b
0.66b
0.72a
-1.0%
0.00
7.0%
0.00
8%
0.00
Hemicellulose
DW%
5.25b
3.94c
5.88a
-25%
0.00
12.0%
0.00
49%
0.00
33% threshold
C
O
OM
Foliar-NIRS
72%
85%
78%
P (No.20)
0.0002
0.0001
0.0001
Multivariate support vector machine
93%
100%
88%
P (No.20)
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
P (1
0.0844
0.0754
0.4058
Period
Soil, Litterbag
STDCoeff.
Index
STDCoeff.
Index
Soil
A
NO3--N
0.34
100%
A
NH4+-N
0.27
80%
A
SIR
0.17
50%
Litterbags
A
Respiration
0.03
9%
A
% Litterbag
-0.22
-65%
B
NO3--N
0.13
38%
B
NH4+-N
0.03
9%
B
SIR
0.14
42%
B
Respiration
-0.06
-17%
B
% Litterbag
0.02
5%
Leaves
B
% Foliar NIRS
0.88
100%
B
b6
0.39
45%
B
c7
0.13
15%
B
c8a
0.12
13%
B
d9
0.11
12%
R2
0.88
0.95
Coefficients
STD
Partial r2
Total R2
Constant
-116.06
% Litterbag-NIRS Fingerprinting (C, M, OM)
49.23
1.28
0.45
0.45
% Foliar-NIRS Fingerprinting (C, M, OM)
196.63
1.74
0.50
0.95
C (C&O)
M (OM)
C /M
Fingerprinting%
68%
34%
+97%
P
0.0024
0.043
0.004
Discussion
From the present experiment we were able to observe an increase of tomato yield by 18% thanks to the use of organics amendments able to partially restore soil sickness due to several successions of tomato cultivation. Moreover, the activity of the organic amendment was little (+5%) enhanced by the supply of the biofertilizer complex. It should be also noted that the control yield (60.5 t ha-1)was very low for the area that is usually characterized by production ranging around 65 to 95 t ha-1. As summarized in the model reported in A new finding of hay litterbags has emerged concerned their intrinsic basal respiration. In fact, the values were nearly tenfold higher than the SIR of the soil at period zero. Sapronov and Kuzyakov The results of the present experiment agree with previous results obtained from Litterbags-NIRS and from Foliar-NIRS in biofertilizer experiments. The anomaly of the pH - which increased by 3% and 14% - instead of reducing by about 1-3%, as usually observed in other experiments involving AM The most meaningful result of the current experiment was that obtained from proximal spectroscopy, which established significant and useful correlations of several components of the litterbags with the short region of the NIR rays. The development of spectroscopy led to concrete interest in portable NIR devices
Conclusion
According to van Veen