Next Article in Journal
Translocation of Loline Alkaloids in Epichloë-Infected Cereal and Pasture Grasses: What the Insects Tell Us
Next Article in Special Issue
Soil Structure and Ectomycorrhizal Root Colonization of Pecan Orchards in Northern Mexico
Previous Article in Journal
The SUMOylation Pathway Components Are Required for Vegetative Growth, Asexual Development, Cytotoxic Responses, and Programmed Cell Death Events in Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. niveum
Previous Article in Special Issue
Variation in Community Structure of the Root-Associated Fungi of Cinnamomum camphora Forest
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JoF
Volume 9
Issue 1
10.3390/jof9010095
jof-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Soil Microbial Community Responses to Different Management Strategies in Almond Crop

by
Miguel Camacho-Sanchez
,
Juan F. Herencia
,
Francisco T. Arroyo
and
Nieves Capote
*
Andalusian Institute of Agricultural and Fisheries Research and Training (IFAPA), Center Las Torres, Alcalá del Río, 41200 Seville, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Fungi 2023, 9(1), 95; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jof9010095
Submission received: 26 December 2022 / Revised: 2 January 2023 / Accepted: 3 January 2023 / Published: 10 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Roles of Soil and Roots Biotic and Abiotic Conditions in Fungal-Plant Interactions and Plant Performance, 2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
A comparative study of organic and conventional farming systems was conducted in almond orchards to determine the effect of management practices on their fungal and bacterial communities. Soils from two orchards under organic (OM) and conventional (CM), and nearby nonmanaged (NM) soil were analyzed and compared. Several biochemical and biological parameters were measured (soil pH, electrical conductivity, total nitrogen, organic material, total phosphorous, total DNA, and fungal and bacterial DNA copies). Massive parallel sequencing of regions from fungal ITS rRNA and bacterial 16 S genes was carried out to characterize their diversity in the soil. We report a larger abundance of bacteria and fungi in soils under OM, with a more balanced fungi:bacteria ratio, compared to bacteria-skewed proportions under CM and NM. The fungal phylum Ascomycota corresponded to around the 75% relative abundance in the soil, whereas for bacteria, the phyla Proteobacteria, Acidobacteriota and Bacteroidota integrated around 50% of their diversity. Alpha diversity was similar across practices, but beta diversity was highly clustered by soil management. Linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSE) identified bacterial and fungal taxa associated with each type of soil management. Analyses of fungal functional guilds revealed 3–4 times larger abundance of pathogenic fungi under CM compared to OM and NM treatments. Among them, the genus Cylindrocarpon was more abundant under CM, and Fusarium under OM.

1. Introduction

Almond cultivation has undergone a revolution in the last decade by the application of new management techniques such as controlled irrigation, fertilization, pruning systems, harvest mechanization, use of more productive cultivars, high-density cultivation, and the use of phytosanitary treatments to prevent pests and plant diseases [1]. Organic management is considered a good alternative to conventional systems due to the production of good quality and healthy fruits with a lower environmental impact [2,3]. Moreover, the high added value of organic almond fruits, together with the increasing demands by consumers for healthy environmental practices and food safety, are a stimulus for this production system [1,4].
Organic farming aims to minimizing the use of synthetic inputs such as chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, enhancing the use of natural resources to minimize negative environmental impacts [5]. The use of cover crops and the incorporation of organic fertilizers are common practices in organic systems aimed at improving soil quality and fertility [6,7]. The use of cover crops and manure is progressively reemerging in agriculture as a sustainable alternative to synthetic agrochemicals. Their use has been positively related to improved soil quality, regulation of nutrient cycling and enhancement of the suppressiveness of soil against several pathogens [8]. Cover crops can be grown in the soil to reduce the leaching of nutrients, avoid erosion, improve soil structure and suppress weeds, or can be incorporated into the soil as nutrients. Further, the application of manure supplemented with biocontrol microorganisms can improve resistance against plant pathogens [9].
Differences in microbial communities and physical–chemical characteristics of organically versus conventionally managed soils have been reported [10,11,12]. In addition, cover crops and soil amendments alter soil bacterial and fungal communities [13,14,15]. Several meta-analyses point to an increased microbial diversity or changes in community composition due to organic farming [16,17,18]. In addition, organic amendments may act as disease-suppressive soils, decreasing the incidence or severity of soil-derived plant diseases [18,19,20,21]. Interactions in the soil are complex, and practices related to tillage, fertilization and irrigation regimes alter the soil microbiota and their related functions [22,23]. The soil microbiome can derive benefits, such as those that improve plant growth (PGPR bacteria), biological control, stress resistance or nutrient cycling [24,25], but also disadvantageous such as phytopathogenic activity. The understanding of how different agricultural practices affect the microbial communities informs us towards more sustainable and/or productive crops. The aim of this work was to evaluate the impact of management practices (organic/conventional/no-management) of almond crops on the diversity of their fungal and bacterial communities. These were characterized via metabarcoding sequencing and their total abundances estimated via quantitative PCR (qPCR). We hypothesize that soils under organic management host a richer microbial community, with suppressive characteristics compared to conventional management.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Almond Orchards and Sample Collection

Soil samples were collected in April 2020 from experimental almond plantations established in January 2016 in the Andalusian Institute of Agricultural and Fisheries Research and Training (IFAPA), located in the middle valley of the Guadalquivir River (Seville, southwestern Spain, 37°30′48″ N; 5°57′46″ W) (Figure 1). The soil of the experimental plots were loam soils (43% sand, 26% silt, 31% clay), classified as Entisol group Xerofluvent subgroup Typic: soils formed from recently deposited material with a dry moisture regime (United States NRCS, 2014). We considered two plantations under different farming managements, organic (OM) and conventional (CM), and a non-managed meadow (NM) adjacent to the plantations (Table 1). The plantations were approximately 500 m apart from each other. Plots under OM and CM had drip irrigation water (4760 m3 ha−1 year−1), while the NM plot was rainfed.
Fertilization in the organic plot consisted of the annual application of composed cattle manure (2 kg m−2 year−1) and the use of green cover crops composed of a mixture legume: cereal (Vicia sativa L.: Avena sativa L.; 75%:25%) in 2017 and 2019, alternated with bean cover (Vicia faba L.) in 2016, 2018 and 2020. Cover crops were sowed each year after the first rains in autumn. They were mechanically cut and incorporated into the soil in the following March or April with an orchard tractor. In the CM plot, fertilization consisted of the application of an NPK complex fertilizer (15-15-15, 150 kg ha−1) at flowering each year, there were no cover crops, and tillage was performed once a year, when weeds were treated by applying herbicides. Pests and diseases in the OM and CM plots were treated according to the Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament on organic production and labelling of organic products [26] and with the regulations for integrated production in Andalusia [27], respectively. The non-managed plot consisted of a meadow adjacent to the orchard plots. In each plot, three composite samples were taken in between tree lines. Each composite sample consisted of four soil cores randomly taken with a soil sampler (T-shape handle with metal cylinder of ~4 cm diameter), from the top 20 cm of soil after excluding the first 5 cm. They were immediately frozen at −80 °C at the IFAPA facilities. Homogenized soil was divided into two subsamples, one for the physical–chemical analysis and the other for genetic analysis of the microbial community.

2.2. Analysis of Physical–Chemical Soil Characteristics

Electrical conductivity (EC) and pH of the soil were measured in a 1:2.5 soil/water extract, using a conductivity/pH meter (Hanna Instruments, HI5521). Total N concentration was determined by Kjeldahl digestion [28], and the percentage of organic matter by potassium dichromate oxidation using the Walkley and Black method, modified by Jackson [29]. Available P was measured using the Olsen method [30]. Differences of physical-chemical measurements between managements were evaluated with ANOVA, followed by Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) tests at α = 0.05. Statistics were carried in Statistix 9.1 (http://www.statistix.com/; accessed on 14 March 2021).

2.3. Extraction and Quantification of Soil DNA

Prior to nucleic acid extraction, the soils were thoroughly mixed and three 250-mg aliquots of each soil sample were selected for DNA extraction. DNA was isolated using the DNeasy PowerSoil DNA isolation Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), following the manufacturer’s instructions. An extraction blank to check for cross-contamination was included. DNA was quantified using the Qubit High Sensitivity dsDNA Assay (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Total DNA yield was calculated relative to grams of soil used for DNA extraction.

2.4. Real-Time PCR Quantification of Bacteria and Fungi

Quantitative real-time PCR reactions were performed in triplicate for each soil sample in 96-well plates using a CFX Connect thermocycler (Bio-Rad, Waltham, MA, USA). Reactions were performed in a total volume of 25 μL and contained 1× SensiFAST SYBR No-ROX mix (Bioline, Waltham, MA, USA), 0.1 mg/mL bovine serum albumin (BSA, Waltham, MA, USA), 0.1 μM each fungal or bacterial primer, and 10–65 ng of DNA template (~5 μL of DNA extracts, 2–13 ng/μL). Amplification of fungal ITS2 rRNA region was performed with primers ITS3/KY02 (5′-GATGAAGAACGYAGYRAA-3′) [31] and ITS4 (5′-TCCTCCGCTTATTGATATGC-3′) [32] to obtain amplicons of around 300 bp. For amplification of 16 S rRNA bacterial genes, primers Eub338 (5′-ACTCCTACGGGAGGCAGCAG-3′) [33] and Eub518 (5′-ATTACCGCGGCTGCTGG-3′) [34] were used to render amplicons with an average length of 180 bp. Amplifications were carried out at 95 °C for 10 min, followed by 40 cycles of 95 °C for 20 s, 55 °C (for bacteria) or 47 °C (for fungi) for 20 s, and 72 °C for 20 s. Melting curves (55 to 95 °C) were included for each run to verify the specificity of the amplifications. For quantification, standard curves were developed using ten-fold serial dilutions (1 ng to 0.1 fg) of genomic DNA extracted from soil bacterial (Mesorhizobium sp.) and fungal (Fusarium solani) pure cultures. Standards curves were included in the qPCR runs in triplicate. Relative ITS and 16 S copy numbers were estimated with the CFX Connect software (Bio-Rad) and relativized to grams of soil in the DNA extraction. Differences of ITS or 16 S between managements was evaluated with ANOVA, followed by Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (LSD) tests at α = 0.05.

2.5. DNA Metabarcoding Library Preparation and Sequencing

For fungi, the complete fungal ITS2 region of around 300 bp was amplified using the primers ITS3/KY02 and ITS4. For bacteria, a fragment of the 16 S rRNA region of around 300 bp was amplified using the primers 515 F (5′-GTGYCAGCMGCCGCGGTAA-3′) [35] and 806 R (5′-GGACTACNVGGGTWTCTAAT-3′) [36]. These primers had attached tails complementary to Illumina adapters to their 5′ ends.
Locus specific PCRs were carried out in a final volume of 25 μL, containing 5–33 ng of template DNA, 0.5 μM of the primers, 6.5 μL of Supreme NZYTaq 2× Green Master Mix (NZYTech, Lisboa, Portugal), and ultrapure water up to 25 μL. The reaction mixture was incubated as follows: an initial denaturation at 95 °C for 5 min, followed by 25 cycles of 95 °C for 30 s, 46 °C for 45 s, 72 °C for 45 s, and a final extension step at 72 °C for 7 min. Oligonucleotide indices with unique barcodes were ligated in a second PCR with identical conditions but only 5 cycles and 60 °C as the annealing temperature. All PCRs included negative controls with water instead of DNA templates. The PCR products were run on a 2% agarose gel stained with GreenSafe (NZYTech), and imaged under UV light to verify the library size.
Libraries were purified using the Mag-Bind RxnPure Plus magnetic beads (Omega Biotek, Beijing, China). Then, they were pooled in equimolar amounts according to the quantification in the Qubit dsDNA HS Assay (Thermo Fisher Scientific). The pool was sequenced in the MiSeq PE300 (Illumina, Waltham, MA, USA) at the AllGenetics and Biology S.L facilities (La Coruña, Spain).

2.6. Processing of Sequencing Data

Paired-end raw forward (R1) and reverse (R2) FASTQ reads were demultiplexed by sample. Indices and sequencing primers were trimmed during the demultiplexing step, and the quality of the FASTQ files was checked with FastQC (bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/; accessed on 1 February 2022). Amplicon reads were processed using QIIME2 (release 2020.8) [37].
DADA2 [38], implemented in QIIME2, was used to trim PCR primers, filter low-quality reads, determine amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) using a denoising algorithm, merge paired reads, and remove chimeric sequences. An OTU-like table with the number of times that each ASV was observed in each sample was generated. The taxonomy was assigned to ASVs using the UNITE reference database [39] for fungi and a pre-trained classifier of the SILVA reference database [40] for bacteria, both using the feature-classifier classify-sklearn approach implemented in QIIME2 [41]. We excluded the following ASVs: singletons, ASVs occurring at a frequency below 0.01%, unassigned sequences, eukaryotic sequences from chloroplast and mitochondrial origin, and sequences assigned only at the kingdom level for fungi. A Biological Observation Matrix file was obtained and imported into R 4.2.1 [42] using the package phyloseq 1.24.2 [43] for further analysis and plotting.

2.7. Microbial Diversity: Alpha and Beta Diversity

To explore the most frequent taxa in the biological matrix, ASVs were agglomerated by taxonomic ranks to generate relative abundance plots and tables. Before comparing alpha diversity between treatments, the read count for each sample was rarefied to the same number of sequences: 67,200 for bacteria and 34,800 for fungi. Alpha diversity was calculated over the rarefied matrix by reporting Shannon entropy, and the number of observed ASVs using QIIME 2. Kruskal–Wallis tests were used to assess differences between management practices on the Shannon index.
Differences in community composition (i.e., Beta diversity) among soil types were evaluated by using the Bray–Curtis distance to generate a dissimilarity matrix. Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) was run on the dissimilarity matrix to visualize community differences using phyloseq::ordinate in R. Non-parametric permutational multivariate analyses of variance (PERMANOVA) with 999 random permutations was performed to quantify the effect of soil treatments in community composition using vegan::adonis in R [44].
A Venn diagram was performed to show the exclusive and shared fungal and bacterial genera between managements using the package ggVennDiagram [45].

2.8. Linear Discriminant Analysis Effect Size (LEfSe)

LEfSe algorithm [46] was used to identify statistical and biologically significant taxa, at genus level or above, associated with any of the three treatments: organic, conventional, and without management. Analyses were performed in the Galaxy server (http://huttenhower.sph.harvard.edu/galaxy/; accessed on 20 June 2022) [47]. LEfSe results were filtered with a custom script to remove unnamed taxa. The threshold for the logarithmic Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) score was set at 3.0 and the Wilcoxon p-value at 0.05. We represented significant LDA scores in bar plots.

2.9. Functional Analysis of the Fungal Communities

Fungal ASVs were classified into functional groups based on their taxonomic assignment using the software FUNGuild [48] and its community-annotated database. As a result, fungal functional groups were classified into “guilds” with three confidence ranks (possible, probable, and highly probable). The ASVs that ended up without functional assignment were classified as ‘unmatched’. Only guilds considered as ‘probable’ and ‘highly probable’ were considered. To facilitate the interpretation of the results, from the final 38 guilds detected, those containing the words “Saprotroph” and “Animal” were merged into “Saprotroph” and “Animal related”, respectively, ending up in a total of seven different guilds.

3. Results

The sequencing depth for ITS and 16 S libraries averaged 70,296 reads (standard deviation, s.d.: 10,033) and 103,831 (s.d.: 12,637), respectively (Table S1). After the denoising and filtering steps, a total of 1158 fungal and 5878 bacterial ASVs were determined.

3.1. Physical–Chemical Soil Characteristics

Soil pH was slightly higher and electrical conductivity (EC) notably higher in NM soils than in CM and OM soils, which showed very similar pH and EC values between them. The percentage of organic material was higher in NM and OM soils than in CM soils. Nitrogen was similar across soils. Conversely, CM soils contained 2-fold the content of phosphorous than OM soils and 4-fold than NM soils (Table 2).

3.2. Quantification of Bacteria and Fungi by qPCR

Fungi were significantly more abundant in organically managed (OM) soils than in soils under conventional management (CM). In non-managed soils (NM) a lower presence of bacteria and fungi were detected compared with OM soils, although the differences were only significant in the case of fungi. Soils under organic management had a higher fungi:bacteria ratio than CM or NM soils (Figure 2).

3.3. Alpha Diversity

There was no evidence of soil management affecting alpha diversity. Rarefaction curves on ITS and 16 S depict diversity saturates after around 10,000 reads, confirming that sequencing depth was enough for measuring diversity (Figure S1). Rarefied features per sample varied between 153 and 307 ASVs for fungi and 1133 and 1998 for bacteria (Table 3). Statistics on Shannon entropy supported an homogenous diversity across samples: bacterial, H(2) σhannon = 3.8, p = 0.15; fungi, H(2) σhannon = 0.27, p = 0.88.
For fungi, Ascomycota (72%) and Basidiomycota (17%) accounted for about 90% of fungi detected. Ascomycota was the dominant fungal phyla, with mean percentages of 84, 73 and 59% in CM, OM and NM soils, respectively. Basidiomycota were more abundant in NM soils (28%) than in CM (10%) and OM (13%) soils. Glomeromycota (8%) had the highest frequency in NM soils and Mortierellomycota (13%) were most abundant in OM soils (Figure 3A). The five most abundant phyla in bacteria accounted for around 78% of the total 16S reads. Proteobacteria (26%) was the dominant bacterial phylum across soils, followed by Acidobacteriota (18%), Bacteroidota (12%), Gemmatimonadota (11%), and Actinobacteriota (11%) (Figure 3D). At the family level, Cladosporiaceae was the most abundant fungal family in CM (23%), Nectriaceae in OM (31%) and Chaetomiaceae in NM soils (13%) (Figure 3C). In bacteria, Gemmatimonadaceae was the most abundant in CM (8%) and NM (7%), whereas Xanthomonadaceae (7%) was the most abundant under OM (Figure 3F). No bacterial genus dominated in relative frequency above 5% in the community. Fusarium (30%) predominated in OM orchards, while Cladosporium (23%) and Chaetomium (9%) predominated in CM and NM soils, respectively (Tables S2 and S3).
A total of 59 fungal and 151 bacterial genera were shared among soils under different managements, whereas 41 fungal and 42 bacterial genera were exclusive to OM soil, 30 fungal and 49 bacterial genera were specific to CM soil, and 32 fungal and 22 bacterial genera were only detected in NM soil (Figure S2).

3.4. Beta Diversity

Soil samples under the same management regime had similar fungal and bacterial communities (Figure 4). However, significant shifts in community structure between management were observed: 59% (p = 0.0038) and 63% (p = 0.0025) of the variation in the PERMANOVA test for the fungal and bacterial community compositions, respectively (Figure 4). In the MDS analysis, dimensions 1 and 2 accumulated 38.5% and 21.0% of the variance for fungi, and 41.3% and 24.5% of the variance for bacteria. Samples under the same management clustered together (Figure 4).

3.5. Taxonomic Groups Associated to Management Practices

We detected multiple bacterial and fungal groups characterizing soils from each management after the LEfSe analysis. Among the top groups in soils under OM were fungi from Sordariomycetes, Hypocreales, Fusarium and Nectriaceae, and bacteria belonging to Actinobacteria, Micrococcales and Flavobacteriales. For NM soils, fungi from Glomeromycota and bacteria from Acidobacteriota stood out, and especially Vicinamibacteria. Lastly, for CM soils, fungi from Capnodiales and Cladosporium, and bacteria from Gemmatimonadota, Firmicutes and Bacilli, heavily characterized their communities (Figure 5).
Regarding target potential pathogenic fungi, Cylindrocarpon had a moderate average abundance of 6% of reads in soils under CM, while it was not present in OM and NM plots. Macrophomina was nearly absent across all the samples, whereas Fusarium reached high abundances, up to 30 % in OM soils, 9% in CM and 4% in NM (Figure 6).

3.6. Functional Analyses of Fungi Guilds

Saprotrophs were the most abundant functional groups overall: they made up to 72% of the relative abundance in soils under OM. Plant pathogens were around 4–8 times more frequent in CM (45%) than under NM (11%) or OM (6%). The third and fourth ranked functional groups included fungi with potential symbiotic activity, classified as “Arbuscular Mycorrhizal” and “Endophyte”. Arbuscular mycorrhizal taxa were in low frequency in CM (6%) and OM (0%), but a maximal representation under NM (34%) (Figure 7).

4. Discussion

The intensification of agriculture in recent decades has had adverse impacts on ecosystems and human health [49,50]. This work was carried out to characterize soil fungal and bacterial communities in almond crops under different managements: organic (animal manure plus green covers incorporated in the soil with tillage), conventional (inorganic fertilizers plus tillage) and no management.
Alpha diversity was not lower in soils under conventional practices compared to organic management. Both richness and Shannon entropy varied within a narrow range between samples across the different managements (Table 3). This was contrary to our expectations and a handful of studies [16,17,18]. However, more extensive metabarcoding studies contrasting organic versus conventional management point to them having similar levels of microbial diversity for both fungi and bacteria, the differences between management practices being reflected in the community structure [12,25]. We do report around 60% of the variation in the community composition due to management for both fungi and bacteria (Figure 4). These differences are probably related to tillage and use of inorganic versus organic fertilizers, and their effect on the physical structure of the soil, nutrient input, and mineralization processes. Organic matter is often higher in non-tillage soils, as tillage increases the exposure of organic matter that is physically protected in microaggregates to biodegradation [51,52]. Indeed, physical–chemical analysis of our samples revealed the lowest organic content under CM, together with the highest phosphorus, probably derived from inorganic fertilizers. Despite larger amounts of organic matter being incorporated in OM soils through the tillage of green cover plus animal manure, the largest values of organic matter were found in non-tillage NM soils. No tillage can also increase nutrient retention in sandy loam soils [53], and multiple studies also confirm a higher organic matter content in organic farming than in conventionally managed systems [54,55,56]. As we show, this can have an impact on the microbial communities, as they have been demonstrated to respond differently to organic and inorganic fertilization [25] and tillage management [57].
Microbial DNA copies and fungal:bacteria ratios were higher in OM soils than in CM or NM soils. This agrees with some studies that state that conventional management, through the use of chemical fertilizers, generally reduces the fungal to bacterial ratio compared with organic fertilization [25,58,59]. Organic material and arbuscular mycorrhiza were more abundant in NM soils. No tillage has been reported as more beneficial for the development of rhizosphere fungi when compared with conventional tillage [60]. In our assay, OM soils were subjected to tillage only for the incorporation of the green cover to the soil to increase its fertility. However, the use of the cover as no-till mulching could be a desirable practice in the organic management of almond cultivation, not only for the preservation of potentially beneficial rhizosphere microorganisms, the reduction of the erosion processes and the increase of soil organic matter content in unplowed soils [57,61], but also for the benefits of mulching: conservation of the soil moisture, control of soil erosion, suppression of weeds and removal of the residual effects of pesticides, fertilizers, and heavy metals [62].
We identified multiple groups of bacteria in OM soils that have been associated in the literature with suppressive soils: orders Sphingobacteriales and Flavobacteriales, and the genus Flavobacterium [18] (Figure 5). OM also had associated a greater abundance of fungi from Hypocreales, in which is placed the genus Trichoderma. This group has a wide variety of antagonistic proprieties against fungi [63]. We report the greatest pathogenic fungi under CM and minimal under OM (Figure 7). A special focus on targeting pathogenic fungi known to affect almond crops revealed that Cylindrocarpon was most abundant in CM soils, while Fusarium was most abundant in soils under OM (Figure 6). Cylindrocarpon species can cause important diseases to woody crops, including almonds [64], the soil being an important source of inoculum for Cylindrocarpon pathogens [65,66,67]. On the other hand, several Fusarium species have been reported pathogenic for almonds: Fusarium euwallaceae, a beetle-borne vascular pathogen, causes Fusarium dieback in almonds in California [68]. The species F. acuminatum, F. avenaceum, F. brachygibbosum, and F. californicum are the causal agents of canker disease in cold-storage bare-root propagated stone fruit and nut trees in California, with diverse potential sources of inoculum throughout the nursery management process [69,70]. However, many soil-borne Fusarium strains are nonpathogenic saprotrophs [71] or act as biological control agents [72]. These results are in line with the use of organic amendments to enhance the suppressiveness of soils to control soil-borne plant pathogens [20,73,74].

5. Conclusions

Overall, this work highlights the importance of a transition from conventional to organic farming as a sustainable approach in almond cultivation, especially given a climate change scenario in which an increase in the relative abundance of soil-borne pathogens is expected with warming on a global scale [75]. Transformation from conventional to organic systems can initially affect the yield of the organic almond crop, although the differences with the conventional system are reduced over time [76]. The high added value of organic almonds, together with the growing demand for environmentally friendly practices and food safety, are additional reasons to promote the implementation or transition to organic farming in almond cultivation.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/10.3390/jof9010095/s1, Table S1: Reads across the bioinformatics workflow; Table S2: Relative abundance of fungi by taxonomic rank; Table S3: Relative abundance of bacteria by taxonomic rank; Figure S1: Rarefaction curves; Figure S2: Venn diagram with shared and exclude genera.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.C.; methodology, M.C.-S., J.F.H., F.T.A. and N.C.; formal analysis, M.C.-S., J.F.H. and N.C.; investigation, M.C.-S., J.F.H., F.T.A. and N.C.; resources, N.C.; data curation, M.C.-S. and N.C.; writing—original draft preparation, N.C. and M.C.-S.; writing—review and editing, M.C.-S., J.F.H., F.T.A. and N.C.; visualization, M.C.-S.; supervision, N.C.; project administration, N.C.; funding acquisition, N.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the “Operational Program Smart Growth” from the National Institute for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology (INIA) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) 2014–2020 (grant number: RTA2017-00009-C04-03), and by the Andalusian Institute of Agricultural and Fisheries Research and Training (IFAPA), grant number AVA.AVA2019.051.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Raw FASTQ files and assembled sequences have been deposited in the NCBI under the BioProject PRJNA884175, with the accessions KFWT00000000 for fungal ITS2 data and KFWS00000000 for bacterial 16 S rRNA. Code and phyloseq objects with data were deposited in https://github.com/csmiguel/almond_organic (10.5281/zenodo.7515388, accessed on 14 March 2021).

Acknowledgments

DNA metabarcoding sequencing and part of the analysis were carried out by AllGenetics and Biology SL (www.allgenetics.eu, accessed on 14 March 2021; La Coruña, Spain). MC-S has a postdoctoral contract from the Plan Andaluz de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación (PAIDI 2020).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Iglesias, I.; Foles, P.; Oliveira, C.M. El cultivo del almendro en España y Portugal: Situación, innovación tecnológica, costes, rentabilidad y perspectivas. Rev. Frutic. 2021, 81, 6–49. [Google Scholar]
  2. Gulsoy, E.; Tarhan, A.; Izol, E.; Cokran, B.D.; Simsek, M. A research on the chemical, mineral and fatty acid compositions of two almond cultivars grown as organic and conventional in southeastern turkey. Grasas Y Aceites 2022, 73, e477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sánchez-Bel, P.; Egea, I.; Martínez-Madrid, M.C.; Flores, B.; Romojaro, F. Influence of irrigation and organic/inorganic fertilization on chemical quality of almond (Prunus amygdalus cv. guara). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 10056–10062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Casanova Gascón, J. El cultivo del almendro en agricultura ecológica. Vida Rural. 2003, 165, 57–60. [Google Scholar]
  5. Rigby, D.; Cáceres, D. Organic farming and the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agric. Syst. 2001, 68, 21–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Koudahe, K.; Allen, S.C.; Djaman, K. Critical review of the impact of cover crops on soil properties. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2022, 10, 343–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Singh, T.B.; Ali, A.; Prasad, M.; Yadav, A.; Shrivastav, P.; Goyal, D.; Dantu, P.K. Role of organic fertilizers in improving soil fertility. In Contaminants in Agriculture: Sources, Impacts and Management; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 61–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chen, X.; Zhang, D.; Li, X.; Li, X.; Lou, J.; Wei, M. Effect of vegetable residues incorporation on soil fertility, rhizosphere microbial community structure, and plant growth of continuously cropped cucumber in a solar greenhouse. Ann. Microbiol. 2022, 72, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tao, C.; Li, R.; Xiong, W.; Shen, Z.; Liu, S.; Wang, B.; Ruan, Y.; Geisen, S.; Shen, Q.; Kowalchuk, G.A. Bio-organic fertilizers stimulate indigenous soil pseudomonas populations to enhance plant disease suppression. Microbiome 2020, 8, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Acharya, M.; Ashworth, A.J.; Yang, Y.; Burke, J.M.; Lee, J.A.; Acharya, R.S. Soil microbial diversity in organic and non-organic pasture systems. PeerJ 2021, 9, e11184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Peltoniemi, K.; Velmala, S.; Fritze, H.; Lemola, R.; Pennanen, T. Long-term impacts of organic and conventional farming on the soil microbiome in boreal arable soil. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2021, 104, 103314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. van Rijssel, S.Q.; Veen, G.F.; Koorneef, G.J.; Bakx-Schotman, J.M.T.; ten Hooven, F.C.; Geisen, S.; van der Putten, W.H. Soil microbial diversity and community composition during conversion from conventional to organic agriculture. Mol. Ecol. 2022, 31, 4017–4030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Dong, N.; Hu, G.; Zhang, Y.; Qi, J.; Chen, Y.; Hao, Y. Effects of green-manure and tillage management on soil microbial community composition, nutrients and tree growth in a walnut orchard. Sci. Reports 2021, 11, 16882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Asghar, W.; Kataoka, R. Green manure incorporation accelerates enzyme activity, plant growth, and changes in the fungal community of soil. Arch. Microbiol. 2021, 204, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. LeBlanc, N. Green manures alter taxonomic and functional characteristics of soil bacterial communities. Microb. Ecol. 2022, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Lori, M.; Armengot, L.; Schneider, M.; Schneidewind, U.; Bodenhausen, N.; Mäder, P.; Krause, H.M. Organic management enhances soil quality and drives microbial community diversity in cocoa production systems. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 834, 155223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lori, M.; Symnaczik, S.; Mäder, P.; De Deyn, G.; Gattinger, A. Organic farming enhances soil microbial abundance and activity—A meta-analysis and meta-regression. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0180442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Lutz, S.; Thuerig, B.; Oberhaensli, T.; Mayerhofer, J.; Fuchs, J.G.; Widmer, F.; Freimoser, F.M.; Ahrens, C.H. Harnessing the microbiomes of suppressive composts for plant protection: From metagenomes to beneficial microorganisms and reliable diagnostics. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ando, S.; Kasahara, M.; Mitomi, N.; Schermer, T.A.; Sato, E.; Yoshida, S.; Tsushima, S.; Miyashita, S.; Takahashi, H. Suppression of rice seedling rot caused by Burkholderia glumae in nursery soils using culturable bacterial communities from organic farming systems. J. Plant Pathol. 2022, 104, 605–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bonanomi, G.; Zotti, M.; Idbella, M.; Cesarano, G.; Al-Rowaily, S.L.; Abd-ElGawad, A.M. Mixtures of organic amendments and biochar promote beneficial soil microbiota and affect Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lactucae, Rhizoctonia solani and Sclerotinia minor disease suppression. Plant Pathol. 2022, 71, 818–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Silva, J.C.P.; Nunes, T.C.S.; Guimarães, R.A.; Pylro, V.S.; Costa, L.S.A.S.; Zaia, R.; Campos, V.P.; Medeiros, F.H.V. Organic practices intensify the microbiome assembly and suppress root-knot nematodes. J. Pest Sci. 2021, 95, 709–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cerecetto, V.; Smalla, K.; Nesme, J.; Garaycochea, S.; Fresia, P.; Sørensen, S.J.; Babin, D.; Leoni, C. Reduced tillage, cover crops and organic amendments affect soil microbiota and improve soil health in uruguayan vegetable farming systems. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2021, 97, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Casacchia, T.; Briccoli Bati, C.; Sofo, A.; Dichio, B.; Motta, F.; Xiloyannis, C. Long-term consequences of tillage, organic amendments, residue management and localized irrigation on selected soil micro-flora groups in a mediterranean apricot orchard. Acta Hortic. 2010, 862, 447–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Xiong, C.; Lu, Y. Microbiomes in agroecosystem: Diversity, function and assembly mechanisms. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 2022, 14, 833–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Hartman, K.; van der Heijden, M.G.A.; Wittwer, R.A.; Banerjee, S.; Walser, J.C.; Schlaeppi, K. Cropping practices manipulate abundance patterns of root and soil microbiome members paving the way to smart farming. Microbiome 2018, 6, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. OJEU. Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018. Off. J. Eur. Union 2018, 1–92. [Google Scholar]
  27. BOJA. ORDEN de 20 de marzo de 2012, Reglamento específico de producción integrada de almendro. Boletín Of. Junta Andal. 2012, 62. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hesse, P.R. Total nitrogen. the kjeldahl process. In A Textbook of Soil Chemical Analysis; John Murray: London, UK, 1971; Volume 8, p. 520. [Google Scholar]
  29. Jackson, M.L. Soil Chemical Analysis Englewood Cliffs; Prentice Hall Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1958; Volume 85, pp. 251–252. [Google Scholar]
  30. Olsen, S.R. Estimation of Available Phosphorus in Soils by Extraction with Sodium Bicarbonate; US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1954. [Google Scholar]
  31. Toju, H.; Tanabe, A.S.; Yamamoto, S.; Sato, H. High-coverage its primers for the DNA-based identification of ascomycetes and basidiomycetes in environmental samples. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e40863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. White, T.J.; Bruns, T.; Lee, S.; Taylor, J. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal rna genes for phylogenetics. In PCR Protocols: A Guide to Methods and Applications; Academic Press, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1990; Volume 18, pp. 315–322. [Google Scholar]
  33. Lane, D.J. 1 16S/23s rrna sequencing. Nucleic acid Tech. Bact. Syst. 1991, 115–175. [Google Scholar]
  34. Muyzer, G.; De Waal, E.C.; Uitterlinden, A.G. Profiling of complex microbial populations by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of polymerase chain reaction-amplified genes coding for 16s rrna. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1993, 59, 695–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Parada, A.E.; Needham, D.M.; Fuhrman, J.A. Every base matters: Assessing small subunit rrna primers for marine microbiomes with mock communities, time series and global field samples. Environ. Microbiol. 2016, 18, 1403–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Apprill, A.; Mcnally, S.; Parsons, R.; Weber, L. Minor revision to V4 region SSU rRNA 806r gene primer greatly increases detection of SAR11 bacterioplankton. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 2015, 75, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Bolyen, E.; Rideout, J.R.; Dillon, M.R.; Bokulich, N.A.; Abnet, C.C.; Al-Ghalith, G.A.; Alexander, H.; Alm, E.J.; Arumugam, M.; Asnicar, F.; et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol. 2019, 37, 852–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Callahan, B.J.; McMurdie, P.J.; Rosen, M.J.; Han, A.W.; Johnson, A.J.A.; Holmes, S.P. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 2016, 13, 581–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Nilsson, R.H.; Larsson, K.H.; Taylor, A.F.S.; Bengtsson-Palme, J.; Jeppesen, T.S.; Schigel, D.; Kennedy, P.; Picard, K.; Glöckner, F.O.; Tedersoo, L.; et al. The unite database for molecular identification of fungi: Handling dark taxa and parallel taxonomic classifications. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019, 47, D259–D264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Quast, C.; Pruesse, E.; Yilmaz, P.; Gerken, J.; Schweer, T.; Yarza, P.; Peplies, J.; Glöckner, F.O. The silva ribosomal rna gene database project: Improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013, 41, D590–D596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Bokulich, N.A.; Kaehler, B.D.; Rideout, J.R.; Dillon, M.; Bolyen, E.; Knight, R.; Huttley, G.A.; Gregory Caporaso, J. Optimizing taxonomic classification of marker-gene amplicon sequences with qiime 2′s q2-feature-classifier plugin. Microbiome 2018, 6, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2022. Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 10 April 2022).
  43. McMurdie, P.J.; Holmes, S. Phyloseq: An r package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e61217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Oksanen, J.; Blanchet, F.G.; Friendly, M.; Kindt, R.; Legendre, P.; McGlinn, D.; Minchin, P.R.; O’Hara, R.B.; Simpson, G.L.; Solymos, P.; et al. Vegan: Community Ecology Package. R Package Version 2.5-6. J. Stat. Softw. 2013, 2, 321–326. [Google Scholar]
  45. Gao, C.H.; Yu, G.; Cai, P. GgVennDiagram: An intuitive, easy-to-use, and highly customizable r package to generate venn diagram. Front. Genet. 2021, 12, 706907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Segata, N.; Izard, J.; Waldron, L.; Gevers, D.; Miropolsky, L.; Garrett, W.S.; Huttenhower, C. Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation. Genome Biol. 2011, 12, R60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Afgan, E.; Baker, D.; Batut, B.; Van Den Beek, M.; Bouvier, D.; Ech, M.; Chilton, J.; Clements, D.; Coraor, N.; Grüning, B.A.; et al. The galaxy platform for accessible, reproducible and collaborative biomedical analyses: 2018 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018, 46, W537–W544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Nguyen, N.H.; Song, Z.; Bates, S.T.; Branco, S.; Tedersoo, L.; Menke, J.; Schilling, J.S.; Kennedy, P.G. FUNGuild: An open annotation tool for parsing fungal community datasets by ecological guild. Fungal Ecol. 2016, 20, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Horrigan, L.; Lawrence, R.S.; Walker, P. How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture. Environ. Health Perspect. 2002, 110, 445–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Kimbrell, A. The Fatal Harvest Reader: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture; Island Press: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  51. St. Luce, M.; Ziadi, N.; Chantigny, M.H.; Braun, J. Long-term effects of tillage and nitrogen fertilization on soil c and n fractions in a corn–soybean rotation. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2022, 102, 277–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Balesdent, J.; Chenu, C.; Balabane, M. Relationship of soil organic matter dynamics to physical protection and tillage. Soil Tillage Res. 2000, 53, 215–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Jiao, Y.; Whalen, J.K.; Hendershot, W.H. No-tillage and manure applications increase aggregation and improve nutrient retention in a sandy-loam soil. Geoderma 2006, 134, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Marriott, E.E.; Wander, M. Qualitative and quantitative differences in particulate organic matter fractions in organic and conventional farming systems. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2006, 38, 1527–1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Stalenga, J.; Kawalec, A. Emission of greenhouse gases and soil organic matter balance in different farming systems. Int. Agrophysics 2008, 22, 287–290. [Google Scholar]
  56. Herencia, J.F.; Ruiz, J.C.; Melero, S.; Garcia Galavís, P.A.; Maqueda, C. A short-term comparison of organic v. conventional agriculture in a silty loam soil using two organic amendments. J. Agric. Sci. 2008, 146, 677–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Man, M.; Tosi, M.; Dunfield, K.E.; Hooker, D.C.; Simpson, M.J. Tillage management exerts stronger controls on soil microbial community structure and organic matter molecular composition than n fertilization. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2022, 336, 108028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Francioli, D.; Schulz, E.; Lentendu, G.; Wubet, T.; Buscot, F.; Reitz, T. Mineral vs. organic amendments: Microbial community structure, activity and abundance of agriculturally relevant microbes are driven by long-term fertilization strategies. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Bebber, D.P.; Richards, V.R. A meta-analysis of the effect of organic and mineral fertilizers on soil microbial diversity. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2022, 175, 104450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Korniłłowicz-Kowalska, T.; Andruszczak, S.; Bohacz, J.; Kraska, P.; Możejko, M.; Kwiecińska-Poppe, E. The effect of tillage and no-tillage system on culturable fungal communities in the rhizosphere and soil of two spelt cultivars. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2022, 174, 104413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bregaglio, S.; Mongiano, G.; Ferrara, R.M.; Ginaldi, F.; Lagomarsino, A.; Rana, G. Which are the most favourable conditions for reducing soil CO2 emissions with no-tillage? results from a meta-analysis. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2022, 10, 497–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Iqbal, R.; Aown, M.; Raza, S.; Valipour, M.; Saleem, M.F.; Zaheer, M.S.; Ahmad, S.; Toleikiene, M.; Haider, I.; Aslam, M.U.; et al. Potential agricultural and environmental benefits of mulches—A review. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent. 2020, 44, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Schmoll, M.; Schuster, A. Biology and biotechnology of Trichoderma. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010, 87, 787–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Capote, N.; Del Río, M.Á.; Herencia, J.F.; Arroyo, F.T. Molecular and pathogenic characterization of Cylindrocarpon-like anamorphs causing root and basal rot of almonds. Plants 2022, 11, 984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Shimoyama, M.; De Pons, J.; Hayman, G.T.; Laulederkind, S.J.F.; Liu, W.; Nigam, R.; Petri, V.; Smith, J.R.; Tutaj, M.; Wang, S.J.; et al. The rat genome database 2015: Genomic, phenotypic and environmental variations and disease. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015, 43, D743–D750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Antón-Domíguez, B.I. Caracterización patogénica de los hongos asociados al decaimiento del almendro en plantaciones jóvenes en Andalucía. Master’s Thesis, University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  67. Agustí-Brisach, C.; Gramaje, D.; García-Jiménez, J.; Armengol, J. Detection of black-foot and petri disease pathogens in soils of grapevine nurseries and vineyards using bait plants. Plant Soil 2013, 364, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Moreno, K.; Carrillo, J.D.; Trouillas, F.P.; Eskalen, A. Almond (Prunus dulcis) is susceptible to Fusarium euwallaceae, a fungal pathogen vectored by the polyphagous shot hole borer in California. Plant Dis. 2017, 102, 251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Stack, A.J.; Madra, M.; Gordon, T.R.; Bostock, R.M. Seasonal variation in host susceptibility to Fusarium canker in young almond trees. Plant Dis. 2020, 104, 772–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Stack, A.J.; Marek, S.M.; Gordon, T.R.; Bostock, R.M. Genetic diversity and potential inoculum sources of fusarium species causing cankers in bareroot-propagated almond trees in california nurseries. Plant Dis. 2022, 106, 1401–1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Edel, V.; Steinberg, C.; Gautheron, N.; Alabouvette, C. Populations of nonpathogenic Fusarium oxysporum associated with roots of four plant species compared to soilborne populations. Phytopathology 1997, 87, 693–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  72. Mulero-Aparecio, A.; Trapero, A.; López-Escudero, F.J. A non-pathogenic strain of Fusarium oxysporum and grape marc compost control verticillium wilt of olive. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 2020, 59, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Bonilla, N.; Vida, C.; Martínez-Alonso, M.; Landa, B.B.; Gaju, N.; Cazorla, F.M.; De Vicente, A. Organic amendments to avocado crops induce suppressiveness and influence the composition and activity of soil microbial communities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2015, 81, 3405–3418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Pane, C.; Sorrentino, R.; Scotti, R.; Molisso, M.; Di Matteo, A.; Celano, G.; Zaccardelli, M. Alpha and beta-diversity of microbial communities associated to plant disease suppressive functions of on-farm green composts. Agriculture 2020, 10, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Delgado-Baquerizo, M.; Guerra, C.A.; Cano-Díaz, C.; Egidi, E.; Wang, J.T.; Eisenhauer, N.; Singh, B.K.; Maestre, F.T. The proportion of soil-borne pathogens increases with warming at the global scale. Nat. Clim. Change 2020, 10, 550–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Arroyo, F.T.; Herencia, J.F.; Capote, N. Phenology, growth, and yield of almond cultivars under organic and conventional management in southwestern spain. Span.J. Agric. Res. 2022, 20, e0901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jof 09 00095 g001 550
Figure 1. Almond plots under organic management with covers of Vicia faba (A) and Vicia sativa:Avena sativa (B), and under conventional management (C).
Figure 1. Almond plots under organic management with covers of Vicia faba (A) and Vicia sativa:Avena sativa (B), and under conventional management (C).
Jof 09 00095 g001
Jof 09 00095 g002 550
Figure 2. Fungal and bacterial abundances in the soil based on qPCR. (A) number of ITS or 16 S copies relative to the soil sample with largest abundance. Letters (a, b) indicate statistically different groups after LSD tests. (B) relative ITS/16 S copy ratio. OM, organic management; CM, conventional management; NM, no management.
Figure 2. Fungal and bacterial abundances in the soil based on qPCR. (A) number of ITS or 16 S copies relative to the soil sample with largest abundance. Letters (a, b) indicate statistically different groups after LSD tests. (B) relative ITS/16 S copy ratio. OM, organic management; CM, conventional management; NM, no management.
Jof 09 00095 g002
Jof 09 00095 g003 550
Figure 3. Alpha diversity. Relative abundance of major taxonomic groups for fungi (A–C) and bacteria (D–F) and across taxonomic ranks: phylum (A,D), order (B,E) and family (C,F). OM, organic management; CM, conventional management; NM, no management.
Figure 3. Alpha diversity. Relative abundance of major taxonomic groups for fungi (A–C) and bacteria (D–F) and across taxonomic ranks: phylum (A,D), order (B,E) and family (C,F). OM, organic management; CM, conventional management; NM, no management.
Jof 09 00095 g003
Jof 09 00095 g004 550
Figure 4. Beta diversity. Dimensions 1 and 2 from an MDS for fungi (A) and bacteria (B) using weighted Bray–Curtis distances. Percentage of explained variance for each dimension is depicted in brackets. OM, organic management; CM, conventional management; NM, no management.
Figure 4. Beta diversity. Dimensions 1 and 2 from an MDS for fungi (A) and bacteria (B) using weighted Bray–Curtis distances. Percentage of explained variance for each dimension is depicted in brackets. OM, organic management; CM, conventional management; NM, no management.
Jof 09 00095 g004
Jof 09 00095 g005 550
Figure 5. LEfSe analysis. The bars, ranked by LDA score, represent the taxa that most contributed to community differences between management practices for (A) fungi and (B) bacteria. Only taxa with an LDA score above 3.0 are depicted. OM, organically managed; CM, conventionally managed; NM, not managed soils.
Figure 5. LEfSe analysis. The bars, ranked by LDA score, represent the taxa that most contributed to community differences between management practices for (A) fungi and (B) bacteria. Only taxa with an LDA score above 3.0 are depicted. OM, organically managed; CM, conventionally managed; NM, not managed soils.
Jof 09 00095 g005
Jof 09 00095 g006 550
Figure 6. Relative abundance of the pathogenic fungi Cylindrocarpon and Fusarium across managements. OM, organic management; CM, conventional management; NM, no management.
Figure 6. Relative abundance of the pathogenic fungi Cylindrocarpon and Fusarium across managements. OM, organic management; CM, conventional management; NM, no management.
Jof 09 00095 g006
Jof 09 00095 g007 550
Figure 7. Relative abundance of fungal guilds according to their function after FUNGuild analysis. OM, organic management; CM, conventional management; NM, no management.
Figure 7. Relative abundance of fungal guilds according to their function after FUNGuild analysis. OM, organic management; CM, conventional management; NM, no management.
Jof 09 00095 g007
Table
Table 1. Management practices of the almond plots used in this study.
Table 1. Management practices of the almond plots used in this study.
ManagementCropFertilizationCoverIrrigationTillage
OrganicAlmondAnimal manure 1Legume/cereal 3Drip irrigation 4Yes
ConventionalAlmondInorganic fertilization 2NoDrip irrigationYes
NoneMeadowNoneNoRain fed irrigationNo
1 Composed beef manure (2 kg m−2 year−1); 2 N-P-K complex fertilizer (15-15-15, 150 kg·ha−1); 3 Vicia sativa L: Avena sativa L (75%: 25%) in 2017 and 2019, alternated with Vicia faba L. in 2018 and 2020; 4 Drip irrigation from March to October by using two pipelines with emitters of 2.3 L h−1.
Table
Table 2. Physical–chemical characteristics of almond crop soils under different managements. OM: organic management; CM: conventional management; NM: No management. Per column, different letters indicate significant differences according to LSD test (p = 0.05).
Table 2. Physical–chemical characteristics of almond crop soils under different managements. OM: organic management; CM: conventional management; NM: No management. Per column, different letters indicate significant differences according to LSD test (p = 0.05).
Sample TypeSoil pHElectrical
Conductivity (mS/cm)		Organic
Material
(%)		Nitrogen
(%)		Phosphorous (ppm)
CM7.65 ± 0.03 b140.75 ± 12.93 b1.06 ± 0.04 c0.07 ± 0.01 a33.98 ± 2.35 a
OM7.66 ± 0.02 b149.41 ± 14.14 b1.43 ± 0.14 b0.09 ± 0.01 a17.68 ± 1.50 b
NM8.28 ± 0.15 a354.93 ± 26.25 a2.13 ± 0.05 a0.08 ± 0.00 a7.98 ± 1.58 c
Table
Table 3. Alpha diversity over rarefied read counts.
Table 3. Alpha diversity over rarefied read counts.
FungiBacteria
Managenet 1ObservedShannon EntropyObservedShannon Entropy
OM153–3074.0–6.01133–19988.6–10.3
CM232–2564.9–5.91862–199710.2–10.3
NM223–2705.1–6.71549–16099.5–9.8
1 OM, organic management; CM, conventional management; NM, no management.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Camacho-Sanchez, M.; Herencia, J.F.; Arroyo, F.T.; Capote, N. Soil Microbial Community Responses to Different Management Strategies in Almond Crop. J. Fungi 2023, 9, 95. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jof9010095

AMA Style

Camacho-Sanchez M, Herencia JF, Arroyo FT, Capote N. Soil Microbial Community Responses to Different Management Strategies in Almond Crop. Journal of Fungi. 2023; 9(1):95. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jof9010095

Chicago/Turabian Style

Camacho-Sanchez, Miguel, Juan F. Herencia, Francisco T. Arroyo, and Nieves Capote. 2023. "Soil Microbial Community Responses to Different Management Strategies in Almond Crop" Journal of Fungi 9, no. 1: 95. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jof9010095

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop