Citation: Milka N. Kiboi, Felix K. Ngetich, Daniel N. Mugendi. Nitrogen budgets and flows in African smallholder farming systems[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(2): 429-446. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.2.429
| [1] | Maurizio Quartieri, Elena Baldi, Giovambattista Sorrenti, Graziella Marcolini, Moreno Toselli . Effect of agro-industry by-product on soil fertility, tree performances and fruit quality in pear (Pyrus communis L.). AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2016, 1(1): 20-32. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2016.1.20 |
| [2] | Gregorio Gullo, Antonio Dattola, Vincenzo Vonella, Rocco Zappia . Performance of the Brasiliano 92 orange cultivar with six trifoliate rootstocks. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(1): 203-215. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021013 |
| [3] | Ilenia Tinebra, Roberta Passafiume, Alessandra Culmone, Eristanna Palazzolo, Giuliana Garofalo, Vincenzo Naselli, Antonio Alfonzo, Raimondo Gaglio, Vittorio Farina . Boosting post-harvest quality of 'Coscia' pears: Antioxidant-enriched coating and MAP storage. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2024, 9(4): 1151-1172. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2024060 |
| [4] | María Cristina García-Muñoz, Martha Patricia Tarazona Diaz, Andrea Carolina Duarte Morales . Treatment effects on the quality and shelf life of the cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.) Corpoica Andina. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2024, 9(3): 887-903. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2024048 |
| [5] | Supriyono Loekito, Afandi, Auliana Afandi, Naomasa Nishimura, Hiroyuki Koyama, Masateru Senge . Gypsum supplies calcium to Ultisol soil and its effect on Phytophthora nicotianae, pineapple (Ananas comosus) growth, yield and fruit quality in lower single row bed under climate change issue. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2022, 7(3): 721-736. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2022044 |
| [6] | Yenni, Mohd Hafiz Ibrahim, Rosimah Nulit, Siti Zaharah Sakimin . Influence of drought stress on growth, biochemical changes and leaf gas exchange of strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.) in Indonesia. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2022, 7(1): 37-60. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2022003 |
| [7] | W. Mupangwa, I. Nyagumbo, E. Mutsamba . Effect of different mulching materials on maize growth and yield in conservation agriculture systems of sub-humid Zimbabwe. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2016, 1(2): 239-253. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2016.2.239 |
| [8] | Diana N. Sholehah, Sucipto Hariyanto, Hery Purnobasuki . Effect of salinity on growth, physiology, and production of groundcherry (Physalis angulata L.). AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2022, 7(4): 750-761. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2022046 |
| [9] | Nicholas Mawira Gitonga, Gilbert Koskey, Ezekiel Mugendi Njeru, John M. Maingi, Richard Cheruiyot . Dual inoculation of soybean with Rhizophagus irregularis and commercial Bradyrhizobium japonicum increases nitrogen fixation and growth in organic and conventional soils. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(2): 478-495. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021028 |
| [10] | Sonia Maria Lima Santos do Vale, Amauri Siviero, Lauro Saraiva Lessa, Eduardo Pacca Luna Mattar, Paulo Arthur Almeida do Vale . Biotechnological potential of endophytic bacteria of bamboo Guadua sp. for promotion of growth of micropropagated yam plants (Dioscorea rotundata Poir). AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(4): 850-867. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.4.850 |
Brown spot (Stemphylium vesicarium) is a fungal disease widespread in the main European pear-growing areas. Firstly recorded in Italy in 1975 [1], it was subsequently reported in Spain and France [2,3], then in Belgium, The Netherland and Portugal [4,5,6,7]. Brown spot is included among the most important pear diseases, with high economic impact for pear growers, as fruits with symptoms are not marketable [8].
The causal agent is the Ascomycete Pleospora allii (Rabenh.) Ces. and De Not., as teleomorph form, even though the fungus is better known under its anamorphic form of S. vesicarium (Wallr.) E. Simmons, which can affect other cultivated species such as garlic and onion [9], tomato [10], asparagus [11] and mango [12].
Symptoms on pear trees usually appear in late spring and consist of necrotic lesions on leaves, fruits and shoots, as a consequence of specific toxins [13] and to the accumulation of phenolic compounds, lignin polymers, etc. [14]. Young leaves are more susceptible than mature ones and fruit susceptibility decreases throughout the season [15]. Symptoms on fruitlets are commonly located on the calyx and/or in the equatorial zone and these may progress to rot, due the secondary colonization by saprophytic fungi such as Alternaria spp. Severe infections may induce a rapid defoliation and fruit drop [8].
Many factors affect the disease development, including environmental conditions (e.g., air temperature and humidity, orchard inoculum level), grafting combination, cultural practices (e.g., irrigation, fertilization, floor management), use of net shelter against hailstorm. Among European pear, Abbè Fétel, Bosc, Conference, Comice, General Leclerc, Passe Crassane and Rocha varieties are extremely susceptible, whereas Williams, Blanquilla, Beurre Hardy, Ercolini, Grand Champion and Louis Bonne are moderate or not susceptible [3,15,16]. The different variety susceptibility is mainly due to the synthesis of host-specific toxins (i.e., SV-toxins Ⅰ and Ⅱ), responsible of plasma membrane disorders [13]. The high and low susceptibility of the varieties Rocha and Ercolini to S. vesicarium infection was related to the late and fast activation of defence mechanisms, respectively [17,18].
Plant water status and mineral composition play an important role in the interaction between pathogen and tree [19,20]. For instance, altering the tissue water status may trigger plant defence strategy against pathogens. Indeed, dehydration of the infection site is the most used mechanism by plants to hinder the bacterial growth. Similarly, reducing intracellular water content, plants limit cell functions, forcing pathogens to adapt to new conditions [19,21,22]. Abd-Elmagid and co-authors [23] concluded that the virulence of S. sclerotiorum and S. minor in peanut was affected by fungus isolates, osmotic and water potential, highlighting the importance of the plant water balance to improve disease control. Diseases susceptibility increases if plant nutritional status deviates from the optimum [20,24]. Nutrients are involved in most of the active defence mechanisms, and calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg) and silicon (Si) are important for structural integrity of cell walls, thereby enhancing resistance to fungal (i.e., Rhizoctonia solani and Fusarium solani) and bacterial (Erwinia spp., etc.) enzymatic degradation [20,25].
In Italian pear industry, brown spot is one of the major threat, because of the variety susceptibility and the climatic conditions. The control of the disease requires a high numbers (15–25) of treatments that reduce holdings environmental and economic (the loss of yield can account for as much as 50%) sustainability [8]. In addition, in organic farming, copper-based fungicides are the only allowed, with heavy metal accumulation in the ecosystem. Pear growers generally control brown spot by chemical sprays of fungicides (e.g., dithiocarbamates, captan, iprodione, phosphites, tebuconazole, strobilurins, fludioxonil and SDHIs) generally as a preventive strategy. Curative fungicides, in fact, are ineffective because the inhibition of conidia germination occurs after the release of the fungal toxins [8], but recently some antimicrobial peptides (e.g., BP15, BP22, and BP25) showed a post-infection activity against S. vesicarium of pear [26]. Despite the high number of sprays, the effectiveness of the fungicides could be unsatisfactory and the high number of applications can promote the appearance of S. vesicarium strains with fungicide resistance, as found for dicarboximide and strobilurins [27,28]. The massive use of chemical forces the European Union to enact regulations towards a meaningful reduction of pesticides use [29], promoting at the same time the development of alternative defence strategies. To decrease the inoculum pressure, alternative and complementary measures, as part of integrated orchard management strategy have been developed and proposed to improve the orchard sanitation, including removal leaf litter [30]. Irrigation and fertilization are agronomic practices that allow growers to manipulate tree water and osmotic potential as well as mineral composition of plant tissues [19,25,31]. Enhancing Ca tissue concentration increases the synthesis of defence-related compounds (e.g., phytoalexin and phenolics substances), as observed in table grape and apple [32,33]. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that Ca can reduce pathogen severity caused by several fungi and bacteria in different species, including Botrytis cinerea in sweet cherries [34], brown rot in peach caused by Monilinia fructicola [35], fire blight and brown spot in pear [36,37]. Soil-applied CaCl2 solution decreased the leaf susceptibility to brown spot because, along with leaf Ca, it increased also soil salinity and induced a water stress. As a result, brown spot symptoms were positively related to stem water potential and negatively to leaf Ca concentration [36].
Disease resistance in plants is associated with the activation of defense responses including the induction of defense-related enzymes, such as phenylalanine ammonia lyase (PAL), peroxidase (POD), polyphenol oxidase (PPO), lipoxygenase, superoxide dismutase and β-1, 3-glucanase that are activated upon pathogen infection, in many fruits [38] including pear [39]. Pear fruit (P. pyrifolia L.) treated with calcium chloride, as an elicitor, showed an increase of these defense-related enzyme activities (i.e., β-1, 3-glucanase, PAL, POD and PPO), with a reduction of the disease incidence caused by Alternaria alternata [40].
Calcium can be provided through soil application or by an increase of root uptake efficiency. Among the different rootstocks available for pear, seedling-derived (Pyrus communis) clones have recently received attention for their grafting compatibility, adaptability to calcareous soils and capability (e.g., Fox 9 and Fox 11) to reduce tree vigour to the same extent of the most widespread quince derived clones (e.g., BA29) in Italy [41].
The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of soil-applied CaCl2 in combination with different rootstocks to control the incidence of brown spot in pear.
The trial was carried out in a mature commercial pear orchard at the experimental farm of University of Bologna (Cadriano (BO), Italy, 44°33'03''N, 11°24'36''E, 33 m a.s.l.), of the variety Abbé Fétel grafted on two rootstocks: 1) quince (Cydonia oblonga Mill.) Sydo® and 2) pear (Pyrus communis L.) Fox 11. Trees were grown on a silty clay loam soil (Haplic Calcisol soil [42], 20 g 100 g −1 sand, 42 g 100 g−1 silt and 38 g 100 g−1 clay; pH = 7.6) at a density of 1645 and 2193 tree ha−1 for Fox 11 and Sydo®, respectively and managed as in a spindle training system. The orchard was drip irrigated and the floor management included herbicide strips along the row (2–3 applications per year of glyphosate) and grassed alleys regularly mown (2–3 times per year). Fertilization (no Ca fertilizers were used) and irrigation, as well as pest and disease control, were carried out according to the Integrated Fruit Production Guidelines of the Emilia-Romagna Region.
In 2013, the following treatments were soil-applied to four plots (replicates), each one composed by three trees: 1) Untreated control and 2) CaCl2, (Ca = 36 g 100 g−1) supplied weekly from April (full bloom) until June. At each application, 72 g of CaCl2 tree−1 were dissolved in 8 L of tap water with an electric conductibility (EC) of the solution of 13.3 mS cm−1. The solution was localized in a circular area of a ray of 0.7 m surrounding the tree trunk. Consequently, each tree received 26 g Ca at each application, for a total of 10 applications (260 g Ca tree−1). Control trees received tap water only.
Soil cores were collected at 5–30 cm depth and used to measure soil pH and EC after six (June 4th) and ten (July 18th) CaCl2 applications. The same day, stem water potential (Ψw) and leaf osmotic potential (Ψs) were measured on two fully expanded healthy leaves per tree. Soil pH was determined on oven-dried (105 ℃) soils and measured with a pH meter (Basic 20, Crison, Barcelona, Spain) on a 1:2.5 soil:water ratio; EC was determined on 100 g of soil samples shacked 1 hour with 250 mL of deionized water and measured on the supernatant by a conductimeter (Crison 525, Crison Instruments, Barcelona, Spain). Stem Ψw was recorded according to Naor et al. [43] on two fully expanded healthy leaves per tree: briefly, leaves were in vivo fully covered with aluminium foils and enclosed in plastic bags at least one hour prior measurement. Then, leaves were cut off and the leaf lamina was immediately inserted into a pressure chamber, where the pressure was increased gently until the first drop of water was forced out of the petiole [44]. After stem Ψw measurements leaves were rapidly stored at −20 ℃ and later used to measure leaf Ψs: after thawing, the leaf was squeezed and 100 μL of leaf sap was immediately used to determine the leaf Ψs by a micro osmometer (Micro osmometer 5B, Roebling, Berlin, Germany).
The susceptibility to brown spot was evaluated on detached fruits, collected 60 days after full bloom (DAFB), with approximately 40 mm of diameter. Fruit surface was immediately disinfected by a 5 mL L−1 sodium hypochlorite solution, rinsed several times with deionized water and inoculated by placing on the bottom side four drops (20 mL) of a suspension containing 1 × 105 conidia mL−1 of S. vesicarium. The spore suspension was prepared from 7-day-old V8 agar plates by adding a few mL of sterile water and gently scratching the colony surface with a spatula [45]. This suspension was then filtered through a 100 μm filter. The fungal strain (ID number 173) was isolated from leaves coming from a Bologna University experimental orchard located in Altedo (Bologna province) and sensitive to all fungicides authorised in Italy. Four and eleven days after fungal inoculation (DAFI), disease symptoms were assessed by the presence (incidence), number of spots per fruit and surface of spots (severity).
Later, fruits were analysed to evaluate Ca fractions and total Ca, Mg and K concentration. To this end, 10 g fresh weight (FW) of inoculated flesh fruit was used to determine the following fractions of Ca [46]: Ca-ethanol soluble, Ca-water soluble, Ca-pectate, Ca-di- and tri-phosphate, Ca-oxalate and Ca-residual, extracted sequentially on the same sample by 20 mL of ethanol (80%), deionized water, sodium chloride (1 mol), acetic acid (20 mL L−1) and hydrochloric acid (0.6 mol), respectively. Residual Ca was extracted by treating the pellet with 8 mL of nitric acid (650 g L−1) and 2 mL of hydrogen peroxide (300 mL L−1) at 180 ℃ in an Ethos TC microwave lab station (Milestone, Bergamo, Italy) [47]. Total Ca, Mg and K concentration was determined on fruits lyophilized samples, mineralized as previously described for Ca residual. All Ca fractions, as well as total Ca, Mg and K concentrations were determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometry (SpectrAA-200, Varian Inc., Mulgrave, Australia).
Finally, fruits were also analysed to determine the activity of some defence-related enzymes such as POD, PPO, PAL and β-1, 3-glucanase. All extraction procedures were conducted at 4 ℃. 10 g of fruit samples were ground with 0.3 g polyvinyl polypyrrolidone with different buffers to assay different enzymes: 30 mL sodium acetate buffer (50 mmol, pH 5.0) for β-1, 3-glucanase, 25 mL of 0.05 mol sodium borate buffer (pH 8.8, containing 5 mmol β-mercaptoethanol) for PAL, and 0.2 mol sodium phosphate buffer (pH 6.4) for POD and PPO. Samples were homogenized and centrifuged at 27,000 rpm at 4 ℃ for 60 min. Then, the supernatant was used as the crude enzyme source to assay enzymatic activities [39], while the protein concentration was determined according to the Bradford method [48], using bovine serum albumin as a standard.
At commercial harvest, tree yield was recorded and a sample of 16 fruits per plot was collected to determine dry matter, flesh firmness by a pressure tester (Effe.Gi, Ravenna, Italy) fitted with an 8 mm diameter plunger on two sides of the fruit previously peeled, soluble solids content (SSC) by a digital refractometer (PR-1, Atago, Tokio, Japan) and titratable acidity (TA, as malic acid) (Compact Tritator I, Crison, Barcelona, Spain).
Data were subjected to analysis of variance, according to a randomised factorial design with two factors. 1) CaCl2 (two levels: 0 and 26 g L−1) and 2) rootstock (two levels: Fox 11 and Sydo®), with four replicates. When a statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) effect of factors was observed, mean separation of main effects was performed by Student–Newman–Keuls (SNK) test (p = 0.05). When the analysis of variance showed a significant interaction between factors, two standard error of means (2SEM) was used as minimum difference between statistically different values [49]. A correlation analysis was carried out to evaluate the relationship between the disease susceptibility and Ca concentration in leaves and fruits.
On June 4 and July 18 (after 6 and 10 applications, respectively), soil-applied CaCl2 decreased soil pH and increased EC (Table 1). Soil EC was statistically higher in quince Sydo®, compared to pear Fox 11 plots, while rootstocks did not affect soil pH (Table 1).
| CaCl2 (g L−1) | June, 4 | July, 18 | ||
| pH | EC (mS cm−1) | pH | EC (mS cm−1) | |
| 0 | 7.67 | 102 | 7.67 | 152 |
| 26 | 7.09 | 543 | 7.06 | 477 |
| Significance | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Rootstock | ||||
| Sydo® | 7.43 | 347 | 7.24 | 360 |
| Fox 11 | 7.33 | 299 | 7.49 | 269 |
| Significance | ns | * | ns | * |
| CaCl2 × rootstock | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| ns, * and ***: effect not significant or significant at p ≤ 0.05 and p ≤ 0.001, respectively. Interaction between factors not significant. | ||||
DownLoad:
CSV
On June 4, stem Ψw and leaf Ψs were unaffected by CaCl2 applications (Table 2), while trees grafted on quince Sydo® showed a stem Ψw and leaf Ψs statistically lower than trees grafted on pear Fox 11. A significant interaction between factors on stem Ψw and leaf Ψs occurred at mid-July. While no effect of Fox 11 rootstock was found, applications of CaCl2 on trees grafted on quince Sydo® significantly decreased Ψs compared to untreated control (Table 2).
| CaCl2 (g L−1) | June, 4 | July, 18 | ||||||
| Ψw (MPa) | Ψs (MPa) | Ψw (MPa) | Ψs (MPa) | |||||
| Sydo® | Fox11 | Sydo® | Fox11 | |||||
| 0 | −0.66 | −1.79 | −0.99 | −1.29 | −1.77 | −1.94 | ||
| 26 | −0.74 | −1.71 | −1.26 | −1.16 | −2.02 | −1.87 | ||
| Significance | ns | ns | 2SEM = −0.31 | 2SEM = −0.18 | ||||
| Rootstock | ||||||||
| Sydo® | −0.79 | −1.83 | ||||||
| Fox 11 | −0.60 | −1.69 | ||||||
| Significance | ** | ** | ||||||
| CaCl2 × rootstock | ns | ns | * | ** | ||||
| ns, * and **: effect not significant or significant at p ≤ 0.05 and p ≤ 0.01, respectively. On July 18, values differing > 2 standard error of means (SEM) are statistically different. | ||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
No interaction between CaCl2 and rootstock emerged on leaf and fruit nutrient concentration and Ca fraction in fruits. Leaf and fruit nutrient concentration measured 60 DAFB was not affected by CaCl2 applications (Table 3). In details, Ca in leaf and fruit resulted approximately 7.0 and 1.4 g kg−1, respectively, while K concentration was similar (9.6 g kg−1) in leaves and fruits. Magnesium concentration was 3.4 g kg−1 and 0.7 g kg−1 in leaves and fruits, respectively (Table 3). Trees grafted on Sydo® showed higher leaf and fruit Ca and Mg concentration, and a lower K concentration than Fox 11. The application of CaCl2 did not alter flesh fruit Ca fractions (Table 4), whereas, with the exception of Ca-phosphate, all Ca fraction concentrations in fruits were increased in trees grafted on Sydo® (Table 4).
| CaCl2 (g L-1) | Leaf (g kg−1 DW) | Fruit (g kg−1 DW) | |||||
| Ca | K | Mg | Ca | K | Mg | ||
| 0 | 6.85 | 9.16 | 3.35 | 1.27 | 9.42 | 0.75 | |
| 26 | 7.35 | 9.87 | 3.53 | 1.44 | 9.84 | 0.75 | |
| Significance | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| Rootstock | |||||||
| Sydo® | 8.20 | 7.36 | 4.25 | 1.69 | 8.94 | 0.83 | |
| Fox 11 | 6.01 | 11.67 | 2.64 | 1.00 | 10.33 | 0.67 | |
| Significance | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | |
| CaCl2 × rootstock | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| ns and ***: effect not significant or significant at p ≤ 0.001, respectively. Interaction between factors not significant. | |||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| CaCl2 (g L−1) | Ca fractions (mg kg−1 FW) | |||||
| Ethanol soluble | Water soluble | Pectate | Phosphate | Oxalate | Residual | |
| 0 | 43 | 144 | 279 | 109 | 258 | 513 |
| 26 | 36 | 154 | 261 | 162 | 230 | 641 |
| Significance | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| Rootstock | ||||||
| Sydo® | 47 | 170 | 283 | 140 | 267 | 788 |
| Fox 11 | 29 | 123 | 252 | 132 | 214 | 313 |
| Significance | *** | ** | ** | ns | * | *** |
| CaCl2 × rootstock | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| ns, *, ** and ***: effect not significant or significant at p ≤ 0.05, p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.001, respectively. Interaction between factors not significant. | ||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
Soil-applied CaCl2 reduced the occurrence of brown spot symptoms in fruits. Four days after inoculation with S. vesicarium, number and area of symptomatic spots per fruit were significantly lower than the untreated control (Table 5). After 11 days, independently of the CaCl2 application, fruits showed a comparable number of spots (3.9 spots fruit−1), however, the fruit infected area resulted statistically higher in untreated control (Table 5). The rootstock genotype affected brown spot symptoms only 11 days after inoculation, when fruits collected from trees grafted on pear Fox 11 showed a larger infected area per fruit compared to those grown on Sydo® (Table 5). Pooling together data of the two rootstocks, a negative linear correlation was found between Ca concentration and symptoms of brown spot (mm2 fruit−1) in both leaves (p < 0.05 and r = 0.57, Figure 1) and fruits (p < 0.05 and r = 0.53, Figure 2).
| CaCl2 (g L−1) | 4 DAFI | 11 DAFI | ||
| Spots (n fruit−1) |
Spots area (mm2 fruit−1) |
Spots (n fruit−1) |
Spots area (mm2 fruit−1) |
|
| 0 | 3.3 | 31 | 3.9 | 178 |
| 26 | 2.9 | 25 | 3.9 | 155 |
| Significance | * | * | ns | * |
| Rootstock | ||||
| Sydo® | 3.1 | 27 | 4.0 | 148 |
| Fox 11 | 3.1 | 30 | 3.9 | 185 |
| Significance | ns | ns | ns | *** |
| CaCl2 × rootstock | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| ns, * and ***: effect not significant or significant at p ≤ 0.05 and p ≤ 0.001, respectively. Interaction between factors not significant. | ||||
DownLoad:
CSV
The application of CaCl2 to soil did not affect the defence-related enzymes POD, PPO, β-1, 3-glucanase and PAL in fruits (Table 6). On the other hand, independently of the treatment and with the exception of POD, the enzymatic activity resulted higher in fruits collected from trees grafted on Sydo® particularly significant for β-1, 3-glucanase and PAL (Table 6).
| CaCl2 (g L−1) | POD (U min. −1 µg−1 protein) |
PPO (U min. −1 µg−1 protein) |
β-1, 3-glucanase (µmol glucose h−1 µg−1 protein) |
PAL (µmol cinnamic acid h−1 µg−1 protein) |
| 0 | 9.4 | 0.07 | 0.91 | 157 |
| 26 | 6.5 | 0.05 | 0.73 | 125 |
| Significance | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| Rootstock | ||||
| Sydo® | 8.4 | 0.10 | 1.60 | 271 |
| Fox 11 | 7.6 | 0.03 | 0.25 | 46 |
| Significance | ns | ** | *** | *** |
| CaCl2 × rootstock | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| ns, ** and ***: effect not significant or significant at p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.001, respectively. Interaction between factors not significant. | ||||
DownLoad:
CSV
No interaction between CaCl2 and rootstock was observed on yield and fruit quality, while significant effects were ascribed only to the rootstock (Table 7). Tree yield and fruit number were statistically higher in Fox 11 than quince Sydo®, while no differences were recorded on the average fruit weight (Table 7). As regard to fruit quality parameters, the application of CaCl2 increased only fruit juice TA while no effects were recorded on fruit firmness, SSC and dry matter (Table 7). Rootstock did not alter fruit SSC, although fruits from trees grafted onto Fox 11 showed lower values of flesh firmness, TA and dry matter than those measured for Sydo® (Table 7).
| CaCl2 (g L−1) | Yield (kg tree−1) |
Fruits (n tree−1) |
Fruit weight (g fruit−1) |
Firmness (kg) |
SSC (°Brix) |
TA (g L−1) |
Dry matter (g kg−1) |
| 0 | 7.75 | 44 | 181 | 5.23 | 14.8 | 2.52 | 212 |
| 26 | 5.87 | 30 | 194 | 5.24 | 14.5 | 2.96 | 209 |
| Significance | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | *** | ns |
| Rootstock | |||||||
| Sydo® | 4.17 | 22 | 188 | 5.65 | 14.4 | 3.05 | 217 |
| Fox 11 | 9.44 | 52 | 187 | 4.83 | 14.9 | 2.42 | 205 |
| Significance | ** | ** | ns | *** | ns | *** | ** |
| CaCl2 × rootstock | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| ns, ** and ***: effect not significant or significant at p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.001, respectively. Interaction between factors not significant. | |||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
Our strategy for control of the brown spot disease included soil application of a concentrated CaCl2 solution, with the aim of increasing the presence of Ca in the disease-susceptible tissues. Our data showed that Ca was effective in promoting pear tolerance to brown spot, confirming earlier reports [37]; however, the increase of Ca in fruit was not achieved by soil Ca application, rather it was induced by rootstock materials. In the present study, the use of quince Sydo® as a rootstock resulted the most effective strategy in promoting Ca accumulation into fruits. The lack of effectiveness of soil-applied Ca solution in increasing fruit Ca concentration was found also in other investigations [36] and it can be in part explained considering the soil type. The investigated soil was sub-alkaline, silt-clay-loam, with a high cation exchange capacity (25 meq 100 g−1) that increased the potential of Ca immobilization and reduced its availability in soil solution. In sub-alkaline soils, phosphorus (P) often reacts with Ca to form a sequence of compounds with low solubility such as tri-calcium phosphate or the insoluble hydroxyl apatites [50]. In this investigation, soil P concentration was 47 mg kg−1, which may justify an insolubilization effect. In addition, Ca2+ is a nutrient with a low xylematic mobility, that moves under the transpiration stream [51] that is much higher in leaves than in fruits.
Trees grafted on Sydo® were more affected by the soil modifications related to the application of CaCl2 than those on Fox 11. In fact, unlike Fox 11, Sydo® induced a decrease of stem water and leaf osmotic potential after CaCl2 applications, meaning a physiological adjustment to the higher ion concentration in the soil, that may have been among the causes that decreased the disease severity. The development of S. vesicarium was probably inhibited by the higher solute concentration in cell and the consequent lower water availability that lowered leaf osmotic and stem water potentials. At the same time, all-round the experiment, soil salinity was higher in soil with Sydo® roots compared with that hosting Fox 11, indicating a higher capability of the quince genotype to solubilize ions in soil solution than pear. This response was probably related to the higher root density in the lower volume of soil explored by Sydo® compared to Fox 11. This behaviour resulted in a higher capacity of root system to modify the soil on the tree row, where the CaCl2 solution was applied. All together, these responses increased Ca acquisition and tolerance to brown spot.
On the other hand, Fox 11 root system explored a deeper and wider volume of soil allowing a higher tree vigour than Sydo® [41]. The different tree vigour may be one of the reasons of the different concentration of nutrients in leaf and fruits, which usually decreases with the increase of tree growth. We believe that this was not the case of our study, because the tree density, higher in Sydo® compared to Fox11, compensated for the lower vigour. In addition not all the nutrients showed the same trend, in fact K concentration was higher in tree grafted on Fox 11 than on Sydo®, while the reverse would have been expected, considering the vigour of grafting combinations.
Pear and quince genotypes were reported with a different capability to uptake cations when irrigated with saline water [52]. Therefore, another explanation is that Fox 11 activates defence mechanisms against the excess of soil salinity that prevent an excess of ion absorption (including Ca2+), through a mechanism of ion exclusion, producing a low root uptake and a low Ca concentration in fruits and leaves. This response had a negative impact in term of tolerance to brown spot; in fact, the lower leaf and fruit Ca concentrations increased the susceptibility of tree on Fox 11 to brown spot compared to Sydo®.
With the exception of the fraction of Ca phosphate, the increased fruit Ca concentration induced an increase of all the fractions of Ca investigated, in trees grafted onto quince Sydo®. In particular Ca pectate, the fraction of Ca that strengthens the cell wall and makes it tolerant to both biotic and abiotic stresses [53,20], was found 12% higher in fruits of trees on Sydo® compared with those on Fox 11. This response was accompanied by the higher fruit firmness and higher dry matter concentration of fruit on Sydo® compared to Fox 11. This results were not expected since Fox 11, a P. communis rootstock, is more vigorous than Sydo® and consequently should delay fruit ripening, so that at harvest (made on same day for the two rootstocks), fruits were expected more immature than on quince (a dwarfing rootstock).
As already reported in fruit of P. pyrifolia infected with Alternaria alternata [40], also in our experiment on P. communis infected with S. vesicarium, an increase of the synthesis of some defence-related enzymes, such as PPO, β-1, 3-glucanase and PAL was observed. This result was in relation with the ability of trees to counteract brown spot disease. PPO can oxidize phenolic compounds and produce antimicrobial phenolic substances, such as quinines, which are toxic to pathogens [54]. β-1, 3-glucanase has been proven to hydrolyze major components of the cell wall of fungi [55], while PAL is involved in the biosynthesis of phenolics, phytoalexins, and lignins [56]. However, unlike the above-mentioned report [40], in our experiment the enzyme production was not a response to a direct application of an external elicitor (e.g., CaCl2 application) on fruit, but it was the result of a physiological changes induced by a grafting combination between pear variety Abbé Fétel and quince Sydo®. These changes involved ion uptake along with a decrease of water potential in relation with an increase of solute concentration at cellular level. There was a substantial different methodological approach between the work on A. alternata [40] and this experiment. In fact, we provided the condition for tree to take up nutrients and change its physiology (water status), while Tian and co-workers [40] applied directly the potential elicitors to the fruits, looking for a direct effect on the suppression of infection process.
Calcium was found effective in reducing symptoms of pear brown spot; however, in the experimental conditions of our study (i.e., clay soil) soil applications were not effective in promoting Ca fruit accumulation. Contrary to our expectations, the introduction of quince Sydo® rootstock seemed a better strategy than Fox 11 for increasing fruit Ca and reducing brown spot incidence and severity. Among the explanations of this response is the root-soil interaction and the consequent water and osmotic potential adjustment of trees grafted on quince Sydo® roots compared to pear Fox 11, along with the induction of a higher production of defence-related enzymes such as PPO, β-1, 3-glucanase and PAL.
This study was supported by the 'Progetto AGER—Agroalimentare e Ricerca' (Grant 2010–2107).
All authors declare no conflict of interest in this manuscript.
| [1] | Hengl T, Heuvelink GBM, Kempen B, et al. (2015) Mapping soil properties of Africa at 250 m resolution: Random forests significantly improve current predictions. PLOS ONE, 10:1–26. |
| [2] | Stevenson FJ (1982) Nitrogen in agricultural soils. Academic Press, American Society of Agronomy, 1–940. |
| [3] |
Rufino MC, Rowe EC, Delve RJ, et al. (2006) Nitrogen cycling efficiencies through resource-poor African crop-livestock systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 112: 261–282. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2005.08.028
|
| [4] | Snyman HA, Du Preez CC (2005) Rangeland degradation in a semi-arid South Africa-II. Influence on soil quality. J Arid Environ 60: 483–507. |
| [5] | Dlamini P, Chivenge P, Manson A, et al. (2014) Land degradation impact on soil organic carbon and nitrogen stocks of sub-tropical humid grasslands in South Africa. Geoderma 235–236: 372–381. |
| [6] |
Sanchez PA (2002) Soil fertility and hunger in Africa. Science 295: 2019–2020. doi: 10.1126/science.1065256
|
| [7] | Drinkwater LE (2004) Improving nitrogen fertilizer use efficiency through an ecosystem-based approach. In: Mosier AR, Syers JK, Freney JR, (Eds.), Agriculture and the nitrogen cycle: Assessing the impacts of fertilizer use on food production and the environment, Island Press, Washington, DC, 93–102. |
| [8] | Olson RA, Kurtz LT (1982) Crop nitrogen requirements, utilization and fertilization. In: Stevenson FJ (Ed.), Nitrogen in agricultural soils, Academic Press, American Society of Agronomy, 567–604. |
| [9] | Giller KE, Cadisch G, Ehaliotis C, et al. (1997) Building soil nitrogen capital in Africa. In: Buresh RJ, Sanchez PA, Calhoun F, (Eds.), Replenishing soil fertility in Africa, SSSA Special Publication, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, 151–192. |
| [10] |
Chikowo R, Mapfumo P, Nyamugafata P, et al. (2004) Maize productivity and mineral N dynamics following different soil fertility management practices on a depleted sandy soil in Zimbabwe. Agric Ecosyst Environ 102: 119–131. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2003.08.009
|
| [11] | Smaling EMA, Braun AR (1996) Soil fertility research in sub-Saharan Africa: new dimensions, new challenges. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 7: 365–386. |
| [12] | Manlay RJ, Ickowicz A, Masse D, et al. (2004) Spatial carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus budget in a village of the West African Savanna-II. Element flows and functioning of a mixed-farming system. Agric Syst 79: 83–107. |
| [13] |
Zougmoré R, Mando A, Stroosnijder L, et al. (2004) Nitrogen flows and balances as affected by water and nutrient management in a sorghum cropping system of semiarid Burkina Faso. Field Crop Res 90: 235–244. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2004.03.006
|
| [14] |
Lederer J, Karungi J, Ogwang F (2015) The potential of wastes to improve nutrient levels in agricultural soils: A material flow analysis case study from Busia District, Uganda. Agric Ecosyst Environ 207: 26–39. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2015.03.024
|
| [15] | Sanchez PA, Shepherd KD, Soule MJ, et al. (1997) Soil fertility replenishment in Africa: An investment in natural resource capital. In: Buresh RJ, Sanchez PA, Calhoun F, (Eds.), Replenishing soil fertility in Africa, SSSA Special Publication, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, 183–196. |
| [16] | Smaling EMA, Nandwa SM, Janssen BH (1997) Soil fertility is at stake. In: Buresh RJ, Sanchez PA, Calhoun F (Eds.), Replenishing soil fertility in Africa, SSSA Special Publication, Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, 47–61. |
| [17] | Bekunda B, Sanginga N, Woomer PL (2010) Restoring Soil Fertility in Sub-Sahara Africa. Adv Agron 108: 184–236. |
| [18] | Henao J, Baanante C (1999) Nutrient depletion in the agricultural soils of Africa. 2020 Vision Briefs 1999: 159–163. |
| [19] |
Vitousek PM, Naylor R, Crews T, et al. (2009) Nutrient imbalances in agricultural development. Science 324: 1519–1520. doi: 10.1126/science.1170261
|
| [20] | Sanginga N, Woomer PL (2009) Integrated soil fertility management in Africa: Principles, practices and developmental process. Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Institute of the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture, Nairobi, Kenya, 263. |
| [21] |
Wortmann CS, Kaizzi CK (1998) Nutrient balances and expected effects of alternative practices in farming systems of Uganda. Agric Ecosyst Environ 71: 115–129. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(98)00135-2
|
| [22] | Di HJ, Cameron KC (2002) Nitrate leaching in temperate agroecosystems: Sources, factors and mitigating strategies. Nutr Cycl Agroecosys 46: 237–256. |
| [23] |
Van den Bosch H, Jager AD, Vlaming J (1998) Monitoring nutrient flows and economic performance in African farming systems (NUTMON)-II. Tool development. Agric Ecosyst Environ 71: 49–62. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(98)00131-5
|
| [24] | Ngetich FK, Shisanya C, Mugwe J, et al. (2012) The potential of organic and inorganic nutrient sources in sub-Saharan African crop farming systems. Soil fertility improvement and integrated nutrient management-A global prospective, 135–156. |
| [25] |
Snapp S, Mafongoya PL, Waddington S (1998) Organic matter technologies for integrated nutrient management in smallholder cropping systems of southern Africa. Agric Ecosyst Environ 71: 185–200. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(98)00140-6
|
| [26] |
Schultz K, Beven KJ, Huwe W (1999) Equifinality and the problem of robust calibration in nitrogen budget simulation. Soil Sci Soc Am J 63: 1934–1941. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1999.6361934x
|
| [27] |
Rowe EC, Van Wijk MT, De Ridder N, et al. (2006) Nutrient allocation strategies across a simplified heterogeneous African smallholder farm. Agric Ecosyst Environ 116: 60–71. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2006.03.019
|
| [28] |
Tittonell P, Leffelaar PA, Vanlauwe B, et al. (2006) Exploring diversity of crop and soil management within smallholder African farms: A dynamic model for simulation of N balances and use efficiencies at field scale. Agric Syst 91: 71–101. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2006.01.010
|
| [29] |
Kisaka MO, Mucheru-Muna M, Ngetich FK, et al. (2016) Using Apsim-Model as a decision-support-tool for long-term integrated-nitrogen-management and maize productivity under semi-arid conditions in Kenya. Exp Agric 52: 279–299. doi: 10.1017/S0014479715000095
|
| [30] | Stoorvogel JJ, Smaling EMA (1990) Assessment of soil nutrient depletion in Sub-Saharan Africa, 1983–2000. Rep. 28, Winand Staring Centre, Wageningen, 137. |
| [31] |
Bationo A, Lompo F, Koala S (1998) Research on nutrient flows and balances in West Africa: State-of-the-art. Agric Ecosyst Environ 71: 19–35. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(98)00129-7
|
| [32] |
Grote U, Craswell E, Vlek P (2005) Nutrient flows in international trade: ecology and policy issues. Environ Sci Policy 8: 439–451. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2005.05.001
|
| [33] |
Cobo JG, Dercon G, Cadisch G (2010) Nutrient balances in African land use systems across different spatial scales: A review of approaches, challenges and progress. Agric Ecosyst Environ 136: 1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2009.11.006
|
| [34] |
Vanlauwe B, Giller, KE (2006) Popular myths around soil fertility management in sub-Saharan Africa. Agric Ecosyst Environ 116: 34–46. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2006.03.016
|
| [35] |
Nkonya E, Kaizzi C, Pender J (2005) Determinants of nutrient balances in a maize farming system in Eastern Uganda. Agric Syst 85: 155–182. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2004.04.004
|
| [36] | Smaling E (1993) An agro-ecological framework for integrated nutrient management with special reference to Kenya. Ph.D. Thesis, Agricultural University, Wagenigen, Netherlands. |
| [37] | Tuomisto HL, Hodge ID, Riordan P, et al. (2012) Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts?-A meta-analysis of European research. J Environ Manage 112: 309–320. |
| [38] |
Oelofse M, Høgh-Jensen H, Abreu LS, et al. (2010) A comparative study of farm nutrient budgets and nutrient flows of certified organic and non-organic farms in China, Brazil and Egypt. Nutr Cycling in Agroecosyst 87:455–470. doi: 10.1007/s10705-010-9351-y
|
| [39] | Heisey PW, Mwangi W (1996) Fertilizer use and maize production in sub-Saharan Africa. CIMMYT Economics Working Paper 96-01, Mexico. |
| [40] |
Mugwe J, Mucheru-Muna M, Mugendi D, et al. (2009) Adoption potential of selected organic resources for improving soil fertility in the central highlands of Kenya. Agrofor Syst 76: 467–485. doi: 10.1007/s10457-009-9217-y
|
| [41] |
Nyamangara J, Giller K, Zingore S (2010) Effect of farmer management strategies on spatial variability of soil fertility and crop nutrient uptake in contrasting agro-ecological zones in Zimbabwe. Nutr Cycl Agroecosys 88: 111–120. doi: 10.1007/s10705-009-9262-y
|
| [42] | Garrity DP (2004) Agroforestry and the achievement of the millennium development goals. In: Nair PKR, Rao MR, Buck LE, (Eds.), New vistas in agroforestry: a compendium for the 1st world congress of agroforestry, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, 5–17. |
| [43] | FAO (2003) Assessment of soil nutrient balance: Approaches and methodologies. FAO Fertilizer and Plant Nutrition Bulletin 14, Rome. |
| [44] |
Galloway JN, Schlesinger WH, Levy II H, et al. (1995) Nitrogen fixation: Anthropogenic enhancement-environmental response. Global Biochem Cycles 9:235–252. doi: 10.1029/95GB00158
|
| [45] |
Giller KE, Cadisch G (1995) Future benefits from biological nitrogen-fixation-an ecological approach to agriculture. Plant Soil 174: 255–277. doi: 10.1007/BF00032251
|
| [46] |
Dakora FD, Keya SO (1997) Contribution of legume sustainable agriculture nitrogen fixation to sustainable agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. Soil Biol Biochem 29: 809–817. doi: 10.1016/S0038-0717(96)00225-8
|
| [47] |
Fening JO, Danso SKA (2002) Variation in symbiotic effectiveness of Cowpea Bradyrhizobia indigenous to Ghanaian soils. Appl Soil Ecol 21: 23–29. doi: 10.1016/S0929-1393(02)00042-2
|
| [48] | Kasasa P, Mpepereki S, Musiyiwa K, et al. (1999) Residual nitrogen benefits of promiscuous soybeans to maize under field conditions. African Crop Sci J 7: 375–382. |
| [49] |
Singh A, Carsky, RJ, Lucas EO, et al. (2003) Soil N balance as affected by soybean maturity class in the Guinea Savanna of Nigeria. Agric Ecosyst Environ 100: 231–240. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00193-2
|
| [50] | Omiti JM, Freeman HA, Kaguongo W, et al. (1999) Soil fertility maintenance in Eastern Kenya: Current practices, constraints, and opportunities. CARMASAK WorkingPaper No. 1.KARI/ICRISAT, Kenya. |
| [51] |
Harris FMA (1998) Farm-level assessment of nutrient balance in northern Nigeria. Agric Ecosyst Environ 71:201–214. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(98)00141-8
|
| [52] | Kimani SK, Odera MM, Musembi F (2000) Factors influencing adoption of integrated use of manures and fertilisers in Central Kenya. Proceedings of KARI Scientific Conference. |
| [53] | Lekasi JK, Tanner JC, Kimani SK, et al. (1998) Manure management in the Kenya highlands: Practices and potential. Emmerson Press, Kenilworth, UK. |
| [54] | Mugwira LM, Murwira HK (1997) Use of cattle manure to improve soil fertility in Zimbabwe: Past and current research and future research needs. Network Working Paper No. 2, Soil fertility network for maize-based cropping systems in Zimbabwe and Malawi, CIMMYT, Harare, Zimbabwe. |
| [55] |
Meertens HCC, Kajiru GJ, Ndege LJ, et al. (2003) Evaluation of on-farm soil fertility research in the rainfed lowland rice fields of Sukumaland, Tanzania. Exp Agric 39: 65–79. doi: 10.1017/S0014479702001060
|
| [56] | Makokha S, Kimani S, Mwangi W, et al. (2001) Determinants of fertilizer and manure use in maize production in Kiambu District, Kenya. Mexico, D.F: CIMMYT and KARI. |
| [57] |
Palm CA, Gachengo CN, Delve RJ, et al. (2001) Organic Inputs for soil fertility management in tropical agro ecosystems: Application of an organic resource database. Agric Ecosyst Environ 83: 27–42. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00267-X
|
| [58] | Gichangi EM, Karanja NK, Wood CN, et al. (2006) Composting cattle manure from zero grazing system with agro-organic wastes to minimise nitrogen losses in smallholder farms in Kenya. Trop Subtrop Agroecosyst 6: 57–64. |
| [59] | Delve R, Gachengo C, Adams E, et al. (2000) The Organic Resource Database. The Biology and Fertility of Tropical Soils: TSBF Report 1997–1998, 20–22. |
| [60] |
Kaizzi KC, Byalebeka J, Wortmann CS, et al. (2007) Low input approaches for soil fertility management in semiarid eastern Uganda. Agron J 99: 847–853. doi: 10.2134/agronj2006.0238
|
| [61] |
Place F, Christopher B, Barrett CB, et al. (2003) Prospects for integrated soil fertility management using organic and inorganic inputs: Evidence from smallholder African agricultural systems. Food Policy 28: 365–378. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2003.08.009
|
| [62] | Mugendi DN, Kanyi MK, Kung'u JB, et al. (2004) The role of agroforestry trees in intercepting leached nitrogen in the farming systems of the central highlands of Kenya. East African Agric For J 69: 69–79. |
| [63] | Murwira HK, Mutuo PK, Nhamo N, et al. (2002) Fertilizer equivalency values of organic materials of different quality. In: Vanlauwe B, Diels J, Sanginga N, et al. (Eds.), Integrated plant nutrients management in sub-Saharan Africa: From concept to practice, Wallingford, UK: CAB International, 113–152. |
| [64] | Vlaming J, Van De Bosch H, Wijk MS, et al. (2001) Monitoring Nutrient Flows and Economic Performance in Tropical Farming Systems (NUTMON)-Part 1: Manual for the NUTMON-toolbox, Wageningen. |
| [65] |
Mtambanengwe F, Mapfumo P (2006) Effects of organic resource quality on soil profile N dynamics and maize yields on sandy soils in Zimbabwe. Plant Soil 281: 173–191. doi: 10.1007/s11104-005-4182-3
|
| [66] | Jenkinson DS (1981) The fate of plant and animal residues in soil. In: Greenland DJ, Hayes MHB, (Eds), The chemistry of soil processes, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1–714. |
| [67] |
Balkcom KS, Blackmer AM, Hansen DJ (2009) Measuring soil nitrogen mineralization under field conditions. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 40: 1073–1086. doi: 10.1080/00103620902753731
|
| [68] |
De Jager A, Onduru D, Van Wijk MS, et al. (2001) Assessing sustainability of low-external-input farm management systems with the nutrient monitoring approach: a case study in Kenya. Agric Syst 69: 99–118. doi: 10.1016/S0308-521X(01)00020-8
|
| [69] |
Cameira MR, Tedesco S, Leitão TE (2014) Water and nitrogen budgets under different production systems in Lisbon urban farming. Biosyst Eng 125: 65–79. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2014.06.020
|
| [70] |
Oenema O, Kros H, De Vries W (2003) Approaches and uncertainties in nutrient budgets implications for nutrient management and environmental policies. Eur J Agron 20: 3–16. doi: 10.1016/S1161-0301(03)00067-4
|
| [71] |
Shepherd KD, Palm CA, Gachengo CN, et al. (2003) Rapid characterization of organic resource quality for soil and livestock management in tropical agroecosystems using near-infrared spectroscopy. Agron J 95: 1314–1322. doi: 10.2134/agronj2003.1314
|
| [72] | Smaling EMA, Fresco LO, De Jager A (1996) Classifying, monitoring and improving soil nutrient stocks and flows in African agriculture. Ambio 25: 492–496. |
| [73] | Janssen BH (1999) Basics of budgets, buffers and balances of nutrients in relation to sustainability of agroecosystems. In: Smaling EMA, Oenema O, Fresco LO, (Eds.), Nutrient disequilibria in agroecosystems-concepts and case studies, CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK, 27–56. |
| [74] |
Bedada W, Mulugeta L, Erik K (2016) Soil nutrient build-up, input interaction effects and plot level N and P balances under long-term addition of compost and NP fertilizer. Agric Ecosyst Environ 218: 220–231. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2015.11.024
|
| [75] |
Tully KL, Wood SA, Almaraz M, et al. (2015) The effect of mineral and organic nutrient input on yields and nitrogen balances in western Kenya. Agric Ecosyst Environ 214: 10–20. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2015.08.006
|
| [76] |
Faerge J, Magid J (2004) Evaluating NUTMON nutrient balancing in sub-Saharan Africa. Nutr Cycl Agroecosys 69: 101–110. doi: 10.1023/B:FRES.0000029680.97610.51
|
| [77] |
Sheldrick WF, Lingard J (2004) The use of nutrient audits to determine nutrient balances in Africa. Food Policy 29: 61–98. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2004.01.004
|
| [78] |
Krogh L (1997) Field and village nutrient balances in millet cultivation in Northern Burkina Faso: A village case study. J Arid Environ 35: 147–159. doi: 10.1006/jare.1996.0159
|
| [79] | Powell JM, Coulibaly T (1995) The ecological sustainability of red meat production in Mali: nitrogen balance of rangeland and crop in four production systems. Report to Projet de Gestion des Ressources Naturelles (PGRN), Bamako, Mali, 41. |
| [80] |
Buerkert A, Bationo A, Dossa K (2000) Mechanisms of residue mulch-induced cereal growth increases in West Africa. Soil Sci Soc Am J 64: 346–358. doi: 10.2136/sssaj2000.641346x
|
| [81] | FAO (2004) Scaling soil nutrient balances. Enabling mesolevel applications for African realities. FAO Fertilizer and Plant Nutrition Bulletin 15, FAO, Rome. |
| [82] |
Gandah M, Bouma J, Brouwer J, et al. (2003) Strategies to optimize allocation of limited nutrients to sandy soils of the Sahel: a case study from Niger, west Africa. Agric Ecosyst Environ 94:311–319. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(02)00035-X
|
| [83] |
Saleem MA (1998) Nutrient balance patterns in African livestock systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 71: 241–254. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(98)00144-3
|
| [84] |
Aina PO (1979) Soil changes resulting from long term management practices in Western Nigeria. Soil Sci Soc Am J 43: 173–177. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1979.03615995004300010033x
|
| [85] |
Olu Obi A (1989) Long-term effects of the continuous cultivation of a tropical Ultisol in Southwestern Nigeria. Exp Agric 25: 207–215. doi: 10.1017/S0014479700016719
|
| [86] |
Essiet EU (1990) A comparison of soil degradation under smallholder farming and large-scale irrigation land use in Kano state, Northern Nigeria. Land Degrad Rehabil 2: 209–214. doi: 10.1002/ldr.3400020306
|
| [87] | Van der Pol F (1992) Soil mining: An unseen contributor to farm income in southern Mall. Bull. 325, Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, 48. |
| [88] | Smaling EMA, Stoorvogel JJ, Windmeijer PN (1993) Calculating soil nutrient balances in Africa at different scales-II. District scale. Fert Res 35: 237–250. |
| [89] | Budelman A (1996) In search of sustainability: Nutrients, trees and farmer experimentation in north Sukuma land agriculture. Working paper 16, Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, 92. |
| [90] |
Ramisch JJ (2005) Inequality, agro-pastoral exchanges, and soil fertility gradients in southern Mali. Agric Ecosyst Environ 105: 353–372. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2004.02.001
|
| [91] | Shepherd KD, Ohlsson E, Okalebo JR (1995) A static model of nutrient flow on mixed farms in the highlands of western Kenya to explore the possible impact of improved management. In: Powell JM, Fernandez-Rivera S, Williams TO, et al. (Eds.), Livestock and sustainable nutrient cycling in mixed farming systems of sub-Saharan Africa, Volume II, Technical Papers, Proceedings of the International Conference held 22-26 November 1993, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Addis Ababa: International Livestock Centre for Africa, 523–538. |
| [92] |
Folmer ECR, Geurts PMH, Francisco JR (1998) Assessment of soil fertility depletion in Mozambique. Agric Ecosyst Environ 71: 159–167. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(98)00138-8
|
| [93] |
Baijukya FP, De Steenhuijsen Piters B (1998) Nutrient balances and their consequences in the banana-based land use systems of Bukoba district, northwest Tanzania. Agric Ecosyst Environ 71: 147–158. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(98)00137-6
|
| [94] |
Gachimbi LN, Van Keulen H, Thuranira EG, et al. (2005) Nutrient balances at farm level in Machakos (Kenya), using a participatory nutrient monitoring (NUTMON) approach. Land Use Policy 22: 13–22. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.07.002
|
| [95] |
Haileslassie A, Priess JA, Veldkamp E, et al. (2007) Nutrient flows and balances at the field and farm scale: Exploring effects of land-use strategies and access to resources. Agric Syst 94: 459–470. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2006.11.013
|
| [96] | De Jager A, Kariuku I, Matiri FM, et al. (1998) Monitoring nutrient flows and economic performance in African farming systems (NUTMON)-IV. Linking nutrient balances and economic performance in three districts in Kenya. Agric Ecosyst Environ 71: 81–92. |
| [97] |
Haileslassie A, Priess J, Veldkamp E, et al. (2005) Assessment of soil nutrient depletion and its spatial variability on smallholders' mixed farming systems in Ethiopia using partial versus full nutrient balances. Agric Ecosyst Environ 108: 1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2004.12.010
|
| [98] | Stoorvogel JJ, Smaling EMA, Janssen BH (1993) Calculating soil nutrient balances at different scale-I. Supra-national scale. Fert Res 35: 227–235. |
| [99] |
Van der Pol F, Traore B (1993) Soil nutrient depletion by agricultural production in Southern Mali. Fert Res 36: 79–90. doi: 10.1007/BF00749951
|
| [100] |
Brouwer J, Powell JM (1998) Increasing nutrient use efficiency in West-African agriculture: The impact of micro-topography on nutrient leaching from cattle and sheep manure. Agric Ecosyst Environ 71: 229–239. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(98)00143-1
|
| [101] |
Zingore S, Murwira HK, Delve RJ, et al. (2007) Influence of nutrient management strategies on variability of soil fertility, crop yields and nutrient balances on smallholder farms in Zimbabwe. Agric Ecosyst Environ 119: 112–126. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2006.06.019
|
| [102] |
Giller KE, Rowe E, De Ridder N, et al. (2006) Resource use dynamics and interactions in the tropics: scaling up in space and time. Agric Syst 88: 8–27. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2005.06.016
|
| [103] | Tittonell PA (2007) Msimu wa Kupanda : Targeting resources within diverse, heterogeneous and dynamic farming systems of East Africa. Thesis (Ph.D.). Wageningen University, Wageningen, NL, 320. |
| [104] | Tittonell P, Vanlauwe B, Leffelaar PA, et al. (2005a) Exploring diversity in soil fertility management of smallholder farms in western Kenya-I. Heterogeneity at region and farm scale, Agric Ecosyst Environ 110: 149–165. |
| [105] | Tittonell P, Vanlauwe B, Leffelaar PA, et al. (2005b) Exploring diversity in soil fertility management of smallholder farms in western Kenya-II. Within-farm variability in resource allocation, nutrient flows and soil fertility status. Agric Ecosyst Environ 110: 166–184. |
| [106] |
Pilbeam CJ, Tripathi BP, Sherchan D.P, et al. (2000) Nitrogen balances for households in the mid-hills of Nepal. Agric Ecosyst Environ 79: 61–72. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00143-7
|
| [107] |
Rego TJ, Rao VN, Seeling B, et al. (2003) Nutrient balances-A guide to improving sorghum-and groundnut-based dryland cropping systems in semi-arid tropical India. Field Crops Res 81: 53–68. doi: 10.1016/S0378-4290(02)00199-5
|
| [108] |
Sheldrick W, Syers JK, Lingard J (2003) Contribution of livestock excreta to nutrient balances. Nutr Cycl Agroecosys 66: 119–131. doi: 10.1023/A:1023944131188
|
| [109] |
Antonopoulos VZ (2010) Modelling of water and nitrogen balances in the ponded water and soil profile of rice fields in Northern Greece. Agric Water Manage 98: 321–330. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2010.08.026
|
| [110] |
Bo S, Run-Ping S, Bouwman AF (2008) Surface N balances in agricultural crop production systems in China for the period 1980–2015∗1. Pedosphere 18: 304–315. doi: 10.1016/S1002-0160(08)60020-X
|
| 1. | Jakarat Anothai, Thanunchanok Chairin, Soil physicochemical properties closely associated with fungal enzymes and plant defense enzymes in Ganoderma-infected oil palm orchards, 2020, 456, 0032-079X, 99, 10.1007/s11104-020-04705-y | |
| 2. | Xue Li, Qingchao Gao, Di Wang, Xueyan Ren, Qingjun Kong, Transcriptome analysis reveals the pathogenic mechanisms of Geotrichum citri-aurantii invading citrus during early stages, 2024, 61, 22124292, 104735, 10.1016/j.fbio.2024.104735 | |
| 3. | Shenge Li, Shaolei Guo, Jianlan Xu, ZhiXiang Cai, Ruijuan Ma, Mingliang Yu, Zhijun Shen, Preharvest calcium chloride treatments enhance post-harvest peach fruit resistance to Monilinia fructicola-induced brown rot disease, 2025, 222, 09255214, 113368, 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2024.113368 |
Figures(1) / Tables(3)
Milka N. Kiboi, Felix K. Ngetich, Daniel N. Mugendi. Nitrogen budgets and flows in African smallholder farming systems[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(2): 429-446. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.2.429
| CaCl2 (g L−1) | June, 4 | July, 18 | ||
| pH | EC (mS cm−1) | pH | EC (mS cm−1) | |
| 0 | 7.67 | 102 | 7.67 | 152 |
| 26 | 7.09 | 543 | 7.06 | 477 |
| Significance | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Rootstock | ||||
| Sydo® | 7.43 | 347 | 7.24 | 360 |
| Fox 11 | 7.33 | 299 | 7.49 | 269 |
| Significance | ns | * | ns | * |
| CaCl2 × rootstock | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| ns, * and ***: effect not significant or significant at p ≤ 0.05 and p ≤ 0.001, respectively. Interaction between factors not significant. | ||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| CaCl2 (g L−1) | June, 4 | July, 18 | ||||||
| Ψw (MPa) | Ψs (MPa) | Ψw (MPa) | Ψs (MPa) | |||||
| Sydo® | Fox11 | Sydo® | Fox11 | |||||
| 0 | −0.66 | −1.79 | −0.99 | −1.29 | −1.77 | −1.94 | ||
| 26 | −0.74 | −1.71 | −1.26 | −1.16 | −2.02 | −1.87 | ||
| Significance | ns | ns | 2SEM = −0.31 | 2SEM = −0.18 | ||||
| Rootstock | ||||||||
| Sydo® | −0.79 | −1.83 | ||||||
| Fox 11 | −0.60 | −1.69 | ||||||
| Significance | ** | ** | ||||||
| CaCl2 × rootstock | ns | ns | * | ** | ||||
| ns, * and **: effect not significant or significant at p ≤ 0.05 and p ≤ 0.01, respectively. On July 18, values differing > 2 standard error of means (SEM) are statistically different. | ||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| CaCl2 (g L-1) | Leaf (g kg−1 DW) | Fruit (g kg−1 DW) | |||||
| Ca | K | Mg | Ca | K | Mg | ||
| 0 | 6.85 | 9.16 | 3.35 | 1.27 | 9.42 | 0.75 | |
| 26 | 7.35 | 9.87 | 3.53 | 1.44 | 9.84 | 0.75 | |
| Significance | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| Rootstock | |||||||
| Sydo® | 8.20 | 7.36 | 4.25 | 1.69 | 8.94 | 0.83 | |
| Fox 11 | 6.01 | 11.67 | 2.64 | 1.00 | 10.33 | 0.67 | |
| Significance | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | |
| CaCl2 × rootstock | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| ns and ***: effect not significant or significant at p ≤ 0.001, respectively. Interaction between factors not significant. | |||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| CaCl2 (g L−1) | Ca fractions (mg kg−1 FW) | |||||
| Ethanol soluble | Water soluble | Pectate | Phosphate | Oxalate | Residual | |
| 0 | 43 | 144 | 279 | 109 | 258 | 513 |
| 26 | 36 | 154 | 261 | 162 | 230 | 641 |
| Significance | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| Rootstock | ||||||
| Sydo® | 47 | 170 | 283 | 140 | 267 | 788 |
| Fox 11 | 29 | 123 | 252 | 132 | 214 | 313 |
| Significance | *** | ** | ** | ns | * | *** |
| CaCl2 × rootstock | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| ns, *, ** and ***: effect not significant or significant at p ≤ 0.05, p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.001, respectively. Interaction between factors not significant. | ||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| CaCl2 (g L−1) | 4 DAFI | 11 DAFI | ||
| Spots (n fruit−1) |
Spots area (mm2 fruit−1) |
Spots (n fruit−1) |
Spots area (mm2 fruit−1) |
|
| 0 | 3.3 | 31 | 3.9 | 178 |
| 26 | 2.9 | 25 | 3.9 | 155 |
| Significance | * | * | ns | * |
| Rootstock | ||||
| Sydo® | 3.1 | 27 | 4.0 | 148 |
| Fox 11 | 3.1 | 30 | 3.9 | 185 |
| Significance | ns | ns | ns | *** |
| CaCl2 × rootstock | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| ns, * and ***: effect not significant or significant at p ≤ 0.05 and p ≤ 0.001, respectively. Interaction between factors not significant. | ||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| CaCl2 (g L−1) | POD (U min. −1 µg−1 protein) |
PPO (U min. −1 µg−1 protein) |
β-1, 3-glucanase (µmol glucose h−1 µg−1 protein) |
PAL (µmol cinnamic acid h−1 µg−1 protein) |
| 0 | 9.4 | 0.07 | 0.91 | 157 |
| 26 | 6.5 | 0.05 | 0.73 | 125 |
| Significance | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| Rootstock | ||||
| Sydo® | 8.4 | 0.10 | 1.60 | 271 |
| Fox 11 | 7.6 | 0.03 | 0.25 | 46 |
| Significance | ns | ** | *** | *** |
| CaCl2 × rootstock | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| ns, ** and ***: effect not significant or significant at p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.001, respectively. Interaction between factors not significant. | ||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| CaCl2 (g L−1) | Yield (kg tree−1) |
Fruits (n tree−1) |
Fruit weight (g fruit−1) |
Firmness (kg) |
SSC (°Brix) |
TA (g L−1) |
Dry matter (g kg−1) |
| 0 | 7.75 | 44 | 181 | 5.23 | 14.8 | 2.52 | 212 |
| 26 | 5.87 | 30 | 194 | 5.24 | 14.5 | 2.96 | 209 |
| Significance | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | *** | ns |
| Rootstock | |||||||
| Sydo® | 4.17 | 22 | 188 | 5.65 | 14.4 | 3.05 | 217 |
| Fox 11 | 9.44 | 52 | 187 | 4.83 | 14.9 | 2.42 | 205 |
| Significance | ** | ** | ns | *** | ns | *** | ** |
| CaCl2 × rootstock | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| ns, ** and ***: effect not significant or significant at p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.001, respectively. Interaction between factors not significant. | |||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| CaCl2 (g L−1) | June, 4 | July, 18 | ||
| pH | EC (mS cm−1) | pH | EC (mS cm−1) | |
| 0 | 7.67 | 102 | 7.67 | 152 |
| 26 | 7.09 | 543 | 7.06 | 477 |
| Significance | *** | *** | *** | *** |
| Rootstock | ||||
| Sydo® | 7.43 | 347 | 7.24 | 360 |
| Fox 11 | 7.33 | 299 | 7.49 | 269 |
| Significance | ns | * | ns | * |
| CaCl2 × rootstock | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| ns, * and ***: effect not significant or significant at p ≤ 0.05 and p ≤ 0.001, respectively. Interaction between factors not significant. | ||||
| CaCl2 (g L−1) | June, 4 | July, 18 | ||||||
| Ψw (MPa) | Ψs (MPa) | Ψw (MPa) | Ψs (MPa) | |||||
| Sydo® | Fox11 | Sydo® | Fox11 | |||||
| 0 | −0.66 | −1.79 | −0.99 | −1.29 | −1.77 | −1.94 | ||
| 26 | −0.74 | −1.71 | −1.26 | −1.16 | −2.02 | −1.87 | ||
| Significance | ns | ns | 2SEM = −0.31 | 2SEM = −0.18 | ||||
| Rootstock | ||||||||
| Sydo® | −0.79 | −1.83 | ||||||
| Fox 11 | −0.60 | −1.69 | ||||||
| Significance | ** | ** | ||||||
| CaCl2 × rootstock | ns | ns | * | ** | ||||
| ns, * and **: effect not significant or significant at p ≤ 0.05 and p ≤ 0.01, respectively. On July 18, values differing > 2 standard error of means (SEM) are statistically different. | ||||||||
| CaCl2 (g L-1) | Leaf (g kg−1 DW) | Fruit (g kg−1 DW) | |||||
| Ca | K | Mg | Ca | K | Mg | ||
| 0 | 6.85 | 9.16 | 3.35 | 1.27 | 9.42 | 0.75 | |
| 26 | 7.35 | 9.87 | 3.53 | 1.44 | 9.84 | 0.75 | |
| Significance | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| Rootstock | |||||||
| Sydo® | 8.20 | 7.36 | 4.25 | 1.69 | 8.94 | 0.83 | |
| Fox 11 | 6.01 | 11.67 | 2.64 | 1.00 | 10.33 | 0.67 | |
| Significance | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | |
| CaCl2 × rootstock | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| ns and ***: effect not significant or significant at p ≤ 0.001, respectively. Interaction between factors not significant. | |||||||
| CaCl2 (g L−1) | Ca fractions (mg kg−1 FW) | |||||
| Ethanol soluble | Water soluble | Pectate | Phosphate | Oxalate | Residual | |
| 0 | 43 | 144 | 279 | 109 | 258 | 513 |
| 26 | 36 | 154 | 261 | 162 | 230 | 641 |
| Significance | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| Rootstock | ||||||
| Sydo® | 47 | 170 | 283 | 140 | 267 | 788 |
| Fox 11 | 29 | 123 | 252 | 132 | 214 | 313 |
| Significance | *** | ** | ** | ns | * | *** |
| CaCl2 × rootstock | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| ns, *, ** and ***: effect not significant or significant at p ≤ 0.05, p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.001, respectively. Interaction between factors not significant. | ||||||
| CaCl2 (g L−1) | 4 DAFI | 11 DAFI | ||
| Spots (n fruit−1) |
Spots area (mm2 fruit−1) |
Spots (n fruit−1) |
Spots area (mm2 fruit−1) |
|
| 0 | 3.3 | 31 | 3.9 | 178 |
| 26 | 2.9 | 25 | 3.9 | 155 |
| Significance | * | * | ns | * |
| Rootstock | ||||
| Sydo® | 3.1 | 27 | 4.0 | 148 |
| Fox 11 | 3.1 | 30 | 3.9 | 185 |
| Significance | ns | ns | ns | *** |
| CaCl2 × rootstock | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| ns, * and ***: effect not significant or significant at p ≤ 0.05 and p ≤ 0.001, respectively. Interaction between factors not significant. | ||||
| CaCl2 (g L−1) | POD (U min. −1 µg−1 protein) |
PPO (U min. −1 µg−1 protein) |
β-1, 3-glucanase (µmol glucose h−1 µg−1 protein) |
PAL (µmol cinnamic acid h−1 µg−1 protein) |
| 0 | 9.4 | 0.07 | 0.91 | 157 |
| 26 | 6.5 | 0.05 | 0.73 | 125 |
| Significance | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| Rootstock | ||||
| Sydo® | 8.4 | 0.10 | 1.60 | 271 |
| Fox 11 | 7.6 | 0.03 | 0.25 | 46 |
| Significance | ns | ** | *** | *** |
| CaCl2 × rootstock | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| ns, ** and ***: effect not significant or significant at p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.001, respectively. Interaction between factors not significant. | ||||
| CaCl2 (g L−1) | Yield (kg tree−1) |
Fruits (n tree−1) |
Fruit weight (g fruit−1) |
Firmness (kg) |
SSC (°Brix) |
TA (g L−1) |
Dry matter (g kg−1) |
| 0 | 7.75 | 44 | 181 | 5.23 | 14.8 | 2.52 | 212 |
| 26 | 5.87 | 30 | 194 | 5.24 | 14.5 | 2.96 | 209 |
| Significance | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | *** | ns |
| Rootstock | |||||||
| Sydo® | 4.17 | 22 | 188 | 5.65 | 14.4 | 3.05 | 217 |
| Fox 11 | 9.44 | 52 | 187 | 4.83 | 14.9 | 2.42 | 205 |
| Significance | ** | ** | ns | *** | ns | *** | ** |
| CaCl2 × rootstock | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| ns, ** and ***: effect not significant or significant at p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.001, respectively. Interaction between factors not significant. | |||||||
