Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measures of nematode community structure and sources of variability among and within agricultural fields

  • Soil Faunal Relationship
  • Published:
Plant and Soil Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Whole nematode communities, extracted from soil samples taken from agricultural fields, were enumerated by taxonomic family and trophic group (i.e., bacterivores, fungivores, omnivores, plant-parasites, and predators) to evaluate nematode community structure as an indicator for monitoring ecological condition of soil. No differences were found in mixing treatments or methods of packing or shipping samples. However, extraction using Cobb's sifting and gravity method, followed by sucrose centrifugation, gave greater recovery of free-living nematodes than elutriation followed by sucrose centrifugation. Population means and variance of the sampled area were similar when sampled using different strategies for collecting soil samples within fieds, including several patterns, directions and repetitions of transects. Components of variation associated with ratios among the five trophic groups of nematodes and selected indices of community structure were quantified as variation among regions, among counties, among agricultural fields (2-ha area), among transects within agricultural fields, and within composite soil samples. The variance component for'within composite soil samples' was relatively large compared to the other components of variance. Variation within composite soil samples was less for maturity indices (based on life-history strategy characteristics), ratio of bacterivores to plant-parasites, sum of bacterivores and fungivores, populations of plant-parasites, and populations of bacterivores than for trophic diversity indices, populations of fungivores, populations of omnivores, populations of predators, or the ratio of fungivores to bacterivores. With a single composite sample per field, the ability to differentiate ecological condition of soils among fields within a region improved if the variance among and within fields exceeded the variance within composite samples. Given the variance components, power curves indicated that detection of a 10% change (with 0.8 power) in the ecological condition of soils within a region between two time periods would require sampling a minimum of 25 and 50 fields with one composite soil sample analyzed per field for the maturity and trophic diversity index, respectively. More than 100 fieldsper region would be required to detect temporal change in populations of individual trophic groups. Biplots of maturity indices, but not of trophic diversity or populations of individual trophic groups, identified clear differences among fields. Thus, maturity indices, which differentiated among sampling sites better and more efficiently than trophic diversity indices or measures based on populations of individual trophic groups, may be appropriate for use in a regional and/or national monitoring program.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Atlas R M, Horowitz A, Krichevsky M and Bej A K 1991 Response to microbial populations to environmental disturbance. Microbiol. Ecol. 22, 249–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayoub S M 1980 Plant Nematology, An Agricultural Training Aid. California Department of Food and Agriculture, NemaAid Publications, Sacramento, CA. 195 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker K R, Nusbaum C J and Nelson L A 1969 Effects of storage temperature and extraction procedure on recovery of plant-parasitic nematodes from field soils. J. Nematol. 1, 240–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker K R 1985a Sampling nematode communities.In An Advanced Treatise onMeloidogyne Vol. II: Methodology. Eds. K R Barker, C C Carter and J N Sasser. pp 2–17. North Carolina State University Graphics, Raleigh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker K R 1985b Nematode extraction and bioassays.In An Advanced Treatise onMeloidogyne Vol. II: Methodology. Eds. K R Barker, C C Carter and J N Sasser. pp 19–35. North Carolina State University Graphics, Raleigh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker K R and Campbell CL 1981 Sampling nematode populations.In Plant Parasitic Nematodes, Vol. III. Eds. E.B M Zuckerman and R A Rohde. pp 451–474. Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker K R and Noe J P 1988 Techniques in quantitative nematology.In Experimental Techniques in Plant Disease Epidemiology. Eds. J Kranz and J Rotem. pp 223–236. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker K R, Schmitt D P and Noe J P 1985 Role of sampling for crop-loss assessment and nematode management. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 12, 355–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boag B 1977 Factors influencing the occurrence and abundance of nematodes in forest soils in eastern Scotland. Ann. Appl. Biol. 86, 446–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bongers A M T 1990a Biologische bodembeoordeling met nematoden.In Handboek voor Milieubeheer: Bodembescherming. Eds. F A Mde Haan, Ch H Henkens and D A Zeilmaker. pp J2000–1-J2000–17. Samson H D Tjeenk Willink, Alphen aan de Rijn, Deurne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bongers T 1990b The maturity index: an ecological measure of environmental disturbance based on nematode species composition. Oecologia 83, 14–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt A J, McKee P M, Hart D R and Kauss P B 1991 Effects of pollution on benthic invertebrate communities of the St. Mary's River, 1985. Hydrobiologia 219, 63–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camargo J A 1992 New diversity index for assessing structural alterations in aquatic communities. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 48, 428–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caveness F E and Jensen H J 1955 Modification of the centrifugal-flotation technique for the isolation and concentration of nematodes and their eggs from soil and plant tissue. Proc. Helminthol. Soc. 22, 87–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daykin M E and Hussey R S 1985 Staining and histopathological techniques in nematology.In An Advanced Treatise onMeloidogyne Vol. II: Methodology. Eds. K R Barker, C C Carter and J N Sasser. pp 39–48. North Carolina State University Graphics, Raleigh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Englund E and Sparks A 1991 GEO-EAS 1.2.1 Geostatistical Environmental Assessment Software-User's Guide. EPA 600/8–91/008. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Las Vegas, Nevada. pp 1–1 to 17–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris V R and Ferris J M 1974 Inter-relationships between nematode and plant communities in agricultural ecosystems. Agro-Ecosystems 1, 275–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris H, Mullens T A and Foord K E 1990 Stability and characteristics of spatial description parameters for nematode populations. J. Nematol. 22, 427–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francl L J 1986a Spatial analysis ofHeterodera glycines populations in field plots. J. Nematol. 18, 183–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francl L J 1986b Improving the accuracy of sampling field plots for plant-parasitic nematodes. J. Nematol. 18, 190–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freckman D W 1988 Bacterivorous nematodes and organic-matter decomposition. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 24, 195–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freckman D W and Ettema C H 1993 Assessing nematode communities in agroecosystems of varying human intervention. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 45, 239–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee G W and Bauder J W 1986 Particle-size analysis.In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1. Ed. A Klute. pp 383–411. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Agronomy Monograph No. 9 (2nd edition) 383–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodell P and Ferris H 1980 Plant-parasitic nematode distributions in an alfalfa field. J. Nematol. 12, 136–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodell P B and Ferris H 1981 Sample optimization for five plant-parasitic nematodes in an alfalfa field. J. Nematol. 13, 304–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorny M 1976 Zagadnienie bioindykacjiw glebach biotopów Zdefradowanych. Wiad. Ekol. 22, 224–230 (cited by Wasilewska, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  • Heck W W, Campbell C L, Finkner A L, Hayes C R, Hess G R, Meyer J R, Munster M J, Neher D A, Peck S L, Rawlings J O, Smith C N and Tooley M B 1993 Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)-Agroecosystem 1992 Pilot Project Plan. EPA/620/R-93/010 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heip C, Herman P M J and Soetaert K 1988 Data processing, evaluation and analysis.In Introduction to the Study of Meiofauna. Eds. R P Higgins and H Thiel. pp 197–231. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendrix P F, Parmelee R W, Crossley D A Jr, Coleman D C, Odum E P and Groffman P M 1986 Detritus food webs on conventional and no-tillage agroecosystems. BioScience 36, 374–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingham R E, Trofymow J A, Ingham E R and Coleman D C 1985 Interactions of bacteria, fungi, and their nematode grazers: Effects on nutrient cycling and plant growth. Ecol. Monogr. 55, 119–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaaks E H and Srivastava R M 1989 Applied Geostatistics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 561 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarošik V 1983 A comparison of the diversity of carabid beetles (Col., Carabidae) of two floodplain forests differently affected by emissions. Vest. Ceskoslav. Spolec. Zool. 47, 215–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kästner V A und Germershausen K 1989 Struktur und Abundanz-dynamik der Nematodenfaunain einem Schwarzerde-Lössboden. Hercynia N. F. 26, 71–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutz F W and Linthurst R A 1990 A systems-level approach to environmental assessment. Toxicol. Environ. Chem. 28, 105–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin C S, Poushinsky G and Mauer M 1979 An examination of five sampling methods under random and clustered disease distribution using simulation. Can. J. Plant Sci. 59, 121–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig J A and Reynolds J F 1988 Statical Ecology: A Primer on Methods and Computing. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 337 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maggenti A R 1982 Nemata.In Synopsis and Classification of Living Organisms. Ed. S P Parker. pp 878–923. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maggenti A R 1991 Nemata: Higher classification.In Manual of Agricultural Nematology. Ed. W R Nickle. pp 147–187. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • McSorley R 1987 Extraction of nematodes and sampling methods.In Principles and Practice of Nematode Control in Crops. Eds. R H Brown and B R Kerry. pp 13–47. Academic Press, Orlando.

    Google Scholar 

  • McSorley R and Parrado J L 1982 Estimating relative error in nematode numbers from single soil samples composed of multiple cores. J. Nematol. 14.

  • McSorley R and Walter D E 1991 Comparison of soil extraction methods for nematodes and microarthropods. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 34, 201–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • McSorley R, Dankers W H, Parrado J L and Reynolds J S (1985) Spatial distribution of the nematode community on perrine marl soils. Nematropica 15, 77–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messer J J, Linthurst R A and Overton W S 1991 An EPA program for monitoring ecological status and trends. Environ. Monit. Assess. 17, 67–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore J C and de Ruiter P C 1991 Temporal and spatial heterogeneity of trophic interactions within below-ground food webs. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 34, 371–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nannipieri P, Grego S and Ceccanti B 1990 Ecological significance of the biological activity in soil.In Soil Biochemistry, Volume 6 Eds. Jean-Marc Bollag and G Stotzky. pp 293–355. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noe J P and Barker K R 1985 Relation of within-field spatial variation of plant-parasitic nematode population densities and edaphic factors. Phytopathology 75, 247–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noe J P and Campbell C L 1985 Spatial pattern analysis of plant-parasitic nematodes. J. Nematol. 17, 86–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • North Carolina Agricultural Statistics Division 1990 North Carolina Agricultural Statistics: 1990. North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Raleigh. 76 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • North Carolina Agricultural Statistics Division 1991 North Carolina Agricultural Statistics: 1991. North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Raleigh. 76 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver M A 1987 Geostatistics and its application to soil science. Soil Use Manage. 3, 8–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parmelee R W and Alston D 1986 Nematode trophic structure in conventional and no-tillage agroecosystems. J. Nematol. 18, 403–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pielou P C 1977 Mathematical Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 385 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Platt H M, Shaw K M and Lambshead P J D 1984 Nematode species abundance patterns and their use in the detection of environmental perturbations. Hydrobiologia 118, 59–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prot J C and Ferris H 1992 Sampling approaches for extensive surveys in nematology. Suppl. J. Nematol. 24, 757–764.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawlings J O 1988, Applied Regression Analysis: a Research Tool. Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole Advanced Books & Software, Pacific Grove, California. 553 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saly A and Ragala P 1984 Free-living nematodes-bioindicators of the effects of chemization on the soil fauna. UVTIZ-Ochr. Rostl. 20, 15–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samoiloff M R 1987 Nematodes as indicators of toxic environmental contaminants.In Vistas on Nematology. Eds. J A Veech and D W Dickson. pp 433–439. Society of Nematologists. Lakeland, Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute, Inc 1989 SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6, Fourth Edition, Volume 2. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC. 1686 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute, Inc 1992 SAS Technical Report P-229, SAS/STAT Software: Changes and Enhancements, Release 6.07 SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC. 620 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt D P, Barker K R, Noe J P and Koenning S R 1990 Repeated sampling to determine the precision of estimating nematode population densities. J. Nematol. 22, 552–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seastedt T R, James S W and Todd T C 1988 Interactions among soil invertebrates, microbes and plant growth in the tallgrass prairie. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 24, 219–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sohlenius B 1982 Short-terminfluence of clear-cutting on abundance of soil-microfauna (Nematoda, Rotatoria and Tardigrada) in a Swedish pine forest soil. Appl. Ecol. 19, 349–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sohlenius B, Bostrom S and Sandor A 1988 Carbon and nitrogen budgets of nematodes in arable soil. Bio. Fertil. Soils 6, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stinner B R and Crossley D AJr 1982 Nematodes in no-tillage agroecosystems.In Nematodes in Soil Ecosystems. Ed. D W Freckman. pp 14–28. University of Texas Press, Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorne G 1961 Principles of Nematology. McGraw-Hill Inc, New York. 553 p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twinn D C 1974 Nematodes.In Biology of Plant Litter Decomposition. Eds. C H Dickinson and G J F Pugh. pp 421–465. Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census 1987 1987 Census of Agriculture-County Data, North Carolina. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasilewska L 1979 The structure and function of soil nematode communities in natural ecosystems and agrocenoses. Pol. Ecol. Stud. 5, 97–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasilewska L 1989 Impact of human activities on nematodes.In Ecology of Arable Land. Eds. M Charholm and L Bergstrom. pp 123–132. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeates G W, Bongers T, de Goede R G M, Freckman D W and Georgieva S S 1993 Feeding habits in soil nematode families and genera—An outline for soil ecologists. J. Nematol. 25, 315–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeates G W and Coleman D C 1982 Nematodes in decomposition.In Nematodes in Soil Ecosystems. Ed. D W Freckman. pp 55–80. Unversity of Texas Press, Austin.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Agroecosystem Resource Group, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, 1509 Varsity Drive, 27606, Raleigh, NC, USA

    Deborah A. Neher, Steven L. Peck, John O. Rawlings & C. Lee Campbell (Collaborator)

  2. Department of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, 27695-7616, Raleigh, NC, USA

    Deborah A. Neher, Steven L. Peck & C. Lee Campbell (Collaborator)

  3. Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University, 27695-8203, Raleigh, NC, USA

    John O. Rawlings

  4. Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1509 Varsity Drive, 27606, Raleigh, NC, USA

    C. Lee Campbell (Collaborator)

Authors
  1. Deborah A. Neher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steven L. Peck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John O. Rawlings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. Lee Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Neher, D.A., Peck, S.L., Rawlings, J.O. et al. Measures of nematode community structure and sources of variability among and within agricultural fields. Plant Soil 170, 167–181 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02183065

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02183065

Key words

Search

Navigation