Unseen population build-up of Pratylenchus in organically grown clover grass leys
Abstract. Legumes constitute up to 50 % of all crops in organic rotations surrendering these susceptible towards a range of soil-borne pests and diseases, such as plant-parasitic nematodes of the genera Meloidogyne and Pratylenchus. Here, we ask how plant-parasitic and other free-living trophic nematode guilds are affected by four diverse organic farming strategies, i.e. three stockless organic farm types “Cash Crop”, “Soil Fertility”, “Vegan” Farm type and one “Mixed” Farm type which includes cattle, each with individually designed legume cropping frequencies.
These farm types have been set up with individual fertilization strategies in four replicates in 2017 in an organically managed long-term experiment. Soils were always sampled in spring between 2022 and 2024 (not all Farm types were sampled each year). Nematodes were extracted from soils using Oostenbrink elutriators, enumerated and eventually identified to the genus and/or family level. Morphology and molecular analysis of the 18S region helped to identify Pratylenchus to the species level. Average over all years, the Mixed Farm type harbored 3356 nematodes 100 ml soil-1, between 37 and 52 % more than the other Farm types. Plant-parasitic nematodes were dominant in all farm types constituting 40 % (Soil Fertility Farm type) to 80 % (Mixed Farm type) of the total nematode community. Pratylenchus was the most abundant genus with up to 1,300 specimen 100 ml soil-1 within the treatments of the Mixed Farm type. Organic fertilizer had inconsistent impacts on nematode trophic groups but negatively affected the herbivorous family of Tylenchidae. A strong positive correlation (R² = 0.78, p = 0.004) of clover grass biomass production and numbers of Pratylenchus in the Cash Crop Farm type was observed in the last sampling year. Such a hidden population build up emphasizes further monitoring of the population dynamic of involved Pratylenchus spp. over the course of the rotation.
General comment
The manuscript “Unseen population build-up of Pratylenchus in organically grown clover grass leys” describes and report the data and results about nematode trophic groups in different farm types with different organic fertilization and rotations in organically managed long-term field experiments in Germany
While I find the introduction of the article mostly well written, I think that this lacks clarity regarding the focus of the paper (also I have the same impression from the title): is the focus on legumes? On organic fertilization? On PPN or the free-living community or both? I think this could be clarified and made a bit more consistent throughout the intro and the document in general. Also, what do you mean about beneficial nematode groups? Are bacterivorous nematodes always beneficial? Or do you maybe talk about a more balance nematode community in terms of trophic groups? I also think that the gap you are trying to fill could be explained more. I would try to formulate research questions that are clearly linked to the hypotheses that you mention in the end of the introduction.
In general, the material and methods are fine, but they could be sharpened in various points (see moe specific comments). I am also not very sure how all the analyses are linked to the research questions and the hypotheses. I think this can be clarified. One think I think is a bit limiting is the way you have analysed the nematode communities: you only looked at absolute abundances, while often is interesting to look at relative abundances and also more specific taxa of the free-living nematode communities.
The results and discussion sections in my opinion could also be more focused and linked to the research questions and hypotheses. Because of this, I find that in some cases is difficult to follow the discussion and really understand what are the main points. Also, I am a bit confused about the section ‘outlook’: I think I would call this conclusions and again, I would try to link it more to the overall aim of the study and also to more practical implications and follow ups including all of your main results.
Specific comments
Title
the title is very specific, but the content is broader than this...I suggest to have another title that represents more the objective and the content of the work
Abstract
Line 9-10: check the structure of this sentence.
Line 12-15: long and not easy to read
Line 15: mention where is the farm located (country)
Line 18: Not clear why two types of characterization for Pratylenchus (and also why in particular for this nematode genera).
Line 19: not typical way of unit for nematodes (usually numbers per 200 g of dry soil). How will you compare this to other studies?
Line 22: which treatment was this?
Line 25: what do you mean with hidden population?
Line 26: which rotation?
In general, I think the research question could be a bit more motivated. The year component here is not mentioned in the results part of the abstract. I also think there are some details that could be skipped maybe (numbers of nematodes) and maybe focus more on the main results?
Introduction
Material and methods
In general, don't you have any chemical or physical parameters to try to explain and interpret the results?
Results
Discussion
Outlook
but here you don't mention at all the negative effect of some treatments on plant feeding nematodes, why?
Line 529-530: in absolute term, right? and what about the relative aundances of these groups??
Line 539: reference?
I think a more general conclusion is missing.
Appendixes
No appendixes.