the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
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.
- Preprint
(1135 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5843', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Apr 2026
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jan Henrik Schmidt, 12 Jun 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5843', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 May 2026
The manuscript ‘Unseen population build-up of Pratylenchus in organically grown clover grass leys’ examines how nematode trophic guilds are responding to four organic farming strategies (differing in amount of ley and type of organic fertilizer) in field experiments in Germany. The authors show that plant-parasitic nematodes were dominant in all farm types, and the most abundant being Pratylenchus. However, the title is mis-leading as a big part of the manuscript is about the response of different nematode trophic groups.
The authors need to decide what should be the focus of the paper – the amount of legumes in the rotation or the organic fertilizer affecting the whole nematode community or mainly just plant-parasitic nematodes. And that should be evident throughout the manuscript. As stated in the end of the introduction, the purpose of the study is to identify organic cropping systems and organic matter management strategies that suppress potentially harmful PPN while simultaneously fostering beneficial nematode trophic groups. Are you really doing that when you have four different systems, all with different fertilization? And what was the purpose of the repeated sampling in most of the systems? Depending on the focus of the paper, it could be discussed whether the part about diagnostics of Pratylenchus species should be deleted. In the present form, this section is not fitting in with the other.
I am a bit confused regarding the use of the terms herbivorous nematodes and plant-parasitic nematodes. What are your definitions of these terms? To me, herbivorous nematodes are feeding on plants, but they are only considered plant-parasitic if they cause substantial damage. E.g. I would consider species within Tylenchidae to be herbivorous but not plant-parasitic, but you have included them as plant-parasitic. So which genera do you consider herbivorous and which plant-parasitic? Or are you just using different names for the same thing? If the latter, use the same name throughout the manuscript.
Detailed comments:
Abstract: The different legume cropping sequences are not mentioned but rather just the names of the organic farm types are provided. The differences among the farm types should be evident already from the abstract.
Introduction: The structure could be improved by providing a clear red thread and the main focus of the study should be evident.
Line 29: longer durations of legumes
Line 31: References Finckh et al. 2015 and Böhm et al. 2020 not included in the reference list. Why would the increased nutrient cycling contribute to reduced use of pesticides?
Line 33 (and throughout the manuscript): PPNs
Line 36: largely unknown is a bold statement. There is a number of studies looking at nematodes in organic cropping systems.
Line 39: If knowledge of these systems is lacking, how could you then state that long and diverse rotations in organic systems harbor less specialized PPNs (e.g. cyst nematodes)? Include a reference.
Line 55: e.g. demonstrated
Table 1: The fertilization treatments specified in the text for the cash crop and soil fertility farm types do not correspond with the time points provided in the table.
Line 99: It is not evident from Table 1 what farm types that were sampled the different years.
Figure 1: Why not have a graph for plant-parasitic nematodes too?
Line 234: Refer to another chapter number (3.1) than the current chapter you are in.
References in the text: Not provided in a consistent way regarding publication year (i.e. not in chronological order).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5843-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jan Henrik Schmidt, 12 Jun 2026
Dear reviewer 2,
thank you very much for your detailed review and the detection of some major flaws in the manuscript.
This will contribute a lot to improve our manuscript.
Please find the point by point comments in the attached supplementary file.
All best,
Jan Henrik Schmidt
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jan Henrik Schmidt, 12 Jun 2026
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 529 | 209 | 61 | 799 | 49 | 65 |
- HTML: 529
- PDF: 209
- XML: 61
- Total: 799
- BibTeX: 49
- EndNote: 65
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
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.