European Journal of Plant Pathology

, Volume 101, Issue 2, pp 149–162 | Cite as

Analysis of nematodes and soil-borne fungi fromAmmophila arenaria (Marram grass) in Dutch coastal foredunes by multivariate techniques

  • P. C. E. M. de Rooij-van der Goes
  • W. H. van der Putten
  • C. van Dijk


A survey was carried out at nine locations in the Dutch coastal foredunes to identify the species of soil borne fungi and nematodes associated withAmmophila arenaria (Marram grass).Ammophila arenaria is a sand binding grass that is very important for the stabilization of coastal foredunes. Degeneration of the plants occurs at stabilized sites and is supposed to be caused by a combination of soil-borne fungi and nematodes. Canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) and two-way indicator species analysis (TWINSPAN) were used to examine which fungal and nematode species usually coexist in the rhizosphere of vigorous and early declining stands ofA. arenaria. In total, 47 species of fungi and 10 genera of plant-parasitic nematodes were found. According to CCA, the community of soil organisms of stands that were more than 10 years old was significantly different from recently established stands of 3 years old. Also, the community of soil organisms isolated from calcareous locations differed significantly from that of lime-poor locations. No relationship between the vigour of the plants (vigorous vs. early declining) and the soil borne species composition was found, although in roots of vigorous stands, the number of nematodes was higher than that of early declining stands. A relatively large group of soil organisms occurred generally. This group possibly contains an ubiquitous pathocomplex that cause the growth reducing effects of biotic origin which generally occur inA. arenaria. Analysis of this group of nematodes and fungi by TWINSPAN resulted in 9 different combinations of concurring soil organisms of which 5 combinations were present at all investigated locations. Two of the latter combinations contained both nematodes and fungi. The first contained three endoparasitic nematodes (Meloidogyne maritima, Heterodera spp. andPratylenchus sp.) that concurred with the fungusMucor hiemalis. The second group containedHeterodera spp.,Telotylenchus ventralis, Filenchus sp. together with the potentially plant-pathogenic fungiMicrodochium bolleyi and Fusarium culmorum, as well as the fungiMortierella sp. andTrichoderma harzianum, all in relatively high numbers.

It is concluded that both CCA and TWINSPAN are valuable exploratory techniques, especially when used in combination, to detect possible combinations of soil organisms which may be involved in the degeneration ofA. arenaria. Further identifications of harmful organisms should be obtained from experiments.

Key words

canonical correspondence analysis (CCA) Chaetomium Fusarium Phoma Tylenchidae TWINSPAN 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baye PR (1980) Comparative growth responses and population ecology of European and American beach-grasses (Ammophila spp.) in relation to sand accretion and salinity. PhD. thesis. University of Western Ontario, London, 309 ppGoogle Scholar
  2. Bongers T (1988) De nematoden van Nederland. Stichting uitgeverij Koninklijke Nederlandse Natuurhistorische vereniging. Utrecht. 408 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Brown JC (1958) Soil fungi of some British sand dunes in relation to soil type and succession. Journal of Ecology 46: 641–664Google Scholar
  4. Bussau C (1990) Freilebende Nematoden aus Küstendünen und angrenzenden Biotopen der deutschen und dänischen Küsten. I. Gesamtüberblick und Chromadorida (Nematoda). Zoologische Anzeiger 225: 161–188Google Scholar
  5. Dennis RWG (1983) Fungi ofAmmophila arenaria in Europe. Revista de Biologia 12: 15–47Google Scholar
  6. Domsch KH, Gams W and Anderson T-H (1980) Compendium of soil fungi. Vol. 1 & 2. Academic Press, London. 895 + 405 pp.Google Scholar
  7. Eldred RA and Maun MA (1982) A multivariate approach to the problem of decline in vigour ofAmmophila. Canadian Journal of Botany 60: 1371–1380Google Scholar
  8. Gams W and Van Laar W (1982) The use of solacol (validamycin) as a growth retardant in the isolation of fungi. Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology 88: 39–45Google Scholar
  9. Hill MO (1979) TWINSPAN — a FORTRAN program for arranging multivariate data in an ordered two-way table by classification of individuals and attributes. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. 90 ppGoogle Scholar
  10. Huiskes AHL (1979) Biological flora of the British isles:Ammophila arenaria (L.) Link (Psamma arenaria (L.) Roem. et Shult.:Calamagrostis arenaria (L.) Roth). Journal of Ecology 67: 363–382Google Scholar
  11. Jepson SB (1987) Identification of root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne species). C.A.B. International, Wallingford, Oxon, 265 ppGoogle Scholar
  12. Jongman, RHG, Ter Braak CJF and Van Tongeren OFR (1987) Data analysis in community and landscape ecology. Pudoc, Wageningen, 299 ppGoogle Scholar
  13. Maas PWTH, Oremus PAI and Otten H (1983) Nematodes (Longidorus n. sp. andTylenchorhynchus microphasmis Loff) in growth and nodulation of sea buckthorn (Hippophaë rhamnoides L.). Plant and Soil 73: 141–147Google Scholar
  14. Mai WF and Abawi GS (1987) Interacting among root-knot nematodes andFusarium wilt fungi on host plants. Annual Review of Phytopathology 25: 317–338Google Scholar
  15. Maun MA and Baye P (1988) The ecology ofAmmophila breviligulata Fern. on coastal dune systems. Critical Review in Aquatic Science 1: 661–681Google Scholar
  16. Murray DIL and Gadd GM (1981) Preliminary studies onMicrodochium bolleyi with special reference to colonization of barley. Transactions of the British Mycological Society 76: 397–403Google Scholar
  17. Moreau M and Moreau F (1941) Première contribution à l'étude de la microflore des dunes. Revue de Mycologie 6: 49–94Google Scholar
  18. Nelson PE, Toussoun TA and Marasas WFO (1983)Fusarium species. An illustrated manual for identification. Pennsylvania State University Press. University Park, London. 193 ppGoogle Scholar
  19. Oostenbrink M (1960) Estimating nematode populations by some selected methods. In: Sasser JN and Jenkins WR (eds) Nematology (pp. 85–102). University of North Carolina Press, Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
  20. Palmer MW (1993) Putting things in even better order: the advantages of canonical correspondence analysis. Ecology 74: 2215–2230Google Scholar
  21. Powell NT, Melendez PL and Batten CK (1971) Disease complexes involvingMeloidogyne incognita and certain soilborne fungi. Phytopathology 61: 1332–1337Google Scholar
  22. Rozema J, Laan P, Ernst WHO and Appelo CAJ (1985) On the lime transition and decalcification in the coastal dunes of the province of North Holland and the island of Schiermonnikoog. Acta Botanica Neerlandica 34: 393–411Google Scholar
  23. Seliskar DM and Huettel RN (1993) Nematode involvement in dieout ofAmmophila breviligulata (Poaceae) on the mid-atlantic coastal dunes of the United States. Journal of Coastal Research 9: 97–103Google Scholar
  24. 's Jacob JJ and Van Bezooijen J (1984) Manual for practical work in nematology. Practicumhandleiding vakgroep nematologie, Landbouw Universiteit Wageningen. 77 ppGoogle Scholar
  25. Ter Braak CJF (1988) CANOCO—a FORTRAN program for canonical community ordination by [partial] [detrended] [canonical] correspondence analysis, principal components analysis and redundancy analysis (version 2.1). Groep Landbouwwiskunde Wageningen. 95 ppGoogle Scholar
  26. Van der Goes PCEM and Van der Putten WH (1992) Are nematodes involved in the degeneration ofAmmophila arenaria (marram grass)? Mededelingen van de Faculteit van de Landbouwwetenschappen Universiteit van Gent, 57/3a: 847–856Google Scholar
  27. Van der Putten WH (1990) Establishment and management ofAmmophila arenaria (marram grass) on artificial coastal foredunes in the Netherlands. Proceedings Canadian Symposium on coastal sand dunes 1990: 367–387Google Scholar
  28. Van der Putten WH, Van der Werf-Klein Breteler JT and Van Dijk C (1989) Colonization of the root zone ofAmmophila arenaria by harmful soil organisms. Plant and Soil 120: 213–223Google Scholar
  29. Van der Putten WH, Maas PWTh, Van Gulik WJM and Brinkman H (1990) Characterization of soil organisms involved in the degeneration ofAmmophila arenaria. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 22(6): 845–852Google Scholar
  30. Van der Putten WH and Troelstra SR (1990) Harmful soil organisms in coastal foredunes involved in degeneration ofAmmophila arenaria andCalammophila baltica Canadian Journal of Botany 68: 1560–1568Google Scholar
  31. Van der Putten WH, Van Dijk C and Peters BAM (1993) Plant-specific soil-borne diseases contribute to succession in foredune vegetation. Nature 362: 53–55Google Scholar
  32. Willis AJ (1989) Coastal sand dunes as biological system. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 96B: 17–36Google Scholar
  33. Windham MT, Elad Y and Baker R (1986) A mechanism for increased plant growth induced byTrichoderma spp. Phytopathology 76: 518–521Google Scholar
  34. Wohlrab G, Tuveson RW and Olmsted CE (1963) Fungal populations from early stages of succession in indiana dune sands. Ecology 44: 734–740Google Scholar
  35. Yeates GW (1968) An analysis of annual variation of the nematode fauna in dune sand, at Himatangi Beach, New Zealand. Pedobiologia 8: 173–207Google Scholar
  36. Yeates GW (1987) How plants affect nematodes. Advances in Ecological Research 17: 61–113Google Scholar
  37. Zoon FC, Troelstra SR and Maas PWTh (1993) Ecology of the plant-feeding nematode fauna associated with sea buckthorn (Hippophaë rhamnoides L. ssp.rhamnoides) in different stages of dune succession. Fundamental and Applied Nematology 16(3): 247–258.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. C. E. M. de Rooij-van der Goes
    • 1
  • W. H. van der Putten
    • 1
  • C. van Dijk
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Terrestrial EcologyNetherlands Institute of EcologyHeterenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations