Advertisement

Effective methods of biofumigation: a meta-analysis

  • E Kathryn MorrisEmail author
  • Rachel Fletcher
  • Stavros D. Veresoglou
Regular Article
  • 39 Downloads

Abstract

Aims

Biofumigation, the burying of Brassicaceaous plant tissues to suppress soil pests, is an increasingly practiced technique. However, the efficiency of biofumigation varies considerably and motivated our meta-analysis on the topic.

Methods

We meta-analyzed data from 46 publications where 934 experiments used 363 unique controls, in order to determine effectiveness of this practice compared with untreated controls, and to identify which aspects of treatment regimens were most important for ensuring success.

Conclusions

Biofumigation generally reduced pest abundance, reduced incidence of disease, and increased crop yield by 30% over values seen in untreated controls. Neither the plant part incorporated, nor the method used to incorporate it, were important predictors of success. Contrary to our expectations, we found no evidence that solarization was beneficial, and only treatment regimens without solarization were generally effective. While treatment regimens varied, the most effective treatment combination that we identified was the incorporation of young Eruca and Raphanus plants, with high glucosinolate concentrations, applied at high doses with short exposure times to suppress the nematode Globodera in Solanaceous plants. Each component of this regimen would likely increase the effectiveness of biofumigation efforts aimed at other soil pests.

Keywords

Brassicaceae Fumigation Glucosinolate Isothiocyanate Pest suppression 

Abbreviations

ITCs

Isothiocyanates

Notes

Acknowledgments

Comments from three anonymous reviewers substantially improved this manuscript.

Supplementary material

11104_2019_4352_MOESM1_ESM.docx (745 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 744 kb)

References

  1. Ahuja I, Rohloff J, Bones A (2010) Defence mechanisms of Brassicaceae: implications for plant-insect interactions and potential for integrated pest management. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 30:311–348.  https://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2009025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aires A, Carvalho R, Barbosa M, Rosa E (2009) Suppressing potato cyst nematode, Globodera rostochiensis, with extracts of Brassicacea plants. Am J Potato Res 86:327–333.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12230-009-9086-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barto EK, Rillig MC (2012) Dissemination biases in ecology: effect sizes matter more than quality. Oikos 121:228–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barto EK, Friese CF, Cipollini D (2010) Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi protect a native plant from allelopathic effects of an invader. J Chem Ecol 36:351–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohinc T, Ban S, Ban D, Trdan S (2012) Glucosinolates in plant protection strategies: a review. Arch Biol Sci 64:821–828.  https://doi.org/10.2298/ABS1203821B CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bones AM, Rossiter JT (1996) The myrosinase-glucosinolate system, its organisation and biochemistry. Physiol Plant 97:194–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown P, Morra M (1997) Control of soil-borne plant pests using glucosinolate-containing plants. Adv Agron 61(61):167–231.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60664-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen YG, Olson DM, Ruberson JR (2010) Effects of nitrogen fertilization on tritrophic interactions. Arthropod Plant Interact 4:81–94.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-010-9092-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Core Team R (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  10. Doheny-Adams T, Lilley C, Barker A, Ellis S, Wade R, Atkinson H, Urwin P, Redeker K, Hartley S (2018) Constant isothiocyanate-release potentials across biofumigant seeding rates. J Agric Food Chem 66:5108–5116.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b04610 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Duval S, Tweedie R (2000) Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 56:455–463.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Fahey JW, Zalcmann AT, Talalay P (2001) The chemical diversity and distribution of glucosinolates and isothiocyanates among plants. Phytochemistry 56:5–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fourie H, Ahuja P, Lammers J, Daneel M (2016) Brassicaceae-based management strategies as an alternative to combat nematode pests: a synopsis. Crop Prot 80:21–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2015.10.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gareau BJ (2010) A critical review of the successful CFC phase-out versus the delayed methyl bromide phase-out in the Montreal protocol. Int Environ Agreement Politics Law Econ 10:209–231.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-010-9120-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gimsing A, Kirkegaard J (2009) Glucosinolates and biofumigation: fate of glucosinolates and their hydrolysis products in soil. Phytochem Rev 8:299–310.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11101-008-9105-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hedges LV, Gurevitch J, Curtis PS (1999) The meta-analysis of response ratios in experimental ecology. Ecology 80:1150–1156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henderson D, Riga E, Ramirez R, Wilson J, Snyder E (2009) Mustard biofumigation disrupts biological control by Steinernema spp. nematodes in the soil. Biol Control 48:316–322.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2008.12.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346–363.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.200810425 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Kirkegaard JA, Sarwar M (1998) Biofumigation potential of brassicas. I. Variation in glucosinolate profiles of diverse field-grown brassicas. Plant Soil 201:71–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koron D, Sonjak S, Regvar M (2014) Effects of non-chemical soil fumigant treatments on root colonisation with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and strawberry fruit production. Crop Prot 55:35–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2013.09.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lajeunesse MJ (2011) On the meta-analysis of response ratios for studies with correlated and multi-group designs. Ecology 92:2049–2055.  https://doi.org/10.1890/11-0423.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lazzeri L, Baruzzi G, Malaguti L, Antoniacci L (2003) Replacing methyl bromide in annual strawberry production with glucosinolate-containing green manure crops. Pest Manag Sci 59:983–990.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.726 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lilleskov EA, Fahey TJ, Horton TR, Lovett GM (2002) Belowground ectomycorrhizal fungal community change over a nitrogen deposition gradient in Alaska. Ecology 83:104–115.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2680124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lopez-Perez JA, Roubtsova T, Garcia MD, Ploeg A (2010) The potential of five winter-grown crops to reduce root-knot nematode damage and increase yield of tomato. J Nematol 42:120–127PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Lord J, Lazzeri L, Atkinson H, Urwin P (2011) Biofumigation for control of pale potato cyst nematodes: activity of Brassica leaf extracts and green manures on Globodera pallida in vitro and in soil. J Agric Food Chem 59:7882–7890.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jf200925k CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin F (2003) Development of alternative strategies for management of soilborne pathogens currently controlled with methyl bromide. Annu Rev Phytopathol 41:325–350.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.phyto.41.052002.095514 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Matthiessen J, Kirkegaard J (2006) Biofumigation and enhanced biodegradation: opportunity and challenge in soilborne pest and disease management. Crit Rev Plant Sci 25:235–265.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07352680600611543 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meyer D, Zeileis A, Hornik K (2006) The Strucplot framework: visualizing multi-way contingency tables with vcd. J Stat Softw 17:1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Meyer D, Zeileis A, Hornik K (2017) vcd: Visualizing categorical data. R package version 1.4–4Google Scholar
  30. Mocali S, Landi S, Curto G, Dallavalle E, Infantino A, Colzi C, d'Errico G, Roversi P, D'Avino L, Lazzeri L (2015) Resilience of soil microbial and nematode communities after biofumigant treatment with defatted seed meals. Ind Crop Prod 75:79–90.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.04.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morra MJ, Kirkegaard JA (2002) Isothiocyanate release from soil-incorporated Brassica tissues. Soil Biol Biochem 34:1683–1690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Motisi N, Montfort F, Dore T, Romillac N, Lucas P (2009) Duration of control of two soilborne pathogens following incorporation of above- and below-ground residues of Brassica juncea into soil. Plant Pathol 58:470–478.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2008.02017.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Motisi N, Poggi S, Filipe JAN, Lucas P, Dore T, Montfort F, Gilligan CA, Bailey DJ (2013) Epidemiological analysis of the effects of biofumigation for biological control of root rot in sugar beet. Plant Pathol 62:69–78.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2012.02618.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. New M (1987) Feed and feeding of fish and shrimp. A manual on the preparation and presentation of compound feeds for shrimp and fish in aquaculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  35. Njoroge S, Riley M, Keinath A (2008) Effect of incorporation of Brassica spp. residues on population densities of soilborne microorganisms and on damping-off and Fusarium wilt of watermelon. Plant Dis 92:287–294.  https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-92-2-0287 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Nordin A, Strengbom J, Ericson L (2006) Responses to ammonium and nitrate additions by boreal plants and their natural enemies. Environ Pollut 141:167–174.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2005.08.017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Oz H, Coskan A, Atilgan A (2017) Determination of effects of various plastic covers and biofumigation on soil temperature and soil nitrogen form in greenhouse solarization: New solarization cover material. J Polym Environ 25:370–377.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-016-0819-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Piccinini E, Ferrari V, Campanelli G, Fusari F, Righetti L, Matteo R, Lazzeri L (2015) Effect of two bio-based liquid formulations from Brassica carinata in containing red spider mite (Tetranychus urticae) on eggplant. Ind Crop Prod 75:36–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.05.060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Poorter H, Niinemets U, Poorter L, Wright IJ, Villar R (2009) Causes and consequences of variation in leaf mass per area (LMA): a meta-analysis. New Phytol 182:565–588.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02830.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Rasmann S, Agrawal AA (2009) Plant defense against herbivory: progress in identifying synergism, redundancy, and antagonism between resistance traits. Curr Opin Plant Biol 12:473–478.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2009.05.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Reardon C, Strauss S, Mazzola M (2013) Changes in available nitrogen and nematode abundance in response to Brassica seed meal amendment of orchard soil. Soil Biol Biochem 57:22–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.10.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rios P, Gonzalez M, Obregon S, Carbonero MD, Leal JR, Fernandez P, De-Haro A, Sanchez ME (2017) Brassica-based seedmeal biofumigation to control Phytophthora cinnamomi in the Spanish "dehesa" oak trees. Phytopathol Mediterr 56:392–399.  https://doi.org/10.14601/Phytopathol_Mediterr-20771 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rudolph R, Sams C, Steiner R, Thomas S, Walker S, Uchanski M (2015) Biofumigation performance of four Brassica crops in a green Chile pepper (Capsicum annuum) rotation system in southern New Mexico. Hortscience 50:247–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rudolph R, Zasada I, Hesse C, DeVetter L (2019) Brassicaceous seed meal, root removal, and chemical fumigation vary in their effects on soil quality parameters and Pratylenchus penetrans in a replanted floricane raspberry production system. Appl Soil Ecol 133:44–51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2018.08.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith B, Kirkegaard J, Howe G (2004) Impacts of Brassica break-crops on soil biology and yield of following wheat crops. Aust J Agric Res 55:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1071/AR03104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Snoeijers SS, Perez-Garcia A, Joosten M, De Wit P (2000) The effect of nitrogen on disease development and gene expression in bacterial and fungal plant pathogens. Eur J Plant Pathol 106:493–506.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008720704105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stevens CJ, David TI, Storkey J (2018) Atmospheric nitrogen deposition in terrestrial ecosystems: its impact on plant communities and consequences across trophic levels. Funct Ecol 32:1757–1769.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thompson S, Sharp S (1999) Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. Stat Med 18:2693–2708.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19991030)18:20<2693::AID-SIM235>3.0.CO;2-V CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Throop HL, Lerdau MT (2004) Effects of nitrogen deposition on insect herbivory: implications for community and ecosystem processes. Ecosystems 7:109–133.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-003-0225-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van Dam NM, Tytgat TOG, Kirkegaard JA (2009) Root and shoot glucosinolates: a comparison of their diversity, function and interactions in natural and managed ecosystems. Phytochem Rev 8:171–186.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11101-008-9101-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Veresoglou SD, Barto EK, Menexes G, Rillig MC (2013) Fertilization affects severity of disease caused by fungal plant pathogens. Plant Pathol 62:961–969.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ppa.12014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Viechtbauer W (2010) Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw 36:1–48Google Scholar
  53. Viechtbauer W, Cheung MWL (2010) Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods 1:112–125.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.11 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Weerakoon DMN, Reardon CL, Paulitz TC, Izzo AD, Mazzola M (2012) Long-term suppression of Pythium abappressorium induced by Brassica juncea seed meal amendment is biologically mediated. Soil Biol Biochem 51:44–52.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.03.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zasada IA, Halbrendt JM, Kokalis-Burelle N, LaMondia J, McKenry MV, Noling JW (2010) Managing nematodes without methyl bromide. Annu Rev Phytopathol 48(48):311–328.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-073009-114425 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiologyXavier UniversityCincinnatiUSA
  2. 2.Institut für Biologie - Ökologie der PflanzenFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations