Journals / Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 2

Diversity of Non-Targeted Nematode, Bacteria and Microfungi Populations in Soil After Some Pesticide Treatment

Bazı Pestisit Uygulamalarından Sonra Toprakta Hedef Olmayan Nematod, Bakteri ve Mikrofungus Popülasyonlarının Değişimi

Pages
252–265
Publication Date
2020-06-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As a result, it has been determined that the used pesticides have positive or negative effects depending on the parameters considered.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Agricultural areas are important ecological environments with chemical inputs via human intervention.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This research was conducted to determine the effects of Satellite 20 WP, Status 330 E, Pesos 100 EC and Pentran 22 E pesticides, which are widely used in agricultural fields of Bitlis, on non-target soil nematodes, aerobic mesophilic bacteria, microfungi populations and pH.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result, it has been determined that the used pesticides have positive or negative effects depending on the parameters considered.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Bakteri · Bitlis · Mikrofungus

Abstract

Agricultural areas are important ecological environments with chemical inputs via human intervention. The presence of this type of natural areas is important for human as well as other species. This research was conducted to determine the effects of Satellite 20 WP, Status 330 E, Pesos 100 EC and Pentran 22 E pesticides, which are widely used in agricultural fields of Bitlis, on non-target soil nematodes, aerobic mesophilic bacteria, microfungi populations and pH. The study was repeated (six times) according to variance analysis method (under in-vitro conditions). According to the variance analysis, the Period×Treatment interactions are important for pH, plant-parasitic and fungivore nematodes respectively (P=0.007; P=0.008; P=0.000), for omnivore-predator, bacterivore and total nematodes, on the other hand, (P=0.000; P=0.000; P=0.000) both period and the main effect of the treatments were statistically significant (P=0.046; P=0.017; P=0.009). Based on the profile analysis; pH increased especially in Satellite 20 WP treatment, although the number of aerobic mesophilic bacteria increased in the control treatment, it decreased in all pesticide treatments; the number of microfungi increased in Pesos 100 EC treatment but decreased in other treatments; plant-parasitic, fungivore and total nematode count decreased in all pesticide treatments; omnivore-predator and bacterivore nematodes were found to be partially affected. As a result, it has been determined that the used pesticides have positive or negative effects depending on the parameters considered.

Özet

Tarımsal alanlar, insan müdahalesi ile kimyasal girdilerin olduğu önemli ekolojik ortamlardır. Bu ortamların varlığı, insanlar için önemli olduğu kadar ortamı paylaşan diğer canlılar için de önemlidir. Bu araştırma, Bitlis İli tarımsal alanlarında yaygın kullanılan Satellite 20 WP, Status 330 E, Pesos 100 EC ve Pentran 22 E pestisitlerinin hedef olmayan topraktaki nematod, aerobik mezofilik bakteri, mikrofungus popülasyonları ve toprak pH’sına etkilerini belirlemek amacıyla yapılmıştır. Çalışma, in-vitro şartlarında tekrarlı ölçümlerde varyans analizi yöntemine göre altı tekerrürlü olarak yürütülmüştür. Yapılan varyans analizlerine göre Periyot×Uygulama interaksiyonlarının sırasıyla pH, bitki paraziti ve fungivor nematodlar için önemli olduğu (P=0.007; P=0.008; P=0.000), omnivor-avcı, bakterivor ve toplam nematodlar için hem periyot (P=0.000; P=0.000; P=0.000) hem de pestisit uygulamalarının ana etkisinin istatistiksel olarak önemli olduğu (P=0.046; P=0.017; P=0.009) bulunmuştur. Profil analizlerine göre; pH'ın, özellikle Satellite 20 WP uygulamasında artış gösterdiği aerobik mezofilik bakteri sayısının, kontrolde artmasına karşın tüm pestisit uygulamalarında azalma gösterdiği; mikrofungus sayısının, Pesos 100 EC uygulamasında artış göstermesine karşın diğer uygulamalarda azaldığı; bitki paraziti, fungivor ve toplam nematod sayılarının tüm pestisit uygulamalarında azaldığı; omnivor-avcı ve bakterivor nematodların kısmen etkilendiği görülmüştür. Sonuç olarak; kullanılan pestisitlerin, dikkate alınan parametrelere göre olumlu ya da olumsuz etkisinin olduğu belirlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÜVEN, A., KOÇ, İ. (2020). Diversity of Non-Targeted Nematode, Bacteria and Microfungi Populations in Soil After Some Pesticide Treatment. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 30 - Sayı: 2, 252–265. https://ajindex.com/articles/191252

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. AL-Ani, M. A., Hmoshi, R. M., Kanaan, I. A., & Thanoon, A. A. (2019). Effect of pesticides on soil microorganisms. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1294, No. 7, p. 072007). IOP Publishing Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı, https://cevreselgostergeler.csb.gov.tr/tarim-ilaci-pestisit-kullanimi-i-85834, Erişim tarihi: 2.10.2019. Bitlis İl Tarım ve Orman Müdürlüğü. Bitlis ilinin tarımsal yapısı. https://bitlis.tarimorman.gov.tr/Menu/18/Ilimizin-Tarimsal-Yapisi (Erişim tarihi: 20.04.2019).
  2. Arora, S., & Sahni, D. (2016). Pesticides effect on soil microbial ecology and enzyme activity-An overview. Journal of Applied and Natural Science, 8(2), 1126-1132.
  3. Arora, S., Arora, S., Sahni, D., Sehgal, M., Srivastava, D. S., & Singh, A. (2019). Pesticides use and its effect on soil bacteria and fungal populations, microbial biomass carbon and enzymatic activity. Curr Sci, 116(4), 643-649.
  4. Baermann, G. (1917). Eine einfache Methode zur Auffindung von Ancylostomum (Nematoden) Larven in Erdproben. Geneeskd Tijdschr Ned Indie, 57: 131-137.
  5. Benson, H. J. (2001). Microbiological applications: A laboratory manual in general microbiology. Harold J. Benson. USA: The McGraw−Hill Companies. pp. 203. Bouyoucos, G.J., (1951). A calibration of the hydrometer method for making mechanical analyses of soils. Agronomy Journal, 43: 434-438.
  6. Craze, B. (1990). Soil survey standard test method soil moisture content. Department of Sustainable Natural Resources, 1-5.
  7. Güven, A., Koç, İ. (2019). An overview of diseases, pests, weeds and commonly used pesticides in agricultural areas of Bitlis province, 1st International Göbeklitepe Agriculture Congress. IGAC, Şanlıurfa, Turkey. Heinonen-Tanski, H., Simojoki, P., Raininko, K., Nuormala, N., & Silvo, R. (1989). Effect of annual use of pesticides on soil microorganisms and sugar beet yields. Agricultural and Food Science, 61(1), 45-53.
  8. Hussain, S., Siddique, T., Saleem, M., Arshad, M., & Khalid, A. (2009). Impact of pesticides on soil microbial diversity, enzymes, and biochemical reactions. Advances in agronomy, 102, 159-200.
  9. Jackson, M. L. (1958).
  10. Soil Chemical Analysis. PrenticeHall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, 498p. Johns, C. (2017). Living soils: the role of microorganisms in soil health. Fut Direct Intl, 1-7.
  11. Koc, I. (2019). The Effect of Wood Vinegar Produced from Nutshells on the Soil Nematodes in Wheat Agro-Ecosystems. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 28: 3536-3544.
  12. Koç, İ. (2017). Buğday agro-ekosis