Solarization and the Soil Microbiome

Grace Smith, Undergraduate in Molecular and Cellular Biology

Sonja Birthisel, PhD Student in Ecology and Environmental Sciences

Eric R. Gallandt, Professor of Weed Ecology and Management

A soil microbiome consists of tiny organisms such as bacteria, archaea, fungi, and protists that impact plant life. Beneficial microbes decompose organic molecules, rendering them usable by plants and protect against harmful microbes. Conversely, pathogenic microbes can have major detrimental effects on crops.

 

In June through August  of 2016, we expanded our study of solarization (see previous blog posts about solarization for weed control) to examine the effect of solarization on soil respiration and specific populations of beneficial microorganisms: general bacteria, general fungi, Bacilli, and fluorescent pseudomonads.
FIG 1

A picture of a rose bengal agar plate which was used to select for the growth of general fungi in our experiment.

 

The Experiment:

Solarization was performed for two and four weeks in a field and closed hoop house at Umaine Greens, located on the campus of the University of Maine, Orono.

Plots were rototilled and irrigated prior to application of previously used clear polyethylene mulch. Temperature was recorded throughout and soil samples were collected at the beginning of the experiment, at plastic removal, and 5 & 14 days after plastic removal for microbial analyses.

Temperature:

Solarization caused average temperature increases of 4 and 7℉ in the field  and  hoop house, respectively; furthermore, maximum temperatures increased by 10 and 15℉. The maximum temperature increase is of interest because prior research indicates that maximum temperature may be more important than average temperature in pathogen control. The dip in soil temperature between July 6th and 13th (labeled “A” in the figure below) corresponds with cool air temperatures during those days (Bangor International Airport, NOAA).

FIG 2

Temperatures over the course of four weeks of treatment in the field and hoop house. CON = control ; SOL = solarized.

 

Soil Respiration:

Soil respiration was measured to serve as an estimate for total microbial biomass, an indicator of soil health. We found that solarization decreased soil respiration to a minor extent in the field, and more significantly in the hoop house. We originally predicted that soil respiration would be reduced while plastic was in place, but would bounce back to normal levels by two weeks after plastic removal. Since this was not the case, it would be valuable in the future to test how long it takes for soil respiration to fully return to control levels. 

FIG 3

Soil respiration in the field and greenhouse at treatment termination (time of plastic removal) and 14 days after termination. * = significant difference.

 

Populations of Specific Beneficial Microbes:

In this experiment, we measured populations of four beneficial microbe groups: general bacteria, general fungi, and rhizobacteria Bacilli and fluorescent pseudomonads.  Many general bacteria and fungi decompose large indigestible organic molecules into smaller, plant-useable nutrients. Fungi increase soil water holding capacity by growing hyphae: long, threadlike filaments. Some Bacilli convert atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia making it available to plants, and some fluorescent pseudomonads release antibiotics that decrease populations of plant pathogens.

The good news first: field solarization did not harm any of these four groups of beneficial microbes we were able to grow in the lab.  Under the hotter temperatures in the hoop house, there was a slight decrease in these microbes overall due to a decrease in fluorescent pseudomonads; the other groups of microbes were not significantly impacted.

FIG 4

Number of soil microbe colonies grown from soil collected 5 days after treatment termination in the field and hoop house. * = significant difference.

 

Literature Review of Expected Pathogen Response to Solarization:

Measuring the effects of solarization on plant pathogens was beyond what we could accomplish in this experiment.  However, to get an idea whether pathogen control with solarization is theoretically possible in Maine, we reviewed papers of known pathogen responses to temperature, and compared this to the maximum temperatures measured in our experiments.  Nearly half of the pathogens we investigated are predicted to decrease in number under temperatures we measured in our field, and over three-quarters are predicted to decrease with temperatures achieved in our hoop house. The only included pathogen that we predicted might increase in response to solarization is noble rot, also known as gray mold, a fungus that affects grapes and other horticultural crops.  These theoretical results need to be backed up with real-world experiments in Maine, but provide a preliminary indication that solarization could contribute to not only weed management (see past blog posts), but pathogen control as well.

 

TABLE 1

Potential effect of solarization on some pathogens of vegetable and horticultural crops in Maine, based on temperatures measured in our experiments and known temperature tolerance of these pathogens. 🠋: pathogens that may decrease in response to solarization; 🠉: pathogens that may increase in response to solarization; Ø: pathogens that are expected to be unaffected by solarization.  

 

Conclusions:

This study suggests that solarization did little harm to beneficial soil microbes in an open field, but in a hoop house soil respiration and populations of the beneficial fluorescent pseudomonads bacteria were significantly reduced, at least in the short term.   Further research is needed to see if these effects  are long lasting and have subsequent  impacts to crop growth. Based on the soil temperatures we measured, it is possible that solarization could contribute to plant pathogen control in Maine, though more research on this topic is needed to confirm this.  

 

 

Advertisements

Weed Master Video Update!

We are wrapping up the final reports for our NE SARE-funded project that supported our on-farm trials of the Weed Master.  In addition to inspiring this blog, we used this project as a test case for using video to capture the on-farm trials and experiences of participating growers and our research group.  Tavi Merrill, who recently graduated from the University of Maine Sustainable Agriculture undergraduate program, has done a fine job of directing and editing these videos.

We are continuing our field research on hand tools and scale-appropriate weeding tools for the small farm.  Ben Costanzi is a new M.S. student who will focus on this topic for his thesis work.

You can view the most recent videos below, or go to our YouTube Channel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/zeroseedrain

 

Prologue to the Weed Master Project

 

Weed Master Field Trial:  Fisher Farm

 

Weed Master Field Trial:  Fail Better Farm


Rain, rain, rain…

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Wolf Pine Farm, Alfred, Maine

On the way to the York County Farmers’ Network July meeting at Wildroot Farm in Kennebunk, we stopped by Wolf Pine Farm so Amy Sprague and crew could field test the Weed Master cultivation tools.  Unfortunately, the rain started soon after we completed assembly, but with a coarse textured site in mind, and the seemingly unending days of rain we have had in recent weeks, we headed to the field.

Although the finger weeders were quickly clogged, we were able to use the disk hillers in leeks despite the rain (although it was raining too hard at this point to get the camera out!).

Disk-hilling leeks

Disk-hilling leeks

We then headed to the nearby Wildroot Farm where the York County Farmers’ Network was holding a potluck and meeting.  We retreated indoors to assemble the Weed Master, examine the components, and discuss the experiences from our field tests conducted to date.

Unloading the Weed Master at Wildroot Farm in Kennebunk.  July 7, 2009

Unloading the Weed Master at Wildroot Farm in Kennebunk. July 7, 2009

Farm Training Project Workshop

June 16, 2009

Peacemeal Farm, Dixmont, Maine

There was an impressive turnout Tuesday evening for the Weed Management workshop at the Peacemeal farm.  Part of the Farm Training Project Workshop program organized for farm apprentices, and others, by MOFGA, the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, the presentations, demonstrations and field tour for this session were focused on weeds.  After some introductory comments related to the ecology of weeds in organic farming systems, the seventy five participants moved to the field for a demonstration of hand tools, including the Weed Master.

Clayton Carter, Fail Better Farm, Montville, Maine, demonstrates the Weed Master to MOFGA Apprentices at the June 16 evening Farm Training Project Workshop on weeds.  Photo Credit: Mike Mardosa, University of Maine

Clayton Carter, Fail Better Farm, Montville, Maine, demonstrates the Weed Master to MOFGA Apprentices at the June 16 evening Farm Training Project Workshop on weeds. Photo Credit: Mike Mardosa, University of Maine

Mark Guzzie, Peacemeal Farm, Dixmont, Maine, offers Russell Libby, Executive Director of MOFGA a turn at the helm of the Weed Master.  Photo Credit: Mike Mardosa, University of Maine.

Mark Guzzie, Peacemeal Farm, Dixmont, Maine, offers Russell Libby, Executive Director of MOFGA a turn at the helm of the Weed Master. Photo Credit: Mike Mardosa, University of Maine.

Fail Better Farm, Montville

June 2 and 3, 2009

We visited Clayton Carter, Fail Better Farm, Montville, Maine, this week to test the Weed Master in several crops on his diverse organic vegetable farm.

Here are some images from these tests; I’ll update the post further next week.

Cultivating garlic with the Weed Master and sweeps

Cultivating garlic with the Weed Master and sweeps

Sweeps attached to parallel linkage units entering a 3-row bed of garlic

Sweeps attached to parallel linkage units entering a 3-row bed of garlic

Sweeps even controlled some large horsetail weeds in fava beans

Sweeps even controlled some large horsetail weeds in fava beans

Fava beans cultivated with disk hillers and then sweeps

Fava beans cultivated with disk hillers and then sweeps

Using the depth control wheels as row markers

Using the depth control wheels as row markers

Finger-weeding Onions at Fisher Farm

22 May 2009

We headed to the Fisher Farm in Winterport, Maine, Friday morning to meet Beth Haines, Dennis and Joe Fisher, and found perfect conditions for cultivating onions.  Hot, dry weather, level beds, and straight rows of onions.   Particularly convenient was the fact that there were two-rows per bed so it was not necessary to adjust the Weed Master for a center row and then outside rows as we had to at Peacemeal.  Weeds included crabgrass, common lambsquarters, chickweed, some larger than would be optimal, but mostly in the cotyledon to 1-leaf stage.

Beth Haines, Joe and Dennis Fisher of Fisher Farm in Winterport, ME, prepare to cultivate onions.

Beth Haines, Joe and Dennis Fisher of Fisher Farm in Winterport, ME, prepare to cultivate onions.

Dennis and Joe Fisher testing the finger weeders on onions.

Dennis and Joe Fisher testing the finger weeders on onions.

Finger weeders get close within the row and dislodge some, but certainly not all, larger weeds (e.g., 2 to 4-leaf).

Finger weeders get close within the row and dislodge some, but certainly not all, larger weeds (e.g., 2 to 4-leaf).

Long-handled, colinear hoes are the favored precision cultivating tools at the Fisher Farm.  They are sharpened to a fine edge before each use.

Long-handled, colinear hoes are the favored precision cultivating tools at the Fisher Farm. They are sharpened to a fine edge before each use.

Well-sharpened colinear hoes provide the "standard practice," that the finger weeders were matched against.

Well-sharpened colinear hoes provide the "standard practice," that the finger weeders were matched against.

Before cultivation, weed counts were made in 1/16 square meter quadrats at six locations within each bed. Post cultivation weed counts in these flagged areas were made the following day. The colinear hoe bed had an average of 45 weed seedlings per quadrat before hoeing, and 12 afterwords, a reduction of 73% in the 12 minutes it took to weed this bed (seed bar graph below). Five other beds were cultivated with the Weed Master and finger weeders, taking an average of 2 min 30 seconds per bed. Weed control efficacy for these treatments ranged from 44 to 62% (avg. 55%).

Thus, the standard practice of precision colinear hoeing was more effective, but the improved weed control was not proportional to the additional time input.

The very high working speed of the finger weeders was impressive and, combined with subsequent hand weeding, could improve overall weed control with out additional labor, or maintain a similar level of weed control with less time commitment.

Weed density in onions before and after cultivation

Weed density in onions before and after cultivation

Fisher Farm, Winterport Maine

Fisher Farm, Winterport Maine

Disk Hilling Peas

May 20, 2009

Peacemeal Farm, Dixmont, Maine

Peas are nearly ready for trellising at Peacemeal, and thus the last opportunity for cultivating.  The disk hillers were quite simple to attach to the tool bar, and relatively simple to adjust.  We found the pushing bar/handle adjustment to have a noticable affect on the aggressivity of the disks.  If the handle was low for a shorter operator, the frame was not horizontal to the ground, and the disks moved less soil.  We adjusted the handle lower to ensure the tool bars were parallel to the soil surface, and the disks were more aggressive.

A brief video clip of the disk hillers in action has been posted to YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h14aD2h3EOc

Overall the disk hillers were quite impressive.  Conditions were optimal, including the fact that Tim had “Pigged” the inter-row space the day before, leaving loose soil easily moved by the disks.

Peas, post-hilling, Peacemeal Farm, 22 May 2009

Peas, post-hilling, Peacemeal Farm, 22 May 2009

The disks rolled over coarse residues in the field; efficacy was likely reduced in these areas, but the unit rolled on.  Performance was best on the flatter, more uniform beds, with increasing inconsistency in places where peas were on the edge of a ridge or other irregular soil feature.

Most observing the field following hilling were impressed.  Mike’s first comment was “Fantastic.”  I think we were all impressed with the consistency of the action of the disks.  Each pass of the 277 ft. bed took 2 min. 30 sec.  The disks were relatively easy to control at a comfortable walking pace, simply by focusing on the area where the disks attached to the tool bar, and ensuring that the crop row was centered here enabled a good working speed.  In places where the crop was short it was possible to slow considerably to reduce soil movement into the row.

As in the previous trials we conducted pre-cultivation weed censuses.  Post-cultivation censuses were conducted Friday, 22 May.  Counts were made in 15 quadrats, and by subtracting the number surviving from the starting number we calculate efficacy, i.e., proportion of weeds killed, which can range from zero, no weeds killed, to 1.0, all killed.  Mean efficacy of the disk hillers was 0.59, ranging from 0.32 to 0.86.  We did not separate our censuses to distinguish the intra-row region from the inter-row (between rows), but the lower efficacy values likely reflect areas where weeds were outsize the zone of working for the disks.

Cultivation efficacy, total weeds, intra- and inter-row following disk hilling.

Cultivation efficacy, total weeds, intra- and inter-row following disk hilling.

Peas, two days post disk-hilling at Peacemeal Farm, 22 May 2009.

Peas, two days post disk-hilling at Peacemeal Farm, 22 May 2009.