Paper · 2016 · PeerJ

Biodiversity management of organic orchard enhances both ecological and economic profitability

Jie Meng; Lijun Li; Haitao Liu; et al.

15
claims
35
verbatim quotes
45
citations
4
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Organic farming has been regarded as an alternative solution for both agricultural sustainability and human health maintenance. Few researches have concentrated on the differences of biodiversity and eco-economic benefits between organic and conventional orchards. Organic management (OM) of orchards mainly includes taking advantage of natural enemies and beneficial weeds as well as soil organisms and controlling harmful pests. Here we conducted a three-year experiment on the effects of managing biodiversity in an organic apple orchard, using cattle manure to enrich soil biota, propagating native plant to suppress weeds and applying ecological pest management to control pests. The effect was assessed against the conventional management (CM) model. We found that OM enhanced soil organic carbon, total nitrogen, microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen. The 16S rDNA high-throughput sequencing results indicated that the dominant bacterial phyla of the top soil were Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria, and OM had richer bacteria diversity with a 7% higher Shannon's index than the CM. In particular, the relative abundance of rhizobium in the OM was higher than that of the CM. For OM, Duchesnea indica was an ideal ground-cover plant to control weeds through winning the niche competition and thus decreased weeds' Simpson, Shannon-Wiener and Pielou index by 38.2%, 53.8% and 16.9% separately. The phototactic pests' weight and scarab beetle's population were effectively decreased by 35% and 86% respectively through long time control and prevention. OM had an average of 20 times more earthworms than CM, and the maximum density had reached 369 m(-2) (0-20 cm soil). The dominant earthworm species of the OM were detritivores which preferring soil with high organic matter content. Due to no synthetic chemicals being used, the OM produced much safer apple fruits which were sold at high prices. Economically, up to a 103% increase of output-input ratio had been achieved in the OM. Our study clearly demonstrated that biodiversity management without chemical pollution increased the biodiversity of beneficial organisms, reduced antagonists of the fruit tree, and enhanced economic benefits of the apple orchard.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 15

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Organic management increased soil organic carbon and total nitrogen in the apple orchard.

Treatment
OMe0
Outcome
soil organic carbon, total nitrogene0
Direction
enhancede0
Comparator
conventional management (CM) modele2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“We found that OM enhanced soil organic carbon, total nitrogen, microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 757–858 · show in text ↑
e1

“organic apple orchard”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 519–540 · show in text ↑
e2

“conventional management (CM) model”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 721–755 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Organic management increased soil microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen.

Treatment
OMe0
Outcome
microbial biomass carbon and nitrogene0
Direction
enhancede0
Comparator
conventional management (CM) modele2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“We found that OM enhanced soil organic carbon, total nitrogen, microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 757–858 · show in text ↑
e1

“organic apple orchard”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 519–540 · show in text ↑
e2

“conventional management (CM) model”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 721–755 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria dominated orchard topsoil bacteria.

Interactor
ProteobacteriaPseudomonadotae0other
Second interactor
ActinobacteriaActinomycetotae0other
Outcome
dominant bacterial phyla of the top soile0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the dominant bacterial phyla of the top soil were Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 922–1005 · show in text ↑
e1

“organic apple orchard”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 519–540 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Organic management produced 7% higher soil bacterial Shannon diversity than conventional management.

Treatment
OMe0
Outcome
Shannon's indexe0
Direction
highere0
Value
7%e0
Comparator
CMe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“OM had richer bacteria diversity with a 7% higher Shannon's index than the CM.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1011–1089 · show in text ↑
e1

“organic apple orchard”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 519–540 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Rhizobium relative abundance was higher under organic management.

Treatment
OMe0
Interactor
rhizobiumRhizobiume0symbiont
Outcome
relative abundance of rhizobiume0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
CMe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Rhizobium
Rhizobium · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Ninjatacoshell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the relative abundance of rhizobium in the OM was higher than that of the CM.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1105–1182 · show in text ↑
e1

“organic apple orchard”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 519–540 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Duchesnea indica ground cover reduced weed Simpson index by 38.2%.

Treatment
Duchesnea indicae0
Interactor
weedse0weed
Second interactor
Duchesnea indicaPotentilla indicae0other
Outcome
weeds' Simpsone0
Direction
decreasede0
Value
38.2%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Potentilla indica
Potentilla indica · Second interactorFamartin · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Duchesnea indica was an ideal ground-cover plant to control weeds through winning the niche competition and thus decreased weeds' Simpson, Shannon-Wiener and Pielou index by 38.2%, 53.8% and 16.9% separately.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1191–1399 · show in text ↑
e1

“organic apple orchard”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 519–540 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Duchesnea indica ground cover reduced weed Shannon-Wiener index by 53.8%.

Treatment
Duchesnea indicae0
Interactor
weedse0weed
Second interactor
Duchesnea indicaPotentilla indicae0other
Outcome
Shannon-Wienere0
Direction
decreasede0
Value
53.8%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Potentilla indica
Potentilla indica · Second interactorFamartin · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Duchesnea indica was an ideal ground-cover plant to control weeds through winning the niche competition and thus decreased weeds' Simpson, Shannon-Wiener and Pielou index by 38.2%, 53.8% and 16.9% separately.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1191–1399 · show in text ↑
e1

“organic apple orchard”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 519–540 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Duchesnea indica ground cover reduced weed Pielou index by 16.9%.

Treatment
Duchesnea indicae0
Interactor
weedse0weed
Second interactor
Duchesnea indicaPotentilla indicae0other
Outcome
Pielou indexe0
Direction
decreasede0
Value
16.9%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Potentilla indica
Potentilla indica · Second interactorFamartin · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Duchesnea indica was an ideal ground-cover plant to control weeds through winning the niche competition and thus decreased weeds' Simpson, Shannon-Wiener and Pielou index by 38.2%, 53.8% and 16.9% separately.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1191–1399 · show in text ↑
e1

“organic apple orchard”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 519–540 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ecological pest control reduced phototactic pest weight by 35%.

Treatment
ecological pest managemente2
Interactor
phototactic pestse0pest
Outcome
phototactic pests' weighte0
Direction
decreasede0
Value
35%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The phototactic pests' weight and scarab beetle's population were effectively decreased by 35% and 86% respectively through long time control and prevention.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1400–1557 · show in text ↑
e1

“organic apple orchard”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 519–540 · show in text ↑
e2

“applying ecological pest management to control pests”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 631–683 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ecological pest control reduced scarab beetle population by 86%.

Treatment
ecological pest managemente2
Interactor
scarab beetlee0pest
Outcome
scarab beetle's populatione0
Direction
decreasede0
Value
86%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The phototactic pests' weight and scarab beetle's population were effectively decreased by 35% and 86% respectively through long time control and prevention.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1400–1557 · show in text ↑
e1

“organic apple orchard”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 519–540 · show in text ↑
e2

“applying ecological pest management to control pests”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 631–683 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Organic management had twenty times as many earthworms as conventional management.

Treatment
OMe0
Interactor
earthwormsCrassiclitellatae0other
Outcome
earthwormse0
Direction
moree0
Value
20 timese0
Comparator
CMe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“OM had an average of 20 times more earthworms than CM, and the maximum density had reached 369 m(-2) (0-20 cm soil).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1558–1674 · show in text ↑
e1

“organic apple orchard”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 519–540 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Maximum earthworm density under organic management reached 369 m(-2).

Interactor
earthwormsCrassiclitellatae1other
Outcome
maximum densitye0
Value
369 m(-2)e0
Qualifier
0-20 cm soile0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the maximum density had reached 369 m(-2) (0-20 cm soil).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1617–1674 · show in text ↑
e1

“OM had an average of 20 times more earthworms than CM”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1558–1611 · show in text ↑
e2

“organic apple orchard”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 519–540 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Detritivores dominated earthworms under organic management.

Interactor
earthwormCrassiclitellatae0other
Outcome
dominant earthworm species of the OM were detritivorese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The dominant earthworm species of the OM were detritivores which preferring soil with high organic matter content.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1675–1789 · show in text ↑
e1

“organic apple orchard”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 519–540 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Organic management produced safer apple fruits that sold at high prices.

Treatment
OMe0
Outcome
safer apple fruitse0
Direction
safere0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Due to no synthetic chemicals being used, the OM produced much safer apple fruits which were sold at high prices.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1790–1903 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Organic management increased orchard output-input ratio by up to 103%.

Treatment
OMe0
Outcome
output-input ratioe0
Direction
increasee0
Value
103%e0
Comparator
conventional management (CM) modele2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Economically, up to a 103% increase of output-input ratio had been achieved in the OM.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1904–1990 · show in text ↑
e1

“organic apple orchard”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 519–540 · show in text ↑
e2

“conventional management (CM) model”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 721–755 · show in text ↑

cultivation system · ecology: diversity · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

cultivation system · nutrient: content · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 2 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

cultivation system · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

13 papers: 7 positive, 6 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 papers →

cultivation system · soil: biology · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.