Next Article in Journal
Monitoring Dairy Cow Rumination Behavior Based on Upper and Lower Jaw Tracking
Previous Article in Journal
Combining UAV Multispectral and Thermal Infrared Data for Maize Growth Parameter Estimation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 14
Issue 11
10.3390/agriculture14112005
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Fertilization with Olive Mill Pomace Compost Can Moderate Pest Damage in a Superintensive Olive Grove

by
José E. González-Zamora
*,
José M. Gamero-Monge
and
Rosa Pérez-de la Luz
Departamento de Agronomía, Universidad de Sevilla, 41013 Sevilla, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2024, 14(11), 2005; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14112005
Submission received: 17 September 2024 / Revised: 22 October 2024 / Accepted: 6 November 2024 / Published: 7 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Crop Protection, Diseases, Pests and Weeds)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Olive cultivation is a key agricultural activity in Spain, primarily for producing oil. The extraction process of olive oil from the drupe yields a by-product known as ‘alperujo’, which can be composted and utilized as fertilizer. This research examines the impact of composted ‘alperujo’ on arthropod assemblages in the tree canopy, comparing it to mineral fertilization over the years 2021 and 2022. The study was conducted in two olive groves with different management systems (superintensive and traditional). Two types of sampling methods were used for the canopy: visual survey and sweep net. Under superintensive management, the presence and damage of Eriophyidae (Acari; Trombidiformes) in the shoots was significantly lower in the compost treatment in 2022 (20% of the shoots were occupied/damaged) compared to the mineral treatment (60% of the shoots were occupied/damaged). Araneae abundance was significantly higher (p = 0.033) in the compost treatment compared to the mineral treatment. However, under traditional management, no clear effect on arthropod assemblage was observed. In conclusion, the addition of compost to the superintensive grove helped to limit the presence of some arthropod pests compared to mineral treatment, contributing to a more sustainable crop. Grove type management appeared to play a significant role in the arthropod assemblages and effect of compost addition, but future research utilizing a greater number of groves (replicates) and an extended observation period should be performed to confirm these results.

1. Introduction

Olive oil production is one of the most important agro-industry activities in Spain, accounting for 70% of the EU’s production and 45% of global production [1]. The most updated and modern oil extraction process generates a semi-solid pomace waste called ‘alperujo’ in Spanish, which contains all of the solidss from the drupe as well as water [2]. However, this product is not innocuous, as it possesses chemical properties—such as phenolic compounds, low pH, and others—that pose potential environmental risks, making proper management essential [2].
One of the most important ways of managing ‘alperujo’ is by composting it (alone or with other by-products). This process transforms this contaminant into a value-added product that can be used as fertilizer in different crops [3,4,5,6,7]. Implementation of ‘alperujo’ compost presents positive aspects, as indicated in [8], but from an ample point of view, it contributes to a circular economy, saves inorganic fertilizers, and it is a way of promoting sustainable agriculture [9]. Compost is added to the soil, and most of the studies involving its implementation are focused in how it modifies (generally improving) the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the soil [10,11,12,13], with even a positive impact on the quality of olive oil [14]. Forthcoming scenarios of climate change in the Mediterranean basin [15,16] emphasize the need for developing resilient cropping systems. The use of different strategies (cover cropping, organic fertilizers, and other practices) can significantly contribute to the suppression or mitigation of pests and the improvement of biological control [17,18,19,20].
The addition of organic fertilizers (composts, manure, and sewage) impacts ground/soil inhabitants through different mechanisms, although these impacts depend of the crop and product used [21,22,23,24]. They have also been studied for the possible effects that they can have on the presence of pests on the aerial part of the crop, for example, with two-spotted spider mites [25,26] or with a variety of different pests (Aphididae, Lepidoptera, Acari, Coleoptera), but also on natural enemies (such as Coccinellidae, Carabidae, and Araneae) [23]. Meta-analyses have shown that the use of manure and compost can affect the presence of pests on crops in different ways (depending on the crop, the fertilizer used, and the pests involved), but it generally improves the presence of natural enemies in plants and soil [27].
The olive crops in Spain are subject to a variety of pests, diseases, and weeds [28]. However, the most significant pests are Bactrocera oleae (Rossi) (Diptera: Tephritidae) and Prays oleae Bernard (Lepidopteran: Praydidae), with other secondary pests that can have varying degrees of importance in different situations. The impact of agronomic inputs on the prevalence of these pests and diseases is poorly understood. However, studies have investigated the influence of nitrogen fertilization on B. oleae infestation of fruits and the prevalence of different diseases [29,30], and the potential of sustainable irrigation to reduce the incidence of secondary pests has been explored [31].
Although the use of ‘alperujo’ compost as fertilizer can contribute to sustainable agriculture, there is a lack of studies analyzing the impact of this compost on the aerial part of the olive crop, including the potential effects on pests and various arthropods (basically beneficial ones). Recent studies (related to the one presented here) have focused on the impact of ‘alperujo’ compost on ground/soil inhabitants [32] and ants [33] of olive crops, reporting a limited (but not detrimental) effect on them. The present research hypothesizes that a reduction in nitrogen input from compost may result in a decrease in the population of arthropods in the canopy, particularly those that suck plant juices, and that this may indirectly impact the presence of other arthropods that prey on or parasitize them (see the review by Han et al. [19]). The present study aims to gain a deeper understanding of this potential effect by incorporating two distinct types of olive crop cultivation: super-intensive management in hedgerows and a more traditional approach. The primary outcome was that the incorporation of compost served to restrict the prevalence of some arthropod pests (mainly acari of the Eriophyidae family) compared to mineral treatment, but only in the superintensive grove.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Location

This research was conducted at the experimental farm “La Hampa” located in Coria del Río (Seville, Spain, 37° 17.010′ N 6° 3.936′ W) (Appendix A, Figure A1), which is owned by the Institute of Natural Resources and Agrobiology of Seville (Instituto de Recursos Naturales y Agrobiología de Sevilla). Other characteristics of the location are described in [32,33].

2.2. Experimental Design

The study employed compost comprising 60% olive mill pomace (commonly referred to as ‘alperujo’), which is the residue resulting from the extraction of olive oil, and 40% pruning waste and legumes [34]. A detailed description of the compost’s main parameters is found in Appendix A (Table A1).
This study used two experimental groves on the farm: a superintensive olive grove and a traditional olive grove. The superintensive grove (Appendix A, Figure A2) had a super-high density of 1667 trees per hectare, forming a hedgerow. In comparison, the traditional grove (Appendix A, Figure A3) had a more typical density of 238 trees per hectare, with trees on a single foot and a canopy diameter of 3.5–4 m. A more detailed description of both groves is provided in [32,33]. This research used six plots (out of eighteen) from the superintensive grove (Appendix A, Figure A2a). The experimental design involved the application of two distinct treatments to three plots each. The treatment ‘Compost’ comprised the application of composted residues of olive mill pomace as a source of fertilizer. The treatment ‘Mineral’ comprised the application of mineral products as a source of fertilizer (Appendix A, Table A2). The six plots were randomly allocated within the grove. All plots were subjected to drip irrigation in accordance with a regulated deficit irrigation procedure. The general management of soil, pests, diseases, and fertilization is described in [32,33] and Appendix A (Table A2, Table A3 and Table A4). The superintensive grove received its first application of compost in July 2021, followed by a second application in March 2022 (Appendix A, Table A2 and Table A3).
This research employed eight plots (out of twenty plots) of the traditional grove (Appendix A, Figure A3a). Four of the plots were fertilized with composted residues of olive mill pomace (treatment designated ‘Compost’), while the other four plots were fertilized with mineral products (treatment designated ‘Mineral’) (Appendix A, Table A2). The plots were randomly allocated within the grove. The grove was rain-fed and the general management of soil, pests, diseases, and fertilization is described in [32,33] and Appendix A (Table A2, Table A3 and Table A4). The traditional grove received compost every two years, starting in 2018, then in December 2020, and in March 2022 (Appendix A, Table A2 and Table A3).

2.3. Sampling

Two sampling methods (visual, sweep net) were used to study the effect of the type of fertilization on the arthropod fauna in the canopy and some characteristic diseases of olive crops, with their general interest and description in [33].
The visual sampling process involved the random selection of 20 inflorescences, shoots, and fruits in each plot from the two groves on each sampling date (inflorescences and fruits only when present). The presence/absence of the most important arthropods (pests, natural enemies, and others) and symptoms of important diseases/arthropod damage that could appear was recorded. Among inflorescences, the considered arthropods included Prays oleae, Euphyllura olivina Costa (Hemiptera: Psyllidae), Chrysopidae (Neuroptera), and Formicidae (Hymenoptera). In shoots, the arthropods considered included Palpita unionalis Hübner (Lepidoptera: Crambidae), including Zelleria oleastrella (Milliere) (Lepidoptera: Yponomeutidae), for which the larvae and damage are very similar; Formicidae; E. olivina;, Eriophyidae (Acari; Trombidiformes), for which the symptoms of damage include contorted leaves in the new shoots, with yellowish spots in the upper side of the leaves, more brownish and hairy in the under side; and Chrysopidae. In fruits, the oviposition mark of Bactrocera oleae—as an effective sign of its presence and real damage— and symptoms of damage from Eriophyidae (fruit surface with small crests) were recorded. Although no species identification from Eriophyidae was made, Aceria oleae (Nalepa) is the most important species cited in this crop in Spain [35]. The diseases recorded were Venturia oleaginea (Castagne) Rossman and Crous (peacock spot, which mainly affects leaves), and Camarosporium dalmaticum (Thüm.) Zachos & Tzavella-Klonaris (‘escudete’ in Spanish, which affects fruits). The most significant disease affecting olive orchards, Venturia oleaginea, was also included in the study due to its prevalence and ease of observation. However, it should be noted that our records may be incomplete because the leaves were not taken to the laboratory for further analysis by placing them in a dilution of 5% NaOH or NaCl to observe latent peacock spots. In the superintensive grove, the two middle alleys of each plot were sampled, randomly selecting the inflorescences, shoots, and fruits on both sides of the hedgerows (Appendix A, Figure A2b). In the traditional grove, the four cardinal orientations of the central tree and the inner face of the four trees of the central cross were sampled, randomly selecting inflorescences, shoots, and fruits (Appendix A, Figure A3b).
Sweep net sampling was conducted using a net with a diameter of 47 cm and a handle measuring 42 cm. The net was employed in a sweeping motion to collect arthropods from the branches, which were then transferred into vials using an aspirator. This process was repeated for each plot. The patterns for taking the samples in each grove and plot are in shown in Appendix A (superintensive grove: Figure A2b, traditional grove: Figure A3b), and the detailed description of the sampling methodology is in [33].
The samples collected with the sweep net were evaluated in the laboratory according to order and family/species, if possible, with the help of a stereomicroscope (45×) and different keys [36,37]. During the course of visual sampling, arthropod specimens were collected on several occasions (some of them included on leaves, fruits, or shoots) and subsequently determined in the laboratory using the same procedure as that employed for the sweep net samples. Nine sampling dates were conducted in the superintensive grove in 2021 and 2022 (from April to mid-October in each year). In the traditional grove, six sampling dates were conducted in 2021 (from June to mid-October) and nine were performed in 2022 (from April to mid-October) (dates are detailed in Appendix A, Table A3).

2.4. Data Analysis

A multivariate principal response curve (PRC) was employed to synthesize and obtain a comprehensive overview of the impact of ‘alperujo’ compost addition on the canopy arthropod assemblages. The methodology used in this analysis was the same as that used to analyze ground/soil inhabitants [32].
A repeated-measures ANOVA was employed to examine the impact of the fertilization treatment on each taxon (as identified through sweep net sampling) and observation type (as identified through visual sampling), with consideration given to the time-series abundance data. The methodology used in this analysis was the same as that used to analyze ground/soil inhabitants [32]. Additionally, the data from both years in each grove were pooled and analyzed using a generalized linear model. The quasibinomial distribution was used to analyze the visual sampling data (presence/absence), and the negative binomial distribution was used to analyze the sweep net sampling data (overdispersed count data). Treatment, year, and treatment × year were the explanatory variables.
Quantitative tests to determine whether a PRC diagram displayed significant variance due to treatment were performed in R [38] with the vegan package [39]. For the two years together, the function ‘glm’ (included in R) with the ‘quasibinomial’ distribution was used to analyze the visual sampling data, and the function ‘glm.nb’ (MASS package [40]) with the negative binomial distribution was used for the count data. SPSS (v15.0 for Windows) was used in the repeated-measures ANOVA. The data from the sweep net samplings were transformed with log (x + 1), and the data from the visual observations were transformed with arcsin (√p) before applying PRC and repeated-measures ANOVA, respectively.

3. Results

3.1. Principal Response Curves

Visual PRC (Figure 1) showed a significant effect (F = 12.47; df = 1, 36; p = 0.002) of the fertilization treatment only in the superintensive grove in 2022 (Figure 1b), detectable with observations of symptoms of Eriophyidae damage in shoots because it had the highest weight (1.0, right scale), with a clear effect of the Compost treatment compared to Mineral treatment at the end of the sampling period, indicating that Eriophyidae damage was more frequent in the Mineral treatment. The other PRC analysis (superintensive grove in 2021 and traditional grove in 2021 and 2022, Figure 1a,c,d) did not show a significant effect of the treatment (p > 0.05), with a weak adjustment of the arthropods observed in the graphs (weights on the right axis below |0.4–0.5|).
Sweep net PRC showed no significant effect of the fertilizing treatment (p > 0.05) in the two years and groves (Supplementary Materials, Figure S1). Several groups showed a better adjustment to the graph (weights on the right axis above |0.4–0.5|), i.e., Nematocera and Formicidae (in the superintensive grove, 2021), Chalcidoidea and Formicidae (in the superintensive grove, 2022), or Nematocera and Coleoptera (in the traditional grove, 2022).

3.2. Visual Sampling

The most frequent visual observations on shoots in the superintensive grove were symptoms of Eriophyidae damage, Palpita unionalis (including Zelleria oleastrella), and Euphyllura olivina (with 48.6, 19.3, and 15.6%, respectively, of the observations recorded); and the most frequent observations in the fruits were Camarosporium and symptoms of Eriophyidae damage (with 43.3 and 34.1%, respectively, of the observations recorded); and in flowers, those observed were almost exclusively Prays oleae. In the traditional grove, the arthropods observed most frequently on the shoots were Venturia oleagina, Euphyllura olivina, and symptoms of Eriophyidae damage (55.6, 13.7, and 12.2%, respectively, of the observations recorded); while on fruits, the observations were Camarosporium and Bactrocera oleae stings (74.6 and 20.5%, respectively, of the observations recorded); and almost no observations were recorded on flowers.
Compost was first used in the superintensive grove in July 2021, and mineral fertilization was almost non-existent in that year (Appendix A, Table A2 and Table A3). Therefore, differences between arthropod populations (if detected) that were more abundant in spring and summer of 2021 could not be attributed to the fertilization treatment.
The repeated-measures ANOVA analysis of the visual observations revealed a significant effect on several arthropods, particularly in the superintensive grove (Table 1): E. olivina (in 2021, F = 16.5; df = 1, 4; in 2022, F = 8.9; df = 1, 4, although in the opposite sense in 2021 and 2022) (Supplementary Materials, Figure S2), Formicidae (only in 2021, F = 10.1; df = 1, 4), and Neuroptera (only in 2021, F = 20.0; df = 1, 4), generally with a higher presence in the Mineral treatment, although their presence in the shoots was always at a moderate-to-low level (percentage of shoots occupied were below, 20%) in spring, and then not correlated with the compost addition in 2021. On the contrary, the presence of symptoms of Eriophyidae damage in the shoots was significant in 2022 (F = 12.9; df = 1, 4; p = 0.023), when two compost amendments had been made, in July 2021 and March 2022, and mineral fertilization was complete (Table A2). Shoots in the Mineral treatment exhibited a markedly higher presence and damage than the Compost treatment, with approximately 60% of shoots displaying symptoms of damage in the Mineral treatment and only 20% in the Compost treatment at the end of the sampling period (September to October, Figure 2b).
Considering the two years together (Table 1), only E. olivina (t = 2.17, df = 49, p = 0.035, but Treatment × Year was highly significant) and Neuroptera (t = 2.45, df = 104, p = 0.016) were significantly higher in the Mineral treatment, and symptoms of Eriophyidae were almost significant for Treatment × Year (p = 0.057).
In the traditional grove (Table 1) (with three compost additions from 2018 to 2022), only the presence of stings produced by B. oleae on fruits in 2021 was significant (F = 6.9, df = 1, 6, p = 0.039), but not in 2022, and in the two years together (t = 2.13, df = 92, p = 0.036, but Treatment × Year was very significant), with higher presence in the Mineral treatment, although its record was very low in both fertilizing treatments in each year.

3.3. Sweep Net Sampling

The most frequent arthropods captured with a sweep net in the superintensive grove (Table 2) were Formicidae, Nematocera, Sternorrhyncha (almost exclusively E. olivina), and Araneae (with 36.0, 26.5, 6.3, and 6.2%, respectively, of the total captures). In the traditional grove, the most frequently captured arthropods were Nematocera, Sternorrhyncha (almost exclusively E. olivina), Coleoptera, and Neuroptera (with 30.5, 19.0, 8.5, and 6.5%, respectively, of the total captures).
The sweep net captures showed some significant differences due to the fertilizing treatment (Table 2), but only in the superintensive grove. Sternorrhyncha were captured more in the Mineral treatment than in the Compost treatment in 2021 (F = 25.0, df = 1, 4, p = 0.007), with no differences obtained in 2022. However, the analysis of the two years together produced a significant difference between treatments (z = 2.9, df = 104, p = 0.003, with higher presence in the Mineral treatment), with a clear significance of the interaction Treatment × Year (p = 0.013). Neuroptera were generally captured (analyzing the two years together) more in the Mineral treatment than in the Compost treatment (z = 2.0, df = 106, p = 0.048), although no significant differences were detected within year. Chalcidoidea showed a significant difference between treatments only in 2022 (more individuals were captured in the Mineral treatment than in the Compost treatment, with F = 13.9, df = 1, 4, p = 0.020), and the two years together again showed that the Mineral treatment had significantly more individuals than the Compost treatment (z = 2.8, df = 106, p = 0.005). The order Araneae was the only group in which significantly more individuals were captured in the Compost treatment than in the Mineral treatment (F = 60.5, df = 1, 4, p = 0.001) in 2021, and the two years together showed the same pattern, with significant differences (z = −2.1, df = 104, p = 0.033) between the treatments.
As final result, the sweep net total captures yielded no statistically significant differences between fertilizing treatments (p > 0.05) within the groves in each year or with the two-year analysis.

4. Discussion

From a global view, the addition of ‘alperujo’ compost as a fertilizer had a negligible impact on the arthropod community in both groves, as evidenced by the PRC graphs and analyses. Only significant differences in the presence of symptoms of Eriophyidae damage in the shoots in the superintensive grove in 2022 were notable, with a clear reduction in its presence recorded in the Compost treatment compared with the Mineral treatment. Fertilization with ‘alperujo’ compost added less nitrogen (N) to the soil than the Mineral treatment (Appendix A, Table A2). Nitrogen is a key nutrient for plants, and often a positive correlation is found between N application and pest attack [41]. Specific studies with Acari have shown an increase in Tetranychus urticae C.L. Koch populations in strawberry plants with mineral fertilization compared to compost treatments [25] and a positive correlation between N in leaves and the mite population [25,26].
Eriophyidae, P. unionalis (plus Z. oleastrella), and other secondary pests feed on new shoots of the olive in spring and at the end of summer. With less availability of N (as happens with the use of compost as fertilizer), the plants would produce less vigorous growth of shoots and consequently reduce the presence of these pests, as was clearly observed in the present study with the symptoms of Eriophyidae damage in autumn 2022. A reduction in water irrigation dose also produced equivalent results: a significant decrease in the symptoms of Eriophyidae damage—and other secondary pests—in the superintensive olive orchard was noticeable at the beginning of autumn [31].
Sweep net sampling did not show any significant effect of the fertilizing treatment on arthropod abundance in both groves and years, as revealed in the multivariate PRC analysis. Taking the taxa separately, only in the superintensive grove were a few groups more abundant in the Mineral treatment than in the Compost treatment, but not consistently in both years, as with Sternorrhyncha (mainly E. olivina) and Chalcidoidea, or it was significant only in the two years analyzed together (as with Neuroptera).
The exception was Araneae, which were more present in the Compost treatment than in the Mineral treatment in both years and the two-year analysis. Araneae are regularly cited in the entomofauna of olive crops as one of the most frequent predators, with generally higher diversity and abundance in the canopy in organically managed orchards [42,43,44,45], which, together with specific agronomic practices, are usually fertilized with compost of diverse origin. Although they are generalist predators [46], Araneae have attracted some interest as predators of olive pests [47]. It has also been observed that several agronomic practices (such as ploughing) produced no effect on the abundance and diversity of spiders in the canopy of olive crops [42]. They were once again more prevalent in the Compost treatment than in the Mineral treatment each year (although not significantly), and this was a notable finding in the two-year analysis. Additionally, Araneae were sampled from the ground of the superintensive grove (results presented in [32]). They were once again more prevalent in the Compost treatment than in the Mineral treatment each year (although not significantly), but significantly in the two-year analysis.
The lack of effect of fertilization on the arthropods in the tree canopy in the traditional grove can have different plausible causes, but the most evident is that the grove was rain-fed—so the low vigor of the shoots and vegetation was less attractive to different arthropods—, as well as the soil management, which was very different than in the superintensive grove. By contrast, the superintensive grove showed differences between the fertilizing treatments, first of all because it was irrigated, and the fact that the Mineral treatment was highly fertilized—with even more nitrogen than in the traditional grove—, which would promote more vigorous growth of the shoots compared with the Compost treatment, which received a perceptibly lower dose of nitrogen (Appendix A, Table A2). Consequently, the differences observed between both groves in several arthropod groups (for Formicidae, see [33]) can be explained mainly by the agronomic management of the soil, irrigation, and fertilization, although other possible factors could also have an influence.
The general overview that can be obtained from this work is that the addition of compost had a clearer effect in the superintensive grove, especially in one pest of this crop, Eriophyidae, although not in the first year of the study but in the second year, reducing the presence of symptoms of damage in the shoots. Eriophyidae have been known to be a potential pest since the 2000’s, particularly when irrigation and nitrogen fertilization are high [48]. In superintensive olive groves, combining the reduction in irrigation with increased use of recycled by-products (like ‘alperujo’ compost) instead of mineral fertilizers would help the crops to be more sustainable [9,34,49] and reduce the impact of several pests, which also can reduce the use of pesticides. Other potential pests and natural enemies were in general more observed (visually or with a sweep net) in the Mineral treatment than in the Compost treatment, indicating that those mineral fertilized (and irrigated) plots were in some way more attractive to some secondary olive pests (E. olivina, P. unionalis, plus Z. oleastrella) and fostered the presence of predators (Chrysopidae) and parasitoids (Chalcidoidea) [47]. The higher N contribution of mineral fertilization is the more logical explanation for a higher presence of sucking and chewing pests in the Mineral treatment, as N is generally positively correlated with higher pest densities [50,51,52,53,54], which can also serve as an attraction to natural enemies [47]. By contrast, a group of generalist predators, such as Araneae, was more abundant in both years in the Compost treatment. It is has been also suggested that superintensive groves with water-saving irrigation systems and proper soil management (cover crops, increment of organic matter) could, in general, increase biodiversity and more efficiently mitigate the negative effects of climate change [49]. The two main pests of olive crops, B. oleae and P. oleae, were little observed (direct or indirectly) in this study, and no clear conclusion can be drawn from our data for the effect of ‘alperujo’ compost on these pests.

5. Conclusions

The application of compost in the superintensive grove helped to limit the presence of some arthropod pests compared to the Mineral treatment (which can help to reduce the use of pesticides in the crop) and increased the presence of several arthropod groups (which can be considered positive and/or neutral) in the canopy. In the traditional grove, on the contrary, the use of compost did not show differences in comparison with the mineral fertilized plots in the arthropod community or the pest damage observed in the canopy. The results obtained in this work show the additional benefit that the use of ‘alperujo’ compost (instead of mineral fertilizers) could achieve, supporting the goal of sustainable agriculture of olive crops. The present study was conducted in a single grove of each management type, and thus the findings should be regarded as preliminary and confirmed by future research utilizing a greater number of groves (replicates) and an extended observation period.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agriculture14112005/s1, Figure S1: PRC-Sweep net; Figure S2: Euphyllura; Figure S3: Palpita.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.E.G.-Z.; methodology, J.E.G.-Z.; formal analysis, J.E.G.-Z., J.M.G.-M. and R.P.-d.l.L.; investigation, J.E.G.-Z., J.M.G.-M. and R.P.-d.l.L.; resources, J.E.G.-Z.; data curation, J.E.G.-Z., J.M.G.-M. and R.P.-d.l.L.; writing—original draft preparation, J.E.G.-Z., J.M.G.-M. and R.P.-d.l.L.; writing—review and editing, J.E.G.-Z.; visualization, J.E.G.-Z., J.M.G.-M. and R.P.-d.l.L.; supervision, J.E.G.-Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Junta de Andalucia (Regional Government of Andalucia, Spain) under grant number P20_00492.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The full raw data from the research are available in this public repository: https://doi.org/10.12795/11441/156836. https://hdl.handle.net/11441/156836.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank J. M. Durán and A. Serrano of the Entomology Laboratory of the Consejería de Agricultura de la Junta de Andalucia in Montequinto (Sevilla, Spain) for their help in the identification of several arthropod species. The authors are also grateful for the collaboration of I. Girón and the workers of the La Hampa farm.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A

Agriculture 14 02005 g0a1
Figure A1. La Hampa farm (outlined in orange) location. The two groves (superintensive and traditional) where the research was carried out are outlined in purple.
Figure A1. La Hampa farm (outlined in orange) location. The two groves (superintensive and traditional) where the research was carried out are outlined in purple.
Agriculture 14 02005 g0a1
Agriculture 14 02005 g0a2
Figure A2. Superintensive grove. (a) Location of the plots: C, Compost; M, Mineral; yellow border means deficit irrigation procedure; blue border means full irrigation; red border means rain-fed. Green filling means compost addition, white filling means mineral fertilization. (b) Red crosses represent the pattern of the use of sweep nets in the two central alleys of each plot; visual sampling was performed in the same two central alleys.
Figure A2. Superintensive grove. (a) Location of the plots: C, Compost; M, Mineral; yellow border means deficit irrigation procedure; blue border means full irrigation; red border means rain-fed. Green filling means compost addition, white filling means mineral fertilization. (b) Red crosses represent the pattern of the use of sweep nets in the two central alleys of each plot; visual sampling was performed in the same two central alleys.
Agriculture 14 02005 g0a2
Agriculture 14 02005 g0a3
Figure A3. Traditional grove. (a) Location of the plots: C, Compost; M, Mineral; red border indicates the plots used in this research. Green filling means compost addition, white filling means mineral fertilization. (b) Red crosses represent the pattern of the use of sweep nets in the central tree and the inner face of the four trees of the central cross of each plot; visual sampling was performed in the same points.
Figure A3. Traditional grove. (a) Location of the plots: C, Compost; M, Mineral; red border indicates the plots used in this research. Green filling means compost addition, white filling means mineral fertilization. (b) Red crosses represent the pattern of the use of sweep nets in the central tree and the inner face of the four trees of the central cross of each plot; visual sampling was performed in the same points.
Agriculture 14 02005 g0a3
Table A1. Characterization of the ‘alperujo’ compost. Mean values (n = 3) and SD = standard deviation.
Table A1. Characterization of the ‘alperujo’ compost. Mean values (n = 3) and SD = standard deviation.
ParameterUnitsMeanSD
Densityg cm−30.490.03
Humidity%21.50.02
Organic Materia%58.51.34
pH 9.180.09
CEmS cm−15.870.25
N%2.500.26
N-NH4+mg kg−156.82.68
N-NO3−mg kg−126.20.77
P2O5%2.530.21
CaO%9.401.04
MgO%2.340.01
K2O%3.380.07
SO3%2.140.06
Na%0.930.01
Femg kg−15628642
Mnmg kg−133235
Cumg kg−170.27.80
Znmg kg−130121.3
Asmg kg−1<0.100.00
Cdmg kg−10.100.03
Comg kg−11.700.11
Nimg kg−119.01.06
Pbmg kg−15.480.64
Hgmg kg−11.000.05
Crmg kg−138.62.65
Table A2. Fertilizing units (kg ha−1) of the principal nutrients applied in the fertilizing treatments (Mineral and Compost) in the two groves (superintensive and traditional) during the two years of the study.
Table A2. Fertilizing units (kg ha−1) of the principal nutrients applied in the fertilizing treatments (Mineral and Compost) in the two groves (superintensive and traditional) during the two years of the study.
Superintensive Traditional
2021 a 2021 a
Mineral Compost b Mineral Compost c
FoliarIrrigationTotal FoliarCompostTotal FoliarMineralTotal FoliarCompostTotal
N6.4--6.4 6.414.120.5 6.4--6.4 6.414.120.5
P------ --93.893.8 ------ --93.893.8
K22.4--22.4 22.4477.0499.4 22.4--22.4 22.4477.0499.4
2022 2022
Mineral d Compost b Mineral d Compost c
FoliarIrrigationTotal FoliarCompostTotal FoliarMineralTotal FoliarCompostTotal
N6.4119.0125.4 6.414.120.5 6.472.979.3 6.414.120.5
P--59.559.5 --93.893.8 --24.324.3 --93.893.8
K22.4178.6201.0 22.4477.0499.4 22.497.1119.5 22.4477.0499.4
a 2021. Only three foliar applications of KNO3 at 12.5 kg ha−1 each and one application of boron (2 L ha−1) were applied to the trees of all treatments and sites prior to fruit set. b Compost in superintensive grove: 17 tonnes ha−1 in July 2021, and 17 tonnes ha−1 in March 2022. c Compost in traditional grove: 17 tonnes ha−1 in December 2020, and 17 tonnes ha−1 in March 2022. d 2022. Different mineral fertilizers were used at each grove: (1) Nitrofoska Perfect (15-5-20) at a rate of 1.7 kg tree−1 in the traditional grove and 63 g tree−1 in the superintensive grove, in the mineral fertilized plots; (2) Variable rate fertigation for mineral treatment plots in the superintensive site; (3) as in 2021, three foliar applications of KNO3 at 12.5 kg ha−1 each and one application of boron (2 L ha−1) were applied to the trees of all treatments and sites prior to fruit set.
Table A3. Sampling dates for visual and sweep net methods, and the principal agricultural operations carried out in the two groves (superintensive and traditional).
Table A3. Sampling dates for visual and sweep net methods, and the principal agricultural operations carried out in the two groves (superintensive and traditional).
Sampling Dates Agricultural Operations
Visual Sweep Net
Superintensive Traditional Superintensive Traditional Superintensive Traditional
12 April 2021 12 April 2021 1–8 April 2021Streets mowed April 2021Plots tilled
3 May 2021 3 May 2021 20–25 April 2021Trees pruned
14 May 2021 14 May 2021 1–3 July 2021Compost addition 1
14 June 2021 28 June 2021 14 June 2021 28 June 2021 17 September 2021Harvest November 2021Harvest
9 July 2021 9 July 2021 12 July 2021 12 July 2021 15 October 2021Streets mowed
23 July 2021 23 July 2021 26 July 2021 26 July 2021
27 August 2021 27 August 2021 30 August 2021 30 August 2021
17 September 2021 17 September 2021 20 September 2021 20 September 2021
15 October 2021 15 October 2021 18 October 2021 18 October 2021
1 April 2022 1 April 2022 1 April 2022 1 April 2022 March 2022Nitrofoska Perfect
(15–5–20)		 March 2022Nitrofoska Perfect (15–5–20)
25 April 2022 25 April 2022 25 April 2022 25 April 2022 4 March 2022Compost addition 1 28–31 March 2022Compost addition 2
13 May 2022 13 May 2022 13 May 2022 13 May 2022 13–17 May 2022Streets mowed 20–22 April 2022Plots tilled
30 May 2022 30 May 2022 30 May 2022 30 May 2022 15 September 2022Harvest November 2022Harvest
24 June 2022 24 June 2022 24 June 2022 24 June 2022
18 July 2022 18 July 2022 15 July 2022 15 July 2022
29 August 2022 29 August 2022 26 August 2022 26 August 2022
19 September 2022 19 September 2022 16 September 2022 16 September 2022
7 October 2022 7 October 2022 7 October 2022 7 October 2022
1 A shallow furrow was opened at one side of the tree line, the compost was added, and then covered. 2 The compost was incorporated into the soil with disc harrowing to homogenize the compost and integrate it above the biomass and spontaneous vegetation.
Table A4. Treatments made during the two years of the study against pests, diseases, and weeds in the two groves (superintensive and traditional).
Table A4. Treatments made during the two years of the study against pests, diseases, and weeds in the two groves (superintensive and traditional).
Superintensive Grove
DateProduct UsedUsed Against
1 January 2021Glyphosate 36%Mono and Dicotyledoneae
MCPA 40%Dicotyledoneae
15 February 2021Copper oxychloride 52%Venturia oleaginea—Other diseases
19 April 2021Lambda-cyhalothrin 10%Prays oleae
19 May 2021Deltamethrin 2.5%Bactrocera oleae—Prays oleae
22 June 2021Glyphosate 36%Mono and Dicotyledoneae
MCPA 40%Dicotyledoneae
23 June 2021Phosmet 50%Bactrocera oleae—Prays oleae—Palpita unionalis
5 November 2021Copper oxychloride 52%Venturia oleaginea—Other diseases
Kresoxim methyl 50%
16 February 2022Copper oxychloride 52%Venturia oleaginea
20 April 2022Glyphosate 36%Mono and Dicotyledoneae
26 April 2022Deltamethrin 2.5%Prays oleae
27 May 2022Kresoxim methyl 50%Venturia oleaginea
Lambda-cyhalothrin 10%Prays oleae
2 June 2022Glyphosate 36%Mono and Dicotyledoneae
22 June 2022Sulfur 80%Eriophyidae
13 July 2022Phosmet 50%Bactrocera oleae—Prays oleae—Palpita unionalis
4 August 2022Phosmet 50%Bactrocera oleae—Prays oleae—Palpita unionalis
26 October 2022Copper oxychloride 52%Venturia oleaginea
Traditional grove
DateProduct usedUsed against
5 November 2021Copper oxychloride 52%Venturia oleaginea
26 April 2022Deltamethrin 2.5%Prays oleae
30 May 2022Deltamethrin 2.5%Prays oleae
Difenoconazole 23.5%Venturia oleaginea
13 July 2022Phosmet 50%Bactrocera oleae—Prays oleae—Palpita unionalis
4 August 2022Phosmet 50%Bactrocera oleae—Prays oleae—Palpita unionalis
27 October 2022Copper oxychloride 52%Venturia oleaginea
White and grey colors separate the different dates and products used in each date.

References

  1. International Olive Council. Olive Oil Production. Available online: https://www.internationaloliveoil.org/what-we-do/economic-affairs-promotion-unit/#figures (accessed on 8 May 2023).
  2. Morillo, J.A.; Antizar-Ladislao, B.; Monteoliva-Sánchez, M.; Ramos-Cormenzana, A.; Russell, N.J. Bioremediation and biovalorisation of olive-mill wastes. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2009, 82, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Peña, D.; Fernández, D.; Albarrán, A.; Gómez, S.; Martín, C.; Sánchez-Terrón, J.; Vicente, L.; López-Piñeiro, A. Using olive mill waste compost with sprinkler irrigation as a strategy to achieve sustainable rice cropping under Mediterranean conditions. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 42, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sánchez-Monedero, M.A.; Cayuela, M.L.; Sánchez-García, M.; Vandecasteele, B.; D’Hose, T.; López, G.; Martínez-Gaitán, C.; Kuikman, P.J.; Sinicco, T.; Mondini, C. Agronomic Evaluation of Biochar, Compost and Biochar-Blended Compost across Different Cropping Systems: Perspective from the European Project FERTIPLUS. Agronomy 2019, 9, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Leone, A.; Romaniello, R.; Tamborrino, A.; Beneduce, L.; Gagliardi, A.; Giuliani, M.; Gatta, G. Composting of Olive Mill Pomace, Agro-Industrial Sewage Sludge and Other Residues: Process Monitoring and Agronomic Use of the Resulting Composts. Foods 2021, 10, 2143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Diacono, M.; Montemurro, F. Olive Pomace Compost in Organic Emmer Crop: Yield, Soil Properties, and Heavy Metals’ Fate in Plant and Soil. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2019, 19, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bargougui, L.; Guergueb, Z.; Chaieb, M.; Braham, M.; Mekki, A. Agro-physiological and biochemical responses of Sorghum bicolor in soil amended by olive mill wastewater. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 212, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mamkagh, A.; AL-Zyoud, F.; Al-Atiyat, R. Olive Mill Pomace Compost as Soil Amendment, and Sources of Biopesticides and Animal Feed: A Review. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2022, 28, 257–268. [Google Scholar]
  9. De Sosa, L.; Panettieri, M.; Moreno, B.; Benítez, E.; Madejón, E. Compost application in an olive grove influences nitrogen dynamics under Mediterranean conditions. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2022, 175, 104462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Panettieri, M.; Moreno, B.; de Sosa, L.L.; Benítez, E.; Madejón, E. Soil management and compost amendment are the main drivers of carbon sequestration in rainfed olive trees agroecosystems: An evaluation of chemical and biological markers. Catena 2022, 214, 106258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Madejón, P.; Alaejos, J.; García-Álbala, J.; Fernández, M.; Madejón, E. Three-year study of fast-growing trees in degraded soils amended with composts: Effects on soil fertility and productivity. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 169, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Podgornik, M.; Bučar-Miklavčič, M.; Levart, A.; Salobir, J.; Rezar, V.; Butinar, B. Chemical Characteristics of Two-Phase Olive-Mill Waste and Evaluation of Their Direct Soil Application in Humid Mediterranean Regions. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hrameche, O.; Tul, S.; Manolikaki, I.; Digalaki, N.; Kaltsa, I.; Psarras, G.; Koubouris, G. Optimizing Agroecological Measures for Climate-Resilient Olive Farming in the Mediterranean. Plants 2024, 13, 900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Proietti, P.; Federici, E.; Fidati, L.; Scargetta, S.; Massaccesi, L.; Nasini, L.; Regni, L.; Ricci, A.; Cenci, G.; Gigliotti, G. Effects of amendment with oil mill waste and its derived-compost on soil chemical and microbiological characteristics and olive (Olea europaea L.) productivity. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 207, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mairech, H.; López-Bernal, Á.; Moriondo, M.; Dibari, C.; Regni, L.; Proietti, P.; Villalobos, F.J.; Testi, L. Sustainability of olive growing in the Mediterranean area under future climate scenarios: Exploring the effects of intensification and deficit irrigation. Eur. J. Agron. 2021, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Fraga, H.; Moriondo, M.; Leolini, L.; Santos, J.A. Mediterranean Olive Orchards under Climate Change: A Review of Future Impacts and Adaptation Strategies. Agronomy 2020, 11, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Murrell, E.G. Can agricultural practices that mitigate or improve crop resilience to climate change also manage crop pests? Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2017, 23, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lin, P.-A.; Paudel, S.; Lai, P.-C.; GC, R.K.; Yang, D.-H.; Felton, G.W. Integrating water and insect pest management in agriculture. J. Pest Sci. 2024, 97, 521–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Han, P.; Lavoir, A.-V.V.; Rodriguez-Saona, C.; Desneux, N. Bottom-Up Forces in Agroecosystems and Their Potential Impact on Arthropod Pest Management. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2022, 67, 239–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lamichhane, J.R.; Barzman, M.; Booij, K.; Boonekamp, P.; Desneux, N.; Huber, L.; Kudsk, P.; Langrell, S.R.H.; Ratnadass, A.; Ricci, P.; et al. Robust cropping systems to tackle pests under climate change. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 443–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Baldovino Sanjuan, A.; Castellanos Gonzalez, L.; Prado, R.d.M. Edaphic mesofauna, some studies done: A review. INGE CUC 2022, 18, 197–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Miller, J.J.; Battigelli, J.P.; Beasley, B.W.; Drury, C.F. Response of Soil Mesofauna to Long-Term Application of Feedlot Manure on Irrigated Cropland. J. Environ. Qual. 2017, 46, 185–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Rowen, E.; Tooker, J.F.; Blubaugh, C.K. Managing fertility with animal waste to promote arthropod pest suppression. Biol. Control 2019, 134, 130–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Goncharov, A.A.; Glebova, A.A.; Chernov, T.I.; Karpukhin, M.M.; Kuznetsova, N.A.; Leonov, V.D.; Makarova, O.L.; Maygurova, V.N.; Shesteperov, A.A.; Taranets, I.P.; et al. Detrital subsidy alters the soil invertebrate community and reduces infection of winter wheat seedlings by Fusarium wilt. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2021, 163, 103914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hata, F.T.; Ventura, M.U.; de Souza, M.S.d.J.; de Sousa, N.V.; Oliveira, B.G.; da Silva, J.B. Mineral and organic fertilization affects Tetranychus urticae, pseudofruit production and leaf nutrient content in strawberry. Phytoparasitica 2019, 47, 513–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sousa, V.; Ventura, M.U.; Hoshino, A.T.; Hata, F.T.; Constantino, L.V. Development and population growth of the two-spotted spider mite (Tetranychus urticae Koch) on strawberry fertilized with different doses and sources of organic fertilizers. Int. J. Acarol. 2021, 47, 528–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Garratt, M.P.D.; Wright, D.J.; Leather, S.R. The effects of farming system and fertilisers on pests and natural enemies: A synthesis of current research. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 141, 261–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Martín Gil, A.; Ruiz Torres, M. Guía de Gestión Integrada de Plagas-Olivar; Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentacion: Madrid, Spain, 2014; ISBN 9788449113871. [Google Scholar]
  29. Rodrigues, M.Â.; Coelho, V.; Arrobas, M.; Gouveia, E.; Raimundo, S.; Correia, C.M.; Bento, A. The effect of nitrogen fertilization on the incidence of olive fruit fly, olive leaf spot and olive anthracnose in two olive cultivars grown in rainfed conditions. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 256, 108658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Roca, L.F.; Romero, J.; Bohórquez, J.M.; Alcántara, E.; Fernández-Escobar, R.; Trapero, A. Nitrogen status affects growth, chlorophyll content and infection by Fusicladium oleagineum in olive. Crop Prot. 2018, 109, 80–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. González-Zamora, J.E.; Alonso-López, M.T.; Gómez-Regife, Y.; Ruiz-Muñoz, S. Decreased water use in a super-intensive olive orchard mediates arthropod populations and pest damage. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. González-Zamora, J.E.; Gamero-Monge, J.M.; Pérez-de la Luz, R. The use of olive mill pomace compost increases the population of certain ground/soil organisms in olive groves. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2024, 122, 103668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. González-Zamora, J.E.; Gamero-Monge, J.M.; Pérez-de la Luz, R. Ant Community Is Not Influenced by the Addition of Olive Mill Pomace Compost in Two Different Olive Crop Managements. Insects 2023, 14, 783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. De Sosa, L.L.; Martín-Palomo, M.J.; Castro-Valdecantos, P.; Madejón, E. Agricultural use of compost under different irrigation strategies in a hedgerow olive grove under Mediterranean conditions—A comparison with traditional systems. Soil 2023, 9, 325–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. González, M.I.; Alvarado, M.; Durán, J.M.; De la Rosa, A.; Serrano, A. Los eriófidos (Acarina, Eriophidae) del olivar de la provincia de Sevilla. Problemática y control. Boletín Sanid. Veg. 2000, 26, 203–214. [Google Scholar]
  36. Barrientos, A.J. (Ed.) Curso Práctico de Entomología; Manuals; 41; Asociación Española de Entomología; CIBIO.; Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona: Alicante, Bellaterra, Spain, 2004; ISBN 8449023831. [Google Scholar]
  37. Chinery, M. Guía de Campo de los Insectos de España y de Europa; Omega: Barcelona, Spain, 2005; ISBN 84-282-0469-1. [Google Scholar]
  38. R CoreTeam. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2024. Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 8 May 2023).
  39. Oksanen, J.; Simpson, G.; Blanchet, F.; Kindt, R.; Legendre, P.; Minchin, P.; O’Hara, R.; Solymos, P.; Stevens, M.; Szoecs, E.; et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R Package Version 2.6-8. 2024. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan (accessed on 5 November 2024).
  40. Venables, W.N.; Ripley, B.D. Modern Applied Statistics with S, 4th ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2002; ISBN 0-387-95457-0. [Google Scholar]
  41. Huber, D.; Römheld, V.; Weinmann, M. Relationship between Nutrition, Plant Diseases and Pests. In Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 283–298. ISBN 9780123849052. [Google Scholar]
  42. Cárdenas, M.; Pascual, F.; Campos, M.; Pekar, S. The Spider Assemblage of Olive Groves Under Three Management Systems. Environ. Entomol. 2015, 44, 509–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gonçalves, M.F.; Pereira, J.A. Abundance and Diversity of Soil Arthropods in the Olive Grove Ecosystem. J. Insect Sci. 2012, 12, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Álvarez, H.A.; Jiménez-Muñoz, R.; Morente, M.; Campos, M.; Ruano, F. Ground cover presence in organic olive orchards affects the interaction of natural enemies against Prays oleae, promoting an effective egg predation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 315, 107441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Cárdenas, M.; Ruano, F.; García, P.; Pascual, F.; Campos, M. Impact of agricultural management on spider populations in the canopy of olive trees. Biol. Control 2006, 38, 188–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Anđelić Dmitrović, B.; Gajski, D.; Kos, T.; Jelić, M.; Šerić Jelaska, L. Insight into Trophic Interactions of Spiders in Olive Groves with Integrated and Ecological Pest Management Using DNA Metabarcoding. Diversity 2023, 15, 976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Morente, M.; Ruano, F. Understanding the trophic relationships amongst arthropods in olive grove by δN 15 and δC 13 stable isotope analysis. J. Appl. Entomol. 2022, 146, 372–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Alvarado, M.; Durán, J.M.; González, M.I.; Montes, F.; Páez, J.; Sánchez, A.; Serrano, A.; Vega, J.M. Plagas y Enfermedades del Olivo; Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Agricultura y Pesca: Sevilla, Spain, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  49. Sobreiro, J.; Patanita, M.I.; Patanita, M.; Tomaz, A. Sustainability of High-Density Olive Orchards: Hints for Irrigation Management and Agroecological Approaches. Water 2023, 15, 2486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Scriber, J.M. Nitrogen Nutrition of Plants and Insect Invasion. In Nitrogen in Crop Protection; Hauck, R.D., Ed.; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1984; pp. 441–460. [Google Scholar]
  51. Hasken, K.H.; Poehling, H.M. Effects of different intensities of fertilisers and pesticides on aphids and aphid predators in winter wheat. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1995, 52, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kaneshiro, L.N.; Johnson, M.W. Tritrophic Effects of Leaf Nitrogen on Liriomyza trifolii (Burgess) and an Associated Parasitoid Chrysocharis oscinidis (Ashmead) on Bean. Biol. Control 1996, 6, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bi, J.L.; Ballmer, G.R.; Hendrix, D.L.; Henneberry, T.J.; Toscano, N.C. Effect of cotton nitrogen fertilization on Bemisia argentifolii populations and honeydew production. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2001, 99, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Nevo, E.; Coll, M. Effect of Nitrogen Fertilization on Aphis gossypii (Homoptera: Aphididae): Variation in Size, Color, and Reproduction. J. Econ. Entomol. 2001, 94, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 14 02005 g001
Figure 1. Principal response curves (PRCs) of the most important arthropod taxa and diseases observed visually in the shoots and fruits in the two olive groves (superintensive and traditional) over the two-year study period (2021 and 2022). The p-values indicate the statistical significance of the fertilizing treatment ‘Compost’ (plotted line) in comparison to the fertilizing treatment ‘Mineral’ on all dates, based on an F-type permutation test. The arthropod taxa and diseases are presented on the right vertical axis, with their respective weights, which have been scaled identically to the canonical coefficients on the left vertical axis.
Figure 1. Principal response curves (PRCs) of the most important arthropod taxa and diseases observed visually in the shoots and fruits in the two olive groves (superintensive and traditional) over the two-year study period (2021 and 2022). The p-values indicate the statistical significance of the fertilizing treatment ‘Compost’ (plotted line) in comparison to the fertilizing treatment ‘Mineral’ on all dates, based on an F-type permutation test. The arthropod taxa and diseases are presented on the right vertical axis, with their respective weights, which have been scaled identically to the canonical coefficients on the left vertical axis.
Agriculture 14 02005 g001
Agriculture 14 02005 g002
Figure 2. Seasonal change in Eriophyidae presence and damage on shoots depending on the fertilizing treatment in the olive groves with two distinct types of management: superintensive in (a) 2021 and (b) 2022 and traditional in (c) 2021 and (d) 2022; each point represents the mean of observations per plot with the standard error (vertical bars).
Figure 2. Seasonal change in Eriophyidae presence and damage on shoots depending on the fertilizing treatment in the olive groves with two distinct types of management: superintensive in (a) 2021 and (b) 2022 and traditional in (c) 2021 and (d) 2022; each point represents the mean of observations per plot with the standard error (vertical bars).
Agriculture 14 02005 g002
Table 1. Significance (p) obtained with the two fertilizing treatments (Compost, Mineral) and the interaction Treatment × Sampling Date (Tr × SD) in the different variables observed visually in the two groves (superintensive, traditional) each year, with also the two years (Y) analyzed together.
Table 1. Significance (p) obtained with the two fertilizing treatments (Compost, Mineral) and the interaction Treatment × Sampling Date (Tr × SD) in the different variables observed visually in the two groves (superintensive, traditional) each year, with also the two years (Y) analyzed together.
Superintensive Traditional
2021 2022 2021–2022 2021 2022 2021–2022
TreatmentTr × SD TreatmentTr × SD TreatmentYearTr × Y TreatmentTr × SD TreatmentTr × SD TreatmentYearTr × Y
Prays oleae0.4350.624 - 1- 1 0.4880.2440.160 - 2- 2 - 1- 1 ---
Palpita unionalis 30.0670.021 (*) 0.6640.261 0.3210.7060.357 - 1- 1 0.5800.878 10.9931
Euphyllura olivina0.015 (*)0.026 (*) 0.041 (*)0.285 0.035 (*)0.6520.004 (*) - 2- 2 0.8390.347 ---
Formicidae0.033 (*)0.758 0.8340.471 0.2730.1010.782 - 1- 1 0.1340.489 110.997
Neuroptera0.011 (*)0.598 0.1160.497 0.016 (*)0.5490.991 0.9400.430 0.6750.69 - 4- 4- 4
Heteroptera 1-- -- --- -- -- ---
Eriophyidae (Shoot)0.6620.399 0.023 (*)0.046 (*) 0.5960.4960.057 - 1- 1 0.4730.559 10.0040.732
Venturia oleaginea0.6700.721 0.6780.374 0.7360.0620.595 0.6320.081 0.3010.231 0.7670.0180.319
Camarosporium dalmaticum (Fruit)0.9190.422 0.3740.374 0.7980.0370.993 0.7200.359 10.020 (*) 0.4490.2080.648
Eriophyidae (Fruit)0.3290.741 0.6430.260 0.6550.7850.876 - 1- 1 0.3560.284 - 4- 4- 4
Bactrocera oleae (Fruit)0.6530.909 0.3740.683 0.5730.2450.275 0.039 (*)0.875 0.1900.446 0.036 (*)0.2280.021 (*)
(*) Significant, with p < 0.05; 1 Very few data; 2 No data due to the sampling starting date; 3 Includes other Lepidoptera species: Zelleria oleastrella; 4 Analysis incongruent (very high standard errors); Considering treatment (Compost vs. Mineral fertilizer) only, significant p-values in bold show greater presence in the Compost treatment, while significant p-values in normal font show greater presence in the Mineral treatment. Each year’s data were analyzed separately using a repeated-measures ANOVA, while the two years’ data were analyzed together using the quasibinomial distribution in a generalized linear model.
Table 2. Mean number of arthropods captured with the sweep net per sampling plot and date in the two fertilizing treatments (Compost and Mineral). Total number per year and the total for the two years (TOTAL) are presented for the two groves (superintensive and traditional). The figures are given with the standard errors in brackets.
Table 2. Mean number of arthropods captured with the sweep net per sampling plot and date in the two fertilizing treatments (Compost and Mineral). Total number per year and the total for the two years (TOTAL) are presented for the two groves (superintensive and traditional). The figures are given with the standard errors in brackets.
Superintensive Traditional
2021 2022 TOTAL 2021 2022 TOTAL
CompostMineralTotal CompostMineralTotal CompostMineralTotal CompostMineralTotal
Means.e.Means.e. Means.e.Means.e. Means.e.Means.e. Means.e.Means.e.
DIPTERA2.11(0.66)2.07(0.79)113 4.78(2.40)3.44(1.89)222335 2.83(1.21)3.17(0.98)144 3.31(0.61)3.08(0.54)230374
Nematocera2.00(0.69)1.89(0.81)105 4.37(2.44)3.22(1.91)205310 2.79(1.23)3.08(1.02)141 2.58(0.70)2.42(0.62)180321
Brachycera0.11(0.08)0.19(0.15)8 0.41(0.12)0.22(0.12)1725 0.04(0.04)0.08(0.05)3 0.72(0.39)0.67(0.26)5053
LEPIDOPTERA0.78(0.40)1.26(1.06)55 0.07(0.05)0.04(0.04)358 0.00(0.00)0.00(0.00)0 0.14(0.06)0.14(0.06)1010
Prays oleae0.63(0.39)1.22(1.07)50 0.00(0.00)0.00(0.00)050 0.00(0.00)0.00(0.00)0 0.00(0.00)0.00(0.00)00
Palpita unionalis 10.15(0.11)0.04(0.04)5 0.04(0.04)0.00(0.00)16 0.00(0.00)0.00(0.00)0 0.03(0.03)0.03(0.03)22
HYMENOPTERA3.15(0.95)3.74(1.23)186 3.81(1.40)7.07(2.53)294480 0.17(0.08)0.17(0.08)8 0.83(0.25)0.89(0.31)6270
Formicidae3.04(0.93)3.63(1.24)180 3.48(1.40)5.48(2.26)242422 0.04(0.04)0.04(0.04)2 0.36(0.14)0.36(0.25)2628
Ichneumonoidea0.00(0.00)0.00(0.00)0 0.04(0.04)0.30(0.19)99 0.00(0.00)0.00(0.00)0 0.11(0.08)0.11(0.04)88
Chalcidoidea0.04(0.04)0.11(0.08)4 0.30(0.07)1.15 (*)(0.46)3943 (*) 0.13(0.09)0.13(0.09)6 0.33(0.09)0.36(0.13)2531
HEMIPTERA0.37(0.14)1.37 (*)(0.42)47 1.07(0.37)1.15(0.43)60107 (*) 1.88(0.29)1.88(0.25)90 3.19(1.10)2.69(0.82)212302
Cicadomorpha0.11(0.08)0.19(0.13)8 0.04(0.04)0.07(0.07)311 0.00(0.00)0.00(0.00)0 0.08(0.06)0.03(0.03)44
Fulgoromorpha0.04(0.04)0.00(0.00)1 0.04(0.04)0.07(0.05)34 0.17(0.08)0.08(0.05)6 0.50(0.26)0.33(0.14)3036
Sternorrhyncha0.11(0.08)0.85 (*)(0.32)26 0.89(0.31)0.89(0.44)4874 (*) 1.50(0.25)1.71(0.23)77 1.72(0.77)1.69(0.65)123200
Heteroptera0.11(0.06)0.33(0.18)12 0.11(0.08)0.11(0.06)618 0.21(0.10)0.08(0.05)7 0.89(0.41)0.64(0.31)5562
ARANEAE0.59 (*)(0.13)0.19(0.06)21 1.15 (.)(0.34)0.78(0.22)5273 (*) 0.25(0.06)0.25(0.09)12 0.67(0.12)0.69(0.17)4961
NEUROPTERA0.30(0.12)0.59(0.20)24 0.19(0.10)0.41(0.12)1640 (*) 0.08(0.08)0.17(0.12)6 0.81(0.20)0.92(0.29)6268
PSOCOPTERA0.04(0.04)0.00(0.00)1 0.48(0.36)0.63(0.43)3031 0.08(0.08)0.21(0.21)7 0.61(0.31)0.58(0.28)4350
THYSANOPTERA0.04(0.04)0.07(0.05)3 0.22(0.18)0.15(0.08)1013 0.00(0.00)0.00(0.00)0 0.25(0.10)0.47(0.19)2626
COLEOPTERA0.26(0.11)0.37(0.22)17 0.22(0.10)0.26(0.07)1330 0.50(0.28)0.50(0.22)24 1.17(0.52)0.64(0.17)6589
COLLEMBOLA0.00(0.00)0.00(0.00)0 0.04(0.04)0.00(0.00)11 0.00(0.00)0.00(0.00)0 0.00(0.00)0.00(0.00)00
OTHER0.00(0.00)0.00(0.00)0 0.15(0.08)0.00(0.00)44 0.00(0.00)0.00(0.00)0 0.03(0.03)0.06(0.06)33
TOTAL7.63(1.03)9.67(2.02)467 12.19(3.32)13.93(4.22)7051172 5.79(0.99)6.33(0.94)291 11.00(1.56)10.17(1.60)7621053
(*) Significant, with p < 0.05; (.) With 0.05 > p < 0.10; 1 Counts include other Lepidoptera species: Zelleria oleastrella. Within a year, asterisk (*) following figures in bold signify that the Compost treatment captured significantly higher numbers than the Mineral treatment; while asterisk (*) following figures in normal font signify that the Mineral treatment captured significantly higher numbers than the Compost treatment. Regarding the “TOTAL” column (the two years together), asterisk (*) following figures in bold signify that the Compost treatment captured significantly higher numbers than the Mineral treatment, while asterisk (*) following figures in normal font signify that the Mineral treatment captured significantly higher numbers than the Compost treatment. Each year’s data were analyzed separately using a repeated-measures ANOVA, while the two years’ data were analyzed together using the negative binomial distribution in a generalized linear model.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

González-Zamora, J.E.; Gamero-Monge, J.M.; Pérez-de la Luz, R. Fertilization with Olive Mill Pomace Compost Can Moderate Pest Damage in a Superintensive Olive Grove. Agriculture 2024, 14, 2005. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14112005

AMA Style

González-Zamora JE, Gamero-Monge JM, Pérez-de la Luz R. Fertilization with Olive Mill Pomace Compost Can Moderate Pest Damage in a Superintensive Olive Grove. Agriculture. 2024; 14(11):2005. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14112005

Chicago/Turabian Style

González-Zamora, José E., José M. Gamero-Monge, and Rosa Pérez-de la Luz. 2024. "Fertilization with Olive Mill Pomace Compost Can Moderate Pest Damage in a Superintensive Olive Grove" Agriculture 14, no. 11: 2005. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14112005

APA Style

González-Zamora, J. E., Gamero-Monge, J. M., & Pérez-de la Luz, R. (2024). Fertilization with Olive Mill Pomace Compost Can Moderate Pest Damage in a Superintensive Olive Grove. Agriculture, 14(11), 2005. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14112005

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop