Printer Friendly

Effect of The Edaphic Environment on The Diversity And Trophical Structure of The Nematodes of Algerian Viticultural Soils.


In the ecosystem, the environment conditions, the host plant and the biotic relationships are very important in order to determine the variations observed in the nematological stands. In the present work, we studied the composition of soil in 10 nematofauna wine stations to determine the end of generic and trophic diversity of terrestrial pests and explain the influence of some physicochemical soil factors on these nematode fluctuations. The inventory of the nematological stand associated with the vine was carried out in ten vineyards in western of Algeria during the wine of year 2013/2014. The soil samples are taken from the various vineyards surveyed at a depth of 40 to 70 cm, ie 10 samples of 200 to 300 g are harvested at random in the rhizosphere of the vines. The nematological analysis nematodes associated with viticulture revealed the present of sixteen kinds of nematode divided according to their diets 4 trophic groups whose phytophagous are the most abundant (Paratylenchus sp., Pratylenchus spp., Tylenchus sp., Tylenchorhynchus sp., Helichotylenchus sp., Scutellonema spp., and Xiphinema sp.), followed by fungivorous (Aphelenchus sp., Aphelenchoides spp., Ditylenchus spp. and Psilenchus sp.) and the bacteriovores (Cephalobus sp., Chiloplacus sp. and Rhabditis sp .), While the lowest densities are recorded for the omnivorous predators (Mononchus sp. and Dorylaimus sp.). In addition, the highest densities of nematodes are reported in the soils of stations L2 and L5 with an abundance of both genera Cephalobus and Dorylaimus. This study also illustrates the effect of soil physicochemical fluctuations on the activity and abundance of nematodes whose nematodes are sensitive to high levels of silt and clay; while the latter support life in sandy soils. Also, both groups of bacteriovorous and fungivorous abound in soil rich in organic matter but the group of fungivores is sensitive to Phosphorus.

KEYWORDS: trophic groups; Physico-chemical fluctuations; West Algeria; Nematological population; vine.


Nematodes are certainly the most abundant and widespread multicellular organisms. They are found in oceans, coastal sands, seas, lakes, rivers and soils. They were thawed alive from polar ice and harvested from hot springs above 50[degrees] C. They have even adapted to an environment as special as wine vinegar. All Nematodes, however, remain aquatic or highly hygrophilic animals, and when there is no film of water; they die, pass slowly, become dehydrated, or encysted [3].

Nematodes are an important position in the food chain detritus [14, 21], by significantly affecting the decomposition of soil organic matter and nutrient mineralization plants [19]. These organisms can be used as indicators sensitive to changes in ecosystems [4]. Analyses of nematode communities combined the functions of ecosystems are of interest in assessing soil ecology [31, 32]. Both in natural areas and agricultural communities' nematodes are used to estimate the effects of pollution [30], and also as indicators of enrichment and imbalance [4, 13].

In agriculture soil, the influence of soil's environment on nematode's dynamics is considered to be the second most important factor after the host plant [24, 9]. The physical and chemical properties of soil such as grain size, mineral salts, pH and organic matter influence the distribution and abundance of different species. Some species don't survive prolonged flooding while others are flooded with rice paddies. Some genera proliferate in sandy soils while others prefer clay soils. For this reason, it is useful to survey our vineyards and take soil samples in order to analyze, to identify and to determine the importance of their nematofauna as a result of variations in the physicochemical characteristics of the soil.


1. Study stations and climate:

The inventory of soil's nematodes associated with viticulture in Algeria was carried out in 10 stations in western Algeria, considered as potential area in viticulture, covering areas of 1 ha - 8 ha planted with a planting distance of 4 m x 2 m. Our study area is characterized by a Mediterranean (continental) climate whose rainfall is mainly in winter and spring, where annual rainfall is on average 650 mm. These stations are shown in the table below:

2. Methdology:

To achieve this faunal study, we collected a mixed sample under a weight of 200g to 300g soil to one sample every 10 m on projection diagonally from each plot (unit cultivation). Soil sampling is carried out in the rhizosphere of the plants at a depth between 40 and 70 cm from the soil. These funds are collected in a single sample of approximately 1 kg in a referenced bag (date, place and variety).

In the laboratory, each soil sample is mixed well and then divided into four: a quantity of 750 d[m.sup.3]of soil (3/4) suffered from the physical soil analyzes: the size, the dosage of limestone (total), soil moisture and chemical analysis: determination of assimilable phosphorus, assimilable potassium, water pH, electrical conductivity and finally the dosage of organic matter. A quantity of 250 d[m.sup.3] (1/4) of soil is used for the extraction of nematodes by the method of extraction of the buckets of Dalmasso [10] called flotation and sedimentation methods. After extraction, the nematode's soil is purified by active passage. Then, Nematodes are recovered to count and to identify under a dissecting microscope using identification keys of Mai and Lyon [23], Brzeski [7] and Yeate et al. [33]. Soil nematode populations are expressed as nematode numbers per d[msup.3] (N / dm3).

3. Statistical analysis:

Data analysis and graphical representations were performed using the SYSTAT software vers. 12, SPSS software 2009, and Excel TM. Means were separated by the global linear model (GLM) at a significance level of [alpha] = 5% .The correlations between physical and chemical components of the soil and trophic groups of soil nematodes in the various stations of study are highlighted by correlation coefficient. In parametric conditions, this is the Pearson coefficient r, and in nonparametric conditions, the spearman coefficient rho through the PAST software - Palaeontological Statistics, ver. 1.81. [20].


1. Inventory of the nematofauna encountered in study stations:

The completion of this study allowed us to identify sixteen genera of nematode in ten vineyards of western Algeria represented by: Pratylenchus, Paratylenchus, Scutellonema, Tylenchorhynchus, Xiphinema, Helicotylenchus, Aphelenchoides, Aphelenchus, Ditylenchus, Psilenchus, Tylenchus Rhabditis, Cephalobus, Chiloplacus, Mononchus and Dorylaimus.

The study of the structure of nematode communities (abundance, frequency) in these stations study (table 1) allows us to rank the most abundant genera Aphelenchus, Tylenchus, Dorylaimus and Cephalobus with relative abundance which are respectively : 15.194 and 14.723 and 12.603 and 12.485. The most dominant group is that of phytophagous (35.689) followed by fungivorous and bacterivorous (respectively: 21.436 and 21.436)

2. Variation in the average abundance of soil nematodes associated with viticulture:

The G.L.M. Applied to the variability's mean abundances of the nematofauna existed in different stations shows a highly significant difference between the distribution of the nematodes (p = 0.000, p <0.05). The differences are significant between trophic groups and nematode's distribution in study stations (p = 0.001 and p = 0.026; P <0.05).

The results obtained allow us to deduce that the mean abundances of the most important nematodes are reported in L5 sites (Ain Temouchent) and then in L2 sites (Oran). However, these abundances vary depending on the trophic groups with the highest densities recorded for the phytophagous group followed by the fungivorous and bacterivorous groups and the lowest one recorded for omnivorous-predators. Similarly, the density of nematodes also varies according to the genus encountered of which Cephalobus and Dorylaimus which represent the most abundant nematodes in the study stations.

PP : Plant-Parasitic nematodes ; BF : Bacterial feeders; FF : Fungal Feeders; OP : Omnivorous-Predator nematodes, Aph : Aphelenchus, Aphd : Aphelenchoides, Tyl : Tylenchus, Dity : Ditylenchus, Psi : Psilenchus, Ceph : Cephalobus, Chilo : Chiloplacus, Rhab : Rhabditis, Scu : Sculellonema, Tylen : Tylenchorhynchus, Helico : Helicotylenchus, Praty : Pratylenchus, Para : Paratylenchus, Xiph : Xiphinema, Dory :Dorylaimus, Mono : Mononchus.

3. Effect of soil physical and chemical characteristics on nematode trophic groups:

To evaluate the influence of physicochemical characteristics of soil on trophic groups, we chose the correlation analysis which shows the data (table 2 and table 3). In these tables, the Pearson coefficient values are below the diagonal. The associated probabilities are positioned above the diagonal.

The results shown in table 2 reveal that the phytophagous and bacterivorous nematodes are positively correlated with coarse and fine sand. On the contrary, these same groups are negatively correlated with silt and clay soil. The respective probabilities for these correlations are identical for phytophagous (p = 3.70E-05) and for bacterivorous (p = 6.76E-5).

While the results shown in table 3 show a negative correlation between the phosphorus content and the fungivorous group (p = 3.33E-02). Similarly, this table reveals that bacterivorous and fungivorous are positively correlated to the organic matter (p = 0.03 and p = 0.01).


Our study of nematofauna associated with viticulture and represent ten vineyards in western Algeria reveals a significant diversity of sixteen genera of nematodes represented by: Paratylenchus sp., Pratylenchus sp., Tylenchus sp., Tylenchorhynchus sp., Helichotylenchus sp ., Scutellonema sp. and Xiphinema sp., Aphelenchus sp., Aphelenchoides sp., Ditylenchus sp., Psilenchus sp., Cephalobus sp., Chiloplacus sp., Mononchus sp. and Dorylaimus sp.

Our results on the inventory of nematodes on the vineyard are similar to those reported by Galet [16] on the French and Spanish vineyards, which demonstrated that the most feared nematodes on vines in France and which are the subject of several researches and publications belong to two groups:

The Tylenchides: contain four families: the Heteroderidae (genus Meloidogyne spp.), The Hoplolaimidae (Pratylenchus spp.). The Criconematidae with the genus (criconemella spp.) and the Tylenchulidae with the species (Tylenchulus semipentrans) (mi-sedentary - endoparasites of the roots).

The Dorylaimides: These nematodes cause little damage directly to the vine but their importance is considerable because they transmit some viruses of the vine through their bites. The Longidoridae family (Xiphinema and Longidorus) is the most interesting in this group.

According to Arias et al. [1], the genus Xiphinema is present on 70% of the samples taken from Spanish vineyards. The most replied species being X. index (first position), then X. italiae and X. mediterraneum and X. diversicaudatum and X. rivesi.

The overall assessment of the populations inventoried in the ten vineyards shows the dominance of the phytophagous group (35.689%) which represented mainly by eight genera: Paratylenchus sp., Pratylenchus sp., Tylenchus sp., Tylenchorhynchus sp., Helichotylenchus sp., Scutellonema sp. and Xiphinema sp. Compared to fungivorous (21.436%). In the second position, with the presence of Aphelenchus sp., Aphelenchoides sp., Ditylenchus sp. and Psilenchus sp. Followed by bacterivorous (21.436%) which represented by: Cephalobus sp., Chiloplacus sp. and Rhabditis sp. While omnivorous-predators (Mononchus sp. and Dorylaimus sp.) appear to be very poorly represented in all study stations. Indeed, several research studies indicate that nematodes are useful bioindicators in soil ecosystems [6, 12]. Predatory and omnivorous nematodes are the most sensitive to environmental perturbations [5, 18], while bacterivorous and fungivorous nematodes tolerate different chemical residue levels applied in conventional agriculture [15].

The analysis of results by using the General Linear Model (GLM) revealed a very highly significant difference in nematode densities (P <0.05, P = 0.000) with nematode dominance, Cephalobus and Dorylaimus dominating in soil study stations. Significant differences were observed at study stations between the distribution of nematodes and trophic groups (P = 0.026 and p = 0.001, P <0.05). Phytophagous and fungus-bearing plants abound in study stations, followed by bacterivorous, while omnivorous predators are the least represented, with L2 and L5 soils which hosting the largest amounts of nematodes.

These results are according to those founded by cadet [8] who demonstrated that the presence of plant doesn't determine the nematode species that are able to parasite it. For the same plant, the nematode species present in sandy soils are often different from those of clay soils [11]. Indeed, the variability of trophic groups observed in these different sites would be linked to various factors. According to Norton and Niblack [25], it is related to differences in species' life cycles, quality and availability of food's resources, biotic relationships with soil microorganisms, and physic and chemical factors in the environment.

The study's effect of the edaphic environment that allows the course of the telluric phase of the life cycle of the nematodes is demonstrated by Kandji et al. [29], which indicate that the physic and chemical properties of soil play an important role in the abundance, distribution and structure of nematode communities.

In this context, our results on correlations between soil's physical characteristics and trophic groups reveal that phytophagous and bacteriovorous nematodes are sensitive to high levels of silt and clay; whereas these two trophic groups multiply easily in sandy soils. These correlations are similar to those founded by Reddy [26] and indicate that sandy soils are most favorable to the development of phytophagous nematodes. On the other hand, clay soils strongly inhibit their outbreaks. There is some agreement by considering the texture and structure of the soil as relevant variables, since they affect the size of soil pores and the existence of stable compound aggregates. Coarse structures and well-structured soils are appropriate factors for faster population's growth [22, 2]. On the other hand, the correlations between the chemical characteristics of soil and the trophic groups are positive between the organic matter and the two groups bacterivorous and fungivorous insofar as they develop to the detriment of the bacteria or the fungi associated with the presence of organic matter [27] and these correlations are negative between the phosphorus content and the fungivorous group. In agreement with Steiner [28], these few studies suggest that soil pH is an unimportant ecological factor for nematodes. On the other hand, no effect was observed on the other characteristics (P and EC) on nematodes.


The nematodes present themselves in communities (more or less) diversified according to the degree of anthropisation of the environment whatever the environment. To give an exhaustive account of diversity's nematofauna in an agro-vine system and the effect of edaphic environment on this distribution, our research was carried out in 10 stations in the west of the country.

This study allowed us to identify sixteen nematode genera in vineyard soils distributed according to their diet in four trophic groups: Phytophagous (Paratylenchus sp., Pratylenchus sp., Tylenchus sp., Tylenchorhynchus sp., Helichotylenchus sp., Scutellonema sp., and Xiphinema sp.) and Fongivorous (Aphelenchus sp., Aphelenchoides sp., Ditylenchus sp. and Psilenchus sp.) and Bacterivorous (Cephalobus sp., Chiloplacus sp. and Rhabditis sp.) and Omnivorous-Predators (Mononchus sp. and Dorylaimus sp.).

The General Linear Model (GLM) applied to the distribution of mean nematode abundances in ten vineyards in western Algeria, reveals significant differences between the distribution of nematodes and between trophic groups in study stations and a very highly significant difference at the densities of the nematodes. The group phytophagous and fungivorous abound in the study stations, followed by that of bacterivorous (with the most important nematode abundances are reported in stations L2 and L5). Concerning the average abundances of nematodes, Cephalobus and Dorylaimus dominate in the soils of the inventoried vineyards. On the one hand the correlations between soil's physical properties and trophic groups reveal that phytophagous's and bacterivorous's nematodes are sensitive to high levels of silt and clay; whereas these two trophic groups multiply easily in sandy soils. On the other hand, the correlations between the soil's chemical characteristics and the trophic groups are positive between the organic matter and the two groups of bacterivorous and fungivorous but they are negative between the rate of phosphorus and the group of fungivorous.


The authors express their thanks to the director of laboratory of plant protection research Dr Doumandji S. and the whole team of Zoology laboratory of the department of Agronomy of Saad DAHLEB University; Especially Dr. Djazouli Z. E for the statistical study of the results.


[1] Arias, M., A. Navas et A. Bello, 1985. Nematodos ectoparasitos y transmisores de virus la familia Longidoridae. Su distribucion en Espana continental. Bol. Serv. Plagas, 11: 275-337.

[2] Avendano, F., J.P. Pierce, O. Schabenberger and H. Melakeberhan, 2004. Spatial variability: The spatial distribution of soybean cyst nematode in relation to soil texture and soil map unit. Agronomy Journal, 96: 181-194.

[3] Bechelier, G., 1978. La faune des sols : son ecologie et son action.Initiations Documentations Techniques 38, Publ. ORSTOM, Paris.

[4] Bongers, T., 1990. The maturity index: an ecological measure of environmental disturbance based on nematode species composition. Oecologia, 83: 14-19.

[5] Bongers, T. et M. Bongers, 1998. Functional diversity of nematodes. Applied Soil Ecology, 10: 239-251.

[6] Bongers, T. and H. Ferris, 1999. Nematode community structure as a bioindicator in environmental monitoring. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 14: 224-228.

[7] Brzeski, M.W., 1998. Nematodes of Tylenchida in Poland and temperate Europe. Eds., Museum I Instytut Zoologii Polska Akademia Nauk Warszawa, Poland, p: 389.

[8] Cadet, P., 1998. Gestion ecologique des nematodes phytoparasites tropicaux. Cahiers agricultures, 7: 9-187, Dakar, Senegal.

[9] Cadet, P., S. Berry and V. Spaull, 2004. Mapping of interactions between soil factors and nematodes. European Journal of Soil Biology, 40: 77-86.

[10] Dalmasso, A., 1966. Methodes simples d'extraction des nematodes du sol. Revue d'Ecologie et de Biologie du Sol., 3: 473-478.

[11] Estioko, R.V. and l.T. Reyes, 1984. Population dynamics of plant-parasitic nematodes associated with sugarcane in Negros Occidental in relation to soil type and weather pattern. Proc. Philippine Sugar. Technol. Ass., 31: 235-52.

[12] Ekschmitt, K., G. Bakonyi, M. Bongers, T. Bongers, S. Bostrom, H. Dogan, A. Harrison, P. Nagy, A.G. O'Donnell, E.M. Papatheodorou, B. Sohlenius, G.P. Stamou and V. Wolters, 2001. Nematode communitystructure as indicator of soil functioning in European grassland. Eur. J. Soil Biol., 37: 263-268.

[13] Ferris, H., T. Bongers, R.G.M. De Goede, 2001. A framework for soil food web diagnostics: extension of the nematode faunal analysis concept. Applied Soil Ecology, 18: 13-29.

[14] Freckman, DW., 1988. Bacterivorous nematodes and organic matter decomposition. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 24: 195-217.

[15] Fu, S.L., D.C. Coleman, P.F. Hendrix, et Jr.D.A. Crossley, 2000. Responses of trophic groups of soil nematodes to residue application under conventional tillage and no-till regimes. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 32: 1731-1741.

[16] Galet, P., 1982. Les maladies et les parasites de la vigne. Tome II. Ed. Montpellier, France, p: 240.

[17] Galet, P., 1988. Cepages et vignobles de France., Tome I, Ed. Montpellier, France, p: 553.

[18] Georgieva, S.S., S.P. McGrath, D.J. Hooper, et B.S Chambers, 2002. Nematode communities under stress: the long-term effects of heavy metals in soil treated with sewage sludge. Applied Soil Ecology, 20: 27-42.

[19] Griffiths, B.S., 1990. A comparison of microbial-feeding nematodes and protozoa in the rhizosphere of different plants. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 9: 83-88.

[20] Hammer, O., D.A.T. Harper and P.D. Ryan, 2001. PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica, 4(1): 9 p.

[21] Ingham, R.E., J.A. Trofymow, E.R. Ingham and D.C. Coleman, 1985. Interactions of bacteria, fungi and their nematode grazers: effects on nutrient cycling and plant growth. Ecol. Monogr., 55: 119-40.

[22] Jones, F.G.W., D.W. Larbey and D.M. Parrot, 1969. The influence of soil structure and moisture on nematodes, especially Xiphinema, Longidorus, Trichodorus and Heterodera spp. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 1: 153-165.

[23] Mai, W.F. and H.H. Lyon, 1975. Pictorial key to genera of plant parasitic nematodes. Corne ll Ithaca University Press.

[24] Norton, D.C., 1989. Abiotic soil factors and plant-parasitic nematodes communities. Journal of Nematology, 21: 299-307.

[25] Norton, D.C., et T. L. Niblack, 1991. Biology and ecology of nematodes. In: Nickle W.R. Ed., Manual of agricultural nematology, New York, pp: 47-72.

[26] Reddy, P., 1983. Plant Nematology. Agri. Publi. Academy, New Delhi, India, p: 287.

[27] Sarah, J.L., 1995. Les nematodes phytoparasites, une composante de la fertilite du milieu. In : Pichot J., Sibelet N. et Lacoeuilhe J.J. Eds., Fertilite du milieu et strategies paysannes, Montpellier, France, pp: 180-188.

[28] Steiner, G., 1924. On some plant parasitic Nemas and related forms. J .agric. res., 28: 1062-1064.

[29] Kandji, S.T., K.P.O. Ogol Callistus, et A. Albrecht, 2001. With some soil physico-chemical characteristics in improved fallows in western Kenya. Applied Soil Ecology, 18: 143-15.

[30] Korthals, G.W., A. van de Ende, H. van Megen, T.M. Lexmond, J.E. Kammenga, T. Bongers, 1996. Short-term effects of cadmium, copper, nickel and zinc on soil nematodes from different feeding and life-history strategy groups. Appl. Soil Ecol., 4: 107-117.

[31] Wardle, D.A., G.W. Yeates, R.N. Watson and K.S. Nicholson, 1995. Impacts of disturbance on detritus food-webs in agroecosystems of contrasting tillage weed management strategies. Adv. Ecol. Res., 26: 105-185.

[32] Wardle, J., J. Griffith, F. Johnson and L. Rapoport, 2000. Intentional weight control and food choice habits in a national representative sample of adults in the UK. Int. J. Obes. Relat. Metab. Disord., 24: 534-540.

[33] Yeates, G.W., and K.L. King, 1997. Soil nematodes as indicators of the effect of management on grasslands in the New England Tablelands (NSW): Comparison of native and improved grasslands. Pedobiologia, 41: 526-536.

Regions          Stations  Coordonnes geographiques

Ain Temouchent   L1        35[degrees]22'44"N 00[degrees]58''04"W
                 L2        35[degrees]26''16"N 01[degrees]03''05"W
Mostaganem       L3        35[degrees]49''50"N 00[degrees]00''25"W
                 L4        35[degrees]56''00"N 00[degrees]05''00"E
Oran             L5        35[degrees]49''06"N 00[degrees]15''25"W
                 L6        35[degrees]40''00"N 00[degrees]25''00"W
Mascara          L7        35[degrees]25''24"N 00[degrees]08''09"E
                 L8        35[degrees]24''00"N 00[degrees]08''26"E
Relizane         L9        35[degrees]54''41"N 00[degrees]30''50"E
Sidi Belabes     L10       35[degrees]01''39"N 00[degrees]53''00"E

Regions          Varietes  Porte Greffe  Age

                 Dattier   41B            15
Ain Temouchent   Dattier   SO4            08
                 Carignan  SO4            10
Mostaganem       Carignan  SO4            16
                 Carignan  SO4            28
Oran             Carignan  SO4           281
                 Cinsault  41B            40
Mascara          Cinsault  41B            40
                 Mokrani   /             101
Relizane         Cinsault  /              30
Sidi Belabes

Table 2: Correlations between soil physical characteristics and trophic

       CaCo3     RH       CS       FS               C

CaCo3        0    0,1606   0,8425  0,5914            0,5332
RH      0,7309         0   0,654   0,7875            0,9456
CS      0,124    -0,275         0       6.74 E-186        6.73E-186
FS     -0,3268    0,1677        1       0                 6.74 E-186
C      -0,3757   -0,043        -1      -1                 0
S       0,6745    0,1756       -1      -1                 1
BF     -0,6831   -0,184    0,59     0,59            -0,6
FF      0,1383   -0,088    0,25     0,25            -0,2
PP      0,1563   -0,398    0,6      0,6             -0,6
OP     -0,8196   -0,391   -0,12    -0,12             0,12

       S           BF        FF         PP          OP

CaCo3   0,21173    0,20369   0,82448    0,80176     0,0894
RH      0,77759    0,76674   0,88776    0,50722     0,5152
CS      6,78E-186  6,76E-05  0,12       3,70E-05    0,454
FS      6,75E-186  6,76E-05  0,12       3,70E-05    0,454
C       6,75E-186  6,76E-05  0,12       3,70E-05    0,454
S               0  6,76E-05   0,12      3,70E-05    0,454
BF     -0,59       0         1,32 E-07  3,64 E-05   0,796
FF     -0,25       0,72              0  0,28        0,586
PP     -0,6        0,6       0,35               0   0,34
OP      0,12       0,04      0,09       0,155       0

CS: Coarse sand, FS : fine sand, C : clay, S : silt, RH :Relative

Table 3: Correlations between soil chemical characteristics and trophic

    EC         PH       P        K        OM         PP      BF

EC         0    0,08698  0,8985   0,12    0,29       0,4356  0,3488
PH  -0,38256    0        0,2877   0,806   0,23       0,3743  0,0919
P   -0,02966   -0,2434   0        0,3369  0,9484     0,5825  0,3509
K   -0,779     -0,1532  -0,5499        0  0,619      0,214   0,297
OM   0,45      -0,5     -0,45    -0,3043       0     0,263   0,01
PP   0,21524    0,37719 -0,214   -0,672   0,39            0  0,6918
BF   0,12114   -0,1688  -0,015   -0,404   0,35       0,3937  0
FF   0,17976   -0,2044  -0,127    0,588   0,18       0,5711  0,6919
OP   0,020881   0,30977 -0,176   -0,096   7,68 E-2  -0,1657  0,5917

     FF        OP

EC   0,60092   0,9284
PH   0,46456   0,1718
P    3,33E-02  0,4463
K    0,878     0,5
OM   0,03      0,637
PP   0,96161   0,0047
BF   0,07743   0,8787
FF        0    0,4729
OP  -0,0355         0

EC: Electrical conductivity, OM:organic material, P : Phosphore,
K : potassium,
COPYRIGHT 2017 American-Eurasian Network for Scientific Information
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Hoceini, F.; Bounaceur, F.; Berrabah, D.; Nebih, D.; Doumandji-Mitiche, B.
Publication:Advances in Environmental Biology
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:6ALGE
Date:Feb 1, 2017
Previous Article:A.C electrical properties of pure and doped polyaniline salt prepared by electro-chemical polymerization.
Next Article:Study of a co-culture tomato / Datura model (Solanum lycopersicum L. - Datura stramonium L.) in plain field.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters