Next Article in Journal
Integration of Earth Observation and Field-Based Monitoring for Morphodynamic Characterisation of Tropical Beach Ecosystems
Previous Article in Journal
Assessment of the Performance of Ozone Nanobubble Technology to Enhance Water Treatment Performance of a Constructed Floating Wetland
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Environments
Volume 12
Issue 6
10.3390/environments12060204
environments-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Short-Term Effects of Minimum Tillage and Wood Distillate Addition on Plants and Springtails in an Olive Grove

by
Emanuele Fanfarillo
1,2,
Claudia Angiolini
1,2,
Claudio Capitani
3,
Margherita De Pasquale Picciarelli
1,
Riccardo Fedeli
1,4,*,
Tiberio Fiaschi
1,
Prudence Jepkogei
1,
Emilia Pafumi
1,2,
Barbara Valle
1,2,* and
Simona Maccherini
1,2
1
Department of Life Sciences, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
2
NBFC, National Biodiversity Future Center, 90121 Palermo, Italy
3
Studio AGRI, 58100 Grosseto, Italy
4
BioAgryLab, Department of Life Sciences, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Environments 2025, 12(6), 204; https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12060204
Submission received: 21 May 2025 / Revised: 11 June 2025 / Accepted: 13 June 2025 / Published: 15 June 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Agricultural practices significantly influence agroecosystem biodiversity, driving a growing focus on the development of environmentally sustainable management strategies. Olive (Olea europaea L.) is one of the most widely cultivated tree crops in the Mediterranean basin and other regions with a Mediterranean climate. In this study, we employed a split-plot design with whole plots arranged as a randomized complete block design (RCBD) to evaluate the effects of minimum tillage and the application of wood distillate to olive canopies on wild vascular plant and soil-dwelling springtail communities in a conventionally managed olive grove in central Italy. Biotic communities were sampled twice, in November and April. Tillage caused a marginally significant decrease in springtail species richness in April and significantly influenced the composition of both plant and springtail communities in April. All the plant species showed a decrease in abundance under tillage, whereas the abundance of springtail species responded to tillage in a species-specific way. Wood distillate had no effect on any community attribute in either season. Springtail total abundance was not affected by any treatment in either season. Our findings confirm that tillage practices affect the diversity of plant and springtail communities. Moreover, we had evidence that spring tillage may have more negative impacts on the studied communities with respect to autumn tillage. Moreover, we suggest that the application of low-concentration wood distillate to olive canopies can be considered, in the short-term, a sustainable agricultural practice that does not negatively affect agroecosystem biodiversity.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Agriculture is a leading cause of environmental degradation and biodiversity loss [1,2,3]. Agricultural management is one of the leading drivers of biodiversity change in agroecosystems [4]. Agricultural practices act as strong filters influencing the species richness and composition of biotic communities, especially the ones that live in the soil, both above and below ground [5]. Biodiversity provides important services in agroecosystems, both related to the environment and to agricultural production itself [6,7,8]. For instance, arable plant diversity can contribute to reducing yield loss and includes species and communities of high conservation value [9,10]. In the last few decades, shifts from traditional, low-input agriculture to modern, high-input agriculture have deeply transformed biodiversity in agricultural landscapes, leading to both species loss and major species turnovers [11,12,13]. The consequences of reduced biodiversity include a decrease in agroecosystem functioning and the loss of ecosystem services, with a reduction in environmental and economic sustainability [14].
Olive (Olea europaea L.) is one of the most important tree crops in the Mediterranean basin, from which it has been introduced into other areas of the world with a Mediterranean climate. Its main product is olive oil, which is at the basis of the Mediterranean diet, but it also provides fruits and wood for manufacturing [15]. The species was domesticated from the wild in ancient times, and it has a broad wild distribution range across the Mediterranean, growing in evergreen maquis and forests [16]. Though in Mediterranean countries most olive groves are managed with modern, intensive agricultural practices, traditionally managed olive groves continue to exist, often maintaining high biodiversity levels [17]. These groves are typically characterized by low levels of input, including minimal use of chemicals, and retain features such as stone terraces and scattered trees, which support a high biodiversity [18]. Traditionally managed olive groves that are not subject to mechanized farming practices harbour complex ecosystems, hosting rich communities of plants, insects, and soil organisms [19,20,21]. These groves contribute to the conservation of biodiversity in the Mediterranean region, a global biodiversity hotspot, by providing habitats for various species [22].
Tillage, which originated around 4000 BCE, was developed to loosen soil and increase crop yields, marking a fundamental shift in human agriculture [23]. Over time, continuous tillage has shown significant impacts on soil health and biodiversity. While it can enhance short-term soil fertility by mixing organic matter, it often leads to long-term soil degradation, including the erosion and the loss of soil carbon [24]. Tillage disrupts soil structure, reducing habitats for beneficial soil organisms like earthworms and microbes, and can negatively affect aboveground biodiversity [25]. Today, conservation tillage practices are promoted to mitigate these effects and maintain soil biodiversity. Minimum tillage is a conservation tillage practice that reduces the intensity and frequency of soil disturbance compared to conventional tillage while still preparing a suitable seedbed for planting [26]. However, recurrent soil disturbance by tillage is not necessarily harmful to biodiversity since it can sustain the survival of peculiar species and unique biotic communities, especially in regard to arable plants [27,28]. Moreover, no-tillage agricultural systems often imply low sustainable practices, such as massive herbicide use [29].
Given the negative effects of modern agriculture on biodiversity and ecosystems, the search for sustainable agricultural practices that minimize environmental impacts while ensuring sufficient crop production is increasingly urgent [30]. Synthetic fertilizers have become a big threat to biodiversity in agroecosystems and whole agricultural landscapes [31,32,33]. In this context, products used in organic agriculture appear more effective in supporting wild biotic communities [34,35]. Wood distillate (WD) is emerging as a highly promising and sustainable biostimulant, approved for use in organic farming [36]. It is produced through the condensation of vapours generated during the pyrolysis of woody biomass for green energy and biochar production [37]. Numerous studies have demonstrated that WD has a significant positive impact on cultivated plants, resulting in higher yields and improved quality of their edible parts [38,39,40,41,42]. Additionally, there is evidence that WD can substantially reduce the negative effects of high levels of ozone on crop plants [43]. As regards agroecosystem biodiversity, WD was shown to have neutral or slightly positive effects on the germination and seedling development of threatened arable plants when used at low concentrations [44]. Notably, there is no knowledge about the effects of WD on biotic communities in agroecosystems deriving from open-field experiments.
Since different taxonomic communities can have contrasting responses to anthropogenic and environmental drivers, multi-taxonomic assessments are important for better understanding humans’ impacts on biodiversity [45,46,47]. Although vascular plants and springtails are recognized as effective biological indicators in agroecosystems [48,49], their combined response to agricultural management practices remains largely unexplored. In this study, we aimed to test the effects of minimum tillage, the application of wood distillate to olive canopies, and their interaction on wild vascular plant and soil-dwelling springtail communities in agroecosystems. For this purpose, we implemented a manipulative experiment in a conventionally managed olive grove in central Italy, over a one-year period, sampling biotic communities in November and April. Building on existing knowledge, we hypothesized that the studied communities would exhibit more pronounced short-term responses to tillage than to the application of WD to olive canopies and the following indirect deposition of the product onto the ground.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The field experiment was set in a five-year-old olive grove of 7.5 hectares located near the southern coast of Tuscany, central Italy (Figure 1A). The olive grove is planted with several cultivars of Olea europaea L., with trees spaced 6 m apart both between and within rows (6 × 6 m), and it is conventionally managed, with agricultural practices including tillage, mineral fertilization, and pesticide application. The bioclimate of the area is typically Mediterranean, with mild and wet winters and hot and dry summers [50]. According to the climatic averages (1991–2020), the mean annual temperature is 15.7 °C and the mean annual precipitation is 600 mm, with drought conditions typically occurring from early June to late August [51]. Soils are silty clay–loam cambisols of alluvial origin, with neutral or slightly alkaline pH [52].

2.2. Experimental Design

In the spring of 2023, we established a split-plot experimental design with whole plots arranged as a randomized complete block design (RCBD) (Figure 1B). The experimental area was divided into four blocks, each corresponding to a distinct quarter of the olive grove. Each block was divided into two whole plots. Each whole plot was divided into two subplots. We tested the effects of two factors: (1) minimum tillage, carried out by disk harrowing (hereafter referred to as ‘tillage’), with two levels—tillage performed twice (in June 2023 and March 2024) or no tillage; and (2) the foliar application of 0.2% wood distillate, also with two levels—application three times (April, June, and August 2023) or no application. Wood distillate at the selected concentration proved to have positive effects on the growth, quality, and yield of several crops [41,53,54]. The wood distillate used in this study was derived from sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) biomass through pyrolysis. It contains primarily water (80–90%) along with various organic compounds such as acetic acid, phenols, aldehydes, ketones, and alcohols. The complete chemical characterization of the WD has been reported by Fedeli et al. [42]. Tillage was randomized across the whole plots within each block, while wood distillate application was randomized across the halves of each whole plot [55]. In each of them, a circular subplot with a radius of 2.5 m was established at its centre for data collection (Figure 1C). In total, 16 plots were surveyed.

2.3. Biodiversity Sampling

The species richness and composition of plant and springtail communities in agroecosystems are variable across the seasons, according to light, temperature, and resource availability [56,57]. To account for seasonal variability in biotic communities and for their temporal responses to the treatments, the sampling of plant and springtail communities was repeated twice in the same plot: once in November 2023 and once in April 2024.
Within each plot, all the present vascular plant species were listed. We visually estimated the percentage cover of each plant species according to the following scale: 0.1%, 1% to 10% at 1% intervals, and 10% to 100% at 5% intervals. Moreover, we visually estimated the total percentage vegetation cover. Species were identified according to Pignatti et al. [58]. Species nomenclature follows the Portal to the Flora of Italy v. 2024.2 [59].
Within the same plot, three topsoil samples (replicates) were taken for springtail sampling, using a soil corer of 500 mL (8 × 8 × 8 cm) [60] (Figure 1C). A total of 48 samples were collected in each sampling session (November and April). Soil fauna was extracted with modified Berlese–Tullgren Funnels for 10 days and preserved in 90% ethanol. Springtails were mounted on microscopic slides in Swann medium [60], after a depigmentation step in KOH and Chlorophenol. Then, they were identified at the species level with a phase-contrast microscope according to the keys reported in Gisin [61], Jordana et al. [62], Pomorski [63], Bretfeld [64], Potapov [65], Thibaud et al. [66], Dunger and Schlitt [67], and Jordana [68]. The number of individuals of each species was counted. Ecological and chorological information was also extrapolated from these monographs. Species nomenclature follows Bánki et al. [69].

2.4. Statistical Analyses

The experimental design included the following factors: block (random, 4 levels), tillage (fixed, 2 levels), whole plot (random, nested within blocks and tillage, unreplicated), wood distillate (fixed, 2 levels), and subplots (random, nested within all the previous factors, unreplicated). We tested the effect of such factors on plant and springtail species richness and composition and on springtail abundance (total number of individuals per plot) by means of permutational analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) [70], using a Euclidean distance matrix for species richness and a Bray–Curtis dissimilarity matrix for species composition. Before PERMANOVA, plant species abundances (percentage cover) were log(x + 1)-transformed, and springtail species abundances (number of individuals) were square-rooted. The species contributing the most to the similarity within plots under the same tillage and WD treatments were highlighted via Similarity Percentage Analysis (SIMPER) based on untransformed abundance data. The dataset was analyzed separately for the two sampling seasons (November and April).
All analyses were performed using the PERMANOVA routine in the PRIMER v6 software [71], with the PERMANOVA+ add-on package [55]. Tests were conducted with 999 permutations of residuals under a reduced model [72], with the significance level (α) set at 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Detected Biodiversity

Overall, we detected 92 species of vascular plants and 19 species of springtails. The most frequent plant species in autumn were Lolium multiflorum (16 plots), Poa annua (15 plots), Beta vulgaris (13 plots), and Helminthotheca echioides (13 plots). The most frequent plant species in spring were Convolvulus arvensis (15 plots), Symphyotrichum squamatum (14 plots), Beta vulgaris (12 plots), and Erigeron bonariensis (11 plots). The most frequent springtail species in autumn were Hypogastrura assimilis (16 plots), Isotomurus maculatus (15 plots), Hemisotoma thermophila (14 plots), and Neotullbergia ramicuspis (9 plots). The most frequent springtail species in spring were Hypogastrura assimilis, Isotomurus maculatus, Hemisotoma thermophila, and Sminthurus viridis, all occurring in 16 plots. The full lists of plant and springtail species in the two sampling seasons are available in Table S1.

3.2. Effects of Treatments on Biotic Communities

Tillage had a significant effect on both plant and springtail species composition only in April. Moreover, it had a marginally significant effect on springtail richness in April. No effect of WD on the response variables was detected (Table 1).
In April, tillage caused a marginally significant decrease in springtail species richness (Figure 2).
Springtail abundance did not differ after any treatment in either season (Table 2; Figure 3).
The species contributing the most to the similarity between plots under the same tillage treatment in April are shown in Table 3.

4. Discussion

We observed similar responses of vascular plant and springtail communities to the applied treatments across seasons. As previously highlighted, this suggests that plants are useful surrogates of other taxonomic groups, also considering that they are often easier to sample [73]. Notably, only tillage significantly affected species composition in both taxonomic groups and caused a marginally significant decrease in springtail species richness, with these changes being evident only in April. In contrast, WD showed no measurable effects on the studied communities throughout the observation period, and no effects of the treatments were detected on springtail abundance in either season. Such evidence confirmed our initial hypothesis that both plants and springtails would be more affected by tillage than by WD applied to the olive canopies in the short term. The insignificant effect of tillage in November can be explained by the fact that, in that season, both plant and springtail communities undergo a species turnover. Specifically, summer-annual plants have finished their life cycle and are being replaced by winter-annual plants, which have just germinated [74]. Similarly, springtails are producing a new generation or reactivating from summer dormancy [75]. This may have temporarily obscured the impact of the tillage practice conducted in the preceding June on species richness and composition due to the avoidance of disturbance.
Plant species richness was not affected by tillage. Previous evidence showed contrasting effects of tillage on the species richness of plant communities. For instance, Boscutti et al. [76] highlighted the impact of tillage on plant communities only regarding species composition, but not species richness, similarly to our results. In a long-term experiment in Spanish cereal and legume fields, a slight increase in plant species richness under minimum tillage was found with respect to no tillage and conventional tillage [77]. Shemdoe et al. [78] found higher species richness in no-tillage systems compared to traditional tillage in some agroecosystems located in the drylands of Tanzania. Armengot et al. [79] reported that reduced tillage resulted in an increase in plant species richness compared to conventional tillage. Consistently with the contrasting outcomes from such studies, the effects of tillage on plant species richness are known to be variable and context-dependent, as well as being based on the type of tillage, e.g., minimum tillage, conservation tillage, or traditional tillage [80].
Springtail richness showed a decreasing trend under tillage in April, when an effect on species composition was also observed. Like for plants, previous evidence about the effects of tillage on springtail richness is contrasting [35]. A global meta-analysis found no effects of reduced tillage on their species richness [81]. Contrastingly, van de Bund [82] and Fiera et al. [83] found an increase in species richness with increasing tillage intensity, probably due to the exclusion of competitors and predators. An increase in springtail richness under no tillage was observed in a field experiment in Russia [84]. The effects of tillage on springtail species richness can also be dependent on the crop type. For instance, Chang et al. [85] found that rice but not soybean cultivation caused a decrease in springtail species richness in marsh ecosystems. Nevertheless, even when the absolute species richness is not affected by tillage intensity, intensive agricultural practices promote common and, often, invasive species at the expense of rare and specialist species, as already demonstrated for several taxonomic groups [86,87,88]. Concerning springtail community composition, in this study, the dominant species always present under tillage are all characterized by a wide distribution range, like the cosmopolitan Hemisotoma thermophila, Brachystomella parvula, Ceratophysella engadinensis, and Sminthurus viridis, the holarctic Sminthurinus elegans, Hypogastrura assimilis, and the palearctic Neotullbergia ramicuspis. All these species are eurytopic, pioneer species, typical of open and agricultural areas [64,65,66,67]. Under no tillage, species richness is higher thanks to the presence of other less generalist species like the halophilous Ballistura schoetti [65] or the mesophilous Bilobella aurantiaca, the latter being more common in woods [62].
Tillage significantly influenced plant species composition. In plant communities, tillage typically promotes annual species at the expense of perennials, although rhizomatous geophytes may benefit from rhizome fragmentation and subsequent spread [89]. However, in our case, the observed differences seemed more related to changes in species abundance than to the presence of different species in tilled and non-tilled plots. Since the olive grove is intensively managed, the present flora was probably already characterized by competitive and generalist species, both annuals (Poa annua, Medicago arabica, Crepis sancta) and rhizomatous (Convolvulus arvensis, Cynodon dactylon). Such species are very common in a wide range of disturbed habitats [58]. In this circumstance, tillage only reduced their abundance through mechanical elimination, without selecting for more tolerant species. Similar outcomes were obtained in an experiment in Spanish cereal and legume crops, where plant communities in tilled and non-tilled plots differed for the abundance of common, competitive species like Papaver rhoeas, Polygonum aviculare, Descurainia sophia, and Chenopodium album [90].
The effects of tillage on springtail abundances show contrasting evidence. Consistently with our results, a study in Portuguese olive groves found that springtail abundance did not differ according to tillage treatments [91]. However, two global syntheses highlighted that springtail abundance increases under no tillage or reduced tillage with respect to tillage conditions [81,92], and an experiment in Austrian vineyards found that springtail abundance was promoted by periodic soil disturbance [93]. In our study, communities under tillage were characterized by a decrease in species like Hypogastrura assimilis, Pseudanurophorus isotoma, and Isotomurus maculatus. On the contrary, Hemisotoma thermophila was more abundant in tilled plots. This species is thermophilous and nitrophilous [65], often dominant in springtail communities in disturbed, open habitats (e.g., [94,95]). The sex ratio shown by this species, dominated by females [96], is similar to some other species also known to be parthenogenetic [97] and could justify its ability to colonize disturbed habitats. In general, we hypothesized that springtail total abundance, by itself, may not be a good biological indicator since a single species could take advantage of disturbing events, the morphological structure of the habitat, or local food availability and explode demographically in several types of habitats (e.g., [97,98]).
There are no previous studies testing the effects of WD on plants and springtails under field conditions. The negligible impact of WD on plant communities is consistent with prior laboratory findings, which demonstrated minimal or no influence of this substance on arable plant diversity [44,99]. This further suggests that its use in agriculture does not harm wild biodiversity, at least in the short term and at the low concentrations typically used for crop biostimulation. In fact, WD at higher concentrations can be used to control weeds [100,101] and deteriorating lichens [102], as well as as a repellent for herbivore molluscs [103,104].

5. Conclusions

We highlighted that tillage practices, but not WD, affect some attributes of plant and springtail communities in agroecosystems under field conditions. Our field experiment showed that vascular plant and springtail communities have similar short-term responses to treatments with tillage and WD. We confirmed how tillage can influence the attributes of the two taxonomic groups, which can then be both used as indicators of soil management in agroecosystems. However, springtails showed a stronger response, suggesting that they could be more effective for this purpose. We highlighted the presence of springtail species being favoured by disturbance and showing increased abundance under tillage which were missing among plants. However, the overall similar response of the two groups suggests that vascular plants could be a good indicator of springtail communities in agroecosystem, also considering them being much easier to sample. Treating olive trees with WD to improve crop quality and yield resulted in negligible short-term effects on plant and springtail communities, confirming the sustainability of the use of low doses of such a product in agriculture. Moreover, the season-specific response of both taxonomic groups suggested that tillage during spring, when both plants and springtails are undergoing full activity, may have more negative impacts on the studied communities with respect to autumn tillage. Since the effect of tillage was only visible after several months, experiments conducted on a longer time span will be useful to highlight the long-term responses of biodiversity to such treatment. This study also represents the first attempt to evaluate the impact of WD on biotic communities under field conditions. Tests conducted over longer periods of time will be useful to better understand the effects of WD on biodiversity in agroecosystems.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/environments12060204/s1, Table S1: Complete list of species retrieved in the two seasons.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.F. and S.M.; methodology, E.F. and S.M.; formal analysis, E.F. and S.M.; investigation, E.F., C.C., M.D.P.P., T.F., P.J., E.P., B.V. and S.M.; data curation, E.F., C.A., C.C., M.D.P.P., R.F., T.F., P.J., E.P., B.V. and S.M.; writing—original draft preparation, E.F. and B.V.; writing—review and editing E.F., C.A., C.C., M.D.P.P., R.F., T.F., P.J., E.P., B.V. and S.M.; supervision, S.M.; funding acquisition, C.A. and S.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Project funded under the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), Mission 4 Component 2 Investment 1.4—Call for tender No. 3138 of 16 December 2021, rectified by Decree n.3175 of 18 December 2021 of the Italian Ministry of University and Research funded by the European Union—NextGenerationEU. Project code: CN_00000033 and Concession Decree No. 1034 of 17 June 2022, adopted by the Italian Ministry of University and Research, CUP B63C22000650007, Project title “National Biodiversity FutureCenter—NBFC”.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Foley, J.A.; Ramankutty, N.; Brauman, K.A.; Cassidy, E.S.; Gerber, J.S.; Johnston, M.; Zaks, D.P. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 2011, 478, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Dudley, N.; Alexander, S. Agriculture and biodiversity: A review. Biodiversity 2017, 18, 45–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Murray, C.J. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 2019, 393, 447–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Tscharntke, T.; Clough, Y.; Wanger, T.C.; Jackson, L.; Motzke, I.; Perfecto, I.; Whitbread, A. Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 151, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bender, S.F.; Wagg, C.; van der Heijden, M.G.A. An underground revolution: Biodiversity and soil ecological engineering for agricultural sustainability. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2016, 31, 440–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Altieri, M.A. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1999, 74, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nicholls, C.I.; Altieri, M.A. Plant biodiversity enhances bees and other insect pollinators in agroecosystems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 33, 257–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dainese, M.; Martin, E.A.; Aizen, M.A.; Albrecht, M.; Bartomeus, I.; Bommarco, R.; Steffan-Dewenter, I. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity-mediated benefits for crop production. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaax0121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Adeux, G.; Vieren, E.; Carlesi, S.; Bàrberi, P.; Munier-Jolain, N.; Cordeau, S. Mitigating crop yield losses through weed diversity. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 1018–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Fanfarillo, E.; Maccherini, S.; Angiolini, C.; De Simone, L.; Fiaschi, T.; Tassinari, A.; Bacaro, G. Drivers of diversity of arable plant communities in one of their European conservation hotspots. Biodivers. Conserv. 2023, 32, 2055–2075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Richner, N.; Holderegger, R.; Linder, H.P.; Walter, T. Reviewing change in the arable flora of Europe: A meta-analysis. Weed Res. 2015, 55, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fried, G.; Dessaint, F.; Reboud, X. Local and Regional Changes in Taxonomic and FunctionalDiversity of Arable Weed Communities in Burgundy (France) between the 1970s and the 2000s. Bot. Lett. 2016, 163, 359–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Olivier, T.; Thébault, E.; Elias, M.; Fontaine, B.; Fontaine, C. Urbanization and agricultural intensification destabilize animal communities differently than diversity loss. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 2686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. de la Riva, E.G.; Ulrich, W.; Batáry, P.; Baudry, J.; Beaumelle, L.; Bucher, R.; Birkhofer, K. From functional diversity to human well-being: A conceptual framework for agroecosystem sustainability. Agric. Syst. 2023, 208, 103659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Besnard, G.; Terral, J.F.; Cornille, A. On the origins and domestication of the olive: A review and perspectives. Ann. Bot. 2018, 121, 385–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Maldonado, N.G.; López, M.J.; Caudullo, G.; De Rigo, D. Olea europaea in Europe: Distribution, Habitat, Usage and Threats. In European Atlas of Forest Tree Species; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2016; p. 01534b. [Google Scholar]
  17. Fanfarillo, E.; Scoppola, A.; Lososová, Z.; Abbate, G. Segetal plant communities of traditional agroecosystems: A phytosociological survey in central Italy. Phytocoenologia 2019, 49, 165–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Maccherini, S.; Santi, E.; Bonini, I.; Amici, V.; Pruscini, S.; Palazzo, D.; Selva, F.C. The impact of land abandonment on the plant diversity of olive groves. Biodivers. Conserv. 2013, 22, 3067–3083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Calabrese, G.; Tartaglini, N.; Ladisa, G. Study on Biodiversity in Century-Old Olive Groves; CIHEAM-Mediterranean Agronomic Institute: Bari, Italy, 2012; pp. 1–108. [Google Scholar]
  20. Carpio, A.J.; Oteros, J.; Tortosa, F.S.; Guerrero-Casado, J. Land use and biodiversity patterns of the herpetofauna: The role of olive groves. Acta Oecologica 2016, 70, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gómez, J.A.; Campos, M.; Guzmán, G.; Castillo-Llanque, F.; Vanwalleghem, T.; Lora, Á.; Giráldez, J.V. Soil erosion control, plant diversity, and arthropod communities under heterogeneous cover crops in an olive orchard. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 977–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Muñoz-Rojas, J.; García-Ruiz, R. Olive Groves (and Olive Oil) in the Mediterranean in 2023: A Heterogeneous and Dynamic Mosaic of Rural Landscapes and Ecosystems. In The Olive Landscapes of the Mediterranean; Muñoz-Rojas, J., García-Ruiz, R., Eds.; Landscape Series; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; Volume 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Harris, D.R. The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia; UCL Press: London, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  24. Lal, R. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 2004, 304, 1623–1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Giller, K.E.; Beare, M.H.; Lavelle, P.; Izac, A.M.; Swift, M.J. Agricultural intensification, soil biodiversity and agroecosystem function. Appl. Soil. Ecol. 1997, 6, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hobbs, P.R.; Sayre, K.; Gupta, R. The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2008, 363, 543–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Albrecht, H.; Cambecèdes, J.; Lang, M.; Wagner, M. Management options for the conservation of rare arable plants in Europe. Bot. Lett. 2016, 163, 389–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fanfarillo, E.; Kasperski, A.; Giuliani, A.; Abbate, G. Shifts of arable plant communities after agricultural intensification: A floristic and ecological diachronic analysis in maize fields of Latium (central Italy). Bot. Lett. 2019, 166, 356–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Colbach, N.; Cordeau, S. Are no-till herbicide-free systems possible? A simulation study. Front. Agron. 2022, 4, 823069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. DeClerck, F.A.; Koziell, I.; Benton, T.; Garibaldi, L.A.; Kremen, C.; Maron, M.; Winowiecki, L. A whole earth approach to nature-positive food: Biodiversity and agriculture. In Science and Innovations for Food Systems Transformation; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 469–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Storkey, J.; Meyer, S.; Still, K.S.; Leuschner, C. The impact of agricultural intensification and land-use change on the European arable flora. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2012, 279, 1421–1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gunstone, T.; Cornelisse, T.; Klein, K.; Dubey, A.; Donley, N. Pesticides and soil invertebrates: A hazard assessment. Front. Environ. Sci. 2021, 9, 643847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Shi, T.S.; Collins, S.L.; Yu, K.; Peñuelas, J.; Sardans, J.; Li, H.; Ye, J.S. A global meta-analysis on the effects of organic and inorganic fertilization on grasslands and croplands. Nat. Commun. 2024, 15, 3411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Fanfarillo, E.; Calabrese, D.; Angiolini, C.; Bacaro, G.; Biagiotti, S.; Castagnini, P.; Maccherini, S. Effects of conventional and organic management on plant and insect communities in a traditional elephant garlic crop. Community Ecol. 2022, 23, 417–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Di Giovanni, F.; Nardi, F.; Frati, F.; Migliorini, M. Below-ground arthropod diversity in conventional and organic vineyards: A review. Crop Prot. 2024, 180, 106666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Italian Ministerial Decree 6793. Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana. 5 September 2018. Available online: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2018/09/05/18A05693/sg (accessed on 15 October 2024).
  37. Fedeli, R.; Vannini, A.; Djatouf, N.; Celletti, S.; Loppi, S. Can lettuce plants grow in saline soils supplemented with biochar? Heliyon 2024, 10, e26526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Mungkunkamchao, T.; Kesmala, T.; Pimratch, S.; Toomsan, B.; Jothityangkoon, D. Wood vinegar and fermented bioextracts: Natural products to enhance growth and yield of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Sci. Hortic. 2013, 154, 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Luo, X.; Wang, Z.; Meki, K.; Wang, X.; Liu, B.; Zheng, H.; Li, F. Effect of co-application of wood vinegar and biochar on seed germination and seedling growth. J. Soils Sediments 2019, 19, 3934–3944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zulkarami, B.; Ashrafuzzaman, M.; Husni, M.O.; Ismail, M.R. Effect of pyroligneous acid on growth, yield, and quality improvement of rockmelon in soilless culture. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2011, 5, 1508–1514. [Google Scholar]
  41. Fedeli, R.; Dichiara, M.; Carullo, G.; Tudino, V.; Gemma, S.; Butini, S.; Loppi, S. Unlocking the potential of biostimulants in sustainable agriculture: Effect of wood distillate on the nutritional profiling of apples. Heliyon 2024, 10, e37599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Fedeli, R.; Celletti, S.; Loppi, S. Wood Distillate Promotes the Tolerance of Lettuce in Extreme Salt Stress Conditions. Plants 2024, 13, 1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Bianchi, G.; Fedeli, R.; Mariotti, L.; Pisuttu, C.; Nali, C.; Pellegrini, E.; Loppi, S. Foliar application of wood distillate protects basil plants against ozone damage by preserving membrane integrity and triggering antioxidant mechanisms. Agronomy 2024, 14, 1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Fedeli, R.; Fiaschi, T.; Angiolini, C.; Maccherini, S.; Loppi, S.; Fanfarillo, E. Dose-dependent and species-specific effects of wood distillate addition on the germination performance of threatened arable plants. Plants 2023, 12, 3028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Barbato, D.; Perini, C.; Mocali, S.; Bacaro, G.; Tordoni, E.; Maccherini, S.; Salerni, E. Teamwork makes the dream work: Disentangling cross-taxon congruence across soil biota in black pine plantations. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 656, 659–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Maccherini, S.; Salerni, E.; Mocali, S.; Bianchetto, E.; Landi, S.; De Meo, I.; Cantiani, P. Silvicultural management does not affect biotic communities in conifer plantations in the short-term: A multi-taxon assessment using a BACI approach. For. Ecol. Manag. 2021, 493, 119257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bazzato, E.; Lallai, E.; Caria, M.; Schifani, E.; Cillo, D.; Ancona, C.; Marignani, M. Focusing on the role of abiotic and biotic drivers on cross-taxon congruence. Ecol. Indic. 2023, 151, 110323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hawes, C.; Squire, G.R.; Hallett, P.D.; Watson, C.A.; Young, M. Arable plant communities as indicators of farming practice. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010, 138, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cassani, M.T.; Sabatté, M.L.; González Arzac, A.; Massobrio, M.J. Mesofauna as an indicator of agroecosystem stability: Degree of artificialization effect on land uses in Azul district, Argentina. SN Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hagner, M.; Kuoppala, E.; Fagernäs, L.; Tiilikkala, K.; Setälä, H. Using the copse snail Arianta arbustorum (Linnaeus) to detect repellent compounds and the quality of wood vinegar. Int. J. Environ. Res. 2015, 9, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Pesaresi, S.; Biondi, E.; Casavecchia, S. Bioclimates of Italy. J. Maps 2017, 13, 955–960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. LaMMA Consortium. Clima di Grosseto. 2024. Available online: https://www.lamma.toscana.it/clima-e-energia/climatologia/clima-grosseto (accessed on 15 October 2024).
  53. Hengl, T.; Mendes de Jesus, J.; Heuvelink, G.B.M.; Ruiperez Gonzalez, M.; Kilibarda, M.; Blagotić, A.; Shangguan, W.; Wright, M.N.; Geng, X.; Bauer-Marschallinger, B.; et al. SoilGrids250m: Global gridded soil information based on machine learning. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0169748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Fanfarillo, E.; Kasperski, A. An index of ecological value for European arable plant communities. Biodivers. Conserv. 2021, 30, 2145–2164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Fedeli, R.; Loppi, S.; Cruz, C.; Munzi, S. Evaluating seawater and wood distillate for sustainable hydroponic cultivation: Implications for crop growth and nutritional quality. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Anderson, M.; Gorley, R.; Clarke, K.R. PERMANOVA+ for PRIMER: Guide to Software and Statistical Methods; PRIMER-E: Plymouth, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  57. Twardowski, J.P.; Hurej, M.; Gruss, I. Diversity and abundance of springtails (Hexapoda: Collembola) in soil under 90-year potato monoculture in relation to crop rotation. Arch. Agron. Soil. Sci. 2016, 62, 1158–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pignatti, S.; Guarino, R.; La Rosa, M. Flora d’Italia, 2nd ed.; Edagricole: Bologna, Italy, 2017–2019; Volume 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  59. Portal to the Flora of Italy v. 2024.2. Floritaly. Available online: http://dryades.units.it/floritaly (accessed on 15 October 2024).
  60. Migliorini, M.; Fanciulli, P.P.; Bernini, F. Comparative analysis of two edaphic zoocoenoses (Acari Oribatida; Hexapoda Collembola) in the area of Orio al Serio Airport (Bergamo, northern Italy). Pedobiologia 2003, 47, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Rusek, J. Eine Präparationstechnik für Sprungschwänze und ähnliche Gliederfüsser. Mikrokosmos 1975, 12, 376–381. [Google Scholar]
  62. Gisin, H. Collembolenfauna Europas, 1st ed.; Museum d’Histoire Naturelle: Geneva, Switzerland, 1960. [Google Scholar]
  63. Jordana, R.; Arbea, J.; Simón, C.; Luciañez, M.J. Collembola, Poduromorpha. In Fauna Ibérica; Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales: Madrid, Spain, 1997; Volume 8, Available online: https://www.fauna-iberica.mncn.csic.es/publicaciones/fi8.php (accessed on 26 March 2025).
  64. Pomorski, R.J. Onychiurinae of Poland (Collembola: Onychiuridae); Genus-Supplement; Polish Taxonomical Society: Warsaw, Poland, 1998; Volume 9, 201p. [Google Scholar]
  65. Bretfeld, G. Symphypleona, Synopses on Palaearctic Collembola; Senckenberg Museum of Natural History: Görlitz, Germany, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  66. Potapov, M. Isotomidae, Synopses on Palaearctic Collembola; Senckenberg Museum of Natural History: Görlitz, Germany, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  67. Thibaud, J.M.; Schulz, H.J.; Gama Assalino, M.M. Hypogastruridae, Synopses on Palaearctic Collembola; Senckenberg Museum of Natural History: Görlitz, Germany, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  68. Dunger, W.; Schlitt, B. Synopses on Palaearctic Collembola, Volume 6/1. Tullbergiidae. Soil Org. 2011, 83, 1–168. [Google Scholar]
  69. Jordana, R. Capbrynae & Entomobryni, Synopses on Palaearctic Collembola; Senckenberg Museum of Natural History: Görlitz, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  70. Bánki, O.; Roskov, Y.; Döring, M.; Ower, G.; Hernández Robles, D.R.; Plata Corredor, C.A.; Stjernegaard Jeppesen, T.; Örn, A.; Pape, T.; Hobern, D.; et al. Catalogue of Life, Version 2024-11-18; Catalogue of Life: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Anderson, M. Permutational test for univariate or multivariate analysis of variance and regression. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2001, 58, 626–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Clarke, K.R.; Gorley, R. PRIMER v6: Users Manual/Tutorial; PRIMER-E: Plymouth, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  73. Anderson, M.; Ter Braak, C. Permutation tests for multi-factorial analysis of variance. J. Stat. Comput. Simul. 2003, 73, 85–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Santi, E.; Maccherini, S.; Rocchini, D.; Bonini, I.; Brunialti, G.; Favilli, L.; Chiarucci, A. Simple to sample: Vascular plants as surrogate group in a nature reserve. J. Nat. Conserv. 2010, 18, 2–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Cici, S.Z.H.; Van Acker, R.C. A review of the recruitment biology of winter annual weeds in Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2009, 89, 575–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Block, W.; Zettel, J. Activity and dormancy in relation to body water and cold tolerance in a winter-active springtail (Collembola). Eur. J. Entomol. 2003, 100, 305–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Boscutti, F.; Sigura, M.; Gambon, N.; Lagazio, C.; Krüsi, B.O.; Bonfanti, P. Conservation tillage affects species composition but not species diversity: A comparative study in northern Italy. Environ. Manage. 2015, 55, 443–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Hernandez Plaza, E.; Kozak, M.; Navarrete, L.; González-Andújar, J.L. Tillage system did not affect weed diversity in a 23-year experiment in Mediterranean dryland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 140, 102–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Shemdoe, R.S.; Mbago, F.M.; Kikula, I.S.; Van Damme, P.L. Weed species diversity on arable land of the dryland areas of central Tanzania: Impacts of continuous application of traditional tillage practices. GeoJournal 2008, 71, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Armengot, L.; Blanco-Moreno, J.; Bàrberi, P.; Bocci, G.; Carlesi, S.; Aendekerk, R.; Berner, A.; Celette, F.; Grosse, M.; Huiting, H.; et al. Tillage as a driver of change in weed communities: A functional perspective. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 222, 276–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Travlos, I.S.; Cheimona, N.; Roussis, I.; Bilalis, D.J. Weed-species abundance and diversity indices in relation to tillage systems and fertilization. Front. Environ. Sci. 2018, 6, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Betancur-Corredor, B.; Lang, B.; Russell, D.J. Reducing tillage intensity benefits the soil micro- and mesofauna in a global meta-analysis. Eur. J. Soil. Sci. 2022, 73, e13321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Van de Bund, C.F. Influence of crop and tillage on mites and springtails in arable soil. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 1970, 18, 308–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Fiera, C.; Ulrich, W.; Popescu, D.; Buchholz, J.; Querner, P.; Bunea, C.I.; Zaller, J.G. Tillage intensity and herbicide application influence surface-active springtail (Collembola) communities in Romanian vineyards. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 300, 107006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Bokova, A.I.; Panina, K.S.; Dridiger, V.K.; Gadzhiumarov, R.G.; Kuznetsova, N.A.; Potapov, M.B. Soil-dwelling springtails as indicators of the efficiency of No-till technologies with different amounts of mineral fertilizers in the crop rotation on chernozem soils. Soil. Tillage Res. 2023, 232, 105760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Chang, L.; Wu, H.; Wu, D.; Sun, X. Effect of tillage and farming management on Collembola in marsh soils. Appl. Soil. Ecol. 2013, 64, 112–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Lang, M.; Kollmann, J.; Prestele, J.; Wiesinger, K.; Albrecht, H. Reintroduction of rare arable plants in extensively managed fields: Effects of crop type, sowing density and soil tillage. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 306, 107187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Pereira, A.J.; Porto, M.; Correia, O.; Beja, P. Traditional ploughing is critical to the conservation of threatened plants in Mediterranean olive groves. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2024, 359, 108775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Graco-Roza, C.; Wong, M.; Barber, N.; Brodersen, J.; Callisto, M.; Castro, D.; Dröse, W.; Etard, A.; Gonçalves-Souza, T.; Graham, C.; et al. Human pressure homogenises species and traits globally. Preprint 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Ozpinar, S. Effects of Tillage Systems on WeedPopulation and Economics for Winter Wheat Productionunder the Mediterranean Dryland Conditions. Soil Tillage Res. 2006, 87, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Alarcón, R.; Hernández-Plaza, E.; Navarrete, L.; Sánchez, M.J.; Escudero, A.; Hernanz, J.L.; Sánchez, A.M. Effects of no-tillage and non-inversion tillage on weed community diversity and crop yield over nine years in a Mediterranean cereal-legume cropland. Soil. Tillage Res. 2018, 179, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. 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]
  93. Liu, Y.; Song, L.; Wu, D.; Ai, Z.; Xu, Q.; Sun, X.; Chang, L. No tillage increases soil microarthropod (Acari and Collembola) abundance at the global scale. Soil. Ecol. Lett. 2024, 6, 230208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Pfingstmann, A.; Paredes, D.; Buchholz, J.; Querner, P.; Bauer, T.; Strauss, P.; Zaller, J. Contrasting effects of tillage and landscape structure on spiders and springtails in vineyards. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Arbea, J.I.; Jordana, R. Ecología de las poblaciones de colémbolos edáficos en un prado y un pinar de la región submediterránea de Navarra. Mediterránea Ser. Biol. 1990, 12, 139–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Vanhée, B.; Devigne, C. Differences in collembola species assemblages (Arthropoda) between spoil tips and surrounding environments are dependent on vegetation development. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 18067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Vinod, P.; Sanal Kumar, M.G.; Bini, B. Sex ratio of Cryptopygus thermophilus in rubber plantations of Chengannur Thaluk of Alappuzha District, Kerala, India. Int. J. Sci. Res. 2017, 6, 1360–1362. [Google Scholar]
  98. Petersen, H. Sex ratios and the extent of parthenogenetic reproduction in some collembolan populations. In First International Seminary on Apterygota; Dallai, R., Ed.; Accademia delle Scienze di Siena detta de’ Fisiocritici: Siena, Italy, 1978; pp. 19–35. [Google Scholar]
  99. Luciàñez, M.J.J.; Perez, M.; Simon, C. Contribution to the Ecological Study of Collembola Fauna from an Oak Forest in the Comunidad de Madrid (in Spanish); Alemanny, A., Ed.; Historia Natural 91; 1992; pp. 203–210. [Google Scholar]
  100. Valle, B.; Porco, D.; Skarżyński, D.; Frati, F.; Caccianiga, M.; Rodriguez-Prieto, A.; Zeni, M.; Gobbi, M. Alpine blooming of “snow fleas”: The importance of snow for Alpine springtails (Hexapoda: Collembola) ecology and biodiversity. Rend. Fis. Acc. Lincei 2024, 35, 163–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Fanfarillo, E.; Fedeli, R.; Fiaschi, T.; de Simone, L.; Vannini, A.; Angiolini, C.; Maccherini, S. Effects of wood distillate on seedling emergence and first-stage growth in five threatened arable plants. Diversity 2022, 14, 669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Liu, X.; Zhan, Y.; Li, X.; Li, Y.; Feng, X.; Bagavathiannan, M.; Yu, J. The use of wood vinegar as a non-synthetic herbicide for control of broadleaf weeds. Ind. Crops Prod. 2021, 173, 114105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Hyvönen, T.T.; Hagner, M.M.; Hurme, T.K.; Lindqvist, B.E.; Ojanen, H.J. Control of Heracleum mantegazzianum with pyrolysis liquid products. Weed Res. 2023, 63, 311–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Bianchi, E.; Benesperi, R.; Giordani, P.; Martire, L.; Favero-Longo, S.E.; Loppi, S. Wood distillate as an alternative bio-based product against lichens on sandstone. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2022, 170, 105386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Environments 12 00204 g001
Figure 1. (A) Location of the study area in Tuscany and Italy; (B) experimental design; (C) subplot for the sampling of plant communities (circle) and the three soil sampling points for springtails (squares).
Figure 1. (A) Location of the study area in Tuscany and Italy; (B) experimental design; (C) subplot for the sampling of plant communities (circle) and the three soil sampling points for springtails (squares).
Environments 12 00204 g001
Environments 12 00204 g002
Figure 2. Boxplots of species richness for plant and springtail communities under different tillage and wood distillate (WD) treatments in November and April; * = p < 0.05; ° = p < 0.1. Y-axis: species richness; X-axis: NO = not treated; YES = treated.
Figure 2. Boxplots of species richness for plant and springtail communities under different tillage and wood distillate (WD) treatments in November and April; * = p < 0.05; ° = p < 0.1. Y-axis: species richness; X-axis: NO = not treated; YES = treated.
Environments 12 00204 g002
Environments 12 00204 g003
Figure 3. Boxplots of springtail abundance under different tillage and wood distillate (WD) treatments in November and April; no significant differences were highlighted. ° = p < 0.1.
Figure 3. Boxplots of springtail abundance under different tillage and wood distillate (WD) treatments in November and April; no significant differences were highlighted. ° = p < 0.1.
Environments 12 00204 g003
Table 1. PERMANOVA results showing the effects of the treatments on the species richness and composition of plant and springtail communities; WD = wood distillate. df: degrees of freedom; SS: sum of squares; MS: mean square (SS divided by df); Pseudo-F: pseudo F-ratio calculated in PERMANOVA.
Table 1. PERMANOVA results showing the effects of the treatments on the species richness and composition of plant and springtail communities; WD = wood distillate. df: degrees of freedom; SS: sum of squares; MS: mean square (SS divided by df); Pseudo-F: pseudo F-ratio calculated in PERMANOVA.
November
Richness Composition
Source of VariationdfSSMSPseudo-F SSMSPseudo-F
Block323.257.750.70 3303.601101.200.97
Tillage1880.72 994.89994.890.89
Whole-plot error333.2511.08 3398.901133.00
Whole-plot total764.5 7697.50
PlantsWD12.252.250.23 560.89560.890.52
Tillage x WD120.2520.252.04 1959.801959.801.84
Sub-plot error659.59.92 6404.101067.40
Total15211 24,320.00
Source of VariationdfSSMSPseudo-F SSMSPseudo-F
Block33.341.110.37 1308.60436.210.92
Tillage10.030.030.01 627.27627.271.33
Whole-plot error39.093.03 1417.10472.35
Whole-plot total712.47 3353
SpringtailsWD10.060.060.01 360.18360.180.28
Tillage x WD10.060.060.01 544.19544.190.43
Sub-plot error628.374.73 7575.701262.60
Total1553.44 15,186
April
Richness Composition
Source of VariationdfSSMSPseudo-F SSMSPseudo-F
Block320.346.780.54 2087.90695.980.89
Tillage134.0334.032.70 3695.703695.704.75 *
Whole-plot error337.8412.62 2331.40777.14
Whole-plot total792.22 8115.10
PlantsWD10.560.560.09 1295.101295.101.33
Tillage x WD114.0614.062.17 1021.701021.701.05
Sub-plot error638.886.48 5860.90976.82
Total15237.94 24,408
Source of VariationdfSSMSPseudo-F SSMSPseudo-F
Block37.092.362.29 2210.80736.953.21
Tillage19.039.038.75 ° 1578.201578.206.88 *
Whole-plot error33.091.03 688.13229.38
SpringtailsWhole-plot total719.21 4477.20
WD11.561.560.79 155.11155.110.29
Tillage x WD10.060.060.03 578.65578.651.09
Sub-plot error611.871.98 3185.90530.99
Total1551.94 12,874
* = p < 0.05; ° = p < 0.1.
Table 2. PERMANOVA results showing the effects of the treatments on the number of springtail individuals; WD = wood distillate. df: degrees of freedom; SS: sum of squares; MS: mean square (SS divided by df); Pseudo-F: pseudo F-ratio calculated in PERMANOVA.
Table 2. PERMANOVA results showing the effects of the treatments on the number of springtail individuals; WD = wood distillate. df: degrees of freedom; SS: sum of squares; MS: mean square (SS divided by df); Pseudo-F: pseudo F-ratio calculated in PERMANOVA.
November
Source of VariationdfSSMSPseudo-F
Block35847.61949.20.97
Tillage1488.28488.280.24
Whole-plot error36048.32016.1
Number of springtail individualsWhole-plot total712,384
WD11242.61242.60.52
Tillage x WD12730.12730.11.15
Sub-plot error614,2282371.3
Total1542,969
April
Source of VariationdfSSMSPseudo-F
Block3106,13035,3782.57
Tillage164,89064,8904.71
Whole-plot error341,33213,777
Number of springtail individualsWhole-plot total7212,360
WD12626.62626.60.44
Tillage x WD123,18023,1803.9
Sub-plot error635,6635943.8
Total15486,180
Table 3. Plant and springtail species contributing the most to the similarity between plots under the same tillage treatment in April according to the SIMPER analysis. Abundance is expressed as percentage cover for plants and as number of individuals for springtails. Av. Abund = average abundance; Av. Diss = average contribution to dissimilarity; Diss/SD = ratio of average dissimilarity to standard deviation; Contrib% = percentage contribution to dissimilarity; Cum% = cumulative contribution to dissimilarity.
Table 3. Plant and springtail species contributing the most to the similarity between plots under the same tillage treatment in April according to the SIMPER analysis. Abundance is expressed as percentage cover for plants and as number of individuals for springtails. Av. Abund = average abundance; Av. Diss = average contribution to dissimilarity; Diss/SD = ratio of average dissimilarity to standard deviation; Contrib% = percentage contribution to dissimilarity; Cum% = cumulative contribution to dissimilarity.
Plants (Average Dissimilarity = 77.36)
No TillageTillageAv. Diss
Av. AbundAv. AbundDiss/SDContrib%Cum%
Poa annua10.631.8813.880.9317.9517.95
Medicago arabica3.890.287.460.789.6427.59
Crepis sancta5.750.646.470.818.3635.95
Trifolium campestre5.380.296.10.667.8843.83
Cynodon dactylon3.1305.890.377.6151.44
Cerastium glomeratum3.510.664.331.185.5957.03
Helminthotheca echioides3.891.034.251.065.562.53
Geranium dissectum2.010.1530.573.8766.4
Convolvulus arvensis1.880.092.981.193.8570.25
Hordeum murinum subsp. leporinum2.260.632.890.833.7373.98
Symphyotrichum squamatum1.50.042.182.22.8176.8
Beta vulgaris1.760.881.90.922.4679.26
Erigeron sumatrensis1.130.131.621.092.0981.35
Veronica arvensis1.150.041.460.81.8983.24
Lolium multiflorum1.881.251.350.851.7484.98
Senecio vulgaris0.780.181.320.81.7186.69
Centaurium tenuiflorum0.5401.080.771.3988.08
Veronica persica1.130.5110.971.2989.37
Allium vineale0.390.010.630.40.8290.18
Springtails (Average Dissimilarity = 65.22)
No TillageTillage
Av. AbundAv. AbundAv. DissDiss/SDContrib%Cum.%
Hypogastrura assimilis145.36925.751.9139.4939.49
Hemisotoma thermophila60.9495.6317.911.0827.4666.95
Pseudanurophorus isotoma51.0410.388.551.2413.1280.07
Isotomurus maculatus31.88135.131.037.8787.94
Ceratophysella engadinensis5.384.51.580.642.4390.36
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

Fanfarillo, E.; Angiolini, C.; Capitani, C.; De Pasquale Picciarelli, M.; Fedeli, R.; Fiaschi, T.; Jepkogei, P.; Pafumi, E.; Valle, B.; Maccherini, S. Short-Term Effects of Minimum Tillage and Wood Distillate Addition on Plants and Springtails in an Olive Grove. Environments 2025, 12, 204. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12060204

AMA Style

Fanfarillo E, Angiolini C, Capitani C, De Pasquale Picciarelli M, Fedeli R, Fiaschi T, Jepkogei P, Pafumi E, Valle B, Maccherini S. Short-Term Effects of Minimum Tillage and Wood Distillate Addition on Plants and Springtails in an Olive Grove. Environments. 2025; 12(6):204. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12060204

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fanfarillo, Emanuele, Claudia Angiolini, Claudio Capitani, Margherita De Pasquale Picciarelli, Riccardo Fedeli, Tiberio Fiaschi, Prudence Jepkogei, Emilia Pafumi, Barbara Valle, and Simona Maccherini. 2025. "Short-Term Effects of Minimum Tillage and Wood Distillate Addition on Plants and Springtails in an Olive Grove" Environments 12, no. 6: 204. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12060204

APA Style

Fanfarillo, E., Angiolini, C., Capitani, C., De Pasquale Picciarelli, M., Fedeli, R., Fiaschi, T., Jepkogei, P., Pafumi, E., Valle, B., & Maccherini, S. (2025). Short-Term Effects of Minimum Tillage and Wood Distillate Addition on Plants and Springtails in an Olive Grove. Environments, 12(6), 204. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12060204

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