Data underlying the publication: Integration of six field studies to assess soil suppressiveness against Globisporangium ultimum under different management practices

In this study we used datasets from different studies that measured Globisporangium ultimum suppressiveness. We assessed if soil type, organic amendment and/or soil disinfestation affect suppressiveness over a number of studies and if inundation or tillage affect suppressiveness in only one study respectively. In addition, we analyzed if soiltype, organic amendment or disinfestation are associated with other soil biological parameters. Moreover, it was assessed if suppressiveness was correlated with soil biological and soil chemical parameters.<br>In all studies Globisporangium suppressiveness was measured with a bioassay at Biointeractions and Plant Health (WPR) as described in the article. In short, all experiments were conducted with field soils and all respectively treatments were applied in the field. Half of each soil sample was inoculated with Globisporangium and the other half was not inoculated. The soil was then sown with garden cress and incubated at 23/18°C day/night with a day length of 16h and a relative humidity of 60%. Seven days after sowing, the percentage of diseased plants per area of each pot was estimated visually. In this study the percentage of diseased plants (disease incidence) in inoculated soils was used as a measure of soil suppressiveness.<br>The datasets used were: Farmer's Network 2019 and 2021, Soil Health Experiment 2018 and 2019, BASIS 2019, Inundation 2018, 2019, PPS Greeb 2017 and 2018, Organic Waste Streams 2018 and 2019. In the first analyses, each study was analysed separately. In the second approach, the data was combined for disinfestation and organic amendment removing the studies Farmer’s network and Inundation data. From the BASIS data only organic amendment information was used. For all remaining studies, treatments were coded as either 1 or 0 for disinfestation and organic amendment. Soil type was divided in sand or clay. Typically each study was conducted on only one soil type except for the Farmer’s network, which included both soil types. It should be noted that anaerobic disinfestation per definition always includes the addition of organic material. Additional biological and chemical measurements per study are stated in the article.<br>

本研究采用了多项已发表研究中用于测定终极腐霉（Globisporangium ultimum）抑制活性的数据集。我们首先通过多项研究分析了土壤类型、有机物料改良及/或土壤消毒对抑制活性的影响，并分别通过单一研究评估了淹水措施或耕作手段对抑制活性的作用。此外，我们还分析了土壤类型、有机物料改良或土壤消毒是否与其他土壤生物学参数存在关联；同时探究了抑制活性与土壤生物学及土壤化学参数的相关性。<br>所有研究中的腐霉（Globisporangium）抑制活性均采用生物测定（bioassay）法在生物互作与植物健康研究中心（Biointeractions and Plant Health, WPR）完成，具体流程详见论文。简言之，所有实验均采用田间土壤，且所有处理均在田间原位实施。每份土壤样本均被均分，一半接种Globisporangium，另一半不接种。随后将两份土壤分别播种庭荠（garden cress），并置于昼夜温度为23℃/18℃、光照时长16h、相对湿度60%的培养环境中。播种7天后，通过目视法估算每盆单位面积内的发病植株占比。本研究以接种土壤中的发病植株百分比（病害发生率）作为土壤抑制活性的衡量指标。<br>本研究使用的数据集包括：Farmer's Network 2019、Farmer's Network 2021、Soil Health Experiment 2018、Soil Health Experiment 2019、BASIS 2019、Inundation 2018、Inundation 2019、PPS Greeb 2017、PPS Greeb 2018、Organic Waste Streams 2018及Organic Waste Streams 2019。分析分为两个阶段：第一阶段为单研究独立分析；第二阶段则合并消毒处理与有机物料改良的相关数据，但剔除了Farmer’s Network与Inundation数据集。仅从BASIS数据集中提取有机物料改良的相关信息。对于其余所有研究，我们将消毒处理与有机物料改良处理分别编码为1或0。土壤类型分为砂土与黏土两类，通常每项研究仅采用单一土壤类型，仅Farmer’s Network数据集同时涵盖了两种土壤类型。需要说明的是，厌氧土壤消毒的定义本身即包含有机物料的添加。各项研究中额外开展的土壤生物学与化学参数测定内容详见论文。