The use of olive mill pomace compost increases the population of certain ground/soil organisms in olive groves

Original article The use of olive mill pomace compost increases the population of certain ground/soil organisms in olive groves Jos´ e E. Gonz´ alez-Zamora * , Jos´ e M. Gamero-Monge, Rosa P´ erez-de la Luz Departamento de Agronomía, Universidad de Sevilla, Carretera de Utrera, km 1.5, 41013, Sevilla, Spain ARTICLE INFO Handling Editor: M Hartmann Keywords: Acari Araneae Coleoptera Gastropoda Sustainable agriculture ABSTRACT Olive is one of the largest crops in Spain, primarily for oil extraction from drupes. This process produces a byproduct called ‘alperujo’, which can be composted and used as fertilizer. This study investigated the impact of ‘alperujo’ compost on ground/soil invertebrate inhabitants compared to mineral fertilization in two groves with different crop management types (superintensive and traditional) during 2021 and 2022. Anystidae/Erythraeidae (Acari; Trombidiformes) and Acari (Other) were more abundant in the compost treatment in both groves, but significant only in the superintensive grove. Some other ground/soil inhabitants, such as Anthicidae (Coleoptera), Araneae, and Gastropoda were generally more present in the compost treatment of the superintensive grove. No significant effect of fertiliser treatment was observed for other ground/soil organisms. Future studies with more replicas and over a longer period of time should be performed to confirm these results, but they can be considered of interest to push forward the implementation of ‘alperujo’ compost in the olive fertilization, favouring a circular economy and a sustainable agriculture. 1. Introduction Spain had around 25 % of the global surface of the olive crop in 2021 [1], with 2.76 ×10 6 ha, most of it (around 2.55 ×10 6 ha) dedicated to the extraction of oil from the drupe [2]. The average annual production of olive oil in Spain in recent years is around 1.4 ×10 6 tonnes (although very variable depending on rainfall), which represents 70 % of the EU’s production and 45 % of the global production [3]. The oil extraction process (when using the most modern two-phase extraction) generates several by-products, especially a semi-solid pomace waste called ‘alperujo’ (in Spanish), which contains all solids of the drupe and water (up to 60–65 % is water) [4]. However, the alperujo is an environmentally hazardous product due to different chemical properties [4]. This alperujo, although produced in high quantities (500–800 kg per ton of processed olive has been reported) [4,5], can be composted (alone or with other by-products) and transformed into a value-added product that has attracted a lot of interest because it can be used in the fertilization of different crops [6–10], and therefore could help to reduce the use of inorganic fertilizers and contribute to a circular economy of resources and sustainable agriculture [11], but with other interesting qualities [5]. The use of this compost has improved soil enzymatic activity that controls the patterns of organic matter decomposition [12] and the water-soluble carbon of the soil [13], the physical and chemical properties of the soil [14] and the quality of olive oil [15]. Organic fertilization arises as a necessity for a sustainable approach to this crop [16,17] in rainfed and irrigated orchards with intensive, superintensive or traditional management for the future in the Mediterranean basin [18]. The climatic change that is currently developing needs resilient cropping systems that can face it [19], and several of them can even play an important role in suppressing pests and/or improving biological control, for example cover cropping, application of organic fertilizers (such as composts and manure), and the implementation of water management practises [20]. Many studies have focused in how the implementation of composts (as well as other by-products of agriculture, such as manure and sewage) influence the ground/soil inhabitants in different crops [21–24] with extensive reviews. The most important mesoand macroorganisms that can be found in ground/soil are nematodes, earthworms and arthropods, including mites (Orders Oribatida, Mesostigmata, and Prostigmata), spiders, insects (especially Collembola, Psocoptera, but also Coleoptera of different families, like Carabidae), but studies specifically aimed at the effect of alperujo compost on the ground/soil invertebrate inhabitants of olive groves are rather scarce. The olive crop can be a great consumer of the compost produced * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.E. Gonz´ alez-Zamora), [email protected] (J.M. Gamero-Monge), [email protected] (R. P´ erez-de la Luz). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect European Journal of Soil Biology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ejsobi https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2024.103668 Received 19 March 2024; Received in revised form 23 August 2024; Accepted 25 August 2024 European Journal of Soil Biology 122 (2024) 103668 Available online 27 August 2024 1164-5563/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ ). from its own by-products (alperujo) and hence contribute to sustainable agriculture by reducing both the impact of alperujo in the environment and the use of mineral fertilizers. Few or no studies have been carried out analysing the effect of such compost on the mesoand macroorganisms of olive ground/soil, but in Gonzalez-Zamora et al. [25] it was studied extensively the particular effect on the Formicidae (order Hymenoptera) species assemblage both in the ground and in the canopy, included in the same study carry out in this work. We hypothesise that compost can affect some specific groups dwelling in the ground and soil, especially within arthropods, and more probably incrementing their numbers. The present work has the main objective of filling this knowledge gap while incorporating two distinct types of olive cultivation: superintensive hedgerow management and more traditional management. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Location This research was developed in the experimental farm “La Hampa” located in Coria del Río (Seville, Spain, 37◦17.010 ′ N 6◦3.936’ W) (Supp. F ig. S1) at an average of 20 m a.s.l. It belongs to the Institute of Natural Resources and Agrobiology of Seville (Instituto de Recursos Naturales y Agrobiologia de Sevilla). The soil was a calcic Cambisol [26] characterised by a sandy clay loam texture, low fertility, and low organic matter content (pH: 7.5; TOC: 8 g kg −1 ; N: 0.8 g kg −1 ; Olsen P: 10 mg kg −1 ; available K: 200 mg kg −1 ) [27]. Other general characteristics of the location are in Ref. [25]. 2.2. Experimental design The compost used in the study was made of 60 % olive mill pomace originating from the extraction of the olive fruit oil (‘alperujo’) and 40 % of pruning wastes and legumes. A detailed description of the main parameters of the compost can be found in the supplementary material (Supp. Ta ble S1). The product was supplied by an olive oil cooperative after a composting process for more than 12 months. Two experimental groves of the farm ─ a superintensive olive grove and a traditional olive grove ─ were used to carry out this study. The superintensive grove (37◦17.001 ′ N 6◦4.020 ′ W, Fig. 1, S1) has a superhigh density of 1667 trees ha −1 forming a hedgerow, and the traditional grove (37◦16.896 ′ N 6◦5.283 ′ W, Supp. Fi gs. 2 and S1) a more usual density of 238 trees ha −1 , with trees formed on a single foot and 3.5–4 m canopy diameter. A more detailed description of both groves (superintensive and traditional) is given in Ref. [26]. Six plots of the superintensive grove were used in this research (Fig. 1a); three of them were fertilized with composted residues of olive mill pomace (treatment named ‘Compost’), while the other three plots were fertilized with mineral products (treatment named ‘Mineral’) (Supp. Ta ble S2). The six plots were randomly distributed because the soil characteristics within each grove were similar (described above), allowing this design and then increasing the power of the experiment. Both treatments (Compost and Mineral) were drip irrigated following a regulated deficit irrigation procedure (with 360.4 ±27.7 mm and 197.0 ±14.6 mm (Compost) and 308.1 ±8.7 mm and 203.1 ±3.5 mm (Mineral) in 2021 and 2022 respectively) and together with the general management of soil, pest, diseases, and fertilization, are described in Ref. [25] and supplementary material (Supp. Ta bles S2, S3, and S4). The addition of compost in the superintensive grove was made for the first time (in the record of this grove) in July 2021, and then in March 2022 (Supp. Ta bles S2 and S3). Eight plots of the traditionally managed grove were used in this research (Fig. 2a); four of them were fertilized with composted residues from olive mill pomace (treatment named ‘Compost’), while the other four plots were fertilized with mineral products (treatment named ‘Mineral’) (Supp. Tabl e S2). The eight plots were randomly distributed in the grove for the same reasons indicated with the superintensive grove and so increasing the power of the experiment. The grove was rain-fed (366.1 mm from October 2020 to September 2021 and 303.3 mm from October 2021 to September 2022) and together with the general management of soil, pest, diseases, and fertilization, are described in Ref. [25] and supplementary material (Supp. T ables S2, S3, and S4). The traditional grove was receiving compost in a schedule of every two years, starting in February 2018, followed in December 2020 (some months before this study started) and in March 2022 (Supp. Ta bles S2 and S3). 2.3. Sampling A pitfall trap sampling method was used to study the effect of the type of fertilization on surface-active invertebrate fauna (mainly arthropods) dwelling on the ground, although other invertebrates more specific of soil (as Collembola and Acari) can be collected. The pitfall traps consisted of polyethene cups of 105 mm height and 90 mm diameter in the opening, inserted into the soil at ground level and filled with 25–30 mL of an ethylene glycol/water solution (1:1) and covered with a 25 cm diameter plastic dish (at 2–4 cm height from the cup with Fig. 1. Superintensive grove: a) location of the plots (C, Compost, green filling; M, Mineral, white filling; yellow border means deficit irrigation procedure); plots not used in this study with blue border means full irrigation and with red border means rain-fed; b) location of the pit fall traps in the central tree row of each plot. J.E. Gonz´ alez-Zamora et al. European Journal of Soil Biology 122 (2024) 103668 2 the help of several stones where the dish rested) to avoid evaporation and debris. Two traps were placed in each plot, in the superintensive grove were located in the same central row of the plot around 10 m apart (Fig. 1b), and in the traditional grove were located in the diagonal of the plot around 5 m apart (Fig. 2b). They remained in the plots for 72 h, and then the specimens trapped and the liquid was transferred to a smaller cup with a lid and brought to the laboratory. The samples collected were evaluated in the laboratory according to order and family/species, if possible, with the help of a stereomicroscope (45 ×) and different keys [28,29]. At the superintensive grove, eight (in 2021) and nine (in 2022) sampling dates were performed from April to mid-October. At the traditional grove, six sampling dates were performed in 2021 (from June to mid-October) and nine were performed in 2022 (from April to mid-October) (Supp. Ta ble S3). 2.4. Data analysis A multivariate principal response curve (PRC) was used for synthesis and to gain a global view of the possible effects of the treatments studied when multiple variables are involved. This method has been used in agricultural entomology to analyse the effect of a treatment on the arthropod community [30–34]. The community response under study is represented by a canonical coefficient, which measures its response to abundance in a designated control, expressed as deviations from a control community over time [35]. A plot with weights for the species or taxonomic groups under study is also generated, and they are used to indicate which of them follow the plotted community pattern (see Auber et al. [36] for a graphical interpretation), but only weights greater than | 0.4–0.5| are considered significant. Repeated-measures ANOVA was used to analyse each year separately in the groves about how taxons were affected by the fertilization treatment with a method of analysis for the time-series abundance data. It was evaluated whether fertilization treatment (between-subject effect, with two treatments, Compost and Mineral), time (within-subject effect, 9, 8 or 6 sampling dates), and interaction of time and fertilization treatment were significant in the response variables. A generalised linear model with the negative binomial function (wit log link) was used to analyse the discrete data of the two years together in each grove for each response variable, with fertilization treatment as the only factor, as interaction treatment ×year was not significant in almost any of the groups analysed. Quantitative tests to determine whether a PRC diagram displays significant variance due to treatment were performed in R (v4.2.2) with the vegan package (v2.5-2), which uses a Monte Carlo procedure to generate up to 999 permutations. For the two years together, it was used the MASS package (v7.3–58.3) with the negative binomial function (with the function ‘glm.nb’). SPSS (v15.0 for Windows) was used in the repeated-measures ANOVA. The data were transformed with log (x +1) before applying PRC [35]. 3. Results Pitfall traps PRC showed no significant effect of the fertilizing treatments (P >0.05) in the two years and groves (Fig. 3). Several groups adjusted better to the graph (with weights on the right axis above |0.4–0.5|), such as Oribatida and Anystidae (superintensive grove, 2021), Collembola, Anthicidae, Crustacea and Anystidae (superintensive grove, 2022), Pseudoescorpionida (traditional grove, 2021) and Anystidae, Acari (Other) and Oribatida (traditional grove, 2022). The most frequent captures with pitfall traps in the superintensive grove (Table 1) were Formicidae, Acari (mainly Oribatida) and Collembola (with 36.7, 33.5 (25.9 % Oribatida) and 8.5 %, respectively, of the total captures). In the traditional grove, the most frequently captured were Acari (mainly Oribatida and secondarily Anystidae), Collembola and Formicidae (with 47.0 (30.5 % Oribatida and 11.8 % Anystidae), 23.7 and 14.8 %, respectively, of the total captures). Pitfall trap captures showed significant differences between fertilizing treatments in few groups (Table 1, and Ta ble S5 for detailed statistics), but depending on the grove. This is observed in the total number of Coleoptera in the superintensive grove (captures in the Compost treatment were higher than in the Mineral treatment considering the two years together, with z = − 2.5, df =100, P =0.013, Tabl e S5), which contrast with the traditional grove (Mineral treatment captures were higher than in the Compost treatment considering the two years together, with z =2.4, df =118, P =0.015, Ta ble S5). There were also differences in the families recorded: Anthicidae was the most abundant group in the superintensive grove, with more catches in the Compost treatment than in the Mineral treatment in the analysis of the two years together (z = − 2.3, df =100, P =0.020), with great differences with other families, while at the traditional grove, Tenebrionidae (and other families) were the most abundant but no significant differences between treatments were obtained in 2022 ─ when data were more detailed ─, especially due to the high variability between repetitions, and Anthicidae was rather secondary (but more frequent in the Mineral treatment Fig. 2. Traditional grove: a) location of the plots (C, Compost, green filling; M, Mineral, white filling) (plots with black border were not used in this study); b) location of the pit fall traps in the diagonal of each plot. J.E. Gonz´ alez-Zamora et al. European Journal of Soil Biology 122 (2024) 103668 3 with z =2.1, df =118, P =0.039). The Polyphaga group better reflects this situation; in the superintensive grove there were significantly more catches in the Compost treatment than in the Mineral treatment in the two-year analysis (z = − 2.5, df =100, P =0.012, with 2021 and 2022 being almost significant, Tab le S5), but in the traditional grove it was the opposite, with significantly more catches in the Mineral treatment than in the Compost treatment in the two-year analysis (z =2.5, df = 118, P =0.013). The low captures of Carabidae at both groves is remarkable, with only 17 (superintensive) and 7 (traditional) individuals in two years (Table 1). The other group with significant differences in the number of captures was Arachnida (Table 1), but especially in two groups: Araneae, which presented significantly more captures (z = − 2.2, df =100, P = 0.029) in the Compost treatment than in the Mineral treatment in the superintensive grove (but not in the traditional grove) in the two years together; and the captures of Anystidae (plus Erythraeidae) (Acari; Trombidiformes) that were significantly higher in the Compost treatment than in the Mineral treatment (z = − 2.6, df =100, P =0.009, Ta ble S5) in the superintensive grove considering the two years together (and nearly significant in 2021, with P =0.070, and in 2022, with P = 0.086, Tab le S5). The difference was nearly significant in the traditional grove only in 2022 (F =5.4, df =1, 6, P =0.059), again higher in the Compost treatment than in the Mineral treatment (Table 1). The category of ‘Acari (Other)’ was significant only in 2022 in both groves, with more captures in the Compost treatment than in the Mineral treatment in the superintensive (F =33.1, df =1, 4, P =0.005) and traditional (F =11.3, df =1, 6, P =0.015) groves. Oribatida was the most abundant mite group captured in the pitfall traps in both groves (Table 1), but not significative differences were found between fertilizing treatments (Ta ble S5). Pseudoescorpionida were present almost exclusively at the traditional grove, but in very low numbers, being almost significant in 2021 (P =0.072) and significant (z =2.3, df =116, P =0.021) in the analysis of the two years together, with, in general, more captures in the Mineral treatment than in the Compost treatment. Acari of the Order Mesostigmata were rare in the samples, and no separate group was assigned to them. Another group captured in the pitfall traps that showed the effect of the fertilizing treatment was Gastropoda (Mollusca, Table 1), but only in the superintensive grove, with more captures in the Compost treatment than in the Mineral treatment (z = − 2.3, df =100, P =0.020, with the two-year analysis, Ta ble S5), and the differences were almost significant in 2022 (with repeated measures F =7.4, df =1, 4, P =0.053, Tab le S5) but, as in other groups, with high variability in the Compost treatment in 2021. Several groups, such as Formicidae and Collembola, were very abundant in the pitfall traps (Table 1), but showed no significant effect of the fertilizing treatment on captures at both groves (P >0.05 in each grove in the two-year analyses, Table S5). Other groups of secondary importance (Hemiptera, Diptera, Psocoptera or Crustacea) also showed no significant effect of the fertilizing treatments at both groves. Finally, the total captures obtained with the pitfall traps (Table 1) showed no significant differences (with P >0.05, Ta ble S5) between fertilizing treatments within groves in each year or for the two years analysed together. 4. Discussion In a general and global view, no significant effect of the addition of Fig. 3. Principal response curves (PRCs) of the most important arthropod and mollusc taxa recuperated in the ground with pitfall trap sampling at the two olive groves (superintensive and traditional) in the two years of this study (2021 and 2022). The P values denote the significance of fertilizing treatment ‘Compost’, represented as a plotted line, relative to fertilizing treatment ‘Mineral’ on all dates based on an F−type permutation test. Taxa are shown on the right vertical axis with their weights, which have the same scale as canonical coefficients on the left vertical axis. J.E. Gonz´ alez-Zamora et al. European Journal of Soil Biology 122 (2024) 103668 4 Table 1 Means (with the standard errors between brackets) per sampling plot and date of the different invertebrate groups captured with pitfall traps in the two fertilizing treatments (Compost, Mineral), total per year and total for the two years (TOTAL) at the two groves (Superintensive, Traditional). Superintensive Traditional 2021 2022 TOTAL 2021 2022 TOTAL Compost Mineral Total Compost Mineral Total Compost Mineral Total Compost Mineral Total Mean s.e. Mean s.e. Mean s.e. Mean s.e. Mean s.e. Mean s.e. Mean s.e. Mean s.e. COLEOPTERA 0.50 (0.30) 0.25 (0.18) 18 2.00 (.) (0.97) 0.67 (0.23) 72 90(*) 0.38 (0.24) 0.50 (0.25) 21 0.81 (0.38) 2.56 (0.77) 121 142 (*) Carabidae 0.25 (0.25) 0.21 (0.14) 11 0.11 (0.06) 0.11 (0.08) 6 17 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (0.04) 1 0.03 (0.03) 0.14 (0.06) 6 7 Polyphaga (Total) 0.21 (.) (0.21) 0.04 (0.04) 6 1.89 (.) (0.99) 0.56 (0.21) 66 72(*) 0.04 (0.04) 0.29 (0.21) 8 0.64 (0.38) 2.39 (0.72) 109 117 (*) Anthicidae 0.21 (.) (0.21) 0.04 (0.04) 6 1.59 (.) (1.04) 0.33 (0.20) 52 58(*) 0.04 (0.04) 0.29 (0.21) 8 0.00 (0.00) 0.22 (0.19) 8 16 (*) Tenebrionidae nd nd 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0 nd nd 0.11 (0.07) 1.19 (0.61) 47 Elateridae nd nd 0.19 (0.13) 0.07 (0.07) 7 nd nd 0.03 (0.03) 0.53 (0.47) 20 Staphylinidae nd nd 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (0.04) 1 nd nd 0.36 (0.33) 0.17 (0.12) 19 COLLEMBOLA 2.04 (0.76) 3.17 (2.04) 125 8.00 (2.50) 5.63 (1.48) 368 493 8.21 (7.86) 8.17 (6.75) 393 10.67 (4.68) 11.69 (3.96) 805 1198 HYMENOPTERA 25.38 (9.92) 20.25 (4.72) 1095 19.63 (3.69) 19.56 (3.22) 1058 2153 6.13 (1.03) 8.17 (1.58) 343 6.75 (1.19) 5.14 (0.90) 428 771 Formicidae 25.13 (9.96) 19.88 (4.69) 1080 19.37 (3.72) 19.44 (3.22) 1048 2128 5.92 (0.93) 8.13 (1.59) 337 6.50 (1.07) 4.94 (0.82) 412 749 ARACHNIDA 32.38 (18.25) 23.58 (8.66) 1343 17.48 (3.38) 11.85 (2.47) 792 2135 6.79 (3.57) 8.46 (4.60) 366 32.03 (17.14) 30.19 (13.19) 2240 2606 Araneae 2.75 (0.91) 1.42 (0.61) 100 2.04 (0.34) 1.37 (0.45) 92 192(*) 1.71 (0.43) 1.71 (0.35) 82 1.42 (0.31) 1.69 (0.47) 112 194 Acari 29.63 (18.22) 22.13 (8.86) 1242 15.41(*) (3.27) 10.48 (2.32) 699 1941 4.92 (3.63) 5.88 (4.68) 259 30.36 (17.13) 28.31 (13.23) 2112 2371 Oribatida 25.13 (18.06) 20.13 (8.61) 1086 9.07 (3.42) 6.33 (1.95) 416 1502 3.54 (3.54) 4.54 (4.49) 194 17.31 (11.85) 20.06 (11.73) 1345 1539 Anystidae a 4.50 (.) (0.97) 2.00 (0.60) 156 4.37 (.) (1.25) 3.04 (0.66) 200 356(*) 1.38 (0.35) 1.33 (0.29) 65 8.81 (.) (3.70) 6.00 (1.68) 533 598 Other nd nd 1.96(*) (0.90) 1.11 (0.50) 83 nd nd 4.25(*) (1.79) 2.25 (0.42) 234 Pseudoescorpionida 0.00 (0.00) 0.04 (0.04) 1 0.04 (0.04) 0.00 (0.00) 1 2 0.17 (0.08) 0.71 (.) (0.32) 21 0.25 (0.09) 0.17 (0.11) 15 36 (*) DIPTERA 0.96 (0.38) 0.88 (0.32) 44 3.00 (1.27) 3.44 (1.17) 174 218 0.13 (0.13) 0.17 (0.08) 7 2.89 (2.11) 1.64 (0.96) 163 170 Nematocera 0.46 (0.30) 0.42 (0.20) 21 1.00 (0.45) 2.07 (1.08) 110 131 0.04 (0.04) 0.13 (0.06) 4 2.69 (1.98) 1.44 (0.90) 149 153 Brachycera 0.50 (0.15) 0.46 (0.14) 23 2.00 (1.34) 1.37 (0.81) 64 87 0.08 (0.08) 0.04 (0.04) 3 0.19 (0.14) 0.19 (0.17) 14 17 HEMIPTERA 0.75 (0.43) 0.42 (0.28) 28 1.07 (0.50) 1.04 (0.38) 57 85 0.13 (0.09) 0.21 (0.12) 8 0.19 (0.12) 0.44 (0.25) 23 31 PSOCOPTERA 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0 2.04 (1.33) 4.11 (3.18) 166 166 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0 0.56 (0.25) 0.44 (0.18) 36 36 THYSANOPTERA 0.08 (0.08) 0.17 (0.17) 6 0.07 (0.05) 0.074 (0.05) 4 10 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0 0.11 (0.08) 0.00 (0.00) 4 4 NEUROPTERA 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0 0.00 (0.00) 0(0.00) 0 0 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0 0.03 (0.03) 0.11 (0.08) 5 5 CHILOPODA 0.42 (0.12) 0.50 (0.15) 22 0.33 (0.11) 0.30 (0.14) 17 39 0.29 (0.12) 0.21 (0.16) 12 0.28 (0.11) 0.22 (0.09) 18 30 DIPLOPODA 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0 0.04 (0.04) 0(0.00) 1 1 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0 0.03 (0.03) 0.00 (0.00) 1 1 GASTROPODA 5.33 (3.10) 1.79 (0.96) 171 0.48 (.) (0.22) 0.15 (0.08) 17 188(*) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0 0 CRUSTACEA 1.58 (0.94) 2.04 (0.60) 87 2.15 (0.82) 1.33 (0.76) 94 181 0.04 (0.04) 0.04 (0.04) 2 0.14 (0.07) 0.03 (0.03) 6 8 OTHER 0.25 (0.16) 0.42 (0.16) 16 0.48 (0.21) 0.30 (0.12) 21 37 0.58 (0.35) 0.54 (0.32) 27 0.22 (0.11) 0.28 (0.11) 18 45 TOTAL 69.67 (20.71) 53.46 (11.39) 2955 56.78 (8.68) 48.44 (6.90) 2841 5796 22.67 (11.54) 26.46 (11.02) 1179 54.69 (19.78) 52.75 (15.43) 3868 5047 Nd =not determined; (*)Significant, with P <0.05; (.) with 0.05 >P <0.10. Figures in bold within a year with (*) indicate that means captured in the Compost treatment were significantly greater than in the Mineral treatment, whereas figures in normal with (*) indicate that means in the Mineral treatment were significantly greater than in the Compost treatment; in the “TOTAL” column, figures in bold with (*) indicate that numbers captured in the combination of both years in the Compost treatment were significantly greater than in the Mineral treatment, whereas figures in normal font with (*) indicate that captures in the Mineral treatment were significantly greater than in the Compost treatment; each year was analysed separately with a repeated-measures ANOVA and the two years together of each grove with a generalised linear model using the negative binomial function. a Count include the family Erythraeidae. J.E. Gonz´ alez-Zamora et al. European Journal of Soil Biology 122 (2024) 103668 5 ‘alperujo’ compost as fertilizer was observed in the ground/soil invertebrate community at both groves compared to the mineral treatment, as the PRC graphs show. But this general analyses can hide not very strong effects of the fertilization on some groups; only when taxons were analysed separately such effect was found, especially in Acari (Anystidae/Erythraeidae and Others), Araneae, Coleoptera (in some groups), and Gastropoda, although with differences between the two groves. Acari was one of the most important arthropods group trapped in the pitfall traps at both groves. Oribatida was the predominant group of mites, a result similar to other authors in an olive soil survey [37]. Oribatida were captured in similar numbers and showed no effect of the fertilizing treatment at both groves in our study, which is consistent with a similar result found by Seniczak et al. [38] in a vineyard, who also observed that Oribatida were not sensitive to soil management, as could also be deduced from our results. Viketoft et al. [39], in contrast, found that Oribatida were more abundant in mineral fertilized treatments compared to organic treatments. The other important group of Acari in our study was the Anystidae family (including Erythraeidae), which was, in general, more abundant in the Compost treatment than in the Mineral treatment (with near statistical significance) in both groves in 2022, and in the superintensive grove it was significantly more abundant in the Compost treatment in the two years together. Similar results appeared for Acari (Other) at both groves, which showed significantly more numbers in the Compost treatment than in the Mineral treatment only in 2022. The Anystidae family (plus Erythraeidae) belongs to the Prostigmata order of Acari, and Viketoft et al. [39] found that some organic fertilizers promoted a significantly higher presence of Prostigmata, although without specifying any particular group. Anystidae (with Erythraeidae) is formed mainly by species with predatory/parasitic ways of life [40], and some species have been studied as interesting biological control agents in some crops [41,42], although no specific importance has been highlighted in olive related to biological control of any particular pests of the crop. Mesostigmata is an important order of the Acari that normally dwell in the soil [39], but they were not included in our study because of their very low/lack of presence. This lack of captures of this group is not easy to interpret, although other studies that obtained larger amounts of Mesostigmata specimens [39,43] used Berlese funnels to sample the soil acarifauna, collecting soil samples and placing them inside the funnels, instead of using pitfall traps as in our study. The importance of several species of Mesostigmata has been investigated to control some soil-dwelling arthropods, with interesting results, particularly in greenhouse crops [43–46]. The Araneae captured in the pitfall traps of the superintensive grove were also more abundant in the Compost treatment than in the Mineral treatment each year (although not significantly) and were significant in the two-years analysis, which agrees with the abundance of Araneae in sweep net records in the canopy (not included in this study); but again, no differences between fertilizing treatments were observed in the traditional grove. In the superintensive grove, more Coleoptera were trapped in the Compost treatment than in the Mineral treatment (but in low numbers compared to other groups), and the Anthicidae family was the only one captured with relative importance, while the Carabidae family was poorly captured in both years, in contrast with other studies where Carabidae were significant in the olive surface-dwelling or aboveground arthropods [37,47,48]. In the traditional grove, the contrary happened; the Mineral treatment captured more individuals than the Compost treatment and with more diversity of groups (Anthicidae, Tenebrionidae, Elateridae and Staphylinidae families are represented in the specimens captured) but always with very high variability between the plots, and with low numbers compared with other groups. Again, the Carabidae family was poorly represented at this grove. This result of pitfall traps indicates an effect of fertilizing treatment in some groups, such as Coleoptera, Araneae and Gastropoda, but especially in Acari. Acari was the only group that showed consistent results in both groves, especially regarding the Anystidae family (including Erythraeidae) and Acari (Other). Anystidae (plus Erythraeidae) are mainly predators of many small arthropods in the ground/ soil and are not used to move on plants. There is no clear answer because Coleoptera were more abundant in the Mineral treatment than in the Compost treatment in the traditional grove, although a high variability was found between plots. The work suggests that the addition of ‘alperujo’ compost had a limited but positive effect on some surface-dwelling and soil arthropods inhabitants. In the superintensive grove, there was an increase in arthropods in the compost treatment over the two years, including Anthicidae (general detritivores), Araneae (generalist predators), and Anystidae/Erythraeidae (generalist predators), diverse Acari, and Gastropoda (Mollusca). In the traditional grove, Coleoptera were more abundant in the mineral treatment (the contrary than in the superintensive grove), but with low captures and high variability; Anystidae/ Erythraeidae and Acari (other) were, in general, more abundant in the Compost treatment, which is almost the only effect that was similar in both groves. The higher impact of compost addition on ground/soil fauna in the superintensive grove, compared to the traditional grove, can be attributed to its particular management: irrigation in the tree rows, no tillage, and a cover crop, among other factors. Following with this reasoning, the different agronomic management of each grove could help to explain the significant differences in some arthropods found in the ground/soil in each grove (and not from the fertilizing treatment), as was observed in Formicidae ─ studied specifically in [25] for this same research. Formicidae is a hymenopteran family very well represented in olive orchards [37,48–50], but that is greatly influenced by soil management, especially tillage and the presence of cover crops, two factors that are opposing in each grove of this research: no tillage and the presence of cover crops (as in the superintensive grove) promote the abundance of Formicidae in the ground and the canopy [51–54]. The addition of compost to the soil significantly increased the presence of some beneficial groups, particularly in the superintensive grove, without showing clear detrimental effects to the populations of other ground/soil inhabitants. These results are encouraging for the implementation of ‘alperujo’ compost as a fertilizer in olive crops, both in emergent intensive management and traditional crop management, instead of mineral fertilizers, which is a clear step towards achieving sustainable agriculture. This study was conducted in only one grove for each type of management. Therefore, these conclusions should be considered preliminary and confirmed by future studies using more groves (replicas) over a longer period of time. Funding This study was funded by the Junta de Andalucía (Regional Government of Andalusia region, Spain) within the framework of the project ‘Alternative management to ensure the sustainability of table olive groves in Andalusia’ (project code P20-00492). Data availability The complete raw data of the research can be accessed at this public repository: https://hdl.handle.net/11441/156835 https://doi.org/10.12795/11441/156835. CRediT authorship contribution statement Jos´ e E. Gonz´ alez-Zamora: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Supervision, Resources, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Jos´ e M. Gamero-Monge: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation. Rosa P´ erez-de la Luz: Writing – J.E. Gonz´ alez-Zamora et al. European Journal of Soil Biology 122 (2024) 103668 6 original draft, Visualization, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation. Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Acknowledgements The authors thank J. M. Dur´ an and A. Serrano from the Entomology Laboratory of the Consejería de Agricultura de la Junta de Andalucia in Montequinto (Sevilla, Spain) for their help in identifying several arthropod species. Authors also thank the collaboration of Dr. I. Gir´ on and the laborers of the La Hampa farm. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2024.103668. References [1] FAO, Olive surface and drupe production. https://www.fao. org/faostat/en/#search/Olivesurface%0A, 2023. (Accessed 21 April 2023). [2] MAPA, Avances superficie y producci´ on de cultivos. https://www.mapa.gob.es/es /estadistica/temas/estadisticas-agrarias/agricultura/superficies-producciones-a nuales-cultivos/, 2023. (Accessed 23 May 2023). [3] International Olive and Oil Council, Olive oil production (2023). https://www. internationaloliveoil.org/what-we-do/economic-affairs-promotion-unit/#figures. (Accessed 8 May 2023). [4] J.A. Morillo, B. Antizar-Ladislao, M. Monteoliva-S´ anchez, A. Ramos-Cormenzana, N.J. Russell, Bioremediation and biovalorisation of olive-mill wastes, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 82 (2009) 25–39, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-0081801-y. [5] A. Mamkagh, F. Al-Zyoud, R. Al-Atiyat, Olive mill pomace compost as soil amendment, and sources of biopesticides and animal feed: a review, Int. J. Agric. Biol. 28 (2022) 257–268, https://doi.org/10.17957/IJAB/15.1977. [6] D. Pe˜ na, D. Fern´ andez, A. Albarr´ an, S. G´ omez, C. Martín, J. S´ anchez-Terr´ on, L. Vicente, A. L´ opez-Pi˜ neiro, Using olive mill waste compost with sprinkler irrigation as a strategy to achieve sustainable rice cropping under Mediterranean conditions, Agron. Sustain. Dev. 42 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-02200769-5/Published. [7] M.A. S´ anchez-Monedero, M.L. Cayuela, M. S´ anchez-García, B. Vandecasteele, T. D’Hose, G. L´ opez, C. Martínez-Gait´ an, P.J. Kuikman, T. Sinicco, C. Mondini, Agronomic evaluation of biochar, compost and biochar-blended compost across different cropping systems: perspective from the European project FERTIPLUS, Agronomy 9 (2019) 225, https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9050225. [8] A. Leone, R. Romaniello, A. Tamborrino, L. Beneduce, A. Gagliardi, M. Giuliani, G. Gatta, Composting of olive mill pomace, agro-industrial sewage sludge and other residues: process monitoring and agronomic use of the resulting composts, Foods 10 (2021) 2143, https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10092143. [9] M. Diacono, F. Montemurro, Olive pomace compost in organic emmer crop: yield, soil properties, and heavy metals’ fate in plant and soil, J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 19 (2019) 63–70, https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-019-0010-3. [10] L. Bargougui, Z. Guergueb, M. Chaieb, M. Braham, A. Mekki, Agro-physiological and biochemical responses of Sorghum bicolor in soil amended by olive mill wastewater, Agric. Water Manag. 212 (2019) 60–67, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. agwat.2018.08.011. [11] L. de Sosa, M. Panettieri, B. Moreno, E. Benítez, E. Madej´ on, Compost application in an olive grove influences nitrogen dynamics under Mediterranean conditions, Appl. Soil Ecol. 175 (2022) 104462, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. apsoil.2022.104462. [12] M. Panettieri, B. Moreno, L.L. de Sosa, E. Benítez, E. Madej´ on, 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 214 (2022) 106258, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106258. [13] P. Madej´ on, J. Alaejos, J. García-´ Albala, M. Fern´ andez, E. Madej´ on, Three-year study of fast-growing trees in degraded soils amended with composts: effects on soil fertility and productivity, J. Environ. Manag. 169 (2016) 18–26, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.11.050. [14] M. Podgornik, M. Buˇ car-Miklavˇ ciˇ c, A. Levart, J. Salobir, V. Rezar, B. Butinar, Chemical characteristics of two-phase olive-mill waste and evaluation of their direct soil application in humid mediterranean regions, Agronomy 12 (2022) 1621, https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12071621. [15] P. Proietti, E. Federici, L. Fidati, S. Scargetta, L. Massaccesi, L. Nasini, L. Regni, A. Ricci, G. Cenci, G. Gigliotti, 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. 207 (2015) 51–60, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.03.028. [16] G. Michalopoulos, K.A. Kasapi, G. Koubouris, G. Psarras, G. Arampatzis, E. Hatzigiannakis, V. Kavvadias, C. Xiloyannis, A. Angelaki, C. Manolaraki, G. Giakoumaki, S. Reppas, N. Kourgialas, G. Kokkinos, G. Montanaro, S. Malliaraki, A. Angelaki, C. Manolaraki, G. Giakoumaki, S. Reppas, N. Kourgialas, G. Kokkinos, Adaptation of mediterranean olive groves to climate change through sustainable cultivation practices, Climate 8 (2020) 54, https://doi.org/10.3390/cli8040054. [17] I. Zipori, R. Erel, U. Yermiyahu, A. Ben-Gal, A. Dag, Sustainable management of olive orchard nutrition: a review, Agriculture 10 (2020) 11, https://doi.org/ 10.3390/agriculture10010011. [18] H. Mairech, ´ A. L´ opez-Bernal, M. Moriondo, C. Dibari, L. Regni, P. Proietti, F. J. Villalobos, L. Testi, Sustainability of olive growing in the Mediterranean area under future climate scenarios: exploring the effects of intensification and deficit irrigation, Eur. J. Agron. 129 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2021.126319. [19] J.R. Lamichhane, M. Barzman, K. Booij, P. Boonekamp, N. Desneux, L. Huber, P. Kudsk, S.R.H. Langrell, A. Ratnadass, P. Ricci, J.-L. Sarah, A. Mess´ ean, Robust cropping systems to tackle pests under climate change. A review, in: Agron. Sustain. Dev., Springer-Verlag France, 2015, pp. 443–459, https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s13593-014-0275-9. [20] E.G. Murrell, Can agricultural practices that mitigate or improve crop resilience to climate change also manage crop pests? Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 23 (2017) 81–88, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2017.07.008. [21] A. Baldovino Sanjuan, L. Castellanos Gonzalez, R. de M. Prado, Edaphic mesofauna, some studies done: a review, INGE CUC 18 (2022) 197–208, https:// doi.org/10.17981/ingecuc.18.2.2022.16. [22] J.J. Miller, J.P. Battigelli, B.W. Beasley, C.F. Drury, Response of soil mesofauna to long-term application of feedlot manure on irrigated cropland, J. Environ. Qual. 46 (2017) 185–192, https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2016.08.0318. [23] E. Rowen, J.F. Tooker, C.K. Blubaugh, Managing fertility with animal waste to promote arthropod pest suppression, Biol. Control 134 (2019) 130–140, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.04.012. [24] A.A. Goncharov, A.A. Glebova, T.I. Chernov, M.M. Karpukhin, N.A. Kuznetsova, V. D. Leonov, O.L. Makarova, V.N. Maygurova, A.A. Shesteperov, I.P. Taranets, A. K. Tkhakakhova, A.A. Turbanova, A.V. Tiunov, Detrital subsidy alters the soil invertebrate community and reduces infection of winter wheat seedlings by Fusarium wilt, Appl. Soil Ecol. 163 (2021) 103914, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. apsoil.2021.103914. [25] J.E. Gonz´ alez-Zamora, J.M. Gamero-Monge, R. P´ erez-de la Luz, Ant community is not influenced by the addition of olive mill pomace compost in two different olive crop managements, Insects 14 (2023) 783, https://doi.org/10.3390/ insects14100783. [26] WRB IUSS Working Group, World reference base for soil resources 2014, update 2015, in: Int. Soil Classif. Syst. Namin. Soils Creat. Legend. Soil Maps., World Soil Resources Reports No. 106, FAO, Rome, 2014. [27] L.L. De Sosa, M.J. Martín-Palomo, P. Castro-Valdecantos, E. Madej´ on, Agricultural use of compost under different irrigation strategies in a hedgerow olive grove under Mediterranean conditions - a comparison with traditional systems, Soils 9 (2023) 325–338, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-9-325-2023. [28] A.J., in: Barrientos, Curso pr´ actico de entomología, Asociaci´ on Espa˜ nola de Entomología, CIBIO; Universidad Aut´ onoma de Barcelona, Alicante, Bellaterra, 2004. [29] M. Chinery, Guía de campo de los insectos de Espa˜ na y de Europa, Omega, Barcelona (2005). [30] S.A.P. Santos, J.A. Pereira, L.M. Torres, A.J.A. Nogueira, Evaluation of the effects, on canopy arthropods, of two agricultural management systems to control pests in olive groves from north-east of Portugal, Chemosphere 67 (2007) 131–139, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.09.014. [31] S. Pascual, G. Cobos, E. Seris, M. Gonz´ alez-Nú˜ nez, Effects of processed kaolin on pests and non-target arthropods in a Spanish olive grove, J. Pest. Sci. 83 (2004) 121–133, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-009-0278-5, 2010. [32] M. Porcel, B. Cotes, J. Castro, M. Campos, The effect of resident vegetation cover on abundance and diversity of green lacewings (Neuroptera: chrysopidae) on olive trees, J. Pest. Sci. 90 (2004) 195–206, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-016-07485, 2017. [33] J.E. Gonz´ alez-Zamora, M.T. Alonso-L´ opez, Y. G´ omez-Regife, S. Ruiz-Mu˜ noz, Decreased water use in a super-intensive olive orchard mediates arthropod populations and pest damage, Agronomy 11 (2021) 1337, https://doi.org/ 10.3390/agronomy11071337. [34] J.E. Gonz´ alez-Zamora, C. Ruiz-Aranda, M. Rebollo-Valera, J.M. RodríguezMorales, S. Guti´ errez-Jim´ enez, Deficit water irrigation in an almond orchard can reduce pest damage, Agronomy 11 (2021) 2486, https://doi.org/10.3390/ agronomy11122486. [35] P.J. Van Den Brink, C.J.F. Ter Braak, Principal response curves: analysis of timedependent multivariate responses of biological community to stress, Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 18 (1999) 138–148, https://doi.org/10.1897/1551-5028(1999) 018<0138:PRCAOT>2.3.CO;2. [36] A. Auber, M. Travers-Trolet, M.C. Villanueva, B. Ernande, A new application of principal response curves for summarizing abrupt and cyclic shifts of communities over space, Ecosphere 8 (2017), https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2023. [37] M.F. Gonçalves, J.A. Pereira, Abundance and diversity of soil arthropods in the olive grove ecosystem, J. Insect Sci. 12 (2012) 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1673/ 031.012.2001. [38] A. Seniczak, S. Seniczak, I. García-Parra, F. Ferragut, P. Xamaní, R. Graczyk, E. Messeguer, R. Laborda, E. Rodrigo, Oribatid mites of conventional and organic J.E. Gonz´ alez-Zamora et al. European Journal of Soil Biology 122 (2024) 103668 7 vineyards in the Valencian Community, Spain, Acarologia 58 (2018) 119–133, https://doi.org/10.24349/acarologia/20184281. [39] M. Viketoft, L.G.A. Riggi, R. Bommarco, S. Hallin, A.R. Taylor, Type of organic fertilizer rather than organic amendment per se increases abundance of soil biota, PeerJ 9 (2021) e11204, https://doi.org/10.7717/PEERJ.11204/SUPP-3. [40] U. Gerson, R.L. Smiley, R. Ochoa, Anystidae, in: U. Gerson, R. Smiley, R. Ochoa (Eds.), Mites Pest Control, Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, UK, 2003, pp. 78–83. [41] L. Chen, P. Yuan, G. Pozsgai, P. Chen, H. Zhu, M. You, The impact of cover crops on the predatory mite Anystis baccarum (Acari, Anystidae) and the leafhopper pest Empoasca onukii (Hemiptera, Cicadellidae) in a tea plantation, Pest Manag. Sci. 75 (2019) 3371–3380, https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.5489. [42] T. Saito, M. Brownbridge, The generalist predatory mite Anystis baccarum (Acari: Anystidae) as a new biocontrol agent for western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis (Thysanoptera: thripidae), Exp. Appl. Acarol. 86 (2022) 357–369, https://doi.org/10.1007/S10493-022-00690-2/FIGURES/3. [43] C. Navarro-Campos, A. Pekas, M.L. Moraza, A. Aguilar, F. Garcia-Marí, Soildwelling predatory mites in citrus: their potential as natural enemies of thrips with special reference to Pezothrips kellyanus (Thysanoptera: thripidae), Biol. Control 63 (2012) 201–209, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2012.07.007. [44] L.H. Azevedo, M.P. Ferreira, R. de C. Castilho, P.H.D. Cançado, G.J. de Moraes, Potential of macrocheles species (Acari: Mesostigmata: macrochelidae) as control agents of harmful flies (Diptera) and biology of macrocheles embersoni azevedo, castilho and berto on stomoxys calcitrans (L.) and Musca domestica L. (Diptera: muscidae), Biol. Control 123 (2018) 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biocontrol.2018.04.013. [45] G.J. Messelink, Improving thrips control by the soil-dwelling predatory mite Macrocheles robustulus (Berlese) Evaluation of mirid predatory bugs in tomato, gerbera and roses View project Biological control of Echinothrips americanus by Phytoseiid predatory mites View pro, IOBC-WPRS Bull. 32 (2008) 135–138. [46] D. Rueda-Ramírez, A. Varela Ramírez, E. Ebratt Ravelo, G.J. de Moraes, Edaphic mesostigmatid mites (Acari: Mesostigmata) and thrips (Insecta: thysanoptera) in rose cultivation and secondary vegetation areas in the Bogot´ a plateau, Colombia, Int. J. Acarol 47 (2021) 8–22, https://doi.org/10.1080/01647954.2020.1866666. [47] A. Albertini, R. Pizzolotto, R. Petacchi, Carabid patterns in olive orchards and woody semi-natural habitats: first implications for conservation biological control against Bactrocera oleae, BioControl 62 (2017) 71–83, https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10526-016-9780-x. [48] B. Cotes, M. Campos, F. Pascual, P.A. García, F. Ruano, Comparing taxonomic levels of epigeal insects under different farming systems in Andalusian olive agroecosystems, Appl. Soil Ecol. 44 (2010) 228–236, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. apsoil.2009.12.011. [49] T.I. Morris, M. Campos, Entomofauna depredadora del suelo del olivar, Zool. Baetica 10 (1999) 149–160. [50] M. Ruiz-Torres, A. Montiel Bueno, Introducci´ on al conocimiento de la Entomofauna del olivar en la provincia de Ja´ en. Aspectos cualitativos. (I), Bol. Sanid. Vegetal Plagas 26 (2000) 129–147. [51] M. Campos, L. Fern´ andez, F. Ruano, B. Cotes, M. C´ ardenas, J. Castro, Short term response of ants to the removal of ground cover in organic olive orchards, Eur. J. Entomol. 108 (2011) 417–423, https://doi.org/10.14411/eje.2011.053. [52] V.D. Gkisakis, N. Volakakis, D. Kollaros, P. B` arberi, E.M. Kabourakis, Soil arthropod community in the olive agroecosystem: determined by environment and farming practices in different management systems and agroecological zones, Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 218 (2016) 178–189, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. agee.2015.11.026. [53] C. Martínez-Nú˜ nez, P.J. Rey, T. Salido, A.J. Manzaneda, F.M. Camacho, J. Isla, Ant community potential for pest control in olive groves: management and landscape effects, Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 305 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j. agee.2020.107185. [54] P.J. Rey, A.J. Manzaneda, F. Valera, J.M. Alc´ antara, R. Tarifa, J. Isla, J.L. MolinaPardo, G. Calvo, T. Salido, J.E. Guti´ errez, C. Ruiz, Landscape-moderated biodiversity effects of ground herb cover in olive groves: implications for regional biodiversity conservation, Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 277 (2019) 61–73, https://doi. org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.03.007. J.E. Gonz´ alez-Zamora et al. European Journal of Soil Biology 122 (2024) 103668 8