Search

Menu
Search
in Ecology

A looming belowground threat: assessment of climate-driven global expansion risk of Meloidogyne spp. in tobacco-growing regions

98 Views


Abstract

The global distribution of tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum), a crop of major economic importance, and its soil-borne pest root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.), which cause substantial yield losses worldwide, is strongly influenced by climatic and soil edaphic factors. Identifying regions of spatial overlap between tobacco suitability and nematode occurrence is essential for assessing vulnerability to pest-induced yield losses under changing environmental conditions. In this study, species distribution modelling was applied to quantify current and projected global suitability for Nicotiana tabacum and Meloidogyne spp. using the Maximum Entropy (MaxEnt) modelling across baseline (1970–2000), mid-century (2021–2040), and late-century (2081–2100) periods under three Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP126, SSP245, and SSP585). Models were developed using global occurrence records and predictor sets comprising 19 bioclimatic variables, elevation, and soil edaphic properties, including soil texture, soil organic carbon, and soil pH, evaluated both jointly and independently to disentangle their relative contributions. Model performance was high for Meloidogyne spp. (training AUC up to 0.93) and moderate for N. tabacum (AUC ≈ 0.78), indicating reliable discrimination of suitable habitats. Baseline projections revealed extensive suitability overlap in major tobacco-producing regions such as South and Southeast Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and parts of South America. Soil edaphic factors emerged as primary determinants of nematode suitability, whereas tobacco distribution was more strongly constrained by temperature and precipitation seasonality. Future projections indicated progressive contraction and fragmentation of tobacco-suitable areas, accompanied by pronounced spatial restructuring of nematode suitability and an expansion of high-risk overlap zones under intermediate and high-emission scenarios. These results demonstrate that climate change may intensify crop–pest interactions in specific regions, emphasizing the importance of integrating climatic and soil constraints into long-term agricultural risk assessment and management strategies.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article (Result, Discussion Section and Plots). The data that support the findings of this study are available from [https://www.gbif.org/, https://www.isric.org/, https://www.worldclim.org/].

References

  1. Depta, A. & Doroszewska, T. Diversity of Nicotiana species. Pol. J. Agron. 52(1), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.26114/pja.iung.521.2023.52.13 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  2. FAOstat. Tobacco production statistics. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/faostat/ (2001).

  3. Cox, R. J. Soil and environmental factors affecting tobacco growth. Tob. Sci. 12, 30–35 (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Johnson C. S., Chinheya C. Nematode parasites of tobacco. In Sikora R. A., Coyne D. L., Bridge J., Timper P. (Eds.), Plant Parasitic Nematodes in Subtropical and Tropical Agriculture (2nd ed., pp. xxi + 871). CABI Publishing. ISBN 0–85199–727–9. (2005).

  5. Parker, M. B. The influence of soil properties on tobacco yield and quality. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 50(1), 102–106 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Stephenson, M. G., Jones, R. L. & Walker, M. E. Environmental and soil factors affecting tobacco growth. Tob. Sci. 31, 15–21 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  7. FAOstat. Crops and livestock products: Tobacco. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/faostat/ (2021).

  8. Euromonitor International. Global tobacco industry overview and forecast. Retrieved from https://www.euromonitor.com/ (2022).

  9. Tang, Z. et al. Climatic factors determine the yield and quality of Honghe flue-cured tobacco. Sci. Rep. 10, 19868. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-76919-0 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Back, M. A., Haydock, P. P. J. & Jenkinson, P. Disease complexes involving plant-parasitic nematodes and soilborne pathogens. Plant Pathol. 51(6), 683–697. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3059.2002.00785.x (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Conceição, I. L. Nematode diseases and their management in crop plants. Agronomy 15(12), 2843 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Huang, W. K., Cui, J. K., Liu, B., Kong, L. A. & Peng, H. Global losses due to plant-parasitic nematodes: Current status and future perspectives. Crop. Prot. 134, 105155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2020.105155 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nemys eds. Nemys: world data base of nematodes. https://nemys.ugent.be. https://doi.org/10.14284/366 (2025).

  14. Khan M. R., Quintanilla M. (Eds.) (2023). Nematode diseases of crops and their sustainable management. Academic Press. ISBN: 9780323912266.

  15. Shepherd, R. L., Hawks, S. N. & Moon, H. A. Effect of Meloidogyne spp. on flue-cured tobacco. Tob. Sci. 33, 57–61 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Tisdale, W. H. The relation of nematodes to tobacco diseases. J. Agric. Res. 21, 531–539 (1922).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Oostenbrink, M. Major characteristics of the relation between nematodes and plants. Meded. Landbouwhogesch. Opzoekingsstn. Staat Gent 36, 287–290 (1966).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Seinhorst, J. W. The relationship between nematode density and damage to plants. Nematologica 11(3), 137–154 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Seinhorst, J. W. Dynamics of populations of plant parasitic nematodes. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 8, 131–156 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Daulton, R. A. C. Control of root-knot nematodes in tobacco with fumigants. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 4(16), 344–349 (1964).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ferris, H. Effects of soil fumigation on root-knot nematode and associated diseases. J. Nematol. 6(3), 172–178 (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Nasbaum, C. J. Soil fumigation and nematode suppression. Nematologica 5(1), 33–42 (1960).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Nasbaum, C. J. The role of nematode population density in crop damage. Nematologica 6(3), 249–256 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Obidari, T., Filali Alaoui, I., Aït Hamza, M., El Mousadik, A. & Mayad, E. Diversity, distribution, and biological control strategies of plant parasitic nematodes: Insights from Morocco within a global context — a comprehensive review and future research perspectives. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 131(6), 1779–1802. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41348-024-00972-4 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Cui, Y., Liu, T., Liu, Y., Wang, B. & He, Y. Mechanical wounding by root-knot nematodes facilitates invasion of Ralstonia solanacearum and Phytophthora spp. in tobacco. Plant Pathol. J. 37(1), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.5423/PPJ.OA.07.2020.0133 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Wang, K. H., McSorley, R. & Gallaher, R. N. Effect of soil pH on Meloidogyne hapla and plant health. Nematropica 39(1), 17–25 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Luambano, N. D., Mbega, E. R. & Ndakidemi, P. A. Suppression of Meloidogyne incognita by Pochonia chlamydosporia under different soil pH and organic carbon conditions. Int. J. Nematol. 25(1), 19–26 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Xing, L. J. & Westphal, A. Predicting Meloidogyne incognita damage to watermelon using soil health indicators. Plant Dis. 96(8), 1212–1218. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-10-11-0883 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Song, X., Li, H., Zhang, X., Zhao, X. & Wang, Q. Predicting the potential distribution of Meloidogyne enterolobii on guava in China under climate change scenarios. Pest Manag. Sci. 79(3), 772–783. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.7283 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Phillips, S. J., Anderson, R. P. & Schapire, R. E. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol. Model. 190(3–4), 231–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.03.026 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  31. GBIF.org. GBIF occurrence download. Global Biodiversity Information Facility. https://www.gbif.org/ (2023).

  32. Aiello-Lammens, M. E., Boria, R. A., Radosavljevic, A., Vilela, B. & Anderson, R. P. spThin: An R package for spatial thinning of species occurrence records for use in ecological niche models. Ecography 38(5), 541–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.01132 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: New 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37(12), 4302–4315. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5086 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  34. IPCC. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. (2021).

  35. Hengl, T. et al. SoilGrids250m: Global gridded soil information based on machine learning. PLoS ONE 12(2), e0169748. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169748 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hijmans, R. J., Phillips, S., Leathwick, J., Elith, J. dismo: Species distribution modeling (R package). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dismo (2017).

  37. Hijmans, R. J. terra: Spatial data analysis (R package). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=terra (2024).

  38. Muscarella, R. et al. ENMeval: An R package for conducting spatially independent evaluations and estimating optimal model complexity for Maxent ecological niche models. Methods. Ecol. Evol. 5(11), 1198–1205. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12261 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Pebesma, E. Simple features for R: Standardized support for spatial vector data. R. J. 10(1), 439–446. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2018-009 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Naimi, B., Hamm, N. A. S., Groen, T. A., Skidmore, A. K. & Toxopeus, A. G. Where is positional uncertainty a problem for species distribution modelling?. Ecography 37(2), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.00205.x (2015) ((Associated with the usdm package.)).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Bivand, R., Keitt, T., Rowlingson, B. rgdal: Bindings for the ‘Geospatial’ Data Abstraction Library (R package). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rgdal (2024).

  43. Bastille-Rousseau, G., et al. exactextractr: Fast extraction from raster datasets using polygons (R package). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=exactextractr (2023).

  44. Allouche, O., Tsoar, A. & Kadmon, R. Assessing the accuracy of species distribution models: Prevalence, kappa, and the true skill statistic (TSS). J. Appl. Ecol. 43(6), 1223–1232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01214.x (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Dormann, C. F. et al. Collinearity: A review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.07348.x (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Fielding, A. H. & Bell, J. F. A review of methods for the assessment of prediction errors in conservation presence/absence models. Environ. Conserv. 24(1), 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892997000088 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Elith, J. et al. A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Divers. Distrib. 17(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00725.x (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Merow, C., Smith, M. J. & Silander, J. A. Jr. A practical guide to MaxEnt for modeling species’ distributions: What it does, and why inputs and settings matter. Ecography 36(10), 1058–1069. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2013.07872.x (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Jones, R. A. C., Haigh, A. M. & Barbetti, M. J. Influence of climate change on plant disease infections and epidemics caused by viruses and soilborne pathogens. Plant. Pathol. 61(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2011.02515.x (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Zhao, Q., Bai, Y., Zhan, Z. & Wang, J. Modeling climate-driven shifts in habitat suitability for global cash crops under SSP scenarios. Agric. For. Meteorol. 319, 108944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2022.108944 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  51. FAO. The state of agricultural commodity markets 2022. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2022).

  52. Moens, M., Perry, R. N. & Starr, J. L. Meloidogyne species – a diverse and important group of root-knot nematodes. In Root-Knot Nematodes (eds Perry, R. N. et al.) 1–17 (CABI, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Timper, P. Utilization of biological control for managing plant-parasitic nematodes. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 27, 75–82 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Tisdale S. L., Nelson W. L., Beaton J. D., Havlin J. L. Soil Fertility and Fertilizers. Macmillan Publishing Company. (1993).

  55. Viaene N., Coyne D. L., Kerry B. R. Biological and Cultural Management. In Perry R. N., Moens M. (Eds.), Plant Nematology (2nd ed., pp. 346–369). CABI. (2013).

  56. Chaplin, J. F. The effect of nitrogen and potassium on yield and quality of flue-cured tobacco. Tob. Int. 177(22), 54–58 (1975).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Neher, D. A. Ecology of plant and free-living nematodes in natural and agricultural soil. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 48, 371–394 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Oka, Y. Mechanisms of nematode suppression by organic soil amendments–a review. Appl. Soil Ecol. 44(2), 101–115 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Pimentel, D. Soil erosion: A food and environmental threat. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 8(1), 119–137 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Trudgill, D. L. & Blok, V. C. Apomictic, polyphagous root-knot nematodes: Exceptionally successful and damaging biotrophic root pathogens. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 39, 53–77 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Akhtar, M. & Malik, A. Roles of organic soil amendments and soil organisms in the biological control of plant-parasitic nematodes: A review. Bioresource Technol. 74(1), 35–47 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Hallmann, J., Quadt-Hallmann, A., Mahaffee, W. F. & Kloepper, J. W. Bacterial endophytes in agricultural crops. Can. J. Microbiol. 43(10), 895–914 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the Director, Zoological Survey of India, for providing all necessary facilities and granting permission to publish the results of this study.

Funding

There was no external funding for the work done. The research was carried out by the Zoological Survey of India.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Zoological Survey of India, M-Block, New Alipore, Kolkata, 700053, India

    Samprit Deb Roy, Debabrata Sen, Gurupada Mandal & Dhriti Banerjee

Authors

  1. Samprit Deb Roy
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Debabrata Sen
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gurupada Mandal
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dhriti Banerjee
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: Dhriti Banerjee, Gurupada Mandal, Debabrata Sen, Samprit Deb Roy Data Curation: Samprit Deb Roy Formal Analysis: Debabrata Sen Funding Acquisition: Dhriti Banerjee, Gurupada Mandal Investigation: Samprit Deb Roy, Debabrata Sen Methodology: Samprit Deb Roy, Debabrata Sen Project Administration: Dhriti Banerjee, Gurupada Mandal Resources: Dhriti Banerjee, Gurupada Mandal, Debabrata Sen Software: Samprit Deb Roy Supervision: Dhriti Banerjee, Gurupada Mandal, Debabrata Sen Validation: Debabrata Sen Visualization: Debabrata Sen, Samprit Deb Roy Writing – Original Draft Preparation: Samprit Deb Roy, Debabrata Sen Writing – Review & Editing: Debabrata Sen, Dhriti Banerjee, Gurupada Mandal.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to
Debabrata Sen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roy, S.D., Sen, D., Mandal, G. et al. A looming belowground threat: assessment of climate-driven global expansion risk of Meloidogyne spp. in tobacco-growing regions.
Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-45118-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-45118-8

Keywords

  • Root-knot nematodes

  • Nicotiana tabacum
  • Climate change
  • Global distribution
  • Habitat suitability
  • MaxEnt modelling

Source: Ecology - nature.com

Cultivar evolution underpins maize yield sensitivity to adverse climate conditions

Potassium fertilization enhances both cereal yield and soil organic carbon: a meta-analysis

This portal is not a newspaper as it is updated without periodicity. It cannot be considered an editorial product pursuant to law n. 62 of 7.03.2001. The author of the portal is not responsible for the content of comments to posts, the content of the linked sites. Some texts or images included in this portal are taken from the internet and, therefore, considered to be in the public domain; if their publication is violated, the copyright will be promptly communicated via e-mail. They will be immediately removed.

Back to Top
Close