## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Field 1**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{c} **Crop in** \\ **Sequence 2** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{**Tillage 3**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**RQ of** _Stencocarpella_ _mydis_ _graminearum_**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **_Fusarium_** \\ _verticilloides_ \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **_Fusarium_** \\ _verticilloides_ \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \cline{4-7}  & & & & & & \\ \hline
1 & M-S & No & 1 & 95 a * & 85 b & 33 c \\
2 & M-S & No & 8.49 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-11}\) & 100 a & 100 a & 100 a \\
3 & M-B-S & No & 6.06 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-11}\) & 10 c & 14 c & 10 c \\
4 & M-S & No & 7.10 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-10}\) & 5 c & 24 c & 5 c \\
5 & M-B & No & 1.61 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-10}\) & 71 b & 62 b & 38 c \\
6 & M-S & No & 1.31 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-10}\) & 95 a & 95 a & 100 a \\
7 & S-M-S & No & 3.93 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-9}\) & 71 b & 100 a & 90 b \\
8 & S-M-S & No & 8.59 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-9}\) & 33 c & 67 b & 29 c \\
9 & M-W-S & No & 4.87 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-11}\) & 71 b & 62 b & 71 b \\
10 & M-M & No & 6.34 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-11}\) & 76 b & 95 a & 86 b \\
11 & M-M & No & 1.58 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-10}\) & 100 a & 100 a & 86 b \\
12 & M-W-M & No & 3.90 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-10}\) & 29 c & 29 c & 43 c \\
13 & S-W-M & No & 9.80 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-7}\) & 95 a & 95 a & 100 a \\
14 & M-M & No & 7.89 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-11}\) & 86 b & 71 b & 76 b \\
15 & M-B & Yes & 1 & 38 c & 76 b & 33 c \\
16 & M-S & No & 1 & 100 a & 100 a & 100 a \\
17 & M-M & No & 1.70 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-11}\) & 33 c & 100 a & 100 a \\
18 & M-S & No & 1 & 95 a & 100 a & 95 a \\
19 & M-M & No & 2.15 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-12}\) & 100 a & 100 a & 100 a \\
20 & M-S & No & 1 & 76 b & 100 a & 81 b \\
21 & M-M & No & 1 & 86 b & 90 a & 95 a \\
22 & M-S & No & 5.86 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-12}\) & 100 a & 95 a & 100 a \\
23 & M-M & No & 1.23 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-11}\) & 100 a & 100 a & 95 a \\
24 & M-M & Yes & 1 & 95 a & 100 a & 100 a \\
25 & M-S & No & 1 & 100 a & 100 a & 100 a \\
26 & M-M & No & 7.71 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-12}\) & 100 a & 100 a & 100 a \\
27 & M-S & No & 8.52 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-11}\) & 81 b & 71 b & 71 a \\
28 & M-S & No & 4.18 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-8}\) & 95 a & 100 a & 100 a \\
29 & M-S & No & 1 & 81 b & 86 b & 86 b \\ \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{1}\) Field locations are available in Supplementary Table S1. \({}^{2}\) Crop in sequence: M-S (Maize-Soybean), M-B-S (Maize-Bean-Soybean), M-B (Maize-Bean), S-M-S (Soybean-Maize-Soybean), M-M-(Maize-Maize), S-W-M (Soybean-Wheat-Maize), and M-B (Maize-Bean). \({}^{3}\) Tillage system: No (No-(tillage) and Yes (Tillage). \({}^{*}\) Lowercase letters in columns indicate no statistical differences by Scott–Knott cluster analysis (\(p\leq 0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Relative quantification (RQ) of _Stencocarpella_ spp. (DNA copies) determined by qPCR in stubble and colonization of baits (%) by soil-borne pathogens (_Stencocarpella maydis, Fusarium graminearum_, and _Fusarium verticilloides_) in collected soils. Based on the obtained results (Table 1), the sampled sites were classified into three groups for each pathogen, following these characteristics: suppressive (considerable bait colonization reduction), intermediate (some effect in bait colonization reduction), and conducive (considerable bait colonization increase). From the 29 sampled fields, only 3 fields (3, 4, and 12) were classified as suppressive (all were classified as 'c' in Scott-Knott cluster analysis) to all tested pathogens (Table 1). In addition, fields 3, 4, 8, 12, 15, and 17 were suppressive against _S. maydis_ and fields 3, 4, and 12 were suppressive against _F. graminearum_. For _F. verticillioides_, fields 3, 4, 8, 12, 15, and 17 were considered suppressive. Whereas only 3 fields (5, 9, and 14) were classified as intermediate (all were classified as 'b' in Scott-Knott cluster analysis) to all tested pathogens. Thus, fields 5, 7, 9, 10, 14, 20, and 21 were intermediate against _S.