Paper · 2005 · Biological Agriculture & Horticulture

Soil Fertility, Yield and Nutrient Contents of Vegetable Crops after 12 Years of Compost or Fertilizer Amendments

P. R. Warman

11
claims
21
verbatim quotes
54
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

ABSTRACT A study of compost- versus conventionally-fertilized vegetable plots was conducted for 12 years in a sandy loam soil near Truro, Nova Scotia. The fertility treatments have been applied annually to six rotation plots planted with six to eight different vegetable crops. The composts consist of animal manure, food waste, yard waste and straw or racetrack manure bedding. This paper investigated the last year of the study (2001), which examined levels of nutrients in soil, leaf tissue and the edible portion of the plant, and crop yields. The fresh weight yields from the six plots showed that the compost treatment resulted in numerically, but not significantly, higher yields for the carrots, peppers, onions and tomatoes, and significantly higher yields for green and yellow beans. Cauliflower and Brussels sprouts yields, however, were higher in the fertilizer-amended plot. Soils with compost had higher pH, CEC, C, N and Mehlich-3 extractable levels of P, Ca, Mg, MN, Zn and B compared with the fertilized plots. However, the increased nutrients in the compost-amended soil did not increase the nutrients in the leaf tissue or the edible portion of the plant. Of the 16 elements tested, only P and K were higher in the fertilizer-amended plant leaf tissue, while levels of P were significantly higher in the edible portion of the plant. This study demonstrated that the long-term use of compost can produce similar yields and elemental analysis for most crops in compost- amended and conventionally-fertilized soils.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 11

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Compost treatment gave numerically but not significantly higher yields of carrots, peppers, onions and tomatoes than conventional fertilizer.

Taxon
vegetable cropst0
Treatment
compost treatmente1
Outcome
yieldse1
Direction
highere1
Qualifier
numerically, but not significantlye1
Comparator
conventionally-fertilizede0

Verbatim

t0

“Soil Fertility, Yield and Nutrient Contents of Vegetable Crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–62 · show in text ↑
e0

“compost- versus conventionally-fertilized vegetable plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 20–77 · show in text ↑
e1

“the compost treatment resulted in numerically, but not significantly, higher yields for the carrots, peppers, onions and tomatoes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 603–732 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Compost treatment gave significantly higher yields of green and yellow beans than conventional fertilizer.

Taxon
green and yellow beanse2
Treatment
compost treatmente1
Outcome
yieldse2
Direction
highere2
Comparator
conventionally-fertilizede0

Verbatim

e0

“compost- versus conventionally-fertilized vegetable plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 20–77 · show in text ↑
e1

“the compost treatment resulted in numerically, but not significantly, higher yields for the carrots, peppers, onions and tomatoes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 603–732 · show in text ↑
e2

“significantly higher yields for green and yellow beans”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 738–792 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cauliflower and Brussels sprouts yields were higher in the fertilizer-amended plot than in the compost plot.

Treatment
fertilizer-amended plote3
Outcome
yieldse3
Direction
highere3
Comparator
composte0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Brassica oleracea var. botrytis
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis · TaxonSusan Slater · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Brassica oleracea var. gemmifera
Brassica oleracea var. gemmifera · TaxonEric Hunt · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“compost- versus conventionally-fertilized vegetable plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 20–77 · show in text ↑
e3

“Cauliflower and Brussels sprouts yields, however, were higher in the fertilizer-amended plot”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 794–886 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soils with compost had higher pH, CEC and carbon than fertilized plots.

Treatment
composte4
Outcome
pH, CEC, Ce4
Direction
highere4
Comparator
fertilized plotse4

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e4

“Soils with compost had higher pH, CEC, C, N and Mehlich-3 extractable levels of P, Ca, Mg, MN, Zn and B compared with the fertilized plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 888–1026 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soils with compost had higher N and Mehlich-3 extractable P and Ca than fertilized plots.

Treatment
composte4
Outcome
N and Mehlich-3 extractable levels of P, Cae4
Direction
highere4
Comparator
fertilized plotse4

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e4

“Soils with compost had higher pH, CEC, C, N and Mehlich-3 extractable levels of P, Ca, Mg, MN, Zn and B compared with the fertilized plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 888–1026 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soils with compost had higher Mg and Mn than fertilized plots.

Treatment
composte4
Outcome
Mg, MNe4
Direction
highere4
Comparator
fertilized plotse4

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e4

“Soils with compost had higher pH, CEC, C, N and Mehlich-3 extractable levels of P, Ca, Mg, MN, Zn and B compared with the fertilized plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 888–1026 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soils with compost had higher Zn and B than fertilized plots.

Treatment
composte4
Outcome
Zn and Be4
Direction
highere4
Comparator
fertilized plotse4

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e4

“Soils with compost had higher pH, CEC, C, N and Mehlich-3 extractable levels of P, Ca, Mg, MN, Zn and B compared with the fertilized plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 888–1026 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Increased soil nutrients under compost did not increase nutrients in leaf tissue or the edible portion of vegetables.

Taxon
vegetable cropst0
Treatment
compost-amended soile5
Outcome
nutrients in the leaf tissue or the edible portione5
Direction
did not increasee5

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“Soil Fertility, Yield and Nutrient Contents of Vegetable Crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–62 · show in text ↑
e5

“the increased nutrients in the compost-amended soil did not increase the nutrients in the leaf tissue or the edible portion of the plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1037–1173 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Of 16 elements tested, only P and K were higher in fertilizer-amended vegetable leaf tissue than in compost-amended.

Taxon
vegetable cropst0
Organ / stage
leaf tissuee6
Treatment
fertilizer-amendede6
Outcome
P and Ke6
Direction
highere6
Qualifier
16 elements testede6
Comparator
compost- amendede7

Verbatim

t0

“Soil Fertility, Yield and Nutrient Contents of Vegetable Crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–62 · show in text ↑
e6

“Of the 16 elements tested, only P and K were higher in the fertilizer-amended plant leaf tissue”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1175–1270 · show in text ↑
e7

“compost- amended and conventionally-fertilized soils”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1478–1530 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Levels of P were significantly higher in the edible portion of vegetables.

Taxon
vegetable cropst0
Organ / stage
edible portione7
Outcome
levels of Pe7
Direction
highere7

Verbatim

t0

“Soil Fertility, Yield and Nutrient Contents of Vegetable Crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–62 · show in text ↑
e7

“levels of P were significantly higher in the edible portion of the plant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1278–1350 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Long-term compost use gave similar yields and elemental analysis for most vegetable crops compared with conventionally fertilized soils.

Taxon
vegetable cropst0
Treatment
long-term use of composte7
Outcome
yields and elemental analysise7
Direction
similare7
Comparator
conventionally-fertilized soilse7

Verbatim

t0

“Soil Fertility, Yield and Nutrient Contents of Vegetable Crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–62 · show in text ↑
e7

“the long-term use of compost can produce similar yields and elemental analysis for most crops in compost- amended and conventionally-fertilized soils”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1381–1530 · show in text ↑

fertilization · yield · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Positive and negative results

496 papers: 445 positive, 51 negative or no effect

50 papers in the same direction as this paper · 445 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. negative

492 papers more in this group

See all 496 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.