Paper · 2000 · Arboricultural Journal

EVALUATION OF ORGANIC LANDSCAPE MULCHES: COMPOSITION AND NUTRIENT RELEASE CHARACTERISTICS

J. S. Pickering; A. Shepherd

8
claims
16
verbatim quotes
30
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Summary A 12 month field experiment was undertaken on a sandy loam soil to investigate nutrient content and nutrient release characteristics of six organic landscape mulches; cocoa shells, coarse conifer bark chips, wood chips, garden compost, horse manure and finely ground conifer bark. Comparisons were made against black polythene mulch and a bare earth control. Mulch treatments were applied to bare soil plots, left for 12 months and then cleared before sowing a crop of agricultural mustard (Sinapis alba L.). Soil analysis was carried out at the start and end of the experiment, fresh and dry masses of the aerial portion of the mustard crop were determined and their nutrient contents assessed. Initial mulch pH was not a good indicator of how that mulch would affect the underlying soil pH over time. After 12 months the organic mulches had either no significant effect on soil pH or increased it slightly relative to unamended soil. In contrast, initial nutrient content of the organic mulches proved to be a useful indicator of their impact on available nutrient levels in the soil and of their relative benefits to plant growth. Horse manure, garden compost and cocoa shell mulches, with low C:N ratios and high potassium content resulted in significant increases in soil nutrients and supported the highest yields. After twelve months, no evidence of nitrogen immobilisation or growth suppression under the wood or bark-based mulches was observed. None of the mulches had a significant effect on the underlying soil organic matter content during the experiment.

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 8

Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Initial mulch pH poorly predicted subsequent soil pH.

Taxon
agricultural mustard (Sinapis alba L.)Sinapis albat0
Treatment
mulch pHe0
Outcome
underlying soil pHe0

Not reportedDirection

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

Sinapis alba
Sinapis alba · TaxonAriel Palmon · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Initial mulch pH was not a good indicator of how that mulch would affect the underlying soil pH over time”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 704–809 · show in text ↑
t0

“agricultural mustard (Sinapis alba L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 477–515 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Organic mulches had no significant or slight positive effects on soil pH after 12 months.

Taxon
agricultural mustard (Sinapis alba L.)Sinapis albat0
Treatment
organic mulchese0
Outcome
soil pHe0
Direction
increased it slightlye0
Qualifier
either no significant effect on soil pH or increased it slightlye0
Comparator
unamended soile0

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

Sinapis alba
Sinapis alba · TaxonAriel Palmon · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“After 12 months the organic mulches had either no significant effect on soil pH or increased it slightly relative to unamended soil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 811–942 · show in text ↑
t0

“agricultural mustard (Sinapis alba L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 477–515 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Initial mulch nutrient content predicted soil nutrient availability and relative plant-growth benefit.

Taxon
agricultural mustard (Sinapis alba L.)Sinapis albat0
Treatment
organic mulchese0
Outcome
relative benefits to plant growthe0

Not reportedDirection

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

Sinapis alba
Sinapis alba · TaxonAriel Palmon · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“initial nutrient content of the organic mulches proved to be a useful indicator of their impact on available nutrient levels in the soil and of their relative benefits to plant growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 957–1140 · show in text ↑
t0

“agricultural mustard (Sinapis alba L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 477–515 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Horse manure increased soil nutrients and supported the highest mustard yields.

Taxon
agricultural mustard (Sinapis alba L.)Sinapis albat0
Treatment
Horse manuree0
Outcome
soil nutrients and supported the highest yieldse0
Direction
significant increasese0

Not reportedComparator

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

Sinapis alba
Sinapis alba · TaxonAriel Palmon · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Horse manure, garden compost and cocoa shell mulches, with low C:N ratios and high potassium content resulted in significant increases in soil nutrients and supported the highest yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1142–1327 · show in text ↑
t0

“agricultural mustard (Sinapis alba L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 477–515 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

garden compost increased soil nutrients and supported the highest mustard yields.

Taxon
agricultural mustard (Sinapis alba L.)Sinapis albat0
Treatment
garden composte0
Outcome
soil nutrients and supported the highest yieldse0
Direction
significant increasese0

Not reportedComparator

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

Sinapis alba
Sinapis alba · TaxonAriel Palmon · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Horse manure, garden compost and cocoa shell mulches, with low C:N ratios and high potassium content resulted in significant increases in soil nutrients and supported the highest yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1142–1327 · show in text ↑
t0

“agricultural mustard (Sinapis alba L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 477–515 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

cocoa shell mulches increased soil nutrients and supported the highest mustard yields.

Taxon
agricultural mustard (Sinapis alba L.)Sinapis albat0
Treatment
cocoa shell mulchese0
Outcome
soil nutrients and supported the highest yieldse0
Direction
significant increasese0

Not reportedComparator

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

Sinapis alba
Sinapis alba · TaxonAriel Palmon · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Horse manure, garden compost and cocoa shell mulches, with low C:N ratios and high potassium content resulted in significant increases in soil nutrients and supported the highest yields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1142–1327 · show in text ↑
t0

“agricultural mustard (Sinapis alba L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 477–515 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wood and bark mulches showed no evidence of mustard growth suppression after twelve months.

Taxon
agricultural mustard (Sinapis alba L.)Sinapis albat0
Treatment
wood or bark-based mulchese0
Outcome
growth suppressione0
Direction
no evidencee0
Qualifier
After twelve monthse0

Not reportedComparator

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

Sinapis alba
Sinapis alba · TaxonAriel Palmon · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“After twelve months, no evidence of nitrogen immobilisation or growth suppression under the wood or bark-based mulches was observed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1329–1460 · show in text ↑
t0

“agricultural mustard (Sinapis alba L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 477–515 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

No mulch significantly changed soil organic matter content.

Taxon
agricultural mustard (Sinapis alba L.)Sinapis albat0
Treatment
mulchese0
Outcome
underlying soil organic matter contente0
Direction
Nonee0
Qualifier
during the experimente0

Not reportedComparator

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

Sinapis alba
Sinapis alba · TaxonAriel Palmon · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“None of the mulches had a significant effect on the underlying soil organic matter content during the experiment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1462–1574 · show in text ↑
t0

“agricultural mustard (Sinapis alba L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 477–515 · show in text ↑

fertilization · yield · Sinapis alba (white mustard)Positive and negative results

16 papers: 15 positive, 1 negative or no effect

14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

12 papers more in this group

See all 16 papers →

mulching · yield · Sinapis alba (white mustard)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 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.