Paper · 2014 · Acta Horticulturae

TO EVALUATE THE EFFECT OF GREEN WASTE COMPOST ON NITROUS OXIDE EMISSIONS FROM HORTICULTURE

S.M. Vaughan; S.M. Harper; R.C. Dalal; et al.

4
claims
9
verbatim quotes
0
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

A field study was conducted over 9 months to measure the short-term effect of green waste compost (GWC) application on crop yields, nitrogen (N) availability and emissions of the greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide (N O). The GWC was applied at 0, 2 or 4 t/C ha as GWC with either 0 or 150 kg N/ha fertiliser. The hypothesis was that GWC would lower the soils mineral N content, via microbial immobilisation, resulting in a reduced substrate for microbially mediated nitrification and denitrification reactions and, therefore, reduced NO. However, high N fertiliser rates, the potential re-mineralisation of N from the microbial biomass, and N released from the decomposition of GWC, could provide N substrate for increased N O emissions via nitrification. Additionally, the increased oxygen demand of the microbial biomass, from GWC addition, could increase N O emissions via denitrification. The trial commenced one month after a postharvest GWC application, at lettuce (Latuca sativa 'Pattagonia') transplant and was terminated after the following sorghum (Sorghum bicolour (L.) Moench) crop. The application of GWC did not cause prolonged N immobilisation nor did it affect crop yields. Application of GWC did not significantly affect NO flux. The application of N fertiliser (as 3 applications of 50 kg N/ha) significantly increased NO and CO fluxes (P

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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Green waste compost did not affect crop yields.

Taxon
lettuceLactuca sativae1
Treatment
GWCe0
Outcome
crop yieldse0
Direction
nor did it affecte0

Not reportedComparator

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

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The application of GWC did not cause prolonged N immobilisation nor did it affect crop yields.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1090–1184 · show in text ↑
e1

“lettuce (Latuca sativa 'Pattagonia')”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 958–994 · show in text ↑
e2

“sorghum (Sorghum bicolour (L.) Moench)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1045–1083 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Green waste compost did not cause prolonged nitrogen immobilisation.

Taxon
lettuceLactuca sativae1
Treatment
GWCe0
Outcome
N immobilisatione0
Direction
did not causee0

Not reportedComparator

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

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The application of GWC did not cause prolonged N immobilisation nor did it affect crop yields.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1090–1184 · show in text ↑
e1

“lettuce (Latuca sativa 'Pattagonia')”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 958–994 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Green waste compost did not significantly affect nitrous oxide flux.

Taxon
lettuceLactuca sativae1
Treatment
GWCe0
Outcome
NO fluxe0
Direction
did not significantly affecte0

Not reportedComparator

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

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Application of GWC did not significantly affect NO flux.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1185–1241 · show in text ↑
e1

“lettuce (Latuca sativa 'Pattagonia')”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 958–994 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen fertilizer significantly increased NO and CO fluxes.

Taxon
lettuceLactuca sativae1
Treatment
N fertiliser (as 3 applications of 50 kg N/ha)e0
Outcome
NO and CO fluxese0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The application of N fertiliser (as 3 applications of 50 kg N/ha) significantly increased NO and CO fluxes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1242–1348 · show in text ↑
e1

“lettuce (Latuca sativa 'Pattagonia')”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 958–994 · show in text ↑

nitrogen · molecular: metabolites · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results

18 papers: 9 positive, 9 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

14 papers more in this group

See all 18 papers →

fertilization · molecular: metabolites · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results

63 papers: 51 positive, 12 negative or no effect

11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 51 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

59 papers more in this group

See all 63 papers →

fertilization · yield · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results

249 papers: 213 positive, 36 negative or no effect

35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 213 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

245 papers more in this group

See all 249 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.