Abstract
Abstract Composting is an appealing way to reutilize the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (MSW). Beyond the obvious advantage of reducing urban waste, the use of MSW compost in agriculture entails other potential benefits, such as reducing the amount of mineral fertilizer applied to the field and providing a potentially higher quality alternative. However, some concerns may arise from its use, such as crop yield and quality alterations. This work studied the effect of fertilizing with compost obtained from the organic fraction of MSW, on crop yield, crop quality and phenolic content of tomato fruit. Experiments were conducted in the Barcelona area, using Solanum lycopersicum L., var. ‘Penjar’, a popular regional tomato. Compared with the use of mineral fertilizer (M), fertilization with MSW compost alone (C) or combined with mineral fertilizer (C + M) had no significant effect on tomato fruit quality characterized by weight, diameter or Brix, nor was there a significant effect on total phenolic content. In contrast, the C treatment altered the phenolic profile by enhancing a kaempferol derivative, and caused a 43 and 48% yield reduction compared with the C + M and M treatments, respectively. Overall, composted MSW + mineral fertilizer appeared to be the best strategy for the reutilization of MSW in tomato culture, as it did not compromise crop yield or fruit quality.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Compost alone or with mineral fertilizer had no significant effect on fruit weight, diameter or Brix.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicume0 - Treatment
- fertilization with MSW compost alone (C) or combined with mineral fertilizer (C + M)e0
- Outcome
- weight, diameter or Brixe0
- Direction
- no significant effecte0
- Comparator
- mineral fertilizer (M)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with the use of mineral fertilizer (M), fertilization with MSW compost alone (C) or combined with mineral fertilizer (C + M) had no significant effect on tomato fruit quality characterized by weight, diameter or Brix”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost treatments did not significantly affect total phenolic content.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- fertilization with MSW compost alone (C) or combined with mineral fertilizer (C + M)e0
- Outcome
- total phenolic contente0
- Direction
- no significant effecte0
- Comparator
- mineral fertilizer (M)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with the use of mineral fertilizer (M), fertilization with MSW compost alone (C) or combined with mineral fertilizer (C + M) had no significant effect on tomato fruit quality characterized by weight, diameter or Brix, nor was there a significant effect on total phenolic content”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost alone enhanced a kaempferol derivative in the fruit phenolic profile.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- C treatmente0
- Outcome
- kaempferol derivativee0
- Direction
- enhancinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the C treatment altered the phenolic profile by enhancing a kaempferol derivative”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost alone reduced yield by 43% relative to compost plus mineral fertilizer.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- C treatmente0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 43e0
- Comparator
- C + Me0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the C treatment altered the phenolic profile by enhancing a kaempferol derivative, and caused a 43 and 48% yield reduction compared with the C + M and M treatments, respectively”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost alone reduced yield by 48% relative to mineral fertilizer.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- C treatmente0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 48%e0
- Comparator
- M treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the C treatment altered the phenolic profile by enhancing a kaempferol derivative, and caused a 43 and 48% yield reduction compared with the C + M and M treatments, respectively”
t0“tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend compost plus mineral fertilizer for tomato cultivation.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Outcome
- composted MSW + mineral fertilizere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“composted MSW + mineral fertilizer appeared to be the best strategy for the reutilization of MSW in tomato culture, as it did not compromise crop yield or fruit quality”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · quality: sugar starch · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 129 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
140 papers more in this group
See all 144 papers →fertilization · quality: phytochemicals · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 155 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
167 papers more in this group
See all 171 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.