Abstract
Compost mulch derived from municipal solid wastes increased organic matter content, available phosphorous, exchangeable potassium of soil and improved its porosity and water retention capacity. It also moderated diurnal temperature fluctations of soil and reduced evaporation of water. The compost treatment influenced the leaf levels of some nutrients but all elements were well above minimum levels. The data show that the nutrients uptake was more inflenced by the physical conditions of the soil (temperature, moisture) than by the availability of nutrients in the soil. In all cases the compost mulching brought about considerable advantages in the soil management on the grapevine and apple-tree rows, limiting chemical weed control and allowing for the substitution of chemical fertilizers with no loss in vigour, yield or quality of fruits.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Compost mulch increased soil organic matter, available phosphorous, and exchangeable potassium.
- Taxon
- APPLE TREES AND GRAPEVINESt0
- Treatment
- Compost mulch derived from municipal solid wastese0
- Outcome
- organic matter content, available phosphorous, exchangeable potassium of soile0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Compost mulch derived from municipal solid wastes increased organic matter content, available phosphorous, exchangeable potassium of soil”
t0“APPLE TREES AND GRAPEVINES”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost improved soil porosity and water retention.
- Taxon
- APPLE TREES AND GRAPEVINESt0
- Treatment
- Compost mulche1
- Outcome
- porosity and water retention capacitye0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“improved its porosity and water retention capacity”
t0“APPLE TREES AND GRAPEVINES”
e1“Compost mulch derived from municipal solid wastes”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost moderated soil daily temperature fluctuations.
- Taxon
- APPLE TREES AND GRAPEVINESt0
- Treatment
- compost mulchinge1
- Outcome
- diurnal temperature fluctations of soile0
- Direction
- moderatede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“It also moderated diurnal temperature fluctations of soil”
t0“APPLE TREES AND GRAPEVINES”
e1“compost mulching”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost reduced soil water evaporation.
- Taxon
- APPLE TREES AND GRAPEVINESt0
- Treatment
- compost mulchinge1
- Outcome
- evaporation of watere0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“reduced evaporation of water”
t0“APPLE TREES AND GRAPEVINES”
e1“compost mulching”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost influenced some leaf nutrient levels, all above minimum levels.
- Taxon
- APPLE TREES AND GRAPEVINESt0
- Treatment
- compost treatmente0
- Outcome
- leaf levels of some nutrientse0
- Qualifier
- all elements were well above minimum levelse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“The compost treatment influenced the leaf levels of some nutrients but all elements were well above minimum levels”
t0“APPLE TREES AND GRAPEVINES”
Claim · model-written summary
Nutrient uptake depended more on soil physical conditions than nutrient availability.
Verbatim
e0“nutrients uptake was more inflenced by the physical conditions of the soil (temperature, moisture) than by the availability of nutrients in the soil”
t0“APPLE TREES AND GRAPEVINES”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost mulch limited chemical weed control on grapevine and apple-tree rows.
- Taxon
- grapevine and apple-tree
Vitis
Malus domesticae0 - Treatment
- compost mulchinge0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- chemical weed controle0
- Direction
- limitinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“compost mulching brought about considerable advantages in the soil management on the grapevine and apple-tree rows, limiting chemical weed control”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost allowed substitution of chemical fertilizers without loss of vigor, yield, or fruit quality.
Verbatim
e0“allowing for the substitution of chemical fertilizers with no loss in vigour, yield or quality of fruits”
t0“APPLE TREES AND GRAPEVINES”
e1“compost mulching”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · weed · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
mulching · soil: physics · VitisPositive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →fertilization · soil: physics · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →fertilization · physiology: water · VitisPositive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →mulching · molecular: metabolites · VitisPositive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →mulching · quality: general · VitisPositive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →fertilization · physiology: water · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →mulching · soil: physics · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- positive
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →8 of 20 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.