Abstract
Abstract In the search for alternative practices to chemical soil fumigation (CSF), anaerobic soil disinfestation (ASD) has proven to be a promising tool for soil-borne pest management and crop production improvement. The ASD treatment with composted poultry litter (CPL) and molasses (M, a labile carbon source) was identified as an effective approach for a biologically based soil disinfestation system in tomato ( Solanum lycopersicum L.) production in Florida. However, environmental and food-safety concerns are associated with animal manure-based amendments, which led to the exploration of composted yard waste (CYW) as a potential substitute for CPL in ASD application. In this study, field trials were conducted in Citra and Immokalee, FL to examine the effects of ASD using CYW, CPL and M compared with a commercially available microbial amendment system on root-knot nematodes, weeds, fruit yield and quality of fresh-market tomato. Treatments included (1) ASD with CPL (11 Mg ha −1 ) and M (6.9 m 3 ha −1 ) (ASD0.5), (2) ASD with CYW (26.9 Mg ha −1 ) and M (CYW1 + M), (3) ASD with CYW (13.5 Mg ha −1 ) and M (CYW0.5 + M), (4) Soil Symphony Amendment (SSA), (5) CYW (26.9 Mg ha −1 ) alone (CYW1) and (6) a combination of CYW1 + SSA, in comparison with (7) untreated control and (8) CSF (Pic-Clor 60 at 224 kg ha −1 ). Cumulative soil anaerobiosis was greater in ASD0.5 compared with all the other treatments. The root-knot nematode gall index ratings on the tomato crop were significantly lower in CSF, ASD0.5, CYW1 + M and CYW0.5 + M than untreated control in Citra. Although CYW1 and SSA alone had a moderately suppressive effect on weed coverage and root-knot nematodes, their positive impact on crop performance was limited when used alone. ASD0.5, CYW1 + M and CSF had significantly higher marketable and total fruit yields than untreated control in both locations, while all treatments showed promising results in the Immokalee trial in comparison with untreated control. In general, few differences in major fruit quality attributes were found. Although using CYW in ASD was not as effective as CPL in creating soil anaerobic conditions, the enhanced crop performance in CYW1 + M and CYW0.5 + M suggests the potential of using CYW as an alternative source of organic amendment in combination with M to achieve benefits similar to those obtained with CPL-based ASD.
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 18
Claim · model-written summary
Anaerobic soil disinfestation with CPL and molasses (ASD0.5) gave greater cumulative soil anaerobiosis than all other treatments.
- Treatment
- ASD0.5e0
- Outcome
- Cumulative soil anaerobiosise0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- all the other treatmentse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Cumulative soil anaerobiosis was greater in ASD0.5 compared with all the other treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
CSF significantly lowered root-knot nematode gall index ratings on tomato in Citra compared with untreated control.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicumt0 - Treatment
- CSFe0
- Interactor
- root-knot nematode
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=60)
Meloidogynee0pest - Outcome
- root-knot nematode gall index ratingse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- untreated controle0
- Setting
- Citrae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_penetrates_a_tomato_root_-_USDA-ARS.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“The root-knot nematode gall index ratings on the tomato crop were significantly lower in CSF, ASD0.5, CYW1 + M and CYW0.5 + M than untreated control in Citra”
t0“open-field tomato production”
Claim · model-written summary
ASD0.5 significantly lowered root-knot nematode gall index ratings on tomato in Citra compared with untreated control.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- ASD0.5e0
- Interactor
- root-knot nematodeMeloidogynee0pest
- Outcome
- root-knot nematode gall index ratingse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- untreated controle0
- Setting
- Citrae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The root-knot nematode gall index ratings on the tomato crop were significantly lower in CSF, ASD0.5, CYW1 + M and CYW0.5 + M than untreated control in Citra”
t0“open-field tomato production”
Claim · model-written summary
CYW1 + M significantly lowered root-knot nematode gall index ratings on tomato in Citra compared with untreated control.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- CYW1 + Me0
- Interactor
- root-knot nematodeMeloidogynee0pest
- Outcome
- root-knot nematode gall index ratingse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- untreated controle0
- Setting
- Citrae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The root-knot nematode gall index ratings on the tomato crop were significantly lower in CSF, ASD0.5, CYW1 + M and CYW0.5 + M than untreated control in Citra”
t0“open-field tomato production”
Claim · model-written summary
CYW0.5 + M significantly lowered root-knot nematode gall index ratings on tomato in Citra compared with untreated control.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- CYW0.5 + Me0
- Interactor
- root-knot nematodeMeloidogynee0pest
- Outcome
- root-knot nematode gall index ratingse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- untreated controle0
- Setting
- Citrae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The root-knot nematode gall index ratings on the tomato crop were significantly lower in CSF, ASD0.5, CYW1 + M and CYW0.5 + M than untreated control in Citra”
t0“open-field tomato production”
Claim · model-written summary
CYW1 alone had a moderately suppressive effect on weed coverage.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- CYW1e0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- weed coveragee0
- Direction
- suppressivee0
- Qualifier
- moderatelye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Although CYW1 and SSA alone had a moderately suppressive effect on weed coverage and root-knot nematodes, their positive impact on crop performance was limited when used alone”
t0“open-field tomato production”
Claim · model-written summary
CYW1 alone had a moderately suppressive effect on root-knot nematodes.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- CYW1e0
- Interactor
- root-knot nematodesMeloidogynee0pest
- Outcome
- root-knot nematodese0
- Direction
- suppressivee0
- Qualifier
- moderatelye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Although CYW1 and SSA alone had a moderately suppressive effect on weed coverage and root-knot nematodes, their positive impact on crop performance was limited when used alone”
t0“open-field tomato production”
Claim · model-written summary
SSA alone had a moderately suppressive effect on weed coverage.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- SSAe0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- weed coveragee0
- Direction
- suppressivee0
- Qualifier
- moderatelye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Although CYW1 and SSA alone had a moderately suppressive effect on weed coverage and root-knot nematodes, their positive impact on crop performance was limited when used alone”
t0“open-field tomato production”
Claim · model-written summary
SSA alone had a moderately suppressive effect on root-knot nematodes.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- SSAe0
- Interactor
- root-knot nematodesMeloidogynee0pest
- Outcome
- root-knot nematodese0
- Direction
- suppressivee0
- Qualifier
- moderatelye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Although CYW1 and SSA alone had a moderately suppressive effect on weed coverage and root-knot nematodes, their positive impact on crop performance was limited when used alone”
t0“open-field tomato production”
Claim · model-written summary
The positive impact of CYW1 alone on tomato crop performance was limited.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- CYW1e0
- Outcome
- crop performancee0
- Direction
- limitede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Although CYW1 and SSA alone had a moderately suppressive effect on weed coverage and root-knot nematodes, their positive impact on crop performance was limited when used alone”
t0“open-field tomato production”
Claim · model-written summary
The positive impact of SSA alone on tomato crop performance was limited.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- SSAe0
- Outcome
- crop performancee0
- Direction
- limitede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Although CYW1 and SSA alone had a moderately suppressive effect on weed coverage and root-knot nematodes, their positive impact on crop performance was limited when used alone”
t0“open-field tomato production”
Claim · model-written summary
ASD0.5 significantly increased marketable and total tomato fruit yields compared with untreated control.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- ASD0.5e0
- Outcome
- marketable and total fruit yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- untreated controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ASD0.5, CYW1 + M and CSF had significantly higher marketable and total fruit yields than untreated control in both locations”
t0“open-field tomato production”
Claim · model-written summary
CYW1 + M significantly increased marketable and total tomato fruit yields compared with untreated control.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- CYW1 + Me0
- Outcome
- marketable and total fruit yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- untreated controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ASD0.5, CYW1 + M and CSF had significantly higher marketable and total fruit yields than untreated control in both locations”
t0“open-field tomato production”
Claim · model-written summary
CSF significantly increased marketable and total tomato fruit yields compared with untreated control.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- CSFe0
- Outcome
- marketable and total fruit yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- untreated controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“ASD0.5, CYW1 + M and CSF had significantly higher marketable and total fruit yields than untreated control in both locations”
t0“open-field tomato production”
Claim · model-written summary
All treatments showed promising results in the Immokalee trial compared with untreated control.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- all treatmentse0
- Outcome
- results in the Immokalee triale0
- Direction
- promisinge0
- Comparator
- untreated controle0
- Setting
- Immokaleee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“all treatments showed promising results in the Immokalee trial in comparison with untreated control”
t0“open-field tomato production”
Claim · model-written summary
Few differences were found in major tomato fruit quality attributes.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- major fruit quality attributese0
- Qualifier
- few differencese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In general, few differences in major fruit quality attributes were found”
t0“open-field tomato production”
Claim · model-written summary
Using CYW in ASD was not as effective as CPL in creating soil anaerobic conditions.
- Treatment
- using CYW in ASDe0
- Outcome
- soil anaerobic conditionse0
- Direction
- not as effectivee0
- Comparator
- CPLe0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Although using CYW in ASD was not as effective as CPL in creating soil anaerobic conditions”
t0“open-field tomato production”
Claim · model-written summary
CYW-based ASD may achieve benefits similar to those of CPL-based ASD.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- benefits similar to those obtained with CPL-based ASDe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“to achieve benefits similar to those obtained with CPL-based ASD”
t0“open-field tomato production”
The same questions in other papers
solarization · Meloidogyne · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →solarization · quality: postharvest · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →other · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 117 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
126 papers more in this group
See all 130 papers →other · weed · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
other · Meloidogyne · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
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.