Abstract
A three-year study was conducted to test the fertilization properties of different types of compost as the total or partial mineral nitrogen fertilization substitute in an herbaceous crop succession (Zea mays L., Triticum aestivum L. and Helianthus annus L.). Four types of compost (i. green cuttings and depuration sludge, ii. green cuttings, organic fraction of municipal wastes and other organic materials, iii. green cuttings, iv. green cuttings and organic fraction of municipal wastes) and eight fertilization treatments (combining: unfertilized control, 100% mineral fertilization, 100% compost, and 50% compost +50% mineral fertilization) were evaluated in terms of: (i) crop yields and nitrogen uptake, (ii) soil organic carbon and nitrate nitrogen soil contents variation, and (iii) residual nitrate nitrogen leached at the end of the experiment. Maize grain yield ranged from 5.2 ± 1.0 Mg ha−1 to 7.4 ± 0.7 Mg ha−1 with the highest value in the mineral fertilization treatment and the lowest values in the 100% compost fertilization. Wheat and sunflower grain yields were not significantly different among control, mineral, compost, or mineral/compost fertilization treatments with average values of 5.1 ± 0.7 Mg ha−1 and 2.3 ± 0.3 Mg ha−1, respectively. Cumulative crop yield at the end of the three years was not affected by the compost type, but was affected by fertilization treatment (highest values with mineral and 50% compost +50% mineral fertilization). The compost application did not highlight a relevant effect on soil organic carbon. Under 100% of compost fertilization, the crops did not take up a large amount of the N supplied, but it did not generate an increase of NO3-N leaching in the percolation water. Obtained results show the good fertilization properties of compost whereas the amendment property was not relevant, probably due to the low rates applied and the short experimental period.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Mineral fertilization gave the highest maize grain yield (7.4 ± 0.7 Mg ha−1) relative to 100% compost fertilization.
- Treatment
- mineral fertilization treatmente1
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Direction
- higheste1
- Value
- 7.4 ± 0.7 Mg ha−1e1
- Comparator
- 100% compost fertilizatione1
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Maize grain yield ranged from 5.2 ± 1.0 Mg ha−1 to 7.4 ± 0.7 Mg ha−1 with the highest value in the mineral fertilization treatment and the lowest values in the 100% compost fertilization”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize grain yield was lowest under 100% compost fertilization (5.2 ± 1.0 Mg ha−1), relative to mineral fertilization.
- Treatment
- 100% compost fertilizatione1
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Direction
- loweste1
- Value
- 5.2 ± 1.0 Mg ha−1e1
- Comparator
- mineral fertilization treatmente1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Maize grain yield ranged from 5.2 ± 1.0 Mg ha−1 to 7.4 ± 0.7 Mg ha−1 with the highest value in the mineral fertilization treatment and the lowest values in the 100% compost fertilization”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat grain yield did not differ significantly among control, mineral, compost and mineral/compost fertilization (average 5.1 ± 0.7 Mg ha−1).
- Taxon
- Wheat
Triticum aestivume2 - Treatment
- mineral, compost, or mineral/compost fertilization treatmentse2
- Outcome
- grain yielde2
- Direction
- not significantly differente2
- Value
- 5.1 ± 0.7 Mg ha−1e2
- Comparator
- controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Wheat and sunflower grain yields were not significantly different among control, mineral, compost, or mineral/compost fertilization treatments with average values of 5.1 ± 0.7 Mg ha−1 and 2.3 ± 0.3 Mg ha−1, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Sunflower grain yield did not differ significantly among control, mineral, compost and mineral/compost fertilization (average 2.3 ± 0.3 Mg ha−1).
- Taxon
- sunflower
Helianthus annuuse2 - Treatment
- mineral, compost, or mineral/compost fertilization treatmentse2
- Outcome
- grain yielde2
- Direction
- not significantly differente2
- Value
- 2.3 ± 0.3 Mg ha−1e2
- Comparator
- controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Wheat and sunflower grain yields were not significantly different among control, mineral, compost, or mineral/compost fertilization treatments with average values of 5.1 ± 0.7 Mg ha−1 and 2.3 ± 0.3 Mg ha−1, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Cumulative crop yield over the three years was not affected by compost type.
- Taxon
- herbaceous crop successione0
- Treatment
- compost typee3
- Outcome
- Cumulative crop yielde3
- Direction
- not affectede3
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“herbaceous crop succession (Zea mays L., Triticum aestivum L. and Helianthus annus L.)”
e3“Cumulative crop yield at the end of the three years was not affected by the compost type, but was affected by fertilization treatment (highest values with mineral and 50% compost +50% mineral fertilization)”
Claim · model-written summary
Cumulative crop yield over the three years was affected by fertilization treatment, highest with mineral and with 50% compost plus 50% mineral fertilization.
- Taxon
- herbaceous crop successione0
- Treatment
- mineral and 50% compost +50% mineral fertilizatione3
- Outcome
- Cumulative crop yielde3
- Direction
- highest valuese3
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“herbaceous crop succession (Zea mays L., Triticum aestivum L. and Helianthus annus L.)”
e3“Cumulative crop yield at the end of the three years was not affected by the compost type, but was affected by fertilization treatment (highest values with mineral and 50% compost +50% mineral fertilization)”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost application had no relevant effect on soil organic carbon.
- Taxon
- herbaceous crop successione0
- Treatment
- compost applicatione5
- Outcome
- soil organic carbone5
- Direction
- did not highlight a relevant effecte5
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“herbaceous crop succession (Zea mays L., Triticum aestivum L. and Helianthus annus L.)”
e5“The compost application did not highlight a relevant effect on soil organic carbon”
Claim · model-written summary
Under 100% compost fertilization the crops did not take up a large amount of the N supplied.
- Taxon
- cropse6
- Treatment
- 100% of compost fertilizatione6
- Outcome
- take up a large amount of the N suppliede6
- Direction
- did not take upe6
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e6“Under 100% of compost fertilization, the crops did not take up a large amount of the N supplied, but it did not generate an increase of NO3-N leaching in the percolation water”
Claim · model-written summary
Under 100% compost fertilization the crops did not generate an increase of NO3-N leaching in percolation water.
- Taxon
- cropse6
- Treatment
- 100% of compost fertilizatione6
- Outcome
- NO3-N leachinge6
- Direction
- did not generate an increasee6
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e6“Under 100% of compost fertilization, the crops did not take up a large amount of the N supplied, but it did not generate an increase of NO3-N leaching in the percolation water”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost has good fertilization properties in this three-year crop succession.
Verbatim
e0“herbaceous crop succession (Zea mays L., Triticum aestivum L. and Helianthus annus L.)”
e7“Obtained results show the good fertilization properties of compost”
Claim · model-written summary
The amendment property of compost was not relevant, probably due to the low rates applied and the short experimental period.
Verbatim
e0“herbaceous crop succession (Zea mays L., Triticum aestivum L. and Helianthus annus L.)”
e4“the amendment property was not relevant, probably due to the low rates applied and the short experimental period”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · yield · Helianthus annuus (common sunflower)Positive and negative results
20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 344 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
361 papers more in this group
See all 365 papers →fertilization · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
322 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3,115 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3,434 papers more in this group
See all 3,438 papers →fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3,484 papers in the same direction as this paper · 338 in the opposite direction · 85 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
3,904 papers more in this group
See all 3,908 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.