Paper · 2021 · International Journal of Plant & Soil Science

Evaluation and Acceleration of Municipal Biowaste Compost Production and its Effect on Growth and Yield of Amaranthus

S. Dharani; B. Bhakiyathu Saliha; S. Suresh; et al.

10
claims
22
verbatim quotes
0
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

To limit the accumulation of municipal solid waste, quick solid waste management techniques are more vital to reuse, reduce, and recycle the Municipal Solid Wastes MSW). A study was conducted to shorten the composting time and assess the degradation efficiency of different micro consumers in Municipal Solid Waste Compost (MSWC) production and followed by a field experiment with Amaranthus as a test crop to evaluate the influence of MSWC on crop yield. Various sources viz., Saw dust balls impregnated with Panchakavya solution, TNAU Biomineralizer, PUSA decomposer, Effective Microorganisms (EM) solution, RCOF Waste decomposer and Novel microbial consortia were used for rapid production of biowaste compost. The results showed that the PUSA decomposer and EM Solution significantly reduced the period of composting to 35 and 37 days respectively. The nutrient parameters of compost viz., C:N ratio (13:1), total N (3.37%), total P (0.14%) and total K (0.65%) were better in the compost prepared with PUSA decomposer followed by those with EM solution and novel microbial consortia. The bio compost obtained from this study was utilized in the field experiment to assess the biomass production of Amaranthus. Enriched MSWC @ 5t ha-1 + 75% NPK produced greater amount of biomass (27.84 t ha-1), in comparison with control which produced 59.7% higher biomass yield. The overall results indicated that proper microbial inoculation of solid biowastes shortened the duration of composting and combined application of municipal biowaste compost with inorganic fertilizers saved 25 percent of fertilizer dosage, improved the soil quality and crop yield thus ensuring ecofriendly disposal of wastes.

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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The PUSA decomposer reduced the composting period to 35 days.

Taxon
AmaranthusAmaranthust0
Treatment
PUSA decomposere1
Outcome
period of compostinge1
Direction
reducede1
Value
35e1

Not reportedComparator

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

Amaranthus
Amaranthus · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryClintacc · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Amaranthus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–117 · show in text ↑
e1

“the PUSA decomposer and EM Solution significantly reduced the period of composting to 35 and 37 days respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 738–851 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The EM Solution reduced the composting period to 37 days.

Taxon
AmaranthusAmaranthust0
Treatment
EM Solutione1
Outcome
period of compostinge1
Direction
reducede1
Value
37e1

Not reportedComparator

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

Amaranthus
Amaranthus · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryClintacc · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Amaranthus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–117 · show in text ↑
e1

“the PUSA decomposer and EM Solution significantly reduced the period of composting to 35 and 37 days respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 738–851 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Compost from the PUSA decomposer had a C:N ratio of 13:1, better than compost from the EM solution and novel microbial consortia.

Taxon
AmaranthusAmaranthust0
Treatment
PUSA decomposere2
Outcome
C:N ratioe2
Direction
bettere2
Value
13:1e2
Comparator
EM solution and novel microbial consortiae2

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

Amaranthus
Amaranthus · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryClintacc · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Amaranthus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–117 · show in text ↑
e2

“The nutrient parameters of compost viz., C:N ratio (13:1), total N (3.37%), total P (0.14%) and total K (0.65%) were better in the compost prepared with PUSA decomposer followed by those with EM solution and novel microbial consortia”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 853–1086 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Compost from the PUSA decomposer had total N of 3.37%, better than compost from the EM solution and novel microbial consortia.

Taxon
AmaranthusAmaranthust0
Treatment
PUSA decomposere2
Outcome
total Ne2
Direction
bettere2
Value
3.37%e2
Comparator
EM solution and novel microbial consortiae2

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

Amaranthus
Amaranthus · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryClintacc · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Amaranthus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–117 · show in text ↑
e2

“The nutrient parameters of compost viz., C:N ratio (13:1), total N (3.37%), total P (0.14%) and total K (0.65%) were better in the compost prepared with PUSA decomposer followed by those with EM solution and novel microbial consortia”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 853–1086 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Compost from the PUSA decomposer had total P of 0.14%, better than compost from the EM solution and novel microbial consortia.

Taxon
AmaranthusAmaranthust0
Treatment
PUSA decomposere2
Outcome
total Pe2
Direction
bettere2
Value
0.14%e2
Comparator
EM solution and novel microbial consortiae2

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

Amaranthus
Amaranthus · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryClintacc · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Amaranthus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–117 · show in text ↑
e2

“The nutrient parameters of compost viz., C:N ratio (13:1), total N (3.37%), total P (0.14%) and total K (0.65%) were better in the compost prepared with PUSA decomposer followed by those with EM solution and novel microbial consortia”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 853–1086 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Compost from the PUSA decomposer had total K of 0.65%, better than compost from the EM solution and novel microbial consortia.

Taxon
AmaranthusAmaranthust0
Treatment
PUSA decomposere2
Outcome
total Ke2
Direction
bettere2
Value
0.65%e2
Comparator
EM solution and novel microbial consortiae2

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

Amaranthus
Amaranthus · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryClintacc · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Amaranthus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–117 · show in text ↑
e2

“The nutrient parameters of compost viz., C:N ratio (13:1), total N (3.37%), total P (0.14%) and total K (0.65%) were better in the compost prepared with PUSA decomposer followed by those with EM solution and novel microbial consortia”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 853–1086 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Enriched MSWC at 5 t/ha plus 75% NPK gave a greater amount of Amaranthus biomass (27.84 t/ha) than control in a field experiment.

Taxon
AmaranthusAmaranthust0
Treatment
Enriched MSWC @ 5t ha-1 + 75% NPKe3
Outcome
amount of biomasse3
Direction
greatere3
Value
27.84 t ha-1e3
Comparator
controle3
Setting
field experimente4

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

Amaranthus
Amaranthus · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryClintacc · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Amaranthus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–117 · show in text ↑
e3

“Enriched MSWC @ 5t ha-1 + 75% NPK produced greater amount of biomass (27.84 t ha-1), in comparison with control which produced 59.7% higher biomass yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1214–1367 · show in text ↑
e4

“followed by a field experiment with Amaranthus as a test crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 345–406 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Enriched MSWC at 5 t/ha plus 75% NPK is reported with 59.7% higher biomass yield in comparison with control (abstract attribution as written).

Taxon
AmaranthusAmaranthust0
Treatment
Enriched MSWC @ 5t ha-1 + 75% NPKe3
Outcome
biomass yielde3
Direction
highere3
Value
59.7%e3
Comparator
controle3
Setting
field experimente4

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

Amaranthus
Amaranthus · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryClintacc · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Amaranthus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–117 · show in text ↑
e3

“Enriched MSWC @ 5t ha-1 + 75% NPK produced greater amount of biomass (27.84 t ha-1), in comparison with control which produced 59.7% higher biomass yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1214–1367 · show in text ↑
e4

“followed by a field experiment with Amaranthus as a test crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 345–406 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined compost and inorganic fertilizer application saved 25 percent of fertilizer dosage.

Taxon
AmaranthusAmaranthust0
Treatment
combined application of municipal biowaste compost with inorganic fertilizerse5
Outcome
fertilizer dosagee5
Direction
savede5
Value
25 percente5

Not reportedComparator

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

Amaranthus
Amaranthus · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryClintacc · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Amaranthus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–117 · show in text ↑
e5

“combined application of municipal biowaste compost with inorganic fertilizers saved 25 percent of fertilizer dosage, improved the soil quality and crop yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1493–1650 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined compost and inorganic fertilizer application improved soil quality and crop yield.

Taxon
AmaranthusAmaranthust0
Treatment
combined application of municipal biowaste compost with inorganic fertilizerse5
Outcome
soil quality and crop yielde5
Direction
improvede5

Not reportedComparator

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

Amaranthus
Amaranthus · Taxon · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryClintacc · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Amaranthus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 107–117 · show in text ↑
e5

“combined application of municipal biowaste compost with inorganic fertilizers saved 25 percent of fertilizer dosage, improved the soil quality and crop yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1493–1650 · show in text ↑

fertilization · growth · AmaranthusResults differ

16 papers: 15 positive, 1 negative or no effect

14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

12 papers more in this group

See all 16 papers →

fertilization · yield · AmaranthusPositive and negative results

27 papers: 26 positive, 1 negative or no effect

25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

23 papers more in this group

See all 27 papers →

fertilization · quality: general · AmaranthusResults agree

5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 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.