Paper · 2022 · Sustainability

Deep Placement of Compost into Vineyard Soil Affecting Physical Properties of Soils, Yield and Quality of Grapes

Barbora Badalíková; Patrik Burg; Vladimír Mašán; et al.

7
claims
17
verbatim quotes
10
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

In recent years, research has focused on verifying various ways of dosing organic matter into the soil in Central European conditions. The main reason for this is to search for the optimal management methods for soils with permanent vegetation. In this article, we state and evaluate the results of experiments carried out at the Lednice experimental site (Sauvignon Blanc variety) and the Velké Bílovice experimental site (Pinot Gris variety) between 2018 and 2020. The experiments evaluated the deep placement of compost and compost enriched with lignohumax at a rate of 30 t·ha−1 in the areas around vineyard tree trunks on the basic physical properties of the soil and the yield and quality of grapes. Results proved the positive effect of compost heaps and compost combined with the applied lignohumax on improving soil density (2–10% difference compared with the unfertilized reference variant) and porosity, which ultimately resulted in improved soil moisture conditions at both experimental sites (8–25% difference compared with the unfertilized reference variant). At the same time, the results demonstrated the positive effect of the applied compost and the chosen method of application on the yield and quality of grapes. In the case of Sauvignon Blanc, the increase in yield in the fertilized variants was 12–34%, while, in the case of Pinot Gris, it ranged from 24 to 33%. Among qualitative indicators, the grapes of both varieties were evaluated for sugar content, total acidity, pH, and amount of yeast assimilable nitrogen. In this case, results were not unambiguous in favor of fertilized variants; however, in most cases, fertilization had a positive effect.

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 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Compost improved soil density by 2–10% versus unfertilized reference.

Taxon
Grapest0
Treatment
compost heaps and compost combined with the applied lignohumaxe0
Outcome
soil densitye0
Direction
improvinge0
Value
2–10%e0
Comparator
unfertilized reference variante0

Verbatim

e0

“compost heaps and compost combined with the applied lignohumax on improving soil density (2–10% difference compared with the unfertilized reference variant)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 744–900 · show in text ↑
t0

“Grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–112 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Compost improved soil porosity.

Taxon
Grapest0
Treatment
compost heaps and compost combined with the applied lignohumaxe1
Outcome
porositye0
Direction
improvinge0
Comparator
unfertilized reference variante0

Verbatim

e0

“improving soil density (2–10% difference compared with the unfertilized reference variant) and porosity”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 810–913 · show in text ↑
e1

“compost heaps and compost combined with the applied lignohumax”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 744–806 · show in text ↑
t0

“Grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–112 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Compost improved soil moisture conditions by 8–25% at both sites.

Taxon
Grapest0
Treatment
compost heaps and compost combined with the applied lignohumaxe1
Outcome
soil moisture conditionse0
Direction
improvede0
Value
8–25%e0
Comparator
unfertilized reference variante0

Verbatim

e0

“improved soil moisture conditions at both experimental sites (8–25% difference compared with the unfertilized reference variant)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 944–1072 · show in text ↑
e1

“compost heaps and compost combined with the applied lignohumax”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 744–806 · show in text ↑
t0

“Grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–112 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilized Sauvignon Blanc yield increased 12–34%.

Taxon
Grapest0
Material
Sauvignon Blance0
Treatment
fertilized variantse0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasee0
Value
12–34%e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“In the case of Sauvignon Blanc, the increase in yield in the fertilized variants was 12–34%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1233–1324 · show in text ↑
t0

“Grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–112 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilized Pinot Gris yield increased 24 to 33%.

Taxon
Grapest0
Material
Pinot Grise0
Treatment
fertilized variantse1
Outcome
yielde1
Direction
increasee1
Value
24 to 33%e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“in the case of Pinot Gris, it ranged from 24 to 33%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1333–1384 · show in text ↑
e1

“the increase in yield in the fertilized variants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1265–1313 · show in text ↑
t0

“Grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–112 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Compost application improved grape quality overall.

Taxon
grapese0
Treatment
applied composte0
Outcome
quality of grapese0
Direction
positive effecte0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“the results demonstrated the positive effect of the applied compost and the chosen method of application on the yield and quality of grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1092–1231 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilization usually helped quality indicators, though effects were not unambiguous.

Taxon
Grapest0
Treatment
fertilizatione0
Outcome
sugar content, total acidity, pH, and amount of yeast assimilable nitrogene1
Direction
positive effecte0
Qualifier
not unambiguouse0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“results were not unambiguous in favor of fertilized variants; however, in most cases, fertilization had a positive effect.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1554–1676 · show in text ↑
e1

“sugar content, total acidity, pH, and amount of yeast assimilable nitrogen”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1464–1538 · show in text ↑
t0

“Grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–112 · show in text ↑

fertilization · yield · VitisResults differ

107 papers: 97 positive, 10 negative or no effect

96 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

103 papers more in this group

See all 107 papers →

fertilization · quality: general · VitisPositive and negative results

38 papers: 28 positive, 10 negative or no effect

27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. negative

34 papers more in this group

See all 38 papers →

fertilization · soil: physics · VitisResults agree

7 papers: 7 positive, 0 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 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.