Abstract
This study evaluates the agronomic potential of two types of vermicompost—one produced solely from wine industry residues (WIR) and one incorporating sewage sludge (WIR + SS)—under rainfed and deficit irrigation conditions in Mediterranean vineyards. The vermicompost was obtained through a two-phase process involving initial thermophilic pre-composting, followed by vermicomposting using Eisenia fetida for 90 days. The conditions were optimized to ensure aerobic decomposition and maintain proper moisture levels (70–85%) and temperature control. This resulted in end products that met the legal standards required for agricultural use. However, population dynamics revealed significantly higher worm reproduction and biomass in the WIR treatment, suggesting superior substrate quality. When applied to grapevines, WIR vermicompost increased soil organic matter, nitrogen availability, and overall fertility. Under rainfed conditions, it improved vegetative growth, yield, and must quality, with increases in yeast assimilable nitrogen (YAN), sugar content, and amino acid levels comparable to those achieved using chemical fertilizers, as opposed to the no-fertilizer trial. Foliar analyses at veraison revealed stronger nutrient uptake, particularly of nitrogen and potassium, which was correlated with improved oenological parameters compared to the no-fertilizer trial. In contrast, WIR + SS compost was less favorable due to lower worm activity and elevated trace elements, despite remaining within legal limits. These results support the use of vermicompost derived solely from wine residues as a sustainable alternative to chemical fertilizers, in line with the goals of the circular economy in viticulture.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Worm reproduction and biomass were significantly higher in the WIR vermicompost treatment.
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Development of Grapevine in Two Irrigation Conditions”
e0“population dynamics revealed significantly higher worm reproduction and biomass in the WIR treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
WIR vermicompost increased soil organic matter, nitrogen availability and overall fertility.
- Treatment
- WIR vermicomposte1
- Outcome
- soil organic matter, nitrogen availability, and overall fertilitye1
- Direction
- increasede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Development of Grapevine in Two Irrigation Conditions”
e1“When applied to grapevines, WIR vermicompost increased soil organic matter, nitrogen availability, and overall fertility”
Claim · model-written summary
Under rainfed conditions, WIR vermicompost improved vegetative growth, yield and must quality compared with the no-fertilizer trial.
- Treatment
- WIR vermicomposte1
- Outcome
- vegetative growth, yield, and must qualitye2
- Direction
- improvede2
- Comparator
- no-fertilizer triale2
- Setting
- Under rainfed conditionse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Development of Grapevine in Two Irrigation Conditions”
e1“When applied to grapevines, WIR vermicompost increased soil organic matter, nitrogen availability, and overall fertility”
e2“Under rainfed conditions, it improved vegetative growth, yield, and must quality, with increases in yeast assimilable nitrogen (YAN), sugar content, and amino acid levels comparable to those achieved using chemical fertilizers, as opposed to the no-fertilizer trial”
Claim · model-written summary
WIR vermicompost increased yeast assimilable nitrogen, sugar content and amino acid levels, comparable to chemical fertilizers.
- Treatment
- WIR vermicomposte1
- Outcome
- yeast assimilable nitrogen (YAN), sugar content, and amino acid levelse2
- Direction
- increasese2
- Comparator
- chemical fertilizerse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Development of Grapevine in Two Irrigation Conditions”
e1“When applied to grapevines, WIR vermicompost increased soil organic matter, nitrogen availability, and overall fertility”
e2“Under rainfed conditions, it improved vegetative growth, yield, and must quality, with increases in yeast assimilable nitrogen (YAN), sugar content, and amino acid levels comparable to those achieved using chemical fertilizers, as opposed to the no-fertilizer trial”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar nutrient uptake at veraison was stronger, particularly of nitrogen and potassium, than in the no-fertilizer trial.
- Organ / stage
- veraisone3
- Outcome
- nutrient uptakee3
- Direction
- strongere3
- Qualifier
- particularly of nitrogen and potassiume3
- Comparator
- no-fertilizer triale3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Development of Grapevine in Two Irrigation Conditions”
e3“Foliar analyses at veraison revealed stronger nutrient uptake, particularly of nitrogen and potassium, which was correlated with improved oenological parameters compared to the no-fertilizer trial”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar nutrient uptake was correlated with improved oenological parameters.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Development of Grapevine in Two Irrigation Conditions”
e3“Foliar analyses at veraison revealed stronger nutrient uptake, particularly of nitrogen and potassium, which was correlated with improved oenological parameters compared to the no-fertilizer trial”
Claim · model-written summary
WIR + SS compost was less favorable than WIR compost, due to lower worm activity and elevated trace elements.
- Treatment
- WIR + SS composte4
- Outcome
- favorablee4
- Direction
- lesse4
- Qualifier
- lower worm activity and elevated trace elementse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Development of Grapevine in Two Irrigation Conditions”
e4“WIR + SS compost was less favorable due to lower worm activity and elevated trace elements, despite remaining within legal limits”
Claim · model-written summary
Vermicompost derived solely from wine residues supports use as a sustainable alternative to chemical fertilizers in viticulture.
- Outcome
- sustainable alternative to chemical fertilizerse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Development of Grapevine in Two Irrigation Conditions”
e5“These results support the use of vermicompost derived solely from wine residues as a sustainable alternative to chemical fertilizers”
Claim · model-written summary
The vermicompost process produced end products that met the legal standards for agricultural use.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Development of Grapevine in Two Irrigation Conditions”
e6“This resulted in end products that met the legal standards required for agricultural use”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · soil: chemistry · VitisPositive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →fertilization · quality: general · VitisPositive and negative results
27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
34 papers more in this group
See all 38 papers →fertilization · quality: sugar starch · VitisPositive and negative results
31 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
36 papers more in this group
See all 40 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.