Advertisement

A field study on the effect of organic soil conditioners with different placements on dry matter and yield of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.)

  • Ehsan Ebrahimi
  • Ghorbanali Asadi
  • Peter von Fragstein und Niemsdorff
Open Access
Original Research
  • 44 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Four different types of composts were assessed in two methods of application for their potential to support organic tomato yield.

Methods

A 2-year experiment was conducted using four different soil conditioners: cow manure (CM), household compost (HC), spent mushroom compost (SMC), and vermicompost (VC). Three different application rates (10, 20, and 30 t ha−1 for all composts except VC and 3, 6, and 9 t ha−1 for VC) were included as a second factor. Two methods of fertilizer placement (as a row behind the root area and broadcast on the field) were considered as a third factor.

Results

The yield was influenced by different soil conditioners and placement method in the first year; in the second year, just interactions were significantly different. Treatments with CM showed significantly higher tomato yield in the first year (103 t ha−1) compared to other composts, but in the second year, SMC produced a higher yield (58 t ha−1). The experiment indicated that the treatment with CM in high level with broadcast application had higher dry matter (DM) production (3.1 t ha−1) in 2014, and treatment with CM in low rate and broadcast application had higher DM production (5.8 t ha−1) in 2015.

Conclusion

Compost broadcast on the plots showed a higher yield production in case of similar rates and compost type. The proper rate of compost application is dependent on the method of compost placement.

Keywords

Household compost Organic farming Soil conditioners Spent mushroom compost Vermicompost Waste management Compost placement 

Introduction

Composts are produced during the process of the decomposition of organic matter by microorganisms in the presence of oxygen. In general, the use of compost maintains and enhances stability and fertility of the agricultural soil (Angin et al. 2017; Zhou et al. 2016). Composts can have direct effects against disease, as well as stimulation of the competing microorganisms and also development of resistance in plants against diseases (Ebrahimi et al. 2018; Carrera et al. 2007). Organic matter is also an important source of energy for bacteria, fungi, and earthworms (Montemurro et al. 2005; Davis and Wilson 2005).

Ensuring the sustainable production of healthy food and eco-friendly products has been of interest to researchers of agricultural sciences and ecology, as well as politicians and practitioners due to high demands by consumers in various countries in the world (Willer and Lernoud 2018). Maintaining soil fertility is one of the main factors affecting the sustainability of food production. Indiscriminate use of chemical fertilizers, coupled with neglected maintenance of the vitality of the soil and the use of destructive methods have caused loss or destruction of the existing population of soil organisms (Geisseler and Scow 2014; Ebrahimi et al. 2016). Moreover, the common fertilization system is focused on providing a limited number of macronutrients, while it is scientifically known that plants need at least 13 available minerals in the soil (Atiyeh et al. 2000).

Chemical fertilizers provide short-term nutrient needs of agricultural products, and long-term soil fertility is fallen into oblivion by farmers and agricultural producers. Studies have shown that the excessive and unbalanced use of chemical fertilizers in the long run decreases crop yield, biological activity, soil physical properties, and increases accumulation of nitrates and heavy metals and soil acidity (Ghosh and Bhat 1998; Adediran et al. 2005; Aseri et al. 2008; Yoshida et al. 2016). Optimizing the amount of organic matter in the soil is one of the most basic principles of sustainable agriculture. Soil organic matter is rich in natural resources, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (N, P, and K) in organic forms but compared to their mineral forms, availability and mobility of these elements in organic compounds are usually a lot less (Angin et al. 2017). The use of organic debris depends on their quantitative and qualitative characteristics, climate condition, plant type, soil organisms, and management methods. Long-term studies have proven that continued use of chemical fertilizers reduces crop yield due to soil acidification, loss of soil physical and chemical characteristics, and the lack of appropriate micronutrients in these fertilizers (Ghimire et al. 2017; Gliessman and Engles 1998).

In most cases, soils contain sufficient quantities of micronutrients in accordance with the plant needs, but lack of micronutrients occur in some areas, which can reduce the crop yields (Zhou et al. 2016). Shuman et al. (1980) showed that in more than 30 countries, on an average, approximately 30% of the soils are suffering from deficiency of one or more micronutrients. The use of organic fertilizers increases soil organic matter, improves microbial activity, and provides both macro- and micronutrients required for the plant in a more efficient way (Angin et al. 2017).

Compost application is a method to maintain soil fertility. It is well known that organic fertilizers increase soil fertility and provide long-term nutrients by gradual decomposition (Angin et al. 2017; Gaiotti et al. 2017; Zhou et al. 2016). Research that investigated the different compost application methods in organic vegetable fields is quite limited. Thus, closer look at this topic is needed to understand how distribution of compost on the field can influence the final yield and DM. Municipal waste production has amplified due to increasing population growth and urbanization (Lim et al. 2016). One of the most effective methods to neutralize the adverse effects of waste and other plant residues is to separately collect the waste materials, and convert them into compost, to be reused as organic fertilizer and soil conditioner on farmlands (Vogtmann and Fricke 1988; Fricke and Vogtmann 1994; von Fragstein and Schmidt 1999; Olowoake et al. 2018). Studies revealed the effect of municipal compost on increasing the amount of micronutrients in the soil (Zheljazkov and Warman 2004). In regions with arid and semi-arid climates, using municipal solid waste compost as organic fertilizer can be a way to improve the permeability and porosity of the soil due to soil conditions in that areas.

SMC is a byproduct of mushroom production industries in the form of residual compost waste and is a source of humus as well as a useful soil conditioner. Arthur et al. (2012) reported that SMC increased the amount of organic matter and water content in sandy loam soil. Zhang et al. (2012) discovered that SMC could be a good alternative growing medium for tomato and cucumber seedlings in a greenhouse. A study showed that applying SMC up to 10% has a significant effect on height, leaf number, leaf area index, FM and DM of soybean (Jonathan et al. 2013).

VC is a non-thermophilic composting process using various species of worms to create a mixture of peat-like product of decomposed organic residuals (Joshi et al. 2015; Arancon et al. 2004). Vermicomposting promotes a large and active microbial biodiversity population in the soil as compared to composts produced by the thermal process. In addition, VC is a great soil modifier amendment, as it has high porosity, good drainage, and high water-holding capacity (Atiyeh et al. 2000).

Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) is an annual plant and one of the most important crops worldwide. This plant grows in almost all types of soil. Most of the tomato producers use both organic fertilizers and traditional methods, though reports suggest that the quality of the fertilizers can have an adverse effect on the tomato quality (Ghorbani et al. 2008).

In this study, we aim to investigate the impact of four different types of organic fertilizers on tomato yield: (a) vermicompost (VC), (b) household compost (HC), (c) spent mushroom compost (SMC), and (d) cow manure (CM). All composts and CM were used in three different levels (low, medium, and high) based on the local use of these materials by farmers. Furthermore, we applied two different methods of compost placement to study the potentials of soil conditioners in broadcast and row placement. An effective soil conditioner placement improves nutrient availability for plants and increases their competitiveness against weeds (Nkebiwe et al. 2016).

Materials and methods

The study was established in the Organic Research Station of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran, located at 36°15′ North latitude and 59°28′ East longitude of Iran for two growing seasons at 2014–2015. The soil type of the experimental field was silt loam with a pH of 7.8 and 1.3 organic matter (Table 1). The site was previously fallow for 5 years before tomato plants were planted for this study in June 2014. The plots were in the similar locations in both the years.
Table 1

Soil properties of the experimental field in the depth of (0–30 cm)

Year

2014

2015

Texture

Silt loam

Silt loam

pH

7.8

7.9

EC (dS m−1)

2.4

2.4

Organic C (%)

3.0

1.1

Total N (%)

0.16

0.16

C/N

18.1

7.1

Available P (mg kg−1)

298

193

Available K (mg kg−1)

748

237

NO3 (mg kg−1)

7.0

3.0

Fe (mg kg−1)

7.9

2.6

Zn (mg kg−1)

2.1

1.3

Cu (mg kg−1)

1.4

2.4

Mn(mg kg−1)

14.1

7.9

The experiment was conducted using Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with four different types of soil conditioners: (a) VC, (b) HC, (c) SMC, and (d) CM were applied at three different rates: (a) Low, (b) Medium, and (c) High. The amount used for SMC, HC, and CM were 10, 20, and 30 t ha−1, and for VC 3, 6, and 9 t ha−1 for low, medium, and high application rates, respectively. The applied quantities of soil amendments were based on the usual application by local farmers (Ghorbani et al. 2008). Besides the quantitative factor, the method of application was also included as third factor: (a) as a row behind the root area and (b) broadcast on the field (Nkebiwe et al. 2016). Soil conditioners were tested and analyzed for chemical and nutritional values in both the years (Table 2).
Table 2

Chemical characteristics of applied organic fertilizers

Year

Type of fertilizer

N

P

K

Zn

Cu

Fe

Mn

EC

pH

(g kg−1)

(mg kg−1)

(dS m−1)

2014

CM

14

3

11

92

28

8778

350

4.5

8.2

HC

20

4

8

836

165

3771

316

5.6

8.0

SMC

21

3

7

226

24

2671

301

6.1

7.9

VC

21

5

6

568

171

5255

210

2.9

7.9

2015

CM

11

4

10

89

21

8771

331

5.0

8.0

HC

19

5

9

834

171

3812

301

5.4

7.8

SMC

20

4

8

227

25

2660

303

5.1

8.1

VC

19

6

6

563

168

5230

207

3.1

8.0

CM Cow Manure, HC Household Compost, SMC Spent Mushroom Compost, VC Vermicompost

Each plot contained four rows, spaced 150 cm apart and 4 m in length. Each tomato plant was placed 50 cm apart within each row and each plot had two furrows for irrigation. All the samples were taken from the two middle rows of each plot. Tomato seeds of Early Urbana Y variety provided by Yekan Bazr Co. were used. Eight-week-old transplants were transplanted to the field by hand on the first week of June 2014 in the first year, and on the third week of May 2015 in the second year based on the weather condition.

During the growing season, plots were observed to protect against any disease and pests, where no significant disease or pest invasion was observed. Each year tomatoes were harvested three times during the growing season at 13, 16, and 19 weeks after transplanting, beginning in the first week of September in the first year, and the second week of September in the second year. In each harvest, the whole plot area was harvested, but all other samplings for further analysis were obtained from the two middle rows of each plot. Hand-weeding was done during the growing season to control the weed population. Plot yields were converted to (t ha−1) for the statistical analysis and presentation of results. After the last harvest, five plants were taken from the two middle rows of each plot for DM and nutrient uptake analysis.

Data were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the mean values were compared with Tukey and LSD test with the help of MINITAB software. The probability level for determination of significance was either p = 0.05 or p = 0.01.

Results and discussion

Analysis of variance shows that the cumulative yield responded to all factors in the first year. Table 3 indicates that interaction between compost type and compost rate was also significant (p ≤ 0.01). In this experiment, tomato responded to the interaction of all factors at both the experimental years. Compost is a good resource to release nutrients during growing season (Abbasi et al. 2002), and to ensure a sustainable and healthy production of tomato. Erhart et al. (2005) reported an increase of yield up to 10% for compost treatments as compared to the control in wheat, barley, and potato for 10 years. They also reported that yield response to compost amendment was increased over time. Furthermore, Mehdizadeh et al. (2013) have also illustrated that tomato fruit yield has been increased by 94% in comparison with control.
Table 3

Mean square of tomato yield for different factors in the growing seasons of 2014–15

Year

 

2014

2015

Source

DF

MS

MS

Replication

2

454.7NS

175.7NS

Organic fertilizer (A)

3

715.7**

137.1NS

Rate (B)

2

564.6*

189.0NS

Application (C)

1

1376.7**

190.5NS

(A × B)

6

753.97**

99.9NS

(A × C)

3

69.5NS

112.3NS

(A × B × C)

6

1040.4**

444.3*

Error

46

Means with *, ** and NS are significant with p ≤ 0.05, p ≤ 0.01 and not significant, respectively

In 2014, treatments with CM produced significantly (p ≤ 0.01) more tomatoes (103 t ha−1) than the other fertilizers; however, in the second year, the differences were not significant (Table 4). Higher yield production in treatments with CM could be due to higher mineralization of organic matter in CM, which can provide enough nutritional release for the plant (Angin et al. 2017). Table 4 shows that higher compost rates did not produce a higher amount of tomatoes in the first year. Yield productions in treatments with a medium compost rate were significantly higher (98 t ha−1) than treatments with high compost rate (88 t ha−1). Reduction of yield at a higher level of soil conditioner application might be linked to salinity of the soil by compost and organic fertilizer application, while treatments with VC and lower EC showed less reduction compared to other composts (Tables 2, 5). This reduction is higher at SMC with row application and HC with broad application, which can be due to the incorporation of salt into the soil. Similar results were reported by Angin et al. (2017). However, applying nutrients have different effects on soil microbes and plant communities. Studies show that N fertilizers can suppress soil microorganisms (Geisseler and Scow 2014). In the second year, there was no significant difference between treatments with different compost rates.
Table 4

Effects of different soil amendments on yield (t ha−1) for both years

Year

Type of fertilizer

Rate of application

CM

HC

SMC

VC

Low

Medium

High

2014

103 a

94 b

90 b

89 b

95 uv

98 u

88 v

2015

56 A

55 A

58 A

52 A

57 U

52 U

57 U

Means followed by different letters are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05, LSD test)

CM Cow Manure, HC Household Compost, SMC Spent Mushroom Compost, VC Vermicompost

Table 5

Effects of different soil amendments with different rate and application method on yield (t ha−1)

Year

Application

Rate

Type of fertilizer

CM

HC

SMC

VC

2014

Row

Low

99 b-e

77 f-i

112 abc

85 e-h

Medium

93 c-g

107 a-d

78 ghi

72 hie

High

109 abc

87 d-h

61 i

92 c-h

Broadcast

Low

99 b-f

100 a-e

76 ghi

112 abc

Medium

115 ab

114 ab

120 a

85 e-h

High

103 a-e

75 ghi

92 c-g

88 d-h

2015

Row

Low

67 uv

53 uvw

64 uv

47 vw

Medium

48 vw

53 uvw

55 uv

53 uvw

High

69 u

62 uv

53 uvw

62 uvw

Broadcast

Low

46 vw

60 uv

53 uvw

64 uv

Medium

59 uv

56 uv

64 uv

32 w

High

49 uvw

47 vw

62 uv

53 uv

Means followed by different letters are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05, LSD test)

CM Cow Manure, HC Household Compost, SMC Spent Mushroom Compost, VC Vermicompost

In the first year of the experiment, treatments with SMC at a medium rate with broadcast application produced the maximum amount of tomato (120 t ha−1), which was not significantly different with treatments of the same compost in low rate and with row placement (Table 6). This could be explained by the availability of compost for root area in row application. Besides, SMC in higher rates produced less tomato in row application, which might be due to high salinity around the root area (Table 2). All soil conditioners showed a high amount of tomato production with the medium rate and broad application with the exception of VC (Table 5). This result is understandable because VC has been applied 14 t ha−1 less than ‏the other composts due to its local consumption by farmers. Table 5 demonstrates that using CM does not ‏necessarily produce higher yield. A study by Mehdizadeh et al. (2013) published a similar result with regard to the ‏application of HC and CM in tomato production. In their experiment, with the application of 20 t ha−1 ‏for HC and CM, 33 and 27 t ha−1 of tomato were produced, respectively.
Table 6

Mean square for shoot DM for both years

Year

2014

2015

Source

DF

MS

MS

Replication

2

0.27NS

0.63NS

Organic fertilizer (A)

3

2.01**

1.99*

Rate (B)

2

0.04NS

0.76NS

Application (C)

1

1.51*

0.60NS

(A × B)

6

0.60NS

1.30*

(A × C)

3

0.52NS

1.91*

(A × B × C)

6

1.00**

1.75**

Error

46

Means with *, **and NS are significant with p ≤ 0.05, p ≤ 0.01 and not significant, respectively

In the second year of experimentation, the yield was significantly lower, which could be due to transplant or weather conditions in transplanting period. Besides, C:N ratio has decreased in the second year (Table 1) though organic matter decomposition will increase, which might cause a reduction in the supply of soil organic matter (Reicosky et al. 1995).The differences between treatments (Table 5) during the second year were not as large as compared to the first year. This could be a result of the homogeneity of the soil or enhancement of soil quality after 1 year of plantation with organic soil conditioners (Table 1). In the second year, CM treatment with high rate and row placement produced a higher amount of yield (69 t ha−1), which did not differ significantly with any other composts using the same rate and placement method. On the contrary, tomato yield decreased in treatments with CM more than the other soil conditioners. However, the differences between these diminished treatments in the second year are not significant. This indicates that composts have a better effect over time in comparison with CM. Studies showed that we cannot expect a big response on plant growth in a short time because compost is not a rich source for N availability, but there is evidence that compost is a suitable amendment for long-term improvement of soil organic matter (Abbasi et al. 2002; von Fragstein and Schmidt 1999). Mehdizadeh et al. (2013) showed that HC had a significantly better effect as compared to CM, poultry manure, and sheep manure, in cumulative tomato yield and the number of tomato per plant. In the proposed study, there was a reduction on tomato yield in the second year due to warm weather during the transplanting phase. ‏Flowering is an important phase in plant development as the plants are vulnerable to environmental stress. It is the stage of plant development that determines when vegetables are ripe for harvest (Wien 1997). This amount did not show any significant difference with other soil conditioners in different application rates. The analysis of variance between 2 years of experiment was not significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) for yield production (Table 3).

Vermicomposting had less effect on the production compared to other fertilizers in this experiment; ‏however, the amount of VC applied was almost one-third of the amount of other ‏fertilizers, based on the local consumption by farmers. For this reason,‏ VC can be considered as a suitable fertilizer and soil ‏conditioner for tomato production ‏when applied at a relatively higher rate (9 t ha−1), as it could have significantly increased tomato production during the second year. Yang et al. (2015) reported that tomato yield with VC amendment had greater yield in comparison with horse and chicken composts, and also chemical fertilizer under medium irrigation systems. Compared with the traditional composting process, VC has a higher degree of humification (Jeyabal and Kuppuswamy 2001). Special substances in VC, such as plant growth regulators that are biologically active, and also, the existence of functional microorganisms due to higher soil microbial biomass are the reasons that separate VC from other composts (Arancon et al. 2003; Amossé et al. 2013; Yang et al. 2015). Studies indicate that VC had a positive effect on sugar content and vitamin C level in tomato fruits compared with other fertilizers (Yang et al. 2015).

Analysis of variances for plant DM illustrates that different organic fertilizers as well as the methods of application differed markedly between treatments in the first year of production. Whereas in the second year, only different fertilizer type showed significant difference, but compost rate and placement method have no significance. In both the years, the interaction effect between factors shows significant differences between treatments (Table 6).

In the first year, treatments with CM produced more DM (2.4 t ha−1) than treatments with HC and SMC while their differences with VC treatments (2.1 t ha−1) were not significant. However, in the second year, treatments with VC produced markedly lower DM (2.8 t ha−1) than treatments with CM (3.6 t ha−1). Despite that the yield production decreased in the second year, the DM concentration had increased in the same year (Table 7). Studies show that DM content has a direct correlation with the improvement of the nutritional status of soil and the soil structure (Azarmi et al. 2008; Gutiérrez-Miceli et al. 2007).
Table 7

Effects of different soil amendments on shoot DM (t ha −1) for both years

Year

Type of fertilizer

CM

HC

SMC

VC

2014

2.4 a

1.7 b

1.8 b

2.1 ab

2015

3.6 u

3.1 uv

3.2 uv

2.8 vb

Means followed by different letters are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05, Tukey test)

CM Cow Manure, HC Household Compost, SMC Spent Mushroom Compost, VC Vermicompost

Table 8 indicates that treatment with CM in high rate and with broad application created the largest DM (3.1 t ha−1) in 2014. This amount did not differ compared with other treatments with CM, different rates, and different application methods. This finding is relevant to that of Pellejero et al. (2017) on lettuce, in which treatments with higher compost dosage showed higher root dry weight as well. This also included treatments with other fertilizers with high rate and broadcast application. Based on these results, treatments with SMC in high rate and row placement, as well as HC in low rate and row placement, showed the lowest DM content (1.2 t ha−1 and 1.2 t ha−1, respectively) in 2014. On the contrary, treatment with CM in low rate and broadcast application had the highest DM (5.8 t ha−1) in the second year, and this amount did not differ significantly with treatments of CM and SMC in medium rate and HC in high rate, all with broadcast application and treatment of SMC in high rate and row placement (3.6, 3.6, 3.9, and 3.5 t ha−1, respectively). As the result indicates in Tables 6 and 8, DM content was significantly higher in the second year of experiment owing to the availability of compost around the plot area. The analysis of variance between 2 years of experiment was not significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) for DM production (Table 6).
Table 8

Effects of different soil amendments with different rates and application methods on DM (t ha−1)

Year

Application

Rate

Type of fertilizer

CM

HC

SMC

VC

2014

Row

Low

2.2 abc

2.0 cc

1.7 abc

1.9 abc

Medium

2.6 abc

1.5 abc

1.44 bc

2.2 abc

High

1.9 abc

1.9 abc

1.2 c

2.5 abc

Broadcast

Low

2.9 abc

1.7 abc

1.9 abc

3.1 ab

Medium

2.5 abc

1.7 abc

2.3 abc

1.4 bc

High

3.1 a

2.3 abc

1.9 abc

1.5 abc

2015

Row

Low

3.0 v

3.3 v

3.1 v

3.0 v

Medium

2.9 v

3.3 v

3.8 v

2.4 v

High

3.3 v

3.3 v

3.5 uv

2.8 v

Broadcast

Low

5.8 u

2.7 v

2.7 v

2.8 v

Medium

3.6 uv

2.2 v

3.6 uv

2.6 v

High

3.0 v

3.9 uv

3.0 v

3.1 v

Means followed by different letters are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05, Tukey test)

CM Cow Manure, HC Household Compost, SMC Spent Mushroom Compost, VC Vermicompost

Conclusion

The results of the proposed study indicated that different types of fertilizers, different ‏rates, and also different placements could impact the final result in ‏organic tomato production.‏ The experiment showed that VC is a good alternative to reduce the consumption of fertilizers, while treatments with VC could produce a large amount of tomatoes (89 and 52 t  ha−1 in 2014–2015, respectively) with way less amount of compost application. The proper compost rate is dependent on the compost placement method. The field study showed that compost application as broadcast resulted in 65% higher yield than as a row in medium and high rate of application and up to 68% less production in broadcast compared to row placement in low application for SMC in the first year. Furthermore, broadcast application of HC and VC is more effective compared to row placement. However, there was no significant difference between different placements in the second year. To conclude, the study demonstrated that composts such as HC and SMC can be a good solution to manage the industrial and municipal wastes and using their potential for agricultural production and also soil improvement. Further studies should be conducted on different placement methods to optimize the compost rate consumption as much as possible. In both years treatments with a vermicompost well less yield promoting compared to the other composts, but the use efficiency most have been more with regard to lower levels of application.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The input of all colleagues in the research farm of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad is appreciated. We thank Mr. A. Sadeghi, Mr. M. Soheili and H. Nikoo for their technical support during the experimental period. We also appreciate all the efforts Prof. R. Ghorbani put through to make this experiment happen.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no potential conflicts of interests. Also this article does not contain any studies with human participants or animal performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Abbasi PA, Al-Dahmani J, Sahin F, Hoitink HAJ, Miller SA (2002) Effect of compost amendments on disease severity and yield of tomato in conventional and organic production systems. Plant Dis 86:156–161.  https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS.2002.86.2.156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adediran JA, Taiwo LB, Akande MO, Sobulo RA, Idowu OJ (2005) Application of organic and inorganic fertilizer for sustainable maize and cowpea yields in Nigeria. J Plant Nutr 27:1163–1181.  https://doi.org/10.1081/PLN-120038542 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amossé J, Bettarel Y, Bouvier C, Bouvier T, Tran Duc T, Doan Thu T, Jouquet P (2013) The flows of nitrogen, bacteria and viruses from the soil to water compartments are influenced by earthworm activity and organic fertilization (compost vs. vermicompost). Soil Biol Biochem 66:197–203.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2013.07.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Angin I, Aslantas R, Gunes A, Kose M, Ozkan G (2017) Effects of Sewage sludge amendment on some soil properties, growth, yield and nutrient content of raspberry (Rubus idaeus L.). Erwerbs Obstbau 59:93–99.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10341-016-0303-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arancon NQ, Edwards CA, Bierman P, Metzger JD, Lee S, Welch C (2003) Effects of vermicomposts on growth and marketable fruits of field-grown tomatoes, peppers and strawberries. Pedobiologia 47:731–735.  https://doi.org/10.1078/0031-4056-00251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arancon NQ, Edwards CA, Bierman P, Welch C, Metzger JD (2004) Influences of vermicomposts on field strawberries: 1. Effects on growth and yields. Bioresour Technol 93:145–153.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2003.10.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arthur E, Cornelis W, Razzaghi F (2012) Compost amendment to sandy soil affects soil properties and greenhouse tomato productivity. Compost Sci Util 20:215–221.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.2012.10737051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aseri GK, Jain N, Panwar J, Rao AV, Meghwal PR (2008) Biofertilizers improve plant growth, fruit yield, nutrition, metabolism and rhizosphere enzyme activities of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) in Indian thar desert. Sci Hort 117:130–135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2008.03.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Atiyeh RM, Subler S, Edwards CA, Bachman G, Metzger JD, Shuster W (2000) Effects of vermicomposts and composts on plant growth in horticultural container media and soil. Pedobiologia 44:579–590.  https://doi.org/10.1078/S0031-4056(04)70073-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Azarmi R, Giglou MT, Taleshmikail RD (2008) Influence of vermicompost on soil chemical and physical properties in tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum) field. Afr J Biotechnol 7:2397–2401.  https://doi.org/10.5897/AJB08.378 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carrera LM, Buyer JS, Vinyard B, Abdul-Baki AA, Sikora LJ, Teasdale JR (2007) Effects of cover crops, compost, and manure amendments on soil microbial community structure in tomato production systems. Appl Soil Ecol 37:247–255.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2007.08.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis JG, Wilson CR (2005) Choosing a soil amendment. CSU Ext Fact Sheet 7:235Google Scholar
  13. Ebrahimi E, Bagheri A, von Fragstein und Niemsdorff P (2016) Assessment of undersown white clover (Trifolium repens L.) on organic leek (Allium porrum L.) performance (yield and nutrient uptake). Int J Adv Agric Res 4:46–50 (ISSN: 2053-1265) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ebrahimi E, Werren D, von Fragstein und Niemsdorff P (2018) Suppressive effect of composts from residual biomass on Pythium ultimum. J Plant Dis Prot 125:443–449.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41348-018-0163-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erhart E, Hartl W, Putz B (2005) Biowaste compost affects yield, nitrogen supply during the vegetation period and crop quality of agricultural crops. Eur J Agron 23:305–314.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2005.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fricke K, Vogtmann H (1994) Compost quality—physical characteristics, nutrient content, heavy metals and organic chemicals. Toxicol Environ Chem 43:95–114.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02772249409358021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gaiotti F, Marcuzzo P, Belfiore N, Lovat L, Fornasier F, Tomasi D (2017) Influence of compost addition on soil properties, root growth and vine performances of Vitis vinifera cv Cabernet sauvignon. Sci Hort 225:88–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2017.06.052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geisseler D, Scow KM (2014) Long-term effects of mineral fertilizers on soil microorganisms—a review. Soil Biol Biochem 75:54–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.03.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ghimire R, Lamichhane S, Acharya BS, Bista P, Sainju UM (2017) Tillage, crop residue, and nutrient management effects on soil organic carbon in rice-based cropping systems: a review. J Integr Agr 16:1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(16)61337-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ghorbani R, Koocheki A, Jahan M, Asadi GA (2008) Impact of organic amendments and compost extracts on tomato production and storability in agroecological systems. Agron Sustain Dev 28:307–311.  https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2008003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ghosh BC, Bhat R (1998) Environmental hazards of nitrogen loading in wetland rice fields. Environ Pollut 102:123–126.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(98)80024-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gliessman SR, Engles E, Krieger R (1998) Agroecology: ecological processes in sustainable agriculture. Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea. ISBN: 1-57504-043-3Google Scholar
  23. Gutiérrez-Miceli FA, Santiago-Borraz J, Montes Molina JA, Nafate CC, Abud-Archila M, Oliva Llaven MA, Rincón-Rosales R, Dendooven L (2007) Vermicompost as a soil supplement to improve growth, yield and fruit quality of tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum). Bioresour Technol 98:2781–2786.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2006.02.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jeyabal A, Kuppuswamy G (2001) Recycling of organic wastes for the production of vermicompost and its response in rice–legume cropping system and soil fertility. Eur J Agron 15:153–170.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1161-0301(00)00100-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jonathan SG, Oyetunji OJ, Olawuyi OJ, Uwukhor PO (2013) Application of Pleurotus ostreatus SMC as soil conditioner for the growth of soybean (Glycine max). Academia Arena 5:54–61.  https://doi.org/10.7537/marsaaj050113.10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Joshi R, Singh J, Vig AP (2015) Vermicompost as an effective organic fertilizer and biocontrol agent: effect on growth, yield and quality of plants. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 14:137–159.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-014-9347-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lim SL, Lee LH, Wu TY (2016) Sustainability of using composting and vermicomposting technologies for organic solid waste biotransformation: recent overview, greenhouse gases emissions and economic analysis. J Clean Prod 111:262–278.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.083 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mehdizadeh M, Darbandi EI, Naseri-Rad H, Tobeh A (2013) Growth and yield of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) as influenced by different organic fertilizers. Intl J Agron Plant Prod 4:734–738 (ISSN 2051-1914) Google Scholar
  29. Montemurro F, Convertini G, Ferri D, Maiorana M (2005) MSW compost application on tomato crops in mediterranean conditions: effects on agronomic performance and nitrogen utilization. Compost Sci Util 13:234–242.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.2005.10702247 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nkebiwe PM, Weinmann M, Bar-Tal A, Müller T (2016) Fertilizer placement to improve crop nutrient acquisition and yield: a review and meta-analysis. Field Crops Res 196:389–401.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.07.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Olowoake AA, Osunlola OS, Ojo JA (2018) Influence of compost supplemented with jatropha cake on soil fertility, growth, and yield of maize (Zea mays L.) in a degraded soil of Ilorin, Nigeria. Int J Recycl Org Waste Agric 7:67–73.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40093-017-0192-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pellejero G, Miglierina A, Aschkar G, Turcato M, Jiménez-Ballesta R (2017) Effects of the onion residue compost as an organic fertilizer in a vegetable culture in the lower Valley of the Rio Negro. Int J Recycl Org Waste Agric 6:159–166.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40093-017-0164-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reicosky DC, Kemper WD, Langdale GW, Douglas CL, Rasmusen PE (1995) Soil organic matter changes resulting from tillage and biomass production. J Soil Water Conserv 3:253–261Google Scholar
  34. Shuman LM, Boswell FC, Ohki K, Parker MB, Wilson DO (1980) Critical soil manganese deficiency levels for four extractants for soybeans grown in sandy soil. Soil Sci Soc Am J 44:1021–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vogtmann H, Fricke K (1988) Nutrient value and utilization of biogenic compost in plant production. Agric Ecosyst Environ 27(1–4):471–475Google Scholar
  36. von Fragstein und niemsdorff P, Schmidt H (1999) External N sources in an organic stockless crop rotation—useful or useless additives? In: Olesen J, Eltun R, Gooding M, Jensen E, Köpke U (eds) Designing and testing of crop rotations for organic farming. Proceedings from an international workshop. Danish Research Centre for Organic Farming, Denmark, pp 203–212Google Scholar
  37. Wien HC (1997) The physiology of vegetable crops. Cab International, New York. ISBN: 0851991467Google Scholar
  38. Willer H, Lernoud J (eds) (2018) The World of organic agriculture—statistics and emerging trends 2018. Medienhaus Plump, Rheinbreitbach. ISBN 978-3-03736-067-5Google Scholar
  39. Yang L, Zhao F, Chang Q, Li T, Li F (2015) Effects of vermicomposts on tomato yield and quality and soil fertility in greenhouse under different soil water regimes. Agric Water Manag 160:98–105.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yoshida H, Nielsen MP, Scheutz C, Jensen LS, Bruun S, Christensen TH (2016) Long-term emission factors for land application of treated organic municipal waste. Environ Model Assess 21:111–124.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-015-9471-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhang RH, Duan ZQ, Li ZG (2012) Use of spent mushroom substrate as growing media for tomato and cucumber seedlings. Pedosphere 22:333–342.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(12)60020-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zheljazkov VD, Warman PR (2004) Source-separated municipal solid waste compost application to Swiss chard and basil. J Environ Qual 33:542–552.  https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2004.5420 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zhou H, Fang H, Mooney SJ, Peng X (2016) Effects of long-term inorganic and organic fertilizations on the soil micro and macro structures of rice paddies. Geoderma 266:66–74.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.12.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Organic Farming and Cropping SystemsUniversity of KasselWitzenhausenGermany
  2. 2.Department of AgronomyFerdowsi University of Mashhad, Faculty of AgricultureMashhadIran

Personalised recommendations