Effects of the onion residue compost as an organic fertilizer in a vegetable culture in the Lower Valley of the Rio Negro

  • G. Pellejero
  • A. Miglierina
  • G. Aschkar
  • M. Turcato
  • R. Jiménez-Ballesta
Open Access
Original Research

Abstract

Purpose

Farming production in the lower part of Río Negro Valley (Argentina) has increased considerably during recent years, causing soil degradation and, specifically, decreasing the organic matter contents. This fact requires recovery measures, as organic amendments for soils, to improve its quality. The marked objectives for the present research is to evaluate compost as organic fertilizer, based on a mix of onion waste and bovine manure.

Methods

The experiment was carried out in a completely randomized design, involving five treatments and one control, with ten copies of each one. Tests were performed in a greenhouse, using flowerpots and experimental plots, in a typical soil of the region (Aridisol), pH 8.3 and 2.2% of organic matter, mixed with different compost dosages (20, 40, 60 and 80 Mg ha−1) and the chemical treatment, Urea (0.26 Mg ha−1). A horticultural farming of 1 lettuce was sowed (Lactuca sativa). A conventional handling was carried out for the whole cultivation period, and at the end was harvested. Ten plants per plot were taken and were determined total fresh weight, aerial part fresh weight, root part fresh eight. In the dry controls total dry weight, aerial dry weight and root dry weight was determined.

Results

Results show, with an error (p < 0.05), significant differences in the fresh weight per plant calculated, between treatments and control; a noticeably greater effect can be observed in the treatments with 6 and 8 kg m−2 compost amending and urea treatment. There is no evidence of the existence of significant differences (p < 0.05) between treatments and control, according to the values obtained for root size as well as aerial dry weight and root dry matter.

Conclusions

It can be concluded that the addition of organic fertilizer to soils, has positive effect on the Fresh weight of the plant, recommending the use of doses of 6 kg m−2 while the dose of 8 kg m−2 could replace the use of chemical fertilizers such as Urea.

Keywords

Organic amendments Compost application Cultivation Horticultural production 

Introduction

The application of biosolid as a fertilizer in agricultural cultivation is a common practice in many countries (Shahrzad and Meheran 2012). Intensive use of soils, specifically those oriented to horticultural production, has caused the decrease of organic matter and nutrient; that has been identified as one of the most important threats to the quality of soils (Bevacqua and Mellano 1994; Maynard 1995; Khoshgoftarmanesh and Kalbasi 2002; Hu and Barker 2004; Maftoun et al. 2004; Campitelli and Ceppi 2008; Amusan et al. 2011; Kabirinejad and Hoodaji 2012; Sohrabi et al. 2013; Giannakis et al. 2014; Rajaie and Tavakoly 2016; Dotaniya et al. 2016; Kalaivanan and Hattab 2016).

Through the studies carried out about different horticultural labors, fruit trees and cereal crops, many authors pointed that the application of organic amendments to soil, coming from the composting process of different kinds of wastes (urban solid wastes, manure, gardening and tree pruning), yields a significant improvement in the nutritional condition of the plant; as well as in the performance and quality of harvested fruits (Arancon et al. 2004; Lee et al. 2004; Gutiérrez-Miceli et al. 2007; Singh et al. 2008; Suthar 2009; Tejada and González 2009; Batlle-Bayer et al. (2010); Amusan et al. 2011; Giannakis et al. 2014).

The need for decreasing the reliance on chemical products in crops fertilization and the ever-growing land degradation, as a result of intensive use and unsuitable crop management, puts an obligation on growers to search for more reliable and sustainable alternatives, Lal (2007). Thus, the use of organic amendments represents a source of carbon and some other nutrients, which favors the microbial activity and enhances the soil structure, creating an enabling environment for plant growth. The recovery of organic matter content from soils, determines that the use of composts, coming from degradation of agricultural wastes, as humic amendment for agricultural soils, represents one of the most frequently used options (Benitez et al. 2000; Boixadeira and Teira 2001; Abad and Puchades 2002; Soliva and Paulet 2003; Kale 2004; Schuldt 2006; Bachman and Metzger 2008; Canet and Albiach 2008; Moral and Muro 2007). Classen and Carey (2004) considered the conversion from organic waste to relatively stable compounds, like compost, allows its later use as soil condition-enhancing organic amendment. In fact, from the agricultural and environmental point of view, the application on soil of composted organic wastes is a recommended practice, to achieve the remediation of degraded soils and the nutrient supply to plants (Tejada et al. 2002; Larney and Angers 2012).

Compost holds a direct effect over the macrostructure of agricultural soils, mainly in arid zones, having influence over pore volume, and promoting soil moisture distribution and gas exchange (Costa et al. 1991). Apparent density is downsized, so consequently, permeability and stability of aggregates are increased. Furthermore, it increases water-retention capability and decreases land erosion (Zebarth et al. 1999).

Several studies point to the benefits of the compost addition over edaphic chemical properties, increasing buffer capacity and cationic interchange capacity (CIC), with the associated increase in soil fertility and nutrient supply, particularly N, P, K, Ca and Fe (Bruun et al. 2006; Kowaljow and Mazzarino 2007). Likewise have shown the positive effect over biological properties (García-Gil et al. 2000).

Although, the use of fertilizers and amendments is in widespread use, there is not neither clear standard nor technical-scientific support about the management practices used in irrigation zones of Argentina. In general, type of fertilizer, dose, stages and form of use are stipulated by an empirical way and are highly varying among the growers (Bermejillo and Filippini 2007).

Fertility of these soils could be enhanced by the use of recycled organic wastes, such as framing sub-products, including animal manure, food processing waste. Wastes, generally, have high levels of organic matter and nutrients, and its agricultural use can contribute to close ecologic natural cycles (Montemurro et al. 2004; Montemurro and Maiorana 2008). Vermicomposting, a tool for manure management can be employed as a means for manure treatment with the aim of enhancing nutritive value of forage (Aminu et al. 2012).

To perform an agronomic research of the possible commodities to use for compost manufacture, next stages must be rigorously considered (Abad et al. 1993) such as: (a) Materials characterization (physical, chemical and biological); (b) Properties critical review (c) Simple enhancement, if appropriate, of these properties; and (d) Plant growing tests. The present document evaluates the effect between the implementation of different compost dosages and the output of a lettuce (Lactuca sativa) cultivation, type “Prize Head”. Compost, used as organic amendment, has been prepared from a mix of onion wastes and cattle manure. Collaterally, it is assessed if its use would be a viable alternative for waste recycling and, probably, could replace commercial inorganic fertilizers in intensive horticultural production.

Materials and methods

For two consecutive years, tests were performed under a controlled environment in the Universidad Nacional del Comahue-CURZA greenhouse, located in the city of Viedma (40°49′S), Argentina. Experiences in plant pots and plots were conducted in a chapel-type greenhouse, with iron structure, LDT polyethylene roof and wall covering (thickness 150 μ) and sideways ventilation. Some of the soil properties are showed in Table 1, in which appear a low cationic exchangeable capacity.
Table 1

Composition of soil and compost used during the tests

 

pH

EC (ds m−1)

Ct (g kg−1)

N (g kg−1)

OM %

Pe (%)

Kdisp (%)

CEC (cmol kg−1)

Compost (2009)

7.6

1.9

87

9.7

19.3

0.18

0.76

35.1

Compost (2010)

7.8

1.8

98

9

21.6

0.23

0.98

39.8

Soil (2009)

8.3

1.6

14

1

2.2

0.02

0.04

8.60

Soil (2010)

7.9

2.1

16

1.2

2.4

0.03

0.04

8.20

EC electric conductivity, Ct total carbon, N total nitrogen, OM organic matter, Pe extractable phosphorus, Kdisp disposable potassium, CIC cationic exchange capacity

The application of different compost dosages was performed on a typical Lower Valley soil, classified as Aridisol, alluvial nature, sandy-clay-loam texture, coming from a horticultural lot, with low content of organic matter.

Test performed in plants pots

Two test were performed, one during the first year and the other throughout the following year. 5 l capacity pots were used in both experiments, filled with 5 kg of soil collected from a greenhouse lot under intensive production. This soil was mixed with varying quantities of compost, to achieve treatments with high, medium and low dosage, which were compared to a control and a chemical fertilization treatment (urea).

Compost and chemical fertilizer dosages, to apply per pot, were calculated depending of N content, using volumetric baseline, and supposing a 0.15 m ground depth and an apparent density of 1.3 mg m3.

In each pot, the corresponding compost quantities were mixed with the soil, that afterwards were watered and, 3 days later, three lettuce seeds were sown. When the seedlings reached 2nd and 3rd true leaf stage, thinning was carried out, leaving only one plant per pot.

The experiment was completely randomized, involving five treatments with a control, fifteen replications per treatment, which are outlined below:

Treatment

Dosage

Control

No compost

T1

Compost, 20 Mg ha−1 (200 kg N ha−1)

T2

Compost, 40 Mg ha−1 (400 kg N ha−1)

T3

Compost, 60 Mg ha−1 (600 kg N ha−1)

T4

Compost, 80 Mg ha−1 (800 kg N ha−1)

T5

Urea, 0.26 Mg ha−1 (120 kg N ha−1)

There was daily irrigation, carried out manually according to the cultivation needs in every pot, until harvesting about 90 days later. Weed control was accomplished manually.

At the end of cultivation cycle, plants were extracted out of the pots. In every plant was determined: total fresh weight (TFW), aerial part fresh weight (AFW), and root part fresh weight (RFW). Dry weight was obtained after putting controls into an oven at 60 °C for 72 h, until constant weight. In dry controls, total dry weight (TDW), aerial dry weight (ADW) and root dry weight (RDW). Root length (cm) was also measured.

Test in experimental plots

Two tests were conducted in plots located in the greenhouse, one during the first year and the other throughout the following year. Treatments were placed in 4 m2 (experimental unit) plots, with a completely randomized design, which were six treatments, three repetitions per treatment, as is shown below:

Treatments

Dosage

Control

No compost

T1

Compost, 20 Mg ha−1 (200 kg N ha−1)

T2

Compost, 40 Mg ha−1 (400 kg N ha−1)

T3

Compost, 60 Mg ha−1 (600 kg N ha−1)

T4

Compost, 80 Mg ha−1 (800 kg N ha−1)

T5

Urea, 0.26 Mg ha−1 (120 kg N ha−1)

Seeds were sown in black polypropylene seedling starter trays, with 128 cells, and 22 cm3 volume. When seedlings reached 3rd–4th true leaf stage, were transplanted to the plots, over 0.70 m ridges and 0.30 m planting distance, in double row plantation.

Previously, amendment was manually added in the first 0.15 m depth. Urea was applied in two dosages, the first at transplantation, and the second 45 days later (around the middle of cultivation cycle), matching with handling carried up by local agricultural producers. The greenhouse was not heated, watering was carried out by drip irrigation, according to crop requirements, and weed control was carried out in a manual way.

About 90 days, the cycle was completed and all the plants of the plot were harvested, to evaluate the yield. Ten plants per plot were taken and were determined total fresh weight (TFW), aerial part fresh weight (AFW), root part fresh weight (RFW). In the dry controls total dry weight (TDW), aerial dry weight (ADW) and root dry weight (RDW) were determined.

To study the effect of different compost dosages application over macronutrient content in lettuce leafs; at harvest time some controls of lettuce leafs were taken, dried at 60 °C until constant weight and were determined total quantity of N (Bremner and Mulvaney 1982), K and P quantities throughout wet digestion (Johnson and Ulrich 1959) and subsequent plasma emission spectrometry determination. Data were analyzed by an analysis of variance (ANOVA). Measures were compared by Tukey’s test at 5% (INFOSTAT 2011).

Results and discussion

Test in experimental pot

In the first year, the variables “total fresh weight” (TFW) and “aerial part fresh weight” (AFW) showed significant differences between treatments: chemical treatment had the highest values compared to control (S) and organic amendments treatments (Fig. 1a). Probably the fertilizing action of urea the urea fertilizing action emerges in an immediate way, to reach a prompt N availability for the cultivation (Rotondo et al. 2009). In contrast, composts get mineralized slowly and only 10–15% of applied N is available for the first cycle of application (Petersen et al. 2003; Gutser et al. 2005; Moral and Muro 2007). The effects of compost application and inorganic fertilization over production variables have been studied in one asparagus cultivation and another of peas, and higher values have been obtained applying mineral fertilizer. Also, significant differences were found in favor of composted treatments against unfertilized controls (Zamora et al. 2006). In this trial, conducted in the lettuce cultivation, there were no differences between control, T1 and T2, while in highest dosage treatments, T3 (60 Mg ha−1) and T4 (80 Mg ha−1), the differences were significantly higher than Control and T1.
Fig. 1

Effect of different compost and mineral fertilizer dosages over the fresh weight of pot-planted lettuce. a First year, b second year. TFW total fresh weight, AFW aerial fresh weight, RFW root fresh weight

T2 and T5 showed the higher root fresh weight, with significant differences concerning only to Control and T1 (Fig. 1a). These results agree with logged by Rotondo et al. (2009), who also evaluated the application of organic amendment from earthworm-compost from domestic waste, earthworm-compost from rabbit and horse manure and rice husk bed mixed with chicken manure, to one lettuce cultivation and to another broccoli cultivation.

López-Mosquera et al. (2003) founded further responses in horticultural cultivations, using increasing dosages of organic amendment from chicken manure fermented into a vegetal matter bed. Short time periods are not enough to observe the response of organic aggregate in cultivation yield, and continuous applications are required to support the appropriate nutrient level (Ullé et al. 2004). It is necessary that the progressive combination of organic and inorganic fertilizers, particularly compost, to reach a balance in nutritional levels added to the ground (Añez and Espinoza 2003). Total fresh weights obtained in the second year of the pot-test (2011), were lower than obtained in the second year (Fig. 1b).

Although the trend was similar, treatments with higher compost dosages (60 years 80 Mg ha−1) showed the highest values for this variable. The chemical treatment, even though having produced the highest plant weight, did not differ from organic amendment treatments. The control and the lowest compost dosage registered similar weights. The aerial fresh weight marked same tendency than total fresh weight. Differences between highest compost dosages and urea treatment were not detected (Fig. 1b). Root fresh weight was higher in T5, having significant differences from it to control and T1.

In reference to aerial component, it showed same tendency than total fresh weight. No differences were detected between the highest compost dosages and the urea treatment (Fig. 1b). Root fresh weight was higher in T5, concerning to significant differences with control and T1. Relating to dry weight (total, aerial and root), during the first year trial, it was observed a tendency similar to detected at fresh weight; urea application produced highest values in contrast to the other treatments (Fig. 2a). Highest compost dosages showed higher root dry weight than T1 and T2. In the second year, the trend in total dry weight was similar than observed in fresh weight (Fig. 2b). Lower values were detected in control and T1. Significant differences were not found between 80 Mg ha−1 and urea treatment, but those values were significantly higher than showed in the control and the lowest compost dosage.
Fig. 2

Effect of different compost and mineral fertilizer dosages over the dry weight of pot-planted lettuce. a First year, b second year. TFW total fresh weight, AFW aerial fresh weight, RFW root fresh weight

Test in experimental plots

For the first year, all treatments produced higher yields than the control (Table 2). Higher values were found at T3, T4 and T5. The T1 treatment did not differ from the control. Along the second year, all the treatments produced higher yields than the control. Chemical fertilization registered the highest value, but did not differ statistically from 60 and 80 Mg ha−1 organic treatments.
Table 2

Effect of different compost and mineral fertilizer dosages over lettuce cultivation yield (Mg ha−1)

Year

Control

T1

T2

T3

T4

T5

2010

13.9 a

16.9 a b

19.3 b c

22.3 c

21.6 b c

21.6 b c

2011

14.4 a

17.7 a b

22.4 b c

25.9 c d

26.9 c d

29.3 d

For the first year, the higher values for total fresh weight and aerial fresh weight were detected in organic treatments T2, T3 and T4, and the urea treatment, as observed for the “yield per hectare” variable (Fig. 3a). Application of onion-manure at rates over 600 kg N ha−1 (80 Mg compost ha−1) caused a diminution for the growing of the lettuce cultivation. This result could be assigned to the larger amount of total C contributed, which could immobilize the N, as reported by Kokora and Hann (2007). Eriksen et al. (1999) also detected immobilization of nitrogen in soil, after the application of 310 kg N ha−1 of compost from urban solid wastes.
Fig. 3

Effect of different compost and mineral fertilizer dosages over the fresh weight of lettuce harvested in experimental plots. a First year, b second year. TFW total fresh weight, AFW aerial fresh weight, RFW root fresh weight

The total fresh weight obtained for the second year were higher than obtained the first one (Fig. 3b). Urea treatment produced the highest values, about 200 g pl−1, without any significant concerning to the highest compost dosage treatments.

In relation to the control treatment, T2, T3, T4 and T5 were significantly higher than control. Aerial fresh weight showed the same trend than total weight. The highest root fresh weights were registered in T4 (80 Mg ha−1), with significant differences concerning to control and T1. For the first year, the highest value for total dry weight was obtained from 60 Mg ha−1 compost dosage (Fig. 4a). T1 and T2 did not show significant differences concerning to the control. Chemical treatment showed the lowest values of dry matter, like control did. In 2011 test, the highest values for dry weight per plant (11 g), were registered by applying 80 Mg ha−1, having significant differences with regard to control T1, T2 and T5 (Fig. 4b). Aerial dry weight showed a similar trend. T4 also showed the highest root dry weight, with significant differences regarding to control and T1.
Fig. 4

Effect of different compost and mineral fertilizer dosages over the dry weight of lettuce harvested in experimental plots. a First year, b second year. TFW total fresh weight, AFW aerial fresh weight, RFW root fresh weight

Conclusions

The study showed that every treatment produced higher yields than control, while underlining that the usage of growing compost dosages caused the increase of production variables, which were measured after harvesting. Furthermore, it is observed that application of urea and 60-years 80 Mg ha−1 compost dosages produced the highest fresh weights and total weights, detecting that the largest root lengths are evidenced with chemical fertilization and the highest compost dosages.

In the end, the highest N, P and K contents in lettuce leafs were observed in the urea treatments and in the highest compost dosages, meanwhile the highest compost dosages could replace chemical fertilization with satisfactory results.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to manifest our appreciation and respect to the next organizations, which have made possible the realization of this experiment through the provision of funds and material resources: Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Viedma. Dpto. Agronomía—Universidad Nacional del Sur. Bahía Blanca.

References

  1. Abad M, Martínez PF, Martínez MD, Martínez J (1993) Evaluación agronómica de los sustratos de cultivo. Actas de Horticultura 11:141–154Google Scholar
  2. Abad M, Puchades R (2002) Compostaje de residuos orgánicos generados en la hoya de Buñol (Valencia) con fines hortícolas. Ed. Valencia, Asociación para la Promoción Socioeconómica Interior Hoya de Buñol, p 100Google Scholar
  3. Aminu N, Abdul R, Norli I, Mahamad H (2012) Nutritive value of cattle manure vermicast and its effect on in vitro ruminal gas production. Int J Recycl Org Waste Agric. doi:10.1007/s40093-014-0051-5 Google Scholar
  4. Amusan AO, Adetunji MT, Azeez JO, Bodunde JG (2011) Effect of the integrated use of legume residue, poultry manure and inorganic fertilizers on maize yield, nutrient uptake and soil properties. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 90(3):321–330. doi:10.1007/s10705-011-9432-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arancon NQ, Edwards CA, Berman P, Welch C, Metzger JD (2004) Influences of vermicomposts on field strawberries: 1. Effects on growth and yields. Bioresour Technol 93:145–153. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2003.10.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Añez B, Espinoza W (2003) Respuestas de la lechuga y el repollo a la fertilización química y orgánica. Revista Forestal, Venezuela 47:73–82Google Scholar
  7. Bachman GR, Metzger JD (2008) Growth of bedding plants in commercial potting substrate amended with vermicompost. Bioresour Technol 99:3155–3166. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2007.05.069 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Batlle-Bayer L, Batjes NH, Bindraban PS (2010) Changes in organic carbon stocks upon land use conversion in the Brazilian Cerrado: a review. Agric Ecosyst Environ 137:47–58. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2010.02.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benitez E, Nogales R, Masciandaro G, Ceccanti B (2000) Isolation by isoelectric focusing of humic-urease complexes from earthworm (Eiseniafoetida) processed sewage sludges. Biol Fertil Soils 31:489–493. doi:10.1007/s003740000197 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bermejillo A, Filippini MF (2007) Abonos orgánicos una práctica agronómica revalorizada En: X Curso Taller sobre producción, comercialización e industrialización de ajo. Mendoza, pp 79–86Google Scholar
  11. Bevacqua RF, Mellano VJ (1994) Cumulative effects of sludge compost on crop yields and soil properties. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 25:395–406. doi:10.1080/00103629409369046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boixadera J, Teira MR (2001) Aplicación Agrícola de Residuos Orgánicos. UdL, Lleida, pp 143–148Google Scholar
  13. Bremner JM, Mulvaney CS (1982) Nitrogen-total. In: Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR (eds) Methods of soil analysis. Agronomy Monograph, Madison, pp 595–624Google Scholar
  14. Bruun S, Hansen TL, Christensen TH, Magid J, Jensen LS (2006) Application of processes organic municipal solid waste on agricultural land—a scenario analysis. Environ Model Assess 11:251–265. doi:10.1007/s10666-005-9028-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Campitelli P, Ceppi S (2008) Chemical, physical and biological compost and vermicompost characterization: a chemometric study. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 90:64–71. doi:10.1016/j.chemolab.2007.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Canet R, Albiach MR (2008) Aplicaciones del compost en Agricultura Ecológica. In: Moreno-Casco J, Moral-Herrero R (eds) Compostaje. Mundi-Prensa, Madrid, pp 379–395Google Scholar
  17. Claassen VP, Carey JL (2004) Regeneration of nitrogen fertility in disturbed soils using composts. Compost Sci Util. doi:10.1080/1065657X.2004.10702173 Google Scholar
  18. Costa F, García C, Hernández T, Polo A (1991) Residuos orgánicos urbanos. Manejo y utilización. Centro de Edafología y Biología Aplicada de Segura, Murcia, p 181Google Scholar
  19. Dotaniya ML, Datta SC, Biswas DR, Dotaniya CK, Meena BL, Rajendiran S, Regar KL, Lata M (2016) Use of sugarcane industrial by-products for improving sugarcane productivity and soil health. Int J Recycl Org Waste Agric 5:185–194. doi:10.1007/s40093-016-0132-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eriksen GN, Coale FJ, Bollero GA (1999) Soil nitrogen and maize production in municipal solid waste amended soil. Agro J 99:1009–1016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. García-Gil JC, Plaza C, Soler-Rovira P, Polo A (2000) Long-term effects of municipal solid waste compost application on soil enzyme activities and microbial biomass. Soil Biol Biochem 32:1907–1913. doi:10.1016/S0038-0717(00)00165-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giannakis GV, Kourgialas NN, Paranychianakis NV, Nikolaidis NP, Kalogerakis N (2014) Effects of municipal solid waste compost on soil properties and vegetables growth. Compost Sci Util 22(3):116–131. doi:10.1080/1065657X.2014.899938 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gutiérrez-Miceli FA, Santiago-Borraz J, Montes JA, Nafate CC, Abud-Archilla M, Oliva 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. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2006.02.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gutser R, Ebertseder T, Weber A, Schraml M, Schmidhalter U (2005) Short-term and residual availability of nitrogen after long-term application of organic fertilizers on arable land. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci. doi:10.1002/jpln.200520510 Google Scholar
  25. Hu Y, Barker AV (2004) Evaluation of composts and their combinations with other materials on tomato growth. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 35:2789–2807. doi:10.1081/CSS-200036448 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. INFOSTAT, Di Rienzo JA, Casanoves F, Balzarini MG, Gonzalez L, Tablada M, Robledo CW (2011) InfoStat versión 2011. Grupo InfoStat, FCA, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina. http://www.infostat.com.ar. Accessed 22 Feb 2012
  27. Johnson CM, Ulrich A (1959) Analytical methods for use in plant analysis. Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 766. University of California. Bulletin 766:25–78Google Scholar
  28. Kabirinejad S, Hoodaji M (2012) The effects of biosolid application on soil chemical properties and Zea mays nutrition. Int J Recycl Org Waste Agric 1:4. doi:10.1186/2251-7715-1-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kalaivanan D, Hattab KO (2016) Recycling of sugarcane industries byproducts for preparation of enriched pressmud compost and its influence on growth and yield of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Int J Recycl Org Waste Agric 5:263–272. doi:10.1007/s40093-016-0136-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kale R (2004) The use of earthworms: nature’s gift for utilization of organic waste in Asia. In: Edwards CA (ed) Earthworm ecology. CRC Press, Florida, pp 381–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Khoshgoftarmanesh AK, Kalbasi M (2002) Effect of municipal waste leachate on soil properties and growth and yield of rice. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 33:2011–2020. doi:10.1081/CSS-120005745 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kokkora MI, Hann MJ (2007) Crop production and nitrogen leaching from biowaste and vegetable compost amended sand. In: Proceedings of the Sardinia Symposium 2007—11th International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium. S. Margheritadi Pula, Cagliari, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  33. Kowaljow E, Mazzarino MJ (2007) Soil restoration in semiarid Patagonia: chemical and biological response to different compost quality. Soil Biol Biochem 39:1580–1588. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.01.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lal R (2007) Anthropogenic influences on world soils and implications to global food security. Adv Agro 93:69–93. doi:10.1016/S0065-2113(06)93002-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Larney FJ, Angers DA (2012) The role of organic amendments in soil reclamation: a review. Can J Soil Sci 92:19–38. doi:10.1139/CJSS2010-064 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee J, Park R, Kim Y, Shim J, Chae D, Rim Y, Sohn B (2004) Effect of food waste compost on microbial population, soil enzyme activity and lettuce growth. Bioresour Technol 93:21–28. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2003.10.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. López-Mosquera ME, Carballo ME, Cabaleiro F, Carral E, Lema MJ, López-Fabal A, Sainz MJ (2003) Valorización agronómica de estiércol de pollo deshidratado y granulado en el cultivo de lechuga (tipo trocadero) bajo invernadero. Actas de Horticultura No 39. X Congreso Nacional de Ciencias Hortícolas Pontevedra. www.sech.info/pdfs/actas/acta39/39-212. Accessed 27 Mar 2012
  38. Maftoun M, Moshiri F, Karimian N, Ronaghi AM (2004) Effects of two organic wastes in combination with phosphorus on growth and chemical composition of spinach and soil properties. J Plant Nutr 27(9):1635–1651. doi:10.1081/PLN-200026005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maynard A (1995) Cumulative effect of annual additions of MWC compost on the yield of field-grown tomatoes. Compost Sci Util 3:55–63. doi:10.1080/1065657X.1995.10701781 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Montemurro F, Convertini G, Ferri D (2004) Mill wastewater and olive pomace compost as amendments for rye-grass. Agronomie 24:481–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Montemurro F, Maiorana M (2008) Organic fertilization as resource for a sustainable agriculture. In: Langdon R, Elsworth LR, Paley WO (eds) Fertilizers: properties, applications and effects. Nova Publishers, USA, pp 123–146Google Scholar
  42. Moral R, Muro J (2007) Manejo, dosificación y gestión agronómica del compost. In: Moreno Casco J, Moral Herrero R (eds) Compostaje. Mundi-Prensa, Madrid, pp 351–378Google Scholar
  43. Petersen SO, Henriksen K, Mortensen GK, Krogh PH, Brandt KK, Sorensen J, Madsen T, Petersen J, Gron C (2003) Recycling of sewage sludge and household compost to arable land: fate and effects of organic contaminants, and impact on soil fertility. Soil Tillage Res 72:139–152. doi:10.1016/S0167-1987(03)00084-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rajaie M, Tavakoly AR (2016) Effects of municipal waste compost and nitrogen fertilizer on growth and mineral composition of tomato. Int J Recycl Org Waste Agric. doi:10.1007/s40093-016-0144-4 Google Scholar
  45. Rotondo R, Firpo IT, Ferreras L, Toresani S, Fernández S, Gómez E (2009) Efecto de la aplicación de enmiendas orgánicas y fertilizante nitrogenado sobre propiedades edáficas y productividad en cultivos hortícolas. Horticultura Argentina 28:18–25Google Scholar
  46. Schuldt M (2006) Peso o número de ejemplares, siembras de baja densidad y manejo. Argentina. www.manualdelombricultura.com. Accessed 12 Sep 2012
  47. Shahrzad K, Mehran H (2012) The effects of biosolid application on soil chemical properties and Zea mays nutrition. Int J Recycl Org Waste Agric 1:1–5. doi:10.1186/2251-7715-1-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Singh R, Sharma RR, Kumar S, Gupta RK, Patil RT (2008) Vermicompost substitution influences growth, physiological disorders, fruit yield and quality of strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.). Bioresour Technol 99:8507–8511. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2008.03.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sohrabi Yourtchi M, Haj Seyyed Hadi MR, Darzi MT (2013) Effect of nitrogen fertilizer and vermicompost on vegetative growth, yield and NPK uptake by tuber of potato (Agria CV.). Int J Agric Crop Sci 5(18):2033–2040Google Scholar
  50. Soliva M, Paulet S (2003) Compostaje de residuos orgánicos y aplicación agrícola. In: Boixadera J, Teira MR (eds) Aplicación Agrícola de Residuos Orgánicos. UdL, Lleida, p 17Google Scholar
  51. Suthar S (2009) Impact of vermicompost and composted farmyard manure on growth and yield of garlic (Allium sativum L.) field crop. Int J of Plant Prod 3:1735–1814. doi:10.22069/ijpp.2012.629 Google Scholar
  52. Tejada M, Benitez C, Gonzalez JL (2002) Nitrogen mineralization in soil with conventional and organomineral fertilization practices. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 19–20:3679–3702. doi:10.1081/CSS-120015915 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tejada M, Gonzales JL (2009) Application of two vermicomposts on rice crop: effects on soil biological properties and rice quality and yield. Agron J 101:336–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ullé JA, Fernández F, Rendina A (2004) Evaluación analítica del vermicompost de estiércoles y residuos de cereales y su efecto como fertilizante orgánico en el cultivo de lechuga mantecosa. Horticultura Brasileira 22:434Google Scholar
  55. Zamora LM, Guerrero L, Gázquez JC, Meca DE, Martínez A, Ramos R, Navarro I, Acedo J (2006) Evaluación de un cultivo ecológico de judía en invernadero. Actas del VII Congreso de la Sociedad Española de Agricultura Ecológica, Zaragoza, p 6Google Scholar
  56. Zebarth BJ, Neilsen JH, Hogue E, Neilsen D (1999) Influence of organic waste amendment on selected soil physical and chemical properties. Can J Soil Sci 79:501–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

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

  • G. Pellejero
    • 1
  • A. Miglierina
    • 2
  • G. Aschkar
    • 1
  • M. Turcato
    • 1
  • R. Jiménez-Ballesta
    • 3
  1. 1.CURZA, Universidad Nacional del ComahueViedmaArgentina
  2. 2.Dpto. AgronomíaUniversidad Nacional del SurBahía BlancaArgentina
  3. 3.Dtº Geología y GeoquimicaUniversidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM)MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations