Abstract
Growth and nutrient uptake of three container grown nursery crops were compared using different potting media, including bark mixed with varying amounts, 0, 33, 67, and 100% by volume, of raw paper mill sludge and Phase I (fresh) and Phase II (aged) sludge composts. Species grown were: Tartarian dogwood (Cornus alba L.), Coral Beauty cotoneaster (Cotoneaster dammeri C. K. Schneid.), and Variegata Nana weigela [Weigela florida (Bunge) A.DC.]. Each compost consisted of ca. 40% paper mill sludge. Despite differences in response of species to the amount and source of sludge, plants grew well in media containing Phase I and II composts and produced plants of marketable size at harvest. Media with >33% raw sludge resulted in fewer marketable plants and had a greater volume reduction with increasing amounts of sludge. This was also accompanied by declining shoot and root dry weight. Media containing Phase I compost showed less volume reduction than those with raw sludge, and yielded growth comparable to that obtained with Phase II compost. Media containing Phase II compost showed only marginal volume reduction. Changes in leaf N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, and Zn were small, or nonsignificant. All nutrients except N were related to growth or amount of raw sludge or compost, although all species did not show the same response with each nutrient. The results showed that up to 33% of raw paper mill sludge or any amount of sludge compost was an effective substitute for bark. Since growth was not affected substantially by the age of the compost, the additional time and cost of producing Phase II compost may be unwarranted.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
All three nursery crops grew to marketable size in Phase I and II compost media.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“plants grew well in media containing Phase I and II composts and produced plants of marketable size at harvest.”
e1“Tartarian dogwood (Cornus alba L.), Coral Beauty cotoneaster (Cotoneaster dammeri C. K. Schneid.), and Variegata Nana weigela [Weigela florida (Bunge) A.DC.]”
Claim · model-written summary
Media above 33% raw sludge yielded fewer marketable plants.
- Taxon
- plantsViridiplantaee0
- Treatment
- >33% raw sludgee0
- Outcome
- marketable plantse0
- Direction
- fewere0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Media with >33% raw sludge resulted in fewer marketable plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Media above 33% raw sludge had greater volume reduction as sludge increased.
- Taxon
- plantsViridiplantaee0
- Treatment
- >33% raw sludgee0
- Outcome
- volume reductione0
- Direction
- greatere0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Media with >33% raw sludge resulted in fewer marketable plants and had a greater volume reduction with increasing amounts of sludge.”
Claim · model-written summary
Shoot dry weight declined with raw sludge media above 33%.
- Taxon
- plantsViridiplantaee2
- Treatment
- >33% raw sludgee1
- Outcome
- shoote0
- Direction
- declininge0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“This was also accompanied by declining shoot and root dry weight.”
e1“Media with >33% raw sludge”
e2“produced plants of marketable size at harvest”
Claim · model-written summary
Root dry weight declined with raw sludge media above 33%.
- Taxon
- plantsViridiplantaee2
- Treatment
- >33% raw sludgee1
- Outcome
- root dry weighte0
- Direction
- declininge0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“This was also accompanied by declining shoot and root dry weight.”
e1“Media with >33% raw sludge”
e2“produced plants of marketable size at harvest”
Claim · model-written summary
Phase I compost media had less volume reduction than raw sludge media.
Verbatim
e0“Media containing Phase I compost showed less volume reduction than those with raw sludge”
e1“produced plants of marketable size at harvest”
Claim · model-written summary
Growth in Phase I compost was comparable to Phase II compost.
Verbatim
e0“yielded growth comparable to that obtained with Phase II compost.”
e1“Media containing Phase I compost”
e2“produced plants of marketable size at harvest”
Claim · model-written summary
Phase II compost media showed marginal volume reduction.
- Taxon
- plantsViridiplantaee1
- Treatment
- Phase II composte0
- Outcome
- marginal volume reductione0
Verbatim
e0“Media containing Phase II compost showed only marginal volume reduction.”
e1“produced plants of marketable size at harvest”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf nutrient changes were small or nonsignificant.
- Taxon
- plantsViridiplantaee1
- Outcome
- Changes in leaf N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, and Zne0
- Direction
- smalle0
Verbatim
e0“Changes in leaf N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, and Zn were small, or nonsignificant.”
e1“produced plants of marketable size at harvest”
Claim · model-written summary
All nutrients except N were related to growth or substrate amount, with species varying by nutrient.
- Taxon
- plantsViridiplantaee1
- Treatment
- raw sludge or composte0
- Outcome
- growthe0
- Qualifier
- all species did not show the same responsee0
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“All nutrients except N were related to growth or amount of raw sludge or compost, although all species did not show the same response with each nutrient.”
e1“produced plants of marketable size at harvest”
Claim · model-written summary
Up to 33% raw sludge effectively substituted for bark.
Verbatim
e0“up to 33% of raw paper mill sludge or any amount of sludge compost was an effective substitute for bark.”
e1“nursery crops”
Claim · model-written summary
Any amount of sludge compost effectively substituted for bark.
Verbatim
e0“up to 33% of raw paper mill sludge or any amount of sludge compost was an effective substitute for bark.”
e1“nursery crops”
Claim · model-written summary
The extra time and cost for Phase II compost may be unwarranted because growth changed little with compost age.
Verbatim
e0“Since growth was not affected substantially by the age of the compost, the additional time and cost of producing Phase II compost may be unwarranted.”
e1“nursery crops”
The same questions in other papers
organic · growth · Viridiplantae (plants)Positive and negative results
6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →fertilization · growth · Viridiplantae (plants)Positive and negative results
31 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
35 papers more in this group
See all 39 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.