Paper · 2012 · Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis

Recycling of Agro-food Wastes into Vineyards by Composting: Agronomic Validation in Field Conditions

R. Rubio; M. D. Pérez-Murcia; E. Agulló; et al.

9
claims
20
verbatim quotes
27
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The objective of this work was to study the agronomic effects produced by the application of agro-food composts in vineyards (Vitis vinifera L.) in organic farming field conditions. To carry out this objective, yield, nutrient contents and quality of fruit, and different physicochemical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil at the beginning and end of the experiment were studied. Four agro-food-derived composts were used. Three of these composts were elaborated mainly using exhausted grape marc and wastes from citrus juice production (C1 and C2) or cattle manure (C3). Compost (C4) was elaborated using the solid fraction of a digestate obtained after the anaerobic digestion of cattle slurry, mixed with vine shoot pruning. Three treatments were used as control treatments: sheep manure (SM), commercial pelletized sheep-derived compost (CC pellet), and a treatment without any organic amendment (B). The study was developed in Fuente Álamo (Albacete, Spain) using Petit Verdot vine variety and organic farming management. The addition into the vineyard soil of the agro-food-derived composts increased soil salinity, the contents in nitrogen and oxidizable organic carbon, and the soil biological activity. Grape yield was also significantly increased with the compost-based treatments compared to control treatment (B), with C1 and C3 showing similar results to the treatment CC pellet. In general, organic amendments did not affect the alcohol production capacity of the fruit but increased the total acidity and the contents of several nutrients, as well as reduced polyphenol levels in grape.

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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Agro-food composts increased vineyard soil salinity.

Taxon
Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferae1
Treatment
agro-food-derived compostse0
Outcome
soil salinitye0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis vinifera
Vitis vinifera · TaxonDarijanus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The addition into the vineyard soil of the agro-food-derived composts increased soil salinity”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1041–1134 · show in text ↑
e1

“vineyards (Vitis vinifera L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 115–144 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Agro-food composts increased soil nitrogen and oxidizable organic carbon.

Taxon
Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferae1
Treatment
agro-food-derived compostse0
Outcome
contents in nitrogen and oxidizable organic carbone0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis vinifera
Vitis vinifera · TaxonDarijanus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The addition into the vineyard soil of the agro-food-derived composts increased soil salinity, the contents in nitrogen and oxidizable organic carbon”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1041–1190 · show in text ↑
e1

“vineyards (Vitis vinifera L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 115–144 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Agro-food composts increased soil biological activity.

Taxon
Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferae1
Treatment
agro-food-derived compostse0
Outcome
soil biological activitye0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis vinifera
Vitis vinifera · TaxonDarijanus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The addition into the vineyard soil of the agro-food-derived composts increased soil salinity, the contents in nitrogen and oxidizable organic carbon, and the soil biological activity”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1041–1224 · show in text ↑
e1

“vineyards (Vitis vinifera L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 115–144 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Compost treatments significantly increased grape yield relative to the unamended control.

Taxon
Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferae1
Treatment
compost-based treatmentse0
Outcome
Grape yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
control treatment (B)e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis vinifera
Vitis vinifera · TaxonDarijanus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Grape yield was also significantly increased with the compost-based treatments compared to control treatment (B)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1226–1338 · show in text ↑
e1

“vineyards (Vitis vinifera L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 115–144 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

C1 and C3 gave grape yield results similar to CC pellet.

Taxon
Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferae2
Treatment
C1 and C3e0
Outcome
Grape yielde1
Direction
similare0
Comparator
CC pellete0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis vinifera
Vitis vinifera · TaxonDarijanus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“with C1 and C3 showing similar results to the treatment CC pellet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1340–1405 · show in text ↑
e1

“Grape yield was also significantly increased with the compost-based treatments compared to control treatment (B)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1226–1338 · show in text ↑
e2

“vineyards (Vitis vinifera L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 115–144 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Organic amendments did not affect the fruit’s alcohol production capacity.

Taxon
Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferae1
Treatment
organic amendmentse0
Outcome
alcohol production capacity of the fruite0
Direction
did not affecte0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis vinifera
Vitis vinifera · TaxonDarijanus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“organic amendments did not affect the alcohol production capacity of the fruit”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1419–1497 · show in text ↑
e1

“vineyards (Vitis vinifera L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 115–144 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Organic amendments increased total acidity of grape fruit.

Taxon
Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferae1
Treatment
organic amendmentse0
Outcome
total aciditye0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis vinifera
Vitis vinifera · TaxonDarijanus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“organic amendments did not affect the alcohol production capacity of the fruit but increased the total acidity”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1419–1529 · show in text ↑
e1

“vineyards (Vitis vinifera L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 115–144 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Organic amendments increased several grape nutrient contents.

Taxon
Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferae2
Treatment
organic amendmentse1
Outcome
contents of several nutrientse0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis vinifera
Vitis vinifera · TaxonDarijanus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“increased the total acidity and the contents of several nutrients”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1502–1567 · show in text ↑
e1

“organic amendments did not affect the alcohol production capacity of the fruit”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1419–1497 · show in text ↑
e2

“vineyards (Vitis vinifera L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 115–144 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Organic amendments reduced grape polyphenol levels.

Taxon
Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferae1
Treatment
organic amendmentse0
Outcome
polyphenol levels in grapee0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis vinifera
Vitis vinifera · TaxonDarijanus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“organic amendments did not affect the alcohol production capacity of the fruit but increased the total acidity and the contents of several nutrients, as well as reduced polyphenol levels in grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1419–1614 · show in text ↑
e1

“vineyards (Vitis vinifera L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 115–144 · show in text ↑

fertilization · soil: chemistry · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 3 positive, 2 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

fertilization · yield · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results

21 papers: 17 positive, 4 negative or no effect

16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

17 papers more in this group

See all 21 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.