Paper · 2020 · Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis

Effect of different tomato pomace compost as organic fertilizer in sweet maize crop

Ioanna Kakabouki; Aspasia Efthimiadou; Antigolena Folina; et al.

9
claims
18
verbatim quotes
19
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Pomace from tomato paste is produced in great amounts after tomato processing industries in Greece. The aim of this study is to evaluate tomato pomace as fertilizer in sweet maize cultivation. Two-year experiments were set up in West Greece under organic cultivations. The experiments followed a randomized complete block design, with four treatments, with which were different fertilizer applications (control, Tomato pomace, Tomato pomace & inorganic fertilizer (NPK), Tomato pomace & manure) in three replications. The root density, root surface, and symbiotic of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) were statistically affected by fertilization for both years, and the combination of Tomato pomace (Tp) and manure gave the highest values. Organic carbon (C) was significantly affected by year and fertilization, as well as the total nitrogen (N) was significantly affected by fertilization. Soil porosity under tomato pomace and mix of tomato pomace and inorganic fertilizer do not show statistically significant differences. The highest values for plant growth and leaf area index were under the combination of tomato pomace and manure. The yield was statistically affected by fertilization and year. Therefore, tomato mixtures with manure as well as compost had the most positive results in almost all parameters of the studies.

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 resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilization significantly affected maize root density and root surface in both years.

Taxon
sweet maizet0
Treatment
fertilizatione0
Outcome
root density, root surfacee0
Qualifier
for both yearse0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Verbatim

e0

“The root density, root surface, and symbiotic of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) were statistically affected by fertilization for both years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 518–661 · show in text ↑
t0

“sweet maize crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–83 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilization significantly affected arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi symbiosis in both years.

Taxon
sweet maizet0
Treatment
fertilizatione0
Interactor
arbuscular mycorrhizal fungie0symbiont
Outcome
symbiotic of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF)e0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Verbatim

e0

“symbiotic of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) were statistically affected by fertilization for both years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 554–661 · show in text ↑
t0

“sweet maize crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–83 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tomato pomace with manure gave the highest root density, root surface, and mycorrhizal symbiosis.

Taxon
sweet maizet0
Treatment
combination of Tomato pomace (Tp) and manuree0
Interactor
arbuscular mycorrhizal fungie0symbiont
Outcome
root density, root surface, and symbiotic of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF)e0
Direction
higheste0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“The root density, root surface, and symbiotic of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) were statistically affected by fertilization for both years, and the combination of Tomato pomace (Tp) and manure gave the highest values”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 518–739 · show in text ↑
t0

“sweet maize crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–83 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Year and fertilization significantly affected organic carbon.

Taxon
sweet maizet0
Treatment
fertilizatione0
Outcome
Organic carbon (C)e0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0

“Organic carbon (C) was significantly affected by year and fertilization”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 741–812 · show in text ↑
t0

“sweet maize crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–83 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilization significantly affected total nitrogen.

Taxon
sweet maizet0
Treatment
fertilizatione0
Outcome
total nitrogen (N)e0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Verbatim

e0

“the total nitrogen (N) was significantly affected by fertilization”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 825–891 · show in text ↑
t0

“sweet maize crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–83 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil porosity did not differ significantly between tomato pomace and pomace with inorganic fertilizer.

Taxon
sweet maizet0
Treatment
tomato pomacee0
Outcome
Soil porositye0
Direction
do not show statistically significant differencese0
Comparator
mix of tomato pomace and inorganic fertilizere0

Verbatim

e0

“Soil porosity under tomato pomace and mix of tomato pomace and inorganic fertilizer do not show statistically significant differences”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 893–1026 · show in text ↑
t0

“sweet maize crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–83 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tomato pomace with manure yielded the highest plant growth and leaf area index.

Taxon
sweet maizet0
Treatment
combination of tomato pomace and manuree0
Outcome
plant growth and leaf area indexe0
Direction
higheste0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“The highest values for plant growth and leaf area index were under the combination of tomato pomace and manure”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1028–1138 · show in text ↑
t0

“sweet maize crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–83 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilization and year significantly affected yield.

Taxon
sweet maizet0
Treatment
fertilizatione0
Outcome
yielde0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0

“The yield was statistically affected by fertilization and year”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1140–1202 · show in text ↑
t0

“sweet maize crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–83 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors judged tomato mixtures with manure and compost most positive across nearly all parameters.

Taxon
sweet maizet0
Outcome
tomato mixtures with manure as well as composte0
Qualifier
almost all parameters of the studiese0

Verbatim

e0

“tomato mixtures with manure as well as compost had the most positive results in almost all parameters of the studies”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1215–1331 · show in text ↑
t0

“sweet maize crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–83 · show in text ↑

fertilization · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

1,365 papers: 1,196 positive, 169 negative or no effect

1,195 papers in the same direction as this paper · 149 in the opposite direction · 20 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1,361 papers more in this group

See all 1,365 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.