Paper · 2022 · Environmental Technology

The use of recovered struvite and ammonium nitrate in fertigation in a horticultural rotation: agronomic and microbiological assessment

Mar Carreras-Sempere; Carmen Biel; Marc Viñas; et al.

10
claims
22
verbatim quotes
9
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-nd

Abstract

Phosphorus and nitrogen recovery from wastewater as struvite and ammonium nitrate (AN) may be viable alternative fertilizers to boost circularity in horticulture. A 2-year fertigated crop rotation in soil under greenhouse conditions was evaluated to determine the efficiency of both recovered products as raw materials for a nutrient solution (NS) manufacture. The effects of these treatments versus synthetic fertilizers were compared in terms of crop performance, plant nutrient uptake, soil chemistry and microbiota. This is the first study to implement struvite through fertigation as the sole source of P in soil crops. Results showed that both recovered products can be used as fertilizers in NS, due to the similar response to the control for different parameters and crops (tomato, lettuce, and cauliflower). However, the AN treatment showed lower yield in the first tomato crop, which results may depend on the cultivar ammonium tolerance. Besides, the concentration of heavy metals in fruits/leaves was below the permissible limits. Total and Olsen phosphorus soil analysis revealed no differences among treatments, resulting in a similar performance of P-struvite to commercial phosphate. Bulk soil bacteria structure, richness and relative dominance were increased over time, while archaea only showed lower evenness, both despite the fertilization strategy. Shannon diversity was not significantly affected. A predominance of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB) versus archaea (AOA) was observed, while nitrite-oxidizing bacteria (NOB), dominated by Nitrospira, increased with fertigation. Our results demonstrate that fertilizer blends for NS containing recovered nutrients are a feasible alternative to synthetic fertilizers.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Recovered fertilizer products produced crop responses similar to synthetic fertilizer across tomato, lettuce and cauliflower.

Treatment
both recovered productse0
Outcome
similar responsee0
Direction
similare0
Comparator
synthetic fertilizerse1

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

Brassica oleracea var. botrytis
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis · TaxonSusan Slater · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“both recovered products can be used as fertilizers in NS, due to the similar response to the control for different parameters and crops (tomato, lettuce, and cauliflower)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 645–815 · show in text ↑
e1

“treatments versus synthetic fertilizers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 382–421 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ammonium nitrate lowered yield in the first tomato crop.

Treatment
AN treatmente0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
synthetic fertilizerse1

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the AN treatment showed lower yield in the first tomato crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 826–886 · show in text ↑
e1

“treatments versus synthetic fertilizers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 382–421 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Heavy metal concentrations in crop fruits and leaves were below permissible limits.

Organ / stage
fruits/leavese0
Outcome
concentration of heavy metalse0
Direction
belowe0
Comparator
permissible limitse0

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

Brassica oleracea var. botrytis
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis · TaxonSusan Slater · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the concentration of heavy metals in fruits/leaves was below the permissible limits”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 958–1041 · show in text ↑
e1

“crops (tomato, lettuce, and cauliflower)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 775–815 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Total and Olsen soil phosphorus did not differ among fertilizer treatments.

Treatment
treatmentse0
Outcome
Total and Olsen phosphorus soil analysise0
Direction
no differencese0
Comparator
synthetic fertilizerse2

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

Brassica oleracea var. botrytis
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis · TaxonSusan Slater · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Total and Olsen phosphorus soil analysis revealed no differences among treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1043–1124 · show in text ↑
e1

“crops (tomato, lettuce, and cauliflower)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 775–815 · show in text ↑
e2

“treatments versus synthetic fertilizers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 382–421 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bulk soil bacterial structure, richness and relative dominance increased over time.

Outcome
Bulk soil bacteria structure, richness and relative dominancee0
Direction
increasede0

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

Brassica oleracea var. botrytis
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis · TaxonSusan Slater · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Bulk soil bacteria structure, richness and relative dominance were increased over time”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1200–1286 · show in text ↑
e1

“crops (tomato, lettuce, and cauliflower)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 775–815 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Archaeal evenness was lower over time.

Outcome
archaea only showed lower evennesse0
Direction
lowere0

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

Brassica oleracea var. botrytis
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis · TaxonSusan Slater · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“archaea only showed lower evenness”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1294–1328 · show in text ↑
e1

“crops (tomato, lettuce, and cauliflower)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 775–815 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Shannon diversity was not significantly affected.

Treatment
treatmentse2
Outcome
Shannon diversitye0
Comparator
synthetic fertilizerse2

Not reportedDirection

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

Brassica oleracea var. botrytis
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis · TaxonSusan Slater · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Shannon diversity was not significantly affected”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1371–1419 · show in text ↑
e1

“crops (tomato, lettuce, and cauliflower)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 775–815 · show in text ↑
e2

“treatments versus synthetic fertilizers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 382–421 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ammonia-oxidizing bacteria predominated over archaea.

Outcome
predominance of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB)e0
Direction
predominancee0
Comparator
archaea (AOA)e0

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

Brassica oleracea var. botrytis
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis · TaxonSusan Slater · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“A predominance of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AOB) versus archaea (AOA) was observed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1421–1505 · show in text ↑
e1

“crops (tomato, lettuce, and cauliflower)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 775–815 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrospira-dominated nitrite-oxidizing bacteria increased with fertigation.

Treatment
fertigatione0
Outcome
nitrite-oxidizing bacteria (NOB)e0
Direction
increasede0

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

Brassica oleracea var. botrytis
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis · TaxonSusan Slater · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“nitrite-oxidizing bacteria (NOB), dominated by Nitrospira, increased with fertigation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1513–1598 · show in text ↑
e1

“crops (tomato, lettuce, and cauliflower)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 775–815 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Recovered-nutrient fertilizer blends are feasible alternatives to synthetic fertilizers.

Outcome
fertilizer blends for NS containing recovered nutrients are a feasible alternative to synthetic fertilizerse0

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

Brassica oleracea var. botrytis
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis · TaxonSusan Slater · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“fertilizer blends for NS containing recovered nutrients are a feasible alternative to synthetic fertilizers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1629–1736 · show in text ↑
e1

“crops (tomato, lettuce, and cauliflower)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 775–815 · show in text ↑

ammonium nitrate · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

4 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 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.