Abstract
Organic hydromulches (liquid spray-on mulches) have been used traditionally in land rehabilitation, mainly to mitigate post-fire runoff and erosion. However, in recent years, a new application of these materials as an eco-friendly alternative to the widely used polyethylene mulch, both in vegetable and woody crops, has been studyied. This work analyzes the effects of six hydromulches, based on organic by-products, on different soil parameters (water content, temperature, and CO2 flux), plant–water relations (stem water potential, leaf gas exchange, and leaf temperature), and the growth (trunk diameter) of young olive trees planted in large pots in the open field over a 2-year trial. The hydromulches tested were: rice husk (RH), rice husk with linen oil (RHL), mushroom substrate (MS), wheat straw (WS), pistachio (PW), and vineyard (VW) pruning wood chips, mixed with different additives (gypsum, recycled paper paste, and Kraft fiber). A non-mulched manual weeding control (NM) was included. The results indicated that hydromulches, in comparison with NM, resulted in increased volumetric soil water content (on average, 22.9% in hydromulches and 19.5% in NM), reduced soil temperature fluctuations (4.97 °C in hydromulches and 6.13 °C in NM), and increased soil CO2 fluxes (0.80 and 0.49 g CO2 m−2 h−1, respectively). Although the differences in the soil water content did not have an obvious effect on the plant–water status, crop growth was reduced in NM (≈23% lower than PW, MS, RHL, and WS), suggesting that vegetative growth, especially in young olive trees, is extremely sensitive to water deficit. The overall study leads to considering hydromulches as a good alternative to mulching in large pots, especially PW, which would be useful for nursery crops before their final establishment in the field.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Hydromulches, compared with the non-mulched control NM, increased volumetric soil water content in young potted olive trees (on average 22.9% vs 19.5%).
- Taxon
- Olive Trees
Olea europaeat0 - Treatment
- hydromulchese0
- Outcome
- volumetric soil water contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 22.9%e0
- Qualifier
- 19.5% in NMe0
- Comparator
- NMe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Olive Trees”
e0“hydromulches, in comparison with NM, resulted in increased volumetric soil water content (on average, 22.9% in hydromulches and 19.5% in NM)”
Claim · model-written summary
Hydromulches reduced soil temperature fluctuations (4.97 °C) compared with NM (6.13 °C).
- Taxon
- Olive TreesOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- hydromulchese0
- Outcome
- soil temperature fluctuationse1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- 4.97 °Ce1
- Qualifier
- 6.13 °C in NMe1
- Comparator
- NMe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Olive Trees”
e0“hydromulches, in comparison with NM, resulted in increased”
e1“reduced soil temperature fluctuations (4.97 °C in hydromulches and 6.13 °C in NM)”
Claim · model-written summary
Hydromulches increased soil CO2 fluxes (0.80 g CO2 m−2 h−1) compared with NM (0.49).
- Taxon
- Olive TreesOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- hydromulchese0
- Outcome
- soil CO2 fluxese1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 0.80 and 0.49 g CO2 m−2 h−1e1
- Comparator
- NMe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Olive Trees”
e0“hydromulches, in comparison with NM, resulted in increased”
e1“increased soil CO2 fluxes (0.80 and 0.49 g CO2 m−2 h−1, respectively)”
Claim · model-written summary
Differences in soil water content had no obvious effect on the plant-water status of the olive trees.
- Taxon
- Olive TreesOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- differences in the soil water contente0
- Outcome
- plant–water statuse0
- Direction
- did not have an obvious effecte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Olive Trees”
e0“the differences in the soil water content did not have an obvious effect on the plant–water status”
Claim · model-written summary
Crop growth was reduced in the non-mulched control NM by about 23% relative to the PW, MS, RHL and WS hydromulches.
- Taxon
- Olive TreesOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- PW, MS, RHL, and WSe0
- Outcome
- crop growthe0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- ≈23%e0
- Comparator
- NMe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Olive Trees”
e0“crop growth was reduced in NM (≈23% lower than PW, MS, RHL, and WS)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest that vegetative growth, especially in young olive trees, is extremely sensitive to water deficit.
Verbatim
e0“suggesting that vegetative growth, especially in young olive trees, is extremely sensitive to water deficit”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors consider hydromulches a good alternative to mulching in large pots, especially PW, useful for nursery crops before final field establishment.
- Taxon
- Olive TreesOlea europaeat0
- Outcome
- good alternative to mulching in large potse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Olive Trees”
e0“considering hydromulches as a good alternative to mulching in large pots, especially PW, which would be useful for nursery crops before their final establishment in the field”
The same questions in other papers
Triticum aestivum · growth · Olea europaea (common olive)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
growing medium · growth · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 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.