Sustainable Use of Citrus Waste as Organic Amendment in Orange Orchards
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Site
- T1: Control. Only mineral fertilizer was added to the soil, with the same methods as for Treatment 4 (consisting of 1.27% of N, 0.3% of P2O5, 1.2% of K2O in the CW) (i.e., ammonium nitrate = 2.5 kg/plant; ammonium phosphate = 0.5 kg/plant; potassium nitrate = 2.5 kg/plant). The fertilizer was divided into two doses, supplied during the 2nd and the 3rd year of the experimental period (April 2016 and April 2017);
- T2: a dose of 45 kg/m2 of CW was distributed (about 17.5 kg/m2 of dry matter, which corresponds to about 0.22 kg/m2 of N over a three-year period); the dose was applied in a single phase, at the beginning of the experimental campaign (May 2015) by adding 177 g/kg of Ca(OH)2 to raise the pH value of CW to around 6.5;
- T3: a dose of 90 kg/m2 of CW was distributed (i.e., about 35.0 kg/m2 of dry matter, which corresponds to about 0.44 kg/m2 of N in a three-year period); this dose was applied in a single phase in May 2015;
- T4: a dose of 45 kg/m2 of CW was distributed (about 17.5 kg/m2 of dry matter, which corresponds to about 0.22 kg/m2 of N in a three-year period); this dose was applied in a single phase (May 2015); the dose of 45 kg/m2 corresponds to double the maximum quantity permitted for sludge of agri-food origin by the Legislative Decree 234/2011.
2.2. Physico-Chemical and Hydraulic Characterizations of CW
2.3. Microbiological Analyses of Soil and Soil Pore Water
2.4. Plant Growth, Yield and Fruit Quality
2.5. Metagenomic Functional Analysis of CW’s Microbiota
2.6. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Physico-Chemical and Hydraulic Characterizations of CW
3.2. Microbiological Characterization of Soil and Soil Pore Water Samples
3.3. Workflow for Data Integration for Taxonomic-Functional Species-Specific Association
3.4. Plant Growth, Yield and Fruit Quality
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- 1.
- The organic fertilization improves soil chemical properties by increasing the cation exchange capacity, retaining water, increasing soil aeration and promoting microbial activity;
- 2.
- CW could be an excellent substrate for the growth of acetic acid bacteria for the low-cost production of molecules of biotechnological industrial interest;
- 3.
- The vegetative parameters of ‘Tarocco comune’ trees were significantly and positively affected by the addition of CW to the soil.
Author Contributions
Funding
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Stenmarck, Â.; Jensen, C.; Quested, T.; Moates, G. Estimates of European Food Waste Levels; IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute: Stockholm, Sweden, 2016.
- Directive, E.C. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives. Off. J. Eur. Union 2008, 312, 22. [Google Scholar]
- Mourad, M. Recycling, recovering and preventing “food waste”: Competing solutions for food systems sustainability in the United States and France. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 126, 461–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- FAOSTAT. 2015. Available online: http://fao.org/faostat/es/#data/QC (accessed on 22 November 2022).
- USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. 2017. Available online: https://www.fas.usda.gov (accessed on 22 November 2022).
- ISMEA. Bilanci di Approvigionamento. 2013. Available online: https://www.ismea.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/5419 (accessed on 22 November 2022).
- Li, S.; Lo, C.Y.; Ho, C.T. Hydroxylated polymethoxyflavones and methylated flavonoids in sweet orange (Citrus sinensis) peel. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 4176–4185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mamma, D.; Christakopoulos, P. Biotransformation of citrus by-products into value added products. Waste Biomass Valorization 2014, 5, 529–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koppar, A.; Pullammanappallil, P. Anaerobic digestion of peel waste and wastewater for on site energy generation in a citrus processing facility. Energy 2013, 60, 62–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crawshaw, R. Co-product feeds: Animal feeds from the food and drinks industries R Crawshaw Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, 2001 pp 285, price £30.00 (paperback) ISBN 1-897676-35-2. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2003, 83, 362–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Canali, S.; Di Bartolomeo, E.; Trinchera, A.; Nisini, L.; Tittarelli, F.; Intrigliolo, F.; Roccuzzo, G.; Calabretta, M.L. Effect of different management strategies on soil quality of citrus orchards in Southern Italy. Soil Use Manag. 2009, 25, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Satari, B.; Karimi, K. Citrus processing wastes: Environmental impacts, recent advances, and future perspectives in total valorization. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 129, 153–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferrari, A.; Morone, P.; Tartiu, V.E. Tackling Uncertainty through Business Plan Analysis—A Case Study on Citrus Waste Valorisation in the South of Italy. Agriculture 2016, 6, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Negro, V.; Ruggeri, B.; Fino, D.; Tonini, D. Life cycle assessment of orange peel waste management. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 127, 148–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghani, W.; Alias, A.; Savory, R.; Cliffe, K. Co-combustion of agricultural residues with coal in a fluidised bed combustor. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 767–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lapuerta, M.; Hernández, J.J.; Pazo, A.; López, J. Gasification and co-gasification of biomass wastes: Effect of the biomass origin and the gasifier operating conditions. Fuel Process. Technol. 2008, 89, 828–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barros-Rodríguez, A.; Rangseekaew, P.; Lasudee, K.; Pathom-Aree, W.; Manzanera, M. Regulatory risks associated with bacteria as biostimulants and biofertilizers in the frame of the European Regulation (EU) 2019/1009. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 740, 140239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Genuchten, M.T. A Closed-form Equation for Predicting the Hydraulic Conductivity of Unsaturated Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1980, 44, 892–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aiello, R.; Bagarello, V.; Barbagallo, S.; Consoli, S.; Di Prima, S.; Giordano, G.; Iovino, M. An assessment of the Beerkan method for determining the hydraulic properties of a sandy loam soil. Geoderma 2014, 235–236, 300–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klute, A.; Dirksen, C. Hydraulic conductivity and diffusivity: Laboratory methods. Methods Soil Anal. Part 1 Phys. Mineral. Methods 1986, 5, 687–734. [Google Scholar]
- Soriano-Disla, J.M.; Gómez, I.; Navarro-Pedreño, J. The Influence of Soil Properties on the Water Pollution (Nitrate, Phosphate and COD) Following a Single Application of Sewage Sludge to 70 Contrasting Agricultural Soils. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2011, 223, 1783–1790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater; American Public Health Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
- Díez, J.A. Consideraciones sobre la utilización de la técnica extractiva de Burriel-Hernando para la evaluación de fósforo asimilable en suelos. An. Edafol. Agrobiol. 1982, 41, 1345–1353. [Google Scholar]
- Sempere, A.; Oliver, J.; Ramos, C. Simple determination of nitrate in soils by second-derivative spectroscopy. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 1993, 44, 633–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Violante, P. Metodi di analisi chimica del suolo. In Collana di Metodi Analitici per l’Agricoltura; Francoangeli: Milano, Italy, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Page, A.L.; Miller, R.H.; Keeney, D.R. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbial Properties; American Society of Agronomy, Inc.: Madison, WI, USA, 1982.
- Springer, U.; Klee, J. Prüfung der Leistungsfähigkeit von einigen wichtigeren Verfahren zur Bestimmung des Kohlenstoffs mittels Chromschwefelsäure sowie Vorschlag einer neuen Schnellmethode. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 1954, 64, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bremner, J.M. Determination of nitrogen in soil by the Kjeldahl method. J. Agric. Sci. 1960, 55, 11–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olsen, S.R. Estimation of Available Phosphorus in Soils by Extraction with Sodium Bicarbonate (No. 939); US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1954.
- Agency for the Environment Protection and Technical Services. Microbiological Methods of Compost Analysis. Manuals and Guidelines 20/2003; APAT: Fort Meade, MD, USA, 2003.
- Agency for the Environment Protection and Technical Services; Istituto di Ricerca sulle Acque—Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (IRSA-CNR). Metodi Analitici per le Acque. (Manuali e Linee Guida 29/2003); APAT: Fort Meade, MD, USA, 2003.
- Morse, J.G.; Robertson, C.A. Calculating Canopy Area of Citrus Trees and Surface Area of Fruits. Fla. Èntomol. 1987, 70, 168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rapisarda, P.; Fanella, F.; Maccarone, E. Reliability of Analytical Methods for Determining Anthocyanins in Blood Orange Juices. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2000, 48, 2249–2252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mapleson, D.; Accinelli, G.G.; Kettleborough, G.; Wright, J.; Clavijo, B.J. KAT: A K-mer analysis toolkit to quality control NGS datasets and genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 2016, 33, 574–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sikaa, K.C.; Kefela, T.; Adoukonou-Sagbadja, H.; Ahoton, L.; Saidou, A.; Baba-Moussa, L.; Baptiste, L.J.; Kotconi, S.O.; Gachomo, E.W. A simple and efficient genomic DNA extraction protocol for large scale genetic analyses of plant biological systems. Plant Gene 2015, 1, 43–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- XLSTAT by Addinsoft. Statistical and Data Analysis Solution; Version 2018.7.5; XLSTAT: Boston, MA, USA, 2018; Available online: https://www.xlstat.com (accessed on 22 November 2022).
- Al-Mukhtar, M.; Lasledj, A.; Alcover, J.-F. Behavior and mineralogy changes in lime-treated expansive soil at 20 °C. Appl. Clay Sci. 2010, 50, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meli, S.M.; Baglieri, A.; Porto, M.; Belligno, A.; Gennari, M. Chemical and Microbiological Aspects of Soil Amended with Citrus Pulp. J. Sustain. Agric. 2007, 30, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sommerfeldt, T.G.; Chang, C.; Entz, T. Long-term Annual Manure Applications Increase Soil Organic Matter and Nitrogen, and Decrease Carbon to Nitrogen Ratio. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1988, 52, 1668–1672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Wu, J.; Shen, J.; Liu, S.; Wang, C.; Chen, D.; Huang, T.; Zhang, J. Soil microbial C:N ratio is a robust indicator of soil productivity for paddy fields. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 35266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pontoni, L.; Van Hullebusch, E.D.; Pechaud, Y.; Fabbricino, M.; Esposito, G.; Pirozzi, F. Colloidal Mobilization and Fate of Trace Heavy Metals in Semi-Saturated Artificial Soil (OECD) Irrigated with Treated Wastewater. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boyd, C.E. The Chemical Oxygen Demand of Waters and Biological Materials from Ponds. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 1973, 102, 606–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Council. Official Journal of the European Communities (31-12-91). No L 375/1, EU Nitrate Directive 91/676/CEE; European Council: Brussels, Belgium, 1991; p. 8. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:31991L0676&from=EN (accessed on 3 May 2018).
- Nannipieri, P.; Ascher, J.; Ceccherini, M.; Landi, L.; Pietramellara, G.; Renella, G. Microbial diversity and soil functions. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2003, 54, 655–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baveye, P.C.; Berthelin, J.; Munch, J.-C. Too much or not enough: Reflection on two contrasting perspectives on soil biodiversity. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2016, 103, 320–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooley, M.; Carychao, D.; Crawford-Miksza, L.; Jay, M.T.; Myers, C.; Rose, C.; Keys, C.; Farrar, J.; Mandrell, R.E. Incidence and tracking of Escherichia coli O157: H7 in a major produce production region in California. PLoS ONE 2007, 2, e1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Semenov, A.V.; Franz, E.; Van Overbeek, L.; Termorshuizen, A.J.; Van Bruggen, A.H. Estimating the stability of Escherichia coli O157: H7 survival in manure-amended soils with different management histories. Environ. Microbiol. 2008, 10, 1450–1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibekwe, A.M.; Ma, J. Effects of fumigants on microbial diversity and persistence of E. coli O15:H7 in contrasting soil microcosms. Sci. Total. Environ. 2011, 409, 3740–3748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Elsas, J.D.; Semenov, A.V.; Costa, R.; Trevors, J.T. Survival of Escherichia coli in the environment: Fundamental and public health aspects. ISME J. 2010, 5, 173–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ma, J.; Brookes, J.D.; Qin, B.; Paerl, H.W.; Gao, G.; Wu, P.; Zhang, W.; Deng, J.; Zhu, G.; Zhang, Y.; et al. Environmental factors controlling colony formation in blooms of the cyanobacteria Microcystis spp. in Lake Taihu, China. Harmful Algae 2013, 31, 136–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shi, Y.; Lalande, R.; Hamel, C.; Ziadi, N.; Gagnon, B.; Hu, Z. Seasonal variation of microbial biomass, activity, and community structure in soil under different tillage and phosphorus management practices. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2013, 49, 803–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fierer, N.; Lauber, C.L.; Ramirez, K.S.; Zaneveld, J.; Bradford, M.A.; Knight, R. Comparative metagenomic, phylogenetic and physiological analyses of soil microbial communities across nitrogen gradients. ISME J. 2012, 6, 1007–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fierer, N.; Bradford, M.A.; Jackson, R.B. Toward an ecological classification of soil bacteria. Ecology 2007, 88, 1354–1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, M.; Hu, G.; Wang, H.; Bai, E.; Lou, Y.; Zhang, A.; Zhuge, Y. 35 years of manure and chemical fertilizer application alters soil microbial community composition in a Fluvo-aquic soil in Northern China. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2017, 82, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, W.; Isobe, K.; Nishizawa, T.; Zhu, L.; Shiratori, Y.; Ohte, N.; Koba, K.; Otsuka, S.; Senoo, K. Higher diversity and abundance of denitrifying microorganisms in environments than considered previously. ISME J. 2015, 9, 1954–1965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Aiello, R.; Cirelli, G.L.; Consoli, S.; Licciardello, F.; Toscano, A. Risk assessment of treated municipal wastewater reuse in Sicily. Water Sci. Technol. 2013, 67, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tripodo, M.M.; Lanuzza, F.; Micali, G.; Coppolino, R.; Nucita, F. Citrus waste recovery: A new environmentally friendly procedure to obtain animal feed. Bioresour. Technol. 2004, 91, 111–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zappia, R.; Branca, V.; Gullo, G. Il pastazzo di agrumi come fertilizzante o ammendante del terreno su piante di navelina innestate su citrumelo. In Valorizzazione di Acque Reflue e Sottoprodotti Dell’industria Agrumaria e Olearia; Laruffa Editore: Reggio Calabria, Italy, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Rashid, M.I.; Mujawar, L.H.; Shahzad, T.; Almeelbi, T.; Ismail, I.M.; Oves, M. Bacteria and fungi can contribute to nutrients bioavailability and aggregate formation in degraded soils. Microbiol. Res. 2016, 183, 26–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdelfattah, A.; Wisniewski, M.; Nicosia, M.G.L.D.; Cacciola, S.O.; Schena, L. Metagenomic Analysis of Fungal Diversity on Strawberry Plants and the Effect of Management Practices on the Fungal Community Structure of Aerial Organs. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0160470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Abdelfattah, A.; Malacrinò, A.; Wisniewski, M.; Cacciola, S.O.; Schena, L. Metabarcoding: A powerful tool to investigate microbial communities and shape future plant protection strategies. Biol. Control. 2018, 120, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- La Spada, F.; Cock, P.J.A.; Randall, E.; Pane, A.; Cooke, D.E.L.; Cacciola, S.O. DNA Metabarcoding and Isolation by Baiting Complement Each Other in Revealing Phytophthora Diversity in Anthropized and Natural Ecosystems. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lino, T.; Suzuki, R.; Kosako, Y.; Ohkuma, M.; Komagata, K.; Uchimura, T. Acetobacter okinawensis sp. nov., Acetobacter papayae sp. nov., and Acetobacter persicus sp. nov.; novel acetic acid bacteria isolated from stems of sugarcane, fruits, and a flower in Japan. J. Gen. Appl. Microbiol. 2012, 58, 235–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Spann, T.M.; Tsagkarakis, A.E.; Syvertsen, J.P. Managing citrus tree growth with hedging and plant growth regulators: Strategies for reducing psyllid feeding and huanglongbing infection. Proc. Fla. State Hortic. Soc. 2009, 122, 161–165. [Google Scholar]
- Continella, A.; Pannitteri, C.; La Malfa, S.; Legua, P.; Distefano, G.; Nicolosi, E.; Gentile, A. Influence of different rootstocks on yield precocity and fruit quality of ‘Tarocco Scirè’pigmented sweet orange. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 230, 62–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hameed, A.; Fatma, S.; Wattoo, J.I.; Yaseen, M.; Ahmad, S. Accumulative effects of humic acid and multinutrient foliar fertilizers on the vegetative and reproductive attributes of citrus (Citrus reticulata cv. kinnow mandarin). J. Plant Nutr. 2018, 41, 2495–2506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caruso, M.; Continella, A.; Modica, G.; Pannitteri, C.; Russo, R.; Salonia, F.; Arlotta, C.; Gentile, A.; Russo, G. Rootstocks Influence Yield Precocity, Productivity, and Pre-Harvest Fruit Drop of Mandared Pigmented Mandarin. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Legua, P.; Modica, G.; Porras, I.; Conesa, A.; Continella, A. Bioactive compounds, antioxidant activity and fruit quality evaluation of eleven blood orange cultivars. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2022, 102, 2960–2971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Legua, P.; Martinez-Cunenca, M.R.; Bellver, R.; Forner-Giner, M.Á. Rootstock’s and scion’s impact on lemon quality in southeast Spain. Int. Agrophys. 2018, 32, 325–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rapisarda, P.; Russo, G. Fruit quality of five Tarocco selections grown in Italy. In Proceedings of the International Society of Citriculture 9th Congress, Orlando, FL, USA, 3–7 December 2000; pp. 3–7. [Google Scholar]
- Lana, G.; Modica, G.; Casas, G.L.; Siracusa, L.; La Malfa, S.; Gentile, A.; Sicilia, A.; Distefano, G.; Continella, A. Molecular Insights into the Effects of Rootstocks on Maturation of Blood Oranges. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caruso, M.; Ferlito, F.; Licciardello, C.; Allegra, M.; Strano, M.C.; Di Silvestro, S.; Russo, M.P.; Paolo, D.P.; Caruso, P.; Casas, G.L.; et al. Pomological diversity of the Italian blood orange germplasm. Sci. Hortic. 2016, 213, 331–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Modica, G.; Pannitteri, C.; Di Guardo, M.; La Malfa, S.; Gentile, A.; Ruberto, G.; Pulvirenti, L.; Parafati, L.; Continella, A.; Siracusa, L. Influence of rootstock genotype on individual metabolic responses and antioxidant potential of blood orange cv. Tarocco Scirè. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2022, 105, 104246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Treatments | Clay (%) | Loam (%) | Sandy (%) | pH | Electrical Conductivity (mS/cm) | Organic Carbon (%) | Total Nitrogen (%) | C/N | CaCo3 (%) | Cation Exchange Capacity (cmols(+)/kg) | Available P (‰) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | 13.5 | 18.3 | 68.2 | 7.2 | 0.13 | 2.3 | 0.2 | 11.2 | 8.0 | 20.7 | 2.6 |
T2 | 10.3 | 19.0 | 70.7 | 7.1 | 0.14 | 2.02 | 0.2 | 10.4 | 9.5 | 22.1 | 2.6 |
T3 | 18.5 | 21.2 | 60.3 | 7.1 | 0.14 | 2.3 | 0.2 | 11.1 | 7.0 | 23.5 | 2.3 |
T4 | 21.1 | 21.8 | 57.1 | 7.1 | 0.15 | 2.3 | 0.2 | 11.0 | 3.5 | 25.6 | 2.8 |
pH | CE (mS/cm) | Humidity (%) | Ashes (%) | C (%) | N (%) | P (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
April 2015 | 2.93 a | 1.33 a | 83.7 a | 4.5 b | 41.8 a | 0.97 a | 0.26 a |
May 2015 | 2.87 a | 1.11 a | 61.1 b | 5.3 a | 41.6 a | 1.07 a | 0.24 a |
Sampling | Treatment | pH | E.C. | COD | Nitrate | Phosphate |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(mS/cm) | (mg O2/L) | (mg/L) | (mg/L) | |||
Jul 2015 | T1 | 7.2 ± 0.1 a | 1.24 ± 0.15 b | 12.4 ± 2.2 b | 4.8 ± 0.1 c | 4.5 ± 0.5 b |
T3 | 3.7 ± 0.2 b | 1.41 ± 0.17 b | 24.1 ± 1.2 a | 4.4 ± 0.9 c | 4.4 ± 0.3 b | |
Jan 2016 | T1 | 7.6 ± 0.2 a | 1.83 ± 0.11 b | 14.2 ± 0.9 b | 5.4 ± 1.1 c | 4.5 ± 0.6 b |
T3 | 7.4 ± 0.1 a | 1.86 ± 0.20 b | 24.2 ± 1.7 a | 32.0 ± 4.1 a | 6.1 ± 0.6 a | |
Jan 2017 | T1 | 8.3 ± 0.1 a | 1.55 ± 0.13 b | 15.0 ± 1.3 b | 6.5 ± 0.3 c | 3.6 ± 0.8 b |
T3 | 8.4 ± 0.1 a | 3.32 ± 0.18 a | 28.5 ± 3.7 a | 10.4 ± 1.3 b | 4.7 ± 0.3 b |
Treatment | Soil Texture | January 2015 ks | January 2016 ks | January 2017 ks | July 2017 ks |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
(m d−1) | (m d−1) | (m d−1) | (m d−1) | ||
T1 | Sandy-Loam | 3.5 × 10−2(±1.8 × 10−4 | 9.9 × 10−3(±1.7 × 10−4) | 6.9 × 10−3(±1.1 × 10−5) | 8.1 × 10−3(±0.8 × 10−4) |
T2 | Sandy-Loam | 9.7 × 10−2 (±9.1 × 10−4) | 1.1 × 10−4 (±1.5 × 10−4) | 1.0 × 10−4(±0.9 × 10−5) | 1.6 × 10−4(±1.1 × 10−5) |
T3 | Sandy-Loam | 9.3 × 10−3(±8.8 × 10−4) | 3.9 × 10−4 (±1.0 × 10−4) | 2.2 × 10−4(±1.5 × 10−5) | 3.0 × 10−4(±1.5 × 10−5) |
T4 | Sandy-Clay-Loam | 2.9 × 10−3(±6.5 × 10−4) | 4.9 × 10−5 (±1.2 × 10−4) | 2.2 × 10−5(±0.8 × 10−5) | 3.7 × 10−5(±1.2 × 10−5) |
Average | 3.6 × 10−2 | 2.6 × 10−3 | 1.8 × 10−3 | 2.15 × 10−3 |
Soil Samples | Enterobacteriaceae | Fecal Coliforms | Enterococcus spp. |
---|---|---|---|
Soil after 2 months | |||
T1 (control) | 4.8 ± 0.05 b | 3.0 ±0.55 | <1 d |
T2 | 7.6 ± 0.01 a | 4.8 ±0.05 | 7.2 ± 0.34 a |
T3 | 7.5 ± 0.23 a | 4.2 ±0.18 | 3.5 ± 0.13 c |
T4 | 7.5 ±0.21 a | 3.6 ±0.93 | 6.5 ± 0.06 b |
*** | n.s. | *** | |
Soil after 6 months | |||
T1 (control) | 5.7 ± 0.12 b | 4.1 ± 0.72 d | 3.0 ± 0.12 c |
T2 | 6.5 ± 0.04 ab | 5.7 ± 0.03 b | 4.7 ± 0.03 b |
T3 | 6.8 ± 0.08 a | 6.1 ± 0.03 a | 5.4 ± 0.07 a |
T4 | 6.1 ± 0.08 ab | 5.3 ± 0.01 c | 5.2 ± 0.12 a |
*** | *** | *** | |
Soil after 12 months | |||
T1 (control) | 5.6 ± 0.33 | 3.7 ± 0.71 b | <1 b |
T2 | 6.1 ± 0.60 | 5.8 ± 0.60 a | <1 b |
T3 | 6.3 ± 0.10 | 6.5 ± 0.11 a | 3.6 ± 0.35 a |
T4 | 5.7 ± 0.07 | 3.2 ± 0.45 b | 2.5 ± 0.60 a |
n.s. | ** | ** | |
Soil after 18 months | |||
T1 (control) | 4.9 ± 0.61 | 3.6 ± 0.62 | 3.0 ± 0.12 |
T2 | 6.0 ± 0.22 | 5.0 ± 0.42 | 3.2 ± 0.80 |
T3 | 5.2 ± 0.35 | 5.0 ± 0.35 | 2.3 ± 0.35 |
T4 | 4.5 ± 0.80 | 4.0 ± 0.69 | 2.6 ± 0.30 |
n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | |
Soil after 24 months | |||
T1 (control) | 6.4 ± 0.23 | 4.5 ± 0.42 b | 4.7 ± 0.42 b |
T2 | 6.2 ± 0.12 | 4.6 ± 0.34 ab | 3.2 ± 0.17 c |
T3 | 6.1 ± 0.14 | 5.1 ± 0.16 a | 4.0 ± 0.05 b |
T4 | 6.7 ± 0.22 | 5.6 ± 0.06 a | 5.4 ± 0.20 a |
n.s. | ** | *** |
Percentage | Name |
---|---|
73.8033 | Unknown |
16.4775 | Acetobacter |
4.69746 | Gluconobacter |
2.41539 | Komagataeibacter |
1.26384 | Lactobacillus |
0.568008 | Gluconacetobacter |
0.282513 | Zymomonas |
0.137505 | Sphingomonas |
0.135731 | Saccharomyces |
0.115508 | Rhizobium |
0.10326 | Mycobacterium |
Percentage | Name |
---|---|
83.3332 | Unknown |
11.9573 | Acetobacter pasteurianus |
2.28234 | Gluconobacter oxydans |
0.6705 | Komagataeibacter medellinensis |
0.657145 | Lactobacillus brevis |
0.441383 | Komagataeibacter xylinus |
0.222455 | Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus |
0.188566 | Limosilactobacillus fermentum |
0.128615 | Saccharomyces cerevisiae |
0.118458 | Zymomonas mobilis |
Sampling | Treatment | Fruitweight (g) | Juice (%) | SST (°Brix) | TA (gL−1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2016 | T1 | 263 ± 16.3 a | 54.6 ± 0.3 | 10.4 ± 0.7 a | 10.8 ± 0.2 b |
T2 | 171 ± 23.9 c | 56.5 ± 0.8 | 10.4 ± 0.5 a | 10.5 ± 0.5 b | |
T3 | 210 ± 18.2 c | 50 ± 0.9 | 9.9 ± 0.3 b | 12.2 ± 0.1 a | |
T4 | 210 ± 21.1 b | 54.2 ± 0.4 | 10.5 ± 0.2 a | 11.3 ± 0.6 a | |
2017 | T1 | 263 ± 42.9 b | 51.4 ± 3.9 a | 11.7 ± 0.7 b | 9.6 ± 0.1 c |
T2 | 256 ± 21.1 b | 48.2 ± 3.6 b | 12.4 ± 0.2 a | 11.9 ± 0.1 b | |
T3 | 325 ± 0.1 a | 57.3 ± 0.2 a | 11.9 ± 0.1 b | 12.5 ± 0.1 a | |
T4 | 315 ± 29.1 ab | 54.3 ± 3.7 ab | 12.0 ± 0.8 a | 11.2 ± 0.1 b | |
2018 | T1 | 149 ± 15.9 c | 49.4 ± 5.4 a | 13.5 ± 2.0 | 17.0 ± 1.1 b |
T2 | 158 ± 17.9 bc | 49.6 ± 3.8 a | 13.3 ± 0.5 | 18.4 ± 1.9 a | |
T3 | 170 ± 24.0 a | 45.2 ± 17.9 b | 13.1 ± 0.3 | 18.1 ± 1.8 a | |
T4 | 161 ± 23.4 b | 48.0 ± 4.5 a | 13.3 ± 0.7 | 18.2 ± 0.9 a |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Consoli, S.; Caggia, C.; Russo, N.; Randazzo, C.L.; Continella, A.; Modica, G.; Cacciola, S.O.; Faino, L.; Reverberi, M.; Baglieri, A.; et al. Sustainable Use of Citrus Waste as Organic Amendment in Orange Orchards. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2482. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032482
Consoli S, Caggia C, Russo N, Randazzo CL, Continella A, Modica G, Cacciola SO, Faino L, Reverberi M, Baglieri A, et al. Sustainable Use of Citrus Waste as Organic Amendment in Orange Orchards. Sustainability. 2023; 15(3):2482. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032482
Chicago/Turabian StyleConsoli, Simona, Cinzia Caggia, Nunziatina Russo, Cinzia Lucia Randazzo, Alberto Continella, Giulia Modica, Santa Olga Cacciola, Luigi Faino, Massimo Reverberi, Andrea Baglieri, and et al. 2023. "Sustainable Use of Citrus Waste as Organic Amendment in Orange Orchards" Sustainability 15, no. 3: 2482. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032482