*3.2. Soil Characterization*

The physicochemical properties of cultivated and uncultivated soils treated with the biomasses in comparison to CTP and the soil at the beginning of the trial (T0) are reported in Table 2.


**Table 2.** Chemical and physicochemical properties of cultivated (P) and uncultivated (A) pots. CT, control soil; WB, soil amended with wasted bread; bWB; soil amended with bioprocessed wasted bread (treated with amylase and fermented with *Lactiplantibacillus plantarum* H64).

Data are the means of three independent experiments ± standard deviations (*n* = 3). a–c Values in the same column, among cultivated or uncultivated pots data group, followed by a different letter are significantly different according to HSD test or Dunn test (¥). \*\* Significant at *p* ≤ 0.01; \*\*\* Significant at *p* ≤ 0.001; ns: not significant.

The pHH2O of T0 and CTP was alkaline and ranged from 8.07 ± 0.05 to 8.20 ± 0.15, while bWB and WB supplementation significantly reduced the pHH2O by roughly 8%, even if they did not show significant differences between each other. No significant differences were observed for the pHKCl among all treatments as well (Table 2).

The EC value of cultivated pots of escarole (CTP) significantly increased (417 ± 103 μS cm<sup>−</sup>1) compared to T0, and was further enhanced by the addition of the two biomasses. However, the two amended soils did not show significant differences between each other.

The soil was positively and significantly influenced by the amendments since the treated soils had higher OC and TN content, reaching up to 23% higher values at the end of the trial compared to the soil at T0, whereas CTP showed the lowest TN and OC content (Table 2). The Pava, on the other hand, was not significantly influenced by the amendments.

As observed for the cultivated soils, the absence of the plants resulted in very similar trends of pH, EC, OC, and TN, meaning that those parameters were influenced mainly by the biomasses. The availability of P was significantly and negatively influenced by the treatments since, compared to CTA and the soil at the beginning of the trial, a decrease of up to 23% and 20%, respectively, was observed in uncultivated pots (Table 2). Nevertheless, Pava content did not show any statistical difference among samples in cultivated soils.

The bioavailability of Mn, Fe, and Cu in soils with and without plants was also studied (Table 3). In the amended but not cultivated soils, biomass supplementation led to an increase in the availability of Mn and Fe, which were almost 3- and 2-fold higher compared to CTA, while no significant differences were observed for the available Cu among treatments.

The cultivated pots showed the higher availability of the selected elements, up to 36%, 34%, and 13% higher concentrations for Mn, Fe, and Cu, respectively, with bWBP showing the highest values between the amendments.


**Table 3.** Soil availability of selected micronutrients (mg kg−1) in cultivated (P) and uncultivated (A) pots. CT, control soil; WB, soil amended with wasted bread; bWB; soil amended with bioprocessed wasted bread (treated with amylase and fermented with *Lactiplantibacillus plantarum* H64).

Data are the means of three independent experiments ± standard deviations (n = 3). a–b Values in the same column, among cultivated or uncultivated pots data groups, followed by a different letter, are significantly different according to HSD. test or Dunn test (¥). \* Significant at *p* ≤ 0.05; \*\* Significant at *p* ≤ 0.01, ns: not significant.
