4.7 Article

Bio-Fertilizers Based on Digestate and Biomass Ash as an Alternative to Commercial Fertilizers-The Case of Tomato

Journal

AGRONOMY-BASEL
Volume 11, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agronomy11091716

Keywords

biomass ash; digestate; fruit number per unit area; heavy metals; nutrients; phytochemicals; total fruit yield

Funding

  1. Ministry of Science and Higher Education [005/RID/2018/2019]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study demonstrated that the tested bio-fertilizers can effectively replace mineral fertilizers to increase tomato yield, with C fertilizer showing the best performance. The impact on tomato yield varied among different bio-fertilizers, with C fertilizer resulting in the highest fruit yield.
The reutilization of agricultural wastes, as bio-fertilizers, is the key way to close the nutrient cycle and save mineral fertilizers. This hypothesis was verified in three consecutive seasons, treating tomato with three bio-fertilizers on the background of a standard rate of mineral fertilizer. The bio-fertilizers differed in their C:N ratio, which was 13:1, 21:1, and 6:1 for the A, B, and C fertilizers, respectively. They were applied at the rate of 200, 400, 800, and 1600 kg ha(-1). The average fruit yield increased in the order: B < C < A. For the relevant fertilizer, the maximum commercial yield was 91, 87, and 101 t ha(-1), for a respective rate of 1600, 200, and 400 kg ha(-1). The number of fruits (CFN), as the dominant yield component, indirectly reflected the nitrogen (N) supply to plants. A shortage or excess of N on plots treated with the B or C fertilizers, resulted in a decreased CFN, leading to a yield decline. The year-to-year variability in the potassium (K) content reflected fairly well the variable weather conditions, responsible for water management by tomato. The conducted study showed that the tested bio-fertilizers can replace mineral fertilizer, as long as they are applied at well-defined rates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available