4.7 Article

Physico-Chemical Characterization and Biological Activities of a Digestate and a More Stabilized Digestate-Derived Compost from Agro-Waste

期刊

PLANTS-BASEL
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants10020386

关键词

organic materials; plant pathogens; antifungal activity; phytotoxicity; genotoxicity

资金

  1. Cohesion Fund 2007-2013 of the Basilicata Regional authority

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that compost is a sustainable method for recycling organic waste, which can improve soil, suppress fungi, and promote plant growth.
The excessive use of agricultural soils and the reduction in their organic matter, following circular economy and environmental sustainability concepts, determined a strong attention in considering composting as a preferred method for municipalities and industries to recycle organic by-products. Microorganisms degrade organic matter for producing CO2, water and energy, originating stable humus named compost. The current study analyzed the chemical composition of a cow slurry on-farm digestate and a more stabilized digestate-derived compost (DdC), along with their phytotoxic, genotoxic and antifungal activities. The chemical analysis showed that digestate cannot be an ideal amendment due to some non-acceptable characteristics. Biological assays showed that the digestate had phytotoxicity on the tested plants, whereas DdC did not induce a phytotoxic effect in both plants at the lowest dilution; hence, the latter was considered in subsequent analyses. The digestate and DdC induced significant antifungal activity against some tested fungi. DdC did not show genotoxic effect on Vicia faba using a micronuclei test. Soil treated with DdC (5 and 10%) induced damping-off suppression caused by Fusarium solani in tomato plants. The eco-physiological data indicated that DdC at 5-10% could increase the growth of tomato plants. In conclusion, DdC is eligible as a soil amendment and to strengthen the natural soil suppressiveness against F. solani.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据