4.7 Article

Short-Term Decomposition and Nutrient-Supplying Ability of Sewage Sludge Digestate, Digestate Compost, and Vermicompost on Acidic Sandy and Calcareous Loamy Soils

期刊

AGRONOMY-BASEL
卷 11, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agronomy11112249

关键词

agronomic efficiency; waste utilisation; organic matter; fertilisation; priming

资金

  1. Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture [AKGF/10/2021_10, Value-GINOP-2.2.1-15-2017-00080, 2018-2.1.12-TET-HR2018-00006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study investigated the fertiliser value and organic matter replenishment capacity of digested sewage sludge (DS) and the compost (COM) and vermicompost (VC) made from it. Results showed that in the short term, DS proved to be the best fertiliser, while COM was the best for organic matter replenishment.
Organic waste and the compost and vermicompost derived from it may have different agronomic values, but little work is available on this aspect of sewage sludge. A 75-day pot experiment with perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) as the test plant aimed to investigate the fertiliser value and organic matter replenishment capacity of digested sewage sludge (DS) and the compost (COM) and vermicompost (VC) made from it, applied in 1% and 3% doses on acidic sand and calcareous loam. The NPK content and availability, changes in organic carbon content and plant biomass, and the efficiency of the amendments as nitrogen fertilisers were investigated. The final average residual carbon content for DS, COM, and VC was 35 & PLUSMN; 34, 85 & PLUSMN; 46, and 55 & PLUSMN; 46%, respectively. The organic carbon mineralisation rate depended on the soil type. The additives induced significant N mineralisation in both soils: the average increment in mineral N content was 1.7 times the total added N on acidic sand and 4.2 times it on calcareous loam for the 1% dose. The agronomic efficiency of COM and VC as fertilisers was lower than that of DS. In the short term, DS proved to be the best fertiliser, while COM was the best for organic matter replenishment.

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