Agronomic performance, energy analysis, and carbon balance comparing different fertilization strategies in horticulture under Mediterranean conditions
- 103 Downloads
Production capacity evaluation and environmental sustainability assessment allow defining both the most appropriate fertilization strategies and the agricultural systems management. The aims of this study were to investigate the following, in a cauliflower-lettuce rotation: (i) agricultural system agronomic performance, (ii) fertilization treatments environmental sustainability through the energy inputs/outputs analysis, and (iii) carbon footprint through the GHG emissions and carbon sequestration analyses. Three fertilization strategies were compared: (i) CM, compost from municipal solid waste; ii) MIN, mineral fertilizers; iii) MIX, the CM compost plus a mineral fertilizer. Cauliflower and lettuce responses to fertilization were influenced by climatic conditions from year to year, and among the fertilizer treatments, the CM demonstrated a better resilience to the extreme weather events. It also showed the highest renewable energy (44.3%), suggesting that the substitution of mineral fertilizers with organic ones may help to reduce the non-renewable energy depletion, thus promoting the sustainability in horticultural systems. The CM was the most efficient treatment, since the energy stocked as C in the soil (145,889 MJ ha−1) and the net energy and the energy efficiency for cauliflower and lettuce (113,106 MJ ha−1 and 3.1, respectively) were the highest. Our results suggest that the application of the tested sustainable practices makes the farm a “sink” for the atmospheric CO2.
KeywordsCompost Environmental sustainability Carbon sources and sinks Cauliflower/lettuce rotation GHG Energy efficiency
This research has been supported by Tersan Puglia S.p.A., research project AGROBIOFER: Studio delle performances AGROnomiche di un BIOFERtilizzante ottenuto dalla trasformazione industriale della frazione organica di rifiuti solidi urbani ed altri materiali organici.
All authors contributed to the design and drafting of this paper.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Batjes NH (2014) Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world. European journal of soil science. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12114_2
- Helsel ZR (1992) Energy and alternatives for fertiliser and pesticide use. In: Fluck RC, editor. Energy in world agriculture, 6. Elsevier Science Publishing, pp.172-210.Google Scholar
- Khojastehpour M, Nikkhah A, Hashemabadi DA (2015) Comparative study of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of canola production. Int J Agric Manag:5, 51–58. https://doi.org/10.5455/IJAMD.165294
- Lardo E, Fiore A, Quinto GA, Dichio B, Xiloyannis C (2018) Climate change mitigation role of orchard agroecosystems: case studies in Southern Italy. Acta Hortic 1216:13–18. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1216.2
- Mandal B, Majumder B, Bandyopadhyay PK, Hazra GC, Gangopadhyay A, Samantaray RN, Mishra AK, Chaudhury J, Saha MN, Kundu S (2007) The potential of cropping systems and soil amendments for carbon sequestration in soils under long-term experiments in subtropical India. Glob Chang Biol 13:357–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01309.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Martinez-Mate MA, Martin-Gorriz B, Martínez-Alvarez V, Soto-García M, Maestre-Valero JF (2018) Hydroponic system and desalinated seawater as an alternative farm productive proposal in water scarcity areas: energy and greenhouse gas emissions analysis of lettuce production in southeast Spain. J Clean Prod 172:1298–1310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mohammadzadeh A, Damghani AM, Vafabakhsh J, Deihimfard R (2017) Assessing energy efficiencies, economy, and global warming potential (GWP) effects of major crop production systems in Iran: a case study in East Azerbaijan province. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:16971–16984. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9253-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Montemurro F, Canali S, Convertini G, Ferri D, Tittarelli F, Vitti C (2008) Anaerobic digestates application on fodder crops: effects on plant and soil. Agrochimica 52:297–312Google Scholar
- Ozalp A, Yilmaz S, Ertekin C, Yilmaz I (2018) Energy analysis and emissions of greenhouse gases of pomegranate production in Antalya Province of Turkey. Erwerbs-Obstbau. 60(4):321–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10341-018-0380-z
- Page G (2009) An environmentally-based systems approach to sustainability analysis of organic fruit production systems in New Zealand. Ph.D. Thesis, Massey University, Pamerston North, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
- SAS Institute Inc (2012) SAS/STAT software release 9.3 (Cary, NC, USA)Google Scholar
- Singh RS, De D, Chandra H (2001) Energy efficiency for wheat production under irrigated condition in Madhya Pradesh. J Asian Econ Rev 43(2):236–244Google Scholar
- Soil Survey Staff (1999) Soil taxonomy. A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. Agriculture Handbook 436, USDA-NRCS, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
- Tittarelli F, Petruzzelli G, Pezzarossa B, Civilini M, Benedetti A, Sequi P (2007) Quality and agronomic use of compost. In Diaz LF, de Bertoldi M, Bidlingmaier W, Stentiford E (eds), Compost science and technology, Waste management series 8, Elsevier Ltd., pp 119–145. ISBN:13:978-0- 08-043960-0. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1478-7482(07)80010-8
- UNESCO-FAO (1963) Bioclimatic map of the Mediterranean zone. UNESCO, 475 Place de Fontanay. FAO, Rome, NS162/III, 22A, Paris, p 60Google Scholar
- USDA (2018) United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference Legacy Release https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/