Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 19, pp 19250–19260 | Cite as

Agronomic performance, energy analysis, and carbon balance comparing different fertilization strategies in horticulture under Mediterranean conditions

  • Alessandro Persiani
  • Mariangela DiaconoEmail author
  • Antonio Monteforte
  • Francesco Montemurro
Research Article


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.


Compost 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.

Author contribution

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.


  1. Altieri R, Esposito A (2010) Evaluation of the fertilizing effect of olive mill waste compost in short-term crops. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 64:124–128. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barut ZB, Ertekin C, Karaagac HA (2011) Tillage effects on energy use for corn silage in Mediterranean coastal of Turkey. Energy 36:5466–5475. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batjes NH (2014) Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world. European journal of soil science.
  4. Bojaca CR, Schrevens E (2010) Energy assessment of peri-urban horticulture and its uncertainty:561 case study for Bogota, Colombia. Energy 35(5):2109–2118. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cadena E, Colón J, Artola A, Sánchez A, Font X (2009) Environmental impact of two aerobic composting technologies using life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:401–410. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diacono M, Montemurro F (2010) Long term effects of organic amendments on soil fertility. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 30:401–422. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Diacono M, Persiani A, Fiore A, Montemurro F, Canali S (2017) Agro-ecology for potential adaptation of horticultural systems to climate change: agronomic and energetic performance evaluation. Agronomy 7(35):1–18. Google Scholar
  8. Diacono M, Persiani A, Canali S, Montemurro F (2018) Agronomic performance and sustainability indicators in organic tomato combining different agro-ecological practices. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 112:101–117. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dyer JA, Desjardins RL (2003) Simulated farm fieldwork, energy consumption and related greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. Biosyst Eng 85(4):503–513. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Graefe S, Tapasco J, Gonzalez A (2013) Resource use and greenhouse gas emissions of eight tropical fruits species cultivated in Colombia. Fruits 68(4):303–314. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Iocola I, Campanelli G, Diacono M, Leteo F, Montemurro F, Persiani A, Canali S (2018) Sustainability assessment of organic vegetable production using a qualitative multi-attribute model. Sustainability 10(10):3820. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Islam MK, Yaseen T, Traversa A, Ben Kheder M, Brunetti G, Cocozza C (2016) Effects of the main extraction parameters on chemical and microbial characteristics of compost tea. Waste Manag 52:62–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jadidi MR, Sabuni MS, Homayounifar M, Mohammadi A (2012) Assessment of energy use pattern for tomato production in Iran: a case study from the Marand region. Res Agric Eng 58(2):50–56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.
  16. Lal R (2004) Carbon emission from farm operations. Environ Int 30(7):981–990. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.
  18. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mohammadi-Barsari A, Firouzi S, Aminpanah H (2016) Energy-use pattern and carbon footprint of rain-fed watermelon production in Iran. Inf Process Agric 3:69–75. Google Scholar
  21. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Montemurro F (2010) Are the organic N fertilizing strategies able to improve lettuce yield, use of nitrogen and N status. J Plant Nutr 33:1980–1997. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Montemurro F, Maiorana M, Convertini G, Ferri D (2007) Alternative sugar beet production using shallow tillage and municipal solid waste fertiliser. Agron Sustain Dev 27:129–137. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Montemurro F, Ciaccia C, Leogrande R, Ceglie F, Diacono M (2015) Suitability of different organic amendments from agro-industrial wastes in organic lettuce crops. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 102:243–252. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Namdari M, Kangarshahi AA, Amiri NA (2011) Input-output energy analysis of citrus production in Mazandaran province of Iran. Afr J Agric Res 6:2558–2564 Google Scholar
  27. 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.
  28. Ozkan B, Akcaoz H, Fert C (2004) Energy input–output analysis in Turkish. Renew Energy 29:39–51. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Pane C, Palese AM, Spaccini R, Piccolo A, Celano G, Zaccardelli M (2016) Enhancing sustainability of a processing tomato cultivation system by using bioactive compost teas. Sci Hortic 202:117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pergola M, Persiani A, Pastore V, Palese AM, Arous A, Celano G (2017) A comprehensive life cycle assessment (LCA) of three apricot orchard systems located in Metapontino area (Southern Italy). J Clean Prod 142(4):4059–4071. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pergola M, Persiani A, Palese AM, Di Meo V, Pastore V, D’Adamo C, Celano C (2018) Composting: the way for a sustainable agriculture. Appl Soil Ecol 123:744–750. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rovira P, Henriques R (2008) Energy content of soil organic matter as studied by bomb calorimetry. Soil Biol Biochem 40:172–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Saer A, Lansing S, Davitt NH, Graves RE (2013) Life cycle assessment of a food waste composting system: environmental impact hotspots. J Clean Prod 52:234–244. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. SAS Institute Inc (2012) SAS/STAT software release 9.3 (Cary, NC, USA)Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. Tejada M, Hernandez MT, Garcia C (2009) Soil restoration using composted plant residues: effects on soil properties. Soil Tillage Res 102:109–117. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.
  40. UNESCO-FAO (1963) Bioclimatic map of the Mediterranean zone. UNESCO, 475 Place de Fontanay. FAO, Rome, NS162/III, 22A, Paris, p 60Google Scholar
  41. USDA (2018) United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference Legacy Release
  42. Walkley A, Black TA (1934) An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci 37:29–38. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yousefi M, Khoramivafa M, Mahdavi Damghani A (2017) Water footprint and carbon footprint of the energy consumption in sunflower agroecosystems. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(24):19827–19834. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l’analisi dell’economia agrariaResearch Centre for Agriculture and EnvironmentBariItaly
  2. 2.Biovegetal—Tersan Puglia S.p.A.BariItaly
  3. 3.Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l’analisi dell’economia agrariaResearch Centre for Vegetable and Ornamental CropsAscoli PicenoItaly

Personalised recommendations