Next Article in Journal
The Effect of Rootstock Activity for Growth and Root System Soaking in Trichoderma atroviride on the Graft Success and Continued Growth of Beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) Plants
Previous Article in Journal
A Bibliometric Analysis of the Scientific Literature on Biostimulants
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Effect of Tomato Waste Compost on Yield of Tomato and Some Biological Properties of Soil

Department of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, Faculty of Agriculture, Ondokuz Mayis University, 55200 Samsun, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 26 April 2022 / Revised: 16 May 2022 / Accepted: 20 May 2022 / Published: 24 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Soil and Plant Nutrition)

Abstract

:
Turkey ranks third in the world in terms of tomato production, and approximately 12.5 million tons of tomatoes are produced annually. Especially in greenhouse cultivation, tomato wastes do not stay in the soil and are taken out of the greenhouse. Ten million tons of tomato waste is generated annually in Turkey. Compost is a very important organic material containing plant nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, and microelements. Tomato waste compost is a good organic fertilizer that increases both tomato yield and biological activities in soil. The aim of this study is to determine the effect of tomato compost (TC) on tomato yield and biological properties of soils. For this purpose, a pot experiment was established in the greenhouse and TC was applied in four different doses (TC1—1%, TC2—2%, TC3—4%, TC4—6%) to pots containing 3.5 kg of soil, these doses were also applied with chemical fertilizer (CF) (CF, TC1 + CF, TC + CF, TC3 + CF, TC4 + CF), and then tomato plants were grown. Each application was applied as three replications. Among the compost applications, the highest tomato yield was obtained with the TC4 (0.96 kg/pot, 14.4 t/ha) application: 15.66% higher yield was obtained compared to chemical fertilizers. Among all treatments, TC1 + CF (1.07 kg/pot, 16.10 t/ha), which increased the tomato yield by 28.9%, had the highest yield. All applications have increased CO2 production in the soil; the highest CO2 production was determined in the last harvest period with TC3 + CF and TC4 + CF (0.27 mgCO2 1 gr−1 24 h−1). The maximum microbial biomass carbon content was determined in the first harvest period. Among the applications, the most microbial biomass carbon was determined after the TC4 + CF (114.42 mgMBC 100 gr−1) application. Catalase enzyme activity was obtained the most with TC4 + CF (601.56 mlO2 1 gr−1) application in first florescence. Dehydrogenase enzyme activity was obtained the most with TC3 (55.96 μg TPF g−1) application in end of harvest. After compost application, tomato yield increased and biological properties of soil improved.

1. Introduction

It is estimated that millions of tons of organic waste will be collected worldwide in the future [1]. Among the vegetables produced in Turkey, tomato ranks first, with a production amount of approximately 12 million tons. In addition, nearly 5 million tons of total tomato production is produced in greenhouses [2]. Turkey ranks third in the world in terms of tomato production. Ten million tons of tomato waste is generated annually in Turkey [3]. Organic carbon content of dried tomato waste is 53%. Decomposition of tomato waste in soil is very difficult due to its high C:N ratio (39.1). For this reason, its use in agriculture can be achieved by composting. If the management of organic waste is not performed well, it can cause big problems. Composting has long been a common method for the management of organic waste. This method is a biological process that takes place under controlled conditions by means of microorganisms in aerobic conditions, and it is a method that allows organic waste to be used as soil conditioner or organic fertilizer [4,5].
In modern agriculture, the use of chemical fertilizers is quite high in order to obtain more agricultural products in the short term. However, the negative effects of chemical fertilizers on the environment bring different alternatives [6,7]. Organic wastes provide important improvements in the physical and biological properties of soils as well as the nutrients provided by chemical fertilizers [8,9]. There is a close relationship between soil organic matter and soil microorganisms. Organic matter added to the soil will create a food source for the heterotrophic microbial population. The presence of microorganisms in the soil and their activities are indicators of soil vitality. The activities of soil microorganisms play a very important role in the soil. The determination of the activities of these microorganisms gives a clue about the estimation of soil vitality [10,11]. It can be said that there are many ways to evaluate the biological activity and the determination of enzyme activity in the soil. It is widely used in the estimation of the biological activities in soils [12,13]. Determination of enzyme activity is a good indicator of soil quality as well as showing the biological activities of soils. [14]. Decomposition of soil organic matter not only adds plant nutrients to soil but also helps to improve soil structure. Organic wastes are not only a good nutrient provider for plants, but also a good soil conditioner. Soil organic matter in the soil is broken down both mechanically and biochemically. This is where the role of soil enzymes comes into play, and determination of enzyme activity leads to predictions about soil quality and vitality.
Composting can take place in both aerobic and anaerobic. Compost, which can be used agriculturally, and is obtained under aerobic conditions. While defining the composting of agricultural wastes and plant and animal wastes in the presence of sufficient oxygen and moisture, it is expressed as the conversion of smaller organic compounds under controlled conditions by microorganisms [15,16]. In order to have an ideal composting; moisture, pH, air, C:N ratio, temperature, and particle size are very important factors because the microorganisms that will perform the composting need these conditions in order to survive in the medium [17,18].
Especially in greenhouses, the amount of nutrients taken from the soil is higher, since agriculture is carried out for a longer period of time compared to field agriculture. For this reason, the use of fertilizer for the nutrients needed by the plant is more. One of the most important factors affecting fruit quality is organic compounds. The presence of organic matter and microorganisms in the soil increases soil productivity. Organic acids released as a result of microorganism activity increase fruit quality. For this reason, there is a close relationship between yield and soil biological properties. Compost obtained from the plant’s own waste contains both the essential nutrients for the plant and is a source of substrate for microorganisms.
There are many studies on the effect of compost on plant yield, but studies on the effects of tomato waste compost on tomato yield are limited. In field agriculture, post-harvest organic material remains in the field, but the waste produced in the greenhouse is thrown out of the greenhouse and is not used. For this reason, it is of great importance that the product’s own waste is composted and reused, especially in greenhouse agriculture.
The hypothesis of this study is that tomato waste can be composted microbiologically and the compost obtained from its own waste will increase the yield. In addition, it is thought that compost will improve the biological properties in soils and affect the yield positively.
The aim of this study is to determine the effect of tomato compost on tomato yield and its effect on some soil biological properties such as basal soil respiration (BSR), microbial biomass C (MBC), catalase (CA), and dehydrogenase activity (DHA).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Compost and Composting Process

In this study, compost is obtained from the wastes of tomato, which is one of the most consumed vegetables in the world. The tomatoes released after production and not used in any way were used in this study. Tomato wastes were collected from a greenhouse and placed in a heap for decomposition to compost. The heap used for decomposition was 150 cm long × 75 cm wide × 90 cm high. Mixed microorganism culture was inoculated on the heap in order to break down the tomato wastes [19]. For the nitrogen and energy needs of these microorganisms, a sum of urea and sugar was added to the heap mixed with water. In order to aerate the heap, the heap was mixed with a mechanical mixer every day, and the composting period ended on the 90th day.

2.2. Experimental Soil

The soil used in the greenhouse experiment was taken from the agricultural land (41°32′26.3″ N and 35°51′04.7″ E) in the Bafra district of Samsun.
Soil samples were then air-dried and passed through a 2 mm sieve, and soil texture was determined by the hydrometer method [20]. Soil reaction (pH) and electrical conductivity (EC) in a 1:1 soil–pure water suspension were determined by pH meter and EC meter, respectively [21], soil organic matter (SOM) by the modified Walkley–Black method [22], and total nitrogen (N) by the Kjeldahl method [23]. Available phosphorus (P) was determined spectrophotometrically from NaHCO3 extractions [24], and the exchangeable cations (Ca, Mg, K, and Na) were determined from 1 N NH4OAc extractions [25]. CaCO3 was determined by Scheibler calcimetric method [21]. Extractable microelement analysis with DTPA was determined by [26]. All of the experimental procedures were three replicates, and results were averaged.

2.3. Experimental Design

In the greenhouse experiment, tomato seedlings were used as a cultivar plant with “F1 tomato” seedlings.
This study was conducted as a pot trial in a greenhouse under controlled conditions. The greenhouse experiment consisted of a total of 90 pots (3 different periods (first florescence, first harvest, end of harvest), 10 treatments, 3 replications = 90 pots). Application subjects consisted of control (C), chemical fertilizer (CF) (optimum dose), 1%—2.56 tons/da compost (TC1), 2%—5.12 tons/da compost (TC2), 4%—10.24 tons/da compost (TC3), 6%—15.36 tons/da compost (TC4), 1% compost + chemical fertilizer (TC1 + CF), 2% compost + chemical fertilizer (TC2 + CF), 4% compost + chemical fertilizer (TC3 + CF), and 6% compost + chemical fertilizer (TC4 + CF).
Each flowerpot was filled with 3.5 kg of soil, and the seedlings were planted by bringing the moisture content of the soil to the level of the field capacity. The greenhouse experiment lasted for 125 days. During the experiment, each pot was weighed and the lost moisture was added. Analyses were made on soil samples taken from pots in 3 different vegetation periods of tomatoes: first florescence (47th day), first harvest (101st day), and end of harvest (125th day). Chemical fertilizer application was applied by determining the optimum fertilizer doses (for each pot; 3.36 gr ammonium sulphate, 2.07 gr TSP, and 1.24 gr K2SO4 fertilizer were applied) required for the tomato plant according to the soil analysis results of the trial soil.

2.4. Soil Biological Analyses

Microbial biomass carbon was determined by the substrate-induced respiration method by [27]. A moist sample equivalent to 10 g oven-dried soil was amended with a powder mixture containing 40 mg glucose. The CO2 production rate was measured hourly using the method described by [28]. The pattern of respiratory response was recorded for 4 h. MBC was calculated from the maximum initial respiratory response in terms of mg C g−1 soil as 40.04 mg CO2 g−1 + 3.75. Data are expressed as mg CO2-C g−1 dry soil.
Basal respiration at field capacity (CO2 production at 22 °C without the addition of glucose) was measured, as reported by [28]; by alkali (Ba(OH)2.8H2O + BaCI2) absorption of the CO2 produced during the 24 h incubation period, followed by titration of the residual OH with standardized hydrochloric acid, after adding three drops of phenolphthalein as an indicator. Data are expressed as mg CO2 g−1 dry soil.
Soil dehydrogenase enzyme activity (DHA) was determined according to [29]. Moist soil (10 g) was treated with 10 mL of 0.8% TTC (2,3,5-triphenyltetrazolium chloride) in Tris buffer (pH 7.6) for 24 h in darkness at 30 °C. The triphenylformazan (TPF) formed was extracted with a 50 mL extraction solution (90% (v/v) acetone + 10% (v/v) CCI4) by vigorous shaking for 1 min and then filtering through a Whatman 42 filter paper. Triphenylformazan was measured spectrophotometrically at 485 nm, using the extracting solution as a blank. Triplicate tubes were set up for each soil sample along with an autoclaved control of each sample. Data are expressed as μg TPF g–1 dry soil 24 h−1 25 °C.
Catalase enzyme activity (CA) was measured by the Beck method [30]. Ten milliliters of phosphate buffer (pH 7.0) and 5 mL of a 3% H2O2 substrate solution were added to 5 g of soil. The volume (mL) of O2 released within 3 min at 20 °C was determined. Three replicates of each sample and controls were tested in the same way, but with the addition of 2 mL of 6.5% (w/v) NaN3. Results were expressed as ml O2 5 g–1 dry soil 3 min−1.

2.5. Statistical Analyses

Variance analyses and Duncan tests of the findings were performed in the SPSS package program.

3. Results and Discussions

3.1. Compost

Some properties of tomato compost are given in Table 1.

3.2. Soil

The experiment soil is clay loam texture, slightly alkaline (7.40–7.90), slightly saline (0.98–1.71 dS/m), low organic matter (<2.10), medium lime content (5–15), sufficient total N content, low available P content (3–6), sufficient in potassium, not containing sodicism hazard, and sufficient in terms of microelements (Table 2).

3.3. Effect of Compost on Tomato Yield

According to the results obtained from the harvested tomatoes, all applications showed a positive effect on tomato yield compared to control (no fertilizer application) (Table 3). It was determined that whether compost alone was applied in different doses or combined with chemical fertilizers positively affected the yield of tomatoes compared to the control.
Among compost applications, the highest yield was obtained with TC4 application. Among all the applications in the experiment, the best yield was obtained from the TC1 + CF application. Compost applications had greater yields than the control, but low-dose treatments (TC1 and TC2) were lower than CF. Low doses of compost are less effective than chemical fertilizers; nutrients are released more slowly compared to chemical fertilizers and are taken up late by the plant. When compost and chemicals are applied together, there is a significant increase in tomato yield. Ref. [31] indicated limited effects of organic fertilizers on plant growth and yield as compared to chemical fertilizers. Ref. [32] reported in their study that different organic fertilizers increase tomato yield, but lower yields are obtained compared to chemical fertilizers. Ref. [33] reported that there were significant increases in tomato yield with biochar and nitrogen applications. Ref. [34] investigated the effect of food waste compost on tomato yield compared to chemical fertilizers and some organic waste; it has been reported that food waste compost increases tomato yield compared to chemical fertilizers and other organic wastes. Ref. [35] reported that compost application increased tomato yield in their study investigating the effects of municipal solid waste compost application on tomato yield. Ref. [36] applied different doses of mushroom compost with and without N–P–K fertilizer and investigated the effects of applied compost on cabbage, pumpkin, and tomato yield. At the end of the study, they reported that while high doses of compost applied without N–P–K fertilizer gave the best results in cabbage and pumpkin yield, the best result in tomato yield was obtained by applying compost and N–P–K fertilizer together.

3.4. Basal Soil Respiration (CO2)

Soil respiration is defined as the rate of respiration in the soil, together with the measurement of the CO2 produced as a result of the mineralization of organic matter in the soil [37,38,39]. Soil respiration is affected by many soil properties such as clay, pH, organic carbon, and nitrogen [40,41,42,43,44,45]. Soil respiration is closely related to soil fertility and is frequently used in the evaluation of soil quality [46,47].
The effect of vegetation period of tomato plant on CO2 production values of soil after compost application was found to be significant (p < 0.05) (Table 4). According to the results of soil respiration analysis on the soil samples taken during the first flowering period, the effect of the CF application on the change in the CO2 production values of the soils was not found to be statistically significant. In other applications, it was determined that the CO2 production values of the soils increased compared to the control. Among these applications, the highest increase was obtained after TC3 application.
According to the analysis results of the first harvest period, CF and TC1 + CF applications on the change in the CO2 production values of the soils were not found to be statistically significant, but other applications increased soil CO2 production. Among all of them, the highest increment occurred after TC2 application.
According to the analysis results in the last harvest period, many applications showed similar results to the control at the end of this period, but it was found that the highest increase was found in the CO2 production values of the soils after the applications of TC3 + CF and TC4 + CF. Ref. [48] applied vermicomposting of treated sludge, hazelnut sludge, and barn manure with Eisenia fetida type of worms and the non-vermicompost of these wastes to soils, and investigated the changes in soil respiration (microbial respiration) in soil samples. The researchers reported that after the applications, CO2 production in the soil increased depending on the applications, the changes in CO2 production in the soil as a result of applying the organic material to the soil by vermicomposting or without vermicomposting were insignificant, and the changes in the ratio of organic materials included in the composition of the mixtures were significant (p < 0.001).
It was determined that most CO2 production in the soil was realized in the last harvest period. The reason for this may be due to the increased microorganism population as a result of the CO2 released as mineralized in the last harvest period of the organic matter, which increased in the first harvest period due to the TC applied to the soil, and the substrate for the soil microorganisms. It is a good substrate source for microorganisms due to the narrow C:N ratio of the applied TC and the high amount of N, P, macro, and micro elements in its structure. In addition, since it is nutritious for plants, the plant root system also develops and they synthesize organic products for microorganisms. Many studies show that [49,50,51,52,53] organic origin materials applied to soils increase the amount of CO2 production, and this increase is more C:N. It is realized through organic materials with a narrow ratio and rich in nutrients. Ref. [54] reported that organic material in soils increases soil respiration. It has also been stated in previous studies that the organic carbon added to the soil is used by the microorganisms, and the CO2 output is released [55,56,57].

3.5. Microbial Biomass Carbon (MBC)

According to the results of MBC analysis performed at the end of the first flowering period, it was determined that there was an increase in the MBC values of the soils at the end of all the applications (Table 5). Although most of the results obtained after the applications are similar to each other, it was determined that the highest increase was after TC2 + CF application.
According to the results of the analysis performed at the end of the first harvest period, it was determined that there was an increase in the microbial biomass carbon content of the soils at the end of all applications made, according to the control soil. At the end of this period, some applications were statistically similar, but the highest increase was found after TC4 + CF application.
According to the results of the analysis performed in the last harvest period, CF and TC1 + CF applications showed similar results with control, other applications except these two applications increased the biomass carbon content of the soils, while TC4, TC3 + CF and TC4 + CF applications showed the highest microbial biomass carbon values.
It has been determined that the most microbial biomass in the soil is in the first harvest period. The main reason for this situation is the highest organic matter level in the soil in this period. In order to be able to comment on the status of microorganisms in the soil, it is necessary to know the cell weights and the microbial biomass, rather than the numerical distribution of the microorganisms in that soil. For example, bacteria found in large numbers in the soil weigh less than fungi, which are much less numerous than bacteria in the same soil [58]. Therefore, microbial biomass is one of the most used parameters in determining the total microbial activity in the soil. Organic matter applied to the soil causes an increase by directly affecting the population of heterotroph microorganisms in the soil. Since all of the fungi and some of the bacteria in the soil feed on heterotrophs, the TC applied to the soil directly increases the number of these microorganisms, while it may affect the number of autotroph microorganisms indirectly. Autotrophic microorganisms can be affected by TC application by improving the air–water balance in the soil and by the cell metabolites of heterotroph microorganisms.
In similar studies, it has been stated that organic materials increase microbial biomass. Ref. [59] reported that compost or farm manure applied to soils significantly increased the microbial biomass carbon content of soils compared to control and chemical fertilizers. Many researchers have reported that there is a significant increase in the biological characteristics of soils after organic material applications, such as microbial activity, microbial diversity, and microorganism population [60,61,62,63]. Organic materials added to soils not only change soil organic carbon, but also increase microbial population and activities [64,65].

3.6. Cmic:Corg

According to the results of the analysis carried out in the first vegetation period, the applications carried out did not show any statistical effect on the Cmic: Corg ratio of the soils during this period (Table 6). CF, TC1, TC3, TC2 + CF, and TC3 + CF applications caused this ratio to increase. By the increase of this ratio, it can be understood that the microbial biomass carbon in the total organic carbon in the soil increased.
According to the analysis results in the 2nd vegetation period, the results obtained after TC3 application among the applications were found to be statistically insignificant compared to the control, other applications increased the Cmic:Corg ratio value of the soils.
According to the data obtained in the third vegetation period of the tomato plant, it was determined that CF application caused this rate to decrease. TC1, TC2 and TC1 + CF applications showed similar results to the control, while other applications increased this ratio.
Studies have also stated that the addition of organic matter increases the Comic:Corg ratio. Similarly, [66] investigated the effect of different practices on the relationship between structural change in soil organic matter and soil metabolism. At the end of the study, they stated that Cmic:Corg ratio increased after mineral fertilizer, farm manure and vermicompost applications. Ref. [67] Stated that microbial carbon in total organic carbon decreased with mineral fertilization.
The ratio of microbial C to soil organic C (Cmic:Corg) reflects the ratio of microbial biomass in soil organic carbon [68]. Total organic carbon in soil contains 1–5% microbial biomass carbon [69].

3.7. Catalase Activity (CA)

According to the analysis results in the first flowering period, CF and 1% TC applications did not show similar results with the control in this period and did not show any effect on the catalase enzyme activity in the soils. Other applications have increased the catalase enzyme activity of the soils. Among these results, the highest increase occurred after TC4 + CF application (Table 7).
According to the analysis results in the first harvest period, TC1 application showed similar results to the control, and at the end of this period, it did not show any effect on the catalase enzyme activity of the soils. Other applications made caused higher catalase enzyme activity of soils. The highest catalase enzyme activity was detected after TC4 + CF application.
When it comes to the last harvest period, it is understood that some applications do not have any effect on the catalase enzyme activity of the soils. When looking at the results of the remaining applications, it is understood that the catalase enzyme activity of the soils increased. The highest increase was detected after TC4 + CF application.
It was determined that the most catalase enzyme activity was in the first flowering and first harvest periods. The reason is that the TC applied to the soil has not completely broken down yet and therefore the soil may have a looser structure, which may increase the aerobic microorganism population by increasing the air flow and aeration in the soil. The organic material applied to the soil increases the catalase enzyme activity both because it is a substrate for microorganisms and increases aeration (Table 5).
The sources of enzymes in the soil are plants and macro and microorganisms [70]. Therefore, soil enzymes are big indicators in determining the microbial population and microorganism activities in the soil [71]. Organic matter applications, needs of microorganisms, are a simple and effective method for increasing the activities of soil enzymes. Refs. [72,73] investigated the effect of green compost on the biochemical properties of soils. At the end of the research, they found significant differences in the catalase enzyme activity in the soil where compost was applied as a regulator. It increased the catalase enzyme activity up to 10 times in the soil compared to the green compost control applied to the soil at a rate of 50%. Ref. [74] applied farm manure, sand, desulfurized gypsum, and these three applications in a mixed manner to determine the responses of soil microorganisms and soil enzyme activities to different applications. At the end of the study, the catalase enzyme activity of the soils varied among the applications, and they reported that the catalase enzyme activities in the soil after the application of sand did not differ compared to the control, while it increased 1130.78% after gypsum application, 1096.15% after farm manure application, and 600% after mixed application.

3.8. Dehydrogenase Activity (DHA)

According to the analysis results made during the first flowering period, TC4 + CF application did not show any effect on the dehydrogenase enzyme activity of the soils during this period, while it was found to be lower than the control at the end of the other applications (Table 8).
According to the results of the analysis made during the first harvest period, some applications during this period did not show any effect on the dehydrogenase enzyme activity of the soils, while some applications caused more dehydrogenase enzyme activity in the soils. Among all applications, TC2 application has been determined to be the application with the highest value.
According to the analysis results made in the last harvest period, it was determined that while CF application caused a decrease in the dehydrogenase enzyme activity of the soils in this period, other applications caused an increase in the dehydrogenase enzyme activity of the soils, and the highest increase occurred after TC3 application (Table 6).
There are many enzymes in the soil that fall into the group of oxidoreductases, hydrolases, isomerases, liases, and ligases. Each fulfills key biochemical functions in the product and energy conversion process [75]. Soil dehydrogenase enzyme (EC 1.1.1.) is one of the most basic enzymes in the oxidoreductase class [75]. The dehydrogenase enzyme plays an important role in the early stages of oxidation of the organic components of the soil by transferring hydrogen and electrons from substrates to receptors [76]. Dehydrogenase activity reflects the total oxidative activity range of the soil microflora [77] and is a good indicator of the overall microbial activity of soils [78].
Dehydrogenase enzyme activity in the soil was determined mostly in the last harvest period. DHA in the soil is closely related to soil organic matter. For this reason, the fact that there is no increase in DHA during the first flowering period may be due to the fact that the applied TC has not yet broken down.
Similarly, [13] reported that the increased organic matter in the surface soil increased the dehydrogenase enzyme activity in the soil. Ref. [79] reported that dehydrogenase activity was accompanied by an increase in the number of microbial groups and improvement in other living conditions such as ventilation and humidity. In [80], they reported that organic wastes applied to eroded soils increased the dehydrogenase enzyme activity in the soil. In [81], they determined that dehydrogenase enzyme activity increased with compost application. Ref. [82] found that dehydrogenase activity was lower after only chemical fertilizer application, compared to biochar application. Ref. [83] reported that soil enzymes improved significantly with the addition of biochar and N.

3.9. Relationships between Tomato Yield and Soil Biological Properties

According to the data, important relationships were determined between the total tomato yield obtained at the end of the greenhouse experiment and the biological properties of the soil. In the first harvest period, significant correlations were determined between the total tomato yield and the catalase enzyme activity in the soil at the p < 0.05 level positive direction and with the microbial biomass at the p < 0.01 level positive direction. At the end of the harvest period, significant correlations were determined between total tomato yield and soil respiration at the p < 0.05 level positive direction, and also at the p < 0.01 level positive direction with other biological properties (Table 9).

4. Practical Implications of This Study and Conclusions

According to the results of this study, vegetable wastes can be composted without animal waste such as barn manure. For the highest yield, no more chemical fertilizers are needed and fertilization alone is not sufficient for higher yields. It has been determined that there is a significant relationship between the yield and the biological activity of the soil. The dose of compost should be determined very well. The compost dose is different for the yield obtained only with compost and the yield obtained with compost and chemical fertilizers.

Conclusions

Millions of tons of biomass are released as a result of agricultural activities. In most agricultural areas, these released materials are either buried in the ground or burned uncontrollably. Thus, it both causes significant damage to the environment and also destroys the potential organic fertilizer raw material. In the traditional composting method, barn manure is needed for composting plant materials. When barn manure is not available, vegetable wastes pose a problem for the environment. For this reason, microbiological composting of plant materials without barn manure, as we have stated, will both eliminate the negative impact of the waste material on the environment and provide a good soil conditioner and organic fertilizer. Reducing the use of chemical fertilizers in sustainable farming systems is clear.
The activities of soil microorganisms are of great importance in order to ensure the nutrient cycle in the soil, to maintain soil productivity and soil fertility. For this reason, the presence of organic carbon in the soil, required by microorganisms, is absolutely necessary in order to keep the microorganism population and activities in the soil dynamic. This study showed that the use of compost is very important for soil vitality and the activity of soil enzymes.
Recycling is one of the most basic solutions to climate change and environmental problems, which are a major threat worldwide today. It is possible to reuse the materials released after production in agriculture, especially by composting. The use of compost causes an increase in the activities of microorganisms in the soil, the population of microorganisms, and the activities of soil enzymes; thus, besides increasing the yield, it also contributes to sustainable agriculture and prevention of environmental problems.
Since the traditional method of composting vegetable waste requires a large amount of barn manure, it can be easily achieved by using a mixed culture of microorganisms. Thus, pathogens and weed seeds in barn manure will be avoided. It is possible to obtain organic fertilizer only with the plant’s own wastes, without the need for any source for organic fertilization in plant production.
Tomatoes need many more nutrients in greenhouse cultivation compared to open-field cultivation. In order to reduce the harmful effects of chemical fertilizer application, its application with organic fertilizer will both increase the yield and increase the microorganism population in the soil. In tomato production, if organic farming is carried out with no chemical fertilizers, high doses of tomato waste compost should be the most appropriate application. We recommend that tomato producers use low-dose tomato compost in addition to chemical fertilization to achieve higher yields, thus both increasing the biological activity of the soil and the yield.
The characteristics of the compost obtained from the waste of each plant and its effect on yield may be different, so similar studies should be carried out on other plant wastes. In addition to the effect of the compost to be used on yield, it is recommended to investigate the effect on the biological properties of the soil, because the relationships between soil biological properties and yield have been revealed. The findings were obtained under greenhouse conditions. For this reason, similar studies should be carried out in the open field to determine the effects in the open field. Compost to be applied in high doses may not be practical and requires a lot of labor force in the open field, so lower doses may be preferred in open-field studies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.D. and R.K.; methodology, M.D. and R.K.; validation, R.K.; formal analysis, M.D. and R.K.; investigation, M.D.; resources, M.D.; data curation, R.K.; writing—original draft preparation, M.D.; writing—review and editing, R.K.; supervision, R.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

This study was produced from Murat Durmuş’s Ph.D. Thesis. We thank Ondokuz Mayıs University for their support in the conduct of the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Campuzano, R.; González-Martínez, S. Characteristics of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste and methane production: A review. Waste Manag. 2016, 54, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. Available online: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=tarim-111&dil=1 (accessed on 14 May 2022).
  3. Çercioğlu, M. Sürdürülebilir atık yönetiminde sera atıklarının kompost olarak değerlendirilmesi. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Derg. 2019, 33, 167–177. [Google Scholar]
  4. Grenier, V.; Moingt, M.; Lucotte, M.; Pitre, F.E. Dissipation and effect of glyphosate during composting of organic wastes. J. Environ. Qual. 2022, 51, 399–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Lin, C.; Cheruiyot, N.K.; Bui, X.T.; Ngo, H.H. Composting and its application in bioremediation of organic contaminants. Bioengineered 2022, 13, 1073–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sözüdoğru, S.; Karaca, A.; Haktanır, K. Tavuk Gübresinin Azot Mineralizasyonu ve Üreaz Aktivitesi Üzerine Etkisi. In Yayın Bilimsel Araştırma ve İncelemeler; Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi: Ankara, Turkey, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  7. Özdemir, N.; Kızılkaya, R.; Sürücü, A. Farklı Organik Atıkların Toprakların Üreaz Enzim Aktivitesi. Ekoloji Çevre Derg. 2000, 9, 23–26. [Google Scholar]
  8. Sürücü, A.; Kızılkaya, R.; Bayraklı, F. Farklı Organik Atıkların Toprakların Biyolojik Özelliklerine ve Topraktaki Fe, Cu, Zn, Mn ve Ni Yarayışlılıklarına Etkileri. In Proceedings of the XIV Ulusal Biyoloji Kongresi, Samsun, Turkey, 7–10 September 1998. [Google Scholar]
  9. Kızılkaya, R.; Sürücü, A.; Arcak, S. Samsun, Alaçam Orman Topraklarının Bazı Biyolojik ve Kimyasal Özellikleri. In Proceedings of the XIV Ulusal Biyoloji Kongresi, Samsun, Turkey, 7–10 September 1998. [Google Scholar]
  10. Yan, T.; Yang, L.; Campbell, C.D. Microbial biomass and metabolic quotient of soils under different land use in the Three Gorges Reservoir area. Geoderma 2003, 115, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kızılkaya, R.; Dengiz, O.; Alparslan, T.; Durmuş, M.; Işıldak, V.; Aksu, S. Changes of soil microbial biomass C and basal soil respiration in different land use and land cover. In Proceedings of the International Soil Science Congress on Management of Natural Resources to Ssstain Soil Healty and Quality, Samsun, Turkey, 26–28 May 2010. [Google Scholar]
  12. Rogers, J.E.; Li, S.W. Effect of heavy metal and other inorganic ions on soil microbial activity: Soil dehydrogenase assay as a simple toxicity test. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 1985, 34, 858–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kussainova, M.; Durmuş, M.; Erkoçak, A.; Kızılkaya, R. Soil dehydrogenase activity of natural macro aggregates in a toposequence of forest soil. Eurasian J. Soil Sci. 2013, 2, 69–75. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ling, D.J.; Huang, Q.C.; Ouyang, Y. Impacts of simulated acid rain on soil enzyme activities in a latosol. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2010, 73, 1914–1918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. El-Haggar, S.M.; Mounir, G.; Gennaro, L. Agricultural Waste as an Energy Source in Developing Countries, a Case Study in Egypt on the Utilization of Agricultural Waste through Complexes. 2004. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/AGRICULTURAL-WASTE-AS-AN-ENERGY-SOURCE-IN-COUNTRIES-Salah-Mounir/30236a818295c0c55d7f8d58da6f94ebd081a6d5 (accessed on 24 April 2022).
  16. Sánchez, Ó.J.; Ospina, D.A.; Montoya, S. Compost supplementation with nutrients and microorganisms in composting process. Waste Manag. 2017, 69, 136–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tuomela, M.; Vikman, M.; Hatakka, A.; Itävaara, M. Biodegradation of lignin in a compost environment: A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2000, 72, 169–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bhupendra, K.; Mohammad, Y.; Maulin, P.S. Agricultural waste management strategies for environmental sustainability. Environ. Res. 2022, 206, 112285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kizilkaya, R.; Sahin, N.; Tatar, D.; Veyisoglu, A.; Askin, T.; Sushkova, S.; Minkina, T. Isolation and Identification of Bacterial Strains from Decomposing Hazelnut Husk. Compost Sci. Util. 2015, 23, 174–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bouyoucos, G.J. A recalibration of the hydrometer method formaking mechanical analysis of soils. Agron. J. 1951, 43, 435–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Rowell, D.L. Soil Science: Methods and Applications; Longman: London, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  22. Nelson, D.W.; Sommers, L.E. Total Carbon, Organic Carbon and Organic Matter. In Methods of Soil Analysis; Page, A.L., Ed.; ASA and SSSA: Madison, WI, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kacar, B. Bitki ve Toprağın Kimyasal Analizleri. III. Toprak Analizleri; No: 3; Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Eğitim, Araştırma ve Geliştirme Vakfı Yayınları: Ankara, Turkey, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  24. Olsen, S.R.; Cole, C.V.; Watanabe, F.S.; Dean, L.A. Estimation of Available Phosphorus in Soils by Extraction with NaHCO3; USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 1954. [Google Scholar]
  25. Thomas, G.W. Exchangeable Cations. In Methods of Soil Analysis; Page, A.L., Ed.; ASA and SSSA: Madison, WI, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  26. Katkat, A.V.; Çil, N. Bitki Besleme Uygulama Kılavuzu; No: 8; Uludağ Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayınları, Uygulama Kılavuzu: Bursa, Turkey, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  27. Anderson, J.P.E.; Domsch, K.H. A physiological method for the quantitative measurement of microbial biomass in soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1978, 3, 215–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Anderson, J.P.E. Soil respiration. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2-Chemical and Microbiological Properties; Page, A.L., Miller, R.H., Keeney, D.R., Eds.; American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 1982; pp. 831–871. [Google Scholar]
  29. Thalmann, A. Zur Methodik der bestimmung der dehydrogenaseaktivität im boden mittels triphenyltetrazoliumchlorid (TTC). Landwirtsch. Forsch 1968, 21, 249–258. [Google Scholar]
  30. Beck, T. Die messung derkkatalasen aktivität von böden. Z. Pflanz. Bodenkd. 1971, 130, 68–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Heeb, A.; Lundegardh, B.; Savarge, G.; Ericsson, T. Impact of organic and inorganic fertilizers on yield, taste, and nutritional quality of tomatoes. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2006, 169, 535–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Turhan, A.; Özmen, N. Effects of Chemical and organic fertilizer treatments on yield and quality traits of industrial tomato. Tekirdağ Ziraat Fakültesi Derg. 2021, 18, 213–221. [Google Scholar]
  33. Guo, L.; Yu, H.; Kharbach, M.; Zhang, W.; Wang, J.; Niu, W. Biochar Improves Soil-Tomato Plant, Tomato Production, and Economic Benefits under Reduced Nitrogen Application in Northwestern China. Plants 2021, 10, 759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yang, L.; Li, F.; Chu, H. Effects of food waste compost on soil microbial populations, tomato yield, and tomato quality. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2014, 45, 1049–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ozores-Hampton, M.; Schaffer, B.; Bryan, H.H.; Hanlon, H. Nutrient concentrations, growth, and yield of tomato and squash in municipal solid-waste-amended soil. Hortscience 1994, 29, 785–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Stephens, J.M.; Henry, B.F.; Castro, B.F.; Bennet, D.L. Mushroom compost as a soil amendment for vegetable gardens. Proc. Fla. State Hortic. Soc. 1989, 102, 108–111. [Google Scholar]
  37. Pell, M.; Stenström, J.; Granhall, U. Soil Respiration. In Microbial Methods for Assessing Soil Quality; Bloem, J., Hopkins, D.W., Benedetti, A., Eds.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  38. Dilly, O.; Zyakun, A. Priming effect and respiratory quotient in a forest soil amended with glucose. Geomicrobiol. J. 2008, 25, 425–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Creamer, R.E.; Schulte, R.P.O.; Stone, D.; Gal, A.; Krogh, P.H.; Papa, G.L.; Murray, P.J.; Pérès, G.; Foerster, B.; Rutgers, M.; et al. Measuring basal soil respiration across Europe: Do incubation temperature and incubation period matter? Ecol. Indic. 2014, 36, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Stefanowicz, A.M.; Niklinska, M.; Laskowski, R. Metals affect soil bacterial and fungal functional diversity differently. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2008, 27, 591–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Lin, C.H.; Zhu, T.; Liu, L.; Wang, D. Influences of major nutrient elements on Pb accumulation of two crops from a Pb-contaminated soil. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 174, 202–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Ramirez, K.S.; Craine, J.M.; Fierer, N. Nitrogen fertilization inhibits soilmicrobial respiration regardless of the form of nitrogen applied. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2010, 42, 2336–2338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Balogh, J.; Pintér, K.; Fóti, S.; Cserhalmi, D.; Papp, M.; Nagy, Z. Dependence of soil respiration on soil moisture, clay content, soil organic matter, and CO2 uptake in dry grasslands. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2011, 43, 1006–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Azarbad, H.; Niklinska, M.; Van Gestel, C.A.M.; Van Straalen, N.M.; Roling, W.F.M.; Laskowski, R. Microbial community structure and functioning along metal pollution gradients. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2013, 32, 1992–2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wang, P.; Kinraide, T.B.; Smolders, E.; Zhou, D.M.; Menzies, N.W.; Thakali, S.; Xia, W.W.; Hao, X.Z.; Peijnenburg, W.J.G.M.; Kopittke, P.M. An electrostatic model predicting Cu and Ni toxicity to microbial processes in soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013, 57, 720–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Niemeyer, J.C.; Lolata, G.B.; de Carvalho, G.M.; Da Silva, E.M.; Sousa, J.P.; Nogueira, M.A. Microbial indicators of soil health as tools for ecological risk assessment of a metal contaminated site in Brazil. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2012, 59, 96–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Romero-Freire, A.; Aragón, M.S.; Garzón, F.J.M.; Peinado, F.J.M. Is soil basal respiration a good indicator of soil pollution? Geoderma 2016, 263, 132–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Türkay Hepşen, F.Ş. Fındık Zurufu ve Arıtma Çamurunun Solucanlar ile Kompostlanması ve Elde Edilen Vermikompostun Sera ve Tarla Kosullarında Toprakların Biyolojik Özelliklerinde Meydana Getirdiği Etkilerin Belirlenmesi. Ph.D. Thesis, Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkey, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  49. Hadas, A.; Kautsky, L.; Goek, M.; Kara, E.E. Rates of decomposition of plant residues and available nitrogen in soil, related to residue composition through simulation of carbon and nitrogen turnover. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2004, 36, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Parfitt, R.L.; Yeates, G.W.; Ross, D.J.; Mackay, A.D.; Budding, P.J. Relationships between soil biota, nitrogen and phosphorus availability, and pasture growth under organic and conventional management. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2005, 28, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Joergensen, R.G.; Potthoff, M. Microbial reaction in activity, biomass, and community structure after longterm continuous mixing of a grassland soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2005, 37, 1249–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kaur, K.; Kapoor, K.K.; Gupta, A.P. Impact of organic manures with and without mineral fertilizers on soil chemical and biological properties under tropical conditions. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2005, 168, 117–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Kızılkaya, R.; Ekberli, İ.; Kars, N. Tütün atığı ve buğday samanı uygulanmış toprakta üreaz aktivitesi ve kinetiği. Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Tarım Bilimleri Derg. 2007, 13, 186–194. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ferreras, L.; Gómez, E.; Toresani, S.; Firpo, I.; Rotondo, R. Effect of organic amendments on some physical, chemical and biological properties in a horticultural soil. Bioresour. Technol. 2006, 97, 635–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bosatta, E.; Ågren, G.I. Soil organic matter quality interpreted thermodynamically. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1998, 31, 1889–1891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Fierer, N.; Craine, J.M.; McLauchlan, K.; Schimel, J.P. Litter quality and the temperature sensitivity of decomposition. Ecology 2005, 86, 320–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Yuste, J.C.; Baldocchi, D.D.; Gershenson, A.; Goldstein, A.; Misson, L.; Wong, S. Microbial soil respiration and its dependency on carbon inputs, soil temperature and moisture. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2007, 13, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  58. Alexander, M. Introduction to Soil Microbiology; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  59. Mohammadi, K. Soil microbial activity and biomass as influenced by tillage and fertilization in wheat production. Am.-Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2011, 10, 330–337. [Google Scholar]
  60. Van Bruggen, A.H.C.; Semenov, A.M. In search of biological indicators for plant health and disease suppression. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2000, 15, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Liu, B.; Ristaino, J.B. Microbial community structure in soils from organic and conventional agroecosystems. Phytopathology 2003, 96, 53. [Google Scholar]
  62. Girvan, M.S.; Bullimore, J.; Ball, A.S.; Pretty, J.N.; Osborn, A.M. Responses of active bacterial and fungal communities in soil under winter wheat to different fertilizer and pesticide regimens. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2004, 70, 2692–2701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Grayston, S.J.; Campbell, C.D.; Bardgett, R.D.; Mawdsley, J.L.; Clegg, C.D.; Ritz, K.; Griffiths, B.S.; Rodwell, J.S.; Edwards, S.J.; Davies, W.J.; et al. Assessing shifts in microbial community structure across a range of grasslands of differing management intensity using CLPP, PLFA, and community DNA techniques. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2004, 25, 63–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Tejada, M.; Garcia, C.; Goazelez, J.L.; Hernandez, M.T. Organic amendment based on fresh and composted beet vinasse: Influence on soil properties and wheat yield. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2006, 70, 900–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ros, M.; Hernandez, M.T.; Garcia, C. Soil microbial activity after restoration of a semiarid soil by organic amendments. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2003, 35, 463–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Marinari, S.; Masciandaro, G.; Ceccanti, B.; Stefano, G. Evolution of soil organic matter changes using pyrolysis and metabolic indices: A comparison between organic and mineral fertilization. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 2495–2502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kubát, J.; Nováková, J.; Mikanová, O.; Apfelthaler, R. Organic carbon cycle, incidence of microorganisms and respiration activity in long-term field experiment. Rostl. Vyrob. 1999, 45, 389–395. [Google Scholar]
  68. Anderson, T.H.; Domsch, K.H. Ratios of microbial biomass carbon to total organic carbon in arable soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1989, 2, 471–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Smith, J.L.; Paul, E.A. Significance of soil microbial biomass estimation. Soil Biochem. 1990, 6, 357–396. [Google Scholar]
  70. Sharma, S.; Kumar, V.; Tripathi, R.B. Isolation of phosphate solubilizing microorganism (PSMs) from soil. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Res. 2017, 1, 90. [Google Scholar]
  71. Singh, P.; Mitra, S.; Majumdar, D.; Bhattacharyya, P.; Prakash, A.; Borah, P.; Paul, A.; Rangan, L. Nutrient and enzyme mobilization in earthworm casts: A comparative study with addition of selective amendments in undisturbed and agricultural soils of a mountain ecosystem. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2017, 119, 437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kravkaz Kuscu, I.S.; Karaoz, M.O. Importance of Soil Enzymes Application in Forestry. In Developments in Science and Engineering; St. Kliment Ohridski University Press Sofia: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2016; ISBN 978-954-07-4137-6. [Google Scholar]
  73. Tavarini, S.; Cardelli, R.; Saviozzi, A.; Degl’ınnocenti, E.; Guidi, L. Effects of green compost on soil biochemical characteristics and nutritive quality of leafy vegetables. Compost Sci. Util. 2011, 19, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Shi, S.; Tian, L.; Nasir, F.; Bahadur, A.; Batool, A.; Luo, S.; Yang, F.; Wang, Z.; Tian, C. Response of microbial communities and enzyme activities to amendments in saline-alkaline soils. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2019, 135, 16–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Gu, Y.; Wag, P.; Kong, C. Urease, invertase, dehydrogenase and polyphenoloxidase activities in paddy soils influenced by allelophatic rice variety. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2009, 45, 436–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Yu, Y.; Zhang, H.; Zhou, Q. Using soil available p and activities of soil dehydrogenase and phosphatase as ındicators for biodegradation of organophosphorus pesticide methamidophos and glyphosate. Soil Sediment Contam. Int. J. 2011, 20, 688–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Skujins, J. Dehydrogenase: An indicator of biological activities in arid soil. Bull. Ecol. Commun. 1973, 17, 97–110. [Google Scholar]
  78. Gerber, H.R.; Anderson, J.P.E.; Bügel-Mogensen, B.; Castle, D.; Domsch, K.H.; Malkomes, H.P.; Somerville, L.; Arnold, D.J.; Van De Werf, H.; Verbeken, R.; et al. Revision of Recommended Laboratory Tests for Assessing Side-Effects of Pesticides on the Soil Microflora. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop, Basel, Switzerland, 18–21 September 1989. [Google Scholar]
  79. Furczak, J.; Joniec, J. Preliminary study of sludge effect on soil microbial activity of a podzolic soil under willow culture. Int. Agrophys. 2007, 21, 39–48. [Google Scholar]
  80. Yakupoglu, T.; Hepsen, S.F.; Özdemir, N.; Kizilkaya, R. The effects of various organic wastes applied into eroded soil on dehydrogenase enzyme activity. In Applied Microbiology and Microbial Biotechnology; Springer Science+Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2009; pp. 97–101. [Google Scholar]
  81. Bogati, K.; Walczak, M. The Impact of Drought Stress on Soil Microbial Community, Enzyme Activities and Plants. Agronomy 2022, 12, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Mierzwa-Hersztek, M.; Gondek, K.; Baran, A. Effect of poultry litter biochar on soil enzymatic activity, ecotoxicity and plant growth. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2016, 105, 144–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Irfan, M.; Hussain, Q.; Khan, K.S. Response of soil microbial biomass and enzymatic activity to biochar amendment in the organic carbon deficient arid soil: A 2-year field study. Arab. J. Geosci. 2019, 12, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Some properties of compost.
Table 1. Some properties of compost.
O.C. (%)Total N (%)C:NpHEC (dS/m)Total P (%)
433.412.77.504.331.42
Total K
(%)
Total Ca (%)Total Mg (%)Total Fe
(mg kg−1)
Total Zn (mg kg−1)Total Cu (mg kg−1)Total Mn (%)
1.021.710.530.920.010.0030.05
Table 2. Some properties of experiment soil.
Table 2. Some properties of experiment soil.
pHEC (dS m−1)Clay (%)Silt (%)Sand (%)O.M. (%)
7.551.0229.9443.5026.561.64
CaCO3 (%)Total N (%)Available P (mg kg−1)Exchangeable K (meq 100 gr−1)Exchangeable Ca (meq 100 gr−1)Exchangeable Mg (meq 100 gr−1)
11.190.136.290.56831.848.88
Exchangeable Na (meq 100 gr−1)Available Fe (mg kg−1)Available Zn (mg kg−1)Available Mn (mg kg−1)Available Cu (mg kg−1)C:N
0.2546.961.333.112.177.32
Table 3. Effect of tomato compost on total tomato yield.
Table 3. Effect of tomato compost on total tomato yield.
ApplicationsTomato Yield (kg/pot)Tomato Yield (t/ha) *Yield Increase (%) (Compared to CF)
C0.10 ± 0.01 e1.5-
CF0.83 ± 0.07 bc12.45-
TC10.41 ± 0.04 d6.15−50.60
TC20.68 ± 0.10 c10.20−18.07
TC30.85 ± 0.03 bc12.752.41
TC40.96 ± 0.09 ab14.4015.66
TC1 + CF1.07 ± 0.08 a16.0528.92
TC2 + CF0.86 ± 0.08 bc12.903.61
TC3 + CF0.98 ± 0.03 ab14.7018.07
TC4 + CF0.89 ± 0.05 abc13.357.23
The numbers are the average of 3 parallels and given with standard deviations (F value: 20.525) (p < 0.05). Miniscule differences between apps. * 1500 tomato seedlings are assumed in 1 decare.
Table 4. CO2 production values.
Table 4. CO2 production values.
ApplicationsCO2 Production (mgCO2 gr−1 24 h−1)
First FlorescenceFirst HarvestEnd of Harvest
C0.12 ± 0.00 B-b0.12 ± 0.01 B-b0.18 ± 0.00 A-b
CF0.12 ± 0.00 B-b0.12 ± 0.00 B-b0.18 ± 0.01 A-b
TC10.14 ± 0.00 B-ab0.13 ± 0.01 B-ab0.20 ± 0.02 A-b
TC20.14 ± 0.01 A-ab0.26 ± 0.12 A-a0.19 ± 0.01 A-b
TC30.23 ± 0.09 A-a0.16 ± 0.01 A-ab0.21 ± 0.00 A-b
TC40.15 ± 0.01 C-ab0.18 ± 0.01 B-ab0.22 ± 0.01 A-ab
TC1 + CF0.15 ± 0.01 B-ab0.13 ± 0.00 B-b0.21 ± 0.02 A-b
TC2 + CF0.14 ± 0.00 B-ab0.16 ± 0.00 B-ab0.23 ± 0.02 A-ab
TC3 + CF0.15 ± 0.01 B-ab0.16 ± 0.01 B-ab0.27 ± 0.03 A-a
TC4 + CF0.15 ± 0.01 B-ab0.17 ± 0.01 B-ab0.27 ± 0.03 A-a
The numbers are the average of 3 parallels and given with standard deviations. Majuscule is between vegetation periods. Miniscule refers to the applications within each period (p < 0.05). F value; p: 108,420 *, A: 5532 *, p × A: 2913 * (p: period, A: application).
Table 5. MBC production values.
Table 5. MBC production values.
ApplicationsMicrobial Biomass Carbon (mgMBC 100 gr−1)
First FlorescenceFirst HarvestEnd of Harvest
C48.30 ± 4.32 A-d36.00 ± 10.17 A-d40.91 ± 5.68 A-d
CF59.24 ± 3.45 B-bcd69.62 ± 0.44 A-bc42.09 ± 2.14 C-d
TC165.16 ± 3.38 A-abc46.08 ± 8.54 A-cd48.71 ± 4.49 A-cd
TC267.88 ± 5.76 A-abc70.67 ± 20.24 A-bc56.14 ± 4.00 A-cd
TC366.56 ± 2.98 A-abc77.93 ± 13.71 A-bc74.01 ± 0.98 A-ab
TC467.85 ± 7.02 A-abc98.39 ± 5.69 A-ab90.29 ± 10.15 A-a
TC1 + CF55.66 ± 3.51 B-cd85.81 ± 11.81 A-ab44.74 ± 1.09 B-d
TC2 + CF76.09 ± 5.91 A-a82.64 ± 3.28 A-ab64.23 ± 7.15 A-bc
TC3 + CF71.07 ± 2.88 B-ab93.50 ± 6.24 A-ab90.82 ± 5.29 A-a
TC4 + CF68.37 ± 3.72 C-abc114.42 ± 2.67 A-a85.36 ± 4.79 B-a
The numbers are the average of 3 parallels and given with standard deviations. Majuscule is between vegetation periods. Miniscule refers to the applications within each period (p < 0.05). F value; p: 12,001 *, A: 14,727 *, p × A: 2960 * (p: period, A: application).
Table 6. Cmic:Corg ratio values.
Table 6. Cmic:Corg ratio values.
ApplicationsCmic: Corg
First FlorescenceFirst HarvestEnd of Harvest
C0.06 ± 0.01 A-b0.03 ± 0.01 A-c0.05 ± 0.01 A-bc
CF0.07 ± 0.01 A-ab0.07 ± 0.00 A-ab0.05 ± 0.00 A-c
TC10.09 ± 0.01 A-a0.05 ± 0.01 B-bc0.06 ± 0.00 B-bc
TC20.07 ± 0.00 A-b0.04 ± 0.01 B-c0.06 ± 0.00 A-bc
TC30.07 ± 0.00 A-ab0.06 ± 0.01 A-abc0.07 ± 0.00 A-ab
TC40.07 ± 0.00 A-b0.06 ± 0.00 A-ab0.09 ± 0.01 A-a
TC1 + CF0.06 ± 0.01 A-b0.08 ± 0.01 A-a0.06 ± 0.00 A-bc
TC2 + CF0.07 ± 0.00 A-ab0.07 ± 0.00 A-ab0.08 ± 0.01 A-ab
TC3 + CF0.06 ± 0.01 A-ab0.07 ± 0.01 A-ab0.09 ± 0.01 A-a
TC4 + CF0.06 ± 0.00 B-b0.07 ± 0.00 A-ab0.07 ± 0.01 A-ab
The numbers are the average of 3 parallels and given with standard deviations. Majuscule is between vegetation periods. Miniscule refers to the applications within each period (p < 0.05). F value; p: 2995 *, A: 4004 *, p × A: 3443 * (p: period, A: application).
Table 7. Catalase enzyme activity values.
Table 7. Catalase enzyme activity values.
ApplicationsCatalase Enzyme Activity (mL O2 gr−1)
First FlorescenceFirst HarvestEnd of Harvest
C161.43 ± 10.38 A-e152.89 ± 5.28 A-d153.86 ± 3.33 A-d
CF158.49 ± 7.22 A-e183.22 ± 7.74 A-cd165.44 ± 4.97 A-d
TC1164.48 ± 17.98 A-e176.39 ± 0.42 A-d182.49 ± 5.78 A-d
TC2214.08 ± 30.87 A-de326.56 ± 114.19 A-bcd191.17 ± 3.45 A-d
TC3346.62 ± 22.23 A-c222.01 ± 116.61 A-cd300.94 ± 12.97 A-c
TC4473.34 ± 9.08 A-b382.67 ± 60.11 A-abc351.68 ± 18.29 A-b
TC1 + CF221.88 ± 3.24 B-de233.85 ± 2.90 A-bcd180.09 ± 4.00 C-d
TC2 + CF242.07 ± 37.01 A-d262.88 ± 27.19 A-bcd273.90 ± 13.78 A-c
TC3 + CF455.30 ± 24.10 A-b424.86 ± 50.24 AB-ab304.45 ± 23.52 B-c
TC4 + CF601.56 ± 13.97 A-a566.23 ± 54.52 A-a390.17 ± 11.24 B-a
The numbers are the average of 3 parallels and given with standard deviations. Majuscule is between vegetation periods. Miniscule refers to the applications within each period (p < 0.05). F value; p: 5921 *, A: 30,956 *, p × A: 2005 * (p: period, A: application).
Table 8. Dehydrogenase enzyme activity values.
Table 8. Dehydrogenase enzyme activity values.
ApplicationsDehydrogenase Enzyme Activity (µg TPF g−1 24 h−1 25 °C)
First FlorescenceFirst HarvestEnd of Harvest
C31.56 ± 2.27 A-a10.67 ± 2.18 B-b34.61 ± 5.80 A-bcd
CF20.36 ± 2.14 A-ab32.18 ± 6.91 A-ab25.14 ± 2.64 A-d
TC120.59 ± 1.70 B-ab23.87 ± 0.95 B-ab34.27 ± 2.96 A-bcd
TC222.83 ± 2.90 A-ab46.17 ± 21.59 A-a36.93 ± 4.17 A-bcd
TC326.16 ± 3.217 A-ab35.92 ± 4.62 A-ab55.96 ± 11.99 A-a
TC425.41 ± 3.43 B-ab17.99 ± 2.54 B-b51.58 ± 2.58 A-ab
TC1 + CF21.60 ± 4.12 A-ab15.82 ± 4.97 A-b31.55 ± 1.71 A-cd
TC2 + CF16.34 ± 1.71 B-b18.76 ± 4.89 B-b40.47 ± 7.86 B-abcd
TC3 + CF27.16 ± 7.589 B-ab14.68 ± 1.20 B-b46.29 ± 2.01 A-abc
TC4 + CF30.55 ± 0.91 A-a22.97 ± 5.44 A-ab31.42 ± 2.72 A-cd
The numbers are the average of 3 parallels and given with standard deviations. Majuscule is between vegetation periods. Miniscule refers to the applications within each period (p < 0.05). F value; p: 21,063 *, A: 2233 *, p × A: 2303 * (p: period, A: application).
Table 9. Correlation relationships between biological properties and tomato yield.
Table 9. Correlation relationships between biological properties and tomato yield.
n = 30First HarvestEnd of Harvest
Tomato YieldCO2MBCKADHACO2MBCKADHA
−0.0280.643 **0.376 *−0.0510.418 *0.482 **0.482 **0.482 **
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Durmuş, M.; Kızılkaya, R. The Effect of Tomato Waste Compost on Yield of Tomato and Some Biological Properties of Soil. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1253. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy12061253

AMA Style

Durmuş M, Kızılkaya R. The Effect of Tomato Waste Compost on Yield of Tomato and Some Biological Properties of Soil. Agronomy. 2022; 12(6):1253. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy12061253

Chicago/Turabian Style

Durmuş, Murat, and Rıdvan Kızılkaya. 2022. "The Effect of Tomato Waste Compost on Yield of Tomato and Some Biological Properties of Soil" Agronomy 12, no. 6: 1253. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/agronomy12061253

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop