Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Next Article in Journal
Natural Variability of Genomic Sequences of Mal d 1 Allergen in Apples as Revealed by Restriction Profiles and Homolog Polymorphism
Next Article in Special Issue
Organic Fertilization Improves Soil Multifunctionality in Sugarcane Agroecosystems
Previous Article in Journal
A Study on Hyperspectral Soil Moisture Content Prediction by Incorporating a Hybrid Neural Network into Stacking Ensemble Learning
Previous Article in Special Issue
Multifaceted Ability of Organic Fertilizers to Improve Crop Productivity and Abiotic Stress Tolerance: Review and Perspectives
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/agronomy14092055
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Carbon and Nitrogen Stocks in Vineyard Soils Amended with Grape Pomace Residues

by
Allan Augusto Kokkonen
1,*,
Samuel Schemmer
1,
Rian Brondani
1,
João Francisco Fornari
1,
Daniéle Gonçalves Papalia
1,
Elena Baldi
2,*,
Moreno Toselli
2,
Jean Michel Moura-Bueno
1,
Arcângelo Loss
3,
Tadeu Luis Tiecher
4 and
Gustavo Brunetto
1
1
Department of Soil Sciences, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria 97105-900, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
2
Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy
3
Department of Rural Engineering, Center of Agricultural Sciences, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Itacorubi, Florianópolis 88034-000, Santa Catarina, Brazil
4
Federal Institute of Science, Education and Technology of Rio Grande do Sul, Restinga, Porto Alegre 91791-508, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2024, 14(9), 2055; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14092055
Submission received: 16 July 2024 / Revised: 2 September 2024 / Accepted: 4 September 2024 / Published: 8 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Application of Organic Amendments in Agricultural Production—2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Accumulated monthly rainfall (mm), shown in bars, and monthly mean temperatures (°C), shown in lines, from January 2020 to February 2023, obtained from an automatic meteorological station (National Institute of Meteorology conventional station) located 150 m from the vineyards.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>C stocks on 0.0–0.05 m, 0.05–0.10 m, 0.10–0.20 m, and 0.20–0.40 m soil layers, in Vineyard 1 (‘Isabella’) (<b>a</b>) and Vineyard 2 (‘Chardonnay’) (<b>b</b>), after three years of the following treatment applications: C—control (no organic fertilization), VC—fertilization with grape pomace vermicompost, and CO—fertilization with grape pomace compost. Darker colors indicate the MAOC fraction and the lighter colors indicate the POC fraction. <span class="html-italic">p</span>-values of ANOVA test are shown and different letters indicate different means among treatments (Tukey test, α = 5%).</p> "> Figure 3
<p>N stocks on 0.0–0.05 m, 0.05–0.10 m, 0.10–0.20 m, and 0.20–0.40 m soil layers, in Vineyard 1 (‘Isabella’) (<b>a</b>) and Vineyard 2 (‘Chardonnay’) (<b>b</b>), after three years of the following treatment applications: C—control (no organic fertilization), VC—fertilization with grape pomace vermicompost, and CO—fertilization with grape pomace compost. Darker colors indicate the MAN fraction and the lighter colors indicate the PN fraction. <span class="html-italic">p</span>-values of ANOVA test are shown and different letters indicate different means among treatments (Tukey test, α = 5%).</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Fruit crops under soil conservational management might sequester carbon (C) in soils and mitigate greenhouse gases emissions. Using grape pomace residues as soil amendment holds promise for sustainable viticulture. However, its actual capability to increase soil organic carbon (SOC) and nitrogen (N) is unknown, especially in subtropical climates. This research aims to investigate whether grape pomace compost and vermicompost can increase SOC, total N (TN), and C and N stocks in subtropical vineyards. Two vineyards located in Veranópolis, in South Brazil, one cultivated with ‘Isabella’ and the other with ‘Chardonnay’ varieties, were annually amended with these residues for three years. We quantified SOC and TN in each condition in different soil layers, as well as C and N content in two different granulometric fractions: mineral-associated organic matter (MAOM) and particulate organic matter (POM). C and N stocks were also calculated. Despite potential benefits, neither treatment enhanced SOC, its fractions, or C stocks. In fact, vermicompost was rapidly mineralized and depleted SOC and its fractions in the 0.0 to 0.05 m layers of the ‘Isabella’ vineyard. Our findings indicate that the tested grape pomace residues were unable to promote C sequestration in subtropical vineyards after a three-year period.

1. Introduction

Most soils worldwide present low carbon (C) content, especially in cultivated areas, mostly due to improper management practices (such as soil tilling, lack of cover crops, slash-and-burn), and/or tropical and subtropical climates [1]. Consequently, the need to replenish soil organic matter (SOM) becomes paramount for maintaining soil health and fertility [2]. Utilizing organic residues, such as compost or vermicompost, presents a promising approach to enhance soil organic C (SOC) and C stocks, and improve soil health. This strategy is particularly relevant in vineyard soils, where the cultivation of grapevines demands long-term and sustainable soil fertility practices. By adopting practices that promote SOM accumulation, vineyard managers can contribute to mitigating climate change while ensuring adequate plant nutrition and grape yield. Thus, integrating organic amendments into vineyards emerges as an important component of sustainable viticulture in the face of environmental challenges [3].
Studies have reported various benefits in orchards and vineyards resulting from soil conservation management and fertilization with organic nutrient sources [4,5,6,7]. Organic nutrient sources vary from fresh residues, compost or vermicompost, made from animal or plant material, such as animal manure or food industry waste, respectively. Their benefits include not only being a source of nutrients—such as N, phosphorus (P), sulfur (S), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg)—but also improving soil health, enhancing soil water retention capacity, increasing total cation exchange capacity [7,8], and promoting C fixation [9]. In addition, the benefits provided by organic fertilization can increase grapevine and cover crops’ shoot and root growth, which leads to higher biomass production and, thus, higher C fixation by photosynthesis, besides higher grape yield [6]. These practices have become more common in global viticulture, also coinciding with an increase in the production and commercialization of organic products [10]. Among commonly used organic sources of nutrients, composts and vermicomposts stand out, notably those produced with animal manure or industry residues, which include winemaking residues (grape pomace). This strategy has yet another positive input on sustainability, since it guarantees a safe disposal of industry waste [11,12].
The constant input of organic residues in soils may not only lead to an increase in SOM but also change its nature and persistence [13]. The main divisions, also called fractions, of SOM consider its recalcitrance [13]. While more labile fractions of the SOM may benefit plant growth due to nutrient (especially N) release, increasing recalcitrant fractions of SOM, namely the mineral-associated organic matter (MAOM), is key to elevating and/or maintaining C stocks [13,14]. Interestingly, the different lability in SOM fractions is correlated to SOM granulometric physical fractions [13]. Soils amended with organic fertilizers over time usually have greater SOM and MAOM content [5,15,16,17,18,19], especially via greater plant growth and biomass production [6,17]. Thus, measuring the MAOM and the stable forms of SOM in soils is an accessible way to verify changes in C and N pools in soils amended with organic fertilizers in the long run [20].
In the short term, however, more labile forms of SOM, such as particulate organic matter (POM), might increase in soils amended with organic residues [21,22]. Additionally, the particulate fraction of the organic matter is more sensitive to changes in the cultivation system [21,23]. Thus, evaluating POM is a necessary tool to verify more rapid changes in the C and N pool in soils amended with residues, especially under conservationist (no-tillage) management.
Studies examining the effects of grape pomace residues, such as grape pomace compost and vermicompost, on C and N stocks and their fractions in soils remain insufficient, especially in subtropical vineyards. We believe that conducting field studies in productive organic vineyards could address this knowledge gap. Understanding how this type of residue behaves in subtropical soils is relevant information to quantify the capacity of such agroecosystems to sequester C. Given this, the study aimed to test the effects of different grape pomace fertilizers on SOC and TN in subtropical organic vineyards. Additionally, we examined C and N content in MAOM and POM, as well as C and N stocks. We believe that vineyard soils amended with grape pomace residues might have higher C and N contents, especially in their particulate fractions, and C and N stocks after three growing seasons.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site and Design

Two experiments (henceforth called Vineyard 1 and Vineyard 2) were carried out over three growing seasons in commercial organic vineyards situated in Veranópolis (28°47′06″ S; 51°30′32″ W), Rio Grande do Sul, southern Brazil. The region features a humid subtropical climate with hot summers (Cfa). Spontaneous cover crops were consistently maintained in both rows and interrows throughout the year, being mowed during the grapevines’ growing season. Vineyard 1, employing a pergola system, featured ‘Isabella’ (Vitis labrusca × Vitis vinifera) grapevines grafted onto Paulsen 1103 rootstocks, with spacing of 2.5 m between rows and 1.5 m between plants (2666 plants per hectare). Vineyard 2 featured ‘Chardonnay’ (V. vinifera) grapevines, grafted onto Paulsen 1103 rootstocks, with spacing of 2.8 m between rows and 1.5 m between plants (2380 plants per hectare), also in pergola system, under polyethylene translucid coverage. The soil profiles in both vineyards were classified as Leptic Cambisol [24]. In Vineyard 1 and in Vineyard 2, grapevines were 10 to 12 and 3 years old (since seedling transplantation), respectively. In both areas, soil had been previously limed before vineyard establishment.
Vineyards 1 and 2 were divided into three rows, and, in each row, three fertilization treatments were applied: grape pomace compost (CO), grape pomace vermicompost (VC), and a negative control (C), with no fertilization. The setup was arranged in randomized blocks, with six replicates (therefore, two replicates per row). Each replicate consisted of five grapevines, totaling 7.5 m in length.
The organic fertilizers (CO and VC) were applied in amounts equivalent to 40 kg N ha−1, based on previous studies [8] with grapevines in the same region. The actual CO and VC dose was calculated after analyzing their total N content, which is displayed in Table 3, and humidity at the time of application. Organic fertilizers were applied annually, in each growing season’s bud burst, concentrated in rows and under grapevines’ canopy projection, as suggested by Brunetto et al. [5]. CO was obtained in an industrial organic composter (Biosolos, Veranópolis, RS, Brazil), which composted raw winery residues (grape pomace) in open air. The manufacturer stated that the compost was made with winery residues (mainly grape skin, seeds, and stalks) and that the residues are composted for 60 days.
VC was made in a closed worm composter, located at the Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology, Restinga campus, in Porto Alegre (RS), Brazil. Each year, winery residues (grape pomace) were composted for 60 days (thermophilic phase), and then vermicomposted with Eisenia sp. worms for another 120 days (humification phase), with constant addition of water. Grape pomace mainly comprised grape skin, seeds, and stalks. Both CO and VC were stored at room temperature after stabilization.
The monthly rainfall and mean temperatures were collected from the experiment intallment up until February 2023 (end of last growing cycle). These data were obtained at an automatic meteorological station (National Institute of Meteorology conventional station) located 150 m from the vineyards. Results are shown in Figure 1.

2.2. Soil Characterization and Physical and Physicochemical Attribrutes

Prior to beginning the experiment in 2020, soil samples from the 0–0.2 m layer were collected from Vineyards 1 and 2 for the following physicochemical soil analyses: exchangeable Ca and Mg (1:20 1 mol L−1 KCl), exchangeable K (1:10 Melich-1 extractor), available P (1:10 Melich-1 extractor), pH (1:10 distilled water), SOM, through dry combustion (FlashEA 1112 instrument from Thermo Electron Corp, Milan, Italy), and soil texture [25]. The soil samples comprised 15 subsamples, taken randomly throughout each vineyard, within the limits of the experiment. Subsequently, after three growing seasons (2023), soil samples were collected from each experimental unit, and the aforementioned variables were reanalyzed, with the exception of soil texture. Soil sampling was performed using a tubular soil probe. These results are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 shows that there was no difference among soil fertilization managements after three years in Vineyards 1 and 2, with the exception of soil exchangeable Mg. However, in Vineyard 1, soil exchangeable K in the 0.0 to 0.20 m layer severely decreased (Table 1), mainly due to percolation from the topsoil. This probably happened because of the high exchangeable K content at the beginning of the experiment (August 2020), above the soil capacity to retain it. Also, in Vineyard 2, the same phenomenon might have been prevented due to the vineyard’s polyethylene coverage, which prevents rainfall in the cultivation rows. Due to their higher adsorption energy, that did not happen to P, Ca, and Mg. Notably, available P content increased in Vineyard 2 soil without any fertilization (C) (Table 1). This probably happened due to the adoption of a full-year coverage of cover crops from the beginning of the experiment. These species could have solubilized P in the plants’ rhizosphere, via organic acid exudation [18,22], absorbed and assimilated it, and then kept cycling this nutrient.

2.3. Grape Pomace Residue Composition

After maturation, samples of VC and CO were dried in a forced-air-circulation oven (MA035/2, Marconi, Piracicaba, Brazil) at ±65 °C until constant mass in order to calculate their humidity (%). The dried materials were then characterized regarding their chemical composition and properties. Samples of the air-dried CO and VC were digested in H2SO4 and H2O2(2:1) [25] and HNO3 and HClO4 (3:1) [25]. The sulfuric–peroxide digestion extract was distilled in a micro-Kjeldahl N distiller (Tecnal, TE-0363, São Paulo, Brazil) and titrated in standardized ±0.025 mol L−1 of H2SO4 to quantify total N content [25]. The nitric–perchloric extract was diluted and the concentration of P was quantified using the molybdate-blue technique, in a UV–visible spectrophotometer (V-5000, Shanghai Metash Instruments Co, Shanghai, China), at 882 nm [26]; K concentration was quantified in a flame photometer (910, Analyser, Brazil); and Ca, Mg, copper (Cu), and zinc (Zn) concentrations were quantified by atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AAnalyst 200, Perkin-Elmer, Shelton, CT, USA). Total C content was quantified in finely ground CO and VC via dry combustion followed by gas chromatography, using an elemental analyzer (Flash EA 1112, Thermo Electron Corporation, Milan, Italy), in triplicates.
CO P and K contents were 2.64 and 2.76 times higher than VC’s (Table 2). Ca content was 5.61 times higher in VC than in CO (Table 2). The Cu content in compost, however, was 2.41 times higher in CO than in VC (Table 2). Also, VC had a mean C:N ratio of 15.79, which is notably lower than the 23.92 ratio found in CO (Table 3).

2.4. Soil Sampling and Granulometric Fractionation of SOM

After three years of treatment application (April 2023), soil samples were collected from each replicate of Vineyards 1 and 2. The samples were collected from the 0–0.05, 0.05–0.10, 0.10–0.20, and 0.20–0.40 m soil layers in the vineyards’ rows (under grapevine canopies) using a tubular soil probe. Each sample comprised three subsamples. Briefly after sampling, soil samples were left to air-dry until they reached a constant mass. After that, they were sieved through a 2 mm mesh to remove the stone fractions and root debris. Finally, they were stored in closed pots.
All the soil samples were fractionated based on their granulometric properties, similar to a methodology proposed by Poeplau et al. [27]. First, 20 g of the air-dried 2 mm sieved soil samples was dispersed in 10 mL of NaOH 1 mol L−1 and 40 mL of deionized water with two 5 mm diameter nylon beads for 4 h on a shaker at 150 rpm. The soil suspension was then sieved through a 53 μm mesh. The retained fraction (>53 μm) was re-suspended in distilled water to separate light (floating material) and dense fractions. However, no material was recovered in the light fraction in this study. Therefore, all the >53 μm material comprised the sand fraction (>53 μm). The material that passed through the sieve comprised the silt + clay fraction (≤53 μm). Both fractions were oven-dried at 50 °C in a forced-air-circulation oven (MA035/2, Marconi, Piracicaba, Brazil) and ground to the consistency of flour in a ball mill. The concentration of C and N was then measured in each fraction via dry combustion followed by gas chromatography in an elemental analyzer (Flash EA 1112, Thermo Electron Corporation, Milan, Italy). Organic C present in the sand fraction was named particulate organic carbon (POC), and organic C present in the silt + clay fraction was named mineral-associated organic C (MAOC). Similarly, N content of the sand fraction was named particulate nitrogen (PN), and the N present in the silt + clay fraction was named mineral-associated nitrogen (MAN).
Additionally, SOC and TN were quantified via dry combustion followed by gas chromatography in an elemental analyzer (Flash EA 1112, Thermo Electron Corporation, Milan, Italy), in the air-dried soil samples, after 2 mm sieving and grinding to a flour consistency in a ball mill.

2.5. Soil C and N Stocks

After three years of treatment application (April 2023), soil bulk density was measured in Vineyards 1 and 2 in the same layers where samples were collected for C and N analyses (0–0.05 m; 0.05–0.10 m; 0.1–0.2 m; and 0.2–0.4 m), with methodology of Teixeira et al. [28]. Additionally, each sample was dispersed in a mixture of distilled water and 1 mol L−1 NaOH and then sieved through a 2 mm screen. The retained mineral material was called the stone fraction and weighed. Soil stoniness (SS) was calculated by the ratio (m:m) of the stone fraction to the total bulk soil sample. SS was quantified because the C and N content was quantified in fine soil; C and N stocks, however, concern the bulk soil. Multiplying the C or N content by the total mass of bulk soil would overestimate C and N stocks, since the stone fraction possesses virtually no C or N. These results are shown in Table 4.
Soil C and N stocks, as well as their fractions’ stocks, were then calculated as follows:
S t o c k ( M g   h a − 1 ) = ∑ i = 1 4 X i · V i · D s i · ( 1 − S S i )
where:
  • X: C or N fraction (SOC, POC, MAOC, TN, PN, or MAN) (g kg–1);
  • V: soil volume (m³), which is each layer thickness multiplied by 1 ha;
  • Ds: soil bulk density (kg m−3);
  • SS: soil stoniness (g g−1);
  • 1–4: each of the four analyzed soil layers: 0–0.05, 0.05–0.1, 0.1–0.2, and 0.2–0.4 m.
As shown in Table 4, Ds in Vineyard 2 was particularly low (Ds < 1.0 Mg m−3) in the first 0.10 m of the soil profile. This attribute is result of a combination of high SOM (Table 6)—although not high enough to be characterized as a folic horizon [24]—and high porosity, due to previous soil plowing at vineyard installment (2017).

2.6. Statistical Analyses

The obtained experimental data were tested for homogeneity with the Shapiro–Wilk test. The effect of the organic fertilizers upon each response variable was tested with analysis of variance (ANOVA). Whenever the null hypothesis (equal means) was rejected with alpha equal to 0.05, means were compared via the Tukey test. The “ExpDes” package [29] in R statistical software (version 4.4.0) [30] was utilized for these analyses. Data visualization figures were created using the “ggplot2” package [31] in R statistical software [30].

3. Results and Discussion

After three years, SOC stocks did not differ among treatments in the layers below 0.05 m in both Vineyards 1 and 2, with the exception of the 0.2–0.4 m layer in Vineyard 1 (Figure 2). In the 0–0.05 m layer of Vineyard 1, however, the C stock was lower in soils amended with VC (Figure 2a). On the other hand, in Vineyard 2 the mean SOC stocks were not different among any treatments (Figure 2b). We highlight that SOC stocks are higher in the 0.20–0.40 m layer due to its thickness, not SOC content (Table 5 and Table 6). SOC and SOC stock were lower in this layer in Vineyard 1 (Figure 2a) when amended with VC. Notably, the lack of increase in SOC in any soil layers in Vineyards 1 and 2 might be related to the high rainfall and high summer temperature, typical of this study site’s climate. These climatic conditions might intensify residue mineralization to higher rates and prevent C from being sequestered in more stable forms [17,20,21,32].
The mean SOC in different soil fractions was different in the 0.0–0.05 m layer among different treatments in Vineyard 1 (Table 5). The highest values of SOC, MAOC, and POC were found in soils without organic fertilizers added, although not being different than soils amended with CO (Table 5). Notably, soils amended with VC had lower SOC, MAOC, and POC content than control in the 0–0.05 m layer (Table 5). Interestingly, in this layer, around 15% of C was in the POC fraction, which is lower when compared to 21 and 23% in C and CO, respectively (Table 5). POC represents the dynamic fraction of C in soils and can be mineralized faster than the MAOC, which is protected in organic-matter–mineral physico-chemical interactions [32,33,34]. This difference in the C fraction content in the soil layers was also observed for C stocks in its fractions (Figure 2).
In Vineyard 2, there was no difference in mean SOC, MAOC, or POC content in the soil among treatments (Table 6). Although not statiscally different, in Vineyard 2, the soil without any organic fertilizer amendment (C) had higher values for SOC (Table 6), similarly to Vineyard 1 (Table 5).
Soil TN, MAN, and PN showed a very similar pattern among layers and treatments as SOC, MAOC, and POC, respectively, in both Vineyards 1 and 2 (Table 7; Table 8). TN was the lowest in the 0.0 to 0.05 m layer of soils fertilized with VC in Vineyard 1 (Table 7), as it was the lowest in SOC (Table 5). Although not different according to ANOVA, soils fertilized with VC usually showed lower values of TN and MAN than the other conditions in Vineyard 1 (Table 5). Similarly to SOC, in Vineyard 2 there were no effect of the different residues in TN, MAN, or PN (Table 8). We observed, however, that POC and PN have a higher decrease with soil depth than the more stable fractions (MAOC and MAN). Nitrogen stocks also showed a similar pattern among layers and treatments to C stocks, in both Vineyards 1 and 2 (Figure 3). In Vineyard 1, total N stocks were lower in soils amended with VC (Figure 3a), which indicates that the mineralization of SOM also depletes N stocks. In Vineyard 2, as it was for C stocks, there were no differences among treatments (Figure 3b).
The annual addition of VC to the soil in vineyard agroecosystems failed to increase SOC content and SOC stocks after a 3-year period (Table 5 and Figure 2). Conversely, amending soil with VC resulted in a lower SOC, MAOC, and POC in the topsoil (0.0–0.05 m), being equivalent to around 30%, 26%, and 50% compared to control (soil without fertilizations) in Vineyard 1 (Table 5). Vermicomposts tend to have more labile forms of C due to the vermicomposting phase and the transformation that occurs both inside and outside earthworms’ digestive systems [11,12]. Also, the C:N ratio was lower in every year of application, which means they can provide sufficient N for the soil microbial biomass to grow substantially. Probably due to these characteristics, when added to the soil, VC was mineralized and consumed faster by soil microbiota when compared to CO, which is in accordance with previous studies [11,35]. The lower POC content in Vineyard 1 soil corroborates that explanation, since this fraction also comprehends sand-size particles of the residues. The labile C added via VC can foster soil microbiological activity, which speeds up its own mineralization. Also, studies have shown that vermicomposts have chemical compounds which can enhance microbiological growth and activity in soils [36,37,38]. After undergoing mineralization, the increased presence of soil microbiota, together with VC-mineralized N (NOx–) availability, facilitates the mineralization of SOM and leads to a reduction of SOC and TN contents (and stocks), thereby exemplifying the soil priming effect [39]. However, no microbiological analyses were performed in our study. Nonetheless, these phenomena could possibly explain the results observed, for instance, in Vineyard 1 (Table 5).
However, in Vineyard 2, there was no difference in mean SOC, MAOC, POC, TN, MAN, or PN content in the soil among treatments (Table 6; Table 8). So, the phenomenon observed for VC in Vineyard 1 was not observed in Vineyard 2.
On the other hand, CO did not deplete, nor increase, SOC and the fractions MAOC and POC in both vineyards (Table 5; Table 6), as well as their stocks (Figure 2). The same thing is valid for TN, MAN, PN (Table 7; Table 8), and N stock (Figure 3). Since CO has a higher mean value of the C ratio (23.92), it is significantly less likely to induce priming effects on soils and further mineralize SOM [39]. Also, CO does not undergo the vermicomposting process, and thus has less labile forms of C [11,12].

4. Conclusions

Soil amendment with grape pomace residues (grape pomace compost and vermicompost) was unable to increase C or N stocks, SOC, or TN, nor its mineral-associated and particulate fractions, at the tested amounts, in subtropical vineyards after three years of treatment application. Grape pomace vermicompost, due to its low C:N ratio, acted as a primer and further mineralized SOM, reducing C and N stocks in one of the vineyards. Short-term results prevent stating that the tested residues are an appropriate strategy for increasing C or N stocks in subtropical vineyard soils. However, we highlight that the results of this study are time-limited and that the effects of the residues on C stock and fractions can be distinct in medium- or long-term experiments. The results from these studies allowed initial understanding of the yet understudied field of organic fertilization and organic viticulture in subtropical regions. However, some insights are still impossible to achieve in a three-year experiment. Thus, we highlight and recommend future studies to test higher doses of grape pomace residues, in order to increase SOC, as well as test the results after longer-term experiments.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.A.K. and T.L.T.; methodology, A.A.K., J.M.M.-B., A.L. and T.L.T.; software, A.A.K. and J.M.M.-B.; validation, T.L.T. and G.B.; investigation, A.A.K., S.S., R.B., J.F.F. and D.G.P.; resources, T.L.T., M.T. and G.B.; writing—original draft preparation, A.A.K.; writing—review and editing, S.S., R.B., J.F.F., D.G.P., E.B., M.T., J.M.M.-B., A.L., T.L.T. and G.B.; data visualization, A.A.K. and D.G.P.; supervision, E.B., T.L.T. and G.B.; project administration, A.A.K., T.L.T. and G.B.; funding acquisition, T.L.T. and G.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Agrisus Foundation (project n. 3283/2022), Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq–process n. 302023/2019-4), and the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul (FAPERGS—process n. 17/2551-0000925-8).

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the winemakers in the Serra Gaúcha region for kindly lending the study sites.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Batjes, N.H. Harmonized soil property values for broad-scale modelling (WISE30sec) with estimates of global soil carbon stocks. Geoderma 2016, 269, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Aouadi, N.; Younsi, S.; Ben Mimoun, M. Physico-chemical characterization of composted grape marc and its use in organic farming. Compost. Sci. Util. 2021, 12, 1003–1033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Nematchoua, M.K.; Sadeghi, M.; Reiter, S. Strategies and scenarios to reduce energy consumption and CO2 emission in the urban, rural and sustainable neighborhoods. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 72, 103053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Baldi, E.; Polidori, G.; Germani, M.; Larocca, G.N.; Mazzon, M.; Allegro, G.; Pastore, C.; Quartieri, M.; Marzadori, C.; Filippetti, I.; et al. Fertilizer potential of organic-based soil amendments on cv. Sangiovese (V. vinifera L.) vines: Preliminary results. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Brunetto, G.; Ceretta, C.A.; De Melo, G.W.B.; Miotto, A.; Ferreira, P.A.A.; Da Rosa Couto, R.; Da Silva, L.O.S.; Garlet, L.P.; Somavilla, L.M.; Cancian, A.; et al. Grape Yield and Must Composition of “Cabernet Sauvignon” Grapevines with Organic Compost and Urea Fertilization. Rev. De Cienc. Agrovet. 2018, 17, 212–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Brunori, E.; Farina, R.; Biasi, R. Sustainable viticulture: The carbon-sink function of the vineyard agro-ecosystem. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 223, 10–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Pizzeghello, D.; Bellin, L.; Nardi, S.; Francioso, O.; Squartini, A.; Concheri, G. Wood-based compost affects soil fertility and the content of available forms of nutrients in vineyard and field-scale agroecosystems. Agronomy 2021, 11, 518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Meissner, G.; Athmann, M.E.; Fritz, J.; Kauer, R.; Stoll, M.; Schultz, H.R. Conversion to organic and biodynamic viticultural practices: Impact on soil, grapevine development and grape quality. Oeno One 2019, 53, 639–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chiriacò, M.V.; Belli, C.; Chiti, T.; Trotta, C.; Sabbatini, S. The potential carbon neutrality of sustainable viticulture showed through a comprehensive assessment of the greenhouse gas (GHG) budget of wine production. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 225, 435–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Araujo, M.V.; Da Silva, M.A.C.; De Menezes, D.C.; Bruch, K.L.; Aurand, J.M. The perspective of organic wine in Brazil—trends, demands and production. BIO Web Conf. 2017, 9, 03011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fornes, F.; Belda, R.M.; Abad, M. Composting Versus Vermicomposting: A Comparative Study of Organic Waste Characteristics and Process Efficiency. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 95, S109–S113. [Google Scholar]
  12. Vione, E.L.B.; Silva, L.S.D.; Cargnelutti Filho, A.; Aita, N.T.; Morais, A.D.F.; Silva, A.A.K. Caracterização química de compostos e vermicompostos produzidos com casca de arroz e dejetos animais. Revista Ceres 2018, 65, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. von Lützow, M.; Kögel-Knabner, I.; Ekschmitt, K.; Matzner, E.; Guggenberger, G.; Marschner, B.; Flessa, H. SOM Fractionation Methods: Relevance to Functional Pools and to Stabilization Mechanisms. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2007, 39, 2183–2207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Maillard, É.; Angers, D.A.; Chantigny, M.; Bittman, S.; Rochette, P.; Lévesque, G.; Hun, D.; Parent, L.E. milie. Carbon accumulates in organo-mineral complexes after long-term liquid dairy manure application. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 202, 108–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Santos, C.; Loss, A.; Piccolo, M.d.C.; Girotto, E.; Ludwig, M.P.; Decarli, J.; Torres, J.L.R.; Lourenzi, C.R.; Brunetto, G. Changes in Dry Matter and Carbon, Nitrogen, and Sulfur Stocks after Applications of Increasing Doses of Pig Slurry to Soils with Tifton-85 for Six Years in Southern Brazil. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Marín-Martínez, A.; Sanz-Cobeña, A.; Bustamante, M.A.; Agulló, E.; Paredes, C. Effect of Organic Amendment Addition on Soil Properties, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Grape Yield in Semi-Arid Vineyard Agroecosystems. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Loss, A.; Couto, R.D.R.; Brunetto, G.; Veiga, M.D.; Toselli, M.; Baldi, E. Animal manure as fertilizer: Changes in soil attributes, productivity and food composition. Int. J. Res. Granthaalayah 2019, 9, 307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Loss, A.; Ventura, B.S.; Müller, V.; Gonzatto, R.; Battisti, L.Z.; Lintemani, M.G.; Erthal, M.E.C.; Vidal, R.F.; Scopel, G.; Lourenzi, C.R.; et al. Carbon, nitrogen, and aggregation index in Ultisol with 11 years of application of animal manures and mineral fertilizer. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2021, 76, 547–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yagüe, M.R.; Domingo-Olivé, F.; Bosch-Serra, À.D.; Poch, R.M.; Boixadera, J. Dairy Cattle Manure Effects on Soil Quality: Porosity, Earthworms, Aggregates and Soil Organic Carbon Fractions. Land. Degrad. Dev. 2016, 27, 1753–1762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rodrigues, L.A.T.; Giacomini, S.J.; Aita, C.; Lourenzi, C.R.; Brunetto, G.; Bacca, A.; Ceretta, C.A. Short-and long-term effects of animal manures and mineral fertilizer on carbon stocks in subtropical soil under no-tillage. Geoderma 2021, 386, 114913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kuneski, A.C.; Loss, A.; dos Santos, T.S.; Giumbelli, L.D.; Lima, A.P.; Piccolo, M.C.; Brunetto, G.; Kurtz, C.; Lovato, P.E.; Lourenzi, C.R.; et al. Total Carbon and Nitrogen and Granulometric Fractions of Soil Organic Matter Under No-Till System and Conventional Tillage with Onion Cultivation. Rev. De Gestão Soc. E Ambient. 2023, 17, e04144. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ferreira, L.B.; Loss, A.; Giumbelli, L.D.; Ventura, B.S.; Souza, M.; Mafra, Á.L.; Kurtz, C.; Comin, J.J.; Brunetto, G. Organic carbon and nitrogen contents and their fractions in soils with onion crops in different management systems. Soil Res. 2018, 56, 846–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Conceição, P.C.; Amado, T.J.C.; Mielniczuk, J.; Spagnollo, E. Qualidade Do Solo Em Sistemas de Manejo Avaliada Pela Dinâmica Da Matéria Orgânica e Atributos Relacionados. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2005, 29, 777–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. IUSS Working Group WRB World Reference Base for Soil Resources. International Soil Classification for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps, 4th ed.; International Union of Soil Sciences (IUSS): Vienna, Austria, 2022; ISBN 979-8-9862451-1-9. [Google Scholar]
  25. Tedesco, M.J.; Gianello, C.; Bissani, C.A.; Bohnen, H.; Volkweiss, S.J. Análises de Solo, Plantas e Outros Materiais, 2nd ed.; UFRGS: Porto Alegre, Brazil, 1995; Available online: https://www.infoteca.cnptia.embrapa.br/infoteca/bitstream/doc/330496/1/Manual-de-analises-quimicas-de-solos-plantas-e-fertilizantes-ed02-reimpressao-2014.pdf (accessed on 2 March 2022).
  26. Murphy, J.; Riley, J.P. A Modified Single Solution Method for the Determination of Phosphate in Natural Waters. Anal. Chim. Acta 1962, 27, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Poeplau, C.; Don, A. Sensitivity of Soil Organic Carbon Stocks and Fractions to Different Land-Use Changes Across Europe. Geoderma 2018, 292, 66–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Teixeira, P.C.; Donagemma, G.K.; Fontana, A.; Teixeira, W.G. Manual de Métodos de Análise de Solo, 3rd ed.; Embrapa: Brasília, Brazil, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ferreira, E.B.; Cavalcanti, P.P.; Nogueira, D.A. Package ‘ExpDes.Pt’ 2021. Available online: https://rpkg.net/package/ExpDes.pt (accessed on 2 November 2023).
  30. R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2023. Available online: https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed on 2 November 2023).
  31. Wickham, H. Ggplot2. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Stat. 2011, 3, 180–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kleber, M. What Is Recalcitrant Soil Organic Matter? Environ. Chem. 2010, 7, 320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Cambardella, C.A.; Elliott, E.T. Particulate Soil Organic-Matter Changes across a Grassland Cultivation Sequence. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1992, 56, 777–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rodrigues, L.A.T.; Dieckow, J.; Giacomini, S.; Ottonelli, A.S.; Zorzo, G.P.P.; Bayer, C. Carbon sequestration capacity in no-till soil decreases in the long-term due to saturation of fine silt plus clay-size fraction. Geoderma 2022, 412, 115711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Paradelo, R.; Moldes, A.B.; Barral, M.T. Carbon and Nitrogen Mineralization in a Vineyard Soil Amended with Grape Marc Vermicompost. Waste Manag. Res. 2011, 29, 1177–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gómez-Brandón, M.; Domínguez, J. Recycling of Solid Organic Wastes Through Vermicomposting: Microbial Community Changes Throughout the Process and Use of Vermicompost as a Soil Amendment. Crit. Rev. Env. Sci. Technol. 2014, 44, 1289–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Przemieniecki, S.W.; Zapałowska, A.; Skwiercz, A.; Damszel, M.; Telesiński, A.; Sierota, Z.; Gorczyca, A. An Evaluation of Selected Chemical, Biochemical, and Biological Parameters of Soil Enriched with Vermicompost. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 8117–8127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Campitelli, P.; Ceppi, S. Chemical, Physical and Biological Compost and Vermicompost Characterization: A Chemometric Study. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2008, 90, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Schmatz, R.; Recous, S.; Aita, C.; Tahir, M.M.; Schu, A.L.; Chaves, B.; Giacomini, S.J. Crop Residue Quality and Soil Type Influence the Priming Effect but Not the Fate of Crop Residue C. Plant Soil. 2017, 414, 229–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 14 02055 g001
Figure 1. Accumulated monthly rainfall (mm), shown in bars, and monthly mean temperatures (°C), shown in lines, from January 2020 to February 2023, obtained from an automatic meteorological station (National Institute of Meteorology conventional station) located 150 m from the vineyards.
Figure 1. Accumulated monthly rainfall (mm), shown in bars, and monthly mean temperatures (°C), shown in lines, from January 2020 to February 2023, obtained from an automatic meteorological station (National Institute of Meteorology conventional station) located 150 m from the vineyards.
Agronomy 14 02055 g001
Agronomy 14 02055 g002
Figure 2. C stocks on 0.0–0.05 m, 0.05–0.10 m, 0.10–0.20 m, and 0.20–0.40 m soil layers, in Vineyard 1 (‘Isabella’) (a) and Vineyard 2 (‘Chardonnay’) (b), after three years of the following treatment applications: C—control (no organic fertilization), VC—fertilization with grape pomace vermicompost, and CO—fertilization with grape pomace compost. Darker colors indicate the MAOC fraction and the lighter colors indicate the POC fraction. p-values of ANOVA test are shown and different letters indicate different means among treatments (Tukey test, α = 5%).
Figure 2. C stocks on 0.0–0.05 m, 0.05–0.10 m, 0.10–0.20 m, and 0.20–0.40 m soil layers, in Vineyard 1 (‘Isabella’) (a) and Vineyard 2 (‘Chardonnay’) (b), after three years of the following treatment applications: C—control (no organic fertilization), VC—fertilization with grape pomace vermicompost, and CO—fertilization with grape pomace compost. Darker colors indicate the MAOC fraction and the lighter colors indicate the POC fraction. p-values of ANOVA test are shown and different letters indicate different means among treatments (Tukey test, α = 5%).
Agronomy 14 02055 g002
Agronomy 14 02055 g003
Figure 3. N stocks on 0.0–0.05 m, 0.05–0.10 m, 0.10–0.20 m, and 0.20–0.40 m soil layers, in Vineyard 1 (‘Isabella’) (a) and Vineyard 2 (‘Chardonnay’) (b), after three years of the following treatment applications: C—control (no organic fertilization), VC—fertilization with grape pomace vermicompost, and CO—fertilization with grape pomace compost. Darker colors indicate the MAN fraction and the lighter colors indicate the PN fraction. p-values of ANOVA test are shown and different letters indicate different means among treatments (Tukey test, α = 5%).
Figure 3. N stocks on 0.0–0.05 m, 0.05–0.10 m, 0.10–0.20 m, and 0.20–0.40 m soil layers, in Vineyard 1 (‘Isabella’) (a) and Vineyard 2 (‘Chardonnay’) (b), after three years of the following treatment applications: C—control (no organic fertilization), VC—fertilization with grape pomace vermicompost, and CO—fertilization with grape pomace compost. Darker colors indicate the MAN fraction and the lighter colors indicate the PN fraction. p-values of ANOVA test are shown and different letters indicate different means among treatments (Tukey test, α = 5%).
Agronomy 14 02055 g003
Table 1. Soil physical and physicochemical analyses in the 0.0–0.20 cm soil layer, in Vineyard 1 and Vineyard 2, before beginning the experiment (August 2020) and after three years of application (April 2023) of the following treatments: control (C—no organic fertilizers), grape pomace vermicompost (VC), and grape pomace compost (CO).
Table 1. Soil physical and physicochemical analyses in the 0.0–0.20 cm soil layer, in Vineyard 1 and Vineyard 2, before beginning the experiment (August 2020) and after three years of application (April 2023) of the following treatments: control (C—no organic fertilizers), grape pomace vermicompost (VC), and grape pomace compost (CO).
Clay (%)pHExchang. K
(mg dm−3)		Available P
(mg dm−3)		Exchang. Ca
(cmolc dm−3)		Exchang. Mg
(cmolc dm−3)
2020
Vineyard 1336.722926.2910.851.87
Vineyard 2305.31374.484.741.35
2023
Vineyard 1
CNA6.0487.8420.528.881.81 b 2
VC6.1993.9031.937.631.67 ab
CO5.9390.5319.598.402.16 a
p-value ¹ 0.460.430.320.400.04
Vineyard 2
CNA4.71101.5910.665.912.50
VC5.52115.5920.034.761.92
CO5.35100.0215.744.951.86
p-value 1 0.82 0.780.07 0.830.71
1 p-values of ANOVA at α = 5%, 2 different lowercase letters indicate different means among organic fertilizer applications (Tukey test, α = 5%). NA = not assessed.
Table 2. Mean elementary composition of grape pomace vermicompost (VC) and grape pomace compost (CO) during the three years of treatment application.
Table 2. Mean elementary composition of grape pomace vermicompost (VC) and grape pomace compost (CO) during the three years of treatment application.
ElementCOVC
P (g kg−1)2.596.84
K (g kg−1)8.6123.73
Ca (g kg−1)1.740.31
Mg (g kg−1)1.591.29
Cu (mg kg−1)49.88120.35
Zn (mg kg−1)47.7846.70
Table 3. Organic Fertilizer N Content, Doses, and C Input.
Table 3. Organic Fertilizer N Content, Doses, and C Input.
Organic Fertilizers2020/212021/222022/23
VCN content 1 (dry base)0.57%1.59%1.48%
Fertilizer dose (dry weight) (Mg ha−1)7.022.522.70
C input (Mg ha−1)1.220.580.62
C:N 1 ratio17.3814.4715.51
CON content 1 (dry base)1.02%1.08%0.92%
Fertilizer dose (dry weight) (Mg ha−1)3.923.704.35
C input (Mg ha−1)0.940.891.04
C:N 1 ratio23.5122.2725.99
1 Total C and N quantification is detailed in Section 2.3.
Table 4. Soil bulk density (Ds) and soil stoniness (SS) in Vineyard 1 and Vineyard 2 after three years of application (April 2023) of the following treatments: control (C—no organic fertilizers), grape pomace vermicompost (VC), and grape pomace compost (CO).
Table 4. Soil bulk density (Ds) and soil stoniness (SS) in Vineyard 1 and Vineyard 2 after three years of application (April 2023) of the following treatments: control (C—no organic fertilizers), grape pomace vermicompost (VC), and grape pomace compost (CO).
TreatmentsSoil Layers
0.0–0.05 m0.05–0.10 m0.10–0.20 m0.20–0.40 m
Ds
(Mg m−3)		SS
(g g−1)		Ds
(Mg m−3)		SS
(g g−1)		Ds
(Mg m−3)		SS
(g g−1)		Ds
(Mg m−3)		SS
(g g−1)
Vineyard 1
C1.150.081.380.111.510.071.510.04
VC1.010.071.370.091.500.071.470.03
CO1.180.051.410.091.480.071.480.03
Vineyard 2
C0.850.170.970.161.020.131.080.12
VC0.820.180.980.171.040.171.070.14
CO0.800.170.990.171.050.141.090.14
Table 5. Soil organic carbon (SOC), mineral-associated organic carbon (MAOC), and particulate organic carbon (POC) content in different layers (0.0–0.05 m, 0.05–0.1 m, 0.1–0.2 m, and 0.2–0.4 m) in Vineyard 1 (‘Isabella’) after three years of grape pomace vermicompost (VC) and compost (CO); C stands for control (no organic fertilization).
Table 5. Soil organic carbon (SOC), mineral-associated organic carbon (MAOC), and particulate organic carbon (POC) content in different layers (0.0–0.05 m, 0.05–0.1 m, 0.1–0.2 m, and 0.2–0.4 m) in Vineyard 1 (‘Isabella’) after three years of grape pomace vermicompost (VC) and compost (CO); C stands for control (no organic fertilization).
SOC (g kg–1)MAOC (g kg–1)POC (g kg–1)
0.0–0.05 mC53.5 ± 0.54 a42.3 ± 0.63 a11.2 ± 0.51 a
VC37.2 ± 0.89 b31.7 ± 0.76 b5.6 ± 0.14 b
CO48.9 ± 0.88 ab37.7 ± 0.70 ab11.2 ± 0.40 a
p-value0.010.040.03
0.05–0.1 mC30.2 ± 0.7323.5 ± 0.240.67 ± 0.58
VC24.3 ± 0.3021.3 ± 0.250.30 ± 0.09
CO29.1 ± 0.4824.5 ± 0.410.47 ± 0.21
p-value0.180.220.27
0.1–0.2 mC21.0 ± 0.5418.9 ± 0.522.10 ± 0.07
VC19.0 ± 0.1817.6 ± 0.151.40 ± 0.05
CO20.8 ± 0.2019.3 ± 0.221.50 ± 0.03
p-value0.610.140.94
0.2–0.4 mC17.7 ± 0.17 a16.9 ± 0.18 a0.80 ± 0.04
VC13.4 ± 0.43 b12.7 ± 0.40 b0.70 ± 0.05
CO17.2 ± 0.12 ab16.3 ± 0.10 ab0.80 ± 0.06
p-value0.040.030.89
p-values of ANOVA test are shown and different letters indicate different means among organic fertilizers (Tukey test, α = 5%).
Table 6. Soil organic carbon (SOC), mineral-associated organic carbon (MAOC), and particulate organic carbon (POC) content in different layers (0.0–0.05 m, 0.05–0.1 m, 0.1–0.2 m, and 0.2–0.4 m) in Vineyard 2 (‘Chardonnay’) after three years of grape pomace vermicompost (VC) and compost (CO); C stands for control (no organic fertilization).
Table 6. Soil organic carbon (SOC), mineral-associated organic carbon (MAOC), and particulate organic carbon (POC) content in different layers (0.0–0.05 m, 0.05–0.1 m, 0.1–0.2 m, and 0.2–0.4 m) in Vineyard 2 (‘Chardonnay’) after three years of grape pomace vermicompost (VC) and compost (CO); C stands for control (no organic fertilization).
SOC (g kg–1)MAOC (g kg–1)POC (g kg–1)
0.0–0.05 mC41.1 ± 0.4936.8 ± 0.434.2 ± 0.16
VC37.5 ± 0.8431.6 ± 0.655.9 ± 0.32
CO38.3 ± 0.5233.6 ± 0.514.8 ± 0.10
p-value0.620.280.46
0.05–0.1 mC29.9 ± 0.3127.2 ± 0.242.7 ± 0.16
VC28.0 ± 0.2925.4 ± 0.252.6 ± 0.14
CO27.0 ± 0.3525.0 ± 0.301.9 ± 0.07
p-value0.360.380.59
0.1–0.2 mC26.7 ± 0.2925.7 ± 0.280.9 ± 0.02
VC25.5 ± 0.1124.6 ± 0.100.9 ± 0.02
CO23.7 ± 0.2922.7 ± 0.270.9 ± 0.03
p-value0.160.140.94
0.2–0.4 mC25.9 ± 0.6521.7 ± 0.550.42 ± 0.23 a
VC25.6 ± 0.5123.8 ± 0.480.18 ± 0.09 b
CO25.0 ± 0.4121.2 ± 0.340.38 ± 0.25 ab
p-value0.960.640.04
p-values of ANOVA test are shown and different letters indicate different means among organic fertilizers (Tukey test, α = 5%).
Table 7. Soil total nitrogen (TN), mineral-associated nitrogen (MAN), and particulate nitrogen (PN) content in different layers (0.0–0.05 m, 0.05–0.1 m, 0.1–0.2 m, and 0.2–0.4 m) in Vineyard 1 (‘Isabella’) after three years of grape pomace vermicompost (VC) and compost (CO); C stands for control (no organic fertilization).
Table 7. Soil total nitrogen (TN), mineral-associated nitrogen (MAN), and particulate nitrogen (PN) content in different layers (0.0–0.05 m, 0.05–0.1 m, 0.1–0.2 m, and 0.2–0.4 m) in Vineyard 1 (‘Isabella’) after three years of grape pomace vermicompost (VC) and compost (CO); C stands for control (no organic fertilization).
TN (g kg–1)MAN (g kg–1)PN (g kg–1)
0.0–0.05 mC4.65 ± 0.52 a3.62 ± 0.401.03 ± 0.20
VC3.22 ± 0.80 b2.29 ± 0.560.93 ± 0.20
CO4.11 ± 0.74 ab2.97 ± 0.441.15 ± 0.31
p-value0.010.080.26
0.05–0.1 mC2.63 ± 0.552.05 ± 0.440.58 ± 0.09
VC2.08 ± 0.251.48 ± 0.180.60 ± 0.05
CO2.46 ± 0.421.77 ± 0.250.68 ± 0.05
p-value0.180.490.82
0.1–0.2 mC1.77 ± 0.431.38 ± 0.250.39 ± 0.07
VC1.64 ± 0.161.17 ± 0.120.47 ± 0.06
CO1.76 ± 0.171.27 ± 0.200.49 ± 0.05
p-value0.290.250.08
0.2–0.4 mC1.44 ± 0.191.12 ± 0.150.32 ± 0.04
VC1.15 ± 0.320.82 ± 0.090.33 ± 0.02
CO1.47 ± 0.171.06 ± 0.110.41 ± 0.05
p-value0.070.430.14
p-values of ANOVA test are shown and different letters indicate different means among organic fertilizers (Tukey test, α = 5%).
Table 8. Soil total nitrogen (TN), mineral-associated nitrogen (MAN), and particulate nitrogen (PN) content in different layers (0.0–0.05 m, 0.05–0.1 m, 0.1–0.2 m, and 0.2–0.4 m) in Vineyard 2 (‘Chardonnay’) after three years of grape pomace vermicompost (VC) and compost (CO); C stands for control (no organic fertilization).
Table 8. Soil total nitrogen (TN), mineral-associated nitrogen (MAN), and particulate nitrogen (PN) content in different layers (0.0–0.05 m, 0.05–0.1 m, 0.1–0.2 m, and 0.2–0.4 m) in Vineyard 2 (‘Chardonnay’) after three years of grape pomace vermicompost (VC) and compost (CO); C stands for control (no organic fertilization).
TN (g kg–1)MAN (g kg–1)PN (g kg–1)
0.0–0.05 mC3.41 ± 0.533.04 ± 0.420.37 ± 0.06
VC3.19 ± 0.752.69 ± 0.560.50 ± 0.13
CO3.19 ± 0.492.80 ± 0.390.39 ± 0.08
p-value0.770.610.36
0.05–0.1 mC2.38 ± 0.282.17 ± 0.110.22 ± 0.05
VC2.22 ± 0.242.02 ± 0.190.21 ± 0.02
CO2.15 ± 0.291.99 ± 0.240.16 ± 0.02
p-value0.360.530.17
0.1–0.2 mC2.10 ± 0.232.03 ± 0.250.07 ± 0.04
VC1.91 ± 0.221.84 ± 0.190.07 ± 0.02
CO2.03 ± 0.051.95 ± 0.080.08 ± 0.02
p-value0.290.600.05
0.2–0.4 mC2.26 ± 0.522.23 ± 0.410.02 ± 0.02
VC2.26 ± 0.432.24 ± 0.370.03 ± 0.01
CO2.23 ± 0.312.19 ± 0.270.04 ± 0.01
p-value0.990.670.12
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kokkonen, A.A.; Schemmer, S.; Brondani, R.; Fornari, J.F.; Papalia, D.G.; Baldi, E.; Toselli, M.; Moura-Bueno, J.M.; Loss, A.; Tiecher, T.L.; et al. Carbon and Nitrogen Stocks in Vineyard Soils Amended with Grape Pomace Residues. Agronomy 2024, 14, 2055. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14092055

AMA Style

Kokkonen AA, Schemmer S, Brondani R, Fornari JF, Papalia DG, Baldi E, Toselli M, Moura-Bueno JM, Loss A, Tiecher TL, et al. Carbon and Nitrogen Stocks in Vineyard Soils Amended with Grape Pomace Residues. Agronomy. 2024; 14(9):2055. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14092055

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kokkonen, Allan Augusto, Samuel Schemmer, Rian Brondani, João Francisco Fornari, Daniéle Gonçalves Papalia, Elena Baldi, Moreno Toselli, Jean Michel Moura-Bueno, Arcângelo Loss, Tadeu Luis Tiecher, and et al. 2024. "Carbon and Nitrogen Stocks in Vineyard Soils Amended with Grape Pomace Residues" Agronomy 14, no. 9: 2055. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14092055

APA Style

Kokkonen, A. A., Schemmer, S., Brondani, R., Fornari, J. F., Papalia, D. G., Baldi, E., Toselli, M., Moura-Bueno, J. M., Loss, A., Tiecher, T. L., & Brunetto, G. (2024). Carbon and Nitrogen Stocks in Vineyard Soils Amended with Grape Pomace Residues. Agronomy, 14(9), 2055. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14092055

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