| Literature DB >> 32851526 |
Aladdin Halbert-Howard1, Franziska Häfner1, Stefan Karlowsky2, Dietmar Schwarz2, Ariane Krause3.
Abstract
Soilless culture systems offer an environmentally friendly and resource-efficient alternative to traditional cultivation systems fitting within the scheme of a circular economy. The objective of this research was to examine the sustainable integration of recycling fertilizers in hydroponic cultivation-creating a nutrient cycling concept for horticultural cultivation. Using the nutrient film technique (NFT), three recycling-based fertilizer variants were tested against standard synthetic mineral fertilization as the control, with 11 tomato plants (Solanum lycopersicum L. cv. Pannovy) per replicate (n = 4) and treatment: two nitrified urine-based fertilizers differing in ammonium/nitrate ratio (NH4+:NO3-), namely (1) "Aurin" (AUR) and (2) "Crop" (CRO); as well as (3) an organo-mineral mixture of struvite and vinasse (S+V); and (4) a control (NPK). The closed chamber method was adapted for gas fluxes (N2O, CH4, and CO2) from the root zone. There was no indication in differences of the total shoot biomass fresh matter and uptake of N, P and K between recycling fertilizers and the control. Marketable fruit yield was comparable between NPK, CRO and S+V, whereas lower yields occurred in AUR. The higher NH4+:NO3- of AUR was associated with an increased susceptibility of blossom-end-rot, likely due to reduced uptake and translocation of Ca. Highest sugar concentration was found in S+V, which may have been influenced by the presence of organic acids in vinasse. N2O emissions were highest in S+V, which corresponded to our hypothesis that N2O emissions positively correlate with organic-C input by the fertilizer amendments. Remaining treatments showed barely detectable GHG emissions. A nitrified urine with a low NH4+:NO3- (e.g., CRO) has a high potential as recycling fertilizer in NFT systems for tomato cultivation, and S+V proved to supply sufficient P and K for adequate growth and yield. Alternative cultivation strategies may complement the composition of AUR.Entities:
Keywords: Ammonium; Circular economy; Greenhouse gas emissions; Hydroponics; Nitrate; Nitrous oxide; Plant nutrients; Recycling fertilizers; Tomatoes; Urine-based
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32851526 PMCID: PMC8541969 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-10461-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 4.223
Average nutrient concentrations (mean ± standard error of n = 4 batches) found in the two urine-based recycling fertilizers “Crop” and “Aurin,” as well as in struvite and vinasse (as provided by the SF-Soepenberg GmbH).
| Mineral nutrient | Unit | “Crop” | “Aurin” | Unit * | Struvite | Vinasse |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM content | – | NA | NA | g kg−1 FM | 535 | 890 |
| N total | g L−1 | 6.98 ± 0.26 | 63.1 ± 10.5 | g kg−1 FM | 30 | 7.66 |
| NO3−-N | g L−1 | 4.69 ± 0.07 | 30.9 ± 4.66 | g kg−1 FM | NA | NA |
| NH4+-N | g L−1 | 2.29 ± 0.19 | 32.2 ± 5.88 | g kg−1 FM | 28 | < 2.0 |
| P | g L−1 | 0.33 ± 0.02 | 3.09 ± 0.03 | g kg−1 FM | 230 | 2.5 |
| K | g L−1 | 1.85 ± 0.06 | 21.4 ± 1.15 | g kg−1 FM | 10 | 310 |
| S | g L−1 | 0.49 ± 0.02 | 3.57 ± 0.26 | g kg−1 FM | NA | 148 |
| Ca | g L−1 | 3.29 ± 0.30 | 0.38 ± 0.01 | g kg−1 FM | NA | 8.58 |
| Mg | g L−1 | 0.11 ± 0.01 | 0.08 ± 0.001 | g kg−1 FM | 144 | 12 |
| Na | g L−1 | 2.78 ± 0.09 | 25.9 ± 1.09 | g kg−1 FM | < 1 | NA |
| Cl | g L−1 | 5.49 ± 0.09 | 46.7 ± 0.67 | g kg−1 FM g kg−1 FM | < 1 | NA |
| Fe | g L−1 | 0.08 ± 0.03 | 13.2 ± 9.14 | – | NA | NA |
| Zn | g L−1 | 0.17 ± 0.01 | 0.39 ± 0.15 | mg kg−1 FM | 10.5 | 36.4 |
| B | g L−1 | 0.52 ± 0.14 | 64.6 ± 39.6 | mg kg−1 FM | NA | 9.00 |
| Mn | g L−1 | 1.26 ± 0.55 | 2.23 ± 1.52 | – | NA | NA |
| Cu | g L−1 | 0.03 ± 0.19 | 0.31 ± 0.09 | mg kg−1 FM | < 5.00 | 7.00 |
NA not applicable/data not available
All units are related to fresh weight (FM = fresh matter)
Composition of the nutrient solution (NS) as applied to the four treatments described by the achieved macronutrient concentrations in mmol L−1 and opposed to the optimal ranges for tomato fertilization prior to fifth truss formation, adapted from De Kreij et al. (1997). In addition, the recycling rate (RR) is indicated in %, which is defined as—for example—S applied with “Crop” solution as % of the total S applied in the treatment (cf. Eq. 1)
| NS component | Optimal range* | NPK | CRO | S+V | AUR | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NS | NS | RR | NS | RR | NS | RR | ||
| (mmol L−1) | (mmol L−1) | (mmol L−1) | (%) | (mmol L−1) | (%) | (mmol L−1) | (%) | |
| NO3−-N | 15–31 | 21.6 | 15.2 | 100% | 16.9 | 20% | 13.6 | 80% |
| NH4+-N | 0.1–0.5 | 1.5 | 7.9 | 6.1 | 9.5 | |||
| K | 5.3–10.6 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 22% | 8.4 | 92% | 8.1 | 17% |
| P | 0.7–1.3 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 35% | 7.2 | 100% | 1.0 | 32% |
| Mg | 3–6 | 4.5 | 4.1 | 5% | 7.9 | 100% | 4.5 | < 1% |
| S | 4.5–9 | 8.0 | 13.9 | 40% | 7.7 | 79% | 13.1 | 3% |
| Ca | 6.6–13.3 | 9.9 | 8.8 | 92% | 8.8 | < 1% | 9.4 | 54% |
| Na | 1–12 | 0.0 | 3.5 | 100% | 0.6 | 100% | 4.0 | 100% |
| Total RF input (g L−1) | ||||||||
| 0 | 27.0 | 1.1 (S) + 0.8 (V) | 1.8 | |||||
Treatments: NPK = mineral control; CRO = “Crop” RF; S+V = struvite and vinasse; AUR = “Aurin” RF
*Optimal ranges adapted from De Kreij et al. (1997)
Fig. 1Plant fresh matter production for marketable fruit yield and total shoot biomass—mean marketable fruit yield in dark gray, and mean total shoot biomass (leaf and stem) in white, for the different treatments (kg FM plant−1). Bars signify standard error. Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments; “ns” indicates no statistical significance.. Analysis of variance were determined with one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). NPK = mineral control (n = 3); CRO = “Crop” treatment (n = 4); S+V = struvite and vinasse treatment (n = 3); AUR = “Aurin” treatment (n = 4)
Harvest data—summary of biomass, harvest, and fruit quality data for all treatment groups. All results are expressed as mean ± SE
| Unit | NPK | CRO | S+V | AUR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aboveground biomass | g DM plant−1 | 399 ± 16.1 ab | 384 ± 17.9 ab | 448 ± 14.0 a | 360 ± 12.3 b |
| Total fruit yield | g DM plant−1 | 189 ± 17.4 ab | 195 ± 11.8 ab | 245 ± 20.9 a | 158 ± 9.58 b |
| Root weight | g DM plant−1 | 15.7 ± 0.31 ns | 14.3 ± 0.94 ns | 15.6 ± 0.83 ns | 17.1 ± 1.18 ns |
| Marketable fruit weight | g FM fruit−1 | 94.5 ± 0.73 ns | 90.4 ± 2.60 ns | 83 ± 3.9 ns | 82 ± 3.4 ns |
| Sugar (glucose + fructose) | g FM 100 g−1 | 2.63 ± 0.12 b | 2.83 ± 0.1 b | 3.44 ± 0.18 a | 2.84 ± 0.05 b |
| Marketable fruit DM content | g kg−1 | 45 ± 0.9 b | 49 ± 0.7 ab | 50 ± 1.3 a | 49 ± 0.5 ab |
| Number of fruit * | per plant | 63 ± 14.7 ns | 67 ± 11.5 ns | 89.1 ± 7.7 ns | 84.9 ± 8.7 ns |
| Number of marketable fruit | per plant | 24.9 ± 1.1 a | 25.3 ± 1.07 a | 28.0 ± 0.83 a | 13.4 ± 1.16 b |
| Number of nonmarketable fruit | per plant | 0.97 ± 0.36 a | 4.8 ± 1.2 a | 1.76 ± 0.92 a | 42.3 ± 4.53 b |
Different letters within rows indicate significant differences as evaluated by Tukey HSD variance of means test (α = 0.05)
ns = no statistical significance. NPK = mineral control (n = 3); CRO = “Crop” treatment (n = 4); S+V = struvite and vinasse treatment (n = 3); AUR = “Aurin” treatment (n = 4)
*In total, including also immature (unripe) fruits.
Mean nutrient uptake for the reproductive and vegetative DM of the different fertilizer treatments.
| Nutrient uptake in fruit DM | Nutrient uptake in shoot DM | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPK | CRO | S+V | AUR | NPK | CRO | S+V | AUR | |
| (g DM plant−1) | (g DM plant−1) | |||||||
| N | 5.50 ± 0.6 ns | 3.62 ± 0.12 ns | 5.07 ± 0.772 ns | 4.01 ± 0.34 ns | 7.57 ± 0.48 ns | 5.66 ± 0.34 ns | 5.74 ± 0.72 ns | 7.3 ± 0.23 ns |
| P | 1.14 ± 0.12 ns | 0.97 ± 0.03 ns | 1.02 ± 0.14 ns | 0.86 ± 0.06 ns | 0.94 ± 0.025 ns | 1.35 ± 0.105 ns | 1.09 ± 0.12 ns | 1.5 ± 0.2 ns |
| K | 9.94 ± 1.0 ns | 9.29 ± 0.55 ns | 8.61 ± 1.49 ns | 6.78 ± 0.5 ns | 10.6 ± 0.81 ab | 9.96 ± 0.27 ab | 7.51 ± 1.04 b | 11.2 ± 0.44 a |
| Ca | 0.18 ± 0.03 ab | 0.18 ± 0.01 ab | 0.24 ± 0.03 a | 0.09 ± 0.01 b | 7.95 ± 0.16 a | 6.91 ± 0.62 a | 6.10 ± 1.87 a | 3.91 ± 0.18 b |
| Mg | 0.36 ± 0.04 ns | 0.27 ± 0.01 ns | 0.29 ± 0.05 ns | 0.21 ± 0.02 ns | 0.89 ± 0.08 ab | 1.21 ± 0.11 a | 0.87 ± 0.06 b | 0.76 ± 0.06 b |
| S | 4.39 ± 0.41 ns | 4.23 ± 0.17 ns | 4.11 ± 0.01 ns | 3.27 ± 0.28 ns | 4.08 ± 24.5 b | 5.88 ± 30.9 a | 2.74 ± 0.13 b | 3.64 ± 21.8 b |
| Na | 0.7 ± 0.01 ns | 0.84 ± 0.16 ns | 0.67 ± 0.14 ns | 0.74 ± 0.13 ns | 0.13 ± 0.006 c | 0.31 ± 0.02 b | 0.12 ± 0.01 c | 0.45 ± 0.04 a |
| (mg DM plant−1) | (mg DM plant−1) | |||||||
| Mn | 0.03 ± 0.002 ns | 0.02 ± 0.001 ns | 0.02 ± 0.004 ns | 0.02 ± 0.001 ns | 0.02 ± 0.003 ns | 0.02 ± 0.002 ns | 0.012 ± >0.001 ns | 0.01 ± 0.001 ns |
| Zn | 0.04 ± 0.003 ns | 0.03 ± 0.002 ns | 0.04 ± 0.01 ns | 0.03 ± 0.002 ns | 0.02 ± 0.002 ns | 0.02 ± >0.001 ns | 0.012 ± 0.001 ns | 0.02 ± 0.001 ns |
| Fe | 0.11 ± 0.009 ns | 0.08 ± 0.009 ns | 0.08 ± 0.014 ns | 0.07 ± 0.009 ns | 0.014 ± 0.001 ab | 0.016 ± 0.005 a | 0.015 ± 0.001 b | 0.017 ± 0.001 ab |
| B | 0.03 ± 0.002 ns | 0.02 ± 0.001 ns | 0.02 ± 0.004 ns | 0.02 ± 0.001 ns | 0.014 ± >0.001 ab | 0.017 ± >0.001 a | 0.010 ± >0.001 b | 0.02 ± >0.001 a |
| Cu | 0.02 ± 0.002 ns | 0.02 ± 0.001 ns | 0.02 ± 0.002 ns | 0.01 ± 0.001 ns | 0.002 ± >0.001 ns | 0.004 ± 0.001 ns | 0.002 ± >0.001 ns | 0.004 ± >0.001 ns |
All results are expressed as mean ± SE. Different letters within rows indicate significant differences as evaluated by Tukey HSD variance of means test (α = 0.05). NPK = mineral control (n = 3); CRO = “Crop” treatment (n = 4); S+V = struvite and vinasse treatment (n = 3); AUR = “Aurin” treatment (n = 4)
ns no statistical significance
Fig. 2Nutrient uptake in total plant biomass (sum of leaves, stem and fruits) for N, P, K, Ca, Mg, and Na of the different fertilizer treatments. All results are expressed as mean ± SE. Error bars signify standard error. Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments. Analysis of variance were determined with one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). NPK = mineral control (n = 3); CRO = “Crop” treatment (n = 4); S+V = struvite and vinasse treatment (n = 3); AUR = “Aurin” treatment (n = 4). ns = no statistical significance
Amounts of recycled nutrients taken up per plant in the different recycling fertilizer treatments and their proportion compared to the amounts of mineral nutrients taken up per plant in the NPK control
| Recycled nutrient uptake in total aboveground biomass | Comparison of recycled nutrient uptake with total nutrient uptake of NPK control | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nutrient | CRO | S+V | AUR | CRO | S+V | AUR |
| (g plant−1) | (% NPK plant−1) | |||||
| N | 9.27 ± 0.83 | 2.16 ± 0.39 | 9.05 ± 0.83 | 70.9 ± 6.3 | 16.5 ± 3.0 | 69.2 ± 6.4 |
| P | 0.81 ± 0.09 | 2.12 ± 0.39 | 0.76 ± 0.17 | 39.9 ± 4.5 | 102 ± 19 | 36.4 ± 8.4 |
| K | 4.23 ± 0.39 | 14.8 ± 2.9 | 3.05 ± 0.33 | 20.6 ± 1.9 | 72 ± 13.8 | 14.8 ± 1.6 |
| Ca | 6.53 ± 1.35 | 0.01 ± 0.00 | 2.16 ± 0.23 | 80.3 ± 16.6 | 0.08 ± 0.00 | 26.6 ± 2.8 |
| Mg | 0.07 ± 0.01 | 1.16 ± 0.04 | 0.002 ± 0.00 | 45.9 ± 1.1 | 92.5 ± 3.5 | 0.16 ± 0.03 |
| S | 0.24 ± 0.03 | 0.26 ± 0.01 | 0.01 ± 0.00 | 57.4 ± 7.7 | 62.5 ± 2.9 | 2.31 ± 0.93 |
All results are expressed as mean ± SE. NPK = mineral control (n = 3); CRO = “Crop” treatment (n = 4); S+V = struvite and vinasse treatment (n = 3); AUR = “Aurin” treatment (n = 4)
Fig. 3N2O fluxes during the experiment, expressed as mean daily N2O emissions for the different fertilizer treatments (n = 3) over eight gas sampling measurements. Error bars signify standard error. NPK = mineral control; CRO = “Crop” treatment; S+V = struvite and vinasse treatment; AUR = “Aurin” treatment. ***Significance level of α = 0.001 with post hoc Tukey test
Linear mixed effect model summary for N2O emissions.
| Effect | Chisq | Pr (> Chisq) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| N × T | 19.8 | 3 | 0.0001825* |
| N × D | 10.8 | 7 | 0.1452770 |
| N × T × D | 76.9 | 21 | 2.622E−08* |
*Significance level of α = 0.001
N daily N2O emissions, T treatment, D date of sampling
Fig. 4Cumulative N2O emissions for the different fertilizer treatments during the entire experiment (n = 3). Error bars signify standard error. Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments; same letter indicates no significant difference. Analyses of variance were determined with one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05)