the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 12 Jan 2023
Agricultural use of compost under different irrigation strategies in a hedgerow olive grove under Mediterranean conditions. A comparison with traditional systems
Abstract. Soil and water efficient management are key factors to ensure olive sustainable production. The use of compost based on olive waste (alperujo) as fertilizer could enhance ecosystem services while the need to transition to a zero waste circular economy is achieved. The present work includes a comparative study of the effect of alperujo compost (AC) vs inorganic fertilization under different management systems: an intensive traditional adult olive grove under rainfed conditions and a young hedgerow olive system, in which a factorial test of tree irrigation regimes (full, deficit and no irrigation) is implemented as well. At the hedgerow plots, the addition of AC and soil sampling time greatly impacted soil chemical parameters and to a lesser extent, enzymatic activities whereas irrigation regimes did not exert a mark influence. In the traditional rainfed system, the addition of AC proved to be an efficient tool for carbon sequestration. The first soil sampling revealed a clear stoichiometric relationship between soil organic matter (SOM) and the NPK contents at both systems whereas the correlations were weak and scarce in the second sampling at the hedgerow plots. This fact was related to a decay of the compost effect. Compost in combination with irrigation tended to trigger a certain priming effect on the native SOM with time since the carbon stocks were reduced between 6–38 % from one sampling to the other in the hedgerow system depending on the irrigation intensity. However, the deficit irrigation caused a less intense reduction of the SOM and essential nutrients representing the best alternative to maximize the agronomics effects of the compost under a water-saving strategy. Recurrent application of compost would be necessary to maintain soil quality, especially with high tree densities. The combined management of AC and the deficit irrigation proved to be an efficient tool toward a zero waste circular economy and a water conservation strategy.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1258 KB)
-
Supplement
(549 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1258 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(549 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1524', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 Jan 2023
The manuscript reports results from a field study that compared the application of olive mill waste compost under different irrigation intensities on soil chemical and biological properties in hedgerow and traditional olive grove systems. Existing research on this topic is largely inconclusive since experiments are performed under a wide range of strongly varying environmental conditions that lead to apparently contradicting effects on compost mineralization. Therefore, this study is well justified. Compost was applied twice in each olive grove system and soil samples were taken on two dates. Except for the last compost application and the soil sampling, the experimentation in both systems was not synchronized. It is unclear where the soil samples were taken with respect to the trees and the drippers. Apart from these issues, the experimental setup, the methods and data analyses are sound and appropriate. Since data from only two survey dates were available to assess the effects of the compost on the soil chemical and biological properties, also the results obtained here are inconclusive with respect to the role of soil moisture, temperature and other environmental factors. In spite of this, the authors managed to build a strong, but somewhat hypothetical discussion based on their results. This study adds further evidence to the existing literature and could therefore be considered for publication after taking into account the following suggestions and comments:
English needs revision, particularly syntaxis needs improvement: e.g. L13-14. Efficient soil and water management is key to ensuring sustainable olive production.
L89. How were these 8 plots chosen. Which criteria were used?
L97-105. Explain how (manually, spreader, …) and where the compost is applied with respect to the trees. Was it applied under the tree canopies or in the lanes in-between the tree rows?
L145-148. Explain where the 3 soil samples were taken with respect to the trees and drippers. In the lanes, under the tree canopies, in the tree rows? At what distance from the tree trunks and the drippers? Soil physical, chemical and biological properties are expected to show strong short-range variability in olive groves (e.g. tree rows vs. lanes). Therefore it is important to know exactly where the samples were taken.
L187 EC increased. Is this a consequence of the irrigation water quality? Are measurements of irrigation water quality parameters available? Table S2 and S3, Is EC measured in microS/cm instead of mS/cm?
L287. Use nonsignificant instead of insignificant
L326.Table S1. The deficit irrigation treatment received more water than the full irrigation treatment? Revise. However, this could explain the results discussed in these lines. Maybe it could be interesting to add the irrigation amount for both treatments to the bars in Fig. S1 and add also what is shown in Fig. S2 so that all this information can be interpreted form a single figure. An irregular distribution of rainfall in time could mimic the expected effects of irrigation.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1524-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Laura Lozano, 08 Feb 2023
We thank the anonymous reviewers for the supportive and very helpful comments on our manuscript. We have taken on board all the suggestions and modified the manuscript accordingly. You will find below a detailed reply to each of the reviewer’s comments. We feel that clarification of the points raised has greatly helped its readability. If further clarification is required on any points, we would be happy to do that.
English needs revision, particularly syntaxis needs improvement: e.g. L13-14. Efficient soil and water management is key to ensuring sustainable olive production.
Response: A professional language editing service has revised the whole manuscript
L89. How were these 8 plots chosen. Which criteria were used?
Response: Plots were chosen to continue with the same treatments (alperujo compost) that had been established in a previous project
L97-105. Explain how (manually, spreader, …) and where the compost is applied with respect to the trees. Was it applied under the tree canopies or in the lanes in-between the tree rows?
Response: We added ‘the compost based on solid waste from two-phase olive oil extraction (alperujo), was applied at a rate of 17 t ha-1 with a fertilizer spreader in the lanes in between the tree rows in the intensive traditional plots.
L145-148. Explain where the 3 soil samples were taken with respect to the trees and drippers. In the lanes, under the tree canopies, in the tree rows? At what distance from the tree trunks and the drippers? Soil physical, chemical and biological properties are expected to show strong short-range variability in olive groves (e.g. tree rows vs. lanes). Therefore it is important to know exactly where the samples were taken.
Response: the following clarification was added: ‘Three soil cores (0-10 cm) per plot were taken from the tree rows at approximately 15 cm from the tree trunk and drippers’
L187 EC increased. Is this a consequence of the irrigation water quality? Are measurements of irrigation water quality parameters available? Table S2 and S3, Is EC measured in microS/cm instead of mS/cm?
Response: Effectively, we have detected through the periodical analysis of irrigation water a slight accumulation of salts that may be causing this temporary EC increase. This is something that we are monitoring and taking care of to avoid interference with the compost effect. Units of EC in Table S2 and S3 have been corrected.
L287. Use nonsignificant instead of insignificant
Response: Done.
L326.Table S1. The deficit irrigation treatment received more water than the full irrigation treatment? Revise. However, this could explain the results discussed in these lines. Maybe it could be interesting to add the irrigation amount for both treatments to the bars in Fig. S1 and add also what is shown in Fig. S2 so that all this information can be interpreted form a single figure. An irregular distribution of rainfall in time could mimic the expected effects of irrigation.
Response: Thank you for pointing that out. The irrigation treatments were reversed. We tried to include irrigation amount for all treatments (four new columns) and the result was too messy so we chose to leave it as it was. Nevertheless, we merged Fig. S1 and S2 together as suggested.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1524-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Laura Lozano, 08 Feb 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1524', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Apr 2023
general comments
the manuscript has a very good scientific significance in terms of both contribution to scientific progress in olive growing intensification and to real progress in superintensive olive orchard management. However, the manuscript should be improved in scientific quality and presentation
specific comments
the Introduction section seems to be too concise, lacking in sustainability aspects (see line 40) of different planting systems. It can be extended with recent studies, taking into account the environmental impact (CF and WF) of the intensification in olive growing (as 10.3390/su14116389 and 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.088). Moreover, there are some works strictly related to soil management and olive pomace application in hedgerow olive orchard (as 10.1016/j.scienta.2011.04.034 and 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.064 and linked papers) that have to be considered by the Authors. These works could improve the results discussion as well.
Please use the term traditional and not intensive in the case study reported for a rainfed 286 trees/ha olive orchard, because of intensive is an irrigated orchard with ≥300 trees/ha
The trees water status (stem water potential and leaf conductance) data are not reported nor discussed. Please add and appropriately integrate with chemical results.
technical corrections
use everywhere the expression cv. Manzanilla instead of Manzanilla cultivar
line 109: revise English language
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1524-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Laura Lozano, 25 Apr 2023
We thank the anonymous reviewer for the supportive and very helpful comments on our manuscript. You will find below a detailed reply to each of the reviewer’s comments.
specific comments
the Introduction section seems to be too concise, lacking in sustainability aspects (see line 40) of different planting systems. It can be extended with recent studies, taking into account the environmental impact (CF and WF) of the intensification in olive growing (as 10.3390/su14116389 and 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.088). Moreover, there are some works strictly related to soil management and olive pomace application in hedgerow olive orchard (as 10.1016/j.scienta.2011.04.034 and 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.064 and linked papers) that have to be considered by the Authors. These works could improve the results discussion as well.
Response: The introduction section has been extended with the studies provided.
Please use the term traditional and not intensive in the case study reported for a rainfed 286 trees/ha olive orchard, because of intensive is an irrigated orchard with ≥300 trees/ha
Response: We replaced the term intensive by traditional.
The trees water status (stem water potential and leaf conductance) data are not reported nor discussed. Please add and appropriately integrate with chemical results.
Response: The reason why both parameters are not reported or discussed is because their measurement was not an objective of the study itself nor were their results analyzed but simply they were considered and used as indicators of tree water stress to provide real-time information on soil and plant water status and therefore to adapt the irrigation programs accordingly. The clarification was added in the method section.
use everywhere the expression cv. Manzanilla instead of Manzanilla cv.
Response: Changed.
line 109: revise English language
Response: the section was rewritten.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1524-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Laura Lozano, 25 Apr 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1524', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 Jan 2023
The manuscript reports results from a field study that compared the application of olive mill waste compost under different irrigation intensities on soil chemical and biological properties in hedgerow and traditional olive grove systems. Existing research on this topic is largely inconclusive since experiments are performed under a wide range of strongly varying environmental conditions that lead to apparently contradicting effects on compost mineralization. Therefore, this study is well justified. Compost was applied twice in each olive grove system and soil samples were taken on two dates. Except for the last compost application and the soil sampling, the experimentation in both systems was not synchronized. It is unclear where the soil samples were taken with respect to the trees and the drippers. Apart from these issues, the experimental setup, the methods and data analyses are sound and appropriate. Since data from only two survey dates were available to assess the effects of the compost on the soil chemical and biological properties, also the results obtained here are inconclusive with respect to the role of soil moisture, temperature and other environmental factors. In spite of this, the authors managed to build a strong, but somewhat hypothetical discussion based on their results. This study adds further evidence to the existing literature and could therefore be considered for publication after taking into account the following suggestions and comments:
English needs revision, particularly syntaxis needs improvement: e.g. L13-14. Efficient soil and water management is key to ensuring sustainable olive production.
L89. How were these 8 plots chosen. Which criteria were used?
L97-105. Explain how (manually, spreader, …) and where the compost is applied with respect to the trees. Was it applied under the tree canopies or in the lanes in-between the tree rows?
L145-148. Explain where the 3 soil samples were taken with respect to the trees and drippers. In the lanes, under the tree canopies, in the tree rows? At what distance from the tree trunks and the drippers? Soil physical, chemical and biological properties are expected to show strong short-range variability in olive groves (e.g. tree rows vs. lanes). Therefore it is important to know exactly where the samples were taken.
L187 EC increased. Is this a consequence of the irrigation water quality? Are measurements of irrigation water quality parameters available? Table S2 and S3, Is EC measured in microS/cm instead of mS/cm?
L287. Use nonsignificant instead of insignificant
L326.Table S1. The deficit irrigation treatment received more water than the full irrigation treatment? Revise. However, this could explain the results discussed in these lines. Maybe it could be interesting to add the irrigation amount for both treatments to the bars in Fig. S1 and add also what is shown in Fig. S2 so that all this information can be interpreted form a single figure. An irregular distribution of rainfall in time could mimic the expected effects of irrigation.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1524-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Laura Lozano, 08 Feb 2023
We thank the anonymous reviewers for the supportive and very helpful comments on our manuscript. We have taken on board all the suggestions and modified the manuscript accordingly. You will find below a detailed reply to each of the reviewer’s comments. We feel that clarification of the points raised has greatly helped its readability. If further clarification is required on any points, we would be happy to do that.
English needs revision, particularly syntaxis needs improvement: e.g. L13-14. Efficient soil and water management is key to ensuring sustainable olive production.
Response: A professional language editing service has revised the whole manuscript
L89. How were these 8 plots chosen. Which criteria were used?
Response: Plots were chosen to continue with the same treatments (alperujo compost) that had been established in a previous project
L97-105. Explain how (manually, spreader, …) and where the compost is applied with respect to the trees. Was it applied under the tree canopies or in the lanes in-between the tree rows?
Response: We added ‘the compost based on solid waste from two-phase olive oil extraction (alperujo), was applied at a rate of 17 t ha-1 with a fertilizer spreader in the lanes in between the tree rows in the intensive traditional plots.
L145-148. Explain where the 3 soil samples were taken with respect to the trees and drippers. In the lanes, under the tree canopies, in the tree rows? At what distance from the tree trunks and the drippers? Soil physical, chemical and biological properties are expected to show strong short-range variability in olive groves (e.g. tree rows vs. lanes). Therefore it is important to know exactly where the samples were taken.
Response: the following clarification was added: ‘Three soil cores (0-10 cm) per plot were taken from the tree rows at approximately 15 cm from the tree trunk and drippers’
L187 EC increased. Is this a consequence of the irrigation water quality? Are measurements of irrigation water quality parameters available? Table S2 and S3, Is EC measured in microS/cm instead of mS/cm?
Response: Effectively, we have detected through the periodical analysis of irrigation water a slight accumulation of salts that may be causing this temporary EC increase. This is something that we are monitoring and taking care of to avoid interference with the compost effect. Units of EC in Table S2 and S3 have been corrected.
L287. Use nonsignificant instead of insignificant
Response: Done.
L326.Table S1. The deficit irrigation treatment received more water than the full irrigation treatment? Revise. However, this could explain the results discussed in these lines. Maybe it could be interesting to add the irrigation amount for both treatments to the bars in Fig. S1 and add also what is shown in Fig. S2 so that all this information can be interpreted form a single figure. An irregular distribution of rainfall in time could mimic the expected effects of irrigation.
Response: Thank you for pointing that out. The irrigation treatments were reversed. We tried to include irrigation amount for all treatments (four new columns) and the result was too messy so we chose to leave it as it was. Nevertheless, we merged Fig. S1 and S2 together as suggested.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1524-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Laura Lozano, 08 Feb 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1524', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Apr 2023
general comments
the manuscript has a very good scientific significance in terms of both contribution to scientific progress in olive growing intensification and to real progress in superintensive olive orchard management. However, the manuscript should be improved in scientific quality and presentation
specific comments
the Introduction section seems to be too concise, lacking in sustainability aspects (see line 40) of different planting systems. It can be extended with recent studies, taking into account the environmental impact (CF and WF) of the intensification in olive growing (as 10.3390/su14116389 and 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.088). Moreover, there are some works strictly related to soil management and olive pomace application in hedgerow olive orchard (as 10.1016/j.scienta.2011.04.034 and 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.064 and linked papers) that have to be considered by the Authors. These works could improve the results discussion as well.
Please use the term traditional and not intensive in the case study reported for a rainfed 286 trees/ha olive orchard, because of intensive is an irrigated orchard with ≥300 trees/ha
The trees water status (stem water potential and leaf conductance) data are not reported nor discussed. Please add and appropriately integrate with chemical results.
technical corrections
use everywhere the expression cv. Manzanilla instead of Manzanilla cultivar
line 109: revise English language
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1524-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Laura Lozano, 25 Apr 2023
We thank the anonymous reviewer for the supportive and very helpful comments on our manuscript. You will find below a detailed reply to each of the reviewer’s comments.
specific comments
the Introduction section seems to be too concise, lacking in sustainability aspects (see line 40) of different planting systems. It can be extended with recent studies, taking into account the environmental impact (CF and WF) of the intensification in olive growing (as 10.3390/su14116389 and 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.088). Moreover, there are some works strictly related to soil management and olive pomace application in hedgerow olive orchard (as 10.1016/j.scienta.2011.04.034 and 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06.064 and linked papers) that have to be considered by the Authors. These works could improve the results discussion as well.
Response: The introduction section has been extended with the studies provided.
Please use the term traditional and not intensive in the case study reported for a rainfed 286 trees/ha olive orchard, because of intensive is an irrigated orchard with ≥300 trees/ha
Response: We replaced the term intensive by traditional.
The trees water status (stem water potential and leaf conductance) data are not reported nor discussed. Please add and appropriately integrate with chemical results.
Response: The reason why both parameters are not reported or discussed is because their measurement was not an objective of the study itself nor were their results analyzed but simply they were considered and used as indicators of tree water stress to provide real-time information on soil and plant water status and therefore to adapt the irrigation programs accordingly. The clarification was added in the method section.
use everywhere the expression cv. Manzanilla instead of Manzanilla cv.
Response: Changed.
line 109: revise English language
Response: the section was rewritten.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1524-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Laura Lozano, 25 Apr 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 232 | 69 | 19 | 320 | 38 | 4 | 4 |
- HTML: 232
- PDF: 69
- XML: 19
- Total: 320
- Supplement: 38
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Laura L. de Sosa
María José Martín-Palomo
Pedro Castro-Valdecantos
Engracia Madejón
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1258 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(549 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper