• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Historic note
 Front Cover
 Main














Group Title: Agronomy research report - University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences ; AY-95-01
Title: Conventional tillage and no-tillage vegetables using yard waste compost
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00056101/00001
 Material Information
Title: Conventional tillage and no-tillage vegetables using yard waste compost
Series Title: Agronomy research report
Physical Description: 23, 3 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Gallaher, Raymond N
McSorley, R ( Robert )
University of Florida -- Agronomy Dept
Publisher: Department of Agronomy, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1995?]
 Subjects
Subject: Vegetables -- Mulching -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Tillage -- Florida   ( lcsh )
No-tillage -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (leaves 4-5).
Statement of Responsibility: R.N. Gallaher, and R. McSorley.
General Note: Chiefly tables.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00056101
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 62627950

Table of Contents
    Historic note
        Unnumbered ( 1 )
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida





/Io


Ai ^ o- n Science
S(- Library

q -/ JAON 08 S6

; :; of : :

Agronomy Research Report AY-95-01






Conventional Tillage and No-Tillage Vegetables Using Yard Waste
Compost








R.N. Gallaher and R. McSorley
Department of Agronomy and Department of Entomology and
Nematology, Inst. of Food and Agr. Sci., Univ. of Fla.,
Gainesville







Agronomy Research Report AY-95-01


Conventional Tillage and No-Tillage Vegetables Using Yard Waste
Compost

R.N. Gallaher and R. McSorley
Department of Agronomy and Department of Entomology and
Nematology, Inst. of Food and Agr. Sci., Univ. of Fla.,
Gainesville

Abstract

Disposal of yard waste on farmland could help reduce the
need for additional landfill disposal sites and should help
improve soil quality and productivity. The objective of this
study was to determine the effect of disposal of yard waste
compost (YWC) on vegetable production. On-farm and experiment
station studies were conducted in 1993 and 1994. Squash
(Cucurbita pepo) and okra (Hibiscus esculentus) yields between
locations were heavily dependent upon our ability to provide
timely irrigation in 1993. Transplanted seedlings and
incorporated YWC treatments appeared to result in best yields,
based upon our limited data.

Introduction

Interest in composting today is driven by the high cost of
establishing and operating landfills as well as by new
restrictions to reduce the amount of materials going into
landfills, concerns over groundwater pollution by landfills, and
generally a greater commitment on the part of the public to
recycling. Yard waste compost (YWC) is produced from plant-
derived organic matter, mostly from urban homeowners. New Jersey
research (Kluchiniski, et al., 1993) confirmed our work in
Florida (Gallaher and McSorley, 1994a; 1994b) because they
reported that soil water and crop yields were increased from use
of leaf mulching as a soil amendment. In a no-tillage study, the
senior author (Gallaher, 1977) found that no-tillage mulch
planting management (killed rye (Secale cereale L.) cover crop)
for corn (Zea mays L.) and soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.)
resulted in more water conservation and drought tolerance for the
crops. The no-tillage rye mulch treatments resulted in 46% and
30% greater corn and soybean seed yield, respectively, compared
to control no-tillage plots where rye tops were removed for
forage.

The Florida laws that restrict disposal of organic yard
trash in landfills (Kidder, 1993) have resulted in large reserves
of YWC due to the building of composting facilities near urban
areas. Experiment station and on-farm soil and crop management
research will be required to overcome the fears of potential







users (home gardeners and farmers), and to create markets for
this YWC.

The objective of this study was to determine the effect of
disposal of YWC on vegetable production.

Materials and Methods

Vegetable experiments [squash (Cucurbita pepo L.); okra,
(Hibiscus esculentus L.); cowpea (Vigna unquiculata (L.) Walp.);
sweet corn (Zea mavs L.)] were in randomized complete block
designs with four replications imposed on a farmer's field near
Gainesville, FL in 1993 and on the Green Acres Agronomy Farm in
1993 and 1994. Treatments for experiment one imposed on a
Bonneau fine sand soil were: (Treatment 1) 269 Mg YWC/ha mulch
(M) in 1993 + 269 Mg YWC/ha mulch in 1994; (Treatment 2) 269 Mg
YWC/ha incorporated (Inc.) in 1993 + 269 Mg YWC/ha Inc. in 1994;
(Treatment 3) 0 Mg YWC/ha both years, the control treatment.
Less than 5 cm YWC was used in all cases except for < 2.5 cm YWC
on vegetable plots in 1994. The YWC was analyzed for dry matter
(weight loss from drying at 100 C in a convection oven), organic
matter (weight loss of dry matter from ashing in a muffle furnace
at 480 C), C (Carbon analyzer), N [aluminum block digester
(Gallaher, et al., 1995) and colorimetry using an autoanalyzer],
pH (combination glass electrode/calomel electrode), and minerals
(from muffle furnace ashing and HCl digestion on a hotplate)
using standard procedures. Soil samples from the top 20 cm were
taken just prior to starting the studies in 1993 and the end of
the studies in 1993, at the beginning of the experiments in 1994
and end of the studies in 1994. Mehlich I double acid
extractable nutrients (Mehlich, 1953), Kjeldahl N [aluminum block
digester (Gallaher, et al., 1975) and colorimetry using an
autoanalyzer], organic matter (Walkley Black K-dichromate
procedure), CEC extractablee cation method), pH (glass electrode
+ calomel reference electrode) and buffer pH (combination glass
electrode/calomel electrode) were determined using standard
procedures (Jackson, 1958; Black, 1965; Walsh, 1971). Yield data
was taken from a 4.6 m2 area on the Haufler farm and a 6.9 m2 area
on the Agronomy farm. Soil samples for nematode analysis were
collected from each plot at planting (pi) and after the final
harvest (pf). Nematodes were extracted from samples by the
centrifugation method (Jenkins, 1964). Wood Resource Recovery of
Gainesville, FL donated, hauled and assisted farmers and research
assistants in spreading the YWC each year. The analyses of
variance (ANOVA) of data were carried out using standard
statistical procedures for randomized complete block and split-
plot experimental designs (MSTAT 4.0, 1985). Regression analysis
and graphs for squash yield were completed by use of CA-Cricket
Graphics (1990).








Results and Discussion


The YWC was about 50 % dry matter and had a very high C:N
ratio (Table 1). Cumulative applications of YWC have totaled 538
Mg/ha for the 2-years at each location.

Squash yield was greater at the Green Acres Agronomy Farm
than at the Haufler Farm (Table 2). This was likely due to
better irrigation management on the Agronomy Farm. No-tillage
mulch compost gave a lower squash yield compared to conventional
tillage incorporated squash (Table 2). Harvest of squash began
at 40 days after planting (DAP) at both locations but peak
harvest occurred about 50 to 55 DAP at the Agronomy Farm (Figure
1) and about 60 to 65 DAP at the Haufler Farm (Figure 2).
Transplanted squash yield was 38 % greater than yield of direct-
seeded squash (Table 3). Transplanted squash (Figure 3) began
fruiting about 2 weeks earlier than direct seeded squash (Figure
4). Insect damage to seedlings was a major problem.

Lower infestation of nematodes on the Haufler Farm compared
to the Agronomy Farm may be part of the reason for lower okra
yield on the Agronomy Farm (Table 4). Conventional tillage
incorporated YWC resulted in the highest okra yield on the
Haufler farm. Transplanted okra tended to give greater yield
compared to direct-seeded particularly in the incorporated YWC
(Table 5). Okra establishment was very difficult due to seedling
death and insect damage. The heavy infestation of nematodes
resulted in seedling death and stunted, low-producing plants. In
general, squash and okra yields were affected more by plant
establishment methods than by YWC treatments.

Our ability to establish a good population of cowpea
resulted in low fresh pod yields (Tables 6 and 7). It can be
noted that the variety Zipper Cream had higher yield than Pinkeye
Purplehull (Table 7). It was noted that roots of Zipper Cream
were infested to a lesser degree with root knot nematodes than
was Pinkeye Purplehull.

Sweet corn yield is reported for the Green Acres location in
1994 only (Tables 8 and 9). In general both fresh and dry
weights of plant parts were greater but equal for the compost
treatments compared to the control treatment without compost.
Dry ear yields were greater for Festival than for Silver Queen
(Table 9) but fresh ear weights were equal between the hybrids
(Table 8).

The cumulative effects from large applications of YWC in our
studies have resulted in significant increases in soil organic
matter, pH, extractable plant nutrients and CEC (Tables 10 to
13). These changes in soil chemical properties should have a
positive effect on vegetable production. The duration of the
increases in these soil properties is not known. It is expected







that if YWC additions are terminated, the soil would slowly
return to the original soil properties as the soil organic matter
is mineralized. However, the benefits should last for several
years as a result of these large applications of YWC.

Nematode data are presented on four crops cowpeaa only for
Pinkeye Purplehull; sweet corn only for Silver Queen) at both
sites in 1993 (Tables 14-17). Ring nematodes (Criconemella spp.)
were reduced by compost treatment on only one occasion (Table
14). Compost treatment reduced populations of the root-knot
nematode (Meloidogyne incognita) on okra but increased
populations on cowpea and squash only at the Haufler Farm (Table
15). Stubby-root nematodes (Paratrichodorus minor) and lesion
nematodes (Pratylenchus spp.) were not affected by compost
treatment (Tables 16,17). In 1994 at the Green Acres Agronomy
Farm, Criconemella spp. and M. incognita were not affected by
compost treatments (Tables 18,19). Paratrichodorus minor was
decreased by the incorporated compost treatment on squash (Table
20), and Pratylenchus spp. were decreased by this treatment on
both crops (Table 21). Thus, while some decreases in nematode
populations were observed from compost treatments, this response
was inconsistent and not dependable. Therefore the main benefit
of YWC against nematodes does not appear to be reduction of
nematode populations, but improved growth and tolerance of host
plants in nematode-infested sites.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements are extended to farmers Mr. Dale and Donald
Haufler, Wood Resource Recovery, and the technical assistance of
Mr. Howard C. Palmer, Mr. James R. Chichester, Mr. John
Frederick, and Mr. Tom Schmid.

Literature Cited

Black, C.A. 1965. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part I and II.
Amer. Soc. of Agronomy, Inc., Madison, Wis.

CA-CRICKET Graph. 1990. User's Guide for CA-CRICKET Graph for
Microsoft Windows. Computer Associates, Software Superior
Designs, 10505 Sorrento Valley Road, San Diego, CA 92121-1698.

Gallaher, R.N. 1977. Soil moisture conservation and yield of
crops no-till planted in rye. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 41:145-147.

Gallaher, R.N., and R. McSorley. 1994a. Management of yard
waste compost for soil amendment and corn yield, pp. 156-160.
In. P.J. Bauer and W.J. Busscher (Eds.) Proceedings of the 1994
Southern Conservation Tillage Conference for Sustainable
Agriculture. Columbia, South Carolina, June 7-9, 1994. USDA-ARS
Coastal Plains Soil, Water, and Plant Research Center, Florence,
SC.







Gallaher, R.N., and R. McSorley. 1994b. Soil water conservation
from management of yard waste compost in a farmer's corn field.
Agron. Research Report AY-94-02. Agron. Dept., Inst. Food & Agr.
Sci., Univ. of Fla., Gainesville, FL.

Gallaher, R.N., C.O. Weldon, and J.G. Futral. 1975. Plant and
soil analysis using an aluminum block digester. Soil Sci. Soc.
Amer. Proc. 39:803-806.

Jackson, M.L. 1958. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Jenkins, W.R. 1964. A rapid centrifugal-flotation technique for
separating nematodes from soil. Plant Dis. Reptr. 48:692.

Kidder, G. 1993. Applying non-hazardous wastes to land: I.
Opportunities and problems. SS-SOS-43 Notes in Soil and Water
Science, Univ. of Fla., Inst. Food and Agr. Sci. Coop. Extn.
Serv., Gainesville, FL.

Kluchinski, D., J.R. Heckman, J. Mahar, D.A. Derr, and F. Kelly.
1993. Leaf Mulching: Using municipal leaf waste as a soil
amendment. Special Report by the New Jersey Agr. Exp. Station,
Rutgers Univ., Trenton, NJ.

Mehlich, A. 1953. Determination of P, Ca, Mg, K, Na, and NH4.
North Carolina Soil Test Div. (Mimeo, 1953). North Carolina Dept.
Agric. Raleigh, NC.

MSTAT 4.0. 1985. Users Guide to MSTAT, Version 4.0. Michigan
State University, Lansing.

Walsh, L.M. 1971. Instrumental methods of Analysis of Soil and
Plant Tissue. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Madison, Wis.








Table 1. Analysis of yard waste compost used on the Haufler farm
and Agronomy farm vegetable experiments in 1993. and 1994


Analysis
DM g/kg
OM g/kg
C g/kg
N g/kg
C:N ratio
pH chopped
pH ground
Ca g/kg
Mg g/kg
K g/kg
P g/kg
Cu mg/kg
Fe mg/kg
Mn mg/kg
Zn mg/kg


Aqron/Haufler
1993A
507.0
665.0
335.0
9.2
36.4

7.0
23.0
2.0
3.2
1.9
16.3
1473.0
142.0
112.0


Aqron.
1994B
498.0
592.0
313.0
9.1
34.4
7.5
7.1


34.1
1.9
2.9
1.8
18.0
1825.0
188.0
118.0


DM = dry matter; OM = organic matter in DM; chopped = compost
samples were chopped into coarse particles using a grinder;
ground = sub-samples of the chopped samples were ground with a
Wiley mill to pass a 2 mm stainless steel screen. Values are the
average of four replications. The source of the 4 to 6 month
old, compost was Wood Resource Recovery, Gainesville, Florida.

A = < 5 cm size applied to the Haufler Farm vegetable experiment
and the Agronomy (Agron.) farm vegetable experiment.
B = < 2.5 cm size applied to the Haufler Farm vegetable
experiment and the Agron. vegetable experiment.


-------







Table 2. Cumulative total squash yield from application of 269
Mg/ha yard waste compost treatments.
Yard Waste Experiment Location. 1993
Compost Treatment Amount Green Acres Haufler Farm Average

Mg/ha -------------- kg ha-2----------------

Conventional till 269 29100 16000 22500 a
Incorporate
No-till 269 19400 10200 14800 b
Mulch
Conventional till 0 24900 17400 21100 a
Control
Average 24500 14500 +

+ = Average values between experiment locations are significantly
different at the 0.10 level of probability. Average values among
yard waste compost treatments not followed by the same letter are
significantly different at the 0.05 level of probability.


Table 3. Cumulative total squash yield from application of 269
Mg/ha yard waste compost treatments, Green Acres, 1994.
Yard Waste Crop Establishment Method
Compost Treatment Amount Transplanted Seeded Average

Mg/ha --------------kg ha-----------------

Conventional till 269 18900 15300 17100 a
Incorporate
No-till 269 14800 9800 12300 ab
Mulch
Conventional till 0 8100 5200 6700 b
Control
Average 13900 10100 *

* = Average values between crop establishment methods are
significantly different at the 0.05 level of probability.
Average values among yard waste compost treatments not followed
by the same letter are significantly different at the 0.05 level
of probability.







Table 4. Cumulative total okra yield from application of 269
Mg/ha yard waste compost treatments.
Yard Waste Experiment Location, 1993
Compost Treatment Amount Green Acres Haufler Farm Average

Mg/ha --------------kg ha-----------------

Conventional till 269 290 a 1778 a + 1030
Incorporate
No-till 269 240 a 410 b NS 320
Mulch
Conventional till 0 359 a 600 a NS 480
Control
Average 290 930

NS = Average values between experiment locations are not
significantly different at the 0.10 level of probability. +
Average values between experiment locations are significantly
different at the 0.10 level of probability. Average values among
yard waste compost treatments within a location not followed by
the same letter are significantly different at the 0.10 level of
probability.


Table 5. Cumulative total okra yield from application of 269
Mq/ha yard waste compost treatments, Green Acres, 1994.
Yard Waste Crop Establishment Method
Compost Treatment Amount Transplanted Seeded Average

Mg/ha ------------- kg ha2-------------

Conventional till 269 2270 a 340 a 1310
Incorporate
No-till 269 450 b 30 a NS 240
Mulch
Conventional till 0 610 b 40 a NS 330
Control
Average 1110 140

NS = Average values between experiment locations are not
significantly different at the 0.10 level of probability. =
Average values between crop establishment methods are
significantly different at the 0.05 level of probability.
Average values among yard waste compost treatments within a crop
establishment method not followed by the same letter are
significantly different at the 0.10 level of probability.







Table 6. Cumulative total cowpea yield from application of 269
Mq/ha yard waste compost treatments.
Yard Waste Experiment Location, 1993
Compost Treatment Amount Green Acres Haufler Farm Average

Mg/ha -------------- kg ha2-----------------

Conventional till 269 580 490 540 a
Incorporate
No-till 269 610 600 610 a
Mulch
Conventional till 0 1010 550 780 a
Control
Average 730 550 NS

NS = Average values between experiment locations are not
significantly different at the 0.10 level of probability.
Average values among yard waste compost treatments not followed
by the same letter are significantly different at the 0.05 level
of probability.


Table 7. Cumulative total cowpea yield from application of 269
Mq/ha yard waste compost treatments, Green Acres, 1994.
Yard Waste Cowpea Variety
Compost Treatment Amount P. Purplehull Z. Cream Average

Mg/ha -------------- kg ha2-----------------

Conventional till 269 750 1620 1180 a
Incorporate
No-till 269 640 2740 1690 a
Mulch
Conventional till 0 1240 2280 1760 a
Control
Average 880 2220 *

* = Average values between crop establishment methods are
significantly different at the 0.05 level of probability.
Average values among yard waste compost treatments not followed
by the same letter are significantly different at the 0.10 level
of probability. P. = Pinkeye; Z = Zipper.








Table 8. Sweet corn Fresh yield from application of 269 Mg/ha
yard waste compost treatments, Green Acres, 1994.
Yard Waste Sweet Corn Hybrid
Compost Treatment Amount Silver Queen Festival-SH2 Average


Mg/ha ---------Fresh Stalk, kg ha2 ----------


Conventional till
Incorporate
No-till
Mulch
Conventional till
Control
Average



Conventional till
Incorporate
No-till
Mulch
Conventional till
Control
Average


269

269

0


14100

15500

10700

13400


17100

16300

12000


15600 a

15900 a

11400 b


15100 *


Mg/ha --------- Fresh Ear, kg ha2 ----------


269

269

0


11500

10900

9700

10700


11600

12700

8700


11500 a

11800 a

9200 b


11000 NS


Mg/ha -------- Fresh Plant, kg ha2 ----------


Conventional till
Incorporate
No-till
Mulch
Conventional till
Control
Average


269

269

0


25600

26400

20400

24100


28600

28900

20700


27100 a

27700 a

20600 b


26100 +


*,+,NS = Average values between corn hybrids are significantly
different at the 0.05 or 0.10 level of probability or are not
significantly different, respectively. Average values among yard
waste compost treatments not followed by the same letter are
significantly different at the 0.05 level of probability.







Table 9. Sweet corn dry
Mq/ha yard waste compost
Yard Waste
Compost Treatment Amount


matter yield from application of 269
treatments, Green Acres, 1994.
Sweet Corn Hybrid
Silver Oueen Festival-SH2 Averaae


Mg/ha --------- Dry Stalk, kg ha2 -----------


Conventional till
Incorporate
No-till
Mulch
Conventional till
Control
Average


269

269

0


4200

4400

2700

3800


4900

4500

3000


4600 a

4500 a

2900 b


4100 *


Mg/ha ---------- Dry Ear, kg ha ------------


Conventional till
Incorporate
No-till
Mulch
Conventional till
Control
Average


269

269

0


2720

2680

2220

2540


3400

3730

2490


3060 a

3210 a

2360 b


3210 *


Mg/ha --------- Dry Plant, kg ha2 -----------


Conventional till
Incorporate
No-till
Mulch
Conventional till
Control
Average


269

269

0


6900

7100

5000

6300


8300

8300

5500


7600 a

7700 a

5200 b


7400 *


* = Average values between corn hybrids are significantly
different at the 0.05 level of probability. Average values among
yard waste compost treatments not followed by the same letter are
significantly different at the 0.05 level of probability.


---


Sive Oen esivlSH Aera







Table 10. Soil analysis (0 to 20 cm depth) for squash studies, 1993 and 1994.
Variable Compost Incorporated Compost for a Mulch Control-no Compost
Analyzed Unit 2/4/93 2/6/94 6/15/94 2/4/93 2/6/94 6/15/94 2/4/93 2/6/92 6/15/94

------------------------------------ Green Acres Agronomy Farm----------------------


g/kg
mg/kg


mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
meq/100g


12.3
350
6.7
7.9
442
48
20
7.6
80
0.12
9.50
3.74
4.28
5.35


31.5
683
7.2
7.9
1833
135
80
4.4
123
0.20
7.40
11.50
5.98
11.51


23.6
613
7.3
7.8
2110
140
34
14.6
133
0.68
2.70
13.10
6.79
13.25


12.3
350
6.7
7.9
442
48
20
7.6
80
0.12
9.50
3.74
4.28
5.35


24.2
785
7.2
7.9
1335
105
77
3.8
110
0.36
7.80
8.60
4.33
8.98


20.0
725
7.3
7.8
1517
115
44
12.6
126
0.64
2.60
10.70
5.34
10.45


12.3
350
6.7
7.9
442
48
20
7.6
80
0.12
9.50
3.74
4.28
5.35


12.6
390
6.7
7.9
578
58
25
2.7
89
0.49
10.10
4.67
2.49
4.61


12.1
376
7.0
8.0
689
75
25
11.2
109
0.99
3.90
6.53
4.27
5.96


---- ------------------------------------- Haufler Farm ---------------------------------


g/kg 17.5
mg/kg 515
-- 6.3
--- 7.5
mg/kg 586
mg/kg 62
mg/kg 114
mg/kg 9.2
mg/kg 86
mg/kg 0.23
mg/kg 15.30
mg/kg 5.77
mg/kg 22.16
meq/100g 7.78


32.8
1148
6.7
7.7
1828
151
262
6.0
135
0.47
14.50
14.20
12.02
13.30


26.1
798
6.4
7.6
1369
106
152
13.0
98
0.38
1.50
9.64
8.01
11.37


17.5 34.7
515 1080
6.3 6.6
7.5 7.7
586 1832
62 146
114 237
9.2 5.6
86 131
0.23 0.33
15.30 14.40
5.77 12.90
22.16 9.04
7.78 13.51


OM
N
pH
BpH
Ca
Mg
K
Na
P
Cu
Fe
Mn
Zn
CEC


OM
N
pH
BpH
Ca
Mg
K
Na
P
Cu
Fe
Mn
Zn
CEC


23.6
1144
6.0
7.5
983
88
152
13.6
103
0.42
1.70
9.66
7.73
9.82


17.5
515
6.3
7.5
586
62
114
9.2
86
0.23
15.30
5.77
22.16
7.78


17.2
645
5.6
7.6
458
56
133
3.5
91
0.58
20.80
7.61
7.15
6.37


16.7
654
5.6
7.5
407
38
97
8.6
86
0.59
2.30
8.52
7.59
6.56







Table 11. Soil analysis (0 to 20 cm depth) for okra studies 1993 and 1994.
Variable Compost Incorporated Compost for a Mulch Control-no Compost
Analyzed Unit 2/4/93 2/6/94 6/15/94 2/4/93 2/6/94 6/15/94 2/4/93 2/6/92 6/15/94

---------------------------------------Green Acres Agronomy Farm------------------------

OM g/kg 12.3 28.3 25.8 12.3 23.4 24.6 12.3 13.5 12.3
N mg/kg 350 748 510 350 990 693 350 373 391
pH ---- 6.7 7.3 7.1 6.7 7.2 7.3 6.7 6.9 6.8
BpH ---- 7.9 7.9 7.8 7.9 7.9 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.8
Ca mg/kg 442 2065 2207 442 1472 1689 442 591 635
Mg mg/kg 48 157 140 48 123 118 48 67 70
K mg/kg 20 91 50 20 71 49 20 23 29
Na mg/kg 7.6 5.2 16.8 7.6 3.8 15.3 7.6 2.7 12.2
P mg/kg 80 135 136 80 103 105 80 80 102
Cu mg/kg 0.12 0.30 0.81 0.12 0.42 0.74 0.12 0.54 1.06
Fe mg/kg 9.50 9.00 3.20 9.50 7.70 2.90 9.50 8.40 4.30
Mn mg/kg 3.74 12.80 13.50 3.74 8.78 10.10 3.74 4.59 6.76
Zn mg/kg 4.28 5.93 8.20 4.28 5.04 7.12 4.28 2.47 7.07
CEC meq/100g 5.35 12.93 13.80 5.35 9.62 11.16 5.35 4.89 5.93

--------------------------------------------Haufler Farm --------------------------

OM g/kg 17.5 35.0 37.0 17.5 36.7 24.2 17.5 17.0 17.8
N mg/kg 515 980 782 515 1008 817 515 640 577
pH ---- 6.3 6.7 6.6 6.3 6.5 6.1 6.3 5.8 5.7
BpH ---- 7.5 7.7 7.7 7.5 7.7 7.6 7.5 7.6 7.6
Ca mg/kg 586 1811 2130 586 1824 1202 586 580 589
Mg mg/kg 62 154 162 62 151 101 62 78 70
K mg/kg 114 270 202 114 234 142 114 150 144
Na mg/kg 9.2 6.0 13.5 9.2 5.5 13.6 9.2 3.4 10.9
P mg/kg 86 131 132 86 120 97 86 106 97
Cu mg/kg 0.23 0.43 0.45 0.23 0.53 0.44 0.23 0.66 0.79
Fe mg/kg 15.30 13.40 1.80 15.30 15.00 1.80 15.30 23.30 3.10
Mn mg/kg 5.77 13.50 14.60 5.77 13.70 10.70 5.77 8.71 9.20
Zn mg/kg 22.16 9.91 14.90 22.16 10.10 8.71 22.16 7.66 8.95
CEC meq/100g 7.78 13.26 15.22 7.78 13.32 10.51 7.78 7.17 7.54







Table 12. Soil analysis (0 to 20 cm depth) for cowpea studies, 1993 and 1994.
Variable Compost Incorporated Compost for a Mulch Control-no Compost
Analyzed Unit 2/4/93 2/6/94 6/15/94 2/4/93 2/6/94 6/15/94 2/4/93 2/6/92 6/15/94

------------------------------------ Green Acres Agronomy Farm-------------------------

OM g/kg 12.3 30.5 26.6 12.3 25.4 23.6 12.3 12.3 11.1
N mg/kg 350 753 639 350 870 677 350 375 360
pH ---- 6.7 7.3 7.2 6.7 7.2 7.4 6.7 6.8 7.0
BpH ---- 7.9 7.9 7.8 7.9 7.9 7.8 7.9 7.9 7.8
Ca mg/kg 442 1932 1811 442 1536 1555 442 523 640
Mg mg/kg 48 145 123 48 122 115 48 57 69
K mg/kg 20 81 38 20 72 38 20 20 27
Na mg/kg 7.6 4.7 12.5 7.6 4.3 13.2 7.6 2.5 12.2
P mg/kg 80 128 123 80 106 109 80 80 100
Cu mg/kg 0.12 0.21 0.69 0.12 0.19 0.60 0.12 0.40 0.96
Fe mg/kg 9.50 6.70 2.80 9.50 7.10 2.40 9.50 8.20 3.80
Mn mg/kg 3.74 12.50 11.60 3.74 9.29 9.83 3.74 4.00 5.70
Zn mg/kg 4.28 6.43 6.16 4.28 4.33 5.32 4.28 2.08 3.80
CEC meq/100g 5.35 12.11 11.59 5.35 9.90 10.15 5.35 4.09 5.56

------------------------------------------- Haufler Farm --------------------------

OM g/kg 17.5 33.2 28.3 17.5 38.8 27.8 17.5 18.0 19.2
N mg/kg 515 1078 960 515 1043 938 515 680 660
pH ---- 6.3 6.6 6.4 6.3 6.6 6.3 6.3 5.6 5.7
BpH ---- 7.5 7.7 7.6 7.5 7.7 7.6 7.5 7.6 7.5
Ca mg/kg 586 1742 1401 586 2157 1824 586 565 486
Mg mg/kg 62 146 109 62 170 144 62 72 57
K mg/kg 114 243 144 114 256 206 114 154 113
Na mg/kg 9.2 5.3 11.8 9.2 6.3 13.6 9.2 3.4 10.2
P mg/kg 86 139 109 86 132 117 86 108 96
Cu mg/kg 0.23 0.50 0.37 0.23 0.50 0.39 0.23 0.69 0.59
Fe mg/kg 15.30 14.50 1.50 15.30 12.20 1.60 15.30 25.90 2.40
Mn mg/kg 5.77 13.10 10.50 5.77 13.60 12.70 5.77 9.02 8.88
Zn mg/kg 22.16 10.00 8.50 22.16 10.20 10.30 22.16 7'.95 8.00
CEC meq/100g 7.78 12.87 11.88 7.78 15.18 14.10 7.78 7.32 7.62







Table 13. Soil analysis (0 to 20 cm depth) for sweet corn studies 1993 and 1994.
Variable Compost Incorporated Compost for a Mulch Control-no Compost
Analyzed Unit 2/4/93 2/6/94 6/15/94 2/4/93 2/6/94 6/15/94 2/4/93 2/6/92 6/15/94

----------------------------------------- Green Acres Agronomy Farm------------------

OM g/kg 12.3 32.6 30.3 12.3 29.3 23.6 12.3 14.3 12.0
N mg/kg 350 868 672 350 920 876 350 463 375
pH --- 6.7 7.3 6.8 6.7 7.2 7.2 6.7 7.1 6.9
BpH ---- 7.9 7.9 7.3 7.9 7.9 7.8 7.9 7.9 7.8
Ca mg/kg 442 2180 2441 442 1733 1661 442 705 563
Mg mg/kg 48 155 160 48 133 122 48 76 53
K mg/kg 20 82 53 20 75 43 20 25 28
Na mg/kg 7.6 3.7 15.3 7.6 4.1 12.6 7.6 3.1 12.1
P mg/kg 80 135 147 80 117 121 80 102 111
Cu mg/kg 0.12 0.20 0.83 0.12 0.29 0.81 0.12 0.34 0.90
Fe mg/kg 9.50 7.30 3.30 9.50 8.10 3.20 9.50 9.70 3.50
Mn mg/kg 3.74 13.70 14.30 3.74 10.50 10.80 3.74 5.05 5.35
Zn mg/kg 4.28 6.60 9.33 4.28 5.26 7.36 4.28 2.30 4.13
CEC meq/100g 5.35 13.51 15.30 5.35 11.14 11.13 5.35 5.33 5.34

------------------------------------------------Haufler Farm---------------------------

OM g/kg 17.5 33.0 29.6 17.5 38.3 30.3 17.5 17.7 18.7
N mg/kg 515 1105 873 515 1028 982 515 623 640
pH ---- 6.3 6.7 6.1 6.3 6.6 6.2 6.3 5.6 5.6
BpH ---- 7.5 7.7 7.6 7.5 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.6 7.5
Ca mg/kg 586 1815 1552 586 2196 1392 586 508 484
Mg mg/kg 62 144 123 62 175 125 62 63 58
K mg/kg 114 214 164 114 234 191 114 167 120
Na mg/kg 9.2 5.5 12.2 9.2 6.1 14.2 9.2 3.2 11.6
P mg/kg 86 129 126 86 134 108 86 109 99
Cu mg/kg 0.23 0.41 0.57 0.23 0.37 0.44 0.23 0.81 0.82
Fe mg/kg 15.30 12.60 4.90 15.30 11.90 1.80 15.30 31.60 3.30
Mn mg/kg 5.77 13.30 13.70 5.77 14.30 11.80 5.77 8.70 10.10
Zn mg/kg 22.16 9.82 14.43 22.16 11.30 10.50 22.16 9.17 14.10
CEC meq/100g 7.78 13.15 12.68 7.78 15.28 12.51 7.78 7.11 7.64








Table 14.
densities

Compost
treatment


Effect of yard
of Criconemella
Compost
Amount
(Mg/ha)


waste compost treatments on initial (Pi) and final (Pf)
spp. on four crops at two sites in north Florida, 1993.
Nematodes per 100 cm3 soil
Sweet corn Cowpea Squash
Pi Pf Pi Pf Pi Pf Pi


Green Acres Site


Incorporated
Mulch
Control


117
108
180


Haufler Site


Incorporated
Mulch
Control


269
269
0


100
156
214


1,443
1,517
3,887


Data are means of four replications. Within a
letter are not different (P s 0.05), according
letters in a column indicate no differences at


174
98
173


350
307
504


176
131
389


230
206
422


111 483 b
253 397 b
307 1,327 a


site, means in columns followed by the same
to Duncan's multiple-range test. No
P : 0.10.


269
269
0


1,262
879
624


Okra
Pf


200
91
242


137
49
156


124
166
286


391
112
129


180
184
178


920
654
440







Table 15. Effect of yard waste compost treatments on initial (Pi) and final (Pf)
densities of Meloidogyne incognita on four crops at two sites in north Florida, 1993.
Compost Nematodes per 100 cm3 soil
Compost amount Sweet corn Cowpea Squash Okra
treatment (Mg/ha) Pi Pf Pi Pf Pi Pf Pi Pf


Green Acres Site


Incorporated
Mulch
Control


269
269
0


89
118
61


540
719
629


68 1,247
901,361
621,532


48 988
100 876
118 1,332


Haufler Site


Incorporated
Mulch
Control


269
269
0


350
499
209


171,282 a
12 499 b
13 226- b


10 534 ab
12 1,505 a
8 180 b


16 2,180 a
34 258 b
14 1,795 a


78
446
102


Data are means of four replications. Within a site, means in columns followed by the same
letter are not different (P : 0.05 on squash, okra; P 5 0.10 on cowpea), according to
Duncan's multiple-range test. No letters in a column indicate no differences at P s 0.10







Table 16. Effect of yard waste compost treatments on initial (Pi) and final (Pf)
densities of Paratrichodorus minor on four crops at two sites in north Florida, 1993.
Compost Nematodes per 100 cm3 soil
Compost amount Sweet corn Cowpea Squash Okra
treatment (Mg/ha) Pi Pf Pi Pf Pi Pf Pi Pf


Green Acres Site

Incorporated 269 14 16 7 14 7 4 7 17
Mulch 269 6 15 8 10 15 10 10 8
Control 0 7 32 10 11 10 17 8 12

Haufler Site

Incorporated 269 18 138 14 57 16 22 15 144
Mulch 269 11 162 6 154 14 53 11 205
Control 0 10 95 19 121 22 37 11 160


Data are means of four replications. No treatment differences (P 0.10) on any crop at
either site.








Table 17. Effect of yard waste compost treatments on initial (Pi) and final (Pf)
densities of Pratylenchus spp. on four crops at two sites in north Florida, 1993.
Nematodes per 100 cm3 soil
Sweet corn Cowpea Squash Okra
treatment (Mg/ha) Pi Pf Pi Pf Pi Pf Pi Pf


Green Acres Site

Incorporated 269 100 167 138 36 84 36 70 14
Mulch 269 116 238 73 26 144 58 106 35
Control 0 90 358 80 46 121 76 89 32

Haufler Site

Incorporated 269 26 153 23 32 36 29 32 87
Mulch 269 53 211 46 28 36 28 70 32
Control 0 26 118 62 48 33 35 42 80

Data are means of four replications. No treatment differences (P : 0.10) on any crop at
either site.







Table 18.
nnnl]a+tinn


Effect of yard waste compost treatments and establishment method on final
densities of Criconemella s on s ua 4


Compost Nematodes per 100 cm3 soil
Compost amount Squash Okra
treatment (Mg/ha) Transplanted Seeded Mean Transplanted Seeded Mean


Green Acres Site

Incorporated 269 118 79 98 93 160 126

Mulch 269 44 70 57 290 218 254

Control 0 114 223 168 341 371 356

Mean 92 124 241 250

No differences among compost treatments or between establishment methods at P < 0.10).








Table 19.
population

Compost
Treatment


Effect of yard waste compost treatment and crop establishment method on final
densities of Meloidogyne incognita on squash and okra, 30 June 1994.
Nematode Nematodes per 100 cm3 soil
amount Squash Okra
(Mg/ha) Transplant Seeded Mean Transplant Seeded Mean


Incorporated 269 416 303 360 330 94 212

Mulch 269 270 362 316 276 206 241

Control 0 460 340 400 106 110 108

Mean -- 382 335 237 137*


*Mean values between crop establishment methods differ at P 0.10. No differences among
compost treatments at P : 0.10.








Table 20.
population


Effect of yard waste compost treatment and crop establishment method on final
densities of Paratrichodorus min 4


Compost Nematodes per 100 cm3 soil
amount Squash Okra
Compost (Mg/ha) Incorporate Seeded Mean Incorporate Seeded Mean


Incorporated 269 1.5 0.5 1.0 b 4.0 3.2 3.6

Mulch 269 3.8 2.8 3.3 ab 5.0 6.8 5.9

Control 0 6.2 8.2 7.2 a 5.8 3.0 4.4

Mean -- 3.8 3.8 4.9 4.3

On squash, mean values among compost treatments not followed by the same letter differ at
P < 0.05. No differences between crop establishment methods at P 0.10.








Table 21. Effect of yard waste compost treatment and crop establishment method on final
population densities of Pratylenchus spp. on squash and okra, 30 June 1994.
Compost Nematodes per 100 cm3 soil
Compost amount Squash Okra
treatment (Mg/ha) Transplant Seeded Mean Transplant Seeded Mean


Incorporated 269 0.5 2.2 1.4 b 6.5 2.2 4.4 b

Mulch 269 3.5 1.2 2.4 ab 7.0 3.2 5.1 b

Control 0 3.5 4.8 4.1 a 14.2 10.5 12.4 a

Mean -- 2.5 2.7 9.2 5.3*

*Mean values between crop establishment methods differ at P < 0.05.
Mean values among compost treatments not followed by the same letter differ at P < 0.05.







y -101 + 4.81x 0.07061x^2 + 0.00031x^3


y = -195 + 10.x 0.165x'2 + 0.0008x^3


r


r^2 = 0.97
^2 = 0.96


/


* Incorporate
m Mulch
o Control


1.00
n t -


u.uu


Days After


Planting


Figure 1. Weekly yield of seed sown squash from
269 Mg/ha incorporated and mulched yard waste
compost treatments versus the control, Agronomy
Farm, 1993.


8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00


CM
0)

a.


40


47


54


61


68


75


82


I







y = 13 0.95x + 0.021x'2 0.0001x'3 r^2 = 0.99
y = -14 + 0.45x 0.0009x'2 0.00003x'3 r^2 0.90


* Incorporate
a Mulch
o Control


40


47 54 61 68 75


82


Days After Planting


Figure 2. Weekly yield of seed sown squash
from 269 Mg/ha incorporated and mulched yard
waste compost treatments versus the control,
Haufler Farm, 1993.


cVJ
E
0)


U)


5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00







y = -206.8 + 11.4x 0.203x^2 + 0.0012x^3 r^2 = 0.87
y = -142.6 + 7.977x 0.14x^2 + 0.0008x^3 r^2 = 0.99


* Incorporate
rw Mulch
o Control


48 55 62
Days After Planting


Figure 4. Weekly yield ol
269 Mg/ha incorporated
compost treatments vers
Farm


f seed sown squash from
and mulched yard waste
us the control, Agronomy
1994.


c'
<)



.
=


7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00


69




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs