Mulching with Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Compost Has Beneficial Side Effects on Vineyard Soil Compared to Mulching with Synthetic Films
<p>Experimental design. Three randomized replicates per each treatment were created, one in each treated row (rows 2, 3, and 4). Each block contained six <span class="html-italic">Vitis vinifera</span> cv. “Primitivo” plants. Rows 1 and 5, and blocks A and H were considered as borders.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Trend in weed growth, expressed as percentage of the soil covered by green canopies. The whisker indicates the standard error. Different lowercase letters indicate significantly different means between the treatments for each date (Duncan post hoc test, <span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.05). Different capital letters indicate significantly different means between the treatments with repeated measures for the entire duration of the surveys (Duncan post hoc test, <span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.05). n.s.= not significant.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Mean values ± standard errors (whiskers) of the temperature of the soil treated with the black film (T<sub>Fb</sub>) and the compost layer (T<sub>C15</sub>), of the control soil (T<sub>Ctrl</sub>) and of the air (T<sub>air</sub>), during July–September 2023. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between the means for each month (Duncan post hoc test, <span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.05). Different capital letters indicate significant differences between the means for the entire duration of the surveys (Duncan post hoc test, <span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.05).</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Diurnal pattern of the soil and air temperature. The whisker indicates the standard error. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between the three selected treatments for each hour (hsd post hoc test, <span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.05). Different capital letters indicate significant differences between treatments with repeated measures for the entire monitored period (hsd post hoc test, <span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.05). The air temperature pattern is shown for reference only.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Mean values ± standard errors (whiskers) of the temperature difference between the soil under the black film, the compost layer and the control treatments and the air temperature, in relation to T<sub>air</sub> (1 °C intervals). Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between ΔT<sub>Fb</sub>, ΔT<sub>C15</sub> and ΔT<sub>Ctrl</sub> means for each T<sub>air</sub> value (Duncan post hoc test, <span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.05). Different capital letters indicate significant differences between ΔT<sub>Fb</sub>, ΔT<sub>C15</sub> and ΔT<sub>Ctrl</sub> means for the entire range of T<sub>air</sub> values (Duncan post hoc test, <span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.05).</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Means ± standard errors (whiskers) of the tea bag index, measured in two periods: April–June (panel (<b>A</b>)) and July–September (panel (<b>B</b>)), for the treatments “Film-black”, “Compost” (15) and “Control”. Different lowercase letters indicate significantly different means between treatments for each type of tea (Duncan post hoc test, <span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.05). Different capital letters indicate significantly different means between treatments with repeated measures over the two periods for each type of tea separately (Duncan post hoc test, <span class="html-italic">p</span> < 0.05).</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Vineyard Localization and Climatic Conditions
2.2. Experimental Plan
- Film-black: mulching with a traditional black PE film;
- Film-b/w: mulching with a black and white biodegradable film;
- Compost (8): mulching with municipal solid waste compost (MSW compost)—8 kg plant−1, 4 cm thick;
- Compost (15): mulching with MSW compost—15 kg plant−1, 6.5 cm thick;
- Compost (22): mulching with MSW compost—22 kg plant−1, 10 cm thick;
- Control (no mulching).
2.3. Canopy Cover/Weed Control
2.4. Soil Temperature
2.5. Decomposition of Organic Matter (Tea Bag Index)
2.6. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Weed Control and Treatment Selection
3.2. Soil Temperature
3.3. Decomposition of Organic Matter (Tea Bag Index)
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Prosdocimi, M.; Tarolli, P.; Cerdà, A. Mulching practices for reducing soil water erosion: A review. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2016, 161, 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bodner, G.; Nakhforoosh, A.; Kaul, H.-P. Management of crop water under drought: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 401–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, L.; Dami, I.; Doohan, D. Effects of Mulching on Soil Temperature, Scion Rooting, and Soil Moisture of Mounded Grapevines. Int. J. Fruit Sci. 2015, 16, 182–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Beltagi, H.S.; Basit, A.; Mohamed, H.I.; Ali, I.; Ullah, S.; Kamel, E.A.R.; Shalaby, T.A.; Ramadan, K.M.A.; Alkhateeb, A.A.; Ghazzawy, H.S. Mulching as a Sustainable Water and Soil Saving Practice in Agriculture: A Review. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaiotti, F.; Marcuzzo, P.; Belfiore, N.; Lovat, L.; Fornasier, F.; Tomasi, D. Influence of compost addition on soil properties, root growth and vine performances of Vitis vinifera cv Cabernet sauvignon. Sci. Hortic. 2017, 225, 88–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steinmaus, S.; Elmore, C.L.; Smith, R.J.; Donaldson, D.; Weber, E.A.; Roncoroni, J.A.; Miller, P.R.M. Mulched cover crops as an alternative to conventional weed management systems in vineyards. Weed Res. 2008, 48, 273–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mairata, A.; Labarga, D.; Puelles, M.; Huete, J.; Portu, J.; Rivacoba, L.; Pou, A. The organic mulches in vineyards exerted an influence on spontaneous weed cover and plant biodiversity. Eur. J. Agron. 2023, 151, 126997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bajwa, A.A.; Mahajan, G.; Chauhan, B.S. Nonconventional Weed Management Strategies for Modern Agriculture. Weed Sci. 2017, 63, 723–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbas, T.; Zahir, Z.A.; Naveed, M.; Kremer, R.J. Limitations of Existing Weed Control Practices Necessitate Development of Alternative Techniques Based on Biological Approaches. In Advances in Agronomy; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; Volume 147, pp. 239–280. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Q.; Wang, S.; Li, L.; Inoue, M.; Xiang, J.; Qiu, G.; Jin, W. Effects of mulching and sub-surface irrigation on vine growth, berry sugar content and water use of grapevines. Agric. Water Manag. 2014, 143, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gil, P.M.; Lobos, P.; Durán, K.; Olguín, J.; Cea, D.; Schaffer, B. Partial root-zone drying irrigation, shading, or mulching effects on water savings, productivity and quality of ‘Syrah’ grapevines. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 240, 478–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phogat, V.; Pitt, T.; Stevens, R.M.; Cox, J.W.; Šimůnek, J.; Petrie, P.R. Assessing the role of rainfall redirection techniques for arresting the land degradation under drip irrigated grapevines. J. Hydrol. 2020, 587, 125000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romero, P.; Navarro, J.M.; Ordaz, P.B. Towards a sustainable viticulture: The combination of deficit irrigation strategies and agroecological practices in Mediterranean vineyards. A review and update. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 259, 107216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prosdocimi, M.; Jordan, A.; Tarolli, P.; Keesstra, S.; Novara, A.; Cerda, A. The immediate effectiveness of barley straw mulch in reducing soil erodibility and surface runoff generation in Mediterranean vineyards. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 547, 323–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferrara, G.; Fracchiolla, M.; Chami, Z.A.; Camposeo, S.; Lasorella, C.; Pacifico, A.; Aly, A.; Montemurro, P. Effects of Mulching Materials on Soil and Performance of cv. Nero di Troia Grapevines in the Puglia Region, Southeastern Italy. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2012, 63, 269–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, X.; Gao, B.; Zhong, D.; Wang, L.; Borrion, A.; Huang, W.; Xu, S.; Cui, S. Closing the food waste loop: Analysis of the agronomic performance and potential of food waste disposal products. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 382, 135174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chakraborty, D.; Nagarajan, S.; Aggarwal, P.; Gupta, V.K.; Tomar, R.K.; Garg, R.N.; Sahoo, R.N.; Sarkar, A.; Chopra, U.K.; Sarma, K.S.S.; et al. Effect of mulching on soil and plant water status, and the growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in a semi-arid environment. Agric. Water Manag. 2008, 95, 1323–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kader, M.A.; Senge, M.; Mojid, M.A.; Ito, K. Recent advances in mulching materials and methods for modifying soil environment. Soil Tillage Res. 2017, 168, 155–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jordán, A.; Zavala, L.M.; Muñoz-Rojas, M. Mulching, Effects on Soil Physical Properties. In Encyclopedia of Agrophysics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 492–496. [Google Scholar]
- Blanco, I.; Loisi, R.V.; Sica, C.; Schettini, E.; Vox, G. Agricultural plastic waste mapping using GIS. A case study in Italy. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 137, 229–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mansoor, Z.; Tchuenbou-Magaia, F.; Kowalczuk, M.; Adamus, G.; Manning, G.; Parati, M.; Radecka, I.; Khan, H. Polymers Use as Mulch Films in Agriculture-A Review of History, Problems and Current Trends. Polymers 2022, 14, 5062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serrano-Ruiz, H.; Martin-Closas, L.; Pelacho, A.M. Biodegradable plastic mulches: Impact on the agricultural biotic environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 750, 141228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Briassoulis, D.; Giannoulis, A. Evaluation of the functionality of bio-based plastic mulching films. Polym. Test. 2018, 67, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meena, M.D.; Yadav, R.K.; Narjary, B.; Yadav, G.; Jat, H.S.; Sheoran, P.; Meena, M.K.; Antil, R.S.; Meena, B.L.; Singh, H.V.; et al. Municipal solid waste (MSW): Strategies to improve salt affected soil sustainability: A review. Waste Manag. 2019, 84, 38–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Crecchio, C.; Curci, M.; Mininni, R.; Ricciuti, P.; Ruggiero, P. Short-term effects of municipal solid waste compost amendments on soil carbon and nitrogen content, some enzyme activities and genetic diversity. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2001, 34, 311–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hargreaves, J.; Adl, M.; Warman, P. A review of the use of composted municipal solid waste in agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 123, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Touchaleaume, F.; Martin-Closas, L.; Angellier-Coussy, H.; Chevillard, A.; Cesar, G.; Gontard, N.; Gastaldi, E. Performance and environmental impact of biodegradable polymers as agricultural mulching films. Chemosphere 2016, 144, 433–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guerra, B.; Steenwerth, K. Influence of Floor Management Technique on Grapevine Growth, Disease Pressure, and Juice and Wine Composition: A Review. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2012, 63, 149–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winter, S.; Bauer, T.; Strauss, P.; Kratschmer, S.; Paredes, D.; Popescu, D.; Landa, B.; Guzman, G.; Gomez, J.A.; Guernion, M.; et al. Effects of vegetation management intensity on biodiversity and ecosystem services in vineyards: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Ecol. 2018, 55, 2484–2495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gan, Y.; Siddique, K.H.M.; Turner, N.C.; Li, X.-G.; Niu, J.-Y.; Yang, C.; Liu, L.; Chai, Q. Ridge-Furrow Mulching Systems—An Innovative Technique for Boosting Crop Productivity in Semiarid Rain-Fed Environments. Adv. Agron. 2013, 118, 429–476. [Google Scholar]
- Jàuregui, J.M.; Delbino, F.G.; Brance Bonvini, M.A.I.; Berhongaray, G. Determining yield of forage crops using the Canopeo mobile phone app. J. N. Z. Grassl. 2019, 81, 41–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mulumba, L.N.; Lal, R. Mulching effects on selected soil physical properties. Soil Tillage Res. 2008, 98, 106–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keuskamp, J.A.; Dingemans, B.J.J.; Lehtinen, T.; Sarneel, J.M.; Hefting, M.M.; Muller-Landau, H. Tea Bag Index: A novel approach to collect uniform decomposition data across ecosystems. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2013, 4, 1070–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chassain, J.; Vieublé Gonod, L.; Chenu, C.; Joimel, S. Role of different size classes of organisms in cropped soils: What do litterbag experiments tell us? A meta-analysis. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2021, 162, 108394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rubel, F.; Kottek, M. World Map of the Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification. Available online: https://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/ (accessed on 24 April 2024).
- Giorgi, F.; Lionello, P. Climate change projections for the Mediterranean region. Glob. Planet. Change 2008, 63, 90–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martano, P.; Elefante, C.; Grasso, F. Ten years water and energy surface balance from the CNR-ISAC micrometeorological station in Salento peninsula (southern Italy). Adv. Sci. Res. 2015, 12, 121–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donateo, A.; Conte, M.; Grasso, F.M.; Contini, D. Seasonal and diurnal behaviour of size segregated particles fluxes in a suburban area. Atmos. Environ. 2019, 219, 117052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Donateo, A.; Palusci, O.; Pappaccogli, G.; Esposito, A.; Martilli, A.; Santiago, J.L.; Buccolieri, R. Analysis of urban heat island and human thermal comfort in a Mediterranean city: A case study of Lecce (Italy). Sustain. Cities Soc. 2023, 98, 104849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mendes, J.; Pinho, T.M.; Neves dos Santos, F.; Sousa, J.J.; Peres, E.; Boaventura-Cunha, J.; Cunha, M.; Morais, R. Smartphone Applications Targeting Precision Agriculture Practices—A Systematic Review. Agronomy 2020, 10, 855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Middelanis, T.; Pohl, C.M.; Looschelders, D.; Hamer, U. New directions for the Tea Bag Index: Alternative teabags and concepts can advance citizen science. Ecol. Res. 2023, 38, 690–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costantini, E.A.C.; Castaldini, M.; Diago, M.P.; Giffard, B.; Lagomarsino, A.; Schroers, H.J.; Priori, S.; Valboa, G.; Agnelli, A.E.; Akca, E.; et al. Effects of soil erosion on agro-ecosystem services and soil functions: A multidisciplinary study in nineteen organically farmed European and Turkish vineyards. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 223, 614–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guzmán, G.; Cabezas, J.M.; Sánchez-Cuesta, R.; Lora, Á.; Bauer, T.; Strauss, P.; Winter, S.; Zaller, J.G.; Gómez, J.A. A field evaluation of the impact of temporary cover crops on soil properties and vegetation communities in southern Spain vineyards. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 272, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrés, P.; Doblas-Miranda, E.; Silva-Sánchez, A.; Mattana, S.; Font, F. Physical, Chemical, and Biological Indicators of Soil Quality in Mediterranean Vineyards under Contrasting Farming Schemes. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferrante, M.; Lamelas-López, L.; Nunes, R.; Monjardino, P.; Lopes, D.J.H.; Soares, A.O.; Lövei, G.L.; Borges, P.A.V. A simultaneous assessment of multiple ecosystem services and disservices in vineyards and orchards on Terceira Island, Azores. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2022, 330, 107909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pingel, M.; Reineke, A.; Leyer, I. Disentangling the mixed effects of soil management on microbial diversity and soil functions: A case study in vineyards. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 3568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Steiner, M.; Pingel, M.; Falquet, L.; Giffard, B.; Griesser, M.; Leyer, I.; Preda, C.; Uzman, D.; Bacher, S.; Reineke, A. Local conditions matter: Minimal and variable effects of soil disturbance on microbial communities and functions in European vineyards. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0280516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ilyas, M.A.; Rehman, F.U.; Ilyas, I.; Kalsoom, M.; Bilal, M.T.; Gull, M.; Ilyas, I.; Iqbal, R.U.; Ilahi, H.; Shakeel, M.A.; et al. A detailed review of mulching: An important technique in agricultural crop production. Asian J. Adv. Res. 2021, 4, 492–499. [Google Scholar]
- Vox, G.; Loisi, R.V.; Blanco, I.; Mugnozza, G.S.; Schettini, E. Mapping of Agriculture Plastic Waste. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2016, 8, 583–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, K.Y.; Fahey, D.J.; Newell, M.; Barchia, I. Using Composted Mulch in Vineyards—Effects on Grape Yield and Quality. Int. J. Fruit Sci. 2010, 10, 441–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cabrera-Pérez, C.; Llorens, J.; Escolà, A.; Royo-Esnal, A.; Recasens, J. Organic mulches as an alternative for under-vine weed management in Mediterranean irrigated vineyards: Impact on agronomic performance. Eur. J. Agron. 2023, 145, 126798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Su, Y.; Li, X.; Cao, Z.; Gao, Z.; Du, Y. Effects of Long-Term High Temperatures in the Root Zone on the Physiological Characteristics of Grapevine Leaves and Roots: Implications for Viticulture Practices. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prescott, C.E. Litter decomposition: What controls it and how can we alter it to sequester more carbon in forest soils? Biogeochemistry 2010, 101, 133–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wardle, D.; Yeates, G.; Barker, G.; Bonner, K. The influence of plant litter diversity on decomposer abundance and diversity. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2006, 38, 1052–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eilers, K.G.; Lauber, C.L.; Knight, R.; Fierer, N. Shifts in bacterial community structure associated with inputs of low molecular weight carbon compounds to soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2010, 42, 896–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darriaut, R.; Lailheugue, V.; Masneuf-Pomarede, I.; Marguerit, E.; Martins, G.; Compant, S.; Ballestra, P.; Upton, S.; Ollat, N.; Lauvergeat, V. Grapevine rootstock and soil microbiome interactions: Keys for a resilient viticulture. Hortic. Res. 2022, 9, uhac019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vimal, S.R.; Singh, J.S.; Arora, N.K.; Singh, S. Soil-Plant-Microbe Interactions in Stressed Agriculture Management: A Review. Pedosphere 2017, 27, 177–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daebeler, A.; Petrová, E.; Kinz, E.; Grausenburger, S.; Berthold, H.; Sandén, T.; Angel, R. Pairing litter decomposition with microbial community structures using the Tea Bag Index (TBI). Soil 2022, 8, 163–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamidov, A.; Helming, K.; Bellocchi, G.; Bojar, W.; Dalgaard, T.; Ghaley, B.B.; Hoffmann, C.; Holman, I.; Holzkamper, A.; Krzeminska, D.; et al. Impacts of climate change adaptation options on soil functions: A review of European case-studies. Land Degrad. Dev. 2018, 29, 2378–2389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sahoo, G.; Wani, A.M. Effect of Climate Change on Land Degradation. Int. J. Innov. Eng. Manag. Res. 2020, 9, 483–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Month | Air Temperature (°C) | Air Relative Humidity (%) | Precipitation (mm) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tavg | Tmax | Tmin | |||
Jan-23 | 9.6 | 10.2 | 9.1 | 90.4 | 77.4 |
Feb-23 | 8.1 | 8.7 | 7.6 | 78.9 | 13.4 |
Mar-23 | 11.5 | 12.1 | 10.9 | 81.9 | 50.2 |
Apr-23 | 12.9 | 13.5 | 12.3 | 83.4 | 155.6 |
May-23 | 18.4 | 18.9 | 18.0 | 83.7 | 60.6 |
Jun-23 | 22.8 | 23.4 | 22.1 | 77.9 | 29.0 |
Jul-23 | 27.5 | 28.1 | 26.9 | 63.8 | 0.0 |
Aug-23 | 26.3 | 26.8 | 25.8 | 67.7 | 1.2 |
Sep-23 | 24.0 | 24.5 | 23.4 | 73.8 | 7.4 |
Oct-23 | 19.9 | 20.5 | 19.3 | 83.2 | 49.4 |
Nov-23 | 14.5 | 15.1 | 14.2 | 84.5 | 154.2 |
Dec-23 | 10.2 | 10.8 | 9.4 | 89.5 | 113.8 |
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. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Blanco, I.; Cardinale, M.; Domanda, C.; Pappaccogli, G.; Romano, P.; Zorzi, G.; Rustioni, L. Mulching with Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Compost Has Beneficial Side Effects on Vineyard Soil Compared to Mulching with Synthetic Films. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 769. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10070769
Blanco I, Cardinale M, Domanda C, Pappaccogli G, Romano P, Zorzi G, Rustioni L. Mulching with Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Compost Has Beneficial Side Effects on Vineyard Soil Compared to Mulching with Synthetic Films. Horticulturae. 2024; 10(7):769. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10070769
Chicago/Turabian StyleBlanco, Ileana, Massimiliano Cardinale, Corrado Domanda, Gianluca Pappaccogli, Piergiorgio Romano, Gianni Zorzi, and Laura Rustioni. 2024. "Mulching with Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Compost Has Beneficial Side Effects on Vineyard Soil Compared to Mulching with Synthetic Films" Horticulturae 10, no. 7: 769. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10070769