Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2017, 16(4): 947–958

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Ground cover management and farmyard manure effects on soil

nitrogen dynamics, productivity and economics of organically
grown lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. subsp. secalina)

Manojlović Maja1, Čabilovski Ranko1, Nikolić Ljiljana1, Džigurski Dejana1, Šeremešić Srđan1, Bavec
Martina2

1
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad 21000, Serbia
2
Faculty of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Maribor, Maribor 2000, Slovenia

Abstract
Ground cover management and farmyard manure (FYM) management have important roles in organic lettuce produc-
tion. However, there is not enough information about their combined effects. In order to assess the effects of individual
and combined ground cover and FYM management on soil mineral N (NH4-N and NO3-N) dynamics, lettuce yield and
economics in organic farming, a two-year field experiment was conducted on a certified organic farm in Kisač (Vojvodina,
Serbia). The experiment had a two-factorial split-plot completely randomized block design. FYM was applied on the half
of the experimental field as a whole-plot factor, while ground cover management included the following four treatments: (I)
control, without ground cover management (Ø); (II) hoeing (H); (III) agrotextile cover; (IV) straw mulch (SM), which were
applied on split plots. The applied SM and AT increased soil moisture by 12.83 and 3.73%, respectively, compared to the
control treatment. FYM increased soil mineral N concentration, the lettuce fresh matter (FM) yield and nitrate concen-
tration in lettuce. However, nitrate concentration in lettuce in all treatments was below the limit required by the European
Commission (EC) (2001). The highest lettuce yield was obtained by AT (39 122 kg), followed by SM (33 925 kg), and it
was higher with FYM application by 16.85%. Hoeing did not positively affect the yield, probably due to its negative effect
on soil moisture. Additional profit was higher with FYM, showing the following decreasing order: AT>H>SM>Ø. However,
value/cost ratio (VCR) was in the order Ø>H>SM>AT on FYM fertilized plots. FYM application led to higher lettuce yield
and higher profit and VCR. In case a farm does not have FYM, SM is the best alternative due to its positive effect on the
yield and low investment costs.

Keywords: hoeing, agrotextile cover, straw mulch, farmyard manure, FYM, mulch

1. Introduction

Organic farming greatly relies on soil fertility (Forster et al.

Received 18 September, 2016 Accepted 30 December, 2016
Correspondence Maja Manojlović, Tel: +381-21-4853371, Fax:
+381-21-459761, E-mail: maja.manojlovic@polj.uns.ac.rs
© 2017, CAAS. All rights reserved. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(16)61565-4
2013). Therefore, a range of farming practices are used
to maintain it and to achieve the production goals of mini-
mizing the environmental impact, preserving the long term
sustainability of soil and reducing the use of non renewable
resources to a minimum (Watson et al. 2002; Gomiero et al.
948 Manojlović Maja et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2017, 16(4): 947–958
2011). Organic vegetable production is more intensive
compared to field crops production. Accordingly, prepara-
tion and selection of farming activities is highly important
in order to manage the resources more efficiently and
to improve productivity. Application of organic materials
(amendments), such as farmyard manure (FYM) and mulch,
are widespread in organic vegetable production. As these
measures not only increase the yield, but also improve
soil physical properties (e.g., soil structure, water holding
capacity, lowered bulk density, etc.) as well as its chemical
properties (e.g., increased soil organic matter, total carbon,
and cation exchange capacity, etc.) (Bulluck et al. 2002;
Mikha et al. 2006; Zhang et al. 2014).
Animal manures are the most common amendments ap-
plied to the soil (Watson et al. 2002). Although a number of
studies have shown that amending soils with animal manure
results in improvement of soil properties (Larney and Angers
2012), application of FYM could lead to weed spreading if
preparation and maintaining of FYM were not adequate (Lar-
ney and Blackshaw 2003). Also, uncontrolled and excessive
use of FYM, as well as other organic fertilizers, can lead to
adverse effects such as accumulation of nitrates in plants,
nitrates leaching into ground water, release of heavy metals
and harmful organic substances into soil, spread of weeds,
soil pollution with harmful microorganisms, etc. (Larney et al.
2006). In order to avoid these potentially negative aspects,
European Commission (1999) and European Commission
(1991) limit the maximum annual incorporation of organic
fertilizers to the amount equivalent to 170 kg ha–1 N.
Weeds are often recognized as the most serious threat
to organic crop production (Bàrberi 2002). Significant
research efforts have been devoted to studying different
weed control measures, including appropriate crop rotation,
timing of seeding, mechanic cultivation, mulching, flaming,
etc. (Bàrberi 2002; Ngouajio et al. 2003; Kristiansen et al.
2008; Melander et al. 2012). Weed management in lettuce
was cost-effectively achieved using tillage. Although hand
weeding and hay mulching controlled weeds well, they were
less cost-effective (Kristiansen et al. 2008). However, in
organic lettuce production it is necessary to address specific
challenges including control of soil pests, bacteriological
quality and prevalence of pathogens. According to Fischer-
Arndt and Köpke (2007), the quality of raw edible lettuce
may be decreased by applying manure since pathogens
might transfer from soil to the plants during weed control by
hoeing or as splash effects during rainfall. Using mulch is a
possible alternative to the current practices of weed control
(Jenni et al. 2004).
Mulches are used to cover soil surface and to protect
it from moisture evaporation (Tu et al. 2006), to increase
soil temperature (Jordán et al. 2011), to control weeds
and partly to provide a source of nutrients. Bàrberi et al.
(2002) showed that growing lettuce on paper or polyeth-
ylene mulches increased marketable yield and resulted in
significantly heavier heads (1.2–3.6 times) compared with
the weeded control. Recent study of Li et al. (2016) showed
that integrating a buried straw layer and plastic mulching
had a positive effect on the microbial community and im-
proved crop productivity in an arid saline soil in Mongolia.
However, several problems arising from the use of mulches
have been reported, including nutrient immobilization (es-
pecially N), phytotoxin release, an increased level of pests
and modification of soil physical regime (Leary and Defrank
2000). A few studies have shown that manure incorporation
and application of mulch had both individual and interactive
impacts on soil physical properties (Zhang et al. 2014) and
the yield (Gajri et al. 1994; Moreira et al. 2014). Recently,
agrotextile (non-woven polypropylen fiber) has been used for
covering plants, especially during the first half of vegetation
(Wadas 2016). Kosterna (2014) showed that covering plants
with a polypropylene fiber cover contributed to increased soil
temperature (by 1.2°C in the morning and by 1.8°C in the
afternoon) and soil moisture, which significantly increased
yield of broccoli compared to the control treatment.
Lettuce (Latuca sativa L.) is one of the most popular
vegetable crops, which is traditionally grown on small family
farms. Therefore, the production of lettuce is of great eco-
nomic and social importance. Production of organic lettuce
can be organized on different plot sizes since it has a short
vegetation period. Our previous research has shown that
individual use of different organic materials (FYM, guano,
soybean meal, and forage pea meal) as a source of N signifi-
cantly increased the yield of organic lettuce (Manojlović et al.
2010), which resulted in increased profit for all fertilized plots
compared to the unfertilized plot (Čabilovski et al. 2011).
Ground cover and manure managements are very import-
ant for successful vegetable production, particularly lettuce
production, but there is not enough information about their
combined effects in organic farming. Therefore, the aim of
this study was to get answers on how individual and com-
bined ground covers (hoeing, agrotextile cover and straw
mulch) and FYM management affect nitrogen dynamics,
lettuce yield and economics in organic farming.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Experimental site
The field experiments with organic lettuce were conducted
during 2009 and 2010 growing seasons at Vozar farm,
which is certified for organic production, located near Novi
Sad (the Province of Vojvodina, Serbia). The geographic
position of the farm is 45°35´ northern latitude and 19°72´
eastern longitude, 85 m above the sea level. The climate in
 Manojlović Maja et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2017, 16(4): 947–958 949

the region is continental with hot summers and cold winters.
The total monthly precipitation and average air temperature
during the experiment are given in Fig. 1.
The type of soil at the experimental site is Haplic phae-
ozem (Chernozem), formed on loess terrace, which is the
main soil type in Vojvodina (northern part of Serbia), covering
60% of the agricultural land. The experimental plot had not
been fertilized for five years before the experiment was set.
The basic chemical properties of the soil at the time when the
experiment was set are given in Table 1. The experimental
soil had neutral reaction (pH), and the medium was provided
with available phosphorus and optimally with available
potassium. The surface soil (0–30 cm) was well-provided
with organic carbon.
2.2. Experimental design
In the field experiment, lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. subsp.
secalina), the cultivar Brezolist, was grown organically. The
experiment was conducted using a two-factorial split-plot
completely randomized design: (1) FYM was applied on the
half of the experimental field as a whole-plot factor, while
(2) ground cover management included four treatments: (I)
control, without ground cover management (Ø); (II) hoeing
(H); (III) agrotextile cover; and (IV) straw mulch (SM), which
were applied on split plots. AT was a non-woven polypropyl-
ene fiber cover AGRIL 17 gsm (FIBERWEB, France). SM
was prepared from wheat stems (Triticum aestivum L. ssp.
vulgare) cut in 30–40 cm long pieces, applied in the amount
of 1 kg per square meter. The chemical properties of the
straw are presented in Table 2. Each split-plot consisted of
48 lettuce plants, planted in four rows (12 plants per row)
and four replicates. The experiment was set up on the area
of 156.6 square meter, and individual plots were 1.8 m wide
and 3 m long, while the space between the plots was 0.3 m.
FYM was applied in the amount equivalent to 170 kg ha–1
N (~15 t ha–1), which is the maximum amount of N allowed
per year in organic farming (European Commission 1999).

2009 2010 Long term average

25
Mean air temperatures (°C)

20

15

10

0
I decade II decade III decade I decade II decade III decade I decade II decade III decade

March April May

60
50
Precipitation (mm)

40
30
20
10
0
I decade II decade III decade I decade II decade III decade I decade II decade III decade

March April May

Fig. 1 Mean air temperature and total precipitation during the vegetation of lettuce.

Table 1 Basic chemical soil properties at the experimental site of organic lettuce production
pH
Year Depth (cm) CaCO3 (%) Total C (%) Total N (%) P2O5 (mg 100 g–1) K2O (mg 100 g–1)
in KCl in H2O
2009 0–30 6.61 7.57 0.36 1.96 0.23 13.8 29.7
30–60 7.63 8.77 2.56 0.97 0.12 12.6 17.7
2010 0–30 7.00 7.70 3.53 2.42 0.27 26.1 30.4
30–60 7.09 7.75 5.52 1.80 0.20 17.2 28.2
950 Manojlović Maja et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2017, 16(4): 947–958

Table 2 Chemical composition of farmyard manure (FYM) and Table 3 Dates of carrying out the cultivation practices
straw used in the field experiment Dates2)
Operation1)
Chemical properties of FYM FYM Straw 2009 2010
Dry mater (%) 63.2 91.9 Lettuce sowing 7th February 13th February
pH (in H2O) 7.72 – Soil sampling Every 2-week Every 2-week
Total N (%) 1.71 0.59 FYM/SM application 6th March 13th March
Total C (%) 32.5 41.9 Planting, AT covering 16th March 23rd March
C/N 19.0 70.7 AT removal 2-week before 2-week before
Total P2O5 (%) 2.03 0.17 harvest harvest
Total K2O (%) 2.81 0.91 Harvest period 17th May 23rd May
-, not measured. Vegetation (d) 62 58
1)
Lettuce sowing, lettuce seeds were sown in plastic containers
with a nutritious substrate; planting, young lettuce plants were
The chemical composition of the applied well-rotten dairy- grown in a greenhouse until they formed 4-6 leaves, and the
planting density was 11 plants m−2; harvest period, the lettuce
cow FYM is presented in Table 2. FYM was incorporated was harvested when it was commercially ripe.
2)
into the surface soil layer (0–30 cm) one week before plant- Every 2-week, the day from planting starting.

ing of lettuce seedling; SM was applied at the same time.

AT was used to cover plants after lettuce planting (Table 3).
The experiments were set with sprinkler irrigation, with-
out any additional fertilization during the growing seasons.
The sprinkler irrigation system was operated periodically
during the period March-May to maintain soil moisture
above 70% of the holding water capacity (18.2% of soil
moisture). In both years, garden beet root (Beta vulgaris L.
subsp. esculenta Salisb.) was the previous crop to lettuce
on the experimental plot. The data related to the cultivation
practices are summarized in Table 3.
2.3. Soil and plant sampling and analysis
Composite soil samples for analyzing the basic soil proper-
ties consisted of 25 samples and were taken from two-soil
layers (0–30 and 30–60 cm) before the experiments were
set up. Samples used to determine the mineral N content
during the lettuce vegetation were two individual samples
taken from every treatment replication. During harvesting,
the mass of 30 plants from each replication was measured
to establish the total yield, whereas the sample for deter-
mining the nitrate concentration in fresh mass consisted of
four lettuce plants.
Soil reaction was determined in a suspension of H2O and
1 mol L-1 KCl (ratio of 1:2.5, w/v), using a Metrel MA3657
pH-meter (METTLER TOLEDO, Greifensee, Switzerland).
CaCO3 content was determined volumetrically, using Schei-
bler’s calcimeter (Hedas, Serbia). Total C and N contents
were determined with a CHNS analyzer (Elementar Vario EL,
Germany). After extraction with AL-solution (0.1 mol L-1 am-
monium lactate and 0.4 mol L-1 acetic acid, pH 3.75, the ratio
of soil:solution 1:20, w/v) (Egner et al. 1960), phosphorus
concentration was measured with a spectrophotometer, and
potassium concentration with a flame photometer. Mineral
N concentration in soil during the vegetation of lettuce was
determined by Wehrmann and Scharpf’s (1979) method. The
method used to determine the nitrate concentration in lettuce
after distilled water extraction and application of phenol
disulphuric acid and ammonium hydroxide was the spec-
trophotometric method (λ, 420) (Johnson and Ulrich 1950).
2.4. Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses of variance (ANOVA) and regression
analysis were carried out using Statistica 10.0. Significant
differences between the analyzed parameters were evalu-
ated by Tukey’s test at P<0.05.
2.5. Economic analysis
After determining the yield parameters, economic analyses
of each treatment were performed. The total cost of or-
ganic lettuce production includes the fixed costs (land rent,
inspection, certification and administrative cost) and the
variable cost (labor, fertilizers, transport, marketing, etc.).
The variable cost was calculated by using current input
prices and labor cost. The total cost was subtracted from
the total gross return to calculate the net return of organic
lettuce production. The value/cost ratio (VCR) of different
treatments (agro-technical practices) was calculated by the
following formula: VCR=Values of increased yield compared
to unfertilized control/Cost of applied treatments.
The cost of fertilization and agro-technical practices are
calculated on the basis of their market prices. The cost as-
sociated with the production of organic lettuce is classified
as fixed and variable costs.
3. Results
3.1. Soil moisture content
Although the sprinkler irrigation system was used to main-
 Manojlović Maja et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2017, 16(4): 947–958 951

tain soil moisture above 70% of the water holding capacity
(18.2% of soil moisture) during the period March-May in
both experimental years, quite different precipitation in 2009
and 2010 (Fig. 2) affected soil moisture, resulting in 15%
higher moisture in 2009. However, in both years moisture
content was decreasing during lettuce vegetation (Fig. 2).
Effects of the ground cover treatments were significant,
pronounced especially in the second part of the lettuce
vegetation, where SM increased soil moisture in both years.
Agrotextile also had a positive effect on soil moisture, which
was not, however, always significant. FYM also positively
affected soil moisture but only at the beginning and the end
of lettuce vegetation in 2009.
3.2. Mineral N dynamics in the soil
The concentration of mineral N (NH4-N and NO3-N) in soil
was increasing until the 42nd day after lettuce planting, and
then decreasing in all treatments (Fig. 3). There were no
differences in the mineral N concentration in soil between
the ground cover treatments until the second part of the
lettuce vegetation, when the effects of the treatments were
quite different between the years, especially at the end of
the lettuce vegetation. FYM positively affected the mineral
N soil concentration in the second part of vegetation in 2009,
and on average in both experimental years (not shown).
3.3. Number of weed plants and weed species
The treatment H, followed by SM, was the most effective in
weed control compared to other treatments, while AT and Ø
had the highest number of weed plants and weed species
per square meter. On average, in both experimental years,
application of FYM increased the number of weed plants
per square meter, but not significantly, while the number of
weed species was not affected by FYM (Fig. 4).
3.4. The yield of fresh matter (FM) of lettuce
Although weather conditions, especially precipitation, in the
vegetation session of lettuce were different between years,
the effect of the ground cover treatments were consistent,
as AT had the best results on FM yield of lettuce, followed
by SM (Fig. 5). However, on the treatments without FYM
there were no significant differences between AT and SM.
Also, there were no differences in the yield between H and
Ø treatment. FYM application positively affected the lettuce
FM yield in 2009 and on average in both experimental years

Year 2009 Agrotechnical practices Manure application

33 ab a ab Ø H AT SM A With
b B
31 Without
a
29
Moisture content (%)

a A A
27 b b a
ab
25 A A
bc
c
23 a
b A
21 B
bc c
19
17
14 28 42 56 14 28 42 56
Days after planting (d) Days after planting (d)
Year 2010
33 Agrotechnial practices Manure application
31 Ø H AT SM With
Without
29
Moisture content (%)

27
25 a a a a A A
a a A A
23 a a
21 a a
19 a a a ab b ab
A A
A A
17
14 28 42 56 14 28 42 56
Days after planting (d) Days after planting (d)

Fig. 2 Soil moisture content (% w/w). Ø, control; H, hoeing; AT, agrotextile cover; SM, straw mulch. The values measured in the
same period of vegetation followed by different lowercase and uppercase letters are significant at P<0.05.
952 Manojlović Maja et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2017, 16(4): 947–958

Year 2009 Agrotechnical practices Manure application

80
Ø H AT SM a With
A
Mineral N in soil (kg N ha–1)
70 Without
60 abab
b B
50 a a a A A A
a a
40 a a
a ab A A
a ab
30
20 b B
10
0
14 28 42 60 14 28 42 60
Days after planting (d) Days after planting (d)
Year 2010
30 Agrotechnical practices Manure application
Ø H AT SM a With
25 Without
Mineral N in soil (kg N ha–1)

A
a a a
20 A
a a B
A A
a
15 a a b b b a A
A
ab ab A
10 b

0
14 28 42 60 14 28 42 60
Days after planting (d) Days after planting (d)

Fig. 3 Concentration of mineral N (NH4-N & NO3-N) in the soil (0-30 cm) during the lettuce vegetation. Ø, control; H, hoeing; AT,
agrotextile cover; SM, straw mulch. The values measured in the same period of vegetation followed by different lowercase and
uppercase letters are significant at P<0.05.

(data not shown). However, in 2010 the effect of FYM on
lettuce yield was positive but not significant.
3.5. Nitrate concentration in FM of lettuce
Nitrate concentrations in FM of lettuce (Fig. 6) in all treat-
ments were below 2 500 mg kg–1, which is a limit according
to European Commission (2001). A significant positive cor-
relation was found between soil mineral N concentration and
the lettuce yield (r=0.5; P=0.011) (Fig. 7) and between soil
mineral N and leaf nitrate concentrations (r=0.6; P=0.001)
(Fig. 8). However, the applied ground cover treatments
did not have a significant effect on nitrate concentration in
lettuce probably due to the dilution effect. Although FYM
application increased the nitrate concentration in lettuce, the
concentrations were below the proposed limits.
3.6. Economics of ground cover and manure management
Table 4 shows the cost of organic lettuce production in
the open field depending on which ground cover and FYM
treatments were applied (average for two years). The total
cost of lettuce production was the highest for AT treatments,
both with and without application of FYM, followed by SM
treatments. Also, additional profit was higher on all plots
with FYM application, regardless of which ground cover
management was used. On fertilized plots with FYM, the
highest additional profit was with AT, followed by H and
SM at a similar level, while the lowest additional profit was
on the plot without ground cover treatments. At the same
time, the profit on unfertilized plots was positive only with
SM or AT (Table 5).
4. Discussion
In the present study, the applied ground cover treatments
(H, AT, and SM) affected the soil moisture, the number of
weed plants and weed species per square meter, and the
yield of FM lettuce. The effect of ground cover treatments
on soil moisture was pronounced especially in the second
part of the lettuce vegetation, when SM preserved soil
moisture in both years (Fig. 2). The positive effect of SM
on soil moisture was reported also by a number of other
researchers (Ji and Unger 2001; Dahiya et al. 2007; Kar
 Manojlović Maja et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2017, 16(4): 947–958 953

A 12
Average: 2009–2010
Number of species m–2

8
a
ab ab A A
b A A
bc B
c c B
4 c

0
Ø H AT SM Ø H AT SM Ø H AT SM With Without
With manure application Without manure application Agrotechnical practices Manure
application

B 200 Average: 2009–2010

Number of indivioludals m–2

a a
160 A
ab
A
120 bc A
c B B
80 c

d d C
40

0
Ø H AT SM Ø H AT SM Ø H AT SM With Without
With manure application Without manure application Agrotechnical practices Manure
application

Fig. 4 Number of weed species (A) and weed plants (B) per square meter. Ø, control; H, hoeing; AT, agrotextile cover; SM, straw
mulch. The values measured in the same period of vegetation followed by different lowercase and uppercase letters are significant
at P<0.05. The letters denote differences between treatments in each term of measuring.

Year: 2009
50 000
Lettuce FM yield (kg ha–1)

a
b A A
40 000 b b b B
bc C BC B
d cd
30 000
20 000
10 000
0
Ø H AT SM Ø H AT SM Ø H AT SM With Without
With manure application Without manure application Agrotechnical practices Manure
application

50 000 Year: 2010

Lettuce FM yield (kg ha–1)

a A
40 000 ab
bc ab bc B A
BC A
30 000 c c bc C

20 000

10 000

0
Ø H AT SM Ø H AT SM Ø H AT SM With Without
With manure application Without manure application Agrotechnical practices Manure
application

Fig. 5 Yield of lettuce fresh matter (FW) (kg ha–1). Ø, control; H, hoeing; AT, agrotextile cover; SM, straw mulch. The values
measured in the same period of vegetation followed by different lowercase and uppercase letters are significant at P<0.05. The
letters denote differences between treatments in each term of measuring.
954 Manojlović Maja et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2017, 16(4): 947–958

and Kumar 2007). SM and other crop residues reduce moisture was measured only in the first part of vegetation in
soil evaporation, improve the infiltration rate and increase the first year. However, Mosaddeghi et al. (2000) reported
soil moisture (Merwin and Stiles 1994; Dahiya et al. 2003; that in a field experiment, application of FYM at a rate of
Dahiya et al. 2007). In our research, AT also had a positive 50 mg ha−1 reduced soil compactibility and increased soil
(although not always significant) effect on soil moisture, moisture trafficability range.
while H depleted it. According to Dvořák et al. (2012), the The effect of FYM on the number of weed plants and
effect of black textile mulch on soil moisture is not consistent weed species was not significant (Fig. 4), which was in
because of rainfalls during the vegetation and soil conditions. accordance with the study by Skuodienė et al. (2016), who
Numerous reserchers reported a negative effect of hoeing did not find any significant influence of various organic fertil-
(e.g., Dahiya et al. 2007) or tillage (e.g., Shukla et al. 2003) izers and their combinations (straw, green manure, FYM) on
on soil moisture. Different tillage methods increase oxida- weed incidence indicators. However, in the same research,
tion of organic matter and water evaporation, which leads the primary tillage had the main effect on weeds, as there
to loss of organic matter (Manojlović et al. 2008) and water were a significantly greater number and mass of weeds in
(Schwartz et al. 2010). The positive effect of FYM on soil shallow plowed soil compared to other tillage methods. In

3 000 Year: 2009

Nitrate concentration

2 500 a
ab A A
2 000 ab
ab ab A
(mg kg–1)

A A B
1 500 b b
b
1 000
500
0
Ø H AT SM Ø H AT SM Ø H AT SM With Without
With manure application Without manure application Agrotechnical practices Manure
application

3 000
Year: 2010
Nitrate concentration

2 500
2 000
(mg kg–1)

a a A
1 500 a A
a A A A
a a a a A
1 000
500
0
Ø H AT SM Ø H AT SM Ø H AT SM With Without
With manure application Without manure application Agrotechnical practices Manure
application

Fig. 6 Nitrate concentration in fresh mass of lettuce (mg kg–1). Ø, control; H, hoeing; AT, agrotextile cover; SM; straw mulch. The
values measured in the same period of vegetation followed by different lowercase and uppercase letters are significant at P<0.05.
The letters denote differences between treatments in each term of measuring.
NO3– in lettuce leaves (mg kg–1)

50 000 3 000
Lettuce yield (kg ha–1)

40 000 2 500
2 000
30 000
1 500
20 000
y=20 664x 0.134
1 000 y=–0.439x2+50.75x+730.6
r=0.50; P=0.011 r=0.66; P=0.001
10 000 500
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Mineral N in soil (kg N ha–1) Mineral N in soil (kg N ha–1)

Fig. 7 Correlation between the concentration of mineral N Fig. 8 Correlation between the concentration of mineral N
(NH4-N and NO3-N) in soil (0-30 cm) and the yield of lettuce (NH4-N & NO3-N) in soil (0-30 cm) and the nitrates in lettuce
(the 42nd day after planting). leaves (the 42nd day after planting).
 Manojlović Maja et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2017, 16(4): 947–958 955

Table 4 Cost of organic lettuce production in the open field depending on the applied treatments (average 2009-2010)
Item Cost value (€ ha-1)
Fixed costs
Land rent 150
Inspection and certification 120
Administrative cost 50
Total fixed cost 320
Variable costs
Plowing (machine labor) 70
Disking 20
Seedling production 150
Soil preparation 30
Planting (labor) 305
Irrigation cost 350
Harvest (labor) 550
Wrapping (labor) 150
Cardboard boxes 350
Transport 205
Fertilized Unfertilized
Variable costs of applied treatments
Ø H AT SM Ø H AT SM
Farmyard manure (10 000 kg) 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 0
Farmyard manure (labor) 50 50 50 50 0 0 0 0
Hoeing (labor) 0 300 0 0 0 300 0 0
Agrotextile (10 000 m2) 0 0 1 200 0 0 0 1 200 0
Agrotextile (labor) 0 0 50 0 0 0 50 0
Straw (€ ha–1) 0 0 0 350 0 0 0 350
Straw (labor) 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100
Total variable cost of applied treatments 150 450 1 400 600 0 300 1 250 450
Total variable cost (€ ha–1) 2 330 2 630 3 580 2 780 2 180 2 480 3 430 2 630
€, euro; Ø, control; H, hoeing; AT, agrotextile cover; SM; straw mulch.

our research, the treatment H, followed by SM, was the
most effective in weed control compared to other treatments,
while AT and the Ø had the highest number of weed plants
and weed species per square meter. On the other hand,
the highest lettuce FM yield was obtained by AT, followed
by SM, while H did not positively affect the yield due to its
negative effect on soil moisture (Fig. 2).
In our research, the effects of the ground cover treatments
on mineral N dynamics in soil and nitrate concentration
in lettuce were not consistent in the examined years due
to different weather condition in two years (much higher
precipitation in 2010), which resulted in lower mineral N
concentration in soil in 2010 (Fig. 3). However, application
of FYM increased the mineral N concentration in soil, the
lettuce yield and nitrate concentration in lettuce, but the
concentrations were below the proposed limits (2 500 mg kg–1
nitrates in lettuce FM, according to European Commission
(2001). That is in accordance with the results reported by
Pavlou et al. (2007) and Tüzel et al. (2011).
In our research, significant correlations were found
between the lettuce FM yield and soil moisture (r=0.36;
P=0.012) and soil mineral N concentration (r=0.40; P=0.048)
42 days after planting (not shown). It is well known that the
most important factors for the growth of plants (synthesis of
plant organic matter of weeds and the crop yield) are water
supply and regular plant nutrition, particularly N. In these
complex interactions, weeds and crops are concurrent. In
our research, the highest lettuce FM yield was obtained
with FYM applied together with AT, followed by SM (Fig. 5).
This can be explained by a positive effect of FYM on plant
nutrition and the effect of AT and SM on soil moisture, but
also by a suppressive effect of SM on weed incidence
(Jodaugienė et al. 2006). Although FYM is considered as
a source of lower N availability for crops, its mineralization
could be significantly intensified with higher temperature
and moisture (Abbasi et al. 2007; Pavlou et al. 2007). Our
previous incubation and field studies (Manojlović et al. 2010)
showed that FYM mineralization (in the period of one month
in incubation) realized ~30% of the total N applied through
fertilization, increased the concentration of mineral N in the
soil and increased the yield of fresh lettuce.
FYM increased additional profit and VCR compared to
the plots without FYM application (Table 5). On the fertilized
plots with FYM, the highest additional profit was obtained
with AT, the profits with H and SM were at a similar level,
while the lowest profit was with the Ø. Although AT increased
the profit on plots with FYM application, it had the lowest
VCR compared with other ground cover treatments. At the
956 Manojlović Maja et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2017, 16(4): 947–958

Table 5 Total net return, gross return and additional profit obtained from organic lettuce production in Serbia (average value in
2009–2010)
Treatments2)
Item1) Fertilized Unfertilized
Ø H AT SM Ø H AT SM
Total gross return (€ ha–1) 6 276 6 983 8 397 7 081 5 339 5 514 7 251 6 488
Total costs of lettuce production (€ ha–1) 2 970 3 270 4 200 3 420 2 820 3 120 4 070 3 270
Net return (€ ha–1) 3 306 3 713 4 197 3 661 2 519 2 394 3 181 3 218
Additional profit (€ ha–1) 787 1 193 1 678 1 142 0 –125 662 692
VCR values 5.24 2.65 1.20 1.90 0 –0.41 0.53 1.55
1)
Net return, profit made by application of agro-technical measures; VCR, the ratio of value/cost; €, euro.
2)
Ø, control; H, hoeing; AT, agrotextile cover; SM; straw mulch.

same time, on unfertilized plots with FYM, only SM and AT
treatments increased the profit compared to the Ø. However,
SM treatment had higher VCR, while VCR values for H and
AT were less than 1. The VCR is used to show profit related
to investments. It should be higher than 2, i.e., the value of
the extra output obtained should be at least double the cost
of the input (Halliday and Trenkel 1992). However, VCR
value depends on a type of the fertilizer (organic or miner-
al), a dose, a type of application and a crop species (Van
Noordwijk and Scholten 1994; Pervaiz et al. 2004; Alodele
et al. 2007; Akram et al. 2009). In our study, VCR values
ranged from –0.41 (H, unfertilized) to 5.24 (Ø, fertilized).
Results showed that VCR values of agro-technical measures
on the fertilized plot were higher than values measured on
unfertilized plots, which is in accordance with our previous
results (Cabilovski et al. 2011). H was not cost-effective
at the unfertilized plot (VCR, –0.41), but the value of VCR
for H on the fertilized plot was 2.65, which indicates that
there is a strong interaction between FYM fertilization and
agro-technical measures regarding profitability.
5. Conclusion
Ground cover and FYM managements have an important
role in organic lettuce production. In this study, the applied
ground cover treatments (H, AT, and SM) affected the soil
moisture, the number of weed plants and weed species, and
the lettuce yield. FYM application positively affected soil
NO3-N concentration and increased the lettuce yield. The
highest lettuce yield was obtained by AT, followed by SM,
and it was higher with FYM application. H is not a necessary
measure in organic lettuce production if AT or SM are used.
H was not cost-effective at the unfertilized plot, but at the
fertilized plot H had a high VCR value (2.65), which indicates
that there is a strong interaction between FYM fertilization
and agro-technical measures regarding profitability.
FYM application led to higher lettuce yield, higher profit
and VCR. Additional profit was higher on all plots with FYM
application regardless of which ground cover management
was used. In the case that a farm does not have FYM,
then SM application has an advantage over H and AT due
to its positive effect on the yield and low investment costs.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Ministry of Education, Sci-
ence and Technological Development, Republic of Serbia
(TR 31027).
References
Abbasi K, Hina M, Khalique A, Khan R S. 2007. Mineralization
of three organic manures used as nitrogen source in a soil
incubated under laboratory conditions. Communications in
Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 38, 1691–1711.
Akram Qazi M, Akram M, Ahmad N, Artiola J F, Tuller M. 2009.
Economical and environmental implications of solid waste
compost applications. Waste Management, 29, 2437–2445.
Alodele O J, Oladapo M O, Omotoso S O. 2007. Fertilizer sector
liberalization: Effects on the profitability of nitrogen fertilizer
application in egusi, okra and tomato production in Nigeria.
International Journal of Agricultural Research, 2, 81–86.
Bàrberi P. 2002. Weed management in organic agriculture:
are we addressing the right issues? Weed Research, 42,
177–193.
Brault D, Stewart K A, Jenni S. 2002. Growth, development, and
yield of head lettuce cultivated on paper and polyethylene
mulch. HortScience, 37, 92–94.
Bulluck L R, Brosius M, Evanylo G K, Ristaino J B. 2002.
Organic and synthetic fertility amendments influence soil
microbial, physical and chemical properties on organic and
conventional farms. Applied Soil Ecology, 19, 147–160.
Čabilovski R, Manojlović M, Bogdanović D, Rodić V, Bavec M.
2011. Fertilization economy in organic lettuce production.
Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35, 745–756.
Dahiya R, Ingwersen J, Streck T. 2007. The effect of mulching
and tillage on the water and temperature regimes of a loess
soil: Experimental findings and modeling. Soil and Tillage
Research, 96, 52–63.
Dahiya R, Malik R S, Jhorar B S. 2003. Effect of sugarcane
trash and enriched sugarcane trash mulches on ratoon cane
 Manojlović Maja et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2017, 16(4): 947–958
yield and soil properties. Journal of the Indian Society of
Soil Science, 51, 504–508.
Dvořák P, Tomášek J, Kuchtová P, Hamouz K, Hajšlová J,
Schuzová V. 2012. Effect of mulching materials on potato
production in different soil-climatic conditions. Romanian
Agricultural Research, 29, 201–209.
Egner H, Riehm H, Domingo W R. 1960. Investigations of
the chemical soil analysis as a basis for the evaluation
of nutrient status in soil. II. Chemical extraction methods
for phosphorus and potassium determination. Kungliga
Lantbrukshögskolans Annaler, 26, 195–215. (in German)
European Commission (EC). 1991. Directive of 12th December
1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution
caused by nitrates from agricultural ources (91/676/EEC).
Official Journal of the European Communities. L375, 1-8.
European Commission (EC). 1999. Council Regulation (EC) No
1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 supplementing Regulation (EEC)
No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products
and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and
foodstuffs to include livestock production. Official Journal
the European Communities, L22, 1–28.
European Commission (EC). 2001. Commission regulation (EC)
No. 466/2001 of 8 March 2001, setting maximum levels for
certain contaminants in foodstuffs. Official Journal of the
European Communities, L77, 1–13.
Fischer-Arndt M T, Köpke U. 2007. Effect of weed management
strategies on the risk of enteric pathogen transfer into the
food chain and lettuce quality. In: Proceedings of the 3rd
QLIF Congress. Hohenheim, Germany. March 20–23.
Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL, Switzerland.
Forster D, Adamtey N, Messmer M M, Pfiffner L, Baker B, Huber
B, Niggli U. 2013. Organic agriculture-driving innovations
in crop research. In: Bhullar G, Bhullar N, eds., Agricultural
Sustainability, Progress and Prospects in Crop Research.
Academic Press, San Diego. pp. 21–46.
Gajri P R, Arora V K, Chaudhary M R. 1994. Maize growth
responses to deep tillage, straw mulching and farmyard
manure in coarse textured soils of NW India. Soil Use and
Management, 10, 15–19.
Gomiero T, Pimentel D, Paoletti M G. 2011. Environmental
impact of different agricultural management practices:
Conventional vs. organic agriculture. Critical Reviews in
Plant Sciences, 30, 95–124.
Halliday D J, Trenkel M E. 1992. IFA World Fertilizer Use
Manual. International Fertilizer Industry Association, Paris.
Jenni S, Brault D, Stewart K A. 2004. Degradable mulch as an
alternative for weed control in lettuce produced on organic
soils. Acta Horticulturae, 638, 111–118.
Ji S, Unger P W. 2001. Soil water accumulation under different
precipitation, potential evaporation, and straw mulch
conditions. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 65,
442–448.
Jodaugienė D, Pupalienė R, Urbonienė M, Pranckietis V,
Pranckietienė I. 2006. The impact of different types of
organic mulches on weed emergence. Agronomy Research,
4, 197–201.
957
Johnson C M, Ulrich A. 1950. Determination of nitrate in plant
material. Analytical Chemistry, 22, 1526–1529.
Jordán A, Zavala L M, Muñoz-Rojas M. 2011. Mulching, effects
on soil physical properties. In: Gliński J, Horabik J, Lipiec J,
eds., Encyclopedia of Agrophysics. Springer, Netherlands.
pp. 492–496.
Kar G, Kumar A. 2007. Effects of irrigation and straw mulch
on water use and tuber yield of potato in eastern India.
Agricultural Water Management, 94, 109–116.
Kosterna E. 2014. The effect of covering and mulching on the
temperature and moisture of soil and broccoli yield. Acta
Agrophysica, 21, 165–178.
Kristiansen P E, Sindel B M, Jessop R S. 2008. Weed
management in organic echinacea (Echinacea purpurea)
and lettuce (Lactuca sativa) production. Renewable
Agriculture and Food Systems, 23, 120–135.
Larney F J, Angers D A. 2012. The role of organic amendments
in soil reclamation: A review. Canadian Journal of Soil
Science, 92, 19–38.
Larney F J, Blackshaw R E. 2003. Weed seed viability
incomposted beef cattle feedlot manure. Journal of
Environmental Quality, 32, 1105–1113.
Larney F J, Sullivan D M, Buckley K E, Eghball B. 2006. The
role of composting in recycling manure nutrients. Canadian
Journal of Soil Science, 86, 597–611.
Leary J, Defrank J. 2000. Living mulches for organic farming
systems. HortTechnology, 10, 639–698.
Li Y Y, Pang H C, Han X F, Yan S W, Zhao Y G, Wang J, Zhai
Z, Zhang J L. 2006. Buried straw layer and plastic mulching
increase microflora diversity in salinized soil. Journal of
Integrative Agriculture, 15, 1602–1611.
Manojlović M, Aćin V, Šeremešić S. 2008. Long-term effects
of agronomic practices on the soil organic carbon
sequestration in Chernozem. Archives of Agronomy and
Soil Science, 54, 353–367.
Manojlović M, Cabilovski R, Bavec M. 2010. Organic materials:
sources of nitrogen in organic production of lettuce. Turkish
Journal of Agriculture and Forestery, 34, 163–172.
Melander B, Holst N, Rasmussen I A, Hansen P K. 2012. Direct
control of perennial weeds between crops - Implications for
organic farming. Crop Protection, 40, 36–42.
Merwin I A, Stiles W C. 1994. Orchard groundcover management
impacts on soil physical properties. Journal of the American
Society for Horticultural Science, 119, 216–222.
Mikha M M, Vigil M F, Liebig M A, Bowman R A, McConkey B,
Deibert E J, Pikul J L. 2006. Cropping system influences on
soil chemical properties and soil quality in the Great Plains.
Renewable Agric Food Systems, 21, 26–35.
Moreira M, Santos C, Lucas A, Bianchini F, Souza I, Viégas
P. 2014. Lettuce production according to different sources
of organic matter and soil cover. Agricultural Sciences, 5,
99–105.
Mosaddeghi M R, Hajabbasi M A, Hemmat A, Afyuni, M. 2000.
Soil compactibility as affected by soil moisture content and
farmyard manure in central Iran. Soil and Tillage Research,
55, 87–97.
958 Manojlović Maja et al. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2017, 16(4): 947–958
Ngouajio M, McGiffen Jr M E, Hutchinson C M. 2003. Effect of
cover crop and management system on weed populations
in lettuce. Crop Protection, 22, 57–64.
Van Noordwijk M, Scholten H M. 1994. Effects of fertilizer price
on feasibility of efficiency improvement: Case stady for an
urea injector for lowland rice. Fertilizer Research, 39, 1–9.
Pavlou G C, Ehaliotis C D, Kavvadias V A. 2007. Effect of
organic and inorganic fertilizers applied during successive
crop seasons on growth and nitrate accumulation in lettuce.
Scientia Horticulturae, 111, 319–325.
Pervaiz Z, Hussain K, Kazmi S S H, Gill K H. 2004. Agronomic
efficiency of different N:P ratios in rain fed wheat.
International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 6, 455–457.
Schwartz R C, Baumhardt R L, Evett S R. 2010. Tillage effects
on soil water redistribution and bare soil evaporation
throughout a season. Soil and Tillage Research, 110,
221–229.
Shukla M K, Lal R, Ebinger M. 2003. Tillage effects on physical
and hydrological properties of a typic Argiaquoll in central
Ohio. Soil Science, 168, 802–811.
Skuodienė R, Karčauskienė D, Repšienė R. 2016. The influence
of primary soil tillage, deep loosening and organic fertilizers
on weed incidence in crops. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture, 103,
135–142.
Tu C, Ristaino J B, Hu S. 2006. Soil microbial biomass and
activity in organic tomato farming systems: Effects of organic
inputs and straw mulching. Soil Biology and Biochemistry,
38, 247–255.
Tüzel Y, Öztekin G B, Duyar H, Eşiyok D, Kiliç Ö G, Anaç D,
Kayikçioğlu H H. 2011. Effects of some organic fertilizers
and agryl cover on yield, quality and leaf nutrient content
and soil productivity in organic lettuce growing. Journal of
Agricultural Sciences, 17, 190–203.
Wadas W. 2016. Using non-woven polypropylene covers in
potato production: A review. Journal of Central European
Agriculture, 17, 734–748.
Watson C A, Atkinson D, Gosling P, Jackson L R, Rayns F W.
2002. Managing soil fertility in organic farming systems. Soil
Use and Management, 18(suppl.1), 239–247.
Wehrmann J, Scharpf H C. 1979. Der mineralstickstoffgehalt
des bodens als massstab für den stickstoffdüngungsbedarf
(Nmin-Methode). Plant Soil, 52, 109–126. (in German)
Zhang J, Yang J, Yao R, Yu S, Li F, Hou X. 2014. The effects
of farmyard manure and mulch on soil physical properties
in a reclaimed coastal tidal flat salt-affected soil. Journal of
Integrative Agriculture, 13, 1782–1790.
(Managing editor SHI Hong-liang)