See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281229109

Use of Acacia Waste Compost as an Alternative Component for

Horticultural Substrates

Article in Communications In Soil Science and Plant Analysis · July 2015

DOI: 10.1080/00103624.2015.1059843

CITATIONS READS

30 2,065

4 authors:

Luis Miguel Brito Mário Reis

Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo Universidade do Algarve
89 PUBLICATIONS 584 CITATIONS 80 PUBLICATIONS 358 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Isabel Mourão João Coutinho

Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo/ESA/CIMO Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro
79 PUBLICATIONS 383 CITATIONS 295 PUBLICATIONS 3,347 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Luis Miguel Brito on 15 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPVC]
On: 29 July 2015, At: 16:11
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Communications in Soil Science and

Plant Analysis
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lcss20

Use of Acacia Waste Compost as an

Click for updates
Alternative Component for Horticultural
Substrates
a b a c
Luís Miguel Brito , Mário Reis , Isabel Mourão & João Coutinho
a
Centro de Investigação de Montanha (CIMO), Escola Superior
Agrária, Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Refóios, Ponte de
Lima, Portugal
b
Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade do Algarve,
Faro, Portugal
c
C Química, DeBA, EC Vida e Ambiente, Universidade de Trás-os-
Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal
Accepted author version posted online: 01 Jul 2015.Published
online: 01 Jul 2015.

To cite this article: Luís Miguel Brito, Mário Reis, Isabel Mourão & João Coutinho (2015) Use of Acacia
Waste Compost as an Alternative Component for Horticultural Substrates, Communications in Soil
Science and Plant Analysis, 46:14, 1814-1826, DOI: 10.1080/00103624.2015.1059843

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2015.1059843

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPVC] at 16:11 29 July 2015
 Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 46:1814–1826, 2015
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0010-3624 print / 1532-2416 online
DOI: 10.1080/00103624.2015.1059843

Use of Acacia Waste Compost as an Alternative

Component for Horticultural Substrates

LUÍS MIGUEL BRITO, 1 MÁRIO REIS, 2

ISABEL
MOURÃO, 1 AND JOÃO COUTINHO 3
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPVC] at 16:11 29 July 2015

1
Centro de Investigação de Montanha (CIMO), Escola Superior Agrária, Instituto
Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Refóios, Ponte de Lima, Portugal
2
Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade do Algarve, Faro, Portugal
3
C Química, DeBA, EC Vida e Ambiente, Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e
Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal

The rising cost of peat and pine bark has boosted the demand for alternative organic
materials for container growing media. Here, composts of invasive acacia (Acacia
longifolia and Acacia melanoxylon) residues were evaluated as alternative organic
materials for horticultural substrates. Compost bulk density was less than 0.4 g cm−3
and total pore space was more than 85 percent of the total volume, as established for
an ideal substrate. The matured acacia compost air capacity, easily available water,
buffering capacity, and total water-holding capacity were also within acceptable
recommended values. With increased composting time the physical characteristics of
the composts were improved, but the same was not true for chemical characteristics
such as pH and electrical conductivity. The replacement of pine bark compost by
acacia compost in a commercial substrate did not negatively affect either lettuce
emergence or lettuce growth, suggesting that acacia compost can be successfully
used as an alternative component for horticultural substrates.

Keywords Acacia waste, compost, pink bark

Introduction
Peat moss and pine bark have traditionally been used in potting media and plug seedling
production but there has been increasing environmental concern about the use of peat as a
growing media (Jayasinghe, Tokashiki et al. 2010). Peat is a nonrenewable resource, and
its diminished availability is raising its cost (Herrera et al. 2008). Pine bark is also
becoming more expensive for use in horticultural industries. Therefore, there is increasing
demand for alternative materials to produce horticultural substrates (Medina et al. 2009).
A number of studies have shown that composts from organic residues such as sewage
sludge (Perez-Murcia et al. 2006; Ostos et al. 2008), municipal solid waste (Moldes,
Cendón, and Barral 2007; Herrera et al. 2008), animal manure (Jayasinghe, Arachchi, and
Tokashiki 2010), green waste and pruning waste (Spiers and Fietje 2000; Benito et al.
2005), agroindustrial waste (Reis et al. 2001; Garcia-Gomez, Bernal, and Roig 2002;
Bustamante et al. 2008), spent mushroom waste (Medina et al. 2009), vermicompost
Received 5 August 2013; accepted 13 February 2015
Address correspondence to Luis Miguel Brito, Centro de Investigação de Montanha (CIMO),
Escola Superior Agrária, Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Refóios, 4990-706 Ponte de
Lima, Portugal. E-mail: miguelbrito@esa.ipvc.pt

1814
 Substrates from Acacia Waste Compost 1815

(Atiyeh et al., 2001; Zaller 2007), and horticultural crop residues (Mazuela and
Urrestarazu 2009) can be used as alternative high-quality and low-cost substrate
component for container growing media. Composts may have physical and chemical
properties similar to peat that make them suitable as peat substitutes (Jayasinghe,
Tokashiki et al. 2010) and the combination of peat and compost in substrates may be
synergistic as peat often enhances aeration and water retention while compost improves
the fertilizing capacity of the final blend (Jayasinghe, Tokashiki et al. 2010). However, the
use of compost in substrates increases the pH value and the electrical conductivity (EC) of
the mixture (Garcia-Gomez, Bernal, and Roig 2002; Bustamante et al. 2008; Ostos et al.
2008). Therefore, the high pH value and salt content of composts may limit their potential
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPVC] at 16:11 29 July 2015

use for plant propagation (Medina et al. 2009).

Plant toxicity may occur due to high salt content but also because of high ammonia
content, nitrogen (N) immobilization, or the presence of toxic composts from an uncom-
pleted composting process (Brito 2001; Wong et al. 1999). Other constraints for the use of
organic waste composts as substrate component include the large variations in physical
and chemical properties of these materials (Raviv 1998; Brito et al. 2010) and the potential
presence of contaminants, such as heavy metals, particularly in compost of urban origin
(Medina et al. 2009; Smith 2009).
The fertility of a substrate depends on the amount and availability of nutrients and
other chemical characteristics such as pH and cation exchange capacity (CEC). The pH
value, for example, is crucial because it strongly affects the availability of micronutrients
(Bailey, Nelson, and Fonteno 2000). However, physical properties, such as air and water
retention capacity, are even more important, because they allow for easier or more difficult
management of plant growing conditions and because nutrients can be added by fertiliza-
tion (Verdonck 1983).
Acacia spp. such as Acacia longifolia (Andrews) Willd. and Acacia melanoxylon R.
Br. were introduced in Portugal to fix biological nitrogen (N) for soil restoration and to
prevent erosion in sand dune ecosystems (Morais et al. 2012), as well as for ornamental
and silvicultural purposes. However, these invasive Fabaceae species are highly competi-
tive and a serious threat to local biodiversity and natural habitats in countries such as
Portugal and Spain. Taking into account the acacia biomass high availability, not only can
acacia composts be considered as an appreciable low-cost component for plant substrates
but also its use could constitute a suitable way to conserve natural resources such as peat
and to replace pine bark in substrate composition. Therefore, composting may be an
alternative valorization for these invasive species to produce soil organic amendments
and horticultural substrates.
The aims of this work were (1) to evaluate the main physical and chemical properties
of acacia composts as organic amendments; (2) to assess the effects of pine bark compost
replacement by acacia compost in a commercial substrate on lettuce emergence and
growth; and (3) to ascertain the potential utilization of these composts as an alternative
to widely used substrate components such as peat and pine bark compost.

Materials and Methods

Two commercial-scale composting piles were established with a volume of approxi-
mately 100 m3 (8 m diameter at the base) consisting of Acacia longifolia and Acacia
melanoxylon with the ratios of 60 percent and 40 percent by volume, respectively. The
acacia biomass was collected during the winter period in Mira, Portugal (40º 25ʹ N, 8º
44ʹ W) by cutting the base of the shrubs at ground level. Acacia shrubs were harvested
 1816 L. M. Brito et al.

using a high-speed grinder (Doppstadt; AK 403 Profi) and the collected material was
shredded and screened using a Neuenhauser Super Screener Portable Star Screen set to
provide a particle size of <4 cm. Both piles were constructed using a tractor-mounted
front-end loader to a height of 3 m. Pile A was turned on days 28, 56, 84, 147, and 263
after pile construction and pile B was turned only on day 28, 147, and 263. The overall
composting period was 420 days.
After 147 and 420 days, composts were analyzed for physical and chemical char-
acteristics. Subsamples of the composting solids (50 g) were oven dried at a temperature of
75 ± 5 ºC to constant weight for dry-matter (DM) content determination. Bulk density (dry
material) was estimated using an adaptation of the method of de Boodt, Verdonck, and
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPVC] at 16:11 29 July 2015

Cappaert (1974). Total porosity (total pore space) was calculated based on the ratio
between the bulk density and the real density according to the method of de Boodt,
Verdonck, and Cappaert (1974). Volume shrinkage evaluation was based on the volume
loss experienced by the substrate, after a drying process at 105 ºC (Gómez and Robbins
2011).
For the texture analysis, a series of sieves were used with the following measures of
mesh (mm): 40, 25, 16, 10, 5, 2, 1, 0.5, 0.25, and 0.125. The water-retention capacity was
evaluated by subjecting the samples to a substrate moistened suction force determined to a
maximum equivalent of a water column of 100 cm (≈10 kPa) according to the method of
de Boodt, Verdonck, and Cappaert (1974). Air content (AC) was calculated as the
difference in volume (%) between the total pore space (0 cm suction) and the moisture
content at 10 cm suction; easily available water (EAW) was the volume of water released
from the substrate when the suction increased from 10 to 50 cm; buffering capacity (BC)
was the volume of water released from the substrate when the suction increased from 50 to
100 cm, and less available water (LAW) was the remaining water in the substrate.
The compost pH and EC values were determined in the aqueous extract 1:2 (v/v)
according to the method proposed by Gabriels and Verdonck (1991). The cation exchange
capacity (CEC) was evaluated by the method reported by Harada and Inoko (1980) and the
result was expressed in relation to organic matter (OM) of the substrate. The OM content
was calculated by the loss of mass on ignition at 450 ºC for 6 h using a muffle furnace
(Heraeus MR170E, Labexchange, Burladingen, Germany) and was expressed as g kg−1 by
mass of dried sample.
Acacia composts were used to replace pine bark compost on the formulation of a
commercial pot plant substrate (Siro-Plant) and seven substrate treatments were produced:
S, Siro-Plant (30% peat moss and 70% pine bark compost, v/v); A15, A30, and A45,
where bark compost was replaced by acacia compost to produce substrates with 15%, 30%
and 45% (v/v) of acacia compost A; and B15, B30, and B45 with 15%, 30%, and 45% (v/
v) of acacia compost B. All treatment mixtures contained 30% (v/v) of white peat moss.
The pine bark used in the commercial Siro-Plant substrate was composted for more than 8
months and sieved to <12 mm.
Two experiments were carried out inside an unheated greenhouse. The first experi-
ment was to assess lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) germination and seedling growth and the
second was to assess lettuce growth. During the experimental period the average daily
minimum temperature was 8 °C, the average daily maximum temperature was 27 °C, and
the daily mean temperature was 17 °C. For the first experiment, a randomized four-block
trial was set up with those seven substrates to assess lettuce seedling emergence and
seedling growth, on 40-cell plug trays (21.5 cm wide, 31 cm long, and 3.5 cm deep).
Lettuce cv. Maravilha de Inverno was sown by hand and emergence was periodically
registered. Forty-two days after sowing, lettuce seedlings were harvested and weighted
 Substrates from Acacia Waste Compost 1817

immediately for fresh weight and for dry weight after drying plant material in a thermo-
ventilated oven at 65 °C to constant weight.
To assess plant growth and nutrient uptake (second experiment) in response to pine
bark compost replacement by acacia compost, a randomized four-block trial was set up
with lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) cv. Bobarymot and the seven substrates previously
mentioned, in pots with a diameter of 30 cm and a capacity of 7.75 L. Treatments included
soil, the seven substrates used in the previous trial, and the same substrates in mixtures
with soil (50% v/v). The soil was a sandy loam with a pH value of 6.4 and OM content of
34 g kg−1. The pots were placed in a greenhouse bench and irrigated to keep the substrate
near to field capacity. Lettuce was harvested 43 days after planting and weighted for fresh-
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPVC] at 16:11 29 July 2015

and dry-weight determination.

For the greenhouse experiments, total nitrogen (N) content in substrate and plant
samples was determined by a modified Kjeldahl method based on a sulfuric acid /
potassium sulfate digestion (CEN 2001). The total phosphorus (P) content of dried
samples was measured using an automated molecular absorption procedure after digestion
with sulfuric acid (H2SO4). The total concentration of potassium (K) was measured by
flame emission spectrophotometry and total determinations of calcium (Ca), magnesium
(Mg), and iron (Fe) were provided by atomic absorption spectrophotometry, after nitric–
perchloric acid digestion. Contents of ammonium (NH4+–N) and nitrate (NO3+–N) in 2 M
potassium chloride (KCl) extracts (1/5 m/v) were obtained by an automated molecular
absorption procedure using a segmented flow analyzer system equipped with dialysers.
The carbon to nitrogen (C/N) ratio was estimated after dividing the OM by a factor of 1.8
(Watteau and Villemin 2011) to determine the carbon (C) content in compost. Statistical
analysis was carried out using SPSS 17.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Analysis
of variance (ANOVA) was performed by the general linear model SPSS procedure, and a
probability level of α = 0.05 was applied to determine statistical significance between
treatment means.

Results and Discussion

Dry-matter content of acacia composts with 147 days (38.8 percent and 38.5 percent for
composts A and B, respectively) and with 420 days (38.4 percent and 42.2 percent for
composts A and B, respectively) was similar to the average DM content (38.9%) of sixteen
commercial substrates evaluated by Brito et al. (2010). The bulk density and the real
density increased between 147 and 420 days of composting (Table 1) due to OM
degradation and the reduction in particle size, which took place during composting.
However, the bulk density was always below the upper limit of 0.4 g cm−3 recommended
by Abad, Noguera, and Burés (2001). The real density of the composts with 147 days
(1.7 g cm−3) or 420 days (1.8 to 2.0 g cm−3) was within the range (1.4 to 2.0 g cm−3)
recommended for ornamental potted plant growing media by Abad, Noguera, and Burés
(2001).
The total pore space (TPS) decreased between 147 and 420 days of composting
(Table 1) due to particle-size reduction, but was always more than 85 percent of the
total volume of the substrate as recommended by Verdonck and Gabriëls (1992). The
volume shrinkage of acacia composts (Table 1) with 147 days (24–26 percent) resembled
the average volume shrinkage of pot substrates (26 percent) and substrates for cultivation
bags (23 percent) evaluated by Brito et al. (2010). Volume shrinkage slightly decreased for
composts with 420 days compared to composts with 147 days, but the differences were not
significant. All composts showed volume shrinkage (22–26 percent) below the upper limit
 1818 L. M. Brito et al.

Table 1
Bulk density, real density, total pore space, and volume shrinkage of Acacia compost with
147 and 420 days of composting with higher (A) and lower (B) turning frequency

Day 147 Day 420

Characteristic Compost Mean ± SD Mean ± SD
Bulk density (g cm−3) A 0.13 ± 0.01 b 0.24 ± 0.02 a
B 0.12 ± 0.01 b 0.26 ± 0.02 a
Real density (g cm−3) A 1.67 ± 0.03 c 1.78 ± 0.07 b
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPVC] at 16:11 29 July 2015

B 1.74 ± 0.05 bc 1.96 ± 0.08 a

Total pore space (% v/v) A 92.0 ± 0.8 a 86.5 ± 1.5 b
B 92.9 ± 0.5 a 86.6 ± 1.5 b
Volume shrinkage (%) A 24.0 ± 3.1 a 23.1 ± 2.7 a
B 25.7 ± 3.0 a 21.7 ± 6.6 a
Notes. SD, standard deviation. Mean values followed by different letters within the same para-
meter are statistically different (P < 0.05).

value (30 percent v/v) recommended for horticultural substrates (Abad, Noguera, and
Burés 2001).
Particle-size distribution is important to describe the physical quality of the substrate
and its suitableness for plant growth. After 147 days of composting there were more
particles >5 mm in compost B compared to compost A, and more particles <2 mm in
compost A compared to B (Table 2). The coarser material of compost B was explained by
lower turning frequency of pile B compared with pile A, as pile turning contributed to an
increased degradation of the organic material, resulting in smaller particle size. However,
with composting progress, the average particle size decreased and became similar for both

Table 2
Particle size distribution (% w/w) of acacia composts with 147 and 420 days of
composting, with higher (A) and lower (B) turning frequency (mean ± standard
deviation)

Day 147 Day 420

Particle size (mm) A B A B
<0.125 2.2 ± 0.5 1.5 ± 0.3 2.0 ± 1.8 2.5 ± 1.5
0.125–0.25 4.5 ± 0.5 3.7 ± 0.4 3.9 ± 0.4 4.7 ± 0.2
0.25–0.5 14.3 ± 1.1 12.1 ± 1.1 19.3 ± 0.5 19.9 ± 0.6
0.5–1 14.6 ± 1.2 11.7 ± 1.6 20.0 ± 1.6 19.1 ± 1.2
1–2 18.0 ± 1.1 15.7 ± 0.8 19.2 ± 0.3 18.8 ± 0.6
2–5 25.2 ± 1.6 25.8 ± 1.3 17.5 ± 0.1 18.4 ± 0.9
5–10 14.6 ± 0.4 16.9 ± 2.2 7.8 ± 1.5 8.7 ± 0.4
10–16 4.8 ± 2.2 7.5 ± 1.5 1.8 ± 1.4 3.4 ± 1.5
>16 1.7 ± 0.8 5.2 ± 3.2 8.6 ± 0.8 4.6 ± 1.1
 Substrates from Acacia Waste Compost 1819

Table 3
Air capacity, water availability, and dry solids (% v/v) of acacia composts with 147 and
420 days of composting, with higher (A) and lower (B) turning frequency (mean ±
standard deviation)

Day 147 Day 420

Characteristic A B A B
Air capacity 41.9 ± 6.5 44.0 ± 2.8 10.3 ± 2.9 15.0 ± 3.6
Easily available water 24.1 ± 3.1 26.1 ± 2.1 31.0 ± 2.7 26.9 ± 4.4
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPVC] at 16:11 29 July 2015

Buffering capacity 1.6 ± 0.6 1.3 ± 0.3 4.8 ± 1.4 5.2 ± 0.6
Less available water 24.4 ± 2.6 21.5 ± 1.3 40.4 ± 5.0 39.5 ± 6.2
Dry solids 8.0 ± 0.8 7.1 ± 0.5 13.5 ± 1.1 13.4 ± 1.2

composts (Table 2). The weight of particles with a size less than 2 mm, for the average of
both composts, increased from 49 percent to 65 percent between 147 and 420 days of
composting, whereas particles between 0.25 and 2.0 mm increased from 43 percent to 58
percent. This is relevant to the use of acacia composts as substrate components because
particles between 0.25 and 2.5 mm are recommended to allow water supply and adequate
ventilation (Abad, Noguera, and Burés 2001).
Dry solids of composts increased from 8.0 percent and 7.1 percent at 147 days of
composting to 13.5 percent and 13.4 percent on final composts A and B, respectively.
Composts with 147 days showed a very high air capacity (42–44% v/v) (Table 3), which is
justified by its low density (Atiyeh et al., 2001) and high proportion of particles larger than
1 mm (>64% w/w). However, the air capacity was much lower (10 percent in compost A
and 15 percent in compost B) after 420 days of composting, which is explained by the
effect of OM degradation and particle-size destruction during composting. According to
Fonteno (1996), the air capacity should be approximately 20 percent by volume for pots
with 15 cm diameter, 13 percent for pots with 10 cm diameter, and less than 8 percent for
peat-block based substrates and substrates for plug trays, taking into account 13 percent of
solids in any of the situations and the remaining capacity for water. The required air
capacity varies also with the growing plant species Fonteno (1996).
The reduction in air capacity, caused by the reduction of the particle size during
composting, was paralleled by an increase in less available water and, on a smaller
scale, of the buffering capacity and easily available water (Table 3). The EAW was 24
percent and 26 percent for composts with 147 days, and 31 percent and 27 percent for
final composts A and B, respectively; therefore, EAW was always greater than the
minimum value of 20 percent recommended by de Boodt and Verdonck (1972). The
buffering capacity of composts with 147 days (1.3–1.6%) was less than the limit of 4
percent recommended by de Boodt and Verdonck (1972) as ideal for horticultural
substrates, but it rose to 5 percent in both final composts. The total water-holding
capacity increased from 50 percent to 76 percent and from 49 percent to 72 percent for
composts A and B respectively, between 147 and 420 days of composting. Therefore,
final compost water-holding capacity was greater than the minimum recommended
values of 55 percent (Noguera et al. 2003) and 60 percent (Abad, Noguera, and Burés
2001) for substrates, and close to those reported for peat (Jayasinghe, Liyana Arachchi,
and Tokashiki 2010).
 1820 L. M. Brito et al.

Table 4
pH, electrical conductivity (EC), cation exchange capacity (CEC), organic-matter content
(OM), and C/N ratio of acacia compost with 147 and 420 days of composting with higher
(A) and lower (B) turning frequency

Day 147 Day 420

Characteristic Compost Mean ± SD Mean ± SD
pH A 7.2 ± 0.1 b 7.3 ± 0.1 b
B 7.3 ± 0.2 b 7.7 ± 0.1 a
EC (dS m−1)
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPVC] at 16:11 29 July 2015

A 0.7 ± 0.1 b 1.1 ± 0.1 a

B 0.8 ± 0.1 b 1.4 ± 0.1 a
CEC (cmol+ kg−1 MO) A 88 ± 29 b 129 ± 9a
B 102 ± 8b 131 ± 38 a
OM (g kg−1) A 715 ± 11 a 583 ± 24 c
B 657 ± 30 b 586 ± 26 c
C/N A 36 ± 1.8 a 26 ± 1.3 b.c
B 29 ± 3.7 b 23 ± 3.1 c
Notes. SD, standard deviation. Mean values followed by different letters within the same para-
meter are statistically different (P < 0.05).

The pH value was slightly alkaline (7.2–7.7) for all acacia composts (Table 4) and
greater than pH values set by Abad, Noguera, and Burés (2001) for commercial substrates
(5.3–6.5) or established optimal values (5.2 to 7.0) by Herrera et al. (2008) for the growth
of most greenhouse crops. However, the pH value of acacia compost was lower compared
to other recommended composts for mixing with peat in substrate composition, as com-
posts of bovine manure (Jayasinghe, Liyana Arachchi, and Tokashiki 2010) or municipal
solid waste (Herrera et al. 2008).
The EC of acacia composts with 147 days was 0.7–0.8 dS m−1 and slightly increased
to 1.0–1.2 dS m−1 at the end of composting (Table 4), probably as a result of ammonia
nitrification in final composts. These EC values are greater than those found for most
commercial substrates (Brito et al. 2010) and more than the maximum recommended value
(0.5 dS m−1) by Abad, Noguera, and Burés (2001) for substrates. However, acacia com-
posts showed lower EC values compared to other composts that have been recommended
for mixing with peat in substrate composition, as composts of cowdung (Jayasinghe,
Arachchi, and Tokashiki 2010) or agroindustrial residues (Garcia-Gomez, Bernal, and
Roig 2002) with values of 2.3 and 3.7–4.3 dS m−1, respectively. Therefore, it is likely
that acacia composts would not cause damage to the germination and root growth of most
young plants, and even less to plant growth at a later stage of their development, when
used to partially replace peat or pine bark up to considerably high rates of acacia compost,
because peat and pine bark composts have low or very low EC values.
After 147 days of composting, the CEC (88 and 102 cmol+ kg−1 OM or 62 and
65 cmol+ kg−1 DM respectively for compost A and B, respectively) was similar to
commercial substrates (Brito et al. 2010) recommended for pot plant production
(92 cmol+ kg−1 OM) and cultivation bags (85 cmol+ kg−1 OM), and less than in
substrates for peat blocks or plug trays (152 cmol+ kg−1 OM). However, CEC increased
with composting, and for composts with 420 days the CEC was significantly greater
 Substrates from Acacia Waste Compost 1821

(129 and 131 cmol+ kg−1 OM, respectively, for the composts A and B) compared to
composts with 147 days (Table 4).
Most commercial substrates (Brito et al. 2010) showed greater OM contents compared
to acacia composts, particularly those recommended for peat blocks and plug trays. This is
explained by the presence of high rates of peat with high levels of OM content
(>900 g kg−1 OM in DM) in most commercial substrates. Therefore, it is recommended
to use acacia composts with peat or other organic materials able to increase the OM
content and decrease the pH and EC of the final substrate.
The C/N ratio of acacia feedstock at the beginning of composting was 49.7, and it
decreased to 36.2 and 28.6 after 147 days of composting and to 26.7 and 24.2 after
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPVC] at 16:11 29 July 2015

420 days of composting, respectively, for composts A and B. These C/N ratios were less
than C/N ratios found for peat or pine bark composts (Moldes, Cendón, and Barral 2007),
suggesting a greater N availability in acacia composts compared to peat or pine bark.
At the end of the composting period (420 days), NO3–-N contents of acacia composts
were 371 and 280 mg kg−1 DM, respectively, for composts A and B. The contents of
NO4+-N varied between 61 mg kg−1 DM for compost A and 120 mg kg−1 for compost B.
The fact that the concentration of NO3–-N was greater than that of NO4+-N at the end of
the composting period was indicative that acacia composts were matured (Larney and Hao
2007), which is a requirement for the use of composts on substrate composition (Garcia-
Gomez, Bernal, and Roig 2002). The content of NO3–-N of acacia composts was greater
compared to materials such as peat or pine bark compost (Moldes, Cendón, and Barral
2007), while the same was not true for NO4+-N content.
Phosphorus (P) content was similar in both composts (0.8 g kg−1 DM) at the end of
the composting period while potassium (K) contents were 6.6 and 6.1 g kg−1 DM for
composts A and B, respectively. Calcium (Ca) was the nutrient with the greatest content
levels, 27.2 and 32.6 g kg−1 DM, for composts A and B respectively. The contents of
magnesium (Mg) were 2.1 and 2.4 g kg−1 DM, while the iron (Fe) contents were 2.6 and
2.8 g kg−1 DM, respectively, for composts A and B. The contents of these nutrients, except
for calcium, were generally less than those found for commercial substrates evaluated by
Brito et al. (2010), because these are usually fertilized with mineral fertilizers. However,
the contents of N-P-K were greater than those reported for peat and pine bark by Moldes,
Cendón, and Barral (2007).
The replacement of pine bark compost by acacia composts in the commercial sub-
strate SiroPlant contributed to occasional increases of EC and N content and decreases in
OM content and C/N ratio in final experimental mixtures (Table 5). However, lettuce
emergence (97–99%) was not significantly different between substrate treatments with
increasing rates of acacia compost. Lettuce emergence occurred entirely between days 5
and 7 day after sowing and the emergence of the third leaf took place in all the lettuce
seedlings between days 14 and 16 day after sowing. Similarly, there were no significant
differences in dry-matter content of lettuce seedlings grown in different substrates.
Lettuce seedlings’ fresh weight was greater in A45 in comparison to SiroPlant and
B15, and dry weight increased in A45 and B45 compared to SiroPlant and B15 but
additional significant differences were not found (Figure 1). Although the replacement of
pine bark compost by acacia compost did not affect lettuce emergence, lettuce seedling
growth increased for the greatest rate of compost application, which may be related to the
lower C/N ratio and increased N availability in acacia composts, compared to the pine bark
compost. Therefore, acacia compost is apparently able to replace bark compost without
decreasing final substrate quality.
 1822 L. M. Brito et al.

Table 5
Substrate characteristics with increasing rates (15%, 30%, and 45% v/v) of acacia compost
with higher (A) and lower (B) turning frequency.

Characteristic Unit SiroPlant A15 A30 A45 B15 B30 B45 LSD
MS % 41 40 43 46 41 44 48 2.2
pH 6.3 6.4 6.6 6.4 6 6.1 6.3 0.3
CE dS m−1 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.3
OM g kg−1 862 843 814 702 800 771 701 41
C/N 52 52 44 36 47 42 38 7
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPVC] at 16:11 29 July 2015

N-NH4+ mg kg−1 512 374 488 480 292 356 296 92

N-NO3- mg kg−1 48 89 6 11 89 26 22 11
N g kg−1 9.2 9 10.6 10.8 9.6 10.3 10.4 1.7
P g kg−1 0.9 1.0 1.3 0.9 1.2 1.0 1.3 0.6
K g kg−1 4.7 5.3 5.3 4.7 6.4 6.8 5.4 1.3
Ca g kg−1 15.4 13.6 17.6 21.6 13.5 17.6 24.2 6.1
Mg g kg−1 1.3 1.2 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.9 0.6
Fe g kg−1 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.7 1.9 0.5
Notes. LSD, least significant difference (P < 0.05). Organic matter (OM) and nutrient contents are
expressed on dry-matter basis.

3,0 150
Dry weight ( mg plant–1)
Fresh weight ( g plant–1)

2,5 a ab a a
ab ab 120 ab ab
b ab ab b b
2,0 b
90
1,5
60
1,0
0,5 30

0,0 0
S A15 A30 A45 B15 B30 B45 S A15 A30 A45 B15 B30 B45
Substrate Substrate

Figure 1. Fresh weight and dry weight of lettuce seedlings with increasing rates of Acacia compost
with higher (A) and lower (B) turning frequency.

Fresh and dry weight of lettuce grown in soil without substrate were significantly lower
compared with other treatments (Table 6), but other significant differences were not found
between different substrates with or without soil. A similar trend was found for lettuce N
uptake, which decreased only for lettuce grown in soil compared to all the other substrate
treatments. Lettuce N content was occasionally increased with substrates compared to soil.
Phosphorus content also increased with substrates compared to soil and was greatest when
substrates were not mixed with soil. Lower nutrient accumulation in lettuce produced with
soil in comparison with the other treatments, and similar nutrient uptake by lettuce grown
with the commercial substrate or with the replacement of bark compost by acacia compost in
this substrate, showed that acacia composts can be used in the formulation of horticultural
substrates, replacing other components commonly, such as used pine bark.
 Substrates from Acacia Waste Compost 1823

Table 6
Fresh weight (FWt), dry weight (DWt), and nutrient content of lettuce grown with soil,
with a commercial substrate (SiroPlant), in this substrate with increasing rates (15%, 30%,
and 45% v/v) of acacia compost, with higher (A) and lower (B) turning frequency, and
with the substrates in mixtures with soil (50%; v/v).
FWt DWt N P K Ca Mg Fe

Treatment (g pl−1) (g pl−1) (mg g−1) (mg g−1) (mg g−1) (mg g−1) (mg g−1) (mg g−1)

Soil 211 15 23.0 2.6 38.9 8.7 2.3 0.39

SiroPlant 492 27 27.7 5.8 32.0 9.8 3.2 0.17
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPVC] at 16:11 29 July 2015

A15 408 24 24.1 5.9 46.0 8.4 2.6 0.24

A30 531 30 28.2 6.2 29.4 8.1 2.6 0.23
A45 551 29 27.8 5.6 26.1 7.8 2.6 0.16
B15 496 25 26.0 5.3 42.7 6.9 2.3 0.16
B30 514 31 24.3 5.8 35.1 7.5 2.3 0.19
B45 427 27 28.8 5.6 26.3 5.9 2.0 0.12
SiroPlant + 428 27 28.1 4.1 36.2 6.7 2.3 0.20
soil
A15 + soil 570 34 29.1 4.4 32.1 7.9 2.3 0.26
A30 + soil 506 30 24.4 4.3 32.2 8.4 2.6 0.27
A45 + soil 447 31 21.7 3.9 32.3 8.8 2.8 0.28
B15 + soil 447 30 24.8 4.3 45.0 8.0 2.6 0.24
B30 + soil 408 28 23.7 4.6 36.3 8.4 2.6 0.19
B45 + soil 461 29 25.0 3.9 30.5 8.0 2.4 0.23
*LSD 142 7 4.9 1.1 16.1 2.1 0.5 0.15

Notes. LSD, least significant difference (P < 0.05). Nutrient contents are expressed on a dry-matter
basis.

Conclusions
Acacia composts were well matured and showed high-quality physical characteristics
to replace pine bark in substrate formulation, namely, particle size, total porosity, air
capacity, and easily available water within the established limits for an ideal substrate,
as well as reduced volume shrinkage and low bulk density. However, these composts
showed greater pH value, slightly greater EC, and reduced OM and C/N ratio
compared to peat moss. Therefore, compost chemical characteristics can limit the
proportion by which acacia compost can substitute for peat or pine bark in final
substrates.
With the increasing of the composting period from 147 to 420 days, the physical
properties of the composts improved but the same was not true for chemical char-
acteristics such as pH or EC. Replacing pine bark compost by acacia compost in the
commercial substrate did not negatively affect lettuce germination, seedling emergence,
or lettuce growth. Therefore, acacia composts can be recommended for substrate
formulation, although in mixtures with other components such as peat to decrease
the final substrate pH and EC. Crop and container characteristics must be considered
for recommendations about the optimum proportion of acacia compost in final
substrate composition.
 1824 L. M. Brito et al.

Funding
This study was supported by project QREN/COMPETE/CEI_13584, funded by the
European Union.

ORCID
Luis Brito http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6606-2963
Mário Reis http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3349-3003
Isabel Mourão http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4890-6584
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPVC] at 16:11 29 July 2015

João Coutinho http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6303-9549

References
Abad, M., P. Noguera, and S. Burés. 2001. National inventory of organic wastes for use as growing
media for ornamental potted plant production: Case study in Spain. Bioresource Technology
77:197–200. doi:10.1016/S0960-8524(00)00152-8.
Atiyeh, R. M., C. A. Edwards, S. Subler, and J. D. Metzger. 2001. Pig manure vermicompost as a
component of a horticultural bedding plant medium: Effects on physicochemical properties and
plant growth. Bioresource Technology 78:11–20. doi:10.1016/S0960-8524(00)00172-3.
Bailey, D. A., P. V. Nelson, and W. C. Fonteno. 2000. Substrates pH and water quality. Raleigh:
North Carolina State University.
Benito, M., A. Masaguer, R. De Antonio, and A. Moliner. 2005. Use of pruning waste compost as a
component in soil-less growing media. Bioresource Technology 96:597–603. doi:10.1016/j.
biortech.2004.06.006.
Brito, L. M. 2001. Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and cabbage (Brassica oleracea var Capitata) growth
in soil mixed with municipal solid waste compost and paper mill sludge composted with bark.
Acta Horticulturae 563:131–37.
Brito, L. M., A. Paiva, M. Reis, and H. M. Ribeiro. 2010. Analysis of physical and chemical
characteristics of commercial substrates and comparison with a compost of organic waste.
Spanish Journal of Rural Development 1 (3): 51–60. doi:10.5261/2010.GEN3.05.
Bustamante, M. A., C. Paredes, R. Moral, E. Agulló, M. D. Pérez-Murcia, and M. Abad. 2008.
Composts from distillery wastes as peat substitutes for transplant production. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 52:792–99. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2007.11.005.
CEN. 2001. Soil improvers and growing media, determination of nitrogen, part 1: Modified Kjeldahl
method (EN 13654:2001). Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.
de Boodt, M., and O. Verdonck. 1972. The physical properties of the substrates in horticulture. Acta
Horticulturae 26:37–44.
de Boodt, M., O. Verdonck, and I. Cappaert. 1974. Method for measuring the water release curve of
organic substrates. Acta Horticulturae 37:2054–62.
Fonteno, W. C. 1996. Growing media: Types and physical/chemical properties. In A growers guide
to water, media, and nutrition for greenhouse crops, ed. D. W. Red, 93–122. Batavia, IL: Ball.
Gabriels, R., and O. Verdonck. 1991. Physical and chemical characterization of plant substrates:
Towards a European standardization. Acta Horticulturae 294:249–59.
Garcia-Gomez, A., M. P. Bernal, and A. Roig. 2002. Growth of ornamental plants in two composts
prepared from agroindustrial wastes. Bioresource Technology 83:81–87. doi:10.1016/S0960-
8524(01)00211-5.
Gómez, C., and J. Robbins. 2011. Pine bark substrates amended with parboiled rice hulls: Physical
properties and growth of container-grown spirea during long-term nursery production.
Hortscience 46:784–90.
 Substrates from Acacia Waste Compost 1825

Harada, Y., and A. Inoko. 1980. The measurement of the cation-exchange capacity of composts for
the estimation of the degree of maturity. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 26:127–34.
doi:10.1080/00380768.1980.10433219.
Herrera, F., J. E. Castillo, A. F. Chica, and L. L. Bellido. 2008. Use of municipal solid waste compost
(MSWC) as a growing medium in the nursery production of tomato plants. Bioresource
Technology 99:287–96. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2006.12.042.
Jayasinghe, G. Y., I. D. L. Arachchi, and Y. Tokashiki. 2010. Evaluation of containerized substrates
developed from cattle manure compost and synthetic aggregates for ornamental plant produc-
tion as a peat alternative. Resources Conservation and Recycling 54:1412–18. doi:10.1016/j.
resconrec.2010.06.002.
Jayasinghe, G. Y., Y. Tokashiki, I. D. L. Arachchi, and M. Arakaki. 2010. Sewage sludge
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPVC] at 16:11 29 July 2015

sugarcane trash based compost and synthetic aggregates as peat substitutes in containerized
media for crop production. Journal of Hazardous Materials 174:700–6. doi:10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2009.09.107.
Larney, F. J., and X. Hao. 2007. A review of composting as a management alternative for beef cattle
feedlot manure in southern Alberta, Canada. Bioresource Technology 98:3221–27. doi:10.1016/
j.biortech.2006.07.005.
Mazuela, P., and M. Urrestarazu. 2009. The effect of amendment of vegetable waste compost used as
substrate in soilless culture on yield and quality of melon crops. Compost Science and
Utilization 17:103–07. doi:10.1080/1065657X.2009.10702408.
Medina, E., C. Paredes, M. D. Pérez-Murcia, M. A. Bustamante, and R. Moral. 2009. Spent
mushroom substrates as component of growing media for germination and growth of horticul-
tural plants. Bioresource Technology 100:4227–32. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2009.03.055.
Moldes, A., Y. Cendón, and M. T. Barral. 2007. Evaluation of municipal solid waste compost as a
plant growing media component, by applying mixture design. Bioresource Technology
98:3069–75. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2006.10.021.
Morais, M. C., M. R. Panuccio, A. Muscolo, and H. Freitas. 2012. Salt tolerance traits increase the
invasive success of Acacia longifolia in Portuguese coastal dunes. Plant Physiology and
Biochemistry 55:60–65. doi:10.1016/j.plaphy.2012.03.013.
Noguera, P., M. Abad, R. Puchades, A. Maquieira, and V. Noguera. 2003. Influence of particle size
on physical and chemical properties of coconut coir dust as container medium. Communications
in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 34:593–605. doi:10.1081/CSS-120017842.
Ostos, J. C., R. López-Garrido, J. M. Murillo, and R. López. 2008. Substitution of peat for municipal
solid-waste- and sewage-sludge-based composts in nursery growing media: Effects on growth
and nutrition of the native shrub Pistacia lentiscus L. Bioresource Technology 99:1793–800.
doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2007.03.033.
Perez-Murcia, M. D., R. Moral, J. Moreno-Caselles, A. Perez-Espinosa, and C. Paredes. 2006. Use
of composted sewage sludge in growth media for broccoli. Bioresource Technology 97:123–30.
doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2005.02.005.
Raviv, M. 1998. Horticultural uses of composted material. Acta Horticulturae 469:225–34.
Reis, M., H. Inácio, A. Rosa, J. Caço, and A. Monteiro. 2001. Grape marc compost as an alternative
growing media for greenhouse tomato. Acta Horticulturae 554:75–82.
Smith, S. R. 2009. A critical review of the bioavailability and impacts of heavy metals in municipal
solid waste composts compared to sewage sludge. Environment International 35:142–56.
doi:10.1016/j.envint.2008.06.009.
Spiers, T. M., and G. Fietje. 2000. Green waste compost as a component in soilless growing media.
Compost Science and Utilization 8:19–23. doi:10.1080/1065657X.2000.10701745.
Verdonck, O. 1983. Reviewing and evaluation of new materials used as substrates. Acta
Horticulturae 150:467–73.
Verdonck, O., and R. Gabriëls. 1992. Reference method for the determination of physical and
chemical properties of plant substrates. Acta Horticulturae 302:169–79.
 1826 L. M. Brito et al.

Watteau, F., and G. Villemin. 2011. Characterization of organic matter microstructure dynamics
during co-composting of sewage sludge, barks, and green waste. Bioresource Technology
102:9313–17. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2011.07.022.
Wong, J. W. C., K. K. Ma, K. M. Fang, and C. Cheung. 1999. Utilization of a manure compost for
organic farming in Hong Kong. Bioresource Technology 67:43–46. doi:10.1016/S0960-8524
(99)00066-8.
Zaller, J. G. 2007. Vermicompost as a substitute for peat in potting media: Effects on germination,
biomass allocation, yields, and fruit quality of three tomato varieties. Scientia Horticulturae
112:191–99. doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2006.12.023.
Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online IPVC] at 16:11 29 July 2015

View publication stats