Introduction

Constraints such as drought (Chaves et al., 2007) and organic matter deficiency in soils (Costantini et al., 2015; Priori et al., 2018) are among the predominating issues limiting the sustainability of viticulture globally. Since grape ripening mostly takes place in the dry summer season, when water requirement is high, drought impact is becoming more menacing in viticulture.

Soils in the Mediterranean Basin have the following general characteristics: highly variable structure, low organic matter content, unfavourable physical conditions, shallowness, and depth, stoniness and erosion caused by irregular and frequent, heavy rains, especially in sloping areas (Çelik et al., 1998; Jones et al., 2005; Rodeghiero et al., 2011; Costantini et al., 2015; Priori et al., 2018). According to Rodeghiero et al. (2011), most of the soils under the influence of the Mediterranean climate have low organic carbon content (0.5-1.0&nbsp% organic carbon) and climatic conditions are not suitable for the accumulation of organic matter in soils.

Low organic matter not only negatively affects plant growth, but also the development of natural microbial populations. Therefore, the application of compost to soil to increase its organic matter levels is one of the priority issues of sustainable agricultural management (Calleja-Cervantes et al., 2015; Burg et al., 2019).

On a worldwide scale, it is necessary to find low-cost and environmentally friendly plant nutrition sources to be used by farmers as an alternative to chemical fertilisers, due to economic difficulties and the latter's contribution to environmental pollution. Compost consisting of vineyard pruning residue and farm manure (Gaiotti et al., 2017) or mixture of different types of straw has a high potential that can meet this essential need of degraded soils of the Mediterranean.

Compost is one of the most important organic materials recommended for use in viticulture (Powell et al., 2007; Mugnai et al., 2012; Ramos, 2017). Its benefits include: increased soil water holding capacity (Curtis and Claassen, 2005; Mylavarapu and Zinati, 2009), provision of plant nutrients, increased total porosity (Aggelides and Londra, 2000), aggregate formation (Sodhi et al., 2009), and soil hydraulic conductivity (Curtis and Claassen, 2009).

While compost is an organic resource used in viticulture, an important inorganic material that can also be used is basaltic pumice, which contains natural minerals. Relevant studies have indicated that the use of such materials during organic fertilisation of vine could prevent erosion and preserve the physical, chemical and biological properties of the soil (Manson, 1967; Altieri, 1987; Lampkin, 1990; Özdemir et al., 2008; Mugnai et al., 2012; Blaya et al., 2016; Gaiotti et al., 2017; Özdemir et al., 2018; Burg et al., 2019).

The aim of this study was to determine the effect of applying commercial dry compost and pumice, both of which are abundant organic and inorganic materials in Turkey used for soil amendment.

Thus, the aim was to reuse the vineyard pruning residues and the straw produced as a by-product of cultivation for plant nutrition and the improvement of soil properties, such as organic matter content, porosity and aggregation. In addition, increasing the use of such materials in viticulture can have economical benefits as the need for chemical fertilizers is reduced while the use and growth of plants is maximized.

Materials and methods

Results

2. Leaf macro and micro nutrients

The results of the analysis of the leaf samples performed during the flowering period of 2017 and 2018 showed that the treatments significantly affected all macro and micro elements, except N in 2017 and Zn in 2018 (Tables&nbsp5 and&nbsp6). For this phenological stage, the values in 2017 and 2018 respectively ranged as follows: N = 3.27-3.60&nbsp% and 3.21- 3.71&nbsp%; P = 0.26-0.42&nbsp% and 0.31-0.55&nbsp%; K = 0.46-0.75&nbsp% and 0.42-0.68&nbsp%. The highest Ca values were found for S+FM (2.23 and 1.71&nbsp% in 2017 and 2018 respectively) and the highest Mg values for P+(PR+FM) (0.35 and 0.28&nbsp% in 2017 and 2018 respectively). It was observed that P+(PR+FM) values were generally higher than those obtained for the other treatments (Table 6).

As can be seen in Tables&nbsp7 and 8, in 2017 P+(PR+FM) showed the highest values for N (2.44&nbsp%), P&nbsp(0.17&nbsp%), Mg&nbsp(0.33&nbsp%) and Mn&nbsp(106.8&nbspppm). In 2017, the highest K value was obtained from the application of pumice (0.86&nbsp%). The highest Fe value was obtained from S+FM (120.7 ppm) and that of Zn from DC (28.1 ppm). The 2018 veraison values showed that there were significant differences between the treatments in terms of all macro and micro elements examined. In the second year of the experiment, the highest values for the macro and micro elements were obtained from the following treatments: N from P+(S+FM), P from Control, K from pumice, Ca from P+(S+FM) and Mg from PR+FM. In terms of the micro elements, the highest values were obtained from P+(BA+CG) and Control.

When comparing the values obtained from all treatments with the limits for the full flowering period, (according to Jones et al. (1991) and Benito et al. (2015)), the amounts were found to be high for nitrogen, optimal-high for phosphorus, optimal for calcium and Mg and low for potassium (Table&nbsp5). Fe and Mn were evaluated as being optimal and zinc values as being low (Table&nbsp6).

Similarly, in terms of the veraison limit values, N, P and Ca were found to be optimal-high, while Mg and K were optimal for all treatments (Table&nbsp7). In terms of the micro elements, Fe and Mn were found to be sufficient and Zn values were within the low-optimal limits (Table&nbsp8).

Table 5. Macro nutrient concentrations (g/100 g) in leaf blade at flowering.

View popup Expand inline Collapse inline

Treatments x		N		P		K		Ca		Mg
		2017	2018	2017	2018	2017	2018	2017	2018	2017	2018
Control		3.60	3.32 ab y	0.41 ab	0.39 ab	0.50 bc	0.45 b	1.83 abc	1.14 b	0.29 ab	0.19 c
P		3.55	3.34 ab	0.42 a	0.46 ab	0.62 ab	0.68 a	1.28 cd	1.10 b	0.20 cd	0.18 c
DC		3.27	3.21 b	0.26 c	0.55 a	0.60 abc	0.47 b	1.22 d	1.23 ab	0.19 d	0.20 bc
PR+FM		3.45	3.53 ab	0.35 abc	0.46 ab	0.56 bc	0.42 b	1.71 abcd	1.52 ab	0.24 bcd	0.24 abc
S+FM		3.54	3.39 ab	0.29 c	0.38 ab	0.75 a	0.48 ab	2.23 a	1.71 a	0.26 bc	0.26 ab
P+DC		3.46	3.53 ab	0.31 bc	0.51 a	0.56 bc	0.55 ab	1.57 bcd	1.24 ab	0.24 bcd	0.23 abc
P+(S+FM)		3.47	3.58 ab	0.30 c	0.31 b	0.57 bc	0.55 ab	1.69 abcd	1.58 ab	0.22 bcd	0.23 abc
P+(PR+FM)		3.57	3.71 a	0.32 bc	0.44 ab	0.46 c	0.43 b	2.05 ab	1.47 ab	0.35 a	0.28 a
p		NS	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	**	**
SRz	Low	<2.08		<0.14		<0.61		<0.94		<0.13
	Optimal	2.08-3.25		0.14-0.32		0.61-1.94		0.94-2.47		0.13-0.38
	High	>3.25		>0.32		>1.94		>2.47		>0.38

^x: P = Pumice, S = Straw, DC = Dry compost, PR = Pruning residue, FM = Farm manure.
^y: Significant difference (p&nbsp≤&nbsp0.05) was found between the means indicated by different letters in the same column.
* = p&nbsp≤&nbsp0.05, ** = p&nbsp≤&nbsp0.01, *** = p&nbsp≤&nbsp0.001, NS&nbsp=&nbspnon significant
^Z: SR, Sufficiency ranges have been adopted from Jones et al. (1991) and Benito et al. (2015).

Table 6. Micro nutrient concentrations (mg/kg) in leaf blades at flowering.

View popup Expand inline Collapse inline

Treatments x		Fe		Mn		Zn
		2017	2018	2017	2018	2017	2018
Control		162.9 bc y	57.7 bc	108.2 b	69.1 bc	20.5 a	11.1
P		123.8 c	51.8 c	86.0 bc	42.0 d	17.2 b	11.6
DC		190.4 ab	51.5 c	74.8 c	65.8 bcd	16.1 b	9.5
PR+FM		205.8 ab	53.9 c	99.8 b	58.1 cd	16.4 b	9.7
S+FM		211.9 a	59.1 bc	94.8 bc	63.5 bcd	17.0 b	9.5
P+DC		186.4 ab	56.5 bc	89.7 bc	85.2 ab	15.3 b	10.8
P+(S+FM)		132.5 c	63.9 ab	88.0 bc	53.3 cd	15.1 b	9.6
P+(PR+FM)		183.7 ab	68.2 a	142.5 a	94.3 a	21.4 a	12.0
p		**	**	***	**	***	NS
SR z	Low	<45		<25		<18
	Optimal	45-197		25-145		18-250
	High	>197		>145		>250

^x: P = Pumice, S = Straw, DC = Dry compost, PR = Pruning residue, FM = Farm manure.
^y: Significant difference (p&nbsp≤&nbsp0.05) was found between the means indicated by different letters in the same column.
* = p&nbsp≤&nbsp0.05, ** = p&nbsp≤&nbsp0.01, *** = p&nbsp≤&nbsp0.001.
^Z: SR: Sufficiency ranges have been adopted from Jones et al. (1991) and Benito et al. (2015).

Table 7. Macro nutrient concentrations (g/100 g-1) in leaf blade at veraison.

View popup Expand inline Collapse inline

Treatmentsx		N		P			K			Ca			Mg
		2017	2018	2017	2018	2017		2018	2017		2018	2017		2018
Control		2.28 aby	2.81 b	0.15 ab	0.33 a	0.42 d		0.90 e	2.64		3.28 b	0.32 ab		0.22 b
P		2.27 ab	2.73 b	0.17 a	0.18 b	0.86 a		1.79 a	2.96		4.05 ab	0.22 b		0.24 ab
DC		2.31 ab	2.77 b	0.15 ab	0.27 ab	0.48 cd		0.87 e	2.91		3.56 ab	0.28 ab		0.32 ab
PR+FM		2.21 abc	2.97 b	0.17 a	0.21 ab	0.61 bc		1.33bcd	2.62		4.52 a	0.30 ab		0.33 a
S+FM		2.01 c	2.97 b	0.14 b	0.20 ab	0.61 bc		1.40 ab	3.30		4.16 ab	0.30 ab		0.28 ab
P+DC		2.36 ab	2.69 b	0.16 ab	0.29 ab	0.42 d		1.01 cde	3.13		3.75 ab	0.35 a		0.26 ab
P+(S+FM)		2.16 bc	5.57 a	0.15 ab	0.24 ab	0.77 ab		1.36 bc	3.43		4.27 a	0.32 ab		0.29 ab
P+(PR+FM)		2.44 a	2.95 b	0.17 a	0.28 ab	0.42 d		0.98 de	2.79		4.12 ab	0.33 a		0.30 ab
p		*	***	*	*	***		***	NS		*	*		*
SRz	Low	<1.41		<0.11		<0.40			<0.86			<0.10
	Optimal	1.41-2.28		0.11-0.19		0.40-1.56			0.86-3.28			0.10-0.47
	High	>2.28		>0.19		>1.56			>3.28			>0.47

^x: P = Pumice, S = Straw, DC = Dry compost, PR = Pruning residue, FM = Farm manure.
^y: Significant difference (p&nbsp≤&nbsp0.05) was found between the means indicated by different letters in the same column.
* = p&nbsp≤&nbsp0.05, ** = p&nbsp≤&nbsp0.01, *** = p&nbsp≤&nbsp0.001.
^Z: SR = sufficiency ranges have been adopted from Jones et al. (1991) and Benito et al. (2015).

Table 8. Micro nutrient concentrations (mg/kg) in leaf blade at verasion.

View popup Expand inline Collapse inline

Treatmentsx		Fe		Mn		Zn
		2017	2018	2017	2018	2017	2018
Control		102.4 by	105.0 a	86.4 ab	145.1 a	23.8 ab	16.3 a
P		112.8 ab	88.2 ab	60.1 c	108.3 b	20.5 bc	12.0 b
DC		115.2 ab	73.0 b	82.0 abc	97.6 b	28.1 a	12.9 b
PR+FM		113.9 ab	85.7 ab	73.6 bc	102.7 b	24.2 ab	12.9 b
S+FM		120.7 a	96.6 a	76.4 bc	106.9 b	24.0 ab	14.8 ab
P+DC		112.8 ab	87.4 ab	79.2 bc	108.0 b	24.7 ab	12.8 b
P+(S+FM)		118.0 a	90.2 ab	57.6 c	117.2 b	18.8 c	13.8 ab
P+(PR+FM)		113.8 ab	102.6 a	106.8 a	166.1 a	21.8 bc	16.1 a
p		*	*	**	***	*	*
SRz	Low	<50		<25		<15
	Optimal	50-235		25-187		15-160
	High	>235		>187		>160

^x: P = Pumice, S = Straw, DC = Dry compost, PR = Pruning residue, FM = Farm manure.
^y: Significant difference (p&nbsp≤&nbsp0.05) was found between the means indicated by different letters in the same column.
* = p&nbsp≤&nbsp0.05, ** = p&nbsp≤&nbsp0.01, *** = p&nbsp≤&nbsp0.001.
^Z: SR, Sufficiency ranges are from Jones et al. (1991) and Benito et al. (2015).

3. Soil moisture and temperature

In both study years, adding organic material to the soil affected the soil moisture content at two soil depths (Table 9). The highest values in a soil depth of 0-30 cm were found to be 19.50&nbsp% (Control) in 2017 and 20.72&nbsp% (P+(PR+FM)) in 2018. At a depth of 30-60 cm, they were 24.02&nbsp% (Control) in 2017, and 23.58&nbsp% and 23.26&nbsp% (Control and P+(PR+FM respectively) in 2018.

The treatments did not significantly affect soil temperature measured at depths of 0-30 cm and 30-60 cm in either year (Figure 1).

Table 9. Effects of different treatments on soil moisture content at depths of 0-30 cm and 30-60 cm.

View popup Expand inline Collapse inline

Treatmentsx	Soil moisture (%) 0-30 cm		Soil moisture (%) 30-60 cm
	2017	2018	2017	2018
Control	19.50 ay	19.86 abc	24.02 a	23.58 a
P	18.19 b	19.01 c	20.41 e	20.46 c
DC	18.92 ab	19.44 bc	22.08 b	21.97 b
PR+FM	18.96 ab	19.74 abc	20.40 e	21.96 b
S+FM	19.00 ab	20.32 ab	20.90 cd	22.28 b
P+DC	18.31 b	19.87 abc	21.24 c	22.61 b
P+(S+FM)	16.58 c	16.18 d	20.77 de	20.85 c
P+(PR+FM)	18.48 b	20.72 a	22.40 b	23.26 a
p	***	***	***	***

^x: P = Pumice, S = Straw, DC = Dry compost, PR = Pruning residue, FM = Farm manure.
^y: Significant difference (p&nbsp≤&nbsp0.05) was found between the means indicated by different letters in the same column.
* = p&nbsp≤&nbsp0.05, ** = p&nbsp≤&nbsp0.01, *** = p&nbsp≤&nbsp0.001.

Figure 1. Effects of the different treatments on soil temperature at depths of 0-30 cm and 30-60 cm.

Save View full size Expand inline Collapse inline

P&nbsp=&nbspPumice, S&nbsp=&nbspStraw, DC = Dry compost, PR = Pruning residue, FM&nbsp=&nbspFarm manure.

4. Microbiological and biochemical characteristics of the soil

In terms of the microbiological and biochemical characteristics of the soil, the treatments were found to have a significant effect on CO₂ production, microbial biomass, dehydrogenase, urease and phosphatase enzyme activities (Table&nbsp10).

The highest values for CO₂ production were obtained from P+(PR+FM) in 2017 and from S+FM in 2018 (Table&nbsp10), and the lowest was from pumice in both years. Table&nbsp10 shows the effect of the organic materials used on soil Microbial Biomass C; the highest values were obtained from the application of S+FM in 2017, and S+FM, P+DC and P+(PR+FM) in 2018. Meanwhile, the application of pumice gave the lowest value, which was similar to that of CO₂ production. Enzyme activity was also affected by the treatments. In terms of the effect of the organic materials used in this study on dehydrogenase enzyme activity in soils, the application of P+(PR+FM) in 2017 and of PR+FM in 2018 yielded the highest figures. The highest urease activity was recorded for P+(PR+FM), P+DC and Control in 2017 and for P+DC in 2018, and among the lowest values were those for P manifested lowest values compared to the others in both of the years (Table&nbsp10). In terms of phosphatase activity, the highest values were measured for the application of P+(PR+FM) in 2017 and for P+DC in 2018 (Table&nbsp10). Meanwhile, the lowest values were found for pumice only.

Table 10. Effects of different treatments on microbiological and biochemical characteristics of the soil.

View popup Expand inline Collapse inline

Treatmentsx	CO2 - Production (mg CO2/g P.M./7days)		Microbial Biomass (mg Biomass-C/100 g dry soil)		Dehydrogenase E.A. (µg TPF/g dry soil)		Urease E.A. (µg N/g dry soil/2h)		Phosphatase E.A. (µg p-NP/g dry soil./h)
	2017	2018	2017	2018	2017	2018	2017	2018	2017	2018
Control	11.04 bcy	17.27 bc	44.47 bc	56.22 ab	107.72 b	224.88 cd	75.68 a	87.72 c	395.10 ab	598.65 abc
P	8.24 d	13.33 d	34.33 d	43.40 c	51.00 e	152.19 d	51.09 c	93.96 bc	221.49 e	460.17 e
DC	9.02 cd	15.91 cd	40.98 cd	47.35 bc	61.74 cde	224.11 cd	69.54 ab	117.55 ab	284.91 d	513.75 de
PR+FM	10.26 bcd	15.88 cd	40.90 cd	53.00 ab	67.53 cde	374.59 a	54.58 bc	99.16 abc	297.18 cd	565.83 cd
S+FM	12.50 ab	20.04 a	51.59 a	60.65 a	76.92 cd	316.15 abc	67.32 ab	114.49 ab	351.94 bc	596.38 bc
P+DC	11.77 ab	17.90 abc	46.09 abc	59.81 a	85.29 bc	246.51 bcd	74.54 a	123.52 a	293.78 cd	674.31 a
P+(S+FM)	10.09 bcd	19.12 ab	49.23 ab	54.18 ab	59.01 de	309.19 abc	49.26 c	97.08 bc	256.33 de	536.65 cde
P+(PR+FM)	13.68 a	19.99 ab	51.48 ab	61.47 a	149.10 a	346.09 ab	76.13 a	106.42 abc	445.15 a	645.85 ab
p	**	***	***	**	***	**	**	*	***	***

^x: P = Pumice, S = Straw, DC = Dry compost, PR = Pruning residue, FM = Farm manure.
^y: Significant difference (p&nbsp≤&nbsp0.05) was found between the means indicated by different letters in the same column.
* = p&nbsp≤&nbsp0.05, ** = p&nbsp≤&nbsp0.01, *** = p&nbsp≤&nbsp0.001.

Discussion

Soil type, structure, precipitation, temperature, vegetation, land use history, latitude, slope and cultural practices all have a strong influence on the distribution of organic matter in soils (Powers and Schlesinger, 2002; Mueller and Pierce, 2003; Krishnan et al., 2007; Schulp and Veldkamp, 2008; Zhang et al., 2011). Due to these factors, it may not be possible to clearly determine the effects of short-term applications of organic material on plant and soil properties, and the effects can vary depending on the applied material type, treatment method and ecosystem features of the experimental area.

In the present study, the highest grape yield and cluster weight values were obtained from the application of S+FM compost in both years, but the order of superiority for the other treatments is not clear. This is assumed to be due to the young age of the vines and their ability to find sufficient nutrients and water in the soil at this stage. In Table&nbsp3, it can be seen that the efficiency increase in 2018 was higher for DC and PR+FM compared to 2017. In these practices, it is highly probable that the low grape yield in 2017 caused an increase in the productivity of the buds during the vegetation period of 2017, thus setting the product of the next year. Because the productivity of the winter buds increased in 2017, the shoots caused the number and weight of bunches to increase for DC and PR+FM applications, and therefore the yield also increased normally. For the application of S+FM, the grape yield in 2017 and 2018 was 6172&nbspg/vine (41.1&nbspt/ha) and 7874&nbspg/vine (52.5&nbspt/ha) respectively, which is more than the average yield of Turkey. The average grape yield per hectare in Turkey is approximately 9&nbsptons (OIV, 2019). The differences between the treatments in terms of berry weight and must properties were not clear for either year.

Different results have been obtained in previous studies regarding the effect of compost and other organic materials on the growth, yield and quality of grapevine (Pinamonti, 1998; Morlat, 2008; Mugnai et al., 2012; Tardaguila et al., 2018; Burg et al., 2019). Overall, the effects of compost on yield were found to be minor in some studies. Pinamonti (1998) and Morlat (2008) did not find any significant effects of compost on yield. Conversely, in an experiment by Mugnai et al. (2012), the effects of treatments changed significantly over 9 years. In this study, the presence of Green Waste compost in the soil was not found to significantly affect V. vinifera growth, and the application of compost gave contrasting results related to yield and quality of grape, which greatly varied over the years. The organic amendment statistically affected the average cluster weight, except in 2003, 2004 and 2005, and grape quality (determined by pH and °Brix) was not affected by compost, except in 2006 when °Brix was higher for compost treatments compared to the control. Morlat and Symoneaux (2008) found that juice pH increased with an increasing organic amendment rate. However, in our experiment, although the effect of applying compost and other organic material on berry weight and other properties was not clear, grape yield and cluster weight significantly increased in the second year. Furthermore, in terms of the effects on vegetative growth, yield and grape quality, Tardaguila et al. (2018) found no significant differences between the control, soil green manure, dry mulching and vine pruning residue compost management strategies in degraded areas. Similar to our results, the researchers concluded that this might have been due to the study period not being long enough to obtain the effects of organic additive responses to plants and soil, which need more than a couple of years. Cabilovski et al. (2014) mentioned that the permanent effect of compost lasts longer and only 11&nbsp% of organic N from composted fertiliser applied in autumn and 21&nbsp% of non-composted fertiliser was mineralised the following year.

Although Burg et al. (2019) stated that applications of organic matter improve soil fertility and physical properties (such as soil water retention, soil aggregation, water and aeration of soil, etc.) the effects of applications on yield and quality components (including soil moisture and temperature) was not seen in their two-year study. The reason for this may have been a lack of sufficient precipitation prior to harvest (from January and June) in 2017 and 2018, and an insufficient volume of irrigation in all plots.

In addition, the organic material applied over the two years did not sufficiently decompose; the soil moisture and temperature did not seem to change as a result of the treatments.

According to the results of the leaf nutrient analysis, N, P and Ca were optimal-high, Mg, K, Fe and Mn were optimal, and Zn was within the low-optimal limits across the vines. These results indicate that in the first year there were enough nutrients in the soil for the young vines. The compost and the other treatments are expected to be more effective in the following years in terms of availability of nutrients.

Baronti et al. (2014) note that the addition of compost or compost-like substances to soil in vineyards positively influences the soil water holding capacity, water infiltration, soil water availability, nutrient retention, and soil aeration. They found that adding Biochar to soil increased the soil water holding capacity by 3.2&nbsp% to 45&nbsp% when pruning waste was applied at the rates of 22 and 44&nbspton/ha.

In research carried out by Gaiotti et al. (2017), the effect of compost on soil fertility, vine growth, yield and grape quality (2009–2013) were investigated in a private vineyard in northeastern Italy over 5 years. Two different types of compost (compost from vine pruning waste and from cattle manure) and two application methods (inter-row and under-row distribution) were tested on mature ‘Cabernet Sauvignon' vines. The compost stimulated high vegetative growth and high root development; the latter occurred when the compost was locally supplied to the under-row. In both cases, a reduction in fruit quality was observed, likely due to competition between the canopy or roots and the fruit. The inter-row application of compost from vineyard pruning waste produced the best overall performance, displaying well-balanced root/canopy growth, increased yield, and satisfactory grape quality.

Heterotroph microorganisms use organic carbon as a source of carbon and energy, and the amount of CO₂ that they thereby produce in different organic materials provides information about C-mineralisation (Göçmez et al., 2019).

The amount of microbial biomass has been frequently used in recent years to characterise the microbiological structure of soil. The concept of microbial biomass can be defined as the weight of living microorganisms in the soil. It is useful for the storage of nutrients, such as C, N, S and P, and is an indicator of any transformations taking place in the soil organic matter (Jenkinson and Ladd, 1981). Although microbial biomass represents a very small amount of total soil N and C, the latter are reported to contribute to the nutrition of plants due to their rapid cycle, resulting in the mineralisation of nitrogen and other plant nutrients.

Pumice and compost did not affect soil microbial biomass more when applied alone, in contrast to the mixtures of pumice and straw. This is thought to be due to the mixtures creating a more suitable environment for microorganism activity compared to other organic materials. Manson (1967) reported that basaltic pumice is among the most important plant inorganic nutrient sources, as it has high porosity (55-80&nbsp%) and aeration capacity.

It is possible to obtain information about the amount of various dehydrogenase enzymes in the soil by measuring the activity of the respiratory enzyme, dehydrogenase. This is also an indicator of aerobic and facultative anaerobic living organisms, which supply hydrogen from organic compounds and transport it to a hydrogen scavenger (Çengel, 1995). Wittling et al. (1995) suggested that dehydrogenase enzyme activity is a reliable indicator of overall microbial activity in soils. Many soil and climatic factors affecting microbial life and applications to soil affect the activity of dehydrogenase enzyme, because it is used by the live soil microbial population. Urease is an enzyme that catalyses the hydrolysis of urea to CO₂ and ammonia, and it is commonly found in high plants and microorganisms (especially bacteria). Urease is the only enzyme that strongly affects the decomposition and usefulness of urea, which is an important nitrogenous fertilizer for soil. Urease activity increases in parallel with an increase in soil organic matter content and it decreases in salty and alkaline soils.

The mineralisation of organic phosphorus compounds to orthophosphate involves phosphomono esterases (acid and alkaline phosphatases), which are released by plant roots and soil microorganisms (Göçmez et al., 2019). Phosphatases are mainly produced under low phosphate availability conditions. Microbial phosphatases are more present in such soils (Tabatabai, 1982).

The values obtained for the samples to which only pumice was applied were generally low, but it is worth noting that there was an improvement in enzyme activity for the mixtures with Pumice, especially for P+(PR+FM), which contained pruning residues. As well as the nutrient contribution it provides, Pumice is thought to contribute to soil properties, such as aeration and water retention, alongside the other materials in compost mixtures. Slama et al. (2019) also reported that using compost in combination with natural rocks enriched with NPK mobilisation bacteria and mineral NPK enhanced leaf nutrient content and gave the highest yield and cluster weight. This mix also improved the physical and chemical characteristics of the berries.

Consequently, the treatments with high enzyme activities were found to perform better than mixtures with low enzyme activity. The use of mixtures based on their enzyme activity can thus be recommended for increasing plant nutrition efficiency in vineyards.

We therefore hope that this knowledge will play a role in encouraging the utilisation of pumice, which is a natural and low-cost inorganic material for good agricultural practices.

Conclusions

The results obtained in this study demonstrated that the application of compost and other inorganic materials to vineyard soil can improve grape yield and quality. However, previous studies have shown that the origin and chemical composition of the materials and the method and rate of treatments are crucial factors to be taken into consideration when assessing optimal uses. Under conditions similar to those in our study (i.e., corresponding to a semi-arid region with soil limitations), the inter-row application (around 50&nbspt/ha) of compost from vine pruning waste or straw can successfully replace mineral fertilisation, and give satisfactory yield and grape quality. In addition to crop quality aspects, the application of compost is also beneficial for soil, and therefore the adoption of compost amendments as a sustainable vineyard management practice should be encouraged. In general in this study, high values for the application of P+(PR+FM) and S+FM were recorded, especially in terms of treatment effects on the microbiological and biochemical characteristics of the soil.

While the application of compost alone or with inorganic materials generally provided some improvement compared to the control for most of the properties studied, further studies should focus on observing the accumulated effects of such treatment on the development of grapevine in order to make sound recommendations regarding suitable material.

In sustainable viticulture, issues related to soil fertility - particularly increasing spells of drought and degradation of soils - still need a lot of attention. Therefore, more efforts should be directed at replacing traditional chemical fertilisers with local organic and inorganic materials which are abundant and economically advantageous, such as farm manure, pumice, pruning residue, and straw, etc.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Çukurova University Scientific Research Coordination Unit (Project No: FBA-2017-7402). The authors would also like to thank Dr. Erhan Akça for language editing and his valuable comments.

References

• Aggelides, S.M. & Londra, P.A. (2000). Effects of compost produced from town wastes and sewage sludge on the physical properties of a loamy and a clay soil. Bioresource Technology, 71, 253-259. doi:/10.1016/S0960-8524(99)00074-7
• Altieri, M.A. (1987). Agroecology. Westview Press (Boulder). IT Publications. London. 227 p.
• Anderson, T.H., & Domsch, K.H. (1978). A Physiological method for the quantitative measurement of microbial biomass in soil. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 215-221. doi:/10.1016/0038-0717(78)90099-8
• Baronti, S., Vaccari, F.P., Miglietta, F., Calzolari, C., Lugato, E., Orlandini, S., ... & Genesio, L. (2014). Impact of biochar application on plant water relations in Vitis vinifera L. European Journal of Agronomy. 53, 38-44. doi:/10.1016/j.eja.2013.11.003
• Benito, A., García-Escudero, E., Romero, I., Domínguez, N., & Martín, I. (2015). Sufficiency ranges (sr) and deviation from optimum percentage (dop) references for leaf blade and petiole analysis in ‘Red Grenache’grapevines. Journal international science vigne vin, 49, 1, 47-58. doi:/10.20870/oeno-one.2015.49.1.94
• Bhangoo, M. S., Day, K.S., Sudanagunta, V.R., & Petrucci, V.E. (1988). Application of paultry manure influences Thompson Seedless grape production and soil properties. Hort Science, 23, 6, 1010-1012.
• Blaya, J., Marhuenda, F. C., Pascual, J. A., & Ros, M. (2016). Microbiota characterization of compost using omics approaches opens new perspectives for phytophthora root rot control. PloS one, 11, 8. doi:/10.1371/journal.pone.0158048
• Burg, P.,Masan, V., Alice Cizkova, A., & Barbora Badalikova, B. (2019). Impact of compost application in vineyards on changes of physical properties of soil. Jelgava, 576-582. doi:/10.22616/ERDev2019.18.N263
• Cabilovski, R., Manojlovic, M., Bogdanovic, D., Magazin, N., Keserovic, Z., & Sitaula, B.K. (2014). Mulch type and application of manure and composts in strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.) production: impact on soil fertility and yield. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture, 101, 1, 67-74. doi:/10.13080/z-a.2014.101.009
• Calleja-Cervantes, M. E., Fernández-González, A. J., Irigoyen, I., Fernández-López, M., Aparicio-Tejo, P. M., & Menéndez, S. (2015). Thirteen years of continued application of composted organic wastes in a vineyard modify soil quality characteristics. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 90, 241-254. doi:/10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.07.002
• Çelik, H., Ağaoğlu. S. Fidan. Y.. Marasalı. B., & Söylemezoğlu, G. (1998). Genel Bağcılık. Sunfidan A. Ş. Mesleki Kitaplar Serisi: 1. Fersa Matbacılık San. Tic. Ltd. Şti. Kızılay- Ankara.
• Çelik, S. (2011). Bağcılık (Ampeloloji), Cilt I. Namık Kemal Univ. Ziraat Fak. Bahçe Bitkileri Böl. Tekirdağ, 428s.
• Chaves, M.M., Santos, T.P., Souza, C.R., Ortuno, M.F., Rodrigues, M.L., Lopes, C.M., Maroco, J.P., & Pereira, J.S. (2007). Deficit irrigation in grapevine improves water-use-efficiency without controlling vigour and production quality. Annals of Applied Biology, 150, 237-252. doi:/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2006.00123.x
• Costantini, E. A. C., Agnelli, A. E., Fabiani, A., Gagnarli, E., Mocali, S., Priori, S., ... & Valboa, G. (2015). Short-term recovery of soil physical, chemical, micro-and mesobiological functions in a new vineyard under organic farming. Soil, 1, 443-457. doi:/10.5194/soil-1-443-2015
• Curtis, M.J., & Claassen, V.P. (2005). Compost incorporation increases plant available water in a drastically disturbed serpentine soil. Soil Science, 170, 939-953. doi:/10.1097/01.ss.0000187352.16740.8e
• Curtis, M.J., & Claassen, V.P. (2009). Regenerating topsoil functionality in four drastically disturbed soil types by compost incorporation. Restoration Ecology, 17, 1, 24-32. doi:/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2007.00329.x
• Çengel, M. (1995). Toprak Mikrobiyolojisi ve Biyokimyası Ders Teksiri. Ege Üniv. Ziraat Fak. Teksir No: 78. Bornova.
• Eivazi, F., & Tabatabai, M.A. (1977). Phosphatases in Soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 9, 3, 167-172.
• Gaiotti, F., Marcuzzo, P., Belfiore, N., Lovat, L., Fornasier, F., & Tomasi, D. (2017). Influence of compost addition on soil properties, root growth and vine performances of Vitis vinifera cv. Cabernet-Sauvignon. Scientia Horticulturae, 225, 88-95. doi:/10.1016/j.scienta.2017.06.052
• Göçmez, S., Bellitürk, K., Görres, J. H., Turan, H. S., Üstündağ, Ö., Solmaz, Y., & Adiloğlu, A. (2019). The Effects of the use of vermicompost in olive tree farming on microbiological and biochemical characteristics of the production material. Erwerbs-Obstbau, 61, 4, 337-344. doi:/10.1007/s10341-019-00437-1
• Isermeyer, H. (1952). Eine Einfache Methode zur Bestimmung der Karbonate im Boden, Z. Pflanzenern. Düng., Bodenkde. doi:/10.1002/jpln.19520560107
• Jenkinson, D.S., & Ladd, J. N. (1981). Microbial biomass in Soil: Measurement and turnover. In E.A. Paul, and J.N. Ladd (Eds.). Soil Biochemistry, 5, 415-471. Marcel Dekker, New York.
• Jones, A., Montanarella, L., & Jones, R. (2005). Soil atlas of Europe. European Commission.
• Jones, J.B., Wolf, Jr. B., & Mills, H.A. (1991). Plant analysis handbook. I. methods of plant analysis and interpratation. Micro-Macro Publishing Inc.,183 Paradise Blvd, Suite 108, Athens Georgia 30607 USA.
• Kacar, B. (1972). Bitki ve Toprağın Kimyasal Analizleri: II. Bitki Analizleri. Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayınları: 453. Uygulama Kılavuzu:155. Ankara.
• Kacar, B. (1995). Toprak Analizleri. Bitki ve Toprağın Kimyasal Analizleri: III. Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Eğitim Araştırma ve Geliştirme Vakfı Yayınları. No: 3. 705s. Ankara.
• Kandeler, E., & Gerber, H. (1988). Short-term assay of soil urease activity using colorimetric determination of ammonium. Biol Fertil Soils, 6, 68- 72. doi:/10.1007/BF00257924
• Krishnan, P., Bourgeon, G., Lo Seen, D., Nair, K.M., Prasanna, R., Srinivas, S., Muthusankar, G., Dufy, L. & Ramesh, B.R. (2007). Organic carbon stock map for soils of southern India: A multifactorial approach. Curr. Sci., 93, 706–710.
• Lampkin, N. (1990). Organic Farming. Farming Press Books. U.K. 701 p.
• Manson, V. (1967). Geochemistry of basaltic rocks: major elements. Ed. H.H. Hess. Vol:1. Interscience publication. London. 215-271.
• Morlat, R. (2008). Long-term additions of organic amendments in a Loire valley vineyard on a calcareous sandy soil. II. Effects on root system, growth, grape yield, and foliar nutrient status of a Cabernet franc vine. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 59, 364-374.
• Morlat, R., & Symoneaux, R. (2008). Long-term additions of organic amendments in a Loire valley vineyard on a calcareous sandy soil. III. Effects on fruit composition and chemical and sensory characteristics of a Cabernet franc wine. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 59, 375-386.
• Mueller, T.G., & Pierce, F.G. (2003). Soil carbon maps: enhancing spatial estimates with simple terrain attributes at multiple scales. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 67, 258-267. doi:/10.2136/sssaj2003.2580
• Mugnai, S., Masi, E., Azzarello, E., & Mancuso, S. (2012). Influence of long-term application of green waste compost on soil characteristics and growth, yield and quality of grape (Vitis vinifera L.). Compost Science and Utilization, 20, 1, 29-33. doi:/10.1080/1065657X.2012.10737019
• Mylavarapu, R.S., & Zinati, G.M. (2009). Improvement of soil properties using compost for optimum parsley production in sandy soils. Scientia Horticulturae, 120, 2, 426-430. doi:/10.1016/j.scienta.2008.11.038
• OIV (2019). 2019 Statistical Report on World Vitiviniculture. International Organisation of Vine and Wine Intergovernmental Organisation. http://oiv.int/public/medias/6782/oiv-2019-statistical-report-on-world-vitiviniculture.pdf. Accessed on 4 Nov 2020.
• Özdemir, G., Kitir, N., Turan, M., & Ozlu, E. (2018). Impacts of organic and organo-mineral fertilizers on total phenolic, flavonoid, anthocyanin and antiradical activity of Öküzgözü (Vitis vinifera L.) grapes. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Hortorum Cultus, 17, 3, 91-100. doi:/10.24326/asphc.2018.3.9
• Özdemir, G., Tangolar, S., Gursoz, S., Cakir, A., Tangolar, S. G., & Ozturkmen, A.R. (2008). Effect of different organic manure applications on grapevine nutrient values. Asian Journal of Chemistry, 20, 3, 1841-1847.
• Powell, K.S.. Burns. A., Norng, S., Granett, J., & McGourty, G. (2007). Influence of composted green waste on the population dynamics and dispersal of grapevine phylloxera Daktulosphaira vitifoliae. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 119, 1-2, 33-38. doi:/10.1016/j.agee.2006.06.016
• Powers, J.S., & Schlesinger, W.H. (2002). Relationships between soil carbon distributions and biophysical factors at nested spatial scales in rainforests of north eastern Costa Rica. Geoderma, 109, 165–190. doi:/10.1016/S0016-7061(02)00147-7
• Priori, S., D’Avino, L., Agnelli, A.E.,Valboa, G., Knapič, M., Schroers, H.J., Akca, E., Tangolar, S., Kiraz, M.E., Giffard, B., & Fulchin, E. (2018). Effect of organic treatments on soil carbon and nitrogen dynamics in vineyard. EQA-International Journal of Environmental Quality, 31, 1-10.
• Ramos, M.C. (2017). Effects of compost amendment on the available soil water and grape yield in vineyards planted after land levelling. Agricultural Water Management, 191, 67-76. doi:/10.1016/j.agwat.2017.05.013
• Rodeghiero, M., Rubio, A., Díaz-Pinés, E., Romanyà, J., MarañónJiménez, S., Levy, G.J., Fernandez-Getino, A.P., Sebastià, M.T., Karyotis, T., Chiti, T., Sirca, C., Martins, A., Madeira, M., Zhiyanski, M., Gristina, L., & La Mantia, T. (2011). Soil carbon in Mediterranean ecosystems and related management problems. In: Soil Carbon in Sensitive European Ecosystems. Ed. by: Jandl, R., Rodeghiero, M., Olsson, M., John Wiley & Sons. Chichester, 175–218. doi:/10.1002/9781119970255.ch8
• Schinner, F., Ohlinger R., Kandeler, E., & Margenis, R. (1995), Methods in soil biology, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, Newyork, pp:189-191. doi:/10.1007/978-3-642-60966-4
• Schulp, C.J. E., & Veldkamp, A. (2008). Long-term landscape–land use interactions as explaining factor for soil organic matter variability in Dutch agricultural landscapes. Geoderma, 146, 457-465. doi:/10.1016/j.geoderma.2008.06.016
• Slama, M. I., Omar, A. E., Bassiony, S. S., & Ghoneem, G. M. (2019). Effect of compost and natural rocks as partial substitutes for NPK mineral fertilizers on yield and fruit quality of ‘Flame’seedless grapevine grown in two different locations of Egypt. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 17, 3, 0903. doi:/10.5424/sjar/2019172-14355
• Sodhi, G.P.S., Beri, V., & Benbi, D.K. (2009). Soil aggregation and distribution of carbon and nitrogen in different fractions under long-term application of compost in rice-wheat system. Soil and Soil and Tillage Research, 103, 2, 412-418. doi:/10.1016/j.still.2008.12.005
• Tabatabai, M. A. (1982). Soil enzymes. p. 903-915, 943-947. In A. L. Page, R. H. Miller, and D. R. Keeney (Eds.), Methods of soil analysis, Part 2. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin. doi:/10.2134/agronmonogr9.2.2ed.c43
• Tabatabai, M.A., & Bremner, J.M. (1969). Soil enzymes. In: Page, A.L., Miller, R.H., Keeney, D.R. (Eds) Methods of soil snalysis, Part 2. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, pp 903-947. doi:/10.2134/agronmonogr9.2.2ed.c43
• Tangolar, S., & Ergenoğlu, F. (1989). Değişik anaçların erkenci bazı üzüm çeşitlerinde yaprakların mineral besin maddesi ve çubukların karbonhidrat içerikleri üzerine etkisi. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 13, 3b, 1267-1283.
• Tangolar, S., Tangolar, S., & Topcu, S. (2015). Effects of different bud loads and irrigations applied at different leaf water potential levels on Kalecik Karası grape variety. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 39, 6, 887-897. doi:/10.3906/tar-1502-39
• Tardaguila, J., Storchi, P., Puccioni, S., Zombardo, A., Tangolar, S., Tangolar, S., Ada, M., Kiraz, M.E., Giffard, B., Fulchin, E., Schroers, Pelengić, R., Moreda, E., Fernandez-Novales, J., & Costantini, E.A.C. (2018). Effects of soil degradation and organic treatments on vegetative growth, yield and grape quality. EQA-International Journal of Environmental Quality, 30, 31-35.
• Thalmann, A. (1968). Zur methodik der bistimmung der dehydrogenase aktivitaet im boden mittels triphenyltetrozoliumchlorid (TTC). Landwirtsch. Forsch, 21, 249-258.
• Weaver, R. J. (1976). Grape growing. A Wiley Inter science Publication, 371 p.
• Winkler, A. J., Cook. J. A.. Kliewer. W. M., & Lider, L.A. (1974). General Viticulture. University of California Press. Berkeley. 710 p.
• Wittling, C., Houot, S., & Barriuso, E. (1995). Soil enzymatic response to addition of municipal solid-waste compost. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 20, 4, 226. doi:/10.1007/BF00336082
• Zhang, C., Tang, Y., Xu. X., & Kiely, G. (2011). Towards spatial geochemical modelling: Use of geographically weighted regression for mapping soil organic carbon contents in Ireland. Applied Geochemistry, 26, 7, 1239-1248.