Short-term effects of food waste composts on
physicochemical soil quality and horticultural crop
production

Patrice Cannavo, Arnaud Herbreteau, Didier Juret, Mathieu Martin, R Guenon

► To cite this version:

Patrice Cannavo, Arnaud Herbreteau, Didier Juret, Mathieu Martin, R Guenon. Short-term effects of food waste composts on physicochemical soil quality and horticultural crop production. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 2025, 188 (1), pp.31-44. 10.1002/jpln.202400188 . hal-04767977

HAL Id: hal-04767977

https://hal.science/hal-04767977v1

Submitted on 12 Mar 2025

**HAL** is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Short-term effects of food waste composts on physicochemical soil quality and horticultural crop production

Patrice Cannavo<fnref n="1" /> ID | Arnaud Herbreteau<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="3" /> | Didier Juret<fnref n="4" /> | Mathieu Martin<fnref n="5" /> | René Guénon<fnref n="1" />

**Correspondence**

Patrice Cannavo, Institut Agro, EPHOR, 49000 Angers, France.

Email: patrice.cannavo@institut-agro.fr

This article has been edited by Christoph-Martin Geilfus.

**Funding information**

Coopérative Compost In Situ, Pays de la Loire, Grant/Award Number: 3839

## Abstract

**Aim:** Composts made from food waste will soon become more widespread on the market thanks to the upcoming enforcement of the legal obligation to sort biowaste. Our experiment aims at improving knowledge on the short-term effects of these composts on soils' physicochemical properties and vegetable crops.

**Methods:** Three composts with contrasting characteristics were tested: a 100% v/v green waste compost (C1), and two composts composed of 50% v/v food waste and 50% v/v green waste, one prepared directly on the soil (C2) and the other from a competing producer who have the French NFU 44-051 (AFNOR NF U 44-051, 2006) certification for an organic amendment (C3). They were applied at a rate of 100 t ha⁻<fnref n="1" /> (dry matter) on two cropped soils with contrasting textures. Soil-and-compost mixes and compost-free soil were planted with lettuce, radish, and potato.

**Results:** Seventy-four days after planting, composts improved some soil physicochemical properties. The compost-amended soils had better saturated hydraulic conductivity ($K_s$, $1 \times 10^{-3} - 2.5 \times 10^{-3}$ cm s⁻<fnref n="1" />) than the compost-free soil ($0.5 \times 10^{-3}$ cm s⁻<fnref n="1" />), and water-stable aggregates were higher than the initial value in C3 soil, equal to it in C2 soil, and lower in C1 soil. pH, total nitrogen, and organic carbon increased in all compost-amended soils. Food waste compost stimulated crop production. The yields (dry matter) of all three crops were two to three times higher in the two soils amended with food waste compost compared to unamended soil, whereas they decreased almost two times in the soil amended with green waste compost due to nitrogen immobilization. Trace metals (particularly Pb and Cd) added by the composts, although present in edible parts of the plants, did not exceed the European rules for trace metals.

**Conclusion:** Thus, food waste composts have positive effects on soils and vegetable crops, and the higher their organic matter content, the higher these positive effects.

**KEYWORDS**

biowaste, nitrogen immobilization, organic carbon, plant nutrition, soil structure, trace metals

## 1 | INTRODUCTION

The use of organic amendments in cultivated soils is a well-known lever of soil fertility improvement. These amendments are often derived from the composting of green waste from urban communities, sludge

from wastewater treatment plants, or food waste from plants or animals. Their application influences soil biological, chemical, and physical characteristics. Overall, the effects are known to be more pronounced over repeated applications (Yadav et al., 2020). Their effects on soil quality are based on chemical fertility (De Paula et al., 2021), with

<footnote n="1">¹Institut Agro, EPHOR, Angers, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Université de Lorraine, INRAE, Nancy, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Université de Lorraine, CNRS, Nancy, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Coopérative Compost In Situ Pays de la Loire, Trélazé, France</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ENVIE 2E 49 SAS, Angers, France</footnote>
increased macronutrient (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, and S) and trace element (Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu) contents, soil pH, and stable organic matter (OM) (De Guardia, 2018; Diacono & Montemurro, 2011). In terms of physical fertility, the soil structure is improved (Rivier et al., 2022), and so is soil resistance to compaction (De Guardia, 2018). These amendments also contribute to biological fertility by increasing the biomass and activity of soil microorganisms (Brennan & Acosta-Martinez, 2019; Crecchio et al., 2001) but also of the soil meso- and macro-fauna (Diacono & Montemurro, 2011; Gobat et al., 2010).

Plant nutrition is improved by compost addition, either directly after application if the compost contains sufficient available nitrogen (i.e., in its mineral form) or over time with regular compost applications (De Guardia, 2018). Compost addition increases plant biomass and yield (Sharma et al., 2020), can even improve the organoleptic quality of crops (Gobat et al., 2010), and has a suppressive effect on pathogens (Doyle, 2017; Hoitink et al., 1996). On the other hand, compost addition may have undesired effects on both soils and crops because (1) soil soluble salts may increase (Gondek et al., 2020) and affect plant nutrient availability or soil microbial activity (Sharma et al., 2020), (2) trace metals may also increase in the soils and potentially in plants (De Guardia, 2018), (3) nitrate may leach if the compost is not sufficiently stable and mineralizes in large amounts, and (4) nitrogen immobilization may occur if the C:N ratio is high.

Compost quality depends on the composting process, the composted waste materials, as well as their proportions, and is determining when it comes to using compost as a soil amendment to improve carbon storage, fertility, bioremediation, or decrease the risk of erosion. Two criteria are used to evaluate the overall quality of a compost: (1) its stability, in link with OM biodegradability and humification (Albrecht et al., 2009; Azim et al., 2018; Wichuk & McCartney, 2013), and (2) its maturity, in link with the absence of phytotoxicity (Tiquia, 2010). Numerous biological and physicochemical parameters are used together to monitor the composting process and attest to the good quality of the final compost (Azim et al., 2018; Wichuk & McCartney, 2013). According to Azim et al. (2018), a distinction is made between initial parameters (moisture content, bulk density, and porosity) and quality indicators (e.g., NH₄:NO₃ ratio, C:N ratio, CEC, salinity index, humic content, watercress test).

Biowaste includes food waste and other biodegradable natural waste products—mostly green waste. According to the Waste Framework Directive's definition, biowaste comprises "biodegradable garden and park waste, food and kitchen waste from households, offices, restaurants, wholesale, canteens, caterers and retail premises and comparable waste from food-processing plants." European law states that EU member states shall have introduced source separation of biowaste by the end of 2023 at the latest (EU directive 2018/851). This obligation will apply to local authorities as well as the public and private sectors and to individuals from 2025. Based on data from the European Environment Agency (2020), recycling 47.5 million tonnes of separately collected biowaste into digestate and compost resulted in the recycling of 129,000 t of nitrogen (N), 42,000 t of

phosphate (P), and 3.5 million tonnes of organic carbon. Extrapolating these figures to the total biowaste generated in 2020 (113 million tonnes), Favoino and Giavani (2020) suggest a potential recycling of 309,600 t of N, 100,800 t of P, and 8.4 million tonnes of organic carbon. This underscores a significant opportunity for increased biowaste recycling to utilize valuable resources and promote sustainability. Nevertheless, this new source of waste raises many questions in terms of the preparation process. Water-rich waste has to be mixed with fibrous materials such as green waste. The proportion between the two materials is questionable. What is more, biowaste is derived from vegetable waste that is not produced all year round but according to the season. This raises questions about the traceability of biochemical properties. Composting and the amendment of agricultural soils with composted products are among the recovery strategies. In France, regional cooperatives are in charge of collecting waste from restaurants, canteens, and various other producers of biowaste from private catering. To make compost, this biowaste is mixed with shredded green waste collected by local authorities or landscape companies. The resulting compost is composed of 50% vol. of green waste and 50% vol. of food biowaste, and this mixing ratio needs to be validated. Composting takes place on the ground (windrowing) at the end of the farmers' plots, and they use the final product after mixing and shredding on dedicated platforms. Composting directly on the farm site avoids the cooperative member companies having to carry out the composting process on their own site (saving of space, reduction of olfactory nuisances). Nevertheless, the practice of composting directly on the soil is unprecedented in France and does not involve leachate recovery. The turning process, with the risk of soil incorporation in the compost, can affect its agronomic quality.

Generalization of compulsory sorting at source will extend the market offer of composts made of very heterogeneous waste products. Consequently, highly detailed knowledge on the specificity of such composts, their agronomic advantages, and limitations appears necessary. The nature of the collected food materials and the compost manufacturing processes are original. Consequently, the quality of the composts and their acceptability with respect to organic amendment standards have to be studied (Boros et al., 2022; Murphy et al., 2016). The scientific objectives of this work were to (1) characterize and validate the agronomic properties of two food waste-based composts and compare them with a 100% green waste compost and (2) evaluate their short-term effects on the agronomic quality of two different crop soils and three vegetable crops. We checked whether the three tested composts—two composts produced directly on the soil by farmers (100% v/v green waste compost, and 50% v/v food waste-based compost + 50% v/v green waste compost) and one commercial compost (50% v/v food waste-based compost + 50% v/v green waste compost)—complied with the NF U 44-051 standard (AFNOR NF U 44-051, 2006). We hypothesized that food waste composts would strongly improve crop yield depending on their quality and that green waste compost could improve soil physical properties but impair crop yield by affecting N availability.
<table><caption>**TABLE 1** Physicochemical properties of the soils before compost application.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>S1</th><th>S2</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Soil texture category (USDA-NRCS)</td><td>Sandy loam</td><td>Loam</td></tr><tr><td>Sand (%)<sup>a</sup></td><td>63.8</td><td>55.0</td></tr><tr><td>Silt (%)<sup>a</sup></td><td>23.8</td><td>30.8</td></tr><tr><td>Clay (%)<sup>a</sup></td><td>10.2</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>pH H<sub>2</sub>O</td><td>6.2</td><td>7.0</td></tr><tr><td>pH KCl</td><td>5.3</td><td>6.1</td></tr><tr><td>CaCO<sub>3</sub> (g kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>&lt;1</td><td>&lt;1</td></tr><tr><td>CEC (meq 100g<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>6.3</td><td>6.9</td></tr><tr><td>Organic matter (%)</td><td>2.1</td><td>2.1</td></tr><tr><td>Organic carbon (%)</td><td>1.2</td><td>1.2</td></tr><tr><td>Total N (% DM)</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Available nutrient content (mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>CaO</td><td>1458.3</td><td>1876.0</td></tr><tr><td>K<sub>2</sub>O</td><td>105.7</td><td>155.7</td></tr><tr><td>MgO</td><td>86.3</td><td>126.3</td></tr><tr><td>Na<sub>2</sub>O</td><td>22.9</td><td>26.0</td></tr><tr><td>P<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub> Olsen</td><td>89.9</td><td>87.8</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total metal content (mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mn</td><td>18.3</td><td>21.6</td></tr><tr><td>Cu</td><td>9.1</td><td>8.8</td></tr><tr><td>Fe</td><td>243.1</td><td>195.8</td></tr><tr><td>Zn</td><td>3.8</td><td>5.2</td></tr><tr><td>B</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.4</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: Soil particle size after decarbonation (X 31.107), pH (AFNOR NF EN 13037, 2012); conductivity at 25°C (AFNOR NF EN 13038, 2012); organic and mineral dry matters (AFNOR NF EN 13039, 2011; AFNOR NF EN 13040, 2007); total nitrogen and ammonium nitrogen (AFNOR NF EN 13654-2, 2002); nitrate (AFNOR NF EN ISO 13395, 2006); B boron soluble in boiling water (AFNOR NF 31-122, 1999); trace metals (AFNOR NF EN ISO 11885, 2009); Co and Mo (AFNOR ISO 14870, 2001); Olsen phosphorus (AFNOR NF EN ISO 11885, 2009; AFNOR ISO 14870, 2001); CEC (cobaltihexamine) (AFNOR NF EN 13650, 2002); exchangeable calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium (AFNOR NF EN ISO 11885, 2009; AFNOR NF EN 13650, 2002).

# 2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS

## 2.1 | Studied materials

The physicochemical properties of the two soils used in this study are presented in Table 1. S1 is a sandy loam soil and S2 is a loam soil (USDA-NRCS soil texture triangle). They were chosen for their low organic carbon content (12 g kg⁻¹ dw) to highlight the short-term effects of a one-time application of compost. The level of OM is the result of the crop's history; the fact that they have the same content is pure chance.

Three compost types were studied. The results of their analyses are presented in Table 2. The green waste compost (C1) and a first compost

<table><caption>**TABLE 2** Agronomic properties of the composts.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>C1</th><th>C2</th><th>C3</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Organic matter (% fresh)</td><td>15.9</td><td>17.4</td><td>44.36</td></tr><tr><td>Organic matter (% dw)</td><td>22.9</td><td>27.7</td><td>80.92</td></tr><tr><td>Mineral content (% fresh)</td><td>53.6</td><td>45.4</td><td>10.46</td></tr><tr><td>Dry matter (%)</td><td>69.5</td><td>62.8</td><td>54.8</td></tr><tr><td>Gravimetric water content (%)</td><td>30.5</td><td>37.2</td><td>45.2</td></tr><tr><td>Organic C (g kg<sup>-1</sup> dw)</td><td>114.7</td><td>138.3</td><td>404.6</td></tr><tr><td>Organic N (g kg<sup>-1</sup> dw)</td><td>5.34</td><td>14.196</td><td>27.838</td></tr><tr><td>C-to-N ratio</td><td>21.5</td><td>9.7</td><td>14.5</td></tr><tr><td>pH H<sub>2</sub>O</td><td>7.84</td><td>7.1</td><td>7.87</td></tr><tr><td>Fresh bulk density (g cm<sup>-3</sup>)</td><td>0.632</td><td>0.625</td><td>0.316</td></tr><tr><td>Refusal 40 mm (%)</td><td>0.6</td><td>0</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>N-NO<sub>3</sub><sup>-</sup> (g kg<sup>-1</sup> dw)</td><td>&lt;0.005</td><td>1.284</td><td>0.922</td></tr><tr><td>N-NH<sub>4</sub><sup>+</sup> (g kg<sup>-1</sup> dw)</td><td>&lt;0.00</td><td>&lt;0.01</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td>Mineral N (g kg<sup>-1</sup> dw)</td><td>&lt;0.01</td><td>&lt;1.29</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>Total N (g kg<sup>-1</sup> dw)</td><td>5.34</td><td>15.48</td><td>28.78</td></tr><tr><td>P<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub> (g kg<sup>-1</sup> dw)</td><td>3.17</td><td>6.15</td><td>8.61</td></tr><tr><td>K<sub>2</sub>O (g kg<sup>-1</sup> dw)</td><td>6.39</td><td>7.9</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>MgO (g kg<sup>-1</sup> dw)</td><td>6.44</td><td>4.16</td><td>3.4</td></tr><tr><td>CaO (g kg<sup>-1</sup> dw)</td><td>22.1</td><td>27.7</td><td>30.2</td></tr><tr><td>Cd (mg kg<sup>-1</sup> dw)</td><td>0.219</td><td>0.279</td><td>0.326</td></tr><tr><td>Cr (mg kg<sup>-1</sup> dw)</td><td>26.1</td><td>17.4</td><td>6.17</td></tr><tr><td>Cu (mg kg<sup>-1</sup> dw)</td><td>38.1</td><td>18.2</td><td>13.01</td></tr><tr><td>Hg (mg kg<sup>-1</sup> dw)</td><td>0.052</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.026</td></tr><tr><td>Ni (mg kg<sup>-1</sup> dw)</td><td>10.91</td><td>9.48</td><td>3.85</td></tr><tr><td>Pb (mg kg<sup>-1</sup> dw)</td><td>21.1</td><td>16.4</td><td>3.42</td></tr><tr><td>Zn (mg kg<sup>-1</sup> dw)</td><td>99.8</td><td>95.3</td><td>76.6</td></tr><tr><td>Soluble organic compounds (% dw)</td><td>42.8</td><td>54</td><td>19.4</td></tr><tr><td>Hemicellulose (% dw)</td><td>14.9</td><td>4.05</td><td>7.1</td></tr><tr><td>Cellulose (% dw)</td><td>21.4</td><td>15.5</td><td>37.4</td></tr><tr><td>Lignin and cutin (% dw)</td><td>20.9</td><td>26.4</td><td>36.2</td></tr><tr><td>Organic matter stability index (% of organic matter)</td><td>72</td><td>84.7</td><td>68.2</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: Organic matter (AFNOR NF EN 13039, 2011), dry matter (AFNOR NF EN 13040, 2007), nitrogen (AFNOR NF EN 13654-2, 2002; NF ISO 14256-2), pH (AFNOR NF EN 13037, 2012), P₂O₅, K₂O, MgO, CaO (AFNOR NF EN ISO 11885, 2009), metals (AFNOR NF EN ISO 11885, 2009), refusal and fresh bulk density (NF EN 13040); soluble organic compounds, hemi-cellulose, cellulose, lignin, cutin, and organic matter stability index (AFNOR FD U44-162, 2016). C1, green waste compost; C2 and C3, green waste and biowaste composts (50:50% vol).

based on food waste (C2) were both produced by compost producers from the Compost In Situ cooperative (CIS, Pays de la Loire region). These composts are produced on the edge of agricultural plots, on the farmers' lands, directly on the soil. The second compost based on food waste (C3) came from a competing producer who had the French NFU 44-051 certification for an organic amendment (AFNOR NF U 44-051,

<footnote>ªAfter decarbonation and organic matter destruction.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 1** Meteorological data during the experiment: rainfall (R), potential evapotranspiration (PET), mean air temperature (T).</figcaption></figure>

2006). According to the information provided by the producers, C2 and C3 were composed of 50% vol. of ground green waste and 50% vol. of food waste.

## 2.2 | Study site and experimental design

The experiment was carried out at the Institut Agro in Angers (France, longitude 0°360' W, latitude 47°280' N, elevation 49 m asl). The climate at the site is temperate (Cfb in the Köppen-Geiger classification) with relatively cold and wet winters and hot summers. Meteorological data during the experiment are shown in Figure 1. Containers of 460 L (L 110, W 70, H 60 cm) were used. Each container was first filled with 30 cm of gravel, on top of which the soil-compost mixture was added up to 30 cm height. A forcing mat was installed in-between to limit the leaching of solid materials during rainy events and prevent crop roots from growing into the stony horizon.

Two factors were tested: Soil type (S1 versus S2) and compost type (C1, C2, and C3) for a total of eight growing media (GM) modalities: two GM without compost (S1C0 and S2C0) and six GM with composts (S1C1, S1C2, S1C3; S2C1, S2C2, and S2C3). The soil-compost mixtures were prepared between 21 and 26 April 2022 (13 days before sowing and planting), using a mixing bucket. We applied a dose of 100 t ha⁻¹ of compost dry matter to ensure a significant short-term effect. It does not reflect actual land application practices. The moisture contents of the three composts differed significantly (Table 2). Therefore, the calculation based on dry matter leveled out the values and made them comparable. In reality, they correspond to gross matter rates of 146, 158, and 206 t ha⁻¹ for C1, C2, and C3, respectively.

Three vegetable species (one leafy and two root vegetables) were selected: lettuce (Batavia Olana Bio; L), radish (Raphanus sp. Caillard, "18-day Radish"; R), and potato (Princess Amandine 70-90 days; P). These vegetables were planted in all soil-compost mixtures and in the "no-compost" soils (S1C0 and S2C0). Lettuces and salads were planted

together and potatoes on their own (two planting strategies). Three replicates were prepared for each modality (n = 8 GM × 2 planting strategies × 3 replicated = 48 containers). In addition, unplanted containers were installed for each soil-compost mixture (1 replicate per mixture = 8 containers). The planting pattern is shown in Figure 2. The containers with lettuce and radish contained 3 rows of 2 lettuces at 37 cm from each other (8 plants m⁻²) and 6 rows of 21 radishes spaced 3 cm apart (97 seeds m⁻²), sown between 1.5 and 3 cm depth. Potatoes (P) were grown in trays of six equally spaced plants (8 plants m⁻²). The crops were sown or planted on 9 May 2022.

The crops were irrigated by a drip system (flow rate 1 L h⁻¹, 2 × 15 min per day until 28 June, then 10 min per week for potatoes until harvest), so that water was not a limiting factor for crop growth. Water comfort was assessed on the basis of daily observations. The uncultivated soil received the same irrigation as the cultivated soils. The containers were weeded regularly to limit competition for water and nutrients, and the bare-soil modalities were also weeded to prevent root systems from influencing the soil's physical parameters.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 2** Arrangement of the crops in the containers.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 3** Soil physical properties at crop harvesting: (A) hydraulic conductivity at saturation ($K_s$), (B) water-stable aggregates (WSAs), (C) bulk density (Bd), and (D) soil water reservoir (SWR). Bars, standard deviations ($n = 3$). Small and capital letters indicate significant differences among compost treatments in S1 and S2, respectively.</figcaption></figure>

## 3.3 | Influence of the soils and composites on vegetable production

The soil type had no influence on any of the three crops, whereas the compost type had a strong effect (Tables S3–S5). The significant soil/compost interaction on radish biomass (higher with C2 than with C3) was attributed to a handling artifact during seeding. The food waste composites (C2 and C3) significantly improved biomass production of the three crops, and C3 gave the best results. Lettuce biomass increased by 126% and 178% following C2 and C3 addition, respectively, radish biomass by 69% and 21%, and potato biomass by 53% and 96% (Figure 4). Green waste compost (C1) addition significantly and negatively affected biomass production (Figure 4).

Compost addition systematically resulted in an increase of the crop mineral element content compared to growth in S1C0 and S2C0 (Table 4). The increase was most significant in lettuce following the addition of C1 (31% and 20% for S1C1 and S2C1, respectively). C3 addition led to the highest mineral content in radish (25% and 23% for S1C3 and S2C3, respectively). The effect of compost addition on potato was less clear and obvious.

As regards mineral elements, lettuce was most affected by compost addition (Table 5). The Fe content of lettuce grown in S1 increased by 81% following C1 addition, and only by 11% and 3% following C2 and C3 addition, respectively, compared to S1C0. The opposite

effect occurred when it was grown in S2: Its Fe content decreased by 31%, 56%, and 73% following C1, C2, and C3 addition, respectively, compared to S2C0. The increase in lettuce leaf Cu was also greatest following C1 addition in both soils (52% and 21% in S1C1 and S2C1, respectively). On the other hand, compost addition reduced the Cr content of lettuce grown in both soils. The decrease followed a C1 < C2 < C3 gradient; following C3 addition, the decrease was 56% (S1C3) and 72% (S2C3) compared to S1C0 and S2C0, respectively. This trend was also observed for Pb, except in the leaves of lettuce grown in S1C1, where the Pb content increased by 20% compared to lettuce grown in S1C0. Finally, significant variations of Zn and Cd were observed following compost addition when lettuce was grown in S1: Zn increased (most markedly lettuce was grown in S1C1), whereas Cd decreased (most markedly when it was grown in S1C3).

Radish and potato were less impacted by the compost modalities. The Fe content of radish increased strongly by 68% following C1 addition—only when grown in S2—and decreased by 31% following C3 addition. In potato, compost addition resulted in a decrease of the Fe content—only when grown in S1—increasingly marked along a C1 < C2 < C3 gradient. The Cr content of potatoes also decreased by 80%, whatever the compost. Finally, compost addition induced an increase of Zn in potato tubers, highest with C3 added (167%). Only the Cd and Pb contents are subject to food legislation at the European
<table><caption>TABLE 3 Chemical properties of uncropped soils S1 and S2 at the end of the experiment.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2">S1C0</th><th colspan="2">S1C1</th><th colspan="2">S1C2</th><th colspan="2">S1C3</th><th colspan="2">S2C0</th><th colspan="2">S2C1</th><th colspan="2">S2C2</th><th colspan="2">S2C3</th></tr><tr><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>pH H<sub>2</sub>O</td><td>6.58</td><td>7.10</td><td>0.01 b*</td><td>7.00</td><td>0.02 b*</td><td>6.67</td><td>0.04 a</td><td>7.43</td><td>7.36</td><td>0.01 B*</td><td>7.28</td><td>0.01 A*</td><td>7.38</td><td>0.02 B</td><td>0.02 B</td><td>0.02 B</td></tr><tr><td>pH KCl</td><td>5.74</td><td>6.29</td><td>0.01 b*</td><td>6.20</td><td>0.03 a*</td><td>5.84</td><td>0.07 a</td><td>6.58</td><td>6.54</td><td>0.01 A</td><td>6.51</td><td>0.01 A*</td><td>6.68</td><td>0.05 B</td><td>0.05 B</td><td>0.05 B</td></tr><tr><td>CaCO<sub>3</sub> (g kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>nd</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.00 a</td><td>nd</td><td>nd</td><td>nd</td><td>nd</td><td>nd</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.08 A</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.04 A</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.00 A</td><td>0.00 A</td><td>0.00 A</td></tr><tr><td>CEC (meq 100g<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>5.69</td><td>6.96</td><td>0.29 a</td><td>6.82</td><td>0.12 a*</td><td>8.59</td><td>1.02 a</td><td>5.67</td><td>8.13</td><td>0.33 A*</td><td>9.16</td><td>0.18 AB*</td><td>10.79</td><td>0.69 B*</td><td>0.69 B*</td><td>0.69 B*</td></tr><tr><td>Organic matter (%)</td><td>2.26</td><td>2.84</td><td>0.10a*</td><td>2.93</td><td>0.14 ab*</td><td>3.50</td><td>0.17 b*</td><td>1.99</td><td>2.68</td><td>0.05 A*</td><td>3.47</td><td>0.20 AB*</td><td>5.00</td><td>0.61 B*</td><td>0.61 B*</td><td>0.61 B*</td></tr><tr><td>Organic carbon (%)</td><td>1.31</td><td>1.65</td><td>0.06 a*</td><td>1.70</td><td>0.08 ab*</td><td>2.04</td><td>0.10 b*</td><td>1.16</td><td>1.56</td><td>0.03 A*</td><td>2.02</td><td>0.11 AB*</td><td>2.90</td><td>0.36 B*</td><td>0.36 B*</td><td>0.36 B*</td></tr><tr><td>Total N (%)</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.01 a*</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.00 b*</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.00 c*</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.00 A*</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.01 B*</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.02 C*</td><td>0.02 C*</td><td>0.02 C*</td></tr><tr><td>CaO (mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>1439</td><td>2152</td><td>105 a*</td><td>2108</td><td>164 a</td><td>1970</td><td>29 a*</td><td>1965</td><td>2694</td><td>42 A*</td><td>3052</td><td>39 A*</td><td>3712</td><td>172 B*</td><td>172 B*</td><td>172 B*</td></tr><tr><td>K<sub>2</sub>O (mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>100</td><td>123</td><td>7 a</td><td>163</td><td>8 b*</td><td>345</td><td>11 c*</td><td>117</td><td>188</td><td>3 A*</td><td>260</td><td>3 B*</td><td>335</td><td>9 C*</td><td>9 C*</td><td>9 C*</td></tr><tr><td>MgO (mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>96</td><td>132</td><td>8 a*</td><td>134</td><td>3 a*</td><td>154</td><td>1 a*</td><td>139</td><td>213</td><td>3 A*</td><td>240</td><td>2 A*</td><td>298</td><td>21 B*</td><td>21 B*</td><td>21 B*</td></tr><tr><td>Na<sub>2</sub>O (mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>44</td><td>52</td><td>2 a</td><td>73</td><td>5 b*</td><td>131</td><td>5 c*</td><td>44</td><td>61</td><td>6 A</td><td>107</td><td>7 B*</td><td>131</td><td>7 B*</td><td>7 B*</td><td>7 B*</td></tr><tr><td>P<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub> Olsen (mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>85</td><td>95</td><td>2 a*</td><td>113</td><td>2 b*</td><td>130</td><td>2 c*</td><td>77</td><td>82</td><td>3 A</td><td>108</td><td>8 B</td><td>123</td><td>2 B*</td><td>2 B*</td><td>2 B*</td></tr><tr><td>Mn (mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>14.01</td><td>16.77</td><td>0.44 a*</td><td>16.69</td><td>0.68 a</td><td>19.54</td><td>0.70 b*</td><td>17.61</td><td>25.14</td><td>0.87 A*</td><td>25.94</td><td>5.56 A</td><td>28.08</td><td>0.93 A*</td><td>0.93 A*</td><td>0.93 A*</td></tr><tr><td>Cu (mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>8.49</td><td>9.03</td><td>0.20 b</td><td>8.48</td><td>0.19 ab</td><td>8.15</td><td>0.02 a*</td><td>6.98</td><td>12.09</td><td>0.16 A*</td><td>14.17</td><td>0.31 B*</td><td>11.66</td><td>0.35 A*</td><td>0.35 A*</td><td>0.35 A*</td></tr><tr><td>Fe (mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>197.2</td><td>234.6</td><td>8.0 a*</td><td>229.8</td><td>7.1 a*</td><td>224.4</td><td>3.7 a*</td><td>149.8</td><td>208.1</td><td>0.80 B*</td><td>217.2</td><td>2.4 B*</td><td>187.6</td><td>6.1 A*</td><td>6.1 A*</td><td>6.1 A*</td></tr><tr><td>Zn (mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>3.86</td><td>5.44</td><td>0.05 a*</td><td>6.46</td><td>0.08 b*</td><td>7.13</td><td>0.09 c*</td><td>5.49</td><td>6.16</td><td>0.30 A</td><td>7.34</td><td>0.35 AB*</td><td>8.17</td><td>0.29 B*</td><td>0.29 B*</td><td>0.29 B*</td></tr><tr><td>B (mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</td><td>0.35</td><td>0.43</td><td>0.01 a*</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.03 a</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.01 b*</td><td>0.35</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.02 A*</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.04 A*</td><td>0.65</td><td>0.04 A*</td><td>0.65</td><td>0.04 A*</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: nd, not detected. Different letters indicate a significant difference among compost treatments. A* indicates a significant difference between a compost type and its respective control soil C0. C0, n = 1; C1-C3, n = 3.
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 4** Biomasses of (A) lettuce, (B) radish, and (C) potato crops. Letters, significant differences between compost types.
*Significant difference between the control soil and a compost type.</figcaption></figure>

level (EU 2021/1323 decisions; European Union, 2021). The measured levels were all below the EU thresholds (Table 6).

Few interactions between the soil and compost modalities had a highly significant effect ($p < 0.01$) on the crop nutrients. The interaction effect occurred on the K, B, and Cd levels in lettuce, and on Cd in radish ($p < 0.01$). No interaction was observed in potato.

## 3.4 | Relationships between compost-amended soil improvements and crop quality

The PCA on vegetable properties clearly showed an interaction effect of the soil type and the compost type (Figure 5). The first two principal components explained 48% of the variance of data. The first axis was strongly correlated with crop biomass, in parallel with C2 and C3. S1 was projected in the upper part of the PCA, whereas S2 was in the bot-

tom part. The compost type was individualized along PC1. C1 (green waste compost) was on the left side, and the two food waste composts C2 and C3 were on the right side. C3 was farthest from C1. Correlation analyses showed that chemical properties were strongly positively correlated with crop biomass and negatively correlated with bulk density. S1 was related to higher $K_s$ and WSA but unrelated to any type of compost.

# 4 | DISCUSSION

## 4.1 | Compliance of compost produced directly at the farm with its fertilizer function

Although the levels of most elements in biowastes are consistent with the literature (Houot et al., 2014), the analyses showed that C1 and C2 did not comply with the French NFU 44-051 standard (AFNOR NF U 44-051, 2006) that governs commercial organic amendments because their OM content was less than 20% of raw material (Table 2). All other conditions required by this standard were met by all three composts. C1 and C2 had a high proportion of mineral matter (53.6% and 45.4% of crude matter, respectively), regardless of the waste product employed and probably due to the operational mode of the CIS cooperative that carries out composting directly on the agricultural plots. C1 and C2 were probably enriched with mineral matter from the soil on which they were produced, probably as a result of windrow turning operations and earthworm bioturbation during the maturation process. Thus, the composting process or pre-process (up to more than a year) could result in mineral enrichment, for example, through bioturbation.

The biological stability analyses presented in Table 2 provided partly inconsistent results for C1 and C2. The very high mineral fraction of these composts may have distorted the measurements, so we can wonder if we used a mineral-rich compost or a very rich soil that had contained compost in the past. The biological stability analyses of C3 were consistent with the observations: its high OM content (81% dw), the CEC, and higher contents in exchangeable cations than C1 and C2 conferred on C3 both an amendment function and a fertilizer function. The biological stability index value of C3 was in the low range given by Lashermes et al. (2007) for biowaste composts. C1 was very poor in mineral N, had the lowest exchangeable cation content except for MgO, and was considered more as an amendment. Finally, C2 had been produced in 13 months, which is relatively long compared to the 3-6 months generally observed and recommended; this probably increased the number of turnings and the risk of incorporating mineral matter from the soil.

## 4.2 | Beneficial effects on soil fertility

Such compost applications would exceed the maximum quantities of trace metals allowed by the NFU 44-051 standard in a single application. To meet the maximum values of individual trace elements (AFNOR
<table><caption>TABLE 4 Macronutrient contents of the edible crop parts.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Mineral content (%)</th><th colspan="2">Total N (Kjeldahl) (%)</th><th colspan="2">P (%)</th><th colspan="2">K (%)</th><th colspan="2">Ca (%)</th><th colspan="2">Mg (%)</th></tr><tr><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">Lettuce</td><td>S1C0</td><td>18.90</td><td></td><td>1.73</td><td></td><td>0.48</td><td></td><td>5.28</td><td></td><td>1.73</td><td></td><td>0.24</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>S1C1</td><td>25.13</td><td>1.11</td><td>2.11</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.03</td><td>6.23</td><td>0.13</td><td>1.89</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td>S1C2</td><td>20.87</td><td>1.09</td><td>2.60</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.01</td><td>5.73</td><td>0.04</td><td>1.44</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>S1C3</td><td>22.63</td><td>0.81</td><td>2.72</td><td>0.26</td><td>0.67</td><td>0.01</td><td>6.08</td><td>0.07</td><td>1.42</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>S2C0</td><td>25.00</td><td></td><td>2.11</td><td></td><td>0.48</td><td></td><td>5.58</td><td></td><td>1.71</td><td></td><td>0.21</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>S2C1</td><td>29.87</td><td>6.39</td><td>2.17</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.03</td><td>5.87</td><td>0.08</td><td>1.76</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Radish</td><td>S2C2</td><td>23.00</td><td>0.26</td><td>3.02</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.01</td><td>6.33</td><td>0.11</td><td>1.52</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>S2C3</td><td>23.40</td><td>0.31</td><td>3.10</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.04</td><td>6.50</td><td>0.26</td><td>1.41</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td>S1C0</td><td>11.60</td><td></td><td>1.84</td><td></td><td>0.59</td><td></td><td>3.16</td><td></td><td>0.56</td><td></td><td>0.11</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Potatoes</td><td>S1C1</td><td>11.97</td><td>0.24</td><td>1.82</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.02</td><td>3.38</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>S1C2</td><td>13.60</td><td>0.21</td><td>2.51</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.02</td><td>3.73</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>S1C3</td><td>14.47</td><td>0.67</td><td>2.71</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.01</td><td>3.78</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td>S2C0</td><td>11.20</td><td></td><td>1.94</td><td></td><td>0.63</td><td></td><td>3.34</td><td></td><td>0.52</td><td></td><td>0.12</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>S2C1</td><td>12.70</td><td>0.49</td><td>1.99</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.65</td><td>0.01</td><td>3.50</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>S2C2</td><td>13.83</td><td>0.12</td><td>2.54</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.01</td><td>3.92</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>S2C3</td><td>S1C0</td><td>4.60</td><td></td><td>0.08</td><td></td><td>0.34</td><td></td><td>2.16</td><td></td><td>0.00</td><td></td><td>0.09</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6"></td><td>S1C1</td><td>5.43</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.32</td><td>0.00</td><td>2.21</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>S1C2</td><td>5.23</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.01</td><td>2.19</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td>S1C3</td><td>4.90</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.35</td><td>0.02</td><td>2.47</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>S2C0</td><td>5.10</td><td></td><td>0.08</td><td></td><td>0.31</td><td></td><td>2.10</td><td></td><td>0.00</td><td></td><td>0.09</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>S2C1</td><td>5.30</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.01</td><td>2.13</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>S2C2</td><td>5.37</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.29</td><td>0.02</td><td>2.13</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>S2C3</td><td>S1C0</td><td>5.50</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.32</td><td>0.04</td><td>2.27</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.01</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: C0, n = 1; C1-C3, n = 3.

NF U 44-051, 2006) and based on the element in the greatest excess (zinc), maximum rates of 86, 100, and 142 t ha⁻¹ of C1, C2, and C3, would be required, respectively.

S1 and S2 first differed in their texture (Table 1). As the soil OM content was the same in both soils, the soil crusting index was higher in S2 (2.1) than in S1 (1.7), showing a moderate risk of soil crusting (Šimanský et al., 2014). Second, the higher pH, but also CEC and exchangeable cation contents in S2 than in S1, gave S2 a better buffering capacity. Biowaste compost application positively impacts related properties such as soil structure and soil water retention capacity (Diacono et al., 2019). The addition of compost—particularly C2 and C3—improved the physical properties of both soils. The well-known positive effect of biowaste-based composts (De Guardia, 2018; Rivier et al., 2022) was confirmed. The increase in Ks was stronger with C3, which had a 3–3.5 times higher Corg content than C1 and C2. The coarser particle size of C3 (indirectly interpreted by a higher 40 mm refusal, Table 2) may also have played a role in the creation of pores, but this is difficult to verify. The higher Ks values in S1 compared to S2 can be explained by the coarser texture of S1, which facilitated drainage.

The WSA ranked among macro-aggregates larger than 250 µm (Amézketa, 1999). Despite a greater presence of clay and silt in S2, aggregates in S2 were less stable than those in S1. It is likely that the time scale of the aggregation process was longer than the 74 days of the crop cycles. The aggregation process can be driven by both biological and physicochemical agents and can take several months to several years (dos Reis Ferreira et al., 2020). Obalum et al. (2019) did not observe significant long-term impact (2.5 years) of compost on WSA from a silt-loam soil. However, the application rate was much lower than ours (5 t ha⁻¹).

Only C3 had a marked effect on soil bulk density, which decreased significantly and particularly in S2. The main reason for this decrease was the density of C3, which was half those of C1 and C2 (Table 2). Despite a sharp decrease in density, S2C3 had the highest SWR value among the S2 modalities (32 mm), 1.8-fold higher than in S2C0. However, this increase was not observed in the S1 modalities. It is likely that the high Corg content of C3 coupled with the finer texture of S2 contributed to better microporosity favoring water retention (Rivier et al., 2022).
<table><caption>TABLE 5 Trace metal contents of the edible crop parts.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Fe<br>(mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>Zn<br>(mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>Cu<br>(mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>Mn<br>(mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>B<br>(mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>Cd<br>(mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>Cr<br>(mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>Hg<br>(mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>Ni<br>(mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</th><th>Pb<br>(mg kg<sup>-1</sup>)</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th><th>Mean</th><th>SD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Lettuce</td><td>S1C0 573.00</td><td>110.00</td><td>6.40</td><td>62.00</td><td>49.00</td><td>0.62</td><td>1.18</td><td>ns</td><td>0.71</td><td>1.31</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>S1C1 1039.33</td><td>87.97</td><td>5.03</td><td>9.73</td><td>68.67</td><td>4.67</td><td>1.33</td><td>0.01</td><td>1.11</td><td>0.02</td><td>ns</td><td>0.16</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>S1C2 638.67</td><td>100.72</td><td>160.00</td><td>6.70</td><td>0.42</td><td>43.00</td><td>1.00</td><td>36.33</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.10</td><td>ns</td><td>0.14</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>S1C3 591.33</td><td>72.34</td><td>129.67</td><td>7.43</td><td>0.15</td><td>44.67</td><td>0.33</td><td>36.33</td><td>0.52</td><td>0.06</td><td>ns</td><td>0.41</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>S2C0 2149.00</td><td>99.00</td><td>7.60</td><td>68.00</td><td>37.00</td><td>0.29</td><td>1.47</td><td>ns</td><td>0.20</td><td>ns</td><td>0.87</td><td>1.36</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>S2C1 1484.33</td><td>116.40</td><td>98.33</td><td>9.23</td><td>0.41</td><td>48.33</td><td>2.40</td><td>35.67</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.92</td><td>ns</td><td>0.30</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>S2C2 935.67</td><td>110.85</td><td>114.33</td><td>11.85</td><td>0.24</td><td>33.00</td><td>0.58</td><td>36.33</td><td>0.67</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.29</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>S2C3 583.33</td><td>28.43</td><td>118.67</td><td>5.90</td><td>0.41</td><td>31.00</td><td>1.00</td><td>34.67</td><td>1.76</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.85</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Radish</td><td>S1C0 238.00</td><td>33.00</td><td>3.30</td><td>10.00</td><td>19.00</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.44</td><td>ns</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.21</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>S1C1 235.67</td><td>4.06</td><td>35.00</td><td>1.15</td><td>9.47</td><td>0.27</td><td>20.33</td><td>0.33</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.20</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>S1C2 170.33</td><td>21.54</td><td>32.00</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.03</td><td>8.83</td><td>0.60</td><td>20.67</td><td>0.67</td><td>0.26</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.32</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>S1C3 202.33</td><td>23.41</td><td>28.67</td><td>1.20</td><td>0.09</td><td>10.10</td><td>0.49</td><td>21.00</td><td>0.58</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.05</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>S2C0 223.00</td><td>26.00</td><td>3.00</td><td>7.80</td><td>21.00</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.12</td><td>ns</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>S2C1 374.67</td><td>67.04</td><td>32.00</td><td>1.15</td><td>9.93</td><td>1.21</td><td>20.67</td><td>0.33</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.07</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>S2C2 253.67</td><td>43.76</td><td>26.67</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.23</td><td>7.53</td><td>0.39</td><td>21.00</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.15</td><td>ns</td><td>0.09</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>S2C3 152.67</td><td>7.42</td><td>24.67</td><td>0.33</td><td>2.80</td><td>7.20</td><td>0.15</td><td>19.67</td><td>0.33</td><td>ns</td><td>ns</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>Potatoes</td><td>S1C0 102.00</td><td>43.00</td><td>4.20</td><td>6.20</td><td>19.00</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.59</td><td>ns</td><td>ns</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>S1C1 93.67</td><td>10.11</td><td>64.67</td><td>14.66</td><td>3.77</td><td>6.00</td><td>0.17</td><td>14.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.32</td><td>ns</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>S1C2 90.00</td><td>4.51</td><td>68.00</td><td>6.08</td><td>0.28</td><td>6.07</td><td>0.46</td><td>13.67</td><td>0.67</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.02</td><td>ns</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>S1C3 66.50</td><td>12.50</td><td>115.00</td><td>34.00</td><td>5.05</td><td>0.05</td><td>6.10</td><td>0.10</td><td>14.50</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.18</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>S2C0 90.00</td><td>78.00</td><td>3.70</td><td>4.90</td><td>13.00</td><td>0.01</td><td>ns</td><td>ns</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.30</td><td>ns</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>S2C1 106.00</td><td>3.06</td><td>73.67</td><td>9.82</td><td>3.77</td><td>0.15</td><td>5.57</td><td>0.07</td><td>11.33</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.28</td><td>ns</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>S2C2 113.00</td><td>19.97</td><td>68.67</td><td>27.97</td><td>3.93</td><td>0.09</td><td>4.87</td><td>0.37</td><td>11.00</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.27</td><td>ns</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>S2C3 93.00</td><td>9.00</td><td>66.00</td><td>17.00</td><td>5.00</td><td>0.40</td><td>5.20</td><td>0.20</td><td>10.70</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.24</td><td>ns</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="14">Note: C0, n = 1; C1-C3, n = 3.</td></tr></tfoot></table>
<table><caption>**TABLE 6** Maximum Cd and Pb contents authorized in crops for human food (EU 2021/1323 decision).</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Crop</th><th>Maximum recommendation (mg kg<sup>-1</sup> fresh)</th><th>Vegetable water content (g water g<sup>-1</sup> dw)</th><th>Maximum recommendation (mg kg<sup>-1</sup> dry)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Cd</td><td>Lettuce</td><td>0.1</td><td>16.5</td><td>1.6</td></tr><tr><td>Radish</td><td>0.02</td><td>18.1</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Potato</td><td>0.1</td><td>3.8</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Pb</td><td>Lettuce</td><td>0.3</td><td>16.5</td><td>4.9</td></tr><tr><td>Radish</td><td>0.1</td><td>18.1</td><td>1.8</td></tr><tr><td>Potato</td><td>0.1</td><td>3.8</td><td>0.4</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 5** Principal component analysis (PCA) of crop biomass and chemical composition. Soil properties are supplementary variables in the PCA. Arrows indicate crop biomass (green), chemical properties (blue), and physical properties (orange).</figcaption></figure>

The pH values all increased following the addition of composts, the pHs of which were all above 7 (Table 2). However, the pH of S2 increased less than that of S1, due to a neutral initial pH and a better buffering capacity. The increases in total soil N were directly related to the amounts of organic N supplied by the composts (Table 2). This is why the C3 modalities had the highest total nitrogen and the C1 modalities the lowest (significant differences, *p* < 0.05). The evolution of C<sub>org</sub> in the soils followed the same trend as that of total nitrogen. The more carbon was added, the more carbon was found in the soil (Hernández et al., 2016).

Compost addition did not change the Cu content of S1 but increased that of S2. EDTA extraction allows quantifying the amount of an element that can be assimilated by plants. In S2, the Cu brought by the composts was able to bind to the soil CEC (higher than in S1) and retain its exchangeability. Thus, there was more bioavailable Cu after compost addition than before. In S1, copper was clearly not bound to the—lower—EC, and its less clayey texture did not facilitate Cu

adsorption. Once delivered to the soil, the Cu initially in the compost was probably partially leached out, as envisioned by Hargreaves et al. (2008). This was made possible by the lower pH of S1, which may have allowed Cu to adopt its more mobile soluble form Cu<sup>2+</sup> (Kohli, 2022; Lenoir, 2011) and prevented its retention on the exchange sites that had become predominantly cationic.

## 4.3 | A contrasting fertilizing effect depending on the species and the nature of the compost

Just like with cultivated crops, using bio-based fertilizers in vegetable farming can potentially increase yields. Nevertheless, the effect on yield may differ based on variables like the dosage and type of application, the particular bio-based fertilizers employed, the current climate conditions, soil composition, and other agricultural techniques (Tandzi & Mutengwa, 2020).

Because the control treatment (soil without compost) was not replicated, it was excluded from ANOVA tests. This may have led to biases in the statistical analysis and interpretation of results. Nevertheless, C2 and C3 significantly increased the yields of all three vegetable species. The effect was most spectacular on the leafy vegetable (lettuce), the yield of which tripled or even quadrupled when it was grown in S1C3 and S2C3 compared to unamended soil. Therefore, C3 gave the best yields in five out of the six treatments (all crops combined), as suggested by its analyses (Table 2). However, this compost was applied in greater quantities than C1 and C2, which may also explain these yield differences.

Plant yield is generally related to the available nitrogen provided when no other nutrients are limiting (Kamireddy et al., 2023; Nwite et al., 2013). C1 addition had no effect or even decreased the yield of the plants grown in S1 compared to S1C0. The C:N ratio of C1 was particularly high (21.5) compared to the two biowaste-based composts C2 (8.9) and C3 (14.1), so that it had fewer nitrogen resources to mineralize its OM (Table 2). In addition, C1 had no mineral N at the time of its supply, unlike C2 and C3 (Table 2). Thus, N immobilization likely occurred with C1 addition and greatly impacted the production of the three crops (Cogger, 2005; Lazicki et al., 2020). This N deficiency was revealed by the N content of edible plant parts. The crops grown with C1 had a significantly lower N content than those grown with C2 and C3 (Table 4).

Trace element transfer to the plants is influenced by many factors: pH that affects the bioavailability of certain elements when it decreases, characteristics of the soil and fertilizer applied, the plant type, and growing stage (Rieuwerts et al., 1998). When biowaste composts were utilized in vegetable cultivation, numerous studies pointed out that there was no transfer of trace elements in the edible parts of the vegetables beyond hazardous thresholds (Intawongse & Dean, 2006; Zubillaga & Lavado, 2002). Lettuce is known for its tendency to accumulate trace metals (Gattullo et al., 2017), which explains the highest trace metal levels measured in its tissues. However, the European regulatory thresholds, which exist only for Cd and Pb (EU 2021/1323 decisions; European Union, 2021), were not exceeded in
this crop any more than in the others, and this was consistent with several studies on composts (Paradelo et al., 2020; Zubillaga & Lavado, 2002).

Because biowaste is sorted at source, municipal solid waste compost is much less likely to be contaminated with trace metal elements (Hargreaves et al., 2008). The same is true for the food waste composts C2 and C3 studied here. This may explain why the three crops grown in the amended soils rarely had levels of Mn, B, Cu (for S2), and Ni that significantly differed from those grown in the compost-free soils (Table 5). As for Cd and Pb, the positive effect of compost was clearly seen: Compost addition decreased the quantities of Cd and Pb taken up by the crops compared to the compost-free soils, probably because compost addition increased the pH and Cd and Pb were immobilized (Giasson, 2005). Although compost addition may increase the level of trace metals in soils, this does not necessarily result in greater crop uptake because the compost-related pH increase causes the added trace metal elements to be immobilized (Kohli, 2022). As for Zn, Fe, and Cu, which are trace elements involved in the plant metabolism, it is not surprising that the crops took them up in greater amounts.

## 5 | CONCLUSIONS

This study assessed the agronomic potential of food waste compost. The two food waste composts analyzed could strongly improve crop yield depending on their quality as well as the physicochemical soil quality. Indeed, food waste composts are organic inputs with a low C:N ratio, rich in macro and trace elements, that fertilize crops while having a soil amendment effect. Their effects are perceptible quickly after their addition to the soil. Their trace metal content is compatible with all regulatory standards, including the most stringent ones. None of the three composts caused crop contamination, even at doses exceeding the regulatory thresholds. The effects of the food waste composts on hydraulic conductivity at saturation and aggregate stability were positive in both soils, but more so in the coarser textured soil (S1), and particularly with the compost with a high organic carbon content (C3). They improved the yields of lettuce, radish, and potato compared to unamended soils or soils amended with green waste compost. The green waste compost could improve slightly some soil physical properties but impair crop yield by affecting N, mainly due to a higher C:N ratio than the other two composts.

C3 was the best compost not only because it improved crop yield and complies with the NFU 44-051 standard (AFNOR NF U 44-051, 2006), but also because it is very rich in OM, N, P, and K. The field composting process of C1 and C2 enriched the finished product in mineral matter and decreased its OM content and, in turn, its agronomic value. Nevertheless, C1 and C2 remain promising because they had beneficial effects. Therefore, the end-of-field composting concept is relevant provided that soil transfer to the compost during windrow turning and the duration of maturation can both be reduced. Finally, the results of this study should also be used to encourage those involved in recycling to compost their food waste (by house-to-house collection of food waste if necessary) so that it can be used for agricultural purposes.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are very grateful to Rémi Gardet and Daniel Sochard (Phenotic platform) for the preparation of the experimental plot and for logistic support, and to Yvette Barraud-Roussel and Céline Lepron (EPHor) for laboratory measurements. The authors acknowledge the Coopérative Compost In Situ, Pays de la Loire, grant number 3839.

## DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

## ORCID

Patrice Cannavo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5689-3843

## REFERENCES

* AFNOR NF EN 13650 (2002). *Amendements du sol et supports de culture—Extraction d'éléments solubles dans l'eau régale*. AFNOR Editions.

* AFNOR NF U 44-051 (2006). *Amendements organiques-Dénominations, spécifications et marquage*. Association Française de Normalisation. AFNOR Editions.

* AFNOR FD U44-162 (2016). *Amendements organiques et supports de culture—Caractérisation de la matière organique par fractionnement biochimique et estimation de sa stabilité biologique*. AFNOR Editions.

* AFNOR ISO 14870 (2001). *Qualité du sol — Extraction des éléments en traces par une solution tamponnée de DTPA*. AFNOR Editions.

* AFNOR NF 31-122 (1999). *Qualité des sols—Extraction et dosage du bore soluble à l'eau bouillante*. AFNOR Editions.

* AFNOR NF EN ISO 11885 (2009). *Qualité de l'eau—Dosage d'éléments choisis par spectroscopie d'émission optique avec plasma induit par haute fréquence (ICP-OES)*. AFNOR Editions.

* AFNOR NF EN 13037 (2012). *Amendements du sol et supports de culture—Détermination du pH—Amendements organiques et supports de culture*. AFNOR Editions.

* AFNOR NF EN 13038 (2012). *Amendements du sol et supports de culture—Détermination de la conductivité électrique*. AFNOR Editions.

* AFNOR NF EN 13039 (2011). *Amendements du sol et supports de culture—Détermination de la matière organique et des cendres*. AFNOR Editions.

* AFNOR NF EN 13040 (2007). *Amendements organiques et supports de culture—Préparation des échantillons pour les essais physiques et chimiques, détermination de la teneur en matière sèche, du taux d'humidité et de la masse volumique compactée en laboratoire*. AFNOR Editions.

* AFNOR NF EN ISO 13395 (2006). *Qualité de l'eau—Détermination de l'azote nitreux et de l'azote nitrique et de la somme des deux par analyse en flux (CFA et FIA) et détection spectrométrique*. AFNOR Editions.

* AFNOR NF EN 13654-2 (2002). *Amendements du sol et supports de culture—Détermination de l'azote—Partie 2 : méthode de Dumas*. AFNOR Editions.

* Albrecht, R., Joffre, R., Petit, J. L., Terrom, G., & Pémissol, C. (2009). *Calibration of chemical and biological changes in cocomposting of biowastes using near-infrared spectroscopy*. *Environmental Science & Technology*, *43*(3), 804–811.

* Amézketa, E. (1999). *Soil aggregate stability: A review*. *Journal of Sustainable Agriculture*, *14*(2–3), 83–151.

* Azim, K., Soudi, B., Boukhari, S., Perissol, C., Roussos, S., & Thami Alami, I. (2018). *Composting parameters and compost quality: A literature review*. *Organic Agriculture*, *8*, 141–158.

* Boros, L., Levavasseur, F., Kebalo, L. F., Bijon, N., & Morel, K. (2022). *Recycling local organic waste in peri-urban horticulture: A case-study in the*
Parisian region. In XXXI International Horticultural Congress (IHC2022): International Symposium on Urban Horticulture for sustainable food. *International Society for Horticultural Science*, 1356, 311-318.

Brennan, E. B., & Acosta-Martinez, V. (2019). Cover crops and compost influence soil enzymes during six years of tillage-intensive, organic vegetable production. *Soil Science Society of America Journal*, 83(3), 624–637.

Carsel, R. F., & Parrish, R. S. (1988). Developing joint probability distributions of soil water retention characteristics. *Water Resources Research*, 24(5), 755–769.

Cogger, C. G. (2005). Potential compost benefits for restoration of soils disturbed by urban development. *Compost Science & Utilization*, 13(4), 243–251.

Crecchio, C., Curci, M., Mininni, R., Ricciuti, P., & Ruggiero, P. (2001). Short-term effects of municipal solid waste compost amendments on soil carbon and nitrogen content, some enzyme activities and genetic diversity. *Biology and Fertility of Soils*, 34, 311–318.

De Guardia, A. (2018). *Compostage et Composts. Avancées scientifiques et techniques*. Lavoisier Tec&Doc.

De Paula, A. M., Chagas, J. K. M., Sérvulo, A. C. O., Fachini, J., Dos Santos Butruille, N. M., Méndez, D. F. S., & Busato, J. G. (2021). Kitchen waste compost increases lettuce growth and shows residual effect on soil fertility. *Revista Brasileira de Ciências Agrárias*, 16(2), e397. https://doi.org/10.5039/agraria.v16i3a397

Diacono, M., & Montemurro, F. (2011). Long-term effects of organic amendments on soil fertility. *Sustainable Agriculture*, 2, 761–786.

Diacono, M., Persiani, A., Testani, E., Montemurro, F., & Ciaccia, C. (2019). Recycling agricultural wastes and by-products in organic farming: Biofertilizer production, yield performance and carbon footprint analysis. *Sustainability*, 11(14), 3824.

Doyle, O. P. E. (2017). Suppressive composts in organic horticulture: Fact or fiction. *European Journal of Horticultural Science*, 82(6), 263–276.

Dos Reis Ferreira, C., da Silva Neto, E. C., Pereira, M. G., do Nascimento Guedes, J., Rosset, J. S., & dos Anjos, L. H. C. (2020). Dynamics of soil aggregation and organic carbon fractions over 23 years of no-till management. *Soil and Tillage Research*, 198, 104533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.104533

European Environment Agency (2020). *Bio-waste in Europe: Turning challenges into opportunities*. European Environment Agency.

European Union (2021). *Commission regulation (EU) 2021/1323 of 10 August 2021 amending regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 as regards maximum levels of cadmium in certain foodstuffs (Text with EEA relevance)*. European Union.

Favoino, E., & Giavini, M. (2020). *Bio-waste generation in the EU: Current capture levels and future potential*. *Bio-based Industries Consortium (BIC) report*. Zero Waste Europe.

Fourvel, G., Vidal-Beaudet, L., Le Bocq, A., Brochier, V., Théry, F., Landry, D., Kumarasamy, T., & Cannavo, P. (2018). Early structural stability of fine dam sediment in soil construction. *Journal of Soils and Sediments*, 18, 2647–2663.

Gattullo, C. E., Mininni, C., Parente, A., Montesano, F. F., Allegretta, I., & Terzano, R. (2017). Effects of municipal solid waste-and sewage sludge-compost-based growing media on the yield and heavy metal content of four lettuce cultivars. *Environmental Science and Pollution Research*, 24, 25406–25415.

Giasson, P. (2005). *Utilisation de champignons mycorhiziens dans le processus de phytorestauration de sols contaminés aux métaux lourds* [PhD thesis]. Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, 150p.

Giannakis, G. V., Kourgialas, N. N., Paranychianakis, N. V., Nikolaidis, N. P., & Kalogerakis, N. (2014). Effects of municipal solid waste compost on soil properties and vegetables growth. *Compost Science & Utilization*, 22(3), 116–131.

Gobat, J. M., Aragno, M., & Matthey, W. (2010). *Le sol vivant. Bases de pédologie–Biologie des sols*. Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes.

Gondek, M., Weindorf, D. C., Thiel, C., & Kleinheinz, G. (2020). Soluble salts in compost and their effects on soil and plants: A review. *Compost Science & Utilization*, 28(2), 59–75.

Hargreaves, J. C., Adl, M. S., & Warman, P. R. (2008). A review of the use of composted municipal solid waste in agriculture. *Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment*, 123(1-3), 1–14.

Hernández, T., Chocano, C., Moreno, J. L., & García, C. (2016). Use of compost as an alternative to conventional inorganic fertilizers in intensive lettuce (*Lactuca sativa* L.) crops—Effects on soil and plant. *Soil and Tillage Research*, 160, 14–22.

Hoitink, H. A. J., Stone, A. G., & Grebus, M. E. (1996). Suppression of plant diseases by composts. In *The science of composting*. Edited by M. Bertoldi, P. Sequi, B. Lemmes, and T. Papi (pp. 373–381). Springer.

Houot, S., Pons, M. N., Pradel, M., Tibi, A., Aubry, C., Augusto, L., Barbier, R., Benoit, P., Brugère, H., & Viguié, C. (2014). *Valorisation des matières fertilisantes d'origine résiduaire sur les sols à usage agricole ou forestier, impacts agronomiques, environnementaux, socio-économiques (Expertise scientifique collective, rapport, INRA-CNRS-Irstea)*. HAL Open Science.

Intawongse, M., & Dean, J. R. (2006). Uptake of heavy metals by vegetable plants grown on contaminated soil and their bioavailability in the human gastrointestinal tract. *Food Additives and Contaminants*, 23(1), 36–48.

Kamireddy, M., Behera, S. K., & Kancherla, S. (2023). Establishing critical leaf nutrient concentrations and identification of yield limiting nutrients for precise nutrient prescriptions of oil palm (*Elaeis guineensis* Jacq) plantations. *Agriculture*, 13(2), 453.

Kohli, A. (2022). *Effets de composts autoproduits et d'un biochar sur le transfert d'éléments trace dans des légumes de jardins familiaux modérément contaminés* [PhD thesis]. Institut Agro Rennes-Angers.

Lashermes, G., Houot, S., Nicolardot, B., Parnaudeau, V., Mary, B., Morvan, T., Chaussod, R., Lineres, M., Metzger, L., Thuriès, L., Villette, C., Tricaud, A., & Guillotin, M. L. (2007). Apport of matières organiques exogènes en agriculture : Indicateur de potentialité de stockage de carbone dans les sols et définition de classes de disponibilité d'azote. *Echo-MO*, 64, 3–8.

Lazicki, P., Geisseler, D., & Lloyd, M. (2020). Nitrogen mineralization from organic amendments is variable but predictable. *Journal of Environmental Quality*, 49, 483–495.

Lenoir, T. (2011). *Mécanismes de rétention du cuivre dans les sols: Évaluation statistique des approches macroscopiques et spectroscopique* [PhD thesis]. Grenoble University.

Leroy, B. L. M., Herath, H. M. S. K., Sleutel, S., De Neve, S., Gabriels, D., Reheul, D., & Moens, M. (2008). The quality of exogenous organic matter: Short-term effects on soil physical properties and soil organic matter fractions. *Soil Use and Management*, 24(2), 139–147.

Murphy, S., Gaffney, M. T., Fanning, S., & Burgess, C. M. (2016). Potential for transfer of *Escherichia coli* O157: H7, *Listeria monocytogenes* and *Salmonella* Senftenberg from contaminated food waste derived compost and anaerobic digestate liquid to lettuce plants. *Food Microbiology*, 59, 7–13.

Nwite, J. C., Keke, C. I., Obalum, S. E., Essien, J. B., Anaele, M. U., & Igwe, C. A. (2013). Organo-mineral amendment options for enhancing soil fertility and nutrient composition and yield of fluted pumpkin. *International Journal of Vegetable Science*, 19(2), 188–199.

Obalum, S. E., Uteau-Puschmann, D., & Peth, S. (2019). Reduced tillage and compost effects on soil aggregate stability of a silt-loam Luvisol using different aggregate stability tests. *Soil and Tillage Research*, 189, 217–228.

Paradelo, R., Villada, A., & Barral, M. T. (2020). Heavy metal uptake of lettuce and ryegrass from urban waste composts. *International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health*, 17(8), 2887. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082887

Rieuwerts, J. S., Thornton, I., Farago, M. E., & Ashmore, M. R. (1998). Factors influencing metal bioavailability in soils: Preliminary investigations for the development of a critical loads approach for metals. *Chemical Speciation & Bioavailability*, 10(2), 61–75.

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>
Rivier, P. A., Jamiczky, D., Nemes, A., Makó, A., Barna, G., Uzinger, N., Rékási, M., & Farkas, C. (2022). Short-term effects of compost amendments to soil on soil structure, hydraulic properties, and water regime. *Journal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics*, 70(1), 74–88.

Sharma, A., Devi, M., Zargar, A., Kumar, S., Thakur, U., Bhatia, A., Badhan, K., Chandel, S., Devi, A., Sharma, K., Kumari, S., Choudhary, M., & Giri, A. (2020). Compost from the food waste for organic production of cabbage, cauliflower, and radish under sub-tropical conditions. *International Journal of Recycling of Organic Waste in Agriculture*, 9(4), 367–383.

Šimanský, V., Polláková, N., & Halmo, S. (2014). Soil crust in agricultural land. *Acta Fytotechnica et Zootechnica*, 17(4), 109–114.

TIBCO. (2017). *Statistica (Logiciel D'analyse des Données)* (13th ed.). TIBCO. http://statistica.io

Tandzi, N. L., & Mutengwa, S. C. (2020). Factors affecting yield of crops. In Amanullah (Ed.), *Agronomy—Climate change and food security. International Open*, 108p.

Tiquia, S. M. (2010). Reduction of compost phytotoxicity during the process of decomposition. *Chemosphere*, 79(5), 506–512.

Weber, J., Kocowicz, A., Bekier, J., Jamroz, E., Tyszka, R., Debicka, M., Parylak, D., & Kordas, L. (2014). The effect of a sandy soil amendment with municipal solid waste (MSW) compost on nitrogen uptake efficiency by plants. *European Journal of Agronomy*, 54, 54–60.

Wichuk, K. M., & McCartney, D. (2013). Compost stability and maturity evaluation—A literature review. *Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science*, 8(5), 601–620.

Yadav, S. S., Guzman, J. G., Meena, R. S., Lal, R., & Yadav, G. S. (2020). Long term crop management effects on soil organic carbon, structure, and water retention in a cropland soil in central Ohio, USA. *Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science*, 183(2), 200–207.

Zhang, R. (1997). Determination of soil sorptivity and hydraulic conductivity from the disk infiltrometer. *Soil Science Society of America Journal*, 61(4), 1024–1030.

Zubillaga, M. S., & Lavado, R. S. (2002). Heavy metal content in lettuce plants grown in biosolids compost. *Compost Science & Utilization*, 10(4), 363–367.

## SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article.

**How to cite this article:** Cannavo, P., Herbreteau, A., Juret, D., Martin, M., & Guénon, R. (2025). Short-term effects of food waste composts on physicochemical soil quality and horticultural crop production. *Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science*, 188, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.202400188