## 3 Results
### CTs Fungal Pathogen Suppressiveness  
All raw CTs exhibited in the plate diffusion assays, variable levels of fungal growth inhibition (Table 8). Plate experiments showed a reduction of mycelial development that ranged between 61 and 21%, with a global value that are, on average, around 45%. Although, additive type and dose and dilution interact significantly (MANOVA) with in vitro CTs suppression, all these factors did not give univocal effects. Therefore, no consistent characterizing trend could be deducted. Sterilized teas, on the contrary, has not produced any inhibition hole; therefore, they proved to be ineffective in fungal growth reduction (data not shown). In vivo assay showed that CTs significantly reduced the detrimental effects of the fungal pathogen _Rtizoctonia solani_ on cabbage (Figure 3). Although CT-Wh1 treatment proved higher control activity, there were no differences among CTs. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline
**COMPOST** & **Fungi** & **Yeast** & **Bacteria** & **Fungi/** & **Fungi/** & **Yeast/** & **Pseudomonas** & **Bacillus** \\
**TEAS** & **(LogCFU** & **(LogCFU** & **(LogCFU** & **Bacteria** & **Yeast** & **Bacteria** & **LogPFU** & **spp.** \\
**ml\({}^{-1}\))** & **ml\({}^{-1}\))** & **ml\({}^{-1}\))** & **Ratio** & **Ratio** & **Ratio** & **(LogCFU** & **(LogCFU** \\
**CT-Wa** & 3.1c** & 4.4 c & 5.6 c & 0.562 & 0.711 & 0.789 & 3.8 d & 4.1 a \\
**CT-Wh1** & 6.3 a & 5.0 c & 7.2 bc & 0.868 & 1.264 & 0.687 & 5.1 d & 4.0 a \\
**CT-Wh2** & 6.1 b & 5.9 b & 8.3 a & 0.741 & 1.044 & 0.710 & 6.8 b & 4.3 a \\
**CT-M1** & 4.4 c & 6.3 a & 7.4 bc & 0.601 & 0.699 & 0.859 & 7.2 a & 4.4 a \\
**CT-M2** & 3.6 c & 5.3 c & 7.8 b & 0.462 & 0.683 & 0.676 & 6.3 cd & 3.7 a \\
**CT-M3** & 3.4 c & 5.5 c & 7.6 bc & 0.453 & 0.623 & 0.727 & 6.8 bc & 3.6 a \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Microbiological features of the final CTs. Values followed by different lowercase letters were significantly (\(p\leq 0.05\)) different. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{11}{c}{**Biology CLPs**} \\ \cline{2-13}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Funggi**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Yeast**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Bacteria**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Funggi/Bacteria**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Funggi/Hearst**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Yeast/Bacteria**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Posedness \%pp.**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Bacillus spp.**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Bolkmann Function of AWCD**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Metabolic Biodiversity**} \\ \cline{2-13}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**LogCFU m1-1**} & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline CT-Wa & 3.1\(\pm\) & 4.4 & 5.5\(\pm\) & 0.56 & 0.711 & 0.789 & 3.8\(\pm\) & 4.1\(\pm\) & 1.47 & 45.21 & 11.01 & 0.996 & 20213 & 3.32 \(\pm\) & 4 \\ CT-Wi & 6.3\(\pm\) & 5.0\(\pm\) & 7.2\(\pm\) & 0.868 & 1.24 & 0.687 & 5.1\(\pm\) & 4.0\(\pm\) & 1.11 & 43.26 & 13.40 & 0.996 & 1.362 d & 3.32 d \\ CT-Wi & 6.1\(\pm\) & 5.9\(\pm\) & 8.3\(\pm\) & 0.741 & 1.044 & 0.710 & 6.8\(\pm\) & 4.3\(\pm\) & 1.22 & 36.71 & 14.28 & 0.991 & 1.869 d & 3.37 e \\ CT-MI & 44.6 \(\pm\) & 6.3\(\pm\) & 7.4\(\pm\) & 0.601 & 0.699 & 0.859 & 7.2\(\pm\) & 4.4\(\pm\) & 1.71 & 43.36 & 1.374 d & 0.996 & 3.128 e & 3.40 b \\ CT-M2 & 3.6\(\pm\) & 5.3\(\pm\) & 7.8\(\pm\) & 0.462 & 0.683 & 0.676 & 6.3\(\pm\) & 3.7\(\pm\) & 1.80 & 37.84 & 14.19 & 0.993 & 4.500 b & 3.41 a \\ CT-MS & 3.4\(\pm\) & 5.5\(\pm\) & 7.6\(\pm\) & 0.453 & 0.623 & 0.727 & 6.8\(\pm\) & 36.8 & 36.4\(\pm\) & 1.70 & 37.96 & 15.12 & 0.990 & 5.158 a & 3.41 a \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Microbial population and levels of physiological profiles of CT communities detected by Biology Eco Plate system. In each group, values followed by different lowercase letters were significantly (\(p\leq 0.05\)) different.