Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem: https://hdl.handle.net/11000/31860
Registro completo de metadatos
Campo DC Valor Lengua/Idioma
dc.contributor.authorLopez Marin, Josefa-
dc.contributor.authorRomero Muñoz, Miriam-
dc.contributor.authorGálvez, Amparo-
dc.contributor.authordel Amor, Francisco Moisés-
dc.contributor.authorPiñero Zapata, María Carmen-
dc.contributor.authorBrotons, Jose M-
dc.contributor.otherDepartamentos de la UMH::Estudios Económicos y Financieroses_ES
dc.date.accessioned2024-03-27T11:40:37Z-
dc.date.available2024-03-27T11:40:37Z-
dc.date.created2021-05-
dc.identifier.citationSustainability Volume 13 Issue 9 (2021)es_ES
dc.identifier.issn2071-1050-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11000/31860-
dc.description.abstractThe use of mulching in agriculture suppresses the weeds around crop plants, enhances the nutrients status of soil, controls the soil structure and temperature, and reduces soil water evaporation. Excessive use of low-density polyethylene mulches is contributing to the accumulation of high amounts of plastic wastes, an environmental problem for agricultural ecosystems. Fragments of plastic from such wastes can be found in soils, in water resources, and in organisms, including humans. The objective of this work was to study the economic viability of the use of different hydromulches in an artichoke crop. Three blends were prepared by mixing paper pulp (recycled from used paper) and cardboard (from paper mills) with different additives: wheat straw (WS), rice hulls (RH), and substrate used for mushroom cultivation (MS). These were compared with low-density polyethylene (Pe), a treatment without mulching on bare soil where hand weeding was performed (HW), and a treatment without mulching on bare soil where herbicide was applied (H). The results indicate that the use of hydromulch in an artichoke crop represents a good alternative for reducing plastic waste in agriculture. The net profits of the hydromulch treatments (MS, WS, RH) were higher than for HW and H, and slightly lower than for Pe. The most profitable treatment was Pe (€0.69 m−3), followed by RH (€0.59 m−3), WS (€0.58 m−3), MS (€0.47 m−3), HW (€0.36 m−3), and H (€0.32 m−3). A sensitivity analysis showed a probability of negative results of 0.04 in Pe, 0.13 in SM, 0.08 in WS, and 0.07 in RH, so the probability that the grower will make a profit is greater than 0.9 with the use of mulch (except mushroom substrate) or polyethylene.es_ES
dc.formatapplication/pdfes_ES
dc.format.extent17es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherMDPIes_ES
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subjectMonte Carlo simulationes_ES
dc.subjectvalue at riskes_ES
dc.subjecteco-friendlyes_ES
dc.subjectmicroplastices_ES
dc.subjectmulches_ES
dc.subjectweed controles_ES
dc.subject.otherCDU::5 - Ciencias puras y naturales::50 - Generalidades sobre las ciencias purases_ES
dc.titleThe Use of Hydromulching as an Alternative to Plastic Films in an Artichoke (Cynara cardunculus cv. Symphony) Crop: A Study of the Economic Viabilityes_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://doi.org/ 10.3390/su13095313es_ES
Aparece en las colecciones:
Artículos Estudios Económicos y Financieros


Vista previa

Ver/Abrir:
 10 2021 sustainability-13-05313-v2.pdf

1,66 MB
Adobe PDF
Compartir:


Creative Commons La licencia se describe como: Atribución-NonComercial-NoDerivada 4.0 Internacional.