**3.3 Effect of vinegar residue on soil properties**

## *3.3.1 Effect of vinegar residue on soil structure*

Soil pH dropped by 0.27 units by the application of vinegar residue (**Table 4**), but there showed no significant difference with the control. The soil electrical conductivity increased significantly with the application of vinegar residue, and the soil electrical

**93**

**Plant height/cm**

> CK

VR1 VR2 **Table 1.**

*Effect of vinegar residue on blueberry growth.*

71.48 ± 7.75a

1.39 ± 0.15a *Different lowercases in the same column indicate the significant difference at 0.05 level (P < 0.05).*

69.36 ± 16.86a

1.43 ± 0.09a

82.58 ± 16.15a

1.62 ± 0.14a

**Basal stem/cm**

**Single fruit weight/g**

1.55 ± 0.29a 1.55 ± 0.32a 1.56 ± 0.29a

**Fruit shape index**

0.87 ± 0.06a 0.88 ± 0.06a 0.88 ± 0.06a

**Aboveground dry weight/g**

112.80 ± 18.87a 139.67 ± 27.02ab

121.03 ± 21.25a

**Root dry weight/g**

28.83 ± 10.48a 53.47 ± 19.14b 53.03 ± 11.22b

**Root-shoot ratio**

0.25 ± 0.06a 0.38 ± 0.07bc

0.43 ± 0.03c

*The Developing Blueberry Industry in China DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88225*

#### *The Developing Blueberry Industry in China DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88225*

*Modern Fruit Industry*

V (soil) = 25:75; and VR2 was V (vinegar residue), V (soil) = 50:50. At harvest time in July 2017, soil and plant samples were collected, and soil physical and chemical properties (pH, conductivity, bulk density, total N content, total P content, and organic matter content), enzymatic activities (urease activity and acid phosphatase activity), growth of blueberry (plant height, basal diameter, average single fruit weight, fruit shape index, aboveground dry weight, root dry weight and rootshoot ratio), nutrient uptake (leaf N content, leaf P content and root N content, root P content) and fruit quality (total phenol and total ketone), and composition and diversity of rhizosphere microbial community of blueberry were examined.

There showed no significant differences in plant height, basal stem, single fruit weight, and fruit shape index among treatments (**Table 1**), but the aboveground dry weight of blueberry was improved significantly by vinegar residue. And the aboveground dry weight of VR1 increased 23.82% compared with CK. Root dry weight of VR1 and VR2 increased by 85.47 and 83.94%, respectively, and there was no significant difference in root dry weight between VR1 and VR2 treatments. The root-shoot ratio of plants treated with VR2 was the highest, 72.00% higher than CK, indicating that the application of vinegar residue significantly promoted the growth of blueberry roots. And 50% vinegar residue amount had the best effect on promoting blueberry growth.

The application of vinegar residue had no significant effect on the absorption of phosphorus in blueberry leaves, roots, and fruits (**Table 2**), and there was also no significant effect on the absorption of nitrogen in blueberry leaves and fruits (**Table 2**). In terms of total nitrogen content in roots, vinegar residue significantly promoted the total nitrogen content in roots. Total nitrogen in roots of VR1 and VR2

treatment increased by 18.86 and 24.06%, respectively, compared with CK.

The reducing sugar of fruits of VR1 and VR2 increased by 8.12 and 9.65% (**Table 3**) with the application of vinegar residue, and the titratable acidity content decreased by 14.28 and 7.14% compared with the control. At the same time, the soluble solid content of fruits increased significantly as soluble solid content of fruits of VR2 increased by 11.60% compared with the control. The accumulation of total phenols and ketones in blueberry fruits was significantly promoted by the application of vinegar residue (**Table 3**), and the content of total phenols and total flavonoids of VR2 increased by 71.42 and 100.00%, respectively, compared with the control. The results showed that the application of vinegar residue could signifi-

Soil pH dropped by 0.27 units by the application of vinegar residue (**Table 4**), but there showed no significant difference with the control. The soil electrical conductivity increased significantly with the application of vinegar residue, and the soil electrical

**3.2 Effect of vinegar residue on blueberry growth and fruit quality**

*3.2.1 Effect of vinegar residue on blueberry growth*

*3.2.2 Effect of vinegar residue on blueberry nutrient uptake*

*3.2.3 Effect of vinegar residue on blueberry fruit quality*

cantly improve the quality of blueberry fruits.

**3.3 Effect of vinegar residue on soil properties**

*3.3.1 Effect of vinegar residue on soil structure*

**92**


**Table 1.** *Effect of vinegar residue on blueberry growth.*


**95**

*The Developing Blueberry Industry in China DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88225*

*Effect of vinegar residue on blueberry fruit quality.*

**Table 3.**

**Table 4.**

**Table 5.**

**Soluble solid/% Reducing sugar/**

**mg·g − 1**

*Different lowercases in the same column indicate the significant difference at 0.05 level (P < 0.05).*

**pH Electrical conductivity/**

*Different lowercases in the same column indicate the significant difference at 0.05 level (P < 0.05).*

*Different lowercases in the same column indicate the significant difference at 0.05 level (P < 0.05).*

**Titratable acidity/%**

CK 10.17 ± 0.70a 71.78 ± 7.12a 0.42 ± 0.07a 0.56 ± 0.13a 0.71 ± 0.11a VR1 11.03 ± 1.81ab 77.61 ± 6.57a 0.36 ± 0.02a 0.85 ± 0.23ab 1.21 ± 0.29bc VR2 11.35 ± 1.12b 78.71 ± 11.52a 0.39 ± 0.02a 0.96 ± 0.15b 1.42 ± 0.24c

CK 4.90 ± 0.10a 110.90 ± 9.51a 0.85 ± 0.02c VR1 4.63 ± 0.24a 138.65 ± 12.75a 0.84 ± 0.03c VR2 4.67 ± 0.11a 224.80 ± 49.56b 0.72 ± 0.02a

**<sup>1</sup> Soil phosphorus/mg·kg**

CK 11.15 ± 1.84a 13.30 ± 2.78a 8.24 ± 1.11a VR1 22.30 ± 2.44b 18.83 ± 1.11ab 29.79 ± 2.82c VR2 37.80 ± 6.26c 25.65 ± 3.18bc 51.84 ± 1.18d

**Total phenols/ mg·g − 1**

**Total flavonoids/ mg·g − 1**

> **− 3**

> > **− 1**

**<sup>1</sup> Bulk density/g·cm**

**<sup>1</sup> Soil organic matter/g·kg**

conductivity of VR2 224.80

*Effect of vinegar residue on soil nutrient.*

*Effect of vinegar residue on soil structure.*

**Soil nitrogen/mg·kg**

18.83 and 25.65 mg kg

− 1

51.84 g kg

μS·cm − 1

**−**

growth of blueberry after the application of vinegar residue.

VR1 and VR2 treatments were 22.30 and 37.80 mg kg

*3.3.2 Effect of vinegar residue on soil nutrient*

− 1

*3.3.3 Effect of vinegar residue on soil enzymes*

treatments were 11.67 and 26.60 mg·kg

conductivity suitable for the growth of blueberry. Soil bulk density of VR2 was 15.29% lower than the CK. The decrease of soil pH and bulk density was beneficial for the

The total nitrogen and total phosphorus contents of soil increased significantly with the application of vinegar residue (**Table 5**). The total nitrogen contents of

239.01% higher than those of the control, and the total phosphorus contents were

Soil urease and acid phosphatase activities increased significantly with the application of vinegar residue (**Table 6**). Soil urease activities of VR1 and VR2

533.33%, respectively, compared with the control. And acid phosphatase activities

− 1 h − 1

those of the control. The content of soil organic matter increased significantly with the increase of vinegar residue. Content of soil organic matter of VR2 was

, 5.29 times higher than that of the control.

, which was still in the range of the electrical

**−**

**μS·cm −**

− 1

, respectively, which were 41.58 and 92.86% higher than

, which were 100.00 and

, which increased by 177.86 and

*Effect of vinegar residue on blueberry nutrient uptake.*

#### *The Developing Blueberry Industry in China DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88225*


#### **Table 3.**

*Modern Fruit Industry*

**94**

**Leave nitrogen/mg·kg−1**

CK VR1 VR2 **Table 2.**

*Effect of vinegar residue on blueberry nutrient uptake.*

707.68 ± 30.39a

699.35 ± 19.57a

705.03 ± 28.89a

**Root nitrogen/mg·kg−1**

615.88 ± 83.02a 731.83 ± 33.95b 763.03 ± 63.31b *Different lowercases in the same column indicate the significant difference at 0.05 level (P < 0.05).*

**Fruit nitrogen/mg·kg−1**

240.40 ± 15.86a

276.03 ± 22.99a 275.40 ± 33.01a

**Leave phosphorus/mg·kg−1**

109.10 ± 23.29a

109.10 ± 8.22a 90.15 ± 6.34a

**Root phosphorus/mg·kg−1**

164.60 ± 21.29a

184.10 ± 33.04a

229.85 ± 79.10a

**Fruit phosphorus/mg·kg−1**

142.89 ± 28.47a

148.49 ± 27.24a

159.67 ± 28.68a

*Effect of vinegar residue on blueberry fruit quality.*


#### **Table 4.**

*Effect of vinegar residue on soil structure.*


#### **Table 5.**

*Effect of vinegar residue on soil nutrient.*

conductivity of VR2 224.80 μS·cm<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , which was still in the range of the electrical conductivity suitable for the growth of blueberry. Soil bulk density of VR2 was 15.29% lower than the CK. The decrease of soil pH and bulk density was beneficial for the growth of blueberry after the application of vinegar residue.

### *3.3.2 Effect of vinegar residue on soil nutrient*

The total nitrogen and total phosphorus contents of soil increased significantly with the application of vinegar residue (**Table 5**). The total nitrogen contents of VR1 and VR2 treatments were 22.30 and 37.80 mg kg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , which were 100.00 and 239.01% higher than those of the control, and the total phosphorus contents were 18.83 and 25.65 mg kg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , respectively, which were 41.58 and 92.86% higher than those of the control. The content of soil organic matter increased significantly with the increase of vinegar residue. Content of soil organic matter of VR2 was 51.84 g kg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , 5.29 times higher than that of the control.

### *3.3.3 Effect of vinegar residue on soil enzymes*

Soil urease and acid phosphatase activities increased significantly with the application of vinegar residue (**Table 6**). Soil urease activities of VR1 and VR2 treatments were 11.67 and 26.60 mg·kg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> h<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , which increased by 177.86 and 533.33%, respectively, compared with the control. And acid phosphatase activities


#### **Table 6.**

*Effect of vinegar residue on soil enzyme.*

of VR2 treatments were 22.87 mg·kg<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> h<sup>−</sup><sup>1</sup> , which was significantly 95.47% higher than the control.
