Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 395, Issue 1–2, pp 45–55 | Cite as

Biochar amendment increases maize root surface areas and branching: a shovelomics study in Zambia

  • Samuel Abiven
  • Andreas Hund
  • Vegard Martinsen
  • Gerard Cornelissen
Regular Article

Abstract

Background and aims

Positive crop yield effects from biochar are likely explained by chemical, physical and/or biological factors. However, studies describing plant allometric changes are scarcer, but may be crucial to understand the biochar effect. The main aim of the present study is to investigate the effect of biochar on root architecture under field conditions in a tropical setting.

Methods

The presented work describes a shovelomics (i.e., description of root traits in the field) study on the effect of biochar on maize root architecture. Four field experiments we carried out at two different locations in Zambia, exhibiting non-fertile to relatively fertile soils. Roots of maize crop (Zea mays L.) were sampled from treatments with fertilizer (control) and with a combination of fertilizer and 4 t.ha−1 maize biochar application incorporated in the soil.

Results

For the four sites, the average grain yield increase upon biochar addition was 45 ± 14 % relative to the fertilized control (from 2.1–6.0 to 3.1–9.1 ton ha−1). The root biomass was approximately twice as large for biochar-amended plots. More extensive root systems (especially characterized by a larger root opening angle (+14 ± 11 %) and wider root systems (+20 ± 15 %)) were observed at all biochar-amended sites. Root systems exhibited significantly higher specific surface areas (+54 ± 14 %), branching and fine roots: +70 ± 56 %) in the presence of biochar.

Conclusions

Biochar amendment resulted in more developed root systems and larger yields. The more extensive root systems may have contributed to the observed yield increases, e.g., by improving immobile nutrients uptake in soils that are unfertile or in areas with prolonged dry spells.

Keywords

Biochar Shovelomics Root architecture Plant allometric trends Field experiment Maize 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Sampling and manuscript writing was done in the realm of FriPro project 217918 of the Research Council of Norway, the University Research Priority Programme “global change and biodiversity” of the University of Zurich and the National Research Programme 68 “soil as a resource” by the Swiss National Science Foundation. The Zambia Conservation Farming Unit (CFU) funded by the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad) is acknowledged for facilitating experimental setup as well as field assistance during sampling. Norbert Kirchgessner (ETH) is acknowledged for his support with the REST software. Sarah Hale (NGI) is thanked for comments on the manuscript.

References

  1. Barceló J, Poschenrieder C (2002) Fast root growth responses, root exudates, and internal detoxification as clues to the mechanisms of aluminium toxicity and resistance: A review. Environ Exp Bot 48:75–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bengough AG, McKenzie BM, Hallett PD, Valentine TA (2011) Root elongation, water stress, and mechanical impedance: a review of limiting stresses and beneficial root tip traits. J Exp Bot 62:59–68CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Benjamin JG, Nielsen DC (2006) Water deficit effects on root distribution of soybean, field pea and chickpea. F Crop Res 97:248–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Breazeale JF (1906) Effect of certain solids upon the growth of seedlings in water cultures. Botanical Gazette 41:54–63Google Scholar
  5. Bruun EW, Petersen CT, Hansen E, Holm JK, Hauggaard-Nielsen H (2014) Biochar amendment to coarse sandy subsoil improves root growth and increases water retention. Soil Use Manag 30:109–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bucksch A, Burridge J, York LM, Das A, Nord E, Weitz JS, Lynch JP (2014) Image-based high-throughput field phenotyping of crop roots. Plant Physiol. 1Google Scholar
  7. Colombi T, Kirchgessner N, Marié Le CA, York LM, Lynch JP, Hund A (2015) Next generation shovelomics: set up a tent and REST 1–20Google Scholar
  8. Cornelissen G, Martinsen V, Shitumbanuma V, Alling V, Breedveld G, Rutherford D, Sparrevik M, Hale S, Obia A, Mulder J (2013) Biochar effect on maize yield and soil characteristics in five conservation farming sites in Zambia. Agronomy 3:256–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crane-Droesch A, Abiven S, Jeffery S, Torn MS (2013) Heterogeneous global crop yield response to biochar: a meta-regression analysis. Environ Res Lett 8:044049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dunbabin V, Diggle A, Rengel Z (2003) Is there an optimal root architecture for nitrate capture in leaching environments? Plant Cell Environ 26:835–844CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Ekanayake IJ, O'Toole JC, Garrity DP, Masajo TM, (1985) Inheritance of Root Characters and their Relations to Drought Resistance in Rice. Crop Science. 25(6):927–933. doi: 10.2135/cropsci1985.0011183X002500060007x
  12. Glaser B, Lehman J, Zech W (2002) Ameliorating physical and chemical properties of highly weathered soils in the tropics with charcoal—a review. Biol Fertil Soils 35:219–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grift TE, Novais J, Bohn M (2011) High-throughput phenotyping technology for maize roots. Biosyst Eng 110:40–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ho MD, Rosas JC, Brown KM, Lynch JP (2005) Root architectural tradeoffs for water and phosphorus acquisition. Funct Plant Biol 32:737–748. doi: 10.1071/FP05043
  15. Hobbs PR, Sayre K, Gupta R (2008) The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 363:543–555PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hodge A (2004) The plastic plant: root responses to heterogeneous supplies of nutrients. New Phytol 162:9–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jeffery S, Verheijen FGA, van der Velde M, Bastos AC (2011) A quantitative review of the effects of biochar application to soils on crop productivity using meta-analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 144:175–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kimetu JM, Lehmann J, Ngoze SO, Mugendi DN, Kinyangi JM, Riha S, Verchot L, Recha JW, Pell AN (2008) Reversibility of Soil Productivity Decline with Organic Matter of Differing Quality Along a Degradation Gradient. Ecosystems 11:726–739. doi: 10.1007/s10021-008-9154-z
  19. Körner C (2011) The grand challenges in functional plant ecology. Front Plant Sci 2:1PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kottek M, Grieser J, Beck C, Rudolf B, Rubel F (2006) World map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated. Meteorol Zeitschrift 15:259–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lehmann J (2007) A handful of carbon. Nature 447:143–144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lehmann J, Rillig MC, Thies J, Masiello CA, Hockaday WC, Crowley D (2011) Biochar effects on soil biota—A review. Soil Biol Biochem 43:1812–1836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lynch J (1995) Root architecture and plant productivity. Plant Physiol 109:7–13PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lynch JP (2011) Root phenes for enhanced soil exploration and phosphorus acquisition: tools for future crops. Plant Physiol 156:1041–1049PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Malamy J (2005) Intrinsic and environmental response pathways that regulate root system architecture. Plant Cell Environ 28:67–77CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Martinsen V, Mulder J, Shitumbanuma V, Sparrevik M, Børresen T, Cornelissen G (2014) Farmer-led maize biochar trials: effect on crop yield and soil nutrients under conservation farming. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 177:681–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Novak JM, Busscher WJ, Watts DW, Amonette JE, Ippolito JA, Lima IM, Gaskin J, Das KC, Steiner C, Ahmedna M, Rehrah D, Schomberg H (2012) Biochars impact on soil-moisture storage in an ultisol and Two aridisols. Soil Sci 177:310–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nutman PS (1952) Host factors influencing infection and nodule development in leguminous plants. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B Bio-logical Sciences 139:176–185Google Scholar
  29. Peng Y, Niu J, Peng Z, Zhang F, Li C (2010) Shoot growth potential drives N uptake in maize plants and correlates with root growth in the soil. F Crop Res 115:85–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Poorter H, Sack L (2012) Pitfalls and possibilities in the analysis of biomass allocation patterns in plants. Front Plant Sci 3:259PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Rajkovich S, Enders A, Hanley K (2012) Corn growth and nitrogen nutrition after additions of biochars with varying properties to a temperate soil. Biol Fertil Soils 48:271–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rogers H, Prior S, Runion G, Mitchell R (1996) Root to shoot ratio of crops as influenced by CO2. Plant Soil 187:229–248Google Scholar
  33. Sharp RE, Davies WJ (1979) Solute regulation and growth by roots and shoots of water-stressed maize plants. Planta 147:43–49. doi: 10.1007/BF00384589
  34. Steiner C, Teixeira WG, Lehmann J, Nehls T, Luis J, Macêdo V de, Blum WEH, Zech W (2007) Long term effects of manure, charcoal and mineral fertilization on crop production and fertility on a highly weathered Central Amazonian upland soil. Plant Soil 291:275–290. doi: 10.1007/s11104-007-9193-9
  35. Trachsel S, Kaeppler SM, Brown KM, Lynch JP (2011) Shovelomics: high throughput phenotyping of maize (Zea mays L.) root architecture in the field. Plant Soil 341:75–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Trachsel S, Kaeppler SM, Brown KM, Lynch JP (2013) Maize root growth angles become steeper under low N conditions. F Crop Res 140:18–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Zwieten L, Kimber S, Morris S, Chan KY, Downie A, Rust J, Joseph S, Cowie A (2009) Effects of biochar from slow pyrolysis of papermill waste on agronomic performance and soil fertility. Plant Soil 327:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Warnock DD, Mummey DL, McBride B, Major J, Lehmann J, Rillig MC (2010) Influences of non-herbaceous biochar on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal abundances in roots and soils: Results from growth-chamber and field experiments. Appl Soil Ecol 46:450–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yamato M, Okimori Y, Wibowo IF, Anshori S, Ogawa M (2006) Effects of the application of charred bark of Acacia mangium on the yield of maize, cowpea and peanut, and soil chemical properties in South Sumatra. Indonesia Soil Sci Plant Nutr 52:489–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhu J, Ingram PA, Benfey PN, Elich T (2011) From lab to field, new approaches to phenotyping root system architecture. Curr Opin Plant Biol 14:310–317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of ZürichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institute of Agricultural SciencesETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  3. 3.Department of Environmental Sciences (IMV)Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU)ÅsNorway
  4. 4.Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI)OsloNorway
  5. 5.Department of Applied Environmental Sciences (ITM)Stockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations