Effects of phytolithic rice-straw biochar, soil buffering capacity and pH on silicon bioavailability
Supplying phytolith-rich biochar in agrosystems increases soil pH, CEC and nutrient availability, adding to the impact of Si uptake on plant growth. Here we studied this specific impact as influenced by soil properties, and assessed the role of phytoliths to provide plant available Si.
We used a young Cambisol and a highly weathered, poorly buffered, desilicated Nitisol. The biochars were produced from rice plants respectively enriched (Si+) and depleted (Si-) in Si. They had identical pH and nutrient contents, but largely differed in Si content (51.3 g Si kg−1 in Si + vs 0.3 g Si kg−1 in Si-). We compared their effects to that of wollastonite (CaSiO3) on the biomass and mineralomass of wheat plants in a soil:solution:plant device. The contents of soil bioavailable Si and biogenic Si were assessed through an original CaCl2 kinetic extraction and the DeMaster Na2CO3 alkaline dissolution, respectively.
The DeMaster technique dissolved Si from phytolith as well as from wollastonite. The soil buffering capacity (cmolc kg−1) was 31 in the Cambisol and 0.2 in the Nitisol. An identical supply of phytolithic biochar increased pH from 4.5 to 4.8 in the Cambisol, and from 4.8 to 7.4 in NI. It further increased the content of bioavailable Si (from 55 to 97 mg kg−1 in the Cambisol, and 36 to 209 mg kg−1 in the Nitisol), as well as plant Si uptake, biomass and Si mineralomass. That increase was largest in the Nitisol.
The DeMaster technique did not specifically quantify the phytolith pool. This pool was the main source of plant available Si in both the Cambisol and Nitisol amended with phytolithic biochar. At identical phytolithic Si supply, however, soil pH and soil buffering capacity controlled the transfer of Si in the soil-plant system, which was largest in the poorly buffered Nitisol. The effect of phytolithic biochar on Si bioavailability was depending on soil constituents and properties, and thus on soil type.
KeywordsBiochar Phytolith Si bioavailability pH Soil buffering capacity
We thank A. Iserentant and C. Givron for laboratory assistance (UCL), and M. Capelle for technical advice (UCL), as well as M. Pala for biochar preparation (Ghent University). Z. Li is supported by the ‘Fonds Spécial de Recherche’ of the UCL in 2014-2015 and the ‘Fonds National de la Recherche Scientifique’ (FNRS) of Belgium in 2015-2019. D.U.B would like to thank BELSPO for funding the project SOGLO (The soil system under global change, P7/24). We thank the reviewers for their helpful comments to improve the manuscript, and the Editor-in-Chief for his pertinent advices. All authors contributed to paper writing and revision.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
- Berthelsen S, Noble AD, Garside AL (2001) Silicon research down under: past, present, and future. In Studies in Plant Science, vol 8. Elsevier, pp 241–255Google Scholar
- Chapman HD (1965) Cation-exchange capacity. In: Black CA et al. (eds) Methods of soil analysis. Part 2, Chemical and microbiological properties. Agronomy, Madison, pp. 891-901Google Scholar
- Datnoff LE, Heckman JR (2014) Silicon fertilizers for plant disease protection. World Fertilizer CongressGoogle Scholar
- Garrels RM, Christ CL (1965) Solutions, minerals, and equilibria. Harper Row, New York, p. 46Google Scholar
- Glaser B, Lehmann J, Zech W (2002) Ameliorating physical and chemical properties of highly weathered soils in the tropics with charcoal–a review. Biol Fertil Soils 35(4): 219–230Google Scholar
- Haysom M, Chapman L (1975) Some aspects of the calcium silicate trials at Mackay. ProceedingsGoogle Scholar
- Herbillon A (1986) Chemical estimation of weatherable minerals present in the diagnostic horizons of low activity clay soils. Proceedings of the 8th International Clay Classification Workshop: Classification, Characterization and Utilization of Oxisols (part 1)[Beinroth, FH, Camargo, MN and Eswaran (ed)][39–48](Rio de Janeiro, 1986)Google Scholar
- IUSS (2014) World reference base for soil resources 2014 international soil classification system for naming soils and creating legends for soil maps. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
- Keeping MG, Miles N, Rutherford RS (2017) Liming an acid soil treated with diverse silicon sources: effects on silicon uptake by sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrids). J Plant Nutr 41:273–287Google Scholar
- Kelly EF (1990) Methods for extracting opal Phytoliths from soil and plant material. Document of the Department of Agronomy, Colorado State UniversityGoogle Scholar
- Kittrick, J. A. (1977). Mineral equilibria and the soil system. In: Dixon JB and Weed SB (eds) Minerals in Soil Environments. Soil Sci Soc Am, pp. 1–25Google Scholar
- Klotzbücher T, Marxen A, Vetterlein D, Schneiker J, Türke M, van Sinh N, Manh NH, van Chien H, Marquez L, Villareal S (2015) Plant-available silicon in paddy soils as a key factor for sustainable rice production in Southeast Asia. Basic Appl Ecol 16:665–673Google Scholar
- Ma JF, Takahashi E (2002) Soil, fertilizer, and plant silicon research in Japan. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- Neu S, Schaller J, Dudel EG (2017) Silicon availability modifies nutrient use efficiency and content, C: N: P stoichiometry, and productivity of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Sci Rep 7:40829Google Scholar
- Yoshida S (1981) Fundamentals of rice crop science. International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Laguna, PhilippinesGoogle Scholar