Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 16, Issue 10, pp 2482–2491 | Cite as

Effects of biochar addition to estuarine sediments

  • Gerardo Ojeda
  • Joana Patrício
  • Stefania Mattana
  • Abilio J. F. N. Sobral
Sediments, Sec 5 • Sediment Management • Short Original Communication

Abstract

Purpose

Biochar is a carbon-rich product, able to enhance soil fertility and mitigate CO2 emissions. While biochar effects on agriculture are becoming known, its impact elsewhere, e.g., on estuarine ecosystems, has yet to be assessed. The main aim of the present study was to determine the effect of biochar on sediment–water retention, CO2 emissions from sedimentary organic carbon decomposition, sediment pH and electrical conductivity, in aerobic conditions similar to those observed at low tide.

Materials and methods

Sediments from the Mondego Estuary (Portugal) were mixed with pine gasification biochar at different doses (5, 10, 14 %) and immersed in water with different salinity values (15, 25, 30) for 96 h. The influence of biochar on water retention, the residence time of water and CO2 emissions between −0.75 and −1.5 MPa, total organic carbon, pH and electrical conductivity (EC) were determined. Carbon chemical composition and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) concentrations were determined in sediments and biochar. Differences between biochar treatments after immersion in different water salinities were analysed using the Kruskal–Wallis test.

Results and discussion

Results showed that biochar was able to (a) increase sediment–water content in terms of quantity and residence time, (b) decrease CO2 emissions, but only with a specific soil–water content and at the highest biochar dose, (c) increase sediment pH at all biochar doses and (d) increase sediment EC at the highest biochar dose. In contrast, the percentage of carbon mineralised was not modified. Biochar carbon was rich in PAHs and less decomposable than sedimentary carbon. The increments observed in sediment pH and EC were unable to change sediment alkaline or saline status according to standard classifications.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that the remarkable water adsorption capacity of biochar–sediment mixtures may be considered the main factor in regulating CO2 emission rates from sediments, together with high PAH concentrations, which probably restrain the organic matter decomposition process.

Keywords

CO2 emissions PAHs Pine gasification biochar Sediments Water retention 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was carried out as part of the SOCARRAT project (contract AGL2009-12343 of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation). The authors wish to thank the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia—the European Social and National Funds (POPH & QREN) (SFRH/BPD/36371/2007) and Universidad Nacional de Colombia at Palmira—Colciencias (FP44842-138-2015) for financial support through the postdoctoral grants to G. Ojeda. We appreciate the study system map (Fig. 1), designed by Z. Teixeira.

Supplementary material

11368_2016_1493_MOESM1_ESM.docx (104 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 104 kb)

References

  1. Alburquerque JA, Sanchez-Monedero MAS, Roig A, Cayuela ML (2015) High concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (naphthalene, phenanthrene and pyrene) failed to explain biochar’s capacity to reduce soil nitrous oxide emissions. Environ Pollut 196:72–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander M (2000) Aging, bioavailability, and overestimation of risk from environmental pollutants. Environ Sci Tech 34:4259–4265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ascione Kenov I, Garcia JC, Neves R (2012) Residence time of water in the Mondego estuary (Portugal). Estuar Coast Shelf S 106:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bastos AC, Prodana M, Abrantes N, Keizer JJ, Soares AMVM, Loureiro S (2014) Potential risk of biochar-amended soil to aquatic systems: an evaluation based on aquatic bioassays. Ecotoxicology 23:1784–1793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bazin P, Jouenne F, Friedl T, Deton-Cabanillas AF, Le Roy B, Véron B (2014) Phytoplankton diversity and community composition along the estuarine gradient of a temperate macrotidal ecosystem: combined morphological and molecular Approaches. Plos One 9:e94110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biederman LA, Harpole WS (2012) Biochar and its effects on plant productivity and nutrient cycling: a meta-analysis. GCB Bioenergy 5:202–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. IBI (International Biochar Initiative) (2014) Standardized Product Definition and Product Testing Guidelines for Biochar That Is Used in Soil (aka IBI Biochar Standards) Version 2.0. http://www.biochar-international.org/sites/default/files/Guidelines_for_Biochar_That_Is_Used_in_Soil_Final.pdf
  8. Cai WJ (2011) Estuarine and coastal ocean carbon paradox: CO2 sinks or sites of terrestrial carbon incineration? Annu Rev Mar Sci 3:123–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carrero R, Navas F, Malvárez G, Guisado-Pintado E (2014) Artificial intelligence-based models to simulate land-use changes around an estuary. In: Green AN, Cooper JAG (eds) Proceedings 13th International Coastal Symposium (Durban, South Africa), Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 70, Sydney, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  10. CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment) (2010) Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines for Carcinogenic and Other Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (Environmental and Human Health Effects). Scientific Criteria Document, Quebec, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  11. Creamer AE, Gao B, Zhang M (2014) Carbon dioxide capture using biochar produced from sugarcane bagasse and hickory wood. Chem Eng J 249:174–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. EC (European Community) (2000) Working document on sludge, third draft, ENV.E.3/LM, Brussels.Google Scholar
  13. Gateuille D, Evrard O, Lefevre I, Moreau-Guigon E, Alliot F, Chevreuil M, Mouchel JM (2014) Mass balance and decontamination times of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in rural nested catchments of an early industrialized region (Seine River basin, France). Sci Total Environ 470–471:608–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gattuso JP, Frankignoulle M, Wollast R (1998) Carbon and carbonate metabolism in coastal aquatic ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:405–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hammes K, Schmidt MWI, Smernik RJ, Currie LA, Ball WP, Nguyen TH, Louchouarn P, Houel S, Gustafsson O, Elmquist M, Cornelissen G, Skjemstad JO, Masiello CA, Song J, Peng P, Mitra S, Dunn JC, Hatcher PG, Hockaday WC, Smith DM, Hartkopf-Fröder C, Böhmer A, Lüer B, Huebert BJ, Amelung W, Brodowski S, Huang L, Zhang W, Gschwend PM, Flores-Cervantes DX, Largeau C, Rouzaud JN, Rumpel C, Guggenberger G, Kaiser K, Rodionov A, Gonzalez-Vila FJ, Gonzalez-Perez JA, de la Rosa JM, Manning DAC, López-Capél E, Ding L (2007) Comparison of quantification methods to measure fire-derived (black/elemental) carbon in soils and sediments using reference materials from soil, water, sediment and the atmosphere. Global Biogeochem Cy 21:GB3016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hardie M, Clothier B, Bound S, Oliver G, Close D (2014) Does biochar influence soil physical properties and soil water availability? Plant Soil 376:347–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. He W, Chen M, Schlautman MA, Hur J (2016) Dynamic exchanges between DOM and POM pools in coastal and inland aquatic ecosystems: a review. Sci Total Environ 551–552:415–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hedges JI, Oades JM (1997) Comparative organic geochemistries of soils and marine sediments. Org Geochem 27:319–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herath HMSK, Camps-Arbestain M, Hedley M (2013) Effect of biochar on soil physical properties in two contrasting soils: an Alfisol and an Andisol. Geoderma 209–210:188–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hunsinger GB, Mitra S, Warrick JA, Alexander CR (2008) Oceanic loading of wildfire-derived organic compounds from a small mountainous river. J Geophys Res 113:G02007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. IBM Corp. Released (2011) IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, IBM Corp, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Ittekkot V (1988) Global trends in the nature of organic matter in river suspensions. Nature 332:436–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jones DL, Murphy DV, Khalid M, Ahmad W, Edwards-Jones G, DeLuca TH (2011) Short-term biochar-induced increase in soil CO2 release is both biotically and abiotically mediated. Soil Biol Biochem 43:1723–1731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karstens S, Buczko U, Jurasinski G, Peticzka R, Glatzel S (2016) Impact of adjacent land use on coastal wetland sediments. Sci Total Environ 550:337–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kimmerer W, Weaver MJ (2013) Vulnerability of estuaries to climate changes. In: Reference Module in Earth Systems and Environmental Sciences – Climate Vulnerability. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  26. Kleber M, Nico PS, Plante A, Filley T, Kramer M, Swanston C, Sollins P (2011) Old and stable soil organic matter is not necessarily chemically recalcitrant: implications for modeling concepts and temperature sensitivity. Glob Change Biol 17:1097–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kögel-Knabner I (1997) 13C and 15N NMR spectroscopy as a tool in soil organic matter studies. Geoderma 80:243–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kuppusamy S, Thavamani P, Megharaj M, Venkateswarlu K, Naidu R (2016) Agronomic and remedial benefits and risks of applying biochar to soil: current knowledge and future research directions. Environ Int 87:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lehmann J, Joseph S (2009) Biochar for environmental management: an Introduction. In: Lehmann J, Joseph S (eds) Biochar for environmental management: science and technology. Earthscan, London, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  30. Livesley SJ, Andrusiak SM (2012) Temperate mangrove and salt marsh sediments are a small methane and nitrous oxide source but important carbon store. Estuar Coast Shelf S 97:19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Marks EAN, Mattana S, Alcañiz JM, Domene X (2014a) Biochars provoke diverse soil mesofauna reproductive responses in laboratory bioassays. Eur J Soil Biol 60:104–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marks EAN, Alcañiz JM, Domene X (2014b) Unintended effects of biochars on shortterm plant growth in a calcareous soil. Plant Soil 385:87–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Middelburg JJ, Herman PMJ (2007) Organic matter processing in tidal estuaries. Mar Chem 106:127–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Millán H (2004) Fragmentation of soil initiators: application of the pore-solid fractal model. Fractals 12:357–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mitra S, Zimmerman AR, Hunsinger GB, Woerner WR (2013) Black carbon in coastal and large river systems. In: Bianchi TS, Allison MA, Cai WJ (eds) Biogeochemical dynamics at major river-coastal interfaces: linkages with global change. Oxford Publishing Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Moyano FE, Vasilyeva N, Bouckaert L, Cook F, Craine J, Curiel Yuste J, Don A, Epron D, Formanek P, Franzluebbers A, Ilstedt U, Katterer T, Orchard V, Reichstein M, Rey A, Ruamps L, Subke J-A, Thomsen IK, Chenu C (2012) The moisture response of soil heterotrophic respiration: interaction with soil properties. Biogeosciences 9:1173–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mukherjee A, Lal R (2014) The biochar dilemma. Soil Res 52:217–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Needles LA, Lester SE, Ambrose R, Andren A, Beyeler M, Connor MS, Eckman JE, Costa-Pierce BA, Gaines SD, Lafferty KD, Lenihan HS, Parrish J, Peterson MS, Scaroni AE, Weis JS, Wendt DE (2015) Managing bay and estuarine ecosystems for multiple services. Estuar Coast 38(Suppl 1):S35–S48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nelson DW, Sommers LE (1982) Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. In: Page AL, Miller H, Keeney DR (eds) Method of Soil Analysis Part 2: Chemical and Microbiological Properties No. 9. Agronomy Series. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp 570–571Google Scholar
  40. Ojeda G, Perfect E, Alcañiz JM, Ortiz O (2006) Fractal analysis of soil water hysteresis as influenced by sewage sludge application. Geoderma 134:386–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ojeda G, Mattana S, Bonmati M, Woche SK, Bachmann J (2011) Soil wetting-drying and water-retention properties in a mine-soil treated with composted and thermally-dried sludges. Eur J Soil Sci 62:696–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ojeda G, Patrício J, Navajas H, Comellas L, Alcañiz JM, Ortiz O, Marks E, Natal-da-Luz T, Sousa JP (2013) Effects of nonylphenols on soil microbial activity and water retention. Appl Soil Ecol 64:77–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ojeda G, Mattana S, Àvila A, Alcañiz JM, Volkmann M, Bachmann J (2015) Are soil–water functions affected by biochar application? Geoderma 249–250:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Oleszczuk P, Jośko I, Kuśmierz M (2013) Biochar properties regarding to contaminants content and ecotoxicological assessment. J Hazard Mater 260:375–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Oleszczuk P, Jośko I, Kuśmierz M, Futa B, Wielgosz E, Ligęza S, Pranagal J (2014) Microbiological, biochemical and ecotoxicological evaluation of soils in the area of biochar production in relation to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon content. Geoderma 213:502–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Or D, Smets BF, Wraith JM, Dechesne A, Friedman SP (2007) Physical constraints affecting bacterial habitats and activity in unsaturated porous media – a review. Adv Water Resour 30:1505–1527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Preston CM, Schmidt MWI (2006) Black (pyrogenic) carbon: a synthesis of current knowledge and uncertainties with special consideration of boreal regions. Biogeosciences 3:397–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rogovska N, Laird D, Cruse R, Fleming P, Parkin T, Meek D (2011) Impact of biochar on manure carbon stabilization and greenhouse gas emissions. Soil Sci Soc Am J 75:871–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rumpel C, Chaplot V, Planchon O, Bernadou J, Valentin C, Mariotti A (2006) Preferential erosion of black carbon on steep slopes with slash and burn agriculture. Catena 65:30–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schmidt MWI, Noack AG (2000) Black carbon in soils and sediments: analysis, distribution, implications, and current challenges. Global Biogeochem Cy 14:777–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schmidt MWI, Torn M, Abiven S, Dittmar T, Guggenberger G, Janssens G, Kleber M, Kögel-Knabner I, Lehmann J, Manning D, Nannipieri P, Rasse D, Weiner S, Trumbore S (2011) Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature 478:49–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Smith JL, Collins HP, Bailey VL (2010) The effect of young biochar on soil respiration. Soil Biol Biochem 42:2345–2347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Spokas KA (2010) Review of the stability of biochar in soils: predictability of O:C molar ratios. Carbon Manag 1:289–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Spokas KA, Reicosky DC (2009) Impacts of sixteen different biochars on soil greenhouse gas production. Annals Environ Sci 3:179–193Google Scholar
  55. Spokas KA, Cantrell KB, Novak JM, Archer DW, Ippolito JA, Collins HP, Boateng AA, Lima IM, Lamb MC, McAloon AJ, Lentz RD, Nichols KA (2012) Biochar: a synthesis of its agronomic impact beyond carbon sequestration. J Environ Qual 41:973–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Steinbeiss S, Gleixner G, Antonietti M (2009) Effect of biochar amendment on soil carbon balance and soil microbial activity. Soil Biol Biochem 41:1301–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ulyett J, Sakrabani R, Kibblewhite M, Hann M (2014) Impact of biochar addition on water retention, nitrification and carbon dioxide evolution from two sandy loam soils. Eur J Soil Sci 65:96–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Van Krevelen DW (1961) Coal: typology, chemistry, physics, constitution. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  59. Wang J, Yao P, Bianchi TS, Li D, Zhao B, Cui X, Pana H, Zhang T, Yu Z (2015) The effect of particle density on the sources, distribution, and degradation of sedimentary organic carbon in the Changjiang Estuary and adjacent shelf. Chem Geol 402:52–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Watanabe K, Kuwae T (2015) How organic carbon derived from multiple sources contributes to carbon sequestration processes in a shallow coastal system? Glob Change Biol 21:2612–2623CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerardo Ojeda
    • 1
  • Joana Patrício
    • 2
  • Stefania Mattana
    • 3
  • Abilio J. F. N. Sobral
    • 4
  1. 1.Universidad Nacional de ColombiaPalmiraColombia
  2. 2.MARE-Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, Department of Life Sciences, Faculty of Sciences and TechnologyUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  3. 3.CREAFCerdanyola del VallèsSpain
  4. 4.Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Sciences and TechnologyUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations