Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 17, Issue 6, pp 1653–1661 | Cite as

Nutrient phytoavailability in a mine soil amended with technosol and biochar and vegetated with Brassica juncea

  • Alfonso Rodríguez-Vila
  • Rubén Forján
  • Rafael S. Guedes
  • Emma F. Covelo
Soils, Sec 2 • Global Change, Environ Risk Assess, Sustainable Land Use • Research Article

Abstract

Purpose

Mine soils usually have low nutrient contents and poor fertility conditions which limit the establishment of vegetation and the application of phytomanagement reclamation technologies. Organic materials have been used as soil amendments to reclaim mine soils, as they can provide organic matter and nutrients.

Materials and methods

An amendment mixture made from organic materials (technosol made of waste and holm oak wood biochar) was added in different proportions to a mine soil in order to evaluate its effect on the phytoavailability of nutrients and on the fertility conditions of the mine soil. A greenhouse experiment was carried out in pots with the mine soil amended with the mixture of technosol and biochar and vegetated with Brassica juncea L. plants. The mine soil was collected from the settling pond of a depleted copper mine in Touro (NW Spain). The CaCl2-extractable (phytoavailable) concentration of nutrients and a series of characteristics generally associated with soil fertility were determined in order to study the effect of the organic amendment on the mine soil.

Results and discussion

The results showed that the untreated settling pond soil had an extremely acid pH (2.96), undetectable concentrations of TC, and insufficient levels of TN and K for the growth of most plant species. Amending with technosol and biochar increased the concentration of TN (from an undetectable concentration to 11,400 mg kg−1), K (from 4.22 to 2601 mg kg−1), Mg (from 185 to 2329 mg kg−1), Mn (from 14.56 to 408 mg kg−1) and Na (from 27.66 to 2361 mg kg−1) in the mine soil. The application of wastes also reduced the phytoavailable concentration of Co, Cu, Fe and Ni. However, the concentration of Zn increased, probably due to the Zn provided by technosol components such as sewage sludges.

Conclusions

The application of technosol and biochar to a mine soil improved its fertility conditions, the phytoavailable concentration of nutrients in the soil and generally decreased metal bioavailability, resulting in a reduction of copper toxicity. Organic amending also promoted the re-establishment of vegetation. The use of technosol made of wastes and biochar combined with planting B. juncea could be an economic and environmentally-friendly technique for the reclamation of nutrient-deficient mine soils.

Keywords

Biochar Brassica juncea Mine soil Nutrients Technosol 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments, which helped to improve the quality of this article.

Compliance with ethical standards

The present research did not involve any human participants and/or animals.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Agegnehu G, Bass AM, Nelson PN, Muirhead B, Wright G, Bird MI (2015) Biochar and biochar-compost as soil amendments: effects on peanut yield, soil properties and greenhouse gas emissions in tropical North Queensland, Australia. Agric Ecosyst Environ 213:72–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alcantara HJP, Doronila AI, Nicolas M, Ebbs SD, Kolev SD (2015) Growth of selected plant species in biosolids-amended mine tailings. Min Eng 80:25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvarenga P, Gonçalves AP, Fernandes RM, Varennes A, Vallini G, Duarte E, Cunha-Queda AC (2008) Evaluation of composts and liming materials in the phytostabilization of a mine soil using perennial ryegrass. Sci Total Environ 406:43–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bass AM, Bird MI, Kay G, Muirhead B (2016) Soil properties, greenhouse gas emissions and crop yield under compost, biochar and co-composted biochar in two tropical agronomic systems. Sci Total Environ 550:459–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauddh K, Singh RP (2015) Effects of organic and inorganic amendments on bio-accumulation and partitioning of Cd in Brassica juncea and Ricinus communis. Ecolog Eng 74:93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bendfeldt ES, Burger JA, Daniels WL (2001) Quality of amended mine soils after sixteen years. Soil Sci Soc Am J 65:1736–1744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolan NS, Kunhikrishnan A, Naidu R (2013) Carbon storage in a heavy clay soil landfill site after biosolid application. Sci Total Environ 465:216–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Camps Arbestain M, Madinabeitia Z, Anza Hortalà M, Macías-García F, Virgel S, Macías F (2008) Extractability and leachability of heavy metals in Technosols prepared from mixtures of unconsolidated wastes. Waste Manag 28:2653–2666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Codling EE, Mulchi CL, Chaney RL (2007) Grain yield and mineral element composition of maize grown on high phosphorus soils amended with water treatment residual. J Plant Nutr 30:225–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dassanayake KB, Jayasinghe GY, Surapaneni A, Hetherington C (2015) A review on alum sludge reuse with special reference to agricultural applications and future challenges. Waste Manag 38:321–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Debiase G, Montemurro F, Fiore A, Rotolo C, Farrag K, Miccolis A, Brunetti G (2016) Organic amendment and minimum tillage in winter wheat grown in Mediterranean conditions: effects on yield performance, soil fertility and environmental impact. Eur J Agron 75:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dere AL, Stehouwer RC, Aboukila E, McDonald KE (2012) Nutrient leaching and soil retention in mined land reclaimed with stabilized manure. J Environ Qual 41:2001–2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gall JE, Rajakaruna N (2013) The physiology, functional genomics, and applied ecology of heavy metal-tolerant Brassicaceae. In: Lang M (ed) Brassicaceae: characterization, functional genomics and health benefits. Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, pp 121–148Google Scholar
  14. Herath I, Kumarathilaka P, Navaratne A, Rajakaruna N, Vithanage M (2015) Immobilization and phytotoxicity reduction of heavy metals in serpentine soil using biochar. J Soils Sediments 15:126–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Houba VJG, Temminghoff EJM, Gaikhorst GA, Van Vark W (2000) Soil analysis procedures using 0.01 M calcium chloride as extraction reagent. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 31:1299–1396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kabata-Pendias A (2011) Trace elements in soils and plants. 4th ed. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  17. Khaliq A, Kaleem Abbasi M (2015) Improvements in the physical and chemical characteristics of degraded soils supplemented with organic-inorganic amendments in the Himalayan region of Kashmir, Pakistan. Catena 126:209–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim HS, Kim KR, Ok YS, Lee YK, Kluge B, Wessolek G, Kim WI, Kim K-H (2015) Examination of three different organic waste biochars as soil amendment for metal-contaminated agricultural soils. Water Air Soil Pollut 226:1–11Google Scholar
  19. Komnitsas K, Guo X, Li D (2010) Mapping of soil nutrients in an abandoned Chinese coal mine and waste disposal site. Miner Eng 23(8):627–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lamb DT, Heading S, Bolan N, Naidu R (2012) Use of biosolids for phytocapping of landfill soil. Water Air Soil Pollut 223:2695–2705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Macías F, Calvo de Anta R (2009) Niveles genéricos de referencia de metales pesados y otros elementos traza en los suelos de Galicia. Xunta de Galicia, SpainGoogle Scholar
  22. Marx ES, Hart T, Stevens RG (1999) Soil test interpretation guide (p 7). Oregon, USAGoogle Scholar
  23. Mourato MP, Moreira IN, Leitão I, Pinto FR, Sales JR, Martins LL (2015) Effect of heavy metals in plants of the genus Brassica. Int J Mol Sci 16(8):17975–17998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meier S, Curaqueo G, Khan N, Bolan N, Cea M, Eugenia GM, Cornejo P, Ok YS, Borie F (2015) Chicken-manure-derived biochar reduced bioavailability of copper in a contaminated soil. J Soils Sediments. doi: 10.1007/s11368-015-1256-6 Google Scholar
  25. Neilson S, Rajakaruna N (2012) Roles of rhizospheric processes and plant physiology in applied phytoremediation of contaminated soils using Brassica oilseeds. In: Anjum NA, Ahmad I, Pereira ME, Duarte AC, Umar S, Khan NA (eds) The plant family Brassicaceae, 21. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 313–330Google Scholar
  26. Ozores-Hampton M, Stansly PA, Salame TP (2011) Soil chemical, physical, and biological properties of a sandy soil subjected to long-term organic amendments. J Sustain Agr 35(3):243–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pardo T, Clemente R, Epelde L, Garbisu C, Bernal MP (2014) Evaluation of the phytostabilisation efficiency in a trace elements contaminated soil using soil health indicators. J Hazard Mater 268:68–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Peltre C, Nyord T, Bruun S, Jensen LS, Magid J (2015) Repeated soil application of organic waste amendments reduces draught force and fuel consumption for soil tillage. Agric Ecosyst Environ 211:94–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pérez-De-Mora A, Madejón P, Burgos P, Cabrera F, Lepp NW, Madejón E (2011) Phytostabilization of semiarid soils residually contaminated with trace elements using by-products: sustainability and risks. Environ Pollut 159(10):3018–3027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Porta J (1986) Técnicas y experimentos en Edafología. Collegi Oficial D’Enginyers Agronoms de Catalunya, Barcelona, SpainGoogle Scholar
  31. Puig CG, Álvarez-Iglesias L, Reigosa MJ, Pedrol N (2013) Eucalyptus globulus Leaves incorporated as green manure for weed control in maize. Weed Sci 61:154–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rodríguez-Vila A, Asensio V, Forján R, Covelo EF (2015) Chemical fractionation of Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn in a mine soil amended with compost and biochar and vegetated with Brassica juncea L. J Geochem Explor 158:74–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rodríguez-Vila A, Asensio V, Forján R, Covelo EF (2016) Assessing the influence of technosol and biochar amendments combined with Brassica juncea L. on the fractionation of Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn in a polluted mine soil. J Soils Sediments 16:339–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schomberg HH, Endale DM, Jenkins MB, Sharpe RR, Fisher DS, Cabrera ML, McCracken DV (2009) Soil test nutrient changes induced by poultry litter under conventional tillage and no-tillage. Soil Sci Soc Am J 73(1):154–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shaheen SM, Tsadilas CD, Rinklebe J (2013) A review of the distribution coefficient of trace elements in soils: influence of sorption system, element characteristics, and soil colloidal properties. Adv Colloid Interf Sci 201–202:43–56Google Scholar
  36. Shaheen SM, Tsadilas CD, Rinklebe J (2015) Immobilization of soil copper using organic and inorganic amendments. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 178:112–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. USDA (1998) Soil quality indicators : pHGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Ginneken L, Meers E, Guisson R, Ruttens A, Elst K, Tack FMG, Vangronsveld J, Diels L, Dejonghe W (2007) Phytoremediation for heavy metal-contaminated soils combined with bioenergy production. J Environ Eng Landsc Manag 15:227–236Google Scholar
  39. Wilson-Kokes L, Skousen J (2014) Nutrient concentrations in tree leaves on brown and gray reclaimed mine soils in West Virginia. Sci Total Environ 481:418–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zeng G, Wu H, Liang J, Guo S, Huang L, Xu P, Liu Y, Yuan Y, He X, He Y (2015) Efficiency of biochar and compost (or composting) combined amendments for reducing Cd, Cu, Zn and Pb bioavailability, mobility and ecological risk in wetland soil. RSC Adv 5(44):34541–34548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhao R, Jiang D, Coles N, Wu J (2015) Effects of biochar on the acidity of a loamy clay soil under different incubation conditions. J Soils Sediments 15:1919–1926Google Scholar
  42. Zornoza R, Acosta JA, Faz A, Bååth E (2016) Microbial growth and community structure in acid mine soils after addition of different amendments for soil reclamation. Geoderma 272:64–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alfonso Rodríguez-Vila
    • 1
  • Rubén Forján
    • 1
  • Rafael S. Guedes
    • 2
  • Emma F. Covelo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant Biology and Soil Science, Faculty of BiologyUniversity of VigoVigoSpain
  2. 2.Institute of Agricultural SciencesFederal Rural University of Amazonia (ICA-UFRA)BelémBrazil

Personalised recommendations