Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 17, Issue 12, pp 2763–2774 | Cite as

Short-term effects of organo-mineral biochar and organic fertilisers on nitrogen cycling, plant photosynthesis, and nitrogen use efficiency

  • Thi Thu Nhan NguyenEmail author
  • Helen M. Wallace
  • Cheng-Yuan Xu
  • Zhihong Xu
  • Michael B. Farrar
  • Stephen Joseph
  • Lukas Van Zwieten
  • Shahla Hosseini Bai
Soils, Sec 2 • Global Change, Environ Risk Assess, Sustainable Land Use • Research Article

Abstract

Purpose

Organo-mineral biochar fertiliser has the potential to replace conventional biochar and organic fertiliser to improve soil quality and increase plant photosynthesis. This study explored mechanisms involved in nitrogen (N) cycling in both soil and ginger plants (Zingiber officinale: Zingiberaceae) following different treatments including organic fertiliser, commercial bamboo biochar fertiliser, and organo-mineral biochar fertiliser.

Materials and methods

Soil received four treatments including (1) commercial organic fertiliser (5 t ha−1) as the control, (2) commercial bamboo biochar fertiliser (5 t ha−1), (3) organo-mineral biochar fertiliser at a low rate (3 t ha−1), and (4) organo-mineral biochar fertiliser at a high rate (7.5 t ha−1). C and N fractions of soil and plant, and gas exchange measurements were analysed.

Results and discussion

Initially, organo-mineral biochar fertiliser applied at the low rate increased leaf N. Organo-mineral biochar fertiliser applied at the high rate significantly increased N use efficiency (NUE) of the aboveground biomass compared with other treatments and improved photosynthesis compared with the control. There was N fractionation during plant N uptake and assimilation since the 15N enrichment between the root, leaf, and stem were significantly different from zero; however, treatments did not affect this N fractionation.

Conclusions

Organo-mineral biochar fertiliser has agronomic advantages over inorganic and raw organic (manure-based) N fertiliser because it allows farmer to put high concentrations of nutrients into soil without restricting N availability, N uptake, and plant photosynthesis. We recommend applying the low rate of organo-mineral biochar fertiliser as a substitute for commercial organic fertiliser.

Keywords

Adsorption Charcoal Gas exchange Ginger Isotope Organic farming 

Notes

Acknowledgements

TTNN was supported by VIED and University of the Sunshine Coast to undertake this study. We thank Mt. Mellum Horticulture for the farm access and facility support. We acknowledge Mr. Geoffrey Lambert and Mr. Radoslaw Bak for the assistance with laboratory analysis and Mr. Murray Elks, Ms. Emma Worthington, Mr. Bruce Randall, Dr. David Walton, Mr. Ross McIntosh, Mr. Ian Darby, Mr. Chris Taylor, and Mrs. April Grey during this experimental establishment and harvest. This study was supported with Seed Funding from University of the Sunshine Coast (USC/CRN2012/03) and Griffith University (EFC-JRE). SHB and CYX were research fellows supported by Collaborative Research Network, University of the Sunshine Coast Research Futures project (CRN2011:08).

Supplementary material

11368_2017_1839_MOESM1_ESM.docx (98 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 98 kb)

References

  1. Aguilera E, Lassaletta L, Gattinger A, Gimeno BS (2013) Managing soil carbon for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Mediterranean cropping systems: a meta-analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 168:25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asada T, Ohkubo T, Kawata K, Oikawa K (2006) Ammonia adsorption on bamboo charcoal with acid treatment. J Health Sci 52:585–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bach M, Wilske B, Breuer L (2016) Current economic obstacles to biochar use in agriculture and climate change mitigation. Carbon Manag 7:183–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bai SH, Reverchon F, Xu CY, Xu Z, Blumfield TJ, Zhao H, Van Zwieten L, Wallace HM (2015a) Wood biochar increases nitrogen retention in field settings mainly through abiotic processes. Soil Biol Biochem 90:232–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bai SH, Xu CY, Xu Z, Blumfield TJ, Zhao H, Wallace HM, Reverchon F, Zwieten LV (2015b) Soil and foliar nutrient and nitrogen isotope composition (δ15N) at 5 years after poultry litter and green waste biochar amendment in a macadamia orchard. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:3803–3809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bai SH, Trueman SJ, Nevenimo T, Hannet G, Bapiwai P, Poienou M, Wallace HM (2017) Effects of shade-tree species and spacing on soil and leaf nutrient concentrations in cocoa plantations at 8 years after establishment. Agric Ecosyst Environ 264:134–143Google Scholar
  7. Baronti S, Vaccari FP, Miglietta F, Calzolari C, Lugato E, Orlandini S, Pini R, Zulian C, Genesio L (2014) Impact of biochar application on plant water relations in Vitis vinifera (L.) Eur J Agron 53:38–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Basso AS, Miguez FE, Laird DA, Horton R, Westgate M (2013) Assessing potential of biochar for increasing waterholding capacity of sandy soils. GCB Bioenergy 5:132–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bengtsson J, Ahnström J, Weibull AC (2005) The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol 42:261–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bi R, Schlaak M, Siefert E, Lord R, Connolly H (2011) Influence of electrical fields (AC and DC) on phytoremediation of metal polluted soils with rapeseed (Brassica napus) and tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum). Chemosphere 83:318–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Biederman LA, Harpole WS (2013) Biochar and its effects on plant productivity and nutrient cycling: a meta-analysis. GCB Bioenergy 5:202–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Buss W, Kammann C, Koyro HW (2011) Biochar reduces copper toxicity in chenopodium quinoa willd in a sandy soil. J Environ Qual 41:1157–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Camacho H, Brescia A (2009) The Australian ginger industry: overview of market trends and opportunities. Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, The State of QueenslandGoogle Scholar
  14. Cao B, Dang QL, Yu X, Zhang S (2008) Effects of [CO2] and nitrogen on morphological and biomass traits of white birch (Betula papyrifera) seedlings. For Ecol Manag 254:217–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chia CH, Singh BP, Joseph S, Graber ER, Munroe P (2014) Characterization of an enriched biochar. J Anal Appl Pyrol 108:26–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clough T, Condron L, Kammann C, Müller C (2013) A review of biochar and soil nitrogen dynamics. Agronomy 3:275–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Constantin J, Mary B, Laurent F, Aubrion G, Fontaine A, Kerveillant P, Beaudoin N (2010) Effects of catch crops, no till and reduced nitrogen fertilization on nitrogen leaching and balance in three long-term experiments. Agric Ecosyst Environ 135:268–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Criss RE (1999) Principles of stable isotope distribution, vol 254. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Darby I, Xu CY, Wallace HM, Joseph S, Pace B, Bai SH (2016) Short-term dynamics of carbon and nitrogen using compost, compost-biochar mixture and organo-mineral biochar. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:11267–11278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Di H, Cameron K (2002) Nitrate leaching in temperate agroecosystems: sources, factors and mitigating strategies. Nutr Cycl Agroecosys 64:237–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Doescher PS, Miller RF, Wang J, Rose J (1990) Effects of nitrogen availability on growth and photosynthesis of Artemisia tridentata ssp. Wyomingensis. Great Basin Nat 50:9–19Google Scholar
  22. Drinkwater LE, Letourneau DK, Workneh F, van Bruggen AHC, Shennan C (1995) Fundamental differences between conventional and organic tomato agroecosystems in California. Ecol Appl 5:1098–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Evans RD (2001) Physiological mechanisms influencing plant nitrogen isotope composition. Trends Plant Sci 6:121–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Farrar MB (2016) Biochar based fertilizer: effects on yield, plant growth, nutrient uptake and soil fertility. Honours Thesis, University of the Sunshine Coast, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  25. Golluscio R (2007) On the link between nitrogen productivity and residence time: two opposite nitrogen use strategies? J Arid Environ 68:165–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gubsch M, Roscher C, Gleixner G, Habekost M, Lipowsky A, Schmid B, Schulze ED, Steinbeiss S, Buchmann N (2011) Foliar and soil δ15N values reveal increased nitrogen partitioning among species in diverse grassland communities. Plant Cell Environ 34:895–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Guertal E (2009) Slow-release nitrogen fertilizers in vegetable production: a review. HortTechnology 19:16–19Google Scholar
  28. Haider G, Steffens D, Moser G, Müller C, Kammann CI (2017) Biochar reduced nitrate leaching and improved soil moisture content without yield improvements in a four-year field study. Agric Ecosyst Environ 237:80–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hall DO, Rao KK (1994) Photosynthesis, 5th edn. Cambridge University Press, Great BritainGoogle Scholar
  30. Hatfield JL, Prueger JH (2015) Temperature extremes: effect on plant growth and development. Weather Clim Extrem 10:4–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. He Y, Zhou X, Jiang L, Li M, Du Z, Zhou G, Shao J, Wang X, Xu ZH, Hosseini-Bai S, Wallace H, Xu CY (2016) Effects of biochar application on soil greenhouse gas fluxes: a meta-analysis. GCB Bioenergy 4:743–755Google Scholar
  32. Hietz P, Turner BL, Wanek W, Richter A, Nock CA, Wright SJ (2011) Long-term change in the nitrogen cycle of tropical forests. Science 334:664–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hogberg P (1997) Tansley Review No. 95 15N natural abundance in soil-plant systems. New Phytol 137:179–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hohener P, Aelion CM (2009) Fundamentals of environmental isotopes and their use in biodegradation. In: Aelion CM, Höhener P, Hunkeler D, Aravena R (eds) Environmental isotopes in biodegradation and bioremediation. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, pp 3–22Google Scholar
  35. Hosseini Bai S, Xu CY, Xu ZH, Blumfield TJ, Wallace HM, Walton DA, Randall BW, Van Zwieten L (2016) Wood base biochar alters inorganic N. Acta Hortic 1109:151–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Isbell R (1996) The Australian Soil Classification. Australian soil and land survey handbook series, vol 4. CSIRO Publishing, CollingwoodGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Joseph S, Graber E, Chia C, Munroe P, Donne S, Thomas T, Nielsen S, Marjo C, Rutlidge H, Pan GX, Li L, Taylor P, Rawal A, Hook J (2013) Shifting paradigms: development of high-efficiency biochar fertilizers based on nano-structures and soluble components. Carbon Manag 4:323–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Joseph S, Anawar HM, Storer P, Blackwell P, Chia C, Lin Y, Munroe P, Donne S, Horvat J, Wang J, Solaiman ZM (2015) Effects of enriched biochars containing magnetic iron nanoparticles on mycorrhizal colonisation, plant growth, nutrient uptake and soil quality improvement. Pedosphere 25:749–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Joseph S, Xu C, Wallace H, Farrar M, Nguyen TN, Bai S, Solaiman Z (2016) Biochar production from agricultural and forestry wastes and microbial interactions. In: Wong JWC, Tyagi RD, Pandey A (eds) Current developments in biotechnology and bioengineering: solid waste management, 1st edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 443–474Google Scholar
  41. Kalcsits LA, Buschhaus HA, Guy RD (2014) Nitrogen isotope discrimination as an integrated measure of nitrogen fluxes, assimilation and allocation in plants. Physiol Plant 151:293–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kammann CI, Linsel S, Gößling JW, Koyro HW (2011) Influence of biochar on drought tolerance of Chenopodium quinoa Willd and on soil-plant relations. Plant Soil 345:195–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lal R (2009) Soils and food sufficiency. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 29:113–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lehmann J (2007) Bio-energy in the black. Front Ecol Environ 5:381–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lehmann J, Joseph S (2009) Biochar for environmental management: an introduction. In: Lehmann J, Joseph S (eds) Biochar for environmental management: science and technology, 1st edn. Earthscan, London, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  46. Lin Y, Munroe P, Joseph S, Ziolkowski A, Van Zwieten L, Kimber S, Rust J (2013) Chemical and structural analysis of enhanced biochars: thermally treated mixtures of biochar, chicken litter, clay and minerals. Chemosphere 91:35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Liu X, Fan Y, Long J, Wei R, Kjelgren R, Gong C, Zhao J (2013a) Effects of soil water and nitrogen availability on photosynthesis and water use efficiency of Robinia pseudoacacia seedlings. J Environ Sci (China) 25:585–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Liu XY, Zhang AF, Ji CY, Joseph S, Bian RJ, Li LQ, Pan GX, Paz-Ferreiro J (2013b) Biochar’s effect on crop productivity and the dependence on experimental conditions-a meta-analysis of literature data. Plant Soil 373:583–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Maas EV (1993) Plant growth response to salt stress. In: Lieth H, Masoom AAA (eds) Towards the rational use of high salinity tolerant plants, Deliberations about high salinity tolerant plants and ecosystems, vol 1. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 279–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Maestrini B, Nannipieri P, Abiven S (2015) A meta-analysis on pyrogenic organic matter induced priming effect. GCB Bioenergy 7:577–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Motulsky H (1995) Intuitive biostatistics. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Ladd B, Facelli JM (2008) Priority effects produced by plant litter result in non-additive competitive effects. Oecologia 157:687–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nair KPP (2013) The agronomy and economy of turmeric and ginger: the invaluable medicinal spice crops, 1st edn. Elsevier, LondonGoogle Scholar
  54. Nguyen TTN, Xu CY, Tahmasbian I, Che R, Xu Z, Zhou X, Wallace HM, Bai SH (2017) Effects of biochar on soil available inorganic nitrogen: a review and meta-analysis. Geoderma 288:79–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Niinemets U, Ellsworth DS, Lukjanova A, Tobias M (2001) Site fertility and the morphological and photosynthetic acclimation of Pinus sylvestris needles to light. Tree Physiol 21:1231–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Osada N, Onoda Y, Hikosaka K (2010) Effects of atmospheric CO2 concentration, irradiance, and soil nitrogen availability on leaf photosynthetic traits of Polygonum sachalinense around natural CO2 springs in northern Japan. Oecologia 164:41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pardo LH, Semaoune P, Schaberg PG, Eagar C, Sebilo M (2013) Patterns in δ15N in roots, stems, and leaves of sugar maple and American beech seedlings, saplings, and mature trees. Biogeochemistry 112:275–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Reganold JP, Elliott LF, Unger YL (1987) Long-term effects of organic and conventional farming on soil erosion. Nature 330:370–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Reich P, Walters M, Tjoelker M, Vanderklein D, Buschena C (1998b) Photosynthesis and respiration rates depend on leaf and root morphology and nitrogen concentration in nine boreal tree species differing in relative growth rate. Funct Ecol 12:395–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Reich PB, Ellswort DS, Walters MB (1998a) Leaf structure (specific leaf area) modulates photosynthesis–nitrogen relations: evidence from within and across species and functional groups. Funct Ecol 12:948–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Reverchon F, Flicker RC, Yang H, Yan G, Xu Z, Chen C, Bai SH, Zhang D (2014) Changes in δ15N in a soil–plant system under different biochar feedstocks and application rates. Biol Fertil Soils 50:275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shipley B (2006) Net assimilation rate, specific leaf area and leaf mass ratio: which is most closely correlated with relative growth rate? A meta-analysis. Funct Ecol 20:565–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Singh BP, Cowie AL (2014) Long-term influence of biochar on native organic carbon mineralisation in a low-carbon clayey soil. Sci Rep 4:3687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sohi SP, Krull E, Lopez-Capel E, Bol R (2010) A review of biochar and its use and function in soil. In: Sparks DL (ed) Advances in agronomy, vol 105. Elsevier Science Publishing, London, pp 47–82Google Scholar
  65. Steiner C, Teixeira WG, Lehmann J, Nehls T, de Macêdo J, Blum WH, 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 291:275–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Taghizadeh-Toosi A, Clough TJ, Sherlock RR, Condron LM (2012a) Biochar adsorbed ammonia is bioavailable. Plant Soil 350:57–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Taghizadeh-Toosi A, Clough TJ, Sherlock RR, Condron LM (2012b) A wood based low-temperature biochar captures NH3-N generated from ruminant urine-N, retaining its bioavailability. Plant Soil 353:73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tahmasbian I, Sinegani AAS (2016) Improving the efficiency of phytoremediation using electrically charged plant and chelating agents. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:2479–2486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Thomas SC, Frye S, Gale N, Garmon M, Launchbury R, Machado N, Melamed S, Murray J, Petroff A, Winsborough C (2013) Biochar mitigates negative effects of salt additions on two herbaceous plant species. J Environ Manag 129:62–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tsutomu I, Takashi A, Kuniaki K, Kikuo O (2004) Comparison of removal efficiencies for ammonia and amine gases between woody charcoal and activated carbon. J Health Sci 50:148–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vaccari FP, Maienza A, Miglietta F, Baronti S, Di Lonardo S, Giagnoni L, Lagomarsino A, Pozzi A, Pusceddu E, Ranieri R, Valboa G, Genesio L (2015) Biochar stimulates plant growth but not fruit yield of processing tomato in a fertile soil. Agric Ecosyst Environ 207:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vile D, Garnier É, Shipley B, Laurent G, Navas ML, Roumet C, Lavorel S, Diaz S, Hodgson JG, Lloret F (2005) Specific leaf area and dry matter content estimate thickness in laminar leaves. Ann Bot 96:1129–1136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wang Y, Pan F, Wang G, Zhang G, Wang Y, Chen X, Mao Z (2014) Effects of biochar on photosynthesis and antioxidative system of Malus hupehensis Rehd. seedlings under replant conditions. Sci Hortic 175:9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Weng Z, Van Zwieten L, Singh BP, Tavakkoli E, Joseph S, Macdonald LM, Rose TJ, Rose MT, Kimber SWL, Morris S, Cozzolino D, Araujo JR, Archanjo BS, Cowie A (2017) Biochar built soil carbon over a decade by stabilizing rhizodeposits. Nature Clim Change 7:371–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wright IJ, Reich PB, Westoby M, Ackerly DD, Baruch Z, Bongers F, Cavender-Bares J, Chapin T, Cornelissen JHC, Diemer M, Flexas J, Garnier E, Groom PK, Gulias J, Hikosaka K, Lamont BB, Lee T, Lee W, Lusk C, Midgley JJ, Navas ML, Niinemets U, Oleksyn J, Osada N, Poorter H, Poot P, Prior L, Pyankov VI, Roumet C, Thomas SC, Tjoelker MG, Veneklaas EJ, Villar R (2004) The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428:821–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Xu CY, Bai SH, Hao Y, Rachaputi RN, Wang H, Xu Z, Wallace H (2015) Effect of biochar amendment on yield and photosynthesis of peanut on two types of soils. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:6112–6125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zhang A, Cui L, Pan G, Li L, Hussain Q, Zhang X, Zheng J, Crowley D (2010) Effect of biochar amendment on yield and methane and nitrous oxide emissions from a rice paddy from Tai Lake plain, China. Agric Ecosyst Environ 139:469–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Science and Engineering, Faculty of Science, Health, Education and EngineeringUniversity of the Sunshine CoastMaroochydore DCAustralia
  2. 2.Hanoi University of Natural Resources and EnvironmentHanoiVietnam
  3. 3.School of Health, Medical and Applied SciencesCentral Queensland UniversityBundabergAustralia
  4. 4.Environmental Futures Research Institute, School of Natural SciencesGriffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia
  5. 5.School of Materials Science and EngineeringUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  6. 6.NSW Department of Primary IndustriesWollongbar Primary Industries InstituteWollongbarAustralia
  7. 7.Southern Cross Plant ScienceSouthern Cross UniversityLismoreAustralia
  8. 8.School of Environmental and Rural SciencesUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia

Personalised recommendations