Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 995–1006 | Cite as

Biochar increased water holding capacity but accelerated organic carbon leaching from a sloping farmland soil in China

  • Chen Liu
  • Honglan Wang
  • Xiangyu Tang
  • Zhuo Guan
  • Brian J. Reid
  • Anushka Upamali Rajapaksha
  • Yong Sik Ok
  • Hui Sun
Selected Papers from the 2nd Contaminated Land, Ecological Assessment and Remediation (CLEAR 2014) Conference: Environmental Pollution and Remediation


A hydrologically contained field study, to assess biochar (produced from mixed crop straws) influence upon soil hydraulic properties and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) leaching, was conducted on a loamy soil (entisol). The soil, noted for its low plant-available water and low soil organic matter, is the most important arable soil type in the upper reaches of the Yangtze River catchment, China. Pore size distribution characterization (by N2 adsorption, mercury intrusion, and water retention) showed that the biochar had a tri-modal pore size distribution. This included pores with diameters in the range of 0.1–10 μm that can retain plant-available water. Comparison of soil water retention curves between the control (0) and the biochar plots (16 t ha−1 on dry weight basis) demonstrated biochar amendment to increase soil water holding capacity. However, significant increases in DOC concentration of soil pore water in both the plough layer and the undisturbed subsoil layer were observed in the biochar-amended plots. An increased loss of DOC relative to the control was observed upon rainfall events. Measurements of excitation-emission matrix (EEM) fluorescence indicated the DOC increment originated primarily from the organic carbon pool in the soil that became more soluble following biochar incorporation.


Biochar Soil Pore size distribution Water holding capacity DOC EEM fluorescence 



Support for this work is provided by Nature Science Foundation of China (41301549, 21307152, and 41471268), China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2013M530408), and CAS-SAFEA International Partnership Project (KZZD-EW-TZ-06). Thanks also goes to the Hundred Talents Program of CAS for supporting activities related to the data processing and preparation of this manuscript.

Supplementary material

11356_2015_4885_MOESM1_ESM.docx (385 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 384 kb)
11356_2015_4885_MOESM2_ESM.docx (43 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 43 kb)
11356_2015_4885_MOESM3_ESM.docx (233 kb)
ESM 3 (DOCX 232 kb)


  1. Aguilar L, Thibodeaux LJ (2005) Kinetics of peat soil dissolved organic carbon release from bed sediment to water. Part 1. Laboratory simulation. Chemosphere 58:1309–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmad M, Rajapaksha AU, Lim JE et al (2014) Biochar as a sorbent for contaminant management in soil and water: a review. Chemosphere 99:19–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asai H, Samson BK, Stephan HM et al (2009) Biochar amendment techniques for upland rice production in Northern Laos 1. Soil physical properties, leaf SPAD and grain yield. Field Crop Res 111:81–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkinson CJ, Fitzgerald JD, Hipps NA (2010) Potential mechanisms for achieving agricultural benefits from biochar application to temperate soils: a review. Plant Soil 337:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyer JN, Groffman PM (1996) Bioavailability of water extractable organic carbon fractions in forest and agricultural soil profiles. Soil Biol Biochem 28:783–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brodowski S, Amelung W, Haumaier L et al (2005) Morphological and chemical properties of black carbon in physical soil fractions as revealed by scanning electron microscopy and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. Geoderma 128:116–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Case SDC, McNamara NP, Reay DS et al (2013) Can biochar reduce soil greenhouse gas emissions from a Miscanthus bioenergy crop? GCB Bioenergy 6:76–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen W, Westerhoff P, Leenheer JA et al (2003) Fluorescence excitation-emission matrix regional integration to quantify spectra for dissolved organic matter. Environ Sci Technol 37:5701–5710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chow AT, Tanji KK, Gao S et al (2006) Temperature, water content and wet-dry cycle effects on DOC production and carbon mineralization in agricultural peat soils. Soil Biol Biochem 38:477–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cornelis WM, Khlosi M, Hartmann R et al (2005) Comparison of unimodal analytical expressions for the soil-water retention curve. Soil Sci Soc Am J 69:1902–1911CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dane JH, Hopmans JW, Romano N et al (2002) Soil water retention and storage-laboratory methods. In: Dane JH, Topp GC (eds) Methods of soil analysis part 4-physical methods. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp 675–720Google Scholar
  12. Dexter AR (2004) Soil physical quality. Part I: theory, effects of soil texture, density, and organic matter, and effects on root growth. Geoderma 120:201–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dugan E, Verhoef A, Robinson S et al (2010) Bio-char from sawdust, maize stover and charcoal: Impact on water holding capacities (WHC) of three soils from Ghana. Proceedings of the 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil solutions for a changing world, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 8:1–6Google Scholar
  14. Gerrity D, Gamage S, Jones D et al (2012) Development of surrogate correlation models to predict trace organic contaminant oxidation and microbial inactivation during ozonation. Water Res 46:6257–6272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Greeg SJ, Sing KSW (1982) Adsorption, surface area, and porosity. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Guggenberger G, Rodionov A, Shibistova O et al (2008) Storage and mobility of black carbon in permafrost soils of the forest tundra ecotone in Northern Siberia. Glob Chang Biol 14:1367–1381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henderson RK, Baker A, Murphy KR et al (2009) Fluorescence as a potential monitoring tool for recycled water systems: a review. Water Res 43:863–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hernandez-Ruiz S, Abrell L, Wickramasekara S et al (2012) Quantifying PPCP interaction with dissolved organic matter in aqueous solution: combined use of fluorescence quenching and tandem mass spectrometry. Water Res 46:943–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hockaday WC, Grannas AM, Kim S et al (2007) The transformation and mobility of charcoal in a fire-impacted watershed. Geochem Cosmochim Acta 71:3432–3445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jamieson T, Sager E, Guéguen C (2014) Characterization of biochar-derived dissolved organic matter using UV-visible adsorption and excitation-emission fluorescence spectroscopies. Chemosphere 103:197–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jeffery S, Verheijen FGA, van der Velde M et al (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
  22. Jien SH, Wang CS (2013) Effects of biochar on soil properties and erosion potential in a highly weathered soil. Catena 110:225–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Karhu K, Mattila T, Bergström I et al (2011) Biochar addition to agricultural soil increased CH4 uptake and water holding capacity-results from a short-term pilot field study. Agric Ecosyst Environ 140:309–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kookana RS (2010) The role of biochar in modifying the environmental fate, bioavailability, and efficacy of pesticides in soils: a review. Aust J Soil Res 48:627–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Korshin GV, Wu WW, Benjamin MM et al (2002) Correlations between differential absorbance and the formation of individual DBPs. Water Res 36:3273–3282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Laird DA, Fleming P, Davis DD et al (2010) Impact of biochar amendments on the quality of a typical Midwestern agricultural soil. Geoderma 158:443–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee Y, Park J, Ryu C et al (2013) Comparison of biochar properties from biomass residues produced by slow pyrolysis at 500 °C. Bioresour Technol 148:196–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lehmann J, Gaunt J, Rondon M (2006) Biochar sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems-a review. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Chang 11:403–427Google Scholar
  29. Lu SG, Sun FF, Zong YT (2014) Effect of rice husk biochar and coal fly ash on some physical properties of expansive clayey soil (Vertisol). Catena 114:37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mukherjee A, Zimmerman AR (2013) Organic carbon and nutrient release from a range of laboratory-produced biochars and biochar-soil mixtures. Geoderma 193–194:122–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mukherjee A, Zimmerman AR, Harris W (2001) Surface chemistry variations among a series of laboratory-produced biochars. Geoderma 163:247–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nelissen V, Ruysschaert G, Manka'Abusi D et al (2015) Impact of a woody biochar on properties of a sandy loam soil and spring barley during a two-year field experiment. Eur J Agron 62:65–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Peake LR, Tang X, Reid BJ (2014) Quantifying the influence of biochar on the physical and hydrological properties of dissimilar soils. Geoderma 235–236:182–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reynolds WD, Drury CF, Yang XM et al (2007) Land management effects on the near-surface physical quality of a clay loam soil. Soil Tillage Res 96:316–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Soil Science Glossary Terms Committee (2008) Glossary of Soil Science Terms 2008. Soil Science Society of America, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  36. Stevenson FJ, Cole MA (1996) Cycles of soil: carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, micronutrients (second ed.). Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Tammeorg P, Simojoki A, Mäkelä P et al (2014) Biochar application to a fertile sandy clay loam in boreal conditions: effects on soil properties and yield formation of wheat, turnip rape and faba bean. Plant Soil 374:89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van Genuchten MT (1980) A closed form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 44:892–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Veksha A, McLaughlin H, Layzell DB et al (2014) Pyrolysis of wood to biochar: increasing yield while maintaining microporosity. Bioresour Technol 153:173–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vomocil J, Flocker W (1965) Degradation of structure of Yolo loam by compaction. Soil Sci Soc Am J 29:7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Washburn EW (1921) The dynamics of capillarity flow. Phys Rev 17:273–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhang J, You CF (2013) Water holding capacity and absorption properties of wood chars. Energy Fuel 27:2643–2648CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chen Liu
    • 1
  • Honglan Wang
    • 1
  • Xiangyu Tang
    • 1
  • Zhuo Guan
    • 1
  • Brian J. Reid
    • 2
  • Anushka Upamali Rajapaksha
    • 3
  • Yong Sik Ok
    • 3
  • Hui Sun
    • 4
  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Mountain Surface Processes and Ecological Regulation, Institute of Mountain Hazards and EnvironmentChinese Academy of SciencesChengduChina
  2. 2.School of Environmental ScienceUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK
  3. 3.Korea Biochar Research Center and Department of Biological EnvironmentKangwon National UniversityChuncheonRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.College of Architecture and EnvironmentSichuan UniversityChengduChina

Personalised recommendations