Biochar and biochar with N fertilizer as a potential tool for improving soil sorption of nutrients
- 317 Downloads
Biochar usually has a large specific surface area, and due to this, it increases the sorption capacity of the soil where it was applied. The objectives of this study were to (i) quantify the effects of biochar and biochar in combination with N fertilizer on the soil sorption parameters and (ii) quantify the effects of soil organic matter on the sorption parameters after application of biochar with and without N fertilizer.
Materials and methods
The experiment was established on Haplic Luvisol at the locality of Dolná Malanta (Slovakia) in 2014. The soil samples were collected once a month from the depth 0–0.2 m during 2014 to 2016. The field experiment included three rates of biochar application (B0 = no biochar, B10 = biochar at the rate of 10 t ha−1, B20 = biochar at the rate of 20 t ha−1) and three levels of N fertilization (N0 = no nitrogen, N40 = nitrogen at the rate of 40 kg ha−1, N80 = nitrogen at the rate of 80 kg ha−1).
Results and discussion
Overall, the decrease of the average values of hydrolytic acidity due to biochar and biochar combined with N fertilization resulted on average in an increase of sum of basic cation (SBC), cation exchange capacity (CEC), and sorption capacity of soil organic matter (CECSOM) in all treatments. However, this effect was the most intensive in B10N40. Despite the fact that the average values of sorption parameters improved, its dynamics during the investigated period were different. A significant decrease in CEC was observed from 2014 to 2016 in all treatments, except B0N0 and B10N0. A stable trend in CECSOM was observed only in B10N40. Humic substances and humic acids had a statistically significant positive effect on the SBC, CEC, and CECSOM only in B20N0 treatment. Negative correlations between the above mentioned parameters were observed in B10N80 treatment.
We conclude that the application of biochar and biochar combined with N fertilization had a positive influence on sorption parameters. However, its effects on SBC, CEC, and CECSOM decreased over time after its application.
KeywordsBiochar Cation exchange capacity Hydrolytic acidity Soil organic matter Sorption capacity of organic matter
The authors very much thank Danny Angus (Belfast, Northern Ireland), Dr. Brent Clothier (Science Group Leader, Systems Modeling Plant & Food Research, Palmersto North, New Zealand), and prof. Wayne S Meyer (Professor of Natural Resource Science, University of Adelaide, Ecology and Environmental Science, Waite Campus, PMB 1 Glen Osmond, South Australia) for improving the English text and constructive comments also the editor and reviewers, for constructive comments. This study was supported by the Slovak Grant Agency VEGA, No. 1/0136/17, KEGA, No. 026SPU-4/2017 and Slovak Research and Development Agency under the contract No. APVV-15-0160.
- Asai H, Samson BK, Stephan HM, Songyikhangsuthor K, Homma K, Kiyono Y, Inoue Y, Shiraiwa T, Horie T (2009) Biochar amendment techniques for upland rice production in northern Laos. 1. Soil physical properties, leaf SPAD and grain yield. Field Crop Res 111(1-2):81–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2008.10.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Balashov E, Buchkina N (2011) Impact of short- and long-term agricultural use of chernozem on its quality indicators. Int Agrophys 25:1–5Google Scholar
- Chintala R, Owen R, Kumar S, Schumacher TE, Malo D (2014) Biochar impacts on denitrification under different soil water contents. World Cong. Soil Sci 6:157–157Google Scholar
- Debska B, Szombathova N, Banach-Szott M (2009) Properties of humic acids of soil under different management regimes. Pol J Soil Sci 42:131–138Google Scholar
- DeLuca TH, MacKenzie MD, Gundale MJ (2009) Biochar effects on soil nutrient transformations. In: Lehmann J, Joseph S (eds) Biochar for environmental management. Science and Technology. Earthscan, London, pp 251–270Google Scholar
- Dziadowiec H, Gonet SS (1999a) Estimation of soil organic carbon by Tyurin's method. Methodical guide-book for soil organic matterstudies120:7–8 (in Polish)Google Scholar
- Dziadowiec H, Gonet SS (1999b) Estimation of fractional composition of soil humus by Kononova-Bielcikova's method. Methodical guide-book for soil organic matter studies (in Polish) 120:31–34Google Scholar
- Fiala K, Kobza J, Matušková Ľ, Brečková V, Makovníková J, Barančíková G, Búrik V, Litavec T, Houšková B, Chromaničová A, Váradiová A, Pechová B (1999) Valid methods of soil analyses. Partial monitoring system– Soil. Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute, BratislavaGoogle Scholar
- Gaida AM, Przewloka B, Gawryjolek K (2013) Changes in soil quality associated with tillage system applied. Int Agrophys 27:133–141Google Scholar
- Hanes J (1999) Analyzes of sorptive characteristics. SSCRI, BratislavaGoogle Scholar
- Horák J (2015) Testing biochar as a possible way to ameliorate slightly acidic soil at the research field located in the Danubian lowland. Ac Horti Reg 18:20–24Google Scholar
- Horák J, Kondrlová E, Igaz D, Šimanský V, Felber R, Lukac M, Balashov E, Buchkina N, Rizhiya EY, Jankowski M (2017) Biochar and biochar with N –fertilizer affecte soil N2O emission in haplic Luvisol. Biologia72, 9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/biolog-2017-0109
- Hraško J, Červenka L, Facek Z, Komár J, Něměček J, Pospíšil J, Sirový V (1962) Soil analyses (in Slovak). SVPL, BratislavaGoogle Scholar
- IUSS Working group WRB (2006) world reference base for soil resources 2006. 2nd edition. World soil resources reports no. 103. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
- Lehman NJ (2007) Bio-energy in the black. Front Ecol Environ 5(7):381–387. https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[381:BITB]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lehmann J, da Silva JP Jr, Steiner C, Nehls T, Zech W, Glaser B (2003) Nutrient availability and leaching in an archaeological Anthrosol and a Ferralsol of the Central Amazon basin: fertilizer, manure and charcoal amendments. Plant Soil 249(2):343–357. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022833116184 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Loginow W, Wisniewski W, Gonet SS, Ciescinska B (1987) Fractionation of organic carbon based on susceptibility to oxidation. Pol. J Soil Sci 20:47–52Google Scholar
- Lorandi R (2012) Evaluation of cation exchange capacity (CEC) in tropical soils using four different analytical methods. J Agric Sci 4:278–289Google Scholar
- Mia S, Abuyusuf M, Sattar MA, Islam ABMS, Hiemstra T, Jeffery S (2014) Biochar amendment for high nitrogen and phosphorous bioavailability and its potentiality of use in Bangladesh agriculture: a review. J Patuakhali Sci Technol U 5:145–156Google Scholar
- Rees F, Germain C, Sterckeman T, Morel JL (2015) Plant growth and metal uptake by a non-hyperaccumulating species (Lolium perenne) and a cd-Zn hyperaccumulator (Noccaea caerulescens) in contaminated soils amended with biochar. Plant Soil 395(1-2):57–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-015-2384-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Šimanský V, Horák J, Igaz D, Jonczak J, Markiewics M, Felber R, Rizhiya EY, Lukac M (2016) How dose of biochar and biochar with nitrogen can improve the parameters of soil organic matter and soil structure? Biologia 71:989–995Google Scholar
- Šimanský V, Horák J, Kováčik P, Bajčan D (2017) Carbon sequestration in water-stable aggregates under biochar and biochar with nitrogen fertilization. Bulg. J Agric Sci 23:429–435Google Scholar
- Stevenson JF (1994) Humus chemistry. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Szombathová N (1999) The comparison of soil carbon susceptibility to oxidation by KMnO4 solutions in different farming systems. Hum Subst Environ 1:35–39Google Scholar