Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Biochar as a Substitute for Vermiculite in Potting Mix for Hybrid Poplar

  • Published:
BioEnergy Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate biochar as a substitute for vermiculite in potting mixes for unrooted vegetative cuttings of hybrid poplar as represented by the clone ‘NM6’ (Populus nigra L. × Populus suaveolens Fischer subsp. maximowiczii A. Henry). We compared three treatments (peat moss (control), peat moss mixed with vermiculite, and peat moss mixed with biochar) at three times (pre-experiment, pre-fertilizer, and post-fertilizer). The biochar and vermiculite mixes had significantly higher cation exchange capacity (CEC) and pre-experiment exchangeable K than the control. Trees grown in the biochar and vermiculite mixes had significantly higher shoot K than the control at pre-fertilizer and post-fertilizer and significantly higher shoot and total biomass at post-fertilizer. The biochar mix was also associated with lower root biomass and higher shoot/root biomass ratio than the vermiculite mix at post-fertilizer. Vector analysis indicated that all treatments were deficient in N at pre-fertilizer, and the control was also deficient in K at pre-fertilizer and post-fertilizer. Linear regression confirmed that shoot biomass was strongly correlated (R2 = 0.97) with N and K uptake (in addition to initial cutting diameter), also, root biomass was strongly correlated (R2 = 0.96) with potting mix CEC (in addition to shoot biomass). Luxury consumption of K at pre-fertilizer indicates that the increases in shoot and total biomass observed with the biochar and vermiculite treatments arise from this nutrient being “pre-loaded” in both mixes. We conclude that biochar provides benefits equivalent to vermiculite in terms of key nutrient availability and total biomass productivity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CEC:

Cation exchange capacity

ECEC:

Effective cation exchange capacity

References

  1. Brown RC (2003) Biorenewable resources: engineering new products from agriculture. Iowa State Press, Ames, 286 p

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sohi SP, Krull E, Lopez-Capel E, Bol R (2010) A review of biochar and its use and function in soil. Adv Agron 105:47–82

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Atkinson CJ, Fitzgerald JD, Hipps NA (2010) Potential mechanisms for achieving agricultural benefits from biochar application to temperate soils: a review. Plant Soil 337:1–18

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Laird DA, Fleming P, Davis DD, Horton R, Wang B, Karlen DL (2010) Impact of biochar amendments on the quality of a typical Midwestern agricultural soil. Geoderma 158:443–449

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Peng X, Ye LL, Wang CH, Zhou H, Sun B (2011) Temperature- and duration-dependent rice straw derived biochar: characteristics and its effects on soil properties of an ultisol in southern China. Soil Tillage Res 112:159–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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 144:175–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Karhu K, Mattila T, Bergstrom I, Regina K (2011) Biochar addition to agricultural soil increased CH4 uptake and water holding capacity – results from a short-term pilot field study. Agric Ecosyst Environ 140:309–313

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Yuan JH, Xu RK (2011) The amelioration effects of low temperature biochar generated from nine crop residues on an acidic ultisol. Soil Use Manag 27:110–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Major J, Rondon M, Molina D, Riha S, Lehmann J (2010) Maize yield and nutrition during 4 years after biochar application to a Colombian savanna oxisol. Plant Soil 333:117–128

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Unger R, Killorn R (2011) Effect of three different qualities of biochar on selected soil properties. Comm Soil Sci Plant Anal 42:2274–2283

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Laird D, Fleming P, Wang B, Horton R, Karlen D (2010) Biochar impact on nutrient leaching from a Midwestern agricultural soil. Geoderma 158:436–442

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Taghizadeh-Toosi A, Clough TJ, Sherlock RR, Condron LM (2012) A wood based low-temperature biochar captures NH3-N generated from ruminant urine-N, retaining its bioavailability. Plant Soil 353:73–84

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhang A, Liu Y, Pan G, Hussain Q, Li L, Zheng J, Zhang X (2012) Effect of biochar amendment on maize yield and greenhouse gas emissions from a soil organic carbon poor calcareous loamy soil from central China plain. Plant Soil 351:263–275

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Dumroese RK, Heiskanen J, Englund K, Tervahauta A (2011) Pelleted biochar: chemical and physical properties show potential use as a substrate in container nurseries. Biomass Bioenergy 35:2018–2027

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Graber ER, Harel YM, Kolton M, Cytryn E, Silber A, David DR, Tsechansky L, Borenshtein M, Elad Y (2010) Biochar impact on development and productivity of pepper and tomato grown in fertigated soilless media. Plant Soil 337:481–496

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Graber ER, Tsechansky L, Gerstl Z, Lew B (2012) High surface area biochar negatively impacts herbicide efficacy. Plant Soil 353:95–106

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Nag SK, Kookana R, Smith L, Krull E, Macdonald LM, Gill G (2011) Poor efficacy of herbicides in biochar-amended soils as affected by their chemistry and mode of action. Chemosphere 84:1572–1577

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sun K, Keiluweit M, Kleber M, Pan Z, Xing B (2011) Sorption of fluorinated herbicides to plant biomass-derived biochars as a function of molecular structure. Bioresour Technol 102:9897–9903

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nguyen BT, Lehmann J (2009) Black carbon decomposition under varying water regimes. Org Geochem 40:846–853

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Singh BP, Hatton BJ, Singh B, Cowie AL, Kathuria A (2010) Influence of biochars on nitrous oxide emissions and nitrogen leaching from two contrasting soils. J Environ Qual 39:1224–1235

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Goerndt ME, Mize C (2008) Short-rotation woody biomass as a crop on marginal lands in Iowa. North J Appl For 25:82–86

    Google Scholar 

  22. Zalesny RS Jr, Hall RB, Zalesny JA, McMahon BG, Berguson WE, Stanosz GR (2009) Biomass and genotype × environment interactions of Populus energy crops in the Midwestern United States. BioEnerg Res 2:106–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Zalesny RS Jr, Riemenschneider DE, Hall RB (2005) Early rooting of dormant hardwood cuttings of Populus: analysis of quantitative genetics and genotype × environment interactions. Can J For Res 35:918–929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bradshaw HD Jr, Ceulemans R, Davis J, Stettler R (2000) Emerging model systems in plant biology: poplar (Populus) as a model forest tree. J Plant Growth Regul 19:306–313

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Jansson S, Douglas CJ (2007) Populus: a model system for plant biology. Annu Rev Plant Biol 58:435–458

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Timmer VR (1985) Response of a hybrid poplar clone to soil acidification and liming. Can J Soil Sci 65:727–735

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lteif A, Whalen JK, Bradley RL, Camire C (2008) Diagnostic tools to evaluate the foliar nutrition and growth of hybrid poplars. Can J For Res 38:2138–2147

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ciesielski H, Sterckeman T (1997) A comparison between three methods for the determination of cation exchange capacity and exchangeable cations in soils. Agronomie 17:9–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Dickmann D, Phipps H, Netzer D (1980) Cutting diameter influences early survival and growth of several Populus clones. USDA Forest Service North Central Forest Experiment Station, Research Note NC-261. 4 p

  30. Coyle DR, Coleman MD (2005) Forest production responses to irrigation and fertilization are not explained by shifts in allocation. For Ecol Manag 208:137–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Haase DL, Rose R (1995) Vector analysis and its use for interpreting plant nutrient shifts in response to silvicultural treatments. For Sci 41:54–66

    Google Scholar 

  32. Imo M, Timmer VR (1997) Vector diagnosis of nutrient dynamics in mesquite seedlings. For Sci 43:268–173

    Google Scholar 

  33. Glynn C, Herms DA, Egawa M, Hansen R, Mattson WJ (2003) Effects of nutrient availability on biomass allocation as well as constitutive and rapid induced herbivore resistance in poplar. Oikos 101:385–397

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Baligar VC, Fageria NK, He ZL (2001) Nutrient use efficiency in plants. Comm Soil Sci Plant Anal 32:921–950

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Smit B, Stachowiak M, Van Volkenburgh E (1989) Cellular processes limiting leaf growth in plants under hypoxic root stress. J Exp Bot 40:89–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Brewer CE, Schmidt-Rohr K, Satrio JA, Brown RC (2009) Characterization of biochar from fast pyrolysis and gasification systems. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 28:386–396

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Brewer CE, Unger R, Schmidt-Rohr K, Brown RC (2011) Criteria to select biochars for field studies based on biochar chemical properties. Bioenerg Res 4:312–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the US Forest Service Northern Research Station Institute for Applied Ecosystem Studies (IAES) for supporting this project. They would also like to thank Ronald Zalesny, Jr., Adam Wiese, Ed Bauer, and Bruce Birr from IAES for producing the mini-cuttings and conducting the nutrient analyses and the Iowa State University Center for Sustainable Environmental Technologies for providing the biochar. One of the authors (CB) would like to acknowledge support from a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Catherine E. Brewer

    Present address: Department of Chemical Engineering, New Mexico State University, P.O. Box 30001, MSC 3805, Las Cruces, NM, 88033, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Iowa State University, 339 Science II, Ames, IA, 50011-3221, USA

    William L. Headlee & Richard B. Hall

  2. Center for Sustainable Environmental Technologies, Iowa State University, Biorenewables Research Laboratory, Ames, IA, 50011, USA

    Catherine E. Brewer

Authors
  1. William L. Headlee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catherine E. Brewer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard B. Hall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William L. Headlee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Headlee, W.L., Brewer, C.E. & Hall, R.B. Biochar as a Substitute for Vermiculite in Potting Mix for Hybrid Poplar. Bioenerg. Res. 7, 120–131 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-013-9355-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12155-013-9355-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation