Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 274–282 | Cite as

Performance of maize plant reconstruction and storage nutrient mobilization induced by liquid phase of anaerobically digested pig manure

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 144 Downloads

Abstract

Agricultural application of liquid phase of digestate (LPD) after solid–liquid separation is thought to be a reasonable disposal approach. This research aims to investigate the effect on seed germination, plant reconstruction and storage nutrient mobilization caused by LPD from anaerobic digestion of pig manure. Maize seeds were submerged into LPD to imbibe and then transferred into a growth chamber to germinate and grow. Distilled water served as a control. The used LPD had no influence on final germination rates. But it accelerated seed germination and promoted root elongation (9.9% longer) and seedling growth (6.4% heavier) when half diluted. These results can be explained with the promoted mobilization of storage nutrient caused by LPD, because soluble sugar in total seedling increased by 10.0% and protein in shoot and root increased by 11.7% as the degradation of starch and protein in seed was 5.9 and 12.1% increased, respectively. LPD treatment enhanced α-amylase activity and β-amylase activity significantly. LPD can promote the mobilization of storage nutrient by improving hydrolase activity and this accelerated the germination and seedling growth.

Keywords

Digestate Agriculture Maize Germination Mobilization 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by grants from “United centralized treatment technology of urban biomass waste and the demonstration project of biogas utilization (2014BAC24B01)”. We are grateful to Yongjiang Chang, Dandan Qi et al. for their valuable assistance in the laboratory. We likewise greatly appreciate the critical and constructive comments from the anonymous reviewers, which have helped to improve this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Ferrer I, Gamiz M, Almeida M, Ruiz A (2009) Pilot project of biogas production from pig manure and urine mixture at ambient temperature in Ventanilla (Lima, Peru). Waste Manag 29(1):168–173. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2008.02.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alburquerque JA, de la Fuente C, Bernal MP (2012) Chemical properties of anaerobic digestates affecting C and N dynamics in amended soils. Agric Ecosyst Environ 160:15–22. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.03.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tambone F, Scaglia B, D’Imporzano G, Schievano A, Orzi V, Salati S, Adani F (2010) Assessing amendment and fertilizing properties of digestates from anaerobic digestion through a comparative study with digested sludge and compost. Chemosphere 81(5):577–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Möller K, Müller T (2012) Effects of anaerobic digestion on digestate nutrient availability and crop growth: a review. Eng Life Sci 12(3):242–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mehta CM, Batstone DJ (2013) Nutrient solubilization and its availability following anaerobic digestion. Water Sci Technol 67(4):756–763. doi: 10.2166/wst.2012.622 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Paavola T, Rintala J (2008) Effects of storage on characteristics and hygienic quality of digestates from four co-digestion concepts of manure and biowaste. Bioresour Technol 99(15):7041–7050. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2008.01.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kostenberg D, Marchaim U, Watad AA, Epstein E (1995) Biosynthesis of plant hormones during anaerobic digestion of instant coffee waste. Plant Growth Regul 17(2):127–132. doi: 10.1007/bf00024172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Scaglia B, Pognani M, Adani F (2015) Evaluation of hormone-like activity of the dissolved organic matter fraction (DOM) of compost and digestate. ScTEn 514:314–321. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.02.009 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    de la Fuente C, Alburquerque J, Clemente R, Bernal M (2013) Soil C and N mineralisation and agricultural value of the products of an anaerobic digestion system. Biol Fertil Soils 49(3):313–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McLachlan KL, Chong C, Voroney RP, Liu HW, Holbein BE (2004) Assessing the potential phytotoxicity of digestates during processing of municipal solid waste by anaerobic digestion: comparison to aerobic composts. In: Bertschinger L, Anderson JD (eds) Sustainability of horticultural systems in the 21st century. Acta Hortic, vol 638. Int Soc Hortic Sci, Leuven 1, pp 225–230Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Füleky GY, Makádi M, Orosz V, Tomocsik A, Gulyás M (2012) Risk of agricultural use of sewage sludge compost and anaerobic digestate. Acta Phytopathol Entomol Hung 47(2):213–221. doi: 10.1556/APhyt.47.2012.2.4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gell K, van Groenigen J, Cayuela ML (2011) Residues of bioenergy production chains as soil amendments: immediate and temporal phytotoxicity. J Hazard Mater 186(2–3):2017–2025. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.12.105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Xue JT, Ma LJ (2012) Effect on germination of maize seed induced by biogas slurry. Xinjiang Farml Reclam Sci Technol 7:46–47Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zhao L, Mao W (2006) Effects of seed soaked in marsh gas liquid on maize germination. Guizhou Agric Sci 34:84–85MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen Y, Wang SX (2005) Output effect analysis of seed soaking with the methane pit in intercropping of the corn and the soybean. Seed 24(8):29–33Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dai X, Cai S, Peng Q, Xie D (2007) Effect of biogas fluid on germination and physiological characteristics of maize. J Anhui Agric Sci 35(6): 1679–1680, 1741Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nonogaki H, Bassel GW, Bewley JD (2010) Germination—still a mystery. Plant Sci 179(6):574–581. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2010.02.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miransari M, Smith D (2009) Rhizobial lipo-chitooligosaccharides and gibberellins enhance barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) seed germination. Biotechnology 8(2):270–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISTA (2003) International rules for seed testing. P.O. Box 308, 8303 Bassersdorf, CH, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    SEPA (2002) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. China Environmental Science Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tiquia SM, Tam NFY (1998) Elimination of phytotoxicity during co-composting of spent pig-manure sawdust litter and pig sludge. Bioresour Technol 65:43–49. doi: 10.1016/S0960-8524(98)00024-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cerning J, Guilbot A (1973) Changes in carbohydrate composition during maturation of wheat and barley kernels. Cereal Chem 50(2):220–232Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clegg KM (1956) The application of the anthrone reagent to the estimation of starch in cereal. J Sci Food Agric 7(1):40–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yemm EW, Willis AJ (1954) The estimation of carbohydrates in plant extracts by anthrone. Biochem J 57(3):508–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chu WL, Phang SM, Goh SH (1996) Environmental effects on growth and biochemical composition of Nitzschia inconspicua Grunow. J Appl Phycol 8(4–5):389–396. doi: 10.1007/bf02178582 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Odjo S, Malumba P, Dossou J, Janas S, Béra F (2012) Influence of drying and hydrothermal treatment of corn on the denaturation of salt-soluble proteins and color parameters. J Food Eng 109(3):561–570. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2011.10.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bradford MM (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. AnBio 72(1–2):248–254. doi: 10.1006/abio.1976.9999 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bernfeld P (1955) Amylases α and β, vol 1. Methods in enzymology, vol 1. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tam NFY, Tiquia S (1994) Assessing toxicity of spent pig litter using a seed germination technique. Resour Conserv Recycl 11:261–274. doi: 10.1016/0921-3449(94)90094-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Abdullahi Y, Akunna JC, White NA, Hallett P, Wheatley R (2008) Investigating the effects of anaerobic and aerobic post-treatment on quality and stability of organic fraction of municipal solid waste as soil amendment. Bioresour Technol 99(18):8631–8636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Alburquerque JA, de la Fuente C, Ferrer-Costa A, Carrasco L, Cegarra J, Abad M, Bernal MP (2012) Assessment of the fertiliser potential of digestates from farm and agroindustrial residues. Biomass Bioenergy 40:181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Krogmeier MJ, Bremner JM (1990) Effects of aliphatic acids on seed germination and seedling growth in soil. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 21(7–8):547–555. doi: 10.1080/00103629009368251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Young TE, Juvik JA, DeMason DA (1997) Changes in carbohydrate composition and α-amylase expression during germination and seedling growth of starch-deficient endosperm mutants of maize. Plant Sci 129(2):175–189. doi: 10.1016/S0168-9452(97)00178-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yan QC (2001) Seed science. China Agriculture Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    O’Brien R, Fowkes N, Bassom AP (2010) Models for gibberellic acid transport and enzyme production and transport in the aleurone layer of barley. J Theor Biol 267(1):15–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.07.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dura A, Blaszczak W, Rosell CM (2014) Functionality of porous starch obtained by amylase or amyloglucosidase treatments. Carbohydr Polym 101:837–845. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.10.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Foresti ML, Williams MdP, Martínez-García R, Vázquez A (2014) Analysis of a preferential action of α-amylase from B. licheniformis towards amorphous regions of waxy maize starch. Carbohydr Polym 102:80–87. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.11.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wang Z (2000) Plant physiology. China Agriculture Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bwanganga Tawaba J-C, Béra F, Thonart P (2013) Modelling the β-amylase activity during red sorghum malting when Bacillus subtilis is used to control mould growth. J Cereal Sci 57(1):115–119. doi: 10.1016/j.jcs.2012.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yidi Wang
    • 1
  • Wei Li
    • 1
  • Feng Wang
    • 1
  • Shan Liu
    • 1
  • Wei Wang
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EnvironmentTsinghua UniversityBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations