Contrasting effects of manure and green waste biochars on the properties of an acidic ferralsol and productivity of a subtropical pasture
- 1.1k Downloads
Background and Aim
We hypothesised that amending an acidic ferralsol with biochar would improve the productivity of a subtropical dairy pasture via reducing soil acidity related constraints and result in improved nitrogen use efficiency. We examined two contrasting biochars with different carbon, nutrient content and acid neutralising values.
Field plots were amended with one of three biochar treatments (Nil, feedlot manure biochar [FM], green waste biochar [GW]) in combination with presence or absence of NPK fertiliser and presence or absence of liming. The FM and GW biochars had a carbon content of 44 and 76 %, available phosphorous of 5,960 and 93 mg kg−1, and liming values of 13 and 5.6 %, respectively. The pasture was managed to supply year round high quality feed for dairy production.
The FM biochar increased total pasture productivity by 11 % and improved the agronomic nitrogen use efficiency by 23 %. It also reduced soil acidity but did not significantly affect the pH dependent soil cation exchange capacity. The GW biochar did not improve pasture productivity. Both biochars resulted in an increase in the soil carbon density.
The high available phosphorous content of FM biochar makes it an effective amendment for acidic ferralsols. Greenwaste biochar did not have sufficient acid neutralising capacity or phosphorous content to reduce soil acidity constraints. Both biochars enhance soil carbon storage in pasture systems on ferralsol.
KeywordsBiochar Ferralsol Soil carbon Soil phosphorous Soil acidity
- Soil C
- FM biochar
Feedlot manure biochar
- GW biochar
Cation exchange capacity
The authors acknowledge the technical assistance provided by RH Bryant, A Janestski, S Petty, B Keen and J Rust in the conduct of these field studies. This work was undertaken as a component project funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research entitled ‘Improving the utilisation of water and soil resources for tree crop production in coastal areas of Vietnam and NSW’ (ACIAR project SMCN 2003-035). The authors would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions for improvement.
- AOAC International (2000) Official methods of analysis, 17th edn. AOAC Int, GaithersburgGoogle Scholar
- Butler D, Cullis B, Gilmour R, Gogel B (2009) ASReml-R reference manual DPI&F Publications Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries GPO Box 46 Brisbane Qld. URL http://www.vsn-intl.com/products/asreml/. Accessed 20 July 2012
- R Development Core Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org
- Dorahy CG, Pirie AD, Pengelly P, Muirhead LM, Chan KY, Jackson M, Smith A, Emery T (2007) Guidelines for using compost in land rehabilitation and catchment management. Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW, SydneyGoogle Scholar
- FAO (1998) Distribution of ferralsols http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/agll/wrb/wrbmaps/htm/ferralso.htm. Accessed 30 March 2012
- Forster JC (1998) Soil physical analysis. In: Alef K, Nannipieri P (eds) Methods in applied soil microbiology and biochemistry. Academic, London, pp 105–121Google Scholar
- Fulkerson WJ, Donaghy DJ (1998) Growing perennial ryegrass/white closer pastures in the subtropical dairy zone. NSW Agriculture. ISBN 0 7313 1545 6Google Scholar
- Horneck DA, Miller RO (1998) Determination of total nitrogen in plant tissue. In: Handbook of reference methods for plant analysis. Soil Plant Analysis Council, CRC Press, LLCGoogle Scholar
- Isbell RF (1996) The Australian soil classification. CSIRO publishing, CollingwoodGoogle Scholar
- Krull ES, Baldock JA, Skjemstad JO, Smernik RJ (2009) Characteristics of biochar: organo-chemical properties. In: Lehmann J, Joseph S (eds) Biochar for environmental management. Earthscan Publications Ltd. ISBN: 9781844076581, pp 53–65Google Scholar
- Lehmann J, Joseph S (eds) (2009) Biochar for environmental management: science and technology. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Lowe KF, Fulkerson WJ, Walker RG, Armour JD, Bowdler TM, Slack K, Knight RI, Moody PW, Pepper P (2005) Comparative productivity of irrigated annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) pasture receiving nitrogen, grown alone or in a mixture with white (Trifolium repens) and Persian (T. resupinatum) clovers. Aust J Exp Agric 45:21–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Moody PW (1994) Chemical fertility of krasnozems: a review. Aust J Soil Res 32:1015–1041Google Scholar
- Nelson N, Agudelo S, Yuan W, Gan J (2011) Nitrogen and phosphorus availability in biochar-amended soils. Soil Sci 176:218–226Google Scholar
- Nicholls KD, Colwell JD, Tucker BM (1953) A survey of soils, and some aspects of soil fertility, in the Lismore District, New South Wales. Series 11. CSIRO Aust, Soils and Land UseGoogle Scholar
- Rayment GE, Higginson FR (1992) Australian laboratory handbook of soil and water chemical analysis. Inkata Press, SydneyGoogle Scholar
- Spain AV, Isbell RF, Probert ME (1983) Soil organic matter. In: ‘Soils: an Australian viewpoint’, Division of Soils, CSIRO. CSIRO: Melbourne/Academic Press: London pp 556–557Google Scholar
- Standley J (1980) Phosphorous retention by a krasnozem soil and response by a guinea-centro pasture in the wet tropics. Trop Grasslands 14:69–77Google Scholar
- USEPA (2000) Test methods for evaluating solid waste. Method 6010C. Revision 3, inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometryGoogle Scholar
- Verheijen FGA, Jeffery S, Bastos AC, van der Velde M, Diafas I (2010) Biochar application to soils - a critical scientific review of effects on soil properties, processes and functions. EUR 24099 EN. Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, p 149Google Scholar