Effects of biochar amendment on root traits and contaminant availability of maize plants in a copper and arsenic impacted soil
- 1.5k Downloads
Background and aims
Biochar has been proposed as a tool to enhance phytostabilisation of contaminated soils but little data are available to illustrate the direct effect on roots in contaminated soils. This work aimed to investigate specific root traits and to assess the effect of biochar amendment on contaminant availability.
Amendment with two different types of biochar, pine woodchip and olive tree pruning, was assessed in a rhizobox experiment with maize planted in a soil contaminated with significant levels of copper and arsenic.
Amendment was found to significantly improve root traits compared to the control soil, particularly root mass density and root length density. Copper uptake to plants and ammonium sulphate extractable copper was significantly less in the biochar amended soils. Arsenic uptake and extractability varied with type of biochar used but was not considered to be the limiting factor affecting root and shoot development.
Root establishment in contaminated soils can be enhanced by biochar amendment but choice of biochar is key to maximising soil improvement and controlling contaminant availability.
KeywordsRhizobox Phytostabilisation Biochar Contaminated soil Availability
This work was carried out as part of a STSM awarded to the lead author by EU COST Action TD1107 Biochar as an option for sustainable resource management. We thank Dr Peter Anderson at SETN (Scottish Environmental Technology Network) for the IC analysis. We thank Dr Saran Sohi of the UKBRC (UK Biochar Research Centre, University of Edinburgh), Edinburgh, for checking the manuscript before submission. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers for improving the manuscript with their comments.
- Atkinson J, Lane A, Lord R, Street G, Scurlock J (2008) Biomass, remediation, re-generation (BioReGen Life Project): reusing brownfield sites for renewable energy crops. GeoCongress 2008:527–534Google Scholar
- Beesley L, Moreno-Jiménez E, Gomez-Eyles JL (2010) Effects of biochar and greenwaste compost amendments on mobility, bioavailability and toxicity of inorganic and organic contaminants in a multi-element polluted soil. Environ Pollut 158:2282–2287. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2010.02.003 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Beesley L, Marmiroli M, Pagano L, Pigoni V, Fellet G, Fresno T, Vamerali T, Bandiera M, Marmiroli N (2013) Biochar addition to an arsenic contaminated soil increases arsenic concentrations in the pore water but reduces uptake to tomato plants (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Sci Total Environ 454–455:598–603. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.02.047 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Clemente R, Walker DJ, Pardo T, Martínez-Fernández D, Bernal MP (2012) The use of a halophytic plant species and organic amendments for the remediation of a trace elements-contaminated soil under semi-arid conditions. J Hazard Mater 223–224:63–71. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.04.048 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- ISO 11277 (2009) Soil quality. Determination of particle size distribution in mineral soil material. Method by sieving and sedimentation. International Organisation for Standardisation, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
- Lozano-Rodriguez E, Luguera M, Lucena JJ, Carpena-Ruiz R (1995) Evaluation of two different acid digestion methods in closed systems for trace element determinations in plants. Quim Anal 14:27–30Google Scholar
- Onwubuya K, Cundy A, Puschenreiter M, Kumpiene J, Bone B, Greaves J, Teasdale P, Mench M, Tlustos P, Mikhalovsky S, Waite S, Friesl-Hanl W, Marschner B, Müller I (2009) Developing decision support tools for the selection of “gentle” remediation approaches. Sci Total Environ 407:6132–6142. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.08.017 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sukartono, Utomo WH, Kusuma Z, Nugroho WH (2011) Soil fertility status, nutrient uptake, and maize (Zea mays L.) yield following biochar and cattle manure application on sandy soils of Lombok, Indonesia. J Trop Agric 49:47–52Google Scholar
- TMECC (2002) Test methods for the examination of composting and compost. US Composting Council, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
- Witters N, Mendelsohn R, Van Passel S, Van Slycken S, Weyens N, Schreurs E, Meers E, Tack F, Vanheusden B, Vangronsveld J (2012a) Phytoremediation, a sustainable remediation technology? II: economic assessment of CO2 abatement through the use of phytoremediation crops for renewable energy production. Biomass Bioenergy 39:470–477. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.11.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Witters N, Mendelsohn RO, Van Slycken S, Weyens N, Schreurs E, Meers E, Tack F, Carleer R, Vangronsveld J (2012b) Phytoremediation, a sustainable remediation technology? Conclusions from a case study. I: energy production and carbon dioxide abatement. Biomass Bioenergy 39:454–469. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.08.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zucconi F, Pera A, Forte M, de Bertoldi M (1981) Evaluating toxicity of immature compost. Biocycle 22:54–57Google Scholar