Advertisement

Journal of Soils and Sediments

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 1432–1440 | Cite as

Biochar and biochar with N fertilizer as a potential tool for improving soil sorption of nutrients

  • Vladimír Šimanský
  • Ján Horák
  • Dušan Igaz
  • Eugen Balashov
  • Jerzy Jonczak
Soils, Sec 1 • Soil Organic Matter Dynamics and Nutrient Cycling • Research Article
  • 317 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Biochar Cation exchange capacity Hydrolytic acidity Soil organic matter Sorption capacity of organic matter 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

References

  1. Alburquerque JA, Calero JM, Barrón V, Torrent J, del Campillo MC, Gallardo A, Villar R (2014) Effects of biochars produced from different feedstocks on soil properties and sunflower growth. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 177(1):16–25.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201200652 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Butterly CR, Bünemann EK, McNeill AM, Baldock JA, Marschner P (2009) Carbon pulses but not phosphorus pulses are related to decreases in microbial biomass during repeated drying and rewetting of soils. Soil Biol Biochem 41(7):1406–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Chodak M, Pietrzykowski M, Sroka K (2015) Physiological profiles of microbial communities in mine soils afforested with different tree species. Ecol Eng 81:462–470.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.04.077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Fischer D, Glaser B (2012) Synergisms between compost and biochar for sustainable soil amelioration, pp. 167–198. In: Kumar S (ed) Management of Organic Waste. Tech Europe, Rijeka, pp 167–198.  https://doi.org/10.5772/31200 Google Scholar
  13. Gaida AM, Przewloka B, Gawryjolek K (2013) Changes in soil quality associated with tillage system applied. Int Agrophys 27:133–141Google Scholar
  14. Hanes J (1999) Analyzes of sorptive characteristics. SSCRI, BratislavaGoogle Scholar
  15. Heitkötter J, Marschner B (2015) Interactive effects of biochar ageing in soils related to feedstock, pyrolysis temperature, and historic charcoal production. Geoderma 245–246:56–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hiemstra T, Mia S, Duhaut PB, Molleman B (2013) Natural and pyrogenic humic acids at goethite and natural oxide surfaces interacting with phosphate. Environ Sci Technol 47(16):9182–9189.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es400997n CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Houghton RA, Hobbie JE, Melillo JM, Moore B, Peterson BJ, Shaver GR, Woodwell GM (1983) Changes in the carbon content of terrestrial biota and soils between 1860 and 1980: a net release of CO2 to the atmosphere. Ecol Monogr 53(3):235–262.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1942531 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hraško J, Červenka L, Facek Z, Komár J, Něměček J, Pospíšil J, Sirový V (1962) Soil analyses (in Slovak). SVPL, BratislavaGoogle Scholar
  21. IUSS Working group WRB (2006) world reference base for soil resources 2006. 2nd edition. World soil resources reports no. 103. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  22. Jagadamma S, Lal R, Hoeft RG, Nafziger ED, Adee EA (2007) Nitrogen fertilization and cropping systems effects on soil organic carbon and total nitrogen pools under chisel-plow tillage in Illinois. Soil Till Res 95(1-2):348–356.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2007.02.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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(1):175–187.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.08.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim HS, Kim KR, Kim HJ, Kim KH, Yang JE, Ok YS, Owens G (2015) Effect of biochar on heavy metal immobilization and uptake by lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) in agricultural soil. Environ Earth Sci 74:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuzyakov Y, Subbotina I, Chen H, Bogomolova I, Xu X (2009) Black carbon decomposition and incorporation into soil microbial biomass estimated by 14C labeling. Soil Biol Biochem 41(2):210–219.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.10.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Laghari M, Mirjat MS, Hu Z, Fazal S, Xiao B, Hu M, Chen Z, Guo D (2015) Effects of biochar application rate on sandy desert soil properties and sorghum growth. Catena 135:313–320.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2015.08.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Laird DA, Fleming P, Davis DD, Horton R, Wang BQ, Karlen DL (2010) Impact of biochar amendments on the quality of a typical Midwestern agricultural soil. Geoderma 158(3-4):443–449.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.05.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lal R (1997) Degradation and resilience of soils. Phil Trans R Soc London B 352:869–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. Lehmann J, Skjemstad J, Sohi S (2008) Australian climate-carbon cycle feedback reduced by soil black carbon. Nat Geosci 1(12):832–835.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo358 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liang B, Lehmann J, Solomon D, Kinyangi J, Grossman J, O’Neill B, Skjemstad JO, Thies J, Luizao FJ, Petersen J, Neves EG (2006) Black carbon increases cation exchange capacity in soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70(5):1719–1730.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2005.0383 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Lorandi R (2012) Evaluation of cation exchange capacity (CEC) in tropical soils using four different analytical methods. J Agric Sci 4:278–289Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Mukherjee A, Zimmerman AR, Harris W (2011) Surface chemistry variations among a series of laboratory-produced biochars. Geoderma 163(3-4):247–255.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2011.04.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nagodavithane CL, Singh B, Fang Y (2014) Effect of ageing on surface charge characteristics and adsorption behaviour of cadmium and arsenate in two contrasting soils amended with biochar. Soil Res 52(2):155–163.  https://doi.org/10.1071/SR13187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nelissen V, Rütting T, Huygens D, Staelens J, Ruysschaert G, Boeckx P (2012) Maize biochars accelerate short-term soil nitrogen dynamics in a loamy sand soil. Soil Biol Biochem 55:20–27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.05.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Obia A, Mulder J, Martinsen V, Cornelissen G, Børresen T (2016) In situ effects of biochar on aggregation, water retention and porosity in light-textured tropical soils. Soil Till Res 155:35–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2015.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pulleman MM, Bouma J, van Essen EA, Meijles EW (2000) Soil organic matter content as a function of different land use history. Soil Sci Soc Am J 64(2):689–693.  https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2000.642689x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Purakayastha TJ, Kumari S, Pathak H (2015) Characterisation, stability, and microbial effects of four biochars produced from crop residues. Geoderma 239-240:293–303.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.11.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rajkovich S, Enders A, Hanley K, Hyland C, Zimmerman AR, Lehmann J (2012) Corn growth and nitrogen nutrition after additions of biochars with varying properties to a temperate soil. Biol Fertil Soils 48(3):271–284.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-011-0624-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. Šimanský V, Polláková N (2014) Soil organic matter and sorption capacity under different soil management practices in a productive vineyard. Arch Agron Soil Sci 60(8):1145–1154.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2013.865837 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. Šimon T, Javůrek M, Mikanová O, Vach M (2009) The influence of tillage systems on soil organic matter and soil hydrophobicity. Soil Till Res 105(1):44–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2009.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stevenson JF (1994) Humus chemistry. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Uzoma KC, Inoue M, Andry H, Fujimaki H, Zahoor A, Nishihara E (2011) Effect of cow manure biochar on maize productivity under sandy soil condition. Soil Use Manag 27(2):205–212.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2011.00340.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Zwieten L, Kimber S, Morris S, Chan KY, Downie A, Rust J, Joseph S, Cowie A (2010) Effects of biochar from slow pyrolysis of papermill waste on agronomic performance and soil fertility. Plant Soil 327(1-2):235–246.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-009-0050-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wang K, Xing B (2005) Structural and sorption characteristics of adsorbed humic acids on clay minerals. J Environ Qual 34(1):342–349.  https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0342 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yuan JH, Xu RK (2012) Effects of biochars generated from crop residues on chemical properties of acid soils from tropical and subtropical China. Soil Res 50(7):570–578.  https://doi.org/10.1071/SR12118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yuan JH, Xu RK, Wang N, Li JY (2011) Amendment of acid soils with crop residues and biochars. Pedosphere 21(3):302–308.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1002-0160(11)60130-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zimmerman AR, Gao B, Ahn MY (2011) Positive and negative carbon mineralization priming effects among a variety of biochar-amended soils. SoilBiol Biochem 43(6):1169–1179.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.02.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agrobiology and Food ResourcesSlovak University of AgricultureNitraSlovakia
  2. 2.Department of Biometeorology and Hydrology, Horticulture and Landscape Engineering FacultySlovak University of Agriculture in NitraNitraSlovakia
  3. 3.Agrophysical Research InstituteSt. PetersburgRussia
  4. 4.Department of Soil Environment SciencesWarsaw University of Life SciencesWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations