The effect of acidic and neutral biochar on moisture properties of calcareous soils

Document Type : Complete scientific research article

Authors

1 M.Sc. Graduate, Dept. of Soil Science and Engineering, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran.

2 Corresponding Author, Professor, Dept. of Soil Science and Engineering, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran.

3 Associate Prof., Dept. of Soil Science and Engineering, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran.

4 Professor, Dept. of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran.

Abstract

Background and objectives: The purpose of incorporating organic modifiers such as biochar with soil is stabilizing carbon, improving fertility, absorbing pollutants, and consequently increasing crop production. Biochar is a biofuel and the resultant of organic matters thermocouples. Biochars are produced in high temperature ovens and are commonly alkaline and so suitable for the acidic soils. However, if the raw materials are heated at low temperatures, the resulting biochar can be acidic and useful for modifying calcareous soils. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of two types of acidic biochars of rice husk and pine cone for modifying the physical properties of two calcareous soils of Isfahan province.
Materials and methods: Based on a preliminary experiment, rice husk biochar (pH=5.64) and pine cone biochar (pH=6.56) produced at 300°C were selected for this study. The experiment was performed in a completely randomized factorial design with three replications. Treatments included two types of biochar (pine cone and rice husk) mixed with soil at one, three and six percent (g/g), two types of soil (a sandy loam, Tiran and a clay loam, Lavark), and two incubation periods of one and six months, with 4 controls and a total of 28 pots. The treated soils were kept in an incubator at 25°C and 60% of field (pot) capacity. At the end of the incubation periods, the soil moisture contents at field capacity and the permanent wilting point were measured respectively using sand-kaolin box and pressure plate devices and then soil available water contents was calculated.
Results: The results showed that the addition of biochars improved some physical properties of soils. The treatment of the soils with 3% and 6% of biochars caused significant increases in the available water (AW) in the sandy loam soils compared to the control. The physical quality index of Dexter (SDexter) fitted by van Genuchten–Mualem was significantly increased in the sandy loam soil amended with 6% of the biochars and in the clay loam soil amended with 3% and 6% of the biochars. The use of biochars also improved the physical quality of the soil, described by the Dexter index, from poor to very good.
Conclusion: The results of this study showed that addition of 6% rice husk biochar to the clay loam soil and at the 30 days incubation period, could improve soil properties. Therefore, according to these findings, the biochars produced from pine cones and rice husk can be suggested as a suitable conditioner for improving physical properties of the regional calcareous soils.

Keywords

References

1.Giusquiani, P.L., Pagliai, M., Gigliotti, G., Businelli, D., and Benetti, A. 1995. Urban waste compost: effects on physical, chemical, and biochemical soil properties. Journal of Environmental Quality.24: 175-182.
2.Saviozzi, A., Biasci, A., Riffaldi, R., and Levi-Minzi, R. 1999. Long-term effects of farmyard manure and sewage sludge on some soil biochemical characteristics. Biology and Fertility of Soils.30: 100-106.
3.Demirbas, A., Pehlivan, E., and Altun, T. 2006. Potential evolution of Turkish agricultural residues as bio-gas, bio-char and bio-oil sources. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 31: 613-620.
4.Tsai, W.T., Liu, S.C., Chen, H.R., Chang, Y.M., and Tsai, Y.L. 2012. Textural and chemical properties of swine-manure-derived biochar pertinent to its potential use as a soil amendment. Chemosphere. 89: 198-203.
5.Woolf, D., Amonette, J.E., Street-Perrott, F.A., Lehmann, J., and Joseph, S. 2010. Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nature Communications. 1: 1-9.
6.Mukherjee, A., and Lal, R. 2013. Biochar impacts on soil physical properties and greenhouse gas emissions. Agronomy.
3: 313-339.
7.Major, J., Lehmann, J., Rondon, M., and Goodale, C. 2010. Fate of soil‐applied black carbon: downward migration, leaching and soil respiration. Global Change Biology. 16: 1366-1379.
8.Feichtinger, F., Erhart, E., and Hartl, W. 2004. Net N-mineralisation related to soil organic matter pools. Plant Soil and Environment. 50: 273-276.
9.Brodowski, S., John, B., Flessa, H., and Amelung, W. 2006. Aggregate‐occluded black carbon in soil. European Journal of Soil Science. 57: 539-546.
10.Glaser, B., Lehmann, J., and Zech, W. 2002. Ameliorating physical and chemical properties of highly weathered soils in the tropics with charcoal–a review. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 35: 219-230.
11.Cha, J.S., Park, S.H., Jung, S.C., Ryu, C., Jeon, J.K., Shin, M.C., and Park, Y.K. 2016. Production and utilization of biochar: A review. Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. 40: 1-15.
12.Van Zwieten, L., Singh, B., Joseph, S., Kimber, S., Cowie, A., and Chan, K.Y. 2009. Biochar and emissions of
non-CO2 greenhouse gases from soil. In: Biochar for Environmental Management. Johannes, L. and Stephen, J. (Eds.). Earthscan. London Sterling, VA,pp. 227-250.
13.Ippolito, J.A., Ducey, T.F., Cantrell, K.B., Novak, J.M., and Lentz, R.D. 2016. Designer, acidic biochar influences calcareous soil characteristics. Chemosphere. 142: 184-191.
14.Dexter, A.R. 2004. Soil physicalquality: Part I. Theory, effects of soil texture, density, and organic matter, and effects on root growth. Geoderma.120: 201-214.
15.Singh, B., Camps-Arbestain, M., and Lehmann, J. 2017. Biochar pH, electrical conductivity and liming potential In: Biochar: A Guide to Analytical Methods. Singh, B., Mei Dolk, M., Shen, Q. and Camps-Arbestain, M. (Eds.). Csiro Publishing. London, New York, pp. 23-38.
16.Gee, G.W., and Or, D. 2002. Particle-size analysis. In: Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4, Physical Methods. Campbell, G., Horton, R., Jury, W., Nielsen, D., Van Es, H., Wierenga, P., Dane, J. and Topp, G. (Eds.). Soil Science Society of America, Inc. Madison, Wisconsin, USA, pp. 255-293.
17.Romano, N., and Santini, A. 2002. Field. In: Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4, Physical Methods. Campbell, G., Horton, R., Jury, W., Nielsen, D.,Van Es, H., Wierenga, P., Dane, J. and Topp, G. (Eds.). Soil Science Society of America, Inc. Madison, Wisconsin, USA, pp. 721-738.
18.Kirkham, M. 2005. Field capacity, wilting point, available water, and the non-limiting water range. In: Principles of Soil Plant Water Relations. Sonnack, K. (Eds.). Dana Dreibelbisplace. Kansas State University, pp. 101-115.
19.Song, W., and Guo, M. 2012. Quality variations of poultry litter biochar generated at different pyrolysis temperatures. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis. 94: 138-145.
20.Ippolito, J., Novak, J., Busscher, W., Ahmedna, M., Rehrah, D., and Watts, D. 2012. Switchgrass biochar effects two aridisols. Journal of Environmental Quality. 41: 1123-1130.
21.Suliman, W., Harsh, J.B., Abu-Lail, N.I., Fortuna, A.M., Dallmeyer, I., and Garcia-Pérez, M. 2017. The role of biochar porosity and surface functionality in augmenting hydrologic properties of a sandy soil. Science of The Total Environment. 574: 139-147.
22.Briggs, C., Breiner, J.M., and Graham, R.C. 2012. Physical and chemical properties of pinus ponderosa charcoal: Implications for soil modification. Soil Science. 177: 263-268.
23.Kuo, S. 1996. Phosphorus. In: Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3, Chemical Methods. Sparks, D.L., Page, A.L., Helmke, P.A. and Loeppert, R.H. (Eds.). Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy. Madison, Wisconsin, USA. pp. 869-919.
24.Dexter, A.R. 2004. Soil physical quality: Part II. Friability, tillage, tilth andhard-setting. Geoderma. 120: 215-225.
Journal of Water and Soil Conservation
Volume 29, Issue 1
May 2022
Pages 95-113

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics