Abstract
Background and aims
Biochar is increasingly recognized for its potential to enhance soil water retention and improve soil fertility in agricultural systems; however, few studies have evaluated the effects of biochar on nutrients from an integrated perspective. This study aims to investigate how biochar affects soil phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) availability and their effects on plant growth, especially under reduced irrigation conditions.
Methods
Maize plants were grown in split-root pots with full (FI), deficit (DI) and alternate partial root-zone drying (PRD) irrigation under 2% (w/w) softwood (SWB) and wheat-straw biochar (WSB) for three successive growth cycles.
Results
WSB amendment decreased soil P availability and resulted in a decrease in plant P content. However, WSB amendment significantly enhanced soil K availability inducing higher plant K content under reduced irrigation, thereby enhancing the biomass and harvest index of maize plants irrespective of growth cycles, especially with PRD. WSB amendment significantly enhanced P use efficiency due to lower plant P content and higher biomass in the initial growth cycles. Adding SWB decreased plant growth under reduced irrigation by inhibiting plant K content in the second growth cycle, which was mitigated by PRD by enhancing root growth.
Conclusion
Collectively, despite negative effects on soil P availability and plant P content, WSB combined with PRD could be a promising strategy in sustainable maize production under drought stress.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Biochar, a byproduct of biomass pyrolysis, is recognized for its potential to sequester carbon, enhance water retention, improve soil fertility, and increase crop productivity, especially in regions facing freshwater scarcity and soil degradation (Lehmann et al. 2006; Paneque et al. 2016; Buss et al. 2016; Agbna et al. 2017; WHO 2020; Hou et al. 2023c). Applying biochar promotes plant growth via two main mechanisms: (1) directly by supplying essential nutrients such as phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and sulfur (S); (2) indirectly by enhancing soil's physical (e.g., soil structure and porosity), chemical (e.g., nutrient availability and pH balance), and biological (e.g., microbial activity and biodiversity) properties, which contribute to root development and efficient nutrient uptake (Yu et al. 2019; Panahi et al. 2020; Alkharabsheh et al. 2021; Karim et al. 2022).
Biochar significantly alters soil properties such as pH, cation exchange capacity (CEC), mineral composition (Fe, Al, Ca, and Mg), and organic matter content (SOM), directly influencing P adsorption and availability (Karunanithi et al. 2017; Shepherd et al. 2017). For instance, in acidic soils, P predominantly binds with Al and Fe oxides, whereas in neutral to alkaline conditions (pH ≥ 6.5), it interacts with Ca and Mg-rich minerals (Parfitt 1979), demonstrating the pH-dependent effects of biochar on P bioavailability (Bornø et al. 2018a; b). Biochar addition typically enhances soil CEC, altering ion exchange dynamics and intensifying Ca-P interactions, which can reduce P availability for plant uptake but increase its protection against leaching (Major et al. 2012; Jones et al. 2011; Xu et al. 2013). Furthermore, the organic matter content in biochar competes for binding sites on clay and metal oxides, stabilizing P in mineral forms and modifying its chemical state (Jindo et al. 2023). The characteristics of biochar (e.g., surface functional groups, pH, ash and nutrient content) vary widely among different feedstocks, leading to diverse effects on the rhizosphere environment and soil P bioavailability (Novak et al. 2013; Gul and Whalen 2016). Consistent with this, Bornø et al. (2018b) have shown that at the same application rate, wheat-straw biochar (WSB) tends to increase P adsorption due to its alkaline pH and alkali metal content, whereas softwood biochar (SWB) facilitates both sorption and release of P due to its more neutral pH and high aromatic carbon content, tailoring P availability to plants. These changes in soil P availability can either inhibit (Xu et al. 2016; Li et al. 2020, Chen et al. 2021) or enhance (Zhai et al. 2015; Shen et al. 2016; Bargaz et al. 2021; Chen et al. 2022; Liu et al. 2022) P uptake by plants, which is critical for functions such as ATP production and cellular activities, directly affecting plant growth and productivity (Malhotra et al. 2018). While some studies have shown that the application of biochar is generally associated with increased plant biomass and higher P use efficiency (PUE) (Arif et al. 2017; Borges et al. 2020; Zhang et al. 2020b), these benefits vary significantly with biochar type, application rate, and initial soil conditions. Therefore, further research is still needed to explore the effects of different types of biochar on soil phosphorus availability and its impact on plant phosphorus uptake and growth, especially over multiple growth cycles.
K-rich biochar sources can directly enhance soil K availability, which is essential for supporting vital plant physiological processes including growth, yield, quality, and stress resistance (Zörb et al. 2014; Rahimzadeh et al. 2015; Gao and DeLuca 2018; Liu et al. 2022). By increasing soil pH, alkaline biochar such as WSB reduce the binding of K to soil particles, thereby improving its solubility and availability for plant uptake (Oram et al. 2014; Liu et al., 2021). This effect is complemented by the increased CEC brought about by biochar, which provides additional sites for K retention and improves its accessibility to plants (Wan et al. 2023). Additionally, the presence of competing ions such as Ca2+ and Mg2+ in biochar can displace K from soil complexes, further enhancing its bioavailability (Wang et al. 2021b). These modifications in soil chemistry foster improved K uptake by plants, crucial for enzymatic activity, osmotic regulation, and stomatal function, ultimately supporting overall plant health and productivity (Wang and Wu 2013; Pandey and Mahiwal 2020). Given the typical accumulation of K in biochar and its high availability for plant uptake, biochar application could lead to “luxury” uptake of K in crops, which might alleviate the problem of soil K deficiency but could inadvertently reduce K use efficiency (KUE) (Bornø et al. 2019; Egamberdieva et al. 2020). Therefore, biochar, particularly alkaline biochar, can regulate the availability of P and K, but its mechanisms may induce antagonistic interactions between these nutrients. Few studies have evaluated these interactions and their downstream effects on plant growth.
In arid and semi-arid regions, reduced irrigation methods such as deficit irrigation (DI) and partial root-zone drying (PRD) are crucial for optimizing water use and enhancing water-use efficiency (Jones 2004; Kang and Zhang 2004; Dodd 2009; Jensen et al. 2010). DI conserves water by limiting crop water consumption below potential evapotranspiration (Dodd 2009), but its long-term use may diminish soil health and reduce nutrient availability, adversely affecting crop growth (Akhtar et al. 2014; Wei et al. 2018). PRD, a more advanced form of DI, alternates soil drying and wetting cycles to enhance root proliferation by exploiting plants' natural adaptive responses (Mingo et al. 2004; Kang and Zhang 2004; Liu et al. 2006; Dodd et al. 2015;). This process may lead to the collapse of soil aggregates, exposing previously protected organic matter to rapid decomposition and thereby accelerating nutrient mobilization (Miller et al. 2005). Additionally, microorganisms excrete intracellular osmolytes upon re-wetting dry soil, increasing the pool of soil available nutrients for turnover (Soinne et al. 2010). Both the lysis of microbial cells and the disintegration of aggregates can trigger the “Birch effect”, enhancing nutrient bioavailability (Birch 1958; Wang et al. 2017b). PRD can enhance the mineralization of organic phosphorus and potassium, thus improving their bioavailability and facilitating their transport towards the root surface through diffusion and mass flow (Liu et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2017b; Liu et al. 2022; Wan et al. 2023). Nonetheless, the specific effects of PRD on soil phosphorus and potassium availability, nutrient uptake, and the growth of plants amended with biochar have not been investigated.
The overall objective of this study was therefore to evaluate the initial (first growth cycle, involving three drying-wetting cycles) and residual (second and third growth cycle, each involving four drying-wetting cycles) effects of softwood and wheat-straw biochar on maize plant growth under full irrigation (FI), deficit irrigation (DI), and partial root-zone drying (PRD) irrigation. We selected these biochar types based on their contrasting physicochemical properties, which are critical to examining their respective roles in soil amendment and plant response. It was hypothesized that biochar amendment would consistently alter soil physicochemical properties, thereby significantly improving phosphorus and potassium availability, especially when combined with PRD. This was expected to enhance plant phosphorus and potassium uptake and optimize their partitioning to different organs even after multiple growth cycles, ultimately improving overall plant growth and nutrient use efficiency under reduced irrigation.
Materials and methods
Experimental setup
A three-phase split-root pot experiment was conducted carried out in a greenhouse over successive maize growth cycles from 2021 to 2022 at Northwest A&F University, Shaanxi, China (34º15′N, 108º04′E). The maize seeds “Shaan Dan 650” from the College of Agronomy at Northwest A&F University, were consistently used during all growth cycles. The study employed a fully factorial design with three biochar treatments (control, softwood biochar-SWB, and wheat-straw biochar-WSB) across three irrigation regimes. Each treatment was replicated three to four times in pots containing 9.0 kg of clay loam soil or soil-biochar mixtures. The experimental soil was obtained from a local farm in Yangling, air-dried, sieved through a 5 mm mesh, and then thoroughly mixed with each type of biochar at a 2% weight ratio prior to potting. The initial volumetric soil water content (θ, vol%) was measured to be 30.0% at field capacity and 5.0% at permanent willing point. The bulk density of the soil after biochar addition was determined to be 1.3 g cm−3. Following the harvest of each cycle, soil from all treatments was similarly processed—air-dried and sieved—to ensure consistency in subsequent growth cycles.
Maize seedlings were transplanted into 8 L split-root pots at the 4-leaf stage. Initial soil analysis prior to the experiment revealed total phosphorus (P) content of 0.61 g kg−1 and potassium (K) content of 18.33 g kg−1. To address nutritional needs while potentially enhancing detection of treatment effects, nitrogen (N, 2 g), phosphorus (P, 2 g), and potassium (K, 0.22 g) were added each cycle in the forms of urea, KH2PO4, and a combination of KH2PO4 and K2SO4, respectively. Additionally, a 2–3 cm layer of perlite was applied to the soil surface in each pot to minimize evaporation and maintain consistent moisture conditions. Detailed descriptions of the soil and biochars used and their physicochemical characteristics are provided in Table 1.
Treatments
Following transplantation, each maize seedling was watered to 90% of pot's water holding capacity. Four weeks after transplanting, three different irrigation treatments, viz., full irrigation (FI), deficit irrigation (DI), and partial root-zone drying (PRD) irrigation were imposed to transplanted seedlings. For FI, both soil columns were irrigated daily to 90% of the pot's water holding capacity, whereas for DI, only 70% of the irrigation volume of FI was used to irrigate the whole pots. PRD involved irrigating only one of the compartments in the pots with the same amount of water used for the DI treatment, and irrigation was alternated between two compartments when the soil water content of the drying ones decreased to 10%-12%. To monitor the average soil water content, two time-domain reflectometer probes (25 cm in length, TDR, TRASE, Soil Moisture Equipment Crop., Goleta, CA, USA) were installed in each soil compartment. The soil water content was measured at 16:00 each day, and the daily plant water consumption was calculated and supplemented accordingly. At the beginning of the irrigation treatments, three or four pots of maize plants were harvested from each biochar treatment (i.e., Control, SWB, and WSB). It is crucial to note that the procedures, treatments, and measurements were consistently maintained across all growth cycles to ensure the comparability and reliability of the results.
This irrigation regimen lasted for 63 days during the first growth cycle, with each compartment in PRD-treated pots experiencing 3 wetting/drying cycles. In the second and third cycles, this extended to 68 days with 4 cycles. Variations in soil water content are illustrated in Fig. S1.
Measurement and analysis
X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis on 100 mg finely ground biochar samples was conducted using an XRD instrument (X’Pert Pro MPD, PANalytical B.V., Netherlands) at 40 kV, 30 mA, and 2θ5°-90° with Cu-Kα radiation to identify crystalline phases. Infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) analysis was performed on 10 mg biochar samples using a Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy instrument (NICOLET Is 50, USA) in the 4000–400 cm−1 range.
Plant samples were harvested separately into leaves, stems, roots, and ears (grain, spike axis and bract leaf) and then dried at 75℃ for 48 h until a constant mass to get the plant above-ground dry biomass (TDB). Biomass partitioning in the ears as the ratio of ear biomass to TDB (harvest index). Oven-dried plant samples were ground to a fine powder and then analyzed for plant phosphorus ([P]plant) and potassium ([K]plant) concentrations by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS, Agilent 7700 × , Agilent Technologies, USA). The P and K partitioning ratios in different organs to total P and K in different organs, i.e., leaves (LPR and LKR), stems (SPR and SKR), roots (RPR and RKR), and ears (EPR and EKR) were determined separately, as elucidated by Casamali et al. (2021). In addition, total plant P (PTP) and K (PTK) uptake was calculated as:
These values were analyzed for their relationships with TDB (Wan et al. 2023). Both plant P and K use efficiencies (PUE and KUE) were calculated as the ratio of plant C accumulation to P assimilation and K uptake, respectively, i.e., the amount of C assimilated per available P and K taken up in the biomass (Wei et al. 2021).
After harvesting the above-ground parts of the maize, fresh soil samples were systematically collected from mixed and homogenized soil profiles in the maize rhizosphere to ensure representative sampling. The samples were immediately processed to remove any remaining fine roots and stone particles, then stored at 4 °C for subsequent analysis.
One portion of these samples was used to measure soil pH with a pH meter (Model 60, Jenco Instruments Inc., USA) in soil–water suspension of 5 g soil samples in 12.5 mL of CO2-free deionized water (Hendershot et al., 1993). Another portion of these samples was air-dried and sieved through a 1 mm screen. Soil cation exchange capacity (CEC) was assessed using the HCl-Ca(OAc)2 extraction method, maintaining the pH at 8.2. Total soil phosphorus (TP) was quantified by fusing 0.25 g of dried soil with 2 g of 4 mol L−1 NaOH, dissolving the melt in 10 mL of 2 mol L−1 H₂SO₄, and measuring the phosphorus content through a molybdenum-antimony reaction using a UV–Visible spectrophotometer (UV-2450, Shimadzu, Japan) at 880 nm wavelength (Bao 2005). To analyze soil available phosphorus (SAP), 2.5 g of soil was extracted in 50 mL of 0.5 M NaHCO3 solution at pH 8.5, and SAP concentration was assessed using an UV–Visible spectrophotometer (UV-2450, Shimadzu, Japan) at an 880 nm wavelength (Bao 2000). Total soil potassium (TK) was quantified by fusing 0.25 g of dried soil with 2 g of 4 mol L−1 NaOH, dissolving the cooled melt in 10 mL of 2 mol L−1 H₂SO₄, and measuring the potassium content using a flame photometer (Shanghai Yidian Analytical Instruments, China) at potassium's specific wavelengths (766.4 nm and 769.8 nm) (Bao 2000). Soil available potassium (SAK) content was determined by digesting 5 g of soil in 50 mL of 1 M NH4OAc solution at pH 7.0, with SAK concentration measured using a flame photometer (PFP7; Jenway, UK) (Wang et al. 2010). The content of soil exchangeable calcium (SECa) was ascertained by extracting 5 g of soil in 50 mL of NH₄Cl-70% C₂H5OH solution at pH 8.5 and measured using an atomic absorption spectrophotometer (Z-2000, Hitachi, Japan) (Wan et al. 2023). Soil organic matter (SOM) was quantified using the loss-on-ignition (LOI) method (Salehi et al. 2011). This involved drying a known weight of soil at 105 °C to constant weight, combusting it at 550 °C for 4 h, and then measuring the weight loss, and then measuring the weight loss to determine organic matter content.
Statistical analysis
The effects of growth cycle ([C]), biochar ([B]), and irrigation treatment ([I]) as well as their interactions on the measured soil and plant variables were analyzed using three-way ANOVA in SPSS 22.0 (IBM Corporation, USA). Data were presented as means ± standard error of three or four replicates. Mean differences were assessed using one-way ANOVA with Tukey's multiple comparisons at the 5% significance level. Relationships between significant parameters were explored through linear regression models. Figures were plotted using Origin-Pro 2021 software (OriginLab Inc., Northampton, Massachusetts, USA).
Results
Biochar characteristics
The XRD analysis showed higher mineral crystallinity in SWB compared to WSB, with Quartz, Gypsum, and Calcite being the main mineral components in SWB (Fig. 1a). This was confirmed by FTIR (Fig. 1b), where Si–O bending vibrations at 457.21 and 463.44 cm−1 indicated the presence of quartz in both biochar types (Madejova and Komadel 2001). Both biochars had similar compositions between 700 and 1600 cm−1 (Fig. 1b). However, WSB displayed enhanced vibrations related to oxygen-containing functional groups above 3000 cm−1 (Fig. 1b).
Temporal dynamics of soil water status and chemical properties in maize rhizosphere
Biochar amendment significantly increased soil water-holding capacity by 7.00% (Fig. S1) and consistently elevated mean soil water content (SWCmean) by 6.91% in FI-treated soils over non-biochar controls across three growth cycles (Fig. 2a-c and Table 2). SWCmean in FI was 31.85% higher than in DI and PRD pots (Fig. 2a-c and Table 2). Notably, PRD exceeded DI by 7.8% in the first cycle but was 5.1% lower in the subsequent cycles (Fig. 2a-c and Table 5).
WSB amendment increased soil pH by 0.16–0.3 units compared to non-biochar controls in the first two growth cycles, with minimal change in the third one (Fig. 2d-f and Table 2). However, SWB amendment even slightly decreased soil pH by 0.14 unit in the third growth cycle (Fig. 2d-f and Table 2). Reduced irrigation lowered pH by 0.15–0.18 unit compared to FI, while PRD slightly increased pH by 0.04–0.15 unit over DI in the last two growth cycles (Fig. 2d-f and Table 2). WSB amendment also increased CEC by 5.86%-32.42%, most significantly in the third growth cycle (Fig. 2g-i and Table 2). The combination of WSB and DI possessed the highest CEC, with increases ranging from 4.15%-4.87% across growth cycles due to ongoing effects of biochar (Fig. 2g-i and Table 2).
Compared to the unamended controls, WSB amendment significantly enhanced TP by 7.20%-9.21% in the first two growth cycles, with consistent increases observed in subsequent cycles (Fig. 3a-c and Table 2). Additionally, WSB amendment consistently reduced SAP by 8.7%-28.9% across all treatments (Fig. 3d-f and Table 2). PRD was more effective than DI at increasing SAP by 4.00%-7.96% under biochar treatments in the last two growth cycles (Fig. 3d-f and Table 5). SAP consistently increased by 1.02 to 1.74-fold with each growth cycle across all biochar and irrigation treatments (Fig. 3d-f and Table 2).
WSB amendment significantly increased TK by 5.05%-6.21% compared to the unamended controls over three growth cycles, with more substantial increases in the last two cycles (Fig. 3g-i and Table 2). Additionally, WSB amendment consistently enhanced SAK by 17.54%-88.45%, especially notable in the third growth cycle (Fig. 3j-l and Table 2). Moreover, PRD slightly reduced SAK by 2.97%-6.01% compared to DI in the last two cycles (Fig. 3j-l and Table 5). SAK consistently increased by 2 to 3.7-fold with each growth cycle across all biochar and irrigation treatments (Fig. 3j-l and Table 2).
WSB amendment increased SECa by 16.80%-21.59% compared to the unamended controls across all growth cycles (Tables 3 and 5). DI consistently enhanced SECa by 4.88%-26.37% over FI regardless of biochar application (Tables 3 and 5). SECa increased by 4.01% in the second growth cycle but decreased by 2.49% in the third one across all biochar and irrigation treatments (Tables 3 and 5). Moreover, WSB amendment significantly enhanced SOM by 4 to 7.6-fold relative to controls (Tables 3 and 5). DI and PRD raised SOM by 6.89%-17.38% over FI. However, SOM consistently decreased by 25.98%-40.26%with each growth cycle across all biochar and irrigation treatments (Tables 3 and 5).
Across all growth cycles, correlation analysis revealed significant negative correlations between SAP with SECa and SOM (Fig. 4a, b). Conversely, positive correlations were observed between SAK with soil pH, CEC, and TK (Fig. 4c-e). Moreover, SAP was negatively correlated with SAK (Fig. 4f).
Temporal dynamics of P and K content and partitioning
Plants grown in WSB amendment exhibited 18.38%-21.57% lower [P]plant but 3.84%-14.41% higher [K]plant than those in unamended soils, although the negative impact on [P]plant lessened by the third growth cycle (Fig. 5 and Table 4). Reduced irrigation consistently led to lower [P]plant by 2.81%-11.09% and higher [K]plant by 5.15%-13.58% compared to FI (Fig. 5a and Table 4). Additionally, while initial biochar amendments decreased [P]plant by 12.92%-16.77%, they increased [K]plant by 47.80% by the end of the study period (Fig. 5 and Table 4).
SWB amendment decreased EPR by 14.98% and EKR by 2.56% under DI in the second growth cycle, but these effects were lessened by PRD (Fig. 6; Table S2). In contrast, WSB amendment substantially increased EPR by 13.04%-55.60% and EKR by 26.25%-98.88% in the first two cycles, but reduced SPR by 28.10%-29.43% and SKR by 22.48%-27.75% (Fig. 6; Table S2). The residual effects of biochar (second and third growth cycles) also led to significant changes: EPR and EKR increased by 1.20 to 2.00-fold and 1.55 to 2.43-fold respectively, while LPR and SPR substantially decreased by 50.44%-63.57% and 40.62%-48.89% respectively (Fig. 6; Table S2).
Temporal dynamics of total dry biomass, shoot dry biomass, root dry biomass, root biomass to shoot biomass ratio, harvest index
WSB amendment consistently enhanced TDB by 1.07 to 2.69-foldand RDB by 1.17 to 2.07-fold, but decreased RSR by 4.61%-27.16% due to the co-increase of SDB by 1.08 to 2.12-fold and harvest index by 1.83%-50.70% (Fig. 7 and Table 4). However, compared to its positive effect in the first growth cycle, SWB amendment significantly reduced TDB, SDB, RDB, and harvest index under DI in the second one, though these metrics improved in the third one (Fig. 7 and Table 4). Reduced irrigation decreased TDB by 16.56%-29.79% compared to FI across all growth cycles and biochar treatments (Fig. 7a-c and Table 4), whereas PRD enhanced TDB by 13.26%-18.00% over DI (Fig. 7a-c and Table 5). PRD-treated plants also showed varied biomass outputs, with lower SDB and RDB in the first growth cycle but improvements in these metrics and harvest index in subsequent growth cycles (Fig. 7d-f and Table 4). Overall, from the first to the last cycles, TDB and harvest index increased by 9.78%-12.06% and 1.25 to 2.12-fold respectively, while SDB, RDB, and RSR showed declines across all biochar and irrigation treatments (Fig. 7 and Table 4). Moreover, there were positive correlations between TDB with total plant P and K uptake of maize across all treatments were observed (Fig. 9a, b).
Temporal dynamics of P and K use efficiencies
In the first two growth cycles, WSB amendment enhanced PUE by 22.94%-23.94% over non-biochar controls, but both biochar types slightly reduced PUE in the third growth cycle (Fig. 8a-c). Reduced irrigation significantly increased PUE by 6.10%-13.53% compared to FI across all growth cycles and biochar treatments (Fig. 8a-c). The third growth cycle caused a PUE increase of 3.88%-7.65% over the last two growth cycles (Fig. 8a-c). Conversely, KUE was largely unaffected by biochar, though PRD notably decreased KUE by 3.41%-16.89% compared to FI (Fig. 8d-f). KUE increased by 14.06% in the second growth cycle but decreased by 36.35% in the third one across all biochar and irrigation treatments (Fig. 8d-f). Correlation analysis indicated positive linear relationships between PUE and the first two growth cycles, turning negative in the third cycle, with no significant correlations detected for KUE (Fig. 9c-d).
Discussion
Biochar and reduced irrigation affected soil water retention and rhizosphere pH
Biochar amendment can decrease the release of soil fine particles and promote the formation of aggregates, while its stable carbon content is expected to reduce soil bulk density and increase total soil porosity (Wang et al. 2017a; Faloye et al. 2019). Both enhancements in aggregate structure and porosity are primary mechanisms through which biochar improves soil water retention (Hardie et al. 2014; Alghamdi et al. 2020; Zhang et al. 2021). We confirmed the effectiveness of biochar in enhancing soil water retention (Fig. 2a-c), as supported by the increased soil water-holding capacity (Fig. S1). While Zhang et al. (2021) observed significant improvements in water-holding capacity with 2% biochar application across all soil types, the effect was less pronounced in clay soils. Conversely, other studies have reported a decrease in water retention in clay soils upon biochar addition (Castellini et al. 2015; Aller et al. 2017), which could be attributed to differences in biochar's hydrophobicity and its duration in the soil (Masiello et al. 2015; Rasa et al. 2018). Our previous findings also confirmed the positive impacts of these two types of biochar (SWB and WSB) on soil water retention (Liu et al. 2021), which is more available for plants to access under drought conditions, thereby enhancing agricultural sustainability in arid environments (Guo et al. 2021).
The effec of biochar on soil pH varies considerably depending on the biomass used as feedstock. For instance, biochar derived from wheat-straw typically contains contains higher amounts of ash and alkaline minerals, and inherently possesses a relatively high pH (Table 1) (Buss et al. 2016). During the pyrolysis of biomass, decarboxylation, decarbonylation, and dehydration reactions occur, while metal cations are retained by forming mineral structures (Li et al. 2017; Xu et al. 2017). These alkaline cations and negatively charged groups such as carboxyls, hydroxyls, and phenolics on the biochar surface can reduce the concentration of H+ in the soil solution (Chintalaa et al. 2015). Furthermore, the alkaline metal oxides and hydroxides within the ash dissolve easily and react quickly with the soil solution, leading to an increase in pH upon biochar amendment (Steenari et al. 1999). Particularly, the strong reactivity of highly alkaline biochar in soil solutions can accelerate the release of pH-dependent charges from the surfaces of minerals such as kaolinite, and iron and aluminum oxides, as well as organic compounds, thereby promoting pH increase (Bornø et al. 2018b). In accordance with this, WSB amendment consistently increased rhizosphere soil pH across three growth cycles, while no such effect was detected upon SWB amendment (Fig. 2d-f). Indeed, the unique composition of SWB, possibly including organic acids or compounds, may neutralize the alkalinity generated by pyrolysis (Fan et al. 2017), thereby limiting or reducing its effect on soil pH. Therefore, the distinct pH-modifying effects of SWB and WSB could be attributed to their intrinsic physicochemical properties, which are determined by their feedstock and pyrolysis conditions (Weyers et al. 2023). Comparatively, Wang et al. (2020) also observed similar pH-modifying effects with different biochar types, underscoring the importance of feedstock and pyrolysis conditions in determining the impact of biochar amendment on soil pH. Furthermore, WSB amendment consistently increased CEC across three growth cycles (Fig. 2g-i), providing more active sites for ion exchange, which could lead to more significant changes in pH (Jones et al. 2011).
Soil pH was slightly higher in the PRD than in the DI treatment, particularly in the residual effects of biochar treaments (Fig. 2d-f). This elevated pH was probably due to more frequent drying-wetting cycles during these periods, which activated negatively charged sites in the soil and facilitated reactions with H+ (Wang et al. 2017b; Liu et al. 2022). Moreover, the slightly lower mean soil water content in the PRD compared to the DI might have limited the mobility and solubility of H+ (Fig. 2a-c), and the dissolution and precipitation of pH-buffering minerals, which could have contributed to the elevated soil pH (Cameron et al. 1986).
Rhizosphere soil P and K availability under biochar and reduced irrigation management
It is well-established that the elevated pH associated with biochar are generally induced by metal oxides and carbonates, such as the oxides of Ca, Mg, Fe and Al, which have high capacity for P adsorption (Karunanithi et al. 2017). In accordance with this, Shepherd et al. (2017) further discovered that after biochar was added to soil, P ions may precipitate with Ca2⁺ and Mg2⁺ released from the biochar or form co-precipitates with mineral complexes on the biochar surface. The consistent increases in soil CEC upon WSB amendment effectively adsorbed Ca2⁺ from the soil, thereby consistently increasing SECa (Fig. 2g-I and Table 3). This process significantly affected interaction between water-soluble Ca and soluble P, further promoted P adsorption and thus reducing its availability (Major et al. 2012; Xu et al. 2013). This is consistent with our findings that WSB amendment resulted in sustained reductions in SAP (Fig. 3d-f and Table 2) due to increased SECa across three growth cycles (Fig. 4a). Furthermore, the enhancement of SOM by WSB further contributed to the decreases in SAP (Fig. 4b). Jindo et al. (2023) found that SOM could affect phytoavailable P through various mechanisms, including competitive adsorption with P for adsorption sites on clays and metal oxides, complexation with cations, and binary complexation with bridging cations that stabilize P minerals. However, these effects are largely dependent on the feedstock used.
Nevertheless, PRD irrigation could alleviate the negative effects of WSB amendment on SAP (Fig. 3d-f). This improvement is facilitated by the “Birch effect”, a phenomenon that enhances mineral nutrient availability through increased mineralization during drying-rewetting cycles (Birch 1958; Dodd et al. 2015). These cycles disrupt soil aggregates, releasing both molybdate-reactive (inorganic) and -unreactive (organic) P thus increasing its availability for plant uptake (Haygarth et al. 1998; Bünemann et al. 2013). Furthermore, previous studies have found that drying-rewetting leads to microbial death and cell lysis (Turner et al. 2003), which in turn increases soil respiration rates, suggesting enhanced microbial activity and flushing of mineralized P into the soil solution (Birch 1958; Xiang et al. 2008; Butterly et al. 2009). Our earlier findings revealed that PRD-treated roots had significantly higher acid phosphatase activity than DI, which is important for organic P hydrolysis and P availability (Liu et al. 2015).
Regardless of growth cycles and irrigation treatments, WSB amendment significantly enhanced SAK compared to the unamended soils (Fig. 3g-i). Similarly, Liu et al. (2021) observed the effectiveness of WSB amendment on soil K availability can be attributed to its high ash content, which facilitates the electrostatic adsorption of K+ within the soil-biochar matrix, effectively reducing K leaching. Moreover, Rahimzadeh et al. (2015) found that biochar can enhance the solubility of soil K-bearing minerals via pH-mediated improvement of soil microbial activities, which in return increases the soil water-soluble K and exchangeable K, thereby further improving SAK. Gao et al. (2019) suggested that this response might be related to the biochar-self characteristics; the WSB used in this study possessed higher pH, CEC, TK and ash fraction (Table 1), which not only provided physical adsorption benefits but also enhanced the soil chemical environment, facilitating microbial and enzymatic activities that mobilize and metabolize soil K, even under successive tillage conditions (Gao and DeLuca 2018). Accordingly, our study observed positive correlations between SAK with pH, CEC, and TK (Fig. 4c-e). However, compared to DI, PRD had negative effects on SAK to some extent (Fig. 3g-i), which might be due to lowered mean soil water content during the second and third growth cycle that impaired the diffusion of nutrients from the soil matrix to the soil solution (Ghosh et al. 2020). Non-uniform irrigation can change soil water and nutrient distribution in the root-zone, which may alter the movement and availability of P and K in the soil (Liu et al. 2015). In particular, K is highly mobile in the soil, rewetting of very dry soils during PRD can lead to increased leaching and loss of K, thereby diminishing its availability (Hinsinger 2020). As Mengel and Kirkby (2001) indicated, low soil moisture inhibits diffusion of K to the root surface.
Across all treatments, SAP and SAK were inversely, linearly correlated (Fig. 4f), indicating the possible antagonistic relationship between soil P and K availability. It is well known that P and K exist in various availability pools in soil, including soil solution, exchangeable, non-exchangeable, and fixed forms. Due to the limited ion exchange sites, K+ and PO43− ions may compete for these sites, thus affecting their availability in the soil (Li et al. 2019; Xu et al. 2020). Moreover, soil pH also greatly affected P and K availability: in an alkaline soil, Ca2+ is the major positive ion affecting the K and P reactions. In general, an increased Ca2+ concentration in the soil can enhance the K+ bioavailability by displacing it from clay minerals, while forming Ca-P compounds that reduce P availability (Addiscott 1970; Munn et al. 1976; Major et al. 2012; Xu et al. 2013; Seth et al. 2018; Wang et al. 2021b). High CEC further contributed to the possible antagonistic relationship by providing more retention sites for K + (Wang et al. 2021b; Wan et al. 2023).
Plant P and K uptake and biomass of maize response to biochar and reduced irrigation treatments
Contrary to the generally positive effects of biochar on plant nutrients uptake (Pandit et al. 2018; Bornø et al. 2019; Chew et al. 2022; Zhou et al. 2022), the plants grown in WSB-amended soils possessed significantly lower [P]plant but higher [P] partitioning to ears at the expense of stems during the first two growth cycles, though this negative effect was diminished in the third growth cycle (Figs. 5a-c and 6a-c). Thus, Cong et al. (2023) also observed the benefits of biochar on nutrient uptake could have been increasingly pronounced over time. Despite the reduced [P]plant, the TDB of maize plants was not negatively affected; rather, it exhibited significant increases (Fig. 7a-c), which might be due to increased soil water availability and hence improved plant physiology upon WSB amendment (Guo et al. 2021). However, the common negative linear relationships between total plant P uptake and TDB was observed for maize plants grown under all treatments (Fig. 9a), indicating that the increased plant TDB may have diminished [P]plant according to the dilution effect (Loladze 2002).
WSB amendment consistently enhanced [K]plant and higher [K] partitioning to ears across three growth cycles (Figs. 5d-f and 6d-f), as in Liu et al. (2021). This favorable response is likely a consequence of improved soil physio-chemical properties that enhanced the K availability (Fig. 3g-i), combined with enhanced root morphology for better nutrient uptake (Table S3). K is crucial for stimulating enzyme activity, regulating osmotic balance and stomatal operation, directly influencing photosynthetic and transpiration rate (Wang et al. 2013, 2021a; Wang and Wu 2013). These functions are intimately related to biomass accumulation, as photosynthesis is the primary means by which plants convert light energy into the chemical energy stored in biomass (Zhu et al. 2008). Likewise, Wan et al. (2023) found that the improved chemical composition in maize plants especially K upon WSB addition could improve the plant growth, and in accordance, the higher K uptake in the WSB amendment could also have positively affected the TDB and harvest index of maize plants (Figs. 7 and 9b). However, in the second growth cycle, maize plants grown in SWB-amended soils exhibited lower TDB and harvest index due to reduced [K]plant and [K] partitioning to ears, especially in the case of DI (Figs. 5e, 6e, and 7b). This decreased harvest index indicates a preference for vegetative growth over reproductive development under environmental stress (Xu et al. 2015; Dong et al. 2016). Anjum et al. (2017) and Poorter et al. (2012) also suggested that plants might shift their biomass partitioning under resource-limited conditions, enhancing root and leaf growth to improve water and nutrient uptake, at the expense of reproductive development. The lower resource partitioning to reproductive structures like ears can be seen as an adaptive strategy of plants to conserve resources under suboptimal conditions (Muller et al. 2011). Maize plants grown under SWB-treated DI had significantly higher root to shoot biomass ratio (RSR) compared to the controls (Fig. 7b), highlighting their prioritization of root expansion over reproductive growth.
At the same irrigation volume, PRD plants possessed higher TDB and harvest index than DI plants irrespective of growth cycles and biochar treatment (Fig. 7). Such advantages could be attributed to PRD-induced specific physiological responses in plants. For instance, PRD has been shown to upregulate the expression of plasma membrane intrinsic protein (PIP) gene in maize plants, leading to increased root hydraulic conductivity and water uptake (Kang et al. 2002; Dorji et al. 2005; Luo et al. 2019). Greater root hydraulic conductivity (in root exposed to drying soil) might maintain sap flow (and thus ABA transport) from roots in drying soil (Dodd et al. 2008a; b), higher efficiency in inducing partial stomatal closure and curtailing transpiration rate, while largely sustaining the photosynthesis and plant-water relation (Wan et al. 2024). Moreover, PRD could improve root growth and root functions, i.e., increasing total root length root, root surface area, and root length density (Table S3), and improve the aeration of irrigated soil and promote allocation of assimilates to root (Liu et al. 2022). The increase in harvest index may be due to PRD enhancing the transport of photosynthates from the leaves to the ears (Du et al., 2007, Hu et al., 2009). These regulatory mechanisms ensure that plants treated with PRD can maintain higher growth and productivity even in environments with drought or heterogeneous water availability. Therefore, over successive growth periods, the combined treatment of WSB and PRD facilitated a more balanced distribution of resources enabling not just vegetative growth but also a moderate increase in reproductive biomass. This could indicate an adaptation process where plants gradually optimize their growth strategy to capitalize on the improved soil conditions afforded by the long-standing presence of WSB and PRD.
P and K use efficiencies as affected by biochar amendment
WSB amendment significantly improved PUE during the initial two growth cycles, yet there was a modest reduction in the third one (Fig. 8a-c). This PUE fluctuation was likely due to changes in [P]plant and overall biomass production: high PUE was observed when plants maintained substantial biomass under low P conditions and efficiently utilized limited P. Conversely, an increase in [P]plant without a corresponding increase in biomass resulted in decreased PUE, as the additional [P]plant was not efficiently converted into biomass production. Our findings also indicated a shift from positive linear correlations between TDB and PUE in the first two growth cycles to negative in the third one (Fig. 9c). This inverse relationship between biochar-induced biomass recovery rate and available P across different cultivation environments was also consistent with the findings by Santos et al. (2019). Furthermore, the ability of plants to uptake and accumulate more nutrients in their tissues upon biochar amendment (Prapagdee and Tawinteung 2017), indicating that biochar contributes to greater nutrient retention within plant tissues despite decreasing soil P avalilablity especially after multiple growth cycles, potentially explaining the fluctuations in PUE observed in our study.
Similarly, this variation was reflected in the effects of biochar amendment on KUE over successive growth cycles (Fig. 8d-f). Despite higher [K]plant and biomass with WSB amendment, no significant relationship was found between TDB and KUE (Fig. 9d). Scott et al. (2014) found that increased soil nutrient availability by biochar does not necessarily lead to corresponding increases in plant biomass. According to Dovrat et al. (2019), the prolonged interactions between biochar and soil may induce physiological changes in plants, prompting them to allocate resources towards enhancing stress tolerance mechanisms, particularly under low water conditions, rather than to increase biomass production. As a result, the effects of biochar amendment on plant growth and development can vary significantly across different agricultural cycles. Over time, the application of exogenous fertilizers might gradually reduce the differences in biomass and nutrient uptake between soils amended with WSB and those that are not, potentially diminishing or even negating the effects of WSB on nutrient use efficiency and leading to resource wastage. Moreover, suboptimal recovery of nutrients from fertilizers can cause environmental issues such as eutrophication, acidification, and increased greenhouse gas emissions (Snyder et al. 2009; Zhang et al. 2013; Galloway et al. 2014). Therefore, it is crucial to consider the internal cycling of plant-accessible nutrients within the soil milieu to optimize the use of chemical fertilizers (Gul and Whalen 2016).
Conclusions and implications
Partially contrary to our initial hypotheses, biochar amendments yielded contrasting outcomes under reduced irrigation treatments. Regardless of growth cycles, both biochar amendments could counteract some of the negative consequences of reduced irrigation by enhancing soil water retention. While WSB amendment resulted in decreased soil P availability due to increased soil exchangeable calcium and organic matter content, it improved soil K availability by increasing soil pH, cation exchange capacity, and total K content. Furthermore, applying PRD could counteract the negative effects of biochar amendment on soil P availability. Notably, the significant antagonistic relationships were observed between soil P availability and K availability, attributed to changes in soil physicochemical properties induced by the biochar and reduced irrigation treatments. WSB reduced the [P] in the plant but without obvious negative effect on plant growth and functioning, it significantly improved [K] in the plant and ears hereby sustaining plant total dry biomass and high harvest index under reduced irrigation, particularly with PRD. However, SWB amendment decreased total dry biomass and harvest index in the second growth cycle due to inhibited [K] in the plant and ears, particularly under DI, but PRD mitigated these effects by improving root growth. The significant increases in biomass with WSB amendment also improved P use efficiency of maize plants, with these effects being more pronounced in the initial growth cycles. These findings suggest that WSB combined with PRD could be a sustainable strategy to enhance maize productivity and resource efficiency, though its long-term effects may be limited by external fertilization.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
Addiscott T (1970) Potassium: calcium exchange in soils of the Broadbalk experiment at Rothamsted. J Agric Sci 75(3):451–457. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600025090
Agbna GH, Dongli S, Zhipeng L, Elshaikh NA, Guangcheng S, Timm LC (2017) Effects of deficit irrigation and biochar addition on the growth, yield, and quality of tomato. Sci Hortic 222:90–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2017.05.004
Akhtar SS, Li G, Andersen MN, Liu F (2014) Biochar enhances yield and quality of tomato under reduced irrigation. Agric Water Manag 138:37–44
Alghamdi AG, Alkhasha A, Ibrahim HM (2020) Effect of biochar particle size on water retention and availability in a sandy loam soil. J Saudi Chem Soc 24:1042–1050
Alkharabsheh HM, Seleiman MF, Battaglia ML, Shami A, Jalal RS, Alhammad BA et al (2021) Biochar and its broad impacts in soil quality and fertility, nutrient leaching and crop productivity: A review. Agronomy 11:993
Aller D, Rathke S, Laird D, Cruse R, Hatfield J (2017) Impacts of fresh and aged biochars on plant available water and water use efficiency. Geoderma 307:114–121
Anjum SA, Ashraf U, Zohaib A, Tanveer M, Naeem M, Ali I, et al. (2017) Growth and developmental responses of crop plants under drought stress: a review. Zemdirbyste-Agriculture 104. https://doi.org/10.13080/z-a.2017.104.034
Arif M, Ilyas M, Riaz M, Ali K, Shah K, Haq IU et al (2017) Biochar improves phosphorus use efficiency of organic-inorganic fertilizers, maize-wheat productivity and soil quality in a low fertility alkaline soil. Field Crop Res 214:25–37
Bao S (2000) Soil and agricultural chemistry analysis, 3rd edn. China Agriculture Press, Beijing
Bao S (2005) Agricultural and chemistry analysis of soil. China Agriculture Press, Beijing
Bargaz A, Elhaissoufi W, Khourchi S, Benmrid B, Borden KA, Rchiad Z (2021) Benefits of phosphate solubilizing bacteria on belowground crop performance for improved crop acquisition of phosphorus. Microbiol Res 252:126842
Bilias F, Kalderis D, Richardson C, Barbayiannis N, Gasparatos D (2023) Biochar application as a soil potassium management strategy: A review. Sci Total Environ 858:159782
Birch H (1958) The effect of soil drying on humus decomposition and nitrogen availability. Plant Soil 10:9–31
Borges BM, Strauss M, Camelo PA, Sohi SP, Franco HC (2020) Re-use of sugarcane residue as a novel biochar fertiliser-Increased phosphorus use efficiency and plant yield. J Clean Prod 262:121406
Bornø ML, Eduah JO, Müller-Stöver DS, Liu F (2018a) Effect of different biochars on phosphorus (P) dynamics in the rhizosphere of Zea mays L. (maize). Plant and Soil 431:257–272
Bornø ML, Müller-Stöver DS, Liu F (2018b) Contrasting effects of biochar on phosphorus dynamics and bioavailability in different soil types. Sci Total Environ 627:963–974
Bornø ML, Müller-Stöver DS, Liu F (2019) Biochar properties and soil type drive the uptake of macro-and micronutrients in maize (Zea mays L.). J Plant Nutrition Soil Sci 182:149–158
Bünemann EK, Keller B, Hoop D, Jud K, Boivin P, Frossard E (2013) Increased availability of phosphorus after drying and rewetting of a grassland soil: processes and plant use. Plant Soil 370:511–526
Buss W, Graham MC, Shepherd JG, Mašek O (2016) Suitability of marginal biomass-derived biochars for soil amendment. Sci Total Environ 547:314–322
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 41:1406–1416
Cameron R, Ritchie G, Robson A (1986) Relative toxicities of inorganic aluminum complexes to barley. Soil Sci Soc Am J 50:1231–1236
Cao G, Sun J, Chen M, Sun H, Zhang G (2021) Co-transport of ball-milled biochar and Cd2+ in saturated porous media. J Hazard Mater 416:125725
Casamali B, van Iersel MW, Chavez DJ (2021) Nitrogen Partitioning in Young “Julyprince” Peach Trees Grown with Different Irrigation and Fertilization Practices in the Southeastern United States. Agronomy 11:350
Castellini M, Giglio L, Niedda M, Palumbo A, Ventrella D (2015) Impact of biochar addition on the physical and hydraulic properties of a clay soil. Soil and Tillage Research 154:1–13
Chen H, Feng Y, Yang X, Yang B, Sarkar B, Bolan N et al (2022) Assessing simultaneous immobilization of lead and improvement of phosphorus availability through application of phosphorus-rich biochar in a contaminated soil: a pot experiment. Chemosphere 296:133891
Chen X, Yang S-H, Jiang Z-W, Ding J, Sun X (2021) Biochar as a tool to reduce environmental impacts of nitrogen loss in water-saving irrigation paddy field. J Cleaner Product 290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.125811
Chew J, Joseph S, Chen G, Zhang Y, Zhu L, Liu M et al (2022) Biochar-based fertiliser enhances nutrient uptake and transport in rice seedlings. Sci Total Environ 826:154174
Chintala R, Schumacher TE, McDonald LM, Clay DE, Malo DD, Papiernik SK et al (2014) Phosphorus sorption and availability from biochars and soil/B iochar mixtures. CLEAN–Soil. Air, Water 42:626–634
Chintalaa R, Mollinedo J, Schumacher TE, Malo DD, Julson JL (2015) Effect of biochar on chemical properties of acidic soil (vol 60, pg 393, 2012). Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 61:889–889
Cong M, Hu Y, Sun X, Yan H, Yu G, Tang G et al (2023) Long-term effects of biochar application on the growth and physiological characteristics of maize. Front Plant Sci 14:1172425
Daoud B, Pawelzik E, Naumann M (2020) Different potassium fertilization levels influence water-use efficiency, yield, and fruit quality attributes of cocktail tomato—A comparative study of deficient-to-excessive supply. Sci Hortic 272:109562
Dodd IC (2009) Rhizosphere manipulations to maximize “crop per drop” during deficit irrigation. J Exp Bot 60:2454–2459
Dodd IC, Egea G, Davies WJ (2008) Abscisic acid signalling when soil moisture is heterogeneous: decreased photoperiod sap flow from drying roots limits abscisic acid export to the shoots. Plant, Cell Environ 31:1263–1274
Dodd IC, Egea G, Davies WJ (2008b) Accounting for sap flow from different parts of the root system improves the prediction of xylem ABA concentration in plants grown with heterogeneous soil moisture. J Exp Bot 59:4083–4093
Dodd IC, Puértolas J, Huber K, Pérez-Pérez JG, Wright HR, Blackwell MS (2015) The importance of soil drying and re-wetting in crop phytohormonal and nutritional responses to deficit irrigation. J Exp Bot 66:2239–2252
Domingues RR, Trugilho PF, Silva CA, Melo ICNd, Melo LC, Magriotis ZM et al (2017) Properties of biochar derived from wood and high-nutrient biomasses with the aim of agronomic and environmental benefits. PloS One 12:e0176884
Dong T, Duan B, Zhang S, Korpelainen H, Niinemets Ü, Li C (2016) Growth, biomass allocation and photosynthetic responses are related to intensity of root severance and soil moisture conditions in the plantation tree Cunninghamia lanceolata. Tree Physiol 36:807–817
Dorji K, Behboudian M, Zegbe-Dominguez J (2005) Water relations, growth, yield, and fruit quality of hot pepper under deficit irrigation and partial rootzone drying. Sci Hortic 104:137–149
Dovrat G, Meron E, Shachak M, Golodets C, Osem Y (2019) Plant size is related to biomass partitioning and stress resistance in water-limited annual plant communities. J Arid Environ 165:1–9
Egamberdieva D, Zoghi Z, Nazarov K, Wirth S, Bellingrath-Kimura SD (2020) Plant growth response of broad bean (Vicia faba L.) to biochar amendment of loamy sand soil under irrigated and drought conditions. Environment Sustainab 3:319–324
Faloye O, Alatise M, Ajayi A, Ewulo B (2019) Effects of biochar and inorganic fertiliser applications on growth, yield and water use efficiency of maize under deficit irrigation. Agric Water Manag 217:165–178
Fan C, Chen H, Li B, Xiong Z (2017) Biochar reduces yield-scaled emissions of reactive nitrogen gases from vegetable soils across China. Biogeosciences 14:2851–2863
World Health Organization (2020) The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2020: transforming food systems for affordable healthy diets. Food & Agriculture Org vol 2020
Galloway JN, Winiwarter W, Leip A, Leach AM, Bleeker A, Erisman JW (2014) Nitrogen footprints: past, present and future. Environ Res Lett 9:115003
Gao S, DeLuca TH (2018) Wood biochar impacts soil phosphorus dynamics and microbial communities in organically-managed croplands. Soil Biol Biochem 126:144–150
Gao S, DeLuca TH, Cleveland CC (2019) Biochar additions alter phosphorus and nitrogen availability in agricultural ecosystems: A meta-analysis. Sci Total Environ 654:463–472
Gao S, Wang D, Dangi SR, Duan Y, Pflaum T, Gartung J, et al. (2020) Nitrogen dynamics affected by biochar and irrigation level in an onion field. Sci Total Environment 714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136432
Ghodszad L, Reyhanitabar A, Oustan S, Alidokht L (2022) Phosphorus sorption and desorption characteristics of soils as affected by biochar. Soil and Tillage Research 216:105251
Ghosh A, Agrawal M, Agrawal SB (2020) Effect of water deficit stress on an Indian wheat cultivar (Triticum aestivum L HD 2967) under ambient and elevated level of ozone. Sci The Total Environ 714:136837
Glaser B, Lehr V-I (2019) Biochar effects on phosphorus availability in agricultural soils: A meta-analysis. Sci Rep 9:9338
Gul S, Whalen JK (2016) Biochemical cycling of nitrogen and phosphorus in biochar-amended soils. Soil Biol Biochem 103:1–15
Guo L, Born ML, Niu W, Liu F (2021) Biochar amendment improves shoot biomass of tomato seedlings and sustains water relations and leaf gas exchange rates under different irrigation and nitrogen regimes. Agricultural Water Management 245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106580
Hanzhi, Zhang, Chengrong, Chen, Evan, M., et al. (2016) Roles of biochar in improving phosphorus availability in soils: A phosphate adsorbent and a source of available phosphorus. Geoderma. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.04.020
Hardie M, Clothier B, Bound S, Oliver G, Close D (2014) Does biochar influence soil physical properties and soil water availability? Plant Soil 376:347–361
Haygarth P, Hepworth L, Jarvis S (1998) Forms of phosphorus transfer in hydrological pathways from soil under grazed grassland. Eur J Soil Sci 49:65–72
Hendershot WH, Lalande H, Duquette M (1993) Soil reaction and exchangeable acidity. Soil sampling and methods of analysis 2
Hou J, Liu X, Zhang J, Wei Z, Ma Y, Wan H et al (2023) Combined application of biochar and partial root-zone drying irrigation improves water relations and water use efficiency of cotton plants under salt stress. Agric Water Manag 290:108584
Hou J, Wan H, Liang K, Cui B, Ma Y, Chen Y et al (2023) Biochar amendment combined with partial root-zone drying irrigation alleviates salinity stress and improves root morphology and water use efficiency in cotton plant. Sci Total Environ 904:166978
Hou J, Zhang J, Liu X, Ma Y, Wei Z, Wan H et al (2023) Effect of biochar addition and reduced irrigation regimes on growth, physiology and water use efficiency of cotton plants under salt stress. Ind Crops Prod 198:116702
Jensen CR, Battilani A, Plauborg F, Psarras G, Chartzoulakis K, Janowiak F et al (2010) Deficit irrigation based on drought tolerance and root signalling in potatoes and tomatoes. Agric Water Manag 98:403–413
Jindo K, Audette Y, Olivares FL, Canellas LP, Smith DS, Paul VR (2023) Biotic and abiotic effects of soil organic matter on the phytoavailable phosphorus in soils: A review. Chem Biol Technol Agriculture 10:1–12
Jones HG (2004) Irrigation scheduling: advantages and pitfalls of plant-based methods. J Exp Bot 55:2427–2436
Jones D, Murphy D, Khalid M, Ahmad W, Edwards-Jones G, DeLuca T (2011) Short-term biochar-induced increase in soil CO2 release is both biotically and abiotically mediated. Soil Biol Biochem 43:1723–1731
Kang SZ, Zhang JH (2004) Controlled alternate partial root-zone irrigation: its physiological consequences and impact on water use efficiency. J Exp Bot 55:2437–2446
Kang S, Hu X, Goodwin I, Jerie P (2002) Soil water distribution, water use, and yield response to partial root zone drying under a shallow groundwater table condition in a pear orchard. Sci Hortic 92:277–291
Karim AA, Kumar M, Singh E, Kumar A, Kumar S, Ray A et al (2022) Enrichment of primary macronutrients in biochar for sustainable agriculture: A review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 52:1449–1490
Karunanithi R, Ok YS, Dharmarajan R, Ahmad M, Seshadri B, Bolan N et al (2017) Sorption, kinetics and thermodynamics of phosphate sorption onto soybean stover derived biochar. Environ Technol Innov 8:113–125
Lehmann J, Gaunt J, Rondon M (2006) Bio-char Sequestration in Terrestrial Ecosystems – A Review. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 11:403–427
Li J, Liang N, Jin X, Zhou D, Li H, Wu M et al (2017) The role of ash content on bisphenol A sorption to biochars derived from different agricultural wastes. Chemosphere 171:66–73
Li Z, Zhang R, Xia S, Wang L, Liu C, Zhang R et al (2019) Interactions between N, P and K fertilizers affect the environment and the yield and quality of satsumas. Global Ecology and Conservation 19:e00663
Li H, Li Y, Xu Y, Lu X (2020) Biochar phosphorus fertilizer effects on soil phosphorus availability. Chemosphere 244:125471
Li X, Romanyà J, Li N, Xiang Y, Yang J, Han X (2022) Biochar fertilization effects on soil bacterial community and soil phosphorus forms depends on the application rate. Sci Total Environ 843:157022
Liu F, Shahnazari A, Andersen MN, Jacobsen S-E, Jensen CR (2006) Effects of deficit irrigation (DI) and partial root drying (PRD) on gas exchange, biomass partitioning, and water use efficiency in potato. Sci Hortic 109:113–117
Liu C, Rubæk GH, Liu F, Andersen MN (2015) Effect of partial root zone drying and deficit irrigation on nitrogen and phosphorus uptake in potato. Agric Water Manag 159:66–76
Liu X, Wei Z, Ma Y, Liu J, Liu F (2021) Effects of biochar amendment and reduced irrigation on growth, physiology, water-use efficiency and nutrients uptake of tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.) on two different soil types. Sci Total Environ 770:144769
Liu X, Ma Y, Manevski K, Andersen MN, Li Y, Wei Z, et al. (2022) Biochar and alternate wetting-drying cycles improving rhizosphere soil nutrients availability and tobacco growth by altering root growth strategy in Ferralsol and Anthrosol. Sci Total Environment 806
Loladze I (2002) Rising atmospheric CO2 and human nutrition: toward globally imbalanced plant stoichiometry? Trends Ecol Evol 17:457–461
Luo Z, Kong X, Zhang Y, Li W, Zhang D, Dai J et al (2019) Leaf-derived jasmonate mediates water uptake from hydrated cotton roots under partial root-zone irrigation. Plant Physiol 180:1660–1676
Madejova J, Komadel P (2001) Baseline studies of the clay minerals society source clays: infrared methods. Clays Clay Miner 49:410–432
Major J, Steiner C, Downie A, Lehmann J (2012) Biochar effects on nutrient leaching. In: Biochar for environmental management pp 303–320. Routledge
Malhotra H, Vandana Sharma S, Pandey R (2018) Phosphorus nutrition: plant growth in response to deficiency and excess. Plant nutrients and abiotic stress tolerance 171–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-9044-8_7
Martineau E, Domec J-C, Bosc A, Denoroy P, Fandino VA, Lavres J Jr et al (2017) The effects of potassium nutrition on water use in field-grown maize (Zea mays L.). Environment Experiment Botany 134:62–71
Masiello CA, Dugan B, Brewer CE, Spokas KA, Novak JM, Liu Z, Sorrenti G (2015) Biochar effects on soil hydrology. In: Biochar for environmental management pp 543–562. Routledge
Mengel K, Kirkby E (2001) Principles of plant nutrition. 5th edidtion ed. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1009-2
Miller AE, Schimel JP, Meixner T, Sickman JO, Melack JM (2005) Episodic rewetting enhances carbon and nitrogen release from chaparral soils. Soil Biol Biochem 37:2195–2204
Mingo DM, Theobald JC, Bacon MA, Davies WJ, Dodd IC (2004) Biomass allocation in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) plants grown under partial rootzone drying: enhancement of root growth. Funct Plant Biol 31:971–978
Muller B, Pantin F, Génard M, Turc O, Freixes S, Piques M et al (2011) Water deficits uncouple growth from photosynthesis, increase C content, and modify the relationships between C and growth in sink organs. J Exp Bot 62:1715–1729
Munn D, Wilding L, McLean E (1976) Potassium release from sand, silt, and clay soil separates. Soil Sci Soc Am J 40:364–366
Nan H, Zhao L, Yang F, Liu Y, Xiao Z, Cao X, et al. (2020) Different alkaline minerals interacted with biomass carbon during pyrolysis: Which one improved biochar carbon sequestration? J Cleaner Product 255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120162
Novak J, Cantrell K, Watts D (2013) Compositional and thermal evaluation of lignocellulosic and poultry litter chars via high and low temperature pyrolysis: high and low temperature pyrolyzed biochars. BioEnergy Research 6:114–130
Oram NJ, van de Voorde TF, Ouwehand G-J, Bezemer TM, Mommer L, Jeffery S et al (2014) Soil amendment with biochar increases the competitive ability of legumes via increased potassium availability. Agr Ecosyst Environ 191:92–98
Panahi HKS, Dehhaghi M, Ok YS, Nizami A-S, Khoshnevisan B, Mussatto SI et al (2020) A comprehensive review of engineered biochar: production, characteristics, and environmental applications. J Clean Prod 270:122462
Pandey GK, Mahiwal S (2020) Role of potassium in plants vol 49. Springer, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45953-6
Pandit NR, Mulder J, Hale SE, Martinsen V, Schmidt HP, Cornelissen G (2018) Biochar improves maize growth by alleviation of nutrient stress in a moderately acidic low-input Nepalese soil. Sci Total Environ 625:1380–1389
Paneque M, José M, Franco-Navarro JD, Colmenero-Flores JM, Knicker H (2016) Effect of biochar amendment on morphology, productivity and water relations of sunflower plants under non-irrigation conditions. CATENA 147:280–287
Parfitt RL (1979) Anion adsorption by soils and soil materials. Adv Agron 30:1–50
Poorter H, Niklas KJ, Reich PB, Oleksyn J, Poot P, Mommer L (2012) Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. New Phytol 193:30–50
Hinsinger P (2020) Potassium. Managing global resources and universal processes. CRC Press, pp 315–321. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429346132-34
Prapagdee S, Tawinteung N (2017) Effects of biochar on enhanced nutrient use efficiency of green bean, Vigna radiata L. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:9460–9467
Rahimzadeh N, Khormali F, Olamaee M, Amini A, Dordipour E (2015) Effect of canola rhizosphere and silicate dissolving bacteria on the weathering and K release from indigenous glauconite shale. Biol Fertil Soils 51:973–981
Rasa K, Heikkinen J, Hannula M, Arstila K, Kulju S, Hyväluoma J (2018) How and why does willow biochar increase a clay soil water retention capacity? Biomass Bioenerg 119:346–353
Salehi M, Beni OH, Harchegani HB, Borujeni IE, Motaghian H (2011) Refining soil organic matter determination by loss-on-ignition. Pedosphere 21:473–482
Santos SRd, Lustosa Filho JF, Vergütz L, Melo LCA (2019) Biochar association with phosphate fertilizer and its influence on phosphorus use efficiency by maize. Ciência e Agrotecnologia 43:e025718
Scanlan CA, Brennan RF, D’Antuono MF, Sarre GA (2017) The interaction between soil pH and phosphorus for wheat yield and the impact of lime-induced changes to soil aluminium and potassium. Soil Research 55:341–353
Scott H, Ponsonby D, Atkinson C (2014) Biochar: an improver of nutrient and soil water availability-what is the evidence? CABI Reviews 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1079/PAVSNNR20149019
Seth A, Gothelf R, Shenker M (2018) The K to (Ca+ Mg) ratio effect on potassium availability for plantssplitting soil-from plant-related interactions. In: EGU general assembly conference abstracts p 9425
Shen Q, Hedley M, Camps Arbestain M, Kirschbaum M (2016) Can biochar increase the bioavailability of phosphorus? J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 16:268–286
Shepherd JG, Joseph S, Sohi SP, Heal KV (2017) Biochar and enhanced phosphate capture: Mapping mechanisms to functional properties. Chemosphere 179:57–74
Snyder CS, Bruulsema TW, Jensen TL, Fixen PE (2009) Review of greenhouse gas emissions from crop production systems and fertilizer management effects. Agr Ecosyst Environ 133:247–266
Soinne H, Räty M, Hartikainen H (2010) Effect of air-drying on phosphorus fractions in clay soil. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 173:332–336
Spokas KA (2013) Impact of biochar field aging on laboratory greenhouse gas production potentials. Gcb Bioenergy 5:165–176
Steenari B-M, Karlsson L-G, Lindqvist O (1999) Evaluation of the leaching characteristics of wood ash and the influence of ash agglomeration. Biomass Bioenerg 16:119–136
Turner BL, Driessen JP, Haygarth PM, Mckelvie ID (2003) Potential contribution of lysed bacterial cells to phosphorus solubilisation in two rewetted Australian pasture soils. Soil Biol Biochem 35:187–189
Wan H, Liu X, Shi Q, Chen Y, Jiang M, Zhang J, Cui B, Hou J, Wei Z, Hossain MA, Liu F (2023) Biochar amendment alters root morphology of maize plant: its implications in enhancing nutrient uptake and shoot growth under reduced irrigation regimes. Front Plant Sci 14:1122742. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1122742
Wan H, Wei Z, Liu C, Yang X, Wang Y, Liu F (2024) Biochar amendment modulates xylem ionic constituents and ABA signaling: its implications in enhancing water-use efficiency of maize (Zea mays L.) under reduced irrigation regimes. J Integrative Agriculture
Wang Y, Wu W-H (2013) Potassium transport and signaling in higher plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol 64:451–476
Wang H-Y, Sun H-X, Zhou J-M, Cheng W, Du C-W, Chen X-Q (2010) Evaluating plant-available potassium in different soils using a modified sodium tetraphenylboron method. Soil Sci 175:544–551
Wang M, Zheng Q, Shen Q, Guo S (2013) The critical role of potassium in plant stress response. Int J Mol Sci 14:7370–7390
Wang D, Fonte SJ, Parikh SJ, Six J, Scow KM (2017a) Biochar additions can enhance soil structure and the physical stabilization of C in aggregates. Geoderma 303:110–117
Wang Y, Jensen CR, Liu F (2017b) Nutritional responses to soil drying and rewetting cycles under partial root-zone drying irrigation. Agric Water Manag 179:254–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.04.015
Wang L, Xue C, Nie X, Liu Y, Chen F (2018) Effects of biochar application on soil potassium dynamics and crop uptake. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 181:635–643
Wang L, Ok YS, Tsang DC, Alessi DS, Rinklebe J, Wang H et al (2020) New trends in biochar pyrolysis and modification strategies: feedstock, pyrolysis conditions, sustainability concerns and implications for soil amendment. Soil Use Manag 36:358–386
Wang Y, Chen YF, Wu WH (2021a) Potassium and phosphorus transport and signaling in plants. J Integr Plant Biol 63:34–52
Wang Y, Dai X, Xu G, Dai Z, Chen P, Zhang T et al (2021b) The Ca2+-CaM signaling pathway mediates potassium uptake by regulating reactive oxygen species homeostasis in tobacco roots under low-K+ stress. Front Plant Sci 12:658609
Wei Z, Du T, Li X, Fang L, Liu F (2018) Interactive effects of CO2 concentration elevation and nitrogen fertilization on water and nitrogen use efficiency of tomato grown under reduced irrigation regimes. Agric Water Manag 202:174–182
Wei Z, Fang L, Li X, Liu J, Liu F (2021) Endogenous ABA level modulates the effects of CO2 elevation and soil water deficit on growth, water and nitrogen use efficiencies in barley and tomato plants. Agric Water Manag 249:106808
Weyers SL, Das KC, Gaskin JW, Liesch AM (2023) Pine Chip and Poultry Litter Derived Biochars Affect C and N Dynamics in Two Georgia, USA. Ultisols Agronomy 13:531
Wu X, Wang D, Riaz M, Zhang L, Jiang C (2019) Investigating the effect of biochar on the potential of increasing cotton yield, potassium efficiency and soil environment. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 182:109451
Xiang S-R, Doyle A, Holden PA, Schimel JP (2008) Drying and rewetting effects on C and N mineralization and microbial activity in surface and subsurface California grassland soils. Soil Biol Biochem 40:2281–2289
Xu G, Wei L, Sun J, Shao H, Chang S (2013) What is more important for enhancing nutrient bioavailability with biochar application into a sandy soil: Direct or indirect mechanism? Ecol Eng 52:119–124
Xu G, Zhang Y, Sun J, Shao H (2016) Negative interactive effects between biochar and phosphorus fertilization on phosphorus availability and plant yield in saline sodic soil. Sci Total Environ 568:910–915
Xu X, Zhao Y, Sima J, Zhao L, Mašek O, Cao X (2017) Indispensable role of biochar-inherent mineral constituents in its environmental applications: A review. Biores Technol 241:887–899
Xu X, Du X, Wang F, Sha J, Chen Q, Tian G et al (2020) Effects of potassium levels on plant growth, accumulation and distribution of carbon, and nitrate metabolism in apple dwarf rootstock seedlings. Front Plant Sci 11:904
Xu N, Wang R, Liu J, Lu P, Guo W (2015) Hierarchy of plasticity traits in responses of Quercus aliena to light conditions and water availability. Dendrobiology. https://doi.org/10.12657/denbio.074.017
Yao FX, Arbestain MC, Virgel S, Blanco F, Arostegui J, Maciá-Agulló JA et al (2010) Simulated geochemical weathering of a mineral ash-rich biochar in a modified Soxhlet reactor. Chemosphere 80:724–732
Yu H, Zou W, Chen J, Chen H, Yu Z, Huang J et al (2019) Biochar amendment improves crop production in problem soils: A review. J Environ Manage 232:8–21
Zhai L, CaiJi Z, Liu J, Wang H, Ren T, Gai X et al (2015) Short-term effects of maize residue biochar on phosphorus availability in two soils with different phosphorus sorption capacities. Biol Fertil Soils 51:113–122
Zhang W-f, Dou Z-x, He P, Ju X-T, Powlson D, Chadwick D et al (2013) New technologies reduce greenhouse gas emissions from nitrogenous fertilizer in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110:8375–8380
Zhang M, Riaz M, Liu B, Xia H, El-Desouki Z, Jiang C (2020) Two-year study of biochar: Achieving excellent capability of potassium supply via alter clay mineral composition and potassium-dissolving bacteria activity. Sci Total Environ 717:137286
Zhang Q, Song Y, Wu Z, Yan X, Gunina A, Kuzyakov Y et al (2020) Effects of six-year biochar amendment on soil aggregation, crop growth, and nitrogen and phosphorus use efficiencies in a rice-wheat rotation. J Clean Prod 242:118435
Zhang J, Amonette JE, Flury M (2021) Effect of biochar and biochar particle size on plant-available water of sand, silt loam, and clay soil. Soil and Tillage Research 212:104992
Zhang M, Riaz M, Xia H, Li Y, Wang X, Jiang C (2022) Four-year biochar study: Positive response of acidic soil microenvironment and citrus growth to biochar under potassium deficiency conditions. Sci Total Environ 813:152515
Zhou T, Liu J, Lie Z, Lai DY (2022) Effects of applying different carbon substrates on nutrient removal and greenhouse gas emissions by constructed wetlands treating carbon-depleted hydroponic wastewater. Biores Technol 357:127312
Zhu X-G, Long SP, Ort DR (2008) What is the maximum efficiency with which photosynthesis can convert solar energy into biomass? Curr Opin Biotechnol 19:153–159
Zörb C, Senbayram M, Peiter E (2014) Potassium in agriculture–status and perspectives. J Plant Physiol 171:656–669
Acknowledgements
Heng Wan would like to acknowledge the funding from the Chinese Scholarship Council (CSC). We would like to thank the College of Agriculture, Northwest A&F University for providing seedlings in this experiment. We sincerely thank Dr. Loes van Schaik from the group of Soil Physics and Land Management, University of Wageningen, for guidance and support of this study.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Copenhagen University This work was partly supported by China Scholarship Council (No. 201906300056).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Ian Dodd.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Wan, H., Hou, J., Wei, Z. et al. Contrasting maize responses to soil phosphorus and potassium availability driven by biochar under reduced irrigation. Plant Soil (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-024-06824-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-024-06824-2