Abstract
Excessive use of chemical fertilizers (CFs) can result in a decrease of soil organic matter, lowering soil fertility and agricultural productivity. Biochar application could be a promising approach to reduce these issues and increase soil fertility. In this study, the effects of nutrient-enriched biochar (NEBC) on soil properties and canola (Brassica napus L.) plant growth were investigated. A pot experiment was conducted following a completely randomized design with three replications. Two contrasting Australian soils were amended with three doses (i.e., control, 1%, and 5% w/w) of three NEBCs, one biosolid biochar (BSBC), and CF. The canola plant growth experiment spanned over eight weeks assessing the effects of the amendments. Soil properties were examined after plant harvesting. NEBC and BSBC lowered soil pH (up to 1.38 units) and increased soil EC (up to 378 µS cm−1). They also increased P (up to 19-fold) and K (up to 0.67 g kg−1) availability, improving canola growth compared to CF. Biochar increased dehydrogenase enzyme activity (up to twofold), but NEBC reduced seed germination due to high nutrient content. Nutrient concentration in plant tissues increased with NEBC and BSBC application. Application of NEBC and BSBC improved soil properties, resulting in increased growth of canola. The application rate of NEBC fertilizer requires further optimization to improve soil fertility and crop productivity.
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.
1 Introduction
The rapid growth of the world population and loss of arable land pose a major threat to agricultural production and global food security (Dai et al. 2020; Farrar et al. 2018). Intensive farming and application of chemical fertilizers to the limited agricultural soils have led to adverse effects on the environment (Gao et al. 2022; Mukhina et al. 2020; Song et al. 2020), including deteriorating air quality due to the release of excessive amounts of aerosols and greenhouse gases, as well as contamination of soil and water bodies with excessive nutrients and heavy metals. Additionally, excessive fertilizer use can lead to soil degradation by depleting soil organic matter and decreasing soil fertility, which can result in soil texture deformation and decreased water holding capacity (Khorram et al. 2020). Recent studies have shown that approximately 2–10% of nutrients from chemical fertilizers (CF) travel from the soil to water bodies via surface runoff and subsurface leaching, which is a major contributor to eutrophication, and thereby reduces the use efficiency of fertilizers in plants (Ayele and Atlabachew 2021; Gao et al. 2022). Baligar and Fageria (2015) estimated that more than half of the applied nutrients (N, P, and K) were lost in the soil–plant system or were unavailable to plants. The negative effects of CF consequently can hinder plants’ growth and yield (Dai et al. 2020).
To promote sustainable soil management, it's crucial to maintain an adequate level of organic matter in the soil and ensure that the biological cycle of essential nutrients is not disrupted. Organic fertilizers, including composts, plant residue mulches, manures, and cover crops, can increase soil carbon and improve soil quality in accordance with sustainable agriculture and soil reinforcement (Khorram et al. 2020; Mukhina et al. 2020; Song et al. 2020). However, these organic amendments are often short-lived, and their decomposition rates are high, causing most of the organic matter added to mineralize into carbon dioxide (Bol et al. 2000). Furthermore, many organic amendments may act as a source of organic and inorganic pollutants, such as heavy metals, antibiotics, persistent organic pollutants, and microplastics to agricultural soil (Bolan et al. 2021; Sarkar et al. 2022). In response to these issues, researchers tried to use “biochar” that has similar positive effects on soil properties like organic manures or other organic amendments (Basak et al. 2022; Purakayastha et al. 2019; Woolf et al. 2010). Biochar is a carbon-rich, porous material made by pyrolyzing biomass feedstocks at various temperatures under low oxygen conditions (Dai et al. 2020; Khadem et al. 2021; Mukhina et al. 2020). Unlike soil organic matter, biochar does not decompose readily in soils due to its high resistance to degradation, which allows it to remain in the soil for centuries (Naeem et al. 2018).
Biochar has gained increasing attention as a soil conditioner due to its cost-effectiveness and environmentally friendly features, such as carbon sequestration and soil remediation (Gao et al. 2022; Khadem et al. 2021). It is widely accepted that the application of biochar can affect soil physical and chemical properties with a subsequent increase in plant growth and productivity (Gao et al. 2022; Hossain et al. 2021; Khadem et al. 2021). The above positive impacts of biochar occur mostly by increasing the availability and retention of both water and nutrients in the soil (Ayele and Atlabachew 2021; Hossain et al. 2021; Zhang et al. 2020), improving soil aggregation and porosity (Hossain et al. 2020; Videgain-Marco et al. 2020; Wali et al. 2020), enhancing plant nutrient uptake (Hossain et al. 2020; Solaiman et al. 2020; Song et al. 2020), and improving soil microbial activity (Hossain et al. 2021; Teutscherova et al. 2018). However, depending on specific soil attributes considered, the application of biochar to the soil may have no or slight negative effects on soil properties and conditions (Hossain et al. 2020; Karim et al. 2022; Zhang et al. 2020). For example, a meta-analysis showed that biochar application in soil reduced crop yields by 16% (Song et al. 2020). Nevertheless, due to its highly porous structure and surface functionalities, biochar can carry nutrients and supply them to plants as a slow-release fertilizer based on plant needs, resulting in decreased offsite loss of nutrients in the soil–plant system (Mandal et al. 2016; Wang et al. 2022).
Despite numerous reports on the effects of pristine biochars, few studies have investigated the impact of NEBC such as those enriched with nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and sulfur (S) in the soil–plant system (Ahmad et al. 2018; Gunes et al. 2014; Karim et al. 2017, 2019, 2022; Wen et al. 2017; Zhang et al. 2017). Enrichment of biochar with multiple nutrients (N, P, and K) could be a desirable approach to improve the soil fertility, plant growth and yield. New biochar-based fertilizers are emerging and have demonstrated positive effects on crop yield and nutrient use efficiency (Buss et al. 2018; Gao et al. 2022; Hossain et al. 2021; Karim et al. 2022; Shi et al. 2020). However, there remains a lack of research on the effect of NEBC on soil properties, plant growth and development. Therefore, this study aims to bridge the existing gap by investigating the influence of NEBC on the physicochemical and biological properties of two contrasting soils, as well as the growth and development of canola plants (Brassica napus L.) in the biochar-amended soils. It was hypothesized that the addition of NEBC will positively influence soil physicochemical properties and plant growth, presenting a novel correlation between NEBC and soil–plant system enhancements.
2 Materials and Methods
2.1 Soil Collection and Initial Soil Properties
For this study, two types of surface soils (0–15 cm) were collected from Condobolin and Yenda in New South Wales, Australia. The soils were classified as grey Vertosol and red Kandosol according to the Australian Soil Classification system (Miltenyi et al. 2015), which are clay and clay loam types respectively. The initial properties of the soils are shown in Table 1. Both soils were low in nutrients such as available N, Olsen-P, available K, calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg). The grey Vertosol soil had a moderately alkaline pH of 8.13, while the red Kandosol was moderately acidic with a pH of 5.56. Both soils had low electrical conductivity and were non-saline. The collected soils were manually cleaned, air-dried, homogenized, and passed through a 2-mm sieve for the plant growth study.
2.2 Biochar Production and Characterization
Pristine biochars were produced from biosolids, cow manure, and chicken manure feedstocks. The feedstocks were air-dried, manually cleaned, ground, sieved to < 2 mm, and stored in airtight bags. Biochar was produced by slow pyrolysis at 300 ºC in a muffle furnace (Labec Muffle furnace, CEMLS-SD, Australia). Information regarding the chemical properties and nutrient contents of these biochars can be found in our previous publication (Hossain et al. 2021). NEBCs were synthesized by impregnating pristine biochars with urea fertilizer and KH2PO4. The NEBCs were obtained by heating the mixture of 10 g pristine biochar, 4 g urea fertilizer, and 8 g KH2PO4 in a sealed bottle with 100 mL Milli-Q water at 135 °C for 4 h, followed by air-drying for three days. The resulting NEBCs, derived from biosolids, cow manure, and chicken manure, were respectively labelled as nutrient-enriched biosolid biochar (NEBSBC), nutrient-enriched cow manure biochar (NECMBC) and nutrient-enriched chicken manure biochar (NEChMBC), respectively.
2.3 Experimental Design, Setup, and Sampling
A glasshouse pot experiment was conducted at the University of Newcastle, Callaghan campus, employing a completely randomized design. The experiment was designed to investigate the effects of three types of NEBCs (NEBSBC, NECMBC, and NEChMBC), one pristine biosolid biochar (BSBC), and CF comprising urea and KH2PO4), on two soil types (clay and clay loam) across three levels of biochar application (0%, 1%, and 5% w/w). The experiment was conducted in triplicates including the controls, and the pots were rotated at least once a week to account for changes in the glasshouse's environmental gradient. The plants were grown in individual plastic pots (11.8 cm height × 9 cm diameter), each filled with 0.5 kg of air-dried soil biochar and CF were added at three application levels: 0% (no addition), 1% w/w, and 5% w/w. Specifically, for the 1% w/w treatment, 5 g of either biochar or CF were thoroughly mixed with the soil. For the 5% w/w treatment, 25 g of either biochar or CF were similarly mixed with the soil. The soil was moistened with deionized (DI) water before sowing five canola seeds at a depth of 2 cm. After seven days, the germination percentage was calculated, and the plants were thinned down to four seedlings per pot. The experiment lasted eight weeks, during which the glasshouse conditions were maintained on a 16-h day and 8-h night cycle with temperatures of 25 and 18 °C during the day and night, respectively.
No seedlings emerged in both alkaline and acidic soils amended with 5% treatments, except for BSBC. Additionally, only 20% germination was observed in the clay loam soil (pH = 5.56) amended with 1% of all NEBCs, and the seedlings did not survive. With 1% CF amendment, no seeds germinated. Therefore, treatments that impeded or inhibited plant growth and seed germination were not included in the study's results, as there were likely toxic effects (Solaiman et al. 2012) of NEBC and CF. To investigate the inhibitory effect of seed germination, a separate germination trial was conducted using NEBSBC and CF treatments with five levels (0%, 0.05%, 0.10%, 0.25%, and 0.50%) and two replicates. Six seeds were sown per pot (5.5 cm height × 5 cm diameter), and the germination percentage was calculated on days 3, 5, 7, and 9 after sowing.
After six weeks of growth, the whole plants were harvested from the pots, and the shoots and roots were weighed for fresh above- and below-ground biomass yields. In addition, the shoot and root length of the plants were measured, and the above-ground plant materials were oven-dried, weighed for dry matter yield, and ground for nutrient analysis.
2.4 Soil and Plant Analyses
After harvesting the canola plants, the soil in each pot was collected, cleaned, air-dried, ground, and sieved through a 2-mm mesh for laboratory analysis. Basic characteristics of the soils were determined in a subsample following drying and homogenization. pH and electrical conductivity (EC) were determined by mixing 5 g of soil with 25 mL of Milli-Q water (1:5 ratio) and shaking for 1.5 h on a rotary end-over-end shaker (Rajkovich et al. 2011). After shaking, the samples were kept on the lab bench for 30 min before measuring the pH and EC values using a pH-EC meter. The soil moisture content was determined by the gravimetric method. For inorganic N analysis, air-dried soil samples were extracted with 2 M KCl solution at a 1:5 soil: solution ratio. For measuring the available inorganic N, specifically nitrate (NO3−) and ammonium (NH4+), ion chromatography was used. The Olsen-P was extracted by 0.5 M NaHCO3 (pH = 8.5) using a 1:20 dilution and shaken for 30 min on a rotary end-over-end shaker at room temperature (20 ± 2 °C). The available P was measured by the molybdenum blue method using a spectrophotometer at 712 nm. The exchangeable K+, Ca2+ and Mg2+ were extracted by 0.1 M BaCl2 using 1:60 dilution and two hours of shaking at room temperature (20 ± 2 °C). The major cations, including K, Ca, and Mg, were measured by an inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometer (ICP-OES). Dehydrogenase activity (DHA) of soils was determined by the reduction of triphenyltetrazolium chloride to triphenylformazan, as described by Tan et al. (2017).
For measuring the elemental C, N and S concentrations in plant samples, a CNS elemental analyser was used following the dry combustion method (Bird et al. 2017). For determining the total P and K, the plant samples (mixed with 3 mL HNO3 and 2 mL H2O2) were digested in a microwave digester (MARS 6250/50, Matthews, NC, USA) and heated at 180 °C for 30 min at 1 kW power level. After cooling down the digestion unit at room temperature, the digested solution was used to measure total P and K using ICP-OES.
2.5 Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis of the soil and plant data was conducted by a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics version 27.0). Level of significance and post-hoc testing was performed through Tukey’s HSD method. The variability in the data was expressed as the standard deviation, and a value of p ≤ 0.05 was statistically significant at 95% confidence interval. The MS Excel 2016 was used for preparing the graphs.
3 Results
3.1 Effects of NEBC on Seed Germination
The effects of NEBSBC and CF on canola seed germination with clay soil and clay loam soils are presented in Table 2. The addition of NEBSBC showed inconsistent canola plants’ seed germination in both soils at the application rate of 0.0, 0.1, 0.25 and 0.5%. For clay soil, the addition of NEBSBC at different levels (0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.5%) did not affect seed germination, except 0.25% increased germination percentage over the CF treatment. For clay loam soil, application of 0.05, 0.1 and 0.25% NEBSBC showed lower seed germination percentages than CF treatment. However, the highest dose (0.5%) of NEBSBC had a higher (75%) germination percentage than the CF treatment. The germination percentage decreased by 20% at 0.05% and 0.5% addition, no effect was observed at 0.1% addition, and it increased by 33% at 0.25% addition of NEBSBC in the clay soil. The application of NEBSBC had no significant effect on canola seed germination percentage with the treatment that received no biochar(p < 0.05).
3.2 Effects of NEBC on Soil pH and EC
The effects of NEBSBC, NECMBC, NEChMBC, BSBC and CF on soil pH and EC are summarized in Table 3. In clay soils, the application of NEBC decreased the soil pH from 8.4 to 6.8, while in the CF-amended soil, the pH was reduced from 8.4 to 6.4. For clay loam soil, the soil pH was negatively correlated with the dose of BSBC, while the EC values of soil were significantly increased with the application of BSBC at 1 and 5% (p < 0.05). After harvesting the canola plants, the soil EC of the clay soil (alkaline soil) (Table 3) increased by 117–341% with the application of NEBSBCs. Whereas the addition of BSBCs increased soil EC up to four times in clay loam soil (Table 3).
3.3 Bioavailability of Major Nutrients from NEBC in Soils
3.3.1 Nitrogen
The application of all NEBCs, BSBC and CF significantly (p < 0.05) increased the concentration of NO3–-N in soil, except in NEChMBC amended soil. Whereas all the NEBCs, BSBC and CF significantly (p < 0.05) influenced NH4+-N in soil. The NO3–-N was significantly influenced by the addition of biochar (1 and 5%), while application of BSBC slightly decreased NH4+-N in soil, and the addition of more biochar significantly increased soil NH4+-N (Table 3). For clay soil, the results of this study revealed that the NO3–-N contents increased by 5 and 41% compared to the control treatment with the application of cow manure and NEBSBC, respectively, after harvesting the canola plants (Table 3). This was 2–37% higher NO3–-N contents than the CF treatment, except the NO3–-N content of chicken manure derived NEBC amended soil was 2.2% lower than CF treatment. In contrast, the CF treatment increased only 3% NO3–-N contents in soil. However, the chicken manure derived NEBC decreased the availability of NO3–-N in the soil by 7%. For clay loam soil, the addition of BSBC reduced the NO3–-N content (46–54%) compared to the control treatment. In comparison, the NH4+-N content was decreased by 25.6% with the application of BSBC at 1% rate.
3.3.2 Phosphorus
In addition, the soil Olsen P contents significantly increased with the addition of all NEBC and other soil amendments. Moreover, BSBC (1%) and BSBC (5%) showed higher Olsen P content in soil than the treatment that received no biochar. In the present study, for clay soil, the addition of NEBCs increased Olsen P by 16–30 times higher than the control treatment. The Olsen P of BSBC amended soils was increased up to four times at a higher dose (5%).
3.3.3 Potassium
The application of biochar had less effects on available soil K, and CF had significant effect on exchangeable K in clay soil (Table 3). The results of the present study revealed that the available K increased by 2.8–25% in NEBCs amended clay soil. The application of BSBC at a high dose (5%) increased the available K content by 105% in clay soil.
3.4 Effects of NEBC on Soil DHA
The effects of adding different types of biochar and CF on DHA in soil are shown in Fig. 1. For the clay soil, among the NEBCs, 1% NEBSBC amendment had a slight increase in DHA, but the 1% NECMBC and NEChMBC amendment did not show any positive response of soil DHA (Fig. 1a). Conversely, the application of NEBCs derived from cow manure, chicken manure and pristine BSBC at 1% led to decreases in DHA by 5.3%, 51.7% and 7.5%, respectively, compared to the control soil. Nonetheless, these DHA levels were 64–221% higher than the CF-amended soil, which experience a decrease of 70.5% compared to the control. For the clay loam soil, the application of BSBC at 5% showed a significant effect on DHA in soil (p < 0.05), while the addition of 1% BSBC decreased DHA in the soil where canola plant was grown (Fig. 1b). For clay loam soil, the high dose of BSBC enhanced DHA by 36% compared to the control treatment that received no biochar or CF.
3.5 Effects of NEBC on Shoot and Root Length
The influence of selected NEBC types (NEBSBC, NECMBC and NEChMBC), BSBC and CF on the growth of canola plant in clay and clay loam soils are presented in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively. Incorporation of NEBC had a significant impact on canola shoot length (p < 0.05), but no positive effect on the root length in clay soil (Fig. 2b). The highest shoot length was found in canola grown in clay soils amended with NEBSBC, NECMBC and NEChMBC applied at a 1% rate (w/w), while the lowest shoot length was obtained in unamended control soils and CF-amended clay soils. For clay soil, all three NEBCs significantly increased the shoot length of canola plants by 67–84% (p < 0.05) compared to the control treatment. Moreover, the addition of BSBC at 1 and 5% improved shoot length by 33 and 40%, respectively, compared to the treatment without biochar and CF. However, the root length of the canola plant was reduced by 5.5–19.3% in NEBC treatments compared to the control in clay soil. The high dose (5%) of BSBC and CF also decreased root length by 5.3% and 8.4%, respectively (Fig. 3b).
For the clay loam soil, the canola plant did not show any significant response to NEBC and CF except for the application of BSBC at 5% that increased root length (Fig. 3b). The highest root length was found in canola grown in the clay soils amended with 1% BSBC (Fig. 2b). The lowest overall shoot length occurred in the clay soils with 1% NEBC (Fig. 2a). In clay soil, 1% BSBC increased root length to 14.5 cm, compared to 12.6 cm for the control. In contrast, NEBSBC, NECMBC and NEChMBC, CF (1%) and BSBC (5%) decreased root length compared to the control. For clay loam soil, no significant response was observed for canola plants with 1% and 5% BSBC.
3.6 Effects of NEBC on Crop Biomass Yield
The influence of NEBC along with BSBC and CF on the above-ground biomass (AGB) and below-ground biomass (BGB) yield of canola plants grown in clay soil and clay loam soils are presented in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. Application of NEBCs significantly enhanced the AGB yield of canola (p < 0.05) as shown in Fig. 4a. While there was no statistically significant impact on below-ground biomass (BGB) yield, treatments with NEBSBC and NECMBC exhibited a modest increase in BGB yield compared to the control (Fig. 4b). For clay soil, the dry shoot biomass yield increased by two to four folds more than the control treatment, 9.4–69.5% higher than the CF treatment. The application of NEBCs also improved dry root biomass by 7.5–65.8% compared to the control soil by 9.8–69.2% more than CF amended soil. Moreover, BSBC (at 1% and 5% rate w/w) application also increased shoot biomass and root biomass yield by 57.7–130.6% and 20–33%, respectively, compared to the control soil. For clay loam soil, the addition of BSBC (at 1% and 5% rate w/w) significantly (p < 0.05) increased the dry shoot biomass yield (35.6–81.2%) and dry root biomass yield (90.6–101.7%) compared to the control treatment (Fig. 5).
3.7 Effects of NEBC on Shoot Nutrient Concentration
The nutrient concentration in shoot biomass of canola plants grown in clay soil and clay loam soils are presented in Table 4. The application of NEBCs had a significant (p < 0.05) positive impact on the N, P and K concentration in shoot biomass of the canola plant. For clay soil, the mean N concentration (56–74%) in canola shoot increased by three to four folds in NEBCs amended soil compared to the control soil. The application of NEBCs significantly (p < 0.05) increased the mean P (24–38%) and K (46–72%) over the treatment that received no biochar or CF. However, the addition of CF also increased the concentration of N (244%), P (88%) and K (12%) that were higher than the NEBC treatments. The BSBC also showed significant improvement (2–4 times more than the control soil) in the shoot N concentration of canola plants. Similarly, the concentration of P and K was also increased with the addition of BSBC by 18–26% and 36%, respectively, over the control treatment (Table 4). For clay loam soil, the overall N, P, and K concentration in canola shoot was significantly (p < 0.05) higher in BSBC amended soil than the control treatment. The shoot N, P and K concentration increased by 4.7–35.2%, 14–194% and 10.5–35% in BSBC amended soil over the control soil.
3.8 Effects of NEBC on Nutrient Uptake by Canola
Total N, P and K uptake by canola plants grown on the clay soil and clay loam soils are presented in Table 5. The amendment to the clay soil showed a significant (p < 0.05) effect on canola nutrient uptake for all NEBCs, BSBC and CF-amended soils. For the clay soil, the application of NEBCs increased N, P and K uptake by 9–13, 3–5 and 5–7 folds, respectively, compared to the control treatment. The increase was 9.3–58.2% (N), 9.2–18.8% (P) and 80.6–154.8% (K) higher than CF treated soil. Moreover, the N, P and K uptake by canola plants were two to four times higher in BSBC treatments than in the control soil (Table 5). For the clay loam soil, the addition of BSBC increased nutrient uptake by 42.7–145.6% (N), 55–431.7% (P) and K (51.2–148.8%) over the control (Table 4).
4 Discussion
In this study, biochar did not enhance the germination percentage of canola plants, a finding that aligns with Li et al. (2017), who found that oak sawdust biochar reduced tomato seed germination by 35%. Biochar may not always be suitable as a soil conditioner when it contains undesirable compounds, such as dissolved organic carbon, which can inhibit seed germination (Bargmann et al. 2013; Solaiman et al. 2012). High nutrient concentrations in feedstocks may also result in higher nutrient concentrations in their biochars, potentially affecting seed germination (Gaskin et al. 2008). Since biochar treatment hindered crop germination, as observed in our study and earlier reports, it is advisable to avoid biochar application before sowing of seeds to mitigate any negative effects on germination. For a comprehensive understanding of the reasons for poor germination of seeds following biochar application, future research should consider conducting a thorough characterization of the biochar used.
Additionally, CF application did not significantly influence canola seed germination in clay soil (p < 0.05). Instead of enhancing seed germination, CF demonstrated an inhibitory effect. The germination of seeds further decreased as the fertilizer rate increased. With the increasing rate of fertilizer, germination of seeds decreased further. Onyango et al. (2012) reported similar results, noting a reduction in seed emergence with increased N fertilization due to increased osmotic potential. Mumme et al. (2018) also found that the presence of NH4+ in fertilizer could create phytotoxic effects on seed germination. In this study, urea fertilizer (46% N) had the highest N content, which increased the soil’s EC value, suggesting that NH4+ might be responsible for inhibiting seed germination. Moreover, the high concentration of K in the material (KH2PO4) used in this study could also contribute to low germination percentage, as reported by Mumme et al. (2018). In light of these findings, future studies should explore the specific plant growth stages for the application of biochar and CF to minimize potential negative impacts on seed germination and early growth.
Soil pH plays a crucial role in influencing nutrient availability, which in turn impacts plant growth and yield (Dai et al. 2020). Biochar application has been shown to affect soil chemical properties, such as pH, thus altering nutrient dynamics in soil (Hossain et al. 2020). The slight decrease in soil pH was likely due to the release of acidic materials like carboxylic groups from the biochar (Al-Wabel et al. 2018; Wali et al. 2020). The NEBCs were also acidic (pH: 5.4–6.2) in nature. These results agreed with other previous studies (Al-Wabel et al. 2018; Futa et al. 2020; Videgain-Marco et al. 2020). The NEBCs in this study were acidic (pH: 5.4–6.2) and derived from their respective BSBC produced at a low pyrolytic temperature (300 °C), so the biochar pH did not significantly affect soil pH (Ahmad et al. 2012; Cantrell et al. 2012). The addition of BSBC at 1% and 5% decreased the pH from 6.0 to 5.6 in post-harvest clay loam soil (Table 3). Several studies reported that biochar application increases soil pH (Asfaw et al. 2020; Futa et al. 2020; Hossain et al. 2020; Oreoluwa et al. 2020). On the other hand, despite having a pH of 7.8, the BSBC in this study did not noticeably change the pH values of both soils, possibly due to the soils' high buffering capacity.
Biochar application slightly increased the soil's EC value, which could be attributed to the release of loosely bound nutrients or elements into the soil after applying biochar (Hossain et al. 2020; Wali et al. 2020). Previous studies have also observed increased soil EC values following biochar application (El-Naggar et al. 2018; Li et al. 2018; Oreoluwa et al. 2020). The high K content in NEBSBCs could have contributed to the increased soil EC (Hossain et al. 2020; Wali et al. 2020). Thus, applying BSBC at 1% and 5% rates elevated the EC levels up to 10 times in both soils. Furthermore, incorporating CF into clay soil increased the soil EC by 36 times.
Biochar influences the bioavailability of N in soil by two mechanisms: biotic (i.e., fixation, mineralization, immobilization, denitrification, plant uptake) and abiotic (i.e., sorption, volatilization, leaching). The increased bioavailability of N from biochar can be beneficial for plant growth (Hossain et al. 2020). Soil NH4+-N was also increased by 6–15 times higher than the control treatment, which was 83–93% lower than the CF treatment due to the slow release of N from NEBCs. This indicates that N mineralization from biochar occurs in soils (Zhang et al. 2020). With the addition of BSBC at a 5% rate, the soil NH4+-N increased by 252%. This observation corroborates the finding of previous studies (Arif et al. 2017; Jing et al. 2020; Zhang et al. 2020). However, the N content was decreased in clay soils. This might be due to the high N immobilisation by microbes and low N availability (Wali et al. 2020). These findings align with the previous studies (Dai et al. 2020; Hossain et al. 2020; Wali et al. 2020), indicating that the effects of biochar application on N availability in the soil are not consistent and depend on the rate and types of biochar, as well as soil types (Hossain et al. 2020).
Biochar application generally increases the bioavailability of P in soils in three different ways: directly provides available P in the soil; creates a favourable environment for P-solubilizing bacteria; and delays P adsorption or precipitation in soil ( Hossain et al. 2020; Zhang et al. 2019). These findings align with other previous studies (Chen et al. 2020; Jing et al. 2020; Wali et al. 2020). However, the Olsen P in CF-amended soil was found to be 48 times higher than the control treatment and 38.6–67.5% higher than the NEBCs amended soil due to the slow-release nature of biochar compared to mineral fertilizer (Wali et al. 2020).
Biochar generally increases the bioavailability of K in soil (Hossain et al. 2020). This increase could be due to a high concentration of K in three NEBCs, as reported by (El-Naggar et al. 2018). However, this increase was 64–100% less than the CF treatment. In clay loam soil, the addition of BSBC at a rate of 1 and 5% increased the bioavailability of K by 4–11%. Similar findings were also reported in other studies (Chew et al. 2020; Dai et al. 2020; Wang et al. 2020). However, with the lower dose of BSBC, the available K content was slightly decreased (4.7%) in clay soil. This result was also confirmed by Hossain et al. (2020), who reported that biochar has some negative impact on soil.
The DHA represents the overall microbial activity in soil due to oxidation of organic matter and regulating the nutrient dynamics in soil (Liang et al. 2020; Mierzwa-Hersztek et al. 2020). For clay soil, NEBSBC treatment resulted in 30% and 343% higher DHA than the control and CF treatment, respectively. Moreover, the addition of BSBC at 5% increased the DHA by 89% compared to control treatments, possibly due to low temperature (300 °C) biochar (Beheshti et al. 2018; Mierzwa-Hersztek et al. 2020), the synergistic effect of biochar on microbial activity (Mierzwa-Hersztek et al. 2020), and the protective role of biochar in relation to DHA (Futa et al. 2020). The organic matter decomposition influences the enzymatic activity in the soil, and the addition of biochar increased the organic matter in the soil, thereby stimulated the DHA in soils (Beheshti et al. 2017). The results of this present study correspond with other recent studies (Beheshti et al. 2018; Liang et al. 2020; Mierzwa-Hersztek et al. 2020). Previous studies reported that the impact of biochar on enzymatic activity is not consistent (Beheshti et al. 2018; Song et al. 2018). This might be due to changes in soil properties, grown conditions (Futa et al. 2020) and nutrient depletion over time (Mierzwa-Hersztek et al. 2020). Moreover, the impact of biochar on DHA depends on several factors, such as biochar types (properties, origin), soil type, or environmental conditions (Futa et al. 2020).
Biochar has some unique characteristics such as large surface area, cation exchange capacity, and high porosity and thereby, it can influence plant growth (Ibrahim et al. 2020). Biochar had positive impact on root growth in clay soils. This could be due to the lower fertility of soils (i.e., low N and P content) in this study, but some nutrients were available from biochar (Mukhina et al. 2020). The results of this study are supported by other studies (Ibrahim et al. 2020; Mukhina et al. 2020; Olszyk et al. 2020). However, root growth was adversely impacted in clay-loam soils. This could be due to higher nutrient contents (N, P and K) in NEBCs (Bu et al. 2020; Olszyk et al. 2020) can have a toxic effect on the plant root. This is in agreement with earlier results, as reported by Bu et al. (2020). To gain deeper insights into these contrasting effects, it is crucial to emphasize the importance of thorough characterization of biochar, particularly its physical properties, in future studies. Such characterization can help elucidate how chemical treatments impact the surface properties of biochar, and consequently, their effects on plant growth. Notably, meta-analyses and reviews have shown that adding biochar to crops can have both positive and negative effects on crop growth (Jeffery et al. 2011; Kavitha et al. 2018). The inconsistencies are due to differences in soil properties (Haider et al. 2017), biochar characteristics (Omondi et al. 2016) and crop type (Kavitha et al. 2018; Kuppusamy et al. 2016).
The nutrient-rich feedstock, such as manures and biosolids, used to produce biochar have great potential to improve plant productivity in nutrient-deficient soil (Dai et al. 2020). Successful plant growth depends on adequate plant nutrient supply, such as N (Olszyk et al. 2020). NEBCs containing manure and biosolids have been shown to improve dry biomass yield, possibly due to their N-stimulating effect (Clough et al. 2013) and general nutrient-enhancing effect (Agegnehu et al. 2005) on canola plants (Table 2). Recent studies have shown that biochar enhances soil physical and hydraulic properties (Zhang et al. 2020), thereby promoting both root growth (as depicted in Figs. 3 and 4 of this study) and nutrient absorption capacity (Haider et al. 2017; Xiang et al. 2017). These findings are further supported by other studies (Chen et al. 2020; Mukhina et al. 2020).
The increase in shoot nutrient concentration following biochar application has been attributed to improved N utilization efficiency (Chen et al. 2020; Purakayastha et al. 2019). The positive impact of NEBCs on shoot nutrient concentration is consistent with previous studies, although Zhang et al. (2020) reported a decrease in shoot nutrient concentration following biochar application. On the other hand, the addition of CF led to increased nutrient concentration in plants, likely attributed to the slow release of nutrients from the NEBCs (Hossain et al. 2020). Biochar can directly or indirectly increase plant nutrient uptake by various mechanisms, such as increasing soil pH, accumulating organic forms of nutrients, and stimulating soil enzymatic activities (Zhang et al. 2020). Similar to the findings of Zheng et al. (2017), who observed increased N uptake with biochar and fertilizer compared to conventional fertilizer treatment, recent studies have also shown that biochar can increase plant nutrient uptake (Hossain et al. 2020; Mukhina et al. 2020; Videgain-Marco et al. 2020). However, some studies have reported negative or no effects of biochar on plant nutrient uptake (Hossain et al. 2020). Overall, NEBCs have the potential to be used as effective fertilizers for agricultural crop production, especially for the benefit of farmers dealing with low-fertile soils.
5 Conclusions
This study investigated the effects of three nutrient-enriched biochars (NEBCs) and one pristine biosolid biochar (BSBC) on soil properties and canola (Brassica napus L.) growth in two contrasting Australian soils under controlled environment conditions. The NEBC amendments led to a decrease in pH and an increase in electrical conductivity (EC) values in the clay soil, while pristine BSBC also slightly reduced pH and increased EC in the clay loam soil. Moreover, NEBC amendments positively influenced the availability of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, as well as dehydrogenase enzyme activity in the clay soil, while BSBC increased nutrient availability and dehydrogenase enzyme activity in both the clay and clay loam soils.
The application of NEBC resulted in improved canola growth and biomass yield in the clay soil, and BSBC also demonstrated positive effects on canola plants in both soils. Furthermore, NEBC significantly enhanced nutrients recovery in the clay soil, and BSBC also increased plant nutrient recovery in both soils.
Based on these findings, it is evident that applying NEBC at a low dose (i.e., 1% w/w) and BSBC at a relatively high dose (i.e., 5% w/w) can effectively improve soil properties and enhance canola growth. The results of this study underscore the potential benefits of NEBC and BSBC as viable alternatives to chemical fertilizers for promoting soil fertility and increasing crop productivity. The insights obtained from this research pave the way for conducting long-term field trials to assess the efficacy of NEBC at the farm level. By providing valuable implications and showcasing the novelty of these biochar-based fertilizers, this study contributes to the advancement of sustainable agricultural practices.
Data Availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
Agegnehu G, Srivastava AK, Bird MI (2005) The role of biochar and biochar-compost in improving soil quality and crop performance: a review. Appl Soil Ecol 119:156–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.06.008
Ahmad M, Lee SS, Dou XM, Mohan D, Sung JK, Yang JE, Ok YS (2012) Effects of pyrolysis temperature on soybean stover- and peanut shell-derived biochar properties and TCE adsorption in water. Bioresour Technol 118:536–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.05.042
Ahmad M, Usman ARA, Al-Faraj AS, Ahmad M, Sallam A, Al-Wabel MI (2018) Phosphorus-loaded biochar changes soil heavy metals availability and uptake potential of maize (Zea mays L.) plants. Chemosphere 194:327–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.11.156
Al-Wabel MI, Hussain Q, Usman ARA, Ahmad M, Abduljabbar A, Sallam AS, Ok YS (2018) Impact of biochar properties on soil conditions and agricultural sustainability: a review. Land Degrad Dev 29:2124–2161. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2829
Arif M, Ilyas M, Riaz M, Ali K, Shan K, Haq IU, Fahad S (2017) Biochar improves phosphorus use efficiency of organic-inorganic fertilizers, maize-wheat productivity and soil quality in a low fertility alkaline soil. Field Crops Res 214:25–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2017.08.018
Asfaw B, Aserse AA, Asefa F, Yli-Halla M, Lindstrom K (2020) Genetically diverse lentil- and faba bean-nodulating rhizobia are present in soils across Central and Southern Ethiopia. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 96:fiaa015. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiaa015
Ayele HS, Atlabachew M (2021) Review of characterization, factors, impacts, and solutions of Lake eutrophication: lesson for lake Tana, Ethiopia. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28:14233–14252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-12081-4
Baligar VC, Fageria NK (2015) Nutrient Use Efficiency in Plants: An Overview. Nutrient Use Efficiency: from Basics to Advances 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2169-2_1
Bargmann I, Rillig MC, Buss W, Kruse A, Kuecke M (2013) Hydrochar and biochar effects on germination of spring barley. J Agron Crop Sci 199:360–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/jac.12024
Basak BB, Sarkar B, Saha A, Sarkar A, Mandal S, Biswas JK, Wang H, Bolan NS (2022) Revamping highly weathered soils in the tropics with biochar application: what we know and what is needed. Sci Total Environ 822:153461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153461
Beheshti M, Etesami H, Alikhani HA (2017) Interaction study of biochar with phosphate-solubilizing bacterium on phosphorus availability in calcareous soil. Arch Agron Soil Sci 63:1572–1581. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2017.1295138
Beheshti M, Etesami H, Alikhani HA (2018) Effect of different biochars amendment on soil biological indicators in a calcareous soil. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:14752–14761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1682-2
Bird M, Keitel C, Meredith W (2017) Analysis of biochars for C, H, N, O and S by elemental analyser. In: Singh B, Camps-Arbestain M, Lehmann J (eds) Biochar: a guide to analytical methods. CSIRO, pp 39–50
Bol R, Amelung W, Friedrich C, Ostle N (2000) Tracing dung-derived carbon in temperate grassland using 13C natural abundance measurements. Soil Biol Biochem 32:1337–1343. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(00)00022-5
Bolan N, Sarkar B, Vithanage M, Singh G, Tsang DCW, Mukhopadhyay R, Ramadass K, Vinu A, Sun Y, Ramanayaka S, Hoang SA, Yan Y, Li Y, Rinklebe J, Li H, Kirkham MB (2021) Distribution, behaviour, bioavailability and remediation of poly- and per-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in solid biowastes and biowaste-treated soil. Environ Int 155:106600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106600
Bu XL, Xue JH, Wu YB, Ma WB (2020) Effect of biochar on seed germination and seedling growth of Robinia pseudoacacia L. in Karst calcareous soils. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 51:352–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2019.1709484
Buss W, Jansson S, Mašek O (2018) Unexplored potential of novel biochar-ash composites for use as organo-mineral fertilizers. J Clean Prod 208:960–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.189
Cantrell KB, Hunt PG, Uchimiya M, Novak JM, Ro KS (2012) Impact of pyrolysis temperature and manure source on physicochemical characteristics of biochar. Bioresour Technol 107:419–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.11.084
Chen H, Yang X, Wang H, Sarkar B, Shaheen SM, Gielen G, Bolan N, Guo J, Che L, Sun H, Rinklebe J (2020) Animal carcass- and wood-derived biochars improved nutrient bioavailability, enzyme activity, and plant growth in metal-phthalic acid ester co-contaminated soils: a trial for reclamation and improvement of degraded soils. J Environ Manag 261:110246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110246
Chew J, Zhu L, Nielsen S, Graber E, Mitchell DRG, Horvat J, Mohammed M, Liu M, van Zwieten L, Donne S, Munroe P, Taherymoosavi S, Pace B, Rawal A, Hook J, Marjo C, Thomas DS, Pan G, Li L, Bian R, Fan X (2020) Biochar-based fertilizer: supercharging root membrane potential and biomass yield of rice. Sci Total Environ 713:136431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136431
Clough T, Condron L, Kammann C, Müller C (2013) A review of biochar and soil nitrogen dynamics. Agronomy 3:275–293. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy3020275
Dai Y, Zheng H, Jiang Z, Xing B (2020) Combined effects of biochar properties and soil conditions on plant growth: a meta-analysis. Sci Total Environ 713:136635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136635
El-Naggar A, Lee SS, Awad YM, Yang X, Ryu C, Rizwan M, Rinklebe J, Tsang DCW, Ok YS (2018) Influence of soil properties and feedstocks on biochar potential for carbon mineralization and improvement of infertile soils. Geoderma 332:100–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.06.017
Farrar MB, Wallace HM, Xu CY, Nguyen TTN, Tavakkoli E, Joseph S, Bai SH (2018) Short-term effects of organo-mineral enriched biochar fertiliser on ginger yield and nutrient cycling. J Soils Sediments 19:668–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-018-2061-9
Futa B, Oleszczuk P, Andruszczak S, Kwiecinska-Poppe E, Kraska P (2020) Effect of natural aging of biochar on soil enzymatic activity and physicochemical properties in long-term field experiment. Agronomy 10:449. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10030449
Gao Y, Fang Z, Van Zwieten L, Bolan N, Dong D, Quin BF, Meng J, Li F, Wu F, Wang H, Chen W (2022) A critical review of biochar-based nitrogen fertilizers and their effects on crop production and the environment. Biochar 4:36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42773-022-00160-3
Gaskin JW, Steiner C, Harris K, Das KC, Bibens B (2008) Effect of low-temperature pyrolysis conditions on biochar for agricultural use. Trans ASABE 51:2061–2069. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.25409
Gunes A, Inal A, Taskin MB, Sahin O, Kaya EC, Atakol A, Goss M (2014) Effect of phosphorus-enriched biochar and poultry manure on growth and mineral composition of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. cv.) grown in alkaline soil. Soil Use Manage 30:182–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/sum.12114
Haider G, Steffens D, Moser G, Müller C, Kammann CI (2017) Biochar reduced nitrate leaching and improved soil moisture content without yield improvements in a four-year field study. Agric Ecosyst Environ 237:80–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.12.019
Hossain MZ, Bahar MM, Sarkar B, Donne SW, Ok YS, Palansooriya KN, Kirkham MB, Chowdhury S, Bolan N (2020) Biochar and its importance on nutrient dynamics in soil and plant. Biochar 2:379–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42773-020-00065-z
Hossain MZ, Bahar MM, Sarkar B, Donne SW, Wade P, Bolan N (2021) Assessment of the fertilizer potential of biochars produced from slow pyrolysis of biosolid and animal manures. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 155:105043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2021.105043
Ibrahim MEH, Ali AYA, Elsiddig AMI, Zhou GS, Nimir NEA, Ahmad I, Suliman MSE, Elradi SBM, Salih EGI (2020) Biochar improved sorghum germination and seedling growth under salinity stress. Agron J 112:911–920. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20026
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 144:175–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.08.015
Jing Y, Zhang Y, Han I, Wang P, Mei Q, Huang Y (2020) Effects of different straw biochars on soil organic carbon, nitrogen, available phosphorus, and enzyme activity in paddy soil. Sci Rep 10:8837. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65796-2
Karim AA, Kumar M, Mohapatra S, Singh SK (2019) Nutrient rich biomass and effluent sludge wastes co-utilization for production of biochar fertilizer through different thermal treatments. J Clean Prod 228:570–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.330
Karim AA, Kumar M, Singh E, Kumar A, Kumar S, Ray A, Dhal NK (2022) Enrichment of primary macronutrients in biochar for sustainable agriculture: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 52:1449–1490. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2020.1859271
Karim AA, Kumar M, Singh SK, Panda CR, Mishra BK (2017) Potassium enriched biochar production by thermal plasma processing of banana peduncle for soil application. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 123:165–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2016.12.009
Kavitha B, Reddy PVL, Kim B, Lee SS, Pandey SK, Kim KH (2018) Benefits and limitations of biochar amendment in agricultural soils: a review. J Environ Manag 227:146–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.08.082
Khadem A, Raiesi F, Besharati H, Khalaj MA (2021) The effects of biochar on soil nutrients status, microbial activity and carbon sequestration potential in two calcareous soils. Biochar 3:105–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42773-020-00076-w
Khorram SM, Zhang G, Fatemi A, Kiefer R, Mahmood A, Jafarnia S, Zakaria MP, Li G (2020) Effect of walnut shell biochars on soil quality, crop yields, and weed dynamics in a 4-year field experiment. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:18510–18520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08335-w
Kuppusamy S, Thavamani P, Megharaj M, Venkateswarlu K, Naidu R (2016) Agronomic and remedial benefits and risks of applying biochar to soil: current knowledge and future research directions. Environ Int 87:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2015.10.018
Li CJ, Xiong YW, Qu ZY, Xu X, Huang QZ, Huang GH (2018) Impact of biochar addition on soil properties and water-fertilizer productivity of tomato in semi-arid region of Inner Mongolia, China. Geoderma 331:100–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.06.014
Li Y, Yang YQ, Shen F, Yang G, Zhang YZ, Deng SH, Zhang J, Zeng YM, Hu YD (2017) Mitigating biochar phytotoxicity via lanthanum (La) participation in pyrolysis. Environ SciPollut Res 24:10267–10278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-8653-x
Liang J, Tang SQ, Gong JL, Zeng GM, Tang WW, Song B, Zhang P, Yang ZX, Luo Y (2020) Responses of enzymatic activity and microbial communities to biochar/compost amendment in sulfamethoxazole polluted wetland soil. J Hazard Mater 385:121533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121533
Mandal S, Thangarajan R, Bolan NS, Sarkar B, Khan N, Ok YS, Naidu R (2016) Biochar-induced concomitant decrease in ammonia volatilization and increase in nitrogen use efficiency by wheat. Chemosphere 142:120–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.04.086
Miltenyi GPL, Ebach MC, Triantafilis J (2015) Assessing the Australian Soilo Classification using cladistic analysis. Soil Res 53:772–785. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR14323
Mierzwa-Hersztek M, Wolny-Koladka K, Gondek K, Galazka A, Gawryjolek K (2020) Effect of coapplication of biochar and nutrients on microbiocenotic composition, dehydrogenase activity index and chemical properties of sandy soil. Waste Biomass Valorization 11:3911–3923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-019-00757-z
Mukhina I, Rizhiya E, Bankina T (2020) Biochar effect on nutrients availability to barley. Environ Res Eng Manag 76:43–53. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.erem.76.2.21854
Mumme J, Getz J, Prasad M, Luder U, Kern J, Masek O, Buss W (2018) Toxicity screening of biochar-mineral composites using germination tests. Chemosphere 207:91–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.05.042
Naeem MA, Khalid M, Aon M, Abbas G, Amjad M, Murtaza B, Khan WUD, Ahmada N (2018) Combined application of biochar with compost and fertilizer improves soil properties and grain yield of maize. J Plant Nutr 41:112–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2017.1381734
Olszyk D, Shiroyama T, Novak J, Cantrell K, Sigua G, Watts D, Johnson MG (2020) Biochar affects growth and shoot nitrogen in four crops for two soils. Agrosyst Geosci Environ 3:e20067. https://doi.org/10.1002/agg2.20067
Omondi MO, Xia X, Nahayo A, Liu XY, Korai PK, Pan GX (2016) Quantification of biochar effects on soil hydrological properties using meta-analysis of literature data. Geoderma 274:28–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.03.029
Onyango CM, Harbinson J, Imungi JK, Shibairo SS, van Kooten O (2012) Influence of organic and mineral fertilization on germination, leaf nitrogen, nitrate accumulation and yield of vegetable amaranth. J Plant Nutr 35:342–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2012.639917
Oreoluwa AT, Yetunde AT, Joseph UE, Chengsen Z, Hongyan W (2020) Effect of biochar and poultry litter application on chemical properties and nutrient availability of an acidic soil. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 51:1670–1679. https://doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2020.1791158
Purakayastha TJ, Bera T, Bhaduri D, Sarkar B, Mandal S, Wade P, Kumari S, Biswas S, Menon M, Pathak H, Tsang DCW (2019) A review on biochar modulated soil condition improvements and nutrient dynamics concerning crop yields: pathways to climate change mitigation and global food security. Chemosphere 227:345–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.03.170
Rajkovich S, Enders A, Hanley K, Hyland C, Zimmerman AR, Lehmann J (2011) Corn growth and nitrogen nutrition after additions of biochars with varying properties to a temperate soil. Biol Fertil Soils 48:271–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-011-0624-7
Sarkar B, Dissanayake PD, Bolan NS, Dar JY, Kumar M, Haque MN, Mukhopadhyay R, Ramanayaka S, Biswas JK, Tsang DCW, Rinklebe J, Ok YS (2022) Challenges and opportunities in sustainable management of microplastics and nanoplastics in the environment. Environ Res 207:112179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2021.112179
Shi W, Ju Y, Bian R, Li L, Joseph S, Mitchell DRG, Munroe P, Taherymoosavi S, Pan G (2020) Biochar bound urea boosts plant growth and reduces nitrogen leaching. Sci Total Environ 701:134424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134424
Solaiman ZM, Murphy DV, Abbott LK (2012) Biochars influence seed germination and early growth of seedlings. Plant Soil 353:273–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-011-1031-4
Solaiman ZM, Shafi MI, Beamont E, Anawar HM (2020) Poultry litter biochar increases mycorrhizal colonisation, soil fertility and cucumber yield in a fertigation system on sandy soil. Agriculture 10:480. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture10100480
Song D, Tang J, Xi X, Zhang S, Liang G, Zhou W, Wang X (2018) Responses of soil nutrients and microbial activities to additions of maize straw biochar and chemical fertilization in a calcareous soil. Eur J Soil Biol 84:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2017.11.003
Song S, Arora S, Laserna AKC, Shen Y, Thian BWY, Cheong JC, Tan JKN, Chiam Z, Fong SL, Ghosh S, Ok YS, Li SFY, Tan HTW, Dai Y, Wang CH (2020) Biochar for urban agriculture: impacts on soil chemical characteristics and on Brassica rapa growth, nutrient content and metabolism over multiple growth cycles. Sci Total Environ 727:138742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138742
Tan X, Liu Y, Yan K, Wang Z, Lu G, He Y, He W (2017) Differences in the response of soil dehydrogenase activity to Cd contamination are determined by the different substrates used for its determination. Chemosphere 169:324–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.11.076
Teutscherova N, Lojka B, Houška J, Masaguer A, Benito M, Vazquez E (2018) Application of holm oak biochar alters dynamics of enzymatic and microbial activity in two contrasting Mediterranean soils. Eur Journal Soil Biol 88:15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejsobi.2018.06.002
Videgain-Marco M, Marco-Montori P, Martí-Dalmau C, Jaizme-Vega MDC, Manyà-Cervelló JJ, García-Ramos FJ (2020) Effects of biochar application in a sorghum crop under greenhouse conditions: growth parameters and physicochemical fertility. Agronomy 10:104. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10010104
Wali F, Naveed M, Bashir MA, Asif M, Ahmad Z, Alkahtani J, Alwahibi MS, Elshikh MS (2020) Formulation of biochar-based phosphorus fertilizer and its impact on both soil properties and chickpea growth performance. Sustainability 12:9528. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229528
Wang J, Yuan GD, Lu J, Wu J, Wei J (2020) Effects of biochar and peat on salt-affected soil extract solution and wheat seedling germination in the Yellow River Delta. Arid Land Res Manag 34:287–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/15324982.2019.1696423
Wang S, Xia G, Zheng J, Wang Y, Chen T, Chi D, Bolan NS, Chang SX, Wang T, Ok YS (2022) Mulched drip irrigation and biochar application reduce gaseous nitrogen emissions, but increase nitrogen uptake and peanut yield. Sci Total Environ 830:154753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154753
Wen P, Wu ZS, Han YJ, Cravotto G, Wang J, Ye BC (2017) Microwave-assisted synthesis of a novel biochar-based slow-release nitrogen fertilizer with enhanced water-retention capacity. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 5:7374–7382. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b01721
Woolf D, Amonette JE, Street-Perrott FA, Lehmann J, Joseph S (2010) Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nat Commun 1:56. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1053
Xiang Y, Deng Q, Duan H, Guo Y (2017) Effects of biochar application on root traits: a meta-analysis. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 9:1563–1572. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12449
Zhang HJ, Voroney RP, Price GW, White AJ (2017) Sulfur-enriched biochar as a potential soil amendment and fertiliser. Soil Res 55:93–99. https://doi.org/10.1071/Sr15256
Zhang Q, Song Y, Wu Z, Yan X, Gunina A, Kuzyakov Y, Xiong Z (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118435
Zhang X, Li H, Li M, Wen G, Hu Z (2019) Influence of individual and combined application of biochar, Bacillus megaterium, and phosphatase on phosphorus availability in calcareous soil. J Soils Sediments 19:3688–3698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-019-02338-y
Zheng J, Han J, Liu Z, Xia W, Zhang X, Li L, Liu X, Bian R, Cheng K, Zheng J, Pan G (2017) Biochar compound fertilizer increases nitrogen productivity and economic benefits but decreases carbon emission of maize production. Agric Ecosyst Environ 241:70–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.02.034
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. The first author (MZH) acknowledges PhD scholarship from the University of Newcastle, Australia, and Cooperative Research Centre for High Performance Soils (Soil CRC).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Md Zahangir Hossain: Conceptualization, Methodology / Study design, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original draft. Md Mezbaul Bahar: Conceptualization, Methodology / Study design, Resources, Data curation, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Binoy Sarkar: Conceptualization, Methodology / Study design, Resources, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Nanthi Bolan: Conceptualization, Methodology / Study design, Resources, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. Scott Donne: Resources, Writing – review & editing, Supervision.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
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
Hossain, M.Z., Bahar, M.M., Sarkar, B. et al. Fertilizer Value of Nutrient-Enriched Biochar and Response of Canola Crop. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 24, 2123–2137 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-024-01784-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-024-01784-z