Plant performance and soil–plant carbon relationship response to different biochar types
Jia Xin Liao, Pui San So, Sanandam Bordoloi, De Nian Li, Hao Ran Yuan, Yong Chen, Li Qing Xin
Plant performance and soil–plant carbon relationship response to different biochar types
Biochar (BC) applications in soil has positive effects on plant performance, particularly for loose soil in agricultural context. However, how biochar types affect plant performance of non-crop species and soil–plant carbon relationships is not clear. We selected five different BC types and three plant species to investigate the responses of plant performance and the soil–plant carbon relationship to BC effects. The result demonstrated that peanut shell BC led to the death of both R. tomentosa and C. edithiae, due to a reduction in nutrient uptake caused by higher soil electricity conductivity (2001.7 and 976.3 µS cm−1). However, the carbon content of S. arboricola increased by 57% in peanut shell BC-amended soil, suggesting that S. arboricola has a higher tolerance for soil salinity. Wood BC-amended soil led to better stomatal conductance (gs) and leaf area index (LAI) of both R. tomentosa and C. edithiae due to the higher water retention in the soil (22.68% and 20.79%). This illustrated that a higher amount of water retention brought by wood BC with a great amount of pore volume might be the limited factor for plant growth. The relationship between gs and LAI suggested that gs would not increase when LAI reached beyond 3. Moreover, wood and peanut shell BC caused a negative relationship between soil organic carbon and plant carbon content, suggesting that plants consume more carbon from the soil to store it in the plant. Overall, wood BC is recommended for plant growth of R. tomentosa and C. edithiae, and peanut shell BC is suggested for S. arboricola carbon storage.
• | Peanut shell biochar enhanced soil salinity which causes the death of R. tomentosa and C. edithiae, while wood biochar is suitable for these plant species. |
• | Wood and peanut shell biochar caused a negative relationship between soil organic carbon and plant carbon content. |
• | The stomatal conductance will not increase when the leaf area reaches the limiting value 3. |
• | An empirical function is developed to correlate plant carbon content and leaf area index under different biochar applications. |
Biochar / Carbon content / Feedstocks / Stomatal conductance / Leaf area index
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
ASTM (2013) ASTM D4972-13: Standard Test Method for pH of soils. American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM: West Conshohocken. https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/astm/astmd497213
|
[4] |
ASTM (2015) ASTM D698-12: Standard test methods for laboratory compaction characteristics of soil using standard effort (12 400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3). American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM: West Conshohocken. https://www.astm.org/d0698-12r21.html
|
[5] |
ASTM (2020) ASTM D2974-20: Standard test methods for determining the water (Moisture) content, ash content, and organic material of peat and other organic soils. ASTM: West Conshohocken. https://www.astm.org/d2974-20e01.html
|
[6] |
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
|
[14] |
|
[15] |
|
[16] |
|
[17] |
|
[18] |
|
[19] |
|
[20] |
|
[21] |
|
[22] |
|
[23] |
|
[24] |
|
[25] |
|
[26] |
|
[27] |
Hall J, Maschmedt D, Billing B (2009) The Soils of Southern South Australia. (Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, Government of South Australia: Adelaide, S. Aust.) https://www.environment.sa.gov.au/topics/soil-and-land-management/soils-of-sa
|
[28] |
|
[29] |
|
[30] |
|
[31] |
|
[32] |
|
[33] |
|
[34] |
|
[35] |
|
[36] |
|
[37] |
|
[38] |
|
[39] |
|
[40] |
|
[41] |
|
[42] |
|
[43] |
|
[44] |
|
[45] |
|
[46] |
|
[47] |
|
[48] |
|
[49] |
|
[50] |
|
[51] |
|
[52] |
|
[53] |
Medina E, Klinge H (1983) Productivity of tropical forests and tropical woodlands. In: Physiological Plant Ecology IV: Ecosystem Processes: Mineral Cycling, Productivity and Man’s Influence. Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp 281–303
|
[54] |
|
[55] |
|
[56] |
|
[57] |
Ng CWW, Leung A, Ni JJ. (2019a) Plant-soil slope interaction. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781351052382/plant-soil-slope-interaction-charles-ng-anthony-leung-junjun-ni
|
[58] |
|
[59] |
|
[60] |
|
[61] |
|
[62] |
|
[63] |
|
[64] |
|
[65] |
|
[66] |
|
[67] |
|
[68] |
|
[69] |
|
[70] |
|
[71] |
Pratt PF (1965) Potassium. Methods of soil analysis: part 2 chemical and microbiological properties, 9, 1022–1030. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr9.2.c20
|
[72] |
|
[73] |
|
[74] |
|
[75] |
|
[76] |
|
[77] |
|
[78] |
|
[79] |
|
[80] |
|
[81] |
|
[82] |
|
[83] |
|
[84] |
Smith (2022) Soil pH, Soil Acidity and Alkalinity. https://knowledgebase.centreforelites.com/soil-ph-soil-acidity-and-alkalinity/ Accessed 11 Dec 2023.
|
[85] |
|
[86] |
|
[87] |
|
[89] |
|
[90] |
|
[91] |
|
[92] |
|
[93] |
|
[94] |
|
[95] |
|
[96] |
|
[97] |
|
/
〈 | 〉 |