3.8 Article

Influence of biomass ash, lime and gypsum fertilization on macro- and microelement contents in the soil and grains of spring wheat

Journal

SOIL SCIENCE ANNUAL
Volume 69, Issue 3, Pages 177-183

Publisher

POLSKIE TOWARZYSTWO GLEBOZNAWC
DOI: 10.2478/ssa-2018-0018

Keywords

Biomass ash; lime; gypsum; macro- and microelements; soil properties; grain quality; spring wheat

Categories

Funding

  1. [515-07-037-72-02-05/15]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The addition of lime and gypsum to wood ash and straw ash were used in the studies. The subject of the study was estimation of the fertilization effect of biomass, ash, gypsum and lime on the content of macro- and microelements in soil and grain of spring wheat. The experiment was carried out in 2016 in the West Pomeranian Voivodeship in Poland. The study compared three factors: wood ash of deciduous and coniferous trees and cereal straw ash (I. factor), two types of ash additions: lime or gypsum (mixture composition: 60% ash and 40% lime or gypsum) (II. factor), three doses of ash with lime or gypsum mixture: 2,4, 6 Mg.ha(-1) and control (III. factor). The analysis of the microelements contents (copper, chromium, nickel and lead) in the soil shows that the application of fertilizer in a form of wood or straw ash as well as PROFITKALK lime or SulfoPROFIT gypsum did not exceed the threshold values for the soil from the first group of land specified in Regulation of the Minister of the Environment of September 1, 2016 on the manner of assessing the pollution of the earth's surface. After application of biomass ashes (wood or straw) an increase of some macroelements (potassium, phosphorus and calcium) in the soil was observed. The experiment did not reveal any influence of applied fertilization in the form of wood or straw ash nor PROFITKALK lime nor SulfoPROFIT gypsum on changes in iron, manganese and zinc abundance in grains of spring wheat.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available