4.7 Article

Effects of rice husk biochar on selected soil properties and nitrate leaching in loamy sand and clay soil

期刊

出版社

KEAI PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.iswcr.2019.05.005

关键词

Soil incubation study; Carbon sequestration; Biochar rates; Soil texture; Water stable aggregate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biochar is a product of pyrolysis of biomass in the absence of oxygen and has a high potential to sequester carbon into more stable soil organic carbon (OC). Despite the large number of studies on biochar and soil properties, few studies have investigated the effects of biochar in contrasting soils. The current research was conducted to evaluate the effects of different biochar levels (0 (as control), 1% and 3%) on several soil physiochemical properties and nitrate leaching in two soil types (loamy sand and clay) under greenhouse conditions and wet-dry cycles. The experiment was performed using a randomized design with three levels of biochar produced from rice husks at 500 degrees C in three replications. Cation exchange capacity increased significantly, by 20% and 30% in 1% and 3% biochar-amended loamy sand soil, respectively, and increases were 9% and 19% in 1% and 3% biochar-amended clay soil, respectively. Loamy sand soil did not show improvement in aggregate indices, including mean weight diameter, geometric mean diameter, water stable aggregates and fractal dimension, which was contrary to the results for the clay soil. Rice husk biochar application at the both rates decreased nitrate leaching in the clay soil more than in the loamy sand. Our study highlights the importance of soil type in determining the value of biochar as a soil amendment to improve soil properties, particularly soil aggregation and reduced nitrate leaching. The benefits of the biochar in the clay soil were greater than in the loamy sand soil. (C) 2019 International Research and Training Center on Erosion and Sedimentation and China Water and Power Press. Production and Hosting by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据