Next Article in Journal
Physical Attributes of an Irrigated Oxisol after Brassicas Crops under No-Tillage System
Next Article in Special Issue
Short-Term Effect of Biochar on Soil Organic Carbon Improvement and Nitrous Oxide Emission Reduction According to Different Soil Characteristics in Agricultural Land: A Laboratory Experiment
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Integrated Use of Rapeseed Cake, Biochar and Chemical Fertilizers on Root Growth, Nutrients Use Efficiency and Productivity of Tea
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Six Different Feedstocks on Biochar’s Properties and Expected Stability
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 12
Issue 8
10.3390/agronomy12081824
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Biochar on Soil Properties and Tomato Growth

by
Suzana Ioana Calcan
1,2,
Oana Cristina Pârvulescu
1,*,
Violeta Alexandra Ion
3,*,
Cristian Eugen Răducanu
1,
Liliana Bădulescu
3,
Roxana Madjar
3,
Tănase Dobre
1,
Diana Egri
1,
Andrei Moț
3,
Lavinia Mihaela Iliescu
3 and
Ionuț Ovidiu Jerca
3
1
Chemical and Biochemical Engineering Department, University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest, 1-7 Gheorghe Polizu Str., 011061 Bucharest, Romania
2
SCIENT Research Center for Instrumental Analysis, 1 Petre Ispirescu Str., 77167 Bucharest, Romania
3
Research Center for Studies of Food and Agricultural Products Quality, University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Bucharest, 59 Marasti Blvd., 011464 Bucharest, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2022, 12(8), 1824; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12081824
Submission received: 3 July 2022 / Revised: 27 July 2022 / Accepted: 29 July 2022 / Published: 31 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Role of Biochar in the Sustainability of the Agroecological Environment)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The paper aimed at evaluating the effects of biochar (BC) produced by slow pyrolysis of vine pruning residue on soil physicochemical properties and tomato plant growth. A greenhouse experiment was conducted for 66 days, applying different treatments for 3 soil types, i.e., foliar fertilizer, BC (at a volumetric ratio between BC and soil of 20/80), BC + foliar fertilizer, and no treatments. Strongly alkaline BC (pH = 9.89 ± 0.01) had a significant beneficial effect on the growth performance of tomato plants sown in a strongly acidic soil (pH = 5.40 ± 0.02). The mean values of height, number of leaves, and collar diameter of plants grown in BC-amended soil without foliar treatment were up to 50% higher than those of plants grown in soil with the other treatments. This positive effect of BC on plant growth is due to the changes in the soil properties. The addition of BC led to increased values of electrical conductivity, pH, soluble and available nutrient concentration. Moreover, BC reduced soil bulk density by about 50%, resulting in improved plant root development and thus enhanced water and nutrient uptake. Accordingly, BC derived from vine pruning residues can improve soil quality and tomato plant growth, as well as reduce biomass residues.

1. Introduction

Biochar (BC) is a low cost and environmentally friendly amendment, usually produced by slow pyrolysis of biomass residues [1,2,3,4,5]. Its application to agricultural soils is a promising strategy to improve soil quality, enhance plant growth and production, reduce biomass residues, and mitigate climate change [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11].
BC can enhance the soil structure, increase its porosity, pH value, electrical conductivity (EC), water-holding capacity (WHC), cation exchange capacity (CEC), nutrient retention capacity, organic carbon concentration, available phosphorus concentration, and total carbon and nitrogen concentration, as well as reduce the soil bulk density (BD), nutrient loss, and bioavailability of heavy metals [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. Moreover, it can suppress soil pathogens, and improve the growth and activity of beneficial microbial populations as well as the activity of soil enzymes [3,6,14,19,22,23].
These positive effects of BC on the physicochemical and biological properties of the soil enhance the availability of plant nutrients, generally leading to improved crop performance [3,5,24]. Several studies assessed that BC applied with inorganic and organic fertilizers enhanced soil fertility and plant performance [1,3,5,6,11,13,17,19,20,25,26,27]. Increased soil fertility results in lower fertilizer inputs as well as higher crop productivity and therefore additional CO2 consumption, leading to agronomic, environmental, and economic benefits [16,28]. The effects of BC on the soil-plant system depend on various factors, e.g., physicochemical properties and dosage of BC, type and dosage of fertilizer, plant species, soil characteristics, climate [1,3,4,5,6,8,10,11,16,20,25,26]. The physicochemical properties of BC depend on the type and pretreatment of the feedstock, pyrolysis conditions (heating rate, duration, temperature, type and flow rate of sweeping gas), and post-pyrolysis treatment [1,5,6,20,21,28,29,30,31,32]. BC produced at a higher temperature is generally more alkaline, has higher values of WHC, EC, specific surface area (SSA), fixed carbon and ash concentrations, higher aromaticity, fewer surface functional groups, and lower values of CEC than that obtained at a lower temperature [1,4,6,20]. The agronomic benefits of BC amendment are more obvious in sandy soils, followed by sandy loam, and then silty soils, as well as in acidic rather than neutral and alkaline soils, and in greenhouse rather than in field experiments [6,11,13,16,17,19,20].
Moreover, BC applied as an amendment increases soil carbon sequestration and reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, contributing to climate change mitigation [1,4,5,6,9,12,15,16,23]. The emissions of GHGs (CO2, CH4, and N2O) can be reduced directly (by improving soil aeration) or indirectly (by diminishing fertilizer inputs and energy supply for irrigation of soils with enhanced WHC) [16].
This paper focuses on the production of BC from Vitis vinifera branches left over from winter pruning and its application as a soil amendment. The effects of the addition of BC on soil physicochemical properties and tomato plant growth were evaluated. Nowadays, vine pruning residue is usually burnt in situ or chopped and incorporated into the soil. On the one hand, its burning causes serious environmental concerns due to the emission of GHGs as well as loss of nutrients and organic matter, which are very valuable for the soil [33]. On the other hand, vine pruning residue incorporated into the soil represents a substrate and shelter for pathogenic fungi living in the soil. Moreover, the C/N ratio of vine pruning residue is higher than 50 [34,35], indicating that it is not suitable for direct use as soil fertilizer without a prior treatment. Accordingly, the pyrolysis of vine pruning residue to obtain BC, bio-oil, and pyrolytic gases could be an effective solution for disposal of this residue. In addition to its application as a soil amendment, BC is useful as a renewable fuel, sorbent of environmental contaminants, and precursor of activated carbon and catalysts, while bio-oil and pyrolytic gases are valuable sources of chemicals and renewable energy [28,34,36].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

2.1.1. Production of BC

BC was obtained by slow pyrolysis of vine pruning residue. The vine branches were cut with pruning shears resulting in cylindrical pieces having a mean volume (V) of 2.3 cm3 (0.7 cm diameter and 6 cm length) (Figure 1a). Carbon dioxide (CO2) (purity >99.9%) was used as a sweeping gas and reactant in the slow pyrolysis process.

2.1.2. Preparation of BC-Amended Soils

Three soil types, i.e., Fluvisol (S1), Chernozem (S2), and Luvisol (S3), classified as medium loam soils [37], were collected from agriculture fields in Romania. Soil samples were taken from a depth of 0–20 cm, according to the methodology described by Mușat et al. [38], aerated for 3 days, and then ground to a diameter ≤2 mm. BC (Figure 1b) was ground with a soil mill to a diameter ≤2 mm and soil-BC mixtures were prepared at a volumetric ratio between BC and soil (S) of 20/80.

2.2. Equipment, Procedures, and Variables

2.2.1. Production of BC

Slow pyrolysis of vine pruning residue was performed at University POLITEHNICA of Bucharest (UPB) in the setup shown in Figure 2. The chopped vine residue was fed into a ceramic cylindrical reactor (1), 27 cm height, 15.5 cm internal diameter (D), and 3.5 cm wall thickness, which was set into an autoclaved cellular concrete (ACC) support (2). The pyrolysis reactor was placed on a precision balance (3), put on a metal support (4). The inner wall of the reactor was heated by a resistor, 8.4 m length and 110 Ω electrical resistance (R). The resistor was powered (220 V) by a transformer (5) (Electrotehnica, Romania), which was powered (380 V) by another transformer (6) (Electrotehnica, Romania).
The sweeping gas (CO2) from a gas tank (7) was introduced into the reactor through a pipe (8), passed upwards through the fixed bed biomass, and discharged through a collecting pipe (9) along with the volatile products (VPs) obtained during the process, i.e., vapour and non-condensable gases. The mixture of VPs was condensed in a double pipe heat exchanger (10), resulting in a pyrolysis liquid (bio-oil) and VPs. The bio-oil was collected in a triple neck round-bottom flask (11), set into a polyurethane (PU) support (12). The VPs entered a double pipe heat exchanger (13), resulting in a bio-oil, which returned to the collector (11), and pyrolysis gases, which were discharged through an exhaust hood (14). The cold water from a coolant supply/discharge system (15) was used as a cooling fluid in both heat exchangers (10) and (13).
The volumetric flow rate of CO2, GV (cm3/s), was measured with a flow meter (16) and the voltage, U (V), with a voltmeter (17). The masses of solid (m) and liquid (mL) were monitored using the precision balances (3) and (18) (Kern, Germany). The temperature inside the fixed bed of vegetal material was measured using the thermocouples (19) and (20) attached to the thermometers (21) and (22) (TFA Dostmann, Germany). The values of mass and temperature were recorded and processed using a KernSoft/HuaweiMate software/hardware system (23). The experiments of slow pyrolysis were conducted for 1 h at 1 atm.
The power of the resistor, P = U2/R, CO2 superficial velocity, w = 4GV/(πD2), and mean volume of vegetal material particles, V, were selected as process independent variables (factors). According to the results obtained in our previous study [28], slow pyrolysis was performed at the following levels of process factors: P = 110 W, w = 1.5 cm/s, and V = 2.3 cm3. The final values (at 1 h) of specific masses of biochar and bio-oil, mf/m0 = 0.31 ± 0.01 and mLf/m0 = 0.37 ± 0.01, where m0 was the initial mass of vine waste, and of mean temperature of fixed bed, tmf = 517 ± 16 °C, were process dependent variables (responses).

2.2.2. Characterization of Non-Amended Soils, BC Amendment, and BC-Amended Soils

The humidity (HU) was determined gravimetrically at 105 °C, pH was measured using the potentiometric method (solid/liquid ratio of 1/2.5 g/cm3 for non-amended and BC-amended soils and of 1/10 g/cm3 for BC), and electrical conductivity (EC) using the conductometric method (solid/liquid ratio of 1/5 g/cm3 for non-amended and BC-amended soils and of 1/10 g/cm3 for BC). The bulk density (BD) was calculated by dividing the mass of a sample of dried substrate (non-amended soil, BC amendment, and BC-amended soil) by its volume, measured using a graduated glass cylinder. The concentrations of soluble nitrate nitrogen and ammonium nitrogen (N-NO3 and N-NH4) were determined at 420 nm (solid/liquid ratio of 1/5 g/cm3) using a CECIL 2041 Spectrophotometer (Buck Scientific, Norwalk, CT, USA). The concentration of soluble phosphorus (P) was determined spectrophotometrically at 720 nm (solid/liquid ratio of 1/5 g/cm3) using a CECIL 2041 Spectrophotometer (Buck Scientific, USA). The concentration of soluble potassium (K) was measured using a Sherwood 410 Flame Photometer (Sherwood Scientific, Cambridge, UK) (solid/liquid ratio of 1/5 g/cm3). The concentrations of available phosphorus and potassium (P-AL and K-AL) were determined using Egner–Riehm–Domingo extraction method (solid/liquid ratio of 1/20 g/cm3, where the liquid phase was a solution of ammonium acetate-lactate (AL)) followed by spectrophotometric and flame photometric methods, respectively, applied to determine P and K. The concentrations of available calcium, magnesium, and sodium (Ca, Mg, and Na) (extractable in ammonium acetate) were determined using an Optima 8300 ICP-OES (PerkinElmer, Waltham, MA, USA) (solid/liquid ratio of 1/50 g/cm3). The total carbon concentration (C) was measured using an EA3100 Elemental Analyser (Eurovector, Pavia, Italy). All measurements were performed in triplicate.

2.2.3. Effects of BC Amendment on Tomato Growth

A greenhouse experiment was conducted for 66 days (15 November 2021–20 January 2022) to assess the effects of BC on tomato plant growth. The plants were cultivated in the greenhouse of the Research Center for Studies of Food Quality and Agricultural Products, part of University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Bucharest (USAMV), solely for experimental purposes. Experimental research and greenhouse studies on plants, including the collection of plant material, complied with relevant institutional, national, and international guidelines and legislation. The tomato seeds (Cœur de Bœuf variety) were purchased from the local market.
According to the experimental scheme presented in Table 1, 5 treatments for each soil type (a total of 15 treatments and 10 replicates per treatment) were used for tomato growth. A commercial foliar fertilizer was applied to the plants every 10 days, 25 days after sowing (a total of 4 foliar treatments), at concentrations of 0.2% (F) and 0.1% (F/2), respectively, where the percentages represent mL fertilizer/100 mL water. The total amounts of nutrients per plant applied with 4 foliar treatments were as follows: 160 μg P, 80 μg N, 22 μg Mg, 8 μg K, 8 μg Fe, 2.4 μg B, 2.2 μg Mn, 2 μg Zn, and 1.2 μg Cu. The foliar fertilizer also contained amino acids, multivitamins, enzymes, growth stimulators (auxin, cytokinin, and giberalin), and other micronutrients.
Non-amended and BC-amended soils (S and S + BC) were placed in seedling trays with 32 cells (a total of 150 cells). The plants were irrigated with tap water taking into account their humidity needs (usually every 2 days). The indoor temperature was measured using the greenhouse compartment sensors, while the outdoor temperature was measured using the greenhouse weather station. All environmental data were collected using PRIVA software. Plant height (H), number of leaves (NL), collar (transition zone between the root and stem) diameter (CD), and root volume (RV), evaluated 66 days after sowing, were selected as dependent variables.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

A single factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to assess whether the addition of BC had a significant effect (p < 0.05) on soil properties and whether the type of treatment had a significant effect on plant growth parameters. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was used to reveal the strength of linear correlations between the physicochemical properties of non-amended soils, BC amendment, and BC-amended soils. A data matrix with 7 rows (number of samples, i.e., 3 non-amended soils, BC amendment, and 3 BC-amended soils) and 14 columns (number of variables, i.e., HU, BD, pH, EC, C, N-NO3, N-NH4, P, K, P-AL, K-AL, Ca, Mg, Na) was used in principal component analysis (PCA). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using XLSTAT Version 2019.1 (Addinsoft, New York, NY, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Characterization of Non-Amended Soils, the BC Amendment, and BC-Amended Soils

The mean values of physicochemical properties of non-amended soils (S1, S2, and S3), the BC amendment, and BC-amended soils (S1 + BC, S2 + BC, and S3 + BC) are summarized in Table 2. A single factor ANOVA assessed that the addition of BC amendment had a significant effect (p < 0.05) on each soil property.
The data presented in Table 2 indicate the following aspects:
  • the values of humidity (HU), bulk density (BD), soluble nitrate nitrogen concentration (N-NO3), and available calcium concentration (Ca) are higher for non-amended soils than for BC (3–4 times for HU and BD, 2–6 times for N-NO3, 16–46% for Ca) and BC-amended soils (6–19% for HU, 16–50% for BD, 15–32% for N-NO3, 7–20% for Ca);
  • the values of pH, electrical conductivity (EC), total carbon concentration (C), concentrations of soluble ammonium nitrogen (N-NH4), soluble phosphorus and potassium (P and K), available phosphorus and potassium (P-AL and K-AL), and available sodium (Na) are lower for non-amended soils than for BC (24–83% for pH, 9–22 times for EC, 26–38 times for C, up to 5 times for N-NH4, 3–21 times for P, 131–567 times for K, 16–128 times for P-AL, 23–41 times for K-AL, and 2–3 times for Na) and BC-amended soils (4–19% for pH, about 2 times for EC, 4–7 times for C, 10–26% for N-NH4, 2–7 times for P, 6–24 times for K, 2–10 times for P-AL, 3–4 times for K-AL, and up to 13% for Na);
  • the values of available magnesium concentration (Mg) are higher for non-amended soil 3 than for BC (by 28%) and BC-amended soil 3 (by 4%); compared to non-amended soils S1 and S2, the values of Mg are higher for BC (up to 53%) as well as for BC-amended soils S1 and S2 (up to 8%).
The physicochemical properties of non-amended soils (S1, S2, and S3), BC amendment, and BC-amended soils (S1 + BC, S2 + BC, and S3 + BC) were processed using PCA [22,39,40]. The PCA results referring to eigenvalues highlighted 2 eigenvalues that were >1, i.e., those corresponding to PC1 (7.85) and PC2 (3.09). These first two PCs explain 78.1% (56.0% + 22.1%) of the total variance. The factor loadings (coordinates of variables on the factor-plane PC1−PC2) are specified in Table S1, where their significant levels are highlighted in bold. The factor scores (projections of cases on the factor-plane PC1−PC2) are summarized in Table S2.
The PCA bi-plot, i.e., projections of 14 variables (HU, BD, pH, EC, C, N-NO3, N-NH4, P, K, P-AL, K-AL, Ca, Mg, and Na) and 7 samples (S1, S2, S3, BC, S1 + BC, S2 + BC, and S3 + BC) on the factor-plane PC1−PC2, is shown in Figure 3. The correlation matrix is presented in Table 3, where the significant values of correlation coefficients (r) at a significance level α = 0.05 (two-tailed test) are highlighted in bold.
The PCA bi-plot (Figure 3) and correlation matrix (Table 3) indicate the following relevant aspects:
  • BC amendment has higher levels of C (76.01 ± 0.68%), EC (2.04 ± 0.07 dS/m), pH (9.89 ± 0.01), K-AL (8200 ± 0 mg/kg), P-AL (1615 ± 7 mg/kg), K (3131 ± 183 mg/kg), P (16.0 ± 0.3 mg/kg), and Na (87.9 ± 7.0 mg/kg), but lower levels of BD (0.319 ± 0.018 g/cm3) and HU (3.51 ± 0.18%) than other samples [discrimination on PC1 between BC (blue circle) and the other samples];
  • non-amended soil 3 (S3) and BC-amended soil 3 (S3 + BC) have higher levels of Mg (572.2–607.5 mg/kg) and lower levels of N-NO3 (8.0–9.7 mg/kg), N-NH4 (2.8–4.1 mg/kg), and Ca (2182–2373 mg/kg) than the other non-amended and BC-amended soils (Mg = 302.6–388.1 mg/kg, N-NO3 = 10.6–32.8 mg/kg, N-NH4 = 11.0–14.1 mg/kg, and Ca = 2415–3035 mg/kg) [discrimination on PC2 between S3 and S3 + BC and the other non-amended and BC-amended soils (green circles)];
  • pH, EC, C, N-NH4, P, K, P-AL, K-AL, and Na are directly correlated and they are inversely correlated with HU, BD, N-NO3, and Ca;
  • there are very strong positive correlations (r ≥ 0.85) between EC and C (r = 0.97), Na and C (r = 0.94), Na and EC (r = 0.88);
  • there are very strong negative correlations between BD and C (r = −0.89), HU and K-AL (r = −0.87), BD and EC (r = −0.86), BD and pH (r = −0.85).

3.2. Effects of BC Amendment on Tomato Growth

The levels of temperature inside and outside the greenhouse were 19.0 ± 1.4 °C and 4.0 ± 4.0 °C, respectively. The mean values ± margin of error of tomato plant height (H), number of leaves (NL), collar diameter (CD), and root volume (RV) corresponding to 5 treatments (S, S + BC, S + F, S + BC + F, and S + BC + F/2) for each soil type, 66 days after sowing, are presented in Figure 4.
BC had a beneficial effect on H of plants grown in soil S3 as well as a detrimental effect on H of plants grown in soils S1 and S2 (Figure 4a). Single factor ANOVA assessed the following aspects regarding the mean values of height (Hm) for the plants grown in soil S3: (i) there are no significant differences between the treatments S3 and S3 + F (p = 0.65); (ii) there are no significant differences between the treatments S3 + BC + F and S3 + BC + F/2 (p = 0.16); (iii) there are significant differences between the treatment S3 + BC and the other treatments (p ≤ 0.004). Hm of plants grown in BC-amended soil S3 without foliar treatment (S3 + BC), i.e., 21.3 cm, was about 50% higher than Hm of plants grown in non-amended soil S3 (untreated control S3 and foliar treatment S3 + F) as well as about 30% higher than Hm of plants grown in BC-amended soil S3 with both foliar treatments (S3 + BC + F and S3 + BC + F/2). Plants grown in BC-amended soil S1 (S1 + BC, S1 + BC + F, and S1 + BC + F/2) had similar mean values of height, i.e., Hm ≈ 18 cm (p = 0.99), about 40% and 30% lower (p ≤ 0.002) than Hm of plants grown in non-amended soil S1 (S1 and S1 + F). Plants grown in non-amended soil S2 (S2 and S2 + F) had similar mean values of height, i.e., Hm ≈ 18 cm (p = 0.58), up to about 40% higher (p ≤ 0.004) than those of plants grown in BC-amended soil S2 (S2 + BC, S2 + BC + F, and S2 + BC + F/2).
BC had a beneficial effect on NL of plants grown in soil S3 and no favourable effect on NL of plants grown in soils S1 and S2 (Figure 4b). The mean value of number of leaves (NLm) of plants grown in BC-amended soil S3 without foliar treatment (S3 + BC), i.e., 7.5, was up to 25% higher (p ≤ 0.005) than NLm of plants grown in non-amended soil S3 (S3 and S3 + F) as well as 9% higher (p = 0.05) than NLm (6.9) of plants grown in BC-amended soil S3 with both foliar treatments (S3 + BC + F and S3 + BC + F/2). Moreover, there was no significant difference (p = 0.12) between NLm corresponding to non-amended soil S3 (untreated control S3 and foliar treatment S3 + F). In the case of plants grown in soil S1, the mean values of number of leaves for all treatments were not significantly different (p = 0.52). Plants grown in BC-amended soil S2 (S2 + BC, S2 + BC + F, and S2 + BC + F/2) had similar NLm, i.e., 5.4–5.8 (p = 0.29), 20–40% lower (p ≤ 0.0007) than NLm of plants grown in non-amended soil S2 (S2 and S2 + F).
BC had a favourable effect on CD of plants grown in soil S3 and no beneficial effect on CD of plants grown in soil S1 (Figure 4c). The mean value of collar diameter (CDm) of plants grown in BC-amended soil S3 without foliar treatment (S3 + BC), i.e., 3.1 mm, was about 20% higher (p ≤ 0.007) than the CDm corresponding to non-amended soil S3 (untreated control S3 and foliar treatment S3 + F); it was 7% and 12% higher (p = 0.21 and p = 0.04), respectively, than CDm of plants grown in BC-amended soil S3 with both foliar treatments (S3 + BC + F and S3 + BC + F/2). In the case of plants grown in soils S1 and S2, the mean values of collar diameter corresponding to all treatments (3.0–3.4 mm and 2.5–2.9 mm) were not significantly different (p = 0.06 and p = 0.14).
The results depicted in Figure 4d indicate that BC had a favourable effect on RV of plants grown in all soil types. The mean value of root volume (RVm) of plants grown in BC-amended soil S3 using the less concentrated fertilizer solution (S3 + BC + F/2), i.e., 0.58 cm3, was up to 2.8 times higher (p ≤ 8.32 × 10−8) than RVm of plants grown in non-amended soil S3 (untreated control S3 and foliar treatment S3 + F) as well as up to 41% higher (p ≤ 0.04) than RVm of plants grown in soil S3 with the other treatments (S3 + BC and S3 + BC + F). RVm of plants grown in BC-amended soil S1 using the less concentrated fertilizer solution (S1 + BC + F/2), i.e., 0.51 cm3, was 34–76% larger (p ≤ 0.03) than RVm of plants grown in soil S1 with treatments S1, S1 + BC, and S1 + BC + F. The mean values of root volume corresponding to the treatments S1 + BC + F/2 and S1 + F (0.51 cm3 and 0.44 cm3) were not significantly different (p = 0.38). RVm of plants grown in BC-amended soil S2 with both foliar treatments (S2 + BC + F and S2 + BC + F/2), i.e., 0.38 cm3 and 0.37 cm3, were not significantly different (p = 0.82) and were 1.4–2.1 times larger (p ≤ 0.03) than those corresponding to the other treatments (S2, S2 + F, and S2 + BC).
The results obtained revealed that Hm, NLm, and CDm of plants grown in BC-amended soil S3 without foliar treatment (S3 + BC) were up to 50% higher than those of plants grown in soil S3 with the other treatments (S3, S3 + F, S3 + BC + F, and S3 + BC + F/2). Figure 5 contains images of tomato plants grown for 66 days in non-amended and BC-amended strongly acidic soil S3. RVm of plants grown in BC-amended soil S3 without foliar treatment (S3 + BC) was 32% lower than RVm of plants grown in soil BC-amended soil S3 using the less concentrated fertilizer solution (S3 + BC + F/2) and up to 2.1 times higher than RVm of plants grown in soil S3 with other treatments (S3, S3 + F, and S3 + BC + F).
Data presented in Figure 4a–c suggest that BC had no favourable effect on Hm, NLm, and CDm of plants grown in slightly alkaline soil S1 (pH of 7.99 ± 0.01) and slightly acidic soil S2 (pH of 6.26 ± 0.02). Non-amended slightly alkaline soil S1 was a more suitable grown medium than non-amended soil S1 with foliar treatment (S1 + F) and medium alkaline BC-amended soil S1 (pH of 8.33 ± 0.03). Non-amended slightly acidic soil S2 with foliar treatment (S2 + F) was a more appropriate option than non-amended soil S2 and very slightly alkaline BC-amended soil S2 (pH of 7.10 ± 0.03). The mean height (Hm) of plants grown in non-amended soils (untreated control S and foliar treatment S + F) decreased in the order: slightly alkaline soil S1 (25.4 cm and 23.2 cm) >slightly acidic soil S2 (18.1 cm and 18.4 cm) >strongly acidic soil S3 (14.7 cm and 14.4 cm).

4. Discussion

Strongly alkaline BC (pH of 9.89 ± 0.01) was obtained by slow pyrolysis of vine residue at 517 ± 16 °C, using CO2 as a sweeping gas and reactant in the process. BC was mixed with 3 soil types (20/80 m3/m3 soil, corresponding to 56 t/ha), i.e., slightly alkaline soil S1 (pH of 7.99 ± 0.01), slightly acidic soil S2 (pH of 6.26 ± 0.02), and strongly acidic soil S3 (pH of 5.40 ± 0.02). The effects of BC application on soil physicochemical properties and tomato plant growth were evaluated.
Strongly alkaline BC had a significant beneficial effect on height, number of leaves, collar diameter, and root volume of plants grown in strongly acidic soil S3 (Luvisol). This positive effect of BC on tomato growth was reported in other related studies. Rehman et al. (2021) [3] examined the effects of BC produced by slow pyrolysis of cotton stick, corncob, and rice straw at 450 °C and applied at rates of 1.5% and 3% (w/w), corresponding to 34 t/ha and 68 t/ha, respectively, on tomato growth in a medium alkaline soil (pH = 8.03). Pot experiment results highlighted that plant height as well as root length and mass increased with BC application rate. Field experiments conducted by Mohawesh et al. (2021) [8] revealed that a strongly alkaline BC (pH of 9.5 ± 0.35) obtained by slow pyrolysis of olive pruning residue at 300–350 °C and applied at rates of 8 t/ha and 16 t/ha improved tomato growth in a slightly alkaline soil (pH of 7.7 ± 0.08). However, at application rates at 30 t/ha and 40 t/ha, plant growth declined. Suthar et al. (2018) [21] investigated the effects of pyrolysis temperature (300 °C, 450 °C, and 600 °C) and application rate [1% and 3% (w/w)] of bamboo-derived BC on the performances of tomato grown in a sand medium. Pot experiments demonstrated that BC produced at 300 °C (pH = 6.7) and amended at 3% or produced at 450 °C (pH = 5.2) and amended at 1% improved tomato growth and fruit quality. Graber et al. (2010) [25] studied the influence of slightly alkaline BC (pH = 7.55) derived from citrus wood on tomato growth in a commercial soilless mixture, i.e., coconut fibre and tuff. Pot experiment results proved that tomato plant heights were significantly greater at BC application rates of 1% and 3% (w/w) compared with the control, with no difference between the two levels of BC dose.
The beneficial effect of BC on plant growth is due to the changes in the physicochemical and biological properties of the soil. In general, BC is alkaline, increases soil pH and EC, provides macronutrients and micronutrients, reduces soil BD and nutrient loss, and improves water and nutrient retention capacity [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27].
Strongly alkaline BC used as a soil amendment in this study increased EC and pH values of strongly acidic soil S3 (0.09 ± 0.00 dS/m and 5.40 ± 0.02). The increase in the soil EC (reflecting the concentration of soluble salts) and pH affects the nutrient availability to plants and could be detrimental to tomato growth and yield [3,8]. EC and pH values of BC-amended soil S3 (0.16 ± 0.01 dS/m and 6.45 ± 0.11) were beneficial for plant growth.
BC reduced the BD of soil S3 by about 50% (from 1.314 ± 0.036 g/cm3 to 0.873 ± 0.038 g/cm3). The mean value of BD of BC used in this research, i.e., 0.319 g/cm3, is within the range reported in the literature (0.08–0.43 g/cm3) [14,16,20,21,23,28]. Reducing soil compaction by adding BC enhances plant root development, leading to beneficial effects on the crop growth and yield due to improved water and nutrient uptake [8,9].
In this study, BC significantly increased the concentrations of soluble and available potassium and phosphorus (K, P, K-AL, and P-AL) in all soil types. Moreover, the concentrations of soluble ammonium nitrogen (N-NH4) and available sodium (Na) were higher. According to the data summarized in Table 2, BC derived from vine pruning residue is an important source of K, P, N-NH4, and Na. The mean values of K and P concentration in BC-amended soil S3, i.e., Km = 51.1 mg/kg, Pm = 2.9 mg/kg, (K-AL)m = 700.0 mg/kg, and (P-AL)m = 86.7 mg/kg, were 3–8 times higher than those of non-amended soil S3, whereas (N-NH4)m = 3.7 mg/kg and Nam = 50.5 mg/kg were 26% and 13% higher, respectively. These findings are consistent with data reported in the related literature [3,8,9,10].
Strongly alkaline BC obtained in this study by slow pyrolysis of vine pruning residue at 517 ± 16 °C and applied at a rate of 56 t/ha had no beneficial effect on height, number of leaves, and collar diameter of plants grown in slightly alkaline soil S1 (Fluvisol) and slightly acidic soil S2 (Chernozem). Lower levels of application rate and/or pyrolysis temperature could lead to better results [3,8,21].

5. Conclusions

Strongly alkaline BC (pH of 9.89 ± 0.01) obtained by slow pyrolysis of vine pruning residue had a significant beneficial effect on the growth performances of tomato plants sown in strongly acidic soil S3 (pH of 5.40 ± 0.02). The mean values of height, number of leaves, and collar diameter of plants grown in BC-amended soil S3 without foliar treatment (S3 + BC) were up to 50% higher than those of plants grown in soil S3 with the other treatments (S3, S3 + F, S3 + BC + F, and S3 + BC + F/2). The mean value of root volume (RVm) of plants grown in BC-amended soil S3 without foliar treatment (S3 + BC) was up to 2.1 times higher than RVm of plants grown in soil S3 with other treatments (S3, S3 + F, and S3 + BC + F). This positive effect of BC on tomato growth performance is due to the changes in the physicochemical and biological properties of the soil.
BC increased electrical conductivity and pH values of soil S3, resulting in a more suitable environment for plant growth. BC significantly increased the concentrations of soluble and available K and P (up to 8 times) as well as those of soluble N-NH4 and available Na (up to 26%). Moreover, BC reduced the bulk density of soil S3 (by about 50%), resulting in improved plant root development and thus enhanced water and nutrient uptake, leading to beneficial effects on plant growth.
BC had no favourable effect on height, number of leaves, and collar diameter of plants grown in slightly alkaline soil S1 (pH of 7.99 ± 0.01) and slightly acidic soil S2 (pH of 6.26 ± 0.02). Non-amended soil S1 without foliar treatment (S1) and non-amended soil S2 with foliar treatment (S2 + F) were more suitable growth media than the other options.
The results obtained in this study suggest that the application of very strongly alkaline BC produced from vine pruning residue as an organic amendment to strongly acidic soils is a promising strategy for enhancing soil quality, improving tomato plant growth, reducing biomass residues, and mitigating climate change.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy12081824/s1, Table S1: Factor loadings; Table S2: Factor scores.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.I.C., O.C.P., V.A.I. and R.M.; methodology, S.I.C., O.C.P., V.A.I., C.E.R., D.E., A.M., R.M., L.M.I. and I.O.J.; validation, O.C.P. and V.A.I.; formal analysis, O.C.P.; investigation, S.I.C., V.A.I., C.E.R., A.M., R.M., L.M.I. and I.O.J.; writing—original draft preparation, S.I.C., O.C.P., V.A.I. and D.E.; writing—review and editing, O.C.P. and V.A.I.; supervision, L.B., R.M. and T.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian Ministry of Education and Research, CCCDI—UEFISCDI, project number 372PED/2020 (PN-III-P2-2.1-PED-2019-4917), within PNCDI III. The authors thank Associate Professor Marian Mușat (USAMV) for providing the soil samples.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Haider, F.U.; Coulter, J.A.; Liqun, C.A.I.; Hussain, S.; Cheema, S.A.; Jun, W.U.; Zhang, R. An overview on biochar production, its implications, and mechanisms of biochar-induced amelioration of soil and plant characteristics. Pedosphere 2022, 32, 107–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Malyan, S.K.; Kumar, S.S.; Fagodiya, R.K.; Ghosh, P.; Kumar, A.; Singh, R.; Singh, L. Biochar for environmental sustainability in the energy-water-agroecosystem nexus. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2021, 149, 111379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rehman, I.; Riaz, M.; Ali, S.; Arif, M.S.; Ali, S.; Alyemeni, M.N.; Alsahli, A.A. Evaluating the effects of biochar with farmyard manure under optimal mineral fertilizing on tomato growth, soil organic C and biochemical quality in a low fertility soil. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wu, P.; Ata-Ul-Karim, S.T.; Singh, B.P.; Wang, H.; Wu, T.; Liu, C.; Fang, G.; Zhou, D.; Wang, Y.; Chen, W. A scientometric review of biochar research in the past 20 years (1998–2018). Biochar 2019, 1, 23–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Yuan, P.; Wang, J.; Pan, Y.; Shen, B.; Wu, C. Review of biochar for the management of contaminated soil: Preparation, application and prospect. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 659, 473–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Hussain, M.; Farooq, M.; Nawaz, A.; Al-Sadi, A.M.; Solaiman, Z.M.; Alghamdi, S.S.; Ammara, U.; Ok, Y.S.; Siddique, K.H. Biochar for crop production: Potential benefits and risks. J. Soils Sediments 2017, 17, 685–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Irfan, M.R.; Kaleri, F.N.; Rizwan, M.; Mehmood, I. Potential value of biochar as a soil amendment: A review. Pure Appl. Biol. 2017, 6, 1494–1502. Available online: https://thepab.org/index.php/journal/article/view/296 (accessed on 1 July 2022). [CrossRef]
  8. Mohawesh, O.; Albalasmeh, A.; Gharaibeh, M.; Deb, S.; Simpson, C.; Singh, S.; Al-Soub, B.; Hanandeh, A.E. Potential use of biochar as an amendment to improve soil fertility and tomato and bell pepper growth performance under arid conditions. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2021, 21, 2946–2956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Olmo, M.; Alburquerque, J.A.; Barrón, V.; Del Campillo, M.C.; Gallardo, A.; Fuentes, M.; Villar, R. Wheat growth and yield responses to biochar addition under Mediterranean climate conditions. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2014, 50, 1177–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Vaccari, F.P.; Maienza, A.; Miglietta, F.; Baronti, S.; Di Lonardo, S.; Giagnoni, L.; Lagomarsino, A.; Pozzi, A.; Pusceddu, E.; Ranieri, R.; et al. Biochar stimulates plant growth but not fruit yield of processing tomato in a fertile soil. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 207, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ye, L.; Camps-Arbestain, M.; Shen, Q.; Lehmann, J.; Singh, B.; Sabir, M. Biochar effects on crop yields with and without fertilizer: A meta-analysis of field studies using separate controls. Soil Use Manag. 2020, 36, 2–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Agbna, H.D.; Ali, G.; Albashir, E.; Mohammed, M.; Bakir, M.; Osman, A.; Elshaikh, A. Effect of biochar on some soil properties and tomato growth under saline water conditions. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2017, 8, 24–28. [Google Scholar]
  13. Alkharabsheh, H.M.; Seleiman, M.F.; Battaglia, M.L.; Shami, A.; Jalal, R.S.; Alhammad, B.A.; Almutairi, K.F.; Al-Saif, A.M. Biochar and its broad impacts in soil quality and fertility, nutrient leaching and crop productivity: A review. Agronomy 2021, 11, 993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Altland, J.E.; Locke, J.C. High rates of gasified rice hull biochar affect geranium and tomato growth in a soilless substrate. J. Plant Nutr. 2017, 40, 1816–1828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chen, W.; Meng, J.; Han, X.; Lan, Y.; Zhang, W. Past, present, and future of biochar. Biochar 2019, 1, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Diatta, A.A.; Fike, J.H.; Battaglia, M.L.; Galbraith, J.M.; Baig, M.B. Effects of biochar on soil fertility and crop productivity in arid regions: A review. Arab. J. Geosci. 2020, 13, 595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Jha, P.; Biswas, A.K.; Lakaria, B.L.; Rao, A.S. Biochar in agriculture–prospects and related implications. Curr. Sci. 2010, 99, 1218–1225. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24068517 (accessed on 1 July 2022).
  18. Khan, M.N.; Lan, Z.; Sial, T.A.; Zhao, Y.; Haseeb, A.; Jianguo, Z.; Zhang, A.; Hill, R.L. Straw and biochar effects on soil properties and tomato seedling growth under different moisture levels. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2019, 65, 1704–1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Murtaza, G.; Ahmed, Z.; Usman, M.; Tariq, W.; Ullah, Z.; Shareef, M.; Iqbal, H.; Waqas, M.; Tariq, A.; Wu, Y.; et al. Biochar induced modifications in soil properties and its impacts on crop growth and production. J. Plant Nutr. 2021, 44, 1677–1691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Schmidt, H.P.; Kammann, C.; Hagemann, N.; Leifeld, J.; Bucheli, T.D.; Sánchez Monedero, M.A.; Cayuela, M.L. Biochar in agriculture–A systematic review of 26 global meta-analyses. Glob. Change Biol. Bioenergy 2021, 13, 1708–1730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Suthar, R.G.; Wang, C.; Nunes, M.C.N.; Chen, J.; Sargent, S.A.; Bucklin, R.A.; Gao, B. Bamboo biochar pyrolyzed at low temperature improves tomato plant growth and fruit quality. Agriculture 2018, 8, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Bonanomi, G.; Ippolito, F.; Cesarano, G.; Nanni, B.; Lombardi, N.; Rita, A.; Saracino, A.; Scala, F. Biochar as plant growth promoter: Better off alone or mixed with organic amendments? Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Jones, D.L.; Rousk, J.; Edwards-Jones, G.; DeLuca, T.H.; Murphy, D.V. Biochar-mediated changes in soil quality and plant growth in a three year field trial. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2012, 45, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ronga, D.; Caradonia, F.; Parisi, M.; Bezzi, G.; Parisi, B.; Allesina, G.; Pedrazzi, S.; Francia, E. Using digestate and biochar as fertilizers to improve processing tomato production sustainability. Agronomy 2020, 10, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Graber, E.R.; Meller, H.Y.; Kolton, M.; Cytryn, E.; Silber, A.; Rav David, D.; Tsechansky, L.; Borenshtein, M.; Elad, Y. Biochar impact on development and productivity of pepper and tomato grown in fertigated soilless media. Plant Soil 2010, 337, 481–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Guo, L.; Yu, H.; Kharbach, M.; Zhang, W.; Wang, J.; Niu, W. Biochar improves soil-tomato plant, tomato production, and economic benefits under reduced nitrogen application in northwestern China. Plants 2021, 10, 759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Schulz, H.; Glaser, B. Effects of biochar compared to organic and inorganic fertilizers on soil quality and plant growth in a greenhouse experiment. J. Plant. Nutr. Soil Sci. 2012, 175, 410–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Calcan, S.I.; Pârvulescu, O.C.; Ion, V.A.; Răducanu, C.E.; Bădulescu, L.; Dobre, T.; Egri, D.; Moț, A.; Popa, V.; Crăciun, M.E. Valorization of vine prunings by slow pyrolysis in a fixed-bed reactor. Processes 2022, 10, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dobre, T.; Pârvulescu, O.C.; Iavorschi, G.; Stoica, A.; Stroescu, M. Catalytic effects at pyrolysis of wheat grains impregnated with nickel salts. Int. J. Chem. React. Eng. 2010, 8, 1968–1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Dobre, T.; Pârvulescu, O.C.; Rodriguez, R.I.; Ceatră, L.; Stroescu, M.; Stoica, A.; Mirea, R. Global reaction kinetics and enthalpy in slow pyrolysis of vegetal materials. Rev. Chim. 2012, 63, 54–59. [Google Scholar]
  31. Pârvulescu, O.C.; Dobre, T.; Ceatră, L.; Iavorschi, G.; Mirea, R. Characteristics of corn grains pyrolysis in a fixed bed reactor. Rev. Chim. 2011, 62, 89–94. [Google Scholar]
  32. Pârvulescu, O.C.; Gavrilă, A.I.; Dobre, T.; Ceatră, L. Effects of process factors on slow pyrolysis of sorghum waste. Rev. Chim. 2016, 67, 2254–2257. [Google Scholar]
  33. Jesus, M.; Romaní, A.; Mata, F.; Domingues, L. Current options in the valorisation of vine pruning residue for the production of biofuels, biopolymers, antioxidants, and bio-composites following the concept of biorefinery: A review. Polymers 2022, 14, 1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Ion, V.A.; Moț, A.; Popa, V.I.; Calcan, S.; Bădulescu, L.; Jerca, I.O.; Baniţă, C.; Pârvulescu, O.C. Physicochemical characterisation of vine waste used for producing biochar. Sci. Papers Ser. B Hortic. 2021, LXV, 268–273. [Google Scholar]
  35. Nasser, R.A.; Salem, M.Z.M.; Al-Mefarrej, H.A.; Abdel-Aal, M.A.; Soliman, S.S. Fuel characteristics of vine prunings (Vitis vinifera L.) as a potential source for energy production. BioResources 2014, 9, 482–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Ceatră, L.; Pârvulescu, O.C.; Rodriguez, R.I.; Dobre, T. Preparation, characterization, and testing of a carbon-supported catalyst obtained by slow pyrolysis of nickel salt impregnated vegetal material. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2016, 55, 1491–1502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. FAO; IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources. In International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps, World Soil Resources Reports No. 106; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  38. Mușat, M.; Radu, A.; Madjar, R. Pedological and agrochemical study at SC Agrilemi SRL, to develop fertilization plan on culture. Sci. Papers Ser. A Agron. 2017, LX, 132–136. [Google Scholar]
  39. Crăciun, M.E.; Pârvulescu, O.C.; Donise, A.C.; Dobre, T.; Stanciu, D.R. Characterization and classification of Romanian acacia honey based on its physicochemical parameters and chemometrics. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 20690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Pasztor, R.; Bala, M.; Sala, F. Flowers quality in relation to planting period in some Hyacinth cultivars. AgroLife Sci. J. 2020, 9, 263–272. [Google Scholar]
Agronomy 12 01824 g001 550
Figure 1. Chopped vine pruning residue (a) and BC (b).
Figure 1. Chopped vine pruning residue (a) and BC (b).
Agronomy 12 01824 g001
Agronomy 12 01824 g002 550
Figure 2. Experimental setup: (1) pyrolysis reactor; (2) ACC support; (3) precision balance (max. 30 kg); (4) metal support; (5), (6) power transformers; (7) gas tank; (8) sweeping gas feed pipe; (9) pipe collecting volatile products; (10), (13) double pipe heat exchangers; (11) oil collector; (12) PU support; (14) exhaust hood; (15) coolant supply/discharge system; (16) flow meter; (17) voltmeter; (18) precision balance (max. 10 kg); (19), (20) thermocouples; (21), (22) thermometers; (23) data recording and processing system.
Figure 2. Experimental setup: (1) pyrolysis reactor; (2) ACC support; (3) precision balance (max. 30 kg); (4) metal support; (5), (6) power transformers; (7) gas tank; (8) sweeping gas feed pipe; (9) pipe collecting volatile products; (10), (13) double pipe heat exchangers; (11) oil collector; (12) PU support; (14) exhaust hood; (15) coolant supply/discharge system; (16) flow meter; (17) voltmeter; (18) precision balance (max. 10 kg); (19), (20) thermocouples; (21), (22) thermometers; (23) data recording and processing system.
Agronomy 12 01824 g002
Agronomy 12 01824 g003 550
Figure 3. Projections of variables (HU, BD, pH, EC, C, N-NO3, N-NH4, P, K, P-AL, K-AL, Ca, Mg, and Na) and samples (S1, S2, S3, BC, S1 + BC, S2 + BC, and S3 + BC) on the factor-plane PC1–PC2: (S1) Fluvisol soil; (S2) Chernozem soil; (S3) Luvisol soil.
Figure 3. Projections of variables (HU, BD, pH, EC, C, N-NO3, N-NH4, P, K, P-AL, K-AL, Ca, Mg, and Na) and samples (S1, S2, S3, BC, S1 + BC, S2 + BC, and S3 + BC) on the factor-plane PC1–PC2: (S1) Fluvisol soil; (S2) Chernozem soil; (S3) Luvisol soil.
Agronomy 12 01824 g003
Agronomy 12 01824 g004 550
Figure 4. Values (mean ± margin of error) of plant height (a), number of leaves (b), collar diameter (c), and root volume (d), 66 days after sowing: (S1) Fluvisol soil; (S2) Chernozem soil; (S3) Luvisol soil; (F) foliar fertilizer (0.2%); (F/2) foliar fertilizer (0.1%).
Figure 4. Values (mean ± margin of error) of plant height (a), number of leaves (b), collar diameter (c), and root volume (d), 66 days after sowing: (S1) Fluvisol soil; (S2) Chernozem soil; (S3) Luvisol soil; (F) foliar fertilizer (0.2%); (F/2) foliar fertilizer (0.1%).
Agronomy 12 01824 g004
Agronomy 12 01824 g005 550
Figure 5. Images of tomato plants grown for 66 days in non-amended and BC-amended strongly acidic soil S3 (Luvisol) using the following treatments (10 plants per treatment): (a) S3; (b) S3 + BC; (c) S3 + F; (d) S3 + BC + F; (e) S3 + BC + F/2.
Figure 5. Images of tomato plants grown for 66 days in non-amended and BC-amended strongly acidic soil S3 (Luvisol) using the following treatments (10 plants per treatment): (a) S3; (b) S3 + BC; (c) S3 + F; (d) S3 + BC + F; (e) S3 + BC + F/2.
Agronomy 12 01824 g005
Table
Table 1. Experimental scheme for the greenhouse experiment.
Table 1. Experimental scheme for the greenhouse experiment.
No.TreatmentCode
1No BC and foliar fertilizer treatmentsS
2BC (volumetric ratio between BC and soil of 20/80)S + BC
3Foliar fertilizer (0.2%)S + F
4BC + foliar fertilizer (0.2%)S + BC + F
5BC + foliar fertilizer (0.1%)S + BC + F/2
Table
Table 2. Mean values of physicochemical properties of soils (S), BC, and BC-amended soils (S + BC).
Table 2. Mean values of physicochemical properties of soils (S), BC, and BC-amended soils (S + BC).
No.PropertyS1S2S3BCS1 + BCS2 + BCS3 + BC
1HU (%)14.6910.4313.103.5112.339.6012.36
2BD (g/cm3)1.0540.9861.3140.3190.7990.8510.873
3pH7.996.265.409.898.337.106.45
4EC (dS/m)0.220.100.092.040.350.210.16
5C (%)2.892.011.9876.0110.9910.2614.35
6N-NO3 (mg/kg)31.214.99.25.426.211.38.0
7N-NH4 (mg/kg)11.911.33.015.613.912.43.7
8P (mg/kg)6.32.30.816.013.614.72.9
9K (mg/kg)23.95.56.43131132.0130.151.1
10P-AL (mg/kg)103.616.412.71615226.7168.786.7
11K-AL (mg/kg)36020024082001040860700
12Ca (mg/kg)2990294023662044276324432202
13Mg (mg/kg)371.9308.3605.9472.2386.6334.4582.7
14Na (mg/kg)31.131.044.987.935.334.750.5
(HU) humidity; (BD) bulk density; (EC) electrical conductivity; (C) total carbon concentration; (N-NO3) soluble nitrate nitrogen concentration; (N-NH4) soluble ammonium nitrogen concentration; (P) soluble phosphorus concentration; (K) soluble potassium concentration; (P-AL) available phosphorus concentration; (K-AL) available potassium concentration; (Ca) available calcium concentration; (Mg) available magnesium concentration; (Na) available sodium concentration; (S1) Fluvisol soil; (S2) Chernozem soil; (S3) Luvisol soil.
Table
Table 3. Correlation matrix.
Table 3. Correlation matrix.
VariablesHUBDpHECCN-NO3N-NH4PKP-ALK-ALCaMgNa
HU1
BD0.691
pH−0.49−0.851
EC−0.68−0.860.811
C−0.73−0.890.770.971
N-NO30.300.140.25−0.25−0.341
N-NH4−0.33−0.590.700.420.370.311
P−0.53−0.720.700.550.610.000.621
K−0.49−0.720.630.810.82−0.370.490.511
P-AL−0.45−0.750.710.830.83−0.160.290.570.561
K-AL−0.87−0.730.670.800.82−0.200.340.490.520.551
Ca0.500.32−0.03−0.36−0.520.640.42−0.21−0.23−0.32−0.511
Mg0.090.18−0.250.070.17−0.45−0.72−0.230.090.110.02−0.651
Na−0.66−0.720.560.880.94−0.500.090.420.790.690.74−0.670.451
(HU) humidity; (BD) bulk density; (EC) electrical conductivity; (C) total carbon concentration; (N-NO3) soluble nitrate nitrogen concentration; (N-NH4) soluble ammonium nitrogen concentration; (P) soluble phosphorus concentration; (K) soluble potassium concentration; (P-AL) available phosphorus concentration; (K-AL) available potassium concentration; (Ca) available calcium concentration; (Mg) available magnesium concentration; (Na) available sodium concentration; the significant values of correlation coefficients (α = 0.05) are highlighted in bold.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Calcan, S.I.; Pârvulescu, O.C.; Ion, V.A.; Răducanu, C.E.; Bădulescu, L.; Madjar, R.; Dobre, T.; Egri, D.; Moț, A.; Iliescu, L.M.; et al. Effects of Biochar on Soil Properties and Tomato Growth. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1824. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12081824

AMA Style

Calcan SI, Pârvulescu OC, Ion VA, Răducanu CE, Bădulescu L, Madjar R, Dobre T, Egri D, Moț A, Iliescu LM, et al. Effects of Biochar on Soil Properties and Tomato Growth. Agronomy. 2022; 12(8):1824. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12081824

Chicago/Turabian Style

Calcan, Suzana Ioana, Oana Cristina Pârvulescu, Violeta Alexandra Ion, Cristian Eugen Răducanu, Liliana Bădulescu, Roxana Madjar, Tănase Dobre, Diana Egri, Andrei Moț, Lavinia Mihaela Iliescu, and et al. 2022. "Effects of Biochar on Soil Properties and Tomato Growth" Agronomy 12, no. 8: 1824. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12081824

APA Style

Calcan, S. I., Pârvulescu, O. C., Ion, V. A., Răducanu, C. E., Bădulescu, L., Madjar, R., Dobre, T., Egri, D., Moț, A., Iliescu, L. M., & Jerca, I. O. (2022). Effects of Biochar on Soil Properties and Tomato Growth. Agronomy, 12(8), 1824. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12081824

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop