Open Access
Translator Disclaimer
18 December 2020 Soil phosphorus fractionation after co-applying biochar and paper mill biosolids
Noura Ziadi, Xiangru Zhang, Bernard Gagnon, Eric Manirakiza
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

In recent decades, there has been a growing interest in the recycling of organic materials such as paper mill biosolids (PB) and biochar for use as soil amendments. However, the benefits of co-application of PB and biochar and its effects on soil phosphorus (P) availability remain unknown. An incubation study was conducted on two acidic soils to assess the effect of two PB types (2.5% w/w) co-applied with three rates (0%, 2.5%, and 5% w/w) of pine (Pinus strobus L.) biochar on soil P fractions. An unfertilized control and a mineral NP fertilizer were used as a reference. Soil P fractions were determined by Hedley procedure after 2 and 16 wk of incubation. Material fractionation indicated that the PB containing the highest total P and the lowest Al content had the highest proportion of labile P, whereas most P in the biochar was in a stable form. The incubation study revealed that the P-rich PB increased P availability in both soils to a level comparable to mineral fertilizer at the end of the incubation. The addition of biochar to PB, however, did not affect soil P availability, but the highest rate induced a conversion of P fixed to Al and Fe oxides towards recalcitrant forms, particularly in the sandy loam soil. We conclude that co-applying biochar and PB could be more beneficial than application biochar alone and soils amended with such a mixture would be expected to release part of their P slowly over a longer period of time.

Introduction

The use of paper mill biosolids (PB) in agriculture has been a common practice in Canada for many decades. This material is produced mainly from combined primary and secondary wastewater treatment, and it is a valuable source of nutrients for increasing crop performance and soil quality, including soil organic matter and nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) availability (Camberato et al. 2006). Moreover, the use of PB may be a good alternative to the continued depletion of phosphate rock reserves (Cordell et al. 2009), by recycling P at the agroecosystem level. However, few studies have been reported on the efficiency of PB as a source of P forms and availability (Fan et al. 2010; Zhang et al. 2020).

Biochar is a carbon-rich material produced through the pyrolysis of organic materials under low-oxygen environments and can be used as a soil amendment (Lehmann and Joseph 2015). A biochar production sector is gradually emerging in Canada, and biomass of little economic value such as wood chips and insect-infested trees is of particular interest (Matovic 2011; Biopterre 2018). However, few studies have assessed the impact of biochar application on soil properties in eastern Canada (Lévesque et al. 2020; Manirakiza et al. 2020).

Biochar is viewed as a way to sequester carbon, but it has also the capacity to enhance soil fertility by providing a long-lasting P source while minimizing the loss of P applied to soil (Dai et al. 2016). This is because pyrolysis converts labile P in the original biomass to less available and occluded forms that are slowly released over time (Xu et al. 2016; Li et al. 2018; Adhikari et al. 2019). In addition, increasing the pyrolysis temperature increases the surface area and adsorption capacity of biochar (Gul et al. 2015; Adhikari et al. 2019) and induces the formation of insoluble amorphous P complexes and organic salts with the multivalent cations (Dai et al. 2016; Zornoza et al. 2016). Although not readily available, the insoluble P complexes can serve as a long-term source of P through processes involving soil organisms (Gao and DeLuca 2016).

Addition of biochar may significantly increase P availability in agricultural soils, but this impact varied with the feedstock used (Glaser and Lehr 2019). Biochar made from manure or crop residues tended to increase soil P (Chan et al. 2008; Novak et al. 2009), whereas biochar made from softwood or pine chips had no effect (Gaskin et al. 2010; Tammeorg et al. 2014; Backer et al. 2016; Foster et al. 2016). Xu et al. (2018) reported a positive effect of wheat straw biochar relative to uncharred material on many P fractions of an acidic soil. A further analysis of P forms both in the material and in the amended soil may contribute to the understanding of the reaction of biochar once land applied. Biochar P forms have been the subject of several studies (Xu et al. 2016; Li et al. 2018; Adhikari et al. 2019), but less is known about the amended soil.

The agronomic effectiveness of biochars of lower P content can be improved by mixing them with other materials, such as compost, manure, or inorganic fertilizers, prior to soil amendment. This is thanks to the effects on soil organic matter, nutrient retention, and water-holding capacity (Liu et al. 2012; Agegnehu et al. 2017). Organic materials following mineralization produce organic acids that may exert strong competition on the P sorption sites, making P fertilizer use more efficient (Nelson et al. 2011; El-Naggar et al. 2015). In addition, microbial decomposition of organic matter also releases CO2 that can form carbonic acid with water and indirectly solubilize the Ca- and Mg-phosphate, two very stable P forms (El-Naggar et al. 2015). Furthermore, co-applying biochars and PB may influence the effectiveness of PB and synergistically improve soil properties. However, there is very limited information on the co-application of PB and biochar, particularly related to P forms and availability.

The objective of this study was to assess the impact of co-applied PB and biochar on soil P fractions under controlled conditions after 2 wk (short-term) and 16 wk (typical duration of growing season). We hypothesized that co-applied biochar modifies the effect of PB on soil P forms as a function of biochar rate, PB type, and incubation time.

Materials and Methods

The experiment is a part of a large 32 wk incubation study on the effect of co-application of biochar and PB on soil chemical and biological properties at five sampling dates (Manirakiza et al. 2019, 2020). For this particular study, soil P fractions based on Hedley sequential extraction were determined at two sampling dates, namely after 2 and 16 wk of incubation.

Description of soils

Composite soil samples were collected from the upper layer (0–15 cm) of two fields located near Quebec City, QC, Canada (47°N, 71°W). The soils were air-dried and sieved to 2 mm before incubation. Each soil was characterized for biochemical properties and reported in Manirakiza et al. (2019). Briefly, the Kamouraska clay was an Orthic Humic Gleysol from a corn (Zea mays L.) field. It had a pHwater of 5.32, a total C of 30.2 g·kg−1, a Mehlich-3 P of 36 mg·kg−1, a P/Al ratio of 0.028, and a total P of 1236 mg·kg−1. The St-Antoine sandy loam was an Orthic Humo-Ferric Podzol from a field under alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.)/timothy (Phleum pratense L.) pasture. It had a pHwater of 5.89, a total C of 16.3 g·kg−1, a Mehlich-3 P of 33 mg·kg−1, a P/Al ratio of 0.030, and a total P of 446 mg·kg−1. Based on soil P saturation, each soil was considered low to medium in regards to available P content (0.025 < P/AlM-III < 0.050; CRAAQ 2010) and had a high capacity to retain P (Pellerin et al. 2006; Wang et al. 2015).

Material characterization

Two PB and one biochar were used in this study. The two PB consisted of mixed primary and secondary wastewater-treated sludge from thermomechanical pulp (PB1; Kruger, Trois-Rivières, QC, Canada) or from acid-treated bleached Kraft pulp (PB2; Kruger Wayagamack, Trois-Rivières, QC, Canada). The biochar consisted of pine chips pyrolyzed at 700 °C in a BEC Beta base unit (Biochar Engineering Corporation, Golden, CO, USA).

The main chemical properties of each material were reported in Table 1. Chemical analysis was provided in detail in Gagnon and Ziadi (2012) for PB and in Lévesque et al. (2018) for the biochar. The selected PB differed significantly in their properties, notably pH, total N and P, and C/N ratio, with PB2 showing a higher potential nutrient value. For its part, the biochar should have high stability against degradation in soils due to its high fixed C content and low volatile matter and H/C and O/C ratio which in counterpart should reduce its role in supplying major nutrients for crops (Domingues et al. 2017).

Table 1.

Main properties of selected paper mill biosolids (PB) and pine biochar (dry matter basis except moisture).

cjss-2020-0098tab1.gif

Incubation study

The experiment consisted of eight treatments (unfertilized control, mineral NP fertilizer, and two PB types × three biochar rates) for each soil arranged in a completely randomized block design with three replicates for each sampling date. Biosolids were thoroughly mixed with 100 g of air-dried soil at a rate of 2.5% (w/w), equivalent to 30 Mg wet·ha−1 considering a depth incorporation of 10 cm and a soil bulk density of 1.2 g·cm−3. This rate is typical of the mean applied in field in Québec (Hébert 2016). The biochar was added at three rates (0%, 2.5%, and 5% w/w) which gave a field application equivalent to 0, 30, and 60 Mg dry·ha−1 in the 10 cm surface layer, respectively. The highest rate was used to amplify any impact of biochar on the P dynamic of PB even if this rate exceeded the agronomic and economic acceptance (Dai et al. 2017). The mineral NP fertilizer treatment consisted of 30 kg KH2PO4-P·ha−1 along with 120 kg NH4NO3-N·ha−1 added to evaluate the relative P contribution of each treatment combination.

Every amended soil mixture was incubated in 500 mL Mason™ glass jars during a 32 wk incubation period with periodic destructive samplings. In this study, samplings of weeks 2 and 16 were used for soil P fractionation. These two sampling periods were chosen to simulate short-term (early root growth) and typical duration for a growing season in eastern Canada. Distilled water was added to adjust water-filled pore space to 60%. The lids of the jars were inverted to allow aeration while limiting the loss of moisture. The jars were incubated in the dark in a controlled environment chamber at 25 °C. Water loss was monitored twice a week by weighing and corrected as necessary.

Soil P fractionation

At each sampling date, subsamples of the amended soil mixture were air-dried, sieved to pass a 2 mm screen, and then ground to 0.2 mm. The Hedley sequential extraction procedure was performed as described by Tiessen and Moir (2008), with modifications for soil digestion as proposed by Zheng et al. (2001) and performed in the same laboratory by Zhang et al. (2020). Briefly, 0.5 g ground soil subsample was weighed into 50 mL centrifuge tubes and sequentially extracted according to the following scheme:

  1. Resin P [(inorganic P (Pi)]: 25 mL of water and two resin strips, shake for 16 h at 25 °C, remove the strips, centrifuge, decant, and discard supernatant. Phosphorus was recovered from strips in 25 mL of 0.5 mol·L−1 HCl.

  2. NaHCO3 [(Pi and organic P (Po)]: 25 mL of 0.5 mol·L−1 NaHCO3 pH 8.5, shake for 16 h at 25 °C, centrifuge, and collect supernatant.

  3. NaOH (Pi and Po): 25 mL of 0.1 mol·L−1 NaOH, shake for 16 h at 25 °C, centrifuge, and collect supernatant.

  4. HCl (Pi): 25 mL of 1.0 mol·L−1 HCl, shake for 16 h at 25 °C, centrifuge, and collect supernatant.

  5. Residual-P: 10 mL of 0.9 mol·L−1 H2SO4 and 0.5 g K2S2O8, digestion at 121 °C in an autoclave for 90 min.

The concentration of Pi in extracts and digests was determined using the ascorbic acid molybdenum blue method (Murphy and Riley 1962). The concentrations of Po in each of these two extractions (NaHCO3 and NaOH) were calculated as the difference between total P determined after oxidation with potassium persulfate and Pi. Total P in soils was also determined in the same way as for residual P with 0.1 g ground soil. This made it possible to evaluate the P recovery from fractionation which varied from 81% to 97% (91% ± 3%).

Total Pi was the sum of resin-P, NaHCO3-Pi, NaOH-Pi, and HCl-Pi, whereas total Po was the sum of NaHCO3-Po, NaOH-Po, and residual-P. Usually but not exclusively, resin-P is considered as freely available Pi; NaHCO3-P is assigned to Pi sorbed on crystalline Al and Fe oxides and to easily mineralized Po; NaOH-P is assigned to Pi sorbed to amorphous Al and Fe oxides and to stable Po; and HCl-P is considered to be Ca-P-compounds (Negassa and Leinweber 2009). Usually, the sum of resin-P and NaHCO3-P was considered as labile P, whereas HCl-P and residual P were considered as P stable over time.

Material P fractionation

Each material P was also fractionated before application using the same method as reported in Zhang et al. (2020). Briefly, fresh PB and biochar (0.150 g dry basis for P fractionation and 0.030 g dry basis for total P) were used for the extraction, as suggested by Ajiboye et al. (2004). The supernatant of the resin step was kept to determine both Pi and Po (after digestion) in the water extract. No Pi was found in the water extract. Organic P in 1.0 mol·L−1 HCl was also determined as recommended by He et al. (2010) to provide a more accurate P characterization of the materials. Usually, this fraction is recovered in the residual P pool and has been simply assumed to be negligible. Finally, extracts of residual P and total P were digested twice to completely release Pi from materials. This step did not give more Pi in the case of biochar.

Statistical analysis

All data for soil P incubation were checked for normality with the Shapiro–Wilk’s test, and square-root transformation was needed for residual P at 16 wk to improve the normality of distribution. Treatment effects were evaluated as a factorial of two soils × eight treatments replicated three times using the MIXED procedure (SAS Institute Inc. 2004). Due to interaction effects with soil type, analysis was performed by soil, with replicates and replicates × treatments as random effects, treatments as fixed effects, and incubation time as repeated effect. Main treatment effects and their interactions were tested using differences of least squares means. Differences were considered statistically significant at P < 0.05.

Results and Discussion

Material P fractionation

The P recovery from the fractionation of the three materials was high, ranging from 93% to 115% (Table 2). Compared with biochar, the total P content in the PB was very high; more specifically, total Po accounted for about 50% of total P in PB2. This situation was common for several PB (Zhang et al. 2020) and was related to the fact that this material had been subjected to a secondary biological treatment for further purification and stabilization before discharge to the water bodies, which stimulated microbial activities. By contrast, PB1 comprised most of its P in inorganic form (72%) and could be more closely compared with municipal biosolids in which Pi is dominant (Sui et al. 1999; Ajiboye et al. 2004).

Table 2.

Phosphorus (P) fractionation of paper mill biosolidsa and pine biochar.

cjss-2020-0098tab2.gif

The relative contribution of P in each fraction varied widely with the material used (Table 2). The resin-P (Pi + H2O-Po), the most readily available form, and the labile P (resin + NaHCO3), which is considered plant available, accounted, respectively, for 59% and 72% of total P in PB2. In the PB1, labile P constituted only 26% of total P, whereas stable P (HCl + residual) accounted for 35% of total P. This could be attributed to its high pH, which may contribute to the formation of recalcitrant Ca-phosphate minerals and to the high total Al content (Table 1), which reduced the P availability (Krogstad et al. 2005; Torri et al. 2017).

Most P in biochar was in stable form (75%, HCl +residual), whereas the labile fraction accounted for only 18% of total P, with 13% as resin-P (Table 2). The method of producing biochar alters the forms of P in the original feedstock. The total P and the proportion of Pi fraction at the expense of Po generally increase with pyrolysis treatment, but the solubility of P is reduced, forming orthophosphate and immobilizing P into minerals or complexes with Al, Ca, Mg, and Fe ions (Dai et al. 2016; Xu et al. 2016; Zornoza et al. 2016; Li et al. 2018; Adhikari et al. 2019). Schneider and Haderlein (2016) reported that the HCl fraction, representing Ca-bound P in minerals of low solubility, might act as a reservoir of intrinsic P to slowly replenish labile P in acidic soils.

Soil P fractionation

The soil resin and labile P, two fractions representing plant available P, were strongly influenced by treatments on both soils at the two sampling dates: after 2 wk and 16 wk of incubation (Tables 3 and 4). The PB2, which was the richest material in total P (Table 1), increased most of these fractions. Indeed, PB2 supplied 56 mg total P·kg−1, of which 59% was in resin form and 72% was in labile form (Table 2). The PB1 supplied less total P (31 mg·kg−1), which was in more recalcitrant forms and also contained higher Al. As a consequence, PB1 contributed less to increasing soil resin- and labile-P fractions. In terms of mineral P fertilizer, the P recovery in labile form corresponded to 29% and 59% of total P applied for PB1 and PB2, respectively, at week 2, and 53% and 98% for PB1 and PB2 at week 16 (Table 5). This indicated that PB had a good potential for P mineralization. This agrees with our previous finding (Zhang et al. 2020) where we reported a recovery of labile P that increased with time and reached 48% for PB1 and 87% for PB2 at the end of a 16 wk incubation.

Table 3.

Effects of co-application of pine biochar and paper mill biosolidsa on the soil phosphorus (P) fractions of the Kamouraska clay.

cjss-2020-0098tab3.gif

Table 4.

Effects of co-application of pine biochar and paper mill biosolidsa on the soil phosphorus (P) fractions of the St-Antoine sandy loam.

cjss-2020-0098tab4.gif

Table 5.

Recovery of total applied phosphorus (P) as labile P form from paper mill biosolidsa and pine biochar addition average over soil types.

cjss-2020-0098tab5.gif

In contrast to PB, the pine chip biochar had little impact on the resin and labile P fractions on both soils (Tables 3 and 4). Despite the fact that this biochar supplied 11 and 22 kg total P·ha−1 with the two application rates, it did not increase the content of these fractions compared with the PB (Table 5). This was related to its low total P content (0.4 g·kg−1; Table 1) and very recalcitrant P forms (75% HCl + residual; Table 2). This finding is in agreement with results obtained by Manirakiza et al. (2020), who reported that co-applying biochar and PB did not change soil Mehlich-3 extractable P concentration compared with the application of PB alone. Several studies reported increases in available P following biochar addition to soil (Glaser and Lehr 2019), but those applying biochars of softwood or pine chips did not show any effect (Gaskin et al. 2010; Tammeorg et al. 2014; Backer et al. 2016; Foster et al. 2016). In addition, increasing pyrolysis temperature to >600 °C significantly reduced the effect that biochar might have on P availability (Zornoza et al. 2016; Glaser and Lehr 2019, Li et al. 2020).

The pine biochar, however, affected the moderately (NaOH) and stable (HCl + residual) fractions, particularly in the low total-P sandy loam (Table 4). The highest rate decreased the NaOH-Pi and -Po content and caused a conversion to more stable forms (HCl and residual). The effect took place earlier for the alkaline PB1 than for the acidic PB2 (Fig. 1). The P release from biochar is characterized by two mechanisms: (1) an instantaneous direct release and (2) a long-term slow release by alteration of soil pH, microbial mineralization, and co-precipitation with cations present in the soil (Xu et al. 2013; Gao and DeLuca 2016; Li et al. 2020). Qian and Jiang (2014) reported that a more severe pyrolysis process promoted the migration of P to the long-term available HCl-P pool. The direct contribution of pine biochar or induced increase in soil pH is less plausible here because the material contained low amounts of labile P (Table 2) and caused only a small increase in soil pH after 16 wk (Fig. 2) and during the entire incubation study (0.1–0.2 units; Manirakiza et al. 2020). Hence, the pine biochar may have a limited impact on crop P nutrition in the year of application but may serve as a reservoir to improve soil P availability over the long term. As reported in the literature, the increase in soil pH following biochar addition may also be caused by the presence of ash in the biochar (Glaser et al. 2002). Smider and Singh (2014) reported that applying 1.5% tomato green waste biochar (ash content = 562 g·kg−1) increased soil pH by between 0.76 and 1.93 units. The ash content of the biochar used in our study was low (48 g·kg−1; Table 1) and may explain the weak increase in soil pH and consequently the soil P release (Gagnon and Ziadi 2020).

Fig. 1.

Effect of co-application of pine biochar and paper mill biosolids on the soil NaOH-Pi fraction of the St-Antoine sandy loam. PB1, paper mill biosolids with a C/N ratio of 25; PB2, paper mill biosolids with a C/N ratio of 12.

cjss-2020-0098f1.tif

Fig. 2.

Effect of co-application of pine biochar and paper mill biosolids on the soil pH after 16 wk of incubation. PB1, paper mill biosolids with a C/N ratio of 25; PB2, paper mill biosolids with a C/N ratio of 12.

cjss-2020-0098f2.tif

Biochar can be co-applied with an organic material to increase the P availability to crops (Liu et al. 2012; El-Naggar et al. 2015). It can also alleviate loss of dissolved P in runoff and reduce nonpoint source pollution by sorbing soluble P (Laird et al. 2010). Biochars produced at high pyrolysis temperatures show more promise in this regard (Mukherjee and Zimmerman 2013; Yuan et al. 2016) because these conditions induced a larger surface area (Gul et al. 2015; Adhikari et al. 2019) and increased the Ca-bound P (Xu et al. 2016; Li et al. 2018; Adhikari et al. 2019), contributing to soil P sorption (Xu et al. 2014). However, Soinne et al. (2014) reported that biochar made of a mixture of softwood chips had very low affinity to sorb phosphate but can retain some P in high phosphate solution (Zhang et al. 2016). In our study, pine biochar seemed to have a limited impact on soil P retention apart from that attributed to the conversion of a portion of P associated with Al and Fe oxides to recalcitrant P pools, which are more slowly available in time.

Relationships between P fractions in materials and soils

Several attempts have been made to establish relationships between material P properties including fractionation and soil P availability. In this study, soil resin-P was highly and positively related to the amount of resin-P added by the different treatments (Fig. 3). It was the same for the labile P (Fig. 4), indicating that it is important to characterize these pools when applying biochars to agricultural soils. This was caused by the very high proportion of recalcitrant P forms in biochar total P, which did not exist to the same degree with uncharred materials (Xu et al. 2016; Li et al. 2018; Adhikari et al. 2019). Total P concentration and water-extractable P have been reported as best predicting P release from manures and PB (Zvomuya et al. 2006; Zhang et al. 2020).

Fig. 3.

Relationship between the amount of resin phosphorus (P) applied and the net increase (treated soil minus control) in soil resin P average over soil types and sampling dates.

cjss-2020-0098f3.tif

Fig. 4.

Relationship between the amount of labile phosphorus (P) applied and the net increase (treated soil minus control) in soil labile P average over soil types and sampling dates.

cjss-2020-0098f4.tif

In contrast, the proportion of P in stable form (HCl + residual fractions) can be used as an index of material vulnerability to P loss by runoff water (Li et al. 2018). This pool was positively correlated to soil stable P (Fig. 5). This means that pine biochar contributed actively, through its stability, to minimize the environment P risk following land application. Recently, Li et al. (2020) concluded, from an incubation study, that biochar produced from corn stalks released P slowly and could increase P use efficiency if used as a P fertilizer.

Fig. 5.

Relationship between the amount of stable phosphorus (P) applied and the net increase (treated soil minus control) in soil stable P average over soil types and sampling dates. White dot from NP treatment was excluded of the regression.

cjss-2020-0098f5.tif

Conclusion

The objective of this study was to assess the effect of co-applying PB and pine biochar on soil P availability under controlled conditions. Based on P fractionation results, we conclude that PB applied alone could be a potential efficient P source for fertilizing crops on both soils. The material containing the highest total and labile P and lowest Al content enhanced the available P in soil more significantly, reaching a level equivalent to mineral P fertilizer at the end of the 16 wk incubation period. The addition of pine biochar to PB did not affect soil P availability, but the highest rate induced a conversion of P fixed to Al and Fe oxides to recalcitrant forms, particularly in the sandy loam. The P fractionation analysis showed that the majority of P in pine biochar was in stable form. Therefore, soils amended with both PB and biochar would be expected to release part of their P slowly over a longer period of time. Additional studies under field conditions and (or) with crops under controlled conditions are needed to evaluate P availability to plants as well as P uptake. The use of other biochars derived from richer P materials is also of interest in respect to soil P availability and needs to be included in future studies particularly under different field conditions.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada A base program. We thank Sylvie Côté and Claude Lévesque for their technical assistance.

References

1.

Adhikari, S., Gascó, G., Méndez, A., Surapaneni, A., Jegatheesan, V., Shah, K., and Paz-Ferreiro, J. 2019. Influence of pyrolysis parameters on phosphorus fractions of biosolids derived biochar. Sci. Total Environ. 695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133846Google Scholar

2.

Agegnehu, G., Srivastava, A.K., and Bird, M.I. 2017. 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.2017.06.008Google Scholar

3.

Ajiboye, B., Akinremi, O.O., and Racz, G.J. 2004. Laboratory characterization of phosphorus in fresh and oven-dried organic amendments. J. Environ. Qual. 33: 1062–1069. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2004.1062. pmid:15224945Google Scholar

4.

Backer, R.G.M., Schwinghamer, T.D., Whalen, J.K., Seguin, P., and Smith, D.L. 2016. Crop yield and SOC responses to biochar application were dependent on soil texture and crop type in southern Quebec, Canada. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 179: 399–408. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201500520Google Scholar

5.

Biopterre. 2018. Biochar, la réalite québecoise. [Online]. Available from http://www.biopterre.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Biopterre_Technote_Biochar-Juin2018.pdf[26 June 2020]. Google Scholar

6.

Camberato, J.J., Gagnon, B., Angers, D.A., Chantigny, M.H., and Pan, W.L. 2006. Pulp and paper mill by-products as soil amendments and plant nutrient sources. Can. J. Soil Sci. 86: 641–653. Erratum(2007) 87: 118. https://doi.org/10.4141/s05-120Google Scholar

7.

Chan, K.Y., Van Zwieten, L., Meszaros, I., Downie, A., and Joseph, S. 2008. Using poultry litter biochars as soil amendments. Aust. J. Soil Res. 46: 437–444. https://doi.org/10.1071/sr08036Google Scholar

8.

Cordell, D., Drangert, J.-O., and White, S. 2009. The story of phosphorus: global food security and food for thought. Glob. Environ. Change, 19: 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008. 10.009Google Scholar

9.

CRAAQ. 2010. Guide de référence en fertilisation. 2ème éd. Centre de Référence en Agriculture et Agroalimentaire du Québec, Québec, QC, Canada. Google Scholar

10.

Dai, L., Li, H., Tan, F., Zhu, N., He, M., and Hu, G. 2016. Biochar: a potential route for recycling of phosphorus in agricultural residues. Global Change Biol. Bioenerg. 8: 852–858. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12365Google Scholar

11.

Dai, Z., Zhang, X., Tang, C., Muhammad, N., Wu, J., Brookes, P.C., and Xu, J. 2017. Potential role of biochars in decreasing soil acidification — a critical review. Sci. Total Environ. 581–582: 601–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.12.169. pmid:28063658Google Scholar

12.

Domingues, R.R., Trugilho, P.F., Silva, C.A., de Melo, I.C.N.A., Melo, L.C.A., Magriotis, Z.M., and Sánchez-Monedero, M.A. 2017. Properties of biochar derived from wood and high-nutrient biomasses with the aim of agronomic and environmental benefits. PLoS ONE, 12(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0176884Google Scholar

13.

El-Naggar, A.H., Usman, A.R.A., Al-Omran, A., Ok, Y.S., Ahmad, M., and Al-Wabel, M.I. 2015. Carbon mineralization and nutrient availability in calcareous sandy soils amended with woody waste biochar. Chemosphere, 138: 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.05.052. pmid:26037818Google Scholar

14.

Fan, J.L., Ziadi, N., Gagnon, B., and Hu, Z.Y. 2010. Soil phosphorus fractions following annual paper mill biosolids and liming materials application. Can. J. Soil Sci. 90: 467–479. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjss09037Google Scholar

15.

Foster, E.J., Hansen, N., Wallenstein, M., and Cotrufo, M.F. 2016. Biochar and manure amendments impact soil nutrients and microbial enzymatic activities in a semi-arid irrigated maize cropping system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 233: 404–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.09.029Google Scholar

16.

Gagnon, B., and Ziadi, N. 2012. Papermill biosolids and alkaline residuals affect crop yield and soil properties over nine years of continuous application. Can. J. Soil Sci. 92: 917–930. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjss2012-026Google Scholar

17.

Gagnon, B., and Ziadi, N. 2020. Forest-derived liming by-products: potential benefits to remediate soil acidity and increase soil fertility. Agron. J. 112: 4788–4798. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20421Google Scholar

18.

Gao, S., and DeLuca, T.H. 2016. Influence of biochar on soil nutrient transformations, nutrient leaching, and crop yield. Adv. Plants Agric. Res. 4(5): 00150. https://doi.org/10.15406/apar.2016. 04.00150Google Scholar

19.

Gaskin, J.W., Speir, R.A., Harris, K., Das, K.C., Lee, R.D., Morris, L.A., and Fisher, D.S. 2010. Effect of peanut hull and pine chip biochar on soil nutrients, corn nutrient status, and yield. Agron. J. 102: 623–633. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2009.0083Google Scholar

20.

Glaser, B., and Lehr, V.I. 2019. Biochar effects on phosphorus availability in agricultural soils: a meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 9: 9338. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45693-z. pmid:31249335Google Scholar

21.

Glaser, B., Lehmann, J., and Zech, W. 2002. Ameliorating physical and chemical properties of highly weathered soils in the tropics with charcoal — a review. Biol. Fertil. Soils, 35: 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-002-0466-4Google Scholar

22.

Gul, S., Whalen, J.K., Thomas, B.W., Sachdeva, V., and Deng, H. 2015. Physico-chemical properties and microbial responses in biochar-amended soils: mechanisms and future directions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 206: 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.03.015Google Scholar

23.

He, Z., Zhang, H., Toor, G.S., Dou, Z., Honeycutt, C.W., Haggard, B.E., and Reiter, M.S. 2010. Phosphorus distribution in sequentially extracted fractions of biosolids, poultry litter, and granulated products. Soil Sci. 175: 154–161. https://doi.org/10.1097/ss.0b013e3181dae29eGoogle Scholar

24.

Hébert, M. 2016. Bilan 2015 du recyclage des matières résiduelles fertilisantes. Gouvernement du Québec, Ministère du Développement durable, de l'Environnement et de la Lutte contre les Changements Climatiques, Québec, QC, Canada. 30 pp. [Online]. Available from http://www.environnement.gouv.qc.ca/matieres/mat_res/fertilisantes/Bilan2015.pdf[24 Mar. 2020]. Google Scholar

25.

Krogstad, T., Sogn, T.A., Asdal, A., and Sæbø, A. 2005. Influence of chemically and biologically stabilized sewage sludge on plant-available phosphorous in soil. Ecol. Eng. 25: 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2005.02.009Google Scholar

26.

Laird, D., Fleming, P., Wang, B., Horton, R., and Karlen, D. 2010. Biochar impact on nutrient leaching from a Midwestern agricultural soil. Geoderma, 158: 436–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.05.012Google Scholar

27.

Lehmann, J., and Joseph, S. 2015. Biochar for environmental management: science, technology and implementation. 2nd ed. Routledge, New York, NY, USA. Google Scholar

28.

Lévesque, V., Rochette, P., Ziadi, N., Dorais, M., and Antoun, H. 2018. Mitigation of CO2, CH4 and N2O from a fertigated horticultural growing medium amended with biochars and a compost. Appl. Soil Ecol. 126: 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil. 2018.02.021Google Scholar

29.

Lévesque, V., Rochette, P., Hogue, R., Jeanne, T., Ziadi, N., Chantigny, M.H., et al. 2020. Greenhouse gas emissions and soil bacterial community as affected by biochar amendments after periodic mineral fertilizer applications. Biol. Fertil. Soils, 56: 907–925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-020-01470-zGoogle Scholar

30.

Li, W., Feng, X., Song, W., and Guo, M. 2018. Transformation of phosphorus in speciation and bioavailability during converting poultry litter to biochar. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2: 20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2018.00020Google Scholar

31.

Li, H., Li, Y., Xu, Y., and Lu, X. 2020. Biochar phosphorus fertilizer effects on soil phosphorus availability. Chemosphere, 244: 125471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.125471Google Scholar

32.

Liu, J., Schulz, H., Brandl, S., Miehtke, H., Huwe, B., and Glaser, B. 2012. Short-term effect of biochar and compost on soil fertility and water status of a Dystric Cambisol in NE Germany under field conditions. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 175: 698–707. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201100172Google Scholar

33.

Manirakiza, E., Ziadi, N., St. Luce, M., Hamel, C., Antoun, H., and Karam, A. 2019. Nitrogen mineralization and microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen in response to co-application of biochar and paper mill biosolids. Appl. Soil Ecol. 142: 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2019.04.025Google Scholar

34.

Manirakiza, E., Ziadi, N., St. Luce, M., Hamel, C., Antoun, H., and Karam, A. 2020. Changes in soil pH and nutrient extractability after co-applying biochar and paper mill biosolids. Can. J. Soil Sci. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjss-2019-0138Google Scholar

35.

Matovic, D. 2011. Biochar as a viable carbon sequestration option: global and Canadian perspective. Energy, 36: 2011–2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.09.031Google Scholar

36.

Mukherjee, A., and Zimmerman, A.R. 2013. Organic carbon and nutrient release from a range of laboratory-produced biochars and biochar-soil mixtures. Geoderma, 193–194: 122–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2012.10.002Google Scholar

37.

Murphy, J., and Riley, J.P. 1962. A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters. Anal. Chem. Acta, 27: 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-2670(00)88444-5Google Scholar

38.

Negassa, W., and Leinweber, P. 2009. How does the Hedley sequential phosphorus fractionation reflect impacts of land use and management on soil phosphorus: a review. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 172: 305–325. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200800223Google Scholar

39.

Nelson, N.O., Agudelo, S.C., Yuan, W., and Gan, J. 2011. Nitrogen and phosphorus availability in biochar-amended soils. Soil Sci. 176: 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1097/ss.0b013e3182171eacGoogle Scholar

40.

Novak, J.M., Busscher, W.J., Laird, D.L., Ahmedna, M., Watts, D.W., and Niandou, M.A.S., 2009. Impact of biochar amendment on fertility of a southeastern coastal plain soil. Soil Sci. 174: 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1097/ss.0b013e3181981d9aGoogle Scholar

41.

Pellerin, A., Parent, L.-É., Tremblay, C., Fortin, J., Tremblay, G., Landry, C.P., and Khiari, L. 2006. Agri-environmental models using Mehlich-III soil phosphorus saturation index for corn in Quebec. Can. J. Soil Sci. 86: 897–910. https://doi.org/10.4141/s05-071Google Scholar

42.

Qian, T.-T., and Jiang, H. 2014. Migration of phosphorus in sewage sludge during different thermal treatment processes. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2: 1411–1419. https://doi.org/10.1021/sc400476jGoogle Scholar

43.

SAS Institute, Inc. 2004. SAS OnlineDoc. Version 9.1.3. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA. Google Scholar

44.

Schneider, F., and Haderlein, S.B. 2016. Potential effects of biochar on the availability of phosphorus — mechanistic insights. Geoderma, 277: 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma. 2016.05.007Google Scholar

45.

Smider, B., and Singh, B. 2014. Agronomic performance of a high ash biochar in two contrasting soils. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 191: 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.01.024Google Scholar

46.

Soinne, H., Hovi, J., Tammeorg, P., and Turtola, E. 2014. Effect of biochar on phosphorus sorption and clay soil aggregate stability. Geoderma, 219–220: 162–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma. 2013.12.022Google Scholar

47.

Sui, Y., Thompson, M.L., and Shang, C. 1999. Fractionation of phosphorus in a Mollisol amended with biosolids. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 63: 1174–1180. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1999.6351174xGoogle Scholar

48.

Tammeorg, P., Simojoki, A., Mäkelä, P., Stoddard, F.L., Alakukku, L., and Helenius, J. 2014. Short-term effects of biochar on soil properties and wheat yield formation with meat bone meal and inorganic fertiliser on a boreal loamy sand. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 191: 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.01.007Google Scholar

49.

Tiessen, H., and Moir, J.O. 2008. Characterization of available P by sequential extraction. Pages 293–306 in M.R. Carter, and E.G. Gregorich, eds. Soil sampling and methods of analysis. 2nd ed. Canadian Society of Soil Science, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA. Google Scholar

50.

Torri, S.I., Corrêa, R.S., and Renella, G. 2017. Biosolid application to agricultural land — a contribution to global phosphorus recycle: a review. Pedosphere, 27: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1002-0160(15)60106-0Google Scholar

51.

Wang, Y.T., Zhang, T.Q., O'Halloran, I.P., Hu, Q.C., Tan, C.S., Speranzini, D., et al. 2015. Agronomic and environmental soil phosphorus tests for predicting potential phosphorus loss from Ontario soils. Geoderma, 241–242: 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2014.11.001Google Scholar

52.

Xu, G., Wei, L.L., Sun, J.N., Shao, H.B., and Chang, S.X. 2013. What is more important for enhancing nutrient bioavailability with biochar application into a sandy soil: direct or indirect mechanism? Ecol. Eng. 52: 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.12.091Google Scholar

53.

Xu, G., Sun, J., Shao, H., and Chang, S.X. 2014. Biochar had effects on phosphorus sorption and desorption in three soils with differing acidity. Ecol. Eng. 62: 54–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.10.027Google Scholar

54.

Xu, G., Zhang, Y., Shao, H., and Sun, J. 2016. Pyrolysis temperature affects phosphorus transformation in biochar: chemical fractionation and 31P NMR analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 569–570: 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.081. pmid:27343937Google Scholar

55.

Xu, G., Shao, H., Zhang, Y., and Sun, J. 2018. Nonadditive effects of biochar amendments on soil phosphorus fractions in two contrasting soils. Land Degrad. Dev. 29: 2720–2727. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3029Google Scholar

56.

Yuan, H., Lu, T., Wang, Y., Chen, Y., and Lei, T. 2016. Sewage sludge biochar: nutrient composition and its effect on the leaching of soil nutrients. Geoderma, 267: 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2015.12.020Google Scholar

57.

Zhang, H., Chen, C., Gray, E.M., Boyd, S.E., Yang, H., and Zhang, D. 2016. Roles of biochar in improving phosphorus availability in soils: a phosphate adsorbent and a source of available phosphorus. Geoderma, 276: 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma. 2016.04.020Google Scholar

58.

Zhang, X., Gagnon, B., Ziadi, N., Cambouris, A.N., Alotaibi, K.D., and Hu, Z. 2020. Soil phosphorus fractionation as affected by paper mill biosolids applied to soils of contrasting properties. Front. Environ. Sci. 8: 38. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2020.00038Google Scholar

59.

Zheng, Z., Simard, R.R., Lafond, J., and Parent, L.E. 2001. Changes in phosphorus fractions of a Humic Gleysol as influenced by cropping systems and nutrient sources. Can. J. Soil Sci. 81: 175–183. https://doi.org/10.4141/s00-666Google Scholar

60.

Zornoza, R., Moreno-Barriga, F., Acosta, J.A., Muñoz, M.A., and Faz, A. 2016. Stability, nutrient availability and hydrophobicity of biochars derived from manure, crop residues, and municipal solid waste for their use as soil amendments. Chemosphere, 144: 122–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere. 2015.08.046. pmid:26347934Google Scholar

61.

Zvomuya, F., Helgason, B.L., Larney, F.J., Janzen, H.H., Akinremi, O.O., and Olson, B.M. 2006. Predicting phosphorus availability from soil-applied composted and non-composted cattle feedlot manure. J. Environ. Qual. 35: 928–937. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2005.0409. pmid:16641331Google Scholar
Copyright remains with the author(s) or their institution(s).
Noura Ziadi, Xiangru Zhang, Bernard Gagnon, and Eric Manirakiza "Soil phosphorus fractionation after co-applying biochar and paper mill biosolids," Canadian Journal of Soil Science 102(1), 53-63, (18 December 2020). https://doi.org/10.1139/CJSS-2020-0098
Received: 5 August 2020; Accepted: 16 November 2020; Published: 18 December 2020
JOURNAL ARTICLE
11 PAGES


Share
SHARE
KEYWORDS
biocharbon de bois
biosolides de papeterie
disponibilité du P
fractions du phosphore
incubation du sol
P availability
paper mill biosolids
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission
Back to Top