Efekt zastosowania biowęgla jako składnika polepszającego właściwości retencyjne substratu torfowego

• Autorzy: Durlo G.

Warianty tytułu

EN

Effect of biochar application as a component improving the retention properties of peat moss substrate

• Języki publikacji: PL

Abstrakty

EN

Physical and chemical properties of biochar from wood biomass indicate that it can be a valuable supplement to nursery substrates, mainly to improve sorption capacity as well as nutrient and water retention. The paper presents the results of a pilot experiment on the impact of biochar on the moisture content of peat moss substrate and its retention properties. The experiment was carried out in the autumn of 2017 at the Soil Water and Environmental Science laboratory at the University of Arizona, Tucson (USA). 15 cubic decimeter of peat substrate with grain size ≤2 mm and 0.70 kg biochar, with the same grain size, obtained as a result of pyrolysis (450−500°C) from Pinus ponderosa Dougl. Ex C.Lawson branches. The experimental series consisted of 25 black PP containers with a volume of 265 cm3 (5 replicates) filled with peat moss (control sample PM) and a mixture of peat and biochar in 10% (PMB10), 20% (PMB20), 30% (PMB30) and 50% (PMB50) share. After soaking of mixture, most of the water was retained by 50% and 30% peat samples with biochar, followed by samples in which the proportion of biochar was 20% and 10% respectively. The least water was retained by the sample with the pure peat moss substrate (PM) – on average 76.5 g which is 255.3% of the initial weight After 96 hours the water losses were the highest in the pure peat moss samples (44.2%), while the smallest were noted in PMB30 and PMB50 samples (fig. 2b). The favourable properties of the peat and biochar mixture in the range of moisture parameters were observed. In the PWB10 series, the average moisture was 5.2% higher than the peat sample, in the PWB20 the average humidity was 7.9% higher than the PM sample, in the PWB30 and PWB50 series the differences were larger: 15.0% and 14.2% respectively (fig. 4). The significant variation in physical parameters between the individual series was confirmed as well as the assumption of variance uniformity (tab. 3, fig. 4).

Słowa kluczowe

PL

szkolki kontenerowe; substraty torfowe; wilgotnosc; wlasciwosci retencyjne; dodatki do podlozy; karbonizaty; biowegiel; zawartosc biowegla

• Wydawca: -
• Czasopismo: Sylwan
• Rocznik: 2018
• Tom: 162
• Numer: 10
• Opis fizyczny: s.828-836,rys.,tab.,bibliogr.

Twórcy

autor

Durlo G.

• Zakład Ochrony Lasu, Entomologii i Klimatologii Leśnej, Uniwersytet Rolniczy w Krakowie, al.29 Listopada 46, 31-425 Kraków

Bibliografia

• Abel S., Peters A., Trinks S., Schonsky H., Facklam M., Wessolek G. 2013. Impact of biochar and hydrochar addition on water retention and water repellency of sandy soil. Geoderma 202-203: 183-191. doi.org/10.1016/ j.geoderma.2013.03.003
• Atriola J., Rasmussen C., Freitas R. 2012. Effects of a biochar-amended alkaline soil on the growth of romaine lettuce and bermudagrass. Soil Sci. 177 (9): 561-570.
• Brantley K. E., Brye K. R., Savin M. C., Longer D. E. 2016. Biochar source and application rate effects on soil water retention determined using wetting curves. Soil Sci. 5: 1-10. doi.org/10.4236/ojss.2015.51001
• Brever C. E., Schmidt-Rohr K., Satorio J. A., Brown R. C. 2009. Characterization of biochar from fast pyrolysis and gasification system. Envir. Prog. Sustain. Energ. 28: 386-396.
• Brockhoff S. R., Christians N. E., Killorn R. J., Horton R., Davis D. D. 2010. Physical and mineral-nutrition properties of sand-based turfgrass root yones amended with biochar. Agron. Journ. 102 (6): 1627-1631.
• Brye K. R. 2003. Long-term effects of cultivation on particle size and water-retention characteristics determined using wetting curves. Soil Sci. 168: 459-468. doi.org/10.1097/01.ss.0000080331.10341.36
• Cameron R. W., Wilkinson S., Davies W. J., Harrison-Murray R. S., Dunstan D., Burgess C. 2004. Regulation of plants growth in container grown ornamentals through the use of controlled irrigation. Acta Hort. 630: 305-312.
• Chan K. Y., Van Zwieten L., Meszaros I. A., Downie A., Joseph S. 2008. Using poultry litter biochars as soil amendments. Australian Journal of Soil Res. 46: 437-444.
• Chan K. Y., Xu Z. 2009. Biochar: nutrient properties and their enhancement. W: Lehmann J., Joseph S. [red.]. Biochar for environmental management: science and technology. Earthscan, London, UK. 67-84.
• Di Lonardo S., Baronti S., Vaccari F. P., Albanese L., Battista P., Miglietta F., Bacci L. 2017. Biochar-based nursery substrates: The effect of peat substitution on reduced salinity. Urb. For. Urb. Gard. 23: 27-34. doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ufug.2017.02.007
• Dumroese R. K., Heiskanen J., Englund K., Tervahauta A. 2001. Pelleted biochar: chemical and physical properties show potential use as a substrate in container nurseries. Biom. Bioen. 35 (5): 2018-2027.
• Durło G., Jagiełło-Leńczuk K., Kormanek M., Małek S., Banach J. 2018. Supplementary irrigation at container nursery. For. Lett. 79 (1): 13-21. doi.org/10.2478/frp-2018-0002
• Laird D., Fleming P., Davis D., Horton R., Wang B., Karlen D. 2010. Impact of biochar amendments on the quality of a typical midwestern agricultural soil. Geoderma 158: 443-449.
• Lamack W. F., Niemiera A. X. 1993. Application method affects water application efficiency of spray stake-irrigated containers. Hort. Sci. 28: 6625-6627.
• Lehmann J., Joseph S. 2009. Biochar for environmental management: science and technology. Earthscan, London, UK.
• Liang B., Lehmann J., Solomon D., Kinyangi J., Grossman J., O’Neill B., Skjemstad J. O., Thies J., Luizăo F. J., Peterson J., Neves E. G. 2006. Black carbon increases cation exchange capacity in soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 70: 1719-1730.
• Liu X., Zhang A., Ji C., Joseph S., Bian R. L., Li L. 2013. Biochar’s effect on crop productivity and the dependence on experimental conditions – A meta-analysis of literature data. Plant and Soil. 373: 583-594.
• Maciak F., Liwski S. 1996. Ćwiczenia z torfoznawstwa. Wyd. SGGW, Warszawa.
• Medyńska-Juraszek A. 2016. Biowęgiel jako dodatek do gleb. Soil. Sci. Ann. 67 (3): 151-157. doi.org/10.1515/ssa-2016--0018
• Novak J. M., Lima I., Xing B., Gaskin J. W., Steiner C., Das K. C., Ahmedna M., Rehrah D., Watts D. W., Busscher W. J., Schomberg H. 2009. Characterization of designer biochar produced at different temperatures and their effects on a loamy sand. Ann. Envir. Sci. 3: 195-206.
• Ok Y. S., Uchimiya S. M., Chang S. X., Bolan C. N. [red.]. 2006. Biochar: production, characterization, and applications. CRC Press. Tylor & Francis Group.
• Rowlandson T. L., Berg A. A., Bullock P. R., RoTimi Ojo E., McNairn H., Wiseman G., Cosh M. H. 2013. Evaluation of several calibration procedures for a portable soil moisture sensor. Journ. Hydrol. 498: 335-344. doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.05.021
• Sakaki T., Limsuwat A., Smits K. M., Illangasekare T. H. 2008. Empirical two-point -mixing model for calibrating the ECH2O EC-5 soil moisture sensor in sands. Water Resour. Res. 44, W00D08. doi.org/10.1029/2008WR006870
• Sohi S., Krull E., Lopez-Capel E., Bol R. 2010. A review of biochar and its use and function in soil. Adv. Agron. 105: 47-82.
• Thomas S. C., Gale N. 2015. Biochar and forest restoration: a review and meta-analysis of tree growth responses. New Forests: 1-16. doi.org/10.1007/s11056-015-9491-7
• Uchimiya S. 2006. Biochar production, technology. W: Ok Y. S., Uchimiya S. M., Chang S. X., Bolan C. N. [red.]. Biochar: production, characterization, and applications. CRC Press. Tylor & Francis Group.
• Verheijen F., Jeffery S., Bastos A. C., van der Velde M., Diafas I. 2010. Biochar application to soils. JCR Sci. Tech. Rep. 55799. doi.org/10.2788/472
• Zong Y., Xiao Q., Lu S. 2016. Acidity, water retention, and mechanical physical quality of a strongly acidic ultisol amended with biochars derived from different feedstocks. Journ. Soils Sedim. 16 (1): 177-190.