The effect of using grape waste, brown walnut shell and poultry manure biochars on the enzymatic behavior of a clay loam soil

Document Type : Complete scientific research article

Authors

1 Master's student, Department of Soil Science and Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Malayer University, Malayer, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Soil Science and Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Malayer University, Malayer, Iran.

Abstract

Background and purpose: Enzyme activity evaluation is useful for determining soil microbial activity that are responsible for important reactions such as soil mineralization and homogenization of soil organic matter. Enzyme activity affects the physicochemical properties of soil and supports the growth of plants. Therefore, enzyme activity is a sensitive index to evaluate the effect of soil conditioners. Biochar is one of these organic modifiers whose use in soil can affect the enzymatic activity of soil. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the effect of grape waste biochar, brown walnut shell and poultry manure on the enzymatic behavior of a clay loam soil.
Materials and methods: In order to conduct this research, a completely randomized experiment was conducted in three replications. Biochars were used in 10 percent by weight. The experimental treatments included control soil (CS), soil + grape waste biochar (GSB), soil + brown walnut shell biochar (NSB) and soil + poultry manure biochar (PMB). The samples were kept for about two months at a temperature of 25±3 degrees Celsius. During the incubation period, the humidity was maintained at 70% of the agricultural capacity by adding distilled water and mixing the samples. Soils were sampled after 5, 10, 30 and 60 days, and invertase, acid and alkaline phosphatase, and urease activities were measured in the samples.
Findings: The results showed that adding biochar to the soil increased the activity of invertase enzyme, which was 23, 15 and 8% higher in PMB, GSB and NSB treatments than the control treatment. The highest activity of alkaline phosphatase enzyme was observed in the control treatment and the lowest in the PMB treatment, and the activity of this enzyme in the PMB treatment was about 39% lower than the control soil. The order of alkaline phosphatase activity in different treatments was as follows: CS≥ GSB> NSB> PMB. Acid phosphatase activity in treated soils was completely opposite to invertase enzyme activity. The lowest activity was observed in the PMB treatment, which was about 67% less than the control treatment. The order of activity of this enzyme in different treatments was as follows: CS> NSB> GSB≥ PMB. The activity of urease enzyme in different treatments was similar to that of invertase enzyme. The peak activity of this enzyme was observed in the PMB treatment, which was about 71% more than the control treatment. Invertase enzyme activity in GSB and NSB treatment was 40% and 20% higher than the control treatment, respectively. On average, the geometric mean of enzyme activity increased during incubation in GSB treatment compared to the control. According to the enzyme resistance index, the lowest rate was related to PMB treatment and the highest rate was related to NSB treatment.
Conclusion: Considering that GSB treatment has an increasing effect on enzyme activity, especially carbon and nitrogen cycle enzymes. This organic modifier can be used as a supplementary source for supplying carbon and nitrogen elements to improve soil quality.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

1.Adhikari, K., & Hartemink, A. E. (2016). Linking soils to ecosystem services-A global review. Geoderma, 262, 101-111. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma. 2015.08.009.
2.Sinsabaugh, R. L., Lauber, C. L., Weintraub, M. N., Ahmed, B., Allison, S. D., Crenshaw, C., Contosta, A. R., Cusack, D., Frey, S., Gallo, M. E., Gartner, T. B., Hobbie, S. E., Holland, K., Keeler, B. L., Powers, J. S., Stursova, M., Takacs-Vesbach, C., Waldrop, M. P., Wallenstein, M. D., Zak, D. R., & Zeglin, L. H. (2008). Stoichiometry of soil enzyme activity at global scale. Ecology Letters, 11, 1252–1264. doi:10.1111/j. 14610248.2008.01245.x.
3.Futa, B., Oleszczuk, P., Andruszczak, S., Kwiecińska-Poppe, E., & Kraska, P. (2020). Effect of natural aging of biochar on soil enzymatic activity and physicochemical properties in long-term field experiment. Agronomy, 10, 449. https://doi.org/ 10. 3390/ agron omy10 030449.
4.Shi, W. (2011). Agricultural and ecological significance of soil enzymes: soil carbon sequestration and nutrient cycling. In ‘Soil enzymology’. (Eds G Shukla, A Varma) pp. 43-60. (Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg) doi:10.1007/978-3-642-14225-3_3.
5.Jog, R., Nareshkumar, G., & Rajkumar, S. (2012). Plant growth promoting potential and soil enzyme production of the
most abundant Streptomyces spp. from wheat rhizosphere. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 113, 1154–1164. doi:10. 1111/j.1365-2672.2012.05417.x.
6.Rao, M. A., Scelza, R., Scotti, R., & Gianfreda, L. (2010). Role of enzymes in the remediation of polluted environments. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 10, 333-353. doi:10.4067/ S0718-9516201000 0100008.
7.Caldwell, B. A. (2005). Enzyme activities as a component of soil biodiversity: a review. Pedobiologia, 49, 637-644. doi:10.1016/j.pedobi.2005. 06.003.
8.Harrison, M. D. (2016). Nutrient dynamics. In ‘Encyclopedia of estuaries’. (Ed. MJ Kennish) pp. 462-463. (Springer: Dordrecht, Netherlands) doi:10.1007/ 978-94-017-8801-4-75.
9.Macdonald, C. A., Delgado-Baquerizo, M., Reay, D. S., Hicks, L. C., & Singh, B. K. (2018). Soil nutrients and soil carbon storage: modulators and mechanisms. In ‘Soil carbon storage’. (Ed. BK Singh) pp. 167–205. (Academic Press) doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-812766-7. 00006-8.
10.Pérez-Piqueres, A., Edel-Hermann, V., Alabouvette, C., & Steinberg, C. (2006). Response of soil microbial communities to compost amendments. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 38, 460-470. doi:10. 1016/j.soilbio. 2005.05.025.
11.Cleveland, C. C., Nemergut, D. R., Schmidt, S. K., & Townsend, A. R. (2007). Increases in soil respiration following labile carbon additions linked to rapid shifts in soil microbial community composition. Biogeochemistry, 82, 229-240. doi:10.1007/s10533-006-9065-z.
12.Masto, R. E., Kumar, S., Rout, T. K., Sarkar, P., George, J., & Ram, L. C. (2013). Biochar from water hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes) and its impact
on soil biological activity. Catena,
111, 64-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. catena.2013.06.025.
13.De Tender, C. A., Debode, J., Vandecasteele, B., D’Hose, T., Cremelie, P., Haegeman, A., Ruttink, T., Dawyndt, P., & Maes, M. (2016). Biological, physicochemical and plant health responses in lettuce and strawberry in soil or peat amended
with biochar. Applied Soil Ecology,
107, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. apsoil.2016.05.001.
14.Sherene, T. (2017). Role of soil enzymes in nutrient transformation: A review. Bio Bulletin, 3, 109-131. (Published
by Research Trend, Website: www.biobulletin.com)
15.Garbuz, S., Mackay, A., Camps-Arbestain, M., DeVantier, B., & Minor, M. (2021). Biochar amendment improves soil physico-chemical properties and alters root biomass and the soil food web in grazed pastures. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 319, 107517. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.agee.2021.107517.
16.Mierzwa-Hersztek, M., Gondek, K., Klimkowicz-Pawlas, A., Chmiel, M. J., Dziedzic, K., & Taras, H. (2019). Assessment of soil quality after biochar application based on enzymatic activity and microbial composition. International Agrophysics, 33, 331-336. doi: https:// doi.org/10.31545/intagr/110807.
17.Wang, X., Song, D., Liang, G., Zhang, Q., Ai, C., & Zhou, W. (2015). Maize biochar addition rate influences soil enzyme activity and microbial community composition in a fluvo-aquic soil. Applied Soil Ecology, 96, 265-272. doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2015.08.018.
18.Zhang, L., Xiang, Y., Jing, Y., & Zhang, R. (2019). Biochar amendment effects on the activities of soil carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus hydrolytic enzymes: a meta-analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(22), 22990-23001.
doi: 10.1007/s11356-019-05604-1.Epub 2019 Jun 10.
19.Song, D., Xi, X., Huang, S., Liang, G., Sun, J., Zhou, W., & Wang, X. (2016). Short-term responses of soil respiration and C-cycle enzyme activities to additions of biochar and urea in a calcareous soil. PLOS ONE,
11 (9), e0161694. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0161694.
20.Awad, Y. M., Blagodatskaya, E., Ok,
Y. S., & Kuzyakov, Y. (2013). Effects of polyacrylamide, biopolymer and biochar on the decomposition of14C-labelled maize residues and on their stabilization in soil aggregates. European Journal of Soil Science,
64 (4), 488–499. https://doi. org/ 10.1111/ejss.12034.
21.Elzobair, K. A., Stromberger, M. E., Ippolito, J. A., & Lentz, R. D. (2016). Contrasting effects of biochar versus manure on soil microbial communities and enzyme activities in an Aridisol. Chemosphere, 142, 145-152. https:// doi.org/ 10.1016/ jchemosphere.2015. 06.044.
22.Paz-Ferreiro, J., Gasco, G., Gutiérrez, B., & Méndez, A. (2012). Soil biochemical activities and the geometric mean of enzyme activities after application of sewage sludge and sewage sludge biochar to soil. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 48(5), 511-517. doi:10.1007/s00374-011-0644-3.
23.Picariello, E., Baldantoni, D., Muniategui-Lorenzo, S., Concha-Graña, E., & De Nicola, F. (2021). A synthetic quality index to evaluate the functional stability of soil microbial communities after perturbations. Ecological Indicators, 128, 107844. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/ j.ecolind.2021.107844.
24.Rowell, D. L. (1994). Soil science: Methods & Applications. Addison Wesley Longman Singapore Publishers (Pte) Ltd., England, UK. 350 p. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315844855.
25.Jones, B. J. R. (2001). Laboratory guide for conducting soil test and plant analysis. NewYork: Crc. P. 384. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420025293.
26.Tan, K. H. (2005). Soil Sampling, Preparation, and Analysis. CRC Press. 672p. https://doi.org/10.1201/978148 2274769.
27.Waling, I., Vark, W. V., Houba, V. J. G., & Van der lee, J. J. (1986). Soil and plant analysis, a series of syllabi. Part 7. Plant analysis procedures. Wageningen Agriculture University, Netherland.
28.Nelson, R. E. (1982). Carbonate and gypsum. In: Page, A. L., Miller, R. H., and Keeney, D. R. Methods of soil analysis. Part2. Chemical and microbiological properties (2nd Ed). Agronomy monograph, No.9. American society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. Pp, 181-196.
29.Olsen, S. R., & Sommers, L. E. (1982). Phosphorus. In: Miller, A.L., Methods of soil analysis, part 2. Chemical and mineralogical properties (2nd Ed). Agronomy series NO.9. Soil Science Society of American Journal, USA.
pp. 403-430.
30.Pierzynski, G. M. (2000). Methods of phosphorus analysis for soils, sediments, residuals, and waters. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin No. 396. 98p. http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/ sera17/ publications/sera17-2/pm_cover.htm.
31.Singh, B., Camps-Arbestain, M., & Lehmann, J. (2017). Biochar: a guide to analytical methods. CSIRO Publishing. 320p.
32.Khadem, A., & Raiesi, F. (2017). Responses of microbial performance and community to maize biochar in calcareous sandy and clayey soils. Applied Soil Ecology, 114, 16-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2017. 02.018.
33.Schinner, F., Öhlinger, R., Kandeler, E., & Margesin, R. (2012). Methods in soil biology: Springer Science & business media. 418 p. DOl: 10.1 0071978·3-642-60966-4.
34.Orwin, K. H., & Wardle, D. A. (2004). New indices for quantifying the resistance and resilience of soil biota to exogenous disturbances. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 36, 1907-1912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2004. 04.036.
35.Cooper, J., Greenberg, I., Ludwig, B., Hippich, L., Fischer, D., Glaser, B., & Kaiser, M. (2020). Effect of biochar and compost on soil properties and organic matter in aggregate size fractions under field conditions. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 295, 106882. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.106882.
36.Gao, S., DeLuca, T. H., & Cleveland,
C. C. (2019). Biochar additions alter phosphorus and nitrogen availability in agricultural ecosystems: a meta-analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 654, 463-472. doi:10.1016/ j.scitotenv. 2018.11.124.
37.Song, W., & Guo, M. (2012). Quality variations of poultry litter biochar generated at different pyrolysis temperatures. Journal of Analytical and Applied Pyrolysis, 94, 138-145. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2011.11.018.
38.Kazemi, A. R., Varasteh Khanlari, Z., & Zarabi, M. (2023). Investigating the release of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium from biocharsof grape waste, straw and wheat stubble and walnut shell. Iranian Journal of Soil and Water research, 54(9), 1286-1299. [In Persian] doi:https://doi.org/10.22059/ijswr.2023.362309.669535.
39.Antonious, G. F. (2018). Biochar and Animal Manure Impact on Soil, Crop Yield and Quality. In Agricultural Waste and Residues, IntechOpen. 45-67. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.77008.
40.Wang, M., Markert, B., Shen, W., Chen, W., Peng, C., & Ouyang, Z. (2011). Microbial biomass carbon and enzyme activities of urban soils in Beijing. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 18 (6), 958-967. doi: 10.1007/ s11356-011-0445-0.
41.Huang, D., Liu, L., Zeng, G., Xu, P., Huang, C., Deng, L., Wang, R., & Wan, J. (2017). The effects of rice straw biochar on indigenous microbial community and enzymes activity in heavy metal contaminated sediment. Chemosphere, 174, 545-553. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.
01.130.
42.Nourmandipour, F., Delavar, M. A., Lal, R., Joseph, S., & Siewert, C. (2020). Influence of Rice Husk Biomass and Its Biochar on Some Enzymatic Activities in a Calcareous Sandy. Journal of soil and water research, 51 (7), 1841-1855. [In Persian] doi: 10.22059/ijswr.2020. 295313.668458)
43.Foster, E. J., Hansen, N., Wallenstein, M., & Cotrufo, M. F. (2016). Biochar and manure amendments impact soil nutrients and microbial enzymatic activities in a semi-arid irrigated maize cropping system. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 233, 404-414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016. 09.029.
44.Bera, T., Collins, H. P., Alva, A. K., Purakayastha, T. J., & Patra, A. K. (2016). Biochar and manure effluent effects on soil biochemical properties under maize production. Applied Soil Ecology, 107, 360-367. http:// dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2016 .07.011.
45.Lima, J. R. S., Silva, W. M., Medeiros, E. V., Duda, G. P., Corrêa, M. M., Martins Filho, A. P., Clermont-Dauphin, C., Antonino, A. C. D., & Hammecker, C. (2018). Effect of biochar on physicochemical properties of a sandy soil and maize growth in a greenhouse experiment. Geoderma, 319, 14-23. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.12.033.
46.Ge, X., Cao, Y., Zhou, B., Wang, X., Yang, Z., & Li, M. H. (2019). Biochar addition increases subsurface soil microbial biomass but has limited effects on soil CO2 emissions in subtropical moso bamboo plantations. Applied Soil Ecology, 142, 155-165. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2019. 04.021.
47.Demisie, W., Liu, Z., & Zhang, M. (2014). Effect of biochar on carbon fractions and enzyme activity of red soil. Catena, 121, 214-221. doi:10.1016/j. catena.2014.05.020.
48.Paz-Ferreiro, J., Fu, S., Méndez, A., & Gasc, G. (2014). Interactive effects of biochar and the earthworm Pontoscolex corethrurus on plant productivity and soil enzyme activities. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 14, 483-494. doi:10. 1007/s11368-013-0806-z.
49.Luo, L., & Guo, J. D. (2016). Alteration of extracellular enzyme activity and microbial abundance by biochar addition: Implication for carbon sequestration in subtropical mangrove sediment. Journal of environmental management, 182, 29-36. http://dx.doi. org/10. 1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.040.
50.Nie, C., Yang, X., Niazi, N. K., Xu, X., Wen, Y., Rinklebe, J., Ok, Y. S., Xu, S., & Wang, H. (2018) Impact of sugarcane bagasse-derived biochar on heavy metal availability and microbial activity: a field study. Chemosphere, 200, 274-282. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere, 134.
51.Wojewodzki, P., Lemanowicz, J., Debska, B., & Haddad, S. A. (2022). Soil enzyme activity response under the amendment of different types of biochar. Agronomy, 12(3), 569. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/agronomy12030569.
52.Behravan, H. R., Khorassani, R., Fotovat, A., Moezei, A. A., & Taghavi, M. (2020). The Effect of Humic Acid and Phosphorus Fertilizer on Phosphatase Enzymes, Active Carbon and Available Phosphorus in Sugarcane Rhizosphere. Iranian Journal of soil and water research, 5 (10), 2571-2581. [In Persian] doi: 10.22059/IJSWR. 2019.279387.668168.
53.Zhai, L., Caiji, Z., Liu, J., Wang, H., Ren, T., Gai, X., Xi, B., & Liu, H. (2015). Short-term effects of maize residue biochar on phosphorus availability in two soils with different phosphorus sorption capacities. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 51, 113-122. doi: 10.1007/s00374-014-0954-3.
54.Nannipieri, P., Giagnoni, L., Renella, G., Puglisi, E., Ceccanti, B., Masciandaro, G., & Marinari, S. A. R. A. (2012). Soil enzymology: classical and molecular approaches. Biology and fertility of soils, 48 (7), 743-762. doi:10.1007/s00374-012-0723-0.
55.Piotrowska-Długosz, A., & Wilczewski, E. (2014). Soil Phosphatase Activity and Phosphorus Content as Influenced by Catch Crops Cultivated as Green Manure. Polish Journal Environmental Studies, 23 (1), 157-165.
56.Liao, X., Kang, H., Haidar, G., Wang, W., & Malghani, S. (2022). The impact of biochar on the activities of soil nutrients acquisition enzymes is potentially controlled by the pyrolysis temperature: A meta-analysis. Geoderma, 411, 115692. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.geoderma.2021.115692.
57.Munir, M. A., Yousaf, B., Ali, M. U., Dan, C., Abbas, Q., Arif, M., & Yang, X. (2021). In situ synthesis of micro-plastics embedded sewagesludge co-pyrolyzed biochar: implications for the remediation of Cr and Pb availability and enzymatic activities from the contaminated soil. Journal of Cleaner Production, 302,127005. https:// doi. org/10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2021. 127005.
58.Zhang, M., Cheng, G., Feng, H., Sun, B., Zhao, Y., Chen, H., & Zhang, A. (2017). Effects of straw and biochar amendments on aggregate stability, soil organic carbon, and enzyme activities in the Loess Plateau, China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 24, 10108-10120. doi:10.1007/s11356-017-8505-8.
59.Bailey, V. L., Fansler, S. J., Smith, J. L., & Bolton, H. (2011). Reconciling apparent variability in effects of biochar amendment on soil enzyme activities by assay optimization. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 43, 296-301. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.10.014.
60.Hinojosa, M. B., Carreira, J. A., García-Ruíz, R., & Dick, R. P. (2004). Soil moisture pre-treatment effects on enzyme activities as indicators of heavy metal-contaminated and reclaimed soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 36(10), 1559-1568. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio. 2004.07.003.
61.Jing, Y., Zhang, Y., Han, I., Wang, P., Mei, Q., & Huang, Y. (2020). Effects of different straw biochars on soil organic carbon, nitrogen, available phosphorus, and enzyme activity in paddy soil. Scientific Reports, 10, 8837. https:// doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65796-2.
62.Ghosh, D., & Kumar Maiti, S. (2021). Effect of invasive weed biochar amendment on soil enzymatic activity and respiration of coal mine spoil: a laboratory experiment study. Biochar,
3, 519-533. doi:10.1007/s42773-021-00109-y.
Journal of Soil Management and Sustainable Production
Volume 14, Issue 3
October 2024
Pages 99-132

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics