Effects of Biochar and Zeoplant on Physical and Mechanical Properties of Erodible Soils (Case Study: Bostan)

آب و خاک

Article 6, Volume 33, Issue 5 - Serial Number 67, November 2020, Pages 723-737   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jsw.v33i5.78710

Authors

H. Lohrasbi; A. Farrokhian Firuzi

Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz

Abstract

Introduction: Wind erosion is one of the most important environmental challenges in arid and semiarid regions which cause soil loss and dust storm. In recent decades, the potential of soil erosion has been recognized as serious threat against soil sustainability. In addition, accelerated soil erosion has led to harmful environmental effects. Therefore, focus on soil erosion outcomes is necessary in order to mitigate its environmental impacts. Understanding interactions between land use management and topographical properties of landscape are important in order to effectively control soil erosion through implementing best management practices (BMPs). Application of mulch is one of the most prevailing scenarios to prevent the erosive soil against wind as an erosive factor in the hotspots. In this regard the type of much is really important because the environmental aspects and the mulch consistency are important factors for production and selection of mulch between several options. Nowadays, sustainable management is one of the most important scopes in order to achieve the aims of human healthy. In this regards the Bagasse of sugarcane and Conocarpus were selected as feedstocks to produce biochars. Biochar is the by-product of anaerobic process which called pyrolysis. The biogases, energy and so on are other outputs of pyrolysis. Another treatment which evaluated in this study was Zeoplant. Zeoplant is a super absorptive material which is able to hold the water in the soil therefore is capable to enhance the water holding capacity of the soil.      
Materials and Methods: In this study the effects of biochar of Bagasse from sugarcane, biochar of Conocarpus and Zeoplant in three levels (0, 2 and 4 percentage) and two moisture levels (25 and 50 percentage of FC) and 3 replications in randomized completely design with factorial on physical and mechanical properties of soil as indices of soil erodibility was studied. Soil sampling accomplished from Horalazim marshes and after application of treatment, incubated in tray with the size of 70×30×10 cm for 90 days. After incubations the trays located in wind tunnel in order to simulate wind erosion process under a wind with 15 m/sec speed and 2 m from soil surface. The main measured soil physical and mechanical parameters include mean weight diameter (MWD), penetration resistance (PR), tensile strength (TS), friability index (FI), shear strength, crusting index (CI), soil textural index and organic matter. The statistical analysis was performed using SAS 9.2 software and the mean comparison was accomplished with Duncan test (5 %). In order to draw the graphs Origin 2017 software was used.  
Results and Discussion: The soil texture was silty loam (SiL) including 62% silt, 26% clay and 12% sand, therefore the soil was sensitive to wind erosion. Soil organic matter before application of biochars and Zeoplant was around 1.93% and after application increased to 3.78%. Application of these treatments and the period of incubation, enhanced the soil porosity. Generally increasing soil organic matter and soil porosity and decreasing of bulk density are the main factors to increase the soil aggregation. Our results showed that all three treatments in two moisture levels significantly increased soil porosity, tensile strength and field capacity and decrease soil crusting index (P<0.01). Biochar of bagasse and Zeoplant (2%) also significantly increased shear strength whereas biochar of Conocarpus has no significant effect on shear strength. Overall the applied treatments with armoring effect (AE) and increase the soil aggregate stability, diminished the wind erosion.
Conclusion: Our study illustrated that application of biochar is able to improve soil physical and mechanical properties. The main aspect of this positive effect is the specific characteristics and the structure of biochar which showed with SEM (Scanning electronic microscope) images. Moreover, Zeoplant is organic-inorganic treatment and including high potential to absorb the water in the soil. Indeed, the mulching is an effective management strategy to maintain and preserve the soil against wind (as erosive agent) however afterwards a vegetation cover must be grow on the surface. Therefore some treatments such as Zeoplant are essential to hold the water in the soils of arid and semiarid regions because in those areas the water scarcity is one of the main challenges. Based on our results and evaluation of these treatments we found two main processes which are effective to mitigate wind erosion. The first is aggregation process because of organic carbon and organic matter in the soil and the binding between organic and inorganic components. The second one is an armoring effect which is originating from amendments especially biochar lumps on the surface. Finally our results confirmed the application of evaluated treatments to preserve the erosive soil against wind. 

Keywords

Biochar; Hotspot; Mulch; wind tunnel; Zeoplant

References

1- Ahmadi H. 2009.Applied Geomorphology (water erosion). Tehran University Press.

2- Alipour Babadi M., Moezzi A.A. Nouruzi Masir M., and Khademalrasoul A. 2018. Effects of feedstock and temperature of pyrolysis on some chemical and physical properties of biochar. Iran J Soil Water Research 49(3): 537-547.

3- Baiamonte G., Crescimanno B., Parrino F., and De Pasquale C. 2019. Effect of biochar on the physical and structural properties of a sandy soil. Catena 175: 294–303.

4- Be´langer N. 2000. Investigating the long-term influence of atmospheric acid deposition and forest disturbance on soil chemistry and cation nutrient supplies in a forested ecosystem of southern Quebec. Ph.D. thesis, McGill University, Montreal.

5- Busscher W.J., Novak J.M., Evans D.E., Watts D.W., Niandou M.A.S., and Ahmedna M. 2010. Influence of pecan biochar on physical properties of a Norfolk loamy Sand. Soil Science 175: 10-14.

6- Dexter A.R., and Kroesbergen B. 1985. Methodology for determination of tensile strength of soil aggregates. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 31(2): 139-147.

7- Dexter A.R., and Watts C.W. 2000. Tensile strength and friability. Soil and environmental analysis: Physical Methods 2: 405-433.‏

8- Downie A., Crosky A., and Munroe P. 2009. Physical properties of biochar. In: Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and Technology (Eds. Lehmann, J. & Joseph, S.), Earthscan.

9- Ekhtesasi M.R. 1994. Mapping and sensivity of lands in Ardakan to wind erosion. Msc thesis, Faculty of Natural Resources, Yazd University.

10- Gholami S.H. 2003. The simulation of daily sediment yield by using distributed SWAT model in mountainous catchment (Amameh catchments). Journal of Research and Construction 16: 28-33.

11- Hallett P.D., Dexter A.R., and Seville J.P.K. 1995. Identification of pre-existing cracks on soil fracture surfaces using dye. Soil and Tillage Research 33: 163-184.

12- Herath H.M.S.K., Camps-Arbestain M., and Hedley M. 2013. Effect of biochar on soil physical properties in two contrasting soils: an Alfisol and an Andisol. Geoderma 209: 188–197.

13- Jaafari Shalkuhi A., Vafaian,M., Roshan Zamir M.A., and Mir Mohammad Sadeghi M. 2015. Evaluation of effective factors on fixation of fine textured soils against wind to prevent dust storm. Water and Soil Journal 19(73): 273-285.

14- Kemper W.D., and Rosenau R.C. 1986. Aggregate stability and size distribution.‏

15- Khademalrasoul A., Naveed M., Heckrath G., Kumari K.G.I.D., Jonge L.W., and Elsgaard L. 2014. Biochar effects on soil aggregate properties under no-till maize. Soil Science 179: 273–283.

16- Liu X., Zhang A., Ji C., Joseph S., Bian R., Li L., Pan G., and Paz-Ferreiro J. 2013. Biochar's effect on crop productivity and the dependence on experimental conditions a meta-analysis of literature data. Plant Soil 373: 583–594.

17- Lehmann J., Gaunt J., and Rondon M. 2006. Biochar sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems- A review. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 11: 403–427.

18- Mehrabi Sh. 2013. Mapping of dust storms using Satellite Images (Case study: Khuzestan Province). Msc thesis, Isfahan Industrial University. 123pp.

19- Movahedan M., Abbasi N., and Keramati M. 2011. Laboratory evaluation of PVC effect on wind erosion control. Water and Soil Journal 25(3): 606-616.

20- 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 Science 174(2): 105–112.

21- Ouyang L., Wang F., Tang J., Yu L., and Zhang R. 2013. Effects of biochar amendment on soil aggregates and hydraulic properties. Journal of Soil Science Plant Nutrient 13(4): 991–1002.

22- Pagliai M. 1987. Effects of different management practices on soil structure and 10 surface crusting. In: N. Fedoroff, L.M. Bresson and M.A. Courty (eds.), Soil 11 Micromorphology. Paris: AFES, pp. 415-421. 12.

23- Reddy K.R., Yaghoubi P., and Yukselen-Aksoy Y. 2015. Effects of biochar amendment on geotechnical properties of landfill cover soil. Waste Manage Research 33: 524–532.

24- Shahnavaz M., Gholami A., Noorzadeh Haddad M., and Panahpour A. 2015. Study of efficiency of polymeric mulch on soil loss against wind erosion using wind tunnel. The first international conference of dust storm, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz.

25- Sobhani B. 2002. Comparison of FAO and MPSIAC methods for estimating sediment and erosion using GIS. Journal of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources 8: 15-28.

26- Verheijen F., Jeffery S., Bastos A.C., van der Velde M., and Diafas I. 2010. Biochar Application to Soils, A Critical Scientific Review of Effects on Soil Properties, Processes and Functions.

27- Zong Y., Chen D., and Lu S. 2014. Impact of biochars on swell–shrinkage behavior, mechanical strength, and surface cracking of clayey soil. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 177(6): 920-926.