Next Article in Journal
Comparison Analysis for Electricity Consumption Prediction of Multiple Campus Buildings Using Deep Recurrent Neural Networks
Next Article in Special Issue
Life Cycle Assessment of Energy Production from Solid Waste Valorization and Wastewater Purification: A Case Study of Meat Processing Industry
Previous Article in Journal
Voltage-Induced Heating Defect Detection for Electrical Equipment in Thermal Images
Previous Article in Special Issue
Calorific Value Prediction Model Using Structure Composition of Heat-Treated Lignocellulosic Biomass
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 16
Issue 24
10.3390/en16248037
energies-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

Effect of Ash from Salix viminalis on the Biomass and Heating Value of Zea mays and on the Biochemical and Physicochemical Properties of Soils

by
Edyta Boros-Lajszner
,
Jadwiga Wyszkowska
* and
Jan Kucharski
Department of Soil Science and Microbiology, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Plac Łódzki 3, 10-727 Olsztyn, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2023, 16(24), 8037; https://doi.org/10.3390/en16248037
Submission received: 21 November 2023 / Revised: 8 December 2023 / Accepted: 11 December 2023 / Published: 13 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Energy Development in Liquid Waste and Biomass)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Wood ash is sometimes used as an alternative to mineral fertilizers; however, there is still a paucity of reliable data concerning its effect on plants—and on biological properties of soil. The present study aimed to determine the possible extent of soil pollution with ash from Salix viminalis that does not disturb the growth of Zea mays L., intended for energetic purposes, in order to identify how the increasing ash doses affect biochemical and physicochemical properties of soil and to finally to establish the neutralizing effects of soil additives, i.e., compost and HumiAgra preparation, on this soil pollutant. The study demonstrated that the heating value of Zea mays L. was stable and not modified by the excess content of ash from Salix viminalis in the soil. This finding points to the feasibility of Zea mays L. cultivation on soils contaminated with ash from Salix viminalis and its use in bio-power engineering. The biomass of the aboveground parts of Zea mays L. was significantly reduced after soil contamination with Salix viminalis ash dose of 20 g kg−1 d.m. soil, whereas the smaller ash doses tested (5–10 g kg−1 d.m. soil) did not impair either the growth or the development of Zea mays L. The ash inhibited activities of all analyzed soil enzymes but increased soil pH and sorption capacity. Fertilization with compost proved more effective in neutralizing the adverse effect of ash on enzymatic activity of the soil.

1. Introduction

Zea mays L. belongs to the Poaceae family. Due to its high yield potential and nutritional value, it is cultivated in many regions across the world for food and feed production purposes [1,2]. It is also commonly used as a main energy crop for biogas production. In a major part of Europe, it is treated as a “green energy” for biogas plants [3,4]. In addition, it may be grown for energetic purposes [5] on marginal soil and under stress-triggering conditions [6]. These stress conditions may be induced by excessive soil fertilization with wood ash obtained from, e.g., osier (Salix viminalis). S. viminalis is a fast-growing species with few soil requirements [7]. It may be cultivated in areas of low agricultural productivity and wastelands [5]. Finally, osier (Salix viminalis) has been reported to ensure the best performance among the energy crops [8] and has also been found effective in soil remediation [9].
Wood ash is a product of the combustion of wood materials containing organic and inorganic compounds [10,11]. Ash from biomass has strongly alkaline pH values (pH > 12.5) and is enriched with specified forms of minerals (like quartz and calcite) and nutrients (P, K, Ca, Mg) [12,13,14,15]. It contains oxides, hydroxides, carbonates, and silicates but is poor in nitrogen, which volatilizes during combustion [16]. In addition, its fine-grained (powdered) structure (some fractions are even smaller than <1 μm) ensures a very large reactive surface capable of interacting with heavy metals (cadmium, zinc, copper) [14].
Furthermore, ash exhibits various properties, depending on the type and origin of combusted biomass [17,18,19]. In general, wood-based ashes (the so-called type C ashes) have higher contents of calcium, magnesium, and manganese and higher pH values than those from annual plants (the so-called type K ashes) enriched in potassium, phosphorus, sulfur, and chlorine [20]. Ashes from wood biomass may differ significantly in terms of elemental composition (heavy metals) [18] and content of organic compounds (e.g., PAHs) [21,22]. Apart from essential nutrients, like phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and magnesium, which play an important physiological role in the synthesis of chlorophyll; nucleotides; phosphatides; alkaloids; and multiple enzymes, hormones, and vitamins [23], ash contains certain toxic substances, including organic compounds (chlorobenzenes, PAHs, and chlorophenols), as well as radioactive (137Cs) and toxic (arsenic, cobalt, copper, nickel, lead, zinc) elements, which adversely affect the natural environment [24] and may be toxic to plants [25,26]. Due to its high toxicity and mobility, cadmium has been claimed the most hazardous metal in wood ash [27,28]. Therefore, soil amendment with high doses of ash may disturb nutrient cycling, which regulates organic matter content, and by this means may adversely affect plant growth and development [29]. Given these vast differences in ashes, great caution should be exercised when applying them as soil quality promoters, especially in agrosystems, because—under specified conditions—they may pose a threat to the natural environment (e.g., elution of heavy metals) [18,20] or may exert adverse health effects (e.g., increased uptake of heavy metals from soil by plants) [21,22].
The effects of applying wood-based ashes resemble those of calcium-based fertilizers, namely, they both regulate soil pH, but the ash offers an additional advantage, as it provides nutrients. However, both the wood-based ash and calcium fertilizers are strongly alkaline and may cause damage to crops when applied in excess doses [30]. The use of ash in crop cultivation may elicit both positive and negative outcomes. A study conducted by Liu et al. [1] demonstrated its positive effect when applied to soil in doses of 20 and 40 g kg−1 d.m. soil on the growth of Zea mays L. and the enzymatic activity of lead-polluted soil. Romdhane et al. [31] also demonstrated its positive impact (26 g kg−1 d.m. soil) on shoot growth and leaf number in two analyzed hybrids of Zea mays L. In turn, Pukalchik et al. [32] showed that an ash dose of 44.1 g kg−1 d.m. soil negatively affected the enzymatic activity of soil. The positive effects of ash may be ascribed to the greater availability of its P and K, whereas its adverse effects may be due to the reduced N content [13]. Given the high pH and chemical composition of wood-based ash, its application in agriculture has been studied for years [33,34]. Its deposition and irrational use in agriculture may result in environmental contamination [35,36].
In view of the above, an innovation of the present study was the application of ash from Salix viminalis aimed to establish the doses eliciting positive effects on plants as well as enzymatic activity and physicochemical properties of soil, and also to determine the doses causing soil contamination. In addition, compost and HumiAgra were applied to determine their efficacy in neutralizing the potential adverse effect of ash from Salix viminalis.
Taking into account the above data, the following research hypotheses were formulated: (a) up to a certain level (dose), ash from Salix viminalis exerts a positive effect on the biomass of aboveground parts and roots, heat of combustion, and heating value of Zea mays L. as well as on the activities of soil enzymes and physicochemical properties of soil; (b) once a certain level (dose) of osier ash is exceeded, it becomes a contaminant and elicits adverse effects on plants as well as enzymatic activity and physicochemical properties of soil; and (c) the adverse effects of high doses of ash on Zea mays L. biomass and activity of soil enzymes may be neutralized by soil amendment with compost and HumiAgra.
The major goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of ash from Salix viminalis on the growth and development of Zea mays L. and its heating value. Additional study aims were to determine the impact of increasing ash doses on the biochemical and physicochemical properties of soil and to establish the usability of soil fertilization with compost and HumiAgra preparation on the neutralization of the adverse effects of ash.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Characteristics of Soil and Composition of Ash from Salix viminalis, Compost, and Humic Acids

The soil used to establish the experiment was collected form the arable-humus horizon (0–20 cm) of soil in Tomaszkowo village, Olsztyn commune, Warmia and Mazury Province, Poland (53.7161° N, 20.4167° E). The soil was air-dried and sieved through a screen with 0.5 cm mesh diameter. Then, it was assessed for its fraction size composition and basic chemical and physicochemical properties. Soil properties and the design of the vegetation pot experiment are presented in Table 1.
Investigations conducted by Romdhane et al. [31], Błońska et al. [36], Mundała et al. [37], and Núñez-Delgado et al. [38] have demonstrated that the content of cobalt in wood ash ranged from 3.37 to 5.00 mg kg−1, that of chromium from 12.70 to 28.0 mg kg−1, that of copper from 82.50 to 129 mg kg−1, that of nickel from 5.28 to 27.30 mg kg−1, that of lead from 23.30 to 527.00 mg kg−1, that of zinc from 281.60 to 732 mg kg−1, and that of cadmium from 0.22 to 0.55 mg kg−1. According to Someshwar [39], the content of organic substances, including biphenyl, naphthalene, and phenanthrene, in wood ash is negligible and does not pose threat to the natural environment.

2.2. Study Design

Zea mays L. (Figure 1b) was harvested on day 60 of the experiment (at the BBCH 39 stage) and assessed for the biomass yield of aboveground parts and roots. The aboveground parts of Zea mays L. were also analyzed for the heat of combustion and heating value. The leaf greenness index of Zea mays L. was evaluated three times throughout the experimental period. In turn, selected soil samples were analyzed for activities of soil enzymes: dehydrogenases, catalase, urease, acid phosphatase, alkaline phosphatase, β-glucosidase, and arylsulfatase. In addition, after crop harvest, the soil samples were analyzed for the following chemical properties: contents of organic carbon (Corg) and total nitrogen, and for the following physicochemical properties: pH, hydrolytic acidity (HAC), sum of exchangeable base cations (EBC), total cation exchange capacity (CEC), and extent of saturation with base cations (BS).
Energies 16 08037 g001
Figure 1. (a) Ash from Salix viminalis. (b) View of the experiment with Zea mays L. in the vegetation hall.
Figure 1. (a) Ash from Salix viminalis. (b) View of the experiment with Zea mays L. in the vegetation hall.
Energies 16 08037 g001

2.3. Biochemical, Chemical, and Physicochemical Analyses of Soil

The experiment included determinations of the activity of soil enzymes as well as basic chemical and physicochemical properties of soil. Analyses of the biochemical soil properties included determinations of activities of: dehydrogenases (Deh) —with Lenhard’s method modified by Öhlinger [40]; catalase (Cat)—with Alef and Nannipieri’s method [41]; urease (Ure)—with Alef and Nannipieri’s method [41]; acid phosphatase (Pac) and alkaline phosphatase (Pal)—with Alef and Nannipieri’s method [41]; arylsulfatase (Aryl)—with Alef and Nannipieri’s method [41], and β-glucosidase (Glu)—with Alef and Nannipieri’s method [41]. Analyses of the chemical properties of soil included determinations of the contents of organic carbon (Corg) and total nitrogen (NTotal) by means of the Vario MaxCube CN elemental microanalyzer (Hanau, Germany). In turn, the physicochemical soil properties analyzed included: pH—with the potentiometric method in a 1 mol·dm−3 aqueous KCl solution, hydrolytic acidity (HAC), and sum of exchangeable base cations (EBC) with the Kappen’s method [42]. The HAC and EBC values obtained were used to determine the total cation exchange capacity of soil (CEC) and the extent of its saturation with base cations (BS).
The heating value of Zea mays L. was estimated with the combustion method in a C-2000 calorimeter (IKA WERKE, Northchase Pkwy Se, Wilmington, USA). The heat of combustion (Q) was determined acc. to the Polish standard PN-EN ISO 18125:2017 IKA C2000 [43], and the heating value acc. to Kopetz et al. [44]. Contents of carbon, hydrogen, and sulfur were determined by means of an ELTRA CHS 500 automatic analyzer (Neuss, Germany), following PN-G-04584 and PN-G-04517 standard methods [45]. Nitrogen content was determined with the Kjeldahl method (ISO 11261) [46]. Contents of P, K, Mg, and Ca levels in Salix viminalis wood ash were determined using inductively coupled plasma (ICP) spectroscopy (ICP—OES ThermoiCAP 6500 DUO, ThermoFisher Scientific, Cambridge, UK), after sample mineralization in a mixture of concentrated nitrogen and perchloric acid. The leaf greenness index was determined using a Spectrum Technologies, Inc., Chlorophyll Meter (KONICA MINOLTA, Inc., Chiyoda, Japan).
Biochemical, chemical, and physicochemical analyses were conducted in three replications. A detailed procedure for enzymatic activity determination was provided in a work by Zaborowska et al. [47], whereas the procedures of determinations of chemical and physicochemical parameters were provided in our previous works [48,49]. In turn, the heating value of Zea mays L. was described in the study by Wyszkowska et al. [50].

2.4. Computations and Statistical Analysis

One of the computations included calculating the index of the Salix viminalis ash effect on activities of soil enzymes. A detailed description of its concept was provided in our previous works [51,52]. Using analysis of variance (ANOVA), the obtained data were statistically analyzed at the significance level of p ≤ 0.05 using the STATISTICA 13 program [53]. Homogenous groups were computed using the Tukey’s test for the following variables: biomass yield of the aboveground parts and roots of Zea mays L., heat of combustion, and heating value. Coefficients of the linear Pearson’s correlation between the variables were computed, and the coefficient of percentage variability of all analyzed variables (η2) was calculated by means of the analysis of variance (ANOVA). In turn, the principal component analysis (PCA) was applied to analyze activities of soil enzymes.

3. Results

3.1. Biomass and Heating Value of Zea mays L. Cultivated in Soil with the Addition of Ash from Salix viminalis

The percentage distribution of variable factors revealed the strongest effect (50.51%) of Salix viminalis ash dose on the yield of Zea mays L. roots. In turn, the aboveground parts of the experimental plant were most strongly affected (as much as 54.83%) by soil amendment with compost and HumiAgra (Table 2).
A significant decrease in the biomass of aboveground parts of Zea mays L. was noted after soil treatment with a Salix viminalis ash dose of 20 g kg−1 d.m. soil (Figure 2a,b). Smaller ash doses tested (5–10 g kg−1 d.m. soil) did not impair Zea mays L. yield. In turn, its root biomass was significantly decreased by all analyzed doses of ash, i.e., 5–20 g kg−1 d.m. soil. The fertilization of control soil (without ash addition) with compost stimulated the growth and development of both aboveground parts and roots of Zea mays L., whereas soil amendment with HumiAgra showed a promoting effect on roots only. Both organic substances partly neutralized the adverse effect of the 20 g per kg soil ash dose on Zea mays L.
The application of ash, compost, both, and HumiAgra to the soil had no significant effect on the leaf greenness index (SPAD) of Zea mays L. (Table 3). Its values decreased significantly along with Zea mays L. age, i.e., the highest value was recorded on day 14 of crop vegetation and the lowest on day 42. These correlations were determined in the non-fertilized soil and the soil fertilized with compost and HumiAgra.
The heat of combustion of Zea mays L. ranged from 17.86 MJ kg−1 p.dm. in the plants grown on the soil polluted with ash from Salix viminalis at a dose of 20 g kg−1 d.m. soil in the experimental series with HumiAgra to 18.42 MJ kg−1 p.dm. in the plants from the control pot without additives (Table 4), whereas the heating value ranged from 15.93 in the case of plants grown on the soil polluted with ash from Salix viminalis to 16.500 MJ kg−1 p.dm. in the case grown on the non-polluted soil. The energy obtained from Zea mays L. biomass produced from 1 kg of soil amended with compost and HumiAgra was higher than the variants without these additives. These correlations were observed in both the control soil and soil polluted with Salix viminalis ash.

3.2. Biochemical and Physicochemical Properties of Soil

Activities of all soil enzymes were affected to a greater extent (from 57.131% for arylsulfatase to 95.643% for acid phosphatase) by soil treatment with Salix viminalis ash than by its fertilization with compost and HumiAgra (from 2.635% for dehydrogenases to 36.220% for arylsulfatase) (Table 2). The results of PCA enabled illustration of the effect of ash from Salix viminalis on the soil enzymes (Figure 3). The figure presents the distribution of the analyzed samples in the system of two principal components. The activity of dehydrogenases, catalase, urease, acid phosphatase, alkaline phosphatase, β-glucosidase, and arylsulfatase was negatively correlated with the first principal component explaining 89.24% of the analyzed variability. The Salix viminalis ash doses of 5, 10, and 20 g kg- 1 d.m. soil inhibited activities of the soil enzymes, as indicated by the distribution of cases on the plane. The reciprocal arrangement of vectors describing urease, β-glucosidase, acid phosphatase, dehydrogenases, and catalase indicates their similar response to the soil amendment with Salix viminalis ash. In turn, arylsulfatase and alkaline phosphatase formed one group; however, they were more sensitive to the negative effect of the ash. In addition, the distribution of cases in relation to vectors enables concluding that compost was more effective in mitigating the adverse effects of ash from Salix viminalis on the biochemical activity of soil than HumiAgra.
The inhibiting effect of ash on the soil enzymes was reflected in the values of the index of the Salix viminalis ash effect (IFAsh) on the biochemical activity of the soil. Considering the IFAsh values, the analyzed enzymes were ordered as follows (from the most to the least sensitive to Salix viminalis ash): Ure > Pac > Glu > Deh > Pal > Cat > Aryl (Table 5).
The adverse effects of Salix viminalis ash were noticed even in the soil samples polluted with its lowest dose (5 g kg−1 d.m.) and aggravated along with increasing ash doses, regardless of soil amendment with compost and HumiAgra.
The effect of soil treatment with the organic substances is well reflected in the values of the indices of compost influence (IFK) and HumiAgra influence (IFH) on the activities of soil enzymes (Figure 4a,b).
The IFK and IFH values computed for the ash-polluted soil samples pointed to the positive effects of both substances on the activities of dehydrogenases, urease, and arylsulfatase—and, in the case of HumiAgra, also on the activity of β-glucosidase. In turn, soil treatment with ash from Salix viminalis contributed to decreased IFK and IFH values, indicating a minor pollution-mitigating effect of these organic substances. The lowest value of the IFK index was noted in the case of urease, which turned out to be the most sensitive enzyme to Salix viminalis ash application even at the smallest tested dose, i.e., 5 g kg−1 d.m. soil. In the case of the IFH index, its lowest value was determined for acid phosphatase in the soil polluted with the highest ash dose (20 g kg−1 d.m. soil). A comparison of IFK and IFH values demonstrated that HumiAgra proved less effective in mitigating the adverse changes caused by the Salix viminalis ash than compost.
Soil pollution with an ash dose of 20 g kg−1 d.m. soil caused a significant increase in Corg content, which was not observed upon soil amendment with the lower ash doses. The highest content of organic carbon was determined in the soil samples fertilized with compost, whereas the values found in the control soil sample and in the samples treated with HumiAgra were similar. The highest tested dose of ash from Salix viminalis (20 g kg−1 d.m. soil) also increased the total nitrogen content of the soils without and with the addition of compost and HumiAgra. In addition, the NTotal content of the soil was significantly affected by the ash dose of 10 g kg−1 d.m. soil in the variants with compost addition. Regardless of compost and HumiAgra addition to the soil, its pH increased and its hydrolytic acidity decreased under the influence of Salix viminalis ash (Table 6).
Values of these two parameters were correlated with the sum of exchangeable base cations, which was observed to increase upon soil pollution with the ash. Similar observations were made for CEC and BS, whose values increased along with increasing ash doses. The addition of compost and HumiAgra to the soil positively affected its physicochemical properties.

3.3. Correlations between the Analyzed Parameters

The biomass yield of aboveground parts and roots of Zea mays L. (Table 7) was positively correlated with the activities of the analyzed soil enzymes and hydrolytic acidity (HAC) of the soil but negatively correlated with soil pH, sum of EBC, CEC, soil saturation with base cations (BS), and content of organic carbon (Corg). Activities of all analyzed enzymes were positively correlated with each other and with HAC, as well as negatively correlated (likewise Zea mays L. biomass) with soil pH, EBC, CEC, BS, and Corg content. Enzymatic activity was not significantly correlated with NTotal content of the soil, but a positive correlation was found between contents of Corg and NTotal, as well between their contents and soil pH, EBC, CEC, and BS.

4. Discussion

4.1. Biomass and Heating Value of Zea mays L. Grown in Soil with the Addition of Ash from Salix viminalis

Soil amendment with Salix viminalis ash doses of 5 and 10 g kg−1 d.m. did not inhibit either the growth or the development of Zea mays, whereas soil pollution with the ash dose of 20 g kg−1 d.m. significantly impaired them both. The adverse effect of ash applied at the highest tested dose may be due to its high alkalinity (pHKCl = 12.5) and low nitrogen content (N = 0.38%). Varshney et al. [54] and Cruz et al. [33] have also emphasized that high ash doses applied may cause excessive soil salinity, thereby ultimately contributing to worse conditions for plant growth and root development. However, previous investigations conducted by Liu et al. [1] and Romdhane et al. [31] proved that wood-based ash applied in doses from 20 to 40 g kg−1 soil might positively affect Zea mays L. biomass. Differences observed for ash effects in the present study and experiments of the aforementioned authors are mainly due to the differences in the chemical composition of the analyzed ashes. In turn, Ondrasek et al. [22] showed that the application of wood-based ash intensified chemical sorption in the rhizosphere, contributing to the enhanced immobilization of elements delivered with fertilizers. In addition, soil treatment with ash may strongly affect its texture, aeration, and water-retention capacity, and by this means determine the dynamics of root growth, leading to multiple potential effects on plant growth [25,26].
The analyzed ash from Salix viminalis had no negative impact on the heat of combustion or the heating value of Zea mays L., whose values did not change under ash doses applied. This finding indicates the possibility of using biomass from the aboveground parts of this plant for energetic purposes when there is a need for ash management. Also, our previous investigations [55,56] addressing the reclamation of soil contaminated with Cd2+, Co2+ and Ni2+ demonstrated the usability of Zea mays L., Elymus, and Festuca rubra biomass for energetic purposes. Table 8 below presents the most important results regarding the calorific value compared with the results of other authors and presented in the table.
An added value of the present study is the finding that the soil amendment with an organic substance (compost and HumiAgra) alleviates the adverse effects of Salix viminalis ash dose of 20 g kg−1 d.m. soil on Zea mays L. biomass. Both published data [60] and our previous research [56] indicate that soil fertilization with compost mitigates the negative impact of inorganic compounds on plant yield. Soil amendment with compost and HumiAgra preparation increased the pool of readily available organic compounds. In addition, compost affects soil properties by enriching it with organic matter susceptible to microbiological degradation. Organic matter mineralization activates its nutrients that are essential to plants. It may also regulate sorption properties of the soil by, e.g., reducing retrogradation of phosphates. In turn, the weaker effect of HumiAgra compared to that of compost may be due to a more diversified chemical composition of the latter [61,62].

4.2. Biochemical and Physicochemical Properties of Soil

Enzymatic activity of soil is one of the key factors driving its fertility [1,63,64,65]. Soil enzymes mediate soil organic matter degradation and catalyze the main metabolic processes of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus [66,67,68]. Microbes secrete intracellular and extracellular enzymes essential for soil nutrient cycling and contribute to soil fertility and health [69,70,71]. However, works by Pukalchik et al. [32], Smenderovac et al. [72], and Błońska et al. [36] provide conflicting data related to the impact of ash on the biological properties of soil. Smenderovac et al. [72] and Perucci et al. [73] draw attention to the temporary negative impact of ashes on the activity of soil enzymes. In their studies, the activity of alkaline phosphatase and arylsulfatase was inhibited for the first 4 months after the application of wood ash to the soil. This may be due to the greater release of ions into the solution with a higher ash dose. Therefore, in our own research, the negative effect of Salix viminalis ash probably increased with the increase in the ash dose. The present study results demonstrated that ash negatively affected the activity of the analyzed soil enzymes. Previous investigations by Pukalchik et al. [32] show also that the application of wood-based ash suppressed the activities of dehydrogenases, acid phosphatase, and β-glucosidase, as well as the activity of fluorescein diacetate (FDA), which pointed to the inhibited microbial activity in the soil. In turn, Perucci et al. [73] and Smenderovac et al. [72] demonstrated that the wood-based ash may strongly affect soil texture, aeration, and water retention capacity [74,75,76,77], thereby influencing root growth dynamics and consequently leading to plant growth impairment [78,79].
Organic carbon and nitrogen are two of the key elements of soil that inhibit plant growth [1]. In the present study, ash from Salix viminalis applied at a dose of 20 g kg−1 soil significantly increased the contents of both Corg and Ntotal in the soil. Apart from valuable macroelements, the wood-based ash contains heavy metals [12]. Hence, its small doses may meet nutritional demands of plants, but excess doses may exert toxic effects. This was the likely cause of Zea mays biomass reduction observed upon soil amendment with the ash dose of 20 g kg−1 in the present study. Wood ash has a high density, is porous and fine-grained, and swells in contact with water. These features of ash contribute to the blocking of soil pores, resulting in a modified soil texture and aeration [11,15].
Plant growth and productivity depend primarily on the availability of nutrients and the physicochemical properties of soil, which in turn are determined by the content of exchangeable base cations (EBC) and soil pH [31]. A study conducted by Lucchini et al. [80] demonstrated that wood-based ash improved the physicochemical properties and nutrient availability of soil. The pH value of osier ash used in the present study (pH = 12.5) was similar to that described in previous research [31,35]. The alkaline character of ash analyzed in the present study caused soil pH to increase significantly. The above results are consistent with previous findings reported by Lucchini et al. [80] and Adekayode and Olojugba [81]. Although ash is known for its neutralizing effect on acidic soils, some works did not demonstrate any significant changes in soil pH upon its use [31,82]. The efficacy of acidic soil neutralization is determined by the method of alkalizing fertilizer application, its dose, and its qualities, including its neutralizing value, fraction size, and dissolution rate, as well as by the composition and type of soil [31,35,80].

4.3. Correlations between the Analyzed Parameters

In the case of soils not exposed to the pressure of pollutants, crop yield is usually positively correlated with EBC, soil saturation with bases (BS), CEC, and contents of carbon and nitrogen [83]. In the present study, the soil was exposed to the effect of ash from Salix viminalis, and despite increased EBS, BS, and CEC values and also Corg content as a result of its application, no positive correlation was observed between the produced Zea mays biomass and these parameters. This lack of correlation was probably due to the introduction of not only Ca2+, Mg2+, Na+, and K+ ions essential to plants but also excess amounts of heavy metals with ash [24,25,26,84]. Soil pollution with heavy metals usually upsets its biological properties, which is manifested as adverse effects on plants [85,86] and soil microbiota [87], which ultimately lead to severe disorder in the enzymatic activity of soil [88,89,90,91] because heavy metals may cause enzyme denaturation [92,93]. The present study demonstrated a negative correlation between the activity of seven soil enzymes and basic physicochemical properties of soil changing upon the influence of osier ash.

5. Conclusions

The heating value of Zea mays L. remained stable and unmodified by the excess content of ash from Salix viminalis in the soil, which makes it a viable energy crop to be grown on soils fertilized with large doses of ash. All the more, it is relatively resistant to adverse ash effects because its biomass was significantly reduced in the present study upon soil pollution with the highest ash dose tested (20 g kg−1 d.m. soil). Nevertheless, ash may cause unbeneficial changes in the soil environment, manifested as suppressed enzymatic activity. Although the ash increases soil pH and sorption capacity, these positive effects do not compensate for losses evoked by disorders in the biochemical properties of soil. These adverse effects may, in part, be mitigated by soil fertilization with compost and HumiAgra preparation. The choice of these fertilizers should, however, be driven by their efficacy, with compost shown to surpass HumiAgra in this respect.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.B.-L., J.W. and J.K.; experimental design and methodology, E.B.-L., J.W. and J.K.; investigation, J.W.; statistical analyses, E.B.-L.; writing original draft, E.B.-L.; review and editing, J.W.; supervision, J.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Soil Science and Microbiology (grant No. 30.610.006-110), and was financially supported by the Minister of Education and Science under the program entitled “Regional Initiative of Excellence” for the years 2019–2023, project No. 010/RID/2018/19 (amount of funding: PLN 12,000,000).

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

Csoil without compost and HumiAgra;
Ksoil with compost;
Hsoil with HumiAgra;
APyield of aboveground parts;
Ryield of roots;
Dehdehydrogenases;
Catcatalase;
Ureurease;
Pacacid phosphatase;
Palalkaline phosphatase;
Gluβ-glucosidase;
Arylarylsulfatase;
Corgtotal organic carbon;
Ntotaltotal nitrogen;
HAChydrolytic acidity;
EBCtotal exchangeable base cations;
CECtotal cation exchange capacity of soil;
BSbasic cation saturation ratio in soil.

References

  1. Liu, L.; Li, J.; Wu, G.; Shen, H.; Fu, G.; Wang, Y. Combined effects of biochar and chicken manure on maize (Zea mays L.) growth, lead uptake and soil enzyme activities under lead stress. Peer J. 2021, 9, e11754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mulyati; Baharuddin, A.B.; Tejowulan, R.S. Improving Maize (Zea mays L.) growth and yield by the application of inorganic and organic fertilizers plus. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 3rd International Conference on Bioscience and Biotechnology, Lombok, Indonesia, 12–14 October 2020; IOP Publishing Ltd.: Bristol, UK, 2021; Volume 712, p. 012027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Holm-Nielsen, J.B.; Al Seadi, T.; Oleskowicz-Popiel, P. The future of anaerobic digestion and biogas utilization. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 100, 5478–5484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Oslaj, M.; Mursec, B.; Vindis, P. Biogas production from maize hybrids. Biomass Bioenerg. 2010, 34, 1538–1545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bubner, B.; Köhler, A.; Zaspel, I.; Zander, M.; Förster, N.; Gloger, J.-C.; Ulrichs, C.; Schneck, V. Breeding of multipurpose willows on the basis of Salix daphnoides Vill., Salix purpurea L. and Salix viminalis L. Appl. Agric. For. Res. 2018, 68, 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Maj, G.; Szyszlak-Bargłowicz, J.; Zajac, G.; Słowik, T.; Krzaczek, P.; Piekarski, W. Energy and emission characteristics of biowaste from the corn grain drying process. Energies 2019, 12, 4383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Warmbier, K.; Wilczyński, A.; Danecki, L. Properties of one-layer experimental particleboards from willow (Salix viminalis) and industrial wood particles. Eur. J. Wood Prod. 2013, 71, 25–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhai, F.-F.; Liu, J.-X.; Li, Z.-J.; Mao, J.-M.; Qian, Y.-Q.; Han, L.; Sun, Z.-Y. Assessing genetic diversity and population structure of Salix viminalis across Ergun and West Liao basin. Silva Fenn. 2017, 51, 7001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mojiri, A. The potential of corn (Zea mays) for phytoremediation of soil contaminated with cadmium and lead. J. Biol. Environ. Sci. 2011, 5, 17–22. [Google Scholar]
  10. Branquinho, C.; Serrano, H.C.; Pinto, M.J.; Martins-Loução, M.A. Revisiting the plant hyperaccumulation criteria to rare plants and earth abundant elements. Environ. Pollut. 2007, 246, 437–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Johan, P.D.; Ahmed, O.H.; Omar, L.; Hasbullah, N.A. Phosphorus transformation in soils following co-application of charcoal and wood ash. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mandre, M.; Parn, H.; Ots, K. Short-term effects of wood ash on the soil and the lignin concentration and growth of Pinus sylvestris L. For. Ecol. Manag. 2006, 223, 349–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Yrjälä, K.; Katainen, R.; Jurgens, G.; Saarela, U.; Saano, A.; Romantschuk, M.; Fritze, H. Wood ash fertilization alters the forest humus Archea community. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2004, 36, 199–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ondrasek, G.; Romic, D.; Rengel, Z. Interactions of humates and chlorides with cadmium drive soil cadmium chemistry and uptake by radish cultivars. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 720, 134887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Jansone, B.; Samariks, V.; Okmanis, M.; Kļaviņa, D.; Lazdiņa, D. Effect of High Concentrations of Wood Ash on Soil Properties and Development of Young Norway Spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst) and Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Sustainability 2020, 12, 9479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ozolincius, R.; Varnagiryte, I.; Armolaitis, K.; Karltun, E. Initial effects of wood ash fertilization on soil, needle and litterfall chemistry in a Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.). Stand Balt. For. 2005, 11, 59–67. [Google Scholar]
  17. Zając, G.; Szyszlak-Bargłowicz, J.; Gołębiowski, W.; Szczepanik, M. Chemical characteristics of biomass. Energies 2018, 11, 2885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tosti, L.; van Zomeren, A.; Pels, J.R.; Dijkstra, J.J.; Comans, R.N.J. Assessment of biomass ash applications in soil and cement mortars. Chemosphere 2019, 223, 425–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Palansooriya, K.N.; Shaheen, S.M.; Chen, S.S.; Tsang, D.C.W.; Hashimoto, Y.; Hou, D.; Bolan, N.S.; Rinklebe, J.; Ok, Y.S. Soil amendments for immobilization of potentially toxic elements in contaminated soils: A critical review. Environ. Int. 2020, 134, 105046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Vassilev, S.V.; Baxter, D.; Andersen, L.K.; Vassileva, C.G. An overview of the chemical of biomass ash. Fuel 2010, 89, 913–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Park, J.-H.; Eom, J.-S.; Lee, S.-L.; Hwang, S.-W.; Kim, S.-H.; Kang, S.-W.; Yun, J.-J.; Cho, J.-S.; Lee, Y.-H.; Seo, D.-C. Exploration of the potential capacity of fly ash and bottom ash derived from wood pellet-based thermal power plant for heavy metal removal. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 740, 140205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ondrasek, G.; Kranjčec, F.; Filipović, L.; Filipović, V.; Bubalo Kovačić, M.; Jelovica Badovinac, I.; Peter, R.; Petravić, M.; Macan, J.; Rengel, Z. Biomass bottom ash & dolomite similarly ameliorate an acidic low-nutrient soil, improve phytonutrition and growth, but increase Cd accumulation in radish. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 753, 141902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mohamed, S.A.; Ewees, S.A.; Sawsan, A.; Seaf, E.Y.; Dalia, M.S. Improving maize grain yield and its quality grown on a newly reclaimed sandy soil by applying micronutrients, organic manure and biological inoculation. Res. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 2008, 4, 537–544. [Google Scholar]
  24. Perkiömäki, J.; Kiikkilä, O.; Moilanen, M.; Issakainen, J.; Tervahauta, A.; Fritze, H. Cadmium-containing wood ash in a pine forest: Effects on humus microflora and cadmium concentrations in mushrooms, berries, and needles. Can. J. For. Res. 2003, 33, 2443–2451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mercl, F.; Tejnecký, V.; Száková, J.; Tlustoš, P. Nutrient dynamics in soil solution and wheat response after biomass ash amendments. Agron. J. 2016, 108, 2222–2234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jagodzinski, L.S.; O’Donoghue, M.T.; Heffernan, L.B.; van Pelt, F.N.; O’Halloran, J.; Jansen, M.A. Wood ash residue causes a mixture of growth promotion and toxicity in Lemna minor. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 625, 667–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Levula, T.; Saarsalmi, A.; Rantavaara, A. Effects of ash fertilization and prescribed burning on macronutrient, heavy metal, sulphur and 137Cs concentrations in lingonberries (Vaccinium vitis-idaea). For. Ecol. Manag. 2000, 126, 269–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Demeyer, A.; Nkana, J.C.V.; Verloo, M.G. Characteristics of wood ash and influence on soil properties and nutrient uptake: An overview. Bioresour. Technol. 2001, 77, 287–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Lundborg, A. Ecological and economical evaluation of biomass ash utilization–the Swedish approach. Ashes and particulate emissions from biomass combustion, Series Thermal Biomass Utilization. Inst. Chem. Engin. Techn. Univ. Graz. 1998, 3, 29–41. [Google Scholar]
  30. Zimmermann, S.; Frey, B. Soil respiration and microbial properties in an amid forest soil: Effects of wood ash. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2002, 34, 1727–1737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Romdhane, L.; Ebinezer, L.B.; Panozzo, A.; Barion, G.; Cortivo, C.D.; Radhouane, L.; Vamerali, T. Effects of soil amendment with wood ash on transpiration, growth, and metal uptake in two contrasting maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids to drought tolerance. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 661909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pukalchik, M.; Mercl, F.; Terekhova, V.; Tlustoš, P. Biochar, wood ash and humic substances mitigating trace elements stress in contaminated sandy loam soil: Evidence from an integrative approach. Chemosphere 2018, 203, 228–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Cruz-Paredes, C.; Frøslev, T.G.; Michelsen, A.; Bang-Andreasen, T.; Hansen, M.; Ingerslev, M.; Skov, S.; Wallander, H.; Kjøller, R. Wood ash application in a managed Norway spruce plantation did not affect ectomycorrhizal diversity or N retention capacity. Fungal Ecol. 2019, 39, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Małek, S.; Ważny, R.; Błońska, E.; Jasik, M.; Lasota, J. Soil fungal diversity and biological activity as indicators of fertilization strategies in a forest ecosystem after spruce disintegration in the Karpaty Mountains. Sci Total Environ. 2021, 751, 142335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Nabeela, F.; Murad, W.; Khan, I.; Mian, I.A.; Rehman, H.; Adnan, M. Effect of wood ash application on the morphological, physiological and biochemical parameters of Brassica napus L. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2015, 95, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Błońska, E.; Prażuch, W.; Boroń, P.; Lasota, J. Effects of wood ash on the soil properties and fungal community structure in a beech forest in Poland. Geoderma Reg. 2023, 34, e00676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mundała, P.; Szwalec, A.; Kędzior, R. Accumulation of selected heavy metals in willow shoots (Salix viminalis L.) cultivated in the neighbourhood of a coal ash and slag landfill. Infrastrukt. Ecol. Rural Areas 2017, 3, 1043–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Núñez-Delgado, A.; Quiroga-Lago, F.; Soto-González, B. Runoff characteristics in forest plots before and after wood ash fertilization. Maderas Cienc. Tecnol. 2011, 13, 267–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Someshwar, A.V. Wood and combination wood-fired boiler ash characterization. J. Environ. Qual. 1996, 25, 962–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Öhlinger, R. Dehydrogenase activity with the substrate TTC. In Methods in Soil Biology; Schinner, F., Öhlinger, R., Kandeler, E., Margesin, R., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1996; pp. 241–243. [Google Scholar]
  41. Alef, K.; Nannipieri, P. (Eds.) Methods in Applied Soil Microbiology and Biochemistry, Enzyme Activities; Academic: London, UK, 1998; pp. 316–365. [Google Scholar]
  42. Carter, M.R. Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis; Canadian Society of Soil Science; Lewis Publishers: London, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  43. PN-EN. ISO 18125:2017-07; Solid Biofuels—Determination of Calorific Value. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2010. Available online: https://pkn.pl/pn-en-iso-18125-2017-07 (accessed on 10 October 2023).
  44. Kopetz, H.; Jossart, J.; Ragossnig, H.; Metschina, C. European Biomass Statistics 2007; European Biomass Association: Brussels, Belgium, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  45. PN-G-04584; Oznaczanie Zawartości Siarki Całkowitej i Popiołowej Automatycznymi Analizatorami. Determination of Total Sulphur and Ash Sulphur in Automatic Analyzers. National Standards Body in Poland: Warszaw, Poland, 2001. (In Polish)
  46. ISO 11261; Soil Quality—Determination of Total Nitrogen—Modified Kjeldahl Method. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1995.
  47. Zaborowska, M.; Wyszkowska, J.; Borowik, A.; Kucharski, J. Bisphenol A—A dangerous pollutant distorting the biological properties of soil. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 12753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Borowik, A.; Wyszkowska, J.; Wyszkowski, M. Resistance of aerobic microorganisms and soil enzyme response to soil contamination with Ekodiesel Ultra fuel. Environ. Sci. Poll. Res. 2017, 24, 24346–24363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Boros-Lajszner, E.; Wyszkowska, J.; Kucharski, J. Use of zeolite to neutralise nickel in a soil environment. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wyszkowska, J.; Borowik, A.; Zaborowska, M.; Kucharski, J. Sensitivity of Zea mays and soil microorganisms to the toxic effect of chromium (VI). Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Boros-Lajszner, E.; Wyszkowska, J.; Kucharski, J. Phytoremediation of soil contaminated with nickel, cadmium and cobalt. Int. J. Phytoremediation 2021, 23, 252–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wyszkowska, J.; Borowik, A.; Zaborowska, M.; Kucharski, J. Calorific value of Zea mays biomass derived from soil. Energies 2023, 16, 3788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Dell Inc. Dell Statistica (Data Analysis Software System); Version 13.1; Dell Inc.: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  54. Varshney, A.; Dahiya, P.; Sharma, A.; Pandey, R.; Mohan, S. Fly ash application in soil for sustainable agriculture: An Indian overview. Energ. Ecol. Environ. 2022, 7, 340–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Boros-Lajszner, E.; Wyszkowska, J.; Borowik, A.; Kucharski, J. Energetic value of Elymus elongatus L. and Zea mays L. grown on soil polluted with Ni2+, Co2+, Cd2+, and sensitivity of rhizospheric bacteria to heavy metals. Energies 2021, 14, 4903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wyszkowska, J.; Boros-Lajszner, E.; Kucharski, J. Calorific value of Festuca rubra biomass in the phytostabilization of soil contaminated with nickel, cobalt and cadmium which disrupt the microbiological and biochemical properties of soil. Energies 2022, 15, 3445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wojcieszak, D.; Przybył, J.; Czajkowski, Ł.; Majka, J.; Pawłowski, A. Effects of Harvest Maturity on the Chemical and Energetic Properties of Corn Stover Biomass Combustion. Materials 2022, 15, 2831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Miranda, M.T.; Sepúlveda, F.J.; Arranz, J.I.; Montero, I.; Rojas, C.V. Analysis of pelletizing from corn cob waste. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 228, 303–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Jóvér, J.; Antal, K.; Zsembeli, J.; Blaskó, L.; Tamás, J. Assessment of gross calorific value of crop and bio-energy residues. Res. Agric. Eng. 2018, 64, 121–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Gusiatin, Z.M.; Kulikowska, D. Behaviors of heavy metals (Cd, Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn) in soil amended with composts. Environ. Technol. 2016, 37, 2337–2347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Mindari, W.; Sasongko, P.E.; Kusuma, Z.; Syekhfani, S.; Ain, N. Efficiency of various sources and doses of humic acid on physical and chemical properties of saline soil and growth and yield of rice. In Proceedings of the AIP Conference Proceedings, 9th International Conference on Global Resource Conservation (ICGRC) and Aji from Ritsumeikan University, Malang City, Indonesia, 7–8 March 2018; AIP Publishing: Melville, NY, USA, 2019; p. 030001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tiwari, J.; Ramanathan, A.; Bauddh, K.; Korstad, J. Humic substances: Structure, function and benefits for agroecosystems—A review. Pedosphere 2023, 33, 237–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Baldrian, P. Microbial enzyme-catalyzed processes in soil and their analysis. Plant Soil Environ. 2009, 55, 370–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ouyang, L.; Tang, Q.; Yu, L.Q.; Zhang, R.D. Effects of amendment of different biochars on soil enzyme activities related to carbon mineralisation. Soil Res. 2014, 52, 706–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kong, L.; Chu, L.M. Subtropical urban turfs: Carbon and nitrogen pools and the role of enzyme activity. J. Environ. Sci. 2018, 65, 18–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Wallenstein, M.D.; Burns, R.G. Ecology of extracellular enzyme activities and organic matter degradation in soil: A complex community-driven process. In Methods of Soil Enzymology; Dick, R.P., Ed.; Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 2011; pp. 35–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Stone, M.M.; De Forest, J.L.; Plante, A.F. Changes in extracellular enzyme activity and microbial community structure with soil depth at the Luquillo Critical Zone Observatory. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2014, 75, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Piotrowska-Długosz, A.; Kobierski, M.; Długosz, J. Enzymatic activity and physicochemical properties of soil profiles of luvisols. Materials 2021, 14, 6364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Gianfreda, L.; Ruggiero, P. Enzyme activities in soil. In Nucleic Acids and Proteins in Soil; Nannipieri, P., Smalla, K., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006; pp. 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Loeppmann, S.; Blagodatskaya, E.; Pausch, J.; Kuzyakov, Y. Enzyme properties down the soil profile—A matter of substrate quality in rhizosphere and detritusphere. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2016, 103, 274–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mierzwa-Hersztek, M.; Gondek, K.; Baran, A. Effect of poultry litter biochar on soil enzymatic activity, ecotoxicity and plant growth. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2016, 105, 144–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Smenderovac, E.; Emilson, E.; Porter, C.T.; Morris, D.; Hazlett, P.; Diochon, A.; Basiliko, N.; Bélanger, N.; Markham, J.; Rutherford, P.M.; et al. Forest soil biotic communities show few responses to wood ash applications at multiple sites. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 4171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Perucci, P.; Monaci, E.; Onofri, A.; Vischetti, C.; Casucci, C. Changes in physico-chemical and biochemical parameters of soil following addition of wood ash: A field experiment. Eur. J. Agron. 2008, 28, 155–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Abel, S.; Peters, A.; Trinks, S.; Schonsky, H.; Facklam, M.; Wessolek, G. Impact of biochar and hydrochar addition on water retention and water repellency of sandy soil. Geoderma 2013, 202–203, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Basso, A.S.; Miguez, F.E.; Laird, D.A.; Horton, R.; Westgate, M. Assessing potential of biochar for increasing water-holding capacity of sandy soils. GCB Bioenergy 2013, 5, 132–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Foster, E.J.; Hansen, N.; Wallenstein, M.; Cotrufo, M.F. Biochar and manure amendments impact soil nutrients and microbial enzymatic activities in a semi-arid irrigated maize cropping system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 233, 404–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zornoza, R.F.; Moreno-Barriga, J.A.; Acosta, M.A.; Muñoz, A. Faz. Stability, nutrient availability and hydrophobicity of biochars derived from manure, crop residues, and municipal solid waste for their use as soil amendments. Chemosphere 2016, 144, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Borchard, N.; Wolf, A.; Laabs, V.; Aeckersberg, R.; Scherer, H.W.; Moeller, A.W. Physical activation of biochar and its meaning for soil fertility and nutrient leaching—A greenhouse experiment. Soil Use Manag. 2012, 28, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Brantley, K.E.; Savin, M.C.; Brye, K.R.; Longer, D.E. Pine woodchip biochar impact on soil nutrient concentrations and corn yield in a silt loam in the mid-Southern U.S. Agriculture 2015, 5, 30–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Lucchini, P.; Quilliam, R.S.; DeLuca, T.H.; Vamerali, T.; Jones, D.L. Increased bioavailability of metals in two contrasting agricultural soils treated with waste wood-derived biochar and ash. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2014, 21, 3230–3240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Adekayode, F.O.; Olojugba, M.R. The utilization of wood ash as manure to reduce the use of mineral fertilizer for improved performance of maize (Zea mays L.) as measured in the chlorophyll content and grain yield. J. Soil Sci. Environ. Manag. 2010, 1, 40–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Arshad, M.A.; Soon, Y.K.; Azooz, R.H.; Lupwayi, N.Z.; Chang, S.X. Soil and crop response to wood ash and lime application in acidic soils. Agron. J. 2012, 104, 715–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Muhammad, I.; Puschenreiter, M.; Wenzel, W.W. Cadmium and Zn availability as affected by pH manipulation and its assessment by soil extraction, DGT and indicator plants. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2012, 416, 490–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Bhattacharya, S.S.; Chattopadhyay, G.N. Increasing bioavailability of phosphorus from fly ash through vermicomposting. J. Environ. Qual. 2002, 31, 2116–2119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Rai, V.; Tandon, P.K.; Khatoon, S. Effect of chromium on antioxidant potential of Catharanthus roseus varieties and production of their anticancer alkaloids: Vincristine and vinblastine. Biomed. Res. Int. 2014, 2014, 934182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Mathur, S.; Kalaji, H.M.; Jajoo, A. Investigation of deleterious effects of chromium phytotoxicity and photosynthesis in wheat plant. Photosynthetica 2016, 54, 185–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Huang, S.; Peng, B.; Yang, Z.; Chai, L.; Zhou, L. Chromium accumulation, microorganism population and enzyme activities in soils around chromium-containing slag heap of steel alloy factory. Trans. Nonferrous Met. Soc. China 2009, 19, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Boerner, R.E.J.; Brinkman, J.A. Fire frequency and soil enzyme activity in southern Ohio aok-hickory forests. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2003, 23, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Peng, B.; Huang, S.H.; Yang, Z.H.; Chai, L.Y.; Xu, Y.Z.; Su, C.Q. Inhibitory effect of Cr(VI) on activities of soil enzymes. J. Cent. South. Univ. Technol. 2009, 16, 594–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Wu, G.; Kanga, H.; Zhang, X.; Shao, H.; Chu, L.; Ruand, C. A critical review on the bio-removal of hazardous heavy metals from contaminated soils: Issues, progress, eco-environmental concerns and opportunities. J. Hazard. Mater. 2010, 174, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Lombard, N.; Prestat, E.; van Elsas, J.D.; Simonet, P. Soil-specific limitations for access and analysis of soil microbial communities by metagenomics. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2011, 78, 31–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Belyaeva, O.N.; Haynes, R.J.; Birukova, O.A. Barley yield and soil microbial and enzyme activities as affected by contamination of two soils with lead, zinc or copper. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2005, 41, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Pérez-Guzmán, L.; Lower, B.H.; Dick, R.P. Corn and hardwood biochars affected soil microbial community and enzyme activities. Agrosyst. Geosci. Environ. 2020, 3, e20082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energies 16 08037 g002
Figure 2. Dry weight of aboveground parts (a) and roots (b) of Zea mays from soil contaminated with Salix viminalis ash in g pot−1. Explanations: 1–4 ash dose g kg−1 d.m. soil: 1—0; 2—5; 3—10; 4—20; C—soil without compost and HumiAgra, K—soil with compost, H—soil with HumiAgra. Homogeneous groups (a–e) were created separately for aboveground parts and roots.
Figure 2. Dry weight of aboveground parts (a) and roots (b) of Zea mays from soil contaminated with Salix viminalis ash in g pot−1. Explanations: 1–4 ash dose g kg−1 d.m. soil: 1—0; 2—5; 3—10; 4—20; C—soil without compost and HumiAgra, K—soil with compost, H—soil with HumiAgra. Homogeneous groups (a–e) were created separately for aboveground parts and roots.
Energies 16 08037 g002
Energies 16 08037 g003
Figure 3. Enzyme activity in soil contaminated with Salix viminalis ash presented based on PCA. Explanations: 1–4 ash dose g kg−1 d.m. soil: 1—0; 2—5; 3—10; 4—20; C—soil without compost and HumiAgra, K—soil with compost, H—soil with HumiAgra; enzyme abbreviations are provided under Table 2.
Figure 3. Enzyme activity in soil contaminated with Salix viminalis ash presented based on PCA. Explanations: 1–4 ash dose g kg−1 d.m. soil: 1—0; 2—5; 3—10; 4—20; C—soil without compost and HumiAgra, K—soil with compost, H—soil with HumiAgra; enzyme abbreviations are provided under Table 2.
Energies 16 08037 g003
Energies 16 08037 g004
Figure 4. Index of the effect of compost [IFK] (a) and HumiAgra [IFH] (b) on the activity of soil enzymes. Explanations as in Table 2.
Figure 4. Index of the effect of compost [IFK] (a) and HumiAgra [IFH] (b) on the activity of soil enzymes. Explanations as in Table 2.
Energies 16 08037 g004
Table 1. Design of the experiment.
Table 1. Design of the experiment.
Type of AnalysisPot Vegetation Experiment
Soil characteristicsSandy clay: sand 69.41%, silt 27.71%, clay 2.88%;
Contents: organic carbon—6.18 g kg−1 d.m. soil, total nitrogen—1.27 g kg−1 d.m. soil;
pHKCl—6.09;
Hydrolytic acidity (HAC)—8.81 mmol(+) kg−1 d.m. soil;
Sum of exchangeable base cations (EBC)—24.00 mmol(+) kg−1 d.m. soil;
Cation exchange capacity (CEC)—32.81 mmol(+) kg−1 d.m. soil;
Extent of saturation with base cations (BS)—73.14%.
The mass of soil in the pot3.5 kg
Experimental plant Zea mays L. variety LG 32.58 (4 plants in one pot)
Fertilization in mg kg−1 d.m. of soilN—150 in the form of CO(NH2)2
P—70 in the form of KH2PO4
K—120 in the form of KCl + KH2PO4
Mg—15 in the form of MgSO4 × 7H2O
Dose of ash from Salix viminalis in g kg−1 d.m. of soil0, 5, 10, 20
The content of elements in the ash (Figure 1a) in % d.m. C—51.04, H—5.87, S—0.02, N—0.38; Cl—0.02; P—0.09; K—0.17; Mg—0.03; Ca—0.41; Na—0.009
pH in KCl12.50
CompostManufacturer: Ekokonsorcjum-Effekt company (Cracow, Poland; license no. 21/02) from green waste (grass, bushes) gathered in parks, squares, and home gardens; fruit and vegetables picked at market squares; and organic waste from food processing plants.
Chemical composition in % of d.m.: Corg—23.20; NTotal—1.30; P—0.26; K—1.24; Mg—0.30; and Ca—1.43.
HumiAgraManufacturer: AgraPlant, Kielce, Poland.
Chemical composition in % of d.m.: 90% humic acids (50% humins and 50% fulvic acids), 6% K, and 3% S.
Dose of compost and HumiAgra in g kg−1 d.m. of soil0 and 2.5
Experiment duration in days60
Number of replicationsFour repetitions per combination
Conditions in the vegetation hall The average temperature was 17.5 °C, air humidity reached 78.5%, and day length was from 13 h 4 min to 15 h 30 min.
The soil moisture content—50% of the water capillary capacity.
Table 2. Coefficient of observed variation η2 (%).
Table 2. Coefficient of observed variation η2 (%).
Variable FactorsPlant Yield *Enzymes **
APRDehCatUrePacPalGluAryl
Ash dose 26.2350.5193.4780.8487.0195.6468.4292.9257.13
Additives54.8331.472.6415.855.003.1521.994.6936.22
Ash * Additives 7.955.501.072.727.890.936.042.196.55
Error10.9712.512.830.590.100.283.550.200.10
* AP—aboveground parts; R—roots; ** Deh—dehydrogenases; Cat—catalase; Ure—urease; Pac—acid phosphatase; Pal—alkaline phosphatase; Glu—β-glucosidase; Aryl—arylsulfatase.
Table 3. The effect of ash from Salix viminalis on the leaf greenness index (SPAD) of Zea mays L.
Table 3. The effect of ash from Salix viminalis on the leaf greenness index (SPAD) of Zea mays L.
Ash Dose,
g kg−1 d.m. Soil		14 Days28 Days42 Days
Without Additives
043.02 a ± 1.7336.71 bcd ± 2.4726.03 f ± 2.23
542.37 a ± 1.4735.12 cde ± 1.0225.37 f ± 2.17
1041.23 ab ± 0.6035.07 cde ± 0.6925.21 f ± 1.58
2040.55 ab ± 0.4031.43 e ± 2.5624.78 f ± 2.08
X ¯ 41.80 B34.58 D25.35 F
r−0.96 *−0.97 *−0.96 *
Compost
043.55 a ± 2.1434.49 cde ± 1.9824.58 f ± 3.58
543.43 a ± 1.5734.07 cde ± 2.3024.13 f ± 1.02
1042.68 a ± 1.0233.58 de ± 2.4322.90 f ± 1.95
2042.14 a ± 0.3333.59 de ± 1.9222.69 f ± 0.75
X ¯ 42.93 A33.950 E23.58 E
r−0.98 *−0.87 *−0.97 *
HumiAgra
043.670 a ± 1.0738.95 abc ± 0.6326.31 f ± 0.91
543.07 a ± 1.0835.56 cde ± 0.9726.25 f ± 1.51
1042.07 a ± 0.9734.73 cde ± 1.5625.99 f ± 0.61
2042.14 a ± 1.2934.55 cde ± 2.1125.69 f ± 1.03
X ¯ 42.75 A35.95 C26.05 F
r−0.88 *−0.80−1.00 *
* r—correlation coefficient significant at p = 0.05; Homogeneous groups (a–f) for three terms of the leaf greenness index assessment; homogeneous groups for means were calculated for three terms of the leaf greenness index assessment (A–F).
Table 4. The effect of ash from Salix viminalis on the heat of combustion and heating value of Zea mays L.
Table 4. The effect of ash from Salix viminalis on the heat of combustion and heating value of Zea mays L.
Ash Dose,
g kg−1 d.m. Soil		Heat of CombustionHeating ValueEnergy Production
MJ kg−1
MJ kg−1 Air-Dried Plant Matter
Without Additives
018.42 a ± 0.0416.50 a ± 0.030.340 b ± 0.02
2017.91 c ± 0.0315.93 c ± 0.020.27 c ± 0.02
Compost
018.29 b ± 0.0216.44 a ± 0.030.40 a ± 0.03
2017.94 c ± 0.0216.13 b ± 0.030.36 ab ± 0.02
HumiAgra
017.90 c ± 0.0516.17 b ± 0.020.36 ab ± 0.04
2017.86 c ± 0.0216.10 b ± 0.030.32 b ± 0.03
Homogeneous groups (a–c) were created separately for columns.
Table 5. Index of the effect of Salix viminalis ash on the activity of soil enzymes.
Table 5. Index of the effect of Salix viminalis ash on the activity of soil enzymes.
Ash Dose,
g kg−1 d.m. Soil		DehCatUrePacPalGluAryl
Without Additives
5−0.23 a ± 0.03−0.111 a ± 0.03−0.42 b ± 0.07−0.25 a ± 0.03−0.04 a ± 0.01−0.26 a ± 0.03−0.030 a ± 0.03
10−0.26 a ± 0.04−0.254 d ± 0.02−0.51 c ± 0.05−0.47 c ± 0.07−0.30 e ± 0.02−0.40 d ± 0.02−0.06 a ± 0.01
20−0.61 c ± 0.05−0.31 ef ± 0.02−0.56 d ± 0.02−0.60 d ± 0.05−0.39 f ± 0.04−0.53 f ± 0.04−0.23 e ± 0.02
X ¯ −0.37 A−0.23 B−0.50 B−0.44 B−0.24 B−0.40 B−0.11 A
Compost
5−0.29 b ± 0.08−0.15 b ± 0.01−0.62 f ± 0.08−0.23 a ± 0.02−0.10 b ± 0.02−0.29 ab ± 0.02−0.10 b ± 0.01
10−0.31 b ± 0.07−0.18 c ± 0.03−0.57 d ± 0.04−0.36 b ± 0.03−0.17 c ± 0.02−0.33 c ± 0.02−0.20 d ± 0.01
20−0.65 c ± 0.05−0.30 de ± 0.06−0.60 e ± 0.03−0.59 d ± 0.06−0.49 g ± 0.04−0.41 d ± 0.05−0.38 g ± 0.04
X ¯ −0.42 B−0.21 B−0.60 C−0.40 A−0.25 B−0.34 A−0.23 C
HumiAgra
5−0.24 a ± 0.06−0.09 a ± 0.05−0.35 a ± 0.03−0.31 b ± 0.01−0.08 b ± 0.05−0.30 ab ± 0.04−0.12 bc ± 0.01
10−0.30 b ± 0.04−0.16 b ± 0.02−0.56 d ± 0.02−0.45 c ± 0.03−0.24 d ± 0.02−0.44 e ± 0.02−0.17 c ± 0.02
20−0.63 c ± 0.09−0.31 f ± 0.03−0.63 f ± 0.06−0.64 e ± 0.06−0.39 f ± 0.03−0.54 f ± 0.01−0.31 f ± 0.03
X ¯ −0.39 A−0.19 A−0.39 A−0.35 A−0.18 A−0.32A−0.20 B
Explanations in the Table 2. Homogeneous groups (a–g) were created separately for each enzyme; homogeneous groups for means were calculated for each enzyme (A–C).
Table 6. The effect of ash from Salix viminalis on the chemical and physicochemical properties of soil.
Table 6. The effect of ash from Salix viminalis on the chemical and physicochemical properties of soil.
Ash Dose,
g kg−1 d.m. Soil		Total Organic Carbon (Corg)Total Nitrogen (NTotal)pHKClHydrolytic Acidity (HAC)Total Exchangeable Base Cations (EBC)Total Cation Exchange Capacity of Soil (CEC)Base Cations Saturation Ratio in Soil (BS)
g kg−1mmol(+) kg−1 Soil%
Without Additives
07.87 g ± 0.181.68 d ± 0.014.35 f ± 0.0515.71 c ± 0.0444.10 k ± 0.0559.81 j ± 0.2673.73 i ± 0.31
58.10 fg ± 0.091.71 cd ± 0.026.85 d ± 0.045.81 d ± 0.04122.00 h ± 1.00127.81 g ± 0.0495.45 f ± 0.01
108.27 fg ± 0.151.71 cd ± 0.017.00 c ± 0.033.71 f ± 0.04123.00 h ± 0.10126.71 g ± 1.0497.07 d ± 0.01
2010.34 b ± 0.111.73 bc ± 0.027.45 b ± 0.042.74 h ± 0.04201.10 e ± 0.50203.84 e ± 0.5498.66 a ± 0.03
X ¯ 8.64 B1.708 A6.41 A6.99 B122.55 C129.54 C91.23 B
r0.94 *0.923 *0.80 *−0.81 *0.96 *0.96 *0.76
Compost
08.57 ef ± 0.101.72 bc ± 0.024.50 e ± 0.0417.14 a ± 0.11107.00 i ± 0.05124.14 h ± 1.1186.20 g ± 0.18
59.19 cd ± 0.131.74 bc ± 0.017.05 c ± 0.056.04 d ± 0.04197.50 f ± 0.50203.54 e ± 0.1497.03 d ± 0.03
109.48 c ± 0.191.81 a ± 0.027.50 b ± 0.034.35 e ± 0.08229.00 a ± 1.00233.35 a ± 0.9298.14 c ± 0.01
2010.99 a ± 0.111.82 a ± 0.017.80 a ± 0.033.79 f ± 0.04220.00 b ± 0.05223.79 b ± 0.0498.31 bc ± 0.01
X ¯ 9.56 A1.77 A6.71 A7.83 A188.38 A196.20 A94.92 A
r0.99 *0.91 *0.81 *−0.770.760.760.74
HumiAgra
08.06 g ± 0.081.71 cd ± 0.014.45 ef ± 0.0516.43 b ± 0.0750.30 j ± 0.0566.73 i ± 0.2375.38 h ± 0.03
58.16 fg ± 0.131.73 bc ± 0.036.85 d ± 0.056.00 d ± 0.07136.50 g ± 0.30142.50 f ± 0.3895.79 e ± 0.02
108.82 de ± 0.081.76 b ± 0.017.05 c ± 0.053.98 f ± 0.07204.00 d ± 0.30207.985 d ± 0.0898.09 c ± 0.04
2010.34 b ± 0.091.81 a ± 0.027.55 b ± 0.053.26 g ± 0.08215.00 c ± 0.30218.26 c ± 1.2698.51 ab ± 0.11
X ¯ 8.85 B1.75 A6.48 A7.42 A151.45 B158.87 B91.94 B
r0.97 *1.00 *0.82 *−0.800.89 *0.81 *0.75
* r—correlation coefficient significant at p = 0.05; homogeneous groups (a–k) were created separately for each parameter; homogeneous groups for means were calculated for each parameter (A–C).
Table 7. Correlation coefficients between variables.
Table 7. Correlation coefficients between variables.
Variable
Factors		RDehCatUrePacPalGluArylCorgNTotalpHHACEBCCECBS
AP0.66 *0.92 *0.91 *0.67 *0.80 *0.90 *0.85 *0.81 *−0.84 *−0.14−0.73 *0.70 *−0.56 *−0.55 *−0.62 *
R1.000.65 *0.71 *0.65 *0.64 *0.60 *0.65 *0.68 *−0.52 *−0.03−0.57 *0.59 *−0.40 *−0.39 *−0.51 *
Deh 1.000.91 *0.66 *0.74 *0.95 *0.74 *0.78 *−0.89 *−0.15−0.65 *0.62 *−0.53 *−0.52 *−0.52 *
Cat 1.000.78 *0.89 *0.91 *0.89 *0.86 *−0.82 *−0.10−0.79 *0.78 *−0.56 *−0.55 *−0.70 *
Ure 1.000.91 *0.67 *0.87 *0.67 *−0.54 *−0.15−0.77 *0.81 *−0.55 *−0.53 *−0.69 *
Pac 1.000.74 *0.97 *0.76 *−0.68 *−0.21−0.93 *0.94 *−0.72 *−0.70 *−0.87 *
Pal 1.000.76 *0.83 *−0.79 *0.01−0.60 *0.59 *−0.41 *−0.40 *−0.48 *
Glu 1.000.79 *−0.66 *−0.15−0.90 *0.91 *−0.67 *−0.64 *−0.83 *
Aryl 1.00−0.58 *0.09−0.59 *0.59 *−0.42 *−0.41 *−0.51 *
Corg 1.000.49 *0.72 *−0.64 *0.65 *0.65 *0.60 *
NTotal 1.000.41 *−0.330.46 *0.46 *0.37 *
pH 1.00−0.99 *0.84 *0.82 *0.98 *
HAC 1.00−0.81 *−0.79 *−0.98 *
EBC 1.000.99 *0.83 *
CEC 1.000.81 *
Explanations in the Table 2 and Table 5. * r—coefficient of correlation significant at: p = 0.05, n = 36.
Table 8. Heating values of Zea mays obtained in various studies.
Table 8. Heating values of Zea mays obtained in various studies.
Factor Tested in the Soil Heating Value
MJ kg−1 Air-Dried Plant Matter 		Reference
Salix viminalis ash content15.93–16.50Our research
Maize variety7.62–10.79[57]
Corn grain drying process13.70–14.94[6]
Pellets from biomass15.68[58]
Cr (VI) content 14.60–15.40[50]
Maize cultivation17.51[59]
Ni2+, Co2+, Cd2+ content14.79–14.97[55]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Boros-Lajszner, E.; Wyszkowska, J.; Kucharski, J. Effect of Ash from Salix viminalis on the Biomass and Heating Value of Zea mays and on the Biochemical and Physicochemical Properties of Soils. Energies 2023, 16, 8037. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16248037

AMA Style

Boros-Lajszner E, Wyszkowska J, Kucharski J. Effect of Ash from Salix viminalis on the Biomass and Heating Value of Zea mays and on the Biochemical and Physicochemical Properties of Soils. Energies. 2023; 16(24):8037. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16248037

Chicago/Turabian Style

Boros-Lajszner, Edyta, Jadwiga Wyszkowska, and Jan Kucharski. 2023. "Effect of Ash from Salix viminalis on the Biomass and Heating Value of Zea mays and on the Biochemical and Physicochemical Properties of Soils" Energies 16, no. 24: 8037. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16248037

APA Style

Boros-Lajszner, E., Wyszkowska, J., & Kucharski, J. (2023). Effect of Ash from Salix viminalis on the Biomass and Heating Value of Zea mays and on the Biochemical and Physicochemical Properties of Soils. Energies, 16(24), 8037. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16248037

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