The E ﬀ ects of Mixed Hardwood Biochar, Mycorrhizae, and Fertigation on Container Tomato and Pepper Plant Growth

: Biochar (BC) has the potential as a peat moss alternative for container plant growth. Three experiments were conducted to evaluate the e ﬀ ects of mixed hardwood BC, compost types, mycorrhizae, and fertigation on container-grown tomato and pepper growth. In experiment 1 (Exp1), BC at 50%, 70%, and 90% (vol.) were mixed with 5% vermicompost (VC) with the rest being a commercial peat moss-based substrate (CS) and fertigated at 200 or 300 mg L − 1 N. In experiment 2 (Exp2), 80% BC was mixed with chicken manure compost (CM; 5% or 10%) and CS and fertigated at 100 or 200 mg L − 1 N. In experiment 3 (Exp3), 90% BC was blended with CS and fertigated at 200 or 300 mg L − 1 N. Mixes in all the three experiments were added with or without mycorrhizae. Results showed that, compared with CS, in Exp1 tomato and pepper plants grown in BC-VC mixes had similar soil-plant analyses development (SPAD), growth index (GI), and total dry weight (TDW); in Exp2 and Exp3, plants in BC mixes (80% or 90%) had lower GI and TDW. In conclusion, BC ( ≤ 70%) amended with VC mixes could be used for container tomato and pepper production without negatively a ﬀ ecting plant growth, while BC (80%, 90%) mixes could have some negative impacts on plant growth.


Introduction
Questions have been raised on peat moss, the most commonly used greenhouse medium with its ideal properties for plant growth, due to environmental impacts and economic concerns [1][2][3]. Overharvesting peat moss can cause environmental issues such as rare wildlife habitat destruction, wetland ecosystem disturbance, and climate change interference [2,3]. Moreover, the price of peat moss has been rising, which causes economic concerns and could hinder growers' profits, especially when transportation costs are considered [4].
Therefore, attention has shifted to biochar (BC) as a peat moss alternative due to its numerous advantages [3,5]. Biochar, a carbon-rich material, is a by-product of pyrolysis (a thermo-chemical Peatland has been functioning as carbon sink, playing a significant role in climate change yet its climatic potential has been underappreciated [45]. It was reported that restoring peatland for carbon sequestrate was 3.4 times less nitrite costly and less land costly compared to other ways [45]. Due to the urgency of global warming and peatland's climatic potential, some countries have already taken actions to restrict peatland extraction [3]. For instance, the United Kingdom and Europe have legislated laws to protect the peatland from being overharvested [1,46]. Therefore, peat moss substitutes are needed to reduce the total amount of peat moss used in the horticulture industry. Based on the environmental and economic concerns of current greenhouse plant production and the potential benefits of using BC, we hypothesized that BC, amended with other components such as composts, MC, could be beneficial for container plants. To test this hypothesis, we conducted three experiments to quantify the effects of BC, compost (VC or CM), MC, and fertigation (F) on container-grown tomato and pepper. The objective of this study was to determine which combination and management practice have the greatest potential for container-grown vegetable production. The study used tomato and pepper due to their widespread usage and economic importance. This study could expand BC usage in the green industry and provide a good peat moss alternative for the future.

Substrates and Plant Materials
The BC used in this study was a by-product of the fast pyrolysis of mixed hardwood (Proton Power, Inc., Lenoir City, TN, USA). Two composts, VC (Pachamama earthworm castings, Lady Bug Brand, Conroe, TX, USA) and CM (Back to Nature Inc., Slaton, TX, USA), were chosen as additives to the BC. The commercial substrate Sunshine Mix #1 (CS; Professional Growing Mix #1, SunGro Inc., Agawam, ME, USA) was used when BC and compost volumes did not add up to 100%. The commercial MC product (ENDO/ECTO-MycoApply, Mycorrhizal Applications Inc., Grants Pass, OR, USA) was applied at the recommended rate. The MC product is granular mycorrhizal inoculum consisting of four endomycorrhizal fungi species and seven ectomycorrhizal fungi species. The four endomycorrhizae species were: Glomus intraradices, G. mosseae, G. aggregatum, and G. etunicatum. The seven ectomycorrhizae species were: Rhizopogon villosulus, R. luteolus, R. amylopogon, R. fulvigleba, Pisolithus tinctorius, Scleroderma cepa, and S. citrinum. The commercial soluble fertilizer (20N-4.3P-16.6K, Peters Professional, Everris NA Inc., Dublin, OH, USA) was applied through fertigation (F).
The electrical conductivity (EC) and pH of substrate mixtures were measured with a handheld pH-EC meter (HI 98129, Hanna Instruments, Woonsocket, RI, USA) using pour-through extraction method [47]. The chemical and physical properties of BC, VC, CM, and CS, including pH, EC, total porosity (TP, %), container capacity (CC, %), air space (AS, %), and bulk density (BD, g cm −3 ) are presented in Table 1 according to previous studies [24,25]. The carbon and ash content of BC were 88.6% and 5.37%, respectively [25]. The CM had high P and potassium (K) content (Table 2). Table 1. Physical (total porosity (TP, %), container capacity (CC, %), air space (AS, %), and bulk density (BD, g cm −3 )) and chemical (pH, EC) properties of biochar, vermicompost, chicken manure, and commercial peat moss substrate used in this study according to previous studies [24,25].  The substrates were formulated by mixing BC (50%, 70%, 90%, or 0%; vol.) with 5% VC. The remaining volume in each BC-VC mix was a peat moss-based commercial substrate. The 8 mixture combinations were treated with a commercially available MC product applied at the recommended rate. Another set was not treated with MC. Finally, a fertilizer was applied to the mixture/MC combinations through fertigation at 200 mg L −1 or 300 mg L −1 nitrogen (N) ( Table 3) for a total of 16 treatments. Table 3. List of treatments used in experiment 1 including biochar, vermicompost, and commercial peat moss-based substrate, mycorrhizae (Y/N = with/without), and fertigation rate (mg L −1 N).

Treatment
Biochar ( The experiment was arranged as a three-way full factorial randomized complete block design (RCBD) with six replicates. The three factors were mix type (BC-VC mixes), MC (with or without), and F (200 mg L −1 or 300 mg L −1 N), respectively. Substrate mixtures were prepared by mixing BC (80% or 0%) with 5% or 10% CM. The remaining volume in each BC-CM mix was amended with CS to reach 100%. The plant materials used were the same as in Exp1 except they were planted on different dates (sown on October 10, 2017 and transplanted on 14 October 2017). Fertilizer was applied through F at 100 mg L −1 or 200 mg L −1 N ( Table 4). Table 4. List of treatments used in experiment 2 including biochar, chicken manure compost, commercial peat moss-based substrate, mycorrhizae (Y/N = with/without), and fertigation rate (mg L −1 N).

Treatment
Biochar ( The experiment was arranged as a three-way full factorial RCBD with six replicates. The three factors were mix type (BC-CM mixes), MC (with or without), and F (100 mg L −1 or 200 mg L −1 N).

Experiment 3: Biochar, Mycorrhizae, and Fertigation Effects on Plant Growth
Substrate mixtures were formulated by mixing BC (90% or 0%) with CS. Plant material and sowing/transplanting dates were the same as Exp2. Fertilizer was applied through F at 200 mg L −1 or 300 mg L −1 N (Table 5). The experiment was arranged as a three-way full factorial RCBD with six replicates. The three factors were mix type (BC mixes), MC (with or without), and F (200 mg L −1 or 300 mg L −1 N).

Measurements
For each experiment, the growth index (GI) was determined by measuring plant height and two perpendicular widths on the 8th week after transplanting (WAT 8) using the following formula: GI = Height/2 + (Width1 + Width2)/4 [24].
Leaf greenness was quantified as soil-plant analyses development (SPAD) readings (SPAD-502 Minolta Camera Co., Osaka, Japan) at WAT 7. Plant fruits and shoots were harvested at WAT 8, fruit dry weight (FDW) and shoot dry weight (SDW) were determined after plant tissues were oven-dried till constant weight was reached. Total dry weight (TDW) was calculated as the sum of FDW and SDW.

Statistical Analysis
Data were analyzed with ANOVA using JMP Statistical Software (version Pro 14.2.0; SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) to test the effects of substrate mixtures, MC, and F rate on container plant development. Mean separation was conducted using Tukey honest significance difference (HSD) multiple comparison test at p ≤ 0.05 level of significance. A cluster dendrogram and a principal component analysis (PCA) were conducted to evaluate the relationship among all the treatments and between the selected variables, using R programming software (version 3.5.1).

Experiment 1: Biochar, Vermicompost, Mycorrhizae, and Fertigation
There were three-factor (mix, MC, and F) interactions in GI 8, FDW, and TDW for tomato and only GI 8 for pepper (Table 6). MC × F interaction was only significant for TDW in tomato and SPAD in pepper. Mix × F interaction was not significant for all variables in tomato and only for FDW in pepper. Significant interactions for Mix × MC were observed in GI 8, FDW, and TDW in tomato, and SPAD and TDW in pepper. All main factors had significant effects on tomato SPAD only, with Mix having significant effects on all variables in tomato and pepper. For pepper, F only had significant effects on SPAD and TDW, while MC only had significant effect on GI 8. Table 6. A summary of the statistical significance of treatment factors on growth index at the eighth week after transplanting (GI 8), soil-plant analyses development (SPAD), fruit dry weight (FDW), and total dry weight (TDW) for tomato and pepper plants.
At BC rates of 0%, 50%, or 70%, MC addition or F rates did not significantly affect GI 8, FDW, and TDW of tomato, or GI 8 of pepper (Table 7). The lowest GI 8 was observed when no BC or MC were added at 300 mg L −1 N (0:N:300) and the highest in 90:N:200. At 90% BC rate, the addition of MC or F rates did not significantly affect GI 8 and FDW for tomato yet with MC at higher F rates, tomato TDW was significantly improved. In general, plants in 50% BC and 70% BC mixtures had better growth than those in 90% BC. Table 7. Growth index of tomato and pepper plant grown in Sunshine Mix #1 amended with biochar (0%, 50%, 70%; and 90%, vol.) at the eighth week after transplanting (GI 8), tomato fruit dry weight (FDW) and total dry weight (TDW) at two fertigation levels (200 mg L −1 and 300 mg L −1 N). Biochar rate, MC, and F had significant effects on tomato SPAD (Table 6; Figure 1A-C). All tomato plants grown in BC-amended mixes had significantly lower SPAD compared to those grown in CS. Tomato plants grown with MC or 300 mg L −1 N had significantly higher SPAD compared to those without MC or 200 mg L −1 N. Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 17 Table 7. Growth index of tomato and pepper plant grown in Sunshine Mix #1 amended with biochar (0%, 50%, 70%; and 90%, vol.) at the eighth week after transplanting (GI 8), tomato fruit dry weight (FDW) and total dry weight (TDW) at two fertigation levels (200 mg L −1 and 300 mg L −1 N). Biochar rate, MC, and F had significant effects on tomato SPAD (Table 6; Figure

Experiment 2: Biochar-Chicken Manure, Mycorrhizae, and Fertigation
There were three-factor (mix, MC, and F) interactions in FDW and TDW for tomato and no interactions in GI 8, SPAD, FDW or TDW for pepper (Table 8). MC × F interaction was not significant for all variables in tomato and only for FDW in pepper. Mix × F interaction was not significant for all variables in tomato and pepper. Significant interactions for Mix × MC were observed in SPAD and TDW in tomato, and GI 8, SPAD, and TDW in pepper. Main factor F had no significant effects on all variables in tomato and pepper while MC only had significant effects on SPAD and TDW for tomato    Tomato FDW (except for 0% CM at 200 mg L −1 N) was not significantly affected by MC addition, F rates, or CM rates (Table 9). At 5% CM rate, MC addition did not significantly affect tomato TDW. Fertigation rates, however, significantly affected TDW: higher F led to higher TDW. At 10% CM rate, F rates and MC did not significantly impact tomato TDW. At 0% CM rate with MC, F rates did not significantly impact tomato FDW or TDW. At 0% CM rate without MC, however, F rates significantly influenced tomato TDW: higher F led to higher TDW. Table 9. Fruit dry weight (FDW) and total plant dry weight (TDW) of tomato grown in Sunshine Mix #1 amended with biochar (80%, vol.) and chicken manure (5% and 10%, vol.) at two fertigation levels (100 mg L −1 and 200 mg L −1 N).

Treatment
Tomato Adding MC did not significantly impact SPAD of tomato plants grown in BC-amended mixes with 5% CM ( Figure 3A). Mix type did not significantly influence tomato GI 8 ( Figure 3B). With MC, mix type had no significant effects on pepper GI, SPAD, or TDW ( Figure 4A-C). Similarly, at 200 mg L −1 N, mixes with 5% CM did not significantly impact pepper FDW either ( Figure 4D). Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 17 X indicates 80% (vol.) biochar mixed with 5% or 10% (vol.) chicken manure; Y indicates whether mycorrhizae was added (Y) or not added (N); Z numbers within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Tukey HSD multiple comparison at p ≤ 0.05.
Adding MC did not significantly impact SPAD of tomato plants grown in BC-amended mixes with 5% CM ( Figure 3A). Mix type did not significantly influence tomato GI 8 ( Figure 3B). With MC, mix type had no significant effects on pepper GI, SPAD, or TDW ( Figure 4A−C). Similarly, at 200 mg L −1 N, mixes with 5% CM did not significantly impact pepper FDW either ( Figure 4D).   Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 17 X indicates 80% (vol.) biochar mixed with 5% or 10% (vol.) chicken manure; Y indicates whether mycorrhizae was added (Y) or not added (N); Z numbers within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Tukey HSD multiple comparison at p ≤ 0.05.
Adding MC did not significantly impact SPAD of tomato plants grown in BC-amended mixes with 5% CM ( Figure 3A). Mix type did not significantly influence tomato GI 8 ( Figure 3B). With MC, mix type had no significant effects on pepper GI, SPAD, or TDW ( Figure 4A−C). Similarly, at 200 mg L −1 N, mixes with 5% CM did not significantly impact pepper FDW either ( Figure 4D).

Experiment 3: Biochar, Mycorrhizae, and Fertigation
There were three-factor (mix, MC, and F) interactions in GI 8, SPAD, and TDW for tomato but no interactions for all variables in pepper (Table 10). MC × F interaction was not significant for all variables in tomato and only for SPAD in pepper. Mix × F interaction was not significant for all variables in tomato and pepper. Significant interactions for Mix × MC were only observed in GI8 and TDW in pepper. All main factors had significant effects on tomato SPAD only, with Mix having significant effects on all variables in tomato and pepper and MC not having significant effects on GI 8 and TDW in tomato only. At BC rates of 0% and 90%, MC and F had no significant impacts on tomato GI (except for 90% BC with MC at 300 mg L −1 N; Table 11). Mycorrhizae addition and F had no significant effects on tomato SPAD or TDW. Mix type, however, significantly influenced tomato SPAD as well as TDW: BC-amended mixes caused significantly lower SPAD and TDW. Table 11. Growth index at the eighth week after transplanting (GI 8), soil-plant analyses development (SPAD), and total dry weight (TDW) of tomato plants grown in Sunshine Mix #1 amended with biochar (90% and 0%, vol.) and at two fertigation levels (200 mg L −1 and 300 mg L −1 N).

Treatment
Tomato GI  Biochar-amended mix significantly reduced tomato FDW ( Figure 5 A-C). Without MC, the mix type significantly impacted pepper TDW and SPAD: BC-amended mixes had no significant impact on pepper GI ( Figure 6A) but led to lower TDW and FDW ( Figure 6C, Figure 7A). Fertigation rate did not significantly impact pepper SPAD ( Figure 6B). Adding MC significantly decreased pepper FDW ( Figure 7B).

Treatment Grouping and Their Correlation to Plant Growth
Treatments with different components such as BC mix types, F rates, and MC applications had varied responses. From the ANOVA table (Table 6,8,10), we observed some of the treatments could be grouped together for their closely related characteristics, which were reflected in their similar effects on plant growth. Therefore, based on the obtained data from our study, we can use hierarchical analysis to cluster these 36 treatments in all the three experiments. Using a complete linkage method, dendrograms ( Figure 8) were created separately for tomato and pepper based on the similarities (Jaccard's similarity coefficient) among treatments.
These identified treatments within a group shared similar effects on plant growth, but how could we qualify these effects on the measured responses (SPAD, GI, FDW, TDW)? Based on the group information, we used principal component analysis (PCA) to qualify these effects and depict

Treatment Grouping and Their Correlation to Plant Growth
Treatments with different components such as BC mix types, F rates, and MC applications had varied responses. From the ANOVA table (Table 6,8,10), we observed some of the treatments could be grouped together for their closely related characteristics, which were reflected in their similar effects on plant growth. Therefore, based on the obtained data from our study, we can use hierarchical analysis to cluster these 36 treatments in all the three experiments. Using a complete linkage method, dendrograms ( Figure 8) were created separately for tomato and pepper based on the similarities (Jaccard's similarity coefficient) among treatments.
These identified treatments within a group shared similar effects on plant growth, but how could we qualify these effects on the measured responses (SPAD, GI, FDW, TDW)? Based on the group information, we used principal component analysis (PCA) to qualify these effects and depict

Treatment Grouping and Their Correlation to Plant Growth
Treatments with different components such as BC mix types, F rates, and MC applications had varied responses. From the ANOVA table (Table 6, Table 8, Table 10), we observed some of the treatments could be grouped together for their closely related characteristics, which were reflected in their similar effects on plant growth. Therefore, based on the obtained data from our study, we can use hierarchical analysis to cluster these 36 treatments in all the three experiments. Using a complete linkage method, dendrograms ( Figure 8) were created separately for tomato and pepper based on the similarities (Jaccard's similarity coefficient) among treatments. variables shaped by different mix types (treatments) for tomato ( Figure 9A) and pepper ( Figure 9B) plants. For tomato plants, 91.7% of the variability was explained by the first two components ( Figure  9A). PC1 accounted for 81.9% variance. Vermicompost treatments (group 3) were associated with yield (FDW, TDW) and growth (SPAD, GI), while compost group (group 2) was correlated more to plant growth (GI). PC2 accounted for 9.8% variance, however it did not distinguish differences from the groups. For pepper plants, the first two components explained 96.8% of the variability ( Figure 9B). PC1 accounted for 75.6% variance, BC−5% VC (BC ≤ 70%) mixes (group 1) showed a greater association with TDW, GI, and FDW, while CM mixes (group 2) showed a greater relation to SPAD. PC2 accounted for 21.2% variance, distinguishing between the 90% BC−5% VC (group 3) and CM mixes (group 3). Group 3 (90% BC−5% VC) tended to be affiliated with FDW, GI, as well as TDW, however, CM mixes appeared to be related to the SPAD.  We drew a line at height 25 ( Figure 8A,B), and treatments fell into three groups for both tomato ( Figure 8A) and pepper plants ( Figure 8B). Tomato plant treatments were grouped into high BC rate group (80%, 90%) with 11 treatments (group 1), low compost rates (0%, 5%) with 11 treatments (group 2), and BC-5%VC group with 14 treatments (group 3). Pepper plant treatments were grouped into BC-VC group (BC ≤ 70%) with 12 treatments (group 1), compost group (CM and VC) with 20 treatments (group 2), and 90%BC-5%VC group with 4 treatments (group 3).
These identified treatments within a group shared similar effects on plant growth, but how could we qualify these effects on the measured responses (SPAD, GI, FDW, TDW)? Based on the group information, we used principal component analysis (PCA) to qualify these effects and depict variables shaped by different mix types (treatments) for tomato ( Figure 9A) and pepper ( Figure 9B) plants. For tomato plants, 91.7% of the variability was explained by the first two components ( Figure 9A). PC1 accounted for 81.9% variance. Vermicompost treatments (group 3) were associated with yield (FDW, TDW) and growth (SPAD, GI), while compost group (group 2) was correlated more to plant growth (GI). PC2 accounted for 9.8% variance, however it did not distinguish differences from the groups.

Treatment Effects on Plant Growth
Biochar mixes, MC, and F rates and their synergistic impacts can beneficially influence plant growth. Biochar can aid plant growth both directly by supplying nutrients [48] and indirectly by influencing nutrient availability via changing substrate total porosity and pH [23,49]. For instance, for poinsettia and Easter lily, adding 20−60% (vol.) pinewood BC to peat moss-based substrate increased the total stem length and the number of leaves due to the suitable total porosity and pH, which improved nutrient uptake at given F rates [9]. Peng et al. [3] demonstrated the mix of BC (20−60%) and peat moss-based substrate (80−40%) had no negative effects on basil, tomato, or chrysanthemum because suitable physical properties helped nutrient absorption. Furthermore, pinewood BC can replace a commercial peat moss-based substrate from 5−30% (vol.) without any negative impacts on gomphrena plant growth [4], resulting from mix properties and F integrated effects. Moreover, mixed hardwood BC can replace 70% (vol.) of a commercial peat moss-based substrate without negatively impacting on tomato or basil plant growth [25] due to the enhanced nutrient uptake. For pepper plants, the first two components explained 96.8% of the variability ( Figure 9B). PC1 accounted for 75.6% variance, BC-5% VC (BC ≤ 70%) mixes (group 1) showed a greater association with TDW, GI, and FDW, while CM mixes (group 2) showed a greater relation to SPAD. PC2 accounted for 21.2% variance, distinguishing between the 90% BC-5% VC (group 3) and CM mixes (group 3). Group 3 (90% BC-5% VC) tended to be affiliated with FDW, GI, as well as TDW, however, CM mixes appeared to be related to the SPAD.

Treatment Effects on Plant Growth
Biochar mixes, MC, and F rates and their synergistic impacts can beneficially influence plant growth. Biochar can aid plant growth both directly by supplying nutrients [48] and indirectly by influencing nutrient availability via changing substrate total porosity and pH [23,49]. For instance, for poinsettia and Easter lily, adding 20-60% (vol.) pinewood BC to peat moss-based substrate increased the total stem length and the number of leaves due to the suitable total porosity and pH, which improved nutrient uptake at given F rates [9]. Peng et al. [3] demonstrated the mix of BC (20-60%) and peat moss-based substrate (80-40%) had no negative effects on basil, tomato, or chrysanthemum because suitable physical properties helped nutrient absorption. Furthermore, pinewood BC can replace a commercial peat moss-based substrate from 5-30% (vol.) without any negative impacts on gomphrena plant growth [4], resulting from mix properties and F integrated effects. Moreover, mixed hardwood BC can replace 70% (vol.) of a commercial peat moss-based substrate without negatively impacting on tomato or basil plant growth [25] due to the enhanced nutrient uptake.
Biochar can impact substrate pH, making nutrients, especially P, less available to the plant, which could be compensated by adding MC [1,50]. For example, Conversa et al. [51] showed that 30% of BC, even with a pH at 8.6 which made P less available, increased geranium plant growth because MC compensated P uptake. However, high percentage of BC (70%; vol.) induced high pH and led to N and P deficiency, which could not be compensated by MC, reducing geranium plant growth. Part of the Conversa et al. [51] results were similar to ours: tomato and pepper plants grown in BC-amended mixes (lower than 70%) had similar growth compared to those in the commercial substrate. However, in our study, the high BC rate (70% for pepper, 80% for tomato) did not result in any negative impacts on plant growth as Conversa et al. [51] reported. The difference may be due to the presence of composts (VC or CM) in our study. Additionally, our study had similar results to the study by Huang et al. [25], which showed that 70% (vol.) of mixed hardwood BC with 5% VC or CM can be used for tomato and basil plant growth with no negative impacts on plant growth. However, in our study, the results in 90% BC-5% VC mix with MC and 300 mg L −1 N differed from those of Huang et al. [25]. The differences could be explained by the MC, which improved nutrient uptake.
In this study, we only tested one type of biochar. Since biochars from different feedstocks have varied properties [44], we can test different types of biochar in the future. Moreover, we only tested tomato and pepper plants in this study, more horticultural plants should be tested in the future.

Biochar Potential Economic Value
According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) [52], around 0.15 M m 3 of container substrates were used for the horticulture industry with 91% (by vol.) being peat moss-based or just peat moss [52,53]. The Sunshine Mix #1 used in this study contains 80% peat moss. The estimated prices of the 70% biochar−5% vermicompost mix and Sunshine Mix #1 are $119.7 m −3 and $176.9 m −3 , respectively [25]. With the results in this study, if the mix 70% biochar-5% vermicompost were chosen for container plant production, 0.1 M m 3 of peat moss with an estimated value of $ 5.98 M could be saved annually, in addition to the reduced fertilizer costs. This study showed one aspect of the economic value of biochar by replacing peat moss-based substrate; other studies also proposed the economic value of biochar by introducing it into wastewater, farming, and municipal industries [54][55][56].

Biochar Potential Climatic Value
Using biochar as a peat moss alterative could have significant potential to slow down global warming. Peatland, accounting only for around 3% of the terrestrial surface, may store 21% of the global total soil organic carbon stock of around 3000 Gt [57][58][59] and provide natural habitats for wild animals. However, the potential climatic value of peatland has been underappreciated [45]. Using alternative substrate materials such as biochar could slow down peat moss harvest, and thus slow down depleting peat bogs, which could conserve their carbon sink capability and contribute to slower global warming. According to the literature, 20-80% of peat moss can be replaced by biochar [9,28,44]. With those numbers (assuming the commercial substrate contains 75% of peat moss), an estimated 0.02 M-0.08 M m −3 of peat moss can be saved annually. Furthermore, with pyrolysis for bio-oil purposes, the yield of biochar ranges from 20-47% [60]. Assuming biochar yield at 30%, to produce the same amount of biochar used sufficiently for the horticulture industry (assuming replacing 50% of peat moss), nearly 0.28 M m −3 of agriculture waste can be converted annually, which otherwise would be incinerated and aggravate global warming [61].

Conclusions
Among all the treatments, adding mycorrhizae did not have a significant impact on plant growth (except 90% biochar−5% vermicopost with fertigation at 300 mg L −1 N for tomato). The biochar can replace commercial peat moss-based substrate when used at 50% to 70% (vol.) for both tomato and pepper plants. At these mixture rates, biochar had a similar growth index, SPAD, fruit dry weight, and total plant dry weight as the unmixed control when used with either 200 or 300 mg L −1 N. Among the mixes, the best plant performance was observed when biochar was ≤70% with additional 5% vermicompost, and had similar results when plants were fertilized with 200 mg L −1 or 300 mg L −1 N. The hypothesis that BC, amended with composts, MC, could be beneficial for container plants was confirmed.