Next Article in Journal
Spatiotemporal Differentiation of Land Ecological Security and Optimization Based on GeoSOS-FLUS Model: A Case Study of the Yellow River Delta in China Toward Sustainability
Previous Article in Journal
Tripartite Evolutionary Game and Policy Simulation: Strategic Governance in the Redevelopment of the Urban Village in Guangzhou
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sustainable Soil Management in Alkaline Soils: The Role of Biochar and Organic Nitrogen in Enhancing Soil Fertility

1
Department of Agriculture, University of Swabi Anbar Swabi, Swabi 23561, Pakistan
2
Department of Agriculture, Hazara University Mansehra, Mansehra 23100, Pakistan
3
College of Agronomy, Jinlin Agricultural University, Changchun 130118, China
4
Floricultural Biotechnology Laboratory, Department of Horticultural Science, Kyungpook National University, Deagu 41566, Republic of Korea
5
Research Center for Irrigation and Water Management, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Anna-Liget Str. 35, 5540 Szarvas, Hungary
6
Department of Soil and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Crop Production Sciences, The University of Agriculture, Peshawar 25130, Pakistan
7
Department of Chemical, Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Sciences (DOCPAS), University of Ferrara, 44121 Ferrara, Italy
8
Department of Plant Production, College of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
9
Department of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences, University of Tuscia, Via San Camillo de Lellis SNC, 01100 Viterbo, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2024, 13(11), 1869; https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111869
Submission received: 13 October 2024 / Revised: 3 November 2024 / Accepted: 7 November 2024 / Published: 8 November 2024

Abstract

:
Biochar (BC) serves a vital function in sequestering carbon, improving nutrient cycles, and boosting overall soil quality. This research explored the enhancement of the chemical and physical properties of soil (alkaline) using nitrogen and biochar (from organic and inorganic sources) in a semi-arid climate during the autumn seasons of 2015–2016 and 2016–2017. The study involved applying biochar at various rates (0, 10, 20, and 30 t ha⁻1) and nitrogen at different levels (0, 90, 120, and 150 kg ha⁻1) using urea, poultry manure (PM), and farmyard manure (FYM) as nitrogen sources, which were applied to the field in a randomized complete block design with split-plot arrangement. The application of biochar at the highest rate (30 t ha⁻1) resulted in a significant increase of over 120% in soil organic matter (SOM), soil organic carbon (SOC), and soil moisture content (SMC). Additionally, it increased total soil nitrogen (STN) by 14.16% and mineral nitrogen (SMN) by 9.09%. In contrast, applying biochar at this rate reduced soil bulk density (SBD), pH, and electrical conductivity (EC) by 28.52%, 3.38%, and 2.27%, respectively, compared to the control. Similarly, applying nitrogen at 150 kg ha⁻1 using FYM significantly improved SOC, SOM, SMC, and SBD. At the same rate, using PM as a nitrogen source enhanced STN and SMN while reducing soil pH and EC. In conclusion, this study shows that applying biochar at 30 t ha⁻1 combined with nitrogen at 150 kg ha⁻1, sourced from either PM or FYM, offers great potential for improving soil fertility and promoting carbon sequestration in alkaline soils of semi-arid regions. These findings highlight the value of integrating BC and organic N sources for enhancing agroecosystem sustainability. Thus, this study provides a promising pathway to enhance soil quality, improve crop productivity, and support sustainable agricultural practices in challenging environments.

1. Introduction

Inorganic fertilizer application is widely regarded as one of the most effective methods for enhancing soil fertility among various agricultural practices [1]. Nevertheless, the persistent application of synthetic fertilizers causes significant negative impacts on soil characteristics (synthetic and physical), including a reduction in soil organic matter (SOM) [2]. Harmful factors associated with the use of conventional fertilizers include the prolific leaching of nutrients into groundwater and eutrophication, significant fossil fuel consumption during fertilizer production, and the ever-increasing costs associated with these fertilizers [3]. Consequently, there would be strong support for fertilization methods that are both efficient and eco-friendly. The main suppliers of nutrients are organic fertilizers, which are generally derived from animal manure, poultry droppings, etc. [4]. It has been reported that organic manure can modify the physical and chemical properties of soil due to its comprehensive nutrient content [5]. Furthermore, organic fertilizers are more efficient than mineral fertilizers [6]. Consequently, the use of organic manure presents an ideal method for recycling nutrients in the soil and minimizing environmental contamination [7]. The unpredictable and slow release of nutrients from organic fertilizers limits their widespread use [8]. Additionally, the benefits of organic fertilizers are often short-term in soil with the rapid degradation of SOM at high temperatures [9]. Therefore, additional organic matter that mineralizes within a few days after application should be applied [10].
Hence, there is a need to explore alternative methods of sustainable soil management to boost the current yield potential of soils. The sustainable management of soil requires techniques that improve soil’s physical and chemical properties while ensuring optimal crop yields over time. Therefore, to boost soil fertility, there is an urgent need to use highly stable and nutrient-retentive organic materials such as biochar (BC) [11]. BC is a porous, carbon-based material obtained from the decomposition of organic matter under high temperatures and in low-oxygen conditions. Its unique physiochemical characteristics make it well suited for carbon storage for longer periods of time in the environment and offer promising potential for enhancing soil properties [12]. The utilization of biochar for soil fertility improvement is receiving growing interest because of its capability to enhance soil structure and texture, increase crop productivity, and sequester carbon [13]. The addition of BC can enhance water availability in the soil [14]; improve water-holding capacity [15]; increase soil aeration [16]; and boost soil organic carbon (SOC) [17], soil microbial activity, and biomass [18]. It also enhances enzyme activity [19] and nutrient retention and availability [20], resulting in reduced fertilizer requirements and decreased nutrient loss [21]. Published research indicates that BC can enhance soil nutrient levels, cation exchange capacity, soil structure, and nutrient use efficiency while also reducing soil acidity [22]. It has been demonstrated that the application of BC alters N dynamics within the soil [23]. Due to its high adsorption capacity, BC effectively retains nitrate and ammonium, making it beneficial for both water treatment and soil applications [24]. This characteristic allows for the enhanced storage of ammonium-N in the soil [25]. To address the issue of potentially inaccessible nitrogen, research has shown that combining BC with N fertilizer can yield positive results by enhancing the efficiency of mineral nitrogen fertilizers, decreasing reliance on inorganic fertilizers, and reducing costs [26]. Research has shown that incorporating biochar produced from materials like wood, maize straw, and rice husks can significantly increase soil nitrogen content. A study conducted by Varela Milla et al. [27] revealed that, after two years, this practice increased soil total nitrogen (STN) by 63% and soil mineral nitrogen (SMN) by 40%. Similarly, Wu et al. [28] reported improvements in STN levels following the application of wood biochar. Additionally, Major et al. [29] found that the incorporation of biochar derived from wood could either raise or lower soil pH, depending on the type of feedstock used for biochar production and the specific soil type. Wood biochar typically has a much lower bulk density (BD) compared to soil, and it also reduces the BD of the soil when incorporated [30]. The availability of plant nutrients and ash in biochar, along with its high surface area, porous structure, and ability to provide a habitat for microorganisms, is crucial for enhancing soil characteristics and improving nutrient uptake by plants in biochar-amended soils [31].
This study hypothesized that the combination of BC and N from organic sources, such as FYM and PM, would significantly enhance both the chemical and physical characteristics of soil, including organic matter content, nitrogen availability, and soil structure, compared to the use of either biochar or nitrogen alone in alkaline soils in a semi-arid environment. The main objectives of this study were to assess the individual and combined effects of nitrogen and biochar from different organic and inorganic origins on key soil health indicators over a two-year period. Additionally, the study aimed to evaluate the carryover effects of biochar on soil properties and nitrogen dynamics beyond the initial application period.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description and Treatments at the Site of Experiment

The Field trials were conducted at the Agriculture Research Station (ARS) in Swabi, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), Pakistan, during the autumn seasons of 2015–2016 and 2016–2017. The study area is located at latitude 34°7′48″ N and longitude 72°28′11″ E, between the Indus and Kabul Rivers in KP, Pakistan. During the experimental period, the total monthly rainfall ranged from 0 to 188 mm, while the mean monthly air temperatures varied between 11.78 °C and 34.68 °C. Prior to the experiment, the field had been cropped with wheat and maize.
In both years, the experiment included four wood biochar (BC) application rates (0, 10, 20, and 30 t ha⁻1) and three nitrogen (N) management levels (90, 120, and 150 kg ha⁻1), along with a control treatment. The required nitrogen was supplied through various sources, including farmyard manure (FYM), urea, and poultry manure (PM), at different concentrations (control; 90, 120, 150 kg ha−1 urea; 90, 150 kg ha−1 N FYM; and 90, 120, and 150 kg ha−1 N PM) using a randomized complete block design with a split-plot arrangement and three replicates. In total, there were 40 treatments in each replicate, and they were repeated thrice. Each main plot comprised 10 subplots, and each subplot was 3 × 4 m2. Row-to-row and plant-to-plant distances between the main plots and subplots were maintained at 1 m and 0.5 m, respectively. The same procedure was followed for the second-year experiment in 2016–2017.

2.2. Application of Biochar, Urea, FYM, and PM, and Sowing of Wheat Seeds

Biochar, derived from Acacia tree prunings, was obtained from the Agriculture Research Farm, The University of Agriculture Peshawar, Pakistan, following the detailed procedure of Arif et al. [32]. Farmyard manure (FYM) was obtained from a local dairy, and poultry manure (PM) was obtained from nearby poultry farms. The manures were stored under cover for three weeks before being used in the field experiments.
Following land preparation, the experimental field was organized into plots measuring 3 × 4 m2. Biochar (BC) was sieved using 2 mm mesh, weighed, and then applied to the main plots according to the specified rates. Additionally, BC was mixed into the soil at a depth of 15 cm using a rotavator. Nitrogen content in PM and FYM was analyzed in the laboratory and then carefully incorporated into the subplots by hoeing, ensuring no cross-contamination occurred with neighboring subplots. The nitrogen content from urea was accurately calculated based on the 46% stated on the packaging and was applied at the time of sowing and during the tillering stage. Furthermore, both PM and FYM were incorporated into the field soil one week prior to sowing, while BC was incorporated during seedbed preparation. BC was applied once, while urea, FYM, and PM were applied in both seasons. Each subplot received a basal application of phosphorus (90 kg ha⁻1) as a single application of superphosphate and potassium (60 kg ha⁻1) in the form of potassium sulfate. Wheat cultivar ‘Pirsabak 2013’ was obtained from Cereal Crops Research Institute (CCRI) Pirsabak Nowshera, Pakistan, and was sown at a seed rate of 120 kg ha⁻1 in 3 × 4 m2 plots, maintaining a row spacing of 30 cm. Broad-spectrum herbicide ‘Atlantus’ was used to control weeds in wheat crops. Crops were irrigated as needed using canal water. Normal cultural practices were carried out throughout the crop’s growing period.

2.3. Determination of the Post-Harvest, Soil Physicochemical Properties

Tillage was performed using a cultivator that plowed the soil up to 15 cm depth for soil preparation. Soil samples were then randomly collected from 0 to 15 cm depth from various locations of the site with the help of soil auger before the start of the experiment in 2015. After drying, the soil samples were passed through a 2 mm sieve and subjected to various soil physicochemical analyses.
The soil of the experimental site belongs to the Gulyana soil series. The soil type was classified as Calcisols based on the World Reference Base (WRB) system of soil taxonomy, and the soil exhibited a silt loam texture, comprising 19.4% sand, 71.6% silt, and 8.96% clay. Additionally, soil samples were collected after the harvest of wheat in both years (2015 and 2017) from each subplot and analyzed for soil physicochemical properties. For soil moisture at harvest, the soil sample was collected, put in a moisture cane, weighed, and dried at 105 °C; further calculations were performed using the formula of Reeb [33]. Soil BD was determined using the procedure outlined by Blake et al. [34]. SOC was calculated using the dichromate wet oxidation method by Walkley and Black [35]. Soil OM was determined by multiplying C content by factor 1.724. The pH and electrical conductivity (EC) of the soil were measured using the methods developed by McLean [36] and Rhoades [37]. In this method, suspension consisting of a soil-to-water ratio of 1:5 was analyzed for pH and electrical conductivity (EC) using a pH meter and an EC meter, respectively. The total soil nitrogen (STN) was determined calorimetrically for each treatment, following the Kjeldahl procedure outlined by Bremner et al. [38]. For the determination of SMN, the steam distillation procedure described by Keeney and Nelson [39] was used.

2.4. Composition of Biochar, FYM, and PM

In this study, biochar (BC) was generated from the prunings of Acacia trees. FYM had a pH of 8.57; an EC of 2.39 dS m⁻1; 46.4% C; and concentrations of 0.34% P, 0.87% N, and 0.6% K. PM had a pH of 6.82; an EC of 2.48 dS m⁻1; 34.7% C; and concentrations of 0.97% P, 1.53% N, and 0.9% K. The biochar used in the experiment contained 0.08% nitrogen and 0.112% phosphorus, with a pH of 7.05 and an EC of 1.49 dS m⁻1 [4].

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Data collected from each year, as well as the combined data, were statistically analyzed using SPSS version 20, following a randomized complete block design with a split-plot arrangement. Mean comparisons were performed using the least significant difference (LSD) test at p ≤ 0.05 [40].

3. Results

3.1. Soil Organic Carbon, Organic Matter, Bulk Density, and Moisture Content

Biochar (BC) application and nitrogen levels significantly affected soil organic carbon (SOC), organic matter (SOM), bulk density (BD), and soil moisture content (SMC) (Figure 1A–D). Across both years, BC application alone had a significant (p < 0.05) influence on these attributes. Increasing BC from 0 to 30 t ha−1 significantly increased SOC (Figure 1A), SOM (Figure 1B), and SMC (Figure 1D); however, it reduced BD (Figure 1C). The combined data over the two years showed that BC applied at 10, 20, and 30 t ha−1 increased SOC by 27.62, 47.86, and 121.38%; SOM by 27.54, 47.76, and 121.24%; and moisture content by 27.58%, 47.80%, and 121.30% but reduced BD by 2.30%, 18.27%, and 39.90%, respectively, compared to the control (Table 1).
Similarly, N management in both years and as an individual factor also significantly improved SOC, SOM, BD, and SMC as compared to control treatment. Nitrogen management significantly increased SOC (Figure 1E), SOM (Figure 1F), and SMC (Figure 1H); however, it reduced BD (Figure 1G) when compared with the control. In general, the management of N led to an increase in SOC with an increase in N levels from 90 to 150 kg N ha⁻1, regardless of whether the sources were organic or inorganic. Specifically, applying 150 kg N ha⁻1 from FYM led to an increase in SOC (Figure 1E) and SOM (Figure 1F) by 78.16% and 78.24%, respectively, when compared with plots where nitrogen was not applied. Furthermore, N management reduced soil BD and increased SMC with an increase in N levels. The addition of 150 kg N ha⁻1 from organic sources resulted in the lowest BD (Figure 1G) and the highest SMC (Figure 1H). Specifically, applying 150 kg N ha⁻1 exclusively from organic sources, such as FYM, led to a 20.48% reduction in BD. Additionally, this application increased SMC by 78.29% compared to the N control treatment. In the case of BC × N interaction for SOC and SOM, the highest SOC and SOM were observed in plants supplied with 30 t BC and FYM at 150 kg as the source of N (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Similarly, the interaction of BC × N showed that SMC was improved and recorded as the highest with the combined application of 30 t h−1 biochar and 150 kg ha−1 N from the FYM source. This increase was 18.53% higher than that of the control treatment (Figure 4).

3.2. Soil Total Nitrogen, Mineral Nitrogen, pH, and EC

The individual application of BC (Figure 5A–D) and N (Figure 5E–H) significantly influenced STN, SMN, soil pH, and soil EC. The combined data over the two years showed that increasing biochar levels to 10, 20, and 30 t BC ha−1 also improved STN (Figure 5A) by 7.41, 11.03, and 14.16, and SMN (Figure 5B) by 2.68, 5.91, and 9.09%, compared to the control treatment. Moreover, BC application significantly (p < 0.05) decreased soil pH from control to 30 t ha−1 (Figure 5C). The average of two-year data indicated that the addition of 20 t ha⁻1 of BC considerably reduced soil pH compared to other BC levels and the control treatment. In contrast, the pH levels of soils amended with 10 t ha⁻1 and 30 t ha⁻1 of BC, as well as the control treatment, did not show any significant differences (Figure 5C). Similarly, the application of BC significantly (p < 0.05) reduced soil EC when compared to BC-untreated soil. Across years, a reduced soil EC was observed for soil amended with 30 t BC ha−1 as compared to the control treatment (Figure 5D).
Similarly, the application of N from different sources (organic and inorganic) considerably enhanced STN and SMN. In terms of STN (Figure 5E) and SMN (Figure 5F), both attributes showed improvement as N application levels increased from 90 to 150 kg N ha⁻1, irrespective of whether the sources were organic or inorganic. In particular, the sole application of 150 kg N ha⁻1 from organic sources, such as FYM and PM, led to increased STN and SMN by 18.37% and 20.88%, respectively, over the control treatment. Similarly, soil pH reduced significantly with N management when compared with the control treatment. It has been observed that irrespective of the source of N (organic or inorganic), it generally reduced soil pH when N levels increased from 90 to 150 kg N ha⁻1. However, the application of 150 kg N ha⁻1 solely from PM significantly lowered soil pH compared to other N levels and the control soil. The pH levels were recorded as the highest in the control soil and soils fertilized with 90 kg N ha⁻1 solely from urea, PM, and FYM (Figure 5G). Similarly, a combined analysis of variance also revealed significant differences in soil EC among N treatments. Generally, the soil with controlled N had the maximum EC, followed by soil amended with PM, FYM, and urea (Figure 5H). BC × N interaction indicated that the highest STN and SMN were observed with the combined application of 30 t BC and 150 kg N ha−1 from the PM source (Figure 6 and Figure 7). Moreover, the lowest soil pH (7.28) was observed in plots where 20 t BC and 150 kg N ha−1 from the PM source were applied (Figure 8). BC × N interaction indicated that the maximum soil EC (0.240 dS m−1) was recorded in the sample with 30 t BC and 90 kg N applied solely from urea. However, there were no significant changes among different levels of N applied from organic sources (Figure 9).
The year effect was also found to be significant for all the studied attributes, except soil pH and soil EC. The results showed that 2016–2017 was the best year in terms of improvement in SOC, SOM, BD, SOM, STN, and SMN, as compared with 2015–2016 (Table 1).

4. Discussion

In our study, the reduced bulk density (BD) in biochar (BC)-amended soil is due to the porous nature of BC, and it promotes the activity of soil faunas. The increased activity of soil faunas increases the soil pore volume. This aids in maintaining optimal soil structure, aeration, and water movement, which further leads to a reduction in soil BD. Burrell et al. [41] and Verheijen et al. [42] also reported similar findings in their studies. They reported that the BD of biochar is lower than soil BD, thereby reducing the BD of soil when incorporated in the soil. According to our study, the enhancement in SMC is mainly due to the presence of water in the pore spaces of applied BC, which has comparatively high porosity. This can be further explained by the existence of variations in soil BD among the treatments, as differences were observed in SMC among the plots modified with BC and the control. Previous studies also reported that the water retention of soil can be influenced by the addition of biochar, which modifies the BD of soil, as revealed by Castellini et al. [43]. Similarly, according to Laird et al. [44], soil amended with biochar retained 15% more moisture than control soil with no BC application. Furthermore, the high water-holding capacity of BC brought about by the presence of small pores that can retain more water also helps in withstanding water stress conditions [45,46].
Soil quality is dependent on various factors, among which soil organic carbon (SOC) content is considered crucial. In our study, we observed that the fused aromatic ring structure and the high resistance in BC may support the increase in SOC by enhancing C sequestration in the soil. Wang et al. [47] reported that BC is stable in soil and exhibits a slow decomposition rate. Consequently, its high resistance significantly contributes to its effectiveness in improving soil carbon sequestration [48]. The incorporation of organic manure in the soil can increase the quantity of organic matter, which might be the cause of improvement in soil organic matter (SOM). Bista et al. [49] supported our result, as they also observed reduced plant growth in treatments without BC. This is because soil with no biochar application caused a reduction in shoot and root biomass and eventually resulted in lower SOM accumulation. Increased SOM in BC-amended soil was also observed by Rawat et al. [50]. The increase in the total nitrogen content (STN) of the soil treated with biochar (BC) is the result of the favorable properties of BC, which enhance the fertility of soil mainly in two significant aspects: firstly, BC can provide essential nutrients, including but not limited to NPK, and secondly, it effectively retains some nutrients not only those present in the soil (particularly N) but also from fertilizers (both organic and inorganic). In support of our results, Rawat et al. [50] noted that biochar facilitates the sustained availability of nutrients like N, C, P, and K to plants by gradually releasing them after absorption. The study conducted by Kameyama et al. [51] provides additional support for the results of this investigation. They stated that BC has a strong affinity for ammonium (NH₄⁺) and nitrate (NO₃⁻), which helps maximize their retention time in soil. This potentially leads to the improved retention of nitrogen fertilizer in the soil. The nutritional profile of the soil can be modified by the addition of biochar, primarily by enhancing the availability of nutrients that are directly accessible to plants. Consequently, the increase in soil mineral nitrogen (SMN) in soils modified with biochar application can be associated with biochar’s multifunctional role. Yuan et al. [52] also reported results comparable to our findings. The incorporation of BC into soil resulted in a reduced rate of BC mineralization [53]. Various studies have reported differing effects: some observed a decline in net nitrogen (N) mineralization [54], while others noted an enhancement in net N mineralization [54]. Some findings indicated no significant changes in mineralization [55], while others suggested a slight influence on mineralization [56]. Additionally, in [57], the authors utilized 15N labeling to investigate N dynamics in plots amended with BC and found an increase in N mineralization associated with BC application. We also observed a reduction in soil pH in our study possibly due to the production of materials acidic in nature, which is the result of the oxidation and decomposition of BC in the soil. Cheng et al. [58] pointed out that biochar (BC) is not fully inert within the soil; it can oxidize, especially at its surface, due to chemical reactions and the activity of microorganisms. As a result, the generation of acidic functional groups can progressively decrease soil pH by counteracting soil alkalinity. This trend is reinforced by prior studies indicating that alkaline biochar application in soil decreases soil pH [59]. The decline in electrical conductivity (EC) in soil amended with BC could be linked to the reduced ash content present in wood-derived biochar. This result is consistent with Jalal’s findings [60], which showed that EC in plots treated with BC decreased by 20% and 40% after two years. Similarly, Kawsar et al. [61] observed a 20% and 41% decrease in EC in plots that incorporated BC.
We observed an increase in the SMC in the soil amended with organic manures. Specifically, the highest SMC was observed in FYM-amended soil, followed by PM-amended soil; this might be due to manure application, which increases the content of soil organic matter. The organic matter present in FYM likely contributed to stabilizing the structure of the soil, thereby reducing the bulk density while improving the SMC. Zhang et al. [62] reported a similar effect of farmyard manure (FYM) on enhancing soil moisture content (SMC). In another study, Singh et al. [63] also found that the levels of soil moisture were higher in plots treated with FYM. Their explanation for this increase was that FYM’s colloidal and hydrophobic properties probably improved the structure, aggregation, and soil water-retention ability. In the same vein, improvement in the physical structure of soil caused by the application of manure was also observed in this study. This may be caused by a high organic matter content (resulting from more organic matter through manure application), which increases soil aggregation (by bonding particles), causing the dilution of the soil. Mahmood et al. [64] also reported similar results. Consistent with our findings, Mbah et al. [65] reported a decrease in soil bulk density (BD), resulting from the incorporation of organic manures. According to Ahmad et al. [66], the application of organic manure individually or in combination with organic matter and inorganic fertilizers notably improved soil BD and increased porosity in soil. Furthermore, it also had a beneficial effect on soil conditions by mixing organic matter into the soil, which helped to reduce the overall soil mass.
The increment in the SOC as a result of FYM integration is because FYM is a rich source of organic carbon. Prior research has indicated that the application of manure is among the most effective methods to increase organic matter in soils and enhance carbon sequestration [67]. Similarly, Bhogal et al. [68] observed that organic manure leads to increased carbon accumulation across various soil types and climatic conditions. The rise in the SOC content in plots treated with organic manures may cause the accumulation of organic matter, which subsequently modifies soil properties, including its biological, physical, and chemical properties [69]. The role of organic manure in the accumulation of soil organic carbon (SOC) and carbon sequestration has been documented by Are et al. [70]. The enhancement in STN can be linked to the mineralization and residual effects of organic manure, which increases the nitrogen levels in the soil. Our findings are supported by Bhat [71], who noted that nitrogen from organic sources contributed to an increase in STN. Additionally, Iqbal et al. [5] demonstrated that organic manures positively influence soil quality compared to inorganic fertilizers, leading to increased nutrient release and availability (particularly nitrogen) for crop plants. Similarly, the results reported by Farid et al. [72] showed that the incorporation of organic nitrogen sources significantly enhanced chemical properties, including the soil total N and organic matter content, whereas there was minimal impact from artificial or mineral sources. The application of nitrogen from organic sources also significantly boosted SMN. The increased availability of nitrogen in plots with organic materials may result from enhanced nitrogen mineralization from these organic sources. Tabassum et al. [73] also reported elevated SMN levels due to the incorporation of organic amendments. Additionally, Alizadeh [74] observed that soil amended with PM exhibited significantly higher nitrogen mineralization compared to other organic sources. Furthermore, Cordovil et al. [75] pointed out that variations in nitrogen mineralization across different sources of organic manure may be due to differences in animal diets and the carbon-to-nitrogen (C/N) ratio of the organic materials. Poultry, which mainly feeds on grains and protein-rich cakes, generally exhibits a lower ratio of carbon-to-nitrogen ratio as compared to cattle, which mostly consume forages and straws that possess a higher C/N ratio [76]. Consequently, organic materials with a low C/N ratio encourage nitrogen mineralization [77], whereas those with a higher carbon-to-nitrogen ratio tend to promote the immobilization of N [78]. We observed that soil pH decreased when soil was amended with organic manure. The decomposition of these materials may have released organic acids and consequently caused a decrease in soil pH. Furthermore, the nitrification process results in fat accumulation with the application of more N, thereby producing more hydrogen ions that are subsequently added to the soil; this may be the cause for the observed decline in soil pH with more nitrogen application [79]. Furthermore, nitrogen management significantly influenced the electrical conductivity (EC) of the soil, with the highest EC recorded in the control group, followed by plots treated with poultry manure (PM), farmyard manure (FYM), and urea. Comparable results were also reported by Kawsar et al. [61].
The application of BC and N and their interaction improved soil chemical properties. This can be attributed to the fact that the surface oxidation of BC is supported by the incorporation of manures with BC at higher temperatures, predominantly at the start of the process. Further, it also modifies BC characteristics biotically due to the greater microbial activity during the decomposition of available carbon sources. Kuzyakov et al. [80] reported similar results, which support our findings.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrates that integrating biochar and nitrogen can effectively enhance soil fertility under the specific conditions tested. Biochar application reduced soil bulk density, increased moisture content, and improved soil structure, while nitrogen application, especially from organic sources, enriched soil organic carbon and nitrogen, and moderated soil pH. The synergistic effects observed between biochar and nitrogen suggest a promising strategy for improving soil fertility and sustainable agricultural productivity. These findings provide valuable insights into soil amendment practices, but further research is required to validate these results under varying conditions and optimize the application of biochar and nitrogen for broader agricultural systems.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.A.K. and A.B. (Abdul Basir); methodology, S.T.S. and M.u.H.; software, A.B. (Abdul Basit) and M.U.R.; validation, Y.H.D., R.M., A.J., and E.R.; formal analysis, Á.S. and H.Z.; investigation, M.A.K., A.B. (Abdul Basir), and M.u.H.; resources, A.J.; data curation, Á.S., H.Z., A.J., Y.H.D., and S.T.S.; writing—original draft preparation, A.B. (Abdul Basit), M.A.K., M.u.H., H.Z., M.U.R., and A.B. (Abdul Basir); writing—review and editing, A.J., Y.H.D., E.R., R.M., Á.S., and S.T.S.; visualization, Y.H.D.; supervision, S.T.S.; project administration, A.J.; funding acquisition, Á.S. and A.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP-2024R375), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the Researchers Supporting Project number (RSP-2024R375), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chen, D.; Yuan, L.; Liu, Y.; Ji, J.; Hou, H. Long-term application of manures plus chemical fertilizers sustained high rice yield and improved soil chemical and bacterial properties. Eur. J. Agron. 2017, 90, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bhatt, M.K.; Labanya, R.; Joshi, H.C. Influence of Long-term Chemical fertilizers and Organic Manures on Soil Fertility-A Review. Univers. J. Agric. Res. 2019, 7, 177–188. [Google Scholar]
  3. Barrow, C.J. Biochar: Potential for countering land degradation and for improving agriculture. Appl. Geogr. 2012, 33, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Khan, M.A.; Basir, A.; Saeed, B. Biochar Improves Phenological and Physiological Attributes of Wheat in Soil Amended with Organic and Inorganic Nitrogen Sources. Sarhad J. Agric. 2020, 36, 1010–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Iqbal, A.; He, L.; Khan, A.; Wei, S.; Akhtar, K.; Ali, I.; Ullah, S.; Munsif, F.; Zhao, Q.; Jiang, L. Organic manure coupled with inorganic fertilizer: An approach for the sustainable production of rice by improving soil properties and nitrogen use efficiency. Agronomy 2019, 9, 651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Amusan, A.O.; Adetunji, M.; Azeez, J.O.; Bodunde, J.G. Effect of the integrated use of legume residue, poultry manure and inorganic fertilizers on maize yield, nutrient uptake and soil properties. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2011, 90, 321–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Adhikari, P.; Khanal, A.; Subedi, R. Effect of different sources of organic manure on growth and yield of sweet pepper. Adv. Plants Agric. Res. 2016, 3, 158–161. [Google Scholar]
  8. Selim, M.M. Introduction to the Integrated Nutrient Management Strategies and Their Contribution to Yield and Soil Properties. Int. J. Agron. 2020, 2020, 2821678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Singh, N.J.; Athokpam, H.S.; Devi, K.N.; Chongtham, N.; Singh, N.B.; Sharma, P.T.; Dayananda, S. Effect of farm yard manure and press mud on fertility status of alkaline soil under maize-wheat cropping sequence. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2015, 10, 2421–2431. [Google Scholar]
  10. Sander, B.; Tarek, E. Biochar effect on the mineralization of soil organic matter. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 2012, 47, 665–671. [Google Scholar]
  11. Lehmann, J. Bio-energy in the black. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2007, 5, 381–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sohi, S.P.; Krull, E.; Lopez-Capel, E.; Bol, R. A review of biochar and its use and function in soil. Adv. Agron. 2010, 105, 47–82. [Google Scholar]
  13. Harter, J.; Krause, H.M.; Schuettler, S.; Ruser, R.; Fromme, M.; Scholten, T. Linking N2O emissions from biochar-amended soil to the structure and function of the N-cycling microbial community. ISME J. 2014, 8, 660–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ma, N.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, L.; Yu, C.; Yin, G.; Doane, T.A.; Wu, Z.; Zhu, P.; Ma, X. Biochar improves soil aggregate stability and water availability in a mollisol after three years of field application. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0154091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Duarte, D.J.S.; Glaser, B.; Pellegrino Cerri, C.E. Effect of biochar particle size on physical, hydrological and chemical properties of loamy and sandy tropical soils. Agronomy 2019, 9, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cayuela, M.L.; Sánchez-Monedero, M.A.; Roig, A.; Hanley, K.; Enders, A.; Lehmann, J. Biochar and denitrification in soils: When, how much and why does biochar reduce N2O emissions? Sci. Rep. 2013, 3, 1732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Shah, Z.; Shah, T. Residual effect of biochar on soil properties and yield of maize (Zea mays L.) under different cropping systems. Open J. Soil Sci. 2018, 8, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Palansooriya, K.N.; Wong, J.T.F.; Hashimoto, Y.; Huang, L.; Rinklebe, J.; Chang, S.X. Response of microbial communities to biochar-amended soils: A critical review. Biochar 2019, 1, 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Jing, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Han, I.; Wang, P.; Mei, Q.; Huang, Y. Effects of different straw biochars on soil organic carbon, nitrogen, available phosphorus, and enzyme activity in paddy soil. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 8837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mensah, A.K.; Frimpong, K.A. Biochar and/or compost applications improve soil properties, growth, and yield of maize grown in acidic rainforest and coastal savannah soils in Ghana. Int. J. Agron. 2018, 2018, 6837404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kizito, S.; Luo, H.; Lu, J.; Bah, H.; Dong, R.; Wu, S. Role of nutrient-enriched biochar as a soil amendment during maize growth: Exploring practical alternatives to recycle agricultural residuals and to reduce chemical fertilizer demand. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Domingues, R.R.; Sánchez-Monedero, M.A.; Spokas, K.A.; Melo, L.C.; Trugilho, P.F.; Valenciano, M.N.; Silva, C.A. Enhancing Cation Exchange Capacity of Weathered Soils Using Biochar: Feedstock, Pyrolysis Conditions and Addition Rate. Agronomy 2020, 10, 824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Qayyum, M.F.; Abdullah, M.A.; Rizwan, M.; Haider, G.; Ali, M.A.; Zafar-ul-Hye, M.; Abid, M. Different nitrogen and biochar sources’ application in an alkaline calcareous soil improved the maize yield and soil nitrogen retention. Arab. J. Geosci. 2019, 12, 664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ibrahim, M.M.; Tong, C.; Hu, K.; Zhou, B.; Xing, S.; Mao, Y. Biochar-fertilizer interaction modifies N-sorption, enzyme activities and microbial functional abundance regulating nitrogen retention in rhizosphere soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 739, 140065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Clough, T.J.; Condron, L.M. Biochar and the nitrogen cycle: Introduction. J. Environ. Qual. 2010, 39, 1218–1223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sarfraz, R.; Shakoor, A.; Abdullah, M.; Arooj, A.; Hussain, A.; Xing, S. Impact of integrated application of biochar and nitrogen fertilizers on maize growth and nitrogen recovery in alkaline calcareous soil. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2017, 63, 488–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Varela Milla, O.; Rivera, E.B.; Huang, W.J.; Chien, C.; Wang, Y.M. Agronomic properties and characterization of rice husk and wood biochars and their effect on the growth of water spinach in a field test. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2013, 13, 251–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wu, F.; Gai, Y.; Jiao, Z.; Liu, Y.; Ma, X.; An, L. The community structure of and lead (Pb) availability in a military camp in South West Ethiopia. Afr. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 10, 77–85. [Google Scholar]
  29. Major, J.; Rondon, M.; Molina, D.; Susan, J.R.; Lehmann, J. Maize yield and nutrition during 4 years after biochar application to a colombian savanna oxisol. Plant Soil 2010, 333, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ulyett, J.; Sakrabani, R.; Kibblewhite, M.; Hann, M. Impact of biochar addition on water retention, nitrification and carbon dioxide evolution from two sandy loam soils. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2014, 65, 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nigussie, A.; Kissi, E.; Misganaw, M.; Ambaw, G. Effect of biochar application on soil properties and nutrient uptake of lettuces (lactuca sativa) grown in chromium polluted soils. Am. Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2012, 12, 369–376. [Google Scholar]
  32. Arif, M.; Ilyas, M.; Riaz, M.; Ali, K.; Shah, K.; Haq, I.U.; Fahad, S. Biochar improves phosphorus use efficiency of organic-inorganic fertilizers, maize-wheat productivity and soil quality in a low fertility alkaline soil. Field Crops Res. 2017, 214, 25–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Reeb, J.E.; Milota, M.R. Moisture Content by the Oven-Dry Method for Industrial Testing; Western Dry Kiln Association: Corvallis, OR, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  34. Blake, G.R.; Hartge, K.H. Bulk density. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part I, 2nd ed.; Agronomy Monograph; Klute, A., Ed.; ASA and SSSA: Madison, WI, USA, 1986; Volume 9, pp. 363–375. [Google Scholar]
  35. Nelson, D.W.; Sommers, L.E. Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2; Agronomy Monographs 9; Page, A.L., Ed.; ASA and SSSA: Madison, WI, USA, 1982; pp. 539–579. [Google Scholar]
  36. McLean, E.O. Soil pH and lime requirement. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2—Chemical and Microbiological Properties, 2nd ed.; Page, A.L., Miller, R.H., Keeney, D.R., Eds.; Agron: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1982; Volume 9, pp. 199–223. [Google Scholar]
  37. Rhoades, J.D. Salinity: Electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids. In Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 3 Chemical Methods; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1996; Volume 5, pp. 417–435. [Google Scholar]
  38. Bremner, J.M.; Mulvaney, C.S. Nitrogen- Total. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2, Chemical and Microbiological and Properties, 2nd ed.; Page, A.L., Miller, R.H., Kenney, D.R., Eds.; ASA and SSSA: Madison, WI, USA, 1982; pp. 595–624. [Google Scholar]
  39. Keeney, D.R.; Nelson, D.W. Nitrogen-inorganic forms. In Merhodr of Soil Analysis. Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties; Page, A.L., Miller, R.H., Kenney, D.R., Eds.; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1982; p. 643698. [Google Scholar]
  40. Steel, R.G.D.; Torri, J.H. Principles and Procedures of Statistical Biometrical Approaches, 2nd ed.; Mc Graw Hill Book Company: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  41. Burrell, L.D.; Zehetner, F.; Rampazzo, N.; Wimmer, B.; Soja, G. Long term effects of biochar on soil physical properties. Geoderma 2016, 282, 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Verheijen, F.G.A.; Jeffery, S.; Bastos, A.C.; Van der Velde, M.; Diafas, I. Biochar Application to Soils: A Critical Scientific Review of Effects on Soil Properties, Processes and Functions; EUR 24099 EN; Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  43. Castellini, M.; Giglio, L.; Niedda, M.; Palumbo, A.D.; Ventrella, D. Impact of biochar addition on the physical and hydraulic properties of a clay soil. Soil Tillage Res. 2015, 154, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Laird, D.; Fleming, P.; Wang, B.; Horton, R.; Karlen, D. Biochar impact on nutrient leaching from a Midwestern agricultural soil. Geoderma 2010, 158, 436–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Brockhoff, S.R.; Christians, N.E.; Killorn, R.J.; Horton, R.; Davis, D.D. Physical and mineral-nutrition properties of sand-based turfgrass root zones amended with biochar. Agron. J. 2010, 102, 1627–1631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ali, S.; Rizwan, M.; Qayyum, M.F.; Ok, Y.S.; Ibrahim, M.; Riaz, M.; Arif, M.S.; Hafeez, F.; Al-Wabel, M.I.; Shahzad, A.N. Biochar soil amendment on alleviation of drought and salt stress in plants: A critical review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 12700–12712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wang, J.; Xiong, Z.; Kuzyakov, Y. Biochar stability in soil: Meta-analysis of decomposition and priming effects. Glob. Change Biol. Bioener. 2016, 8, 512–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Woolf, D.; Amonette, J.E.; Street-Perrott, F.A.; Lehmann, J.; Joseph, S. Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nat. Commun. 2010, 1, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bista, P.; Ghimire, R.; Machado, S.; Pritchett, L. Biochar effects on soil properties and wheat biomass vary with fertility management. Agronomy 2019, 9, 623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rawat, J.; Saxena, J.; Sanwal, P. Biochar: A sustainable approach for improving plant growth and soil properties. In Biochar-An Imperative Amendment for Soil and the Environment; Intech Open: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kameyama, K.; Iwata, Y.; Miyamoto, T. Biochar amendment of soils according to their physicochemical properties. Jpn. Agric. Res. Q. 2017, 51, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Yuan, H.; Lu, T.; Wang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Lei, T. Sewage sludge biochar: Nutrient composition and its effect on the leaching of soil nutrients. Geoderma 2016, 267, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Knoblauch, C.; Maarifat, A.A.; Pfeiffer, E.M.; Haefele, S.M. Degradability of black carbon and its impact on trace gas fluxes and carbon turnover in paddy soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2012, 43, 1768–1778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Castaldi, S.; Riondino, M.; Baronti, S.; Esposito, F.R.; Marzaioli, R.; Rutigliano, F.A. Impact of biochar application to a mediterranean wheat crop on soil microbial activity and greenhouse gas fluxes. Chemosphere 2012, 85, 1464–1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Schomberg, H.H.; Gaskin, J.W.; Harris, K.; Das, K.C.; Noval, J.M.; Busscher, W.J.; Watts, D.W.; Woodroof, R.H.; Lima, I.M.; Ahmedna, M.; et al. Influence of biochar on nitrogen fractions in a coastal plain soil. J. Environ. Qual. 2012, 41, 1087–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Dempster, D.N.; Gleeson, D.B.; Solaiman, Z.M.; Jones, D.L.; Murphy, D.V. Decreased soil microbial biomass and nitrogen mineralisation with eucalyptus biochar addition to a coarse textured soil. Plant Soil 2012, 354, 311–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Nelissen, V.; Rütting, T.; Huygen, D.; Staelens, J.; Ruysschaerta, G.; Boeckx, P. Maize biochars accelerate short-term soil nitrogen dynamics in a loamy sand soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2012, 55, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cheng, W.L.; Sung, Y.; Chen, B.C.; Lai, H.Y. Effects of nitrogen fertilizers on the growth and nitrate content of Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2008, 11, 4427–4440. [Google Scholar]
  59. Liu, X.H.; Zhang, X.C. Effect of biochar on pH of alkaline soils in the Loess Plateau: Results from incubation experiments. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2012, 14, 745–750. [Google Scholar]
  60. Jalal, F. Integration of Biochar and Legumes in Summer Gap for Enhancing Productivity of Wheat Under Cereal Based Cropping System. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Agriculture Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  61. Kawsar, A. Integrated Use of Biochar, FYM and Nitrogen Fertilizer for Enhancing Productivity of Cereal Based Cropping Pattern. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Agriculture Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  62. Zhang, J.B.; Yang, J.S.; Yao, R.J.; Yu, S.P.; Li, F.R.; Hou, X.J. The effects of farmyard manure and mulch on soil physical properties in a reclaimed coastal tidal flat salt-affected soil. J. Integr. Agric. 2014, 13, 1782–1790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Singh, S.; Jhorar, B.S.; Sheoran, H.S.; Tomar, D.; Grewal, K.S. Long-Term Effect of FYM Application on Aggregate Stability and Soil Moisture Retention in a Sandy Loam Soil under Pearl Millet-Wheat Rotation. Environ. Ecol. 2016, 34, 2551–2555. [Google Scholar]
  64. Mahmood, F.; Khan, I.; Ashraf, U.; Shahzad, T.; Hussain, S.; Shahid, M.; Abid, M.; Ullah, S. Effects of organic and inorganic manures on maize and their residual impact on soil physico-chemical properties. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2017, 17, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mbah, C.N.; Mbagwu, J.S.C. Effect of animal wastes on Physico-chemical properties of a dystric Leptosol and maize yield in southern Nigeria. Niger. J. Soil Sci. 2006, 16, 96–103. [Google Scholar]
  66. Ahmad, W.; Khan, F.; Naeem, M. Improvement in physical properties of eroded agricultural soils through agronomic management practices. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2014, 84, 850–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Farooqi, Z.U.R.; Sabir, M.; Zeeshan, N.; Naveed, K.; Hussain, M.M. Enhancing carbon sequestration using organic amendments and agricultural practices. In Carbon Capture Utilization and Sequestration; Intech Open: London, UK, 2018; Volume 17. [Google Scholar]
  68. Bhogal, A.; Nicholson, F.A.; Rollett, A.; Taylor, M.; Litterick, A.; Whittingham, M.J.; Williams, J.R. Improvements in the quality of agricultural soils following organic material additions depend on both the quantity and quality of the materials applied. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2018, 2, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Liu, Z.; He, T.; Cao, T.; Yang, T.; Meng, J.; Chen, W. Effects of biochar application on nitrogen leaching, ammonia volatilization and nitrogen use efficiency in two distinct soils. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2017, 17, 515–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Are, K.S.; Adelana, A.O.; Adeyolanu, O.D.; Oyeogbe, I.A.; Adelabu, L. Comparative effects of vetiver grass (Chrysopogon zizanioides) strips, vetiver mulch and veticompost on soil quality and erodibility of a sloping land. Agric. Trop. Subtrop. 2012, 45, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Bhat, Z.A. Effect of Organic and Inorganic Sources of Nutrition on Nitrogen and Potassium Dynamics in Soil. Doctoral Dissertation, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Indian, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  72. Farid, M.S.; Mamun, M.A.A.; Matin, M.A.; Jahiruddin, M. Combined effect of cowdung, poultry manure, dhaincha and fertilizers on the growth and yield of rice. J. Agrofor. Environ. 2011, 5, 51–54. [Google Scholar]
  73. Tabassum, S.; Reddy, K.S.; Vaishya, U.K.; Singh, M.; Biswas, A.K. Changes in organic and inorganic forms of N in a Typic Haplustert under soyabean-wheat system due to conjoint use of inorganic fertilizers and organic manures. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 2010, 58, 76–85. [Google Scholar]
  74. Alizadeh, P.; Fallah, S.; Raiesi, F. Potential N mineralization and availability to irrigated maize in a calcareous soil amended with organic manures and urea under field conditions. Int. J. Plant Prod. 2012, 6, 493–512. [Google Scholar]
  75. Cordovil, C.M.; Cabral, F.; Coutinho, J. Potential mineralization of nitrogen from organic wastes to ryegrass and wheat crops. Bioresour. Technol. 2007, 98, 3265–3268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Azeez, J.O.; Van Averbeke, W. Nitrogen mineralization potential of three animal manures applied on a sandy clay loam soil. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 5645–5651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. De Neve, S.; Sáez, S.G.; Daguilar, B.C.; Sleutel, S.; Hofman, G. Manipulating N mineralization from high N crop residues using on-and off-farm organic materials. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2004, 36, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Mary, B.; Recous, S.; Darwis, D.; Robin, D. Interactions between decomposition of plant residues and nitrogen cycling in soil. Plant Soil 1996, 181, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Aula, L.; Natasha, M.; Peter, O.; Jeremiah, M.; William, R. Effect of fertilizer nitrogen (N) on soil organic carbon, total N and soil Ph in long-term continuous winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2016, 47, 863–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kuzyakov, Y.; Subbotina, I.; Chen, H.; Bogomolova, I.; Xu, X. Black carbon decomposition and incorporation into soil microbial biomass estimated by 14C labeling. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2009, 41, 210–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Effect of biochar levels and nitrogen management on (A,E) soil organic carbon, (B,F) soil organic matter, (C,G) soil bulk density, and (D,H) soil moisture content, respectively. Different lowercase letters indicate significant variations among treatments (p ≤ 0.05). The error bars indicate the standard error.
Figure 1. Effect of biochar levels and nitrogen management on (A,E) soil organic carbon, (B,F) soil organic matter, (C,G) soil bulk density, and (D,H) soil moisture content, respectively. Different lowercase letters indicate significant variations among treatments (p ≤ 0.05). The error bars indicate the standard error.
Land 13 01869 g001
Figure 2. The interaction between BC and N over the years for soil organic carbon content. The error bars indicate the standard error.
Figure 2. The interaction between BC and N over the years for soil organic carbon content. The error bars indicate the standard error.
Land 13 01869 g002
Figure 3. The interaction between BC and N over the years relative to soil organic matter.
Figure 3. The interaction between BC and N over the years relative to soil organic matter.
Land 13 01869 g003
Figure 4. The interaction between BC and N over the years relative to soil moisture content.
Figure 4. The interaction between BC and N over the years relative to soil moisture content.
Land 13 01869 g004
Figure 5. Effect of biochar levels and nitrogen management on (A,E) soil total nitrogen, (B,F) soil mineral nitrogen, (C,G) soil pH, and (D,H) soil electrical conductivity. Different lowercase letters indicate significant variations among treatments (p ≤ 0.05). The error bars indicate the standard error.
Figure 5. Effect of biochar levels and nitrogen management on (A,E) soil total nitrogen, (B,F) soil mineral nitrogen, (C,G) soil pH, and (D,H) soil electrical conductivity. Different lowercase letters indicate significant variations among treatments (p ≤ 0.05). The error bars indicate the standard error.
Land 13 01869 g005
Figure 6. The interaction between BC and N over the years relative to soil total nitrogen content.
Figure 6. The interaction between BC and N over the years relative to soil total nitrogen content.
Land 13 01869 g006
Figure 7. The interaction between BC and N over the years relative to soil mineral nitrogen content.
Figure 7. The interaction between BC and N over the years relative to soil mineral nitrogen content.
Land 13 01869 g007
Figure 8. The interaction between BC and N over the years relative to soil pH.
Figure 8. The interaction between BC and N over the years relative to soil pH.
Land 13 01869 g008
Figure 9. The interaction between BC and N over the years relative to soil electrical conductivity.
Figure 9. The interaction between BC and N over the years relative to soil electrical conductivity.
Land 13 01869 g009
Table 1. Year-wise effect of biochar and nitrogen management on soil organic carbon, organic matter, bulk density, moisture content, total nitrogen, mineral nitrogen, pH, and EC.
Table 1. Year-wise effect of biochar and nitrogen management on soil organic carbon, organic matter, bulk density, moisture content, total nitrogen, mineral nitrogen, pH, and EC.
Attributes2015–20162016–2017Significance (α at 5%)
Soil organic carbon 0.721 b0.777 a **
Soil organic matter1.240 b1.337 a**
Soil bulk density1.445 a1.383 b**
Soil moisture content10.302 b11.101 a**
Soil total nitrogen0.074 b0.079 a*
Soil mineral nitrogen29.2 b31.1 a*
Soil pH7.497.52NS
Soil EC0.7340.735 NS
*, ** indicate significant data at 5%; NS: non-significant. Different lowercase letters denote significant variations among treatments (p ≤ 0.05).
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

Khan, M.A.; Basir, A.; Shah, S.T.; Rehman, M.U.; Hassan, M.u.; Zheng, H.; Basit, A.; Székely, Á.; Jamal, A.; Radicetti, E.; et al. Sustainable Soil Management in Alkaline Soils: The Role of Biochar and Organic Nitrogen in Enhancing Soil Fertility. Land 2024, 13, 1869. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111869

AMA Style

Khan MA, Basir A, Shah ST, Rehman MU, Hassan Mu, Zheng H, Basit A, Székely Á, Jamal A, Radicetti E, et al. Sustainable Soil Management in Alkaline Soils: The Role of Biochar and Organic Nitrogen in Enhancing Soil Fertility. Land. 2024; 13(11):1869. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111869

Chicago/Turabian Style

Khan, Mushtaq Ahmad, Abdul Basir, Syed Tanveer Shah, Monsif Ur Rehman, Mehmood ul Hassan, Hongbing Zheng, Abdul Basit, Árpád Székely, Aftab Jamal, Emanuele Radicetti, and et al. 2024. "Sustainable Soil Management in Alkaline Soils: The Role of Biochar and Organic Nitrogen in Enhancing Soil Fertility" Land 13, no. 11: 1869. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111869

APA Style

Khan, M. A., Basir, A., Shah, S. T., Rehman, M. U., Hassan, M. u., Zheng, H., Basit, A., Székely, Á., Jamal, A., Radicetti, E., Dewir, Y. H., & Mancinelli, R. (2024). Sustainable Soil Management in Alkaline Soils: The Role of Biochar and Organic Nitrogen in Enhancing Soil Fertility. Land, 13(11), 1869. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111869

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