Research Article

Received: 19 March 2018 Revised: 19 September 2018 Accepted article published: 27 September 2018 Published online in Wiley Online Library: 29 October 2018

(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/jsfa.9380

Impact of biochar and compost amendment on

soil quality, growth and yield of a replanted
apple orchard in a 4-year field study
Mahdi Safaei Khorram,a* Gan Zhang,a Akram Fatemi,b Rudolf Kiefer,c
Kamalodin Maddah,d Mujtaba Baqar,e Mohamad Pauzi Zakariaf and
Gang Lig

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have addressed the positive effects of organic amendments on soil and plant productivity
under short-term field studies. However, to date, few studies have been conducted on the effects of organic amendment on the
orchards where high nutrient bioavailability is required. This study deals with the effects of biochar and compost on soil quality,
growth and yield of a replanted apple orchard in the northeast of Iran.
RESULTS: Biochar+compost application resulted in 37% and 300% higher soil total organic carbon and available phosphorus
content, respectively, during the first 3 years of experimentation compared to control. Similarly, trunk diameter and shoot
number of apple trees increased 23–26% by the end of the first year. Nevertheless, there were no significant changes in
fruitfulness, fruit weight or starch pattern index as productivity indices.
CONCLUSION: Biochar and compost were beneficial in improving soil quality, mainly by increasing soil nutrient content and
decreasing soil bulk density, and in increasing plant growth at early growth stages of apple orchards. However, they failed to
enhance overall yield and fruit quality, most likely due to their limited ability to suppress apple replant disease.
© 2018 Society of Chemical Industry

Keywords: biochar; compost; soil health; vegetative growth

INTRODUCTION and compost could positively affect the soil quality, leading
The production of commercial apple has attracted more attention to possible higher plant growth and crop yields, especially for
during last two decades, particularly in southwest Asian countries poor and acidic soils with low organic carbon and high nutrient
including Iran, categorized as the fifth largest apple producer leaching.4,8,9
with 130 291 ha commercial apple orchards.1 Nevertheless, pro- Nevertheless, the effects of organic amendment on tree growth,
ductivity of the apple trees is relatively low (12.8 t ha−1 , ranked biomass production and nutritional status under replantation con-
ditions, where replant disease (RD) is considered a major problem,
ninth in productivity), principally affected by the replantation of
apple orchards, most likely due to apple replant disease (ARD)2,3
as the main disease in replanted orchards, and overuse of syn- ∗ Correspondence to: M Safaei Khorram, State Key Laboratory of Organic Geo-
thetic macro- and micro-fertilizers as well.4 ARD is a soil-borne
chemistry, Guangzhou Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
disease that affects replanted young apple trees, with symptoms Guangzhou 510640, China. E-mail: [email protected]
of suppressed plant growth, lower yield and poor fruit quality.5
The excessive long-term use of synthetic fertilizers also increases a State Key Laboratory of Organic Geochemistry, Guangzhou Institute of Geo-
chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou, China
the risk of soil texture deterioration,4 resulting in soil nutrient
imbalance and lower water-holding capacity (WHC).6 b Department of Soil Science, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran
Recently, the application of organic fertilizers such as biochar c Conducting Polymers in Composites and Applications Research Group, Faculty
and compost as part of the green agriculture concept has been of Applied Sciences, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
widely recognized because of their potential benefits, i.e. improv- d Fifth Technical and Vocational Training Organization Center (Hospitality and
ing soil physical properties and enriching the soil microbial Tourism), Mashhad, Iran
community.7–9 These positive effects generally include the e Sustainable Development Study Centre, Government College University,
introduction of higher amounts of nutrients into the soil envi- Lahore, Pakistan
ronment and positive changes in soil chemical properties such f Institute of Ocean and Earth Sciences, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur,
as increasing pH and cation exchange capacity (CEC), higher Malaysia
water and nutrient-holding capacity and lower bulk density g CAS Key Lab of Urban Environment and Health, Institute of Urban Environment,
1862

(BD).8–11 Moreover, reports found that the application of biochar Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xiamen, China

J Sci Food Agric 2019; 99: 1862–1869 www.soci.org © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry
Impact of biochar and compost amendment on a replanted apple orchard www.soci.org

have not been fully understood, especially in semi-arid regions.

Table 1. Physical and chemical properties of applied biochar and
The specific objectives of this study were to evaluate whether compost
organic amendment to a replanted apple orchard may alleviate
ARD symptoms by improving (i) tree growth and (ii) fruit yield. It Garden
was hypothesized that the observed increases in apple yield (if any) Hardwood debris
would be related to (i) the significant improvement of soil chemical Biochar/compost properties chips biochara compostb
properties rather than soil physical characteristics and (ii) higher
pH 9.7 ± 0.60 7.22 ± 0.40
tree vegetative growth. For this purpose, soil parameters (pH, CEC,
Carbon content (g kg−1 ) 519.50 ± 21.7 206.40 ± 3.70
WHC and BD), plant growth (shoot number, trunk diameter and
Total nitrogen content 8.6 ± 0.50 13.70 ± 0.90
leaf nutrients) and fruit yield (fruitfulness and fruit weight) factors (g kg−1 )
were assessed during four annual growing seasons (2014–2017) in Total potassium (K) content 69.8 ± 3.80 12.10 ± 0.70
a field experiment in the northeast of Iran. (g kg−1 )
Phosphorus (P) content 7.30 ± 0.60 3.20 ± 0.21
(g kg−1 )
MATERIALS AND METHODS Calcium (Ca) content 47.20 ± 4.90 17.90 ± 2.10
Experimental site (g kg−1 )
A 1000 m2 field site at pilot research fields of the Technical Bulk density (g cm−3 ) 0.33 ± 0.05 0.573 ± 0.40
and Vocational Trading Organization (TVTO) in Abravan Village, SSA (m2 g−1 ) 129.50 ± 10.20 –
Mashhad, Iran (59∘ 36′ E, 36∘ 16′ N) was selected for field exper- Ash content (%) 19.80 ± 2.10 –
imentation. The mean annual temperature and precipitation at Total pore volume (cm3 g−1 ) 0.69 ± 0.09 –
the nearby meteorological station (Abravan Olya station; approxi- Micro pore volume 0.061 ± 0.010 –
(cm3 g−1 )
mately 3 km from the experimental site) were 354 mm and 14.8 ∘ C
Particle size distribution 500–900 800–1900
(2014), 361 mm and 16.3 ∘ C (2015), 348 mm and 15.3 ∘ C (2016), (μm)
and 339 mm and 15.7 ∘ C (2017), respectively. The soil was classi- Moisture content (%) 7.8 ± 0.20 34.1 ± 1.70
fied as a Haplic Regosol with 63% skeleton, 41.1% clay, 21.5% silt Water-holding capacity (g – 4.1 ± 0.40
and 37.4% sand. The soil characteristics were: BD, 1.83 g cm –3 ; pH, water g−1 dry sample)
6.4; total N, 0.51‰; total organic carbon (TOC), 1.28%; available K, Porosity (%) – 63.52 ± 3.80
174 mg kg−1 ; available P, 1.89 mg kg−1 ; and WHC, 14%. The exper-
a Hardwood biochar produced from 5–10 cm pruned branches of
imental site had planted with apple trees of an extremely low
Birch sp. through pyrolysis at 800 ∘ C for 30 min.
yielding variety since 1984. Therefore the orchard was replanted b Compost was produced from green cutting and mushroom bedding
in 2014 with a local apple tree variety. materials.

Trial run experimental design

The trial run was a randomized complete block with four different and compost was obtained from a local company in Tehran,
treatments (control, biochar-amended plots, compost-fed plots Iran. The pH was measured using a Corning pH 10 portable pH
and biochar+compost-amended plots) with three replicates. meter (Acton, MA, USA). TOC was determined using the method
Three weeks after the removal of old trees (September 2013), explained by Venegas et al.12 Total N (TN) was analyzed by dry
ploughed soil was amended with biochar, compost or their mix- combustion elemental analyzer (model 42IQ, Thermo Fisher
ture at application rates of 10, 25 and 10 + 25 t ha−1 , respectively. Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA).10 Total K content was measured
Soil amendments were applied up to 30 cm depth of soil layer after extraction with H2 SO4 and HClO4 using a flame photometer
and in a 0.5 m radius of each previously planted tree. The orchard (TCVN 4053-81), and total P was determined according to the
was replanted 4 months later (January 2014) with 3-year-old Olsen method.13 Particle size distribution, specific surface area
(∼2 m tall) nursery-grown apple trees of native ‘Bijandi Akhlamad (SSA), total pore volume (TPV) and micropore volume (MPV)
T 101’ variety and irrigated via micro-sprayers during the growing were characterized according to procedure explained by Yu
season (February to October) at a rate of 250 L h−1 for 4 h (approx- et al.14 Before use, the biochar was soaked with deionized water
imately 100 mm) every 9 days. If there was rain, the amount of (biochar:water 1:50, w/v), and the mixture was stirred at 250 rpm
irrigation was adjusted to have no more than the mentioned for 10 min at room temperature. The washed biochar was then
value in each irrigation cycle. Fertilizer application included NPK recovered by centrifugation, followed by oven drying at 105 ∘ C
(10:4:23) applied in March (spring) and decomposed cow manure for 24 h.15 Physicochemical properties of the tested biochar and
in December (winter) at rates of 200 kg ha−1 and 2 kg per tree, compost are summarized in Table 1.
respectively. Ground vegetation was sprayed with Etrymfos® (EC
(Emulsifiable concentrate) 50%; at a rate of 1 L ha−1 ) and Dactal Soil nutrient analysis
(WP (Wettable powder) 75%; at a rate of 5 kg ha−1 ) fortnightly in
Soil samples were taken between 10 and 17 October every year.
March as recommended insecticide (for weevil control) and herbi-
Briefly, six random soil samples (1.5 kg each) were collected from
cide, respectively. Later, ground vegetation was cut on a monthly
three plots in every treatment (40 cm apart from each tree) down
basis from April to September (annually) to avoid pest outbreak.
to 20 cm. Collected samples were thoroughly mixed and 1.5 kg
soil was taken for analysis after homogenizing and air-drying. TOC
Biochar and compost preparation and properties and TN were measured using a dry combustion element analyzer
Hardwood chips and garden debris (green cutting and mushroom) (Thermo Fisher Scientific) as previously described by Vaccari
were employed to produce biochar and compost, respectively. et al.10 Briefly, the soil particles were ground to <0.5 mm size and
1863

Biochar was produced through fast pyrolysis at 800 ∘ C for 30 min inorganic C was completely removed. Available phosphorus (Pava )

J Sci Food Agric 2019; 99: 1862–1869 © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa
 www.soci.org M Safaei Khorram et al.

and potassium (Kava ) contents were determined using a flame organic amendment from 2014 to 2016, whereas changes in
photometer (TCVN 4053-81) according to previously described pH and CEC remained insignificant during the whole study
method by Olsen et al.13 CEC, pH and BD were also determined in period (P > 0.05; Table 2). The greatest effects were observed in
soil samples following the methods prescribed elsewhere.14 biochar+compost treatment, whereas the application of compost
alone was found to have the least effect. For instance, TOC content
Growth parameters of apple tree and fruit sampling increased from 1.28% to 41%, 28% and 13% at the end of the
first year in biochar+compost, biochar and compost treatments,
The effects of biochar, compost and their mixture on apple
respectively. Likewise, the addition of biochar+compost improved
tree growth were evaluated by measuring tree vegetative factors
Pava and Kava from 1.89 and 174.7 g kg−1 in unamended soil to 5.76
(shoot number, annual shoot growth and tree trunk diameter), leaf
and 236.7 g kg−1 after a year, respectively, while compost applica-
nutrient content (N, P and K) and apple yield (fruitfulness, fruit
tion increased these two values by 1.3 and 11 g kg−1 , respectively,
yield and starch pattern index) between 1 and 10 October every
during the same period (Table 2). It is noteworthy that TOC, TN
year). All of these parameters were measured for three trees per
and Kava remained significantly higher than corresponding values
treatment and the outer trees of the treatment rows were ignored
in control until the end of the third year (2016), whereas Pava
to avoid edge effects. Trunk diameter was determined at a height
remained significantly higher in amended treatments than the
of 30 cm from the ground in two perpendicular directions. Since
control until the end of experimentation period (2017).
similar apple trees were chosen on planting days, there was no
significant difference in mean trunk diameter of the treatments
Effects of organic amendments on tree growth and yield
(5.9 ± 0.3 cm, P < 0.05). Shoot number and their growth in each
tree were measured according to the national horticultural perfor- The application of compost, biochar and biochar+compost
mance test. As a normal commercial practice in Iran, during the first influenced tree growth and yield factors variably (Fig. 1). Similar
2 years of apple trees growth fruitlets were manually removed to the results of soil experiments, biochar+compost showed
and the first apples were harvested in the third year of the exper- the greatest effects on all tested factors, whereas compost
iment when the actual age of each apple tree was 6 years. Leaf showed the least effects on all measured parameters except trunk
nutrient contents were determined by collecting healthy leaves diameter. Organic amendments significantly increased trunk
with no sign of disease or nutrient deficiencies from 10 shoots diameter from 6.14 cm in control to 6.80, 7.42 and 7.66 cm in
in the middle of each tree. Collected leaves were immediately biochar-treated, compost-treated and biochar+compost-treated
oven dried at 50 ∘ C for 48 h, and finally 1 g of crushed leaves was plots, respectively, at the end of the first year (Fig. 1). The vari-
used for the determination of N, P and K content using an ele- ations in trunk diameter remained significant until the end of
mental analyzer (Vario Max, Hanau, Germany) and inductively cou- the third year, when trees trunk diameters in compost, biochar,
pled plasma –optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES; iCAP 7200 and biochar+compost-amended treatments were 23%, 20% and
ICP-OES, Vista MPX; Varian Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA), respectively.10 13% higher, respectively, than that of control. The application of
Fruitfulness (number of fruit setting per 100 flower clusters)3 was biochar+compost also slightly increased annual shoot numbers
measured by counting all flower clusters and following fruit setting from 19.23 to 24.23 and from 22.53 to 27.70 during the first and
from each tree in June and July, respectively, during the third second years of study, respectively (Fig. 1). The effects of organic
and fourth experimental years (2016–2017). Apple yield was also amendments on leaf phosphorus (LP) and leaf potassium (LK)
determined as the number of fruit per day and average fruit content were also significant only during the first year, when these
weight. For the measurement of starch pattern index, as a standard values were 80% and 47% higher than control, respectively.
method for measuring the quality of mature apple fruits,3 15 However, biochar and compost, alone or in combination, did not
apples per treatment plots were sampled and potassium iodide show any positive effect on annual shoot growth and leaf nitrogen
adsorbed area was assessed on a 1–10 scale basis using an content during the experimentation period (Fig. 1). Similarly, no
image analysis system.16 Usually, starch in apple fruit reaches its significant effects on tree fruitfulness, fruit weight and starch index
accumulation peak prior to maturation, and higher starch presents were observed during the last 2 years (Fig. 2).
higher quality and durability of apple fruits.17
DISCUSSION
Statistical analysis Effects of organic amendments on soil physicochemical
All data were subjected to one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) properties
at a significance level of P < 0.05 using SPSS 16.0 software (SPSS, Elevated TOC, TN and Pava content during first 3 years of the exper-
Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Normality and homogeneity of variances iment, and raised Kava levels during first 2 years of the study,
were tested by Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Levene median tests, were in agreement with previous studies reporting an enhance-
and mean values were separated using Duncan’s multiple range ment of agricultural soil quality due to biochar–compost substrate
test (DMRT) set at 0.05 confidence level. Data analysis was per- application.8,15 Previously, the addition of 10% and 20% pine-wood
formed on a yearly basis, as weather conditions, including annual biochar to a clay loam soil was reported to increase the soil NO−3
temperature and precipitation rate, were different during experi- and K+ content.3 Similarly, one-time application of biochar in acidic
mentation years. soil could continuously increase the bioavailability of K+ , Ca2+ and
Mg2+ until the end of the fourth year because of the higher abil-
ity of soil–biochar mixture to retain nutrients in their microporous
RESULTS and macroporous structures.18 Higher soil nutrient content could
Effects of organic amendments on soil quality be initially due to direct addition of biochar and compost through
Biochar and compost, alone and in combination, improved soil the immediate increase of nutrient supply, followed by higher
physical and chemical properties during the first 3 years (Table 2). nutrient adsorption on the surface of biochar/compost particles in
1864

Values of TOC, TN, Pava and Kava significantly increased following the upper soil profile and slower desorption of adsorbed nutrients

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry J Sci Food Agric 2019; 99: 1862–1869
Impact of biochar and compost amendment on a replanted apple orchard www.soci.org

Table 2. Effect of soil amendment treatments (control, biochar, compost and biochar+compost) on soil physicochemical properties in 4-year field
experiment (2014–2017)

TOC TN Pava Kava CEC WHC BD

Year Treatment (%) (‰) (mg kg−1 ) (mg kg−1 ) pH (cmol kg−1 ) (%) (g cm3–1 )

1st Control Mean 1.28a 0.51a 1.89a 174.67a 6.40 11.88 14.00 a 1.83 a
SD 0.08 0.13 0.29 18.77 0.26 0.73 2.65 0.12
Biochar Mean 1.66bc 0.80b 4.95c 219.67ab 6.73 12.95 17.00 a 1.60 ab
SD 0.07 0.08 0.26 18.15 0.35 0.60 1.23 0.11
Compost Mean 1.45ab 0.88b 3.13b 185.00ab 6.53 12.06 16.00 a 1.65 a
SD 0.09 0.08 0.13 25.51 0.25 0.60 1.00 0.15
Biochar+Compost Mean 1.76c 0.98b 5.76c 236.67b 6.77 13.03 20.33 b 1.39 b
SD 0.06 0.07 0.46 22.03 0.38 0.67 1.51 0.10
P-value *** ** *** * ns ns * *
2nd Control Mean 1.27a 0.51a 1.96a 178.33a 6.33 11.96 13.67 a 1.89 a
SD 0.06 0.07 0.21 15.57 0.25 0.56 2.08 0.21
Biochar Mean 1.56c 0.77b 4.70c 206.67ab 6.67 12.28 14.23 a 1.71 a
SD 0.05 0.10 0.22 12.01 0.38 0.62 1.23 0.06
Compost Mean 1.42b 0.84b 2.96b 182.00a 6.50 12.03 15.00 a 1.78 a
SD 0.10 0.07 0.22 13.53 0.46 0.59 1.65 0.11
Biochar+Compost Mean 1.70d 0.85b 4.98c 227.00b 6.70 12.57 18.67 b 1.52 b
SD 0.10 0.06 0.53 19.97 0.40 0.41 1.52 0.09
P-value *** ** *** * ns ns * *
3rd Control Mean 1.27a 0.51a 1.91a 175.67 6.47 11.97 13.33 1.91
SD 0.07 0.06 0.27 23.50 0.25 0.69 2.52 0.13
Biochar Mean 1.46b 0.69b 4.47c 195.33 6.53 12.08 15.00 1.73
SD 0.08 0.17 0.30 15.82 0.31 0.70 2.65 0.13
Compost Mean 1.36ab 0.74b 2.79b 177.67 6.50 11.99 14.33 1.80
SD 0.08 0.09 0.30 12.01 0.46 0.33 1.53 0.11
Biochar+Compost Mean 1.63c 0.82b 4.68c 216.67 6.53 12.36 16.00 1.75
SD 0.07 0.18 0.41 14.50 0.59 0.34 2.00 0.12
P-value *** ** *** ns ns ns ns ns
4th Control Mean 1.28 0.52 1.92a 180.33 6.37 11.85 13.00 1.95
SD 0.08 0.04 0.21 22.68 0.35 0.55 1.73 0.19
Biochar Mean 1.31 0.58 4.09b 189.33 6.40 11.97 14.00 1.82
SD 0.09 0.03 0.14 20.53 0.30 0.48 2.65 0.18
Compost Mean 1.29 0.64 2.43a 183.67 6.40 11.91 13.67 1.86
SD 0.08 0.06 0.21 20.50 0.40 0.80 1.53 0.15
Biochar+Compost Mean 1.51 0.71 4.36b 206.67 6.50 12.22 14.67 1.83
SD 0.11 0.13 0.33 21.55 0.30 0.21 2.08 0.13
P-value ns ns ** ns ns ns ns ns

Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Duncan’s test at P < 0.05. Data are the average of three replicates.
Kava , available potassium; Pava , available phosphorus; BD, bulk density; CEC, cation exchange capacity; TOC, total organic carbon; TN, total nitrogen;
WHC, water-holding capacity; SD, standard deviation.

during following years.19 However, in neutral soils, where nutri- lower soil compaction and higher water adsorption capacity dur-
ent retention is relatively high,20,21 the positive effects of biochar ing participation or irrigation cycles.22,23 Furthermore, since these
on nutrient availability might be low during the first 3 years after organic compounds contain greater microbial communities, par-
soil amendment, as observed in this experiment.16,21 Nevertheless, ticularly filamentous fungi,11 higher microbial activities proba-
the increase in TN during the first year of this study was inconsis- bly accelerate the soil particle aggregation to entrap more water
tent with other studies. This could be partially due to the addi- molecules and decelerate their downward movement.24 However,
tion of decomposed cow manure with high amounts of organic this effect was not observed during the last 2 years, most likely due
N in winter (December 2014), allowing soil microbes to degrade to soil compaction.17,23
organic compounds in the presence of appropriate amounts of Lack of significant changes in pH and CEC during the study could
precipitation.15 However, this phenomenon needs to be further be due partly to (i) neutralization of the liming effect of applied
studied. biochar/compost by acidic compounds produced through the oxi-
Significantly, increased WHC and decreased BD in biochar+ dation of the biochar/compost particle surface,25 as the amount
compost treatment during the first and second years could be of added biochar and compost at the beginning of this study was
most likely due to the highly porous and void structure, and lower relatively low compared to other studies,3 and/or (ii) near-neutral
1865

bulk density of biochar/compost than soil particles, resulting in pH of tested soil (6.4), since a significant increase in soil pH after

J Sci Food Agric 2019; 99: 1862–1869 © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa
 www.soci.org M Safaei Khorram et al.

First year First year

Second year Second year
Third year Third year
Fourth year Fourth year
50 50

ns ns

Annual shoot growth (Cm)

40 40
ns
Shoot numbers

ns
30 30
ab
a a
a a ab
20 a
a 20 ns

10 10
ns

0 0
Control Biochar Compost Biochar+Compost Control Biochar Compost Biochar+Compost
Treatments Treatments

First year First year

Second year Second year
Third year Third year
Fourth year Fourth year
9.0 2.8

8.5 ns
Leaf nitrogen content (%)
b
Trunk diameter (Cm)

8.0 2.4
b c
7.5 c ns
c
ab
c
7.0 b 2.0 ns
a ns
6.5 b ns
a
6.0 a 1.6

5.5
1.2
5.0
Control Biochar Compost Biochar+Compost
Control Biochar Compost Biochar+Compost
Treatments Treatments

First year
First year Second year
Second year Third year
Third year Fourth year
Fourth year
2.5
0.6
b
Leaf potassium content (%)

2.0
Leaf phosphorus content (%)

0.5 ab
a
ns
1.5 a ns
0.4
b b ns

0.3 1.0
a
ns
0.2 a ns 0.5
ns

0.1 0.0
Control Biochar Compost Biochar+Compost Control Biochar Compost Biochar+Compost
Treatments Treatments

Figure 1. Treatment effects on plant growth (shoot number, annual shoot growth and trunk diameter) and leaf nutrient content (N, P, K) in 4-year field
experiment (2014–2017). Different letters indicate significant differences and ‘ns’ indicates nonsignificant differences among the four treatments of the
same year according to Duncan’s test at P < 0.05.

organic amendments usually occurs in acidic soils.8,11 Therefore, Effects of organic amendment on tree growth parameters
although organic amendment increased the soil nutrient content Positive effects on some of the apple tree growth factors, includ-
and soil physical properties, insignificant changes in pH and ing LK and LP content (first year), shoot numbers (first 2 years)
CEC probably limited the bioavailability of added nutrients and and trunk diameter (first 3 years), were observed in biochar-
1866

consequent uptake of nutrients by apple tree roots. and compost-treated soils. These findings are in agreement

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry J Sci Food Agric 2019; 99: 1862–1869
Impact of biochar and compost amendment on a replanted apple orchard www.soci.org

Control Control
Biochar Biochar
Compost Compost
Biochar+Compost Biochar+Compost
80 240
Fruitfulness (fruit per 100 flower)

ns
70
200 ns

Average fruit weight (g)

60 ns
50 160

40 ns
120
30
80
20

10 40

0
0
Third year Fourth year
Third year Fourth year

Control
Biochar
Compost
Biochar+Compost
8

7
ns
Starch pattern index

6 ns

0
Third year Fourth year

Figure 2. Apple yields (fruitfulness, average fruit weight and starch pattern index) in biochar, compost and biochar+compost-amended treatments. ‘ns’
indicates nonsignificant differences among the four treatments of the same year according to Duncan’s test at P < 0.05.

with previous studies evaluating the effects of biochar and com- the positive effects of biochar on tree vegetative growth under
post on vegetative growth of perennial trees.3,10,17,25,26 It has been replant conditions could be mainly attributed to lower concen-
shown that the application of 47 Mg ha−1 Acacia whole tree green tration of phytotoxic phenolic compounds28 or detoxification of
waste biochar along with compost increased apple tree trunk allelochemicals29 in biochar-amended soils, resulting in higher
girth by 10% and 15% relative to control by the end of the first root biomass.2 Nevertheless, this needs to be further studied since
and fourth years, respectively, whereas the effects of compost soil phenolic compounds and root biomass were not assessed in
or biochar alone on growth parameters remained insignificant this study.
until the end of the third year.17 Similarly, Jeffery et al.25 reported Although vegetative growth of apple trees was influenced pos-
relatively higher above-ground biomass production when the itively by organic amendment, no significant effects on yield and
biochar was applied along with inorganic fertilizers. Therefore, fruit quality of apple trees were observed, similar to other results
higher growth of trees in organic-amended treatments could previously reported.3,17,26,30 For instance, the addition of organic
be attributed partly to (i) direct addition of nutrients to the soil, fertilizer in a peach orchard resulted in 20–32% higher root pro-
since biochar and compost usually undergo immediate oxida- duction but there were no observable positive effects on fruit
tion after application, resulting in greater nutritional ion release quantity or quality during the whole study period.30 Similarly, soil
from their surfaces;11,26 (ii) lower nutrient leaching, most likely amendment with combined biochar and compost under replant
because of their higher absorptive surface area compared to soil conditions did not improve the number of fruit, average fruit
particles;27 and (iii) higher water availability, which leads to higher weight or fruit yield efficacy in a 4-year experiment.17 On the
1867

bioavailability of soluble nutrients in the upper soil layer. However, other hand, application of 10 Mg ha−1 ordinary manure (without

J Sci Food Agric 2019; 99: 1862–1869 © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa
 www.soci.org M Safaei Khorram et al.

any biochar treatment) improved the fruit yield and quality of 5 Henfrey JL, Baab G and Schmitz M, Physiological stress responses
‘Golden Delicous’ apples planted in a sandy soil with low car- in apple under replant conditions. Sci Hortic 194:111–117
(2015).
bon content.31,32 Hence the unaffected fruit yield of apple trees 6 Ahmadi AR, Shahbazi S and Diyanat M, Efficacy of five herbicides for
in this study, which rejected the hypothesis that organic amend- weed control in rain-fed lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.). Weed Technol
ment may improve the fruit yield of replanted apple trees, could 30:448–455 (2016).
be partly associated with low instant improvement in bioavail- 7 Khorram MS, Wang Y, Jin X, Fang H and Yu Y, Reduced mobility of
ability of nutrients after organic amendment in soil due to the fomesafen through enhanced adsorption in biochar-amended soil.
Environ Toxicol Chem 34:1258–1266 (2015).
near-neutral pH of tested soil (6.4).7,11 Furthermore, although it was 8 Khorram MS, Zhang Q, Lin D, Zheng Y, Fang H and Yu YL, Biochar: a
reported that the addition of biochar can affect the colonization review of its impact on pesticide behavior in soil environments and
of roots by beneficial microorganisms such as mycorrhizal fungi,3 its potential applications. J Environ Sci 44:269–279 (2016).
there is no evidence that biochar could suppress the abundance 9 Schulz H, Dunst G and Glaser B, Positive effects of composted biochar
on plant growth and soil fertility. Agron Sustain Dev 33:814–827
of soil pathogens involved in ARD prevalence in multi-generation
(2013).
apple orchards. Therefore, even though soil fertility could be the 10 Vaccari FP, Maienza A, Miglietta F, Baronti S, Di Lonardo S, Giagnoni L
main outcome of organic amendment in low-nutrient soils, the et al., Biochar stimulates plant growth but not fruit yield of process-
application of organic fertilizers does not necessarily improve ing tomato in a fertile soil. Agric Ecosyst Environ 207:163–170 (2015).
the yield of replanted apple trees, especially those cultivated in 11 Lehmann J, Rillig MC, Thies J, Masiello CA, Hockaday WC and Crow-
ley D, Biochar effects on soil biota: a review. Soil Biol Biochem
relatively fertile soils, principally due to the presence of endo- 43:1812–1836 (2011).
phytic fungi as the main factor responsible for yield reduction of 12 Venegas A, Rigol A and Vidal M, Viability of organic wastes
replanted apple orchards.33 and biochars as amendments for the remediation of heavy
metal-contaminated soils. Chemosphere 119:190–198 (2015).
13 Olsen S, Cole C, Watanabe F and Dean L, Estimation of available
phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate, in USDA
CONCLUSION Circular No. 939. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
Based on the present study, the application of biochar and com- (1954).
post separately or as a mixture increased some soil properties, pre- 14 Yu XY, Ying GG and Kookana RS, Sorption and desorption behav-
dominantly during the first 2 years of application, with the great- ior of diuron in soil amended with charcoal. J Agric Food Chem
54:8545–8550 (2006).
est positive effects for the biochar+compost treatment. More- 15 Khorram MS, Fatemi A, Khan MDA, Kiefer R and Jafarnia S, Potential
over, the effects of the tested organic amendments on vege- risk of weed outbreak by increasing biochar’s application rates in
tative growth of replanted apple trees were significantly posi- slow-growth legume, lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.). J Sci Food Agric
tive mainly during the first year. However, apple tree yield was 98:2080–2088 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.8689.
not increased by biochar and compost, alone or in combina- 16 Quilliam RS, Marsden KA, Gertler C, Rousk J, DeLuca TH and Jones
DL, Nutrient dynamics, microbial growth and weed emergence
tion. Therefore, biochar and compost could be beneficial at early in biochar amended soil are influenced by time since applica-
growth stages of replant apple orchards, but not recommended tion and reapplication rate. Agric Ecosyst Environ 158:192–199
for higher yield in replanted apple orchards, especially in fer- (2012).
tile soils, where the positive effects of biochar on soil strength 17 Eyles A, Bound SA, Oliver G, Corkrey R, Hardie M, Green S et al.,
Impact of biochar amendment on the growth, physiology and
are limited. Nonetheless, the possible mechanisms underlying fruit of a young commercial apple orchard. Trees 29:1817–1826
biochar-induced plant responses, particularly in production sys- (2015).
tems with a high nutrient demand, need to be studied further for a 18 Zhang D, Yan M, Niu Y, Liu X, van Zwieten L, Chen D et al., Is current
fuller understanding. biochar research addressing global soil constraints for sustainable
agriculture? Agric Ecosyst Environ 226:25–32 (2016).
19 Major J, Rondon M, Molina D, Riha SJ and Lehmann J, Maize yield and
nutrition during 4 years after biochar application to a Colombian
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS savanna oxisol. Plant Soil 333:117–128 (2010).
This study was supported by the National Science Founda- 20 Jones DL, Rousk J, Edwards-Jones G, DeLuca TH and Murphy DV,
tion of Iran (No. IRI-2118472) and Environmental Protection Biochar-mediated changes in soil quality and plant growth in a
Program Foundation of Khorasan Province (EPKP-19572). We three year field trial. Soil Biol Biochem 45:113–124 (2012).
21 Griffin DE, Wang D, Parikh SJ and Scow KM, Short-lived effects of
sincerely thank the Environmental Science and Engineering walnut shell biochar on soils and crop yields in a long-tern field
Department at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou (China) for sup- experiment. Agric Ecosyst Environ 236:21–29 (2017).
plying the biochar, Nouroz Start-up Company for providing 22 Larney FJ and Angers DA, The role of organic amendments in soil
compost, Technical and Vocational Training Organization (TVTO) reclamation: a review. Canadian J Soil Sci 92:19–38 (2012).
23 Khorram MS, Zheng Y, Lin D, Zhang Q, Fang H and Yu Y, Dissipa-
in Mashhad (Iran) for providing the experimental fields and lab tion of fomesafen in biochar-amended soil and its availability to
instruments, and Mr Sasan Jafarnia for providing labor assistance. corn (Zea mays L.) and earthworm (Eisenia fetida). J Soil Sediment
16:2439–2448 (2016).
24 Gul S, Whalen JK, Thomas BW, Sachdeva V and Deng H,
REFERENCES Physico-chemical properties and microbial responses in biochar-
1 FAOSTAT, 2015. FAOSTAT. Crop data. [Online]. Available: amended soils: mechanisms and future directions. Agric Ecosyst
http://faostat3.fao.org/download/Q/QC/E [15 October 2018]. Environ 206:46–59 (2015).
2 Atucha A and Litus G, Effect of biochar amendments on peach replant 25 Jeffery S, Verheijen FFA, van der Velde M and Bastos AC, A quantitative
disease. Hortscience 50:863–868 (2015). review of the effects of biochar application to soils on crop pro-
3 von Glisczynski F, Sandhage-Hofmann A, Amelung W and Pude R, ductivity using meta-analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 144:175–187
Biochar–compost substrates do not promote growth and fruit (2011).
quality of a replanted German apple orchard with fertile Halpic 26 Laghari M, Saffar Mirjat M, Hu Z, Fazal S, Xiao B, Hu M et al., Effect
Luvisol soils. Sci Hortic 213:110–114 (2016). of biochar application rate on sandy desert soil properties and
4 Baronti S, Alberti G, Vedove GD, di Gennaro F, Fellet G, Genesio L et al., sorghum growth. Catena 135:313–320 (2015).
The biochar option to improve plant yields: first results from some 27 Sorrenti G, Ventura M and Toselli M, Effect of biochar on nutrient
field and pot experiments in Italy. Ital J Agron 5:3–11 (2010). https:// retention and nectarine tree performance: a three-year field trial.
1868

doi.org/10.4081/ija.2010.3. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 179:336–346 (2016).

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry J Sci Food Agric 2019; 99: 1862–1869
Impact of biochar and compost amendment on a replanted apple orchard www.soci.org

28 Wang Y, Pan F, Wang G, Zhang G, Wang Y, Chen X et al., Effects 31 Amiri ME and Fallahi E, Impact of animal manure on soil chemistry,
of biochar on photosynthesis and antioxidative system of Malus mineral nutrients, yield, and fruit quality in ‘Golden Delicious’ apple.
hupehensis Rehd. seedlings under replant conditions. Sci Hortic J Plant Nutr 32:610–617 (2009).
175:9–15 (2014). 32 Manici LM, Kelderer M, Franke-Whittle IH, Rühmer T, Baab G, Nico-
29 Zhu D and Pignatello JJ, Characterization of aromatic compound sorp- letti F et al., Relationship between root-endophytic microbial com-
tive interactions with black carbon (charcoal) assisted by graphite as munities and replant disease in specialized apple growing areas in
a model. Environ Sci Technol 39:2033–2041 (2005). Europe. App Soil Ecol 72:207–214 (2013).
30 Baldi E, Toselli M, Eissenstat DM and Marangoni B, Organic fertilization 33 Crane-Droesch A, Abiven S, Jeffery S and Torn MS, Heterogeneous
leads to increased peach root production and lifespan. Tree Physiol global crop yield response to biochar: a meta-regression analysis.
30:1373–1382 (2010). Environ Res 8:44–49 (2013).

1869

J Sci Food Agric 2019; 99: 1862–1869 © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa