Biochar (2021) 3:213–227

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42773-020-00081-z

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Surface‑applied or incorporated biochar and compost combination

improves soil fertility, Chinese cabbage and papaya biomass
Justine Cox1,2 · Nguyen V. Hue1 · Amjad Ahmad1 · Kent D. Kobayashi1

Received: 27 May 2020 / Accepted: 5 December 2020 / Published online: 29 January 2021
© The Author(s) 2021

Abstract
Many Hawaiian agricultural soils are acidic with low-nutrient retention; therefore, organic soil amendments are often used to
improve soil properties and increase yields. Amendments can be incorporated for annual crops, but perennial orchards need
surface application to avoid damaging surface roots. Pot trials compared responses to incorporated (IBC) or surface-applied
(SBC) combination of hardwood biochar and chicken manure compost (4% v/v of each amendment) added to an Andisol
and Oxisol. Soil pH was increased by 0.4–1.1 units in IBC and by 0.2–0.5 for SBC in the 0–10 cm soil layer. Both SBC and
IBC increased soil total N, extractable P, Ca and Mg in the 0–10 cm soil layer. Soil pH, total C and extractable Ca were also
higher in the 10–20 cm soil layer for IBC soil, indicating movement and/or leaching of amendments. Chinese cabbage bio-
mass was 18–70% higher in the IBC and 14–47% higher in the SBC than that in the unamended soil, while papaya biomass
was 23% and 19% higher in SBC and IBC, respectively. There was a greater response in the more acidic Andisol soil, with
larger improvements in soil pH, plant nutrient uptake and root biomass than the Oxisol. Surface application was as effec-
tive in increasing plant growth as the incorporated amendment, providing evidence for farm scale assessment. Biochar and
compost are recommended for use in tropical soils, and surface application may be beneficial to annual and perennial crops.

Keywords Surface-applied · Andisol · Oxisol · Carica papaya · Brassica rapa chinensis · Biochar

1 Introduction soil amendments play an important role in adding nutrients,

improving nutrient retention, and reducing soil acidity in
Many Hawaiian agricultural soils are constrained by low vegetable, fruit and nut production in Hawaii (Ahmad et al.
fertility and lack of nutrient retention due to weathering 2016; Hue and Silva 2000), including commodities such as
in the tropical climate. Andisols (developed from volcanic pineapples, coffee and macadamias.
ash, pumice and cinder) typically have a high organic mat- Biochar, composts and manures have been identified as
ter content, very high P sorption capacity and are low in Ca, specific amendments to improve soil properties and crop
Mg and K, creating a potentially P- and Ca-deficient soil, production in Hawaii (Ahmad et al. 2014a; Berek and Hue
whereas Oxisols (developed from basaltic lava) are low in 2016; Escobar and Hue 2008). The benefits of biochar
nutrients, and have high Fe and Al oxides, which reduce cat- application to soils have been shown to be due to increased
ion retention (Uehara and Ikawa 2000). Therefore, organic moisture retention (Karhu et al. 2011; Sun and Lu 2014),
increased nutrient retention (Berek et al. 2018; Glaser and
Lehr 2019; Zheng et al. 2013), improved soil pH (Slavich
Supplementary Information The online version contains et al. 2013; Van Zwieten et al. 2010, 2015), and improved
supplementary material available at https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4277​ soil microbial status (Lehmann et al. 2011; Palansooriya
3-020-00081​-z.
et al. 2019). However, biochar application is not universally
* Justine Cox successful in overcoming soil limitations, or increasing crop
[email protected]; [email protected] yields, with many examples of no effects (Jeffrey et al. 2011)
perhaps due to the recalcitrant and low-nutrient properties
1
Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Hawaii, 3190 of many biochars (Brassard et al. 2019).
Maile Way, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA
Compost nutrients and labile organic matter are seen as
2
Present Address: NSW Department Primary Industries, 1243 complementary properties to the porous structure and high
Bruxner Highway, Wollongbar, NSW 2477, Australia

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
214 Biochar (2021) 3:213–227

surface area of biochar and provide synergistic effect (Fis- and porous structure of biochar (Rumpel et al. 2015; Wang
cher and Glaser 2012; Liu et al. 2012). Attempts to exam- et al. 2013). It is, therefore, suggested that a combination of
ine this effect under different soil types, crops, biochar and biochar with compost could reduce this risk of lateral move-
compost types and climates often found the highest rate of ment. Substantial vertical movement of incorporated biochar
biochar and compost combinations substantially increased has also been shown, with 50% of biochar recovered below
crop yields and improved soil properties (Agegnehu et al. the incorporated zone in a sandy soil (Haefele et al. 2011)
2017; Di et al. 2019; Doan et al. 2015; Kammann et al. 2016; and 3.8–21.8% recovered in a range of soil types (Singh
Manolikaki and Diamadopoulos 2019; Sadegh-Zadeh et al. et al. 2015). Singh et al. (2015) suggested that the movement
2018). Recent studies have ascertained that the combination of the fine particulate or the dissolved labile components
is superior to the amendments on their own due to increased of the biochar contributed to the recovered biochar carbon.
water-holding capacity, increased nutrient retention and We hypothesised that the application of a combination
nutrient use efficiency (especially N), improved soil pH and of wood waste biochar and chicken manure compost would
CEC, decreased soil bulk density, increased soil macro- increase availability and plant uptake of nutrients in two
aggregates, and suppressed disease (Agegnehu et al. 2015, soils constrained by low-nutrient holding capacity and
2016a, b; Akmal et al. 2019; Cao et al. 2018; Jien et al. poor fertility. We also aim to explain some of the processes
2018; Khorram et al. 2019; Liu et al. 2019; McDonald et al. involved in the effects of the combination amendment. To
2019; Novak et al. 2019; Sánchez-Monedero et al. 2019). address these hypotheses, we compared incorporated and
In Hawaii, several biochar and compost combinations sig- surface applications of a combination of wood waste biochar
nificantly increased soil pH, reduced Al, Mn and Fe in the and chicken manure compost on the growth and nutrient
Oxisol, and for both the Oxisol and Ultisol, increased P, K uptake of an annual (Chinese cabbage) to represent typical
and Ca, overcoming many plant limitations to growth (Berek incorporation and a perennial (papaya) for typical surface
et al. 2018). application methods.
The benefits of biochar and compost applications are
mostly described for amendments that have been incorpo-
rated into soil, enabling close contact between all the com-
ponents. Unfortunately, in established perennial crops (e.g. 2 Materials and methods
trees), it is not possible to incorporate amendments due to
substantial surface roots and established interrow ground- 2.1 Soil, biochar and compost characteristics
cover species which would be damaged with incorporation
(Oo et al. 2018; Paulin and O’Malley 2008). The option for The Oxisol (Very fine, kaolinitic, isohyperthermic rhodic
these crops is limited to surface application, which relies haplustox, Wahiawa series) was sourced from central Oahu,
on movement of soluble nutrients with rainfall/irrigation, and taken from the top 20 cm from the Poamoho Research
then biological bioturbation and vertical transport of sol- Station of the University of Hawaii at Manoa. The Andisol
utes/particles over time (Major et al. 2010). Application of (Medial over pumiceous or cindery, ferrihydritic, isother-
biochar and compost to the soil surface of a banana planta- mic typic hapludand, Tantalus series) was sourced from
tion (Bass et al. 2016) and a macadamia orchard (Galanti the Lyon Arboretum of the University of Hawaii at Manoa.
et al. 2019) showed little difference in yield after 12 and The two soils’ properties are shown in Table 1. Soils were
7 months, respectively, suggesting surface application may air dried and sieved through a 4-mm mesh, then pH and
not be effective in this time frame, or that the amendments EC were measured using 1:5 water extract, total C and N
did not address a constraint of those soils. using LECO combustion, available P and K using Mehlich
Valid comparisons between surface and incorporated 3 extraction, bulk density (BD) using mass of known volume
applications of biochar mixes are scant and require further and water-holding capacity (WHC) using moisture content
investigation (Bass et al. 2016). Information on the fate of of a gravity-drained saturated soil. Chicken manure compost
biochar and compost as surface-applied amendments is lim- from an aerated process using windrows was sourced from
ited. There is evidence that surface wildfire char infiltrates a commercial supplier (Niu Nursery). The compost had a
the soil, where the dissolved fraction is mobile with rainfall C:N ratio of 17.6 and further characteristics are shown in
over time, and particulate char rate of vertical movement Table 1. The biochar was processed by the Landscape Ecol-
from 3 to 30 mm per year has been measured (Rumpel et al. ogy Corp from mixed hardwood pruning from Hilo, Hawaii,
2015). However, this contrasts with significant surface bio- and heated to a maximum temperature of 450 °C for 2 h
char losses due to erosion after field surface application, (properties shown in Table 1). The biochar total functional
of 7–55% (Rumpel et al. 2009) and 20–53% (Major et al. groups averaged 0.58 mmol/g with carboxylic, phenolic
2010). The risk is high for biochar lateral movement, espe- and lactonic groups at 0.22, 0.27 and 0.10 mmol/g, with a
cially down slope after rainfall events, due to the low density cation exchange capacity (CEC) of 14.7 (Berek et al. 2018).

13
Biochar (2021) 3:213–227 215

Table 1  Soil and amendment properties at start of trial (pH and EC determined on 1:5 extract, total C and N determined by LECO combustion,
available P and K by Mehlich 3 extraction)
pH (water) EC (dS/m) C (%) N (%) P (mg/kg) K (mg/kg) BD (g/cm3) WHC (%)

Biochar 8.4 1.63 49.81 0.46 978 3954 0.52 –

Compost 7.0 3.23 29.37 1.67 6801 5440 0.87 –
Andisol 6.0 0.15 2.52 0.17 5.3 137 0.74 32
Oxisol 6.9 0.30 1.45 0.14 147.2 447 0.92 35

Compost and biochar were air dried and sieved through a the compost and biochar amendments were mixed and then
4-mm mesh. immediately placed on the soil surface. For the incorporated
The applied amendment was a 1:1 compost:biochar blend treatment (IBC), the mixed amendments were thoroughly
by volume on a dry matter basis and combined at the trial mixed with the soil (0–10 cm layer), and placed above the
establishment. The dry rate of biochar and compost applica- 10–20 cm layer. The biochar contributed 78 mg N, 17 mg
tion was calculated as 4% by volume each, and were com- P and 67 mg K (total) per pot, and the compost contributed
bined together just prior to the application to the soil (all 473 mg N, 192 mg P and 154 mg K (total) per pot. The pots
treatments were calculated to fill 1.53 l per pot). Therefore, were watered and left to equilibrate for 3 days.
16.9 g of biochar and 28.3 g compost (dry weight) were used The pots were planted on 28 November 2017 with Chi-
per pot. In the Andisol, there was 1.4 kg soil/pot and 1.6 kg/ nese cabbage seedlings or with papaya (Carica papaya
pot in the Oxisol. The rates of biochar and compost were cv Sunrise) seedlings (n = 4) making a total of 48 pots (1
the equivalent in the Andisol of 14.8 t/ha and 26.0 t/ha (dry plant/pot). Seedlings were started 3 weeks prior to trans-
weight) and 18.4 t/ha and 32 t/ha in the Oxisol. planting using 50 cells trays and Sunshine peatmoss. Pots
were hand watered every other day for the first 4 weeks,
2.2 Experimental site and design and then watered daily to the end of the trial, according to
a regime for each soil type and crop. Water was provided
The glasshouse trial was conducted at Magoon’s greenhouse to achieve field capacity and limit plant wilting; therefore,
facility of the University of Hawaii at Manoa (37 25.82′ N, some water leaching was observed. By harvest, Chinese cab-
122 05.36′ W). Tree pots (10 × 10 × 34 cm tapered, 2.65 l) bage had 3350 ml/pot of water for Andisol and 3650 ml/
were used to conduct the pot trials. The experimental design pot for Oxisol applied. Papaya plants had 6150 ml/pot of
consisted of two soils (Oxisol and Andisol) with two amend- water for Andisol and 6790 ml/pot for Oxisol applied. Plant
ment placements (surface, incorporated) compared to con- above ground biomass was harvested after 8 weeks for Chi-
trols (unamended) with four replicates. Treatments were nese cabbage and 14 weeks for papaya, dried at 70 °C till it
established, and each replicate pot was placed randomly on reached constant weight and weighed. The surface amend-
benches (blocks) in a randomised complete block design ment remaining on top of the SBC treatments that was loose
(RCBD). was carefully removed and discarded, where the amendment
was not embedded and part of the soil profile. This meant
2.3 Pot trial 1, Nov 2017 that the IBC and SBC would not be comparable in terms
of absolute C contribution from the amendments. The pot
The mineral fertilisers required for the two soil types were was cut horizontally with a knife at the 10 cm line to split
calculated from both the initial soil analysis and the require- the 0–10 and 10–20 cm layers. Roots from both layers were
ments to grow Chinese cabbage, Brassica rapa chinensis separated from the soil, placed in bags and refrigerated until
group, cv. (Mei Qing). The plant required 200 mg/kg soil assessment. Soil was collected, air dried and sieved to pass
of N, which was applied as urea (711 mg urea/pot, and a 2-mm mesh.
therefore, 320 mg N/pot) for the Oxisol and NPK 16–16–16
(1.75 g/pot, and therefore, 280 mg N/pot) for the Andisol. 2.4 Pot trial 2, May 2018
This was sufficient NPK for crop growth for both soils.
The 10–20 cm layers were prepared separately from the The second pot trial was a replication of the 1st trial using
0–10 cm soil layers. Mineral fertiliser was mixed with each Chinese cabbage crop only, and the two soil types, with
soil and placed into the 10–20 cm layer of each pot at lab identical methodology. The repeat experiment was per-
determined bulk density. For the 0–10 cm layer, the con- formed only on the short-term crop, in a different season to
trol and surface treatments were the same, with soils mixed examine this influence. Three-week-old Chinese cabbage
with mineral fertiliser. For the surface treatment (SBC), seedlings were transplanted on 1 May 2018, 3 days after

13
216 Biochar (2021) 3:213–227

initial watering and equilibrating. Plants were watered 3 Results

every other day for the first 2 weeks and then daily. By
harvest, 6030 ml/pot of water for Andisol and 6390 ml/pot 3.1 Chinese cabbage
for Oxisol had been applied. Plants were harvested after
5 weeks as growth was faster in the warmer season, and 3.1.1 Soil
soil and root samples were collected from each layer for
each pot, as described in the first pot trial. Both surface-applied (SBC) and incorporated (IBC)
amendments significantly increased soil pH, total C, P,
Ca, and Mg in the 0–10 cm soil layer at harvest, when
2.5 Soil analyses both soil types were combined. In the 10–20 cm layer,
both amendments only significantly increased Mg con-
Total C and N were determined by combustion using a centration. In addition, only IBC significantly increased
LECO C–N analyser (TruSpec CN). Soil available nutri- total N and ­NO 3–N concentrations in the 0–10 cm soil
ents P, Na, Mg, K, and Ca were determined by Mehlich 3 layer, and total C, pH, Ca in the 10–20 cm layer. The IBC
extraction (2.0 g in 20 ml) as described by Mehlich (1984) also significantly reduced K concentration at 10–20 cm.
and measured using an ICP spectrometer (PerkinElmer Only SBC significantly increased K concentration in the
Optima series). Soil pH and EC were measured in a 1:1 0–10 cm layer and P concentration in the 10–20 cm layer.
mixture of soil and deionised water (20 g and 20 ml), after In some cases, there were interactions with soil type, with
shaking for an hour using a HANNA pH/EC combo meter. the Andisol responding differently than the Oxisol.
Soil nitrate ­(NO3–N) and ammonium ­(NH4–N) concen- In the Andisol, pH was significantly increased with both
trations were also measured on 1:1 soil and water mix- IBC and SBC in the 0–10 cm layer, but only IBC in the
ture, after shaking for an hour, using Vernier ion-selective Oxisol. At harvest in trial 1, the Andisol’s pH increased by
electrodes. At each time of measurement, the electrodes 0.31 units for SBC and 0.77 units for IBC (Table 2). In the
were calibrated using calibration solution and a calibration Oxisol, pH significantly increased by 0.39 units for IBC.
curve was established using set of solutions with known Even though there were no amendments in the 10–20 cm
­NO3 and ­NH4 concentrations. layer, soil pH was significantly higher in this layer for the
IBC amended Andisol soil. In trial 2, both IBC and SBC
significantly increased pH in the 10–20 cm layer (Table 3).
2.6 Plant harvest and nutrient analyses Soil EC in trial 1 was not different to the unamended
soil in the 0–10 cm layer (Table 2). In the 10–20 cm layer
At harvest, the above ground biomass was dried to 70 °C with the IBC and SBC, soil EC were 88% and 50% sig-
for 72 h or until a constant weight was reached. Each plant nificantly higher than that in the unamended in the Oxisol,
biomass was finely ground, ashed at 500 °C for 4 h, then dis- respectively. Just in the IBC, soil EC was significantly
solved in 0.01 M HCl solution (0.25 g in 20 ml). The extract higher (2.3 times) than that in the unamended Andisol. In
solution was analysed for P, Na, Mg, K, and Ca using an ICP. trial 2, soil EC was significantly higher in the IBC soils
Total N was determined using the LECO analyzer. Total (64%) than that in the unamended for the 0–10 cm layer in
nutrient uptake per plant was calculated by multiplying con- the Andisol (Table 3).
centration with dry biomass weight. Roots were shaken to Soil C was 47% significantly higher with the IBC
remove most soil from both the 0–10 and 10–20 cm layers. amendment than that in the unamended Andisol soil in the
Each root mass was air dried on paper, then the remaining 0–10 cm layer for trial 1 (Table 2). The Oxisol C content in
attached dried soil was separated from the roots and just the the IBC was 87% significantly higher than that in the una-
roots visually ranked for biomass on a scale of 1–5 (small mended Oxisol soil. The total C value of the SBC was not
to large) for each soil and crop type as described by Walters a comparable measure, however, due to the sampling pro-
and Wehner (1994). cess of removing the remaining surface amendment before
soil analyses. In trial 2, however, SBC did significantly
increase soil C content in the 0–10 cm layer for both soil
2.7 Statistics types (Table 3). Total soil C had significantly increased in
the 10–20 cm layer in the Andisol (22%) compared to the
A two-way factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) was con- unamended, despite no amendment present initially, which
ducted, using the STATISTIX V10, for each crop to compare was also seen in trial 1.
the effects of amendment and soil type on each parameter. Total N was only significantly higher in the IBC than
Tukey’s mean separation was used at 5% probability for the that in the unamended soil in the 0–10 cm layer of the
significant parameters.

13
Biochar (2021) 3:213–227 217

Table 2  Soil chemical Andisol Oxisol

properties at harvest of Chinese
cabbage (trial 1 established Control Incorp Surface Control Incorp Surface
in November 2017) for both
0–10 cm and 10–20 cm layers 0–10 cm
for the two soil types (n = 4) pH (water) 5.57e 6.34c 5.89d 6.84b 7.23a 7.01ab
and significance of treatment EC (dS/m) 0.25b 0.35ab 0.26ab 0.45ab 0.46a 0.41ab
effect (different letters signify a
statistical difference at p < 0.05 NO3–N (mg/kg) 1.05c 9.18c 2.55c 18.1b 36.5a 23.8b
along each row) NH4–N (mg/kg) 0.23ab 0.13b 0.30ab 0.30ab 0.33ab 0.40a
Total C (%) 2.16bc 3.18a 2.48ab 1.33c 2.50ab 2.05bc
Total N (%) 0.16b 0.19a 0.17ab 0.15b 0.18ab 0.17ab
P (mg/kg) 16.3d 24.6d 22.7d 94.5c 150.9b 184.8a
K (mg/kg) 71d 120d 116d 604b 481c 764a
Ca (mg/kg) 1227d 3313b 1836c 2115c 3763a 3884a
Mg (mg/kg) 654cd 750ab 705bc 548e 626d 787a
10–20 cm
pH (water) 5.41c 5.79b 5.55bc 6.52a 6.57a 6.45a
EC (dS/m) 0.27d 0.62b 0.38cd 0.42c 0.79a 0.63b
NO3–N (mg/kg) 1.10b 2.15b 3.79b 22.9ab 43.8a 30.4ab
NH4–N (mg/kg) 3.11ab 0.18b 7.04a 0.23b 0.20b 0.27b
Total C (%) 2.09b 2.56a 1.97b 1.32c 1.39c 1.41c
Total N (%) 0.16ab 0.18a 0.16ab 0.15b 0.15b 0.16b
P (mg/kg) 16.0c 18.4c 17.6c 93.9b 99.7b 128.5a
K (mg/kg) 117bc 58c 176b 321a 191b 332a
Ca (mg/kg) 1195c 2149b 1299c 2213ab 2853ab 2915a
Mg (mg/kg) 632bc 739a 703ab 520d 543cd 719ab

Table 3  Soil chemical Andisol Oxisol

properties at harvest of Chinese
cabbage (trial 2 established Control Incorp Surface Control Incorp Surface
in May 2018) for the two soil
types (n = 4) and significance of 0–10 cm
treatment effect (different letters pH (water) 5.32d 5.89c 5.73c 6.33b 6.73a 6.64a
signify a statistical difference at EC (dS/m) 0.14c 0.23b 0.17c 0.29a 0.28ab 0.29ab
p < 0.05 along each row)
NO3–N (mg/kg) 4.57b 6.64ab 6.54ab 4.50b 8.67a 8.15a
NH4–N (mg/kg) 0.1c 0.1c 0.1c 0.33a 0.25b 0.2b
Total C (%) 1.56c 3.04a 1.96b 1.30c 2.90a 2.18b
Total N (%) 0.10bc 0.11bc 0.08c 0.09c 0.13b 0.17a
P (mg/kg) 4.03c 5.20c 3.47c 101b 107a 101b
K (mg/kg) 102c 57c 115c 504a 361b 392b
Ca (mg/kg) 608d 1939b 1163c 1726b 2552a 2312a
Mg (mg/kg) 611b 723a 654b 424d 532c 512c
10–20 cm
pH (water) 5.32e 5.55d 5.52d 6.15c 6.62a 6.41b
EC (dS/m) 0.24 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.26 0.23
NO3–N (mg/kg) 15.21 6.23 19.33 4.26 4.46 3.06
NH4–N (mg/kg) 2.38a 0.1b 0.58ab 0.4b 0.1b 0.1b
Total C (%) 1.54abc 1.73a 1.57ab 1.29d 1.45bcd 1.31cd
Total N (%) 0.11bc 0.08cd 0.07d 0.10bcd 0.13ab 0.16a
P (mg/kg) 4.34b 4.05b 4.30b 103a 99a 96a
K (mg/kg) 229b 45c 145bc 491a 242b 225b
Ca (mg/kg) 635 1057b 931b 1753a 1875a 1788a
Mg (mg/kg) 639a 644a 681a 376b 400b 384b

13
218 Biochar (2021) 3:213–227

Andisol for trial 1, but both IBC and SBC significantly higher biomass than the unamended in the Oxisol. The IBC
increased N in the Oxisol compared to the unamended soil had 92% significantly higher biomass than the unamended
in trial 2 (Tables 2 and 3). Nitrate N was only significantly in the Andisol.
higher in the IBC (50%) than that in the unamended in the The soil amendments had only a small impact on the plant
0–10 cm layer of the Oxisol for trial 1, but both IBC and nutrient concentration at harvest (Supplementary material
SBC (48%, 45%) significantly increased Nitrate N than the 1). Total N in the plants was significantly lower in the IBC
unamended in trial 2. than that in the unamended Andisol, in trial 1. In the Andisol
Both IBC and SBC amendments significantly increased soil, plant Ca was significantly higher in the IBC than that in
soil nutrients P, Ca, Mg in the 0–10 cm layer of the Oxisol, the unamended in trial 1 and plant K was significantly higher
whereas in the Andisol only Ca was significantly higher in the SBC than that in the unamended in trial 2. In the Oxi-
than that in the unamended soil in trial 1 (Table 2). In the sol, there were no other differences for plant K, P and Mg.
Oxisol, K significantly reduced in the IBC but significantly Calculated total plant nutrient uptake, however, was sig-
increased in the SBC compared to the unamended soil. Soil nificantly higher in the SBC for N, K, Ca, Mg, plus also in
P was 96% significantly higher in the SBC and 60% signifi- the IBC for Ca in trial 1 (Table 4) given the influence of
cantly higher in the IBC than that in the unamended Oxisol plant size. In trial 2, plant uptake of N, P, K and Ca were all
soil in the 0–10 cm layer, and even 37% significantly higher significantly higher in both IBC and SBC.
in the SBC than that in the unamended in the 10–20 cm layer
in trial 1. In trial 2, for soil nutrients P, Mg in the 0–10 cm 3.1.3 Chinese cabbage roots
layer of two soil types, only IBC was significantly higher
than the unamended. Soil Ca was significantly higher in both The majority of the roots were in the 10–20 cm layer for
IBC and SBC than that in the unamended. the Oxisol and the Andisol had roots distributed through
both layers. Overall, in the 0–10 cm layer, both SBC and
3.1.2 Chinese cabbage biomass IBC resulted in higher root biomass than the unamended
(up to double) for both trial dates (Fig. 2). In the 10–20 cm
Combining both soil types and dates, dry weight plant bio- soil layer, however, only the IBC resulted in significantly
mass was significantly higher in both IBC and SBC, than higher root biomass than the unamended for trial 1, but both
that in the unamended soil. The response in trial 1 to the IBC and SBC significantly increased root biomass in trial 2.
amendments was smaller than the response in trial 2 despite The roots had a significantly greater biomass in the 0–10 cm
the shorter growth period (Fig. 1). In trial 1, SBC produced layer in the Andisol compared to the Oxisol, but this was
23% significantly larger plants than the unamended in the reversed for the 10–20 cm soil layer.
Andisol, yet there was no difference in the Oxisol. However,
in trial 2, both SBC (54%) and IBC (54%) had significantly

(a) 18 (b) 18
a a
16 16 ab

14 14
Dry biomass (g/plant)

Dry biomass (g/plant)

12 12 bc bc

10 ab a a 10
ab ab
8 b c
8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
Control Incorp Surface Control Incorp Surface Control Incorp Surface Control Incorp Surface
Andisol Oxisol Andisol Oxisol

Fig. 1  Chinese cabbage dry weight biomass (g/plant) in Andisol and error (n = 4), and significance of treatment effect (different letters sig-
Oxisol soils for control, incorporated and surface-applied treatments nify a statistical difference at p < 0.05)
for a trial 1 (November 2017) and b trial 2 (May 2018), with standard

13
Biochar (2021) 3:213–227 219

Table 4  Total nutrient uptake Andisol Oxisol

(mg/plant) at harvest of Chinese
cabbage for trials established in Control Incorp Surface Control Incorp Surface
November 2017 and May 2018,
for the two soil types (n = 4) Trial 1
and significance of treatment N 267de 219e 297cd 343bc 406a 397ab
effect (different letters signify a K 394b 422b 505b 747a 817a 806a
statistical difference at p < 0.05
along each row) P 23b 37a 34ab 38a 39a 39a
Ca 86d 183a 123c 141bc 189a 172ab
Mg 54ab 56a 60a 40c 43c 46bc
Trial 2
N 177c 254abc 241abc 230bc 305ab 310a
K 242d 615b 499bc 383cd 880a 873a
P 22c 45b 39bc 51b 80a 87a
Ca 105c 197b 171bc 208b 288a 290a
Mg 98a 91ab 94a 38c 55bc 56bc

Fig. 2  Root biomass rank of (a) 6

Chinese cabbage in Andisol
and Oxisol soils for control, 5
incorporated and surface- A A A
applied treatments for a trial 1 a a ab AB
Root biomass rank

(November 2017) and b trial 4

2 (May 2018), with standard BC bc
error (n = 4) and significance of 3
treatment effect (different letters c c
C
signify a statistical difference at 2
p < 0.05 with lowercase letters
comparing the 0–10 cm layer
and uppercase letters com- 1
paring the 10–20 cm layer).
Each plant’s root biomass was 0
visually ranked from 1 to 5, low 0-10 cm 10-20 cm 0-10 cm 10-20 cm
to high, after drying and soil
Andisol Oxisol
removed (Walters and Wehner
1994) Control Incorporated Surface

(b) 6

a A
5 A a
a AB
ab
Root biomass rank

4
BC
3 b b

C C
2

0
0-10 cm 10-20 cm 0-10 cm 10-20 cm

Andisol Oxisol

Control Incorporated Surface

13
220 Biochar (2021) 3:213–227

Table 5  Soil chemical Andisol Oxisol

properties at harvest of papaya
(established May 2018) for Control Incorp Surface Control Incorp Surface
the two soil types (n = 4) and
significance of treatment effect 0–10 cm
(different letters signify a pH (water) 5.38d 6.43b 5.84c 6.44b 6.89a 6.88a
statistical difference at p < 0.05 EC (dS/m) 0.38b 0.52ab 0.48ab 0.45ab 0.61a 0.63a
along each row)
NO3–N (mg/kg) 1.5b 9.3ab 4.8ab 13.3ab 20.2a 11.9ab
NH4–N (mg/kg) 0.15c 0.10c 0.18c 0.53b 0.48b 0.74a
Total C (%) 1.97b 3.50a 2.97a 1.26c 2.35b 2.10b
Total N (%) 0.17c 0.21a 0.20ab 0.17bc 0.21a 0.21a
P (mg/kg) 9.7c 15.0c 16.8c 190b 253a 258a
K (mg/kg) 128d 222c 249c 657ab 587b 716a
Ca (mg/kg) 1360d 4330a 2974c 2649c 4029a 3576b
Mg (mg/kg) 590c 738a 693ab 661b 674b 733a
10–20 cm
pH (water) 5.12c 5.48b 5.08c 6.15a 6.29a 6.25a
EC (dS/m) 0.72c 1.30ab 1.07abc 0.95bc 1.28ab 1.33a
NO3–N (mg/kg) 9.1b 62.2ab 85.9a 12.8b 23.9b 10.6b
NH4–N (mg/kg) 0.63bc 0.40c 0.53bc 1.25ab 1.09abc 1.67a
Total C (%) 1.93b 2.40a 2.03b 1.30c 1.40c 1.45c
Total N (%) 0.17b 0.19a 0.17ab 0.18ab 0.18ab 0.18ab
P (mg/kg) 9.8c 11.7c 10.9c 200b 207ab 214a
K (mg/kg) 212b 273b 244b 678a 555a 565a
Ca (mg/kg) 1447d 2541c 1590d 2660bc 3096a 2856ab
Mg (mg/kg) 593b 611b 688a 472d 486cd 546bc

3.2 Papaya Oxisol soil C was 87% significantly higher with IBC and
67% significantly higher with SBC than that the unamended
3.2.1 Soil Oxisol. The SBC increased soil C to the same extent that
IBC did, even though the remaining surface amendments
Overall, both surface (SBC) and incorporated (IBC) appli- were removed before soil analyses. As was found with the
cations of amendments significantly increased soil pH, EC, Chinese cabbage trial, total soil C had significantly increased
total C, total N, P, Ca, and Mg in the 0–10 cm soil layer at in the 10–20 cm layer of the IBC amendment in the Andisol
harvest (Table 5). In the 10–20 cm layer, both SBC and IBC (24%) compared to the unamended soil.
significantly increased EC, ­NO3–N, and Ca. In addition, only Total N was significantly higher in both the IBC and SBC
IBC significantly increased pH and total C in the 10–20 cm than that in the unamended soil in the 0–10 cm layer of the
layer, and only SBC significantly increased N ­ H4–N, K, in Andisol, and significantly higher in both amendments to the
the 0–10 cm and P, Mg in the 10–20 cm layer. same extent in the Oxisol (Table 5). There was no difference
Soil pH was significantly increased by both IBC and SBC in ­NO3–N concentrations, except for in the 10–20 cm layer
in both soil types in the 0–10 cm layer. In the Andisol, pH in the Andisol, where SBC significantly increased ­NO3–N
had significantly increased by 0.45 units for SBC and by ten times compared to the unamended. The only difference
1.05 units for IBC. In the Oxisol, soil pH was significantly in ­NH4–N concentration was a significant increase from the
increased by 0.44 units for SBC and 0.45 units for IBC. As SBC amendment compared to the control in the 0–10 cm
found in the Chinese cabbage data, soil pH was significantly layer of the Oxisol.
higher in the 10–20 cm layer for the IBC amended Andisol. Both IBC and SBC amendments significantly increased
For soil EC in the 10–20 cm layer, it was significantly higher soil nutrient concentrations of extractable P, and Ca in the
just with SBC than the unamended Oxisol and was signifi- 0–10 cm layer of the Oxisol, whereas in the Andisol, K, Ca,
cantly higher just with IBC than the unamended Andisol. and Mg concentrations were significantly higher than that
Soil C was 78% significantly higher with IBC amend- the unamended control (Table 5). The nutrient concentration
ment and 51% significantly higher with SBC than that in patterns in the 10–20 cm were mixed for both soil types. In
the unamended Andisol in the 0–10 cm layer (Table 5). The the Oxisol, P was 36% significantly higher in the SBC and

13
Biochar (2021) 3:213–227 221

16 a a a 34% significantly higher in the IBC than that the unamended

14 Oxisol in the 0–10 cm layer, and 7% significantly higher in
ab ab
12
the SBC than that the unamended in the 10–20 cm layer.
Soil K concentration was significantly higher only in the
Dry biomass (g/plant)

10 b
Andisol 0-10 cm soil layer, by both IBC and SBC. Soil Ca
8 was significantly higher in both IBC and SBC than that the
6 unamended in the Andisol. Only the IBC amendment sig-
4 nificantly increased Ca in the 10–20 cm soil layer in both
2 soil types.
0
Control Incorp Surface Control Incorp Surface 3.2.2 Papaya biomass
Andisol Oxisol
Overall, with both soils combined, plant dry biomass was
24% significantly higher in SBC than that in the unamended
Fig. 3  Plant dry weight biomass (g/plant) of papaya (established
November 2017) at 3 months old in Andisol and Oxisol soils for con- soil, but IBC was not statistically different. Plants grown in
trol, incorporated and surface-applied treatments with standard error the Oxisol had 34% more biomass than those grown in the
(n = 4) and significance of treatment effect (different letters signify Andisol. The effects of IBC and SBC were not statistically
a statistical difference at p < 0.05). When soil data were combined,
significant, however, when compared separately for each soil
there was significantly higher plant biomass in the surface-applied
amendments than control type (Fig. 3).
The soil amendments had only a small impact on the plant
nutrient concentration at harvest (Supplementary material
2). Nitrogen in the plants was significantly lower in the IBC
than that the unamended in the Andisol. IBC significantly
increased plant concentrations of Ca, Fe and K compared
to the unamended soil, but P and Mg concentrations were

Table 6  Total plant nutrient Andisol Oxisol

uptake (mg/plant) at harvest of
papaya for the two soil types Control Incorp Surface Control Incorp Surface
(n = 4) and significance of
treatment effect (different letters N 201b 243ab 271ab 262ab 298ab 318a
signify a statistical difference at K 181c 308b 256bc 422a 486a 499a
p < 0.05 along each row) P 15c 23b 18bc 31a 37a 35a
Ca 110c 190ab 145bc 208a 244a 239a
Mg 101ab 144a 146a 98b 106ab 123ab

Fig. 4  Root biomass rank of 6

papaya at harvest, in Andisol
and Oxisol soils for control, a
5
incorporated and surface- A
applied treatments with standard bc
a bc
Root biomass rank

error (n = 4) and significance of 4

treatment effect (different letters AB
B B
signify a statistical difference at d B
3
p < 0.05 with lowercase letters cd
comparing the 0–10 cm layer B
and uppercase letters com- 2
paring the 10–20 cm layer).
Each plant’s root biomass was 1
visually ranked from 1 to 5, low
to high, after drying and soil
0
removed (Walters and Wehner
0-10 cm 10-20 cm 0-10 cm 10-20 cm
1994)
Andisol Oxisol

Control Incorporated Surface

13
222 Biochar (2021) 3:213–227

unaffected. Total nutrient uptake, however, was significantly nutrients (Liu et al. 2019; Radin et al. 2018). At harvest,
higher in both IBC and SBC for K, Ca, and Mg, with IBC the soil N was higher in the amended 0–10 cm soil for the
significantly increasing plant P content, but not affecting N papaya trials, but was not consistent for the Chinese cabbage
(Table 6). trials. This may be explained by the longer growing period
for the papayas, and the variability experienced in the cab-
3.2.3 Papaya roots bage trials.
The ­NO3−–N concentrations were double in the amended
The root distribution of the papayas was very different to Oxisol soils for the Chinese cabbage, which may be due to
that found for the Chinese cabbage in response to the amend- the ability of biochar to reduce nitrate leaching by retaining
ments as the majority of the roots were in the 0–10 cm layer. N within the biochar pore structure (Agegnehu et al. 2015;
Overall, in the 0–10 cm layer, only SBC resulted in signifi- Borchard et al. 2019; Nguyen et al. 2017). The amendments
cantly higher root biomass than the unamended soil (Fig. 4). had no effect, however, on ­NO3−–N concentrations in the
In the 10–20 cm layer, both the IBC and SBC resulted in Andisol soil, which may be due to its low-nutrient retention
significantly higher root biomass than the unamended soil. capacity. Borchard et al. (2019) also found that N ­ O3−–N
The roots had a greater biomass in the 0–10 cm layer in the concentration was unaffected by biochar addition to coarse
Oxisol compared to the Andisol, but there was no difference or medium textured soil, yet increased in fine soil. They
between the soil types in 10–20 cm layer. attributed biochar’s ability to both reversibly take up and
release ­NO3−, the key to understanding the complexity of
­NO3− stabilisation and retention pathways.
4 Discussion The increase in soil pH, which was associated with
improved nutrient availability, may have contributed to
4.1 Impact of biochar and compost on soil increased plant biomass (Berek et al. 2018; Slavich et al.
and plants 2013; Van Zwieten et al. 2015). The increase of 0.4–1.1 pH
units found for IBC in the 0–10 cm layer was anticipated
Regardless of whether the amendments were incorporated due to the liming effects of biochars (Bass et al. 2016; Berek
or on the surface, the combination of the wood biochar and et al. 2018; Doan et al. 2015; Liu et al. 2012; Radin et al.
chicken manure compost significantly increased soil fertility, 2018). The increase in soil pH after application of an alka-
and plant and root biomass. Plant biomass yield increases line biochar is thought to be attributed to the biochar’s high
of 14–70% compared to the mineral fertilised soils were of base cation content, alkalinity and its capacity to decrease
similar scale to other studies using combined biochar and exchangeable Al and H (Brassard et al. 2019).
compost (Agegnehu et al. 2015; Berek et al. 2018; Cao et al. It is possible that the higher plant biomass response in the
2018; Liu et al. 2019; Schulz and Glaser 2012). Plants grown Andisol soil was due to the larger increase in soil pH [from
in biochar and compost amended soils were deemed more 5.6 to 6.3 (IBC) and 5.9 (SBC) for cabbage for example],
effective at accessing and using nutrients than that the con- compared with the Oxisol, being closer to 7 (Berek et al.
trols (Agegnehu et al. 2016a; Berek et al. 2018; Manolikaki 2018). The acidic Andisol soil was improved by the amend-
and Diamadopoulos 2019; Schulz and Glaser 2012). This is ments, which transferred it into the preferred pH range of
likely due to the additional nutrients supplied by the amend- the Chinese cabbage (Berek et al. 2018). The soil pH change
ments, improved nutrient availability from the increased soil found in this study is consistent with the significant associa-
pH, increased soil organic matter content, water-holding tion between increased soil pH and plant productivity in the
capacity and reduced nutrient leaching (Agegnehu et al. acidic to neutral range by Jeffrey et al. (2011) and especially
2015, 2016b,c; Cao et al. 2018; Ghosh et al. 2015; Liu et al. in the tropical climate (Jeffery et al. 2017).
2012; Radin et al. 2018). It is suggested that these Hawaiian Most studies have shown that biochar and compost appli-
soil properties improved (and plant biomass increased) due cation increased available soil K due to the addition of K in
to their initial low fertility, acidic pH and coarse texture, as an available form (Agegnehu et al. 2015; Radin et al. 2018;
the amendments addressed these specific limitations (Jeffery Sadegh-Zadeh et al. 2018), however, responses in this study
et al. 2017). were variable. The papaya trial supported these findings with
Chinese cabbage and papaya biomass increases may be significant increases in soil K, but only in the Andisol soil.
explained by increased nutrient supply and/or retention. The Chinese cabbage trial, however, had lower soil K for
The amendments provided 1.7 times (Oxisol) to 2 times both treatments and soil layers. This also corresponded to
(Andisol) the N more than the mineral fertiliser. They also significantly higher plant uptake of K (2–2.5 times) in these
provided more P (0.75 times) and K (0.79 times) than the treatments than the unamended. It is, therefore, suggested
fertiliser for the Andisol. The compost component of the that the reduction in soil K is due to increased uptake of
combination was more likely to contribute the most available K by these plants (Agegnehu et al. 2015; Manolikaki and

13
Biochar (2021) 3:213–227 223

Diamadopoulos 2019). Further to this, the soil layers with application of biochar alone has also shown to be negli-
reduced K correspond to higher root biomass in both soil gible (Sarauer et al. 2018; Schnell et al. 2012), though
types, and there is also potential for some K to be held in the there are fewer studies examining this application method.
roots. Chinese cabbage has a high requirement for K (Berek Incorporated compost has performed better than surface
et al. 2018; van Averbeke et al. 2007) and it was determined applied, with higher yield, higher soil C and N, and lower
that at harvest, the control plants had insufficient K con- bulk density (Cogger et al. 2008; Whatmuff et al. 2018),
centrations (Jones et al. 1991). The outlier of higher soil K however, surface application improved water infiltration,
in the 0–10 cm for the SBC than the control, in the Oxisol, and therefore, lowered runoff (Agassi et al. 1998).
could not be explained by plant response, and is another The positive response to surface application implies
example of inconsistent K to biochar (Hossain et al. 2020). that during the watering process and plant growth, solu-
The higher P in the amended soil increased P availability ble nutrients moved down the profile, and also potentially
and subsequent plant uptake, which was supported by other particles of biochar and/or compost, which were acces-
similar studies (Agegnehu et al. 2016c; Bass et al. 2016; sible by the roots (Beesley and Dickinson 2011; Cogger
Manolikaki and Diamadopoulos 2019; Van Zwieten et al. et al. 2008; Major et al. 2010; Singh et al. 2015). Some
2019). Greater plant P uptake from amended soil was par- evidence to support this is the 29–57% increase in total
ticularly evident in the Andisol, a soil inherently deficient C in the 0–10 cm layer for the SBC compared to the una-
in P (Uehara and Ikawa 2000). As wood-derived biochars mended, and a corresponding increase in EC. There was
(such as the one in this study) have shown little effect on P also 12–18% higher total soil carbon in the 10–20 cm
availability in soils (Glaser and Lehr 2019), it is likely that layer, below where the incorporated amendments were
the compost has supplied the majority of the available P. The positioned, indicating a movement of soil C down the
addition of both mineral and organic P forms in the compost profile, as corroborated by others (Haefele et al. 2011;
may have allowed microbial mineralisation of organic P over Singh et al. 2015). Given the short time frame of this
time to supply plant needs, especially for the papaya plant study, the C is more likely to predominantly be in the dis-
(da Silva et al. 2019). solved (DOC) than particulate (POC) form (Major et al.
The combination of biochar and compost has often 2010). The increase in C could also be attributed to both
proved superior to separate amendments in increasing plant an increase in DOC released mainly from the compost and
biomass (Al-Omran et al. 2019; Berek et al. 2018; Ghosh the retention of this DOC by the biochar (Lei et al. 2018).
et al. 2015; Khorram et al. 2019; Liu et al. 2019; Pandit While both IBC and SBC increased soil pH compared
et al. 2019), which may be influenced by the additive nature to the unamended soil in the 0–10 cm layer, IBC also
of the complementary properties. A mechanism proposed to increased soil pH in the 10–20 cm layer. It is inferred,
explain this suggests the formation of nutrient-rich organic therefore, that the alkaline substances of the biochar were
coatings that cover the pore surfaces (inner and outer) of released and moved through the soil profile, increasing
biochar particles improves nutrient retention and availability exchangeable base cations of the soil (Yuan and Xu 2011).
(Hagemann et al. 2017). In addition, evidence of compost This result may be influenced by the soil type, inherent
adsorption to biochar exists, creating soil–biochar–compost porosity and charge, used in this pot trial.
aggregates, which may provide protection from microbial The increased root biomass in the surface applied
decomposition, and slowing mineralisation (Jien et al. 2018). amended soil indicates that an adequate release of sur-
face nutrients into the soil layers occurred, where the
root system took advantage of the decomposition of the
4.2 Surface vs. incorporated amendment surface amendments and mineralisation of nutrients from
application the compost over time (Agassi et al. 1998; Ahmad et al.
2014b; Cogger et al. 2008; Jien et al. 2018). The increased
The plant biomass in the surface-applied amendment in root biomass in the 10–20 cm layer, below the incorpo-
this study was as great as that found in the incorporated rated amendments, also supports the trend found for soil
amendment, despite the surface-applied amendments hav- C, soil nutrient and pH with depth. The increased root
ing little contact with the bulk soil. When the soil data growth in soil incorporated with biochar and compost
were combined, papaya biomass was larger than the con- may be due to increased soil porosity and water-holding
trol, only in the surface-applied amendment. This was capacity (Agegnehu et al. 2015; Manolikaki and Diama-
unexpected given that several studies using surface appli- dopoulos 2019), which would, therefore, allow retention
cation of biochar with organic matter in perennial sub- of soluble nutrients in the root zone for longer. Liu et al.
tropical crops reported no or negative effects (Bass et al. (2012) showed that this combination of amendments dou-
2016; Galanti et al. 2019). The yield response to surface bled plant-available water-holding capacity, with biochar
the main contributor. A limitation of the current study

13
224 Biochar (2021) 3:213–227

is the lack of soil moisture information over time which soil. They also provided extra P (0.75 times) and K (0.79
may have shed further light on the mechanisms involved. times) than the fertiliser for the Andisol. Further work to
Future work, including field trials in different soil types, control for nutrient addition from amendments would enable
should include this factor. exploration of the physical and biological impacts of these
inputs. These pot trial results need to be examined with per-
4.3 Andisol vs. Oxisol ennials in field trials over a longer time frame to determine
the effectiveness of surface application, given the potential
The two soil types responded differently to the amendments, risks of losses due to erosion and other farming practices.
and the increases in plant and root biomass were higher Biochar and compost in combination can provide an effec-
in the Andisol than in the Oxisol. This may be due to the tive input to both increase crop yield and reduce leaching of
Andisol’s lower initial pH, P, K, water-holding capacity and land-applied fertilisers to the environment.
bulk density. The Andisol’s high infiltration rate, likely due
the pumice content, may have been reduced and retained Acknowledgements The authors gratefully thank all reviewers for their
comments and assistance in improving the manuscript.
more moisture than the Oxisol, as biochar and composts
have been particularly effective at improving soil proper- Funding The project was funded through Western Sustainable Agri-
ties and crop yield in these coarser soil types (Somerville culture Research and Education (SARE), USDA (for NV Hue and A
et al. 2019; Wang et al. 2019). The Andisol pH increase due Ahmad).
to the amendments may have also overcome some nutrient
availability limitations in the acidic range of the unamended Compliance with ethical standards
soil (Van Zwieten et al. 2015). The Oxisol, while contain-
ing more clay, was highly aggregated, and therefore, also Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
had a high infiltration rate. The presence of increased cati-
ons in this amended soil at depth indicated movement over Consent for publication The corresponding author consents on behalf
time with irrigation (Radin et al. 2018). The 6–10% higher of all the authors that this is original work and has permission to be
water requirement over the growing seasons compared to published.
Andisol emphasises the difference in physical structure, and
water retention. The responsiveness to biochar amendment Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
of coarser-textured soils through improved soil aggregate bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
stability and increased plant-available water (Burrell et al. as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
2016) has helped prioritise the soil types more likely to ben- provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
efit from this soil amendment. were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
5 Conclusion permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
The results of this study indicate that the combination of bio- copy of this licence, visit http://creat​iveco​mmons​.org/licen​ses/by/4.0/.
char and compost is an effective amendment to increase Chi-
nese cabbage and papaya biomass and improve soil chemical
properties, and that surface application is an option for per- References
ennial horticulture. There is evidence of downward move-
Agassi M, Hadas A, Benyamini Y, Levy GJ, Kautsky L, Avrahamov
ment of the amendments possibly in soluble or particulate L, Zhevelev H (1998) Mulching effects of composted MSW on
form, with increased soil pH, total C, extractable P and Ca in water percolation and compost degradation rate. Compost Sci Util
the layer below application. These changes were found in the 6:34–41. https​://doi.org/10.1080/10656​57X.1998.10701​929
10–20 cm layer below the incorporated amendment and also Agegnehu G, Bird MI, Nelson PN, Bass AM (2015) The ameliorating
effects of biochar and compost on soil quality and plant growth on
in the 0–10 cm layer below the surface-applied amendment. a Ferralsol. Soil Res 53:1–12. https​://doi.org/10.1071/SR141​18
This is supported by the root distribution patterns in the Agegnehu G, Nelson PN, Bird MI (2016a) The effects of biochar, com-
0–10 and 10–20 cm layers. The results suggest the amend- post and their mixture and nitrogen fertilizer on yield and nitrogen
ments provided extra nutrients, improved nutrient availabil- use efficiency of barley grown on a Nitisol in the highlands of
Ethiopia. Sci Total Environ 569–570:869–879
ity and plant uptake, potentially due to improved soil pH and Agegnehu G, Nelson PN, Bird MI (2016b) Crop yield, plant nutrient
increased C. However, this was more apparent in the acidic uptake and soil physicochemical properties under organic soil
Andisol than the Oxisol that had a pH of 6.9. The rate of amendments and nitrogen fertilization on Nitisols. Soil Tillage
nutrient addition with these amendments was high, as they Res 160:1–13
provided 1.5–2 times the N more than the mineral fertilised

13
Biochar (2021) 3:213–227 225

Agegnehu G, Bass AM, Nelson PN, Bird MI (2016c) Benefits of bio- da Silva RS, Rodrigues LA, da Silva MG, da Silva BG, Martins MA
char, compost and biochar–compost for soil quality, maize yield (2019) Biochar and mucuna increase papaya plant growth and
and greenhouse gas emissions in a tropical agricultural soil. Sci nutrition, as well as soil fertility. Pesq Agropec Trop Goiânia
Total Environ 543:295–306 49:e55210. https​://www.agro.ufg.br/pate. ISSN 1983-4063
Agegnehu G, Srivastav AK, Bird MI (2017) The role of biochar and Di W, Yanfang F, Lihong X, Manqiang L, Bei Y, Feng H, Linzhang
biochar-compost in improving soil quality and crop performance: Y (2019) Biochar combined with vermicompost increases crop
a review. Appl Soil Ecol 119:156–170. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j. production while reducing ammonia and nitrous oxide emissions
apsoi​l.2017.06.008 from a paddy soil. Pedosphere 29:82–94. https​://doi.org/10.1016/
Ahmad A, Hue NV, Radovich T (2014a) Nitrogen release patterns of S1002​-0160(18)60050​-5
some locally made composts and their effects on the growth of Doan TT, Henry-des-Tureaux T, Rumpel C, Janeau J, Jouquet P (2015)
Chinese cabbage (Brassica Rapa, Chinensis Group) when used as Impact of compost, vermicompost and biochar on soil fertility,
soil amendments. Compost Sci Utiliz 22:199–206 maize yield and soil erosion in Northern Vietnam: a three year
Ahmad A, Fares A, Hue NV, Safeeq M, Radovich T, Abbas F, Ibrahim mesocosm experiment. Sci Total Environ 514:147–154
M (2014b) Root distribution of sweet corn (Zea mays) as affected Escobar MEO, Hue NV (2008) Temporal changes of selected chemi-
by manure types, rates and frequency of applications. J Anim cal properties in three manure—amended soils of Hawaii. Biore-
Plant Sci 24:592–599 sour Technol 99:8649–8654. https​: //doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​
Ahmad A, Radovich T, Hue NV, Uyeda J, Arakaki A, Cadby J, ech.2008.04.069
Paull R, Sugano J, Teves G (2016) Use of organic fertilizers Fischer D, Glaser B (2012) Synergism between compost and biochar
to enhance soil fertility, plant growth and yield in a tropical for sustainable soil amelioration, management and organic waste.
environment. In: Larramendy M, Soloneski S (eds) Organic In: Kumer S (ed) Management of organic wastes. In Tech, Rijeka,
fertilizers. From basic concepts to applied outcomes. https​:// pp 167–198
doi.org/10.5772/62529​ Galanti R, Cho A, Ahmad A, Radovich T (2019) Soil amendments
Akmal M, Maqbool Z, Khan KS, Hussain Q, Ijaz SS, Iqbal M, Aziz I, and soil profiling impact on macadamia growth and yield per-
Hussain A, Abbas MS, Rafa HU (2019) Integrated use of biochar formance. HortScience 54:519–527. https​://doi.org/10.21273​/
and compost to improve soil microbial activity, nutrient avail- HORTS​CI135​72-18
ability, and plant growth in arid soil. Arab J Geosci 12:232. https​ Ghosh S, Ow FL, Wilson B (2015) Influence of biochar and compost
://doi.org/10.1007/s1251​7-019-4414-0 on soil properties and tree growth in a tropical urban environment.
Al-Omran A, Ibrahim A, Alharbi A (2019) Effects of biochar and com- Int J Environ Sci Technol 12:1303–1310. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
post on growth and yield of sweet pepper under a partial root-zone s1376​2-014-0508-0
drying irrigation system. Can J Agric Crops 4:56–76 Glaser B, Lehr V (2019) Biochar effects on phosphorus availability in
Bass AM, Bird MI, Kay G, Muirhead B (2016) Soil properties, green- agricultural soils: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep 9:9338. https​://doi.
house gas emissions and crop yield under compost, biochar and org/10.1038/s4159​8-019-45693​-z
co-composted biochar in two tropical agronomic systems. Sci Haefele SM, Konboon Y, Wongboon W, Amarante S, Maarifat AA,
Total Environ 550:459–470 Pfeiffer EM, Knoblauch C (2011) Effects and fate of biochar from
Beesley L, Dickinson N (2011) Carbon and trace element fluxes in rice residues in rice-based systems. Field Crops Res 121:430–440.
the pore water of an urban soil following greenwaste compost, https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2011.01.014
woody and biochar amendments, inoculated with the earthworm Hagemann N, Joseph S, Schmidt HP, Kammann CI, Harter J, Borch
Lumbricus terrestris. Soil Biol Biochem 43:188–196. https​://doi. T et al (2017) Organic coating on biochar explains its nutrient
org/10.1016/j.soilb​io.2010.09.035 retention and stimulation of soil fertility. Nat Commun 8:1089.
Berek A, Hue NV (2016) Characterization of biochars and their use as https​://doi.org/10.1038/s4146​7-017-01123​-0
an amendment to acid soils. Soil Sci 181:412–426 Hossain MZ, Bahar MM, Sarkar B, Donne SW, Ok YS, Palansooriya
Berek A, Hue NV, Radovich T, Ahmad AA (2018) Biochars improve KN, Kirkham MB, Chowdhury S, Bolan N (2020) Biochar and its
nutrient phyto-availability of Hawai’i’s highly weathered soils. importance on nutrient dynamics in soil and plant. Biochar. https​
Agronomy 8:203–221. https:​ //doi.org/10.3390/agrono​ my810​ 0203​ ://doi.org/10.1007/s4277​3-020-00065​-z
Borchard N, Schirrmann M, Cayuela ML, Kammann C, Wrage-Mön- Hue NV, Silva JA (2000) Organic soil amendments for sustainable
nig N, Estavillo JM, Fuertes-Mendizábal T, Siguah G, Spokas K, agriculture: organic sources of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potas-
Ippolito JA, Novak J (2019) Biochar, soil and land-use interactions sium. In: Silva JA, Uchida R (eds) Plant nutrient management in
that reduce nitrate leaching and N­ 2O emissions: a meta-analysis. Hawaii’s soils, approaches for tropical and subtropical agriculture.
Sci Total Environ 651:2354–2364. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito​ College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University
tenv.2018.10.060 of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, pp 133–144
Brassard P, Godbout S, Lévesque V, Palacios JH, Raghavan V, Ahmed Jeffery S, Abalos D, Prodana M, Bastos AC, van Groenigen JW,
A, Hogue R, Jeanne T, Verma M (2019) Biochar for soil amend- Hungate BA, Verheijen F (2017) Biochar boosts tropical but not
ment. In: Jeguirim M, Limousy L (eds) Char and carbon materials temperate crop yields. Environ Res Lett 12:053001. https​://doi.
derived from biomass. Production, characterization and applica- org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa67b​d
tions. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 109–146. https​://doi.org/10.1016/ Jeffrey S, Verheijen FGA, van der Velde M, Bastos AC (2011) A quan-
B978-0-12-81489​3-8.00004​-3 titative review of the effects of biochar application to soils on
Burrell LD, Zehetner F, Rampazzo N, Wimmer B, Soja G (2016) Long- crop productivity using meta-analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ
term effects of biochar on soil physical properties. Geoderma 144:175–187
282:96–102. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.geode​rma.2016.07.019 Jien S, Chen W, Ok Y, Awad Y, Liao C (2018) Short-term bio-
Cao Y, Gao Y, Qi Y, Li J (2018) Biochar-enhanced composts reduce char application induced variations in C and N mineralization
the potential leaching of nutrients and heavy metals and suppress in a compost-amended tropical soil. Environ Sci Pollut Res
plant-parasitic nematodes in excessively fertilized cucumber soils. 25:25715–25725
Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:7589–7599 Jones JB, Wolf B, Mills HA (1991) Plant analysis handbook. A prac-
Cogger C, Hummel R, Hart J, Bary A (2008) Soil and Redosier dog- tical sampling, preparation, analysis, and interpretation guide.
wood response to incorporated and surface-applied compost. Micro-Macro Publishing Inc., Athens
HortScience 43:2143–2150

13
226 Biochar (2021) 3:213–227

Kammann C, Glaser B, Schmidt HP (2016) Combining biochar and viewc​onten​t.cgi?artic​le=1197&conte​xt=bulle​tins. Accessed 2

organic amendments. In: Ruysschaert G, Zwar K, Glaser B (eds) Feb 2020
Shackley S. Biochar in European soils, Routledge, London pp, Radin R, Bakar RA, Ishak CF, Ahmad SH, Tsong LC (2018) Biochar-
pp 136–164 compost mixture as amendment for improvement of polybag-
Karhu K, Mattila T, Bergstrom I, Regina K (2011) Biochar addition to growing media and oil palm seedlings at main nursery stage. Int J
agricultural soil increased C­ H4 uptake and water holding capac- Recycl Org Waste Agric 7:11–23. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4009​
ity—results from a short-term pilot field study. Agric Ecosyst 3-017-0185-3
Environ 140:309–313 Rumpel C, Ba A, Darboux F, Chaplot V, Planchon O (2009) Ero-
Khorram MS, Zhang G, Fatemi A, Kiefer R, Maddah K, Baqar M, sion budget and process selectivity of black carbon at meter
Zakaria MP, Li G (2019) Impact of biochar and compost amend- scale. Geoderma 154:131–137. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.geode​
ment on soil quality, growth and yield of a replanted apple orchard rma.2009.10.006
in a 4-year field study. J Sci Food Agric 99:1862–1869 Rumpel C, Leifeld J, Santín C, Doerr SH (2015) Movement of biochar
Lehmann J, Rillig M, Thies J, Masiello C, Hockaday W, Crowley D in the environment. In: Lehmann JL, Joseph S (eds) Biochar for
(2011) Biochar effects on soil biota—a review. Soil Biol Biochem environmental management. Science, technology and implemen-
43:1812–1836 tation, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis, New York, pp 283–299
Lei Z, Li Q, Song X, Wang W, Zhang Z, Peng C, Tian L (2018) Biochar Sadegh-Zadeh F, Tolekolai SF, Bahmanyar MA, Emadi M (2018)
mitigates dissolved organic carbon loss but does not affect dis- Application of biochar and compost for enhancement of rice
solved organic nitrogen leaching loss caused by nitrogen deposi- (Oryza sativa L.) grain yield in calcareous sandy soil. Commun
tion in Moso bamboo plantations. Glob Ecol Conserv 16:e00494. Soil Sci Plant Anal 49:552–566
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco​.2018.e0049​4 Sánchez-Monedero MA, Cayuela ML, Sánchez-García M, Vandecas-
Liu J, Schulz H, Brandl S, Miehtke H, Huwe B, Glaser B (2012) Short- teele B, D’Hose T, López G, Martínez-Gaitán C, Kuikman PJ,
term effect of biochar and compost on soil fertility and water Sinicco T, Mondini C (2019) Agronomic evaluation of biochar,
status of a Dystric Cambisol in NE Germany under field condi- compost and biochar-blended compost across different cropping
tions. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 175:698–707. https​://doi.org/10.1002/ systems: Perspective from the European Project FERTIPLUS.
jpln.20110​0172 Agronomy 9:225–244. https:​ //doi.org/10.3390/agrono​ my905​ 0225​
Liu B, Cai Z, Zhang Y, Liu G, Luo X, Zheng H (2019) Comparison of Sarauer JL, Page-Dumroese DS, Coleman MD (2018) Soil green-
efficacies of peanut shell biochar and biochar-based compost on house gas, carbon content, and tree growth response to biochar
two leafy vegetable productivity in an infertile land. Chemosphere amendment in western United States forests. GCB Bioenergy
224:151–161 11:660–671
Major J, Lehmann J, Rondon M, Goodale C (2010) Fate of soil-applied Schnell RW, Vietor DM, Provin TL, Munster CL, Capareda S (2012)
black carbon: downward migration, leaching and soil respira- Capacity of biochar application to maintain energy crop produc-
tion. Glob Change Biol 16:1366–1379. https​://doi.org/10.111 tivity: soil chemistry, sorghum growth, and runoff water quality
1/j.1365-2486.2009.02044​.x effects. J Environ Qual 41:1044–1051. https​://doi.org/10.2134/
Manolikaki I, Diamadopoulos E (2019) Positive effects of biochar and jeq20​11.0077s​chn
biochar-compost on maize growth and nutrient availability in two Schulz H, Glaser B (2012) Effects of biochar compared to organic and
agricultural soils. Commun Soil Sci Plan 50:512–526 inorganic fertilizers on soil quality and plant growth in a green-
McDonald MR, Bakker C, Motior MR (2019) Evaluation of wood house experiment. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 175:410–422. https​://doi.
biochar and compost soil amendment on cabbage yield and org/10.1002/jpln.20110​0143
quality. Can J Plant Sci 99:624–638. https​://doi.org/10.1139/ Singh BP, Fang Y, Boersma M, Collins D, Van Zwieten L, Macdonald
cjps-2018-0122 LM (2015) In situ persistence and migration of biochar carbon
Mehlich A (1984) Mehlich 3 soil test extractant: a modification of and its impact on native carbon emission in contrasting soils under
Mehlich 2 extractant. Commun Soil Sci Plan 15:1409–1416. https​ managed temperate pastures. PLoS ONE 10:e0141560. https:​ //doi.
://doi.org/10.1080/00103​62840​93675​68 org/10.1371/journ​al.pone.01415​60
Nguyen TTN, Xu C-Y, Tahmasbian I, Che R, Xu Z, Zhou X, Wallace Slavich P, Sinclair K, Morris S, Kimber S, Downie A, Van Zwieten L
HM, Bai SH (2017) Effects of biochar on soil available inorganic (2013) Contrasting effects of manure and green waste biochars on
nitrogen: a review and meta-analysis. Geoderma 288:79–96. https​ the properties of an acidic Ferralsol and productivity of a subtropi-
://doi.org/10.1016/j.geode​rma.2016.11.004 cal pasture. Plant Soil 366:213–227
Novak JM, Ippolito JA, Watts D, Sigua GC, Ducey TF, Johnson MG Somerville PD, Farrell C, May PB, Livesley SJ (2019) Tree water use
(2019) Biochar compost blends facilitate switchgrass growth in strategies and soil type determine growth responses to biochar and
mine soils by reducing Cd and Zn bioavailability. Biochar 1:97– compost organic amendments. Soil Till Res 192:12–21. https​://
114. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4277​3-019-00004​-7 doi.org/10.1016/j.still​.2019.04.023
Oo AZ, Gonai T, Sudo S, Win KT, Shibata A (2018) Surface appli- Sun F, Lu S (2014) Biochars improve aggregate stability, water reten-
cation of fertilizers and residue biochar on N2O emission from tion, and pore-space properties of clayey soil. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci
Japanese pear orchard soil. Plant Soil Environ 64:597–604 177:26–33. https​://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.20120​0639
Palansooriya KN, Wong J, Hashimoto Y, Huang L, Rinklebe J, Chang Uehara G, Ikawa H (2000) Use of information from soil surveys and
SX, Bolan N, Wang H, Ok Y (2019) Response of microbial com- classification. In: Silva JA, Uchida R (eds) Plant nutrient manage-
munities to biochar-amended soils: a critical review. Biochar ment in Hawaii’s soils, approaches for tropical and subtropical
1:3–22. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4277​3-019-00009​-2 agriculture. University of Hawaii at Mano, College of Tropical
Pandit NR, Schmidt HP, Mulder J, Hale SE, Husson O, Cornelissen Agriculture and Human Resources, Honolulu, pp 67–77
G (2019) Nutrient effect of various composting methods with Van Averbeke W, Juma KA, Tshikalange TE (2007) Yield response
and without biochar on soil fertility and maize growth. Arch of African leafy vegetables to nitrogen, phosphorus and potas-
Agron Soil Sci 66:250–265. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1080/03650​ sium: The case of Brassica rapa L. subsp. chinensis and Solanum
340.2019.16101​68 retroflexum Dun. Water SA 33:355–361. https​://doi.org/10.4314/
Paulin B, O’Malley P (2008) Compost production and use in horti- wsa.v33i3​.18059​5
culture. Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia, Van Zwieten L, Kimber S, Morris S, Chan KY, Downie A, Rust
Perth. Bulletin 4746. http://resea​rchli​brary​.agric​.wa.gov.au/cgi/ J, Joseph S, Cowie A (2010) Effects of biochar from slow

13
Biochar (2021) 3:213–227 227

pyrolysis of papermill waste on agronomic performance and soil Wang D, Li C, Parikh SJ, Scow KM (2019) Impact of biochar on
fertility. Plant Soil 327:235–246. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1110​ water retention of two agricultural soils—a multi-scale analy-
4-009-0050-x sis. Geoderma 340:185–191. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.geode​
Van Zwieten L, Rose T, Herridge D, Kimber S, Rust J, Cowie A, Mor- rma.2019.01.012
ris S (2015) Enhanced biological N2 fixation and yield of faba Whatmuff M, Dougherty W, Kimber S, Collins D (2018) Land applica-
bean (Vicia faba L.) in an acid soil following biochar addition: tion of mixed waste organic outputs provide agronomic benefits
dissection of causal mechanisms. Plant Soil 395:7–20. https:​ //doi. but also presents environmental risk. In: Proceedings Australian
org/10.1007/s1110​4-015-2427-3 Soil Science Conference, Canberra, Australia
Van Zwieten L, Kimber S, Morris S, Macdonald LM, Rust J, Petty S, Yuan JH, Xu RK (2011) The amelioration effects of low temperature
Joseph S, Rose T (2019) Biochar improves dairy pasture yields biochar generated from nine crop residues on an acidic Ultisol.
by alleviating P and K constraints with no influence on soil Soil Use Manag 27:110–115
respiration or ­N2O emissions. Biochar 1:115–126. https​://doi. Zheng H, Wang Z, Deng X, Herbert S, Xing B (2013) Impacts of add-
org/10.1007/s4277​3-019-00005​-6 ing biochar on nitrogen retention and bioavailability in agricul-
Walters SA, Wehner TC (1994) Evaluation of the U.S. cucumber germ- tural soil. Geoderma 206:32–39. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.geode​
plasm collection for root size using a subjective rating technique. rma.2013.04.018
Euphytica 79:39–43. https​://doi.org/10.1007/BF000​23574​
Wang C, Walter MT, Parlange JY (2013) Modeling simple experiments
of biochar erosion from soil. J Hydrol 499:140–145. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhydr​ol.2013.06.055

13