Journal of Environmental Management 307 (2022) 114558

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Biochar and compost from cotton residues inconsistently affect water use
efficiency, nodulation, and growth of legumes under arid conditions
Samir A. Haddad a, *, Jake Mowrer b, Binita Thapa b
a
Department of Agricultural Microbiology, Minia University, El-Minia, 61517, Egypt
b
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 77843, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: There is an urgent global need to expand crop cultivation into arid and semiarid lands to guarantee food security.
Biochar Thus, limited irrigation strategies and soil amendments are promising strategies for conserving water in arid and
Compost semi-arid crop production. Soil amendments, such as compost and biochar can improve soil water relationships,
Limited irrigation strategies
nitrogen (N) fixation, soil fertility, and crop productivity. A study was designed to evaluate the effect of biochar
Nodulation
N-fixation
and compost applications on soil water relationships, nutrient uptake, plant growth, and N-fixation. A green­
Arid lands house pot experiment was conducted in two soils using a complete factorial design. The main effect, i.e., water
content of each soil, was maintained at either 40% or 60% water filled porosity. The sub-effect, organic
amendment type, was applied as biochar or compost. The sub-sub effect was rate of application (0, 5, and 10 Mg
ha− 1). Plant height and root length were significantly affected by the rate of amendment applied, whereas shoot
and root mass differences were explained by irrigation strategy. Whole plant N uptake was moderately affected
by water content only (p = 0.0818). Phosphorus and Potassium uptake were highly affected by amendment type
and rate. Biochar moderately improved plant available water (0.061 %Vol Mg− 1 ha− 1) over the range of 0–20
Mg ha− 1 in the sandier soil. Compost did not improve plant available water in either soil. Nodulation was
affected by soil type only. The benefits of biochar or compost for plant were inconsistent and depended upon
irrigation strategies, soil type, application rate, and plant species.

1. Introduction solutions (Abbas et al., 2018; Pressler et al., 2017).

Organic amendments such as biochar and compost are generally
Food security and climate change are among the greatest existential derived from economically viable sources of secondary waste materials.
challenges of this century. Climate variability and the frequency of Thus, their use as soil amendment is considered a ‘green’ technique
sudden and extreme events is increasing. Drought and competition for (Gunarathne et al., 2020). Biochar is a carbon (C) rich product derived
water resources among agricultural sectors will continue to intensify from the burning of biomass in the presence of little or no oxygen (py­
(She et al., 2018). Traditional full irrigation practices have become a rolysis). Its potential to improve soil fertility, mitigate climate change,
luxury in many parts of the world. For these reasons, water shortages decrease the bioavailability of a range of contaminants, and improve soil
represent a serious risk to global food security. water relations is well explored (Lehmann and Joseph, 2009; Woolf
The total global water withdrawal for agricultural, domestic, and et al., 2010; Bamminger et al., 2014; Jiang et al., 2016; Kammann et al.,
industrial use is expected to increase by 23% from 1995 to 2025 2017; Abbas et al., 2018). However, results have been inconsistent. For
(Rosegrant and Cai, 2002; Islam and Karim, 2020). Irrigated agricultural instance, the effects of biochar on soil microbial activity have been
production is obligatory in many populated regions of the world. shown to vary as a function of textural class (Jaafar et al., 2015). A
Therefore, there is a critical need for arid and semi-arid agriculture to meta-analysis by Edeh et al. (2020) concluded that biochar generally
develop approaches that better manage water use if we are to meet the increased plant available water by 28.5%, though positive effects were
challenge of food security. Limited irrigation strategies and soil most often observed in coarse textured soils. This finding is supported by
amendments that maintain or improve crop productivity in Blanco-Canqui (2017) and Razzaghi et al. (2020). Benefits of biochar
ever-changing climatic scenarios are among the most promising towards crop yields have also been inconsistent, depending on location,

* Corresponding author. Department of Agricultural Microbiology, Minia University, El_Minia, 61517, Egypt.
E-mail address: [email protected] (S.A. Haddad).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114558
Received 14 July 2021; Received in revised form 26 November 2021; Accepted 16 January 2022
Available online 25 January 2022
0301-4797/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.A. Haddad et al. Journal of Environmental Management 307 (2022) 114558

soil type, application rate, and biochar feedstock (Jeffery et al., 2011, lids until needed.
2017; Akhtar et al., 2014; Martí et al., 2021).
Biochar addition may improve crop productivity by retaining more 2.2. Soil analysis
water from rainfall in arid regions and reducing the frequency or rate of
irrigation water in irrigated regions. Novak et al. (2012) and X Liu et al. Soil plant available nutrients phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium
(2021a, b) showed that biochar improved semi-arid irrigated soil water (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and sulfur (S), as well as sodium (Na), were
relations. Coupling biochar addition with limited irrigation strategies extracted via Mehlich III and analyzed via ICP-AES (Mehlich, 1984). The
could therefore be a successful approach to reducing water consumption micronutrients zinc (Zn), iron (Fe), copper (Cu), and manganese (Mn)
while sustaining crop productivity. were extracted using 0.005 M DTPA, 0.01 M CaCl2, and 0.10 M trie­
Compost is a microbially stabilized biomass product that can also be thanolamine solution and analyzed via ICP-AES (Lindsay and Norvell,
a beneficial soil amendment for crop production. Similar to biochar, 1978). Soil pH (Schofield and Taylor, 1955) and EC (Rhoades, 1982)
compost application to soils can improve plant growth and productivity, were measured on a suspended slurry of 2:1 ratio of water to soil (v/v)
as well as water holding capacity (Tester, 1990; Cooperband et al., 2003; using standard benchtop meters. Texture was analyzed via the
Ozores-Hampton et al., 2011; Paradelo et al., 2019). Benefits are Bouyoucos hydrometer method (Day, 1965).
attributed to the enrichment of humic substances, macro- and
micro-nutrients, and beneficial microorganisms, as well as to improve­ 2.3. Biochar and compost amendment
ment of soil physical, chemical, and biological properties (De Brito et al.,
1995; Wright et al., 2008). As with biochar, specific outcomes of Biochar produced from post-harvest cotton field residue, including
compost amendments are dependent upon the stability, chemical stems, leaves, bracts, and lint, was prepared in a Lindberg Blue M quartz
properties, and physical properties of the compost (Cooperband et al., tube furnace (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) at 350 ◦ C for 1 h.
2003; Duong et al., 2012). Considered that compost and biochar appli­ Commercially available compost (Back to Nature, Lubbock TX) was
cations are commonly practiced by farmers, their effects on soil inor­ prepared from cotton gin trash where the waste material was generated
ganic N (i.e., mineralization of compost organic N, binding of soil from ginning. Gin trash includes bracts, leaves, stems, and other unde­
inorganic N onto biochar surface) may affect biological N2 fixation. sirable non-lint materials. Total carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) were
Biological N2 fixation by both nodule-forming and free-living bac­ determined by the combustion method (McGeehan and Naylor, 1988)
teria is catalyzed by the enzyme nitrogenase, which reduces atmospheric using a Vario Max cube combustion analyzer (Elementar Americas, Inc.
N2 to NH3. Nitrogen fixation provides an important source of soil N for NY). Total elemental concentrations for P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Na, Zn, Fe, Cu,
all crops. Therefore, increased nodulation following biochar or compost Mn, and boron (B) were determined by microwave-assisted digestion
application increases sustainable N inputs into agroecosystems (Ippolito (CEM Corporation, Matthews, SC) in concentrated HNO3 followed by
et al., 2014). Azeem et al. (2019) found that both nodulation and N analysis via Spectro Arcos ICP-AES (Spectro Analytical, Kleve, Germany)
fixation in mash beans (V. radiata) increased by 89% and 83% respec­ (Havlin and Saltanpour, 1989).
tively following a 0.5% soil amendment with biochar in Rawalpindi,
Pakistan. Akmal et al. (2019) observed increases in other enzymatic 2.4. Greenhouse study design
activities in greenhouse tomatoes following soil amendment with bio­
char and compost, including alkaline phosphatase, urease, and dehy­ To study the effect of biochar or compost as a soil amendment on
drogenase, which led to increases in plant N (33%), P (34%) and K plant growth, nodulation process, and nitrogen fixation of soybean
(70%) content. Tsai and Chang (2020) conducting incubations studies (Glycine max) and faba bean (Vicia faba) plants, a greenhouse pot
on three soils, reported decreases in N-mineralization rates when experiment was conducted in a complete factorial randomized design
excessively co-amended with biochar and compost, which reduces N with four replicates in both soils. The main effects were considered
availability to non-legume crops, but also reduces potential losses of N. water content, while the sub-effects of carbon amendment and rate were
This study was designed to improve our understanding of biochar evaluated in both species in both soils. Each soil was well mixed with
and compost effects on soil water relations under different irrigation biochar or compost using three rates equivalent to 0, 5, and 10 Mg ha− 1
strategies and on nitrogen fixation and growth of two legume species. It based on an assumption of 2.24 Gg soil ha− 1 to a depth of 15 cm. Treated
was hypothesized that additions of biochar or compost, and increasing soil (600 g) was placed in a plastic pot (D60 Steuwe and Sons, Tangent
rates of addiction, would increase the plant available water of soils, OR) 6.9 cm in diameter and 35.6 cm depth. Two treatments representing
improve plant growth under limited water supply, and increase N-fixa­ irrigation strategies included water additions equivalent 60% water
tion rates. An improved understanding of the effects of biochar and filled pore space (WFPS) and 40% WFPS for each soil. Water content (g
compost applications with limited water supply will lead to improve­ H2O g− 1 soil) at saturation (θs; Tables 5 and 6) defined 100% WFPS.
ments to food and forage crop production under arid and semiarid Seeds were sown three per pot and thinned to one plant after 10 days.
conditions. The growth period from planting to termination was 50 days. Before
planting, the seeds were treated with Rhizobium or Bradyrhizobium in­
2. Material and methods oculants appropriate for the different legume species.

2.1. Soil collection and processing 2.5. Plant growth outcomes

Soils were collected from the A horizon (0–15 cm) using skid steer At 50-day, plant growth was terminated and whole plants and soil
bucket loaders from sites mapped as Penwell soil (Siliceous, thermic volumes were removed intact from pots. Soil was washed from the root
Ustic Torripsamments) from near Kermit, TX and Kettleman soil (Fine- system by gentle pressure from a garden hose and nozzle. Washing was
loamy, mixed, superactive, thermic Typic Haplocambids) from near performed in wooden boxes fitted with 5 mm welded wire screens to
Coalinga, CA (Soil Survey Staff, 2020). Both soils were verified via allow soil to fall through. Root systems were then soaked overnight in a
textural analysis and visual observation to be consistent with the taxo­ 10 g L− 1 solution of sodium hexametaphosphate in deionized water and
nomic descriptions. Approximately 1000 kg soil was dried at 60 ◦ C, rinsed gently once more to ensure removal of all soil particles. Plant tops
sieved to <5 mm on a 1 m × 1 m welded wire screen and then mixed in and roots (before soaking) were imaged via digital camera before being
batches using a 400 kg capacity gas powered cement mixer. Batches dried for 48–72 h at 60 ◦ C. The imaging process was performed against a
were further completely mixed by hand on a plastic sheet using wide matte black cloth background with a graduated metric ruler placed near
aluminum shovels before being stored in 20-L plastic containers with the plant and within the image frame for scale. Digital images were

2
S.A. Haddad et al. Journal of Environmental Management 307 (2022) 114558

taken from directly above the plant at a fixed height to avoid error in Fisher’s protected LSD (α = 0.05) in the GLM procedure or by use of the
later image analysis due to aspect or angle changes. Nodules were test procedure.
removed from roots and dried separately. Nodules were imaged with
along shoots and roots. 2.7.2. Plant nutrient uptake
Plant height, root length, and number of nodules were determined Macro- and micronutrient accumulation in whole plant tops was
later using ImageJ analysis software (https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/down evaluated using the same ANOVA approach described for plant growth
load.html). Plant height was measured by carefully drawing a line outcomes (above). Further post hoc evaluation via comparison of means
parallel to the plant shoot and adjusting for changes in growth direction was also performed for plant growth outcomes.
from the soil surface to the uppermost apical meristem, excluding ex­
tensions of leaves beyond this point. Root length was measured as a 2.7.3. Water retention curve comparison
straight-line distance from the soil surface to the tip of the longest root. Water retention curves fit to data for different soil samples amended
Plant shoot mass and root mass were measured on dry material using a with different rates of compost or biochar were compared to determine
digital balance capable of measuring masses from 0.0001 to 200 g. Re­ differences in drainable porosity and field capacity as a function of rate
sults are reported to three significant digits. Root nodules were counted, of addition of compost or biochar (Mowrer et al., 2021). Rates applied in
and the total number was reported. Shoot: root ratio was calculated from this water retention curve study, for both soils and both amendments,
the respective masses of each. included other rates, which were equivalent to 0, 2, 5, 10, and 20 Mg
amendment ha− 1. This was calculated based on an assumption of 2000
2.5.1. Plant nutrient uptake m3 of soil in 1 ha to a plow depth of 20 cm at a bulk density of 1.2 g
Total nutrient content of plant shoots was measured following drying cm− 3. Amendments were hand ground using mortar and pestle and
and grinding the entirety of the above ground plant tissue to <0.5 mm screened to a sieve size <2 mm. Amended soils were then well mixed
particle size. Plant P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Zn, Fe, Cu, Mn, and B were measured prior to saturating for the HYPROP procedure. Drainable porosity is
by microwave assisted acid digestion and ICP-AES as above for biochar defined herein as the difference in volumetric water content between
and compost. Total N was measured by the combustion method, also as saturation and field capacity (θs - θFC). Plant available water is defined
above. herein as the difference in volumetric water content between field ca­
pacity and the permanent wilting point (θFC - θPWP). Linear regression
2.6. Water retention curve analysis analysis for changes in drainable porosity and plant available water as a
function of rates of compost or biochar amendment was performed using
The HYPROP-FIT software (Pertassek et al., 2015) was used to fit SAS software (SAS Software, SAS Institute, Cary NC) in the REG pro­
measurements made in the HYPROP-View software to the non-linear cedure (α = 0.05).
water retention curve equation according by Fredlund and Xing
(1994). Equation (1) is the integrated form of the Fredlund-Xing equa­ 3. Results and discussion
tion, which provides the relationship between volumetric soil water
content (θ) and soil water potential (ψ). The correction function, C(ψ), 3.1. Soils and carbon amendments
proposed by the authors was used by HYPROP-FIT to modify Eq. (1).
This function forces the curve to zero on the y-axis at a value of 106 kPa The results of the soil analyses are presented in Table 1. The Ket­
(Eq. (2)), allowing for a more realistic fit for retention curves to envi­ tleman soil, which was determined to be of the sandy clay loam textural
ronmental soil response (Fredlund and Xing, 1994). In this equation, ψr class containing 49% sand, 19% silt, and 32% clay, was moderately
is the suction corresponding to the residual water content θr. The alkaline (7.9 pH) and contained more native plant available nutrients
software-calculated air-entry point (Schindler et al., 2015) was included than the Penwell soil. The latter was determined to be of the sand
in the equation for all samples. This is the point at which air begins to textural class with 99% sand, 1% silt, and 0% clay. The Penwell soil was
enter the pores of the tensiometer cup in the HYPROP measurement also moderately alkaline, with a pH of 8.06. Though the soils differed in
apparatus. Best fit parameters for the water retention curve equation, a, nutrient content, adequate addition of fertilizer according to plant
m, n, and saturated water content of soils (θs), as well as estimates for requirement obviated deficiencies that might potentially limit plant
water content (θFC) at field capacity (− 31.62 kPa) and water content performance. This was according to soil fertility recommendations for
(θPWP) at the permanent wilting point (− 1585 kPa) were calculated in Texas Turf and Landscape, based on soil testing analysis performed at
HYPROP-FIT. Soil sample bulk density (BD) was calculated from the Texas A&M University soil, water and forage testing laboratory.
mass of the soil contained in the 249 cm3 sample rings used by the http://soiltesting.tamu.edu/webpages/recommendations.html.
HYPROP apparatus, dried at 105 ◦ C following the water retention curve
measurement procedure. 3.2. Carbon amendments
[ ]m
1 Results of chemical analysis of the carbon amendments are also
θ = θs n Eq. 1
ln[e + (ψ /a) ] presented in Table 1. The amendments differed in chemical composition
and nutrient availability. The biochar was richer in C (737 g kg− 1) than
− ln(1 + ψ /ψ r )
C(ψ ) = [ ( / ] +1 Eq. 2 the compost (333 g kg− 1). However, N content was lower in the biochar
ln 1 + 106 ψ r (15.9 g kg− 1) than in the compost (29.3 g kg− 1). Resultant C:N ratios
were approximately 11:1 for compost and 46:1 for the biochar.
2.7. Statistical analysis Considering that C:N < 20:1 ratios favor N mineralization and those
>30:1 favor immobilization, the compost will favor N release while the
2.7.1. Plant growth outcomes biochar will favor N sequestration (Cassity-Duffey et al., 2020; Tsai and
Shoot height, shoot mass, root length, root mass, and number of Chang, 2020). There were similarities in the concentrations of P, K, Ca,
nodules per plant for both faba beans and soybeans were each evaluated Mn, and B. The difference in Cu concentrations, which were 7.6 and
for changes as a function of soil water content, carbon type, rate of 96.8 mg kg− 1 in the compost and biochar respectively, are substantial
carbon addition, species, soil type, and interactive effects using the and potentially of practical importance. For example, Sánchez-Pardo
ANOVA output from the GLM procedure in SAS software (SAS Software, and Zornoza (2014) found that soybean shoot and root growth were
SAS Institute, Cary NC). The effects of soil type and species were then reduced when exposed to high levels of Cu using solutions of 48 μM
separated for further post hoc evaluation via comparison of means using CuSO4∙5H2O and greater.

3
S.A. Haddad et al. Journal of Environmental Management 307 (2022) 114558

Table 1
Chemical analysis results for carbon amendments and soils used in greenhouse experiment.
Total C N P K Ca S Na Zn Fe Cu Mn B
− 1 − 1
Carbon amendment g kg mg kg
Compost 333 29.3 3.5 23.7 28.5 5.8 500 22.9 2438 7.6 73.7 37.0
Biochar 737 15.9 4.1 20.9 29.0 2.2 1900 28.8 1522 96.8 71.5 37.6

Plant Available P K Ca Mg S Na Zn Fe Cu Mn pH EC
1 1
Soil mg kg− μs cm−
Kettleman 31 480 5822 876 67 301 0.44 2.35 1.70 61.78 7.93 341
Penwell 13 71 607 58 4 13 0.05 0.63 0.04 0.64 8.06 76

3.3. Shoots, roots and nodules Though carbon was not a significant factor in the global ANOVA model,
the interaction between water content and carbon indicated moderate
Data presented in Tables 2a–2c demonstrate that soil type is an significance (p = 0.0900). Fig. 1 is arranged to highlight the effect of %
extremely significant effect (p < 0.0001) for shoot and root length and WFPS on S:R. Faba bean and soy bean plants’ S:R responded differently
significant for number of nodules formed (p = 0.0189). C amendment in different soils, with faba bean in the Penwell soil and soybean in the
rate was found to be significant for shoot length (p = 0.0102). Type of C Kettleman soil exhibiting skewness towards higher S:R under 60% WFPS
amendment, which for statistical analysis included the control, was than 40% WFPS. However, there was no clear trend for faba bean S:R in
significant (p = 0.0433). However, both biochar and compost types the Kettleman soil and no significant differences in means for treatments
resulted in an overall mean length of 33 cm vs 30.4 for the control. Both applied to soy beans in the Penwell soil. Higher S:R ratios observed in
water content (60% WFPS and 40% WFPS) and the amendment rate (0, the soybeans grown at 60 %WFPS in the Kettleman (sandy clay loam)
5, and 10 Mg ha-1) had a significant effect on shoot and root mass (p = soil in both the control and biochar receiving treatments, but not the
0.0411 and 0.0133 respectively). compost treatments. This can be interpreted as a reduced investment of
Each plant species produced different shoot mass, root mass, root resources in root biomass to achieve a similar shoot mass outcome. Liu
length (p < 0.0001), and shoot length (p = 0.0454) (Tables 2a–2c). The et al. (2008) found that S:R ratios decreased in cotton under water stress
interaction between C amendment and rate was very significant for root and were primarily a function decreased shoot mass. Ordóñez et al.
mass (p = 0.0094). Although the interaction was not significant for (2020), reporting on Midwest U.S. soybeans, observed S:R ratios ranging
differences in shoot mass, it is worth reporting here (p = 0.1051) as from 8 to 25. However, these were sampled at grain filling (R5), a later
future studies may find differences in other soils or with more disparate stage with considerably more above-ground biomass than sampled in
treatments. The lack of differences in nodule formation as a function of the current study. Therefore, this study contributes additional data on
amendment type or rate is somewhat at odds with other studies. The faba bean and soybean S:R ratios to ongoing discussions in the literature.
high rate of N application for the compost (10 Mg ha− 1) would be
equivalent to 290 kg N ha− 1, and yet no significant depression of nodule
formation was observed. However, we postulate that this may be 3.5. Plant nutrient uptake
explained as a failure to sufficiently mineralize the organic N over the
50-day period of the study. Results for macronutrients and micronutrients in whole plant tissue
are presented in Tables 3a–3c and 4a - 4c for whole plant N, P and K
respectively. Soil water content had a significant effect on Mg (p =
3.4. Shoot:root ratio (S:R) 0.0140), S (p < 0.0001) and Zn (p = 0.0116) uptake. Less significant,
though worth reporting, were effects of water content on N (p = 0.0818)
Both water content and plant species (p < 0.0001) affected S:R. and Cu (p = 0.0993). Carbon amendment type did not affect N

Table 2a
Shoot mass, root mass, shoot length, root length and number of nodules for Faba beans (V. faba) grown in two soil types in the greenhouse under different soil water
contents and carbon amendments.
Plant growth measurements (V. faba)

Water content Amendment Rate Soil Shoot mass σ Root mass σ Shoot length σ Root length σ Nodules σ
(%WFPS) (Mg ha− 1) (g) (g) (cm) (cm) (#)
40 Control 0 Kettleman 1.388 0.112 0.733 0.112 25.7 3.7 20.9 4.2 2.5 5.0
60 Control 0 Kettleman 1.651 0.289 0.617 0.061 30.8 7.8 19.7 1.6 7.8 5.5
40 Biochar 5 Kettleman 1.604 0.286 0.707 0.206 32.1 3.7 20.2 1.0 3.0 4.8
60 Biochar 5 Kettleman 1.533 0.233 0.741 0.185 36.0 6.0 23.2 2.4 16.8 17.1
40 Biochar 10 Kettleman 1.362 0.197 0.660 0.198 32.1 1.4 18.6 0.8 10.5 3.4
60 Biochar 10 Kettleman 1.509 0.275 0.647 0.095 27.7 5.6 23.7 7.6 11.3 15.0
40 Compost 5 Kettleman 1.267 0.192 0.703 0.112 30.8 4.4 16.7 1.4 2.3 2.9
60 Compost 5 Kettleman 1.579 0.042 0.926 0.167 33.5 3.2 20.7 1.5 12.5 11.8
40 Compost 10 Kettleman 1.235 0.146 0.645 0.139 26.4 4.7 19.3 0.5 1.8 3.5
60 Compost 10 Kettleman 1.375 0.188 0.740 0.127 32.5 3.0 21.2 1.1 4.5 9.0

40 Control 0 Penwell 1.267 0.347 0.731 0.206 29.1 2.1 19.2 3.1 11.0 18.2
60 Control 0 Penwell 1.358 0.290 0.624 0.158 32.1 2.0 19.6 1.2 14.3 16.2
40 Biochar 5 Penwell 1.397 0.180 0.832 0.172 32.4 4.0 16.8 2.0 11.8 14.9
60 Biochar 5 Penwell 1.541 0.138 0.502 0.114 34.3 2.5 18.5 1.7 6.3 7.3
40 Biochar 10 Penwell 1.317 0.241 0.725 0.262 28.8 2.1 19.3 3.3 23.5 12.7
60 Biochar 10 Penwell 1.791 0.405 0.804 0.096 36.1 4.9 18.5 0.4 18.0 15.6
40 Compost 5 Penwell 1.378 0.059 0.780 0.176 34.1 2.6 15.9 1.0 14.5 8.1
60 Compost 5 Penwell 1.218 0.264 0.645 0.180 36.2 4.0 19.4 1.6 7.8 9.0
40 Compost 10 Penwell 1.061 0.285 0.505 0.266 25.9 4.7 18.8 1.5 7.0 4.5
60 Compost 10 Penwell 1.488 0.249 0.494 0.049 37.0 0.6 18.6 1.6 6.0 6.6

4
S.A. Haddad et al. Journal of Environmental Management 307 (2022) 114558

Table 2b
Shoot mass, root mass, shoot length, root length and number of nodules for Soybeans (G. max) grown in two soil types in the greenhouse under different soil water
contents and carbon amendments.
Plant growth measurements (G. max)

Water content Amendment Rate Species Shoot mass σ Root mass σ Shoot length σ Root length σ Nodules σ
(% WFPS) (Mg ha− 1) (g) (g) (cm) (cm) (#)

40 Control 0 Soy 0.757 0.189 0.481 0.102 34.3 4.0 23.6 3.3 12.0 2.4
60 Control 0 Soy 1.187 0.220 0.284 0.087 35.9 4.4 21.6 1.7 13.5 5.1
40 Biochar 5 Soy 0.926 0.115 0.458 0.051 43.9 3.1 24.3 3.1 8.8 3.0
60 Biochar 5 Soy 0.961 0.151 0.228 0.089 37.7 0.9 19.9 1.2 9.5 3.9
40 Biochar 10 Soy 0.893 0.070 0.429 0.061 40.0 5.4 25.3 2.5 10.8 4.2
60 Biochar 10 Soy 1.001 0.122 0.293 0.066 36.1 3.3 25.4 4.1 15.0 3.7
40 Compost 5 Soy 0.935 0.039 0.438 0.054 42.7 3.3 22.2 3.2 8.0 2.6
60 Compost 5 Soy 1.015 0.197 0.357 0.200 34.5 5.3 22.7 2.3 12.0 2.9
40 Compost 10 Soy 0.901 0.126 0.406 0.103 37.8 2.7 24.9 5.5 7.5 3.7
60 Compost 10 Soy 0.853 0.335 0.359 0.061 36.2 2.5 20.5 2.0 9.3 4.2

40 Control 0 Soy 0.951 0.263 0.344 0.108 29.5 3.7 19.2 1.5 12.0 3.8
60 Control 0 Soy 0.860 0.466 0.261 0.134 25.6 3.7 21.0 1.9 13.5 6.2
40 Biochar 5 Soy 0.976 0.343 0.340 0.091 30.5 4.7 18.7 2.2 7.3 5.4
60 Biochar 5 Soy 0.856 0.317 0.333 0.055 26.8 4.2 19.6 2.2 11.0 7.6
40 Biochar 10 Soy 1.081 0.077 0.401 0.140 28.6 1.8 19.5 0.7 11.3 3.4
60 Biochar 10 Soy 1.057 0.377 0.385 0.170 25.2 5.0 21.9 1.2 6.8 5.9
40 Compost 5 Soy 1.346 0.070 0.414 0.016 31.8 4.4 19.6 1.3 14.5 2.5
60 Compost 5 Soy 1.390 0.110 0.558 0.060 30.2 3.4 19.7 0.3 18.5 2.1
40 Compost 10 Soy 1.390 0.061 0.528 0.040 31.4 1.9 19.7 1.3 12.0 4.6
60 Compost 10 Soy 0.914 0.464 0.297 0.089 26.8 2.3 19.4 1.9 13.8 3.0

concentrations.
Table 2c Different mechanisms for the effect of biochar or compost amend­
ANOVA results for shoot mass, root mass, shoot length, root length and number
ments on N-fixing potential have been proposed. These include
of nodules for Faba beans (V. faba) and Soybeans (G. max) grown in two soil
increased carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus, enhancement of stable soil
types in the greenhouse under two soil water contents and two carbon amend­
ments applied at 3 rates. aggregates, and stimulation of microorganism activity (Schulz et al.,
2013). Egamberdieva et al. (2018) asserted that biochar supplies more
Global ANOVA Shoot Root Shoot Root Nodules
pore space and air to facilitate the activity of nodule-forming bacteria,
Type I SS mass mass length length
which adhere to the biochar surface of pores in the soil. The additional
Water content 0.0411 0.0133 0.1372
– –
access to O2 from these pores may facilitate Rhizobia respiration. Pie­
C amendment – – 0.0433 – –
Rate – 0.1311 0.0102 0.0259 – tikäinen et al. (2000) interpreted the survival of bacteria to protection
Species <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0454 <0.0001 – from predation and abrupt environmental changes afforded by the in­
Soil – – <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0189 ternal pore structure of biochar. Biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) is
Water content*C – 0.1164 – – – estimated to contribute approximately 17.2 × 107t of nitrogen to soils
amendment
globally each year (Ishizuka, 1992). In this 50-day greenhouse study, no
Water content*Rate – – – – –
C amendment*Rate 0.1051 0.0094 – – – differences in N assimilation (via uptake or fixation) were observed as a
result of biochar or compost addition at either rate. The strong effect of
soil type, however, is an indication that the development of information
assimilation (either by uptake or fixation) as hypothesized, nor did the regarding organic and amendments and N-fixation in legumes should
rate of amendment. Therefore, differences in amendment N and C:N retain soil properties as an important context. This completely matches
ratios were not found to affect plant N fixation potential, either. The with the results obtained by Martí et al. (2021) who, showed that the
amendment type did, however, affect P (p = 0.0059), K (p < 0.0001), effects of different biochars on the soil nitrogen forms were variegated,
and Ca (p = 0.0146) uptake. The effect on P and K was generally posi­ mainly attributable to soil properties, and to a lesser extent to the spe­
tive, while the effect on Ca was negative. Negative effects on Ca uptake cific biochar used. On contrast, Siedt et al. (2021) has reported an in­
with C amendment may be explained by the strong role of divalent crease in N-fixing microbial populations in soils where biochar was
cations in electrostatic bridging to promote adsorption of humic acids to applied.
soil colloids and cross-linking of SOM particulates (Mouvenchery et al.,
2012; Newcomb et al., 2017). The binding power of Ca in both mech­
anisms serves to reduce its availability to plants. Amendment rate was 3.6. Water retention curves
responsible for differences in P, K, and Ca uptake as well. Plant species
(p < 0.0001) significantly affected N, P, K, Ca, and S uptake. Soil type (p The development of relationships for the water potential (ψ) at any
< 0.0001) significantly affected P, K, Mg and S uptake. given volumetric water content (θ) is important as plant response to soil
These results agree with Liu et al. (2012), who found that application water is most closely related to suction pressure or potential than to
of biochar and compost as a soil amendment had a positive effect on mass or volume. This relationship can be expressed through the water
plant growth, soil nutrient content, and water-holding capacity under retention curve. Soil properties, such as texture, organic matter content,
field conditions. However, responses in many studies vary with crop and total soluble salts will affect this relationship. The addition of
species, soil properties, C amendment type or composition, water con­ organic amendments to soils of different properties will then likely have
tent, and rates of application (Olszyk et al., 2020). Biochar and compost a differential effect. The HYPROP SEM method has acceptable repro­
blends have been observed to increase Cu sorption in soils, reducing ducibility but is time consuming to perform. Therefore, two random
plant Cu assimilation (Borchard et al., 2012). However, in this study, the duplicate analysis results are presented in Fig. 4 and in Tables 5 and 6 to
elevated Cu (Table 1) in the biochar did not result in higher plant tissue confirm accuracy of the method and confidence in all other results
performed on single samples only.

5
S.A. Haddad et al. Journal of Environmental Management 307 (2022) 114558

Fig. 1. Shoot: Root ratio for faba beans and soy beans grown under different treatments in two soils (Kettleman and Penwell). Means presented as columns with error
bars = 1 standard deviation. Comparison of means performed for treatments within each soil. Columns with similar letters do not significantly differ by Fisher’s
protected LSD comparison of means procedure (α = 0.05). Note: figure arranged differently from previous figures to highlight the effect of water content (% WFPS).

There are clear differences in the shape of the water retention curves Fredlund Xing equation (1994) are presented in Tables 5–6, along with
between soils (Figs. 2 and 3). All curves for the Kettleman soil feature a calculated values for drainable porosity and plant available water.
lower rate of change through the rapid desorption portion of the curve Linear regression analysis for the effect of each organic amendment
(~1–10 log kPa) than the Penwell soil. The rate of change, or severity of applied to the two individual soils revealed that drainable porosity in the
the slope, in this part of the curve is negatively related to plant available Kettleman and the Penwell soils was unaffected by amendments in the
water. All Kettleman curves also feature a less severe shoulder where the range of 0–20 Mg ha− 1. Plant available water was unaffected by either
rapid desorption region begins. Both slope and shoulder features are amendment as a function of rate applied to the Kettleman soil. Plant
typical differences found in curves for coarse vs. medium textured soils available water content was positively affected for biochar amended
(Mowrer et al., 2021). Penwell soil (%Vol = 2.12 + 0.061*Mg ha− 1 biochar), but not for
In this study, a differential effect was observed between the two soil compost amended Penwell.
types as a function of addition of organic amendments. Soil type was a Despite the many reports in the literature regarding the improve­
significant effect in the global ANOVA (p < 0.0001), while type of car­ ments to soil water holding capacity following amendment with biochar
bon amendment and rate of amendment were not. At saturation, θs for and compost (Serra Wittling et al., 1996; Glaser et al., 2002; Novak et al.,
the unamended Kettleman soil was 46.63 %Vol compared with 36.70 % 2012; Ramos, 2017) this study did not reproduce the same outcomes.
Vol for the Penwell soil (Tables 5–6). The clay content of the Kettleman Hardie et al. (2014) also found no effect on soil water parameters with a
(32%) was far greater than that of the Penwell soil (0%), and so this biochar from acacia feedstock. The single positive relationship observed
result was expected. Drainable porosity and plant available water for the for biochar amended Penwell sandy soil suggests only a modest practical
unamended soils also differed substantially. For the Kettleman soil the improvement in plant available water of 1.22 %Vol over the range of
values were 27.46 and 12.96 %Vol respectively, and for the Penwell soil 0–20 Mg ha− 1 addition. Measured values were 1.53 and 3.73 %Vol 0 and
the values were 34.76 and 1.53 %Vol respectively (Table 6). 20 Mg ha− 1, respectively. However, as is often done in the literature, the
Water retention curves in the ψ range 0.1–1000 (log kPa) are pre­ measured improvement could be expressed as a 143% increase. Razza­
sented Figs. 2 and 3. Parameter estimates for the curve fits using the ghi et al. (2020) performed a meta-analysis of the subject, reporting that

6
S.A. Haddad et al. Journal of Environmental Management 307 (2022) 114558

Table 3a
Macronutrients in Faba bean (V. faba) whole plant tissue after 50 days of growth in two soils amended with either biochar or compost and maintained at either 40 or
60% water filled pore space.
Macronutrients in whole plant tissue (V. faba)

Water Amendment Rate Soil N σ P σ K σ Ca σ Mg σ S σ

Content

(%WFPS) (Mg % mg mg mg mg mg
ha− 1) kg− 1 kg− 1 kg− 1 kg− 1 kg− 1

40 Control 0 Kettleman 3.86 0.51 5772 938 29073 2310 7053 1252 3616 428 2154 96.5
60 Control 0 Kettleman 2.88 0.57 4170 725 28994 4397 6828 679 3302 257 1745 174.6
40 Biochar 5 Kettleman 3.02 0.59 4272 848 29641 2373 7173 151 3809 342 2012 321.8
60 Biochar 5 Kettleman 2.54 0.24 4230 643 30497 4170 7900 1395 3670 777 1787 170.4
40 Biochar 10 Kettleman 3.07 0.61 4480 688 30085 2298 7491 1393 3720 541 1963 295.9
60 Biochar 10 Kettleman 3.37 0.36 5387 421 26540 2746 6041 341 3371 364 1619 103.1
40 Compost 5 Kettleman 3.52 0.29 4898 738 26083 2399 8115 827 3871 528 2416 159.4
60 Compost 5 Kettleman 3.02 0.38 4593 630 33599 3326 7804 1255 3841 308 1777 173.4
40 Compost 10 Kettleman 3.48 0.36 4856 511 31069 1612 7409 827 3668 280 2050 334.4
60 Compost 10 Kettleman 3.08 0.44 5624 626 34371 2447 7251 1331 3568 314 1787 234.5

40 Control 0 Penwell 3.40 0.40 6306 539 28143 1899 9243 406 2762 251 2579 222.8
60 Control 0 Penwell 3.13 0.66 5837 256 22632 1370 7970 804 2269 183 1766 122.6
40 Biochar 5 Penwell 2.69 0.30 4836 237 26964 3904 7675 1905 2518 474 2016 395.7
60 Biochar 5 Penwell 3.07 0.30 5176 457 23248 2161 8050 255 2392 242 1653 162.9
40 Biochar 10 Penwell 3.76 0.31 6974 463 35092 4522 8078 2049 3217 363 3199 177.8
60 Biochar 10 Penwell 3.07 0.28 6025 1641 27504 2396 6474 1043 2432 97 1792 28.9
40 Compost 5 Penwell 3.38 0.45 6543 683 31169 3921 7861 1593 2691 220 2558 252.0
60 Compost 5 Penwell 3.37 0.28 5481 464 30792 4652 7017 1598 2343 696 1592 173.2
40 Compost 10 Penwell 3.47 0.73 7719 591 41650 4484 7915 1622 3669 858 3346 1031.0
60 Compost 10 Penwell 3.52 0.32 5926 999 36086 7776 6437 652 2778 256 1864 170.1

Table 3b
Macronutrients in Soybean (G. max) whole plant tissue after 50 days of growth in two soils amended with either biochar or compost and maintained at either 40 or 60%
water filled pore space.
Macronutrients in whole plant tissue (G. max)

Water Amendment Rate Soil N σ P σ K σ Ca σ Mg σ S σ

Content

(%WFPS) (Mg % mg mg mg mg mg
ha− 1) kg− 1 kg− 1 kg− 1 kg− 1 kg− 1

40 Control 0 Kettleman 2.48 0.39 3726 289 29716 256 10196 1287 3495 437 1861 148.8
60 Control 0 Kettleman 2.78 0.15 3093 358 28974 1912 11320 1057 3788 290 1897 126.1
40 Biochar 5 Kettleman 2.82 0.34 2967 398 28878 1013 10645 1067 3695 285 2032 211.8
60 Biochar 5 Kettleman 2.71 0.37 3207 200 27627 1354 10868 852 3667 314 1921 188.1
40 Biochar 10 Kettleman 2.71 0.27 3163 240 30630 1519 10919 304 3710 226 1842 105.8
60 Biochar 10 Kettleman 2.79 0.35 3679 191 29789 898 11690 325 3694 98 1829 68.6
40 Compost 5 Kettleman 2.47 0.52 3139 192 29594 314 10432 709 3325 334 1844 58.6
60 Compost 5 Kettleman 2.61 0.35 4047 237 31903 616 12896 349 3863 57 2157 84.1
40 Compost 10 Kettleman 2.33 0.35 2977 322 27778 1048 11164 799 3682 390 1866 91.8
60 Compost 10 Kettleman 2.44 0.19 5085 1294 30532 2302 10654 1478 3301 411 1989 236.9

40 Control 0 Penwell 2.75 0.28 6458 1530 22769 4367 13237 1702 2788 327 2091 398.4
60 Control 0 Penwell 2.84 0.35 4961 878 22593 2465 12619 1590 2974 413 1664 227.8
40 Biochar 5 Penwell 2.79 0.09 5723 235 23711 4330 10922 724 2591 254 2024 379.1
60 Biochar 5 Penwell 2.55 0.15 5807 353 22628 3038 11765 562 2678 286 1756 237.2
40 Biochar 10 Penwell 2.52 0.25 5754 806 22646 645 10371 1173 2553 299 1939 175.6
60 Biochar 10 Penwell 2.72 0.19 6134 1035 26050 2626 10910 1239 2620 192 1903 168.3
40 Compost 5 Penwell 2.61 0.09 6813 482 25673 1297 10944 1067 2491 200 1970 62.8
60 Compost 5 Penwell 2.54 0.28 6122 587 26149 1015 10215 695 2398 213 1624 78.3
40 Compost 10 Penwell 2.42 0.42 5094 237 24245 150 9526 256 2589 114 1743 73.2
60 Compost 10 Penwell 2.32 0.13 6710 1075 29713 3454 10190 1043 2453 156 1766 134.5

application of biochar increased plant available water by 45% of (Byrne and Nagle, 1997). At these bulk densities, the volume required to
coarse-textured soils, 21% in medium textured soils, and 14% in fine reach a mass of 20 Mg is equivalent to 40–200 m3.
textured soils. Blanco-Canqui (2017), in a summary of 20 studies, agreed
that available water increases are more pronounced in coarse textured 4. Conclusions
soils. The studies summarized included many application rates that were
far greater than those evaluated in the current study. This study found that there were benefits the amendment of soil with
A 20 Mg ha− 1 biochar amendment represents a large volume that is biochar or compost prepared from cotton harvest residues. The primary
not practical for most agronomic applications to achieve a modest benefits were in the form of increased plant assimilation of P and K.
improvement in available water. There is the physical challenge of Amendment type and rate were positively related to shoot length in
incorporating this much mass into the soil, considering the bulk density soybeans and faba beans. However, water content was a better explan­
of most non-hardwood derived biochar is between 0.1 and 0.5 g cm− 3 atory variable for shoot and root mass. Contrary to many reports of

7
S.A. Haddad et al. Journal of Environmental Management 307 (2022) 114558

Table 3c
ANOVA output for macronutrients in Faba bean (V. faba) and Soybean (G. max) whole plant tissue after 50 days of growth in two soils amended with either biochar or
compost and maintained at either 40 or 60% water filled pore space.
Macronutrients in whole plant tissue ANOVA output

Global ANOVA N P K Ca Mg S
Type I SS

Water Content 0.0818 – – – 0.014 <0.0001

carbon amendment – 0.0059 <0.0001 0.0146 – –
Rate – 0.0015 0.0006 0.0158 – –
Plant Species <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.001 <0.0001 – 0.0010
Soil – <0.0001 0.0003 – <0.0001 0.0365
Water*Carbon – – – – – –
Water*Rate – – – – – –
Carbon*Rate – – – – – –

Table 4a
Micronutrients in Faba bean (V. faba) whole plant tissue after 50 days of growth in two soils amended with either biochar or compost and maintained at either 40 or
60% water filled pore space.
Micronutrients in whole plant tissue (V. faba)

Water Content Amendment Rate Species Soil Zn σ Fe σ Cu σ Mn σ B σ

− 1 − 1 − 1 − 1 − 1 − 1
(%WFPS) (Mg ha ) mg kg mg kg mg kg mg kg mg kg

40 Control 0 Faba Kettleman 37.0 12.3 295 109 9.4 1.5 57.4 4.7 153.7 18.7
60 Control 0 Faba Kettleman 21.3 7.0 225 56 7.4 1.3 48.0 5.4 145.3 37.7
40 Biochar 5 Faba Kettleman 27.1 7.4 1057 1183 8.8 1.9 80.4 33.1 133.3 13.0
60 Biochar 5 Faba Kettleman 22.2 5.3 358 150 7.3 1.1 55.9 12.8 159.8 10.1
40 Biochar 10 Faba Kettleman 27.0 12.0 411 250 8.1 1.9 64.4 11.9 150.9 20.5
60 Biochar 10 Faba Kettleman 31.0 4.8 905 858 9.5 3.0 108.2 109.8 115.3 24.1
40 Compost 5 Faba Kettleman 31.1 7.1 514 141 7.9 2.0 49.8 9.8 134.6 10.2
60 Compost 5 Faba Kettleman 25.8 7.3 791 525 8.7 1.2 70.9 11.5 157.1 54.1
40 Compost 10 Faba Kettleman 30.7 7.8 781 644 9.8 1.9 62.4 12.8 121.4 20.2
60 Compost 10 Faba Kettleman 22.7 2.0 278 79 7.9 1.0 53.2 3.4 177.9 12.2

40 Control 0 Faba Penwell 22.4 2.8 96 19 7.0 0.9 53.7 5.4 69.7 8.7
60 Control 0 Faba Penwell 25.0 3.3 94 14 7.1 1.0 38.0 5.4 67.6 9.0
40 Biochar 5 Faba Penwell 22.0 5.5 84 13 5.9 0.8 44.6 8.1 57.7 8.4
60 Biochar 5 Faba Penwell 20.2 3.2 87 19 5.7 0.6 36.3 8.2 62.9 4.7
40 Biochar 10 Faba Penwell 30.8 4.8 95 17 9.3 2.6 53.1 8.6 69.3 18.5
60 Biochar 10 Faba Penwell 22.0 12.0 78 16 5.2 2.7 35.4 6.8 60.6 6.6
40 Compost 5 Faba Penwell 21.4 5.4 76 17 5.2 1.2 55.7 11.5 61.9 5.3
60 Compost 5 Faba Penwell 19.2 3.9 72 21 5.6 1.6 35.1 12.7 60.9 22.1
40 Compost 10 Faba Penwell 34.4 6.1 99 21 8.1 0.9 60.1 1.8 75.7 8.0
60 Compost 10 Faba Penwell 29.8 8.1 113 45 6.5 2.4 38.4 9.5 70.5 9.0

Table 4b
Micronutrients in Soybean (G. max) whole plant tissue after 50 days of growth in two soils amended with either biochar or compost and maintained at either 40 or 60%
water filled pore space.
Micronutrients in whole plant tissue (G. max)

Water Content Amendment Rate Species Soil Zn σ Fe σ Cu σ Mn σ B σ

− 1 − 1 − 1 − 1 − 1 − 1
(%WFPS) (Mg ha ) mg kg mg kg mg kg mg kg mg kg

40 Control 0 Soy Kettleman 16.2 3.2 177 94 5.9 0.6 98.7 27.0 162.6 17.7
60 Control 0 Soy Kettleman 17.0 2.8 186 39 7.1 2.2 116.4 20.8 173.1 23.4
40 Biochar 5 Soy Kettleman 18.0 4.3 188 63 7.6 1.9 103.3 29.9 179.4 34.9
60 Biochar 5 Soy Kettleman 17.2 7.5 225 55 5.9 0.6 110.1 25.3 171.6 20.3
40 Biochar 10 Soy Kettleman 15.9 2.0 152 39 5.4 0.8 96.7 3.2 170.2 7.6
60 Biochar 10 Soy Kettleman 12.4 1.8 178 63 5.0 0.3 121.8 24.2 151.4 17.3
40 Compost 5 Soy Kettleman 13.7 2.6 154 71 5.2 0.5 83.2 11.1 153.5 13.0
60 Compost 5 Soy Kettleman 16.3 4.2 251 166 6.0 0.4 141.0 2.0 176.9 19.4
40 Compost 10 Soy Kettleman 15.7 4.2 523 473 6.1 0.9 95.8 39.9 153.5 22.4
60 Compost 10 Soy Kettleman 9.5 1.8 118 10 4.8 0.8 86.4 14.9 137.5 31.0

40 Control 0 Soy Penwell 5.1 2.6 60 4 2.6 0.5 33.2 4.5 56.4 7.1
60 Control 0 Soy Penwell 6.8 1.9 70 13 3.2 0.6 29.4 5.8 62.5 23.9
40 Biochar 5 Soy Penwell 5.0 2.2 61 3 3.4 1.7 33.3 2.3 52.2 1.5
60 Biochar 5 Soy Penwell 6.2 2.6 147 155 4.2 2.7 31.3 6.1 64.4 6.3
40 Biochar 10 Soy Penwell 5.1 1.2 68 10 2.6 0.5 33.3 4.0 51.7 6.0
60 Biochar 10 Soy Penwell 7.0 1.5 108 83 3.4 1.4 33.7 6.1 74.3 8.1
40 Compost 5 Soy Penwell 5.8 1.2 80 23 2.7 0.4 38.4 8.1 61.8 13.3
60 Compost 5 Soy Penwell 6.1 0.9 118 43 3.1 0.5 35.1 4.8 74.0 8.2
40 Compost 10 Soy Penwell 5.2 1.7 66 19 2.1 0.5 32.6 3.9 62.0 5.4
60 Compost 10 Soy Penwell 4.0 0.3 56 12 2.1 0.2 25.0 7.3 48.3 14.9

8
S.A. Haddad et al. Journal of Environmental Management 307 (2022) 114558

Table 4c
ANOVA output for micronutrients in Faba bean (V. fabia) and Soybean (G. max)
whole plant tissue after 50 days of growth in two soils amended with either
biochar or compost and maintained at either 40 or 60% water filled pore space.
Global ANOVA Zn Fe Cu Mn B

Type I SS

Water Content 0.0116 – 0.0993 – –

Carbon amendment – – – – –
Rate 0.0805 – – – –
Plant Species <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0010 0.0360
Soil <0.0001 – <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Water*Carbon – – – – –
Water*Rate – – – – 0.0678
Carbon*Rate – – – – –

Fig. 3. Water release curves for compost added to a Kettleman and a Penwell
soil at rates of 0, 2, 5, 10, and 20 Mg ha− 1.

Fig. 2. Water release curves for biochar added to a Kettleman and a Penwell
soil at rates of 0, 2, 5, 10, and 20 Mg ha− 1.

increased water holding capacity gained by soils amended with biochars

and composts, this study found only moderate improvement to plant
available water in the sandy soil amended with biochar, and none for a
sandy clay loam. This study emphasizes the importance of repeating Fig. 4. Repeatability of the HYPROP SEM method evidenced by two random
investigations into the benefits of biochar and/or compost amendments duplicate runs from the Kettleman soil 10 Mg ha− 1 biochar and Penwell soil 5
on many different soil types and water regimes to evaluate whether Mg ha− 1 compost addition treatments.
benefits reported under ideal conditions are consistent across multiple

9
S.A. Haddad et al. Journal of Environmental Management 307 (2022) 114558

Table 5
HYPROP-FIT software estimates for Fredlund-Xing equation parameters (a, n, and m) and major features of the water retention curve for a Kettleman soil: saturation (0
kPa),the air entry value (− 6.31 kPa), field capacity (− 3.62 kPa), the permanent wilting point (− 1584.9 kPa). Calculated values based for drainable porosity and plant
available water are based on these estimates.
Kettleman Soil Rate a n m 0 − 6.31 − 31.62 − 1584.9 Drainable Porosity Plant Available Water
Amendment kPa
(Mg ha− 1) kPa % Volume (cm3 H2O cm− 3 soil * 100%)
Control 0 0.0249 1.568 0.675 46.63 33.75 19.17 6.21 27.46 12.96
Biochar 2 0.0245 1.851 0.422 45.29 36.16 23.72 9.89 21.57 13.83
5 0.0181 1.770 0.548 44.35 35.60 21.75 7.92 22.60 13.83
10 0.0222 1.414 0.681 41.56 31.70 19.02 6.18 22.54 12.84
(duplicate) 10 0.0238 0.999 1.069 41.56 28.41 16.36 4.00 25.20 12.36
20 0.0254 1.423 0.602 42.19 32.03 20.28 7.38 21.91 12.90
Compost 2 0.0162 1.470 0.910 45.29 33.44 17.33 4.16 27.96 13.17
5 0.0252 1.953 0.626 44.15 31.20 17.07 6.03 27.08 11.04
10 0.0226 1.861 0.749 40.87 28.77 14.30 4.29 26.57 10.01
20 0.0175 1.370 0.890 42.47 30.57 16.57 4.17 25.90 12.40

Table 6
HYPROP-FIT software estimates for Fredlund-Xing equation parameters (a, n, and m) and major features of the water retention curve for a Penwell soil: saturation (0
kPa), the air entry value (− 6.31 kPa), field capacity (− 3.62 kPa), the permanent wilting point (− 1584.9 kPa). Calculated values based for drainable porosity and plant
available water are based on these estimates.
Penwell Soil Rate a n m 0 − 6.31 − 31.62 − 1584.9 Drainable Porosity Plant Available Water

Amendment

kPa
− 1
(Mg ha ) kPa % Volume (cm3 H2O cm− 3
soil * 100%)

Control 0 0.0249 5.186 1.232 36.70 11.33 1.94 0.41 34.76 1.53
Biochar 2 0.0247 6.032 1.177 37.20 10.67 1.87 0.41 35.33 1.46
5 0.0272 6.023 0.836 40.15 13.86 4.25 1.58 35.90 2.67
10 0.0287 6.968 0.770 39.70 12.93 4.71 1.72 34.99 2.99
20 0.0275 6.381 0.707 41.41 16.14 6.19 2.46 35.22 3.73
Compost 2 0.0265 6.479 0.903 36.17 12.73 3.59 1.16 32.58 2.43
5 0.0275 7.114 0.847 39.06 11.84 3.72 1.21 35.34 2.51
(duplicate) 5 0.0268 10.000* 0.738 39.06 11.28 3.97 1.45 35.09 2.52
10 0.0268 9.008 0.618 39.76 13.77 5.11 1.64 34.65 3.47
20 0.0270 6.239 0.831 40.14 14.00 4.47 1.53 35.67 2.94

environments. Though benefits of organic amendments towards water and reduced cadmium in drought stressed wheat grown in an aged contaminated
soil. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 148, 825–833.
use efficiency may not have been substantial or significant in this study,
Akhtar, S.S., Li, G., Andersen, M.N., Liu, F., 2014. Biochar enhances yield and quality of
longer term studies at field scale are recommended to further investigate tomato under reduced irrigation. Agric. Water Manag. 138, 37–44.
their potential for water use improvement in arid and semi-arid systems. Akmal, M., Maqbool, Z., Khan, K.S., Hussain, Q., Ijaz, S.S., Iqbal, M., Aziz, I., Hussain, A.,
Abbas, M.S., Rafa, H.U., 2019. Integrated use of biochar and compost to improve soil
microbial activity, nutrient availability, and plant growth in arid soil. Arabian J.
Credit author statement Geosci. 12 (7), 232.
Azeem, M., Hayat, R., Hussain, Q., Ahmed, M., Pan, G., Ibrahim, Tahir M., Imran, M.,
Irfan, M., Mehmood ul, H., 2019. Biochar improves soil quality and N2-fixation and
Samir A. Haddad: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
reduces net ecosystem CO2 exchange in a dryland legume-cereal cropping system.
Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Soil Res. 186, 172–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2018.10.007.
Visualization, Jake Mowrer: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investi­ Bamminger, C., Zaiser, N., Zinsser, P., Lamers, M., Kammann, C., Marhan, S., 2014.
gation, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & Effects of biochar, earthworms, and litter addition on soil microbial activity and
abundance in a temperate agricultural soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils 50, 1189–1200.
editing, Visualization, Supervision, Binita Thapa: Methodology, Soft­ Blanco-Canqui, H., 2017. Biochar and soil physical properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 81
ware, Data curation. (4), 687–711.
Borchard, N., Prost, K., Kautz, T., Moeller, A., Siemens, J., 2012. Sorption of copper (II)
and sulphate to different biochars before and after composting with farmyard
Declaration of competing interest manure. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 63, 399–409.
Byrne, C.E., Nagle, D.C., 1997. Carbonization of wood for advanced materials
applications. Carbon 35 (2), 259–266.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Cassity-Duffey, K., Cabrera, M., Gaskin, J., Franklin, D., Kissel, D., Saha, U., 2020.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Nitrogen mineralization from organic materials and fertilizers: predicting N release.
the work reported in this paper. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 84 (2), 522–533.
Cooperband, L.R., Stone, A.G., Fryda, M.R., Ravet, J.L., 2003. Relating compost measures
of stability and maturity to plant growth. Compost Sci. Util. 11 (2), 113–124.
Acknowledgments Day, P.R., 1965. Particle fractionation and particle-size analysis. In: Black, C.A., et al.
(Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1. Agronomy Monogr. 9. ASA and SSSA,
Madison, WI, pp. 545–567.
The senior author thanks the Borlaug International Agricultural De Brito, A.M., Gagne, S., Antoun, H., 1995. Effect of compost on rhizosphere microflora
Science and Technology Fellowship Program for providing funds and of the tomato and on the incidence of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Appl.
facilities to conduct this research. Environ. Microbiol. 61 (1), 194–199.
Duong, T.T., Penfold, C., Marschner, P., 2012. Amending soils of different texture with
six compost types: impact on soil nutrient availability, plant growth and nutrient
References uptake. Plant Soil 354 (1–2), 197–209.
Edeh, I.G., Mašek, O., Buss, W., 2020. A meta-analysis on biochar’s effects on soil water
Abbas, T., Rizwan, M., Ali, S., Adrees, M., Mahmood, A., Zia-ur-Rehman, M., Ibrahim, M., properties–New insights and future research challenges. Sci. Total Environ. 714,
Arshad, M., Qayyum, M.F., 2018. Biochar application increased the growth and yield 136857.

10
S.A. Haddad et al. Journal of Environmental Management 307 (2022) 114558

Egamberdieva, D., Hua, M., Wirth, S., Bellingrath-Kimura, S.D., 2018. Potential effects of Mouvenchery, Y.K., Kučerík, J., Diehl, D., Schaumann, G.E., 2012. Cation-mediated
biochar-based microbial inoculants in agriculture. Environ. Sustain. 1, 19–24. cross-linking in natural organic matter: a review. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 11
Fredlund, D.G., Xing, A., 1994. Equations for the soil-water characteristic curve. Can. (1), 41–54.
Geotech. J. 31, 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1139/t94-061. Newcomb, C.J., Qafoku, N.P., Grate, J.W., Bailey, V.L., De Yoreo, J.J., 2017. Developing
Glaser, B., Lehmann, J., Zech, W., 2002. Ameliorating physical and chemical properties a molecular picture of soil organic matter–mineral interactions by quantifying
of highly weathered soils in the tropics with charcoal–a review. Biol. Fertil. Soils 35 organo–mineral binding. Nat. Commun. 8 (1), 1–8.
(4), 219–230. Novak, J.M., Busscher, W.J., Watts, D.W., Amonette, J.E., Ippolito, Lima J.A., , I.M.,
Gunarathne, V., Senadeera, A., Gunarathne, U., Biswas, J.K., Almaroai, Y.A., Gaskin, J., Das, K.C., Steiner, C., Ahmedna, M., Rehran, D., Schomberg, H., 2012.
Vithanage, M., 2020. Potential of biochar and organic amendments for reclamation Biochars impact on soil moisture storage in an Ultisol and two Aridisols. Soil Sci.
of coastal acidic-salt affected soil. Biochar 2 (1), 107–120. 177, 310–320.
Hardie, M., Clothier, B., Bound, S., Oliver, G., Close, D., 2014. Does biochar influence soil Olszyk, D., Shiroyama, T., Novak, J., Cantrell, K., Sigua, G., Watts, D., Johnson, M.G.,
physical properties and soil water availability? Plant Soil 376 (1), 347–361. 2020. Biochar affects growth and shoot nitrogen in four crops for two soils. Agrosyst.
Havlin, J.L., Soltanpour, P.N., 1989. A nitric acid and plant digest method for use with Geosci. Environ. 3, e20067 https://doi.org/10.1002/agg2.20067.
inductively coupled plasma spectrometry. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 14, Ordóñez, R.A., Archontoulis, S., Martinez-Feria, R., Hatfield, J., Wright, E.,
969–980. Castellano, M., 2020. Root to shoot and carbon to nitrogen ratios of maize and
Ippolito, J.A., Stromberger, M.E., Lentz, R.D., Dungan, R.S., 2014. Hardwood biochar soybean crops in the US Midwest. Eur. J. Agron. 120, 126130.
influences calcareous soil physicochemical and microbiological status. J. Environ. Ozores-Hampton, M., Stansly, P.A., Salame, T.P., 2011. Soil chemical, physical, and
Qual. 43, 681–689. biological properties of a sandy soil subjected to long-term organic amendments.
Ishizuka, J., 1992. Trends in biological nitrogen fixation research and application. Plant J. Sustain. Agric. 35, 243–269.
Soil 141, 197–209. Paradelo, R., Basanta, R., Barral, M.T., 2019. Water-holding capacity and plant growth in
Islam, S.M.F., Karim, Z., 2020. World’s demand for food and water: the consequences of compost-based substrates modified with polyacrylamide, guar gum or bentonite. Sci.
climate change. Desalin. - Challenges Oppor, IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/ Hortic. 243, 344–349.
intechopen.85919. Pertassek, T., Peters, A., Durner, W., 2015. HYPROP-FIT Software User’s Manual.
Jaafar, M.N., Clode, L.P., Abbott, K.L., 2015. Biochar-soil interactions in four agricultural Pietikainen, J., Kiikkila, O., Fritze, H., 2000. Charcoal as a habitat for microbes and its
soils. Pedosphere 25 (5), 729–736. effect on the microbial community of the underlying humus. Oikos 89, 231–242.
Jeffery, S., Abalos, D., Prodana, M., Bastos, A.C., Van Groenigen, J.W., Hungate, B.A., Pressler, Y., Foster, E.J., Moore, J.C., Cotrufo, M.F., 2017. Coupled biochar amendment
Verheijen, F., 2017. Biochar boosts tropical but not temperate crop yields. Environ. and limited irrigation strategies do not affect a degraded soil food web in a maize
Res. Lett. 12 (5) https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa67bd. agroecosystem, compared to the native grassland. GCB Bioenergy 9, 1344–1355.
Jeffery, S., Verheijen, F.G.A., Van Der Velde, M., Bastos, A.C., 2011. A quantitative Ramos, M.C., 2017. Effects of compost amendment on the available soil water and grape
review of the effects of biochar application to soils on crop productivity using meta- yield in vineyards planted after land levelling. Agric. Water Manag. 191, 67–76.
analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 144, 175–187. Razzaghi, F., Obour, P.B., Arthur, E., 2020. Does biochar improve soil water retention? A
Jiang, X., Haddix, L.M., Cotrufo, F.M., 2016. Interactions between biochar and soil systematic review and meta-analysis. Geoderma 361, 114055.
organic carbon decomposition: effects of nitrogen and low molecular weight carbon Rhoades, J.D., 1982. Soluble salts. p. 167-178. In: Page, A.L., et al. (Eds.), Methods of
compound addition. Soil Biol. Biochem. 100, 92–101. Soil Analysis: Part 2. Agronomy Monogr. 9, second ed. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI.
Kammann, C., Ippolito, J., Hagemann, N., Borchard, N., Cayuela, M.L., Estavillo, J.M., Rosegrant, M.W., Cai, X.M., 2002. Global water demand and supply projections: part 2.
Fuertes-Mendizabal, T., Jeffery, S., Kern, J., Novak, J., Rasse, D., Saarnio, S., Results and prospects to 2025. Water Int. 27, 170–182.
Schmidt, H.P., Spokas, K., Wrage-Mönnig, N., 2017. Biochar as a tool to reduce the Sánchez-Pardo, B., Zornoza, P., 2014. Mitigation of Cu stress by legume–Rhizobium
agricultural greenhouse-gas burden–knowns, unknowns and future research needs. symbiosis in white lupin and soybean plants. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 102, 1–5.
J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag. 25, 114–139. SAS Institute Inc, 2013. SAS/STAT Software V. 9.4 for Windows. SAS Institute Inc, Cary,
Lehmann, J., Joseph, S., 2009. Biochar for environmental management: an introduction. NC.
In: Lehmann, J., Joseph, S. (Eds.), Biochar for Environmental Management, Science Schindler, U., von Unold, G., Durner, W., Mueller, L., 2015. Recent progress in measuring
and Technology. Earthscan, London, pp. 1–9. soil hydraulic properties. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on
Lindsay, W.L., Norvell, W.A., 1978. Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, Environment and Civil Engineering, pp. 24–25.
manganese, and copper. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 42, 421–428. Schofield, R.K., Taylor, A.W., 1955. The measurement of soil pH. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.
Liu, R.X., Zhou, Z.G., Guo, W.Q., Chen, B.L., Oosterhuis, D.M., 2008. Effects of N 19, 164–167.
fertilization on root development and activity of water-stressed cotton (Gossypium Schulz, H., Dunst, G., Glaser, B., 2013. Positive effects of composted biochar on plant
hirsutum L.) plants. Agric. Water Manag. 95 (11), 1261–1270. growth and soil fertility. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 33, 817–827.
Liu, J., Schulz, H., Brandl, S., Miehtke, H., Huwe, B., Glaser, B., 2012. Short term effect of Serra-Wittling, C., Houot, S., Barriuso, E., 1996. Modification of soil water retention and
biochar and compost on soil fertility and water status of a dystric cambisol in NE biological properties by municipal solid waste compost. Compost Sci. Util. 4 (1),
Germany under field conditions. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 175, 698–707. 44–52.
Liu, X., Wei, Z., Ma, Y., Liu, J., Liu, F., 2021a. Effects of biochar amendment and reduced She, D., Sun, X., Gamareldawla, A., Nazar, E.A., Hu, W., Edith, K., Yu, S., 2018. Benefits
irrigation on growth, physiology, water-use efficiency and nutrients uptake of of soil biochar amendments to tomato growth under saline water irrigation. Sci. Rep.
tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.) on two different soil types. Sci. Total Environ. 770, 8 (1), 14743 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-33040-7.
144769. Siedt, M., Schäffer, A., Smith, K.E.C., Nabel, M., Roß-Nickoll, M., van Dongen, J.T., 2021.
Liu, X., Wei, Z., Manevski, K., et al., 2021b. Partial root-zone drying irrigation increases Comparing straw, compost, and biochar regarding their suitability as agricultural
water-use efficiency of tobacco plants amended with biochar. Ind. Crop. Prod. 166, soil amendments to affect soil structure, nutrient leaching, microbial communities,
113487. and the fate of pesticides. Sci. Total Environ. 751, 141607.
Martí, E., Sierra, J., Domene, X., Mumbrú, M., Cruañas, R., Garau, M.A., 2021. One-year Soil Survey Staff, 2020. Natural resources conservation service, United States department
monitoring of nitrogen forms after the application of various types of biochar on of agriculture. Web soil Survey. Available online at: the following link 09/21/2020.
different soils. Geoderma 402, 115178. http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/.
McGeehan, S.L., Naylor, D.V., 1988. Automated instrumental analysis of carbon and Tester, C.F., 1990. Organic amendment effects on physical and chemical properties of a
nitrogen in plant and soil samples. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 19, 493. sandy soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54 (3), 827–831.
Mehlich, A., 1984. Mehlich-3 soil test extractant: a modification of Mehlich-2 extractant. Tsai, C.-C., Chang, Y.-F., 2020. Effects of biochar to excessive compost-fertilized soils on
Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 15 (12), 1409–1416. the nutrient status. Agronomy 10, 683. https://doi.org/10.3390/
Mowrer, J., Provin, T., Thapa, B., Perkins, S., 2021. Thermal desorption temperature agronomy10050683.
affects water retention and hydraulic conductivity of three contrasting soils. Woolf, D., Amonette, J.E., Street-Perrott, F.A., Lehmann, J., Joseph, S., 2010. Sustainable
Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. (Accepted - (in press). biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nat. Commun. 1, 56.
Wright, A.L., Provin, T.L., Hons, F.M., Zuberer, D.A., White, R.H., 2008. Compost impacts
on sodicity and salinity in a sandy loam turf grass soil. Compost Sci. Util. 16, 30–35.

11