JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Effect of Carbonized Biomass Application on Organic Carbon Accumulation and Soy Bean Yields in Upland Soil
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Effect of Carbonized Biomass Application on Organic Carbon Accumulation and Soy Bean Yields in Upland Soil
Lee, Sun-Il; Park, Woo-Kyun; Kim, Gun-Yeob;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
Carbonized biomass could be used as a mechanism for long-term storage of C in soils. However, experimental results are variable. Objective of this study was carried out to evaluate the effect of carbonized biomass made from soybean residue on soil organic carbon and seed yield during soybean cultivation. The carbonized biomass was made by field scale mobile pyrolyzer. Pyrolyzer was performed in a reactor operated at for 2 hours using soybean residue. The treatments consisted of four levels as the control without input and three levels of carbonized biomass inputs as , C-1 ; , C-2 ; , C-3. It was appeared that seed yield of soybean was for control, for C-1, for C-2 and for C-3 at the end of experiment. It was shown that the contents of SOC were for C-1, for C-2, for C-3 and for the control at the end of experiment. Accumulated SOC contents linearly significantly (P < 0.001) increased with increasing the carbonized biomass input. The slopes (0.00162) of the regression equations suggest that SOC contents from the soil increase by with every increase of carbonized biomass rate. Consequently the carbonized biomass for byproducts such as soybean residue could increase SOC. It might be considered that the experimental results will be applied to soil carbon sequestration for future study. More long-term studies are needed to prove how long does SOC stay in agricultural soils.
 Keywords
Carbonized biomass;Pyrolyzer;Soil organic carbon;Soybean residue;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
Ascough P.L., C.J. Sturrock, and M.I. Bird. 2010. Investigation of growth responses in saprophytic fungi to charred biomass. Isotopes Environ. Health Stud. 46:64-77. crossref(new window)

2.
Baldock, J.A., and R.J. Smernik. 2002. Chemical Composition and Bioavailability of Thermally Altered Pinus Resinosa (Red pine) Wood. Org. Geochem. 33:1093-1109. crossref(new window)

3.
Chan, Y.K., L. Van Zwieten, I. Meszaros, A. Downie, and S. Joseph. 2008. Using poultry litter biochar as soil amendments. Aust. J. Soil Res. 46:437-444. crossref(new window)

4.
Gee, G.W. and J.W. Bauder. 1986. Particle size analysis, p. 383-412. In: G.S. Campbell et al., (ed.). Methods of soil analysis, Part 1. Physical and mineralogical methods. ASA and SSSA, Madison, Wi, USA.

5.
Glaser, B., L. Haumaier, G. Guggenberger, and W. Zech. 1998. Black carbon in soils: the use of benzenecarboxylic acids as specifirc markers. Org. Geochem. 29:811-819. crossref(new window)

6.
Jeffery, S., F.G.A. Verheijen, M. Velde, and A.C. Bastos. 2011. A quantitative review of the effects of biochar application to soils on crop productivity using meta-analysis. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 144:175-187. crossref(new window)

7.
Jung W.K. 2011. Characterization of crop residue-derived biochars produced by field scale biomass pyrolyzer. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fert. 44:1-7. crossref(new window)

8.
Khalil, M.I., M.B. Hossain, and U. Schmidhalter. 2005. Carbon and nitrogen mineralization in different upland soils of the subtropics treated with organic materials. Soil Biol. Biochem. 37:1507-1518. crossref(new window)

9.
Larid, D., P. Fleming, B.Q. Wang, R. Horton, and D. Karlen. 2010. Biochar impact on nutrient leaching from a Midwestern agricultural soil. Geoderma. 158:436-442. crossref(new window)

10.
Lee S.I., W.K. Park, G.Y. Kim, and J.D. Shin. 2014. Effect of the application of carbonized biomass from crop residues on soil organic carbon retention. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fert. 47:486-490. crossref(new window)

11.
Lehmann, J. 2009. Biological carbon sequestration must and can be a win-win approach. Clim. Change. 97:459-463. crossref(new window)

12.
Liang, B., J. Lehmann, D. Solomon, J. Kinyangi, J. Grossman, B. O'Neill, J.O. Skjemstad, J. Thies, F.J. Luizao, J. Petersem, and E.G. Neves. 2006. Black carbon increases cation exchange capacity in soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70:1719-1730. crossref(new window)

13.
Mathews, J.A. 2008. Carbon-negative biofuels. Energy Policy. 36:940-945. crossref(new window)

14.
NAAS. 2000. Methods of soil and plant analysis. National Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology, RDA, Suwon, Korea.

15.
NAAS. 2013. Soil testing for major crops, National Academy of Agricultural Science, RDA, Suwon, Korea.

16.
Nichols G.J., J.A. Cripps, M.E. Collinson, and A.D. Scott. 2000. Experiments in waterlogging and sedimentology of charcoal: Results and implications. Paleogeogr. Paleoclimatol. Paleoecol. 164:43-56. crossref(new window)

17.
Park, W.K., N.B. Park, J.D. Shin, S.G. Hong, and S.I. Kwon. 2011. Estimation of biomass resource conversion factor and potential production in agricultural sector. Korea J. Environ. Agric. 30:252-260. crossref(new window)

18.
Schneider, U.A., and B.A. MaCarl. 2003. Economic potential of biomass based fuels for greenhouse gas emission mitigation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 24:291-312. crossref(new window)

19.
Singh, B.P., A.L. Cowie, and R.J. Smernik. 2012. Biochar carbon stability in a clayey soil as a function of feedstock and pyrolysis temperature. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46:11770-11778. crossref(new window)

20.
Trinsoutrot, I., S. Recous, B. Bentz, M. Lineres, D. Chenby, and B. Nicolardot. 2000. Biochemical quality of crop residues and carbon and nitrogen mineralization kinetics under nonlimiting nitrogen conditions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64:918-926. crossref(new window)

21.
Wang, J., L. Zhu, Y. Wang, S. Gao, and G. Daut. 2012. A comparison of different methods for determining the organic carbon and inorganic carbon content of lake sediment from two lakes on the Tibetan Plateau. Quat. Int. 250:49-54. crossref(new window)

22.
Zhang, X., S. Kondragunta, C. Schmidt, and F. Kogan. 2008. Near real time monitoring of biomass burning particulate emissions (PM2. 5) across contiguous United States using multiple satellite instruments. Atmos. Environ. 42:6959-6972. crossref(new window)