Effects of Biochar and Compost Application on Soil Properties and on the Growth and Yield of Hot Pepper (<i>Capsicum annuum</i> L.)

Kebede, Temesgen; Berhe, Dargie Tsegay; Zergaw, Yohannes

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/8546135

Applied and Environmental Soil Science

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results and Discussion Conclusion Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2023 | Article ID 8546135 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/8546135

Effects of Biochar and Compost Application on Soil Properties and on the Growth and Yield of Hot Pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)

Temesgen Kebede,¹Dargie Tsegay Berhe,¹and Yohannes Zergaw¹

Academic Editor: Claudio Cocozza

Received22 Jul 2022

Revised09 Jun 2023

Accepted09 Oct 2023

Published23 Oct 2023

Abstract

Improper depositions of organic waste threaten the environment. On the other hand, intensive soil cultivation, inappropriate utilization of inorganic fertilizers, and inadequate soil management practices in the study area resulted in soil fertility reduction and poor crop growth. The addition of organic fertilizers from organic waste (biochar and compost) to soil can be considered an environmental-friendly and climate-smart practice able to improve soil properties and the yield of crops. Thus, this study aimed at evaluating the potential of organic amendment with coffee pulp compost (CPC), coffee pulp biochar (CPB), and their combination (CPC_CPB) on selected soil properties and hot pepper yield. The field experiment was conducted in the 2020 and 2021 growing seasons by adopting a randomized complete block design with a factorial experiment using CPC, CPB, and CPC_CPB treatments in different application rates. Results indicated that, in both years, the maximum dose (4 t/ha) of biochar significantly improved the yield of hot pepper and some soil chemical properties such as pH, OC, TN, P, K, Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺ contents, and CEC. When 2021 is compared with the 2020 growing season in terms of hot pepper yield, the treatments 4 CPB, 10 CPC, and 7 CPC_CPB increased the yield by 4.61, 1.62, and 1.55%, respectively. Thus, an application rate of CPB at the rate of 4 t/ha is considered suitable to improve hot pepper yield and soil properties. Therefore, the highest dose of CPB, followed by CPC_CPB and CPC can be considered as suitable to improve both soil fertility and hot pepper yield.

1. Introduction

Intensive soil cultivation, improper utilization of inorganic fertilizers, and inappropriate management of soil fertility in the country resulted in a reduction of soil fertility, mainly the degradation of physical, chemical, and biological properties of soil, and pressure on agricultural production and affected the livelihoods of millions of rural households in Ethiopia [1]. Hence, the application of organic amendments is a promising and sustainable solution to improve soil fertility and the yield of agricultural production.

Organic fertilizers, such as compost, biochar, or their mixture, are important in improving soil properties and play an essential role in long-term soil conservation by maintaining or restoring its fertility. Moreover, these organic amendments have the potential to increase organic matter and N, P, and K content of soil [2], improve soil structure, and absorb toxins [1].

Numerous studies have been conducted by several researchers using different organic fertilizers to improve soil fertility and yield of crops. Among them, Kiran et al. [3] reported that biochar produced from cow manure reduces the accumulation of heavy metals on the soil surface; biochar derived from poultry litter improves soil properties and reduces the emission of greenhouse gases [4]. Compost prepared by mixing cow dung with paddy straw showed higher total organic matter, a higher C/N ratio, and higher phosphorus, nitrogen, zinc, and manganese in comparison with inorganic fertilizers [5]. Compost enrichment with urea, phosphate, zinc, iron, copper, and manganese at various stages of composting in chaffed cotton stalks and farm wastes reduces the C/N ratio and lignin but increases other nutrients [6]. Compost produced from poultry litter showed higher phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and magnesium compared to fresh manure [7]. To improve soil fertility, enhance sustainable crop production, and reduce environmental problems, research has progressed considerably [1].

Although many researchers have studied the use of biochar and compost on soil properties and yield of crops, the type of waste for organic fertilizer production, its effects on soil properties and yield of crops, the optimum rate of application, and kinds of organic fertilizer are highly varying among farmers [8, 9]. Moreover, there are very few studies on a comparative evaluation of biochar and compost potential on selected soil properties and yield of vegetable crops, such as hot pepper. There is also little information documented on ameliorating the effect of the combined application of biochar and compost on organic matter content, nutrient status, and yield of hot pepper. Furthermore, there is a need for research to turn coffee pulp waste into biochar and compost fertilizer and minimize environmental problems. Thus, this study aimed at evaluating the potential of coffee pulp biochar and compost on selected soil properties and on the yield of hot pepper (Capsicum annuum L.).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of the Study Area

The experiments were carried out in Wonago district, Gedeo Zone, Southern Nations, Nationalities, and People’s Regional State (SNNPRS), Ethiopia, in the 2020 and 2021 seasons. It is geographically located at 60 19′ 05″ North latitude and 380 15′ 36″ East longitude with an altitude of 1754 m.a.s.l. and found at 376 south of Addis Ababa. The district is characterized by 1001–1800 mm of annual rainfall and a temperature range of 12–25°C. The study area is suitable for cereals, vegetables, fruits, coffee, enset, and other horticultural crops. Twenty coffee processing industries in the area are engaged in wet and dry processing that could produce huge amounts of coffee pulp waste. There was also immense animal manure waste available due to potential animal production in the area.

2.2. Compost and Biochar Preparation

Coffee pulp and animal manure were collected from the coffee processing sites of Gedeo Zone and the College of Agriculture farm of Dilla University, Ethiopia, respectively. The collected fractions were manually separated from inorganic materials and ready for the production of compost and biochar. Coffee pulp compost was prepared using a 3 : 1 ratio of coffee pulp to animal manure in a heap composting method. For the compost preparation method, the heaps were turned on days 0, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 15 and thereafter at 15-day intervals until the composting period of 90 days [10] to improve the O₂ level inside the heap and to increase the population of aerobic microorganisms. The composting unit was constructed from wooden poles with a base area of 2 m by 2 m. The composter sides and base were covered with a polyethylene fabric sheet to control water seepage. In the base, a drainage pipe was built for the collection of leachate samples from the composter in the container. Fans were installed in a composting method with steady air circulation within the composter. During the composting process, the temperature was measured daily within the heap using a thermoelement. The prepared compost heap was air-dried under shade, crushed, screened through a 2 mm sieve, and applied to the experiment.

Biochar from the coffee pulp was produced in an oxygen-limited atmosphere using an electrically heated pilot-scale pyrolysis reactor. This technology is considered the most suitable technology for biochar production as it maximizes the biochar yield [11]. The pyrolysis temperature was adjusted at 500°C with a 3 h retention time [12, 13]. The biochar was ground into small granules, sieved to pass a 2 mm mesh, and analyzed for chemical properties.

2.3. Experimental Design and Treatments

The treatments adopted each year (2020 and 2021) are reported in Table 1. The experimental design was a factorial experiment completely randomized block design (RCBD) and replicated three times.

In the 2020 growing season, seeds of an improved hot pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) variety, namely, Markofana, were obtained from the Melkassa Agricultural Research Center of the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research Center. The Markofana variety was raised in well-prepared seed beds. Seeds were drilled in rows with 10 cm row spacing and were covered lightly with fine soil and mulched with dried grass until emergence. Weeding was accomplished as deemed necessary. Seedlings were thinned at the first true leaf stage to allow sufficient distance within the seedlings. Proper management (weeding and watering) practices were carried out to produce healthy seedlings. Finally, vigorous, strong, and healthy seedlings were transplanted to a well-prepared experimental field in the late afternoon to reduce the risk of poor establishment and shock caused by intense heat in the daytime [14]. This procedure of raising seedlings in the nursery site was also repeated in the second experimental year (2021).

Each year, the experimental land was cleared and plowed manually, and then the bed was leveled, smoothed, and divided into thirty plots. Each plot size was 1.2 m × 2.4 m (2.88 m²). Once per year, the selected organic fertilizer treatments were applied two weeks before transplanting seedlings. Uniform application over the surface and incorporation were done to the depth of 10 cm with a traditional hoe each year. The seedlings with four pairs of true leaves were transplanted to well-prepared experimental plots at a spacing of 30 cm and 60 cm between the plant and rows, respectively. Proper irrigation, weeding, and other good agronomic practices were applied.

2.4. Soil, Compost, and Biochar Collection and Laboratory Analysis

In both growing seasons, before treatments, CPC, CPB, and CPC_CPB samples were collected from the top, middle, and lower layers for analysis. Soil samples were collected for analysis in 2020. Each year, a composite sample of approximately one kilogram was collected from each treatment at five spots of the entire plot at a depth of 20 cm, and then, it was analyzed for physicochemical properties.

Soil texture was determined by a hydrometer method. The pH was determined by the H₂O (soil-H₂O) 1 : 2.5 soil-to-solution ratio using a pH meter. The electrical conductivity was measured by a conductivity meter after saturating the samples with distilled water and extracted by vacuum suction, and the extracts were filtered [15]. Organic carbon was determined using the Walkley and Black wet oxidation method [16]. The total N of the soil and compost was determined by the wet-oxidation procedure of the Kjeldahl method [17]. Determination of available phosphorous and available potassium (K) was carried out by the Olsen method, using sodium bicarbonate (0.5M NaHCO₃) as an extraction solution [18]. Exchangeable bases (Ca and Mg) in the soil were estimated by the ammonium acetate (1M NH₄OAc at pH 7) extraction method. In this procedure, the soil samples that were extracted were more than NH₄OAc solution, and Ca and Mg in the extracts were determined by an atomic absorption spectrophotometer, while a flame photometer was used to determine the contents of exchangeable K as described by Rowell [19]. Organic amendment samples were also analyzed for some chemical properties using the methods described above. After harvesting the hot pepper, soil samples were collected from each treatment plot and characterized.

2.5. Agronomic Data Collection

In each harvesting year (2020 and 2021), agronomic data were randomly collected from each replication to determine the growth and yield parameters of hot pepper. The plant height was measured from ground level to the tip of the plant at the mature fruit stage in centimeters. The average number of leaves per plant was counted in each treatment. Fresh biomass weight was recorded through a digital balance. The yield was also calculated using the following equation:

2.6. Statistical Data Analysis

The experiment was subjected to analysis of variance, and data were analyzed using the R-program (version 4.11.2021). To determine the significant difference between treatment means, Fisher’s range test at a 5% significance level () was applied.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Soil Characteristics

The soil texture of the experiment sites (Table 2) was sandy loam. The soil had high bulk density and was slightly acidic, with low organic matter content [20].

Thus, the soil was considered critically low in fertility for TN, available P, and available K contents [21]. According to the rating of FAO [22], the soil had low cation exchange capacity (CEC), calcium (), and magnesium ().

3.2. Characteristics of Organic Amendments

The physical and chemical properties of CPC, CPB, and CPC_CPB are listed in Table 3. The pH value of all amendments was alkaline. Electrical conductivity (EC) of CPC, CPB, and CPC_CPB was 0.09, 1.2, and 0.08 dS cm⁻¹, respectively.

As reported in Table 3, CPB had the highest values of TOC (35.2%), TN (2.05%), available P (1.34%), and available K⁺ concentration (1.74%) compared to CPC and CPC_CPB. On the other hand, the observed values of calcium (Ca²⁺) and magnesium (Mg²⁺) concentrations were high for CPC_CPB, followed by CPB and CPC. The result indicated that the determined values of TOC, TN, available P, available K⁺ calcium, (Ca²⁺), and magnesium (Mg²⁺) concentrations recorded were high [22].

3.3. Effects of Treatments on Soil Physical and Chemical Properties

The effects of the various treatments on soil physical and chemical properties in the 2020 and 2021 growing seasons are presented in Table 4.

The result, in Table 4, revealed the effect of year had a significant () difference in soils treated with organic amendments of CPB, CPC_CPB, and CPC than the control in the 2020 and 2021 experimental years. In the 2020 experimental season, the highest soil pH was recorded in the 4 CPB treatment (6.73 ± 0.02), followed by 7 CPC_CPB (6.69 ± 0.02) and 10 CPC (6.63 ± 0.02), while the lowest value was recorded in the control (6.25 ± 0.03). In the 2021 research season, the highest pH (6.89 ± 0.04) was observed in soils treated with 4 CPB, followed by 7 CPC_CPB (6.84 ± 0.01) and 10 CPC (6.79 ± 0.03). The result of individual factors and years showed a significant effect () on soil pH. The result showed the mean pH value was higher in 2021 compared to the 2020 growing season. There was also a significant () difference observed in the interactive effect of treatment and years (T × Y).

The soil pH in the application of 4 CPB might have increased due to the accumulation of ash content and the porous nature of the amendment. Furthermore, the rise of the soil pH in CPB could be attributed to the release of biochar into the treatment soil. The findings agreed with those of Nigussie et al. [23] and Zhang et al. [24], who indicated that biochar application improved soil quality by increasing soil pH. Furthermore, Luo et al. [25] pointed out that the accumulation of ash content and basic oxide cations in biochar might have increased the soil pH of treated plots. Nigussie et al. [23] also attributed the increase in soil pH found in biochar-amended soils to the high surface area and porous nature of biochar increased the cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the soil, which binds Al and Fe to the soil exchange sites.

Results of the application of organic amendments on soil bulk density (BD) are shown in Table 4. Individual and combined applications of biochar and compost in both years had a significant () difference in soil BD in organic amendments than the control. In the first year, the bulk density reduced from 4 CPB, 7 CPC_CPB, and 10 CPC by 24.16%, 23.15%, and 17.45%, respectively, compared with the control treatment. The highest reduction of bulk density of treatments in the second year, as compared to the control treatment, was 31.13%, 26.49%, and 25.83%, respectively. The results of individual factors and years showed significant () differences for soil BD. The result showed that the mean value of BD decreased in the second-year growing season over plants grown in the first year. There was a significant difference () observed in the interactive effect between treatment and years (T × Y). The reduction of BD with an application of biochar-treated soil might be due to the highest porosity and water retention capacity of biochar, resulting in the formation of good aggregate soil. This result is supported by Yadav et al. [26], who reported that a porous material, when added to the soil, increases its porosity and thus reduces bulk density. Similar results were reported by Hseu et al. [27], Kätterer et al. [28], and Ndor et al. [29], indicating that the change in porosity of biochar-treated soils was a result of the formation of macrospores and rearrangement of soil particles.

The soil analysis results revealed that the concentration of soil organic carbon content significantly () varied with the control treatments (Table 4). In the 2020 and 2021 field research seasons, the highest value of OC was observed in soil amended with 4 CPB, followed by 7 CPC_CPB and 10 CPC, while the lowest OC was observed in the control treatment (Table 4). There was also a significant difference () observed in the first- and second-year application of amendments. The observed values indicated that the soil OC increased in the second-year season in comparison with the first-year season. However, there was no significant difference observed in the interactive effect between treatment and years (T × Y). In this study, the highest soil OC recorded in the application of 4 CPB might be due to the highest dosage of CPB stimulated to increase soil OC. The report of Phares et al. [30], Zhao et al. [31], and Hartley et al. [32] indicated that the highest application rate of biochar improved the soil porosity and OC of treated plots. The results of Trupiano et al. [33] and Frimpong et al. [34] also indicated that individual application of biochar in combination with compost increased soil OC content more than that in the control soils.

In both years, the application of the organic amendments had a significant effect () on the soil total nitrogen (TN) concentration (Table 4). In 2020, TN contents ranged from 0.45 ± 0.07 to 1.20 ± 0.02%. The highest amount of TN (1.20 ± 0.02%) was detected in 4 CPB, followed by (1.16 ± 0.09%) in 7 CPC_CPB and (1.02 ± 0.07%) in 10 CPC, while the lowest value (0.45 ± 0.07%) was observed in the control treatment. In 2021, the total nitrogen (TN) contents ranged from 0.36 ± 0.11 to 1.38 ± 0.11%. The result of the individual factor and years showed a significant effect () for soil TN. The result showed the mean TN value was higher in 2021 compared to the 2020 growing season (Table 4). A significant difference was not observed in the interactive effect between treatment and years (T × Y). The result indicated that the highest application rate of biochar (4 CPB) might be due to the ability to increase the accumulation of total nitrogen in treated soil. The finding agrees with the report of Cui et al. [35], which indicated that the addition of the highest application rate of biochar significantly improved the contents of total nitrogen. Vaccari et al. [36] reported that the application of biochar retains NH₄+, leading to improved N nutrition in soils. A similar result reported by Abbasi and Anwar [4] indicated that single or combined application of biochar increased the total N of treated plots.

The available phosphorus content of soils was significantly influenced by organic amendments (), year (), as well as their interaction (), both during the 2020 and 2021 growing seasons (Table 4). In both years, the highest soil available P content was observed in 4 CPB, followed by 7 CPC_CPB and 10 CPC, and the least was observed in the control treatments. The result showed that the mean available value was higher in 2021 compared to the 2020 growing season. The increase in the soil available P in all treatments except the control might be due to the increase in soil pH (6.1–6.73) and exchangeable base/cation in the soil treated with 4 CPB. The findings of Agegnehu et al. [37] and Nigussie et al. [23] confirmed that biochar-amended soils have greater soil available P contents compared to soils without treatment. A similar result reported by Ding et al. [8] and Hussain et al. [9] etindicated that field soil amended with biochar has high available phosphorus than amended soil.

The content of available potassium (Table 5) of soils measured in the 2020 and 2020 growing seasons resulted in statistically different values among the amendments (), year (), and interaction effect (). A significantly higher available K content (0.96 ± 0.03 and 1.12 ± 0.03) was observed in soil treated with 4 CPB. Values of available K content of (0.91 ± 0.05 and 1.08 ± 0.03) and (0.90 ± 0.05 and 1.07 ± 0.03) were registered in 7 CPC_CPB and 10 CPC, respectively. The lowest value (0.51 ± 0.04 and 0.49 ± 0.06) was recorded in control treatments in both growing seasons.

Table 5 shows the effects of organic amendments on available potassium, exchangeable and , and CEC in the 2020 and 2021 growing seasons. The highest application rates of CPB, CPB_CPC, and CPC increased exchangeable and contents in both years compared to the control treatment. In the 2020 and 2021 growing seasons, the highest and contents were observed in soils treated with 4 CPB, followed by 7 CPC_CPB and 10 CPC. The result of individual factors in the year showed a significant effect () for soil and . The result showed that the mean and values were higher in 2021 compared to the 2020 growing season. There was also a significant () difference observed in the interactive effect between treatment and years (T × Y). The reason might be that the highest application rates of biochar produced increased the highest levels of pH, N, K, OC, , Na, and CEC [38]. The finding of Olakayode et al. [39] also indicated that the presence of ash in biochar-treated soil increased soil exchangeable and , available K, and CEC.

Table 5 shows the individual factor (year) has a significant () effect on soil CEC. In the 2020 and 2021 experiment periods, the highest CEC was recorded in soil treated with 4 CPB, followed by 7 CPC_CPB and 10 CPC. The least CEC was observed in the control treatment. The result showed that the mean CEC value was higher in 2021 when compared to the 2020 growing season. There was also a significant () difference observed in the interactive effect between treatment and years (T × Y). This might be due to the pH and exchangeable cation concentration differences of organic amendments. Generally, individual or combined application of biochar and compost significantly increased the CEC of treated soils. Olakayode et al. [39] reported that the application of biochar can potentially increase the soil CEC due to its highly porous nature and higher surface area. Chang et al. [40] also reported that the application of biochar in agricultural soils could increase CEC over time due to the surface oxidation of biochar and more negatively charged surface functional groups.

3.4. Effects of Organic Amendments on Growth and Yield of Hot Pepper

3.4.1. Plant Height

The main factor (treatment) effect on hot pepper plant height showed a significant difference () in the 2020 and 2021 growing seasons (Table 6). In the first year, the application of 4 CPB, 7 CPC_CPB, and 10 CPC increased plant height by 55.87%, 52.91%, and 48.66% when compared to the control. The mean plant height of treatments in the second year was also highest in 4CPB (56.50 ± 1.92), followed by 7 CPC_CPB (52.60 ± 3.34) and 10 CPC (47.83 ± 2.24), while the least value was observed in the control (22.98 ± 2.47) treatment. The result of the individual factor, the year, showed a significant effect () on plant height. Moreover, the mean plant height in 2021, as compared to the 2020 growing season, increased by 4.50%, 3.9%, and 3.03% in 4 CPB, 7 CPC_CPB, and 7 CPC, respectively.

This might be because the availability of nutrients, good porosity, and moisture retention capacity in the 4 t·ha⁻¹ CPB application rate of biochar contributed to an increase in the plant height of hot pepper as compared to other treatments. The result agreed with the findings of Bhattarai et al. [41] and Maru et al. [42] the highest application rate of biochar increased plant height than the control treatment. A similar finding was also reported by Abbasi and Anwar [4], confirming that individual application of biochar increases plant growth and biomass production of maize crops. Likewise, Mensah and Frimpong [43] assured that the application of biochar improved plant height and the number of plant leaves of both local and improved varieties. Similar findings reported by Maru et al. [42], Sikder and Joardar [44], Bhattarai et al. [41], and Tariku et al. [45] indicated that the soil treated with biochar improved soil nutrient content and increased plant height compared to the control treatment.

3.4.2. Number of Leaves per Plant

The number of leaves per plant in treated plots showed a statistical () difference in the 2020 and 2021 growing seasons (Table 6). Application of CPB, CPC, and CPC_CPB improved leave numbers when compared with the control. The maximum value leaf number was observed in the 4 CPB, 7 CPC_CPB, and 10 CPC than other treatments in both growing seasons (Table 6). The result indicated that leaf numbers significantly increased as the levels of CPB, CPC, and CPC_CPB increased. In the second year (2021), leaf number significantly improved when compared with the first year (2020). The interaction Y × T was not significant for leave numbers. The highest number of leaf numbers registered in 4 CPB might be due to the availability of nutrients and growth hormones which were helpful to improve leaf number. This finding agrees with Trupiano et al. [33], who reported that biochar application increases the leaf numbers of lettuce. A similar result was also reported by Prasad et al. [46], who depicted that the application of biochar increases the number of leaves. This could be because of the availability of organic matter in biochar and their capacity to easily uptake nutrients and maintain soil moisture, eventually increasing the number of leaves per plant.

3.4.3. Total Fresh Biomass Weight (g)

Significant differences () in total fresh biomass were recorded among treatments (Table 6). In each growing season, the total fresh biomass was increased with the maximum application rate of CPB, CPC_CPB, and CPC as compared to the control. In the 2020 growing season, the highest total fresh biomass (168.00 ± 9.17 g) was observed in 4 CPB, followed by (160.00 ± 9.17 g) 7 CPC_CPB and (152.67 ± 7.02 g) 10 t·ha⁻¹ CPC, while the lowest (95.67 ± 4.16 g) was recorded in the control treatment. There was also a significant difference () observed in total fresh biomass weight in the 2020 and 2021 growing seasons. Interestingly, in the 2021 growing season, the total fresh biomass weight in 4 CPB, 7 CPC_CPB, and 10 CPC was higher by 45.5%, 45.3%, and 42.2%, respectively, than the control treatment (Table 6). The interaction Y × T was not significant for total fresh biomass weight. The highest total fresh biomass weight recorded in 4 CPB might be due to the rate of application of biochar influenced to increased total fresh biomass weight of hot pepper. This result agrees with Viger et al. [47], who reported that the addition of wood chips biochar increased lettuce and Arabidopsis plant biomass by 111% more than other treatments. Similar findings were reported by Liu et al. [48], Khaitovet et al. [49], and Adhikari et al. [50], indicating that the rate of application of biochar improved the total plant fresh biomass weight of crops.

3.4.4. Yield per Hectare

The application of organic amendments significantly () increased the yield of hot pepper when compared to the control (Table 6). In both years, the yield of hot pepper was increased with the highest doses of CPB, CPC_CPB, and CPC. There was also a significant difference () observed in yield between the first and second years. Compared to 2020, there was an increase in hot pepper yield by 4.61, 1.62, and 1.55% for 4 CPB, 10 CPC, and 7CPC_CPB, respectively, and a reduction of 1.67% for the control. The highest yield per hectare observed in 4 CPB might be due to the highest availability of nutrients, porosity, and water-holding capacity, which are more helpful to increase the growth parameters and yield of hot pepper than other treatments. This finding agrees with the result of Adekiya et al. [51], Katterer et al. [28], Tariku et al. [45], and Agbede et al [52], who confirmed that the highest application rate of biochar increased the yield of vegetables and cereal crops.

4. Conclusion

The study showed that the highest individual biochar application rate significantly increased soil pH, soil organic carbon, total nitrogen, available phosphorus, exchangeable Ca and Mg, CEC, and reduced bulk density in both experimental growing seasons. In addition, the highest dose of biochar increased the growth response (plant height, leaf number, and total fresh biomass weight) and yield of hot peppers. The combined application of biochar and compost also significantly affected selected soil properties such as pH, OC, TN, P, K, , , and the growth of hot pepper.

Data Availability

All data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported and funded by Dilla University.

References

Z. Gete, A. Getachew, A. Dejene, and S. Rashid, “Fertilizer and soil fertility potential in Ethiopia: constraints and opportunities for enhancing the system,” 2010, http://www.ifpri.org/publication/fertilizer-and-soil-fertility-potential-ethiopia.
View at: Google Scholar
J. J. Miller, B. W. Beasley, C. F. Drury, F. J. Larney, and X. Hao, “Influence of long-term (9 yr) composted and stock piled feedlot manure application on selected soil physical properties of a clay loam soil in southern alberta,” Compost Science & Utilization, vol. 23, pp. 1–10, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. K. Kiran, A. Barkat, X. Q. Cui et al., “Cow manure and cow manure-derived biochar application as a soil amendment for reducing cadmium availability and accumulation by Brassica chinensis L. in acidic red soil,” Journal of Integrative Agriculture, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 725–734, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. K. Abbasi and A. A. Anwar, “Ameliorating effects of biochar derived from poultry manure and white clover residues on soil nutrient status and plant growth promotion-greenhouse experiments,” PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 6, Article ID e0131592, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. S. Hussain, T. Ara, F. A. Raina et al., “Quality evaluation of different forms of compost and their effect in comparison with inorganic fertilizers on growth and yield attributes of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.),” Journal of Agricultural Science, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 154–160, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Chari and M. V. Ravi, “Evaluation of quality and nutrient status of enriched compost,” IOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 19–23, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Z. Faridullah, A. Alam, M. Irshad, and M. A. Sabir, “Distribution and evaluating phosphorus, potassium, calcium and magnesium in the fresh and composted poultry litter. Bulgarian,” Journal of Agricultural Science, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 1368–1374, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. Ding, Y. Liu, S. Liu et al., “Biochar to improve soil fertility,” A review,” Agronomy for Sustainable Development, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 36–18, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Hussain, M. Farooq, A. Nawaz et al., “Biochar for crop production: potential benefits and risks,” Journal of Soils and Sediments, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 685–716, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Gajalakshmi and S. Abbasi, “Solid waste management by composting: state of the art,” Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 311–400, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. G. A. Verheijen, S. Jeffery, A. C. Bastos, V. M. van der, and I. Diafas, Biochar Application to Soils—A Critical Scientific Review of Effects on Soil Properties, Processes and Functions, EUR 24099 EN, Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2009.
J. Lehmann, “Bio-energy in the black,” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 381–387, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Dume, G. Berecha, and S. Tulu, “Characterization of biochar produced at different temperatures and its effect on acidic nitosol of Jimma southwest Ethiopia,” International Journal of Soil Science, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 63–73, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Eiar (Ethiopia Institute of Agricultural Research), Technology Guideline for Different Crops, Amharic Version Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2007.
J. R. Okalebo, K. W. Gathua, and P. L. Womer, “Laboratory methods of sol and plant analysis,” A Working Manual, TSBF-CIAT and SACRED Africa, Nairobi, Kenya, 2002.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Walkley and I. A. Black, “An examination of the degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method,” Soil Science, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 29–38, 1934.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Bremner, C. S. Mulvaney, A. L. Page, R. H. Miller, and D. R. Keeney, Nitrogen-total in Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2, Chemical and Microbiological Propertiespp, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, USA, 1982.
S. R. Olsen, C. V. Cole, F. S. Watanabe, and L. A. Dean, “Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate,” Circular 939, USDA, Washington, DC, USA, 1954.
View at: Google Scholar
D. L. Rowell, Method and Applications, Addison Wesley Longman Limited, London, UK, 1994.
E. A. Akinrinde and G. O. Obigbesan, “Evaluation of the fertility status of selected soils for crop production in five ecological zones of Nigeria,” in Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of Soil Science Society of Nigeria, pp. 279–288, SSSN, Ibadan, Nigeria, January 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Lal, “Soil surface management in the tropics for intensive land use and high and sustainable production,” Advances in Soil Sciences, Springer, Berlin, Germany, 1986.
View at: Google Scholar
Fao (Food and Agriculture Organization), Guidelines for Soil Description, Fao, Rome, Italy, 2006.
A. Nigussie, E. Kissi, M. Misaganaw, and G. Ambaw, “Effects of biochar application on soil properties and nutrient uptake of lettuces (Lactuca sativa) grown in polluted soils,” American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 369–376, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Zhang, R. Bian, G. Pan et al., “Effects of biochar amendment on soil quality, crop yield and greenhouse gas emission in a Chinese rice paddy: a field study of 2 consecutive rice growing cycles,” Field Crops Research, vol. 127, pp. 153–160, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Luo, M. Durenkamp, M. De Nobili, Q. Lin, and P. C. Brookes, “Short term soil priming effects and the mineralisation of biochar following its incorporation to soils of different pH,” Soil Biology and Biochemistry, vol. 43, no. 11, pp. 2304–2314, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. K. Yadav, V. Kumar, K. R. Sharma et al., “Biochar and their impacts on soil properties and crop productivity: a review,” Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 49–54, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
Z.-Y. Hseu, S.-H. Jien, W.-H. Chien, and R.-C. Liou, “Impacts of biochar on physical properties and erosion potential of a mudstone slopeland soil,” The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2014, Article ID 602197, 10 pages, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Kätterer, D. Roobroeck, O. Andrén et al., “Biochar addition persistently increased soil fertility and yields in maize-soybean rotations over 10 years in sub-humid regions of Kenya,” Field Crops Research, vol. 235, pp. 18–26, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Ndor, O. Jayeoba, and C. Asadu, “Effect of biochar soil amendment on soil properties and yield of Sesame varieties in Lafia, Nigeria,” American Journal of Experimental Agriculture, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1–8, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. A. Phares, K. Atiah, K. A. Frimpong, A. Danquah, A. T. Asare, and S. Aggor-Woananu, “Application of biochar and inorganic phosphorus fertilizer influenced rhizosphere soil characteristics, nodule formation and phytoconstituents of cowpea grown on tropical soil,” Heliyon, vol. 6, no. 10, Article ID e05255, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Zhao, L. Xiao, L. Xu, X. Xing, G. Tang, and D. Du, “Fine mapping the BjPl1 gene for purple leaf color in B2 of Brassica juncea L. through comparative mapping and whole genome re-sequencing,” Euphytica, vol. 213, no. 4, p. 80, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Hartley, P. Riby, and J. Waterson, “Effects of three different biochars on aggregate stability, organic carbon mobility and micronutrient bioavailability,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 181, pp. 770–778, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Trupiano, C. Cocozza, S. Baronti et al., “The effects of biochar and its combination with compost on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) growth, soil properties, and soil microbial activity and abundance,” International Journal of Agronomy, vol. 2017, Article ID 3158207, 12 pages, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. A. Frimpong, E. Amoakwah, B. A. Osei, and E. Arthur, “Changes in soil chemical properties and lettuce yield response following incorporation of biochar and cow dung to highly weathered acidic soils,” Journal of Organic Agriculture and Environment, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 28–39, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. F. Cui, J. Meng, Q. Wang, W. Zhang, X. Cheng, and W. Chen, “Effects of straw and biochar addition on soil nitrogen, carbon, and super rice yield in cold waterlogged paddy soils of North China,” Journal of Integrative Agriculture, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 1064–1074, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. P. Vaccari, A. Maienza, F. Miglietta et al., “Biochar stimulates plant growth but not fruit yield of processing tomato in a fertile soil,” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, vol. 207, pp. 163–170, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Agegnehu, A. M. Bass, P. N. Nelson, B. Muirhead, G. Wright, and M. I. Bird, “Biochar and biochar-compost as soil amendments: effects on peanut yield, soil properties and greenhouse gas emissions in tropical North Queensland, Australia,” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, vol. 213, pp. 72–85, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Njoku, B. N. Uguru, and C. C. Chibuike, “Use of Biochar to improve selected soil chemical properties, carbon storage and maize yield in an ultisol in Abakaliki Ebonyi State, Nigeria,” Global Advanced Research Journal of Agricultural Science, vol. 4, pp. 864–870, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
A. O. Olakayode, B. P. Akinde, and I. A. Egbebi, “Effect of biochar application on selected soil properties in Southwestern Nigeria,” Journal of Soil Science and Environmental Management, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 108–112, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Chang, X. luo, M. Li, Z. Wang, and H. Zheng, “Short-term influences of peanut-biochar addition on abandoned orchard soil organic N mineralization in north China,” Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 67–72, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Bhattarai, J. Neupane, S. P. Dhakal et al., “Effect of biochar from different origin on physio-chemical properties of soil and yield of garden pea (Pisumsativum L.) at Paklihawa, Rupandehi, Nepal,” World Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 129–138, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Maru, O. A. Haruna, and W. Charles Primus, “Co-application of chicken litter biochar and urea only to improve nutrients use efficiency and yield of Oryza sativa L. cultivation on a tropical acid soil,” The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2015, Article ID 943853, 12 pages, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. K. Mensah and K. A. Frimpong, “Biochar and/or compost applications improve soil properties, growth, and yield of maize grown in acidic rainforest and coastal savannah soils in Ghana,” International Journal of Agronomy, vol. 2018, Article ID 6837404, 8 pages, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Sikder and J. C. Joardar, “Biochar production from poultry litter as management approach and effects on plant growth,” International Journal of Recycling of Organic Waste in Agriculture, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 47–58, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Tariku, T. Shiferaw, T. Muluken, and K. Firew Kebede, “Effect of biochar application on growth of garden pea (pisum sativum L.) in acidic soils of bule woreda Gedeo Zone southern Ethiopia,” Hindawi International Journal of Agronomy, vol. 2017, Article ID 6827323, 8 pages, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Prasad, N. Tzortzakis, N. McDaniel, and N. Daniel, “Chemical characterization of biochar and assessment of the nutrient dynamics by means of preliminary plant growth tests,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 216, pp. 89–95, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Viger, R. D. Hancock, F. Miglietta, and G. Taylor, “More plant growth but less plant defence? First global gene expression data for plants grown in soil amended with biochar,” GCB Bioenergy, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 658–672, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Liu, X. Meng, T. Li, W. Raza, D. Liu, and Q. Shen, “The growth promotion of peppers (capsicum annuum L.) by trichoderma guizhouense njau4742-based biological organic fertilizer: possible role of increasing nutrient availabilities,” Microorganisms, vol. 8, no. 9, p. 1296, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Khaitov, H. J. Yun, Y. Lee et al., “Impact of organic manure on growth, nutrient content and yield of chilli pepper under various temperature environments,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 16, no. 17, p. 3031, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Adhikari, A. Khanal, and R. Subedi, “Effect of different sources of organic manure on growth and yield of sweet pepper,” Advances in Plants & Agriculture Research, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 158–216, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
A. O. Adekiya, T. M. Agbede, A. Olayanju et al., “Effect of biochar on soil properties, soil loss, and cocoyam yield on a tropical sandy loam alfisol,” The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2020, Article ID 9391630, 9 pages, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. M. Agbede, A. S. Odoja, L. N. Bayode, P. O. Omotehinse, I. Adepehin, and A. O. Adekiya, “Effects of biochar on soil properties and erosion potential in a degraded sandy soil,” in Proceedings of the Global Symposium on Soil Erosion (GSER 2019), pp. 305–309, FAO, Rome, Italy, May 2019.
View at: Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2023 Temesgen Kebede et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

513

Downloads

398

Citations