IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v12y2022i7p1011-d861653.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spectroscopic Investigation on the Effects of Biochar and Soluble Phosphorus on Grass Clipping Vermicomposting

Author

Listed:
  • Etelvino Henrique Novotny

    (Embrapa Solos, Rua Jardim Botânico, 1024, Rio de Janeiro 22460-000, Brazil)

  • Fabiano de Carvalho Balieiro

    (Embrapa Solos, Rua Jardim Botânico, 1024, Rio de Janeiro 22460-000, Brazil)

  • Ruben Auccaise

    (Departamento de Física, Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Av. General Carlos Cavalcanti 4748, Ponta Grossa 84030-900, Brazil)

  • Vinícius de Melo Benites

    (Embrapa Solos, Rua Jardim Botânico, 1024, Rio de Janeiro 22460-000, Brazil)

  • Heitor Luiz da Costa Coutinho

    (Embrapa Solos, Rua Jardim Botânico, 1024, Rio de Janeiro 22460-000, Brazil
    In memorian.)

Abstract

Seeking to evaluate the hypothesis that biochar optimises the composting and vermicomposting processes as well as their product quality, we carried out field and greenhouse experiments. Four grass clipping composting treatments (only grass, grass + single superphosphate (SSP), grass + biochar and grass + SSP + biochar) were evaluated. At the end of the maturation period (150 days), the composts were submitted to vermicomposting (Eisenia fetida earthworm) for an additional 90 days. Ordinary fine charcoal was selected due to its low cost (a by-product of charcoal production) and great availability; this is important since the obtained product presents low commercial value. A greater maturity of the organic matter (humification) was observed in the vermicompost treatments compared with the compost-only treatments. The addition of phosphate significantly reduced the pH (from 6.7 to 4.8), doubled the electrical conductivity and inhibited biological activity, resulting in less than 2% of the number of earthworms found in the treatment without phosphate. The addition of soluble phosphate inhibited the humification process, resulting in a less-stable compound with the preservation of labile structures, primarily cellulose. The P species found corroborate these findings because the pyrophosphate conversion from SSP in the absence of biochar may explain the strong acidification and increased electric conductivity. Biochar appears to prevent this conversion, thus mitigating the deleterious effects of SSP and favouring the formation of organic P species from SSP (78.5% of P in organic form with biochar compared to only 12.8% in the treatments without biochar). In short, biochar decreases pyrophosphate formation from SSP, avoiding acidification and salinity; therefore, biochar improves the whole composting and vermicomposting process and product quality. Vermicompost with SSP and biochar should be tested as a soil conditioner on account of its greater proportion of stabilized C and organic P.

Suggested Citation

  • Etelvino Henrique Novotny & Fabiano de Carvalho Balieiro & Ruben Auccaise & Vinícius de Melo Benites & Heitor Luiz da Costa Coutinho, 2022. "Spectroscopic Investigation on the Effects of Biochar and Soluble Phosphorus on Grass Clipping Vermicomposting," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-12, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:12:y:2022:i:7:p:1011-:d:861653
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/7/1011/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/7/1011/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Masanori Saito & Etelvino Henrique Novotny & Yinglong Chen, 2023. "Soil Carbon and Microbial Processes in Agriculture Ecosystem," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-3, September.
    2. Eduardo L. Buligon & Luiz A. M. Costa & Jorge de Lucas & Francielly T. Santos & Piebiep Goufo & Monica S. S. M. Costa, 2023. "Fertilizer Performance of a Digestate from Swine Wastewater as Synthetic Nitrogen Substitute in Maize Cultivation: Physiological Growth and Yield Responses," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-14, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:12:y:2022:i:7:p:1011-:d:861653. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.