Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
����� ����� * Email: [email protected]
�����) ��(
���11 � ���3 � �����1400 ���� ���606 -593
DOI: 10.22059/jwim.2021.328440.908
:����$� �%�&'
����� �� ���� ��� ����� � ���� ��� � �� ���� ���� ������ � � �����! �" #$% ��
�&'�� (���! ���� ��� �� �� 1��� ����� ����� ��� ����2*���� ��!� �"# �3 ���%�� &�'�4���"# )�"%�* �5
1.-�% �-�'. ��/0 � �-�1%�2� 3%��4 �56 ���7' �8�� �9�:�� 92!0 � .
2.-�% �-�'. ��/0 � �-�1%�2� 3%��4 �56 ���7' �8�� ���%��:� .
3.-�% �;�� �-�'. ��/0 � �<�"= >��7 8 9)�8�0� 3%��4 �� ���6 8 ���7' �8�� ���:� .
4. .-�% �-�'. ��/0 � �-�1%�2� 3%��4 �� �"?�� �2@# ���%��:�
5�7* A�B�B1. C��D ���:� . 8 �9)�8�0� ���7' �9)�8�0� E%8�. 8 F)26 �A�B�B1. -�)��.-�% �;�� :C �B �*�%�� H%��.16/05/1400 :C �B F�%L4 H%��.16/07/1400
�����
� ������ ��� ����� ���� ���� ��� �� !"�� #$% #&' ��(� �% ����% ( )� � ( ����' *� � �� �+' !��% ,�- .��/ � !��0%�� 1��23 4 5)�) ��(� �% 2��� 78� � ( (:�; <2( �=� >? ( ( 5�"=) ������ 78� � !��@ �A����' .�@ C�D�� ���E'75 5100 (120 !"�� )�$� 4 . �� (�=�
�� )�<���K � �K�� ��L� �M�� � )(�M )�A5 � �M�� �A � ( �M�� � � NO� 5�@ !P0� ������ ( :�; C�K���% .�'�'236 5314 (376 ���� �2���� 5#$% ����? !M��� � .�@ ��T� <���K �A � ��(� �% UV� 2� <W(�0�� C�K���% � C�K :�; X�V@� ���+� �E�0E�� #��A )��K 5pH5Y�� 5
5��3 Z��% 5Y[�� ( Y���% 5Y���0? <W(�0�� !% :�; ( �E��� �' ���� !"�� �� �) C�D�� #��K .�0�> <�$� � % � '����120 �=� �% ��(� ( 5 �=� ������ U�D' ��A# �0E��E�5 pH5 ��Y � (�<W(�0 :�; � !% � '�'�. �� �����7/41 55/12 51/2 ( 5/53 �=� ( Z��% �3� :�; 16/4 ����� #V�� � '����
�A�@ �[��1 ����' � .#��100 �% �=� ( ��(�5 <�[�� � :�; Y���0? U�D' ������ �=� 8/96 #V�� �=� � ����' �A�@ 1�[�� #��. YA Z��1�� ����' � Y[�� ( Y���% 1�[�� ���P� Z�'100 ( ��(� �% �=� 2 <�[�� � ������ �=� 3/58 <�$� >�0� Z� �� �(_� .�@ ��A�$� :�; � �=�
����' % � 120 ������ <(�� ( ��(� �% �=� �� !"�� ���� �E��� )� ��5/61 �[�� �A�@ ����' � #V�� �=� 1 � .
��� ��� : � ��0?�Y :�; .:�; !% <W(�0�� 5��3 Z��% 5���� �' �E��� 5
Effect of forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer on soil chemical properties and pepper yield under greenhouse conditions
Akram Hosseinnejad Mir1, Seyyed Ebrahim Hashemi Garmdareh2*, AbdolMajid Liaqhat3, Soheil Karimi4, Fariborz Abbasi5 1. Ph.D. Candidate of Irrigation and Drainage, Department of Water Engineering, Aburaihan Campus, University of Tehran, Iran.
2. Assistant Professor, Department of Water Engineering, Aburaihan Campus, University of Tehran, Iran. 3. Professor, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, College of Agriculture and Natural Resource, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran.
4. Assistant Professor, Department of Horticulture, Aburaihan Campus, University of Tehran, Iran. 5. Professor, Agricultural Engineering Technical Research Institute (AERI), Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Karaj, Iran.
Received: August 07, 2021 Accepted: October 08, 2021 Abstract In order to investigate the effect of forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer application on bell pepper cultivar, a factorial experiment in a completely randomized design with three replicates and nine treatments was conducted. The treatments consisted of three levels of forage maize biochar (zero, 2, and 5% Soil weight) and three required urea fertilizer (75% 100%, and 120%). One bell pepper was transferred in 4-leaf pots containing 5 kg of soil and biochar, then in three stages and in each stage, 236, 314, and 376 mg kg-1 N of urea fertilizer was added to the pot. At the end stage of cultivation, EC, pH, Na, K, Ca+ mg, carbon organic, total nitrogen and wet yield fruit bell pepper measurements were done. The results indicated that the treatment of 120% urea fertilizer and 5 percentage biochar EC, pH, sodium, and total nitrogen cumulative in soil 41.7, 12.5, 2.1 and 58.3% and soil organic carbon 4.16 times, were compared to the control treatment respectively. In 100% urea fertilizer and 5 percentage biochar treatment soil potassium increase by 96.8% in comparison with the control treatment. Also, the highest increase calcium and magnesium the treatment 100% urea fertilizer and 2 percentage biochar was observed in soil by 58.3%. In addition, the results indicate that the treatment of 120% urea fertilizer without biochar increased the wet yield fruit of bell pepper by 61.5% compared to the control treatment. Keywords: Organic carbon, Soil potassium, Soil total nitrogen, Wet yield fruit.
(�)* +,�- �*$� '�.� /�0 �*�1*�2 ���� (�3 ��. 4%*05��0 %�.67� 8/�9 �)��. �:�;�5 /�5��
���11 � ���3 � �����1400
594
�����
1`� � .��� #�"�% �� a3 U��� # (�&�)2�(�$%
Z��b'�� c��� !E$� �� �� ��de #��� �d� . 2��
��L� ( �E��� 1�[�� #��A� )2�(�$% 1`� � )�(
�f( ��� 5��A 5a3 5��� � �@� )��� <�A��K . �� )�
( <f��%� 5Z��% ��K� .���� 2��� .��� )�� ( ��de
��A 2� <W(���A � #� �� ��� 5�31�� �' )dg� ���
2��� ��� 0@� �c( #$% h�&� � :�; � ��� ���K
.�@�� � ��+&� ����' ����1�� �')��� �A �% 5 Z��b'
� �"0�� �� �c( :�; � �L�3 �V�% % )dg� ���
�� i�+��? <W(�0�� . �@ X��[� � �% X�� Z�' � ���@
�� �+� Z� . (�1 �'4 4$; � �� 2� �=� �� �A��K
:�; � C�����3 � ���0�� ���= ( � ( ��@ !��@
�� adc 2� !=�M ��V�%�' �� ���K � ( �@
#;�� 2��( ( �A�������3 ( ��@ .�%�' �����A���%
Z��'(�? �� �D� �� �A <W(�0�� U/�( � .�% � <���
( � �� ���K �@� ��'������% 2� N? (2 ���; <3
�A�$� � �"0�� ��� �@ � ��L� 1P� <W(�0�� .
������ �"� �EW����� j�0`� )�A k��' .c�� ( �%
l�� 1`� ( /�� 5�A �� ���K �$(� )�A <W(�0�� . �@
<W(�0�� #�Vm' !�V/ 2� �"�0`� U��� 2� <�A��K )���
<W(�0�� �EW����� #�Vm' 5�"��'� <W(�0�� #�Vm' 5�0k=
��3 U��� ( Z��b'�� �+� Z� . �@ � 8��( 1�[��
�� �"� )2�(�$% � n��� 1P� ��+&� �E��� ( �%
� �L' �� �VL� [�� �� ��+&� #�"�% E�� �E��� �$`�
)Leghari et al., 2016 �2���� 2� 1�� <W(�0�� �% �K� .(
�K ��3 .c�� �@ i�+� #$% #&' �T��� �
h�&� �; 1`� � <W(�0�� U�D' ( #�2 �%�� � �f(
<3 l���� �@�� ��+&� Z� i�+� 5 �0�_� � ����'
1�[�� �� <�-�� � _0�� �8; ( �% ��( .��3 <����
) �A Hamifar, 2019 .( 1�[�� )��� ��c ��� 4
�=�������@ ���;� ( ��3 ��� 5<W(�0�� ����
��o�- .#�� ������ 2� � �"0�� 5:�; � Z��% ���
�� ���� [��(��? .#�� ��@ [��(��? �0�2 � �� 4 ����
<(�� h��@ � Y% <f��%� ��pM � ��3 ��� Z0;��
�� Z��% 2� �e ��e2 !�E$' � �D� % #�� <f��%� �@
) #�� [D' � C(�P� ����� %Azeem et al., 2016 .(
� ��%��- ������ )��� �VL� h��@ 5:�; #���
)�A�����? 5��3 1A�% �����g' ����/� ( ����' )W��� �L' (
i�+� �� �@ )Ouyang et al., 2014 .(�(_� �� 5Z�
i�+� �%�; ( )2�(�$% ������ !����0? ) �2 )���
#��� )�A�����? �A��K ( �����M �� ( Z�����
�K ��3 )�A #�2 �8�&� �� 1A�% �� �A )Masto et al.,
2013.( �������E[�� q��; �� Y�P0�� ���b' �� 1�[��)
#��A ( :�; � a3 )���Lr� #���s 5!`�`'
� �V' #���s 1�[��) :�; �����@ ( (:�; �E��(���A
���K 2��� ��� ��de �=�� 1�[�� ( (��3 � �� 5����'�% �
:�;����' ( �@� )��� h��@ �VL� .V� ��+&��� �@
)Razaqi & Rezaei, 2017 .(�� ������ )��dK��� <�[�� Z�
������ ����' )�� ( ��(� � �� X�� 2� ��b0� q��; �� �@��
)Lei & Zhang, 2013.( � U/�( ������ <�$� ��A ��� ��3
��e2 ��@ #�� )� % �� i�A �VL� �Kf( )�A :�; � ��%
�� (� )Lehmann et al., 2003.( � � �� Z� #��� !��
)��� ) �2 #���s ��3 ��� ��� � #V�� �*% ����� [D'
��`�K )�A2�K 1A�% ) ���� )� �� <�0� ( Z��%���%�
�� �23 ��� ( �A��K ��k�T 2� % �� ( �@ �� Z��% ����'
��( )��� ) �% ���;� ��o�- )�ALehmann & Joseph,
2009)����� .( 2� ��k��8� <�$� � � ��� % ������ � �� 4
,_=� ��% ��"� )��� �VL� �Kf( )�A �E[�� �����@ (
t"M � ( #�� :�; � �� ��3 ( :�; ��L� 1�[�� )�( �%
�� ��u���u� �@�� ( 1�[�� v��� ����' ��+&� � � �f(
:�; )�A w-�� ��� )�����K ( )�����K ��o�- % ���
�<* 1���=> ?�@ �:>� *� � �>) ��* �1 ��3$� ��� ������ A�B � ��C� 9�: �%� *� 6�D *���E ���F3
���11 � ���3 � �����1400
595
#$% ��@ ��� �� ) �@Van Zwieten et al., 2010( � .
��� �$A(f? ������ ��@����' 2� j�� ���0� � ,�8� 54
5 � 5>? 10 (20 C�K ������ �� C�K���% :�; ��
�Kf( )�A :�; ����� 5�@ >�0� <�$� � % ������
)����' )��� ��V�%�' Z��% ����? �� �@�� . ����% ������
���K j�� ���0� � ,�8� j�0`� v��� 1�[�� #��A
5�E�0E�� 0���� ( #���k� ��(�E�� :�; ) �@Kumar et
al., 2013(. 1A(f? >�0� )�AGuvili et al. (2016) <�$�
(C�K 1�% ( ��% ( )(�K �%) ������ < ([�� % �� �
<W(�0�� ( �"�� 5Y���% 5Y�� 5[r� #��e 1�[�� v���
; � .�@ :�Oladele et al. )2019 <�$� �$A(f? � (
.�%�' �� � ������ ( �% <W(�0�� ��� �k� )�� �� x;�@
#@� �� ( >��� �E��� �� �0@� .YA ��� Z�� !��P0�
������ ( �% <W(�0�� v��� 1�[�� #���s )���Lr� 5a3
#�kT( �����@ :�; ���� pH5 5<W(�0�� 5�"�� 5Y���0?
Y���% ( #���s � �V' ����'�% :�; .���@Bednik et al.
(2020) <�$� )�r k��8� � �� � % ������ � ��-
!��/ �Lc�' pH 5:�; ���P� !% Z��% ��3 �� 1�[��
� .�� Z� 5��M n����� 4$; Z�� � ����' )(�M
������ Y% �' 2� ����' �A�@ �@ .����� � c�' �� )�A
C�D�� �� ��A�$� ��@ �� y�V'�� � �$A(f? <�%�' �@
YA�� ��� ����� �Kf( �� ��(� �% ( ������ 1% )�A
�� !"�� �E��� ( :�; �����@ .#�� ��$� C�D�� )�
��� ����� i�A �� 1A(f? Z� Z����� ��� ������
���� )� ( �% ��(� �� �Kf( )�A �����@ :�; (
���� �E��� N? 2� #@� �� !"�� �� )� #&' h��@
.#�� �� �K C�D�� ��`�K
�� ���� �
������ j�0`� ,�8� ��� ����� i�A �� 1A(f? Z�
���� ��� �Kf( �� ��(� �% ( )� �����@ )�A
�� !"�� �E��� ( :�; � )� ��`�K )�A �'�P�P&'
N �? 5<�&���� ��r$�� <��L' � ��� 1399 C�D��
�@. Z� !��@ 1A(f? � 78� �% ��(� 75N1=5
100N2= ( 120N3= �=� 2���) ) �% ���K n�����
>�0� � #� ���3 2� [����3 �����@ :�; <���K �A ((
� 78� ������ ��� ���� )�0B1=5 2B2= ( 5 B3=
:�; <2( �=� � � ���E' ( 27 <���K � .��/
,�- :��� )�A !��% �� �+' ��� ���2�� ���/
#��K. :�; 2� ��� ��� ��[� �'�P�P&' N �?
<�&���� U�c )�(3 �@. ) �(�c1�;�� ( 2�
�Kf( )�A �����@ ( �E[�� :�; �� � �"0�� ���
�� <�$� .�A
���� �� �� �� � � ����
�L' )��� ������ � �"0�� ��� 2� � �� ��(� ���
���� )� � �"0�� �@. ���� Z�� ��0�� ���� ��� )�
4$; ( NO� �����% ( 2� 4�� 2 ���� �0� � � ��V�
���@ �' #;��E ���@. NO� � 4 ���% )���
��� ( #��� )�� ���% � >��' 1�[�� #�� �'
� 400 n����� c� ������ �@. NO� )��� ���
( #��� � )�� 400 c� n����� � ( h��@
�@ �� NO� ( ��@ ����2�� <f��%� <(�� .���)
�2���� K��) pH ( ��A# �0E��E� ������ ���
���� �)5 2� #V�� 4 � 10 ������ � a3 �8P�
� �"0�� �@ )Guvili et al., 2016�2���� .( )��K 5Z��%
5<W(�0�� 5Y���0? 5�"�� 5��% 5<f��%� <W(���A ��� (
���� ��� ������ � �=�� ��r0� 2� � �"0�� �� )�
C�� � )�+� [����3Hitach 4160 FESEM �
���= <��L' ��r$�� z�� ��E$�� ��r$��23
�;�� .#��d? 2� �Kf( )�A �����@ ( �E[��
���� ��� ������ )� [�� �2���� )��K �(�c) �@2 .(
(�)* +,�- �*$� '�.� /�0 �*�1*�2 ���� (�3 ��. 4%*05��0 %�.67� 8/�9 �)��. �:�;�5 /�5��
���11 � ���3 � �����1400
596
Table 1. Physical and chemical characteristics of the soil at experimental site Ca+mg Total nitrogen Bulky density PWP FC EC
pH Texture Characteristic (meqlit-1) (%) (gr cm-3) (m3 m-3) (m3.m-3) (dS.m-1)
35 0.07 1.58 10 21 1 6.1 Sandy loam Average
Table 2. Physical and chemical characteristics of the forage maize biochar
Chlorine Potassium Carbon Phosphor Oxygen Nitrogen EC pH Characteristic (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (dSm-1)
3 8.5 31.9 7.5 30.5 11 6.8 9.2 Average * pH and EC of biochar with ratio 1:10 biochar to deionized water.
�� �� �� � �� � ��� !"�
���� :�; 2� w�� �' �"=30 �0��� )�0� Z��2 U�c 5)�(3
�� �r�E y��`� ( � <�[�� C2o � ��`�K !P0� �@ .�(d�
!"�� �� )� Y/� CANYON 5 �L' N? 2� a�`0�� �d� (
��&� #$% a�`0�� �@ .NO� �(d� �L' ��@ � �0��
#�?�%�% ( #���? 0@�% �@ .�' ���P0�� !��% {A��K 5�A
)����3 h��' a3 |�? �0� � ��- .'�� �A ( 2(� 4 ���
C�D�� #��K .�k� 2� 70 2(� ( �k� 2� ��L� K�� <�@ �A�$�
� !;� <���K ��A % �� :�; �? ������ ( ���@ ��P0�� � �
�@ .� �A <���K 4 �$� #$% �@. )�$� !"�� �� )� �
<���K )�A �E�0�_? � X�"'�� 20 �0��� �0� ( �8/ ��A 20
�0��� �0� % )(�M 7 C�K���% y��`� �%�;)5n� #��� (
Z@ (��P0�� � � ���@ .<���K �A � ��`�K �� �� ) 25 -18
c� ����n� )2(� - .@ (( Z�r���� #��-� �V��
��`�K 70 -65 �=� )���Lr� �@. #Lc Z��k' <��2
.��� 5)����3 � ��- !+� �@� ,�8� 0��-�� �� 2�'Z
��2(� <���K �A ( < ([�� a3 � <3 �A C�D�� ( ��<�[ a3
��T� ��@ � �A <���K [�� � ��- !+� �@� �2���� )��K
�@ .<��2 )����3 � �'��= Z��k' �@ % #��-� :�; �'
w�� k��' $� Y% �' 2� 30 �=� !% #��-� :�;
�$� .YDM a3 )����3 n����� <�[�� #��-� 5:�; w��
k��' $� ( #M��� <���K Z��k' �@ ( a3 C2o ��
� �"0�� 2� ���0�� ~��� ��( <���K �@. 2��� ) �% )���
���K n����� >�0� � #� ���3 2� 1��23 :�; <���K ���
1��23 � ��� 0��K �@ .�� Z� n��� <W(�0�� �% [�� �
!E@ ��(� ( � � �M�� � ��- �@ Y��P' )(���. N? 2�
���P0�� !��% )�A����' 5���K ) �% � ,�8� -���� �����
.���@
����#� ���� � �� $% � �& �
N? 2� #@� �� K��� �� !"�� �) � �E������ !"��
�� �) k'��Z .�@ 2� NO� <���K �A �A � �' �"= o
20 �0��� �0� ���� :�; �2���� #Lc )��K )�A j�0`�
�L' N? .�@ 2� �L' 5X�V@� ���+� �� ��r0� EC5�0�
#��A ���+� �E�0E�� X�V@� ��r0� 2� � �"0�� �� (pH 5�0�
pH �2���� :�; )��K �@ .<�[�� Y���=�� ( Y���0? 2�
��r0� Flame photometer ��<�[ ��%�Y +��[Y �c�� �
:�; 2� |(� '����0�<� �2���� K��) �@ .���) �2���� K��)
Z��% �3� �c�� � :�; � 2� � �"0�� �� 5<�����0�' |(�
�� �� :�; C�K 4 ����% 54��"��� ���� 5Y���0? ����
(�� ���&� �� #�L� � ( N%( � i�k� ( 4�"��
�2���� )��� .�@ �0�' ��"��� C�����3 :�; !% <W(�0�� )��K
.�@ � �"0�� ���D% ��r0� 2�
���� '�(� �)*+� �
[D' ( !��&' )���3 � � �A 1��23 �� � �"0�� 2�
C�� ��[�� )���3 SAS C�D�� �@ .)��� Y�� !E@ �A (
�A�� ��� 2� C�� ��[�� ( EXCEL � �"0�� �@ ( ��P�
Z�r���� �A �� <��23 !/��M i_0;� �k� �� )ZE�� (( �
78� ���0M� 5 �=� C�D�� #��K.
�<* 1���=> ?�@ �:>� *� � �>) ��* �1 ��3$� ��� ������ A�B � ��C� 9�: �%� *� 6�D *���E ���F3
���11 � ���3 � �����1400
597
,(� -) !#
��+&� #@� �� 2� N? k��8� Z� � �Kf( )�A
�����@ :�; !��@ 5X�V@� ���+� �E�0E�� #��ApH5
5Y[�� ( Y���% ( :�; !% <W(�0�� 5Y���0? 5Y��
�� !"�� ���� �E��� �2���� )� )��K �@ .>�0� [D'
N����( � � �A <�$� � % ���+� �E�0E�� #��A
5X�V@�pH �E��� ( :�; !% <W(�0�� 5Y���0? 5Y�� 5
�� !"�� ���� �' )� � 78� ���0M� 4 Z��% 5�=�
:�; Y[�� +Y���% ( ��3 � 78� >? ���0M� �=�
k�� �� �@ )�(�c 3.(
. / 0 1�� �� 23 4�) !�5� �)���
YA�� ��� ( ��=� ����� Z�r���� ��P� � y���� >�0� 1%
� :�; X�V@� ���+� �E�0E�� #��A <�[�� �� �A����'
�' �"= w��20 �0��� ) �(�c � �0�3 ��@ � � <�$� (
>�0� wV- .#�� � #� ���� ��P� 5���3 YA�� 1% ������
( �% ��(� �� :�; X�V@� ���+� �E�0E�� #��A � 78�
4 �=� �k� �� �(�c) �@3( .1�� #��A Z�'
����' � :�; X�V@� ���+� �E�0E��120 ��(� �% �=�
(5 <�[�� � ������ �=� 05/8 ( �0� �� N�2 ��
Y% ��' � <3 Z�' ��100 � ������ <(�� ( ��(� �% �=�
<�[��69/4 � �0� �� N�2 �� � <�$� >�0� .��3 #�
)�A����' � :�; X�V@� ���+� �E�0E�� #��A <�[�� %
120 ( ��(� �% �=� 5 ������ �=� 7/41 #V�� �=�
!E@) � <�$� 1�[�� �A�@ ����' �1 .( 78� 2� ��`V'
� ( :�; c<����� YA ( :�; 78� � ,_�� #%�M Z��
� a3 �� :�; 78� o � ,_�� ��P0�� � �D� ����'
)��@ 1�[�� .V� D�0� � ( �@ :�; �&8�
1�� �@ �&8� o � �' . � �"0�� 2� a3 �� ��@) 5/1
� � 2N� �� �0� ( ��@) o��) ������ % � (�M
8/6 � � 2N� �=� !���� 2� �� �0� ��� �[��1
��@) :�;�� @����$�3 .� 10 � � �=� Z k��8�
� #�� 0����0�Z ��<�[ ��@) �d� ( �A 1A�% ��
?� �L$ �� �@ �(� ��� � % � �f( � ���=
< ��o�� ��@) ������ ��<�[ �$�3� �'o��) ���
K ���/ � �"0��� � ��@ ��� ����� �') 1A�% v���
��+&� �E��� �$�. |��[K �$A(f? � �� �% % ��
< ([�� 3 ( 5 �=� ������ ��2( ��@����' 2� a�� 5 V?
�E�0E�� #��A ���+� X�V@� :�; #&' #$% ���K
1�[�� ~�"�� ) #��Younis et al., 2015.(
pH . / ��P� ���� YA�� 1% ������ ( �% ��(� �� pH :�; �
78� 4 �=� �k� �� �� )�(�c 3.( �(�"' �k� )��
Z�� �A �A����' �c( #@� ( )�A����' 100 �=� �%
��(� ( <(�� ������ ����� �� 32/7 ( 5 �=� ������ ( 120
�=� �% ��(� ����� �� 37/8 � '�'�. Y% Z�' ( 1�� Z�'
pH � :�; �� �D� �� ��� .>�0� <�$� � % )�A����' 5
�=� ������ ( 120 �=� �% ��(� pH :�; �� 5/12
�=� #V�� � �A�@ 1�[�� � ) !E@2.(
Table 3. Effects of biochar, Nitrogen, and interaction of Biochar ×Nitrogen on chemical characteristics of the soil and
yield fruit of bell pepper Mean of Square
f Source of
Variances Wet yield fruit
Total nitrogen
Organic carbon
Potassium Sodium Calcium and magnesium
pH EC
1.49** 0.031* 0.99ns 118602** 4436** 101.2ns 0.035ns 1.31ns 2 Biochar
32.5** 0.004ns 0.12ns 233.3* 7192** 363.7** 0.74** 0.45ns 2 Nitrogen
20.38** 0.014** 1.61* 122555** 6572** 370.3* 0.053** 5.39** 8 Biochar×Nitrogen 26.3 0.044 72.4 39148 3658 3817.1 0.48 11.95 16 Error
29.9 18.38 49.2 26.9 12.7 40.06 2.17 14.03 CV% **, *, ns: Significant different at 1% and 5% probability levels and non-significant difference, respectively.
(�)* +,�- �*$� '�.� /�0 �*�1*�2 ���� (�3 ��. 4%*05��0 %�.67� 8/�9 �)��. �:�;�5 /�5��
���11 � ���3 � �����1400
598
Figure 1. Effect treatment forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer EC in soil.
B1=0%biochar, B2=2 % biochar, B3=5% biochar
Figure 2. Effect treatment forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer pH in soil
B1=0%biochar, B2=2 % biochar, B3=5% biochar
������ ( ��(� �% � ��- �k� 1�[�� v��� )��
#�kT(pH .�@ :�; k��8� � �T�M k�� � ��Z ��
� %����� �(� ��� 2�� �) ��'�� �@ ��� %) pH �o��
@��1�[�� .� pH � ��� < ([�� 5������ �o��0M� � !��
pH �2 )2/9 (������ � ([�� ��@ � :�; !�� .#��
1�[�� pH � ��� ����% ������ � )�� ����' ������ (
X�� � �� ��(� )� % ������ 2� <3 ����' �� �@5 hV'��
#�� .Z� �� ���rA 5��M � �"0�� ��L' � ��(� �% %
5�@pH ������ � #V�� <W(�0�� <�[�� 1�[�� �� :�;
1�[��Y% �'#�� )5 ���M� ��L' � ������ %pH
�o��k� . � 1�[�� �� :�; )�A������ ��@����' �
)�� o�� )��� pH o�� �0�A ( �;�� 2� ��� ��(� [��
)��� pH �o�� �� ) �@��Parechehreh et al., 2017 .(
1�[�� �r !o 2� pH 1�[�� :�;CEC :�; )�A
,_=� �� ������ �� ��@ .�@�� k��8� � |��[K �� �%
����% )�A������ j�0`� .V� 1�[�� pH :�; ��@
#�� % �0�> �L�3 �� �0�> !=�M 2� k��8� ?�1 (�
#P��8� �� )Zhang et al., 2012.(
. / 0 1�� �� 23 6)*�7� 6�"� �89
�(�c )3( ��P� Z�r���� ��� YA�� 1% )�A����'
�� ��(� �% ( ������ Y���% ( Y[�� ���+� X�V@� :�;
N? 2� #@� �� !"�� �� )� �� <�$� �� �A . >�0�
���� N����( [D' YA�� 1% ������ ( �% ��(� ��
c
bc bc
c c
ab
c
a a
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
B1 B2 B3
)E
C(d
S m
-1
N1 N2 N3
b
a ab
a ab
a a
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
B1 B2 B3
pH
N1 N2 N3
�<* 1���=> ?�@ �:>� *� � �>) ��* �1 ��3$� ��� ������ A�B � ��C� 9�: �%� *� 6�D *���E ���F3
���11 � ���3 � �����1400
599
#��e:�; Y[�� ( Y���% � 78� >? ���0M� �=�
�k� �� �@ .1�� �' ����' � Y[�� ( Y���% <�[�� Z
120 ( ��(� �% �=� 2 <�[�� � ������ �=� 53/60
���� �%� ( �0�� � <o�(Y% �' ����' � <3 Z100 �=�
�� ����� ������ <(�� ( ��(� �%2/25 ���� �%� � <o�(
�0�� � !E@) ��3 #� 3 � ������ ,�8� ����% .(
�� X�V@� ���+� � Y[�� ( Y���% <�[�� �A�@ �� ��P�
� ��- �k� . � 1�[�� )�� �0�> ' % � <�$�����
120 ( ��(� �% �=� 2 ������ �=� U�D' ( Y���%
Y[�� �� :�; � 3/58 �=� �[�� �A�@ � #V��1
� !E@)3(. � �! � < ���'o���<�[ ��%�Y o �
&8� � � !�� `V'�� :�; 78� 2� a3 #@��Lr� (
1�� �' h��' ������ o &8�� �� �@�� �kV� ������ .
�� Y[�� ( Y���% �=�� )��� Y�P0�� ��A��� ( �@��
�� 5:�; � ������ < ([�� ��� �� ��de �=�� 2� ����'
���g' 5����'�% � �V' #���s 1�[�� w�-pH � ( :�;
� ([�� <�@Y�P0�� .��� 1�[�� :�; � ������ 2� �+�
#�� � � <�$� ��k��8� >�0� ��% % ��25 550 575 (
100 1�% ( ��% 2� ��@����' ������ ��0EA � C�K�r�
)�� � C�K500 c� n����� .V� �[��1 ��%�Y
X�V@� ���+� � :�; �@ C�K #$% #&' . � ��-) %
� % 78� 100 � ��0EA � C�K�r������ �P� � � ��
�A�@ )� ��0EA � C�K�r� �"=�����( ��<�[ Y���% :�;
) #�� 1�[��Pourmansour et al., 2019.(
. / 0 1�� �� 23 6)�� �89
�0� � c�' ��> [D' ��(N�� YA�� ��� 1% ������ �% (
��(�� ��� :�;) k� ���b'� �� �=� 4 78� � ��
��<�[ #��e��Y �(�c) �@ :�;3 .(<��A �0� %��->
�P� � ��r���Z �A � <�$�� �A � < ([������� :�; � �A
.V� �[��1 ��<�[ #��e ��Y .#�� ��@ :�;
1�� ����' � Y�� <�[�� Z�'120 ( ��(� �% �=� 5
�� ����� ������ �=� 177 ���� �%� � �0�� � <o�( .��3 #�
Y% ����' � y���� :�; Y�� #��e <�[�� Z�'75 �=�
� ������ <(�� ( ��(� �% <�[��60 ���� �%� � <o�(
� c�' �� :�; Y�� <�[�� .�@ !=�M�0��5 ������ �=�
� ����' � 0�� ��%120 ��(� �% �=� 1/2 1�� �=� �'
!E@) �@ �A�@ 2�4 .(�[��1 ��<�[ #��e��Y :�; �
� ����%����� �� ����' YA � #�� �Z � % �@�������
���P�) ��Y ( �� YA �� ����' ��<� �K �Z �@�� X�T��
� %����� v��� �[��1 ��% #��e�Y � (�[Y :�; �
0� � ��@� D ��%�Y � (�[Y &8� adc� ���%��A�)
( ��@ :�;��Y &8� adc� ���% ��@��A�) �� :�;
!;� � ���&� #�� � �% �A� :�;.
Figure 3. Effect treatment forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer Calcium and magnesium in soil
B1=0%biochar, B2=2 % biochar, B3=5% biochar
b
ab
ab
b
ab
abab
a
ab
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
B1 B2 B3
)C
alc
ium
an
d m
ag
nesi
um
(m
eq
l-1
N1 N2 N3
(�)* +,�- �*$� '�.� /�0 �*�1*�2 ���� (�3 ��. 4%*05��0 %�.67� 8/�9 �)��. �:�;�5 /�5��
���11 � ���3 � �����1400
600
Figure 4. Effect treatment forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer sodium in soil
B1=0%biochar, B2=2 % biochar, B3=5% biochar
��%�Y ( ��[Y ������ �c[rZ ��Y ��@ ( ��Y
� <(� :�; �� �23 � �% ( � !�� �$�3 C��� .���
�[�� v��� ( � ��� U�D' :�; � 5:�;1 ��<�[ ��Y
�K :�;�� .#�� Chaganti et al. (2015) ��[ ��<�
� % �� �%����� e� ��% 2��Y � (�[Y �� �@�� � (Z
��%�Y � (�[Y ������ �� ����' �c[rZ ��Y �
!&� �A) � �V'� �@ ( ��Y � �% �23 :�; <(� � ��
0� � (� D �$�3� <3 ��' ��U .�$`�� k��8� �)
< ([�� % �� �% |��[K12 � ��0EA � C�K�r������
��'��/�/� #;� a�� 2� ��@�� #$% #&' :�; �
�[�� .V� 5C�K1 ��Y ) �@ :�; � �c��Khalid
Chaudhry et al., 2016 .(
. / 0 1�� �� 23 6�� !% �89
�� c�' � >�0� [D' N����( ����% ������ ( �%
��(� � :�; )��� ���b' �k� )�� � 78� 4 �=�
�� <�[�� ��0?�Y ���&� :�; #@� �(�c)3 .(1�� �'Z
<�[�� 1�[�� #��e Y���0? � ����' 100 �% �=�
( ��(�5 ����� ������ �=� �� 3/483 ���� <o���%� �
�0�� � #� 5��3Y% �'Z <�[�� #��e Y���0? � ����'
120 ����� ������ <(�� ( ��(� �% �=� �� 6/11
���� �%� <o�( � �0�� �� .>�0� <�$� � % 1�[��
������ .V� ��(� �% ( 1�[�� �k� �� Y���0? ���+�
X�V@� �;: �@ . � ��-) % � 78� 5 ������ �=� (
100 <�[�� ��(� �% �=� Y���0? ���+� X�V@� 8/96
�=� 1�� �' 2� <�[�� Y���0? � 78� ������ <(�� ��
!E@)5( .2� i�- �r 1�[�� � <�[�� Y���0? � ����'
)��� ������ ��� ���� )� �� ����' � Z� #�� �@��
% ������ ��� ���� )� �; )��� ��<�[ ��0?�Y o���
� �� ( �� < ([�� ������ ��0?�Y ���&� :�; �[��1 0��
#�� .������ � !�� ���b' �� 1�[�� ���/ � �V' ����'�%
� 1�[�� <� )�A :�; 2� ��c Y���0? 1P� �� (
v��� ���0� �0L� ���K � Z� �+� �� 5 �@ � �(_�
������ � !�� ��� < �� �=�� ��de � 1�[�� Z�
�=�� � :�; ��u���u� #�� )Pühringer, 2016(.
� !�� ��$�3 % � �A �( )����3 ���= 0��K
��A����' % <(�� ������ � �� �� �V�% Y���0? c���
���@. 1A(f? ��� �� �% <��� <��K % ���P� Y���0? �
�;: �A) ,_=� ��@ �� ������ 1�[�� 0�� #�� ( � �!
�Z �[��1 �� ���P� ��0?�Y 2 � � �0�%�; ������ ��T�
��@ �0��� .<��3 |��[K �� �% % < ([�� ,�8� 15
5/0 ( 2 �=� �2(� ������ ��'���@� 2� #��? ( �K �
�� ) 700 c� n����� � :�; N? 2� 67 2(� .V�
�[��1 ��0?�Y :�; �@ )Novak et al., 2009.(
d
c
b
a a
cdcd
c
a
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
B1 B2 B3
)S
od
eu
m (
meq
l-1
N1 N2 N3
�<* 1���=> ?�@ �:>� *� � �>) ��* �1 ��3$� ��� ������ A�B � ��C� 9�: �%� *� 6�D *���E ���F3
���11 � ���3 � �����1400
601
Figure 5. Effect treatment forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer potassium in soil
B1=0%biochar, B2=2 % biochar, B3=5% biochar
. / 45� :� � �89
�E 2� # (�&� )�A YL� :�; )�A w-�� 4$; (
��� 4$; �V�% ��� ��3 #�� .�� c�' � >�0� [D'
��(N�� ����% ������ ( �% ��(� � :�; ��� ) ���b'
�k� �� � 78� >? �=� �� <�[�� Z��% ��3 :�;
#@� .,�8� ����% ��� Z��% �=� �� ��(� �% j�0`�
�3� ���3 ��&� 2� :�;) k�� �� ) �V��(�c 3 .(
< ([�� ������ � :�; �A .V� �[��1 ��<�[ Z��% �3�
:�; ��@ #�� )!E@ 6 .(1�� �'Z <�[�� 1�[��
#��e Z��% ��3 � ����' 120 �=� �% 5��(� 5 �=�
������ � <�[�� 58/2 �=� � #� 5��3 Y% �'Z <�[��
#��e Z��% ��3 � ����' 75 �=� �% 5��(� <(��
������ � <�[�� 4/0 �=� �@ .Z��% ��3 :�; � ����'
120 �=� �% 5��(� 5 �=� ������ � �P� � �� �A�@
16/4 ����� #V�� ' ����� �A�@1�� �' !E@) �@6(.
�[��1 ��<�[ Z��% �3� :�; �� �[��1 i�+� ������
y���� #��. �� c�' � Z� % <�[�� � �� ��3 :�; �E
2� �u "� )�A YL� !=�M )[�; :�; 5#�� < ([�� ������
� :�; � !�� Z��% ��3 )o�� <3 �� ����' UV� �����
�V��� )��� <��Vc �V�% Z��% ( ��� ��3 :�; ( �
D�0� �VL� �Kf( )�A �E[�� ( �����@ ( [�� #s�"M
#�_� :�; �@�� )Freddo, 2013.( �$A(f? � � ���b'
!=�M 2� ��k�T �A��K �� 1�[�� Z��% ��3 :�;
���@� � �% ( � �! <3 �� �c( �=� o��� 2� Z��% �
���A����) ��'��) <��� �� �% )(Moradi et al., 2018.
. / '� ;� !�# �89
�(�c )3( [D' N����( ���b' )�A����' ������ ( �%
��(� �� U�D' <W(�0�� !% � :�; �� <�$� �� .�A ���b'
)�A����' ������ ( �% ��(� � 78� 4 ���0M� �=�
�k� �� �@ .�P� � ��r���Z (Kf� �A) ��%d� ) � |(�
ZE�� (!=�M 2� ���b' )�A����' ������ <�$� � % �
<W(�0�� !% 5:�; �(�"' �k� )�� ��Z �A � '����
�c( #@� .'���� 120 ( ��(� �% �=� 5 �=�
������ ���<�[ 392/0 �=� ( '���� 75 �=� �% ��(�
( <(�� ������ ����� �� 19/0 �=� � '�'�. 1�� �'Z (
Y% �'Z <W(�0�� !% � :�; �� � <�$� .>�0� <�$� �
% <�[�� <W(�0�� !% :�; � )�A����' 120 �% �=�
( ��(�5 ������ �=� 5/53 �=� #V�� � ����' �A�@
1�[�� #��. <��A ��K % 2� !E@ )7 ��@ � � <�$� (
� 2� � �"0�� 5#������� ���� ��� �) ����% 78� � 5
�=� ( �[��1 �% ��(� � � 5:�;�<�[ ��<W(�0 !%
:�; �� 2�7 �=� !V/ #$% 2� � 2/82 �=� �k� 2�
#@� ���[��1 . �
c
b
a
cc
a
c
c
a
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
B1 B2 B3
)P
ota
ssiu
m (
meq
l-1
N1 N2 N3
(�)* +,�- �*$� '�.� /�0 �*�1*�2 ���� (�3 ��. 4%*05��0 %�.67� 8/�9 �)��. �:�;�5 /�5��
���11 � ���3 � �����1400
602
Figure 6. Effect treatment forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer Organic carbon in soil
B1=0%biochar, B2=2 % biochar, B3=5% biochar
Figure 7. Effect treatment forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer total nitrogen in soil
B1=0%biochar, B2=2 % biochar, B3=5% biochar
� �! �[��1 � '��A���) (�M) ������ �� �� <��' �
����'� o��) �Z � �� � ���Lr�) �=�� �de� (
K��c��) 2� �$�3� ��<W(�0 #V�� � .YA Z�� �c(
d��� �2 ( 78� �f( o�� � ������ .c�� 1�[�� ���/
� �V' ����'�% ( 1�[�� �=�� ��de � )�A����' )(�M
������ �� ) �@Jemal & Abebe, 2016������ .( � ����A
�% )�A 5�����@ ���k� <�@ <W(�0�� �� �� 1A�% #V��
Z��% � ��<W(�0 L�'�! � �% ( ��<W(�0 !% :�; �VL�
�� ��� )Ali et al., 2015 .(�0�> % #�� � � <�$���
����% ������ !=�M 2� ��n�K� ��5�E$ �[��1 ��<W(�0 ��
� :�; k��8� ��� |��[K �� �% )Devband Hafshjani,
2016(.
���� � � �<3
�0�> [D' ��(N�� ) �(�c3 (��' % � <�$���
�E��� �' �� !"�� )�#&' ���YA�� 1% ������ (
�% ��(� � ���0M� 78� .#@� ���/ �=� 4�0�>
�P� � ��r���Z 8� ���( ������ ,� �% ��(� <�$� �
�(�"' % #Vm� k� (� )�� ��Z j�0`� ,�8�
�A����' �� �E��� �'���� ��A�$�@�1�� . Z�'
d
b-d
a-d
cd
a-c a-c
cd
ab
a
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
B1 B2 B3
OC
%N1 N2 N3
cd
ab
bc
d
bc
ab
b-d
ab
a
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
B1 B2 B3
To
tal
nit
ro
gen
%
N1 N2 N3
�<* 1���=> ?�@ �:>� *� � �>) ��* �1 ��3$� ��� ������ A�B � ��C� 9�: �%� *� 6�D *���E ���F3
���11 � ���3 � �����1400
603
�� !"�� ���� �' �E��� ����' � )�120 �% �=�
<�[�� � ������ <(�� ( ��(�86/8 U����0� � C�K���%
� Y% 5��3 #� !"�� ���� �' �E��� <�[�� Z�'
�� ����' � )�75 ( ��(� �% �=� 2 ������ �=�
�� �����6/1 � U����0� � C�K���% � ����' � .��3 #
120 ������ <(�� ( ��(� �% �=� 5/61 �=�
����' � ( 1�[�� 100 <(�� ( ��(� �% �=�
������9/81 ����' � #V�� ��+&� �E��� �=�
.#�� 1A�% �A�@ <W(�0�� �% ,�8� 1�[�� ��
<2( 5���+��' ���� �� !"�� )�1�[�� #@�
!E@)8(. ����� ��� YA�� 1% ������ ( �% ��(� ��
�E��� �' <�$� � % ���b' <�[�� �% ��(� �� ����'
���� ���K !"�� �� 5)� 2� ���b' ������ 1�� �' #��. ���
� '��A���) <(�� ������ ��<�[ �$�3� �����0 (
adc �����0 h��' K��� �[��1 �� ��� ( .c��
K ��3� a3 �A) 2�2��� ( ���# K��� �� �@ .
� �"0�� 2� �% @����� � ��<�[ 120 �=� � ����A
�3���) 5.��� v��� YA��� <�@ a3 ( ��� �de� (
� 0�� D �@� L�� K��� �K�� #��. � ��%��-
�% ����% � <W(�0�� �@� 4�&' !�� C���� ( $�
�� <�A��K �E��� 1�[�� .c�� ���A �@ )Nielsen
& Halvorson, 19911A(f? .( |��[K <��K �% % ��
�[��1 � ,�8��<W(�0 �[�� .c��1 )�[c� ( �E���
�E��� �[�% � e�� �@ Ze(� �=� 2� )Rabiee, 2000 .(
��@ x`$� #�� 2��� % �+� 4 � ���K ��(�
��k���e h��' ��de �EW���[�� <�@ ��� � �+� <3
������ dg' )�A )� �� 1�[�� )��@ 2� �@�� ���
)Grattan & Grieve, 1994 ������ )(�M )�A����' � .(
�c(2 1�� �E��� v��� ������ �=� � #V�� �'5
�� �k0� ���P� ����% � �E��� �VL� .�@ ������ �=�
1A(f? � <3 �2 � �P� �� ��P� � ������ 2� )�A
.#�� ��@ |��[K [�� )�r Gokila & Baskar (2015)
[�� ��� < ([�� ,�8� 5 ( 5/7 Z' � ��0EA ������ ( 75
( 100 �=� ���P� �=�' ��@ 2� �% �����@ �� ��
�Kf( )�A ���K ��� ��� ����� ���/ � � ( |��[K
�� �% % 1�� Z�' �E��� �� ( �Kf( )�A �"�% ���
� ����' 5 Z' � ��0EA ������ � ����A 100 �=� ���P�
�=�' ��@ 2� �% �����@ � #� ��3.
Figure 8. Effect treatment forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer on wet yield fruit bell pepper
B1=0%biochar, B2=2 % biochar, B3=5% biochar
de
e e
c-e
e
cd
a
ab
bc
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
B1 B2 B3
)W
et
yeil
d f
riu
t (k
g m
-2
N1 N2 N3
(�)* +,�- �*$� '�.� /�0 �*�1*�2 ���� (�3 ��. 4%*05��0 %�.67� 8/�9 �)��. �:�;�5 /�5��
���11 � ���3 � �����1400
604
�+�!# � �&
�A ����% % � <�$� 1A(f? Z� 2� !=�M >�0�
���� ��� ������ ,�8� :�; <�@��@ .V� 5)�
1�[�� .�@ #��A �E�0E�� :�; �o��0M� � !��
�E�0E�� #��A �2 ) ������7/6 �� (�0� �� N�2
��T� 1�[�� . �� :�; � ��@ � �"0�� 2� ������ �
:�; .V� 1�[�� 1�� �' pH� Y[�� ( Y���% 5
:�; �@. � 5������ 1�[�� �� :�; Y���0? <�[�� #��
#�� 0�� 1�[�� 5������ � Y���0? ���P� < ��o��.
�� Z����� � <3 2� <��' ,_=� <��� :�; ��% ��A
� �"0�� 5�0�A Y���0? �V�% )��� % ���2� . ���-
<�� ������ � �"0�� ��� )(�M Y�� [�� 5#�� � ��
< ([�� <3 � :�; .V� 1�[�� <�[�� :�; � Y��
������ .�@ � !�� 1�[�� ��� ��3 5:�; v���
!�; 1�[�� ~��( ( �VL� <��0;�� :�; �@. ����%
������ .c�� 1�[�� Y$� )��K � #��e ��3 Z��%
:�; � �M�� ����? �@ .1�� Z�' ���P� <3 � ����'
5 �=� ������ ( 120 �=� �% ��(� � ���P� 58/2
�=� ��A�$� �@ .1�[�� � �"0�� 2� ������ �% (
� ��(� :�; .V� #@��Lr� 1�� 1�[�� ( �'
<W(�0�� � :�; �@. n����� �0�> � #� ���3
� �"0�� YA <��2 ������ ( �% ��(� ���b' 0Vm�� ��
�E��� �' ���� !"�� �� �) #@� .< ([�� �% ��(�
� :�; .c�� �[��1 �E��� ��+&� 1�� �' #V��
� ������ 2� :�; �@ .��� � '��A���) <(�� ������
��<�[ �$�3� �����0 ( adc �����0 h��' K���
�[��1 �� ��� ( .c�� K ��3� a3 �A) 2�2��� (
���# K��� �� �@ .�����Z � �"0�� 2� ������ ( �%
��(� � ���= YA <��2 � <��� 4 ��� ��% ��u���u�
���) �[��1 �E��� K��� ( �=�� @����� :�;
i�+� �@.
4#����= ���
2� � �"0�� �� ( �$A(f? ,�- .��/ � 1A(f? Z�
<��(�� ( <��E0V� 2� #��M z(�= �$A(f? ����V0��
��$% � ���@ �99015806 #�� ��@ C�D��5 Z�� %
�� ��� ��/ ( �E$' ���( . �@
>? 7� @� A�
��A ���� �c( <�K���� h��' U��� ���k' ��K.
>� 7� Ali, K., Arif, M. & Jan, T. (2015). Integrated use of
biochar: A tool for improving soil and wheat
quality of degraded soil under soil wheat-maize
cropping pattern. Pakestan Journal of Botany,
47(1), 233-240.
Azeem, M., Hayat, R., Hussain, Q., Ahmed, M.,
Imran, M., & Crowley, D. (2016). Effect of
biochar amendment on soil microbial biomass,
abundance, and enzyme activity in the mash
bean field. Journal of Biodiversity and
Environmental Sciences, 8(6), 1-13.
Bednik, M., Medy´nska-Juraszek, A., Dudek, M.,
Kloc, S., Kret, A., Łabaz, B & Waroszewski, J.
(2020). Wheat Straw Biochar and NPK
Fertilization Efficiency in Sandy Soil
Reclamation. Agronomy, 10(4), 496.
Chaganti, V.N., Crohn, D.M., & Simunek, J.
(2015). Leaching and reclamation of biochar
and compost amended saline-sodic soil with
moderate SAR reclaimed water. Agricultural
Water Management, 158, 255-265.
Deoband Hafshjani, L. (2016). Investigation of the
effect of low-intensity and low-sediment
application of sugarcane bagasse on the
prevention of nitrate leaching in Khodak.
Doctoral dissertation of Shahid Chamran
University of Ahvaz, Iran.
Freddo, A. (2013). Biochar: for better or for
worse? Doctoral dissertation dissertation,
University of East Anglia School of
Environmental Science, England.
Gokila, B., & Baskar, K. (2015). Influence of
biochar as soil amendment on yield and quality
of maize in alfisol of Thoothukudi of
Thamilandu, India. International Journal of
Plant, Animal and Environmental Sciences,
5(1), 152-155.
�<* 1���=> ?�@ �:>� *� � �>) ��* �1 ��3$� ��� ������ A�B � ��C� 9�: �%� *� 6�D *���E ���F3
���11 � ���3 � �����1400
605
Grattan, S.R. & Grieve, C.M. (1999). Salinity-mineral nutrition relations in horticultural crops. Scientia Horticulturae, 78(1-4), 127-157.
Guvili, A., Mousavi, A. A., & Kamkar Haghighi, A. (2016). Effect of cattle manure biochar and moisture stress on growth characteristics and spinach water use efficiency in greenhouse conditions. Water research in agriculture, 30(2), 259-243. (In Persian).
Hamifar, Y. (2019). Water-borne patients. Hamadan University of Medical Sciences and Health Services, Fatemieh Hospital. (In Persian)
Jemal, K., & Abebe, A. (2016). Determination of bio-char rate for improved production of Lemmon grass (Cymbopogon citracut L.). International Journal of Advanced Biological and Biomedical Research, 4(2), 149-157.
Khalid Chaudhry, U., Shahzad, S., Nadir Naqqash, M., Saboor, A., Subtain Abbas, M., Saeed F., & Yaqoob, S. 2016. Integration of biochar and chemical fertilizer to enhance quality of soil and wheat crop (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal Biodivers Environment Scince, 9(1), 348-358.
Kumar, S., Masto, R., E. Lal, C. R., Sarkar, P., George, J. & Selvi, V. A. (2013). Biochar preparation from Parthenium hysterophorus and its potential use in soil application. Journal of Ecological Engineering, 55(3), 67-72.
Masto, R.E., Kumar, S., Rout, T.K., Sarkar, P., George, J., & Ram, L.C. (2013). Biochar from water hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes) and its impact on soil biological activity. Catena, 111, 64-71.
Moradi, N., Sedghiani, M., H., & Sepehr, A. (2017). The effect of type and amount of biochar on some soil characteristics and usability of some nutrients in a calcareous soil. Water and soil (agricultural sciences and industries), 4(31), 1246-1232. (In Persian)
Nielsen, D. C., & Halvorson, A. D. (1991). Nitrogen fertility influence on water stress and yield of winter wheat. Agronomy Journal, 83(6), 1065-1070.
Novak, J.M., Busscher, W.J., Laird, D.L. Ahmedna, M., Watts, D.W., & Niandou, M.A.S. (2009). Impact of biochar amendment on fertility of a Southeastern coastal Plain soil. Soil Science, 174(2), 105-112.
Lei, O., & Zhang, R. (2013). Effects of bio-chars derived from different feedstocks and pyrolysis temperatures on soil physical and hydraulic properties. Soils and Sediments, 13(9), 1561-1572.
Leghari, S.J., Wahocho, N.A., Laghari, G.M., HafeezLaghari, A., MustafaBhabhan, G., Hussain Talpur, K., Bhutto, T.A., Wahocho, S.A., & Lashari, A.A. (2016). Role of Nitrogen for Plant
Growth and Development: A review. Advances in Environmental Biology, 10(9), 209-2016.
Lehmann, J., Da Silva Jr, J.P., Steiner, C., Nehls, T., Zech, W., & Glaser, B. (2003). Nutrient availability and leaching in an archaeological Anthrosol and a Ferralsol of the Central Amazon basin: fertilizer, manure and charcoal amendments. Plant and Soil, 249(2), 343-357.
Lehmann, J., & Joseph, S. (2009). Biochar for Environmental Management. Science and Technology, Earthscan. London, UK. Forest policy and Econamics, 11(7), 535-536.
Parechehreh, M., Sadeghzadeh, F., Bahmanyar, M.A., Ghajar sepanlo, M. (2017). Effect of rice straw biochar and Nrad wood chips on chemical properties of saline-sodium saline soil with clay loam texture. Journal of Soil and Water Science, 27(4), 49-61.
Pühringer, H. (2016). Effects of different biochar application rates on soil fertility and soil water retention in on-farm experiments on smallholder farms in Kenya. Master´s thesis, Independent Project in Environmental Science, Faculty of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences, Department of Soil and Environment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
Pourmansour, S., Razzaqi, F., Sepaskhah, A., & Mousavi, A. (2019). Study of growth and yield of wheat under different levels of biochar and low irrigation in greenhouse conditions. Water and Irrigation Management, 9(1), 28-25. (In Persian)
Rabiee, M. (2000). Effect of row spacing and nitrogen fertilizer rates on grain yield and agronomic characteristics of rapeseed cv. Hayola 308 as second crop in paddy fields of Guilan in Iran. Journal of Crops Seed and Plant, 27(4), 399- 415. (In Persian).
Razaqi, F., & Rezaei, n. (2017). The effect of different levels of biochar on the physical properties of soil with different textures. Protection of water and soil resources, 7(1), 88-75. (In Persian)
Oladele, S., Adeyemo, A., Awodun, M., Ajayi, A., & Fasina, A. (2019). Effects of biochar and nitrogen fertilizer on soil physicochemical properties, nitrogen use efficiency and upland rice (Oryza sativa) yield grown on an Alfisol in Southwestern Nigeria. Recycling of Organic Waste in Agriculture, 8(3), 295–308.
Younis, U., Athar, M., Malik, S.A., Raza Shah, M.H., & Mahmood, S. (2015). Biochar impact on physiological and biochemical attributes of Spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) in nickel contaminated soil. Global Journal of Environmental Science Management, 1(3), 245-254.
(�)* +,�- �*$� '�.� /�0 �*�1*�2 ���� (�3 ��. 4%*05��0 %�.67� 8/�9 �)��. �:�;�5 /�5��
���11 � ���3 � �����1400
606
Van Zwieten, L., Kimber, S., Morris, S., Chan, K.,
Downie, A., Rust, J., Joseph, S., & Cowie, A.
(2010). Effects of biochar from slow pyrolysis of
papermill waste on agronomic performance and
soil fertility. Plant and Soila327(1), 235-246.
Zhang, A., Liu, Y., Pan, G., Hussain, Q., Li, L.,
Zheng, J., and Zhang, X. 2012. Effect of biochar
amendment on maize yield and greenhouse gas
emissions from a soil from central China plain.
Plant and Soil, 351(1), 263-275.