IMPACT OF BIOCHAR AND ZEOLITE ON AGROPHYSIOLOGY OF …prr.hec.gov.pk/jspui/bitstream/123456789/10659/1/Awais... · 2019-12-31 · 4.1.3 Soil Quality Parameters 67 4.1.3.1 pH 67 4.1.3.2

i

IMPACT OF BIOCHAR AND ZEOLITE ON AGROPHYSIOLOGY

OF WHEAT GROWN UNDER RAINFED CONDITIONS

AWAIS ALI

05-arid-31

Department of Agronomy

Faculty of Crop and Food Sciences

Pir Mehr Ali Shah

Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi,

Pakistan

2018

ii

IMPACT OF BIOCHAR AND ZEOLITE ON AGROPHYSIOLOGY

OF WHEAT GROWN UNDER RAINFED CONDITIONS

by

AWAIS ALI

(05-arid-31)

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

in

Agronomy

Department of Agronomy

Faculty of Crop and Food Sciences

Pir Mehr Ali Shah

Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi,

Pakistan

2018

iii

iv

v

vi

vii

viii

(IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE MOST MERCIFUL, THE MOST

BENEFICIAL)

ix

DEDICATION

I DEDICATE THIS WHOLE EFFORT TO

MY PARENTS AND ALL FAMILY MEMBERS

WHO ALWAYS HELPED AND MOTIVATED ME

x

CONTENTS

Page

List of Figures xi

List of Tables xiii

List of Abbreviations xvi

Acknowledgements xvii

ABSTRACT xix

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 12

3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 24

3.1 PRODUCTION OF BIOCHAR 25

3.1.1 Chemical and Structural Analysis of Biochar and Zeolite 25

3.2 IMPACT OF BIOCHAR AND ZEOLITE ON AGRO-

PHYSIOLOGY OF WHEAT GROWN UNDER

CONTROL CONDITIONS

25

3.2.1 Treatments 31

3.2.2 Soil Filling in Pot 32

3.2.3 Determination of Soil Quality Traits 32

3.2.3.1 pH 32

3.2.3.2 Bulk density 32

3.2.3.3 Soil moisture 33

3.2.4 Agronomic Traits 34

3.2.4.1 Plant height 34

3.2.4.2 Leaf area plant-1

34

3.2.4.3 Total biomass 34

3.2.4.4 Grain yield 34

3.2.4.5 Harvest index 34

3.2.5 Determination of Wheat Physiological Traits 35

3.2.5.1 Total chlorophyll content 35

3.2.5.2 Stomatal conductance 35

xi

3.2.5.3 Proline content 35


PHYSIOLOGY OF WHEAT GROWN UNDER FIELD

CONDITIONS

36

3.3.1 Experimental Site Location 36

3.3.1.1 Seedbed preparations 37

3.3.2 Weed Control 37

3.3.3 Determination of Soil Quality Traits 37

3.3.3.1 pH 38


3.3.3.3 Electrical conductivity 38

3.3.3.4 Total nitrogen 39

3.3.3.5 Available phosphorus 39

3.3.3.6 Extractable potassium 40

3.3.3.7 Total organic carbon 40

3.3.3.8 Loss on ignition 41

3.3.3.9 Total carbon 41

3.3.3.10 Total magnesium 42

3.3.3.11 Water holding capacity 43

3.3.4 Determination of Agro-morphological Trait 43


3.3.4.2 Spike length 44

3.3.4.3 Leaf area 44

3.3.4.4 Number of tillers 44

3.3.4.5 Number of spikelets spike-1

44

3.3.4.6 1000-grain weight 45

3.3.4.7 Grain filling rate 45

3.3.4.8 Seed yield 45



3.3.4.11 Grain protein content 46

xii

3.3 IMPACT OF BIOCHAR AND ZEOLITE ON EMISSION

OF AMMONIA, METHANE AND CARBON DIOXIDE

FROM TREATED SOIL

46

3.3.1 Selected Ion Flow Tube Mass Spectrometer 47

3.4 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 47

3.5 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 47

3.5.1 Benefit Cost Ratio 47

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 49

4.1 IMPACT OF BIOCHAR AND ZEOLITE ON

AGROPHYSIOLOGY OF WHEAT GROWN UNDER

CONTROL CONDITIONS

47

4.1.1 Agronomic Traits 47


4.1.1.2 Leaf area 51




4.1.2 Physiological traits 60

4.1.2.1 Total chlorophyll content 60

4.1.2.2 Stomatal conductance 62

4.1.2.3 Proline content 63

4.1.3 Soil Quality Parameters 67

4.1.3.1 pH 67


4.1.3.3 Soil moisture retention 71

4.1.3.4 Friction transpiration of surface water 71

4.1.3.5 Friction transpiration of surface water 73

4.1.4 Regressional Analysis of Soil Moisture with Chlorophyll

Content, Proline Content and Stomatal Conductance

76


PHYSIOLOGY OF WHEAT GROWN UNDER FIELD

CONDITIONS

77

4.2.1 Agronomic Traits of Wheat Crop 81

xiii


4.2.1.2 Spike length 83

4.2.1.3 Number of spikelets/Spike 85

4.2.1.4 Grains per spike 87

4.2.1.5 1000-grain weight 89

4.2.1.6 Grain filling rate 91

4.2.1.7 Number of tillers 93

4.2.1.8 Biological yield 95



4.2.2 Grain quality traits 102

4.2.2.1 Grain protein content 102

4.2.3 Soil quality traits 105

4.2.3.1 pH 105

4.2.3.2 Electrical conductivity 108

4.2.3.3 Loss on ignition 110

4.2.3.4 Total nitrogen 112

4.2.3.5 Available phosphorous 115

4.2.3.6 Extractable potassium 118

4.2.3.7 Total magnesium 121

4.2.3.8 Organic carbon 123

4.2.3.9 Total carbon 125


4.2.3.11 Water holding capacity (WHC) 128

4.3 IMPACT OF BIOCHAR AND ZEOLITE ON EMISSION

OF GREEN HOUSE GASES FROM TREATED SOIL

133

4.3.1 Impact of Biochar and Zeolite on Ammonia, Methane and

Carbon Dioxide

133

4.4 ECONOMICAL ANALYSIS 136

4.4.1 Benifit Cost Ratio 136

SUMMARY 139

CONCLUSION 143

SCOPE OF FUTURE RESEARCH 144

xiv

LITERATURE CITED 145

APPENDIX 183

xv

List of Figures

Figure No. Page

3.1 Biochar production 26

3.1.1 Structural analysis of biochar by using scanning electron

microscope (SEM)

28

3.1.2 Structural analysis of zeolite (Clinoptilolite) by using scanning

electron microscope (SEM)

30

4.1.2.1 Impact of biochar and zeolite on total chlorophyll content of

wheat plant

61

4.1.2.2 Impact of biochar and zeolite on stomatal conductance of wheat

plant

64

4.1.2.3 Impact of biochar and zeolite on proline content of wheat plant 66

4.1.4(a) Relationship between total chlorophyll content and available

moisture content of soil during 1st year

78

4.1.4(b) Relationship between total chlorophyll content and available moisture

content of soil during 2nd

year

78

4.1.4(c) Relationship between Proline content and available moisture

content of soil during 1st year

79

4.1.4(d) Relationship between Proline content and available moisture

content of soil during 2nd

year

79

4.1.4(e) Relationship between Stomatal conductance and available

moisture content during 1st year

78

4.1.4(f) Relationship between Stomatal conductance and available

moisture content during 2nd

year

78

4.3.1 (a) Effect of biochar and zeolite on Ammonia emission from soil 135

4.3.1 (b) Effect of biochar and zeolite on CO2 emission from soil 135

4.3.1 (c) Effect of biochar and zeolite on CH4 emission from soil 135

4.4.1 Economical analysis of treatments applied in term of benefit cost

ratio

138

xvi

List of Tables

Table No. Page

3.1.1 Chemical analysis of (Dalbergia sissoo) biochar used in

this experiment

27

3.1.2 Chemical analysis of (clinoptilolite) zeolite used in this

experiment

29

4.1.1.1 Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on Plant height

of wheat

50

4.1.1.2 Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on leaf area of

wheat crop

52

4.1.1.3 Effect of biochar and zeolite treatments on total biomass of

wheat crop

53

4.1.1.4 Effect of biochar and zeolite treatments on grain yield of

wheat

57

4.1.1.5 Effect of biochar and zeolite treatments on harvest index of

wheat

59

4.1.3.1 Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on soil pH 68

4.1.3.2 Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on bulk density 70

4.1.3.3 Impact of biochar and zeolite on soil moisture 72

4.1.2.4(a) Impact of biochar and zeolite on Friction transpiration of

surface water in wheat crop during 1st year

74

4.1.2.5(b) Impact of biochar and zeolite on Friction transpiration of

surface water in wheat crop during 2nd

year

75

4.2.1.1 Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on plant height

of wheat crop

82

4.2.1.2 Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on Spike length

of wheat crop

84

4.2.1.3 Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on number of

spikelets per spike of wheat

86

xvii


grains per spike of wheat crop

88

4.2.1.5 Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on 1000 grains

weight of wheat crop

90

4.2.1.6 Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on grain filling

rate of wheat crop

92


tillers of wheat crop

94

4.2.1.8 Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on biological

yield (kg/ha) of wheat crop

96

4.2.1.9 Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on grain yield of

wheat crop

99

4.2.1.10 Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on harvest index

(%) of wheat crop

101

4.2.2.1 Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on grain protein

content (%)

103

4.2.3.1 Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on soil pH 106

4.2.3.2 Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on electrical

conductivity of soil

109

4.2.3.3 Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on soil organic

matter

111

4.2.3.4 Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on total Nitrogen 114

4.2.3.5 Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on available

phosphorous in soil

117

4.2.3.6 Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on extractable

potassium in soil

120

4.2.3.7 Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on total

magnesium in soil

122

4.2.3.8 Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on organic

carbon in soil

124

4.2.3.9 Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on total carbon

in soil

126

xviii

4.2.3.10 Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on bulk density

of soil

129

4.2.3.11 Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on soil field

capacity

132

xix

List of Abbreviations

Abbreviations Complete Description

B Biochar

BCR Benefit cost ratio

Cd Cadmium

CEC Cation exchange capacity

CRD Complete block design

ECe Electrical conductivity

FTSW Friction transpiration of surface water

GFR Grain filling rate

GPR Grain protein content

H.I Harvest index

K Potassium

N Nitrogen

P Phosphorous

PKR Pakistani rupee

RCBD Randomized complete block design

SEM Scanning electron microscope

SOC Soil organic carbon

SYH Seed yield per hectare

TSS Total soluble solution

WHC Water holding capacity

Z Zeolite

Zn Zinc

xx

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

All the admires and thanks are for ALMIGHTY ALLAH (The Most

Merciful, The Most Beneficial), Who is entire source of all knowledge and wisdom

endowed to mankind and Who bestowed me potential and abilities for the

successful completion of this imperative task. I pay my humble gratitude from the

core of my heart to HOLY PROPHET HAZRAT MUHAMMAD (S.A.W.W),

Who is forever a model of guidance and minaret of knowledge for humanity.

I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to my worthy supervisor, Dr.

Dr. Irfan Aziz, Assistant Professor, Department of Agronomy, Pir Mehr Ali Shah,

Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi and Dr. Ruben Sakrabani (Senior

lecturer), Cranfield University, United Kingdom, for their cooperation and whom

valuable guidance and close supervision enabled me to complete this task. This text

would have never attained in its present shape without their inspirational guidance,

enthusiastic interest, valuable encouragement and compassionate behavior.

The author is highly indebted to the Supervisory Committee Members, Dr.

Zammuard Iqbal Ahmed (Associate Professor), Department of Agronomy, Dr.

Azeem Khalid (Chairman), department of environmental Sciences and Dr.

Shehzada Sohail Ijaz (Associate Professor), Department of Soil Science and Soil

Water Conservation, PMAS-Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi, for their

positive attitude, encouraging and constructive criticism and valuable suggestions

during this work.

xxi

Collective and individual acknowledgements are also owed to my dear

classmates especially indebted to Dr. Abid Ghafoor Choudry, Shaheer Ellahi,

Zaheer Nasar, Malik Farooq Azam Rawn, Ali Lashari, Bilal, Usman, Asad,

Ahmed Hassan, Muhammad Azim, Muhammad IbrhimTahir whom presence

somehow perpetually refreshed, helpful and memorable. Many thanks go in

particular to Judit canellas, Mehmood-ul-Hassan, Akber Baloch, Hafiz Umair,

Shahrukh Shah and Arooj Bashir for giving me such a pleasant time when

working together with them. I feel much honored to show gratitude to all my

Friends and staff members of Agronomy Department for their friendly and devoted

help to ease and manage various goods etc. required during research.

This study was made possible through the financial support of Higher

Education Commission, (HEC) Pakistan. The financial support of HEC is duly

acknowledged. The author is highly thankful to HEC IRSIP (International

Research Support Initiative Program) for providing funds to get professional skills

from Cranfield University, United Kingdom.

In the last, but not least, I offer affectionate regards to my parents, brothers,

and all family members who always remained with me in all circumstances and

provided me timely back up and moral support.

(Awais Ali)

(Author)

xxii

ABSTRACT

Low soil fertility, nutrient leaching and moisture retention are the limiting

factors contributing in low crop yield in rainfed area. Application of biochar along

with zeolite is an innovating soil amendment towards sustainable agriculture and

has numerous beneficial effects on soil quality, carbon sequestration, reducing

GHG emission and enhancing crop yield by improving fertilizer and water use

efficiency. Series of experimental studies were conducted in year 2013-14 and

2014-15 including pot experiment in glass house at Department of Agronomy

(PMAS-AAUR) to determine the effect of treatments on crop physiology, yield and

moisture retention. Field experiment was conducted at North Pothwar region of

Punjab, Pakistan (Koont Research Farm) to explore the effect of biochar and

zeolite on wheat yield and soil properties. A Lab experiment was also carried out at

Cranfield University, United Kingdom to determine the emission of different

volatile compound from soil with and without application of biochar and zeolite.

Experimental soil was amended with Dalbergia sissoo wood biochar (B) and Clino

ptilolite zeolite (Z) (sole and combine) treatmets which are listed as B0Z0=control,

B3=3 tons/ha, B6=6 tons/ha, B9=biochar (9 tons/ha), Z1=zeolite (1 tons/ha), Z3=zeol

ite (3 tons/ha), Z5=zeolite (5 tons/ha), B3Z1=biochar (3 tons/ha) + zeolite (1 tons/ha

), B3Z3=biochar (3 tons/ha) + zeolite (3 tons/ha), B3Z5=biochar (3 tons/ha) +

zeolite (5 tons/ha), B6Z1=biochar (6 tons/ha) + zeolite (1 tons/ha), B6Z3=biochar (6

tons/ha) + zeolite (3 tons/ha), B6Z5=biochar (6 tons/ha) + zeolite (5 tons/ha),

B9Z1=biochar (9 tons/ha) + zeolite (1 tons/ha), B9Z3=biochar (9 tons/ha) + zeolite

(3 tons/ha), B9Z5=biochar (9 tons/ha) + zeolite (5 tons/ha). Wheat (Triticum

aestivum L.) variety Chakwal-50 was sown on 15th

October 2013 and 2014 with

xxiii

seed rate of 130 kg/ha by using randomized complete block design (RCBD) with

three replications. Recommended rate of NPK (150:100:60) fertilizers was used

and all other cultural practices were kept normal. Wheat plant growth, yield and

soil physicochemical properties were studied. The results of two-year pot

experiment showed that maximum increase in plant height (18-23 %), leaf area

(48-76 %), biological yield (9-14 %) and grain yield (41-47 %) was recorded in

B9Z5 treatment over control. It was found that treatment B9Z5 retained 27-29 %

more moisture than control up to 16th

days after irrigation. It was observed that

chlorophyll content and stomatal conductance was increased by 65-66 % and 100-

109 % respectively and proline accumulation was 43-53 % lower in treatment B9Z5

with respect to control. Two-year mean values of R2 calculated by regressional

analysis of moisture with chlorophyll content (0.858), stomatal conductance

(0.775) and proline accumulation (0.840) verify the positive impact of conserved

moisture in treatments on plant physiology. In two-year field experiment maximum

increase in plant height (20-23 %), number of tillers (23-48 %), 1000 grain weight

(59-73 %), biological yield (21-25 %) and grain yield (41-48 %) was found in

treatment B9Z5 as compare to control. Moreover, B9Z5 showed maximum increase

(5.0-9.0 %) in grain protein content over control. Biochar and zeolite (sole and

combined) application with different doses has increased soil organic matter from

0.41-1.25 % in B9Z5 as compared to control Biochar (9 tons/ha) has increased

nitrogen by 1.2-2.6 mg/kg, phosphorous by 2.5-7.8 mg/kg and Potassium by 48-

137 mg/kg. Likewise, sole zeolite application (5 tons/ha) has increased nitrogen by

0.9-3.0 mg/kg, phosphorous by 3.0-7.3 mg/kg and potassium by 39-128 mg/kg in

two years. Whereas, combine treatment B9Z5 showed maximum increase in

xxiv

nitrogen by 0.6-3.8 mg/kg, phosphorous by 1.5-9.6 mg/kg and potassium by 24-

186 mg/kg in both experimental years. Similar results were recorded for soil

organic carbon. Biochar (9 tons/ha) and zeolite (5 tons/ha) had reduced bulk

density by 0.05 g/cm3 and 0.03 g/cm

3 respectively, while maximum reduction of

0.1 g/cm3 was found treatment B9Z5 in two years. Maximum increase in water

holding capacity was observed in B9Z5 treatment with 39 % increase as compared

to control. Biochar (9 tons/ha) and zeolite (5 tons/ha) had significantly decreased

ammonia and methane emission from soil while increase in carbon dioxide was

observed in treatment B9Z5 over control. It was found that treatment B9Z5 has

significantly decreases ammonia emission by 72 %, methane by 36 % and increase

carbon dioxide emission by 70 %. Based on economic analysis, it was calculated

that use of biochar at the rate of 9 tons/ha and zeolite at the rate of 5 tons/ha in

combination has maximum BCR 3.5 during second year. The combine and sole

application of biochar and zeolite had positive effects on soil quality and wheat

growth, yield and help in reducing greenhouse gasses emission from soil.

Therefore, use of biochar and zeolite as a soil amendment can play a significant

role in sustaining the yield of wheat crop in rainfed areas.

1

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Agriculture sector admire the growth of industries by providing raw material for

manufacturing of many food items and accessories for human need. In current time,

rapid increase in population is alarming and could be a primary threat for food

security especially in developing countries. As it is expected that the farmers have

to feed approximately 9.1 billion peoples in 2050 (Chad Weigand, 2011). At the

same time the irrevocable change in climate, due to global warming is adversely

affecting the agriculture production (FAO, 2011). It is estimated that due to climate

change several crops in southern Africa and southern Asia will be affected in 2030

(David et al., 2008).

Developing countries like Pakistan, China, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia,

Bangladesh and democratic republic of Congo are already in danger to provide

sufficient food for the population. About 98 % of the undernourished people in the

world live in these countries (FAO, 2010). Therefore, adaptation of suitable

measures to mitigate the effect of climate change on crop production is the need of

time (Lobell et al., 2008). Among crops, wheat (Triticum aestivumL.) is the basic

staple food of the major civilizations of Europe, North Africa and West Asia for

last eight thousand years. Almost one sixth of the total arable land in the globe is

under wheat crop (Satorre and Gustavo, 1999). Wheat is most extensively grown

crop in the world. Pakistan (approximately) produces 25 million tons of wheat each

year and it contributes about 2.1 % of GDP. Wheat is a staple food in Pakistan and

cultivated on approximately 9.18 thousand hectares (GOP 2014-15).

https://www.google.com.pk/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22E+H+Satorre%22

https://www.google.com.pk/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Gustavo+A+Slafer%22

2

2

In Pakistan, 80 % of land area is semi-arid or arid, where 8 % is humid and

about 12 % is dry sub humid. Lack of management practices, desertification and

degradation are leading problems of Pakistani soil. This ultimately leads to

depletion of nutrients and reduced soil sustainability (Zia et al., 2004). The soils of

Pakistan are deficient in micro and macro-nutrients. According to a report, soils of

Pakistan are deficient in NPK about 100 %, 80-90 % and 30 % respectively (GOP

2014-15). Poor nutrient management practices aredeclining the fertility of soil. Soil

fertility is declining due to loss of nutrients deficiency, mainly nitrogen,

phosphorus, and potassium by erosion and leaching. Nutrients also deplete by

intensive cropping (GOP 2014-15).

In rainfed agriculture, moisture stress due to erratic rainfall pattern during

critical crop growth stage reduces grain yield and nutrient availability (Ren et al.,

2003). Moisture conservation is currently one of the critical issues in low rainfall

regions. Water stress reduces the growth and development of crops (plants) in rain

fed areas (James et al., 2001).

In rainfed farming, availability of water is the key challenge for better crop.

The annual rainfall in arid and semi arid areas ranges from 300-600 mm/year

(Shahida et al., 1995). The distribution and frequency of rainfall is not sufficient.

Beside this, leaching and evaporation are the additional factors, which further

reduce the availability of water. Therefore, we need such innovative technology

through which we can enhance availability of water for plant use. Previously

number of cultural practices are used to conserve soil moisture like incorporation of

3

3

organic matter, mulching and conservational tillage etc.

There are many management technique/practices through which agricultural

production can be increased to deal with the issue of food security. It includes,

increase in area under cultivation, increase in cropping intensity on arable lands and

increase crop yield on existing agricultural lands. These techniques rely on the

availability of water resources, availability of free land and favorable climatic

conditions. All the above techniques are dependent on edaphic factors, among

which carbon sequestration (biochar amendment) is one of key factor, which can

improve fertility status of the soil. This will help in increasing organic matter in

soil, as carbon is one of the main components of organic matter and improve soil

physical, chemical and biological characteristics (FAO, 2011).

45 - 75

(Brown et al., 2006). After pyrolysis, biomass convertsin to a carbon rich volatile

material called biochar (Bridgwater et al., 1999). Pore spaces of charred biomass is

always greater than un-charred material e.g. FYM, Poultry manure, crop residue

(Downie et al., 2009). Biochar is composed of ash, stable and unstable matter and

moisture content (McLaughlin et al., 2009). Major portion of plant nutrients is ash

except nitrogen because nitrogen due to its volatile nature escapes out of the

biochar during pyrolysis (Chan and Xu, 2009). Biochar production requires high

degree of heat because of the moisture content in the biomass. Once the moisture is

dry, the process of torrefaction starts and when temperature reaches 300 real

4

4

pyrolysis starts. Afrer pyrolysis, yield of biochar from parent feedstock is

approxmately 50 % or less because number of volatile compounds and gases

escape out of the biomass, leaving a porous structure. Biomass transforms into

black solid more like charcoal (Lehmann, 2007; Taylor and Mason, 2010). Biochar

vary in physical and chemical properties, which depend upon pyrolysis conditions

and parent feedstock (Czimczik and Masiello, 2007). Effectiveness of biochar

applied to the soil depends on several factors, which include type of raw material,

pyrolytic conditions, application method and rate, edaphic and environmental

factors ( nelissen et al., 2014; Alburquerque et al., 2014).

Wood based biochar is considered more sustainable in terms of stability.

Among feedstocks Dalbergia sissoo (Rosewood) wood is well known for its

durability and resistivity against termites. Dalbergia sissoo belongs to

Papilionaceae familyis atree species from tropical areas and commonly found in

24° 42” N 32° 36” N 74° 3 ” E 94° 36” E 76

460 m) foothills of Himalayas from eastern Afghanistan through Pakistan to India

and Nepal (Sagta and Nautiyal, 2001; Ashraf et al., 2010). It is native species of

Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Malaysia and Pakistan and exotic species

of Cameroon, Cyprus, Ethiopia, Ghana, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Kenya, Mauritius,

Nigeria, Sudan, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, United States of America and

Zimbabwe. Its timber is use in industry as well as in households (Orwa et al.,

2009). Dalbergia sissoo trees cover 15.4 thousand hectares area in Pakistan, and its

annual production is approximately 28,000 m3 (Khan and Khan, 2000).

Biochar from woody feedstock have higher carbon content, which are about

5

5

61-80 % as compare to other feedstock. Therefore, it has greater ability to sequester

carbon in soil. One ton/ha of woody biochar can sequester about 0.61-0.80 tons of

carbon in soil (Collin, 2008). Biochar made from woody material has more porosity

and surface area as compared to other feedstocks. It have higher saturated hydraulic

conductivity than other biochars derived from manures, which helps in adsorbing

minerals and organic matter in the soil (Atkinson et al., 2010; Downie et al., 2009;

Lei and Zhang, 2012). Biochar soil amendment has the potential to improve soil

chemical, physical and biological properties like bulk density, porosity, cation

exchange capacity, pH, moisture holding capacity, nutrients retention and microbial

growth which ultimately enhance plant growth (Atkinson et al., 2010; Lehmann,

2007; Lehmann and Rondon, 2006; Glaser et al., 2002). One of leading property of

biochar is that it can absorb moisture three times more than its weight (Mclaughlin

et al., 2009). Biochar can enhance water-holding capacity due to its porous nature,

which depends upon type of feedstock used in pyrolysis (Novak et al., 2009;

Verheijen et al., 2010).

Biochar sequesters carbon in the agricultural lands for a long period of time

(Winsley Peter, 2007). In addition, it increases water-holding capacity of sandy

soils as compare to clay soil (Briggs et al., 2005; Major, 2009). Another advantage

of biochar is that, it can regulate the temperature of the rizosphere due to high heat

capacity of observed water by the biochar particles (Verheijen et al., 2010). Due to

high pH of biochar, its application has the potential to enhance pH of soil (Peng et

al., 2011). Biochar (derived from different feedstock) show variability in their pH

values but most of the biochar producedhave high pH (Zwieten et al., 2010).

6

6

Biochar when applied to soils with low (acidic) pH can enhance nutrient

availability of soil due to increase in soil pH and hence promote plant growth.

Biochar is capable of mitigating climate change through carbon

sequestration and produce negative carbon dioxide emission (Dominic et al., 2010).

Baking of biomass in low oxygen atmosphere helps to retain carbon in biochar

whereas sufficient oxygen supply helps carbon to escape out of the biomass in the

form of carbon mono-oxide, carbon dioxide, methane gas and other volatile gases

(Lehmann, 2007). A great amount of carbon per year is releasing into the

atmosphere, which is ultimately raising global temperature (IPCC, 2014).

Biochar consist of different fractions of stable and unstable carbon

compounds, which decompose with time depending upon their stability (Peng et

al., 2011). Biochar can increase crop yield due to its unique porous structure, which

provides shelter to microbes and gives them protection against harsh weather and

predators, which ultimately helps to increase microbial biomass (Lehman et al.,

2011).

In short, biochar has number of advantages to soil, crop and environment,

which ultimately have benefit for humankind in various ways. Increase in

population pressure requires more food. To achive this goal different fertilizer,

pesticides and herbicides are frequently used in agriculture, which results in soil

contamination (Richmond, 2015). While biochar helps inreducing heavy metals,

chemical residues and hydrocarbons from soil (Cabrera et al., 2011). Biochar

7

7

produced at low temperature contains volatile compounds, which can easily

decompose when incorporated with soil and enhance plant growth (Mukherjee and

Zimmerman, 2013). Biochar produced at high temperature has structure with

greater surface area and have high adsorption capacity, which is favorable for soil

bio-remediation (Lehmann, 2007).

Zeolite is a Greek word, which means boiling stone. A Swedish

mineralogist Baron Alex Frederick introduced it in year 1756. Zeolite

(volcanogenic sedimentary natural mineral) is composed of hydrated

aluminosilicates of alkali or alkaline earth metals with special crystal lattice

structure (Mumpton, 1999). Zeolite is mostly found in Bulgaria Russia, Italy,

Yugoslavia, Mexico, Germany, Soviet Union, Cuba, Iran, Japan, Hungry, Sought

Africa and USA and yet there is bright evidence of zeolite reservoirs in different

regions of the world. Use of zeolite is increasing day by day in agriculture,

medicines, industry and environment protection (Straaten, 2006). Numbers of

different zeolite are identified, among them clinoptilolite, chabazite, erionite,

stilbite, philpsite, heulandites and mordenite are well known for their adoptability

in different industries.

Clinoptililite due to its unique characteristics more frequently used in

agriculture as a soil amendment. It can be used as a carrier in different fertilizers

and pesticides due to its unique structure and composition. Zeolite as a soil

amendment can improve soil quality through enhancing its cation exchange

capacity, absorption of moisture in the root zone, retain nitrogen, enhance

8

8

phosphorous availability and fertilizer use efficiency and act like a molecular sieve

because it has the ability to absorb heavy metals and contaminants present in the

soil (Polat et al., 2004). Clinoptilolite (Na, K) 6[Al6Si30O72] 20H2O) is one of the

well known zeolite widely used in agriculture due to its hydration and dehydration

ability without changing its structure, catalysis and cation exchange capacity. It

can hold 60 percent of water of its weight due to high porosity. One of the

interesting properties of zeolite is its thermo stability and it can absorb and de-

absorb water without change its structure. Therefore, zeolite promises continuous

supply of moisture during dry spell, which protects the plant from harsh climatic

conditions (Kocakusak et al., 2001). Zeolite improves soil water retention and

infiltration properties due to its unique 3D crystalline porous structure. It acts like a

natural wetting agent and its amendment to non-wetting sands can help to improve

water retention (Szerment et al., 2014). Productivity of soil is estimated by the

yield obtained from the field. It depends upon the ability of soil to retain water and

nutrient and provide a favorable environment for crop growth (Zhang and Raun,

2006). Zeolite can be used as soil amendment to conserve moisture in rainfed areas

where rain fall is limited and agronomic crops are subjected to water stress, so by

using zeolite this stress can be lowered which support the plant at critical stages of

growth and development (Zamanian, 2008). Therefore, zeolite enhances plant

growth and development by improving soil nutrient profile and moisture

conservation (Ersin Polat, 2004).

Zeolite application in soil has shown improvement in chemical and physical

properties. Zeolite shows positive response especially in rainfed soils than irrigated

9

9

soils and its influence depends upon the amount of applied zeolite. In the second

half of the last century, it was revealed that zeolite application to soil increases

number of microbial coenosis. Zeolite facilitates the growth and activity of

microbial biomass, which contribute in increasing fertility of soil by decomposing

organic matter (Andronikashvili, 1999).

Zeolite can improve phosphorous availability, Nitrogen utilization (by

enhancing availability of N-NH4+

and N-NO3- ions) and reduced leaching of

exchangeable cations, especially K+ (Pickering et al., 2002). Poor soil quality

contributes to low moisture retention and volatilization of ammonia from the soil

(Omar et al., 2011). The volatilization loss of ammonia through soil has been

estimated 1–60 % of the total applied nitrogen (Ahmed et al., 2008). Due to low

cation exchange capacity, (CEC) nitrogen loss from soil in the form of ammonium

and nitrate through leaching is common phenomena in poor soils. This results in

low productivity of agricultural crops. Zeolite has potential to increase water use

efficiency (WUE) by increasing the soil water holding capacity and its availability

to plants (Bernardi et al., 2008). Beside this, it increases the CEC (cation exchange

capacity) of soil, which ultimately increases the availability of nutrients. Zeolite

due to its unique property of slow release of nutrients can enhance fertilizer use

efficiency and reduces cost of production. Therefore, for obtaining a high economic

return one should adopt such strategies that help to improve fertilizer use efficiency

(Minde et al., 2008). In current time, natural zeolite is widely used in crop

production (Andronikashvili & Urushadze, 2008). These amendments can increase

the soils capacity for better crops yields and improve their quality (Andronikashvili

10

10

and Urushadze, 2010). In general, most soils are deficit in soil organic matter

approximately less than 2.0 %, low cation exchange capacity, base saturation and

low moisture retention capacity (Mwale et al., 2007).

Areas with probably low annual rainfall can be managed by incorporating

biochar and zeolite. It helps inimproving soil structure, water-holding capacity,

retaining moisture and fertilizer use efficiency in rizosphere, which ultimately

enhance plant growth. Biochar have porous structure and contain stable compounds

by nature, which remains in soil over long period of time, which makes it special

(Woolf et al., 2010). Aside from this, use of biochar sequester carbon in soil,

mitigate climate change and reduce GHG emission (Spokas et al., 2009). Feedstock

like crop residue, timber waster, paper waste, and forest waste can be utilized for

biochar production depending upon availability (Roberts et al., 2010). Many

studies around the world have shown beneficial effect of sole application biochar or

zeolite on soil quality, crops yield and quality (Yangyuoru et al., 2006; Cheng et

al., 2008). No or little work has been done on combine useof biochar and zeolite

indifferent doses and their effect on soilquality and crop yield. Keeping in view the

unique importance of biochar and zeolite for soil physiochemical properties and

crop yield, the present research study was desiged with the following objectives

o To investigate the influence of biochar and zeolite on wheat plant

physiology in response to moisture conservation.

o To assess the effect of biochar and zeolite on crop growth and yield.

o To study the effect of biochar and zeolite on soil characteristics, primary

nutrients (NPK) and water retention.

11

11

o To conclude the effect of biochar and zeolite on ammonia, carbon dioxide

and methane emission from soil.

12

12

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Agriculture accounted for 20.9 percent of the Gross Domestic Product

(GDP). Wheat is the leading food grain of Pakistan occupying the largest area

under single crop (about 9.180 thousand hectares).Wheat contributes 10.0 percentto

the value added in agriculture and 2.1 percent to GDP.In rainfed agriculture

systems, the fertility status of the soil is depleting. Intensive cropping, low fertilizer

application, erosion and changing climate collectively affecting the crop

productivity. In rainfed areas, moisture is a limiting factor due to irregular

frequency and distribution of rainfall. Which adversely affect crop at critical

growth stages. Therefore, moisture and nutrient conservation is the primary

problem in rain fed areas. Number of cultural practices are being used in

agriculture includingland leveling, zero tillage, use of organic fertilizers e.g. farm

yard manure (FYM), poultry manure, compost, green manuring, mulching, use of

minerals e.g. Phosphate rock, Gypsum etc and many more.

Biochar and zeolite is an innovating combination of char (organic) and

mineral (inorganic) with common properties like high porosity, low bulk density,

net negative charge, add nutrients and resistant against degradation can be used as a

long lasting soil amendment, which have dual benefits of mitigating climate change

and improving soil quality which ultimately enhance crop economical yield. Use of

biochar lowers the soil acidity, increase organic matter and soilcarbon (Ndor et al.,

2015). Highly absorbent nature of biochar retains nutrients and moisture (Liang et

12

13

13

al., 2006), while mean residence time (MRT) is frequently from 100s to 1000s of

years (Verheijen et al., 2009), which highlight the preference of biochar use over

other soil amendments. Furthermore, biochar have the potential to improve

porosity, bulk density, soil aeration, water-holding capacity and high surface charge

density enables the retention of ions to reducenutrient leaching and enhances

quantity of available nutrients such as NPK and moisture (Atkinson et al., 2010;

Ding et al., 2010; DeLuca et al. 2006; McLaughlin et al., 2009; Zwieten et al.,

2010).

Zeoliteis a crystalline, aluminosilicates minerals used in agriculture having

unique characteristics. It can act asnutrients absorbers, increases soil porosity,

conserve moisture and slowly gives it backand serve like a soil conditioner by

stimulatingimpact on micro flora (Daniela et al., 2005). It can increase fertilizer use

efficiency, cation exchange capacity, reduce nutrient leachingand enable inorganic

and organic fertilizers to release their nutrients slowly ş et al., 2001;

colella, 1996; anonymous, 2004; Caballero et al., 2008).In this regard many

scientists have performed experiments to determine the effect of biochar and zeolite

on soil, crop and environment which are as follow.

A lab experiment was performed to determine the effect of different

pyrolysis temperatures from 350-5500C on stability of biochar. Softwood pellets,

mixed larch, pine and spruce chips were used as a feedstock. It was found that with

increasing pyrolysis temperature stability of biochar was increased. During

purolysis frictions of carbon in feedstock remains stable with increase in

temperature up to a specific limit (Ondrej et al., 2013).

14

14

Biochar was used with increasing frequency as a soil amendment because of

its beneficial effects on soil carbon sequestration, crop yield, nutrient leaching and

greenhouse gas emissions. Results showed that after 15 months, the above

assumptions proved to be valid under test conditions (Roger, 2011)

A field experiment was conducted by applying five different rates (4.0, 3.0,

2.0, 1.0 and 0.5 kg/m3) of wood biochar and it was found that the biochar has

improved water holding capacity, bulk density, enhance root size and leaf area in

spinach. Friction of organic carbon present in biochar has improved water holding

capacity and organic matter content in soil (Varela et al., 2013)

Biochar was determined for its effect on chemical (pH, EC, CEC) properties

of soil by using biochar produced from corn stover and switch grass. Biochar was

applied at the rate of (0, 52, 104, and 156 Mg ha−1

). It was concluded that the

application of biochar has a positive impact on enhancing the chemical properties

of soil which depend upon the chemical composition of biochar made from

different feedstock (Rajesh et al., 2014)

Effect of biochar on soil depends upon application rate and parent

feedstock. In a field experiment, yield of peas (Pisum sativum L.) was observed by

using different kinds of biochar and their effects on soil quality. Experiment was

carried out by using randomized complete block design (RCBD). Biochar derived

from rice husk, wood, FYM, sheep manure and poultry manure was observed for

their impact on the crop growth and soil quality. It was observed that rice husk

biochar significantly affect the number of pods, number of seeds per pot and total

15

15

biomass of pea crop. Poultry manure and ’ manure derived biochar had

almost same impact on soil nitrogen. According to the results found, it was

concluded that all biochar derived from different feedstock significantly affects soil

physio-chemical properties (Bhattarai et al., 2015; Varela et al., 2013)

In an experiment biochar was applied at the rate of 0, 5, and 10 Mg/ha and

significant increase in soil water retentionwas determined (Katy et al.,2015), while

in another experiment biochar applied at the rate of 25 tons/ha increase 10 % in

grain yield and 15 % in biological yield of wheat crop (Ali et al., 2015). In a pot

experiment, wood chip and maize stubble biochar applied (3 % w/w). It was

observed that chlorophyll content and shoot to root biomass ratio of maize (Zea

Mays) was significantly increased (Brennan et al., 2014).

In a three-year field experiment, effect of biochar amendment was observed

on soil carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle and crop growth. Maize (Zea Mayas) was

grown during 1styear and different grassed were grown in 2

nd & 3

rd year on biochar

amended soil at the rate of 0, 25 and 50 tons/ha.According to the results, biochar

amendment has increased dissolve organic carbon and dissolve organic nitrogen,

which positively increased the soil respiration and microbial growth. While

alkalinity of biochar amended soil was neutralized in 3rd

year with the release of

potassium, calcium and sodium ions. On the basis of results found, biochar

amendment contributes in functioning of temperate agro ecosystem (Jones et al.,

2012).

Mixed application of biochar with organic and inorganic fertilizers was

16

16

found affective for crop growth. In an experiment, biochar was applied at the rate

of 0, 20, 40, 80 Mg/ha in the soil mixed with crop residues. Significant results were

found regarding available water content, bulk density and 5 % to 12 % increase in

grain yield of maize (Lu et al., 2015).

Biochar amendment positively affects soil quality. An experiment was

performed to find out the effect of biochar amendment on soil physicochemical

properties, crop growth, and microbial biomass. Biochar was applied at the rate of

0, 25, and 50 tons/ha. After three years, biochar was re-amended in the amended

soil. It was observed that re-application of fresh biochar showed a significant

response to soil carbon, OM, EC, moisture & nutrient retention, microbial growth

and enhanced crop yield (Richard et al., 2012).

Due to porous structure of biochar, it has potential to promote microbial

growth. It retains moisture, nutrients, provide refuge to soil microbes which

protects them from harsh climatic condition and predators. A pot experiment was

conducted to access the effect of biochar on soil physicochemical properties and

microbial growth. On the basis of results found it was observed that microbial

community was enhanced by 8, 14, 6 and 8 % including bradyrhizobiae,

hyphomicrobiaceae, and streptosporangineae and thermomonosporaceae family,

while streptomycetaceae and micromonosporaceae family were negatively affected

with the application of biochar. It was concluded that application of biochar has

significantly decreased bacterial plant pathogens and increase the phosphorus

solubilizing bacterial activity in soil (Craig et al., 2011).

A two-year field experiment was performed to find out the effect of biochar

17

17

amendment on soil quality, green house gas (CO2, CH4 and N2O) emission and

productivity of rice crop. Before transplantation of rice biochar was applied at the

rate of 0, 10, 20 and 40 tons/ha was amended in the soil. Emission of green house

gases were observed by using closed chamber technique. On the basis of

observations made it was found, that the biochar amendment significantly

improved pH, SOC, Total N, bulk density of soil and ultimately increased crop

yield in two-year experimentation. Where in case of green house gasses, carbon

dioxide and nitrous oxide emission positively decreased and emission of methane

was enhanced in rice crop (Afeng, 2012).

In a field experiment wheat crop was cultivated on biochar-amended soil to

observe its effect on volatile emission and microbial growth. Biochar was added to

the soil at the rate of 3 or 6 kg m-2

in two growing seasons (2008-2009 and 2009-

2010). CO2, N2O, CH4 emission fluxes were observed in amended soil during the 1st

year after biochar addition. Results of the experiment reveled that in early 3 months

biochar incorporation into the soil enhanced the soil pH from 5.2 to 6.7, increase

net N mineralization, soil microbial respiration and denitrification. Results also

revealed that there was no changes in total microbial biomass and net nitrification

rate. In char treated plots, soil N2O fluxranged from 26-79 %, which was less than

N2O flux in control plots. Non- significant differences of CH4 fluxes and field soil

respiration obtained among different treatments. Overall the biochar treatments had

minimum impact on microbial parameters and GHG fluxes over first 14 months

(Castaldi et al., 2011).

In an experiment biochar amended soil was determined for its effects on

18

18

soil physical properties and emission of green house gases. It was found that

biochar significantly improve soil physical properties applied at the rate of 1–2 %

(w/w). Optimum application of biochar considerably improved soil physical

properties like bulk density, soil aggregation, WHC, surface area and reduced

resistance against roots penetration. However, it was also found that the emission

of green house gases was decreased with the passage of time (Mukherjee and Lal,

2013).

Biochar can be used for soil reclamation. Due to its porous structure, it can

absorb soil contaminants including heavy metals and chemical residues. Effect of

biochar onlead (Pb) adsorption was observed by using two ultisols and one oxisol.

It was observed that biochar amendment has improved soil cation exchange

capacity after 30 days of incubation. Significant result was obtained by the

incorporation of biochar on adsorption of Pb by these different soils. Results also

revealed that biochar enhanced Pbadsorption through the non-electrostatic process

by the formation of surface complexes between Pb2+ and functional groups on

biochar. Therefore, the incorporation of biochar decreased the performance and

availability of Pb to plants by increased non-electrostatic adsorption of Pb (Tian et

al., 2012).

Application of zeolite has potential to improve soil physiochemical

properties. Zeolites are inorganic materials having large surface areas with uniform

cages, spaces or channels. It was found that zeolite tuff (Clinoptiloliterich tuff) in

soil produced an effective pH buffering process and enhanced soil humidity.

Zeolite also enhanced cationic exchange as well as soil adsorption processes.

19

19

Therefor zeolite sole or combined application with (organic) nitrogen fertilizer

enhanced the soil fertility especially in rizosphere (Valdes et al., 2006).

Zeolite has the potential to retain nutrients. In an experiment, zeolite was

used to find out its effects on NH4-N and NO3-N concentrations in soil. Nitrogen

(urea fertilizer) at the rate of 224 kg/ha and clinoptilolite zeolite at the rate of 90

kg/hawas applied. Beside this experiment, two-year pot experiment was also

performed. In both experiment it was found that mixed application of zeolite with

nitrogen fertilizer has reduce the rate of mineralization of (NH4+), because it get

adsorbed on 3D crystalline structure of zeolite. Mixed applications of zeolite and

nitrogen fertilizer has decreased nitrogen losses and retain moisture in soil. Also it

was observed that high rate of zeolite application might reduce the growth of maize

crop due to highly adsorbent nature, which can negatively affect the availability of

nitrogen to plant (Ippolito et al., 2011).

In an experimenr two different types of zeolite (surfactant-modified zeolite

and clinoptilolite zeolite) was observed. Both type of zeolite was applied at same

rates (20 and 60 mg/kg) to determine the effect of zeolite application on nitrate

leaching and crop response. Lysimeteric observation revealed that the clinoptilolite

zeolite is more efficient than surfactant modified zeolite. At higher rate (60 mg/kg)

leaching of nitrate was reduced approximately 22-26 % over control. Clinoptilolite

zeolite performed better than surfactant-modified zeolite by enhancing nitrogen

uptake, grain nitrogen, dry matter and grain yield. Therefore, it was concluded that

clinoptilolite zeolite perform better than surfactant modified zeolite and could be

used as an effective fertilizer carrier (Malekian et al., 2010).

20

20

Salinity is the major factor, which limits the crop production, but zeolite

may alleviate effects of salinity stress on plants. The purpose of the study was to

know the effects of zeolite on soil characteristics and growth of barley irrigated

with diluted seawater. Barley was treated with calcium type zeolite at the rate of 1

and 5 %. Irrigation was applied every alternate day with sea water diluted to

electrical conductivity (EC) levels of 3 and 16 dS m-1

. Results showed that

irrigation with 16 dS m-1

saline water significantly suppressed plant height up to 25

%, leaf area by 44 % and dry weight by 60 % in control but an increased was

observed in plant treated with zeolite. Results also revealed that zeolite enhanced

water and salt holding capacity of soil. Post harvest soil analysis depicted that high

concentrations of Ca2+

, Mg2+

, Na+ and K

+ due to saline water was found especially

in the upper soil layer of zeolite treated soil (Al-Busaidiet al.,2008).

Zeolite with its unique properties can be used in combination with organic

and inorganic fertilizers to increase nutrient use efficiency (NUE). Effect of zeolite

application mixed with perlite turf and turf mixtures was determinedon seedling

and nutrient contents of tomato (Solanum lycopersicon) in a pot experiment. Seed

germination, stem girth, stem height, seedling fresh weight, Nitrogen, Phosphorous,

Potassium, Calcium, Iron, magnesium, Zinc and Copper were determined.It was

observed that mixed application of zeolite with turf showed significant response

thanturf mixed with perlite. Application of turf mixed with zeolite was preferably

recommended as a good media than turf mixed with perlite for seedling

germination and growth (Erdem et al., 2014)

In an experiment nutrient use efficiency of zeolite was determined in a

21

21

laboratory. Micro-porous and nano-porous zeolite and blend nitrogen fertilizer in

1:1 and 1:10 and observed by using hydrothermal technique. It was found that the

nitrogen fertilizer blend with the zeolite remain in the zeolite for 34-48 days while

the nitrogen remains in urea only for 4 days in ambient conditions. It was suggested

that zeolite blended with nitrogen fertilizer could be used to enhance fertilizer use

efficiency for longer time as compare to the direct application of fertilizers into the

soil. These results indicates the potential of zeolite in absorbing the nutrients into

its negatively charged tetrahedral structure and release it slowly in the root zone of

crop to ensure the continuous supply of nutrients for plant growth. Therefore,

zeolite can reduce the input cost and additionally, it conserves moisture in the soil

(Manikandan and Subramanian, 2014).

NH4 retention in agricultural soils is a major problem, which contributes in

nutrient deficiency. A column (leaching) experiment was performed to

determinethe efficiency of zeolite in nutrient retention. Zeolite at the rate of 0, 1, 2,

4 and 8 g/kg was incorporated in sandy soil and irrigated with de-ionized water and

bore water. It was found that with the application of zeolite, leaching is reduced by

90 %, furthermore, it was elaborated that zeolite help to slow release of nutrients

and increased fertilizer use efficiency (Zwingmann et al., 2009).

Contaminants in soil negatively affect microbial growth in soil. Zeolite with

its porous structure and absorbent nature has ability to reduce contaminants from

soil and enhances microbial growth. An experiment was conducted to find out the

effect of heavy metal on microbial biomass. Natural zeolite, lime and red mud

(bauxite residue) were applied to the soil and it was observed that solubility of

22

22

heavy metals (Pb, Cd and Zn) was decreased. By adopting isolation technique,

strains β-Proteobacteria and Bacteroidetes was observed in mud and lime

treatments, while Actino bacteria and Firmicutes were found in zeolite treatment.

Based on experiment, it was concluded that, all treatments significantly reduced the

solubility of heavy metals and facilitate microbial activities in the soil (Giovanni,

2007).

Zeolite use in agriculture is beneficial for soil and crop. An experiment was

performed in the year 2009-10 to observe the effect of zeolite and bentonite

minerals on soil physiochemical properties and yield and yield attributes of crop

(Faba bean-Viciafaba L, Corn-Zea maize). Zeolite and bentonite (mineral) at the

rate of 1:10 (w/w) were applied and it was observed that pH, CEC, ECe, porosity,

moisture retention and both crops showed a positive response. While bulk density,

saturated hydraulic conductivity and macro pores were reduce. It was concluded

that zeolite and bentonite amendment to soil positively improved soil

physiochemical properties and enhanced crop production (Hassan and Mahmoud,

2013).

Rainfed cropping depends upon the availability of moisture during the

growing. Water deficiency is a major limitation in sustainable agriculture. An

experiment was conducted to evaluate the effects of zeolite on water retention,

Zeolite at the rate of 0 %, 10 % and 20 % was applied in soil and significant results

regarding moisture content was found in treated soil than untreated soil (Reza,

2015).

23

23

Agronomy use of zeolite can increase the economical yield of the crop by

increasing nutrient and water use efficiency. In an experiment, it was found that

yield components and yield of canola was increased by 32 % with the application

of zeolite along with chemical fertilizers (Zahedi et al., 2011).

In the light of the above literatures, it can be concluded that biochar and

zeolite have beneficial affects on crop growth, yield and soil quality. Furthermore,

these treatments have potential to mitigate emission of green house gases from

agricultural soils.

24

24

Chapter 3

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Biochar and zeolite amendments were determined for their impacts on soil

quality, crop growth, yield and emission of volatile compounds from amended soil.

For this purpose a two-year glass house experiment was performed at Department

of Agronomy (Pir Mehr Ali Shah, Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi,

Pakistan) in year 2013-14 and 2014-15 to determine crop growth, yield,

physiological response and moisture retention in response to the applied

treatments, followed by field experiment performed in rainfed area (Koont

research farm, Chakwal, Punjab, Pakistan) in year 2013-14 and 2014-15 to

determine the effect treatments on crop growth, yield and soil quality. In addtion

treated soil was observed in labortaty at Cranfield university, United Kingdom in

year 2015 to determine the emission of ammonia, methane and carbon dioxide from

amended soil. Sandy clay loam (56:23:21) soil was amended with following

treatments of wood biochar (Rosewood chips) and zeolite (Clinoptilolite, Na2, K2,

Ca) 3Al6Si30O72. 24H2O) in all studies which are B0Z0=control, B3=biochar (3 tons

/ha), B6=biochar (6 tons/ha), B9=biochar (9 tons/ha), Z1=zeolite (1 tons/ha), Z3=ze

olite (3 tons/ha), Z5=zeolite (5 tons/ha), B3Z1=biochar (3 tons/ha) + zeolite (1

tons/ha), B3Z3=biochar (3 tons/ha) + zeolite (3 tons/ha), B3Z5=biochar (3 tons/ha) +

zeolite (5 tons/ha), B6Z1=biochar (6 tons/ha) + zeolite (1 tons/ha), B6Z3=biochar (6

tons/ha) + zeolite (3 tons/ha), B6Z5=biochar (6 tons/ha) + zeolite (5 tons/ha),


(3 tons/ha), B9Z5=biochar (9 tons/ha) + zeolite (5 tons/ha).

24

25

25

3.1 PRODUCTION OF BIOCHAR

Biochar was produced by using methane gas driven biochar production unit

(Figure 3.1) in Department of Soil Science and Water Conservation at Pir Mehr Ali

Shah, Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan in year 2013 by using

Dalbergia Sissoo (Rose wood) wood waste collected from a local furniture factory.

Feedstock was pyrolyzedat 350-400 (slow pyrolysis) and ~ 45-50 % yield was

obtained. Biochar was ground and passed to 2 mm sieve prior to application in the

field. Biochar and zeolite sole and in combination were amended in soil before (3

months) planting of wheat crop.

3.1.1 Chemical and Structural Analysis of Biochar and Zeolite (physio-

Chemical)

Biochar and zeolite used in this experiment were analyzed for their

chemical properties in laboratory by adopting standard operating procedure and

results are shown in Table 3.1.1and 3.1.2. Structural analysis was done by using

Scanning electron microscope (Philips XL-30SFEG) and results are showed in

Figure 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.

3.2 IMPACT OF BIOCHAR AND ZEOLITE ON AGRO-PHYSIOLOGY OF

WHEAT GROWN UNDER CONTROL CONDITIONS

Two-year pot experiment was carried out in glass house at Department of

Agronomy, Pir Mehr Ali Shah, Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan

26

26

Figure 3.1: Biochar production

27

27

Table 3.1.1: Chemical analysis of (Dalbergia sissoo) biochar used in this

experiment

PROPERTIES VALUES

Bulk density 0.31 (g/cm3)

pH 8.5

ECe 1.21 (dS/m)

C 63.16 %

O 25.03 %

P 0.27 %

K 0.65 %

Si 6.18 %

C:O 2.52

28

28

Figure 3.1.1: Structural analysis of biochar by using Scanning Electron Microscope

(SEM)

29

29

Table 3.1.2: Chemical analysis of (clinoptilolite) zeolite used in this experiment

Properties Values

CEC 153cmol(+)

kg-1

Bulk density 0.79(g cm-3

)

pH 7.5

Si 33.9 %

Al 5.09 %

Mg 0.28 %

Ca 0.32 %

Fe 1.22 %

NO3-N 14.4(mg kg-1

)

NH4-N 176(mg kg-1

)

30

30

Figure 3.1.2: Structural analysis of zeolite (Clinoptilolite) by using Scanning

Electron Microscope (SEM)

31

31

to find out impact of biochar and zeolite on moisture retention, crop growth, yield

and physiological response to moisture. Soil from experimental field (previously

treated with biochar and zeolite) was collected from 0-20 cm depth. Pots with 18-

inch height and 15-inch diameter were filled with collected soil. Completely

randomized design (CRD) with three replications was used in this pot experiment.

Wheat cultivar Chakwal-50 was sown in October 2013-14 and 2014-15. Sixteen

seeds per pot were sown and after germination plants were thinned to eight plants

per pot. All pots were uniformly irrigated throughout the growing season up to

maturity. After emergence of flag leaf all pots were irrigated and allowed to drain

under the action of gravity for 48 hours to find out fraction transpiration of surface

water (FTSW). Soil was covered with polythene sheet to avoid evaporation losses

of moisture from surface and plants were taken out from (holes) polythene sheet.

Mean daytime temperature and humidity werekept controlled at 3 and 16-18 %

respectively. All pots were weighted on daily basis to determine fraction

transpiration of surface water until the moisture level reached to approximately less

than 10 % in control (B0Z0) and plants reached to temporary wilting point ( Sandra,

1999). At that point, soil moisture percentage was calculated. Observations for the

FTSW were carried out at flag leaf stage when the transpiration was maximum.

3.2.1 Treatments

There were total 16 treatments of biochar (B) and zeolite (Z) which are

listed as follow: B0Z0=control, B3=biochar (3 tons/ha), B6=biochar (6 tons/ha), B9=

biochar (9 tons/ha), Z1=zeolite (1 tons/ha), Z3=zeolite (3 tons/ha), Z5=zeolite (5

tons/ha), B3Z1=biochar (3 tons/ha) + zeolite (1 tons/ha), B3Z3=biochar (3 tons/ha)

32

32

+ zeolite (3 tons/ha), B3Z5=biochar (3 tons/ha) + zeolite (5 tons/ha), B6Z1=biochar

(6 tons/ha) + zeolite (1 tons/ha), B6Z3=biochar (6 tons/ha) + zeolite (3 tons/ha),


(1 tons/ha), B9Z3=biochar (9 tons/ha) + zeolite (3 tons/ha), B9Z5=biochar (9

tons/ha) + zeolite (5 tons/ha). All theses treatments were applied to the sisteen

treatments with three replications by using CRD design.

3.2.2 Soil Filling in Pots

Sandy-Clay-loam soil (56:23:21) was used in this pot experiment, collected

from PMAS-University Research Farm (Koont). Soil sieved by using 4mm sieve.

Recommended fertilizer N: 150, P2O5:100 and k2O:60 kg/ha (NPK: 18:23:18) were

incorporated into soil before filling.

3.2.3 Determination of Soil Quality Traits

3.2.3.1 pH

A soil sample from each pot was collected for determination of pH. 50 g of

air-dried soil was put into 100 ml beaker and 50 ml of water was added. Beaker

was shaked on side to side shaker for 30 ± 5 minutes (Mclean, 1982). Soil pH was

measured by using pH meter (Hanna PH20-01) in laboratory.

3.2.3.2 Bulk density

S ’ Bulk density was measured by taking core samples. Samples were

33

33

weighed and put into oven at 105°C for 48 hours. After drying core, samples were

again weighted. Bulk density was calculated by using Campbell and Henshall,

(1991) formula

Bulk density (g/cm3) = W2 - W1

V

Where,

W2 = weight of the core + soil

W 1= weight of core

V= volume of core

3.2.3.3 Soil moisture

Soil moisture percentage was calculated on weight basis. Each pot was

weighted on daily basis and difference in weight was recorded until the moisture

level is reduced to approximately less than 10 % in control. At that point, moisture

was recorded in all treatments and difference in moisture was calculated. Relative

transpiration water loss through plant surface was recorded in term of pot weight

loss and calculated by using equation given by Sinclair and Ludlow, (1986)

FTSW= Daily pot weight (M1n) - Final pot weight (M2TWP)

Initial pot weight (M1fc) - Final pot weight (M2TWP)

n = day number, TWP= temporary wilting point, FC= field capacity

FTSW= fraction transpiration of surface water

34

34

3.2.4 Agronomic Traits

3.2.4.1 Plant height

Plant height of all plants from each pot was measured by using standard

meter rod at maturity stage. Plant height was measured from soil surface up to tip

of spike. Then average height was calculated for each treatment.


Leaf area of five plants from each pot was determined at flag leaf stage by

using portable leaf area meter (model YMJ-A).

3.2.4.3 Total biomass

Plants from each pot were collected. To determine total biomass plants were

weighed by usind digital balance and total biomass yield (kg/ha) was calculated by

using the data obtained .

3.2.4.4 Grain yield

Wheat plants harvested from pots were threshed by using mini thresher and

grain yield was recorded and then converted in to kg/ha.

3.2.4.5 Harvest index

Harvest index of wheat crop was calculated by formula given below

35

35

H.I (%) = Economic yield x 100

Total biomass

3.2.5 Determination of Wheat Physiological Traits

3.2.5.1 Total chlorophyll content

Total chlorophyll content were analyze at flag leaf stage by using a

chlorophyll meter (SPAD-502 chlorophyll meter), by taking three readings from

each pot.

3.2.5.2 Stomatal conductance

Stomatal conductance at flag leaf stage was measured by Infrared Gas

Analyzer (LCA-4, ADC, Hoddesdon, UK). It Consist of two cells in which

differential measurements are obtained using two parallel cells. Air of a known

CO2 mole fraction is passed through the reference cell and simultaneously the air of

unknown CO2 mole fraction is passed through the analysis cell.The detector

compares the amounts of radiation passing through the two cells, and the signal

produced is directly proportional to the difference in CO2 mole fraction.

Alternatively, the system may employ matched single cell optical benches, where

absolute mole fractions are determined in parallel and differences computed from

the absolute measurements (Long & Bernacchi, 2003).

3.2.5.3 Proline content

Proline content of old fresh leaves was determined by taking 0.5 g wheat

36

36

leaves blended into 3 % aqueous sulfosalicylic acid andthen filtered by using

Whatman filter paper No.2.Filtrate (2 ml) was taken in a test tube and mixed

withninhydrin acid (2ml) and glacial acetic acid (2ml) and thenheated 1 ˚C

forone hour. 4 ml of toluene was mix after cooling in test tube and stirred vigorous

for 15-20 second and absorbance of organic phase was measured at 520 nm with s

meter. A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 μ L-1

Proline

was also run for calibration.Amount of unknown sample was dtermine from

thecurve andrepresentedon fresh biomass (weight) basis (Bates et al., 1973).


WHEAT GROWN UNDER FIELD CONDITIONS

3.3.1 Experimental Site Location

Field experiment was established at Pir Mehr Ali Shah, Arid Agriculture

University, Koont Research Farm (Chakwal, Punjab, Pakistan) in year 2013-14 and

2014-15. T 32 56’ ” N 72 52’ ” East. The

annual rainfall in potohwar region ranges from 35-254 mm and most of the rainfall

is (monsoon season) in June-July (PMD, 2011). Average daytime temperature in

Rabi season ranges from 25-32 C in year 2013-14 and 2014-15. While, Texture of

soil was sandy clay loam. Plot size was 24 m2. Plot to plot distance was 1 meter and

2 meters between replications. Randomized complete block design (RCBD) with

sixteen treatments and three replicationswere used.

37

37

3.3.1.1Seed bed preparations

Soil was ploughed before onset of monsoon to conserve moisture with

chisel plough in the start of June 2013. Seedbed was prepared by tine plough (3

times) with planker to improve soil tilth. Similar treatments of biochar and zeolite

were applied as mentioned above for pot experiment and incorporated into soil

before three months of planting. Wheat (Triticum aestivum) variety Chakwal-50

was sown at the rate of 130 kg/ha by using manual seed drill. Recommended rate of

NPK fertilizers (N: 150, P2O5:100, and k2O:60 kg/ha) were used in this experiment.

All other cultural practices were kept normal in all plots to evaluate the effect of

biochar and zeolite in different proportion on soil quality, growth and yield of

wheat crop.

3.3.2 Weed Control

In rainfed regions of Pakistan, winter wheat yield is badly affecting by

weeds like broad leaf dock, bur clover, bugloss, common fumitory, cowpea, field

bindweed, wild oat, sweet clover, common vetch etc. In this experiment non-

selective herbicide (Roundup) was sprayed twice before sowing to reduce weed

from the experimental field.

3.3.3 Determinations of Soil Quality Traits

Soil sample from three different locations of each treatment were collected

from 0-15 cm depth, with the help of auger and put into label plastic bags. All

samples were exposed to sunlight (for three days) for drying, then grounded and

38

38

sieved by using 2 mm sieve to determined physic-chemical properties of soil.

3.3.3.1 pH

Soil sample from each plot were collected for determination of pH. 50 g of

air-dried soil was put into 100 ml beaker and 50 ml of water was added. Beaker

was shaked on side-to-side shaker for 30 ± 5 munities (Mclean, 1982). pH was

measured by using pH and conductivity meter (Jenway Model-3540) in laboratory.


Bulk density was measured by taking core soil samples. Samples were

weighedand put into an oven at 105 ± 5°C for 48 hours. After dring core samples

were again weighed (Campbell and Henshall, 1991).

Bulk density (g/cm3) = W2 - W1

V

Where,

W2 = weight of the core + soil

W 1= weight of core

V= volume of core

3.3.3.3 Electrical conductivity

The electrical conductivity was determined by using British standard

BS7755: section 3, 4:1995. Air dried soil is extracted with distilled water in a ratio

39

39

of 1:5 (m/V) to dissolve the electrolytes. Ece was measured by weighing 20 g of

soil into a polycarbonate bottle. 100 ml of demineralized water was the added into

the bottle and shaked for 30-35 munities on side to side shaker. Then the bottles

were run on the centrifuge at 2000 ± 100 rpm for 15-20 munities. After that, the

extract was filter by using the whatman filter paper No.2 including blank extract.

After that, conductivity was measure by using conductivity meter (Jenway Model-

4310) in laboratory (Rhoades, 1982).

3.3.3.4 Total nitrogen

Total nitrogen was measure by taking 20 g of soil in 125 ml wide mouth

plastic bottle. 100 ml of 2 mol/l solution of potassium chloride was added to each

bottle containing soil sample. All samples were shaked by using side-to-side shaker

for approximately 2 hours. After shaking, extract was filtered by using Whatman

filter paper No. 4 including blank extract. Total nitrogen was then measure by using

continuous flow analyzer (Keeney and Nelson, 1987).

3.3.3.5 Available phosphorus

Five gram of soil sample was taken in 250 ml Erlenmeyer flask along with

100 ml 0.5 M NaHCO3 solution adjusted at pH 8.5. The contents were shaken on a

reciprocating shaker for about 30 minutes and filtered using Whatman No. 42 filter

paper. In 50 ml volumetric flask, 10 ml of filtrate was transferred. Then 10 ml of

color developing reagent (Ammonium molybdate + Potassium antimony tartrate

and ascorbic acid) was added and made its volume up to the mark with distilled

40

40

water. After 15 minutes, absorbance was checked using Cecil-2000

spectrophotometer at 880 nm and the extractable P concentration was obtained

from standard curve prepared by using a series of P standards (Page et al., 1982).

3.3.3.6 Extractable potassium

Five gram of air-dried soil sample was taken in a 250 ml Erlenmeyer flask.

Fifty ml of 1 N NH4OAC was added and the contents were shaken for 30 minutes

and filtered by using Whatman No. 4 filter paper including blank extract. The

extractable K concentration in filtrate was measured by using flame photometer

(Jenway-PFP) and the standard curve was made from a series of K standard

solutions Page et al. (1982).

3.3.3.7 Total organic carbon

Total carbon was measured by using British standard BS 7755 section

3.8:1995 (determination of organic and total carbon after dry combustion). Soil

samples were weighed to 0.001 mg digital balance and tightly packed into

aluminum foil capsule. The samples were load into carousel (automatic sample

feeder) of TCD (Thermal conductivity detector).The samples weight was entered

into TCD software and temperature was maintained at 900 0C until carbonates

completely degraded from the sample (Tiessen and Moir, 1993). The reading was

observed from TCD software

41

41

3.3.3.8 Loss on ignition (Organic matter)

Losson ignition was measured by using British standard BS EN 13039:2000

(determination of organic matter and ash). To find out the percentage of organic

matter a silica dish was taken and weighed (m0) on (0.0001) digital balance. 5 g of

soil was weighed in silica dish and weight was recorded again (Silica dish + 5g of

soil). Silica dish with 5 gram of soil was put into oven at 105 0C for 24 hours to

evaporate the soil moisture. Then the dish was cooled in desiccator. After cooling

the dish, mass (m1) was determined again and recorded. Then the dish was put into

muffle furnace and the temperature was increased to 450 C for 4 hours ± 15

minutes. Again, the dish was cooled in desiccators and mass (m2) was determined.

The following formula was used to find the loss on ignition from soil

LOI= m1–m2 x 100

m1–m0

m0: mass of silica dish in grams

m1: mass of dehydrated soil and silica dish

m2: mass of soil in grams after ignition

3.3.3.9 Total carbon

Total carbon was measured by using British standard BS 7755 section

3.8:1995 (determination of organic and total carbon after dry combustion). Silver

foil capsule was weighed to 0.001 digital balances. A soil sample was put into

42

42

silver capsule and again weight was recorded. After that 4 mol/L Hydrochloric acid

was added in each silver capsule containing soil samples. Soil samples were left

overnight until the completion of chemical reaction taking place in soil after

addition of the acid. After that, soil samples were dried in oven at 90 0C for 4

hours. After drying the soil samples, silver foils were packed and put into large

aluminum foil capsule and tightly packed again. Soil samples packed in silver and

aluminum foils were load into carousel of the automatic sample feeder. The sample

mass was entered into the instrument software with the sample names matrix

specific oxygen dosing.

3.3.3.10 Total magnesium

10 g of air-dried soil was taken into 250 ml polypropylene bottle and 50 ml

of 1 molar/liter ammonium nitrate solution was added by using pipette. Soil

solution was shake for 30 ± 5 munities by using side-to-side shaker. Then the

suspension was filtered by using whatman filter paper No.2. Add 2.5 ml of

strontium chloride releasing agent and make volumeup to 25 ml by adding 1 mo/l

of ammonium nitrate. The concentration of magnesium was measured by using

flame photometer (Jenway-PFP). Total magnesium was calculated by using the

following formula;

Magnesium (extractable mg/kg) = 125(Mgs- Mgb) / V

Mgs: concentration (µm/ml) of magnesium in extract

Mgb: concentration (µm/ml) of magnesium in blank.

V: is aliquot in ml.

43

43

3.3.3.11 Water holding capacity

Water holding capacity of treated soil was measured in laboratory. 500 g of

treated soil was filled in a core (3-inch diameter) and closed from one end with the

help of a permeable cloth and a rubber band of known mass. Core filled with soil

was put into water bath for 24 hours. Next day core was taken out of the water bath

and let it drain under the action of gravity for 24 hours. After that, wet soil was

weighted and put into oven overnight at 105 ± 5 0C. Soil sample was cooled by

using desiccators and again weighted. Water holding capacity was calculated by

using the following formula

Water holding capacity (WHC) =mass wet- mass dry x 100

Mass dry

3.3.4 Determination of Agro-morphological Traits

Selected crop agronomic parameters were observed by using standard

agronomic measurements (listed below) at maturity. Which include, Plant height

(cm), Spike length (cm), number of spikelet/spike, Number of grains per spike,

thousand grain weight (g), Grain filling rate (g day-1

), number of tillers m-2

,

biological yield (kg ha-1

), Economical yield (kg ha-1

),harvest Index (%) and Grain

protein content (%) were determined. The procedures adapted to measure

agronomic parameters are as fallow.


Ten plants from each plot were selected and tagged randomly. Plant height was

44

44

measured form soil surface to the tip of spike by using (metallic) meter rod.

Average plant height was calculated by using the obtained values.

3.3.4.2 Spike length

Ten plants from each experimental plot was selected and tagged. Spike length

was measured by using (24 cm) metal scale. Average length of spike was then

calculated from the obtained values.


To find out the leaf area of wheat plant, 5 plants from each experimental plot were

pulled out from soil randomly. Leaf area was measured in laboratory by using

(LAM-3000) leaf area meter.

3.3.4.4 Number of tillers

Numbers of tillers were calculated by using (1m2) quadrate. Quadrate was

thrown (three times) randomly in each plot. Numbers of tillers were then counted

and average was calculated by using the obtained values.

3.3.4.5 Number of spikelets spike-1

Five spikes were selected randomly and tagged. Numbers of spikelet were

counted and average was calculated by using the obtained values.

45

45

3.3.4.6 1000 grain weight

After harvest, 1000 grains were counted and weight to 0.0001 digital

balance to calculate 1000-grain weight of each experimental plot.

3.3.4.7 Grain filling rate

Three spikes were randomly taken from each plot after the start of anthesis

with 7 days interval to record grain filling rate. All grains from three spikes were

threshed manually and dried by putting them into oven for 48 hours at 95 0C. Then

the grain filling rate was (GFR) calculated from the following formula (Nawaz et

al., 2013)

GFR= (W2 – W1) / (T2– T1)

W1= Total dry weight of spikes at the first harvest

W2= Total dry weight of spikes at the second harvest

T1 = Date of observation of first dry matter

T2 = Date of observation of second dry matter.

3.3.4.8 Seed Yield

Three samples of 1m2

from each plot was harvested manually and threshed after

sun drying manually and the seed yield plot-1

so obtained was converted into seed

yield hectare-1

(SYH).

46

46


Three samples of 1m2

from each plot was harvested manually and exposed to

sunlight for five days. Dried samples were weighted by using digital balance.

Average weight was calculated from the obtained values and converted into kg/ha.


Harvest index was recorded by using following formula.

H.I (%) = Grain yield x 100

Total biomass

3.3.4.11 Grain protein content

Total nitrogen contents of grains were estimated according to Ginning and

Hibbards method of sulphuric acid. Digestion and distillation was made into

saturated boric acid M j ’ . T

protein was calculated by multiplying the grain N content with a constant factor of

6.25 (A.O.C.S., 1989).

3.3 IMPACT OF BIOCHAR AND ZEOLITE ON EMISSION OF GREEN

HOUSE GASES FROM TREATED SOIL

Emission of ammonia, methane and carbon dioxide were determined at

Canfield University, United Kingdom in year 2016 to determine the effects of

biochar and zeolite on emission green house gases from treated soil by using

selected ion flow tube mass spectrometer (SIFT-MS).

47

47

3.3.1 Selected Ion Flow Tube Mass Spectrometer

This technique was used to measure volatile compounds and trace gasses.

This techniques was based on ionization by using H3O+, O2

+and NO

+ precursor

ions via ionic or molecule reaction taking place inside SIFT-MS in a specific period

of time. Concentration of volatile compounds was calculated in parts per million

(ppm) (Miligan et al., 2002). Ammonia, carbon dioxide and methane volatilization

was determined.100 g of soil sample was put into a glass bottle and closed with lid,

which is connected with SIFT-MS by a metallic pipe from one side and opening

into bottle from other side. A small test tube filled with 20ml of demineralized

water was placed inside the bottle to maintain humidity. Bottle was dipped into a

3 . When soil inside the bottle

become hot it release volatile compounds and trace gases which were detected by

SIFT-MS. Volatile compounds emitting out of the soil were shown on digital

screen.

3.4 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

A linear model (Two-way) analysis of variance was used in this experiment.

Data collected from this experiment was analyzed statistically by using statistix

(version 8.1). Least significant difference test with 5% probability level was

applied to compare the mean of all treatments (Steel et al., 1996).

3.5 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

3.5.1 Benefit Cost Ratio

Benefit cost ratio was calculated by using the following formula (Prakash and

48

48

Mitchell, 2015)

Benefit cost ratio (BCR) = PV benefit

PV cost

Where,

PV = present value of benefit

PV cost= present value of cost

49

49

Chapter 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 IMPACT OF BIOCHAR AND ZEOLITE ON AGROPHYSIOLOGY OF

WHEAT GROWN UNDER CONTROL CONDITIONS

A two-year pot experiment was conducted in glass house to determine

affect of biochar and zeolite on soil (pH and bulk density, moisture retention) and

its impact on crop (growth, yield and physiology).

4.1.1 Agronomic Traits


Plant height is thought to be a genetic trait but it is affected by number of

biotic and abiotic factors. Moisture availability is one of the major factors, which

affect expression of plant genetic traits. In this pot experiment, it was found that

sole and combine application of biochar and zeolite as shown in Table 4.1.1.1

significantly affected plant height. Application of biochar has increased plant

height from 3-11 % during both years as compared to control. Highest plant height

(85 cm) was recorded in soil treated with 9 tons/ha of biochar during second year,

over control (76 cm). The highest plant height was recorded in soil treated with 5

tons/ha as compared to other treatments. All zeolite treatments have increased plant

height 3-7 % and 4-9 % in both years respectively. Application of biochar at the

rate of 9 tons/ha and zeolite at the rate of 5 tons/ha (B9Z5) showed significant

increase of 18 % in 1st year and 23 % in 2

nd year as compared control. Moisture

availability at all growth stages due to biochar and zeolite might be

49

50

50

Table 4.1.1.1: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on Plant height (cm) of

wheat

Where B0Z0=control, B3=biochar (3 tons/ha), B6=biochar (6 tons/ha), B9=biochar (9 tons/ha), Z1=zeolite (1

tons/ha), Z3=zeolite (3 tons/ha), Z5=zeolite (5 tons/ha), B3Z1=biochar (3 tons/ha) + zeolite (1 tons/ha),

B3Z3=biochar (3 tons/ha) + zeolite (3 tons/ha), B3Z5=biochar (3 tons/ha) + zeolite (5 tons/ha), B6Z1=biochar

(6 tons/ha) + zeolite (1 tons/ha), B6Z3=biochar (6 tons/ha) + zeolite (3 tons/ha), B6Z5=biochar (6 tons/ha) +

zeolite (5 tons/ha), B9Z1=biochar (9 tons/ha) + zeolite (1 tons/ha), B9Z3=biochar (9 tons/ha) + zeolite (3

tons/ha), B9Z5=biochar (9 tons/ha) + zeolite (5 tons/ha). * Means not sharing a letter in common within

column differ significantly at 5% probability level.

Treatments Year 1 Year 2

Biochar Control 76.13 d 76.65 d

B3 78.67 c 78.81 c

B6 80.11 b 81.14 b

B9 84.27 a* 85.02 a*

Zeolite Control 76.89 d 77.04 c

Z1 79.50 c 79.99 b

Z3 80.37 b 80.80 b

Z5 82.42 a* 83.79 a*

Biochar*Zeolite Year 1 Z0 Z1 Z3 Z5

B0 74.32 i 77.16 fg 76.25 gh 76.80 gh

B3 75.82 h 78.87 e 78.62 e 81.36 d

B6 76.97 gh 78.17 ef 81.46 d 83.83 c

B9 80.44 d 83.79 c 85.17 b 87.68 a*

Biochar*zeolite Year 2 Z0 Z1 Z3 Z5

B0 72.26 i 76.37 h 77.04 gh 80.95 ef

B3 76.12 h 78.93 fg 78.87 fg 81.33 d-f

B6 77.56 gh 81.00 ef 81.83 c-e 84.17 bc

B9 82.23 c-e 83.66 b-d 85.48 b 88.72 a*

51

51

responsible for increase in plant height. These results are in line with Visha et al.

(2013) who found that plant height of wheat was significantly affected by moisture

availability on all growth stages. Carter et al. (2013) found significant increase in

plant height of Chinese cabbage (Brassica chinensis) and lettuce (Lactuca sativa)

when biochar was applied along with fertilizer. Arif et al. (2012) reported that the

plant height of maize was significantly affected with the application of nitrogenous

fertilizer along with biochar. Khan et al. (2008) observed increase in plant height

and rapid growth of maize due to enhanced availability of nitrogen.

4.1.1.2 Leaf area

Leaf area is thought to be the variable of ecophysiological studies in

terrestrial ecosystems by which we can estimate light interception, photosynthetic

efficiency, evapotranspiration, irrigation response, fertilizers use efficiency, and

plant growth (Blanco and Folegatti, 2005). Leaf area was determined at flag leaf

stage and significant (p=0.00) difference was found in sole and combined

application of biochar and zeolite in both experimental years as shown in Table

4.1.1.2. It was found that biochar at the rate of 3, 6 and 9 tons/ha has increased leaf

area by 9, 15 and 23 % in 1st year and 12, 21 and 38 % in 2

nd year respectively.

While increase in leaf area by zeolite applications were 7-18% and 15-32 % in both

experimental years. Maximum leaf area (26.2 and 31.6 cm2) was recorded by

application of 9 tons/ha of biochar and 5 tons/ha of zeolite (B9Z5) while the

minimum was observed in control (l7.7 and 17.9 cm2) during first and second year

of experiment. Enhanced availability and uptake of nitrogen and potassium due to

52

52

Table 4.1.1.2: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on leaf area (cm2) of

wheat crop.









Biochar Control 18.72 d 20.19 c

B3 20.33 c 22.75 b

B6 21.56 b 24.46 b

B9 23.19 a* 27.96 a*

Zeolite Control 19.26 c 20.38 c

Z1 20.61 b 23.38 b

Z3 21.24 b 24.60 b

Z5 22.68 a* 27.00 a*


B0 17.67 i 17.94 i 18.95 hi 20.31 f-h

B3 19.03 hi 20.55 e-h 20.41 f-h 21.35 c-f

B6 19.34 g-i 21.72 b-f 22.31 b-d 22.86 bc

B9 21.02 d-g 22.25 b-e 23.27 b 26.21 a*

Biochar*zeolite Year 2 z0 z1 z3 z5

B0 17.84 f 18.48 f 20.06 ef 24.38 cd

B3 19.05 f 23.10 de 23.53 c-e 25.32 cd

B6 20.25 ef 25.58 cd 25.29 cd 26.73 bc

B9 24.36 cd 26.39 b-d 29.53 ab 31.58 a*

53

53

biochar and zeolite addition to soil might be responsible for expansion in leaf area

of wheat. Zhao et al. (2009) found that deficiency on nitrogen in oat crop reduced

photosynthetic rate, accumulation of dry matter and yield. Uzik and Zafajowa,

(2000) found that availability of nitrogen is a key factor which contribute in leaf

expansion, growth and enhanced photosynthetic rate in wheat crop. Whereas

biochar has the potential to increase leaf area index in maize and grain yield of

wheat crop (Njoku et al., 2015). Kavoosi, (2007) found that application of zeolite

in rice increase uptake of nitrogen which facilitate flourishment of nucleic acid,

amino acids and amides. Increase in these components accelerates plant cell

division, which results in greater leaf area. Application of clinoptilolite zeolite can

improve soil quality and enhance leaf area of radish by conserving moisture and

nutrients (Noori et al., 2007).


Plant biomass is thought to be a measure of plant dominance on a specific

site because it indicates the amount of minerals, water and sunlight uptake by a

plant and convert it into plant biomass. Plant biomass was significantly affected by

sole and combine biochar (B) and zeolite (Z) treatments shown in Table 4.1.1.3. In

biochar sole treatment total biomass showed relative increase of 0.6, 2.7 and 4.9 %

in first year and 3.5, 5.1 and 8.3 % in second year over control. Results regarding

sole zeolite application showed that maximum biomass (6292 & 6346 Kg/ha) was

produced in treatment Z5 (5 tons/ha zeolite) in both experimental years, while Z1

was found statistically at par with Z3 in both experimental years. Application of

biochar and zeolite B9Z5 (Biochar at the rate of 9 tons/ha and zeolite 5 tons/ha) in

54

54

Table 4.1.1.3: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on total biomass(kg/ha) of

wheat crop.









Biochar Control 6049 c 5903 d

B3 6084 c 6113 c

B6 6208 b 6205 b

B9 6346 a* 6393 a*

Zeolite Control 6072 c 5979 c

Z1 6148 b 6122 b

Z3 6175 b 6167 b

Z5 6292 a* 6346 a*


B0 5974 f 6037 ef 6069 de 6114 c-e

B3 6045 ef 6065 d-f 6071 de 6154 cd

B6 6097 c-e 6170 c 6183 c 6383 b

B9 6171 c 6322 b 6377 b 6515 a*


B0 5751 j 5844 ij 5892 i 6126 e-g

B3 5928 hi 6065 f-h 6114 e-g 6342 bc

B6 6054 gh 6243 c-e 6201 d-f 6322 b-d

B9 6181 e-g 6337 b-d 6460 ab 6593 a*

55

55

both experimental years showed 9 % to 14 % increased biomass in 1st and 2

nd year

over control followed by B9Z3 and B9Z1. Which indicates the significant (p=0.00)

effect of treatments on wheat crop. It was observed that the combine treatments

perform better then sole treatments of biochar and zeolite. Overall, it was observed

that biochar and zeolite have the potential to enhance biomass production. Biochar

and zeolite with their unique property of moisture and nutrient retention strive to

fulfill the crop water and nutrient requirement at critical growth stages in rainfed

area. Generally, biomass production is associated with availability of nitrogen

(Hussain et al., 2006). Biochar and zeolite have a great potential to reduce nitrogen

loss through leaching and volatilization, which results in better growth. Yamato et

al. (2006) found 4 times increase in biomass of pea (Pisum sativum L) grown in

biochar amended soil. Uzoma et al. (2011) narrated that application of biochar in

corn enhanced net assimilation rate, which result in better growth and development.

Ebrahim et al. (2011) found significant improvement in biomass of cowpea with

the application of zeolite along with nitrogen fertilizer. Leggo et al. (2000) found

that soil application of zeolite helped to enhance nitrogen and potassium

availability, which increase biomass and yield of wheat.

4.1.1.4 Grain yield

Grain yield or economical yield is the main concern of growing agriculture

crops. Data shown in Table 4.1.1.4 revealed that application of biochar and zeolite

has significantly affected grain yield of wheat crop as compared to control.

Application of biochar at the rate of 3, 6 and 9 tons/ha has increased grain yield of

wheat crop from 9 to 24 % in 1st year and 15 to 22 % in 2

nd year respectively, over

56

56

control. The highest grain yield (2067 kg/ha & 2030 kg/ha) was recorded by

application of biochar at the rate of 9 tons/ha while the control plots produced the

minimum grain yield (1654 kg/ha & 1533 kg/ha). The application of biochar at the

rate of 3 and 6 tons/ha has increased the grain yield by 16 % and 23 % as compared

to control during first year. Similar increasing trend in wheat crop yield was

observed during second year of the experiment. Increase in grain yield was

observed 6-15 % and 13-22 % during 1st and 2

nd year respectively by different

doses zeolite. The application of zeolite at the 5 tons/ha has increased the grain

yield (13 % and 22 %) over control during 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively.

While the application of zeolite at the rate of 3 tons/ha has enhanced the yield by

10 % and 20 % as compared to control in two experiments. The interaction of

biochar and zeolite has significantly affected the grain yield of wheat crop. The

maximum grain yield (2165 kg/ha) was observed in B9Z5, which was at par with

B9Z3 while the control has produced minimum grain yield of 1538 kg/ha. The

increase in grain yield by the application of biochar and zeolite was also observed

in second year. The significant increase in yield is due to the availability of

appropriate moisture during grain filling stage conserved by biochar and zeolite.

Water stress at any stage of growth or development can decrease grain yield

(Ozturk and Aydin, 2004; Karer et al., 2013), on the other hand it was observed

that increase in nitrogen availability and uptake result in higher grain yield

(Massignam et al., 2009). Increase in grain yield might be attributed to increase in

leaf area at flag leaf stage shown in Table 4.1.1.2. Whereas, increase in leaf area

contributes in increasing grain yield (Rafiq et al., 2010). According to

Alburquerque et al. (2012) wheat yield increased by 20-30 % by the addition of

57

57

Table 4.1.1.4: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on grain yield (kg/ha) of

wheat crop









Biochar Control 1654 d 1533 d

B3 1811 c 1772 c

B6 1887 b 1924 b

B9 2067 a* 2030 a*

Zeolite Control 1723 d 1597 c

Z1 1821 c 1804 b

Z3 1890 b 1911 a

Z5 1985 a* 1947 a*


B0 1538 h 1641 g 1677 fg 1760 e

B3 1668 fg 1741 ef 1850 d 1985 bc

B6 1702 eg 1904 cd 1913 cd 2028 b

B9 1983 bc 2000 b 2120 a 2165 a*


B0 1455 g 1464 fg 1573 d-g 1642 d-f

B3 1541 e-g 1659 de 1918 bc 1968 ab

B6 1652 de 1982 ab 2031 ab 2031 ab

B9 1738 cd 2111 a 2124 a 2148 a*

58

58

biochar with mineral fertilizers as compare to solo application of mineral fertilizers.

Biochar amendment to soil increase pH, electrical conductivity and nitrogen

availability, which ultimately increase crop yield. Hooper et al. (2015) found that

increasing availability of nitrogen to the wheat plant facilitate photosynthetic rate

and hence increased grain weight.


Harvest index is the ratio of grain weight to total plant weight. It is one of

main trait coupled with the increases in crop yield. Harvest index indicates the

distribution of photosynthate between grain and vegetative part of the plant.

According to the results found (shown in Table 4.1.1.5) in this study revealed that

sole application of biochar at the rate of 3, 6 and 9 tons/ha has increased the harvest

index by 15, 22 and 26 % in first year and 6, 8 and 15 % in 2nd

year, respectively.

While sole application of zeolite has also increased the harvest index of wheat crop

but this increase was comparatively low as compared to sole application of biochar.

It was found that zeolite at the rate of 1, 3 and 5 tons/ha increased the harvest index

by 11, 18 and 18 % in year 2013-14 and 3, 6 and 9 % respectively, in year 2014-15.

Interaction of biochar and zeolite was found significant in both experimental years.

It was found that harvest index was comparatively higher in combine treatments

than sole application. Maximum (33.3 % and 33.8 %) harvest index was found in

B9Z3 with 37 % increase over control in first year while harvest index of 32.8 %

was recorded in B9Z5 in second year with 23 % increase. Minimum harvest index

was observed in control in both experimental years. Increase in harvest index was

thought to be due to availability of moisture at grain filling stage. These results are

59

59

Table 4.1.1.5: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendments on harvest index (%) of

wheat crop









Biochar Control 25.3 c 28.0 d

B3 29.1 b 29.6 c

B6 30.9 a 30.3 b

B9 31.9 a* 32.3 a*


Z1 29.2 b 29.7 b

Z3 30.8 a 30.5 a

Z5 30.9 a* 31.2 a*

Year 1 Z0 Z1 Z3 Z5

Biochar*Zeolite B0 24.3 cd 24.2 d 25.9 b-d 26.8 b-d

B3 25.5 b-d 27.3 bc 31.6 a 32.0 a

B6 27.1 b-d 32.1 a 32.8 a 31.8 a

B9 28.1 b 33.2 a 33.3 a* 32.9 a

Year 2 Z0 Z1 Z3 Z5

Biochar*zeolite B0 26.7 e 28.0 de 28.4 d 28.7 d

B3 28.1 d 28.7 d 30.2 c 31.2 bc

B6 28.1 d 30.4 c 30.8 bc 32.0 ab

B9 32.0 ab 31.5 a-c 32.7 a 32.8 a*

60

60

in line with findings of Asseng and Herwaarden, (2003). On the basis of two-year

experimentation, it was found that the combine treatment showed better response to

agronomic traits of wheat crop as compared to solo amendment of biochar and

zeolite.

4.1.2 Physiological Traits

4.1.2.1 Total chlorophyll content (SPAD value)

Chlorophyll is the green pigment in plants, which produce synthates in

plants by using CO2, sunlight and water. Chlorophyll content acts as a

photoreceptor in the process of photosynthesis. Data obtained from the two-year

experiment revealed that there is a significant (p=0.00) increase in chlorophyll

content of wheat plant shown in Figure 4.1.2.1. It was observed that sole biochar

application at the rate of 3, 6 and 9 tons/ha has increased chlorophyll content by 11

to 32 % in first year and 13 to 34 % in second year over control and the highest

increase of 34 % was found in treatment B9 (9 tons/ha of biochar) with respect to

control. Where as sole zeolite application at the rate of 1, 3 and 5 tons/ha has

increased chlorophyll content by 10 to 26 % and 11 to 37 % in both experimental

years over control. Chlorophyll content was also significantly affected by

interaction of biochar and zeolite. Maximum increase (38.5 and 39.3 SPAD value

for chlorophyll content) in chlorophyll content was observed with the application of

biochar and zeolite at the rate of 9 tons/ha and 5 tons/ha.Treatment B9Z5 has

increased chlorophyll content by 66 % and 65 % in first and second year and the

minimum (23.2 and 23.7 SPAD value for chlorophyll content) was found in control

followed by B9Z3 treatment. Increase in chlorophyll content was might be

61

61

Figure 4.1.2.1 : Impact of biochar and zeolite on total chlorophyll content of wheat plant.

20

25

30

35

40

45

Control B3 B6 B9 Z1 Z3 Z5 B3Z1 B3Z3 B3Z5 B6Z1 B6Z3 B6Z5 B9Z1 B9Z3 B9Z5

SP

AD

valu

e

Treatments

Year 1 Year 2

62

62

attributed to enhanced moisture and nutrient availability with the application of

biochar and zeolite. In this regard, Falak et al. (1996) found that the chlorophyll

content is sensitive towater stress. Also Manivannan et al. (2007) found decrease in

chlorophyll content due to water stress. Schlemmer et al. (2005) found that

synthesis of chlorophyll pigment is related to avalibility of water. Zeolite with its

unique property of slow release of adsorbed moisture and nutrients provide

continuous supply of water and nutrient to crop (Ming and Boettinger, 2001).

Whereaszeolite application increase water holding capacity and uptake by

improving water use efficiency, which helps to increase synthesis of chlorophyll

content.High Porosity of biocharwas might be responsible for water and nutrient

retention in soil. Whereas high porosity and low bulk density of biochar can reduce

bulk density and improve pore size distribution of soil, which ultimately enhance

rate of water percolation (Bell and Worrall, 2011). Beside this, biochar and zeolite

reduce nutrient loss and facilitate growth and activity of microorganisms in soil,

which solubilize nutrients and make it available for plant uptake. All these

mechanisms to gather enhance plant growth and development (Sohi et al. 2010;

Atkinson et al. 2010). Biochar and zeolite increase cation exchange capacity of soil

and facilitate nitrogen retention. Increase in nitrogen uptake by plant respond to

better synthesis of chlorophyll pigment (Saeid and Maryam, 2011).

4.1.2.2 Stomatal conductance

Stomatal conductance was observed during flag leaf stage under control

moisture levels in each pot. According to the data collected, it was found that

biochar and zeolite (sole and combine) application significantly affect Stomatal

63

63

conductance in wheat plant as shown in Table 4.1.2.2. During both experimental

years sole biochar treatment B3 (3 tons/ha) showed 16 to 20 % increase, B6 (6

tons/ha) showed increase of 20 % and B9 (9 tons/ha) showed 48 % increase in

stomatal conductance with respect to control. While sole zeolite treatment Z1was at

par with treatment Z3 with 15 % increase and Z5 by 34 to 38 % increase over

control during both experimental years. Combine application of biochar and zeolite

also significantly enhanced stomatal conductance. Maximum stomatal conductance

of 0.45 mol m-2

s-1

and 0.46 mol m-2

s-1

was found in treatment B9Z5 with 100 to 109

% increase and 0.22 mol m-2

s-1

was found in control in both experimental years.

Biochar and zeolite soil amendment with their porous nature has the potential to

improve soil moisture availability to plant which ultimately facilitate stomatal

conductance of the plant. Stomatal conductance is a hydraulically driven value of a

plant, which regulates the loss of water from leaf surface (Fletcher et al., 2007).

Stomatal conductance, photosynthesis and water availability are inter linked with

each other. Low moisture availability tends to reduce the net photosynthesis and

stomatal conductance (Santos et al., 2009). Biochar and zeolite amendments

increase moisture content of soil, which ultimately regulated the rate of stomatal

conductance. Therefore, the plant undergoes a physiological change to survive.

Decrease in soil moisture can reduce Stomatal conductance and ultimately reduce

photosynthesis (Zangsuo et al., 2002). During water stress, accumulation of proline

regulates the stomatal function (opening and closing) which reduce stomatal

conductivity of a plant (Vendruscolo et al., 2007).

4.1.2.3 Proline content

Proline helps the cell to maintain their turgidity during water stress. Figure

64

64

Figure 4.1.2.2 : Impact of biochar and zeolite on stomatal conductance of wheat plant.

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Control B3 B6 B9 Z1 Z3 Z5 B3Z1 B3Z3 B3Z5 B6Z1 B6Z3 B6Z5 B9Z1 B9Z3 B9Z5

Sto

mata

l C

on

du

ctan

ce (

mol

m-2

s-1

)

Treatments

Year 1 Year 2

65

65

(4.1.2.3) shows inverse effect of biochar and zeolite on proline content of wheat

crop at flag leaf stage. Analysis of variance of the data collected revealed that

accumulation of proline was much higher in the control as compared to other

treatments due decrease in soil moisture content. In sole biochar application at the

rate of 3, 6 and 9 tons/ha treatment B3 has 8-12 % low proline accumulation in both

experimental years where as treatment B6 and B9 has 18 to 19 % and 30 to 33%

lower proline accumulation in both experimental years over control. When we talk

about sole zeolite application there was 13 to 19 % decrease in proline

accumulation in both years in treatment Z1 and treatment with 3 and 6 tons/ha of

zeolite lower the proline accumulation by 17 to 21 % and 25 to 30 % respectively,

over control in both experimental years. Interaction of biochar and zeolite was also

found significant with 46 to 53 % lower proline accumulation in B9Z5 treatment (9

tons/ha of biochar and 5 tons/ha of zeolite) over control in both experimental years.

Accumulation of proline in plant is one of the measures, which indicate the water

stress and helps plant to make some physiological changes to cope with the stress

(Maggio et al., 2002). Biochar and zeolite due to their hydrophilic properties can

conserve moisture, which helps in lower proline accumulation. Accumulation of

proline enables plant to resist oxidative stress, and increase plant tolerance. Water

stress on plant reduces chlorophyll content, relative water content of leaves and

increase proline accumulation to fight against water stress (Keyvan, 2010). Higher

proline content in crop was found under high temperature and water stress

(Chandra et al., 2004). Maralian et al. (2010) observed that high rate of proline

accumulation in plant indicates resistivity against drought stress. Increase in proline

accumulation was due to water stress (Chandra et al., 2004; Mostajeran and Eichi,

66

66

Figure 4.1.2.3: Impact of biochar and zeolite on proline content of wheat plant.

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

B0Z0 B3 B6 B9 Z1 Z3 Z5 B3Z1 B3Z3 B3Z5 B6Z1 B6Z3 B6Z5 B9Z1 B9Z3 B9Z5

Pro

lin

e co

nte

nt

(µ m

ol

g-1

)

Treatments

Year 1 Year 2

67

67

2009). Therefore Significant relationship between moisture stress and proline

accumulation was observed in two-year experiments. According to Chaudhary et

al. (2005), it was found that proline accumulation in rice plant was high due to

water stress. Clinoptililite zeolite mineral have a great potential to conserve

moisture and improve soil characteristics, therefore effect of drought could be

minimize with the addition of zeolite to soil (Manivannan et al., 2007). Zeolite has

improved soil reclamation and restoration by reducing water and nutrient loss from

soil profile (Zhang et al., 2007).Whereas, biochar acts as a soil conditioner and

increase plant growth, more importantly it retains moisture and nutrient, which

improved physical and chemical properties of soil (Lehmann and Rondon, 2005).

4.1.3 Soil Quality Parameters

4.1.3.1 pH

Soil pH is the measure of acidic or alkaline status of the soil. pH affects the

soil chemical, physical and biological properties, as well as plant growth. On the

basis of data collected, it was found that application of biochar significantly

increased soil pH shown in Table 4.1.3.1. Soil pH was increased from 7.3 to 7.5

and 7.37 to 7.43 with the sole application of biochar at the rate of 9 tons/ha, while

sole zeolite application at the rate of 1, 3 and 5 tons/ha does not have any

significant effect on soil pH. Interaction of biochar and zeolite has significantly

changed the soil pH from 7.3 to 7.5 during first year but the results for soil pH

during second year showed 0.09-unit increase in soil pH. It was observed that soil

pH was lower during second year in sole and combines application of biochar.

Furthermore, maximum (7.51 and 7.43) increase in soil pH was recorded in

treatment B9Z5 with 0.2 units increase in first year (2013-14) and 0.09 units

68

68

Table 4.1.3.1: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on soil pH









Biochar Control 7.30 c 7.37 b

B3 7.31 c 7.37 b

B6 7.40 b 7.40 ab

B9 7.50 a* 7.43 a*

Zeolite Control 7.38 a 7.39 a

Z1 7.38 a NS

7.38 a NS

Z3 7.38 a NS

7.39 a NS

Z5 7.38 NS

7.39 a NS


B0 7.31 c 7.30 c 7.30 c 7.31 c

B3 7.31 c 7.32 c 7.31 c 7.30 c

B6 7.40 b 7.40 b 7.42 b 7.40 b

B9 7.50 a 7.50 a 7.49 a 7.51 a*


B0 7.37 a 7.36 a 7.37 a 7.38 a

B3 7.37 a 7.38 a 7.37 a 7.37 a

B6 7.41 a 7.39 a 7.40 a 7.39 a

B9 7.42 a 7.41 a 7.42 a 7.43 a*

69

69

increase in second year. Biochar often have high pH values that differ among

biochar derived from different feedstock. Application of biochar with high pH have

the tendency to increase soil pH, which depends upon the rate of application

(Zwieten et al., 2010). Whereas, zeolite application can regulate the change in soil

pH due to its buffering capacity (Hortensia, 2013).


Bulk density is one of the key factors, which affects root and shoot growth. It is the

measure of compaction of soil. Soil with low bulk density has low resistance

against root penetration and promotes root growth (Goodman and Ennos, 1999).

Biochar and zeolite amendment to soil significantly decreased soil bulk density

shown in Table 4.1.3.2. It was found that sole application of biochar significantly

decreased soil pH from 1.49 to 1.46 g/cm3

during first year and 1.49 to 1.14 g/cm3

during second year in B9 treatment with 9 tons/ha application rate, while zeolite

application reduced the bulk density from 1.49 to 1.46 g/cm3

in both experimental

years in treatment Z5. Reduction in bulk density was found more significant in

combined application of biochar and zeolite. Maximum bulk density (1.50 g/cm3)

was found in control and the minimum (1.44 g/cm3) bulk density was found in B9Z5

treatment with respect to control followed by B9Z3 and B9Z1. Biochar and zeolite

are highly porous material with low bulk density. Incorporation of biochar to soil

improved soil structure by reducing bulk density and enhancing porosity

(Mukherjee et al., 2013). Change in soil physical properties with theaddition of

biochar has increased water holding capacity of soil and improve crop growth

(Alkinson et al., 2010).

70

70

Table 4.1.3.2: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on bulk density (g/cm3)









Biochar Control 1.49 a 1.49 a

B3 1.48 b 1.48 b

B6 1.47 c 1.46 c

B9 1.46 d* 1.45 d*


Z1 1.48 b 1.47 b

Z3 1.47 b 1.46 c*

Z5 1.46 c* 1.46 c*


B0 1.50 a 1.50 a 1.49 ab 1.49 ab

B3 1.50 a 1.48 b 1.48 b 1.47 c

B6 1.49 ab 1.47 cd 1.47 cd 1.45 e

B9 1.48 b 1.46 de 1.45 ef 1.44 f*


B0 1.50 a 1.50 ab 1.49 ab 1.49 ab

B3 1.50 a 1.48 b-d 1.48 c-e 1.47 d-f

B6 1.49 a-c 1.46 fg 1.46 fg 1.45 g

B9 1.47 e-g 1.46 fg 1.45 h 1.44 h*

71

71

4.1.3.3 Soil moisture retention

Soil moisture is a key factor, which enhances nutrient availability and

uptake. Furthermore, soil moisture promotes microbial activity and growth. On the

basis of data analysis, it was observed that biochar and zeolite application have

significant affect on retaining soil moisture shown in Table 4.1.2.4. It was observed

that sole biochar application at the rate of 3, 6 and 9 tons/ha, (B3, B6 and B9)

conserved soil moisture by 17, 20 and 26 % during first year over control and 16,

20 and 26 % during second year where as 12 % moisture was determined in control

on 16th

day after irrigation. Similarly, sole zeolite application at the rate of 1, 3 and

5 tons/ha have retained soil moisture about 17, 20 and 23 % during first year and

17, 20 and 22 % in second year whereas 15 % was found in control in both

experimental years. Combine application of biochar and zeolite was also found

significant with maximum soil moisture of 27.5 % in first year and 29 % during

second year, where minimum soil moisture was found in control with 7.4 % and 7

% moisture in both experimental years on the 16th

day after irrigation on w/w basis.

Soil moisture is one of the important factors form crops germination upto maturity

stage. It has a great impact on soil physical, chemical and biological properties of

soil during crop life cycle. High surface area, low density, hydrophilic nature and

porosity of biochar and zeolite were might be responsible for increase in soil water

retention. It was found that the combination of 9 tons/ha of biochar and 5 tons/ha of

improvement in the soil water and nutrients retention especially potassium was

found with the application of biochar (Jeffery et al., 2011). Increase in potassium

avalibility to plant helps in improving water use efficiency of plant, which resulted

72

72

Table 4.1.3.3: Impact of biochar and zeolite on soil moisture retention (%)










B3 17.0 c 16.9 c

B6 20.7 b 20.5 b

B9 26.2 a* 26.5 a*

Zeolite Control 15.8 d 15.7 d

Z1 17.2 c 17.3 c

Z3 19.7 b 20.3 b

Z5 22.9 a* 22.4 a*


B0 7.4 g 9.3 f 13.0 e 16.8 d

B3 13.9 e 16.3 d 17.5 d 20.3 c

B6 17.5 d 17.4 d 21.3 c 26.8 a

B9 24.3 b 25.8 ab 26.9 a 27.5 a*


B0 6.9 j 9.9 i 14.7 gh 16.3 f-h

B3 13.9 h 15.9 f-h 17.3 fg 20.6 de

B6 18.7 ef 17.4 fg 21.7 cd 24.2 bc

B9 23.4 bc 26.1 ab 27.7 a 28.7 a*

73

73

in higher moisture content in biochar treated soil. Whereas, high porosity and low

bulk density of biochar can reduce bulk density and improve pore size distribution,

which ultimately enhance rate of water percolation (Bell and Worrall, 2011). Soil

amended with biochar significantly improved moisture retention. It was observed

that increase in soil moisture with biochar amendment is an indirect effect

(Brodwaski et al., 2006). Biochar addition result in better aggregation, which

improves soil structure (porosity and aeration) and enhanced moisture retention

ability of soil. Biochar amendment was suggested in low rainfed areas because it

enhances water holding capacity of soil (Karhu et al., 2011). Zeolite acts as a soil

conditioner. Its unique property of slow release of adsorbed moisture and nutrients

provide continuous supply of water and nutrient to crop (Ming and Boettinger,

2001).

4.1.2.5 Friction transpiration of surface water

Friction transpiration of surface water was observed on flag leaf stage to determine

effect of biochar and zeolite on moisture conservation over time in terms of weight

loss each day from pot as shown in Table 4.1.2.5 (a) and 4.1.2.5 (b). Results were

found non-significant for FTSW because the rate of transpiration of wheat

(Triticum aestivum L.) variety chakwal-50 remained the samewithin the treatments

and differ over days. Biochar and zeolite (sole and combine) applications do not

have any significant effect on FTSW. Maximum value (0.093 to 0.094) for FTSW

were recorded at day 1 after irrigation and minimum (0.055 to 0.063) values were

found at day 16 in first year and in second year.

74

74

Table 4.1.2.4(a): Impact of biochar and zeolite on Friction transpiration of surface water in wheat crop during 1styear

Where B0Z0=control, B3=biochar (3 tons/ha), B6=biochar (6 tons/ha), B9=biochar (9 tons/ha), Z1=zeolite (1 tons/ha), Z3=zeolite (3 tons/ha), Z5=zeolite (5 tons/ha), B3Z1=biochar (3

tons/ha) + zeolite (1 tons/ha), B3Z3=biochar (3 tons/ha) + zeolite (3 tons/ha), B3Z5=biochar (3 tons/ha) + zeolite (5 tons/ha), B6Z1=biochar (6 tons/ha) + zeolite (1 tons/ha),

B6Z3=biochar (6 tons/ha) + zeolite (3 tons/ha), B6Z5=biochar (6 tons/ha) + zeolite (5 tons/ha), B9Z1=biochar (9 tons/ha) + zeolite (1 tons/ha), B9Z3=biochar (9 tons/ha) + zeolite (3

tons/ha), B9Z5=biochar (9 tons/ha) + zeolite (5 tons/ha). NS= non-significant

TREATMENTS DAY1 DAY2 DAY3 DAY4 DAY5 DAY6 DAY7 DAY8 DAY9 DAY10 DAY11 DAY12 DAY13 DAY14 DAY15 DAY16

Control 0.9397 a NS

0.8799 ab NS

0.8204 bc NS

0.7592 a NS

0.6984 c NS

0.6389 a NS

0.5794 c NS

0.5185 c NS

0.4587 c NS

0.3970 b NS

0.3389 b NS

0.2806 c NS

0.2227 b NS

0.1627 b NS

0.1051 b NS

0.0554 d NS

B3 0.9422

a

0.8817

a

0.8213

bc

0.7579

a

0.7005

bc

0.6431

a

0.5839

bc

0.5242

bc

0.4671

bc

0.4086

b

0.3544

a

0.2970

ab

0.2378

b

0.1794

a

0.1202

a

0.0593

bd B6 0.9423

a

0.8823

a

0.8225

ac

0.7630

a

0.7037

ac

0.6421

a

0.5830

bc

0.5239

bc

0.4641

bc

0.4074

b

0.3562

a

0.2979

ab

0.2379

b

0.1795

a

0.1172

a

0.0586

bd

B9 0.9405 a

0.8805 ab

0.8247 ab

0.7647 a

0.7052 a-c

0.6461 a

0.5869 a-c

0.5271 a-c

0.4661 bc

0.4085 b

0.3532 a

0.2931 ab

0.2344 b

0.1766 a

0.1160 a

0.0587 b-d

Z1 0.9412

a

0.8810

ab

0.8236

ab

0.7665

a

0.7065

a-c

0.6470

a

0.5870

a-c

0.5271

a-c

0.4704

ab

0.4120

b

0.3479

ab

0.2882

bc

0.2297

b

0.1704

ab

0.1142

ab

0.0574

b-d Z3 0.9402

a

0.8813

ab

0.8231

a-c

0.7674

a

0.7092

ab

0.6491

a

0.5900

a-c

0.5290

a-c

0.4708

ab

0.4107

b

0.3496

ab

0.2890

bc

0.2316

b

0.1730

ab

0.1153

ab

0.0581

b-d

Z5 0.9411 a

0.8838 a

0.8259 ab

0.7683 a

0.7108 ab

0.6531 a

0.5907 ab

0.5337 ab

0.4752 ab

0.4135 b

0.3503 ab

0.2891 a-c

0.2319 b

0.1734 a

0.1162 a

0.0565 cd

B3Z1 0.9401

a

0.8820

a

0.8230

a-c

0.7647

a

0.7050

a-c

0.6467

a

0.5877

a-c

0.5285

a-c

0.4678

bc

0.4088

b

0.3525

a

0.2936

ab

0.2370

b

0.1765

a

0.1171

a

0.0577

b-d

B3Z3 0.9419

a

0.8847

a

0.8249

ab

0.7668

a

0.7087

a-c

0.6494

a

0.5906

ab

0.5320

ab

0.4746

ab

0.4171

b

0.3534

a

0.2929

ab

0.2335

b

0.1769

a

0.1176

a

0.0601

a-c

B3Z5 0.9416 a

0.8822 a

0.8222 a-c

0.7661 a

0.7068 a-c

0.6477 a

0.5897 a-c

0.5325 ab

0.4736 ab

0.4129 b

0.3484 ab

0.2929 ab

0.2358 b

0.1784 a

0.1175 a

0.0572 b-d

B6Z1 0.9395

a

0.8844

a

0.8257

ab

0.7669

a

0.7085

a-c

0.6489

a

0.5907

ab

0.5321

ab

0.4749

ab

0.4144

b

0.3566

a

0.2951

ab

0.2824

a

0.1752

a

0.1171

a

0.0584

b-d B6Z3 0.9414

a

0.8836

a

0.8250

ab

0.7647

a

0.7056

a-c

0.6479

a

0.5904

ab

0.5299

ab

0.4736

ab

0.4163

b

0.3527

a

0.2934

ab

0.2345

b

0.1752

a

0.1198

a

0.0579

b-d

B6Z5 0.9404 a

0.8809 ab

0.8248 ab

0.7642 a

0.7048 a-c

0.6466 a

0.5890 a-c

0.5287 a-c

0.4704 ab

0.4119 b

0.3549 a

0.2965 ab

0.2364 b

0.1769 a

0.1187 a

0.0633 a

B9Z1 0.9400

a

0.8827

a

0.8294

a

0.7710

a

0.7124

a

0.6549

a

0.5958

a

0.5360

a

0.4795

a

0.4199

b

0.3585

a

0.3008

a

0.2412

b

0.1805

a

0.1224

a

0.0610

ab B9Z3 0.9422

a

0.8827

a

0.8235

a-c

0.7039

b

0.7080

a-c

0.6493

a

0.5910

ab

0.5299

ab

0.4698

a-c

0.4104

b

0.3518

a

0.2929

ab

0.2345

b

0.1747

a

0.1163

a

0.0590

b-d

B9Z5 0.9339 b

0.8752 b

0.8157 c

0.7595 a

0.7036 a-c

0.3184 b

0.5874 a-c

0.5299 ab

0.4719 ab

0.4455 a 0.3568 a

0.2968 ab

0.2370 b

0.1764 a

0.1187 a

0.0600 a-c

75

75

Table 4.1.2.5(b): Impact of biochar and zeolite on Friction transpiration of surface water in wheat crop during 2nd

year

Where B0Z0=control, B3=biochar (3 tons/ha), B6=biochar (6 tons/ha), B9=biochar (9 tons/ha), Z1=zeolite (1 tons/ha), Z3=zeolite (3 tons/ha), Z5=zeolite (5 tons/ha), B3Z1=biochar (3

tons/ha) + zeolite (1 tons/ha), B3Z3=biochar (3 tons/ha) + zeolite (3 tons/ha), B3Z5=biochar (3 tons/ha) + zeolite (5 tons/ha), B6Z1=biochar (6 tons/ha) + zeolite (1 tons/ha),

B6Z3=biochar (6 tons/ha) + zeolite (3 tons/ha), B6Z5=biochar (6 tons/ha) + zeolite (5 tons/ha), B9Z1=biochar (9 tons/ha) + zeolite (1 tons/ha), B9Z3=biochar (9 tons/ha) + zeolite (3

tons/ha), B9Z5=biochar (9 tons/ha) + zeolite (5 tons/ha). NS= non-significant

TREATMENTS DAY1 DAY2 DAY3 DAY4 DAY5 DAY6 DAY7 DAY8 DAY9 DAY10 DAY11 DAY12 DAY13 DAY14 DAY15 DAY16

Control 0.9414

a-c NS

0.8805

b NS

0.8220

b NS

0.7629

bc NS

0.7051

a-c NS

0.6465

a-c NS

0.5851

a-c NS

0.5263

bc NS

0.4666

ab NS

0.4083

b NS

0.3518

a NS

0.2949

ab NS

0.2364

a NS

0.1762

b NS

0.1155

a NS

0.0581

a NS

B3 0.9395

bc

0.8809

b

0.8218

b

0.7632

bc

0.7022

bc

0.6450

a-c

0.5866

a-c

0.5282

a-c

0.4692

ab

0.4089

b

0.3505

a

0.2924

ab

0.2321

a

0.1744

b

0.1139

a

0.0579

a

B6 0.9401 bc

0.8799 b

0.8211 b

0.7637 bc

0.7087 ab

0.6478 ab

0.5878 a-c

0.5276 a-c

0.4690 ab

0.4086 b

0.3480 a

0.2904 ab

0.2323 a

0.1726 b

0.1152 a

0.0569 a

B9 0.9397

bc

0.8822

b

0.8228

b

0.7665

a-c

0.7083

ab

0.6490

ab

0.5875

a-c

0.5286

a-c

0.4678

ab

0.4110

b

0.3538

a

0.2940

ab

0.2297

a

0.1757

b

0.1183

a

0.0584

a

Z1 0.9418

a-c

0.8840

b

0.8239

b

0.7633

bc

0.7058

a-c

0.6478

ab

0.5881

a-c

0.5268

a-c

0.4672

ab

0.4106

b

0.3515

a

0.2928

ab

0.2358

a

0.1754

b

0.1160

a

0.0571

a

Z3 0.9416 a-c

0.8999 a

0.8406 a

0.7816 a

0.7202 a

0.6594 a

0.5980 a

0.5387 ab

0.4786 a

0.4167 b

0.3570 a

0.2939 ab

0.2346 a

0.1755 b

0.1172 a

0.0574 a

Z5 0.9403

bc

0.8824

b

0.8264

b

0.7679

ab

0.7072

ab

0.6477

ab

0.5889

a-c

0.5301

a-c

0.4685

ab

0.4127

b

0.3530

a

0.2935

ab

0.2356

a

0.1759

b

0.1164

a

0.0574

a

B3Z1 0.9387

c

0.8787

b

0.8200

b

0.7627

bc

0.7022

bc

0.6435

bc

0.5876

a-c

0.5291

a-c

0.4703

ab

0.4108

b

0.3523

a

0.2924

ab

0.2324

a

0.1744

b

0.1175

a

0.0578

a

B3Z3 0.9406 a-c

0.8809 b

0.8231 b

0.7683 ab

0.7093 ab

0.6481 ab

0.5902 ab

0.5315 a-c

0.4744 ab

0.4138 b

0.3529 a

0.2944 ab

0.2363 a

0.1750 b

0.1161 a

0.0585 a

B3Z5 0.9397

bc

0.8787

b

0.8191

b

0.7616

bc

0.7088

ab

0.6501

ab

0.5928

ab

0.5313

abc

0.4696

ab

0.4131

b

0.3537

a

0.2959

ab

0.2363

a

0.1776

b

0.1159

a

0.0594

a

B6Z1 0.9422

ab

0.8829

b

0.8239

b

0.7666

a-c

0.7066

ab

0.6493

ab

0.5896

ab

0.5291

a-c

0.4687

ab

0.4077

b

0.3518

a

0.2962

ab

0.2368

a

0.2233

a

0.1160

a

0.0577

a

B6Z3 0.9409 a-c

0.8834 b

0.8231 b

0.7559 bc

0.7052 a-c

0.6463 a-c

0.5883 a-c

0.5316 a-c

0.4736 ab

0.4154 b

0.3568 a

0.2984 a

0.2376 a

0.1764 b

0.1164 a

0.0600 a

B6Z5 0.9414 a-c

0.8826 b

0.8246 b

0.7489 c

0.6899 c

0.6321 c

0.5748 c

0.5169 c

0.4608 b

0.6198 a

0.3463 a

0.2864 b

0.2285 a

0.1719 b

0.1149 a

0.0579 a

B9Z1 0.9435

a

0.8811

b

0.8237

b

0.7634

bc

0.7057

a-c

0.6445

a-c

0.5854

a-c

0.5429

a

0.4658

ab

0.4084

b

0.3493

a

0.2921

ab

0.2330

a

0.1744

b

0.1149

a

0.0593

a

B9Z3 0.9395

bc

0.8790

b

0.8187

b

0.7601

bc

0.7003

bc

0.6403

bc

0.5826

bc

0.5219

c

0.4655

ab

0.4048

b

0.3471

a

0.2892

ab

0.2306

a

0.1726

b

0.1173

a

0.0579

a

B9Z5 0.9399 bc

0.8810 b

0.8216 b

0.7648 a-c

0.7053 a-c

0.6459 a-c

0.5870 a-c

0.5286 a-c

0.4694 ab

0.4135 b

0.3545 a

0.2949 ab

0.2357 a

0.1768 b

0.1176 a

0.0587 a

76

76

4.1.4 Regressional Analysis of Soil Moisture with Chlorophyll Content,

Stomatal Conductance and Proline Content

Regression analysis of data showed a direct relationship between moisture

(independent variable) and chlorophyll content and stomatal conductance

(dependent variables). R2

(0.868 during 1st year, 0.848 during 2

nd year) values

obtained from regressional analys of moisture and chlorophyll content has shown

significant affect of moisture on synthesis of chlorophyll content. Increase in

chlorophyll content, Similarly R2

(0.775 during 1st year, 0.775 during 2

nd year)

values for indicate increase in stomatal conductance with increasing moisture

avalibility and decrease in proline accumulation (R2= 0.874 during 1

st year, R

2=

0.807 during 2nd

year) with increasing soil moisture wasobserved. Nyachiro et al.

(2001) reported similar results under water stress regarding chlorophyll

(chlorophyll a & b) content in wheat (Triticum aestivum) plant. Water stress

significantly reduced chlorophyll-a and chlorophyll-b content (reduce

photosynthesis), reduced stomatal conductance and enhance proline accumulation

in chickpea crop (Mafakheri et al., 2010). Stomatal conductance is the measure of

exchange of gases and rateof transpiration. Exchange of gases and transpiration rate

is related to availability of water, which control opening and closing of stomata.

Similar results regarding stomatal conductance showed that deficiency of sufficient

moisture (in different varieties of rice) reduced stomatal conductance of rice leaves

by 48.19, 38.11, 16.53, 22.2, 24.63, 26.67 and 4.16 % (Akram et al., 2013).

Increase in moisture due to treatment effect was thus verified by regression

analysis. In addition, it was found that soil moisture and plant proline content has

77

77

inverse relationship because with the increase of moisture availability,

accumulation of proline content was decreased. During water stress accumulations

of proline undergoes a physiological change by regulating the cell osmotic pressure

and reduced transpirational loss of water through stomata (Nayyar& Walia, 2003).

Similar result was observed by Mostajean and Eichi, (2009), it was found that the

accumulation of soluble sugar and prolinewas increased in blades and sheaths of

rice leaves due to deficiency of water, which adversely decreased growth and yield

of rice. Accumulation of proline is a clear indicator of abiotic stress (water or

temperature stress) which verify the adoptive response of the crop (Maggio et al.,

2002). While accumulation of proline in plant indicates water stress (Verbruggen

and Hermans, 2008). According to the regressional analysis it was found that

biochar and zeolite due to their hydrophilic structure and nature conserve soil

moisture in combine treatments and positively affect the chlorophyll content,

stomatal conductance and decreased accumulation of proline in wheat crop shown

in Figure 4.1.4 (a), 4.1.4 (b), 4.1.4 (c), 4.1.4 (d), 4.1.4 (e) and 4.1.4 (f). In two-year

glass house experiment it was found thar application of biochar and zeolite

treatments enhanced water availability, which was absorved and verified by

physiological response of wheat.


WHEAT GROWN UNDER FIELD CONDITIONS

A two-year field (rainfed area) experiment was conducted to determine the

affect of biochar on soil (soil physical and chemical properties) and its impact on

wheat crop (growth, yield and grain protein)

78

78

Figure 4.1.4(a): Relationship between total chlorophyll content and available

moisture content of soil

Figure 4.1.4(b): Relationship between total chlorophyll content and available

moisture content of soil

y = 0.637x + 15.35

R² = 0.868

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

SP

AD

va

lue

Moisture %

Year 1

y = 0.700x + 14.01

R² = 0.848

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

SP

AD

va

lue

Moisture %

Year 2

79

79

Figure 4.1.4(c): Relationship between Proline content and available moisture

content of soil

Figure 4.1.4(d): Relationship between Proline content and available moisture

content of soil

y = -0.972x + 60.43

R² = 0.874 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pro

lin

e co

nte

nt

(µ m

ol

g-1

)

Moisture %

Year 1

y = -1.1449x + 64.107

R² = 0.807 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pro

lin

e co

nte

nt

(µ m

ol

g-1

)

Moisture %

Year 2

80

80

Figure 4.1.4(e): Relationship between Stomatal conductance and available moisture

content

Figure 4.1.4(f): Relationship between Stomatal conductance and available moisture

content

y = 0.0081x + 0.1127

R² = 0.7755

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Sto

ma

tal

Co

nd

uct

an

ce (

mo

l m

-2 s

-1)

Moisture %

Year 1

y = 0.009x + 0.0915

R² = 0.7558

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30Sto

ma

tal

Co

nd

uct

an

ce (

mo

l m

-2 s

-1)

Moisture %

Year 2

81

81

4.2.1 Agronomic Traits of Wheat Crop


Table 4.2.1.1 showing the plant height of wheat. During the crop season, it

was found that sole and integrated application of biochar and zeolite has significant

(p=0.00) affecton plant height. In sole biochar application at the rate of 3, 6 and 9

tons/ha (B3, B6, B9) increase plant height by 4, 9 and 12 % in first year and 3, 5 and

10 % in second year respectively. Results regarding sole zeolite application at the

rate of 1, 3 and 5 tons/ha (Z1, Z3, Z5) enhanced plant height by 4, 6 and 8 % in first

year and 5, 6 and 11 % in second year over control. Plant height was also

significantly affected by combine application of biochar and zeolite. Maximum

plant height (96 and 97 cm) was recorded in B9Z5 with 20 % increase during first

year and 23 % increase during second year over control followed by B9Z3 and

B9Z1. Plant hight is a genetic trait of a plant but most oftenly it is affected by

number of biotoc and abiotic factors. The change in plant height was might be

attributed to the continuous availability of moisture and nutrients in the rizosphere

adsorbed by the biochar and zeolite particles in the soil. Similar results were found

by carter et al. (2013) it was found that the biochar addition to the soil enhances

nutrient availability and increase plant height of Lactuca sativa and Brassica

chinensis. Ghanbari and Ariafar, (2013) investigated effect of drought stress by

using zeolite, it was found that drought stress negatively affect growth traits of

basil plant including plant height. Zeolite due to its structure and chemical

properties can help in retaining soil moisture in rainfed areas to cope with drought

conditions. Similarly, Lee et al. (2012) found significant increase in the plant

height, fresh and dry weight of red piper with application of zeolite. Zwieten et al.

82

82

Table 4.2.1.1: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on plant height (cm) of

wheat crop










B3 85.9 c 87.3 c

B6 90.1 b 89.2 b

B9 92.4 a* 93.7 a*


Z1 87.6 c 88.6 b

Z3 88.9 b 89.2 b

Z5 90.7 a* 93.1 a*


B0 80.9 h 81.5 h 84.6 fg 83.9 g

B3 83.8 g 84.7 fg 85.9 e 89.4 d

B6 85.2 ef 91.2 c 91.3 c 92.7 b

B9 85.9 e 93.1 b 93.8 b 96.7 a*


B0 79.6 i 84.5 gh 85.2 g 90.6 d

B3 83.3 h 89.3 de 87.5 f 89.2 de

B6 85.5 g 87.3 f 88.9 ef 95.0 bc

B9 88.1 ef 93.4 c 95.5 b 97.6 a*

83

83

(2007) reported improvement in pH of acidic soil and 30-40 % increase in plant

height of wheat in biochar amended soil. Ebrahim et al. (2011) found increase in

plant height of cowpea with combine application of nitrogen fertilizer with zeolite.

4.2.1.2 Spike length

Spike length is basically the genetic trait of wheat crop but variation in

spike length is influenced by the availability of soil nutrients, moisture and

environmental factors (Dakhim et al., 2012). According to the observations made

on the basis of data collected it was found that spike length was significantly

affected with the biochar and zeolite treatments shown in Table 4.2.1.2. It was

observed that different doses of biochar (3, 6 and 9 tons/ha) significantly affect

spike length of wheat plant. Biochar amendment enhanced spike length from 4.1 to

24.2 % during first year and 10.5 to 27 % in second year over control. While zeolite

application also helped to enhance spike length from 7 to 17 % and 18 to 35 % in

both years respectively. Interaction of biochar and zeolite also significantly affected

spike length. It was observed that treatment B9Z5 produced maximum (12.5 and

13.4 cm) spike length in both experimental years and minimum (8.5 and 8.1 cm)

spike length was observed in control followed by treatment B9Z3 and B9Z1. It was

observed that spike length gave better response to sole zeolite application than sole

biochar application on the other hand combine application of biochar and zeolite

performed better in increasing spike length than sole application. Variation in

growth and growth attributes of wheat was thought to be dependent on moisture

and nutrient availability at spike growth stage. Biochar and zeolite effectively

increase soil health by retaining moisture, nutrients and favor crop growth.

Gebremedhin et al. (2015) found increase in spike length, number of tillers and

84

84

Table 4.2.1.2: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on Spike length (cm)of

wheat crop










B3 9.1 c 10.4 b

B6 9.6 b 10.9 b

B9 10.8 a* 11.9 a*


Z1 9.4 c 10.6 b

Z3 9.8 b 11.1 b

Z5 10.3 a* 12.1 a*


B0 8.5 h 8.7 gh 8.9 f-h 8.7 gh

B3 8.6 gh 8.9 f-h 9.3 e-g 9.7 de

B6 8.9 f-h 9.4 ef 9.7 de 10.9 cd

B9 9.0 f-h 10.5 c 11.3 b 12.5 a*


B0 8.1 i 9.4 f-h 9.7 e-h 10.5 d-f

B3 8.8 hi 10.4 d-f 10.6 de 11.8 bc

B6 9.0 g-i 10.7 c-e 11.1 cd 12.7 ab

B9 10.0 e-g 11.8 bc 12.7 ab 13.40 a*

85

85

plant height of wheat, when biochar was applied along with chemical fertilizer.

Chen et al. (2007) found that application of biochar along with nitrogen fertilizer

increased spike length as compare to sole application of nitrogen fertilizers.

4.2.1.3 Number of spikelets/Spike

Number of spikelets per spike is a genetic trait of wheat. Number of biotic

and abiotic factors influence expression of genes, including temperature, nutrients

and moisture (Goel and Singh, 2015). On the basis of analysis of variance, it was

observed that all four means for number of spiklets per spike significantly differ

from each other shown in Table 4.2.1.3. In sole biochar treatments (B3, B6 and B9)

6 to 15 % increase was observed in number of spikelets in first year and 9 to 18 %

in second year over control. In addition solezeolite application significantly

influenced number of spikelets, highest number of spikelets (15 and 16) were

observed in Z5 (5 tons/ha) treatment and lowest number of spikelets (13) was found

in control during two year experiment. Results regarding combine application

showed that highest numbers of spikelets were found in B9Z5 treatment with37 to

47 % increase in number of spikelets per spike over control. All other treatments

(sole and combined treatments of biochar and zeolite) with 5 tons/ha of zeolite and

9 t/ha of biochar significantly affect number of spikelets per spike. Numbers of

spikelets were increased from 11 to 16 in B9Z5 during year 2013-14 and 2014-15

respectively over control. It was observed that with the increase in spike length

number of spikelets per spike also increased. So a direct link was established

between spike length and number of spikelets per spike (Bilgin et al., 2008).

86

86

Table 4.2.1.3: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on number of spikelets

per spike of wheat.










B3 13.2 c 13.9 b

B6 13.9 b 14.7 a

B9 14.4 a* 15.1 a*


Z1 13.3 c 14.0 c

Z3 13.7 b 14.6 b

Z5 14.4 a* 15.3 a*


B0 12.0 j 12.6 h-j 12.7 g-j 12.7 f-i

B3 12.5 ij 13.3 c-h 13.4 c-g 13.6 c-e

B6 13.0 e-i 14.0 b-d 14.0 bc 14.7 b

B9 13.4 c-f 13.2 d-i 14.6 b 16.4 a*


B0 11.4 f 12.6 e 13.2 de 13.8 cd

B3 12.6 e 13.9 cd 14.5 c 14.5 c

B6 13.1 de 14.8 bc 14.8 bc 16.0 a

B9 13.2 de 14.6 c 15.8 ab 16.8 a*

87

87

Dencic, (2000) observed that decrease in number of spikelets per spike was more

susceptible to deficiency of soil moisture. Mirbahara et al. (2009) concluded that

number of spike lets/spike was reduced when wheat crop experienced moisture

stress. Therefore, the hydrophilic nature of biochar and zeolite adsorbed more water

and release it slowly for plant use shown in the above Table (4.1.3.3) might

contribute in increase number of spikelets.

4.2.1.4 Grains perspike

Spike is the most importantpart of wheat crop because economical yield

depends upon the length, spike lets and number of healthy grains. Number of grains

is one of the key characteristics, which contribute in estimated yield of a crop

(Guarda et al., 2004). In two-year experiment, it was found that the Spike length

was significantly affected by the biochar and zeolite application. With the increase

of spike length the number of spikelets and grains also increase (kaya et al., 2002)

shown in Table 4.2.1.4. According to statistical analysis treatments with sole

application of biochar (B3, B6 and B9) showed increase in numbers of grains per

spike by 5 to 23 % in first year and 11 to 33 % in second year over control. Same

increasing trend was found in sole zeolite (Z1, Z3 and Z5) application with 6 to 14

% increase in first year and 12 to 27 % increase in second year over control. While

maximum number of grains (41 and 48) was found in treatment B9Z5 in both

experimental years. It was found that treatment with 9 tons/ha of biochar and 5

tons/ha of zeolite (combine treatment) significantly increased the number of grains

from 30 (control) to 41 (B9Z5) during first year and 27 (control) to 48 (B9Z5) during

second year. Biochar with its numerous benefits has the tendency to increase yield

88

88

Table 4.2.1.4: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on number of grains per

spike of wheat crop










B3 32.6 c 35.2 c

B6 34.5 b 37.4 b

B9 38.2 a* 42.3 a*


Z1 33.7 c 35.9 c

Z3 34.5 b 38.2 b

Z5 36.3 a* 40.5 a*


B0 30.0 h 30.3 h 32.1 fg 31.7 g

B3 31.6 g 32.8 f 33.0 ef 32.8 f

B6 32.4 fg 33.9 e 32.9 f 39.0 c

B9 33.0 ef 37.9 d 40.2 b 41.8 a*


B0 27.5 h 31.8 g 33.7 e-g 33.7 e-g

B3 32.2 g 35.4 e 35.2 ef 38.0 d

B6 33.2 fg 35.6 e 38.4 bd 42.2 c

B9 35.0 ef 40.7 c 45.7 b 48.0 a*

89

89

attributes of wheat crop (Ijaz et al. 2015). Biochar is a highly porous material with

high surface area and net negative charge, which can increase the nutrients and

moisture availability, which ultimately increase yield characteristics e.g. number of

grains and grain yield (Liang et al., 2006). Application of biochar to agricultural

soils is a long-term treatment with numerous benefits to soil and increase crop

yield. Biochar was found beneficial for wheat crop, which positively effects its

growth under rain fed areas (Blackwell et al., 2009).

4.2.1.5 1000-grain weight

In plants, development of grain cannot be ignored because it is the measure

of physiological efficiency of a plant in terms of synthate assimilation. Thousand

grain weight of wheat was significantly (P=0.00) increased with biochar and zeolite

application mixed with chemical fertilizers as shown in Table 4.2.1.5. According to

the results obtained through statistical analysis sole application of biochar at the

rate of 3, 6 and 9 tons/ha has increased 1000-grain weight by 4 to 34 % in first year

and 9 to 35 % during second year. In zeolite sole treatment at the rate of 1, 3 and 5

tons/ha increased 1000-grain weight from 13-27 % in first year and 17 to 32 % in

second year with respect to control. Interaction of biochar and zeolite was also

found significant. Maximum grain weight (49.9 g) was observed in B9Z5 treatment

and minimum (28.1 g) grain weight was observed in control followed by B9Z3

treatment. Similar trend was observed in second year. Increase in 1000-grain

weight might be attributed to increase in nutrient and water use efficiency of the

soil with biochar and zeolite amendments. Azarpour et al. (2011) observed that

mixed application of zeolite and nitrogen base fertilizers (urea)

90

90

Table 4.2.1.5: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on 1000 grains weight of

wheat crop










B3 31.1 c 34.0 c

B6 35.0 b 36.9 b

B9 40.4 a* 42.0 a*


Z1 33.6 c 35.9 b

Z3 35.4 b 36.4 b

Z5 37.8 a* 40.8 a*


B0 28.1 j 29.6 hi 31.5 ef 31.1 e-g

B3 28.8 ij 31.5 ef 30.7 f-h 33.3 d

B6 30.0 g-i 32.3 de 35.8 c 41.8 b

B9 32.0 d-f 41.1 b 43.6 a 44.9 a*


B0 27.7 g 30.7 f 30.9 f 35.2 de

B3 30.1 f 35.7 de 34.1 e 35.9 de

B6 31.3 f 35.7 de 36.6 d 43.9 b

B9 34.4 e 41.5 c 44.1 b 48.0 a*

91

91

significantly increased 100 grain weight of cow-pea (Vigna unguiculata L.). Badr et

al. (2015) found increase in number of grains per spike and thousand grain weight

of wheat crop in the biochar amended soil. While Jeffery et al. (2011) fount that

biochar has the potential to improve soil moisture and microbial biomass, which

ultimately enhance crop yield. Xiubin and Zhanbin, (2001) observed that

application of zeolite have the potential to conserve soil moisture and increase

water infiltration rate which can help to enhance crop yield. Furthermore, Majma et

al. (2015) found that application of zeolite positively affect yield and yield

attributes of maize (Zea Mayas) including 1000-grain weight.

4.2.1.6 Grain filling rate

It is the rate of synthate storage in grains per day driven by process of

photosynthesis. More efficient the rate of photosynthesis in the flag leaf the rate of

grain filling will be high. Grain filling rate was significantly (p=0.00) enhanced

with biochar and zeolite sole and combine application as shown in Table 4.2.1.6.

Treatments B3, B6 and B9 enhanced grain-filling rate by 27, 36 and 48 % during

year 2013-14 and 18, 23 and 34 % during 2014-15 with respect to control. Whereas

zeolite treatments including Z1, Z3 and Z5 enhanced grain filling rate by 26, 33 and

42 % in first year and 24, 29 and 48% in second experimental year over control.

Interactive effect of biochar and zeolite was also found significant during both

experimental years 2013-14 and 2014-15. Maximum (0.141 g day-1

and 0.157 g

day-1

) grain filling rate was observed in B9Z5 treatment and minimum (0.061 g day-

1and 0.061 g day

-1) grain filling rate was observed in control with 131 % and 162 %

increase respectively. Increase in GFR might be attributed to enhanced synthesis

92

92

Table 4.2.1.6: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on grain filling rate (g day-

1) of wheat crop










B3 0.110 c 0.120 b

B6 0.117 b 0.125 ab

B9 0.128 a* 0.137 a*


Z1 0.111 c 0.120 b

Z3 0.117 b 0.124 b

Z5 0.125 a* 0.144 a*


B0 0.061 h 0.087 g 0.091 g 0.107 ef

B3 0.083 g 0.114 d-f 0.118 cd 0.125 cd

B6 0.104 f 0.115 de 0.124 cd 0.126 bc

B9 0.104 ef 0.129 bc 0.136 ab 0.141 a*


B0 0.060 g 0.086 fg 0.107 ef 0.151 ab

B3 0.084 fg 0.152 ab 0.117 de 0.129 b-e

B6 0.119 c-e 0.117 de 0.126 b-e 0.138 a-d

B9 0.126 b-e 0.126 b-e 0.145 a-c 0.157 a*

93

93

and transport of synthates during grain filling stage due to better availability of

moisture and nutrients. It was observed that application of biochar and zeolite

significantly increased nutrient status of soil including NPK shown in Table

(4.2.3.4, 4.2.3.5 and 4.2.3.6). Increase in thousand grain weight and grain yield

during both experimental years has been shown in Table (4.2.1.5 and 4.2.1.8) might

be attributed to increase in grain filling rate of wheat crop. It was noticed that all

treatments with 5 tons/ha of zeolite and 9 tons/ha of biochar performed better

among sole and combined application of biochar and zeolite. Biochar and zeolite

amendments have improved soil health and conserve moisture for better growth

and development of plant. Improvement in nutrient status of soil facilitates the

physiological efficiency of wheat plant including grain-filling rate. In this regard,

Muurinen et al. (2006) explained that increase in nitrogen uptake by plant is not

directly linked with the grain filling, while it enhanced rubisco enzyme in leaves,

which increases the workability of leaves to use solar radiation more efficiently and

increased grain filling rate. Li et al. (2000) observed that availability of sufficient

amount of water during grain filling stage of spring wheat increased grain weight

and accelerate grain-filling rate.

4.2.1.7 Number of tillers

In early stages of wheat growth, tillering is one of the important stages,

which contribute, in the economical yield. According to the data collected, it was

found that biochar and zeolite (sole and combine) application significantly affected

number of tillers in wheat plant as shown in Table 4.2.1.7. During both

experimental years sole biochar treatment B3 (3 tons/ha) showed 4 to 10 %

94

94

Table 4.2.1.7: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on number of tillers/m2 of

wheat crop










B3 216 c 236 c

B6 223 b 241 b

B9 237 a* 260 a*

Zeolite Control 212 d 217 d

Z1 217 c 233 c

Z3 225 b 242 b

Z5 230 a* 260 a*


B0 204 j 202 j 213 hi 213 hi

B3 212 i 215 gh 213 hi 222 e

B6 213 hi 216 g 227 d 235 c

B9 219 f 233 c 246 b 250 a*


B0 195 j 204 i 224 g 239 e

B3 215 h 248 d 227 fg 254 cd

B6 225 g 227 fg 254 cd 257 bc

B9 234 ef 255 cd 263 b 289 a*

95

95

increase, B6 (6 tons/ha) showed increase of 7-12 % and B9 (9 tons/ha) showed

increase of 14 to 20 % with respect to control. While sole zeolite treatment Z1 has

increased number of tillers from 2-7 %, Z3 by 6-12 % and Z5 by 8-20 % over

control. Combine application of biochar and zeolite also significantly enhanced

number of tillers. It was found that, maximum number of tillers (250 and 289) was

found in treatment B9Z5 with 23 to 48 % increase and the minimum tillers (204 and

195) were found in control during both experimental years. At tillering stage wheat

plant is sensitive to moisture stress. On the basis of results found it can be

concluded that increase in number of tillers might be due to availability of

sufficient moisture and nutrients at tillering stage. These results are similar to

Richard et al. (2012) who found that application of biochar enhanced soil nutrients,

mycorrhizal root colonization, moisture retention, microbial biomass, and improve

crop performance. Similarly, Vaccari et al. (2011) found 30 % increase in biomass

of wheat crop in biochar amended soil. Also biochar due to its black colour

absorbmore soil heat and promotes tillering.In this regard Bassu et al. (2009)

narrated that tillering is often effaced by low temperature. Biochar and zeolite

conserved moisture and enhance WUE by enhancing water uptake, while number

of tillers depends upon the availability of moisture (Usman, 2013).

4.2.1.8 Biological yield

Biological yield of the crop mainly depend upon the availability of nitrogen

during growth, which decides the rate of photosynthesis in plant. Greater the

canopy of plant, greater will be the surface area for light interception and

production of synthates. According to the analysis of variance of the data collected

96

96

Table 4.2.1.8: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on biological yield (kg/ha)

of wheat crop










B3 6657 c 6793 c

B6 6947 b 7038 b

B9 7279 a* 7366 a*

Zeolite Control 6536 d 6562 d

Z1 6765 c 6887 c

Z3 6901 b 7037 b

Z5 7135. a* 7192 a*


B0 6375 i 6446 hi 6464 g-i 6533 f-h

B3 6566 fg 6559 fg 6636 f 6865 e

B6 6582 f 6783. e 7011 d 7410 b

B9 6619 f 7271 c 7493 b 7733 a*


B0 6251 k 6490 j 6569 h-j 6619 hi

B3 6546 ij 6745 fg 6922 e 6958 e

B6 6654 gh 6972 e 7089 d 7436 c

B9 6796 f 7341 c 7567 b 7757 a*

97

97

about sole biochar application, (shown in Table 4.2.1.8) it was observed that

treatments B3, B6 and B9 gave 3 to 13 % increase in first year and 5 to 14 %

increase in biological yield over control was observed in second year. Where as

sole zeolite application also follow the similar increasing trend. It was observed

that zeolite treatment Z1, Z3 and Z5 enhanced biological yield by 4, 6 and 9 %

during first experimental year and 5, 7 and 10 % respectively in second year over

control. Results were also found significant in combine treatments. Maximum

increase (21 and 25 %) in biological yield was observed in B9Z5 treatment over

control followed by treatment B9Z3 in both experimental years. Biochar and zeolite

as a soil amendment is a permanent treatment for soil because of high stability.

Aside from this, biochar and zeolite also add many nutrients. It acts as a molecular

sieve to retain nutrients and moisture. Their addition to soil alters physiochemical

properties of soil and enhances plant growth. It was observed that combined

application of biochar and zeolite performed better then sole application. Saarnio et

al. (2013) found that biochar amendment stimulated carbon and nitrogen

mineralization and enhance nutrients and moisture uptake by the plant, which

ultimately increase plant growth. Vaccari et al. (2011) performed an experiment

and 30 % increase in biomass of wheat crop was found in biochar amended soil.

Noguera et al. (2012) found that addition of biochar increased shoot biomass by

increasing (87 %) number of leaves and leaf turn over in rice plant. Similarly

Smimeh et al. (2013) found that application of zeolite significantly increased

biological yield of sunflower.

4.2.1.9 Grainyield

Obtaining high grain yield often called economic yield is the ultimate

98

98

objective of growing cereal crops. It depends upon number of factors from

germination to maturity. On the basis of analysis of variance of the data collected in

both experimental years it was observed that biochar and zeolite significantly affected

grain yield as shown in Table 4.2.1.9. Maximum increase of 25 % was observed in

treatment B9 followed by B6with 14 % and B3 with 9 % increase during first year over

control. While maximum increase of 32 % was observed B9 in 2nd

year following by

treatment B6 and B3 with 26 % and 16 % increase, respectively. In sole zeolite

treatment maximum increase of 15 % and 22 % was observed in treatment Z5 while

treatment Z3has increase grain yield by 10 to 20% and treatment Z1 by 6 to 13 % in

both experimental years. Interaction of biochar and zeolite was also significant.

Maximum increase in grain yield (2602 and 2648 kg/ha) was observed in treatment

B9Z5 with 41 % increase in first year and 48 % increase in second year with respect to

control followed by treatment B9Z3. Whereas the minimum (1955 and 2062 kg/ha)

grain yield was found in control. On the basis of results, it was concluded that

interaction of biochar and zeolite performed better than sole application. These results

are in line with the findings of Maria et al. (2011), it was concluded that the

application of zeolite with nitrogen fertilizer increase grain yield of wheat.

Application of zeolite (clinoptilolite) has the potential to increase fertilizer use

efficiency, which results in better growth and development of crop and increased its

yield (Polat et al., 2004). Malekian et al. (2011) found decrease in nitrate leaching

and increase in grain yield of corn in zeolite (Clinoptilolite) amended soil. The

increase in wheat yield was thought to be increased due to retention of nitrate in

rhizosphere (Wang et al., 2012). Zahedi et al. (2011) concluded that zeolite have the

potential to conserve moisture during drought conditions and enhance plant growth

99

99

Table 4.2.1.9: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on grain yield (kg/ha)

of wheat crop

Where B0Z0=control, B3=biochar (3 tons/ha), B6=biochar (6 tons/ha), B9=biochar(9 tons/ha), Z1=zeolite

(1 tons/ha), Z3=zeolite (3 tons/ha), Z5=zeolite (5 tons/ha), B3Z1=biochar (3 tons/ha) + zeolite (1 tons/ha),

B3Z3=biochar (3 tons/ha) + zeolite (3 tons/ha), B3Z5=biochar (3 tons/ha) + zeolite (5 tons/ha),



B9Z3=biochar (9 tons/ha) + zeolite (3 tons/ha), B9Z5=biochar (9 tons/ha) + zeolite (5 tons/ha). * Means

not sharing a letter in common within column differ significantly at 5% probability level.


Biochar Control 2108 c 2154 d

B3 2291 b 2344 c

B6 2394 a 2428 b

B9 2418 a* 2479 a*

Zeolite Control 2132 d 2221 c

Z1 2294 c 2341 b

Z3 2337 b 2365 b

Z5 2449 a* 2477 a*


B0 1955 h 2106 fg 2138 ef 2233 d

B3 2064 g 2312 c 2363 bc 2424 b

B6 2199 de 2413 b 2427 b 2538 a

B9 2308 c 2344 c 2420 b 2602 a*


B0 2061 h 2134 g 2178 g 2245 f

B3 2150 g 2377 e 2380 e 2468 c

B6 2278 f 2428 c-e 2462 c 2548 b

B9 2399 de 2426 c-e 2438 cd 2648 a*

100

100

and yield. Abbasieh et al. (2013) found that application of zeolite with potassium

fertilizer has increased yield of sunflower by 70 %. Similarly, biochar addition

increase organic matter content in the soil, which improves the crop yield (Chan

et al., 2007). Wheat yield was found to be increased by 18 % with 6 tons/ha

application of biochar along with half dose of recommended chemical fertilizer

(Solaiman et al., 2010). Addition of biochar changes the albedo and increase soil

temperature. Increase in temperature at the time of germination can help in better

crop stand and ultimately enhanced crop growth (Genesio et al., 2012). Uses of

biochar as a soil amendment have the potential to increase crop yield in rain fed

areas where water is a central limiting factor crop production (Lehmann et al.,

2006). According to Alburquerque et al. (2012) biochar amendment to soil

increase yield of wheat crop, mitigate climate change and maintain agricultural

sustainability.


All the treatments somewhat showed improvement in harvest index as

shown in Table 4.2.1.10. In sole biochar application, maximum harvest index was

observed in treatment B6 with 6 % increase over control while treatment B3 and B9

showed 5 % and 2 % increase during first year. In second experimental year

maximum harvest index (34.5 %) was observed in treatment B6, which was at pat

(34.4) with B3. In sole zeolite application treatment Z5 (5 tons/ha) showed increase

of 5 % followed by treatment Z3 which was at par with treatment Z1 during first

year. Similar trend was followed in second year with maximum increase of 2 % in

treatment Z5 over control. Interaction of biochar and zeolite also significantly

101

101

Table 4.2.1.10: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on harvest index (%)

of wheat crop

Where B0Z0=control, B3=biochar (3 tons/ha), B6=biochar (6 tons/ha), B9=biochar(9 tons/ha), Z1=zeolite

(1 tons/ha), Z3=zeolite (3 tons/ha), Z5=zeolite (5 tons/ha), B3Z1=biochar (3 tons/ha) + zeolite (1 tons/ha),




B9Z3=biochar (9 tons/ha) + zeolite (3 tons/ha), B9Z5=biochar (9 tons/ha) + zeolite (5 tons/ha). * Means

not sharing a letter in common within column differ significantly at 5% probability level.


Biochar Control 32.6 c 33.2 c

B3 34.4 a 34.4 a

B6 34.5 a* 34.5 a*

B9 33.3 b 33.7 b

Zeolite Control 32.6 b 33.8 b

Z1 33.9 a 34.0 b

Z3 33.9 a 33.6 b

Z5 34.3 a* 34.4 a*


B0 30.7 i 32.7 fg 33.1 fg 34.2 c-e

B3 31.4 hi 35.3 ab 35.6 a* 35.3 a

B6 33.4 ef 35.6 a 34.6 a-d 34.3 b-e

B9 34.9 a-c 32.2 gh 32.3 gh 33.6 d-f


B0 33.0 ef 32.9 ef 33.1 de 33.9 cd

B3 32.8 ef 35.3 a 34.4 bc 35.5 a*

B6 34.1 bc 34.8 ab 34.7 a-c 34.3 bc

B9 35.3 a 33.0 ef 32.2 f 34.1 bc

102

102

affected harvest index of wheat crop. It was found that maximum harvest index

(35.6%) was observed in treatment B3Z3 (3 tons/ha biochar and 3 tons/ha zeolite)

with 15 % increase over control during first year. In second year treatment, B3Z5

showed maximum harvest index of 35.5 % with 8 % increase over control.

Application of biochar and zeolite enhances grain yield and biological yield by

improving soil quality. Increase in grain yield is related to enhance harvest index

in wheat crop (Donmez et al., 2001). Whereas integrated application of zeolite

with other fertilizers can reduce the application rate of fertilizers because it

improves fertilizer use efficiency and contribute in sustainability of nutrients

(Mahyar et al., 2014). Improvement in harvest index was due to the availability of

nutrients and moisture on growth and development stages of wheat crop.

According to Asif et al. (2012), harvest index of wheat has direct relationship with

moisture and nitrogen availability. Biochar helps to retain nutrients and moisture in

the rhizosphere, these findings are in line with Lehmann and Rondon, (2005) who

found that biochar can act as a soil conditioner and increase plant growth, more

importantly it retains moisture and nutrient which improve physical and chemical

properties of soil.

4.2.2 Grain Quality Traits

4.2.2.1 Grain protein content

Quality of cereals (food grains) can be determined by their protein value.

Protein content in wheat grains is directly linked with the availability of nitrogen.

Increases in nitrogen availability have the potential to enhance grain protein

content of wheat (Warraich et al., 2002). On the basis of results calculated (shown

103

103

Table 4.2.2.1: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on grain protein content

(%)









Biochar Control 10.63 b 10.68 d

B3 10.66 b 10.81 c

B6 10.73 ab 10.96 b

B9 10.83 a* 11.25 a*

Zeolite Control 10.63 b 10.65 d

Z1 10.67 b 10.86 c

Z3 10.87 a* 11.01 b

Z5 10.69 b 11.16 a*


B0 10.60c-e 10.66c-e 10.67c-e 10.62c-e

B3 10.64c-e 10.63c-e 10.80b-d 10.57 de

B6 10.66c-e 10.90a-c 10.90a-c 10.47 e

B9 10.63c-e 10.47 e 11.09 ab 11.13 a*


B0 10.61 h 10.67f-h 10.67f-h 10.76 ef

B3 10.65 gh 10.83 e 10.72 fg 11.02 d

B6 10.68f-h 10.73fg 11.12 c 11.28 b

B9 10.67 f-h 11.21bc 11.54 a 11.58 a*

104

104

in Table 4.2.2.1) it was found that during first year sole biochar application at the

rate of 3, 6 and 9 tons/ha has increased grain protein from 0.2 to 2 % in first year

and 1 to 5 % during second year over control. Maximum grain protein (11.25 %)

was observed in B9 during second year. In case of sole zeolite application

maximum grain protein (10.87 %) was observed in Z3 treatment during first year

over control (10.63 % ) but in second year it was observed that maximum grain

protein (11.5%) was found in treatment Z5 (5 tons/ha) with 5 % increase over

control. Interaction of biochar and zeolite also follow the similar trend in first and

second year. Maximum (11.13 % and 11.58 % ) increase in grain protein was

observed in treatment B9Z5 (9 tons/ha of biochar + 5 tons/ha of zeolite) with 5 %

increase in first year and 9 % increase in second year where as minimum (10.60 %

and 10.61 %) grain protein was observed in control in both experimental years.

Increase in grain protein content might be attributed to the special property of

biochar and zeolite to retain nitrogen and reduce its (leaching and volatilization)

losses. Application of biochar and zeolite has a positive effect on reducing nitrogen

loss from soil profile. In addition, biochar and zeolite tend to increase cation

exchange capacity, porosity and moisture content due to their hydrophilic nature

(Huang and Petrovic, 1994). Increase in nitrogen uptake by plant facilitates

synthesis of protein in wheat grain. Yolcu et al, (2011) explained that zeolite

amendment to soil enhanced nutrient availability and fertilizer use efficiency,

which result in enhanced yield and crude protein content of ryegrass. Zeolite with

its unique property of slow release of nutrient enables continuous supply of

nitrogen for plant uptake during crop season and it was found that availability of

nitrogen at anthesis stage of wheat could effectively enhance protein content

105

105

(Wuest and Cassman, 1992). Also Kelley, (1995) suggested that availability of

nitrogen in late stages of crop growth and development could effectively enhanced

grain protein content than early application. Pirzad and Mohammadzade, (2014)

suggested zeolite application to rainfed areas because it has capability to retain

nutrients and lower the effect of drought stress. Furthermore, it can enhance crop

(Lathyrus sativus L) growth and development including leaf protein content.

4.2.3 Soil Quality Traits

4.2.3.1 pH

Soil pH is one of the key factors, which stimulate the availability of

nutrients to crop. Soil with extreme low or high pH badly effects plant growth. In

this experiment, it was found that sole biochar application at the rate of 3 tons/ha

(B3) did not have any significant effect on soil pH, but the treatments with 6

tons/ha (B6) has increased the soil pH from 7.31 to 7.41 and treatment with 9

tons/ha (B9) has maximm increase from 7.31 to 7.50 (2.5 % increase) in first year.

In second year soil pH was comparatively low than first year. Maximum soil pH

(7.41) was observed in treatment B9 and minimum (7.37) was recorded in control.

Zeolite treatments (Z1, Z3 and Z5) do not have any significant effect on soil pH in

both experimental years. Interaction of biochar and zeolite significantly enhanced

soil pH. It was observed that treatment B9Z1 (9 tons/ha of biochar and 1 ton/ha of

zeolite) showed the maximum increase of 2.8 % and 0.8 % in soil pH during first

and second experimental year. Soil pH showed a slight decline during second year

as compare to first year. Results calculated from both years revealed that biochar

106

106

Table 4.2.3.1: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on soil pH









Biochar Control 7.31 c 7.37 b

B3 7.31 c 7.37 b

B6 7.41 b 7.40 ab

B9 7.50 a* 7.41 a*

Zeolite Control 7.38 a NS 7.40 a

Z1 7.38 a 7.39 a

Z3 7.38 a 7.39 a

Z5 7.38 a 7.38 a


B0 7.31 c 7.30 c 7.30 c 7.31 c

B3 7.31 c 7.31 c 7.30 c 7.30 c

B6 7.41 b 7.41 b 7.41 b 7.40 b

B9 7.50 a 7.51a* 7.50 a 7.50 a


B0 7.38 ab 7.37 b 7.37 b 7.37 b

B3 7.38 ab 7.38 ab 7.36 b 7.36 b

B6 7.40 ab 7.40 ab 7.40 ab 7.40 ab

B9 7.40 ab 7.44a* 7.42 ab 7.40 ab

107

107

has the capability to change soil pH whereas zeolite treatments have no effect as

compare to biochar treatments. These results are in line with Glaseret al. (2001),

who reported increase of soil pH with the application of biochar. Yuan et al.

(2011), found decrease in the acidity of soil when treated with the biochar with

higher value of pH. Also Ahmed et al. (2010) reported significant change in pH

with the application of higher rate of zeolite. Change in soil pH with the addition of

biochar depends upon the pH of biochar itself and rate of application. According to

Lehmann et al. (2011), increase in soil pH by the addition of biochar is due to

dissolution of oxides, alkaline carbonates and hydroxides mainly present in the ash

friction of the applied biochar. According to Khalid et al. (2012) soil pH range of

rainfed areas in Pakistan commonly lies between 7.0 to 8.7. Fowles, (2007) found

that soil cation exchange capacity and soil pH was increased with the addition of

biochar.Therefore, biochar is more effective towards acidic soils as it improve soil

pH and cation exchange capacity of soil, which promotes crop growth. With the

passage of time oxidation of biochar generate acidic functional group which tends

to reduce alkalinity of soil and neutralize pH of soil (Cheng et al., 2006). Reduction

in the pH value in second year was thought to be because of the buffering capacity

of soil. In this regard, Ramesh et al. (2010) found that zeolite has many

amelioration effects on soil and improved pH buffering capacity of soil. Different

functional groups of biochar including amides, acidic, alcoholic, carboxylic and

phenols enables SOM to buffer broad range soil pH (Krull et al., 2004). Organic

anions and inorganic carbonates are also responsible for altering the soil pH.

Increase in charring temperature has a direct relationship with the alkaline nature of

biochar. Biochar produced at low temperature will be less alkaline in nature and

108

108

vice versa (Yuan et al., 2011). Increase in soil pH is also attributed to process of

salinization. Water-soluble salts with irrigation and rain water accommodates in the

pore spaces and gets deposit on biochar surface after evaporation of water. This

results in increasing alkalinity of soil which effect soil pH (Saysel and Barlas,

2001).

4.2.3.2 Electrical conductivity

Electrical conductivity is the measure of amount of salts and moisture

present in the soil. It affects plant nutrient availability, crop suitability and activity

of soil microorganisms. Application of biochar and zeolite significantly affected

electrical conductivity of soil as shown in Table 4.2.3.2. Biochar treatments at the

rate of 3, 6 and 9 tons/ha has significantly increased electrical conductivity by 6 to

53 % during first year and 7 to 36 % during second year. Maximum increase in

electrical conductivity was observed in treatment B9 during first year with 53 %

increase, over control. While sole zeolite application at the rate of 1, 3 and 5

tons/ha has increased the eclectically conductivity by 8-19 % during first year and 3

to 20 % during second year over control. Maximum (61.6 ms/m) increase of 20 %

was observed in second year with application rate of 5 tons/ha of zeolite, over

control. Combine application of biochar and zeolite has also significantly enhanced

electrical conductivity. Maximum electrical conductivity (74.1 and 74.7 ms/m) was

recorded in treatment B9Z5 with 80 % and 69 % increase over control followed by

B9Z3 treatment in year 2013-14 and 2014-15. The increase in electrical

conductivity with the addition of biochar was thought to be due to concentration of

alkali and alkaline earth metals, silica and heavy metals (Raison, 1979). Abebe et

109

109

Table 4.2.3.2: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on electrical conductivity

(ms/m) of soil










B3 48.2 c 52.1 c

B6 54.3 b 55.9 b

B9 69.6 a* 65.8 a*


Z1 53.7 b 53.0 bc

Z3 55.4 b 56.2 b

Z5 58.7 a* 61.6 a*


B0 41.0 g 44.2 fg 48.3 f 49.0 d-f

B3 44.1 fg 46.0 g 48.8 ef 53.8 c-e

B6 47.7 f 57.4 c 54.3 cd 58.0 c

B9 66.7 b 67.4 b 70.0 ab 74.1 a*


B0 44.1 h 46.5 h 49.2 f-h 54.1 d-g

B3 47.9 gh 47.4 gh 55.0 d-f 58.0 b-d

B6 51. e-h 55.8 c-f 57.1 b-e 59.6 b-d

B9 62.6 bc 62.4 bc 63.3 b 74.7 a*

110

110

al. (2012) also reported increase in electrical conductivity with the addition of

biochar to soil. Different water-soluble salts get accumulated in porous structure of

biochar along with water. When water evaporates, it leaves behind the water

soluble salts on the surface of biochar particles, which result in enhanced electrical

conductivity. Biochar has the potential to accumulate cations (normally salts) and

reduce leaching process in soil (Laird et al., 2010). Application of biochar and

zeolite act as a molecular sieve and filter the salts in the upper layer of soil due to

their observant nature, which results in higher electrical conductivity.

4.2.3.3 Loss on ignition (Organic Matter)

Organic matter helps soil in conserving moisture and enhanced availability

of nutrients to crop. Data shown in Table 4.1.3.3 revealed that application of

biochar and zeolite has significant effected on soil organic matter. In sole biochar

treatment at the rate of 3 tons/ha (B3) has increased organic matter from 0.47 to

0.67 % and 0.49 to 0.69 % with 40 to 43 % increase in both experimental years.

Biochar at the rate of 6 tons/ha (B6) has increased soil organic matter from 0.47 to

0.86 % and 0.49 to 0.88 % with 80 to 83% increase and treatment (B9) with 9

tons/ha of biochar has increased soil organic matter from 0.47 to 1.12 % and 0.49

to 1.16 % with 137 % and 138 % increase in both experimental years. Whereas, in

sole zeolite application treatments Z1, Z3 and Z5 has increase soil organic matter

from 17–49 % during first year and 17 to 50 % in second year as compare to

control. Interaction of biochar and zeolite was also significant. It was observed that

all combine treatments somewhat has increased soil organic matter. Maximum soil

111

111

Table 4.2.3.3: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on soil organic matter (%)










B3 0.67 c 0.69 c

B6 0.86 b 0.88 b

B9 1.12 a* 1.16 a*


Z1 0.74 c 0.77 c

Z3 0.80 b 0.83 b

Z5 0.94 a* 0.97 a*


B0 0.41 j 0.39 j 0.45 ij 0.62 g

B3 0.49 hi 0.64 g 0.68 g 0.86 f

B6 0.53 h 0.93 e 0.94 e 1.04 cd

B9 1.09 bc 1.01 d 1.13 b 1.23 a*


B0 0.42 i 0.40 i 0.49 h 0.67 f

B3 0.51 gh 0.67 f 0.71 f 0.87 e

B6 0.55 g 0.94 d 0.95 d 1.10 c

B9 1.15 b 1.06 c 1.17 b 1.25 a*

112

112

organic matter (1.23 % and 1.25 %) was observed in treatment B9Z5 with 9 tons/ha

of biochar and 5 tons/ha of zeolite and minimum (0.41 % and 0.42 %) was recorded

in control during both experimental years. Increase in organic matter is thought to

be due addition of carbon present in the biochar or increase of microbial biomass

with the addition of biochar and zeolite. Combined application of biochar and

zeolite significantly increased soil organic matter. Biochar used in this experiment

contain 63 % of carbon. Increase in soil carbon ultimately increase organic matter,

therefore carbon content of biochar might be responsible for increase in organic

matter content. Increase in organic matter content of soil was attributed to the

unstable (decomposable) friction of organic C present in applied biochar (Bruun et

al., 2008). Change in soil organic matter content in biochar amended soil was

explained by Wardle et al. (2008), who found that addition of biochar increased

microbial decomposition of plant litter by providing sufficient amount of water and

nutrients for microbial activities. Bouajila and Gallali, (2008) observed that

resistivity of soil organic matter against decomposition rely on density of various

frictions of carbon comprising SOM. Therefore, addition of biochar helps to

increase carbon, which is the main component of organic matter in soil.

4.2.3.4 Total nitrogen

Nitrogen plays an important role in vegetative growth of crops. It is one of

the most limiting factors in crop growth. Nitrogen helps to increase total biomass

and it also affect protein synthesis by plant (Blumenthal et al., 2008). Nitrogen (N)

contents were determined at soil depths of 0-15 cm. According to the data analysis

shown in Table 4.2.3.4, it was found that application at the rate of 3, 6 and 9

tons/ha of biochar has increased total nitrogen from 1.21-1.49 mg/kg, 1.21-1.73

113

113

mg/kg and 1.21-2.54 mg/kg respectively, dring first year and 1.30-1.63 mg/kg,

1.30-1.87 g/kg and 1.30-2.59 mg/kg respectively, during second year. Maximum

amount of total nitrogen was observed in treatment B9 (9 tons/ha) with 99-109 %

increase over control in both experimental years. Whereas, sole zeolite treatment Z1

(1 ton/ha) has increased soil total nitrogen from 0.91- 1.52 mg/kg and 1.16-1.48

mg/kg, treatment Z3 (3 tons/ha) from 0.91- 1.67 g/kg and 1.16-1.69 mg/kg and

treatment Z5 (5 tons/ha) has increased soil total nitrogen from 0.91- 2.86 mg/kg and

1.16-3.09 mg/kg in both experimental years. Maximum increase in total nitrogen

(2.86 mg/kg and 3.09 mg/kg) was observed in Z5 treatment and minimum (0.91

mg/kg and 1.16 mg/kg) was observed in control in both experimental years.

Interactive effect of biochar and zeolite was also significant during both

experimental years. Maximum soil total nitrogen was observed in treatment B9Z5 (9

tons/ha of biochar and 5 tons/ha of zeolite) with 447 % increase over control in first

year and 483 % increase in second year over control. Increase in soil total nitrogen

was might be due to charged surface, high porosity and nutrient retention properties

of biochar and zeolite. These results are in line with Widowati et al. (2011) who

found that biochar influence the pattern of nitrogen release from urea fertilizer. In

addition, Biochar slow down the transformation of N-NH4 to N-NO3 the net

negative charge on biochar generated by carboxylic and phenolic group absorb N-

NH4 and reduced leaching of nitrogen. According to Liang et al. (2006), the

physiochemical properties of biochar like high surface area, ion exchange capacity

and porosity contribute in sorption of nutrients and release them slowly Addition of

biochar also has the ability to increase nitrogen mobilization in the soil (Gaskin et

al., 2010). Biochar has the potential to adsorb NH3+ and NH4

+ ions and

114

114

Table4.2.3.4: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on total Nitrogen (mg/kg)









Biochar Control 1.21 c 1.30 c

B3 1.49 bc 1.63 b

B6 1.73 b 1.87 b

B9 2.54 a* 2.59 a*


Z1 1.52 b 1.48 b

Z3 1.69 b 1.67 b

Z5 2.86 a* 3.09 a*


B0 0.63 e 0.80 de 0.78 e 2.66 ab

B3 0.93 de 0.92 de 1.42 c-e 2.71 ab

B6 0.90 de 1.59 cd 1.79 c 2.63 b

B9 1.17 c-e 2.77 ab 2.77 ab 3.45 a*


B0 0.65 g 0.78 fg 0.94 e-g 2.84 b

B3 0.85 e-g 1.27 d-f 1.53 d 2.87 b

B6 1.36 de 1.57 d 1.69 d 2.85 b

B9 1.78 cd 2.30 bc 2.51 b 3.79 a*

115

115

make it available for microbial use (Lehmann et al., 2006). Nitrogen leaching is

one of the major drawbacks, which increase the cost of production, with the

application of zeolite nitrogen leaching was found to be reduced (Torma et al.,

2014). Biochar has the ability to increase cation exchange capacity of soil, which

enhances ammonia retention (Liang et al., 2006). Also it contain high carbon

content which can enhance soil carbon, beside this biochar enhance soil fertility by

adding nutrients, increase water retention capacity of soil and sequester carbon in

low fertile soils (Yeboah et al., 2009). Whereas, zeolite also helps to reduce loss of

nitrogen through leaching because NH4+got fixed on lattice structure of zeolite and

released it slowly with the passage of time (Vilcek et al., 2013). Clinoptilolite

zeolite due to its high cation exchange capacity and slow release of nutrients

enhances nutrient (NPK) uptake and fertilizer use efficiency Polat et al. (2004).

Zeolite applied with the nitrogen fertilizer (urea) has the potential to increase

fertilizer use efficiency (Rehakova et al. 2004). Inglezakis, (2004) observed that

clinoptilolite zeolite have a great potential to retain NH4 due to higher value of

CEC. Similarly Latifah et al. (2011) found that use of zeolite with urea fertilizer

reduces ammonia loss, increase accumulation of exchangeable ammonium and

nitrate ions available for plant use. Ammonia losses from surface application of

nitrogen based fertilizers (e.g. Urea fertilizer) could be reduced positively by mixed

application of zeolite.

4.2.3.5 Available phosphorous

Phosphorous is one of the essential nutrients required by the plant for

optimum growth and reproduction. Deficiency of phosphorous can cause serious

constraints for crop like delayed maturity, reduced biological yield and decreasedin

116

116

disease resistance (Better crops, 1999). On the basis of the data collected

significant increase in available phosphorous was observed with biochar and zeolite

sole and combine application as shown in Table 4.2.3.5. In sole biochar application

available phosphorous was increased from 67-198 % over control in first

experimental year while 67-179 % over control in second experimental year.

Maximum (6.29 mg/kg and 6.79 mg/kg) increase was observed in treatment with 9

tons/ha of biochar and minimum (2.55 mg/kg and 2.79 mg/kg) was observed in

control in both experimental years. In case of zeolite application at the rate of 1, 3

and 5 tons/ha has increased available phosphorus by 56 to 128 % over control

during first year and 72 to 132 % in second year over control. In combine

application of biochar and zeolite,maximum increase in available P (9.40 mg/kg

and 9.57 kg/kg) was recorded in B9Z5 treatment with 494 % and 541 % relative

increase over control. Which was statistically at par with the treatment B9Z3 and

minimum available P (1.48 mg/kg and 1.58 mg/kg) was recorded in control in both

experimental years. Over all it was observed that combine treatment performed

better than sole treatments. Biochar and zeolite due to their porosity and net

negative surface charge might be responsible for this increase. These negatively

charged particles help to retain varietyof nutrients along with moisture. It helps in

enhancing nutrient and moisture level in soil (Verheijen et al., 2010). According to

the findings of Limeiet al. (2014), it was concluded that with the addition of

biochar the available phosphorous increase from 3-46 mg/kg and 13-137 mg/kg in

soil. During pyrolysis the phosphorus present in biomass feedstock remain in the

charred material because phosphorus ’ volatilizes until pyrolysis temperature

reached to 700 oC, leaving behind the P content in biochar (Knoepp et al., 2005).

117

117

Table 4.2.3.5: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on available phosphorous

(mg/kg) in soil










B3 4.27 c 4.67 c

B6 6.29 b 6.74 b

B9 7.62 a* 7.79 a*


Z1 4.79 c 5.41 c

Z3 5.89 b 6.13 b

Z5 6.98 a* 7.31 a*


B0 1.58 h 1.81 h 2.41 g 4.40 e

B3 2.55 g 3.43 f 4.38 e 6.70 c

B6 2.73 g 7.52 b 7.49 b 7.41 b

B9 5.37 d 6.42 c 9.27 a 9.40 a*


B0 1.48 i 2.44 h 2.64 gh 4.60 f

B3 2.66 gh 4.71 f 4.52 f 6.80 d

B6 2.93 g 7.88 c 7.83 c 8.35 b

B9 5.51 e 6.63 d 9.49a 9.57a*

118

118

Increase in available phosphorous (Olsen-P) with the application of biochar is due

to the phosphorous content present in ash. Anion exchange capacity of biochar also

contributes in increasing Olsen-P by influencing the activity of cations, which

interact with P (DeLuca et al., 2009). Biochar produced at low temperature have

more C-H and C=O functional groups. When these functional groups get oxidized

they create more exchange sites for nutrients e.g. N, P, K, Mg, Ca etc (Glaser et al.,

2002). One of the possible reasons for increase in P availability is addition of

biochar, which favor microbial activities in soil (Phosphorous mobilization,

phosphorous solubilization) to demineralized organic phosphorous to inorganic

form (Opala et al., 2012). Concentration of phosphorous can be increased with the

application of clinoptilolite zeolite because it contains phosphorous in the form of

P2O (Mumpton, 1999). Clinoptilolite zeolite with its high cation exchange capacity

conserves nitrogen and increases phosphorous uptake (Ramesh et al., 2011). It can

enhance fertilizer use efficiency by increasing availability of Phosphorus, nitrogen,

calcium and magnesium (Abdi et al., 2006).

4.2.3.6 Extractable potassium

Potassium has its own importance in plant life cycle. Data regarding

extractable potassium is shown in Table 4.2.3.6. Significant (P=0.00) difference

was observed with sole and combine application of biochar and zeolite along with

chemical fertilizer. In sole biochar treatments B3, B6 and B9, extractable potassium

(K) showed increase of 37, 104 and 180 % over control in first year while 36, 85

and 162 % over control in second year. Whereas sole zeolite treatments Z1, Z3 and

119

119

Z5 showed increase of 112, 145 and 200 % in first year over control and 114, 171

and 226 % in second year over control. Results regarding integrated application of

biochar and zeolite showed reletive increase of 543 % in first year over control

followed by treatment B9Z3 and B9Z1 duringfirst year while in second year B9Z5

showed increase of 654 % over control followed by treatment B9Z3. Increase in K

availability might be because of biochar and zeolite reduces nutrient leaching and

increase fertilizer use efficiency. As Potassium is one of the primary nutrients,

which is abundantly required by the plant because it is involved in many

physiological processes, e.g. photosynthesis, enzyme activation and assimilate

transport. One of the important functions of potassium is that it has tendency to

maintain turgidity of stomata cell during water stress (William, 2008). Wheat crop

is sensitive to K and its deficiency causes decreased in dry matter accumulation and

grain yield (Abdullahil et al., 2006). According to Larid et al. (2010), there is a

two-way increase in exchangeable K level of soil increases through K addition,

which is present in ash of applied biochar and by reducing the leaching of K from

soil profile. Addition of biochar may also increase availability of other cations like

Ca+ and Mg

+. These results were found to be similar with Lehmann et al. (2003)

who found that biochar has ability to reduce potassium loss from soil. In general,

Pakistani soils contain sufficient amount of potassium mineral but due to intense

cropping K is depleting from the soil. Biochar amendment to soil can improve plant

available potassium because (i) Ash content in biochar contain some friction of K

mineral in it, (ii) Net negative charge on biochar surface has the ability to retain K

in top soil (iii) biochar being a porous material has the ability to retain moisture

which can help in increasing plant available potassium. When we talk about

120

120

Table 4.2.3.6: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on extractable potassium

(mg/kg) in soil.










B3 65.99 c 71.44 c

B6 98.46 b 97.03 b

B9 136.71 a* 137.55 a*

Zeolite Control 40.74 c 39.31 d

Z1 86.24 b 84.31 c

Z3 99.88 b 106.85 b

Z5 122.57 a* 128.04 a*

Biochar*Zeolite Year 1 z0 z1 z3 z5

B0 28.21 f 32.02 ef 62.63 de 70.23 d

B3 32.54 ef 51.59 d-f 69.61 d 110.20 c

B6 37.35 d-f 112.02 c 115.93 c 128.55 bc

B9 64.87 de 149.33 ab 151.35 ab 181.29 a*


B0 24.65 h 33.81 gh 68.68 e-g 82.79 d-f

B3 30.61 gh 58.70 f-h 88.67 d-f 107.78 c-e

B6 32.47 gh 107.05c-e 112.85 cd 135.76 bc

B9 69.49e-g 137.69 bc 157.20 ab 185.81 a*

121

121

addition of zeolite, it also has some impacts on plant available K i-e (i) zeolite with

its unique 3D crystalline structure have a net negative charge on it, which can hold

k+ ions on its surface and results in enhanced k availability, (ii) moisture

conservation ability of zeolite could be the possible in reason in increasing k

availability in soil. Orha et al. (2015) reported that zeolite can be used to increase

potassium use efficiency in soil and can help in better growth of cereal crops

(wheat, oat etc).

4.2.3.7 Total magnesium

Magnesium is one of the essential micronutrient, which is involved in many

physiological changes occurring in plant due to its high mobility. It can help plant

to increase tolerance under stress conditions (Gransee and Fuhrs, 2013; Li et al.,

2001). On the basis of analysis of variance of the (two-years) data collected shown

in Table 4.2.3.7, it was found that sole biochar treatments at the rate of 3, 6 and 9

tons/ha has increased total magnesium by 1.72 to 16.3 % in first year over control

and 1.9 to 19.2 % respectively, during second year over control. In sole zeolite

application at the rate of 1, 3 and 5 tons/ha soil total magnesium was increased by

3.9 to 17.7 % during first year over control and 7.6 to 17.1 % during second year

over control. In Combined application of biochar and zeolite treatment B9Z5

significantly enhanced total magnesium by 37 % and 47.6 % in both experimental

years over control. Maximum quantity of total magnesium (15.5 mg/kg and 13.4

mg/kg) was recorded in treatment B9Z5 in both experimental years and minimum

(11.3 mg/kg and 9.2 mg/kg) was found in control. Increase in soil magnesium was

might be due to porous structure of biochar and zeolite at different rates. Kacar and

Katkat, (2007) narrates by criticizing on chemical fertilizers that the

122

122

Table 4.2.3.7: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on total magnesium

(mg/kg) in soil.









Biochar Control 11.6 b 10.4 c

B3 11.8 b 10.6 c

B6 13.3 a 11.9 b

B9 13.5 a* 12.4 a*

Zeolite Control 11.8 b 10.5 c

Z1 12.2 b 11.3 b

Z3 12.2 b 11.2 b

Z5 13.9 a* 12.3 a*


B0 11.3 e 11.5 e 11.5 de 12.3 c-e

B3 11.7 c-e 11.4 e 11.6 c-e 12.6 b-d

B6 11.6 c-e 12.5 b-d 13.4 b 15.4 a

B9 12.6 bc 13.6 b 12.2 c-e 15.5 a*


B0 9.2 k 10.5 ij 10.8 g-i 11.1 f-h

B3 10.4 ij 10.7 hi 10.1 j 11.3 e-g

B6 10.8 g-i 11.8 b-d 11.4 d-f 13.5 a*

B9 11.8 c-e 12.2 bc 12.3 b 13.4 a

123

123

modern chemical fertilizers do not contain magnesium. Therefore, high

concentration of K+

and NH4+ ions competes with Mg

+ions and inhibit its uptake by

the crop. In this regard, Abdi et al. (2006) determined that application of zeolite has

ability to increase fertilizer use efficiency by increasing availability of phosphorus,

nitrogen, calcium and magnesium. Whereas, Biochar has the potential to

accumulate cations (normally salts) and reduce leaching process in soil (Laird et

al., 2010).

4.2.3.8 Organic carbon

Soil organic carbon (Friction of decomposed organic matter) is associated

with soil organic matter. Table 4.2.3.8 shows that with the addition of biochar at

the rate of 3, 6 and 9 tons/ha organic carbon was significantly increased by 6.8, 60

and 139 % during first year over control and 26, 70.1 and 135.4 % during second

year. Maximum increase in soil organic carbon (10.10 mg/kg) was observed in

treatment B9 with 9 tons/ha of biochar in both experimental years. Zeolite

treatments with 1, 3 and 5 tons/ha has increased soil organic carbon by 18.8, 19 and

25 % in first year over control and 7.8, 14.7 and 16.6 % during second year over

control. In combine biochar and zeolite treatments maximum (10.75 mg/kg and

10.73 mg/kg) soil organic carbon was observed in treatment B9Z5 with 160 %

increase over control followed by treatment B9Z3 and B9Z1 with 157 % and 146 %

in first year. In second year B9Z5 showed increase of 167 % over control followed

by treatment B9Z3 and B9Z1 with 165 % and 160 % increase and minimum (4.13

mg/kg and 4.02 mg/kg) was found in control. Biochar, which is rich in carbon

content, might be responsible for increase in soil organic carbon. In addition, the

porous structure of biochar and zeolite provides refuge

124

124

Table 4.2.3.8: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on organic carbon (mg/kg)

in soil










B3 4.50 c 5.42 c

B6 6.74 b 7.30 b

B9 10.10 a* 10.10 a*


Z1 6.55 b 6.65 bc

Z3 6.57 b 7.08 ab

Z5 6.89 a* 7.20 a*


B0 4.13 g 4.22 fg 4.26 fg 4.22 fg

B3 4.89 e 4.16 g 4.18 fg 4.76 ef

B6 4.29 fg 7.63 cd 7.18 d 7.87 c

B9 8.74 b 10.20 a 10.65 a 10.75 a*


B0 4.02 h 4.10 gh 4.22 f-h 4.83 e-h

B3 5.06 d-f 5.01 d-g 5.66 de 5.95 d

B6 7.06 c 7.06 c 7.79 bc 7.30 c

B9 8.59 b 10.44 a 10.65 a 10.73 a*

125

125

for soil microbes to grow their colonies in soil, ultimately increasing microbial

biomass which contributes in enhancing soil organic carbon. Soil organic carbon

(SOC) can act as a source and sink at the same time for nutrients and help to

maintain soil fertility status of the soil (Bationo et al., 2006). Soil organic carbon

also helps to improve water retention ability of soil, which promotes plant growth

(Rawls et al., 2003). Aminiyan et al. (2016) reported increase in carbon

sequestration by increasing organic carbon in the soil. These results are also

supported by Verheijen et al. (2010), who reported establishment of microbial

colonies in porous structure of biochar and provide them protection against grazing

by other microorganisms, which cannot enter into micro pores because of their

large size result in enhanced carbon mineralization. Increase in soil organic carbon

in biochar amended soil might be due to its resistance against microbial decay

which retains it in soil rather than releasing it into atmosphere in the form of carbon

dioxide (Lehmann, 2007). Therefore, biochar has a great potential to increase soil

organic carbon and act as a source for sequestration of soil carbon (Sukartono et

al., 2011). These results were supported by Wardle et al. (2008), who found that

addition of biochar in soil resulted in better growth of microbial community, which

positively affected biochar carbon and soil carbon mineralization. Increase in soil

carbon sequestration for longer period of time is due to recalcitrant nature of

biochar (Novak et al., 2009).

4.2.3.9 Total carbon

Soil is thought to be the largest carbon reservoir as compared to biotic and

atmospheric reservoirs pools (Lal, 2004). On the basis of analysis of variance of

data collected significant increase in total carbon was found in both years as shown

126

126

Table 4.2.3.9: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on total carbon in soil

(mg/kg)










B3 6.49 c 6.39 c

B6 8.35 b 8.52 b

B9 11.87 a* 12.10 a*

Zeolite Control 7.20 b 7.69 c

Z1 8.19 a 8.06 b

Z3 8.38 a 8.19 ab

Z5 8.40 a* 8.44 a*

Biochar*Zeolite Year 1 z0 z1 z3 z5

B0 5.21 h 5.31 gh 5.52 gh 5.74 fg

B3 6.65 e 6.53 e 6.56 e 6.19 ef

B6 6.32 e 8.67 d 9.15 cd 9.28 c

B9 10.60 b 12.24 a 12.28 a 12.37 a*


B0 5.45 e 5.20 e 5.37 e 5.43 e

B3 6.37 d 6.17 d 6.31 d 6.70 d

B6 8.43 c 8.44 c 8.53 c 8.69 c

B9 10.52 b 12.43 a 12.56 a 12.92 a*

127

127

in Table 4.2.3.9. Biochar treatment B3 showed increase of 19 to 19.2 %, treatment

B6 by 53 to 60 % and treatment B9 by 118 to 126 % over control in both

experimental years. While sole zeolite treatments Z1, Z3 and Z5 showed increase of

14, 16 and 17 % over control in first year and 5, 7 and 10 % in second year over

control . In combine application treatment with 9 tons/ha of biochar and 5 tons/ha

of zeolite showed significant increase as compare to other sole and combine

treatments. Maximum (12.4 mg/kg and 12.9 mg/kg) increase was observed in

treatment B9Z5 with 137 % increase in both experimental, which was statistically at

par with treatment B9Z3 and B9Z1. Minimum quantity of total carbon in soil (5.21

mg/kg and 5.45 mg/kg) was observed in control. Mainly, there are two possibilities

for increase in total carbon content in soil, which are addition of biochar containing

black carbon, and increase in microbial biomass with application of biochar and

zeolite. Soil carbon can be categorized as stable and unstable carbon in terms of

resistivity against soil physical, chemical and biological factors. Most of unstable

(labile carbon) belong to organic matter and carbon sequestration through

biological activities while stable carbon belongs to lithogenic, pedogenic and

pyrogenic origin of soil (Krasilnikov, 2015). Carbon sequestration is a process of

capturing and storing it into soil profile. Pyrolysis of biomass can sequester

approximately 50 % of carbon present in feedstock. Addition of biochar

significantly increases carbon content of terrestrial ecosystem and carbon can be

sequester for 5-10 year in soil with little decomposition (Lehmann et al., 2006).

Collins, (2008) reported that biochar derived from biomass approximately contains

60-80 % of carbon. It was assumed that application of 1 t/ha of biochar (derived

from herbaceous and woody feedstock) has the potential to deposit 0.61-0.80

128

128

tons/ha of carbon in soil. According to Ascough et al. (2011) Aromaticity is one of

the key property, which is responsible for recalcitrance nature of biochar and

enhance the resistivity of carbon against decomposition. Whereas, Milad and

Abdolreza, (2014) found increased in soil organic carbon with the addition of

zeolite mix with crop residues.


Bulk density is a measure of compaction of the soil. Seed germination, root

penetration, aeration, porosity, moisture content and microbial activities depends

upon bulk density of the soil. In this field experiment, it was found that bulk

density was significantly improved with the application of biochar and zeolite as

shown in Table 4.2.3.10. Application of biochar at the rate of 3, 6 and 9 tons/ha has

significantly decreased soil bulk density by 0.9, 2 and 3% in first year and 0.4, 1.7

and 2.7 % respectively, in second year over control. Whereas sole zeolite treatment

Z1, Z3 and Z5 also significantly decreased soil bulk density by 1, 1.3 and 1.7 % in

first year and 0.9, 1.3 and 1.9 % respectively in second year over control.

Maximum decrease of 4.2 % in was observed in treatment B9Z5 in both

experimental years whereas minimum decrease was observed in control.

Application of biochar significantly decreased bulk density of soil Chen et al.

(2011). Increase in soil compaction can be reduced by incorporating biochar into

the soil which lower bulk density, improve CEC, pH and water holding capacity of

soil David et al. (2010). Soil physical properties including structure, soil

aerationand pore size distribution can be altered by using biochar, which enhance

129

129

Table 4.2.3.10: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on bulk density (g/cm3)

of soil.









Biochar Control 1.499 a 1.498 a

B3 1.486 b 1.487 b

B6 1.468 c 1.473 c

B9 1.453 d* 1.458 d*


Z1 1.477 b 1.481 b

Z3 1.472 bc 1.476 c

Z5 1.467 c* 1.466 d*


B0 1.503 a 1.500 ab 1.497 a-c 1.467 a-c

B3 1.503 a 1.487 cd 1.480 de 1.473 e

B6 1.490 b-d 1.460 fg 1.470 ef 1.453 gh

B9 1.470 ef 1.460 fg 1.443 h i 1.440 i*


B0 1.503 a 1.500 ab 1.497 a-c 1.494 b-d

B3 1.500 ab 1.490 c-e 1.487 de 1.474 f

B6 1.497 a-c 1.470 f 1.470 f 1.457 gh

B9 1.484 e 1.460 g 1.450 h 1.440 i*

130

130

Work ability of soil (Downie et al., 2009). Biochar has very low bulk density

(approximately 0.3 g/cm3) as compared to ’

application of biochar reduced the bulk density of the soil which is favorable for

soil aeration, water retention and root penetration. All these mechanisms promote

plant growth (Brady and Weil, 2004). Incorporation of biochar to soil haspositively

reduced bulk density of soil, which facilitated different activities in soil for better

crop (Laird et al., 2010).

4.2.3.11 Water holding capacity (WHC)

According to the observation significant (p=0.00) difference in WHC was

found with biochar and zeolite amendments as shown in Table 4.2.3.11. In both

experimental years biochar treatment B3 has improved soil water holding capacity

by 8 to 8.5 %, treatment B6 by 17.2 to 17.3 % and treatment B9 by 24 to 33 % over

control. In sole zeolite treatments Z1, Z3 and Z5 soil waster holding capacity was

improved by 9.3, 13.4 and 18.6 % during first year and 8.1, 12.5 and 19.8 % during

second year over control. In combine application of biochar and zeolite maximum

water holding capacity was observed in treatment B9Z5 with 39 % and 39.5 % in

both experimental years over control. Minimum water holding capacity was

observed in control. It was observed that addition of biochar and zeolite at differ

doses has significantly increased water holding capacity of soil. Increase in water

holding capacity was might be because of porous structure and hydrophilic nature

of biochar and zeolite particles, which improve soil aggregation and soil porosity.

These results are similar to Basso et al. (2013) who found increase in water holding

capacity of sandy loam soil amended with biochar. Biochar due to its porous

131

131

structure improved permeability of water in soil and enhanced water holding

capacity (Asai et al., 2009). Increase in soil moisture content of dry land soil was

observed with the addition of biochar under wheat crop (Blackwell et al., 2010).

Application of biochar increases porosity of soil, which ultimately increased

moisture retention (Chan et al., 2007). Increase in moisture retention ability of soil

is thought to be the indirect effect of biochar application, which improve

aggregation, and structure of soil (Brodowski et al., 2006). Soil aggregation is one

of the key factor effecting porosity, water movement and carbon sequestration in

soil profile (Nichols et al., 2004). Biochar has the ability to increase aggregation

stability of soil because oxidized carboxylic acid groups at the surface of biochar

particles interact with minerals to form complexes (Glaser et al., 2002). Soil

Moisture retention depend upon connectivity and distribution of pore spaces in soil

matrix, while connectivity and distribution of pore spaces depend upon number of

factors including organic matter content, texture and aggregation. Soil Minerals and

organic matter undergoes various chemical reactions on the surface of biochar

might lower the biochar surface area at molecular level and act as binding agent for

soil aggregation (Liang et al., 2006). High porosity and surface area of biochar

enables it to enhance soil aggregation and texture which positively affect water

retention capacity of soil (Brady and Weil, 2004). Soil texture and structure

influence water holding capacity of the soil (Nimmo, 1997). Biochar soil

amendment is related to the distribution of micro, meso and macro pores in

rhizosphere. Water and nutrient get stored in the pore spaces of biochar and

become available in dry spell (Verheinjin et al., 2009). Increase in soil water

content is also associated with the increasing rate of zeolite application (Al-Busaidi

132

132

Table 4.2.3.11: Impact of biochar and zeolite amendment on soil water holding

capacity(%)










B3 38.8 c 40.6 c

B6 42.1 b 43.9 b

B9 44.3 a* 46.5 a*


Z1 39.9 c 41.3 c

Z3 41.4 b 43.0 b

Z5 43.3 a* 45.8 a*


B0 34.6 k 35.1 jk 35.4 i-k 38.9 gh

B3 35.6 ij 38.3 h 40.4 ef 41.2 e

B6 36.3 i 43.3 d 43.8 d 45.0 c

B9 39.6 fg 43.2 d 46.2 b 48.1 a*


B0 35.4 i 35.7 i 37.5 h 40.9 f

B3 36.1 i 39.1 g 41.0 f 45.1 c

B6 38.5 h 44.1 d 45.2 c 47.6 b

B9 42.8 e 45.7 c 48.2 b 49.4 a*

133

133

et al., 2008). Zeolite has the ability to increase water holding capacity and decrease

water runoff (Ghazavi, 2015). Zeolite can be added into soil to improve physical to

plants (Bernardi et al., 2008). Zeolite minerals are very beneficial for agricultural

use because they have high adsorption ability, high CEC that enables them to retain

water in free channels (Mumpton, 1999).

4.3 IMPACT OF BIOCHAR AND ZEOLITE ON EMISSION OF GREEN

HOUSE GASES FROM TREATED SOIL

A labortary experiment was performed to determine the impact of biochar

and zeolite on emission of volatile compounds (Ammonia, Carbon dioxide and

Methane) from soil.

4.3.1 Impact of Biochar and Zeolite on Emission of Ammonia, Methane and

Carbon Dioxide from Soil

According to the data collected as shown in Figure 4.3.1 (a), 4.3.1 (b) and

4.3.1 (c) it was observed that that overall emission of ammonia and methane was

significantly decreased while emission of carbon dioxide was increased.Sole

application of biochar at the rate of 9 tons/ha along with chemical fertilizer has

reduced the ammonia emission by 62 % while sole application of zeolite at the rate

of 5 tons/ha has reduced ammonia emission by 59 %. Whereas combined

application of biochar and zeolite at the rate of 9 tons/ha and 5 tons/ha has reduced

the ammonia emission by 72 %. Biochar at the rate of 9 tons/ha has increased

carbon dioxide emission by 62 % and zeolite at the rate of 5 tons/ha has increased

carbon dioxide emission by 17 %.Combine application of biochar and zeolite also

134

134

significantly enhanced carbon dioxide emission by 70 %. In case of methane

emission it was observed that Biochar at the rate of 9 tons/ha has significantly

reduced methane emission by 15 % and zeolite at the rate of 5 tons/ha by 13 %.

Interaction of biochar and zeolite was found significant in reducing methane

emission. It was observed that methane emission was decreased by 36 % in

treatment B9Z5.

Emission of ammonia was decreased because biochar and zeolite due to

their structure and charge (net negative charge) has the ability to absorb ammonia.

Decrease in methane emission was due to increase aeration of the soil. While

increase carbon dioxide emission might resulted due to the decomposition of native

soil organic matter (priming effect), lebil carbon mineralization and enhanced

aeration, which facilitate respiration of microbial biomass in soil. Soil is thought to

be a source of biogeneric emission of organic volatile compounds. Microbial and

plant (plant roots) activities in soil decomposed organic matter and litter which

results in emission of organic volatile compounds into atmosphers (Penuelas et al.,

2014). Emission of volatile compounds depends upon the presence of volatile

compounds in the soil, microbial biomass, and rate of soil respiration (Mancuso et

al., 2015). Production of biochar through biomass was found to be effective way to

dispose residual biomass and help to reduce green house gas (GHG) emission

(Lehmann and Joseph, 2009). N2O and CH4 are two main components of green

house gases, which are associated with agriculture sector. Field crops and grazing

lands are the main source of N2O emission, while decomposition of animal waste

(Farmyard manure, poultry waste) and carbohydrates in the digestive system of

animals (ruminants) is the basic source of CH4 emission. Addition of biochar to soil

135

135

Figure 4.3.1 (a): Effect of biochar and zeolite on Ammonia emission from soil

Figure 4.3.1 (b): Effect of biochar and zeolite on CO2 emission from soil

Figure 4.3.1(c): Effect of biochar and zeolite on CH4emission from soil

a

bc b c

d d

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

B0Z0 B9 Z5 B3Z5 B6Z5 B9Z5

pp

m

Treatments

Ammonia

d

ab

c

d

b

a

150170190210230250270290310330350

B0Z0 B9 Z5 B3Z5 B3Z5 B095

pp

m

Treatments

Carbon dioxide

a

bc b cd d

e

0

5

10

15

20

25

B0Z0 B9 Z5 B3Z5 B6Z5 B9Z5

pp

m

Treatments

Methane

136

136

tends to reduce ammonification by reducing the ammonia volatilization due to its

adsorbent nature (Gundale and DeLuca, 2006). Application of zeolite facilitate

nitrogen uptake, enhance nitrogen uptake efficiency, increase production of dry

matter and reduce ammonia volatilization (He et al., 2002). Increase in carbon

dioxide emission was might be due to increase in microbial activities in soil with

biochar addition (Wardle et al., 2008). Addition of 2 % w/w of biochar has the

potential to significantly reduced methane emission. Further, it was explained that

reduction in methane emission is due increased soil aeration (with biochar and

zeolite amendments, soil porosity and aeration increase due to porous structure),

which discourage mechanism of methanogenesis (anaerobic condition for methane

production) (Lehman and Rondon, 2005).

4.4 ECONOMICAL ANALYSIS

4.4.1 Benifit Cost Ratio

Economic analysis is a scientific approachto identify optimum use of

available resources and enhance profit in term of money. In this regard BCR was

calcuated by keeping in view the cost of inputs (Seed bed prepration, application of

biochar and zeolite, fertilizers, seeds, herbicides, use of agri equipments/machinary,

labor, harvesting and transportation charges) and outputs (Wheat straw and grains).

According to the observations made in two-year field experiment shown in Figure

4.4.1, treatment B0Z0 showed the highest benifit cost ratio of 2.7 followed by B9

and lowest (0.9) was found in B9Z5 treatment during first year. All other sole and

combine treatments with 3, 6 and 9 tons/ha of biochar and 1, 3 and 5 tons/ha of

137

137

zeolite have low benifit cost ratio than control. Extra cost of biochar and zeolite

were responsible for low BCR in treated soil when compared to control (B0Z0). In

second year highest benefit cost ratio (3.5) was observed in treatment B9Z5

followed by treatment B9Z3 and B9Z1 and the lowest BCR (2.8) was found in

control. Increase in BCR during second year was due to increase in economical

yield and excluding the input cost of biochar and zeolite (Zeolite and biochar

treatments were applied once in year 2013 before start of experiment). On the basis

of this experiment, it was suggested that biochar and zeolite use is fesible for small

to large scale farming to maximize crop production. Clinoptililite zeolite is widely

used in agriculture due to its availibility (huge deposits in nature), low price and

unique physiochemical chracteristics. Application of biochar and zeolite conserve

moisture and nutrients.Which ultimately reduce cost of production and enhance

economical yield of a crop. In this regard DeLuca and DeLuca, (1997) found that

zeolite due to its physical and chemical properties help to retain nutrients in top soil

and reduce nutrient leaching. It increases the fertilizer use efficiency and reduced

(input) cost of crop production.

138

138

Figure 4.4.1 Impact of biochar and zeolite treatments on benefit cost ratio

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

B0Z0 B3 B6 B9 Z1 Z3 Z5 B3Z1 B3Z3 B3Z5 B6Z1 B6Z3 B6Z5 B9Z1 B9Z3 B9Z5

BC

R

Treatments

Year 1 Year 2

139

139

SUMMARY

Series of experimental studies were conducted in year 2013-14 and 2014-15

including pot experiment in glass house at Department of Agronomy (PMAS-

AAUR). Field experiment was conducted at North Pothwar region of Punjab,

Pakistan (Koont Research Farm) to explore the effect of biochar and zeolite on

wheat yield and soil properties. A Lab experiment was also carried out at Cranfield

University, United Kingdom to determine the emission of ammonia, coarbon

dioxide and methane from soil with and without application of biochar and zeolite.

Experimental soil was amended (Sole and all possible combinations) with Dalbergi

a sissoo wood biochar (B) and Clinoptilolite zeolite (Z). Wheat (Triticum aestivum

L.) variety Chakwal-50 was sown on 15 October 2013 and 2014 with seed rate of

130 kg/ha by using randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three

replications. Recommended rate of NPK (150:100:60) fertilizers was used and all

other cultural practices were kept normal. The result of two-year glass house

experiments showed that the highest plant height (85 cm) was recorded B9 during

second when compared with other treatments. Similarly, zeolite sole treatments

increased plant height by 3-7 and 4-9 %. Maximum leaf area (26 and 32 cm2)was

recorded in B9Z5 and minimum was observed in control (18 cm2) during first and

second year of experiment. Treatment B9Z5 showed 9-14 % increase in biomass

over control followed by B9Z3 and B9Z1 in two years. Treatment B3 and B6 has

increased grain yield by 16 and 25 % as compared to control during the first year.

Similar results were recorded during the second year. Increase in wheat grain yield

was observed 6-15 and 13-22 % during 1st and 2

nd year respectively by different

doses of zeolite. The H.I has increased by 15-26 % and 6-15 % with the application

139

140

140

of biochar in first and second year. Maximum H.I (34 %) was observed in soil

treated with B9Z3, which was 37 % higher than control during first year. While in

second year, H.I was 32.8 % in treatment B9Z5. Maximum increase in SPAD value

(38.5 and 39.3) of chlorophyll content and stomatal conductance (0.45mol m-2

s-1

and 0.46 mol m-2

s-1

) was determined in treatment B9Z5. Significantly, lower proline

accumulations (46 to 53 %) were recorded in B9Z5 treatment over control in two

years. Furthermore, maximum (7.51 and 7.43) increase in soil pH was recorded in

B9Z5 with 0.2 units increase in first year and 0.09 units increase in second year.

Maximum bulk density (1.50 g/cm3) was found in control and the minimum (1.44

g/cm3) bulk density was found in B9Z5 treatment followed by B9Z3 and B9Z1, with

respect to control. Maximum soil moisture retention of 27.5 % in first year and 29

% during second year was recorded in B9Z5, where minimum soil moisture was

found in control with 7.4 % and 7 % in both experimental years on the 16th

day

after irrigation on w/w basis. Results were found non-significant for FTSW.

Two-year field experiment revealed that maximum plant height (96.7 and

97.6 cm), spike length (12.5 and 13.4 cm), Numbers of spikelets (11-16), number

of grains (41 and 48), 1000 grain weight (49.9 g), grain filling rate (0.061 g day-

1and 0.061 g day

-1), number of tillers (250 and 289) were found in treatment B9Z5

in both experimental years. Maximum increase (21 and 25%) in biological yield

was observed in B9Z5 treatment over control followed by treatment B9Z3 in both

experimental years. Grain yield was increased by 9-25 % and 16-32 % was

observed with sole biochar application during both years over control where as in

sole zeolite (1, 3 and 5 tons/ha) treatments, maximum increase of 6-22 % was

observed in both experimental years. Maximum (11.13 % and 11.58 % ) grain

141

141

protein was observed in treatment B9Z5 with 5 % increase in first year and 9 %

increase in second year where as minimum (10.60 % and 10.61 %) was observed in

control in both experimental years. Treatment B9Z5 showed the maximum increase

(2.8 % during first year and 0.8 % during second year) in soil pH but it showed a

slight decline during second year. Maximum electrical conductivity (74.1 and 74.7

ms/m) was recorded in treatment B9Z5 with 80 % and 69 % increase in both years.

Maximum soil organic matter (1.23 % and 1.25 %) was observed in treatment

B9Z5and minimum (0.41 % and 0.42 %) was recorded in control during both

experimental years. In combine application of biochar and zeolite, maximum

increase in total nitrogen (447 and 483 %), available P (494 and 541 %)

extractable potassium (543 and 654 %) were determined in treatment B9Z5 over

control in both years. Maximum increase in soil organic carbon (10.10 mg/kg) was

observed in treatment B9 in both experimental years. Zeolite treatments with 1, 3

and 5 tons/ha has increased soil organic carbon by 18.8, 19 and 25 % in first year

over control and 7.8, 14.7 and 16.6 % during second year over control. Maximum

total carbon (12.4 mg/kg and 12.9 mg/kg) was observed in treatment B9Z5 in both

years. Application of biochar at the rate of 3, 6, and 9 tons/ha has significantly

decreased soil bulk density by 0.9, 2 and 3% in first year and 0.4, 1.7 and 2.7 %

respectively, in second year over control. Where as sole zeolite treatment Z1, Z3

and Z5 also significantly decreased soil bulk density by 1, 1.3 and 1.7 % in first

year and 0.9, 1.3 and 1.9 % respectively, in second year over control whereas

Maximum decrease of 4.2 % was observed in treatment B9Z5 in both years. Biochar

(3, 6 and 9 tons/ha) and zeolite treatments (1, 3 and 5 tons/ha) treatments improved

142

142

soil water holding capacity by 8 to 33 % and 9.3 to 19.8 % respectively where as

treatment B9Z5 improved soil WHC by 39 % over control in both years.

Determination of volatile emission revealed that treatment B9, Z5 and B9Z5

reduced ammonia emission by 62, 59 and 72 % and methane emission by 15, 13

and 36 % respectively. Whereas, B9 increased carbon dioxide emission by 62 %, Z5

by 17 % and B9Z5 by 70 %. Results regarding economic analysisrevealed that

control showed the highest BCR (2.7) and lowest (0.9) was found in B9Z5 treatment

during first year. All other sole and combine treatments with 3, 6 and 9 tons/ha of

biochar and 1, 3 and 5 tons/ha of zeolite had low BCR than control. In second year

Highest benefit cost ratio (3.5) was observed in treatment B9Z5 followed by

treatment B9Z3 and B9Z1 and the lowest (2.8) was found in control.

143

143

CONCLUSION

Low soil fertility, nutrient leaching and moisture retention are the limiting

factors contributing in low crop yield in rainfed area. Application of biochar along

with zeolite is an innovating soil amendment towards sustainable agriculture and

has numerous beneficial effects on soil quality, carbon sequestration, reducing

GHG emission and enhancing crop yield by improving fertilizer and water use

efficiency. Biochar and zeolite with different doses and various combinations had

improved soil moisture and nutrient avability, which posotively effected the agro-

physiology and yield of wheat crop in rainfed area. These amendments have also

improved soil health and reduced emission of ammonia and methane from soil,

which can have positive effect on environment . Furthermore, it was observed that

combine application of biochar and zeolite at the rate of 9 tons/ha and zeolite at

the rate of 5 tons/ha were found feasible for high economic return as compared to

other doses.

143

144

144

SCOPE OF FUTURE RESEARCH

A pot and field experiment was carried out to evaluate the impact of (sole

and combine) biochar and zeolite at the rate of 0, 3, 6, 9 and 0, 1, 3, 5 tons/ha on

soil physic-chemical properties, growth and yield of wheat crop during 2013-14

and 2014-15.The present research provides information about two years impact of

biochar and zeolite on soil quality, growth and yields of wheat crop in rainfed area.

More research work is needed with different doses of biochar and zeolite on wheat

as well as on other crops in various soil types and environmental conditions.

Residual effect of pesticide and fertilizer should be monitored on long-term basis.

In addition, economic and environmental benefits should be studied.

144

145

145

LITERATURE CITED

Abasiyeh, S. K., R. A. H. Shirani, B. Delkhoush, G. N. Mohammadi and H.

Nasrollahi. 2013. Effect of potassium and zeolite on seed oil and biologicl y

ield in safflower. Anna. Bio. Res., 5: 204-207.

Abbasieh, S. K., A. H. S. Rad, B. Delkhosh and G. N. Mohamadi. 2013. Effect of

different potassium levels and different humidity conditions with the use of

zeolite in safflower. Annals. Biol. Res., 4(8): 56-60.

Abdullahil, B. M. D., M. D. A. Karim, A. Hamid and H. Tetsushi. 2006. Effects of

fertilizer potassium on growth, yield and nutrient uptake of wheat (Triticum

aestivum L.) under water stress conditions. J. Sou. Pacif. Stud., 27(1): 78-

89.

Afeng, Z., R. Biana, G. Pana, L. Cuia, Q. Hussaina, L. Li, J. Zhenga, J. Zhenga, X.

Zhanga, X. Hana and X. Yua. 2012. Effects of biochar amendment on soil

quality, crop yield and green house gas emission in a Chinese rice paddy.

Field Crop Res., 127: 153-160.

Ahmed, O. H. G. Sumalatha and A. M. Nik Muhamad. 2010. Use of zeolite in

maize (Zea mays) cultivation on nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus uptake

and use efficiency. Int. J. Physic. Sci., 5(15): 2393-2401.

Ahmed, O. H., A. Husin, A. Husni and M. Hanif. 2008. Ammonia volatilization

and ammonium accumulation from urea mixed with zeolite and triple

superphosphate. 29: 182-186.

145

146

146

Ahmed, O. H., A. Hussin, H. Ahmad, M. H. Jalloh, M. B. Rahim and A. A. Majid.

2009. Enhancing the urea-N use efficiency in maize (Zea mays) cultivation

on acid soils using urea amended with zeolite and TSP. Am. J. Appl. Sci.,

6(5): 829-833.

Ahmed, O. H., G. Sumalatha and N. M. A. Majid. 2010. Use of zeolite in maize

(Zea mays) cultivation on nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus uptake and

use efficiency. Int. J. Phy. Sci., 5: 2393-2401.

Akram, H. M., A. Ali, A. Sattar, H. S. U. Rehman and A. Bibi. 2013. Impact of

water deficit stress on various physiological and agronomic traits of three

basmati rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivars. J. Ani. Pla. Sci., 23(5): 1415-1423.

Albino, M., M. Saori, V. Paola, F. Tomomichi, A. Jose, Ibeas, D. Barbara, L.

Meena, Narasimhan, P. M. Hasegawa, J. Robert, Joly and A. R. Bressan.

2002. Does proline accumulation play an active role in stress induced

growth reduction. Plant J., 3: 699-712.

Alburquerque, J. A., Calero. J. M, Barrón. V, Torrent. J, del Campillo, M. C.

Gallardo, A., and Villar. R. 2014. Effects of biochars produced from

different feedstocks on soil properties and sunflower growth. J. Pla Nutri

Soil Sci., 177(1):16-25.

Alburquerque, J. A., P. Salazar, V. Barron, J. Torrent, M. D. C. D. Campillo, A.

Gallardo and R. Villar. 2012. Enhanced wheat yield by biochar addition

under different mineral fertilization levels. Agron. Sustain. Dev., 5: 47-58.

Al-Busaidi, A., T. Yamamoto, M. Inoue, A. Egrinya, Eneji, Y. Mori and M. Irshad.

147

147

2008. Effects of zeolite on soil nutrients and growth of barley following

irrigation with saline water. J. Pla. Nutria., 31(7): 1159-1173.

Ali, K., M. Arif, M. T. Jan, T. Yaseen, M. Waqas and F. Munsif. 2015. A novel

tool to enhance wheat productivity and soil fertility on sustainable basis

under wheat-maize-wheat cropping pattern. Pak. J. Bot., 47(3): 1023-1031.

Ali, R., Y. Ali and M. Ferhan. 2012. Role of agriculture in economic growth of

Pakistan. Int. Res. J. Finan. Econ., 83: 1450-2887.

Aoife, B., M. J. Eduardo, A. Jose, Alburquerque, W. Charles. Knapp and S.

Christine. 2014. Effects of biochar and activated carbon amendment on

maize growth and the uptake and measured availability of polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and potentially toxic elements (PTEs).

Environ. Poll., 193: 79-87.

Arif, M., A. Ali, M. Umair, F. Munsif, K. Ali, Inamullah, M. Saleem and G. Ayub.

2012. Effect of biochar FYM and mineral nitrogen alone and in

combination on yield and yield components of maize. Sarhad J. Agric.,

28(2): 191-195.

Asai, H., B. K. Samson, H. M. Stephan, K. S. khangsuthor, K. Homma, Y. Kiyono,

Y. Inoue, T. Shirsiwa and T. Horie. 2009. Biochar amendment techniques

for upland rice production in Northern Laos. Soil physical properties, leaf

SPAD and grain yield. Field Crops Research, 111: 81-89.

Asai, H., B. Samson, H. Stephan, K. Songyikhangsuthor, K. Homma, Y. Kiyono,

Y. Inoue, T. Shiraiwa and T. Horie. 2009. Biochar amendment techniques

148

148

for upland rice production in northern Laos. Soil physical properties, leaf

SPAD and grain yield. Field Crops Res, 111(1-2): 81-84.

Ascough, P. L., M. I. Bird, P. Wormald, C. E. Snape and D. Apperley. 2008.

Influence of production variables and starting material on charcoal stable

isotopic and molecular characteristics. Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta, 72:

6090-6102.

Ashraf, M., A. S. Mumtaz, R. Riasat and S. Tabassum. 2010. A molecular study of

genetic diversity in Shisham (Dalbergia sissoo) plantation of NWFP

Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 42: 79-88.

Asif, M., M. Maqsood, A. Ali, S. W. Hassan, A. Hussain, S. Ahmad and M. A.

Javed. 2012. Growth, yield components and harvest index of wheat

(Triticum aestivum L.) affected by different irrigation regimes and nitrogen

management strategy. Sci. Int., 24(2): 215-218.

Asseng, S. and A. F. V. Herwaarden. 2003. Analysis of the benefits to wheat yield

from assimilates stored prior to grain filling in a range of environments.

Plant and Soil, 256(1): 217-219.

Atkinson, C. J, J. D. Fitzgerald and N. A. Hipps. 2010. Potential mechanisms for

achieving agricultural benefits from biochar application to temperate soils.

Plant Soil, 33: 1-18.

Azarpour, E., M. K. Motamed, M. Moraditochaee and H. R. Bozorgi. 2011. Effects

of zeolite application and nitrogen fertilization on yield components of

cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.). Worl. Appl. Sci. J., 14(5): 687-692.

149

149

Barrow, C. J. 2012. Biochar potential for countering land degradation and for

improving agriculture. Appl. Geograph., 34: 21-28.

Basso, A. S., F. E. Miguez, D. Laird, R. Horton and M. Westgate. 2013. Assessing

potential of biochar for increasing water holding capacity of sandy soils.

Glo. Chan. Bio., 5: 132-143.

Bassu, S., R. Asseng and F. G. Motzo. 2009. Optimising sowing date of durum whe

at in a variable Mediterranean environment. Field Crops Res., 111: 109-118

.

Bates, L. S., R. P. Waldran and I. D. Teare. 1973. Rapid determination of free

proline for water stress studies. Plant Soil, 39: 205-208.

Bationo, A., J. Kihara, B. Vanlauwe, B. Waswa and J. Kimetu. 2006. Soil organic

carbon dynamics, functions and management in West African agro-

ecosystems, Agricultural Systems. J. Agri. Sys., 94 (1): 13-25.

Bell, M. J. and F. Worrall. 2011. Charcoal addition to soils in NE England: A

carbon sink with environmental co-benefits. Sci. Environ., 409: 1704-1714

Bernardi, A. C. C., C. G. Werneck, P. G. Haim, N. G. A. M. Rezende and P. R. P.

Paiva. 2008. Crescimento enutricao mineral do porta-enxerto limoeiro

(Cravo) cultivado em substrato com zeólita enriquecida com NPK. Revista

Brasileira de Fruticultura, 30: 794-800.

Bhattarai, B., J. Neupane, S. P. Dhakal, J. Nepal, B. Gnyawali, R. Timalsina and A.

Poudel. 2015. Effect of biochar from different origin on physio-chemical

150

150

properties of soil and yield of garden pea (Pisum sativum L.) at Paklihawa,

Rupandehi, Nepal. World J. Agric. Res., 3 (4): 129-138.

O. K. Z. K İ. ş O. D I. Oz T. K . 2 8.

Determination of variability between grain yield and yield components of

durum wheat varieties (Triticum durum) in Thrace region. J. Tekirdag Agri.

Faculty., 5 (2): 101-109.

Blackwell, P., G. Reithmuller and M. Collins. 2009. Biochar applications to soil. In

biochar for environmental management. Science and Technology, J.

Lehmann and S. Joseph (eds.). Earthscan, London, Sterling, VA. p. 207-

226.

Blackwell, P., K. Krull, G. Butler, A. Herbert and Z. Solaiman. 2010. Effect of

banded biochar on dryland wheat production and fertiliser use in south-

western Australia: An agronomic and economic perspective. Aust. J. Soil

Res., 48(7): 531-45.

Blanco, F., and M. V. Folegatti. 2005. Estimation of leaf area for green house

cucumber by linear measurements under salinity and grafting. Agric. Sci.,

62(4): 305-309.

Bouajila, A. and T. Gallali. 2008. Soil organic carbon fractions and aggregate

stability in carbonated and no carbonated soils in Tunisia. J. Agron., 2: 127-

137.

Brady, N. C. and R. R. Weill. 2004. Elements of the nature and properties of soils

(2nd

eds.) Pearson Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River NJ. p. 111-112.

151

151

Briggs, C. M., J. M. Breiner and R. C. Graham. 2005. Contributions of Pinus

Ponderosa charcoal to soil chemical and physical properties. p. 248-257.

Brodowski, S., B. John, H. Flessa and W. Amelung. 2006. Aggregate occluded

black carbon in soil. Eur. J. Soil Sci., 57: 539-546.

Brown, R. A., A. K. Kercher, T. H. Nguyen, D. C. Nagle and W. P. Ball. 2006.

Production and characterization of synthetic wood chars for use as

surrogates for natural sorbents. Org. Geochem., 37: 321-333.

Bruun, S., E. Jensen and L. Jensen. 2008. Microbial mineralization and assimilation

of black carbon dependency on degree of thermal alteration. Org.

Geochem., 39: 839-845.

Cabrera, A., L. Cox, K. A. Spokas, R. Celis, M. C. Hermosin, J. Cornejo and W. C.

Koskinen. 2011. Comparative sorption and leaching study of the herbicides

fluometuron and 4- chloro-2 methyl phenoxy acetic acid (MCPA) in a soil

amended with biochars and other sorbents, J. Agri. Food Chem., 14: 12550-

12560.

Carter, S., S. Shackley, S. Sohi, T. B. Suy and S. Haefele. 2013. The impact of

biochar application on soil properties and plant growth of pot-grown lettuce

(Lactuca sativa) and cabbage (Brassica chinensis). J. Agron., 3: 404- 418.

Castaldi, S., M. Riondino, S. Baronti, F. R. Esposito, R. Marzaioli, F. A.

Rutigliano, F. P. Vaccari and F. Miglietta. 2011. Impact of biochar

application to Mediterranean wheat crop on soil microbial activity and

green house gas fluxes. Chemosphere, 85: 1464-1471.

152

152

Chad Weigand, 2011. Wheat Import Projections Towards 2050. US Wheat

Association, Arlington, United State. www.uswheat.org/.../Wheat%20Impor

t%20Projections%20Towards%

Chan, K. Y., L. V. Zwieten, I. Meszaros, A. Downie and S. Joseph. 2007.

Agronomic values of green waste biochar as a soil amendment. Aust. J. Soil

Res., 45: 629-634.

Chan, K., Y. L. Van Zwieten, I. Meszaros. A. Downie and S. Joseph. 2007. Using

poultry litter biochars as soil amendments. Aust. J. Soil Res., 46 (5): 437-

444.

Chandra, A., P. S. Pathak, R. K. Bhatt and A. Dubby. 2004. Varaition in drought

tolerance of different stylosanthes accession. Biol. Plant., 48: 457-460.

Chen, H. X., Z. L. Du, W. Guo and Q. Z. Zhang. 2011. Effects of biochar

amendment on crop, soil bulk density, cation exchange capacity, and

particulate organic matter content in the North China plain. Ying Yong

Sheng Tai Xue Bao, 22: 2930-2934.

Cheng, C. H., J. Lehmann and M. Engelhard. 2008. Natural oxidation of black

carbon in soils. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 72: 1598-1610.

Cheng, C. H., J. Lehmann, J. E. Thies, S. D. Burton and M. H. Engelhard. 2006.

Oxidation of black carbon by biotic and abiotic processes. Org. Geochem.,

37: 1477-1488

Chintala, R., J. Mollinedo, E. Thomas, Schumacher, D. M. Douglas and L. J. James

153

153

.2014. Effect of biochar on chemical properties of acidic soil. Arc. Agron.

Soil Sci., 60(3): 393-404.

Choudhary, N. L. 2005. Expression of delta1-pyrroline-5-carboxylate synthetase

gene during drought in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Int. J. Biochem. Biophys., 42:

366-370.

Collins, H. 2008. Use of biochar from the pyrolysis of waste organic material as a

soil amendment: laboratory and greenhouse analyses. A quarterly progress

report prepared for the biochar project. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publicati

ons/documents/0907062.pdf

Craig, R., Andersona, M. Leo. Condrona, J. Tim, Clough, M. Fiers, A. Stewarta, A.

Robert, Hill and R. Robert Sherlockb. 2011. Biochar induced soil microbial

community change: Implications for biogeochemical cycling of carbon,

nitrogen and phosphorus. Pedobiologia, 54: 309-320.

Cross, A., P. Saran and Sohi. 2011. The priming potential of biochar products in

relation to labile carbon contents and soil organic matter status. Soil Biol.

and Biochem., 43: 2127-2134.

Czimczik, C. I. and C. A. Masiello. 2007. Controls on black carbon storage in soils.

Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 21: 3005-3028.

Dakhim, A. R., M. S. Daliri, A. A. Mousavi and A. T. Jafroudi. 2012. Evaluation

vegetative and reproductive traits of different wheat cultivars under dry

farming condition in north of Iran. J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 2: 6640-6646.

154

154

David B. L., B. B. Marshall, T. Claudia, D. M. Michael, P. F. Walter, L. N.

Rosamond. 2008. Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food

security in 2030. Science, 319 (5863): 607-610.

David, A. L., F. Pierce, D. D. Dedrick, H. Robert and W. Baiqun. 2010. Impact of

biochar amendments on the quality of a typical Midwestern agricultural

soil. Geoderma, 158: 443-449.

Deluca, T. H. and D. K. Deluca. 1997. Composting for feed lot manure

management and soil quality. J. Prod. Agric., 10: 236-241.

Deluca, T. H., M. D. MacKenzie and M. J. Gundale. 2009. Biochar effects on soil

nutrient transformation. Chapter 14. In: J. Lehmann, S. Joseph (eds.).

Biochar for environmental management. Science and technology,

Earthscan, London, p. 251-280.

Dencic, S., R. Kastori, B. Kobiljski and B. Duggan. 2000. Evaporation of grain

yield and its components in wheat cultivars and land races under near

optimal and drought conditions. Euphytica., 1:43-52.

Dominic, W., E. James. F. Amonette. 2010. Sustainable biochar to mitigate global

climate change. Nat. Comm., 1(5): 1-9.

Donmenz, E., R. G. Sears, J. P. Shroyer and G. M. Paulsen. 2001. Genetic gain in

yield attributes of winter wheat in the great plains. Crop Sci., 41: 1412-

1419.

Douglas, W., Ming and B. Joe. 1987. Quantitative determination of clinoptilolite in

155

155

soils by a cation-exchange capacity method.Clays and clay minerals, 35(6):

463-468.

Downie, A., A. Crosky and P. Munroe. 2009. Physical properties of biochar

(Chapter 2), In: J. Lehmann and S. Joseph (eds.), Biochar for environmental

management: science and technology, earthscan, London, UK. 13 pp.

Economic survey of Pakistan. Ministry of finance, Government of Pakistan. 2014-

15.

Elham, A., O. M. Badr, M. M. Ibrahim, Tawfik, Amanyand A. Bahr. 2015. Int. J.

Chem. Tech. Res., 8(4): 1438-1445.

Ersinpo, T. Mehme, Karaca, Hali, Demir and A. Nacionus. 2004. Use of natural

zeolite (clinoptilolite) in agriculture, p. 356-363.

Fabbria, D., C. Torri, A. Kurt and Spokas. 2012. Analytical pyrolysis of synthetic

chars derived from biomass with potential agronomic application (biochar).

Relationships with impacts on microbial carbon dioxide production. J. Anal.

Appl. Pyrol., 93: 77-84.

Falk, S., D. P. Maxwell, D. E. Laudenbach, N. P. A. Huner and N. R. Baker. 1996.

In Advances in Photosynthesis, Photosynthesis and the Environment.

Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht Boston London, p. 367-385.

FAO. 2015.World Wheat, Corn and Rice. Oklahoma State University, Stat.

Archived from the original on 10 June.

Fletcher, A. L., T. R. Sinclair and L. H. Allen. 2007. Transpiration responses to

http://nue.okstate.edu/crop_information/world_wheat_production.htm

156

156

vapor pressure deficit in well-watered slow- ’

soybean. Environ. Exp. Bot., 61: 145-151.

Fotouhi, R., ghazvini, G. Payvast and H. Azarian. 2007. Effect of clinoptilolitic-

zeolite and perlite mixtures on the yield and quality of strawberry in soil-

less culture. Int. J. Agri. Bio., 9(6): 137-146.

Garau, G., P. Castaldi, L. Santona, P. Deiana and P. Melis. 2007. Influence of red

mud, zeolite and lime on heavy metal immobilization, culturable

heterotrophic microbial populations and enzyme. Activities in

contaminated soil. Geoderma, 142: 47-57.

Gaskin, J. W., R. A. Speir, K. Harris, K. C. Das, R. D. Lee, Lawrence, A. Morris

and S. D. Fisher. 2012. Effect of peanut hull and pine chip biochar on soil

nutrients, corn nutrient status, and yield. Agron. J., 102(2): 23-33.

Gebremedhin, G. H., B. Haileselassie, D. Berhe and T. Belay. 2015. Effect of

biochar on yield and yield components of wheat and post-harvest soil

properties in Tigray, Ethiopia. J. Fertil. Pestic., 6: 158- 167.

Gebze, E. P., K. Mehme, D. Halil and A. Nacionus. 2004. Use of natural zeolite

(Clinoptilolite) In Agriculture. J. Fru. Ornam. Pla. Res., 12: 183-189.

Genesio, L., F. Miglietta, E. Lugato, S. Baronti, M. Pieri and F. P. Vaccari. 2012.

Surface albedo following biochar application in durum wheat.

Environmental Research Letters. IOP Science. http://iopscience.iop.org/174

8-9326/7/1/014025.

157

157

Ghazavi, R. 2015. The application effects of natural zeolite on soil runoff, soil

drainage and some chemical soil properties in arid land area. Int. J. Inn.

Appl. Stud., 13(1): 172-177

Ghazvini, R. F., G. Payvast and H. Azarian. 2007. Effect of clinoptilolitic-zeolite

and perlite mixtures on the yield and quality of strawberry in soil-less

culture. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 9(6): 67-86.

Giovanni, G., P. Castaldi, L. Santona, P. Deiana and P. Melis. 2007. Influence of

red mud, zeolite and lime on heavy metal immobilization, culturable

heterotrophic microbial populations and enzyme activities in a

contaminated soil. Geoderma, 142: 47-57.

Glaser, B., J. Lehmann and W. Zech. 2002. Ameliorating physical and chemical

properties of highly weathered soils in the tropics with charcoal. A review.

Biol. Fert. Soils, 35: 219-230.

Glaser, B., L. Haumaier, G. Guggenberger and W. Zech. 2001. The terra preta

phenomenon: A model for sustainable agriculture in the humid tropics.

Nat. Acad. Sci., 88: 37-41.

Goel, P. and A. K. Singh. 2015. Abiotic stresses regulate key genes involved in

nitrogen uptake and assimilation in Brassica juncea L. Geoderma, 10(11):

14-36.

Goodman, A. M. and A. R. Ennos. 1999. The effects of soil bulk density on the

morphology and anchorage mechanics of the root systems of sunflower and

maize. Annals of Bot., 83: 293-302.

158

158

Gransee, A. and H. Fuhrs. 2013. Magnesium mobility in soils as a challenge for

soil and plant analysis, magnesium fertilization and root uptake under

adverse growth conditions. Plant Soil, 368: 5-21.

Guarda, G., S. Padovan and G. Delogu. 2004. Grain yield, nitrogen use efficiency

and baking quality of old and modern Italian bread wheat cultivars grown at

different nitrogen levels. Eur. J. Agron., 21: 181-192.

Gundale, M. J. and T. H. DeLuca. 2006. Temperature and substrate influence the

chemical properties of charcoal in the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir

ecosystem. Forest Ecol. Mgt., 231: 86-93.

Hassan, A. Z. A., A. Wahab and M. Mahmoud. 2013. The combined effect of

bentonite and natural zeolite on sandy soil properties and productivity of

crops. J. Agric. Res., 1(3): 23-38.

He, Z. L., D. V. Calvert and A. K. Alva. 2002. Clinoptilolite zeolite and cellulose

amendments to reduce ammonia volatilization in a calcareous sandy soil.

Plant Soil, 247: 253-260.

Hokmalipour, S. and M. H. Darbandi. 2011. Effects of nitrogen fertilizer on

chlorophyll content and other leaf indicate in three cultivars of maize (Zea

mays L.). World Appl. Sci. J., 15(12): 780-1785.

Hooper, P., Y. Zhou, D. R. Coventry and G. K. McDonald. 2015. Use of nitrogen

fertilizer in a targeted way to improve grain yield, quality, and nitrogen use

efficiency. Agron. J., 107: 903-915.

159

159

Hossein, Z., A. H. S. Rad and H. R. T. Moghadam. 2009. The effects of zeolite soil

applications and selenium foliar applications on growth yield and yield

components of three canola cultivars under drought stress. World Appl. Sci.

J. Fsld., 7 (2): 255-262.

Huang, Z. T and A. M. Petrovic. 1994. Clinoptilolite zeolite influence on nitrate

leaching and nitrogen use efficiency in simulated sand based golf greens. J.

Environ. Qual., 23:1190-1194.

Hussain, I., M. A Khan and E. A Khan. 2006. Bread wheat varieties as influenced

by different nitrogen levels. J. Sci., 7: 70-78.

Inglezakis, V., M. Loizidou and H. Grigoropoulou. 2004. Ion exchange studies on

natural and modified zeolites and the concept of exchange site accessibility.

J. Collo. Inte. Sci., 275: 570-576.

IPCC. 2014. Climate Change. synthesis report. contribution of working groups i, ii

and iii to the fifth assessment report of the inter governmental panel on

climate change, R. K. Pachauri & L. A. Meyer (eds.), Geneva, Switzerland.

Ippolito, J. A., D. David. Tarkalson and A. G. Lehrsch. 2011. Zeolite soil

application method affects inorganic nitrogen, moisture, and corn growth.

Soil Sci., 176(3): 136-142.

James, J. and Camberato. 2001. Cation exchange capacity. Everything you want to

know and much more First printed in South Carolina Turf grasss

Foundation News, October December. www.files.clino.webnode.com/2000

00022-0bdf60cd97/What%20is%20CEC.pdf

160

160

James, R. F., R. C. Carl and J. B. Philip. 2001. Drought stress effect on branch and

main stem seed yield and yield components of determinate soybean. Crop

Sci., 41: 763-797.

Jeffery, S., F. G. A. Verheijen, M. V. D. Velde and A. C. Bastos. 2011. Effects of

biochar application to soils on crop productivity using meta-analysis. Agric.

Ecosys. Environ., 144: 175-187.

Jiang, T. Y., J. Jiang, X. Ren-Kou and Z. Li. 2012. Adsorption of Pb (II) on

variable charge soils amended with rice-straw derived Biochar.

Chemosphere, 89: 249-256.

Jinyang, W., X. Pan, Y. Liu, X. Zhang and Z. Xiong. 2012. Effects of biochar

amendment in two soils on green house gas emissions and crop production.

Plant soil, 360(1): 287-298.

Johannes, L., C. Matthias, Rillig, J. Thies, A. Caroline, Masiello, C. William,

Hockaday, and D. Crowley. 2011. Biochar effects on soil biota. Soil Biol.

Biochem., 43: 1812-1836.

Jones, D. L., J. Rousk, G. E. Jones, T. H. Deluca and D. V. Murphy. 2012. Biochar-

mediated changes in soil quality and plant growth in a three-year field trial.

Soil Biol. Biochem., 45: 113-124.

Jos, A., S. Pablo, V. Barr, T. Jose and M. D. D. Campillo. 2013. Enhanced wheat

yield by biochar addition under different mineral fertilization levels. Agron.

Sustain. Develop., 33(3): 475-484.

161

161

Jurg, B., B. David., G. C. Kenneth, M. Stephen and P. Alexander. 2008.

Importance and effect of nitrogen on crop quality and health. Agronomy &

horticulture, faculty publications, Washington State Universdity, p. 45-59.

Kacar, B. and A. V. Katkat. 2007. Fertilizers and Fertilization Technique. Sci. Bio.,

34(2): 560.

Karer, J., B. Wimmer, F. Zehetner, S. Kloss and G. Soja. 2013. Biochar application

to temperate soils: Effects on nutrient uptake and crop yield under field

conditions. Agric. Food Sci., 22: 390-403.

Karhu, K., T. Mattilab, I. Bergströma and K. Reginac. 2011. Biochar addition to

agricultural soil increased CH4 uptake and water holding capacity. Agric.

Ecosyst. Environ., 140: 309-313.

Katy, E. B., R. B. Kristofor, C. S. Mary and E. L. David. 2015. Biochar source and

application rate effects on soil water retention determined using wetting

curves. J. Soil Sci., 5: 1-10.

Kavoosi, M. 2007. Effects of zeolite application on rice yield, nitrogen recovery

and nitrogen use efficiency. Soil and water department, rice research

institute of Iran, Rasht, Iran. Commun. Soil Pla. Anal., 38: (1-2): 69-76.

Kavoosi, M. and M. Rahimi. 2000. The effect of zeolite application on rice yield in

both light and heavy soils. Ministry of Agriculture. Agricultural Education

Research Organization. International Rice Research Institute. Philippines.

Keeney, D. R. and D. W. Nelson. 1987. Nitrogen Inorganic Forms, extraction of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines

162

162

exchangeable ammonium, nitrate, and nitrite. In A. L. Page (eds.), Methods

of Soil Analysis. A Series of Monographs. Soil Science Society of

America, Madison, Wisconsin USA. 9(2):648-649

Kelley, K. W. 1995. Rate and time of N application for wheat following different

crops. J. Prod. Agric., 8: 339-45.

Khalid, R., T. Mahmood, R. Bibi, M. T. Siddique, S. Alvi and S. Y. Naz. 2012.

Distribution and indexation of plant available nutrients of rainfed calcareous

soils of Pakistan. Soil Environ., 31(2): 146-151,

Khan, H. Z., M. A. Malik and M. F. Saleem. 2008. Effect of rate and source of

organic material on the production potential of spring maize (Zea mays L.).

Pak. J. Agric. Sci., 45(1): 40-43.

Khan, M. M. and M. H. Khan. 2000. Dieback of Dalbergia Sissoo in Pakistan.

Proc. the sub-regional seminar on dieback of sissoo (Dalbergia sissoo),

Kathmandu, Nepal. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/efp.120

01

Krasilnikov, P. V. 2015. Stable Carbon Compounds in Soils: Their Origin and

Functions. Eura. Soil Sci., 48(9): 997-1008.

Krull, E. S., J. O. Skjemstad and J. A. Baldock. 2004. Functions of soil organic

matter and the effect on soil properties. Geophy. Res., 16: 346-358.

Kumari, V. V., A. K. Mishra, S. S. Parihar, T. K. Srivastava and K. Chand. 2013.

Soil Moisture Dynamics and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

163

163

crop at New Delhi (India) conditions. Am. Euro. J. Agric. Environ. Sci., 13(

5): 713-722

Laird, D. A, P. Fleming, D. D. Davis, R. Horton, B. Wary and D. Karien. 2010.

Impact of biochar amendments on the quality of typical midwestern

agricultural soil. Geoderma, 158: 443-449.

Laird, D., P. Fleming, B. Wang, R. Horton and D. Karlen. 2010. Biochar impact on

nutrient leaching from a midwestern agricultural soil. Geoderma, 158(3):

436-442.

Lal, R. 2004. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food

security. J. Sci., 304: 1623-1627.

Latifah, O., O. H. Ahmed and A. M. N. Muhamad. 2011. Ammonia loss,

ammonium and nitrate accumulation from mixing urea with zeolite and peat

soil water under water logged condition. Afri. J. Biotec., 10(17): 3365-

3369.

Lee, D., S. E. Lee, D. H. Kim, H. K. Hong, J. H. Nam, J. S. Choi, M. S. Lee, S. H.

Woo and K. Y. Chung. 2012. Effects of the applications of clay minerals on

early growth of red pepper in growing medium. Korean J. Horti. Sci.

Technol., 30(4): 463-470.

Leggo, P. J. 2000. An investigation of plant growth in an organo-zeolite substrate

and its ecological significant. J. Plant Soil, 219: 135-146.

Lehmann, J. 2007. A handful of carbon. J. Nat., 447: 143-144.

164

164

Lehmann, J. 2007. Bio-energy in the black. Frontiers Ecol. Environ., 5: 381-387.

Lehmann, J. and M. Rondon. 2005. Biochar soil management on highly weathered

soils in the humid tropics. Biological Approaches to Sustainable Soil

Systems. In: Uphoff (eds.), Boca Raton, CRC Press, 365 pp.

Lehmann, J. and S. Joseph. 2009. Biochar for environmental management. In: J.

Lehmann & S. Joseph (eds.), Biochar for environmental management.

Science and technology. Earthscan, London, p. 67-84.

Lehmann, J., C. Matthias, Rillig, J. Thies, A. Caroline, Masiello, C. William,

Hockaday, and D. Crowley. 2011. Biochar effects on soil biota. Soil Biol.

Biochem., 43: 1812-1836.

Lehmann, J., J. Gaunt and M. Rondon. 2006. Biochar sequestration in terrestrial

ecosystems. Miti. Adapt Stra. Global Chan., 11: 403-427.

Lehmann, J., J. P. Oda, J. Silva, C. Steiner, T. Nehls, W. Zech and B. Glaser. 2003.

Nutrient availability and leaching in an archaeological Anthrosol and a

Ferralsol of the central Amazon basin. Plant and Soil, 249: 343-357.

Lehmann, Johannes, M. C. Rillig, J. Thies, C. A. Masiello, W. C. Hockaday and D.

Crowley. 2011. Biochar effects on soil biota. Soil Biol. and Biochem.,

43(9): 1812-1836.

Lei, O. and R. Zhang. 2013. Effects of biochars derived from different feedstocks

and pyrolysis temperatures on soil physical and hydraulic properties. J. Soil

Sedim., 13: 1561-1572.

165

165

Li, A. G., Y. S. Hou, G. W. Wall, A. Trent, B. A. Kimbal and P. J. Pinter. 2000.

Free air carbon dioxide enrichment and drought stress effects on grain

filling rate and grain filling duration in spring wheat. Crop Sci., 40: 1263-

1270.

Li, L., A. F. Tutone, R. S. Drummond, R. C. Gardner and S. Luan. 2001. A novel

family of magnesium transport genes in Arabidopsis. The Plant Cell, 13:

2761-2775.

Liang, B., J. Lehmann, D. Solomon, J. Kinyangi, J. G . O’N J.

Skjemstad, J. Thies, J. Luizao, J. Petersen and E. Neves. 2006. Black

carbon increases cation exchange capacity in soils. Soil Sci. Soci. Am., 70:

1719-1730.

Lobell, D. B., M. B. Burke, C. Tebaldi, M. D. Mastrandrea, W. P. Falcon, R. L.

Naylor. 2006. Prioritizing climate change. Geoderma, 21: 124-138.

Long, S.P. and C. J. Bernacchi. 2003. Gas exchange measurements, what can they

tell us about the underlying limitation to photosynthesis? Procedure and

sources of error, J. Exp. Bot., 54: 2393-2401.

Lu, W., C. Kang, Y. Wang and Z. Xie. 2015. Influence of biochar on the moisture

of dark brown soil and yield of maize in Northern China. Int. J. Agric. Biol.,

17: 1007-1012.

Luostarinen, K., E. Vakkilainen and G. Bergamov. 2010. Biochar filter carbon

containing ashes for agricultural purposes. Am. Euro. J. Agric. Environ. Sci.

, 3(4): 513-522.

166

166

Mafakheri, A., A. Siosemardeh, B. Bahramnejad, P. C. Struik and Y. Sohrabi.

2010. Effect of drought stress on yield, proline and chlorophyll contents in

three chickpea cultivars. Aust. J. Crop Sci., 4(8): 580-585.

Maggio, A., S. Miyazaki, P. Veronese, T. Fujita, J. I. Ibeas, B. Damsz, M. L.

Narasimhan, P. M. Hasegawa, R. J. Jolyand R. A. Bressan. 2002. Does

proline accumulation play an active role in stress-induced growth reduction.

Plant J., 31: 699-712.

Majma, E., P. Azizi and N. Nemati. 2015. Effect of plant density and mineral super

absorbent (zeolite) on agro-physiological and morphological characteristics

of shimmer hybrid sweet corn at varamin region of Iran. Crop Res., 50(3):

36-42.

Major J., J. Lehmann, M. Rondon and C. Goodale. 2010. Fate of soil-applied black

carbon, downward migration, leaching and soil respiration. Global Change

Biol., 16: 1366-1379.

Malcolm, F. 2007. Black carbon sequestration as an alternative to bioenergy.

Biomass and Bioenr., 31: 426-432.

Malekian, R. J. Abedi-Koupai, S. S. Eslamian. 2010. Influences of clinoptilolite

and surfactant-modified clinoptilolite zeolite on nitrate leaching and plant

growth. J. Hazad. Mater., 185: 970-976.

Mancuso, S., C. Taiti, N. Bazihizina, C. Costa, P. Menesatti, L. Giagnoni, M.

Arenella, P. Nannipieri and G. Renella. 2015. Soil volatile analysis by

proton transfer reaction time of flight mass spectrometry (PTR-TOF-

167

167

MS). Appl. Soil Ecol., 86: 182-191.

Manikandan, A. and K. S. Subramanian. 2014. Fabrication and characterization of

nano-porous zeolite N-based fertilizer. Afr. J. Agr. Res., 9(2): 276-284.

Manivannan, P., A. Jaleel, B. Sankar, A. Kishorekumar, R. Somasundaram, G. M.

A. Lakshmanan and R. Panneerselvam. 2007. Growth, biochemical

modifications and proline metabolism in Helianthus annuus L. as induced

by drought stress. J. Coll. Surf. Bio. Int., 59: 141-149.

Maralian, H., A. Ebadi, T. R. Didar and B. Haji-Eghrari. 2010. Influence of water

deficit stress on wheat grain yield and proline accumulation rate. Afri. J.

Agri. Res., 5(4): 286-289.

Masek, O., P. Brownsort, A. Cross and Sohi. 2013. Influence of production

conditions on the yield and environmental stability of biochar fuel.

Geoderma, 103: 151-155.

Massignam, A. M., S. C. Chapman, G. L. Hammer and S. Fukai. 2009.

Physiological determinants of maize and sunflower achene yield as affected

by nitrogen supply. Field Crops Res., 113: 256-267.

Micu, D., C. Proca, C. Ioana, C. Podaru and G. Burtica. 2005. Improvement

possibilities of soil quality. J. soil Chem., 50 (64): 1-2.

Milligan, D. B., P. F. Wilson, M. N. Mautner, C.G. Freeman, M. J. McEwan,

Clough T. J, R. R Sherlock. 2002. Real-time, high-resolution quantitative

measurement of multiple soil gas emissions. Selected ion flow tube mass

168

168

spectrometry. J. Environ Qual., 31(2): 515-24.

Ming, D. W. and J. L. Boettinger. 2001. Zeolites in soil environments. In: D.L.

Bish, D.W. Ming (eds.). Natural zeolites: Occurrence, properties and

applications (Reviews in mineralogy and geochemistry). Washington (DC),

mineralogical society of America, p. 323-345.

Mlrbahar, A. A., G. S. Markhand, A. R. Mahar, S. A. Abro and N. A. Kanhar.

2009. Effect of water stress on yield and yield components of wheat

(Triticum aestivum L.) varieties. Pak. J. Bot., 41(3): 1303-1310.

Mohd, H. A. B., A. Abdu, S. Jusop, H. O. Ahmed, H. Abdul-Hamid, M. Kusno, B.

Zainal, A. L. Senin and N. Junejo. 2013. Effects of mixed organic and

inorganic fertilizers application on soil properties and the growth of kenaf

(Hibiscus cannabinus L.) cultivated on bris soils. Am. J. Appl. Sci., 10(12):

1586-1597.

Mostajean, A. and V. R. Eichi. 2009. Effects of drought stress on growth and yield

of rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivars and accumulation of proline and soluble

sugars in sheath and blades of their different ages leaves. J. Agic. Environ.

Sci., 5(2): 264-272.

Mukherjee, A. and A. Zimmerman. 2013. Organic carbon and nutrient release from

a range of laboratory produced biochars and biochar soil mixtures,

Geoderma, 193: 122-130.

Mukherjee, A. and R. Lal. 2013. Biochar affects soil physical properties and green

house gas emissions. J. Agron., 3: 313-339.

169

169

Mumpton, F.A. 1999. Uses of natural zeolites in agriculture and industry.

Proceeding of national acadmy of science. USA, 96: 3463-3470.

Muurinen, S., G. A. Slafer and P. Sainio. 2006. Breeding effects on nitrogen use

efficiency for spring cereals under northern conditions. Crop Sci., 46(2):

561-568.

Nawaz, A., M. Farooq, S.A. Cheema and A. Wahid, 2013. Differential response of

wheat cultivars to terminal heat stress. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 15: 1354-1358

Nayyar, H. and D. P. Walia. 2003. Water stress induced proline accumulation in

contrasting wheat genotypes as affected by calcium and abscisic acid. Bio.

Plant, 46: 275-279.

Nelissen, V., G. Ruysschaert, D. Muller-Stover, S. Bode, J. Cook, F. Ronsse, S.

Shackley, P. Boeckx, H. Nielsen. 2014. Short term effect of feedstock and

pyrolysis temperature on biochar characteristics, soil and crop response

in temperate soils. Agronomy, 4(1): 52-73.

Nichols, K. A., S. F. Wright, M. A. Liebig and J. L. Pikul. 2004. Functional

significance of glomalin to soil fertility. Geoderma, 41:110-133

Nigussie, A., E. Kissi, M. Misganaw and G. Ambaw. 2012. Effect of biochar

application on soil properties and nutrient uptake of lettuces (Lactuca

Sativa) grown in chromium polluted soils. Am. Eur. J. Agri. Env. Sci.,

12(3): 369-376.

Nimmo, J. R. 1997. Modeling structural influences on soil water retention. Soil Sci.

170

170

Soc. Am. J., 61: 712-719.

Njoku, C., C. N. Mbah, P. O. Igboji, J. N. Nwite, C. .C. Chibuike and B. N. Uguru.

2015. Effect of biochar on selected soil physical properties and maize yield

in an ultisol in Abakaliki South eastern Nigeria. Global Adv. Res. J. Agric.

Sci., 4(12): 864-870.

Nogueraa, D., S. Barotd, K. R. Laossie, J. Cardosoc, P. Lavellea and M. H. Cruz

2012. Biochar but not earth worms enhances rice growth through increased

protein turnover. Soil Bio. Bioc., 52: 13-20.

Noori, M., M. Zendehdel and A. Ahmadi. 2007. Using natural zeolite for the

improvement of soil salinity and crop yield. Toxicolo. Environ. Chem.,

88(1): 77-84.

Novak, J. M., I. M. Lima, B. Xing, W. J. Gaskin, C. Steiner, K. C. Das, M.

Ahmedna, D. Rehrah, D. W. Watts, W. J. Busscher and H. Schomberg.

2009. Charcaterization of designer biochar produced at different

temperatures and their effects on a loamy sand. Annals of Environ. Sci., 3:

195-206.

Nyachiro, J. M., K. G. Briggs, J. Hoddinott and A. M. Johnson-Flanagan. 2001.

Chlorophyll content, chlorophyll fluorescence andwater deficit in spring

wheat, Cereal Res. Commun., 29: 135-142.

Omar, L., O. H. Ahmed, and N. M. A. Majid. 2011. Enhancing nutrient use

efficiency of maize (Zea mays L.) from mixing urea with zeolite and peat

soil water. Int. J. Phys. Sci., 6 (14): 3330-3335.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00380717

171

171

Ondr, M., P. Brownsort, A. Cross and S. Sohi. 2013. Influence of production

conditions on the yield and environmental stability of biochar. Fuel, 41:

151-155

Orha, C., C. Lazau and C. Bandas. 2105. Structural and fertilizer properties of

potassium doped natural zeolite. J. Agroalimentary Processes and Technol.,

21(1): 1-5.

Orwa, C., A. Mutua, R. Kindt, R. Jamnadass and S. Anthony. 2009. Agroforestree

Database: A tree reference and selection guide version 4.0. http://www.worl

dagroforestry.org/ sites/treedbs/treedatabases.asp Acessed 28 Feb 2016.

Ozturk, A. and F. Aydin. 2004. Effect of water stress at various stages on some

quality parameters of winter wheat. Crop Sci., 190: 93-99.

Pakistan Meteorological Department. 2014. National Drought Monitoring Centre

(NDMC). Headquarters Office, Sector H-8/2, Islamabad.

Pan, G., S. Tan, Yu, Ge and S. Yin. 1991. Some agricultural properties of natural

zeolite. Jiangsu J. Prote., 666(96): 691-695.

Peng, X., L. L. Ye, C. H. Wang, H. Zhou and B. Sun. 2011. Temperature and

duration dependent rice straw derived biochar. Characteristics and its

effects on soil properties of an ultisol in southern China. Soil and Till. Res.,

112: 159-166.

Penuelas, J., D. Asensio, D. Tholl, K. Wenke, M. Rosenkranz, B. Piechulla and J.

P. Schnitzler. 2014. Biogenic volatile emissions from the soil. Plan. Cel.

http://www.worldagroforestry.org/ sites/treedbs/treedatabases.asp

http://www.worldagroforestry.org/ sites/treedbs/treedatabases.asp

172

172

Envi., 23: 236-247.

Pickering, H. W, N. W. Menzies and M. N. Hunter. 2002. Zeolite/rock phosphate -

a novel slow release phosphorus fertiliser for potted plant production. Sci.

Horti., 94: 333-343.

Pirzad, A. and S. Mohammadzad. 2014. The effect of drought stress and zeolite on

protein and mineral nutrients of lathyrus sativus. Int. J. Biosci., 14(7): 241-

248.

Polat, E., M. Karaca, H. Demir and A. N. Onus. 2004. Use of natural zeolite

(clinoptilolite) in agriculture. J. Fruit Ornam. Plant Res., 12: 183-189.

Ponisovsky, A. and D. Christos. 2003. Lead (II) retention by alfisols and

clinoptililite. Cation balance and pH effect. Geoderma, 115: 303-312.

Postel, Sandra. 1999. Pillar of Sand. Worldwatch Books, New York. 313 pp.

Rafiq, M.A., A. Ali, M. A. Malik and M. Hussain. 2010. Effect of fertilizer levels

and plant densities on yield and protein contents of autumn planted maize.

Pak. J. Agric. Sci., 47: 201-208.

Raison, R. J. 1979. Modification of the soil environment by vegetation fires, with

particular reference to nitrogen transformation. Plant Soil, 51: 73-108.

Ramesh, K., A. K. Biswas, J. Somasundaram and A. Rao. 2010. Nanoporous

zeolites in farming: Current status and issues ahead. Current Sci., 99(6):

760-764.

173

173

Ramesh, K., D. D. Reddy, K. Biswas and S. Rao. 2011. Zeolite and their potential

uses in agriculture. Adv. in Agron., p. 113-215.

Ramirez, A. M., E. Salvador and O. A. Limon. 2011. Two sources of zeolite as

substitutes of nitrogen fertilizer for wheat (Triticum aestivum) production in

Tlaxcala, Mexico. J. Trop. Subt. Agroe., 13: 533-536.

Rawls, W. J., Y. A. Pachepskyb, J. C. Ritchiea, T. M. Sobecki and H. Bloodworthc.

2003. Effect of soil organic carbon on soil water retention. Geoderma, 116:

61-76.

Rehakova, M., S. Cuvanova, M. Dzivak, J. Rimar and Z. Gaval. 2004. Agricultural

and agrochemical uses of natural zeolite of the clinoptilolite type. Curr.

Opin. Solid St. M., 8: 397-404.

Ren, J. L., S. Q. Li, J. Wang, L. Ling and F. M. Li. 2003. Effects of plastic film

mulching and fertilization on water consumption and water use efficiency

of spring wheat in semiarid agro-ecosystem. J. Northwest Sci. Technol., 31:

1-3.

Rhoades, J. D. 1982. Solube salts (electrical conductivity.In page, A.L, R.H. Miller

and D.r Keeney. (eds.) Methods of soil analysis part 2. ASA, No. Madison

Wisconsin. p. 172-173.

Richard, S., A. Quilliama, Karina, C. Marsdena, J. Gertlerc, H. Rouska, Thomas,

DeLucaa, L. Davey and Jonesa. 2012. Nutrient dynamics, microbial growth

and weed emergence in biochar amended soil are influenced by time since

application and reapplication rate. Agric. Ecosys. Environ., 158: 192- 199.

174

174

Roger, T., Koide, K. Petprakob, M. Peoples. 2011. Quantitative analysis of biochar

in field soil. Soil Biol. Biochem., 43: 1563-1568.

Saarnioa, K. and R. K. Heimonena. 2013. Biochar addition indirectly affects N2O

emissions via soil moisture and plant N uptake. Soil Biol. Biochem., 58: 99-

106.

Sagta, H. C. and S. Nautiyal. 2001. Growth performance and genetic divergence of

various provenances of Dalbergia sissoo Roxb at nursery stage. Silv. Gen.,

50: 93-99.

Santos, M. G, R. V. Ribeiro, E. C. Machado and C. Pimentel. 2009. Photosynthetic

parameters and leaf water potential of five common bean genotypes under

mild water deficit. Biol. Plant, 53(2): 229-236.

Satorre, E. H and Gustavo. A. Slafer. 1999. Wheat ecology and physiology of

yield determination. CRC press, Taylor and Francis Group, 3 pp.

Saysel, A. K. and Y. Barlas. 2001. A dynamic model of salinization on irrigated

lands. Ecol. Model, 139: 177-199.

Schlemmer, M. R., D. D. Francis, J. F. Shanahan and J. S. Schepers. 2005.

Remotely measuring chlorophyll content in corn leaves with differing

nitrogen levels and relative water content. Agron. J., 97: 106-112.

Sepaskhah, A. R. and M. Barzegar. 2010. Yield, water and nitrogenuse response of

rice to zeolite and nitrogen fertilization in a semi-arid environment. Agri.

Wat. Mgt., 98: 38-44.

https://www.google.com.pk/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22E+H+Satorre%22

https://www.google.com.pk/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Gustavo+A+Slafer%22

175

175

Sinclair, T. R. and M. M. Ludlow. 1986. Influence of soil water supply on the plant

water balance of four tropical grain legumes. Aust. J. Plant Physiol., 13:

329-341.

Sohi, S. P., E. Krull, E. Lopez-Capel and R. Bol. 2010. A review of biochar and its

use and function in soil. Adv. Agron., 105: 47-82.

Solaiman, Z. M., P. Blackwell, K. Lynette, Abbott and P. Storer. 2010. Direct and

residual effect of biochar application on mycorrhizal root colonisation,

growth and nutrition of wheat. Aust. J. Soil Res., 48: 546-54.

Solarov, M. B., P. Kljaji, G. Andri, B. Filip and L. Doki. 2012. Quality parameters

of wheat grain and flour as influenced by treatments with natural zeolite and

diatomaceous earth formulations, grain infestation status and endosperm

vitreousness. J. Stored Products Res., 51: 61-68.

Sonmez, I., M. Kaplan, H. Demır and E. Yilmaz. 2010. Effects of zeolite on

seedling quality and nutrient contents of tomato plant (Solanum

lycopersicon cv. Malike F1) grown in different mixtures of growing media.

J. Food Agric. Environ., 8(2): 1162-1165.

Spokas, K. A., W. C. Koskinen, J. M. Baker and D. C. Reicosky. 2009. Impacts of

wood chip biochar additions on green house gas production and

sorption/degradation of two herbicides in a Minnesota soil. Chemosphere,

77: 574-581.

Steel, R. G. D., J. H. Torrie and D. A. Dickey. 1996. Principles and Procedures of

Statistics: A Biometric Approach, (3rd

eds.). McGraw Hill Book Company

176

176

Incorporate, New York, USA, p 167-170.

Steinbeiss, S., G. Gleixner and M. Antonietti. 2009. Effect of biochar amendment

on soil carbon balance and soil microbial activity. Soil Biol. Biochem., 41:

1301-1310.

Steinbeiss, S., G. Gleixner and M. Antonietti. 2009. Effect of biochar amendment

on soil carbon balance and soil microbial activity. Soil Biol. Biochem., 4:

1301-1310.

Steiner, C., W. G. Teixeira and W. Zech. 2004. An alternative to slash and burn

practiced in the Amazon basin. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, p. 183-193.

Sukartono, W. H., Utomo, Z. Kusuma and W. H. Nugroho. 2011. Soil fertility

status, nutrient uptake, and maize (Zea mays L.) Yield following biochar

and cattle manure application on sandy soils of Lombok, Indonesia. J. Trop.

Agric., 49 (1-2) 47-52.

Surya, P. and D. Mitchell. 2015 Probablistic Benefit Cost Ratio. A case study.

Australasian Transport Research Forum. Proceedings 30 September to 2

October 2015, Sydney, Australia Publication website:http://www.atrf.info/p

apers/index.aspx

Swangjang, K. 2015. Soil carbon and nitrogen ratio in different land use.

International conference on advances in environment research, 87: 356-378.

DOI: 10.7763/IPCBEE. 2015. V87. 736

Szerment, J., A. Nita, K. Kedziora and J. Piasek. 2014. Use of zeolite in agriculture

177

177

and environmental university of agriculture and forestry, 31(4): 1-3.

Tetteh, Richmond. 2015. Chemical soil degradation as a result of contamination. J.

Soil Sci. Environ. Manag., 6:140-147.

Tian-Yu, J., J. Jiang, R. K. Xu and Z. Li. 2012. Adsorption of Pb (II) on variable

charge soils amended with rice-straw derived Biochar. Chemosphere, 89:

249-256.

Torma, S., J. Vilcek, P. Adamisin, E. Huttmannova and O. Hronec. 2014. Influence

of natural zeolite on nitrogen dynamics in soil. Turk. J. Agri. Fores., 13: 11-

13.

Tsai, W. T., Liu, S. C. C. Huei-Ru, C. Yuan-Ming and T. Yi-Lin. 2012. Textural

and chemical properties of swine-manure-derived biochar pertinent to its

potential use as a soil amendment. Chemosphere, 89: 198-203.

Usman, K. 2013. Effect of phosphorus and irrigation levels on yield, water

productivity, phosphorus use efficiency and income of Lowland rice in

Northwest Pakistan. Rice Sci., 20(1): 61-72.

Uzik M., A. Zafajova. 2000. Chlorophyll and nitrogen content in leaves of winter

wheat at different genotypes and fertilization. Rostlinna Vyroba, 46: 237-

244.

Uzoma, K. C., M. Inoue, H. Andry, H. Fujimaki, A. Zahoor and E. Nihihara. 2011.

Effect of cow manure biochar on maize productivity under sandy soil

condition. Soil Mgt., 27: 205-212.

178

178

Vaccaria, F.P., S. Barontia, E. Lugatoa, L. Genesioa, S. Castaldib, F. Fornasierc

and F. Miglietta. 2011. Biochar as a strategy to sequester carbon and

increase yield in durum wheat. Eur. J. Agron., 34: 231-238.

Valdes, M. G., A. I. Perez-C M. E. Dı z-G ı . 2 6. Z and

zeolite-based materials in analytical chemistry. Chem., 25 (1): 35-67.

Van, S. P. 2006. Farming with rocks and minerals, Challenges and opportunities.

Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências, 78: 731-747.

Van, Z. L., S. Kimber, S. Morris, K. Chan, A. Downie, J. Rust, S. Joseph and A.

Cowie. 2010. Effects of biochar from slow pyrolysis of paper mill waste on

agronomic performance and soil fertility. Plant Soil, 327: 235-246.

Van, Z. L. 2007. Research confirms biochar in soils boosts crop yields.

http://biopact.com/2007/06/research-confirms-biochar-in-soils.html.

Varela, M. O., E. B. Rivera1, C. W. J. Huang, C. Chien and Y. M. Wang. 2013.

Agronomic properties and characterization of rice husk and wood biochars

and their effect on the growth of water spinach in a field test. J. Soil Sci.

Plant Nutri., 13(2): 251-266.

Vendruscolo, A. C. G., I. Schuster, M. Pileggi, C. A. Scapim, H. B. C. Molinari, C.

J. Marur and L. G. C. Vieira. 2007. Stress-induced synthesis of proline

confers tolerance to water deficit in transgenic wheat, J. Plant. Physiol.,

164(10): 1367-1376.

Verbruggen, N. and C. Hermans. 2008. Proline accumulation in plants. Chem., 35:

http://biopact.com/2007/06/research-confirms-biochar-in-soils.html

179

179

753-759.

Verheijen, F. G. A., S. Jeffery, A. C. Bastos, M. V. D. Velde and I. Diafas. 2009.

Biochar application to soils. A critical scientific review of effects on soil

properties, processes and functions, p. 63-65.

Verheijen, F., S. Jeffery, A. C. Bastos, M. van der Velde and I. Diafas. 2010.

Biochar application to soils. A critical scientific review of effects on soil

properties, processes and functions. http://www.biochar international. org/si

tes/default/files/Verheijen%20et%20al%202010%20JRC

Vilcek, J., S. Torma, P. Adamisin and O. Hronec. 2013. Nitrogen sorption and its

release in the soil after zeolite application. Bulg. J. Agri. Sci., 19(2): 228-

234.

Wardle, D.A., M. C. Nilsson and O. Zackrisson. 2008. Fire derived charcoal causes

loss of forest humus. Sci., 320: 629-629.

Warraich, E. A., S. M. A. Basra, N. Ahmad, R.Ahmed and M. Aftab.2002. Effect

of nitrogen on grain quality and vigour in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Int.

J. Agri. Biol., 4(4): 517-520.

Wen-Tien, T., S. C. Liu, H. R. Chen, Y. M. Chang and Y. L. Tsai. 2012. Textural

and chemical properties of swine manure derived biochar pertinent to its

potential use as a soil amendment. Chemosphere, 89: 198-203.

Widowati, W. H. U., L. A. Soehono and B. Guritno. 2011. Effect of biochar on the

release and loss of nitrogen from urea fertilization. J. Agri. Food Technol.,

180

180

1(7): 127-132.

William, T. P. 2008. Potassium influences on yield and quality production for

maize, wheat, soybean and cotton. Physio. Planta., 133: 670-681.

Winsley, Peter. 2007. Biochar and bioenergy production for climate change

mitigation. Bulg. J. Agri. Sci., 64 (5): 5-14.

Woolf, D., J. E. Amonette, F. A. Street-Perrott, J. Lehmann and S. Joseph. 2010.

Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nature Comm., 1:

56-64.

Wuest, S. B. and K. G. Cassman. 1992. Fertilizer-N use efficiency of irrigated

wheat, Uptake and efficiency of pre-plant versus late season application.

Agron. J., 84: 682-688.

Xiubin, H. and H. Zhanbin, 2001. Zeolite application India. The biotechnology of

biofertilizers for enhancing water infiltration and retention in loess Soils in

Kannaiyan. Soil Res. Conserv. Recycl., 34: 45-52.

Yamato, M., Y. Okimori, I. F. Wibowo, S. Anshori and M. Ogawa. 2006. Effect of

the application of charred bark of Acacia mangium on the yield of maize,

cowpea and peanut, and soil chemical properties in South Sumatra,

Indonesia. Soil Sci. Plant Nutri., 52: 489-495.

Yangyuoru, M., E. Boateng, S. G. K. Adiku, D. Acquah, T. A. Adjadeh and F.

Mawunya. 2006. Effects of natural and synthetic soil conditioners on soil

moisture retention and maize yield in West Africa. J. Appl. Ecol., 9: 1-8.

http://www.biochar-international.org/images/NZSR64_1_Winsley.pdf

http://www.biochar-international.org/images/NZSR64_1_Winsley.pdf

181

181

Yeboah, E., P. Ofori, G. W. Quansah, E. Dugan and S. P. Sohi. 2009. Improving

soil productivity through biochar amendments to soils. Afri. J. Enviro. Sci.

Technol., 3: 34-41.

Yilmaz, E., I. Sonmez and H. Demir. 2014. Effects of zeolite on seedling quality

and nutrient contents of cucumber plant (cucumis sativus l. cv. mostar)

grown in different mixtures of growing media. Commun. Soil Sci. Pla.

Anal., 45: 2767-2777.

Yolcu, H., H. Seker, M. K. Gullap, A. Lithourgidis and A. Gunes. 2011.

Application of cattle manure, zeolite and leonardite improves hay yield and

quality of annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) under semi-arid

conditions. Aust. J. Crop Sci., 5(8): 926-931.

Yuan, J., R. Xu and H. Zhang. 2011. The forms of alkalis in the biochar produced

from crop residues at different temperatures. Biores Techno., 102: 3488-

3497.

Zahedi, H., A. H. S. Rad and H. R. T. Moghadam. 2011. Effects of zeolite and

selenium applications on some agronomic traits of three canola cultivars

under drought stress. Pesq. Agropec. Trop. Goiania, 41(2):179-185.

Zamanian, M., 2008. The effects of the usage of the different levels of the zeolite in

the capacity of preserving of the water of the soil. J. Agri. Sci., 3:247-248.

Zangsuo, L., F. Zhang, Minganshao and J. Zhang. 2002. The relation of stomatal

conductance, water consumption, growth rate to leaf water potential during

soil drying and re-watering cycle of wheat (Triticum aestivum). J. Bot.

https://www.google.com.pk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiMhpDi4dTLAhUKOxQKHVVgBzkQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedirect.com%2Fscience%2Fjournal%2F09608524&usg=AFQjCNGMjeXegWgdB8VJvLrJcluQTH_aQw

182

182

Acade Sinic., 43: 187-192.

Zecevic, V., D. Knezevic, J. Boskovic, D. Micanovic and B. Dimitrijevic. 2009.

Genetic and phenotypic variability of number of spikelets per spike in

winter wheat. Kragujevac J. Sci., 31: 85-90.

Zhai, L., Z. Caiji, J. Liu, H. Wang, T. Ren, X. Gai, B. Xi and H. Liu. 2014. Short

term effects of maize residue biochar on phosphorus availability in two soils

with different phosphorus sorption capacities. Bio. Fert. Soil, 51(1):113-

122.

Zhanga, A., R. Bian, G. Pana, C. Liqiang, Q. Hussaina, L. Li, J. Zhenga, J. Zhenga,

X. Zhanga, X. Hana and X. Yua. 2012. Effects of biochar amendment on

soil quality, crop yield and green house gas emission in a Chinese rice

paddy. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci., 127: 153-160.

Zhao G. Q., B. L. Ma, and C. Z. Ren. 2009. Response of nitrogen uptake and

partitioning to critical nitrogen supply in oat cultivars. Crop Sci., 49: 1040-

1048.

183

183

Treatments Cost of sowing in PKR Year 2013-14

Harvesting cost PKR

Benefit in PKR

BCR

Seed bed

preparation

Sowing

with drill/ hour

Fertilizers

Urea &NPK

Seed

Zeolite

Biochar

Pesticide

/bottle

Labor

(spray)

transportation

(seed, fertilizer)

Harvestor

cost/hr

Labour

(loading, unloading)

Transportation

To local market

WHEAT

SRTAW (k

Grain

yield (

B0Z0 6750 1050 14088 5805 0 0 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000 47808.75 61087.5 2.7

B3Z0 6750 1050 14088 5805 0 30000 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000 49247.25 64509.38 1.6

B6Z0 6750 1050 14088 5805 0 60000 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000 49370.25 68718.75 1.2

B9Z0 6750 1050 14088 5805 0 90000 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000 49643.25 72121.88 0.9

B0Z1 6750 1050 14088 5805 4000 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000 48348.75 65809.38 2.6

B0Z3 6750 1050 14088 5805 12000 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000 48478.5 66796.88 2.2

B0Z5 6750 1050 14088 5805 20000 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000 48993.75 69793.75 2.0

B3Z1 6750 1050 14088 5805 4000 30000 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000 49192.5 72259.38 1.6

B3Z3 6750 1050 14088 5805 12000 30000 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000 49771.5 73859.38 1.5

B3Z5 6750 1050 14088 5805 20000 30000 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000 51485.25 75750 1.4

B6Z1 6750 1050 14088 5805 4000 60000 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000 50876.25 75403.13 1.2

B6Z3 6750 1050 14088 5805 12000 60000 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000 52582.5 75840.63 1.1

B6Z5 6750 1050 14088 5805 20000 60000 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000 55575 79306.25 1.1

B9Z1 6750 1050 14088 5805 4000 90000 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000 54534.75 73234.38 1.0

B9Z3 6750 1050 14088 5805 12000 90000 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000 56199 75634.38 0.9

B9Z5 6750 1050 14088 5805 20000 90000 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000 57997.5 81296.88 0.9

APPENDIXI

184

184

Treatments Cost of sowing in PKR Year 2014

Harvesting cost PKR Benefit in PKR

BCR

Seed bed

preparation

Sowing

with drill/ hour

Fertilizers

Urea &NPK

Seed

Zeolite

Biochar

Pesticide

/bottle

Labor

(spray)

transportation

(seed, fertilizer)

Harvester

cost/hr

Labor

(loading, unloading)

Transportation

To local market

WHEAT

SRTAW

Grain

yield

B0Z0 6750 1050 14088 5805 - - 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000

46879.5 64418.75 2.8

B3Z0 6750 1050 14088 5805 - - 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000

49093.5 67178.13 2.9

B6Z0 6750 1050 14088 5805 - - 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000

49903.5 71087.5 3.0

B9Z0 6750 1050 14088 5805 - - 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000

50970.75 74978.13 3.2

B0Z1 6750 1050 14088 5805 - - 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000

48675.75 66690.63 2.9

B0Z3 6750 1050 14088 5805 - - 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000

49269 68050 2.9

B0Z5 6750 1050 14088 5805 - - 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000

49641 70143.75 3.0

B3Z1 6750 1050 14088 5805 - - 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000

50039.25 73387.5 3.1

B3Z3 6750 1050 14088 5805 - - 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000

51748.5 73303.13 3.1

B3Z5 6750 1050 14088 5805 - - 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000

51681 76443.75 3.2

B6Z1 6750 1050 14088 5805 - - 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000

52288.5 75871.88 3.2

B6Z3 6750 1050 14088 5805 - - 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000

53163.75 76943.75 3.3

B6Z5 6750 1050 14088 5805 - - 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000

55771.5 79637.5 3.4

B9Z1 6750 1050 14088 5805 - - 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000

55060.5 75800 3.3

B9Z3 6750 1050 14088 5805 - - 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000

56757 76196.88 3.3

B9Z5 6750 1050 14088 5805 - - 1976 800 500 2500 2400 4000

58176.75 82746.88 3.5

APPENDIXII

185

185

Documents

IMPACT OF BIOCHAR AND ZEOLITE ON AGROPHYSIOLOGY OF …prr.hec.gov.pk/jspui/bitstream/123456789/10659/1/Awais... · 2019-12-31 · 4.1.3 Soil Quality Parameters 67 4.1.3.1 pH 67 4.1.3.2