Examining the Effect of Combined Biochar and Lime Rates on Selected Soil Physicochemical Properties of Acid Soils in Gimbi District, Western Ethiopia

Abeba Kenea, Solomon; Abera Goshu, Tolera; Chimdessa, Kinati

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/4440448

Applied and Environmental Soil Science

On this page

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

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2024 | Article ID 4440448 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/4440448

Examining the Effect of Combined Biochar and Lime Rates on Selected Soil Physicochemical Properties of Acid Soils in Gimbi District, Western Ethiopia

Solomon Abeba Kenea,¹Tolera Abera Goshu,²and Kinati Chimdessa¹

Academic Editor: Shankar Karuppannan

Received26 Jul 2023

Revised16 Jan 2024

Accepted02 Feb 2024

Published16 Feb 2024

Abstract

The physicochemical properties of Western Ethiopian soils were negatively threatened with continuous cultivation crop lands. Soil amendments with biochar and lime facilitate and improve soil physicochemical properties directly and indirectly and enhance crop productivity. A field experiment was conducted in Gimbi District, Western Ethiopia, to examine the effects of combined coffee husk biochar (CHB) and soil test value-based lime (STV) rate application on physicochemical properties of acid soils. The trial included eight treatments, including control, 100% STV, 10 ton of CHB, and CHB + STV rates at 10 ton + 75%, 10 ton + 50%, 7.5 ton + 75%, 7.5 ton + 50%, and 5 ton + 75% ha⁻¹on two farm fields. The fields were laid out in RCBD with three replications. The treatments had substantial effects on ) on the soil’s physicochemical characteristics. The application of biochar and lime in Farms-1 and 2 reduced soil BD from 1.21 and 1.41 g·cm⁻³ to 1.15 and 1.12 to 0.90 and 0.97 g·cm⁻³, respectively. The soil pH level was increased from 5.10 to a range of 5.58 to 6.11 in Farm-1, and in Farm-2, from 4.64 to a range of 4.64 to 6.22 levels. The application of 10 ton of CHB + 75% of STV in Farms-1 and 2 resulted in the highest SOC of 7.44% and 7.68%, respectively. The application of 10 ton of CHB + 75% of STV in Farms-1 and 2 resulted in 4.86 mg·kg⁻¹ and 6.96 mg·kg⁻¹ available P, respectively. Available P was positively correlated with pH (0.62), SOC (0.63), and CEC (0.66). Exchangeable acidity was decreased from 4.64 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹ to a range from 3.19 to 0.98 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹ in Farm-1 and from 5.00 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹ to a range from 3.38 to 1.10 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹ in Farm-2. Therefore, amending the strongly acidic to very strongly acidic soil with a combined CHB (7.5 to 10 ton ha⁻¹) and STV (50 to 75% ha⁻¹) rates had improved the soil physicochemical properties of agricultural lands. To make a firm conclusion, research on soil analysis after crop harvest and economic benefit is required.

1. Introduction

In actuality, tropical soils have lower fertility and nutritional deficits. Several factors are contributing to the deterioration of soil attributes [1–4], while depletion of soil nutrients and a lack of suitable management to restore the soils are major obstacles to food security [5, 6]. Most soils in sub-Saharan African regions range in strength from strong to very strong acid soils; these soils often have unsuitable soil properties for crop production [7, 8]. Losses of important soil nutrients, in particular, soil phosphorus and mineral nitrogen are common in such acidic soils. The use of a combination ameliorant could be an alternative option to improve the soil fertility. In such regions of a serious problematic soil fertility issue, integrated soil fertility management was therefore suggested and has already been implemented by agricultural users in Kenya, Rwanda, Ethiopia, and Malawi [3, 5, 9, 10].

The soils in western Ethiopia region have a high potential for producing a variety of crops; however, soil acidity is the main problem that reduces soil fertility and crop output [7, 11]. Imbalanced agricultural input use and high levels of nutrient leakage are the cause of deteriorating soil fertility [5, 12, 13]. Increasing agricultural yield is feasible when using the only appropriate soil fertility management techniques [1, 14, 15].

Since lime has shown a positive synergy with crop output, it is permitted for use in combination with a mineral fertilizer to help boost agricultural productivity [16, 17]. It improves soil’s pH level, cation exchange capacity, and percentage base saturation. It promotes the breakdown of soil organic matter, verifies the nutrients in the soil, and removes contaminants from the soil. In addition, lime enhances soil physical qualities and can be used for more than three years [7, 18–20]. In general, lime is valuable, but it has some drawbacks, including high transport costs, potential restrictions on practical applications, and negative effects on trace element shortages [21, 22]. Additionally, in the western region of Ethiopia, there is a gap in the lime recommendations based on the particular crop kinds and soil conditions [18]. Therefore, it is important to find additional alternative inputs that can be combined with lime to minimize its use rate, maintain soil fertility, achieve the best crop yields, and reap associated economic benefits.

Organic fertilizers have been proven to greatly improve soil properties and plant biomass, mostly, when used in combination with other fertilizers [23–25]. This is in contrast to the use of a mere fertilizer or lime. Particularly, after combining organic input with lime experiment led, the crop response and soil healthy enhancement under organic fertilizer treatments has been approved [26, 27]. Therefore, seeking for locally accessible resources such as compost, manure, and biochar may be an option for soil fertility rather than utilizing a simple mineral fertilizer or/and lime.

Biochar is a carbon-rich biochar made by pyrolysis of biomasses [28–31]. Applying biochar to acidic soils directly enhances the biological, physical, and chemical characteristics of the soil [29, 32]. As a result, biochar can be thought of as a soil facilitator for nutrient transport and cycling, plant growth and impact on soil toxicity, soil’s density, and soil nutrient release [25, 33]. However, the material and pyrolysis temperature have the greatest influence on the effects of biochar [25]. Although biochar has a significant potential for improving soil qualities, regarding its benefit, there is only very little information available in Ethiopia [30, 34].

There are excess local resources, particularly for coffee husks and others in Ethiopia, including the western part of the country that can be used as the raw materials for biochar production [5, 35, 36]. In Ethiopia, very limited amount of the coffee products produced in facilities for coffee processing are suitable for commercial use, whereas most of these coffee byproducts are burned in large stacks or dumped into streams [37, 38], which poses greater environmental risks [39]. However, turning these coffee waste products into biochar through pyrolysis could aid in addressing the country’s western region’s soil acidity issue.

Various scholars have long argued on the reduction of soil acidity in uses of lime and biochar in the agricultural systems of developed nations [12, 30, 40, 41]. The benefits of this biochar are not widely recognized in tropical countries, especially in Western Ethiopia. However, Gimbi District is one of those areas among the Western Ethiopia, with a lot of rainfall, where agricultural soils are physically deteriorated and essential nutrients were long-term leached and caused the development of soil acidity [7, 14]. In fact, the agricultural soils in this study area were deteriorated by this soil’s acidity, which ranges from strong to extremely strong acidic level [14, 35, 42, 43]. Exceptionally high concentrations of toxic elements are suggested by the region’s rich, rust-red soil or Nitisols [7, 14, 35, 43, 44]. However, utilizing a combination ameliorant for acid soils could be a viable alternative for enhancing soil fertility and may assist to resolve the difficulties in gaining access to supplies of fertilizer. The availability of raw materials for organic inputs such as biochar in the study area and the growing issues with soil acidity further emphasize the necessity for integrated fertilizer research in crop production to feed the present and future populations [7, 14, 35]. The role that ameliorants should play in this scenario and the appropriate amount of input to be added at what rate to condition the soil remain unknown, and should also be determined. As a result, the objective of this study was to examine the effects of combined coffee husk biochar and soil test value-based lime rates on selected physicochemical properties of acid soils in Gimbi District, Western Ethiopia.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of the Study Area

The examination was conducted in Gimbi District, Western Ethiopia, which is 441 km west of Addis Ababa (Figure 1). It is surrounded by the Benishangul-Gumuz region in the north, East Welega in the east, Lalo Asabi District in the west, Homa District in the southwest, Haru District in the south, and an exclaved Benishangul-Gumuz area in the southwest [45]. The mean annual temperatures in the studied areas range from 10 to 30°C, and these locations are distinguished by a unimodal rainfall pattern with an average annual rainfall of 1,700 mm and the height spans from 1,200 to 2,222 m.a.s.l.

There are three agroecological zones: lowland, midland, and highland, where 70% is highland, 10% is midland, and 20% is lowland [13, 45, 46]. Mostly, surface lands’ entire topography is a reflection of previous geological and erosional processes [43]. The local population relied on trees and crops for revenue and fences, shade, food, and fodder for cattle [45, 46]. Since the early 1950s, smallholder farmers of Ethiopia, including western areas, have mostly used mineral fertilizers and rarely lime to increase crop yield. Currently, leaching and degradation to their agricultural soils became defaulted everywhere in the study area [13].

2.2. Experimental Materials and Preparation

2.2.1. Experimental Field

Depending on the uniformity of the site, two experimental sites (Farm-1, Wondimu Tasisa, and Farm-2, Girma Burayu) were specifically chosen from Gimbi District, Western Ethiopia. A composite soil sample made up of five subsamples was obtained using the zigzag method by auger at a depth of 20 cm from each site in order to determine the soil acidity (soil pH of 7) before initiating the experiment. Independent undisturbed samples were also collected using a core sampler for BD determination. In a soil laboratory, the soil was examined for a number of parameters, and the results are shown in Table 1.

2.2.2. Biochar Material

Coffee husk from the dry pulping station found close to Gimbi town was used to make coffee husk biochar (CHB). The gathered biochar materials were dried by air in the sun to produce biochar. Soil pit kilns with dimensions of 150 cm in diameter and 90 cm in depth and a side wall with an approximate slope angle of 63.5 degrees were created for the manufacture of biochar. Dry feedstock was positioned in the center of the pit, and fire was ignited on top of them to create a blaze for layer-by-layer charring in accordance to methodology of Pandit et al. [47]. To reduce oxygen and aid the pyrolysis process, the dry feedstock was placed into a pit kiln after the fire was extinguished with earth and left for 24 hours (Figure 2). To achieve the same particle size as the topsoil used for the experiment, the produced biochar material was crushed and sieved through a 2 mm square-mesh sieve [47–50]. From the subsample of coffee husk biochar taken for each biochar product, a composite sample was created and evaluated for specific chemical parameters as shown in table (Table 1).

2.2.3. Lime Material

The lime, soil test value-based lime (STV), which contained the equivalent of 98% calcium carbonate in powder form (CaCO₃), was brought to the experiment site and put to use. The exchangeable acidity (EA) concentration-based equation and the BD were used to determine how much lime was required at the research location [51]. Farm-1’s soil BD and EA were 1.26 g·cm⁻³ and 4.46 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹, respectively, but they were 1.41 g·cm⁻³ and 5.13 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹ for Farm-2. Accordingly, Farms-1 and 2 required 4.22 ton and 5.43 ton of soil test value-based lime (lime), respectively.

2.3. Experimental Treatments, Design, and Management

Three replications of the treatment were set up in a randomized complete block design [52]. Two farmer’s fields in distinct kebeles (Chuta Georgis and Chuta Gochi) in Gimbi District, Western Ethiopia, were chosen for the study based on their availability, soil acidity, regularity of the land plot, and management. The experiment was carried out during the 2022 rainy season, with the soil samples from the treatment being taken on May 3, 2022 or incubation, and on June 3, 2022 for analysis of the effect of lime rate and biochar on soil physicochemical properties after incubation for a month.

After a month of application, the effects of ameliorant rate on soil properties were assessed using treatments that were purposefully chosen from biochar and lime rate, including the control, 100% of STV ha⁻¹, 10 ton of CHB, 10 ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹, 10 ton of CHB + 50% of STV ha⁻¹, 7.5 ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹, and 5 ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹. Blocks and plots were separated by 1 and 0.5°m, respectively. Each experimental plot measured 3.20°m × 3.80°m (12.16 m²) in size. The total area of each plot was 10.80 m², with the net plot size being 3.00 m × 3.60°m. To avoid the border effect, the first 10 cm of each side’s width and length was left uncut in order to designate the border. In accordance with the plan, a field was laid out and prepared. Next, lime and biochar were carefully and uniformly placed across the similar experimental plots and hoed into the soil. All plots received the same treatment with regard to all management measures, including protecting against animal tracks, erosion, and the through-flow of other waste products.

2.4. Data Collection and Analysis

2.4.1. Soil Sampling

To ascertain the impact of mixed biochar and lime on acid soil physicochemical properties, soil samples were collected from each experimental plot one month after the treatments were applied. Five soil subsamples, one from each plot, were collected using the zigzag method by auger at a depth of 20 cm to create the composite soil sample [52]. Additionally, a core sampler was used to acquire separate samples of undisturbed soil at a distance of twenty centimeters (cm) in order to determine the BD [53]. Moreover, as per the sample of soils, ice box was used to engage the soil sample for analysis of ammonium nitrogen (NH₄-N) and nitrate nitrogen (NO₃-N) [54].

The sampling depth, intensity per unit area of the site, and the design were typically taken into consideration when creating the soil sampling protocols to account for variations in soil property parameters. Samples of representative soil were kept contaminant-free. Finally, soil samples were air-dried, crushed, thoroughly mixed, and sieved with a mesh size of 2 mm. They were then made ready, correctly labeled, packed in a plastic bag, and engaged separately in an ice box for analysis of NH₄-N and NO₃-N. After that, a soil sample was taken to a laboratory for examination.

2.4.2. Soil Physicochemical Analysis

Bulk density (BD), soil porosity (Po), and soil moisture content (MC) were analyzed to determine the effect of different treatments on them. The soil BD (g·cm⁻³) was determined by the core method after drying a defined volume of soil in an oven at 105°C for 24 hours [55]. The Po was determined by [56] method. Soil MC (%) was measured after drying in an oven at 105°C for 24 hours and dried to a constant weight, according to Gardner [57]. Water content was calculated using the formula , where is the beginning weight and is the oven-dried weight of the soil. Soil sample was pretreated with H₂O₂ (30%) to remove any organic material and sodium hexametaphosphate to disperse clay. The density of the soil suspension was determined by the hydrometer (Bouyoucos) method to read in grams of solids per liter after the sand settles out and again after the silt settles. A correction was made for the density and temperature of soil-water suspension and was identified for the percentage of particle size classes according to the USDA textural triangle [58].

To estimate the effect of different treatments on chemical properties of soil, the soil pH level, organic carbon (SOC), organic matter (SOM), total nitrogen percent (TN%), carbon-to-nitrogen ratio (C/N), cation exchangeable capacity (CEC), and available phosphorous (available P), exchangeable acidity (EA), exchangeable aluminum (EAl), ammonium nitrogen (NH₄-N), and nitrate nitrogen (NO₃-N) were analyzed. Soil pH (1 : 2.5 H₂O) was extracted by the soil:water ratio of 1 : 2.5 and determined by the potentiometric method [59]. Soil OC percent was extracted by wet oxidation (Walkley-Black) and determined by the titration method [60]. Soil organic matter percent was calculated by using the Van Bemmelen factor of 1.724. The TN% was calculated by the Kjeldahl method and analyzed by the titration method [61]. The carbon-to-nitrogen ratio was determined from the carbon and nitrogen estimated. The distillation-titration method was used to extract CEC (cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹) from ammonium acetate at 7 pH level [62]. Available P (mg·kg⁻¹) was extracted by the Bray II method and determined using the spectrophotometric method [63]. The EA, Al⁺, and H⁺ (cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹) were extracted by KCl and determined by the titration method [64]. Exchangeable bases (Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, K⁺, and Na⁺) were estimated by ammonium acetate at pH level of 7. The K⁺ and Na⁺ were determined using flame photometry, while Ca²⁺ and Mg²⁺ were determined using the AAS [65] technique. Nitrate nitrogen (NO₃-N) was extracted by phenoldisulphonic acid and analyzed by the spectrophotometric method [66], whereas the NH4-N was extracted by copper sulfate and analyzed by the distillation-titration method [67].

2.4.3. Biochar Chemical Properties’ Analysis

After shaking the biochar for 30 minutes, the pH was measured in distilled water at a 1 : 10 biochar to water mass ratio as described in [68]. According to Chintala et al. [69], the OC content of biochar was measured using the Walkley-Black method and the total nitrogen (TN) content was measured using the Kjeldahl method. The Olsen extraction method was used to calculate the amount of available P as described in the study by Bayu et al. [68]. After leaching the biochar with ammonium acetate, the percentage base saturation was calculated. Atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS) was used to measure the Ca and Mg concentrations of the biochar in the leachate. Flame photometry was used to determine the levels of K and Na. In order to estimate the CEC titrimetrically by ammonium distillation that was displaced by sodium, the CEC was first evaluated at soil pH 7 after displacement using the 1°N ammonium acetate method in accordance to the method described by Chintala et al. [69].

2.5. Data Analysis

The statistical analysis system software, version 9.3 [70], general linear model (GLM) approach, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to analyze the data of the selected soil properties parameters. To distinguish statistical significance of changes due to the different applied treatments, the least significant difference (LSD) test was performed at 5 percent probability level. Simple correlation analysis was also carried out using the Pearson’s correlation coefficient to determine the magnitudes and directions of relationships between studied soil characteristics parameter at the 5% level.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. The Preincubation Soil Physicochemical Properties of the Study Area

The soil properties of the study area before treatment application are indicated in Table 1. In Farms 1 and 2, the soil texture class composition consisted of 47 and 61% sand, 30 and 27% silt, and 23 and 12% clay, respectively. The farm of Farm-1 (Wondimu Tasisa) had soils resembling loam, whereas the Farm-2 (Girma Burayu) had sandy loam. Therefore, in the current experiment, Farm-1 and Farm-2 received different amounts of lime at various rates. According to Wogi et al. [71], loam and sandy loam soils have varying buffering capacities, which can potentially affect how much lime is needed for a given soil.

The BD was found to be 1.26 g·cm⁻³ for Farm-1 and 1.41 g·cm⁻³ for Farm-2. Farm-1 soils have surface mineral soils that were not well-compacted, while Farm-2 soils are known for their hindering of root growth and a wide range of clay characteristics. Farms-1 and 2 had MCs that were 30.5 and 23.6%, respectively. The two primary variables that determine soil MC are SOM and BD; thus, low MC of the soil may be brought on by low SOM and high BD [6].

The soil pH level revealed the acidity of the soil. The features of the soil pH values (H₂O) of the Farms-1 and 2 during preincubation, which were 5.2 and 4.63 level, respectively, are very acidic soil (Farm-1; pH value of 5.1 to 5.5) and very strongly acidic soil (Farm-2; pH level of less 5), respectively. Regarding Farm-1, the Ca²⁺ (4.1 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹), Mg²⁺ (0.4 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹), and Na⁺ (0.2 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹) were all low in content, with the exception of K (0.7 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹), which was high. Likewise, Farm-2 has medium levels of K⁺ (0.4 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹) and Na⁺ (0.3 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹), very low levels of Ca²⁺ (1.94 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹) and Mg²⁺ (0.2 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹). Low content of CEC (5–15 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹) was found in both Farm-1 (10.43) and Farm-2 (9.06), which are within the range for CEC provided by Wogi et al. [71]. The results indicate that the soil in both of the research area’s farms (Farms-1 and 2) has low fertility because of their low basic cation content.

The C/N ratios in Farms-1 and 2 were 8.38 and 11.11, respectively, indicating that the soil OC and total N levels were in the middle range. Farm-1 (1.14 mg·kg⁻¹) and Farm-2 (0.91 mg·kg⁻¹) found very little phosphorous that was readily available. The soil exchangeable acid results for Farms-1 and -2 were 4.46 and 5.13 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹, respectively. This severe acidity of the soil may destroy the basic cations and increase the likelihood of Al poisoning. According to Bolan et al. [72], the exchangeable Al and H in such soils were not entirely limited. As a result, additional options for reclaiming the soils are required; integrating soil fertility management options may be the answer.

3.2. Biochar Chemical Composition

Table 1 contains the results of the chemical characteristics investigation of coffee biochar. The biochar was extremely strongly alkaline with a pH-H₂O of 10.61. The exchangeable bases, exchangeable Ca²⁺ (58.30 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹), exchangeable K⁺ (3.10 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹), and exchangeable Na⁺ (4.47 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹), were all very high in content, with the exception of Mg²⁺ (7.77 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹), which was ranged in high content. This has led to the extremely high base saturation (91.91%) being noted. Tested biochar has extremely high CEC (80.10 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹) and TN (2.03%) as well as high SOC. It is true that the alkalinity of biochar is confirmed by different authors [17, 25, 29–32].

The C/N ratio was 15.39. Naturally, the nitrogen content occurs in organic molecules [32, 33] and these author’s facts confirm that biochar contains nitrogen. Furthermore, only 16.8 mg·kg⁻¹ of the accessible phosphorous (available P) out of the total phosphorous of 138.01 mg·kg⁻¹ was collected, and it had a low extractable p content. Phosphorous retention in biochar is a mechanism to provide vital indication for the effective management of P to boost crop production and sustain soil [29, 40]. This might be caused by the biochar’s high alkalinity. This conclusion from a chemical examination of biochar demonstrates that it has great potential for amending acidic soils.

3.3. Effect of Combined Biochar and Lime Rates on Physical Properties of Acid Soils

The study found that applying combination biochar and lime rates resulted in a substantial () variation in the physical parameters of the soil. For Farms-1 and -2, the positive benefits of biochar and/or lime on soil performance have been rather fully observed, as the same experiment was conducted. However, there were differences between Farms-1 and -2, because Farm-1 had previously had strongly acidic soil, whereas Farm-2 had a very strongly acidic soil. Previously, the soils in each of the farms under study were unsuitable for growing crops. This investigation made it clear that adding biochar and/or lime to the soil could enhance acid soil physical characteristics. Crop growth is encouraged on the treated soil with the addition of organic inputs and an improvement of the soil’s physical attributes [32, 40, 73, 74].

3.3.1. Soil Bulk Density

In Figure 3 and Table 2, the effects of applying biochar and/or lime on the BD of acidic soils are depicted. The mean squares of the analysis of variance for BD are shown in Table 3. Treatments amended with biochar and/or lime at ( demonstrated substantially lower BD compared to controls at both study sites. Similarly, a different study justified that the application of biochar and/or lime affected soil physical properties [40, 72].

In Farm-1, the BD of the soil treated with biochar and/or lime was lower than the control treatment by 4.96 to 25.62%. The control treatment had the highest BD (1.21 g·cm⁻³), which is statistically equivalent to (1.15 g·cm⁻³) when treated with 100% lime at (). The BD of the soil treated by sole 10°t of CHB (0.90 g·cm⁻³) and 10°t of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹ were decreased by 25.62% from control one. The BD decreased from 20.57 to 28.37% compared to the control treatment in Farm-2’s soil that had been modified with biochar and/or lime. The control sample (1.41 g·cm⁻³) had the highest bulk density (Figure 3). This finding revealed that the amount of 10 ton of CHB ha⁻¹, 100% of STV ha⁻¹, and 7.5 ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹ had decreased soil BD (0.97 to 1.02 g·cm⁻³). Application of 5 ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹, 10 ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹, 10 ton of CHB + 50% of STV ha⁻¹ and 7.5 ton of CHB + 50% of STV ha⁻¹ were statistically similar to one another. Chimdi[19] and Karim et al. [75] found the reduced soil compaction following the application of lime and biochar, respectively. Also, Periyasamy and Temesgen [32] organic liming of soil has an inverse relationship with soil BD that analyses to soil organic matter growth.

Biochar decreased the bulk density of soil, which could directly increases soil aggregation and indirectly porosity of soil [73]. This could be caused by the porosity of the biochar, drainage, aeration, or in a condition of biochar application, the soil’s decreased mechanical barrier to root activity. In addition, the applying of lime could increase the soil tilth, which reduced crusting and promoted soil aeration, which in turn increased microbial activity, similar to approved in Gurmessa [76]. By combing, adding biochar and lime rates on the acid soil could reduce compaction [75, 76]. In the current investigation, BD in strongly acidic soils displays an inverse relationship with SOC (−0.83). The difference in the soils’ capacity to act as a buffer is responsible for this association’s presence via different farm field [77, 78].

3.3.2. Soil Porosity (Po)

The effects of biochar and/or lime rate on porosity (Po) of soil in both Farms-1 and 2 had statistically significant () difference. As demonstrated in Figure 4, all treatments on both farms improved soil porosity, with the exception of the control treatment. The biochar and/or lime treatments resulted in an increase in soil porosity from 3.69 to 21.05% compared to the not amended treatment in Farm-1. The 10 tons of CHB and 75% of STV ha⁻¹ (65.78%) and 10 tons of CHB (64.65%) treatments had the highest values for soil Po percent. The application of STV ha⁻¹resulted in the lowest soil Po (56.35%) compared to the control (54.34%). The Farm-2’s soils modified with CHB and/or STV treatments had soil Po values (23.13 to 35.22%) higher than the control treatment. The 10 tons of CHB (63.27%), 100% of the STV ha⁻¹ (61.76%), and the 7.5 ton of CHB + 75% of the STV ha⁻¹(62.13%) had the highest Po values, while the control (46.79%) had the lowest. In this study, the application of lime and biochar resulted in a negative correlation between the carbon content and bulk density, and therefore, the improvement in soil porosity was investigated. This idea is confirmed by Mosharrof et al. [40].

The higher the total porosity of the soil, the better the soil’s physical quality [32]. One of the crucial properties of biochar that can increase the amount of water that is available to plants and enhance the soil’s capacity to retain nutrients is its pore size [33]. By enhancing soil macroaggregate content and pore space persistence, biochar and/or lime have boosted overall porosity [40]. Microspores are involved in molecular adsorption and transport, whereas microspores have an impact on aeration and hydrology [29]. As a result, biochar is an ameliorant helps the pore dispersion, alter soil compaction for increased aggregate stability, or lessen the likelihood of soil erosion by enhancing pore space persistence. The pyrolysis temperature and feedstock, however, may affect the Po of biochar [31]. A few key characteristics of biochar, such as its high porosity, quantity of microspores, and surface area, may have the potential to alter the physical characteristics of soil and improve the conditions for plant root development and nutrient uptake. Furthermore, because biochar has pores and a particular surface area, it has the potential to adsorb and fix a wide range of inorganic ions as well as polar or nonpolar organic molecules [30], and then, it boosts the ventilation of the soil and speeds up the creation of stronger aggregates to create large aggregates that are both organically and inorganically mediated. Chen et al. [79] also found that applying limestone increased the porosity of the soil.

3.3.3. Soil Moisture Content (MC)

The effect of biochar and/or lime rate addition on soil moisture content taken into account for both Farms-1 and 2 soils was demonstrated to be statistically significant at () as shown in Table 2 compared to the control treatment, all the treatments in both farms improved the MC of the soil (Figure 5).

The soil MC was increased by 7.25 to 50.06% after STV and/or CHB were added, as compared to the control one in Farm-1. The highest soil MC measurements were made with 10 ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹ (37.92%) and 10 ton of CHB + 50% of STV ha⁻¹ (38.70%). The highest MC, 10 ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹ and 10 ton of CHB + 50% of STV ha⁻¹, and were statistically similar with 100% of STV ha⁻¹ and 7.5 ton of CHB + 50% of STV ha⁻¹. Lowest MC was found in the control (25.79%). The 7.5 ton of CHB + 75% of Soil test value-based lime ha⁻¹ (27.66%) was statistically comparable to the control at . Regarding Farm-2, the soil MC increased by 10.99 to 98.65% compared to control one’s MC in the soil modified with biochar and/or lime. The 10 ton of CHB + 50% of STV ha⁻¹ had the highest MC (42.83%) compared to the earlier treatments. The control treatment produced the lowest amount of MC (21.56%; ). Different authors were reported the increase in soil MC when biochar and lime is applied [40, 72, 80]. This return was strongly related to changes in BD and Po that were seen in plots that had been changed with biochar and lime.

3.4. Effect of Combined Biochar and Lime Application Rate on Acidic Soil Chemical Characteristics

3.4.1. Soil pH Level

The mean value of soil pH (1 : 2.5 H₂O) was significantly () changed by the application of biochar and/or lime on acidic soil (Table 3). Mosharrof et al. [40] confirmed this study, as appreciated the change of soil pH level in acid soil properties in condition of biochar and lime amending. Positive relationship was found between ameliorant and soil pH for both Farms-1 and 2 soils. The pH was noticeably () higher for the other treatments compared to the control (Figure 6). Both farms experienced a dramatically different impact of the ameliorants, with responses from both very strongly acidic and the strongly acidic soil.

Compared to the control treatment, the pH level of the soil that was tested for Farm-1 rose by 0.48 to 1.09 units. When applied to severely acid soils, the 10 ton of CHB + 50% of STV ha⁻¹ (6.09) and 10 ton of CHB ha⁻¹ (6.11) increased the pH of the soils the most in comparison to the other treatments. However, compared to the control, which had the lowest soil pH (5.10), all the treatments raised the pH of the soil. According to Dang et al. [81], the soil pH level of 4.95 in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta showed a decrease in soil acidity after lime and biochar were applied. The pH-H₂O of the adjusted soil rose by 0.38 to 1.58 units when biochar and/or lime were applied to Farm-2’s soil (Table 3). The 10 ton of CHB ha⁻¹ treatment had the highest soil pH (6.22), followed by 10 ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹, 10 ton of CHB + 50% of STV ha⁻¹, and 10 ton of CHB + 100% of STV ha⁻¹ with values ranging from 6.02 to 6.08, while the control treatment (4.64) had the lowest pH of all the treatments (Figure 6). According to reports by different scholars, the pH level of acid soil improved when it was modified with organic liming [3, 17, 40, 72].

Although there were similarities in the field experiments conducted, the favorable effects of biochar and/or lime on soil performance have been fairly extensively addressed for strongly and very strongly acid soils. The analysis’s findings indicated that Farms-1 and 2’s extremely and very strongly acidic soils have improved in terms of their chemical qualities. Although the low soil pH level, fixation, and non-availability of significant nutrients were expected in highly and very strongly acidic soil conditions, liming soil with biochar and/or lime could enhance the soil attributes. Biochar can serve as an additional source of soil nutrients, acting as a K, P, and N fertilizer from ash accumulation [82, 83]. The OH⁻ and HCO₃⁻ ions that are released when lime is added to soil react with the moisture in the soil to balance the H⁺ in the soil solution. In addition, the lime mostly serves as a cradle for Ca and Mg; it lessens the toxicity of H⁺, Al³⁺, and Mn²⁺ ions and helps to maintain soil pH and CEC levels in acidic soils [79, 84]. Then, the hydroxyl ions produced by the hydrolytic reaction react with the H and Al ions to produce water and insoluble aluminum hydroxide (Al(OH)₃), respectively [85]. This mechanism may be brought on by microbial decarboxylation of the calcium-organic matter complex, which releases the calcium ion and causes it to be hydrolyzed later. Not as a lime, biochar may have a low Ca and Mg concentration that is not particularly prominent [25, 33].

3.4.2. Soil Organic Carbon (OC) and Organic Matter (OM)

The mean value of soil OC and OM was considerably () impacted by the application of biochar and/or lime on Farms-1 and 2 soils (Table 3). Biochar and lime rate had significantly () impacted on soil organic carbon (SOC) in both extremely acidic and severely acidic soils. When compared to the control treatment, SOC for all the other treatments significantly rose (Figure 7), and SOM improved in a similar manner (Figure 8). Application of biochar and/or lime rate additions displayed greater SOC buildup, ranging from 57.24 to 398.47% over the control in Farm-1. The amount of SOC that accumulated was greatest in the 10 ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹ (7.44%) followed by the 10 ton of CHB ha⁻¹ (6.37%). Ten (10) ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹ and 10 ton of CHB ha⁻¹ surpassed by 5.92% and 5.27% units, respectively, compared to the control treatment, which increased lowest accumulation of SOC (1.52%). Regarding Farm-2, treatments that had biochar and/or lime rates added demonstrated increased SOC buildup, ranging from 194.11 to 652.94% over the control group. The 10 ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹ therapy had the highest SOC (7.68%), followed by the 10 ton of CHB + 50% of lime ha⁻¹ treatment (6.31%), and the 10 ton of CHB ha⁻¹ treatment (5.59%), while the control treatment’s soil OC was the lowest (1.02%). The high OC concentration and recalcitrance of C-organic in biochar and inert parts of the biochar may be the cause of the soil OC increase. Different researchers discovered an increase in the soil organic carbon and matter value of lime and biochar [40, 86, 87].

3.4.3. Soil Total Nitrogen and Carbon-to-Nitrogen Ratio

A substantial () impact of biochar and/or lime rate on soil TN and C/N in very highly acidic and strongly acidic soil was examined (Table 4). The TN was enhanced independently for all the treatments other than the treatment of 100% STV, which is lower than the control (Figure 9). The TN content of the soil treated with biochar and/or lime increased by 15.87% to 195.24% as compared to control in Farm-1. The highest TN was recorded at 7.5 ton of CHB + 50% of STV ha⁻¹ (1.86%) and the lowest at 100% of STV ha⁻¹ (0.46%). The application of 10 ton of CHB + 50% of STV ha⁻¹ sample had the highest C/N (8.46%), while the control sample (2.23%), the 7.5 ton of CHB + 50% of STV ha⁻¹ sample (1.96%), and the 5 ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹ sample (1.95%) had relatively lower C/N. In Farm-2, the soil’s TN content increased from 48.15 to 681.48% when CHB and/or STV were added, making it similar to the control treatment. Following 10 ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹ (2.11%), 7.5 ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹ (1.31%), and 5 ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹ (1.30%) treatments, in order of TN accumulation, were the treatments that produced the largest amounts. The 10 ton of CHB + 50% of STV treatment had the lowest C/N (3.68%) as compared with the control, 7.5 ton of CHB + 75% of STV and 5 ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹ with C/N ratio of 3.75, 3.84%, and 4.15%, respectively (Figure 10). The 7.5 ton CHB with 50% of STV ha⁻¹ had the highest C/N (10.78%).

According to Maulana et al. [48], biochar has a high carbon content, which helps to produce humus and boost soil fertility. Contrary to this conclusion, Karim et al. [75] claimed that biochar is not a direct source of readily available nitrogen and can actually decrease the availability of nitrate and ammonium. However, there was a distinct trend in the effects of lime and biochar on soil total N in the current study, with biochar rate (10 ton·ha⁻¹) and STV need rate at 50 to 75% of STV ha⁻¹, respectively. Lime can directly influence the pH of the soil, creating a more hospitable environment for soil microbiological activity and speeding up the release of plant nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus. The higher C/N could be related to lower nitrogen levels in the soils, as soil microbial activity releases extra carbon to soils. Similar idea was suggested in study of Liu et al. [88] and Ren et al. [89].

3.4.4. Soil Available Phosphorous

Application of biochar and/or lime affected the amount of accessible P in the strongly and very strongly acidic soils (Table 3). A significant () relationship was found between the ameliorant rate and soil accessible P in both Farm-1 and Farm-2 soils. The available P was increased in comparison to the control under the application of all the biochar and lime treatments (Figure 11). The highest available P (4.86 mg·kg⁻¹) was obtained from application of 10 ton of CHB + 75% of STV in Farm-1. The sedimentation of available P was improved from 25.57 to 121.92% in other treatments altered by CHB and STV rates followed by SOC and SOM, with the exception of the 100% of STV ha⁻¹ (2.19 mg·kg⁻¹), which was statistic and figure par with control, and the least available phosphorous. Chali and Wakgari [35] found a direct association between the pH level of acidic soil and its accessible p content. In addition, the restoration of soil phosphorous after application of organic matter in soil has been reported by Periyasamy and Temesgen [32]. The highest possible p accumulation was found in the treatment group that got 10 ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹ (6.96 mg·kg⁻¹), while the lowest was found in the control group (2.81 mg·kg⁻¹) in Farm-2. The application of CHB and/or STV resulted in a greater buildup of accessible p by 45.19 to 147.68% than the control treatment. The amount of readily available phosphorus increased under the effect of biochar and lime [25, 40].

Availability of phosphorous might be as a result of applying biochar and lime that reducing the activity of toxic ions, e.g., Fe and Al in soil reactions. Biochar can increase soil P sorption and help to increase the supply of mineralized phosphorous [36] and lime influences the soluble Al, H, and Fe to nontoxic levels and indirectly increases microbial activity to promote the use of remaining nutrients by plants [22]. The positive correlation between accessible p and pH (0.62%) showed that soil pH has a significant role in controlling the amount of P that is available to plants. The phosphorus was negatively linked to Al and Fe at low soil pH levels and is only available in less accessible forms in acidic soils [30].

In addition, lime based on the results of a soil test and biochar’s pore size enables the adsorption of nutrients and the retention of heavy metals. According to Du et al. [90], biochar has the capacity to retain nutrients for four years, particularly those that are less mobile, like phosphorus, and it also helps the soil bind together and boosts its organic matter (OM) content. According to Table 5’s correlation matrix analysis’s description, the available P and EA for Farm-1 and Farm-2, respectively, had a moderately negative association (−0.44) and a strongly negative relationship (−0.50). In comparison to non-amended soils, biochar-amended soils had higher soil accessible P levels. This improvement was attributed to biochar’s propensity to exchange and hold onto phosphate ions because of its positively charged surface sites.

3.4.5. Soil Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC), Exchangeable Acidity (EA), and Aluminum (EAl)

The soil’s CEC, EA, and EAl, variance analysis is depicted in Table 6. There were a significant level () differences in CEC, EA, and EAl following the application of biochar and lime (Figures 12–14). The CEC of the soil was improved after addition of biochar and lime but the EA and EAl were decreased compared to the control treatment. The application of 10 ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹ and 7.5 ton of CHB + 50% of STV ha⁻¹ rate applications resulted in the greatest CEC (37.76 to 37.78 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹) values in Farm-1 while the lowest CEC (5.66 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹) obtained from control. A highly significant () difference was found in EA and EAl related to the application of biochar and lime rate. The highest EA (4.64 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹) was observed from control. The application of 10 ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹ resulted in the lowest EA (0.98 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹). The highest EAl (3.92 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹) was obtained from control. Thus, the application of 10 ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹ resulted in the lowest EAl concentration (0.70 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹) ever reported. The application of 7.5 ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹ resulted in the maximum CEC (37.44 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹), whereas the control had the lowest CEC (1.59 cmol⁽⁺⁾kg⁻¹) in Farm-2. All treatments that used biochar and/or lime had a greater CEC content than the control.

The application of 10 ton of CHB + 50% of STV ha⁻¹ and 7.5 ton of CHB + 50% of STV ha⁻¹ exhibited the lowest EA (0.85–0.92 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹) whereas the control had the highest EAl (3.92 cmol₍₊₎kg⁻¹). The inherent qualities of surface area, porosity, variable charge and sorption capacity in biochar, and base saturation in lime could lead to the greatest increase in CEC. Similarly, an increase in CEC and a decrease in EA and EAl in soil with an initial strongly acidic soil after the application of biochar and lime were reported by different authors [40, 72, 83].

According to Manso et al. [91], lime augmentation of the Ca²⁺ and Mg²⁺ dissociated in soils to replace H and Al ions from the soil solution and soil exchange complex. Contrarily, oxidation following weathering leads to the production of carboxylic groups on the margins of the aromatic carbon, which increases CEC [85]. The existence of pH-dependent negative charges, which might rise with rising soil pH due to added lime, may be responsible for the link between CEC and soil pH level. It is possible that the decline in EA and EAl is being caused by an increase in CEC, which has the ability to bind Al and Fe to the soil exchange sites. This, in turn, would provide a higher amount of basic cations to decrease EA (H⁺ + Al³⁺) by combined application of biochar and lime. The direct correlation between CEC and soil pH in Farm-1 may be owing to the presence of pH-dependent negative charges, which rise in concentration with soil pH as a result of lime and biochar application. Additionally, the formation of an Al complex by oxidized organic functional groups such as carboxylic and phenolic at the biochar surface may be responsible for the reduction of exchangeable EAl content by biochar and/or lime [40].

3.4.6. Soil Ammonium (NH₄-N) and Nitrate (NO₃-N) and Total Mineral Nitrogen (TMN)

The application of combined biochar and lime rate had recorded the significant () difference in the content of soil’s ammonium nitrogen (NH₄-N), nitrate nitrogen (NO₃-N), and total mineral nitrogen (TMN) (Figures 15–17, and Table 6). The NH₄-N in Farm-1 was increased by applying single CHB at a rate of 10 ton·ha⁻¹, whereas the control had the lowest amount (15.55 mg·kg⁻¹). Contrarily, the control and 100% of STV ha⁻¹ produced the greatest and lowest NO₃-N contents, respectively (control: 25.26 mg·kg⁻¹ and 100% of STV ha⁻¹: 19.03 mg·kg⁻¹, respectively), and the direction of 10 ton of CHB: 6.14 mg·kg⁻¹. 7.5 ton of CHB + 50% of STV ha⁻¹ (38.14 mg·kg⁻¹), control (36.81 mg·kg⁻¹), 100% STV (36.67 mg·kg⁻¹) and 5ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹ (36.60 mg·kg⁻¹) had the highest total mineral nitrogen values. Regarding Farm-2, the highest NH₄-N (24.68 mg·kg⁻¹) was obtained from the 7.5 ton of CHB + 75% of STV proceeding the treatment of 10 ton·ha⁻¹ (22.78 mg·kg⁻¹) and 10 ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹ (21.21 mg·kg⁻¹), while the lowest NH₄-N (13.51 mg·kg⁻¹) was obtained from 5 ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹ next to control treatment (14.15 mg·kg⁻¹). Full doze (100%) of STV ha⁻¹ treatment yielded the highest NO₃-N concentration (13.76 mg·kg⁻¹), whereas 10 ton of CHB yielded the lowest (6.59 mg·kg⁻¹). The amount of TMN (mg·kg⁻¹) that was recorded was 32.85 mg·kg⁻¹ in 7.5 ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹, and 25.22 mg·kg⁻¹ in 5 ton of CHB + 75% of STV ha⁻¹. According to Aubertin’s study [92], mixtures containing labile fraction or inhibitory compounds have a negative impact on the mineralization of nutrients. Similarly, different researchers were reported the impact of biochar and lime application on mineral nitrogen [93–95].

The highest residual NH₄-N levels may be related to the organic matter in biochar and plant residues from the previous year when nitrification is the only process allowed. The decrease in NO₃-N level following application biochar may perhaps be related to biochar’s capacity for adsorption, which inhibits nitrification. Therefore, the application of biochar and/or lime to the soils reduced the likelihood of nutrient losses in the soils and could boost beneficial effects on crop growth and yields over time through gradual release of nutrients to the soils. In support of the current study, several investigations have demonstrated that the addition of lime and biochar keeps mineral nitrogen in the soil longer by preventing it from leaching [29, 31, 32]. By contradicting this present study’s findings, Radziemska et al. [41] observed higher rates of nitrification on severely acidic soil when liming is administered.

The highest soil TMN concentration of Farm-1’s control treatment may be because of the soil’s relatively inherent N content and higher rate of nitrogen mineralization in soils with low C/N rates. Comparatively, TMN was better in amended soils than in no-amended treatments; this improvement may have been due to the increased CEC in biochar. Cation exchange capacity discharges the negative charges and could create high reaction within soils systems [79].

3.5. Relationships between the Physical and Chemical Parameters of the Acidic Soils as Affected by Biochar and Lime Rates

There was a significant correlation in each parameter tested at a ) level (Table 5). In Farm-1, the soil pH exhibited a strong and negative correlation with BD (−0.80), but a strong and positive relationship with SOC (0.83). Available P has a statistically significant and favorable link with the pH (0.62), SOC (0.63), and CEC (0.66), respectively. The available P was negatively and significant correlation with BD (−0.61) and EA (−0.44). Moreover, negative correlations between NH₄-N and BD (−0.54) and NO₃-N (−0.83) were grasped. In Farm-2, soil pH had a strongly and negative relationship with BD (−0.64). Available P was strongly and negatively associated with EA (−0.50) and moderately and negatively associated with BD (−0.45) and strongly and negatively correlated with BD (−0.56), EA (−0.56), and NO₃-N (−0.79), NH₄-N exhibited a substantial positive and significant relationship with CEC (0.57). Total mineral nitrogen had negative and significant association with NH₄-N (−0.88), BD (−0.43), and negative correlation with EA (−0.45), and positive correlation with CEC (0.44) and available P (0.42).

Interestingly, in the soils of the two study sites (Farms-1 and 2), the rise in soil pH and SOC almost entirely explained the gradual rise in the ability of acidic soils to retain nutrients, particularly the available P and NH₄-N, while, the direction of TMN could depend on the outcomes of both the NH₄-N (denitrification) and NO₃-N (nitrification) processes. This finding of nutrient retention is confirmed by studies of Li et al. [94] and Munera-Echeverri et al. [95]. The NO₃-N was negatively linked with soil pH level, CEC, and NH₄-N. When nitrification rose in the instance of Farm-1, the relationship between TMN and NO₃-N also grew. However, the Farm-2 soil had recorded the opposite process. It is probable that in this situation, denitrification is taking place more slowly than nitrification [41, 96].

4. Conclusion and Recommendation

The results show that the physicochemical characteristics of the soil under investigation were enhanced by applying lime and biochar together. The application of biochar and lime, when compared to the control, showed enhanced soil physicochemical characteristics. This improvement was mostly observed after two rates of biochar (7.5 and 10 ton·ha⁻¹) were combined together with two rates of lime (50 and 75% ha⁻¹). Soil porosity and moisture content increased with decreasing bulk density. The soil also showed increases in pH, organic carbon content, carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, total nitrogen, available phosphorus, and cation exchange capacity, but decreased aluminum toxicity. Moreover, there was a negative correlation observed for NO₃-N, whereas NH₄-N increased as soil pH level and organic carbon content increased. The combination of lime and biochar rate had improved the soil’s moisture content and porosity, enabling the preservation of the soil’s improved physical characteristics. The ash accumulation in biochar and the exchangeable basic cations in lime may have played a role in chemical alterations in the soil that reduced the toxicity of ions.

According to the results of the current study, applying biochar at a rate of 7.5 to 10 ton·ha⁻¹ combined with lime at a rate of 50 to 75% of lime ha⁻¹ is capable of enhancing the properties of strongly and very strongly acidic soils. In order to provide an explicit recommendation, more research is required to examine the effects of combined biochar and lime rates on soil after harvest, crop yield, and financial gains.

Data Availability

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our appreciation for the continued oversight, counsel, and direction provided by the Wollega University of Shambu Campus and the Agriculture Office of West Wollega Zone for this PhD dissertation research.

References

A. Chimdi and E. Gurmessa, “Effects of land use on selected soil properties and carbon sequestration in the Gurra watershed: the case of Chalia District, West Shoa Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia,” South African Journal of Botany, vol. 156, pp. 21–28, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Kahsay, M. Haile, G. Gebresamuel, M. Mohammed, and C. Christopher Okolo, “Assessing land use type impacts on soil quality: application of multivariate statistical and expert opinion-followed indicator screening approaches,” Catena, vol. 231, Article ID 107351, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Roy, S. C. Pal, R. Chakrabortty, A. Saha, and I. Chowdhuri, “A systematic review on climate change and geo‐environmental factors induced land degradation: processes, policy‐practice gap and its management strategies,” Geological Journal, vol. 58, no. 9, pp. 3487–3514, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Wang, J. Zhen, W. Hu et al., “Remote sensing of soil degradation: progress and perspective,” International Soil and Water Conservation Research, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 429–454, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Desta, T. Kassawmar, M. Tadesse, and G. Zeleke, “Extent and distribution of surface soil acidity in the rainfed areas of Ethiopia,” Land Degradation and Development, vol. 32, no. 18, pp. 5348–5359, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Laekemariam and K. Kibret, “Extent, distribution, and causes of soil acidity under subsistence farming system and lime recommendation: the case in Wolaita, Southern Ethiopia,” Applied and Environmental Soil Science, vol. 2021, Article ID 5556563, 9 pages, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Takala, “Dry matter yield and nutrient uptakes of Wollega coffee seedlings as influenced by lime and coffee husk compost amendments at western Ethiopia,” International Journal of Applied Agricultural Sciences, vol. 7, no. 4, p. 177, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Chimdessa, S. Quraishi, A. Kebede, and T. Alamirew, “Effect of land use land cover and climate change on river flow and soil loss in Didessa River Basin, South West Blue Nile, Ethiopia,” Hydrology, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 2, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Negese, L. Wogi, and T. Geleto, “Responses of acidic soil to lime and vermicompost application at Lalo Asabi District, Western Ethiopia,” Science Research, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 108–119, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Laekemariam, G. Gifole, and G. Kefita, “Management of alternative organic fertilizer Sources for wheat production: evidence from decomposition dynamics and agronomic, economic, and farmers' preferences,” Applied and Environmental Soil Science, vol. 2024, Article ID 6168287, p. 12, 2024.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Elias, “Characteristics of Nitisol profiles as affected by land use type and slope class in some Ethiopian highlands,” Environmental Systems Research, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 20–15, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Liu, “Biochar combined with organic and inorganic fertilizers promoted the rapeseed growth and improved the soil quality in purple soil,” Frontiers in Nutrition, vol. 9, 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
W. Seifu, T. Yemane, S. Bedada, T. Alemu, and E. Boshoftu, “Evaluation of different mulching practices on garlic (Allium sativum L.) growth parameters under irrigated condition in Fiche, North Shoa Ethiopia,” Evaluation, vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 25–31, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. K. Debay, Performance and Contribution of Conservation Agriculture towards Climate Change Adaptation: The Case of Gimbi Conservation Agriculture Project, Ethiopia, 2018.
C. Breitkreuz, L. Herzig, F. Buscot, T. Reitz, and M. Tarkka, “Interactions between soil properties, agricultural management and cultivar type drive structural and functional adaptations of the wheat rhizosphere microbiome to drought,” Environmental Microbiology, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 5866–5882, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. S. Mahmud and K. P. Chong, “Effects of liming on soil properties and its roles in increasing the productivity and profitability of the oil palm industry in Malaysia,” Agriculture, vol. 12, no. 3, p. 322, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. O. Enesi, M. Dyck, S. Chang et al., “Liming remediates soil acidity and improves crop yield and profitability-a meta-analysis,” Frontiers in Agronomy, vol. 5, Article ID 1194896, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Meron, “Effects of integrated use of lime, chemical fertilizer, and vermicompost on maize productivity and selected soil physicochemical properties in asossa worda,” Hawassa University College of Agriculture, Awasa, Western Ethiopia, 2023, Doctoral dissertation.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Dejene, G. Abera, and T. Desalegn, “The effect of phosphorus fertilizer sources and lime on acidic soil properties of mollic rhodic nitisol in Welmera District, Central Ethiopia,” Applied and Environmental Soil Science, vol. 2023, Article ID 7002816, p. 14, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. A. Minato, F. M. Brignoli, M. E. Neto et al., “Lime and gypsum application to low-acidity soils: changes in soil chemical properties, residual lime content and crop agronomic performance,” Soil and Tillage Research, vol. 234, Article ID 105860, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Álvarez-Ayuso and P. Abad-Valle, “Application of different alkaline materials as polluted soil amendments: a comparative assessment of their impact on trace element mobility and microbial functions,” Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, vol. 227, Article ID 112927, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Nguyen, “Lime requirement for agricultural soils: a review of the current and potential methods for routine use,” Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, vol. 186, no. 1, pp. 23–29, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Torabian, R. Qin, C. Noulas, Y. Lu, and G. Wang, “Biochar: an organic amendment to crops and an environmental solution,” AIMS Agriculture and Food, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 401–415, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. K. Ndegwa, B. M. Gichimu, J. N. Mugwe, M. Mucheru-Muna, and D. M. Njiru, “Integrated soil fertility and water management practices for enhanced agricultural productivity,” International Journal of Agronomy, vol. 2023, Article ID 8890794, p. 8, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Venkatesa Prabhu, A. S. Hamda, M. Jayakumar, S. Periyasamy, S. Manivannan, and W. Bacha, “Production strategies and potential repercussion of sewage sludge biochar as a futuristic paradigm toward environmental beneficiation: a comprehensive review,” Environmental Quality Management, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Balemi, J. Rurinda, M. Kebede et al., “Yield response and nutrient use efficiencies under different fertilizer applications in maize (Zea mays L.) in contrasting agro ecosystems,” International Journal of Physical and Social Sciences, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 1–19, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Islam, M. Hossain, M. Fakruddin, K. Rabbi, and M. Baten, “Effect of solid waste slurry from biogas plant on soil parameters and yield of spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.),” Journal of Agriculture and Ecology Research International, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Cornelissen, N. L. Nurida, N. L. Nurida et al., “Fading positive effect of biochar on crop yield and soil acidity during five growth seasons in an Indonesian Ultisol,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 634, pp. 561–568, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Periyasamy, V. Karthik, P. Senthil Kumar et al., “Chemical, physical and biological methods to convert lignocellulosic waste into value-added products. A review,” Environmental Chemistry Letters, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 1129–1152, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Karthik, B. Karuna, J. Jeyanthi, and S. Periyasamy, “Biochar production from Manilkara zapota seeds, activation and characterization for effective removal of Cu2+ ions in polluted drinking water,” Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 9381–9395, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Karthik, S. Mohanasundaram, P. Ramaraju, J. Jeyanthi, and S. Periyasamy, “Study on the production, characterization, and application of coconut fiber biochar for effective removal of Co (II) ions from synthetic waste water,” Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, vol. 13, no. 15, pp. 13677–13693, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Periyasamy and T. Temesgen, “Restoration of contaminated agricultural soils,” in Biochar and its Application in Bioremediation, pp. 381–401, Springer, Singapore, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Jayakumar, A. S. Hamda, L. D. Abo et al., “Comprehensive review on lignocellulosic biomass derived biochar production, characterization, utilization and applications,” Chemosphere, vol. 345, Article ID 140515, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Abewa, B. Yitaferu, Y. Gselassie, and T. Tadele Amare, “The role of biochar on acid soil reclamation and yield of Teff (Eragrostis tef [Zucc] Trotter) in Northwestern Ethiopia,” Journal of Agricultural Science, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 1, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Chali and T. Wakgari, “Effect of integrated use of coffee husk compost and NPS fertilizer on soil physicochemical properties and yield of coffee (coffea arabica L.) at Haru, Ethiopia,” Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, vol. 10, no. 6, p. 233, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Roman, “Effect of rough rice ageing under different storage conditions on Head Rice Yield and storage loss for commonly grown rice cultivars in north-western Ethiopia,” Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia, 2023, Doctoral dissertation.
View at: Google Scholar
M. D. Ulsido and M. Li, “Solid waste management practices in wet coffee processing industries of Gidabo watershed, Ethiopia,” Waste Management and Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy, vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 638–645, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Tesfaye, A. Tibesso, and A. Aliyi, “Development and evaluation of a coffee husk biomass briquette machine,” Irish Interdisciplinary Journal of Science and Research, vol. 07, no. 03, pp. 22–37, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Amare, B. Dobo, and E. Haile, “The effect of wet coffee processing plant effluent on physicochemical and bacteriological quality of receiving rivers used by local community: case of aroresa District, sidama, Ethiopia,” Environmental Health Insights, vol. 17, Article ID 117863022311651, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Mosharrof, M. K. Uddin, S. Mia, M. F. Sulaiman, S. M. Shamsuzzaman, and A. N. A. Haque, “Influence of rice husk biochar and lime in reducing phosphorus application rate in acid soil: a field trial with maize,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 12, p. 7418, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Radziemska, Z. M. Gusiatin, Z. Mazur et al., “Biochar-assisted phytostabilization for potentially toxic element immobilization,” Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 445, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Deressa, “Evaluation of soil acidity in agricultural soils of smallholder farmers in South Western Ethiopia,” Science, Technology and Arts Research Journal, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 01–06, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Junaid, H. Z. Yao, K. X. Chen et al., “Geochemical prospecting of polymetallic mineralization in Gimbi-Nejo area, West Ethiopia,” Ore Geology Reviews, vol. 149, Article ID 105117, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Ali and L. A. Mekonin, “A Potential Approach for Evaluation of Groundwater Quality and its Suitability for Drinking, Domestic, and Agricultural Uses in Wama Catchments, East Wollega Zone of Oromia Region, Western Ethiopia,” Advance Research Journal of Multidisciplinary Discoveries, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 14–25, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Bekuma, U. Galmessa, and L. Fita, “Dairy products marketing systems and its constraints in Gimbi District, West Wollega zone, oromia, Ethiopia,” Journal of Veterinary Science and Technology, vol. 09, no. 05, p. 2, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Likassa, T. Bekele, and S. Nemomissa, The Role of Agroforestry Intensification in Biodiversity Conservation in Western Ethiopia, 2021.
N. R. Pandit, J. Mulder, S. E. Hale, H. P. Schmidt, and G. Cornelissen, “Biochar from” Kon Tiki” flame curtain and other kilns: effects of nutrient enrichment and kiln type on crop yield and soil chemistry,” PLoS One, vol. 12, no. 4, Article ID e0176378, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Maulana, T. B. Prasetyo, T. B. Prasetyo, M. Harianti, and A. L. Lita, “Effect of pyrolysis methods on characteristics of biochar from young coconut waste as ameliorant,” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 959, no. 1, Article ID 012035, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Asfaw, A. Nebiyu, E. Bekele, M. Ahmed, and T. Astatkie, “Coffee‐husk biochar application increased AMF root colonization, P accumulation, N2 fixation, and yield of soybean grown in a tropical Nitisol, southwest Ethiopia,” Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, vol. 182, no. 3, pp. 419–428, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Nigussie, E. Kissi, M. Misganaw, and G. Ambaw, “Effect of biochar application on soil properties and nutrient uptake of lettuces (Lactuca sativa) grown in chromium polluted soils,” American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 369–376, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
W. Demissie, S. Kidanu, T. Abera, and V. Cherukuri, “Effects of lime, blended fertilizer (NPSB) and compost on yield and yield attributes of Barley (Hordium vulgare L.) on acid soils of Wolmera District, West Showa, Ethiopia,” Ethiopian Journal of Applied Science and Technology, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 84–100, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
D. W. James and K. L. Wells, “Soil sample collection and handling: technique based on source and degree of field variability,” Soil testing and plant analysis, vol. 3, pp. 25–44, 1990.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Sahlemedhin and B. Taye, “Procedure for soil and plant analysis. National soil research centre, Ethiopian agricultural research organization, Addis ababa, Ethiopia,” Science Society of America Journal, vol. 70, p. 287, 2000.
View at: Google Scholar
T. Cao, P. Xie, L. Ni et al., “The role of NH₊ 4 toxicity in the decline of the submersed macrophyte Vallisneria natans in lakes of the Yangtze River basin, China,” Marine and Freshwater Research, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 581–587, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. R. Blake, “Bulk density,” Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1 Physical and Mineralogical Properties, Including Statistics of Measurement and Sampling, vol. 9, pp. 374–390, 1965.
View at: Google Scholar
R. E. Danielson and P. L. Sutherland, “Porosity,” Methods of soil analysis: Part 1 physical and mineralogical methods, vol. 5, pp. 443–461, 1986.
View at: Google Scholar
W. H. Gardner, “Water content,” Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1 Physical and Mineralogical Methods, vol. 5, pp. 493–544, 1986.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Kroetsch and C. Wang, “Particle size distribution,” Soil sampling and methods of analysis, vol. 2, pp. 713–725, 2008.
View at: Google Scholar
B. Simon, L. Tolner, M. Rékási, and E. Michéli, “Soil acidity investigation by potentiometric titrations,” Cereal Research Communications, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 283–286, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Allison, “Organic carbon,” Methods of soil analysis: Part 2 Chemical and microbiological properties, vol. 9, pp. 1367–1378, 1965.
View at: Google Scholar
P. L. Kirk, “Kjeldahl method for total nitrogen,” Analytical Chemistry, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 354–358, 1950.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. B. Greenhill and K. I. Peverill, “Determination of cation exchange capacity of soils using ammonia and chloride electrodes,” Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 579–589, 1977.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. S. Pal, “Interactions of an acid tolerant strain of phosphate solubilizing bacteria with a few acid tolerant crops,” Plant and Soil, vol. 198, no. 2, pp. 169–177, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. C. Dewan and C. I. Rich, “Titration of acid soils,” Soil Science Society of America Journal, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 38–44, 1970.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. J. Toth and A. L. Prince, “Estimation of cation-exchange capacity and exchangeable Ca, K, and Na contents of soils by flame photometer techniques,” Soil Science, vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 439–446, 1949.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Li and Z. Q. Wang, “Estimation of nitrogen and phosphorus release rates at sediment-water interface of nansi lake, China,” Advanced Materials Research, vol. 573-574, pp. 573–577, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. E. Baethgen and M. M. Alley, “A manual colorimetric procedure for measuring ammonium nitrogen in soil and plant Kjeldahl digests,” Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, vol. 20, no. 9-10, pp. 961–969, 1989.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Bayu, A. Dejene, R. Alemayehu, and B. Gezahegn, “Improving available phosphorus in acidic soil using biochar,” Journal of Soil Science and Environmental Management, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 87–94, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Chintala, T. E. Schumacher, L. M. McDonald et al., “Phosphorus sorption and availability from biochars and soil/B iochar mixtures,” Clean- Soil, Air, Water, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 626–634, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Sas Institute, SAS/IML 9.3 User's Guide, SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA, 2014.
L. Wogi, N. Dechassa, B. Haileselassie, F. Mekuria, A. Abebe, and L. D. Tamene, A Guide to Standardized Methods of Analysis for Soil, Water, Plant, and Fertilizer Resources for Data Documentation and Sharing in Ethiopia, CIAT Publication, Palmira, Colombia, 2021.
N. Bolan, A. K. Sarmah, S. Bordoloi et al., “Soil acidification and the liming potential of biochar,” Environmental Pollution, vol. 317, Article ID 120632, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Celestina, J. R. Hunt, P. W. Sale, and A. E. Franks, “Attribution of crop yield responses to application of organic amendments: A critical review,” Soil and Tillage Research, vol. 186, pp. 135–145, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
D. S. Badal, A. K. Dwivedi, V. Kumar et al., “Effect of organic manures and inorganic fertilizers on growth, yield and its attributing traits in garlic (Allium sativum L.),” Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 587–590, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
M. R. Karim, M. A. Halim, N. V. Gale, and S. C. Thomas, “Biochar effects on soil physiochemical properties in degraded managed ecosystems in northeastern Bangladesh,” Soil Systems, vol. 4, no. 4, p. 69, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Gurmessa, “Soil acidity challenges and the significance of liming and organic amendments in tropical agricultural lands with reference to Ethiopia,” Environment, Development and Sustainability, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 77–99, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Ameyu, “Review on the work done for the last decade on acid soil management for better yields in southwestern ethiopia,” International Journal of Science Technology and Society, vol. 9, 2021.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Shetty, C. S. N. Vidya, N. B. Prakash, A. Lux, and M. Vaculik, “Aluminum toxicity in plants and its possible mitigation in acid soils by biochar: a review,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 765, Article ID 142744, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Chen, X. Chen, X. Yang et al., “Effect of calcium carbonate on the mechanical properties and microstructure of red clay,” Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 2020, Article ID 5298186, 8 pages, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. E. Hale, N. L. Nurida, J. Mulder et al., “The effect of biochar, lime and ash on maize yield in a long-term field trial in a Ultisol in the humid tropics,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 719, Article ID 137455, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. V. Dang, N. P. Ngoc, and N. N. Hung, “Effects of biochar, lime, and compost applications on soil physicochemical properties and yield of pomelo (Citrus grandis Osbeck) in alluvial soil of the Mekong Delta,” Applied and Environmental Soil Science, vol. 2022, Article ID 5747699, 10 pages, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Lin, P. Munroe, S. Joseph, and R. Henderson, “Migration of dissolved organic carbon in biochars and biochar-mineral complexes,” PesquisaAgropecuáriaBrasileira, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 677–686, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. M. Meena and H. C. Prakasha, “Effect of biochar, lime and soil test value based fertilizer application on soil fertility, nutrient uptake and yield of rice-cowpea cropping system in an acid soil of Karnataka,” Journal of Plant Nutrition, vol. 43, no. 17, pp. 2664–2679, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Bako, “Pre-extension demonstration and evaluation of soil test based lime application in reclamation of acid soil for cereal-legume productivity in selected districts of western oromia,” in Proceedings of the Workshop Proceedings, vol. 26, p. 129, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2019, June.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Fatima, S. Naseer, M. R. H. S. Gilani, M. Aamir, and J. Akhtar, Metal Hydroxides. Sustainable Materials For Electrochemical Capacitors, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2023.
R. W. Wachira, “Effect of soil amendment with biochar, lime and compost on soil acidity and root rot in common bean phasoelus vulgaris L,” University of Nairobi, Western Kenya, 2020, Doctoral dissertation.
View at: Google Scholar
Z. Zakir, Z. Zakir, Refdinal, and E. Farda, “The effects of Biochar and manure on some soil characteristics and growth of garlic [Allium sativum L.] on ultisols,” IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, vol. 741, no. 1, Article ID 012033, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Liu, M. Wang, J. Zhou, Z. Chen, X. Xu, and Y. Zhu, “Soil aggregation is more important than mulching and nitrogen application in regulating soil organic carbon and total nitrogen in a semiarid calcareous soil,” Science of the Total Environment, vol. 854, Article ID 158790, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Ren, X. Zhang, X. Xin et al., “Soil organic carbon and nitrogen fractions as affected by straw and nitrogen management on the North China Plain,” Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, vol. 342, Article ID 108248, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Du, Y. Xiao, X. Qi, Y. Liu, X. Fan, and Z. Li, “Peanut-shell biochar and biogas slurry improve soil properties in the North China Plain: a four-year field study,” Scientific Reports, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 13724–13729, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. F. Manso, E. K. Nartey, T. A. Adjadeh, D. A. Darko, I. Y. D. Lawson, and C. A. Amoatey, “Use of corn cob and rice husk biochar as liming materials in acid soils,” West African Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 32–50, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
M. L. Aubertin, “Biochar-compost mixtures: interactions and impact on carbon sequestration and soil fertility,” Sorbonne université, Paris, France, 2022, Doctoral dissertation.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Bekele, A. Chimdi, and D. Kifle, Application of Biochar with Phosphorus Fertilizer Induced Positive Effects on Soil Properties of Acidic Soil and Yield of Faba Bean (Vicia Faba L.) Varieties in Welmera District, Oromia, Central Ethiopia, 2022.
S. Li, D. Cai, M. Shaaban, J. Ma, and S. Liu, Liming Promotes Soil Nitrite Accumulation but Reduces Subsequent Abiotic Nitrous Oxide Emissions, 2023.
J. L. Munera-Echeverri, V. Martinsen, I. K. Talmo, P. Dörsch, A. Obia, and J. Mulder, Biochar Increased Retention of 15 NH 4+ in a Tropical Acrisol under Rain-Fed maize Crop, 2023.
H. Q. Viet, “Influence of 96 years of mineral and organic fertilization on selected soil properties: a case study from long-term field experiments in Skierniewice, central Poland,” Soil Science Annual, vol. 74, no. 1, Article ID 161945, 2023.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2024 Solomon Abeba Kenea et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

340

Downloads

217

Citations

Applied and Environmental Soil Science

Examining the Effect of Combined Biochar and Lime Rates on Selected Soil Physicochemical Properties of Acid Soils in Gimbi District, Western Ethiopia

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of the Study Area

2.2. Experimental Materials and Preparation

2.2.1. Experimental Field

2.2.2. Biochar Material

2.2.3. Lime Material

2.3. Experimental Treatments, Design, and Management

2.4. Data Collection and Analysis

2.4.1. Soil Sampling

2.4.2. Soil Physicochemical Analysis

2.4.3. Biochar Chemical Properties’ Analysis

2.5. Data Analysis

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. The Preincubation Soil Physicochemical Properties of the Study Area

3.2. Biochar Chemical Composition

3.3. Effect of Combined Biochar and Lime Rates on Physical Properties of Acid Soils

3.3.1. Soil Bulk Density

3.3.2. Soil Porosity (Po)

3.3.3. Soil Moisture Content (MC)

3.4. Effect of Combined Biochar and Lime Application Rate on Acidic Soil Chemical Characteristics

3.4.1. Soil pH Level

3.4.2. Soil Organic Carbon (OC) and Organic Matter (OM)

3.4.3. Soil Total Nitrogen and Carbon-to-Nitrogen Ratio

3.4.4. Soil Available Phosphorous

3.4.5. Soil Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC), Exchangeable Acidity (EA), and Aluminum (EAl)

3.4.6. Soil Ammonium (NH4-N) and Nitrate (NO3-N) and Total Mineral Nitrogen (TMN)

3.5. Relationships between the Physical and Chemical Parameters of the Acidic Soils as Affected by Biochar and Lime Rates

4. Conclusion and Recommendation

Data Availability

Conflicts of Interest

Acknowledgments

References

Copyright

3.4.6. Soil Ammonium (NH₄-N) and Nitrate (NO₃-N) and Total Mineral Nitrogen (TMN)