It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Renewing carbon and re-establishing it again in the soil is one of the valuable means to cope with climate change. There are many technologies for carbon apprehension and storage, but the most important one gaining attention is biochar technology. So, to carbonize and return different biological materials back to the farmland, a comprehensive study was proposed to characterize and evaluate the carbon (C) mineralization of biochars produced from different animal manures and crop straws. Six types of biochars were prepared from animal manures (poultry litter, swine and cattle manures) and crop straws (rice, soybean, and corn straws). The biochars were analyzed for chemical characteristics (elemental variables, thermal decomposition, cation exchange capacity, pH, electrical conductivity, specific surface area, and surface functional groups) and an incubation experiment was conducted to evaluate C mineralization from soil biochar mixture. Biochars produced from crop straws resulted to have more C as compared to the biochars produced from animal manures. Concentration of nitrogen was low, while P, K, Ca, and Mg were found reasonably higher in all biochars except swine manure biochar. The plant-derived biochars presented lower CO2 emissions when incorporated to soil at 1 and 2% of C. Varying but all the biochars prepared represented an alkaline pH. Biochars prepared from the crop straws resulted to have more C, alkaline in nature, high CEC, low CO2 emissions, can sequester C and more suitable to enhance the soil fertility in comparison to biochars produced from other sources.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil (GRID:grid.411239.c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2284 6531)
2 Department of Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of the Poonch Rawalakot, AJK, Pakistan (GRID:grid.411239.c)
3 Department of Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Agriculture, Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan (GRID:grid.413016.1) (ISNI:0000 0004 0607 1563); UWA School of Agriculture and Environment, and the UWA Institute of Agriculture, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia (GRID:grid.1012.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7910)
4 Department of Botany, Mirpur University of Science and Technology, AJK, Pakistan (GRID:grid.449138.3)
5 UWA School of Agriculture and Environment, and the UWA Institute of Agriculture, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia (GRID:grid.1012.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7910)