Production of Biomass Crops Using Biowastes on Low‐Fertility Soil: 1. Influence of Biowastes on Plant and Soil Quality

Esperschuetz, Juergen; Anderson, Craig; Bulman, Simon; Lense, Obed; Horswell, Jacqui; Dickinson, Nicholas; Hofmann, Rainer; Robinson, Brett

doi:10.2134/jeq2015.12.0596

Cited by 10 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings additionally underlined the fact that the application of a single high rate in three years (B15) is prone to increased risks of leaching as compared to a yearly application (B5), which in turn was proved to be not upsetting and certainly comparable to conventional mineral fertilization, as already reported by previous research [11,[70][71][72].…”

Section: Type and Rate Of Fertilizers Can Affect Nitrate Leaching Risksupporting

confidence: 85%

Biosolids Benefit Yield and Nitrogen Uptake in Winter Cereals without Excess Risk of N Leaching

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Winter cereals are excellent candidates for biosolid application because their nitrogen (N) requirement is high, they are broadly cultivated, and their deep root system efficiently takes up mineral N. However, potential N leaching from BS application can occur in Mediterranean soils. A two-year study was conducted to determine how biosolids affect biomass and grain yield as well as N uptake and N leaching in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L. var. durum), and oat (Avena byzantina C. Koch). Cereals were fertilized at rates of 5, 10, and 15 Mg ha−1 dry weight (called B5, B10, and B15, respectively) of biosolids (BS). Mineral-fertilized (MF) and unfertilized (C) controls were included. Overall, results highlight that BS are valuable fertilizers for winter cereals as these showed higher yields with BS as compared to control. Nevertheless, whether 5 Mg ha−1 of biosolids could replace mineral fertilization still depended on the particular cereal due to the different yield physiology of the crops. Moreover, nitrate leaching from B5 was comparable to MF, and B15 increased the risk by less than 30 N-NO3 kg ha−1. We therefore concluded that with specific rate settings, biosolid application can sustain yields of winter cereals without significant additional N leaching as compared to MF.

show abstract

Section: Type and Rate Of Fertilizers Can Affect Nitrate Leaching Risksupporting

confidence: 85%

Biosolids Benefit Yield and Nitrogen Uptake in Winter Cereals without Excess Risk of N Leaching

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Biowastes can increase soil carbon (Wang et al, 2008). Through the processes of immobilization and sorption, this carbon may increase plant available N, P, K, and S (McLaren and Cameron, 1996) unless these elements are present in high concentrations in the biowaste itself (Esperschuetz et al, 2016). Most landbased municipal wastewater sites in NZ have low initial carbon contents, so they respond to relatively moderate levels of biowaste additions.…”

Section: Influence Of Biowastes On Soil Carbon and Nutrientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the latter, microbe-extraction of N can be so effective that plant growth is suppressed. For example, blending 3 t/ha sawdust with 1,250 kg N/ha biosolids reduced ryegrass biomass by about 25% compared with unamended municipal biosolids (Esperschuetz et al, 2016). High inorganic N in biowastes can also enhance TE mobility, particularly Zn and Cd, which have less affinity for organic matter than Cr and Pb (Smith et al, 1992).…”

Section: Influence Of Biowastes On Soil Carbon and Nutrientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Disposal of biowastes can be expensive e.g., disposal to landfill (Güereca et al, 2006), and environmentally damaging if disposed to waterways (Correa et al, 2006), incinerated (Werther and Ogada, 1999), or injudiciously applied to land with increased risks to human health (Pritchard et al, 2010). However, some biowastes can be beneficially applied to land to improve soil fertility (Esperschuetz et al, 2016). In NZ, social attitudes and indigenous values restrict use of biowastes containing human effluent for food (Ataria et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using Biowastes to Establish Native Plants and Ecosystems in New Zealand

Simcock

Cavanagh

Robinson

et al. 2019

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biowastes can enhance the establishment of New Zealand (NZ) native vegetation, particularly on degraded land, where biological or physicochemical deficiencies limit plant growth. We identified critical success factors influencing selection and use of biowastes for a) growing native plants and b) rehabilitating native ecosystems. These were: weed competition; resilience (especially to drought and storms); ecosystem succession; and soil microbiome responses to elevated Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Organic Matter (OM) and contaminants (including Trace Elements). These factors determine the selection, timing and methods of biowaste application, selection of plant species and target ecosystems, and post-application management of receiving sites. Commonly planted native NZ species benefit from biowastes application where soils have depleted OM or sites with surface crusting, erosion, or high exposure to wind and temperature fluctuations. Commonly planted native species display luxury uptake of macro-nutrients, even on soils that are low-fertility under agricultural standards. Therefore, the growth responses to additional nutrients may be small. In contrast, most exotic weeds outcompete NZ species in high fertility soils. Therefore, biowaste application should not result in excessive nutrient availability. This can be achieved by using blends that contain a high-carbon biowaste, such as wood-waste, which immobilizes some macronutrients in the short term. We recommend long-term research using mixed-species field trials to identify biowastes and application methods that together support development of resilient native ecosystems. In particular, research should determine the role of biowastes on the beneficial mycorrhizae and native soil fauna. Application methods that enhance heterogeneity may help retain and/or build responsive microbiomes while conserving "native" microbiomes to deliver sustainable, rehabilitated native ecosystems.

show abstract

“…Heller et al (2003) suggested that using biosolids instead of synthetic fertilizer for willow production would increase energy conversion efficiency of cellulosic based biofuel by eliminating synthetic fertilizers. Esperschuetz et al (2016) observed improved yields and seed production of biomass crops with biosolid applications to low-fertility soils, compared to urea.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Greener gas? Impact of biosolids on carbon intensity of switchgrass ethanol

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Synthetic fertilizers make up a significant fraction of the energy required to grow switchgrass for ethanol production. A field study compared biosolids and synthetic fertilizers on biomass yield, ethanol production and N2O emissions of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) to determine if using an alternative source of nutrient would lower the energy density of the fuel. Minimal N2O emissions were observed the first year of the study (0.99 ±1.5 g N2O ha -1 d -1 , for biosolids) with no difference between treatments. Biosolids were added in excess of agronomic rates and gas samples collected immediately after irrigation for the subsequent years to examine maximum N2O emissions. Mean year 2 emissions increased for fertilizers to 1.8 g ± 8 g N2O ha -1 d -1 (n=131) and to 3.73 ± 10.2 g N2O ha -1 d -1 ( n=130) for biosolids amended soils. Emissions in year 3 were similar to year 2. Yield was similar and ranged from 3.7 5 to 11 1.1 and 5.0 ± 0.2 to 13.4 ± 1.7 Mg ha -1 for biosolids and fertilizer, respectively. The potential ethanol yield was 365 ± 28 L Mg -1 and 374 ± 34 L Mg -1 for the biosolid and fertilizer grown grass. Greenhouse gas emissions associated with fertilizer production were considered for N, P, and K and totalled 1653 kg CO2e ha -1 . The equivalent credits for substitution of biosolids (18 Mg ha -1 ) were -2492 kg CO2e ha -1 . N2O emissions were calculated based on 1% of total N applied for agronomic applications and were 8600 and 3500 g N2O ha -1 for the biosolids and fertilizer treatments.Total carbon costs associated with fertilization totalled 2700 kg CO2e ha -1 for fertilizer and 60 kg CO2e ha -1 for biosolids. Using measured N2O data would have resulted in lower emissions for both treatments.

show abstract

Production of Biomass Crops Using Biowastes on Low‐Fertility Soil: 1. Influence of Biowastes on Plant and Soil Quality

Cited by 10 publications

References 79 publications

Biosolids Benefit Yield and Nitrogen Uptake in Winter Cereals without Excess Risk of N Leaching

Biosolids Benefit Yield and Nitrogen Uptake in Winter Cereals without Excess Risk of N Leaching

Using Biowastes to Establish Native Plants and Ecosystems in New Zealand

Greener gas? Impact of biosolids on carbon intensity of switchgrass ethanol

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About