Effects of mixed-based biochar on water infiltration and evaporation in aeolian sand soil
ZOU Yiping1, ZHANG Shuyue1, SHI Ziyue1, ZHOU Huixin1, ZHENG Haowei1, HU Jiahui1, MEI Jing1, BAI Lu2,3, JIA Jianli1,*()
1School of Chemical & Environmental Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology (Beijing), Beijing 100083, China 2State Key Laboratory of Water Resource Protection and Utilization in Coal Mining, Beijing 102211, China 3National Institute of Clean-and-Low-Carbon Energy, Beijing 102211, China
Aeolian sandy soil in mining areas exhibits intense evaporation and poor water retention capacity. This study was designed to find a suitable biochar application method to improve soil water infiltration and minimize soil water evaporation for aeolian sand soil. Using the indoor soil column method, we studied the effects of three application patterns (A (0-20 cm was a mixed sample of mixed-based biochar and soil), B (0-10 cm was a mixed sample of mixed-based biochar and soil and 10-20 cm was soil), and C (0-10 cm was soil and 10-20 cm was a mixed sample of mixed-based biochar and soil)), four application amounts (0% (control, CK), 1%, 2%, and 4% of mixed-based biochar in dry soil), and two particle sizes (0.05-0.25 mm (S1) and <0.05 mm (S2)) of mixed-based biochar on water infiltration and evaporation of aeolian sandy soil. We separately used five infiltration models (the Philip, Kostiakov, Horton, USDA-NRCS (United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service), and Kostiakov-Lewis models) to fit cumulative infiltration and time. Compared with CK, the application of mixed-based biochar significantly reduced cumulative soil water infiltration. Under application patterns A, B, and C, the higher the application amount and the finer the particle size were, the lower the migration speed of the wetting front. With the same application amount, cumulative soil water infiltration under application pattern A was the lowest. Taking infiltration for 10 min as an example, the reductions of cumulative soil water infiltration under the treatments of A2%(S2), A4%(S1), A4%(S2), A1%(S1), C2%(S1), and B1%(S1) were higher than 30%, which met the requirements of loess soil hydraulic parameters suitable for plant growth. The five infiltration models well fitted the effects of the treatments of application pattern C and S1 particle size (R2>0.980), but the R2 values of the Horton model exceeded 0.990 for all treatments (except for the treatment B2%(S2)). Compared with CK, all other treatments reduced cumulative soil water infiltration, except for B4%(S2). With the same application amount, cumulative soil water evaporation difference between application patterns A and B was small. Treatments of application pattern C and S1 particle size caused a larger reduction in cumulative soil water evaporation. The reductions in cumulative soil water evaporation under the treatments of C4%(S1), C4%(S2), C2%(S1), and C2%(S2) were over 15.00%. Therefore, applying 2% of mixed-based biochar with S1 particle size to the underlying layer (10-20 cm) could improve soil water infiltration while minimizing soil water evaporation. Moreover, application pattern was the main factor affecting soil water infiltration and evaporation. Further, there were interactions among the three influencing factors in the infiltration process (application amount×particle size with the most important interaction), while there were no interactions among them in the evaporation process. The results of this study could contribute to the rational application of mixed-based biochar in aeolian sandy soil and the resource utilization of urban and agricultural wastes in mining areas.
ZOU Yiping, ZHANG Shuyue, SHI Ziyue, ZHOU Huixin, ZHENG Haowei, HU Jiahui, MEI Jing, BAI Lu, JIA Jianli. Effects of mixed-based biochar on water infiltration and evaporation in aeolian sand soil. Journal of Arid Land, 2022, 14(4): 374-389.
Table 1 Physical and chemical properties of tested aeolian sandy soil
pH
CEC (cmol/kg)
BET (m2/g)
C (%)
H (%)
N (%)
O (%)
P (g/kg)
K (g/kg)
Zn (mg/kg)
Cu (mg/kg)
Cr (mg/kg)
Average pore size (nm)
Pore volume (cm3/g)
8.02
19.12
72.03
61.02
3.51
0.66
8.93
4.81
9.50
183.99
8.31
1.79
9.77
0.18
Table 2 Physical and chemical properties of mixed-based biochar
Fig. 1Schematic diagram showing the application patterns of mixed-based biochar. CK, control. Application patterns for mixed-based biochar were as follows: (1) 0-20 cm was a mixed sample of mixed-based biochar and soil (A); (2) 0-10 cm was a mixed sample of mixed-based biochar and soil and 10-20 cm was soil (B); and (3) 0-10 cm was soil and 10-20 cm was a mixed sample of mixed-based biochar and soil (C).
Treatment
Application pattern
Application amount
Particle size
CK
A1%(S1)
A
1%
S1
A1%(S2)
S2
A2%(S1)
2%
S1
A2%(S2)
S2
A4%(S1)
4%
S1
A4%(S2)
S2
B1%(S1)
B
1%
S1
B1%(S2)
S2
B2%(S1)
2%
S1
B2%(S2)
S2
B4%(S1)
4%
S1
B4%(S2)
S2
C1%(S1)
C
1%
S1
C1%(S2)
S2
C2%(S1)
2%
S1
C2%(S2)
S2
C4%(S1)
4%
S1
C4%(S2)
S2
Table 3 Full-factorial design experiment used in this study
Fig. 2Demonstration of the device used in determinations of soil water infiltration and evaporation
Fig. 3Dynamic changes in wetting fronts under different application patterns, amounts, and particle sizes of biochar. Application patterns of mixed-based biochar were as follows: (1) 0-20 cm was a mixed sample of mixed-based biochar and soil (A); (2) 0-10 cm was a mixed sample of mixed-based biochar and soil and 10-20 cm was soil (B); and (3) 0-10 cm was soil and 10-20 cm was a mixed sample of mixed-based biochar and soil (C). S1, 0.05-0.25 mm; S2, <0.05 mm. The four application amounts of mixed-based biochar in dry soil were 0% (control, CK), 1%, 2%, and 4%.
Treatment
Application pattern A
Application pattern B
Application pattern C
p
v
R2
p
v
R2
p
v
R2
CK
3.867
0.685
0.998
3.867
0.685
0.998
3.867
0.685
0.998
1%(S1)
2.240
0.746
0.994
2.582
0.759
0.991
2.013
1.079
0.951
1%(S2)
2.949
0.602
0.997
2.200
0.683
0.985
2.542
0.928
0.967
2%(S1)
2.108
0.723
0.991
2.878
0.608
0.974
2.023
0.930
0.951
2%(S2)
2.048
0.616
0.999
2.349
0.563
0.988
2.649
0.782
0.938
4%(S1)
2.406
0.594
0.990
2.604
0.565
0.985
3.412
0.685
0.947
4%(S2)
1.851
0.539
0.952
1.442
0.614
0.943
3.553
0.599
0.911
Table 4 Fitting results for the wetting front and infiltration time under different application patterns, application amounts, and particle sizes of mixed-based biochar
Fig. 4Effects of application patterns, application amounts, and particle sizes of mixed-based biochar on cumulative soil water infiltration. (a), application pattern A; (b), application pattern B; (c), application pattern C.
Model name
Equation
Model parameter
Theory-based model
Green and Ampt (1911)
I=Ks[1+(θs−θi)Sf/I]
I is the cumulative soil water infiltration (cm); Ks is the saturated hydraulic conductivity (cm/s); θi and θs are the presumed initial and saturated water contents (g/g), respectively; and Sf is the average potential suction of the wetting front (cm).
Philip (1957)
I=St0.5+At
S is the sorptivity (cm/s0.5); A is the stable permeability (cm/s); and t is the infiltration time (s).
Empirical model
Kostiakov (1932)
I=Ktn
K (K>0) and n (0<n<1) are the dimensionless empirical constants.
Horton (1941)
I=at+1/c(b−a)(1−e−ct)
a and b are the presumed initial and final soil water infiltration rates (cm/s), respectively; c is an empirical constant; and e is the natural logarithm (approximately 2.71828).
USDA-NRCS (1974)
I=a″tb″+0.6985
a'' and b'' are the dimensionless empirical constants.
Kostiakov-Lewis (Mezencev, 1948)
I=K′tb′+A′t
K' (K'>0) and b' (0<b'<1) are the dimensionless empirical constants, and A' (A'>0) is the final soil water infiltration rate at the steady state condition.
Table 5 Models used to determine the effects of mixed-based biochar on soil water infiltration (Wang et al., 2017)
Treatment
Philip
Kostiakov
Horton
USDA-NRCS
Kostiakov-Lewis (Mezencey)
S
A
R2
K
n
R2
a
b
c
R2
a''
b''
R2
K'
A'
b'
R2
CK
2.972
0.163
0.919
1.837
0.862
0.868
0.045
2.935
0.280
0.993
2.672
0.562
0.936
3.629
0.010
0.453
0.940
A1%(S1)
1.481
0.145
0.976
1.145
0.730
0.984
0.110
1.075
0.129
0.999
1.052
0.711
0.975
1.455
0.005
0.625
0.986
A1%(S2)
1.684
0.149
0.969
1.164
0.760
0.973
0.081
1.112
0.103
0.997
1.236
0.693
0.971
1.507
0.003
0.650
0.980
A2%(S1)
1.621
0.042
0.957
1.072
0.700
0.971
0.082
0.968
0.125
0.995
1.096
0.639
0.956
1.449
0.010
0.574
0.969
A2%(S2)
2.148
0.010
0.928
1.683
0.600
0.934
0.078
1.465
0.151
0.994
2.187
0.476
0.933
2.527
0.001
0.453
0.942
A4%(S1)
1.836
0.043
0.964
1.084
0.720
0.968
0.053
0.966
0.090
0.999
1.301
0.621
0.964
1.682
0.003
0.564
0.974
A4%(S2)
1.532
0.010
0.866
1.607
0.510
0.910
0.046
1.123
0.135
1.000
2.081
0.399
0.935
3.101
0.002
0.310
0.932
B1%(S1)
1.092
0.343
0.989
1.089
0.810
0.994
0.110
1.039
0.093
0.992
0.895
0.839
0.985
1.091
0.150
0.706
0.992
B1%(S2)
1.400
0.292
0.986
1.131
0.810
0.992
0.150
1.056
0.078
0.999
1.115
0.776
0.987
1.446
0.020
0.701
0.992
B2%(S1)
1.429
0.430
0.967
1.168
0.870
0.992
0.287
1.121
0.061
0.996
1.280
0.805
0.972
1.254
0.051
0.814
0.992
B2%(S2)
2.267
0.010
0.915
1.357
0.700
0.939
0.010
1.459
0.111
0.981
2.126
0.519
0.908
2.200
0.001
0.528
0.913
B4%(S1)
1.925
0.267
0.974
1.290
0.810
0.988
0.032
1.167
0.054
0.998
1.532
0.721
0.979
1.731
0.003
0.710
0.978
B4%(S2)
2.392
0.010
0.483
3.185
0.450
0.736
0.029
2.775
0.185
0.996
5.660
0.266
0.829
8.513
0.010
0.158
0.960
C1%(S1)
0.735
0.551
0.996
1.066
0.879
0.997
0.051
1.062
0.067
1.000
0.790
0.955
0.987
1.173
0.001
0.828
0.998
C1%(S2)
0.448
0.728
1.000
1.145
0.875
1.000
0.820
1.410
1.044
1.000
0.703
1.061
0.991
0.445
0.768
0.386
1.000
C2%(S1)
1.070
0.327
0.994
1.075
0.803
0.992
0.310
1.088
0.167
1.000
0.857
0.841
0.988
1.271
0.102
0.652
0.997
C2%(S2)
0.909
0.609
0.984
0.989
0.958
0.992
0.066
1.144
0.042
0.996
1.044
0.900
0.984
1.298
0.021
0.838
0.989
C4%(S1)
1.100
0.396
0.992
1.127
0.827
0.996
0.089
1.069
0.074
1.000
0.959
0.847
0.989
1.323
0.012
0.752
0.996
C4%(S2)
1.530
0.228
0.984
1.237
0.760
0.990
0.092
1.115
0.093
1.000
1.169
0.739
0.984
1.533
0.001
0.668
0.991
Table 6 Parameters in the five infiltration models
Fig. 5Effects of different application patterns, application amounts, and particle sizes of mixed-based biochar on cumulative soil water evaporation
[1]
Ahmad M, Lee S S, Dou X M, et al. 2012. Effects of pyrolysis temperature on soybean stover- and peanut shell-derived biochar properties and TCE adsorption in water. Bioresource Technology, 118: 536-544.
doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.05.042
[2]
Alaa I, Adel R A U, Mohammad I A W, et al. 2017. Effects of conocarpus biochar on hydraulic properties of calcareous sandy soil: influence of particle size and application depth. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 63(2): 185-197.
doi: 10.1080/03650340.2016.1193785
[3]
Bao Z W. 2020. Study on the effect of mixed biochar on soil water and salt transport in gravel-mulched fields. MSc Thesis. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University of Technology. (in Chinese)
[4]
Basanta R, de Varennes A, Díaz-Raviña M, et al. 2017. Microbial community structure and biomass of a mine soil with different organic and inorganic treatments and native plants. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 17(4): 839-852.
doi: 10.4067/S0718-95162017000400001
[5]
Breus I P, Mishchenko A A, Shinkarev Jr A A, et al. 2014. Effect of organic matter on the sorption activity of heavy loamy soils for volatile organic compounds under low moisture conditions. Eurasian Soil Science, 47(12): 1216-1226.
doi: 10.1134/S1064229314120011
[6]
Burrell L D, Zehetner F, Rampazzo N, et al. 2016. Long-term effects of biochar on soil physical properties. Geoderma, 282: 96-102.
doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.07.019
[7]
Duan R, Fedler C B, Borrelli J. 2011. Field evaluation of infiltration models in lawn soils. Irrigation Science, 29: 379-389.
doi: 10.1007/s00271-010-0248-y
[8]
Githinji L. 2013. Effect of biochar application rate on soil physical and hydraulic properties of a sandy loam. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 60(4): 457-470.
doi: 10.1080/03650340.2013.821698
[9]
Green W H, Ampt G A. 1911. Studies of soil physics. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 4(1): 1-24.
doi: 10.1017/S0021859600001441
[10]
Horton R E. 1941. An approach toward a physical interpretation of infiltration capacity. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 5: 399-417.
doi: 10.2136/sssaj1941.036159950005000C0075x
Kinney T J, Masiello C A, Dugan B, et al. 2012. Hydrologic properties of biochars produced at different temperatures. Biomass and Bioenergy, 41: 34-43.
doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.01.033
[13]
Kostiakov A N. 1932. On the dynamics of the coefficient of water percolation in soils and on the necessity of studying it from a dynamic point of view for purposes of amelioration. In: Transactions of the 6th Congress of the International Society of Soil Science. Moscow: Society of Soil Science, 7-21.
[14]
Laird D A, Fleming P, Davis D D, et al. 2010. Impact of biochar amendments on the quality of a typical Midwestern agricultural soil. Geoderma, 158(3-4): 443-449.
doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.05.013
[15]
Lehmann J. 2007. A handful of carbon. Nature, 447(7141): 143-144.
doi: 10.1038/447143a
[16]
Lehmann J, Rillig M C, Thies J, et al. 2011. Biochar effects on soil biota: A review. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 43(9): 1812-1836.
doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.04.022
[17]
Li J, Li J, Cheng K, et al. 2016. Soil organic carbon sequestration, yield and income increment of rotational tillage measures on Weibei highland maize field. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 32(5): 104-111. (in Chinese)
[18]
Li S L, Wang X, Wang S, et al. 2016. Effects of application patterns and amount of biochar on water infiltration and evaporation. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 32(14): 135-144. (in Chinese)
[19]
Li S L, Zhang Y W, Yan W M, et al. 2018. Effect of biochar application method on nitrogen leaching and hydraulic conductivity in a silty clay soil. Soil and Tillage Research, 183: 100-108.
doi: 10.1016/j.still.2018.06.006
[20]
Li S L. 2019. Effects of biochar on soil ecological function under dryland farming. PhD Dissertation. Yangling: Research Center of Soil and Water Conservation and Ecological Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences. (in Chinese)
[21]
Lim T J, Spokas K A, Feyereisen G, et al. 2016. Predicting the impact of biochar additions on soil hydraulic properties. Chemosphere, 142: 136-144.
doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.06.069
pmid: 26145507
[22]
Liu J L, Ma X Y, Zhang Z H. 2010. Applicability of explicit functions on cumulative infiltration of Green-Ampt model under different conditions. Journal of Basic Science and Engineering, 18(1): 11-19. (in Chinese)
[23]
Liu Z L, Dugan B, Masiello C A, et al. 2016. Impacts of biochar concentration and particle size on hydraulic conductivity and DOC leaching of biochar-sand mixtures. Journal of Hydrology, 533: 461-472.
doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.12.007
[24]
Mezencev V J. 1948. Theory of formation of the surface runoff. Meteorologia I Gidrologia, 3: 33-46. (in Russian)
[25]
Mukherjee A, Lal R, Zimmerman A R. 2014. Effects of biochar and other amendments on the physical properties and greenhouse gas emissions of an artificially degraded soil. Science of the Total Environment, 487: 26-36.
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.03.141
[26]
Nguyen B T, Lehmann J, Hockaday W C, et al. 2010. Temperature sensitivity of black carbon decomposition and oxidation. Environmental Science & Technology, 44(9): 3324-3331.
doi: 10.1021/es903016y
[27]
Philip J R. 1957. The theory of infiltration: 1. The infiltration equation and its solution. Soil Science, 83(5): 345-358.
doi: 10.1097/00010694-195705000-00002
[28]
Qi R P, Zhang L, Yan Y H, et al. 2014. Effects of biochar addition into soils in semiarid land on water infiltration under the condition of the same bulk density. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology, 25(8): 2281-2288. (in Chinese)
Sun J N, Yang R Y, Li W X, et al. 2018. Effect of biochar amendment on water infiltration in a coastal saline soil. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 18: 3271-3279.
doi: 10.1007/s11368-018-2001-8
[31]
Tammeorg P, Simojoki A, Mäkelä P, et al. 2014. Short-term effects of biochar on soil properties and wheat yield formation with meat bone meal and inorganic fertiliser on a boreal loamy sand. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 191: 108-116.
doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2014.01.007
[32]
Tang X J, Li X, Liu X M, et al. 2015. Effects of inorganic and organic amendments on the uptake of lead and trace elements by Brassica chinensis grown in an acidic red soil. Chemosphere, 119: 177-183.
doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.05.081
[33]
United States Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources and Conservation Service (USDA-URCS). 1974. National Engineering Handbook: Section 15. Irrigation. Washington D.C.: Soil Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA-SCS).
[34]
Wang C Y, Mao X M, Zhao B. 2010. Experiment and simulation of water infiltration of layered sand column in laboratory. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 26: 61-67. (in Chinese)
[35]
Wang D Y, Li C Y, Parikh S J, et al. 2019. Impact of biochar on water retention of two agricultural soils: A multi-scale analysis. Geoderma, 340: 185-191.
doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.01.012
[36]
Wang H L, Tang X G, Zhang W, et al. 2015. Effects of biochar application on tilth soil hydraulic properties of sloping cropland of purple soil. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 31(4): 107-112. (in Chinese)
[37]
Wang T T, Stewart C S, Ma J B, et al. 2017. Applicability of five models to simulate water infiltration into soil with added biochar. Journal of Arid Land, 9(5): 701-711.
doi: 10.1007/s40333-017-0025-3
[38]
Wang T T, Stewart C E, Sun C C, et al. 2018. Effects of biochar addition on evaporation in the five typical Loess Plateau soils. CATENA, 162: 29-39.
doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2017.11.013
[39]
Wang T T, Li G L, Yang K Q, et al. 2021a. Enhanced ammonium removal on biochar from a new forestry waste by ultrasonic activation: Characteristics, mechanisms and evaluation. Science of the Total Environment, 778: 146295, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146295.
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146295
[40]
Wang T T, Zheng J Y, Liu H T, et al. 2021b. Adsorption characteristics and mechanisms of Pb2+ and Cd2+ by a new agricultural waste-Caragana korshinskii biomass derived biochar. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28: 13800-13818.
doi: 10.1007/s11356-020-11571-9
[41]
Wang Z P, Xie L K, Liu K, et al. 2019. Co-pyrolysis of sewage sludge and cotton stalks. Waste Management, 89: 430-438.
doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.04.033
[42]
Wen M, Zheng J Y. 2012. Effects of different sizes of biochar and their addition rates on soil shrinkage characteristics. Research of Soil and Water Conservation, 19(1): 46-50, 55. (in Chinese)
[43]
Xia W S, Yang W Z, Shao M A. 2000. Effect of soil water hysteresis on evaporation and redistribution for huang mian soil. Journal of Natural Science of Hunan Normal University, 23(2): 83-87. (in Chinese)
[44]
Xiao Q, Zhang H P, Shen Y F, et al. 2015. Effects of biochar on water infiltration, evaporation and nitrate leaching in semi-arid loess area. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 31(16): 128-134. (in Chinese)
[45]
Xie Q, Wang L M, Qi R P, et al. 2016. Effects of biochar on water infiltration and water holding capacity of loessial soil. Journal of Earth Environment, 7(1): 65-76, 86. (in Chinese)
[46]
Zhang Q Z, Du Z L, Lou Y L, et al. 2015. A one-year short-term biochar application improved carbon accumulation in large macroaggregate fractions. CATENA, 127: 26-31.
doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2014.12.009
[47]
Zhou H, Chen C, Wang D Z, et al. 2020. Effect of long-term organic amendments on the full-range soil water retention characteristics of a Vertisol. Soil and Tillage Research, 202: 104663, doi: 10.1016/j.still.2020.104663.
doi: 10.1016/j.still.2020.104663
