Effect of forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer on soil ...

14
* Email: [email protected] ) ( 11 3 1400 606 - 593 DOI: 10.22059/jwim.2021.328440.908 :$ %&’ ! " #$% &’ (! 1 2 * !"# 3 % &’ 4 "# )"%* 5 1 .-% -’. /0 -1%2 3%4 56 7’ 8 9: 92!0 . 2 .-% -’. /0 -1%2 3%4 56 7’ 8 %: . 3 .-% ; -’. /0 <"= >7 8 9)80 3%4 6 8 7’ 8 : . 4 . .-% -’. /0 -1%2 3%4 "? 2@# %: 5 7* ABB1. CD : . 8 9)80 7’ 9)80 E%8. 8 F)26 ABB1. -) .-% ; :CB *% H%. 16 / 05 / 1400 :CB F%L4 H%. 16 / 07 / 1400 !" #$% #&’ ( % % ( ) ( ’ * +’ !% ,- ./ !0% 123 4 5) ) ( % 2 78 ( (:; <2( = >? ( ( 5"=) 78 !@ A’ .@ CD E’ 75 5 100 ( 120 !" )$ 4 . (= ) <K K L M )(M )A 5 M A ( M NO 5@ !P0 ( :; CK% .’’ 236 5 314 ( 376 2 5#$% ? !M .@ T <K A ( % UV 2 <W(0 CK% CK :; XV@ + E0E #A )K 5 pH 5Y 5 53 Z% 5Y[ ( Y% 5Y0? <W(0 !% :; ( E !" ) CD #K . 0 > <$ % 120 = % ( ( 5 = UD’ A # 0E E 5 pH 5 Y ( <W(0 :; !% ’’ . 7 / 41 5 5 / 12 5 1 / 2 ( 5 / 53 = ( Z% 3 :; 16 / 4 #V A@ [ 1 ’ .# 100 % = ( ( 5 <[ :; Y0? UD’ = 8 / 96 #V = A@ 1[ # . YA Z 1 ’ Y[ ( Y% 1[ P Z’ 100 ( ( % = 2 <[ = 3 / 58 <$ >0 Z (_ .@ A$ :; = ’ % 120 <( ( ( % = !" E ) 5 / 61 [ A@ ’ #V = 1 . : 0? Y :; .:; !% <W(0 53 Z% 5 ’ E 5 Effect of forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer on soil chemical properties and pepper yield under greenhouse conditions Akram Hosseinnejad Mir 1 , Seyyed Ebrahim Hashemi Garmdareh 2* , AbdolMajid Liaqhat 3 , Soheil Karimi 4 , Fariborz Abbasi 5 1. Ph.D. Candidate of Irrigation and Drainage, Department of Water Engineering, Aburaihan Campus, University of Tehran, Iran. 2. Assistant Professor, Department of Water Engineering, Aburaihan Campus, University of Tehran, Iran. 3. Professor, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, College of Agriculture and Natural Resource, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran. 4. Assistant Professor, Department of Horticulture, Aburaihan Campus, University of Tehran, Iran. 5. Professor, Agricultural Engineering Technical Research Institute (AERI), Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Karaj, Iran. Received: August 07, 2021 Accepted: October 08, 2021 Abstract In order to investigate the effect of forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer application on bell pepper cultivar, a factorial experiment in a completely randomized design with three replicates and nine treatments was conducted. The treatments consisted of three levels of forage maize biochar (zero, 2, and 5% Soil weight) and three required urea fertilizer (75% 100%, and 120%). One bell pepper was transferred in 4-leaf pots containing 5 kg of soil and biochar, then in three stages and in each stage, 236, 314, and 376 mg kg -1 N of urea fertilizer was added to the pot. At the end stage of cultivation, EC, pH, Na, K, Ca+ mg, carbon organic, total nitrogen and wet yield fruit bell pepper measurements were done. The results indicated that the treatment of 120% urea fertilizer and 5 percentage biochar EC, pH, sodium, and total nitrogen cumulative in soil 41.7, 12.5, 2.1 and 58.3% and soil organic carbon 4.16 times, were compared to the control treatment respectively. In 100% urea fertilizer and 5 percentage biochar treatment soil potassium increase by 96.8% in comparison with the control treatment. Also, the highest increase calcium and magnesium the treatment 100% urea fertilizer and 2 percentage biochar was observed in soil by 58.3%. In addition, the results indicate that the treatment of 120% urea fertilizer without biochar increased the wet yield fruit of bell pepper by 61.5% compared to the control treatment. Keywords: Organic carbon, Soil potassium, Soil total nitrogen, Wet yield fruit.

Transcript of Effect of forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer on soil ...

Page 1: Effect of forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer on soil ...

����� ����� * Email: [email protected]

�����) ��(

���11 � ���3 � �����1400 ���� ���606 -593

DOI: 10.22059/jwim.2021.328440.908

:����$� �%�&'

����� �� ���� ��� ����� � ���� ��� � �� ���� ���� ������ � � �����! �" #$% ��

�&'�� (���! ���� ��� �� �� 1��� ����� ����� ��� ����2*���� ��!� �"# �3 ���%�� &�'�4���"# )�"%�* �5

1.-�% �-�'. ��/0 � �-�1%�2� 3%��4 �56 ���7' �8�� �9�:�� 92!0 � .

2.-�% �-�'. ��/0 � �-�1%�2� 3%��4 �56 ���7' �8�� ���%��:� .

3.-�% �;�� �-�'. ��/0 � �<�"= >��7 8 9)�8�0� 3%��4 �� ���6 8 ���7' �8�� ���:� .

4. .-�% �-�'. ��/0 � �-�1%�2� 3%��4 �� �"?�� �2@# ���%��:�

5�7* A�B�B1. C��D ���:� . 8 �9)�8�0� ���7' �9)�8�0� E%8�. 8 F)26 �A�B�B1. -�)��.-�% �;�� :C �B �*�%�� H%��.16/05/1400 :C �B F�%L4 H%��.16/07/1400

�����

� ������ ��� ����� ���� ���� ��� �� !"�� #$% #&' ��(� �% ����% ( )� � ( ����' *� � �� �+' !��% ,�- .��/ � !��0%�� 1��23 4 5)�) ��(� �% 2��� 78� � ( (:�; <2( �=� >? ( ( 5�"=) ������ 78� � !��@ �A����' .�@ C�D�� ���E'75 5100 (120 !"�� )�$� 4 . �� (�=�

�� )�<���K � �K�� ��L� �M�� � )(�M )�A5 � �M�� �A � ( �M�� � � NO� 5�@ !P0� ������ ( :�; C�K���% .�'�'236 5314 (376 ���� �2���� 5#$% ����? !M��� � .�@ ��T� <���K �A � ��(� �% UV� 2� <W(�0�� C�K���% � C�K :�; X�V@� ���+� �E�0E�� #��A )��K 5pH5Y�� 5

5��3 Z��% 5Y[�� ( Y���% 5Y���0? <W(�0�� !% :�; ( �E��� �' ���� !"�� �� �) C�D�� #��K .�0�> <�$� � % � '����120 �=� �% ��(� ( 5 �=� ������ U�D' ��A# �0E��E�5 pH5 ��Y � (�<W(�0 :�; � !% � '�'�. �� �����7/41 55/12 51/2 ( 5/53 �=� ( Z��% �3� :�; 16/4 ����� #V�� � '����

�A�@ �[��1 ����' � .#��100 �% �=� ( ��(�5 <�[�� � :�; Y���0? U�D' ������ �=� 8/96 #V�� �=� � ����' �A�@ 1�[�� #��. YA Z��1�� ����' � Y[�� ( Y���% 1�[�� ���P� Z�'100 ( ��(� �% �=� 2 <�[�� � ������ �=� 3/58 <�$� >�0� Z� �� �(_� .�@ ��A�$� :�; � �=�

����' % � 120 ������ <(�� ( ��(� �% �=� �� !"�� ���� �E��� )� ��5/61 �[�� �A�@ ����' � #V�� �=� 1 � .

��� ��� : � ��0?�Y :�; .:�; !% <W(�0�� 5��3 Z��% 5���� �' �E��� 5

Effect of forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer on soil chemical properties and pepper yield under greenhouse conditions

Akram Hosseinnejad Mir1, Seyyed Ebrahim Hashemi Garmdareh2*, AbdolMajid Liaqhat3, Soheil Karimi4, Fariborz Abbasi5 1. Ph.D. Candidate of Irrigation and Drainage, Department of Water Engineering, Aburaihan Campus, University of Tehran, Iran.

2. Assistant Professor, Department of Water Engineering, Aburaihan Campus, University of Tehran, Iran. 3. Professor, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, College of Agriculture and Natural Resource, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran.

4. Assistant Professor, Department of Horticulture, Aburaihan Campus, University of Tehran, Iran. 5. Professor, Agricultural Engineering Technical Research Institute (AERI), Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization, Karaj, Iran.

Received: August 07, 2021 Accepted: October 08, 2021 Abstract In order to investigate the effect of forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer application on bell pepper cultivar, a factorial experiment in a completely randomized design with three replicates and nine treatments was conducted. The treatments consisted of three levels of forage maize biochar (zero, 2, and 5% Soil weight) and three required urea fertilizer (75% 100%, and 120%). One bell pepper was transferred in 4-leaf pots containing 5 kg of soil and biochar, then in three stages and in each stage, 236, 314, and 376 mg kg-1 N of urea fertilizer was added to the pot. At the end stage of cultivation, EC, pH, Na, K, Ca+ mg, carbon organic, total nitrogen and wet yield fruit bell pepper measurements were done. The results indicated that the treatment of 120% urea fertilizer and 5 percentage biochar EC, pH, sodium, and total nitrogen cumulative in soil 41.7, 12.5, 2.1 and 58.3% and soil organic carbon 4.16 times, were compared to the control treatment respectively. In 100% urea fertilizer and 5 percentage biochar treatment soil potassium increase by 96.8% in comparison with the control treatment. Also, the highest increase calcium and magnesium the treatment 100% urea fertilizer and 2 percentage biochar was observed in soil by 58.3%. In addition, the results indicate that the treatment of 120% urea fertilizer without biochar increased the wet yield fruit of bell pepper by 61.5% compared to the control treatment. Keywords: Organic carbon, Soil potassium, Soil total nitrogen, Wet yield fruit.

Page 2: Effect of forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer on soil ...

(�)* +,�- �*$� '�.� /�0 �*�1*�2 ���� (�3 ��. 4%*05��0 %�.67� 8/�9 �)��. �:�;�5 /�5��

���11 � ���3 � �����1400

594

�����

1`� � .��� #�"�% �� a3 U��� # (�&�)2�(�$%

Z��b'�� c��� !E$� �� �� ��de #��� �d� . 2��

��L� ( �E��� 1�[�� #��A� )2�(�$% 1`� � )�(

�f( ��� 5��A 5a3 5��� � �@� )��� <�A��K . �� )�

( <f��%� 5Z��% ��K� .���� 2��� .��� )�� ( ��de

��A 2� <W(���A � #� �� ��� 5�31�� �' )dg� ���

2��� ��� 0@� �c( #$% h�&� � :�; � ��� ���K

.�@�� � ��+&� ����' ����1�� �')��� �A �% 5 Z��b'

� �"0�� �� �c( :�; � �L�3 �V�% % )dg� ���

�� i�+��? <W(�0�� . �@ X��[� � �% X�� Z�' � ���@

�� �+� Z� . (�1 �'4 4$; � �� 2� �=� �� �A��K

:�; � C�����3 � ���0�� ���= ( � ( ��@ !��@

�� adc 2� !=�M ��V�%�' �� ���K � ( �@

#;�� 2��( ( �A�������3 ( ��@ .�%�' �����A���%

Z��'(�? �� �D� �� �A <W(�0�� U/�( � .�% � <���

( � �� ���K �@� ��'������% 2� N? (2 ���; <3

�A�$� � �"0�� ��� �@ � ��L� 1P� <W(�0�� .

������ �"� �EW����� j�0`� )�A k��' .c�� ( �%

l�� 1`� ( /�� 5�A �� ���K �$(� )�A <W(�0�� . �@

<W(�0�� #�Vm' !�V/ 2� �"�0`� U��� 2� <�A��K )���

<W(�0�� �EW����� #�Vm' 5�"��'� <W(�0�� #�Vm' 5�0k=

��3 U��� ( Z��b'�� �+� Z� . �@ � 8��( 1�[��

�� �"� )2�(�$% � n��� 1P� ��+&� �E��� ( �%

� �L' �� �VL� [�� �� ��+&� #�"�% E�� �E��� �$`�

)Leghari et al., 2016 �2���� 2� 1�� <W(�0�� �% �K� .(

�K ��3 .c�� �@ i�+� #$% #&' �T��� �

h�&� �; 1`� � <W(�0�� U�D' ( #�2 �%�� � �f(

<3 l���� �@�� ��+&� Z� i�+� 5 �0�_� � ����'

1�[�� �� <�-�� � _0�� �8; ( �% ��( .��3 <����

) �A Hamifar, 2019 .( 1�[�� )��� ��c ��� 4

�=�������@ ���;� ( ��3 ��� 5<W(�0�� ����

��o�- .#�� ������ 2� � �"0�� 5:�; � Z��% ���

�� ���� [��(��? .#�� ��@ [��(��? �0�2 � �� 4 ����

<(�� h��@ � Y% <f��%� ��pM � ��3 ��� Z0;��

�� Z��% 2� �e ��e2 !�E$' � �D� % #�� <f��%� �@

) #�� [D' � C(�P� ����� %Azeem et al., 2016 .(

� ��%��- ������ )��� �VL� h��@ 5:�; #���

)�A�����? 5��3 1A�% �����g' ����/� ( ����' )W��� �L' (

i�+� �� �@ )Ouyang et al., 2014 .(�(_� �� 5Z�

i�+� �%�; ( )2�(�$% ������ !����0? ) �2 )���

#��� )�A�����? �A��K ( �����M �� ( Z�����

�K ��3 )�A #�2 �8�&� �� 1A�% �� �A )Masto et al.,

2013.( �������E[�� q��; �� Y�P0�� ���b' �� 1�[��)

#��A ( :�; � a3 )���Lr� #���s 5!`�`'

� �V' #���s 1�[��) :�; �����@ ( (:�; �E��(���A

���K 2��� ��� ��de �=�� 1�[�� ( (��3 � �� 5����'�% �

:�;����' ( �@� )��� h��@ �VL� .V� ��+&��� �@

)Razaqi & Rezaei, 2017 .(�� ������ )��dK��� <�[�� Z�

������ ����' )�� ( ��(� � �� X�� 2� ��b0� q��; �� �@��

)Lei & Zhang, 2013.( � U/�( ������ <�$� ��A ��� ��3

��e2 ��@ #�� )� % �� i�A �VL� �Kf( )�A :�; � ��%

�� (� )Lehmann et al., 2003.( � � �� Z� #��� !��

)��� ) �2 #���s ��3 ��� ��� � #V�� �*% ����� [D'

��`�K )�A2�K 1A�% ) ���� )� �� <�0� ( Z��%���%�

�� �23 ��� ( �A��K ��k�T 2� % �� ( �@ �� Z��% ����'

��( )��� ) �% ���;� ��o�- )�ALehmann & Joseph,

2009)����� .( 2� ��k��8� <�$� � � ��� % ������ � �� 4

,_=� ��% ��"� )��� �VL� �Kf( )�A �E[�� �����@ (

t"M � ( #�� :�; � �� ��3 ( :�; ��L� 1�[�� )�( �%

�� ��u���u� �@�� ( 1�[�� v��� ����' ��+&� � � �f(

:�; )�A w-�� ��� )�����K ( )�����K ��o�- % ���

Page 3: Effect of forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer on soil ...

�<* 1���=> ?�@ �:>� *� � �>) ��* �1 ��3$� ��� ������ A�B � ��C� 9�: �%� *� 6�D *���E ���F3

���11 � ���3 � �����1400

595

#$% ��@ ��� �� ) �@Van Zwieten et al., 2010( � .

��� �$A(f? ������ ��@����' 2� j�� ���0� � ,�8� 54

5 � 5>? 10 (20 C�K ������ �� C�K���% :�; ��

�Kf( )�A :�; ����� 5�@ >�0� <�$� � % ������

)����' )��� ��V�%�' Z��% ����? �� �@�� . ����% ������

���K j�� ���0� � ,�8� j�0`� v��� 1�[�� #��A

5�E�0E�� 0���� ( #���k� ��(�E�� :�; ) �@Kumar et

al., 2013(. 1A(f? >�0� )�AGuvili et al. (2016) <�$�

(C�K 1�% ( ��% ( )(�K �%) ������ < ([�� % �� �

<W(�0�� ( �"�� 5Y���% 5Y�� 5[r� #��e 1�[�� v���

; � .�@ :�Oladele et al. )2019 <�$� �$A(f? � (

.�%�' �� � ������ ( �% <W(�0�� ��� �k� )�� �� x;�@

#@� �� ( >��� �E��� �� �0@� .YA ��� Z�� !��P0�

������ ( �% <W(�0�� v��� 1�[�� #���s )���Lr� 5a3

#�kT( �����@ :�; ���� pH5 5<W(�0�� 5�"�� 5Y���0?

Y���% ( #���s � �V' ����'�% :�; .���@Bednik et al.

(2020) <�$� )�r k��8� � �� � % ������ � ��-

!��/ �Lc�' pH 5:�; ���P� !% Z��% ��3 �� 1�[��

� .�� Z� 5��M n����� 4$; Z�� � ����' )(�M

������ Y% �' 2� ����' �A�@ �@ .����� � c�' �� )�A

C�D�� �� ��A�$� ��@ �� y�V'�� � �$A(f? <�%�' �@

YA�� ��� ����� �Kf( �� ��(� �% ( ������ 1% )�A

�� !"�� �E��� ( :�; �����@ .#�� ��$� C�D�� )�

��� ����� i�A �� 1A(f? Z� Z����� ��� ������

���� )� ( �% ��(� �� �Kf( )�A �����@ :�; (

���� �E��� N? 2� #@� �� !"�� �� )� #&' h��@

.#�� �� �K C�D�� ��`�K

�� ���� �

������ j�0`� ,�8� ��� ����� i�A �� 1A(f? Z�

���� ��� �Kf( �� ��(� �% ( )� �����@ )�A

�� !"�� �E��� ( :�; � )� ��`�K )�A �'�P�P&'

N �? 5<�&���� ��r$�� <��L' � ��� 1399 C�D��

�@. Z� !��@ 1A(f? � 78� �% ��(� 75N1=5

100N2= ( 120N3= �=� 2���) ) �% ���K n�����

>�0� � #� ���3 2� [����3 �����@ :�; <���K �A ((

� 78� ������ ��� ���� )�0B1=5 2B2= ( 5 B3=

:�; <2( �=� � � ���E' ( 27 <���K � .��/

,�- :��� )�A !��% �� �+' ��� ���2�� ���/

#��K. :�; 2� ��� ��� ��[� �'�P�P&' N �?

<�&���� U�c )�(3 �@. ) �(�c1�;�� ( 2�

�Kf( )�A �����@ ( �E[�� :�; �� � �"0�� ���

�� <�$� .�A

���� �� �� �� � � ����

�L' )��� ������ � �"0�� ��� 2� � �� ��(� ���

���� )� � �"0�� �@. ���� Z�� ��0�� ���� ��� )�

4$; ( NO� �����% ( 2� 4�� 2 ���� �0� � � ��V�

���@ �' #;��E ���@. NO� � 4 ���% )���

��� ( #��� )�� ���% � >��' 1�[�� #�� �'

� 400 n����� c� ������ �@. NO� )��� ���

( #��� � )�� 400 c� n����� � ( h��@

�@ �� NO� ( ��@ ����2�� <f��%� <(�� .���)

�2���� K��) pH ( ��A# �0E��E� ������ ���

���� �)5 2� #V�� 4 � 10 ������ � a3 �8P�

� �"0�� �@ )Guvili et al., 2016�2���� .( )��K 5Z��%

5<W(�0�� 5Y���0? 5�"�� 5��% 5<f��%� <W(���A ��� (

���� ��� ������ � �=�� ��r0� 2� � �"0�� �� )�

C�� � )�+� [����3Hitach 4160 FESEM �

���= <��L' ��r$�� z�� ��E$�� ��r$��23

�;�� .#��d? 2� �Kf( )�A �����@ ( �E[��

���� ��� ������ )� [�� �2���� )��K �(�c) �@2 .(

Page 4: Effect of forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer on soil ...

(�)* +,�- �*$� '�.� /�0 �*�1*�2 ���� (�3 ��. 4%*05��0 %�.67� 8/�9 �)��. �:�;�5 /�5��

���11 � ���3 � �����1400

596

Table 1. Physical and chemical characteristics of the soil at experimental site Ca+mg Total nitrogen Bulky density PWP FC EC

pH Texture Characteristic (meqlit-1) (%) (gr cm-3) (m3 m-3) (m3.m-3) (dS.m-1)

35 0.07 1.58 10 21 1 6.1 Sandy loam Average

Table 2. Physical and chemical characteristics of the forage maize biochar

Chlorine Potassium Carbon Phosphor Oxygen Nitrogen EC pH Characteristic (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (dSm-1)

3 8.5 31.9 7.5 30.5 11 6.8 9.2 Average * pH and EC of biochar with ratio 1:10 biochar to deionized water.

�� �� �� � �� � ��� !"�

���� :�; 2� w�� �' �"=30 �0��� )�0� Z��2 U�c 5)�(3

�� �r�E y��`� ( � <�[�� C2o � ��`�K !P0� �@ .�(d�

!"�� �� )� Y/� CANYON 5 �L' N? 2� a�`0�� �d� (

��&� #$% a�`0�� �@ .NO� �(d� �L' ��@ � �0��

#�?�%�% ( #���? 0@�% �@ .�' ���P0�� !��% {A��K 5�A

)����3 h��' a3 |�? �0� � ��- .'�� �A ( 2(� 4 ���

C�D�� #��K .�k� 2� 70 2(� ( �k� 2� ��L� K�� <�@ �A�$�

� !;� <���K ��A % �� :�; �? ������ ( ���@ ��P0�� � �

�@ .� �A <���K 4 �$� #$% �@. )�$� !"�� �� )� �

<���K )�A �E�0�_? � X�"'�� 20 �0��� �0� ( �8/ ��A 20

�0��� �0� % )(�M 7 C�K���% y��`� �%�;)5n� #��� (

Z@ (��P0�� � � ���@ .<���K �A � ��`�K �� �� ) 25 -18

c� ����n� )2(� - .@ (( Z�r���� #��-� �V��

��`�K 70 -65 �=� )���Lr� �@. #Lc Z��k' <��2

.��� 5)����3 � ��- !+� �@� ,�8� 0��-�� �� 2�'Z

��2(� <���K �A ( < ([�� a3 � <3 �A C�D�� ( ��<�[ a3

��T� ��@ � �A <���K [�� � ��- !+� �@� �2���� )��K

�@ .<��2 )����3 � �'��= Z��k' �@ % #��-� :�; �'

w�� k��' $� Y% �' 2� 30 �=� !% #��-� :�;

�$� .YDM a3 )����3 n����� <�[�� #��-� 5:�; w��

k��' $� ( #M��� <���K Z��k' �@ ( a3 C2o ��

� �"0�� 2� ���0�� ~��� ��( <���K �@. 2��� ) �% )���

���K n����� >�0� � #� ���3 2� 1��23 :�; <���K ���

1��23 � ��� 0��K �@ .�� Z� n��� <W(�0�� �% [�� �

!E@ ��(� ( � � �M�� � ��- �@ Y��P' )(���. N? 2�

���P0�� !��% )�A����' 5���K ) �% � ,�8� -���� �����

.���@

����#� ���� � �� $% � �& �

N? 2� #@� �� K��� �� !"�� �) � �E������ !"��

�� �) k'��Z .�@ 2� NO� <���K �A �A � �' �"= o

20 �0��� �0� ���� :�; �2���� #Lc )��K )�A j�0`�

�L' N? .�@ 2� �L' 5X�V@� ���+� �� ��r0� EC5�0�

#��A ���+� �E�0E�� X�V@� ��r0� 2� � �"0�� �� (pH 5�0�

pH �2���� :�; )��K �@ .<�[�� Y���=�� ( Y���0? 2�

��r0� Flame photometer ��<�[ ��%�Y +��[Y �c�� �

:�; 2� |(� '����0�<� �2���� K��) �@ .���) �2���� K��)

Z��% �3� �c�� � :�; � 2� � �"0�� �� 5<�����0�' |(�

�� �� :�; C�K 4 ����% 54��"��� ���� 5Y���0? ����

(�� ���&� �� #�L� � ( N%( � i�k� ( 4�"��

�2���� )��� .�@ �0�' ��"��� C�����3 :�; !% <W(�0�� )��K

.�@ � �"0�� ���D% ��r0� 2�

���� '�(� �)*+� �

[D' ( !��&' )���3 � � �A 1��23 �� � �"0�� 2�

C�� ��[�� )���3 SAS C�D�� �@ .)��� Y�� !E@ �A (

�A�� ��� 2� C�� ��[�� ( EXCEL � �"0�� �@ ( ��P�

Z�r���� �A �� <��23 !/��M i_0;� �k� �� )ZE�� (( �

78� ���0M� 5 �=� C�D�� #��K.

Page 5: Effect of forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer on soil ...

�<* 1���=> ?�@ �:>� *� � �>) ��* �1 ��3$� ��� ������ A�B � ��C� 9�: �%� *� 6�D *���E ���F3

���11 � ���3 � �����1400

597

,(� -) !#

��+&� #@� �� 2� N? k��8� Z� � �Kf( )�A

�����@ :�; !��@ 5X�V@� ���+� �E�0E�� #��ApH5

5Y[�� ( Y���% ( :�; !% <W(�0�� 5Y���0? 5Y��

�� !"�� ���� �E��� �2���� )� )��K �@ .>�0� [D'

N����( � � �A <�$� � % ���+� �E�0E�� #��A

5X�V@�pH �E��� ( :�; !% <W(�0�� 5Y���0? 5Y�� 5

�� !"�� ���� �' )� � 78� ���0M� 4 Z��% 5�=�

:�; Y[�� +Y���% ( ��3 � 78� >? ���0M� �=�

k�� �� �@ )�(�c 3.(

. / 0 1�� �� 23 4�) !�5� �)���

YA�� ��� ( ��=� ����� Z�r���� ��P� � y���� >�0� 1%

� :�; X�V@� ���+� �E�0E�� #��A <�[�� �� �A����'

�' �"= w��20 �0��� ) �(�c � �0�3 ��@ � � <�$� (

>�0� wV- .#�� � #� ���� ��P� 5���3 YA�� 1% ������

( �% ��(� �� :�; X�V@� ���+� �E�0E�� #��A � 78�

4 �=� �k� �� �(�c) �@3( .1�� #��A Z�'

����' � :�; X�V@� ���+� �E�0E��120 ��(� �% �=�

(5 <�[�� � ������ �=� 05/8 ( �0� �� N�2 ��

Y% ��' � <3 Z�' ��100 � ������ <(�� ( ��(� �% �=�

<�[��69/4 � �0� �� N�2 �� � <�$� >�0� .��3 #�

)�A����' � :�; X�V@� ���+� �E�0E�� #��A <�[�� %

120 ( ��(� �% �=� 5 ������ �=� 7/41 #V�� �=�

!E@) � <�$� 1�[�� �A�@ ����' �1 .( 78� 2� ��`V'

� ( :�; c<����� YA ( :�; 78� � ,_�� #%�M Z��

� a3 �� :�; 78� o � ,_�� ��P0�� � �D� ����'

)��@ 1�[�� .V� D�0� � ( �@ :�; �&8�

1�� �@ �&8� o � �' . � �"0�� 2� a3 �� ��@) 5/1

� � 2N� �� �0� ( ��@) o��) ������ % � (�M

8/6 � � 2N� �=� !���� 2� �� �0� ��� �[��1

��@) :�;�� @����$�3 .� 10 � � �=� Z k��8�

� #�� 0����0�Z ��<�[ ��@) �d� ( �A 1A�% ��

?� �L$ �� �@ �(� ��� � % � �f( � ���=

< ��o�� ��@) ������ ��<�[ �$�3� �'o��) ���

K ���/ � �"0��� � ��@ ��� ����� �') 1A�% v���

��+&� �E��� �$�. |��[K �$A(f? � �� �% % ��

< ([�� 3 ( 5 �=� ������ ��2( ��@����' 2� a�� 5 V?

�E�0E�� #��A ���+� X�V@� :�; #&' #$% ���K

1�[�� ~�"�� ) #��Younis et al., 2015.(

pH . / ��P� ���� YA�� 1% ������ ( �% ��(� �� pH :�; �

78� 4 �=� �k� �� �� )�(�c 3.( �(�"' �k� )��

Z�� �A �A����' �c( #@� ( )�A����' 100 �=� �%

��(� ( <(�� ������ ����� �� 32/7 ( 5 �=� ������ ( 120

�=� �% ��(� ����� �� 37/8 � '�'�. Y% Z�' ( 1�� Z�'

pH � :�; �� �D� �� ��� .>�0� <�$� � % )�A����' 5

�=� ������ ( 120 �=� �% ��(� pH :�; �� 5/12

�=� #V�� � �A�@ 1�[�� � ) !E@2.(

Table 3. Effects of biochar, Nitrogen, and interaction of Biochar ×Nitrogen on chemical characteristics of the soil and

yield fruit of bell pepper Mean of Square

f Source of

Variances Wet yield fruit

Total nitrogen

Organic carbon

Potassium Sodium Calcium and magnesium

pH EC

1.49** 0.031* 0.99ns 118602** 4436** 101.2ns 0.035ns 1.31ns 2 Biochar

32.5** 0.004ns 0.12ns 233.3* 7192** 363.7** 0.74** 0.45ns 2 Nitrogen

20.38** 0.014** 1.61* 122555** 6572** 370.3* 0.053** 5.39** 8 Biochar×Nitrogen 26.3 0.044 72.4 39148 3658 3817.1 0.48 11.95 16 Error

29.9 18.38 49.2 26.9 12.7 40.06 2.17 14.03 CV% **, *, ns: Significant different at 1% and 5% probability levels and non-significant difference, respectively.

Page 6: Effect of forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer on soil ...

(�)* +,�- �*$� '�.� /�0 �*�1*�2 ���� (�3 ��. 4%*05��0 %�.67� 8/�9 �)��. �:�;�5 /�5��

���11 � ���3 � �����1400

598

Figure 1. Effect treatment forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer EC in soil.

B1=0%biochar, B2=2 % biochar, B3=5% biochar

Figure 2. Effect treatment forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer pH in soil

B1=0%biochar, B2=2 % biochar, B3=5% biochar

������ ( ��(� �% � ��- �k� 1�[�� v��� )��

#�kT(pH .�@ :�; k��8� � �T�M k�� � ��Z ��

� %����� �(� ��� 2�� �) ��'�� �@ ��� %) pH �o��

@��1�[�� .� pH � ��� < ([�� 5������ �o��0M� � !��

pH �2 )2/9 (������ � ([�� ��@ � :�; !�� .#��

1�[�� pH � ��� ����% ������ � )�� ����' ������ (

X�� � �� ��(� )� % ������ 2� <3 ����' �� �@5 hV'��

#�� .Z� �� ���rA 5��M � �"0�� ��L' � ��(� �% %

5�@pH ������ � #V�� <W(�0�� <�[�� 1�[�� �� :�;

1�[��Y% �'#�� )5 ���M� ��L' � ������ %pH

�o��k� . � 1�[�� �� :�; )�A������ ��@����' �

)�� o�� )��� pH o�� �0�A ( �;�� 2� ��� ��(� [��

)��� pH �o�� �� ) �@��Parechehreh et al., 2017 .(

1�[�� �r !o 2� pH 1�[�� :�;CEC :�; )�A

,_=� �� ������ �� ��@ .�@�� k��8� � |��[K �� �%

����% )�A������ j�0`� .V� 1�[�� pH :�; ��@

#�� % �0�> �L�3 �� �0�> !=�M 2� k��8� ?�1 (�

#P��8� �� )Zhang et al., 2012.(

. / 0 1�� �� 23 6)*�7� 6�"� �89

�(�c )3( ��P� Z�r���� ��� YA�� 1% )�A����'

�� ��(� �% ( ������ Y���% ( Y[�� ���+� X�V@� :�;

N? 2� #@� �� !"�� �� )� �� <�$� �� �A . >�0�

���� N����( [D' YA�� 1% ������ ( �% ��(� ��

c

bc bc

c c

ab

c

a a

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

B1 B2 B3

)E

C(d

S m

-1

N1 N2 N3

b

a ab

a ab

a a

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

B1 B2 B3

pH

N1 N2 N3

Page 7: Effect of forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer on soil ...

�<* 1���=> ?�@ �:>� *� � �>) ��* �1 ��3$� ��� ������ A�B � ��C� 9�: �%� *� 6�D *���E ���F3

���11 � ���3 � �����1400

599

#��e:�; Y[�� ( Y���% � 78� >? ���0M� �=�

�k� �� �@ .1�� �' ����' � Y[�� ( Y���% <�[�� Z

120 ( ��(� �% �=� 2 <�[�� � ������ �=� 53/60

���� �%� ( �0�� � <o�(Y% �' ����' � <3 Z100 �=�

�� ����� ������ <(�� ( ��(� �%2/25 ���� �%� � <o�(

�0�� � !E@) ��3 #� 3 � ������ ,�8� ����% .(

�� X�V@� ���+� � Y[�� ( Y���% <�[�� �A�@ �� ��P�

� ��- �k� . � 1�[�� )�� �0�> ' % � <�$�����

120 ( ��(� �% �=� 2 ������ �=� U�D' ( Y���%

Y[�� �� :�; � 3/58 �=� �[�� �A�@ � #V��1

� !E@)3(. � �! � < ���'o���<�[ ��%�Y o �

&8� � � !�� `V'�� :�; 78� 2� a3 #@��Lr� (

1�� �' h��' ������ o &8�� �� �@�� �kV� ������ .

�� Y[�� ( Y���% �=�� )��� Y�P0�� ��A��� ( �@��

�� 5:�; � ������ < ([�� ��� �� ��de �=�� 2� ����'

���g' 5����'�% � �V' #���s 1�[�� w�-pH � ( :�;

� ([�� <�@Y�P0�� .��� 1�[�� :�; � ������ 2� �+�

#�� � � <�$� ��k��8� >�0� ��% % ��25 550 575 (

100 1�% ( ��% 2� ��@����' ������ ��0EA � C�K�r�

)�� � C�K500 c� n����� .V� �[��1 ��%�Y

X�V@� ���+� � :�; �@ C�K #$% #&' . � ��-) %

� % 78� 100 � ��0EA � C�K�r������ �P� � � ��

�A�@ )� ��0EA � C�K�r� �"=�����( ��<�[ Y���% :�;

) #�� 1�[��Pourmansour et al., 2019.(

. / 0 1�� �� 23 6)�� �89

�0� � c�' ��> [D' ��(N�� YA�� ��� 1% ������ �% (

��(�� ��� :�;) k� ���b'� �� �=� 4 78� � ��

��<�[ #��e��Y �(�c) �@ :�;3 .(<��A �0� %��->

�P� � ��r���Z �A � <�$�� �A � < ([������� :�; � �A

.V� �[��1 ��<�[ #��e ��Y .#�� ��@ :�;

1�� ����' � Y�� <�[�� Z�'120 ( ��(� �% �=� 5

�� ����� ������ �=� 177 ���� �%� � �0�� � <o�( .��3 #�

Y% ����' � y���� :�; Y�� #��e <�[�� Z�'75 �=�

� ������ <(�� ( ��(� �% <�[��60 ���� �%� � <o�(

� c�' �� :�; Y�� <�[�� .�@ !=�M�0��5 ������ �=�

� ����' � 0�� ��%120 ��(� �% �=� 1/2 1�� �=� �'

!E@) �@ �A�@ 2�4 .(�[��1 ��<�[ #��e��Y :�; �

� ����%����� �� ����' YA � #�� �Z � % �@�������

���P�) ��Y ( �� YA �� ����' ��<� �K �Z �@�� X�T��

� %����� v��� �[��1 ��% #��e�Y � (�[Y :�; �

0� � ��@� D ��%�Y � (�[Y &8� adc� ���%��A�)

( ��@ :�;��Y &8� adc� ���% ��@��A�) �� :�;

!;� � ���&� #�� � �% �A� :�;.

Figure 3. Effect treatment forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer Calcium and magnesium in soil

B1=0%biochar, B2=2 % biochar, B3=5% biochar

b

ab

ab

b

ab

abab

a

ab

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

B1 B2 B3

)C

alc

ium

an

d m

ag

nesi

um

(m

eq

l-1

N1 N2 N3

Page 8: Effect of forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer on soil ...

(�)* +,�- �*$� '�.� /�0 �*�1*�2 ���� (�3 ��. 4%*05��0 %�.67� 8/�9 �)��. �:�;�5 /�5��

���11 � ���3 � �����1400

600

Figure 4. Effect treatment forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer sodium in soil

B1=0%biochar, B2=2 % biochar, B3=5% biochar

��%�Y ( ��[Y ������ �c[rZ ��Y ��@ ( ��Y

� <(� :�; �� �23 � �% ( � !�� �$�3 C��� .���

�[�� v��� ( � ��� U�D' :�; � 5:�;1 ��<�[ ��Y

�K :�;�� .#�� Chaganti et al. (2015) ��[ ��<�

� % �� �%����� e� ��% 2��Y � (�[Y �� �@�� � (Z

��%�Y � (�[Y ������ �� ����' �c[rZ ��Y �

!&� �A) � �V'� �@ ( ��Y � �% �23 :�; <(� � ��

0� � (� D �$�3� <3 ��' ��U .�$`�� k��8� �)

< ([�� % �� �% |��[K12 � ��0EA � C�K�r������

��'��/�/� #;� a�� 2� ��@�� #$% #&' :�; �

�[�� .V� 5C�K1 ��Y ) �@ :�; � �c��Khalid

Chaudhry et al., 2016 .(

. / 0 1�� �� 23 6�� !% �89

�� c�' � >�0� [D' N����( ����% ������ ( �%

��(� � :�; )��� ���b' �k� )�� � 78� 4 �=�

�� <�[�� ��0?�Y ���&� :�; #@� �(�c)3 .(1�� �'Z

<�[�� 1�[�� #��e Y���0? � ����' 100 �% �=�

( ��(�5 ����� ������ �=� �� 3/483 ���� <o���%� �

�0�� � #� 5��3Y% �'Z <�[�� #��e Y���0? � ����'

120 ����� ������ <(�� ( ��(� �% �=� �� 6/11

���� �%� <o�( � �0�� �� .>�0� <�$� � % 1�[��

������ .V� ��(� �% ( 1�[�� �k� �� Y���0? ���+�

X�V@� �;: �@ . � ��-) % � 78� 5 ������ �=� (

100 <�[�� ��(� �% �=� Y���0? ���+� X�V@� 8/96

�=� 1�� �' 2� <�[�� Y���0? � 78� ������ <(�� ��

!E@)5( .2� i�- �r 1�[�� � <�[�� Y���0? � ����'

)��� ������ ��� ���� )� �� ����' � Z� #�� �@��

% ������ ��� ���� )� �; )��� ��<�[ ��0?�Y o���

� �� ( �� < ([�� ������ ��0?�Y ���&� :�; �[��1 0��

#�� .������ � !�� ���b' �� 1�[�� ���/ � �V' ����'�%

� 1�[�� <� )�A :�; 2� ��c Y���0? 1P� �� (

v��� ���0� �0L� ���K � Z� �+� �� 5 �@ � �(_�

������ � !�� ��� < �� �=�� ��de � 1�[�� Z�

�=�� � :�; ��u���u� #�� )Pühringer, 2016(.

� !�� ��$�3 % � �A �( )����3 ���= 0��K

��A����' % <(�� ������ � �� �� �V�% Y���0? c���

���@. 1A(f? ��� �� �% <��� <��K % ���P� Y���0? �

�;: �A) ,_=� ��@ �� ������ 1�[�� 0�� #�� ( � �!

�Z �[��1 �� ���P� ��0?�Y 2 � � �0�%�; ������ ��T�

��@ �0��� .<��3 |��[K �� �% % < ([�� ,�8� 15

5/0 ( 2 �=� �2(� ������ ��'���@� 2� #��? ( �K �

�� ) 700 c� n����� � :�; N? 2� 67 2(� .V�

�[��1 ��0?�Y :�; �@ )Novak et al., 2009.(

d

c

b

a a

cdcd

c

a

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

B1 B2 B3

)S

od

eu

m (

meq

l-1

N1 N2 N3

Page 9: Effect of forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer on soil ...

�<* 1���=> ?�@ �:>� *� � �>) ��* �1 ��3$� ��� ������ A�B � ��C� 9�: �%� *� 6�D *���E ���F3

���11 � ���3 � �����1400

601

Figure 5. Effect treatment forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer potassium in soil

B1=0%biochar, B2=2 % biochar, B3=5% biochar

. / 45� :� � �89

�E 2� # (�&� )�A YL� :�; )�A w-�� 4$; (

��� 4$; �V�% ��� ��3 #�� .�� c�' � >�0� [D'

��(N�� ����% ������ ( �% ��(� � :�; ��� ) ���b'

�k� �� � 78� >? �=� �� <�[�� Z��% ��3 :�;

#@� .,�8� ����% ��� Z��% �=� �� ��(� �% j�0`�

�3� ���3 ��&� 2� :�;) k�� �� ) �V��(�c 3 .(

< ([�� ������ � :�; �A .V� �[��1 ��<�[ Z��% �3�

:�; ��@ #�� )!E@ 6 .(1�� �'Z <�[�� 1�[��

#��e Z��% ��3 � ����' 120 �=� �% 5��(� 5 �=�

������ � <�[�� 58/2 �=� � #� 5��3 Y% �'Z <�[��

#��e Z��% ��3 � ����' 75 �=� �% 5��(� <(��

������ � <�[�� 4/0 �=� �@ .Z��% ��3 :�; � ����'

120 �=� �% 5��(� 5 �=� ������ � �P� � �� �A�@

16/4 ����� #V�� ' ����� �A�@1�� �' !E@) �@6(.

�[��1 ��<�[ Z��% �3� :�; �� �[��1 i�+� ������

y���� #��. �� c�' � Z� % <�[�� � �� ��3 :�; �E

2� �u "� )�A YL� !=�M )[�; :�; 5#�� < ([�� ������

� :�; � !�� Z��% ��3 )o�� <3 �� ����' UV� �����

�V��� )��� <��Vc �V�% Z��% ( ��� ��3 :�; ( �

D�0� �VL� �Kf( )�A �E[�� ( �����@ ( [�� #s�"M

#�_� :�; �@�� )Freddo, 2013.( �$A(f? � � ���b'

!=�M 2� ��k�T �A��K �� 1�[�� Z��% ��3 :�;

���@� � �% ( � �! <3 �� �c( �=� o��� 2� Z��% �

���A����) ��'��) <��� �� �% )(Moradi et al., 2018.

. / '� ;� !�# �89

�(�c )3( [D' N����( ���b' )�A����' ������ ( �%

��(� �� U�D' <W(�0�� !% � :�; �� <�$� �� .�A ���b'

)�A����' ������ ( �% ��(� � 78� 4 ���0M� �=�

�k� �� �@ .�P� � ��r���Z (Kf� �A) ��%d� ) � |(�

ZE�� (!=�M 2� ���b' )�A����' ������ <�$� � % �

<W(�0�� !% 5:�; �(�"' �k� )�� ��Z �A � '����

�c( #@� .'���� 120 ( ��(� �% �=� 5 �=�

������ ���<�[ 392/0 �=� ( '���� 75 �=� �% ��(�

( <(�� ������ ����� �� 19/0 �=� � '�'�. 1�� �'Z (

Y% �'Z <W(�0�� !% � :�; �� � <�$� .>�0� <�$� �

% <�[�� <W(�0�� !% :�; � )�A����' 120 �% �=�

( ��(�5 ������ �=� 5/53 �=� #V�� � ����' �A�@

1�[�� #��. <��A ��K % 2� !E@ )7 ��@ � � <�$� (

� 2� � �"0�� 5#������� ���� ��� �) ����% 78� � 5

�=� ( �[��1 �% ��(� � � 5:�;�<�[ ��<W(�0 !%

:�; �� 2�7 �=� !V/ #$% 2� � 2/82 �=� �k� 2�

#@� ���[��1 . �

c

b

a

cc

a

c

c

a

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

B1 B2 B3

)P

ota

ssiu

m (

meq

l-1

N1 N2 N3

Page 10: Effect of forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer on soil ...

(�)* +,�- �*$� '�.� /�0 �*�1*�2 ���� (�3 ��. 4%*05��0 %�.67� 8/�9 �)��. �:�;�5 /�5��

���11 � ���3 � �����1400

602

Figure 6. Effect treatment forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer Organic carbon in soil

B1=0%biochar, B2=2 % biochar, B3=5% biochar

Figure 7. Effect treatment forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer total nitrogen in soil

B1=0%biochar, B2=2 % biochar, B3=5% biochar

� �! �[��1 � '��A���) (�M) ������ �� �� <��' �

����'� o��) �Z � �� � ���Lr�) �=�� �de� (

K��c��) 2� �$�3� ��<W(�0 #V�� � .YA Z�� �c(

d��� �2 ( 78� �f( o�� � ������ .c�� 1�[�� ���/

� �V' ����'�% ( 1�[�� �=�� ��de � )�A����' )(�M

������ �� ) �@Jemal & Abebe, 2016������ .( � ����A

�% )�A 5�����@ ���k� <�@ <W(�0�� �� �� 1A�% #V��

Z��% � ��<W(�0 L�'�! � �% ( ��<W(�0 !% :�; �VL�

�� ��� )Ali et al., 2015 .(�0�> % #�� � � <�$���

����% ������ !=�M 2� ��n�K� ��5�E$ �[��1 ��<W(�0 ��

� :�; k��8� ��� |��[K �� �% )Devband Hafshjani,

2016(.

���� � � �<3

�0�> [D' ��(N�� ) �(�c3 (��' % � <�$���

�E��� �' �� !"�� )�#&' ���YA�� 1% ������ (

�% ��(� � ���0M� 78� .#@� ���/ �=� 4�0�>

�P� � ��r���Z 8� ���( ������ ,� �% ��(� <�$� �

�(�"' % #Vm� k� (� )�� ��Z j�0`� ,�8�

�A����' �� �E��� �'���� ��A�$�@�1�� . Z�'

d

b-d

a-d

cd

a-c a-c

cd

ab

a

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

B1 B2 B3

OC

%N1 N2 N3

cd

ab

bc

d

bc

ab

b-d

ab

a

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

B1 B2 B3

To

tal

nit

ro

gen

%

N1 N2 N3

Page 11: Effect of forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer on soil ...

�<* 1���=> ?�@ �:>� *� � �>) ��* �1 ��3$� ��� ������ A�B � ��C� 9�: �%� *� 6�D *���E ���F3

���11 � ���3 � �����1400

603

�� !"�� ���� �' �E��� ����' � )�120 �% �=�

<�[�� � ������ <(�� ( ��(�86/8 U����0� � C�K���%

� Y% 5��3 #� !"�� ���� �' �E��� <�[�� Z�'

�� ����' � )�75 ( ��(� �% �=� 2 ������ �=�

�� �����6/1 � U����0� � C�K���% � ����' � .��3 #

120 ������ <(�� ( ��(� �% �=� 5/61 �=�

����' � ( 1�[�� 100 <(�� ( ��(� �% �=�

������9/81 ����' � #V�� ��+&� �E��� �=�

.#�� 1A�% �A�@ <W(�0�� �% ,�8� 1�[�� ��

<2( 5���+��' ���� �� !"�� )�1�[�� #@�

!E@)8(. ����� ��� YA�� 1% ������ ( �% ��(� ��

�E��� �' <�$� � % ���b' <�[�� �% ��(� �� ����'

���� ���K !"�� �� 5)� 2� ���b' ������ 1�� �' #��. ���

� '��A���) <(�� ������ ��<�[ �$�3� �����0 (

adc �����0 h��' K��� �[��1 �� ��� ( .c��

K ��3� a3 �A) 2�2��� ( ���# K��� �� �@ .

� �"0�� 2� �% @����� � ��<�[ 120 �=� � ����A

�3���) 5.��� v��� YA��� <�@ a3 ( ��� �de� (

� 0�� D �@� L�� K��� �K�� #��. � ��%��-

�% ����% � <W(�0�� �@� 4�&' !�� C���� ( $�

�� <�A��K �E��� 1�[�� .c�� ���A �@ )Nielsen

& Halvorson, 19911A(f? .( |��[K <��K �% % ��

�[��1 � ,�8��<W(�0 �[�� .c��1 )�[c� ( �E���

�E��� �[�% � e�� �@ Ze(� �=� 2� )Rabiee, 2000 .(

��@ x`$� #�� 2��� % �+� 4 � ���K ��(�

��k���e h��' ��de �EW���[�� <�@ ��� � �+� <3

������ dg' )�A )� �� 1�[�� )��@ 2� �@�� ���

)Grattan & Grieve, 1994 ������ )(�M )�A����' � .(

�c(2 1�� �E��� v��� ������ �=� � #V�� �'5

�� �k0� ���P� ����% � �E��� �VL� .�@ ������ �=�

1A(f? � <3 �2 � �P� �� ��P� � ������ 2� )�A

.#�� ��@ |��[K [�� )�r Gokila & Baskar (2015)

[�� ��� < ([�� ,�8� 5 ( 5/7 Z' � ��0EA ������ ( 75

( 100 �=� ���P� �=�' ��@ 2� �% �����@ �� ��

�Kf( )�A ���K ��� ��� ����� ���/ � � ( |��[K

�� �% % 1�� Z�' �E��� �� ( �Kf( )�A �"�% ���

� ����' 5 Z' � ��0EA ������ � ����A 100 �=� ���P�

�=�' ��@ 2� �% �����@ � #� ��3.

Figure 8. Effect treatment forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer on wet yield fruit bell pepper

B1=0%biochar, B2=2 % biochar, B3=5% biochar

de

e e

c-e

e

cd

a

ab

bc

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

B1 B2 B3

)W

et

yeil

d f

riu

t (k

g m

-2

N1 N2 N3

Page 12: Effect of forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer on soil ...

(�)* +,�- �*$� '�.� /�0 �*�1*�2 ���� (�3 ��. 4%*05��0 %�.67� 8/�9 �)��. �:�;�5 /�5��

���11 � ���3 � �����1400

604

�+�!# � �&

�A ����% % � <�$� 1A(f? Z� 2� !=�M >�0�

���� ��� ������ ,�8� :�; <�@��@ .V� 5)�

1�[�� .�@ #��A �E�0E�� :�; �o��0M� � !��

�E�0E�� #��A �2 ) ������7/6 �� (�0� �� N�2

��T� 1�[�� . �� :�; � ��@ � �"0�� 2� ������ �

:�; .V� 1�[�� 1�� �' pH� Y[�� ( Y���% 5

:�; �@. � 5������ 1�[�� �� :�; Y���0? <�[�� #��

#�� 0�� 1�[�� 5������ � Y���0? ���P� < ��o��.

�� Z����� � <3 2� <��' ,_=� <��� :�; ��% ��A

� �"0�� 5�0�A Y���0? �V�% )��� % ���2� . ���-

<�� ������ � �"0�� ��� )(�M Y�� [�� 5#�� � ��

< ([�� <3 � :�; .V� 1�[�� <�[�� :�; � Y��

������ .�@ � !�� 1�[�� ��� ��3 5:�; v���

!�; 1�[�� ~��( ( �VL� <��0;�� :�; �@. ����%

������ .c�� 1�[�� Y$� )��K � #��e ��3 Z��%

:�; � �M�� ����? �@ .1�� Z�' ���P� <3 � ����'

5 �=� ������ ( 120 �=� �% ��(� � ���P� 58/2

�=� ��A�$� �@ .1�[�� � �"0�� 2� ������ �% (

� ��(� :�; .V� #@��Lr� 1�� 1�[�� ( �'

<W(�0�� � :�; �@. n����� �0�> � #� ���3

� �"0�� YA <��2 ������ ( �% ��(� ���b' 0Vm�� ��

�E��� �' ���� !"�� �� �) #@� .< ([�� �% ��(�

� :�; .c�� �[��1 �E��� ��+&� 1�� �' #V��

� ������ 2� :�; �@ .��� � '��A���) <(�� ������

��<�[ �$�3� �����0 ( adc �����0 h��' K���

�[��1 �� ��� ( .c�� K ��3� a3 �A) 2�2��� (

���# K��� �� �@ .�����Z � �"0�� 2� ������ ( �%

��(� � ���= YA <��2 � <��� 4 ��� ��% ��u���u�

���) �[��1 �E��� K��� ( �=�� @����� :�;

i�+� �@.

4#����= ���

2� � �"0�� �� ( �$A(f? ,�- .��/ � 1A(f? Z�

<��(�� ( <��E0V� 2� #��M z(�= �$A(f? ����V0��

��$% � ���@ �99015806 #�� ��@ C�D��5 Z�� %

�� ��� ��/ ( �E$' ���( . �@

>? 7� @� A�

��A ���� �c( <�K���� h��' U��� ���k' ��K.

>� 7� Ali, K., Arif, M. & Jan, T. (2015). Integrated use of

biochar: A tool for improving soil and wheat

quality of degraded soil under soil wheat-maize

cropping pattern. Pakestan Journal of Botany,

47(1), 233-240.

Azeem, M., Hayat, R., Hussain, Q., Ahmed, M.,

Imran, M., & Crowley, D. (2016). Effect of

biochar amendment on soil microbial biomass,

abundance, and enzyme activity in the mash

bean field. Journal of Biodiversity and

Environmental Sciences, 8(6), 1-13.

Bednik, M., Medy´nska-Juraszek, A., Dudek, M.,

Kloc, S., Kret, A., Łabaz, B & Waroszewski, J.

(2020). Wheat Straw Biochar and NPK

Fertilization Efficiency in Sandy Soil

Reclamation. Agronomy, 10(4), 496.

Chaganti, V.N., Crohn, D.M., & Simunek, J.

(2015). Leaching and reclamation of biochar

and compost amended saline-sodic soil with

moderate SAR reclaimed water. Agricultural

Water Management, 158, 255-265.

Deoband Hafshjani, L. (2016). Investigation of the

effect of low-intensity and low-sediment

application of sugarcane bagasse on the

prevention of nitrate leaching in Khodak.

Doctoral dissertation of Shahid Chamran

University of Ahvaz, Iran.

Freddo, A. (2013). Biochar: for better or for

worse? Doctoral dissertation dissertation,

University of East Anglia School of

Environmental Science, England.

Gokila, B., & Baskar, K. (2015). Influence of

biochar as soil amendment on yield and quality

of maize in alfisol of Thoothukudi of

Thamilandu, India. International Journal of

Plant, Animal and Environmental Sciences,

5(1), 152-155.

Page 13: Effect of forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer on soil ...

�<* 1���=> ?�@ �:>� *� � �>) ��* �1 ��3$� ��� ������ A�B � ��C� 9�: �%� *� 6�D *���E ���F3

���11 � ���3 � �����1400

605

Grattan, S.R. & Grieve, C.M. (1999). Salinity-mineral nutrition relations in horticultural crops. Scientia Horticulturae, 78(1-4), 127-157.

Guvili, A., Mousavi, A. A., & Kamkar Haghighi, A. (2016). Effect of cattle manure biochar and moisture stress on growth characteristics and spinach water use efficiency in greenhouse conditions. Water research in agriculture, 30(2), 259-243. (In Persian).

Hamifar, Y. (2019). Water-borne patients. Hamadan University of Medical Sciences and Health Services, Fatemieh Hospital. (In Persian)

Jemal, K., & Abebe, A. (2016). Determination of bio-char rate for improved production of Lemmon grass (Cymbopogon citracut L.). International Journal of Advanced Biological and Biomedical Research, 4(2), 149-157.

Khalid Chaudhry, U., Shahzad, S., Nadir Naqqash, M., Saboor, A., Subtain Abbas, M., Saeed F., & Yaqoob, S. 2016. Integration of biochar and chemical fertilizer to enhance quality of soil and wheat crop (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal Biodivers Environment Scince, 9(1), 348-358.

Kumar, S., Masto, R., E. Lal, C. R., Sarkar, P., George, J. & Selvi, V. A. (2013). Biochar preparation from Parthenium hysterophorus and its potential use in soil application. Journal of Ecological Engineering, 55(3), 67-72.

Masto, R.E., Kumar, S., Rout, T.K., Sarkar, P., George, J., & Ram, L.C. (2013). Biochar from water hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes) and its impact on soil biological activity. Catena, 111, 64-71.

Moradi, N., Sedghiani, M., H., & Sepehr, A. (2017). The effect of type and amount of biochar on some soil characteristics and usability of some nutrients in a calcareous soil. Water and soil (agricultural sciences and industries), 4(31), 1246-1232. (In Persian)

Nielsen, D. C., & Halvorson, A. D. (1991). Nitrogen fertility influence on water stress and yield of winter wheat. Agronomy Journal, 83(6), 1065-1070.

Novak, J.M., Busscher, W.J., Laird, D.L. Ahmedna, M., Watts, D.W., & Niandou, M.A.S. (2009). Impact of biochar amendment on fertility of a Southeastern coastal Plain soil. Soil Science, 174(2), 105-112.

Lei, O., & Zhang, R. (2013). Effects of bio-chars derived from different feedstocks and pyrolysis temperatures on soil physical and hydraulic properties. Soils and Sediments, 13(9), 1561-1572.

Leghari, S.J., Wahocho, N.A., Laghari, G.M., HafeezLaghari, A., MustafaBhabhan, G., Hussain Talpur, K., Bhutto, T.A., Wahocho, S.A., & Lashari, A.A. (2016). Role of Nitrogen for Plant

Growth and Development: A review. Advances in Environmental Biology, 10(9), 209-2016.

Lehmann, J., Da Silva Jr, J.P., Steiner, C., Nehls, T., Zech, W., & Glaser, B. (2003). Nutrient availability and leaching in an archaeological Anthrosol and a Ferralsol of the Central Amazon basin: fertilizer, manure and charcoal amendments. Plant and Soil, 249(2), 343-357.

Lehmann, J., & Joseph, S. (2009). Biochar for Environmental Management. Science and Technology, Earthscan. London, UK. Forest policy and Econamics, 11(7), 535-536.

Parechehreh, M., Sadeghzadeh, F., Bahmanyar, M.A., Ghajar sepanlo, M. (2017). Effect of rice straw biochar and Nrad wood chips on chemical properties of saline-sodium saline soil with clay loam texture. Journal of Soil and Water Science, 27(4), 49-61.

Pühringer, H. (2016). Effects of different biochar application rates on soil fertility and soil water retention in on-farm experiments on smallholder farms in Kenya. Master´s thesis, Independent Project in Environmental Science, Faculty of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences, Department of Soil and Environment, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.

Pourmansour, S., Razzaqi, F., Sepaskhah, A., & Mousavi, A. (2019). Study of growth and yield of wheat under different levels of biochar and low irrigation in greenhouse conditions. Water and Irrigation Management, 9(1), 28-25. (In Persian)

Rabiee, M. (2000). Effect of row spacing and nitrogen fertilizer rates on grain yield and agronomic characteristics of rapeseed cv. Hayola 308 as second crop in paddy fields of Guilan in Iran. Journal of Crops Seed and Plant, 27(4), 399- 415. (In Persian).

Razaqi, F., & Rezaei, n. (2017). The effect of different levels of biochar on the physical properties of soil with different textures. Protection of water and soil resources, 7(1), 88-75. (In Persian)

Oladele, S., Adeyemo, A., Awodun, M., Ajayi, A., & Fasina, A. (2019). Effects of biochar and nitrogen fertilizer on soil physicochemical properties, nitrogen use efficiency and upland rice (Oryza sativa) yield grown on an Alfisol in Southwestern Nigeria. Recycling of Organic Waste in Agriculture, 8(3), 295–308.

Younis, U., Athar, M., Malik, S.A., Raza Shah, M.H., & Mahmood, S. (2015). Biochar impact on physiological and biochemical attributes of Spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) in nickel contaminated soil. Global Journal of Environmental Science Management, 1(3), 245-254.

Page 14: Effect of forage maize biochar and urea fertilizer on soil ...

(�)* +,�- �*$� '�.� /�0 �*�1*�2 ���� (�3 ��. 4%*05��0 %�.67� 8/�9 �)��. �:�;�5 /�5��

���11 � ���3 � �����1400

606

Van Zwieten, L., Kimber, S., Morris, S., Chan, K.,

Downie, A., Rust, J., Joseph, S., & Cowie, A.

(2010). Effects of biochar from slow pyrolysis of

papermill waste on agronomic performance and

soil fertility. Plant and Soila327(1), 235-246.

Zhang, A., Liu, Y., Pan, G., Hussain, Q., Li, L.,

Zheng, J., and Zhang, X. 2012. Effect of biochar

amendment on maize yield and greenhouse gas

emissions from a soil from central China plain.

Plant and Soil, 351(1), 263-275.