EFFECT OF BIOCHAR ON CONTENT AND UPTAKE OF MACRONUTRIENTS BY RABI GROUNDNUT (Arachis hypogaea L.) IN SANDY LOAM SOILS OF NORTH COASTAL ANDHRA PRADESH
213 / 73
Abstract
A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect of biochar on Rabi groundnut nutrition in red sandy
loam soils. Eight treatments viz., control (T1), 100% RDF only (T2), 100% RDF + biochar @ 2 t ha-1 (T3), 100% RDF
+ biochar @ 4 t ha-1 (T4), 100% RDF + biochar @ 6 t ha-1 (T5), 75% RDF + biochar @ 2 t ha-1 (T6), 75% RDF + biochar
@ 4 t ha-1 (T7) and 75% RDF + biochar @ 6 t ha-1 (T8) were laid out in RBD design replicated thrice. Soil application
of biochar significantly increased the N, P2O5, K2O and Ca concentration in both groundnut haulms and pods,
however, Mg and S contents slightly increased by biochar addition. Highest nitrogen content of 2.86% was observed
in groundnut pods when biochar applied @ 6 t ha-1 along with 100% RDF (T5), which found statistically on par with
other treatments except T6 and T1 in which the N was significantly lower than in T5. The N, P2O5 and K2O content were
significantly high in all the treatments when compared to control (T1). Calcium content in groundnut haulm and pods
was significantly higher in biochar applied treatments (T3, T4, T5, T6, T7 and T8) compared to no biochar applied
treatments (T1 and T2). However, calcium content with the biochar application @ 6 t ha-1 (T5 and T8) was significantly
higher when compared to treatments with biochar application @ 2 t ha-1 (T3 and T6). The total uptake of N, P2O5, K2O,
Ca, Mg and S by groundnut crop was significantly influenced by biochar application in combination with 100% RDF
(T5, T4,T3) or 75% RDF (T6, T7 & T8) and RDF alone (T2) when compared to control(T1). The increased nutrient uptake
was found mainly due to enhanced groundnut haulm and pod yield.
References
1. Atkinson, C.J., Fitzgerald, J.D and Hipps, N.A. 2010.
2. Potential mechanisms for achieving agricultural
3. benefits from biochar application to temperate
4. soils: A review. Plant Soil. 337:1-18.
5. Agegnehu, G., Bass, A.M., Nelson, P.N., Muirhead,
6. B., Wright, G and Bird, M.I. 2015. Biochar and
7. biochar-compost as soil amendments: effects
8. on peanut yield, soil properties and greenhouse
9. gas emissions in tropical North Queensland,
10. Australia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
11. Environment. 213: 72-85.
12. Budania, K and Janardhan, Y. 2014. Effects of PGPR
13. blended biochar and different levels of
14. phosphorus on yield and nutrient uptake by
15. chickpea. Annals of Agri-Bio Research. 19(3):
16. -412.
17. Chan, K.Y., Zwieten, L.V., Meszaros. I., Downie, A
18. and Joseph, S. 2007. Agronomic values of green
19. waste biochar as a soil amendment. Australian
20. Journal of Soil Research. 45: 629-634.
21. Danish, S., Ameer, A., Qureshi, T.I., Younis, U.,
22. Manzoor, H., Shakeel, A and Ehsanullah, M.
23. Influence of biochar on growth and
24. photosynthetic attributes of Triticum aestivum
25. L. under half and full irrigation. International
26. Journal of Biosciences. 5(7): 101-108.
27. Evangelou, M.W.H., Brem, A., Ugoloni, F., Abiven,
28. S., Schulin, R. 2014. Soil application of biochar
29. produced from biomass grown on trace element
30. contaminated land. Journal of Environmental
31. Management. 146: 100-106.
32. Jackson, M.L. 1973. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice
33. Hall of India Private Limited, New Delhi.
34. Laxman Rao, P., Jayasree, G., Prathiba, G and Ram
35. Prakash, T. 2017. Effect of soil amendments
36. on dry matter production, nutrient uptake and
37. yield in maize (Zea mays. L). Environment and
38. Ecology. 35(3A): 1898-1902
39. Lehmann, J., Da Silva, J.P., Steiner, C., Nehls, T.,
40. Zech, W and Glaser, B. 2003. Nutrient
41. availability and leaching in an archaeological
42. Anthrosol and a Ferralsol of the Central Amazon
43. basin: fertilizer, manure and charcoal
44. amendments. Plant and Soil. 249: 343-357.
45. Mukherjee, A and Lal, R. 2013. Biochar impacts on
46. soil physical properties and greenhouse gas
47. emissions. Agronomy. 3:313–339.
48. Nadaf, S.A. and Chidanandappa, H.M. 2015. Content
49. and uptake of macronutrients by groundnut
50. (Arachis hypogaea L.) as influenced by soil
51. application of zinc and boron in sandy loam soils
52. of Karnataka, India. Legume Research. 38 (3):
53. -366
54. Nguyen, H., Blair, G and Guppy, C. 2012. Effect of
55. rice husk biochar and nitrification inhibitortreated
56. urea on N and other macronutrient
57. uptake by maize. Capturing opportunities and
58. overcoming obstacles in Australian Agronomy.
59. Proceedings of the 16th ASA Conference, 14th -
60. th October 2012, Armidale, Australia.
61. Piper, C.S. 1966. Soil and Plant Analysis. Hans
62. Publishers, Bombay. pp. 368-369.
63. Thies, E.J and Rillig, M.C. 2009. Characteristics of
64. biochar: biological properties. In: Biochar for
65. GOWTHAMI et al.
66. Environmental Management (Lehmann, J and
67. Joseph Stephen, Editors). Science and
68. Technology. 2: 85-102.
69. Vogel, A.I. 1979. A textbook of quantitative inorganic
70. analysis, Richard Clay and Company Ltd.,
71. Great Britain. pp.660.
72. ANGRAU.2019. Farmers’ Almanac 2018-19.
73. Published by Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural
74. University, Lam, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. pp.
75. -110.
76. Yusof, M.R.M., Ahmed, O.H., King, W.S and Zakry,
77. F.A.A. 2015. Effects of biochar and chicken litter
78. ash on selected soil chemical properties and
79. nutrient uptake by Oryza sativa L. var. MR 219.
80. International Journal of Biosciences. 6(3): 360-
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The author owns the article's copyright until the article is accepted for publication. After acceptance, the author(s) assigns the article's copyright jointly to both the authors and the Publishers of the Journal of Research ANGRAU (ANGRAU) and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.