https://orcid.org/0009-0007-8656-8295
Figures
Abstract
The medium-intensity karst desertification environment is typically characterized by more rocks and less soil. The abandoned land in the construction areas of the dry-hot river valley hydropower station has more infertile soil, severe land degradation, and very low land productivity. Therefore, it is urgent to improve the soil quality to curb the increasingly degrading land and reuse the construction site. Few studies have focused on the effect of soil restoration and comprehensive evaluation of soil quality with multi-treatment in abandoned land in the dry-hot valley hydropower station construction area. Here, 9 soil restoration measures and 1 control group were installed at the Guangzhao Hydropower Station construction in Guizhou Province, China, for physical and chemical property analysis. In total, 180 physical and 90 chemical soil samples were collected on three occasions in May, August, and December 2022. Soil fertility and quality were evaluated under various measures using membership functions and principal component analysis (PCA). This study showed that almost all measures could enhance soil water storage capacity (The average total soil porosity of 9 soil treatments was 57.56%, while that of the control group was 56.37%). With the increase in soil porosity, soil evaporation became stronger, and soil water content decreased. Nevertheless, no decrease in soil water content was observed in the presence of vegetation cover (soil water content: 16.46% of hairy vetch, 13.99% of clover, 13.77% of the control). They also proved that manure, synthetic fertilizer, and straw could promote total and available nutrients (Soil total nutrient content, or the total content of TN、TP、TK,was presented as: synthetic fertilizer (11.039g kg-2)>fowl manure (10.953g kg-2)>maize straw (10.560g kg-2)>control (9.580g kg-2);Total available nutrient content in soil, or the total content of AN,AP,A,was shown as:fowl manure (1287.670 mg kg-1)>synthetic fertilizer (925.889 mg kg-1)>sheep manure (825.979 mg kg-1)>control (445.486 mg kg-1). They could also promote soil fertility, among which the first two reached the higher comprehensive soil quality. Fertilizer was conducive to improve soil quality and fertility, yet long-term application could cause land degradation like soil non-point source pollution, compaction, and land productivity decline. Ultimately, combining fertilizer with biochar or manure is recommended to improve soil fertility. Biochar and green manure could play an apparent role in soil improvement only when there is abundant soil water. The above views provide theoretical support for curbing soil degradation, improving soil fertility and quality, enhancing land productivity, and promoting the virtuous cycle of the soil ecosystem.
Citation: Wu Q, Sun R, Chen F, Zhang X, Wu P, Wang L, et al. (2024) Soil quality enhancement by multi-treatment in the abandoned land of dry-hot river valley hydropower station construction area under karst desertification environment. PLoS ONE 19(7): e0306368. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306368
Editor: Paulo H. Pagliari, University of Minnesota, UNITED STATES
Received: February 27, 2024; Accepted: June 14, 2024; Published: July 31, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Wu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: This study was supported by the Technology Support Plan of Guizhou Province (No. 462 2021 Qiankehe Zhicheng) and the Natural Science Foundation of Guizhou Province (No. 317 2022 Qiankehe Jichu -ZK). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1 Introduction
The global karst area is about 22 million square kilometres, accounting for 15% of the land area [1, 2] and providing water resources for about 20–25% of the global population [3]. In China, Karst is mainly distributed in its southwest regions. It has the widest area of exposed carbonate rocks globally, with 220 million people living here [4, 5]. Karst is one of the most fragile terrestrial ecosystems in the world [6]. Karst desertification is the fundamental cause of ecological fragility in karst areas. It is also an extreme manifestation of land degradation [7], the result of environmental degradation formed under unique hydrological and geological conditions, and a phenomenon of land degradation resulting from natural factors such as rainfall, soil erosion and human activities [2]. Karst areas are characterized by high permeability, which makes it difficult to collect water on the surface and causes water resources to easily leak into the ground through surface cracks [8]. This distribution characteristic of water resources leads to a decrease in surface water, resulting in abundant groundwater that is difficult to use, presenting a unique ’karst drought’ [6]. Typically, a dry and hot river valley is a valley with high temperature and low humidity. It features sufficient light and heat resources, high temperature and drought climate, low annual rainfall but extensive evaporation, prominent water-heat contradiction, low vegetation coverage rate, severe soil erosion, ecological degradation, and difficult vegetation restoration [9]. The soil layer (about 20 cm) is skinny in the hydropower station construction area in the karst desertification environment. The abandoned land in the dry-hot valley is mixed with gravel and broken bricks left over from the hydropower station construction. This results in severe land degradation, thereby decreasing the soil organic matter due to the gravel (In general, the increase in gravel caused a decrease in soil water content, coverage, above-ground and underground biomass, community density, and species richness, even leading to the extinction of some species.) [10], which further leads to even more infertile soil with almost no land productivity. Evidently, soil is an indispensable resource for human survival and is critical in providing nutrients for plant growth and supporting human well-being [11]. Its degradation seriously hinders the development of ecological and sustainable agriculture in hydropower stations, so it is imperative to improve its quality.
Soil improvement has been intensively investigated, yet most studies have mainly been concerned with the actual effect of different materials and measures. A study reported that the biochar-compost practice reduced the high mineralization rate of soil organic matter, phosphorus deficiency and aluminium toxicity, improving soil’s physical and chemical properties [12]. It was also claimed in other research that biochar can improve the soil microbial community structure and metabolites [13, 14] and promote soil cation exchange capacity to reach higher nutrient availability and stronger soil nutrient retention ability [15]. Winter rye is also helpful in soil restoration, and its long-term mulching helps accumulate more soil moisture [16]. Besides, a report claims that soil could be improved by sludge from sewage treatment plants, which can reduce the void index and improve particle packaging of soil [17]. Organic polymer soil conditioners are another commonly used measure of soil improvement. A synthetic consortium was reported to be beneficial in agricultural soil due to its ability to increase soil fertility, reduce soil pollution, and promote soil productivity [18]. Water gel releases nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium into the soil over an extended period, facilitating plant growth, enhancing nutrient levels, and inhibiting the accumulation of harmful nitrates in plants [19]. Plant urease was found to induce calcium carbonate precipitation to achieve soil improvement [20]. Polyacrylamide, sodium polyacrylate, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose and polyvinyl alcohol were applied as raw materials due to being able to lower soil erosion rate and increase plant biomass and soil porosity [21].
The prompt initiation of soil remediation is imperative when soil degradation is present due to human activities within a particular environment, such as soil damage caused by mining or the construction of hydropower stations. Some previous studies have focused on mining-damaged soil and its restoration [22, 23]. It was found that the contents of available nitrogen (AN), available phosphorus (AP) and available potassium (AK) in coal mining areas were significantly lower than those in non-mining ones, which indicated that mining activities destroyed the soil architecture, resulting in weakened soil water holding capacity, more evaporation and lower soil water content [24]. Another study showed that coal mining contaminated soil could be improved by applying a microorganism activation method to achieve a more extensive content of AP, AK and available silicon (ASi) [25]. Also, it was reported that municipal sludge could be used for soil restoration on the planting sites of the Alquife Mine for tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.), ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.), and ahipas (Pachyrhizus ahipa.) (Wedd.) Parodi), producing various effects with different metering sludge composting [26]. Currently, soil improvement on hydropower station sites has received limited attention. Meanwhile, the current studies on soil improvement are mainly based on researching and developing new laboratory materials, which are challenging to promote and apply in agricultural production [27]. Obviously, previous studies rarely took multiple evaluation methods to comprehensively evaluate soil fertility and soil quality using multiple soil improvement treatments. Therefore, this study took the abandoned land on the hydropower station construction area in a karst desertification environment under a dry-hot river valley landform type as the research object. In addition, traditional manure, green manure, synthetic fertilizers, biochar and straw were selected to conduct field experiments on soil remediation. This study employs data-analysis methods, including membership function, soil quality index, and soil nutrient level classification. The objective of this study is to comprehensively evaluate soil fertility and quality, aiming to derive practical soil improvement measures tailored to specific climate and geomorphic types. This study seeks to offer theoretical support for the enhancement of degraded land, the establishment of a virtuous cycle in the soil ecosystem, the control of karst desertification, and the development of ecological agriculture.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Overview of the study area
Guangzhao Hydropower Station (105°15 ’00 "E, 25°37’ 34" N) is located in the midstream of the Beipan River at the junction of Guanling and Qinglong County, Guizhou Province, China, 222 km away from Guiyang (Fig 1), with 13,548 km2 rainfall collection area of the dam site and an average annual rainfall of 1178.8 mm. It is the largest hydropower station of cascade development projects in the Beipan River mainstream and the critical project in the second batch of Chinese ‘west-east power transmission’ construction. The dam site is a karst mountain terrain, with an elevation difference of over 1000 m from the plateau top to the valley bottom. It is a typical V-shaped river valley with Triassic strata and limestone as the primary lithology, belonging to medium-intensity level karst desertification environment. The land use types here include grassland, water area, forest, cultivated land, construction land and bare rock. The poor vegetation in the upstream watershed of the hydropower station has caused severe soil erosion. The erosion area of the reservoir has reached 2844.72 ha, with a construction waste area of 181.83 ha.
2.2 Experimental design
In December 2021, 10 strip plots (1 m × 4 m) with a 5° slope were selected to arrange soil improvement measures; where nine of them were tested treatments, and another one was a control plot (Table 1 and Fig 2). The nine treatments were selected based on the following reasons. First, hairy vetch and clover were supposed to be common green manure in karst areas and thus chosen as biological measures for soil restoration. Second, the easy availability of maize straw, maize straw biochar, rice husk biochar, fowl manure, sheep manure, and synthetic fertilizer in karst mountainous areas makes them the chosen soil-restoring materials. Therefore, measures were selected according to adapting to local conditions. The soil samples were taken three times in May, August and December 2022. When taking the soil for physical property measurement, they were sampled at three points in each of the ten sample plots (including the control plot) along an S-shaped path with a 100 cm3 ring knife. At each point, the soil was taken from two different depths of the soil layer (0–10 cm and 10–20 cm). In this way, 60 physical soil samples were taken each time, and a total of 180 ones were obtained three times. With the same sampling path and at the same point as physical soil, the sample was also taken from two soil layers (0–10 cm and 10–20 cm) with scraper knives for chemical property measurement. At each point in each layer, 200 g of soil was taken. After that, soil from the three points in the same layer was mixed and put in a ziploc bag. In this way, 30 chemical soil samples were collected each time, and 90 were obtained. After that, they were returned to the laboratory for air drying and impurity removal and passed through a 100-mesh sieve for testing.
2.3 Sample analysis
The potassium dichromate volumetric method-external heating method was used to determine the SOM. The micro Kjeldahl method was used to test the TN, and the alkaline hydrolysis diffusion method was used to measure the AN. The TP content of the soil was tested using ultraviolet spectrophotometer, and the AP content was tested using the molybdenum-antimonic resistance colorimetric method. Flame spectrophotometry was employed to assess the content of TK and AK, and the potentiometric method (1:5) was used to determine the pH value of soil [28, 29].
2.4 Data analysis
2.4.1 Classification standard of soil nutrient index.
According to the nutrient classification standard of the second National Soil Survey (National Earth System Science Data Center), the soil nutrient level in the study areas was evaluated (Table 2) [30].
2.4.2 Selection and data calculation of soil comprehensive evaluation indexes.
The physical indexes considered for the comprehensive soil evaluation included soil water content, saturated water content, capillary water content, field water capacity, bulk density, total porosity and capillary porosity. The selected chemical indexes were SOM, TN, TP, TK, AN, AP, AK, and pH. In total, 15 physical and chemical indexes were evaluated by the soil quality index formula (Formula 1) [31, 32].
Where SQI is the soil quality index, Si is the membership function value of the ith index, and Wi is the weight of the ith index. The higher the SQI, the better the soil quality [31, 32]. The PCA obtained the index weights using IBM SPSS Statistics 23 [33]. Since the index change was continuous in soil quality evaluation, the membership function was used to evaluate it. When the soil indexes had a positive effect on soil productivity, the ascending distribution function was applied to the calculation (Formula 2) [34, 35]:
(2)
When the soil indexes had adverse effects on soil productivity, the descending distribution function was selected for the calculation, as shown in equation (Formula 3) [34, 35]:
(3)
Where f (xi) represents the membership degree value of the index, x for the actual value of each index, x1 and x2 for the minimum and maximum values in the index, respectively, and xi for the measured value. The membership degrees of soil physical attributes, except for bulk density, were calculated by ascending distribution function, and only the pH value was calculated by descending distribution function for the membership degree of chemical attributes [34, 35].
3 Results and analysis
3.1 Soil water storage capacity
Soil porosity is an important index to evaluate soil water conservation capacity [36] and soil infiltration capacity [37]. It is also a place for water storage and a channel for water migration [38]. Increasing soil porosity will inevitably lead to enhancing soil infiltration capacity and soil water storage capacity [39]. At the studied construction site in Guangzhao hydropower station, the total soil porosity under 9 soil improvement treatments was 57.76% on average (with that of the control being 56.37%), with 64.92% at the highest and 49.75% at the lowest (Fig 3). The 0–10 cm soil layer (57.24%) was lower than the 10–20 cm soil layer (58%), and there was no significant difference in total porosity between them. Although there was no significant correlation between soil water content and total porosity (r = -0.226, P = 0.082), there was still a negative relation between total porosity and soil water content in some soil improvement measures. For instance, the total porosity of maize straw (59.32%) was equal to that of maize straw + hairy vetch (59.32%), both higher than other measures-synthetic fertilizer (58.54%), rice husk biochar (57.04%), and sheep manure (56.37%). In contrast, the soil water contents gradually declined from sheep manure (16.98%), rice husk biochar (16.84%), synthetic fertilizer (14.45%), maize straw (11.98%), to maize straw + hairy leaves (11.35%). The greater the porosity, the more intense the soil water evaporation occurs, leading to a decline in soil water content. However, the situation with vegetation cover was different. With vegetation coverage, the total porosity of soil was ranked from high to low as follows: clover (58.37%), hairy vetch (56.78%), and control (54.78%). Instead, the soil water contents were found as hairy vetch (16.46%) > clover (13.99%) > control (13.77%). This indicates that vegetation cover could not reduce soil water content due to large porosity but could effectively inhibit soil evaporation and retain water better. Compared with the Huajiang karst desertification control demonstration area, which is also a dry-hot river valley under medium-intensity karst desertification environment but with no construction activity, the soil porosity (57.62%) in the construction site was higher than that in non-construction land (soil porosity: 35.63%), whereas the reverse is true for soil water content, with 14.29% in construction site and 17.83% in non-construction site [40].
3.2 Soil nutrient characteristics under soil improvement measures
3.2.1 Soil organic matter.
The ideal soil for plant growth might have a loose structure, sufficient pore space, and relatively rich organic matter [41]. As represented in Table 3, the average content of the SOM was 29.28 g kg-1, with sheep manure (37.30 g kg-1) at the highest and hairy vetch (19.80 g kg-1) at the lowest. Except for hairy vetch, the soil organic matter contents of other treatments were higher than that of control. Hairy vetch had lower content than that of the control, for the possible reason that no ploughing was done before planting, and it increased rapidly, absorbing and carrying away the SOM in the soil. Regarding testing time, the SOM content gradually ascended from May to December under most treatments (rice husk biochar, maize straw biochar, maize straw, maize straw + hairy vetch, sheep manure, and synthetic fertilizer). This shows that the decomposed organic matter of straw, biochar, and sheep manure increased with time within a year. Contrary to the previous measures, the content under the fowl manure measure decreased from May to December, indicating that the SOM had been decomposed mainly in May. In the later period, the content continued to decrease with the consumption of the SOM by weeds and other plants in the land, as well as the washing action and eluviation of the SOM by rainfall. The SOM content in the 0–10 cm soil layer was higher than that in the 10–20 cm soil layer, opposite to soil pH distribution. Comparison among different treatments showed that the contents of the SOM were descending in the following order: sheep manure (37.30 g kg-1), maize straw + hairy vetch (34.91 g kg-1), fowl manure (32.17 g kg-1), clover (31.34 g kg-1), maize straw (30.44 g kg-1), straw biochar (29.37 g kg-1), Rice husk biochar (26.67 g kg-1), synthetic fertilizer (26.57 g kg-1), control group (24.23 g kg-1), and hairy vetch (19.80 g kg-1).
3.2.2 Total soil nutrients.
The average TN content in the soil was 1.857 g kg-2, with the highest observed in fowl manure (2.577 g kg-2) and the lowest in hairy vetch (1.408 g kg-2). Among the nine treatments, the TN contents of maize straw, maize straw + hairy vetch, sheep manure, clover and synthetic fertilizer were higher than that of the control, suggesting that these measures were beneficial to the enhancement of the TN content. Hairy vetch, rice husk biochar and maize straw biochar exhibited lower TN contents than the control. This is due to its strong soil nitrogen absorption ability, leading to the loss of nitrogen from the soil when there is no tillage [42]. For the two biochar measures, the less the TN indicated that the application of biochar brought little benefit to the increase of the TN. The average content of the TP was 0.904 g kg-2. The highest was synthetic fertilizer (1.999 g kg-2), and the lowest was rice husk biochar (0.537 g kg-2). Except for two types of biochar, soil TP levels under alternative measures were higher than those in the control group. This implies that biochar had minimal impact on enhancing TP content, whereas other treatments exhibited notable effects. The average content of the TK in soil was 7.419 g kg-2, with hairy vetch showing the highest value (8.370 g kg-2) and fowl manure exhibiting the lowest (6.705 g kg-2). Hairy vetch, rice husk biochar and maize straw biochar presented a higher TK content than the control (Fig 4). This indicates that biochar was favorable to improving the TK content, and the best was hairy vetch. Overall, the TK (7.419 g kg-2) was more than the TN (1.857 g kg-2), followed by the TP (0.904 g kg-2). Vertically, the contents of TN, TP and TK in the 0–10 cm soil layer (2.199 g kg-2, 1.010 g kg-2, 7.691 g kg-2) were higher than those in the 10–20 cm soil layer (1.515 g kg-2, 0.799 g kg-2, 7.146g kg-2). Regarding the time scale, the highest contents of the TN and TP appeared in August, ascending from May to August and descending from August to December. On the whole, soil total nutrient contents were shown as synthetic fertilizer (11.039g kg-2) > fowl manure (10.953 g kg-2) > maize straw (10.560 g kg-2) > hairy vetch (10.470 g kg-2) > sheep manure (10.094 g kg-2) > maize straw biochar (9.916 g kg-2) > maize straw + hairy vetch (9.910 g kg-2) > clover (9.879 g kg-2) > control group (9.580 g kg-2) > rice husk biochar (9.399 g kg-2).
3.2.3 Soil available nutrients.
Fig 5 depicts the contents of soil available nutrients—AK, AN, AP. The highest were 851.872, 276.749, and 159.049 mg Kg-1, while the lowest were 207.020, 139.412, and 15.981 mg Kg-1, respectively. The AN contents in soil ranged from 139.412 mg kg-1 to 276.749 mg kg-1, with the AN average value of 190.338 mg kg-1. AN content was the highest in soil under fowl manure treatment. Except for hairy vetch, rice husk biochar and maize straw biochar, the contents of AN in other treatments were higher than that of the control (164.197 mg kg-1). Vertically, the 0–10 cm soil layer had higher average AN content (225.948 mg kg-1) than the 10–20 cm soil layer (154.728 mg kg-1). The contents of the AP in soil ranged from 15.981 mg kg-1 to 159.049 mg kg-1, with an average of 60.980 mg kg-1 and the peak in soil treated with fowl manure. Under all treatments, the AP was higher than that of the control, indicating that these soil improvement measures contributed to the increase of soil AP content. Comparison between soil layers showed that the average AP in the upper layer (65.569 mg kg-1) was higher than in the lower layer (56.392 mg kg-1). The AK in soil ranged from 207.020 mg kg-1 to 851.872 mg kg-1, with an average of 407.731 mg kg-1 and the highest in soil under sheep manure treatment. Some measures (with hairy vetch, rice husk biochar and maize straw biochar excluded) had higher AK than the control. The reason was that hairy vetch with strong absorption ability, rice husk biochar, and maize straw biochar took in part of AK in soil, thus decreasing the AK content [43]. Vertically, the AK was more in the upper layer (516.274 mg kg-1) than in the lower layer (299.188 mg kg-1). On the whole, the total available nutrient contents in soil (sum of the AN, AP and AK) in descending order were fowl manure (1287.670 mg kg-1), synthetic fertilizer (925.889 mg kg-1), sheep manure (825.979 mg kg-1), maize straw + hairy vetch (787.012 mg kg-1), maize straw (660.021 mg kg-1), clover (510.899 mg kg-1), control group (445.486 mg kg-1), rice husk biochar (397.353 mg kg-1), maize straw biochar (385.320 mg) kg-1), hairy vetch (385.320 mg kg-1).
3.3 Soil nutrient levels
Soil nutrients are essential to crop growth [44, 45]. Low soil nutrients limit plant growth [46–48], decreasing biomass [49]. Too much soil nutrient content causes environmental and health problems [50] and exerts impacts on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems [51, 52], resulting in soil degradation and non-point source pollution [53]. Generally, soil fertility can only be evaluated according to nutrient content. As represented in Table 2, the richer the soil nutrient content was, the smaller the number was. Level 1 was the most fertile soil, and level 6 was the most infertile. Adding up the soil nutrient levels of soil organic matter, soil total nutrient and available nutrients, it was found that the smaller sum predicted more fertile soil, and on the contrary, the bigger evinced that the soil was more infertile. As displayed in Table 4, except for hairy vetch and maize straw biochar, the soil fertility under other measures was higher than that of the control, with the best exhibited for fowl manure and the worst displayed for hairy vetch. Among others, the measures of fowl manure, sheep manure, maize straw + hairy vetch, maize straw, and clover significantly enhanced soil organic matter. Only fowl manure and synthetic fertilizer improved soil TP at a higher soil nutrient level. Under all measures, TK lingered at a lower nutrient level, while AN and AK kept the highest. Fowl manure, sheep manure, synthetic fertilizer, maize straw, + hairy vetch significantly improved AP.
3.4 Comprehensive evaluation of soil quality
The SQI covers the physical and chemical properties of soil and represents the overall quality of soil, which is positively correlated with crop biomass and yield [31, 32]. Fig 6 presents the SQI of 9 soil improving treatments and the control group by calculating weight and membership degree. It can be seen that the mean value of the SQI was 0.502, and the coefficient of variation was 0.134. The comprehensive evaluation of soil quality by physical and chemical property indexes produced the following findings. The lowest SQI was found under maize straw biochar, at the same level as rice husk biochar, both lower than that of the control. Hairy vetch and clover were at the same soil quality level, and so were maize straw and maize straw+hairy vetch. The SQI of the two biological measures of hairy vetch and clover was at the same level. The best measures to improve soil quality level were synthetic fertilizer and the two kinds of manure. The SQI of the ten plots in descending order were synthetic fertilizer (0.698), fowl manure (0.694), sheep manure (0.622), Hairy vetch (0.4954), clover (0.495), maize straw + hairy vetch (0.462), maize straw (0.459), control group (0.419), rice husk biochar (0.397), maize straw biochar (0.397), and maize straw biochar Carbon (0.278).
4 Discussion
4.1 Suitability of biological measures for soil improvement
Soil restoration by biological measures has gained widespread trust in the past few decades [54, 55]. The mechanisms behind this treatment are analyzing above-ground and subsurface parts of plants [56, 57]. The above-ground branches and leaves effectively intercept rainfall and reduce soil erosion by runoff and raindrops [58–60]. The deep and shallow roots support the soil’s underground parts and lateral roots [61–63], which increases the number of soil aggregates, enhances soil corrosion resistance, and lowers soil erosion, thereby achieving the purpose of improving soil physical structure. Soil remediation measures by using the above-ground and underground parts of plants to reduce soil erosion are generally applied to slope stability management of sloping farmland, which actually utilizes the mechanical and hydrological effects of soil improvement [64, 65]. Another advantage of biological measures is to enhance soil fertility and soil nutrients. The Gyeongsang National University Experimental Farm (36°50′N and 128°26′E), in Jinju, South Korea, has an average annual temperature of 12.9–13°C and annual rainfall of 1221–1751 mm. Here, researchers cultivated in rice paddy fields by mixing hairy vetch (Vicia villosa R.) with barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and reported that green manure planting improved crop biomass and soil nutrientsv [66]. Other studies proved this result. It was found in the experiment of planting hairy vetch in Dongxiang County (28°10′N, 106°35′E, average annual precipitation of 1777 mm), Jiangxi Province, in China, that green manure had the function of soil nutrient enhancement. At the Red Soil Experimental Station (26°45′N, 111°52′E; elev. 150 m, annual rainfall of 1422 mm), experiments on planting milk vetch in paddy fields revealed that this kind of plant enhanced rice yield and soil fertility [67–69]. It can be safely concluded that plants, especially green manure, have the effects on decreasing soil erosion, strengthening soil corrosion resistance, and improving crop yield and soil fertility. However, it is worth noting that there was rich precipitation and abundant soil water content in the study areas in the above studies, indicating that sufficient soil water is the necessary medium for the growth of green manure plants to increase soil fertility. In this study, due to high temperatures and little rain during the growth of hairy vetch and clover, the intense evaporation and low soil water content severely hindered the growth of crops. With no ploughing of green manure plants, the biological measures failed to significantly improve the soil. Therefore, under drought conditions, soil improvement with plant measures is highly dependent on artificial water recharge [70], which is time-consuming and laborious with little effect [71].
4.2 Suitability of biochar measures for soil improvement
Biochar achieves the purpose of soil restoration by improving soil’s physical and chemical properties. In terms of physical properties, biochar promotes soil biological activity, increases soil porosity [72] and water-holding capacity [73], and reduces soil bulk density [74]. About chemical properties, biochar promotes soil organic carbon (SOC) storage in agricultural land [75], brings down soil C and N leaching [76] and nitrate mineralization [77], and enhances soil fertility and crop yield [78]. In the coastal wetland of Jiaozhou Bay, Shandong Province, China, a pot experiment on soil remediation using biochar to restore saline-alkali soil (60% of soil water holding capacity) showed that biochar could contribute to the higher contents of soil SOC, dissolved organic carbon (DOC), TN, TP and AP [79]. In Yifeng Village (31°24 ’10 "N, 119°41’ 28" Ε, annual mean temperature of 17°C, yearly precipitation of 1242 mm) of Yixing Municipality, Jiangsu Province, China, biochar restoration test on the rice paddy soil showed that the soil carbon content could be increased by 45% with the addition of biochar. In addition, soil agglomeration increased by 30%, and microbial growth and enzyme activity increased similarly [80]. In Nalanda, Bihar, India, a soil remediation experiment (80% of soil water holding capacity) exhibited that biochar could enhance the abilities of cation exchange, anion exchange, and water holding capacity. Improvement was also made in porosity, soil respiration rate, soil contents, total nutrients, and available nutrients [81]. In Owo, Ondo State, Nigeria (average annual rainfall was 1400 mm), biochar improved soil physical properties (reducing soil bulk density, increasing soil porosity and soil water content) and chemical properties (enhancing the content of the SOC, N, P, K and Ca and Mg) to varying degrees, and promoted sweet potato yield as well [82]. Taken altogether, biochar was added for soil restoration under abundant water supply conditions, indicating that sufficient soil water ensures the effective functioning of biochar in soil improvement. In addition, the use of biochar, especially in bulk particle form, is limited in soil remediation [83]. In this study, the biochar derived from maize straw and rice husk was in a large-particle form, significantly reducing their effectiveness for soil remediation. Furthermore, the annual rainfall at the hydropower station site in 2022 was just 850 mm, causing high temperatures and intense evaporation. Hence, the soil remained consistently drought-stressed, impeding biochar’s effective functioning in soil improvement.
4.3 Problems and countermeasures of fertilizer in soil restoration
Using high dosages of chemical fertilizers, especially nitrogen, enhanced light fraction of soil carbon decomposition [84] and low carbon inputs resulted in a serious decline of the SOM [85], lowering soil fertility and crop yield [86]. The solution to this problem is to provide enough nitrogen to the soil to ensure that the crops can fully absorb it [87, 88] or to increase soil fertility, especially organic matter and carbon content [89–93], or to apply biochar in combination with fertilizer to synchronize soil nutrient availability with crop nitrogen demand [94]. The PMAS-Arid Agricultural University Research Center in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, studied the effects of various biochar and chemical fertilizer combinations against wheat yield and soil quality through pot experiments. The results showed that biochar and chemical fertilizer combinations were more likely to improve cultivated land crop yield and soil quality [86]. A field experiment of combined application of compound fertilizer and farm fertilizer was carried out in farmers’ fields in Uttar Chandamari village, Muratipur, Nadia, West Bengal, India (88°27’ E, 22°59’ N). The results were found as: by integrating concentrated organic manures with chemical fertilizer, weed growth and nutrient removal were effectively prevented, significantly enhancing 9% biomass growth, 10% yield of the rice crop along with 3–7% higher nutrient uptake [95]. It can be concluded that combining chemical fertilizer with manure, biochar, and biological fertilizer helps to improve soil fertility more than chemical fertilizer alone. Although the soil quality restoration effect of synthetic fertilizer was the best in this study, chemical fertilizers should be mixed with manure, biochar, and biological fertilizer to avoid the issues caused by long-term use of chemical fertilizer, such as soil compaction, agricultural non-point source pollution, soil fertility decline, crop yield decline [96, 97].
5 Conclusions
Soil in the hydropower station construction site was destroyed severely, and restoring it was crucial. There are many measures to improve the soil quality. Implementing nine soil-improving treatments and one control group on the hydropower station construction site helped find the measures that should contribute most to soil improvement.
- All soil restoring measures benefitted the soil water storage capacity. The soil porosity is significant in the site where the hydropower station was built. Under drought conditions, the soil porosity could lead to the acceleration of soil evaporation and the decrease of soil water content, except for vegetation cover.
- The SOM content generally becomes higher under soil improvement treatments, and the decomposed organic matter content of maize straw, biochar, fowl manure, and sheep manure increases with time within a year. Manure and straw have advantages in producing more SOM. Synthetic fertilizer, fowl manure, sheep manure, and maize straw have superior effects on increasing the content of soil total nutrients and available nutrients.
- Manure and synthetic fertilizers exhibit the most significant impact on enhancing soil nutrient levels and overall soil quality. Biological measures rank next, while biochar shows the least effectiveness.
- The efficacy of biological and biochar measures for soil remediation is constrained by drought conditions, with optimal performance achievable only under abundant rainfall or adequate water supply. Additionally, the particle size of biochar proves to be a significant limiting factor for soil improvement.
- Prolonged use of high doses of chemical fertilizer, particularly nitrogen fertilizer, can result in soil compaction, non-point source pollution, and a decline in land productivity. Combining chemical fertilizer with manure, biochar, and biological fertilizer helps mitigate environmental issues associated with sole chemical fertilizer applications and enhances soil fertility, leading to increased crop yield.
Supporting information
S4 File. Soil total nitrogen and available nitrogen.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306368.s004
(XLSX)
S5 File. Soil total phosphorus and available phosphorus.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306368.s005
(XLSX)
S6 File. Soil total potassium and available potassium.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306368.s006
(XLSX)
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their detailed comments, which have significantly improved the presentation of this work. Readers can also contact the first author via <wuqinglin2007@126.com> for questions about the paper.
References
- 1. Li Y, Liu Z, Liu G, Xiong K, Cai L. Dynamic Variations in Soil Moisture in an Epikarst Fissure in the Karst Rocky Desertification Area. Journal of Hydrology. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125587.
- 2. Khalid M, Tan H, Ali M, Rehman A, Liu X, Su L, et al. Karst rocky desertification diverged the soil residing and the active ectomycorrhizal fungal communities thereby fostering distinctive extramatrical mycelia. Science of The Total Environment. 2022; 807, 3, 151016. pmid:34666083
- 3.
Ford DC, Williams PW. Karst Hydrogeology and Geomorphology; Wiley: Chichester, 2007, p.9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118684986.
- 4. Tong X, Brandt M, Yue Y, Horion A-S, Wang K, Keersmaecker WD, et al. Increased vegetation growth and carbon stock in China karst via ecological engineering. Nat. Sustain.2018; 1, 44–50. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-017-0004-x.
- 5. Song S, Xiong K, Chi Y. Ecological Stoichiometric Characteristics of Plant–Soil–Microorganism of Grassland Ecosystems under Different Restoration Modes in the Karst Desertification Area. Agronomy. 2023; 13, 2016. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13082016.
- 6. Wu Q, Xiong K, Li R, Xiao J. Farmland Hydrology Cycle and Agronomic Measures in Agroforestry for the Efficient Utilization of Water Resources under Karst Desertification Environments. Forests. 2023; 14, 453. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14030453.
- 7. Li Y., Xiong K., Zhang W., Song S., Luo L. Analyzing Characteristics of Grassland Gross Ecosystem Product to Inform Decision Making in the Karst Desertification Control. Agronomy. 2023; 13, 1861. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13071861.
- 8. LeGrand HE. Hydrological and ecological problems of karst regions: Hydrological actions on limestone regions cause distinctive ecological problems. Science. 1973; 179, 859–864. pmid:17832755
- 9. Xu ZP, Yuan JM, Yang XQ, Lei X, He L. Soil fertility evaluation of wild Phyllanthus emblica Linn. in Yunnan dry-hot valleys. Chinese Journal of Applied and Environmental. 2021; 27(02),309–314. https://doi.org/10.19675/j.cnki.1006-687x.2021.01036.
- 10. Cui Z, Yang WS, Cheng Z, Zhang Z, Li S, Zhao J, et al. Top-down degradation of alpine meadow in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau: Gravelization initiate hillside surface aridity and meadow community disappearance. Catena. 2022; 210, 105933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2021.105933.
- 11. Fu W, Dong J, Ding L, Yang H, Ye Z, Zhao K. Spatial correlation of nutrients in a typical soil-hickory system of southeastern China and its implication for site-specific fertilizer application. Soil & Tillage Research. 2022; 217, 105265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2021.105265.
- 12. Qian SX, Zhou XR, Fu YK, Song B, Yan HC, Chen ZX, et al. Biochar-compost as a new option for soil improvement: Application in various problem soils. Science of the total environment. 2023; 870. pmid:36740069
- 13. Ren HY, Guo H, Islam MS, Zaki HEM, Wang ZS, Wang HY, et al. Improvement effect of biochar on soil microbial community structure and metabolites of decline disease bayberry. Frontiers in microbiology. 2023; 14, 1154886. pmid:37333636
- 14. Cheng H, Xing D, Twagirayezu G, Lin S, Gu S, Tu C, et al. Effects of field-aging on the impact of biochar on herbicide fate and microbial community structure in the soil environment. Chemosphere. 2024; 348, 140682. pmid:37952819
- 15. Wang P, Wang S, Chen F, Zhang T, Kong W. Preparation of two types of plant biochars and application in soil quality improvement. Science of The Total Environment. 2024; 906, 167334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.167334.
- 16. Basche AD, Kaspar TC, Archontoulis SV, Jaynes DB, Sauer TJ, Parkin TB, et al. Soil water improvements with the long-term use of a winter rye cover crop. Agricultural water management. 2016; 172, 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.04.006.
- 17. Feitosa MCA, Ferreira SRM, Delgado JMPQ, Silva FAN, Oliveira JTR, Oliveira PES, et al. Sewage Sludge Valorization for Collapsible Soil Improvement. Bulildings. 2023; 13, 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13020338338.
- 18. Chaudhary P, Xu M, Ahamad L, Chaudhary A, Kumar G, Adeleke BS, et al. Application of Synthetic Consortia for Improvement of Soil Fertility,Pollution Remediation, and Agricultural Productivity: A Review. Agronomy. 2023; 13, 3, 633. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13030643.
- 19. Niu C, Lin Z, Fu Q, Xu Y, Chen Y, Lu L. An eco-friendly versatile superabsorbent hydrogel based on sodium alginate and urea for soil improvement with a synchronous chemical loading strategy. Carbohydrate Polymers. 2023; 327, 121676. pmid:38171662
- 20. Dilrukshi RAN, Nakashima K, Kawasaki S. Soil improvement using plant-derived urease-induced calcium carbonate precipitation. Soils and Foundations. 2018; 58, 4: 894–910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2018.04.003.
- 21. Zhang H, Wang G, Du J, Pei X, Du P, Zhou L. Effects of several polymeric materials on the improvement of the sandy soil under rainfall simulation. Journal of Environmental Management. 2023; 345, 118847. pmid:37673010
- 22. Tian H, Zhang J, Zheng Y, Shi J, Qin J, Ren X, et al. Prediction of soil organic carbon in mining areas. Catena. 2022; 215, 106311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106311.
- 23. Levi N, Hillel N, Zaady E, Rotem G, Ziv Y, Karnieli A, et al. Soil quality index for assessing phosphate mining restoration in a hyper-arid environment, Ecological Indicators. 2021; 125, 107571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107571.
- 24. Tang F, Ma T, Tang J, Yang Q, Xue J, Zhu C, et al. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the concentrations of AN, AP, and AK were notably lower in regions affected by mining activities as compared to those in non-mining areas. Ecological Indicators. 2023; 157, 111242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.111242.
- 25. Zhu X, Gong W, Li W, Bai X, Zhang C. Reclamation of waste coal gangue activated by Stenotrophomonas maltophilia for mine soil improvement: Solubilizing behavior of bacteria on nutrient elements. Journal of Environmental Management. 2022; 320, 115865. pmid:35944325
- 26. Peña A, Mingorance MD, Rossini-Oliva S. Soil quality improvement by the establishment of a vegetative cover in a mine soil added with composted municipal sewage sludge. Journal of Geochemical Exploration. 2015; 157: 178–183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2015.06.014.
- 27. Haider G, Steffens D, Moser G, Müller C, Kammann CI. Biochar reduced nitrate leaching and improved soil moisture content without yield improvements in a four year field study. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017; 237: 80–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.12.019.
- 28. Sharma S, Choudhary PSOP, Neemisha . Nitrogen and rice straw incorporation impact nitrogen use efficiency, soil nitrogen pools and enzyme activity in rice-wheat system in north-western India. Field Crops Research. 2021; 266, 108131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108131.
- 29. Ling XD, Wang LQ, Zhao KL, Fu WJ, Ye ZQ, Ding LZ. Spatial distribution characteristics of soil available nutrients in hickory plantation based o nrandom forest method. Acta Ecologica Sinica. 2024; 44(2). https://doi.org/10.20103/j.stxb.202301130090.
- 30. Zhang L, Xu E. Effects of agricultural land use on soil nutrients and its variation along altitude gradients in the downstream of the Yarlung Zangbo River Basin, Tibetan Plateau. Science of the Total Environment. 2023; 905, 167583. pmid:37797760
- 31. Yan S, Guo Y, Tian M, Tian Y, Li J. Comprehensive evaluation of effects of various carbon-rich amendments on tomato production under continuous saline water irrigation: Overall soil quality, plant nutrient uptake, crop yields and fruit quality. Agricultural Water Management. 2021; 255, 106995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.106995.
- 32. Song M, Li J, Guo L, Tian Y. Comprehensive evaluation of effects of various carbon-rich amendments on overall soil quality and crop productivity in degraded soils. Geoderma. 2023; 436, 116529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2023.116529.
- 33. Qiao Y, Tie J, Wang X, Wei B, Zhang W, Liu Z, et al. Comprehensive evaluation on effect of planting and breeding waste composts on the yield, nutrient utilization, and soil environment of baby cabbage. Journal of Environmental Management. 2023; 341, 117941. pmid:37178544
- 34.
Rong G. Experimental Study on Effects of Erosion and Tillage Measures on Soil Quality. Yangning: Northwest A&F University 2022. (in Chinese).
- 35.
Li K. Couple Mechanism of Water and Fertilizer and Quality Improvement of Zanthoxyhum lanispinum var. Dingtanensis in the Karst Rocky Desertification Control. Guiyang: Guizhou Normal University 2022. (in Chinese).
- 36. Zhang N, Huang S, Lei H, Lei X, Liu P, Yan J. Changes in soil quality over time focusing on organic acid content in restoration areas following coal mining, Catena. 2022; 218, 106567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106567.
- 37. Gan F, Shi H, Guo J, Zhang L, Liu C. Effects of bedrock strata dip on soil infiltration capacity under different land use types in a karst trough valley of Southwest China. Catena. 2023; 230, 107253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2023.107253.
- 38. Leal J, Avila EA, Darghan AE, Lobo D. Spatial modeling of infiltration and its relationship with surface coverage of rock fragments and porosity in soils of an andean micro-watershed in Tolima (Colombia). Geoderma Regional. 2023; 33, e00637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geodrs.2023.e00637.
- 39. Ding B, Cai X, Wang Y, Li H, Zhao X, Xiao M, et al. Secondary vegetation succession following reforestation intensifies preferential flow by improving soil structure in the Chinese Karst region. Ecological Indicators. 2023; 156, 111166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.111166.
- 40.
Wu Q. Occurrence and transformation of ‘five water’ and high efficient utilization model of agroforestry in the karst rocky desertification environment. Gui Yang: Guizhou Normal University. 2020. (in Chinese).
- 41. Garg A, Ng CWW. Investigation of soil density effect on suction induced due to root water uptake by Schefflera heptaphylla. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science. 2015; 178: 586–591. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201400265.
- 42. Qu B, Feng F, Di J, Noor H. Root morphology and physiological of their relationship with nitrogen uptake in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Heliyon. 2024; 10, e29283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29283.
- 43. Han HW, Chen TT, Liu C, Zhang F, Sun YD, Bai YK, et al. Effects of acid modified biochar on potassium uptake, leaching and balance in an alternate wetting and drying paddy ecosystem. Science of the Total Environment. 2023; 900, 166344. pmid:37597543
- 44. Timsina J. Can organic sources of nutrients increase crop yields to meet global food demand? Agronomy. 2018; 8 (10), 214. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy8100214.
- 45. Li ZY, Li WH, Wang JL, Zhang JZ, Wang ZH. Drip irrigation shapes the soil bacterial communities and enhances jujube yield by regulating the soil moisture content and nutrient levels. Agricultural Water Management. 2023; 289, 108563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108563.
- 46. Fay PA, Prober SM, Harpole WS, Knops JMH, Bakker JD, Borer ET, et al. Grassland productivity limited by multiple nutrients. Nature Plants. 2015; 1, 15080. pmid:27250253
- 47. Yang Y, Pan J, Han BP, Naselli-Flores L. The effects of absolute and relative nutrient concentrations (N/P) on phytoplankton in a subtropical reservoir. Ecol. Indicate. 2020; 115, 106466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106466.
- 48. Adomako MO, Yu FH. Functional group dominance-mediated N:P effects on community productivity depend on soil nutrient levels. Rhizosphere. 2023; 26, 100692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rhisph.2023.100692.
- 49. Nebeská D, Malinská HA, Vaněk M, Popelk J, Adamec S, Ustak S, et al. Nutrients deficiency affects Miscanthus x giganteus physiology and essential metals uptake more intensively than soil contamination. Industrial Crops and Products. 2022; 189, 115845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2022.115845.
- 50. Abbasi MR, Sepaskhah AR. Nitrogen leaching and groundwater N contamination risk in saffron/wheat intercropping under different irrigation and soil fertilizers regimes. Sci Rep. 2023; 13, 6587. pmid:37085620
- 51. Dong N, Lin H. Higher yield with less nitrogen fertilizer. Nat. Plants. 2020; 6: 1078–1079. pmid:32868890
- 52. You L, Ros GH, Chen Y, Shao Q, Young MD, Zhang F, et al. Global mean nitrogen recovery efficiency in croplands can be enhanced by optimal nutrient, crop and soil management practices. Nat Commun. 2023; 14, 5747. pmid:37717014
- 53. Liao G, Wang Y, Yu H, He P, Lin Z, Dai T, et al. Nutrient use efficiency has decreased in southwest China since 2009 with increasing risk of nutrient excess. Commun Earth Environ. 2023; 4, 388. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01036-5.
- 54. Freer R. Bio-engineering: The use of vegetation in civil engineering. Construction and Building Materials. 1991; 5, 23–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-0618(91)90028-J.
- 55. Federica G, Chiara V, Rodolfo G, Anne B, Pierre C, Sandra C, et al. Root characteristics of herbaceous species for topsoil stabilization inrestoration projects. Land Degradation and Development. 2017; 28, 2074–2085. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2731.
- 56.
Punetha P, Samanta M, Sarkar S. Bioengineering as an Effective and Ecofriendly Soil Slope Stabilization Method: A Review. In: Pradhan S., Vishal V., Singh T. (eds) Landslides: Theory, Practice and Modelling. Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research. 2019; 50. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77377-3_10.
- 57. Masi E B, Segoni S, Tofani V. Root reinforcement in slope stability models: A review. Geosciences. 2021; 11, 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11050212.
- 58. Marc O, Behling R, Andermann C, Turowski J M, Illien L, Roessner S, et al. The long-term erosion of the Nepal Himalayas by bedrock landsliding: The role of monsoons, earthquakes and giant landslides. Earth Surface Dynamics. 2019; 7:107–128. https://doi.org/10.5194/esurf-7-107-2019.
- 59. Green JK, Berry J, Ciais P, Zhang Y, Gentine P. Amazon rainforest photosynthesis increases in response to atmospheric dryness. Science Advances. 2020; 6, eabb7232. pmid:33219023
- 60. Mohamed WN.A.W, Osman N, Abdullah R. A review of bioengineering techniques for slope stability in Malaysia. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology. 2023; 20: 3467–3482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-022-04235-3.
- 61. Pollen N, Simon A. Estimating the mechanical effects of riparian vegetation on stream bank stability using a fiber bundle model. Water Resources Research. 2005; 41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003801.
- 62. Adhikari A R, Gautam MR, Yu Z, Imada S, Acharva K. Estimation of root cohesion for desert shrub species in the Lower Colorado riparian ecosystem and its potential for streambank stabilization. Ecological Engineering. 2023; 51: 33–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.12.005.
- 63. Cislaghi A, Alterio E, Fogliata P, Rizzi A, Lingua E, Vacchiano G, et al. Effects of tree spacing and thinning on root reinforcement inmountain forests of the European Southern Alps. Forest Ecology and Management. 2023; 482, 118873. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118873.
- 64. Cazzuffi D, Cardile G, Gioffrè D. Geosynthetic engineering and vegetation growth in soil reinforcement applications. Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology. 2014; 1: 262–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40515-014-0016-1.
- 65. Vergani C, Giadrossich F, Buckley P, Conedera M, Pividori M, Salbitano F, et al. Root reinforcement dynamics of European coppice woodlands and their effect on shallow landslides: A review. EarthScience Reviews. 2017; 167: 88–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.02.002.
- 66. Hwang HY, Kima GW, Lee YB, Kim PJ, Kim SY. Improvement of the value of green manure via mixed hairy vetch and barley cultivation in temperate paddy soil. Field Crops Research. 2015; 183: 138–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.08.001.
- 67. Gao JS, Cao WD, Li DC, Xu MG, Zeng XB, Nie J, et al. Effects of long-term double-rice and green manure rotation on rice yield and soil organic matterin paddy field. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2011; 31: 4542–4548. (in Chinese).
- 68. Gao JS, Cao WD, Zou CQ, Gao JS, Huang J, Bai JS, et al. Ammonia-oxidizing archaea are more sensitive than ammonia-oxidizing bacteria to long-term application of green manure in red paddy soil. Applied Soil Ecology. 2018; 124: 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.09.041.
- 69. Zhou GP, Gao SJ, YH L, Liao YL, Nie J, Cao WD. Co-incorporation of green manure and rice straw improves rice production, soil chemical, biochemical and microbiological properties in a typical paddy field in southern China. Soil Till. Res. 2020; 197, 104499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2019.104499.
- 70. Ni J, Chen J, Liu S, Hao G, Geng X. Experimental study of the usage of combined biopolymer and plants in reinforcing the clayey soil exposed to acidic and alkaline contaminations. Applied Sciences. 2022; 12, 5808. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7ta07170a.
- 71. Gao X, Dong S, Xu Y, Wu S, Wu X, Zhang X, et al. Resilience of revegetated grassland for restoring severely degraded alpine meadows is driven by plant and soil quality along recovery time: A case study from the Three-river Headwater Area of Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 2019; 279: 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.01.010.
- 72. Singh H, Northup BK, Rice CW, Prasad PVV. Biochar applications influence soil physical and chemical properties, microbial diversity, and crop productivity: a meta-analysis. Biochar. 2022; 4, 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42773-022-00138-1.
- 73. Razzaghi F, Obour PB, Arthur E. Does biochar improve soil water retention? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Geoderma. 2022; 361:114055. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2019.114055.
- 74. Blanco-Canqui H. Biochar and soil physical properties. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2017; 81(4):687–711. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2017.01.0017.
- 75. Schmidt HP, Anca-Couce A, Hagemann N, Werner C, Gerten D, Lucht W, et al. Pyrogenic carbon capture and storage. GCB Bioenergy. 2019; 11 (4): 573–591. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12553.
- 76. Bass AM, Bird MI, Kay G, Muirhead B. Soil properties, greenhouse gas emissions and crop yield under compost, biochar and co-composted biochar in two tropical agronomic systems. Sci. Total Environ. 2016; 550: 459–470. pmid:26845182
- 77. Marks EA, Mattana S, Alcañiz JM, Pérez-Herrero E, Domene X. Gasifier biochar effects on nutrient availability, organic matter mineralization, and soil fauna activity in a multi-year Mediterranean trial. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016; 215: 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.09.004.
- 78. Jeffery S, Verheijen FG, van der Velde M, Bastos AC. A quantitative review ofthe effects of biochar application to soils on crop productivity using meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011; 144 (1): 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.08.015.
- 79. Wang K, Wang S, Zhang X, Wang W, Wang X, Kong F, et al. The amelioration and improvement effects of modified biochar derived from Spartina alterniflora on coastal wetland soil and Suaeda salsa growth. Environmental Research. 2023; 240, 117426. pmid:37898228
- 80. Lu H, Bian R, Xia X, Cheng K, Liu X, Liu Y, et al. Legacy of soil health improvement with carbon increase following one time amendment of biochar in a paddy soil–A rice farm trial. Geoderma. 2020; 376, 114567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114567.
- 81. Kumar A, Kumari M, Azim U, Vithanage M, Bhattachary T. Garbage to Gains: The role of biochar in sustainable soil quality improvement, arsenic remediation, and crop yield enhancement. Chemosphere. 2023; 344, 140417. pmid:37827468
- 82. Agbede TM, Oyewumi A, 2022. Benefits of biochar, poultry manure and biochar-poultry manure for improvement of soil properties and sweet potato productivity in degraded tropical agricultural soils. Resources, Environment and Sustainability 7, 100051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resenv.2022.100051.
- 83. Barquilha CER, Braga MCB. Adsorption of organic and inorganic pollutants onto biochars: challenges, operating conditions, and mechanisms. Bioresour. Technol. Rep. 2021; 15, 100728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb.2021.100728.
- 84. Neff JC, Townsend AR, Gleixner G, Lehman SJ, Turnbull J, Bowman WD. Variable effects of nitrogen additions on the stability and turnover of soil carbon. Nature. 2002; 419: 915–917. pmid:12410307
- 85. Lu M, Zhou X, Luo Y, Yang Y, Fang C, Chen J, et al. Minor stimulation of soil carbon storage by nitrogen addition: a meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011; 140: 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.12.010.
- 86. Sadaf J, Ghulam SA, Shahzad K, Ali N, Shahid M, Hussain SARA, et al. Improvements in wheat productivity and soil quality can accomplish by co-application of biochars and chemical fertilizers. Science of the Total Environment. 2017; 607–608, 715–724. pmid:28711001
- 87. Malhi SS, Lemke R, Wang Z, Chhabra BS. Tillage, nitrogen and crop residue affect crop yield, nutrient uptake, soil quality, and greenhouse gas emissions. Soil Tillage Res. 2006; 90: 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2005.09.001.
- 88. Rashid MI, de Goede RG, Brussaard L, Lantinga EA. Home field advantage of cattle manure decomposition affects the apparent nitrogen recovery in production grasslands. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013; 57: 320–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2012.10.005.
- 89. Shah GM, Rashid MI, Shah GA, Groot JCJ, Lantinga EA. Mineralization and herbage recovery of animal manure nitrogen after application to various soil types. Plant Soil. 2012; 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1347-8.
- 90. Kaneez-e-Batool N, Shahzad T, Mahmood F, Hussain S, Riaz M, Maqbool Z, et al. Carbon mineralization in response to nitrogen and litter addition in surface and subsoils in an agroecosystem. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2016; 62: 1285–1292. https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2016.1145792.
- 91. Rashid MI, de Goede RG, Brussaard L, Bloem J, Lantinga EA. Productionecological modelling explains the difference between potential soil N mineralization and actual herbage N uptake. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2014; 84: 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2014.07.002.
- 92. Rashid MI, Mujawar LH, Shahzad T, Almeelbi T, Ismail IMI, Oves M. Bacteria and fungi can contribute to nutrients bioavailability and aggregate formation in degraded soils. Microbiol. Res. 2016; 183: 26–41. pmid:26805616
- 93. Rashid MI, Lantinga EA, Brussaard L, de Goede RGM. The chemical convergence and decomposer control hypotheses explain solid cattle manure decomposition in production grasslands. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2017; 113: 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.02.009.
- 94. Agegnehu G, Nelson PN, Bird MI. The effects of biochar, compost and their mixture and nitrogen fertilizer on yield and nitrogen use efficiency of barley grown on a nitisol in the highlands of Ethiopia. Sci. Total Environ. 2016; 569–570, 869–879. pmid:27288288
- 95. Ghosh D, Brahmachari K, Skalický M, Roy D, Das A, Sarkar S, et al. The combination of organic and inorganic fertilizers influence the weed growth, productivity and soil fertility of monsoon rice. PLoS ONE. 2022; 17(1): e0262586. pmid:35085310
- 96. Ravikumar Y, Yun J, Zhang G, Zabed HM, Qi X. A review on constructed wetlands-based removal of pharmaceutical contaminants derived from non-point source pollution. Environmental Technology & Innovation. 2022; 26, 102504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eti.2022.102504.
- 97. Contreras E, Aguilar C, Polo MJ. Accounting for the annual variability when assessing non-point sourcepollution potential in Mediterranean regulated watersheds. Science of the Total Environment. 2023; 902, 167261. pmid:37774889