Explore the vast range of titles available.

Application of biochars in agricultural soils has the potential to reduce groundwater contamination of atrazine, a widely used herbicide in the US, therefore sustaining environmental quality and reducing human health issues. This study was conducted to characterize biochars produced from six feedstocks and investigate their ability to remove and retain atrazine in an organic-rich soil. Australian pine (AP), Brazilian pepper (BP), coconut husk (CH), cypress (Cy), loblolly pine (L), and pecan shell (P) feedstocks were pyrolyzed at 350 °C and 500 °C. Adsorption and desorption behaviors of atrazine were explained using Freundlich isotherms. Higher pyrolysis temperature increased specific surface area (5 times), total pore volume (2.5 times), and aromaticity (1.4 times) of the biochars. CH feedstock produced the most effective biochars (CH350 and CH500), which adsorb 8–12% more atrazine than unamended soils. CH350 biochar performed the best (Kd ads = 13.80, KOC = 153.63, Kd des = 16.98) and had significantly higher (p < 0.05) adsorption than unamended soil, possibly resulting from its highest cation exchange capacity (16.32 cmol kg−1). The Kd des values for atrazine desorption were greater than the Kd ads for adsorption, indicating retention of a considerable amount of atrazine by the biochar-amended soils following desorption.

Biochar is being considered a climate change mitigation tool by increasing soil organic carbon contents (SOC), however, questions remain concerning its longevity in soil. We applied 30,000 kg ha−1 of biochars to plots containing a Goldsboro sandy loam (Fine-loamy, siliceous, sub-active, thermic Aquic Paleudults) and then physically disked all plots. Thereafter, the plots were agronomically managed under 4 years (Y) of continuous corn (Zea Mays, L.) planting. Annually, incremental soil along with corresponding bulk density samples were collected and SOC concentrations were measured in topsoil (down to 23-cm). The biochars were produced from Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) chip (PC) and Poultry litter (PL) feedstocks. An untreated Goldsboro soil (0 biochar) served as a control. After four years, SOC contents in the biochar treated plots were highest in the top 0–5 and 5–10 cm depth suggesting minimal deeper movement. Declines in SOC contents varied with depth and biochar type. After correction for SOC declines in controls, PL biochar treated soil had a similar decline in SOC (7.9 to 10.3%) contents. In contrast, the largest % SOC content decline (20.2%) occurred in 0–5 cm deep topsoil treated with PC biochar. Our results suggest that PC biochar had less stability in the Goldsboro soil than PL biochar after 4 years of corn grain production.

To provide recommendations for establishment of plants on low‐pH Formosa Mine tailings, two greenhouse experiments were conducted to evaluate the use of remedial amendments to improve the survival and growth of Douglas fir ( Pseudotsuga menziesii ) seedlings. A preliminary experiment indicated that 1% lime (by weight) raised tailings pH, permitting seedling survival. However, high rates of biosolid application (BS; 2% by weight) added to supply nutrients were phytotoxic when added with lime. A gasified conifer biochar (BC) added to tailings at 1%, 2.5%, or 5% (by weight), along with lime and BS, caused an additional increase in pH, decreased electrical conductivity (EC), and tended to increase the survival of Douglas fir. The addition of a locally sourced microbial inoculum (LSM) did not affect survival. A subsequent experiment expanded our experimental design by testing multiple levels of amendments that included lime (0.5% and 1% by weight), three application rates (0.2%, 0.5%, and 2%) of two nutrient sources (BS or mineral fertilizer), BC (0% and 2.5%), and with or without LSM. There were many interactions among amendments. In general, Douglas fir survival was enhanced when lime and BC were added. These experiments suggest that amending with lime, a nutrient source, and BC would enhance revegetation on low‐pH, metal‐contaminated mine tailings. Amendments influenced Formosa Mine tailings chemistry and affected survival of Douglas fir in greenhouse studies. Lime decreased tailings leachate heavy metal availability, and increased pH and plant survival. Biosolids (BS) or fertilizer (F) provided plant nutrients, but 2% by weight resulted in phytotoxicity. Biochar (BC) enhanced plant survival likely by further increasing tailings pH. Amending with 1% lime, 0.25% or 0.5% BS or F, and 2.5% BC is recommended to establish plants on mine tailings.

Biochars are used for soil fertility improvement because they may contain certain elements that plants use as nutrients. However, few studies have demonstrated enhanced crop nutrient uptake. Our study examined nutrient uptake responses of corn (Zea Mays L.) grain and stover over 4 years (Y) after a Goldsboro sandy loam (fine-loamy, siliceous, sub-active, thermic Aquic Paleudults) received different designer biochars and a compost. The designer biochars were produced from lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) chip (PC), poultry litter (PL), blends with switchgrass (SG; Panicum virgatum), and a SG compost alone. Topsoil treated with 100% PL biochar and blended PC:PL biochar had significantly greater Mehlich 1 (M1) extractable P, K and Na contents compared to the control or other treatments. No significant differences were detected in annual grain nutrient concentrations. In the first corn stover harvest (Y1), significantly greater concentrations of P and K were taken up after treatment with 100% PL biochar, with PC:PL blend and with SG when compared to control. By the fourth corn stover harvest (Y4), nutrient uptake between treatments was not significantly different. Biochar impact on corn stover P, K and Na concentrations was time dependent, suggesting that repeated biochar applications may be needed.

There are mixed reports for biochars’ ability to increase corn grain and biomass yields. The objectives of this experiment were to conduct a three-year corn (Zea mays L.) grain and biomass production evaluation to determine soil fertility characteristics after designer biochars were applied to a highly weathered Ultisol. The amendments, which consisted of biochars and compost, were produced from 100% pine chips (PC); 100% poultry litter (PL); PC:PL 2:1 blend; PC mixed 2:1 with raw switchgrass (Panicum virgatum; rSG) compost; and 100% rSG compost. All treatments were applied at 30,000 kg/ha to a Goldsboro loam sandy (Fine-loamy, siliceous, sub-active, thermic Aquic Paleudult). Annual topsoil samples were collected in 5-cm depth increments (0 to 15-cm deep) and pH was measured along with Mehlich 1 phosphorus (M1 P) and potassium (M1 K) contents. After three years of corn production, there was no significant improvement in the annual mean corn grain or biomass yields. Biochar, which was applied from PL and PC:PL 2:1 blend, significantly increased M1 P and M1 K concentrations down to 10-cm deep, while the other biochar and compost treatments showed mixed results when the soil pH was modified. Our results demonstrated that designer biochar additions did not accompany higher corn grain and biomass productivity.

To address the need for information on biochar effects on crop growth and nitrogen (N), a greenhouse study was conducted with carrot, lettuce, soybean, and sweet corn using sandy loam (Coxville series) and loamy sand (Norfolk series) soils and a variety of biochars. Biochar was produced from pine chips (PC), poultry litter (PL), swine solids (SS), switchgrass (SG), and two blends of PC plus PL (50/50% [55] and 80/20% [82], wt/wt), with each feedstock pyrolyzed at 350, 500, or 700 ˚C. The results confirmed that biochar can increase crop growth; however, the responses varied with crop, soil, and feedstock and to a lesser extent with pyrolysis temperature. In general, lettuce had large increases in shoot and root dry weights vs. no‐biochar controls with many biochars, primarily the SS and 55 blend and to a lesser extent with 82 followed by PL, and then PC and SG, especially when grown in the Coxville soil. Biochar had more limited effects on carrot, sweet corn, and soybean weights. Some biochars decreased crop growth (e.g., PL at 700 ˚C) for soybean shoot and pod dry weights with the Norfolk soil. Shoot N concentrations decreased with SS, 55, and 82 for carrot, lettuce, and sweet corn with the Norfolk soil but tended to increase for soybean. Shoot N uptake increased or decreased depending on biochar feedstock and temperature, crop, and soil. These results confirm that biochar can increase crop growth and affect shoot N, which is essential for crop growth.

PURPOSE: Biochars are a by-product of the biofuel processing of lignocellulosic and manure feedstocks. Because biochars contain an assemblage of organic and inorganic compounds, they can be used as an amendment for C sequestration and soil quality improvement. However, not all biochars are viable soil amendments; this is because their physical and chemical properties vary due to feedstock elemental composition, biofuel processing, and particle size differences. Biochar could deliver a more effective service as a soil amendment if its chemistry was designed ex ante with characteristics that target specific soil quality issues. In this study, we demonstrate how biochars can be designed with relevant properties as successful soil amendments through feedstock selection, pyrolysis conditions, and particle size choices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Biochars were produced by pyrolysis of parent lignocellulosic feedstock sources—peanut hull (PH; Archis hypogaea), pecan shell (PS; Carya illinoensis), switchgrass (SG; Panicum virgatum), pine chips (PC; Pinus taeda), hardwood wastes (wood), and poultry litter manure (PL; Gallus domesticus), as well as blends of these feedstocks at temperatures ranging from 250 to 700 °C. Additionally, blended feedstocks were made into pellets (>2 mm) prior to pyrolysis at 350 °C. Dust-sized (<0.42 mm) biochar was obtained through grinding of pelletized biochars. After chemical characterization, the biochars were evaluated as fertility amendments in a Norfolk soil (fine-loamy, kaolinitic, thermic, Typic Kandiudult) during two different pot incubation experiments. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: PL biochars were alkaline and enriched in N and P, whereas biochar from lignocellulosic feedstocks exhibited mixed pH and nutrient contents. Blending PL with PC resulted in lower biochar pH values and nutrient contents. In pot experiment 1, most biochars significantly (P < 0.05) raised soil pH, soil organic carbon, cation exchange capacity, and Mehlich 1 extractable P and K. PL biochar added at 20 g kg⁻¹ resulted in excessive soil P concentrations (393 to 714 mg kg⁻¹) and leachate enriched with dissolved phosphorus (DP, 22 to 70 mg L⁻¹). In pot experiment 2, blended and pelletized PL with PC feedstock reduced soil pH and extractable soil P and K concentrations compared to pot experiment 1. Water leachate DP concentrations were significantly (P < 0.05) reduced by pelletized biochar blends. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term laboratory pot experiments revealed that biochars can have different impacts at modifying soil quality characteristics. Keying on these results allowed for creating designer biochars to address specific soil quality limitations. In the process of manufacturing designer biochars, first, it is important to know what soil quality characteristics are in need of change. Second, choices between feedstocks, blends of these feedstocks, and their accompanying particle sizes can be made prior to pyrolysis to create biochars tailored for addressing specific soil quality improvements. Utilization of these principles should allow for effective service of the designed biochar as a soil amendment while minimizing unwanted ex facto soil quality changes and environmental effects.

Many plant names derive from superstition, folk lore, or primal befiefs. This dictionary lists 30,000 vernacular and literary English names of wild and cultivated plants. Botanical name are followed by a brief account of the meaning of the name and detailed commentary on common usage, genesis, and evolution is included to provide a greater understanding of the plants.

Knowledge of plant names can give insight into largely forgotten beliefs. For example, the common red poppy is known as \"Blind Man\" due to an old superstitious belief that if the poppy were put to the eyes it would cause blindness. Many plant names derived from superstition, folk lore, or primal beliefs. Other names are purely descriptive and can serve to explain the meaning of the botanical name. For example, Beauty-Berry is the name given to the American shrub that belongs to the genus Callicarpa. Callicarpa is Greek for beautiful fruit. Still other names come from literary sources providing rich detail of the transmission of words through the ages.Conceived as part of the author's wider interest in plant and tree lore and ethnobotanical studies, this fully revised edition of Elsevier's Dictionary of Plant Names and Their Origins contains over 30,000 vernacular and literary English names of plants. Wild and cultivated plants alike are identified by the botanical name. Further detail provides a brief account of the meaning of the name and detailed commentary on common usage. * Includes color images * Inclusive of all Latin terms with vernacular derivatives * The most comprehensive guide for plant scientists, linguists, botanists, and historians