Indonesian Journal of Innovation and Applied Sciences (IJIAS), 3 (1), 61-66 61 Volume 3 Issue 1 February (2023) DOI: 10.47540/ijias.v3i1.585 Page: 61 – 66 The Effect of Biochar on Sulfate Desorption Kinetics by Selected Soil in Sudan Savanna, Nigeria Murabbi Aliyu1, Azare Isa Magaji2, Nuhu Okomomi Isa3, Saminu Abdulrahman Ibrahim1, Abdu Nafiu4 1Department of Soil Science, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Nigeria 2Department of Environmental Science, Federal University Dutse, Nigeria 3Abuja Broadcasting Corporation, Federal Capital Territory, Nigeria 4Department of Soil Science, Ahmadu Bello University, Nigeria Corresponding Author: Murabbi Aliyu; Email: amurabbi@atbu.edu.ng A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Keywords: Biochar, Desorption, Effects, Kinetics, Sulphate. Received : 22 June 2022 Revised : 17 February 2023 Accepted : 19 February 2023 Biochar is regarded as a promising soil amendment that maximizes soil productivity to boost food security. Limited data is available on the influence of biochar on sulfate desorption behavior in soil. To fill the knowledge gap, this research attempts to investigate sulfate sorption and desorption kinetics with soil parent materials mixed with biochar. Understanding the effects is of great importance in selecting a fit diagnosis and fertilization of S to ensure sustainable crop production and environmental protection. Maize stalk biochar was prepared and used for the study. The variation between soil desorption data (with and without biochar) was examined using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with fully randomized designs (CRD). The results obtained showed that the studied Biochar (BC) had no significant (P = 0.05) impact on the release of adsorbing S, independent of time and soil constituents. The findings led to the conclusion that the rate of desorption of adsorbed sulfate desorption by the studied soil parent material is not primarily controlled by biochar. Therefore, it is recommended to test the compatibility of BC to release the adsorbed sulfur, before applying it as an amendment to the soil. Linking the practice of on-farm sulfur management to OM management is also recommended. INTRODUCTION Sulphur (S) has been recognized as an essential element for plant growth and development since the time of Justus von-Liebig (Tabatabai, 2005a), although receiving little attention in comparison to nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (NPK). Sulphate (SO4 2-) in soil solution is normally taken up by plants via roots; thus, adsorption- desorption processes are critical for enhancing S bioavailability (Sumner, 2000; Aliyu et al., 2022a). Farmers have switched from sulfur-rich fertilizers to high-analysis fertilizers with less sulfur over the previous two decades, masking several latent or incipient sulfur deficits in Nigeria's cultivated land (Raji, 2008). However, there is currently a lack of understanding of how to maximize the amount and time of S fertilization. Additionally, a significant factor in most tropical soils that prevents S from being bioavailable to plants is variable charges. This is true of the heavily weathered soils of Nigeria. The investigation of biochar-spiked soils in the Amazon showing significant improvements in soil quality and beneficial influence on farm crop output has sparked a lot of interest in biochar (BC) (Lehmann et al., 2003). Technically, biochar is produced during a process known as pyrolysis from the thermal conversion of biomass at a constrained supply of oxygen under a comparatively low temperature (<7000C) (Lehmann and Joseph, 2009). According to Grantstein et al. (2009), quick pyrolysis at higher temperatures yields mostly bio- INDONESIAN JOURNAL OF INNOVATION AND APPLIED SCIENCES (IJIAS) Journal Homepage: https://ojs.literacyinstitute.org/index.php/ijias ISSN: 2775-4162 (Online) Research Article mailto:amurabbi@atbu.edu.ng https://ojs.literacyinstitute.org/index.php/ijias http://issn.pdii.lipi.go.id/issn.cgi?daftar&1587190067&1&&2020 Indonesian Journal of Innovation and Applied Sciences (IJIAS), 3 (1), 61-66 62 oil with a negligible quantity of biochar, whereas slow pyrolysis at lower temperatures normally favors BC synthesis. Several researchers (Lehmann et al., 2009) indicated that biochar exhibits a great potential to effectively address soil nutrient deficiencies and exhibits favorable soil surface properties (Tan et al., 2015). This may render biochar one of the greater factors in the adsorption and desorption of several elements in soils. However, Sokolova and Alekseeva (2008) studies reported that the presence of BC decreased S sorption and could increase the desirability of adsorbed S. Given interpretation, all emphasized that this augmenting was likely a result of the significant pH raise caused by BC supplementation. Limited information is available, however, on the significant impact of BC on sulfate adsorption and desorption phenomena in soils, particularly Nigeria savanna soils. There are no well-documented studies on the influence of biochar on S bioavailability in Nigerian Savanna soils. Therefore, the examination of biochar on S desorption and its sorption is important in predicting the bioavailability and management of S to augment farm output. Although BC is a far, more effective source of soil amendments than compost and manure since it is a more stable nutrient source (Lehmann et al., 2009). This may be attributed to the longevity of carbon in soils. Therefore, the paper intended to examine the effect of the BC amendment on sulfate desorption in soils. METHODS Field location Geologically, the research was conducted in some parts of the Sudan savannah of the state of Bauchi, Nigeria. The soils in the research area are derived from three (3) rocks as follows; the Kerri- Kerri Formation (KKF), Chad Formations (CF), and the Basement Complex Rock (BCR), the first two being sedimentary rocks (Mustapha and Fagam, 2005). The trees typically grow alone or in groups, with areas inside being occupied by non-woody species that can reach heights of 3 m. The natural vegetation comprises grasses (Hyparrhenia, Ripania spp, and Andropogon) and scattered Tamarindus indica, Pankia clapertania, and Khaya senegallensis as the dominant trees. The most widely cultivated crops on the research sites are rice (Oryza sativa), tomato (Lycopersicon lycopersicum), maize (Zea mays), and pepper (Capsicum annum). Typically, the research sites have fallen under tropical climates with distinct wet and dry seasons. The wet season often begins in June or July and lasts until November whereas November through April constitutes the dry season. The average rainfall of roughly 280 mm per year, is characteristic of the rainy season. The temperature ranges from 16 to 35 degrees Celsius (Hassan et al., 2016). Soil sampling and analysis After a field survey, three sites were selected from each of the Base Complex Rock, Chad Formation, and Kerri-Kerri Formation soil source materials. Twenty (20) auger samples (0-15 and 15- 30 cm respectively) were taken at random and processed into a composite sample. This technique was repeated twice at each site as described above. A total of 36 composite soil samples were air-dried in a well-ventilated laboratory location for one week before being crushed and sieved through a 2mm sieve. Particle size analysis was determined by the Bouyoucos hydrometer method, and the sample pH was determined in 1:1 soil/water (Gee and Bauder, 1986). Sulfate in soil was extracted with 500 mg P/l monocalcium phosphate (Ca (H2PO4)2) (Fox et al., 1964) and all filtrates were used to determine inorganic sulfate by the turbidimetric method of Tabatabai (1982). Kinetic analysis 1.81 g of potassium sulfate was used to make a stock solution that had a concentration of 1000 mg/L after dissolving it in a small amount of distilled water and then adding it to a total volume of 1 liter. The stock solution was diluted sufficiently to provide the additional concentrations needed. Sorption and Desorption kinetics of S Put 2.5 grams of sieved soil sample in measuring tubes and then add 500 mg S/g potassium sulfate using the prepared stock S solution of 1000 mg S m/l (in a 0.01 M NaCl solution). Cap the measuring tubes and shake them in the electric shaker for 24 hours to reach equilibration time. Shaken samples were then centrifuged and the filtrates were analyzed for measuring S according to the method described by Tabatabai (1982). The amount of adsorbed S was Indonesian Journal of Innovation and Applied Sciences (IJIAS), 3 (1), 61-66 63 computed by subtracting the amount of S in the equilibrium solution from the amount of added S. Adsorbed S in the soil sample was used to determine the desorbing S. Add 15 ml monocalcium phosphate mixed with 500 mg P/l and shake for 30, 60, 150, 180, or 240 minutes. The supernatant was filtered and then used for the determination of inorganic S using the method described by Tabatabai (1982). The amount of desorbed sulfate was calculated from the difference between recovered sulfate (µ/g) and measured sulfate in solution (µ/g). Percent desorbed sulfate was estimated as desorbed sulfate (µ/g) divided by adsorbed sulfate (µ/g) multiplied by 100. Soil mixed biochar analysis The biochar used in this research was produced under a 5000C pyrolysis temperature (Fig. 1), according to the technique of Lehmann (2007). Biochar was crushed and sieved through a 2 mm sieve. In the test tube, 0.06 grams of dry BC were thoroughly mixed with 2.5 grams of the soil before adding potassium sulfate (15 ml of 0.01M CaCl2 solution containing 500 mg S g-1 as K2SO4). Initially, the soils were brought to field capacity by adding distilled water. The soil samples also underwent a 7-day incubation period. After, the analysis, the desorption of adsorbed sulfate was done in the same pattern described above. Figure 1. Biochar processes Data analysis The variation among parent materials and between the soil's desorption data (with biochar and without biochar) was analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and completely randomized designs (CRD). The three parent materials, locations, depths, and soils (with and without biochar) were treated as the treatments, whilst replicate samples and shaking times were regarded as the replication or random, respectively. According to statistics, significant means were divided by the least significant difference (LSD). A 95 percent level of confidence was used for all statistical analyses (SAS 9.2, 2011). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Physical and chemical characteristics of the soils Sand content was dominant in all three soil parent materials (table 1), with higher values in surface soils and their corresponding sub-surface soils. This result was consistent with those found by Maniyunda et al. (2014) and Hassan et al. (2016) for various Nigerian savanna soils. Table 1. Physical and chemical characteristics of the soil across soil parent materials Parameters CF BCR KKF Sand (%) 77.8 74.0 73.5 Silt (%) 12.9 14.4 14.1 Clay (%) 9.9 11.6 12.4 pH in water Inorganic S (mg/kg) 6.5a 46.8 6.2b 30.2 5.9c 41.1 CF: Chad Formation, BCR: Basement Complex Rock, and KKF: Kerri-Kerri Formation. Means in Indonesian Journal of Innovation and Applied Sciences (IJIAS), 3 (1), 61-66 64 the same horizontal column with the different superscript characters do not differ significantly within 5% of one another. The average sand, silt, and clay divisions of the three parent materials did not differ significantly from each other (p = 0.05) (Table 1). The fact that tropical soils are often quite old and weathered may account for the lack of difference. Soil pH in water ranged from 5.9 to 6.5 and was classified as acidic in all the studied parent materials (table 1) as having a pH less than 7.0 (Sparks, 2002), which is within the range of values reported by Abdu (2006) for similar Nigerian savanna soils. Similarly, Raji and Muhammad (2000) reported similar values for Nigerian savanna soils. Mean soil pH values in water were significantly (p=0.05) different among the three (3) parent materials (table 1). These variations should be expected given that the soils developed from various parent materials. This finding supports those made by Jaiyeoba (2006) regarding soils formed in Nigeria over various parent materials. Inorganic Sulphur values varied from 30.2 to 46.8 mg/kg in all soils of the three parent materials, but they are broadly low, and comparable observations were made by Kang et al. (1981) and Raji (2008) for Nigerian savanna soils, while Buri et al. (2000) for West African lowland soils. Sulfur deficiency is caused by poor organic matter levels and the sandy character of West African soils. The mean levels of inorganic sulfur were not significantly different (p = 0.05) (table 1). The aged and heavily weathered condition of the soils may be responsible for the failure of the difference. The effect of Biochar on Kinetics Desorption of Sulphate Comparative studies of soils without biochar and soils with biochar from various parent materials were conducted to investigate the influence of biochar on the desorption of sulfate at different time intervals. Table 2. Biochar effect on the sulfate desorption kinetics at various time intervals Time Soil mixed with biochar Soil sample LSD mg/kg 30 min. 31.5 31.3 NS 60 min. 31.0 30.8 NS 150 min. 27.4 27.5 NS 180 min. 27.2 27.0 NS 240 min. 23.2 23.1 NS Total 28.1 27.9 NS Not significant (NS). The mean sulfate concentration desorbed from soils without biochar and soils with biochar at different periods was not statistically different (P=0.05) (Table 2). This suggests that this particular form of biochar had no impact on any of the three parent materials analyzed soils. A little increase in the desorption of adsorbed sulfate was seen as a result of applying biochar, though (Table 2 & 3). Comparable findings were also reported by Uchimiya et al. (2010a) and Borchard et al. (2012). According to Sokolova and Alekseeva (2008), an increase in the amount of sulfate desorbed may be the result of the sharp increase in pH caused by the application of biochar. This situation might also be true for the increased amount of sulfate desorbed in all the soils in the current study. Biochar's competitive advantage can help boost sulfate desorption. (Sokolova and Alekseeva, 2008; Borchard et al., 2012). Table 3. Percent of sulfate desorbed from biochar-mixed soils at various periods Location Depth Adsorption % Desorption % of the various time (minutes) (cm) 24 hours 30 60 150 180 240 BASEMENT COMPLEX ROCK (BCR) Tawayla 0-15 83.5 76.1 75.0 69.0 68.5 58.9 Tawayla 15-30 85.3 71.1 69.3 62.8 62.4 53.7 Jaberi 0-15 84.7 73.2 71.5 64.7 64.4 53.1 Indonesian Journal of Innovation and Applied Sciences (IJIAS), 3 (1), 61-66 65 Jaberi 15-30 86.0 70.6 69.8 59.9 58.5 50.2 Zenabari 0-15 84.2 76.5 76.1 69.0 68.5 55.8 Zenabari 15-30 86.0 70.1 68.7 62.1 61.9 48.4 KERRI – KERRI FORMATION (KKF) Kauyan Jalo 0-15 82.7 74.1 73.1 61.4 60.9 54.9 Kauyan Jalo 15-30 81.4 74.6 73.9 60.8 59.7 56.2 Doguwa 0-15 82.5 78.0 77.6 63.0 62.8 54.3 Doguwa 15-30 82.3 74.0 73.3 61.0 59.6 50.4 Kwari 0-15 82.6 77.7 77.6 64.5 63.3 50.2 Kwari 15-30 86.1 67.8 67.6 54.7 55.3 44.8 CHAD FORMATION (CF) Digiza 0-15 82.9 78.8 77.2 72.1 71.7 61.2 Digiza 15-30 80.9 80.3 78.7 72.6 71.3 60.2 Gongo 0-15 83.3 75.3 74.0 70.6 70.0 59.9 Gongo 15-30 83.7 72.5 71.4 64.6 64.1 56.0 Guda 0-15 77.8 90.4 88.7 81.2 80.8 74.2 Guda 15-30 80.5 83.8 81.9 75.3 74.6 66.1 It was observed that the percentage of sulfate adsorbed and desorbed with the presence of this type of biochar was irregularly distributed along with the locations in all studied soils (Table 3). This reflects the fact that studied soils were derived from different parent materials. In the past decade, Yao et al. (2012) reported that many processes might also be responsible for increased or decreased plant nutrient sorption in soils. Application of BC in soils might raise soil pH which may be another reason for a slightly decreased adsorbed S (Borchard et al., 2012). For this study, the application of biochar into the soil could not justify its cost of production. Under the current situation, farmers will rarely adopt biochar incorporation into soils due to its small effects and difficulty in sourcing materials that is large enough for farm application. CONCLUSION The BC utilized in this investigation had no significant influence on the release of adsorbing S, according to the findings. However, this type of BC tested in this study had very little S sorption and desorption affinity. Several studies found that biochar had little or no effect on sulfate adsorption and desorption processes in soil. The influential effect of this type of biochar on S desorption at different time intervals in this paper was negligible in all studied soils. Therefore, it is suggested that BC's propensity to release plant nutrients be assessed before its use as an amendment to the soil. It is also recommended to conduct plant growth studies to see whether this type of BC has a significant effect on crop performance or not. REFERENCES 1. Abdu, N. (2006). Kinetics of phosphate release in some Forest and savanna soils. Unpublished M.Sc thesis, Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Science, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. 2. Aliyu, M., Abdulkadir, M., Azare, I.M., Abdu, N., Nuhu, I.S. and Saminu, A. I. (2022a). Suitable Models for Describing Sulphate Desorption Kinetics in Selected Bauchi North Soils of Varying Parent Materials in the Nigerian Sudan Savanna. Agro Bali: Agricultural Journal, 5(3), 403-413. 3. Borchad, N., Prost, K., Kautz, T., Moller, A. and Siemens, J. (2012). Sorption of copper (II) sulphate to different biochars before and after composting with farmyard manure. European Journal of Soil Science, (63), 399-409. 4. Buri, M.M., Masunga, T. and Wasatsuki, T. (2000). Sulfur and Zinc levels as limiting factors to rice production in West Africa lowlands. Geoderma, (9), 23-42. 5. Fox, R.L., Olson, R.A. and H.F. Rhoades. (1964). Evaluating the sulfur status of soils by plant and soil tests. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, (28), 243-246. 6. Granatstein, D., Kruger, C., Collins, H., Galinato, S., Garcia-Perez, M., and Yoder, J. (2009). Use of Biochar from the Pyrolysis of Indonesian Journal of Innovation and Applied Sciences (IJIAS), 3 (1), 61-66 66 Waste Organic Material as a Soil Amendment. Final Project Report. Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, Washington State University, Wenatchee, WA. 7. Gee, W. G., and Bauder, Y.N. (1986). Particle size analysis. In Klute A. (ed). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1 Agron. Madison W.I. USA, 381- 411. 8. Jaiyeoba, A. (2006). Variation of soil chemical properties over Nigerian savanna. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 16(2),141-157. 9. Kang, B.T., Okoro, E., Acquaye, D. and Osiname, O.A. (1981). Sulfur status of some Nigerian soils from the savanna and forest zone. Soil Science, (132), 220–227. 10. Hassan, A.M., Amba, A.A., Murabbi, A., and Mervelous, T.A. (2016). Fertility status under different land use systems of selected soils developed on basement complex in Bauchi metropolis. Saudi Journal of Life Science, (1). 11. Lehmann, J. (2007). Bio-energy in the black. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, (5), 381–387. 12. Lehmann, J. and Joseph, S. (2009). Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and Technology, Earths can/James and James. 13. Lehmann, J., Czimczik, C.I., Laird, D.A. and Sohi, S.P. (2009). Stability of biochar in the soil. In: Lehmann, J., Joseph, S. (Eds.), Biochar for Environmental Management. Earth scan, London, UK. 14. Lehmann, J., Pereira da Silva, J., Steiner, C., Nehls, T., Zech, W. and Glaser, B. (2003). Nutrient availability and leaching in an archaeological Anthrosol and a Ferralsol of the Central Amazon basin in fertilizer, manure, and charcoal amendments. Plant Soil, (249), 343– 357. 15. Maniyunda, L.M, Raji, B.A., Odunze, A.C., Malgwi,W.B. and Samndi, A.M. (2014). Forms of Iron in soils on basement complex rocks of Kaduna state in Northern Guinea Savanna of Nigeria. Bayero Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences, 7(2), 83-92. 16. Raji, B.A. (2008). Profile distribution of Total and Available Sulphur and Boron in Sandy Soils of Nigerian Semi-Arid Savanna. Nigerian Journal of Soil and Environmental Research, (8), 42-49. 17. Raji, B.A., and Mohammed, K. (2000): The nature of acidity in Nigerian savanna soils. Samaru. Journal of Agricultural Research, (16), 15-24. 18. SAS Institute. (2011). The SAS system for Windows Released version 9.2.SAS Institute Crary, NC. 19. Sokolova, T. and Alekseeva, S. (2008). Adsorption of sulfate ions by soils. Eurasian Soil Science, (41), 140–148. 20. Sparks, D.L. (2002). Environmental soil chemistry, 2nd edition, Academic Press San Diego. CA 21. Sumner, M.E. (2000). Handbook of soil science. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 22. Tabatabai, M.A. (1982). Sulfur. In A. L., Miller, R.H., and D.R. Kenney (eds). Methods of soil analysis: Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties, 2nd ed. Agronomy, Volume 9. American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, 501- 538. 23. Tabatabai, M.A. (2005a). Sulfur in Soils: Overview, In Encyclopedia of Soils in the Environment, Volume 4 (Ed. D. Hillel), 76-84, Elsevier. 24. Tan. X., Liu, Y., Zeng, G., Wang, X., Hu, X., Gu, Y., and Yang, Z. (2015). Application of biochar for the removal of pollutants from aqueous solution. Chemosphere, (125), 70-85. 25. Uchimiya, M., Lima, I.M., Klasson, K.T. and Wartelle, L.H. (2010a). Contaminant immobilization and nutrient release by biochar soil amendment: roles of natural organic matter. Chemosphere, (80), 935–940. 26. Yao, Y., Goa, B., Zhang, M., Inyang, M., and Zimmerman, A.R. (2012). Effect of biochar amendment on sorption and leaching of nitrate, ammonium, and phosphate in sandy soil. Chemosphere, (89), 1467-1471.