Original research article

Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer. 31 May 2025. 159-176
https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2025.58.2.159

ABSTRACT


MAIN

  • Introduction

  • Materials and Methods

  •   Experimental site and organic material treatment

  •   Soil respiration measurement

  •   Soil physical and chemical properties

  •   Tree growth and fruit productivity assessment

  •   Data analysis

  • Result and Discussion

  •   Effects of organic amendments on soil physical and chemical properties

  •   Effects of organic amendments on greenhouse gas emission

  •   Effect of organic amendments on vegetative growth parameters

  •   Influence of organic amendments on photosynthetic activity

  •   Influence of organic amendments in fruit yield and quality

  • Conclusion

Introduction

Nowadays, the production of commercial apples has gained increasing attention in Asian countries like China, India and Japan (Statista, 2023), mainly in South Korea as the leading fruit crop, with an annual production of 422,115 metric tons in 2021 (Geleta et al., 2025). Apples are a globally significant fruit, with higher nutritional value and their cultivation plays a key role in the agricultural economy (Sharma et al., 2025). Soil quality is influenced by factors such as soil depth, organic matter, and electrical conductivity leading to salinization, compaction, and nutrient depletion (Dalal et al., 2011; Lal, 2015). Additionally, soil deterioration, contamination, and fertility loss threaten global food security and agricultural sustainability (Wu et al., 2023). In South Korea, mature apple orchards face several challenges that limit productivity, including soil degradation, nutrient imbalances, and reduced soil carbon content. Furthermore, recent studies on fertilizer use trends in Korean orchards indicate that excessive inorganic fertilizer application has led to nutrient imbalances, reinforcing the necessity of integrating organic amendments for sustainable apple production (Lee et al., 2024a). These issues are exacerbated by conventional agricultural practices, such as the overuse of chemical fertilizers, which can lead to soil compaction, reduced water-holding capacity, carbon storage, and an overall decline in soil health (Lee et al., 2006; Lee and Kim, 2009; Rathinapriya et al., 2025). In particular, soil degradation often affects the growth and yield of apple trees, contributing to lower productivity compared to global standards. Hence, the management of soil carbon plays a vital role in sustaining soil fertility, retaining nutrients, improving water holding capacity, and supporting overall tree health (Singh et al., 2024).

To combat these challenges, farmers are increasingly adopting organic amendments as a sustainable alternative to conventional fertilization methods. Organic fertilizers are effective in soil management practices for enhancing soil fertility and crop productivity (Cheol Kim et al., 2018). The application of organic amendments, such as livestock manure compost (LMC), biochar (BC), and pruned branches, has become widely recognized as part of sustainable agricultural practices. LMC is a nutrient-rich organic amendment that enhances soil structure, nutrient retention, and carbon storage. Its decomposition produces stable carbon forms, reducing soil erosion risks and improving water retention (Goldan et al., 2023). Similarly, incorporating pruned branch chips (PBC) into orchards minimizes waste while enhancing soil carbon storage, structure, and nutrient cycling. These branches decompose slowly, providing a steady nutrient release for trees (Anthony, 2013). BC has recently emerged as a cost-effective and eco-friendly strategy for improving soil quality. BC is a very stable carbon-based substance that is made by breaking down feedstocks, such as agricultural residues, food waste, and forestry waste, using heat (Tomczyk et al., 2020). Its micro-porous structure and high cation exchange capacity improve water retention, nutrient availability, and microbial activity without exacerbating environmental conditions.

These amendments are known for their potential to improve soil physical properties and enhance the soil microbial community (Schulz et al., 2013; Khorram et al., 2015; Khorram et al., 2016). The benefits include increased nutrient levels in the soil, improvements in soil chemical properties, such as cation exchange capacity, and enhanced water and nutrient-holding capacity. Additionally, they help lower bulk density, contributing to better soil structure (Lehmann et al., 2011a; Schulz et al., 2013; Vaccari et al., 2015; Khorram et al., 2016). Research has shown that the use of BC and compost can significantly improve soil quality, leading to better plant growth and potentially higher fruit yields, predominantly in soils that are poor, acidic, or prone to nutrient leaching (Khorram et al., 2016; Safaei Khorram et al., 2019). These amendments enhance soil fertility and support not only enhance soil fertility but also support more sustainable orchard management by mitigating soil degradation, improving long-term soil health, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting apple productivity, and supporting sustainable agriculture.

Organic amendments have numerous benefits for agriculture but can also contribute to nutrient eutrophication and greenhouse gas emissions, including CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide (IPCC, 2007). While methane, and nitrous oxide emissions are less abundant, they have a greater climate impact than CO2 (Rodhe, 1990). Therefore, analyses of various soil amendments facilitate the identification of organic fertilizers that consistently respond to fluctuating environmental conditions.

So, the study’s goal is to find out how LMC, PBC, LTBC, and MTBC affect soil carbon management, as well as how they might affect greenhouse gas emissions and apple fruit quality. The end goal is to find the best organic fertilizers for South Korea’s mature apple orchards. Perhaps, this study paves the way for future investigation of synergies between different organic amendments and their collective impact on orchard soil health. Additionally, future studies should focus on the economic viability of large-scale applications of these organic materials, especially BC, to determine the most cost-effective approaches for farmers.

Materials and Methods

Experimental site and organic material treatment

This study was conducted in an apple orchard located at the National Institute of Horticultural and Herbal Science in Iseo-myeon, Wanju-gun, Jeollabuk-do, South Korea (N 35°.83', 127° 03'). Eight-year-old ‘Fuji’/M.26 apple trees were planted at a spacing of 3 m × 4 m. On May 7, 2021, organic amendments were incorporated into the soil. Soil treatments designed as no tillage+no addition (NTNA), tillage+no addition (TNA), livestock manure compost (LMC), pruned branch chips (PBC), low temperature biochar (LTBC), and mid temperature biochar (MTBC) treatments. For the LMC treatment, 20 kg per tree was applied to the soil surface according to conventional practices. Pruned apple branches were shredded, and the following materials were applied: 120 L (26.6 kg) of PBC, 24, 120, and 240 L (2.1, 20.7, and 41.4 kg) of LTBC (pyrolyzed at 350°C), and 120 L (21.0 kg) of MTBC (pyrolyzed at 450°C). PBC amendments were applied in trenches (120 cm wide, 80 cm long, 60 cm deep) excavated 60 cm from both sides of the tree rows and mixed with soil. For comparison, an NTNA control (without organic amendments) and a control (TNA) with soil refilled without organic amendments were included. The physical and chemical properties of the organic amendments were shown in Table 1. LTBC and MTBC were produced by pyrolyzing crushed apple pruning wood at 350°C and 450°C, respectively. LTBC was pyrolyzed in a continuous process for 40 minutes, while MTBC was pyrolyzed in a batch process for 2 hours. The pH, EC, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, and calcium contents of MTBC were higher than those of LTBC. This is because the higher pyrolysis temperature of MTBC leads to the concentration of various salts originally present in the raw material (Cantrell et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2022).

Table 1.

The physical and chemical properties of various organic amendments used in this study.

Organic 
amendments
Water content (%) pH
(1:20)
EC (1:20)
(dS m-1)
P
(%)
K
(%)
Mg
(%)
Ca
(%)
Na
(%)
TC
(%)
TN
(%)
LMC 72.2 6.21 25.1 1.08 0.95 0.51 1.63 0.40 38.83 2.58
PBC 22.3 7.03 74.1 0.08 0.46 0.09 0.75 0.01 48.99 0.88
LTBC 4.1 7.16 45.3 0.15 0.85 0.12 0.74 0.05 28.72 1.00
MTBC 4.6 8.24 92.8 0.25 1.13 0.19 0.92 0.03 27.68 1.29

Soil respiration measurement

Soil respiration was measured using the closed chamber method. Chambers (40 cm × 25 cm diameter × height) were installed at the sites of organic amendment application. After 7 days of organic amendment treatment, we collected gas samples weekly between 10:00 and 11:00 AM. Gases were collected from the chambers for 30 minutes and were analyzed for CO2 and N2O concentrations using gas chromatography (Clarus 680, PerkinElmer, USA). Methane emissions were negligible and therefore not analyzed. A flame ionization detector (FID) with a methanizer was used for CO2 analysis, and a 63Ni electron capture detector (ECD) was used for N2O analysis. The gas emission rates were determined by the increased concentration of gases inside the chamber for 30 min and were calculated using the formula (Rolston, 1986)

(Eq. 1)
Gasemissionrate(mgm-2hr-1)=ρ×H×ΔC/ΔT×273/T

where ρ - gas density under the standard state (CO2-1.22 kg m-3, N2O-1.98 kg m-3, and CH4-0.657 kg m-3), H- chamber height (m), ΔC/ΔT - gas concentrations difference (mg m-3 hr-1) inside the headspace before and after chamber closing, and T - absolute temperature (K) is 273+temperature (°C) inside the chamber.

Singh et al., 1999, the total fluxes of each gas were determined by following formula,

(Eq. 2)
Totalflux(kgha-1)=Σni(Ri×Di)

where Ri - daily flux (mg m-2 d-1), Di - day interval between the i-1st and ith samplings, and n - number of sampling times.

Soil physical and chemical properties

After organic amendments were added, the soil’s physical properties were checked. These included its resistance to penetration, bulk density, and effective soil depth. Soil physical properties, including soil penetration resistance, bulk density, and effective soil depth, were evaluated after the application of organic amendments. Soil penetration resistance was determined using a digital cone penetrometer (DIK-5532, Daiki, Japan). Soil chemical properties were analyzed following the methods of the National Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology, RDA, South Korea (NLAST, 2000).. Soil samples were collected from the amendment application sites, air-dried in the shade, and sieved through a 2-mm mesh. Soil pH and electrical conductivity (EC) were assessed at a 1:5 soil-to-distilled water ratio using an ion electrode method (ORION VersaStar Meter, Thermo, USA) for pH and an EC meter (CM-30R, TODKK, Japan) for EC. Organic matter content was determined by the Tyurin method. Ammonium nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen were measured using the Kjeldahl distillation method. Available phosphorus was analyzed using the Lancaster method, and exchangeable cations (K, Ca, Mg) were extracted with a 1N CH3COONH4 buffer solution (pH 7.0) and analyzed using inductively coupled plasma spectrometry (Integra, GBC Scientific Equipment, Australia).

Tree growth and fruit productivity assessment

Tree growth was assessed in May 2021 (pre-experiment) and March 2023 (post-experiment). Fruit characteristics were analyzed in 2021 and 2022, as their development and harvest followed seasonal cycles within the study period. The vegetative morphological characteristics such as tree height, canopy width, and trunk circumference were determined using measuring tape. Trunk circumference was recorded at 90 cm above ground level. Fruit length and width were measured using a Vernier caliper, while firmness was assessed with a texture analyzer (LS1, AMETEK, USA). Soluble solids content extracted from the fruits was determined using a refractometer (PAL-1, ATAGO, Japan). The fruit acidity was determined using an automatic titrator (Titroline 5000, SI Analytics, Germany) with 0.1N NaOH and expressed as malic acid content.

Data analysis

Statistical analysis was conducted using SAS software (Enterprise Guide 7.1, SAS Institute, USA). The significance of differences between treatments was determined by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and mean differences were analyzed using Duncan’s multiple range test (DMRT) at a 5% significance level.

Result and Discussion

Effects of organic amendments on soil physical and chemical properties

The physical and chemical properties of soil were assessed in an apple orchard treated with organic amendments (Table 2). The results showed that the NTNA, TNA, LMC, PBC, LTBC1, LTBC2, LTBC3, and MTBC amendments had big effects on the physical and chemical properties of the soil. Soil pH was highest in the LTBC3 treatment (6.36), significantly greater than all other treatments, demonstrating its liming effect. In contrast, the NTNA (6.10) and TNA (5.83) treatments exhibited the lowest pH values, indicating soil acidification in untreated plots. These results aligned with previous findings, which demonstrated that LTBC application effectively increased soil pH levels, contributing to improved soil chemical properties (Yuan and Xu, 2011). The addition of LMC and PBC reduced soil pH compared to LTBC. This reduction in pH corresponded with previous studies, which attributed the decrease to organic acid production during microbial mineralization and nitrification processes (Pattanayak et al., 2001; Yaduvanshi, 2001; Smiciklas et al., 2002).

Electrical conductivity values exhibited minimal variation across treatments, with LTBC3 and LTBC1 showing slightly higher values in the subsoil compared to other amendments. Deep soil electrical conductivity remained relatively consistent, with no statistically significant differences observed. Organic matter content was highest in the PBC treatment (2.77% in subsoil, 2.56% in deep soil), surpassing all other treatments. Organic matter levels were lowest in the NTNA treatment (1.94% in subsoil, 1.39% in deep soil), highlighting the significant impact of organic amendments on soil organic content. Organic matter content increased with the amount of amendment applied. In the subsoil, organic matter content increased to 2.31% and 2.65% in the LTBC2 and LTBC3 treatments, respectively, compared to 1.39% and 1.48% in the NTNA and TNA treatments (Table 2). Similar findings have been reported in previous studies, which demonstrated that organic amendments improved soil organic carbon and overall fertility by increasing stable organic matter fractions (Steiner et al., 2007; Lehmann et al., 2011b). These results also aligned with observations that BC and compost promoted long-term carbon retention, enhancing soil health and sustainability (Agegnehu et al., 2017).

Table 2.

Effects of various organic amendments on the physical and chemical properties of soil collected from mature apple orchard field.

Organic amendments pH
(1:5)
EC
(dS m-1)
O.M.
(%)
P2O5
(mg kg-1)
Exch. cations (cmolc kg-1) NH4+-N
(mg kg-1)
NO3-N
(mg kg-1)
K Na Mg Ca
NTNA Sub soil 6.10 ABC 0.23 A 1.94 BC 12.2 A 0.56 B 0.065 A 2.96 B 4.73 C 1.12 AB 1.48 B
Deep soil 5.77 c 0.27 a 1.39 b 12.2 a 0.40 b 0.069 a 3.37 a 4.57 cd 1.05 a 1.18 b
NTNA Sub soil 5.83 C 0.23 A 1.59 C 14.8 A 0.66 AB 0.073 A 3.37 AB 4.63 C 0.70 B 1.41 B
Deep soil 5.76 c 0.22 a 1.48 b 12.4 a 0.55 ab 0.075 a 3.27 a 4.40 d 0.75 a 1.90 ab
LMC Sub soil 5.95 BC 0.23 A 1.85 BC 34.5 A 0.62 AB 0.062 A 3.39 AB 5.33 ABC 0.68 B 1.87 B
Deep soil 5.77 c 0.24 a 1.74 b 28.4 a 0.41 b 0.071 a 3.41 a 4.88 bcd 0.80 a 2.17 ab
PBC Sub soil 6.04 ABC 0.23 A 2.77 A 58.9 A 0.67 AB 0.058 A 3.25 AB 6.06 AB 0.63 B 3.36 A
Deep soil 5.93 bc 0.24 a 2.56 a 27.0 a 0.53 ab 0.074 a 3.28 a 5.57 abc 1.23 a 2.44 ab
LTBC1 Sub soil 6.05 ABC 0.25 A 1.93 BC 73.5 A 0.73 AB 0.055 A 3.31 AB 4.99 BC 0.47 B 1.62 B
Deep soil 5.93 bc 0.25 a 1.66 b 46.3 a 0.61 ab 0.067 a 3.33 a 4.77 bcd 0.70 a 2.34 ab
LTBC2 Sub soil 6.22 AB 0.20 A 2.51 AB 57.7 A 0.67 AB 0.064 A 3.18 B 6.11 A 1.60 A 1.75 B
Deep soil 6.15 abc 0.20 a 2.31 a 25.3 a 0.55 ab 0.060 a 3.20 a 5.73 ab 1.33 a 1.78 ab
LTBC3 Sub soil 6.36 A 0.27 A 3.01 A 66.6 A 0.82 A 0.069 A 3.68 A 6.41 A 1.03 AB 1.65 B
Deep soil 6.47 a 0.21 a 2.65 a 45.1 a 0.65 a 0.066 a 3.56 a 6.13 a 0.84 a 1.41 ab
MTBC Sub soil 6.31 A 0.23 A 1.87 BC 15.9 A 0.71 AB 0.056 A 3.214 AB 5.40 ABC 1.03 AB 2.33 AB
Deep soil 6.20 ab 0.22 a 1.66 b 10.9 a 0.64 a 0.059 a 3.20 a 5.073 bcd 0.72 a 2.82 a

Different letters indicate significant difference among treatments at P < 0.05 according to Duncan’s multiple range test. Uppercase letters (A, B, C) indicate significant differences of sub soils among main treatments, while lowercase letters (a, b, c) indicate significant differences of deep soils among main treatments.

The differences in soil improvement effects between LTBC and MTBC can be attributed to their distinct physicochemical properties, influencing nutrient availability, microbial activity, and carbon stability. LTBC, produced at lower temperatures (300 - 400°C), retains more labile organic compounds, leading to higher microbial activity and faster nutrient release (Ahmad et al., 2014). In contrast, MTBC, produced at medium temperatures (500 - 600°C), has greater porosity and aromatic carbon content, enhancing soil aggregation, long-term carbon sequestration, and nutrient retention (Novak et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2016). LTBC supports rapid microbial colonization due to its bioavailable carbon, increasing soil respiration and enzymatic activity (Lehmann et al., 2011a), whereas MTBC provides a stable microbial habitat, fostering long-term microbial interactions (Khan et al., 2020). Recent studies have shown that BC from greenhouse crop residues optimally produced at 300 - 400°C enhanced soil pH and nutrient retention (Kim et al., 2022). Similarly, research on BC from agricultural residues has highlighted its potential to improve soil quality and nutrient dynamics, making it a promising amendment for sustainable orchard management (Lee et al., 2023). Additionally, LTBC may slightly acidify soils due to retained organic acids, while MTBC acts as a pH buffer, stabilizing soil conditions over time (Yuan and Xu, 2011). These mechanisms align with the results of this study, suggesting that BC properties play a crucial role in soil enhancement. Future research should focus on long-term effects, particularly on soil carbon sequestration, microbial community dynamics, and the economic feasibility of BC application in orchard systems.

Phosphorus content was highest in the LTBC1 and LTBC3 treatments (73.5 mg kg-1 and 66.6 mg kg-1, respectively), significantly exceeding levels observed in the NTNA and MTBC treatments. LTBC3 exhibited the highest levels of exchangeable potassium (0.819 cmolc kg-1), magnesium (3.68 cmolc kg-1), and calcium (6.41 cmolc kg-1), demonstrating its superior ability to enhance soil nutrient availability. Sodium levels were higher in the LMC and PBC treatments compared to other organic supplements. NTNA treatments had significantly lower cation levels compared to all organic amendments. These findings aligned with previous studies, which suggested that the incorporation of BC and other organic amendments enriched nutrient availability and increased soil exchangeable cations (Yuan and Xu, 2011; Mekuria et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2024).

Ammonium nitrogen levels were highest in the LTBC2 treatment (1.60 mg kg-1) compared to the tillage treatment (0.70 mg kg-1). Nitrate nitrogen levels were highest in the PBC treatment (3.36 mg kg-1 in subsoil), reflecting differences in nitrogen dynamics among treatments. The total nitrogen content of PBC (0.63 mg kg-1) and LMC (0.68 mg kg-1) was relatively low and had a minor impact on ammonium and nitrate nitrogen content in the soil (Table 2). Previous reports suggested that BC and organic amendments enhanced nitrogen retention and reduced nitrogen leaching due to improved nutrient cycling and microbial activity (Agegnehu et al., 2017; Ibrahim et al., 2020). These findings paralleled the results of this study, where LTBC treatments resulted in improved soil nutrient acquisition. This study highlighted the potential of tailored organic amendment strategies to enhance soil health, improve nutrient retention, and mitigate soil degradation in mature apple orchards.

Physical properties of the soil, like its hardness, bulk density, and depth, were important indicators of its health because they affected root growth, water infiltration, air flow, and the structure as a whole. The average soil hardness varied significantly among treatments. The NTNA treatment recorded the highest soil hardness (2.61 MPa), indicating compacted soil conditions in untreated plots. In contrast, the PBC treatment exhibited the lowest soil hardness (1.42 MPa), demonstrating its effectiveness in reducing compaction (Table 3). This was attributed to the composition of PBC, which was readily decomposed by soil microorganisms. The increased microbial activity stimulated by PBC likely enhanced soil pore formation, improving soil structure and reducing compaction more effectively than other organic materials (Zhang et al., 2023).

Bulk density followed a similar trend, with NTNA showing the highest value (1.53 g cm-3), while LTBC1 (1.32 g cm-3) and LTBC3 (1.33 g cm-3) displayed notable reductions (Table 3). This indicated the potential of LTBC and organic amendments to enhance soil porosity and reduce compaction. These results aligned with prior studies highlighting LTBC’s ability to reduce soil bulk density (Mandal et al., 2021; Kamali et al., 2022). Further, consistent with Li et al. (2024), LTBC enhanced soil porosity and reduced compaction in this study. Treatments with PBC, LTBC, and MTBC achieved soil depths exceeding 70 cm, indicating improved soil structure and permeability. Organic amendments significantly decreased soil hardness and bulk density, enhancing soil conditions essential for plant growth (Rayne and Aula, 2020; Ghadirnezhad et al., 2024). These findings emphasized the role of organic amendments and LTBC in improving root zone depth and water infiltration capacity, supporting sustainable soil management.

Table 3.

Effect of different organic amendment treatments on soil penetration resistance, bulk density, and effective soil depth.

Organic amendments Penetration resistance (MPa) Bulk density (g cm-3) Effective soil depth (cm)
NTNA 2.61 a 1.53 a 33
TNA 1.76 bc 1.31 b >70
LMC 2.22 b 1.33 b 45
PBC 1.42 c 1.21 c >70
LTBC1 1.78 bc 1.32 b >70
LTBC2 1.70 bc 1.39 b >70
LTBC3 1.65 bc 1.33 b >70
MTBC 1.81 bc 1.38 b >70

Different letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) among treatments according to Duncan’s multiple range test.

Effects of organic amendments on greenhouse gas emission

The CO2 emission rates were monitored over two years following the application of organic amendments, including LMC, PBC, and BC, to the soil in a mature apple orchard. The emission trends (Fig. 1a) show distinct fluctuations in response to the type of amendment and seasonal temperature changes. Carbon dioxide emissions were higher during the warmer months, corresponding to increased microbial activity, and nearly absent during the winter when temperatures were low. This seasonal trend aligns with previous studies reporting that microbial respiration in soils is significantly influenced by temperature, with peak activity observed during the warmer periods of May and June (Pietikäinen et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2009).

PBC exhibited the highest CO2 emission rates, particularly during the initial application period, indicating their rapid decomposition and high microbial activity. In contrast, BC treatments, especially those produced at medium temperatures, displayed more stable and significantly lower CO2 emissions, suggesting their greater resistance to decomposition and potential as a sustainable soil amendment. Both LTBC and LMC showed intermediate emissions, reflecting moderate rates of decomposition and nutrient cycling.

The total CO2 flux, calculated over the study period, further highlights the differences among the organic amendments (Fig. 1b). Soil treated with PBC exhibited the highest cumulative CO2 emissions (approximately 60 Mg ha-1), significantly surpassing all other treatments (p < 0.05). This can be attributed to the readily decomposable nature of PBC, which are rich in labile organic matter. In contrast, soils treated with BC, regardless of production temperature, demonstrated significantly lower total CO2 flux compared to PBC. Among the BC treatments, MTBC showed the lowest total emissions, emphasizing its stability and slow mineralization rate. The LMC, along with NTNA plots, exhibited moderate emissions, indicating limited but consistent carbon mineralization over time.

The results underscore the potential of BC, particularly MTBC, as an effective organic amendment for soil carbon management. Its low decomposition rate and stable carbon structure contribute to reduced CO2 emissions, making it a valuable tool for carbon sequestration. This aligns with previous studies highlighting BC role in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions while enhancing soil fertility (Wang et al., 2018; Gupta et al., 2020; Abhishek et al., 2022). In contrast, while PBC and LMC provide immediate nutrient release and improve microbial activity, their rapid decomposition results in higher greenhouse gas emissions, limiting their long-term effectiveness for carbon storage.

https://cdn.apub.kr/journalsite/sites/ksssf/2025-058-02/N0230580202/images/ksssf_2025_582_159_F1.jpg
Fig. 1.

Effect of organic amendments on CO2 emission in mature apple orchard soil over two years. The results demonstrate significant differences among NTNA, TNA, LMC, PBC, and various levels of LTBC and MTBC treatments (P < 0.05), as determined by a Duncan’s multiple range test. (a) CO2 emission rate (b) CO2 flux measurements.

There were no significant differences in nitrous oxide emissions across all treatments. While LMC has relatively higher nitrogen content compared to other organic materials, the small amount applied did not lead to significant changes in nitrous oxide emissions (Fig. 2). In PBC and BC made from apple prunes had very low nitrogen content (0.88, 1.00%), and thus did not affect the increase in nitrous oxide emissions. Further research is needed to investigate nitrous oxide emissions when BC with higher nitrogen content, such as livestock manure BC, is applied.

Our results indicate that MTBC-treated soils exhibited lower CO2 emissions compared to rapidly decomposing organic amendments such as PBC and LMC, which aligns with previous studies highlighting BC’s stability and resistance to microbial mineralization. However, N2O emissions did not significantly differ among treatments, it is essential to evaluate BC’s long-term impact on net greenhouse gas emissions, particularly through its influence on soil nitrogen dynamics and CH4 fluxes.

These findings suggest that BC, especially MTBC, offers a sustainable solution for reducing CO2 emissions while enhancing soil health in mature apple orchards. By integrating BC with other organic amendments, orchard management practices can achieve improved soil carbon sequestration, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and enhanced orchard productivity. Future studies should explore the economic feasibility of large-scale BC applications and their synergistic effects with other organic amendments.

https://cdn.apub.kr/journalsite/sites/ksssf/2025-058-02/N0230580202/images/ksssf_2025_582_159_F2.jpg
Fig. 2.

Effect of various organic amendments on nitrous oxide emission in a mature apple orchard soil over 2-years. All values obtained from each trait were showed significantly different responses under NTNA, TNA, LMC, PBC and various levels of LTBC and MTBC (P < 0.05) based on a Duncan’s multiple range test. (a) N2O emission rate (b) N2O flux measurements.

Effect of organic amendments on vegetative growth parameters

Organic amendments play a vital role in enhancing soil quality and tree growth in mature apple orchards. This study evaluated the effects of NTNA, TNA, LMC, PBC, LTBC, and MTBC on tree growth and productivity over a two-year period. Vegetative growth factors, including tree height, canopy width, and stem circumference, were measured in May 2021 and May 2023 following the application of organic materials to the apple orchard soil. As the apple trees were already 7 years old in 2021, direct comparisons were challenging. To address this, growth factor differences over the two years were expressed as ratios, enabling relative comparisons between treatments.

Tree height exhibited varying trends across treatments. NTNA showed a slight reduction (-4.67 cm), reflecting the limited impact of untreated soil on growth. TNA recorded a greater reduction (-6.60 cm), indicating that tillage alone may not significantly improve height without organic amendments. In contrast, LTBC1 and MTBC exhibited slightly increased tree height (+4.8 cm and +0.6 cm, respectively), suggesting a moderate response to BC. In LTBC2 and LTBC3 treatments showed decreased plant heights (-11.3 cm and -0.5 cm, respectively) (Table 4). While tree height naturally increases with age, farmers often limit it through pruning to manage vigor and simplify orchard operations. Canopy width varied significantly across treatments. NTNA recorded a reduction, while TNA showed substantial increases. LTBC1 and MTBC treatments displayed moderate increases in canopy width (+59.2 cm and +23.8 cm, respectively), indicating improved canopy development with BC application.

Stem circumference remained similar across treatments in 2021 but increased significantly in LTBC2 compared to LTBC3 in 2023 (Table 4). However, these growth differences were challenging to attribute solely to organic amendments, as the trees' age limited the immediate impact of treatments. This aligns with research indicating that while organic amendments, such as livestock manure BC, improve soil quality, excessive application may negatively impact crop growth (Lee et al., 2024b). Similar challenges in short-term evaluations of organic amendments in mature orchards have been noted in previous studies (Steiner et al., 2007; Safaei Khorram et al., 2019; Fornes et al., 2024). These findings suggest that single applications of organic materials may not yield significant growth differences within two years. Future research should focus on applying LTBC and other amendments during the establishment phase of orchards, as younger trees are more responsive to soil enhancements (Ibrahim et al., 2020).

Table 4.

Effect of various organic amendment on the growth parameters of matured apple plants.

Organic amendments May 2021 March 2023 Difference between 2021 and 2023 Ratio
Height (cm) Crown width (cm) Circumference (cm) Height (cm) Crown width (cm) Circumference (cm) Height (cm) Crown width (cm) Circumference (cm)
NTNA 323.0 ab 218.7 ab 24.4 a 318.3 ab 210.0 c 29.2 ab -4.67 a -8.7 a 4.9 ab 0.20 a
NTNA 336.4 a 215.6 ab 29.8 a 329.8 a 265.6 ab 33.7 ab -6.60 a 50.0 a 3.9 ab 0.13 a
LMC 329.2 a 227.2 ab 28.4 a 323.0 ab 254.0 abc 33.5 ab -6.20 a 26.8 a 5.1 ab 0.18 a
PBC 324.7 b 214.7 ab 26.2 a 327.3 b 221.3 bc 31.4 ab 2.67 a 6.7 a 5.3 ab 0.20 a
LTBC1 336.0 a 181.4 b 30.7 a 340.8 a 240.6 abc 32.0 ab 4.80 a 59.2 a 1.4 a 0.04 a
LTBC2 330.7 a 213.3 ab 26.3 a 319.3 ab 249.0 abc 37.0 a -11.33 a 35.7 a 10.7 ab 0.41 a
LTBC3 322.3 ab 226.3 ab 26.7 a 320.0 ab 283.8 a 28.2 b -2.25 a 57.5 a 1.5 ab 0.06 a
MTBC 335.2 a 236.4 a 28.8 a 335.8 a 260.2 abc 35.8 ab 0.60 a 23.8 a 7.0 b 0.24 a

All values obtained from each trait were significantly different responses under various organic amendments (P < 0.05) based on a Duncan’s multiple range test.

Influence of organic amendments on photosynthetic activity

SPAD measurements, essential for assessing chlorophyll content, directly correlate with photosynthetic efficiency and plant health. Chlorophyll levels influence nutrient uptake, growth, and yield, making SPAD an effective tool for evaluating the impact of organic amendments on plant productivity. In this study, SPAD values showed no significant differences between treatments. However, the highest SPAD values were observed in LMC (48.52), followed by PBC (48.38), suggesting enhanced photosynthetic efficiency and nutrient uptake with these treatments. LTBC3 recorded the lowest SPAD value (44.13), potentially due to variations in nutrient availability (Fig. 3). These findings align with Montanaro et al. (2017), who reported that single applications of organic materials may not significantly impact mature orchards. Multiple applications or integration with other management practices may be necessary for noticeable changes. Further research is recommended on the use of LTBC in establishing new apple orchards to maximize its benefits.

https://cdn.apub.kr/journalsite/sites/ksssf/2025-058-02/N0230580202/images/ksssf_2025_582_159_F3.jpg
Fig. 3.

Effect of various organic amendments on SPAD values in a mature apple orchard. All values obtained from each trait were showed significantly different responses under NTNA, TNA, LMC, PBC and various levels of LTBC and MTBC (P < 0.05) based on a Duncan’s multiple range test.

Influence of organic amendments in fruit yield and quality

The yield and fruit characteristics were assessed across treatments over two years (2021 - 2022). Yield values ranged from 11.1 Mg ha-1 in LTBC2 to 16.9 Mg ha-1 in MTBC during 2021, and from 40.2 Mg ha-1 in PBC to 50.4 Mg ha-1 in LTBC1 during 2022 (Table 5). No significant differences in yield were observed among treatments. The reduced fruit yield in the first year was attributed to significant pest issues, particularly anthracnose. In the second year, the yield increased to 50.4 Mg ha-1 in LTBC1 and 47.8 Mg ha-1 in LTBC3 suggesting the potential of BC to enhance soil fertility and nutrient availability. BC’s porous structure and high cation exchange capacity may have contributed to improved nutrient retention and water-holding capacity, thereby supporting higher yields. These findings align with Ray and Bharti (2023), who demonstrated BC effectiveness in improving fruit productivity. Conversely, the relatively lower yields observed in PBC and LMC treatments indicate that their benefits might depend on longer-term soil integration or repeated applications.

Fruit height and width showed minimal variation across treatments. LTBC2 recorded the highest values for fruit height (75.4 mm in 2021) and fruit width (85.5 mm in 2021). However, there were no significant differences in these parameters between treatments over the two years. Fruit hardness ranged from 14.8 N in LMC to 17.3 N in TNA during 2021, and from 14.66 N in LMC to 17.22 N in TNA during 2022 (Table 5). Soluble sugar content varied slightly among treatments, with values ranging from 12.7 °Brix in LTBC1 to 14.3 °Brix in LTBC2 in 2021, and from 13.01 °Brix in LMC to 14.30 °Brix in LTBC3 in 2022. Similarly, fruit acidity showed slight variations across treatments. MTBC exhibited the highest acidity in both years (0.251% in 2021 and 0.2167% in 2022). LTBC treatments generally showed lower acidity compared to MTBC.

Table 5.

Effect of various organic amendments on the yield and quality parameters of apple fruits.

Organic amendments Yield
(Mg ha-1)
Fruit height
(mm)
Fruit diameter
(mm)
Fruit firmness
(N)
Soluble solid contents (°brix) Titratable acidity
(%)
2021 2022 2021 2022 2021 2022 2021 2022 2021 2022 2021 2022
NTNA 13.8 a 45.5 a 71.5 a 69.2 a 80.2 a 78.8 a 16.7 a 15.77 a 13.1 a 13.70 a 0.200 a 0.1775 b
TNA 11.9 a 46.2 a 72.0 a 72.5 a 82.1 a 81.9 a 17.3 a 17.22 a 14.1 a 13.66 a 0.246 a 0.1695 b
LMC 16.1 a 42.38 a 74.5 a 75.0 a 84.7 a 84.7 a 14.8 a 14.66 a 13.6 a 13.01 a 0.221 a 0.1624 b
PBC 13.0 a 40.2 a 73.5 a 72.4 a 85.4 a 85.6 a 16.6 a 16.48 a 13.8 a 13.80 a 0.211 a 0.1802 b
LTBC1 11.8 a 50.4 a 73.4 a 74.1 a 81.9 a 82.4 a 17.2 a 17.02 a 12.7 a 13.80 a 0.200 a 0.1781 b
LTBC2 11.1 a 46.6 a 75.4 a 74.5 a 85.5 a 84.8 a 16.7 a 16.68 a 14.3 a 13.03 a 0.231 a 0.1675 b
LTBC3 14.6 a 47.8 a 72.1 a 71.2 a 83.5 a 84.0 a 16.0 a 14.82 a 13.8 a 14.30 a 0.222 a 0.1683 b
MTBC 16.9 a 44.3 a 68.2 a 67.9 a 79.6 a 78.3 a 16.0 a 14.72 a 14.2 a 14.23 a 0.251 a 0.2167 a

All values obtained from each trait were significantly different responses under various organic amendments (P < 0.05) based on a Duncan’s multiple range test.

Fruit hardness and soluble solids content remained stable across treatments, indicating that organic amendments did not negatively affect fruit quality. The higher acidity observed in MTBC aligns with findings by Suthar et al. (2018), which suggest that BC, particularly at higher temperatures, may influence soil pH and subsequently fruit acidity. Similar correlations have been observed in mulberry orchards, where soil organic amendments directly influenced fruit quality (Song et al., 2023). Quality factors such as fruit size, fruit width, hardness, sweetness, and acidity showed no significant differences between treatments. These results suggest that organic amendments had a consistent, though not significant, impact on apple yield and fruit characteristics over the two-year study period (Neilsen et al., 2004). While organic amendments significantly enhance soil fertility, their impact on the yield of mature apple trees is not always evident, particularly in relatively fertile soils within established orchards. This suggests that organic fertilizers may primarily benefit nutrient-depleted soils, whereas their influence on yield improvement in mature orchards may be limited.

Conclusion

This study provides insights into the potential of organic amendments especially BC as an effective soil amendment for enhancing soil properties, carbon management, and tree productivity in mature apple orchards. Our results demonstrate that LTBC significantly improved soil properties, water-holding capacity and nutrient availability, contributing to a more favorable environment for apple tree growth. Additionally, MTBC reduced carbon dioxide emissions, supporting sustainable orchard management. Although, fruit yield and quality parameters remained consistent across treatments, the enhanced soil fertility and reduced greenhouse gas emissions highlight the environmental benefits of organic amendments. Overall, this study emphasizes the importance of tailored soil amendment strategies to address site-specific soil challenges and achieve long-term sustainability. Future research should focus on combining multiple organic amendments, their application timing, and assessing their economic viability for large-scale adoption. Additionally, exploring the role of BC in newly established orchards could offer insights into maximizing its potential for improving soil health, supporting sustainable apple production, and mitigating the adverse effects of conventional agricultural practices.

Funding

This work was supported by the “Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science and Technology Development (Project No. RS-2020-RD008517)” Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea. This work was supported by the 2023 RDA Fellowship program of the National Institute of Horticultural and Herbal Science, Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Author Contribution

Rathinapriya P: Writing-original draft, Data curation, Lee IB & Yi PH: Validation, Resources, Jeong ST: Writing-review & editing, Formal analysis, Supervision.

Data Availability

Not applicable.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the “Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science and Technology Development (Project No. RS-2020-RD008517)” Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea. This work was supported by the 2023 RDA Fellowship program of the National Institute of Horticultural and Herbal Science, Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea.

References

1

Abhishek K, Shrivastava A, Vimal V, Gupta AK, Bhujbal SK, Biswas JK, Singh L, Ghosh P, Pandey A, Sharma P, Kumar M. 2022. Biochar application for greenhouse gas mitigation, contaminants immobilization and soil fertility enhancement: A state-of-the-art review. Sci. Total Environ. 853:158562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158562

10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.15856236089037
2

Agegnehu G, Srivastava AK, Michael I. 2017. The role of biochar and biochar-compost in improving soil quality and crop performance: A review. Appl. Soil Ecol. 119:156-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.06.008

10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.06.008
3

Ahmad M, Lee SS, Dou X, Mohan D, Sung JK, Yang JE, Ok YS. 2014. Effects of biochar on soil properties and its interaction with heavy metals: A review. J. Hazard. Mater. 267:1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.12.043

10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.12.04324413047
4

Anthony R. 2013. Carbon storage in Orchards. Bangor University (United Kingdom).

5

Cantrell KB, Hunt PG, Uchimiya M, Novak JM, Ro KS. 2012. Impact of pyrolysis temperature and manure source on physicochemical characteristics of biochar. Bioresour. Technol. 107:419-428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2011.11.084

10.1016/j.biortech.2011.11.08422237173
6

Cheol Kim S, Ko BG, Park SJ, Kim MS, Kim SH, Lee CH. 2018. Estimation of optimum organic fertilizer application under fertilizer recommendation system. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fert. 51:296-305. https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2018.51.3.296

10.7745/KJSSF.2018.51.3.296
7

Dalal RC, Allen DE, Chan KY, Singh BP. 2011. Soil organic matter, soil health and climate change. In: Singh B, Cowie A, Chan K, eds. Soil Health and Climate Change. Soil Biol. 29:87-106. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20256-8_5

10.1007/978-3-642-20256-8_5
8

Fornes F, Lidón A, Belda RM, Macan GP, Cayuela ML, Sánchez-García M, Sánchez-Monedero MA. 2024. Soil fertility and plant nutrition in an organic olive orchard after 5 years of amendment with compost, biochar or their blend. Sci. Rep. 14:16606. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-67565-x

10.1038/s41598-024-67565-x39025936PMC11258141
9

Geleta BT, Abebe AM, Heo JY. 2025. Effect of Genotype×Environment Interactions on Apple Fruit Characteristics in a High Latitude Region of Korea. Appl. Fruit Sci. 67:14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10341-024-01243-0

10.1007/s10341-024-01243-0
10

Ghadirnezhad Shiade SR, Fathi A, Minkina T, Wong MH, Rajput VD. 2024. Biochar application in agroecosystems: a review of potential benefits and limitations. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 26:19231-19255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03470-z

10.1007/s10668-023-03470-z
11

Goldan E, Nedeff V, Barsan N, Culea M, Panainte-Lehadus M, Mosnegutu E, Irimia O. 2023. Assessment of LMC used as soil amendment-A review. Processes. 11:1167. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11041167

10.3390/pr11041167
12

Gupta DK, Gupta CK, Dubey R, Fagodiya RK, Sharma G, Noor Mohamed MB, Dev R, Shukla AK. 2020. Role of biochar in carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas mitigation. Biochar Appl. Agric. Environ. Manage. 141-165. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40997-5_7

10.1007/978-3-030-40997-5_7
13

Ibrahim MM, Tong C, Hu K, Zhou B, Xing S, Mao Y. 2020. Biochar-fertilizer interaction modifies N-sorption, enzyme activities and microbial functional abundance regulating nitrogen retention in rhizosphere soil. Sci. Total Environ. 739:140065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140065

10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.14006532758953
14

IPCC. 2007. Climate change 2007. The physical science basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the IV assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

15

Kamali M, Sweygers N, Al-Salem S, Appels L, Aminabhavi TM, Dewil R. 2022. Biochar for soil applications- sustainability aspects, challenges and future prospects. Chem. Eng. J. 428:131189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2021.131189

10.1016/j.cej.2021.131189
16

Khan MA, Jung YS, Kim HJ. 2020. Influence of biochar application on microbial community and carbon stability in a maize-planted sandy loam soil. Sci. Rep. 10:19687. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-76701-7

17

Khorram MS, Wang Y, Jin X, Fang H, Yu Y. 2015. Reduced mobility of fomesafen through enhanced adsorption in biochar-amended soil. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 34:1258-1266. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.2946

10.1002/etc.294625703508
18

Khorram MS, Zhang Q, Lin D, Zheng Y, Fang H, Yu YL. 2016. Biochar: A review of its impact on pesticide behavior in soil environments and its potential applications. J. Environ. Sci. 44:269-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2015.12.027

10.1016/j.jes.2015.12.02727266324
19

Kim SH, Lee DW, Jeong YJ, Byeon JE, Jeon SH, Lee YH, Kwon SI, Shim JH. 2022. Characteristics of biochars derived from greenhouse crop wastes under different pyrolysis temperature and time conditions. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fert. 55:556-562. https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2022.55.4.556

10.7745/KJSSF.2022.55.4.556
20

Lal R. 2015. Restoring soil quality to mitigate soil degradation. Sustainability. 7:5875-5895. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7055875

10.3390/su7055875
21

Lee DW, Lee YN, Jeong YJ, Yun JJ, Shim JH, Jeon SH, Kim SH. 2023. Effect of biochar derived from greenhouse crop residue on lettuce growth and soil chemical properties. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fert. 56:386-397. https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2023.56.4.386

10.7745/KJSSF.2023.56.4.386
22

Lee I, Cho HN, Park JH, Kang SW. 2024b. Effect of bed soil using livestock manure biochar on initial growth of Kimchi cabbage. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fert. 57:403-410. https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2024.57.4.403

10.7745/KJSSF.2024.57.4.403
23

Lee JM, Kim SH, Park HS, Seo HH, Yun SK. 2009. Estimation of soil CO2 efflux from an apple orchard. Korean J. Agric. For. Meteorol. 11:52-60. https://doi.org/10.5532/KJAFM.2009.11.2.052

10.5532/KJAFM.2009.11.2.052
24

Lee JT, Lee GJ, Zhang YS, Hwang SW, Im SJ, Kim CB, Mun YH. 2006. Status of fertilizer application and soil management for major vegetable crops in farmers' fields of alpine area. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fert. 39:357-365. https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2006.39.6.357

25

Lee KS, Kim WJ. 2009. The development and use of fertilizer for 40 years in Korea. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fert. 42:195-211. https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2009.42.3.195

26

Lee YN, Kim SS, Yun JJ, Shim JH, Jeon SH, Roh AS, Kim SH. 2024a. Comparison of fertilizer type and usage for fruit crops cultivation of Korea in 2018 and 2022. Korean J. Soil Sci. Fert. 57:411-417. https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2024.57.4.411

10.7745/KJSSF.2024.57.4.411
27

Lehmann J, Gaunt J, Rondon M. 2011b. Biochar sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems-A review. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change. 11:403-427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-005-9006-5

10.1007/s11027-005-9006-5
28

Lehmann J, Rillig MC, Thies J, Masiello CA, Hockaday WC, Crowley D. 2011a. Biochar effects on soil biota-a review. Soil Biol. Biochem. 43:1812-1836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.04.022

10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.04.022
29

Li Y, Yang J, Yang M, Zhang F. 2024. Exploring biochar addition impacts on soil erosion under natural rainfall: A study based on four years of field observations on the Loess Plateau. Soil Tillage Res. 236:105935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2023.105935

10.1016/j.still.2023.105935
30

Mandal S, Pu S, Adhikari S, Ma H, Kim DH, Bai Y, Hou D. 2021. Progress and future prospects in biochar composites: Application and reflection in the soil environment. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51:219-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2020.1713030

10.1080/10643389.2020.1713030
31

Mekuria W, Noble A, Sengtaheuanghoung O, Hoanh CT, Bossio D, Sipaseuth N, Langan S. 2014. Organic and clay-based soil amendments increase maize yield, total nutrient uptake, and soil properties in Lao PDR. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 38:936-961. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2014.917144

10.1080/21683565.2014.917144
32

Montanaro G, Xiloyannis C, Nuzzo V, Dichio B. 2017. Orchard management, soil organic carbon and ecosystem services in Mediterranean fruit tree crops. Scientia Horticul 217:92-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2017.01.012

10.1016/j.scienta.2017.01.012
33

Neilsen GH, Hogue EJ, Neilsen D. 2004. Use of organic applications to increase productivity of high-density apple orchards. Acta Hortic. 638:347-356. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2004.638.43

10.17660/ActaHortic.2004.638.43
34

NLAST, 2000. Soil and plant analysis method. National Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology. Rural Development Administration, Suwon, South Korea.

35

Novak JM, Lima I, Xing B, Gaskin JW, Steiner C, Das KC, Schomberg H. 2009. Characterization of designer biochar produced at different temperatures and their effects on soil properties. J. Environ. Qual. 38:329-336. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2008.0070

36

Pattanayak SK, Mishra KN, Jena KN, Nayak RK. 2001. Evaluation of green manure crops fertilized with various phosphorus sources and their effect on subsequent rice crop. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 49:285-291. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-0228.2019.00001.5

37

Pietikäinen J, Pettersson M, Bååth E. 2005. Comparison of temperature effects on soil respiration and bacterial and fungal growth rates. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 52:49-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.femsec.2004.10.002

10.1016/j.femsec.2004.10.00216329892
38

Rathinapriya P, Maharajan T, Jothi R, Prabakaran M, Lee IB, Yi PH, Jeong ST. 2025. Unlocking biochar impacts on abiotic stress dynamics: a systematic review of soil quality and crop improvement. Front. Plant Sci. 15:1479925. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2024.1479925

10.3389/fpls.2024.147992539872204PMC11770001
39

Ray PK, Bharti P. 2023. Biochar: A quality enhancer for fruit crops. Int. Year Millets. 77.

40

Rayne N, Aula L. 2020. Livestock manure and the impacts on soil health: A review. Soil Syst. 4:64. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems4040064

10.3390/soilsystems4040064
41

Rodhe H. 1990. A comparison of the contribution of various gases to the greenhouse effect. Science. 248:1217-1219. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.248.4960.1217

10.1126/science.248.4960.121717809907
42

Rolston DE. 1986. Gas flux. In: Klute A, editor. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1, Physical and Mineralogical Methods. 2nd ed. Agronomy Monographs, vol. 9. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. p. 1103?1119. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssabookser5.1.2ed.c47

10.2136/sssabookser5.1.2ed.c47
43

Safaei Khorram M, Zhang G, Fatemi A, Kiefer R, Maddah K, Baqar M, Li G. 2019. Impact of biochar and compost amendment on soil quality, growth and yield of a replanted apple orchard in a 4‐year field study. J. Sci. Food Agric. 99:1862-1869. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.9380

10.1002/jsfa.938030264414
44

Schulz H, Dunst G, Glaser B. 2013. Positive effects of composted biochar on plant growth and soil fertility. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 33:814-827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0150-0

10.1007/s13593-013-0150-0
45

Sharma S, Rasool A, Sharma G, Mir JI, Mansoor S. 2025. Genetic diversity of wild apple and sustainable utilization. In: Genetic Diversity of Fruits and Nuts. CRC Press, p. 251-267. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003492207-15

10.1201/9781003492207-15PMC11792764
46

Singh NR, Singh A, Devi NP, Kumar YB, Sangma RHC, Philanim WS, Bhutia PL. 2024. Agroforestry for soil health. Agrofor. 255-283.https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394231164.ch9

10.1002/9781394231164.ch9
47

Singh S, Singh JS, Kashyap AK. 1999. Methane flux from irrigated rice fields in relation to crop growth and N-fertilization. Soil Biol. Biochem. 31:1219-1228. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(99)00025-2

10.1016/S0038-0717(99)00027-9
48

Smiciklas KD, Walker PM, Kelley PM. 2002. Utilization of compost (food, paper, landscape and manure) in row crop production. Department of Agriculture and Health Sciences, Illinois State University, USA.

49

Song Y, Lee C, Park H, Lee Y. 2023. Correlation between soil chemical properties and plant mineral elements for nutrient management of Mulberry (Morus alba L.). Korean J. Soil Sci. Fert. 56:525-532. https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2023.56.4.525

10.7745/KJSSF.2023.56.4.525
50

Statista. 2023. Apple production in Asia-Pacific by country. Statista. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/ statistics/657245/asia-pacific-apple-production-by-country/

51

Steiner C, Teixeira WG, Lehmann J, Nehls T, de Macêdo JLV, Blum WE, Zech W. 2007. Long-term effects of manure, charcoal and mineral fertilization on crop production and fertility on a highly weathered Central Amazonian upland soil. Plant Soil. 291:275-290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-007-9193-9

10.1007/s11104-007-9193-9
52

Suthar RG, Wang C, Nunes MCN, Chen J, Sargent SA, Bucklin RA, Gao B. 2018. Bamboo biochar pyrolyzed at low temperature improves tomato plant growth and fruit quality. Agric. 8:153. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8100153

10.3390/agriculture8100153
53

Tomczyk A, Sokołowska Z, Boguta P. 2020. Biochar physicochemical properties: pyrolysis temperature and feedstock kind effects. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 19:191-215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-020-09523-3

10.1007/s11157-020-09523-3
54

Vaccari FP, Maienza A, Miglietta F, Baronti S, Di Lonardo S, Giagnoni L, et al. 2015. Biochar stimulates plant growth but not fruit yield of processing tomato in a fertile soil. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 207:163-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.04.015

10.1016/j.agee.2015.04.015
55

Wang C, Liu J, Shen J, Chen D, Li Y, Jiang B, Wu J. 2018. Effects of biochar amendment on net greenhouse gas emissions and soil fertility in a double rice cropping system: A 4-year field experiment. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 262:83-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.04.016

10.1016/j.agee.2018.04.016
56

Wang J, Xiong Z, Kuzyakov Y. 2016. Biochar stability in soil: Meta-analysis of decomposition and priming effects. GCB Bioenergy. 8:512-523. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12266

10.1111/gcbb.12266
57

Wu J, Jin L, Wang N, Wei D, Pang M, Li D, et al. 2023. Effects of combined application of chemical fertilizer and biochar on soil physio-biochemical properties and maize yield. Agric. 13:1200. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13061200

10.3390/agriculture13061200
58

Yaduvanshi NPS. 2001. Effect of five years of rice-wheat cropping and NPK fertilizer use with and without organic and green manures on soil properties and crop yields in a reclaimed sodic soil. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 49:714-719. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-0228.2015.00042.4

59

Yang M, Zhou D, Hang H, Chen S, Liu H, Su J, Lv H, Jia H, Zhao G. 2024. Effects of balancing exchangeable cations Ca, Mg, and K on the growth of tomato seedlings (Solanum lycopersicum L.) based on increased soil cation exchange capacity. Agron. 14:629. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030629

10.3390/agronomy14030629
60

Yuan JH, Xu RK. 2011. The amelioration effects of low-temperature biochar generated from nine crop residues on an acidic Ultisol. Soil Use Manage. 27:110-115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-2743.2010.00317.x

10.1111/j.1475-2743.2010.00317.x
61

Zhang Q, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Lin S, Chen M, Cheng P, Ye J, Miao P, Jia X, Wang H. 2023. Effects of pruning on tea tree growth, tea quality, and rhizosphere soil microbial community. Microbiol. Spectr. 11:e01601-23. https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.01601-23

10.1128/spectrum.01601-2337750694PMC10655597
페이지 상단으로 이동하기