Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp7 (2026): International Conference on Agricultural Sustainability

Biomass amendment effects on soil nutrients and microbial phosphorus under different land uses in a tropical dryland

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.14391
Submitted
4 March 2026
Published
17-09-2026

Abstract

Dryland agriculture is constrained by limited water availability, low organic matter and increasing erosion. In sloping dryland areas of eastern Indonesia, slash-and-burn land preparation can reduce soil fertility. This study examined the effects of five biomass amendments (control, rice husk charcoal (RHC), wood charcoal (WC), rice husk (RH) and wood leaves (WL), each at 20 t ha-1) on soil chemical properties and microbial phosphorus (microbial P) in two land-use systems, intensive cultivation (IC) and non-intensive cultivation (NIC), sampled at two sites (Netpala and Kualeu, Indonesia) and incubated for 30 and 60 days. Using a randomised complete block design (RCBD) with site as the blocking factor, biomass treatment significantly increased total nitrogen (N), phosphorus pentoxide (P₂O₅) and potassium oxide (K₂O) in IC soils (p < 0.05), whereas effects in NIC soils and effects on pH, organic carbon (C) and microbial P in either soil type, were not statistically significant at the achieved replication. Intensive cultivation soils showed larger numerical gains relative to their own controls than NIC soils, which maintained higher absolute nutrient levels throughout; wood leaves produced the largest gains in N and K₂O, while charcoal amendments produced the largest gains in P₂O₅ and organic C. These findings, based on a high, non-field-representative rate and two-site incubation, indicate that biomass amendments can improve short-term soil chemical status in degraded tropical dryland soils, most clearly under intensive cultivation; field trials at realistic rates with greater replication are needed to confirm their practical value for restoring soil quality and reducing degradation from slash-and-burn practices.

References

  1. 1. Berdugo M, Delgado-Baquerizo M, Soliveres S, Hernández-Clemente R, Zhao Y, Gaitán JJ, et al. Global ecosystem thresholds driven by aridity. Science. 2020;367(6479):787–90. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay5958
  2. 2. Lal R. Soil organic matter content and crop yield. J Soil Water Conserv. 2020;75(2):27A–32A. https://doi.org/10.2489/jswc.75.2.27A
  3. 3. Lehmann J, Bossio DA, Kögel-Knabner I, Rillig MC. The concept and future prospects of soil health. Nat Rev Earth Environ. 2020;1:544–53. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0080-8
  4. 4. Wiesmeier M, Urbanski L, Hobley EU, Lang B, von Lützow M, Marín-Spiotta E, et al. Soil organic carbon storage as a key function of soils - a review of drivers and indicators at various scales. Geoderma. 2019;333:149–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.07.026
  5. 5. Moata MRS, Takalapeta AM. Short communication: agroforestry as sustainable agroecosystem in terrestrial semi-arid region, Indonesia: evidence from soil organic carbon. Intl J Trop Drylands. 2021;5(1):1–4. https://doi.org/10.13057/tropdrylands/t050101
  6. 6. Agegnehu G, Srivastava AK, Bird MI. The role of biochar and biochar-compost in improving soil quality and crop performance: a review. Appl Soil Ecol. 2017;119:156–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.06.008
  7. 7. Blanco-Canqui H. Biochar and soil physical properties. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2017;81:687–711. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2017.01.0017
  8. 8. Fierer N. Embracing the unknown: disentangling the complexities of the soil microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2017;15:579–90. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2017.87
  9. 9. Brady NC. Alternatives to slash-and-burn: a global imperative. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 1996;58(1):3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(96)00650-0
  10. 10. García-Oliva F, Sanford RL, Kelly EF. Effects of slash-and-burn management on soil aggregate organic C and N in a tropical deciduous forest. Geoderma. 1999;88:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(98)00063-9
  11. 11. Kaschuk G, Alberton O, Hungria M. Three decades of soil microbial biomass studies in Brazilian ecosystems: lessons learned about soil quality and indications for improving sustainability. Soil Biol Biochem. 2010;42:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.08.020
  12. 12. Delgado-Baquerizo M, Maestre FT, Reich PB, Jeffries TC, Gaitan JJ, Encinar D, et al. Microbial diversity drives multifunctionality in terrestrial ecosystems. Nat Commun. 2016;7:10541. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10541
  13. 13. Delgado-Baquerizo M, Reich PB, Trivedi C, Eldridge DJ, Abades S, Alfaro FD, et al. Multiple elements of soil biodiversity drive ecosystem functions across biomes. Nat Ecol Evol. 2020;4:210–20. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-1084-y
  14. 14. Haynes RJ. Labile organic matter fractions as central components of the quality of agricultural soils: an overview. Adv Agron. 2005;85:221–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(04)85005-3
  15. 15. Paustian K, Lehmann J, Ogle SM, Reay D, Robertson GP, Smith P. Climate-smart soils. Nature. 2016;532:49–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17174
  16. 16. Liu S, Meng J, Jiang L, Yang X, Lan Y, Cheng X, et al. Rice husk biochar impacts soil phosphorous availability, phosphatase activities and bacterial community characteristics in three different soil types. Appl Soil Ecol. 2017;116:12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.03.020
  17. 17. Wu W, Zhang Y, Turner BL, He Y, Chen X, Che R, et al. Organic amendments promote soil phosphorus related functional genes and microbial phosphorus cycling. Geoderma. 2025;456:117247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2025.117247
  18. 18. Are KS. Biochar and soil physical health. In: Abrol V, Sharma P, editors. Biochar - An Imperative Amendment for Soil and the Environment. London: IntechOpen; 2019. p. 21–33.https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.83706

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.