Crushed bark as a novel soil conditioner for organic plant production

Submitted: 27 November 2020
Accepted: 21 May 2021
Published: 17 June 2021
Abstract Views: 1285
HTML: 16
PDF: 385
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

Due to the reduction of cattle farming, the Finnish agricultural sector currently needs solutions to replace animal manure with new sustainable alternatives. This problem is especially acute for organic farms, which need livestock manure to improve soil fertility and soil organic carbon (SOC) to sustain yield. On the other side, plywood manufacturers aim to find ways to reuse waste fractions such as sandy, wet spruce bark waste. To address both issues, a new soil conditioner was developed from crushed bark (CB) and approved for organic farming by the Finnish Food Authority. To test the advantages of CB in organic wheat production, we conducted a two-year field experiment on a farmer’s field in Mikkeli (Finland) on loamy sand with moderate soil fertility (C 3.5%, C/N ratio 17, pH 6.2). CB (organic matter 80%, C/N ratio 78, pH 5.7-6.0) at 40 t ha–1 was applied either in the first year of the experiment or in both years. In addition to CB, half the plots received base ash (4 t ha–1) obtained from a power plant using wood to maintain the optimal soil pH. All plots were fertilised annually with commercial organic fertilisers. The control plots received no CB or base ash. A one-year application of CB with base ash statistically significantly increased the grain yield by 800 kg ha–1 and grain N uptake by about 10 kg ha–1 in the following growing season compared with the control. In terms of grain yield quality, a one-year application of CB with or without base ash already showed an improvement of 1000 seed weight by 2 g in the first year, and the effect was even more pronounced in the second year of the experiment. Hectolitre weight was increased in the following year after application of CB with base ash. In contrast, a two-year application of CB either alone or with base ash caused no changes in grain yield, N uptake, or yield quality compared with the control. The results indicate that the use of spruce CB with a high C/N ratio as soil conditioner in a large amount may be beneficial in terms of yield and quality when it is applied only once, but not twice in successive years. Future studies need to focus on the long-term residual effects of CB on productivity, as well as soil parameters such as SOC, cation exchange capacity, and soil microbial activity.

Highlights
- Crushed bark (C/N ratio 78) - a side stream of plywood manufacture - was tested in a two-year organic field experiment.
- A one-year (40 t ha–1) application of crushed bark with base ash increased yield and the quality of organic wheat.
- Residual effects of a one-year application were pronounced.
- Crushed bark application in two successive years provided no benefits for organic wheat production.

Dimensions

Altmetric

PlumX Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

Camberato JJ, Gagnon B, Angers DA, Chantigny MH, Pan WL, 2006. Pulp and paper mill by-products as soil amendments and plant nutrient sources. Can. J. Soil Sci. 86:641-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4141/S05-120
Chabbi A, Lehmann J, Ciais P, Loescher HW, Cotrufo MF, Don A, Sanclements M, Schipper L, Six J, Smith P, Rumpel C, 2017. Aligning agriculture and climate policy. Nat. Clim. Chang. 7:307-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3286
Curnoe WE, Irving DC, Dow CB, Velema G, Unc A, 2006. Effect of spring application of a paper mill soil conditioner on corn yield. Agron. J. 98:423-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2005.0041
Foley BJ, Cooperband LR, 2002. Paper mill residuals and compost effects on soil carbon and physical properties. J. Environ. Qual. 31:2086-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2002.2086
García-Palacios P, Gattinger A, Jorgensen HB, Brussaard L, Carvalho F, Castro H, Clément J-C, De Deyn G, d’Hertefeldt T, Foulquier A, Hedlund K, Lavorel S, Legay N, Lori M, Mäder P, Martínez-Garcia LB, da Silva PM, Muller A, Nascimento E, Reis F, Symanczik S, Sousa JP, Rubén M, 2018. Crop traits drive soil carbon sequestration under organic farming. J. Appl. Ecol. 55:2496-505. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13113
Gattinger A, Muller A, Haeni M, Skinner C, Fliessbach A, Buchmann N, Mäder P, Stolze M, Smith P, Scialabba NEH, Niggli U, 2012. Enhanced topsoil carbon stocks under organic farming. PNAS 109:18226-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1209429109
Hakala K, Heikkinen J, Sinkko T, Pahkala K, 2016. Field trial results of straw yield with different harvesting methods and modelled effects on soil organic carbon. A case study from Southern Finland. Biomass Bioenerg. 95:8-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2016.08.021
Hassan MK, Villa A, Kuittinen S, Janis J, Pappinen A, 2019. An assessment of side-stream generation from Finnish forest industry. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 21: 265-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-018-0787-5
Heikkinen J, Ketoja E, Nuutinen V, Regina K, 2013. Declining trend of carbon in Finnish cropland soils in 1974-2009. Global Change Biol. 19:1456-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12137
Jarecki MK, Lal R, 2003. Crop management for soil carbon sequestration. CRC Crit. Rev. Plant. Sci. 22:471-502. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/713608318
Kenward MG, Roger JH, 2009. An improved approximation to the precision of fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 53:2583-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2008.12.013
Kinnula S, Toivonen M, Soinne H, Joona J, Kivelä J, 2020. Effects of mixed pulp mill sludges on crop yields and quality. Agric. Food Sci. 29:276-86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23986/afsci.95600
Laine A, Högnäsbacka M, Niskanen M, Ohralahti K, Jauhiainen L, Kaseva J, Nikander H, 2017. Results of the Official Variety Trials 2009-2016. Luonnonvara- ja biotalouden tutkimus 1/2017. Available from: https://jukuri.luke.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/537999/lukeluobio_1_2017.pdf?sequence=6&isAllowed=y
Lal R, 2016. Soil health and carbon management. Food Energy Secur. 5:212-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.96
Larney FJ, Angers DA, 2012. The role of organic amendments in soil reclamation: a review. Can. J. Soil Sci. 92:19-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4141/cjss2010-064
Leifeld J, Fuhrer J, 2010. Organic farming and soil carbon sequestration: what do we really know about the benefits? Ambio 39:585-99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-010-0082-8
Minasny B, Malone BP, McBratney AB, Angers DA, Arrouays D, Chambers A, Chaplot V, Chen ZS, Cheng K, Das BS, Field DJ, Gimona A, Hedley CB, Hong SY, Mandal B, Marchant BP, Martin M, McConkey BG, Mulder VL, O’Rourke S, Richer-de-ForgesInakwu AC, Odeh I, Padarian J, Paustian K, Pan G, Poggio L, Savin I, Stolbovoy V, Stockmann U, Sulaeman Y, Tsui CC, Vågen TG, van Wesemael B, Winowiecki L, 2017. Soil carbon 4 per mile. Geoderma 292:59-86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.01.002
Mohamed MF, Thalooth AT, Elewa TA, Ahmed AG, 2019. Yield and nutrient status of wheat plants (Triticum aestivum) as affected by sludge, compost, and biofertilizers under newly reclaimed soil. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent 43:31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-019-0069-y
Natural Resources Institute Finland, 2020. Official Statistics of Finland. Structure of agricultural and horticultural enterprises 2019. Available from: https://stat.luke.fi/en/
Roletto E, Cerrutti M, Barberis R, 1985. Investigation on humic substances from decomposing spruce bark. Agric. Wastes 13:137-48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0141-4607(85)90020-4
Suokas J, 2020. From the bottom of a soaking pond to a commercial soil conditioner. Available from: https://www.upm.com/news-and-stories/articles/2020/03/from-the-bottom-of-a-soaking-pond-to-a-commercial-soil-conditioner/
Valkama E, Kunypiyaeva G, Zhapayev R, Karabayev M, Zhusupbekov E, Perego A, Schillaci C, Sacco D, Moretti B, Grignani C, Acutis M, 2020. Can conservation agriculture increase soil organic carbon? A modelling approach. Geoderma 369:114298. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114298
Vuorinen J, Mäkitie O, 1955. The method of soil testing in use in Finland. Agrogeol. Publ. 63:1-44.
Westfall P, Tobias RD, Wolfinger RD, 2011. Multiple comparisons and multiple tests using SAS. SAS Publishing, USA.
Yli-Halla M, Mokma DL, 2015.Classification of soils of Finland according to Soil Taxonomy. Soil Survey Horiz. 40:59-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2136/sh1999.2.0059
Yli-Halla M, Mokma DL, Peltovuori T, Sippola J, 2000. [Agricultural soil profiles in Finland and their classification]. Maatalouden tutkimuskeskuksen julkaisuja. Series A 78. 32 p [Abstract in English].
Yli-Viikari A, 2019 (Ed.). Maaseutuohjelman (2014-2020) ympäristöarviointi. Luonnonvara- ja biotalouden tutkimus 63/2019. Luonnonvarakeskus, Helsinki, Finland [In Finnish].

How to Cite

Kurki, P., Nurmi, E., Haikarainen, I., Savikurki, R., Kaseva, J., Hakala, K., & Valkama, E. (2021). Crushed bark as a novel soil conditioner for organic plant production. Italian Journal of Agronomy, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.4081/ija.2021.1781