Citation: Yadessa Gonfa Keneni, Jorge Mario Marchetti. Oil extraction from plant seeds for biodiesel production[J]. AIMS Energy, 2017, 5(2): 316-340. doi: 10.3934/energy.2017.2.316
| [1] | Zhimin Cao, Chenhui Xu, Caiwei Xiao, Wei Liu, Jiaohu Huang, Wenjun Zong, Junjie Zhang, Tao Sun . Molecular dynamics study of mechanical properties of HMX–PS interface. AIMS Materials Science, 2019, 6(1): 111-118. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2019.1.111 |
| [2] | Marek Hawryluk, Jan Marzec, Tatiana Karczewska, Łukasz Dudkiewicz . Determination of the characteristics and mechanical properties for soft materials based on plasticine and filia wax with inoculants. AIMS Materials Science, 2022, 9(2): 325-343. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2022020 |
| [3] | M.M. Reza Mousavi, Masoud D. Champiri, Mohammad S. Joshaghani, Shahin Sajjadi . A kinematic measurement for ductile and brittle failure of materials using digital image correlation. AIMS Materials Science, 2016, 3(4): 1759-1772. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2016.4.1759 |
| [4] | Ruaa Al-Mezrakchi, Ahmed Al-Ramthan, Shah Alam . Designing and modeling new generation of advanced hybrid composite sandwich structure armors for ballistic threats in defense applications. AIMS Materials Science, 2020, 7(5): 608-631. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2020.5.608 |
| [5] | Sabah Senouci, Mouhyddine Kadi-Hanifi, Azzeddine Abderrahmane Raho . Effect of a plastic deformation on the Guinier-Preston zones growth in Al-5at%Ag alloy. AIMS Materials Science, 2017, 4(1): 16-26. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2017.1.16 |
| [6] | Fu-Chieh Hsu, Tei-Chen Chen . Molecular dynamics simulation on mechanical behaviors of NixAl100−x nanowires under uniaxial compressive stress. AIMS Materials Science, 2019, 6(3): 377-396. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2019.3.377 |
| [7] | Andrea Di Schino . Open die forging process simulation: a simplified industrial approach based on artificial neural network. AIMS Materials Science, 2021, 8(5): 685-697. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2021041 |
| [8] | Hao Wang . On the annihilation of dislocation dipoles in metals. AIMS Materials Science, 2017, 4(6): 1231-1239. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2017.6.1231 |
| [9] | Nikolay A. Voronin . Analysis of the mechanisms of deformation of topocomposites by modeling of the indentation load-displacement curves. AIMS Materials Science, 2019, 6(3): 397-405. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2019.3.397 |
| [10] | Grujicic Mica, Galgalikar Rohan, Ramaswami S., Snipes Jennifer S. . Derivation, parameterization and validation of a creep deformation/rupture material constitutive model for SiC/SiC ceramic-matrix composites (CMCs). AIMS Materials Science, 2016, 3(2): 591-619. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2016.2.591 |
Biomass or bioenergy sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L. ) Moench) is potentially an ideal feedstock for the cellulosic ethanol industry because it is an annual crop that is not utilized as a food source, can produce very high yields, has suitable biomass chemical compositional properties for fuel conversion, and requires relatively fewer inputs than many other bioenergy crops [1,2,3,4,5]. Biomass sorghums are able to accumulate large amounts of biomass in part because they are photoperiod sensitive (PS), meaning they do not flower when grown in long day (> 12 hr) environments of the temperate USA [6]. Sorghum can also produce large amounts of biomass with limited water [7]. The warm temperatures and moderate rainfall (> 750 mm) associated with climates in the southeastern and south central United States are well-suited for bioenergy sorghum production [3,4].
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 mandated biofuel production of 136 billion liters per year by 2022. This quantity of biofuel will require an estimated 20 million hectares of cropland, greatly intensifying the need for sustainable agricultural systems [8]. Bioenergy sorghum potentially is a good feedstock candidate for the biofuel energy industry, but management information for the crop is still limited. Currently, most management practices for energy sorghum production are based on interpolations from forage, grain and sweet sorghum production guidelines [1,9,10,11,12].
Information on the response of bioenergy sorghum to N fertilizer in conjunction with other management factors is slowly accumulating. Biomass sorghum is a novel second-generation crop, and is distinctly different in growth habit compared to either grain or forage sorghums [4]. With long vegetative growth phases, energy sorghum hybrids were found to accumulate more than twice as much biomass as grain sorghum, owing to an extended growing period, greater light interception, and higher radiation use efficiency [13]. Because of greater yields, biomass sorghum may also remove more nutrients compared to other perennial biofuel feedstocks [14]. Biomass sorghum does have a lower N requirement for optimum above ground dry matter production than grain crops like corn (Zea mays L. ) [9,15,16,17]. Maughan et al. [18] observed responses up to 150 kg N ha−1 in 2009 and 224 kg N ha−1 in 2010 for energy sorghum in southern Illinois. However, Wortmann et al. [19] showed sorghum had little response to N fertilizer after one year of cropping. Powell and Hons [11] suggested that a fertilizer N application rate of 112 kg ha−1 was generally sufficient to produce maximum yield and attain the greatest FNUE (fertilizer N uptake efficiency). Marsalis and Bean [10] indicated that in irrigated environments with high yield potentials, N application as high as 269 kg N ha−1 may be needed, while little to no N fertilizer may be required under dryland conditions.
Recently, Hao et al. [20] determined that optimal N fertilizer rates for yield and efficiency for PS sorghums in the Texas High Plains were 183 and 78 kg N kg−1, respectively, in 2010, and 148 and 90 kg Nha−1 in 2011. Therefore, it is likely that energy sorghum will have a significant demand for N due to high biomass yield. Bioenergy sorghum exhibits efficient N recycling and preferential accumulation of stem biomass with low nitrogen content [13]. Nitrogen fertilizer represents a significant energy input for crop production, and over-application can result in non-point source pollution [21].
Long-term production of bioenergy crops, however, may adversely impact soil fertility, soil quality, and their major determinants [22]. In biofuel feedstock production, most above-ground dry matter is harvested, and little plant material is returned for organic C and nutrient cycling. Maintaining soil organic C (SOC) through harvest strategies that return a portion of the residue is considered vital for maintaining soil productivity [23]. Cadoux et al. [14] stated that long-term high biomass production and harvest of dedicated bioenergy crops must be sustainable with low environmental impacts in order to be viable. Therefore, bioenergy crop production might only be considered sustainable when decreases in SOC and stocks of available nutrients are prevented [22].
Return of harvested residues contributes soil nutrients and SOC. For example, Karlen et al. [24] calculated that return of corn stover on average contributed 29, 3, and 24 kg ha−1 of N, P and K, respectively, to soils. Power et al. [25] found in a ten-year study that a corn-sorghum rotation with residue returned annually added about 10 and 4 kg ha−1of N and P, respectively. Powell and Hons [11] found stover removal adversely affected yields, nutrient uptake and partitioning. But the question remains how much residue must be returned to soil to maintain SOC and its vital functions? Meki et al. [26] in a modeling study of biomass sorghum harvest thresholds in a no-till system concluded that 75% biomass removal would be feasible for maintaining SOC. However, the authors also concluded that 75% biomass removal would likely increase soil bulk density and recommended that the removal threshold should be reduced to 50%. Johnson et al. [27] tried to empirically estimate the minimum residue return rate required to sustain SOC with corn production. Based on published data, they suggested about 6 Mg stover ha−1 yr−1 was needed to maintain SOC levels. Wilhelm et al. [28,29] concluded that residue removal rates must be based on soil productivity, climate, and cultural practices.
In quantifying the effects of residue return or removal on soils, most studies have focused on SOC and N dynamics [30]. Long-term experiments with repeated additions or removal of C sources are preferred for examining SOC changes [30] and have provided insights into SOC dynamics and turnover under a range of agricultural crops and management practices. Clapp et al. [31] examined the complex interactions between stover harvest, N fertilization, and SOC dynamics in a 13-year experiment in Minnesota, and found changes in SOC at 0 to 30 cm depth in response to treatments. Where corn stover was removed, SOC remained nearly unchanged with time, but increased about 14% where stover was returned. These authors also reported that removing stover and adding N fertilizer increased the decomposition of relic, or more resistant, SOC that is critical for maintenance of soil structure and C sequestration. In contrast, returning stover and adding N actually slowed decomposition. Khan et al. [32] also showed that fertilizer N promoted the decomposition of crop residues and soil organic matter, especially in subsurface soil, and suggested that current fertilizer management practices, if combined with corn stover removal for bioenergy production, could exacerbate SOC loss. However, N fertilizer is generally perceived to help sequester SOC by increasing the input of crop residue, and often results in an overall improvement in soil quality and fertility.
In any case, research on returning any amount of harvested biomass to soil based on soil productivity, soil C and N dynamics, or climate and cultural practices, should also consider the reality of economic profitability and feasibility of feedstock production for the bioenergy industry as this sector depends on a consistent volume of delivered biomass feedstock. The estimated cost of biomass from sorghum as a model annual energy crop was higher than for perennial energy crops [6]. Amatya et al. [33] using a stochastic economic simulation model developed and used for bioenergy sorghum suggested that in order for biomass sorghum to be profitable, applying a non-limiting amount of N and harvesting all biomass is essential. However, long-term effects of such a scenario have not currently been quantified. In our experiment, the primary objective was to determine the effects of N fertilization and biomass return on long-term biomass yield and soil quality in a continuous biomass sorghum system.
The experimental site was located at the Texas A&M Agrilife Research Farm, approximately 8 km southwest of College Station, TX (30°3'15ʺ N lat; 96°25ʹ37ʺ W long), which is situated within the Brazos River floodplain in south-central Texas. The soil used was a calcareous (pH 8. 2) Weswood silty clay loam (fine-silty, mixed, superactive, thermic UdifluventicHaplustept), with particle size distribution of 100, 560, and 340 g kg−1 of sand, silt, and clay, respectively, in the top 15 cm of soil. Climate at the site is classified as humid subtropical, with mean annual precipitation of 1017 mm and mean annual temperature of 20°C. Before the start of the bioenergy sorghum study in 2008, the field was in cotton (Gossypiumhirsutum (L. )) in 2007 and had been rotated annually with corn under conventional disk tillage for the previous ten years. Soil nutrient properties at the initiation of the study and detailed field management practices performed were reported by Wight et al. [34]. The study soil initially rated very low for extractable NO3-N, moderate for P, and high for K, Ca and Mg [34].
The experimental design was a randomized complete block with two N rates (0 and 280 kg N ha−1), three levels of residue (biomass) return (0, 25% and 50%), and four replications. An additional nutrient return treatment received 280 kg N ha−1 and complete residue removal at harvest and was also replicated four times. Biomass yield from this treatment was determined each year, and was subsequently analyzed for total concentrations of P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu as described below. The amounts of these elements removed annually were subsequently returned to these treatment plots in inorganic form prior to the next growing season. The study utilized four row plots (1. 02m row centers) measuring 9. 14 m long and 4. 08 m wide. The bioenergy sorghum cultivar used, “4Ever Green, ” was a PS, high-yielding hybrid forage sorghum (Walter Moss Seed Co, Waco, TX). Field management practices were performed as described by Wight et al. [34]. Limited furrow irrigation was used to prevent severe water stress. Treatments receiving N fertilization were side-dressed at approximately the four-leaf stage with subsurface banded granular urea. Sorghum harvest was performed with a silage harvester with an attached weigh-bucket and scale, and usually occurred in September each year. Biomass yield was estimated from the entire length of the middle two rows of each plot, and a random grab sample of chopped residue was captured for determining moisture and nutrient composition. The harvester chopped sorghum biomass into approximately 2 cm by 2 cm pieces. To physically simulate harvest strategies that would return 25% or 50% of the crop residue to help sustain nutrient balance, soil organic matter, and other indicators of soil quality, biomass harvested from the middle one or two rows wa s evenly distributed across the area of the entire plot. All treatments were imposed in 2008 and continued annually through 2014.
Composite soil samples for each depth increment and treatment were collected using three, 3. 8cm diameter soil cores at 0-5, 5-15, 15-30, 30-60, and 60-90 cm taken prior to each growing season in late March or early April from 2009-2014. Samples were oven dried at 60°C for 7 days, ground using a flail grinder and sieved to pass through a 1. 75mm mesh screen. Residual soil inorganic nitrate-N was extracted (10:1 solution:soil) with 1 M KCl solution, reduced to nitrite using a cadmium column, and analyzed using spectrophotometric methods [35]. Extractable soil nutrients including P, K, Ca, Mg and S were extracted using a method adapted from Mehlich [36] and measured by inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy (ICP). A subsample of each composite soil sample was also finely ground with a puck-and-ring grinder and analyzed for organic and inorganic C and total N by combustion[37,38,39] using an Elementar Americas Inc, VarioMAX CN analyzer (Mt. Laurel, NJ, U. S. A. ). Differential heating was used to separate inorganic and organic C. For organic C, the primary furnace was set at 650 °C with a 2 L min−1 O2 flow rate. Total N and C were analyzed with the same instrument at 900 °C [40,41].
Sorghum was planted at a seeding density of 65, 000 seed ha−1in late March or early April each year using a four-row planter (Case IH). The biomass was harvested using a New Holland model 707U forage chopper (New Holland, PA, USA) that resulted in 18. 65 m2 of field area for determination of each plot yield. Approximately 600 g of chopped plant material was taken as a subsample and immediately weighed. Subsamples then were oven dried at 60°C until stable weights were attained.
Dried plant samples were initially ground to pass a 1mm sieve and then powdered in a ring and puck mill prior to total elemental analysis for C and N by combustion [38] using an Elementar Americas, Inc, CNS Analyzer (Mt. Laurel, NJ). Total P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu concentrations were determined after nitric acid digestion [42] using a Spectro Arcos ICP (Kleve, Deutschland). Total accumulation of each element in aerial biomass was calculated as dry yield x total elemental concentration.
Fertilizer N uptake efficiency (FNUE) [11] and N utilization efficiency (NUE) [20] were also determined. To quantify the effect of residue return on FNUE, the amounts of N removed at various residue return rates were used (Table 3). FNUE was calculated for each rate of residue removal using the equation: %FNUE = [(A−B)/C] × 100, where A is total N uptake by above-ground dry biomass receiving fertilizer N, B is the total N uptake by dry biomass with no added N, and C is quantity of added fertilizer N (280 kg N ha−1 year−1). Values are expressed as a percentage of added fertilizer N. Nitrogen utilization efficiency was also calculated following the approach of Hao et al. [20] where: NUE = Biomass yield, kg ha−1/N supply, where N supply is added fertilizer N plus soil NO3-N to 90 cm depth at the start of the growing season. Soil NO3-N content in each depth increment was calculated as NO3-N concentration × soil bulk density which was estimated from measured SOC [43].
The effects of N fertilization, biomass return, and their interactions on biomass yield and plant and soil properties were tested using PROC Mixed in SAS 9.2 [44]. All differences discussed are significant at the P ≤ 0. 05 probability level. A least significant difference (LSD) was calculated if overall treatment significance (P < 0. 05) was established using ANOVA.
Nitrogen fertilization significantly increased sorghum biomass yield (Figure 1), but the rate of increase was influenced by the amount of residue returned to soil. Returning residue had no significant effect on biomass yield when sorghum was not fertilized with N. In fact, even with 50% residue return each year, biomass yield in 2014 was reduced by more than 35% compared to 2009. Cumulative growing season precipitation was similar in 2009 and 2014 through June, but July 2014 was much wetter than normal (Figure 2). Averaged across rates of residue return with no N fertilization, biomass yield reductions were 7%, 39%, and 26% for the 1st, 6th and six-year average, respectively, compared to 2008. Therefore, without N fertilization, returning up to 50% of harvested biomass to soil was not able to maintain biomass production in either the short- or long-term, and yields decreased with time.
Figure 1. Nitrogen and biomass return effects on biomass sorghum yield during 6 years of continuous sorghum cropping. RR represents the percentage of harvested biomass returned, −N is the no N control, +N is 280 kg added N ha−1, and nutrient return received +N along with amounts of P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu removed in biomass. Errors bars represent STDEV.
Figure 2. Monthly and cumulative growing season precipitation for the long-term continuous biomass sorghum study, 2009 to 2014.
With N fertilization and 100% biomass removal, yields increased by 45 and 102% in the 1st and 6th years compared to no N addition, and about 43% for the six-year average. With residue return, yields increased by 1 to 20% depending upon the rate of removal and length of time (Figure 1). Doran et al. [45] in a study with grain sorghum reported that residue return or removal did not affect grain yield. In our experiment, the highest biomass yields were obtained with 25% residue return during the 1st (2009) and 6th (2014) years, averaging approximately 22. 8 and 21. 2 Mg ha−1, respectively. This increase was approximately 15% (19. 8 to 22. 8 Mg ha−1) in 2009 and 16% (18. 2 to 21. 2 Mg ha−1) in 2014 compared to no residue return. The percentage of yield increase with 50% residue return for the 1st and 6th years of cropping ranged from < 1 to 10%, respectively. Averaged for the six years, 25 and 50% residue return increased yield about 20% (15. 9 to 19. 5 Mg ha−1) and 14% (15. 9 to 18. 1 Mg ha−1), respectively, with N fertilization when compared to no residue return (Figure 1).
Nitrogen fertilization appeared to be essential for both short- and long-term biomass sorghum production (Figure 1). Residue return in conjunction with a non-limiting rate of N fertilization may have contributed to higher sorghum yield by improving soil chemical properties via nutrient cycling or physical properties by influencing soil moisture, temperature, and aeration [25,46]. Low to moderate soil nutrient availability was observed in our soil immediately prior to initiation of this study for N and P (Table 1). Residual soil NO3-N was about 60 kg ha−1when summed to 90 cm depth. Low to moderate amounts of nutrients might be rapidly mined by continuous biomass sorghum production, resulting in reduced soil fertility and subsequent crop yield. The average quantity of nutrients removed in biomass over the six-year period that were added back in the nutrient return treatment are shown in Table 2, with K removal far exceeding the other nutrients. The yield response of biomass sorghum to the nutrient return treatment is shown in Figure 1. Dry biomass yields for this treatment were 20. 4, 22. 1, and 19. 1 Mg ha−1for the 1st, 6th, and the six-year average, respectively, which corresponded to 3%, 22%, and 23% greater yield than the treatment receiving N fertilization and no residue or nutrient return. Greater response in following years may have been associated with diminished nutrient availability with continuous biomass sorghum production. However, the extra treatment with increased nutrient applications had comparable yields to the 25% or 50% residue treatments with only N fertilization. For example, in the 6th year (2014), biomass yield for the supplemental nutrient treatment averaged 22. 1 Mg ha−1, while the 25% and 50% residue return treatments averaged 21. 2 and 20. 9 Mg ha−1, respectively. The six-year average biomass yield for the supplemental nutrient treatment was 19. 1 Mg ha−1, while for 25% residue return treatment, yields averaged 20. 1 Mg ha−1. The relatively small difference in biomass yield with N fertilization between supplemental nutrient vs residue return treatments implied that residue return with non-limiting N could potentially replace via nutrient cycling part of the nutrients removed in harvest.
| Soil depth | Soil Nutrient Concentrations | |||||||
| cm | TN* | NO3–N | P | K | Ca | Mg | OC | C:N |
| ___________________mg kg−1___________________ | g kg−1 | |||||||
| 0–5 | 1006 | 7 | 26 | 265 | 6747 | 271 | 9. 5 | 9 |
| 5–15 | 944 | 6 | 26 | 238 | 6336 | 268 | 8. 1 | 8 |
| 15–30 | 782 | 6 | 16 | 184 | 7926 | 271 | 6. 8 | 8 |
| 30–60 | 593 | 5 | 4 | 130 | 12259 | 247 | 4. 9 | 7 |
| 60–90 | 563 | 4 | 4 | 105 | 10565 | 254 | 3. 7 | 7 |
| *TN and OC denote soil total N and organic C, respectively. | ||||||||
DownLoad: CSV| Nutrients Applied (kg ha−1) | |||||||
| P | K | Ca | Mg | Zn | Fe | Cu | Mn |
| 10 | 174 | 50 | 19 | 0. 4 | 3 | 0. 1 | 0. 2 |
DownLoad: CSVWith non-limiting N and complete biomass removal, the average six-year continuous sorghum biomass yield was approximately 16 Mg ha−1, which was about 3 and 2 Mg ha−1 lower than that with 0% residue return in 2009 and 2014, respectively. With residue return, the difference between the six-year average and 2009 and 2014 yields was 6 to 7 Mg ha−1. The significantly lower six-year average yield may be related to variable growing season precipitation during this period. Highest yields were obtained in 2009 and 2014 when above average rainfall was received during sorghum’s active growth period (Figure 2). Several years of moderate to severe drought occurred in the 6 years of this study, but were somewhat moderated by limited irrigation. Hao et al. [20] also reported a positive relationship between increased precipitation and bioenergy sorghum response to N fertilization and observed that the amount and frequency of rainfall significantly impacted biomass sorghum production. These authors found that total biomass accumulation by bioenergy sorghum hybrids grown without irrigation was reduced by 50% or more compared with irrigated controls, depending on the timing, duration, and extent of water deficit. In our experiment, the average growing season precipitation for 2009-2014 did not deviate much from the 30-year average, but did tend to be lower in June and August (Figure 2).
In general, the yields obtained in our experiment were comparable to many of those reported for Texas. Hao et al. [20] reported that biomass yield ranged from 15 to 23 Mg ha−1, from 11 to 18 Mg ha−1, and from 8 to 13 Mg ha−1, respectively, for full and limited irrigation and dryland treatments in the Southern High Plains of Texas. McCollum et al. [47] reported that the yield of PS forage sorghum could reach 24 Mg ha−1at Bushland, TX, while Tamang et al. [16] obtained average dry matter yields of 13 Mg ha−1 for 2008 and 2009 at Lubbock, TX. Other reports from several US sorghum producing regions indicate even higher yields for bioenergy sorghum. Maughan et al. [18] reported a maximum biomass yield of 30. 1 Mg ha−1. Miller and McBee [2] reported a yield of 31. 9 Mg ha−1, while Olson et al. [48] reported dry biomass yields of 40 to 50 Mg ha−1 for first generation sorghum hybrids grown in small irrigated plots and 15 to 25 Mg ha−1 under non-irrigated conditions.
The influence of N fertilization and residue return on biomass nutrient concentration and uptake after 1 and 6 years of treatment is shown in Table 3. Nitrogen, P, and K removal rates in 2009 with no added N averaged across biomass return rates were 113, 15, and 164 kg ha−1, respectively. In 2014 after 6 years of continuous sorghum cropping, the amounts of N, P, and K removal by these same treatments were reduced by 44%, 53% and 25%, respectively. Decreasing available soil N without fertilizer addition resulted in lower nutrient uptake due to reduced biomass yield and N and P concentrations in harvested biomass (Figure 1 and Table 3). With N fertilization, N, P, and K uptake was similar or slightly increased between the 1st and 6th years due to higher yield and/or nutrient concentrations in harvested biomass (Figure 1 and Table 3). For example, N, P, and K removals averaged across all rates of residue return were increased more than two-fold with N fertilization in 2014 compared to no N application (Table 3). The greatest nutrient uptake occurred in treatments producing the highest biomass yield, with the highest yield being achieved with N fertilization and 25% biomass return (Figure 1). With this treatment, N, P, and K contents in biomass were 173, 19, and 318 kg ha−1, respectively, in 2009 and 192, 20, and 344 kg ha−1 in 2014 (Table 3).
| Fertilization | Residue | Nutrient Concentration, g kg-1 and Uptake*, kg ha-1 | |||||
| return | |||||||
| (2009) | (2014) | ||||||
| ________________________ | ________________________ | ||||||
| N | P | K | N | P | K | ||
| -N | 0 | 7. 5 (114)* | 1. 0 (15) | 11. 9 (164) | 7. 3 (63) | 0. 9 (8) | 15. 6 (125) |
| -N | 25 | 8. 0 (121) | 1. 2 (17) | 12. 4 (180) | 7. 0 (62) | 0. 8 (7) | 13. 8 (120) |
| -N | 50 | 7. 7 (105) | 1. 0 (12) | 11. 8 (149) | 7. 1 (65) | 0. 7 (7) | 13. 9 (125) |
| LSD 0. 05 | NS NS | NSNS | NSNS | NSNS | NSNS | NSNS | |
| Average | 7. 7 (113) | 1. 0 (15) | 12. 0 (164) | 7. 1 (63) | 0. 8 (7) | 14. 4 (123) | |
| +N | 0 | 8. 6 (171) | 1. 0 (20) | 11. 8 (233) | 9. 7 (178) | 0. 7 (17) | 11. 6 (211) |
| +N | 25 | 8. 9 (173) | 0. 9 (19) | 14. 4 (318) | 9. 1 (192) | 0. 9 (20) | 14. 2 (344) |
| +N | 50 | 7. 7 (148) | 0. 9 (16) | 11. 7 (223) | 9. 4 (195) | 0. 7 (18) | 12. 9 (274) |
| +N (nutrients) | 0 | 8. 5 (156) | 1. 0 (19) | 13. 8 (253) | 10. 4 (229) | 1. 1 (26) | 16. 5 (365) |
| LSD 0. 05 | NS NS | NSNS | NS56 | NSNS | NSNS | NS79 | |
| Average | 8. 4 (164) | 0. 9 (18) | 12. 6 (258) | 9. 3 (188) | 0. 8 (18) | 12. 9 (276) | |
| *Values in parentheses are nutrient uptake. NS indicates non-significant at P < 0. 05. |
|||||||
DownLoad: CSVFertilizer N uptake efficiency (FNUE) [11] and N utilization efficiency (NUE) [20] were also determined in this experiment. FNUE of biomass sorghum at different residue return rates are presented for the 1st, 6th, and the average for the six study years (Figure 3). FNUE was lowest in 2009, presumably because of higher residual soil N. FNUE in 2009 tended to decrease with increasing residue return, probably because of N immobilization. By 2014, FNUE had increased dramatically for all treatments, but especially those with residue return. FNUE averaged over the 6 years for 0% biomass return was only slightly higher than that recorded in 2009, while the average values for 25% and 50% return were higher than those observed initially. The long-term average FNUE was increased by 36 and 27% with 25 and 50% biomass return compared with complete biomass removal (Figure 3). Similar results were reported for forage sorghum varieties by Powell and Hons [11].
Figure 3. Fertilizer N uptake efficiency and nitrogen utilization efficiency of biomass sorghum as influenced by residue return during 2009 to 2014. Errors bars represent STDEV.
NUE varied little with time within biomass return rate, but tended to be greater with biomass return (Figure 3). Lowest NUE (50 to 56 kg biomass kg N−1) was observed with no residue return, while the highest (63 to 67 kg biomass kg N−1) was achieved with 25% residue return. The NUE values calculated in our experiment were lower than those reported by Hao et al. [20] in their Texas Southern High Plains experiment. They reported NUE values of 78 to 90 kg biomass kg N−1 with total available N of 183 and 148 kg ha−1, and biomass yields of 12 to 18 Mg ha−1.
The effect of residue return under non-limiting N fertilization on soil chemical properties to 90 cm depth for years 2009 and 2014 are shown in Table 4 and 5, respectively. Residue return did not influence soil TN concentrations at any depth increment in 2009 and only at 60-90 cm in 2014, but it significantly affected NO3-N concentration in top soil (0-5 cm) both years, and P, K, and SOC concentrations and the C:N ratio of soil in 2014. Residue returned at 25% significantly increased residual NO3-N concentration in 2009 by more than 50% in the top 5cm of soil (Tables 1 and 4), with this N potentially being available for the next sorghum crop. Increased soil NO3-N at 0-5 cm was also observed with 25% residue return in 2014 after 6 years of sorghum cropping (Table 5). No differences in NO3-N concentrations were observed at other depths. Sindelar et al. [49] reported residual soil NO3-N to a depth of 1.2 m was 16 kg ha−1 greater with corn stover removal and fertilizer addition of 224 kg N ha−1, suggesting slightly different N management may be needed when stover is removed in continuous corn production.
| Residue Return | TN | NO3–N | P | K | Ca | Mg | OC | C:N | |
| ------------------------------mg kg-1--------------------------- | g kg-1 | ||||||||
| 0-5 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 1202 | 5.6 | 25.9 | 325 | 6992 | 320 | 9.5 | 8.2 | |
| 25 | 1230 | 12.4 | 30.1 | 323 | 6674 | 298 | 10.1 | 8.3 | |
| 50 | 1203 | 6. 5 | 26. 3 | 378 | 6769 | 306 | 11.9 | 9.3 | |
| LSD 0.05* | NS | 3.1 | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
| 5-15 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 1076 | 7.1 | 25.4 | 277 | 7933 | 309 | 8.5 | 7.9 | |
| 25 | 1152 | 7.8 | 25.9 | 215 | 7138 | 282 | 7.6 | 6.8 | |
| 50 | 1207 | 5.5 | 22.8 | 222 | 7166 | 279 | 8.6 | 7.2 | |
| LSD 0.05 | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
| 15-30 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 946 | 6.1 | 16.9 | 216 | 9046 | 321 | 7 | 7.5 | |
| 25 | 1068 | 5.2 | 16.6 | 205 | 8790 | 315 | 7.2 | 6.8 | |
| 50 | 933 | 6.7 | 13.1 | 188 | 8501 | 293 | 7.2 | 8.2 | |
| LSD 0.05 | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
| 30-60 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 742 | 4.6 | 4.1 | 149 | 10638 | 274 | 4.8 | 6.6 | |
| 25 | 904 | 3.9 | 5.6 | 198 | 10046 | 317 | 7 | 5.6 | |
| 50 | 790 | 4.8 | 3 | 126 | 11820 | 248 | 5.1 | 6.5 | |
| LSD 0.05 | NS | NS | NS | 45 | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
| 60-90 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 608 | 3.8 | 3.3 | 109 | 13215 | 271 | 3.2 | 5.4 | |
| 25 | 828 | 3.6 | 3.7 | 119 | 10730 | 238 | 4.3 | 5.4 | |
| 50 | 667 | 4 | 2.3 | 106 | 12967 | 271 | 3.9 | 5.9 | |
| LSD 0.05 | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
| *LSD = Least significant difference, NS = not significant, TN = total N, OC = organic C. | |||||||||
| Fertilizer N added at 280 kg N ha-1. | |||||||||
DownLoad: CSV| Residue Return | TN | NO3–N | P | K | Ca | Mg | OC | C:N | |
| ------------------------------mg kg-1--------------------------- | g kg-1 | ||||||||
| 0-5 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 1095 | 4.4 | 24.7 | 226 | 5832 | 244 | 8.9 | 8 | |
| 25 | 1115 | 7.8 | 33 | 312 | 5939 | 263 | 13.1 | 12 | |
| 50 | 1209 | 5.5 | 28 | 314 | 6073 | 291 | 12 | 10 | |
| LSD 0.05* | NS | 1.6 | 4.8 | 78 | NS | NS | 2.6 | 2.2 | |
| 5-15 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 975 | 4.8 | 26.8 | 208 | 6130 | 245 | 7.9 | 8.1 | |
| 25 | 993 | 5.3 | 29 | 243 | 6317 | 264 | 9 | 9 | |
| 50 | 979 | 6.3 | 24 | 239 | 6296 | 256 | 8.7 | 8.9 | |
| LSD 0.05 | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
| 15-30 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 892 | 5.4 | 12.1 | 204 | 7760 | 251 | 7.3 | 8.2 | |
| 25 | 870 | 3.5 | 16 | 189 | 7206 | 249 | 7 | 8 | |
| 50 | 800 | 2.1 | 14 | 177 | 6609 | 220 | 6.6 | 8.2 | |
| LSD 0.05 | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
| 30-60 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 758 | 5.3 | 4.7 | 152 | 10913 | 223 | 5.8 | 7.7 | |
| 25 | 950 | 2.3 | 7 | 237 | 9298 | 304 | 8.5 | 8.9 | |
| 50 | 827 | 3.8 | 4.8 | 158 | 9232 | 232 | 6 | 7.3 | |
| LSD 0.05 | NS | NS | NS | 45 | NS | 79 | NS | NS | |
| 60-90 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 493 | 3.1 | 2.7 | 120 | 12573 | 229 | 4.3 | 8.7 | |
| 25 | 672 | 2 | 4 | 161 | 10431 | 229 | 5.6 | 8.3 | |
| 50 | 618 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 148 | 11056 | 268 | 5.5 | 8.9 | |
| LSD 0.05 | 165 | NS | NS | 38 | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
| *LSD = Least significant difference, NS = not significant. , TN = total N, OC = organic C. | |||||||||
| Fertilizer N added at 280 kg N ha-1. | |||||||||
DownLoad: CSVPhosphorus and K were the other nutrients that increased significantly with residue return in the top 5 cm of soil in 2014 (Table 1 and Table 5). Initial extractable P in near-surface soil was 26 mg kg−1 in 2008, but with 25% residue return increased to 30 and 33 mg kg−1 by 2009 and 2014 (Table 4 and Table 5). Soil K increased significantly in top soil with either 25 or 50% residue return by 2014, with increases also noted at 30-60 and 60-90 cm with 25% residue return (Table 5). Soil Ca and Mg were not significantly affected by residue return, but their overall concentrations appeared to be decreased by continuous cropping with bioenergy sorghum (Table 4 and Table 5).
Organic C in surface soil was influenced by residue return by 2014. With 25% residue return, SOC at 0-5cm depth was about 3. 0 g kg−1, or 30%, greater than in 2009 (Table 4 and Table 5). The SOC increase from the initial year (2008) to 2014 for this treatment and depth was 3. 6 g kg−1, or a 38% increase (Table 1 and Table 5). Soil organic C without residue return tended to decrease in surface soil over time with continuous cropping. Residue return did not affect C:N ratio in any soil depth in 2009, but 25% residue return by 2014 significantly increased C:N in the 0-5 cm depth (Tables 4 and 5). In general, SOC and C:N ratios tended to increase over time with continuous sorghum production.
In the 6 years of this experiment, approximately 75 and 100 Mg biomass ha−1were produced without and with N fertilization (Figure 1), with 0, 25% or 50% of these amounts being returned to soil. Nitrogen fertilization has been reported to either promote or slow the rate of residue decomposition depending on the type and rate of residue returned [31,32]. Returned biomass is a source for recycling nutrients and SOC, and these were the main properties that significantly changed with the treatments imposed in this study. Little difference in these soil properties were noted between 25% and 50% residue return, although values associated with 25% residue return tended to be higher (Table 5).
Soil total N generally increased at all depths with or without N fertilization after 6 years of sorghum cropping compared with samples collected in 2008, but especially with 25% or 50% residue return (Figure 4). Average TN concentrations in long-term (2014) samples compared to 2008 increased up to 250 to 350 mg kg−1 with or without N fertilization, respectively, with the largest increase occurring in lower depths (30-60 cm) (Figure 4). Soil TN in 2008 at 0-5 cm depth was 1006 mg kg−1. After six years of continuous cropping and N fertilization, soil TN at this depth was increased by about 11and 20% with 25 and 50% residue return, respectively. A similar relative change in TN was observed for the 15-30 cm depth, but smaller relative changes were noted for 30 to 90 cm. Soil TN concentrations were increased by 1 to 2% with 0% residue return with or without N fertilization after six years (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Soil total nitrogen (TN) concentration to 90 cm depth as influenced by N fertilization and residue return in a continuous bioenergy sorghum cropping system. Errors bars represent STDEV.
Nitrate, being a readily plant-available form of N generally was decreased at all depths by sorghum cropping, but especially where no fertilizer N was added (Figure 5). The effect of residue return on soil NO3-N concentration at any depth without N fertilization was generally small, possibly because any mineralized N from added biomass was removed by succeeding crops. With N fertilization, residue return tended to increase NO3-N in surface soil, and fertilization tended to increase NO3-N at all depths compared with no added N.
Figure 5. Soil nitrate-nitrogen (NO3–N) concentration to 90 cm depth as influenced by N fertilization and residue return in a continuous bioenergy sorghum cropping system. Errors bars represent STDEV.
Crop residue return has previously been reported to enhance N and P availability [25]. Sorghum can root deeply in soils [4,48] which may allow it to capitalize on nutrients at both shallow and deeper soil depths. Residue return of 25% significantly increased extractable P and K concentrations in the top 5 cm of our study soil, while 50% residue return also increased K at this depth (Figure 6 and Figure 7). Mehlich III P increased from 24 to 33 mg kg−1 and K from 226 to 312 mg kg−1 in N fertilized sorghum with 25% residue return. With 0% residue return, soil K at 0−15 cm was decreased compared to beginning levels. Soil organic C distribution with depth (Figure 8) was similar to that for TN (Figure 4), and increased in almost all soil depth increments compared to initial samples, but especially with N fertilization and residue return. The largest SOC increase was observed in the 0-5 cm depth with residue return and N fertilization (Figure 8). Additional increases were noted at 30-90 cm with or without added N fertilizer. Soil organic C increases below 30 cm were most likely associated with root production since tillage depth was a maximum of 15 cm. Long-term N fertilization increased biomass yield and the amount of C and N added in returned biomass. Nitrogen fertilization has also been reported to increase soil N mineralization and to promote decomposition of residue, thereby also affecting nutrient cycling and SOC [11,31,32].
Figure 6. Soil P concentration to 90 cm depth as influenced by N fertilization and residue return in a continuous bioenergy sorghum cropping system. Errors bars represent STDEV.
Figure 7. Soil K concentration to 90 cm depth as influenced by N fertilization and residue return in a continuous bioenergy sorghum cropping system. Errors bars represent STDEV.
Figure 8. Soil organic carbon concentration to 90 cm depth as influenced by N fertilization and residue return in a continuous bioenergy sorghum cropping system. Errors bars represent STDEV.
The relationship between soil N and SOC is often shown by C:N ratio. After 6 years of continuous bioenergy sorghum production, initial soil C:N ratios generally increased regardless of N fertilizer or residue return treatment (Figure 9). Soil C:N in 2014 samples compared to those from 2008 increased the most at 30-90 cm depth without N fertilization and at 0-5 and 30-90 cm depths with N addition. Increased soil C:N ratio, especially at deeper depths, may also be related primarily with sorghum roots. The returned biomass had an average C:N ratio of 52 and 57 in 2009 and 2014, respectively, with no N fertilization, and a ratio of 45 with N fertilization (data not shown). Higher C:N ratios usually were observed with residue return. Cadoux et al. [14] reported that the C:N ratio of sorghum biomass was lowered by N application. Langdale et al. [50] and Gal et al. [51] showed that SOC and soil C:N decreased with soil depth, but were influenced by different tillage systems and residues returned.
Figure 9. Soil C:N ratios to 90 cm depth as influenced by N fertilization and residue return in a continuous bioenergy sorghum cropping system. Errors bars represent STDEV.
Nitrogen fertilization significantly increased the yield of continuous biomass sorghum and consequently the amount of residue that might be returned. Nitrogen fertilization was required for high biomass sorghum production in both the short- and long-term, but especially over time. Residue (biomass) return from bioenergy sorghum also influenced productivity in both the short-and long-term, with added fertilizer N and 25% residue return resulting in highest biomass yields. Residue return also increased SOC, especially in shallow soil depths. Soil nutrient levels should be monitored over time in bioenergy cropping systems to prevent depletion. Nitrogen fertilization along with a harvest strategy that results in partial biomass return may be necessary for long-term continuous bioenergy sorghum production.
This research was supported by the Texas A&M AgriLife Research Cropping Systems Program and the USDA/NIFA Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (grant #2022-67009-30050).
The authors declare no conflict of interests.
| [1] |
Khan TMY, Atabani AE, Badruddin IA (2014) Recent scenario and technologies to utilize non-edible oils for biodiesel production. Renew Sust Energ Rev 37: 840–851. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2014.05.064
|
| [2] | BP Energy Outlook (2016). BP Energy Outlook 2035, BP PLC. Available from: https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/energy-economics/energy-outlook-2016/bp-energy-outlook-2016. |
| [3] | Selvakumar MJ, Alexis SJ (2016) Renewable fuel production technologies. MEJSR 24: 2502–2509. |
| [4] |
Bhuiya M, Rasul M, Khan M, et al. (2016) Prospects of 2nd generation biodiesel as a sustainable fuel-Part: 1 selection of feedstocks, oil extraction techniques and conversion technologies. Renew Sust Energ Rev 55: 1109–1128. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.04.163
|
| [5] |
Ho DP, Ngo HH, Guo W (2014) A mini review on renewable sources for biofuel. Bioresource Technol 169: 742–749. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2014.07.022
|
| [6] |
Atabani AE, Silitonga AS, Ong HC, et al. (2013) Non-edible vegetable oils: a critical evaluation of oil extraction, fatty acid compositions, biodiesel production, characteristics, engine performance and emissions production. Renew Sust Energ Rev 18: 211–245. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.10.013
|
| [7] |
Knothe G (2010) Biodiesel and renewable diesel: a comparison. Prog Energ Combust 36: 364–373. doi: 10.1016/j.pecs.2009.11.004
|
| [8] | Kannahi M, Arulmozhi R (2013) Production of biodiesel from edible and non-edible oils using rhizopus oryzae and aspergillus niger. Asian J Plant Sci Res 3: 60–64. |
| [9] |
Naik SN, Goud VV, Rout PK, et al. (2010) Production of first and second generation biofuels: a comprehensive review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14: 578–597. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2009.10.003
|
| [10] | Lee RA, Lavoie JM (2013) From first-to third-generation biofuels: challenges of producing a commodity from a biomass of increasing complexity. Animal Front 3: 6–11. |
| [11] |
Moser BR (2009) Biodiesel production, properties, and feedstocks. In Vitro Cell Dev Pl 45: 229–266. doi: 10.1007/s11627-009-9204-z
|
| [12] |
No SY (2011) Inedible vegetable oils and their derivatives for alternative diesel fuels in CI engines: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15: 131–149. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2010.08.012
|
| [13] | Atabani AE, Silitonga AS, Badruddin IA, et al. (2012) A comprehensive review on biodiesel as an alternative energy resource and its characteristics. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16: 2070–2093. |
| [14] |
Balat M (2011) Potential alternatives to edible oils for biodiesel production-a review of current work. Energ Convers Manage 52: 1479–1492. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2010.10.011
|
| [15] | Marchetti JM (2012) A summary of the available technologies for biodiesel production based on a comparison of different feedstock's properties. Process Saf Environ 90: 157–163. |
| [16] |
Patil PD, Deng S (2009) Optimization of biodiesel production from edible and non-edible vegetable oils. Fuel 88: 1302–1306. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2009.01.016
|
| [17] |
Sajjadi B, Raman AAA, Arandiyan H (2016) A comprehensive review on properties of edible and non-edible vegetable oil-based biodiesel: composition, specifications and prediction models. Renew Sust Energ Rev 63: 62–92. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.035
|
| [18] |
Avhad M, Marchetti J (2015) A review on recent advancement in catalytic materials for biodiesel production. Renew Sust Energ Rev 50: 696–718. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.038
|
| [19] |
Ong H, Silitonga A, Masjuki H, et al. (2013) Production and comparative fuel properties of biodiesel from non-edible oils: Jatropha curcas, Sterculia foetida and Ceiba pentandra. Energ Convers Manage 73: 245–255. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2013.04.011
|
| [20] | Shahid EM, Jamal Y (2011) Production of biodiesel: a technical review. Renew Sus Energ Rev 15: 4732–4745. |
| [21] |
Çetinkaya M, Ulusoy Y, Tekìn Y, et al. (2005) Engine and winter road test performances of used cooking oil originated biodiesel. Energ Convers Manage 46: 1279–1291. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2004.06.022
|
| [22] | Atadashi I, Aroua M, Aziz AA (2010) High quality biodiesel and its diesel engine application: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14: 1999–2008. |
| [23] | Ahmad A, Yasin NM, Derek C, et al. (2011) Microalgae as a sustainable energy source for biodiesel production: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15: 584–593. |
| [24] | Lin L, Cunshan Z, Vittayapadung et al. (2011) Opportunities and challenges for biodiesel fuel. Appl Energ 88: 1020–1031. |
| [25] | Tan K, Lee K, Mohamed A (2011) Potential of waste palm cooking oil for catalyst-free biodiesel production. Energy 36: 2085–2088. |
| [26] |
Silitonga A, Atabani A, Mahlia T, et al. (2011) A review on prospect of Jatropha curcas for biodiesel in Indonesia. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15: 3733–3756. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.011
|
| [27] | Juan JC, Kartika DA, Wu TY, et al. (2011) Biodiesel production from jatropha oil by catalytic and non-catalytic approaches: an overview. Bioresource Technol 102: 452–460. |
| [28] |
Lim S, Teong LK (2010) Recent trends, opportunities and challenges of biodiesel in Malaysia: an overview. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14: 938–954. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2009.10.027
|
| [29] |
Kafuku G, Mbarawa M (2010) Biodiesel production from Croton megalocarpus oil and its process optimization. Fuel 89: 2556–2560. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2010.03.039
|
| [30] |
Singh S, Singh D (2010) Biodiesel production through the use of different sources and characterization of oils and their esters as the substitute of diesel: a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14: 200–216. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2009.07.017
|
| [31] | Kibazohi O, Sangwan R (2011) Vegetable oil production potential from Jatropha curcas, Croton megalocarpus, Aleurites moluccana, Moringa oleifera and Pachira glabra: assessment of renewable energy resources for bio-energy production in Africa. Biomass Bioenerg 35: 1352–1356. |
| [32] | Supamathanon N, Wittayakun J, Prayoonpokarach S (2011) Properties of Jatropha seed oil from Northeastern Thailand and its transesterification catalyzed by potassium supported on NaY zeolite. J Ind Eng Chem 17: 182–185. |
| [33] | Thiruvengadaravi K, Nandagopal J, Baskaralingam, et al. (2012) Acid-catalyzed esterification of karanja (Pongamia pinnata) oil with high free fatty acids for biodiesel production. Fuel 98: 1–4. |
| [34] |
Al Awad AS, Selim MY, Zeibak AF, et al. (2014) Jojoba ethyl ester production and properties of ethanol blends. Fuel 124: 73–75. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2014.01.106
|
| [35] | Kumar R, Tiwari P, Garg S (2013) Alkali transesterification of linseed oil for biodiesel production. Fuel 104: 553–560. |
| [36] |
Taufiq YYH, Teo SH, Rashid U, et al. (2014) Transesterification of Jatropha curcas crude oil to biodiesel on calcium lanthanum mixed oxide catalyst: effect of stoichiometric composition. Energ Convers Manage 88: 1290–1296. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2013.12.075
|
| [37] |
Karmakar A, Karmakar S, Mukherjee S (2010) Properties of various plants and animals feedstocks for biodiesel production. Bioresource Technol 101: 7201–7210. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.04.079
|
| [38] | Lee S, Radu S, Ariffin A, et al. (2015) Physico-chemical characterization of oils extracted from noni, spinach, lady's finger, bitter gourd and mustard seeds, and copra. Int J Food Prop 18: 2508–2527. |
| [39] |
Demiral İ, Eryazıcı A, Şensöz S (2012) Bio-oil production from pyrolysis of corncob (Zea mays L.). Biomass Bioenerg 36: 43–49. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.10.045
|
| [40] | Da Porto C, Decorti D, Tubaro F (2012) Fatty acid composition and oxidation stability of hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) seed oil extracted by supercritical carbon dioxide. Ind Crop Prod 36: 401–404. |
| [41] |
Fadhil AB, Abdulahad WS (2014) Transesterification of mustard (Brassica nigra) seed oil with ethanol: purification of the crude ethyl ester with activated carbon produced from de-oiled cake. Energ Convers Manage 77: 495–503. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2013.10.008
|
| [42] |
Mitra P, Ramaswamy HS, Chang KS (2009) Pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima) seed oil extraction using supercritical carbon dioxide and physicochemical properties of the oil. J Food Eng 95: 208–213. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2009.04.033
|
| [43] | Alfawaz MA (2004) Chemical composition and oil characteristics of pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima) seed kernels. Food Sci Agr 2: 5–18. |
| [44] | Duz MZ, Saydut A, Ozturk G (2011) Alkali catalyzed transesterification of safflower seed oil assisted by microwave irradiation. Fuel Process Technol 92: 308–313. |
| [45] | Saydut A, Duz MZ, Kaya C, et al. (2008) Transesterified sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) seed oil as a biodiesel fuel. Bioresource Technol 99: 6656–6660. |
| [46] |
Bergmann J, Tupinambá D, Costa O, et al. (2013) Biodiesel production in Brazil and alternative biomass feedstocks. Renew Sust Energ Rev 21: 411–420. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.12.058
|
| [47] | Phani RC, Chaitanya DR (2014) A study on Sunflower oil quality in different seasons. Afro Asian J Sci Tech 1: 176–177. |
| [48] |
Quampah A, Huang ZR, Wu JG, et al. (2012) Estimation of oil content and fatty acid composition in cottonseed kernel powder using near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. J Am Oil Chem Soc 89: 567–575. doi: 10.1007/s11746-011-1945-2
|
| [49] | Gui MM, Lee K, Bhatia S (2008) Feasibility of edible oil vs. non-edible oil vs. waste edible oil as biodiesel feedstock. Energy 33: 1646 –1653. |
| [50] |
Azam MM, Waris A, Nahar N (2005) Prospects and potential of fatty acid methyl esters of some non-traditional seed oils for use as biodiesel in India. Biomass Bioenerg 29: 293–302. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.05.001
|
| [51] | Balat M, Balat H (2010) Progress in biodiesel processing. Appl Energ 87: 1815–1835. |
| [52] |
Oliveira JFG, Lucena IL, Saboya RMA, et al. (2010) Biodiesel production from waste coconut oil by esterification with ethanol: the effect of water removal by adsorption. Renew Energ 35: 2581–2584. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2010.03.035
|
| [53] |
Li SY, Stuart JD, Li Y, et al. (2010) The feasibility of converting Cannabis sativa L. oil into biodiesel. Bioresource Technol 101: 8457–8460. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2010.05.064
|
| [54] | Ramos MJ, Fernández CM, Casas A, et al. (2009) Influence of fatty acid composition of raw materials on biodiesel properties. Bioresource Technol 100: 261–268. |
| [55] |
Zhang Y, Wong WT, Yung KF (2013) One-step production of biodiesel from rice bran oil catalyzed by chlorosulfonic acid modified zirconia via simultaneous esterification and transesterification. Bioresource Technol 147: 59–64. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2013.07.152
|
| [56] | Mihaela P, Josef R, Monica N, et al. (2013) Perspectives of safflower oil as biodiesel source for South Eastern Europe (comparative study: Safflower, soybean and rapeseed). Fuel 111: 114–119. |
| [57] |
Park YW, Chang PS, Lee J (2010) Application of triacylglycerol and fatty acid analyses to discriminate blended sesame oil with soybean oil. Food Chem 123: 377–383. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.04.049
|
| [58] |
Ghanei R, Moradi G, Taherpour KR, et al. (2011) Variation of physical properties during transesterification of sunflower oil to biodiesel as an approach to predict reaction progress. Fuel Process Technol 92: 1593–1598. doi: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2011.04.003
|
| [59] | Bhuiya M, Rasul M, Khan M, et al. (2016) Prospects of 2nd generation biodiesel as a sustainable fuel-Part 2: properties, performance and emission characteristics. Renew Sust Energ Rev 55: 1129–1146. |
| [60] | Athalye S, Sharma SR, Peretti S, et al. (2013) Producing biodiesel from cottonseed oil using Rhizopus oryzae whole cell biocatalysts: culture media and cultivation period optimization. Energ Sust Dev 17: 331–336. |
| [61] |
Pinzi S, Garcia I, Lopez GF, et al. (2009) The ideal vegetable oil-based biodiesel composition: a review of social, economical and technical implications. Energ Fuel 23: 2325–2341. doi: 10.1021/ef801098a
|
| [62] | Fattah IR, Masjuki H, Liaquat A, et al. (2013) Impact of various biodiesel fuels obtained from edible and non-edible oils on engine exhaust gas and noise emissions. Renew Sust Energ Rev 18: 552–567. |
| [63] | Knothe G, Steidley KR (2005) Kinematic viscosity of biodiesel fuel components and related compounds. Influence of compound structure and comparison to petrodiesel fuel components. Fuel 84: 1059–1065. |
| [64] |
Hincapié G, Mondragón F, López D (2011) Conventional and in situ transesterification of castor seed oil for biodiesel production. Fuel 90: 1618–1623. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2011.01.027
|
| [65] |
Joshi H, Moser BR, Shah SN, et al. (2010) Improvement of fuel properties of cottonseed oil methyl esters with commercial additives. Eur J Lipid Sci Tech 112: 802–809. doi: 10.1002/ejlt.200900291
|
| [66] | Okia C, Kwetegyeka J, Okiror P, et al. (2013) Physico-chemical characteristics and fatty acid profile of desert date kernel oil in Uganda. Afr Crop Sci J 21: 723–734. |
| [67] | Shah SN, Sharma BK, Moser BR, et al. (2010) Preparation and evaluation of jojoba oil methyl esters as biodiesel and as a blend component in ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. Bioenerg Res 3: 214–223. |
| [68] |
Sahoo P, Das L (2009) Process optimization for biodiesel production from Jatropha, Karanja and Polanga oils. Fuel 88: 1588–1594. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2009.02.016
|
| [69] | Demirbas A (2009) Production of biodiesel fuels from linseed oil using methanol and ethanol in non-catalytic SCF conditions. Biomass Bioenerg 33: 113–118. |
| [70] |
Jena PC, Raheman H, Kumar GP, et al. (2010) Biodiesel production from mixture of mahua and simarouba oils with high free fatty acids. Biomass Bioenerg 34: 1108–1116. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.02.019
|
| [71] |
Kafuku G, Mbarawa M (2010) Alkaline catalyzed biodiesel production from Moringa oleifera oil with optimized production parameters. Appl Energ 87: 2561–2565. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.02.026
|
| [72] | Betiku E, Omilakin OR, Ajala SO, et al. (2014) Mathematical modeling and process parameters optimization studies by artificial neural network and response surface methodology: a case of non-edible neem (Azadirachta indica) seed oil biodiesel synthesis. Energy 72: 266–273. |
| [73] | Satyanarayana M, Muraleedharan C ( 2011) A comparative study of vegetable oil methyl esters (biodiesels). Energy 36: 2129–2137. |
| [74] |
Parlak A, Ayhan V, Cesur İ, et al. (2013) Investigation of the effects of steam injection on performance and emissions of a diesel engine fuelled with tobacco seed oil methyl ester. Fuel Process Technol 116: 101–109. doi: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2013.05.006
|
| [75] |
Al Hamamre Z, Yamin J (2014) Parametric study of the alkali catalyzed transesterification of waste frying oil for biodiesel production. Energ Convers Manage 79: 246–254. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2013.12.027
|
| [76] |
Öner C, Altun S (2009) Biodiesel production from inedible animal tallow and an experimental investigation of its use as alternative fuel in a direct injection diesel engine. Appl Energ 86: 2114–2120. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2009.01.005
|
| [77] |
Gürü M, Koca A, Can Ö, et al. (2010) Biodiesel production from waste chicken fat based sources and evaluation with Mg based additive in a diesel engine. Renew Energ 35: 637–643. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2009.08.011
|
| [78] |
Lu J, Nie K, Xie F, et al. (2007) Enzymatic synthesis of fatty acid methyl esters from lard with immobilized Candida sp. Process Biochem 42: 1367–1370. doi: 10.1016/j.procbio.2007.06.004
|
| [79] |
Diaz FW, Riley MR, Zimmt W, et al. (2009) Pretreatment of yellow grease for efficient production of fatty acid methyl esters. Biomass Bioenerg 33: 558–563. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.09.009
|
| [80] |
Adewale P, Dumont MJ, Ngadi M (2015) Recent trends of biodiesel production from animal fat wastes and associated production techniques. Renew Sust Energ Rev 45: 574–588. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.039
|
| [81] |
Banković IIB, Stamenković OS, Veljković VB (2012) Biodiesel production from non-edible plant oils. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16: 3621–3647. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.002
|
| [82] | Jahirul MI, Brown JR, Senadeera W, et al. (2013) Optimisation of bio-oil extraction process from beauty leaf (Calophyllum inophyllum) oil seed as a second generation biodiesel source. Procedia Eng 56: 619–624. |
| [83] |
Achten W, Verchot L, Franken YJ, et al. (2008) Jatropha bio-diesel production and use. Biomass Bioenerg 32: 1063–1084. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.03.003
|
| [84] |
Ramachandran S, Singh SK, Larroche C, et al. (2007) Oil cakes and their biotechnological applications-a review. Bioresource Technol 98: 2000–2009. doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2006.08.002
|
| [85] |
Bhuiya M, Rasul M, Khan MMK, et al. (2015) Optimisation of oil extraction process from Australian native beauty leaf seed (Calophyllum Inophyllum). Energ Procedia 75: 56–61. doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2015.07.137
|
| [86] | Forson F, Oduro E, Hammond DE (2004) Performance of jatropha oil blends in a diesel engine. Renew Energ 29: 1135–1145. |
| [87] | Lokanatham RPRK (2013) Extraction and use of non-edible oils in bio-diesel preparation with performance and emission analysis on C.I. engine. Int J Eng Res Dev 6: 35–45. |
| [88] | Beerens P (2007) Screw-pressing of Jatropha seeds for fuelling purposes in less developed countries. Eindhoven University of Technology Ministerio de Ambiente Energía-MINAE-(2007)"Plan Nacional de Biocombustibles", Costa Rica. Available from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.454.2241&rep=rep1&type=pdf. |
| [89] |
Sayyar S, Abidin ZZ, Yunus R, et al. (2009) Extraction of oil from Jatropha seeds-optimization and kinetics. Am J Appl Sci 6:1390–1395. doi: 10.3844/ajassp.2009.1390.1395
|
| [90] | Banat F, Pal P, Jwaied N, et al. (2013) Extraction of olive oil from olive cake using soxhlet apparatus. Am J Oil Chem Technol 1: 2326–6570. |
| [91] | Mahanta P, Shrivastava A (2004) Technology development of bio-diesel as an energy alternative. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology. Available from: http://www.newagepublishers.com/samplechapter/001305.pdf. |
| [92] |
Khattab RY, Zeitoun MA (2013) Quality evaluation of flaxseed oil obtained by different extraction techniques. LWT Food Sci Techno 53: 338–345. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2013.01.004
|
| [93] |
Sarip MSM, Morad NA, Yamashita Y, et al. (2016) Crude palm oil (CPO) extraction using hot compressed water (HCW). Sep Purif Technol 169: 103–112. doi: 10.1016/j.seppur.2016.06.001
|
| [94] |
Dunford NT, Zhang M (2003) Pressurized solvent extraction of wheat germ oil. Food Res Int 36: 905–909. doi: 10.1016/S0963-9969(03)00099-1
|
| [95] |
Oomah BD, Sitter L (2009) Characteristics of flaxseed hull oil. Food Chem 114: 623–628. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.09.096
|
| [96] |
Rosenthal A, Pyle D, Niranjan K, et al. (2001) Combined effect of operational variables and enzyme activity on aqueous enzymatic extraction of oil and protein from soybean. Enzyme Microb Tech 28: 499–509. doi: 10.1016/S0141-0229(00)00351-3
|
| [97] | Shah S, Sharma A, Gupta M (2005) Extraction of oil from Jatropha curcas L. seed kernels by combination of ultrasonication and aqueous enzymatic oil extraction. Bioresource Technol 96: 121–123. |
| [98] |
Augustus G, Jayabalan M, Seiler G (2002) Evaluation and bioinduction of energy components of Jatropha curcas. Biomass Bioenerg 23: 161–164. doi: 10.1016/S0961-9534(02)00044-2
|
| [99] | Shah S, Sharma A, Gupta M (2004) Extraction of oil from Jatropha curcas L. seed kernels by enzyme assisted three phase partitioning. Ind Crop Prod 20: 275–279. |
| [100] | Akanda MJH, Sarker MZI, Ferdosh S, et al. (2012) Applications of supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) of palm oil and oil from natural sources. Molecules 17: 1764–1794. |
| [101] | Maran JP, Priya B (2015) Supercritical fluid extraction of oil from muskmelon (Cucumis melo) seeds. J Taiwan Inst Chem E 47: 71–78. |
| [102] |
Rubio RN, Sara M, Beltrán S, et al. (2008) Supercritical fluid extraction of the omega-3 rich oil contained in hake (Merluccius capensis-Merluccius paradoxus) by-products: study of the influence of process parameters on the extraction yield and oil quality. J Supercrit Fluid 47: 215–226. doi: 10.1016/j.supflu.2008.07.007
|
| [103] | Rubio RN, Sara M, Beltrán S, et al. (2012) Supercritical fluid extraction of fish oil from fish by-products: a comparison with other extraction methods. J Food Eng 109: 238–248. |
| [104] |
Hao JY, Han W, Xue BY, et al. (2002) Microwave-assisted extraction of artemisinin from Artemisia annua L. Sep Purif Technol 28: 191–196. doi: 10.1016/S1383-5866(02)00043-6
|
| [105] | Cardoso UGA, Juárez BGP, SosaMorales ME, et al. (2013) Microwave-assisted extraction of essential oils from herbs. J Microwave Power E E 47: 63–72. |
| [106] | Jiao J, Li ZG, Gai QY, et al. (2014) Microwave-assisted aqueous enzymatic extraction of oil from pumpkin seeds and evaluation of its physicochemical properties, fatty acid compositions and antioxidant activities. Food Chem 147: 17–24. |
| [107] |
Kanitkar A, Sabliov C, Balasubramanian S, et al. (2011) Microwave-assisted extraction of soybean and rice bran oil: yield and extraction kinetics. T Asabe 54: 1387–1394. doi: 10.13031/2013.39007
|
| [108] | Ali M, Watson IA (2014) Comparison of oil extraction methods, energy analysis and biodiesel production from flax seeds. Int J Energ Res 38: 614–625. |
| [109] |
Conte R, Gullich LM, Bilibio D, et al. (2016) Pressurized liquid extraction and chemical characterization of safflower oil: a comparison between methods. Food Chem 213: 425–430. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.06.111
|
| [110] | Teng H, Chen L, Huang Q, et al. (2016) Ultrasonic-assisted extraction of raspberry seed oil and evaluation of its physicochemical properties, fatty acid compositions and antioxidant activities. Plos One 11: In press. |
| [111] | Boey PL, Ganesan S, Maniam GP, et al. (2011) Ultrasound aided in situ trasnesterification of crude palm oil adsorbed on spent bleachin clay. Energ Convers Manage 52: 2081–2084. |
| [112] |
Jamil F, Ala'a H, Al Haj L, et al. (2016) Optimization of oil extraction from waste "Date pits" for biodiesel production. Energ Convers Manage 117: 264–272. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2016.03.025
|
| [113] | Elkhaleefa A, Shigidi I (2015) Optimization of sesame oil extraction process conditions. Adv Chem Eng Sci 5: 305. |
| [114] | Yahaya S, Giwa SO, Ibrahim M, et al. (2016) Extraction of oil from Jatropha seed kernels: optimization and characterization. Int J Chem Tech Res 9: 758–770. |
| [115] |
Bhutada PR, Jadhav AJ, Pinjari DV, et al. (2016) Solvent assisted extraction of oil from Moringa oleifera Lam. seeds. Ind Crop Prod 82: 74–80. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.12.004
|
| [116] | Sagwan S, Rao D, Sharma R (2016) Comparative physical properties of karanj seed oil by using different organic solvents: an environmental viable fuel. Int J Adv Biotechnol Res 1: 540–544. |
| [117] | Kumar NB, Math MC (2016) Application of response surface methodology for optimization of biodiesel production by transesterification of animal fat with methanol. Int J Renew Energ Res 6: 74–79. |
| [118] | Chakraborty R, Sahu H (2014) Intensification of biodiesel production from waste goat tallow using infrared radiation: process evaluation through response surface methodology and artificial neural network. Appl Energ 114: 827–836. |
| [119] | Nuhu S, Kovo A (2015) Production and characterization of biodiesel from chicken fat. Scholarly J Agr Sci 5: 22–29. |
| [120] |
Barreiro DL, Prins W, Ronsse F, et al. (2013) Hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) of microalgae for biofuel production: state of the art review and future prospects. Biomass Bioenerg 53: 113–127. doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2012.12.029
|
| [121] | Martinez GE, Gude VG (2016) Energy aspects of microalgal biodiesel production. AIMS Energ 4: 347–362. |
| [122] | Misau IM, Mohammed UA, Ahmed SI (2016) Optimization of reaction condition for biodiesel production from microalgae. J Sci Res Stud 3: 1–5. |
| [123] |
Gülyurt MÖ, Özçimen D, İnan B (2016) Biodiesel production from Chlorella protothecoides oil by microwave-assisted transesterification. Int J Mol Sci 17: 579. doi: 10.3390/ijms17040579
|
| [124] | Rajendran R, Kanimozhi B, Prabhavathi P, et al. (2015) A method of central composite design (CCD) for optimization of biodiesel production from Chlorella vulgaris. J Petrol Environ Eng 6: In press. |
| 1. | Mashapa E. Malobane, Adornis D. Nciizah, Isaiah I. C. Wakindiki, Fhatuwani N. Mudau, Sustainable production of sweet sorghum for biofuel production through conservation agriculture in South Africa, 2018, 7, 20483694, e00129, 10.1002/fes3.129 | |
| 2. | Hamid Shahandeh, Frank M. Hons, Joseph O. Storlien, Jason P. Wight, Long-term bioenergy sorghum harvest strategy and soil quality, 2016, 4, 2333-8334, 633, 10.3934/energy.2016.4.633 | |
| 3. | Zan Wang, Joshua L. Heitman, T. Jot Smyth, Carl R. Crozier, Alan Franzluebbers, Sage Lee, J. Ronald, Soil Responses to Bioenergy Crop Production in the North Carolina Piedmont, 2017, 109, 00021962, 1368, 10.2134/agronj2017.02.0068 | |
| 4. | Simeon Olatayo Jekayinfa, Joseph Ifeolu Orisaleye, Ralf Pecenka, An Assessment of Potential Resources for Biomass Energy in Nigeria, 2020, 9, 2079-9276, 92, 10.3390/resources9080092 | |
| 5. | Mahmoud F. Seleiman, Nasser Al-Suhaibani, Salah El-Hendawy, Kamel Abdella, Majed Alotaibi, Ali Alderfasi, Impacts of Long- and Short-Term of Irrigation with Treated Wastewater and Synthetic Fertilizers on the Growth, Biomass, Heavy Metal Content, and Energy Traits of Three Potential Bioenergy Crops in Arid Regions, 2021, 14, 1996-1073, 3037, 10.3390/en14113037 |
Yadessa Gonfa Keneni, Jorge Mario Marchetti. Oil extraction from plant seeds for biodiesel production[J]. AIMS Energy, 2017, 5(2): 316-340. doi: 10.3934/energy.2017.2.316
| Soil depth | Soil Nutrient Concentrations | |||||||
| cm | TN* | NO3–N | P | K | Ca | Mg | OC | C:N |
| ___________________mg kg−1___________________ | g kg−1 | |||||||
| 0–5 | 1006 | 7 | 26 | 265 | 6747 | 271 | 9. 5 | 9 |
| 5–15 | 944 | 6 | 26 | 238 | 6336 | 268 | 8. 1 | 8 |
| 15–30 | 782 | 6 | 16 | 184 | 7926 | 271 | 6. 8 | 8 |
| 30–60 | 593 | 5 | 4 | 130 | 12259 | 247 | 4. 9 | 7 |
| 60–90 | 563 | 4 | 4 | 105 | 10565 | 254 | 3. 7 | 7 |
| *TN and OC denote soil total N and organic C, respectively. | ||||||||
DownLoad: CSV| Nutrients Applied (kg ha−1) | |||||||
| P | K | Ca | Mg | Zn | Fe | Cu | Mn |
| 10 | 174 | 50 | 19 | 0. 4 | 3 | 0. 1 | 0. 2 |
DownLoad: CSV| Fertilization | Residue | Nutrient Concentration, g kg-1 and Uptake*, kg ha-1 | |||||
| return | |||||||
| (2009) | (2014) | ||||||
| ________________________ | ________________________ | ||||||
| N | P | K | N | P | K | ||
| -N | 0 | 7. 5 (114)* | 1. 0 (15) | 11. 9 (164) | 7. 3 (63) | 0. 9 (8) | 15. 6 (125) |
| -N | 25 | 8. 0 (121) | 1. 2 (17) | 12. 4 (180) | 7. 0 (62) | 0. 8 (7) | 13. 8 (120) |
| -N | 50 | 7. 7 (105) | 1. 0 (12) | 11. 8 (149) | 7. 1 (65) | 0. 7 (7) | 13. 9 (125) |
| LSD 0. 05 | NS NS | NSNS | NSNS | NSNS | NSNS | NSNS | |
| Average | 7. 7 (113) | 1. 0 (15) | 12. 0 (164) | 7. 1 (63) | 0. 8 (7) | 14. 4 (123) | |
| +N | 0 | 8. 6 (171) | 1. 0 (20) | 11. 8 (233) | 9. 7 (178) | 0. 7 (17) | 11. 6 (211) |
| +N | 25 | 8. 9 (173) | 0. 9 (19) | 14. 4 (318) | 9. 1 (192) | 0. 9 (20) | 14. 2 (344) |
| +N | 50 | 7. 7 (148) | 0. 9 (16) | 11. 7 (223) | 9. 4 (195) | 0. 7 (18) | 12. 9 (274) |
| +N (nutrients) | 0 | 8. 5 (156) | 1. 0 (19) | 13. 8 (253) | 10. 4 (229) | 1. 1 (26) | 16. 5 (365) |
| LSD 0. 05 | NS NS | NSNS | NS56 | NSNS | NSNS | NS79 | |
| Average | 8. 4 (164) | 0. 9 (18) | 12. 6 (258) | 9. 3 (188) | 0. 8 (18) | 12. 9 (276) | |
| *Values in parentheses are nutrient uptake. NS indicates non-significant at P < 0. 05. |
|||||||
DownLoad: CSV| Residue Return | TN | NO3–N | P | K | Ca | Mg | OC | C:N | |
| ------------------------------mg kg-1--------------------------- | g kg-1 | ||||||||
| 0-5 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 1202 | 5.6 | 25.9 | 325 | 6992 | 320 | 9.5 | 8.2 | |
| 25 | 1230 | 12.4 | 30.1 | 323 | 6674 | 298 | 10.1 | 8.3 | |
| 50 | 1203 | 6. 5 | 26. 3 | 378 | 6769 | 306 | 11.9 | 9.3 | |
| LSD 0.05* | NS | 3.1 | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
| 5-15 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 1076 | 7.1 | 25.4 | 277 | 7933 | 309 | 8.5 | 7.9 | |
| 25 | 1152 | 7.8 | 25.9 | 215 | 7138 | 282 | 7.6 | 6.8 | |
| 50 | 1207 | 5.5 | 22.8 | 222 | 7166 | 279 | 8.6 | 7.2 | |
| LSD 0.05 | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
| 15-30 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 946 | 6.1 | 16.9 | 216 | 9046 | 321 | 7 | 7.5 | |
| 25 | 1068 | 5.2 | 16.6 | 205 | 8790 | 315 | 7.2 | 6.8 | |
| 50 | 933 | 6.7 | 13.1 | 188 | 8501 | 293 | 7.2 | 8.2 | |
| LSD 0.05 | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
| 30-60 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 742 | 4.6 | 4.1 | 149 | 10638 | 274 | 4.8 | 6.6 | |
| 25 | 904 | 3.9 | 5.6 | 198 | 10046 | 317 | 7 | 5.6 | |
| 50 | 790 | 4.8 | 3 | 126 | 11820 | 248 | 5.1 | 6.5 | |
| LSD 0.05 | NS | NS | NS | 45 | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
| 60-90 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 608 | 3.8 | 3.3 | 109 | 13215 | 271 | 3.2 | 5.4 | |
| 25 | 828 | 3.6 | 3.7 | 119 | 10730 | 238 | 4.3 | 5.4 | |
| 50 | 667 | 4 | 2.3 | 106 | 12967 | 271 | 3.9 | 5.9 | |
| LSD 0.05 | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
| *LSD = Least significant difference, NS = not significant, TN = total N, OC = organic C. | |||||||||
| Fertilizer N added at 280 kg N ha-1. | |||||||||
DownLoad: CSV| Residue Return | TN | NO3–N | P | K | Ca | Mg | OC | C:N | |
| ------------------------------mg kg-1--------------------------- | g kg-1 | ||||||||
| 0-5 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 1095 | 4.4 | 24.7 | 226 | 5832 | 244 | 8.9 | 8 | |
| 25 | 1115 | 7.8 | 33 | 312 | 5939 | 263 | 13.1 | 12 | |
| 50 | 1209 | 5.5 | 28 | 314 | 6073 | 291 | 12 | 10 | |
| LSD 0.05* | NS | 1.6 | 4.8 | 78 | NS | NS | 2.6 | 2.2 | |
| 5-15 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 975 | 4.8 | 26.8 | 208 | 6130 | 245 | 7.9 | 8.1 | |
| 25 | 993 | 5.3 | 29 | 243 | 6317 | 264 | 9 | 9 | |
| 50 | 979 | 6.3 | 24 | 239 | 6296 | 256 | 8.7 | 8.9 | |
| LSD 0.05 | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
| 15-30 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 892 | 5.4 | 12.1 | 204 | 7760 | 251 | 7.3 | 8.2 | |
| 25 | 870 | 3.5 | 16 | 189 | 7206 | 249 | 7 | 8 | |
| 50 | 800 | 2.1 | 14 | 177 | 6609 | 220 | 6.6 | 8.2 | |
| LSD 0.05 | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
| 30-60 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 758 | 5.3 | 4.7 | 152 | 10913 | 223 | 5.8 | 7.7 | |
| 25 | 950 | 2.3 | 7 | 237 | 9298 | 304 | 8.5 | 8.9 | |
| 50 | 827 | 3.8 | 4.8 | 158 | 9232 | 232 | 6 | 7.3 | |
| LSD 0.05 | NS | NS | NS | 45 | NS | 79 | NS | NS | |
| 60-90 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 493 | 3.1 | 2.7 | 120 | 12573 | 229 | 4.3 | 8.7 | |
| 25 | 672 | 2 | 4 | 161 | 10431 | 229 | 5.6 | 8.3 | |
| 50 | 618 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 148 | 11056 | 268 | 5.5 | 8.9 | |
| LSD 0.05 | 165 | NS | NS | 38 | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
| *LSD = Least significant difference, NS = not significant. , TN = total N, OC = organic C. | |||||||||
| Fertilizer N added at 280 kg N ha-1. | |||||||||
DownLoad: CSV| Soil depth | Soil Nutrient Concentrations | |||||||
| cm | TN* | NO3–N | P | K | Ca | Mg | OC | C:N |
| ___________________mg kg−1___________________ | g kg−1 | |||||||
| 0–5 | 1006 | 7 | 26 | 265 | 6747 | 271 | 9. 5 | 9 |
| 5–15 | 944 | 6 | 26 | 238 | 6336 | 268 | 8. 1 | 8 |
| 15–30 | 782 | 6 | 16 | 184 | 7926 | 271 | 6. 8 | 8 |
| 30–60 | 593 | 5 | 4 | 130 | 12259 | 247 | 4. 9 | 7 |
| 60–90 | 563 | 4 | 4 | 105 | 10565 | 254 | 3. 7 | 7 |
| *TN and OC denote soil total N and organic C, respectively. | ||||||||
| Nutrients Applied (kg ha−1) | |||||||
| P | K | Ca | Mg | Zn | Fe | Cu | Mn |
| 10 | 174 | 50 | 19 | 0. 4 | 3 | 0. 1 | 0. 2 |
| Fertilization | Residue | Nutrient Concentration, g kg-1 and Uptake*, kg ha-1 | |||||
| return | |||||||
| (2009) | (2014) | ||||||
| ________________________ | ________________________ | ||||||
| N | P | K | N | P | K | ||
| -N | 0 | 7. 5 (114)* | 1. 0 (15) | 11. 9 (164) | 7. 3 (63) | 0. 9 (8) | 15. 6 (125) |
| -N | 25 | 8. 0 (121) | 1. 2 (17) | 12. 4 (180) | 7. 0 (62) | 0. 8 (7) | 13. 8 (120) |
| -N | 50 | 7. 7 (105) | 1. 0 (12) | 11. 8 (149) | 7. 1 (65) | 0. 7 (7) | 13. 9 (125) |
| LSD 0. 05 | NS NS | NSNS | NSNS | NSNS | NSNS | NSNS | |
| Average | 7. 7 (113) | 1. 0 (15) | 12. 0 (164) | 7. 1 (63) | 0. 8 (7) | 14. 4 (123) | |
| +N | 0 | 8. 6 (171) | 1. 0 (20) | 11. 8 (233) | 9. 7 (178) | 0. 7 (17) | 11. 6 (211) |
| +N | 25 | 8. 9 (173) | 0. 9 (19) | 14. 4 (318) | 9. 1 (192) | 0. 9 (20) | 14. 2 (344) |
| +N | 50 | 7. 7 (148) | 0. 9 (16) | 11. 7 (223) | 9. 4 (195) | 0. 7 (18) | 12. 9 (274) |
| +N (nutrients) | 0 | 8. 5 (156) | 1. 0 (19) | 13. 8 (253) | 10. 4 (229) | 1. 1 (26) | 16. 5 (365) |
| LSD 0. 05 | NS NS | NSNS | NS56 | NSNS | NSNS | NS79 | |
| Average | 8. 4 (164) | 0. 9 (18) | 12. 6 (258) | 9. 3 (188) | 0. 8 (18) | 12. 9 (276) | |
| *Values in parentheses are nutrient uptake. NS indicates non-significant at P < 0. 05. |
|||||||
| Residue Return | TN | NO3–N | P | K | Ca | Mg | OC | C:N | |
| ------------------------------mg kg-1--------------------------- | g kg-1 | ||||||||
| 0-5 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 1202 | 5.6 | 25.9 | 325 | 6992 | 320 | 9.5 | 8.2 | |
| 25 | 1230 | 12.4 | 30.1 | 323 | 6674 | 298 | 10.1 | 8.3 | |
| 50 | 1203 | 6. 5 | 26. 3 | 378 | 6769 | 306 | 11.9 | 9.3 | |
| LSD 0.05* | NS | 3.1 | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
| 5-15 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 1076 | 7.1 | 25.4 | 277 | 7933 | 309 | 8.5 | 7.9 | |
| 25 | 1152 | 7.8 | 25.9 | 215 | 7138 | 282 | 7.6 | 6.8 | |
| 50 | 1207 | 5.5 | 22.8 | 222 | 7166 | 279 | 8.6 | 7.2 | |
| LSD 0.05 | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
| 15-30 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 946 | 6.1 | 16.9 | 216 | 9046 | 321 | 7 | 7.5 | |
| 25 | 1068 | 5.2 | 16.6 | 205 | 8790 | 315 | 7.2 | 6.8 | |
| 50 | 933 | 6.7 | 13.1 | 188 | 8501 | 293 | 7.2 | 8.2 | |
| LSD 0.05 | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
| 30-60 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 742 | 4.6 | 4.1 | 149 | 10638 | 274 | 4.8 | 6.6 | |
| 25 | 904 | 3.9 | 5.6 | 198 | 10046 | 317 | 7 | 5.6 | |
| 50 | 790 | 4.8 | 3 | 126 | 11820 | 248 | 5.1 | 6.5 | |
| LSD 0.05 | NS | NS | NS | 45 | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
| 60-90 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 608 | 3.8 | 3.3 | 109 | 13215 | 271 | 3.2 | 5.4 | |
| 25 | 828 | 3.6 | 3.7 | 119 | 10730 | 238 | 4.3 | 5.4 | |
| 50 | 667 | 4 | 2.3 | 106 | 12967 | 271 | 3.9 | 5.9 | |
| LSD 0.05 | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
| *LSD = Least significant difference, NS = not significant, TN = total N, OC = organic C. | |||||||||
| Fertilizer N added at 280 kg N ha-1. | |||||||||
| Residue Return | TN | NO3–N | P | K | Ca | Mg | OC | C:N | |
| ------------------------------mg kg-1--------------------------- | g kg-1 | ||||||||
| 0-5 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 1095 | 4.4 | 24.7 | 226 | 5832 | 244 | 8.9 | 8 | |
| 25 | 1115 | 7.8 | 33 | 312 | 5939 | 263 | 13.1 | 12 | |
| 50 | 1209 | 5.5 | 28 | 314 | 6073 | 291 | 12 | 10 | |
| LSD 0.05* | NS | 1.6 | 4.8 | 78 | NS | NS | 2.6 | 2.2 | |
| 5-15 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 975 | 4.8 | 26.8 | 208 | 6130 | 245 | 7.9 | 8.1 | |
| 25 | 993 | 5.3 | 29 | 243 | 6317 | 264 | 9 | 9 | |
| 50 | 979 | 6.3 | 24 | 239 | 6296 | 256 | 8.7 | 8.9 | |
| LSD 0.05 | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
| 15-30 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 892 | 5.4 | 12.1 | 204 | 7760 | 251 | 7.3 | 8.2 | |
| 25 | 870 | 3.5 | 16 | 189 | 7206 | 249 | 7 | 8 | |
| 50 | 800 | 2.1 | 14 | 177 | 6609 | 220 | 6.6 | 8.2 | |
| LSD 0.05 | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
| 30-60 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 758 | 5.3 | 4.7 | 152 | 10913 | 223 | 5.8 | 7.7 | |
| 25 | 950 | 2.3 | 7 | 237 | 9298 | 304 | 8.5 | 8.9 | |
| 50 | 827 | 3.8 | 4.8 | 158 | 9232 | 232 | 6 | 7.3 | |
| LSD 0.05 | NS | NS | NS | 45 | NS | 79 | NS | NS | |
| 60-90 cm depth | |||||||||
| 0 | 493 | 3.1 | 2.7 | 120 | 12573 | 229 | 4.3 | 8.7 | |
| 25 | 672 | 2 | 4 | 161 | 10431 | 229 | 5.6 | 8.3 | |
| 50 | 618 | 3.5 | 3.4 | 148 | 11056 | 268 | 5.5 | 8.9 | |
| LSD 0.05 | 165 | NS | NS | 38 | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
| *LSD = Least significant difference, NS = not significant. , TN = total N, OC = organic C. | |||||||||
| Fertilizer N added at 280 kg N ha-1. | |||||||||
