Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Oct 30;19(10):e0307487. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307487

Dynamics of major plant nutrients and enzymatic activities in soil influenced by application of biochar and organic waste

M L Dotaniya 1,*, M D Meena 1,*, R L Choudhary 1, M K Meena 1, V D Meena 1, Harvir Singh 1, Brij Lal Lakaria 2, R S Jat 1, P K Rai 1, Kuldeep Kumar 3, R K Doutaniya 4, Harpreet Singh 5
Editor: Paulo H Pagliari6
PMCID: PMC11524486  PMID: 39475937

Abstract

The concentration of salt ions influences the availability and plant nutrients dynamics in the soil. Proper management of these ions can enhance food grain production, helping to feed the growing population. In this experiment, nine fertility combinations were followed to enhance the soil organic carbon and reduce the salt toxicity and monitor the plant nutrient availability. An incubation experiment was conducted for the period of one year with different organic soil amendments in combinations including biochar (BC), pressmud (PM), and farm yard manure (FYM) as follow: T1-control, T2-RDF, T3-FYM (10 t/ha), T4-PM (10 t/ha), T5-BC (10 t/ha), T6-FYM (5 t/ha) + PM (5 t/ha), T7-FYM (5 t/ha) + BC (5 t/ha), T8-PM (5 t/ha) + BC (5 t/ha), T9-FYM (5 t/ha) + BC (2.5 t/ha) + PM (2.5 t/ha). Results showed that addition of organic substance (10 t/ha) significantly (p < 0.05) affected soil pH and electric conductivity. Plant nutrient availability (N, K, and S) was also influenced by application of organic substance (10 t/ha). Organic C and available N were recorded the highest in the treatment T7 (FYM—5 t/ha + BC -5 t/ha); whereas, the highest available K and S were observed in treatment T5 (BC-10 t/ha). The microbial soil fertility indicators (alkaline phosphatases, arylsulphatase, dehydrogenase activity and microbial biomass carbon) were measured the highest in FYM (5 t/ha) + BC (5 t/ha) applied treatment. In conclusion, application of organic substance 10 t/ha (biochar alone or with FYM) improved the plant nutrient availability and soil microbial activities in saline soil. It could be a suitable option for enhancing the soil fertility in saline soils.

1. Introduction

The population of developing countries is increasing with time and require huge amount of food stuffs. By the year of 2050, Indian population (1.74 billion) will require approximately 350 million tonnes (mt) of food grains [1]. Indian soils are having low to medium range of soil organic carbon (SOC) and greatly influence the nutrient use efficiency and enhance the benefit: cost ratio in most of the cropping systems [2]. The addition of organic substances is the key to enhancing SOC. This can be achieved by applying crop residues, vermicompost, green manure, municipal solid waste and FYM [3,4]. The availability of FYM is going down and farmers are mostly using straight or complex fertilizers for crop production [5]. It leads to poor crop yield and declining trend of soil fertility parameters over a period [6,7]. However, farmers are also using the pressmud (PM) (a byproduct of sugar industry) in sugarcane growing areas. It is having significant amount of carbon (C) and plant nutrients. In India, annually 11.4 mt of PM is available for its potential use [8]. It improves the SOC status and plant nutrient dynamics in most of the soils [9]. To improve soil health parameters and crop yield in soils with poor health, low soil SOC, poor fertility, excessive salt, metal toxicity, and ravine soils, it is necessary to apply organic matter [10,11]. The organic substances improve the soil microbial population and diversity, leads the better mineralization of soil organic matter (SOM), release different type of organic acids enhance the solubilization of many nutrients in soil [12,13].

Biochar is becoming increasingly popular for enhancing soil fertility and crop production. As a carbon source produced through slow pyrolysis, its physico-chemical properties are significantly influenced by the nature of the organic materials used, the temperature of the process, and the oxygen supply during production. Lehmann and Joseph [14] pointed out that application of biochar improved the soil fertility parameters, moisture content, plant nutrient availability, soil microbial biomass count and diversity. Biochar operates on the principle of adsorption kinetics, absorbing plant nutrients from the soil and making them easily available to plant roots. These adsorption processes are also crucial for the remediation of pollutants from soil and water systems [15]. Apart from this, increasing the climatic change parameters mainly an atmospheric temperature leads the efficiency of the natural resources and minimizes the crop yield potential over a period. Incorporation of biochar enhanced the C sequestration potential of soil to combat the climate change effect [16]. Biochar is a potential source of plant nutrients, energy, solution to climate change, and popular for carbon negative energy production [17]. Saline soils have limitations due to excessive salt, which reduces water and nutrient uptake in most crops. Applying biochar at a rate of 5–10 g/kg has been shown to improve soil nutritional status, cation exchange capacity, and nutrient storage capacity, while also reducing soil acidity in Gleysols [18]. It has also improved the macro and micronutrients status in soils and reduced greenhouse gases emissions from soils [19].

The assessment of organic substances amended soil condition is effectively gauged through enzyme activity, making it a prime metric. Mandal et al. [20] reported that FYM and poultry manure along with the chemical fertilizers improved the soil organic C, plant nutrient status in soils. While microorganisms predominantly contribute to the production of enzymes in soil, it’s noteworthy that plant roots and soil-dwelling animals can also contribute to the release of these enzymatic compounds [21]. Soil enzymes can detect changes in soil management practices well before other indicators of soil quality. These enzymes, crucial for decomposing organic materials and facilitating nutrient cycling, show significant responses to changes in soil conditions. Implementing soil management practices and introducing organic amendments enhance soil organic matter, which in turn elevates enzyme activity. Specifically, the carbon-to-sulphur ratio in the soil is modulated by the introduction of organic sources, which boosts the activity of arylsulphatase. Arylsulphatase serves as an indicator of sulphur (S) levels in the soil, showing a direct correlation with labile S in the soil solution, as evidenced by research [22].

Soil enzymes expedite the decomposition of plant residues, releasing nutrients that become readily available to plants. Consequently, the cumulative microbial activity over an extended period, along with the viability of the microbial population at the time of sampling, is referred to as enzyme activity. Dehydrogenase (DHA), a crucial intracellular enzyme of microbes, plays a vital role in governing the transfer of electrons from organic substances to inorganic acceptors. Consequently, it has a significant impact on the breakdown of organic matter within soil, as highlighted by Wolińnska and Stępniewska [23]. The quantification of soil microbial biomass carbon (MBC), proposed as an indicator of soil stress and disturbance by Hernández et al. [24], holds significant importance in soil ecology research. Microbial activity, through the recycling of nutrients and energy, plays a vital role in indirectly contributing to ecosystem function. However, unfavorable anthropogenic effects can induce stress conditions, leading to abnormal alterations in microbial diversity and the biologically active components of soil organic matter. These changes encompass variations in microbial biomass, enzymes, and various organic compounds, such as proteins or carbohydrates [25].

In this backdrop, a hypothesis was formulated to measure the plant nutrient content and soil enzymatic activities in saline soil mediated through organic substances addition (biochar, PM and FYM).

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Location

The experiment was carried out at the ICAR-Directorate of Rapeseed-Mustard Research, Bharatpur. It is located 77.300°E longitude and 27.150°N latitude with above mean see level of 178.37 meter. The summer months of Bharatpur are quite hot, with maximum temperature ranging 38°C to 45°C from March to June. During winters, temperature ranges from a maximum of 23°C to a minimum of 7°C in the month of January. The monsoon season (July to September) brings with it a drop in temperature to about 27°C and a 70%–75% humidity level.

2.2. Soil sample collection and analysis

Soil samples were collected from saline patches of farmers field located in Bharatpur region of India. The collected soil was processed and kept for physico-chemical properties. With the help of standard soil analytical procedure, different parameters of soil samples were measured [26]. The soil is having pH (8.62), EC (2.32 dS/m), Walkley-Black carbon (0.33%), and a medium range of available N, P and K. Based on these data, different treatments were planned to improve soil organic carbon and plant available nutrients in soil.

2.3. Treatment details

In this incubation experiment, nine treatments comprised with biochar (BC), pressmud (PM) and farm yard manure (FYM) were applied i.e., T1-control, T2-RDF, T3-FYM (10 t/ha), T4-PM (10 t/ha), T5-BC (10 t/ha), T6-FYM (5 t/ha) + PM (5 t/ha), T7-FYM (5 t/ha) + BC (5 t/ha),T8-PM (5 t/ha) + BC (5 t/ha), T9-FYM (5 t/ha) + BC (2.5 t/ha) + PM (2.5 t/ha) (Table 1). The biochar, FYM and pressmud were analysed prior to application into the soil. In this experiment, pigeon pea biochar was applied as per the treatments. The process involved cutting the pigeon pea stem into pieces measuring 10–15 cm. After drying, the biomass underwent pyrolysis at 300°C for 2 hours, followed by quenching and subsequent drying in an oven at 105°C. The resulting biochar was then crushed using a 24-blade Rotar Mill (Model No. Pulversittee 14) and sieved to obtain uniform particles sized between 53 and 75 μm [27]. For the quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC), physico-chemical properties of biochar were determined in replicated samples, i.e. pH-8.1, EC (dS/m) 0.43, N 14.1 g/kg, P-0.52 g/kg, K-3.1 g/kg, C-662 g/kg; C/N ratio-58.6. Pressmud was also analysed before application and measured as pH (8.21), EC (3.18), potassium concentration (0.039%), sodium content (0.013%), OC (9.51 mg/kg), total N (0.021%), total P (0.013 mg/kg), and S (0.056%). However, FYM properties such as pH (7.22), EC (1.59 dS/m), potassium concentration (0.043%), OC (14.12 mg/kg), total N (0.55%), total P (0.028 mg/kg) and S (0.016%) were analysed. With the help of preliminary experiment, doses of different organic substances were calculated based on the C content. The soil fertility parameters analysed to observe the different fertility ratios (C:N and C:P) mediated the nutrient dynamics in soil. The treatments were applied by mixing organic wastes thoroughly with soil and water holding capacity was maintained regularly by adding the deficit moisture. After one year incubation period, soil samples were taken, processed as per the soil samples analysis procedure, and analysed for soil physico-chemical properties [26]. The microbial soil health parameters were also analysed in soil. The alkaline phosphatase was measured by Tabatabai and Bremner [27]; dehydrogenase activity (DHA) was analysed by the method described Casida et al. [28]; arylsulphatase activities by Tabatabai and Bremner [29]; MBC as per the procedure described by Jenkinson and Powlson [30]. In this process, the MBC was assessed by subtracting the evolved CO2-C from unfumigated soil from that of fumigated soil over a ten-day incubation period, then dividing the result by a Kc value of 0.45.

Table 1. Treatment combinations of different soil amendments applied during experiment.

Treatments Descriptions
T1 Control Without fertilizer and organic manures
T2 RDF Recommended dose of fertilizer for mustard (80:40:40:: N:P2O5:K2O)
T3 FYM (10 t/ha) Well mature FYM (10 t/ha)
T4 PM (10 t/ha) Pressmud (10 t/ha)
T5 BC (10 t/ha) Biochar (10 t/ha)
T6 FYM (5 t/ha) + PM (5 t/ha) Organic substances (10 t/ha) (1:1 FYM:PM)
T7 FYM (5 t/ha) + BC (5 t/ha) Organic substances (10 t/ha) (1:1 FYM:biochar)
T8 PM (5 t/ha) + BC (5 t/ha) Organic substances (10 t/ha) (1:1 PM:biochar)
T9 FYM (5 t/ha) + BC (2.5 t/ha) + PM (2.5 t/ha) Organic substances (10 t/ha) (2:1:1:: FYM:biochar: PM)

2.4. Statistical analysis

The experiment was conducted in completely randomized design (CRD) with three replications. In this experiment combination of three organic soil amendments were comprised into nine treatments. The collective soil data was statistically analysed for pH, EC, OC, available nutrients (N, P, K, S) and enzymatic activities. Data were analyzed as per the procedure mentioned in Gomez and Gomez [31]. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was calculated for all the treatments. The least significant difference (LSD) was calculated at 5 percent level of significance (p = 0.05).

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Effect on soil physico-chemical properties

The destructive soil samples were collected after one year. Initial soil pH was 8.61; and application of different organic treatments significantly affected the soil pH (Table 2). Application of FYM, PM and BC (10 t/ha) reduced the soil pH 8.58, 8.60 and 8.59, respectively. The electrical conductivity of soil 2.31 dS/m was also reduced to 2.12 dS/m in FYM, 2.14 dS/m in FYM (5 t/ha) + BC (5 t/ha) and FYM (5 t/ha) + BC (2.5 t/ha) + PM (2.5 t/ha) treated soils. Soil organic C is very important for enhancing the most of the soil health parameters. In this experiment, addition of different sources of C improved the soil organic C level of soil. It was observed that FYM applied treatment had 41% higher organic C than the control treatment. The highest SOC (0.459%) was measured in 10 t/ha organic residue applied through combination of PM (5 t/ha) + BC (5 t/ha). Data showed that the addition of C through the organic amendments improved the concentration of available plant nutrients during the incubation period. It was observed that initial level of available N (148.2 kg/ha) increased to 189.7 kg/ha in 10 t/ha FYM applied soils, which is 28% higher. In similar way, addition of 10 t/ha organic substance through PM and BC (equal part) enhanced available N to 194.2 kg/ha. It is the highest improvement in available N among the treatments.

Table 2. Effect of different treatments on soil physico-chemical properties (n = 3).

Treatments pH EC OC Av N Av K Av S
dS/m % kg/ha
T1 Control 8.61 2.31 0.319 148.2 123.5 12.4
T2 RDF 8.62 2.29 0.321 153.4 136.4 13.7
T3 FYM (10 t/ha) 8.58 2.12 0.451 189.7 165.5 17.4
T4 PM (10 t/ha) 8.60 2.16 0.385 175.6 144.4 17.8
T5 BC (10 t/ha) 8.59 2.15 0.456 182.3 177.3 18.2
T6 FYM (5 t/ha) + PM (5 t/ha) 8.59 2.18 0.437 178.6 152.1 16.7
T7 FYM (5 t/ha) + BC (5 t/ha) 8.55 2.14 0.459 194.2 168.4 17.1
T8 PM (5 t/ha) + BC (5 t/ha) 8.57 2.17 0.423 183.4 143.2 17.3
T9 FYM (5 t/ha) + BC (2.5 t/ha) + PM (2.5 t/ha) 8.54 2.14 0.454 187.8 161.5 17.9
LSD (p = 0.05) 0.05 0.13 0.021 33.5 18.4 2.4

Available potassium increment was recorded up to 37.3% in T5 -BC (10 t/ha), which is indicated that the biochar properties affected the mineralization and adsorption of K+ ions (Fig 1). However, other organic treatments were also improved the available K in soil i.e., 165.5, 168.4 and 161.5 kg/ha in FYM (10 t/ha), FYM (5 t/ha) + BC (5 t/ha), FYM (5 t/ha) + BC (2.5 t/ha) + PM (2.5 t/ha), respectively. Here the integration of FYM, BC and PM did not surpass the effect of BC alone as well as combination of PM + BC (in equal amount). Results of available S showed that addition of organic treatment combinations also improved the soil fertility parameters. The significantly higher (p = 0.05) available S (18.2 kg/ha) was measured in 10 t/ha BC treatment; whereas, PM applied @10 t/ha, and FYM (5 t/ha) + BC (2.5 t/ha) + PM (2.5 t/ha) showed at par response during the experiment.

Fig 1. Different treatment combinations affect the available K in soil (n = 3).

Fig 1

The addition of organic substances through the FYM, PM and BC are key source of C. Most of the crop residues are containing 42–46 percent C except legume crops. The addition of these organic sources provides the food stuff for soil biota. However, the dynamics of the C mineralization in soil is greatly influenced by the soil, substances and climatic factors. Biochar is a partial oxidized material, having lot of the C and micro-capillary pores having the higher CEC leads to better exchange of plant nutrient between soil and plant roots. It enhance the soil C level for longer period, promote constant but limited supply to microbes, enhance the mineralization of available sources of C in soil [32]. However, poultry manure also contains carbon and small fractions of sugar, which promote microbial populations in saline soil [33]. Incorporating organic matter through the use of PM enhances soil microbial populations and diversity [34], thereby improving the mineralization kinetics of SOM and influencing the dynamics of available nitrogen in the soil. Moreover, microbial decomposition could release essential nutrients for plant uptake when readily available organic carbon is sourced from PM [35]. Conversely, the combined application of FYM and biochar results in a higher percentage and mixed pools of carbon, leading to a direct accumulation of carbon in the soil. The application of biochar stores carbon in the soil for longer duration, mainly due to its recalcitrant nature [36]. Additionally, applying biochar in saline soil adsorbs excessive amounts of sodium from the soil solution, providing more opportunities for the uptake of essential plant nutrients [37,38]. Singh et al. [39] conducted a study to monitor the effect of biochar (4 t/ha), and observed that biochar application improved the soil chemical (plant nutrients), physical (pH, EC) and biological process (microbial count) under saline ecosystems. Biochar is having higher number of pores, which leads the adsorption of plant nutrients and their release kinetics during plant growth [40]. Mineralization of organic substances releases various types of organic acids, which act as bio-absorbers in saline soil [41]. This process reduces salinity and enhances the availability of plant nutrients in the soil solution [42]. Additionally, the addition of organic carbon through biochar has been shown to improve the nutrient status (N, P, K, Ca) of saline soils [43]. The porous structure of biochar allows it to absorb cationic ions, keeping them in the soil and preventing leaching, which is particularly beneficial in salty soils where nutrient leaching is common [44]. These processes increase the concentration of cations in the soil and enhance the electrical conductivity of the soil during the experiment [45]. Furthermore, biochar can raise the CEC of the soil. Since, K is a cation, increased CEC can improve the availability and retention of K ions in the soil [46]. Biochar has also been reported to mitigate the impact of salinity stress on plants by improving soil structure and water retention, thereby facilitating better potassium uptake [47]. However, the effect of biochar on K availability in salty soil can vary depending on factors such as the type of biochar used, the rate of application, soil properties, and the surrounding environment [48]. It is crucial to understand the impacts precisely, because impact can vary depending on the kind of biochar used, rate of application and the properties of the soil [49,50]. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the effect of biochar on K availability in saline soils, site-specific studies are recommended. The application of biochar in saline soil can increase microbiological activity, thereby mediating plant nutrient availability and uptake kinetics [51]. Increased microbial activity facilitated by biochar application can aid in the liberation of K from minerals and organic debris in the soil, rendering it more accessible to plants. Additionally, biochar can influence soil pH. Some types of biochar exhibit liming properties, which can help alleviate the acidic conditions often found in saline soils [52]. Wakeel [53] indicated that potassium is more soluble in neutral to slightly acidic environments; a more neutral pH can increase K availability. When biochar and FYM are used together, the availability of nutrients in saline soil can be improved. The microbial activity, nutrient retention, and soil structure are all enhanced by these amendments [54]. The FYM has a lot of organic materials have increased the soil’s ability to retain nutrients, aids in the development of stable aggregates, and encourages microbial activity [55]. Apart from these, biochar is having higher capacity of pores, prevent the leaching loss of nutrient and maintains the concentration of nutrients in soil solution. Combined application of FYM and biochar improved the plant nutrient concentration, microbial parameters and physical condition of soils [56]. Combined use of NPK along with FYM and pressmud improved soil nutrient status, organic carbon fractions and carbon management index under pigeonpea-wheat cropping system [57] and soil hydro-physical properties [20]. FYM, VC along with PSB also solubilized P from Fe-P and Al-P [58].

3.2. Effect on soil microbial parameters

The effect of different organic sources supplied through PM, FYM, and BC were evaluated for the soil enzymatic activities over a period of one year (Table 3). Increasing the organic matter content in treatment improved the soil enzymatic and microbial activity over control and RDF treatments. Alkaline phosphatases (ALPs) were ranged from 86.3 (control) to 147.7 μg PNP/g soil/h (T7-FYM 5 t/ha + BC 5 t/ha). The added organic sources (10 t/ha) by equally comprised of FYM and BC recorded the highest value of ALPs. Other treatments T8 (PM 5 t/ha + BC 5 t/ha) and T6 (FYM 5 t/ha + PM 5 t/ha) also equally improved the ALPs at 5 percent level of significance (p = 0.05). Similarly, treatment T9 (129.1 μg PNP/g soil/h) and T5 (133.7 μg PNP/g soil/h) were at par with each other in enhancing ALPs over control. The comparison of data of the highest ALPs in treatment T7 with the RDF treatment showed 60.4 percent improvement; and 71.1% improvement over the control treatment. The arylsulphatase activities was also analysed in all the treatments of the experiment and the highest value was found in the T7 (application of FYM 5 t/ha + BC 5 t/ha) as well as T8 (application of PM 5 t/ha + BC 5 t/ha) treatments. The value of the arylsulphatase activities ranged from 97.7 to 212.7 μg PNP/g soil/h. The arylsulphatase activities in different treatments were 212.7, 211.6, 194.2, 180.2, 169.5, 162.3, 158.0, 139.2 and 97.7 μg PNP/g soil/h in T7 (FYM 5 t/ha + BC 5 t/ha), T8 (PM 5 t/ha + BC 5 t/ha), T9 (FYM 5 t/ha + BC 2.5 t/ha + PM 2.5 t/ha), T5 (BC 10 t/ha), T4 (PM 10 t/ha), T3 (FYM 10 t/ha), T2 (RDF) and T1 (control), respectively. The DHA is an indicator of transformation of organic form of plant nutrients to inorganic form. In this experiment, addition of 10 t/ha organic sources through FYM and BC showed the maximum level of DHA (51.9 μg TPF/g soil/h); whereas, other organic treatments also showed significant amount of DHA over the control treatment (21.1 μg TPF/g soil/h) and RDF (28.5 μg TPF/g soil/h). The different combinations of FYM, PM, BC were showed the higher DHA level as compared to the alone application of FYM, PM, and BC. The MBC was measured and found maximum (147.8 mg/kg) in the treatment T7 (FYM 5 t/ha + BC 5 t/ha); subsequently in the treatment T8 comprised with PM + BC, and in T6 (FYM + PM) as 139.4 mg/kg and 136.1 mg/kg, respectively. The MBC was significantly improved by the addition of RDF over the control treatment. However, increasing the organic C through the addition of organic substances like FYM, PM, and BC in saline soil had edge over RDF in improving the microbial activities in the soil.

Table 3. Effect of different treatments on soil microbial parameters.

Treatments Alkaline phosphatase activity Arylsulphatase activity DHA MBC
μg PNP/g soil/h μg PNP /g soil/h μg TPF/g soil/h mg/kg
T1 Control 86.3 97.7 21.1 86.3
T2 RDF 92.1 139.2 28.5 92.0
T3 FYM (10 t/ha) 115.7 158.0 34.1 115.6
T4 PM (10 t/ha) 122.2 162.3 35.7 122.2
T5 BC (10 t/ha) 133.7 169.5 36.6 133.5
T6 FYM (5 t/ha) + PM (5 t/ha) 136.0 180.2 47.8 136.1
T7 FYM (5 t/ha) + BC (5 t/ha) 147.7 212.7 51.9 147.8
T8 PM (5 t/ha) + BC (5 t/ha) 139.6 211.6 43.1 139.4
T9 FYM (5 t/ha) + BC (2.5 t/ha) + PM (2.5 t/ha) 129.1 194.2 38.4 129.0
LSD (p = 0.05) 5.9 8.8 1.8 6.0

It was also observed that biochar applied treatments might have supplied the organic C for longer period; and FYM might be the instant source of C for soil microbial population. According to Liao et al. [59], biochar increased the activity of nearly all soil enzymes and DHA by 22% in soil. DHA, a critical intracellular enzyme found among microbes, plays a pivotal role in regulating the transfer of electrons from organic substances to inorganic acceptors. This process significantly impacts the decomposition of organic matter within the soil [23]. Numerous investigations have explored the impact of incorporating biochar on soil enzyme activities, and the conflicting findings such as increased [60], unchanged [61], and decreased [62] microbial enzyme activities in biochar-amended soils have been reported. The relationship between biochar and soil enzyme activity is complex, as biochar can modify soil-related factors, thus directly and indirectly affecting soil enzyme kinetics. The diverse responses of intra- and extracellular microbial enzyme activities to biochar amendment are influenced by factors such as the type of biochar feedstock [63], pyrolysis temperature [64], soil characteristics [60], and the specific types of enzymes involved [65]. Nevertheless, as of now, the precise mechanism remains to be fully elucidated. The MBC acts as a measurable indicator of labile carbon in the soil, providing valuable insights into biological activity. Its levels are primarily influenced by factors such as soil organic carbon, water retention capacity, and soil pH. The introduction of biochar into the soil leads to a significant increase in soil pH, improved water holding capacity, and elevated levels of soil organic carbon [66]. This augmentation leads to a notable rise in both MBC and microbial biomass nitrogen (MBN) in soils subjected to biochar amendment [67]. Hua et al. [68] have investigated the impact of modified biochar on changes in microbial biomass carbon (MBC) in soil. The findings revealed a significant increase of 24.58% in MBC with the application of biochar to the soil. The metabolic activities of microbial biomass are crucial in controlling decomposition and virtually every reaction in the soil N cycle. Additionally, microbial biomass contributes to the formation of soil organic N by stabilizing necromass and microbial byproducts [69]. The microbial biomass N is recognized as the most labile organic nitrogen fraction in soil, soil microbial biomass can both produce and consume NH4+ and NO3- [70]. These findings are clearly correlated with the findings of the current experiment that available N is more in organic substances applied soil particularly in biochar applied treatments.

4. Conclusions

Salts ion concentration in soils often face limitations in plant nutrient supply for crop growth. However, sizable areas affected by salinity in India hold significant potential for feeding the growing population. Excessive salt content can be minimized through the application of organic matter, which helps reduce salt toxicity, improve nutrient availability, and promote better establishment of crop plants. In this incubation experiment, three types of organic substances were compared with a control (without fertilizer), organic manure and the recommended dose of fertilizer (supplied through chemical fertilizer). Particularly, the application of organic substances, especially biochar combined with FYM, improved soil physico-chemical and biological parameters. The combined application of organic sources showed more pronounced effects compared to the application of a single organic source. The advantages of combined application include the distribution of different pools and forms of C and other nutrients, as well as the physical and chemical nature of the organic sources and reaction rate among others. Result indicated that incubation of organic substance (applied 10 t/ha) improved the available plant nutrients like N, P, K, S and soil enzymatic activities. The organic C and available N was recorded the highest in treatment T7 (FYM 5 t/ha + BC 5 t/ha); whereas, available K and S in treatment T5 (BC 10 t/ha). Application of organic soil amendments comprised treatment T7 (FYM 5 t/ha + BC 5 t/ha) improved the alkaline phosphatases, arylsulphatase activity, DHA and MBC over RDF treatments. In overall, application of organic substance 10 t/ha through BC or with FYM had improved the plant nutrient availability and microbial activities in soil. These findings will contribute to understanding the reclamation of degraded soils through the utilization of various organic wastes.

4.1. Future line of work

Further research particularly site-specific investigations are needed to explore the use of different locally available and cost-effective organic wastes in addressing soil degradation across various production systems. Conducting such studies will provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of different organic waste materials in soil reclamation and help offering tailored solutions to specific agricultural contexts.

Acknowledgments

Authors are thankful to the technical officer of the Natural Resource Management Unit, ICAR-DRMR, Bharatpur for technical help during the course of investigation.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript file.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Kumar P, Sharma PK (2020) Soil salinity and food security in India. Front Sustain Food Syst 4: 533781. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Manna MC, Ghosh A (2021) Soil organic carbon dynamics, stabilization, and environmental implication. In: Rakshit A, Singh S, Abhilash P, Biswas A (eds), Soil Science: Fundamentals to Recent Advances. Springer, Singapore. doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-0917-6_2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Arif M, Ali S, Ilyas M, Riaz M, Akhtar K, Ali K, et al. (2020) Enhancing phosphorus availability, soil organic carbon, maize productivity and farm profitability through biochar and organic–inorganic fertilizers in an irrigated maize agroecosystem under semi-arid climate. Soil Use Manage 31(1):104–119. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Meena MD, Dotaniya ML, Meena BL, Rai PK et al. (2023) Municipal solid waste: opportunities, challenges and management policies in India: a review. Waste Management Bulletin. doi: 10.1016/j.wmb.2023.04.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Oueriemmi H, Kidd PS, Trasar-Cepeda C, Rodríguez-Garrido B, Zoghlami RI, Ardhaoui K, et al. (2021) Evaluation of composted organic wastes and farmyard manure for improving fertility of poor sandy soils in arid regions. Agric 11: 415. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ozlu E, Kumar S (2018) Response of soil organic carbon, pH, electrical conductivity, and water stable aggregates to long-term annual manure and inorganic fertilizer. Soil Sci Soc Am J 82: 1243. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Krasilnikov P, Taboada MA, Amanullah (2022) Fertilizer use, soil health and agricultural sustainability. Agric 12(4):462. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Jain R, Usmani MA (2023) Sugarcane byproduct pressmud can be a sweet spot for India’s compressed biogas sector. Down Earth https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/renewable-energy/sugarcane-byproduct-pressmud-can-be-a-sweet-spot-for-india-s-compressed-biogas-sector-93022, accessed on 24 Nov., 2023.
  • 9.Dotaniya ML, Datta SC, Biswas DR, Meena HM, Rajendiran S, Meena AL (2015) Phosphorus dynamics mediated by bagasse, press mud and rice straw in inceptisol of north india. Agrochim 59 (4):358–369. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mahmood S, Nunes MR, Kane DA, Lin Y (2023) Soil health explains the yield-stabilizing effects of soil organic matter under drought. Soil Environ Health 1(4):100048. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Dotaniya ML, Nagar MC, Sharma Amita, Dotaniya CK, Rajendiran S, Singh VB, Doutaniya RK, Saha JK (2023) Management of acid and alkaline phosphatase, dehydrogenase activity by sugarcane industry waste under lead contamination- A case study of Indian Vertisol. PLOSONE doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286223 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Dotaniya ML, Meena VD (2013) Rhizosphere effect on nutrient availability in soil and its uptake by plants—a review. Proc Natl Acad Sci India Sect B Biol Sci 85(1):1–12. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Meena AL, Jha P, Dotaniya ML, Kumar B, Meena BP, Jat RL (2019) Carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus mineralization as influenced by type of organic residues and soil contact variation in vertisol of central India. Agric Res 9: 232–240. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lehmann J, Joseph S (2009) Biochar for environmental management: Science, Technology and Implementation. Earthscan. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Beesley L, Moreno-Jiménez E, Gomez-Eyles JL (2010) Effects of biochar and greenwaste compost amendments on mobility, bioavailability and toxicity of inorganic and organic contaminants in a multi-element polluted soil. Environ Pollu 158(6): 2282–2287. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Woolf D, Amonette JE, Street-Perrott FA, Lehmann J, Joseph S (2010) Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nat Commun 1: 56. doi: 10.1038/ncomms1053 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Roberts KG, Gloy BA, Joseph S, Scott NR (2010) Life cycle assessment of biochar systems: Estimating the energetic, economic, and climate change potential. Environ Sci Technol 44(2): 827–833. doi: 10.1021/es902266r [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ajayi AE, Holthusen D, Horn R (2016) Changes in microstructural behaviour and hydraulic functions of biochar amended soils. Soil Tillage Res 155:166–175. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Li S, Chan CY (2022) Will biochar suppress or stimulate greenhouse gas emissions in agricultural fields? unveiling the dice game through data syntheses. Soil Syst 6: 73. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mandal N, Dwivedi BS, Meena MC, Singh D, Datta SP, Tomar RK, Sharma BM (2013) Effect of farmyard manure, sulphitation pressmud and pigeonpea leaf-litter on soil organic carbon fractions, mineral nitrogen and crop yields in a pigeonpea-wheat cropping system. Field Crops Res 154: 187–178. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Borowik A, Wyszkowska J, Kucharski M, Kucharski J (2020) The role of dactylis glomerata and diesel oil in the formation of microbiome and soil enzyme activity. Sensors 20(12): 3362. doi: 10.3390/s20123362 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kang H, Freeman C (1999) Phosphatase and arylsulphatase activities in wetland soils: annual variation and controlling factors. Soil Biol Biochem 31:449–454. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Wolinska A, Stępniewska Z (2012) Activity in the soil environment, dehydrogenases. In: Canuto RA (ed). IntechOpen. doi: 10.5772/48294 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hernández T, García C, Reinhardt I (1997) Short-term effect of wildfire on the chemical, biochemical and microbiological properties of Mediterranean pineforest soils. Biol Fert Soils 25: 109–116. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Guangming L, Xuechen Z, Xiuping W, Hongbob S, Jingsong Y, Xiangping W (2017) Soil enzymes as indicators of saline soil fertility under various soil amendments. Agric Ecosyst Environ 237:274–279. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Singh D, Chhonkar PK, Dwivedi BS (2005) Manual on soil, plant and water analysis. Westville, New Delhi [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Coumar MV, Parihar RS, Dwivedi AK, Saha JK, Rajendiran S, Dotaniya ML, Kundu S (2016) Impact of pigeon pea biochar on cadmium mobility in soil and transfer rate to leafy vegetable spinach. Environ Monit Assess 188:31. doi: 10.1007/s10661-015-5028-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tabatabai MA, Bremner JM (1969) Use of p-nitrophenyl phosphate for assay of phosphatase activity. Soil Biol Biochem 1: 301–307. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Casida LE, Klein DA, Santoro T (1964) Soil dehydrogenase activity. Soil Sci 98: 371–376 [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Tabatabai MA, Bremner JM (1970) Arylsulfatase activity of soils. Soil Sci Am Proc 34:225–229. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Jenkinson DS, Powlson DS (1976) Effects of biocidal treatments on metabolism in soil. V. Method for measuring soil biomass. Soil Biol Biochem 8: 209–213. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Gomez KA, Gomez A (1983) Statistical procedures for agricultural research, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Li S, Tasnady D (2023) Biochar for soil carbon sequestration: current knowledge, mechanisms, and future perspectives. J Carbon Res 9(3):67. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Dotaniya ML, Meena MD, Choudhary RL, Meena MK, Singh HV, Dotaniya CK, et al. (2023) Management of plant nutrient dynamics under alkaline soils through graded application of pressmud and gypsum. PLOSONE 18(8): e0288784. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288784 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Glodowska M, Schwinghamer T, Husk B, Smith D (2017) Biochar based inoculants improve soybean growth and nodulation. Agric Sci 8(9):1048–1064. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Ghulam S, Khan MJ, Usman K, Rehman HU (2010) Impact of PM as organic amendment on physico-chemical characteristics of calcareous soil. Sarhad J Agric 26: 565–570. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Vetter SH, Abdalla M, Kuhnert M, Smith P (2022) Soil carbon sequestration and biochar. Greenh. Gas Remov Technol 31: 194. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Munns R and Tester M (2008) Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Biol 59:651–681. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092911 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Inyang M, Gao B, Yao Y, Xue Y, Zimmerman A, Mosa A, et al. (2016) A review of biochar as a low-cost adsorbent for aqueous heavy metal removal. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 46(4): 406–433. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Singh G, Mavi MS, Choudhary OP, Gupta N, Singh Y (2021) Rice straw biochar application to soil irrigated with saline water in a cotton-wheat system improves crop performance and soil functionality in north-west India. J Environ Manage 295:113277. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113277 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Jamal A, Saeed MF, Mihoub A, Hopkins BG, Ahmad I, Naeem A (2023) Integrated use of phosphorus fertilizer and farmyard manure improves wheat productivity by improving soil quality and P availability in calcareous soil under subhumid conditions. Front Plant Sci 14:1034421. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1034421 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Saifullah Dahlawi S, Naeem A, Rengel Z, Naidu R (2018) Biochar application for the remediation of salt-affected soils: Challenges and opportunities. Sci Total Environ 625: 320–335. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.12.257 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Gong H,Li Y, Li S (2021) Effects of the interaction between biochar and nutrients on soil organic carbon sequestration in soda saline-alkali grassland: A review. Global Ecol Conser 26: e01449. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.You XW, Yin SJ, Suo FY, Xu ZC, Chu DP, Kong QX, et al. L (2021) Biochar and fertilizer improved the growth and quality of the ice plant (Mesembryanthemum crystallinum L.) shoots in a coastal soil of Yellow River Delta, China. Sci Total Environ 775:144893. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Rashid MS, Liu G, Yousaf B, Hamid Y, Rehman A, Arif A, et al. (2023) Role of biochar-based free radicals in immobilization and speciation of metals in the contaminated soil-plant environment. J Environ Manage 325 (B)116620. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116620 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Chen JH, Sun X, Zheng JF, Zhang XH, Liu XY, Bian RJ, et al. (2018) Biochar amendment changes temperature sensitivity of soil respiration and composition of microbial communities 3 years after incorporation in an organic carbon-poor dry cropland soil. Biol Fert Soils 54 (2): 175–188. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Hui D (2021) Effects of biochar application on soil properties, plant biomass production, and soil greenhouse gas emissions: a mini-review. Agric Sci 12: 213–236. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Lehmann J, Rondon M (2006) Bio-char soil management on highly weathered soils in the humid tropics. In: Biological approaches to sustainable soil systems. CRC Press, pp. 517–530. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Jha P, Biswas AK, Lakaria BL, Rao AS (2010) Biochar in agriculture–prospects and related implications. Curr Sci 99(9): 1218–1225. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Dotaniya ML, Meena VD, Dotaniya CK, Meena MD, Doutaniya RK, Verma R, et al. (2022) Engineered biochar as adsorbent for removal of heavy metals from soil medium. In: Ramola S, Mohan D, Masek O, Méndez A, Tsubota T (eds), Engineered Biochar. Springer, Singapore. doi: 10.1007/978-981-19-2488-0_9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Zhang WW, Wang C, Xue R, Wang L (2019) Effects of salinity on the soil microbial community and soil fertility. J Integr Agric 18: 1360–1368. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Xia H, Riaz M, Babar S, Yan L, Li Y, Wang X, et al. (2023) Assessing the impact of biochar on microbes in acidic soils: Alleviating the toxicity of aluminum and acidity. J Environm Manage 345:118796. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118796 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Wakeel A (2013) Potassium–sodium interactions in soil and plant under saline-sodic conditions. J Plant Nutri Soil Sci 176(3):344–354 [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Huang K, Li M, Li R, Rasul F, Shahzad S, Wu C, et al. (2023) Soil acidification and salinity: the importance of biochar application to agricultural soils. Front Plant Sci 14:1206820. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1206820 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Dotaniya CK, Lakaria BL, Sharma Y, Meena BP, Shirale AO, Dotaniya ML, et al. (2023) Estimation of potassium by Mehlich-3 extractant under integrated nutrient management. Natl Acad Sci Lett doi: 10.1007/s40009-023-01282-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Kuzyakov Y, Subbotina I, Chen H, Bogomolova I (2009) Black carbon decomposition and incorporation into soil microbial biomass estimated by 14C labeling. Soil Biol Biochem 41(2): 210–219. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Mandal N, Dwivedi BS, Datta SP, Meena MC, Tomar RK (2018) Soil hydrophysical properties under different nutrient management practices, their relationship with soil organic carbon fractions and crop yield under pigeonpea-wheat sequence. J Plant Nutri 42: 384–400. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Bairwa R, Chattopadhyay N, Mandal N, Singh M (2021) Phosphorus solubilization under organic and inorganic sources of P in red and alluvial soils and estimation of phosphorus solubilizing power. J Indian Soc Soil Sci 69: 440–450. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Liao X, Kang H, Haidar G, Wang W, Malghani S (2022) The impact of biochar on the activities of soil nutrients acquisition enzymes is potentially controlled by the pyrolysis temperature: A meta-analysis. Geoderma 411:115692. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Awad YM, Blagodatskaya E, Ok YS, Kuzyakov Y (2013) Effects of polyacrylamide, biopolymer and biochar on the decomposition of 14C-labelled maize residues and on their stabilization in soil aggregates. Eur J Soil Sci 64 (4): 488–499. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Elzobair KA, Stromberger ME, Ippolito JA, Lentz RD (2016) Contrasting effects of biochar versus manure on soil microbial communities and enzyme activities in an Aridisol. Chemosphere 142: 145–152. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.06.044 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Paz-Ferreiro J, Gasc´o G, Gutierrez B, M´endez A (2012) Soil biochemical activities and the geometric mean of enzyme activities after application of sewage sludge and sewage sludge biochar to soil. Biol Fertil Soils 48 (5): 511–517. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Ouyang L, Tang Q, Yu LQ, Zhang RD (2014) Effects of amendment of different biochars on soil enzyme activities related to carbon mineralization. Soil Res 52: 706–716. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Gasco G, Cely P, Paz‐Ferreiro J, Plaza C, Mendez A (2016) Relationbetween biochar properties and effects on seed germination and plantdevelopment. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture, 32(4), 237–247. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Bailey VL, Fansler SJ, Smith JL, Bolton H (2011) Reconciling apparent variability in effects of biochar amendment on soil enzyme activities by assay optimization. Soil Biol Biochem 43 (2): 296–301. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Tokova L, Igaz D, Horak J, Aydin E (2020) Effect of biochar application and re-appplication on soil bulk density, porosity, saturation hydraulic conductive, water content and soil water availability in a silty loam haplic luvisol. Agron 10:1005. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Jien SH, wang CS (2013) Effect of biochar on soil properties and erosion potential in a highly weathered soil. Catena 110:225–233. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Hua B, Li Z, Gao W, Feng H, Chen N, Li J (2021) Soil amendments in plastic greenhouse using modified biochar: soil bacterial diversity response and microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen. Biotechnol Lett 43:655–666. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Kallenbach CM, Frey SD, Grandy AS (2016) Direct evidence for microbial-derivedsoil organic matter formation and its ecophysiological controls. Nat Commun 7: 13630. doi: 10.1038/ncomms13630 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Wang H, Shao T, Zhou Y, Long X, Rengel Z (2023) The effect of biochar prepared at different pyrolysis temperatures on microbially driven conversion and retention of nitrogen during composting. Heliyon 9(3): e13698. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13698 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Paulo H Pagliari

9 May 2024

PONE-D-24-12566Mineralization kinetics of major plant nutrients in saline soil influenced by application of biochar and organic wastePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dotaniya,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please also submit a list with answers to all points raised by the reviewer.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 23 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Paulo H. Pagliari

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have conducted good research work however; the MS needs major improvement before it can consider for publication. I have provided below some shortcomings identified in the MS and they need to be addressed.

General comments

1. The research question is not completely clear throughout the introduction, which also lacks a clear hypothesis. Please present a hypothesis. Remember that the research objectives must result from the research hypothesis.

2. Please, could you clarify the use of @ symbol to express the different treatments applied? I suggest removing it and replacing it.

3. A deeper scientific interpretation of your findings in the results and discussion section is strongly suggested. The novelty and implication of your study should also be highlighted throughout this section. Paragraphs should be better structured and interconnected. The discussion should link all of your findings.

4. A systematic description of your results must be done, highlighting for the reader observations that are most relevant to the topic under investigation and it can be used in the discussion later.

5. The conclusions section should illustrate the mechanistic links of findings obtained under applied treatments. The authors should avoid repeating what has already presented in results and discussion. Please, avoid using abbreviations and acronyms in the conclusions section. Remember that the conclusions must be self-explanatory.

Specific comments

1. What is the method of application of biochar and organic waste?

2. What is the moisture content of soils thought out the incubation study?

3. How to prepared pigeon pea biochar. Mention method and conditions.

4. In general, biochar is alkaline in nature but in this study the pH of biochar is 7.6. Why?

5. What is QA/QC…expand it

6. Mention TOC and nutrient composition of pressmud.

7. Figure 1 needs some correction.

8. In page 1, SOM and C… Elaborate first time appeared

9. In the abstract and table 2, it is mentioned that the addition of organic substances (10 t/ha) didn’t affect the soil pH, whereas in the result and discussion section, it is vice versa (the application of different organic and inorganic treatments significantly affected the soil pH).

10. The overall quality of the MS could be enhanced after addressing those issues

Reviewer #2: MS" Mineralization kinetics of major plant nutrients in saline soil influenced by application of biochar and organic waste" falls under the aim and scope of the journal. it is written in scientific way.

it is having minor suggestions

Revised tile as per the study finding.

strengthen the M&M part

Please check reference list.

Reviewer #3: Introduction

Identify research gaps and highlight importance of the present investigation.

Specify clearly objective of the investigation.

Add this para in introduction

Combined use of NPK along with FYM and Pressmud improved soil nutrient status, organic carbon fractions and carbon management index under pigeonpea-wheat cropping system (Mandal et al., 2013) and soil hydro-physical properties (Mandal et al., 2018). FYM, VC along with PSB also solubilized P from Fe-P and Al-P (Bairwa et al., 2021).

Bairwa, R., Chattopadhyay, N., Mandal, N. and Singh, M. (2021) Phosphorus Solubilization under Organic and Inorganic Sources of P in Red and Alluvial Soils and Estimation of Phosphorus Solubilizing Power. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science, 69, 440-450

Mandal, N., Dwivedi, B.S., Datta, S.P., Meena, M.C., Tomar, R.K. (2018). Soil hydrophysical properties under different nutrient management practices, their relationship with soil organic carbon fractions and crop yield under pigeonpea-wheat sequence. Journal of Plant Nutrition. 42: 384-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2018.1556295 .

Mandal, N., Dwivedi B.S., Meena, M.C., Singh, D., Datta, S.P., Tomar, R.K. and Sharma, B.M. (2013). Effect of farmyard manure, sulphitation pressmud and pigeonpea leaf-litter on soil organic carbon fractions, mineral nitrogen and crop yields in a pigeonpea-wheat cropping system. Field Crops Research 154: 187-178.

Materials and Methods

Section 2.3 : Mention details of incubation temperature and moisture content of soil maintained during laboratory incubation experiment.

Conclusions

Revise conclusion part. Highlight specific recommendation in quantitative terms. Give future line of work in this direction.

Reviewer #4: Revise the manuscript, considering the given suggestions. If possible, then include more data and a sound discussion to justify the requirement of a good quality publication. Critically check the abstract and conclusion; it has some contradictory statements.

Reviewer #5: The authors have used Mineralization kinetics word in the manuscript title, however there is no kinetics involved in result or conclusion. The title misleads that first or second order kinetics has been for mineralization study. Further, the results has no data on mineralization or nutrient dynamics. The results of incubation study presented is only for the change in initial and final concentration of NP S and OC. Its a simple experiment with no new information as its a well known fact that addition of organic matter in any form would certainly enhance nutrient content in soil especially when there is no crop under study ie an incubation experiment.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review report PLOS.doc

pone.0307487.s001.doc (25.5KB, doc)

Decision Letter 1

Paulo H Pagliari

8 Jul 2024

Dynamics of major plant nutrients and soil enzymatic activities in saline soil influenced by application of biochar and organic waste

PONE-D-24-12566R1

Dear Dr. Dotaniya,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Paulo H. Pagliari

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I thank the authors to largely address my comments. Therefore, I think the MS can be accepted in its present form.

Reviewer #2: Authors incorporated the suggestions. Now it is okay for addressing scientific communities. It recommended for future volume of the journal.

Reviewer #3: Authors have satisfactorily addressed all issues raised by me. The manuscript may be accepted in its present form.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Paulo H Pagliari

16 Sep 2024

PONE-D-24-12566R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Dotaniya,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Paulo H. Pagliari

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review report PLOS.doc

    pone.0307487.s001.doc (25.5KB, doc)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response letter to Editor.doc

    pone.0307487.s002.doc (46KB, doc)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript file.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES