CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
This chapter presents the data gathered, their analysis and interpretation of results of
this experimental study on the efficacy of biochar derived from corn cobs as soil fertilizer
enhancer.
1. Physicochemical Properties of Biochar Derived from Corn Cobs
Table 4.1
Physicochemical Properties of Biochar
Properties
pH
Test Results
8.74
Moisture Content
26.01%
Ash Content
7.35%
% Carbon
60.02%
Porosity
51.67%
Note: All are mean values of three trials.
The table above shows the physicochemical properties of biochar as tested in the
laboratory. The biochar pH is 8.74 which indicates its basicity. Moisture content of the
biochar amounted to 26.01% of its weight while the ash content is 7.35%.
The produced biochar has a high carbon content of 60.02% and is porous, having
51.67% pore space volume.
2. Properties of Soil Before Planting and After Harvest
Table 4.2
Soil Properties
T1
Properties
T2
T3
Before
After
Before
After
Before
After
pH
% C/SOM
%N
5.45
2.96
0.645
4.9
2.585
0.15
5.9
3.065
0.48
5.4
2.825
0.155
5.7
3.055
0.67
4.85
2.78
0.17
P (ppm)
K (me/100g)
1104
19.83
195
7.625
789.5
19.69
142
7.9
1286
21.47
191
10.345
Mg (me/100g)
Ca (me/100g)
7.17
16.97
5.255
12.67
7.565
16.295
6.195
12.545
8.045
21.47
4.845
10.165
CEC (me/100g)
C/N
35.835
4.589
27.985
17.233
38.135
6.385
27.525
18.226
37.785
4.560
27.355
16.353
Note: All are mean values.
Presented in Table 4.2 are the results of analysis of the properties of soil applied with
different treatments before planting and after harvest of mustard plants. All values shown
are means of experimental data based on two replicates.
Carbon or organic matter content as well as nitrogen content of treated soils are
expressed in percentage by weight. Phosphorus content is expressed as parts per million
(ppm) while the potassium, magnesium, calcium content and the cation exchange
capacity are all in terms of milliequivalents per 100g (me/100g) of soil.
2.1 Soil pH
5.9
6
5.45
5.7
5.4
4.9
4.85
5
4
3
2
1
0
Before
After
T1
T2
T3
Figure 4.1
Soil pH
The graph above presents the result on the analysis of the pH of soil samples of
different treatments before planting and after harvest. It displays a slight decrease in pH
from the initial value of 5.45, 5.9 and 5.7, the final pH after harvest became 4.9, 5.4, and
4.85 for T1, T2 and T3 respectively. Also, the results show lower value of pH in T1 as
compared to T2 and T3. The higher pH values for T2 and T3 denotes that the added
biochar had provided a liming effect to the soil while maintaining its acidity that is an
important characteristic of good soil.
This is similar to the study of Hossain et al. (2010) wherein the biochar (pH=8.2)
from slow pyrolysis of sewage sludge applied at a rate of 10 t/ha was observed to
increase soil pH from 4.3 to 4.6.
2.2 Soil Organic Matter (SOM) or Carbon (C)
3.07
3.1
3
3.06
2.96
2.83
2.9
2.78
2.8
2.7
2.59
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.3
Before
After
T1
T2
T3
Figure 4.2
Soil Organic Matter (SOM) or Carbon (C) Content of Soil
The initial and final percentage of C/SOM content of the soil sample in the different
treatments can be deduced from the graph above. Before planting, T1 has the lowest
SOM content of 2.96% as compared to T2 and T3 with 3.065% and 3.055% SOM content
respectively. The same can be observed in the analysis after harvest. Nevertheless, the
difference was very minimal. This can be accounted to the presence of biochar which is
mostly carbon in the latter treatments.
2.3 Nitrogen (N)
0.7
0.67
0.65
0.6
0.48
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.15
0.2
0.16
0.17
0.1
0
Before
After
T1
T2
T3
Figure 4.3
Nitrogen (N) Content of Soil
As shown in the graph, nitrogen content of soil in the different treatments is
comparatively low. T2 has the lowest %N initially with the value of 0.48. This is
reasonable because it has a fertilizer application rate of only 50% compared to the other
two treatments. However, it has the greatest retained value after harvest with 0.155%
which shows the effect of the added biochar. Meanwhile, initial values of %N for T1 and
T3 are 0.645% and 0.67%, respectively. Final nitrogen percentage in soil for T1 is 0.15%
and for T3 is 0.17%.
2.4 Phosphorus (P)
1286
1400
1200
1000
1104
789.5
800
600
400
195
142
191
200
0
Before
After
T1
T2
T3
Figure 4.4
Phosphorus (P) Content of Soil
Presented in the graph above is the phosphorous content (in ppm) of soil in the
different treatments. The initial values above are considerably high with 1286 ppm in T3
as the highest and 1104 ppm, 789.5 ppm for T1 and T2 respectively. T2 possessed the
lowest concentration of phosphorus because of the 50% application rate. After harvest,
results show that T1 retained the most phosphorous with 195ppm, T3 is next with
191ppm and lastly, T2 with 142 ppm.
2.5 Neutral Ammonium Acetate Exchangeable (K, Mg, Ca)
25
19.83
19.69
21.47
20
15
10.35
7.63
10
7.9
5
0
Before
After
T1
T2
T3
Figure 4.5.1
Potassium (K) Content of Soil
The graph shows the concentration (in meq/100g) of potassium (K) present in the
soil samples of different treatments. T3 has the highest initial concentration with 21.47
followed by T1 with 19.83 and T2 with 19.69. Like the nitrogen and phosphorus,
potassium concentration is lowest at T2 due to the amount of fertilizer applied. The same
can be observed in the retained values after harvest with 7.625, 7.9 and 10.345 for T1, T2
and T3 respectively.
9
8
7.17
7.57
8.05
6.2
7
5.26
4.85
5
4
3
2
1
0
Before
After
T1
T2
T3
Figure 4.5.2
Magnesium (Mg) Content of Soil
The graph above indicates the concentration (in meq/100g) of magnesium in the soil
samples of different treatments. Magnesium is most abundant in T3 with 8.045 meq/100g
initially. T2 has 7.565 meq/100g and T1 with 7.17 meq/100g. After harvest, T2 has the
highest concentration with 6.195 meq/100g followed by T2 with 5.255 meq/100g and
then T3 with 4.845.
25
20
21.47
16.97
16.3
12.67
15
12.55
10.17
10
5
0
Before
After
T1
T2
T3
Figure 4.5.3
Calcium (Ca) Content of Soil
The concentration (in meq/100g) of calcium in the soil samples of different
treatments are presented in the graph above. It shows that T3 is richest in Ca with 21.47
meq/100g followed by T1 with 16.97 meq/100g then T2 with 16.295 meq/100g. On the
other hand, final concentration analysis conducted after harvest showed that T1 got the
highest concentration of 12.67 meq/100g, T2 is 12.545 meq/100g and T3 is 10.165
meq/100g.
The three figures illustrate that the potassium, magnesium and calcium content of
soil are higher in treatments characterized by addition of biochar compared to the
treatment without biochar.
2.6 Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC)
40
35.84
38.14
37.79
35
27.99
30
27.53
27.36
25
20
15
10
5
0
Before
After
T1
T2
T3
Figure 4.6
Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) of Soil
Shown in the graph above is the concentration of cation exchange capacity (CEC) in
meq/100g. It is evident in the graph that initially, T1 has the lowest concentration initially
with 35.835 meq/100g followed by T3 with 37.785 meq/100g and T2 has 38.135
meq/100g. Nevertheless, it is indicated above that T1 retained most with 27.985
meq/100g followed by 27.525 meq/100g of T2 and 27.355 meq/100g of T3.
The effect of the addition of biochar in soil in terms of CEC is manifested in the
higher values of CEC in T2 and T3 before planting.
2.7 Carbon-Nitrogen Ratio (C/N)
20
18
17.23
18.23
16.35
16
14
12
10
8
6
6.39
4.59
4.56
4
2
0
Before
After
T1
T2
T3
Figure 4.7
Carbon-Nitrogen Ratio (C/N) in Soil
The graph above shows the carbon and nitrogen ratio of soil samples of the different
treatments in this study before planting and after harvest of mustard plant. A noticeable
increase in value can be deduced from the initial values of T1, T2 and T3 with 4.589,
6.385, and 4.56 respectively to 17.233, 18.226 and 16.353 in the final calculation. This is
due to the decrease in the percentage nitrogen present after harvest of mustard.
3. Comparison of Soil Properties Before Planting and After Harvest at Different
Treatments
The difference in the soil properties before planting and after harvest upon
application of the three treatments were statistically analyzed using Two-Way
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). There were three sources of variation considered: the
treatment which refers to the effects of the treatments applied to soil, the period which
pertains to the time of soil testing and the interaction between the effects of
treatments and period. The analyses are shown in the succeeding tables.
Table 4.3
Difference in Soil pH
Source of Variation
Fvalue
Fcritical
p-value
Decision on Ho
Interpretation
Treatment
Period
Treatment x Period
13.682
65.636
1.955
5.143
5.987
5.143
0.006
<0.001
0.222
Reject
Reject
Accept
Significant
Significant
Not Significant
It can be observed in Table 4.3 that the computed F-values for treatment and
period (13.682 and 65.636) are higher than the critical F-values (5.143 and 5.987).
Also, the p-values for both sources of variation are lower than 0.05 level of
significance and thus, rejecting the null hypothesis. This means that there is a
significant difference in the pH of soil before and after harvest and upon application
of different treatments. However, the analysis shows that there is no statistical
interaction between the treatments and the time of soil testing because the F-value
(1.955) is lower than the critical F-value (5.143) and the p-value (0.222) is higher
than 0.05 level of significance.
Table 4.4
Difference in Carbon Content (C) or Soil Organic Matter (SOM)
Source of Variation
Fvalue
Fcritical
p-value
Decision on Ho
Interpretation
Treatment
Period
Treatment x Period
3.143
24.149
0.449
5.143
5.987
5.143
0.116
0.003
0.658
Accept
Reject
Accept
Not Significant
Significant
Not Significant
The computed F-values for treatment and the interaction between treatment and
period (3.143 and 0.449) are lower than the critical F-values (both 5.143). Also, their
p-values (0.116 and 0.658) are higher than 0.05 level of significance. This indicates
that there was no significant difference in the carbon content or organic matter among
the treated soils. No statistical interaction between treatment and period is also
denoted. Meanwhile, the F-value computed for period (24.149) is higher than the
critical F-value (5.987) and the p-value (0.003) is lower than 0.05 level of
significance which shows that there is a significant difference in the carbon content of
soils before planting and after harvest.
Table 4.5
Difference in Nitrogen (N) Content
Source of Variation
Treatment
Period
Treatment x Period
Fvalue
Fcritical
p-value
Decision on Ho
Interpretation
17.859 5.143
893.538 5.987
15.269 5.1435
0.003
<0.001
0.004
Reject
Reject
Reject
Significant
Significant
Significant
The table above shows that all the computed F-values (17.859, 893.538, 15.269)
are higher than the critical F-values (5.143, 5.987, 5.1435) while all the p-values
(0.003, <0.001, 0.004) are lower than 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, the null
hypothesis is rejected and it is demonstrated that there is a significant difference in
nitrogen content among the treated soils. A significant difference in the amount of
nitrogen present in soils before and after harvest is also noted. Further, there is a
statistical interaction between the treatments and the time of soil testing.
Table 4.6
Difference in Phosphorus (P) Content
Source of Variation
Fvalue
Fcritical
p-value
Decision on Ho
Interpretation
Treatment
Period
Treatment x Period
16.786
508.339
10.963
5.143
5.987
5.143
0.003
<0.001
0.010
Reject
Reject
Reject
Significant
Significant
Significant
In the table above, it can be noticed that all F-values (16.786, 508.339, 10.963)
are greater than the critical F-values (5.143, 5.987, 5.143) whereas all p-values
(0.003, <0.001, 0.010) are lower than 0.05 level of significance. Hence, the null
hypothesis is rejected. There is a significant difference in phosphorus content among
the treated soils. Similarly, a significant difference in the amount of phosphorus
present in soils before and after harvest is indicated. There is also an interaction
between the treatments and the time of soil testing.
Table 4.7
Difference in Potassium (K) Content
Source of Variation
Fvalue
Fcritical
p-value
Decision on Ho
Interpretation
Treatment
Period
Treatment x Period
4.886
326.841
0.236
5.143
5.987
5.143
0.055
<0.001
0.797
Accept
Reject
Accept
Not Significant
Significant
Not Significant
Presented in the table are F-values for treatment and interaction between
treatment and period (4.886 and 0.236) that are lower than the critical F-values
(4.886, 326.841, 0.236). The p-values for both sources of variation are 0.055 and
0.797 which are higher than 0.05 level of significance. This led to the acceptance of
the null hypothesis making the differences in soil treatments and interaction between
treatment and period insignificant in terms of potassium (K) content. On the other
hand, the F-value for period (326.841) is greater than the critical F-value (5.987) and
the p-value is lower than the level of significance. Thus, there is a significant
difference in the soils potassium content before and after harvest.
Table 4.8
Difference in Magnesium (Mg) Content
Source of Variation
Fvalue
Fcritical
p-value
Decision on Ho
Interpretation
Treatment
Period
Treatment x Period
0.615
18.772
1.182
5.143
5.987
5.143
0.572
0.005
0.369
Accept
Reject
Accept
Not Significant
Significant
Not Significant
There is no significant difference in the treated soils in terms of magnesium
content as shown in Table 4.8. Likewise, there is no statistical interaction between the
treatments and the time of soil testing. It is deduced from the data presented because
the computed F-values (0.615 and 1.182) are lower than the critical F-values (both
5.143) while their p-values (0.572 and 0.369) are greater than 0.05 level of
significance. However, there is a significant difference in the magnesium content of
soil before and after harvest as given by the F-value (18.772) which is greater than the
critical F-value (5.987) and the p-value (0.005) which is lower than the level of
significance.
Table 4.9
Difference in Calcium (Ca) Content
Source of Variation
Fvalue
Fcritical
p-value
Decision on Ho
Interpretation
Treatment
Period
Treatment x Period
0.196
11.841
1.682
5.143
5.987
5.143
0.827
0.014
0.263
Accept
Reject
Accept
Not Significant
Significant
Not Significant
The table shows the F-values for treatment and interaction between treatment and
period (0.196 and 1.682) which are lower than the critical values (both 5.143) and
their corresponding p-values (0.827 and 0.263) which are higher than the level of
significance. This means acceptance of the null hypothesis. Therefore, there is no
significant difference in the calcium content of treated soils and no statistical
interaction between treatments and the time of soil testing. On contrary, there is a
significant difference in the calcium content of soil before planting and after harvest
since the F-value computed is 11.841 which is greater than the critical F-value (5.987)
and the p-value (0.014) is lower than 0.05 level of significance.
Table 4.10
Difference in Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC)
Source of Variation
Fvalue
Fcritical
p-value
Decision on Ho
Interpretation
Treatment
Period
Treatment x Period
0.194
59.876
0.513
5.143
5.987
5.143
0.829
<0.001
0.623
Accept
Reject
Accept
Not Significant
Significant
Not Significant
There is no significant difference between the cation exchange capacity of treated
soils and there is no statistical interaction between treatments and the time of soil
testing. These are evident in the table since the F-values (0.194 and 0.513) are lower
than the critical F-values (both 5.143) and their corresponding p-values (0.829 and
0.623) are greater than the level of significance. Meanwhile, a significant difference
in the cation exchange capacity of soils is found out. This is denoted by the p-value
(<0.001) which is lower than 0.05 level of significance and F-value (59.876) which is
higher than the critical F-value (5.987).
Table 4.11
Difference in Carbon-Nitrogen Ratio (C/N)
Source of Variation
Fvalue
Fcritical
p-value
Decision on Ho
Interpretation
Treatment
Period
Treatment x Period
4.224
152.164
0.965
5.143
5.987
5.143
0.072
<0.001
0.433
Accept
Reject
Accept
Not Significant
Significant
Not Significant
There is no significant difference in the treated soils in terms of carbon-nitrogen
ratio as shown the table. Similarly, there is no statistical interaction between the
treatments and the time of soil testing. It is analyzed from the data because the
computed F-values (4.224 and 0.965) are lower than the critical F-values (both 5.143)
while their p-values (0.072 and 0.433) are greater than 0.05 level of significance.
However, there is a significant difference in the C/N of soil before and after harvest as
given by the F-value (152.164) which is greater than the critical F-value (5.987) and
the p-value (<0.001) which is lower than the level of significance.
3.1 Retention of Properties in Soil
Table 4.12
Retained Percentage of Soil Properties after 45 Days
Properties
C/SOM
N
P
K
Mg
Ca
CEC
T1
87.33
23.26
17.66
38.45
73.29
74.66
78.09
T2
92.17
32.29
17.99
40.12
81.89
76.99
72.18
T3
91.00
25.37
14.85
48.18
60.22
47.35
72.40
Table 4.12 presents the data for the retention of properties in soil after the planting
period. These data were computed using the results of soil analyses displayed in the
earlier part of this chapter. It can be observed in the table that most properties have larger
retention percentage in treatments T2 and T3 which are composed of fertilizer and
biochar compared to treatment T1 which is composed of fertilizer only. In addition,
between T2 and T3, T2 possessed the higher percentage of retention.
4. Physical Properties of Mustard Plants after 15, 30, 45 Days of Planting
Table 4.13
Number of Leaves
15 days
30 days
45 days
T1
4.25
5.35
6.25
T2
4.25
5.5
6.38
T3
4.25
5.5
6.5
Table 4.13 presents
the number of leaves
after 15, 30 and 45 days of planting. The values above are mean values of the replicates
of the three trials with four plants in each. At the 15th day, most of the plants have four
(4) leaves and a few got five (5) so when the average was computed, the value obtained
was 4.25. At the 30th day of planting, each plot got 5 to 6 leaves in each plant and the
calculated average resulted to 5.35, 5.5 and 5.5 for T1, T2 and T3 respectively. Lastly, on
the time of harvest, number of leaves ranged from 6 to 7 and the values obtained are 6.25,
6.38 and 6.5 with respect to the treatments. It can be deduced from the result above that
T3 obtained the most number of leaves although the difference is comparatively small.
See Appendix for the unaveraged result of the number of leaves of plants in each plot.
Table 4.14
Length of Leaves (in cm)
15 days
30 days
45 days
T1
2.45
7.06
21.68
T2
2.43
5.74
21.53
T3
2.36
8.04
25.5
Displayed in the
table above are the mean values of the measured length of leaves (in cm) of the plants in
each treatment. On the average, the length ranges from 2 to 3 cm on the 15th day which
gave the result 2.45, 2.43 and 2.36 for T1, T2 and T3 respectively. On the 30th day after
planting, T2 has the shortest average of leaf length which is 5.74 cm. T3 is the longest
with 8.04 and 7.06 in T1. A drastic increase in length on the day of harvest with T3
having the longest value of 25.5 cm, T1 with 21.68 cm and T3 with 21.53 cm.
Table 4.15
Plant Height (in cm)
45 days
T1
T2
T3
28.24
28.6
31.14
Shown in the table is the calculated mean height of plant in the different treatments
on the day of harvest. It is evident that T3 has the highest value of 31.14 cm while T1 and
T2 got 28.24 cm and 28.6 cm respectively.
Table 4.16
Color of Leaves
15 days
30 days
45 days
T1
3
3
3
T2
3
4
4
T3
3
3
4
*Please refer to Appendix for detailed leaf color analysis.
The results of the analysis on the leaf color of mustard plants are presented in the
table. The color values were determined using the leaf color chart developed by
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).
At 15 days, all leaf color readings for the three treatments have a value of 3. Only T2
exhibited a change in color, from 3 to 4, after 30 days of planting. On the day of harvest,
T2 and T3 have the same color reading of 4 while T1 has a leaf color value of 3.
4.1 Comparison of Different Treatments and Period in terms of Physical
Properties of Mustard Plants
The difference in the effects of the three treatments and period of plant growth are
computed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Sources of variation considered are the
treatments that refer to T1, T2 and T3 used in this study and period that pertains to the
period of plant growth (15 days, 30 days and 45 days).
Table 4.17
Comparison in Terms of the Number of Leaves
Source of Variation
Fvalue
Fcritical
p-value
Decision on Ho
Interpretation
Treatment
Period
Treatment x Period
4
628
0.5
4.256
4.256
3.633
0.057
<0.001
0.737
Accept
Reject
Accept
Not Significant
Significant
Not Significant
The computed F-values for treatment and the interaction between treatment and
period (4 and 0.5) were lower than the critical F-values (4.256 and 3.633). Also, their
p-values (0.057 and 0.737) were higher than 0.05 level of significance. This indicates
that there is no significant difference in the effect of treatments in terms of number of
leaves. No statistical interaction between treatment and period is also denoted.
Meanwhile, the F-value computed for period (628) is so much higher than the critical
F-value (4.256) and the p-value (<0.001) was lower than 0.05 level of significance
which shows that there is a significant difference in the period of plant growth in
terms of the number of leaves of mustard.
Table 4.18
Comparison in Terms of the Length of Leaves
Source of
Variation
Treatment
Period
Treatment x Period
Fvalue
Fcritical
p-value
23.859
2886.778
11.648
4.256
4.256
3.633
<0.001
<0.001
0.001
Decision on
Ho
Reject
Reject
Reject
Interpretation
Significant
Significant
Significant
In the Table 4.17, it can be noticed that all F-values (23.859, 2886.778, 11.648)
are greater than the critical F-values (4.256, 4.256, 3.633) whereas all p-values
(<0.001, <0.001, 0.001) were lower than 0.05 level of significance. Hence, the null
hypothesis was rejected. There was a significant difference in the effects of treatments
and period of plant growth in terms of length of leaves. There was also an interaction
between the treatments and the period of plant growth.
Table 4.19
Comparison in Terms of the Plant Height
Source of Variation
Fvalue
Fcritical
p-value
Decision on Ho
Interpretation
Treatment
2.347
2.773
0.083
Accept
Not Significant
There is no significant difference in the effects of the treatments in terms of plant
height. It resulted from the computed F-value (2.347) that is lower than the critical Fvalue (2.773) and from the p-value (0.083) that is greater than 0.05 level of significance.
Table 4.20
Comparison in Terms of the Color of Leaves
Source of Variation
Fvalue
Fcritical
p-value
Decision on Ho
Interpretation
Treatment
Period
2
2
6.944
6.944
0.25
0.25
Accept
Accept
Not Significant
Not Significant
Since the F-values (both 2) for the effects of treatments and period of plant growth
are lower than the critical F-values (both 6.944) and their corresponding p-values (both
0.25) are higher than 0.05 level of significance, the null hypothesis is accepted. Hence,
there is no significant difference in the effects of treatments and period of plant growth in
terms of the color of leaves.
