SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Toprak Bilimi ve Bitki Besleme Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 1

Effects of rice husk biochar produced at different temperatures on soil properties and lettuce yield under drought conditions

Farklı sıcaklıklarda üretilen çeltik kavuzu biyokömürünün kurak koşullarda toprak özellikleri ve marul bitkisi verimine etkileri

Salih Demirkaya(ONDOKUZ MAYIS ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-7374-0160
Samiullah Zahid(ONDOKUZ MAYIS ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0009-9884-0705
Onur Yasin Kazkondu(ONDOKUZ MAYIS ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0006-3801-3909
Dursun Çağrı Ahiskalioglu(ONDOKUZ MAYIS ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0008-7351-6573
Coşkun Gülser(ONDOKUZ MAYIS ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-6332-4876
Pages
58–69
Publication Date
2026-06-26
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate that increasing irrigation water levels and biochar application rates significantly (p<0.01) increased the fresh and dry biomass yields of lettuce as well as its water use efficiency.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to evaluate the effects of rice husk biochar produced at different pyrolysis temperatures (350°C and 550°C) under increasing water stress conditions on the yield and physiological parameters of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) as well as on soil properties.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Conducted under greenhouse conditions using a factorial experimental design in randomized blocks, the study tested three different irrigation regimes (50%, 75%, and 100%), two different biochar types (B350 and B550), and three different biochar application rates (0%, 1%, and 2%).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that increasing irrigation water levels and biochar application rates significantly (p<0.01) increased the fresh and dry biomass yields of lettuce as well as its water use efficiency.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Biyokömür · çeltik kavuzu · kuraklık stresi

Abstract

This study aims to evaluate the effects of rice husk biochar produced at different pyrolysis temperatures (350°C and 550°C) under increasing water stress conditions on the yield and physiological parameters of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) as well as on soil properties. Conducted under greenhouse conditions using a factorial experimental design in randomized blocks, the study tested three different irrigation regimes (50%, 75%, and 100%), two different biochar types (B350 and B550), and three different biochar application rates (0%, 1%, and 2%). The findings indicate that increasing irrigation water levels and biochar application rates significantly (p<0.01) increased the fresh and dry biomass yields of lettuce as well as its water use efficiency. Although the production temperature of biochar had no statistically significant main effect on yield parameters, the application of 2% biochar resulted in a 24% increase in fresh yield and a 30% increase in dry yield compared to the control group. In terms of soil properties, a 2% biochar application increased the soil’s exchangeable potassium and available phosphorus concentrations by 24% and 18%, respectively. In conclusion, applying 2% rice hull biochar to the soil—regardless of production temperature—is an effective, economical, and environmentally friendly method for optimizing water use efficiency, maintaining crop yield, and sustainably increasing soil fertility in agricultural systems under drought stress..

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, artan su stresi koşulları altında farklı piroliz sıcaklıklarında (350°C ve 550°C) üretilen çeltik kavuzu biyokömürünün marul (Lactuca sativa L.) bitkisinin verimi ve fizyolojik parametreleri ile toprak özellikleri üzerindeki etkilerinin araştırılmasıdır. Sera koşullarında, tesadüf parsellerinde faktöriyel deneme desenine göre kurulan çalışmada; üç farklı sulama rejimi (%50, %75 ve %100), iki farklı biyokömür tipi (B350 ve B550) ve üç farklı biyokömür dozu (%0, %1 ve %2) test edilmiştir. Elde edilen bulgular, artan sulama suyu seviyelerinin ve biyokömür dozlarının marulun taze ve kuru biyokütle verimi ile su kullanım randımanını istatistiksel olarak ileri düzeyde (p<0.01) artırdığını göstermektedir. Biyokömürün üretim sıcaklığının verim parametreleri üzerinde istatistiksel açıdan anlamlı bir ana etkisi bulunmamasına rağmen, %2 oranındaki biyokömür uygulaması kontrol grubuna kıyasla taze verimde %24, kuru verimde ise %30'luk bir artış sağlamıştır. Toprak özellikeri açısından değerlendirildiğinde, %2'lik biyokömür dozu toprağın değişebilir potasyum ve alınabilir fosfor konsantrasyonlarını sırasıyla %24 ve %18 oranında artırmıştır. Sonuç olarak bu çalışmada, çeltik kavuzu biyokömürünün üretim sıcaklığından bağımsız olarak %2 oranında toprağa uygulanmasının, kuraklık baskısı altındaki tarımsal sistemlerde su kullanım randımanını optimize etmek, bitki verimini korumak ve toprak verimliliğini sürdürülebilir bir şekilde artırmak için etkili, ekonomik ve çevre dostu bir strateji olduğu vurgulanmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Demirkaya, S., Zahid, S., Kazkondu, O. Y., Ahiskalioglu, D. Ç., Gülser, C. (2026). Effects of rice husk biochar produced at different temperatures on soil properties and lettuce yield under drought conditions. Toprak Bilimi ve Bitki Besleme Dergisi, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 1, 58–69. https://doi.org/10.33409/tbbbd.1951076

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (58)

  1. Agegnehu G, Bass AM, Nelson PN, Bird MI. 2016. Benefits of biochar, compost and biochar–compost for soil quality, maize yield and greenhouse gas emissions in a tropical agricultural soil. Science of the Total Environment 543: 295-306.
  2. Ahmad M, Rajapaksha AU, Lim JE, Zhang M, Bolan N, Mohan D, Ok YS. 2014. Biochar as a sorbent for contaminant management in soil and water: a review. Chemosphere 99: 19-30.
  3. Alburquerque JA, Salazar P, Barrón V, Torrent J, del Campillo MC, Villar R. 2014. Enhanced wheat yield by biochar addition under different mineral fertilization levels. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 34(2): 475-484.
  4. Ali S, Rizwan M, Qayyum MF, Ok YS, Ibrahim M, Riaz M, Hannan F. 2017. Biochar soil amendment on alleviation of drought and salt stress in plants: a critical review. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 24(14): 12700-12712.
  5. Arnon DI. 1949. Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Polyphenoloxidase in Beta vulgaris. Plant Physiology 24(1): 1-15.
  6. Batool A, Taj S, Rashid A, Khalid A, Qadeer S, Saleem AR, Ghafoor A. 2015. Potential of soil amendments (biochar and gypsum) in increasing water use efficiency of Abelmoschus esculentus L. Moench. Frontiers in Plant Science 6: 733.
  7. Biederman LA, Harpole WS. 2013. Biochar and its effects on plant productivity and nutrient cycling: a meta‐analysis. GCB Bioenergy 5(2): 202-214.
  8. Bouyoucos GJ. 1962. Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analyses of soils. Agronomy Journal 54(5): 464–465.
  9. Candemir F, Gülser C. 2007. Changes in some chemical and physical properties of a sandy clay loam soil during the decomposition of hazelnut husk. Asian J. Chem., 19 (3):2452-2460.
  10. Candemir F, Gülser C. 2011. Effects of different agricultural wastes on some soil quality indexes at clay and loamy sand fields. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Analy. 42 (1):13-28.
  11. Cantrell KB, Hunt PG, Uchimiya M, Novak JM, Ro KS. 2012. Impact of pyrolysis temperature and manure source on physicochemical characteristics of biochar. Bioresource Technology 107: 419-428.
  12. Carter S, Shackley S, Sohi S, Suy TB, Haefele S. 2013. The impact of biochar application on soil properties and plant growth of pot grown lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and cabbage (Brassica chinensis). Agronomy 3(2): 404-418.
  13. Clough TJ, Condron LM, Kammann C, Müller C. 2013. A review of biochar and soil nitrogen dynamics. Agronomy 3(2): 275-293.
  14. Demir Z, Gülser C. 2008. Changes in OC, NO3-N, EC values and soil respiration along a soil depth due to surface application of organic wastes. Asian J. Chem., 20(3):2011-2021.
  15. Demir Z, Gülser C. 2015. Effects of rice husk compost application on soil quality parameters in greenhouse conditions. Eurasian Journal of Soil Science, 4(3):185-190.
  16. Demir Z, Gülser C. 2021. Effects of Rice Husk Compost on Some Soil Properties, Water Use Efficiency and Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Yield under Greenhouse and Field Conditions. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, pp.1-18.
  17. Demirkaya S, Ay A, Gülser C, Kızılkaya R. 2025. Enhancing clay soil productivity with fresh and aged biochar: A two-year field study on soil quality and wheat yield. Sustainability 17(2): 642.
  18. Demirkaya S, Gülser C. 2023. Asitleştirilmiş biyoçar uygulamalarının kaba bünyeli bir toprakta DTPA ile ekstrakte edilebilir mikro element içeriğine etkisi. Toprak Bilimi ve Bitki Besleme Dergisi 11(1): 47-53.
  19. Demirkaya S, Gülser C. 2025. Biochar innovations for sustainable agriculture: Acidification and zinc enrichment strategies to improve calcareous soil fertility and wheat yield. Soil and Water Research.
  20. Ding Y, Liu Y, Liu S, Li Z, Tan X, Huang X, Zheng B. 2016. Biochar to improve soil fertility. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 36(2): 36.
  21. Fahad S, Bajwa AA, Nazir U, Anjum SA, Farooq A, Zohaib A, Huang J. 2017. Crop production under drought and heat stress: plant responses and management options. Frontiers in Plant Science 8: 1147.
  22. Fedeli R, Vannini A, Djatouf N, Celletti S, Loppi S. 2024. Can lettuce plants grow in saline soils supplemented with biochar? Heliyon 10(5): e26526.
  23. Glaser B, Lehmann J, Zech W. 2002. Ameliorating physical and chemical properties of highly weathered soils in the tropics with charcoal–a review. Biology and Fertility of Soils 35(4): 219-230.
  24. Gudko V, Tanwar S, Minkina T, Sushkova S, Usatov A, Azarin K, Safronenkova I, Melnik Y, Voloshchuk V, Gülser C, Kızılkaya R. 2025. Analysis of drought dynamics using SPI and SARIMA models: A case study of the Rostov Region, Russia. Eurasian Journal of Soil Science, 14(3), pp.208-218.
  25. Gul S, Whalen JK, Thomas BW, Sachdeva V, Deng H. 2015. Physico-chemical properties and microbial responses in biochar-amended soils: Mechanisms and future directions. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 206: 46-59.
  26. Gunes A, Inal A, Taskin MB, Sahin O, Kaya EC, Atakol A. 2014. Effect of phosphorus-enriched biochar and poultry manure on growth and mineral nutrition of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. cv.) grown in alkaline soil. Soil Use and Management 30(2): 182-188.
  27. Gülser C, Demir Z, İç S. 2010. Changes in some soil properties at different incubation periods after tobacco waste application. Journal of Environmental Biology, 31:671-674.
  28. Gülser C, Gülser F. 2025. The influence of climate change on soil physical properties. In “The foundation of life and economy: the importance of agricultural production” (Ed: Çınar S, Bayyiğit İ.). Iksad Publishing House. p.3-22.
  29. Gülser C, Kızılkaya R, Aşkın T, Ekberli İ. 2015. Changes in Soil Quality by Compost and Hazelnut Husk Applications in a Hazelnut Orchard. Compost Science and Utilization, 23:3, 135-141.
  30. Haider G, Steffens D, Moser G, Müller C, Kammann CE. 2017. Biochar reduced nitrate leaching and improved soil moisture content without yield improvements in a four-year field study. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 237: 80-94.
  31. Hossain MZ, Bahar MM, Sarkar B, Donne SW, Ok YS, Bolan N. 2020. Biochar and its importance on nutrient dynamics in soil and plant. Biochar 2(4): 379-420.
  32. Hussain M, Farooq M, Nawaz A, Al-Sadi AM, Solaiman ZM, Siddique KH. 2017. Biochar for crop production: potential benefits and risks. Journal of Soils and Sediments 17(3): 685-716.
  33. Jabborova D, Kadirova D, Narimanov A, Wirth S. 2021. Beneficial effects of biochar application on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) growth, root morphological traits and physiological properties. Annals of Phytomedicine 10(2): 93-100.
  34. Jackson ML. 1958. Soil chemical analysis. Prentice-Hall.
  35. Jeffery S, Verheijen FG, van der Velde M, Bastos AC. 2011. A quantitative review of the effects of biochar application to soils on crop productivity using meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 144(1): 175-187.
  36. Kacar B, İnal A. 2008. Bitki Analizleri. Nobel Yayın Dağıtım, 2. Baskı, Ankara.
  37. Kamali M, Sweygers N, Al-Salem S, Appels L, Aminabhavi TM, Dewil R. 2022. Biochar for soil applications-sustainability aspects, challenges and future prospects. Chemical Engineering Journal 428: 131189.
  38. Klute A. 1986. Water Retention: Laboratory Methods. In: Klute A (Ed), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods (2nd ed.). ASA-SSSA, Madison, WI, pp. 635–662.
  39. Laird DA, Fleming P, Davis DD, Horton R, Wang B, Karlen DL. 2010. Impact of biochar amendments on the quality of a typical Midwestern agricultural soil. Geoderma 158(3-4): 443-449.
  40. Lehmann J, Joseph S (Ed). 2015. Biochar for environmental management: Science, technology and implementation.
  41. Liu Q, Huang L, Chen Z, Wen Z, Ma L, Xu S, Wu Y, Liu Y, Feng Y. 2022. Biochar and its combination with inorganic or organic amendment on growth, uptake and accumulation of cadmium on lettuce. Journal of Cleaner Production 370: 133610.
  42. Loeppert RH, Suarez DL. 1996. Carbonate and gypsum. In: Bigham JM (Ed), Methods of soil analysis: Part 3. Chemical methods. Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy, pp. 437–474.
  43. Major J, Rondon M, Molina D, Riha SJ, Lehmann J. 2010. Maize yield and nutrition during 4 years after biochar application to a Colombian savanna oxisol. Plant and Soil 333(1): 117-128.
  44. Mawalla DE, Gülser C. 2025. The Influence of Biochars Derived from Different Agricultural Wastes on Water Use Efficiency and Wheat Yield in Two Contrasting Textural Soils. Journal of Agriculture and Ecology Research International, 26(5), pp.150-156.
  45. Nelson DW, Sommers LE. 1982. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In: Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR (Eds), Methods of soil analysis: Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties (2. bs.). American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America, pp. 539–579.
  46. Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanabe FS, Dean LA. 1954. Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate (USDA Genelgesi No. 939). U.S. Government Printing Office.
  47. Rahman MM, Maqbool N, Ay A, Gülser C, Kizilkaya R. 2024. Role of hazelnut husk compost and phosphate solubilizing bacteria in improving productivity and quality parameters of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and their effects on some soil biological properties. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 55(13), pp.2042-2058.
  48. Routledge. Lehmann J, Rillig MC, Thies J, Masiello CA, Hockaday WC, Crowley D. 2011. Biochar effects on soil biota–a review. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 43(9): 1812-1836.
  49. Seleiman MF, Al-Suhaibani N, Ali N, Akmal M, Alotaibi M, Refay Y, Battaglia ML. 2021. Drought stress impacts on plants and different approaches to alleviate its adverse effects. Plants 10(2): 259.
  50. Shoumik BAA, Khan MZ, Gülser C. 2025. Climate Sensitivity of Soil Organic Carbon and Nutrient Stocks Under Different Land Uses in Europe. European Journal of Soil Science, 76(4), p.e70156.
  51. Thomas GW. 1982. Exchangeable cations. In: Page AL, Miller RH, Keeney DR (Eds), Methods of soil analysis: Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties (2. bs.). American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of America, pp. 159–165.
  52. Tomczyk A, Sokołowska Z, Boguta P. 2020. Biochar physicochemical properties: synergy between biomass margin and pyrolysis conditions. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology 19(1): 211-269.
  53. Trupiano D, Cocozza C, Baronti S, Amendola C, Vaccari FP, Lustrato G, Di Lonardo S, Fantasma F, Tognetti R, Scippa GS. 2017. The effects of biochar and its combination with compost on lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) growth, soil properties, and soil microbial activity and abundance. International Journal of Agronomy 2017: 3158207.
  54. Upadhyay KP, George D, Swift RS, Galea V. 2014. The influence of biochar on growth of lettuce and potato. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 13(3): 541-546.
  55. Yavuzkılıç Y, Gülser C. 2024. Fındık atık kompostunun fındıkta verim ve yaprak makro besin elementi içeriğine etkisi. Toprak Bilimi ve Bitki Besleme Dergisi, 12(1), pp.59-66.
  56. Zeeshan M, Ahmad W, Hussain F, Ahmad W, Numan M, Shah M, Ahmad I. 2020. Phytostimulatory effect of biochar on growth and physiological attributes of crop plants under environmental stresses. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 17(5): 2963-2980.
  57. Zhang J, Liu J, Liu R. 2015. Effects of pyrolysis temperature and heating time on biochar obtained from the pyrolysis of straw and lignosulfonate. Bioresource Technology 176: 288-291.
  58. Zhao L, Cao X, Mašek O, Zimmerman A. 2013. Heterogeneity of biochar properties as a function of feedstock sources and production temperatures. Journal of Hazardous Materials 256: 1-9.