• No results found

EFFECT OF FLY ASH ON SOIL PHYSICO CHEMICAL PROPERTIES AND MAIZE YIELD IN ACIDIC ALFISOL

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2020

Share "EFFECT OF FLY ASH ON SOIL PHYSICO CHEMICAL PROPERTIES AND MAIZE YIELD IN ACIDIC ALFISOL"

Copied!
15
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International e-Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories

International Research Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences (IRJNAS)

Website: www.aarf.asia. Email: editoraarf@gmail.com , editor@aarf.asia Page 48

EFFECT OF FLY ASH ON SOIL PHYSICO-CHEMICAL PROPERTIES

AND MAIZE YIELD IN ACIDIC ALFISOL

Chandraka T1 Research

Scholar

Jena D2 Professor

Dash AK3 Professor

Jena SN4 Assoc. Professor

Panda N5 Assistant Professor

1,2,3,4,5 Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, College of Agriculture,

Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology, Bhubhaneswar-751003, India

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was conducted for three seasons during 2013-14 to compare the effect of fly ash with lime and gypsum on soil physic- chemical properties and yield of maize crop in acidic Alfisol. The experiment was laid out in a Randomized Block Design with three replications and eight treatments comprised of lime, gypsum, fly ash with or without FYM including control. The experimental soil has acidic pH (4.6), sandy loam texture, low in available N, P and K. The results revealed that one time application of fly ash @ 40 t/ha alone or with FYM altered the soil texture with increasing clay and silt content and water holding capacity by 8-12 % both in surface and sub surface soil. Integrated use of fly ash+lime+FYM resulted in higher pH (5.45) and higher Ca accumulation (3.7 %) in surface soil. Downward movement of Ca and SO4-S up to 30 cm soil depth was observed with gypsum

application. Application of lime to each crop significantly increased the maize yield by 27 % over control. Inclusion of FYM with lime, fly ash or gypsum resulted in about 5 q/ha higher yield over their sole application. One time application of fly ash to first crop stabilized maize yield up to third season. Heavy metal (Pb, Cd, Cr) accumulation in fly ash treatments were below toxic level and could be used in acidic soils without affecting the soil health.

Keywords: Fly Ash, Texture, Water Holding Capacity, Heavy Metal, Maize Yield

Introduction

(2)

A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International e-Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories

International Research Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences (IRJNAS)

Website: www.aarf.asia. Email: editoraarf@gmail.com , editor@aarf.asia Page 49 total production. Several researchers used different amendments to neutralize soil acidity. Application of paper mill sludge (a byproduct of paper mills) was used extensively to correct soil acidity and enhanced the yield of several crops by 15-20 % in Odisha state of India [2]. Industrial byproducts like fly ash (a byproduct of coal combustion electric power plant), phospho-gypsum (byproduct of fertilizer plant) can be effectively utilized in acid soils as it provides calcium and sulphur [3]. Recycling of alkaline fly ash (FA) can be considered for pH adjustment and partial nutrient supplementation [4][5]. Fly ash application have corrected plant nutritional deficiencies of B [6][7], Mg [8], Mo [9], S [8], and Zn [10]. The physical structure of fly ash often consists of “hollow spheres” and these particles show an increased surface area, capillary action and nutrient holding capacity [11].

Recycling of organic wastes in the agricultural land brings in the much needed organic and mineral matter to the soil. The organic material with different C:N ratios and biochemical compositions not only release nutrients at different pace [12], but also provides specific metal binding sites from which metals are difficult to exchange [13. So there is a great need to create awareness for the use of the organic wastes in combinations with fertilizers and fly ash to explore its potentialities, discover its complexities, evaluate its behaviour, asses its benefits and learn to adapt for greater benefits, profitability and sustainability in large areas and on the more crops [14].

Materials and Methods

A field experiment was carried out in upland site of Central Research Station, O.U.A.T., Bhubaneswar during the kharif seasons of 2013 and 2014 and rabi season of 2013-14. The fly ash (FA) collected from Indian Metal Ferrro-Alliance Corporation (IMFA), Chaudar was used for the study. The initial characteristics of soil and the properties of fly ash are furnished in Table 1. The experiment consisted of eight treatments and each replicated thrice in a random block design. The treatments are; T1 -control (received no

amendments), T2-lime @ 0.2 LR, T3-gypsum @ 2.5 q/ha, T4-Fly ash @ 40 t/ha, T5-lime @ 0.2

LR + FYM @ 10 t/ha, T6-gypsum @ 2.5 q/ha+FYM @ 10 t/ha, T7-Fly ash @ 40 t/ha+FYM @

10 t/ha and T8-lime @ 0.2 LR+Fly ash @ 40 t/ha+FYM @ 10 t/ha. Each crop, received the

(3)

A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International e-Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories

International Research Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences (IRJNAS)

Website: www.aarf.asia. Email: editoraarf@gmail.com , editor@aarf.asia Page 50 Soil samples for physical and chemical analysis were collected from the different layers viz. 0-15, 15-30, 30-45, 45-60, 60-75 and 75-90 cm after harvest of third maize crop and analyzed in the laboratory for particle size distribution with the help of Bouyoucous Hydrometer method as given by [15], water holding capacity by Keen Raczkowski Box method [15], soil pH by pH meter (ELICO LI 613 pH meter) as described by [16]. Organic carbon was estimated by Wet digestion procedure of Walkley and Black [17] as outlined in soil chemical analysis [18]. Available calcium was extracted from soil by ammonium acetate as described by Black [19] and estimated by titrating with Ethylene Diamine Tetra Acetate (EDTA) using Calcon and Eriochrome black T (EBT) indicator as described by Page et al. [18]. Available sulphur was determined turbidimetrically following the procedure of Chesnin and Yien [20] as described by [18] and DTPA extractable lead, cadmium and chromium were determined by DTPA (Diethylene Triamine Penta Acetic Acid) extraction method as described by Lindsay and Norvell [21] and determined by Atomic Absorption Spectrometer (Perkin ELMER Precisely AANALYST 200, Atomic Absorption Spectrometer). Soil analysis data were recorded, compiled in appropriate tables and analyzed statistically in DSAASTAT software.

Table1. Physical and chemical properties of soil and fly ash used in experiment

Properties Soil Fly ash

Particle size distribution 0-15 cm 15-30

cm

30-45 cm

Sand (%) 69.18 63.50 58.30 41.2 (0.02- 2 mm)

Silt (%) 22.32 26.40 28.60 49.6(0.002-0.02mm)

Clay (%) 8.49 11.2 15.8 9.2 (< 0.002 mm)

Texture Sandy

loam

Sandy loam

Sandy loam -

BD (Mg m-3) 1.63 1.68 1.74 0.98

WHC (%) 26.48 35.60 39.2 47.5

pH(1:2.5) 4.6 4.57 4.53 6.7

EC(1:2.5) (dS/m) 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.16

OC (g kg-1) 3.82 2.98 2.25 1.55

ECEC (cmol(+)kg-1) 2.93 3.04 3.54 -

(4)

A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International e-Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories

International Research Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences (IRJNAS)

Website: www.aarf.asia. Email: editoraarf@gmail.com , editor@aarf.asia Page 51

Exchangeable Al3+(cmol(+)kg-1) 0.33 0.65 0.99 -

Exchangeable H+(cmol(+)kg-1) 0.11 0.17 0.33 -

LR (kg CaCO3/ha) 1633.33 - - -

Available N (mg kg-1) 82.1 78.5 72.3 15.2

Available P (mg kg-1) 6.54 5.91 4.78 12.18

Available K (mg kg-1) 58.03 38.52 36.36 72.8

Available Ca (cmol(+)kg-1) 1.35 1.26 1.28 2.12

Available Mg (cmol(+)kg-1) 0.92 0.86 0.84 1.46

Available S (mg kg-1) 10.5 9.11 10.71 39.26

DTPA Extractable Fe (mg kg-1) 51.44 63.85 76.46 105.94

DTPA Extractable Mn (mg kg-1) 37.5 42.80 45.40 65.73

DTPA Extractable Zn (mg kg-1) 0.86 0.80 0.72 1.92

DTPA Extractable Cu (mg kg-1) 1.04 1.62 1.58 1.14

DTPA Extractable Cd (mg kg-1) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04

DTPA Extractable Pb (mg kg-1) 0.04 0.32 0.34 0.4

DTPA Extractable Cr (mg kg-1) 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.2

Result and Discussion

Particle Size Distribution

Results revealed that there was appreciable change in clay content in different treatments along the soil depth after 3rd maize crop (Fig. 1). The clay content in surface soil

(0-15 cm) increased by 7.2 % in control (T1) and 24.9 % in fly ash (T4) and fly ash and FYM

(T7) over initial. In sub-surface soil the clay content in fly ash+FYM treatment increased by

11.6% at 15-30 cm and 2.5% at 30- 45 cm depth and there after remained constant.

The silt content in surface soil (0-15 cm) increased by 1.3 % in control (T1) and 8.4 % in

fly ash (T4) and fly ash and FYM (T7) treatment over initial. In sub-surface soil the silt

(5)

A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International e-Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories

International Research Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences (IRJNAS)

Website: www.aarf.asia. Email: editoraarf@gmail.com , editor@aarf.asia Page 52 Figure1. Depth wise Particle size distribution (%) and water holding capacity (%) of soil after harvest of third crop

There was appreciable change in sand content in different treatments along the soil depth after 3rd maize crop. The sand content in surface soil (0-15 cm) decreased by 1.3 % in control and 5.8 % in fly ash (T4) and fly ash and FYM (T7) over initial. Similar trend was

observed up to 45 cm and thereafter no change in sand content along the depth. The increase in silt and clay content in fly ash alone or in combination with FYM might be due to high percentage of silt and clay in fly ash which was percolated down ward up to 45 cm depth, in turn alter the soil texture.

(6)

A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International e-Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories

International Research Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences (IRJNAS)

Website: www.aarf.asia. Email: editoraarf@gmail.com , editor@aarf.asia Page 53 soil to loamy [25][26]. Addition of fly-ash at 200 t acre-1 improved the physical and chemical

properties of soil and shifted the USDA textural class of the refuge from sandy loam to silt loam [27].

Water Holding Capacity

The results presented in Figure 1 indicated that there was appreciable change in water holding capacity in different treatments along the soil depth after 3rd maize crop. The water holding capacity in surface soil (0-15 cm) increased by 1.1, 12.3 and 10.8 % in control (T1), fly

ash (T4) and fly ash + FYM (T7) respectively, over the initial value. Similarly, the water

holding capacity increased along the soil depth up to 45 cm and then decreased. The increase in water holding capacity in surface and sub-surface soil with fly ash alone or combination with FYM treated plots might be due to alter in soil texture by having more silt and clay content, increase micro-porosity and hence, improve the water-holding capacity.

Similar findings were compiled by [28] as fly ash is mainly comprised of silt-sized particles. Fly-ash generally decreased the bulk density of soils leading to improved soil porosity, workability and enhanced water-retention capacity [29]. A gradual increase in fly-ash concentration in the normal field soil (0, 10, 20 up to 100 % v/v) was reported to increase the porosity, water-holding capacity, conductivity and cation exchange capacity [30]. Amendment with fly-ash up to 40% also increased soil porosity from 43% to 53% and water-holding capacity from 39% to 55% [31].

Changes in soil reaction

The pH of soil varied significantly among the treatments after 3rd season crop (Fig. 2). The pH of all treatments except control (T1) and gypsum (T3) were increased as compared to

initial pH 4.6 in 0-15 cm depth. The highest pH 5.45 encountered in T8 followed by pH 5.24

in T5 and lowest pH 4.47 was encountered in T1. There was significant higher pH in T8 over

T2 and T5. Combined application of gypsum with FYM (T6) had significant higher pH over

gypsum (T3) and control. Application of fly ash alone (T4) or with FYM (T7) had significant

higher pH over control but lower than T8 in 0-15 cm depth.

In 15-30 cm soil depth, the pH of all treatments except gypsum (T3) was increased as

compared to initial pH 4.57 after 3rd season crop. The highest pH 5.39 encountered in T8

followed by pH 5.01 in T5 and lowest pH 4.44 was encountered in T3. Combined application of

(7)

A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International e-Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories

International Research Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences (IRJNAS)

Website: www.aarf.asia. Email: editoraarf@gmail.com , editor@aarf.asia Page 54 Application of fly ash alone (T4) or with FYM (T7) had significant higher pH over control

but lower than T8.

In 30-45 cm soil depth, the pH of all treatments was increased as compared to initial pH 4.53 after 3rd season crop. The highest pH 5.28 encountered in T

8 followed by pH 5.16 in

T5 and lowest pH 4.62 was encountered in T1. Application of gypsum alone or with FYM

recorded higher pH than control but lower than lime+fly ash+FYM (T8) treatment. The effect

of combined application of fly ash and FYM can be compared with lime treatment.

(8)

A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International e-Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories

International Research Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences (IRJNAS)

Website: www.aarf.asia. Email: editoraarf@gmail.com , editor@aarf.asia Page 55 The increase in pH over fly ash application might be due to increase in basic cations. The CaO of the fly ash might have interacted with water in the presence of CO

2 and produced

hydroxyl and other ionic forms in the soil solution and the carbonates are precipitates [32][33]. These reactions and the presence of Na, would explain the high pH value [34]. Similar findings were quoted by [35] that soil pH was increased from 5.0 to 6.5-7.5 when fly ash was applied @ 40%.

Organic carbon status in soil after 3rd crop

Results revealed that there was appreciable change in organic carbon (OC) status of different treatments in soil after 3rd maize crop (Table 3). It varied from 3.09 to 4.83 g kg-1. The highest OC was in fly ash and FYM (T7) treatment (4.83 g kg-1) followed by lime, fly ash

and FYM (T8) and lime and FYM (T5) with 4.44 g kg-1 and lowest was 3.09 g kg-1 in gypsum

(T3). There was 26.35 % build-up of OC in T7, 16.25 % in T5 and T8 over initial but decreased by

19.13 % in T3 over initial. Giodrojet et al. [36] recorded improvement in organic carbon

content of sandy soil by application of fly ash @ 200 to 800 t/ha.

Available calcium in soil

There was appreciable change in available Ca content in different treatments along the soil depth after 3rd maize crop (Table 2). The available Ca content in surface soil (0-15 cm) increased by 3.7 % in lime (T2) and lime+fly ash+FYM (T8) treatment over initial and

decreased in other treatment. The increase in available Ca in T2 and T8 was due to addition of

CaCO3 in surface soil. In sub-surface soil (15-30 cm) the available Ca increased by 6.9 and 7.4

% in T6 and T8, respectively over initial. Addition of Ca through gypsum increases sub-surface

soil Ca content because of more solubility and leachability.

Available Sulphur in soil

(9)

A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International e-Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories

International Research Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences (IRJNAS)

Website: www.aarf.asia. Email: editoraarf@gmail.com , editor@aarf.asia Page 56 decreased at 30-45 depth. Application of FA or lime alone or with FYM did not have much impact on S content in soil might be due to higher crop uptake. On the other hand, fly ash treatments recorded higher value than lime due to presence of appreciable amounts of Ca, Mg and S in FA. [37]Kuchanvar et al., and [38]Gangalff et al., also reported enhanced availability of secondary nutrients by the addition of FA.

Table2. Depth wise available calcium and sulphur in soil after harvest of 3rd crop

Treatment Ca (cmol(p+) kg-1) S (kg ha-1)

0-15 cm 15-30 cm 30-45 cm 0-15 cm 15-30 cm 30-45 cm

Control 1.30 1.25 1.25 14.53b* 13.42e 18.10b

Lime (L) 1.40 1.30 1.25 15.25b 14.50de 18.30b

Gypsum (G) 1.35 1.30 1.30 22.75a 23.60a 26.20a

Fly ash

(FA)

1.30 1.25 1.25 18.33ab 17.80bcd 19.50b

L+FYM 1.35 1.30 1.25 15.72b 15.30cde 18.90b

G+FYM 1.35 1.40 1.30 23.02a 24.74a 26.00a

FA+FYM 1.35 1.30 1.25 18.90ab 19.25b 19.75b

L+FA+FYM 1.40 1.35 1.30 17.80b 18.70bc 19.50b

CD(0.05) 0.12 0.10 0.10 4.95 3.72 4.09

CV (%) 5.05 4.61 4.53 15.47 11.55 11.24

*Means with atleast one letter common are not statistically significant using DMRT

DTPA extractable Heavy metals in soil after third crop

(10)

A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International e-Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories

International Research Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences (IRJNAS)

Website: www.aarf.asia. Email: editoraarf@gmail.com , editor@aarf.asia Page 57 when fly ash is mixed with lime and FYM, lime reduces the adverse effect of fly ash with accumulation of Pb, Cd and Cr at a level of 0.08, 0.02 and 0.20 mg/kg, respectively. Several researchers have reported the effect of lime on heavy metal accumulation through fly ash application in soil. Low pH soils with low CEC induce a greater uptake of soluble Cd by plants. Addition of liming materials increased the soil pH and immobilized the Cd in soils. Further, Ca added through liming, depressed Cd uptake by competiting for exchange sites at the root surface. The uptake of Pb is also found to decrease with liming, which attributed to increased adsorption/ precipitation at high pH, and competition between Pb and other cations for uptake [39]. Calcium addition through liming inhibits the translocation of Pb from root to shoot. Addition of liming materials also decreased the concentration of the soluble Cr (III) in roots.

Table3. Organic carbon and DTPA Extractable Heavy Metals in soil (0-15 cm) after 3rd crop

harvest

Treatment OC (g kg-1) Pb (mg kg-1) Cd (mg kg-1) Cr (mg kg-1)

Control 3.64c 0.08bc 0.03 0.23ab

Lime (L) 3.67c 0.04c 0.01 0.16cd

Gypsum (G) 3.09d 0.16a 0.03 0.26a

Fly ash (FA) 3.86c 0.18a 0.03 0.22ab

L+FYM 4.44b 0.04c 0.01 0.19bcd

G+FYM 3.86c 0.18a 0.03 0.23ab

FA+FYM 4.83a 0.18a 0.03 0.23ab

L+FA+FYM 4.44b 0.08bc 0.02 0.20bc

CD(0.05) 0.21 0.04 0.01 0.05

CV (%) 3.17 10.55 14.70 12.64

*Means with atleast one letter common are not statistically significant using DMRT

(11)

A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International e-Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories

International Research Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences (IRJNAS)

Website: www.aarf.asia. Email: editoraarf@gmail.com , editor@aarf.asia Page 58 long run. Combined application of fly ash with lime and FYM would be beneficial and inhibit the heavy metal solubility in soil and translocation from root to shoot and can be recommended in acid soils for crop production without affecting the soil health.

Maize yield

[image:11.595.74.511.466.709.2]

The maize grain yield data presented in figure 3 revealed that in absolute control, the yield was 35.74, 39.94 and 40 12 q/ha during kharif 2013, rabi 2013-14 and kharif 2014, respectively. Application of lime to each crop significantly increased the pooled yield over control by 27 %. The yield in gypsum treatment was at par with control. On the other hand one time application of fly ash to first crop stabilised the yield up to third season and recorded significantly higher yield (43.12 q/ha) over control and gypsum treatment. Inclusion of FYM with amendments resulted in about 5 q/ha higher yield over their sole application. Integrated use of lime+fly ash+FYM recorded maximum yield as compared to their sole application or combination with FYM. Inclusion of FYM with amendments enhanced the activity of beneficial microbes, which play an important role in mobilization of nutrients and there by leading to better availability of nutrients facilitating uptake by plants resulting in better growth and dry matter production. The data further indicated that one time application of fly ash with FYM is compared with lime treatment and can be recommended for crops in acid soils.

(12)

A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International e-Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories

International Research Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences (IRJNAS)

Website: www.aarf.asia. Email: editoraarf@gmail.com , editor@aarf.asia Page 59 Conclusion

From this study it can be concluded that application of fly ash @ 40 t/ha alone or with FYM alter the soil texture, increase the clay and silt content and water holding capacity of soil. Application of lime alone or with FYM increased the pH and available Ca content in surface soil. Whereas, gypsum application build up the sub surface sulphur content. Application of lime increased the maize yield by 27 % over control. One time application of fly ash to first crop stabilised the maize yield up to third season. Inclusion of FYM with fly ash, lime or gypsum resulted in about 5 q/ha higher yield over their sole application. Heavy metal accumulation in fly ash treatments were below toxic level. Considering both physical and chemical aspect of soil, fly ash could be recommended in acid soils for higher crop production without affecting the soil health.

Bibliography:

[1].Mandal SC (1997). Introduction and Historical Overveiw. In Acid Soil of India; Mohapatra IC, Mandal SC, Mishra C, Mitra GN, Panda N Eds.: Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, India: 3-24.

[2].Jena D (2011). Acid soil management in India- challenges and opportunities. In: strategies for arresting land degradation in south Asian Countries. SAARC Agriculture Centre, Dhaka, Bangaladesh. pp. 172.

[3].Sarkar AK (2013). Acid Soils- Their chemistry and management, New India Publishing Agency. pp. 165.

[4].Adriano DC, Page AL and Elseewi AA (1980). Utilization of fly ash and other coal residues in terrestrial ecosystems: a review. J. Environ. Qual. 9(3):333–344.

[5].McCarty GW, Siddaramappa R, Wright RJ, Cadling EE and Gao G (1994). Evaluation of coal combustion by products as soil liming materials: Their influence on soil pH and enzyme activity. Biol. Fertil. Soils. 17: 167–172.

[6].Marten DC (1971). Availability of plant nutrients in fly ash. Compost Science. 12:15-19. [7].Randsome LS and Dowdy RH (1987). Soyabean growth and boron distributionin sandy

soils amended with scrubber sludge. Journal of Environmental Quality, 16: 171-175. [8].Hill MJ and Camp CA (1984). Use of pulverized fuel ash from Victoria brown coal as a

(13)

A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International e-Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories

International Research Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences (IRJNAS)

Website: www.aarf.asia. Email: editoraarf@gmail.com , editor@aarf.asia Page 60 [9].Elseewi AA, Bingham FT and Page AL (1980). Sequential cropping of fly ash amended soils: effect on soil chemical properties and yield and elemental composition of plants. Science of Total Environment. 15: 247-259.

[10].Schnappinger MF, Martens DC and Plank CD (1975). Zinc availability as influenced by application of fly ash to soil. Environmental Science and Technology. 9: 258-261. [11].Fisher GL, Chang DPY and Brumer M (1976). Flyash collected from electrostatic

precipitation: microcrystalline structure and the mystery of the spheres. Science Washington, D.C. 129: 553-555.

[12].Azmal AKM, Marumoto T, Shinde H, and Nishiyama M (1996). Mineralization and microbial biomass formation in upload soil amended with some tropical plant residues at different treatments. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition. 42: 463-473.

[13].Stewart DPC, Camerson KC, Cornoforth IS and Sedcole JR (1998). Effect of spent mushroom substrate on soil chemical conditions and plant growth as an intensive horticultural system: a comparison with inorganic fertilizers. Australian Journal of Soil Research. 36: 185-198.

[14].Dar SR, Thomas T, Khan IM, Dagar JC, Quadar A and Rashid M (2009). Effect of nitrogen fertilizer with mushroom compost of varied C:N ratio on nitrogen use efficiency, carbon sequestration and rice yield. Communications in Biometry and Crop Science, 4(1): 31-39.

[15].Piper CS (1950). Soil and Plant Analysis. University Adelaide, Australia.

[16].Jackson ML (1973). Soil chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall of India, Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. [17].Walkley AJ and Black IA (1934). Estimation of organic carbon by chromic acid titration

method. Soil Science. 37: 29-38.

[18].Page AL, Miller RH and Kenny DR (1982). Method of soil analysis (Part-2). Chemical and microbial properties. Second Edition, Number 9 in the series, American Societyof Agronomy and Soil Science of America. Time Publisher, Kisconsi, USA.

[19].Black CA (1965). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part I. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

[20].Chesnin L and Yien CH (1952). Turbidimetric determination of available sulphur. Soil Science Society of America Prociding. 15: 149-151.

[21].Lindsay WL and Norvell WA (1978). DTPA soil test method for determining available zinc, iron, manganese and copper. Soil Science Society of American Journal. 42: 421-428. [22].Chang AC, Lund LJ, Page AL and Wameke JE (1977). Physical properties of fly ash

(14)

A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International e-Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories

International Research Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences (IRJNAS)

Website: www.aarf.asia. Email: editoraarf@gmail.com , editor@aarf.asia Page 61 [23].Jones CC and Amos DF (1976). Physical changes in Virginia soils resulting from additions of high rates of fly ash. In: Faber JH, Babcock AW, Spencer JD, editors. Proceedings of the 4th international ash utilization symposium US Energy Research Development Administration MERC/SP-76-4, Morgantown, WV; 1976.

[24].Garg RN, Kalra N and Harit RC (2003). Fly ash incorporation effect on soil environment of texturally variant soils. Asia. Pac. J. Environ. Dev. 10: 59-63.

[25].Fail JL and Wochock ZS (1977). Soybean growth on fly ash amended strip mine soils. Plant Soil. 48: 473-484.

[26].Capp JP (1978). Power plant fly ash utilization for land reclamation in the eastern United States. In: Schaller FW, Sutton P, editors. Reclamation of drastically disturbed lands. Madison, WI: ASA . p. 339–353.

[27].Buck JK, Honston RJ and Beimborn WA (1990). Direct seedling of anthracite refuge using coal fly ash as a major soil amendment. In: Proceedings of the mining and reclamation conference and exhibition. West Virginia Univ. Pub. Service No. 2. p. 603.

[28].Ghodrati M, Sims JT and Vasilas BS (1995). Evaluation of fly ash as a soil amendment for the Atlantic coastal plain. I. Soil hydraulic properties and elemental leaching. J. Water. Soil. Air. Pollut. 81: 349–361.

[29].Page AL, Elseewi AA and Straughan IR (1979). Physical and chemical properties of fly ash from coal-fired power plants with special reference to environmental impacts. Residue. Rev. 71: 83–120.

[30].Khan RK and Khan MW (1996). The effect of fly ash on plant growth and yield of tomato. Environ. Pollut. 92(2): 105–111.

[31].Singh LP and Siddiqui ZA (2003). Effects of fly ash and Helminthosporium oryzae on growth and yield of three cultivars of rice. Bioresour. Technol. 86: 73–78.

[32].Garau MA, Dalmau JL and Felipo MT (1991). Nitrogen mineralization in soil amended with sewage sludge and fly ash. Biology and Fertility of Soils. 12:199–201.

[33].Selvakumari G, Baskar M, Jayanthi D and Mathan KK (2000). Effect of integration of Flyash with fertilizers and organic manures on nutrient availability, yield and nutrient uptake of rice in alfisols. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science. 48(2): 268-278.

(15)

A Monthly Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International e-Journal - Included in the International Serial Directories

International Research Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences (IRJNAS)

Website: www.aarf.asia. Email: editoraarf@gmail.com , editor@aarf.asia Page 62 [35].Sims JT, Vasilas BL and Ghodrati M (1995). Development and evaluation of management strategies for the use of coal fly ash as a soil amendments. In: Proceedings of the 11th international symposium of the Am Coal Ash Assoc., Orlando, Florida; p. 8.1–18.

[36].Geidrojet B, Fatya J and Hryncewicz Z (1980). The effect of fertilization with ashes from black coal burned in electric power stations on the properties of sandy soil and crops. Polish. J. Soil Science. 13(a): 163-171.

[37].Kuchanwar OD, Matte DB and Kene DR (1997). Evaluation of graded doses of flyash and fertilizers on nutrient content and uptake of groundnut grown on vertisol. Journal of Soils and Crops.7(1):1–3.

[38].Gangloff WJ, Ggidraum M, Sims JT and Vasilas BL (1997). Field study: influence of fly

ash on leachate composition in an excessively drained soil. Journal

of Environmental Quality. 26: 714.

Figure

Figure 3. Effect of amendments on maize grain yield (q/ha) over the years

References

Related documents

When the reaction proceeds for 8 h, all of the nanosheets have transformed into nanorods with Figure 7 Supercapacitive properties of composite obtained after different reaction

(2016) LSD alters eyes-closed functional connectivity within the early visual cortex in a retinotopic fashion..

Keywords: Chemically derived graphene; Transparent conductive films; Carrier doping; Charge transfer; Radicalized organic conductors; First-principles

This analysis revealed that although expression of metabolic pathway genes is concordantly orchestrated resulting in a progressive enrichment of all the energy-producing pathways

films decrease with increasing dopant content, which may be related to magnetic polarons in the samples. The final explanation on their magnetic properties still re- mains a puzzle,

Keywords: Performance-based funding, higher education, third mission, knowledge exchange, Higher Education Business and Community Interaction Survey, Higher Education

At 5 K, the fer- rite nanocrystals show ferrimagnetic behavior with a coercivity of about 300 Oe and the corresponding mag- netizations at 30 kOe are 47.4 emu/g for Zn ferrite,

To compare the resulting electrochemically accessible surface areas of the samples, the electrochemical double- layer capacitance was measured for each sample both before and after