Copper-contained products that are widely employed yearly in viticulture for vine disease management, lead to Cu accumulation in topsoil creating an increased risk for land workers and for leaching and/or uptake of Cu by plants, especially in acidic soils where Cu mobility is higher. In this study, the impact of two biochar types on Cu distribution and redistribution in fractions was evaluated in four acidic vineyard soils in relation to incubation time. The two biochars were derived from sewage sludge (SG) and olive tree prunings (OL). Soils (control) and biochar-amended soils with application rate of 20 % (w/w) were spiked with CuCl2 (160 mg kg−1) and incubated in the laboratory at ambient temperature 22 ± 5 °C. After 1, 3, 7, 15, 36, and 90 days of incubation, modified BCR sequential extraction procedure was used to determine Cu distribution in the four soil chemical phases and to examine potential Cu redistribution between these fractions both in soils and in amended soils with biochars. Results show that biochar amendment affects Cu distribution in different soil fractions. In SG treatment, from the 1st and up to 36th incubation day, both exchangeable and reducible Cu fractions decreased, while oxidizable Cu increased, in relation to control soils. At 90th incubation day, a redistribution of Cu was observed, mainly from the oxidizable to the residual fraction. In OL treatment, during the first 36 incubation days exchangeable and oxidizable Cu slightly increased, while reducible Cu decreased. At the 90th incubation day the higher percentage of Cu was extracted from the residual fraction, but exchangeable Cu was present in remarkable quantities in the three of the four studies soils. SG application in the studied soils highly restricted the availability of added Cu promoting Cu-stable forms thus reducing the environmental risk while OL did not substantially reduce Cu available fraction over the experimental incubation period. Fourier transformation infrared analysis (FTIR) provided convincing explanations for the different behavior of the two biochar types.
Read full abstract