Environ Monit Assess (2018) 190: 610

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-018-6997-4

Comparative effect of compost and technosol enhanced

with biochar on the fertility of a degraded soil
Rubén Forján & Alfonso Rodríguez-Vila &
Beatriz Cerqueira & Emma F. Covelo &
Purificación Marcet & Verónica Asensio

Received: 9 March 2018 / Accepted: 20 September 2018 / Published online: 27 September 2018
# Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Abstract A large number of studies on the reclamation magnesium, and sodium in exchangeable form in the
of mine soils focused on the problem caused by metals mine soil.
and did not explore in depth the issue of nutrients and
vegetation after the application of organic materials. The Keywords Settling pond soil . Compost . Technosol .
aim of this study was to compare the effect of two Biochar . Soil reclamation . Soil nutrients . Degraded soil
treatments made of wastes and vegetated with Brassica
juncea L. on the fertility of a settling pond mine soil.
The first treatment was compost, biochar, and B. juncea
Introduction
(SCBP) and the second treatment was technosol, bio-
char, and B. juncea (STBP). This study evaluated the
Metal mining areas are an environmental concern due to
effect of the treatments on the soil nutrient concentra-
the high levels of potentially toxic elements, such as
tions and fertility conditions in the soil amendment
metals, that can be transported to surrounding environ-
mixtures, after 11 months of greenhouse experiment.
ments through wind erosion, leaching to surface water
Total carbon and nitrogen concentrations were higher
or to groundwater (Puga et al. 2016). Phytoremediation
in treatment SCBP than in treatment STBP after
has been proposed as a suitable strategy to decrease the
7 months but, after 11 months, carbon concentration
environmental risks of metal-polluted mine soils
was higher in STBP. The used technosol could have
(Parraga-Aguado et al. 2015). Phytostabilization pro-
forms of carbon more stable than compost, which could
vides a long-term vegetal cover that may mitigate ero-
be released slower than in the compost-amended soils.
sion and considers the use of metal-tolerant plant species
Both compost and technosol mixed with biochar also
to immobilize metals (Conesa et al. 2006). However,
increased the concentration of calcium, potassium,
mine soils usually show several characteristics that may
limit plant growth, including extreme pH values, low
fertility conditions, limited water holding capacity, and
R. Forján : A. Rodríguez-Vila : B. Cerqueira : high metal concentrations, among others (Parraga-
E. F. Covelo : P. Marcet Aguado et al. 2015). Therefore, metal pollution on mine
Department of Plant Biology and Soil Science, Faculty of Biology,
University of Vigo, As Lagoas-Marcosende, 36310 Vigo, soils should be effectively controlled and ameliorated.
Pontevedra, Spain There is a general assumption that organic amend-
ments may enhance soil fertility, structure, and plant
R. Forján (*) : V. Asensio cover. The performance of organic amendments de-
Department of Plant Nutrition, University of São Paulo – Center of
Nuclear Energy in Agriculture (USP-CENA), Av. Centenário 303, pends on their nature, the dose, and the properties of
Piracicaba, SP 13400-970, Brazil the polluted soil (Parraga-Aguado et al. 2015). Organic
e-mail: rforjan@uvigo.es amendments, such as technosol made of different
610 Page 2 of 12
wastes, compost, and biochar, have been used for soil
remediation purposes due to their ability to reduce the
availability of potentially toxic elements (Puga et al.
2015; Rodríguez-Vila et al. 2016; Venegas et al. 2016).
Thus, the use of these organic materials as soil amend-
ment may be a highly practical and low-cost strategy to
remediate polluted soils through changing the mobility
and availability of metals.
Organic amendments made of wastes and used in soil
reclamation can be classified as technosols according to
the IUSS (2014). Technosols are dominated or strongly
influenced by human-made materials and contain a sig-
nificant amount of artifacts (IUSS Working Group
WRB 2014). Biochar is an organic carbon-rich material
produced from the pyrolysis of biomass under an
oxygen-limited environment (Lehmann and Schad
2007). Biochar source materials are generally limited
to biological residues (e.g., wood, poultry litter, and crop
residues) and not commonly activated or further treated
before application to soils (Beesley et al. 2011). The use
of biochar for soil remediation is recommended due to
its low cost and its relative stability in the environment,
which could render metal immobilization for longer
periods as compared to other organic materials
(Beesley et al. 2011).
Compost is a complex matrix rich in organic matter,
especially in humic acids, which is considered as a great
alternative for waste management (Gandolfi et al. 2010).
Composting refers to the process of humification and
stabilization of organic wastes (e.g., sewage sludge,
manure, municipal solid waste, and green waste)
(Huang et al. 2016). The addition of compost to polluted
soils can reduce metal mobility and restore soil biolog-
ical and physical properties (Manzano et al. 2016). The
organic matter of compost is expected to decrease the
metal availability in soil due its high content of func-
tional groups, capable of forming strong complexes with
metal cations (Manzano et al. 2016). With compost
application, both the physical structure and fertility of
soil are improved, microbial activity is enhanced, and
plant biomass is increased (Huang et al. 2016). Mineral
ions, humic substances, and microorganisms in compost
considerably influence the immobilization of metals and
the reduction of the ecological and environmental risk of
these elements in polluted soils (Huang et al. 2016).
Previous studies about remediation of mine soils with
organic amendments have focused on reducing the con-
centration of metals, but only some of them evaluated
the nutrient concentrations of the mine soil after the
Environ Monit Assess (2018) 190: 610
application of organic materials. The purpose of this
study was to evaluate the effect of two treatments made
with different mixtures of compost, technosol, and bio-
char and vegetated with Brassica juncea L. on the soil
nutrient concentrations and fertility conditions in a set-
tling pond mine soil during 11 months of greenhouse
experiment.
Material and methods
Experimental site, soil sampling, and amendments
The sample zone is located in an old copper mine at
Touro, northwestern Spain (8° 20′ 12.06″ W 42° 52′
46.18″ N) (Fig. 1). In order to carry out the study, one
soil and three amendments were selected. The soil
belonged to a settling pond (S) at the Touro mine. The
three amendments were technosol (T) provided by the
company Tratamientos Ecológicos del Noroeste
(T.E.N.), compost (C) provided by the company
Ecocelta Galicia S.L. (Ponteareas, Spain), and the bio-
char (B) provided by the company PROININSO S.A.
The settling pond soil (S) was made of waste material
resulting from the flotation of sulfides during copper
processing. The pool has been dry for several years and
is considered a technosol according to the latest update
of the World Reference Base for Soil Resources (IUSS
Working Group WRB 2014). The compost (C)
consisted of horse and rabbit manure mixed with grass
cuttings, fruit, and seaweed. The technosol (T) was a
mixture of 60% sewage sludge from a wastewater treat-
ment plant, 10% sludge from an aluminum factory
(Padrón, Spain), 5% ashes from a cellulose factory
(ENCE company, Spain), 10% residues from agri-food
companies, and 5% sand from a wastewater treatment
plant. It is missing 10% from 100% due to the
company’s privacy policy. The biochar (B) used was
made from Quercus ilex wood with a pyrolysis temper-
ature of 400 °C for 8 h.
Greenhouse experiment
The greenhouse experiment was carried out in cylinders
to try to reflect the top 45 cm of soil. The cylinders were
made of PVC with a height of 50 cm and a diameter of
10 cm. A porous mesh was introduced into the cylinders
and the settling pond soil into the inner. The mesh was
used for the settling pond soil was not in contact with the
Environ Monit Assess (2018) 190: 610
Fig. 1 Location of the sampled area in Touro mine
PVC for a long period of time (Fig. 2). The cylinders
were filled with settling pond soil (S, control sample)
and the treatments:
– Settling pond soil (S)
– Settling pond soil + compost + biochar + Brassica
juncea L. (SCBP)
– Settling pond soil + technosol + biochar + Brassica
juncea L. (STBP)
The used amendment ratios are detailed in Table 1.
The final total weight of each cylinder was 3.5 kg.
The experiment was carried out for 11 months at
controlled temperature and humidity (temperature of
22 ± 2 °C and 65 ± 5% relative air humidity). A total
of 45 cylinders (15 cylinders for each treatment) were
prepared and randomly distributed (Fig. 2). Three cyl-
inders of each type were withdrawn at three different
times: time 1 = 3 months, time 2 = 7 months, and time
3 = 11 months. The meshes were removed from the
Page 3 of 12 610
cylinders and processed for analysis by separating three
different depths: 0–15 cm the first, 15–30 cm the sec-
ond, and 30–45 cm the third (Fig. 2). The cylinders were
maintained to field capacity throughout the whole time
of the experiment.
Soil analyses
Soil samples collected from the cylinders were air dried,
passed through a 2-mm sieve and homogenized prior to
analysis. Soil pH was determined using a pH electrode
in 1:2.5 water to soil extracts (Porta 1986). Total soil
carbon (TC) and total nitrogen (TN) were determined in
a LECO CN-2000 module using solid samples. Ex-
changeable cations (Ca2+, K+, Mg2+, Na+, and Al3+)
were extracted with 0.1 M BaCl2 (Hendershot and
Duquette 1986) and element concentrations were deter-
mined by ICP-OES (Perkin-Elmer Optima 4300 DV).
Effective cation exchange capacity (CEC) was calculat-
ed with the sum of exchangeable cation concentrations
(Houba et al. 2000). Pseudototal metal contents were
610 Page 4 of 12 Environ Monit Assess (2018) 190: 610

Fig. 2 Cylinder design and the different depths collected

extracted by acid digestion with aqua regia in a micro-

Table 1 Proportions used to make the controls and the different wave oven (Milestone ETHOS 1, Italy). Metal concen-
treatments trations were determined by ICP-OES.
Soil (%) Compost/technosols (%) Biochar (%)
Plant growth
S 100 – –
SCBP 85 11 4 The Brassica juncea L. were pre-germinated in
STBP 85 11 4 seedbeds until they grew two fully expanded leaves
and then transferred to the cylinders with the settling
Environ Monit Assess (2018) 190: 610
pond mine soil (S) and treatments (SCBP and
STBP). They were not planted in the soil without
amendment because previous studies shown that
they are not able to grow in this type of soil. The
plants were harvested in the same state of maturity
(pre-flowering state), for comparison in the same
state of development in the three times (time 1 =
3 months, time 2 = 7 months, time 3 = 11 months).
Growth was allowed under greenhouse-controlled
conditions, with a photoperiod of 11:13 light/dark.
At the end of each time, the height of the plants was
measured and then they were carefully washed with
deionized water. Fresh biomass was immediately
weighed, and dry mass was assessed after oven-
drying for 48 h at 80 °C and then cooling at room
temperature. The plant tissues, divided into roots
and shoots, were air-dried and ground for analyses.
Statistical analysis
All analytical determinations were performed in tripli-
cate. The data obtained were statistically treated using
the program SPSS version 19.0 for Windows. Analysis
of variance (ANOVA) and test of homogeneity of vari-
ance were carried out. In case of homogeneity, a post
hoc least significant difference (LSD) test was carried
out. If there was no homogeneity, Dunnett’s T3 test was
performed. Principal component analyses (PCA) were
also carried out.
Results
General characteristics of settling pond soil, compost,
technosol, and biochar
Biochar had higher pH and total carbon concentra-
tions than the settling pond soil (S), technosol (T),
and compost (C) (P < 0.05) (Table 2). The soil even
had an acidic pH. The compost had the highest total
nitrogen content (TN) (P < 0.05) (Table 2). The TN
values were undetectable in S (Table 2). The
technosol had the highest Ca, Mg, and Na concen-
trations, and the biochar had the highest concentra-
tions of K (Table 2). The cation exchange capacity
was significantly higher in T than in the settling
pond soil, compost, and biochar (P < 0.05)
(Table 2). The soil had the highest pseudototal con-
centration of Cu. The technosol had the highest
Page 5 of 12 610
pseudototal concentrations of Ni and Zn. Both C
and S had the highest pseudototal concentrations of
Pb (Table 2).
Evolution of the pH and the cation exchange capacity
At 0–15 cm depth, during the 11 months of the
experiment, SCBP and STBP had significantly
higher pH values than S. STBP had the highest
values of pH at times 1–2, but at time 3, there are
no significant differences between them (Table 3).
At 15–30 cm depth, at time 1, the soil had signifi-
cantly higher pH than SCBP and STBP (P < 0.05).
At time 2, the STBP had the highest pH and at time
3, SCBP had the highest. At 30–45 cm depth, at
times 1–2, the soil had the significantly highest pH
values but, at time 3, SCBP had the highest value
(P < 0.05).
At 0–15 cm depth, the CEC was always significantly
higher in the amended soils than in S (Table 3). At times
1 and 2, SCBP had the highest CEC but, at time 3,
SCBP and STBP did not show significant differences
(P < 0.05). At 15–30 and 30–45 cm, at times 1 and 2,
SCBP had the highest CEC. In the time 3, the soil had
the highest CEC.
Evolution of total carbon and nitrogen
At 0–15 cm depth, at times 1 and 2, the treatment SCBP
had the significantly highest TC concentration, but at
time 3, STBP had the highest TC content (Fig. 3a). At
15–30 and 30–45 cm, SCBP had significantly higher
TC concentration than both S and STBP over time
(P < 0.05) (Fig. 3b, c).
Total nitrogen was only detected at 0–15 cm depth
and only in the amended soils (SCBP and SCTP). At all
times, SCBP had the highest TN concentration (Fig. 4).
Evolution of nutrients
At 0–15 cm depth, SCBP had the highest Ca, K, Mg,
and Na concentrations at time 1 (Table 4). At time 2,
SCBP had also the highest Ca and K concentrations, but
Mg and Na were higher in STBP. At time 3, both SCBP
and STBP had the highest Ca and Na concentrations.
The highest K concentrations were detected in SCBP,
and Mg in STBP (P < 0.05).
At 15–30 cm, SCBP had the highest concentration of
all nutrients at time 1 (Table 3). At time 2, SCBP and
610 Page 6 of 12 Environ Monit Assess (2018) 190: 610

Table 2 Characteristics of the mine tailing (S), technosol (T), compost (C), and biochar (B)

S T C B

pH 2.73 ± 0.07d 6.04 ± 0.05c 6.47 ± 0.02b 9.90 ± 0.02a

TC g kg−1 1.93 ± 0.15d 256 ± 2.51c 276 ± 2.49b 676 ± 4.58a
TN mg kg−1 u.l. 17.6 ± 0.50b 21.3 ± 1.02a 5.34 ± 0.22c
Ca mg kg−1 13.3 ± 0.02d 7785 ± 0.15a 6455 ± 153b 531 ± 4.88c
K 6.40 ± 0.89d 2687 ± 0.08c 3041 ± 46.5b 3243 ± 23.1a
Mg 216 ± 2.10d 1997 ± 0.25a 1038 ± 14.9b 548 ± 11.6c
Na 27.4 ± 0.90d 2805 ± 0.03a 987 ± 12.4b 65.4 ± 0.07c
CEC cmol(+) kg−1 6.11 ± 0.05d 76.6 ± 0.04a 53.5 ± 1.07b 15.8 ± 0.17c
Cu Pseudototal (mg kg−1) 637 ± 2.08a 193 ± 1.14c 226 ± 5.13b 27.1 ± 1.24d
Pb 16.1 ± 1.00c 26.6 ± 0.96b 89.6 ± 1.52a u.l.
Ni 16.4 ± 1.01c 49.7 ± 1.71a 26.3 ± 0.57b 25.0 ± 2.00b
Zn 65.4 ± 2.51c 403 ± 3.33a 340 ± 0.50b 62.6 ± 1.95d

Means ± SD. For each row, different letters in different samples mean significant differences (n = 3, P < 0.05)
u.l. undetectable level

Table 3 Evolution of pH and cation exchange capacity (CEC) (cmol (+)kg−1) in three depths and at 3, 7, and 11 months of experiment (times
1, 2, and 3, respectively)

S SCBP STBP

pH
Depth 0–15 cm Time 1 3.51c 7.03 ± 0.01b 7.17a
Time 2 3.02 ± 0.01c 6.89b 7.11 ± 0.02a
Time 3 2.63 ± 0.11b 7.52 ± 0.04a 7.48 ± 0.02a
Depth 15–30 cm Time 1 3.41 ± 0.08a 2.89c 3.27 ± 0.01b
Time 2 3.03 ± 0.01c 2.77 ± 0.06b 3.14 ± 0.03a
Time 3 2.65c 4.78 ± 0.04a 3.77 ± 0.25b
Depth 30–45 cm Time 1 3.39 ± 0.01a 2.76 ± 0.02c 2.85 ± 0.01b
Time 2 3.04 ± 0.01a 2.64 ± 0.06c 2.99 ± 0.02b
Time 3 2.58c 3.42 ± 0.04a 3.17 ± 0.01b
CEC
Depth 0–15 cm Time 1 0.84 ± 0.05c 41.0 ± 2.06a 23.4 ± 1.45b
Time 2 3.68 ± 0.04c 34.7 ± 1.07a 31.0 ± 1.17b
Time 3 10.7 ± 0.47b 29.9 ± 0.98a 29.1 ± 0.96a
Depth 15–30 cm Time 1 0.94 ± 0.02c 10.4 ± 0.33a 2.85 ± 0.77b
Time 2 3.06 ± 0.49b 6.75 ± 1.86a 4.43 ± 0.06ab
Time 3 7.95 ± 1.39b 13.6 ± 0.63a 10.0 ± 0.83b
Depth 30–45 cm Time 1 1.09 ± 0.01c 10.1 ± 0.76a 8.23 ± 0.41b
Time 2 3.23 ± 0.16b 8.16 ± 3.27a 6.11 ± 0.34a
Time 3 15.6 ± 0.47a 1.64 ± 0.14b 0.93c

Means ± SD. For each row, different letters in different samples mean significant differences (n = 3, P < 0.05)
Environ Monit Assess (2018) 190: 610 Page 7 of 12 610

Fig. 3 a–c Evolution of the total carbon (TC) at three depths and significant differences (n = 3, Student’s t test P < 0.05). Error bars
at 3, 7, and 11 months of experiment (times 1, 2, and 3, respec- represent standard deviation
tively). For each row, different letters in different samples mean

STBP had higher Ca and Na concentrations than S, but
STBP had the highest K and Mg concentrations. At time
3, S had significantly higher Mg concentration than the
amended soils, but SCBP had the highest Ca, K, and Na
concentrations.
At 30–45 cm, both SCBP and STBP had the
highest Ca concentrations at time 1 (Table 3). The
highest K and Na concentrations were shown by
STBP, and SCBP had the highest Mg concentrations
(P < 0.05). At time 2, SCBP had the highest Ca and
Mg concentrations, and both STBP and SCBP had
the highest Na concentrations. The highest K con-
centrations were observed in STBP. At time 3, S had
higher Ca and Mg concentrations than the amended
soils. Sodium concentrations showed no significant
differences (P < 0.05) and K had undetectable levels
in all samples.
Harvested biomass of Brassica juncea L.
The mustard plants (Brassica juncea L.) were not
capable of growing in the settling pond soil (S),

Fig. 4 Evolution of the total

nitrogen (TN) at depth 1 and at 3,
7, and 11 months of experiment
(times 1, 2, and 3, respectively).
For each time, different letters in
different samples mean signifi-
cant differences (n = 3, Student’s t
test P < 0.05). Error bars represent
standard deviation
610 Page 8 of 12 Environ Monit Assess (2018) 190: 610

Table 4 Evolution of nutrient concentration (mg kg−1) in three depths and at 3, 7, and 11 months of experiment (times 1, 2, and 3,
respectively)

S SCBP STBP

Depth 0–15 cm Time 1 Ca 9.51 ± 0.12c 4641 ± 31.5a 2771 ± 63.4b

K 9.18 ± 0.07c 2572 ± 146a 991 ± 62.7b
Mg 12.0 ± 2.66c 790 ± 40.7a 581 ± 35.9b
Na 25.7 ± 2.20c 956 ± 60.6a 458 ± 37.5b
Time 2 Ca 30.6 ± 0.31c 4529 ± 137a 3607 ± 135b
K 1.68 ± 0.69c 1262 ± 44.2a 790 ± 32.6b
Mg 128 ± 1.10c 768 ± 23.0b 904 ± 39.9a
Na 22.3 ± 0.14c 510 ± 16.8b 701 ± 17.4a
Time 3 Ca 94.8 ± 4.29b 4639 ± 151a 4441 ± 148a
K u.l. 432 ± 17.5a 225 ± 5.42b
Mg 496 ± 24.1c 614 ± 19.0b 704 ± 22.8a
Na 14.2 ± 0.92b 115 ± 4.96a 110 ± 3.74a
Depth 15–30 cm Time 1 Ca 6.47 ± 0.14c 329 ± 40.4a 138 ± 4.10b
K 8.30 ± 0.87c 130 ± 1.39a 58.1 ± 2.24b
Mg 8.64 ± 0.56c 335 ± 17.8a 82.3 ± 3.44b
Na 21.2 ± 1.21c 70.0 ± 1.81a 50.3 ± 1.42b
Time 2 Ca 28.8 ± 4.60b 178 ± 32.4a 98.6 ± 1.25a
K 1.59 ± 0.70b 10.1 ± 5.41b 33.7 ± 4.56a
Mg 1.59 ± 18.6b 10.1 ± 50.8b 33.7 ± 1.38a
Na 20.6 ± 0.54b 47.2 ± 0.50a 53.9 ± 8.62a
Time 3 Ca 89.8 ± 2.43b 538 ± 78.8a 115 ± 26.3b
K u.l. 30.3 ± 4.55a u.l.
Mg 452 ± 4.74a 49.4 ± 3.63b 25.3 ± 2.98c
Na 7.95 ± 1.39b 13.6 ± 0.63a 10.0 ± 0.83b
Depth 30–45 cm Time 1 Ca 7.01 ± 0.18b 113 ± 11.3a 118 ± 0.42a
K 7.50 ± 0.19c 19.6 ± 1.80b 63.1 ± 2.30a
Mg 13.9 ± 0.03c 343 ± 23.3a 231 ± 9.13b
Na 20.8 ± 0.62b 13.8 ± 1.79c 33.3 ± 1.11a
Time 2 Ca 55.4 ± 1.79b 159 ± 33.1a 75.9 ± 0.47ab
K 1.00 ± 0.37c 9.95 ± 3.59b 14.1 ± 1.07a
Mg 102 ± 4.47c 288 ± 70.5a 187 ± 13.3b
Na 19.9 ± 1.36b 44.6 ± 1.76a 37.5 ± 5.05a
Time 3 Ca 90.4 ± 2.40a 32.8 ± 3.59b 16.8 ± 0.032c
K u.l. u.l. u.l.
Mg 606 ± 18.5a 60.0 ± 5.03b 26.6 ± 0.07c
Na 8.67 ± 1.23a 7.72 ± 0.45a 8.39 ± 0.11a

Means ± SD. For each row, different letters in different samples mean significant differences (n = 3, P < 0.05)
u.l. undetectable level

for this reason is not represented in Fig. 5. of B. juncea was higher in STBP at time 1 and
B. juncea showed the highest dry biomass in time 2, but at time 3, the height was the higher in
SCPB over time (Fig. 5a; P < 0.05). The height SCBP (Fig. 5b, P < 0.05).
Environ Monit Assess (2018) 190: 610
Fig. 5 a, b Harvested biomass
and height of Brassica juncea L.
at 3, 7, and 11 months of
experiment (times 1, 2, and 3,
respectively). For each time,
different letters in different
samples mean significant
differences (n = 3, Student’s t test
P < 0.05). Error bars represent
standard deviation
Discussion
Effect of compost and technosol enhanced with biochar
on soil carbon and nitrogen concentrations
Both compost mixed with biochar and technosol mixed
with biochar significantly increased the total carbon
concentration in the settling pond soil (Fig. 3). This
was expected since the three compounds were rich in
carbon (Table 2). This addition of C is very important
for the reclamation of mine soils, because if the concen-
tration of organic carbon increases, the possibility of
retain available water and nutrients in bioavailable form
also increases, and the structure of the soil and other
physical properties improve (Acosta et al. 2018;
Lehmann et al. 2011; Saarnio et al. 2018). Moreover,
the type of carbon in the biochar is highly recalcitrant,
which means that it is not quickly mineralized and is
stocked in the soil for long time (IBI 2016).
Page 9 of 12 610
Three months after starting the experiment, soil +
compost + biochar (SCBP samples) had higher total
carbon concentration in the first 15 cm than technosol
enhanced with biochar (STBP), because the used com-
post had higher TC concentration than the technosol
(Table 2, Fig. 3). Eleven months after planting Brassica
juncea L., in both SCBP and STBP, carbon concentra-
tion was higher in the surface of the soils with technosol
than in the soils with compost. One of the reasons is that
carbon was leached from the soil surface faster in the
samples with compost than in the samples with
technosol, since it was observed an increase of TC in
depth in the SCBP samples.
Total nitrogen concentrations also significantly in-
creased in the settling pond soil with the addition of
compost and technosol together with biochar (Fig. 4),
since the mine soil had undetectable concentrations of
this nutrient and the three organic materials were rich in
nitrogen (Table 2). By comparing compost with
610 Page 10 of 12 Environ Monit Assess (2018) 190: 610

technosol, the first increased more the TN concentration Principal component analysis of the samples
in the soil surface, since it had higher TN concentration
(Table 2). That nitrogen added with the amendments The values of TC, TN, Ca, K, Mg, and Na were
was not leached for more than 15 cm depth, since the selected to perform a principal component analysis
concentrations from 15 to 45 cm were always undetect- (PCA) (Table 4). The PCA was performed separately
able. Mustard plants reflected the higher concentration for each sampling time (Table 5). The soil samples
of nitrogen in the SCBP samples, since plant biomass were located in a scatter plot based on the results
was always the highest in the soils treated with compost from the PC obtained (Fig. 6). None of the samples
+ biochar (Fig. 5). This increase in soil TN due to the is in the same quadrant, indicating that the two types
application of amendments is very important because of amendments significantly changed the concentra-
nitrogen is a nutrient essential for plants and can be a tions of carbon, nitrogen, and the other studied nu-
limitation for their survival and growth if it is in low trients during the whole time of the experiment.
concentration (Christensen 2004). For time 1, two principal components (PC1 and
PC2) were obtained that account for 99.92% of the
total variance. PC1 and PC2 explain 95.9% and 4%
Evolution of nutrient content in SCBP and STBP of the variance, respectively. According to both the
rotated component matrix (Table 5) and the position
Both compost and technosol, mixed with biochar, sig- of the samples on the scatter plot (Fig. 6), after
nificantly increased the concentration of Ca, K, Mg, and 3 months of experiment (time 1), the SCBP signif-
Na in the mine soil (Table 4), since the three organic icantly increased total carbon and nitrogen as well as
materials had higher concentration of all these nutrients Ca, K, Mg, and Na. The STBP samples also in-
before being added to the soil (Table 2). creased TC and TN and then Ca and Mg, but did
Three months after starting the experiment, the not increase K and Na.
samples with compost showed the highest concen-
tration of those nutrients in the soil surface
(Table 4), although the used technosol had higher
amount of them than the compost before being Table 5 The component score coefficient matrix from the PCA
for the three sampling times
added (Table 2). This could indicate that there was
higher concentration of Ca, K, Mg, and Na in avail- Indicators PC1 PC2
able form for plants in technosol than in compost,
Time 1 TC 0.45 0.89
and that higher amount of these nutrients was taken
up by mustard plants in the STBP than in STBP, TN 0.69 0.71
during the first 3 months. Another reason is that Ca, Ca 0.75 0.66
K, and Na were also leached faster in the samples K 0.88 0.46
with technosol, as the concentrations of K and Na Mg 0.64 0.76
were the highest in STBP at 30–45 cm depth, and Na 0.84 0.53
Ca concentrations were similar to the SCBP Time 2 TC 0.73 0.67
samples. TN 0.79 0.59
Eleven months after starting the experiment, the Ca 0.81 0.58
samples amended with technosol + biochar had the K 0.90 0.42
highest concentration of Mg in the surface (0–15 cm), Mg 0.55 0.83
as well as Ca and Na concentrations similar to the Na 0.45 0.88
SCBP samples. In the case of Ca and Mg at STBP Time 3 TC 0.62 0.76
samples, as we observed a concentration higher at TN 0.85 0.52
11 months than at 3 months, it is possible that this Ca 0.72 0.68
nutrient was released from non-exchangeable forms, K 0.95 0.29
which suggest a high potential of technosol to pro- Mg 0.30 0.94
vide calcium to plants. In the case of Na, it was Na 0.72 0.68
probably leached and taken up by plants.
Environ Monit Assess (2018) 190: 610
Fig. 6 Scatter plot with the two principal components obtained in the PCA (PC 1 and PC 2) referred to the soil samples with the different
treatments
For time 2, PC1 and PC2 were obtained and
account for 99.90% of the total variance. PC1 and
PC2 explain 95.1% and 4.8% of the variance, re-
spectively. For time 3, PC1 and PC2 were obtained
and account for 99.70% of the total variance. PC1
and PC2 explain 91.8% and 7.8% of the variance,
respectively. For times 2 and 3, the distribution of
the samples in the scatter plot was the same (Fig. 6).
After 7 months of experiment (time 2), the samples
with compost significantly increased TC and TN,
Ca, and K. The samples with technosol increased
TC, Mg, and Na. After 11 months of experiment, the
compost samples increased all the studied nutrients
Page 11 of 12 610
except Mg, and the technosol samples all except
total nitrogen and K.
Conclusions
The addition of a technosol made of wastes or a
compost, both mixed with biochar, to a poor mine
soil, significantly increased the concentration of soil
total carbon and nitrogen. Three months after the
application of the amendments, the mixture with
compost increased carbon concentration more than
the mixture with technosol but, at 11 months, the
610 Page 12 of 12
concentrations were higher in the technosol. That
indicates that the used technosol had forms of car-
bon more stable than compost, which could be re-
leased slower than in the compost-amended soils.
Total nitrogen was always higher in the samples
with compost. We detected that nitrogen was not
leached beyond 15 cm depth, which means that the
used amendments maintain that nutrient in the soil
surface, where usually the highest root density is
located.
Both compost and technosol mixed with biochar also
increased the concentration of calcium, potassium, mag-
nesium, and sodium in exchangeable form in the mine
soil. Since these nutrients were in lower concentration
with technosol than with compost 3 months after the
amendment, in spite of the used of technosol had higher
concentration before being used, there was probably
more concentration of Ca, K, Mg, and Na in available
form for plants in the technosol. It is also possible that
the technosol + biochar amendments have a high poten-
tial for providing calcium to plants because they release
this nutrient slowly from non-exchangeable forms to
available forms for plants.
References
Acosta, J. A., Abbaspour, A., Martínez, G. R., Martínez-Martínez,
S., Zornoza, R., Gabarron, M., & Faz, A. (2018).
Phytoremediation of mine tailings with Atriplex halimus
and organic/inorganic amendments: a five-year field case
study. Chemosphere, 204, 71–78.
Beesley, L., Moreno-Jiménez, E., Gomez-Eyles, J. L., Harris, E.,
Robinson, B., & Sizmur, T. (2011). A review of biochars’
potential role in the remediation, revegetation and restoration
of contaminated soils. Environmental Pollution, 159, 3269–
3282.
Christensen, B. T. (2004). Tightening the nitrogen cycle. In P.
Schjonning, S. Elmholt, & B. T. Christensen (Eds.),
Managing soil quality (pp. 44–66). London: Challenges in
Modern Agriculture. CABI Publishing.
Conesa, H. M., Faz, Á., & Arnaldos, R. (2006). Heavy metal
accumulation and tolerance in plants from mine tailings of
the semiarid Cartagena–La Unión mining district (SE Spain).
Sci Total Environ, 366, 1–11.
Gandolfi, I., Sicolo, M., Franzetti, A., Fontanarosa, E.,
Santagostino, A., & Bestetti, G. (2010). Influence of compost
amendment on microbial community and ecotoxicity of
hydrocarbon-contaminated soils. Bioresource Technology,
101, 568–575.
Environ Monit Assess (2018) 190: 610
Hendershot, W. H., Duquette, M. (1986). A simple barium chlo-
ride methods for determining cation exchange capacity and
exchangeable cations. Soil Sci Soc Am J, 50, 605–608.
Houba, V. J. G., Temminghoff, E. J. M., Gaikhorst, G. A., & Vark,
W. (2000). Soil analysis procedures using 0.01 M calcium
chloride as extraction reagent. Commu soil Sci Plan, 31(9–
10).
Huang, M., Zhu, Y., Li, Z., Huang, B., Luo, N., Liu C, & Zeng, G.
(2016). Compost as a soil amendment to remediate heavy
metal-contaminated agricultural soil: mechanisms, efficacy,
problems, and strategies. Water Air Soil Pollut, 227–359.
IBI. (2016). International biochar initiative [WWW document].
URL http://www.biochar-international.org/
IUSS Working Group WRB. (2014). World reference base for soil
resources. International soil classification system for naming
soils and creating legends for soil maps. Italy: Rome.
Lehmann, J., Rillig, M. C., Thies, J., Masiello, C. A., Hockaday,
W. C., & Crowley, D. (2011). Biochar effects on soil biota. A
review. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 43, 1812–1836.
Lehmann, A., & Schad, P. (2007). Soils. In Section 2: global
change and environmental risk assessment world reference
base for soil resources.
Manzano, R., Silvetti, M., Garau, G., Deiana, S., & Castaldi, P.
(2016). Influence of iron-rich water treatment residues and
compost on the mobility of metal(loid)s in mine soils.
Geoderma, 283, 1–9.
Parraga-Aguado, I., González-Alcaraz, M. N., Schulin, R., &
Conesa, H. M. (2015). The potential use of Piptatherum
miliaceum for the phytomanagement of mine tailings in
semiarid areas: role of soil fertility and plant competition.
Journal of Environmental Management, 158, 74–84.
Porta, J. (1986). Técnicas y experimentos en Edafología. In
Collegi Oficial D’Enginyers Agronoms de Catalunya.
Barcelona: Spain.
Puga, A. P., Abreu, C. A., Melo, L. C. A., & Beesley, L. (2015).
Biochar application to a contaminated soil reduces the avail-
ability and plant uptake of zinc, lead and cadmium. Journal
of Environmental Management, 159, 86–93.
Puga, A. P., Melo, L. C. A., de Abreu, C. A., Coscione, A. R., &
Paz-Ferreiro, J. (2016). Leaching and fractionation of heavy
metals in mining soils amended with biochar. Soil and Tillage
Research, 164, 25–33.
Rodríguez-Vila, A., Asensio, V., Forján, R., & Covelo, & E.F.
(2016). Chemical fractionation of Cu, Ni, Pb and Zn in a
mine soil amended with compost and biochar and vegetated
with Brassica juncea L. J Geochemical Explor, 158, 74–81.
Saarnio, S., Räty, M., Hyrkäs, M., & Virkajärvi, P. (2018). Biochar
addition changed the nutrient content and runoff water qual-
ity from the top layer of a grass field during simulated
snowmelt. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 265,
156–165.
Venegas, A., Rigol, A., & Vidal, M. (2016). Changes in heavy
metal extractability from contaminated soils remediated with
organic waste or biochar. Geoderma, 279, 132–140.