Grassland ecosystemNPP and biodiversity at

elevated Temperatures and atmCO2

Nutrient cycling (N), at elevated Temperature and atmCO2

Grassland ecosystemBiochar, drought and elevated atm CO2

FACE (Free Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment)

Growth chamberBiochar and drought

ambient CO2(360 ppm)

a

elevated CO2(520 ppm)

c d

Chenopodium quinoa cv. Hualhuas Atriplex nummularia

b

Open top chambersdrought and salinity at elevated atmCO2

Ageing society

FutureChallenges

Increasingworld population

4Global Climatic Change

Decrease offossile fuels

Global changes

Austria: Damage after long period of drought (14.9.2013, Apa)

Flood damage in Bavarias Agriculture (10.06.2013, Topagrar.com)

Impact of global climatic changeson biomass production

“Corn plant damaged by saline sprinkler water”

droughtK-DeficiencyN-Deficiency

Soil-Plant-Atmosphere Continuum (SPAC)

a) Soil improvement (such as amendment of biochar, compost and microorganismen) to improve germination, water and nutrient availability and reduce evaporation. This includes also the utilization of the GROASIS waterboxx and non-conventional domestic sewage or saline water resources

b) Improvement of atmosphere. Increase of the atmospheric water potential or nutrient availability (CO2)

c) Selection and breeding of adequate species with low water consumption and high stress resistance (drought, salinity, heavy metal etc.)

To a) The potential benefits of biochar

IMPROVES WASTE

MANAGEMENT

RESULTS INSOIL ENHANCEMENT

SUPPLIESENERGY

PROTECTS CLIMATE

BIOCHAR

BioCharnet carbonwithdrawal

Lehmann, Nature 2007

The impact of biochar on theplant response of

Chenopodium quinoa Willd.

IPÖ (University of Gießen) Germany

Control 50mg/l Cu 200mg/l Cu

Control 50mg/l Cu 200mg/l Cu

The impact of biochar at Cu-Toxity on the plant response of quinoa

Oh K f K f 50 K f 200

Kontro

lleBc 2

%Bc 4

%Cu 5

0

Cu 50 +

Bc 2%

Cu 50 +

Bc 4%

Cu 200

Cu 200

+ Bc 2

%

Cu 200

+ Bc 4

%

Lebe

ndfri

schg

ewic

ht [g

]

0,0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1,0

Sprossmasse, Bc: p < 0,001; Cu: p < 0,001 Wurzelmasse, Bc: p = 0,017; Cu: p = 0,098Blattmasse, Bc: p < 0,001; Cu: p < 0,001

shootmassRootmassleafmass

Fres

hweig

ht (g

)

Cu 0

Bc 0

is obtained by the “CentroInternacional de Cultivos Andinos” (International Center of Andean Crops) and therefore abbreviated as CICA. This Center is localetd in Lima (Perú). The variety was obtained in Perú, through selection from another variety called "Amarilla de Marangani"At the moment, CICA has an important distribution in Argentinean Northwest where it can grow up to 2 or 2,20 meters.

NL6: Sea level type

Peruvian valley accession CICA 17

Peru

Salar de Uyuni, Bolivia (cv Real)

Chenopodium quinoaSeptember 2015 Gießen

del Valle del Mantaro, Peru (Hualhuas)

Valley type , Peru Amarilla de Marangani

(CICA)

cv. Hualhuas

Amarilla de Marangani (CICA)

cv. REAL

0 20% 50 75 100 %SWS

Seed

(g/ p

lant)

Impact of biochar addition on plant responseunder drought

Will Quinoa respond positively to biochar addition, and if so, whateco-physiological mechanisms are involved?

Will there also be a positive response under droughtness? Is there a toxic biochar "dose", or is it "the more the better"?

?+

+

Introduction & Aims Methods Results Summary

Treatment factors • Biochar application rates: 0, 100 and 200 t BC/ha * 20 cm depth (pot height)

• Water supply: 60% (control) and 20% (moderate stress) of control WHC(n=4 pots / treatment; 9 weeks of study; daily water supply to target WHC; N fertilization:100 kg N/ha in 3 application doses; final harvest; 2-way ANOVAs + Tukey test)

Measurementseach pot (replicated)• H2O consumption & osmotic potential• Biomass, leaf area• CN-, Chlorophyll- & Proline concentrations• CO2 respiration (plant; soil; both)

one pot / treatment• Amax• Light response curves• RuBisCo concentration• Transpiration• WUE

Methods: fully randomized greenhouse study

Results: BC effects on "soil water & water use"

amount of Biochar applied (t ha-1, 20 cm depth)0 100 200

max

imum

WH

C (g

H2O

g-1

soi

l)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

control, 0 t BC/ha100 t BC/ha200 t BC/ha

a

bc

+23.9%+36.1%

WHC significantly increased Yield(s) significantly increased

(t BC / ha)0 100 200 0 100 200

biom

ass

yield

(g /

plan

t)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

stem and shootsleavesseeds

60% WHC,"wet"

20% WHC,"dry"

a

b b

a aa

Total leaf area and No. of leaves increased

60% WHC,"wet"

0 100 200 0 100 200

tota

l lea

f are

a pe

r pla

nt (c

m²)

0

200

400

600

800

num

ber o

f lea

ves

per p

lant

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

20% WHC,"dry"

(t BC / ha)

a

b b

c

d d

water supply / consumption decreased

Results: BC effects on "soil water & water use"

~reduced water consumption plus ~higher yield + leaf area:

60% WHC,"wet"

0 100 200 0 100 200

WU

E (m

g dr

y m

ass

g-1 H

2O c

onsu

med

)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

20% WHC,"dry"

(t BC / ha)

a

b b c

d d

BC appl. increased WUE, significantly more with water stress

…note: the highest BC application (200 t) is not linearly better than 100 t !

CO2-Respiration:BC did not cause larger CO2 loss by respiration despite larger plants, neither below- nor above-ground.

WHC 60%"wet"

0 100 200 (BC, t/ha) 0 100 200

R_p

lant

per

g d

wt (

nmol

CO

2 g-1

s-1

)

0

20

40

60

80

WHC 20%"dry"

a ab

a a

a

Lower N concentration with BC-appl. In leaves was reflected by:

BC effects on " N use & photosynthesis"

WHC 60%"wet"

0 100 200 (BC, t/ha) 0 100 200

leaf

N c

once

ntra

tion

(%)

0

1

2

3

4

5

WHC 20%"dry"

a

b

c

d d

b

• N conc. in leaves: reduced with BC• N total (all leaves per plant):..identical! Higher NUE with BC

1. Significantly reduced relative chlorophyll (entire experiment)

2. Significantly reduced proline conc.3. Reduced RuBisCO concentration 4. Reduced Amax, reduced Rleaf, dark

5. Reduced transpiration6. Increased WUEP

Higher WUEP with BC

Biochar - a promising tool… next: further field trials!

Thank you for your attention!