New challenges in ressource management in the Botanic

Folie 1Prof. Dr. Konstantin Terytze US-Biochar 2012 – Sonoma County/California Research for innovation climate protection sustainability
New challenges in ressource management in the Botanic Garden of Berlin applying advanced biochar substrates technology
TerraBoGa
Prof. Dr. Konstantin Terytze, Dr. Robert Wagner, Rene Schatten, Nadine König, Kathrin Rößler, Karin Friede, Dr. Ines Vogel
Freie Universität Berlin
Research for innovation clim
Overview – The Botanic Garden Berlin-Dahlem
The Botanic Garden of Berlin is located in the southwest of Berlin.
Berlin
Overview - Material flows in the Botanic Garden
The Botanic Garden is the habitat of 22,000 different plant species in an area of about 43 ha and produced a large amount of plant residues every year. Most of these is unused and disposed of in a cost intensiv way.
Fig. 1: Map of the Botanic Garden Berlin-Dahlem
stem wood
compost 180
2,000 m ³ plant residues
3
Overview - Material flows in the Botanic Garden
Fig. 2: Estimation of nutrient load of the public toilets at the Botanic Garden Berlin-Dahlem, oDR = organic dry residue, N = nitrogen, P = phosphorus
Material
Nutrient kg
Nitrogen 1,041
Phosphorus 119
Tab. 1: Annual nutrient load of the public toilets at the Botanic Garden
Nutrient kg
Nitrogen 580
Phosphorus 128
Prof. Dr. Konstantin Terytze US-Biochar 2012 – Sonoma County/California Research for innovation climate protection sustainability
Overview - Objectives
Objectives effective utilization of residual and biogenic waste significant contribution to sustainable soil management avoiding soil carbon reduction and nutrient losses closing of internal, small scale material cycles
Fig. 3: Comparison between open cycle (status quo) and closed cycle (target scenario)
Dr. Robert Wagner Project-coordination
Overview - Procedures
• production of biochar substrates and potting soils • recycling of nutrients from urine and faeces • investigation of the environmental impact (mobilization of nutrients and emissions of greenhouse gases)
• determination of substrates quality (effects of plants, availability of nutrients) → comparing with the plant substrates used so far
• investigation of substitute of peat substrates • sanitation of substrates (especially by use of faeces)
Guidance for transfer of experience to other locations
Procedures:
rinsing water (Villeroy &
2. separator, 3. vessel and 4.
effluent (TECE/Basika)
Local separation of urine and faeces
reduction of water consumption and water costs recycling of nutrients and solid matter for the production of biochar substrates and organic fertilizers
A: Separation of urine
dissolved nutrients
Nutrients contained: N = 1,041 kg P = 119 kg
fig.: waterles urinals for male
visitors (Villeroy &
Biochar
Biochar
Substrates
Energy
Production of biochar substrates
Examination of 2 different ways for biochar substrates production: composting and fermentation Examination of the impact of biochar (0%, 15%) Examination of the influence of different feedstock compositions
Fermentation
1
2
in
9
Production of biochar substrates
Mixing and homogenisation Moistening with a lactic acid solution (EM)Compaction of fermentation heap
Finished compost heap (green) & fermentation heap (white)
• Composting and fermentation with 0% and 15% biochar • 4 weeks composting/fermentation & 6 months humification
10
First results – plant growth response test
Brassica rapa pekinensis
% ]
control IR 0% BC IR 15% BC F 0% BC F 15% BC
Method: Determination of plant response - Pot growth test with Chinese cabbage (according to BGK e.V. chapter IV.A3) Test-substrates: GA2 (second trial)
(n = 3)
Range of compost: 74 - 135%
F 0% BCF 15% BC
Fig. 6: plant growth in fermentation substrates, with and without biochar
Tab. 4: Characterization of terraboga substrates (GA2 second trial)
First results - Analysis of substrates
parameter unit
Different amounts of availabel nutrients (N, P) Adsorption on Biochar
Biological Tests
Cress test, germination – phytotoxic gases (Federal Compost Association)
Potential nitrification (DIN ISO 15685:2004-09)
Cress test – plant response (DIN EN 16086:2012-01)
Microbial activity - (DIN ISO 17155:2003-06)
Microbial biomass - respiration test (DIN EN ISO 14240-1:2010-12)
in progress
13
Biological Tests
Detection of gaseous phytotoxic substances.
At least 80% of the fresh matter of a reference substrate must be achieved.
Cress test - phytotoxic gases
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
EE0 GA2 F 0% BC GA2 F 15% BC GA2 IR 0% BC GA2 IR 15% BC Compost 1 Compost 2
Biochar substrates/Compost materials
produced substrates are free of phytotoxic compounds
Results:
14
Biological Tests
Earthworm avoidance test (DIN ISO 17512-1: 2010-06)
Determination of the effect of biochar on the fauna in terms of substrate preference.
If there are less than 20% of the total number of worms in test substrate the habitat function is restricted.
Pictures 6/7: eartworm avoidance test (Karin Friede)
Results:
GA2 IR 0% BC= 6,6 GA2 IR 15% BC = 3,4
GA2 F 0% BC = 6,4 GA2 F 15% BC = 3,6
36 % and 34 % of the earthworms are in the tested biochar substrates
Biochar substrates are not preferred habitat function of the substrates is not restricted
Research for innovation climate protection sustainability
15
Biological Tests
Potential nitrification (DIN ISO 15685:2004-09)
Results: The biochar substrates show a lower ammonium oxidation potential than the ones without BC. The fermented substrates show a higher nitrification potential than the composted substrates.
Fig.8: Activity of nitrifying microorganisms in biochar substrates and compost materials
0,0
20,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
100,0
120,0
140,0
160,0
180,0
200,0
GA2 F 0% BC GA2 F 15% BC GA2 IR 0% BC GA2 IR 15% BC Compost 1 Compost 2
biochar substrates/compost materials
] ( n
= 4)
Fig. 7: Determination of nitrite on a spectral photometer
16
Biological Tests
Fig.9: Nmin & NO2-N
Results: The addition of biochar leads to a decreased Nmin-content in the substrate and to a lower N- NO2-N (activity of nitrifying microorganisms).
Sorption of ammonium on the biochar surface ammonium not bioavailable
0,0
20,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
100,0
120,0
140,0
160,0
180,0
200,0
GA2 F 0% BC GA2 F 15% BC GA2 IR 0% BC GA2 IR 15% BC
17
Biological Tests
Potential nitrification (DIN ISO 15685:2004-09) in relation to organic matter content
0,0
20,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
100,0
120,0
140,0
160,0
180,0
200,0
] ( n
= 4)
Fig. 10: Activity of nitrifying microorganisms in biochar substrates and compost materials
Fig. 11: organic matter [%]
0,00
5,00
10,00
15,00
20,00
25,00
30,00
35,00
% D
M ] (
n =
3)
0
10
20
30
40
NO2-N [ng/g/min]
NO2-N [ng/10g/min] (n = 4)
18
First results in gardening
Experimenting gardeners – first results
Experiments with different plant substrates in an urban gardening exhibition and experiment
Fig. 12: Experiment and exhibion garden of the TerraBoGa project Dipl.-Biol. Nadine König
First results – plant growth with first trial GA1
Monitoring of plant growth: Begonia hydrocotylifolia
Biomass (above ground)
1000,0 1200,0 1400,0 1600,0
[g ]
Results: •Plant biomass in biochar substrate higher than control substrate •Higher amount on flowers and leaves in biochar substrate than in control substrate
Comparison between first trial GA1 15% and previously used compost (average value)
Fig. 13: plant growth (begonia)
Fig. 14: biomass development in begonia trial
Monitoring of plant growth: Carica papaya
Results: •Plant growth in biochar substrate comparable to control substrate •Plant biomass in biochar substrates higher than in control substrate
bi om
as s
Fig. 16: biomass development in papaya trial
Monitoring of plant growth: Theobroma cacao
Results: Plant biomass, plant growth and amounts of leaves in biochar substrates higher than in control substrate
bi om
as s
Fig. 18: biomass development in theobroma trial
Biomass (above ground)
First results
Further results of praxice experiments in the Botanic Garden
•Faster dry-out of the surface of biochar substrates compared to conventionally used peat substrates
•High amount of enemy-herbs in fermented biochar- substrates – problem especially under warm inhouse- conditions
•First experiments with acid-loving plants like Rhododendron sp.) not successful
Fig. 20: Rhododendron sp. In peat substrate (left) and in biochar-substrate (right)
Fig. 19: Dried-out surface of a biochar-substrate
First results –
• Positive effects on flowerishing and fruit development (Matthiola incana)
Fig. 22: Plants that did not reach flowering in conventional peat substrates
Fig. 21: Flowering plants in unfertilized biochar-substrates
First results –
• Positive effects on root development (decrease of harmful wetness by biochar)
• Lower appearence of plant deseases with biochar- substrates caused by harmful fungi
Fig. 24: Fungi-caused desease at plants in a conventional substrate (left) and
nearly no symptoms in biochar- substrates (right)Fig. 23: Root development in a biochar-substrate (left)
in comparison with a conventional plant-substrate (right))
First results –
Fig. 25: Zucchini-plants on conventional compost (left), biochar-substrates with 15% biochar content (middle) and new composted quality plant-substrates (right)
First results –
Fig. 26: Dried-out natural soil on the right and natural soil with biochar-substrate on the left
Conclusions
• Biochar and sustainable sanitary systems could be an important tool to complet the local material cycle
• Produced substrates are comparable in quality with previously used substrates (salt content, soluble nutrients, …)
• Impact of biochar is significant (plant growth, N, P availability, plant health, vitality)
• Substitute of peat substrates is possible • Long term tests are necessary to show the potentials of biochar substrates (important for assessment of biochar and validation of results)
Expected effects of complete material cycles in the Botanic Garden Berlin-Dahlem:
• Reduced purchase of soils, substrates and fertilizers • Reduced disposal of organic waste materials • Reduction of rinse water and sewage water • Reduced discharge of nutrients into the sewer system • Reduction of greenhouse gases
Thank you for your attention!
The TerraBoGa research project is financed by the Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment of Berlin within the framework of the Berlin Environmental Relief Programme and co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)/EU.
Thanks to our projectpartner
Part of working group Geoecology

Documents

New challenges in ressource management in the Botanic