Agricultural Science: An International journal (AGRIJ), Vol.1, No.

2, 2024

INFLUENCE OF BIOCHAR AND NPK FERTILIZER

ON THE GROWTH AND YIELD OF
AMARANTHS ( AMARANTHUSVIRIDIS L.)
Abdulkadir Aliyu1, Sani Sufiyanu1, Muhammad Nasir2, Hamza Yahaya2, Musa
Muhammad2, Zara Musa3, Muazu Salisu4 and Maryam Umar Adamu2
1
Department of Soil Science, Federal University Dutsin-Ma, P.M.B. 5001Dutsin-Ma,
Katsina state, Nigeria.
2
Department of Agronomy, Federal University Dutsin-Ma, P.M.B. 5001Dutsin-Ma,
Katsina state, Nigeria
3
Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Federal University Dutsin-Ma,
P.M.B. 5001Dutsin-Ma, Katsina state, Nigeria
4
Center for the Drylands Agriculture, Bayero University Kano,
P.M.B. Kano State, Nigeria

ABSTRACT
An experiment was conducted at Unguwar kudu garden, Dutsin-Ma from the month of February to April
2023 to study the combined influence biochar and NPK performance of vegetable amaranths. Biochar used
in the experiment was produced using pit method with a limited supply of oxygen. The experiment consisted
of three levels of biochar at 5t/ha,2.5t/ha and 0t/ha along with three levels of NPK fertilizer at 100%, 50%
and %0 of the recommended dosage which were laid in factorial Randomized Complete Block
Design(RCBD), the absolute control experiment consisted 0ton/ha biochar and 0% recommended dose of
NPK. Biochar produced from plant materials resulted in higher performance and yield (p<0.0500. Yield of
amaranths was significantly higher with the application of 2.5t/ha of biochar and 50% recommended dose
of NPK fertilizer (p<0.050). As such the combined application 2.5toh/ha and 50% recommended dose of
NPK fertilizer is recommended for enhanced and economic production of vegetable amaranth in the study
area.

KEYWORDS
Biochar, NPK, pit method, oxygen, performance and plant materials.

1. INTRODUCTION
Africa represents a major block of the globe where malnutrition and poor living standard across
the spectrum of the population is conspicuous and most intractable (UNICEF 2019; FAO 2018).
Ninety per cent (90%) of children from Africa do not meet the minimum criteria for acceptable
diet and 60% fall below the expected minimum meal frequency (Rickards 2019). Infant
malnutrition in the African region is a serious treat and global health problem because of its
consequential effects on childhood mortality, morbidity, impaired intellectual development and
risk of diseases that can reduce the efficiency of adulthood working capacity (WHO 2013;
Akombiet al., 2017). In low- and middle income countries, child malnutrition contributes to
about 45% of under-five year children mortality and this portends great danger to Africa growth
and development. One third of child deaths in Africa are attributable largely to protein energy
malnutrition and micronutrient deficiencies (Luchuoet al., 2013, Brancaet al., 2020) which can be

1
 Agricultural Science: An International journal (AGRIJ), Vol.1, No.2, 2024
solved by exploring underutilized nutritious crop species of Africa origin. Nations in Africa need
to proactively think and plan to address these problems in order to have an adulthood future that
is productive (Coulibalyet al., 2016). Consequently, there is a need for a policy framework and
strategic roadmap that could reduce poverty and child malnutrition which is prevalent in most
developing countries of Africa. The African continent is blessed with a rich diversity of food
crops, most of which have received little or no attention in terms of research and development of
policy frame works that can promote their effective commercial and industrial utilization. Grain
amaranth (Amaranthus spp.) is one of such neglected and underutilized species. It is an
indigenous leafy vegetable of Africa that has great inherent health promoting components good
for human applications and uses (Kwenin, Wolli, and Dzomeku 2011; Zhu, 2020). The grain
amaranth is a promising underutilized food crop because it can grow in a wide range of weather
conditions. It is a drought tolerant crop with inherent strong market and industrial potentials
which are yet to be fully tapped (Akin-Idowuet al., 2017). Amaranth has the ability to grow and
adapt in extremely harsh weather conditions (Olufolaji, Odeleye, and Ojo 2010). It can be
successfully cultivated for leaf or grain in many regions and seasons where other crops cannot
thrive (Mlakaret al., 2009; Ebert, Wu, and Wang 2011; Grundyaet al., 2020).

Contrary to popular belief, Chemical fertilizers(NPK) often harm the plants. Phosphorus, for
example, damages the essential relationship between a plant and its mycorrhizal fungi. NPK
fertilizers compromise trees’ root systems, block the uptake of micronutrients, encourage attack
from harmful pests, and cause a host of other issues for plants. They also pollute waterways (leaf
& limb).

At the very least, food crops produced using chemical fertilizers may not be as nutritious as they
should be. This is because chemical fertilizers trade fast growth for health in plants, resulting in
crops that have less nutritional value. Plants will grow on little more than NPK, but they will be
missing or developing less of essential nutrients such as calcium, zinc, and iron. This can have a
small but cumulative effect on the health of people that consume them (Apr 2018).

Constraints to amaranths production in Katsina state and Dutsinma local government in particular
include the use of organic manure such as bio char. Bio char application can significantly affect
N2O and CH4 emissions (Clough et al. 2010; Gaunt and Lehmann, Sevillaet al., 2011; Wang et
al., 2011). Bio char application significantly decreased N2O emissions, but increased total CH4
emissions in a rice paddy (Zhang et al., 2010). Woodchip bio char suppressed N2O emissions and
ambient CH4 oxidation in laboratory incubation.

There is paucity of research information on the Agronomy of the vegetable crop. In areas where
the crop is being grown, farmers lack some basic research information on the use of bio char and
other important agronomic practices for better growth and yield of amaranths.

Based on the uses of amaranths to the economic growth and human health coupled with paucity
of research information on the Agronomy of the crop, the present study was conceived to
investigate the influence of combined application of biochar and NPK fertilizer on
theperformance of vegetable amaranths.

2
 Agricultural Science: An International journal (AGRIJ), Vol.1, No.2, 2024

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Experimental Site

Field experiments was conducted in dry season from February to April 2023, at Dutsin-Ma local
government area, Unguwar kudu (12°26'35.59"N, 7°29'11. 97"E) in Sudan savanna ecological
zone of Nigeria.

2.2. Treatments and Experimental Design

The experiment consisted of two different factors, and total number of Nine treatments, starting
with Biochar and NPK at the rate of 0kg as control, 2.5t/ha of Biochar, 5t/ha of Biochar, 1/2kg
NKP/ha, 2.5t/ha of Biochar +1/2kg of NPK/ha, 5t/ha of Biochar + 1/2kg NKP/ha, 1kg of NPK/ha,
2.5t/ha of Biochar + 1kg of NPK/ha, and 5t/ha of Biochar + 1kg of NPK/ha, and the treatments
were replicated three times, these were factorially combined and laid out in Randomized
Complete Block Design (RCBD).

2.3. Soil Sampling

Before the establishment of trial, a composite sample was collected from surface to 30 cm using
auger. After six weeks from the establishment of the trial. These samples were air-dried, gently
crushed and sieved through a 2 mm sieve mesh and stored in an air tight container prior to soil
analysis.

2.4. Soil Analysis

The pH of the soil was determined in soil : water of 1:2.5 using glass electrode pH meter as
described in Estefan et al.,(2013). Soil EC was determined in soil: water ratio of 1:5 soil : water
as described by Estefan et al., (2013); Bower and Wilcox, (1965) and then converted to ECe by
using Slavich conversion factor (Slavich and Petterson, 1993). Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) was
determined using Walkley-Black wet oxidation method (Walkley and Black, 1934). Soil organic
matter (SOM) was calculated by using a multiplier of 1.724. Neutrally buffered ammonium
acetate was used in the extraction of exchangeable bases. Ca 2+ and Mg2+ were read using Atomic
Absorption Spectrophotometer (Buck Scientific Model 210 VGP), while Na + and K+ were read
using flame photometer (Jenway PFP 7) as described in Anderson and Ingram (1993).
Exchangeable acidity was extracted using IM KCl solution and determined by titration with
NaOH as described in Anderson and Ingram (1993). Cation Exchange Capacity was determined
by summation method as described by Chapman (1965). Total nitrogen was determined using
Micro Kjeldahl method as described in IITA (1979) and Bremmer (1996). The soil available
phosphorus was extracted using Bray 1 method(Bray & Kurtz, 1945) and determined using Blue
method (Drummond and Maher, 1995; Murphy and Riley, 1962). Micronutrients were extracted
using 0.1M HCl and read using Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (Buck Scientific Model
210 VGP), (Estefan et al., 2013; IITA, 1979).

2.5. Production of Biochar

The Bio char used was produced from a grinded and well dried maize stover in a fabricated
pyrolysis Kiln in the Department of soil science Federal University Dutsin-Ma as described by
(Lehmann, 2007) prior to addition to the experimental plots.

3
 Agricultural Science: An International journal (AGRIJ), Vol.1, No.2, 2024

2.6. Biochar Analysis

Portions of the portion of the biochar was taken, sieved using 2mm sieve and preserved for
analysis. The parameters analysed were:

The pH and EC of the bio char and compost were determined using amendment : water ratio of
1:10 as described by McLaughlin (2010) and USDA (2010) respectively. Total Nitrogen was
determined using micro Kjeldahl method as described in Bremmer (1996) and IITA (1979).
Total carbon in both of the amendments was determined by ignition method as described by
Shuttle (1995). Available phosphorus was extracted using Bray 1 method extractant(Bray and
Kurtz, 1945) and then read using spectrophotometer (22PC MODEL) at a wavelength of 860nm
(Murphy and Riley, 1962). Exchangeable bases were extracted using NH4Ac saturation method
as described in Anderson and Ingram (1993) Ca2+ and Mg2+ were determined using AAS(BUCK
SCIENTIFIC 210 MODEL) while Na + and K+ were determined using flame photometer
(JENWAY PFP 7) as described by Anderson and Ingram (1993). Exchangeable acidity was
extracted using IM KCl and then determined by titration with NaOH as described by Anderson
and Ingram (1993). The Effective Cation Exchange Capacity was determined by summation
method as described by Chapman, (1965).

2.7. Agronomic Practices

2.7.1. Land preparation: The land was prepared manually using hoe and cutlass, in order to
make fine beds for suitable growth of the amaranth plant, and also the land was marked out
into plots. The gross plot size was 2m×2m.

2.7.2. Application of Biochar: Biochar was applied 2weeks before the establishment of the trial

2.7.3. Sowing: The seed was sown in different plots. The plants required a spacing of 15cm
within the row and 20cm between rows, (15×20cm), using seed rates at 2 peak tins. Local
variety of amaranth was used.

2.7.4. Irrigation: Water was applied more frequently during the early part of the growing period.
Adequate irrigation was carried out. Local Irrigation was adopted; irrigation water was
applied at the intervals of two days to prevent soil moisture loses.

2.7.5. Weeding: weed control was achieved manually using hoe at 1 week after sowing, to keep
the plots weed free. Total of 2weeding were carried out.

2.7.6. Application of NPK fertilizer: NPK fertilizer was applied at the specified plots at 1week
after sowing.

2.7.7. Thinning: The purpose of thinning in amaranth was to maintain the proper density of the
crop, maintain spacing and to rouge off-types and diseased plants. The crop was thinned to
two plants per stand.

2.7.8. Tagging: This task was conducted immediately after Thinning in order to identify the
plants that were used in recording of observations.

2.7.9. Harvesting: Harvesting was carried out at six weeks after sowing after sowing (WAS) in
order to measure the yield of the amaranths plant.

4
 Agricultural Science: An International journal (AGRIJ), Vol.1, No.2, 2024

2.8. Growth Parameters

Recording of observations was carried out at 3,4,5 and 6 weeks after sowing (WAS) on the
following growth and yield parameters.

2.8.1. Plant height: four plants were randomly tagged/plot. The heights of the tagged plants were
measured in centimeters from the ground level to the tip of the plants using meter rule.

2.8.2. Number of leaves/plant: This was taken by counting the total number of leaves from the
tagged plants.

2.8.3. Leaf area: The length and width were measured using meter rule.

2.8.4. Total dry weight: The weight of the dried plant was separately taken from the cut border
line plants at 4,5 and 6 weeks after sowing. Both the leaves and the stems were dried at
temperature of 70°C.

2.8.5. Stem diameter: The diameter of the stem was measured using meter rule from the tagged
plants, and the mean was determined.

2.8.6. Fresh plant weight: This was taken by measuring the weight of a fresh plant shoot.

2.9. Statistical analysis

Analysis of variance was carried out to determine if there is significance difference between
means of the data obtained from the experiment was carried out using R Software (3.4.3) edition.
Means of the treatment were separated Duncan Multiple Ranking Technique DMRT (Duncan
1955)

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Characteristics of the Experimental Soil

Table 1 shows the chemical characteristics of the soils of the experimental site. The soil has mean
pH of 6.83, This indicates that the soil is neutral and falls within the optimum range for the
growth of the experimental crop as described by Havlin et al., (2012) which is similar to the
findings of Abdulkadir et al., (2020), Dawaki et al., (2019), Abdulkadir et al., (2022) and
Sufiyanu et al., (2022). The ECe with a mean 0.92dS/m, shows that it is non-saline based on
FAO rating (FAO, 1999). The total organic carbon of the studied soil was 0.36%. The total
Nitrogen of the studied soil was 0.14%. Its available Phosphorus was found to have mean of
3.24mg/kg. The soil contains low Organic Carbon, Available Phosphorus and the Total Nitrogen
based on ESU rating (Esu, 2010). The exchangeable bases of the experimental site were found to
be 1.24cmol/kg K, 0.12cmol/kg Na, 2.30cmol/kg Ca and 0.58cmol/kg Mg. The mean ECEC
ranges between 4.24cmol/kg. The soil has a medium content of Calcium and Sodium with a high
content of Magnesium and Potassium, the Effective Cation Exchange Capacity (ECEC) of the
soil rated medium (Esu, 2010).

5
 Agricultural Science: An International journal (AGRIJ), Vol.1, No.2, 2024
Table 1: Chemical characteristics of the pre amendment application soil

Soil property Values

pH 6.83
-1
EC (dSm ) 0.92
TN (%) 0.14
OC (%) 0.36
K (cmolkg-1) 1.24
Na (cmolkg-1) 0.12
Mg (cmolkg-1) 0.58
Ca (cmolkg-1) 2.30
EA (cmolkg-1) 0.17
ECEC (cmolkg-1) 4.24
Av. P (mgkg-1) 3.24

EC= Electrical Conductivity, TN = Total Nitrogen, OC = Organic Carbon, ECEC =Effective Cation
Exchange Capacity, EA = Exchangeable acidity, and Av. P = Available Phosphorus

3.2. Characterization of the Biochar Used in the Experiment

Table 2 shows the chemical characteristics of the biochar used in the experiment. It shows that
the pH of the biochar used was 7.54. The EC (1:5) of the bio char was 0.43dS/m. The Total
Nitrogen of the biochar was 1.1%. The biochar was found to have available phosphorus of 36.44.
The bio char contains 1.39cmol/kg Ca, 1.39cmol/kg Mg, 0.08cmol/kg Na and 3.81cmol/kg K.
The respective Effective Cation Exchange Capacity of the biochar was 10.47cmol/kg and
7.18cmol/kg.

Table 2: Chemical characteristics of the biochar used

Property BIOCHAR
pH 7.54
-1
EC (dSm ) 0.43
TN (%) 1.1
OC (%) 64.8
K (cmolkg-1) 3.81
Na (cmolkg-1) 0.08
Mg (cmolkg-1) 1.64
Ca (cmolkg-1) 2.24
EA (cmolkg-1) 0.51
ECEC (cmolkg-1) 8.28
Av. P (mgkg-1) 36.44
C:N ratio 58.91

EC= Electrical Conductivity, TN = Total Nitrogen, OC = Organic Carbon, ECEC =Effective Cation
Exchange Capacity, EA = Exchangeable acidity, and Av. P = Available Phosphorus

6
 Agricultural Science: An International journal (AGRIJ), Vol.1, No.2, 2024

3.3. Influence of Biochar and NPK Fertilizer on the Height (cm) of Vegetable
Amaranth

Table 1 shows the effect of varying rates of biochar and NPK fertilizer on plant height of
amaranths at 3,4,5 and 6 weeks after sowing. 5t of bio char per hectare significantly produced the
tallest plants compared to other treatments. At 3 weeks after sowing (WAS) 5t of bio char
produced the tallest plants with the value of (50.77a) which had a significant difference among
the means, and then followed by 1/2kg of NPK per hectare (47.29a), while the least in
performance or the shortest plants at 3 weeks after sowing (WAS) were 0t of bio char (32.28c)
and 0kg of NPK (39.56c) per hectare as control.

At 4 weeks after sowing (WAS), 5t/ha of bio char produced the best performing plants in term of
height with the value of (54.00a), and then followed by 2.5t/ha of bio char (52.56a), while 0t/ha
of bio char (37.11b) and 0kg/ha of NPK fertilizer (45.33b) produced the shortest plants, it was
observed that there were no significant differences among the means when compared. At 5 weeks
after sowing (WAS), 5t/ha of bio char (65.30a) produced the tallest plants, followed by 2.5t/ha of
bio char (61.86a), while 1kg/ha of NPK (57.67ab) showed similarity between 5t/ha of bio char
and control (0t/ha of bio char and 0kg/ha of NPK), 0t/ha of bio char produced shortest plants.
There was a significant difference among the means in plant height at 5 weeks after sowing. At 6
weeks after sowing (WAS), 5t/ha of bio char (72.88a) produced the tallest plants, while 0t/ha of
bio char (59.73c) produced the shortest plants. It was observed that at 6 weeks after sowing
(WAS) there was no significant differences among the means, meaning that they were
statistically similar.

Table 1: Plant height (cm) of vegetable amaranths as affected by Biochar and NPK fertilizer

Plant height 3 WAS 4 WAS 5 WAS 6 WAS

NPK 39.56c 45.33b 56.48b 65.58a
0kg/ha NPK
1/2kg/ha NPK 47.29a 51.78a 61.59a 68.53a

1kg/ha NPK 42.70b 46.56b 57.67 ab 67.53a

BIOCHAR RATE 32.28c 37.11b 48.58b 59.73c

0T/ha BIOCHAR
2.5T/ha 46.50b 52.56a 61.86a 69.03b
BIOCHAR
5T/ha BIOCHAR 50.77a 54.00a 65.30a 72.88a

SED 0.351 1.603 1.854 1.752

INTERACTIONS ** NS ** NS

Key: **= significant, NS= not significant.

3.4. Influence of Biochar and NPK Fertilizer on the Number of Leaves of Vegetable
Amaranth

Table 2 shows the influence of bio char and NPK fertilizer on number of leaves of vegetable
amaranths at 3,4,5 and 6 weeks after sowing (WAS). 5t/ha of bio char insignificantly produced
the highest number of leaves per plants compared to other treatments. At 3 weeks after sowing
(WAS) 5t of bio char produced the highest number of leaves per plant with the value of (15.22a),
and then followed by 1/2kg of NPK per hectare (14.11a), while 1kg/ha of NPK had similarities
between 5t/ha of bio char (15.22a) and 0t/ha (11.33b), 0t/ha of bio char (11.33b) and 0kg/ha of

7
 Agricultural Science: An International journal (AGRIJ), Vol.1, No.2, 2024
NPK (12.67b) produced less number of leaves at 3 weeks of sowing (WAS), there was no
significant differences among the means, meaning that they were statistically similar.

At 4 weeks after sowing (WAS), 5t of bio char produced the highest number of leaves per plant
with the value of (22.33a), and then followed by 0kg of NPK per hectare (21.00a), while 1kg/ha
of NPK had similarities between 5t/ha of bio char (22.33a) and 1/2kg/ha of NPK (19.78b), 0t/ha
of bio char (19.11b) produced less number of leaves at 4 weeks after sowing (WAS), there was
no significant differences among the means, meaning that they were statistically similar. At 5
weeks after sowing (WAS), 5t/ha of bio char produced the highest number of leaves per plant
with the value of (24.78a), and then followed by 2.5t/ha of bio char (23.78a), while 0t/ha of bio
char (18. 56b) produced less number of leaves at 5 weeks after sowing (WAS), there was no
significant differences among the means. At 6 weeks after sowing (WAS), 2.5t/ha of bio char
produced the highest number of leaves per plant with the value of (32.33a), and then followed by
5t/ha of bio char (28.78a), while 0t/ha of bio char (21.67b) produced less number of leaves at 6
weeks after sowing (WAS), it was observed that there were no significant differences among the
means.

Table 2: Number of leaves of vegetable amaranths as affected by Biochar and NPK fertilizer

NO of Leaves 3 WAS 4 WAS 5 WAS 6 WAS

NPK 12.67b 21.00a 21.56a 28.67a
0%%NPK
50% NPK 14.11a 19.78b 23.67a 26.11a
100% NPK 13.78ab 20.22ab 21.89a 28.00a
BIOCHAR 11.33b 19.11b 18.56b 21.67b
RATE
0T/ha BIOCHAR
2.5T/ha 14.00a 19.56b 23.78a 32.33a
BIOCHAR
5T/ha BIOCHAR 15.22a 22.33a 24.78a 28.78a
SED 0.592 0.891 2.307 2.77
INTERACTION NS NS NS NS

Key: **= significant, NS= not significant.

3.5. Influence of Biochar and NPK Fertilizer on the Leaf Area (cm2) f Vegetable
Amaranth

Table 3 shows the influence of bio char and NPK fertilizer on leaf area of vegetable amaranths at
3,4,5 and 6 weeks after sowing (WAS). There was no significant influence of biochar and NPK
fertilizer in both weeks. At 3 weeks after sowing (WAS), 5t/ha of bio char (50.62a) resulted
largest leaf area, while 0t/ha of bio char (28.39b) resulted in smallest leaf area when compared
with others. At 4 weeks after sowing (WAS), 5t/ha of bio char (73.63a) resulted largest leaf area,
and 0t/ha of bio char (56.14b) resulted in smallest leaf area. At 5 weeks after sowing (WAS),
5t/ha of bio char (80.84a) produced the largest leaf area, while 0t/ha of bio char (66.39b) resulted
in smallest leaf area. At 6 weeks after sowing (WAS), 2.5t/ha of bio char (165.0a) resulted in the
largest leaf area among the treatments, while 0t/ha of bio char (95.8b) resulted in the lowest leaf
area compared to other treatments.

8
 Agricultural Science: An International journal (AGRIJ), Vol.1, No.2, 2024
Table 3: Leaf area (cm) of vegetable amaranths as affected by Biochar and NPK fertilizer.

Leaf Area 3 WAS 4 WAS 5 WAS 6 WAS

NPK 42.42a 62.74a 74.4b 109.2b
0% NPK
50%NPK 42.29a 65.93a 75.1ab 154.4a
100%NPK 42.42a 67.16a 73.7b 161.3a
BIOCHAR RATE 28.39b 56.14b 66.39b 95.8b
OT/ha BIOCHAR
2.5T/ha BIOCHAR 38.64b 66.07ab 75.95 ab 165.0a
5T/ha BIOCHAR 50.62a 73.63a 80.84a 164.1a
SED 5.47 5.71 4.72 17.46
INTERACTIONS NS NS NS NS

Key: **= significant, NS= not significant.

3.6. Influence of Biochar and NPK Fertilizer on the Plant Dry Weight (g) of
Vegetable Amaranth

Data on plant dry weight at various treatments at 3,4,5 and 6 weeks after sowing (WAS) as
affected by bio char and NPK fertilizer on vegetable amaranths was presented on table 4. There
was significant difference in plant dry weight at 6 weeks after sowing (WAS). At 3 weeks after
sowing (WAS), 5t/ha of bio char (9.000a) produced heaviest plants compared to other treatments,
followed by 1/2kg of NPK per hectare (8.333a), while 0t/ha of bio char (4.111c) and 0kg of NPK
per hectare (5.111c) produced the lowest plants, statistically it showed no significant difference
among the means.

At 4 weeks after sowing (WAS), 5t/ha of bio char (15.22a) produced the heaviest plants,
followed by 1kg of NPK per hectare (15.11a), while 1/2kg of NPK per hectare produced the
lowest plants (14.11a), statistically it resulted in no significant difference among the means,
meaning that they were statistically similar. At 5 weeks after sowing (WAS), 5t/ha of bio char
(31.11a) resulted the heaviest plants, while 0t/ha of bio char (22.00b), produced the smallest
plants among the treatment means, the result showed that there was no significant difference
among the means. At 6 weeks after sowing (WAS), 5t/ha of bio char (40.11a) resulted in the
heaviest plants, followed by 1kg/ha of NPK fertilizer (37.22a), while 0t/ha of bio char (26.33c)
and 0kg/ha of NPK (30.67c) produced the lowest plants among the treatments, the result showed
that there was significant difference among the m

Table 4: Plant dry weight (g) of vegetable amaranths as affected by Biochar and NPK fertilizer.

Dry Weight 3 WAS 4 WAS 5 WAS 6 WAS

NPK 5.111c 14.89a 24.78a 30.67c
0%NPK
50%NPK 6.889b 14.11a 28.22a 34.56b
100%NPK 8.333a 15.11a 28.22a 37.22a
BIOCHAR RATE 4.111c 14.33a 22.00b 26.33c
0T/ha BIOCHAR
2.5T/ha BIOCHAR 7.222b 14.56a 28.11a 36.00b
5T/ha BIOCHAR 9.000a 15.22a 31.11a 40.11a
SED 0.509 1.293 1.819 1.016
INTERACTION NS NS NS **

Key: **= significant, NS= not significant.

9
 Agricultural Science: An International journal (AGRIJ), Vol.1, No.2, 2024

3.7. Influence of Biochar and NPK Fertilizer on the Stem Diameter (cm) of Vegetable
Amaranth

Table 5 shows the effects of varying rates of biochar and NPK fertilizer on stem diameter of
vegetable amaranths at 3,4,5 and 6 weeks after sowing (WAS). The result showed that 5t/ha of
bio char produced the largest stem while 0t/ha of bio char 0kg/ha of NPK fertilizer resulted in the
lowest stem diameter. Statistically there was no significant difference among the means.

Table 5: Stem diameter (cm) of vegetable amaranths as affected by Biochar and NPK fertilizer.

Stem diameter 3 WAS 4 WAS 5 WAS 6 WAS

NPK 0.9444a 1.156a 1.466b 1.711a
0%NPK
50% NPK 0.9889a 1.189a 1.488a 1.778a
100%NPK 0.9667 a 1.167a 1.543a 1.811a
BIOCHAR 0.8778b 1.089b 1.522a 1.600b
RATE
0T/ha BIOCHAR
2.5T/ha 0.9556b 1.089b 1.499a 1.844a
BIOCHAR
5T/ha BIOCHAR 1.0667a 1.267a 1.587a 1.856a
SED 0.0481 0.0464 0.0511 0.0585
INTERACTION NS NS NS NS

Key: **= significant, NS= not significant.

Plant weight (g)

Table 6 shows the influence of bio char and NPK fertilizer on the growth performance of
amaranths on plant weight at 3,4,5 and 6 weeks after sowing (WAS). There was significant
interaction in plant weight at 3 weeks after sowing (WAS).

At 3 weeks after sowing (WAS), 5t/ha of bio char (102.67a) produced the heaviest plants, while
0t/ha of bio char (72. 22b) and 0kg/ha of NPK (80.11b) produced the lowest plants among the
means, the result showed that there was significant difference among the means.

At 4 weeks after sowing (WAS), 5t/ha of bio char (153.8a) produced the heaviest plants, while
0t/ha of bio char (100.8c) produced the lowest plants, and the result showed that there was no
significant difference among the means. At 5 weeks after sowing (WAS), 5t/ha of bio char
(193.9a) produced the heaviest plants, while 0t/ha of bio char (157. 8b) produced the lowest
plants, statistically it showed no significant difference among the means. At 6 weeks after sowing
(WAS), 5t/ha of bio char (326. 7a) produced the heaviest plants, while 0t/ha of bio char (269. 9b)
produced smallest plants among the treatments, the result showed that there was no significant
interaction.

10
 Agricultural Science: An International journal (AGRIJ), Vol.1, No.2, 2024
Table 6: Plant weight (g) of vegetable amaranths as affected by Biochar and NPK fertilizer.

Plant weight 3 WAS 4 WAS 5 WAS 6 WAS

NPK 80.11b 115.3b 174.4a 302.7ab
0% NPK
50% NPK 96.78a 130.2 ab 181.2a 303.3ab
100%NPK 98.67a 143.9a 164.6a 303.1ab
BIOCHAR RATE 72.22b 100.8c 157.8b 269.9b
0T/ha BIOCHAR
2.5T/ha BIOCHAR 100.67a 134.9b 168.6ab 312.6a
5T/ha BIOCHAR 102.67a 153.8a 193.9a 326.7a
SED 3.98 8.55 14.61 19.33
INTERACTION ** NS NS NS

Key: **= significant, NS= not significant.

3.8. Influence on Interaction of Biochar and NPK Fertilizer on the Performance of

Amaranths

Table 7 shows the influence of interaction between bio char and NPK fertilizer on the growth
performance of amaranths at 3 weeks after sowing (WAS), the result showed that 5t/ha of bio
char and 1/2kg of NPK fertilizer per hectare (53.17a) produced the highest performance, followed
by 2.5t/ha and 1/2kg of NPK per hectare (51.67b), 5t/ha of bio char (51.43b) while 1kg/ha of
NPK and 0t/ha of bio char produced shortest plants, statistically there was significant difference
among the means (p<0.05).

Table 7: Plant height of vegetable amaranths as affected by interaction between Biochar andNPK fertilizer
at 3 WAS.

Interaction on plant 0T/ha BIOCHAR 2.5T/ha BIOCHAR 5T/ha

(cm) height at 3 WAS BIOCHAR
0% NPK 30.40e 36.83d 51.43b
50% NPK 37.03d 51.67b 53.17a
100%NPK 29.40e 51.00b 47.70c
SED 0.351

Key: T= ton, SED= standard error of difference.

Table 8 shows the influence of interaction between Biochar and NPK fertilizer on the growth
performance of amaranths at 6 weeks after sowing (WAS), 5t/ha of bio char and 1/2kg of NPK
per hectare (68.60a) produced the tallest plants, while 2.5t/ha of bio char and 1kg/ha of
NPK(65.93ab), 2.5t/ha of bio char and 1/2kg of NPK(65.03ab) per hectare showed similarity, and
1kg/ha of NPK fertilizer produced the shortest plants.

11
 Agricultural Science: An International journal (AGRIJ), Vol.1, No.2, 2024
Table 8: Plant height (cm) of vegetable amaranths as affected by interaction between Biochar andNPK
fertilizer at 6 WAS.

Interaction on plant 0T/ha BIOCHAR 2.5T/ha BIOCHAR 5T/ha BIOCHAR

height at 6 WAS
0% NPK 48.50de 54.60cd 66.33ab
50% NPK 51.13de 65.03ab 68.60a
100% NPK 46.10e 65.93ab 60.97bc
SED 1.854

Key: T=ton, SED= standard error of difference.

Table 9 shows the effects of interaction between bio char and NPK fertilizer on the growth
performance of amaranths on plant dry weight at 6 weeks after sowing (WAS), 5t/ha of bio char
and 1kg/ha of NPK fertilizer (43.67a) resulted in heaviest plants, followed by 5t/ha of bio char
and 0kg/ha of NPK (40.33ab) which showed similarity between 5t/ha of bio char + 1kg/ha of
NPK and 2.5t/ha of bio char + 1kg/ha of NPK fertilizer, while 0t/ha of bio char and 0kg/ha of
NPK (16.33e) resulted in lowest plant weight.

Table 9: Plant dry weight (g) of vegetable amaranths as affected by interaction between Biochar andNPK
fertilizer at 6 WAS.

Interactions on plant dry 0T/ha BIOCHAR 2.5T/ha BIOCHAR 5T/ha

weight at 6 WAS BIOCHAR
0kg/ha NPK 16.33e 35.33c 40.33ab
1/2kg/ha NPK 31.33d 36.00c 36.33bc
1kg/ha NPK 31.33d 36.67b 43.67a
SED 1.016

Key: T= ton, SED= standard error of difference

Table 10 shows the influence of interaction between bio char and NPK fertilizer on the growth
performance of amaranths on plant weight at 3 weeks after sowing (WAS), 2.5t/ha of bio char
and 1kg/ha of NPK fertilizer (117. 67a) produced the heaviest plants, followed by 5t/ha of bio
char and 1/2 NPK fertilizer (114.67b) while 0t/ha of bio char and 0kg/ha of NPK fertilizer
produced the lowest plants.

Table 10: Plant weight (g) of vegetable amaranths as affected by Biochar and NPK fertilizer at 3WAS.

Interaction on plant weight at 3 0T/ha BIOCHAR 2.5T/ha BIOCHAR 5T/ha

WAS BIOCHAR
0kg/ha NPK 62.67f 85.00d 92.67cd
1/2kg/ha NPK 76.33e 99.33c 114.67b
1kg/ha NPK 77.67e 117.67a 100.67bc
SED 3.98

Key: T= ton, SED= standard error of difference.

Influence of bio char and NPK fertilizer on the growth performance of amaranths.

The growth performance of amaranth was significantly higher using Biochar at the rate of 5t/ha
in (table 1) compared to NPK fertilizer in both 1kg/ha and 1/2kg/ha. Use of NPK fertilizer
showed no significant variation in the growth performance of amaranth (table 1). Ammu, et., al

12
 Agricultural Science: An International journal (AGRIJ), Vol.1, No.2, 2024
2017, reported that all the Biochar treatments produced more or similar yield. This showed the
long term benefits of biochar in crop performance.

Based on the growth and yield performance of amaranth, there was no significant difference on
number of leaves among the biochar and NPK interaction in (table 2), while Tenenbaum 2009,
reported that combination of bio char and fertilizer showed a 60% increase over fertilizer alone.
Leaf area and stem diameter showed no significant differences in all cases. (Mohammed D. 2016)
reported that there was significant difference between stem girth of amaranths with respect to
Nitrogen fertilizer.

It also has been hypothesized that the long term effect of bio char on nutrients availability was
due to an increase in surface oxidation and cation exchange capacity (Liang et al., 2017). Biochar
produced best performance and yield of amaranths at the rate of 5t/ha.

Influence of interaction between biochar and NPK fertilizer on the growth performance
ofamaranths.

Combination of bio char and NPK fertilizer showed an increase of about 60% then when is
applied alone on amaranths (Tenenbaum 2009). From the result obtained, 2.5t/ha of bio char in
combination with 1/2kg per hectare of NPK resulted in 100% growth and yield performance of
amaranths.

Limitations of the study

i. The research was conducted in the Sudan savannah agro-ecological zone of Nigeria, as
such the research needs to be conducted in other agricultural zone.
ii. The research was only conducted during dry season; this does not take into consideration
the effect of rainfall.

4. CONCLUSION

From the results obtained from this study, it can be concluded that application of biochar at the
rate of 5t/ha gave significant influence on plant height, dry weight and fresh shoot yield of
amaranths. Large quantity of NPK fertilizer obtained harm our plants. Thus the best rate of NPK
seems to be 1/2kg/ha while biochar at the rate of 5t/ha.

REFERENCES

[1] Abdulkadir, A, Halilu, Y., & Sani, S. (2022). Evaluation of Physical and Chemical Properties of
Soils at Bichi Local Government Area , Kano State , Nigeria. IREJournal, 5(9), 556–562.
[2] Abdulkadir, A., Dawaki, M. U., & Sani, M. (2019). Effect of Organic Soil Amendments on Soil
Chemical Properties in Sudan Savannah of Nigeria Effect of Organic Soil Amendments on Soil
Chemical Properties in Sudan Savannah of Nigeria. NJSS, 30(2), 122–132.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.36265/njss.2020.300215
[3] Dawaki, M. U., Abdul, A., &Abdulrahman, B. L. (2020). Comparative Potential Effects of Biochar ,
Compost and Inorganic Fertilizer on Major Nutrient Ions Mobility and Stability in Screen - House
Irrigated Maize in the Drier Savannas of Nigeria. NJSS, 29(2), 122–132.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.36265/njss.2020.290215
[4] Adekayode, F.O. and Ogunkoya, M.O. (2011). Comparative effects of organic compost and
NPK fertilizer on soil fertility, yield and quality of amaranth in Southwest Nigeria. Int. J. Biol.
Chem.Sci. 5(2):490-499
[5] Adeyemi, T. O. A., &Idowu, O. D. (2017). Biochar: Promoting crop yield, improving soil
fertility,mitigating climate change and restoring polluted soils. World News of Natural Sciences, 8,

13
 Agricultural Science: An International journal (AGRIJ), Vol.1, No.2, 2024
27–36. Retrieved from http://www.worldnewsnaturalsciences.com/wp-content/
uploads/2012/11/WNOFNS-8-2017-27-36-1.pdf
[6] Agboola, A. A., and Omueti, J. (1982). Soil fertility problem and its management in tropical Africa.
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Ibadan, Nigeria. 2: 215.
[7] Agegnehu, G., Srivastava, A. K., & Bird, M. I. (2017). The role of biochar and biochar-compost in
improving soil quality and crop performance: A review. Applied Soil Ecology, 119, 156–170.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2017.06.008
[8] Agong, S. G. 2006. Amaranthuscaudatus L. In: Prota 1: Cereals and pulses, ed. M. Brink and G.
Belay, 54–57. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Prota.
[9] Ainika, J. N., Amans, E. B., Olonitola, C. O., Okutu, P. C., & Dodo, E. F. (2012). Effect of organic
and inorganic fertilizer on growth and yield of Amaranthuscaudatus L. Northern Guinea Savanna of
Nigeria. World J Eng Pure ApplSci, 2(2), 26-30.
[10] Akinbile, C. O., Adefolaju, S., &Ajibade, F. O. (2016). Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizer on
the growth and yield of amaranthuscurentus in Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria. In Proceedings of the
37th Annual Conference and Annual General Meeting–Minna.
[11] Akombi, B. J., K. E. Agho, D. Merom, A. Renzaho, and J. J. Hall. 2017.Child malnutrition sub-
Saharan Africa: A meta-analysis of demographic and health surveys (2006-2016). PLoS One 12 (5):
e0177338. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177338.
[12] Aletor, M.V.A and Adeogun, O.A. (1995). Nutrient and antinutrient component of some Tropical
vegetable. Fd. Chem. 53:375-379.
[13] Amaranth Institute, (1992). The official Newsletter of Amaranth Institute.Available at
athttp://agrihomegh.com/essential-plantnutrients/
[14] Anderson, J. M., and Ingram, J. S. I. (1993). TROPICAL SOIL BIOLOGY AND FERTILITY
Handbook of Methods. C. A. B. International Wellingford, UK.
[15] Billa, S. F., Angwafo, T. E., &Ngome, A. F. (2019). Agro environmental characterization of biochar
issued from crop wastes in the humid forest zone of Cameroon. International Journal of Recycling of
Organic Waste in Agriculture, 8(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40093-018-0223-9Rehman HA,
Razzaq R (2017) Benefits of Biochar on the Agriculture and Environment - A Review. J Environ
Anal Chem 4: 207. doi:10.41722380- 2391.1000207
[16] Bower, C. A., and Wilcox, L. V. (1965). Soluble Salts. In C. A. Black (Ed.), Methods of soil
Analysis. Part 1. (p. 768). Agron. No. 9 ASA Madison Wisconsin, USA.
[17] Bray, R. H., and Kurtz, L. T. (1945). Determination of Total, Organic and Available Form of
Phosphorus in Soils. Soil Science Journal, 59, 39–45.
[18] Bremmer, J. M. (1996). Total Nitrogen. In D. L. Sparks (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis Part 3.
Chemical Methods, SSSA Book Series 5 (pp. 1085–1122). Madison, Wisconsin USA.
[19] Chapman, H. D. (1965). Cation Exchange Capacity. In C. A. Black (Ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis.
Part 2 (pp. 891–901). Agron. No. 9 ASA Madison Wisconsin, USA.
[20] Drummond, L., and Maher, W. (1995). Determination of Phosphorus in Aqueous Solution via
Formation of the Phosphoantimonylmolybdenum Blue Complex Re-examination of Optimum
Conditions for the Analysis of Phosphate. Analytica Chimica Acta, 2670(94), 69–74.
[21] Estefan, G., Sommer, R., and Ryan, J. (2013). Methods of Soil , Plant , and Water Analysis : A
manual for the West Asia and North.
[22] Esu, I. E. (2010). Soil Characterization, Classification and Survey. HEBN Publishers, Plc. Ibadan,
Nigeria.
[23] FAO. (1999). SOIL SALINITY ASSESSMENT: Methods and Interpretation of Electrical
Conductivity Measurement. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome Italy.
[24] Havlin, J. L., Beaton, J. D., Tisdale, S. L., and Nelson, W. L. (2012). Soil Fertility and Fertilizers-
An Introduction to Nutrient Management (7TH EDITIO). PHI Learning Private limited.
[25] IITA. (1979). Selected Methods of Soil Analysis. Manual Series No. 1 (Revised Ed). IITA Ibadan,
Nigeria.
[26] Lehmann, J., Da-Silva, J. P. J., Steiner, C., Nehls, T., Zech, W., and Glaser, B. (2003). Nutrient
availability and leaching in an archaeological anthrosol and a ferralsol of the central Amazon basin:
Fertilizer, manure and charcoal amendments. Plant Soil, 249, 343–357.
https://doi.org/doi:10.1023/A:1022833116184
[27] Lehmann, J., Rillig, M. C., Thies, J., Masiello, C. A., Hockaday, W. C., and Crowley, D. (2011).
Biochar effects on soil biota: A review. Biochem, 43, 1812–1836.
https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.04.022

14
 Agricultural Science: An International journal (AGRIJ), Vol.1, No.2, 2024
[28] Lehmann, Johannes. (2007). Bioenergy in the black. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5(7),
381–387.
[29] Mariana B, Daniel AC, Marian M, Mihai G (2015) Study regarding the influence of NPK
fertilizers on the total nitrogen content from tomato (Lycopersicumesculentum). University of
Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Bucharest, Faculty of Management, 01 N.
Titulescu Blvd, Calarasi, Romania.
[30] Martirosyan, D.M. (2001). Amaranth as a Nutritional Supplement for the Modern Diet. Amaranth
Legacy, USA, 14:2-4.
[31] Maundu, P., Achigan-Dako, E.G. and Morimoto, Y. (2009) Biodiversity of African vegetables.
[32] Muyonga, J.H., Nabakabya, D., Nakimbudgwe, D.N. and Masinde, D. (2008). Efforts to promote
Amaranth production and consumption in Uganda to fight malnutrition. Department of Food Science
and Technology, Makerere University, Kampala. Pp 1-9.
[33] McLaughlin, H. (2010). Characterising biochar prior to addition to soils. Alterna Biocarbon Inc.
[34] Murphy, J., and Riley, J. P. (1962). Determination single solution method for the in natural.
Analytica Chimica Acta, 27, 31–36.
[35] Nutrition data.com 2019. USDA, National Nutrient Data Base 2018 - 2019. Lamacchia, (2014).
Ceral based gluten - free food.
[36] Nyankanga, R., Onwonga, O., Wekesa, F.S., Nakimbungwe, D., Masinde D. and Mugisha, J. (2012).
Effect of inorganic and organic fertilizers on the performance and profitability of grain amaranth
(Amaranthuscaudatus L.) in Western Kenya. Journal of agricultural science. 4(1): 1-6.
[37] Ofitserov, N.E. (2001). Amaranth: Perspective raw material for Food-processing and Pharmaceutical
Industry. Chemistry and computational simulation, Tatarstan. Pp 1-4. Oliveria, J.S. and DeCarvalho,
M.F. (1975). Nutritional Value of some edible leaves in Mozambique. Econ. Bot. 29: 255-259.
[38] Oguntoyimbo, J. S. (1983). A Geography of Nigerian Development. Heinemann.
[39] Ojeniyi, S. O., &Adejobi, K. B. (2002). Effect of ash and goat dung manure on leaf nutrients
composition, growth and yield of amaranthus. Nigeria Agricultural Journal, 33, 46-49.
[40] Okese KF (2016). Essential Plant Nutrients, their Functions and Fertilizer Sources,
[41] Oyedeji, S., Animasaun, D. A., Bello, A. A., &Agboola, O. O. (2014). Effect of NPK and poultry
manure on growth, yield, and proximate composition of three Amaranths. Journal of Botany.
[42] Oyedeji, S., Animasaun, D.A., Bello, A.A. and Agboola, O.O. (2014). Effect of NPK and Poultry
Manure on Growth, Yield, and Proximate Composition of Three Amaranths. Hindawi Publishing
Corporation Journal of Botany. 10: 11-55.
[43] Palada, M.C. and Chang, L.C. (2003). AVRDC International Cooperators Guide Pospisil, A.,
Pospisil, M., Varga, B. and Svecnjak, Z. (2006). Grain yield and protein concentration of two
amaranth species (Amaranthus spp.) as influenced by the nitrogen fertilization. European Journal of
Agronomy. 25: 250-253.
[44] Richard 2019, Luchuo et al., 2013, Branca et al., 2020. Coulibaly et., al 2016. Kwenin, wolli and
Zhu 2020.
[45] Shuttle, E. E. (1995). Recommended Soil Organic Matter Tests. In Recommended Soil Testing
[46] Procedures for the North Eastern USA. (pp. 52–60). Northeastern Regional Publication.
[47] Slavich, P. G., and Petterson, G. H. (1993). Estimating the Electrical Conductivity of Saturated
[48] Sufiyanu, S., Mahmud, S., Pantami, S. A., Harisu, G. N., Abdulkadir, A., Abdullahi, Y. M., … State,
Y. (2022). Spatial Variability of Soil Hydraulic Properties in Jibia Irrigation Project, Katsina State,
Nigeria. NRSDJ, 12(2), 245–254. https://doi.org/10.31924/nrsd.v12i2.103
[49] Paste Extracts fiom 1 : 5 Soil : Water Suspensions and Texture. Aust. J. Soil Res., 73–81.
[50] USDA. (2010). Composting. In Environmental Engineering: National Engineering Handbook.
[51] United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
[52] Walkley, A., and Black, I. A. (1934). An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining
[53] soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science,
37(1), 29–38.

15