Amendment of Soil Water Retention and Nutrients Holding Capacity by Using Sugar Cane Bagasse

Introduction

The success or failure of agricultural projects and arable farming is often based on the physical properties of the soil which are more complicated to change than chemical properties.¹ Sandy soils are practically important economic resource for agricultural production in many parts of the world. Although sandy soils differ in their origin, formation and properties, they may be considered as one group having common problems.^2,3,4 Dodoma soil is sandy with low water holding capacity and low nutrient retention. In addition, the climate of Dodoma city is semi-arid with an average rainfall of 567 mm per year with almost five months no rain. The maximum temperature is 26°C, which occurs in February while the minimum temperature is 21°C, which occur in July. Due to this climate condition, there is a high demand of water for both domestic and agriculture use. Although Dodoma Urban Water And Sanitation Authority (DUWASA) supplies 23,491.92 m³/day of water, one solution that can reduce water used for irrigation is by amending the sandy soil of Dodoma which containing a low average Organic Carbon (OC) of about 0.68 %.⁵ Amending the soil by using sugarcane bagasse (SCB) with organic carbon of 45.35 % was achieved to reduce water loss through leaching thus, improving absorption and retention of water as well as supporting micro-organism that improve soil fertility.⁶ SCB is a major lignocellulosic, inexpensive byproduct of the sugarcane industry.⁷ SCB is quantitatively composed of 38.8- 45.5% cellulose, 22.7-27.0%, hemicellulose and 19.1-32.4% lignin.⁸ The ashes range from 1.0 – 2.8% and extractives from 4.6 – 9.1%.⁸ In addition to this SCB contain different minerals. Moreover, the application of sugar industries by-products reduce the recommended dose of fertilizers and improves organic matter of soil during the crop production.

A soil amendment is any material added to a soil to improve its physical properties, such as water retention, permeability, water infiltration, drainage, aeration and structure. The purpose is to provide a healthier environment for plant roots.⁹ On the whole; there are two types of soil amendments, organic and inorganic. Organic matter refers to anything that comes from something that is alive such as peat, grass clippings, straw, manure, wood chips, compost, bonemeal, bat guano, and earthworm castings. Organic amendments act as an energy source for bacteria, fungi and earthworms that live in the soil. Inorganic amendments can be obtained through mined or manufactured; examples are lime, vermiculite, and perlite. Both organic and inorganic materials were used for soil amendment. How long the amendment will last in the soil depends on soil texture, soil salinity, plant sensitivities to salts, salt content and pH of the amendment.⁹ Some of the organic amendments are used direct but others processed before use. In the literature, it is found that different researchers used different inorganic and organic materials for soil amendment. The researchers Hidalgo & Harkess (2002) used vermicompost produced from sheep, cattle, and horse manures mixed at different ratios with 70% peat moss, 30% perlite (v/v) substrates.¹⁰ According to Ansari & Jaikishun (2010), the vermicompost produced from bagasse and rice straw showed the highest percentage of production of Pheseolus vulgaris and showed better productivity than cow dung and chemical fertilizer.¹¹ Babaei et al., (2016) reported an increase in phosphorus content and total Kjeldahl nitrogen from vermicompost prepared by mixing bagasse as a bulking agent with cow dung, sewage sludge and kitchen waste.¹² Hossain et al., (2016) reported on the use of plant origin wastes as a soil conditioner and organic fertilizer, in soil amendment.¹³ Also, the addition of organic wastes such as filter cake has the best potential for improving soil organic carbon retention and cation exchange capacity.^14,15

Humus, produced after decomposition of SCB, functions as to improve the soil’s water holding capacity by increase the larger surface area of soil hence the easier for the soil to hold the water as a result higher water holding capacity. Humic substances help in the spatial arrangement of individual particles, their aggregates, and of pores that facilitates water infiltration and helps hold water within the root zone. Because of their large surface area and internal electrical charges, humic substances function as water sponges. These sponges like substances have the ability to hold seven times their volume in water.¹⁶ According to El Halim (2016), the increase of water holding capacity attributed by the nature of SCB as organic matter. SCB was helped to change the soil matrix by facilitating the coherent interaction of soil/bagasse or bagasse/bagasse particles, as a result, increase the soil aggregation together with its angular pores which are responsible for holding more water by adhesive and cohesive forces.¹⁷ SCB as by-product of sugar production has always made it an attractive for soil amendment.¹⁸ One of the promising approaches to use SCB waste is as a low-cost soils amendment. An amendment with SCB was able to improve the physical characteristics of the soils, including the ventilation, humidity, and nutrient support for the growth of microorganisms.¹⁹ Therefore in this research, soil water retention and nutrients holding capacity studied by amending the soil of Dodoma city using sugar cane bagasse.

Materials and Methods

Study site

Dodoma city is a part of the Dodoma region which is located at 6°10′23″S 35°44′31″E lies in the Eastern-central part of Tanzania (Figure 1).

Soil sample collection and preparation

The first and most critical step in soil testing is collecting a soil sample. Eleven samples of soils were collected from different locations Hombolo, Kikombo, Makuru, Mapinduzi, Miyuji, Mkonze, Msalato, Ngongona, Nkurungu Ntyuka and Zuzu found in Dodoma municipal as shown in Figure 1, which have a high population. The composite sampling method was used for sampling, where about 1kg of sub-samples (15 to 25 sub samples) were collected with the help of an auger from10 cm depth and filled in plastic bags and label for easy identification of the sample. The entire packed samples were kept in a bucket.²⁰ Soil samples were air dried on dry wood which acts as drying surface after transporting the samples to the laboratory. Care was taken to maintain the identity of each sample at all stages of preparation. Finally, the portion of the solid soil sample was used for the analysis of water retention, and another portion of the solid soil sample was crushed and screened through a 2-mm sieve repetitively until fine particles were obtained ready for analysis of organic carbon, exchangeable bases, and cations exchange capacity.

Figure 1: Map of Dodoma city showing soil sampling sites. Click here to View Figure

 

Sampling and preparation of sugarcane bagasse

20 kg of sugarcane bagasse was collected from local sugarcane juice vendors (Ngongona sugarcane juice extract) manually by using hands processed before use (Figure 2(A)). The sample was air dried for four days and then in the oven at 70°C for two consecutive days. Finally grounded by using a blender and sieved (2 mm mesh) to make a fine powder (Figure2(B)).¹⁸

Figure 2: (A) SCB collected from local sugarcane juice vendors. (B) SCB powder after processing. Click here to View Figure

 

SCB powder was kept in desiccators until further experiments for soil studies.^21,22 Different test samples were prepared by mixing SCB and soil in different ratios likeB₁-2%, B₂-5%, B₃-10%, B₄-20%, B₅-100% and C-0% was kept as control. Water content and ion exchange capacity of the soil samples were determined before and after mixing with SCB.

Water holding capacity

Water holding capacity was determined by using a gravimetric method where the weight of moistening soil (WMS) and weight loss (WLS) of amended and non-amended soil were determined. For the study of weight loss, an oven is used at 32°C. The WMS was determined by measuring the weight of non-amended and amended soil before and after wetting the soil with water. The water weight was the difference between the weight of wet soil sample and dry soil sample. The weight gain of soil due to water absorption (WMS) was calculated by using equation below.²³

The weight loss of amended and non-amended soil (WLS) after placing the sample in the oven at 32°C was obtained by gravimetric method.¹⁹ In this study, the behaviour of water holding capacity with modified and unmodified soils also studied with respect to the wetting capacity, means a gain in weight of moistening soil (WMS) after 24 h of wetting and weight loss of soil per day for three days. The weight loss after keeping in the oven is calculated by the following formula.²⁴

Organic carbon

Organic carbon and organic matter were determined by using the method described by Walkley & Black (1934).²⁵ Calculations were made based on the stoichiometric chemical equation. The percentage of carbon is determined from the following formula:

Where N is Normality of K₂Cr₂O₇ solution, T is the volume of ammonium ferrous sulphate used in sample titration (mL), S is the volume of ammonium ferrous sulphate used in blank titration (mL) and ODW is Oven-dry sample weight (g). Soil Organic Matter (SOM) was calculated as 1.72 x % OC.²⁵

Exchangeable bases

Exchangeable bases such as total sodium, potassium, magnesium and calcium were determined by using Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrometer (FAAS) as per the procedure described by Bansal & Kapoor (2000).²⁶ The concentrations of potassium, sodium, magnesium and calcium were determined by using FAAS after adjusting the flame photometer by the standard solution.

The extractable sodium, potassium, magnesium and calcium were obtained by using a known volume of 1 N ammonium acetate and the exchangeable contents of these elements were obtained as the difference between the extractable and soluble quantities.

Where DF is dilution factors, Eq is equivalent weight (atomic weight/ valence), mg/L is the concentration of elements and W is the weight of oven dried soil sample in grams. Exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) was calculated, using results from exchangeable sodium and cation exchange capacity (CEC) while sodium absorption ratio (SAR) was calculated from the result of Mg²⁺ and Ca²⁺ions.²⁷

Calibration of FAAS

Calibration of the instruments used for measuring exchangeable bases (Na⁺, K⁺, Mg²⁺and Ca²⁺) was done by preparing five standard solutions. The FAAS was calibrated with known concentrations of analyte (Table 1). A blank solution having 0.0 mg/L of the analyte was used to correct the background signal for the matrix. The calibration curves (Figure 3) were drawn and equations from them were used to get the concentration of each element (mg/L) which was used to obtain the exchangeable bases of each element in the solution.

Table 1: The data for the calibration of FAAS for different elements.

K+		Na+		Ca2+		Mg2+
Std. conc. (mg/L)	Absorbance	Std. conc. (mg/L)	Absorbance	Std. conc.(mg/L)	Absorbance	Std. conc.(mg/L)	Absorbance
0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
2	1.9	2	2.5	2.5	0.036	0.5	0.202
5	5.4	5	5.8	10	0.177	1	0.384
10	10.3	10	10.9	15	0.268	1.5	0.585
15	15.2	15	15.8	20	0.36	2	0.742
20	20.2	20	20.5	–	–	–	–

 

Figure 3: Calibration curves of (a) Potassium (b) Sodium (c) Calcium and (d) Magnesium. Click here to View Figure

 

Cation exchange capacity

The cations exchange capacity (CEC)of the soil was determined by using the ammonium acetate saturation method as described by Chapman (1965) & Ross (1995).^28,29 The soil (5g) was saturated with neutral NH₄OAC, shaken for 30 minutes and filtered by using Buchner funnel. The filtrate was used to determine exchangeable K⁺, Na⁺, Ca²⁺and Mg²⁺using flame atomic adsorption spectrophotometer (Shimadzu, AA-840-01). Excess NH₄OAC was removed by washing twice with 95% ethanol. The residue of NH₄⁺ saturated soil was equilibrated with 4% KCl, shaken for 30 minutes and filtered. The filtrate was used for the determination of NH₄⁺by micro Kjeldahl distillation in the presence of 40% Na OH and the liberated was collected in 4% boric acid (with mixed indicator) and titrated with standard 0.1N H₂SO₄. The titre values were used for the calculation of the CEC.

Where T_v is the titre values, Bl is blank volume, N is normality of sulphuric acid and Vex is the volume of extraction.

Results and Discussion

Water holding capacity of soil

Table 2 contains the detailed laboratory analysis of soil mixed with different doses of SCB. The analysis reveals that like other organic wastes, SCB affects the hydrophysical properties of soil positively. The water holding capacity of the soil increased from 26.85 % for control with 0 % SCB to 84.08% B₅ that is 100% SCB representing 3.16 x more water absorption. The results show that there is a significance effect of SCB on water holding capacity. The results proved that it is beneficial to mix SCB with soils to increase water holding capacity of the soil. These results are consistent with the literature. Organic carbon in these soils acted as a fine medium of sorption to hold water as well improved the soil aggregation.³⁰ The addition of SCB increases inter-particle bond strength, which could be due to enhanced inter-particular aggregate cohesion due to inward diffusion of binding organic substances within the aggregates hence reduce water loss. Also, other researchers was reported that the addition of materials rich in organic carbon leads to an improvement of the aggregation status of the soil which had a positive effect on hydro­physical properties of soil, i.e. decreasing soil bulk density as well as macroporosity (drainage pores) at the expense of ones. The moisture content was increased due to the increase of water holding pores as well as decreases the mean diameter of soil pores and turns its water transmit­ting properties namely hydraulic conductivity.⁶According to Yadav (2015) long term application of organic materials increase the water holding capacity.³¹ SCB increases water retention due to the decrease of dry bulk density and improve soil porosity positively that make moisture availability in the root zone.¹⁸ Hudson (1994) and Kern (1995)found an increase in water content with increasing soil organic contents (SOC).^32,33 Garambois and his co-workers (2002) showed that per gram of additional carbon at -10 kPa suction, a 50 % increase in water content was achieved.³⁴ The results were similar with that reported by Hueso et al., (2011), organic amendment increased the soil WHC, which reflected that the rate of moisture loss during the dry period was lower in amended than in un-amended soil.³⁵

Table 2: Effect of sugarcane bagasse on soil water holding capacity.

Treatment	% of SCB mixed	Mass of dry soil	Mass of wet soil	%WHC
C	0	5.18	7.09	26.85
B1	2	5.2	8.79	40.72
B2	5	5.22	10.43	49.64
B3	10	5.23	13.07	59.98
B4	20	5.18	17.55	70.46
B5	100	5.20	32.99	84.08

 

In this study, the behaviour of water holding capacity with modified soils also studied with respect to the wetting capacity, means a gain in weight of moistening soil (WMS) after 24 h of wetting and weight loss of soil per day for three days and the results were showed in Figure 4. According to these results, it is clearly visible that with the increase in the percentage of SCB in soil, water absorption capacity increased. The amount of water loss per day from the soil decreases with the increase in the percentage of SCB in soil.

Figure 4: Effect of SCB on amended soil water gain and loss per hour. WDS = Weight of dry soil, WMS = Weight of moisture soil after water absorption and WLS = Weight of soil after placing in the oven at 32°C.  Click here to View Figure

 

Initial soil organic carbon and organic matter properties of Dodoma

The results of percentage of organic carbon (% OC) and percentage of organic matter (% OM) contents in different sites of Dodoma are presented in Table 3.This shows that the values are high in the soils of sites Miyuji and Mkonze. These contents are less in the site Nkuhungu. The values are ranged between 0.28 and 1.31 for % OC and 0.48 upto 2.26 for % OM. Organic carbon contents was categorized as < 0.60% as very low, 0.60 – 1.25 % as low and 1.26 – 2.50 % as medium. Based on these categories, soils in this study ranged from very low to medium organic carbon content. These levels are similar to those from other studies done by Budotela (1995) in selected grape producing areas of Dodoma region (0.68% OC).⁵Letayo (2001) reported 0.65 % OC in the study of millet and groundnut soils of some areas from Dodoma region.³⁶Sanga (2013) reported the range of organic carbon from low to medium (0.64 to 1.96 OC %) in the study of evaluation of soil fertility status and optimization of its management in sesame(Sesamum indicum) growing areas of Dodoma district.³⁷ Thus many soils of Dodoma seem to be low in organic carbon. This is due to the management practices used in crop production that do not promote an increase in soil organic matter. Although various organic amendments were used but the quantity applied is either insufficient to build up and maintain soil organic matter for sustainable crop production.³⁸ Soil organic matter (SOM) contents in Dodoma are very low (Table 3) due to poor structural properties, vegetative cover is very poor, soil aggregates tend to be unstable and the soils are susceptible to top soil erosion and surface sealing.

Table 3: Percentage of Organic carbon (% OC) and the percentage of organic matter (% OM) in the soils of Dodoma.

Soil site	% OC	% OM
Hombolo	0.51	0.88
Kikombo	0.89	1.53
Makuru	0.63	1.09
Mapinduzi	0.71	1.22
Mbalawata	0.66	1.14
Miyuji	1.31	2.26
Mkonze	1.31	2.26
Msalato	0.65	1.12
Ng’ong’ona	0.48	0.81
Nkuhungu	0.28	0.48
Ntyuka	0.79	1.36
Zuzu	1.23	2.12

 

Effect of SCB on soil chemical properties

The organic carbon of SCB was 45.57% (Table 4). This value is slightly similar to 43.56% reported by Ricard, (2015) on the study of the effect of adding bulking materials over the composting process of municipal solid biowastes.³⁹

Table 4: Chemical properties of the soil before and after amending with SCB.

Treatment (%SCB)	K+(cmol/kg)	Na+ (cmol/kg)	Ca2+ (cmol/kg)	Mg2+ (cmol/kg)	CEC* (cmol/kg)	% OC(SOC)	% OM(SOM)	SAR*	%ESP*
C (0)	0.5	1.03	2.8	1.3	5	0.53	0.91	0.72	20.1
B1 (2)	0.52	0.55	2.98	1.51	5.75	1.09	1.87	0.36	9.55
B2 (5)	0.64	0.47	3.24	1.85	6.21	2.3	3.95	0.29	7.56
B3 (10)	0.65	0.31	3.44	1.86	6.83	5.1	8.77	0.19	4.53
B4 (20)	0.67	0.21	3.83	2.71	7.94	9.11	15.66	0.12	2.64
B5 (100)	1.25	0.08	8.61	5.47	24.84	45.57	78.38	0.02	0.32

*CEC= cations exchange capacity, SAR = Sodium Adsorption Ratio and ESP = exchange sodium percentage.

The statistical test ANOVA used to check the significance of the variation in the chemical properties of soil with an increase in the percentage of SCB in the soil. The results showed that there is a significant increase of organic carbon in amended soil as the concentration SCB treatment increase (F_calculated = 2.9973 >F_critical = 2.6684, null hypothesis rejected at probability 0.05)(Table4). This result is in agreement with the results of Ricardo, 2015and Shehzadi et al. 2017. According to their study, the addition of organic wastes increases OC.^14,39 According to Dotaniya et al., 2013, the addition of organic residue enhanced the soil organic carbon in soil and accelerated the microbial activities in soil.⁴⁰

Since SOM content was calculated from soil organic carbon these parameters had the same trend.²⁵It is generally accepted that a threshold for SOM in most soils is 34 g/kg below (treatment C to B₄ in table4) which decline in soil quality is expected to occur.⁴¹Soil organic matter was below the proposed threshold values in all the sites under study, suggesting a decline in soil quality. This result is in agreement with the studies of Makoi, (2014) in the selected soil chemical properties and fertility assessment in some traditional irrigation schemes of the Mpwapwa district in Dodoma region that was 2.3 to 11.7 g/kg SOM.⁴²Dodoma is semi-arid with high soil erosion which may lead to a decline in soil productivity since the finest and most fertile soil particles are generally removed. It is, therefore, apparent that there is a need to replenish the SOM using resources such as SCBfor maximum crop yields. Understanding the SOM status before any development interventions are undertaken is of vital importance and it plays a key role in the improvement of soil physical and chemical properties. These properties include structural stability, porosity, mineral elements availability (i.e. N, P and S), cation exchange capacity, soil moisture and nutrient holding capacity.SOM has also been reported to have a great impact on improving irrigation efficiency for sustainable land productivity to enhance productivity and environmental quality, to reduce the severity and costs of natural phenomena such as drought, floods, disease and to reduce atmospheric CO₂levels that contribute to climate change.³

Exchangeable bases

The analysis showed that exchangeable calcium, magnesium and potassium concentration in the soil slightly varies due to the application of organic matter. Slightly high calcium (8.61cmol/kg) was detected from 100 % SCB (B5) treated soil while the lowest exchangeable calcium (2.8cmol/kg) was obtained from untreated soil. This result is in agreement with Sarwar et al., (2010) who reported that the exchangeable Ca²⁺increases with the application of organic matter (sugarcane by-product).⁴³Unlike the other exchangeable cations sodium concentration in the soil was reduced by SCB treatment(Table 4). The highest exchangeable sodium 1.03 cmol/kg was recorded from untreated soil, while the lowest exchangeable sodium (0.08 cmol/kg) was obtained from the application of 100 % (B5) SCB to the soil. This result is in agreement with findings of Qadir et al., (2007) who reported that exchangeable sodium decreased with the increase of organic matter treatment. This might be due to the replacement of exchangeable sodium by Ca²⁺that released from the dissolution of the native calcium carbonate that works on the same principle of native calcite dissolution to supply soluble calcium by facilitating changes in root zone partial pressure of CO₂by plants and thus helps to remediate soils.

Cation exchange capacity (CEC)

The lowest CEC was 5.0 cmol /kg for untreated soil and it increases with the increase in the percentage of SCB from 2% (B1) to 100% (B5) in the soil (Table 4). This result is in agreement with findings of Ricardo, (2015) who reported that the raise of CEC is due to the increase soil organic matter and improve its quality. The charges resulting from isomorphous substitution and its large number of negatively charged functional groups also causes higher CEC.³⁹

Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) and exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP)

The highest SAR (0.72) was found in untreated soil, whereas the trend is decreasing as per cent SCB increases in the soil (Table 4). The lowest sodium adsorption ratio (0.03) was observed in the soil with 100% SCB (B5). Shaaban et al., (2013) also reported declining in SAR after application of organic matter.⁴⁵

The highest ESP (20.1 %) was recorded in untreated soil (Table 4). However, the lowest ESP (0.32 %) was recorded from the application of 100 %SCB (B5). The decrease of ESP in the soil might be due to the replacement of exchangeable sodium by Ca²⁺in exchange site. Ca²⁺ releases from CaCO₃ due to its dissociation caused by lower soil pH of the soil with higher organic matter. The same result was reported by Wang et al., (2014) who found that a mixture of organic wastes decreased ESP by 71%.⁴⁶

Conclusion and Recommendation

Sugarcane bagasse is generally considered a waste product; however, the present findings show that it contains sufficient amounts of K⁺, Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺and CEC. Different levels of sugarcane bagasse positively influence the hydophysico-chemical properties of soil. Utilization of sugarcane bagasse as organic fertilizer leads to improve soil water holding capacity and cation exchange capacity. It can also save water cost and chemical fertilizer along with minimizing environmental pollution. This study concluded that the application of 10% SCB is optimal to improve its quality to the required level. Further research should be conducted in order to increase knowledge on interactions between SCB and soil.

Acknowledgements

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflict of Interest

Authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Chude V.O., Malgwi W.B., Amapu I.Y., Ano O.A. Manual on Soil Fertility Assessment. Federal Fertilizer Department (FFD) in collaboration with the National Programme for Food Security, 2011; Abuja, Nigeria.
2. Bruand A., Hartmann C., Lesturgez G. Physical Properties of Tropical Sandy Soils: A Large Range of Behaviors. International Management of Tropical Sandy Soils For Sustainable Agriculture: A Holistic Approach for Sustainable Development of Problem Soils In The Tropics. 2005; Khon Kaen, Thailand.
3. Shepherd M.A., Harrison R., Webb J. Managing Soil Organic Matter-Implications for Soil Structure on Organic Farms. Soil Use Management, 2002; 18: 284-292.
   CrossRef
4. Wanas S. A. Omran W.M. Advantages of Applying Various Compost Types to Different Layers of Sandy Soil: Hydro-Physical Properties. Journal of Application Science Research,2006; 2(12): 1298-1310.
5. BudotelaG. M. R. Evaluation of Minjingu Phosphate Rock as a Source of Phosphorus for Grapevine Production in Dodoma District. M. Sc. Thesis, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania, 1995; 25-28.
6. AliL. K. M.. Significance of Applied Cellulose Polymer and Organic Manure for Ameliorating Hydro-Physico-Chemical Properties of Sandy Soil and Maize Yield: Journal of Materials and Environmental Science.2011; 5(6): 23–35.
7. Salgaonkar, Bragança. Utilization of Sugarcane Bagasse by Halogeometricum Borinquense Strain E3 for Biosynthesis of Poly(3-Hydroxybutyrate-Co-3-Hydroxyvalerate).Bioengineering, 2017; 4: 50-56.
   CrossRef
8. Onoszko E., Hallersbo M.An Investigation of New Markets for the Bagasse in Cuban Sugar Mills. B. Sc. Thesis, KTH School of Industrial Engineering and Management Energy Technology2015; Brinellvägen 8, Stockholm.
9. Davis, Whiting. Choosing A Soil Amendment. Gardening Series, fact sheet number 7.235 2013, Colorado State University.
10. Hidalgo, Harkes. Earthworm Castings as A Substrate Amendment for Chrysanthemum Production. Hort Science, 2002; 37(7): 1035 -1039.
    CrossRef
11. AnsariA., Jaikishun S. An Inverstigation Into Vermicomposting of Sugarcane Bagasse and Rice Straw and Its Subsequent Utilization in Cultivation of Phaseolus Vulgaris In Guyan. American Eurasian Agriculture and Environmental science, 2010; 8(6); 666-671.
12. Babaei A. A., Goudarzi G., Neisi A., Ebrahimi Z., Alavi N.Vermicomposting of Cow Dung, Kitchen Waste and Sewage Sludge with Bagasse Using Eisenia Fetida. Journal of Advances in Environmental Health Research, 2016; 4(2): 88-94.
13. Hossain Z., Fragstein P., Jurgen H. A Review on Plant Origin Wastes as Soil Conditioner and Organic Fertilizer. American-Eurasian Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Science2016; 16(7): 1362-1371.
14. Shehzadi S., Shah Z., Mohammad W.Impact of Organic Amendments on Soil Carbon Sequestration, Water Use Efficiency and Yield of Irrigated Wheat. Biotechnology, Agronomy, Society and Environment, 2017; 21(1): 36-49.
15. Yao K. A., Yao K., Jeremie T.G., Gustave F.M. Soil Cation Exchange Capacity and Sugarcane Yield as Influenced by Filter Cake and Mineral Fertilizer In Borotou, Northwestern Côte d’Ivoire. International Journal of Agricultural Policy and Research2018; 6(1): 1-6.
16. Carter M. Soil Quality for Sustainable Land Management: Organic Matter and Aggregation Interactions That Maintain Soil Functions. Agronomy Journal; 2002; 94: 38-47.
    CrossRef
17. El-halimA. A. A.Assessment of the Potential of Sugarcane Bagasse to Mitigate ClaySoil Cracks Using Image Processing Technique. Egyptian Journal of Soil Science,2016; 56(4): 561-572.
    CrossRef
18. BhushanG., KumarS., DwivediS., SharmaS. Impact of Bagasse Ash Amended Soil on Growth and Yield of Pisum Sativum.Research Journal of Pharmaceutical, Biological and Chemical Sciences, 2016; 7(1): 448-456.
19. Sarkar D., Ferguson M., Datta R., Birnbaum S. Bioremediation of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Contaminated Soils: Comparison of Biosolids Addition, Carbon Supplementation, and Monitored Natural Attenuation. Environmental Pollution, 2005; 136: 187-195.
    CrossRef
20. Walworth J.L. Review on Soil Sampling and Analysis. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. The University of Arizona Cooperative Extension, 2006.
21. Cifuentes R., Leon R., DePorres C., RolzC.Windrow Composting of Waste Sugar Cane and Press Mud Mixtures. An International Journal of Sugar Crops and Related Industries,2013; 15(4): 406–411.
    CrossRef
22. Tanwar A., Aggarwal A., ParkashV. Sugarcane Bagasse: A Novel Substrate for Mass Multiplication of Funneliformis Mosseae with Onion as Host. Journal of Central European Agriculture, 2013; 14(4): 1502-1511.
    CrossRef
23. Ramesh V., Suresh V., Mamatha N., Srinivasa R. D. Biodegradable Nano-Hydrogels in Agricultural Farming -Alternative Source for Water Resources. Procedia Material Science,2015; 10: 548-554.
    CrossRef
24. Sanchez-orozcoR., Timoteo-cruzB., Torres-blancasT.,Urena F.Valorization of Superabsorbent Polymers from Used Disposable Diapers as Soil Moisture Conditioner. International Journal of Research,2017; 5(11): 1-13.
    CrossRef
25. Walkley A., Black I.A. An Examination of the Digestion Method for Determining Soil Organic Matter and A Proposed Modification of the Chromic Acid Titration Method. Soil Science,1934; 37:29-38.
    CrossRef
26. Bansal S., Kapoor K. K. Vermicomposting of Crop Residues and Cattle Dung with Eisenia foetida. Bioresource Technology,2000; 73: 95-98.
    CrossRef
27. Mario P., Rhoades J.D. Determining Cation Exchange Capacity: A New Procedure for Calcareous and Gypsiferous Soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1977; 41: 524-528.
    CrossRef
28. ChapmanH.Cations Exchange Capacity. In Methods of Soil Analysis-Chemical and Microbiological Properties.Agronomy, 1965; 9:891-901.
29. Ross. RecommendedMethods for Determining Soil Cation Exchange Capacity Recommended Soil Testing Procedures for The Northeastern United States. 2^nd edition. Newyark, DE: University of Delaware Press,1995; 62-69.
30. Hugar G., Sorganvi V., Hiremath G. Effect of Organic Carbon on Soil Moisture. Indian Journal of Natural Sciences, 2012; 15(3): 1191-1199.
31. Yadav. Physico-Chemical Soil Quality Indicators as Influenced by Different Soil Management Practices in Central India. International Journal of Scientific Research in Recents Sciences, 2015; 1(2): 30-40.
32. Hudson B. Soil Organic Matter and Available Water Capacity. Journal of Soil Water Conservation, 1994; 49: 189–193.
33. Kern J.S. Evaluation of Soil Water Retention Models Based on Basic Soil Physical Properties. Soil Science Society American Journal, 1995; 59: 1134-1141.
    CrossRef
34. Garambois S., Senechal P., Perroud H. On the Use of Combined Geophysical Methods to Assess Water Content and Water Conductivity of Near-Surface Formations. Journal of Hydrolology, 2002; 259: 32-48.
    CrossRef
35. Hueso S., Hernandez T., Garcia C. Resistance and Resilence of the Soil Microbial Biomass to Severe Drought in Semiarid Soils: The Importance of Organic Amendments. Application of Soil and Ecology, 2011; 50: 27-36.
    CrossRef
36. Letayo E. A. Effect of Tillage Practices and Spatial Arrangement on Pearl Millet and Groundnuts Intercropping in Dodoma. M. Sc. Thesis, Sokoine University of Agriculture, 2001, Tanzania.
37. Sanga D. Evaluation of Soil Fertility Status and Optimization of Its Management in Sesame (Sesamum Indicum L.) Growing Areas of Dodoma District. M. Sc. Thesis, Sokoine University of Agriculture, 2013, Tanzania.
38. AmuriN.A., MhoroL., MwasyikaT.,Semu, E.Potential of Soil Fertility Management to Improve Essential Mineral Nutrient Concentrations in Vegetables in Dodoma and Kilombero,Tanzania. Journal of Agricultural Chemistry and Environment,2017; 6: 105-132.
    CrossRef
39. Ricardo. Effect of Adding Bulking Materials over the Composting Process of Municipal Solid Biowastes. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research, 2015; 75(12): 472-480.
    CrossRef
40. Dotaniya M. Impact of Crop Residue Management Practices on Yield and Nutrient Uptake in Rice-Wheat System. Current Advances in Agricultural Sciences, 2013; 5(2): 269-271.
41. Loveland, Webb. Review on a Critical Level of Organic Matter in the Agricultural Soils of Temperate Regions. Soil and Tillage Research, 2003;70(1): 1-18.
    CrossRef
42. Makoi. Selected Soil Chemical Properties and Fertility Assessment in Some Traditional Irrigation Schemes of the Mpwapwa District, Tanzania. American Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 2014; 4(5): 584-600.
    CrossRef
43. Sarwar M., Ibrahim M., Tahir M., Ahmad K., Khan Z., Valeem E. Appraisal of Press mud and Inorganic Fertilizers on Soil Properties, Yield and Sugarcane Quality. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 2010; 42(2): 1361-1367.
44. Qadir M., Oster J., Schubert S., Noble A., Sahrawat K. Phytoremediation of Sodic and Saline-Sodic Soils. Advances in Agronomy, 2007; 96:197-247.
    CrossRef
45. Shaaban M., Abid M., Qi-AnP. Short Term Influence of Gypsum, Farm Manure and Commercial Humic Acid on Physical Properties of Salt Affected Soil in Rice Paddy System. Journal of Chemical Society of Pakistan, 2013; 35(3): 1034-1040.
46. Wang L., Sun X., Li S., Zhang T., Zhang W., Zhai P. Application of Organic Amendments to a Coastal Saline Soil in North China: Effects on Soil Physical and Chemical Properties and Tree Growth. Plos One, 2014; 9(2): 1-9.
    CrossRef