Cited by 190Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsPhosphorus and nutrient managementAgricultural Science and Fertilization

Short-term effects of maize residue biochar on phosphorus availability in two soils with different phosphorus sorption capacities

Zhai, Limei, CaiJi, Zhuoma, Liu, Jian, Wang, Hongyuan, Ren, Tianzhi, Gai, Xiapu, Xi, Bin, Liu, Hongbin·2015·Biology and Fertility of Soils

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of maize (Zea mays L.) straw biochar on phosphorus (P) availability in two soils with different P sorption capacities (iron and aluminum dominated slight acid Red earth and calcium dominated alkaline Fluvo-aquic soil). A 42-day incubation experiment was conducted to study how applications of biochar at different rates (0, 2, 4, and 8 % soil, w/w), in combination with and without mineral KH₂PO₄fertilizer, affected contents of soil Olsen-P and soil microbial biomass P (SMB-P) and phosphomonoesterase activity. In addition, P sorption characteristics of soils amended with biochar, as well as main properties of the biochar and the soils, were determined. Application of 8 % biochar after 42 days of incubation substantially increased soil Olsen-P from 3 to 46 mg kg⁻¹in Red earth and from 13 to 137 mg kg⁻¹in Fluvo-aquic soil and increased SMB-P from 1 to 9 mg kg⁻¹in Red earth and from 9 to 21 mg kg⁻¹in Fluvo-aquic soil. The increase was mainly due to high concentrations of P in the ash fraction (77 % of total biochar P). Biochar effect on soil Olsen-P and SMB-P increased by higher biochar application rates and by lower P sorption capacity. Biochar application significantly reduced acid phosphomonoesterase activity in Red earth and alkaline phosphomonoesterase activity in Fluvo-aquic soil due to large amount of inorganic P added. We conclude that maize straw biochar is promising to potentially improve soil P availability in low-P soils, but further research at field scale is needed to confirm this.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00374-014-0954-3

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 60 · Cited by 190

Authors
Zhai, L., CaiJi, Z., Liu, J., Wang, H., Ren, T., Gai, X., Xi, B., & Liu, H.
Affiliations
  • Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning (CN)
  • Minzu University of China (CN)
  • Agricultural Research Service (US)
  • Agro-Environmental Protection Institute (CN)
Corresponding author
Liu, Hongbin
Venue
Biology and Fertility of Soils
Published
2014-09-07
Volume
51
Issue
1
Pages
113-122
ISSN
  • 0178-2762 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0789
OpenAlex
W1975275060
Cited by
190
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
11.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Biology and Fertility of Soils (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Phosphorus and nutrient management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Agricultural Science and Fertilization
Keywords
maize straw biochar, phosphorus availability, phosphorus sorption capacity, Olsen phosphorus, microbial biomass phosphorus, phosphomonoesterase activity, biochar application rate, red soil, fluvo-aquic soil, low phosphorus soils, inorganic phosphorus

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review