Cited by 380Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsAgricultural Science and FertilizationThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 193 of the 198 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 265 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

A review on biochar modulated soil condition improvements and nutrient dynamics concerning crop yields: Pathways to climate change mitigation and global food security

Abstract

The beneficial role of biochar on improvement of soil quality, C sequestration, and enhancing crop yield is widely reported. As such there is not much consolidated information available linking biochar modulated soil condition improvement and soil nutrient availability on crop yields. The present review paper addresses the above issues by compilation of world literature on biochar and a new dimension is introduced in this review by performing a meta-analysis of published data by using multivariate statistical analysis. Hence this review is a new in its kind and is useful to the broad spectrum of readers. Generally, alkalinity in biochar increases with increase in pyrolysis temperature and majority of the biochar is alkaline in nature except a few which are acidic. The N content in many biochar was reported to be more than 4% as well as less than 0.5%. Poultry litter biochar is a rich source of P (3.12%) and K (7.40%), while paper mill sludge biochar is higher in Ca content (31.1%) and swine solids biochar in Zn (49810 mg kg-1), and Fe (74800 mg kg-1) contents. The effect of biochar on enhancing soil pH was higher in Alfisol, Ferrosol and Acrisol. Soil application of biochar could on an average increase (78%), decrease (16%), or show no effect on crop yields under different soil types. Biochar produced at a lower pyrolysis temperature could deliver greater soil nutrient availabilities than that prepared at higher temperature. Principal component analysis (PCA) of available data shows an inverse relationship between [pyrolysis temperature and soil pH], and [biochar application rate and soil cation exchange capacity]. The PCA also suggests that the original soil properties and application rate strongly control crop yield stimulations via biochar amendments. Finally, biochar application shows net soil C gains while also serving for increased plant biomass production that strongly recommends biochar as a useful soil amendment. Therefore, the application of biochar to soils emerges as a 'win-win strategy' for sustainable waste management, climate change mitigation and food security.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review compiles global literature and performs PCA-based meta-analysis on biochar effects on soil properties, nutrient dynamics, and crop yields. It concludes that biochar can improve soil quality, nutrient availability, and C sequestration, but yield responses vary strongly with soil type, feedstock, pyrolysis temperature, and application rate.

Key findings

  • Biochar properties vary widely: C ranged from 19.2% to 81.2%; N was sometimes >4% and sometimes <0.5%; poultry litter biochar was rich in P (3.12%) and K (7.40%), paper mill sludge biochar had the highest Ca (31.1%), and swine solids biochar had high Zn (49810 mg kg⁻¹) and Fe (74800 mg kg⁻¹).
  • Soil application of biochar could on average increase crop yields by 78%, decrease them by 16%, or show no effect depending on soil type; across studies, yields were enhanced by 4–144% or declined by 4–24%.
  • Biochar produced at lower pyrolysis temperature could deliver greater soil nutrient availability than biochar produced at higher temperature; PCA showed the first two components explained 74.3% of variance for soil chemical properties and 76.8% for crop yields, with original soil properties and application rate strongly controlling yield stimulation.
  • Biochar application showed net soil C gains while increasing plant biomass production, supporting its use as a “win-win strategy” for waste management, climate change mitigation, and food security.

Methods

  • Literature was searched via Google Scholar and direct journal consultation using keywords such as “biochar,” “characteristics,” “availability of nutrients,” and “yield,” compiling published data on biochar nutrient contents, soil physical/chemical properties, N, P, K, secondary and micronutrient dynamics, and crop yields across soil orders.
  • Two principal component analyses (PCAs) were performed using PAST version 3.18; variables were normalized by subtracting the mean and dividing by standard deviation, and PCA used the correlation matrix.
  • The soil chemical properties PCA analysed 48 cases for change in soil pH and CEC; the crop yield PCA analysed 36 cases for yield change.

Limitations

  • The paper states that low sample numbers and high diversity within samples mean not much information may be derived from the temperature–application rate–yield dataset by PCA, and 23.2% unexplained variance was neglected.
  • The paper notes that mechanisms for biochar effects on soil P and K transformations are not clear, direct evidence of nutrient availability from biochar to crops is scarce, and information on alkaline soils in arid and semiarid regions is limited; long-term field-scale trials are needed.
  • Evident from the text: the review/meta-analysis depends on heterogeneous published studies with differing soils, feedstocks, pyrolysis conditions, application rates, and units, which limits causal inference.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.03.170

Cites

193 of 193 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 265 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 194 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 96
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 23
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 79
167 of 167
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Soil nutrient availability for plants is pH dependent.

    “In soil, availability of nutrients for plants is pH dependent.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A higher CEC soil can hold cationic nutrients in greater amounts and for longer time than a lower CEC soil, preventing nutrients from leaching loss and increasing their availabilities for plant uptake.

    “A higher CEC soil can hold cationic nutrients in greater amounts and for longer time than a lower CEC soil, preventing the nutrients from leaching loss and increasing their availabilities for plant uptake.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Biochar is an alkaline material.

    “biochar being alkaline material neutralised the acidity.”
3 of 3

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Swine-solids zinc content differs by a factor of ten

    Minor

    The abstract gives the swine-solids biochar Zn content as 49,810 mg kg−1, while the main text gives 4,981 mg kg−1 for the same material.

  • Stated carbon-content range excludes higher values in Table 1

    Minor

    The text presents 81.2% as the upper end of the biochar carbon-content range, but Table 1 lists 87.8% for spruce and pine chips.

  • Digested-dairy-manure C/N ratio does not match listed contents

    Minor

    For the 600°C digested-dairy-manure biochar, Table 1 lists 59.4% C and 0.225% N. Their ratio is 264, not the reported 28.

    Reported 28 · recomputed 264

  • Cow-manure C/N ratio differs tenfold from listed contents

    Minor

    Table 1 lists 33.6% C and 0.15% N for cow-manure biochar, which yield a C/N ratio of 224 rather than 22.

    Reported 22 · recomputed 224

  • Calcium values are assigned to the opposite biochars

    Minor

    The text assigns approximately 25% Ca to paper-mill biochar and 31% to poultry-manure biochar. Table 1 instead lists 31.12% for paper-mill sludge and 24.28% for poultry manure at 600°C.

  • Claimed highest nitrogen content is below values in Table 1

    Minor

    The text calls manure-derived biochar the richest source of N and gives 4.45% as its high value. Table 1 lists 4.9% N for grass-waste biochar.

6 of 6

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 198 references

5 of the 198 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Gaskin, 2009, Characterization of char for agricultural use in the soils of the southeastern United States. Amazonian dark earths, Wim Sombroek's Vision, 433
  2. Lal, 1998, Flyash as a carrier for Rhizobium inoculant, J. Res., 10, 191
  3. Nishio, 1991, Stimulation of the growth of alfalfa and infection of my corrhizal fungi by the application of charcoal, Bull. Natl. Grassl. Res. Inst., 45, 61
  4. Pandher, 1993, Studies on growth and survival of Rhizobium isolates in different carriers, Indian J. Ecol., 20, 141
  5. Petersen, 1978, Some properties of two high-gradient extractors for soil microarthropods, and an attempt to evaluate their extraction efficiency, Nat. Jutl., 20, 95
  6. Rahman, 2014, Temperature effect on the characterization of pyrolysis products from oil palm fronds, Adv. Energy Eng., 2, 14

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Purakayastha, T. J., Bera, T., Bhaduri, D., Sarkar, B., Mandal, S., Wade, P., Kumari, S., Biswas, S., Menon, M., Pathak, H., & Tsang, D. C. W.
Affiliations
  • Indian Council of Agricultural Research (IN)
  • University of Florida (US)
  • Central Rice Research Institute (IN)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IN)
  • Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HK)
Corresponding author
Purakayastha, T.J.
Venue
Chemosphere
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-07
Volume
227
Pages
345-365
ISSN
0045-6535 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2930814723
Cited by
379
References
198
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 79 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 8
FWCI
2.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Chemosphere (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • Rare & Special e-Zone (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Indian Council of Agricultural Research
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Agricultural Science and Fertilization
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Fuel Technology › Thermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Keywords
biochar, soil amendment, soil pH, soil nutrient availability, crop yield, pyrolysis temperature, soil carbon sequestration, cation exchange capacity, poultry litter biochar, soil alkalinity, climate change mitigation, food security, waste management
MeSH terms
Nutrients, Animals, Charcoal, Soil, Biomass, Crops, Agricultural

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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