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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
229 Not checked yet · 50 Own interpretation · 46 Own result · 36 No basis given
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Planosol, even at very high rate of biochar application (90˗100 Mg ha -1 ), the per cent increase in soil pH was only between 2233%.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“As shown in Table 2, CEC increased in all cases except one where the soil was a calcarosol (van Zwieten et al. 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites van Zwieten et al. 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The per cent increase in soil pH due to biochar application was the highest (˃ 50%) in Alfisol with biochar application rates ranging from 25˗50 Mg ha -1”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while the increase was between 4 ˗ 50% in Alfisol, Anthrosol, Cambisol, Mollisol, Inceptisol and Oxisolis with biochar application rates ranging from 4˗72 Mg ha -1 (Fig. 2).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interestingly, in calcareous soils, and some Cambisol and Mollisol, no effect of biochar on soil pH was observed (Fig. 2).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“On an average, biochar produced at 500°C showed a better plant growth than those produced at 300400°C temperature.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Researchers observed that biochar application increased, decreased or had a neutral effect(s) on crop yield(s), depending upon soil types, variation in feedstocks and pyrolysis conditions during biochar preparation (Table 4).”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Points group well with respect to soil type”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first principal component, accounting for 39.3% of the variance in the dataset”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The total variance explained by the first two principal components was 74.3%.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was some structure evident in the groupings of points in this analysis by soil type”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“was dominated by pyrolysis temperature of biochar, but contained appreciable components of application rate and crop yield modification.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“exhibits loadings dominated by biochar application rate and change in CEC (Table 5).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The second principal component, accounting for 30.9% of the variance in the data”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“exhibits loadings dominated by pyrolysis temperature of biochar and pH adjustment of the soil.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“exhibited no appreciable dependence on pyrolysis temperature”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The second principal component, accounting for 35% of the variance in the dataset”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“and enhance the soil's ability to retain nutrients (Rens et al., 2018).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rens et al., 2018 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Moreover, biochar can alter the root morphology of crop plants in terms of favoring the fine root proliferation”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The majority of biochar samples were alkaline in pH with few exceptions such as sugarcane bagasse biochar, yellow pine chip biochar, hazelnut biochar and eucalyptus biochar, which were found to be acidic in solution.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and increases crop production.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“directing towards biochar's role in increasing the fertilizer use efficiency (Olmo et al., 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Olmo et al., 2016 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“It also has the capability to improve water retention properties of soil”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rens et al., 2018 source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“enhance plant growth by supplying nutrients, and retain nutrients.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“having half-life ranging from decades (Nguyen et al., 2009) to centuries (Zimmerman, 2010).”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“It helps to reduce nutrient leaching (Parvage et al., 2013)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Parvage et al., 2013 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“and K (7.40%)”
- Also stated in: § ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT · p. 14 · plain
“the highest (7.40% for poultry litter) and lowest (0.087% for brush) K contents were recorded in manure and waste material derived biochars, respectively (Cantrell et al., 2012; Ro et al., 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cantrell et al., 2012 source
- Not checked yetcites Ro et al., 2010
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT · p. 14 · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“increasing the specific root length”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“enhance plant growth by supplying nutrients, and retain nutrients.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“and its characteristic ability to persist in soils with variable biological decay (Lehmann et al., 2006)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lehmann et al., 2006 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Biochar can act as a soil conditioner or soil amendment to improve the soil quality”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The improved root conditions help plants to exploit more soil volume even under nutrient-starved soils”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“It could alter various soil properties through changes in pore size distribution, residence time of soil solution and flow paths of nutrients (Major et al., 2009).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Major et al., 2009
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“and decreasing both root diameter and root tissue density.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, biochar can potentially add a holistic dimension for enhancing the soil quality and health which sooner or later is believed to impact crop productivity positively.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“During the pyrolysis process, N in residues is converted to recalcitrant forms”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Biochar is enriched with C”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chan and Xu, 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The effectiveness and application of biochar heavily relies on the biomass feedstock and the conditions under which it is produced (Tag et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2017).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tag et al., 2016 source
- Not checked yetcites Zhang et al., 2017
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Wood-derived biochar had a wider C/N ratio (Atkinson et al., 2010; Rajkovich et al., 2012).”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Principally, information on how key parameters, such as biochar feedstock type, pyrolysis temperature, application rate to soil, feedback to soil chemical properties (e.g., pH, cation exchange capacity (CEC) and crop yields are largely inconclusive.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“The organic COO- and -O- groups that could modify the acid reaction of biochar surface through association with H + ions might also contribute to biochar alkalinity (Al-Wabel et al., 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Al-Wabel et al., 2013 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the highest (7.40% for poultry litter) and lowest (0.087% for brush) K contents were recorded in manure and waste material derived biochars, respectively (Cantrell et al., 2012; Ro et al., 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cantrell et al., 2012 source
- Not checked yetcites Ro et al., 2010
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In order to achieve large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, sequestering carbon in the terrestrial sink is needed (Paustian et al., 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Paustian et al., 2016 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“it was found that both C and N became enriched in aromatic and heterocyclic aromatic structures in biochar (Chen et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chen et al., 2014 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Manure-derived biochar was undoubtedly the richest source of N among all feedstock types of biochar, showing N content as high as 4.45%.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which in turn depend on feedstock source and pyrolysis temperature.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, there is a dearth of recently compiled information on overall impact of biochar properties on crop productivity and soil quality (Liu et al., 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Liu et al., 2013 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“and contains a range of plant macro, micro and secondary nutrient elements (Chan and Xu, 2009).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chan and Xu, 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Contrarily, biochar prepared from woody materials was scant in N content.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the highest (7.40% for poultry litter) and lowest (0.087% for brush) K contents were recorded in manure and waste material derived biochars, respectively (Cantrell et al., 2012; Ro et al., 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cantrell et al., 2012 source
- Not checked yetcites Ro et al., 2010
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, most of the manure derived biochars had lower C/N ratios ranging between 10-30, with few exceptions.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The alkalinity of biochar was primarily due to the presence of inorganic alkali salts.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Biochar prepared form crop residues and woody materials contained a higher C content than biochar prepared from manure sources.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The impact of biochar on crop productivity is largely influenced by the crop type, soil and biochar properties”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Biochar prepared from black locust ( Robinia pseudoacacia ) when applied at a dose of 20 Mg ha -1 increased the available water capacity by 97%, saturated water content by 56%, and reduced the hydraulic conductivity with increasing moisture content in a sandy soil (Uzoma et al., 2011a).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Uzoma et al., 2011a
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The pyrolysis temperature significantly influenced the pH, C, and nutrient compositions of biochar.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The resultant soil pH values tended to move to the alkaline side when the soil received an increased biochar application rate, and when the biochar was produced at a high temperature (e.g., 700 °C) (Mandal et al., 2016b; 2018).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mandal et al., 2016b
- Not checked yetcites Mandal et al., 2018 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In contrast, water holding capacity of Quincy sand soil of Washington State remained unchanged in a laboratory incubation study with the application of biochars prepared from switch grass, anaerobically digested fiber, softwood bark and wood pellet (Streubel et al., 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Streubel et al., 2011 source
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The resultant soil pH values tended to move to the alkaline side when the soil received an increased biochar application rate, and when the biochar was produced at a high temperature (e.g., 700 °C) (Mandal et al., 2016b; 2018).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mandal et al., 2016b
- Not checked yetcites Mandal et al., 2018 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, Bruun et al. (2012) reported that biochar prepared from wheat straw at slow pyrolysis contained more C (69.6%) than the biochar prepared at fast pyrolysis (49.3%).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bruun et al. (2012) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A study using synchrotron-based X-ray micro-computed tomography revealed that the increased porosity of macroaggregates in biochar-amended soil was jointly contributed by the inherent porosity in the applied biochar as well as the newly formed pores out of soil-biochar interactions (Yu et al., 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Yu et al., 2016
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Chan et al. (2007; 2008) demonstrated that green waste biochar and poultry litter biochar could gradually increase pH by 0.6 to 2.0 units of under radish ) cultivation.”
What the sources say
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among the biochars, poultry litter biochar being highly alkaline in nature (pH ≈ 10) had the highest impact on the pH of acid soils.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, the C/N ratio increased due to an increase in pyrolysis temperature.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Some studies (Karer et al., 2013; Lentz and Ippolito, 2012; van Zwieten et al., 2010) did not observe a significant change in soil pH due to biochar addition where initial values were ranging between pH 7.4-7.8.”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Contrarily, Streubel et al. (2011) found 0.1 to 0.9 unit pH increase of an alkaline sandy soil.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Streubel et al., 2011 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Biochar prepared from black locust ( Robinia pseudoacacia ) when applied at a dose of 20 Mg ha -1 increased the available water capacity by 97%, saturated water content by 56%, and reduced the hydraulic conductivity with increasing moisture content in a sandy soil (Uzoma et al., 2011a).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Uzoma et al., 2011a
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Similarly, van Zwieten et al. (2010) reported increased soil pH values due to sludge biochar addition in an acidic Ferrosol cropped with wheat, radish, and soybean.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites van Zwieten et al., 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Biochar prepared from black locust ( Robinia pseudoacacia ) when applied at a dose of 20 Mg ha -1 increased the available water capacity by 97%, saturated water content by 56%, and reduced the hydraulic conductivity with increasing moisture content in a sandy soil (Uzoma et al., 2011a).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Uzoma et al., 2011a
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Similarly, Mandal et al. (2018) reported that when biochars produced from poultry manure, green waste compost and wheat straw at various temperatures (250 - 700 °C) were applied to an alkaline soil (pH 8.01), they could modify the soil pH values by about 0.84 units in both directions ranging from pH 7.37 to 8.23.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mandal et al., 2018 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Akhtar et al. (2014) found higher water use efficiencies when irrigation was applied through partial root zone drying along with the application of 5% biochars prepared from rice husk or cotton seed mixture, over full irrigation.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Akhtar et al., 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, biochar could improve the physical properties of difficultly manageable clay and sandy soils by changing their air-water relationships through mechanisms like increased aggregate stability, water infiltration and water holding capacity (Fig. 1).”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Addition of 10 Mg ha -1 biochar in a sandy soil in Finland increased the available water content in the dry period of the year under Phleumpratense growth (Saarino et al., 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Saarino et al., 2013
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Jeffery et al. (2011) found that biochar could increase soil pH by 0.1-2.0 units in a wide range of soils varying in native pH values.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jeffery et al., 2011 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Consequently, the C/N ratio of biochar prepared at slow pyrolysis is expected to be greater than that prepared by fast pyrolysis process (Atkinson et al., 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Atkinson et al., 2010 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The associated increase in soil pH with biochar addition would result in a greater availability of primary and secondary nutrients like K, P, Ca, Mg (Asai et al., 2009; Glaser et al., 2002; Major et al., 2010).”
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Soil nutrient availability for plants is pH dependent.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Moreover, biochar application significantly influenced the infiltration capacity in soils (Lehmann et al., 2006; Sohi et al., 2010).”
What the sources say
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The higher CEC of biochar-amended soils was ascribed to the dominance of negatively charged surface functional groups, increased specific surface area of the products, adsorption of highly oxidized organic matter on biochar surfaces, and the presence of residual volatile matter in the biochar matrix (Glaser et al., 2003; Lehmann et al., 2005; Liang et al., 2006).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Glaser et al., 2003
- Not checked yetcites Lehmann et al., 2005
- Not checked yetcites Liang et al., 2006 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effect of biochar on soil denitrification might depend on temperatures at which the product is produced.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The amount of water-soluble nutrients in biochar except K is usually low (Steiner et al., 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Steiner et al., 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Bera et al. (2014) reported that water-soluble P, K, Ca and Mg contents in mustard stalk biochar were 13-16%, 65-70%, 14-17% and 23-26% of the individual total nutrient contents, respectively.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bera et al., 2014
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Pereira et al. (2015) reported that the gross N mineralization increased in response to soil-applied biochar materials with high H/C ratios (i.e., Douglas fir wood pyrolyzed at 410 and 510°C, and hog waste wood pyrolyzed at 600 and 700°C).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pereira et al., 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Likewise, biochars produced from nonleguminous straws had a higher CEC than those produced from leguminous straws (Jiang et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jiang et al., 2014 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Since biochar is a C-rich substrate with a high C/N ratio, upon its application to the soil, microorganisms are triggered to decompose the native soil organic matter (SOM) to acquire N via priming effect (Blagodatskaya and Kuzyakov, 2008).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Blagodatskaya and Kuzyakov, 2008
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the entire amounts of nutrients present in biochar are not readily soluble in water.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Application of biochar significantly influences the mineralization-immobilization turnover of nutrients, which is affected by altering both microbial activities and community structure of soils.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While biochar can interfere with the key carbon and nitrogen cycle processes by interacting with relevant microorganisms, it can also participate in the nutrient cycling processes by physicochemical interactions, such as surface adsorption of various elements (Agegnehu et al., 2017; Bornø et al., 2018; Mandal et al., 2016b; 2018; Xu et al., 2018a).”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The CEC of biochar is mainly influenced by the feedstock type, pyrolysis temperature and aging time (Heitkötter et al., 2015; Bera et al., 2017).”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Biochar needs to undergo both chemical and microbial decompositions to release these captivated nutrients and subsequently make them available for plant absorption.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The mineralized C decreased from 32.7% of the added C of raw biomass to 0.5% in the biochar produced at temperature above 400°C (Chen et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chen et al., 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Yuan et al. (2011a) found a significant increase in soil CEC (15-25%) when canola, rice, soybean and peanut straw biochars (CEC of biochars ranging between 179-279 cmol (p + ) kg -1 were added to a low CEC Acrisol.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Yuan et al., 2011a
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Studies demonstrated that at least 10% of the 15 N added to the soil as 15 N labelled pyrogenic organic material (PyOM) (obtained from Lolium perenne charred for 4 minutes at 350 o C) could be utilized by grasses in a Mediterranean agricultural soil within just 72 days of growth (Rosa and Knicker, 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rosa and Knicker, 2011
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“While biochar can interfere with the key carbon and nitrogen cycle processes by interacting with relevant microorganisms, it can also participate in the nutrient cycling processes by physicochemical interactions, such as surface adsorption of various elements (Agegnehu et al., 2017; Bornø et al., 2018; Mandal et al., 2016b; 2018; Xu et al., 2018a).”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nutrients in biochar are present either in available or in difficultly accessible forms pertaining to the complex organic and inorganic composition of the material.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The initial increase in organic matter mineralization corresponded to a higher gross N mineralization and NH4 content in the PyOM-treated soil than in the untreated soil (Maestrini et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Maestrini et al., 2014 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This increase was higher in the biochar produced at low temperature (350 o C) than that produced at high temperature (550 o C) (Nelissen et al., 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nelissen et al., 2012
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Following a three years' trial at field conditions, Munda et al (2018) also reported the possibility of soil fertility enrichment vis-a-vis improved grain yield of rice crop via rice husk biochar application.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Munda et al (2018) source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, DeLuca et al. (2009) reported that biochar application to soil increased plant P availability by lowering the activity of soluble Al and Fe.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites DeLuca et al., 2009
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The N dynamics thus shifted from N mineralization in raw biomass to N immobilization in biochar at charring temperature 500°C (Chen et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chen et al., 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The enhancement of N mineralization could be favourable for organic farming systems challenged by insufficient N mineralization during plant growth (Pereira et al., 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pereira et al., 2015 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Novak et al. (2009) also found a high concentration of Mehlich-1 extractable P in Norfolk loamy sand soil amended with poultry litter biochar (4 Mg ha -1 ) containing high total P content (3-4.3%).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Novak et al., 2009 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, application of willow ( Salix viminalis L.) branch biochar prepared at 470 o C significantly decreased the available NH4 + and NO3 -levels during 30 to 90 days in flinty clay loam soils of United Kingdom indicating a net N immobilization (Prayogo et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Prayogo et al., 2014 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Nitrogen deficiency in larch ( Larixgmelinii ) cultivation resulted from the application of Japanese larch wood biochar was also reported (Makoto et al., 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Makoto et al., 2011 source
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Availability of resinextractable NH4 + and NO3 - fractions in soil decreased with the addition of wheat straw biochar and olive-tree pruning biochar (Olmo et al., 2016), and this might be governed by the porous nature, high surface area and ion exchange capacity of biochar that can enhance the sorption of NH4 + (cation exchange) and NO3 - (within biochar pores) (Lehmann et al., 2003; Atkins”
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Biochar produced at both low and high temperatures (350 o C and 800 o C, respectively) resulted in significant changes in the extractable P pool, with a trend of decreasing extractable P with application of high temperature biochar (Gundale and DeLuca, 2006).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gundale and DeLuca, 2006
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Laird et al. (2010a) reported that biochar prepared from mixed hardwood feedstock (primarily oak ( Quercus sp.) and hickory ( Carya sp.)) increased Mehlich III extractable P in soils (Laird et al., 2010a).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Laird et al., 2010a
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Poultry litter biochar and wheat straw biochar, when applied at the rate of 1.0-5.0 Mg ha -1 to an acidic Aeronosol and a neutral Vertisol, they did not affect the post-harvest total soil N (Macdonald et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Macdonald et al., 2014 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Application of Nlimited biochar may induce microbial immobilization of available N in the soil (Lehman et al., 2006; van Zwieten et al., 2009).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lehman et al., 2006
- Not checked yetcites van Zwieten et al., 2009
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Similarly, application of rice husk biochar at 41 Mg ha -1 was found to increase total soil N after the harvest of rice crop in an acidic Gleysols of Philippines (Haefele et al., 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Haefele et al., 2011
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The application of hard wood biochar, a mix of white ash ( Fraxinus americana ), oak ( Quercus sp.), and beech ( Fragus grandifolia ) produced by fast pyrolysis at 500-600 o C with either NPK or digested dairy manure had little effect on N dynamics in Warden silt loam soil of Washington state of USA (Bera et al., 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bera et al., 2016 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Rondon et al. (2007) reported that the proportion of fixed N by common bean ( Phaseolus vulgaris L.) increased from 50% in the control to 72% with 90 g kg -1 biochar application.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rondon et al., 2007 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Several studies indicate that biochar serves as an excellent support material for Rhizobium inoculants (Pandher et al., 1993; Lal and Mishra, 1998).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pandher et al., 1993
- Not checked yetcites Lal and Mishra, 1998
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Increasing pyrolysis temperature also decreased the water soluble P content in rice, wheat, maize and pearlmillet residue biochars due to the formation of difficultly soluble crystalline P minerals (Bera et al., 2017).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bera et al., 2017 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Jones et al. (2012), however, reported that commercially available biochars derived from mechanically chipped trunks and large branches of Fraxinus excelsior L., Fagus sylvatica L. and Quercus robur L. pyrolyzed at 450 o C for 48 h did not affect the dissolved organic N (DON), NO3 - - or NH4 + -N contents in the soil.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jones et al., 2012 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The application of poultry litter biochar at 20 g kg -1 increased Mehlich 1 soil extractable P concentration by 20 to 28 folds (Novak et al., 2009).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Novak et al., 2009 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Peanut shell biochar (5% w/w) promoted the urease activity in a saline soil over short-term laboratory incubation indicating the role of biochar in soil N dynamics (Bhaduri et al., 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bhaduri et al., 2016 source
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Nishio and Okano (1991) reported that biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) at the early stage of alfalfa growth and nodule development stage was 15 and 227% higher, respectively, than the control when biochar ( Eucalyptus deglupta , 350 o C) was added to the soil.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nishio and Okano (1991)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Many studies reported the increase of P availability via biochar application to soils (Table 3).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Table 3
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In contrast, biochar made from chicken manure increased the available nutrient contents in soils including N (Chan and Xu, 2009, Chan et al., 2008).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chan and Xu, 2009
- Not checked yetcites Chan et al., 2008 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Asada et al. (2002) found a greater adsorption of ammonia (NH3) by bamboo ( Bambusa sp.) biochar prepared at 500 o C than that prepared at >700 o C.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Asada et al., 2002 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Availability of resinextractable NH4 + and NO3 - fractions in soil decreased with the addition of wheat straw biochar and olive-tree pruning biochar (Olmo et al., 2016), and this might be governed by the porous nature, high surface area and ion exchange capacity of biochar that can enhance the sorption of NH4 + (cation exchange) and NO3 - (within biochar pores) (Lehmann et al., 2003; Atkins”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Olmo et al., 2016 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Application of bamboo charcoal (pyrolyzed at 600 o C) to a variety of sandy silt soils showed a cumulative 15% reduction in NH4 + -N leaching loss over 70 days (Ding et al., 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ding et al., 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Similarly, Laird et al. (2010a) reported that mixed hardwood biochar amendment (oak and hickory) increased the Mehlich III extractable K in soils.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Laird et al., 2010a
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Two years after application of biochar prepared from mixed hardwood chips (primarily oak ( Quercus sp.), elm ( Ulmus sp.) and hickory ( Carya spp sp.)) in a fine loamy Hapludols decreased the extractable P at different incubation periods (Rogovska et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rogovska et al., 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Purakayastha et al. (2015) found that wheat straw biochar being rich in K contributed in increasing the soil available K.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Purakayastha et al., 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, biochar application could potentially influence the S mineralization in soils like it influences the N transformation (Table 3).”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, evidence showed that excessive application of liming materials including biochar to a coarse-textured low buffering capacity soil might lead to an abrupt increase in soil pH resulting in deficiencies of some plant nutrients (Kamprath, 1971).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kamprath, 1971
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“This effect was probably due to the release of soluble SO 4 2following partial combustion of biomass during the fire or heating event at temperature more than 200 o C (Gray and Dighton, 2006).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gray and Dighton, 2006
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, K deficiency in radish crop due to the application of poultry litter biochar in an acid soil was noticed (Chan et al., 2008).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chan et al., 2008 source
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the second cropping year, biochar along with pyrogallol application increased the available K content by 78% over the unamended control (Rogovska et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rogovska et al., 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Among different feedstocks, maize biochar showed the highest available P in the soil after one year of incubation followed by rice, pearl millet and wheat biochars (Purakayastha et al., 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Purakayastha et al., 2015 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The phosphate adsorption in both control and biochar-amended soils decreased with increasing pH.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jiang et al., 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Since biochar application influences the pH of soils, S mineralization rates were reported to increase following a fire in a pine forest (biomass converted to biochar by the fire) (Binkley et al., 1992).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Binkley et al., 1992 source
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Recently, Xu et al. (2018b) reported that wheat straw biochar application significantly increased (positive effects) various P fractions (except for NaHCO3-extractable P and residual P) in a Haplic Luvisol.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Xu et al., 2018b
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Available K contents in both Ultisol and Oxisol after first and second years' of a wheat crop were invariably greater when biochar prepared from Eucalyptus trees ( Eucalyptus camaldulensis L.) by specialized flash carbonization process was applied to soils (Lashari et al., 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lashari et al., 2013 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In contrast, application of rice husk biochar at the rate of 41 Mg ha -1 did not affect exchangeable K content in soil after harvest of rice crp in an acidic Gleysols of IRRI, Philippines (Haefele et al., 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Haefele et al., 2011
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among the macronutrients (N, P, K), the maximum increase in available pool due to biochar application was observed in the case of K.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Researchers indicated that the increase was mainly due to the high concentration of P in the ash fraction of the biochar (77% of total biochar P).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zhai et al., 2015 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Amongst secondary nutrients, S cycle behaves quite similarly as N cycle in the soil (Stevension and Cole, 1999).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Stevension and Cole, 1999
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Two years of mixed hardwood biochar (primarily oak, elm and hickory) application in fine loamy Hapludols had almost doubled the extractable K content over the unamended soil (Rogovska et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rogovska et al., 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The interactions between biochar, P fertilizer and P fractionations indicate shifts in potential P availability both as a result of P fertilization and biochar (prepared from green waste at 550 o C) application after harvest of a wheat crop (Farrel et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Farrel et al., 2014
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The changes in soil P dynamics may vary over time in the presence of biochar.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Application of 8% maize stover biochar (400 o C) substantially increased soil Olsen-P from 3 to 46 mg kg -1 in a Red earth, and from 13 to 137 mg kg -1 in a Fluvo-aquic soil in China after a short-term incubation (42 days) (Zhai et al., 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zhai et al., 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The reduced NaHCO3-extractable P content may be related to P immobilization with increased soil microbial activity induced by biochar addition because the high C:P ratios of biochar (ranged from 234 to 357) suggested a net P immobilization when biochar was incorporated into the soil (Xu et al., 2018b).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Xu et al., 2018b
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, the amount and rate of P adsorption on the surface of ferrihydrite decreased with the presence of biochar (Hao et al., 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hao et al., 2011 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, Dünisch et al. (2007) found that the mixing of charcoal with ashes and impregnating wood residues with nutrients such as N, P, and K could produce slow release K and N fertilizers.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dünisch et al., 2007 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“With increasing pyrolysis temperature, however, the adverse effect of biochar produced from the same feedstock nullified (Rajkovich et al., 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rajkovich et al., 2012 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Biochars made from food waste and paper mill waste at lower pyrolysis temperature (300-400 °C) resulted in significant growth reduction of corn (Rajkovich et al., 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rajkovich et al., 2012 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The slow release was attributed to the physical hindrance in releasing and solubilizing the nutrients through reduced pore size instead of forming any slowly soluble chemical composite (Kim et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kim et al., 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Therefore, the use of slow-release fertilizer is a favourable strategy to reduce gaseous and leaching losses of nutrients, especially the losses of macronutrients (N, P, and K) (Wang et al., 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang et al., 2013
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A handful of experimental studies unanimously revealed that the source of feedstock (either plant or animal origin) and pyrolysis environments (duration, heating rate, operating method and temperature) had been the most crucial factors to determine whether the produced biochar would be suitably applied to regulate nutrient dynamics in soils, apart from its other chemical and”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“However, it showed no impact on extractable soil Mg content when biochar prepared from the same feedstock via traditional kiln or flash carbonization process was applied to the soil (Butnan et al., 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Butnan et al., 2015 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, oat ( Avena sativa L.) yield in an acidic sandy loam soil of Denmark showed no significant response to birch wood biochar application, neither for total biomass nor grain yield (Sun et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sun et al., 2014 source
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, if exogenous nutrients (N, P, and K) was adsorbed on biochar, it could act as a slow-release fertilizer for supplying nutrients (N, P, and K) (Zhou et al., 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zhou et al., 2015 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Studies emphasized that the positive reflection of agronomic performances under biochar application depends both on soil-biochar interaction and the elemental contents of biochar.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Rice husk biochar applied at the rate of 41 Mg ha -1 also did not affect exchangeable Ca and Mg contents after the harvest of rice in an acidic Gleysol in Philippines (Haefele et al., 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Haefele et al., 2011
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, increasing Ca and Mg availability in biochar amended soils would be more realistic in highly acidic Oxisol and Ultisol which are inherently defficient in basic cationic nutrients.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Transient effects of biochar on soil pH can overrule the influence of sorption of micronutrient cations on to biochar, resulting in the variable concentrations of trace elements in the soil solution and their availability to plants (Borchard et al., 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Borchard et al., 2012 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Extractable Ca contents increased in both Ultisol and Oxisol after first and second year of wheat crops owing to application of biochar prepared from Eucalyptus tree ( Eucalyptuscamaldulensis L.) by flash carbonization process (Butnan et al., 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Butnan et al., 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The role of S-forms in the feedstocks (or initial materials) also seemed to drive the S mineralization process (Blum et al., 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Blum et al., 2013 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, pyrolysis temperature remains an important variable to improve biochar performance for crop yield vis-à-vis soil fertility management.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, these would decide the applicability of biochar for enhancing crop growth and yield by moderating the soil environment.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It was observed in most studies that nutrients release quickly during the initial period of biochar addition to soils.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Biochar made from poultry litter maintained better plant growth over the control irrespective of application rate and pyrolysis temperature (Macdonald et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Macdonald et al., 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is emphasized that temperature generated during pyrolysis define the physical and structural characteristics of biochar (Clough et al., 2013; Zhao et al., 2018).”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, the exchangeable Mg content in soil was not influenced by biochar application rate (Borchard et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Borchard et al., 2014 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The application of CRH-biochar failed to produce a yield-increasing effect in both anthraquic Gleysols and humic Nitisol in the Philippines (Haefele et al., 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Haefele et al., 2011
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Biochar application to a neutral Vertisol had no impact on the plant growth (Macdonald et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Macdonald et al., 2014 source
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For both pearl millet and rice, the yields in biochar treatments were at par with those obtained with CRI or CRB treatments (Purakayastha, 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Purakayastha, 2010
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, in an acidic ferralsol, a different plant response was evident. The magnitude of plant growth stimulation was more visible by applying poultry litter biochar over wheat straw biochar (Macdonald et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Macdonald et al., 2014 source
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The yield and yield attributing characters of lowland rice was also reported to be enhanced by the combined application of rice husk biochar and flyash supplemented with chemical fertilizers (Munda et al., 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Munda et al., 2016 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The greater crop yield and nutrient uptake resulted due to more available (77-320%) Ca and Mg in the soil where biochar was applied (Major et al., 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Major et al., 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In an earlier study, Chan et al. (2007) also found the positive interactive effect of biochar (doses at 50 and 100 Mg ha -1 ) with N fertilizer (100 Mg ha 1 ) on radish yield in a hard setting Alfisol.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chan et al., 2007 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In an acidic aerosol of Australia, both poultry litter biochar and wheat straw biochar demonstrated non-linear trends of biochar application rates with wheat yields (Macdonald et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Macdonald et al., 2014 source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, this increment could not be correlated with the biochar amendment rates (Zhang et al., 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zhang et al., 2012 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Higher grain yields in biochar treated plots (4.0 and 8.0 Mg ha -1 ) with N fertilizer resulted due to the combined effects of the improved soil physical properties and the alleviation of biochar induced soil N availability (Asai et al., 2009) .”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Asai et al., 2009 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The increase in biomass production by the N-fixing bean was mainly attributed to the greater leaf biomass.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Güereña et al., 2015 source
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“More biomass (shoot, root and grain) produced under high rate of poultry litter biochar (10 t ha -1 ) as compared to wheat straw biochar (Macdonald et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Macdonald et al., 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Biomass production of the N-fixing bean ( Phaseolus vulgaris L.) was significantly higher than that of the non-N-fixing isoline across all levels of biochar ( Eucalyptus deglupta, 350 o C) additions.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Güereña et al., 2015 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Maize yield showed a reduction of 22-24% at the single biochar treatment (50 Mg ha -1 ) which was applied in combination with pig slurry at 21 and 42 Mg ha -1 doses (Sun et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sun et al., 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, yield reduction at a high rate of biochar application (16 Mg ha -1 ) was resonated to N limitation even with N fertilizer application (Asai et al., 2009).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Asai et al., 2009 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, biochar may influence the supply of nutrients to the plants.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The majority of the studies showed biochar application increased the P and K availability in soil”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From the array of published research papers, we discussed in the review, the yield response of crops and nutrient releasing behavior in soil due to biochar application largely depends on the composition of biochar (i.e., feedstock, pyrolysis temperature of biochar preparation) and specific soil type.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“suggesting that plant yield was influenced by soil type also.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“suggesting that the original chemistry of the soil has a strong component in pH and CEC modification of the soils when amended by biochar.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it has its distinct, physical, physicochemical and cation exchange properties, which can interact with native soil nutrients and added nutrients in the forms of fertilizer and manures.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and the positive effect was achieved at lower pyrolysis temperature over higher pyrolysis temperature.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but it is highly dependent on inherent soil properties, fertility and fertilizer management history for that specific piece of land.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Biochar showed a positive impact on crop productivity when it was applied to acid soil.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“The relationship between loading rate and CEC may be explained by noting that the more oxygen-containing functional groups in a soil, the higher the CEC, thus the greater loading of biochar containing the functional groups the greater the CEC(Schmidt and Noack, 2000).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schmidt and Noack, 2000
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For other secondary nutrients, there was a mixed response on their availability due to biochar application.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The biochar application has the potential to improve soil quality”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Biochar can act as a source of nutrient(s) for plants”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 96
- The quote only partly states this claim. 23
- Probably not a substantial claim. 79
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“When biochar was added to soil, gross N mineralization, recalcitrant nitrogen fraction and labile N fraction were found to be stimulated (Table 3).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The total P content ranged 16-9500 mg kg -1 for crop residue biochar, 5-6000 mg kg -1 for wood biochar, 29507.40x10 4 mg kg -1 for manure biochar, and 90-23300 mg kg -1 for waste material biochar (Table 3).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Table 3
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 2 | 1.40 | 35.0 | 74.3 | | 30.9 | | 45.9 |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 1 | 0.27 | 0.64 | 0.43 | 0.58 | -0.67 | 0.48 | 0.57 |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 1 | 0.27 | 0.64 | 0.43 | 0.58 | -0.67 | 0.48 | 0.57 |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 4 | 0.46 | -0.54 | -0.32 | 0.63 | - | - | - |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 2 | 1.40 | 35.0 | 74.3 | | 30.9 | | 45.9 |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 1 | 0.27 | 0.64 | 0.43 | 0.58 | -0.67 | 0.48 | 0.57 |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 3 | 0.51 | 0.48 | -0.65 | -0.29 | 0.74 | 0.37 | 0.56 |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 1 | 1.57 | 39.3 | 39.3 | 1.38 | 45.9 | | 45.9 |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 4 | 0.46 | -0.54 | -0.32 | 0.63 | - | - | - |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first principal component, accounting for 45.9% of the variance in the data”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 1 | 0.27 | 0.64 | 0.43 | 0.58 | -0.67 | 0.48 | 0.57 |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 1 | 1.57 | 39.3 | 39.3 | 1.38 | 45.9 | | 45.9 |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 1 | 0.27 | 0.64 | 0.43 | 0.58 | -0.67 | 0.48 | 0.57 |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 2 | 0.67 | -0.25 | 0.54 | -0.43 | 0.06 | 0.79 | -0.61 |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this case, the total variance explained by the first two principal components was 76.8%.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 3 | 0.62 | 15.5 | 89.8 | 0.93 0.70 | 23.2 | 76.8 100 | 45.9 |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 2 | 0.67 | -0.25 | 0.54 | -0.43 | 0.06 | 0.79 | -0.61 |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 3 | 0.51 | 0.48 | -0.65 | -0.29 | 0.74 | 0.37 | 0.56 |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 4 | 0.46 | -0.54 | -0.32 | 0.63 | - | - | - |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 1 | 0.27 | 0.64 | 0.43 | 0.58 | -0.67 | 0.48 | 0.57 |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The latter principal component shows an inverse relationship between [pyrolysis temperature and pH] and [loading rate and CEC].”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 2 | 0.67 | -0.25 | 0.54 | -0.43 | 0.06 | 0.79 | -0.61 |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 3 | 0.51 | 0.48 | -0.65 | -0.29 | 0.74 | 0.37 | 0.56 |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 1 | 0.27 | 0.64 | 0.43 | 0.58 | -0.67 | 0.48 | 0.57 |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 3 | 0.51 | 0.48 | -0.65 | -0.29 | 0.74 | 0.37 | 0.56 |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 2 | 0.67 | -0.25 | 0.54 | -0.43 | 0.06 | 0.79 | -0.61 |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 2 | 1.40 | 35.0 | 74.3 | | 30.9 | | 45.9 |”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and was instead dominated by application rate and yield, which display an inverse relationship.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 4 | 0.46 | -0.54 | -0.32 | 0.63 | - | - | - |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and (ii) between biochar loadings and change in CEC of soil.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 2 | 0.67 | -0.25 | 0.54 | -0.43 | 0.06 | 0.79 | -0.61 |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 2 | 0.67 | -0.25 | 0.54 | -0.43 | 0.06 | 0.79 | -0.61 |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 3 | 0.51 | 0.48 | -0.65 | -0.29 | 0.74 | 0.37 | 0.56 |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 3 | 0.51 | 0.48 | -0.65 | -0.29 | 0.74 | 0.37 | 0.56 |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 2 | 0.67 | -0.25 | 0.54 | -0.43 | 0.06 | 0.79 | -0.61 |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| 3 | 0.51 | 0.48 | -0.65 | -0.29 | 0.74 | 0.37 | 0.56 |”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“and Fe (74800 mg kg -1 ) contents.”
- Also stated in: § ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT · p. 14 · plain
“Biochar prepared from swine solids contained 74800, 2240, 4981, 2446 and 27.4 mg kg -1 of Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, and Mo, respectively (Table 1; Cantrell et al., 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cantrell et al., 2012 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT · p. 14 · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“swine solids biochar in Zn (49810 mg kg -1 )”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During pyrolysis, one-third to half of biomass carbon is converted into biochar.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It also provides other services such as improving soil physical and biological properties (Lehmann andRondon, 2005; Mandal et al., 2016a; Purakayastha et al., 2015; Purakayastha et al., 2016; Bera et al., 2016; Bera et al., 2019).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lehmann andRondon, 2005
- Not checked yetcites Mandal et al., 2016a
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The very low N content (0.04%) in canola straw biochar conferred it the highest C/N ratio (160:1).”
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Poultry litter biochar is a rich in P (3.12%)”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The heat treatment (more often thermochemical treatment) of organic biomass used to produce biochar contributes to its large surface area”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lehmann et al., 2006 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Biochar application in soil for increasing crop production and other benefits including soil carbon sequestration is increasingly being recognized as a win-win strategy.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The N content in many biochar was reported to be more than 4%”
- Also stated in: § ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT · p. 14 · plain
“Manure-derived biochar was undoubtedly the richest source of N among all feedstock types of biochar, showing N content as high as 4.45%.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT · p. 14 · plain
In the paper
“the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015 set a target for participating countries that 'hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels' (IPCC 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites IPCC 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while the lowest (0.017%) in yellow pine chip biochar.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Biochar prepared from swine solids contained 74800, 2240, 4981, 2446 and 27.4 mg kg -1 of Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, and Mo, respectively (Table 1; Cantrell et al., 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cantrell et al., 2012 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“simultaneous actions on negative emissions through sustainable carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies and engineered enhancement of natural carbon sinks are also urgently required (Gasser et al. 2015; Rogeljet al., 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gasser et al. 2015 source
- Not checked yetcites Rogeljet al., 2016
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Data on micronutrient contents in biochar is limited in the literature.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The global soil has been estimated to hold the largest terrestrial organic carbon pool (~1,500 Pg C to a depth of 1 m; 2,400 Pg C to 2 m depth) (Batjes, 1996).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Batjes, 1996 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“An increase in organic matter inputs to soil, or a decrease in soil organic matter decomposition rates, or the net carbon gaining effect of the both can increase the carbon stock in soil (Paustian et al., 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Paustian et al., 2016 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Waste material biochars had a wide range of C contents (19.2-84.0%) indicating their differential initial constituents.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The composition of biochar depends upon the nature of feedstock and pyrolysis conditions”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While conventional greenhouse gas emission mitigation strategies, such as lowering the consumption of fossil fuels, are needed to achieve the goal of the Paris Agreement”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In this connection, the application of biochar to soils has been shown to achieve the net carbon gain in soils while also serving for increased plant biomass production by enhancing the nutrient supply to plants and increasing nutrient and water use efficiencies (NUE and WUE) by plants (Kookana et al., 2011; Lehmann et al., 2015; Minasny et al., 2017).”
What the sources say
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The P content was recorded the highest (5.90) in swine solid biochar”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The recently launched '4 per mille Soils for Food Security and Climate' concept also proposes to increase global soil organic matter stocks by 4 per 1000 (or 0.4 %) per year in order to compensate global greenhouse gas emissions due to anthropogenic activities (Minasny et al., 2017).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Minasny et al., 2017 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The paper mill biochar (Devi and Saroha, 2015) and poultry manure biochar (Enders et al., 2012) prepared at 600 o C were reported to be rich sources of Ca (25 and 31%, respectively) and Mg (0.87 and 0.29%, respectively) (Table 1).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Devi and Saroha, 2015
- Not checked yetcites Enders et al., 2012 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The majority of biochar samples were alkaline in pH with few exceptions such as sugarcane bagasse biochar, yellow pine chip biochar, hazelnut biochar and eucalyptus biochar, which were found to be acidic in solution.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“published literature suggests a wide variation in biochar compositions (Table 1).”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Thus, biochar application to soils has been recommended as an important component of the pathway to 'climate-smart soil' management practices in modern global agriculture (Paustian et al., 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Paustian et al., 2016 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The very low N content (0.04%) in canola straw biochar conferred it the highest C/N ratio (160:1).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Purakayastha et al. (2016) reported that increase in pyrolysis temperature from 400 o C to 600 o C significantly increased the C content, while it decreased the N content in all biochars except that was produced from rice hull.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Purakayastha et al. (2016) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These findings were in agreement with the other studies which also found higher C contents in plant material based biochars, e.g., canola, soybean (Yuan et al., 2011), peanut hull, pine chips (Gaskin et al., 2008), Eucalyptus saligna wood and leaf (Singh et al., 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Yuan et al., 2011
- Not checked yetcites Gaskin et al., 2008
- Not checked yetcites Singh et al., 2010 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Bayabil et al. (2015) reported that incorporation of woody feedstock (Acacia, Croton, and Eucalyptus) charcoals significantly decreased the soil moisture retention at lower tensions (10 and 30 kPa), resulting in an increase in relative hydraulic conductivity at these tensions in a clay soil.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bayabil et al., 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Biochar may alter soil pH, which in turn can change nutrient solubility, thereby modifying the nutrient availability.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Soil nutrient availability for plants is pH dependent.
In the paper
“For example, the C/N ratio of switch grass biochar increased from 54 to 84 when pyrolysis temperature increased from 400 o C to 600 o C (Purakayastha et al., 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Purakayastha et al., 2016 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The liming effect of biochar in acid soils, as described above, not only could improve the mineral nutrient supply for plant growth, but also could alleviate Al stress for better crop production (Liu et al. 2013; Dai et al., 2017).”
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Contrastingly, Yuan et al. (2011) reported that the C content decreased in corn and peanut biochar with an increasing pyrolysis temperature from 300 o C to 500 o C.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Yuan et al. (2011)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Alfisols, Ferrosols and Acrisols are inherently highly acidic in nature, and biochar being alkaline material neutralised the acidity.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Biochar is an alkaline material.
In the paper
“The authors also reported that wood chip biochar and waste-water sludge biochar were more efficient in increasing the porosities of the products over straw biochar, and hence showed greater effects on soil macroaggregates (Yu et al., 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Yu et al., 2016
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In contrast, Novak et al. (2009) reported that the C/N of sugarcane bagasse biochar decreased from 129 to 79 when pyrolysis temperature increased from 250 o C to 500 o C.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Novak et al. (2009) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Biochar amendments were reported to improve soil bulk density, porosity, water retention, and hydraulic conductivity (Abel et al., 2013; Asai et al., 2009; Atkinson et al., 2010; Jeffery et al., 2011; Karhu et al., 2011; Laird et al., 2010a).”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The slow and fast pyrolysis process during heating could also influence the C and N contents, and C/N ratios.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Thus, maize biochar was reported to accelerate soil N transformations by increasing the net N mineralization (Nelissen et al., 2012, Gundale and DeLuca, 2006), accelerating nitrification (Song et al., 2013), affecting denitrification (Cayuela et al., 2013), reducing ammonia volatilization (Mandal et al., 2016b; 2018), and through adsorption of ammonia”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nelissen et al., 2012
- Not checked yetcites Gundale and DeLuca, 2006
- Not checked yetcites Song et al., 2013
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The impact of peanut hull biochar was more pronounced than pine chip biochar due to the higher contents of K, Ca and Mg in the former, and in the first year of biochar application than the second year (Gaskin et al., 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gaskin et al., 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For instance, PyOM derived from rye grass pyrolyzed at 450 o C induced a strongly positive priming effect within the first 18 days, and thereafter exhibiting a negative priming effect in a forest Cambisol (Maestrini et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Maestrini et al., 2014 source
boosteddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Compared to the unamended soil, amendment with biochar (produced at 200 o C and 400 o C from oak wood feedstock) significantly increased N2O emissions, but biochar produced at a higher temperature (600 o C) did not show such effect on N2O emissions (Zhang et al., 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zhang et al., 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These are all indirect evidences of enriched nutrient availabilities resulted from biochar addition to soils.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“During the pyrolysis process, N in biomasses get converted to recalcitrant heterocyclic aromatic structures in biochar, and these structural changes may lead to a reduction in C and N mineralization rates (Chen et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chen et al., 2014 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the C stability of leguminous green manure like Ipomoea sp. could be enhanced by converting the raw material into biochar, but the charring process might limit the immediate supply of N.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This could be due to the biochar induced incresae of soil porosity/aeration that stimulates the aerobic/heterotrophic microbial population resulting in the degradation of recalcitrant SOM in the presence of biochar (Anderson et al., 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Anderson et al., 2011 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This showed a direct evidence that PyOM produced at a low temperature could be easily degraded, and its N would become available to plants (Rosa and Knicker, 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rosa and Knicker, 2011
boosteddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The increase in CEC could affect the retention of phosphate by biochar through anion exchange reaction.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The other important mechanisms include an enhanced abundance of ammonia oxidizing microorganisms (Song et al., 2013), and promotion of denitrification by the transfer of electrons to soil denitrifying microbes (Cayuela et al., 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Song et al., 2013
- Not checked yetcites Cayuela et al., 2013
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“As such, soil amended with biochar produced at temperatures exceeding 400°C demonstrated a 25% decrease in dry shoot biomass of water soinach ( Ipomoea aquatica ) compared with unamended soil principally due to N limitation (Chen et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chen et al., 2014 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Biochar being rich in surface functional groups, including aromatic moieties, can alter cation and anion exchange capacities of soils, which further influences N retention (Clough et al., 2013; Slavich et al., 2013; Mandal et al., 2018).”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Most of the mineralized NH4 + under biochar treatments came from the recalcitrant N in soil, while in the control soil most mineralized NH4 + originated from the labile N (Nelissen et al., 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nelissen et al., 2012
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Results showed accelerated soil N cycling following biochar addition, with increased gross N mineralization (185-221%), nitrification (10-69%) and ammonium (NH4 + ) consumption rates (333-508%) (Nelissen et al., 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nelissen et al., 2012
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The adsorbed NH 4 + -N eventually become available to plants or microbes in the long run reducing the loss of mineral N in soils (Taghizadeh-Toosi et al., 2012a, 2012b).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Taghizadeh-Toosi et al., 2012a
- Not checked yetcites Taghizadeh-Toosi et al., 2012b
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, Zhang et al. (2016) studied biochars prepared from 9 different residues, and concluded that the Bladygrass ( Imperata cylindrical ) biochar had the greatest amount of extractable P among all the biochars.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zhang et al., 2016
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Soil and biochar mixtures showed evidence of both soil nutrient sorption by biochar, and biochar nutrient sorption by the soil, depending upon the biochar and soil types (Mukherjee and Zimmerman, 2013; Rens et al., 2018).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mukherjee and Zimmerman, 2013
- Not checked yetcites Rens et al., 2018 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The extractable P not only depends on the pyrolysis temperature, but also on the feedstock.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The primary reason for the higher BNF with biochar additions was the greater B and Mo availability in the amended soil than the unamended control, while a greater K, Ca, and P availability with higher soil pH and lower N availability and Al saturation might have also concurrently occurred (Rondon et al., 2007).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rondon et al., 2007 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The NH4 + adsorption capacities of commercial coconut shell activated carbon prepared at 600 o C and 400 o C were found to be 2400 and 600 to 1800 mg NH3 kg -1 carbon, respectively (Rodrigues et al., 2007).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rodrigues et al., 2007 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The available N content increased in an alkaline sandy loam soil too under the influence of biochar, and the effect was more pronounced for maize stover than wheat straw biochar (Purakayastha et al., 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Purakayastha et al., 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Recently Hea et al. (2018) reported that biochar application to soil with urea increased NH3 volatilization losses by 14.1% in the first rice season, primarily due to increased pH and concentrations of NH4 + -N in the floodwater, and decreased NH3 losses in the second rice growth season by 6.8%, probably due to its high adsorption capacity for NH4 + and increased nitrification.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hea et al., 2018 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Similarly, biochar addition showed limited effects on the turnover of soil organic carbon, DON and no long-term effect on N mineralization, NH3 volatilization, denitrification and NH4 sorption (Clough et al., 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Clough et al., 2013 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Yao et al. (2012) reported that sugarcane bagasse, peanut hull, Brazilian pepperwood, and bamboo biochars could adsorb 112% NH4 + -N from aqueous solution, and Brazilian pepperwood gave the most effective biochar for NH4 + adsorption among these feedstocks.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Yao et al., 2012 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, Macdonald et al. (2014) reported that both poultry litter and wheat straw biochars applied at the rate of 5 and 10 Mg ha -1 did not affect the Olsen's P in an acidic Ferrasol and alkaline Calcisol, but could increase Olsen's P in an acidic aerosol and neutral Vertisol.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Macdonald et al., 2014 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Biochar itself is a huge source of K, and it can directly take part in the retention of K in the soil because of having a high CEC (Table 3).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“At higher application rates, P concentrations decreased, which coincided with an increase of soil pH by 0.3-0.7 units (Parvage et al., 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Parvage et al., 2013 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Biochar's effect on both soil Olsen-P and microbial biomass-P was increased by higher biochar application rates ensuring lower P-sorption capacity.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Biochar having high ion exchange capacity might alter P availability by enhancing the anion exchange capacity or by influencing the activity of cations that interact with P (Liang et al., 2006).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Liang et al., 2006 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Rice straw biochar with the higher CEC and the lowest contents of Ca 2+ and Mg 2+ showed the greatest inhibition of phosphate adsorption, and thus, could likely be the best choice as an amendment to mobilize phosphate in variably-charged soils (Jiang et al., 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jiang et al., 2015 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Incorporation of the biochars increased the pH of the amended soils, thereby further mobilizing phosphate in the soil (Jiang et al., 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jiang et al., 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The addition of fresh Miscanthus or Salix biochar to soil significantly increased soil P contents, but artificially weathered biochars made no such change in sandy loam soil of the Rothamsted Research experimental farm, United Kingdom (Prendergast-Miller et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Prendergast-Miller et al., 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In sandy soil, addition of biochar produced from mixture of Norway spruce ( Picea abies (L.) H. Karst) and Scots pine ( Pinus sylvestris L.) had low P sorption affinity, and thus did not increase the sorption of P in incubated soils (Sonnie et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sonnie et al., 2014
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These increases were accompnied with an subsequent increase in soil microbial biomass P from 1 to 9 mg kg -1 in the Red earth, and from 9 to 21 mg kg -1 in the Fluvoaquic soil (Zhai et al., 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zhai et al., 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The maximum concentration of water-soluble P was achieved at the rate of 1% wheat residue biochar (w/w) addition to soils with different textural classes, varying the water-soluble P concentrations from 11 to 253% (Parvage et al., 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Parvage et al., 2013 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Haefelea et al. (2011) reported that the application of carbonized rice husk biochar increased available P in rice growing soil of International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Philippines, in the first year, while after three years it did not influence the available P content.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Haefelea et al., 2011 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The increased soil microbial activity and reduced soil acidity or increased CEC may be accounted for enhanced P transformation in the soil.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The wheat residue biochar can act as a source of soluble P, and low and high additions of biochar showed different effects on soil solution P concentration due to possible reactions of P with Ca and Mg added with biochar.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The lowest N-leaching-loss were observed with BSRFs, and the phenomenon was attributed to the fact that BSRFs had better slow-release characteristics and water holding capacity than normal biochar (Gonzalez et al., 2015; Wen et al., 2017).”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Biochar prepared from Eucalyptus tree either via traditional kiln process at 350°C or by flash carbonization at 800°C significantly increased the soluble Mn concentration (1.39-4.61 mg L -1 ) in an Oxisol relative to the control (1.12 mg L -1 ), while they decreased the plant tissue Mn concentration (0.08-0.17 g kg -1 ) compared to the control (0.41 g kg -1 ) (Butnan et al., 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Butnan et al., 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pyrolytic conversion of biomass into biochar has shown an effective impact on reducing nutrient losses (NH3 volatilization, N2O emission, CO2 emission, NO3 leaching, etc.) from soils, and previous studies found that biochar itself contains nutrients, which help to improve plant growth.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Some biochars triggered improved growth with increasing pyrolysis temperatures, though opposite trend was also found (Rajkovich et al., 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rajkovich et al., 2012 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Except for the larger application rate (7%), biochar made from corn stover, oak, and pine wood and animal manures exhibited either positive or neutral effect on crop growth, whereas biochar from hazelnut shells did not affect the growth (Enders et al., 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Enders et al., 2012 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, on the same occasion, the total biomass of spring barley ( Hordeum vulgare ) was increased by 11% due to biochar application, though with a non-significant response for grain yield.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sun et al., 2014 source
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Yao et al. (2011) also found that the phosphate-laden biochar contained valuable nutrients that could act as a slow release fertilizer to enhance soil fertility and sequester C for a longer time in soil.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Yao et al., 2011 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Kim et al. (2014) observed that lignocellulosic biomass-derived biochar contained low plant nutrients but could be impregnated with additional nutrients and subsequently pelletized, and the final product could control the release of nutrients at a slower rate resulting in a reduced nutrient loss.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kim et al., 2014 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Among the micronutrients, soil extractable Mn and Fe decreased, while Cu and Zn increased due to the application of a mixed wood biochar (Rogovska et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rogovska et al., 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Similarly, Borchard et al. (2012) reported that composted charcoal could potentially improve plant available Cu 2+ in an acidic sandy soil with small organic matter content.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Borchard et al., 2012 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Across all biochar types, average total biomass production of corn ( Zea mays L.) was at par for the application rates of 0.2%, 0.5%, and 2%, but reduced to a minimum at the rate of 7% (Rajkovich et al., 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rajkovich et al., 2012 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, not only the biochar or soil type, crop choices also can determine the response of biochar as van Zwieten et al. (2010) found that wheat biomass increased linearly up to an biochar application rate of 10 t ha -1 , and decreased with 20 and 50 t ha -1 , whereas radish growth did not decrease with high rate of biochar in an acid soil of the tropics.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites van Zwieten et al., 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Slow pyrolysis biochar (550 o C) failed to show any effect on exchangeable Ca content after harvest of a maize crop when applied at the rate of 15.0 g kg -1 in a silty Fluvisol, but it became more efficient when the application rate was increased to 100 g kg -1 (Borchard et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Borchard et al., 2014 source
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The BSRFs were also capable of releasing N fertilizer slowly with extended N-longevity, and were more effective in improving total N use efficiency and facilitated cotton plant growth through reducing N loss and improving N retention (Wen et al., 2017).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wen et al., 2017 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Peanut straw biochar pyrolyzed at 400 o C showed significantly higher water soluble Ca and Mg contents in an Oxisol than other starw derived biochars, and rice straw biochar showed the lowest values among various crop straw biochars (Jiang et al., 2015).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jiang et al., 2015 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“After biochar application, Ca and Mg limiting Savana Oxisol was higly productive due to 77-320% greater Ca and Mg availability, increasing soil pH and decreasing exchangable acidity (Major et al., 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Major et al., 2010 source
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Studies have shown that biochar based slow-release fertilizers with their effective nutrient retention properties can be widely used in sustainable modern agriculture.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Pyrolysis temperature was also found to be the most influential parameter for obtaining specific characteristics of rapeseed stem biochar, demonstrating a positive relationship of temperature with pH, microporous structure, surface area, fixed C and ash content, whilst showing a negative relationship with material yield, average pore size, functional groups, volatile matter, O”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zhao et al., 2018 source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“However, Gaskin et al., (2009) found that peanut hull biochar and pine chip biochar failed to show their marks towards crop productivity, and grain yield even decreased for maize crop.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gaskin et al., 2009
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Application of 0, 8 and 20 t ha -1 of biochar to a Colombian savanna Oxisol continuously for four years (2003-2006) under a maize-soybean rotation reported that the maize grain yield did not increase in the very first year, but increased in the 20 Mg ha -1 plots over the control by 28, 30 and 140%, respectively, in the subsequent years (Major et al., 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Major et al., 2010 source
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Similarly, applying N fertilizer proved beneficial to rice grain yield when 4.0 and 8.0 Mg ha -1 rates of two commercial biochars prepared from wood feedstocks (e.g., teak ( Tectona grandis L.) and rosewood ( Pterocarpus macrocarpus Kurz)) were applied in a study reported from northern Laos, but at higher dose of biochar (16 Mg ha -1 ) with N-fertilizer no positive”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Asai et al., 2009 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Moreover, no difference between the two biochar treatments were identified, suggesting that even the very high biochar application rate promoted plant growth with a non-detrimental effect (Vaccari et al., 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Vaccari et al., 2011 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In contrast to biochar amendment, N fertilizer proved less effective for improving soil quality, but more effective for increasing the rice yield (Huang et al., 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Huang et al., 2013 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Another investigation dealing with large volume application of biochar (30 and 60 Mg ha -1 ) on durum wheat in the Mediterranean climate showed positive effects (up to 30%) on biomass production and yield, with no significant differences in the nitrogen content of grains (Vaccari et al., 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Vaccari et al., 2011 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Contrary to this observation, Zhang et al., (2012) found maize yield increased by 15.8% and 7.3% without N fertilization, and by 8.8% and 12.1% with N fertilization under biochar amendment at 20 and 40 Mg ha -1 , respectively, in a calcareous flavor-aquic loamy soil.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zhang et al., 2012 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Recently, Ain et al. (2016) reported that application of biochar prepared from a weed ( Parthenium hysterophorus L.) at 370- 417 o C temperature to a rice-wheat cropping system could cut down the cost of fertilizer to half although the yield obtained was just as good as with full application of recommended dose of fertilizers.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ain et al., 2016 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Application of biochar poultry manure compost and pyroligneous solution to a salt-affected soil for consecutive two years showed an ameliorative effect, decreasing the salinity and pH, and subsequently reflected in increased yield of wheat in a tune of 38% (Lashari et al., 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lashari et al., 2013 source
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Moreover, this treatment was found to be superior for obtaining benefits related to straw reutilization like crop residue incorporation (CRI) and crop residue burning (CRB) in the open field.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Purakayastha, 2010
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Improvement in soil physical properties along with pH, organic carbon and content of exchangeable cations were the reasons suggested for the higher radish yield.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In another study, the application of rice straw biochar (prepared at 400 °C) at the rate of 2.25 g kg -1 (equivalent to 5.0 t ha -1 ) along with 100% NPK increased the rice yield by 24.3% in an Inceptisol, and by 31.3% in an Alfisol (Bera, 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bera, 2014
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The bioavailability of N in a wheat-straw biochar prepared at 400 o C was reported to be very low, and did not increase growth of rice crop or nitrogen use efficiency from fertilizer sources during the first year after application (Xie et al., 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Xie et al., 2013 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Biochar additions significantly increased total biomass production by 39% at a defined biochar dose of 60 g kg -1 , but decreased biomass at par with the control with a higher biochar dose (90 g kg -1 ).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Güereña et al., 2015 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Biochar was added to an agricultural field at three different doses (0, 25 and 50 t ha -1 ) and planted with maize (1 st year) and grass (2 nd and 3 rd years) in an acidic sandy loam soil where the biochar addition affected plant performance in the grass crop with significant increase in foliar N (2 nd year) and aboveground biomass (3 rd year), but biochar treatment behaved neutral”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jones et al., 2012 source
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Rice yield was increased under biochar treatment in an acidic Anthrosol, and such increase was eventually more (9-28%) in the second cycle than in the first cycle (9-12%) of the crop (Zhang et al., 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zhang et al., 2012 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Farrell et al. (2014) reported no significant effect on wheat yield at a low application rate (<1.0 Mg ha -1 ) of biochar in highly P-constrained calcareous soil, but a prominent effect of both biochar and fertilizer on P fractionation was observed.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Farrell et al., 2014 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The plant biomass was significantly lower at higher biochar application rates (5 and 10 t ha -1 ), having a prominent impact on shoot production but also evident in grain yield and root biomass (Macdonald et al., 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Macdonald et al., 2014 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“More interestingly, the same study further hinted that biochar amendment showed an additional benefit on rice yield under N fertilizer application, and there was a close relationship between the effect of biochar amendment on rice yield and agronomic N use efficiency.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Huang et al., 2013 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In acidic sandy soils, the application of rice hull biochar (2% rate) prepared at 350-400 o C increased sugarcane yield in Florida, USA, probably because biochar modulated the nutrient enrichment in the soil (Alvarez-Campos et al., 2018).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Alvarez-Campos et al., 2018
hedgedconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Fertilizer application along with carbonized rice husk (CRH-biochar) improved the grain yields of rice, but the improvement was not always significant and even showed a decline in yield at Nitisol of Siniloan, Philippines (Haefele et al., 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Haefele et al., 2011
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Only in a gleyic Acrisols, the application of CRH-biochar resulted in a higher yield of rice in all four seasons, although the significant increase was only observed in the third and fourth wet seasons (Haefele et al., 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Haefele et al., 2011
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The mechanism through which the positive impacts of biochars on P and K is not clear yet.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and mostly that could be somewhat complemented by application of fertilizers along with biochar.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Such responses confirmed earlier results with moong bean [ Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek], soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.], and pea ( Pisum sativum L.) (Iswaran et al., 1980), or with cowpea ( Vigna unguiculata L.) and rice ( Oryza sativa L.) (Nehls, 2002; Lehmann et al., 2003).”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, at a higher rate, biochar might decrease the yield of crops”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, biochar produced from manure sources being rich in N and other essential nutrients and having narrow C: N ratio could be of higher agronomic value.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Biochar has positive, negative as well as neutral effects on crop productivity.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The majority of biochar is alkaline, except a few like oak and yellow pine chipped biochar, which is acidic.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These observations may be explained by increased temperature of biochar pyrolysis resulting in modifications of the types of chemical functional groups (acidic versus ketonic) on the biochar carbon skeletons, which would modify the basicity of the biochar and thus the resulting pH of the soil which was amended by the biochar (Mandal et al., 2016; 2018).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Mandal et al., 2016; 2018
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many studies showed that biochar significantly influences the mineralization/immobilization turnover of N in soil thereby controlling the N availability without any definite conclusion.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is likely that the low sample numbers and high diversity within the samples is such that not much information may be derived from the temperatureapplication rate-yield dataset by PCA.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggests an explanation counter to expectations that greater application rates of biochar result in lower stimulation of crop yield.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
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.”
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?
In the citing paper
“As a source, biochar can supply nutrients such as nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and other trace elements inherently present in the original feedstock used for biochar production (Purakayastha et al. 2019).”
From Biochar and its importance on nutrient dynamics in soil and plant (2020) · cites this paper as Purakayastha et al. 2019
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 46 ABSTRACT · p. 5
“swine solids biochar in Zn (49810 mg kg -1 )”
§ ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT · p. 14
“Biochar prepared from swine solids contained 74800, 2240, 4981, 2446 and 27.4 mg kg -1 of Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, and Mo, respectively”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 4. Carbon and nutrient contents of biochar · p. 13
“Carbon contents ranged from 81.2% in biochar prepared from bamboo chip (Mandal et al., 2017) to 19.2% in biochar prepared from paper mill sludge”
§ ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT · p. 82
“Eucalyptus bark Spruce and pine chips | 600 o C 550- | 9.37 10.8 | 79.1 87.8”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“Digested dairy manure 600°C 9.94 59.4 0.225 28”
Reported 28 · recomputed 264
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“Cow manure 500°C 9.20 33.6 0.15 22”
Reported 22 · recomputed 224
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT · p. 14
“The paper mill biochar (Devi and Saroha, 2015) and poultry manure biochar (Enders et al., 2012) prepared at 600 o C were reported to be rich sources of Ca (25 and 31%, respectively)”
§ ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT · p. 84
“Paper mill sludge | 600°C | 11.5 | 19.2 | 0.1 | 192 | 0.094 | 0.385 | 31.12”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT · p. 14
“Manure-derived biochar was undoubtedly the richest source of N among all feedstock types of biochar, showing N content as high as 4.45%.”
§ ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT · p. 84
“| Grass waste | 500°C | 9.6 | 53.5 | 4.9 |”
Citations
Cites
PAST: PALEONTOLOGICAL STATISTICAL SOFTWARE PACKAGE FOR EDUCATION AND DATA ANALYSIS
Hammer, Ø., Harper, D. A. T., & Ryan, P. D. (2001) · Palaeontologia Electronica · Cited by 17,871
Biochar effects on soil biota – A review
Lehmann, J., Rillig, M. C., Thies, J., Masiello, C. A., Hockaday, W. C., & Crowley, D. (2011) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.04.022 · Cited by 5,074
Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change
Change, I. P. O. C. (2015) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781107415416 · Cited by 4,731
Biochar as a sorbent for contaminant management in soil and water: A review
Ahmad, M., Rajapaksha, A. U., Lim, J. E., Zhang, M., Bolan, N., Mohan, D., Vithanage, M., Lee, S. S., & Ok, Y. S. (2014) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.10.071 · Cited by 4,662
Climate change 2007 - mitigation of climate change
Metz, B., Davidson, O. R., Bösch, P., Dave, R., & Meyer, L. (2007) · Cited by 3,484
Total carbon and nitrogen in the soils of the world
BATJES, N. H. (1996) · European Journal of Soil Science · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2389.1996.tb01386.x · Cited by 3,213
Bio-char Sequestration in Terrestrial Ecosystems – A Review
Lehmann, J., Gaunt, J., & Rondon, M. (2006) · Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change · doi:10.1007/s11027-005-9006-5 · Cited by 3,053
Biochar for environmental management: science and technology
(2009) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.47-0296 · Cited by 2,947
Glaser, B., Lehmann, J., & Zech, W. (2002) · Biology and Fertility of Soils · doi:10.1007/s00374-002-0466-4 · Cited by 2,890
Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change
Woolf, D., Amonette, J. E., Street-Perrott, F. A., Lehmann, J., & Joseph, S. (2010) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms1053 · Cited by 2,680
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Gaskin, 2009, Characterization of char for agricultural use in the soils of the southeastern United States. Amazonian dark earths, Wim Sombroek's Vision, 433
- Lal, 1998, Flyash as a carrier for Rhizobium inoculant, J. Res., 10, 191
- 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
- Pandher, 1993, Studies on growth and survival of Rhizobium isolates in different carriers, Indian J. Ecol., 20, 141
- Petersen, 1978, Some properties of two high-gradient extractors for soil microarthropods, and an attempt to evaluate their extraction efficiency, Nat. Jutl., 20, 95
- Rahman, 2014, Temperature effect on the characterization of pyrolysis products from oil palm fronds, Adv. Energy Eng., 2, 14
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Strategies for mitigation of climate change: a review
Fawzy, S., Osman, A. I., Doran, J., & Rooney, D. W. (2020) · Environmental Chemistry Letters · doi:10.1007/s10311-020-01059-w · Cited by 1,522
Biochar and its importance on nutrient dynamics in soil and plant
Hossain, M. Z., Bahar, M. M., Sarkar, B., Donne, S. W., Ok, Y. S., Palansooriya, K. N., Kirkham, M. B., Chowdhury, S., & Bolan, N. (2020) · Biochar · doi:10.1007/s42773-020-00065-z · Cited by 904
Self-citationSoil salinity under climate change: Challenges for sustainable agriculture and food security
Mukhopadhyay, R., Sarkar, B., Jat, H. S., Sharma, P. C., & Bolan, N. S. (2020) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111736 · Cited by 784
Self-citationMultifunctional applications of biochar beyond carbon storage
Bolan, N., Hoang, S. A., Beiyuan, J., Gupta, S., Hou, D., Karakoti, A., Joseph, S., Jung, S., Kim, K.-H., Kirkham, M. B., et al. (2022) · International Materials Reviews · doi:10.1080/09506608.2021.1922047 · Cited by 638
Self-citationAlkharabsheh, H. M., Seleiman, M. F., Battaglia, M. L., Shami, A., Jalal, R. S., Alhammad, B. A., Almutairi, K. F., & Al-Saif, A. M. (2021) · Agronomy · doi:10.3390/agronomy11050993 · Cited by 593
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.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Chemosphere
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-07
- Volume
- 227
- Pages
- 345-365
- ISSN
- 0045-6535 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2930814723
- Semantic Scholar
- 55ba902c6f3e82741f1b9177492df6898ef63ac7
- 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
