CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 184Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsAgricultural Science and FertilizationSoil Management and Crop Yield

Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn

Open access
Domene, Xavier, Mattana, Stefania, Hanley, Kelly, Enders, Akio, Lehmann, Johannes·2014·Soil Biology and Biochemistry
DOI 10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.01.035
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Biochar addition to soil has been generally associated with crop yield increases observed in some soils, and increased nutrient availability is one of the mechanisms proposed. Any impact of biochar on soil organisms can potentially translate to changes in nutrient availability and crop productivity, possibly explaining some of the beneficial and detrimental yield effects reported in literature. Therefore, the main aim of this study was to assess the medium-term impact of biochar addition on microbial and faunal activities in a temperate soil cropped to corn and the consequences for their main functions, litter decomposition and mineralization. Biochar was added to a corn field at rates of 0, 3, 12, 30 tons ha � 1 three years prior to this study, in comparison to an annual application of 1 t ha � 1 . Biochar application increased microbial abundance, which nearly doubled at the highest addition rate, while mesofauna activity, and litter decomposition facilitated by mesofauna were not increased signif- icantly but were positively influenced by biochar addition when these responses were modeled, and in the last case directly and positively associated to the higher microbial abundance. In addition, in short- term laboratory experiments after the addition of litter, biochar presence increased NO2 þ NO3 miner- alization, and decreased that of SO4 and Cl. However, those nutrient effects were not shown to be of concern at the field scale, where only some significant increases in SOC, pH, Cl and PO4 were observed. Therefore, no negative impacts in the soil biota activities and functions assessed were observed for the tested alkaline biochar after three years of the application, although this trend needs to be verified for other soil and biochar types.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a temperate sandy loam cropped to corn, corn-stover biochar applied three years earlier had limited medium-term effects on soil biota: microbial biomass was higher at 30 t ha−1, but microbial activity, fauna feeding, litter decomposition, and most mineralization rates did not differ from controls. Modeling suggested possible positive biochar contributions to mesofauna-facilitated decomposition and some nutrient dynamics, but field-scale effects were minor.

Key findings

  • Microbial biomass (MCB) was significantly higher with 30 t ha−1 biochar than in controls (p=0.03) and positively correlated with biochar application rate (r=0.60, p=0.01); basal respiration (BAS), carbon mineralization coefficient (CMC), and qCO2 did not significantly vary. The logMCB model included only moisture, the BAS model only soil texture, and the qCO2 model included moisture and SOC positively and sand negatively.
  • Fauna feeding rates did not differ significantly between biochar-added plots and controls in summer or fall, or by depth; models mostly explained feeding by soil texture, with biochar positive in some fall models but not significant by itself.
  • Litter decomposition did not differ significantly for either 2-mm or 0.16-mm mesh bags. The 2-mm mesh model included positive biochar and pH and negative Cl (72% variance explained), while the 0.16-mm mesh model included logMCB, clay, and SOC but not biochar (74% variance explained).
  • Mineralization showed no significant differences except Cl and SO4, which had negative rates in all biochar addition rates and at 30 t ha−1, respectively; NO2+NO3 mineralization was positively correlated with biochar rate (r=0.52*). Models generally showed a lack of biochar effect.

Methods

  • Field plots were at Cornell University’s Musgrave Research Farm in Aurora, NY, continuously cropped to corn for more than 30 years; plots were 4.5 × 7.5 m with three plots per biochar rate in a completely randomized design. Corn-stover biochar produced by slow pyrolysis (30 min, 600°C) was applied in April 2007 at 0, 3, 12, and 30 t ha−1 once, plus an annual 1 t ha−1 treatment applied in 2007, 2008, and 2010 (cumulative 3 t ha−1 by the study). Sampling occurred in summer and fall 2010.
  • Soil physicochemical properties were measured; microbial biomass was assessed by fumigation-extraction with correction factors for biochar sorption (1.53, 1.55, 1.62, and 1.77 for 0, 3, 12, and 30 t ha−1; 1.55 for annual 1 t ha−1); basal respiration, CMC, and qCO2 were calculated. Fauna feeding was assessed by bait lamina, litter decomposition by 2-mm and 0.16-mm mesh litterbags with corn stover, and mineralization by laboratory incubation after adding ground corn stover at 0.15% (equivalent to 3 t stover ha−1), with destructive sampling at 7, 14, and 28 days.
  • Analyses used R version 2.15.0; plot means were used to avoid pseudoreplication. General linear models, ANOVA, Pearson correlations, and generalized linear models with AICc-based model selection (MuMIn) were used.

Limitations

  • The paper states that small sample size and high within-group variability may cause type II error for CMC, qCO2, fauna feeding, decomposition, and NO2+NO3 and PO4 mineralization; models for CMC, PO4, and NO2+NO3 had low predictability.
  • The paper states that mechanisms for increased N mineralization are unknown and probably transient or restricted to pot/lab conditions, and that field-scale soluble ion effects were not observed. It also states no concern for the tested alkaline biochar in this temperate soil, but this must be verified for other soil and biochar types, and the authors lack direct data on microbial community composition for the fungi-related explanation.
  • Evident from the text: the study covers one biochar type/feedstock/pyrolysis, one soil/climate/crop system, three field replicates per treatment, a three-year medium-term window, and indirect functional assays (bait lamina, litterbags, 28-day lab incubation), which limit generality and mechanistic inference.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.01.035

Cites

97 of 97 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 32 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    MCB was significantly higher with 30 t/ha biochar compared to controls (p=0.03).

    “MCB, however, was significantly higher with an addition of 30 t ha -1 biochar compared to controls (p=0.03)(Table 1, Figure 2)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Models for PO4 and NO2+NO3 mineralization showed very low predictability.

    “Models derived for PO 4 and NO 2 +NO 3 showed very low predictability.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Mean annual pH was significantly increased only by annual 1 t/ha and 30 t/ha biochar additions (2.4 and 2.8%, respectively) compared to control.

    “When the mean annual values were compared individually, only the annual 1 t ha -1 addition rate and the 30 t ha -1 addition rate showed significant pH increases (2.4 and 2.8%, respectively) compared to control plots (Supplementary Table S1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Increased PO4 was observed in fall sampling with annual biochar applications.

    “EC, NO 2 , NO 3 , NH 4 and SO 4 values did not differ in biochar-amended plots compared to control plots, neither in summer or fall (Figure 1), nor in the mean annual values (Supplementary Table S1), but increased PO 4 was observed in the fall sampling with annual biochar applications (Supplementary Figure S1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Models derived for mineralization rates showed a general lack of effect of biochar addition rate.

    “The models derived for the mineralization rates also showed a general lack of effect of biochar addition rate (Supplementary Table S6).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 36
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 12

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Particle-size distribution and soil moisture characteristics were not significantly affected by biochar additions at any application rate, indicating homogeneous texture in the experimental plots.

    “Particle-size distribution and soil moisture characteristics were not significantly affected by biochar additions irrespective of application rates, indicating a homogeneous texture in the experimental plots (Supplementary Table S1, Figure 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The model for CMC was not acceptable due to low predictability and because the only parameter included was not significant by itself.

    “while the model derived for CMC was not acceptable due its low predictability and because the only parameter included was not significant by itself.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In 2-mm mesh bags, decomposition was positively correlated with logMCB (r=0.59) and negatively correlated with qCO2 (r=-0.71).

    “In the 2-mm mesh bags, significant positive correlations were found between decomposition and logMCB (r=0.59), and a negative correlation with qCO2 (r=-0.71)(Supplementary Table S3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Models for logMCB, BAS, CMC and qCO2 accounted for 56, 62, 14 and 68% of observed variance, respectively.

    “The models for logMCB, BAS, CMC and qCO 2 accounted for 56, 62, 14 and 68% of the observed variance, respectively.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    None of the mineralization products assessed showed significantly different values in biochar-added plots compared to controls, except Cl and SO4, which showed negative rates in all biochar addition rates and the 30 t/ha addition, respectively.

    “None of the mineralization products assessed showed significantly different values in biochar-added plots compared to controls, with the exception of Cl and SO 4 , showing negative rates in all the biochar addition rates and the 30 t ha -1 addition, respectively (Figure 5).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Most of the nutrients released in the mineralization experiment come from corn stover rather than from native soil organic matter or biochar mineralization.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Water extracts are representative of the most bioavailable fraction for plants and soil biota.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Summer feeding was almost entirely explained by soil texture, except qualitative summer feeding at 30-60 mm depth, which was also positively influenced by MCB and soil SOC, and negatively by PO4.

    “Hence, feeding was almost entirely explained by soil texture, with the only exception of the qualitative summer feeding rates at 30-60 mm-depth, which appeared to be also positively influenced by MCB and soil SOC, and negatively by PO 4 3-.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The model for qCO2 included moisture and SOC as positive parameters and sand content as a negative parameter, although SOC was not significant by itself.

    “Finally, the model for qCO 2 included moisture and SOC as positive parameters, and sand content as a negative parameter, although SOC was not in itself significant.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the model for 0.16-mm mesh bag decomposition, logMCB, clay and SOC had positive contributions, but biochar application rate did not, explaining 74% of variance.

    “In the 0.16-mm mesh bags, the decomposition model, explaining 74% of the variance, included a positive contribution of logMCB, clay and SOC, but not of the biochar application rate (Supplementary Table S5).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    No direct correlations were found between litter decomposition and biochar addition rates, probably due to high variability making type II error plausible.

    “No differences were found in decomposition rates assessed with litter bags whether or not biochar had been added to soil, for any of the mesh sizes (Figure 4, Table 1), and no direct correlations were found between decomposition and biochar addition rates, probably related to the high variability in these response that makes a type II error plausible (Supplementary Table S3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In summer, soil pH was significantly higher at all biochar rates compared to control, while no differences were observed in fall.

    “In summer, pH values were significantly higher at all biochar rates compared to control plots, while no differences were observed in fall (Figure 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    BAS, CMC and qCO2 did not significantly vary with biochar application rates compared to control.

    “BAS, CMC and qCO 2 did not significantly vary with different application rates when compared to control plots.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Biochar application rate was positively correlated with summer PO4 and fall Cl (r=0.74 and 0.61, respectively).

    “Furthermore, significant positive correlations were detected between biochar application rate and summer PO 4 and fall Cl (r=0.74 and 0.61 respectively, data not shown).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The model for MCB included only moisture as an explanatory parameter, indicating higher MCB with higher moisture, and did not include biochar application rate.

    “The model derived for MCB only included moisture as an explanatory parameter (Supplementary Table S2), indicating higher MCB with higher moisture, while biochar application rate was not included.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The model for BAS included only soil texture.

    “In the model for BAS only soil texture was included”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Soil moisture was the main explanation for increased MCB, as shown by strong positive correlation with biochar application rates (r=0.75) and by the model for MCB where soil moisture is the only parameter included.

    “In our study, moisture was the main explanation for increased MCB, as shown by its strong positive correlation with biochar application rates (r=0.75,data not shown), as well as by the model derived for MCB, where soil moisture is the only parameter included (SupplementaryTable S2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the model for 2-mm mesh bag decomposition, biochar and pH had positive effects and Cl had a negative effect, explaining 72% of variance.

    “However, when the 2-mm mesh bags decomposition was modeled, biochar and pH were shown to have a positive effect on this response variable, and Cl a negative effect (explaining 72% of the variance;Supplementary Table S5).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    SOC was significantly higher only with 12 t/ha biochar in summer compared to control, but not in fall.

    “SOC values were only significantly higher with an application rate of 12 t ha -1 in summer (p=0.049)compared to control plots, but not in fall.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In fall feeding rates, more consistent trends were found, with a positive effect of biochar in some models (though not significant by itself in some cases) and a general negative contribution of loam contents.

    “In the fall feeding rates, more consistent trends were found, with a positive effect of biochar in some of the models (although this parameter was not significant by itself in some cases) and a general negative contribution of loam contents (Supplementary Table S4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Only models for Cl, NH4, SO4 and CO2 showed relatively high predictability (76, 70, 57 and 51% of variance), some including pH as a negative parameter (Cl and SO4) and soluble PO4 as a positive parameter (Cl and NH4), and MCB in CO2 and NH4 models.

    “Only the models obtained for Cl, NH 4 , SO 4 and CO 2 , showed a relatively high predictability (76,70,57 and 51% of the variance observed), some including pH as a negative parameter (Cl and SO 4 models) and soluble PO 4 as a positive parameter (Cl and NH 4 models), but also MCB in the case the CO 2 and NH 4 models.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The model for 0.16-mm mesh decomposition did not include biochar but included positive contributions of MCB and SOC, which were associated with biochar addition rate.

    “Similarly, the model for microbial and microfauna decomposition without the regulatory effect of mesofauna (that of the 0.16-mm mesh litterbags), did not include biochar, but included a positive contribution of MCB and SOC, which in turn we observed to be associated with the biochar addition application rate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The model for 2-mm mesh decomposition included biochar addition as a positive parameter, which is not in agreement with the general lack of biochar effects on fauna activity.

    “In contrast, the model for decomposition rates with access by mesofauna (2-mm mesh litterbags), included biochar addition as a positive parameter, which is not in agreement with the general lack of biochar effects on fauna activity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Biochar application did not directly affect fauna feeding activity in this temperate soil cropped to corn, despite changes in microbial biomass and soil pH.

    “Fauna feeding activity was not directly affected by biochar applications, in spite of the observed changes in both microbial biomass and soil pH.”
    • Also stated in: § Sampling · plain
      “No significant differences of the biochar-added plots compared to the respective controls (0 t ha -1 ) were observed (p<0.05,n=3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    In NO2+NO3 and PO4 mineralization, the lack of significant effects might be due to a type II error.

    “In NO 2 +NO 3 and PO 4 mineralization, the lack of significant effects might be also due to a type II error.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The absence of changes in microbial activity measured as BAS indicates that net microbial processing of organic C did not change with biochar application but rather with differences in soil texture.

    “In contrast, the absence of changes in microbial activity, when measured as BAS, indicates that net microbial processing of organic C did not change with application of biochar but rather with differences in soil texture.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Microbial biomass was included as a positive parameter in one summer model, and biochar rate in some fall models, suggesting that soil fauna activity increases are partly explained by increased food availability with biochar addition.

    “Also, microbial biomass was included as a positive parameter in one of the summer models, as well as biochar rate in some of the fall models, which suggests that soil fauna activity increases are also partly explained by increased food availability with biochar addition, since as previously reported, MCB was positively correlated with biochar addition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Modeling showed a positive contribution of biochar to mesofauna activity and litter decomposition facilitated by mesofauna.

    “The medium-term effects of biochar on soil biota in the studied sandy loam soil in a temperate climate were restricted to the higher microbial abundance without increases in microbial activity, as already reported in the same plots shortly after the addition of biochar, although a positive contribution of biochar was also shown for mesofauna activity and litter decomposition facilitated by mesofa”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Exposure to genetically modified corn in field conditions has not been linked to detrimental effects on soil invertebrates or functions such as decomposition.

    “Exposure to genetically modified corn in field conditions has not been linked to detrimental effects on soil invertebrates or functions such as decomposition (Cortet et”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cortet et

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The bait-lamina test mainly reflects fauna feeding activity, such as that of collembolans and enchytraeids, but also earthworms.

    “Some degree of microbial decomposition of the bait could be expected (Von Törne 1990, Kratz 1998), but it mainly reflects fauna feeding activity, such as that of collembolans and enchytraeids (Helling et al. 1998, Gongalsky et al. 2008), but also earthworms (Van Gestel et al. 2003, Förster et al. 2004, Hamel et al. 2007, Gongalsky et al. 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Helling et al. 1998 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Gongalsky et al. 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Van Gestel et al. 2003 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Basal respiration after 24 h incubation at 20oC is taken as a measure of total microbial activity.

    “Pell et al. (2006) after 24 h of incubation at 20ºC, and taken as measure of total microbial activity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pell et al. (2006)

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Excessive increases in pH might reduce the abundance of faunal groups such as collembolans, mites, earthworms and enchytraeids and change the entire soil community and their functions.

    “On the other hand, excessive increases in pH might reduce the abundance of faunal groups such as collembolans, mites or earthworms and enchytreids and change the entire soil community and their functions (Bardgett 2005, McCormack et al. 2013)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bardgett 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites McCormack et al. 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The Walkley-Black procedure does not fully reflect C content of biochars but measures the more labile fraction, potentially quantifying the most biologically relevant C fraction of biochars.

    “This method does not fully reflect C content of biochars (Manning et al. 2009), but the more labile fraction (Calvelo Pereira et al. 2011), hence potentially quantifying the most biologically relevant C fraction of biochars, potentially mineralizable by microorganisms which in turn could also affect other biological groups and soil functions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Manning et al. 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Calvelo Pereira et al. 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The metabolic quotient (qCO2) has been suggested as an indicator of the energetic efficiency of the community and as a measure of microbial community stress.

    “Microorganisms C-use efficiency was assessed by the metabolic quotient (qCO 2 ), obtained from the BAS/MCB ratio, which has been suggested as an indicator of the energetic efficiency of the community and hence of the succession and stabilization of the community after a disturbance (Anderson and Domsch 1990), as well a measure of microbial community stress (Wardle and Ghani 1995).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Anderson and Domsch 1990

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Wardle and Ghani 1995

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The use of corn stover was intentional to mimic actual plant litter, as recommended for the litterbag method.

    “The use of corn stover was intentional in order to mimic the actual plant litter, as recommended for the litterbag method (Knacker et al. 2003).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Knacker et al. 2003 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The increased N mineralization trend in this study is probably transient and may be restricted to the conditions of a pot experiment, as it was not observed at the field scale.

    “The mechanisms for increased Nmineralization in our study are unknown, but this trend is probably transient and may be restricted to the conditions of a pot experiment, as this was not observed at the field scale.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    None of the short-term nutrient mineralization effects observed in laboratory pot experiments were translated to differential soluble ion contents at the field scale, suggesting these effects are transient or counteracted by processes such as rainfall, plant uptake, or nutrient gaseous losses.

    “None of the short-term nutrient mineralization effects observed in the laboratory pot experiments were translated to differential soluble ion contents at the field scale, hence suggesting these effects to be transient or counteracted by other processes such as rainfall, plant uptake, or nutrient gaseous losses that also contribute to the observed soluble ion contents.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Most of the nutrients released in the mineralization experiment come from corn stover rather than from native soil organic matter or biochar mineralization.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Water extracts are representative of the most bioavailable fraction for plants and soil biota.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Extractable mineral N may not accumulate in soil even with lower N leaching, either because of greater plant N uptake or incorporation in organic N.

    “Even with lower N leaching (Major et al. 2010), extractable mineral N may not accumulate in soil, either because of greater plant N uptake (Major et al. 2012) or incorporation in organic N (Güereña et al. 2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Major et al. 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Major et al. 2012 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Güereña et al. 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The medium-term effects of biochar on soil biota in the studied sandy loam soil in a temperate climate were restricted to higher microbial abundance without increases in microbial activity.

    “The medium-term effects of biochar on soil biota in the studied sandy loam soil in a temperate climate were restricted to the higher microbial abundance without increases in microbial activity, as already reported in the same plots shortly after the addition of biochar, although a positive contribution of biochar was also shown for mesofauna activity and litter decomposition facilitated by mesofa”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Coarse soil particles and soil particle aggregation processes are directly related to soil porosity, a key property for fauna movement and performance in soil.

    “Coarse soil particles and soil particle aggregation processes are directly related to soil porosity, a key property for fauna movement and performance in soil (Lavelle et al. 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lavelle et al. 2006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Three plots were prepared per biochar addition rate in a completely randomized design.

    “Three plots were prepared per biochar addition rate in a completely randomized design.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The 2-mm mesh litterbags assess decomposition resulting from combined action of microorganisms, microfauna and mesofauna, while 0.16-mm mesh only accounts for decomposition due to microorganisms and microfauna.

    “The 2-mm mesh bags assess decomposition resulting from the combined action of microorganisms, microfauna and mesofauna, while the 0.16-mm mesh only accounts for the decomposition due to microorganisms and microfauna (Bradford et al. 2002).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bradford et al. 2002 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Only the mean value per plot was used for statistical analysis, preventing pseudoreplication.

    “Several measurements were carried out within each plot, but only the mean value per plot was used for the statistical analysis, preventing pseudoreplication.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Higher microbial biomass is expected to translate into increased microbial grazer populations and from them to predators.

    “Higher microbial biomass is expected to translate into increased microbial grazer populations and from them to predators, as shown in microcosm experiments (Cole et al. 2004).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cole et al. 2004 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    No concern about the use of the tested alkaline biochar in the studied temperate soil emanated from the reported experiments after three years, but has to be verified for other soil and biochar types.

    “No concern about the use of the tested alkaline biochar in the studied temperate soil emanated from the reported experiments after three years, but has to be verified for other soil and biochar types.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The observed changes in nutrient dynamics were likely related to salt effects in short-term laboratory studies, which have significance for use of biochar in growing media or potting soil, but were not shown to be of concern under field conditions.

    “The observed changes in nutrient dynamics were likely related to salt effects in short-term laboratory studies which have significance for use of biochar in growing media or potting soil, but were not shown to be of concern under field conditions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Most of the nutrients released in the mineralization experiment come from corn stover rather than from native soil organic matter or biochar mineralization.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Water extracts are representative of the most bioavailable fraction for plants and soil biota.
44 of 44

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most of the nutrients released in the mineralization experiment come from corn stover rather than from native soil organic matter or biochar mineralization.

    “Although mineralization products measured in our study might also come from native organic matter or from biochar mineralization itself (Keith et al. 2011), most of the nutrients released should come from stover.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Water extracts are representative of the most bioavailable fraction for plants and soil biota.

    “Furthermore, we consider water extracts to be representative of the most bioavailable fraction for plants and soil biota.”
2 of 2

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?

  • Biochars produced through a slow pyrolysis process at temperature of >500 °C from various feedstocks with lower ligno-cellulosic contents (i.e., manure, fruit peels, leaf litter) resulted in greater microbial biomass in biochar-amended soils.

    “Some other studies also reported that biochars produced through a slow pyrolysis process at temperature of >500 °C from various feedstocks with lower ligno-cellulosic contents (i.e., manure, fruit peels, leaf litter) resulted in greater microbial biomass in biochar-amended soils (Ameloot et al., 2013;Domene et al., 2014;Luo et al., 2013).”

    From Biochar implications for sustainable agriculture and environment: A review (2019) · cites this paper as Domene et al., 2014

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.

  • Litterbag mesh size changes within the methods

    Minor

    The methods specify 2-mm and 0.16-mm litterbags, but then describe the first mesh as 0.2 mm.

  • Correlation table labels the smaller mesh as 0.1 mm

    Minor

    The litterbag methods and decomposition model identify the smaller mesh as 0.16 mm, but the correlation table labels it 0.1 mm.

  • Figure caption misstates time since biochar application

    Minor

    The methods date the one-time application to April 2007 and the study to 2010, roughly three years later, whereas the caption says four years prior.

  • Planting date conflicts with fertilization interval

    Minor

    Three weeks after planting in mid-May would be in early June, not early July.

  • Summer-model summary omits a 28% fit

    Minor

    The stated range of 52-77% excludes the 0.28 r2 reported for the summer quantitative feeding model at 30-60 mm.

5 of 5

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 100 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Domene, X., Mattana, S., Hanley, K., Enders, A., & Lehmann, J.
Affiliations
  • Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES)
  • Centre for Research on Ecology and Forestry Applications (ES)
  • Cornell University (US)
Corresponding author
Domene, Xavier
ORCID
Venue
Soil Biology and Biochemistry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-05
Volume
72
Pages
152-162
ISSN
0038-0717 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.01.035
OpenAlex
W2034436872
Semantic Scholar
183870e7019d18df847f9c72bf4e7de1f19fd557
Cited by
184
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 4
FWCI
31.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Soil Biology and Biochemistry (publishedVersion)
  • Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
  • Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (CGL2010-15766)
  • United States Department of Agriculture (NY-125487)
  • New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
  • National Science Foundation's Basic Research for Enabling Agricultural Development (IOS-0965336)
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
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Management and Crop Yield
Keywords
biochar, maize, soil organisms, soil microbial abundance, mesofauna, litter decomposition, nutrient mineralization, soil organic carbon, soil pH, temperate soils, long-term biochar application

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

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