The DOI matches its Crossref record; 97 of the 100 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 32 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
44 Own result · 21 Not checked yet · 12 Own interpretation · 4 Own method · 2 No basis given
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
“MCB, however, was significantly higher with an addition of 30 t ha -1 biochar compared to controls (p=0.03)(Table 1, Figure 2)”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.2. Microorganism abundance, activity and efficiency
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
“Models derived for PO 4 and NO 2 +NO 3 showed very low predictability.”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.5. Mineralization studies
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
“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).”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.1. Soil physicochemical properties
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
“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).”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.1. Soil physicochemical properties
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
“The models derived for the mineralization rates also showed a general lack of effect of biochar addition rate (Supplementary Table S6).”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.5. Mineralization studies
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 models derived for summer feeding rates explained between 52 and 77% of the variance observed.”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.3. Fauna feeding activity
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
“and was positively correlated with biochar application rates (r=0.60,p=0.01, data not shown).”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.2. Microorganism abundance, activity and efficiency
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
“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).”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.1. Soil physicochemical properties
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
“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).”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.4. Litter decomposition
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
“No significant differences in the feeding rates were found between biochar-added plots and controls, irrespective of season (Figure 3, Table 1) nor were correlations with rates of application significant (Supplementary Table S3).”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.3. Fauna feeding activity
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. 36
- Probably not a substantial claim. 12
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
“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).”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.1. Soil physicochemical properties
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.
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 model derived for CMC was not acceptable due its low predictability and because the only parameter included was not significant by itself.”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.2. Microorganism abundance, activity and efficiency
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.
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 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).”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.4. Litter decomposition
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
“The models for logMCB, BAS, CMC and qCO 2 accounted for 56, 62, 14 and 68% of the observed variance, respectively.”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.2. Microorganism abundance, activity and efficiency
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
“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).”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.5. Mineralization studies
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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- 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.
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
“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-.”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.3. Fauna feeding activity
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.
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
“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.”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.2. Microorganism abundance, activity and efficiency
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
“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).”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.4. Litter decomposition
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
“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).”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.4. Litter decomposition
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.
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 summer, pH values were significantly higher at all biochar rates compared to control plots, while no differences were observed in fall (Figure 1).”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.1. Soil physicochemical properties
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.
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
“BAS, CMC and qCO 2 did not significantly vary with different application rates when compared to control plots.”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.2. Microorganism abundance, activity and efficiency
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.
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
“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).”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.1. Soil physicochemical properties
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
“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.”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.2. Microorganism abundance, activity and efficiency
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
“In the model for BAS only soil texture was included”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.2. Microorganism abundance, activity and efficiency
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
“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).”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 4.1.1. Effects on microbial abundance, activity and C-use efficiency
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.
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
“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).”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.4. Litter decomposition
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 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
“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.”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.1. Soil physicochemical properties
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.
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 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).”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.3. Fauna feeding activity
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
“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.”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.5. Mineralization studies
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
“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.”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 4.2.1. Litter decomposition
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.
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 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.”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 4.2.1. Litter decomposition
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.
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
“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).”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > Sampling
plainn = 3- 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.
- Also stated in: § Sampling · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In NO 2 +NO 3 and PO 4 mineralization, the lack of significant effects might be also due to a type II error.”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.5. Mineralization studies
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
“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.”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 4.1.1. Effects on microbial abundance, activity and C-use efficiency
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
“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.”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > Lehmann et al. 2011, Woolf and Lehmann 2012 for reviews on this topic).
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.
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 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”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 5. CONCLUSIONS
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
“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”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > Güereña et al. (2013).
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cortet et
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > Sampling
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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Pell et al. (2006) after 24 h of incubation at 20ºC, and taken as measure of total microbial activity.”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > Sampling
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pell et al. (2006)
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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)”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > Sampling
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bardgett 2005
- Not checked yetcites McCormack et al. 2013 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. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > Sampling
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Manning et al. 2009
- Not checked yetcites Calvelo Pereira 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > Sampling
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Anderson and Domsch 1990
- Not checked yetcites Wardle and Ghani 1995
hedged- 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. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 2.5. Litter decomposition
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Knacker et al. 2003 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.
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 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.”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > Sampling
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
“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.”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 4.2.2. Mineralization
hedged- 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: 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > Sampling
What the sources say
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 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”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 5. CONCLUSIONS
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
“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).”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > Lehmann et al. 2011, Woolf and Lehmann 2012 for reviews on this topic).
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lavelle et al. 2006 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.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Three plots were prepared per biochar addition rate in a completely randomized design.”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > Güereña et al. (2013).
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 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).”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 2.5. Litter decomposition
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bradford et al. 2002 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.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Several measurements were carried out within each plot, but only the mean value per plot was used for the statistical analysis, preventing pseudoreplication.”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 2.8. Statistical analysis
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.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > Sampling
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cole et al. 2004 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. 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
“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.”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 5. CONCLUSIONS
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.
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 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.”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 5. CONCLUSIONS
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: 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.
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.”
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
“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.
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
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 2.5. Litter decomposition
“Decomposition was assessed in 2-mm and 0.16-mm mesh litterbags”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 2.5. Litter decomposition
“The 0.2-mm mesh corresponded to a regular PVC insect screen”
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
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > Table 1.
“Decomposition (0.1mm-mesh)”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 2.5. Litter decomposition
“Decomposition was assessed in 2-mm and 0.16-mm mesh litterbags”
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
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > Güereña et al. (2013).
“In April 2007, biochar was applied before planting, at rates of 0, 3, 12, 30 t ha -1 .”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > Sampling
“Figure 1.Soil moisture in the summer sampling, and pH, electrical conductivity, and soil organic carbon in both summer (black bars) and fall (white bars) for different biochar application rates (0, 3, 12 and 30 t ha -1 added once four years prior to the study, and 1 t ha -1 added annually).”
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
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > Güereña et al. (2013).
“a NPK fertilizer (10-20-20) was applied at planting (mid-May)”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > Güereña et al. (2013).
“Three weeks after planting (early July), a secondary fertilization was applied”
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
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > 3.3. Fauna feeding activity
“The models derived for summer feeding rates explained between 52 and 77% of the variance observed.”
§ Medium-term effects of corn biochar addition on soil biota activities and functions in a temperate soil cropped to corn > Sampling
“30-60 0.412 -0.0841 -29.5 0.28”
Citations
Cites
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2000) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 355,893
Standard methods: For the examination of water and waste water
Water Environment Federation., Water Pollution Control Federation., American Water Works Association., & American Public Health Association. (1990) · Analytical Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/0003-2697(90)90598-4 · Cited by 72,107
A modified single solution method for the determination of phosphate in natural waters
Murphy, J., & Riley, J. P. (1962) · Analytica Chimica Acta · doi:10.1016/s0003-2670(00)88444-5 · Cited by 21,097
Total Carbon, Organic Carbon, and Organic Matter
Nelson, D. W., & Sommers, L. E. (1996) · Soil Science Society of America book series · doi:10.2136/sssabookser5.3.c34 · Cited by 13,048
Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Chemical and microbiological properties.
Page, A. L. (1982) · Cited by 12,923
Gee, G. W., & Bauder, J. W. (1986) · Soil Science Society of America book series · doi:10.2136/sssabookser5.1.2ed.c15 · Cited by 10,674
Total Carbon, Organic Carbon, and Organic Matter
Nelson, D. W., & Sommers, L. E. (1982) · Agronomy monograph/Agronomy · doi:10.2134/agronmonogr9.2.2ed.c29 · Cited by 10,032
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
Self-citationMICROBIAL STRESS-RESPONSE PHYSIOLOGY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION
Schimel, J. P., Balser, T. C., & Wallenstein, M. D. (2007) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/06-0219 · Cited by 3,128
Biochar for environmental management: science and technology
(2009) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.47-0296 · Cited by 2,947
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
Self-citationThe ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems
Altieri, M. A. (1999) · Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/s0167-8809(99)00028-6 · Cited by 2,561
Jeffery, S., Verheijen, F. G. A., van der Velde, M., & Bastos, A. C. (2011) · Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/j.agee.2011.08.015 · Cited by 2,422
A review of biochar and its use and function in soil
Sohi, S. P., Krull, E., Lopez-Capel, E., & Bol, R. (2010) · Advances in Agronomy · doi:10.1016/s0065-2113(10)05002-9 · Cited by 2,240
Black Carbon Increases Cation Exchange Capacity in Soils
Liang, B., Lehmann, J., Solomon, D., Kinyangi, J., Grossman, J., O'Neill, B., Skjemstad, J. O., Thies, J., Luizão, F. J., Petersen, J., et al. (2006) · Soil Science Society of America Journal · doi:10.2136/sssaj2005.0383 · Cited by 2,191
Self-citationLehmann, J., Pereira da Silva, J., Steiner, C., Nehls, T., Zech, W., & Glaser, B. (2003) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1023/a:1022833116184 · Cited by 1,878
Self-citationBiochar and its effects on plant productivity and nutrient cycling: A meta-analysis
Biederman, L. A., & Harpole, W. S. (2013) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12037 · Cited by 1,737
Soil invertebrates and ecosystem services
Lavelle, P., Decaëns, T., Aubert, M., Barot, S., Blouin, M., Bureau, F., Margerie, P., Mora, P., & Rossi, J.-P. (2006) · European Journal of Soil Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ejsobi.2006.10.002 · Cited by 1,606
Positive and negative carbon mineralization priming effects among a variety of biochar-amended soils
Zimmerman, A. R., Gao, B., & Ahn, M.-Y. (2011) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.02.005 · Cited by 1,438
ANDERSON, T., & Domsch, K. H. (1993) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/0038-0717(93)90140-7 · Cited by 1,406
Maize yield and nutrition during 4 years after biochar application to a Colombian savanna oxisol
Major, J., Rondon, M., Molina, D., Riha, S. J., & Lehmann, J. (2010) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1007/s11104-010-0327-0 · Cited by 1,382
Self-citationBiochar for environmental management: an introduction
Arbestain, M. C., Amonette, J. E., Singh, B., Wang, T., & Schmidt, H. P. (2015) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203762264-8 · Cited by 1,276
Mycorrhizal responses to biochar in soil–concepts and mechanisms
Warnock, D. D., Lehmann, J., Kuyper, T. W., & Rillig, M. C. (2007) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1007/s11104-007-9391-5 · Cited by 1,269
Self-citationBiochar impact on nutrient leaching from a Midwestern agricultural soil
Laird, D., Fleming, P., Wang, B., Horton, R., & Karlen, D. (2010) · Geoderma · doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2010.05.012 · Cited by 1,250
Review of the stability of biochar in soils: predictability of O:C molar ratios
Spokas, K. A. (2010) · Carbon Management · doi:10.4155/cmt.10.32 · Cited by 1,160 · cited 2×
“…structure, biochar is more stable than any other organic amendment which provides high recalcitrance to microbial decomposition (Spokas, 2010), which has led to the consideration of biochar production as a C-negative technology for climate change mitigation (Woolf et al., 2010).”
BackgroundBiochar: A synthesis of its agronomic impact beyond carbon sequestration
Spokas, K. A., Cantrell, K. B., Novak, J. M., Archer, D. W., Ippolito, J. A., Collins, H. P., Boateng, A. A., Lima, I. M., Lamb, M. C., McAloon, A. J., et al. (2012) · Journal of Environmental Quality · doi:10.2134/jeq2011.0069 · Cited by 1,014
A Review of Biochar and Soil Nitrogen Dynamics
Clough, T., Condron, L., Kammann, C., & Müller, C. (2013) · Agronomy · doi:10.3390/agronomy3020275 · Cited by 969 · cited 1×
“…in our aged biochar plot samples, decreased nitrate contents have typically been explained as a result of increased microbial biomass and N assimilation shortly after the application of fresh biochars with high labile C contents (Bruun et al., 2012, Deenik et al., 2010; Clough et al., 2013).”
BackgroundPhysical Properties of Biochar
Downie, A., Crosky, A., & Munroe, P. (2012) · doi:10.4324/9781849770552-9 · Cited by 949
Cheng, C.-H., Lehmann, J., & Engelhard, M. H. (2008) · Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta · doi:10.1016/j.gca.2008.01.010 · Cited by 936 · cited 2×
“…organically bound nutrients (Lehmann et al., 2009); (2) reduced nutrient leaching due to biochars’ high cation exchange capacity (Liang et al., 2006; Cheng et al., 2008; Laird et al., 2010; Spokas et al., 2012); (3) lower gaseous N losses by ammonia volatilization (Taghizadeh-Toosi et al., 2012)…”
BackgroundSelf-citation(2010) · Joint Research Centre (European Commission) · doi:10.2788/472 · Cited by 851
Charcoal as a habitat for microbes and its effect on the microbial community of the underlying humus
Pietikäinen, J., Kiikkilä, O., & Fritze, H. (2000) · Oikos · doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.890203.x · Cited by 792
Wardle, D. A., & Ghani, A. (1995) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/0038-0717(95)00093-t · Cited by 779
Biochar and denitrification in soils: when, how much and why does biochar reduce N2O emissions?
Cayuela, M. L., Sánchez-Monedero, M. A., Roig, A., Hanley, K., Enders, A., & Lehmann, J. (2013) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep01732 · Cited by 743
Self-citationKookana, R. S., Sarmah, A. K., Van Zwieten, L., Krull, E., & Singh, B. (2011) · Advances in agronomy · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-385538-1.00003-2 · Cited by 712
Black carbon affects the cycling of non-black carbon in soil
Liang, B., Lehmann, J., Sohi, S. P., Thies, J. E., O’Neill, B., Trujillo, L., Gaunt, J., Solomon, D., Grossman, J., Neves, E. G., et al. (2010) · Organic Geochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.orggeochem.2009.09.007 · Cited by 668
Self-citationSteiner, C., Glaser, B., Geraldes Teixeira, W., Lehmann, J., Blum, W. E. H., & Zech, W. (2008) · Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science · doi:10.1002/jpln.200625199 · Cited by 654
Self-citationQuantifying the Total and Bioavailable Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Dioxins in Biochars
Hale, S. E., Lehmann, J., Rutherford, D., Zimmerman, A. R., Bachmann, R. T., Shitumbanuma, V., O’Toole, A., Sundqvist, K. L., Arp, H. P. H., & Cornelissen, G. (2012) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es203984k · Cited by 634
Self-citationThe biology of soil : a community and ecosystem approach.
Bardgett, R. D. (2005) · Cited by 612
Nielsen, U. N., Ayres, E., Wall, D. H., & Bardgett, R. D. (2010) · European Journal of Soil Science · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01314.x · Cited by 605
Characteristics of Biochar: Biological Properties
Thies, J., & Rillig, M. (2012) · doi:10.4324/9781849770552-13 · Cited by 573
Uchimiya, M., Lima, I. M., Klasson, K. T., & Wartelle, L. H. (2010) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.05.020 · Cited by 530
Effects of slow and fast pyrolysis biochar on soil C and N turnover dynamics
Bruun, E. W., Ambus, P., Egsgaard, H., & Hauggaard-Nielsen, H. (2012) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.11.019 · Cited by 519
Charcoal volatile matter content influences plant growth and soil nitrogen transformations
Deenik, J. L., McClellan, T., Uehara, G., Antal, M. J., & Campbell, S. (2010) · Soil Science Society of America Journal · doi:10.2136/sssaj2009.0115 · Cited by 485
Hale, S. E., Alling, V., Martinsen, V., Mulder, J., Breedveld, G. D., & Cornelissen, G. (2013) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.12.057 · Cited by 480
Biochar effects on soil nutrient transformations
Hale, S. E., Cornelissen, G., & Werner, D. (2015) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203762264-22 · Cited by 480
Biochar adsorbed ammonia is bioavailable
Taghizadeh-Toosi, A., Clough, T. J., Sherlock, R. R., & Condron, L. M. (2012) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1007/s11104-011-0870-3 · Cited by 453
Microbiota, fauna, and mesh size interactions in litter decomposition
Bradford, M. A., Tordoff, G. M., Eggers, T., Jones, T. H., & Newington, J. E. (2002) · Oikos · doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.990212.x · Cited by 433
Belser, L. W., & Mays, E. L. (1980) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.39.3.505-510.1980 · Cited by 429
Release of K, Cl, and S during pyrolysis and combustion of high-chlorine biomass
Johansen, J. M., Jakobsen, J. G., Frandsen, F. J., & Glarborg, P. (2011) · Energy & Fuels · doi:10.1021/ef201098n · Cited by 386
Interactive Priming of Biochar and Labile Organic Matter Mineralization in a Smectite-Rich Soil
Keith, A., Singh, B., & Singh, B. P. (2011) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es202186j · Cited by 343
The Biology of Soil: A Community and Ecosystem Approach
Usher, M. B. (2006) · Soil Use and Management · doi:10.1111/j.1475-2743.2006.00049_1.x · Cited by 330
Microbiological methods for assessing soil quality
Bloem, J., HOPKINS, D. W., & Benedetti, A. (2005) · CABI Publishing eBooks · doi:10.1079/9780851990989.0000 · Cited by 309
Influence of Pecan Biochar on Physical Properties of a Norfolk Loamy Sand
Busscher, W. J., Novak, J. M., Evans, D. E., Watts, D. W., Niandou, M. A. S., & Ahmedna, M. (2010) · Soil Science · doi:10.1097/ss.0b013e3181cb7f46 · Cited by 299
Microbiological methods for assessing soil quality
(2005) · CABI eBooks · doi:10.1079/9780851990989.0050 · Cited by 292
Güereña, D., Lehmann, J., Hanley, K., Enders, A., Hyland, C., & Riha, S. (2013) · Plant and Soil · doi:10.1007/s11104-012-1383-4 · Cited by 284
Self-citationContribution to characterisation of biochar to estimate the labile fraction of carbon
Calvelo Pereira, R., Kaal, J., Camps Arbestain, M., Pardo Lorenzo, R., Aitkenhead, W., Hedley, M., Macías, F., Hindmarsh, J., & Maciá-Agulló, J. A. (2011) · Organic Geochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.orggeochem.2011.09.002 · Cited by 271
Nutrient leaching in a Colombian savanna Oxisol amended with biochar
Major, J., Rondon, M., Molina, D., Riha, S. J., & Lehmann, J. (2012) · Journal of Environmental Quality · doi:10.2134/jeq2011.0128 · Cited by 261 · cited 2×
“Significant differences in the rates of the 5, n ¼ 3). may not accumulate in soil, either because of greater plant N uptake (Major et al., 2012) or incorporation inorganic N (Güereña et al., 2013).”
BackgroundSelf-citationMann, L., Tolbert, V., & Cushman, J. (2002) · Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/s0167-8809(01)00166-9 · Cited by 237 · cited 1×
“The day after, the same corn stover used in the litterbag experiment, but finely ground, was added at a rate of 0.15% (equivalent to a 3 t stover ha 1), only slightly above the range of the stover inputs in corn crops reported by Mann et al. (2002).”
MethodInfluentialBiochar: Carbon Sequestration, Land Remediation, and Impacts on Soil Microbiology
Ennis, C. J., Evans, A. G., Islam, M., Ralebitso-Senior, T. K., & Senior, E. (2012) · Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology · doi:10.1080/10643389.2011.574115 · Cited by 232
Pioneering works in biochar research, Japan
Ogawa, M., & Okimori, Y. (2010) · Soil Research · doi:10.1071/sr10006 · Cited by 232
Lehmann, J. C., CZIMCZIK, C. I., Laird, D., & Sohi, S. (2009) · Earthscan eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781849770552-18 · Cited by 205
Self-citationKratz, W. (1998) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/bf02986394 · Cited by 178
Hollister, C. C., Bisogni, J. J., & Lehmann, J. (2013) · Journal of Environmental Quality · doi:10.2134/jeq2012.0033 · Cited by 174
Self-citationCharacterization Of Microbial Life Colonizing Biochar And Biochar-Amended Soils
Jin, H. (2010) · eCommons (Cornell University) · Cited by 172
Wardle, D. A., Yeates, G. W., Nicholson, K. S., Bonner, K. I., & Watson, R. N. (1999) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/s0038-0717(99)00090-5 · Cited by 169
Residues of bioenergy production chains as soil amendments: Immediate and temporal phytotoxicity
Gell, K., van Groenigen, J. W., & Cayuela, M. L. (2010) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.12.105 · Cited by 158
Sulfur forms in organic substrates affecting S mineralization in soil
Churka Blum, S., Lehmann, J., Solomon, D., Caires, E. F., & Alleoni, L. R. F. (2013) · Geoderma · doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.02.003 · Cited by 154
Self-citationAssessing feeding activities of soil-living animals
von Törne, E. (1990) · Pedobiologia · doi:10.1016/s0031-4056(24)00012-x · Cited by 149
Woolf, D., & Lehmann, J. C. (2012) · Biogeochemistry · doi:10.1007/s10533-012-9764-6 · Cited by 148
Self-citationMcCormack, S. A., Ostle, N., Bardgett, R. D., Hopkins, D. W., & Vanbergen, A. J. (2013) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12046 · Cited by 147
Effect of biochar on soil aggregates in the Loess Plateau: results from incubation experiments.
Liu, X., PengHan, F., & Zhang, X. (2012) · International Journal of Agriculture and Biology · Cited by 136
The natural chlorine cycle fitting the scattered pieces
Öberg, G. (2002) · Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology · doi:10.1007/s00253-001-0895-2 · Cited by 130
Impact of Two Different Biochars on Earthworm Growth and Survival
Liesch, A. M., Weyers, S. L., Gaskin, J. W., & Das, K. C. (2010) · Cited by 127
Assessing feeding activities of soil-living animals. I. Bait-lamina-tests.
von Törne, E. (1990) · Pedobiologia · Cited by 122
Impact of Biochar on Earthworm Populations: A Review
Weyers, S. L., & Spokas, K. A. (2011) · Applied and Environmental Soil Science · doi:10.1155/2011/541592 · Cited by 117
Borchard, N., Prost, K., Kautz, T., Moeller, A., & Siemens, J. (2012) · European Journal of Soil Science · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2389.2012.01446.x · Cited by 101
Development of sulphur deficiency in crops and its treatment
McGrath, S. P., Zhao, F. J., & Withers, P. J. A. (1996) · OpenGrey (Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique) · Cited by 87
Production of nitrite in soil by simultaneous nitrification and denitrification
Burns, L. C., Stevens, R. J., & Laughlin, R. J. (1996) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/0038-0717(95)00175-1 · Cited by 85
Helling, B., Pfeiff, G., & Larink, O. (1998) · Applied Soil Ecology · doi:10.1016/s0929-1393(97)00065-6 · Cited by 83
Metal Effects on Soil Invertebrate Feeding: Measurements Using the Bait Lamina Method
Filzek, P. D. B., Spurgeon, D. J., Broll, G., Svendsen, C., Hankard, P. K., Parekh, N. R., Stubberud, H. E., & Weeks, J. M. (2004) · Ecotoxicology · doi:10.1007/s10646-003-4478-0 · Cited by 79
van Gestel, C. A. M., Kruidenier, M., & Berg, M. P. (2003) · Biology and Fertility of Soils · doi:10.1007/s00374-002-0575-0 · Cited by 78
Release of chlorine during mallee bark pyrolysis
Rahim, M. U., Gao, X., Garcia-Perez, M., Li, Y., & Wu, H. (2013) · Energy & Fuels · doi:10.1021/ef3018157 · Cited by 77
Knacker, T., Förster, B., Römbke, J., & Frampton, G. K. (2003) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/s0038-0717(03)00219-0 · Cited by 74
Decomposition processes under Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) maize: Results of a multi-site experiment
Cortet, J., Andersen, M. N., Caul, S., Griffiths, B. S., Joffre, R., Lacroix, B., Sausse, C., Thompson, J., & Krogh, P. H. (2005) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2005.04.025 · Cited by 70
Gongalsky, K. B., Persson, T., & Pokarzhevskii, A. D. (2008) · Applied Soil Ecology · doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2007.11.007 · Cited by 68
Evaluation of the “bait-lamina test” to assess soil microfauna feeding activity in mixed grassland
Hamel, C., Schellenberg, M. P., Hanson, K. G., & Wang, H. (2007) · Applied Soil Ecology · doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2007.02.004 · Cited by 66
Assessing biological indicators for remediated anthropogenic urban soils
Hartley, W., Uffindell, L., Plumb, A., Rawlinson, H., Putwain, P. D., & DICKINSON, N. M. (2008) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.06.004 · Cited by 66
Effects of Bt-corn decomposition on the composition of the soil meso- and macrofauna
Hönemann, L., Zurbrügg, C., & Nentwig, W. (2008) · Applied Soil Ecology · doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2008.04.006 · Cited by 60
Decomposition of Bt and Non-Bt Corn Hybrid Residues in the Field
Tarkalson, D. D., Kachman, S. D., Knops, J. M. N., Thies, J. E., & Wortmann, C. S. (2008) · Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems · doi:10.1007/s10705-007-9135-1 · Cited by 59
COLE, L., STADDON, P. L., SLEEP, D., & BARDGETT, R. D. (2004) · Functional Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.0269-8463.2004.00894.x · Cited by 54
Microbial biomass measurements by fumigation-extraction.
Brookes, P. C., & Joergensen, R. G. (2009) · CABI eBooks · doi:10.1079/9780851990989.0077 · Cited by 43
Förster, B., van Gestel, C. A. M., Koolhaas, J. E., Nentwig, G., Rodrigues, J. M. L., Sousa, J. P., Jones, S., & Knacker, T. (2004) · Ecotoxicology · doi:10.1023/b:ectx.0000012410.99020.97 · Cited by 43
Bauhus, J., Meyer, A. C., & Brumme, R. (1996) · Biology and Fertility of Soils · doi:10.1007/bf00334576 · Cited by 39
Reinecke, A. J., Albertus, R. M. C., Reinecke, S. A., & Larink, O. (2008) · African Zoology · doi:10.3377/1562-7020(2008)43[66:teooac]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 36
SEASONAL PATTERN OF WATER‐SOLUBLE CONSTITUENTS FROM LEAVES OF POPULUS בNORTHWEST’ (HORT.)
Dormaar, J. F. (1970) · Journal of Soil Science · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2389.1970.tb01157.x · Cited by 17
Test procedures for determining the quality of biochar within soils
Manning, D. A. C., & López‐Capél, E. (2009) · Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity) · doi:10.25405/ncl.34115280 · Cited by 10
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gul, S., Whalen, J. K., Thomas, B. W., Sachdeva, V., & Deng, H. (2015) · Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/j.agee.2015.03.015 · Cited by 1,345
Biochar to improve soil fertility. A review
Ding, Y., Liu, Y., Liu, S., Li, Z., Tan, X., Huang, X., Zeng, G., Zhou, L., & Zheng, B. (2016) · Agronomy for Sustainable Development · doi:10.1007/s13593-016-0372-z · Cited by 1,144
Biochemical cycling of nitrogen and phosphorus in biochar-amended soils
Gul, S., & Whalen, J. K. (2016) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.08.001 · Cited by 519
Zhang, C., Zeng, G., Huang, D., Lai, C., Chen, M., Cheng, M., Tang, W., Tang, L., Dong, H., Huang, B., et al. (2019) · Chemical Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.cej.2019.05.139 · Cited by 447
Li, Y., Hu, S., Chen, J., Müller, K., Li, Y., Fu, W., Lin, Z., & Wang, H. (2017) · Journal of Soils and Sediments · doi:10.1007/s11368-017-1906-y · Cited by 446
Metadata
- 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
- Venue
- Soil Biology and Biochemistry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-05
- Volume
- 72
- Pages
- 152-162
- ISSN
- 0038-0717 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- green
- ddd.uab.cat
- Licence
- public-domain
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- 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.
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
