Cited by 38Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFire effects on ecosystems

The stability of low- and high-ash biochars in acidic soils of contrasting mineralogy

Murray, James, Keith, Alexandra, Singh, Balwant·2015·Soil Biology and Biochemistry

Abstract

The potential of biochar as a tool for long-term soil carbon (C) storage has led to an increasing interest in its use as a soil amendment. While much research has been conducted on the stability of high C and low ash biochars, the stability of low C (with relatively high inorganic C) and high ash biochars has been largely neglected. In light of this, an incubation experiment was conducted to compare and assess the stability of a high ash and low C biochar produced from tomato green waste and low ash and high C biochar produced from blue mallee biomass. The two biochars were applied at 2% and 4% (w/w) to two acidic soils of contrasting mineralogy, a Ferralsol and a Solonetz. The soil–biochar mixtures were incubated at 20 °C for 120 days. The CO2–C mineralised was captured in NaOH traps and the source of C mineralisation determined by isotope analysis. The tomato biochar was mineralised (1.4–3.7%) to a greater extent than the blue mallee biochar (0.28–0.77%), possibly due to dissolution of the large quantity of inorganic C. In biochar amended soils, with the exception of the Solonetz applied with 2% blue mallee biochar, greater cumulative mineralisation (positive priming) of native SOC occurred as compared to their respective controls. Mean residence time for the two biochars suggests much greater potential of the blue mallee biochar for long-term soil C storage than the tomato biochar. However, the tomato biochar may have greater agronomic value, in particular a high liming potential, although field studies are required to confirm these results.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.07.014

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • A low ash content is favorable for negative priming because of the limited introduction of inorganic nutrients for microbial growth.

    “A low ash content is also favorable for negative priming, because of the limited introduction of inorganic nutrients for microbial growth (Murray et al. 2015).”

    From Role of biochar toward carbon neutrality (2023) · cites this paper as Murray et al. 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Murray, J., Keith, A., & Singh, B.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Singh, Balwant
Venue
Soil Biology and Biochemistry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-10
Volume
89
Pages
217-225
ISSN
0038-0717 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W998815251
Cited by
38
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3
FWCI
3.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Soil Biology and Biochemistry (publishedVersion)
Funders
James Cook University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Thermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
Keywords
biochar stability, soil carbon storage, acid soils, soil mineralogy, CO2 mineralization, carbon isotope analysis, Ferralsols, solonetz, biochar amendment

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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