Cited by 153Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsSoil Management and Crop YieldPlant Growth and Agriculture Techniques

pH effects of the addition of three biochars to acidic Indonesian mineral soils

Open access
Martinsen, V, Alling, V, Nurida, NL, Mulder, J, Hale, SE, Ritz, C, Rutherford, DW, Heikens, A +2 more·2015·Soil Science and Plant Nutrition

Abstract

Soil acidity may severely reduce crop production. Biochar (BC) may increase soil pH and cation exchange capacity (CEC) but reported effects differ substantially. In a systematic approach, using a standardized protocol on a uniquely large number set of 31 acidic soils, we quantified the effect of increasing amounts (0–30%; weight:weight) of three types of field-produced BCs (from cacao (Theobroma cacao. L.) shell, oil palm (Elaeis guineensis. Jacq.) shell and rice (Oryza sativa. L.) husk) on soil pH and CEC. Soils were sampled from croplands at Java, Sumatra and Kalimantan, Indonesia. All BCs caused a significant increase in mean soil pH with a stronger response and a greater maximum increase for the cacao shell BC addition, due to a greater acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) and larger amounts of extractable base cations. At 1% BC addition, corresponding to about 30 tons ha−1, the estimated increase in soil pH from the initial mean pH of 4.7 was about 0.5 units for the cacao shell BC, whereas this was only 0.05 and 0.04 units for the oil palm shell and rice husk BC, respectively. Besides depending on BC type, the increase in soil pH upon the addition of each of the three BCs was mainly dependent on soil CEC (low CEC resulting in stronger pH increase), and to a lesser extent on initial soil pH (higher initial pH resulting in stronger pH increase). Addition of BC also increased the amount of exchangeable base cations (cacao shell ≫ oil palm and rice husk) and CEC. Through this systematic screening of the effect of BC on pH and CEC of acidic soils, we show that a small addition of BC, in particular if made of cacao shell, to acidic agricultural soils increases soil pH and CEC. However, the response is highly dependent on the type, quality and amount of the added BC as well as on intrinsic soil properties, mainly CEC.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00380768.2015.1052985

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Biochar acts as a liming agent and can drastically reduce Al concentration in most degraded soils.

    “The Al concentration can be reduced drastically by addition of biochar that acts as a liming agent in most of the degraded soils (Glaser et al., 2002;Major et al., 2010;Martinsen et al., 2015;Van Zwieten et al., 2010;Yamato et al., 2006).”
  • Biochar addition increases soil pH, base saturation, nutrient retention capacity and soil CEC, and reduces nutrient leaching.

    “Besides increasing soil pH (higher Ca/Al ratios and higher PO 4 -3 availability) and base saturation (BS) (Glaser et al., 2002;Martinsen et al., 2015) the addition of biochar increases nutrient retention capacity and soil CEC (Chan et al., 2008;Liang et al., 2006) and thus reduces nutrient leaching (Hale et al., 2013;Laird et al., 2010;Martinsen et al., 2014;Steiner et al., 2007).”

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Atkins PW 1990: Physical Chemistry. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  2. Crawley MJ 2007: The R Book. Wiley, Chichester, England.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Martinsen, V, Alling, V, Nurida, N., Mulder, J., Hale, S., Ritz, C., Rutherford, D., Heikens, A., Breedveld, G., & Cornelissen, G.
Affiliations
  • Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NO)
  • Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NO)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • United States Geological Survey (US)
  • United Nations Development Programme (US)
Venue
Soil Science and Plant Nutrition
Published
2015-06-17
Volume
61
Issue
5
Pages
821-834
ISSN
  • 0038-0768 (ISSN-L)
  • 1747-0765
OpenAlex
W2204538762
Cited by
153
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2
FWCI
9.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Soil Science & Plant Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion)
  • BIBSYS Brage (BIBSYS (Norway)) (submittedVersion)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • United Nations Development Programme
  • Norges Forskningsråd (217918, 204112)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Management and Crop Yield
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Plant Growth and Agriculture Techniques
Keywords
biochar, soil pH, cation exchange capacity, acid soils, acid neutralizing capacity, exchangeable base cations, rice husk biochar, agricultural soils, 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