Cited by 297Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsAgricultural Science and FertilizationClimate change impacts on agriculture

Heterogeneous global crop yield response to biochar: a meta-regression analysis

Open access
Crane-Droesch, Andrew, Abiven, Samuel, Jeffery, Simon, Torn, Margaret S·2013·Environmental Research Letters

Abstract

Biochar may contribute to climate change mitigation at negative cost by sequestering photosynthetically fixed carbon in soil while increasing crop yields. The magnitude of biochar's potential in this regard will depend on crop yield benefits, which have not been well-characterized across different soils and biochars. Using data from 84 studies, we employ meta-analytical, missing data, and semiparametric statistical methods to explain heterogeneity in crop yield responses across different soils, biochars, and agricultural management factors, and then estimate potential changes in yield across different soil environments globally. We find that soil cation exchange capacity and organic carbon were strong predictors of yield response, with low cation exchange and low carbon associated with positive response. We also find that yield response increases over time since initial application, compared to non-biochar controls. High reported soil clay content and low soil pH were weaker predictors of higher yield response. No biochar parameters in our dataset—biochar pH, percentage carbon content, or temperature of pyrolysis—were significant predictors of yield impacts. Projecting our fitted model onto a global soil database, we find the largest potential increases in areas with highly weathered soils, such as those characterizing much of the humid tropics. Richer soils characterizing much of the world's important agricultural areas appear to be less likely to benefit from biochar.

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 · 10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044049

Cites

53 of 53 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?

  • The three biochar meta-analyses available to date exclusively compared the effect of freshly produced biochar with that of the respective control, and did not account for composted or otherwise nutrient-enriched biochars.

    “The three biochar meta-analyses available to date [1,3,4] exclusively compared the effect of freshly produced biochar with that of the respective control, and did not account for composted or otherwise nutrient-enriched biochars.”
  • The described and demonstrated methods are not only efficient on weathered and degraded soils in suboptimal agronomic systems but may have the potential to develop into a new, long-term perspective for more sustainable, climate-positive and nutrient efficient agriculture on already fertile soils, particularly in organic farming systems.

    “Contrary to the conclusions in other studies [1,36], the described and demonstrated methods are not only efficient on weathered and degraded soils in suboptimal agronomic systems but may have the potential to develop into a new, long-term perspective for more sustainable, climate-positive and nutrient efficient agriculture on already fertile soils, particularly in organic farming systems.”

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

1 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Crane-Droesch, A., Abiven, S., Jeffery, S., & Torn, M. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Wageningen University & Research (NL)
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US)
Venue
Environmental Research Letters
Published
2013-12-01
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
044049
ISSN
1748-9326 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2095761197
Cited by
297
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 10
FWCI
26.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Research Letters (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (DEAC02-05CH11231, 1053575)
  • U.S. Department of Energy (-AC02-05CH11231, 05CH11231, OCI-1053575, DE AC02 05CH11231, DE-AC02-)
  • Office of Science (OCI-1053575, DEAC02–05CH11231, AC02-05CH11231, DE-AC02, 05CH11231)
  • Biological and Environmental Research (05CH11231, DE-AC02 − 05CH11231, AC02-05CH11231)
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 › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Climate change impacts on agriculture
Keywords
biochar, crop yield response, soil carbon sequestration, cation exchange capacity, soil organic carbon, soil weathering, soil clay content, soil pH, pyrolysis temperature, biochar pH, climate change mitigation, agricultural management

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