Cited by 1,291Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsAgricultural Science and FertilizationSoil Management and Crop Yield

Impact of Biochar Amendment on Fertility of a Southeastern Coastal Plain Soil

Novak, Jeffrey M., Busscher, Warren J., Laird, David L., Ahmedna, Mohamed, Watts, Don W., Niandou, Mohamed A. S.·2009·Soil Science

Abstract

Agricultural soils in the southeastern U.S. Coastal Plain region have meager soil fertility characteristics because of their sandy textures, acidic pH values, kaolinitic clays, low cation exchange capacities, and diminutive soil organic carbon contents. We hypothesized that biochar additions will help ameliorate some of these fertility problems. The study objectives were to determine the impact of pecan shell-based biochar additions on soil fertility characteristics and water leachate chemistry for a Norfolk loamy sand (fine-loamy, kaolinitic, thermic typic Kandiudults). Soil columns containing 0, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0% (wt/wt) biochar were incubated at 10% (wt/wt) moisture for 67 days. On days 25 and 67, the columns were leached with 1.2 to 1.4 pore volumes of deionized H2O, and the leachate chemical composition determined. On days 0 and 67, soil samples were collected and analyzed for fertility. The biochar had a pH of 7.6, contained 834.2 and 3.41 g kg−1 of C and N, respectively, and was dominated by aromatic C (58%). After 67 days and two leaching events, biochar additions to the Norfolk soil increased soil pH, soil organic carbon, Ca, K, Mn, and P and decreased exchangeable acidity, S, and Zn. Biochar additions did not significantly increase soil cation exchange capacity. Leachates contained increasing electrical conductivity and K and Na concentrations, but decreasing levels of Ca, P, Mn, and Zn. These effects reflect the addition of elements and the higher sorption capacity of biochar for selective nutrients (especially Ca, P, Zn, and Mn). Biochar additions to the Norfolk soil caused significant fertility improvements.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/ss.0b013e3181981d9a

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Novak, J. M., Busscher, W. J., Laird, D. L., Ahmedna, M., Watts, D. W., & Niandou, M. A. S.
Affiliations
  • Agricultural Research Service (US)
  • North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University (US)
Venue
Soil Science
Published
2009-02
Volume
174
Issue
2
Pages
105-112
ISSN
0038-075X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2032515808
Cited by
1,291
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 79 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 85 · 2022: 73 · 2021: 105 · 2020: 120 · 2019: 109 · 2018: 98 · 2017: 81 · 2016: 95 · 2015: 90 · 2014: 88 · 2013: 62 · 2012: 62
FWCI
66.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Soil Science (publishedVersion)
Funders
Clemson University
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 amendment, soil fertility, coastal plain soils, soil organic carbon, cation exchange capacity, soil pH, nutrient leaching, nutrient sorption

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