Cited by 267Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFire effects on ecosystemsMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions

A meta‐analysis on pyrogenic organic matter induced priming effect

Open access
Maestrini, Bernardo, Nannipieri, Paolo, Abiven, Samuel·2015·GCB Bioenergy

Abstract

Pyrogenic organic matter ( PyOM ) is considered an important soil carbon (C) sink. However, there are evidences that its addition to soil may induce a priming effect ( PE ) thus influencing its C abatement potential. The direction, the size and the mechanisms responsible for PyOM induced PE are far from being understood. We collected approximately 650 data points from 18 studies to analyse the characteristics of the PE induced by PyOM . The database was divided between the PE induced on the native soil organic matter and on fresh organic matter. Most of the studies were short‐term incubation therefore the projections of findings on the long term may be critical. Our findings indicate that over 1 year PyOM induces an average positive PE of 0.3 mg C g −1 soil on native soil organic matter and a PE of approximately the same size but opposite direction on fresh organic matter. We studied the correlation of PE with several properties of soil, of the added PyOM , and time after PyOM addition. We found that PyOM primes positively the native soil organic matter in the first 20 days while negative PE appears in a later stage. Negative PE was correlated with the soil C content. PyOM characterized by a low C content induced a higher positive PE on native soil organic carbon. No correlation was found between the factors record in our database and the PE induced on the fresh organic matter. We reviewed the mechanisms proposed in literature to explain PE and discussed them based on findings from our meta‐analysis. We believe that the presence of a labile fraction in PyOM may trigger the activity of soil microorganisms on the short term and therefore induce a positive PE , while on the long term PyOM may induce a negative PE by promoting physical protection mechanisms.

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 · 10.1111/gcbb.12194

Cites

92 of 92 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

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

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Crawley MJ (2007) The R book. Wiley, Chichester.
  2. Lehmann J, Joseph S (eds.) (2009) Biochar for environmental managers. Earthscan, London.
  3. Lynch JA, Clark JS, Stocks BJ (2004) Charcoal production, dispersal, and deposition from the Fort Providence experimental fire: interpreting fire regimes from charcoal records in boreal forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 34, 1642.
  4. Nannipieri P, Gianfreda L (1998) Kinetics of enzyme reactions in soil environments. In: Structures and reactions of soil particles (eds Huang PM, Senesi N, Buffle J). Wiley, New York.
  5. Théry-Parisot I, Chabal L, Chrzavzez J (2010) Anthracology and taphonomy, from wood gathering to charcoal analysis. A review of the taphonomic processes modifying charcoal assemblages, in archaeological contexts. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 291, 142-153.
  6. Wallenstein MD, Burns RG (2011) Ecology of extracellular enzymes activities and organic matter degradation in soil. In: Methods of soil enzymology2 (ed Dick RP), pp. 35-55. Soil Science Society of America.
  7. Zimmerman AR, Gao B (2013) The stability of biochar in the environment. In: Biochar and soil biota (eds Ladygina N, Rineau F), pp. 1-40. CRC press, Boca Raton.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Maestrini, B., Nannipieri, P., & Abiven, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • University of Florence (IT)
Corresponding author
Maestrini, Bernardo
Venue
GCB Bioenergy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-06-03
Volume
7
Issue
4
Pages
577-590
ISSN
  • 1757-1693 (ISSN-L)
  • 1757-1707
OpenAlex
W2144961254
Cited by
267
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 4
FWCI
23.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • GCB Bioenergy (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
University of Zurich
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Mycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Keywords
pyrogenic organic matter, priming effect, soil organic carbon, soil carbon sequestration, labile carbon fractions, soil microbial activity

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