The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Inference of allelopathy is complicated by effects of activated carbon on plant growth
Open accessAbstract
Allelopathy can play an important role in structuring plant communities, but allelopathic effects are often difficult to detect because many methods used to test for allelopathy can be confounded by experimental artifacts. The use of activated carbon, a technique for neutralizing allelopathic compounds, is now employed in tests for allelopathy; however, this technique also could produce large experimental artifacts. In three independent experiments, it was shown that adding activated carbon to potting media affected nutrient availability and plant growth. For most species tested, activated carbon increased plant biomass, even in the absence of the potentially allelopathic agent. The increased growth corresponded to increased plant nitrogen content, likely resulting from greater nitrogen availability. Activated carbon also affected nitrogen and other nutrient concentrations in soil media in the absence of plants. The observed effects of activated carbon on plant growth can confound its use to test for allelopathy. The detection of allelopathy relies on the difference between plant growth in medium with carbon and that in medium without carbon in the presence of the potentially allelopathic competitor; however, this difference may be biased if activated carbon alters soil nutrient availability and plant growth even in the absence of the focal allelopathic agent.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Biochar effects on soil biota – A review
Lehmann, J., Rillig, M. C., Thies, J., Masiello, C. A., Hockaday, W. C., & Crowley, D. (2011) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.04.022 · Cited by 5,074
Plant–soil feedbacks: the past, the present and future challenges
van der Putten, W. H., Bardgett, R. D., Bever, J. D., Bezemer, T. M., Casper, B. B., Fukami, T., Kardol, P., Klironomos, J. N., Kulmatiski, A., Schweitzer, J. A., et al. (2013) · Journal of Ecology · doi:10.1111/1365-2745.12054 · Cited by 1,758
Biochar and its effects on plant productivity and nutrient cycling: A meta-analysis
Biederman, L. A., & Harpole, W. S. (2013) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12037 · Cited by 1,737
Beesley, L., Moreno-Jiménez, E., Gomez-Eyles, J. L., Harris, E., Robinson, B., & Sizmur, T. (2011) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2011.07.023 · Cited by 1,610
Biochar: A synthesis of its agronomic impact beyond carbon sequestration
Spokas, K. A., Cantrell, K. B., Novak, J. M., Archer, D. W., Ippolito, J. A., Collins, H. P., Boateng, A. A., Lima, I. M., Lamb, M. C., McAloon, A. J., et al. (2012) · Journal of Environmental Quality · doi:10.2134/jeq2011.0069 · Cited by 1,014
Metadata
- Authors
- Lau, J. A., Puliafico, K. P., Kopshever, J. A., Steltzer, H., Jarvis, E. P., Schwarzländer, M., Strauss, S. Y., & Hufbauer, R. A.
- Venue
- New Phytologist
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-01-17
- Volume
- 178
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 412-423
- ISSN
- 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8137
- OpenAlex
- W2170521916
- Cited by
- 181
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Inference of allelopathy is complicated by effects of activated carbon on plant growth. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02360.x
- The paper
- Lau, J. A., Puliafico, K. P., Kopshever, J. A., Steltzer, H., Jarvis, E. P., Schwarzländer, M., Strauss, S. Y., & Hufbauer, R. A. (2008). Inference of allelopathy is complicated by effects of activated carbon on plant growth. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02360.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.