Cited by 295Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsAgricultural Science and FertilizationSoil Management and Crop Yield

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Biochar Effect on Maize Yield and Soil Characteristics in Five Conservation Farming Sites in Zambia

Open access

Abstract

Biochar addition to agricultural soils can improve soil fertility, with the added bonus of climate change mitigation through carbon sequestration. Conservation farming (CF) is precision farming, often combining minimum tillage, crop rotation and residue retention. In the present farmer-led field trials carried out in Zambia, the use of a low dosage biochar combined with CF minimum tillage was tested as a way to increase crop yields. Using CF minimum tillage allows the biochar to be applied to the area where most of the plant roots are present and mirrors the fertilizer application in CF practices. The CF practice used comprised manually hoe-dug planting 10-L sized basins, where 10%–12% of the land was tilled. Pilot trials were performed with maize cob biochar and wood biochar on five soils with variable physical/chemical characteristics. At a dosage as low as 4 tons/ha, both biochars had a strong positive effect on maize yields in the coarse white aeolian sand of Kaoma, West-Zambia, with yields of 444% ± 114% (p = 0.06) and 352% ± 139% (p = 0.1) of the fertilized reference plots for maize and wood biochar, respectively. Thus for sandy acidic soils, CF and biochar amendment can be a promising combination for increasing harvest yield. Moderate but non-significant effects on yields were observed for maize and wood biochar in a red sandy clay loam ultisol east of Lusaka, central Zambia (University of Zambia, UNZA, site) with growth of 142% ± 42% (p > 0.2) and 131% ± 62% (p > 0.2) of fertilized reference plots, respectively. For three other soils (acidic and neutral clay loams and silty clay with variable cation exchange capacity, CEC), no significant effects on maize yields were observed (p > 0.2). In laboratory trials, 5% of the two biochars were added to the soil samples in order to study the effect of the biochar on physical and chemical soil characteristics. The large increase in crop yield in Kaoma soil was tentatively explained by a combination of an increased base saturation (from <50% to 60%–100%) and cation exchange capacity (CEC; from 2–3 to 5–9 cmol/kg) and increased plant-available water (from 17% to 21%) as well as water vapor uptake (70 mg/g on maize cob biochar at 50% relative humidity).

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/agronomy3020256

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 31 references

1 of the 31 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Aagaard, 2011, The practice of conventional and conservation agriculture in east and southern Africa, Conserv. Farm. Unit Zambia June, 1, 35

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 295

Metadata

Authors
Cornelissen, G., Martinsen, V., Shitumbanuma, V., Alling, V., Breedveld, G., Rutherford, D., Sparrevik, M., Hale, S., Obia, A., & Mulder, J.
Affiliations
  • Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NO)
  • Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NO)
  • University of Zambia (ZM)
  • United States Geological Survey (US)
Corresponding author
Cornelissen, Gerard
Venue
Agronomy
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2013-04-11
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
256-274
ISSN
2073-4395 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1969496666
Cited by
295
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 3
FWCI
24.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Agronomy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • BIBSYS Brage (BIBSYS (Norway)) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • BIBSYS Brage (BIBSYS (Norway)) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Newcastle University
  • Norges Forskningsråd (217918)
  • U.S. Geological Survey
  • Direktoratet for Utviklingssamarbeid
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, maize yield, conservation agriculture, reduced tillage, wood biochar, soil fertility, cation exchange capacity, base saturation, soil water retention, carbon sequestration, Zambia, soil amendment, Ultisol, crop rotation, residue retention, climate change mitigation, soil physicochemical properties

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