Release of nitrogen and phosphorus from poultry litter amended with acidified biochar
Open accessAbstract
Application of poultry litter (PL) to soil may lead to nitrogen (N) losses through ammonia (NH(3)) volatilization and to potential contamination of surface runoff with PL-derived phosphorus (P). Amending litter with acidified biochar may minimize these problems by decreasing litter pH and by retaining litter-derived P, respectively. This study evaluated the effect of acidified biochars from pine chips (PC) and peanut hulls (PH) on NH(3) losses and inorganic N and P released from surface-applied or incorporated PL. Poultry litter with or without acidified biochars was surface-applied or incorporated into the soil and incubated for 21 d. Volatilized NH(3) was determined by trapping it in acid. Inorganic N and P were determined by leaching the soil with 0.01 M of CaCl(2) during the study and by extracting it with 1 M KCl after incubation. Acidified biochars reduced NH(3) losses by 58 to 63% with surface-applied PL, and by 56 to 60% with incorporated PL. Except for PH biochar, which caused a small increase in leached NH(4) (+)-N with incorporated PL, acidified biochars had no effect on leached or KCl-extractable inorganic N and P from surface-applied or incorporated PL. These results suggest that acidified biochars may decrease NH(3) losses from PL but may not reduce the potential for P loss in surface runoff from soils receiving PL.
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
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.
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 amount of leached inorganic-N was higher due to the retention of non-volatilised N in the soil where acidified biochar had been used.
“Notably the amount of leached inorganic-N was higher due to the retention of non-volatilised N in the soil where acidified biochar had been used.”
From A Review of Biochar and Soil Nitrogen Dynamics (2013) · cites this paper as [90]
The Results and Discussion report that total leached inorganic N tended to be greater with acidified biochar, probably because reduced ammonia loss left more inorganic N in the soil to leach. The claim presents both the increase and its cause as certain, whereas the paper qualifies them; its Conclusions also say biochar generally had no effect on leached NH₄⁺-N or NO₃⁻-N. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAfter 21 days incubation, NH3 volatilisation from incorporated poultry litter decreased by 56%-60% with acidified biochar.
“After 21 days incubation they found that NH 3 volatilisation from poultry litter decreased by 58%-63% and 56%-60% for surface applied and incorporated poultry litters, respectively.”
From A Review of Biochar and Soil Nitrogen Dynamics (2013) · cites this paper as [90]
After 21 days incubation, NH3 volatilisation from surface applied poultry litter decreased by 58%-63% with acidified biochar.
“After 21 days incubation they found that NH 3 volatilisation from poultry litter decreased by 58%-63% and 56%-60% for surface applied and incorporated poultry litters, respectively.”
From A Review of Biochar and Soil Nitrogen Dynamics (2013) · cites this paper as [90]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 43 · Cited by 81
- Authors
- Doydora, S. A., Cabrera, M. L., Das, K. C., Gaskin, J. W., Sonon, L. S., & Miller, W. P.
- Affiliations
- University of Georgia (US)
- Corresponding author
- Cabrera, Miguel L.
- Venue
- International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2011-05-11
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1491-1502
- ISSN
- 1660-4601 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3108122
- OpenAlex
- W2065180593
- Cited by
- 81
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 6.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Georgia
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Soil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Agricultural Science and Fertilization
- Keywords
- poultry litter, ammonia volatilization, nitrogen loss, phosphorus loss, surface runoff, pine chips, peanut shell, soil amendment, surface application, inorganic nitrogen, inorganic phosphorus, litter pH
- MeSH terms
- Ammonia, Animals, Charcoal, Manure, Poultry, Volatilization, Water Pollution, Phosphorus Compounds, Nitrogen Compounds
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
