Abstract
【Objective】Effects of organic fertilizer and biochar on root system and microbial functional diversity in soil planted with the biennial seedling Malus hupehensis Rehd were studied. Meanwhile, the effect of increasing soil carbon on soil quality and plants were evaluated to provide a theoretical basis for sustainable development of orchard. 【Method】The biennial seedlings of M.hupehensis Rehd was planted in a pot experiment. The root system of plants and microbial functional diversity were analyzed by adding different amounts of organic fertilizer and biochar【Result】The quantity and area of fine absorbing root, the population of bacteria in soil and rhizosphere, the FDA enzyme activity and the microbial functional diversity were improved by application of organic fertilizer or biochar, and combined application of both were proved to be even more effective. Biochar was predominant in increasing area of fine absorbing root, while disadvantaged in improving microbial functional diversity, compared with organic fertilizer. The area of fine absorbing root in 10% organic fertilizer and 6% biochar, 10% organic fertilizer and 3% biochar, 10%organic fertilizer, 6% biochar and 3% biochar was 6.6,10, 2.5, 3.3 and 3.1 times than that of CK.The population of bacteria,actinomycetes and fungi in soil of treatments were 3.32-10.23, 1.2-1.97 and 3.24-5.26 times as much as the control group. The largest amount of rhizosphere actinomycetes was obtained after application of organic fertilizer, while application of 3% rhizosphere biochar corresponded to the largest amount of rhizosphere fungi. 【Conclusion】The root system of plants and microbial functional diversity in soil can be improved by increasing soil carbon, which is beneficial to soil fertilizer and sustainable development of agriculture.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 17
Claim · model-written summary
Organic fertilizer increased the quantity and area of fine absorbing roots.
- Taxon
- Malus hupehensis Rehd
Malus hupehensist0 - Treatment
- organic fertilizere0
- Outcome
- quantity and area of fine absorbing roote0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Malus hupehensis Rehd”
e0“The quantity and area of fine absorbing root, the population of bacteria in soil and rhizosphere, the FDA enzyme activity and the microbial functional diversity were improved by application of organic fertilizer or biochar”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar increased the quantity and area of fine absorbing roots.
- Taxon
- Malus hupehensis RehdMalus hupehensist0
- Treatment
- biochare0
- Outcome
- quantity and area of fine absorbing roote0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Malus hupehensis Rehd”
e0“The quantity and area of fine absorbing root, the population of bacteria in soil and rhizosphere, the FDA enzyme activity and the microbial functional diversity were improved by application of organic fertilizer or biochar”
Claim · model-written summary
Organic fertilizer increased soil and rhizosphere bacteria populations, FDA activity and microbial diversity.
- Taxon
- Malus hupehensis RehdMalus hupehensist0
- Treatment
- organic fertilizere0
- Outcome
- population of bacteria in soil and rhizosphere, the FDA enzyme activity and the microbial functional diversitye0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Malus hupehensis Rehd”
e0“the population of bacteria in soil and rhizosphere, the FDA enzyme activity and the microbial functional diversity were improved by application of organic fertilizer or biochar”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar increased soil and rhizosphere bacteria populations, FDA activity and microbial diversity.
- Taxon
- Malus hupehensis RehdMalus hupehensist0
- Treatment
- biochare0
- Outcome
- population of bacteria in soil and rhizosphere, the FDA enzyme activity and the microbial functional diversitye0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Malus hupehensis Rehd”
e0“the population of bacteria in soil and rhizosphere, the FDA enzyme activity and the microbial functional diversity were improved by application of organic fertilizer or biochar”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined fertilizer and biochar was more effective.
- Taxon
- Malus hupehensis RehdMalus hupehensist0
- Treatment
- combined application of bothe0
- Outcome
- even more effectivee0
- Direction
- even more effectivee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Malus hupehensis Rehd”
e0“combined application of both were proved to be even more effective”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar was better than organic fertilizer for fine absorbing root area.
- Taxon
- Malus hupehensis RehdMalus hupehensist0
- Treatment
- Biochare0
- Outcome
- area of fine absorbing roote0
- Direction
- predominante0
- Comparator
- organic fertilizere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Malus hupehensis Rehd”
e0“Biochar was predominant in increasing area of fine absorbing root, while disadvantaged in improving microbial functional diversity, compared with organic fertilizer”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar was less effective than organic fertilizer for microbial functional diversity.
- Taxon
- Malus hupehensis RehdMalus hupehensist0
- Treatment
- Biochare0
- Outcome
- microbial functional diversitye0
- Direction
- disadvantagede0
- Comparator
- organic fertilizere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Malus hupehensis Rehd”
e0“Biochar was predominant in increasing area of fine absorbing root, while disadvantaged in improving microbial functional diversity, compared with organic fertilizer”
Claim · model-written summary
Fine absorbing root area under 10% organic fertilizer and 6% biochar was 6.6 times CK.
- Taxon
- Malus hupehensis RehdMalus hupehensist0
- Treatment
- 10% organic fertilizer and 6% biochare0
- Outcome
- area of fine absorbing roote0
- Direction
- times thane0
- Value
- 6.6e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Malus hupehensis Rehd”
e0“The area of fine absorbing root in 10% organic fertilizer and 6% biochar, 10% organic fertilizer and 3% biochar, 10%organic fertilizer, 6% biochar and 3% biochar was 6.6,10, 2.5, 3.3 and 3.1 times than that of CK”
Claim · model-written summary
Fine absorbing root area under 10% organic fertilizer and 3% biochar was 10 times CK.
- Taxon
- Malus hupehensis RehdMalus hupehensist0
- Treatment
- 10% organic fertilizer and 3% biochare0
- Outcome
- area of fine absorbing roote0
- Direction
- times thane0
- Value
- 10e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Malus hupehensis Rehd”
e0“The area of fine absorbing root in 10% organic fertilizer and 6% biochar, 10% organic fertilizer and 3% biochar, 10%organic fertilizer, 6% biochar and 3% biochar was 6.6,10, 2.5, 3.3 and 3.1 times than that of CK”
Claim · model-written summary
Fine absorbing root area under 10% organic fertilizer was 2.5 times CK.
- Taxon
- Malus hupehensis RehdMalus hupehensist0
- Treatment
- 10%organic fertilizere0
- Outcome
- area of fine absorbing roote0
- Direction
- times thane0
- Value
- 2.5e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Malus hupehensis Rehd”
e0“The area of fine absorbing root in 10% organic fertilizer and 6% biochar, 10% organic fertilizer and 3% biochar, 10%organic fertilizer, 6% biochar and 3% biochar was 6.6,10, 2.5, 3.3 and 3.1 times than that of CK”
Claim · model-written summary
Fine absorbing root area under 6% biochar was 3.3 times CK.
- Taxon
- Malus hupehensis RehdMalus hupehensist0
- Treatment
- 6% biochare0
- Outcome
- area of fine absorbing roote0
- Direction
- times thane0
- Value
- 3.3e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Malus hupehensis Rehd”
e0“The area of fine absorbing root in 10% organic fertilizer and 6% biochar, 10% organic fertilizer and 3% biochar, 10%organic fertilizer, 6% biochar and 3% biochar was 6.6,10, 2.5, 3.3 and 3.1 times than that of CK”
Claim · model-written summary
Fine absorbing root area under 3% biochar was 3.1 times CK.
- Taxon
- Malus hupehensis RehdMalus hupehensist0
- Treatment
- 3% biochare0
- Outcome
- area of fine absorbing roote0
- Direction
- times thane0
- Value
- 3.1e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Malus hupehensis Rehd”
e0“The area of fine absorbing root in 10% organic fertilizer and 6% biochar, 10% organic fertilizer and 3% biochar, 10%organic fertilizer, 6% biochar and 3% biochar was 6.6,10, 2.5, 3.3 and 3.1 times than that of CK”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil bacteria populations under treatments were 3.32-10.23 times control.
- Taxon
- Malus hupehensis RehdMalus hupehensist0
- Treatment
- treatmentse0
- Outcome
- population of bacteriae0
- Direction
- times as muche0
- Value
- 3.32-10.23e0
- Comparator
- control groupe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Malus hupehensis Rehd”
e0“The population of bacteria,actinomycetes and fungi in soil of treatments were 3.32-10.23, 1.2-1.97 and 3.24-5.26 times as much as the control group”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil actinomycetes populations under treatments were 1.2-1.97 times control.
- Taxon
- Malus hupehensis RehdMalus hupehensist0
- Treatment
- treatmentse0
- Outcome
- actinomycetese0
- Direction
- times as muche0
- Value
- 1.2-1.97e0
- Comparator
- control groupe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Malus hupehensis Rehd”
e0“The population of bacteria,actinomycetes and fungi in soil of treatments were 3.32-10.23, 1.2-1.97 and 3.24-5.26 times as much as the control group”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil fungi populations under treatments were 3.24-5.26 times control.
- Taxon
- Malus hupehensis RehdMalus hupehensist0
- Treatment
- treatmentse0
- Outcome
- fungi in soile0
- Direction
- times as muche0
- Value
- 3.24-5.26e0
- Comparator
- control groupe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Malus hupehensis Rehd”
e0“The population of bacteria,actinomycetes and fungi in soil of treatments were 3.32-10.23, 1.2-1.97 and 3.24-5.26 times as much as the control group”
Claim · model-written summary
Organic fertilizer produced the largest rhizosphere actinomycete population.
- Taxon
- Malus hupehensis RehdMalus hupehensist0
- Treatment
- organic fertilizere0
- Outcome
- amount of rhizosphere actinomycetese0
- Direction
- largeste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Malus hupehensis Rehd”
e0“The largest amount of rhizosphere actinomycetes was obtained after application of organic fertilizer”
Claim · model-written summary
Application of 3% rhizosphere biochar produced the largest rhizosphere fungi population.
- Taxon
- Malus hupehensis RehdMalus hupehensist0
- Treatment
- 3% rhizosphere biochare0
- Outcome
- amount of rhizosphere fungie0
- Direction
- largeste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Malus hupehensis Rehd”
e0“application of 3% rhizosphere biochar corresponded to the largest amount of rhizosphere fungi”
The same questions in other papers
biochar · soil: biology · Malus hupehensisResults agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
biochar · ecology: diversity · Malus hupehensisResults agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
fertilization · soil: biology · Malus hupehensisResults agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.