Abstract
Application of biochar to soils is hypothesized to increase crop yield. Crop productivity impacts of biochar application in southeastern cropping systems consisting of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.), corn (Zea mays L.), and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) produced under varying rates of irrigation have not been addressed. This research incorporated biochar at two different rates into a long-term irrigation and cropping systems study to compare yield and quality response of peanut, corn, and cotton. Biochar was incorporated into soil once at the beginning of the 4-year project at rates of 22.4 and 44.8 Mg ha−1. Peanut, corn, and cotton were produced under three sprinkler irrigation levels (100%, 66%, and 33%), shallow surface drip irrigation (100%), and a nonirrigated control. Crop input management followed best management practices. Sprinkler irrigation was scheduled by Irrigator Pro for Peanuts, Corn, and Cotton at the 100% level and the 66% and 33% levels were applied at the same time as the 100% level. Significant year, irrigation, and year × irrigation effects for corn, cotton, and peanut yield resulted (p < 0.001). No differences resulted for biochar in corn (p = 0.930) or cotton (p = 0.678). Peanut yield showed a significant response to biochar comparing the 44.8 Mg ha−1 rate to the untreated control in nonirrigated production at the p = 0.05 level and in the 33% irrigated treatment at the p = 0.10 level. No negative effects resulted from biochar opening opportunities for biochar application in southeastern U.S. cropping systems for purposes related to carbon sequestration without compromising productivity of producers and related agricultural sectors.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Corn yield varied significantly by year, irrigation, and their interaction.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse0 - Outcome
- corn, cotton, and peanut yielde0
Not reportedSettingDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significant year, irrigation, and year × irrigation effects for corn, cotton, and peanut yield resulted (p < 0.001)”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton yield varied significantly by year, irrigation, and their interaction.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- irrigatione0
- Outcome
- corn, cotton, and peanut yielde0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significant year, irrigation, and year × irrigation effects for corn, cotton, and peanut yield resulted (p < 0.001)”
Claim · model-written summary
Peanut yield varied significantly by year, irrigation, and their interaction.
- Taxon
- peanut
Arachis hypogaeae0 - Treatment
- irrigatione0
- Outcome
- corn, cotton, and peanut yielde0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significant year, irrigation, and year × irrigation effects for corn, cotton, and peanut yield resulted (p < 0.001)”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar did not significantly change corn yield.
- Taxon
- cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
- Treatment
- biochare0
- Outcome
- corne0
- Direction
- No differencese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No differences resulted for biochar in corn (p = 0.930)”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar did not significantly change cotton yield.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- biochare0
- Outcome
- cottone0
- Direction
- No differencese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No differences resulted for biochar in corn (p = 0.930) or cotton (p = 0.678)”
Claim · model-written summary
At the 44.8 Mg ha−1 rate, biochar significantly affected peanut yield without irrigation versus untreated control.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- 44.8 Mg ha−1 ratee0
- Outcome
- Peanut yielde0
- Comparator
- untreated controle0
- Setting
- nonirrigated productione0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Peanut yield showed a significant response to biochar comparing the 44.8 Mg ha−1 rate to the untreated control in nonirrigated production at the p = 0.05 level”
Claim · model-written summary
At the 44.8 Mg ha−1 rate, biochar affected peanut yield under 33% irrigation at the p = 0.10 level.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- 44.8 Mg ha−1 ratee0
- Outcome
- Peanut yielde0
- Qualifier
- 33% irrigated treatmente0
- Comparator
- untreated controle0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Peanut yield showed a significant response to biochar comparing the 44.8 Mg ha−1 rate to the untreated control in nonirrigated production at the p = 0.05 level and in the 33% irrigated treatment at the p = 0.10 level”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar application was presented as possible for carbon sequestration without compromising crop productivity.
Verbatim
e0“No negative effects resulted from biochar opening opportunities for biochar application in southeastern U.S. cropping systems for purposes related to carbon sequestration without compromising productivity of producers and related agricultural sectors”
t0“Crop response to biochar”
The same questions in other papers
biochar · organism · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
biochar · organism · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →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.