Abstract
The application of biochar stimulates the activities of microorganisms that affect soil quality and plant growth. However, studies on the impacts of biochar mainly focus on a monoculture, its effects on interspecific interactions are rarely reported. Here, we investigated the impacts of biochar on tomato/potato–onion intercropped (TO) in a pot experiment. Tomato monoculture (T) and TO were treated with no, 0.3, 0.6, and 1.2% biochar concentrations in a pot experiment. Microbial communities from tomato rhizosphere soil were analyzed by quantitative PCR and Illumina MiSeq. The results showed that compared with the tomato monoculture, 0.6%TO and 1.2%TO significantly increased tomato yield in 2018. TO and 1.2%TO significantly increased plant height and dry weight in 2018 and 2019. Biochar treatments increased soil pH, decreased NO 3- -N and bulk density, and increased the absorption of N, P, and K by tomato. Bacterial and fungal abundances increased with an increase in biochar concentration, while Bacillus spp. and Pseudomonas spp. abundances showed an “increase-decrease-increase” trend. Biochar had a little effect on bacterial diversities but significantly lowered fungal diversities. TO, 0.6%TO, and 1.2%TO increased the potentially beneficial organisms (e.g., Pseudeurotium and Solirubrobacter ) and lowered the potentially pathogenic organisms (e.g., Kribbella and Ilyonectria ). Different concentrations of biochar affected the bacterial and fungal community structures. Redundancy analysis indicated that the bacterial community was strongly correlated with soil pH, NO 3- -N, and EC, while the fungal community was closely related to soil NO 3- -N and moisture. The network analysis showed that biochar and intercropping affected the symbiosis pattern of the microorganisms and increased the proportion of positive interactions and nitrifying microorganisms (Nitrospirae) in the microbial community. Overall, our results indicated that monoculture and intercropping with biochar improved soil physicochemical states and plant nutrient absorption, and regulated soil microbial communities, these were the main factors to promote tomato growth and increase tomato productivity.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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
The 0.6%TO treatment significantly increased tomato yield in 2018 relative to tomato monoculture.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicume1 - Treatment
- 0.6%TOe1
- Outcome
- tomato yielde1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Qualifier
- in 2018e1
- Comparator
- tomato monoculturee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“compared with the tomato monoculture, 0.6%TO and 1.2%TO significantly increased tomato yield in 2018”
Claim · model-written summary
The 1.2%TO treatment significantly increased tomato yield in 2018 relative to tomato monoculture.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- 1.2%TOe1
- Outcome
- tomato yielde1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Qualifier
- in 2018e1
- Comparator
- tomato monoculturee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“compared with the tomato monoculture, 0.6%TO and 1.2%TO significantly increased tomato yield in 2018”
Claim · model-written summary
The TO treatment significantly increased tomato plant height and dry weight in 2018 and 2019.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- TOe2
- Outcome
- plant height and dry weighte2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Qualifier
- in 2018 and 2019e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“compared with the tomato monoculture, 0.6%TO and 1.2%TO significantly increased tomato yield in 2018”
e2“TO and 1.2%TO significantly increased plant height and dry weight in 2018 and 2019”
Claim · model-written summary
The 1.2%TO treatment significantly increased tomato plant height and dry weight in 2018 and 2019.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- 1.2%TOe2
- Outcome
- plant height and dry weighte2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Qualifier
- in 2018 and 2019e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“compared with the tomato monoculture, 0.6%TO and 1.2%TO significantly increased tomato yield in 2018”
e2“TO and 1.2%TO significantly increased plant height and dry weight in 2018 and 2019”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar treatments increased soil pH in tomato soil.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume3
- Treatment
- Biochar treatmentse3
- Outcome
- soil pHe3
- Direction
- increasede3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Biochar treatments increased soil pH, decreased NO 3- -N and bulk density, and increased the absorption of N, P, and K by tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar treatments decreased soil NO3--N and bulk density.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume3
- Treatment
- Biochar treatmentse3
- Outcome
- NO 3- -N and bulk densitye3
- Direction
- decreasede3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Biochar treatments increased soil pH, decreased NO 3- -N and bulk density, and increased the absorption of N, P, and K by tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar treatments increased the absorption of N, P and K by tomato.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume3
- Treatment
- Biochar treatmentse3
- Outcome
- absorption of N, P, and Ke3
- Direction
- increasede3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Biochar treatments increased soil pH, decreased NO 3- -N and bulk density, and increased the absorption of N, P, and K by tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Bacterial and fungal abundances increased with increasing biochar concentration in tomato rhizosphere soil.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- biochar concentratione5
- Outcome
- Bacterial and fungal abundancese5
- Direction
- increasede5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“compared with the tomato monoculture, 0.6%TO and 1.2%TO significantly increased tomato yield in 2018”
e5“Bacterial and fungal abundances increased with an increase in biochar concentration, while Bacillus spp. and Pseudomonas spp. abundances showed an “increase-decrease-increase” trend”
Claim · model-written summary
Bacillus spp. and Pseudomonas spp. abundances showed an increase-decrease-increase trend with biochar concentration.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- biochar concentratione5
- Outcome
- Bacillus spp. and Pseudomonas spp. abundancese5
- Direction
- increase-decrease-increasee5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“compared with the tomato monoculture, 0.6%TO and 1.2%TO significantly increased tomato yield in 2018”
e5“Bacterial and fungal abundances increased with an increase in biochar concentration, while Bacillus spp. and Pseudomonas spp. abundances showed an “increase-decrease-increase” trend”
Claim · model-written summary
The TO treatment increased potentially beneficial organisms, including Pseudeurotium and Solirubrobacter.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- TOe7
- Interactor
- Pseudeurotium and SolirubrobacterPseudeurotiumSolirubrobactere7other
- Outcome
- potentially beneficial organismse7
- Direction
- increasede7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“compared with the tomato monoculture, 0.6%TO and 1.2%TO significantly increased tomato yield in 2018”
e7“TO, 0.6%TO, and 1.2%TO increased the potentially beneficial organisms (e.g., Pseudeurotium and Solirubrobacter ) and lowered the potentially pathogenic organisms (e.g., Kribbella and Ilyonectria )”
Claim · model-written summary
The 0.6%TO treatment increased potentially beneficial organisms, including Pseudeurotium and Solirubrobacter.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- 0.6%TOe7
- Interactor
- Pseudeurotium and SolirubrobacterPseudeurotiumSolirubrobactere7other
- Outcome
- potentially beneficial organismse7
- Direction
- increasede7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“compared with the tomato monoculture, 0.6%TO and 1.2%TO significantly increased tomato yield in 2018”
e7“TO, 0.6%TO, and 1.2%TO increased the potentially beneficial organisms (e.g., Pseudeurotium and Solirubrobacter ) and lowered the potentially pathogenic organisms (e.g., Kribbella and Ilyonectria )”
Claim · model-written summary
The 1.2%TO treatment increased potentially beneficial organisms, including Pseudeurotium and Solirubrobacter.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- 1.2%TOe7
- Interactor
- Pseudeurotium and SolirubrobacterPseudeurotiumSolirubrobactere7other
- Outcome
- potentially beneficial organismse7
- Direction
- increasede7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“compared with the tomato monoculture, 0.6%TO and 1.2%TO significantly increased tomato yield in 2018”
e7“TO, 0.6%TO, and 1.2%TO increased the potentially beneficial organisms (e.g., Pseudeurotium and Solirubrobacter ) and lowered the potentially pathogenic organisms (e.g., Kribbella and Ilyonectria )”
Claim · model-written summary
TO, 0.6%TO and 1.2%TO treatments lowered potentially pathogenic organisms, including Kribbella and Ilyonectria.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- TO, 0.6%TO, and 1.2%TOe7
- Interactor
- Kribbella and IlyonectriaKribbellaIlyonectriae7pathogen
- Outcome
- potentially pathogenic organismse7
- Direction
- lowerede7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“compared with the tomato monoculture, 0.6%TO and 1.2%TO significantly increased tomato yield in 2018”
e7“TO, 0.6%TO, and 1.2%TO increased the potentially beneficial organisms (e.g., Pseudeurotium and Solirubrobacter ) and lowered the potentially pathogenic organisms (e.g., Kribbella and Ilyonectria )”
Claim · model-written summary
Bacterial community structure was strongly correlated with soil pH, NO3--N and EC.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Compound
- NO 3- -Ne2
- Outcome
- bacterial communitye2
- Direction
- strongly correlatede2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“compared with the tomato monoculture, 0.6%TO and 1.2%TO significantly increased tomato yield in 2018”
e2“Redundancy analysis indicated that the bacterial community was strongly correlated with soil pH, NO 3- -N, and EC, while the fungal community was closely related to soil NO 3- -N and moisture”
Claim · model-written summary
Fungal community was closely related to soil NO3--N and moisture.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Compound
- NO 3- -Ne2
- Outcome
- fungal communitye2
- Direction
- closely relatede2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“compared with the tomato monoculture, 0.6%TO and 1.2%TO significantly increased tomato yield in 2018”
e2“Redundancy analysis indicated that the bacterial community was strongly correlated with soil pH, NO 3- -N, and EC, while the fungal community was closely related to soil NO 3- -N and moisture”
Claim · model-written summary
Biochar and intercropping increased the proportion of positive interactions and nitrifying microorganisms in the microbial community.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- biochar and intercroppinge2
- Outcome
- proportion of positive interactions and nitrifying microorganismse2
- Direction
- increasede2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“compared with the tomato monoculture, 0.6%TO and 1.2%TO significantly increased tomato yield in 2018”
e2“The network analysis showed that biochar and intercropping affected the symbiosis pattern of the microorganisms and increased the proportion of positive interactions and nitrifying microorganisms (Nitrospirae) in the microbial community”
Claim · model-written summary
Monoculture and intercropping with biochar regulated soil microbial communities, which were the main factors promoting tomato growth.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume1
- Treatment
- monoculture and intercropping with biochare2
- Outcome
- tomato growthe2
- Qualifier
- regulated soil microbial communitiese2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“compared with the tomato monoculture, 0.6%TO and 1.2%TO significantly increased tomato yield in 2018”
e2“monoculture and intercropping with biochar improved soil physicochemical states and plant nutrient absorption, and regulated soil microbial communities, these were the main factors to promote tomato growth and increase tomato productivity”
The same questions in other papers
biochar · nutrient: content · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →intercropping · growth · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →intercropping · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
42 papers more in this group
See all 46 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.