Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess the benefit of applying biochar instead of its feedstock in enhancing soil quality. To accomplish this, we investigated the short-term effects of two organic materials and their derived biochars on maize growth, soil properties, and microbial community in fluvo-aquic and red soil with a pot experiment. Five treatments were applied to each soil, namely, the addition of straw, manure, straw-derived biochar, manure-derived biochar, and the control with no addition of any organic materials and biochar. Our results revealed that straw decreased the shoot biomass of maize in both soils, while straw-derived biochar, manure and manure-derived biochar increased it by 51.50, 35.47 and 74.95% in fluvo-aquic soil and by 36.38, 117.57 and 67.05% in red soil compared with the control, respectively. Regarding soil properties, although all treatments increased soil total organic carbon, straw and manure exhibited more pronounced effects on improving permanganate-oxidizable carbon, basal respiration, and enzyme activity compared with their derived biochars. Manure and its biochar had more significant effects on improving soil available phosphorus, whereas straw and its biochar exhibited more ameliorating effects on available potassium. Straw and manure consistently decreased bacterial alpha diversity (Chao1 and Shannon index) and altered bacterial community composition in the two soils by increasing the relative abundances of Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, and Bacteroidota and decreasing those of Actinobacteriota, Chloroflexi, and Acidobacteriota. More specifically, straw had a greater effect on Proteobacteria, whereas manure affected Firmicutes more. While straw-derived biochar had no effect on bacterial diversity and bacterial community composition in both soils, manure-derived biochar increased bacterial diversity in the fluvo-aquic soil and altered bacterial community composition in the red soil by increasing the relative abundances of Proteobacteria and Bacteroidota and decreasing that of Firmicutes. In summary, owing to the input of active organic carbon, straw and manure exhibited more pronounced short-term effects on soil enzyme activity and bacterial community compared with their derived biochar. Furthermore, straw-derived biochar was found to be a better option than straw in promoting maize growth and nutrient resorption, while the choice of manure and its biochar should be determined by the soil type.
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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Straw decreased maize shoot biomass in both soils.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“straw decreased the shoot biomass of maize in both soils”
e6“the control with no addition of any organic materials and biochar”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw biochar increased maize shoot biomass 51.50% in fluvo-aquic soil.
- Treatment
- straw-derived biochare0
- Outcome
- shoot biomasse1
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 51.50e0
- Comparator
- controle6
- Setting
- fluvo-aquic soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“straw-derived biochar, manure and manure-derived biochar increased it by 51.50, 35.47 and 74.95% in fluvo-aquic soil”
e1“shoot biomass of maize”
e6“the control with no addition of any organic materials and biochar”
Claim · model-written summary
Manure increased maize shoot biomass 35.47% in fluvo-aquic soil.
- Treatment
- manuree0
- Outcome
- shoot biomasse1
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 35.47e0
- Comparator
- controle6
- Setting
- fluvo-aquic soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“straw-derived biochar, manure and manure-derived biochar increased it by 51.50, 35.47 and 74.95% in fluvo-aquic soil”
e1“shoot biomass of maize”
e6“the control with no addition of any organic materials and biochar”
Claim · model-written summary
Manure biochar increased maize shoot biomass 74.95% in fluvo-aquic soil.
- Treatment
- manure-derived biochare0
- Outcome
- shoot biomasse1
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 74.95%e0
- Comparator
- controle6
- Setting
- fluvo-aquic soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“straw-derived biochar, manure and manure-derived biochar increased it by 51.50, 35.47 and 74.95% in fluvo-aquic soil”
e1“shoot biomass of maize”
e6“the control with no addition of any organic materials and biochar”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw biochar increased maize shoot biomass 36.38% in red soil.
- Treatment
- straw-derived biochare0
- Outcome
- shoot biomasse1
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 36.38e0
- Comparator
- controle6
- Setting
- red soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“straw-derived biochar, manure and manure-derived biochar increased it by 51.50, 35.47 and 74.95% in fluvo-aquic soil and by 36.38, 117.57 and 67.05% in red soil”
e1“shoot biomass of maize”
e6“the control with no addition of any organic materials and biochar”
Claim · model-written summary
Manure increased maize shoot biomass 117.57% in red soil.
- Treatment
- manuree0
- Outcome
- shoot biomasse1
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 117.57e0
- Comparator
- controle6
- Setting
- red soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“straw-derived biochar, manure and manure-derived biochar increased it by 51.50, 35.47 and 74.95% in fluvo-aquic soil and by 36.38, 117.57 and 67.05% in red soil”
e1“shoot biomass of maize”
e6“the control with no addition of any organic materials and biochar”
Claim · model-written summary
Manure biochar increased maize shoot biomass 67.05% in red soil.
- Treatment
- manure-derived biochare0
- Outcome
- shoot biomasse1
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 67.05%e0
- Comparator
- controle6
- Setting
- red soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“straw-derived biochar, manure and manure-derived biochar increased it by 51.50, 35.47 and 74.95% in fluvo-aquic soil and by 36.38, 117.57 and 67.05% in red soil”
e1“shoot biomass of maize”
e6“the control with no addition of any organic materials and biochar”
Claim · model-written summary
All amendments increased soil total organic carbon.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“all treatments increased soil total organic carbon”
e6“the control with no addition of any organic materials and biochar”
t0“Contrasting effects of organic materials versus their derived biochars on maize growth, soil properties and bacterial community in two type soils”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw and manure improved permanganate-oxidizable carbon, basal respiration and enzyme activity more than biochars.
- Treatment
- straw and manuree0
- Outcome
- permanganate-oxidizable carbon, basal respiration, and enzyme activitye0
- Direction
- improvinge0
- Comparator
- their derived biocharse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“straw and manure exhibited more pronounced effects on improving permanganate-oxidizable carbon, basal respiration, and enzyme activity compared with their derived biochars”
t0“Contrasting effects of organic materials versus their derived biochars on maize growth, soil properties and bacterial community in two type soils”
Claim · model-written summary
Manure and manure biochar improved available phosphorus more than straw amendments.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Manure and its biochar had more significant effects on improving soil available phosphorus”
t0“Contrasting effects of organic materials versus their derived biochars on maize growth, soil properties and bacterial community in two type soils”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw and straw biochar had stronger effects on available potassium.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“straw and its biochar exhibited more ameliorating effects on available potassium”
t0“Contrasting effects of organic materials versus their derived biochars on maize growth, soil properties and bacterial community in two type soils”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw and manure decreased bacterial alpha diversity in both soils.
- Treatment
- Straw and manuree0
- Outcome
- bacterial alpha diversitye0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- controle6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Straw and manure consistently decreased bacterial alpha diversity (Chao1 and Shannon index)”
e6“the control with no addition of any organic materials and biochar”
t0“Contrasting effects of organic materials versus their derived biochars on maize growth, soil properties and bacterial community in two type soils”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw and manure increased Proteobacteria, Firmicutes and Bacteroidota relative abundance.
- Treatment
- straw and manuree0
- Outcome
- relative abundances of Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, and Bacteroidotae0
- Direction
- increasinge0
- Comparator
- controle6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“straw and manure consistently decreased bacterial alpha diversity (Chao1 and Shannon index) and altered bacterial community composition in the two soils by increasing the relative abundances of Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, and Bacteroidota”
e6“the control with no addition of any organic materials and biochar”
t0“Contrasting effects of organic materials versus their derived biochars on maize growth, soil properties and bacterial community in two type soils”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw and manure decreased Actinobacteriota, Chloroflexi and Acidobacteriota relative abundance.
- Treatment
- straw and manuree5
- Outcome
- Actinobacteriota, Chloroflexi, and Acidobacteriotae0
- Direction
- decreasinge0
- Comparator
- controle6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decreasing those of Actinobacteriota, Chloroflexi, and Acidobacteriota”
e6“the control with no addition of any organic materials and biochar”
e5“Straw and manure consistently decreased bacterial alpha diversity”
t0“Contrasting effects of organic materials versus their derived biochars on maize growth, soil properties and bacterial community in two type soils”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw affected Proteobacteria more, while manure affected Firmicutes more.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“straw had a greater effect on Proteobacteria, whereas manure affected Firmicutes more”
t0“Contrasting effects of organic materials versus their derived biochars on maize growth, soil properties and bacterial community in two type soils”
Claim · model-written summary
Straw biochar had no effect on bacterial diversity or composition in either soil.
- Treatment
- straw-derived biochare0
- Outcome
- bacterial diversity and bacterial community compositione0
- Direction
- no effecte0
- Comparator
- controle6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“straw-derived biochar had no effect on bacterial diversity and bacterial community composition in both soils”
e6“the control with no addition of any organic materials and biochar”
t0“Contrasting effects of organic materials versus their derived biochars on maize growth, soil properties and bacterial community in two type soils”
Claim · model-written summary
Manure biochar increased bacterial diversity in fluvo-aquic soil.
- Treatment
- manure-derived biochare0
- Outcome
- bacterial diversitye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- controle6
- Setting
- fluvo-aquic soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“manure-derived biochar increased bacterial diversity in the fluvo-aquic soil”
e6“the control with no addition of any organic materials and biochar”
t0“Contrasting effects of organic materials versus their derived biochars on maize growth, soil properties and bacterial community in two type soils”
Claim · model-written summary
Manure biochar increased Proteobacteria and Bacteroidota in red soil.
- Treatment
- manure-derived biochare0
- Outcome
- relative abundances of Proteobacteria and Bacteroidotae0
- Direction
- increasinge0
- Comparator
- controle6
- Setting
- red soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“manure-derived biochar increased bacterial diversity in the fluvo-aquic soil and altered bacterial community composition in the red soil by increasing the relative abundances of Proteobacteria and Bacteroidota”
e6“the control with no addition of any organic materials and biochar”
t0“Contrasting effects of organic materials versus their derived biochars on maize growth, soil properties and bacterial community in two type soils”
Claim · model-written summary
Manure biochar decreased Firmicutes relative abundance in red soil.
- Treatment
- manure-derived biochare5
- Outcome
- Firmicutese0
- Direction
- decreasinge0
- Comparator
- controle6
- Setting
- red soile4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decreasing that of Firmicutes”
e6“the control with no addition of any organic materials and biochar”
e5“manure-derived biochar increased bacterial diversity”
e4“the red soil”
t0“Contrasting effects of organic materials versus their derived biochars on maize growth, soil properties and bacterial community in two type soils”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors favor straw biochar over straw for maize growth and nutrient resorption; manure choice depends on soil type.
- Outcome
- better option than straw in promoting maize growth and nutrient resorptione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“straw-derived biochar was found to be a better option than straw in promoting maize growth and nutrient resorption, while the choice of manure and its biochar should be determined by the soil type”
The same questions in other papers
biochar · soil: biology · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 25 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
23 papers more in this group
See all 27 papers →biochar · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
179 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
186 papers more in this group
See all 190 papers →fertilization · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1,195 papers in the same direction as this paper · 149 in the opposite direction · 20 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
1,361 papers more in this group
See all 1,365 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.